ἀλλὰ and πρὶν are often followed by ἤ, MSS. varying much. The
meaning is hardly affected, unless some slight emphasis is to be under-
stood. Οὐ and μὴ present no very marked peculiarities. Μὴ introducing a
hesitating assertion or suggestion may possibly occur xxviii. 17, where
see note. Οὐ may be seen used to negative a specitic phrase after ἵνα
c. subj. in viii. 20, and cf. x. 15, where however the phrase οὐχ οὕτως is
a special weakness of the Lxx. With participles οὐκ occurs, as in
xli. 11, 12, lvi. 11, lix. 10; μή, less frequently than might be expected,
as in xxix. 12.. In relative clauses, οὐκ, as in lxv. 20; μή, as in
lviii. 11. Interjections, as a matter of usage, differ from Attic. φεῦ and αἰαῖ
are replaced generally by οὐαί, see on i. 24. Occasionally ὦ is used, as
in Habak. ii. 9, 15, 2 Kings vi. 5. See also such passages as Judg. xi. 35
Jerem. xxii. 18, with their variants. § 10. But the general colouring of the style remains the chief
peculiarity of the LXX.'s Greek. It is not so much that the constructions
are unclassical, as that most classical arrangements are rare or

 
absent. Owing to the short co-ordinate sentences, which follow the
original, the devices of Greek syntax have all but disappeared, while
most of the methods of expression recur so frequently as to be bald
and monotonous in any case, and, if not agreeable to classical usage,
to have the appearance and effect of mannerisms. Thus the optative
disappears in historic consecution, leaving its work to the subjunctive
and indit ative, as in lvii. 8; it also grows rare after εἷ, and, when it is
found, the potential clause does not match it; see xlix. 15, and cf.
Moulton, p. 196. On the other hand it is used with excessive frequency
to express Wishes, Job iii. 3—9, Ps. xx. 10ù4, c.;
e.g. in PS. cix. 7—15. There are, again, instances of anacoluthon,
beyond, or different from, the Attic practice, and probably mainly due
to the almost caseless Hebrew of the original: cf. Vol. I. p. 40. Thus
λέγων or λέγοντες is used to connect a ’s statement with the
narrative introducing it, though neither agreeing with the grammatical
subject nor even referring to it: see, e.g., I Kings i. 51, xviii. 1, in con-
trast to (Zen. xxxi. 1. Circumstances make this infrequent in Isaiah,
though see vii. 2, with the variants. Other instances of looseness in
the matter of cases may be seen at xvi. 6, xxviii. 1, xxxi. 1 pOSSIbly,
xxxii. 13, xxxiii. 20, ἃς. Α strange apposition, but of another kind, is
that in vii. 17, ἡμέρας...τὸν βασιλέα Ἀσσυρίων. Special Hebraisms have been noted where they occur; their
combination with the features here briefly mentioned, with the
addition of a vocabulary and ideas not those of Attic Greek, produce
a marked difference in general effect. The scope ofa remark made by
Prof. Moulton (p. 76) might be extended: “The Greek translator,
endeavouring to be as literal as he could, nevertheless took care to
use Greek that was possible, however unidiomatic.” This, I
‘he’ or ‘they’ constantly did, both by choice and of necessity; thinking
it the paramount duty to be literal, and not caring for the usages of
literary Greek. But if they were not masters of Attic by inheritance or
acquirement, neither were they devoid of native gift of language, nor
of some conception of a ’s duty, nor of skill to carry it out.