2015‐11‐18 The Medieval grammarians on Biblical Hebrew The importance of word order for the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System Bo Isaksson Paper read at SBL Annual Meeting Atlanta, November 21-24, 2015 The paper is based on: • Access database of Biblical Hebrew clauses and clause combining (6000 records). • Corpus: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Psalms 1-65, and the archaic Hebrew poetry. Biblical Hebrew has four basic “tenses”, qatal, we-qatal, yiqtol and wayyiqtol (apart from the imperative and cohortative): • we ‘converts’ qatal into yiqtol. • we-qatal is equivalent to yiqtol. • we-qatal is a converted qatal. • wa (+gem.) ‘converts’ yiqtol into qatal. • way-yiqtol is equivalent to qatal. • way-yiqtol is a converted yiqtol. • The “conversivewaw” is abandoned in recent research, but not in the text books on Biblical Hebrew. 1 2 The perspective of Central Semitic and Amarna Canaanite We would expect Biblical Hebrew to possess three basic verb forms: In the Amarna age (14th century) Amarna Canaanite: • a short prefix verbyVqtVl (i.a. jussive, narrative past) • a short prefix verb s ( hort yiqtol) < *yaqtul (jussive and narrative past) • a long prefix verbyVqtVl-u (i.a. imperfective, future, habitual) • a long prefix verb(long yiqtol) < *yaqtulu (imperfective, future, habitual) • and a suffixed verbqatal(a) (resultative, anterior, perfective) • and a suffixed verb(qatal) < *qatal(a) (resultative, anterior, perfective) There are reminiscenses of this system in Ugaritic and Classical Arabic • Ugaritic and Classical Arabic have retained short final vowels. • They possess ayaqtul and a yaqtulu, and a qatala. • The two prefix conjugations are morphologically distinctive. 3 The attested 1st millennium NW Semitic languages Phoenician, Aramaic, and Hebrew, have dropped short final vowels with a subsequent partial coalescence of the original *yVqtVl and *yVqtVl-u conjugations. 4 The homonymy of BH yiqtol The partial homonymy of two grams yiqtol has lead a majority of Hebrew scholars to the assumption that the yiqtol is just one conjugation. This “failure to adequately grapple with the issue of verbal homonymy”, illustrates, “a fundamental and persistent problem in the treatment of the Hebrew verb” (Cook 2014: 86). • In Hebrew the resultingyiqtol may be either ‘short’ or ‘long’. • Morphologically distinct only in Hifil and some weak verbs, / . • Hebrew had to cope with the issue of clarity. • Aramaic and Hebrew went different ways in this development (Gzella 2012). • Classical Arabic retained narrativeyaqtul in negative clauses (lam yaqtul). • Aramaic lost narrativeyaqtul except in the earliest inscriptions. • But Hebrew retained narrativeyiqtol < *yaqtul also in affirmative clauses. 5 (Cook, John A. 2014. “Current issues in the study of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system”. KUSATU 17: 79-108) 6 1 2015‐11‐18 To cope with homonymy: The Hebrew strategy Word order restriction in the light of a morphological merger To distinguish two prefix conjugations in affirmative clause: Holger Gzella (2011, 442; 2012, 101) • short yiqtol (VprefS) was used in initial position of the clause. • long yiqtol (VprefL) was used in a non-initial position. 2011. “Northwest Semitic in general”. In The Semitic languages: An international handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael P. Streck and Janet C. E. Watson. 425-451. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 2012. “Introduction” and “Ancient Hebrew”. In Languages from the world of the Bible, edited by Holger Gzella, 1-13, 76-110. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter. In negative clauses word order remained free. • Negationʾal was restricted to negate short yiqtol. • Negationlō was unlawful before short yiqtol. Peter Gentry (1998, 23) 1998. “The system of the finite verb in classical biblical Hebrew”. Hebrew Studies 39: 7-39. 7 8 A retention in BH poetry: indicative short Ø-yiqtol Clause-initial short yiqtol Indicative Ø-yiqtol (short) in Hebrew (1) Pattern: Ø-VprefS! (modal meaning) ؔ֔‫ ׌ַ ָיּ׉ ֙ ְב ִד׎ ָו‬؊ ֶ‫תּוכֵ ׅ֙ ׉ָ ָׅ֜ ֶםך וֶ ֤י‬ ‘Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds.’ (Gen. 1:24) In poetry In prose Development Replaced by retained discarded qatal (2) Pattern: Ø-VprefS! (indicative meaning) ؕ‫ב׎ו‬ ֽ ֵ ְ‫ؕ֜בֻׅ ִ ֗מּ׎ג ַתּ֣׌ַ ת ַםׇ‬ ְ ؕ‫׎ ְַ׈ ֵ֣ؑם חַ ִמּ֣׎ג תַּ ְ׌ ֵתּ֑׎ו‬ ‘He subdued nations beneath us and countries under our feet’ (Ps. 47:4; NET) 9 10 The allomorphic variation we/wa Syndetic short yiqtol clauses we-yiqtol is modal, wa-yiqtol is indicative: (3) Pattern: Ø-VprefS! + we-VprefS! (modal additive meaning in second clause) ‫׎׉׎ דַ ְ׆ ִ ֔ؓ׎ב ֵ֥ؑ׎ה ַד֖׎ִ ג בָ ָ ֽד׎ִ ג‬ ֣ ִ ִ‫׎ח ְؑת֣ וְ ׉ַ ָמּ֑׎ִ ג ׊‬ ַ ‫׎ְ ִ ֥׉׎ ָם ִ ֖ל‬ ‘Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.’ (Gen. 1:6; NET) (4) Pattern: wa-VprefS (indicative additive meaning) ֒‫׎ח‬ ַ ‫ת־׉ ָם ִל‬ ָ ֶ‫ֱֹ׉׎ג ֮ ׅ‬ ִ ‫ ׅ‬؋ ַ‫׊ַיַּ ֣ח‬ ‘And God made the expanse’ (Gen. 1:7) 11 • we/wa is one conjunction with complementary distribution. • we/wa has the same meaning: addition (in Dixon’s sense). • we/wa is an internal Hebrew differentiation. • wa + gemination marks a following short yiqtol as indicative: wayyiqtol. • we is used in all other positions. The signals of we/wa yiqtol way-yiqtol we-yiqtol addition addition yiqtol is short yiqtol is short indicative jussive 12 2 2015‐11‐18 Negative clauses are not word order restricted in BH • In negative clauses short yiqtol and long yiqtol could not be confused. • lō yiqtol is always long. • ʾal yiqtol is always short. • way-yiqtol was negated with asymmetry: we-lō-qatal. Symmetric negation of VprefS modal VprefS indicative VprefL Vsuff Amarna Canaanite al yVqtVl lā yVqtVl lā yVqtVl-u lā qatal(a) Free word order in negative clauses: example (5) Pattern: we-gam-Snoun- al-VprefS!; ‫ֵםׅ ְؑאָ ב־׉ָ ָ׉֑ם‬ ֖ ָ ‫ ַׅ ב־׎‬؊‫ַג־ׅ׎‬ ֥ ִ ‫׊ְ ׇ‬ ‘do not let anyone be seen anywhere on the mountain’ (Exod. 34:3; NET) Biblical Hebrew al yiqtol – (not allowed) lō yiqtol lō qatal (Other examples of non-clause-initial al yiqtol: Gen. 37:22, 45:20, Exod. 16:19, Ps. 66:7.) 13 Word order exception: predislocation (‘casus pendens’) (6) Pattern: PREDIS, Ø-VprefS-Snoun+...+we-VprefS+we-VprefS!; ‫׎׌ו‬ ֽ ؊ִ ‫ָםג ֶ ֥ל ֶםה ְד‬ ֖ ֵ ‫ה־ח׋ ְבדַ ְב ֔כּו ׊ְ ׎‬ ֹ֣ ֶ‫ ׊ְ ׎ִ תּ‬... ‫׎׆׎׊‬ ָ֗ ‫)׎ְ ׉ ָ׊֞׉( ׎ ֵַ׌֣תּؕ ְד ִם‬ ‘The Lord, may his enemies be shattered ... and may he give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his anointed!’ (1 Sam. 2:10a) (Other examples of pre-dislocation with VprefS: Gen. 1:22, 43:14, 44:33b (Niccacci 1987: 12), Deut. 32:18, Ps. 18:41 with indicative perfective VprefS). 14 Word order exception: Vocative (7) Pattern: we-VOC, Ø-VprefS + Ø-VprefS; ‫ב־ؒו׎ג‬ ִֽ ָ‫ל־ב ֑דו ִ֜תּ ְבחַ֗ ׇ ְבא‬ ָ ַ‫׌‬؋ְ ‫׊ְ ַׅ ָתּ֣׉ ׎ְ ֭׉׊ָ׉ ִתּ‬ ‘But you, O LORD, laugh in disgust at them! Taunt all the nations!’ (Ps. 59:9) (Other examples: Gen. 49:8, Ps. 12:8, 40:18). 15 Non-clause-initial long yiqtol (8) Pattern: VOC-Spron-VprefL! (non-initial position); ָ֑ ‫׉ֳב‬ ֶ ָ‫׎ְ ֭׉וָ׉ ִד׎־ ָ׎ׇ֣ؕם ְׅؑ‬ ‘LORD, who may dwell in your sacred tent?’ (Ps. 15:1) (9) Pattern: kī-NCl + we-PrP-VprefL! (non-initial position); ‫ؕ׆‬؊ֽ ָ‫ִ ֽכּ׎־חָ ָי֣ם ַׅ֔תָּ ׉ ׊ְ ֶׅ ב־חָ ָי֖ם תּ‬ 16 lō yiqtol is always long (10) Pattern: lō-VprefL!; ‫׎׉ؕ׈׉‬ ָ֔ ‫ֵ ֶ֙׆׍ ֙ ִ ֽד‬؊ ‫ֽב ֹׅ־׎ָז֥ ؕם‬ ‘The scepter will not depart from Judah’ (Gen. 49:10; NET) ‘for you are dust, and to dust you will return.’ (Gen. 3:19; NET) (Other examples with morphologically long yiqtol after lō: Gen. 8:21, Exod. 23:18, 34:25, Lev. 2:13, 5:8, 26:31, 27:10, Ps. 55:12). (Other examples: Gen. 6:19, 49:8, Lev. 4:31, 7:5, 16:25, 26:5, Ps. 44:25). 17 18 3 2015‐11‐18 In relative clauses: long yiqtol could be clause-initial The role of we-qatal *we-long yiqtol was unlawful in Biblical Hebrew (clause-initial). (11) Pattern: be-NP-«Ø-VprefL!-PrP»-VprefL; ‫׌וִ ׎‬ ֽ ֵ ְ‫ְؑכؕם־»׎ ָ֖םؕג ִד ֶמּ֣נִּ ׎« תַ ו‬ ‘You lead me to a rock «that is high above me».’ (Ps. 61:3; TNK) verbal syntagm *we-long yiqtol (we)-lō-long yiqtol (we)-X-long yiqtol unlawful lawful lawful Comment mix-up with short yiqtol topicalized X (Other examples of a distinctive long yiqtol in a relative clause: Ps. 12:6, 65:10. Some examples with non-distinctive VprefL: Gen. 49:27, Lev. 25:10, 11, Ps. 17:12, 25:12, 34:9, 35:8, 50:3, 56:5). 19 The role of we-qatal *we-VprefL simple syndetic affirmative no topicalized element compared to The ‘split-up’ of the new we-qatal Retained lawful structure we-qatal is a grammatical structure • we-qatal gradually intruded into the semantic field of long yiqtol. • The driving force of the development was the need of a replacement of the simple affirmative *we-long yiqtol. • we-qatal developed an independent semantics. The independent we-qatal • • Split-up by constitutent ‘X’ fulfilled by → we-X-yiqtol Split-up by lō fulfilled by → we-lō-yiqtol Split-up by ‘X’ and lō fulfilled by → we-X-lō-yiqtol In this sensewe-qatal is a separate gram. 21 • The ‘split-up’ of the new we-qatal we-Vsuff simple syndetic affirmative no topicalized element • • 20 22 we-qatal and long yiqtol are often of equal status we-qatal with a semantics close to long yiqtol is a feature of SBH. This semantics ofwe-qatal is generally not found in the archaic poetry. There is no comparative evidence of two differentqatal. • we-qatal historically consists of the normal conjunction we and the normal grammatical morpheme qatal. • The development ofwe-qatal as a syndetic grammatical structure with the semantics of a long yiqtol is an internal development in Biblical Hebrew. • we-qatal is negated with the older we-lō-yiqtol. • we-qatal is topicalized by the older we-X-yiqtol. • we-qatal codes an addition, it is a syndetic clause. (12) Pattern: we-Onoun-VprefL! + we-Vsuff; ‫תג כֻּ תּ ֽ ֳֹות‬ ָ֖ ‫ׅ‬ ֹ ‫תּ‬ ֥ ָ ؊ְ ַؑ‫ְ׊ֶׅ ת־ָؑ וָ ֖׎׊ תַּ ְל ִ ֑ם׎׆ ׊ְ ִ׉ ְב‬ ‘You shall bring his sons also and put coats on them’ (Exod. 40:14; ESV) (Other examples, with distinctive long yiqtol clauses: Lev. 4:31, 7:5, Amos 9:11). 