Double Negatives (was John 14:30)

How do I work out the meaning of a Greek text? How can I best understand the forms and vocabulary in this particular text?
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.

When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Double Negatives (was John 14:30)

Post by David Lim » June 6th, 2011, 9:53 am

Jason Hare wrote:No, the double negative isn't any more emphatic than a regular singular negative. (At least in my opinion.)

οὐκ ἔχω οὐδέν. = οὐδὲν ἔχω.

The difference is that with the previous order the word "nothing" appears after the verb. If it appears before the verb, it simply eliminates the need for the negative that accompanies the verb.

[...]

It seems to me that the case is the same in Greek and in Spanish. If you have a negative object, you need to negate the verb as well.
Can I ask about Mark 15:5 and Mark 16:8 where there are something similar to "double negatives"? How do they fit into your analysis? In both, the two negatives come before the verb, but it still must be "logically inverted". Also, which of the following translations would be closest to the original?

[Mark 15:5] ο δε ιησους ουκετι ουδεν απεκριθη ωστε θαυμαζειν τον πιλατον
... Jesus no longer answered anything ... (focus on "no longer")
... Jesus answered not a thing any longer ... (focus on "not a thing")
... Jesus did not answer anything any longer ... (focus on "did not answer")
[Mark 16:8] και εξελθουσαι εφυγον απο του μνημειου ειχεν δε αυτας τρομος και εκστασις και ουδενι ουδεν ειπον εφοβουντο γαρ
... to no one did [they] say anything ... (focus on "to no one")
... [they] said nothing to anyone ... (focus on "nothing")
... [they] did not say anything to anyone ... (focus on "did not say")

Also, in 1 John 1:5, why are "σκοτια" and "ουδεμια" separated so much if "ουκ" in front of the verb is simply "grammatically required" (although I agree that it is "grammatically required" but perhaps the alternatives have slightly different meaning)?
[1 John 1:5] και εστιν αυτη η αγγελια ην ακηκοαμεν απ αυτου και αναγγελλομεν υμιν οτι ο θεος φως εστιν και σκοτια εν αυτω ουκ εστιν ουδεμια
? and this is the message which we have heard from him and announce to you, that God is light, and darkness is not in him, not any [darkness]. (clause: "darkness is not in him"; subject: "darkness")
? and this is the message which we have heard from him and announce to you, that God is light, and no darkness is in him. (clause: "no darkness is in him"; subject: "no darkness")
I believe in this instance the two possibilities have quite different meaning.. I have always seen the second ("in him is no darkness at all") in many translations, but I read it to mean the first instead. Is it incorrect?
0 x


δαυιδ λιμ

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1631
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Double Negatives (was John 14:30)

Post by Barry Hofstetter » June 6th, 2011, 11:58 am

David Lim wrote:
Also, in 1 John 1:5, why are "σκοτια" and "ουδεμια" separated so much if "ουκ" in front of the verb is simply "grammatically required" (although I agree that it is "grammatically required" but perhaps the alternatives have slightly different meaning)?
[1 John 1:5] και εστιν αυτη η αγγελια ην ακηκοαμεν απ αυτου και αναγγελλομεν υμιν οτι ο θεος φως εστιν και σκοτια εν αυτω ουκ εστιν ουδεμια
? and this is the message which we have heard from him and announce to you, that God is light, and darkness is not in him, not any [darkness]. (clause: "darkness is not in him"; subject: "darkness")
? and this is the message which we have heard from him and announce to you, that God is light, and no darkness is in him. (clause: "no darkness is in him"; subject: "no darkness")
I believe in this instance the two possibilities have quite different meaning.. I have always seen the second ("in him is no darkness at all") in many translations, but I read it to mean the first instead. Is it incorrect?
I'll let Jason respond to the rest of your post, and I may have a comment or two later on, but let me ask here what difference you see in English meaning between your sentences? Notice there is no double negative here -- ουδεμία here simply modifies σκοτία, "and there is no darkness in him." The hyperbaton (a distant placement of words, such as modifiers, from one another) is likely intentional, and has the effect of emphasizing the fact that there is no darkness in him, only light. I would feel comfortable rendering "there is no darkness at all in him."
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Jason Hare
Posts: 646
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Double Negatives (was John 14:30)

Post by Jason Hare » June 6th, 2011, 6:13 pm

David Lim wrote:Can I ask about Mark 15:5 and Mark 16:8 where there are something similar to "double negatives"? How do they fit into your analysis? In both, the two negatives come before the verb, but it still must be "logically inverted". Also, which of the following translations would be closest to the original?

