The negation of perfect verb forms
Posted: September 8th, 2018, 3:17 pm
Has anyone ever studied the negation of perfect verb forms? Any grammars talk about it? I'm wondering if coming at it from the negated perfect examples would shed light on the perfect's aspectual value. What exactly is being denied? Why is the perfect being used? And does this help us understand the perfect in general?
I had a theory that if the perfect is completive (or completive-resultive), then a negated perfect wouldn't (always?) be a wholesale denial/rejection of something, but would instead sometimes suggest the negated verb was viewed as in process but not completed. It's the completed nature of the verb that's being denied, but not the entirety of the process represented by the verb.
If Decker is right, and the perfect portrays a state, with no notion of progress or change, then the negation of the perfect should always be a straightforward rejection of the given (sometimes complicated) state.
If Con Campbell is right, and the perfect is imperfective, then the negation should be.... what? (I haven't read Campbell).
Basically, what I was expecting/hoping for was something like Phil 3:12:
Phil 3:12 Οὐχ ὅτι ἤδη ἔλαβον ἢ ἤδη τετελείωμαι, διώκω δὲ εἰ καὶ καταλάβω, ἐφʼ ᾧ καὶ κατελήμφθην ὑπὸ Χριστοῦ.
Understood as, "I'm making progress toward this, but haven't yet accomplished..."
or Rev. 2:3 καὶ ὑπομονὴν ἔχεις, καὶ ἐβάστασας διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου, καὶ οὐ κεκοπίακες.
I wanted to translate this as, "You haven't become completely exhausted/weary."
I then thought I could maybe use that in Matt 21:25-27. The chief priests and elders weren't completely denying knowledge of the source of John's baptism. They were saying that hadn't finished deciding its source. "We don't (yet) completely know."
25 τὸ βάπτισμα τὸ Ἰωάννου πόθεν ἦν; ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἢ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων; οἱ δὲ διελογίζοντο ἐν ἑαυτοῖς λέγοντες· Ἐὰν εἴπωμεν· Ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, ἐρεῖ ἡμῖν· Διὰ τί οὖν οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ; 26 ἐὰν δὲ εἴπωμεν· Ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, φοβούμεθα τὸν ὄχλον, πάντες γὰρ ὡς προφήτην ἔχουσιν τὸν Ἰωάννην. 27 καὶ ἀποκριθέντες τῷ Ἰησοῦ εἶπαν· Οὐκ οἴδαμεν.
But it would look like this in 1 John 1:10:
10 ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι οὐχ ἡμαρτήκαμεν, ψεύστην ποιοῦμεν αὐτὸν καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν.
"If we say 'we haven't finished sinning', we make him a liar..."
(implication then being, we are supposed to say, "we have finished sinning." which doesn't work.)
I did a quick search this morning, and found the following examples of a negated perfect: Romans 9:25; 15:21; 1 Cor. 7:15; 9:15; 10:13; 15:14, 16, 17; 2 Cor. 2:13; 3:10; Col. 2:1; Heb. 4:2; 1 Pet. 2:10; 1 John 1:9; 3:6; 4:18; 3 John 11; Rev. 2:3; 13:8. (skipping most oida examples). I'm sure I missed some examples--I only would've caught them if ou immediately preceded the verb--and I'm not including the gospels here.
Here are some examples with telic verbs:
1 Cor. 9:15 Ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ κέχρημαι οὐδενὶ τούτων.
Rom. 15:20 οὕτως δὲ φιλοτιμούμενον εὐαγγελίζεσθαι οὐχ ὅπου ὠνομάσθη Χριστός, ἵνα μὴ ἐπʼ ἀλλότριον θεμέλιον οἰκοδομῶ, 21 ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται· Οἷς οὐκ ἀνηγγέλη περὶ αὐτοῦ ὄψονται, καὶ οἳ οὐκ ἀκηκόασιν συνήσουσιν.
