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 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. 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 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 In the Amarna age (14th century) 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) 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. 3 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. 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) 5 6 1
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: 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. 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. 7 8 Clause-initial short yiqtol A retention in BH poetry: indicative short Ø-yiqtol (1) Pattern: Ø-VprefS! (modal meaning) תּו צ א ה א ר ץ נ פ שׁ ח יּ ה ל מ ינ הּ Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds. (Gen. 1:24) (2) Pattern: Ø-VprefS! (indicative meaning) י ד בּ ר ע מּ ים תּ ח תּ ינוּ וּ ל א מּ ים תּ ח ת ר ג ל ינוּ He subdued nations beneath us and countries under our feet (Ps. 47:4; NET) Indicative Ø-yiqtol (short) in Hebrew Development Replaced by In poetry retained In prose discarded qatal 9 10 Syndetic short yiqtol clauses The allomorphic variation we/wa we-yiqtol is modal, wa-yiqtol is indicative: (3) Pattern: Ø-VprefS! + we-vprefs! (modal additive meaning in second clause) י ה י ר ק יע בּ ת ו ך ה מּ י ם ו יה י מ ב דּ יל בּ ין מ י ם ל מ י ם 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) ו יּ ע שׂ א לה ים א ת ה ר ק יע And God made the expanse (Gen. 1:7) 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 11 12 2
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 Amarna Canaanite Biblical Hebrew VprefS modal ʾal yvqtvl ʾal yiqtol VprefS indicative lā yvqtvl (not allowed) VprefL lā yvqtvl-u lō yiqtol Vsuff lā qatal(a) lō qatal Free word order in negative clauses: example (5) Pattern: we-gam-snoun-ʾal-vprefs!; ו ג ם א ישׁ א ל י ר א בּ כ ל ה ה ר 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.) 13 14 Word order exception: predislocation ( casus pendens ) Word order exception: Vocative (6) Pattern: PREDIS, Ø-VprefS-Snoun+...+we-VprefS+we-VprefS!; ) י הו ה ( י ח תּוּ מ ר יב יו... ו י תּ ן ע ז ל מ ל כּ ו ו י ר ם ק ר ן מ שׁ יח ו 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) (7) Pattern: we-voc, Ø-VprefS + Ø-VprefS; ו א תּ ה י הו ה תּ שׂ ח ק ל מו תּ ל ע ג ל כ ל גּו י ם But you, O LORD, laugh in disgust at them! Taunt all the nations! (Ps. 59:9) (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). (Other examples: Gen. 49:8, Ps. 12:8, 40:18). 15 16 Non-clause-initial long yiqtol lō yiqtol is always long (8) Pattern: VOC-Spron-VprefL! (non-initial position); י הו ה מ י י ג וּר בּ א ה ל ך LORD, who may dwell in your sacred tent? (Ps. 15:1) (9) Pattern: kī-ncl + we-prp-vprefl! (non-initial position); כּ י ע פ ר א תּ ה ו א ל ע פ ר תּ שׁ וּב for you are dust, and to dust you will return. (Gen. 3:19; NET) (10) Pattern: lō-vprefl!; ל א י ס וּר שׁ ב ט מ יהוּד ה The scepter will not depart from Judah (Gen. 49:10; NET) (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 18 3
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; בּ צוּר «י ר וּם מ מּ נּ י» ת נ ח נ י You lead me to a rock «that is high above me». (Ps. 61:3; TNK) verbal syntagm Comment *we-long yiqtol unlawful mix-up with short yiqtol (we)-lō-long yiqtol lawful (we)-x-long yiqtol lawful 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 20 The role of we-qatal The split-up of the new we-qatal *we-vprefl compared to we-vsuff simple simple syndetic syndetic affirmative affirmative no topicalized element 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 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. we-qatal and long yiqtol are often of equal status (12) Pattern: we-onoun-vprefl! + we-vsuff; ו א ת בּ נ יו תּ ק ר יב ו ה ל בּ שׁ תּ א ת ם כּ תּ נ ת 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
The semantic independence of we-qatal in SBH (13) Pattern: kī-ʿattā-vsuff + we-vsuff; כּ י ע תּ ה ה ר ח יב י הו ה ל נוּ וּפ ר ינוּ ב א ר ץ 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 5