From: Moon-Ryul Jung (moon@saint.soongsil.ac.kr)
Date: Wed Feb 21 2001 - 03:09:31 EST
Dear Iver,
good work as usual!
I hope you have read my post on this thread before you read my comments
on your post.
> 2) Not Noun Verb
> Mt 7:9 MH LIQON EPIDWSEI AUTWi
> he will not give him a stone, will he? (contrast to giving bread)
> Jn 6:32 OU MWUSHS DEDWKEN hUMIN TON ARTON EK TOU OURANOU, ALLA hO PATHR MOU
> DIDWSIN...
> Moses gave you the bread from heaven, didn't he? But my Father is (now) giving
> you the true bread form heaven. (contrast between Moses and the Father, rather
> than giving vs not-giving)
> Jn 7:19 OU MWUSHS DEDWKEN hUMIN TON NOMON
> Moses gave you the law, didn't he? (Even though it was the great Moses, they
> don't keep it)
> Jn 10:21 TAUTA TA hRHMATA OUK ESTIN DAIMONIZOMENOU. MH DAIMONION DUNATAI TUFLWN
> OFQALMOUS ANOIXAI;
> these words are not from a demonised one. A demon cannot open a blind man's
> eyes, can it? (Here Jesus is contrasted to a demon. The second sentence is the
> Not N V)
>
> My suggestion is that when the noun is negated like in these cases, there is a
> contrast or a focus on the noun, rather than the verbal idea. It is the noun
> that is negated, not the verb.
>
[Moon]
As I tried to explain in my previous post, what is negated is the focus of
the sentence. Or the scope of the negative particle is the focus of the
sentence. But it is not exactly correct to say so, though the intention is
fine. When we say that what is negated is the focus of the sentence, what
it
really means is:
the relation between the focus of the sentence and the predicate
is negated that is obtained by replacing the focus of the sentence
by a variable.
(Please see my previous post for the detailed explanation)
Nouns, whose purpose is to refer to something, cannot
be negated by nature. But what is negated is not the bare proposition,
but the "focused proposition", that is, the relation between
the focus of the sentence and the presupposed open sentence underlying the
sentence. I think you meant the same thing when you said:
"what is negated is the noun, not the verb."
But for Carl and others, who thinks OU basically negates the whole
proposition, we need to be more precise. What he argues
is not incorrect but not sufficiently precise. What is negated
is not the bare proposition but the "focused proposition" as I defined it
above.
> 4) Verb NOT Noun - does not exist in the GNT as far as I can tell.
>
> My assumption for the lack of 4) is that if the noun is to be negated at all,
> then it is so prominent that it must come before the verb.
I agree. It can be explained in other words, that is, by
the fact that what is negated is the focus of the
sentence. In this case, Noun is not likely to be the focus because of its
position. But when the speaker stresses Noun, it can function as the focus
and the above order may be OK. But in the case written document, the word
order would be used to indicate the focus especially in languages with
free word order like Greek.
What do you think?
Moon
Moon-Ryul Jung
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:51 EDT