Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Nov 17, 2007 8:01 PM, Bryant J. Williams III wrote:

> Dear Yitzhak,
>
> 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.)."*** (Emphasis mine)

Rereading the text, I agree with this reading.  I still think that a
reading "without which"
is entirely foreign and can be explained only on the basis of some
foreign influence.
However, this is not necessary and this reading is better.  I do think
there is a double
negative here.

Yitzhak Sapir