negation and polarity in the greek , gothic , classical armenian , and old church slavic gospels : a preliminary study

This paper presents a preliminary analysis of the comparative syntax of negation in the Greek gospels as well as the Gothic, Classical Armenian, and Old Church Slavic versions translated from the Greek. In addition to the issue of negation per se, I will examine the employment of negative polarity items that occur in the various clause types we will investigate.

The first step which must be taken in the consummation of this project is the accumulation of a body of comparative data.Currently no quadrilateral discussion of this material exists in the scholarly literature, aside from the works of Cuendet and Thomason previously noted.The data for such a discussion must therefore be wrung from the texts themselves.Once this material has been gathered and categorized, real syntactic analysis can begin.Pursuant to this goal, I will present here a preliminary study of the comparative syntax of negation and the related issue of negative polarity items.Its modest goal is to expose the comparative facts descriptively and venture a few preliminary analyses across a range of construction types, focusing especially on the formal exponents of these, including modality.With regard to the associated issue of negative polarity, this is not the place to expatiate upon this topic, on which a substantial literature now exists (cf.inter alios Fauconnier 1975, Ladusaw 1980, Horn 1989, Zwarts 1995).In this paper we will understand negative polarity items to refer to certain pronominal or adverbial elements that occur in negative contexts, including items translatable in English as 'nobody, never, nothing,' etc.For an in-depth study of negative polarity in the Classical Armenian gospel text cf.Klein 1997.The corpus on which this analysis is based encompasses the Gospels of Matthew 1:1-11:25 and Mark, chapters 1-9 or just under 20% of the Gospel text in its entirety.For the Greek text, I have used the 26th edition of Nestle & Aland (1979), for Gothic the sixth edition of Streitberg's Gotische Bibel (1971), and for Old Church Slavic Jagič's edition of the 11th century Codex Marianus (1960) with occasional variant readings taken from his edition of the Codex Zographensis (late 10th/early 11th century) (1954).For Classical Armenian I have used Künzle's critical edition of the 10th century Ēǰmiacin manuscript (1984).The Armenian and Old Church Slavic texts are complete for the parts I have studied for this paper, although Jagič was forced to [1] See http://foni.uio.no:3000.
OSLa volume 3(3), 2011 negation and polarity [133] use the 13th century Dečani tetraevangelium to provide the text of Matthew 1:1-5:24, which is lacking in both the Marianus and the Zographensis; but the Gothic text is lacking for Mt 1:1-5:15 with brief lacunae between 6:32-7:12 and again between 10:1-23.In Mark as well Gothic lacks 6:31-54.I have broken down the negation into eleven or so categories representing for the most part different clause types with special consideration given to various negative polarity markers.
[3] e x p o n e n t s o f n e gat i o n a n d p o l a r i t y Before presenting the comparative data, we begin by enregistering the basic exponents of negation and polarity in the four languages we are investigating, followed by an overview of their systems of modality and expression of futurity.These are features which will characterize all the passages which we shall subsequently cite and discuss.
The basic exponents of negation in the four languages are as follows: (1) ou(k); modal mḗ ; sequential oúte, oudé; mḗte, mēdé [Gk] ni; sequential nih [Goth] oč'; modal mi [Arm] ne; sequential ni [OCS] While Greek and Classical Armenian retain the Indo-European distinction of indicative and modal negation, Gothic and Old Church Slavic employ a single form in both indicative and modal clauses. 2 In the case of sequential negation only Classical Armenian shows no univerbated form but simply employs ew 'and' plus the relevant negation.
We next list the basic negative polarity items found in our corpus.The most striking of these is the Armenian set, where a series in -k' is opposed to a positive polarity series in -mn (oč' ok' 'nobody' vs. mi omn 'a certain one, somebody').The relationship between these two is exactly like that of English any vs. some (cf.Klein 1997).Only Slavic, as we shall see, shows a pure negation ne in certain non-overtlynegative classical negative polarity contexts: (2) -5 -6 1 The optative is moribund and is not represented in our subcorpus. 2Etymologically optative. 3Etymologically optative. 4Present indicative serves as future. 5Subjunctive serves as future. 6Perfective present serves as future; periphrastic future with imati 'have' + infinitive.
table 1: Modal categories Finally, we note that although New Testament Greek, Classical Armenian, and Gothic all possess a subjunctive beside an indicative and imperative, OCS lacks this third modal category.NT Greek of course still employs the optative in reduced measure compared to its classical counterpart; but no examples of this mood occur in the negative clauses in our subcorpus.Although the Gothic subjunctive is etymologically an optative, we shall refer to it in this paper as a subjunctive.Of the four languages only Greek possesses a grammatical category called "future tense".In Gothic the present indicative is capable of signaling future value, and the same is true of the perfective present in OCS.In Classical Armenian the subjunctive, in addition to signaling a range of values normally associated with this mood, signals the future as well.These facts are synopsized in Table 1.

