μηποτε ουδε τα αλλα φαντασματα νοηματα εισι
I am unsure about the accumulation of negatives.
Is ουδε a compound negative ?
I see in a section of Smyth that ουδε, ουτε, μηδε, μητε are compound, but I’m still not sure.
And someone please tell me how to imput the aspirant (like ho, ha) in this site.
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tayl0010/polytonic-greek-inputter.html
Clicked on ‘keyboard help’:
- ( rough breathing, ) smooth breathing, + diaeresis, _ macron, - breve
- / acute, \ grave, = circumflex
- | iota subscript
and punctuation with ?, :, <<, >>, ``, ’ ', comma comma, space right-bracket
Hi, Skimir.
I saw it, but I didn’t understand it.
hi junya, for ὁ type “o(”, and so on. cheers, chad
oh, thank you, chad.
I am unsure about the accumulation of negatives.
Is ουδε a compound negative ?
I see in a section of Smyth that ουδε, ουτε, μηδε, μητε are compound, but I’m still not sure.
Smyth #827 defines a compound word as a word formed from two or more stems. So μη + δε is a compound, μη + τε, …
This is not to be confused with double negatives which Smyth calls an accumulation of negatives.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Hi, mr. Bartholomew.
By “I am unsure about the accumulation of negatives”, I meant me^pote oude in that quotation.
If oude is a compound negative, then this oude is just confirming the negation.
If oude is treated not as a compound negative but as a simple negative, then this me^pote oude is an affirmative.
If oude is a compound negative, then this oude is just confirming the negation.
If oude is treated not as a compound negative but as a simple negative, then this me^pote oude is an affirmative.
Junya,
Smyth’s treatment of negative accumulation (#2760-#2762) is concise and more lucid than Guy Cooper (vol. 2, 67.11.1-14) and they don’t agree at all points. According to Copper’s “general rule” for “double negatives” (which make an affirmation) “… this occurs with complete clarity only when a compound negative of substantive meaning is followed by a simple (uncompounded) negative.” (v. 2, #67.11.2 p1121) Cooper then goes on to qualify this by noting that some simple negatives actually function like compounds of substantive meaning, for example OUC ESTIN hOSTIS which is equivalent to OUDEIS ESTI. Cooper has numerous subtle qualifications (goes on for pages and pages).
So it would appear that the text you quote doesn’t qualify for “double negative” status. MHPOTE and OUDE are both compounds and MHPOTE is not a substantive.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Though I don’t tell you whence the quoted sentence was (for, it might be a bother for you to read the full context),
I saw in the dictionary me^pote has a meaning as a conjunction, lest ever, then I wondered how this kind of accumulation of negatives (me^pote oude as lest…not) should work. (I think, after the words meaning lest, oude would be just pleonastic.)
How do you think about that ?
Do you need the context ?