[Mark 15:5] ο δε ιησους ουκετι ουδεν απεκριθη ωστε θαυμαζειν τον πιλατον
... Jesus no longer answered anything ... (focus on "no longer")
... Jesus answered not a thing any longer ... (focus on "not a thing")
... Jesus did not answer anything any longer ... (focus on "did not answer")
Hi, David.

First, just wanted to remind you to be a bit careful with the use of square braces (brackets) when posting on a forum. I'm not sure of your experience on forums, so I just wanted to point out that these braces are used for encoding, so watch out for them. :)

ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς οὐκέτι οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίθη, ὥστε θαυμάζειν τὸν Πιλᾶτον.

First, what do you mean by "logically inverted"? Do you assume that there's something illogical about the arrangement of the words in the Greek sentence? οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίθη would have been enough for the negation (which would have been equivalent to οὐκ ἀπεκρίθη οὐδέν). The οὐκέτι is there to indicate the change in the flow - whereas he had been answering up to that point, he suddenly stopped and answered nothing further.
David Lim wrote:[Mark 16:8] και εξελθουσαι εφυγον απο του μνημειου ειχεν δε αυτας τρομος και εκστασις και ουδενι ουδεν ειπον εφοβουντο γαρ
... to no one did [they] say anything ... (focus on "to no one")
... [they] said nothing to anyone ... (focus on "nothing")
... [they] did not say anything to anyone ... (focus on "did not say")
καὶ ἐξελθοῦσαι ἔφυγον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου, εἶχεν γὰρ αὐτὰς τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις: καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.

I'm still not sure what the issue is here. The normal negation is missing, since the object has been placed before the verb. It functions just as it does in colloquial English in many places:

They said nothing to nobody.

Functionally, it's the same as καὶ οὐκ εἶπαν οὐδὲν οὐδενί. The negatives do not cancel each other out. (Tangentially, it's the exact same in Spanish: y no dijeron nada a nadie.)
David Lim wrote:Also, in 1 John 1:5, why are "σκοτια" and "ουδεμια" separated so much if "ουκ" in front of the verb is simply "grammatically required" (although I agree that it is "grammatically required" but perhaps the alternatives have slightly different meaning)?
[1 John 1:5] και εστιν αυτη η αγγελια ην ακηκοαμεν απ αυτου και αναγγελλομεν υμιν οτι ο θεος φως εστιν και σκοτια εν αυτω ουκ εστιν ουδεμια
? and this is the message which we have heard from him and announce to you, that God is light, and darkness is not in him, not any [darkness]. (clause: "darkness is not in him"; subject: "darkness")
? and this is the message which we have heard from him and announce to you, that God is light, and no darkness is in him. (clause: "no darkness is in him"; subject: "no darkness")
I believe in this instance the two possibilities have quite different meaning.. I have always seen the second ("in him is no darkness at all") in many translations, but I read it to mean the first instead. Is it incorrect?
The arrangement of καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία reminds me of topicalization in American Sign Language.

"And darkness in him, there is not any at all."

I naturally read it that way in English, probably because of my knowledge of Sign Language. Does it make sense to you?

I can't properly answer about the shifting of focus or whatever in the sentences. I don't feel any of that. It just feels normal to read this word order in Greek. I don't sense any difference whether I read σκοτία οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία or if it had been otherwise. It seems most natural to me as written, probably because I've read that passage so many times. :)

Regards,
Jason
0 x
Jason A. Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

Jason Hare
Posts: 646
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Double Negatives (was John 14:30)

Post by Jason Hare » June 6th, 2011, 6:47 pm

David,

From the beginning of the Euthyphro:

Τί νεώτερον, ὦ Σώκρατες, γέγονεν, ὅτι σὺ τὰς ἐν Λυκείῳ καταλιπὼν διατριβὰς ἐνθάδε νῦν διατρίβεις περὶ τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως στοάν;
What recent event has happened, O Socrates, that you, leaving your places of resort in Lyceum, do now spend your time here about the porch of the king?