[3.1] Simple negative statement
We turn now to the various contexts of negation in comparative perspective.The first of these is the simple negative statement showing nonmodal negation + indicative mood in all four languages (3a).In the case of a future statement (3b) Greek juxtaposes the indicative and modal negations ou and mḗ and uses the subjunctive mood.Gothic responds with a present in future value and Armenian with oč' + subjunctive qua future.In OCS the periphrastic verb imati + infinitive here signals future value: negation and polarity [135] (3) a. Mt 6:24 'You cannot serve God and mammon' Example (3b) follows a negative conditional clause ('if/unless your justice is greater than [that] of the scribes and Pharisees') and only Gothic is sensitive to the apodotic nature of the context, employing its apodotic particle þau 'then'.
Turning now to some typical negative polarity contexts, we find instances involving the meanings 'nobody, nothing, no longer, and never', together with combinations of these.Examples are seen in ( 4a)-( 4g The greatest degree of variation here is seen in Gothic.Most basic is (4a), where Gk. oudeís 'nobody' corresponds to Goth.ni manna, Arm.oč' ok', and OCS nikŭtože.Notice here the OCS usage of a genitive object, vina nova, in a negative clause, as well as the double negative, nikŭtože ne, seen in none of the other languages.Other Gothic options for this value include ni mannahun (4b) and ni ƕashun (4c).The contrast of (4b) and (4c) in OCS (niktože vs. niktože…ne) suggests that the double negative does not appear with the present tense of the verb byti, at least when the latter follows the negation.Another interesting feature of OCS seen here is that this language alone of the four we are investigating possesses no compositional negation or privative prefix but employs its independent negation ne in the phrase ne bělena 'unfulled' as opposed to Gk. agnáphou and Armenian ant'ap'.Gothic here uses a separate lexical item þarihs.In the meaning 'nothing' (4d) Gk. oudén corresponds to Goth.ni wait, Arm.oč' inč', and OCS ničtože, again with single negation and present tense of byti.For 'never' Gk. oudépote shows two Gothic correspondences: ni ƕanhun (4e) and ni aiw (4f).In both instances Arm. has oč' erbek' and OCS nikoliže.Finally, the double negative polarity combination 'no longer anybody' is seen in (4g), where Gk. oukéti oudéna goes with Goth.ni þanaseiþs ainohun, Arm.oč' ews zok' owrek' and negation and polarity [137] OCS nikogože ne.Here Armenian shows yet a third negative polarity item, the local owrek' 'anywhere' not found in the other texts, whereas OCS of the Marianus, which again shows a double negative, does not capture the oukéti 'no longer' of Greek.(It is, however, captured by kŭ tomu in the Zographensis.) The second clause type we shall investigate consists of negative commands.Here Greek shows both mḗ + impv.and mḗ + aor.subj. in simple commands as well as a separate category, often called "Gesetzessprache" in which Greek renders biblical commands from the Hebrew Bible via ou + future.The reason for this is that Biblical Hebrew employs the imperfect tense in these instances, and one usage of the Hebrew imperfect is future, the value which this verbal category assumes in all later stages of the language, including the Rabbinical Hebrew contemporaneous with the Greek NT.Since Hebrew employs its nonmodal negation in these constructions (lo' rather than 'al ), Greek responds with ou rather than mḗ in these instances.In simple negative commands Gothic employs ni with either the subjunctive or the imperative, Armenian responds with mi + either subjunctive or imperative, and OCS generally shows ne + impv: (5) a. Mt 6.16 'Don't be like the hypocrites, of sad countenance' mḕ gínesthe hṓsper hoi hupokritaì skuthrōpoí [Gk] ni wairþiþ swaswe þai liutans gaurai [Goth] mi linik' ibrew zkełcaworsn trtmealk' [Arm] ne bǫděte ěko i hüpokriti (Zog: sětujǫšte) [OCS] b.Mt 6.13 'And do not lead us into temptation' kaì mḕ eisenégkēis hēmâs eis peirasmón Examples (5a) and (5b) show, respectively, an imperative and a subjunctive in Greek, and in each instance Armenian and OCS show imperatives.Gothic, however, apes the Greek mood in each case.In (5c), where Greek shows a subjunctive, Armenian shows a subjunctive as well.In this case the Gothic ogeiþ is a preterite present and therefore shows no opposition between subjunctive and imperative.In (5d) OCS shows da ne + indicative, even though OCS possesses a third person imperative, while Armenian must respond with a subjunctive because it lacks a third person imperative; and again the Gothic preterite present admits only a subjunctive qua imperative.An example of Gesetzessprache is seen in ( 5e).Here the pres.ind. is to be understood as a future in OCS; but the Armenian subjunctive must be modal because of its negation.In Gothic the present subjunctive is regularly employed in this usage category.
