Version classiqueVersion mobile

New Perspectives in Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew

 | 
Aaron D. Hornkohl
, 
Khan Geoffrey

The Coding of Discourse Dependency in Biblical Hebrew Consecutive Weqaṭal and Wayyiqṭol

Geoffrey Khan

Résumé

The paper argues that the discourse dependency of Biblical Hebrew consecutive weqaṭal and wayyiqṭol forms is encoded in their semantic structure and is not just an implicature of the context. This is a heritage of their historical origin in subordinate constructions with temporal integration between clauses. The historical development of consecutive weqaṭal and wayyiqṭol proposed has typological parallels in Neo-Aramaic and involves the extension through schematisation of constructions containing dependent clauses (apodosis and purpose clause, respectively). The old narrative construction of waw + past perfective yiqṭol expressing chains of events was preserved due to a process in which it was reanalysed as an extension of a different, but structurally similar, construction, viz. waw + jussive yiqṭol.

Texte intégral

1In this paper I shall make a typological comparison between the Biblical Hebrew ‘consecutive’ forms weqaṭal and wayyiqṭol and verbal forms expressing discourse dependency in Neo-Semitic and various non-Semitic languages. In particular I shall be concerned with the insights these typological parallels may give us into the possible historical background and development of the Hebrew forms. It is becoming increasingly recognised that language typology is an important tool for assessing and enlightening the study of historical linguistic change (Shields 2010; Pat-El 2020).

  • 1 I am grateful to the comments on an original draft of this paper by Aaron Hornkohl, Ivri Bunis, and (...)

2The paper is organised as follows. §1.0 presents the comparative data, with a particular focus on discourse dependent verbal forms in Neo-Aramaic. In §2.0 and §3.0 I examine the Biblical Hebrew consecutive weqaṭal and wayyiqṭol, respectively, in the light of these parallels. This is followed by a concluding discussion concerning the coding of discourse dependency.1

1.0. Discourse Dependency in Neo-Semitic

3In some Neo-Semitic languages certain forms of verb are used to signal that the predicate of the clause they occur in continues in some way the preceding discourse. This continuation is typically either temporal sequence or some kind of elaboration, and is referred to here by the generic term ‘discourse dependency’.

4In this section I shall focus in particular on verbal forms expressing discourse dependency in Neo-Aramaic dialects. I have presented a detailed study of this phenomenon in Neo-Aramaic in a recent paper (Khan 2021) and here I shall give only a brief overview.

1.1. Future and Discourse Dependent in Neo-Aramaic

5In many North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) dialects future events are expressed by a construction with the form bət-qaṭəl. This consists of a preverbal element bət, which is a grammaticalised and phonetically reduced volitional verb ‘he wants to’, followed by a verb form that is historically an active participle but now functions as a subjunctive. In normal fast speech the bət-element generally undergoes further phonetic reduction. In addition to expressing the future in main clauses, both a deontic future expressing intention (e.g., ‘I shall go’) and an epistemic predictive future (e.g., ‘he will go’), the form is used in the apodosis of conditional constructions, e.g.,

(1)

ʾən-kpìn-ni,| ṱ-axlə̀n-ne.|
if-hunger. pfv-1s fut-eat.sbjv.1ms-3ms
‘If I am hungry, I shall eat it.’ (A23: 5)

6In conditional constructions such as (1), the apodosis with the bət-qaṭəl form is dependent syntactically on the preceding protasis. The bət-qaṭəl form is sometimes used outside of conditional constructions in clauses that are more loosely dependent on the preceding discourse. Various types of such discourse dependency are attested. In some cases the form expresses events that are temporally sequential to what precedes (2). In many cases, however, the form does not express temporal sequentiality, but only some kind of relevance to a preceding clause, typically elaboration (3):

(2)

báθər ʾéða gòṛa| … ʾìθena| ʾéðət sulàqa.|
after festival big there.is festival.of ascension
xàrθa| ṱ-áθe xá-ʾeða xréna zòra,|
afterwards fut-come.sbjv.3ms one-festival other small
y-amríle ʾéðət musàrde.|
hab-say.ipfv festival.of musarde
‘After the Great Festival… the festival of Ascension takes place.… Afterwards comes a small festival, which is called musarde.’ (B6: 5–8)

(3)

báwθə Ninwàye| ʾáp-ʾay ʾìtwa.|
petitition.of Ninevites also-it.3FS there.was

ṣɛmìla.| ṱ-ámri díge=u kθàye|
fast.ipfv.3pl-3pl fut-say.sbjv.3pl cocks=and chickens
ʾáp ʾan-zóre xtàye.|
also those-small lower
‘The Rogation of the Ninevites was also observed (in our community). They would fast during it. They would say (concerning this) “The cocks and the chickens, and also the small lowly creatures (should observe the fast).”’ (B16: 15)

7When the bət-qaṭəl form has this discourse dependency function, it generally expresses habitual events, as is the case in the examples above. The construction, however, is sporadically used in narratives, where it refers to specific events that are dependent on, and typically sequential to, what precedes, e.g.,

(4)

ʾə́rbe máxe l-ġðàðe,| ṱ-ázi
sheep strike.sbjv.3ms to-each.other fut-go.sbjv.3pl
xa-fàtra| ʾal-salíqə zòrna.| máxe zórna
a-while on-tune.of pipe strike.sbjv.3ms pipe
xa-salíqa xèna,| ʾə́rbe b-dɛ̀ri,| b-ganèy.|
one-tune other sheep fut-return.sbjv.3pl by-themselves
‘He gathered the sheep together and they went off for a while according to the tune of the pipe. He played another tune on the pipe and the sheep returned by themselves.’ (A25: 27)

8Following the temporal analysis proposed by Reichenbach (1947), we should be careful to distinguish event time (E), speech time (S), and the temporal reference time (R). Reichenbach’s original system has undergone various modifications in more recent research, but the ‘neo-Reichenbachian’ approaches still distinguish these three components of analysis. The reference time (R), sometimes referred to as the ‘evaluation time’ (Hatav 2012), is the contextual temporal anchor to which the future verb form relates. One may say that the future form is temporally ‘bound’ to this anchor (Hatav 2012). According to a Reichenbachian system of temporal analysis, in future constructions in main clauses and in apodoses the event time (E) is posterior to the reference time (R), which can be represented R—E. In the case of the future function, the reference time overlaps with speech time (S), i.e., the contextual temporal anchor is the speech situation. This can be represented R, S—E. For the bət-qaṭəl form in the apodosis of conditional constructions, however, the reference time is that of the eventuality expressed in the protasis clause. In such cases the bət-qaṭəl form expresses an eventuality that is posterior to this reference time, but this reference time does not necessarily overlap with speech time. It is important to note that the reference time in these various constructions has different locations. In the future constructions the reference time is internal, i.e., it coincides with the utterance of the clause. The reference time of the verb of the apodosis, however, is external to the clause and is located in the preceding protasis clause.

9I have argued (Khan 2021) that the discourse dependency habitual function of bət-qaṭəl developed by extension of its use in apodosis clauses. The habitual meaning of the discourse dependent bət-qaṭəl form most likely arises from a retention of the contingent semantics of a conditional apodosis.

1.2. Narrative Subjunctive in Neo-Aramaic

10In some NENA dialects the subjunctive form of the verb is used in narratives as a perfective sequential form. It typically continues an event or events that are expressed by a narrative past verbal form, e.g.,

11C. Barwar

(5)

ʾáp ʾaw-lɛ́le xéna qìmla,| sáʾət ṭḷáθa
also that-night other rise.pfv.3fs hour.of three
b-lɛ̀le,| šárya bănúda dìya,| ʾu-ʾáza
at-night untie.sbjv.3fs bands.her of.her and-go.sbjv.3fs
ʾáxla xá-brona xéna ʾu-dɛ̀ṛa,|
eat.sbjv.3fs one-son other and-return. sbjv.3fs
dàmxa.| páθxa tằra,| dámxa
sleep.sbjv.3fs open.sbjv.3fs door sleep.sbjv.3fs
gu-dudìya.|
in-cradle
‘Also the next night she got up, at three o’clock in the morning, untied her bands, went and ate another child, then returned and went to sleep. She opened the door and went to sleep in the cradle.’ (A18: 5–6)

12This construction is predominantly used to express perfective events in narrative, but sporadically the subjunctive form is used as a sequential habitual:

13C. Barwar

(6)

|
ʾu-máxa xa-mə́šxa gu-be-ʾéne dìye
and-put.sbjv.3pl one-oil in-place.of-eyes.his of.him

ʾoðí-le rúšma ʾax-ṣlìwa.|
do.sbjv.3pl-3ms sign like-cross
‘And they put some oil on his forehead and make the sign of the cross.’ (B6: 36)

14I argued (Khan 2021) that the narrative subjunctive qaṭəl form is a modal subjunctive, which has been extended from its use in subordinate clauses, in particular, purpose clauses. Constructions that are used to express purpose are also used as result clauses, i.e., they express the result of a preceding action. Such result clauses appear to have developed from the common implicature of purpose clauses that the event took place, especially after verbs of movement, e.g., I went to buy some bread has the implicature that I did in fact buy bread (Schmidtke-Bode 2009, 178). This conventionalisation of an implicature as the expression of a real event that is reflected in result clauses is likely to have been the pathway of development also of dependent narrative subjunctive forms.

1.3. Elsewhere in Semitic and Beyond

15Within Semitic one can find some parallels to the discourse dependent forms of NENA. Owens (2018) argues that the preverbal particle b- that is found in a variety of Arabic dialects originates in the deontic verb baġa ‘to want’ (cognate with Aramaic baʿe). What is of interest is that, although it has retained its deontic or modal sense in some dialects of the Gulf, in other dialects it has developed into an indicative (e.g., Levant). The missing link, Owens claims, is its use in Nigerian Arabic to express what he calls ‘propositional adjacency’, which corresponds to what I call here discourse dependency.

16The indicative preverbal particle ka- in Moroccan Arabic appears to have its origin in the modal use of the auxiliary verb kān in conditional clauses (Corriente 1977, 140–41; Stewart 1998, 111–12; Hanitsch 2019, 256–58). This also, therefore, may have followed a similar pathway of development as NENA bət-qaṭəl.

17Tsukanova (2008) has identified the use of dependent subjunctive forms containing the modal auxiliary čān in Gulf Arabic as a continuative form in narratives.

  • 2 Verbal forms of this type in numerous African languages are discussed in the papers of the volume e (...)

18Parallels to such discourse dependent verbal forms have been documented in a variety of languages outside of Semitic. Numerous languages of Africa have special verbal forms for the expression of continuity in discourse. These are used, for example, for the chaining of clauses in narratives and descriptions of habitual procedures.2 This continuity may be temporal sequence or elaboration. Such forms are often identical to forms that express modal subordination in subordinate clauses and so have been referred to as narrative subjunctives (R. Carlson 1992; Seidel 2015, 180). In some African languages the consecutive forms can be used independently of preceding discourse as a future or modal form denoting an unrealised action (e.g., Seidel 2015, 186). Historical reconstructions of Oceanic languages have revealed connections between narrative continuity devices and future verbal forms (Lichtenberk 2014).

19English habitual constructions containing the auxiliary would also furnish a possible typological parallel. It has been observed that such habituals have a similar dependency on situations established in the context (by a preceding clause or time adverbial), e.g., Carlson and Spejewski (1997) and Boneh and Doron (2013), who refer to this as ‘modal subordination’. A habitual sentence used to, on the other hand, has no such dependency. In a description of habitual events used to may be employed in the first clause, whereas would is felicitous only in subsequent clauses, e.g., My grandmother used to make delicious apple pies. She would go to the orchard to pick the apples herself (adapted from Carlson and Spejewski 1997, 102).

2.0. Biblical Hebrew Consecutive weqaṭal

  • 3 The topic–comment type of constructions cited by Krahmalkov as examples of future we-qaṭal are sema (...)