Do you see the separation between the definite article and its noun? The separation between σκοτία and οὐδεμία won't be very shocking as you get used to reading Greek. :)

Regards,
Jason
0 x
Jason A. Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Double Negatives (was John 14:30)

Post by David Lim » June 7th, 2011, 12:10 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote:I'll let Jason respond to the rest of your post, and I may have a comment or two later on, but let me ask here what difference you see in English meaning between your sentences? Notice there is no double negative here -- ουδεμία here simply modifies σκοτία, "and there is no darkness in him."
Hello Barry,

In comparison with English, there is a double negative in 1 John 1:5 with "ουκ" and "ουδεμια". For Mark 15:5 and Mark 16:8 the three alternatives are equivalent but the focus is different. I was simply asking because Jason said that in Greek the two ways are equivalent with no difference in emphasis. However for 1 John 1:5 the alternatives in English have indeed different meanings, even though I did precisely the same thing with all three verses. That suggested to me that the equivalence is not due to grammatical structure but to semantic function and context.

Jason Hare wrote:First, just wanted to remind you to be a bit careful with the use of square braces (brackets) when posting on a forum. I'm not sure of your experience on forums, so I just wanted to point out that these braces are used for encoding, so watch out for them. :)
Hello Jason,

Thanks! I have been on a forum some years ago but not since then until recently (because of B-Greek haha). I will look out for them if the preview fails, but I like to use them instead of italics for supplied words. :)
Jason Hare wrote:ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς οὐκέτι οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίθη, ὥστε θαυμάζειν τὸν Πιλᾶτον.

First, what do you mean by "logically inverted"? Do you assume that there's something illogical about the arrangement of the words in the Greek sentence? οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίθη would have been enough for the negation (which would have been equivalent to οὐκ ἀπεκρίθη οὐδέν). The οὐκέτι is there to indicate the change in the flow - whereas he had been answering up to that point, he suddenly stopped and answered nothing further.
I meant "logical inversion" in mathematics or computer science, not that Greek is illogical (hmm maybe it is sometimes, like the neuter plural subject with a singular verb..) Actually I understand the sentence but I was wondering if there is a fixed way that negatives must be used so that the literal meaning (either X or not X) is clear and independent of the context. It seems to be as you said for a negative used with a verb ("N V" = "ου V N"), so how about two negatives as in Mark 15:5 and Mark 16:8?

Also, Funk's Grammar only mentions some conjunctions and particles intervening between "ου" and the verb, but can "τις" in Eph 2:9 do that as well, or is it that "μη" negates the whole clause "τις καυχησηται"?
[Eph 2:9] ουκ εξ εργων ινα μη τις καυχησηται
? not out of works so that no one might boast (not out of works in order that no one might boast)
? not out of works lest anyone boast (not out of works otherwise someone boast)
These two in English mean very different things.. (Since this has no double negatives, should I ask it in a separate topic?)
Jason Hare wrote:
David Lim wrote:[Mark 16:8] και εξελθουσαι εφυγον απο του μνημειου ειχεν δε αυτας τρομος και εκστασις και ουδενι ουδεν ειπον εφοβουντο γαρ
... to no one did [they] say anything ... (focus on "to no one")
... [they] said nothing to anyone ... (focus on "nothing")
... [they] did not say anything to anyone ... (focus on "did not say")
καὶ ἐξελθοῦσαι ἔφυγον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου, εἶχεν γὰρ αὐτὰς τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις: καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.

I'm still not sure what the issue is here. The normal negation is missing, since the object has been placed before the verb. It functions just as it does in colloquial English in many places:

They said nothing to nobody.