Polarity items within negative commands are seen in ( 6a)-( 6b The difference between (11a) and (11b) on the Armenian and OCS level is that both languages are in the second instance sensitive to the polarity value 'ever' (pote) in Gk. mḗpote (Arm.erbek', OCS kogda).This is captured in both passages by the ƕan of Gothic.Armenian gowc'ē of (11a) is the relexicalized 3rd pers.sg.subjunctive of the verb of existence gol, lit.'it may be, perhaps'.Gothic ibai, too, may originally have meant 'it may be so' (on which more below).
[3.5] Negative result clauses Negative result clauses show Gk.hṓste mḗ + infinitive matched by Goth.swaswe ni + ind., Arm.orpēs zi (o)č' + ind., and OCS ěko ne + ind.Cf. (12a), which also presents the polarity item 'anyone' and a double negation in OCS (ne…niktože).The polarity context 'no longer' is seen in ( 12b), where Gothic presents the item juþan not yet seen in any passages so far cited.Here the sense of Armenian minč' is something on the order of 'to the point that': ( It seems quite likely that the Gothic subordinators jabai and nibai/niba represent remnants of a thematized present optative of the 'be'-verb (PIE *bhuH 2 ) in the earliest Germanic 4 with the original values 'and it be', 'it not be', respectively, with perhaps prosodic-based shortening in niba.The third of these passages follows a positive statement of the exact same condition with inverse result, and Gk.dé, Goth.iþ, and OCS li mark the nexus with the preceding material.In two other passages the negative condition follows a question or a positive universal statement where its value can be captured by English 'except'.In these instances Armenian shows either et'e oč' or bayc' et'e, respectively, 'if not' or 'but if '.In both instances OCS responds with tŭkŭmo 'only, except': [4] That is, to the same stem (probably *bhw[-e-]) that appears as the base of the Latin future and imperfect in -bit and -bat, respectively.The difficulties in these passages lie in the relationship between their underlying semantic structures and their formal expressions in Greek.In (15a) the preceding clause says 'Nobody sews a patch of unfulled cloth upon an old garment'.The expected continuation of this would be 'for if one does, the new takes the fullness from the old'.However, the first clause may be underlyingly analyzed as possessing two predicates: a higher predicate 'It is not the case that X' and a lower predicate 'somebody sews a patch of unfulled cloth, etc.' The Greek ei dè mḗ 'and if not' negates the higher predicate, producing a double negative ('If it is not not the case that X') and leaving the lower predicate unaffected.This structure is calqued by both Classical Armenian and OCS (the latter, however, with alternative conjunction li); but Gothic responds in its own idiomatic fashion by assuming the truth of the lower predicate via ibai 'it be so' (originally the affirmative antonym of nibai 'it not be').
