multiple negatives

[auctor]

I'm having a problem getting multiple negatives right in my head. Am I right in thinking that if the "normal" "ou" (ouk, oukh) is in front of any other negs then the phrase is REALLY negative; if "ou" follows any other neg then they cancel each other out (like English should do!) and the phrase is positve?<br /><br />Anybody have a mnemonic to remember this?<br /><br />regards,<br />Paul McK

[annis]

Are you talking about MH\ OU) and OU) MH/ (the last is just an emphatic negative) or some other thing? Can you post some examples? Because MH\ OU) is still negative.<br /><br />The Smyth at Perseus, section 2760, has some stuff on multiple negatives.<br /><br />--<br />wm

[auctor]

1. ou) blepw ou)dena<br />2. ou)dena ou) blepw<br /><br />By my reckoning...<br />1. I see no one, no one at all<br />2. I don't see no one (therefore... I see someone)<br /><br />First try with Beta code, hope it's OK

[auctor]

Sorry, in the two examples above<br /><br />o)rw<br /><br />is much better verb

[annis]

[quote author=auctor link=board=2;threadid=49;start=0#161 date=1050498688]<br />1. ou) blepw ou)dena<br />2. ou)dena ou) blepw<br /><br />By my reckoning...<br />1. I see no one, no one at all<br />2. I don't see no one (therefore... I see someone)<br /><br />First try with Beta code, hope it's OK<br />[/quote]<br /><br />The betacode is fine, though you left off the accents. Not a big deal most of the time.<br /><br />Oy. I can honestly say I've never run across a situation where something like this came up in real Greek (that is, not some horror invented for a textbook). I think your translations are correct. But when something OU) or MH/ go before a compound (OU)DENA, say) then the negative is just stronger, so I'm afraid to say 100% about any of this.<br /><br />I'll have to spend some quality time with a grammar.<br /><br />Where are you getting these examples from?<br /><br />

[auctor]

I'm studying Greek with the Open University, Reading Greek is the text book.<br />Section 3-38 is the very short explanation. However a question on the next Tutor Marked Assignment is to "explain clearly the differences in two phrases by translating them".<br />(I've altered slighly the two phrases they've asked us to translate, so as not to be accused of asking for direct answers!). It therefore appears to be a distinction that we are expected to recognise.

[annis]

> I'm studying Greek with the Open University, Reading Greek is the <br />> text book. Section 3-38 is the very short explanation.<br /><br />What does it say? From the grammars I can get at from work it seems that normally ou) precedes the word it goes with. If you don't have ou) + NEG, then you take them separately.<br /><br />> It therefore appears to be a distinction that we are expected to <br />> recognise.<br /><br />I really loathe textbook examples like this.<br /><br />--<br />wm,<br />who in all his reading of Greek (which, admitedly, isn't vast) has never confronted a mass of negatives

[annis]

So, I've had a chance to consult some of my texts at home.<br /><br />Examples:<br /><br />(from "Foundations for Greek Prose Composition," Lewis and Styler):<br /><br />"Compound negatives" - meaning ou)deis, etc. - "following the simple negative strengthen it; they do not destroy it:<br /><br />   ou)k ei)=don ou)de/na      "I did not see anyone."<br /><br />But a compound negative, preceding the simple negative, destroys it and makes an affirmative:<br /><br />   ou)dei\s ou)k oi)=den    "Nobody doesn't know" i.e., <br />                  "everybody knows."<br /><br />So it looks like the matter of multiple negatives has to do with the type of the negative - compound or simple. My Curtius Greek Grammr (an ancient thing, but directed at schools, it seems) says this: "A negative is neutralized by a subsequent simple negative of the same kind:<br /><br />   ou)dei\s a)nqrw/pwn a)dikw=n ti/sin ou)k a)podw/sei,<br />   no one who does wrong will not pay the penalty, i.e.<br />   everyone who does wrong will pay the penalty<br /><br />So. The simple negative is primary: when it comes first, all following compound negatives simply strengthen it. When it comes after a compound negative, that compound is negated. <br /><br />Does this help at all? Now I feel I know more about the issue than I had before. <br /><br />--<br />wm

[auctor]

