<Subject> + οὐκ ὀφείλει + <Infinitive> construction

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

<Subject> + οὐκ ὀφείλειν + <Infinitive> construction

Post by Stephen Hughes »

cwconrad wrote:
2 Cor 12:14 wrote:Ἰδοὺ τρίτον τοῦτο ἑτοίμως ἔχω ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ οὐ καταναρκήσω· οὐ γὰρ ζητῶ τὰ ὑμῶν ἀλλὰ ὑμᾶς. οὐ γὰρ ὀφείλει τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν θησαυρίζειν ἀλλὰ οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις
I think the negation has to be understood as οὐ τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν ἀλλὰ οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις ὀφείλει θησαυρίζειν -- "it's not the children who should store up for parents but rather parents for children." The negation here does not qualify the verb ὀφείλει but rather the pair τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν in contrast to the pair οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις.
How very interesting, your rearrangement as thickened the porridge somewhat; ὀφείλει (if it is to be taken as an impersonal) would presumably be constructed like δεῖ with an accusative and infinitive or like συμφέρει with a dative and an infinitive. But that is not the case here. τὰ τέκνα must be taken as nominative, and hence the construction that we are looking at is here not
  • <Subject> + οὐκ ὀφείλει + <Infinitive>
(though according to LSJ the impersonal does exist in other non-New Testament contexts)
but rather
  • <Subject> + οὐκ ὀφείλειν + <Infinitive>
And the verb use here in the infinitive θησαυρίζειν is regularly used with a dative of for whom the things are stored up for the future, so the dative properly goes with θησαυρίζειν.

Treated as full verb, then, ὀφείλειν would be negated regularly, with the negation like before it, "Children are (is) not obliged to... but rather parents [are obliged to ...] ...".

Applying that to
1 Corinthians 11:7 wrote:Ἀνὴρ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὀφείλει κατακαλύπτεσθαι τὴν κεφαλήν,
the verse comes out rather less forcefully as something like what I wrote further up the thread.

Does anyone have a ready list of verbs that followed by infinitives?
Stephen Carlson wrote:If the following ἀλλά indicates the scope of the negation in the preceding clause (as I think it does), then it would seem that the position of the οὐ is not a fully reliable guide to the scope of the negation.
The negation only works with the sense of the verbal phrase ὀφείλουσιν θησαυρίζειν being understood with the οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις. The position of οὐ is determined by the usual sentence patterning of the first clause, not the upcoming part after the ἀλλά. The shortest example I could find just quickly is
Matthew 16:23 wrote:οὐ φρονεῖς τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων
We wouldn't expect φρονεῖς οὐ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων** (This is not a quote, but a conjecture), would we?
Last edited by Stephen Hughes on February 28th, 2014, 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Stressing significant elements maxed out

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Stephen, the reason for that quote is to illustrate a syntactic pattern, and especially the regularity of the syntactic pattern regardless of whether there is an ἀλλά there.

In English we have a similar feature, but to a lesser degree, it seems:

In the sentence, "I'm not going to have rice, but Peter is.", we lay emphasis (sentence stress) [sentence-level stress pattern] on "Peter" and "I". Greek seems to be taking that to the next level by only requiring the speaker to say the things after the ἀλλά that would be emphasised in English, without the grammaticisation that is required in "good" English.