μηποτε ουδε τα αλλα φαντασματα νοηματα εισι
Junya,
I have the context, see if I can post it here for others to read:
p. 432a13 <Ἢ οὐδὲ τὰ ἄλλα φαντάσματα, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἄνευ φαντα-
σμάτων.>
Ταῦτα τὰ ῥητὰ ἀνατροπή ἐστι τῆς τρίτης συνηγορίας. τρεῖς γὰρ
εἰπὼν συνηγορίας τὴν τρίτην μόνην ἀνατρέπει λέγων ‘μήποτε οὐδὲ τὰ ἄλλα
15.569.29
φαντάσματα νοήματά εἰσι’. ποῖα δὲ λέγει τὰ νοήματα; ἃ εἴπομεν ἁπλᾶ
15.569.30
εἶναι καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐοικέναι τῇ φαντασίᾳ. <ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἄνευ>, φησί, <φαντα-
σμάτων>, τουτέστιν ἀλλ’ οὐ χωρίς εἰσι φαντασίας· ὥστε διὰ φαντασίας
15.570.1
γίνονται τὰ νοήματα, οὐ μὴν ταὐτόν ἐστι φαντασία καὶ νοῦς. πλὴν ὅμως,
φησίν, ἡνίκα τὰ πρῶτα νοήματα νοῇ, οὐ κέχρηται ὀργάνῳ τῇ φαντασίᾳ,
ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν δευτέρων καὶ τρίτων κέχρηται. ἀλλ’ οὖν οὐ ταὐτόν ἐστι φάν-
τασμα καὶ νόημα· τὸ μὲν γὰρ φάντασμα ἔνυλόν πώς ἐστι, τὸ δὲ νόημα
15.570.5
ἄυλον. ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι ἐν τῇ θεωρίᾳ καὶ ἄλλα τινὰ ἐκινήσαμεν, ἀλλ’ ἐπειδὴ
ἐπιπολαίως αὐτὰ ἐθεωρήσαμεν, ἔδοξεν ἄνωθεν ἀναλαβεῖν τὸν λόγον· παλιν-
δρομεῖν γὰρ κρεῖττον ἢ παρελθεῖν τι. ἐν οἷς ἡ πρᾶξις σὺν θεῷ
πληροῦται.
The TlG citation:
Joannes Philoponus Phil., In Aristotelis libros de anima commentaria (4015: 008)
“Ioannis Philoponi in Aristotelis de anima libros commentaria”, Ed. Hayduck, M.
Berlin: Reimer, 1897; Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 15.
Volume 15, page 569, line 29
I am looking it over and will try to address your question later. CSB
Junya,
This is not an easy task. μήποτε οὐδὲ appears to be an idiom of later greek. μήποτε alone or followed by other negative particles, for example μήποτε οὐ μὴ can be understood as suggesting contingency “perhaps” which we can see in Matthew 25:9
Matt. 25:9 ἀπεκρίθησαν δὲ αἱ φρόνιμοι λέγουσαι· μήποτε οὐ μὴ ἀρκέσῃ ἡμῖν καὶ ὑμῖν· πορεύεσθε μᾶλλον πρὸς τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράσατε ἑαυταῖς.
Matt. 25:9 But the wise replied, ‘Perhaps there will not be enough for us and for you; go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.’
Another example from Origen’s Commentary on Matthew
Origenes Theol., Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei (lib. 10–11) (2042: 029)
“Origène. Commentaire sur l’évangile selon Matthieu, vol. 1”, Ed. Girod, R.
Paris: Cerf, 1970; Sources chrétiennes 162.
Book 10, section 4, line 9
Τὰς μὲν προτέρας παραβολὰς τοῖς ὄχλοις εἶπε· ταύτην
δὲ καὶ τὰς ἑξῆς αὐτῆς δύο, οὐ παραβολὰς ἀλλ’ ὁμοιώσεις
πρὸς τὴν τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλείαν τυγχανούσας, ἔοικεν ἐν τῇ
οἰκίᾳ γενόμενος πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς εἰρηκέναι· περὶ ἧς ὁ
προσέχων τῇ ἀναγνώσει ἐξεταζέτω καὶ τῶν ἑξῆς δύο μήποτε
οὐδὲ παραβολαί εἰσιν· ἐπ’ ἐκείνων μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὤκνησεν
ἡ γραφὴ καθ’ ἑκάστην προτάσσειν τὸ ὄνομα τῆς παραβολῆς,
ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων τὸ αὐτὸ οὐ πεποίηκεν.
The former parables He spoke to the multitudes; but this and the two which follow it, which are not parables but similitudes in relation to the kingdom of heaven, He seems to have spoken to the disciples when in the house. In regard to this and the next two, let him who gives heed to reading 1 Timothy 4:13 inquire whether they are parables at all. In the case of the latter the Scripture does not hesitate to attach in each case the name of parable; but in the present case it has not done so;
Clearly we are not dealing with “double negatives” here and it appears to be something more subtle than empathic negation. Situating your text in the history of the language is a project somewhat beyond my scope. Thank you for raising an interesting question.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
I’m sorry for giving you such a bother.