Col. 2.1 Θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα ἔχω ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ καὶ ὅσοι οὐχ ἑόρακαν τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐν σαρκί,
1 Pet 2:10 οἵ ποτε οὐ λαὸς νῦν δὲ λαὸς θεοῦ, οἱ οὐκ ἠλεημένοι νῦν δὲ ἐλεηθέντες.
1 John 3:6 πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ μένων οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει· πᾶς ὁ ἁμαρτάνων οὐχ ἑώρακεν αὐτὸν οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν.
I have no idea how to explain why the authors chose perfects here in any of these examples. That said, all of these seem like straightforward, total rejections of the verb. Paul hasn't made use of any of these rights at all (1 Cor 9:15); they haven't heard at all (Rom. 15:20); they haven't seen him at all (Col. 2:1); they weren't shown mercy at all (1 Pet 2:10); they haven't known God at all (1 John 3:6). Is that it? The negated perfect is the total/complete opposite of telic verbs?
Here are examples with naturally stative verbs:
Heb 4:2 καὶ γάρ ἐσμεν εὐηγγελισμένοι καθάπερ κἀκεῖνοι, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ὠφέλησεν ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς ἐκείνους, μὴ συγκεκερασμένους τῇ πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασιν.
-I wanted to read, "not being completely united" OR maybe it's, "not being united at all." ?
2 Cor 2:13 οὐκ ἔσχηκα ἄνεσιν τῷ πνεύματί μου τῷ μὴ εὑρεῖν με Τίτον τὸν ἀδελφόν μου,
-I wanted to read, "I didn't completely have rest." OR "I had absolutely no rest." ?
Rev. 2:3 καὶ ὑπομονὴν ἔχεις, καὶ ἐβάστασας διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου, καὶ οὐ κεκοπίακες.
-I wanted to read, "You aren't completely exhausted/weary." OR: "You weren't exhausted at all." ?
At this point, I'm guessing the negated perfect is a total negation of the verb. But I have to believe someone, at some point, must've wrestled with this.
Are there any grammars or journal articles that specifically talk about the negated perfect, and what implications it has for the function of the perfect?
Anyone willing to offer help here?
Thanks...
I had a theory that if the perfect is completive (or completive-resultive), then a negated perfect wouldn't (always?) be a wholesale denial/rejection of something, but would instead sometimes suggest the negated verb was viewed as in process but not completed. It's the completed nature of the verb that's being denied, but not the entirety of the process represented by the verb.
If Decker is right, and the perfect portrays a state, with no notion of progress or change, then the negation of the perfect should always be a straightforward rejection of the given (sometimes complicated) state.
If Con Campbell is right, and the perfect is imperfective, then the negation should be.... what? (I haven't read Campbell).
Basically, what I was expecting/hoping for was something like Phil 3:12:
Phil 3:12 Οὐχ ὅτι ἤδη ἔλαβον ἢ ἤδη τετελείωμαι, διώκω δὲ εἰ καὶ καταλάβω, ἐφʼ ᾧ καὶ κατελήμφθην ὑπὸ Χριστοῦ.
Understood as, "I'm making progress toward this, but haven't yet accomplished..."
or Rev. 2:3 καὶ ὑπομονὴν ἔχεις, καὶ ἐβάστασας διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου, καὶ οὐ κεκοπίακες.
I wanted to translate this as, "You haven't become completely exhausted/weary."
I then thought I could maybe use that in Matt 21:25-27. The chief priests and elders weren't completely denying knowledge of the source of John's baptism. They were saying that hadn't finished deciding its source. "We don't (yet) completely know."
25 τὸ βάπτισμα τὸ Ἰωάννου πόθεν ἦν; ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἢ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων; οἱ δὲ διελογίζοντο ἐν ἑαυτοῖς λέγοντες· Ἐὰν εἴπωμεν· Ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, ἐρεῖ ἡμῖν· Διὰ τί οὖν οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ; 26 ἐὰν δὲ εἴπωμεν· Ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, φοβούμεθα τὸν ὄχλον, πάντες γὰρ ὡς προφήτην ἔχουσιν τὸν Ἰωάννην. 27 καὶ ἀποκριθέντες τῷ Ἰησοῦ εἶπαν· Οὐκ οἴδαμεν.
