BDF §445 correlative and connective conjunctions

Post Reply
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

BDF §445 correlative and connective conjunctions

Post by Andrew Chapman »

I was surprised by the following statement by Philip Payne in his paper on οὐδέ in 1 Timothy 2:12:
Appropriately, BDF §445 calls οὐδέ a ‘correlative’ and a ‘connective’ indicating ‘correlation’ of members and contrasts its use with ‘independent continuation’.
Does it? BDF §445 begins:
445. Negative correlatives: οὔτε... οὔτε... (μήτε... μήτε); the connective after a negative clause is οὐδέ (μηδέ), after a positive καὶ οὐ (καὶ μή). All of this remains the same as in classical.
which is not clear to me. The fact that 'Negative correlatives' is in bold, apparently as the heading for the section, might suggest that οὐδέ is being classed as a correlative, contrary I think to the usual form of classification of conjunctions. Here is Blass Debrunner, §77.10:
10. The use of correlative negative clauseswith οὔτε... οὔτε or μήτε... μήτε respectively, and of οὐδέ or μηδέ respectively as a connecting particle after negative sentences (and of καὶ οὐ, καὶ μὴ after positive sentences) remains the same as in classical Greek.
which I think makes it clear that two classes are in view, and that οὐδέ is being classed as a connective rather than a correlative. So far as I can see from §77.5-6, both these are classed within copulative conjuctions, which in turn come under coordinating conjunctions. Presumably, BDF 445 is following this scheme, but the terseness of style has made it less apparent.

Payne's claim that οὐδέ indicates correlation of members rather than an independent continuation seems to come from the following in BDF 445:
(4) Καὶ οὐ after negative clauses does not indicate correlation but an independent continuation (Buttmann 316), e.g. Mt 15:32
I think I can see Payne's logic here. The implication of the above might be that καὶ οὐ after positive clauses would indicate correlation, and καὶ οὐ after positive clauses is comparable to οὐδέ after negative clauses, so correlation would be expected here too.

Matthew 15:32b:

καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσιν τί φάγωσιν· καὶ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτοὺς νήστεις οὐ θέλω, μήποτε ἐκλυθῶσιν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ.

where one would hardly describe the clauses as correlated, especially given the change of subject, and the semi-colon seems appropriate.

I am wondering if there may be three degrees of correlation in view: highly correlated pairs (etc) rendered by οὔτε... οὔτε κ.τ.λ., sentences with a degree of correlation (οὐ .. οὐδέ κ.τ.λ.), and sentences with hardly any correlation, such as Matthew 15:32 above.

Andrew
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: BDF §445 correlative and connective conjunctions

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Is Payne's paper online somewhere or do you have a cite to a dead tree edition? It's awfully hard to discuss a paper with others without it being somehow available to them.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: BDF §445 correlative and connective conjunctions

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: BDF §445 correlative and connective conjunctions

Post by Stephen Carlson »

OK. It looks like he simply misread the BDF section header. I can't see how his argument turns on the (mis)identification.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: BDF §445 correlative and connective conjunctions

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Stephen Carlson wrote:OK. It looks like he simply misread the BDF section header. I can't see how his argument turns on the (mis)identification.
I don't think it does, logically, although it might rhetorically, since his rhetorical technique seems to be to press the idea that οὐδέ combines two elements into a single idea, and then to ignore the distinction between a single idea that encompasses both elements, and one that combines both elements (ie between A ∪ B and A ∩ B). He thinks the second clause can reduce the scope of the first clause, whereas I can't find this idea in the lexicons or the grammars. οὐδέ adds one negative to another, it doesn't subtract, so far as I can see. And there can be quite a disjunction between the two elements it joins: see BDAG οὐδέ 2. 'also not..'

Andrew
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: BDF §445 correlative and connective conjunctions

Post by Andrew Chapman »

From Winer-Moulton:
οὔτε, μήτε are adjunctive, οὐδέ, μηδέ disjunctive .. ie the latter add negation to negation, the former divide a single idea into parts.. For instance, Matthew 7:6 Μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσίν, μηδὲ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας etc. give not - and cast not (two different actions are equally denied, ie interdicted)
Rhetorically, I think it helps Payne to avoid the disjunctive idea, which brings to light the fact that there can indeed be two prohibitions in view. Logically, it doesn't make much difference, because in the adjunctive case, both parts of the single idea are negated.