20The historical development and function of the consecutive weqaṭal of Biblical Hebrew appears to parallel very closely that of the NENA bət-qaṭəl form. It has already been proposed by several scholars that the construction had its historical origins in Northwest Semitic conditional constructions (Smith 2009, 6–15). In the El-Amarna documents the suffix conjugation with future meaning is mostly restricted to conditional constructions. It is attested in the apodosis, which is normally preceded by the connective u (Rainey 1996, II: 358–62; Baranowski 2016b, 173–78). According to Moran (1961, 64–65) this represents the closest semantic and syntactic antecedent to Biblical Hebrew future weqaṭal. The same applies to Ugaritic, where clear cases of w + the suffix conjugation with a future meaning are restricted to the apodosis of conditional clauses or semantically related contexts (Sivan 1998, 92; Tropper 2000, 716–17). Similarly, future uses of the suffix conjugation in contexts of a conditional type are found also in Phoenician and Punic (Krahmalkov 1986).3 Elsewhere in Central Semitic one may compare this to the use of the qatala form in Arabic in conditional constructions, e.g., ʾin faʿalta ðālika halakta ‘If you do that, you will perish’ (W. Wright 1898, 15).

21In Biblical Hebrew weqaṭal with a future meaning is frequently used in the apodosis of conditional constructions:

(7)

ִֽׂ֙ י־םא ַ ע ֲ ל ֶ֣ ׀ה ה ָ ע ֶָ֣ ם ה ַ ז ֶּ֗ ה ל ַ ע ֲ ש ֹׂ֙ תו ז ְ ב ָ ח ִ֤ םי ב ְ ב ֵ י־תי ְ וה ָ ה ׂ֙ ֙ ריב ֶּ֣ שו ָ ל ִַַ֔ ם ְ ו ְ֠ ש ָ ב ל ֵֶ֣ ב ה ָ ע ִָ֤ ם ה ַ הז ֙ א־לא ֲ ד ֶ֣ נ ֵ הי ִַ֔ ם ־לא ְ חר ַ ב ְ ע ָָ֖ ם מ ֶ֣ ל ְ ך י ְ ה ּ ו ָ ד ָ֑ ה וַ ה ֲָ גר ֻ֕ ינ ְ֙ שו ָָ֖ ב ּ ו ־לא ְ חר ַ ב ְ ע ָָ֥ ם ֙ מ ִֽ ל ְ י־ך ְ ה ּ ו ָ ד ִֽ ׃ה
‘If this people go up to offer sacrifices in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, then the heart of this people will turn again to their lord, to Rehoboam king of Judah, and they will kill me and will return to Rehoboam king of Judah.’ (1 Kgs 12.27)

  • 4 This is the term used by Cook (2012, 250) and Robar (2015, 146) to refer to the modality of conditi (...)

22The use of a past form to denote possible future events in conditional constructions in other Northwest Semitic languages and Arabic expresses contingent possibility rather than past time reference. The apodosis is modal. The modality has various parameters. It can be identified as including epistemic modality, in that it involves judgement about the factual status of the proposition (Palmer 2001, 8). The contingency and dependence of the apodosis can be referred to as ‘contingent modality’.4

23The two main meanings of the Biblical Hebrew consecutive weqaṭal outside of conditional constructions are dependent/sequential future (8)– (11) and habitual (12)– (15):

(8)

... ֙ כ ִֽ י־י ְ אר ִּ֤ ו תא ְָ ך ׂ֙֙ ה ַ צמ ְ ר ִַ֔ םי ֙וְ א ָ מ ְָ֖ ר ּ ו ֙ שא ְ ת ֶֹ֣ ו ז ָ֑ תא ְ הו ְָ גר ָּ֥ ו ֙ תא ָ֖ י
‘When the Egyptians see you, they will say “This is his wife,” and they will kill me… ’ (Gen. 12.12)

(9)

ו ַ י ִ֤ רמא ד ָ דו ׂ֙ ֙ ש־לא ָ א ִַּ֔ לו א ַ י־ל ָ֥ לפ ל ֵ א־ב ָָ ד ָ֖ ם ע ָ ל ָָ֑ וי ע ַ ב ְְ ךד ֶ֣֙ י ֵ ל ְִֵַ֔ ך ְ לנו ְַ ח ָ֖ ם ה־םע ַ פ ְ של ְ ת ָ֥ י ֙ ה ַ ז ִֽ ׃ה
‘And David said to Saul, “Let no man’s heart fail on account of him; your servant will go and will fight with this Philistine.” (1 Sam. 17.32)

(10)

ַ ר ַ֚ ק א ֵ י־ןי ְ ר ַ א ֶ֣ ת א ֱֹ הל ִַ֔ םי ב ַ מ ָ ק ָֹ֖ םו ה ַ ז ָ֑ ה וַ ה ֲָ גר ָּ֖ ינו ֙ ע ַ ־ל ְ בד ַָ֥ ר שא ְִֽ ׃ית
‘But there is no fear of God in this place and they will kill me because of my wife.’ (Gen. 20.11)

(11)

... ֙ ו ְ ה ַ שנ ְ א ָ ר ֶ֣ םי ב ָ כ ִַ֔ ם ְ הו ֵ ב ִֵ֤ יתא ֙ מ ׂ֙ ר ְ ך ׂ֙֙ לב ְ ב ָ ב ִַָ֔ ם ב ְ א ְַ צר ָ֖ ת יא ְ ב ֵ הי ָ֑ ם
‘As for those of you who may be left, I will bring weakness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies… ’ (Lev. 26.36)

(12)

ו ְ א ֵָ֖ ד י ִַֽ ע ֲ ל ֶ֣ ה ה־ןמ ָָ א ָ֑ ץר ְ שהו ְְָׁ ק ָ֖ ה ֙ א ִֽ כ־ת ָ פ־ל ְ נ ִֵֽ ־י ָ ה ִֽ א ֲָ מד ִָֽ ׃ה
‘A mist used to go up from the earth and would water the whole face of the ground.’ (Gen. 2.6)

(13)

ְ סאנו ְ פ ּ ו ֙ ש־ ֶָ֣ מ ָ ה כ ָ ה־ל ָ ע ֲָ רד ֶּ֗ םי וְ ג ָ ל ֲ ל ִּ֤ ו ֙ ה־תא ָ א ׂ֙ ןב ׂ֙ ֙ מ ֵ ע ַ ל ׂ֙֙ פ ֶ֣ י ה ַ ב ְ א ִֵַ֔ ר וְ שה ְ ק ָּ֖ ו ה־תא ַ צ ָ֑ ןא ֙ ְ הו ֵ ש ִׁ֧ בי ּ ו ה־תא ָ א ֶ֛ ןב ע ַ פ־ל ָ֥ י ה ַ ב ְ א ֵָ֖ ר ֙ מל ְ ק ָ מ ִּֽ ׃ה

And all the flocks would gather there, and they would roll the stone from the mouth of the well, and they would water the sheep, and they put back the stone in its place on the mouth of the well.’ (Gen. 29.3)

(14)

ש ְָ פר ׂ֙ םי מע ְ ד ִ֤ ׀םי ממ ַׂ֙֙ ע ַ ל ׂ֙֙ ל ִַֹ֔ ו ש ִֵׁ֧ ש כ ְ נ ָ פ ֶַ֛ םי ש ֵָ֥ ש כ ְ נ ָ פ ַָ֖ םי ל ְ א ָ ח ָ֑ ד שב ְַ ת ֶ֣ ׀םי י ְ כ ַ ס ֶ֣ ה פ ָ נ ֶָּ֗ וי ּ שבו ְַ ת ֶ֛ םי י ְ כ ַ ס ָ֥ ה ַ גר ְ ל ָָ֖ וי ּ שבו ְ ת ַָ֥ םי ֙ י ְ ע ֹ פו ִֵֽ ׃ף ְ קו ָָ ר ׂ֙ א ֙ ז ִ֤ ה הז־לא ׂ֙ ֙ ְ או ָ מ ַ ר ֙ ק ִָׁ֧ ד ֹ ׀שו ק ָ ד ֶֹ֛ שו ֙ ק ָ ד ָֹ֖ שו י ְ ה ָ ו ֶ֣ ה צ ְ ב ָ א ָֹ֑ תו מ ְ ל ָ֥ א כ ָ ה־ל ָ א ָָ֖ ץר כ ְ ב ֹ ו ִֽ ד ֹ ׃ו
‘Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings; with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one would call out to another and would say “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts. The whole earth is full of His glory.”’ (Isa. 6.2–3)

(15)

... ׂ֙֙ ה ֲ ג ִָ֤ ׀בנ ָ צר ַׂ֙ ח ְִֽׂ֙֙ נו ָ א ִַ֔ ף ֙ ...ּ֙ בו ָ תא ֶ֞ ם ו ַ ע ֲ מ ְַ תד ֶ֣ ם ל ְ פ ֶָּ֗ נ ַ י ב ַ ב ִַ֤ תי ה ַ הז
‘Do you steal, murder, and commit adultery, … then you come and stand before Me in this house…? ’ (Jer. 7.9–10)

24Although there has been recognition of the historical origin of consecutive weqaṭal in conditional constructions, as far as I am aware, no model that satisfactorily explains such a historical development has been proposed. I shall argue here that the development could be explained using the model of construction grammar, whereby linguistic change takes place through cognitive schematisation of constructions (e.g., Langacker 1987; Fillmore, Kay, and O’Connor 1988; Goldberg 1995, 2006; Bybee 2010). Such change involves extensions of components of a particular construction with a particular linear structure by a process of substituting items with a semantic resemblance or association, thereby making the slots of the components more schematic, i.e., abstract. Another feature of the extension of constructions is their incorporation of pragmatic associations and implicatures into their meaning (Bybee 2010, 48). An example of this process of extension of constructions that is often cited (e.g., Bybee 2010, 55; 2015, 124) is the development of future constructions consisting of movement verbs, e.g., English he is going to eat. This originated as a construction that expressed real physical movement of an animate agentive subject, but it became schematised as subject + be + going to + verb, whereby any subject or verb could fill the subject or infinitive slots adjacent to the substantive core going to. Moreover, when used in the third person, although it originally expressed an intention, it implied that the predicate would be carried out. This implicature became conventionalised in the construction and so its meaning was extended to include prediction, e.g., The branch is going to fall.

25The distribution of weqaṭal reflects a variety of schematisation.

26In a context such as (8), in which the weqaṭal form follows a subordinate temporal clause, we may say that the construction of the conditional apodosis has been extended to verbs expressing events that are presupposed to take place, while retaining the reference time of the verb in the preceding clause and so expressing temporal sequentiality. In example (9) the weqaṭal expresses an event that is future relative to that expressed by the verb in the preceding clause. Here too, therefore, its reference time is in the preceding clause.

27In a context such as (10) the temporal reference point of the apodosis that was in the preceding protasis clause has been schematised to being a more abstract cognitive reference point, referring to the general situation rather than specifically to a point in time. The weqaṭal predication, therefore, is cognitively, but not necessarily temporally, bound to this preceding point. It is linked to it through discourse coherence analogous to a topic– comment relationship. This does not mean that the topical situation itself may not have a reference time, but rather the weqaṭal form no longer expresses temporal posteriority to this reference time, but rather communicative posteriority to the more abstract topical situation, i.e., topical reference point–comment. This is seen clearly in a context such as (11), in which the weqaṭal clause is a comment on a preceding topical entity rather than on a situation expressed by a proposition. In (10) and (11) the weqaṭal form has a future time reference, and so the event time is posterior to the reference time (R—E), but its reference point is internal to the clause and is not situated in the preceding clause as in a conditional construction or in a construction such as (8). This distinction is referred to by Hatav (2012) as local versus long distance temporal binding of tenses. As with contexts such as (8) and (9), so in (10) and (11), the contingent element of the conditional apodosis has been lost. Examples such as (10)– (11), therefore, have retained the future of the apodosis, but lost the long distance temporal binding and the contingency of the apodosis.

