Aspect, Aktionsart, and Abduction: Future Tense in the New Testament 157 argues that the special case of ἔχω described above demonstrates a mixed history of the Future rather than a regular development like the other tense-forms. He claims that the Future “arises from aspectually marked forms and to that extent has an aspectual origin”150. However, the two uses of ἔχω do not signify two possible aspectual origins, but rather two uses under Aktionsart categories (ingressive and durative). As mentioned above, Aktionsart is not grammaticalized by form but rather indicated by context. The mixed origin suggested by Moulton is not due to mixed usage, but rather to whether the form comes from the confusion with the Aorist Subjunctive or something similar to the Future of other Indo- European languages like Sanskrit151. Regarding the possible modal origin of the Future, Evans agrees with others that the Future is a late development, formed mainly from desideratives and Subjunctives. However, his view of desideratives is different from the others. He argues that linguists have mistaken the form as a Mood. Based on comparative grammar, he argues that this form expresses a verbal occurrence as an assertion. Therefore, he concludes that the seemingly functional overlap of the Future and the oblique mood is not a witness to functional equivalence in reality. The oblique usage of the Future is an expression of added certainty and factual quality of a future action. He asserts that the Greek verbal system has undergone a development from a more purely aspectual structure to express the temporal distinctions in the verb152. Thus although originally in the pre-historic period of Greek language development, the Future seems to be a member of the oblique Mood, “once the indicative mood begins to convey time values, a future tense becomes a possibility”153. However, if the Future Indicative went through a historical development from non- Indicative to Indicative (temporal), then what about the argument of the non-oblique desiderative as the origin of the Future? If this is the case, then the development of Future has gone through a process of Indicative (+Subjunctive) to Indicative (+Temporal). More work has to be done to make this argument convincing. Evans is quite negative and unsympathetic to the use of philosophical conceptions in the discussion of grammar. He contends that it is categorically different when we talk about the Future versus other tenses, saying that: 150 Evans, Verbal Syntax, 37. 151 Moulton, Prolegomena, 148-9 and Porter, Verbal Aspect, 403-4. 152 Evans, Verbal Syntax, 39. 153 Evans, Verbal Syntax, 39.