Functionally, it's the same as καὶ οὐκ εἶπαν οὐδὲν οὐδενί. The negatives do not cancel each other out. (Tangentially, it's the exact same in Spanish: y no dijeron nada a nadie.)
I see.
Jason Hare wrote:
David Lim wrote:Also, in 1 John 1:5, why are "σκοτια" and "ουδεμια" separated so much if "ουκ" in front of the verb is simply "grammatically required" (although I agree that it is "grammatically required" but perhaps the alternatives have slightly different meaning)?
[1 John 1:5] και εστιν αυτη η αγγελια ην ακηκοαμεν απ αυτου και αναγγελλομεν υμιν οτι ο θεος φως εστιν και σκοτια εν αυτω ουκ εστιν ουδεμια
? and this is the message which we have heard from him and announce to you, that God is light, and darkness is not in him, not any [darkness]. (clause: "darkness is not in him"; subject: "darkness")
? and this is the message which we have heard from him and announce to you, that God is light, and no darkness is in him. (clause: "no darkness is in him"; subject: "no darkness")
I believe in this instance the two possibilities have quite different meaning.. I have always seen the second ("in him is no darkness at all") in many translations, but I read it to mean the first instead. Is it incorrect?
The arrangement of καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία reminds me of topicalization in American Sign Language.

"And darkness in him, there is not any at all."

I naturally read it that way in English, probably because of my knowledge of Sign Language. Does it make sense to you?

I can't properly answer about the shifting of focus or whatever in the sentences. I don't feel any of that. It just feels normal to read this word order in Greek. I don't sense any difference whether I read σκοτία οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία or if it had been otherwise. It seems most natural to me as written, probably because I've read that passage so many times. :)
It makes sense to me, but it is quite different from the other, "darkness is not in him", which implies that there is darkness but it is not in him, whereas the standard translation does not take "σκοτια" as the subject of "ουκ εστιν". Why not?
Jason Hare wrote:From the beginning of the Euthyphro:

Τί νεώτερον, ὦ Σώκρατες, γέγονεν, ὅτι σὺ τὰς ἐν Λυκείῳ καταλιπὼν διατριβὰς ἐνθάδε νῦν διατρίβεις περὶ τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως στοάν;
What recent event has happened, O Socrates, that you, leaving your places of resort in Lyceum, do now spend your time here about the porch of the king?

Do you see the separation between the definite article and its noun? The separation between σκοτία and οὐδεμία won't be very shocking as you get used to reading Greek. :)
I'm not surprised to see such separations, but the usual separation is because of adjectival or adverbial clauses like the one you quote ("εν λυκειω καταλιπων" functions as an adjective modifying "τας διατριβας"). Isn't 1 John 1:5 different?
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1631
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Double Negatives (was John 14:30)

Post by Barry Hofstetter » June 7th, 2011, 7:24 am

David Lim wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote:I'll let Jason respond to the rest of your post, and I may have a comment or two later on, but let me ask here what difference you see in English meaning between your sentences? Notice there is no double negative here -- ουδεμία here simply modifies σκοτία, "and there is no darkness in him."
Hello Barry,

In comparison with English, there is a double negative in 1 John 1:5 with "ουκ" and "ουδεμια". For Mark 15:5 and Mark 16:8 the three alternatives are equivalent but the focus is different. I was simply asking because Jason said that in Greek the two ways are equivalent with no difference in emphasis. However for 1 John 1:5 the alternatives in English have indeed different meanings, even though I did precisely the same thing with all three verses. That suggested to me that the equivalence is not due to grammatical structure but to semantic function and context.
Whoa, mea maxima culpa here. I must have been really tired when I responded to you – I inadvertently made a text critical decision and omitted the οὐκ. Yes, 1 John 1:5 does contain a "double negative." You may safely ignore my comment above -- maybe I belong in the Beginner forum... :roll:

However, on this whole idea of double negatives contained within the same clause, everyone is agreed that it serves as emphasis or confirmation of the negative. For example, Smyth, #2762:
The negative of one clause is often repeated in the same or in another clause either for emphasis or because of lax structure.
A quick search of Wallace, GGBB turned up no actual discussion of the subject (that doesn't mean it's not there just that I couldn't find it in the time available to me), but there is this comment on page 512:
“You don’t know nothing” (a double negative that functions like an emphatic negative in Greek)
BDF discusses this obliquely in #431, "The Combination of Negatives," where he simply assumes that the repeated negatives are used in this way, and distinguishes them from certain classical usages.