Yes William, you seem to have the found same constructions as I was worrying over. Here is a copy from our reader:<br /><br />a)lla ou)demia naus e)rxetai, kai dhlon o(ti ou)k a)fikneitai Lakedaimonios ou)deis, ou)de lambanei ou)dena ou)de <br />a)pokteinei<br /><br />But no ship is coming, and it is obvious that NOT ONE Spartan is coming, neither killing nor capturing. [my translation]<br /><br />The first phrase is a straightforward negative; the rest has an "ouk" before the other negatives and so it emphasises it.<br /><br />hmmm I think I understand the thinking, but it is all rather unsatisfactory<br /><br />Paul

[Elucubrator]

William! You have Curtius's Grammar! ::) I have a photocopied version of the Spanish translation of Curtius that I obtained long ago in the Argentine. Yes, an ancient thing. But still it is really nice. <br /><br />Before I write any examples about this double negative stuff. I want to ask what all the funny parentheses are doing in e.g. a)lla ou)demia naus e)rxetai and other posts. Do you guys see these somehow in Greek text? or is it that somehow you understand the symbologicalismigalisation that these represent???<br /><br />There is one simple thing to keep in mind about these double negatives which simplifies things immensely when trying to grasp this feature of the Greek language that the textbooks are trying to teach you, and that is: <br /><br /> ANY "compound" negative when coming AFTER any other type of negative STRENGTHENS the 'negation'.<br /><br />but, IF the "compound" negative comes BEFORE the simple negative then the negatives cancel and the statement is 'positive'.<br /><br />I have devised no mnemonic, but if you can hold onto half the formula: <br /><br /> COMPOUND ---- AFTER ---- STRENGTHENS<br /><br />then you will have pinned down that Protean Greek negative which for the present so eludes you. <br /><br />Now I mentioned that this was the way the textbooks seek to explain this characteristic of Greek to speakers of English. However, in the mind of the Greek this is not a means of strengthening the negative in the sentence, but in fact the only way to say it. How else could he say, "no one will go away." other than like this:<br /><br /> ouk apeisiv oudeis. ??? What other word could he use for "no one"?<br /><br />If a Greek had wanted to emphasise this, he might have thrown in a particle to do the job. <br /><br />Well, Paul, the quick answer to your question is YES! you had it right, but I also hope that the following exercise serves not only in understanding the construction better, but also sheds some light on the nature of the two languages. <br /><br />In the Greek mind there is absolutely nothing unnatural, special, or emphatic about that sentence above "no one will go away". In fact, in the mind of the Greek the emphatic construction is the one where both negatives combine in such a way as to cancel and create a positive statement. For instance, just as in English, the expression, though it sound awkward<br /><br /> "No one | will not | go away." is emphatic, <br /><br />so also the Greek: "oudeis | ouk | apeisiv." is emphatic, <br /><br />and means: "ALL | WILL | go away." just as you <br /><br />would expect if you <br />did the algebra.<br /><br />I have lined the examples up in parallel fashion to emphasise the similarity in the thought pattern. The more common way a Greek would say "All will go away." (without any special emphasis, that is) would be: "pantes apeisin".<br /><br />Now for the obverse of the coin, Greek forms the negative statement "No one will go away" in a manner which English cannot do, but which would be logical if English word order were as unrestricted, for take the statement in parts and consider what occurs in the mind of the listener as it is spoken: <br /><br /> "ouk apeisiv.......<br /><br /> will not go away <br /><br />The English sounds odd, because English demands a subject, which naturally comes before the verb. Greek does not; so the Greek above is natural and the Greek thinker at this point is without the slightest bit of surprise or confusion, in spite of the fact that he may not know who the subject is, because he is accustomed to wait for it. <br /><br />In fact, the only difference between them at this point will be the slight bit of confusion on the part of the Englishman. Both have exactly the same information, and unless the Greek already knew about whom the speaker was talking, both the Greek and the Englishman here will ask the same question. Namely, "tis;" for the one, and "who?" for the other. And what answer would he receive in either case? [think before you look!]<br /><br /> In Greek his answer will be "oudeis". He already understands "ouk apeisin", and so for the Englishman "no one" is the answer as well. He already had in his mind the notion that someone or something was not going to depart.<br /><br /><br /> -------- ouk apeisiv | oudeis.<br /><br /> no one | will depart. ----------<br /><br /><br />I know this has been long but I'd like to hear from those of you who made it this far whether you found this a useful exercise.<br /><br />yours sincerely,<br /><br />J. Sebastian Pagani<br />

[annis]

