Desktop versionMobile Version

New Perspectives in Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew

 | 
Aaron D. Hornkohl
, 
Khan Geoffrey

Polysemous Adverbial Conjunctions in Biblical Hebrew: An Application of Diachronic Semantic Maps1

Christian Locatell

Zusammenfassung

Adverbial conjunctions often communicate multiple interclausal relationships in a constrained set of polysemy patterns (e.g., time and cause, place and condition, or comparison, time, and condition, to name but a few). This raises several questions: How are these different meanings conceptually related to each other? What processes led to the proliferation of meanings for a single form? And how may these meanings be diachronically ordered in a form’s developmental history? This study approaches these questions regarding adverbial conjunctions in Biblical Hebrew with the following methodology: (1) construct a usage profile of the form (s) in question; (2) heuristically employ diachronic semantic maps to generate hypotheses about the conceptual and diachronic organisation of uses; (3) test these hypotheses by examining corpus data for plausible bridging contexts; (4) compare these results to comparative data where available. This method yields plausible reconstructions of a form’s diachronic development, even when only synchronic data are available.

Volltext

1.0. Introduction

  • 1 I would like to thank the Golda Meir Fellowship at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for funding t (...)
  • 2 Cf. Hetterle (2015, 201). For a discussion of the characteristics of this word class, and one set o (...)
  • 3 Note that in these schematic representations of interclausal relations, ‘q’ stands for the main (or (...)

1The topic of this article is adverbial conjunctions in the Hebrew Bible. As used here, the term ‘adverbial conjunction’ refers to single- or multi-word expressions used to communicate an adverbial relationship between finite clauses (including so-called verbless clauses).2 Adverbial conjunctions are an especially interesting type of linguistic item, not least because they are often polysemous. That is, they are frequently used to communicate a variety of interclausal relationships. For example, א ַ ח ֲֵ יר א ֲ ש ֶ ר may communicate anteriority ‘after p, q’, or causation ‘because p, q’.3 The adverbial conjunction א ִ ם may communicate contingency ‘whenever p, q’, condition ‘if p, q’, concessive condition ‘even if p, q’, or concession ‘although p, q’. In Biblical Hebrew, the conjunctions כ ִ י and א ֲ ש ֶ ר are especially notorious for their polysemy. This raises the question of whether there is an organising principle according to which their associated meanings are conceptually arranged and may be diachronically ordered. If so, what is the relationship between these different meanings and what is their relative order of emergence in diachronic development? This word class has been treated to some extent in several studies in the Semitic languages, e.g., Aartun (1974) on Ugaritic, Hackl (2007) on Late Babylonian, and Esseesy (2010) on Arabic. However, adverbial conjunctions in Biblical Hebrew have not received similar attention. By and large, descriptive grammars of Hebrew simply offer a taxonomy of various uses. Furthermore, in linguistics more broadly, quantitative typological data on this word class has only become available relatively recently (esp. Kortmann 1997; 1998; 2001) and mostly for Indo-European languages.

2The purpose of this paper is to provide a first step toward addressing this lacuna by proposing paths of development connecting the various uses of polysemous adverbial conjunctions in Biblical Hebrew. This will proceed in the following manner. In §2.0, I provide an overview of semantic maps, focusing on Kortmann’s (1997) typological study of adverbial subordinators. In §3.0, I present representative examples of the usage profile of the polysemous adverbial conjunctions I have identified in Biblical Hebrew. In §4.0, I heuristically employ known diachronic semantic maps of adverbial conjunctions in order to generate hypotheses on their relationships to one another in diachronic development, whether as a source or goal of semantic extension. In §5.0, I test these hypotheses by examining potential bridging contexts in corpus data, as well as considering supporting cognate data. Finally, in §6.0, I offer concluding remarks.

2.0. The Semantic Map of Adverbial Conjunctions: An Overview and Methodology

  • 4 See Hardy (2014, 49–53), for a survey of past studies of grammaticalisation in Semitic. Also see Ch (...)
  • 5 While many variations of semantics maps have been proposed, this is sufficient to illustrate the ba (...)

3The use of diachronic semantic maps and grammaticalisation theory is not new to Semitic studies.4 However, it has not been systematically applied to adverbial conjunctions in Hebrew. Thus, for the sake of those unfamiliar with such work, and in order to lay the foundation for the application of diachronic semantic maps to adverbial conjunctions in particular, the following is offered by way of overview. As defined by van der Auwera (2013, 154), “Semantic maps are essentially representations of the polyfunctionality of words or, more generally, constructions.” The organisation of different functions on the map represents synchronic polyfunctionality and diachronic development (even if only by implication). The basic idea of this can be seen in Figure 1, a schematic example of a classic semantic map.5

4Figure 1: Schematic synchronic and diachronic semantic map (van der Auwera 2013, 154)

  • 6 For a detailed discussion of how semantic maps can be constructed, see Georgakopoulos and Polis (20 (...)
  • 7 It may be noted that Rabbinic Hebrew developed this distinction by using Aramaic אִילָּן for ‘tree’

5Such maps can be constructed by observing polysemy patterns across languages.6 Two or more senses are connected in a semantic map if they are both part of the functional profile of a single linguistic item in at least one language. Conversely, distinct uses are only delineated if they are lexically distinguished in at least one language. For example, Hebrew ע ֵ צ ִ םי does not lexically distinguish between ‘trees’ (e.g., Josh. 10.26; Judg. 9.8) and ‘wood’ (e.g., Exod. 17.9; Zech. 12.16).7 But English employs different lexemes for these concepts. While synchronic data can be sufficient to construct such maps, the connections and their directionality are strengthened if they are confirmed by historical data showing the clear emergence of one use from another.

  • 8 Grammaticalisation is defined as the process whereby lexical forms develop grammatical functions an (...)

6Semantic maps constructed on the basis of a large number of languages (especially areally and genetically distinct languages) with historical corroboration posit implicational universals and grammaticalisation paths that characterise the typical developmental trajectories of the linguistic forms in question.8 For example, looking at the map in Figure 1, a form with Use 1 and Use 3 is predicted to have Use 2 as well. In other words, when heuristically employed, the map generates the hypothesis that a given form’s usage profile will fill a contiguous portion of the semantic map. Additionally, if the synchronic usage of a given form A consists of Uses 2 and 3, this semantic map generates the hypothesis that the emergence of uses in the form’s developmental history would have proceeded from 2 to 3. Furthermore, it generates the hypothesis that these uses originally developed from Use 1 sometime in its earlier history. However, it must be emphasised that representations like Figure 1 are not meant to imply that a form communicates only one sense at a time. Rather, multiple uses may persist side-by-side for long periods of time in a phenomenon called ‘layering’ (Hopper and Traugott 2003, 124). This means that especially in a corpus with a complex textual history, like the Hebrew Bible, uses will typically appear alongside others without necessarily revealing any diachronic distribution, especially for those forms whose developmental histories precede the earliest extant texts.

7This makes such diachronic semantic maps all the more valuable, since they can suggest the developmental trajectories of polysemy patterns, even from synchronic data. To visualise this, consider Figure 2.

Figure 2: Layering in diachronic development

Figure 2: Layering in diachronic development

8Here, ‘A’ represents a source usage and ‘B’ some extension. Such extensions are facilitated by ‘A/B’ bridging contexts where uses ‘A’ and ‘B’ are conceptually and structurally similar, making it possible to reanalyse ‘A’ as ‘B’. Crucially, these bridging contexts often persist side-by-side in a forms synchronic profile, even if no unambiguous diachronic data is available. Therefore, diachronic semantic maps can generate hypotheses to determine which uses served as sources and goals of semantic development. Additionally, these hypotheses can be tested by examining potential bridging contexts connecting these uses. If a robust diachronic semantic map predicts a certain A > B development, and the synchronic data of the form being analysed shows many ‘A/B’ contexts which could facilitate such an extension, this strengthens the plausibility of such a reconstruction of the form’s diachronic development. Such reconstructions can be further strengthened when there is corroborating data from cognate forms.

9Among the advantages of semantic maps is the fact that they are falsifiable, since they can be tested against and modified in light of new data (Georgakopoulos and Polis 2018). The semantic map model is also neutral vis-à-vis monosemy versus polysemy (Haspelmath 2003). This is especially significant in the discussion of forms functioning as adverbial conjunctions in Biblical Hebrew, since there is often debate as to whether various functions constitute genuine polysemy or merely different uses of a form which in reality has a more general core meaning. This question can be deferred to allow for the analysis of synchronic usage, diachronic development, and crosslinguistic comparison. Thus, semantic maps facilitate crosslinguistic comparison, because they allow the researcher to compare any set of uses or repertoire of linguistic forms, and are theory neutral regarding monosemy versus polysemy.

  • 9 Two other large crosslinguistic studies of adverbial conjunctions followed Kortmann (1997). One is (...)
  • 10 Definitions of the subsenses within these semantic spaces are given along with Figure 5.
  • 11 To give a representative example of this from English, the usage profiles of as, when, and where tr (...)

10The specific semantic maps used here are based mainly on Kortmann’s (1997) foundational study of adverbial conjunctions.9 This study drew data from 53 languages representing half a dozen language families (Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, Caucasian, Semitic, and one isolate). The linguistic items analysed included 2,043 different adverbial conjunctions. There was also a significant historical component to this study, as the time-depth of languages analysed was up to 2,500 years. This means that the semantic map of adverbial relations is not only based on synchronic patterns of polysemy, but also supported by observable change in historical corpora where the emergence of uses can be directly seen. From this data, Kortmann presented a compelling case that interclausal relations can be placed into four sets of semantic spaces: locative, temporal, modal, and what has been termed CCC (i.e., cause, condition, and concession) relations.10 Examples of Biblical Hebrew conjunctions expressing these relations are given in the following section. The reason for identifying these as the basic semantic groupings of interclausal relationships is based on converging evidence, such as frequency of use (i.e., the most commonly used words belong to the most fundamental semantic domains) and degree of lexicalisation (i.e., the domains with the largest lexical inventory are the most central). Additionally, the strongest semantic affinities of a given adverbial conjunction are consistently found within one of these semantic domains.11 These diagnostics support the delineation and cognitive basicness of these semantic domains across languages.

  • 12 For a detailed presentation of this evidence, see Kortmann (1997, 137–211). Cf. Deutscher (2000, 37 (...)
  • 13 Each of the four major networks of interclausal relations is simplified and presented as a unit (i. (...)

11While relatively distinguishable, certain interclausal relationships within these semantic spaces are likely to develop into uses that extend into different semantic spaces. Thus, these groupings of interclausal relations have conceptually similar uses at their boundaries. Inferential pressures in communication drive semantic extensions from one semantic space into another in a constrained and cognitively motivated way (Hopper and Traugott 2003, 39–98). This is convincingly demonstrated by the observation that adverbial conjunctions in certain source domains persistently develop senses in expected target domains with a remarkable degree of statistical consistency.12 A coarsegrained representation of the semantic extensions between the four main semantic spaces of adverbial relations is presented in Figure 3 below, based on Kortmann (1997, 178).13

Figure 3: Diachronic semantic map of adverbial conjunctions

Figure 3: Diachronic semantic map of adverbial conjunctions
  • 14 As elaborated in Kortmann (1997, 178): “It is crucial to stress that for none of these links does t (...)

12The situation represented in Figure 3 is that locative and modal relations are sources for semantic extensions into temporal and CCC relations. The temporal semantic space is the most common source of extensions into the CCC domain, as indicated by the bold arrow. There is a general push for all other uses to develop toward CCC relations. The arrows represent the fact that these paths of semantic extension are unidirectional (Kortmann 2001, 846–47; cf. Hopper and Traugott 2003, 99–139).14

  • 15 For example, the cognates English while and German weil both developed from a noun meaning ‘time’ i (...)

13This unidirectionality of change results from the direction of informativeness. That is, speakers invite and hearers infer the most informative interpretation of an utterance, based on the communicative maxim that communication should be as informative as possible (Traugott and König 1991, 190). Therefore, more concrete interclausal relations are pushed toward richer logical inferences as more informative interpretations. For example, it is perceived as more relevant and informative to interpret the temporal relation ‘q happened when/after p happened’ as a causal relation ‘q happened because p happened’. Through frequency of use and entrenchment, these enriched interpretations may become conventionalised, at times even displacing earlier meanings (Divjak and Caldwell-Harris 2015).15

14Finally, it should be noted that the use of semantic maps can also be applied to multifunctionality across word classes (termed ‘heterosemy’). Such a perspective can help illuminate the common sources of adverbial conjunctions. This can be quite complex, since, as noted by Meillet (1915, 21), “Les origines des conjonctions sont d’une diversité infinie, on le sait. Il n’y a pas d’espèce de mot qui ne puisse livrer des conjonctions.” While an exploration of these typical sources is beyond the scope of this paper, Kortmann does observe several category continua that intersect at the adverbial subordinator word class. This is represented in Figure 4, adapted from Kortmann (1997, 59).

Figure 4: Category continua

15As Kortmann (1997, 64) explains, “recategorization or the acquisition of additional category membership happens both within and between the various continua.” Unsurprisingly, this is also the case in Biblical Hebrew. As pointed out in BHRG2 (§40.1.1), word classes such as adverb and conjunction often blend together. This is helpful to keep in mind when considering words like relative א ֲ ש ֶ ר and complementiser כ ִ י , or prepositional א ַ ח ֲֵ יר and ע ַ ל . Such heterosemy is crosslinguistically pervasive (Kortmann 1997, 108–12; cf. Sasse 2001, 495–96). It is therefore not surprising that many of the words discussed below intersect at several points along these continua.

16The structure of this article follows a methodological order derived from the above discussion that can be replicated in other studies of this word class or any linguistic form. Hebraists often find themselves analysing linguistic phenomena the historical development of which is not directly observable over a long and voluminous textual history. When typologically robust diachronic semantic maps are available for such phenomena, these can help bridge the gap in data by employing the following methodology. First, the usage profile for the linguistic phenomenon in question can be outlined from available data. Next, this usage profile can be mapped onto diachronic semantic maps based on known polysemy patterns and historical developments. This mapping will then generate plausible hypotheses about the diachronic relationship between uses. The more robust the typological patterns are, the stronger the generated hypotheses will be. For example, time > cause is universally unidirectional so that if a form has both temporal and causal uses, it is virtually certain that the causal use developed from the temporal and not vice-versa, even if no diachronic data is available for the relevant form. However, while extremely robust diachronic paths can be reasonably posited from a synchronic usage profile alone, such hypotheses (especially those based on less-well-attested developmental paths) can be further corroborated by examining bridging (A/B) contexts in synchronic usage that are ‘left over’ from past development. When cognate evidence is available, this can also be leveraged to test the hypotheses generated via diachronic semantic maps.

17In the end, one is left with a variety of plausible hypotheses about the order of development for uses of a polyfunctional form. The relative strength of these hypotheses will be proportional to the typological robustness of the diachronic path (s) heuristically employed, the clarity and pervasiveness of the bridging contexts available for the form (s) being studied, and the clarity and pervasiveness of corroborating observations in cognate data.

3.0. Polysemous Adverbial Conjunctions in Biblical Hebrew: A Usage Profile

  • 16 When I use the term ‘polysemous’, it refers to these forms’ ability to mark semantically distinct i (...)
  • 17 Due to the crosslinguistic cognitive motivation of the semantic extensions discussed in the previou (...)
  • 18 The uses listed here are not novel proposals and can be found in standard grammars and lexica, as w (...)
  • 19 Hendel and Joosten (2018, 29–30) suggest that the development of the various combinations with אֲשׁ (...)

18The following presents a usage profile for polysemous adverbial conjunctions in the Hebrew Bible. This includes all the adverbial conjunctions which I have found to have a relatively clear polysemous profile in the Hebrew Bible.16 That is, they are found to communicate more than one adverbial relationship between two or more finite clauses.17 There are many more adverbial conjunctions in Biblical Hebrew which are found to communicate only a single interclausal relationship. However, since the purpose of this article is to discuss the paths of semantic extension among adverbial conjunctions, polysemous forms are better suited for this goal. I present them in the following order: (1( , א ַ ח ֲֵ יר א ֲ ש ֶׁ ר )2( , א ִ ם )3( , א ֲ ש ֶׁ ר )4( , ב ַ א ֲ ש ֶׁ ר )5( , כ ַ א ֲ ש ֶׁ ר )6( , כ ְּ ש ֶׁ- )7 כ ִ י ), and (8) . ע ַ ל א ֲ ש ֶׁ ר18 While several of these include ש ֶ-/ א ֲ ש ֶ ר , the combination with particular prepositions has resulted in different polysemy patterns, suggesting divergent developmental paths.19

  • 20 While statistical figures for each use would certainly be helpful in determining the relative centr (...)

19While some comments are offered about the most typical use of a particular form, the examples for each of the uses cited below are meant to be representative and illustrative, rather than exhaustive.20 Therefore, the uses identified below are not precisely ranked in terms of the typical usage for each form. The focus, rather, will be on considering the conceptual and diachronic relationship between uses, regardless of their relative frequency at a given time. Thus, marginal uses are included, since these result from semantic extension, which is the very focus of the anaylsis. The usage profiles that emerge for each adverbial conjunction in turn provide the data for constructing the order of their development.

  • 21 Preference for different syntactic structures is another means of distinguishing between semantic p (...)

20Again, it is important to reiterate that, while certain uses may be debated in terms of whether they are genuinely semanticised or merely contextual uses, the more basic question here is how these uses are organised conceptually and the diachronic implications this arrangement has for their emergence relative to each other. Nevertheless, I have attempted to include only uses for which examples fulfill the criterion of semantic uniqueness (Kortmann 1997, 91–92). These are cases in which the particular interclausal relationship identified is not merely inferred from another simultaneously communicated sense. For example, מ ֵ א ָ ז in Jer. 44.18 has both the temporal sense ‘since’ (i.e., from the time that) and simultaneously the causal inference ‘because’. However, since I find no example of מ ֵ א ָ ז with only a causal reading, i.e., without a simultaneous temporal reading serving as its inferential springboard, I exclude it here. By contrast, considering כ ִ י , there are clearly cases where the most natural reading is causal, e.g., (24), conditional, e.g., (26), and several other uses independent of a simultaneous reading serving as an inferential springboard.21 This does remove the possibility of liminal cases which fall between senses. Indeed, this is expected in light of the conceptual relationship between uses and diachronic emergence of one from another (often reflected in the different renderings seen in ancient and modern translations). However, in order to focus on the most robust semantic extensions, I have tried to include only uses which in at least some cases fulfill the requirement of semantic uniqueness with relative clarity. Bridging contexts, where a use falls ‘between’ senses, are discussed in §5.0.

3.1 א ַ ח ֲֵ יר א ֲ ש ֶֶׁׁ֣ ר .

  • 22 For other examples of this expressing anteriority, see Deut. 24.4, Josh. 7.8; 23.1–2; 24.20. For us (...)

21Cases of א ַ ח ֲֵ יר א ֲ ש ֶ ר as an adverbial conjunction include uses in the temporal and CCC semantic spaces, though the temporal use is the more common. In (1) it is used to communicate anteriority ‘after p, q’. In (2) it is used to communicate causation ‘because p, q’.22

  • 23 All Hebrew citations are from the BHS. I sometimes list the renderings in ancient versions, especia (...)
  • 24 Cf. 1 Sam. 5.9.

(1)

ו ַ י ְּ ה ִ י מ ִ ק ְּ צ ֵ ה ש ְּ ל ֶׁ֣ ש ֶׁ ת י ָּ מ ִ םי אַ ח ֲֵ ר ֵ֕ י א ֲ ש ֶׁ ר כ־ ְָּּ תר ּ֥ ו ל ֶָּׁ ה ֶ֖ ם ב ְִּ ר ִ֑ תי ַ ו ַֽ י ִ ש ְּ מ ְּ ע ִּ ו כ ִ ק־י ְּ ר ִֹ ב ֥ םי ה ֵ א ם ֵ ל ִָּ֔ וי ּ בו ְּ ק ְִּ בר ֶ֖ ו ה ֵ֥ ם י ֹ ש ְִּ ׃םיב
‘And it was at the end of three days, after they cut a covenant with them, they heard that they were close to them and they dwelt in their midst.’ (Josh. 9.16; LXX μετὰ τὸ + infinitive; Tg. Neb. ) ב ָ ת ַ ר23

(2)

ו ַ י ֹֹּ֤ מא ֶׁ ר מ ְּ פ ִ י ֹ֨ ב ֹ ש ֶׁ ת א ֶׁ ה־ל ַ מ ִֶׁ֔ ל ְֶׁ ך ַ ג ֥ ם א ֶׁ ה־ת ַ כ ֶֹ֖ ל י ִִָּ֑ חק אַַ֠ ח ֲֵ יר א ֲ ש ֶׁ ר ב־ ָָּּ֞ א א ֲ ד ִֹ נ ֥ י ה ַ מ ֶֶּׁ֛ ל ֶׁ ב ך ְּ ש ָּ ל ֶ֖ םו א ֶׁ ב־ל ֵ ׃ותי
‘Then Mephiboshet said to the king, “Let him also take everything, since my lord has come in peace to his house.”’ (2 Sam. 19.31; Tg. Neb. - ב ָ ת ַ ר ד )

(3)

אַ ח ֲֵ ר ֵ י נ ִ מ ְ כ ַ ר ג ְ א ָֻ ל ָ ה ת ִ ה ְ י ֶ ל־ה ֹֹ ו

‘After he has been sold, he will have redemption.’ (Lev.
25.48; Tg. Onq. ) ב ָ ת ַ ר24

  • 25 Cf. BDB (473), Lipiński (1997, 475, 527); Esseesy (2010, 270–71); Hardy (2014, 111–12). This strate (...)

22The use of א ַ ח ֲֵ יר as a locative/temporal preposition appears to have been licensed to head finite clauses by the addition of א ֲ ש ֶ ר , as seen in the above examples. This fits the more general observation that the construction preposition + relative is a bridging context allowing for the extension from preposition to adverbial conjunction.25 This is also seen in the other adverbial conjunctions discussed below.

  • 26 There are also some cases where the clause headed by אַחֲֵרי has a verb that is morphologically amb (...)

23Through repeated use of such a construction, the preposition took on the function of an adverbial conjunction heading finite clauses by itself, in some cases without the help of the relative.26 This is seen in example (3), where it heads a finite temporal clause expressing an anterior relationship between the clauses.

3.2 א ִ ם .

  • 27 For further examples, see the following. Contingency: Gen. 38.9 (LXX ὅταν; Tg. Onq. כַד); Isa. 24.1 (...)

24The usage of א ִ ם also spans the temporal and CCC semantic spaces of interclausal relations, as seen in the following examples, though its most common use is as a conditional conjunction. In (4) it is used to communicate an interclausal relation of indefinite time (contingency) ‘whenever p, q’. In (5) it is used to communicate the condition ‘if p, q’. This use is by far the most common, especially in casuistic texts found in the Pentateuch. In (6) it is used to communicate concessive condition ‘even if p, q’. In (7) it is used to communicate concession ‘although p, q’.27

(4)

ו ְּ ה ָָּּ י ֶ֖ ה אִ ם ז־ ַָּ ר ֶׁ֣ ע ִ שי ְָּּ אר ִֵ֑ ל ו ְּ ע ָֹּ֨ ל ָּ ה מ ְִּ ד ָּ י ַֽ ן ַ עו ֲ מ ָּ ל ֵֶּ֛ ק ּ בו ְּ נ ֵ ־י ֶׁ ק ֶ֖ ד ֶׁ ם ְּ עו ָּ ל ּ֥ ו ע ָָּּ ׃ויל
‘Now, it happened that whenever Israel would plant seed, then the Midianites and Amalekites and the sons of the East would come up against them.’ (Judg. 6.3; LXX ὅταν; Tg. Neb. כ ַ ד )

(5)

ו ַ י ֶֹ֖ מא ֶׁ ר א ֵָּ ל ִ֑ וי אִ ם א־ ֵֹּ֤ ןי פ ָֹּ֨ נ ֶׁ ךי ה ֹ ל ְּ כ ִ םי ַ ת־לא ַ ע ֲ ל ֵֶ֖ נ ּ ו מ ִ ז ֶׁ ׃ה

‘And he said to him, “If your presence is not going, do not bring us up from this place.”’ (Exod. 33.15)

(6)

ו ַ י ֶַׁ֣ ע ַ ן ב ִ ל ְּ ע ִָּ ם ו ַֹ֨ י ֹ מא ֶׁ ר א ֶׁ ע־ל ַ ב ְּ ד ֵֶׁ֣ י ב ִָּ֔ ל ָּ ק אִ ם י־ ִ ת ֶׁ ־ן ִ ל ֥ י ב ָָּּ ל ֶּ֛ ק מ ְּ ל ֹ֥ א ב ֵ תי ֶ֖ ו כ ֶֶׁׁ֣ ס ֶׁ ף ְּ זו ָָּּ ה ִ֑ ב ל ֶֹׁ֣ א א ּ כו ִַ ל ל ַ ע ֲ ב ֹ ר א ֶׁ ־ת ִ יפ י ְּ ה ָּ ו ֶׁ֣ ה א ֱ הל ִָּ֔ י ל ַ ע ֲ ש ֥ תו ק ְּ ט ַָּ נ ֶ֖ ה א ֥ ו ג ְּ וד ָּ ׃הל
‘Then Balaam answered and said to the servants of Balak, “Even if Balak gives me his house full of silver and gold, I would not be able to transgress the word of the Lord my God to do small or great.”’ (Num. 22.18)

(7)

ל ְּ כ ּ ־ו ָּ נ ֶּ֛ א ו ְּ נ ִָּּ כו ְָּּ ח ֶ֖ ה י ֹ מא ֶַׁ֣ ר י ְּ ה ָּ ו ִ֑ ה אִ ם ־ ִ הי ְֹּ֨ י ּ ו ח ֲ ט ָּ א ֵ כי ֶֹּׁ֤ ם כ ַ ש ָּ נ ִ םי כ ַ ש ֶֶׁׁ֣ ל ֶׁ ג י ַ ל ְּ ב ִ ני ּ ו אִ ם י ־ ַ א ְִּ ד ֥ מי ּ ו כ ַ ות ָּ ל ֶ֖ ע כ ַ צ ֶׁ֥ מ ֶׁ ר י ִ ה ְּ י ּ ׃ו
‘ “Come and let us reason together” says the Lord. Although your sins are as scarlet, they will become white as snow. Although they are red as crimson, they will be as wool.”’ (Isa. 1.18)

3.3 א ֲ ש ֶ ר .

  • 28 Cf. Hendry (2012, 48–132), where she discusses the various sources and developments of relativisers (...)
  • 29 Other putative examples include the following. Modal: Exod. 10.6; 14.13 (LXX ὃν τρόπον; Tg. Onq. -  (...)

25The particle א ֲ ש ֶ ר has been treated most extensively by Holmstedt (2016). He argues that in most cases א ֲ ש ֶ ר can be analysed as a relative or complementiser, even if “less natural” in some cases (Holmstedt 2016, 232–35). The appeal of positing a singular function for the sake of parsimony can certainly be appreciated. However, as mentioned at the end of §2.0 above, it is the norm for relativisers to fall along several category continua intersecting at the word class of adverbial conjunctions. Indeed, in light of this pervasive tendency, it is arguably more parsimonious (at least as a starting point) to expect uses of א ֲ ש ֶ ר beyond its function as a relativiser and complementiser,28 even though the relativiser function is by far the most common. Furthermore, as pointed out in §2.0, semantic maps do not require a commitment to polysemy versus monosemy. Therefore, even if these non-relative, non-complementiser readings are considered mere implicatures, they can still be organised via a semantic map. Thus, putative uses of א ֲ ש ֶ ר as an adverbial conjunction are included here. Uses span the modal, temporal, and CCC semantic spaces. These include modal ‘q, as p’ (8), temporal ‘when p, q’ (9), causal ‘because p, q’ (10), purpose ‘q, in order that p’ (11), result ‘q, so that p’ (12), and conditional ‘if p, q’ (13) uses.29

  • 30 The modal semantic space has several subsenses, including different nuances of comparison, such as (...)

(8)

אֲ ש ֶֹּׁ֤ ר ל ֹ י־א ִ ס ָּ פ ֵ ר צ ְָּּ ב ֶׁ֣ א ה ַ ש ָּ מ ִַ֔ י ִ ם ו ְּ ל ֹ֥ א י ִ מ ֶַ֖ ד ח ֶׁ֣ לו ה ַָּ י ִ֑ ם כ ֵֶׁ֣ ן א ְַּ בר ִֶׁ ה א ֶׁ ־ת ֹ֨ ז ֶַׁ ער ָּ ד ִ ו ֶׁ֣ ד ע ַ ב ְִּ ד ִ֔ י ְּ או ֶׁ ה־ת ַ ל ְִּ ו ִ י ֶ֖ ם מ ְּ ש ְָּּ ר ֵ ת ֥ י א ִֹ ׃ית

As the host of the heavens cannot be numbered and the sand of the sea cannot be measured, in this way I will multiply the seed of David my servant and the Levites who minister to me.’ (Jer. 33.22; Tg. Neb. -) אמכ ד30

(9)

ו ַ י ֶֹׁ֣ מא ֶׁ ר מ ִ כי ִָּ֔ י ְּ ה ּ ו ה ִ נ ְּ ך ֥ ר ֹ א ֶֶׁ֖ ה ב ַ י ֶׁ֣ םו ה ִַ֑ ה ּ או א ֲ ש ֶׁ֥ ר ת ָּ ב ֶֹּ֛ א ֶׁ ח ֥ ד ֶׁ ר ב ְּ ח ֶֶׁ֖ ד ֶׁ ר ל ְּ ה ֵָּ בח ֵ ׃ה
‘Then Micaiah said, “Behold, you will see in that day when you go into an inner room to hide.”’ (1 Kgs 22.25; LXX ὅταν)

  • 31 Note that for adverbial conjunctions which span multiple subsenses within the temporal semantic dom (...)

26Interpretation as a temporal conjunction seems to be especially facilitated in contexts where it would otherwise function as a relative in relation to י ֹ םו ‘day’ or other temporal nouns, even if only by implicature. IBHS (334) notes that this function is facilitated in contexts without a resumptive pronoun, as in this example (cf. JM, 562).31

  • 32 Notable here is the use of conditional אִם parallel to אֲשֶׁר. It is also worth noting that Tg. Onq (...)

(10)

ה ַ י ֹּ֤ ׀םו י ַָֹּ֨ עד ְּ נ ּ ו ִ ב־יכ ְּ כות ֵֶׁ֣ נ ּ ו י ְּ וה ִָּ֔ ה אֲ ש ֶֶּׁ֛ ר ל ֹ מ־א ְּ ע ַ ל ְּ ת ֶׁ֥ ם ַ היב ָּ ו ֶ֖ ה ה ַ מ ֶַׁ֣ ע ַ ל ה ֶַׁ ז ִ֑ ה

‘Today we known that the Lord is in our midst, in that you have not committed this unfaithfulness against the Lord.’ (Josh. 22.31; LXX διότι)

(11)

ה ָָּ֚ ב ָּ ה נ ְֵַּֽ ר ָּ ד ִ֔ ה ְּ נו ָּ ב ְָּּ ל ֥ ה ָּ ש ֶ֖ ם ש ְּ פ ָָּּ ת ִ֑ ם אֲ ש ֶׁ ר ל ֶֹׁ֣ א י ִ ש ְּ מ ְּ ע ִּ֔ ו ִ א ֶ֖ שי ש ְּ פ ַ֥ ת ֵ ער ֵ ה ּ ׃ו
‘Come, let us go down and confuse their language, that they will not understand one another’s language.’ (Gen. 11.7; LXX ἵνα)

(12)

ְּ הו ָּ י ְּ ת ָָּּ֞ נ ִ ב ְּ ל ֶַׁ֣ ת א ִ זי ִֶׁ ב ֶׁ ל כ ְּ ד ֶֹּ֛ מ ֶׁ ן ע ַ פ־ל ְּ נ ֵ֥ י ה ַ ש ָּ ד ֶֶׁ֖ ה ב ְֵּ ח ֶׁ֣ ל ֶׁ ק י ִ ז ְְּּ ער ִֶׁ֑ לא אֲ ש ֶׁ֥ ר ל ֹ י־א ֹ מא ְֶּ֖ ר ּ ו ז ֹ֥ א תא ִ י ָּ בז ֶׁ ׃ל
‘And the corpse of Jezebel will be as dung on the face of the field in the portion of Jezreel so that they will not say “This is Jezebel.”’ (2 Kgs 9.37; LXX ὥστε)

(13)

ְּ אר ִֵ ה א ָּ נ ִֹ כ ֶּ֛ י נ ֵֹ ת ֥ ן ל ִ פ ְּ נ ֵ כי ֶֶׁ֖ ם ה ִַ֑ םוי ב ְָּּ ר ָּ כ ֶ֖ ה ּ קו ְּ ל ָָּּ ׃הל א ֶׁ ה־ת ַ ב ְָּּ ר ָּ כ ִ֑ ה אֲ ש ֶֶׁׁ֣ ר ת ִ ש ְּ מ ְּ ע ִּ ו א ֶׁ מ ־ל ִ צ ְּ תו י ְּ ה ָּ ו ֶׁ֣ ה א ֱ הל ֵ כי ִֶׁ֔ ם א ֲ ש ֶׁ ר א ָּ נ ִֹ כ ֶּ֛ י מ ְּ צ ֶַּׁ ו ֥ ה א ֶׁ ת ְּ כ ֶֶׁ֖ ם ה ַ ׃םוי ְּ הו ַ ק ְּ ל ָּ ל ִָּ ה א ִ ל־ם ֹֹּ֤ א ת ִ ש ְּ מ ְּ ע ּ ו ... א ֶׁ מ־ל ִ צ ְּ תו י ְּ ה ָּ ו ֶׁ֣ ה א ֱ הל ֵ כי ִֶׁ֔ ם
‘See, I am setting before you today blessing and curse. The blessing, if you listen to the commandments of the Lord your God which I am commanding you today. And the curse, if you do not listen to the commandments of the Lord your God… ’ (Deut. 11.26–28)32

3.4 ב ַ א ֲ ש ֶ ר .

  • 33 For additional examples, see the following. Locative: Gen. 21.17 (with a nominal clause); Judg. 5.2 (...)

27The usage of ב ַ א ֲ ש ֶ ר spans the locative and CCC semantic spaces of interclausal relations, the most common being the locative use. These uses include place ‘where (ever) p, q’ (14) and cause ‘because p, q’ (15).33

(14)

ו ַֹּ֤ ת ֹ מא ֶׁ ר ר ּ תו א ַ ת־ל ִ פ ְּ ג ְּ ע ִ ב־י ִ י ל ְּ ע ָּ ז ְּ ב ְֵֶ֖ ך ל ָּ ש ֶּׁ֣ בו מ ֵ א ַ ח ֲָּ ר ִ֑ י ְִ ך כ ִַ֠ י א ֶׁ א־ל ֲֹ֨ ש ֶׁ ר ת ֵ ל ְּ כ ִ י א ֵ ל ְִֵ ך ּ ו בַ א ֲ ש ֶֹּׁ֤ ר ת ָֹּ֨ ל ִ י ִ ינ א ִָּ֔ ל ִ ןי ע ַ מ ְֵֶׁ֣ ך ע ַ מ ִ י ו ֵ לא ַ ה ֶ֖ י ְִ ך א ֱ ל ָּ ׃יה
‘Then Ruth said, “Do not implore me to abandon you, to return from following after you. For wherever you go I will go and wherever you lodge I will lodge. Your people are my people and your God is my God.”’ (Ruth 1.16; LXX ὅπου ἐὰν)

(15)

א ֵ י ֹ֨ נ ֶׁ נ ּ ו ג ָּ ד ִ֜ לו ב ַַ ב ֶׁ֣ י ִ ת ה ַ ז ֶׁ ה מ ִ מ ֶׁ נ ִ י ו ְּ ל ֹ ח־א ָּ ש ְַֹּ֤ ך מ ִ מ ֶֹׁ֨ נ ִ י מ ְּ א ִּ֔ מו ָּ ה ִ כ ֥ י א ִ וא־ם ָּ ת ְֶ֖ ך בַ א ֲ ש ֶֶׁׁ֣ ר א ַ ת ְּ א ־ ִ ש ְִּ֑ ות
‘There is no one in this house greater than me and he has not withheld anything from me except you, because you are his wife.’ (Gen. 39.9; LXX διὰ τὸ + infinitive; Tg. Onq. לידב - ד )

3.5 כ ַ א ֲ ש ֶ ר .

  • 34 For additional examples, see the following. Modal: again, the interclausal relationship of ‘compari (...)

28The usage of כ ַ א ֲ ש ֶ ר spans the modal, temporal, and CCC semantic spaces, with modal and temporal uses predominating. These include modal ‘q, as p’ (16)– (17), temporal ‘when p, q’ (18), causal ‘because p, q’ (19), and conditional ‘if p, q’ (20) uses.34

  • 35 Notable in this example (and other cases of כַאֲשֶׁר marking an equative interclausal relationship (...)

(16)

ו ַַ י ֹּ֤ ע ַ ש ה ַָּ ער ב ְּ ע ֵ ני ֵֶׁ֣ י י ְּ וה ִָּ֔ ה כַ א ֲ ש ֶׁ֥ ר ע ָָּּ ש ֶ֖ ה מ ְּ נ ַ ש ֶֶׁׁ֣ ה א ִָּ ב ִ֑ וי
‘And he did evil in the sight of the Lord as his father Manasseh did.’ (2 Chron. 33.22)

(17)

ו ַ י ְּ צ ַָּ֞ ו א ֶׁ א־ת ֲ ש ֶֶׁׁ֣ ר ע ַ ב־ל ֵ ותי ל ֵ מא ֹ ר מ ַ ל ֵָּ֞ א א ֶׁ א־ת ַ מ ְּ ת ְֹּּ֤ ח ֹ ת ָּ אה ֲ נ ָּ ש ִ םי א ִֹ֔ כ ֶׁ ל כַ א ֲ ש ֶׁ֥ ר י ּ כו ְּ ל ֶּ֖ ש ןו ְּ א ִֵ֑ ת
‘And he commanded the one who was over his house, “Fill the men’s sacks with food, as much as they are able to carry.”’ (Gen. 44.1; LXX ὅσα ἐὰν; Tg. Onq. ) כ ְ מ ָ א ְ ד35

(18)

ו ַ י ֹֹּ֤ מא ֶׁ ר י ַ ע ֲ ק ֹ ב כַ א ֲ ש ֶֶׁׁ֣ ר ָּ אר ִָּ֔ ם מ ַ ח ֲ נ ֵ֥ ה א ֱ ל ִ ה ֶ֖ םי ז ִֶׁ֑ ה ו ַ י ִ ק ְָּּ ר ֶּ֛ א ֵ ה־םש ַ מ ָּ ק ֥ םו ה ַ ה ֶּ֖ או מ ַ ח ֲָּ נ ַֽ י ִ ׃ם
‘And Jacob said when he saw them, “This is the camp of God.” And he called the name of the place Mahanaim.’ (Gen. 32.3)

(19)

ְּ ו ָּ ר ִ א ֶׁ֣ תי ָּ ה א ִֹ֔ ת ָּּ ה ְּ נו ֶׁ א ֱ ס ַ פ ְָּּ ת ֥ א ֶׁ ע־ל ַ מ ֶֶׁ֖ ךי ג ַ ־ם ָּ א ִ֑ ת ָּ ה כ ַ א ֲ ש ֶׁ֥ ר נ ֶׁ א ֱ ס ֶַ֖ ף א ַ ה ֲ֥ ר ֹ ן א ִָּ ׃ךיח כַ א ֲ ש ֶׁ ר ... מ ְִּ יר ֹ֨ ת ֶׁ ם פ ִ י ב ְּ מ ְִּ בד ַ צ־ר ִ ן
‘And you will see it and you will be gathered to your people, also you, as your brother Aaron was gathered, because you rebelled against my word in the wilderness of Zin… ’ (Num. 27.13–14; LXX διότι)

(20)

ְּ או ֵֶׁ֣ ל ש ַַ ד ִ י י ִֹ֨ ת ֵ ן ל ָּ כ ֶֹּׁ֤ ם ַ חר ֲ מ ִ םי ל ִ פ ְּ נ ֵֶׁ֣ י ה ָּ א ִ שי ְּ שו ִ ל ַ֥ ח ל ָּ כ ֶֶּׁ֛ ם א ֶׁ א־ת ֲ ח ִ כי ֶׁ֥ ם א ֵַ ח ֶ֖ ר ְּ או ֶׁ ב ־ת ִ נ ְּ י ִָּ מ ִ֑ ןי ו ַ א ֲ נ ִֵ֕ י כַ א ֲ ש ֶׁ֥ ר ש ָּ כ ֶֹ֖ ל ְּ ת ִ י ש ָָּּ לכ ְּ ת ִ ׃י
‘And may God Almighty give you mercy before the man so that he will send to you your other brother, Benjamin. As for me, if I am bereaved, I am bereaved.’ (Gen. 43.14)

3.6 כ ְ ש ֶ- .

  • 36 Also see similative: Eccl. 12.7; comment/accord: 4Q397 f6–13.12; temporal: Eccl. 9.12; Sir. 30.12 ( (...)

29The profile of -ֶ כ ְ ש includes modal ‘q, as p’ (21) and temporal ‘when p, q’ (22) uses. I have found only six cases of this form in Classical Hebrew, making analysis relatively difficult and provisional.36

(21)

כ ַ א ֲ ש ֶֹּׁ֤ ר י ָּ צ ָּ א מ ִ ב ֶֶׁׁ֣ ט ֶׁ ן א ִ מ ִ֔ ו ע ָּ ר ֶּ֛ םו י ָּ ש ּ֥ בו ל ָּ ל ֶֶׁ֖ כ ֶׁ ת כְּ ש ֶָּׁ ב ִ֑ א
‘As he came from his mother’s womb, naked he will return as he came.’ (Eccl. 5.14; LXX ὡς)

(22)

ְ גו ַ ב־ם ֶַּ ד ֶֶ ר ְ ך כְ ש ֶ סה ָ כ ָָ ל ה ֹ ל ְֵָ ך ל ִ ב ֵֹ ו ח ָ ס ֵֹ ר
‘And even in the road when a fool is walking, his sense is lacking.’ (Eccl. 10.3; LXX ὅταν)

3.7 כ ִ י .

  • 37 For additional examples, see the following: Temporal: Gen. 24.41; 31.49; Lev. 14.34–35; 19.33; Deut (...)

30The most polysemous adverbial conjunction in the Hebrew Bible is כ ִ י . Its profile includes uses spanning many subsenses of the temporal and CCC semantic spaces, with the causal sense being by far its most common use as an adverbial conjunction. These uses include temporal ‘when p, q’ (23), causal ‘because p, q’ (24), contingent (i.e., indefinite time) ‘whenever p, q’ (25), conditional ‘if p, q’ (26), concessive conditional ‘even if p, q’ (27), concessive ‘although p, q’ (28), result ‘q, so that p’ (29), purpose ‘q, in order that p’ (30), and contrastive ‘q, but p’ (31) uses.37

  • 38 Note that there is a possible textual issue here when compared with the synoptic text in 1 Kgs 12.1 (...)
  • 39 The use of a focus particle like גַם with a conditional is a typologically pervasive bridging conte (...)

(23)

ְּ כו ָּ י־ל ִ ש ְָּּ אר ִֵ ל כִַ֠ י ל ֹ ש־א ַָּ מ ֶׁ֣ ע ה ַ מ ֶׁ ל ְֶׁ ך ל ָּ ה ֶׁ ם ו ַ י ִָּ ש ֶׁ֣ בי ּ ו ה ָָּּ ע ֶׁ֣ ם א ֶׁ ה־ת ַ מ ֶֶׁׁ֣ ל ְֶׁ ׀ך ל ֵ א ֹ֡ מ ֹ ר מ ַ ל־ה ָּ נ ּ ו ֵֹ֨ לח ֶׁ ק ב ְָּּ וד ִ די ו ְּ ל ֹ נ־א ַ ח ֲָּ ל ֶׁ֣ ה ב ְּ ב ֶׁ י־ן ִ ש ִַ י ִ א ֹּ֤ שי ל ְּ א ֹ ה ָֹּ֨ ל ֶׁ ךי י ִ ש ְָּּ אר ִֵ֔ ל ע ַ ת ֵָּ֕ ה ְּ אר ֵ֥ ה ב ֵ תי ְּ ך ֶ֖ ָּ ד ִ ו ִ֑ ו די ַ י ֵ֥ ל ְֶׁ ך כ ָּ י־ל ִ ש ְָּּ אר ֵֶ֖ ל ל ְּ א ֹ ה ָָּּ ׃ויל

‘And all Israel, when the king did not listen to them, the people replied to the king saying, “What share do we have in David?” and “We do not have an inheritance in the son of Jesse. Each man to his tent, O Israel. Now see to your own house, David.” Then all Israel went to their tents.’ (2 Chron. 10.16)38

(24)

ע ִַ ת ָּ ה ח ָּ כ ְָּּ מ ֹּ֤ ה ּ מו ַָּ עד ת ֶׁ ־ן ִ֔ ל ִ י ְּ או ֵ צ ְָּּ א ֶּ֛ ה ל ִ פ ְּ נ ֵ֥ י ָּ עה ָּ ה־ם ַ ז ֶֶׁ֖ ה ו ְּ א ָּ ב ִ֑ או ָּ ה ִ יכ ־ ִ מ ֶׁ֣ י י ִ ש ְִּ֔ פ ֹ ט א ֶׁ ע ־ת ַ מ ְּ ך ֥ ה ַ ז ֶֶׁ֖ ה ה ַ ג ָּ ׃לוד
‘Now, grant me wisdom and knowledge so that I may go out before this people and enter in. For who can rule this great people? ’ (2 Chron. 1.10; LXX ὅτι)

(25)

ִ כ ֶׁ֣ י י ֶׁ ח ֶׁ ט ְּ א ּ ל־ו ְִָּ ך ִ כ ֶׁ֣ י א ֵֹּ֤ ןי א ָָּּ םד א ֲ ש ֶֶׁׁ֣ ר ל ֹ י־א ֶׁ ח ֱ ט ִָּ֔ א ְּ או ָּ נ ַ פ ְָּּ ת ֶׁ֣ ב ִָּ֔ ם ּ נו ְּ ת ַָּ ת ֶ֖ ם ל ִ פ ְּ נ ֵֶׁ֣ י יוא ִֵ֑ ב ְּ שו ָּ ב ּ םו בוש ֵ הי ֶֶּׁ֛ ם א ֶׁ א־ל ֶֶׁׁ֥ ץר ְּ וחר ָּ ק ֶ֖ ה א ֥ ו ק ְּ ור ָּ הב
‘Whenever they sin against you (for there is no one who does not sin) and you are angry with them and give them up before an enemy, and they take the captive to a land far or near...’ (2 Chron. 6.36; Tg. Ket. דכ )

(26)

א ֶׁ֣ ו ִ כ ֥ י י ָּ ש ֶּּ֛ בו ה ַ ב ָָּּ ש ֥ ר ה ַַ ח ֶ֖ י ְּ נו ֶׁ ה ְּ פ ְֶַׁ֣ ך ל ְּ ל ָָּּ ב ִ֑ ן ּ ו ָּ ב ֶ֖ א א ֶׁ ה־ל ַ כ ֹ ה ֵ ׃ן
‘Or if the raw flesh turns and changes to white, he will go to the priest.’ (Lev. 13.16, LXX ἐὰν)

(27)

ַ ג ֹּ֤ ם ִ יכ א־ ֵֹ֨ ל ְֵ ך ב ְּ ג ֵֵ֪ אי צ ַ ל ְֹּ֡ מ ָּ ו ֶׁ ת ל ֹ א־א ִֵ י ָּ ר ֹּ֤ א ָּ ר ִ ע כ ִ א־י ַָּ ת ֥ ה ע ִ מ ִָּ ד ִ֑ י
Even if I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will not fear evil, for you are with me.’ (Ps. 23.4)39

(28)

כִ י נ־ ָ ט ֵּ ו ע ָ ל ֵֶ ךי ָ ער ָֹ ה ָ ח ָ ש ְ ב ָּ ו מ ְ ז ִֹ מ ָ ה ב ַ י־ל ּ כו ָָ ל ּ ׃ו
Although they have ventured evil against you, have devised a plot, they will not succeed.’ (Ps. 21.12)

(29)

ו ַ י ֹ֥ מא ֶׁ ר א ֲ ב ִ מי ֶֶׁ֖ ל ְֶׁ ך א ֶׁ א־ל ַ ב ְָּּ ר ָּ ה ִ֑ ם ָּ מ ֶׁ֣ ה ָּ אר ִ תי ָּ ִ כ ֥ י ע ִָּ ש ֶ֖ תי ָּ א ֶׁ ה־ת ַָּ ד ָּ ב ֥ ר ה ַ ז ֶׁ ׃ה

‘Then Abimelech said to Abraham, “What did you see so that you did this thing?”’ (Gen. 20.10)

(30)

ו ַֹּ֨ ת ֹ מא ֶ ר ֙ מ ַ ת־ה ִ ת ֶ ל־ן ִַ י ִ כ ָ י ת ָ ב ָֹ או א ֵ ל ָָ ׃י
‘And she said, “What will you give me in order that you may come in to me?”’ (Gen. 38.16)

(31)

ו ַ י ֹֹּ֤ מא ֶׁ ר א ֱ הל ִ םי א ֶׁ א־ל ַ ב ְָּּ הר ִָּ֔ ם ש ַָּ ר ֶׁ֣ י א ִ ש ְּ ת ְּ ך ִ֔ ל ֹ ת־א ִ ק ְָּּ ר ֥ א א ֶׁ ש־ת ְָּּ מ ֶּ֖ ה ש ָָּּ ר ִ֑ י ִ כ ֥ י ש ָָּּ ר ֶ֖ ש ה ְָּּ מ ּ ׃ה
‘And God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you will not call here name Sarai, but Sarah will be her name.”’ (Gen. 17.15)

3.8 ע ַ ל א ֲ ש ֶ ר .

  • 40 For additional examples, see the following: Locative: 1 Kgs 18.12; Ezek. 1.20. Causal: Exod. 32.35; (...)

31The usage of ע ַ ל א ֲ ש ֶ ר spans the locative and CCC semantic spaces, with the causal use being most common. It is used to mark interclausal relations of place ‘where (ever) p, q’ (32) and cause ‘because p, q’ (33).40

(32)

ת ְּ מ ֶׁ֣ ׀לו אוב ִֶׁ ך ו ְּ ה ַ י ָּ֞ םו א ֲִ עונ ֲ ך ֹּ֤ ע ִ מ ָֹּ֨ נ ּ ו ל ִָּ֔ ל ֶׁ כ ֶׁ ת ו ַ א ֲִ נ ֶׁ֣ י וה ִ֔ ל ְֵ ך עַ֥ ל א ֲ ש ֶׁ ר א־ ֲִ נ ֶ֖ י לוה ְִֵ֑ ך
‘You arrived yesterday and today will I make you go wander with us while I go wherever I go? ’ (2 Sam. 15.20; LXX οὗ ἂν; Tg. Neb. - ל ַ א ְּ ת ַ ר ְּ ד )

(33)

ו ִַ חי ַ ־ר ַ א ֹּ֤ ף י ְּ וה ָּ ה ב ְּ ע ֻ ז ִָּ֔ א ו ַ י ַ כ ֵ ה ּ ו עֶַּ֛ ל א ֲ ש ֶׁ ר ש־ ָּ ל ַ֥ ח י ָּ ד ֶ֖ ו ע ַ ה־ל ָּ א ִָּ֑ ןור

‘And the wrath of the Lord burned against Uzzah and he struck him because he reached out his hand on the Ark.’ (1 Chron. 13.10; LXX διὰ τὸ + infinitive; Tg. Ket. - לוטמ ד )

32The above examples illustrate the usage profile of those adverbial conjunctions in Biblical Hebrew with relatively clear polysemy. They all span two or more of the basic semantic spaces of adverbial relationships, in overlapping but usually different ways. The question raised in this study is how these various uses may be organised conceptually and arranged diachronically in a semantic map. This is discussed in the next section, with some select examples illustrating the heuristic and predictive value of such an approach.

4.0. Generating Hypotheses with Diachronic Semantic Maps

  • 41 Cf. the typological map presented in Kortmann (1997, 210). Note that the typological data does not (...)

33The semantic map below organises the usage profiles of each adverbial conjunction treated above according to crosslinguistically pervasive polysemy patterns and paths of change as explained in §2.0 above.41 As discussed in §2.0, the heuristic value of such maps is to generate hypotheses about the possible conceptual relationships between uses, and which uses have served as sources and goals in language change. Here, I describe how the usage profiles of polysemous adverbial conjunctions in Biblical Hebrew map onto such semantic maps and the diachronic hypotheses this generates. In the following section, I will look at ways of corroborating these hypotheses by examining bridging contexts and cognate data.

34The usage profile of each adverbial conjunction above is represented by different, (usually) directional arrows indicating direction of development. An enclosing box indicates when a usage profile includes all the subsenses in a given space or cluster (e.g., temporal space or cause and condition in the CCC space). In some cases, this somewhat defers the question of which subsenses served as the specific loci of extension into other spaces. Alternatively, a line extending into an enclosing box indicates usage of only the subsense with which it connects.

Figure 5: Semantic map of polysemous adverbial conjunctions in Biblical Hebrew

Figure 5: Semantic map of polysemous adverbial conjunctions in Biblical Hebrew
  • 42 The following definitions are from Kortmann (1997, 79–87). Terms and definitions for modal relation (...)

35The benefit of this representation is that one can see paths between the four major semantic spaces as well as the similarities and differences between the profiles of each adverbial conjunction.42 However, in order to compensate for the lack of transparency, the table below is provided, which lists the various paths for each adverbial conjunction.

  • 43 Note that in some cases, a broader semantic domain is listed in a path rather than a specific subse (...)

Table 1: Grammaticalisation paths for each polysemous adverbial conjunction in Biblical Hebrew43

Table 1: Grammaticalisation paths for each polysemous adverbial conjunction in Biblical Hebrew43
  • 44 There are, however, a variety of other locative relations, such as direction goal ‘whither’ (אֶׁל א (...)

36Considering Figure 5, we note the following broader observations. Certain semantic spaces in this map are ‘cut up’ to different degrees. For example, ע ַ ל א ֲ ש ֶ ר and ב ַ א ֲ ש ֶ ר both mark definite and indefinite place in the locative semantic space.44 By contrast, the temporal and CCC semantic spaces are ‘cut up’ quite differently by the various other adverbial conjunctions. For example, כ ַ א ֲ ש ֶ ר , א ֲ ש ֶ ר , and כ ִ י uses span several subsenses in the temporal space, while א ַ ח ֲֵ יר א ֲ ש ֶ ר , and -ֶ כ ְ ש are only seen to communicate a single subsense. Likewise, כ ַ א ֲ ש ֶ ר , א ֲ ש ֶ ר , and כ ִ י have both conditional and causal uses. However, א ִ ם intersects with only condition, while ב ַ א ֲ ש ֶ ר , א ַ ח ֲֵ יר א ֲ ש ֶ ר , and ע ַ ל א ֲ ש ֶ ר intersect with only causation.

  • 45 As Givón (1991, 298) observes
    ... our old reductionist habits, of seeking single causes to complex l (...)
  • 46 Of course, with only six cases to consider, this may simply be due to its rarity.

37There are also multiple paths attested between the basic semantic spaces. The usage profiles of כ ִ י and א ִ ם both connect the temporal and CCC semantic spaces (particularly condition) via contingency (indefinite time), which is, of course, a typologically common bridge. However, א ֲ ש ֶ ר and כ ַ א ֲ ש ֶ ר extend from the temporal to the CCC semantic space without the use of indefinite time. Likewise, the profile of א ַ ח ֲֵ יר א ֲ ש ֶ ר suggests the extension from anteriority directly to causation. Both would be examples of the typologically pervasive tendency for temporal relations to invite causal inferences, leading to semantic extensions via the post hoc ergo propter hoc (‘after this, therefore because of this’) line of reasoning in which a causal relationship is inferred from sequence or overlap in time (Traugott and König 1991, 194–99). Thus, multiple developmental paths are available from the temporal to CCC semantic spaces.45 In accordance with the typological picture presented in §2.0, this semantic map postulates diachronic development with CCC relations as the prototypical goal network. The only polysemous adverbial subordinator which does not have a use in the CCC space is -ֶ. כ ְ ש46

5.0. Testing Hypotheses of the Semantic Map

38In terms of heuristic value, the space between adjacent uses as they are arranged along this semantic map point to typologically plausible bridging contexts where semantic extension would have occurred. As discussed in §3.0 above, intermediate examples between these adjacent uses can then be examined to corroborate the prediction of the semantic map. Note that the goal here is not to find the very instances in which an extension originally took place. Rather, in the development of uses in the form ‘A > A/B > B’, all uses including the ‘A/B’ use in bridging contexts often persist side-by-side in layering, as presented in Figure 2 above. Uses in such bridging contexts will communicate sense ‘A’, but the context will also motivate an inference to sense ‘B’. Thus, identifying persistent ‘A/B’ uses can reveal the loci which initially facilitated a particular change, as well as the inferential processes which may have motivated it, even after the change had already occurred, and possibly even after its ‘A’ source use had already died out. The following discussion presents representative examples of grammaticalisation paths between each major semantic space. I will consider possible bridging contexts for extensions from the modal, temporal, and locative semantic spaces, as well as bridging contexts for extensions within the CCC semantic space.

5.1. Extension from the Modal Semantic Space

39The profile of כ ַ א ֲ ש ֶ ר illustrates plausible bridging contexts in the paths of semantic extension from the modal semantic space to the temporal and CCC spaces, as seen in the following examples.

  • 47 For other possible bridging contexts along these lines with כַאֲשֶׁר, see Eccl. 4.17; Neh. 5.6; 6.3

(34)

SIMIL > SIOVER (‘as p, q’ > ‘when p, q’)
י ָּ ג ֹּּ֤ רו ּ ׀ו י ִ צ ְִּ פ ֹ ני ּ ו ה ֵ מ ָּ ה ע ֲ ק ֵַ ב ֶׁ֣ י י ִ ש ְּ מ ִֹ֑ ר ּ ו כַ א ֲ ש ִֶׁ ר ק ִּ ו ּ֥ ו נ ַ פ ְִּ ׃יש
‘They attack, they lurk, they watch my steps as/while they seek to take my life.’ (Ps. 56.7; LXX ϰαθάπερ; Tg. Ket. המכיה - ) ד47

  • 48 Depending on the temporal idea being compared, this can be reinterpreted as a number of different t (...)

40Here, the action in the main clause ‘they watch my steps’ is compared to that in the adverbial clause ‘they seek to take my life’. The aspect of the verbal ideas being compared seems to be their temporal frame of reference. The picture painted by the psalmist is that of the attentive gaze of his enemies continually on the lookout for an opportunity to take his life (cf. Tate 1998, 70). The LXX and Targum renderings of כ ַ א ֲ ש ֶ ר here employ typically comparative conjunctions. However, there is clearly a temporal implicature. In such contexts, a similative (i.e., comparative) conjunction can be reinterpreted as a temporal conjunction when it is comparing the timeframe, point in time, or temporal duration of the verb in the adverbial clause with that of the verb in the main clause.48

41Perhaps an even clearer case of this bridging context can be seen in the following example.

(35)

SIMIL > SIOVER (‘as p, q’ > ‘when p, q’) ו ִַ י ַֽ ז ְַּ ל־חר ֶׁ֣ ו ה ַ ש ִֶׁ֔ מ ֶׁ ש כַ א ֲ ש ֶׁ֥ ר ע ָּ ב ֶַ֖ ר א ֶׁ פ־ת ְּ נ ּ או ִֵ֑ ל ְּ הו ּ֥ או צ ֹ ל ֵֶַ֖ ע ע ַ י־ל ְֵּ ׃וכר
‘And the sun rose as/while he passed Penuel (and he was limping because of his hip).’ (Gen. 32.32; LXX ἡνίϰα; Tg. Onq. דכ ; Syr. ܕܟ )

42Here, the durative process of the sun rising is compared to the durative process of Jacob physically traversing a particular location. This comparison of duration or temporal overlap invites the inference of a temporal relation between the main and adverbial clause. Such uses are bridges between distinctly modal uses, like example (16) above, and temporal uses, like example (18) above. Deutscher (2000, 39) notes the following example illustrating such a bridging context in the history of English as.

(36)

‘Thus pleyneth John as he gooth by the way’ (Canterbury Tales I.4114)

  • 49 For example, it has been widely observed that English as originally came from the relative pronoun (...)
  • 50 Hetterle (2015, 260–61) also notes the crosslinguistically pervasive occurrence of this polysemy pa (...)

43In this example, the temporal duration of John ‘complaining’ is compared with the temporal duration of him ‘going by the way’. This comparison invites a temporal inference that John complained ‘while’ he went by the way. In fact, this is one of the stages in the development of English as, which today has comparative, temporal, and also causal meanings.49 Such contexts invite a richer semantic interpretation. Such strengthening of informativeness is a type of metonymic extension from MODAL > TEMPORAL (cf. Traugott and König 1991, 207–12).50

44Another plausible bridging context is from the modal to the CCC semantic space. This can be seen in the following example.

  • 51 Cf. Num. 27.13–14 and Mic. 3.4. Also see Judg. 1.7; 15.11; 1 Sam. 15.33; Jer. 5.9; Zech. 7.3, in wh (...)

(37)

SIMIL > CAUSE (‘as p, q’ > ‘because p, q’)
כַ א ֲ ש ֶֹּׁ֤ ר ל ֹ ש־א ָֹּ֨ מ ַ ע ְּ ת ָּ ב ְּ ק ֶׁ֣ לו י ְּ ה ָּ ו ִ֔ ה ְּ לו ֹ ע־א ִָּ ש ֥ תי ָּ ח ֲ א־ןור ַ פ ֶ֖ ו ב ַ ע ֲ מ ָּ ל ִֵ֑ ק ע ַ כ־ל ֵ ן ה ַָּ ד ָּ ב ֶׁ֣ ה ר ַ ז ִֶׁ֔ ה ע ָָּּ ל־הש ְּ ך ֥ י ְּ ה ָּ ו ֶ֖ ה ה ַ י ֥ םו ה ַ ז ֶׁ ׃ה
As/because you did not obey the voice of the Lord and did not execute his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore the Lord did this thing to you today.’ (1 Sam. 28.18; LXX διότι; Tg. Neb. -) אמכ ד51

  • 52 For other examples of the relationship between these senses, see Kortmann (1997, 317–18) and Baños (...)

45Here, the disobedience of Saul is compared to, and shown to be commensurate with, the judgment of the Lord. Since disobedience is also presented as the reason for judgment, this invites a richer causal interpretation. In such a context, similative כ ַ א ֲ ש ֶ ר can be reanalysed as a causal conjunction.52 The use of ע ַ כ ־ל ֵ ן reinforces this causal interpretation, since it is commonly used anaphorically to refer back to the causal grounds of the clause it heads (BHRG2, §40.38). The LXX clearly reflects this causal reading with the use of διότι, whereas the Targum uses the more direct rendering - אמכ ד .

5.2. Extension from the Temporal Semantic Space

46The major path from the temporal semantic space to the CCC semantic space can also be seen in plausible bridging contexts in the data of Biblical Hebrew. I will consider by way of illustration the cases of כ ִ י , א ַ ח ֲֵ יר א ֲ ש ֶ ר , and כ ַ א ֲ ש ֶ ר .

  • 53 Cf. Josh. 7.8 (LXX ἐπεί; Tg. Onq. -בתר ד).

(38)

ANTE > CAUSE (‘q, after p’ > ‘q, because p’)
ל ֹ י־א ּ כו ֶַׁ֣ ל ב ַ ע ְָּּ ל ֶּׁ֣ ה ה ִָּ שאר ֶׁ֣ ןו א ֲ ש ֶׁ ־ר ַ֠ ש ִ ל ְּ ח ָּּ ה ל ָּ ש ֹּ֨ בו ל ְּ ק ַ ח ְִּ֜ ת ָּּ ה ל ִ ה ְּ תוי ל ֶׁ֣ ו ל ְּ א ִ ש ִָּ ה אַ ח ֲֵ יר ... אֲ ש ֶֶׁׁ֣ ר ה ֻ ט ַ מ ִָּ֔ א ָּ ה ִ עות־יכ ֵָּ ב ֥ ה ִ ה ֶ֖ או ל ִ פ ְּ נ ֵֶׁ֣ י י ְּ ה ָּ ו ִ֑ ה
‘Her first husband who sent her away will not be able to take her again to be for him a wife, after/since she was defiled, for this is an abomination before the Lord… ’ (Deut. 24.4)53

  • 54 See Traugott and König (1991, 194–99).

47Here, the temporal relation between the main and adverbial clauses implies a causal relation. That is, ‘q, after p’ implies ‘q, because p’. This is facilitated by the post hoc ergo propter hoc inferential process mentioned in the previous section.54 This causal implicature is reinforced by the fact that the adverbial clause follows a volitive main clause, which constrains a reading in which the adverbial clause can be construed as the grounds for the main clause volitive. This is further reinforced by the following explicit causal clause. So, there are clear uses of א ַ ח ֲֵ א יר ֲ ש ֶ ר with a temporal meaning without a causal implicature, as in example (1); uses with a causal meaning in which a temporal reading is unnatural, as in example (2); and plausible bridging contexts where a temporal use has a causal implicature, as in (38).

48A causal implicature can also be seen in the temporal uses of כ ִ י as in example (23) above, repeated here for convenience.

(39)

SIOVER > CAUSE (‘when p, q’ > ‘because p, q’) ְּ כו ָּ י־ל ִ ש ְָּּ אר ִֵ ל כִַ֠ י ל ֹ ש־א ַָּ מ ֶׁ֣ ע ה ַ מ ֶׁ ל ְֶׁ ך ל ָּ ה ֶׁ ם ו ַ י ִָּ ש ֶׁ֣ בי ּ ו ה ָָּּ ע ֶׁ֣ ם א ֶׁ ה־ת ַ מ ֶֶׁׁ֣ ל ְֶׁ ׀ך ל ֵ א ֹ֡ מ ֹ ר מ ַ ל־ה ָּ נ ּ ו ֵֹ֨ לח ֶׁ ק ב ְָּּ וד ִ די ו ְּ ל ֹ נ־א ַ ח ֲָּ ל ֶׁ֣ ה ב ְּ ב ֶׁ י־ן ִ ש ִַ י ִ א ֹּ֤ שי ל ְּ א ֹ ה ָֹּ֨ ל ֶׁ ךי י ִ ש ְָּּ אר ִֵ֔ ל ע ַ ת ֵָּ֕ ה ְּ אר ֵ֥ ה ב ֵ תי ְּ ך ֶ֖ ָּ ד ִ ו ִ֑ ו די ַ י ֵ֥ ל ְֶׁ ך כ ָּ י־ל ִ ש ְָּּ אר ֵֶ֖ ל ל ְּ א ֹ ה ָָּּ ׃ויל
‘And all Israel, when/because the king did not listen to them, the people replied to the king saying, “What share do we have in David?” and “We do not have an inheritance in the son of Jesse. Each man to his tent, O Israel. Now see to your own house, David.” Then all Israel went to their tents.’ (2 Chron. 10.16; LXX ὅτι)

49Here, ‘when the king did not listen’ implies ‘because the king did not listen’. In other words, temporal overlap of the king’s action and the people’s response clearly implies a causal relationship between them. The king’s action is the cause of the people’s response. In this case the precise inferential relationship is not post hoc ergo propter hoc, as with the anterior sense of א ַ ח ֲֵ יר א ֲ ש ֶ ר above, but rather ‘state1 relevant to state2’ (Traugott and König 1991, 197), which is to say temporal overlap > cause.

  • 55 Locatell (2017, 235); Diessel (2001, 466; 2013, 349); Hetterle (2015, 121–27).
  • 56 Bandstra (1982, 121; cf. Aejmelaeus 1993, 171–72).
  • 57 Causal כִי clauses show a clear preference for position after the main clause, but do not show a st (...)
  • 58 See further Locatell (2020) for a discussion of the following paths of development for temporal כִי (...)

50In addition to the semantic affinity between time and cause motivating a causal implicature from a temporal meaning, this example also illustrates bridging syntactic features which would facilitate semantic extension. Specifically, the position of the כ ִ י clause before the main clause fits the preference of temporal uses,55 but the use of the qaṭal conjugation, atypical of temporal כ ִ י clauses,56 facilitates the invited implicature of causation.57 The connection between temporal and causal כ ִ י was indeed recognised by Hebraists, such as Schoors (1981, 267), but was thought to be from causal to temporal, apparently based on intuition. This further highlights the heuristic value of semantic maps in predicting bridging contexts and their directionality.58

51This same sort of bridging context as in example (39) can also be seen within the usage of כ ַ א ֲ ש ֶ ר . Consider the following example.

  • 59 Cf. Neh. 4.1; 5.6; 6.16.

(40)

SIOVER > CAUSE (‘when p, q’ > ‘because p, q’)
ו ַ י ְֹּ֡ ה ִ י כַ א ֲ ש ֶֶׁׁ֣ ר י ֵָּ אר א ֶׁ ב־ת ֵֹ֨ תי א ָּ ב ִ וי ְּ או ֶׁ א־ת ַ נ ְּ ש ֵ֥ י ה ִָּ ע ֶּ֛ רי מ ֵ ע ֲ ש ֥ תו וי ָּ מ ֶ֖ ם ו ַ י ַ֥ ע ַ ש ָּ יל ְּ ל ָּ ׃ה
‘And it came about, when/because he feared his father’s house and the men of the city to do it by day, he did it at night.’ (Judg. 6.27b; LXX ὡς; Tg. Neb. - דמ ; Syr59. -ܡܛܠ ܕ )

  • 60 On the causal use of ὡς, see Muraoka (1964) and Cristofaro (1998). In fact, the usage profile of ὡς (...)

52Here, again, the temporal overlap between Gideon’s fear of going against the prevailing customs and carrying out his countercultural activities by night has a clear causal implicature. This is reflected in various ancient versions, which render כ ַ א ֲ ש ֶ ר with forms that are also compatible with a causal reading.60

53The following example with א ֲ ש ֶ ר provides a final illustration of semantic extension from the temporal to the CCC semantic spaces among polysemous adverbial conjunctions in BH.

  • 61 A variant reading has די.
  • 62 For other possible bridging contexts along these lines, cf. Lev. 6.20; Num. 5.29; Deut. 18.22; Josh (...)

(41)

SIOVER > CONTIN > COND (‘when p, q’ > ‘in cases when p, q’ > ‘if p, q’)
אֲ ש ֶׁ֥ ר נ ִָּ ש ֶ֖ אי י ֶׁ ח ֱָּ ט ִ֑ א ו ְּ ע ָּ ש ָֹּ֡ ה א ַַ ח ֶׁ֣ ת מ ִ כ ָּ מ־ל ִ צ ְּ תו י ְּ ה ָֹּ֨ הו א ֱ הל ִָּ֜ וי א ֲֶׁ רש ל ֹ ת־א ֵ ע ָּ ש ֶֶּׁ֛ ני ָּ ב ה ִ ש ְּ ג ָָּּ ג ֶ֖ ה ו ְּ א ָּ ש ֵ ׃ם וה־וא ַ ד ֹּ֤ ע א ֵ ל ָּ וי ח ַ ט ָּ תא ִ֔ ו א ֲ ש ֶׁ֥ ר ח ָָּּ ט ֶ֖ א ָּ ב ִּ֑ ה ְּ הו ִֵ איב א ֶׁ ־ת ָּ ק ְּ בר ָּ נ ֶּ֛ ש ו ְִּ ע ֥ רי ע ִִ ז ֶ֖ םי ז ָָּּ כ ֥ ר ת ִָּ ׃םימ
When (ever)/if a leader sins and commits one of the things from all the commands of the Lord his God which ought not to be done, by accident, and is guilty, or his sin in which he sinned is made known to him, then he will bring for his offering a goat, a spotless male.’ (Lev. 4.22–23; LXX Ἐὰν; Tg.61 Onq.62 ; א ִ ם Syr.) ܢܐ

54This example illustrates the typologically pervasive mid-point between time and condition—contingency. Here, no specific circumstance in particular is envisioned, but rather a general contingency. In such contexts, a temporal clause in definite time is construed as indefinite time. When this is certain to occur at some point, as it seems to be in this case law, it yields a conditional sense. Note the statements in Lev. 4.2 ( ,) כ ִ י 13 א ִ ם ( ), and 27 ( א ִ ם ) all employ clearly conditional conjunctions parallel with this use of א ֲ ש ֶ ר . The casuistic genre of the text reinforces this reading.

5.3. Extension from the Locative Semantic Space

55Moving now to the locative semantic space, there was only one semantic extension observed—from place to cause. This was one of the more difficult extensions for which to find plausible bridging contexts, due to the fact that the locative space has the fewest polysemous adverbial conjunctions and to the fact that those it has are relatively rare. Consider the following example, repeated here from (15) for convenience, as an illustration of a possible bridging context.

  • 63 Cf. Eccl. 7.2; 8.3–4; 4Q504 f4.5 = 4Q506 f131–32.11.

(42)

PLACE > CAUSE (‘where p, q’ > ‘because p, q’) א ֵֶׁ֣ ׀ןי ש ֶַׁ֣ ר ב ֵ ה־תי ַ ס ִֹ ה ַ ר ר ֹ א ֶֹּׁ֤ ה א ֶׁ כ־ת ָּ מ־ל ְֹּ֨ א ּ מו ָּ ה ב ְּ י ָּ ד ִ֔ ו בַ א ֲ ש ֶׁ֥ ר י ְּ ה ָּ ו ֶ֖ ה א ִִ֑ ות ַ או ֲ ש ֶׁ ה־ר ּ֥ ע או ֹ ש ֶֶׁ֖ ה י ְּ ה ָּ ו ֥ ה מ ַ צ ְִּ יל ַ ׃ח
‘The captain of the prison did not pay attention to anything in his charge, in that/because the Lord was with him.’ (Gen. 39.23; LXX διὰ τὸ + infinitive; Tg. Onq63. - דב ; Syr. ܠܛܡ -) ܕ

  • 64 A LOCATIVE CAUSAL path is noted in Kortmann (1997, 193–94) and Heine and Kuteva (2002, 200), but a (...)
  • 65 Kortmann (1997, 178).
  • 66 But note the observation by Givón on multiple sources for semantic extension cited above in fn. 45.
  • 67 See references cited in fn. 25. For examples of -ְּב as a causal preposition, see Gen. 18.28; Zech. (...)

56Here, the extension from place to cause seems to have been facilitated by the metaphor CONTAINMENT > CAUSATION, where being ‘within’ the situation, as expressed by the adverbial clause, is construed as being caused by that situation.64 However, here any locative meaning is completely metaphorical rather than concrete, as in the clear case of the locative use of this form in example (14) above. While there is very strong typological evidence for the unidirectionality of extension from place to cause (which has never been observed in the opposite direction),65 more and clearer examples would be needed to strengthen the case for this path of change in this particular instance. In light of this, it may be preferable to see the causal use of ב ַ א ֲ ש ֶָ ר not as an extension of the locative use of ב ַ א ֲ ש ֶָ ר , but rather as the combination of א ֲ ש ֶ ר with the causal use of prepositional -ְ ב , allowing it to head finite clauses,66 a common path of development from preposition to adverbial conjunction.67

  • 68 The fuller construction עַל־ְּדבַר אֲשֶׁר was perhaps part of this development (e.g., Deut. 22.24; (...)
  • 69 This does not seem to have been the case with אַחֲֵרי and -ְּכ, since their prepositional forms do (...)
  • 70 Additionally, as mentioned with above, עַל has also developed the ability to head finite clauses as (...)

57In the case of the other polysemous locative conjunction, ע ַ ל א ֲ ש ֶ ר , there is a lack of plausible bridging contexts linking from a locative to causal sense. Additionally, it seems more likely (and simpler) that the causal use developed by licensing ע ַ ל as a causal preposition to head finite clauses with the addition of . א ֲ ש ֶ ר68 As mentioned above, the polysemy pattern of adverbial conjunctions involving locative and causal senses is universally attested to proceed from the former to the latter. However, in this case the causal sense of the collocation does not seem to have developed from the locative use of the collocation, but from its use as a causal preposition.69 Nevertheless, it is important to note that this is still compatible with the observation of unidirectionality from ‘locative’ to ‘causal’. In this case, it simply seems to have occurred at another location on the category continuum presented above in Figure 4.70

5.4. Extension within the CCC (Cause, Condition, Concession, etc.) Semantic Space

58Coming now to the prototypical goal network in the development of interclausal relations, the CCC semantic space is the most internally complex, with several paths of development between its members. The following examples of א ִ ם and כ ִ י illustrate several plausible bridging contexts within the CCC semantic space which accord with the diachronic hypotheses generated using the semantic map presented in §4.0 above.

(43)

CONTIN > COND (‘whenever p, q’ > ‘if p, q’)
ְּ הו ָָּּ י ֶ֖ ה אִ ם ז־ ַָּ ר ֶׁ֣ ע י ִ ש ְָּּ אר ִֵ֑ ל ְּ עו ָֹּ֨ ל ָּ ה מ ְִּ ד ָּ י ַֽ ן ַ עו ֲ מ ָּ ל ֵֶּ֛ ק ּ בו ְּ נ ֵ ־י ֶׁ ק ֶ֖ ד ֶׁ ם ְּ עו ָּ ל ּ֥ ו ע ָָּּ ׃ויל
‘Now, it happened that whenever/if Israel would plant seed, then the Midianites and Amalekites and the sons of the East would come up against them.’ (Judg. 6.3; LXX ὅταν; Tg. Neb. כ ַ ד ; Syr. - ܐܡ ܕ )

(44)

COND > COCOND > CON (‘if p, q’ > ‘even if p, q’ > ‘although p, q’)
ְּ ו ָּ אר ִ תי ִ י א ֶׁ כ־ת ָּ מ־ל ַ ע ֲ ש ֵֶׁ֣ ה ה ָּ א ֱ הל ִ םי כ ִ י ֹ֨ ל ֹ א י ּ כו ִַ֜ ל ה ָּ א ָָּּ ד ִ ם ל ִ מ ְּ אוצ א ֶׁ ־ת ַ מה ַ ע ֲ ש ֶׁ א ה ֲ ש ֶֶׁׁ֣ ר נ ַ ע ֲָּ ש ֶׁ֣ ה ַ חת ַ ה־ת ַ ש ִֶׁ֔ מ ֶׁ ש ב ְַּ֠ ש ֶׁ ל א ֲֹ֨ ש ֶׁ ר י ַ ע ֲ מ ֹ ל ה ָּ א ָָּּ ד ֶּ֛ ם ל ְּ ב ֵַ ק ֶ֖ ש ו ְּ ל ֶֹׁ֣ א י ִ מ ְָּּ צ ִ֑ א ְּ ו ֹ֨ ג ַ ם אִ ם י ־ ֹ מא ַֹּ֤ ר ה ֶׁ ח ָּ כ ָּ ם ל ַָּ ד ִ֔ ע ַ ת ל ֹ֥ א י ּ כו ֶַ֖ ל ל ִ מ ְּ צ ֹ ׃א
‘And I saw every work of God, that man is not able to discover the work which is wrought under the sun. Although man toils to seek it, he will not discover it. And even if/although a wise man says he knows, he will not be able to find it.’ (Eccl. 8.17)

59These examples illustrate typologically common bridging contexts that facilitate the path: contingency > condition > concessive condition > concessive. Beginning with contingency in example (43), the interclausal relationship does not simply state a hypothetical condition. Rather, it presents as actual events an ongoing situation in which Israel’s agricultural activity temporally coincided with Midianite campaigns against Israel in a contingent way, such that whenever Israel attempted planting, this would be disrupted. Indefinite time is closely related to condition and crosslinguistically is a common source for it. Thus, intermediate uses between these senses invite a conditional implicature and are not always easily distinguishable.

  • 71 See Traugott and König (1991, 202); Kortmann (1997, 160, 199– 201); Haspelmath and König (1998); Kö (...)

60Example (44) illustrates the development from conditional to concessive via concessive conditional. Here, conditional א ִ ם invites the implicature ‘although’. The reason for the semantic affinity between these senses is due to the following elements of conceptual overlap. Conditional relations essentially involve hypothetical causation and thus do not typically entail the reality or certainty of the conditional clause, as in (45). Concessive relations are essentially unrealised or negated causal relations that would otherwise be typically expected and typically do assume the reality of the clauses, as in (46). Thus, in order for a conditional to develop a concessive meaning, it must acquire the implicatures that both clauses are factual and generally incompatible. Therefore, when a conditional conjunction is used in a context where the main clause is explicitly negated or the clauses are thought to be generally incompatible, this yields a concessive conditional interpretation, as in (47). When a concessive conditional relation is used in a context where the clauses are assumed to be factual, this yields a concessive reading, as in (48).71

61(45) If I could easily afford it, I would buy a mansion.

62(46) Although I can easily afford it, I would not buy a mansion.

63(47) (Even) if I could easily afford it, I would not buy a mansion.

64(48) Even if/although I cannot afford it, I would buy a mansion.

65These same elements are precisely what is seen with א ִ ם in (44). Generally speaking, when a wise man says he knows something, this is expected to be the case. However, this expected causal relation is negated in the main clause, yielding a concessive conditional. This is reinforced by the use of ג ַ ם . The use of such scalar focus particles is common with concessive conditionals. If this situation is construed as not merely potential, but actual, it yields a concessive interpretation.

  • 72 Cf. Hos. 8.10; 9.16; Lam. 3.8.

(49)

COND > COCOND > CON (‘if p, q’ > ‘even if p, q’ > ‘although p, q’)
ּ בו ְּ פ ִָּ שר ְּ כ ֶֶׁׁ֣ ם כ ַ פ ֵ כי ִֶׁ ם א ַ ע ְִּ ל ֹּ֤ םי ע ֵ י ַ ינ מ ִ כ ִֶׁ֔ ם ַ ג ֶּ֛ ם ִ יכ ת־ ְַּ בר ּ֥ ו ת ְּ פ ִָּ ל ֶ֖ ה א ֵ ני ֶֶׁׁ֣ נ ִ י ש ֹ מ ִֵַ֑ ע י ְֵּ כיד ֶֶׁ֖ ם ָּ ד ִ מ ֥ םי מ ֵָּ אל ּ ׃ו
‘And when you spread your hands, I will hide my eyes from you. Even if/although you multiply prayer, I will not listen.’ (Isa72. 1.15; LXX ἐὰν; Syr. ) ܢܦܐ

66This same bridging context of concessive condition between condition and concession is also is seen in uses of כ ִ י , illustrated here with example (49). The hypothetical causal relation (i.e., the condition) that prayer will result in favour from God is negated, yielding a concessive conditional reading reinforced by ג ַ ם . If these statements are construed as true, and not simply hypothetical, then it invites a purely concessive reading, which would be the case especially when the adverbial clause is past-oriented and looking back on actual events. Thus, examples like (49) serve as a mid-point between completely conditional cases, like example (26) above, and completely concessive cases, like (28), where כ ִ י communicates a concessive meaning by itself without ג ַ ם .

67Less common among the developments within the CCC semantic space is the path from cause to concession, as seen in the following example with כ ִ י .

  • 73 Cf. Gen. 8.21.

(50)

CAUSE > CONCESSION (‘because p, q’ > ‘although p, q’) ל ֹ ת־א ִ י ָּ ר ֹּ֤ א תוא ָּ ם ְּ לו ֹ ת־א ֵַ ח ֶׁ֣ ת מ ִ פ ְּ נ ֵ הי ִֶׁ֔ ם ִ כ ֶּ֛ י ֵ מ־תיב ְִּ ר ֶ֖ י ֵ מה ָּ ׃ה
‘Do not fear them or be dismayed before them, because/although they are a rebellious house.’ (Ezek. 3.9b)73

  • 74 Cf. Hilpert (2005). Capitalisation indicates the nuclear accent of the tone group delimited by the (...)

68Here, a causal interclausal relation with broad-scope negation can be reinterpreted as a concessive interclausal relation with narrow-scope negation. König and Siemund (2000, 344) provide the following examples showing the mechanism for this reanalysis.74

(51)

/ The house is no less comfortable because it dispenses with AIR-conditioning. /

(52)

/ The house is no LESS comfortable / although it dispenses with AIR-conditioning. /

  • 75 For a discussion of the following paths of development for כִי within the CCC semantic space not tr (...)

69In the first utterance, both clauses are spoken as a single tone group with the nuclear accent on ‘air’. In this case, the scope of the negator in the main clause extends over the adverbial clause as well. This results in negated causation, which again is conceptually identical to concession. In such contexts, the adverbial clause is equivalent to a concessive clause, where the scope of negation is confined to the main clause and where each clause is a separate tone group with its own nuclear accent, as in the second utterance. This same bridging context in Ezek. 3.9 provides the means for causal כ ִ י to invite such a concessive implicature.75

5.5. Comparative Support

  • 76 For example, temporal כִי is found in the earliest strata of the language in the Archaic Hebrew of (...)
  • 77 Also see the modal uses of , alone and with various affixes, in so-called Amarna Canaanite (Raine (...)

70When available, comparative data on cognate forms in related languages can help confirm and modify (as well as falsify) the hypotheses generated by semantic maps like that presented in §4.0. For example, some of the developmental paths of כ ִ י and א ִ ם presented above can be considered by way of illustration. So far, only attested uses have been discussed. However, diachronic semantic maps can also generate hypotheses of the sources of attested senses, even when those putatively original uses are themselves unattested in the available date. Consider again the portion of the map filled by כ ִ י . Comparing כ ִ י to adverbial conjunctions with similar profiles suggests that its temporal use, while arguably the oldest attested use (both on typological and textual grounds76), initially arose from an earlier comparative use. Indeed, the fact that its cognate in earlier Semitic languages can function as a modal adverbial conjunction (e.g., communicating similarity and manner), such as Akkadian (CAD K, 319b–20a; Ahw, 469b; GAG, 211) and Ugaritic k (y) (DULAT, 418–19), suggests that this is the correct diachronic reconstruction.77

  • 78 This sense, however, is not mentioned in Friedrich and Röllig (1999).

71A similar observation can be made about א ִ ם . The fact that it is found marking contingent (i.e., ‘whenever p, q’) interclausal relations, the prototypical bridge between temporal and conditional uses in the semantic map, suggests that it may have had an earlier use within the definite time senses of the temporal semantic space. Comparative evidence supports this hypothesis. For example, Phoenician ʾm is used in the sense of ‘when’ (Krahmalkov 2001, 266)78 and Ugaritic hn is used to communicate immediate anteriority ‘as soon as p, q’ (DULAT 335–36), e.g., KTU 2.87: 20. As for the bridge between condition and concession via concessive condition reinforced with a focus particle—this is also seen with Phoenician פא םא (see Segert 1976, 262).

72Semantic maps also have strong implications in the opposite direction, that is in terms of subsequent development. For example, as Kortmann (2001, 849) observes, “The CCC network is always a goal domain of semantic change, with Concession as the absolute endpoint.” That is, concession is consistently a late and terminal point in the development of interclausal relations (cf. König 1985, 263–64; Haspelmath and König 1998, 620). Therefore, as portrayed in the above semantic map, the concessive use of כ ִ י is expected to have been a late development relative to the other interclausal relations it is found to communicate. Evidence that this reconstruction is correct comes from the fact that while Akkadian developed comparative, temporal, causal, and conditional adverbial uses, it did not develop a concessive use (Bandstra 1982, 402–5). A similar situation holds for Ugaritic k (y) (DULAT, 417). This all makes typological sense in light of the fact that concession is the endpoint of semantic development within the CCC semantic space. Thus, it is expected to develop late, if at all.

73In fact, evidence from Akkadian is instructive for the whole development from the modal semantic space to the temporal and then CCC, since modal and temporal already appeared in Old Akkadian, while causal only appeared in Middle and Late Babylonian (Lipiński 1997, 527; cf. Gelb 1957, 136–37; Hasselbach 2005, 173). Similarly, conditional only appeared in Late Babylonian (Miller and Ship 1996, 36). This is summarised in the following table.

Table 2: Emergence of adverbial in Akkadian

Table 2: Emergence of adverbial kī in Akkadian

74As mentioned above, in Akkadian never developed a concessive use. This also supports the hypothesis suggested by the diachronic semantic map in Figure 3 that concessive כ ִ י was the last of its adverbial senses to develop. Cases where such comparative evidence exists to corroborate reconstruction based on diachronic semantic maps suggests that they are relatively reliable, at least for making plausible hypotheses, even when only synchronic data is available. The more robustly attested the grammaticalisation path in a diachronic semantic map, the more plausible the hypotheses it generates. In the case of universally attested and uncontroversially unidirectional grammaticalisation paths, the hypotheses generated by diachronic semantic maps involving such paths constitute strong evidence in their own right.

6.0. Conclusion

  • 79 There should, of course, be occasional returns to previous steps as hypotheses become refined in th (...)

75This article has attempted to shed some light on adverbial conjunctions in the Hebrew Bible, a relatively understudied word class. The focus has been on polysemous adverbial conjunctions—the conceptual relationship between their different senses, the diachronic organisation of their uses as sources and goals of semantic extension relative to one another, and the inferential processes that facilitated their development. As such, this study has employed diachronic semantic maps in order to generate hypotheses along these lines and test them against corpus data and comparative evidence where available. This has proceeded with the following methodological steps: (1) construct a usage profile of the form (s) in question, (2) heuristically employ diachronic semantic maps to generate hypotheses about the conceptual and diachronic organisation of uses, (3) test these hypotheses by examining corpus data for plausible bridging contexts, (4) compare these results to comparative data where available.79 With this procedure, this study has shown that the usage profile of polysemous adverbial conjunctions in the Hebrew Bible indeed fill a contiguous portion of diachronic semantic maps based on well-documented polysemy patterns and historical developments across many languages, as visualised in Figures 3 and 5 and discussed in §4.0. This hypothesised diachronic organisation was tested in §5.0 by examining the corpus data for bridging contexts of selected paths and analysing them for possible inferential processes responsible for the semantic extensions. In the majority of cases, the hypothesised diachronic developments found strong support in corpus data. Examples of available cognate data were also shown to aid in this analysis, and in this case support the proposed reconstruction. In the case of ב ַ א ֲ ש ֶ ר , the hypothesised path was found to be plausible. However, due to relatively sparse data, a mutually compatible (and perhaps more likely) alternate explanation was also offered. In the case of ע ַ ל א ֲ ש ֶ ר , the data did not yield plausible bridging contexts between its locative and causal senses as an adverbial conjunction. Rather, the extension seemed to have already taken place within its function as a preposition.

76More broadly, the picture that emerges from this study is that diachronic semantic maps, when based on robust crosslinguistic polysemy patterns and directly observable historical developments, generate plausible hypotheses about the conceptual relation and diachronic organisation of the different uses of linguistic forms, in this case adverbial conjunctions in the Hebrew Bible. Even when only relatively synchronic material is available, typologically robust diachronic semantic maps can point to plausible reconstructions of a form’s developmental history from earliest use to most recently developed and suggest where to look for the most likely bridging contexts and inferential processes that facilitated semantic extension.

Literaturverzeichnis

References

Aartun, Kjell. 1974. Die Partikeln des Ugaritischen 2. Teil: Präpositionen, Konjunktionen. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 21/2. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker.

Aejmelaeus, Anneli. 1993. On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House.

AHw = Von Soden, Wolfram. 1965. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch: Vol. I, A–L. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Bandstra, Barry L. 1982. ‘The Syntax of Particle KY in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic’. PhD dissertation, Yale University.

BDB = Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. 1906. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon.

Beentjes, Pancratius C. 1997. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Texts Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Manuscripts. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 68. Leiden: Brill.

BHRG1 = Van der Merwe, Christo H.J., Jacobus A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. 1999. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

BHRG2 = Van der Merwe, Christo H.J., Jacobus A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. 2017. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury.

BHS = Elliger, Karl, and Willhelm Rudolph. (eds). 1997. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 5th corrected edition, prepared by Adrian Schenker. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

CAD = Oppenheim, A. Leo, Erica Reiner, and Robert D. Briggs (eds). 1971. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Vol. 8K. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Cristofaro, Sonia. 1998. ‘Grammaticalization and Clause Linkage Strategies: A Typological Approach with Particular Reference to Ancient Greek’. In The Limits of Grammaticalization, edited by Anna Giacalone-Ramat and Paul J. Hopper, 59–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

DCH = Clines, David J. A. (ed). 1993–2014. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 9 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.

Deutscher, Guy. 2001. Syntactic Change in Akkadian: The Evolution of Sentential Complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Diessel, Holger. 2001. ‘The Ordering Distribution of Main and Adverbial Clauses: A Typological Study’. Language 77 (3): 433–55.

— ——. 2013. ‘Adverbial Subordination’. In Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax, edited by Silvia Luraghi and Claudia Parodi, 341–54. London: Continuum.

Divjak, Dagmar, and Catherine L. Caldwell-Harris. 2015. ‘Frequency and Entrenchment’, In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Ewa Dąbrowska and Dagmar Divjak, 53–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

DULAT = Del Olmo Lete, Gregorio, Joaquín Sanmartín, and Wilfred G. E. Watson. 2015. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. 3rd revised edition. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill.

Esseesy, Mohssen. 2010. Grammaticalization of Arabic Prepositions and Subordinators: A Corpus-Based Study. Leiden: Brill.

Friedrich, Johannes, and Wolfgang Röllig. 1999. Phönizisch-Punische Grammatik. 3. Auflage neu bearbeitet von M. Giulia Amadasi Guzzo. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press.

GAG = Von Soden, Wolfram. 1995. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. 3rd edition. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.

Gelb, Ignace J. 1957. Glossary of Old Akkadian. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 3. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Genetti, Carol. 1991. ‘From Postposition to Subordinator in Newari’. In Approaches to Grammaticalization. Vol. 2. Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers, edited by Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine, 227–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Georgakopoulos, Thanasis, and Stéphane Polis. 2018. ‘The Semantic Map Model: State of the Art and Future Avenues for Linguistic Research’. Language and Linguistics Compass 12 (2). 10.1111/lnc3.12270

Givón, Talmy. 1991. ‘The Evolution of Dependent Clause Morpho-Syntax in Biblical Hebrew’. In Approaches to Grammaticalization. Vol. 2. Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers, edited by Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine, 257–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Glinert, Lewis. 1989. The Grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

GKC = Kautzsch, Emil (ed). 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by Arther E. Cowley. 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon.

Hackl, Johannes. 2007. Der Subordinierte Satz in den spätbabylonischen Briefen. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

HALOT = Köhler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann Jakob Stamm (eds). 1994–2000. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill.

Hardy, Humphrey Hill, II. 2014. ‘Diachronic Development in Biblical Hebrew Prepositions: A Case Study in Grammaticalization’. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.

Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. ‘The Geometry of Grammatical Meaning: Semantic Maps and Cross-linguistic Comparison’. In The New Psychology of Language, vol. 2, edited by Michael Tomasello, 211–42. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Haspelmath, Martin, and Oda Buchholz. 1998. ‘Equative and Similative Constructions in the Languages of Europe’. In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, edited by Johan van der Auwera and Dónall P.Ó. Baoill, 277–334. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Haspelmath, Martin, and Ekkehard König. 1998. ‘Concessive Conditionals in the Languages of Europe’. In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, edited by Johan van der Auwera and Dónall Ó. Baoill, 563–640. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hasselbach, Rebecca. 2005. Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Hendel, Ronald, and Jan Joosten. 2018. How Old Is the Hebrew Bible? A Linguistic, Textual, and Historical Study. The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hetterle, Katja. 2015. Adverbial Clauses in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Trends in Linguistic Studies and Monographs 289. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hilpert, Martin. 2005. ‘A Diachronic Perspective on Concessive Constructions with Just Because’. In LACUS Forum XXXI: Interconnections, edited by Adam Makkai, William J. Sullivan, and Arle R. Lommel, 67–81. Houston, TX: LACUS.

Holmstedt, Robert D. 2016. The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heberlein, Fritz. 2011. ‘Temporal Clauses’. In New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, Volume 4: Complex Sentences, Grammaticalization, Typology, edited by Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin, 235–371. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hendry, Rachel. 2012. Relative Clauses in Time and Space: A Case Study in the Methods of Diachronic Typology. Typological Studies in Language 101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

IBHS = Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael P. O’Connor. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

JM = Joüon, Paul, and Takamitsu Muraoka. 2006. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Revised English edition. Subsidia Biblica 27. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.

König, Ekkehard. 1985. ‘Where Do Concessives Come From? On the Development of Concessive Connectives’. In Historical Semantics—Historical Word-Formation, edited by Jacek Fisiak, 263–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

König, Ekkehard, and Peter Siemund. 2000. ‘Causal and Concessive Clauses: Formal and Semantic Relations’. In Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, edited by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Bernd Kortmann, 341–360. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kortmann, Bernd. 1997. Adverbial Subordination: A Typology and History of Adverbial Subordinators Based on European Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

— ——. 1998. ‘Adverbial Subordinators in the Languages of Europe’. In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, edited by Johan van der Auwera and Dónall P.Ó. Baoill, 457–61. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

— ——. 2001. ‘Adverbial Conjunctions’, In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, Vol. 1. edited by Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, Wolfgang Raible, 842–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Krahmalkov, Charles R. 2001. A Phoenician-Punic Grammar. Leiden: Brill.

KTU = Dietrich, Manfried, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín (eds). 2013. Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani und Anderen Orten. 3., Erw. Aufl. ed. Alter Orient Und Altes Testament 360/1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Lipiński, Edward. 1997. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. Leuven: Peeters.

Locatell, Christian S. 2017. ‘Grammatical Polysemy in the Hebrew Bible: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to כי’. PhD dissertation, Stellenbosch University.

— ——. 2020. ‘Temporal Conjunctions and Their Semantic Extensions: The Case of כי in Biblical Hebrew’. Journal of Semitic Studies 65 (1): 93–115.

— ——. 2021. ‘Puzzling out Polysemy: The Relationship between Seemingly Unrelated Meanings and Functions’. In Written for Our Instruction: Essays in Honor of William Varner, edited by Abner Chou and Christian Locatell. Dallas, TX: Fontes Press.

LXX = Rahlfs, Alfred, and Robert Hanhart (eds). 2006. Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes: Editio altera. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

Martowicz, Anna. 2011. ‘Origin and Functioning of Circumstantial Clause Linkers: A Linguistic Study’. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.

Meillet, Antoine. 1915. ‘Le Renouvellement des Conjonctions’. École Pratique des Hautes Études, Section des Sciences Historiques et Philologiques, Annuaire 1915–1916, 9– 28.doi.org/10.3406/ephe.1915.9215.

Miller, Cynthia L. 1999. ‘Pivotal Issues in Analyzing the Verbless Clause’. In The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches, edited by Cynthia L. Miller, 2–17. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Miller, Douglas B., and R. Mark Shipp. 1996. An Akkadian Handbook: Paradigms, Helps, Glossary, Logograms, and Sign List. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Muraoka, Takamitsu. 1964 ‘The Use of ὡς in the Greek Bible’. Novum Testamentum 7 (1): 51–72.

Rainey, Anson F. 1996. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from Canaan. Vol. 3. Morphosyntactic Analysis of the Particles and Adverbs. Leiden: Brill.

Sanders, Paul. 1996. The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32. Leiden: Brill.

Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 2001. ‘Scales Between Nouniness and Verbiness’. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, Vo.1. edited by Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible, 495–509. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten, and Holger Diessel. 2019. ‘The Typology of Non-argument Clauses’. In The Oxford Handbook of Embedding, edited by Manfred Krifka and Mathias Schenner. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://kschmidtkebode.de/publications.html.

Segert, Stanislav. 1976. A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic. München: C. H. Beck.

Tate, Marvin E. 1998. Psalms 51–100. Word Biblical Commentary 20. Dallas: Word.

Thompson, Sandra A., Robert E. Longacre, and Shin Ja J. Hwang. 2007. ‘Adverbial Clauses’. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. II: Complex Constructions. 2nd edition, edited by Timothy Shopen, 237–300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Ekkehard König. 1991. ‘The Semantics-Pragmatics of Grammaticalization Revisited’. In Approaches to Grammaticalization. Vol. 1. edited by Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine, 189–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Treis, Yvonne. 2017. ‘Similative Morphemes as Purpose Clause Markers in Ethiopia and Beyond’. In Similative and Equative Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Perspective, edited by Yvonne Treis and Martine Vanhove, 91–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Treis, Yvonne, and Martine Vanhove (eds). 2017. Similative and Equative Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Van der Auwera, Johan. 2013. ‘Semantic Maps, for Synchronic and Diachronic Typology’. In Synchrony and Diachrony: A Dynamic Interface, edited by Anna Giacalone-Ramat, Caterina Mauri, and Piera Molinelli, 153–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Weitzman, Michael P. 1999. The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zipf, George Kingsley. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.

Anmerkungen

1 I would like to thank the Golda Meir Fellowship at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for funding this research. I would also like to thank the editors, Prof. Eitan Grossman, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. In addition to the those listed in the References section below, the following abbreviations are used: Syr. = Syriac Peshitta; Tg. Ket. = Targum of the Writings; Tg. Neb. = Targum of the Prophets; Tg. Onq. = Targum Onqelos.

2 Cf. Hetterle (2015, 201). For a discussion of the characteristics of this word class, and one set of criteria for grouping them, see Kortmann (1997, 56–77, esp. 71–73). For a more recent discussion, see Thompson et al. (2007, 237–43). However, the degree of clause embedding is characterised by a continuum (Schmidtke-Bode and Diessel 2019), so the delimitation of categories is always somewhat arbitrary. Also note that Kortmann restricts the definition of adverbial conjunctions to those that connect clauses with an inflected verb. However, this appears to be due to the fact that he deals with European languages, which generally lack verbless clauses. As Miller (1999, 3) observes, verbless clauses “… are commonly represented among the world’s languages, even though they are absent in most Indo-European languages…” and “… are an important syntactic feature of Biblical Hebrew.” For different terms that have been used to designate this word class in linguistic literature, see Kortmann (1997, 62) and references there.

3 Note that in these schematic representations of interclausal relations, ‘q’ stands for the main (or ‘matrix’) clause and ‘p’ stands for the adverbial clause.

4 See Hardy (2014, 49–53), for a survey of past studies of grammaticalisation in Semitic. Also see Christo H. J. van der Merwe in this volume.

5 While many variations of semantics maps have been proposed, this is sufficient to illustrate the basic idea for the purposes of this paper. For an overview of different types of semantic maps, see van der Auwera (2013).

6 For a detailed discussion of how semantic maps can be constructed, see Georgakopoulos and Polis (2018).

7 It may be noted that Rabbinic Hebrew developed this distinction by using Aramaic אִילָּן for ‘tree’.

8 Grammaticalisation is defined as the process whereby lexical forms develop grammatical functions and whereby grammatical forms develop additional grammatical functions (Hopper and Traugott 2003, 1).

9 Two other large crosslinguistic studies of adverbial conjunctions followed Kortmann (1997). One is Martowicz (2011), a world-wide sample of anteriority, cause, condition, and purpose relations from 84 languages that takes a close look at the sources of such forms from other word classes. The next is Hetterle (2015), which looks at 756 adverbial conjunctions across 45 languages. Both expanded the language sample beyond Kortmann’s and also approached the topic with different research questions, but, in the main, are compatible with the analysis presented here.

10 Definitions of the subsenses within these semantic spaces are given along with Figure 5.

11 To give a representative example of this from English, the usage profiles of as, when, and where traverse the internally complex networks of the modal, temporal, and locative semantic spaces, respectively. See further Kortmann (1997, 181–82, 193, 195–96).

12 For a detailed presentation of this evidence, see Kortmann (1997, 137–211). Cf. Deutscher (2000, 37–41).

13 Each of the four major networks of interclausal relations is simplified and presented as a unit (i.e., locative, temporal, modal, CCC) in order to highlight the relationships between them. However, each has its own internally complex network of relations within that semantic space (especially the time and CCC semantic spaces). This internal complexity is seen in §4.0 below.

14 As elaborated in Kortmann (1997, 178): “It is crucial to stress that for none of these links does the reverse hold, i.e., neither are CCC subordinators found to develop temporal, locative or modal readings, nor do temporal subordinators come to serve as locative or modal markers.”

15 For example, the cognates English while and German weil both developed from a noun meaning ‘time’ into temporal conjunctions. However, whereas English while added contrastive and concessive meanings alongside its earlier temporal meaning, German weil is used as a causal conjunction (Hopper and Traugott 2003, 90–2).

16 When I use the term ‘polysemous’, it refers to these forms’ ability to mark semantically distinct interclausal relations within the class of adverbial conjunctions. Alternatively, the terms ‘polyfunctional’ and ‘multifunctional’ may refer to the situation just described, as well as cases where a single form has multiple uses across word classes. In this regard, diachronic semantic maps would also be useful in analysing the development of polyfunctionality. However, the present discussion focuses on the different senses of these words within their function as adverbial conjunctions. Functions in other word classes (e.g., relative אֲשֶׁר, complementiser כִי) are not discussed.

17 Due to the crosslinguistic cognitive motivation of the semantic extensions discussed in the previous section, it is hypothesised that the same sorts of grammaticalisation paths would be observed when considering forms connecting non-finite clauses. However, a separate study looking into this would be needed.

18 The uses listed here are not novel proposals and can be found in standard grammars and lexica, as well as in various other works touching on these forms, though they are sometimes referred to with different terminology (e.g., IBHS, JM, BHRG, BDB, DCH, HALOT). However, examples are given here for illustration, which is especially helpful in the case of the crosslinguistically based categorisation of senses adopted here.

19 Hendel and Joosten (2018, 29–30) suggest that the development of the various combinations with אֲשֶׁר and -ֶׁש occurred on analogy with Aramaic compounds with ִדי.

20 While statistical figures for each use would certainly be helpful in determining the relative centrality of senses within synchronic usage, frequency of use is less useful for diachronic organisation, which is the goal of this study. For example, earlier uses of a form often decrease in frequency and may be lost altogether in the course of language change.

21 Preference for different syntactic structures is another means of distinguishing between semantic polysemy vis-à-vis pragmatic polysemy. See, for instance, example (39) below, which notes the preference for temporal כִי clauses to precede the main clause, but for causal כִי clauses to follow the main clause. In addition to the criterion of semantic uniqueness, such divergent syntactic profiles strengthen the case that the proper analysis is one of semantic polysemy rather than merely pragmatic polysemy.

22 For other examples of this expressing anteriority, see Deut. 24.4, Josh. 7.8; 23.1–2; 24.20. For uses expressing cause, see Judg. 11.36; 19.23. Josh. 2.7 has the unusual combination of אַחֲֵרי כַאֲשֶׁר heading a temporal clause.

23 All Hebrew citations are from the BHS. I sometimes list the renderings in ancient versions, especially when they are examples discussed. However, this is not to say that a particular reading is determined by counting versional support or that the versions always transparently reflect the linguistic structure of an underlying Hebrew vorlage. Rather, the Hebrew examples presented should stand on their own merits and the occasional citation of versional data simply illustrates an ancient interpretive tradition along the same lines. When versional witnesses are not cited, this is often because their renderings are compatible with multiple readings and therefore non-adjudicating. In other cases, they change the structure of the text substantially, making any close syntactic or semantic equivalence impossible to discern.

24 Cf. 1 Sam. 5.9.

25 Cf. BDB (473), Lipiński (1997, 475, 527); Esseesy (2010, 270–71); Hardy (2014, 111–12). This strategy is also productive in Modern Hebrew (Glinert 1989, 351). For a crosslinguistic perspective on this as a unidirectional development, see Genetti (1991).

26 There are also some cases where the clause headed by אַחֲֵרי has a verb that is morphologically ambiguous between finite or infinitive. These are Gen. 41.39; 46.30; Lev. 13.55, 56. In these cases, אַחֲֵרי marks a causal relation. The ability to head a finite clause without the relative is also found with the form אַחַר (e.g., Gen. 18.5; Lev. 14.43; Jer. 41.16; Job 19.26; 42.7). It is used once with אֲשֶׁר. These are exclusively temporal. This is unexpected vis-à-vis the multiple senses marked by אַחֲֵרי אֲשֶׁר in light of the Zipfian inverse relation hypothesis, which states that there is an inverse relation between morphological complexity and polyfunctionality (Zipf 1949, 121; Kortmann 1997, 123).

27 For further examples, see the following. Contingency: Gen. 38.9 (LXX ὅταν; Tg. Onq. כַד); Isa. 24.13 (LXX ἐὰν; Tg. Neb. בָּתַר); Ps. 78.34 (LXX ὅταν; Tg. Ket. -בזמן ד). In at least one case, אִם seems possibly to communicate immediate anteriority (Amos 7.2; LXX ἐὰν). Condition: there are too many examples to list here; see HALOT. Concessive condition: Amos 9.2–4 (5x); Eccl. 8.17; cf. Segert (1976, 262). Concession: Jer. 15.1; Job 9.15; Ps. 27.3; 138.7 (cf. Ps. 23.4); Prov. 27.22; cf. Friedrich and Röllig (1999, 229).

28 Cf. Hendry (2012, 48–132), where she discusses the various sources and developments of relativisers in crosslinguistic perspective.

29 Other putative examples include the following. Modal: Exod. 10.6; 14.13 (LXX ὃν τρόπον; Tg. Onq. - ;)כמא ד34.18 (LXX ϰαθάπερ); Deut. 15.14 (LXX ϰαθὰ); Isa. 7.17; Jer. 48.8 (LXX 31.8 ϰαθὼς); Mic. 7.20 (LXX ϰαθότι); Ps. 106.34. See further fn. 29. Temporal: Gen. 6.4; 40.13; Num. 33.1; Deut. 1.46; 1 Sam. 20.31; 2 Sam. 19.25; 1 Kgs 8.9; 11.42; Jer. 29.19; 2 Chron. 35.20. Causal: Gen. 30.18; 31.49; 34.13, 27; 42.21; Num. 20.13; Deut. 3.24; Josh. 4.7, 23; Judg. 9.17; 1 Sam. 2.23; 15.15; 20.42; 26.23; 2 Sam. 2.5; 14.22; 1 Kgs 8.33; 15.5; 2 Kgs 12.3; 17.4; 23.26; Isa. 19.24– 25; Jer. 16.13; Hos. 14.4; Hab. 3.16; Zech. 1.15; Job 34.27; Eccl. 4.9; 6.12; 8.11, 12; Dan. 1.10; 2 Chron. 6.24. Some ancient and modern versions skilfully render אֲשֶׁר causally via the causal use of a relative construction in the target language. See, for example, Gen. 30.18 (LXX ἀνθʼ οὗ); 34.27 (LXX ἐν ᾗ = ὅτι in v. 13); 42.21 (ESV ‘in that’; LXX ὅτι). This highlights the crosslinguistic use of relatives with a causal meaning. Purpose: Gen 11.7; 24.3; Exod. 20.26; Deut. 4.10, 40; 6.3 (2×); 32.46; Josh. 3.7; 1 Kgs 22.16; Jer. 42.14; Ruth 3.11; Eccl. 7.21; Neh. 2.7, 8; 8.14; 2 Chron. 1.11. Result: Gen. 13.16; Deut. 28.27, 35; 1 Kgs 3.8, 12, 13; 2 Kgs 9.37; Isa. 65.16; Jer. 19.11; Mal. 3.19; Ps. 95.11; Est. 9.1. Condition: Exod. 21.13; Lev. 4.22; 25.33; Num. 5.29; 9.21; Deut. 18.22; Josh. 4.21; 1 Sam. 16.7; 1 Kgs 8.31, 33; Isa. 31.4.
These examples together with alternative analyses as relative clauses are helpfully collected and discussed in Holmstedt (2016, 232–35), along with nonbiblical texts as well. Holmstedt (2016, 233) also helpfully compiles all the cases cited for each of these uses in GKC, IBHS, BHGR1, and JM. Here, Holmstedt makes the important observation that all the non-relative and non-complement cases cited in GKC, IBHS, BHGR1, JM, BDB, DCH, and HALOT add up to only 97 cases. This means that even if these identifications are correct, they are not typical.

30 The modal semantic space has several subsenses, including different nuances of comparison, such as comparing various measures of extent (e.g., temporal duration or quantity) and comparison of manner. In the usage of אֲשֶׁר, I have identified comment/accord and similative subsenses. Comment/accord can be represented schematically as ‘q, as p’, where clause q accords with some statement in p. As described by Kortmann (1997, 87–8), “p expresses the speaker’s comment on the content of the matrix clause, typically with the aim of affirming the truth (and thus reliability) of q.” See possibly, for example, Gen. 42.14. While Kortmann’s description focuses on this relation in the realm of epistemic modality (e.g., “As you said, this analysis is probably correct”), אֲשֶׁר typically marks this relationship within the realm of deontic modality, as in Jer. 48.8 (LXX 31.8 ϰαθὼς); Mic. 7.20 (LXX ϰαθότι); Ps. 106.34. A similative interclausal relationship can be schematically represented as ‘q, (in the same way) as p’. For examples of this with אֲשֶׁר, see Exod. 10.6 ;14.13 (LXX ὃν τρόπον; Tar. Onq. -כמא ד); Deut. 15.14 (LXX ϰαθὰ). For more on these categories and the subsenses of the modal semantic space, see Kortmann (1997, 87–88, 195–96); Haspelmath and Buchholz (1998, 277–334); as well as the contributions in Treis and Vanhove (2017).

31 Note that for adverbial conjunctions which span multiple subsenses within the temporal semantic domain, I provide only one example for the sake of space. In example (9), the temporal subsense communicated is simultaneity overlap (SIOVER) which may be represented as ‘when p, q’, where the conjunction signals that clause p overlaps with clause q in time (also Gen. 40.13; Num. 33.1; Deut. 1.46; 2 Sam. 19.25; 1 Kgs 8.9; 11.42; Jer. 29.19). אֲשֶׁר is also used to mark simultaneous duration (SIDUR) between clauses, defined as ‘while p, q’, where the conjunction signals that clause p opens up a time interval for the whole or part (s) of which clause q is true (e.g., Josh. 14.10; 1 Sam. 20.31). For a discussion of the subsenses of temporal interclausal relations, see Locatell (2020). For a crosslinguistic perspective and evidence for the categorial reality of these subsenses, see Kortmann (1997, 84–5, 181–93).

32 Notable here is the use of conditional אִם parallel to אֲשֶׁר. It is also worth noting that Tg. Onq. renders אֲשֶׁר here with אִם (not הֵן), despite the fact that Tg. Onq. and Tg. Neb. usually render these putative non-relative אֲשֶׁר clauses with -ד. The LXX renders this with ἐὰν, which is also commonly used to head conditional clauses.

33 For additional examples, see the following. Locative: Gen. 21.17 (with a nominal clause); Judg. 5.27; 17.8, 9; 1 Sam. 23.13; 2 Kgs 8.1; Ruth 1.17; Job 39.30. Causal: with nominal clauses, Gen. 39.23; Eccl. 8.4; with nominal and finite clause in parallel, Eccl. 7.2. We may also note this use in 4Q504 f4.5 = 4Q506 f131–32.11. The unusual, but ostensibly related, בְּשַגַם in Gen. 6.3 may also be mentioned.

34 For additional examples, see the following. Modal: again, the interclausal relationship of ‘comparison’ in the modal semantic space can be broken up into various overlapping subsenses, including COMACC ‘q, as p’, Gen. 7.9, 16; 12.14; 40.22; 41.13; Exod. 12.28; Deut. 2.14; 11.25; 12.20; 26.19; Judg. 6.36, 37; 1 Sam 24.13; 1 Kgs 9.5; Jer. 26.11; Joel 2.32; Ps. 48.9; Comparison (COMPAR) ‘q, as (if) p’, where the comparison is usually, though not necessarily, hypothetical (Kortmann 1997, 88), 2 Sam. 16.23; Zech. 10.6; Job. 10.19; SIMIL ‘q, (in the same way) as p’, Gen. 8.21; 34.22; Exod. 2.14; 33.11; Lev. 4.21; 24.19, 20; Num. 11.12; Deut. 1.44; Judg. 1.7; 1 Sam. 15.33; 1 Kgs 9.2; 2 Kgs 21.13; Eccl. 5.14; Isa. 9.2; 20.3–4; Equative (EQUAT) ‘q, (to the same extent) as p’, Gen 44.1; Josh. 14.11; 1 Sam. 2.16; Ezek. 46.7; Zech. 8.13. See references in fn. 30 for more on these categories. Temporal: Gen. 18.33; 32.3; 40.14; 43.2; Exod. 17.11; Deut. 2.16; Josh. 2.7; Josh. 4.1, 11; 5.8; Judg. 3.18; 6.22; 1 Sam. 1.24; 6.6; 8.1, 6; 12.8; 24.1; 2 Sam. 12.21; Ps. 56.7; Neh. 5.6; 6.3; 7.1; Eccl. 4.17. Causal: Judg. 6.27; 2 Kgs 17.26; Mic. 3.4. 1 Sam. 28.18 seems at least to have a strong causal implicature. See (37) below. Conditional: Exod. 10.10; Est. 4.16 (LXX ἐὰν).

35 Notable in this example (and other cases of כַאֲשֶׁר marking an equative interclausal relationship listed above) is that it employs only a standard marker. Equative constructions often employ a standard and a parameter marker, e.g., ‘You drive as well as I speak Chinese’, where ‘as well’ is the parameter and ‘as I speak Chinese’ is the standard. Haspelmath and Buchholz (1998, 295–97) note several languages that express such equative constructions with only a standard marker. This is typical of head-final, non-finite Eastern European languages. An exception is head-initial Balkan languages, which employ only a standard marker derived from a manner relative pronoun. This is similar to the situation with Hebrew כַאֲשֶׁר.

36 Also see similative: Eccl. 12.7; comment/accord: 4Q397 f6–13.12; temporal: Eccl. 9.12; Sir. 30.12 (MS B 3r.3; Beentjes 1997, 54).

37 For additional examples, see the following: Temporal: Gen. 24.41; 31.49; Lev. 14.34–35; 19.33; Deut. 4.25–26; 18.9; Ps. 32.3; 1 Chron. 7: 21. Causal: Gen. 50.19; Lev. 22.7; Ezek. 3.4–5; Ps. 3.8; 1 Chron. 11.19. This is the most common use of כִי and citations could be multiplied. Contingent: Gen. 4.12; Lev. 1.2; 2.1, 4; 4.2; 15.2, 16, 19; Lev. 19.5, 23; 22.21, 27, 29; 23.10; Ezek. 46.12; 2 Chron. 6.36. Conditional: Gen. 4.24; Lev. 13.51–54; 15.8, 25 (2x); Ezek. 3.19; Ps. 11.3; 2 Chron. 6.28 (4x). Concessive conditional: Isa. 1.15; Hos. 8.10; 9.16; Ps. 37.24; Lam. 3.8. Concessive: Gen. 31.37; 48.14; Jer. 51.53 (2x); Ezek. 2.6; 3.9; 11.16 (2x); 12.3; 32.25, 26, 27, 32; Ps. 21.12; 1 Chron. 5.2; 24.24. Result: Gen. 20.9; 40.15; Ps. 8.5 (2x); 1 Chron. 17.16; 29.14; 2 Chron. 32.14. This use also appears in epigraphic Hebrew at Lachish 2.4; 5.4; 6.3. Purpose: Gen. 29.32 (3x); Job. 3.12. Contrastive: Gen. 18.15; 21.7; 24.4; Exod. 4.10; 34.13; Deut. 4.26; 1 Kgs 21.15; Ezek. 10.11 ;1 Chron. 29.1; 2 Chron. 8.9. Note again that while temporal כִי spans many subsenses in the temporal semantic space, I provide only one example here for the sake of space. These subsenses, however, are represented in the semantic map provided below in Figure 5. As noted above, these subsenses are discussed in detail in Locatell (2020).

38 Note that there is a possible textual issue here when compared with the synoptic text in 1 Kgs 12.16, which has וַַיְֶַּֽׁ֣רא כָּל־יִשְָּּראִֵל כִַ֠י לֹא־שָּמֶַׁ֣ע הַמֶׁלְֶׁך אֲלֵיהֶׁם. Here, the clause clearly functions as a complement clause. However, whatever the source of the text in 2 Chron. 10.16, it still constitutes a valid use of language, even if not ‘original’. Additionally, the LXX supports this reading, as well as the causal implicature of the temporal clause, by rendering it with ὅτι (on which see the discussion of example (39) in §5.2 below). These readings are actually switched in Tg. Neb. and Tg. Ket. The Syr. of 2 Chron. 10.16 is identical to that of 1 Kgs 12.16 (ܘܚܙܘ ܟܠܗ ܐܝܣܪܝܠ ܕ). However, this could perhaps be understood as the result of the translator’s known penchant to draw on parallel passages in earlier books (Weitzman 1999, 79, 118).

39 The use of a focus particle like גַם with a conditional is a typologically pervasive bridging context facilitating the development of concessive conditionals (Haspelmath and König 1998, 620). Note that this collocation does not necessarily result in a concessive conditional meaning (e.g., Rut. 2.21, Prov. 22.6).

40 For additional examples, see the following: Locative: 1 Kgs 18.12; Ezek. 1.20. Causal: Exod. 32.35; Num. 20.24; Deut. 29.24; 32.51 (2x); 1 Sam. 24.6; 2 Sam. 3.30; 6.8; 8.10; 1 Kgs 9.9; Jer. 16.11; 22.9; Ezek. 23.30; 35.15; Job 32.3; Est. 1.15; 8.7; 1 Chron. 13.10; 2 Chron. 7.22. However, as with the other multi-word forms discussed, it is important to note that עַל and אֲשֶׁר do not always function together as a unit.

41 Cf. the typological map presented in Kortmann (1997, 210). Note that the typological data does not necessarily predict a direct extension from the modal use of כַאֲשֶׁר to its causal use, though this is certainly compatible with the typological data. Rather, this direct line was drawn because a plausible bridging context was identified that may suggest such a path. This is discussed in §5.0 below. Alternatively, there may be bridging contexts connecting modal אֲשֶׁר with the CCC domain. However, none were clearly identified in the course of this study, so the only path shown is modal > temporal > CCC.

42 The following definitions are from Kortmann (1997, 79–87). Terms and definitions for modal relations also draw upon Haspelmath and Buchholz (1998) and Treis and Vanhove (2017). ANTE: Anteriority, ‘after p, q’, where clause p simply precedes clause q in time; CAUSE: Cause, ‘because p, q’, where clause p identifies a cause, reason, or motivation for clause q; COCON: Concessive condition, ‘even if p, q’, where q is true or will materialise for any value of a variable in p; COMACC: ‘q, as p’, where clause q accords with some statement in p; COMPAR: ‘q, as (if) p’, where the comparison is usually, though not necessarily, hypothetical; CONC: Concession, ‘although p, q’, where the general incompatibility of p and q are assumed background knowledge; COND: Condition, ‘if p, q’, where clause p identifies the condition upon which clause q is, would be, or would have been true; CONTIN: Contingency, ‘in cases when p, q’ or ‘whenever p, q’, where at all times when clause p is true, clause q is also true; CONTRA: Contrast, ‘q, whereas/but p’, where clauses q and p may be used as arguments for different conclusions, though not necessarily inherently incompatible, as with concession; EQUAT: Equative, ‘q, (to the same extent) as p’, where the extent of q is equated to that of p; IMANTE: Immediate anteriority, ‘as soon as p, q’, where clause p immediately precedes clause q; PLACE: Place, ‘where (ever) p, q’, where p identifies a location (definite or indefinite) in which q takes place; PURPOSE: Purpose, ‘q, in order that p’, where p is an intended result or consequence of q that is yet to be achieved; RESULT: Result, ‘q, so that p’, where p expresses a (mostly factual and typically non-intended) result or consequence of q; SICOEX: Simultaneity co-extensiveness, ‘as long as p, q’, where clause p opens up a time interval for the whole of which clause q is true; SIDUR: Simultaneity duration, ‘while p, q’, where clause p opens up a time interval for the whole or part (s) of which clause q is true; SIMIL: Similative, ‘q, (in the same way) as p’, where some aspect of situation q is described by comparing it to situation p; SIOVER: Simultaneity overlap, ‘when p, q’, where clause p overlaps with clause q in time. Note that these different semantic spaces include other subsenses excluded here because they have not been found used in these adverbial conjunctions.

43 Note that in some cases, a broader semantic domain is listed in a path rather than a specific subsense (e.g., TEMPORAL > CAUSE, COND). In this case, it means some subsense (s) in the temporal semantic space developed both causal and conditional extensions. There is likely a more specific subsense of the temporal semantic space that is more likely to have developed into causal and conditional uses, respectively. However, which subsenses this may have involved is left unspecified. A larger study would pursue these details at a more fine-grained level.

44 There are, however, a variety of other locative relations, such as direction goal ‘whither’ (אֶׁל אֲשֶׁר, e.g., Num. 33.54; Ezek. 1.12; Ruth 1.16) and direction source ‘whence’ (אֲשֶׁר ...מִשָּם, e.g., Gen. 3.23; 24.5), which are not marked by עַל אֲשֶׁר and בַאֲשֶׁר. For more on these other types of locative relations, see Kortmann (1997, 88–89, 193–94).

45 As Givón (1991, 298) observes
... our old reductionist habits, of seeking single causes to complex linguistic events, single explanations to linguistic phenomena, or—in diachrony—single pathways for linguistic change, are inadequate and often misleading... contrary to old reductionist propensities, diachronic grammatical change is often complex, multi-causal and interactive.
Thus, this representation should not be seen as ruling out possible extensions from the modal directly to the CCC space. To be sure, the usage profiles suggest that the strongest affinities for extension would proceed modal > temporal > ccc. However, multiple sources are also likely. Recall Figure 3 above.

46 Of course, with only six cases to consider, this may simply be due to its rarity.

47 For other possible bridging contexts along these lines with כַאֲשֶׁר, see Eccl. 4.17; Neh. 5.6; 6.3.

48 Depending on the temporal idea being compared, this can be reinterpreted as a number of different temporal subsenses. For example, comparing temporal duration can facilitate an interpretation of simultaneous coextensiveness, while comparing points in time can facilitate an interpretation of simultaneous overlap. These temporal interpretations, in turn, can have varying propensities for developing subsequent extensions in the CCC domain (see further Locatell 2020).

49 For example, it has been widely observed that English as originally came from the relative pronoun swá. This was later reinforced with all as all swá. Through unitisation and phonological reduction (hallmarks of grammaticalisation), this gradually progressed as follows: all swá > also > alse > als > as. See Kortmann (1997, 315–19) and Haspelmath and Buchholz (1998, 292–93). In fact, the polysemy pattern of English as has considerable overlap with that of כַאֲשֶׁר (e.g., as comparative, temporal, and causal). Examples from many other languages can be multiplied. In all, the study of Haspelmath and Buchholz is based on 47 different languages. For other cases of this polysemy pattern and pathway of development, see Heberlein (2011, 235–371), and Treis (2017, 133).

50 Hetterle (2015, 260–61) also notes the crosslinguistically pervasive occurrence of this polysemy pattern, though she proposes no mechanism for the semantic extension other than citing their “cognitive relatedness.”

51 Cf. Num. 27.13–14 and Mic. 3.4. Also see Judg. 1.7; 15.11; 1 Sam. 15.33; Jer. 5.9; Zech. 7.3, in which the sense of כַאֲשֶׁר is more clearly modal (with כֵן rather than עַל־כֵן) and the causal implicature is not quite as strong, but still present.

52 For other examples of the relationship between these senses, see Kortmann (1997, 317–18) and Baños (2011, 212–14).

53 Cf. Josh. 7.8 (LXX ἐπεί; Tg. Onq. -בתר ד).

54 See Traugott and König (1991, 194–99).

55 Locatell (2017, 235); Diessel (2001, 466; 2013, 349); Hetterle (2015, 121–27).

56 Bandstra (1982, 121; cf. Aejmelaeus 1993, 171–72).

57 Causal כִי clauses show a clear preference for position after the main clause, but do not show a strong preference for certain conjugations (cf. Bandstra 1982, 415).

58 See further Locatell (2020) for a discussion of the following paths of development for temporal כִי: anteriority > causation; immediate anteriority > causation; simultaneous overlap > causation; simultaneous overlap > contingency > condition; simultaneous coextensiveness > condition.

59 Cf. Neh. 4.1; 5.6; 6.16.

60 On the causal use of ὡς, see Muraoka (1964) and Cristofaro (1998). In fact, the usage profile of ὡς is very similar to that of כַאֲשֶׁר and plausibly involves very similar paths of development (Locatell 2021).

61 A variant reading has די.

62 For other possible bridging contexts along these lines, cf. Lev. 6.20; Num. 5.29; Deut. 18.22; Josh. 4.21.

63 Cf. Eccl. 7.2; 8.3–4; 4Q504 f4.5 = 4Q506 f131–32.11.

64 A LOCATIVE > CAUSAL path is noted in Kortmann (1997, 193–94) and Heine and Kuteva (2002, 200), but along different lines. Kortmann notes the path: place ‘where p, q’ > indefinite place ‘wherever p, q’ > contingency ‘whenever p, q’, which can then develop into condition ‘if p, q’. He also notes the path indefinite place ‘wherever p, q’ > concessive condition ‘even if p, q’. Heine and Kuteva note the path LOCATIVE > CAUSE with prepositions.

65 Kortmann (1997, 178).

66 But note the observation by Givón on multiple sources for semantic extension cited above in fn. 45.

67 See references cited in fn. 25. For examples of -ְּב as a causal preposition, see Gen. 18.28; Zech. 9.11; Dan. 10.12. See further HALOT (105).

68 The fuller construction עַל־ְּדבַר אֲשֶׁר was perhaps part of this development (e.g., Deut. 22.24; 23.5; 2 Sam. 13.2).

69 This does not seem to have been the case with אַחֲֵרי and -ְּכ, since their prepositional forms do not show a causal sense like that of prepositional עַל. However, as noted above, this may also have been the case with -ְּב.

70 Additionally, as mentioned with above, עַל has also developed the ability to head finite clauses as a causal conjunction by itself without the help of אֲשֶׁר. See for example, Gen. 31.20; Ps. 119.136, cited in HALOT (827).

71 See Traugott and König (1991, 202); Kortmann (1997, 160, 199– 201); Haspelmath and König (1998); König and Siemund (2000, 343); Hilpert (2005, 69).

72 Cf. Hos. 8.10; 9.16; Lam. 3.8.

73 Cf. Gen. 8.21.

74 Cf. Hilpert (2005). Capitalisation indicates the nuclear accent of the tone group delimited by the forward slashes.

75 For a discussion of the following paths of development for כִי within the CCC semantic space not treated here, see Locatell (2017, 243–63): COND > COCOND > CONC; CAUSE > PURPOSE/RESULT; CAUSE > CONTRA.

76 For example, temporal כִי is found in the earliest strata of the language in the Archaic Hebrew of Deut. 32.36, which is dated as early as the pre-monarchal period of Israel, ca. eleventh century B.C.E. (Sanders 1996).

77 Also see the modal uses of , alone and with various affixes, in so-called Amarna Canaanite (Rainey 1996, 137–43).

78 This sense, however, is not mentioned in Friedrich and Röllig (1999).

79 There should, of course, be occasional returns to previous steps as hypotheses become refined in the process.

Abbildungsverzeichnis

URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/20290/img-1.jpg
Datei image/jpeg, 6,4k
Titel Figure 2: Layering in diachronic development
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/20290/img-2.jpg
Datei image/jpeg, 5,8k
Titel Figure 3: Diachronic semantic map of adverbial conjunctions
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/20290/img-3.jpg
Datei image/jpeg, 6,6k
Bildunterschrift Figure 4: Category continua
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/20290/img-4.jpg
Datei image/jpeg, 11k
Titel Figure 5: Semantic map of polysemous adverbial conjunctions in Biblical Hebrew
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/20290/img-5.jpg
Datei image/jpeg, 27k
Titel Table 1: Grammaticalisation paths for each polysemous adverbial conjunction in Biblical Hebrew43
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/20290/img-6.jpg
Datei image/jpeg, 24k
Titel Table 2: Emergence of adverbial in Akkadian
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/20290/img-7.jpg
Datei image/jpeg, 17k

Autor

Christian Locatell (PhD, Stellenbosch University, 2017) is Golda Meir Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Linguistics at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the author of Grammatical Polysemy in the Hebrew Bible (Brill, forthcoming), an updated revision of his doctoral dissertation, and co-editor of Ancient Texts and Modern Readers (Brill, 2019). His research focus is the linguistic analysis of biblical and ancient Northwest Semitic languages, with additional work on biblical interpretation and archaeology.

CC-BY-4.0

Nur der Text ist unter der Lizenz CC BY 4.0 nutzbar. Alle anderen Elemente (Abbildungen, importierte Anhänge) sind „Alle Rechte vorbehalten“, sofern nicht anders angegeben.

Kaufen

Suche in OpenEdition Search

Sie werden weitergeleitet zur OpenEdition Search