Now, I'm out of time this morning, but the reason I went to the grammars is that it has always been my assumption that double negatives in Greek function in an emphatic or confirmative way, and I never remember seeing otherwise in the GNT. However, this challenge awoke me from my dogmatic slumbers, and I wanted to make sure that I hadn't been missing something all these years -- and I haven't. It would be up to the person questioning this assumption to prove otherwise. And yes, there are some examples in classical Greek otherwise, though even in classical it normally serves in that way, as the citation from Smyth above proves.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Jason Hare
Posts: 646
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Double Negatives (was John 14:30)

Post by Jason Hare » June 7th, 2011, 10:34 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote:However, on this whole idea of double negatives contained within the same clause, everyone is agreed that it serves as emphasis or confirmation of the negative. For example, Smyth, #2762:
The negative of one clause is often repeated in the same or in another clause either for emphasis or because of lax structure.
Hi, Barry.

I think the structure in question is actually better fit into Smyth §2761 (rather than §2162):
2761. If in the same clause one or more compound negatives follow a negative with the same verb, the compound negative simply confirms the first negative.
The examples cited there match what we're seeing in the above verses.

For example: οὐδεὶς οὐδὲν πενίᾳ δράσει no one will do anything because of want Ar. Eccl. 605, etc.

I don't see any reason to take the compound negatives as anything more than confirmatory in most cases - rather than emphatic. In other words, I don't see that there's anything particularly emphatic in the verses above, though 1 John 1:5 might come across as more emphatic in tone.

Regards,
Jason Hare
0 x
Jason A. Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

Jason Hare
Posts: 646
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Double Negatives (was John 14:30)

Post by Jason Hare » June 7th, 2011, 10:51 am

David Lim wrote:I meant "logical inversion" in mathematics or computer science, not that Greek is illogical (hmm maybe it is sometimes, like the neuter plural subject with a singular verb..) Actually I understand the sentence but I was wondering if there is a fixed way that negatives must be used so that the literal meaning (either X or not X) is clear and independent of the context. It seems to be as you said for a negative used with a verb ("N V" = "ου V N"), so how about two negatives as in Mark 15:5 and Mark 16:8?
I don't know nothing about computer science or what you're referring to. 8-)
Notice the example that I mentioned in my previous post to Barry, from Smyth §2761. If you read that area in Smyth, I think you'll find your answer.
David Lim wrote:Also, Funk's Grammar only mentions some conjunctions and particles intervening between "ου" and the verb, but can "τις" in Eph 2:9 do that as well, or is it that "μη" negates the whole clause "τις καυχησηται"?
[Eph 2:9] ουκ εξ εργων ινα μη τις καυχησηται
? not out of works so that no one might boast (not out of works in order that no one might boast)
? not out of works lest anyone boast (not out of works otherwise someone boast)
These two in English mean very different things.. (Since this has no double negatives, should I ask it in a separate topic?)
This is brought up by Smyth in §2193 (note b).
b. In order that no one is ἵνα (etc.) μηδεὶς or μή τις, in order that... never is ἵνα (etc.) μήποτε or μή ποτε, and in order that... not is μηδὲ after μή.
In this structure, μή τις is equivalent to μηδείς.
David Lim wrote:It makes sense to me, but it is quite different from the other, "darkness is not in him", which implies that there is darkness but it is not in him, whereas the standard translation does not take "σκοτια" as the subject of "ουκ εστιν". Why not?
You should take οὐκ ἔστιν as agreeing with σκοτία, but it's not technically its "subject" as we think of it in English. The εστιν in this phrase is existential, and we use "there is" in English to get that idea across. I think σκοτία has been thrown forward to topicalize it (if we say that in regard to Greek grammar). In essense, "And when it comes to darkness, in him there is not any at all."
David Lim wrote:I'm not surprised to see such separations, but the usual separation is because of adjectival or adverbial clauses like the one you quote ("εν λυκειω καταλιπων" functions as an adjective modifying "τας διατριβας"). Isn't 1 John 1:5 different?
I looked all over in Smyth for a specific discussion on the breaking up of noun phrases, and he covers it very quickly in the sections that I read. I didn't find anything that specifically discussed a situation like that in 1 John 1:5. I think I'll leave that for someone else. I don't have any grammars for κοινή, and it may either be an issue within κοινή or something that someone discusses, or it could be something that I'm overlooking.

Hope I've been of some assistance anyway.