[quote author=Elucubrator link=board=2;threadid=49;start=0#174 date=1050730739]<br />William! You have Curtius's Grammar! ::) I have a photocopied version of the Spanish translation of Curtius that I obtained long ago in the Argentine. Yes, an ancient thing. But still it is really nice. <br />[/quote]<br /><br />I even forget where I found the thing. Certainly at a used bookstore, but I've had it so long now that I can't recall.<br /><br />One funny thing I've noticed having these older grammars about is that people always seem to use the same words in paradigms. For example, the labial consonant declension is almost always given with 'phleps' "vein" as the example, which I think is just strange. <br /><br />[quote author=Elucubrator link=board=2;threadid=49;start=0#174 date=1050730739]<br />Before I write any examples about this double negative stuff. I want to ask what all the funny parentheses are doing in e.g. a)lla ou)demia naus e)rxetai and other posts. Do you guys see these somehow in Greek text? or is it that somehow you understand the symbologicalismigalisation that these represent???<br />[/quote]<br /><br />That is Betacode. ) = smooth breathing, ( = rough breathing. Diacritics come after their letters. So, taking '=' to make the circumflex: 'ei)=' is "you are." <br /><br />

[Elucubrator]

It's always helpful to know about the "phlebes" and the "phreves" before approaching Hippocrates. ;D<br /><br />I like the word *gyps, gypos* vulture. It's given there but not as one of the paradigms. I think they are trying to pick not only words with different stem types, but also of different accentual patterns for their paradigms. Thus, *gyps* doesn't make it into the paradigms, because <br />*phleps* already represents the monosyllabic third declension noun.<br /><br />What edition of Curtius's grammar have you got? Mine was 1941 I think. I was going to send the photocopies to Jeff, but then I realised it wasn't yet in the public domain.<br /><br />take care,<br />-S.<br /><br />

[annis]

[quote author=Elucubrator link=board=2;threadid=49;start=0#228 date=1051127587]<br />What edition of Curtius's grammar have you got? Mine was 1941 I think. I was going to send the photocopies to Jeff, but then I realised it wasn't yet in the public domain.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />1941?! Mine is 1878, with an ex libris in beautiful handwriting dating its first purchase to August 26, 1879 in North Carolina.<br /><br />I don't think it'd survive a photocopying, or I'd do so and send it to Jeff. Hmm. Some pages are starting to fall out. Perhaps it should be preserved via textkit anyway. Jeff, you want another greek grammar?<br />

[Elucubrator]

I actually have some photocopies of some old Greek Verse Composition books that I'll be sending Jeff in the near future. Look out for those.

[annis]

[quote author=Elucubrator link=board=2;threadid=49;start=0#234 date=1051136038]<br />I actually have some photocopies of some old Greek Verse Composition books that I'll be sending Jeff in the near future. Look out for those. <br />[/quote]<br /><br />Ooh! Who's the author? I found a Sidgwick and Morice at our library, but that is from 1954 -- the original plates being destroyed by Nazi bombing.<br />

[Elucubrator]

Alas! My Sidgwick and Morice is the 19th impression 1941. I guess it was bombed after that.<br /><br />But I have two other good ones:<br /><br />(1) Damon, a manual of Greek iambic composition,<br /> Williams, and Rouse 1906. (this is such a beautiful and fun little book <br /> that it merits my posting some snippets from the introduction, which <br /> I'll include in the next post. <br /><br />(2) The answer key to all of the exercises in the above.<br /><br />(3) Demonstrations in Greek iambic verse<br /> W.H.D. Rouse 1899<br /><br />-S.

[Elucubrator]

From the introduction:<br /><br /> INTRODUCTION <br /><br />A mastery of the Greek iambic metre is not attained till such time as the pupil can cheerfully acknowledge that a Times leader or the enunciation of a proposition of Euclid is as easily to be transposed into that form as any dialogue of Shakespeare or masque of Milton. [snip snip]<br /><br />[2 pages later]<br /><br />The pupil has only to do what he is told. What he is told to do is,--to find certain words of certain metrical form, and when he has found them, to put them in the part of the line indicated.<br /> If he honestly adopts this system, and does what he is told, and no other thing whatsoever, but only if he does this, he will be able, however unpoetical in disposition, to convert any English into fair iambics after arriving at the end of these few exercises.<br /><br />[snip]<br /><br /><br />As you may already gather, this is a very fun book. ;D<br /><br /><br />-Sebastian

[Jeff Tirey]

yeppers! I'll convert it to PDF.