On Thu, 14 Apr 94 13:52:03 EDT you said:
>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?
With all respect I'd like to stick up for what I argued before. Normally
the negative adverb in Greek immediately precedes what it negates. Paul here
is not saying (pace translators who want to improve the English), "I don't do
what I want," but rather, "I do what I DON'T want (to do)," or even more
precisely, with the emphasis of his word-order and deliberate backwards
reference to the clause of indirect question, "What I DON'T want to do--THAT's
what I DO!"
CARL W. CONRAD, C25001CC@WUVMD.BITNET OR C25001CC@WUVMD.WUSTL.EDU
Classics, Washington University, One Brookings Dr., St. Louis, MO 63130
Phone: (314) 935-4018