[b-greek] RE: Negation again

From: Iver Larsen (alice-iver_larsen@wycliffe.org)
Date: Wed Feb 21 2001 - 02:04:48 EST


>Can
> someone give a few examples from the New Testament where the verb is
> negated but the negative particle comes before something else, and it
> clearly makes a difference what is being negated?
> I supposed that if you've got NOT VERB NOUN and the noun is put at the
> beginning that it would go BEFORE the 'not' (NOUN NOT VERB instead of
> NOT NOUN VERB), otherwise it would just cause confusion and people might
> think the entire NOT NOUN was moved to the beginning (meaning VERB NOT
> NOUN).
> Keith Thompson (Manchester, UK)

I cannot find what you ask for, and I am not sure it is possible. But we can
easily find lots of examples of the orders you mention here, and it would be
helpful to look at some and compare them:

1) Not Verb Noun
Mt 5:14 OU DUNATAI POLIS KRUBHNAI EPANW OROUS KEIMENH
        A city on a mountain cannot be hidden
Lk 21:6 OUK AFEQHSETAI LIQOS EPI LIQWi hOS OU KATALUQHSETAI
        There will not be left a stone ... that will not be thrown down
Jn 8:44 OUK ESTIN ALHQEIA EN AUTWi
        Truth is not in him
Jn 13:16 OUK ESTIN DOULOS MEIZWN TOU KURIOU AUTOU OU DE APOSTOLOS MEIZWN TOU
PEMYANTOS AUTON
        a slave is not greater than his master and not a sent-one greater than
the-one-who sent him

In these example the verbal idea is the most important and it is also the verbal
idea that is negated. Can or cannot, is or is not.

2) Not Noun Verb
Mt 7:9 MH LIQON EPIDWSEI AUTWi
        he will not give him a stone, will he? (contrast to giving bread)
Jn 6:32 OU MWUSHS DEDWKEN hUMIN TON ARTON EK TOU OURANOU, ALLA hO PATHR MOU
DIDWSIN...
        Moses gave you the bread from heaven, didn't he? But my Father is (now) giving
you the true bread form heaven. (contrast between Moses and the Father, rather
than giving vs not-giving)
Jn 7:19 OU MWUSHS DEDWKEN hUMIN TON NOMON
        Moses gave you the law, didn't he? (Even though it was the great Moses, they
don't keep it)
Jn 10:21 TAUTA TA hRHMATA OUK ESTIN DAIMONIZOMENOU. MH DAIMONION DUNATAI TUFLWN
OFQALMOUS ANOIXAI;
        these words are not from a demonised one. A demon cannot open a blind man's
eyes, can it? (Here Jesus is contrasted to a demon. The second sentence is the
Not N V)

My suggestion is that when the noun is negated like in these cases, there is a
contrast or a focus on the noun, rather than the verbal idea. It is the noun
that is negated, not the verb.

3) Noun Not Verb
Mt 6:20 KAI hOPOU KLEPTAI OU DIORUSSOUSIN
        and where thieves do not break in
Mt 10:28 KAI MH FOBEISQE APO TWN APOKTENNONTWN TO SWMA, THN DE YUCHN MH
DUNAMENWN APOKTEINAI
        And do not fear those who kill the body, but the soul are not being able to
kill
Mt 16:4 KAI SHMEION OU DOQHSETAI AUTHi EI MH TO SHMEION IWNA
        and a sign will not be given to it if not (except) the sign of Jonah
Mt 16:7 ARTOUS OUK ELABOMEN We did not bring bread

In these cases the noun is fronted either for contrast or topicalisation, but it
is the verbal idea that is negated, because the negative immediately precedes
the verb. In Mt 6:19 Jesus talked about thieves breaking in. But it is not the
thieves that are negated, because it is not a question of WHO do not break in,
thieves or others, but a matter of no one breaking in at all. In Mt 10:28 in the
first part it is a matter of fearing or not fearing, and in the second part a
matter of being able or not being able. "Soul" is fronted because of the
contrast between body and soul. In Mt 16:4 it is a question of giving or not
giving. "Sign" is in focus, because the text talks about different kinds of
signs. In Mt 16:7 "bread" is in focus, but it is not a matter of bringing bread
or bringing something else. It is a matter of bringing or not bringing bread.

4) Verb NOT Noun - does not exist in the GNT as far as I can tell.

My assumption for the lack of 4) is that if the noun is to be negated at all,
then it is so prominent that it must come before the verb. Something that is
negated is more prominent than something which is not negated.

The negative particle can occur before other kinds of words. Sometimes the scope
of the negation is only the following word, sometimes the scope is the following
clause. This is normally determined from context, and that is why there are
different perspectives on when the scope is the whole clause and when it is only
the word it precedes. BADG has a good description of the negative, but let me
just list a few examples here, too:

Not Adverb
Lk 7:6 HDH DE AUTOU OU MAKRAN APECONTOS APO THS OIKIAS
        but when he was not far from the house
Jn 5:18 hOTI OU MONON ELUEN TO SABBATON, ALLA KAI...
        because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but also...

Not Prepositional-phrase
Mt 19:9 hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIAi
        whoever divorces his wife not (based) on adultery
Mk 10:27 PARA ANQRWPOIS ADUNATON, ALL' OU PARA QEWi. PANTA GAR DUNATA PARA TWi
QEWi.
        For men it is impossible, but not for God. For all things are possible for God.

Not Clause
Jn 6:38 OUC hINA POIW TO QELHMA TOU EMON, ALLA TO QELHMA TOU PEMYANTOS ME
        not that I should do my own will, but (that I should do) the will of the
one-who-sent me
Rm 15:20 EUAGGELIZESQAI OUC hOPOU WNOMASQH CRISTOS hINA MH EP' ALLOTRION
QEMELION OIKODOMW
        to preach not where Christ has been "named" (but somewhere else) so that I do
not build on another's foundation

I am not sure if this helps, but I find it interesting to compare such
sentences. I think it is safe to say that the negative particle governs the word
it precedes or the clause it precedes. Usually, the context will tell whether it
is a word that is negated or a whole clause. Where the context does not tell, it
probably makes no difference to the meaning.

Iver Larsen



---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu




This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:51 EDT