Regards,
Jason Hare
0 x
Jason A. Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

cwconrad
Posts: 2110
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Double Negatives (was John 14:30)

Post by cwconrad » June 7th, 2011, 11:32 am

I haven't been participating in this thread but I've followed it with interest. I'd like to make a comment at the end, but also make a couple points here and there, deleting what's not relevant to my comments.
Jason Hare wrote:
David Lim wrote:I meant "logical inversion" in mathematics or computer science, not that Greek is illogical (hmm maybe it is sometimes, like the neuter plural subject with a singular verb..) Actually I understand the sentence but I was wondering if there is a fixed way that negatives must be used so that the literal meaning (either X or not X) is clear and independent of the context. It seems to be as you said for a negative used with a verb ("N V" = "ου V N"), so how about two negatives as in Mark 15:5 and Mark 16:8?
I don't know nothing about computer science or what you're referring to. 8-)
Notice the example that I mentioned in my previous post to Barry, from Smyth §2761. If you read that area in Smyth, I think you'll find your answer.

I think there is some peril in the attempt to understand Greek idiom in terms of mathematical constructions. I doubt not that Greek can express the substance of mathematical constructions so much as I doubt that idiomatic structural patterns in which Greek arranges negative terms corresponds with standard mathematical formulations.

---
David Lim wrote:It makes sense to me, but it is quite different from the other, "darkness is not in him", which implies that there is darkness but it is not in him, whereas the standard translation does not take "σκοτια" as the subject of "ουκ εστιν". Why not?
You should take οὐκ ἔστιν as agreeing with σκοτία, but it's not technically its "subject" as we think of it in English. The εστιν in this phrase is existential, and we use "there is" in English to get that idea across. I think σκοτία has been thrown forward to topicalize it (if we say that in regard to Greek grammar). In essense, "And when it comes to darkness, in him there is not any at all."
David Lim wrote:I'm not surprised to see such separations, but the usual separation is because of adjectival or adverbial clauses like the one you quote ("εν λυκειω καταλιπων" functions as an adjective modifying "τας διατριβας"). Isn't 1 John 1:5 different?
Rightly or wrongly, I have always thought of adjectives in what old-fashioned grammarians called the alternative predicate position (e.g. ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ ἀγαθός) as a sort of appositive addition: "the man, i.e. the good one"; some prefer to describe this as a kind of relative clause: "the man who is good." I think that what we see in the way οὐδεμία construes with σκοτία in 1 John 1:5 σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία is similar. "There isn't any darkness in him, none at all." There is something that seems distinct about the way Greek uses these pronominal demonstratives -- I think that's what I'd call μηδεμία -- in a sort of adverbial appositive sense. While this is not by any means a default of construction (it's pretty powerful rhetoric), it also isn't that uncommon. The same is true, I think, of that alternative atrributive position of the adjective, as in Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ μέγας -- which is a rhetorical expression, hardly equivalent to "the great Alexander" (as opposed to any lesser Alexander) but "Alexander, the great one of that name."

I might add here that this kind of expression is one that one encounters repeatedly in reading and understands without thinking that there's anything that's not "ordinary" about it, even if one is aware of the rhetorical effect.
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1631
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Double Negatives (was John 14:30)

Post by Barry Hofstetter » June 7th, 2011, 8:32 pm

Jason Hare wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote:However, on this whole idea of double negatives contained within the same clause, everyone is agreed that it serves as emphasis or confirmation of the negative. For example, Smyth, #2762:
The negative of one clause is often repeated in the same or in another clause either for emphasis or because of lax structure.
Hi, Barry.

I think the structure in question is actually better fit into Smyth §2761 (rather than §2162):
2761. If in the same clause one or more compound negatives follow a negative with the same verb, the compound negative simply confirms the first negative.

I don't see any reason to take the compound negatives as anything more than confirmatory in most cases - rather than emphatic. In other words, I don't see that there's anything particularly emphatic in the verses above, though 1 John 1:5 might come across as more emphatic in tone.
Ok, Jason, this is fine. Though I didn't cite 2761, I had it in mind when I said:
...it serves as emphasis or confirmation of the negative
So, I'm happy... :D
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Post Reply

Return to “What does this text mean?”