Peter Streitenberger wrote: ↑
December 27th, 2017, 2:39 pm
This structure is, of course, normal Greek syntax and if you re-read what I said never under the suspicion of not grammatical. One of the differences to NA in Acts 26,5, and I named that already, is that Polybius has no supplement structure (we Germans say "Nachtragstruktur") with an unexpected stress on that as ἡμέρας οὐ πλείους ὀκτὼ ἢ δέκα should obviously be (lit.: days: no more 9 or 10), as you can see by the usage of a predicate βιώσας. So this is no counterexample at all, interesting yes, as I had it in front of me as well, but something different, not something I was talking about.
It's pretty clear that sentence structures surrounding πολύς can be quite different from what we would expect in either English or German - negated or not.
Luke.9.13 Οὐκ εἰσὶν ἡμῖν πλεῖον ἢ ἄρτοι πέντε καὶ ἰχθύες δύο.
Now maybe this doesn't fit your definition, I'm not sure what your definition is, but I think we should require a fair amount of proof before claiming that a construction is not grammatical since we are not native speakers of the language.
After all, many perfectly grammatical statements in any language are one-offs, I can create sentences that nobody else has, with combinations of features that might not be easy to find elsewhere. And our searchable corpus for Greek is small. Whether or not you find the complete combination of features in that particular sentence elsewhere, the features it combines do seem to co-occur elsewhere.
Put as a question: What is your model for testing grammaticality, and how can you determine whether the evidence has shown something to be grammatical, at what confidence levels? If you give us an answer to that question, we can think about whether your answer is statistically sound.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;