Perhaps it is possible that in reading Greek, the same pattern of stress was laid on the contrasted elements. Like maybe;
2 Corinthians 12:14 wrote:οὐ γὰρ ὀφείλει τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν θησαυρίζειν ἀλλὰ οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις [This part marked for discussion's sake
or
Mark 9:37 wrote:καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἐμὲ δέξηται, οὐκ ἐμὲ δέχεται, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀποστείλαντά με. [This part marked for discussion's sake]
But since there is no context in the second part of the construction that the part that would be emphasised / distinguished from, then laying sentence stress / emphasis there would be superfluous, so in terms of the Greek syntax – not just copying the patterns from the native language, it might be better to stress words as;
2 Corinthians 12:14 wrote:οὐ γὰρ ὀφείλει τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν θησαυρίζειν ἀλλὰ οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις
or
Mark 9:37 wrote:καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἐμὲ δέξηται, οὐκ ἐμὲ δέχεται, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀποστείλαντά με.
I think that the ἀλλά would be longer to clearly mark the contrast in that pronunciation senario.
2 Corinthians 12:14 wrote:οὐ γὰρ ὀφείλει τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν θησαυρίζειν ἀλλὰ οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις
or
Mark 9:37 wrote:καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἐμὲ δέξηται, οὐκ ἐμὲ δέχεται, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀποστείλαντά με.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: <Subject> + οὐκ ὀφείλει + <Infinitive> construction

Post by Stephen Carlson »

I think you're begging a whole host of questions with "sentence stress" and analogies to English, but in the end I think you agree with me that the position of the οὐ is not a reliable guide to the scope of the negation, right?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: <Subject> + οὐκ ὀφείλειν + <Infinitive> construction

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Stephen Carlson wrote:I think you're begging a whole host of questions with "sentence stress" and analogies to English, but in the end I think you agree with me that the position of the οὐ is not a reliable guide to the scope of the negation, right?
Yes, it seems so.

Negation has a prescibed position in the sentence (usually before the verb), so the verb carries the negation in form, but in meaning the negation in the first part of the construction goes with what is contrasted by the second part of the sentence after the ἀλλὰ. That is to say that the part of the construction after the ἀλλά sets the context for the part before thus allowing us to understand what is negated.

Yes, I am interested in sentence stress (which words are emphasised) and how to read whole sentences better, since I am seriously trying that for the first time.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: <Subject> + οὐκ ὀφείλειν + <Infinitive> construction

Post by David Lim »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:I think you're begging a whole host of questions with "sentence stress" and analogies to English, but in the end I think you agree with me that the position of the οὐ is not a reliable guide to the scope of the negation, right?
Yes, it seems so.

Negation has a prescibed position in the sentence (usually before the verb), so the verb carries the negation in form, but in meaning the negation in the first part of the construction goes with what is contrasted by the second part of the sentence after the ἀλλὰ. That is to say that the part of the construction after the ἀλλά sets the context for the part before thus allowing us to understand what is negated.
Interesting. While I agree that the intended meaning is a contrast of the form "not X but Y", I'm not so sure that we should equate the intended meaning with the actual grammatical scope of the negative particle, especially for English. For example, Mark 2:17 is usually translated as "I did not come to call righteous ones but sinful ones [to repentance]." Clearly the intended meaning is "I came to call not righteous but sinful ones to repentance.", but since the latter is also a perfectly valid English sentence, it suggests that the scope of the negative particle may not be the same, even though both are usually interpreted to convey the same meaning. In general, there isn't any prescribed position of the negative particle, both in English and Greek:

[Matt 4:4] ο δε αποκριθεις ειπεν γεγραπται ουκ επ αρτω μονω ζησεται ανθρωπος αλλ επι παντι ρηματι εκπορευομενω δια στοματος θεου
[Mark 9:37] ος εαν εν των τοιουτων παιδιων δεξηται επι τω ονοματι μου εμε δεχεται και ος εαν εμε δεξηται ουκ εμε δεχεται αλλα τον αποστειλαντα με
[John 6:26] απεκριθη αυτοις ο ιησους και ειπεν αμην αμην λεγω υμιν ζητειτε με ουχ οτι ειδετε σημεια αλλ οτι εφαγετε εκ των αρτων και εχορτασθητε
[1 Cor 4:19] ελευσομαι δε ταχεως προς υμας εαν ο κυριος θεληση και γνωσομαι ου τον λογον των πεφυσιωμενων αλλα την δυναμιν
[2 Cor 13:7] ευχομαι δε προς τον θεον μη ποιησαι υμας κακον μηδεν ουχ ινα ημεις δοκιμοι φανωμεν αλλ ινα υμεις το καλον ποιητε ημεις δε ως αδοκιμοι ωμεν