OSLa volume 3(3), 2011 [144] jared s. klein In (15b) as well there are two predicates: higher 'Be careful to X' and lower 'you do not perform your almsgiving…' Here again Greek negates the higher predicate ('If it is not the case that you are careful').But in this instance Gothic too denies the higher predicate, not through negation but implicitly through the use of an alternative conjunction 'or' (aiþþau). 5OCS treats this passage just as it does (15a); but the Armenian of (15b) behaves exactly like the Gothic of (15a), assuming the truth of the lower predicate.In fact, the Armenian of (15b) and the Gothic of (15a) constitute an exact match in every regard but etymologically.We have already stated our view that the -bai of Gothic ibai represents an etymological thematic optative to *bhuH 2 , and we may here add that the initial i-, a proximal deictic in Indo-European terms, must represent a particle of assertion 'thus, so'.Armenian gowc'ē is likewise a subjunctive of a verb of existence, here gol 'be', PIE *H 2 wes 'spend the night, dwell', cf.Gothic wisan 'be'.Its original value is therefore 'it be (so)', just like that of Gothic ibai.
[3.7] Negative causal clauses Negative causal clauses are seen in ( 16a)-( 16d These clauses seem to present a scale of strength from strongly to weakly causal, and all languages but Classical Armenian appear to be sensitive to this distinction.Clearly strongest is the type seen in ( 16a), where Gk. dià tò mḗ + inf.corresponds to Goth.unte ni + ind., Arm.zi oč' + ind., and OCS zane ne + ind.The Greek, Gothic, and OCS subordinating conjunctions just noted are the strongest causal conjunctions in their respective languages, and this strength is pragmatically indicated as well by the fronting of cause before result.Less strong is the causal value of (16b), where both Gk.hóti ou + ind.and OCS with ěko ne + ind.are sensitive to this gradation, but not Gothic and Armenian.Weakest of all is the causal value of Gk. ou gár + ind.seen in ( 16c) and (16d).The first of these passages, which shows an indirect question as the complement of the verb 'know', is preceded by the episode of the transfiguration of Jesus, after which Peter proposes to make booths for Jesus, Elijah, and Moses.None of the versions follow the text presented by Nestle-Aland, but Gothic and Armenian seem to preserve the reading elálei of θ, etc. and OCS the reading lalḗsei of A, D, etc., less likely laleî of W, etc.The second example follows Jesus' adjuration to the disciples to go and learn the meaning of the biblical statement "I desire mercy and not sacrifice"; and in fact the parallel pericopes in Mark and Luke show no causal conjunction here at all.The weaker causal nexus of these passages is picked up by the Gothic and OCS translators.Gothic shows ni auk + ind.and niþ-þan + ind., the second of which is not causal but merely conjunctive.Similarly, OCS captures the Gk.gár by its own fairly weak conjunction bo.Peculiar is Classical Armenian, where k'anzi seen in ( 16c) is in fact the strongest causal conjunction in the language.
[3.8] Negative relative clauses Passages involving negative relative clauses are seen in ( 17a)-( 17d These passages show some subtleties in Greek depending on the degree of indefiniteness of the relative clause; and these are often not reflected in the translations.Thus, (17a) and (17b) differ in Greek in the fact that the first shows relative pronoun + ou + fut.and the second relative pronoun + eàn mḗ + subj.Presumably, the latter is to be understood as less definite than the former, an inference that is echoed also by a detail: in the first passage Greek shows the orthotonic oudén 'nothing' in the opening clause, while in the second it has the enclitic ti in the first clause.A hypothesis that immediately presents itself is that the enclitic signals a more indefinite value than the orthotonic.But Gothic alone of the translation languages is sensitive to this, opposing indefinite pronominal ƕa to nominal waiht.OCS here shows an interesting variation between (17a) and (17b) which may turn out to be significant: in (17a) ničtože precedes the copula without an independent negation, as seen earlier; but in (17b) ničŭtože follows the present tense of byti in existential value, and an independent negation is soddered onto the verb in the form něstŭ.The difference appears to be like that of English 'nothing is' but 'there is not anything'.But (4c) cited earlier had niktože bo estŭ in the value 'there is nobody', so we may be dealing with a syntactic feature related solely to the position of estŭ relative to the