Bert wrote:Is there a time relationship at all between a participle and the main verb?
First, this tense/aspect change works for participles, infinitives, imperatives, subjunctives and optatives. Only in the indicative is the aorist really a tense, and even that isn't always clear.
I think I can safely say that a future participle marks an action in the future relative to the tense of the main verb, and that a present participle is contemporary with the main verb.
- "he said that he was in command" or, bad English, "he said that he is in command"
"he said that he would be in command." Here English uses "would" to indicate a future relative to the past.
The aorist indicates a point action, which can signify that the act is already done, so the aspect sense logically implies a tense at least part of the time:
[face=spionic]tau=ta ei)pw\n h)=lqen[/face]
"after saying this, he went."
[face=spionic]tau=ta le/gwn h)=lqen[/face]
"while saying this he went."
Have I made this clearer or muddled it up more? Pharr hides some of this in sections 1072-1084, 1107, 1108.