I suggest that what is happening is that the negative particle really negates what immediately follows, since ellipsis can naturally explain the cases where it doesn't match exactly the intended meaning. In all those cases, what is literally stated is still true even if less specific; "I did not do X such that Y but Z" > "I did X such that not Y but Z".
For example:
[John 3:17] ου γαρ απεστειλεν ο θεος τον υιον αυτου εις τον κοσμον ινα κρινη τον κοσμον αλλ ινα σωθη ο κοσμος δι αυτου
It does mean "God sent forth his son into the world not so that he may judge the world but so that the world might be saved through him", but it is also true to say that "God did not sent forth his son into the world so that he may judge the world". Hence the original grammatical structure can be used, both in Greek and in English. However, it is not intended to mean "God sent forth his son into the world so that he may not judge the world but might save the world".

Back to the original question, doesn't Acts 17:29 imply that "ουκ οφειλει" means "ought not" / "should not" / "has no reason to" rather than "need not" / "does not need to"?
Stephen Hughes wrote:The negation only works with the sense of the verbal phrase ὀφείλουσιν θησαυρίζειν being understood with the οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις. The position of οὐ is determined by the usual sentence patterning of the first clause, not the upcoming part after the ἀλλά. The shortest example I could find just quickly is
Matthew 16:23 wrote:οὐ φρονεῖς τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων
We wouldn't expect φρονεῖς οὐ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων** (This is not a quote, but a conjecture), would we?
Well, see Mark 9:37 and 1 Cor 4:19 above that contradicts your hypothesis, and is why I don't think that we should 'prescribe' a position for the negative particle. The reason "V ουκ X αλλα Y" is not common seems to be because emphasizing the contrast tends to pull the entire first half forward as in "ουκ X V αλλα Y" rather than leaving "V" in front, and not because there is a prescribed position.
δαυιδ λιμ
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: <Subject> + οὐκ ὀφείλει + <Infinitive> construction

Post by Stephen Hughes »

David Lim wrote:Interesting. While I agree that the intended meaning is a contrast of the form "not X but Y", I'm not so sure that we should equate the intended meaning with the actual grammatical scope of the negative particle, especially for English. For example, Mark 2:17 is usually translated as "I did not come to call righteous ones but sinful ones [to repentance]." Clearly the intended meaning is "I came to call not righteous but sinful ones to repentance.", but since the latter is also a perfectly valid English sentence, it suggests that the scope of the negative particle may not be the same, even though both are usually interpreted to convey the same meaning. In general, there isn't any prescribed position of the negative particle, both in English and Greek:
How about taking it one step further and saying that the idiomatic English way of rendering that is "I came to call sinners to repentance, not the righteous.". Biblical English suffers from non-standard English sentence structures.
David Lim wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:The negation only works with the sense of the verbal phrase ὀφείλουσιν θησαυρίζειν being understood with the οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις. The position of οὐ is determined by the usual sentence patterning of the first clause, not the upcoming part after the ἀλλά. The shortest example I could find just quickly is
Matthew 16:23 wrote:
οὐ φρονεῖς τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων
We wouldn't expect φρονεῖς οὐ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων** (This is not a quote, but a conjecture), would we?
Well, see Mark 9:37 and 1 Cor 4:19 above that contradicts your hypothesis, and is why I don't think that we should 'prescribe' a position for the negative particle. The reason "V ουκ X αλλα Y" is not common seems to be because emphasizing the contrast tends to pull the entire first half forward as in "ουκ X V αλλα Y" rather than leaving "V" in front, and not because there is a prescribed position.
They maybe an emphatic construction rather than a normal one.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: <Subject> + οὐκ ὀφείλει + <Infinitive> construction