negative universal.Note that Gk. eàn in (17b) is not the same item as the conditional particle seen in ( 13), but is a substitute for án, as frequently in the NT.The Armenian translator alone feels obliged to capture this with t'e, a less frequent variant of its own conditional particle et'e.Related to these passages is (17c), which shows the typical Greek apparatus for signaling future negation (ou mḗ + subj.), here within a "qualifying" relative clause introduced by hoítines and following an indefinite clause.This clause in Greek is equivalent to a prediction and as such is matched by the Gothic present indicative qua future and OCS periphrastic future involving imati + infinitive.But Armenian with its modal negation treats this as falling short of a definite outcome.Here the Gothic þai ize (= izei) seems to be a calque on Gk. hoítines.Finally, (17d) shows the indefinite Greek relative hósoi àn mḗ + subj.The value of hósoi is cap-negation and polarity [147] tured in Gothic by swa managai swe and in OCS by eliko ašte + ind.Armenian, on the other hand, shows a simple headless relative or in indefinite value.We include in this category several passages in which Greek shows mḗ + ppl., but at least two of the translational versions show relative clauses: (18) a. Mt 7.19 'Every tree not producing good fruit is cut down' pân déndron mḕ poioûn karpòn kalòn ekkóptetai [Gk] all bagme ni taujandane akran god usmaitada [Goth] Amenayn car̄or oč' arnē ptowł bari hatani [Arm] vĭsěko drěvo eže ne tvoritŭ ploda dobra.posěkajǫtŭ [OCS] b.Mt 7.21 'Not everyone saying to me, "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven' ou pâs ho légōn moi .kúrie, kúrie, eiseleúsetai eis tḕn basileían tôn ouranôn [Gk] ni ƕazuh saei qiþiþ mis: frauja, frauja!inngaleiþiþ in þiudangardja himine [Goth] Oč' amenayn or asē c'is TR TR mtc'ē yark'ayowt'iwn erknic' [Arm] Ne vĭsěkŭ glagolęi mĭně.gospodi gospodi vĭnidetŭ vŭ cěsarĭstvie nebesĭskoe [OCS] These passages show an interesting scope variation in the universal quantifier 'every/everyone'.In (18a) Gk. pân has broad scope over the negation, and this is matched in the translation languages, of which Armenian and OCS show relative clauses.In (18b) Gk. pâs functions within the negation, and here, too, the translations place their universal quantifier after the negation.This results in a change in the form of negation in Greek and a change in the quantifier in Gothic.
[3.9] Sequential negation We turn now to instances of sequential negation.A wide range of structures is represented, and these can be broken down into nominal, phrasal, and clausal types.Strictly nominal conjoined sequences are seen in ( 19a) and ( 19b [148] jared s. klein In the first of these the archaic Greek sequence oúte N 1 oúte N 2 is matched by Goth.nih N 1 nih N 2 , Arm. oč' N 1 ew oč' N 2 , and OCS ni N 1 ni N 2 .The Gothic sequence represents PIE *ne k w e, with the same enclitic conjunction reflected in Greek te.Classical Armenian has lost this old conjunction and therefore shows its only conjoined negation structure oč'…ew oč'.OCS shows its serial negation ni, ultimately ne + conjunction i, which we have seen in a number of passages already cited.This passage shows pure serial conjunction.The same is not true of (19b), which is implicitly oppositional with its positive/negative component.Here Greek shows the sequence N 1 kaì ou N 2 with orthotonic, static (i.e.non-serial) conjunction; and this is matched by the equivalent orthotonic dyad N 1 jah ni N 2 in Gothic and the invariant sequential ew oč' in Armenian.OCS, on the other hand, captures the implicit nuance of this structure with the oppositional rather than serial a ne.
Phrasal conjunction involving four conjoined prepositional phrases following a negative infinitival clause is seen in ( 20), where Gk. mḗte is iterated across every conjoined member, but Gothic shows the enclitic conjunction only in members 2-4.In the first of these passages Greek shows the structure ou…oudé with the quasienclitic dé which is a vibrantly living conjunction in the NT, whereas te is largely moribund in this text.Gothic responds exactly with its ni…nih, and OCS equivalently with ne…ni.The Armenian rendition is independent with its single negation.This passage is a continuation of (19a) and suggests that perhaps on its way to obsolescence Gk. te was first reduced to nominal conjunctive value.We cite (21b) because of its contrast with (21a) on the Gothic level, showing that the Goths had their own intuitions about where serial negation was appropriate (nih…nih : ou…oudé [b] vs. ni…nih : ou…oudé [a]).
