Καὶ οὐ after negative clauses

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

Καὶ οὐ after negative clauses

Post by Andrew Chapman »

BDF 445.4 begins
καὶ οὐ after negative clauses does not indicate correlation but an independent continuation (Buttmann 316), e.g. Mt. 15:32
Looking at his example:

Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς προσκαλεσάμενος τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ εἶπεν· Σπλαγχνίζομαι ἐπὶ τὸν ὄχλον, ὅτι ἤδη ἡμέραι τρεῖς προσμένουσίν μοι καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσιν τί φάγωσιν· καὶ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτοὺς νήστεις οὐ θέλω, μήποτε ἐκλυθῶσιν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ.

it strikes me that the first clause consists of a positive primary clause - Σπλαγχνίζομαι ἐπὶ τὸν ὄχλον - followed by a subordinate clause which ends with a negative sub-clause - ὅτι.. οὐκ ἔχουσιν τί φάγωσιν. So it's not obvious to me whether καὶ.. οὐ is best seen as following a negative clause or a positive one. First of all, I don't know whether it matters more that the Σπλαγχνίζομαι clause is primary, or that the οὐκ ἔχουσιν clause is the one immediately preceding. Second, from a practical point of view, it seems natural to refer back to the clause with the same subject, which is the positive Σπλαγχνίζομαι one. Any thoughts?

Andrew
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Neither ἤδη or προσμένειν have a negative connotation

Post by Stephen Hughes »

It is unclear whether he is referring to a negative sense or to a negative grammatical construction. Either way it doesn't work, because, the phrase is grammatically positive and neither ἤδη nor προσμένειν carry an inherent negative connotation.
John 3:20 wrote:Πᾶς γὰρ ὁ φαῦλα πράσσων μισεῖ τὸ φῶς, καὶ οὐκ ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, ἵνα μὴ ἐλεγχθῇ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ.
The first part of this verse has a negative sense, followed by the καὶ οὐ.
John 16:32 wrote:Ἰδού, ἔρχεται ὥρα καὶ νῦν ἐλήλυθεν, ἵνα σκορπισθῆτε ἕκαστος εἰς τὰ ἴδια, καὶ ἐμὲ μόνον ἀφῆτε· καὶ οὐκ εἰμὶ μόνος, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν.
The point of the grammar may be that ἀλλά "but" is not used in a place such as this.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Καὶ οὐ after negative clauses

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Andrew Chapman wrote:First of all, I don't know whether it matters more that the Σπλαγχνίζομαι clause is primary, or that the οὐκ ἔχουσιν clause is the one immediately preceding. Second, from a practical point of view, it seems natural to refer back to the clause with the same subject, which is the positive Σπλαγχνίζομαι one. Any thoughts?
It seems to me that the clause about not having something to eat is still within the scope of the ὅτι (because).
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

The penny sometimes takes a long time to drop

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς προσκαλεσάμενος τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ εἶπεν· Σπλαγχνίζομαι ἐπὶ τὸν ὄχλον, ὅτι ἤδη ἡμέραι τρεῖς προσμένουσίν μοι καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσιν τί φάγωσιν· καὶ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτοὺς νήστεις οὐ θέλω, μήποτε ἐκλυθῶσιν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ.
Sorry for my ambivalence earlier. He is actually making it clear in his example that this grammatical point is referring to grammatically and not only sense negativity.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Καὶ οὐ after negative clauses

Post by Andrew Chapman »

BDF §445 begins with a general rule that 'the connective after a negative clause is οὐδέ (μηδέ), after a positive καὶ οὐ (καὶ μή). So 445.4 is dealing with an exception to the rule.

What I think I was trying to say is that Matthew 15:32 is hardly an exception to the rule. It's just that you have to leap over the subordinate clause to get back to the positive clause to which the καὶ οὐ clause is connecting. And I was wondering why it is that we understand that we have to make that leap - is it because the intervening clauses are subordinate, or is it because they have a different subject, or a bit of both?

And it may be that this is what Blass meant by an 'independent continuation' - it's a continuation from the earlier clause, and is independent of the intervening clauses(?).

Andrew
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”