From the exegetical point of view, therefore, the distinctions are both justified and necessary, since they represent differences of thought in the mind of the writer to be interpreted. The terms employed above are convenient terms to represent these distinctions of thought, and it is to the interpreter a matter of secondary importance whether the distinction in question is by his writer immediately connected with the tense of the verb. Since the Aoristic Future is less definite respecting progress than the Progressive Future, the latter predicting the act as continuing, the former making no assertion, it is evident that any instance of the Predictive Future not clearly progressive must be accounted as aoristic. If the writer did not conceive the act or event as continuing, he left it in his own mind and for the reader undefined as respects progress, hence aoristic. Whether he left it thus undefined in his mind must of course be determined, if at all, from the context, there being no difference of form between a Progressive and an Aoristic Future.
Every Future form is therefore by presumption aoristic.
It can be accounted progressive only on evidence that the writer thought of the act as continued. There is one exception to this principle. In verbs of effort a Progressive Future is naturally like other Progressive forms, a conative tense. An Aoristic Future of such a verb is like the Aorist, a resultative tense. Since the latter is the larger meaning, the context must give the evidence of this larger meaning, and such evidence failing, it cannot be considered established that the verb is resultative.