A more complex sequence is the following: ( In this passage Greek shows the structure O 1 ppl 1 ou V 1 kaì O 2 ppl 1 ou V 2 kaì ou V 3 .Gothic exactly follows the Greek here, as does OCS, which therefore does not treat the verbs as serial but rather as three completely independent clauses, hence ne rather than ni.OCS also understands the last part of the structure as a question (note the particle li).Armenian shows multiple variations from the other versions, including the rendition of both participles by finite verbs, the addition of the verb imanal 'understand', and the introduction of the negative polarity item takawin 'yet'. 6 We complete our discussion of sequential negation by citing three passages in which the negation is not straightforwardly sequential, but rather adverbial: [6] The final part of this structure is confusing when presented in isolation from its following verse.The King James Version does indeed treat the last clause as a question.But in Greek it is possible to take the question as continuing into the next verse, in which case the wh-word pósous 'how many?' would have to be understood as posing an indirect question: 'And do you not remember, when I broke the five [pieces of] bread into five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments you picked up?' Nestle-Aland's text punctuates the Greek in precisely this way, as does Streitberg's Gothic text, at least for the stretch 'when I broke…you picked up?' [Streitberg treats jah ni gamunuþ as part of the prior sentence and hence as standing outside the question].But both the Armenian and OCS texts show a full stop after 'five thousand', continuing with a conjunction 'and' followed by a direct wh-word (kani?, koliko).The Armenian text is in any event deficient in not translating Greek éklasa 'I broke'.Consequently, the OCS best captures the pragmatic value of the phrase 'And do you not remember', while going its own way in assessing the relationship between this clause and the indirect question which follows.
[150] jared s. klein In (23a) the second conjunct in Greek shows kaì oudè…oudeís, where oudè is to be understood as adverbial '(not) even'.Hence, the Greek shows a double negation from an English perspective.In OCS this value is captured translationally by ni, while niktože ne mogaaše shows the usual double negation we have learned to expect in these cases.Gothic shows jah ni…mann, ignoring the Greek oudè, and Armenian, instead of repeating ew, the usual way of saying 'even' in this language, employs ews, as if to say 'and nobody was able anymore'.In (23b) and (23c) one finds adverbial negation following a result clause which in the first instance contains negative polarity mēkéti 'no longer'.Here Gk. mēdè tà pròs tḕn thúran is translated in Gothic as nih at daura, in Armenian as ew oč' ar̄drann, and in OCS as ni prědŭ dverĭmi, all of which OSLa volume 3(3), 2011 negation and polarity [151] say 'not even at the door'.Finally, in (23c) the two clauses are not coordinated but rather the first is the protasis of a negative condition and the second is the apodosis.Gk. oudé can be understood as meaning 'neither' here; and to this Gothic rather reacts with ni + the apodotic particle þau signaling resultative 'then' and Armenian with the calque ew oč' , here probably to be understood adverbially as 'also not', as is OCS ni.

[3.10] Minor categories
There remain only three sparsely attested negative categories that we shall now address.The first of these is the bare negative used in a reply (24).Here Gothic alone shows a special negation ne, while OCS employs its serial negator ni.Armenian in this passage shows a special use of its postposed definite article -n in quotative value: (24) Mt 5.37 'Let your word be "aye, aye; nay, nay".' éstō dè ho lógos humôn naí naí, oú oú [Gk] sijaiþ-þan waurd izwar: ja, ja; ne, ne [Goth] Aył ełic'i jer ban .ayon .ayo .ew oč'n .oč' [Arm] bǫdi že slovo vaše ei ei.i ni ni [OCS] Finally, it is well known that both complements of comparatives and clauses of prior circumstance are negative polarity contexts.Cf.English John is smarter than anybody (else) I know or The police apprehended the suspect before he could harm anybody with negative polarity anybody rather than positive somebody.Similarly, with actual negation, French Il est plus riche qu'on ne pense or Il existait un monde où l'artiste trouve avant qu'il ne cherche (J.Cocteau).Of the languages in our study, OCS alone shows an overt polarity negation in these contexts, either freestanding or in univerbation with a following morpheme (25a)-(25b).Cf. the use of nor for than in some English dialects (He is taller nor I am): (25) a. Mk 9.45 'It is better for you to enter into life lame than having two feet, to be cast into Gehenna' kalón estín se eiseltheîn eis tḕn zōḕn khōlón, ḕ toùs dúo pódas ékhonta blēthênai eis tḕn géennan [Gk] dobrěa (Zog.: -ěe) ti estŭ vŭniti vŭ životŭ xromu.neže dvě nodzě imǫšte (Zog.: imǫštju).vŭvrŭženu byti vŭ ħeonǫ [OCS] b.Mt 1.18 'Before the two had come together, she was found to be pregnant by the holy spirit' prìn ḕ suneltheîn autoùs heuréthē en gastrì ékhousa ek pneúmatos hagíou [Gk] prěžde daže ne sŭnidosta sę obrěte sę imǫštii vŭ črěvě bě otŭ duxa svęta [OCS] OSLa volume 3(3), 2011 [152] jared s. klein In conclusion, I must emphasize that although the material presented in this article is comprehensive for the parts of the text it has covered, some 80% of the text has yet to be canvassed.This will no doubt yield some additional categories and perhaps some new relationships among the means employed to express negation in the various languages of our survey.However, it is unlikely to change greatly the picture presented here, which is remarkable for its consistency from language to language.Once the total range of data concerning negation and polarity in the entire extant text of the Gospels in all four languages has been gathered, analyzed, and presented, an important chapter in the comparative grammars of these languages will have been achieved.