23 24 4 2015‐11‐18 The semantic independence of we-qatal in SBH Summary 1 Biblical Hebrew behaves as a daughter-language of early Canaanite. When the morphological distinction between short yiqtol and long yiqtol was lost (partially) in Proto-Hebrew, word order became the decisive strategy in affirmative clauses. The old *yaqtul (VprefS) was assigned clause-initial position, and the old *yaqtul-u (VprefL) was placed in non-initial position. In negative clauses word order has remained free. Instead negations were specialized: • (13) Pattern: kī- attā-Vsuff + we-Vsuff; ‫׌׎׆ ׎ְ ׉׊ָ ֛׉ ָב֖וؕ ؕיָ ִ ֥ם׎וؕ ׆ָ ָ ֽׅ ֶםך‬ ֧ ִ ‫ִ ֽכּ׎־חַ ֞ ָתּ׉ ִ׉ ְם‬ ‘For now the LORD has made room for us, and we will prosper in the land.’ (Gen. 26:22; NET) The negationlō could not be used with a short yiqtol (no *lō-VprefS). • ʾal yiqtol is a signal of jussive short yiqtol. • Negation of the indicative short yiqtol became asymmetric: the negation of way-yiqtol is we-lō-qatal in a narrative storyline. • lō yiqtol became a signal of a long yiqtol. Indicative short yiqtol: • In prose only asway-yiqtol. • In poetry asØ-yiqtol and way-yiqtol. • Negation is asymmetric:lō-qatal. • Topicalization is asymmetric:X-qatal. Jussive short yiqtol: (Other examples are Gen. 9:13 (future), 1 Sam. 1:3 with habitual meaning with past time). 25 • In affirmative clauses eitherØ-yiqtol or we-yiqtol. • Awe-yiqtol is always a jussive clause. • Always negated byʾal: a ʾal yiqtol is always jussive. 26 Summary 2 we-qatal: • we-qatal is an old formation with renewed semantics. It exists in all Central Semitic languages. What is special to SBH is that the we-qatal has taken over the semantics of the imperfective long yiqtol clauses. • we-qatal replaced the unlawful *we-long yiqtol. • we-qatal became a grammatical structure with gradually independent semantics. • The impression that awe-qatal clause could not be ‘split-up’ is an ‘optical illusion’. The equal status clauses we-lō-long yiqtol and we-X-long yiqtol were still in use and did not need replacement. • In procedural discoursewe-qatal clauses interact with equal status we-lō-long yiqtol and we-X-long yiqtol clauses. • Negation ofwe-qatal is asymmetric: its negative counterpart is we-lō-yiqtol. 27 5 

The importance of word order for the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System Bo Isaksson Paper read at SBL Annual Meeting Atlanta, November 21-24, 2015 The paper is based on: • Access database of Biblical Hebrew clauses and clause combining (6000 records). • Corpus: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Psalms 1-65, and the archaic Hebrew poetry. 1 The Medieval grammarians on Biblical Hebrew Biblical Hebrew has four basic “tenses”, qatal, we-qatal, yiqtol and wayyiqtol (apart from the imperative and cohortative): • we ‘converts’ qatal into yiqtol. • we-qatal is equivalent to yiqtol. • we-qatal is a converted qatal. • wa (+gem.) ‘converts’ yiqtol into qatal. • way-yiqtol is equivalent to qatal. • way-yiqtol is a converted yiqtol. • The “conversive waw” is abandoned in recent research, but not in the text books on Biblical Hebrew. 2 The perspective of Central Semitic and Amarna Canaanite We would expect Biblical Hebrew to possess three basic verb forms: • a short prefix verb (short yiqtol) < *yaqtul (jussive and narrative past) • a long prefix verb (long yiqtol) < *yaqtulu (imperfective, future, habitual) • and a suffixed verb (qatal) < *qatal(a) (resultative, anterior, perfective) 3 In the Amarna age (14th century) Amarna Canaanite: • a short prefix verb yVqtVl (i.a. jussive, narrative past) • a long prefix verb yVqtVl-u (i.a. imperfective, future, habitual) • and a suffixed verb qatal(a) (resultative, anterior, perfective) There are reminiscenses of this system in Ugaritic and Classical Arabic • Ugaritic and Classical Arabic have retained short final vowels. • They possess a yaqtul and a yaqtulu, and a qatala. • The two prefix conjugations are morphologically distinctive. 4 The attested 1st millennium NW Semitic languages Phoenician, Aramaic, and Hebrew, have dropped short final vowels with a subsequent partial coalescence of the original *yVqtVl and *yVqtVl-u conjugations. • In Hebrew the resulting yiqtol may be either ‘short’ or ‘long’. • Morphologically distinct only in Hifil and some weak verbs, / . • Hebrew had to cope with the issue of clarity. • Aramaic and Hebrew went different ways in this development (Gzella 2012). • Classical Arabic retained narrative yaqtul in negative clauses (lam yaqtul). • Aramaic lost narrative yaqtul except in the earliest inscriptions. • But Hebrew retained narrative yiqtol < *yaqtul also in affirmative clauses. 5 The homonymy of BH yiqtol The partial homonymy of two grams yiqtol has lead a majority of Hebrew scholars to the assumption that the yiqtol is just one conjugation. This “failure to adequately grapple with the issue of verbal homonymy”, illustrates, “a fundamental and persistent problem in the treatment of the Hebrew verb” (Cook 2014: 86). (Cook, John A. 2014. “Current issues in the study of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system”. KUSATU 17: 79-108) 6 To cope with homonymy: The Hebrew strategy To distinguish two prefix conjugations in affirmative clause: • short yiqtol (VprefS) was used in initial position of the clause. • long yiqtol (VprefL) was used in a non-initial position. In negative clauses word order remained free. • Negation ʾal was restricted to negate short yiqtol. • Negation lō was unlawful before short yiqtol. 7 Word order restriction in the light of a morphological merger Holger Gzella (2011, 442; 2012, 101) 2011. “Northwest Semitic in general”. In The Semitic languages: An international handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael P. Streck and Janet C. E. Watson. 425-451. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 2012. “Introduction” and “Ancient Hebrew”. In Languages from the world of the Bible, edited by Holger Gzella, 1-13, 76-110. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter. Peter Gentry (1998, 23) 1998. “The system of the finite verb in classical biblical Hebrew”. Hebrew Studies 39: 7-39. 8 Clause-initial short yiqtol (1) Pattern: Ø-VprefS! (modal meaning) ‫תּ�צֵ ֙א הָ ָ֜א ֶרץ נֶ ֤פֶ שׁ חַ ָיּה ֙ ְל ִמי ָנ֔הּ‬ ‘Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds.’ (Gen. 1:24) (2) Pattern: Ø-VprefS! (indicative meaning) ‫לינוּ‬ ֽ ֵ ְ‫֜לאֻ ִ ֗מּים ַתּ֣חַ ת ַרג‬ ְ ‫י ְַד ֵבּ֣ר עַ ִמּ֣ים תַּ ְח ֵתּ֑ינוּ וּ‬ ‘He subdued nations beneath us and countries under our feet’ (Ps. 47:4; NET) 9 A retention in BH poetry: indicative short Ø-yiqtol Indicative Ø-yiqtol (short) in Hebrew In poetry In prose Development Replaced by retained discarded qatal 10 Syndetic short yiqtol clauses we-yiqtol is modal, wa-yiqtol is indicative: (3) Pattern: Ø-VprefS! + we-VprefS! (modal additive meaning in second clause) ‫יה֣י מַ ְב ִ ֔דּיל ֵבּ֥ין ַמ֖יִ ם לָ ָ ֽמיִ ם‬ ִ ִ‫יע ְבּת֣ �� הַ ָמּ֑יִ ם ו‬ ַ ‫יְ ִ ֥הי ָר ִ ֖ק‬ ‘Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.’ (Gen. 1:6; NET) (4) Pattern: wa-VprefS (indicative additive meaning) ֒‫יע‬ ַ ‫ֱ�הים ֮ אֶ ת־הָ ָר ִק‬ ִ ‫וַיַּ ֣עַ שׂ א‬ ‘And God made the expanse’ (Gen. 1:7) 11 The allomorphic variation we/wa • we/wa is one conjunction with complementary distribution. • we/wa has the same meaning: addition (in Dixon’s sense). • we/wa is an internal Hebrew differentiation. • wa + gemination marks a following short yiqtol as indicative: wayyiqtol. • we is used in all other positions. The signals of we/wa yiqtol way-yiqtol we-yiqtol addition addition yiqtol is short yiqtol is short indicative jussive 12 Negative clauses are not word order restricted in BH • In negative clauses short yiqtol and long yiqtol could not be confused. • lō yiqtol is always long. • ʾal yiqtol is always short. • way-yiqtol was negated with asymmetry: we-lō-qatal. Symmetric negation of VprefS modal VprefS indicative VprefL Vsuff Amarna Canaanite ʾal yVqtVl lā yVqtVl lā yVqtVl-u lā qatal(a) Biblical Hebrew ʾal yiqtol – (not allowed) lō yiqtol lō qatal 13 Free word order in negative clauses: example (5) Pattern: we-gam-Snoun-ʾal-VprefS!; ‫ֵרא ְבּכָ ל־הָ ָה֑ר‬ ֖ ָ ‫ַם־אישׁ אַ ל־י‬ ֥ ִ ‫וְ ג‬ ‘do not let anyone be seen anywhere on the mountain’ (Exod. 34:3; NET) (Other examples of non-clause-initial ʾal yiqtol: Gen. 37:22, 45:20, Exod. 16:19, Ps. 66:7.) 