Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Bryant:

On 11/3/07, Bryant J. Williams III <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net> wrote:
> Dear Martin and Karl,
>
> I should have reference Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, page 483, Para. 152y, #2. 
> It
> states the following:
>
> "2.    Two negatives in the same sentence do not neutralize each other (as 
> in
> 'nonulli, non nemo'), but make the negation more emphatic (like 'OUK 
> OUDEIS, OUK
> OUDAMWS, 'NULLI-NON, NEMO NON'); E.G. zP 2:2 (if the text is correct) This
> especially applies to the compounds formed by the union of )ayN, BeLI with 
> MiN-,
> without (para. 119y), e.g. Is 5:9; (6:11 ) (Jer. 2:15,) prop. without no
> inhabitant, i.e. so that no inhabitant is left there. On the other hand, in 
> Is
> 50:2 is causative; as also Ex 14:11; 2 K 1:2, 6, 16. In Ec 3:11 except that 
> (yet
> so that man cannot, &c.)."

Isaiah 5:9 doesn't have a double negative, nor 6:11: these are two
different things listed, both in the negative. Exodus 14:11, 2 Kings
1:2, 6, 16 are double negatives.

Are there any double negatives (other than the claimed Ecclesiastes
3:11) separated by an )$R where the meaning is clear that a
strengthened negative is meant?

(I don't kiss the ground where Gesenius trod, so citing him may not
impress me. He was quite thorough, but at times wrong.)

> I would also refer you to BAGD, 2nd Edition, pp. 576-577, which gives a good
> description of the use of hOPWS MH in section 2 and 2a references
> Blass-DeBrunner, paragraph 369 and Robertson, 985-87.
>     "a. to indicate purpose (in order that, neg. hP. MH in order that...not"
> (Bl-D, para. 369; Rob. 985-7).
> Thus, the LXX reads, hOPWS MH EURNi... This appears to indicate that the
> translator of Ecclesiastes 3:11 is giving the exact equivalent of the 
> Hebrew.
>
Or did the translator misunderstand this verse?

> Now, regarding )asher, see Gesenius, paragraph 138, The Relative Pronoun
> especially sub-section "a."
>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
>
Karl W. Randolph.