28The habitual use of weqaṭal seen in (12)– (15), which prima facie may seem furthest from the original function of the qaṭal form in a conditional apodosis, can also be explained as having arisen by schematisation of the conditional construction. As we have seen, there is a typological parallel for this in the habitual discourse dependent bət-qaṭəl form of NENA. In such cases the contingent feature of the verb of the apodosis has been retained, whereas the future time reference has been lost.

  • 5 Cf. the remarks of Joosten (1992), who sees a connection between the non-indicative modality of weq (...)
  • 6 Contra, e.g., Joosten (1992; 2012, 305), who uses the term ‘iterative’.

29The habitual meaning of the discourse dependent weqaṭal form arises from this retention of the contingent semantics of a conditional apodosis. Verbs expressing habituality present an event as a characterising property of an individual, which occurs on the majority of occasions during a particular time interval (he usually visits us every week). Habitual predications are not completely “lawlike” (Dahl 1985, 97) and are contingent on circumstances (he usually visits us every week, but he did not come last week because he was ill).5 A habitual predicate is imperfective in aspect since it includes the reference time within it and is only partially viewed from within (G. Carlson 2012, 835). Habituality should be distinguished from iterativity. Verbs expressing iterativity assert the occurrence of the event on multiple occasions, typically specified by an adverbial (he visited us three times; he visited us every day). Such predicates are perfective and express repeated temporally bounded events that are not contingent on circumstances (Dahl 1985, 97; G. Carlson 2012, 835). Iterative uses attributed by some scholars to weqaṭal are best interpreted as habitual, especially if they are translated with English used to or would, which are incompatible with the iterative, e.g.,6

(16)

ְ עו ָ ל ָ ה ֙ ה ָ א ׂ֙ שי ה ַ ה ִּ֤ או מ ִֵֽ ריע ֹ ו ׂ֙֙ ימ ָ מ ֶ֣ ׀םי י ָ מ ִַ֔ מי ָ ה ל ְ ה ִֽ ש ְ ת ַ ח ֲִֹׁ֧ תו ְ זלו ְ ב ֶַ֛ ח ֙ ל ַ הי ָ ו ָ֥ ה צ ְ ב ָ א ָֹ֖ ב תו ְ ש ֹ ל ָ֑ ה

And this man used to go up from his city yearly to worship and to sacrifice to the Lord of Hosts in Shiloh.’ (1 Sam. 1.3)

  • 7 For the possibility of a verb having two reference points see Comrie (1985, 128).

30In some cases, habitual consecutive weqaṭal forms are temporally sequential to what precedes, e.g., (13). In such cases the temporal structure of the verb would include the reference point of the preceding clause, as a verb does in an apodosis, as well as a local reference point coinciding with the event. This can be represented R1—R2,E, i.e., the event is located at reference time R2 in relation to reference time R1.7 In examples such as (14), in which the habitual weqaṭal is not temporally sequential to what precedes, the long distance temporal reference point of the original apodosis has been schematised to a cognitive topical reference point. Most cases of habitual weqaṭal have past time reference, but some examples are attested of weqaṭal expressing present habituals (GKC, §112m), e.g., (15). It appears that the time reference of habitual verbs was relative rather than absolute, i.e., it was determined by the context and not a component of its meaning. In this respect it would correspond to the relative time reference of habitual yiqṭol.

31The various schematisations of the conditional construction can be represented thus (R = reference time, E = event time, T = topic):

  • 8 The discourse dependence of weqaṭal can also be represented in the dependency framework of mental s (...)

32As can be seen, all schematisations retain some specific semantic element of the weqaṭal in the apodosis of the conditional construction.8

33As for why the discourse dependent qaṭal occurs only after waw, this can be explained also within the framework of construction grammar. The conditional construction that forms the basis of the schematisation was specifically protasis + waw + qaṭal. This had the advantage of containing a connective waw, which made the apodosis suitable for reanalysis as a consecutive clause in discourse. Moreover, it was by far the most frequent ordering of these elements in conditional constructions containing such waw of apodosis, as was the case also in the predecessors of the construction in earlier Northwest Semitic languages. The string waw + qaṭal remained the substantive core of the construction. This core underwent semantic but not syntactic schematisation, analogously to the phrase going to in the future construction in English (see above). It was the substantive invariable ‘chunk’ that had become consolidated and ‘en-trenched’ in the construction, facilitated by frequent repetition (Bybee 2010, 34–37). The NENA parallel construction with bət-qaṭəl did not include a connective. The explanation is likely to be that in NENA discourse connectives between clauses in discourse are far less regular than in Biblical Hebrew.

  • 9 The habitual function of weqaṭal is only sporadically attested in Late Biblical Hebrew (Cohen 2013, (...)

34On a number of occasions weqaṭal is used as a narrative past perfect. This is found not only in Late Biblical Hebrew (Cohen 2013, 84–86),9 but also in earlier books. In some cases the weqaṭal may be regarded as a later insertion on text-critical grounds (e.g., 1 Kgs 20.27, where the weqaṭal verb is not represented in the LXX). Several cases, however, are consecutive in function and on text-critical grounds do not appear to be later insertions, e.g.,

(17)

וַ י ְ צ ֶַ֣ ו ה ַ מ ֶּ֡ ל ְ ך לח־תא ְ יק ָ ה ּ ו ֙ ה ַ הכ ֵׂ֙ ן ה ַ ג ָ ד ֹ֜ לו ְ הכ־תאו ֲ נ ֵֶ֣ י ה ַ שמ ְ הנ ֙ ְ מש־תאו ְֵ ר ֶ֣ י ה ַ ס ַ ל ף ְ ה ֹ איצו ׂ֙ ֙ מ ֵ ה ֵ כי ֶַ֣ ל י ְ וה ִַָ֔ ה א ֵֶ֣ ת כ ָ ה־ל ַ כ ֵ ל ֶּ֗ םי ָ ה ִֽ ע ֲ ש ּ םיו ׂ֙ ֙ ל ַ ב ֶַ֣ ע ַ ל ו ְָ ל ִֽ א ֲ ש ֵָ ר ִַ֔ ה ּ לו ְ כ ָ֖ ל צ ְ ב ֶָ֣ א ֙ ה ַ ש ָ מ ָָ֑ םי ַ ו ִַֽֽ שי ְְ פר ֵֶ֞ ם ֙ חמ ִּ֤ ץו ריל ּ שו ָׂ֙ ל ַ ם ׂ֙֙ ב ְ ש ְַ מד ֶֹ֣ תו ק ְ רד ִַֹ֔ ןו ְ֙ נו ָ ש ָָ֥ א ע־תא ֲ פ ָָ ר ָ֖ ם ב ִֵֽ א־תי ִֵֽ ׃ל
‘And the king commanded (wayyiqṭol) Hilkiah, the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the threshold, to bring out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host

of heaven; and he burned them (wayyiqṭol) outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron, and he carried (weqaṭal) their ashes to Bethel.’ (2 Kgs 23.4)

35Such weqaṭal forms have been interpreted as past perfective uses of the construction that unexpectedly break a chain of wayyiqṭol narrative forms in order to express climactic events (Longacre 1994; van der Merwe 1994, 28; Robar 2015, 152–59). The range of functions of the NENA parallel form bət-qaṭəl, however, could open our mind to another possible interpretation of some such uses of weqaṭal. As has been indicated above, the NENA discourse dependent bət-qaṭəl form is attested occasionally in narratives, e.g., (4), repeated below as (18), within a past perfective context. The clauses with bət-qaṭəl forms cohere together with the immediately preceding clauses. Each pair of cohering clauses express subevents of the same overall event:

(18)

ʾə́rbe máxe l-ġðàðe,| ṱ-ázi
sheep strike.sbjv.3ms to-each.other fut-go.sbjv.3pl
xa-fàtra| ʾal-salíqə zòrna.| máxe zórna
a-while on-tune.of pipe strike.sbjv.3ms pipe
xa-salíqa xèna,| ʾə́rbe b-dɛ̀ri,| b-ganèy.|
one-tune other sheep fut-return.sbjv.3pl by-themselves
‘He gathered the sheep together and they went off for a while according to the tune of the pipe. He played another tune on the pipe and the sheep returned by themselves.’ (A25: 27)

  • 10 For discontinuity strategies in Biblical Hebrew see Robar (2015, 148– 49). For possible imperfectiv (...)
  • 11 For embedding of units in the narrative chain see Robar (2015, 74– 75).

36Such bət-qaṭəl forms mark the closure and climax of the preceding event and disrupt the flow of the narrative. It is, therefore, a strategy to signal discontinuity.10 The form is an imperfective habitual, but is used in a perfective context in narrative. Its lack of temporal boundaries is exploited to disrupt the chain of perfective temporally bounded events. This strategy of using imperfectives in narratives has been identified in various other languages, e.g., the ‘narrative imperfect’ of French (Carruthers 2012, 312–15) or narrative habituals in African languages (Schaefer and Egbokhare 2015, 310). In this light, weqaṭal forms in contexts such as (17) in Classical Biblical Hebrew could be identified as consecutive habitual weqaṭal forms rather than instances of perfective weqaṭal forms. As is the case with narrative habitual bət-qaṭəl forms in NENA, these habitual weqaṭal forms disrupt the flow of narrative by removing temporal boundaries in order to signal closure and climax of discourse segments. This can have the effect of marking an event as a subevent cohering with what precedes, embedded in the higher-level narrative chain.11 The act of burning and the act of carrying the ashes cohere together as two subevents of the same overall event, the closure of which is marked by the weqaṭal form. Further support for this argument can be adduced from the fact that the yiqṭol form is sometimes used with the same function in narrative contexts when the verb is preceded by a clause argument, e.g.

(19)

ה ֶּ֣ או ק ָ ם ֙ ו ַ י ְַׂ֙ ך ב ַ פ ְ של ְ֜ םית ע ֶַ֣ ׀ד כ ִֽ י־י ָ ג ְ ע ֶָ֣ ה י ָ ד ֶֹּ֗ ו ו ַ ת ְ בד ִַ֤ ק י ָ ד ֹ ו ׂ֙ ֙ ה־לא ַ ח ִַ֔ בר ו ַ י ִַׁ֧ ע ַ ש י ְ ה ָ ו ֶ֛ ה ֙ ת ְ ש ּ עו ָָ֥ ה ג ְ ד ֹ לו ָָ֖ ה ב ַ י ֶֹ֣ םו ה ַָ֑ ה ּ או ו ְ ה ָ ע ֶָ֛ ם יָ ש ָ֥ ב ּ ו א ַ ח ֲָ ר ָ֖ וי א ְַ ל־ך ְ פ ַ ש ִֵֽ ׃ט
‘He rose and struck down the Philistines until his hand was weary, and his hand clung to the sword. And the Lord brought about a great victory that day, and the men returned (yiqṭol) after him only to strip the slain.’ (2 Sam. 23.10)

3.0. Biblical Hebrew Consecutive wayyiqṭol

  • 12 For references to the literature see the survey in Robar (2015, 78– 79).
  • 13 Different views have been expressed in the literature as to whether there were originally two disti (...)

37The consecutive wayyiqṭol form is normally thought to be a vestige of an old past yaqtul form, which can be found in earlier forms of Northwest Semitic, such as the Tell Amarna Canaanite texts and Ugaritic, and in East Semitic. Some possible examples of this use of an old past yaqtul without waw have, moreover, been identified in early poetic layers of Biblical Hebrew, e.g. י ַ צ ֵּ ב ‘he fixed’ (Deut. 32.8) (Notarius 2013, 78).12 In this paper I do not want to engage with the question of the identity and status of this past yaqtul form in ancient Northwest Semitic and beyond,13 but rather I shall focus on the consecutive wayyiqṭol form as it appears in the Masoretic Text and the form of the construction that has been transmitted in the Tiberian vocalisation tradition.

