Carl Conrad wrote,
> I think I see what your problem is now: In ou gar ho thelw toutv poiw, the OY
> does not directly negate the second verb; rather it negates the subordinate
> clause. More literally it is: "For NOT the thing which I want THAT do I do ..."
> i.e. TOUTO picks up and repeats the content of HO THELW. Reversing the word-
> order, it translates more easily as, "For that thing I do, (the thing) which
> I DON'T WANT (to do). To summarize, then: in this instance, the OY negates
> the relative clause, HO THELW.
But as others following this thread have mentioned or assumed, most
translations have OY negate the primary verb, PRASSW, so NRSV: "I do
not do what I want." And Larry Hurtado seemed to imply that this was
the way it had to be (OY negates the vb, not the object of the vb).
Is Larry right, or is it sometimes possible for OY [GAR] O THELW to be
equivalent to O OU THELW?