Page:Philological Museum v2.djvu/337

327 questions in which no negative is inserted, or when the opinion of the speaker is not declared. Yes and no, to those, in which by expressing the negative, the question is equivalent to, or implies an assertion on the part of him who proposes it. Gese and nese would apply more fitly to the case where a previous assertion is made, than to one where nothing has been pronounced before, and we find nese used in this manner, equivalent to "it is not so." John VII. 12. "sume cwæꝺon, he ys gód, oðre cwæꝺon, ne se." But nevertheless, I doubt very much whether the distinction that More upholds ex- isted in Anglo-Saxon, at least in John xxI. 5, we find it disregarded in the case of ne se, cweðe ge hæbbe ge sufoll? Hig andswarodon hym, ne se." It may however have grown up after this period, and yet be not the less grounded on a real difference in the words. The better way will be to go through the passages in the New Testament, in which the words nay, yea, and yes occur, and compare in each case the translation of Wiclif and of Tyndal. To begin with that in which Tyndal is attacked by More; John 1. 21; "art thou that prophet?" is answered by nay in Wiclif's translation, no in Tyndal, and no in our authorized version, John 5, "Children have ye any meat?" in Wiclif nai; Tyndal, no; our version, no; Luke  51, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth ?" is answered by nay in all these translations, and in the Anglo-Saxon by ne. The same is the case with the affirmative questions. Luke 3-5; Rom.  9, "Are we better then than they ?" in Wiclif the reply is nai; in Tyndal and the modern version no; but in the 27th verse of the same chapter, all use nay. In Cranmer's Bible, Haggai 12, (an affirmative question) is answered by no. In Coverdale's and in our version, the negative question, Zech. 5, " Knowest thou not what these be?" is replied to by no. It is clear I think, from these instances, that the distinction was practically gone in Henry VIII$th$ time, however More might wish to renew it to disparage his opponent. But it is singular that whereas in the later translations, no and nay seem used indifferently, in no one of these cases of affirmative questions does no occur in Wiclif. Unfortunately I do not know of any negative question answered by a negative particle in the New Testament; if such