Post by David Lim »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
David Lim wrote:Interesting. While I agree that the intended meaning is a contrast of the form "not X but Y", I'm not so sure that we should equate the intended meaning with the actual grammatical scope of the negative particle, especially for English. For example, Mark 2:17 is usually translated as "I did not come to call righteous ones but sinful ones [to repentance]." Clearly the intended meaning is "I came to call not righteous but sinful ones to repentance.", but since the latter is also a perfectly valid English sentence, it suggests that the scope of the negative particle may not be the same, even though both are usually interpreted to convey the same meaning. In general, there isn't any prescribed position of the negative particle, both in English and Greek:
How about taking it one step further and saying that the idiomatic English way of rendering that is "I came to call sinners to repentance, not the righteous.". Biblical English suffers from non-standard English sentence structures.
I'm not sure if it's possible to separate 'Biblical' English from 'standard' English, because its influence can be seen clearly in many aspects, not just grammar. But I tried (only for 10 min) to search for English phrases that have no relation to the 'Bible' of the form "V X, not Y" where V is a transitive verb, X is a direct object and Y is in contrast to X, but turned up empty, so even your 'idiomatic' version may not be so idiomatic after all. ;)
Stephen Hughes wrote:
David Lim wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:The negation only works with the sense of the verbal phrase ὀφείλουσιν θησαυρίζειν being understood with the οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις. The position of οὐ is determined by the usual sentence patterning of the first clause, not the upcoming part after the ἀλλά. The shortest example I could find just quickly is
Matthew 16:23 wrote:
οὐ φρονεῖς τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων
We wouldn't expect φρονεῖς οὐ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων** (This is not a quote, but a conjecture), would we?
Well, see Mark 9:37 and 1 Cor 4:19 above that contradicts your hypothesis, and is why I don't think that we should 'prescribe' a position for the negative particle. The reason "V ουκ X αλλα Y" is not common seems to be because emphasizing the contrast tends to pull the entire first half forward as in "ουκ X V αλλα Y" rather than leaving "V" in front, and not because there is a prescribed position.
They maybe an emphatic construction rather than a normal one.
I don't think there's a discernible difference in emphasis on the contrast of X and Y, between "ουκ V X αλλα Y" and "V ουκ X αλλα Y" in writing. Instead I think that only the way they are spoken will determine the degree of emphasis. But I also think it's nearly impossible to prove or disprove. (It's something like trying to figure out if a stream of bits is biased...)
δαυιδ λιμ
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Biblical English < Greek syntax

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Looking at the rendering of this quite normal structure in Greek into less-than-normal English, consider this:
  • I washed my face not my hair ——-– <???What would be the idiomatic English here???>

    I didn't wash my hair but my face. —- I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill. (Mt. 5:17)
οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Biblical English < Greek syntax

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Hughes wrote:Looking at the rendering of this quite normal structure in Greek into less-than-normal English, consider this:
  • I washed my face not my hair ——-– <???What would be the idiomatic English here???>

    I didn't wash my hair but my face. —- I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill. (Mt. 5:17)
οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι.
My preference is: "It was my hair I washed, not my face."

As for "I came not to destroy but to fulfill" -- I think that's settled into classic English phraseology, like Shakespearean phrases. That doesn't mean it's standard English for today. That would be something more like, "I'm here to build up, not to tear down."
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Biblical English < Greek syntax

Post by David Lim »

Stephen Hughes wrote:Looking at the rendering of this quite normal structure in Greek into less-than-normal English, consider this:
  • I washed my face not my hair ——-– <???What would be the idiomatic English here???>

    I didn't wash my hair but my face. —- I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill. (Mt. 5:17)
Good example, but it is also perfectly idiomatic English to say "I didn't wash my hair but just my face.". Here are another from Carl :):
[cwconrad] "The negation here does not qualify the verb ὀφείλει but rather the pair τὰ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν in contrast to the pair οἱ γονεῖς τοῖς τέκνοις."
And here are others from off the web:
"didn't see a X but a Y"
"isn't from X but Y"
"Talking about it does not make it worse, but better."

By the way on thinking about your example I realized that it also shows something else; we'd both agree that "I didn't wash my hair but face" is bad English. My suggestion that ellipsis is involved seems to explain this well. I'm not inclined to prescribe rules for languages when there are plenty of exceptions like the above.
δαυιδ λιμ
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”