  • 14 Robar (2013; 2015, 78–112) is one scholar who has found the notion that wayyiqṭol is past perfectiv (...)

38I shall argue that although the scholarly consensus is undoubtedly correct that its roots go back to an old past yaqtul form, in Classical Biblical Hebrew prose it came to be reanalysed as a schematised extension of a dependent jussive form.14 The typological parallel to the consecutive wayyiqṭol in NENA is the NENA narrative subjunctive (see §1.2), which was a subordinate verbal form used to express discourse coherence. As we have seen, the NENA narrative subjunctive was an extension of the use of the subjunctive in subordinate clauses, in particular purpose clauses. The Hebrew wayyiqṭol form results from the reanalysis of the old Semitic past yaqtul as a jussive specifically in discourse dependent contexts. This was facilitated by its formal similarity to jussives and the syntactic similarity of such discourse dependent contexts to constructions with jussives in dependent purpose clauses. This similarity of form, construction, and dependent function led to the distinction between jussives and yiqṭol past becoming opaque and to the reanalysis of the yiqṭol past in this context as a schematised extension of a jussive.

39The reanalysis followed the common pattern of linguistic change whereby it took place in a context where it was least obtrusive due to structural ambiguity in particular contexts (de Smet 2012, 608). It was ‘coerced’ by the construction (Noël 2007).

  • 15 In Archaic Biblical Hebrew the qaṭal had not yet completely superseded the old past perfective yiqṭ (...)

40As Baranowski (2016a) has shown, u + yaqtul was the most common pattern of past yaqtul constructions in narrative sequences in the Canaanite reflected by the Amarna letters. This archaic narrative structural pattern was preserved in Biblical Hebrew by reanalysis in a context that resembled contexts in which jussives were used to express dependent events, i.e., waw + yiqṭol. By the period of Classical Biblical Hebrew, the qaṭal form had extended its functional territory to include that of the perfective past, which would have pushed the old yiqṭol perfective past out of the system.15 The old narrative construction of waw + past perfective yiqṭol expressing chains of events was preserved by a process in which it was reanalysed as an extension of a different, but structurally similar, construction, viz. waw + jussive yiqṭol. One may say that the conservative nature of the literary tradition with the old narrative construction was a motivating factor for the reanalysis.

  • 16 E.g., Bergsträsser (1918–1929, II: §5d) and Talshir (1986).

41Some scholars have, indeed, already expressed the view that there was a convergence between the wayyiqṭol form and the modal system during the period of Late Biblical Hebrew.16 I would like to argue that this had taken place already in Classical Biblical Hebrew. Furthermore, I wish to propose a model to explain how this came about.

  • 17 For other functions of sequences with jussive verbs see Dallaire (2014, 102–3).

42In the Tiberian Masoretic corpus of Biblical Hebrew jussives are used with a subordinate purposive sense after imperatives (20) or expressions that function pragmatically as imperatives, such as (21):17

(20)

ה ַ ע ְ ת ֶ֣ רי ּ ו י־לא ְ וה ִַָ֔ ה ְ יו ָ ס ֵ ר ַׂ֙֙ ה ִֽ צ ְ פ ְַ ר ְ עד ִַ֔ םי ממ ָ֖ ינ ּ מו ִֵֽ ע ַ מ ָ֑ י
‘Entreat the Lord in order that He remove the frogs from me and from my people.’ (Exod. 8.8)

(21)

מ ִ֤ י י ְ פ ַ הת ׂ֙ ֙ א־תא ַ ח ְ א ִַָ֔ ב ְ יו ַֻ֕ ע ַ ל ְ פיו ָ֖ ל ב ְָ מר ֶ֣ ת לג ְ ע ָָ֑ ד
‘Who will entice Ahab in order that he go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? ’ (1 Kgs 22.20)

  • 18 For other functions of the cohortative after waw in sequences see Dallaire (2014, 118).

43When the verb of the purpose clause is first person singular, the cohortative jussive is often used, e.g.,18

(22)

ו ַ ע ֲ ש ֵ ל־ה ׂ֙ י מ ַ ט ְ ע ַ מ ֜ םי כ ַ א ֲ ש ָ֥ ר א ַָ ה ֶ֛ ב ְ ית ו ְ ה ָ ב ָ֥ אי ָ ה ל ָ֖ י ְ כאו ֵָ֑ ל ָ ה ֙ ב ְ ט ָ֥ םר א ִָֽ מ ּ ׃תו
‘and prepare for me savoury food, as I love, and bring it to me that I may eat before I die.’ (Gen. 27.4)

  • 19 It was Moran (1961, 64) who first proposed the Canaanite yaqtula as the ancestor of the Hebrew coho (...)

44This corresponds to the distribution of the modal yaqtul and yaqtula forms, the ancestors of the Hebrew jussive and cohortative, respectively, in purpose clauses in the Canaanite of the Amarna letters, in that they occur with this function specifically after volitive expressions. Moran (1960, 6–9) called this ‘modal congruence’.19 In cross-linguistic studies of the moods of subordinate clauses it has been observed that subordinate moods often originate as moods that are in harmony with the mood of the main clause, but that these can become extended to subordinate clauses in other syntactic contexts (Palmer 1986, 132; Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994, 218–19). I shall argue that such a process of extension took place with jussives.

  • 20 For the various nuances of commands expressed by the jussive and other verbal forms in Biblical Heb (...)

45The Hebrew jussive expresses a directive with speaker-oriented modality (Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994, 179), whereby the speaker imposes his/her will or permission on the addressee or third person subject of a clause.20 Sequences of directives such as (20) and (21) had the implicature of purpose constructions with the second event future in relationship to the first event, i.e., the second event is intended by the subject of the first event or by the speaker. This implicature was subsequently conventionalised. As a consequence, the second event became temporally and semantically integrated with the first and had its temporal reference point in the first event.

46In some attested cases this construction could be interpreted as having made a further shift to express result, e.g., in the prophetic pronouncement of Elisha:

(23)

ָ֖ ה ֶָּ֗ ל ֹ ו ְ ך ו ְָ חר ַ֙ צ ְָ ת ִ֤֙ ש ִֽ ב ַ פ־ע ְ ע ָ םימ ׂ֙֙ ב ַ י ְַ דר ִֵַ֔ ן ְ יו ָ ש ִׁ֧ ב ב ְ ש ְָ ךר ֶ֛֙ ל ְ ך
‘Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and (as a result) your flesh shall be restored (LXX ἐπιστρέψει future)’ (2 Kgs 5.10)

47As we have seen, the NENA narrative subjunctive appears to have developed through the pathway of purpose clause > result clause > discourse dependent. Result clauses developed from the common implicature of purpose clauses that the event took place (see above §1.2 and Schmidtke-Bode 2009, 178). When the main clause has future time reference, the shift from purpose to result clause entails a shift from a desired event to a predicted event.

48The cohortative form expresses the desire of the speaker to perform the event. This can be analysed as agent-oriented modality in the sense of the term that is described by Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994, 178), i.e., it consists of internal or external conditions on an agent with respect to the completion of the action. Since it is first person, however, it overlaps with their category of speaker-oriented modality, since it imposes the desire of the speaker on the performance of the action. It could, therefore, be used in a sequence with imperatives and other directives with the implicature of purpose, as in (22) above.

49The temporal structure of purpose clauses (weyiqṭol), result clauses (weyiqṭol), and consecutive wayyiqṭol clauses can be represented as follows.

  • 21 This temporal analysis differs from that of Hatav (1997; 2004; 2006), who argues that a wayyiqṭol f (...)
  • 22 In some Neo-Reichenbach approaches (e.g., Johnson 1981; Dinsmore 1982; Verkuyl 2012), rather than c (...)

50In the purpose clause construction the jussive verb is irrealis and takes as its reference time, i.e., its contextual anchor, that of the main clause (represented by the repeated R1 in (a) in Table 2). It is viewed from the perspective of the main clause. The event time of the purpose clause, therefore, is posterior to its reference time. In (b) and (c) the jussive clause has been reanalysed as an asserted event. This involves the acquisition of a reference time coinciding with the event (R2). It is proposed that the clause retains the R1 reference time, to which it is posterior. This reflects its reanalysis as an asserted event that is sequential to what precedes, i.e., the event is located at reference time R2 in relation to reference time R1.21 The representation in the table above does not include speech time, which differs in relation to R1 according to whether the main clause is future (S—R1) or past (R1—S).22 In the attested corpus of Biblical Hebrew, as we have seen, purpose and result clauses with jussives have future main clauses, whereas past wayyiqṭol is generally preceded by a past clause. The reanalysis of the discourse dependent past yiqṭol as a jussive, therefore, would have involved a schematisation of the temporal structure of the construction of purpose and result clauses whereby the speech time is no longer specified. The common denominator of the construction across all three variants can be identified as:

51As with the weqaṭal construction, consecutive wayyiqṭol developed by schematisation of a specific construction with the string waw + yiqṭol as its substantive core, which is the norm for purpose and result clauses with jussive verbs. For that reason, the conversive yiqṭol only developed when the yiqṭol was immediately preceded by waw.

52As is the case with the NENA narrative subjunctive, the discourse dependent wayyiqṭol form came to be far more frequent than the subordinate use of the waw + yiqṭol construction.

  • 23 For the process of reanalysis see Madariaga (2017).

53Reanalysis involves a change in the structure of an expression without any immediate modification of its surface manifestation. It typically takes place when there is an overlap in surface form between two underlying structures and some analogical relationship between their functions. The actualisation of the reanalysis may then be manifested by changes in surface structure or function of some exponents of the reanalysed form from those of the form before the reanalysis.23

54The reanalysis of the narrative yiqṭol as a schematised extension of a jussive and also the process of change described above are manifested in a number of features.

  • 24 For more details regarding their distribution in Late Biblical Hebrew see Sjörs (this volume).

55The most obvious structural manifestation is the occurrence of the cohortative jussive form of first person in wayyiqṭol forms. These become particularly frequent in Late Biblical Hebrew (Cohen 2013, 121–23),24 but are found sporadically already in the Pentateuch in Classical Biblical Hebrew, e.g.,

(24)

וָ תא ְ נ ָׂ֙ ה ֙ ה־תא ַ ל ְ ו ֜ םי נ ְ נת ֶ֣ ׀םי ל ְ א ַ ה ֲֶ֣ ןר ּ לו ְ ב ֶָּ֗ נ ָ וי
‘And I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and his sons.’ (Num. 8.19)

  • 25 There are fifteen cases of wayyiqṭol cohortative in the Pentateuch and Early Prophets (Talshir 1986 (...)

(25)

ַ ו ִַֽֽ י ְ ה ֶ֞ י ב־יכ ֶָ֣ נא ּ ו ה־לא ַ מ ֶָּ֗ ל ֹ ןו ַ ו ִֽ פנ ְ ת ְ ח ָ ה ׂ֙ ֙ א־תא ַ מ ְ ת ְ תח ִֵַ֔ ני ּ ו
‘and when we came to the lodging place, we opened our sacks.’ (Gen. 43.21).25

56Sjörs (2021) argues that such consecutive forms retain the speaker-benefactive meaning of the cohortative. This can be interpreted as a legacy of the volitive meaning of first person cohortatives in purpose constructions such as (22).

57Some wayyiqṭol forms occur in clauses that can be interpreted as result clauses, which, as discussed above, was the immediate extension of a purposive use of jussive yiqṭol, e.g.,

(26)

ל ָ מ ִָ֤ ה א ָ מ ְַׂ֙ תר ָׂ֙ ֙ א ֲ ח ֶ֣ ית ה ִַ֔ או ו ָ א ַ ק ָ֥ ח ֙ א ָ ת ֶּ֛ ה ל ָ֖ י ל ְ שא ָָ֑ ה
‘Why did you say “She is my sister,” so that I took her for my wife? ’ (Gen. 12.19)

  • 26 Robar (2015, 85–86) draws attention to this fact in her argument against interpreting the wayyiqṭol(...)

58Occasionally a wayyiqṭol form expresses a discourse dependent imperfective habitual,26 e.g.,

(27)

ל ֶָ֣ מ ָ ה בת ְ ע ֲ ט ֶּּ֗ ו ב ְ בז ְ יח ׂ֙֙ ּ בו ְ נמ ְ ח ָ ת ִַ֔ י ֙ א ֲ ש ָ֥ ר צ ּ ו ָ֖ יתי מ ָ ע ָֹ֑ ןו וַ ת ְ כ ַ ב ִֵ֤ ד ֙ ב־תא ָ נ ׂ֙ ךי ׂ֙ ֙ ממ ִַ֔ ינ ֙ ל ְ ה ַ ב ְִֽ איר ֲ כ ֶּ֗ ם מ ֵֵ שאר ֶ֛ תי כ ָ נמ־ל ְַ ח ָ֥ ת ֙ שי ְָ אר ֵָ֖ ל ל ְ ע ַ מ ִֽ ׃י
‘Why then look with greedy eye at my sacrifices and my offerings which I commanded, and (habitually) honour your sons above me by fattening yourselves upon the choicest parts of every offering of my people Israel? ’ (1 Sam. 2.29)

(28)

י ְ ה ָ ו ָ֖ ה מ ֵ מ ֶ֣ תי ּ מו ְ֙ ח ַ י ָ֑ ה מ ֹ רו ָ֥ די ש ְ א ָֹ֖ לו ֙וַ י ִָֽ ע ַ ל ֙ ׃

‘The Lord kills and he brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and he raises up.’ (1 Sam. 2.6).

(29)

ַ ה ִֽ מ ְ ח ַ כ ֶ֣ םי ל ַ מ ֶָ֣ תו ְ או ֵ ני ָ֑ נ ּ ו ַ ו ִֽ֜ י ַ ח ְ פ ְ ר ֶּ֗ ה ּ ו ֙ ממ ַ ט ְ מ ֹ נו ִֽ ׃םי
‘those who long for death, but it comes not, and dig for it more than for hid treasures.’ (Job 3.21)

  • 27 An alternative way of understanding the wayyiqṭol forms in (27)– (29) would be to interpret them as (...)
  • 28 There are some cases where a short yiqṭol is preceded by waw without a dagesh in the prefix and the (...)

59Such functions are incompatible with the old past perfective yiqṭol, but would not be problematic if the form is a schematised jussive, which does not have a specified aspect.27 The purposive construction waw + yiqṭol typically expresses a perfective event and this is likely to be why the wayyiqṭol form, likewise, is typically perfective in its function. As we have seen, however, the NENA discourse dependent subjunctive qaṭəl can sometimes be habitual (6).28

60As discussed, the substantive structural core of the construction that was schematised was waw + yiqṭol (jussive). This explains why the narrative yiqṭol form is restricted to yiqṭol immediately preceded by waw. Such restricted distribution would be difficult to explain if the form was still being analysed as the old past yiqṭol.

61It is also relevant to note that negative purpose clauses do not have a jussive form, e.g.,

(30)

ו ְ ל ִ֤ א י ְַ ל־הבר ֹ ו ׂ֙֙ נ ָ ש ִַ֔ םי וְ ל ָ֥ א י ָ ס ָּ֖ רו ֙ ל ְ ב ָָ֑ ב ֹ ו
‘and he shall not multiply wives for himself lest his heart turn away.’ (Deut. 17.17)

  • 29 See Florentin (1996). A possible parallel to this in the Hexapla is ιεδαλ (BHS֙ ְוחַָדָ֥ל ‘and it/o (...)

62If consecutive wayyiqṭol came about through reanalysis of a jussive through schematisation of a subordinate jussive construction, then how is the dagesh in the prefix to be explained? I have argued elsewhere that the gemination should be regarded as a late addition to the reading tradition in the Second Temple Period to express a semantic distinction between jussive and indicative meanings of the construction (Khan 1991, 241; 2013, 43), and further arguments for this have recently been adduced by Kantor (2020, 104–16). The phenomenon of introducing gemination (reflected by dagesh in the medieval vocalisation systems) to express distinctions in the meaning of an originally unitary form is found in various places in the Tiberian vocalisation tradition (Khan 2020, I: 524–30) and there are many additional cases in the Babylonian tradition (Yeivin 1985, 357, 909–10). The fact that dagesh in the wayyiqṭol form and also the other cases of dagesh for distinguishing meaning that occur in the Tiberian tradition also occur in the Babylonian tradition suggests that it developed in the Second Temple Period in the proto-Masoretic reading traditions before its Tiberian and Babylonian transmissions became geographically divided. This reflects a general Second Temple development in the proto-Masoretic reading tradition involving the introduction of strategies to increase care in pronunciation and clarity of interpretation (Khan 2020, I: 73–85). Reading traditions that were not direct heirs to the proto-Masoretic reading also exhibited such strategies, but they did not always coincide with the proto-Masoretic tradition. With regard to the dagesh of wayyiqṭol, it is significant to note that the Samaritan reading tradition does not reflect this. In the Samaritan tradition, where possible, i.e., in qal I-y verbs, a different strategy was adopted for distinguishing waw + yiqṭol with a past consecutive meaning, namely the mapping of the qaṭal vocalic pattern onto the verbal form, e.g., wtǻråd ‘and she went down’ (Tiberian ו ַ ת ֵֶּ דר ), by analogy with the pattern qǻṭål, versus téråd ‘she goes down’ (non-past, Tiberian ת ֵַּ ר ֵּ֫ ד , ת ֵֵּּ ר ֵּ֫ ד ). Similarly, in the Samaritan tradition the vocalic pattern of yiqṭol is mapped onto weqaṭal, e.g., wyēlḗdu ‘and they (habitually) give birth’ (Tiberian ו ְ י ָ ל ָָֽ ד ּ ו Exod. 1.19).29 In the Greek transcription of the Hexapla, moreover, the dagesh of wayyiqṭol is reflected to a far lesser extent than in the Tiberian and Babylonian traditions (Kantor 2020). Moreover, there are sporadic examples in the Babylonian tradition of constructions where a form that is we-yiqṭol jussive in Tiberian is read as wayyiqṭol, suggesting that the gemination of the prefix was a matter of interpretation of tradition, rather than an original feature of the form, e.g.,

(31)

ו ַ י ַ מש ִ וע ֻ , ו ֳ מששי ִ וע wayyašmiʿu ‘and they made hear’ (Jer. 23.22,
Yeivin 1985, 1063–68 || BHS ְ יו ַ שׁ ְ מ ִ֤ ע ּ ו ‘and let them make heard’)

(32)

אאו ַ מש ִ עי ֵ ם wɔʾašmiʿem ‘and I announced them’ (Yeivin 1985,
1063–68 || BHS ְ שׁאַו ְ ימ ֵּ ע ֵ֑ ם ‘that I may announce them’)

63The dagesh was introduced into the cases of waw + yiqṭol that expressed asserted realis events. In the vast majority of cases, of course, these were perfective events in narrative. Occasionally, however, the dagesh was introduced in a yiqṭol form in the received text when the asserted event was interpreted as habitual to ensure that it was not interpreted as an irrealis form, as we have seen in (27)– (29). Another case of adaptation of the reading tradition in the Second Temple Period to express grammatical distinctions for the sake of clarity is the change of the reading of qal transitive verbs to piʿel and the change of the reading of qal intransitive verbs to nifʿal (Khan 2020, I: 58–59).

  • 30 In the Tiberian tradition in the Middle Ages a vocalic shewa was, in fact, assimilated to a followi (...)

64Finally, the /a/ vowel in the form wayyiqṭol can be explained by the fact that the default pronunciation of the shewa of the Tiberian tradition was [a]. So the /a/ would have been the result of the closing of the syllable with a vocalic shewa.30

  • 31 For these developments in stress position see Blau (1978, 100).
  • 32 For the lateness of the stress shifts see Revell (1984).
  • 33 An analogous phenomenon can be found in the Yemenite reading tradition of Babylonian Talmudic Arama (...)

65In wayyiqṭol verbal forms that have a penultimate open syllable the stress typically occurs on the penultima, e.g., ו ַ י ָָּ֥ ק ָ ם ‘and he arose’ (Gen. 4.8). This represents the original position of the stress. In jussive forms, by contrast, the stress frequently shifted to the final syllable when it is closed, e.g., י ָ בשׁ ‘let him return’ (Judg. 7.3). There are, however, some jussive forms with this syllable structure that preserve the penultimate stress, e.g., א ַ ־ל ָ ת ָּ֧ ש ֶ ם ‘do not put’ (1 Sam. 9.20). The stress shift in the jussive outside of wayyiqṭol constructions seems to have been by analogy with the stress position in the long yiqṭol, e.g., י ָ ק ּ֔ םו ‘ [a people] arises’ (Num. 23.24).31 A motivation for this stress shift may have been to distinguish between the realis wayyiqṭol and the irrealis jussives. The same applies to the advancing of the stress to the suffix in the weqaṭal construction, e.g., ְִ֤ שׁו ָ מ ַ ע ְָ ת ‘and you will listen’ (Deut. 6.3). The fact that this does not entail pro-pretonic reduction indicates that it is late. It is possible that this stress shift reflects the imposition on weqaṭal of a stress position that was characteristic of yiqṭol, where the stress is on the ultima in most inflections, e.g., כאת ַַ֖ ל ‘you will eat’ (Gen. 3.14); cf. ַ֖ ו ְ א ָ כ ַ ל ְָ ת ‘and you will eat’ (Gen. 3.18). It is possible, moreover, that the retention of penultimate stress in wayyiqṭol forms such as ו ַָ י ָּ֥ ק ָ ם had some correlation with the stress patterns characteristic of qaṭal, which had penultimate stress in some inflections, e.g., ַָ ק ַ֖ מ ְ ת ‘you arose’ (2 Sam. 12.21).32 This is analogous to the imposition of the vocalic pattern of qaṭal on wayyiqṭol and of the vocalic pattern of yiqṭol on weqaṭal where possible in the Samaritan tradition.33

  • 34 This merger in some cases resulted in the original jussive morphological form being extended to the (...)

66The jussive form, of course, merged with the form of the indicative yiqṭol in many verbal roots. In the form of the Masoretic text that has been transmitted to us by the Tiberian vocalisation, which is likely to reflect essentially the proto-Masoretic reading tradition of the Second Temple Period, it is only formally distinguished from the indicative yiqṭol in certain weak roots and in the hifʿil. This reflects a merger in progress. In some of the biblical texts from Qumran this merger is more advanced, in particular in the Isaiah scroll 1QIsaa, where short forms in the MT are often long, e.g., השעיו ‘and it made’ (Isa. 5.2 = MT ו ַ י ַ ע ַ ש ) (Kutscher 1979, 328).34

67In the Samaritan oral tradition the jussive and indicative yiqṭol have merged in form completely, e.g.,

(33)

w-la yḗmot ‘and will not die’ (Exod. 9.4; Ben-Ḥayyim 1977 || BHS ו ְ אל י ָ מ ּ֛ תו )

(34)

w-al yḗmot ‘and may he not die’ (Deut. 33.6; Ben-Ḥayyim 1977 || BHS ְ י־לאַו ָ מ ֵ֑ ת )

68Analogy to the merger in other verbal forms in the reading tradition (i.e., strong verbs that were not hifʿil) no doubt played a role in this complete merger. Also, the Aramaic verbal system, which was in the process of losing the jussive in the Second Temple Period, is likely to have had an impact. The Rabbinic Hebrew verbal system, of course, converged even more closely with Aramaic and lost the jussive. With the loss of the jussive form the waw + jussive yiqṭol construction was lost and this would have entailed the loss of the consecutive wayyiqṭol, which was replaced by simple we-qaṭal. This, in turn, would have eliminated the consecutive weqaṭal from the system. Embryonic signs of this are found already in Late Biblical Hebrew and also in the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in which we-qaṭal is frequently used with a perfective past sense (Qimron 2018, 370).

  • 35 This is contrary to previous studies, which interpreted the yaqtula form as expressing purpose afte (...)
  • 36 According to Qimron (2018, 371) the occurrence of the cohortative in the Dead Sea Scrolls is condit (...)

69The morphological merger of the Biblical Hebrew jussive yiqṭol with the indicative yiqṭol was particularly advanced in the first person. This was due, it appears, to the fact that the distribution of the cohortative form was extended and began to overlap with the functions of the first person jussive (i.e., short yiqṭol), including the consecutive wayyiqṭol forms, which, as remarked, were sometimes expressed by cohortative forms in the first person. The original occurrence of waw + first person jussive in a purpose clause and consequently also in a wayyiqṭol clause rather than the cohortative may have been a vestige of verb sequences in earlier Canaanite. Baranowski (2016b, 166–68) has argued that in the Canaanite of the Amarna letters modal yaqtul (the ancestor of the Hebrew jussive) and modal yaqtula (the ancestor of the Hebrew cohortative) have different distributions. The yaqtul form is what he calls a ‘sequential modal’, in that it occurs in clauses expressing the purpose or result of a volitive expression, whereas the yaqtula occurs in a volitive phrase that precedes the purposive yaqtul.35 Against this background, the spread of the Hebrew cohortative into purpose and wayyiqṭol clauses can be seen as an innovative extension of its function. This gradual replacement of the first person jussive by the cohortative was due to the functional relatedness of the cohortative in this construction and also to the general extension of the functions of the cohortative. Originally a volitive expressing the desire of the speaker, the cohortative came to be used as a future expressing the intention of the speaker. These developments are conspicuous in the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls, where the cohortative becomes particularly frequent in wayyiqṭol constructions and in intentional future constructions. In the Isaiah scroll 1QIsaa, for example, the cohortative often occurs with these functions where the MT does not have a cohortative (Kutscher 1979, 327).36 This extension of the cohortative is also found in the Samaritan Pentateuch (Sjörs 2021). As Dahl (1985, 106) has observed, a future expressing intention typically implies that the speaker predicts that the event will take place.

70Such developments led to the merging in function of the cohortative with the long yiqṭol form. This would explain the regular use, with only a few exceptions, of the long yiqṭol in first person wayyiqṭol forms in Late Biblical Hebrew, e.g., ו ָ א ָ ק ּ֗ םו ‘and I rose’ (Neh. 4.8), ו ָ א ָ םיש ‘and I put’ (2 Chron. 6.11), ו ָ א ֶ ב ְ נ ֶֶ֣ ה ‘and I have built’ (2 Chron. 6.10), ָ ו ָֽ א ַ ע ֲ מ ִ֞ די ‘and I stationed’ (Neh. 4.7), ו ַ נ ַ ע ֲ דימ ‘and we stationed’ (Neh. 4.3), ו ַ בנ ְ נ ֶ ה ‘and we built’ (Neh. 3.38 ו ַ נ ַ ח ֲ נ ֶ ה ,) ‘and we camped’ (Ezra 8.15) (Talshir 1986, 586–87).

  • 37 This form, however, may have originally been a qal, as is the case also with the jussive form יֹוסֵ (...)
  • 38 First person jussives outside of Classical Biblical Hebrew prose, include Isa. 41.28; 42.6; Ezek. 5 (...)

71As is generally the case with linguistic change, this process was gradual and there was variation in the first person between the new wayyiqtol cohortatives, e.g., ו ָ א ֹ עישׁו ָ ה ‘and I saved’ (Judg. 10.12), the new long wayyiqṭol forms, e.g., ו ָ צאַ ִ֤ לי ‘and I saved’ (1 Sam. 10.18, ָ ו ָֽ א ֶ ב ְ כ ֵֶ֑ ה ‘and I wept’ (2 Sam. 12.22), and the old short wayyiqṭol forms, e.g., ו ָ א ֹ ו ֵּ ל ְ ך ‘and I made go’ (Lev. 26.13), ו ָ אַ ֛ ע ַ ל ‘and I cause to go up’ (Num. 23.4). First person jussive short yiqṭol forms are occasionally attested outside of wayyiqṭol, though they are rare, e.g., ל ֶ֣ א סא ֵּ֗ ף שׁל ְ מ ַ ע ‘let me not hear again’ (Deut. 18.16),37 ו ְָֽ נ־אל ַ שׁ ְֵּ א ִ֤ ר ‘and let us not leave’ (1 Sam. 14.36).38 The Classical Biblical Hebrew representation of the long yiqṭol in the wayyiqṭol is, however, restricted to the orthography of the Early Prophets. The orthography of the Pentateuch reflects the regular use of short forms for the first person jussive and wayyiqṭol (Talshir 1986).

  • 39 Talshir (1986, 586). For a detailed examination of this phenomenon, see Hornkohl (forthcoming).

72On many occasions the orthography of Classical Biblical Hebrew reflects a short form in the first person wayyiqṭol, but the qere reads it as a long form, e.g., ָ ו ָֽ א ַ שׁ ְ ל ְ ך ‘and I threw’ (Deut. 9.21), ו ָ א ַ לצ ‘and I delivered’ (Josh. 24.10). This is the norm in middle weak verbs, e.g., ו ָ א ָָ םק ‘and I rose’ (1 Kgs 3.21), ו ָ א ָ ש ִ֤ ם ‘and I put’ (Gen. 24.47). The same applies to jussives outside the wayyiqṭol form, e.g., in a purpose clause: ו ְ א ָ מ ֶ֣ ת ‘that I may die’ (2 Sam. 19.38). In the Pentateuch this applies only to first person singular forms. First person plural forms are vocalised as short jussives, e.g., ַ ו ָֽ נ ַ ח ֲֵּ םר ‘and we destroyed’ (Deut. 2.34), ו ַ נ ַ ק ְֵּ ר ִ֞ ב ‘and we have brought as an offering’ (Num. 31.50).39

73In later texts composed in the Second Temple Period the orthography of the ketiv reflects the long form, indicating that the jussive form had merged with the ‘long’ yiqṭol in the first person at the time of composition (see examples above). The vocalisation of Classical Biblical Hebrew forms such as ו ָ א ָָ םק reflects the state of the language in the Second Temple Period. It is not clear why this phenomenon of the qere is restricted to the first person singular. It may be connected to the greater frequency of occurrence of the first person singular than the first person plural. Within the Masoretic Text, for example, the statistics for 1s and 1pl wayyiqṭol forms in the qal and hifʿil are as follows:

74This may be compared to the application of the innovation of stress shift to the suffixes of the 1s and 2ms forms of weqaṭal, but not to those of the 1pl forms. As suggested by Revell (1984, 440), this is likely to be connected with the fact that the 1s and 2ms forms occur more frequently than the 1pl forms. The statistics are as follows for 1s, 2ms, and 1pl weqaṭal forms:

75This phenomenon would be different from the normal effect of frequency in vernacular language, in which changes that require analysis, e.g., reconfiguration of inflectional morphology, affect the least frequent words first (see Groen in this volume). The imposition of the aforementioned changes in the reading tradition were, by contrast, applied ‘top down’, i.e., to the most frequent items. These innovations are likely to have been internal to the reading tradition and do not reflect vernacular speech.

76Returning now to the process of schematisation of the waw + jussive yiqṭol construction, which, I argue, gave rise to the conversive wayyiqṭol form, I would like to examine a further schematisation of the construction.

77Scholars have drawn attention to the fact that the wayyiqṭol form in some cases does not express temporal sequentiality but rather elaboration of what precedes, e.g.,

(35)

ו ַ י ְ נ ֵַּ קש ל ְ כ ָ א־ל ֶָ ח ַ֖ וי ו ֵַּ י ֶ֣ ב ְ ך ְ ע ֲ ל ֵּ י ֶ ה ֵ֑ ם
‘And he kissed all his brothers and wept on them.’ (Gen. 45.15)

(36)

... ו ַ שי ְ ל ַָ֖ ח י ֹ ו ָ א ָ֑ ב ו ַ י ַ ג ֵֶ֣ ד ל ְָ וד ִַ֔ ד כ־תא ָ בד־ל ְֵ ר ָ֖ י ה ַ למ ְ ח ָ מ ִָֽ ׃ה ֙֙ ו ַ י ְ צ ַָ֥ ו ה־תא ַ מ ַ ל ְ א ְָָ֖ ך ל ֵ מא ָ֑ ר
‘And Joab sent and reported to David all the events of the war. And he instructed the messenger, saying… ’ (2 Sam. 11.18–19)

78It was proposed above that a temporally sequential wayyiqṭol reflected the following schematisation:

79Here the consecutive wayyiqṭol is bound to the temporal reference point R1 in the preceding clause. By a further schematisation, which was identified above also in the weqaṭal construction (§2.0), the temporal reference point of the first clause was generalised to a topical cognitive reference point, whereby the wayyiqṭol form expresses relevance to what precedes, but not necessarily temporal sequentiality.

4.0. Concluding Remarks

80In this paper I have argued that the discourse dependency of consecutive weqaṭal and wayyiqṭol forms is encoded in their semantic structure and is not just an implicature of the context. This is a heritage of their historical origin in subordinate constructions with temporal integration between clauses. The historical development of consecutive weqaṭal and wayyiqṭol that has been proposed above has typological parallels in NENA and involves the extension through schematisation of constructions containing dependent clauses (apodosis and purpose clause, respectively). In terms of syntactic structure, these are not subordinate clauses. They have, however, semantic integration with the preceding clause, which is a feature of syntactic subordination (Cristofaro 2003).

81The dependency of weqaṭal and wayyiqṭol is encoded by a temporal anchor, i.e., a reference time, in the preceding context, so that the event is encoded as being temporally posterior to the reference time of the preceding context. In some cases this temporal anchor has become schematised to a cognitive topical anchor, so that the event is coded as being relevant to what precedes, but not necessarily temporally posterior.

  • 40 One should also take into account that connectives in some Semitic languages introduce the main bod (...)

82In some languages discourse dependent verb forms have undergone a further schematisation, whereby the cognitive anchor in the preceding discourse has been extended to a general realis indicative denotation irrespective of context. This has occurred, for example, in one NENA dialect (Jewish Dobe, Khan 2021) and is the background of the realis indicative preverbal particles ka- of Moroccan Arabic and bi- of Eastern Arabic dialects. The question arises as to whether such a further schematisation could be posited for the Biblical Hebrew consecutive forms weqaṭal and wayyiqṭol, i.e., are there contexts in which they have lost any coding of an anchor, temporal or cognitive, in the preceding context? A relevant factor when considering this question is the fact that, although weqaṭal and wayyiqṭol are cognitive ‘chunks’ in constructions, they have not lost their compositionality completely and the waw still functions as a clause-initial connective to the preceding discourse. This can be considered to coerce a discourse dependency interpretation for the construction. Some scholars have argued that the fact that the wayyiqṭol form occurs at the beginning of several biblical books indicates that they do not always denote sequentiality or dependency (Bauer 1910, 35–39; Hatav 1997, 36–88; Joüon and Muraoka 2011, §118c). Several scholars, however, regard the waw as reflecting connections between the literary units of other books. Moreover, waw sometimes begins a biblical book before a non-verbal form, e.g., ו ְ א ֵּ֗ ל ֶ ה שׁ ְ מ ֹ תו ‘And these are the names’ (Exod. 1.1).40

83In NENA, by contrast, the substantive element in the construction did not include a connective waw. In the Barwar NENA dialect discussed in §1.0 the discourse dependency must be encoded in the verbal form. Following this typological parallel, I have posited that the Hebrew constructions followed the same historical pathway and likewise involved coding of discourse dependency. Unlike in NENA, and Arabic dialects, the presence of the waw in the substantive core of the Hebrew constructions was a constraint against the full bleaching of this discourse dependency coding.

84The schematisation of the constructions (apodosis and purpose clauses) resulted in looser semantic integration with what precedes, which I have been referring to as discourse dependency. This development of linear elements, i.e., from greater integration to lesser integration, is the opposite to what is normally said to be the typical directionality of morphosyntactic change according to grammaticalisation models, i.e., main clauses > subordinate constructions. It has recently been recognised, however, that the opposite directionality may be more widespread in languages than has previously been thought. Evans (2007), in particular, has drawn attention across many languages to cases of syntactically subordinate constructions developing into main clauses. He refers to this process as ‘insubordination’. The insubordination process in the development of consecutive weqaṭal and wayyiqṭol does not fit the normal model of grammaticalisation. I hope to have shown, however, that they can be explained using the model of construction grammar, whereby components of constructions become more generalised through the cognitive process of schematisation.

Bibliographie

References

Baranowski, Krzysztof J. 2016a. ‘The Biblical Hebrew Wayyiqtol and the Evidence of the Amarna Letters from Canaan’. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 16: 1–18.

— ——. 2016b. The Verb in the Amarna Letters from Canaan. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Bauer, Hans. 1910. ‘Die Tempora im Semitischen, Ihre Entstehung und Ihre Ausgestaltung in den Einzelsprachen’. Beiträge zur Assyriologie und Semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 8: 1–53.

Ben-Ḥayyim, Ze’ev. 1977. The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans. Vol. 4. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, Academy of the Hebrew Language.

Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. 1918–1929. Hebräische Grammatik. Mit Benutzung der von E. Kautzsch Bearbeiten 28. Auflage von Wilhelm Gesenius’ Hebräischer Grammatik. 2 vols. Leipzig: F.C. W. Vogel.

Blau, Joshua. 1978. ‘Hebrew Stress Shifts, Pretonic Lengthening, and Segolization: Possible Cases of Aramaic Interference in Hebrew Syllable Structure’. Israel Oriental Studies 8: 91– 106.

Boneh, Nora, and Edit Doron. 2013. ‘Hab and Gen in the Expression of Habituality’. In Genericity, edited by Alda Mari, Claire Beyssade, and Fabio Del Prete, 176–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

— ——. 2015. Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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: University of Chicago Press.

Carlson, Gregory. 2012. ‘Habitual and Generic Aspect’. In The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, edited by Robert I. Binnick, 828–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carlson, Gregory N., and Beverly Spejewski. 1997. ‘Generic Passages’. Natural Language Semantics 5: 101–65.

Carlson, Robert. 1992. ‘Narrative, Subjunctive, and Finiteness’. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 13: 59–85.

Carruthers, Janice. 2012. ‘Discourse and Text’. In The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, edited by Robert I. Binnick, 306–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, Ohad. 2013. The Verbal Tense System in Late Biblical Hebrew Prose. Harvard Semitic Studies 63. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Cook, John A. 2004. ‘The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics: Clarifying the Roles of Wayyiqtol and Weqatal in Biblical Hebrew Prose’. Journal of Semitic Studies 49: 247–73.

— ——. 2012. Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb: The Expression of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Corriente, Federico. 1977. A Grammatical Sketch of the Spanish Arabic Dialect Bundle. Madrid: Instituto Hispano-Árabe de Cultura.

Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford and New York: Blackwell.

Dallaire, Hélène. 2014. The Syntax of Volitives in Biblical Hebrew and Amarna Canaanite Prose. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Dinsmore, John. 1982. ‘The Semantic Nature of Reichenbach’s Tense System’. Glossa 16: 216–39.

— ——. 1991. Partitioned Representations: A Study in Mental Representation, Language Understand and Linguistic Structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Ebert, Christian, Cornelia Ebert, and Stefan Hinterwimmer. 2014. ‘A Unified Analysis of Conditionals as Topics’. Linguistics and Philosophy 37: 353–408.

Evans, Nicholas. 2007. ‘Insubordination and Its Uses’. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Irina Nikolaeva, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary C. O’Connor. 1988. ‘Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions’. Language 64: 501–38.

Florentin, Moshe. 1996. ‘֙: ֙עיונים ֙֙בתורת ֙֙הצורות ֙֙של ֙֙עברית ֙֙השומרונים .41–217 :59 Lĕšonénu .’בידולים ֙סמנטיים ֙באמצעים ֙מורפולוגיים ֙

GKC = Kautzsch, Emil (ed.). 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. 2nd English edition. Translated by Arthur E. Cowley. Oxford: University Press.

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

— ——. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haiman, John. 1978. ‘Conditionals Are Topics’. Language 54: 564–89.

Hanitsch, Melanie. 2019. Verbalmodifikatoren in den Arabischen Dialekten: Untersuchungen zur Evolution von Aspektsystemen. Porta Linguarum Orientalium. Neue Serie 27. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Hatav, Galia. 1997. The Semantics of Aspect and Modality: Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew. Studies in Language Companion Series. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

— ——. 2004. ‘Anchoring World and Time in Biblical Hebrew’. Journal of Linguistics 40: 491–526.

— ——. 2006. ‘The Deictic Nature of the Directives in Biblical Hebrew’. Studies in Language 30: 733–75.

— ——. 2012. ‘Bound Tenses’. In The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, edited by Robert I. Binnick, 611–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hetzron, Robert. 1969. ‘The Evidence for Perfect *yˈaqtul and Jussive *yaqtˈul in Proto-Semitic’. Journal of Semitic Studies 14: 1–21.

Hoftijzer, Jacob. 1985. The Function and Use of the Imperfect Forms with Nun Paragogicum in Classical Hebrew. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Hornkohl, Aaron D. 2013. Ancient Hebrew Periodization and the Language of the Book of Jeremiah. Leiden: Brill.

— ——. Forthcoming. Studies in the Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading Tradition. Cambridge: University of Cambridge and Open Book Publishers.

Huehnergard, John. 1988. ‘The Early Hebrew Prefix Conjugations’. Hebrew Studies 29: 19–23.

— ——. 2005. ‘Hebrew Verbs I-w/y and a Proto-Semitic Sound Rule’. In Memoriae Igor M. Diakonoff, edited by Leonid Kogan, Natalia Koslova, Sergey Loesev, and Serguei Tishchenko, 457–74. Babel und Bibel 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Johnson, Marion R. 1981. ‘A Unified Temporal Theory of Tense and Aspect’. In Syntax and Semantics, 14: Tense and Aspect, edited by Philip J. Tedeschi and Annie Zaenen, 145–75. New York: Academic Press.

Joosten, Jan. 1992. ‘Biblical Hebrew weqāṭal and Syriac hwā qātel Expressing Repetition in the Past’. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 5: 1–14.

— ——. 2012. The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 10. Jerusalem: Simor.

Joüon, Paul, and Takamitsu Muraoka. 2011. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 3rd reprint of the 2nd edition, with corrections. Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press.

Kantor, Benjamin. 2020. ‘The Development of the Hebrew Way- yiqṭol ( “Waw Consecutive”) Verbal Form in the Light of Greek and Latin Transcriptions of Hebrew’. In Studies in Semitic Vocalisation and Reading Traditions, edited by Aaron D. Hornkohl and Geoffrey Khan, 55–129. Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures 3. Cambridge: University of Cambridge and Open Book Publishers.doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0207

Khan, Geoffrey. 1991. ‘Morphological Markers of Individuation in Semitic Languages and Their Function in the Semitic Tense System’. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Hamito-Semitic Congress: Band 2, Cushitic, Egyptian, Omotic, Semitic, edited by Hans G. Mukarovsky, 235–44. Beiträge zur Afrikanistik 41. Vienna: Veröffentichungen der Institute für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie der Universität Wien.

— ——. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill.

— ——. 2013. A Short Introduction to the Tiberian Masoretic Bible and Its Reading Tradition. 2nd edition. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias.

— ——. 2020. The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew: Including a Critical Edition and English Translation of the Sections on Consonants and Vowels in the Masoretic Treatise Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ ‘Guide for the Reader’. 2 vols. Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures 1. Cambridge: University of Cambridge and Open Book Publishers.doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163

— ——. 2021. ‘Verbal Forms Expressing Discourse Dependency in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic’. In Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic, edited by Geoffrey Khan and Paul M. Noorlander, 143–93. Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures 5. Cambridge: University of Cambridge and Open Book Publishers.doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0209

Krahmalkov, C. R. 1986. ‘The Qatal with Future Tense Reference in Phoenician’. Journal of Semitic Studies 31: 5–10.

Kutscher, Edward Y. 1979. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1 Q Is A). Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 6a. Leiden: Brill.

Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 2014. ‘Sequentiality-Futurity Links’. Oceanic Linguistics 53: 61–91.

Longacre, Robert E. 1990. Storyline Concerns and Word Order Typology in East and West Africa. Studies in African Linguistics Supplement 10. Los Angeles: University of California.

— ——. 1994. ‘Weqatal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose’. In Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, edited by Robert L. Bergen, 50–98. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Madariaga, Nerea. 2017. ‘Reanalysis’. In The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax, edited by Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, 70–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Merwe, Christo H. J. van der. 1994. ‘Discourse Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew Grammar’. In Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, edited by Robert L. Bergen, 13–49. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Morag, Shelomo. 1988. Babylonian Aramaic: The Yemenite Tradition. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute.

Moran, William L. 1960. ‘Early Canaanite Yaqtula’. Orientalia 29: 1–19.

— ——. 1961. ‘The Hebrew Language in Its Northwest Semitic Background’. In The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honour of William Foxwell Albright, edited by George E. Wright, 54–72. Garden City, NJ, and London: Doubleday.

Nebes, Norbert. 1995. Die Konstruktionen mit FA- im Altsüdarabischen: Syntaktische und Epigraphische Untersuchungen. Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur 40. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Noël, Dirk. 2007. ‘Diachronic Construction Grammar and Grammaticalization Theory’. Functions of Language 14: 177–202.

Notarius, Tania. 2013. The Verb in Archaic Biblical Poetry: A Discursive, Typological, and Historical Investigation of the Tense System. Semitic Languages and Linguistics 68. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

Owens, Jonathan. 2018. ‘Dialects (Speech Communities), the Apparent Past, and Grammaticalization: Towards an Understanding of the History of Arabic’. In Arabic Historical Dialectology, edited by Clive Holes, 206–56. Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Palmer, Frank R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

— ——. 2001. Mood and Modality. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pat-El, Na’ama. 2020. ‘Typological Approaches and Historical Linguistics’. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Vol. 2, edited by Richard D. Janda, Brian D. Joseph, and Barbara S. Vance, 183–95. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Payne, Doris L., and Shahar Shirtz (eds). 2015. Beyond Aspect: The Expression of Discourse Functions in African Languages. Typological Studies in Language 109. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Persohn, Bastian. 2017. The Verb in Nyakyusa: A Focus on Tense, Aspect and Modality. Berlin: Language Science Press.

Peursen, Wido T. van. 2004. The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira. Leiden: Brill.

Qimron, Elisha. 2018. A Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jersualem: Ben-Zvi Institute.

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. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill.

Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Macmillan.

Revell, E. John. 1984. ‘Stress and the Waw “Consecutive” in Biblical Hebrew’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 104: 437–44.

Robar, Elizabeth. 2013. ‘Wayyiqtol: An Unlikely Preterite’. Journal of Semitic Studies 58: 21–42.

— ——. 2015. The Verb and the Paragraph in Biblical Hebrew: A Cognitive-Linguistic Approach. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 78. Leiden: Brill.

Schaefer, Ronald P., and Francis O. Egbokhare. 2015. ‘Aspectual and Storyline Tension in Emai’s (Edoid) Narrative Template’. In Beyond Aspect: The Expression of Discourse Functions in African Languages, edited by Doris L. Payne and Shahar Shirtz, 287–313. Typological Studies in Language 109. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten. 2009. A Typology of Purpose Clauses. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Seidel, Frank. 2015. ‘Rethinking Narrative Tenses Based on Data from Nalu (Atlantic) and Yeyi (Bantu)’. In Beyond Aspect: The Expression of Discourse Functions in African Languages, edited by Doris L. Payne and Shahar Shirtz, 177–217. Typological Studies in Language 109. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Shields, Kenneth. 2010. ‘Linguistic Typology and Historical Linguistics’. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, edited by Jae Jung Song, 551–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sivan, Daniel. 1998. ‘The Use of QTL and YQTL Forms in the Ugaritic Verbal System’. Israel Oriental Studies 18: 89–103.

Sjörs, Ambjörn. 2021. ‘Notes on the Lengthened Imperfect Consecutive in the Samaritan Pentateuch’. Journal of Semitic Studies 66: 17–26.

Smet, Hendrik de. 2012. ‘The Course of Actualization’. Language 88: 601–33.

Smith, Mark S. 2009. The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive: Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugarit to Qumran. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Stewart, Devin J. 1998. ‘Clitic Reduction in the Formation of Modal Prefixes in the Post-Classical Arabic Dialects and Classical Arabic Sa-/Sawfa’. Arabica 45: 104–28.

Talshir, David. 1986. ‘The Development of the Imperfect Consecutive Forms in Relation to the Modal System’. Tarbiz 56: 585–91.

Tropper, Josef. 2000. Ugaritische Grammatik. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Tsukanova, Vera. 2008. ‘Discourse Functions of the Verb in the Dialect of Sedentary Kuwaitis’. In Between the Atlantic and Indian Oceans: Studies on Contemporary Arabic Dialects. Proceedings of the 7th AIDA Conference, Held in Vienna from 5– 9 September 2006, edited by Stephan Procházka and Veronika Ritt-Benmimoun, 447–55. Münster and Vienna: LIT-Verlag.

Verkuyl, Henk J. 2012. ‘Compositionality’. In The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, edited by Robert I. Binnick, 563– 85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wright, William. 1898. A Grammar of the Arabic Language. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yeivin, Israel. 1985. The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalization. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language. [Hebrew]

Notes

1 I am grateful to the comments on an original draft of this paper by Aaron Hornkohl, Ivri Bunis, and my graduate students, which helped improve it.

2 Verbal forms of this type in numerous African languages are discussed in the papers of the volume edited by Payne and Shirtz (2015). See also Palmer (1986, 204–7), Longacre (1990), and Persohn (2017, §7.1).

3 The topic–comment type of constructions cited by Krahmalkov as examples of future we-qaṭal are semantically close to conditional constructions; cf. Haiman (1978) and Ebert et al. (2014).

4 This is the term used by Cook (2012, 250) and Robar (2015, 146) to refer to the modality of conditional constructions.

5 Cf. the remarks of Joosten (1992), who sees a connection between the non-indicative modality of weqaṭal and habitual aspect.

6 Contra, e.g., Joosten (1992; 2012, 305), who uses the term ‘iterative’.

7 For the possibility of a verb having two reference points see Comrie (1985, 128).

8 The discourse dependence of weqaṭal can also be represented in the dependency framework of mental spaces proposed by Fauconnier (1994) and Dinsmore (1991). According to this model, knowledge can be represented in a network of mental spaces. These spaces are constructed by the listener/reader, interpreting grammatical or lexical cues. Spaces contain information belonging to distinct times, locations, or realities. For mental spaces in Biblical Hebrew discourse see Robar (2015, 31–33).

9 The habitual function of weqaṭal is only sporadically attested in Late Biblical Hebrew (Cohen 2013, 203–7).

10 For discontinuity strategies in Biblical Hebrew see Robar (2015, 148– 49). For possible imperfective interpretations of narrative weqaṭal see Hornkohl (2013, 261, 288).

11 For embedding of units in the narrative chain see Robar (2015, 74– 75).

12 For references to the literature see the survey in Robar (2015, 78– 79).

13 Different views have been expressed in the literature as to whether there were originally two distinct yaqtul forms expressing past and jussive, distinguished, according to some, by stress position (e.g., Hetzron 1969; Rainey 1986), or whether there was only one morpheme expressing both functions (Huehnergard 1988).

14 Robar (2013; 2015, 78–112) is one scholar who has found the notion that wayyiqṭol is past perfective problematic. She insightfully adduces arguments against the view that it has a past perfective core meaning. Her thesis is that it is a narrative present form that takes its time reference from the context. She has drawn attention to parallels in the Neo-Aramaic narrative qaṭəl form in the Barwar dialect, which I interpreted as a narrative present in my grammar (Khan 2008), and also to parallels in several African languages that have narrative forms without specified tense. My interpretation of the Barwar narrative qaṭəl has since, however, shifted and I now consider it to be a narrative subjunctive in the light of my work on other dialects. The relevant parallels in African languages for me are now those languages that use modal subjunctive forms as narrative forms (R. Carlson 1992).

15 In Archaic Biblical Hebrew the qaṭal had not yet completely superseded the old past perfective yiqṭol (Notarius 2013).

16 E.g., Bergsträsser (1918–1929, II: §5d) and Talshir (1986).

17 For other functions of sequences with jussive verbs see Dallaire (2014, 102–3).

18 For other functions of the cohortative after waw in sequences see Dallaire (2014, 118).

19 It was Moran (1961, 64) who first proposed the Canaanite yaqtula as the ancestor of the Hebrew cohortative. This has been accepted by some scholars. Others prefer to seek its origins in the Canaanite energic form yaqtulanna. See Dallaire (2014, 108–11) for a survey of the literature. In Classical Arabic an analogous construction has a subjunctive verb (yaqtula) after an imperative and the conjunction fa-, e.g., ʾiġfir lī yā rabbī fa-ʾadkhula ʾal-janna ‘Pardon me, oh my Lord, so that I may enter paradise’ (Wright 1898, 31).

20 For the various nuances of commands expressed by the jussive and other verbal forms in Biblical Hebrew see Dallaire (2014, 89).

21 This temporal analysis differs from that of Hatav (1997; 2004; 2006), who argues that a wayyiqṭol form “introduces a new R-time [i.e., reference time] into the discourse” (Hatav 2006, 748). This analysis is followed by Cohen (2013, 95–96). According to such a model, sequential is an inference from the succession of R-times with each wayyiqṭol. Cf. also Cook (2004; 2012), who argues that temporal succession is the default interpretation of a series of temporally bounded perfectives. In my proposal the wayyiqṭol form explicitly encodes dependency on the preceding discourse by having two reference points (R1—R2,E), which is a legacy of its historical origin in a purpose clause.

22 In some Neo-Reichenbach approaches (e.g., Johnson 1981; Dinsmore 1982; Verkuyl 2012), rather than consisting of a single triple system, the analysis should consist of two pairs of components, namely S and R, on the one hand, and E and R, on the one hand. The relationship between S and R would correspond to tense, whereas the relationship between E and R would be one of posteriority or anteriority, independent of tense.

23 For the process of reanalysis see Madariaga (2017).

24 For more details regarding their distribution in Late Biblical Hebrew see Sjörs (this volume).

25 There are fifteen cases of wayyiqṭol cohortative in the Pentateuch and Early Prophets (Talshir 1986, 590).

26 Robar (2015, 85–86) draws attention to this fact in her argument against interpreting the wayyiqṭol form as a preterite. See also her paper in this volume.

27 An alternative way of understanding the wayyiqṭol forms in (27)– (29) would be to interpret them as existential perfects (‘you have honoured on unspecified occasions’, etc.). This would be a strategy for expressing a habitual characteristic of the subject that is equivalent to a ‘gnomic’ qaṭal.

28 There are some cases where a short yiqṭol is preceded by waw without a dagesh in the prefix and the form is generally interpreted as a future, e.g., Num. 24.19, 1 Sam. 10.5, 1 Kgs 14.5, Dan. 11.4, or habitual, e.g., Job 10.17.

29 See Florentin (1996). A possible parallel to this in the Hexapla is ιεδαλ (BHS֙ ְוחַָדָ֥ל ‘and it/one ceases/will cease’ Ps. 49.9). Data supplied by Ben Kantor.

30 In the Tiberian tradition in the Middle Ages a vocalic shewa was, in fact, assimilated to a following semi-vowel /y/, so that ְויקְטל would have been pronounced [vijiqˈtˁoːol]. Before other prefixes the default [a] appeared, e.g., ְותקְטל [vaθiqˈtˁoːol], וְנקְטל [vaniqˈtˁoːol]. This assimilation before /y/ could have been a later development or perhaps the /a/ in the third person forms arose by analogy with other persons.

31 For these developments in stress position see Blau (1978, 100).

32 For the lateness of the stress shifts see Revell (1984).

33 An analogous phenomenon can be found in the Yemenite reading tradition of Babylonian Talmudic Aramaic. In this oral reading tradition the plural active participle retains its historical vocalism in the first syllable when it has present tense reference, viz. [qɔːṭleː] with a qameṣ, but when it is interpreted as referring to the past it has the form [qaṭleː] with a pataḥ. The latter form is based on the analogy of the past qṭal verb, which has the base qaṭl- in most persons (Morag 1988, 133–34).

34 This merger in some cases resulted in the original jussive morphological form being extended to the functions of the indicative. An example of this is the normal inflection of 3mpl and 2mpl indicative yiqṭol with final . This represents the levelling of the original jussive inflection and the original indicative inflection -ūn, which has survived as an archaism in indicative contexts (Hoftijzer 1985). Moreover, there are sporadic cases of short yiqṭol forms (according to orthography and vocalisation) being used as indicatives, e.g. תֶָ֣מת ֙בֶַ֣נעַר נַפְשָָ֑ם ‘their soul dies [habitual] in youth’ (Job 36.14), יְַרעִֵ֤ם אֵֶ֣ל ‘God thunders [habitual]’ (Job 37.5). For further examples preceded by waw see n.28.

35 This is contrary to previous studies, which interpreted the yaqtula form as expressing purpose after volitive expressions, e.g., Moran (1960), Dallaire (2014, 131–32).

36 According to Qimron (2018, 371) the occurrence of the cohortative in the Dead Sea Scrolls is conditioned by position, in that it occurs predominantly in clause-initial position after waw. The same has been observed in the language of Ben Sira by van Peursen (2004, 83–87).

37 This form, however, may have originally been a qal, as is the case also with the jussive form יֹוסֵף; cf. Huehnergard (2005, 467-8) [I am grateful to Aaron Hornkohl for drawing my attention to this].

38 First person jussives outside of Classical Biblical Hebrew prose, include Isa. 41.28; 42.6; Ezek. 5.16; Hos. 9.15; 11.4; Zeph. 1.2, 3; Job 23.9, 11.

39 Talshir (1986, 586). For a detailed examination of this phenomenon, see Hornkohl (forthcoming).

40 One should also take into account that connectives in some Semitic languages introduce the main body of texts after formulaic preliminaries, e.g., fa- in Arabic and Epigraphic South Arabian (Nebes 1995).

Table des illustrations

Titre Table 1
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/20225/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 25k
Titre Table 2
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/20225/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 18k
Titre Table 3
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/20225/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 5,9k
Titre Table 4
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/20225/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 4,5k
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/20225/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 4,1k
Titre Table 5
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/20225/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 811 octets
Titre Table 6
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/20225/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 6,5k

Auteur

Aaron D. Hornkohl (PhD, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2012) is the author of Linguistic Periodization and the Language of Jeremiah (Brill, 2013), a translated adaptation of his doctoral dissertation, and co-editor (with Geoffrey Khan) of Studies in Semitic Vocalisation (University of Cambridge and Open Book Publishers, 2020). He holds the positions of Hebrew Language Teaching Officer and Senior Research Associate in the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cambridge. His research is philological/linguistic in nature, focusing on ancient Hebrew, and encompassing diachrony and linguistic periodisation; syntax, pragmatics, and the verbal system; the Tiberian written and reading and non-Tiberian Hebrew traditions; textual criticism and literary formation; and historical and contemporary exegesis. He serves on the editorial board of the series Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures.

Acheter

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search