14 Word order exception: predislocation (‘casus pendens’) (6) Pattern: PREDIS, Ø-VprefS-Snoun+...+we-VprefS+we-VprefS!; �‫יח‬ ֽ ‫ָרם ֶ ֥ק ֶרן ְמ ִשׁ‬ ֖ ֵ ‫ן־עז ְלמַ ְל ֔כּ� וְ י‬ ֹ֣ ֶ‫ וְ יִ תּ‬... ‫יביו‬ ָ֗ ‫)יְ ה ָו֞ה( י ֵַח֣תּוּ ְמ ִר‬ ‘The Lord, may his enemies be shattered ... and may he give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his anointed!’ (1 Sam. 2:10a) (Other examples of pre-dislocation with VprefS: Gen. 1:22, 43:14, 44:33b (Niccacci 1987: 12), Deut. 32:18, Ps. 18:41 with indicative perfective VprefS). 15 Word order exception: Vocative (7) Pattern: we-VOC, Ø-VprefS + Ø-VprefS; ‫ל־גּ�ים‬ ִֽ ָ‫ק־ל ֑מ� ִ ֜תּ ְל ֗ ַעג ְלכ‬ ָ ַ‫וְ אַ ָתּ֣ה יְ ֭הוָה ִתּ ְשׂח‬ ‘But you, O LORD, laugh in disgust at them! Taunt all the nations!’ (Ps. 59:9) (Other examples: Gen. 49:8, Ps. 12:8, 40:18). 16 Non-clause-initial long yiqtol (8) Pattern: VOC-Spron-VprefL! (non-initial position); �֑ ‫ֳל‬ ֶ ‫יְ ֭ה�ָה ִמי־ ָיג֣וּר ְבּאָ ה‬ ‘LORD, who may dwell in your sacred tent?’ (Ps. 15:1) (9) Pattern: kī-NCl + we-PrP-VprefL! (non-initial position); ‫ִ ֽכּי־עָ ָפ֣ר ַ֔אתָּ ה וְ אֶ ל־עָ ָפ֖ר תָּ ֽשׁוּב‬ ‘for you are dust, and to dust you will return.’ (Gen. 3:19; NET) (Other examples: Gen. 6:19, 49:8, Lev. 4:31, 7:5, 16:25, 26:5, Ps. 44:25). 17 lō yiqtol is always long (10) Pattern: lō-VprefL!; ‫יהוּדה‬ ָ֔ ‫ֽל ֹא־יָס֥ וּר שֵׁ ֙בֶ ט ֙ ִ ֽמ‬ ‘The scepter will not depart from Judah’ (Gen. 49:10; NET) (Other examples with morphologically long yiqtol after lō: Gen. 8:21, Exod. 23:18, 34:25, Lev. 2:13, 5:8, 26:31, 27:10, Ps. 55:12). 18 In relative clauses: long yiqtol could be clause-initial (11) Pattern: be-NP-«Ø-VprefL!-PrP»-VprefL; ‫ְבּצוּר־»י ָ֖רוּם ִמ ֶמּ֣נִּ י« תַ נְ ֵ ֽחנִ י‬ ‘You lead me to a rock «that is high above me».’ (Ps. 61:3; TNK) (Other examples of a distinctive long yiqtol in a relative clause: Ps. 12:6, 65:10. Some examples with non-distinctive VprefL: Gen. 49:27, Lev. 25:10, 11, Ps. 17:12, 25:12, 34:9, 35:8, 50:3, 56:5). 19 The role of we-qatal *we-long yiqtol was unlawful in Biblical Hebrew (clause-initial). verbal syntagm *we-long yiqtol (we)-lō-long yiqtol (we)-X-long yiqtol unlawful lawful lawful Comment mix-up with short yiqtol topicalized X 20 The role of we-qatal *we-VprefL simple syndetic affirmative no topicalized element compared to we-Vsuff simple syndetic affirmative no topicalized element • we-qatal is a grammatical structure • we-qatal gradually intruded into the semantic field of long yiqtol. • The driving force of the development was the need of a replacement of the simple affirmative *we-long yiqtol. • we-qatal developed an independent semantics. • In this sense we-qatal is a separate gram. 21 The ‘split-up’ of the new we-qatal The ‘split-up’ of the new we-qatal Retained lawful structure Split-up by constitutent ‘X’ fulfilled by → we-X-yiqtol Split-up by lō fulfilled by → we-lō-yiqtol Split-up by ‘X’ and lō fulfilled by → we-X-lō-yiqtol 22 The independent we-qatal • we-qatal with a semantics close to long yiqtol is a feature of SBH. • This semantics of we-qatal is generally not found in the archaic poetry. • There is no comparative evidence of two different qatal. • we-qatal historically consists of the normal conjunction we and the normal grammatical morpheme qatal. • The development of we-qatal as a syndetic grammatical structure with the semantics of a long yiqtol is an internal development in Biblical Hebrew. • we-qatal is negated with the older we-lō-yiqtol. • we-qatal is topicalized by the older we-X-yiqtol. • we-qatal codes an addition, it is a syndetic clause. 23 we-qatal and long yiqtol are often of equal status (12) Pattern: we-Onoun-VprefL! + we-Vsuff; ‫תּ ֽ ֹנת‬ ֳ ֻ‫תם כּ‬ ֖ ָ ‫תּ ֹא‬ ֥ ָ ‫וְ אֶ ת־בָּ נָ ֖יו תַּ ְק ִ ֑ריב וְ ִה ְלבַּ ְשׁ‬ ‘You shall bring his sons also and put coats on them’ (Exod. 40:14; ESV) (Other examples, with distinctive long yiqtol clauses: Lev. 4:31, 7:5, Amos 9:11). 24 The semantic independence of we-qatal in SBH (13) Pattern: kī-ʿattā-Vsuff + we-Vsuff; ‫חיב יְ הוָ ֛ה ָל֖נוּ וּפָ ִ ֥רינוּ בָ ָ ֽא ֶרץ‬ ֧ ִ ‫ִ ֽכּי־עַ ֞ ָתּה ִה ְר‬ ‘For now the LORD has made room for us, and we will prosper in the land.’ (Gen. 26:22; NET) (Other examples are Gen. 9:13 (future), 1 Sam. 1:3 with habitual meaning with past time). 25 Summary 1 Biblical Hebrew behaves as a daughter-language of early Canaanite. When the morphological distinction between short yiqtol and long yiqtol was lost (partially) in Proto-Hebrew, word order became the decisive strategy in affirmative clauses. The old *yaqtul (VprefS) was assigned clause-initial position, and the old *yaqtul-u (VprefL) was placed in non-initial position. In negative clauses word order has remained free. Instead negations were specialized: • The negation lō could not be used with a short yiqtol (no *lō-VprefS). • ʾal yiqtol is a signal of jussive short yiqtol. • Negation of the indicative short yiqtol became asymmetric: the negation of way-yiqtol is we-lō-qatal in a narrative storyline. • lō yiqtol became a signal of a long yiqtol. Indicative short yiqtol: • In prose only as way-yiqtol. • In poetry as Ø-yiqtol and way-yiqtol. • Negation is asymmetric: lō-qatal. • Topicalization is asymmetric: X-qatal. Jussive short yiqtol: • In affirmative clauses either Ø-yiqtol or we-yiqtol. • A we-yiqtol is always a jussive clause. • Always negated by ʾal: a ʾal yiqtol is always jussive. 26 Summary 2 we-qatal: • we-qatal is an old formation with renewed semantics. It exists in all Central Semitic languages. What is special to SBH is that the we-qatal has taken over the semantics of the imperfective long yiqtol clauses. • we-qatal replaced the unlawful *we-long yiqtol. • we-qatal became a grammatical structure with gradually independent semantics. • The impression that a we-qatal clause could not be ‘split-up’ is an ‘optical illusion’. The equal status clauses we-lō-long yiqtol and we-X-long yiqtol were still in use and did not need replacement. • In procedural discourse we-qatal clauses interact with equal status we-lō-long yiqtol and we-X-long yiqtol clauses. • Negation of we-qatal is asymmetric: its negative counterpart is we-lō-yiqtol. 27 References • Isaksson, Bo. 2007. “Semitic circumstantial qualifiers in the Book of Judges: A pilot study on the infinitive.” Orientalia Suecana 56: 163-172. • ———. 2009. “Introduction” and “An outline of comparative Arabic and Hebrew textlinguistics”. In Circumstantial qualifiers in Semitic: The case of Arabic and Hebrew, edited by Bo Isaksson, 1-35 and 36-150. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 70. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. • ———. 2011. “The textlinguistics of the Suffering Servant: Subordinate structures in Isaiah 52,13-53,12”. In En pāsē grammatikē kai sophiā. Saggi di linguistica ebraica in onore di Alviero Niccacci, ofm, edited by Gregor Geiger and Massimo Pazzini, 173-212. Collana Analecta: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 78. Jerusalem; Milano: Franciscan Printing Press; Editioni Terra Santa. • ———. 2013. “Subordination: Biblical Hebrew”. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan, vol. 3, 657-664. Leiden: Brill. • ———. 2014a. “Clause linking strategies in the narrative and instructional discourse of Joseph’s speech in Gen. 45: 3-15”. Journal of Semitic Studies 59 no. 1: 15-45. • ———. 2014b. “The main line of a biblical Hebrew narrative and what to do with two perfective grams.” In Proceedings of the Oslo–Austin Workshop in Semitic Linguistics, Oslo, May 23–24, 2013, edited by Lutz Edzard and John Huehnergard, 73-94. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 88. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. • ———. 2014c. “Archaic biblical Hebrew poetry: The linking of finite clauses”. In Strategies of Clause Linking in Semitic Languages: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Clause Linking in Semitic Languages 5-7 August 2012 in Kivik, Sweden, edited by Bo Isaksson and Maria Persson, 109-141. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 93. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. • ———. 2015a. “The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A clause combining approach”. In Clause Combining in Semitic. The circumstantial clause and beyond, edited by Bo Isaksson and Maria Persson. 169-268. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 96. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. • ———. 2015b. “‘Subordination’: Some reflections on Matthiessen and Thompson’s article “The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’” and its bearing on the idea of circumstantial clause in Arabic and Hebrew”. In Arabic and Semitic Linguistics Contextualized. A Festschrift for Jan Retsö, edited by Lutz Edzard. 404-424. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. • ———. 2015c. “The so-called we-qatal conjugation in Biblical Hebrew once again”. In Papers read at the 11 Mainz International Colloquium on Ancient Hebrew (MICAH), University of Mainz, 1-3 November 2013, edited by Reinhard G. Lehmann and Kwang Cheol Park. 71-117. KUSATU: Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 19. Mainz: Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz. • ———. Forthcoming. “Clause combining in the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:1-43). An example of archaic Biblical Hebrew syntax”. In Biblical Hebrew Linguistics: Papers from the 16th WCJS, Jerusalem 2013, edited by Tania Notarius and Adina Moshavi: Eisenbrauns. 28 

The importance of word order for the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System Paper read at SBL Annual Meeting Atlanta 2015 by Bo Isaksson Introduction 1 The classical Hebrew verbal system presents one of the greatest problems of Semitic linguistics. Grammatical understanding of the ancient Hebrew tradition was forgotten in medieval times (McFall 1982). In the grammatical discussion there is no appeal to a body of national Hebrew linguistic tradition, such as is found in the Koranic exegesis.2 As we all know, the theory that emerged among the early grammarians was that the conjunction we put before a finite verb had a ‘conversive’ function and could transform the verb into another tense form. The verb for past tense, qatal, acquired with a prefixed we the meanings of the other finite tense form, yiqtol. By analogy the conjunction wa was considered ‘converting’ yiqtol into a narrative past tense (way-yiqtol). This “conversive theory” has been enormously influential on the subsequent scholarly discussion and still dominates the text books on Biblical Hebrew.3 The concept of a ‘conversive waw’ has been generally abandoned in recent research. But it is not abandoned in the text books (Cook 2014: 84), and the assumption of four basic finite verb forms, qatal, yiqtol, wayyiqtol, and wəqatal, still dominates all Biblical Hebrew research (also Cook 2014). In the perspective of the close relatives of Hebrew in Central Semitic and the second millennium Amarna Canaanite (Rainey 1996), we would expect 1 The present paper is based on an Access database of Biblical Hebrew clauses and clause linking cases with more than 6000 records. The cor-pus consists of the Books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Psalms 1-65, and the corpus of archaic Hebrew poetry. The database was produced during two research projects the results of which have been published so far in Isaksson (2009; 2011; 2013; 2014a; 2014b; 2014c; 2015a; 2015b; 2015c). 2 “In the explanation of the tenses no appeal is made to a body of tradition, such as the Masoretes”, and this because the tradition was no more available (McFall 1982, 16). 3 It is a system of four different finite tense or aspect forms, of which two lack a prefixed we and two have a prefixed conjunction. The four tenses are distributed semantically into two main classes: 1) qatal and wa-yiqtol have the ‘same’ meaning (past tense and/or anterior/perfective aspect), and 2) yiqtol and we-qatal have the ‘same’ meaning (present time, future, modal meaning and, according to some scholars, imperfective aspect). 1 Biblical Hebrew to behave as one of several first millennium daughter languages of early Canaanite. We would expect Biblical Hebrew to have three basic finite verb forms, two with prefixed inflection and one with suffixed inflection (qatal). We would expect Biblical Hebrew to possess remnants of a short prefix verb, a long prefix verb, and a suffixed verb qatal, in addition to the (uncontroversial) imperative and cohortative (reflex of *yaqtul-a).4 We have reminiscences of the old Canaanite system in Ugaritic (extinct circa 1180 B.C.) and in Classical Arabic. It is significant that both Ugaritic and Classical Arabic have retained short final vowels in the nominal and verbal inflections (Huehnergard 2005: 165). Compared to the Amarna stage, the attested Northwest Semitic languages of the first millennium, Phoenician, Aramaic, and Hebrew, have dropped short final vowels with a subsequent partial coalescence of the original *yVqtVl and *yVqtVlu conjugations. Because of this coalescence, Hebrew, as also Aramaic and Phoenician, had to cope with the loss of clarity. If two verbal grams have become largely homonymous so that yiqtol could be either ‘short’ (from *yVqtVl) or ‘long’ (from *yVqtVlu), then the language must develop strategies for clarification. Aramaic and Hebrew went different ways in this development. The Hebrew strategy: Word order restriction on the prefix conjugations The partial homonymy of two grams yiqtol has lead a majority of Hebrew scholars to the unfortunate assumption that the “yiqtol” is just one conjugation. This “failure to adequately grapple with the issue of verbal homonymy”, illustrates, with the words of Cook, “a fundamental and persistent problem in the treatment of the Hebrew verb” (Cook 2014Ś 86). It is more reasonable to assume that Proto-Hebrew and its Northwest Semitic sister languages in the period between the Amarna age and that of the Old testament texts developed various strategies to cope with the morphological merger of the morphemes *yVqtVl and *yVqtVlu, which both became yiqtol in Hebrew.5 We can observe a similar process in the modern Arabic dialects which have lost short final vowels in contrast to Classical Arabic. The term ‘gram’ is used in accord with the grammaticalization theory of Bybee et al. (1994) and Bybee and Dahl (1989). Grams are “grammatical morphemes associated with verbs” (Bybee, et al. 1994: 2). 5 With the term ‘Proto-Hebrew’ I suggest a transition stage when short final vowels (including the case vowels of the noun) were being dropped and resulting syntactical changes took place. “These developments were essentially completed or at least in an advanced stage when the Northwest Semitic languages of Iron Age Syria-Palestine appeared on the stage of history after ca. 1000 bce” (Gzella 2012, 6). Ugaritic show final vowels, but the attested texts are possibly in a transition stage, when the final vowels were unstable, which has been argued by some scholars (Greenstein 2006). 4 2 In order to maintain a functional distinction between the two prefix grams, the main strategy in Hebrew was a word-order restriction of the two yiqtol.6 Verbs of the short yiqtol gram (VprefS) were used in initial position of the clause, while verbs of the long yiqtol gram (VprefL) occupied a non-initial position. Since this word order strategy is found also in the archaic poetry (Isaksson 2014c: 120),7 the development must have taken place in a diachronic stage before Biblical Hebrew, a stage that we can tentatively call ‘Proto-Hebrew’. Few Hebrew scholars have recognized this restriction of word order in the light of a morphological merger. Among the few are Holger Gzella (2011, 442; 2012, 101) and Peter Gentry (1998, 23). It remains, however, to explain how the basic conjugations of the Hebrew verbal system interact in the new word order. My aim in this paper is to touch upon such an explanation. Clause-initial short yiqtol The typical cases of a short yiqtol clause are found in affirmative clauses. In examples (1) and (2) the verb is placed first in the clause in accordance with the rule. (1) Pattern: Ø-VprefS! (modal meaning) ּ֔‫ ׌ַ ָי׉ ֙ ְב ִד׎ ָו‬؊ ֶ‫ֹּכ ׅ֙ ׉ָ ָׅ֜ ֶםך וֶ ֤י‬ ‘Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds.’ (Gen. 1:24) Asyndetic clauses with indicative force are found in poetry, mostly in the archaic poems. Also in such cases the short yiqtol must be clause-initial: (2) Pattern: Ø-VprefS! (indicative meaning) ּ‫ב׎ו‬ ֽ ְ‫֜בֻׅ ִ ֗מ׎ג ַּ֣׌ַ ת ַםׇ‬ ְ ּ ּ‫׎ ְַ׈ב֣ם חַ ִמ֣׎ג ַּ ְ׌ּ֑׎ו‬ Gzella (2011: 442): The short prefix form (the old Semitic yaqtul) “was assigned the clauseinitial position”, while the long prefix verb (the old Central Semitic yaqtulu) was placed in noninitial position. “[S]o word-order constraints to some extent restore the functional differentiation” (Gzella 2012: 101). A similar position is taken by Gentry (1998Ś 12)Ś “The earlier framework was preserved and problems occasioned by loss of final vowels were offset by reworking the system through sequencing and word order”. I disagree, however, with his assumption that ‘wayyiqtol’ and ‘wəqatal’ är sequential categories and that ‘[x] qatal’ and ‘[x] yiqtol’ are nonsequential. 7 The morphological distinction between VprefS and VprefL is generally upheld when possible (Rainey 1986: 7). When a distinctive VprefL! is encountered in a text, it is normally intended to have the meaning of a long prefix verb. But in many cases there is no morphologically discrete form. In such a case the position of the prefix verb determines whether it is intended as short or long. 6 3 ‘He subdued nations beneath us and countries under our feet’ (Ps. 47:4; NET) In prose the indicative asyndetic short yiqtol was replaced by the qatal morpheme. The retention of an indicative asyndetic short yiqtol in poetry constitutes the main grammatical difference that separates Biblical Hebrew poetry from Biblical Hebrew prose. In other respects the two exhibit roughly the same grammar. Indicative Ø-yiqtol (short) in Hebrew In poetry In prose Development Replaced by retained discarded qatal A short yiqtol clause may of course be an addition with a preposed conjunction we or wa, in which cases the meanings of the short yiqtol are respectively indicative or modal. Example (3) shows a modal meaning in a syndetic affirmative clause: (3) Pattern: Ø-VprefS! + we-VprefS! (modal additive meaning in second clause) ‫׎׉֣׎ דַ ְ׆ ִ ֔ד׎ב ב֥׎ה ַד֖׎ִ ג בָ ָ ֽד׎ִ ג‬ ִ ִ‫׎ח ְבת֣ ְֹ ׉ַ ָמ֑׎ִ ג ׊‬ ַ ‫׎ְ ִ ֥׉׎ ָם ִ ֖ל‬ ‘Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.’ (Gen. 1:6; NET) As can be seen from the example, the additive we-yiqtol easily takes a meaning of purpose or result, depending on the contextŚ a translation “so that it separates water from water” accords well with the context (J-M §116). If the addition is to be indicative, the specific form wa of the conjunction is used instead, as in (4). (4) Pattern: wa-VprefS (indicative additive meaning) ‫׎ח‬ ַ ‫ֱֹ׉׎ג ֮ ֶׅ ת־׉ָ ָם ִל‬ ִ ‫ ׅ‬؋ ַ‫׊ַיַ ֣ח‬ ‘And God made the expanse’ (Gen. 1:7) In a narrative main line the default iconic interpretation of such additions is of course temporal succession. As illlustrated by the examples (3) and (4), the two variants of the additive conjunction in Biblical Hebrew serve to distinguish between a modal short yiqtol and an indicative short yiqtol. This deserves a further comment. 4 The effect of the allomorphic variation we/wa The difference between the two variants is not one of meaning. Both we and wa indicate a clause to be an addition in the sense of an action or state that accompanies that in the previous clause (Isaksson 2015c). The role of the variant wa + gemination is to mark the following short yiqtol as indicative. The we is used in all other positions. Thus, a way-yiqtol signals 1) that the clause is an addition, and 2) that the yiqtol is short, and 3) that the yiqtol has indicative meaning. A we-yiqtol indicates that 1) the clause is an addition, 2) the yiqtol is short, and 3) the yiqtol has modal meaning. The signals of we/wa yiqtol way-yiqtol we-yiqtol addition addition yiqtol is short yiqtol is short indicative jussive It is commonly held that Biblical Hebrew inherited one conjunction wa from early Canaanite. With the majority of Hebrew scholarship I assume that the morphological differentiation we/wa is an internal or secondary innovation in Hebrew.8 The we/wa morpheme is one conjunction, but with complementary allomorphic distribution. We may dispute about the time when this differentiation took place. Many scholars propose that it is late and a work of the Masoretes. But it stands to reason that the differentiation is implemented with astonishing consequence and accuracy. And the effect was that an indicative way-yiqtol and a modal we-yiqtol became distinguished by the shape of the conjunction.9 8 Thus Müller (1983; 1991); Pardee (2012, 287 note 12). The Masoretic pointing of the conjunction before the short prefix verb indicates two distinct morphemes, wa (the main allomorph of which shows a gemination of the following consonant wayyiḵtoḇ < *wa-yaktub, Gzella 2012, 101) and wə (with its allomorphs). Two distinct reflexes of one original morpheme, wa (with allomorphs) before an indicative VprefS, and we (with allomorphs) before a non-indicative VprefS and all other instances of the conjunction. Several explanations of this fact are possible: 1) The Masoretes, 1000 years later in their texts with vowel signs for synagogal recitation, handed over a syntactic signal that did not belong to the original Hebrew language (thus Van de Sande 2008; and Revell 1984, 444, advocates the end of the biblical period). 2) The distinction might have been introduced already in Proto-Hebrew in order to explicitly signal the indicative (‘narrative’) wa-VprefS (in distinction to jussive and purposive we-VprefS, J-M § 116). 9 On this point I am at variance with many scholars who believe that wə-yiqtol is, or can be, a long prefix verb (for example Robar 2013: 33 note 17) and that the significance of the we/wa differention is one between short prefix verb wa-VprefS and long prefix verb (an alleged indicative we-VprefL). Robar also suggests that way-yiqtol sometimes contains a long prefix verb (thus wa-VprefL, 2013: 40). 5 Negative clauses are not word order restricted in BH Compared to Amarna Canaanite, negations have been specialized in Biblical Hebrew. The negation al was confined to modal short yiqtol, and the negation lō was allowed in all other types of clauses, except short yiqtol (Tropper 1998, 178). So in negative clauses there was no danger of confusion between a short yiqtol and a long yiqtol. Word order of negative clauses remained relatively free in Biblical Hebrew, as it was in Amarna Canaanite. Indicative short yiqtol could not be negated in a symmetric way. No negation plus indicative short yiqtol is allowed in Biblical Hebrew. In Amarna Canaanite the indicative short prefix verb could be negated by lā, but in Biblical Hebrew this is unallowed. It was replaced by a lō qatal clause. As a result, it is easy to distinguish a negative short yiqtol from a negative long yiqtol in Biblical Hebrew. Symmetric negation of VprefS modal VprefS indicative VprefL Vsuff Amarna Canaanite al yVqtVl lā yVqtVl lā yVqtVl-u lā qatal(a) Biblical Hebrew al yiqtol – (not allowed) lō yiqtol lō qatal The effect of the differentiation was clarity: The negation al became a signal of short modal yiqtol, and lō yiqtol became a signal of a long yiqtol. The restricted usage of the negation lō stands in sharp contrast to the free use of Amarna Canaanite lā, which could occur before both yVqtVl and yVqtVlu (Rainey 1996, 211-212). Thus, in negative clauses there was no need to use word order to distinguish the two prefix conjugations. Word order remained free. Example (5) shows a modal al yiqtol on third position in the clause.10 (5) Pattern: we-gam-Snoun- al-VprefS!; ‫ ַׅ ב־׎ ָ ֖םׅ ְבאָ ב־׉ָ ָ׉֑ם‬؊‫ַג־ׅ׎‬ ֥ ִ ‫׊ְ ׇ‬ ‘do not let anyone be seen anywhere on the mountain’ (Exod. 34:3; NET) Pre-dislocations my precede a short yiqtol The affirmative short yiqtol must be clause-itinital, but exceptions occur when an initial element is perceived not to belong to the clause (Isaksson 2015a: 191f). Such is the case when the clause has a pre-dislocation, as in example (6).11 Other examples of non-clause-initial al yiqtol are Gen. 37:22, 45:20, Exod. 16:19, Ps. 66:7. Other examples of pre-dislocation with VprefS are Gen. 1:22, 43:14, 44:33b (Niccacci 1987: 12), Deut. 32:18, Ps. 18:41 (indicative perfective VprefS). The older term for pre-dislocation is 10 11 6 (6) Pattern: PREDIS, Ø-VprefS-Snoun+...+we-VprefS+we-VprefS!; ֹ‫׎׌‬ ֽ ؊ִ ‫ָםג ֶ ֥ל ֶםה ְד‬ ֖ ‫ה־ח׋ ְבדַ ְב ֹؚ֔ ׊ְ ׎‬ ֣ ֶּ ִ‫ ׊ְ ׎‬... ‫׎׆׎׊‬ ָ֗ ‫(׎ְ ׉ ָ׊֞׉) ׎ ַ׌ּּ֣ ְד ִם‬ ‘The Lord, may his enemies be shattered ... and may he give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his anointed!’ (1 Sam. 2Ś10a) In example (6) the name of the Lord is a clear pre-discloation, what formely has been called ‘casus pendens’. The interpreters generally translate the yēḥattū with either present tense or future (as if it was a long yiqtol). But the jussive interpretation is corroborated by the two additions of we-yiqtol clauses with jussive meaning, wə-yittɛn and wə-yārĕ́ m, of which the last is morphologically distinctive.12 A vocative may precede a short yiqtol The vocative is not perceived as part of the clause, and may precede a short yiqtol, which is the case in example (7).13 (7) Pattern: we-VOC, Ø-VprefS + Ø-VprefS; ‫ב־ֹּ׎ג‬ ִֽ ָ‫ל־ב ֑דֹ ִ ּ֜ ְב ֗ ַחׇ ְבא‬ ָ ַ‫׌‬؋ְ ִּ ‫׊ְ ַׅ ָּ֣׉ ׎ְ ֭׉׊ָ׉‬ ‘But you, O LORD, laugh in disgust at them! Taunt all the nations!’ (Ps. 59:9) Of the two prefix verb clauses the first shows a vocative ‘You, O Lord’, and the second is asyndetic.14 Both clauses show a clause-initial jussive short yiqtol. ‘casus pendens’ (Driver 1913Ś 27ś Ges-K §143a; discussed by Holmstedt 2014 as one of several ‘edge constituent’ constructions). 12 Addition clauses of the type we-VprefS often receive a dependent modal meaning, such as purpose or result (J-M §116; Isaksson 2015a: §A.2.3). In 1 Sam. 2:10 a purpose meaning is possible but not evident (thus J-M §177l). That a we-VprefS clause is simply an addition which in certain contexts may take purpose or result meaning is stressed also by Muraoka (1997). 13 Another example is Yəhūḏå̄ attå̄ yōḏūḵå̄ aḥɛḵå̄ ‘Judah, may your brothers praise you!’ (Gen. 49:8; VOC, PRE-DIS, Ø-VprefS with resumptive pronoun). Further Ps. 12:8, 40:18. 14 So far I have found no examples of a vocative with a morphologically distinctive short yiqtol. Other possible exceptions to the word-order rule of a clause-initial VprefS: 1) the emphatic particle aḵ, which always occurs in front of a clause (when not qualifying a NP as in Gen. 7:23 aḵ Nōăḥ ‘only Noah’), and seems to be acceptable before a jussive VprefSś but the evidence is scarce, only 1 Sam. 1:23 ( aḵ yå̄qem YHWH ɛṯ dəḇå̄rō ‘only may the LORD make good his word’ NIV) and 1 Chron. 22:12 ( aḵ yittɛn ləḵå̄ YHWH śeḵɛl ū-ḇīnå̄ ‘Above all, may the LORD give you insight and understanding’ CSB), twe instances out of a total of 150 aḵ in the Hebrew Bible. In a similar way aḵ seems acceptable immediately before a VprefL in two instances, Jon. 2:5 ( aḵ ōsīp̄ ləhabbīṭ, but possibly VprefA), and Zeph. 3:7 ( aḵ tīrə ī ‘Surely you will fear me’ NIV), both probably LBH. 2) The initial particle raq ‘only’ also seems to be perceived as outside (before) the clause. It occurs only three times together with an immediately following prefix verb. In Deut. 2:28 it is a VprefA!, in Jos. 1:17 the raq yihyɛ has a clear modal meaning and should be interpreted as a jussive (Gentry 1998: 34), and in Isa. 4:1 the raq yiqqå̄rē is again jussive in meaning (NIV ‘only let us be called by your name’). There seems to be a number of pre-clausal exclamatory particle that “do not alter the fact that the verb is in initial position” (thus Gentry 1998: 37, who refers to both Revell and Shulman). 7 Non-clause-initial long yiqtol The long yiqtol was restricted to non-initial position. This normative word order is illustrated in examples (8) and (9).15 (8) Pattern: VOC-Spron-VprefL! (non-initial position); ָ֑ ‫ֳב‬ ֶ ‫׎ְ ֭׉ָֹ׉ ִד׎־ ָ׎ׇּ֣ם ְבָׅ ׉‬ ‘LORD, who may dwell in your sacred tent?’ (Ps. 15:1) (9) Pattern: kī-NCl + we-PrP-VprefL! (non-initial position); ‫ּ׆‬؊ֽ ָּ ‫ִ ֽؚ׎־חָ ָי֣ם ַָּׅ֔ ׉ ׊ְ ֶׅ ב־חָ ָי֖ם‬ ‘for you are dust, and to dust you will return.’ (Gen. 3:19; NET) As already noted, a lō yiqtol is immediately distinctive. The negation lō indicates that the yiqtol is long.16 An illustration is example (10). (10) Pattern: lō-VprefL!; ‫׎׉ּ׈׉‬ ָ֔ ‫ ֙׆ֶ ׍ ֙ ִ ֽד‬؊ ‫ֽבׅ־׎ָז֥ ּם‬ ‘The scepter will not depart from Judah’ (Gen. 49:10; NET) In relative clauses: long yiqtol could be clause-initial Against the word order rule, a clause-initial long yiqtol is often found in relative clauses, also without relative pronoun. Asyndetic relative clauses with long yiqtol are usually easy to recognize by the close relation to a preceding noun phrase, as in example (11).17 (11) Pattern: be-NP-«Ø-VprefL!-PrP»-VprefL; ‫ְבכּם־«׎ ָ֖םּג ִד ֶמ ֣נִ ׎» תַ וְ ֽ׌וִ ׎‬ ‘You lead me to a rock «that is high above me».’ (Ps. 61:3; TNK) I can only speculate why relative clauses became a conservative milieu in which a long yiqtol clause could still be clause-initial. One explanation might be that short yiqtol clauses are not used as first clause in relative constructions. I have no example in my database of a short yiqtol introducing a relative clause.18 15 Other examples: Gen. 6:19, 49:8, Lev. 4:31, 7:5, 16:25, 26:5, Ps. 44:25. Other examples with morphologically long yiqtol after lō: Gen. 8:21, Exod. 23:18, 34:25, Lev. 2:13, 5:8, 26:31, 27:10, Ps. 55:12. 17 Other examples of a distinctive long yiqtol in a relative clause are: Ps. 12:6, 65:10. Some examples with non-distinctive VprefL: Gen. 49:27, Lev. 25:10, 11, Ps. 17:12, 25:12, 34:9, 35:8, 50:3, 56:5. 18 But compare the difficult 2 Kgs 8:29 (with relative pronoun), and 9:15 (similar example), discussed by Joosten (1999, 24). 16 8 Word order and we-qatal As we have seen, *we-long yiqtol clauses had become unlawful, due to the risk of confusion with the clause-initial we-short yiqtol. verbal syntagm *we-long yiqtol (we)-lō-long yiqtol (we)-X-long yiqtol unlawful lawful lawful Comment mix-up with short yiqtol topicalized X There was, however, still a need for simple affirmative clauses with habitual, futural or deontic meanings, such as we are accustomed to see in the long yiqtol. Instead of the simple affirmative *we-long yiqtol, the emerging we-qatal clause came to be used in SBH (Isaksson 2015c). The clauses have similar properties: *we-VprefL simple syndetic affirmative no topicalized element compared to we-Vsuff simple syndetic affirmative no topicalized element The we-qatal type of clause is simple, affirmative, and has no clausal element placed before the verb. My argument is that the we-qatal grammatical structure gradually intruded into the semantic field of the long yiqtol gram. The driving force of the development was the need to use a replacement of the simple affirmative *we-long yiqtol. This was possible because the qatal gram itself could sometimes be modal, sometimes also have a present time reference, and in specific contexts also show future meanings, although such meanings are less frequent (Andrason 2011c; 2012). The we-qatal gradually came to take on the meanings of an affirmative long yiqtol clause. This is also the reason why the new we-qatal clauses ‘could not be negated’, nor could be ‘split up’ by a topicalized element ‘X’ between the we and the qatal. There was no need to split up the we-qatal. Such functions – negative meaning, topicalized constituent – could still be expressed by the yet lawful we-lō long yiqtol and we-X-long yiqtol.19 19 This is also the reason why the we-Vsuff syntagm with innovative meanings similar to the VprefL gram has been perceived by the grammars to constitute an unbreakable unit, a conjugation of its own (Isaksson 2015c). 9 The we-qatal clause type developed into a grammatical structure with independent semantics. I agree with Cook that in this ‘loose’ sense it can be called a separate gram (Cook 2012, 182; Bybee et al. 1994, 2). Typical meanings of this independent semantics are future time, habitual meaning, and deontic modality. The ‘split-up’ of the new we-qatal Retained lawful structure Split-up by constitutent ‘X’ fulfilled by → we-X-yiqtol Split-up by lō fulfilled by → we-lō-yiqtol Split-up by ‘X’ and lō fulfilled by → we-X-lō-yiqtol The development of an independent grammatical structure we-qatal with a semantics close to the long yiqtol gram is a feature of SBH. Such semantics of we-qatal is generally not found in the archaic poetry.20 There is no comparative evidence of two different kinds of suffix conjugations, nor is there comparative support for different stress patterns of the conjunction we with a qatal verb (Joosten 2012, 15). The ‘we-qatal’ historically consists of the normal conjunction we and the normal grammatical morpheme qatal. The development of we-qatal as a syndetic grammatical structure with the semantics of the long yiqtol is an internal development in Biblical Hebrew, and a distinguishing feature of Standard Biblical Hebrew. So we-qatal is negated with the older we-lō-yiqtol. The we-qatal is topicalized by the older we-X-yiqtol. The we-qatal clause codes an addition, the semantic range of which has been widened beyond that of qatal clauses. It is a grammatical structure that has developed a semantic independence. we-qatal clauses often alternates with long yiqtol clauses. In the typical case a long yiqtol clause begins an instruction, and is then followed by weqatal clauses. This is illustrated in example (12).21 The archaic poem in Deut. 32 contain some such we-qatal clauses with ‘new’ semantics. They are found in the final part of the poem and commonly regarded as a late addition (Isaksson, forthcoming). 21 Other examples, with distinctive long yiqtol clauses, are: Lev. 4:31, 7:5, Amos 9:11. 20 10 (12) Pattern: we-Onoun-VprefL! + we-Vsuff; ‫תג ֻؚ ּ ֳֽות‬ ָ֖ ‫ּ ׅ‬ ֥ ָ ؊ְ ַ‫׊ְ ֶׅ ת־בָ וָ ֖׎׊ ַּ ְל ִ ֑ם׎׆ ׊ְ ִ׉ ְבב‬ ‘You shall bring his sons also and put coats on them’ (Exod. 40:14; ESV) In example (12) the instruction starts with a long yiqtol expressing deontic modality. Its object noun phrase ɛṯ bānāw is topicalized by being placed in clause-initial position. The instruction goes on with a simple affirmative ‘and put coats on them’ without topicalized elements.22 Example (12) does not prove that we-qatal has an independent semantics, but some instances do show the indepence. One of them is example (13). (13) Pattern: kī- attā-Vsuff + we-Vsuff; ‫׌׎׆ ׎ְ ׉׊ָ ֛׉ ָב֖וּ ּיָ ִ ֥ם׎וּ ׆ָ ָ ֽׅ ֶםך‬ ֧ ִ ‫ִ ֽؚ׎־חַ ֞ ָּ׉ ִ׉ ְם‬ ‘For now the LORD has made room for us, and we will prosper in the land.’ (Gen. 26:22; NET) In (13) the first clause with qatal has an anterior meaning, and the following we-qatal has futural time reference. The we-qatal cannot be said to just ‘take over’ the meaning of the previous clause.23 Negation of way-yiqtol The indicative short yiqtol clause, including the additive ‘wayyiqtol’ and the asyndetic poetic narrative short yiqtol, could no longer be negated in Biblical Hebrew, not even in the archaic poetry. In the new restricted word order for clarification, a *we-lō-short yiqtol clause would have been mistaken for a long yiqtol clause. But there was a need for a negated clause in the a narrative storyline. The Biblical Hebrew solution was an asymmetric negation. The natural negative candidate to enter the storyline was the we-lō-qatal clause, with past time reference and perfective aspect (Joosten 2012, 42). The we-lō-qatal clause entered the narrative storyline and complemented the affirmative syndetic way-yiqtol with a corresponding negative clause. 22 An extensive treatment of the we-qatal grammatical structure is found in Isaksson (2015c). Other examples are Gen. 9:13 (future), 1 Sam. 1:3 (habitual meaning with past time). In Late Biblical Hebrew the we-qatal largely recaptures the ‘normal’ meanings of qatal. In view of the diachronic span of we-qatal it is reasonable to suppose that the we-qatal grammatical structure went through a diachronic development from the earliest stage represented by the archaic poetry, a stage which in this respect resembles the earliest Northwest Semitic inscriptions. Then the we-qatal syntagm took over addition usages from the long yiqtol gram, and developed a broad semantic spectrum, including modal meanings, future, and habituality. The end stage, tracable in Late Biblical Hebrew and Qumran Hebrew, constituted a return to ‘normal’ qatal meanings of we-qatal, that is, additive wə plus the qatal gram. It is reasonable to suppose that this renewed ‘normal’ additive narrative we-qatal should be understood in the light of the gradual displacement of narrative way-yiqtol with the qatal gram in Late Biblical Hebrew. 23 11 A simple example of we-lō-qatal in a storyline is (14). (14) Pattern: wa-VprefS+*we-lō-Vsuff; ‫ ָם ֽׅב‬؋ְ ִ‫ת־בו ֥׎ ׎‬ ְ ֶ‫ ַ؛֖׌ ׅ‬؊ִ ‫בׅ‬ ֥ ְ‫׊ַ׎ְ ׌ַ ז ֥ל ׎ְ ׉׊ָ ֖׉ ֶׅ ת־ב ֣׆ פַ ְם ֑ח׉ ׊‬ ‘But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, *and he did not let the people of Israel go.’ (Exod. 10:20; ESV) In (14) the Lord hardens the heart of Pharaoh, and the result is that he does not let the people go. This result nuance is a typical function of the implied default sequentiality of a storyline. Both clauses are perfective with past time reference. Thus verbal negation in Biblical Hebrew has turned out to be asymmetric in several instances:24 Affirmative clause VprefS jussive way-yiqtol we-qatal Symmetric negation al-VprefS Asymmetric negation we-lō qatal we-lō yiqtol Summary Biblical Hebrew is expected to behave as a daughter-language of early Canaanite. When the morphological distinction between short yiqtol and long yiqtol was lost (partially) in Proto-Hebrew, word order became the decisive strategy to cope with the risk of confusion. The old *yaqtul (VprefS) was assigned clause-initial position, and the old *yaqtulu (VprefL) was placed in non-initial position. This strategy concerned the affirmative clauses. In negative clauses word order has remained free. Instead negations were specialized:  The negation lō could not be used with a short yiqtol (no *lō-VprefS).  al yiqtol is a signal of jussive short yiqtol.  Negation of the indicative short yiqtol became asymmetric: the negation of way-yiqtol is we-lō-qatal in a narrative storyline.  lō yiqtol became a signal of a long yiqtol. Indicative short yiqtol:  In prose only as way-yiqtol.  In poetry as Ø-yiqtol and way-yiqtol.  Negation is asymmetric: lō-qatal. 24 For a discussion of asymmetric negation in Semitic and Biblical Hebrew, see Sjörs (2015). 12  Topicalization is asymmetric: X-qatal. Jussive short yiqtol:  In affirmative clauses either Ø-yiqtol or we-yiqtol.  A we-yiqtol is always a jussive clause.  Always negated by al: a al yiqtol is always jussive. Long yiqtol:  *we-long yiqtol is clause-initial and is replaced by we-qatal.  X-yiqtol with topicalized ‘X’ element continued in use.  Negation is symmetric: lō yiqtol continued in use.  X-yiqtol and lō yiqtol always indicate a long yiqtol. we-qatal:  Is an old formation with renewed semantics. It exists in all Central Semitic languages. What is special to SBH is that the we-qatal has taken over the semantics of the imperfective long yiqtol clauses.  Replaced the unlawful *we-long yiqtol.  Became a grammatical structure with gradually independent semantics.  The impression that a we-qatal clause could not be ‘split-up’ is an ‘optical illusion’. The equal status clauses we-lō-long yiqtol and we-X-long yiqtol were still in use and did not need replacement.  In procedural discourse we-qatal clauses interact with equal status we-lōlong yiqtol and we-X-long yiqtol clauses.  Negation is asymmetric: its negative counterpart is we-lō-yiqtol. References Andersen, Francis I. 1974. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. Janua Linguarum 231. The Hague. Andersen, T. David. 2000. “The evolution of the Hebrew verbal system”. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 13 no. 1: 1-66. Andrason, Alexander. 2010. “The panchronic yiqtol: Functionally consistent and cognitively plausible?”. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 10: 1-63. ———. 2011a. “The biblical Hebrew verbal system in light of grammaticalization – the second generation”. Hebrew Studies 52: 19-51. ———. 2011b. “The biblical Hebrew verbal system in light of grammaticalization – the second generation”. Hebrew Studies 53: 351-383. ———. 2011c. “The BH weqatal. A homogenous form with no haphazard functions (Part 1)”. Journal of Nortwest Semitic Languages 37 no. 2: 1-26. ———. 2012. “The BH weqatal. A homogenous form with no haphazard functions (Part 2)”. Journal of Nortwest Semitic Languages 38 no. 1: 1-30. 13 Bloch, Yigal. 2007. “From linguistics to text-criticism and back: wayyiqṭōl constructions with long prefixed verbal forms in biblical Hebrew”. Hebrew Studies 48: 140-170. ———. 2009. “The prefixed perfective and the dating of early Hebrew poetry—A re-evaluation”. Vetus Testamentum 58: 34-70. Brockelmann, Carl. 1956. Hebräische Syntax. Neukirchen: Kreis Moers. Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Bybee, Joan L., and Östen Dahl. 1989. “The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world”. Studies in Language 13 no. 1: 51-103. CJB = Complete Jewish Bible. Cook, John A. 2006. “The finite verbal forms in biblical Hebrew do express aspect.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 30: 21-35. ———. 2012. Time and the biblical Hebrew verb: The expression of tense, aspect, and modality in biblical Hebrew. Linguistic studies in ancient West Semitic 7. Cook, John A. 2014. “Current issues in the study of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system”. KUSATU 17: 79-108. Cormack, Annabel, and Neil Smith. 2005. “What is coordination?” Lingua 115: 395-418. CSB = Holman Christian Standard Bible. Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. ———. 2000. “The tense-aspect systems of European languages in a typological perspective”. In Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe, edited by Östen Dahl. 3-25. Empirical approaches to language typology (EUROTYP) 20:6. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Dixon, R. M. W. 2012. Basic linguistic theory. Vol. 3, Further grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dixon, R. M. W., and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, eds. 2009. The semantics of clause linking: A cross-linguistic typology. Explorations in linguistic typology 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reprint, paperback edition 2011. Driver, Samuel Rolles. 1892. A treatise on the use of the tense in Hebrew and some other syntactical questions. 3 rev. and improved ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Reprint, Wipf & Stock: Eugene, Oregon, 2004. ———. 1913. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel with an Introduction on Hebrew Palaeography and the Ancient Versions and Facsimiles of Inscriptions and Maps. 2nd rev. and enlarged ed. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. ESV = The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Fischer, Wolfdietrich, and Otto Jastrow, eds. 1980. Handbuch der arabischen Dialekte. Porta Linguarum Orientalium N.S. 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 14 Gentry, Peter J. 1998. “The system of the finite verb in classical biblical Hebrew”. Hebrew Studies 39: 7-39. Ges-K = Gesenius, Wilhelm, and Emil Kautzsch. 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew grammar. Translated by A. E. Cowley. Edited by Emil Kautzsch. 2nd revised English ed. Oxford: Clarendon. Reprint, 1976. Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction. Rev. ed. 2 vols. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. Greenstein, Edward L. 2006. “Forms and functions of the finite verb in Ugaritic narrative verse”. In Biblical Hebrew in its Northwest Semitic setting. Typological and historical perspectives, edited by Steven Ellis Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz. 75-102. Publication of the Institute for Advanced Studies, 1. Jerusalem, Winona Lake, Ind: Hebrew University Magnes Press. Eisenbrauns. Gzella, Holger. 2011. “Northwest Semitic in general”. In The Semitic languages: An international handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael P. Streck and Janet C. E. Watson. 425-451. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. ———. 2012. “Introduction” and “Ancient Hebrew”. In Languages from the world of the Bible, edited by Holger Gzella, 1-13, 76-110. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter. Haiman, John, and Sandra A. Thompson, eds. 1988. Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Typological studies in language 18. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Halliday, Michael A. K. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar. Edited by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 3rd rev. ed. London: Arnold. Haspelmath, Martin. 1998. “The semantic development of old presentsŚ New futures and subjunctives without grammaticalization”. Diachronica 15 no. 1: 29-62. Hatav, Galia. 1997. The semantics of aspect and modality. Evidence from English and biblical Hebrew. Studies in language companion series 34. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Hopper, Paul J. 1982. Tense-aspect: Between semantics & pragmatics: Containing the contributions to a symposium on tense and aspect, held at UCLA, [Los Angeles], May 1979. Typological studies in language (TSL) 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Huehnergard, John. 2005. “Features of Central Semitic”. In Biblical and Oriental essays in memory of William L. Moran, edited by Agustinus Gianto. 155-203. Biblica et orientalia 48. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Isaksson, Bo. 2007. “Semitic circumstantial qualifiers in the Book of JudgesŚ A pilot study on the infinitive.” Orientalia Suecana 56: 163-172. ———. 2009. “Introduction” and “An outline of comparative Arabic and Hebrew textlinguistics”. In Circumstantial qualifiers in Semitic: The case of 15 Arabic and Hebrew, edited by Bo Isaksson, 1-35 and 36-150. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 70. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. ———. 2011. “The textlinguistics of the Suffering ServantŚ Subordinate structures in Isaiah 52,13-53,12”. In En pāsē grammatikē kai sophiā. Saggi di linguistica ebraica in onore di Alviero Niccacci, ofm, edited by Gregor Geiger and Massimo Pazzini, 173-212. Collana Analecta: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 78. Jerusalem; Milano: Franciscan Printing Press; Editioni Terra Santa. ———. 2013. “SubordinationŚ Biblical Hebrew”. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan, vol. 3, 657-664. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2014a. “Clause linking strategies in the narrative and instructional discourse of Joseph’s speech in Gen. 45Ś 3-15”. Journal of Semitic Studies 59 no. 1: 15-45. ———. 2014b. “The main line of a biblical Hebrew narrative and what to do with two perfective grams.” In Proceedings of the Oslo–Austin Workshop in Semitic Linguistics, Oslo, May 23–24, 2013, edited by Lutz Edzard and John Huehnergard, 73-94. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 88. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2014c. “Archaic biblical Hebrew poetryŚ The linking of finite clauses”. In Strategies of Clause Linking in Semitic Languages: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Clause Linking in Semitic Languages 5-7 August 2012 in Kivik, Sweden, edited by Bo Isaksson and Maria Persson, 109-141. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 93. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2015a. “The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A clause combining approach”. In Clause Combining in Semitic. The circumstantial clause and beyond, edited by Bo Isaksson and Maria Persson. 169-268. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 96. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2015b. “‘Subordination’Ś Some reflections on Matthiessen and Thompson’s article “The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’” and its bearing on the idea of circumstantial clause in Arabic and Hebrew”. In Arabic and Semitic Linguistics Contextualized. A Festschrift for Jan Retsö, edited by Lutz Edzard. 404-424. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2015c. “The so-called we-qatal conjugation in Biblical Hebrew once again”. In Papers read at the 11 Mainz International Colloquium on Ancient Hebrew (MICAH), University of Mainz, 1-3 November 2013, edited by Reinhard G. Lehmann and Kwang Cheol Park. 71-117. KUSATU: Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 19. Mainz: Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz. ———. Forthcoming. “Clause combining in the Song of Moses (Deut. 32Ś143). An example of archaic Biblical Hebrew syntax”. In Biblical Hebrew 16 Linguistics: Papers from the 16th WCJS, Jerusalem 2013, edited by Tania Notarius and Adina Moshavi: Eisenbrauns. Joosten, Jan. 1999. “The long form of the prefix conjugation referring to the past in Biblical Hebrew prose”. Hebrew Studies 40: 15-26. ———. 2012. The verbal system of Biblical Hebrew. A new synthesis elaborated on the basis of classical prose. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 10. Jerusalem: Simor. J-M = Joüon, Paul, and Takamitsu Muraoka. 2006. A grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2nd rev. English ed. Subsidia Biblica 27. Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press. Reprint, 2009 with corrections. JPS = JPS Holy Scriptures 1917 (English). Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. “Tense and mood in Indo-European syntax”. Foundations of Language 4 no. 1: 30-57. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. 1978. Psalmen. 5th ed. 2 vols. Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament 15. Neukirchen. Lehmann, Christian. 1988. “Towards a typology of clause linkage”. In Clause combining in grammar and discourse, edited by John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson, 181-225. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lunn, Nicholas P. 2006. Word-order variation in biblical Hebrew poetry: Differentiating pragmatics and poetics. Paternoster biblical monographs. Carlisle: Paternoster Press. Meyer, Rudolf. 1966-1972. Hebräische Grammatik. 3rd ed. 4 vols. Sammlung Göschen. Berlin: de Gruyter. Müller, Hans-Peter. 1983. “Zur Geschichte des hebräischen Verbs – Diachronie der Konjugationsthemen”. Biblische Zeitschrift 27: 34-57. ———. 1991. “wa-, ha- und das Imperfectum consecutivum”. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 4: 144-160. NAB = The New American Bible. NAS = The New American Standard Bible. NET = The New English Translation Bible. Niccacci, Alviero. 1987. “A Neglected Point in Hebrew SyntaxŚ Yiqtol and Position in the Sentence”. Liber Annuus (Studium biblicum franciscanum) 37: 7-19. ———. 2014. “Background constructions inside the main line in biblical Hebrew”. In Strategies of Clause Linking in Semitic Languages: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Clause Linking in Semitic Languages 5-7 August 2012 in Kivik, Sweden, edited by Bo Isaksson and Maria Persson, 179-189. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 93. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. NIV = The New International Version. NJB = The New Jerusalem Bible. Notarius, Tania. 2013. The verb in archaic Biblical poetry: A discursive, typological, and historical investigation of the tense system. Studies in Semitic languages and linguistics 68. Leiden – Boston: Brill. 17 NRS = New Revised Standard Version Bible. Nyberg, Henrik Samuel. 1972. Hebreisk grammatik. 2nd ed. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Pardee, Dennis. 2012. “The biblical Hebrew verbal system in a nutshell”. In Language and nature: Papers presented to John Huehnergard on the occasion of his 60th birthday, edited by Rebecca Hasselbach and Na'ama PatEl, 285-318. Studies in ancient oriental civilization 67. Chicago: Oriental institute of the University of Chicago. Polak, Frank. 2014. “The circumstantial clause as triggerŚ Syntax, discourse and plot structure in biblical narrative”. In Strategies of Clause Linking in Semitic Languages: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Clause Linking in Semitic Languages 5-7 August 2012 in Kivik, Sweden, edited by Bo Isaksson and Maria Persson, 191-203. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 93. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Rainey, Anson F. 1986. “The ancient Hebrew prefix conjugation in the light of Amarnah Canaanite”. Hebrew Studies 27: 4-19. ———. 1996. Canaanite in the Amarna tablets: A linguistic analysis of the mixed dialect used by scribes from Canaan. Vol. 3, Morphosyntactic analysis of the particles and adverbs. Handbook of Oriental Studies: The Near and Middle East 25. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2003a. “The yaqtul preterite in Northwest Semitic”. Hamlet on a hill: Semitic and Greek studies presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday no. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 118: 395-407. ———. 2003b. “The suffix conjugation pattern in ancient Hebrew tense and modal functions”. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 40: 3-42. Revell, E. J. 1984. “Stress and the waw ‘consecutive’ in biblical Hebrew”. Journal of the American Oriental Society 104: 437-444. RSV = Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Sjörs, Ambjörn. 2015. The history of standard negation in Semitic. PhD diss. Uppsala. Steiner, Richard C. 2000. “Does the Biblical Hebrew conjunction ‫ ־׊‬have many meanings, one meaning, or no meaning at all?”. Journal of Biblical Literature 119 no. 2: 249-267. Stempel, Reinhard. 2012. “The injunctive in Semitic”. In Studia Andreae Zaborski dedicata, edited by Jerzy Chmiel, Anna Krasnowolska, Tomasz Plański, Ewa Siemieniec-Goła , Lidia Sudyka and Joachim liwa. 523528. Folia Orientalia 49. Cracow: Polish Academy of Sciences. TNK = JPS TANAKH (English). Tropper, Josef. 1998. “Althebräisches und semitisches Aspektsystem”. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 11: 153-190. Tropper, Josef, and Juan-Pablo Vita. 2010. Das Kanaano-akkadische der Amarnazeit. Lehrbücher orientalischer Sprachen. Section I: Cuneiform Languages 1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 18 Van der Merwe, Christo H. J., Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. 1999. A biblical Hebrew reference grammar. Biblical Languages: Hebrew 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Reprint, 2004. Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2005. “Two types of coordination in clause combining”. Lingua 115: 611-626. 19