2 Peter 3:10 (NA28) *οὐχ* εὑρεθήσεται

Forum rules
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. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 638
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: 2 Peter 3:10 (NA28) *οὐχ* εὑρεθήσεται

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » May 22nd, 2017, 5:33 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:
May 22nd, 2017, 2:04 pm
The position of the negative particle (ⲁⲛ) at the end of the phrase is standard, and the negation only extends to that particular phrase.
Yes, that is what the grammers tell me. There appear to be several not_so_standard ways of rendering expressions like οὐχ εὑρέθησαν. I looked at all the NT samples using the scriptorium to try and work out what was going on in the syntax. An imperfect method. The parsing is done by an auto_parser that you can download from the scriptorium.

RE: dropped negative particles

In my encroaching old age I have observed that the dyslexia that has plauged me since childhood has only increased and for some reason I am dropping negative particles. Perhaps there is some explanation for this but I couldn't find one. Since 2Peter had canonical problems the early manusript evidence is pretty thin. Could be we are looking at an early corruption related to "dropped negative particles" which I haven't found discussed in the NT TC literature. Doesn't mean it isn't there but I have looked several times without success.

I have an old friend who is a publisher and editor. I caught him dropping a negative particle. Five minutes ago I sent him an email in which I dropped the negative particle. It doesn't go away just because you are aware of it.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: 2 Peter 3:10 (NA28) *οὐχ* εὑρεθήσεται

Post by Stephen Hughes » May 23rd, 2017, 2:06 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
May 22nd, 2017, 5:33 pm
There appear to be several not_so_standard ways of rendering expressions like οὐχ εὑρέθησαν. I looked at all the NT samples using the scriptorium to try and work out what was going on in the syntax. An imperfect method.
The other negation ⲙⲡⲟⲩϩⲉ that you are looking at is wrongly parsed in the texts that I traced your footsteps on. This is actually negation ⲙⲡⲉ (ⲙⲡ=). Crum (on page 178) lists it as a I perfect negative.

The Coptic Scriptorium wrongly parses it as ⲙ - PREP (preposition) and ⲡⲟⲩ - PPOS (pronoun, possesive). If, in another instance, ⲙⲡⲟⲩ was in front of a noun, such as as for exaple ⲙⲡⲟⲩⲏⲓ (broken up as ⲙ-ⲡⲟⲩ-ⲏⲓ), "in their house", it would be parsed in the way you find in Coptic Scriptorium. It is an error in parsing is about as serious as parsing every "to" as a preposition, even when it is an infinitive marker.

In accordance with the Coptic Scriptorium scheme ⲙⲡⲟⲩ followed by a verb should be tagged as ⲙⲡ= ANEGPST and -ⲟⲩ PPER (pronoun, personal) - the person (3rd plural) could be added if there is an option to input that level of detail into the encoding.

Clay, if you were to mentally make that correction to the parsing as you go, the syntax might make some sense.

[Anticipating your question that you will arrive at after a couple of hours of searching and thought, "No, I don't know if the future negations always prefer that surface structure."]
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 638
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: 2 Peter 3:10 (NA28) *οὐχ* εὑρεθήσεται

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » May 23rd, 2017, 3:00 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:
May 23rd, 2017, 2:06 pm
... if you were to mentally make that correction to the parsing as you go, the syntax might make some sense.
Stephen,

Got a good laugh out of that. The suggestion assumes that I know enough coptic to correct the auto parsing mistakes. It doesn't surprise me that auto parsing makes errors. Coptic is not a simple language and there are some tokens that have a very wide range of polysemy.

POSTSCRIPT

RE: Gsp Thomas

You know there is a crying need for a grammatically tagged version of the Gospel of Thomas. It would be a short project for someone who knows the dialect. I asked S. Gathercole if such an animal already existed and he suggested Grondin`s Interlinear Coptic/English Translation of The Gospel of Thomas. So I am assuming this hasn't been done. Would be great to find out that I am wrong.

I suspect there isn't a standard set of metalanguage to attach to Sahidic tokens. The grammers seem to invent metalanguage as they go along. J. Brankaer 2012 is the most meta-language intensive grammar I have ever encountered. B. Layton isn't even close to it.
Last edited by Stirling Bartholomew on May 23rd, 2017, 3:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3132
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: 2 Peter 3:10 (NA28) *οὐχ* εὑρεθήσεται

Post by Jonathan Robie » May 23rd, 2017, 3:06 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
May 23rd, 2017, 3:00 pm
Got a good laugh out of that. The suggestion assumes that I know enough coptic to correct the auto parsing mistakes.
Are you copting out?
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 638
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: 2 Peter 3:10 (NA28) *οὐχ* εὑρεθήσεται

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » May 23rd, 2017, 3:11 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:
May 23rd, 2017, 3:06 pm
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
May 23rd, 2017, 3:00 pm
Got a good laugh out of that. The suggestion assumes that I know enough coptic to correct the auto parsing mistakes.
Are you copting out?
Yeah, my objective with Sahidic is even less ambitious than a similar project with Syriac. I thought it would be useful to look at the architecture of the language and see to what extent the versions could be trusted in textual criticism. I thought it would be about as difficult as Syriac coming from Hebrew. I was wrong.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest