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?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.
[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?