Andrew
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: BDF §445 correlative and connective conjunctions

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

Andrew Chapman wrote:I was surprised by the following statement by Philip Payne in his paper on οὐδέ in 1 Timothy 2:12:
Appropriately, BDF §445 calls οὐδέ a ‘correlative’ and a ‘connective’ indicating ‘correlation’ of members and contrasts its use with ‘independent continuation’.
Does it? BDF §445 begins:
445. Negative correlatives: οὔτε... οὔτε... (μήτε... μήτε); the connective after a negative clause is οὐδέ (μηδέ), after a positive καὶ οὐ (καὶ μή). All of this remains the same as in classical.
which is not clear to me. The fact that 'Negative correlatives' is in bold, apparently as the heading for the section, might suggest that οὐδέ is being classed as a correlative, contrary I think to the usual form of classification of conjunctions. Here is Blass Debrunner, §77.10:
10. The use of correlative negative clauseswith οὔτε... οὔτε or μήτε... μήτε respectively, and of οὐδέ or μηδέ respectively as a connecting particle after negative sentences (and of καὶ οὐ, καὶ μὴ after positive sentences) remains the same as in classical Greek.
which I think makes it clear that two classes are in view, and that οὐδέ is being classed as a connective rather than a correlative. So far as I can see from §77.5-6, both these are classed within copulative conjuctions, which in turn come under coordinating conjunctions. Presumably, BDF 445 is following this scheme, but the terseness of style has made it less apparent.

Payne's claim that οὐδέ indicates correlation of members rather than an independent continuation seems to come from the following in BDF 445:
(4) Καὶ οὐ after negative clauses does not indicate correlation but an independent continuation (Buttmann 316), e.g. Mt 15:32
I think I can see Payne's logic here. The implication of the above might be that καὶ οὐ after positive clauses would indicate correlation, and καὶ οὐ after positive clauses is comparable to οὐδέ after negative clauses, so correlation would be expected here too.

Matthew 15:32b:

καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσιν τί φάγωσιν· καὶ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτοὺς νήστεις οὐ θέλω, μήποτε ἐκλυθῶσιν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ.

where one would hardly describe the clauses as correlated, especially given the change of subject, and the semi-colon seems appropriate.

I am wondering if there may be three degrees of correlation in view: highly correlated pairs (etc) rendered by οὔτε... οὔτε κ.τ.λ., sentences with a degree of correlation (οὐ .. οὐδέ κ.τ.λ.), and sentences with hardly any correlation, such as Matthew 15:32 above.

Andrew

Andrew,

Rather than start a new thread I am going to hijack yours and turn it to a different text. I have been having problems with οὔτε… οὔτε, οὐδέ in the Apocalypse project I have been working on. Yesterday and this morning I have been reviewing once again all NT and Attic grammars on οὔτε… οὔτε, οὐδέ trying to achieve firm grasp of how these are used and how they differ. I will begin by asking a simple question: Why would a grammarian prefer οὐδὲ for οὔτε in Rev 5:4?

Rev. 5:3 καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς οὐδὲ ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον οὔτε βλέπειν αὐτό. 4 καὶ ἔκλαιον πολύ, ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἄξιος εὑρέθη ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον οὔτε βλέπειν αὐτό.

Cooper claims that οὔτε is not used alone. Is that the only problem? Others suggest that one would expect οὐδὲ at this point but don't explain why.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: BDF §445 correlative and connective conjunctions

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Perhaps it's worth observing that there are two types of coordination going on in 5:3 - first, the different classes of people, and then the different classes of action. So it may be natural to switch from οὐδέ to οὔτε to signify the difference in what is being coordinated. (Although I see that R. H. Charles and Swete have οὐδέ .. οὐδέ .. οὐδέ in 5:3. And Tischendorf has οὔτε .. οὔτε .. οὔτε.)

Once the writer has chosen οὔτε to join ἀνοῖξαι and βλέπειν in 5:3, perhaps that almost forces him to do the same again in verse 4 - he's just repeating the phrase, 6 words, word for word -ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον οὔτε βλέπειν αὐτό - so perhaps this could almost be seen as a quotation from verse 3 - or at least a sort of reverberation?

Andrew
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: BDF §445 correlative and connective conjunctions

Post by cwconrad »

I'd be somewhat leery of expecting the author of Revelation to conform to standard patterns of traditional Greek grammar. Not that he doesn't generally, but that he often enough does not, notorious solecist that he is.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”