But you seem to have maden it a profit to your study.
Thank you.
The me^pote oude in your quotation from Origen means whether ?
Anyway, the definitions LSJ gives to me^pote are too concise.
I check it up in Smyth tonight, and then I may give you another question if anything doesn’t become clearer by Smyth.
A small question before I check up **me^**and me^pote further.
Can me^pote oude be identified with me^ ou ?
Junya,
For Origen, I looked at Lampe (Patristic Greek Lexicon) under μήποτε def. 2.a conjunction “whether” he cites Origen and others.
LSJ (old edition bundled with Diogenes)
…in later Gr., perhaps, Arist.EN1172a33, LXX Ge.24.5, Aristeas 15, Ph.1.13, Arr.Epict.3.22.80, Plu.2.106d, A.D.Pron.18.4.
as Conj., lest ever, αἰσχυνόμενοι φάτιν ἀνδρῶν . . , μή ποτέ τις εἴπῃσι Od.21.324, al.; οὐδαμὰ ἐλπίσας μή κοτε ἄρα . . ἐλάσῃ Hdt.1.77, cf. 8.53.
CSB
A small question before I check up **me^**and me^pote further.
Can me^pote oude be identified with me^ ou ?
(Should I post this question as another sled ?)
Junya,
For the idioms incorporating μὴ οὐ you should consult Smyth’s Greek index page 772 under μὴ (6) μὴ οὐ.
I don’t see much (if any) overlap with μήποτε.
CSB
Thank you.
From today I see Smyth for this problem.
If that doesn’t help me, please let me ask you again.
Mr. Bartholomew,
having looked over all the suspectable articles (of me^ and me^ ou) in Smyth,
this me^pote seems now to me to be “perhaps”, as you first proposed.
By the way, I’m unsure about the English in this sample sentence in Smyth. (The section number I don’t give, because my Smyth seems to be a diffferent version than yours.)
hora^te me^ ouk emoi prose^kei logon dounai
have a care lest it does not beseem me to give an account
Is this not just an emphasis and capable of omitting ?
I have posted this question to a couple of Q&A sites, but even the English experts were unsure.
Junya,
You appear to be quoting from an early version of Smyth (1916?) whereas I am using the Harvard revised version of the 1920 ed, c. 1956. The Perseus digitized Smyth has cross references to the 1920 edition. Thats how I found your citation which is #2233 in 1920/1956 Smyth.
The english rendering is very archaic.
have a care lest it does not beseem me to give an account
Yes “not” is redundant but perhaps included to mirror the double negative μὴ οὐκ.
This english is not idiomatic even for hundreds of years ago.
A rough contemporary version might be:
ὁρᾶτε μὴ οὐκ ἐμοὶ . . . προσήκει λόγον δοῦναι And. 1.103
See to it that I don’t get stuck with giving an account.
Here μὴ οὐκ ἐμοὶ is rendered by “that I don’t”, someone else could give a better rendering. μὴ οὐκ introduces a subordinate clause “I get stuck with giving an account.” There is no need to use a double negative in English, it would just confuse matters.
How the negative expression μὴ οὐ is understood in a particular citation is entirely dependent on the surrounding text. There is no general answer to the question what does μὴ οὐ mean or how is μὴ οὐ used.
I rewrote this post several times because I am struggling with the metalanguage used in the standard school grammars. I don’t use traditional metalanguage in my own work, but to talk in the public arena one is compelled to adopt a lingo which has a history of general use in the field of Classical Languages. I am trying to just avoid using technical terms that would raise all kinds of endless discussion and confusion.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
I’m sorry. I have made you labor. But your explanation is very clear and I now understand the matter.
The reason the experts of English in the Q&A sites weren’t sure about this lest…not construction
might be that this construction was put into English from Greek, and used only in the texts of Greek-influenced literature, like translations from Greek, like bible.