But it would look like this in 1 John 1:10:
10 ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι οὐχ ἡμαρτήκαμεν, ψεύστην ποιοῦμεν αὐτὸν καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν.
"If we say 'we haven't finished sinning', we make him a liar..."
(implication then being, we are supposed to say, "we have finished sinning." which doesn't work.)
I did a quick search this morning, and found the following examples of a negated perfect: Romans 9:25; 15:21; 1 Cor. 7:15; 9:15; 10:13; 15:14, 16, 17; 2 Cor. 2:13; 3:10; Col. 2:1; Heb. 4:2; 1 Pet. 2:10; 1 John 1:9; 3:6; 4:18; 3 John 11; Rev. 2:3; 13:8. (skipping most oida examples). I'm sure I missed some examples--I only would've caught them if ou immediately preceded the verb--and I'm not including the gospels here.
Here are some examples with telic verbs:
1 Cor. 9:15 Ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ κέχρημαι οὐδενὶ τούτων.
Rom. 15:20 οὕτως δὲ φιλοτιμούμενον εὐαγγελίζεσθαι οὐχ ὅπου ὠνομάσθη Χριστός, ἵνα μὴ ἐπʼ ἀλλότριον θεμέλιον οἰκοδομῶ, 21 ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται· Οἷς οὐκ ἀνηγγέλη περὶ αὐτοῦ ὄψονται, καὶ οἳ οὐκ ἀκηκόασιν συνήσουσιν.
Col. 2.1 Θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα ἔχω ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ καὶ ὅσοι οὐχ ἑόρακαν τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐν σαρκί,
1 Pet 2:10 οἵ ποτε οὐ λαὸς νῦν δὲ λαὸς θεοῦ, οἱ οὐκ ἠλεημένοι νῦν δὲ ἐλεηθέντες.
1 John 3:6 πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ μένων οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει· πᾶς ὁ ἁμαρτάνων οὐχ ἑώρακεν αὐτὸν οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν.
I have no idea how to explain why the authors chose perfects here in any of these examples. That said, all of these seem like straightforward, total rejections of the verb. Paul hasn't made use of any of these rights at all (1 Cor 9:15); they haven't heard at all (Rom. 15:20); they haven't seen him at all (Col. 2:1); they weren't shown mercy at all (1 Pet 2:10); they haven't known God at all (1 John 3:6). Is that it? The negated perfect is the total/complete opposite of telic verbs?
Here are examples with naturally stative verbs:
Heb 4:2 καὶ γάρ ἐσμεν εὐηγγελισμένοι καθάπερ κἀκεῖνοι, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ὠφέλησεν ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς ἐκείνους, μὴ συγκεκερασμένους τῇ πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασιν.
-I wanted to read, "not being completely united" OR maybe it's, "not being united at all." ?
2 Cor 2:13 οὐκ ἔσχηκα ἄνεσιν τῷ πνεύματί μου τῷ μὴ εὑρεῖν με Τίτον τὸν ἀδελφόν μου,
-I wanted to read, "I didn't completely have rest." OR "I had absolutely no rest." ?
Rev. 2:3 καὶ ὑπομονὴν ἔχεις, καὶ ἐβάστασας διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου, καὶ οὐ κεκοπίακες.
-I wanted to read, "You aren't completely exhausted/weary." OR: "You weren't exhausted at all." ?
At this point, I'm guessing the negated perfect is a total negation of the verb. But I have to believe someone, at some point, must've wrestled with this.
Are there any grammars or journal articles that specifically talk about the negated perfect, and what implications it has for the function of the perfect?
Anyone willing to offer help here?
Thanks...