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.