r e f e r e n c e s Bucsko, John M. 2008.Preverbs and idiomatization in Gothic: University of Georgia dissertation.
Mk 9.25 'I command you: go out from him and no longer enter into him' egṓ soi epitássō, ékselthe eks autoû kaì mēkéti eisélthēis eis autón[Gk]ik þus anabiuda: usgagg us þamma jah þanaseiþs ni galeiþais in ina[Goth] es tam k'ez hraman .elidmanē.ewaylewsmimtanic'es i da[Arm]azŭ ti veljǫ iziti iz nego.iktomu ne vĭnidi vĭ nĭ[OCS] Questions The next set of negative clause types we shall examine are questions.Greek has two types of non-wh negative question constructions: those expecting a positive reply and those expecting a negative reply.In the first type Greek shows ou or oukhí followed by the indicative, Gothic shows niu (with the Gothic interrogative particle u) + ind., Armenian shows either oč' or oč' apak'ēn + ind., and OCS shows ne li + ind.(with the OCS interrogative particle li):This also shows the Greek negative polarity item oúpō 'not yet'.Here all the translations show neg.+ ind., but only Gothic is sensitive to the polarity item, rendering it as ni nauh.OCS alone among these passages renders the verb in the past: 'How have you not understood?' Another type of negative purpose clause may be captured by the English rendition 'lest'.In this category Gk. mḗpote + subj.corresponds to Goth.ibai ƕan + subj., Arm.gowc'ē or zi mi erbek' + subj., and OCS da ne + ind.or eda kogda + ind.: Example (6a) shows both animate and inanimate polarity in a context where the negative command is treated as a complement clause following an imperative.Gothic alone shows an overt complementizer ei, and Greek, Gothic and Armenian all show subjunctives in the complement clause.Lacking such a category, OCS employs an imperative.Notice again here in OCS the independent negation in addition to that in the polarity items.(6b)showsa"nolonger/anymore"type of polarity, and Arm.shows ayl ews mi, lit.'not further other', while OCS shows k tomu, lit.'henceforth', not itself a negative polarity item.In the second question type Gk.mḗ or mḗti + ind.corresponds to Goth.ibai + ind., Arm.mit'e or mi et'e + subj., and OCS eda + ind.:   (8)Negative questions expecting a negative reply a. Mt 9:15 'Can the sons of the bridal canopy weep so long as the bridegroom is with them?' (lit.The sons of the bridal canopy can't[3.4]Negativepurpose clausesWe now turn to negative purpose clauses.Here Gk. hópōs mḗ + subj.and hína mḗ + subj.correspond to Gothic ei ni + subj., Arm.zi mi + subj., and OCS da ne + ind.
Negative conditional clausesNegative conditional clauses involve Gk. ei or eàn mḗ + subj.The simplest case involves a protasis of a negative condition, where Gothic responds with either nibai, niba, or jabai ni + ind., Armenian with et'e oč' or apa t'e oč' + subj., and OCS with ašte ne + ind.: If your justice be not greater than [that] of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven' eàn mḕ perisseúsēi humôn hē dikaiosúnē pleîon tôn grammatéōn kaì Similar in format is Armenian, whereas OCS shows four iterations of ni: