Clause Combining in Semitic: The Circumstantial Clause and Beyond 3447104058, 9783447104050

Citation preview

Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes Band 96

Clause Combining in Semitic: The Circumstantial Clause and Beyond Edited by Bo Isaksson and Maria Persson

Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft Harrassowitz Verlag

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes Im Auftrag der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft herausgegeben von Florian C. Reiter Band 96 Board of Advisers: Christian Bauer (Berlin) Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst (Berlin) Lutz Edzard (Oslo/Erlangen) Jürgen Hanneder (Marburg) Herrmann Jungraithmayr (Marburg) Karénina Kollmar-Paulenz (Bern) Jens Peter Laut (Göttingen) Joachim Friedrich Quack (Heidelberg) Michael Streck (Leipzig)

2015

Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Clause Combining in Semitic: The Circumstantial Clause and Beyond Edited by Bo Isaksson and Maria Persson

2015

Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

For further information about our publishing program consult our website http://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de © Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft 2015 This work, including all of its parts, is protected by copyright. Any use beyond the limits of copyright law without the permission of the publisher is forbidden and subject to penalty. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. Printed on permanent/durable paper. Printing and binding: Hubert & Co., Göttingen Printed in Germany ISSN 0567-4980 ISBN 978-3-447-10405-0 e-ISBN 978-3-447-19049-7

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Contents Editors’ preface ............................................................................................

7

Clause Combining in Arabic dialects Heléne Kammensjö Circumstantial Clause Linking in Egyptian Arabic Narration ..................... 15 Maria Persson Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic: A scale of markedness.................................................................................. 55 Clause Combining in Written Arabic Michal Marmorstein The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic............. 125 Clause Combining in Biblical Hebrew Bo Isaksson The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach ... 169 Clause Combining in Modern Spoken Aramaic Eran Cohen Circumstantial Clause Combining in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho ....................................................................................................... 271 Clause Combining in Epigraphic South Arabian Jan Retsö The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean........ 297 Clause Combining in East Semitic Eran Cohen Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian ................. 365 Index of terms ............................................................................................. 407

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Editors’ preface We became aware of the role played by ‘clause combining’ while reading the ground-breaking book Clause combining in grammar and discourse (1988).1 In the chapter “The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’” Matthiessen and Thompson discuss how “clause combining is a grammaticization of the rhetorical discourse”. They state that clause combining reflects the rhetorical intentions of the author or narrator, and that “the interesting cross-linguistic issue is how and to what extent the grammar of clause-combining in a given language reflects the rhetorical organization of discourse in that language”.2 Discovering the importance of ‘clause combining’ in Semitic texts was one of the major achievements of the research project Circumstantial Qualifiers in Semitic: The Case of Arabic and Hebrew,3 which preceded and paved the way for the research presented in this volume. Clause Combining in Semitic: The Circumstantial Clause and Beyond examines how different kinds of clauses combine to a text in a number of Semitic languages. Specifically, many of its chapters examine how circumstantial clauses are coded in individual Semitic languages.4 The book comprises the results of a research project, Circumstantial Clause Combining in Semitic, funded by the Swedish Research Council. As is nearly commonplace in research projects, considerations regarding the most ‘useful’ or ‘fruitful’ or ‘productive’ terminology resulted, for some of us, in a more general conceptual approach. The term ‘circumstantial’ in the project title was originally a reflex of the phenomenon of ḥāl (‘circumstance’) clauses 1 Haiman, John, and Sandra A. Thompson, eds., Clause combining in grammar and discourse (Typological studies in language 18. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1988). 2 Matthiessen, Christian, and Sandra A. Thompson, “The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’”, in Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 299, 317. 3 Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 70 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009). 4 We could also have chosen ‘clause linking’ for the title of the book as the terms are used interchangeably. ‘Clause linking’ was used by R. M. W. Dixon in his chapter “The semantics of clause linking in typological perspective”, in The semantics of clause linking: A cross-linguistic typology (edited by R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 155, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). However, ‘clause combining’ inspires us to imagine how a creator of a text (oral or written) actively combines clauses to achieve a specific communicative efficiency.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

8

Editors’ preface

in Arabic. But it was soon felt that ‘circumstantial’ was too narrow a concept to cover the complexity of the phenomena we wanted to investigate. As an example, it was questioned whether a clause that expresses an elaboration (of the action in a previous clause) could justly be called ‘circumstantial’.5 Thus, the general scope of the project had to be widened to an investigation of nonmain clause linking in Semitic. This was done with some limitations, though. We did not primarily study relative clauses, nor subject and object clauses (occupying the subject or object ‘slot’ in a main clause).6 Clauses introduced by subordinating conjunctions were left out as well, since the linking of them is made semantically explicit by the conjunction. The questions put forward in the project were: How is hypotaxis marked in Semitic, other than by conjunctions? How does this affect the organization of texts? More specifically, what constitutes a circumstantial clause? To find an answer to these questions, all the major Semitic language families and some modern spoken Semitic dialects were covered within the project.7 The Semitic varieties were chosen with the aim to cover a wide range of the Semitic linguistic spectrum. We were also aiming, as far as possible, for varieties that are, or have been at some point in time, the native tongues of their users, and to capture them in that time and function. In other words, our goal was, wherever possible, to analyse texts which represent a native competence of the language users. Thus, for the classical Hebrew texts, for example, the ambition was to choose texts that were so early that they may be assumed to represent a living language (though possibly belonging to a higher register). Kammensjö describes types of circumstantial clause linking in a corpus of spoken Egyptian Arabic narratives. Asyndetic hypotactic linking was found to be more than twice as common as syndetic hypotactic linking in Kammensjö’s 5 Thus M. Waltisberg, Satzkomplex und Funktion: Syndese und Asyndese im Althocharabischen (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009), who calls such a clause ‘Umstandssatz’ (213). Cf. Bo Isaksson’s review of Waltisberg’s book in Zeitschrift der Deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 164 no. 1 (2014): 247-251. 6 Thus also the limitation in Dixon’s “The semantics of clause linking in typological perspective”, 1, cf. note above. 7 For Ethio-Semitic we refer to Lutz Edzard, “Complex predicates and Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC): Serial verbs and converbs in a comparative Semitic perspective”, in Strategies of Clause Linking in Semitic Languages: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Clause Linking in Semitic Languages 5-7 August 2012 in Kivik, Sweden, edited by Bo Isaksson and Maria Persson (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2014, 207-230).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Editors’ preface

9

data. She concludes that EA circumstantial clauses are usually subtly marked, most often through interlacing (sharing semantic elements) and gram switching (verb form contrasts). This means that EA circumstantial clauses are, in general, ‘unmarked’ for semantic relationships, such as temporality or causality, which have to be inferred from the context. Kammensjö also points to the pivotal role of the active participle in the EA verbal system in general and the area of circumstantial clause combining in particular. Persson concludes, from her analysis of Damascene Arabic, that there are no syntactic grounds for the establishment of a class of “circumstantial clauses” on a par with, for example, “conditional clauses” and “relative clauses”. She finds only one clause type which combines form and function to such an extent that it can be said to be used specifically to encode a circumstantial meaning. Rather, she points to the discovery of gram switching which constitutes an overarching system of minimally marked non-main clause linking within which the clause combinations subsumed under headings such as “circumstantial” or “ḥāl” constitute an integrated part. Marmorstein uses a large body of Classical Arabic prose, composed or compiled by the end of the 10th century A.D to discuss the whole semantosyntactic domain of event integration and complex predications to which verbal circumstantial clauses belong. She discusses the entire range of complex predications: from closely integrated (and grammaticalized) verbal complexes, via syndetic circumstantial clauses, to textual units consisting of mutually-dependent, setting and presentative clauses. She concludes that these constructions, despite the apparent heterogeneity of the group, are intrinsically related by the presence of the same set of predicative verbal forms: yafʿalu, the participle and qad faʿala, marking an ongoing situation, a state and an outcome, respectively. All three are co-temporal, either simultaneous or coincidental with the time frame set in the matrix clause. Her survey also sheds new light on the use of the Arabic verb forms as such in the classical texts she surveys. Isaksson examines the use of the three basic finite verbal grammatical morphemes (grams) in Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH) and archaic Hebrew poetry: the suffix verb (Vsuff), the short prefix verb (VprefS) and the long prefix verb (VprefL), and how they behave in clause combining. The starting point of his survey is that the verbal system can only fully be understood when seen in the light of how clauses are linked together. Isaksson demonstrates, with numerous examples, how the discourse function of a digression

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

10

Editors’ preface

from the main line of a text is often encoded in the syntax by a shift of grams. He also establishes that the conjunction we/wa is used in both hypotactic and paratactic clause combining to mark a clause as an addition (accompanying action) in relation to a preceding clause. The main part of Isakson's study is devoted to a systematic demonstration of the use of each gram under study, the types of clause combining for which each of them is used, and the diachronic development that each of them has undergone. Based on this, Isaksson is able to establish that the wa-yiqtol syntagm is not a conjugation of its own. There is, he concludes, only one VprefS gram, and this gram may occur in three types of affirmative clauses: Ø-VprefS (modal or indicative), we-VprefS (modal/purposive), and wa-VprefS (indicative). Cohen examines circumstantial expressions at text and sentence level in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho spoken in northern Iraq using a corpus of folk literature. He finds the circumstantial expressions at sentence level to be rather uncomplicated in that they all take the same syntactic slot and may interchange with each other (see table). At text level, different exponents are found expressing circumstantiality. The examples discussed are all opposed to the preterites which stand for narrative events and make up the main line of the story whereas the circumstantial expressions constitute offline information. Retsö puts Sabaean circumstantial clause combining (CCC), and indeed the whole Sabaean verbal system, in a typological Semitic perspective. Starting with an overview and discussion on previous research on the Sabaean verbal system, he proceeds to discuss the relevant semantic relations involved when considering CCC, relating these to the types presented by Dixon (2009) and presenting the morphosyntactic realizations of each of this in the Arabiyya. Retsö’s discussion of the Sabaean verbal system in the light of other Semitic verbal systems, and not the least a comparison with Ugaritic on one hand, and some varieties of modern spoken Arabic on the other, leads him to the conclusion that Sabaean stands out as a fourth type of organization of the verbal system alongside the Akkadian, the Northwest-Central Semitic, and the Ethiosemitic systems. Retsö then proceeds to exemplify the use of the Sabaean verb forms and, specifically, the switch between Vsuff and Vpref and the possible semantic significance of these switches. His examples are taken from three texts representing Old Sabaean, Middle Sabaean, and Late Sabaean respectively and he is able to discern, in these texts, a possible diachronic develop-

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Editors’ preface

11

ment from a lack of formal distinction between main-line and off-line clauses to the use, at least to some degree, of special marking of background clauses. Cohen concludes the volume by a survey of the strategies which are used to express circumstantiality in Old Babylonian Akkadian. Within the clause he finds three strategies: nominals marked by -iššī- and -ūt-, but also an infinitive construction with ina. Circumstantial clause combining seems, however, to be more common than circumstantial expressions within the clause. Here Cohen is able to add to the traditionally recognized stative form also the non-verbal clause in circumstantial use as well as a number of predicative forms (UL IPRUS, ADĪNI UL IPARRAS and LIPRUS). The CCC paradigm is further compared to the background forms in the epic narrative and with the group of forms which occur in the paratactic conditional pattern. This book, as stated above, comprises the results of a research project. Bo Isaksson, in his capacity of initiator and project leader, has directed the process leading to the research results that are presented here. As for the practical work with editing this volume, it has been a joint effort. Uppsala and Lund in February 2015. Bo Isaksson and Maria Persson

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Clause Combining in Arabic dialects

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Linking in Egyptian Arabic Narration Heléne Kammensjö, Uppsala University

1. Introduction 1.1 Aim and frame of reference This paper will examine and describe types of circumstantial clause linking in a corpus of spoken Egyptian Arabic narratives. It is the continuation of an earlier study of circumstantial clauses in modern Arabic fiction prose which formed part of a research project involving more Semitic varieties, see Circumstantial qualifiers in Semitic (Kammensjö 2009; Isaksson et al. 2009). In order to identify circumstantial clauses in the Egyptian Arabic (EA) corpus, the same semantic approach was used as in the above-mentioned project (Isaksson et al. 2009). That is, “instead of examining a predefined set of syntactic structures, we have approached our databases in search of any part of speech that functions as a circumstantial qualifier” (Persson 2009, 207). Such an approach is beneficial because it allows a more holistic view on hypotactic clause linking in Arabic and avoids the trap of simply reiterating details of the so called ḥāl category in prescriptive grammar. The circumstantial clauses will be treated in their capacity to combine with other clauses to form larger units in the flow of discourse. The fruitfulness of such an approach – especially for spoken language – has been pointed out by Halliday (1994; 2004), Matthiessen and Thompson (1988), Fleischman (1985; 1990) and others. As Halliday (1994, 224) puts it: The clause complex is of particular interest in spoken language, because it represents the dynamic potential of the system – the ability to ‘choreograph’ very long and intricate patterns of semantic movement while maintaining a continuous flow of discourse that is coherent without being constructional.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

16

Heléne Kammensjö

In their seminal article, dedicated to the issue of hypotaxis as a discourse phenomenon, Matthiessen and Thompson (1988, 303) make the claim that “clause combination represents rhetorical organization”, meaning that a major function of a clause combination is “to reflect the scoping and structuring of a rhetorical unit in a text”. Rhetorical units consist of a nucleus and a satellite and since the nucleus and the satellite are rhetorically distinct from one another, they can be expected to be grammatically distinct as well, and their asymmetrical relationship to be grammatically marked. Semantically, the hypotactic enhancing clauses are related “circumstantially” to their nucleus, typically fulfilling one of the following functions: temporal, conditional, reason, concessive, purpose, means or manner (Matthiessen and Thompson 1988, 277, 283-84).1 EA circumstantial clauses are usually subtly marked, most often through interlacing (sharing semantic elements) and gram switching (verb form contrasts), sometimes with the addition of a general additive connective, wa ‘and’, followed by an anaphoric pronoun referring to a participant in the main clause. Interlacing and gram switching, however, are general features of hypotactic linking, not markers of semantic relationships, such as temporality or causality. This means that EA circumstantial clauses are ‘unmarked’ for such relationships, which have to be inferred from the context. EA circumstantial clauses, thus, represent the ‘unmarked’ subset of this category which also includes ‘marked’ enhancing clauses (Isaksson, 2009, 3f; Persson 2011). Marked enhancing clauses are typically introduced by a subordinative conjunction to signal their precise relationship to the head clause, i.e. clauses introduced by lamma ‘when’ or ʿašān ‘because; in order to’ (EA). Fleischman’s work (1985) brings verb morphology into the study of clause linking, as a marker of head-satellite relationships, stating: The function of tense forms in narrative is frequently not the basic tense function of temporal reference, which in most narrative forms is 1

Enhancing, as a concept, was first used by Halliday as part of his taxonomy for the expansion of the clause, where it is defined in the following way: “In enhancement one clause (or sub-complex) enhances the meaning of another by qualifying it in one of a number of possible ways: by reference to time, place, manner, cause or condition” (Halldiay 2004, 410). In traditional grammar such clauses are termed adverbial clauses, a term avoided here since it suggests constituency in the main clause.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Linking in Egyptian Arabic Narration

17

established a priori as past. Rather, tense contrasts may be pressed into pragmatic service in the organization of narrative discourse. She shows how tense switching, in particular the use of present tense in past narration, functions in Old French as a strategy for ‘narrative subordination’, or ‘grounding’. It can be shown that Fleischman’s observations of Old French have parallels in Semitic languages (Isaksson 2009, 39-46). So also in Egyptian Arabic narrative, where shifts of verb form across clause junctures are legion and become particularly conspicuous in asyndetic clause linking. In order to allow the whole of predicate morphology into the analysis of the form switch between a circumstantial clause and its main clause, Fleischman’s term “tense switch” has been replaced by gram switch in the present volume. The word gram, borrowed from Bybee et al. (1994, 2) is used in this study for any Arabic verb form, as well as for the zero morpheme of a ‘verbless’ nominal or participle clause.

1.2 Data and transcription The corpus comprises transcribed oral data from three sources: (i) ÄAD = All the narratives and a few procedural texts in Behnstedt and Woidich (1985-1994). These texts are transcriptions of audio-recordings of Egyptian Arabic made in 1976-1985 and represent the language spoken by the rural population in different areas of Egypt. (ii) Gha = Ca. 100 pages of Ghada Abdel Aal’s blog book, ana ayza atgawwaz (I want to get married) (Abdel Aal 2007). (iii) TAK = A number of short, unpublished, Cairene anecdotes, audiorecorded and transcribed by Professor Manfred Woidich who generously lent me both recordings and transcriptions. The bulk of the data, around 700 clause units, have been elicited from the published transcriptions of Behnstedt and Woidich’s Sprachatlas, which, however, only represent rural Egyptian usage, some of it recorded already in the 1970s. In order to provide a more contemporary and urban frame of reference, data sources (ii) and (iii) have been added, comprising around 470 clause units. The transcription follows that of the original although Behnstedt and Woidich use a more allophonic transcription than needed for the present

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

18

Heléne Kammensjö

study. Even punctuation marks have been represented as in the original, since it can be assumed that they mirror real prosodic features in the narration. The original audio-recordings are no longer available. The transliteration of Ghada’s blog book, on the other hand, follows standard phonemic conventions for transcribing spoken Arabic.

1.3 Relevant features of spoken Egyptian Arabic Spoken language obviously differs from written language as a result of a difference in production conditions. Even if spoken language may have its own ‘literary’ conventions, may be planned beforehand for a performance, its main characteristic is that it is produced in the moment, with little time for planning ahead or editing. On the other hand it can afford repetitions and selfamendment as speakers strive to adapt to the situation and their conversation partner. If discourse is both a flow and a hierarchy, the flow aspect becomes so much more conspicuous in spoken language. Spoken language needs expedient strategies in order to make itself clear with as little effort as possible. This may imply leaving implicit whatever can be inferred from context and making use of the principle of adjacency, as a clue to the relationship between clauses. In spoken Arabic there are few connectives as markers of discourse hierarchy and semantic relationships between parts of utterances, with the exception of wa, which is additive but not necessarily coordinating, as can be seen in example (1) below, where the switch from the suffix form in the first clause to participles and a prefix form in the clauses that follow suggests a non-main clause reading of subsequent clauses. (1) gaʿadt aʿayyaṭ yāma baga, wu miš ʿārif amašši wu ggamūsa tintišni wu xayfa ʿawza tmašši. (ÄAD 23:14) sit/continueVs1s SCreamVp1ps so much (exclam particle) then, wa NEG knowPAms walkVp1s wa DEF-buffalow (fem) snapVp3fs-PRON1s wa fearPAfs wantPAfs walk.awayVp3fs

‘I continued to scream a lot then, not being able to walk away while the buffalo cow snapped at me, she was afraid and wanted to get away’ In particular, there are four features in EA narration that render the work of identifying circumstantial clauses particularly difficult, (i) that asyndesis is such a ‘normal’ and widespread type of clause linking; (ii) that stories are often told, using prefix conjugation to describe habits or procedure, or simply to bring narration closer to the moment of speech (‘dramatic present’); (iii)

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Linking in Egyptian Arabic Narration

19

that the present participle plays such an active role in the EA verb system where it functions as the ‘unmarked’ alternative to the tensed forms of the verb; and (iv) that some main clause verbs frequently involved in asyndetic clause linking, are subject to an auxiliation process where they become discourse markers or void tense ‘holders’ as a result of grammaticalization and semantic ‘bleaching’ or loss of semantic content (Hopper and Traugott 1992; 2003). These are predominantly general verbs of motion and posture, such as ʾām, ‘rise; set out’; rāḥ ‘go’; ‘get going’, gih ‘come; set out’ and ʾaʿad ‘sit’; ‘keep doing’. The obvious consequence of features (i) and (ii) is that two of the most common traits of circumstantial clause linking, i.e. asyndesis and verbal gram contrast, become neutralized. One of the most conspicuous consequences of feature (iii) is an increased number of verbal gram distinctions in the EA verb system as compared to Modern Written Arabic, cf. participles in example (1). Feature (iv) results in many borderline cases, where it becomes a question of interpretation whether the main verb has in fact become ‘bleached’ of its semantic content or not. When the grammaticalization process is complete, we are no longer talking of two clauses but one, which contains a composite verb phrase, sometimes containing more than two verbs, as in example (2). The effect of ʾām ‘get up; get going’ is similar to that of the connective phrase (and) then in English. (2) ʾumtı̊ gayyı̊ mṛawwaḥ (ÄAD 8:82) get.upVs1s comePAms go.homePAms

‘and then I went home’

1.4 Notes on the EA participle and the prefix forms The participle, time and aspect Reflecting over the fact that the Arabic active participle (henceforth just ‘participle’) is so common in dialectal Arabic narratives but relatively rare in genres of written Arabic discourse, Brustad concludes that it must be “more strongly associated with the speech act than other verb forms” and this is because “narratives are often present in a way that emphasizes the relevance to the moment of speaking” (Brustad 2000, 182).2 2

The EA passive participle has similar functions as the active participle but is far less common. Besides, most derived verb stems in EA have only one participle form which is formed through addition of mi- to the stem of the prefix conjugation, e.g. mbayyaḍ

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

20

Heléne Kammensjö

The participle clause has mainly a verbal function in spoken Arabic, much like present participle clauses in English, cf. she is coming or I saw her coming. In EA, the participle clause appears mostly in its ‘non-past’ form, that is without the copula kān ‘to be’, e.g. (hu) gāy ‘he’s coming’. In this form, (i.e. when not preceded by a tensed copula verb) it behaves rather ‘chameleonlike’ when it comes to time reference; it appears to be able to replace a main verb of any tense (past, present, or future), cf. ǧāy ‘come’ as a main verb with past time reference in example (3) below. This means that the EA predicative participle forms part of the verb system, without being a tense in its own right, i.e. it does not possess inherent time reference (Brustad 2000, 162-64). (3) fa baʿad ma bāʿu ǧǧiḥš, ǧāy igabbḍ ilfilūs gallhum: (ÄAD 89:8) And.then after sellVs3mp DEF-donkey, comePAms grabVp3ms DEF-money sayVs3ms-PREP-PRON3mp

‘and then after they had sold the donkey, he came to grab the money (and) said to them:’3 The high frequency of the predicative active participle in modern Arabic dialects suggests a process of verbicization at work. Speakers keep choosing this nominal derivative, which (along with the unmarked prefix form) is felt to be the ‘neutral’, more convenient alternative once the time frame has been set by the context. It is not difficult to imagine that the lack of copula in participle clauses may have triggered the reanalysis in spoken Arabic as part of a grammaticalization process. Even when it is preceded by the past tense copula, kān ‘to be’, it looks no different than other compound tense constructions with kān, cf. examples (4) and (5) below.4 (4) il-makana kānat šaġġāla billēl (EAD 102:3b) DEF-engine (f) beVs3fs workPAfs PREP-DEF-night

3

4

(stem II), cf. the following examples from Cairene: iḥna mbayyaḍīn il-ʾōḍa ʾrayyib ‘we have whitewashed the room recently’; il-ʾōḍa mbayyaḍa ‘the room is whitewashed/has been whitewashed’ (Woidich 2006, 83-86). In its grammaticalized meaning, Cairene gih may signify ‘to begin to do’ or to ‘want to do’, of which the latter meaning has been chosen in the German translation “… da wollte er das Geld in Empfang nehmen” (Behnstedt and Woidich, vol. 3II, 1988, 181. See also Woidich (2006, 331f). Brustad (2000, 163) provides an example from a Syrian dialect where the participle has developed a personal conjugation for the second-person feminine which resembles the perfect ti-suffix of the perfect, e.g., šāyəftī la-ʾaḥmad? ‘have you (sg. f.) seen Ahmed?’.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Linking in Egyptian Arabic Narration

21

‘the engine used to be running at night’ (5) il-makana kānat taštaġilu bi-l-layli (MWA or higher style EA) DEF-engine (f) beVs3fs workVp3fs PREP-DEF-night

‘the engine used to be running at night’ Schlonsky (1997, 25-56) makes a similar point concerning the verbicization of the participle in Modern Hebrew, where the participle (Benoni) frequently functions as the main verb encoding present tense, e.g. dani kotev sipurim ‘Dani writes/is writing stories’. Schlonsky interprets this construction syntactically as a compound tense construction consisting of a ‘null’ auxiliary plus participle, saying that “the null auxiliary is an incorporation trigger” which raises the participle to the highest clausal level, where it may function as a fully tensed verb (Schlonsky 1997, 25-57).5 To sum up, the participle in EA (and other Arabic dialects) frequently functions as the main verb of a sentence with past, present, or future time reference. This makes it part of the EA verb system, but precludes it from being a tense form in its own right, i.e. it does not have inherent time reference (Brustad 2000, 162-64). The aspectual value of the participle in spoken Arabic has been discussed by many (Wild 1964; Woidich 1975; Mitchell 1978; Eisele 1990b; 1999; 2006; Brustad 2000, 182ff; Eades and Persson 2013). It will not be possible within the scope of this article to make a definite stand for or against the proposed aspectual nature of the Arabic verb system. In her research review of these matters, covering Arabic dialects from Morocco, Egypt, Syria and Ku5

See also Gordon (1982) for a description of the process of verbicization of the Hebrew participle. In Late Biblical Hebrew it is already possible to discern a reanalysis of the participle towards being an inherently time-referenced verb; in Mishnaic Hebrew the participle functions (with very few exceptions) as the present tense, while it continues to exist in its nominal capacity. In Modern Hebrew the verbal uses of the participle are clearly distinct from its nominal uses, and its present time reference is mutually exclusive to other time references. In Neo-Aramaic the development has advanced even further, to the point where the active and passive participles have completely replaced the old Semitic prefix and suffix conjugations as tense forms and become fully inflected for person. The inflectional suffixes are shortened forms of the independent personal pronouns. Note also that there are peripheral modern Arabic dialects that have developed a personal conjugation for the verbal participle, for instance the Arabic vernacular of Boukhara in Uzbekistan, possibly under influence of Aramaic (Cohen 1984, 270-334; Jastrow 1997, 360-67).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

22

Heléne Kammensjö

wait, Brustad concludes that “the trend in more recent studies has been to view the verb system of spoken Arabic as combining aspect and time reference” (Brustad 2000, 203; Eisele 1990a; 1990b; 1999; Ingham 1994).6 It is obvious that the time reference of the EA participle is relative to the moment of speaking, or to the ‘now’ or ‘then’ of the story. However, the interpretation of its temporal/aspectual function does not solely depend on the context but also on the lexical aspect (Aktionsart) of the verb itself. 7 Participles of some verbs, predominantly action verbs, express resultant states and have anterior time reference while others, predominantly motion verbs and stative verbs are given a co-temporal progressive or habitual reading. To come to grips with the elusive functioning of the EA participle it will thus be necessary to define the interplay between the formal and lexical aspects (or Aktionsart) in the variety, as suggested by Eisele and others. Eisele proposes a rather complex taxonomy of lexical aspect for Cairene Arabic (Eisele 1999, 214-252, 254; 2007, 198). 8 Brustad’s division, adapted from Ingham, is much simpler, using a main division into: state/motion verbs as opposed to action verbs further divided into telic and atelic processes (processes with punctual ending vs open-ended processes) (Brustad 2000, 170172, 202; Ingham 1994, 89-90). Lexical aspect and the participle State/Motion Action

Telic Resultant state Resultant state

Atelic Progressive Progressive

Chart 1: Brustad’s simplified model (2000, 171) 6

7 8

The same view has been put forward concerning Koranic Arabic by Kinberg (1992) and for Classical Arabic by Comrie (1976, 78-81). Comrie concludes, on the basis of Classical Arabic examples taken from Wright (1898) that the difference between the two conjugations is one of aspect and relative tense intertwined. The perfective (suffix conjugation) indicates perfective meaning and relative past time reference, while the imperfective indicates everything else, even a relative past tense in subordinate clauses, as in wa-ttabaʿu mā tatlū l-šayāṭīnu ʿala mulki sulaymāna ‘and they followed what the demons used to recite in Solomons reign’. Cf. Comrie (1976, 6, n. 4). Eisele’s taxonomy of lexical aspect was based on that of Dowty and Vendler from 1979, which in turn was inspired by Aristotelian categories (Eisele 2007, 197).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Linking in Egyptian Arabic Narration

23

According to Brustad’s model (Chart 1), telic verbs in participle form express a resultant state (perfect formal aspect), while the participle of atelic verbs has a progressive reading. Below is an example from the EA data containing a telic action participle, fātiḥ ‘open’ having perfect aspect and anterior time reference followed by two participles, qāʿid mistannīni having atelic lexical aspect, thus generating a progressive reading. The second participle may or may not be taken as an auxilized aspectualizer, in which case it has lost its original meaning ‘sit’ and only signals progressivity, ‘keep doing something’. (6) wu ṛawwaḥtı̊ laqát axūya fātiḥ iddukkān wu qāʿid mistannīni (ÄAD 36:28) wa go.homeVs1s findVs1s brother-PRON1s openPAms DEF-shop wa sitPAms waitPAms-PRON1s

‘I went home and found my brother having opened the shop and (sitting) waiting for me’ Ingham recognizes that some verbs are multivalent, in that they may be both telic (punctual end) and atelic (open-ended action), or inceptive (punctual start) and non-inceptive. The verb read in read a book is telic while read in a book becomes atelic because of the preposition. In Arabic the verb nām ‘sleep’ may be either inceptive, i.e., ‘to fall asleep’ or non-inceptive (and atelic), i.e., ‘sleep’. The same is valid for ʾaʿad ‘sit down’ or ‘be sitting’ and ʿirif ‘get to know’ or ‘know’. Participle aspects may also vary across dialects. While ḏākar ‘study, review a lesson’ has an atelic meaning in Najdi (Ingham 1994, 91), it may be either telic or atelic in Egyptian. When telic, it has a perfect (resultative) interpretation: ʾana mizākir id-dars ‘I have studied the lesson’ (Brustad 2000, 169).

Unmarked and marked prefix forms The ‘unmarked’ prefix form (without bi- or ḥa-) is used for the general continuative or habitual situations in the past and the future (Eisele 1999; Woidich 2006, 273-77). Woidich further reports that the unmarked prefix form can replace the marked prefix forms introduced by bi- or ḥa-, which means that both bi- form and the unmarked prefix form function well in narrative discourse. Apart from its temporal uses, the unmarked prefix form expresses modal meanings, such as directive, optative, potential, prospective, obligative or desiderative meaning (Woidich 2006, 275-77).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

24

Heléne Kammensjö

Woidich describes the meaning of the bi-form of the prefix conjugation (bi-imperfect in his terminology) in non-dependent clauses as the function of the lexical meaning of the verb (Woidich 2006, 280-82). For verbs with nonstative and non-repetitive meaning, the bi-form expresses the present of hic et nunc, e.g., inti lmaṛṛādi btikallimi ṣaḥḥ ‘this time you (f) speak the truth’. For stative or ingressive verbs, including verbs of motion and perception, the active participle is used in this function instead, e.g., ana šāyif ‘I see’. For all lexical verb types the bi-form is used to express repeated, habitual or lasting actions or states, e.g. ikkahṛabaʾiyya btikkallim kida ‘electricians (usually) talk this way’.

2. Types of circumstantial clause linking 2.1 Syndetic and asyndetic linking as division This section lists and comments on the structural types of circumstantial clauses (CC) in the EA corpus, the prototypical together with the less clearcut. The data has been sub-divided into two main categories, syndetic clauses (syndetically joined clauses), appended by means of the general conjunction wa, on the one hand, and asyndetic clauses (asyndetically joined clauses), i.e. conjunction-less clauses, on the other. The latter category also includes a subcategory of desententialized clauses, i.e., participles, adjectives and other substantive nouns that in descriptions of written Arabic are usually categorized as nominal. In EA, however, where participles with verbal function may replace finite verbs in most positions, it is not meaningful to categorize them as nominal phrases. The distinction syndesis/asyndesis is relevant since it also represents an important division between two structural types with differing degrees of dependency on and integration into the main clause. Woidich, acknowledges this tighter clause connection of asyndetic clauses, saying that they function as predicates of the subject/object in the main clause (Woidich 1991; 2006, 397f). Asyndetic hypotactic linking was found to be more than twice as common as syndetic hypotactic linking in the data (800 to 380 instances of circumstantial clause linking). Neither the syndetic or asyndetic circumstantial clauses are unique form classes. Non-definite relative clauses are linked asyndetically. Not even the more clearly marked syndetic circumstantial clause lacks competitors. Clauses beginning with a connective wa plus a thematic noun or

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Linking in Egyptian Arabic Narration

25

pronoun are generally rather frequent in EA, e.g. in non-narrative passages where topicalized clauses form the second half of binary complementary statements. In example (7), the two bracketed clauses could be interpreted as of a lower rank, i.e. as circumstantial hypotactic clauses. With another reading, however, they may be thought of as complementary paratactic coordinations, which is the choice of the German translation.9 (7) iwhib nafsak liyya [w-ana niwhib lik], wu tibʾa inte gōzi, [wu ana miṛātak] (ÄAD 26:34)10 giveIMPms-PRON2ms PREP-PRON1s [wa PRON1s giveVp1s PREP-PRON2ms] wa becomeVp2ms PRON2ms husband-PRON1s, [wa PRON1s wife-PRON2ms]

‘give yourself to me, [as/and I give myself to you], and you become my husband, [as/and I (will be) your wife]’

2.2 Types of syndetic clauses Below, the syndetically linked circumstantial clauses will be examined more closely according to syntactic type, using the predicate as a point of departure.

2.2.1 The prefix form in the circumstantial clause Around one third of the examples of syndetic clause linking in the corpus have prefix verb forms in the circumstantial clause, i.e., either the basic unmarked form, or the marked form, bi-, ḥa- and their variants, as exemplified in (8) to (10) below. Woidich also observes that Cairene circumstantial clause verbs may appear in the marked form of prefix conjugation (1991; 2006, 397). (8) wi onkil disku mitʿalliʾ fi bāba bibūs rās-u [wi bāba yiʾūl-l-u: “iš-šayṭā šāṭir yā ḥāǧǧ Disco”] (GhA 73:5b, Cairo) wa Uncle Disco clingPAms PREP-Dad ASP-kissVp3ms 11 head-PRON3ms [wa Dad sayVpms]-PREP-PRON3ms: DEF-Satan clever VOC-Hajj Disco]

‘and Uncle Disco would be clinging to Dad kissing him on the head [while Dad tells him: “The Devil is a shrewd one, Ḥaǧǧ Disco”]’

9 “Sie sagte zu ihm: Schenk dich mir, und ich schenk mich dir, und dann bist du

mein Mann und ich bin deine Frau” (Behnstedt and Woidich 1987, 189). 10 This example comes from Alexandria, where the verbal prefixes in first person both singular and plural is ni- as in niktib ‘I write’; niktibu ‘we write’. Note the suffix –u to distinguish the plural. 11 ASP = aspectualizer.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

26

Heléne Kammensjö

(9) laGenāhum [wu huṃṃa biyliffu sagāyir ē? wu byišṛábu ḥašīš] (ÄAD 28:39) findVS1P-PRON3mp [wa PRON3mp ASP-roll-Vp3mp cigarettes INT wa ASPsmoke-Vp3mp hashish]12

‘we met them [as they were rolling cigarettes and smoking hashish]’ (10) ya ʿAbd ilʿAl, inta nāyim [w-iḥna hanitfíḍiḥ filbilād] (ÄAD 68:69) VOC-ʿAbd ilʿAl, PRON2ms sleepPAms [wa PRON1p be.shamedFUT-Vp1p PREP-DEF-land]

‘ʿAbd ilʿAl, you sleep [while we are going to be shamed in the land]’ The bi-marked prefix form appears to be the preferred choice for marked simultaneous time reference, cf. example (9). Belonging to a ‘grey zone’ are some clauses showing gram contrast but lacking the normally preposed anaphoric pronoun, cf. example (11). (11) ḥaṭṭaha fkitfu, [w ygūl ēā?] (ÄAD 87:121, Upper Egypt) putVs3ms-PRON3fs PREP-shoulder-PRON3ms, [wa sayVp3ms INT]

‘he put it (the sack) on his shoulder, [saying what?]’

2.2.2 Participle or nominal clause as circumstantial clause Taken together these two related clause types represent around 60 per cent of the total number of syndetic clause linking, the vast majority of them having a suffix form verb in the main clause, cf. example (12). (12) istannū fiṭṭarīg [wa huwwa māši wu ǧārir il-ḥumār] (ÄAD 75:4) waitVs3mp PREP-DEF-way [wa PRON3ms walkPAms wa pullPAms DEFdonkey]

‘they waited for him along the way [as he was walking and pulling the donkey]’ The order of clauses may be reversed, so that the circumstantial clause comes first in the sentence, cf. example (13).13 Or it may be embedded in the main 12 Note that the interrogative particle ēh ‘what’ is used rhetorically and as an ‘empty filler’ in EA oral discourse. 13 Rosenhouse (1978, 229) suggests that the high frequency of CQs (circumstantial qualifiers) preceding their heads has led to that “the division of emphasis/semantic weight between heads and CQs has shifted in favour of the CQs in modern dialects as compared to classical Arabic” (cf. Persson 2009, 275-77). Note that the reversed word order has also been reported by Woidich (2006, 395).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Linking in Egyptian Arabic Narration

27

clause, as in (14), in which case it must be interpreted as operating at the phrase level, as relative clauses do when embedded in the noun phrase. (13) [wu huṃṃa mašyīn] ʾāmu liʾyu gneyh marmi filʾarḍ (ÄAD 53:38) [wa PRON3mp walkPAmp] do.suddenlyVs3mp findVs3mp Pound throwPPms PREP-DEF-ground

‘[as they were walking] they suddenly found a Pound thrown on the ground’ (14) onkil disku da [w-ism-u l-ʾaṣli disūʾi] ṣāḥib bāba min zamān (GhA 72:11) Uncle Disco-DEMms [wa name-PRON3ms DEF-originalADJms Disū’i] friendDad PREP-time

‘this Uncle Disco [his real name is Disouqiyy] has been Dad's friend for ages’ In example (15), word order has been reversed in a way that the subject pronoun precedes the connective, a feature belonging to the dialect area of Upper Egyptian, according to Behnstedt and Woidich (1988, vol. 3II, 320, n. 4). Note also that the head clause is a circumstantial clause on a higher rank. Circumstantial clauses can thus be nested so that they serve both as non-main and main clause in the same clause complex. (15) ṛāḥu yirmaḥu, hūwa yṣawwir fīhum [huṃṃa w ǵaryīn] (ÄAD 111:10) set.offVs3mp runVp3mp, [PRON2mp wa runPAmp]

PRON3ms

photographVp3ms

PREP-PRON2mp

‘they set off running, while he was taking photos of them [as they were running]’ There are some cases lacking a preposed noun or pronoun, cf. example (16). (16) ana baʾēt māši filṃayye [wu xāyif niṭlaḥ fōG]14 (ÄAD 27.2:31) PRON1s beginAUXs1s walkPAms PREP-DEF-water [wa fearPAms ascendVp1p15above]

‘I began walking in the water [fearing to ascend]’ 14 [G] is sometimes used by Behnstedt and Woidich for the phoneme /q/ to transcribe speech from Alexandria and Rosetta where both /q/ and /ǧ/ are sometimes realized as [g], the latter being a Cairene influence (Behnstedt and Woidich 1987, vol. 3I, 177-78). 15 1p used for 1s here.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

28

Heléne Kammensjö

The circumstantial clause in (16) has a causal interpretation, supported by the context. It could of course also be thought of as coordinated to the participle in the main clause, māši, in which case it too refers back to the auxiliary baʾa with a less likely translation as a result: *‘I began walking in the water and was afraid to ascend’.

2.2.3 The suffix form in the circumstantial clause A few circumstantial clauses have been found with their verb in the suffix conjugation, such as example (17) below. Note that it is not entirely clear whether the general action verb ʿamal ‘do’, in this example, is inceptive in meaning or a simultaneous act. (17) atābih Bibbi indāṛa lilġarb, maʿa lfalāyik, [wu rrīḥ ʿamal ʿalī šaṛGi, yiḥallílu ʿalʿAlamēn] (ÄAD 27.3:10)16 oh no Bibbi turnVs3ms PREP-DEF-west, PREP-DEF-feluccas, [wa DEF-wind work/moveVsms PREP-PRON3ms easternADJ, driveVp3ms-PRON3ms PREPʿAlamēn]

‘oh no, Beppi moved to the west, with the feluccas, [since the wind pushed him from the east, driving him towards ʿAlamēn]’

2.2.4 Unusual head types in syndetic circumstantial clauses Note that the head of the circumstantial clause may be a noun phrase, as in (18), or a prepositional phrase, as in (19). The circumstantial clause may also serve as a kind of conclusion after a complex of clauses, as in (20), or it may lack a head clause altogether and instead refer back to the discourse context as a whole, as in (21). (18) wu šwayya [wu Bibbi da gayy] (ÄAD 27.3:16) wa a little [wa Bibbi-DEMms comePAms]

‘after a little while [Beppi came]’ (19) … w-ana sāyabā-hu wāʾif fātiḥ buʾʾ-u zayy ʿamm ʿabd rabbu l-bawwāb [wi huwwa bitfarrag ʿa l-musalsil il-kūri] (GhA 40:13) wa-PRON1s leavePAfs-PRON3ms standPAms openPAms mouth-PRON3ms like Amm Abderrabbu DEF-door keeper, [wa PRON3ms ASP-watchVp3ms PREPDEF-series DEF-CoreanADJms] 16 The expression atābī- with a suffix pronoun is a demonstrative “indicating the discovery of a reason or a fact” (Badawi and Hinds 1986, 5). Note that there is another embedded circumstantial clause in the example: [yiḥallílu] ‘driving…’.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Linking in Egyptian Arabic Narration

29

‘…as I left him standing (there) with his mouth open like Amm Abderrabbu, the door keeper, [when he watches the Korean soap]’ (20) wu lina naṣīb lissa, wu ʿandína ʿiyāl ḥaṛṛabbūhum [wu ṛabbína fbitna] (ÄAD 31:86) Wa PREP-PRON1p share still, wa PREP-PRON1p children FUT-raiseV1pPRON3mp [wa Lord-PRON1p PREP-hous-PRON1p]

‘we still have a share in this life and we have children that we will bring up [the Lord is in our house (is with us)]’ (21) (new paragraph) [w-iḥna kullı̊ -na lissa wāʾfīn ʿa-l-bāb binbuṣṣ li baʿḍ] (GhA 33:5) [wa PRON1p all-PRON1p still standPAmp PREP-DEF-door ASP-lookVp1p PREP-each other]

‘…[and we were all still standing at the door looking at each other]’

2.3 Types of asyndetic clauses In the following, types of asyndetically linked circumstantial clauses will be presented and analysed using the predicate of the circumstantial clause as the point of departure.

2.3.1 The unmarked prefix form in the circumstantial clause This is the most frequent type representing more than half of all examples of asyndetic clause linking found in the corpus. The prototypical and clear case involves a gram switch from the suffix form to the prefix form in the nonmain clause, as in (22).17 (22) umr-aha mā nizilit is-sūʾ [tištari l-xuḍār] (GhA 29:16) Life-PRON3fs NEG go.downVs3fs DEF-market [buyVp3fs DEF-vegetables]

‘In her entire life she has never gone down to the market [to buy vegetables]’

2.3.2 The marked prefix form in the circumstantial clause In the corpus the bi- form (and ḥa-) is common after the verb find or perception verbs, as in example (23).

17 The terms used here, main and non-main clause have been applied by Dixon for the syntactic classification of clauses in his book The semantics of clause linking (Dixon 2009, 4).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

30

Heléne Kammensjö

(23) wi simiʿnā-hu [biyitaḥrig daḥraga razīna giddan] (GhA 36:15) wa hearVs1p-PRON3ms [ASP-rollVp3fs18 rollingVN heavy very]

‘we heard him [tumbling down in a very heavy tumble]’ Thus, the bi- (and ḥa-) modifiers serve to complement the ‘bare’ prefix form in circumstantial clauses, as the marked alternative. The bi-prefix in (23) signals simultaneous progressivity or iterativity, and the ḥa-prefix prospectivity in purpose clauses.

2.3.3 Desententialized clauses as circumstantial clauses The group of desententialized circumstantial clauses in the data are made up of active participles mostly, but some passive participles, adjectives and substantive nouns are also found, as exemplified in (24) to (27) below. They constitute around one fourth of the asyndetic data. The majority of them have the suffix form as main clause verb, often liʾa ‘find’, as in example (24). (24) liʾa xwātu [naymīn], kúlluhum (ÄAD 11:54) findVs3ms brothers-PRON3ms [sleepPAmp], all-PRON3mp

‘he found his brothers [sleeping], all of them’ (25) šāfu ssulūk bitūʿ ilkahṛába [maḥruqīn] (ÄAD 31:87) seeVs3mp DEF-cables of DEF-electricity [burnPPmp]

‘they saw that the electric cables [had been burnt].’ (26) wu ragadit ḥawāli min asbūʿ [ʿayyāna] (ÄAD 73:49) wa lieVs3fs about PREP week [illADJfs]

‘and she lay [ill] around a week’ (27) būki ʿaṭʾāki liyya [hadiyye] (ÄAD 87:164) father-PRON2fs giveVsms-PRON2fs PREP-PRON1s [gift]

‘your father gave you to me [as a gift]’ As a desententialized constituent of the main clause, the adjunct participle belongs to a lower clause rank in the hierarchy of the text than a full clause. The problem of distinguishing it from the full participle clause is that the latter may consist of only one word too, as in gāy? ‘are you coming?’ (Woidich 2006, 248). This is why gāy ʿalēni ‘coming in on us’ in (28) below, may be 18 ASP stands for aspectualizer, meaning the verb modifiying prefix bi- or its equivalent signaling simultaneous progressive or iterative aspectual value.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Linking in Egyptian Arabic Narration

31

interpreted either as a desententialized circumstantial clause, or as an independent/main clause in a series of paratactically arranged participle clauses. (28) ḥassēna bilbaḥr, [gāy ʿalēni], ilbaḥṛı̊ gāy, samʾīnu [gāy] (ÄAD 10:96) noticeVs1p PREP-DEF-sea, [comePAms PREP-PRON1p], DEF-sea comePAms, hearVs1p-PRON3ms [comePAms]

‘we felt/noticed the sea [coming in on us], the sea was coming, we heard it [coming].’ Furthermore, as pointed out in section 1.2, participles mix freely with tensed verb forms in EA narration. The latter interpretation has been the choice in the German translation: “wir spürten die See, sie kam über uns, die Wellen kamen, wir hörten sie kommen” (Behnstedt and Woidich 1987, vol. 3I, 97). When both the main clause and the circumstantial clause have participles, some ambiguous cases arise as a result. Then clause rank will have to be inferred from context, cf. example (29). (29) ilMaḥrūs gayyı̊ [ṣāyid wu mṛawwaḥ] (ÄAD 32:29) DEF-Maḥrūs comePAsm [fishPAms wa go.homePAms]

‘The Maḥrūs (name of the boat - author’s note) came [having been fishing and being on his way home]’ Note that in (29), due to the differing lexical aspects of the verbs, the clauses have different time references; ṣāyid ‘fishing’ has an anterior temporal reference (to the time of the story), resultative (perfect) aspect, whereas murawwaḥ ‘going home’ as a motion verb has simultaneous time reference and is progressive in aspect.

2.3.4 Participle and other nominal clauses as circumstantial clause This is a minor group among the asyndetically linked clauses. Asyndetic participle and clauses with explicit subjects are very similar to syndetic circumstantial clauses, giving the impression that they belong to that category but lost their connective, cf. (30). (30) gēna ʾaṣad Būr Saʿēd, [iḥna naymēn] (ÄAD 10:15) comeVs1p PREP-Port Said, [PRON1p sleepPAmp]

‘we came opposite Port Said, [while we were sleeping]’ Such circumstantial clauses may precede their heads, as in (31).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

32

Heléne Kammensjö

(31) [huwwa dāxil], ligi iǧǧanāyni nāyim (ÄAD 73:82) [PRON3ms enterPAms], findVs3mp DEF.garderer sleepPAms

‘[when he entered/had entered] he found the gardener sleeping’

2.3.5 The suffix form in the circumstantial clause A suffix conjugation verb in the main clause may occasionally combine with a suffix conjugation verb in the asyndetic non-main clause, as in (32). This interpretation is analogous to the construction in examples (24) above, containing the liʾa ‘find’ plus a participle as the circumstantial clauses. In the example, the suffix form has anterior time reference and resultative (perfect) aspect, referring to what happened before the ‘now’ of the story, while it still has a bearing on it. This hypotactic clause may also be interpreted as an asyndetic object complement clause, not unusual in EA (Woidich 2006, 392). (32) laʾēt-u [nizil maʿāya fi nafs il-maḥaṭṭa] (GhA 24:7) findVs1m-PRON3ms [get.downVs3ms PREP-PRON1s PREP-same DEF-station]

‘I found him [having got off with me at the same stop]’

3. Significant gram switching In Chart 2 below, the 800 combinations of asyndetic clause linking included as data have been presented in order to visualize what combinations are technically possible and which ones are in fact exploited. No exact figures for different categories have been given, since there are far too many ambiguous and intermediate examples in the database to justify such a treatment. Only rough proportions can be provided, as indicated by the signs (+), (++) and minus (-), see key of symbols below. The potential for different predicate combinations, as a result of clause linking, is striking. The number of choices and possible combinations and gram-switches, appears to be greater in EA than in written Arabic, which is only natural in view of the fact that the participle in written Arabic plays a less prominent role and that its prefix form has no marked alternative for non-past time reference. Note that main clause verbs of the suffix form attract desentential clauses (usually participles) more often than do main clause verbs of the prefix form. Switches from a suffix form to a prefix form or to a nominal participle, are all in all the most frequent gram switch.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

33

Circumstantial Clause Linking in Egyptian Arabic Narration

Non-main clause Vsuff

Vpref

pVpref

Imp

PCl

NCl

Pa et al.

+

++

+

-

+

+

++

Vpref

(+)

++

(+)

-

+

(+)

+

pVpref

-

+

+

-

(+)

-

+

Imp

-

+

(+)

(+)

(+)

-

(+)

PCl

(+)

+

(+)

-

(+)

(+)

+

NCl

(+)

+

+

-

(+)

+

+

Pa et al.

-

+

(+)

-

(+)

(+)

+

Main clause Vsuff

Chart 2: Clause type combinations in asyndetic circumstantial clause linking in EA corpus Abbreviations and symbols Vsuff Vpref pVpref Imp PCl NCl

Suffix conjugation Prefix conjugation Marked prefix conjugation19 Imperative Participle clause20 Nominal clause

19 This category is composed of what is known as the present or progressive bi-imperfect with its isoglottic variants in rural Egyptian Arabic. It also contains verbs of the prefix conjugation introduced by ḥa- for the future. For the dialectal distribution of the prefix verb modifiers, see Behnstedt and Woidich (1985-1994, vol. 2, maps 219-225); see also Fischer and Jastrow (1980, 227). Woidich (2006, 282): “ʿammāl, meist mit folgenden yImperfekt, druckt Dauer und Intensität individueller Sachverhalte aus. Die Zeitlage ist aktuelle Gegenwart. Es kongruiert… Auch mit bi-Imperfekt oder Partizip kommt es vor, ʿammāla biybuṣṣilh, ʿammāl wāʾif. 20 Participle clauses have been distinguished from nominal clauses although syntactically they represent the same construction. This is because the participle, as described in this study, forms part of the Egyptian verb system in a very marked way.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

34

Heléne Kammensjö

Pa et al. (+) + ++

Participles, adjectives and substantive nouns.21 No occurrences 1-4 occurrences 5-44 occurrences 45 or more occurrences

It is interesting to note that switching from the marked prefix form (pVpref) to the unmarked (Vpref) may indeed function as a rank-shifter, as in example (33) below, in which the narrator describes how he and his newly wedded wife spent their ten days of honeymoon in Alexandria. The past auxiliary kān ‘be’ introduces a series of bi-forms with habitual meaning. There are also three circumstantial clauses marked by gram switches to the unmarked prefix form, which have a relationship of purpose with their heads. (33) da kān ḥaẓẓina nn huwwa ggawwı̊ ḥilw, fa kunna bnuxrug iṣṣubḥı̊ [ninzil ʿala lbaḥṛı̊ šwayya], binitġadda ʿa lbaḥṛı̊ ʾaw binirgaʿ [nitġadda fi lbēt], wi billēl binuxrug [nirūḥ hina fi Skandariyya] ṭabʿan fi Maʾmūra fi malāhi fī maḥaṭṭit iṛṛaml, fī ḥagāt kitīra ʾawi lwāḥid mumkin yitfassaḥ fīha (TAK 12:48-49, Cairo) DEMms beVs3ms luck-PRON1p that PRON3ms DEF-weather nice, so beVs1p ASP-go.outVp1p DEF-morning [go.downVp1p PREP-DEF-sea a little], ASPeat.lunchVp1p PREP-DEF-sea or ASPreturnVp1p [Vp1p PREP-DEF-house], wa PREP-DEF-evening ASP-go.outVp1p [goVp1p LOC PREP-Alexandria] of course PREP-Mamoura in-it amusement parks in it Raml station, in it things manyADJfs very DEF-one possiblePAms go.visitVp3ms PREP-PRON3fs

‘we were lucky that the weather was nice, so we used to leave in the morning [to go down to the sea for a while], we would have lunch on the beach or return [to have lunch at home], and in the evening we would leave [to walk in Alexandria (to…)] of course there is the Mamoura (beach), there are amusement parks, there is the Raml station, there are very many things that you can visit in it (Alexandria)’

21 Includes primarily active participles, but also passive participles, adjectives and substantive nouns, a category here defined as desententialized circumstantial clauses by Lehmann (1988, 193; Isaksson 2009, 52-53). In main clauses, this category is mainly comprised of modal modifiers, frozen in their participlee form, such as lazim andʿāwiz followed by the prefix form, meaning ‘must do’ and ‘wants to do’.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Linking in Egyptian Arabic Narration

35

Switching to a marked prefix form, however, is another story. The distinction between the ‘bare’ prefix form and the bi-form is here, as elsewhere in EA, a distinction of markedness, where the bi-form gives a clearer sense of cotemporality and present progressivity, see 1.4 (Unmarked and marked prefix forms). It has been assumed in this study that the reasons behind gram switching between a main clause and a circumstantial clause - or unmarked hypotactic clause for that matter – are that it functions as marking of dependency and hierarchy in discourse, see 1.1. It is also sensible to think that gram switching plays a less significant role in syndetic circumstantials, since these clauses are already marked through the connective phrase, wa plus anaphoric pronoun initially, e.g. wa huwwa. Since there are also other factors influencing form choices, analysis must combine formal and semantic criteria. It should also be remembered that in one fourth of the collected data there is no gram switching between clauses at all! The general conclusion, however, is that contrasting gram forms between clauses is indeed a sign of clausal rank shift. That is, as long as the verb (the first verb if many) of the circumstantial clause is in its prefix form (unmarked or marked), or the circumstantial clause as a whole is nominal: a desententialized clause (adjunct participle), a participle clause or a nominal clause, cf. examples (22), (23), (24), (12) and (13) above. All forms of the verb system have been documented as main clause grams.

4. Semantic relationships It is the semantic functions of circumstantial clauses in context which makes sense of the bewildering variation in form. Adding the semantic properties to the analysis, including the choice of main clause verb, actually reduces the number of types to a few highly frequent ones, as will be seen below. For instance, the syndetic circumstantial clauses mainly function as temporal subclauses, indicating simultaneity and progressivity. In the data this type represents more than 60 percent of the cases. It is often possible to use the English conjunction ‘while’ in translation. But it may also express logical functions such as consecutive (34), adversative/concessive (35), causal or consecutive (36), as in the following examples.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

36

Heléne Kammensjö

(34) ʾāl: Gūmu ṭʿumu lġazl, [w-ḥna Gaymīn], mahu rrayis bitaʿna baGa (ÄAD 28:20) sayVs3ms: get.upIMPp baitIMPp DEF-net, [wa-PRON1p get.upPAmp], EMPHPRON3ms22 DEF-captain GEN-PRON1p PARTICLE

‘he said: get up and put bait (on the net), [so we stood up], because he was our captain!’ (35) fa ṛṛāǧil dih, masak fiyye, [w ana ma naʿrafūš gablı̊ kidi], fimaḥaṭṭit maṣr (ÄAD 16:18) and.then DEF-man-DEMms, grabVs3ms PREP-1s [wa PRON1p NEG-knowVp1pPRON3ms-NEG before this], PREP-station-Cairo

‘and then this man took hold of me [although we did not previously know each other] at the station in Cairo’ (36) šūf dilgēti ʿala kdih, min ilmiġrib ma-yaṭlaḥš milbēt, [wa hūwa xāyif] (ÄAD 109:23)23 seeIMPms now like this, PREP-DEF-evening.prayer NEG-go.outVp3ms-NEG PREP-DEF-house, [wa PRON3ms fearPAms]

‘see now (the case is) like this, from the evening prayer he has not left the house, [because he fears]’ In the EA corpus are also found what can be described as a classical type of syndetic ǧumla ḥāliyya ‘circumstantial clause’ in traditional Arabic grammar. That is the type of co-temporal clause which describes the state of a participant. Almost all of the syndetic ones were found in the Cairene blog book, cf. example (37). This may be an influence from the written language or simply more common in Cairene than in the rural dialects. (37) ʾaʿad ʾayman ʾuddām-i [wi huwwa xaglān wi bāṣiṣ fi l-ʾarḍ] (GhA 63:17) sitV3ms Ayman PREP-PRON1s [wa PRON3ms shy wa lookPAms PREP-DEFfloor]

‘Ayman sat down in front of me [being shy and looking at the floor]’

22 Emphatic particle 23 The word dilgēti is a variant of of dilwakti ‘now’, used in Upper Egypt (Behnstedt and Woidich 1985, vol. 2, map 181).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Linking in Egyptian Arabic Narration

37

The relationships signaled by asyndetically linked circumstantial clauses are most frequently logical (purpose, prospect), as in example (38), or temporal (simultaneity), as in example (39).24 (38) bigīb il-ʿiyāl ṣiḥāb-u kullı̊ xamīs [yitfarragu ʿa l-xināʾa] (GhA 73:11, Cairo) ASP-bringVp3ms DEF-children friends-PRON3ms every Thursday [watchVp3mp PREP-DEF-fight]

‘he brings the children, his friends every Thursday [to watch the fight]’ (39) wu yugʿud iššāʿir [yiġanni wu ygūl ē?] yifawwit illēli, ʿala ē? ʿala mistáwa kwayyis (ÄAD 15:31) wa sitVp3ms DEF-poet [singVp3ms wa sayVp3ms INT] make.passVp3ms DEFnight, PREP-INT PREP-level goodADJms

‘and the poet sits there [singing and says…] making the night pass at a good level’ A smaller group has a specifying relationship to the main clause, as in example (40). Specifying circumstantial clauses serve to transpose content from a more general to a more specific level in that they define or explain something further. The term has been used by Halliday (2004, 396f). (40) wu dawwaṛ ilgiyād taḥtī. [yigīd bilḥṭab giṭn wu xašab.] (ÄAD 69:1920)25 wa get-goingVs3ms DEF-lightVN underneath. [lightVp3ms PREP-fire wood cotton and wood.]

‘he started to light the fire underneath [lighting with cotton wood and ordinary wood].’ The asyndetic circumstantial clause unit in example (41) makes a predication about one aspect/part of the subject participant in the main clause. This type has been described and exemplified by Woidich who states that these clauses may be either asyndetically or syndetically linked (Woidich 2006, 395-96).26

24 Woidich points out that the purpose function is modal rather than logical, as it involves the intention of the speaker (2006, 397). 25 The punctuation here follows Behnstedt and Woidich (1985-1994, vol. 3II, 92). Note that they have interpreted the two clauses as coordinated. 26 Woidich gives the following example of syndetic linking, gayyı̊ w ʾalbu maḥrūʾ ‘he came with a burnt heart’ (with great sadness).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

38

Heléne Kammensjö

Since there is no gram switch in this example it is a most ambiguous case of circumstantial clause combining. (41) da ṛṛāgil da kwayyis ʾawi, [ṣiḥḥítu kwayyisa] (ÄAD 4:4) DEMsm DEF-man-DEM goodADJms very, [health-PRON3ms goodADJfs]

‘this man is very well, [his health is good]’ A borderline case is also (42) which could also be interpreted as a case of coordinate clause linking, where the specifying circumstantial clause (if it is circumstantial) is negative. This type is obviously very similar to asyndetic relative clauses. (42) idrāʿu yxīb, [ma-yigdaṛš yištaġil] (ÄAD 85:15) arm-PRON3ms be.uselessVp3ms, [NEG-be.able.toVp3ms-NEG workVp3ms]

‘his arm will be useless, [he will not be able to work]’ Note that there are quite a few asyndetic conditional clauses in the corpus, cf. example (43). These, however, are in need of further attention, something that is beyond the scope of this study. (43) taxd ibnu wi wlādu… li-ḥadd ilbīr, maṣarifhum ʿalēk (ÄAD 1:30) takeVp2ms son-PRON3ms and sons/children-PRON3ms.. up.to DEF-well, costsPRON3mp PREP-PRON2ms

‘(if) you take his son and his children… the costs will be on you’

5. Conclusion about Woidich as a point of reference As a point of reference Woidich’s work on circumstantial clauses may be used. It is the most thorough treatment of circumstantial clauses in EA (Woidich 1991; 2006, 394-401). Woidich sees the need for a combined semantic-syntactic approach but does not attempt to answer the question about what really constitutes a circumstantial clause. Neither does he attempt to settle the matter with the ḥāl category of traditional Arabic grammar, but follows its syntactic taxonomy rather faithfully when identifying circumstantial clauses. Woidich presents three structural types adapted from Bloch (1965, 68ff): Type 1: (wa) + subject + predicate Example: ʾallaha [wi huwwa nāzil] ‘he told her [as he went down]’.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Linking in Egyptian Arabic Narration

39

Type 1 is, according to Woidich, the most frequent and “vielseitig” (versatile) type found, representing more than 80% of his data. The predicate of the main clause may be verbal or non-verbal and that of the non-main clause may be verbal or nominal (noun or participle as predicate). The relationship between them may be temporal or modal. Type 2: (wa) + predicate + subject Example: rigiʿ [wi maʿā šanṭa blastik] ‘he came back [with a plastic bag]’ Type 2 is a rather marginal group that could perhaps have been grouped together with type 1, consisting of nominal clauses (copula-less clauses) where the predicate is an adverbial or prepositional phrase and the subject is usually non-definite. Type 3: (main clause) + predicate Example: biyimši [yzukk] ’he walked [limping]’ Type 3 where the circumstantial clause stands in a much tighter relationship with the main clause than that of type 1, both semantically and syntactically because of asyndesis and shared elements. The circumstantial clause may be thought of as a (second) predicate of the subject or object in the main clause. Semantically, the circumstantial clause expands or specifies the meaning of the main clause verb modally. The main clause verb of this type belongs to a restricted semantic class, containing verbs of motion (intransitive or transitive), posture (or situation) or perception (inclusive of verbs for ‘find’ and ‘leave’), e.g. rāḥ ‘go’, miši ‘go; walk’, gih ‘come’; gāb ‘bring’, šāl ‘take’; gaʿad ‘sit’, nām ‘sleep’; šāf ‘see’, lāʾa ‘find’. The question remains as to what motivates the choice of one structural type over another. According to Woidich this question primarily concerns modal circumstantial clauses, since in his view temporal circumstantial clauses would always be syndetic (Woidich 1991, 95). An example of a meaning shift resulting from a choice of structural type are circumstantial clauses preceded by the verb laʾa ‘find’, which acquires a more abstract meaning when followed by an asyndetic circumstantial clause (Woidich 1991, 88), as in laʾētu biyʿayyat ‘I noiced that he cried’ as opposed to laʾētu w huwwa biyʿayyat ‘I found him crying’.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

40

Heléne Kammensjö

It is my view that the reality of circumstantial clauses in modern spoken Arabic is less clear-cut than Woidich’s classification suggests. Such a view is also congruent with the one presented for Gulf Arabic by Persson (2009). The rich variation in form and meaning suggests that circumstantial clauses in Arabic may be treated as a more general category of hypotactic clause linking than is usual in traditional treatments (Isaksson 2009, 3f; Persson 2011). A striking difference between the results of this study and that of Woidich is that his Type 1, roughly the syndetic clauses, amounts to about 80 percent of the data, whereas in this study, asyndetic combinations are twice as frequent as the syndetic ones. This is the result of ‘throwing the net out wide’ and making more use of the semantic context when identifying circumstantial material. With such an approach, it is natural to find more asyndetically linked clauses, since these have less marking to guide the analyst. In addition, asyndesis is a general characteristic of expedient EA story-telling. To summarize the findings for syndetic combinations, the participle circumstantial clauses (and other nominal ones) represent nearly two thirds of the total number, while the rest are clauses containing the prefix form of the verb. The syndetically linked clauses function most often as temporal complement clauses. In the Cairene blog data the syndetic circumstantial clause is a common expression for the state of a participant (subject/object) of the main clause. In addition, logical relationships occur too, such as concessive, causal and consecutive. Also the group of asyndetic clauses is dominated by a few highly frequent patterns, which can be identified through choice of lexical main verb, typically a general transitive or intransitive motion verb, through the semantic relationship of purpose, and through the prefix form of the verb, as in example (22) above. Furthermore, one fourth of the asyndetically linked clauses are desententialized, containing participles mostly and usually preceded by a main clause verb in the suffix form having a meaning of perception or finding, as in example (24) above. Other semantic relationships are temporal, specifying or logical. The asyndetic circumstantial clause combinations are the most intriguing field of study because they open the door to a continuum of gradual clause merger, leading eventually to grammaticalization in ways that will be described below.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Linking in Egyptian Arabic Narration

41

6. Auxiliation and clause merger This and the next section will give a brief description of the processes of auxiliation and clause merger that are relevant to the argument of this study. The line of argument will be based on Lehmann’s theory of clause rank and clause merger, assuming that “the lower the level, the more tightly the subordinate clause is integrated into the main clause” along a continuum of clause integration (Lehmann 1988, 189).

6.1 Auxiliation processes The study of circumstantial clauses inescapably enters an adjacent field of study, namely periphrastic verb constructions containing auxiliaries and main verbs. The route is via the ambiguous or intermediate forms within the area of asyndetic circumstantial clause linking, where mere juxtaposition and verb form contrasts are the only marks of asymmetry in clause rank. Most conspicuously prone to grammaticalization are constructions involving verbs of motion or posture and with a semantic relationship of simultaneity or finality. Grammaticalization processes resulting in new auxiliary verbs, so called auxiliation are well documented in languages generally (Hopper and Traugott 2003, 55-58, 206-207). There are also other asyndetic clause combinations which give rise to ambiguous cases, where the context determines whether there are two clauses or just one, but these will have to be treated in another study. The ambiguous examples typically involve a gram switch so that, in form, they become identical to a circumstantial clause preceded by its head, the main clause. Does rāḥ ‘go’ in example (44) really indicate motion away from a deictic centre, or is it a void discourse marking verb used to express sudden action? Likewise, in example (45) it has to be understood from the context whether the boy actually sat down or whether gaʿad ‘sit’; ‘proceed doing’ is the aspectualizer expressing progressivity. Typical for grammaticalized items in the language is that the old and the new ‘bleached’ meanings continue to exist side by side. (44) ṛāḥ [ḍarbu] bilkaff. (ÄAD 73:82) goVs3ms [hitPAms] PREP-DEF-flat.of.hand

‘he went (over) and slapped him with the flat of his hand’ or ‘and suddenly he slapped him’

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

42

Heléne Kammensjö

(45) ilwalad gaʿad [yifakkar] (ÄAD 24:19) DEF-boy sitVs3ms [thinkVp3ms]

‘the boy sat down to think (it over)’ or ‘the boy was thinking/sat thinking’. The result of auxiliation in EA can perhaps be compared to that in the Scandinavian languages, where independent clauses with the verbs go, come, sit, lie and stand may integrate semantically with the following clause to form one single process and one single clause (Hopper and Traugott, 2003, 206), e.g., Vad står du och tänker på då? ‘What are you (standing there) thinking about then?’ Other frequent EA auxiliary verbs of this kind are fiḍil ‘remain’ > ‘continue doing’; baʿa ‘to remain’ > ‘begin to do’; ‘continue’ > ‘then’; ʾaʿad ‘to sit’ > ‘to keep doing’. Once the function of a lexeme has changed, as its semantic content has been reduced, there is usually also a gradual reduction in form in grammaticalization processes generally. In EA we can see such tendencies, for instance in the undeclined ʾām. Even the verb baʾa ’remain; be, become; begin; then’ has been grammaticalized into a general discourse marker or “filler” with the undeclined form baʾa or yibʾa, as in muš hatiʾdar timši yibʾa ‘you will not be able to go then’. Note that the different functions of baʾa coexist in the language (Woidich 2006, 325).27 In their ‘bleached’ form, the above mentioned motion verbs, rāḥ, ʾām (qām), and gih, function more like discourse markers, something like ‘pacemakers’, leading the story on in a rhythmic way. In this function they are perhaps not translatable at all, or perhaps a compound connective, like ‘and then’ or ‘and suddenly’ may be used in translation. Woidich, who has done the most thorough analysis of asyndetic verb phrases in Cairene, says that periphrases with ʾām, rāḥ and gih serve to give the text structure, as they bind together dynamic situations (Woidich 2002; 2006, 329). Brustad calls the auxiliary motion verbs ‘narrative contour verbs’, “since, as a group, they seem to mark twists and turns of narrative events” (Brustad 2000, 192-202). As regards the participles which so often succeed ām and rāḥ, their use has been documented in Syrian and Kuwaiti Arabic as well. Brustad compares them to

27 Note also the development in EA of rāḥ and ʿimil ‘do’ having taken a further step

and become clitic tense/aspect markers, the former (as rāyiḥ or indeclinable rāḥ) for future tense and the latter (as ʿammāl- or ʿa-) for present progressive as a variant of the bi-prefix, e.g. laʾētu […] ʿammāl yiliff ‘I saw him turning’ (TAK 4:64, Cairo).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Linking in Egyptian Arabic Narration

43

the Mandarin perfect particle which is used to signal what has just happened or what is about to happen, as described by Li, Thompson, and Thompson (1982, 36). Thus the participle of verbs – yielding perfect aspect – is very much suitable “to highlight sudden or important plot events” (Brustad 2000, 199).

6.2 A general framework for clause linking Elaboration

Compression

Parataxis Sentence Clause Lexical verb Clauses disjunct Syndesis

(Downgrading of subord. cl.) (Syntactic level) (Desententialization) (Grammaticization of predicate) (Interlacing) (Explicitness of linking)

Embedding Word Noun Grammatical affix Clauses overlap Asyndesis

Lehmann 1988, 217 Chart 3: Lehmann’s framework for a typology of clause linkage One of the conclusions of this study is that the bewildering diversity of form in EA circumstantial clause linking ought to be handled with some sort of multi-variable tool. As I see it, Lehmann (1988) provides a framework that could satisfy this need. Its aim is to survey the most important aspects of complex sentence formation in languages around the world. Its clause concept is defined as containing one predication and the linking between clauses as “a relation of dependency or sociation”. As shown in Chart 3, the framework consists of six variable parameters, all subsumed under the headings elaboration at one pole of the continuum and compression at the other. The variables are interdependent, but not in an absolute way, e.g., there are asyndetically linked clauses that show no trace of reduction. On the left of the continuum, a clause complex is made up of two clauses that are maximally elaborated, i.e., independent full clauses that are syntactically equal. They are linked by a connective giving explicit information of the semantic relationship. To the right of the continuum the complex likewise consists of two clauses, but here one is a reduced predication, governed by

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

44

Heléne Kammensjö

and embedded in the main clause. It is on a low syntactic level, strongly nominalized and interlaced with the main predication, lacking specific information on the semantic relationship. The six parameters are described as follows:

1. Hierarchical downgrading Degrees on an axis running from parataxis (independence) to embedding (dependence, constituency). Lehmann (1988, 183-84) exemplifies six degrees using different languages, here represented by English, Latin and glosses (for Hittite Australian Walbiri and Kobon from PNG).

2. Syntactic level Pertaining to the main clause: levels between the morpheme and the paragraph. Advanced hierarchical downgrading of a subordinate clause implies a low syntactic level, but the opposite may not be true.

3. Desententialization Nominalization of the main verb and reduction process where the clause loses the properties of a clause. These properties are typically: illocutionary force, mood, tense, aspect, actants and circumstants. The subject tends to be put in the form of the possessive, see Lehmann’s chart, Lehmann 1988, 200). Chart 4 exemplifies two degrees of desentialization in English, note the possessive form of the actant in (ii).

Sententiality (i) She objected to [his constantly reading magazines]

(ii) She objected to [his constant reading of magazines]

Lehmann 1988, 200 Chart 4: Degrees of desententialization

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Linking in Egyptian Arabic Narration

45

4. Grammaticalization Main clause verb grammaticalized into auxiliary to verb in dependent clause.28 The whole sentence ceases to be syntactically complex as two clauses merge into one, sometimes with a new word order as a result. The former subordinate verb becomes the main verb (perhaps only semantically to start with) and the former main verb becomes its modifying operator, at an advanced stage to an undeclined clitic or a mere affix, as fecit in Miles picem fervefecit ‘the soldier boiled the pitch’ (fervere ‘to glow’; facere ‘to do’) (Lehmann 1988, 202).

5. Interlacing Semantically, two clauses share elements of meaning, such as actants, predicates, tense and aspect. Syntactically, these elements are not specified, e.g., tense is only marked in the main clause from which the non-main borrows its tense value. The interlacing of actants, may be marked by anaphora pronouns (cf. Arabic syndetic circumstantial clauses).

6. Explicitness of linking (syndesis vs asyndesis) In natural unpretentious text (spoken or written), Lehmann believes that “the explicitness of the linking device is adjusted to the size of the entities linked”: large units of text needs explicit linking whereas for smaller units the implicit relationship becomes “sufficiently clear from the mere adjacency” (Lehmann 1988, 211). The most interesting point concerning Lehmann’s framework is that it includes desententialization and grammaticalization (auxiliation) into the system. These phenomena are presented as interdependent ways of reducing a complex sentence to a simple one: (1) to desententialize the subordinate clause; (2) grammaticalize the governing verb, turning it into an affix which modifies the meaning of the semantically subordinate verb. “In both cases, the subordinate verb becomes a constituent of the main clause: in the first case, a dependent one, in the second case, its main verb” (Lehmann 1988, 204). The spectrum of clause linking in EA could be presented according to Chart 5 below.

28 “Grammaticalization is a diachronic process and a synchronic continuum which lead from lexical to grammatical items” (Lehmann 1988, 201). This particular type of grammaticalization is termed auxiliation in this study, see 4.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

46

Heléne Kammensjö

Elaboration Syndetic CC (anaphoric pronoun)

Compression Asyndetic CC

Participle CC

Auxiliated main clause verb

Chart 5: Arabic types of clause linking along a cline of elaborationcompression.

6.3 Conclusions In an earlier study on Modern Written Arabic, I presented a theory along similar lines as that presented here, making use of some examples from Halliday (Kammensjö 2009, 195-98); Halliday 1994, 241). The idea then too, was that gradual integration of the non-main clause (notably circumstantial clauses) into the main clause correlates with a gradual loss of independence and grammatical information. The drive towards integration and merger comes from the speaker’s need to control the packaging of information to give the story a desired ‘pace’, since “clause combination represents rhetorical organization”, that is “the scoping and structuring of a rhetorical unit in a text” (Matthiessen and Thompson 1988, 303), see 1.1. In written language, clause compression may involve a drive towards economy. In oral narration, which of course is audible, the factors of pace or rhythm naturally play a greater role. Lehmann describes clause linking as being affected by two opposing forces, the first acting towards “the elaboration of a phrase into a more fully developed construction which contains its own predication with all the accessories (…)”. The opposing force acts towards ”the compression of a full-fledged clause to a nominal or adverbial constituent of a matrix clause” (Lehmann 1988, 216-17). The phenomenon of gram switching offers a clause internal, morphologybased marker of clause rank, which makes asyndetic constructions highly economical in terms of effort. Thus, asyndetic clause linking becomes a favoured device of construction. And with such widespread asyndesis, auxiliation processes can easily get started. The typical case is represented by clause combinations where the main verb belongs to the semantic class of general motion and posture, such asʾām ‘rise; set out’, rāḥ ‘go’ and gih ‘come’ in addition to ʾaʿad ‘sit’. From the EA data it is now possible to conclude that

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

47

Circumstantial Clause Linking in Egyptian Arabic Narration

asyndetic clause linking is a primary zone for the kind of grammaticalization that works across clause boundaries and results in desententialization and clauseal integration (Persson 2010; 2013). Gram switching is also exploited as a meaning-making tool in the verb phrase resulting from auxiliation, as illustrated by Woidich in Chart 6 below. V1 Perfekt Imperfekt Akt. Partizip Imperative

V2 Perfekt + – – –

V2 Akt. Partizip + + + –

V2 y-Imperfekt + + + –

V2 Imperativ – – – +

Chart 6: Gram combinations in periphrases with ʾām, rāḥ and gih (Woidich 2006, 329)29 Chart 6 illustrates Woidich’s findings regarding gram combinations in asyndetic verb phrases in EA. It shows that whenever the first verb is a perfect (the suffix form), the second verb may take anyone of three forms, the suffix form, the participle or the prefix form. If, however the first verb is an imperfect or an active participle the second verb may be either one of these two grams. If the first verb is an imperative, the second one has to be an imperative too. The distribution of combinations coincides with those documented in the present research. They also roughly coincide with the gram switching patterns documented in hypotactic asyndetic clause combinations, with the exception of imperative main clause verbs being followed by a prefixed verb in the circumstantial clause, rather than another imperative. In the present corpus, the most frequent verbal gram contrast involves a general verb of motion, such as rāḥ plus a participle. However, in circumstantial clause linking the desententialized adjunct participle is mostly used after verbs of perception or finding, as in (24) above. Only rarely would they be preceded by an intransitive verb of motion. This means that there is no one-toone correspondence in patterns of verb form contrast between circumstantial clause boundaries and the verb combinations in grammaticalized periphrastic structures. The participle is used as the main verb in these verb combinations and as such borrows its time reference from the auxiliary. It functions rather 29 V1 = first verb in verb phrase; V2 = second verb in verb phrase.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

48

Heléne Kammensjö

as the English infinitives do in similar positions. The verbicization of the EA participle where it is frequently used as a main verb may have triggered a development where the syntactic ‘main verb’ becomes superfluous and thus available for other functions, such as auxuilary and discourse markers of sequence in the storyline. As suggested above, there must, of course, be a drive in the opposite direction too, towards increased informativity and independence, in this context represented by the syndetic circumstantial clause linking which is marked off from the main clause through the connective wa plus an anaphoric pronoun.

Summary This contribution reports on the types of circumstantial clause linking found in a corpus of spoken Egyptian. It is similar to an earlier study of circumstantial clauses in modern Arabic fiction prose which formed part of a research project involving more Semitic varieties, see Circumstantial qualifiers in Semitic (Kammensjö 2009; Isaksson et al. 2009). The circumstantial clauses are treated in their capacity to combine with other clauses, to make up larger units in the flow of discourse. The fruitfulness of such an approach – especially for spoken language – has been pointed out by Halliday (1994; 2004), Matthiessen and Thompson (1988); Fleischman (1985; 1990), and others. EA circumstantial clauses are usually subtly marked, most often through interlacing (sharing semantic elements) and gram switching (verb form contrasts), sometimes with the addition of a general additive conjunction, wa ‘and’, followed by an anaphoric pronoun referring to a participant in the main clause. Interlacing and gram switching, however, are general features of hypotactic linking, not markers of semantic relationships, such as temporality or causality. This means that EA circumstantial clauses are ‘unmarked’ for such relationships, which have to be inferred from context. EA circumstantial clauses, thus, represent the ‘unmarked’ subset of enhancing hypotactic clauses, also including ‘marked’ enhancing clauses (Isaksson, 2009, 3f; Persson 2011). Marked enhancing clauses are typically introduced by a subordinating conjunction to signal their precise relationship to the head clause, i.e. clauses introduced by lamma ‘when’ or ʿašān ‘because; in order to’ (EA). The corpus is composed of transcribed oral material from Behnstedt and Woidich (1985-1994); Ghada Abdel Aal (2007) (blog book), and Woidich (2010). Altogether around 1170 clause units were elicited from these sources

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Linking in Egyptian Arabic Narration

49

for the purpose of this study. The data has been divided into two main categories, syndetic clauses (syndetically joined clauses), appended by means of general conjunction wa, on the one hand, and asyndetic clauses (asyndetically joined clauses), i.e. conjunction-less clauses, on the other. The latter category also includes a sub-category of desententialized clauses, i.e. participles, adjectives and other substantive nouns that in descriptions of written Arabic are usually categorized as nominal. Asyndetic hypotactic linking was found to be more than twice as common as syndetic hypotactic linking in the data (800 to 380 instances). Neither the syndetic nor asyndetic circumstantial clauses are unique form classes. Among the syndetic combinations, the participle circumstantial clauses (and other nominal clauses) represent nearly two thirds of the total number, while the rest are clauses containing the prefix form of the verb. The syndetically linked clauses function most often as temporal complement clauses. In addition, logical relationships occur to, such as concessive, causal and consecutive. The group of asyndetic clauses is also dominated by a few highly frequent patterns, which can be identified through the choice of lexical main verb, typically a general transitive or intransitive motion verb, through the semantic relationship of purpose, and through the prefix form of the verb. One fourth of the asyndetically linked clauses are desententialized, usually preceded by a main clause verb in the suffix form having a meaning of perception or finding. Other semantic relationships are temporal, specifying or logical. The asyndetic circumstantial clause combinations are the most intriguing field of study because it opens onto a continuum of gradual clause merger, leading eventually to grammaticalization. Following Fleischman (1985; 1990) who showed that tense switching in Old French functions as a strategy for ‘narrative subordination’ it has been assumed in this study that gram switching between a main clause and a circumstantial functions as a marker of dependency and hierarchy in discourse. However, since there are also other factors influencing form choices, analysis must combine formal and semantic criteria. It should also be remembered that for around one fourth of the collected data there is no gram switching between clauses at all! The general conclusion, however, is that contrasting gram forms between clauses is indeed a sign of clausal rank shift. That is, as long as the verb (the first verb if many) of the circumstantial clause is in its prefix form (unmarked or marked), or the circumstantial clause as a whole is nominal: a desententialized clause (adjunct participle), a participle clause or a nominal clause. The phenomenon of gram switching offers a clause internal, morphol-

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

50

Heléne Kammensjö

ogy-based marker of clause rank, which makes asyndetic constructions highly economical in terms of effort. Thus, asyndetic clause linking becomes a favoured and device of construction. And with such widespread asyndesis, auxiliation processes can easily get started. From the EA data it is now possible to conclude that one zone of change towards further desententialization and integration is hypotactic asyndetic linking, where certain main clause verbs are moving towards auxiliation. The typical case is represented by clause combinations where the main verb belongs to the verb classes of motion and posture verbs, such asʾām ‘rise; set out’, rāḥ ‘go’ and gih ‘come’ in addition to ʾaʿad ‘sit’ and the circumstantial clause containing a prefix verb or a participle. The predilection of participles as main verb may have triggered a development where the ‘main verb’ becomes superfluous and thus be available for other functions, such as discourse markers of turns in the storyline. There is of course a drive in the opposite direction, towards increased informativity and independence, resulting in the syndetic circumstantial clause linking which is marked off from the main clause through the connective wa plus a anaphoric pronoun. One of the conclusions of this study is that the bewildering diversity of form in EA circumstantial clause linking ought to be handled with some sort of multi-variable tool. Lehmann (1988) provides a framework that could satisfy this need. His framework consists of six variable parameters, all subsumed under the headings elaboration at one pole of the continuum and compression at the other. The variables are interdependent, but not in an absolute way, e.g. there are asyndetically linked clauses that show no trace of reduction. The most interesting point concerning Lehmann’s framework is that it includes desententialization and grammaticalization (auxiliation) in the system. These phenomena are presented as interdependent ways of reducing a complex sentence to a simple one: (1) to desententialize the subordinate clause; (2) grammaticalize the governing verb, turning it into an affix which modifies the meaning of the semantically subordinate verb. “In both cases, the subordinate verb becomes a constituent of the main clause: in the first case, a dependent one, in the second case, its main verb” (Lehmann 1988, 204).

References Abdel Aal, Ghada. 2008. ʿayza atgawwaz (I want to get married). Cairo: Dar Al Shourouk.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Linking in Egyptian Arabic Narration

51

———. 2010. I want to get married. Transl. from Arabic by Nora Eltahawy. Center for Middle Eastern Studies, U. of Texas, Austin. Badawi, Elsaid, and Martin Hinds. 1986. A dictionary of Egyptian Arabic. Beirut: Librairie du Liban. Badawi, Elsaid, Michael G. Carter, and Adrian Gully. 2004. Modern written Arabic: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. Behnstedt, Peter, and Manfred Woidich. 1985-1994. Die ägyptisch-arabischen Dialekte. 4 vols. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des vorderen Orients, series B, 50/1-4. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert. Bloch, Ariel. 1965. Die Hypotaxe im Damaszenisch-Arabischen mit Vergleichen zur Hypotaxe im Klassich-Arabisch. Mit Vergleichen zur Hypotaxe im KlassischArabischen. AKM 35:4. Wiesbaden. Brustad, Kristen E. 2000. The syntax of spoken Arabic: A comparative study of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian, and Kuwaiti dialects. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Cohen, D. 1984. La phrase nominale et l'évolution du système verbal en sémitique. Études de syntaxe historique Paris. Société de Linguistique de Paris. Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. ———. 1985. Tense. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Dixon, R. M. W. 2009. “The semantics of clause linking in typological perspective”. In The semantics of clause linking: A cross-linguistic typology, edited by R. M. W. Dixon and A. Y. Aikhenvald, 1-55. Oxford University Press. Eades, Domenyk, and Persson, Maria. 2013. “Aktionsart, word form and context: On the use of the active participle in Gulf Arabic dialects.” Journal of Semitic Studies 58 no. 2: 343-67. Eisele, John C. 1990a. “Time reference, tense, and formal aspect in Cairene Arabic.” In Perspectives on Arabic linguistics I, edited by Mushira Eid, 173-212. Current issues in linguistic theory 72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ———. 1990b. “Aspectual classification of verbs in Cairene Arabic.” In Perspectives on Arabic linguistics II, edited by Mushira Eid and John McCarthy, 192-233. Current issues in linguistic theory 72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ———. 1999. Arabic Verbs in Time: Tense and aspect in Cairene Arabic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

52

Heléne Kammensjö

Fleischman, Suzanne. 1985. “Discourse functions of tense-aspect oppositions in narrative: Toward a theory of grounding.” Linguistics 23 no. 6: 851-882. ———. 1990. Tense and narrativity: From medieval performance to modern fiction. Croom Helm romance linguistics series. London: Routledge. Reprint, 2002. Gordon, A. 1982. “The development of the participle in Biblical, Mishnaic, and Modern Hebrew.” Afroasiatic Linguistics 8, no. 3: 121-179. Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985, 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. 2nd ed. London: Arnold. ———. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar. Edited by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 3rd rev. ed. London: Arnold. Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth. 1993, 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ingham, Bruce. 1994. Najdi Arabic: Central Arabian. London Oriental and African Language Library. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Isaksson, Bo. 2009. “Introduction” and “An outline of comparative Arabic and Hebrew textlinguistics.” In Circumstantial qualifiers in Semitic: The case of Arabic and Hebrew, edited by B. Isaksson, 1-35 and 36-150. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Jastrow, Otto. 1997. “The Neo-Aramaic languages.” In The Semitic languages, edited by Robert Hetzron, 334-377. London: Routledge. Kammensjö, Heléne. 2009. “Circumstantial Qualifiers in contemporary Arabic prose with a view to understanding variation.” In Circumstantial qualifiers in Semitic: The case of Arabic and Hebrew, edited by B. Isaksson, 151-205. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Kinberg, Naphtali. 1992. “Semi-imperfectives and imperfectives: A case study of aspect and tense in Arabic participal clauses.” Lingua 86: 301-330. Lehmann, Christian. 1988. “Towards a typology of clause linkage.” In Clause combining in grammar and discourse, edited by J. Haiman and S. Thompson, 181-225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Li, Charles N., Sandra A. Thompson, and R. McMillan Thompson. 1982. “The discourse motivation for the perfect aspect: The Mandarin particle le.” In TenseAspect: Between semantics and pragmatics, edited by Paul Hopper, 19-44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Matthiessen, Christian, and Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. “The structure of discourse. and ‘subordination’”. In Clause combining in grammar and discourse, edited by John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson, 275-329. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Linking in Egyptian Arabic Narration

53

Mitchell, T. F. 1978. “Educated spoken Arabic in Egypt and the Levant, with special reference to participle and tense.” Journal of Linguistics 14: 227-258. Persson, Maria. 2009. “Circumstantial qualifiers in Gulf Arabic dialects.” In Circumstantial qualifiers in Semitic: The case of Arabic and Hebrew, edited by Bo Isaksson, 206-289. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2010. Asyndetisk satsfogning i gränslandet mellan omständighetssatser, hjälpverb och parallellism. (Asyndetic clause combining at the borders between circumstantial clauses, auxiliaries, and parallellism.). Paper presented at Semitiska seminariet, Uppsala University, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, 7/12 2010. ———. 2011. “Circumstantial clause.” In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics Online, ed. by L. Edzard and R. de Jong. Leiden, Boston: Brill. ———. 2013. “Asyndetic clause combining in Gulf Arabic dialects. Auxiliary, adverbial and discourse. functions.” Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 57: 5-39. Rosenhouse, Judith. 1978. “Circumstantial clauses in some Arabic dialects.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 128: 227-36. Schlonsky, Ur. 1997. Clause structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic: An Essay in Comparative Semitic syntax. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wild, Stefan. 1964. “Die resultative Funktion des aktiven Partizips in den syrischpalästinischen Dialekten des Arabischen.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 114: 239-254. Woidich, Manfred. 1975. “Zur Funktion des aktiven Particips im KairenischArabischen.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 125: 27393. ———. 1991. “Die Formtypen des Zustandssatzes im Kairenischen.” Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 23: 66-98. ———. 2002. “Verbalphrasen mit asyndetischem Perfekt im Ägyptisch-Arabischen.” Estudios de Dialectología Norteafricana y Andalusí 6: 121-92. ———. 2006. Kairenisch Arabisch: Eine Grammatik. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. ———. 2010. “Texte aus Kairo.” (unpublished CDs and transcriptions of 17 texts).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic: A scale of markedness Maria Persson, Lund University

1. Introduction In the proceedings of the International Symposium on Clause Linking in Semitic Languages that took place in Kivik, Sweden, 5-7 August 2012, I presented data that puts the concept of circumstantial clauses in Arabic into question (Persson, 2014a).1 The analysis led to the conclusion that there is, in the hypotaxis of spoken Syrian Arabic of the 1950s, a scale of markedness ranging from no other marking than context and/or intonation, i.e. no hypotaxis in syntactic terms, 2 to the use of specific subordinating conjunctions. On this scale, ‘gram switching’ plays an important role as a general, non-specific marker of a digression from the main line of a discourse or the main clause of a clause combination (cf. Fleischman 1990; Givón 2001, 299). The term ‘gram switching’ has been developed from the observation, made by Joan Bybee and Östen Dahl (1989), that grammatical morphemes, for which they coined the term ‘gram(s)’, play a crucial role in signalling grammatical and discourse structure as well as temporal and aspectual relations. Inspired by Fleischman’s observation, Isaksson (2009b, 121-122) noted a high frequency of switching from one verb form to another in hierarchical clause combining in Biblical Hebrew. He discerned that the use of different verb forms in two combined clauses constitutes a general way of marking clausal relations. This device he labelled ‘gram switching’. Subsequent studies in Arabic have shown that gram switching as a syntactic marker is not unique to the Biblical Hebrew 1 The study supported similar findings in modern urban Gulf Arabic data (Persson, forthcoming). 2 This may sound like a contradiction in terms. However, the possibility of marking clause hierarchy in other ways than syntactic must be taken into consideration when analysing spoken language.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

56

Maria Persson

texts in which it was first recognized. That a switch between verb forms exists in circumstantial clause combining, i.e. the coincidence of a verb form switch and circumstantial clause combining, has been noted before (e.g. Addeweesh 1985, 86-87; Fischer 2002; Premper 2002, 17-27). However, its pivotal role as an independent grammatical marker has, to my knowledge, not previously been recognized. This is somewhat surprising considering that gram switching in Arabic and Hebrew, specifically a switch of verb forms, may not only supplement marking through other devices, such as conjunctions, but often functions as the sole marker of hypotaxis (Isaksson 2011; 2013; Isaksson, Kammensjö, and Persson 2009; Persson 2014a; forthcoming). The recognition of a scale of markedness, and of general strategies for nonspecific marking of clause hierarchy, leads to a deeper understanding of the function and structure of non-main clauses in Arabic dialects and sheds new light on the widespread use of asyndetic clause linking in colloquial Arabic. Analyses of such linking have been presented elsewhere (Persson 2013; 2014a). Furthermore, the results of the study presented in Persson (2014a) have, as mentioned, led to a questioning of the existence of circumstantial clauses as a relevant syntactic category within Arabic non-main clauses. The different types of clauses which, based on formal criteria, have been thought by various scholars to be circumstantial were shown to be part of a larger system of encoding non-main clause linking. Thereby, the problem of finding a coherent syntactic definition of an assumed class of circumstantial clauses has been resolved, at least in the data under consideration. The results of the study, together with previous research on modern Gulf Arabic and Biblical Hebrew, have disclosed a need for a re-analysis of non-main clause linking in Semitic in general. This volume is one endeavour towards that end. Nonetheless, the term “circumstantial clauses” will be used here as there is no reason to question the relevance of talking of circumstantial clauses in semantic terms. Clauses that qualify other clauses circumstantially do exist as a semantic category. What is put into question is the circumstantial clause as a valid syntactic category. Through a discussion, based on examples from the database, of clauses with the semantic function of circumstantially qualifying other propositions, I will assess the validity of the concept of ‘circumstantial clause’ in Damascene Arabic of the 1950s. Furthermore, I will demonstrate the systematic use of gram switching as a syntactic marker of hypotaxis in Arabic. Similar studies of modern urban Gulf Arabic presented in Persson

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

57

(forthcoming) are thus supplemented by older data from a different Arabic dialect. In the first part of this presentation, (3. Formal coincidence in Arabic nonmain clause linking), I survey ways in which non-main clauses that circumstantially qualify other clauses coincide, in terms of syntactic form, with clauses that serve other functions in relation to their main clauses. This section, in other words, gives examples of cases of ambiguity: cases where the same syntactic structure may be interpreted as either a circumstantial qualification or something rather different. The discussion in this section discloses general strategies of non-main clause linking which are, subsequently, discussed in the next section, (4. Gram switching), where a possible disambiguating function of gram switching in the previously discussed clauses is evaluated. Finally, the formal types of circumstantial clauses suggested by Bloch (presented in 2.3 Bloch 1965) are discussed in the light of the role played by gram switching. The survey further supports the theory, presented in Persson (2014a), of a scale of markedness where gram switching plays a pivotal role. Depending on the speech situation or the speaker’s preferences, a non-main clause may be left unmarked at the syntactic and morphological level, marked with a gram switch, or doubly marked by both a gram switch and a conjunction. Gram switching, hence, is found to be a marker of non-main clause linking in general. What have been labelled circumstantial clauses in various descriptions of Arabic grammar are, to a large extent, clauses where non-main clause linking is marked in this vague way. The (semantic) function of the clause; whether it is expressing the condition, cause, consequence, interpretation, time, place, manner, and so forth, of the head, is not made explicit in the clause structure. Circumstantial clauses, thus, do not constitute a distinct grammatical class of clauses. Rather, they belong to the said overarching system of hypotaxis with non-specific marking, i.e. where the existence of non-main clause is signalled, but the type of non-main clause is not specified. The same clause types, the same syntactic forms, are used for more than one function. Within this system of hypotaxis, gram switching emerges as significant marker of the relationship between clauses.3

3 For a more extensive discussion, see Isaksson et al. (2009).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

58

Maria Persson

2. Definitions, scope and previous research 2.1 General definitions and scope Neither Arabic grammars, nor general works on clause combining contain a unified, established, definition of the term “circumstantial”. Thompson, Longacre, and Hwang (2007) count “circumstantial clauses” as one specific type among the “adverbial clauses” they describe. These are broadly described as “clauses expressing the circumstances by which a given state of affairs comes to be” (2007, 253). They are, however, in the next sentence, restricted to such clauses as those that, in English, are introduced by by and without followed by the participial form of the verb. Lichtenberk (2009, 259), in his description of clause linking in Toqabaqita, speaks of “attendant circumstances” and vaguely states that in such clauses, “the Supporting clause expresses a characteristic or a circumstance of the state of affairs expressed in the Focal clause, as relating to one (set) of the participants”.4 Premper (2002, 20-21) notes that some of the definitions found in grammars of Arabic are rather “complementary” and cites Beeston who includes most of the “adverbial clauses” surveyed by Thompson, Longacre, and Hwang except the conditionals: The logical relationship between the main proposition and the circumstantial one is highly variable: the circumstantial clause may be purely temporal, or adversative (…), or explanatory (…). But there is an unsophisticated lack of overt marks of the logical intention. (Beeston 1970, 89) Thompson, Longacre, and Hwang (2007, 237-243) also mention that clause linking in some cases or languages may be a matter of juxtaposition of clauses. The semantic relationship between the clauses in such linking is not explicitly marked but inferred from the context. The “unsophisticated lack of overt marks of the logical intention” described by Beeston is thus found crosslinguistically. Like the present study, Addeweesh concludes that only a semantic definition of the circumstantial clause is feasible: The primary importance we give to the semantic function of ḥāl is based on the fact that this function is the only feature that is inclusive of all types functioning as such, yet is exclusive of other related syntac4 Cf. also Matthiessen (2002, 263-267).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

59

tic patterns. Including the syntactic types of ḥāl in the definition is not practical; there is a variety of types. (Addeweesh 1985, 185) Similarly, Premper (2002, 29) concludes from his survey of standard works on Arabic grammar, that there are no specific morphologic or syntactic exponents that single out ‘the circumstantial clause’ from other types of clauses. Grammarians have listed the structures they have seen in the texts they have surveyed, but when compared side by side it is clear that they do not agree. This conclusion is further supported by the findings of the project that has led to this publication and its forerunner. Nevertheless, in nearly all descriptions of Arabic syntax, be they modern or classical, standard or colloquial, there is a section or paragraph on ‘circumstantial clauses’.5 In other words, ‘circumstantial clauses’ are described as a syntactic category on a par with conditional clauses, relative clauses and similar, perpetuating the illusion. That this ‘class’ of clauses in spoken Arabic should take on some specific forms, or display some peculiarities, is presupposed, just as, for example, the relative pronoun has different forms in colloquial Arabic, or as differences in lexicon and morphology have consequences for the realization of conditional clauses. Hence, also descriptions of colloquial Arabic grammar include sections on the ‘circumstantial clause’. ‘Circumstantial clauses’ (Zustandssätze) in the data used for this study have been previously described by Bloch (1965). His definition of what constitutes a circumstantial clause in Damascene Arabic (see 2.3) is purely formal. He recognizes three syntactic structures as the only forms in which circumstantial clauses appear in the texts. While the clauses mentioned by Bloch and others do function to qualify other clauses circumstantially, no list is comprehensive. The function of a ‘circumstantial clause’ evades being caught within the boundaries of a syntactic category. Thus, the starting point for this study is that any definition of what can be said to constitute a circumstantial clause must be based on function rather than form. For the purposes of this study, a clause will be considered to function as a circumstantial qualification of another clause if a)

it carries either a descriptive or a logical relationship to its head clause, and

5 The actual term chosen to signify the category may, of course, vary.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

60

Maria Persson

b) this relation is not made explicit by a conjunction, but has to be inferred from context Circumstantial clauses, as defined here, serve as unmarked alternatives to clauses that are explicitly marked by conjunctions.6 When the relationship to the head clause is descriptive, the non-main clause provides additional or background information about time, place, manner, or other details concerning the head clause; when the relationship is logical, the non-main clause conveys a condition, a cause, a result, an interpretation, and so forth, of the head clause.7 Gram switching mainly involves a switch between morphological forms of the verb such as a switch from a participle or suffix form to a prefix form. It may also involve mood marking. Arabic also makes use of verbless clauses, i.e. clauses in which no verbal gram is found. For the purposes of this study, a switch between the use of a verbal gram and a clause without a verbal gram will also be counted as a gram switch.8

2.2 Data The data for this survey has been collected from the Syrian Arabic texts recorded on audio tape in Damascus by Hans Wehr in 1956. The texts were transcribed, translated into German, and published together with a commentary and glossary by Bloch and Grotzfeld (1964). Heinz Grotzfeld subsequently published works on phonology, morphology and syntax in Syrian Arabic (Grotzfeld 1964; 1965) based mainly on these texts, and Ariel Bloch published a study on hypotaxis in Syrian Arabic (1965).9

6 Cf. also Beeston (1970, 89), quoted above; Isaksson (2009a); Persson (2009). 7 Cf. Persson (2009, 238-249) 8 An alternative would be to speak of switches between clause types (cf. Isaksson 2013). This, however, would remove focus from the verbal grams which, in all switches, constitute the pivotal part. In the context of this paper it may also cause terminological confusion since “clause type” may also refer to the semantic types of clauses discussed here such as relative clauses, conditional clauses, final clauses and so forth. 9 The original intention of collecting new data from informants in situ had to be abandoned as civil war broke out shortly after the onset of this research project. Collecting data from informants outside of the country was considered but risk of lost authenticity was deemed too high and, hence, the choice was made to concentrate on the older material and, by that, create a basis for later comparison.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

61

Two texts, numbers 14 and 19, were excluded from the survey. Text 14 was excluded since it is based on written material and is described by Bloch and Grotzfeld (1964, 88) as partly unnatural and ‘classicizing’. Text 19 was omitted because it has been edited and because the language is said not to be representative of the Damascus dialect (1964, 146). Set expressions copied from the standard language, such as the general congratulation “kəll ʿām wʾənte bḫēr”, ‘every year and/while you are well’, have also been excluded.10 The functional definition given in 2.1 constituted the basis for the selection of data. A phrase or a clause selected for scrutiny may have more than one possible interpretation. However, at least one possible interpretation must imply that it functions as a clause that qualifies another clause circumstantially. These criteria led to a collection of 210 clauses that were found to clearly have a circumstantial reading as one of their possible interpretations. Another 45 were initially studied but discarded as they were found to be too ambiguous, i.e. a circumstantial reading was unlikely. These are, thus, not among the 210. Finally, an additional 73 cases of larger units of text, i.e. not separate clauses, with a circumstantial function, were added to the database and considered in Persson (2014b). The total database, then, consists of 328 instances, whereof 210 are under consideration in this study. As the data consists of spoken language, an attempt has been made to recognize false starts and anacoluthon and to exclude such anomalies from the study. With only the transcribed text available and no comments of this kind made by the editors – and the text being edited – there is a risk, however, that some of these have not been recognized. With these difficulties in mind and with the aim of finding structures that have not previously been recognized, the strategy has been to discuss, rather than discard, cases of ambiguity and doubt. By making such cases available to the reader’s judgment, it is hoped that their inclusion in the study will broaden the perspective on hypotaxis in Arabic (and Semitic) and advance the linguistic analysis in this area. In this sense, the study can be said to be pre-theoretical and an invitation to further discussion. Although a few numbers will be mentioned, the main approach in the study is qualitative, not quantitative.

10 Bloch, however, includes examples from these texts, as well as set greetings as the one described above, for his survey of circumstantial clauses. So, for example, in §70a and b and in §71b (1965, 69-71).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

62

Maria Persson

2.3 Bloch 1965 Bloch’s study of hypotaxis in Damascene Arabic is mainly based on the texts that also constitute the basis for this study.11 He (1965, 68) divides circumstantial clauses in Arabic into three structural types which, by default, constitute his definition of circumstantial clauses: 1. 2. 3.

(w-) + subject + predicate (verbal or not verbal) (w-) + predicate (prepositional phrase) + subject finite verbal predicate

Examples of these are: (1) ʾaḍḍēna mədde mn əzzamān [w-nəḥna ʿam nətšawwa w-nətʾalla] (1:67:26)12 spendSF1cp period PREP DEF.time [w-1cp PROGR be.grilledPF1cp w-be.friedPF1cp

‘I spent some time [sizzling and frying (=frustrated)]’13 (2) māreʾ wāḥed [w-maʿo marto] (20:4:166) passAPms one [w-PREP3ms wife3ms]

‘there was one passing by [(having) with him his wife]’ (3) tammēt ʾāʿed [ʿam ʾətfarraž ʿalēhon] (7:8:68) remainSF1cs sitAPms [PROGR watchPF1cs PREP3cp]

‘I remained seated [watching them]’

11 In addition to the texts collected by Wehr, Bloch has used Bergsträsser (1924) and Malinjoud (1924) and, to some extent, Dietrich (1956), Oestrup (1897) and Cantineau and Heibaoui (1953). 12 Examples cited from Bloch and Grotzfeld (1964) are referred to by text number:section:page. This way of referring differs from the one used by Bloch and Grotzfeld themselves (Bloch 1965; Grotzfeld 1964; 1965). I believe that it is important, however, for the reader to be able to easily identify examples that derive from the same text. 13 Plural verb forms are used to denote the actions of the (singular) narrator. Note that English translations of Arabic examples in this article are given as a help to understanding the structure of the Arabic clauses. Hence, the use of English in the examples is not always idiomatic. In this example, the Arabic expression “nətšawwa w-nətʾall” is a figurative way of saying that the speaker was frustrated. I have, however, used a literal translation to show that the predicate contains verbs.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

63

Bloch’s analysis of circumstantial clauses in Damascene Arabic, thus, builds on his assumption that they can be recognized by their structure. For this reason, he differentiates between circumstantial clauses and circumstantial expressions (1965, 79-81). He states that the latter often consist of two juxtaposed parallel clauses of equal status such as: (4) rəḥt ʿalbēt - [ḥēṭ ʿam biṣəddni w-ḥēṭ ʿam yrəddni] (1:88:34) goSF1cs PREP.DEM.house – [wall PROGR b.push.awayPF3ms.1cs w-wall PROGR pull.backPF3ms.1cs]

‘I went home [one wall pushes me away one wall pulls me back (=staggering from wall to wall)]’ Bloch excludes these ‘circumstantial expressions’ from what he defines as circumstantial clauses on a formal basis since they do not always conform to any of the three structural forms described above. He further states that, as compared to what he defines as circumstantial clauses, they also display a difference in their function in that they describe the details of a (whole) situation. Furthermore, Bloch (1965, 81) refutes the existence of the so called ‘ḥāl muqaddar’, the ‘implied circumstantial clause’, in Damascene Arabic. The reason for this is that the clauses concerned have syndetic parallels in clauses introduced by la-, ‘in order to’. From this, Bloch concludes that these are final clauses, not circumstantial clauses. Moreover, he states that the circumstantial clauses on one hand, and this type of final clause on the other, are formally distinct in Damascene Arabic: the final clauses have verbs in the bare prefix form, whereas the asyndetic circumstantial clauses contain prefix verbs preceded by b- or ʿam, but never by the bare prefix form.14 By the invention of band ʿam, Damascene Arabic, he states, has created a way to differentiate formally between the final clauses and the circumstantial clauses.15 As to function, Bloch (1965, 77-78) concludes that the main function of circumstantial clauses in Damascene Arabic is to encode simultaneity. Within the borders of this simultaneity, other types of relationships between the two clauses may also exist. Such relations may be causal relationships or instances of logical opposition.

14 Cf. also Bloch (1965, 75). 15 Cf. 5.6 below.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

64

Maria Persson

Bloch’s types, as well as his exclusion of ‘circumstantial expressions’ and ‘ḥāl muqaddar’, will be discussed in section 5 in the light of the results presented in sections 3 and 4.

3. Formal coincidence in Arabic non-main clause linking The relevant point is that hypotactic or paratactic relations among clauses are logical relations, not necessarily syntactic ones. Counting up things that look like subordinate clauses is not the way to arrive at judgements about relative hypotaxis or parataxis. (Johnstone 1990, 222)

3.1 A concept that evades formal definitions Bloch, as described previously, exclusively bases his analysis on formal criteria, declaring clauses of three formal types to be the only circumstantial clauses in the database: Charakteristisch für den Zu sta nds sa tz ist der Aufbau nach bestimmten Grundschemata, die hier als ‘Formtypen’ bezeichnet werden. In einem solchen Schema liegen Wesen, Reihenfolge und Anzahl der einzelnen Glieder fest. Die drei Formtypen: …16 (Bloch 1965, 68) I agree with Bloch that the features that his three types display are all possible ingredients of a circumstantial clause and, conversely, clauses of these types may very well express an “attendant circumstance”.17 However, as declared already in my introduction, I do not believe that such a narrow syntactic definition of circumstantial clauses, nor Bloch’s even more limited view on their function, serve to capture an existing function in the language. As Premper concluded, there are no specific morphologic or syntactic exponents that single out the circumstantial clause from other types of clauses

16 I.e. “Characteristic of the circumstantial clause is the[ir] construction according to certain basic patterns, that are here referred to as 'form types'. In such a pattern, the nature, order and number of the individual members are fixed. The three types of shapes: …” 17 Cf. Isaksson (2009a, 5).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

65

(2002, 29).18 Since there is no designated morphological marker that is used solely for marking circumstance, the structures used for circumstantial clauses coincide with a number of other clause functions. Often, the function can only be discerned through the context; sometimes ambiguity remains even when the context is taken into consideration: Die Grenze zwischen Zustandsätzen und asyndetischen/syndetischen beigeordneten Sätzen ist fliessend. Eigentlich mag jeder asyndetische/syndetische beigeordnete Satz als Zustandsatz dienen; Bloss der Zusammenhang, und wohl auch der Ton (einschliesslich Pause) machen den beigeordneten Satz zu einer Art Nebensatz, eben zum Zustandsatz. [---] Da aber die Konstruktion der Zustandsätze so frei ist, mag nicht nur manches, das wir als Zustandsatz aufgefasst haben, einfache Parataxe sein, sondern auch manches, das wir als beigeordnete Sätze angeführt haben, hierher gehören, da die zwischen dem Hauptsatz und dem Nebensatz bestehenden Begriffsverhältnisse mannigfach sind,…19 (Blau 1960, 223; cf. also Persson 2009, 256-263) Meanwhile, many scholars have noted that asyndetic clause combining, in general, is common in Arabic dialects and that this often causes ambiguity between (semantic) coordination and subordination (Blau 1960, 214; Fischer 2002, 153; Isaksson et al. 2009)20. Thus, Bloch describes what he considers to be asyndetically joined paratactic clauses with a temporal or conditional, i.e. hypotactic, semantic relationship. These, he states, are numerous and often ambiguous (1965, 92-94; cf. Johnstone 1990, 222-223, 227).

18 Cf. Addeweesh who writes that: ”Even a preliminary review of medieval presentations of the ḥāl reveals that certain vague generalizations and strong ambiguities do exist in the description” (1985, 4). 19 I.e.: “The boundary between circumstantial clauses and asyndetic/syndetic juxtaposed clauses is fluid. Actually, every asyndetic/syndetic juxtaposed clause may serve as a circumstantial clause; only the context, and arguably also the intonation (including pause) make the juxtaposed clause into to a kind of subordinate clause, even to a circumstantial clause. [---] However, since the construction of the circumstantial clauses is so free, not only may many things that we have considered as circumstantial clauses be simple parataxis; some things that we have called coordinated clauses may belong here, since the notional relationships that exist between the main clause and the subordinate clause are manifold ...” 20 Cf. also Eksell (1995); Isaksson (2008, 252, 256-257) and Premper (2002, 329-346). See Woidich (2002, 121) for a comprehensive list of references.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

66

Maria Persson

Some main areas of coincidence in form between circumstantial clauses and other types of clauses will be exemplified in this study with data from Bloch and Grotzfeld’s texts. In the following section I will show how a hitherto rather unnoticed grammatical marker is actually at work in these clauses and how the recognition of this marker can resolve some of the ambiguity. The most obvious cause of ambiguity is the fact that the only conjunction that, at times, is found to introduce circumstantial clauses is the general juncture marker w(ə)- which is used to indicate juncture also in simple coordination of clauses. The most well-known coincidence, on the other hand, is the one between the asyndetic circumstantial clause and the asyndetic relative clause with indefinite correlate. However, the most common coincidence in the present database is between a category of circumstantial clauses which Bloch decides not to recognize as such, namely the so called ḥāl muqaddar on one hand, and a reading of the verb in the main clause as an auxiliary on the other. The last major area of overlap, that I will discuss, concerns a more pronounced digression from the main line of the narrative, where a single clause can be interpreted either as a comment on the temporal/situational circumstance of the main event, or as an explanatory side-comment with a less direct link to the main clause/main verb of the head clause.

3.2 Coincidence between circumstantials and ordinary coordination or sequence That circumstantial clauses may be introduced by the non-specific conjunction w(ə)- results in ambiguity between circumstantial and coordinated clauses.21 However, ambiguity between coordination and circumstance; between parataxis and hypotaxis, occurs also when there is no conjunction. The syntactic point at issue is that circumstantial clauses are often not syntactically embedded in their head clauses. A moderately subordinated relationship between two clauses may be realized only at the semantic level, i.e. without any syntactic expression. In the following example, the clause that starts with “whadāk” is identical in form to Bloch’s Type 1 circumstantial clause: (5) ṣār hūwe yərkod [w-hadāk yəlḥaʾo] AUXSF3ms

22

(20:2:166)

3ms runPF3ms [w-DEM followPF3ms.3ms]

21 Cf. Kammensjö (2008, 2009), Persson (2009, 257-258). 22 Lit: he became. Cf. 5.2.4 below.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

67

‘He started running [and that one followed after him]’ Depending on how this second clause is interpreted, the example means either “he started running and that one followed him” or “he started running while that one followed him”. The ambiguity in the Arabic clause combination is found also in the English translation but is (irrespective of language, of course) resolved by the context: there would be no sense in following after someone who does not, simultaneously, keep on running. Thus, the sense of “simultaneity”, often described as a hallmark of circumstantial clauses, here follows from our knowledge of the world, not from any syntactic marker. A similar example is (6) where w(ə)- is followed immediately by a prefix verb: (6) kəll yōm təṭbḫīlo sabʿ tmən ʾaškāl [w-tʾūli mū ẓarīfe mənšān wāžeb əḍḍēf] (17:53:140) every day cookPF2fsPREP3ms sev’ eight kinds [w-sayPF2fs NEG nice for.sake.of duty DEF.guest]

‘Every day you cook sev’ eight courses for him [(and/while) you say/saying it isn’t proper (not to do it) for the sake of hospitality]’23 In (6) it is the temporal expression “every day”, telling us that the event in the first clause is repetitive, combined with the lack of separately stated time in the second clause, which leads to an interpretation where the second clause is dependent on the first. If there had been a temporal expression also in the second clause such as “and now you tell me…” the two activities would have been seen as separate. As it is, the iterative of the first clause carries over to the second clause creating a (semantically) hypotactic relationship. Sometimes the ambiguity is even more extensive. Consider the following: (7) ərrəžžāl byəʾʿod [wəlmara btəštəġəl] (11:2:76) DEF.man

b.sitPF3ms [w-DEF.woman b.workPF3fs]

The context allows for at least three possible interpretations of the second proposition in (7):24

23 Literally: ‘for the duty of the guest’ but the implied meaning is ‘for the duty one has in relation to the guest’. Bloch and Grotzfeld (1964, 141) translate it into German as “Es ist nicht schön (wenn ich es nicht tue), wegen der Gastfreundschaft”. 24 The context is as follows: For the first time in twelve years, a judge is coming to town and the town is going to prepare for the visit. However,…

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

68

Maria Persson

a) it can be temporal: ‘The man sits while the woman works’ b) it can be adversative: ‘The man sits (idle) but the woman works’ c) it can be simple coordination: ‘The man sits and the woman works’ That all three meanings can also be implied in the English translation with “while” in (a) above suggests that this kind of ambiguity is not specific for Arabic. As stated above, ambiguity between coordination and subordination exists also when there is no conjunction: (8) biḥəṭṭu məšwāye ʿala halfaḥm – w-byəʾʿdu baʾa [byəšwūha] (16:12:120) b.putPF3cp gridiron PREP DEM.DEF.charcoal – w-b.sitPF3cp PTCL [b.fryPF3cp.3fs]

‘They put a gridiron on the charcoal – and then, you know, they sit down [(and) fry it]’ A literal translation of the last two predicates would be “and they sit down, they fry it”25. This combination may express either a coordinate construction, ‘they sit down and fry it’, or the circumstances of their sitting down, i.e. ‘they sit down frying it’. As may be noted, the English sentence with ‘and’ is also ambiguous allowing a choice between a circumstantial reading and a literal, coordinated reading. Yet another area of overlap between coordination and circumstance appears when suffix verbs are asyndetically joined. With these, there is usually an implication of sequence since the suffix form implies that each of the events or activities involved is completed. There are, however ambiguous cases:

wa-ʾiz žarāʾim ktīr bəlbalad – w-ḫəṣṣa hənne wənnəswān - ərrəžžāl byəʾʿod [wəlmara btəštəġəl] – ma fī ʿandhon hadīk əlʾēš? – hadīk əlḥanān hadīk əlʾənsānīye – bišaġġlu lmara wərrəžžāl byəbrok bəlʾarḍ - əlḥāsel - ʾaktarīyəthon mətḫānʾīn hənne wnəswānhon. ‘Now, there are a lot of crimes in town – and especially (between) them and the women – the man sits while/and/but the woman works – they do not have that what (do you say) – that compassion, that humanity – they put the woman to work and/while/but the man would sit idle on the ground – the result (of this was that) – most of them were in a fight (they) with their womenfolk’. In other words, an adversative interpretation is adduced by the following explanation. The very fact that the speaker feels a need to add this clarification emphasizes the ambiguity of the statement quoted in (7). 25 The word baʾa, functions as a discourse particle and may often, as here, be left untranslated. For a comment on its use, see Persson (forthcoming b).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

69

(9) ʾaʿadna [trawwaʾnālna šwayye] (1:44:18) sitSF1cp [have.breakfastSF1cp some]

‘we sat [and had/having breakfast for a while]’ The verb is a locational: ʾaʿad, ‘to sit’. Locational verbs often develop into auxiliaries (cf. 3.4). The core activity in the narrative is not that someone was sitting but what this someone was doing while ‘sitting’. The less the focus is on the act of sitting, the more likely it is that the verb ‘to sit’ becomes bleached and, eventually, transforms into an aspectual marker for the progressive (‘be doing’). Finally, there are instances introduced by w(ə)- that Bloch and Grotzfeldt have translated as paratactic, but that, as far as I can see, describe circumstances: (10) ṣār ʿanna ṣaby w-bəntēn [w-nəḥna ʿam nəštəġel ləssāʿətna bəlmaṭbaʿa lhāšmīye] (1:106:40) becomeSF3ms with.1cp boy w-two.girls [w-1cp PROGR workPF1cp still PREP.DEF.printshop DEF.Hashemite]

‘(now) I had a boy and two girls [and (?) I was still working at the Hashemite Press]’26 The first clause describes a development and change that has occurred over time. When a stable situation such as ‘I was still working at the Hashemite Press’ is juxtaposed to this expression of development, this last part is, by default, perceived as a comment on the circumstances. It is, however more of an adversative “and/but, yet, I was still working” than a simultaneous reality “while still working”. Shortly after this there is a similar clause combination: (11) la kānet tzīd ʾəžrətna mətl ənnās w-la kānet tənʾaṣ – [w-ləssaʿətna ʿam nətḥammal mənno halmaʾāsi] (1:108:40) beSF3fs increasePF3s salary1cp like DEF.people w-NEG beSF3fs decreasePF3fs - [w-still PROGR endurePF1cp PREP3ms DEM.DEF.severity]

NEG

‘My salary did not increase as it should and/but it (also) did not decrease – [and I was still enduring this harshness on his part]’27

26 Bloch and Grotzfeldt’s translation into German is as follows: „Ich hatte nun einen Jungen und zwei Mädchen und arbeitete immer noch in der Haschimiyya-Druckerei”.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

70

Maria Persson

While clearly circumstantial, both of these are side-comments rather than the kind of “attendant circumstances” described in the literature.28 There are more instances in the database of comments like these that digress from the main line of the narrative. They will be the topic of section 3.5.

3.3 Coincidence between circumstantials and relative clause The coincidence in form between relative clauses with indefinite correlate and circumstantial clauses has been frequently observed. Judith Rosenhouse, writing on classical Arabic, even called this “the main problem of ambiguity which cannot be solved (possibly) by using only linguistic markers” (1978, 235). Premper, in his analysis of this phenomenon, states that, in these cases, the relationship to the head is not specified (2002, 319). The ambivalence can be double in that, firstly, it is not clear whether the non-main clause refers to the head as a whole or only to the head clause predicate, and secondly, whether it refers to the action (the predicate) as such or to one of the actors. Hence, it is not clear if the appended clause functions as an adverbial (circumstantial) or an attributive (relative) modification.29 Bloch (1965, 75) mentions the following example: (12) hūwe māši bhaṭṭarīʾ - māši wāḥed [maʿo ḥmār] w-ʿabāyto ṭawīle (20:1:166) 3ms walkAPms PREP.DEM.DEF.road – walkAPms one [PREP.3ms donkey] wcape3ms long

‘(as) he was walking on the road – there was one walking [who had/(having) with him a donkey] and his cloak was long’ The same ambiguity may occur when the non-main clause has a verbal predicate:

27 Bloch and Grotzfeldt’s translation: „Kurz und gut, (…) wurde mein Lohn nicht höher wie es sich gehört, aber auch nicht geringer. Und ich ertrage jetzt immer noch von ihm diese Strenge“. 28 Cf. Lichtenberk (2009, 259). 29 Moreover, as Premper points out (2002, 92), so called circumstantial clauses are not strictly “ad-verbial”. In providing details about a situation, they modify not only the event/action (the verb) but also the participants of this event/action. “Circumstantial clauses”, in other words, have a broader scope. Cf. Matthiessen and Thompson (1988, 276-286) for a discussion on the difference between enhancing hypotaxis and adverbial clauses.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

71

(13) yōm byəṭlaʿ ʿalīyi kalb [biʿawwi ʿalīyi] w-yōm byəṭlaʿ ʿalīyi sakrān [biḫawwəfni] (1:10:4) day b.overtakePF3ms PREP1cs dog [b.barkPF3ms PREP1cs] w-day b.overtakePF3ms PREP1cs drunk [b.scarePF3ms1cs]

‘One day a dog overtakes me [barking at me/that barks at me] and one day someone drunk overtakes me [scaring me/who scares me]’ (14) šāf wāḥed [ʿam yǝṭmor msaddas bǝlʾarḍ] yaʿni fard (5:5:60) seeSF3ms one [PROGR buryPF3ms gun PREP.DEM.earth] meanPF3ms revolver

‘He saw someone [burying/who burried a gun in the ground] a revolver, that is’ Finally, an example where the reading may be relative or final: (15) kəllma … yəḍṭarru yṭālʿu wāḥed mətl əḥkāyti [yʾammənlon əlmuḫābara] (1:97:38) every.time … be.forcedPF3cp sendPF3cp one like kind301cs [ensurePF3ms.PREP3cp DEF.telephone.connection]

‘Every time that… they had to send out someone like me [who would/in order to ensure the telephone connection for them]’ A locational verb such as ṭālʿa, ‘send’, in this example, followed by a verb in the bare prefix form, and with no conjunction to separate the two, is typical of the final clauses that have been called ḥāl muqaddar. This leads to the discussion in the following section on circumstantial clauses with final meaning.

3.4 Coincidence between ḥāl muqaddar and auxiliary The coincidence between the so called ḥāl muqaddar, and a reading of the first of two juxtaposed verbs as an auxiliary, derives from the fact that a ḥāl muqaddar is made up of two asyndetically combined verbs. The head clause of a ḥāl muqaddar is most often a verb of motion. Verbs denoting posture or change of posture or location, i.e. either stable position or movement of some kind and in some direction; what Eisele (1999, 142) calls locationals, are well-known from typological studies as a nurturing ground for grammaticalizations with temporal or aspectual value (Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994, 11; Lord 1993, 215-217; Payne 1997, 311-312). Ambiguity appears when the 30 The word literally means ‘story’ but is used in this way, with an attached pronoun, in the sense of ‘kind’ or ‘type’.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

72

Maria Persson

locational which is the first of two combined verbs is also found in auxiliary use in the language. The relationship between the two verbs becomes skewed through the said processes of grammaticalization, or auxiliarization, where the first verb is bleached and the emphasis is placed on the second verb. The first verb turns into an auxiliary and, if the process continues, may be reduced into no more than a modal or aspectual particle. This has, at varying degrees, happened in some dialects to the verb qām for example, but also to verbs such as rāḥ, ‘go’, and žāʾ, ‘come’ (Firanescu 2003; 2008, 188; Persson 2013). Asyndetic verb combinations where the first verb is a locational verb are very common in the data. The following example contains no less than three coordinated pairs that, theoretically, could function as either auxiliary+main verb or main verb+“ḥāl muqaddar” clauses.31 (16) ʾana ʾāyme [ʾətġaṭṭa] w-rūḥ [ʾəštəki] w-yəžu [yṭālʿū] bəlʾūwe žžabrīye (17:49:138) 1cs riseAPfs [coverPF1cs] w-goPF1cs [complainPF1cs] wcomePF3cp[oustPF3cp.3ms] PREP.DEF.force DEF.compulsory

‘I’m going to 32 [cover 33 ] and/to go [complain] and/so that they come [and/to oust him] by force’ The interpretation of the first combination is rather unambiguous. The verb qām, here, does not literally mean to get up; the woman is most likely already standing. Rather, it implies to “get going”, i.e. an auxiliary reading. The two other locationals both retain their sense of movement. The lady will go/translocate to present her complaint and they will, or so she hopes, literally come to the house to oust the unwelcome guest. Still, there is a degree of auxiliarization here too, at least in the first of the pairs. Focus is on the second verb, the act of complaining, rather than on the translocation. A similar example, with the same matrix verb, is (17): (17) ʿam byəži bbāli ʾənni fūt [fayyʾo] PROGR

(17:5:126)

b.comePF3ms PREP.mind1cs COMP1cs enterPF1cs [wakePF1cs.3ms]

31 Note that it is the second verb in the combination that is a candidate for being a nonmain clause (what has been called ḥāl muqaddar). Hence, although the first verb is in focus in the discussion, the second verb has been placed within square brackets to be concistent with the marking in the rest of the article. 32 Lit: getting up. 33 I.e. get dressed for going out.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

73

‘I’m getting the idea that I (should) go in [and (= in order to) wake him up]’ The German translation by Bloch and Grotzfeldt (1964, 127), “Es kommt mir gerade der Gedanke, zu ihm hineinzugehen und ihn aufzuwecken”,34 suggests that ‘entering’ and ‘waking’ are two activities that are coordinated. Conceptually, however, they may also be perceived as one combined activity. With this reading, the verb fāt, ‘enter’, has taken a step towards auxiliarization, towards creating a compound verb phrase together with the verb ‘wake up’. I will discuss the combinations in (16) and (17) further in 4.3.3.

3.5 Coincidence between circumstantials at clause and text level Circumstantial clauses constitute a digression from the main line. Previous studies have shown that the same strategies as those used by a narrator for a short digression from the main line of the narration at the clause level, may also be used to signal major digressions consisting of larger units of discourse (Persson 2009, 229-238). When the digression is made up of a whole unit of discourse, there is no risk of confusion between this and a circumstantial clause. Also, in these cases, there is no main clause that functions as a head clause to the digression. Such examples from the present database are discussed in Persson (2014b). However, the data also contains a number of clauses for which a more traditional circumstantial interpretation overlaps with the function of a comment to a larger unit of discourse. A single clause can, in other words, function either as a circumstantial qualification of the predication in an adjacent main clause; or as a comment at the text level having as its head, not a main clause but a whole unit of text. Thus, the clause in (18) starts with a w(ə)-followed by a pronoun which means that it, structurally, conforms to a pattern that has often been identified with circumstantial clauses (Bloch’s Type1, cf. example 5 above): (18) twaffa ʾabi - [w-ʾana kān ʿəmri ʿašr ṭnaʿšar səne bələktīr] (1:1:2) dieSF3ms father1cs – [w-1cs beSF3ms age1cs ten twelve years PREP.DEF.much]

‘My father died – [(and) my age was ten, twelve years at the most]’

34 I.e. ‘The idea comes to me now to go in and wake him up’.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

74

Maria Persson

With a circumstantial interpretation, the translation would be “my father died when I was ten, or twelve at the most”. The context, however, makes it more sensible to interpret the clause as an explanatory comment, added outside of the actual narrative: (18b) ʾana lammen kənt əẓġīr - twaffa ʾabi – [w-ʾana kān ʿəmri ʿašr ṭnaʿšar səne bələktīr] – kənt ʾāʿed bəlmadrase w-mfakker (1:1:2) 1cs CONJ beSF1cs small – dieSF3ms father1cs – [w-1cs beSF3ms age1cs eight twelve years PREP.DEF.much] - beSF1cs sitAPms PREP.DEF.school w-thinkAPms

‘Me, when I was small - my father died - [I was ten or twelve at the most.] - I was at school, thinking…’ The clarification about age is added to emphasize that the narrator was, indeed, young. It does not have the adverbial flavour of a circumstantial clause: it does not qualify a specific predication.35 In (19) there is a longer digression from the main line of the narration where the aim is to provide a comment and where the clauses conform (in form) to the types mentioned by Bloch: (19) tḥammalət - (…) - ṣərt ʾəštəġel maʿ haššaġġīle - [w-hənne ytaʿʿbūni laḥatta yharrbūni] – [w-ʾana ʾətḥammal] – w-kəll yōm nəntəʾəl mən balad labalad - (…) - w-hēk laḥatta yəntəhi ʾāḫer əlḫaṭṭ… (1:93:36) persevereSF1cs – (…) - AUXSF1cp36 workPF1cs PREP DEM.DEF.workmen – [w-3cp make.tiredPF3cp.1cs PREP.CONJ make.fleePF3cp.1cs] – [w-1cs perseverePF1cs] – w-every day movePF1cp PREP town PREP.town – (…) – w-thus PREP.CONJ endPF3ms last DEF.line…

‘I persevered – (…) - I started working with these workmen – [(and) they were working me hard to make me leave] – [(and) I/while I was persevering] – every day we were moving from town to town – (…) - thus until the end of the line was reached’37 In spite of the formal correspondence of each of these clauses to the oft-noted structure of circumstantial clauses with w(ə)+pronoun, they are not subordinate to main clauses. They do not clearly refer back to a main clause predicate. Rather, they describe the social conditions (unkind colleagues) that called for perseverance, followed by a description of the general work condi-

35 Cf. Isaksson (2009b, 103-105). 36 Lit: I became. Cf. 5.2.4 below. 37 Lit: ended.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

75

tions (constant travelling) that, also, created a need for perseverance. Yet another example is found in (20): (20) ʾəltəllo ma biṣīr ġēr ma žəbli38 šaʾfet ḥašīše. 3. [msāwīn baʾa nəḥna šāy] – rəḥna ḥaṭṭēnālo bkāset əššāy šaʾfet ḥašīše –(9:2f:70) saySF1cs.PREP3ms NEG b.happenPF3ms other REL bringPF2ms?PREP1cs piece hashish. 3. [makeAPmp PTCL 1cp tea] – goSF1cp placeSF1cp.PREP3ms PREP.glass DEF.tea piece hashish

‘I said to him, no you must bring me39 a piece of hashish. 3. [We had made some tea, you see] – we went and put a piece of hashish for him in the glass of tea’ Bloch (1965, 74) mentions these, too, and calls them independent circumstantial clauses (versebständigter/unabhängiger Zustandssatz). As is further elaborated on in Persson (2014b), even larger units of text may constitute digressions from the main line of a story that carry what may be called a ‘circumstantial flavour’.

3.6 Summary Form, then, is not a sufficient criterion for deciding whether a specific clause functions as a circumstantial qualification of another clause. The syntactic forms that have been associated with circumstantial clauses are used by other classes of clauses too, with resulting ambiguity. Furthermore, the “circumstance” may be a comment that functions at the text level rather than at the clause level. With such ambiguity, one may wonder if there is still a reason to talk of circumstantial clauses. Although no formal criteria identify the circumstantial clause, there are, however, clauses that, from a semantic perspective, function as circumstantial qualifications to other clauses. This qualification can be temporal or adversative, final or concessive, and so forth. The semantic type of the qualification is not specified; the clauses are not marked as adverbial, final or interpretive, causative or adversative. This lack of specific marking leads to ambiguity between circumstantial meanings and other semantic categories of non-main clauses. In other words, and as has been stated already, 38 Sic! The quoted form žəbli appears to be an imperative. One would have expected 2ms prefix form: tžəbli. Thus, it may be a case of assimilation of the t. Cf. Bloch and Grotzfeld (1964, 70, footnote 78). 39 Lit: it will not happen without that you bring me…

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

76

Maria Persson

circumstantial clauses do not form a specific grammatical category on a par with, for example, conditional or relative clauses. Moreover, although the type of non-main clause is not specified, hypotaxis itself is largely marked in these clauses. The marking device used is one that has received little attention and that has rarely, if ever, been recognized in this capacity. However, when taken into consideration, it may indicate which of the alternative readings is most plausible in ambiguous cases, such as the ones discussed here. This marking device will constitute the focus of the next section.

4. Gram switching 4.1 A scale of markedness When Premper (2002, 17-18, 23), as a summary of his findings in the main works of Arabic grammar, lists four characteristic traits of the circumstantial (ḥāl) clause, a switch from a suffix form verb to a prefix form verb is one of the traits that he mentions. Gram switching has also been mentioned in connection with other non-main clause linking structures. Thus, Lewin (1966, *39*), observed that complement clauses (that-clauses) in his data were, optionally, marked by a gram switch construction. Similarly, Addeweesh gives clear examples of where a gram switch is necessary for a clause combination to receive a hypotactical interpretation.40 Moreover, of the examples already cited in this article, two thirds feature a switch between two different verbal grams, or a switch between a clause with a verbal gram and one without. In clause combinations such as the following, gram switching is the only marker of hypotaxis: Participle → [progressive particle + prefix form verb]: (21) ʾāʿed laḥālo [ʿam yəšrab ʾargīle] hāda. (4:7:52) sitAPms alone [PROG drinkPF3ms waterpipe] DEM

‘This guy was sitting there alone, [drinking a waterpipe]’

40 Addeweesh (1985, 107-109). Cf. also his discussion on how the gram switch between a suffix form with qad and one without is necessary for a circumstantial reading (1985, 95-104). In both instances, Addeweesh has neither recognized the gram switch per se nor seems to have understood its dynamics. Instead, he refers to stylistic reasons.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

77

Suffix form + participle → [progressive particle + prefix form verb]: (22) tammēt ʾāʿed hēk ləssāʿa təsʿa [ʿamma ʾətṣaffan] (7:4:66) staySF1cs sitAPms thus PREP.hour nine [PROG ponderPF1cs]

‘I remained sitting like that until nine o’clock, [pondering]’ Suffix form verb → [progressive particle + prefix form verb]: (23) šāfo [ʿam yəġsəlha]

(32:6:192)

seeSF3ms.3ms [PROG washPF3ms.3fs]

‘He saw him [washing it]’ Neither Western nor Arab grammarians have, it seems, noted the pivotal syntactic role played by gram switching. It has, merely, been observed as a feature commonly occurring in connection with circumstantial clauses. Yet, as recent studies have shown, it is not primarily gram switching that coincides with circumstantial clause combining. Rather, gram switching is a basic syntactic marker of hypotaxis. It may be the only marker of a certain instance of clause linking, but it may also be reinforced by a conjunction. By the recognition of how gram switching is used to mark non-main clause linking, some cases of ambiguity between a paratactic and a hypotactic reading of asyndetically linked clauses can be resolved. At the same time, it becomes evident that the concept of “circumstantial clauses” is a semantic taxonomy that bears little, if any, relevance to the syntactic classification of clauses.41 When noting the frequent occurrence of gram switching to mark hypotaxis, both alone and together with other markers, it is equally important to observe that such marking is not necessary. A clause that, semantically, functions to circumstantially qualify another clause may be totally unmarked. For the data presented here, the following scale has been found to apply to the marking of hypotaxis (Persson 2014a): − − −

No marking. Only context and/or intonation Gram switching only Gram switching + neutral conjunction (“and”) indicating the location, and thus the existence, of the linking

41 Hence, the concept of ḥāl muqaddar also bears little relevance for the analysis of clauses (cf. Persson, forthcoming).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

78 −

Maria Persson

Gram switching and conjunction - or conjunction alone - specifying semantic type of non-main clause

As has already been demonstrated, a proposition may be semantically subordinate to another proposition without being syntactically marked as such. Hence, some of the ambiguity mentioned by Bloch and Blau cannot be eliminated.42 As was seen from the English translations of examples in the previous chapter, such ambiguity is not unique to Arabic. Quite naturally, less marking coincides with an increase in ambiguity. Thus, it may be observed that all examples in the present survey, in which a gram switch does not occur, are instances where the clause is ambiguous between a paratactic and a hypotactic reading.43 This total lack of marking, such as in examples (24) and (25) which are also discussed by Bloch (1965, 92-95, 98), means that the temporal/conditional meaning has to be derived from the context alone: (24) [btəsʾal] bidəllūk (1:64:24) [b.askPF2ms] b.directPF3cp.2ms

‘[(if/when) you ask] they will show you (lit. you ask they show you)’ (25) [baʾa bifūt wāḥed ʿassəžn] byəšlaḥ ʾawāʿī (21:8:168) [PTCL b.enterPF3ms one PREP.DEF.prison] b.take.offPF3ms clothes3ms

‘[now, (if/when) someone enters prison] he takes of his clothes’ Bloch mentions how the logical link between the events in the clauses makes us perceive a connection between the clauses instead of interpreting them as independent. That the clauses are asyndetically juxtaposed strengthens this impression, as do, possibly, intonation patterns (Bloch 1965, 94).44 The semantic relationship between the clauses follows from logic and our knowledge of the world and, hence, no linguistic marker of this is needed. In addition to temporal/conditional clauses, the database also contains a number of final clauses where the first verb is a locational:

42 Cf. 3.2 above. 43 Cf. the already quoted examples 5-9, 13, 15, 17 as well as two of the three verb combinations in 16. 44 Bloch discusses this asyndetic clause combining in terms of parallelism as it, to him, is the fact that the verb forms are the same, rather than the lack of a coordinating or subordinating conjunction, that creates the link between the clauses.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

79

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

(26) ḫāf ʾənno yšəmm əssabʿ rīḥet ʾəns w-yəži [yāklo] (28:3:186) fearSF3ms COMP smellPF3ms DEF.lion smell human w-comePF3ms [eatPF3ms.3ms]

‘He feared that the lion would smell the scent of a human being and come [and/to eat him]’ The man in (26) is afraid that the lion would come with the intention of eating him. Judging from what we know of lions, there is justification behind his fear. There is little reason to believe that the lion would come over just for a visit. Our knowledge of the world, thus, is enough to make us detect the intention and, hence, the finality of the clause. Similarly: (27) byəstanna mišān hūwe lʿaskari yəṭlaʿ [ynām]

(26:2:182)

b.waitPF3ms for.sake 3ms DEF.soldier ascendPF3ms [sleepPF3ms]

‘He was waiting for him, this soldier, to go up [and/to sleep]’ Here, too, it is the context and our knowledge of the world that tell us that the young soldier would go up the stairs with the intention of going to bed. A change of location in particular, such as in these examples, often comes with a purpose. The motion involved, itself, implies directionality. Therefore, finality does not have to be overtly marked in these clauses.45 It is in this way that the first category above (“No marking. Only context and/or intonation”) should be understood. When there is no syntactic marking of hypotaxis, the clause is syntactically not a non-main clause. Semantically, however, there is a hierarchy between the propositions. One step further down the scale, gram switching functions as a marker of non-main clause linking in general. It often constitutes a switch from one verb form to another, such as a switch from a participle or suffix form to a prefix form; or from a verbal predicate to a verb-less clause.46 Gram switching that signals hypotaxis may also involve morphological entities on lower levels

45 One notes, however, that examples of locationals + non main clause with final meaning where a gram switch does occur also abound, namely when the locational is in the suffix form. They are so common that Arab grammarians have awarded them a name: ḥāl muqaddar, ‘implied circumstantial clause’. Cf. 3.4, 4.4 and 5.6. Here, as well, it may be assumed that it is the motion encoded by the locational that brings about the final interpretation of the clause; the gram switch only signals hypotaxis. 46 Such as in examples 21-23 above. Cf. also the examples and discussion in 4.2 below.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

80

Maria Persson

than the verb form, such as mood marking (Lewin 1966, *39*; Persson, forthcoming). 47 The location of juncture between the two clauses may be marked by a semantically vague conjunction such as w(ə)-. The specific classification of clauses is, however, still dependent on the context: Genau wie man sich in BZ in manchen Situationen, in denen wir im Deutschen genauere Konjunktionen gebrauchen, mit Asyndese begnügt […], so verwendet man oft die ”Allerwelts”-Konjunktion u und überlässt es der Phantasie des Zuhörers, die genauere Beziehung zwischen den Sätzen zu ergänzen.48 (Blau 1960, 218) Thus, while not defining the semantic relationship between the clauses or the type of clause combining, it does add saliency to the juncture. The use of such a juncture marker will therefore be regarded as another step on the scale from no marking to full marking of clause hierarchy. For maximum transparency as to the semantics of the non-main clause linking, the speaker can choose to use a semantically specific subordinating conjunction which, thus, constitutes the last step of the marking scale.

4.2 Types of clauses marked by gram switching Gram switching is used to mark such varying types of non-main clauses as adverbial clauses, final clauses, and conditional clauses. As mentioned above, the use of gram switching alone seems to constitute the least specific marking of non-main clause linking that the language offers. As seen by the examples below, drawn from the present data base, it is in no way limited to the kind of hypotaxis traditionally labelled as circumstantial.

4.2.1 Conditional clauses In the previously surveyed modern Gulf Arabic data, conditionals were frequently marked by a gram switch only. In the present older database of Damascene Arabic, however, only less explicit conditionals seem to be marked by gram switching as demonstrated by the examples below. More research is 47 Cf. (30) below. 48 I.e. “Just as one in B[ir]Z[eit] in some situations is satisfied with asyndesis where we use more precise conjunctions in German [...], one often uses the "all round" conjunction u and leaves to the imagination of the listener to supply the more precise relationship between the clauses ”.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

81

needed to discern if the difference between the two databases in the frequency of conditionals marked by gram switching is incidental for these specific texts or if the age of the data, or differences between the two dialects, lie behind it.

4.2.2 Temporal/conditional clauses There is often a semantic overlap between temporal clauses and conditionals (Bloch 1965, 92-95; Persson 2009, 260-263). Such temporal/conditional clause combining without any gram switching was discussed above (24, 25). A few examples with gram switching are also found in the present database. (28) ṣār wazn əṣṣabāṭ fōʾ əttlāte kīlo - [bəddo yəmši] byəsḥab ḥālo ṣaḥb bhaṣṣabāṭ (21:2:168) becomeSF3ms weight DEF.boots over DEF.three kilo – [wish3ms walkPF3ms] b.dragPF3ms himself dragVN PREP.DEM.DEF.boots

‘The weight of the boots had become over three kilo – [(if/when) he wanted to walk] he would literally drag himself wearing49 these boots’ The use of no other marker than a change of construction type to encode temporal/conditionals is noted cross-linguistically (Dixon 2009, 16). In (28), where the temporal/conditional non-main clause precedes the main clause, the switch is from a combination of bədd50+a bare prefix form verb to a prefix form verb with b-prefix. On a similar note, result clauses may be marked by gram switching: (29) ġassel wəššak [btəṣḥa w-btətnaššaṭ] (17:28:132) washIMPms face2ms [b.wake.upPF2ms w-b.become.energeticPF2ms]

‘wash your face [(and) you will wake up and get energy]’ In this example there is a gram switch from the imperative to prefix form with b-prefix. The prefix form verbs describe the expected consequence of obeying the order expressed by the imperative. Bloch discusses this example, interpreting the imperative as (semantically) a conditional (if you wash…). However, as he is not aware of how gram switching functions to signal hypotaxis, he considers the clause linking to be paratactic.

49 Lit: with these boots. 50 For a description of clauses with bədd, see 5.4 below.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

82

Maria Persson

4.2.3 Final clauses Clauses without gram switching, but with a sense of finality were also discussed above (26, 27). In the following examples, however, the hypotactic clause linking is evident through the gram switches. Nevertheless, the sense of finality, here as well, is only an implication and other interpretations are sometimes possible: (30) ʾən kān ʿažabak haššarṭ hāda - btəži tāni yōm [təštəġel] (1:15:6) beSF3ms pleaseSF3ms.2ms DEM.DEF.condition DEM – b.comePF2ms second day [workPF2ms]

CONJ

‘If you are pleased with this condition, you come tomorrow51 [(in order to) work]’ (31) ʾəmmi bədda maṣāri [təṣref] (1:28:10) mother1cs wish3fs money [spendPF3fs]

‘My mother needed money [to spend]’ (32) fāt laʿandi ʿalʾōḍa [yṣabbeḥ ʿalīyi]

(17:34:136)

enterSF3ms PREP.LOC.1cs PREP.DEF.room [greetPF3ms PREP1cs]

‘he came into the room to me [to greet/greeting me good morning]’ (33) ʾana žāye [ʾətfarraž] ʿala ʿadlkon

(20:8:168)

1cs comeAPcs [watchPF1cs] PREP justice2cp

‘I have come [to watch] your jurisprudence’ The gram switch in (30) is one between modal forms of the verb: a prefix form with the b-prefix alternates with one without. In (31) the switch is from a non-verbal clause with bədd- to a prefix form verb. Example (32) is taken from a context with suffix verb forms. Here, hypotaxis is marked on the last verb by the switch to a prefix form verb. In (33), finally, the switch is from a participle to a bare prefix form verb. Before uttering these words, the person speaking has, for a while, been watching the judge in action. The judge has, here, turned to him to ask why he has come.

4.2.4 Adversative clauses Other non-main clauses that may be marked by gram switching are those that express the adversative. These clauses encode limitations on the validity of 51 Lit: the second day.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

83

the proposition in the head, or present circumstances that are contradictory to the statement in the head: (34) ḍallēt sabʿa tməntəšhor bmaṭbaʿt əlḥukūme [w-ma kān yərḍa halmudīr halmanẓūm yəḥsəbli ʾəžra] (1:26:10) staySF1cs seven eight.months PREP.print-shop DEF.goverment [w-NEG beSF3ms consentPF3ms DEM.DEF.director DEM.DEF.dignified creditPF3ms.PREP1cs salary]

‘I stayed seven, eight months in the national print shop [without that the dignified director agreed to pay me a salary]’ The first clause here contains a suffix form verb, whereas, in the second clause, there is a combination of the copula verb kān in suffix form and a prefix form verb. In addition to this gram switch, the clause juncture is signalled by w(ə)-.

4.2.5 Relative clauses The ambiguity inherent in asyndetic relative clauses was discussed above (3.3). Here are a few more examples: (35) barki ʾənno ʾalla byəžmaʿak bḥada [təṭlaʿ ʾənte wīyā] (1:68:26) maybe COMP God b.bring.togetherPF3ms.2ms PREP.someone [set.outPF2ms 2ms with3ms]

‘Maybe God brings you together with someone [with whom you can go]’52 (36) žamaʿna bzalame [ydabbərna bšaġle ʿattalifōnāt] (1:91:34) bring.togetherSF3ms.1cp PREPchap [arrange.forPF3ms.1cp PREP.business PREP.DEF.telephones]

‘brought me together with someone [who (would) get me53 a job in the telephone business]’ The contexts of these examples clearly give us relative clause interpretations of the clauses. Specifically, a relative clause reading is supported by the tense that does not support a reading where the action or event in the non-main clause is simultaneous with the head clause action or event. Hypotaxis is marked in (35) by a switch from a prefix form with b-prefix to one without; and in (36) by a switch from a suffix form to a prefix form. The syntactic and morphologic marking, however, does not disclose the clause type. 52 Lit: you go with him. 53 Lit: he makes arrangements for me.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

84

Maria Persson

4.2.6 Causal clauses A non-specific non-main clause marked by gram switching may also express the cause for the action or event expressed in the head clause: (37) yḍallu raġbānīn [ʿam ymaššu ḥālon] (1:25:10) remainPF3cp wantAPmp [PROGR make.walkPF3cp themselves]

‘(they) remain keen [(as) they are making it through]’ Since the interpretation of clause type, in lack of conjunctions or other specific markers, is context dependent other interpretations may be possible. Similar to my suggested translation above, Bloch and Grotzfeldt (1964, 11) have opted for a translation that allows for both a simultaneous (“circumstantial”) and a causal reading: “und willig blieben, indem sie sich einigermaßen über die Runden brachten”.54 The gram switch here is from a bare prefix form verb to one marked for the progressive by ʿam-.

4.2.7 Manner clauses One category that, traditionally, has been associated with circumstantial clauses is descriptive clauses with adverbial meanings such as where, when or how the head clause event or activity has taken place: (38) waʾʾafūna bʾǝrne [ʾafāna lǝlḥēṭ]

(5:10:62)

stopSF3cp.1cp PREP.corner [backs1cp PREP.DEF.wall]

‘they placed us in a corner [with our backs to the wall]’ In (38) a non-verbal clause effectively breaks the succession of activities - the flow of the narrative related in suffix form verbs – to give us a description of the activity: namely that the placement of the men was done in such a way that their backs were against the wall.

4.2.8 Complement clauses Complement clauses do not belong to the types of clauses that have been counted as circumstantial. Nevertheless, the syntactic marking may very well be the same: (39) ʾūlīlo [yəži lahōn] lašūf… (17:31:134) sayIMP2fs.PREP3ms [comePF3ms PREP.here] PREP.seePF1cs…

54 I.e. “… and remaining keen, while/as fairly making the ends meet”.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

85

‘Tell him [to come here] that I may see…’ The gram switch here is between an imperative and a bare prefix form verb. Examples of a gram switch that marks complement clauses were also mentioned by Ambros (1977, 88; cf. also Lewin 1966, *39*). Note that a switch between an imperative and a prefix form was also used in (29) above, where it, instead, marked a result clause. The type of switch, thus, has no implication for the (semantic) type of non-main clause linking.

4.2.9 Clausal circumstantials at the text level Finally, an example where, in my view, the translation provided by Bloch and Grotzfeldt is not entirely felicitous, and where I believe the reason for their choice of translation may be a lack of awareness of how gram switching is used to mark clause linking: (40) btəži mən halfərn - bətkūn ṣəḫne - mənṣaḫḫen nətfet mayy mənbəḫḫha (16:21:122) b.comePF3fs PREP DEM.DEF.oven – b.bePF3fs hot – b.heat.upPF1cp bit water b.vaporizePF1cp.3fs

“Wenn sie vom Backhaus zurückkommt, ist sie warm. Wir wärmen ein bißchen Wasser und besprühen sie.”55 Bloch and Grotzfeldt (1964, 123) interpret the first line in this example as temporal: “Wenn sie vom Backhaus zur̈ uckkommt, ist sie warm”, i.e. “when it comes from the bakery it is warm”. However, the main line of the story consists of a number of coordinated verb clauses expressing a temporal sequence “we cover it, we send it, we heat … etc”. All these verbs are in the prefix form with the b-prefix (realized as m- for 1 person singular). This line of simple prefix form verbs is broken by a clause without a full verb. Instead the copula verb kān ‘to be’ is used: bətkūn ṣəḫne ‘it will be warm’. Even though the b-prefix is attached to the copula verb, this use of a different gram than the surrounding also breaks the story line. It does not move the story forward but is an aside comment, a digression from the main line. It is marked as such by this gram switch. With all due respect to the translation work done by Bloch and Grotzfeldt and their Syrian consultants, I would therefore suggest this slight adjustment to the translation: “(then) it

55 I.e. When it comes from the bakery it is warm. We heat some water and sprinkle it.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

86

Maria Persson

comes from the bakery – warm – and (then) we heat up some water and spray it.

4.3 Cases of ambiguity revisited The awareness of how gram switching works to signal hypotaxis lessens the ambiguity of asyndetically linked clauses. The clauses described as ambiguous in section 3 above ought, therefore, to be revisited. In 3.5 there is no question of ambiguity between different types of non-main clauses. In all examples, gram switching marks a general, non-specific digression from the main line. The ambiguity, instead, concerns the scope of the digression. This kind of ambiguity will not receive more attention here.

4.3.1 Coincidence between circumstantials and ordinary coordination or sequence A survey of the ambiguous examples in section 3 where one possible reading of the clause linking is as coordination or sequence shows that, in most of these cases there is no gram switch. In (5) and (6), both clauses feature a bare prefix verb; in (7) and (8) both verbs are prefix forms with the b-prefix; and, finally, in (9) both clauses have suffix form verbs. However, in four instances gram switching does occur: In (10) the switch is between a verb-less clause56 with the copula verb ṣār, ‘to become’, on the one hand, and a prefix verb preceded by ʿam on the other; in (11) the switch is between a verb combination with the copula verb kān + prefix forms of the verb and, again, a prefix verb preceded by ʿam: (10) ṣār ʿanna ṣaby w-bəntēn [w-nəḥna ʿam nəštəġel ləssāʿətna bəlmaṭbaʿa lhāšmīye] (1:106:40) becomeSF3ms with.1cp boy w-two.girls [w-1cp PROGR workPF1cp still PREP.DEF.printshop DEF.Hashemite]

‘(now) I had a boy and two girls57 [and (?) I was still working at the Hashemite Press]’ (11) la kānet tzīd ʾəžrətna mətl ənnās w-la kānet tənʾaṣ – [w-ləssaʿətna ʿam nətḥammal mənno halmaʾāsi] (1:108:40) NEG beSF3fs increasePF3fs salary1cp like DEF.people w-NEG beSF3fs decreasePF3fs - [w-still PROGR endurePF1cp PREP3ms DEM.DEF.severity]

56 More specifically, a clause without a full verb. 57 Lit: with me had become a boy and two girls.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

87

‘My salary did not increase like it should and/but it (also) did not decrease – [and I was still enduring this harshness on his part]’ Both of these are, as described in 3.2, comments on the situation that the narrator provides alongside the main narrative. This digression from the main line of the story is marked by gram switching. The corpus also contains examples with gram switching where an adversative interpretation of the clause is reinforced by the use of independent, preposed pronouns: (41) ṣār hūwe yākol mən hazzawāde [w-ʾana yḫallīni ʿalfaḍle]. (1:71:28) 58

AUXSF3ms 3ms PREP.DEF.rest]

eatPF3ms PREP DEM.DEF.provisions [w-1cs leavePF3ms.1cs

‘He started eating from these provisions [leaving the left-overs to me]’59 (42) yəlḥašli rġīf w-šaʾfe žəbne w-ḫyāra [w-hūwe lʾaklāt ʿando ʿala kēfo ʿam yākol] (1:72:28) throwPF3msPREP1cs loaf w-piece cheese w-cucumber [w-3ms DEF.food LOC3ms PREP discretion3ms PROGR eatPF3ms]

‘He threw over a loaf and a piece of cheese and cucumber to me [(while) he, having the food, was eating at his discretion]’ The added observation, that the clause linking in these clauses is also marked by gram switching, means that a plain coordinative reading can, probably, be ruled out. The rest of the examples in 3.2 are, as said, unmarked. As was discussed in that section, it is implications from the context, from logic and from the basic meanings of the verb form (suffix form), that, in those examples, lead to a possible hypotactic reading of clause linkings that, syntactically, are paratactic.

4.3.2 Coincidence between circumstantials and relative clause Of the four relative clauses mentioned, two feature gram switching. In (12) the switch is between a participle and a verb-less clause; in (14) it is between a suffix form verb and a prefix form verb preceded by ʿam. It is interesting to note that it is the two clauses not marked by gram switching that are clearly 58 Lit: he became. Cf. 5.2.4 below. 59 Lit: and me, he left to me the left-overs.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

88

Maria Persson

translated as relative clauses by Bloch and Grotzfeldt; the ones marked by gram switching are ambiguous. This does not mean that relative clauses are not marked by gram switching. 60 It may, however, be seen as supporting Johnstone’s theory that little or no subordination/embedding is involved in relative clauses in Arabic (1990, 222-223, 227).

4.3.3 Coincidence between “ḥāl muqaddar” and auxiliary In (16), with three pairs of verbs, there is a gram switch between the first two verbs but not between the verbs in the following two pairs: (16) ʾana ʾāyme [ʾətġaṭṭa] w-rūḥ [ʾəštəki] w-yəžu [yṭālʿū] bəlʾūwe žžabrīye (17:49:138) 1cs riseAPfs [coverPF1cs] w-goPF1cs [complainPF1cs] w-comePF3cp [oustPF3cp.3ms] PREP.DEF.force DEF.compulsory

‘I’m going to61 cover62 and/to go complain and/so that they come and/to oust him by force’ The gram switch between the first two verbs in (16) is one between an active participle and a bare prefix form verb. In example (17) there is no gram switch between fūt, ‘I go in’, and fayyʾo, ‘I wake him up’: (17) ʿam byəži bbāli ʾənni fūt [fayyʾo] – (17:5:126) PROGR

b.comePF3ms PREP.mind1cs COMP1cs enterPF1cs [wakePF1cs.3ms]

‘I’m getting the idea that I (should) go in and (= in order to) wake him up’ All “head” verbs in these examples are locationals: ʾām, ‘get up’, rāḥ, ‘go’, žāʾ, ‘come, and, fāt, ‘enter’, and all but the last of these are commonly found as auxiliaries. That the first verb in (16) is in the form of a participial, which is what causes a gram switch, is, most likely, to add liveliness and a sense of immanency to the action; i.e. “I’m going to get going (now!) to …”. The lack of gram switch in the other verb pairs promotes a non-final, close to auxiliary reading of these, i.e. something like “I’ll go get dressed and (go) complain and they’ll come oust them”. It is interesting to compare (17) with (32) as this contains the same head verb:

60 Cf. examples (12) and (14) above. 61 Lit: getting up. 62 I.e. get dressed for going out.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

(32) fāt laʿandi ʿalʾōḍa [yṣabbeḥ] ʿalīyi

89

(17:34:136)

enterSF3ms PREP.LOC.1cs PREP.DEF.room [greetPF3ms] PREP1cs

‘he came into the room to me to greet/greeting me good morning’ In (17) there is, as said, no gram switch. Both verbs are in the bare prefix form; in (32), on the other hand, there is a switch between a suffix form and a bare prefix form. In both examples there is a sense of intentionality. However, the close relationship between the verbs in (17) suggests a combined activity where the entering into the room is part of the process of waking the man from his sleep. In (32) the separation of the two clauses into one main clause and one non-main clause is more pronounced and signalled by a gram switch.63

4.4 Summary Gram switching may, thus, be used as the only marker of such diverse types of clause combining as the conditional and the relative, and it covers the full spectrum of what has been labelled circumstantial, i.e. logical relationships such as a condition, a cause, a result, or an interpretation of the head clause as well as descriptive relationships such as providing additional or background information about time, place, or manner of the head.64 Since final clauses are also covered, there is no need to posit a specific class of ḥāl muqaddar to cater for “circumstantial clauses” that fall outside of the pattern; they all belong to the same general system of marking of hypotaxis through a switch of grams. The discovery of gram switching is no magic wand that will resolve all ambiguity in Semitic clause combining. Ambiguity is part of normal language use. It does, however, resolve some ambiguity and, more importantly, enables us to look at non-main clause combining from a new and more comprehensive perspective.

63 See Persson (2013) for a discussion on auxiliation and the possible occurrence of verb serialization in Arabic. 64 Cf. Persson (2009, 238-240).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

90

Maria Persson

5. The relevance of form. Bloch’s three types revisited 5.1 Introduction Bloch’s formal approach mirrors the way in which “[m]ost Arabic Grammars (…) [have] been content with giving a very general characterization (‘attendant circumstance’ or the like) together with an enumeration of examples of ḥāl constructions...” (Isaksson 2009a, 5). The data presented above demonstrate that the idea of the circumstantial clause as a distinct syntactic category in Arabic cannot be upheld. Nevertheless, a classification based on formal criteria does not appear unless there is a considerable quantity of clauses that conform to a set number of patterns and that seem to have the same function. Arab grammarians, and grammarians of Arabic, have noticed a large number of clauses with more or less adverbial function and found structures commonly used for these. Though it is now obvious that they have been a bit too quick to place a label on them and assume a distinct class of clauses, the reason for their discovery is still valid. Although a coherent syntactic class of “circumstantial clauses” cannot be established, there are specific structures that, more often than not, are found with clauses enhancing other clauses circumstantially. Therefore, when the clauses for this survey had been collected, I investigated how many of the clauses in the database conformed to the three structural types described by Bloch. All in all, I found eighty instances that conform to Bloch’s Type 1 pattern65 in which he also includes clauses with participial predicates as well as what he calls “verselbstständigter Zs”66, the latter largely corresponding to what I here have labelled ‘clausal circumstantials at the text level’. There are also five instances of his Type 2 pattern67 and twenty-four instances of his Type 3 pattern68 adding up to a total of 109 instances in the database of clauses that meet the formal requirements for a circumstantial clause suggested by Bloch. This means that just over half of the collected database corresponds to Bloch’s definition of a circumstantial clause. Basic examples of Types 1-3, drawn from the present database, were given in the introduction to this article (examples 1-3). Below, I will discuss addi65 66 67 68

Type 1: (w-) + subject + predicate (verbal or not verbal). I.e. “Circumstantial clauses that have become ‘independent’” (Bloch 1965, 74). Type 2: (w-) + predicate (prepositional phrase) + subject. Type 3: finite verbal predicate.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

91

tional examples showing possible variation, mainly within Types 1 and 3, which Bloch recognizes, but also problems posed by the formal criteria he posits.

5.2 Type 1. (w-) + subject + predicate (verbal or not verbal) 5.2.1 General remarks Bloch’s Type 1 contains the most syntactically marked of the types of circumstantial clauses that have traditionally been recognized: the clause introduced by w(ə)- followed by a pronoun: (43) tšaḥḥaret ktīr [w-hīye mablūle bəlmayy] (32:4:190) become.sootySF3fs much [w-3fs soakPPfs PREP.DEF.water]

‘It (the cat) became very sooty [(as) it was soaked by the (rain-) water]’ (44) ḍallēna mədde mn əzzaman [w-nəḥna ʿala haššaġle] (1:97:38) staySF1cs period PREP DEF.time [w-1cp PREP DEM.DEF.work]

‘I stayed some time [(being) in this business]’ The use of the pronoun here specifically indicates that the non-main clause describes one of the participants of the main clause. This fact will receive further attention below (5.7). However, not many clauses are so clearly marked. This means that this marking, though typically marking what has been perceived as a circumstantial clause, cannot, in any sense, be perceived as a marker of a class of circumstantial clauses. It marks a fragment of what has, traditionally, been labelled circumstantial. Nineteen of the instances in the database are “verselbstständigter Zs” or what I have chosen to label ‘clausal circumstantials at the text level’, i.e they do not refer back to a specific head clause. Because of this rather significant structural difference, they will be treated separately. Of the sixty-one remaining Type 1 examples that are recorded in the present database, twenty-five are introduced by w(ə)- and thirty-six are not. In eighteen of the twenty-five that are introduced by w(ə)-, this w(ə)- is immediately followed by a noun or a pronoun. This means that only eighteen of the sixty-one clauses feature the double marking of w(ə)- and a preposed subject.69

69 Six of the nineteen circumstantials at the text level have this double marking, i.e. in both groups these constitute about 30% of the cases. The number of clauses is, however, too small for any reliable conclusions to be drawn.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

92

Maria Persson

Looking instead at the types of predicates included, it turns out that in all but four of the thirty-six clauses that are not introduced by w(ə)- the predicate is a participle. When preceded by a noun or pronoun, participial predicates are, however, among the clauses introduced by w(ə)-.70 This indicates that the use of w(ə)- may not be optional after all, but conditioned by the form of the predicate. This will be further discussed below. Other types of predicates found after w(ə)-, with or without a preposed subject, are verb-less (noun) clauses, finite verb clauses, and clauses following an expression with ṣār l(i)-. Bloch also mentions preposed circumstantial clauses as belonging to Type 1. However, as will be seen below, the data base contains several preposed circumstantial clauses that do not conform to Bloch’s criteria for Type 1.

5.2.2 Finite verbs Only eleven of the sixty-one instances of Type 1 are verbal clauses with finite verbs. Four of these are preposed and will be discussed further on. Of the remaining six, all but one are preceded by w(ə)-. The one example without w(ə)- is (45): (45) ʾāmet ʾallaʿto [nəḥne ʿam nərʾoṣ] (8:6:70) AUXSF3fs

71

oustSF3fs.3ms [1cp PROGR dancePF1cs]

‘She threw him out [(as) we were dancing]’ Likewise, of the six, all but one contain the pre-verbal particle ʿam and, thus, are similar to (45) in all but the use of w(ə)-: (46) štaġalna mədde mn əzzaman [w-nəḥna ʿam nəštəġel ʿala ḥsābna bəṣṣafḥa] (1:102:38) workSF1cp period PREP DEF.time [w-1cp PROGR workPF1cp PREP invoice1cp PREP.DEF.page

‘I worked for a while, [working as a self-employed freelance (paid) per page]’72 The one example where the verb is not preceded by ʿam is (47): (47) laḥatta ʾarīb əlʿaṣər fənyet rəžlayyi [w-ʾana ʾəftel mən ʾərne laʾərne] laḥatta ʾalla baʿatli ṣāḥeb maṭbaʿa … (1:63:24) 70 See for example (55) below. 71 The verb used as an auxiliary literally means “she stood up”. Cf. 4.3.3 above. 72 Lit: working on my own invoice, per page.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

93

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

PREP.CONJ close DEF.afternoon be.spentSF3fs legs1cs [w-1cs spinPF1cs PREP corner PREP corner] – PREP.CONJ God sendSF3ms.PREP1cs owner print-shop …

‘Until, in the late afternoon 73 , my feet were worn out [(from) whirling from one place to the other]74 – until God sent me a print-shop owner…’ All the examples with finite verbs feature a gram switch. In four instances, such as the examples quoted here, the switch is one between a suffix form and a prefix form; in the remaining two it is a switch from either a participle or a bare prefix form to a prefix form preceded by ʿam. The clauses are temporal, expressing a simultaneous activity or event (while/as) such as (45), or they describe the manner in which something is done or experienced such as (46) as well as (1) above. They may also have a meaning that is between the two such as (47).

5.2.3 Non-verbal predicates The texts include six examples of Type 1 where the circumstantial clause is entirely non-verbal. One of these is preposed (see below) and all are introduced by w(ə)- such as (48): (48) sakkar əṭṭāwle [wəddaʾʾ bʾīdi] (18:5:142) closeSF3ms DEF.board [w-victory PREP.hand1cs]

‘He folded the board [(when) victory was in my hand]’ While the non-main clause in (48) is temporal, most of the other examples in the database are descriptive such as (49): (49) ṭəleʿ əssabʿ mn əlʾafaṣ [w-ʿalāyem əlġaḍab ʿalē]

(28:4:186)

exitSF3ms DEF.lion PREP DEF.cage [w-signs DEF.anger PREP.3ms]

‘The lion left the cage [with (showing) signs of anger75]’ The meaning of the Type 1 non-verbal circumstantial may also be a combination of both: (50) wṣəlna [wəddənye ʿətme] (1:35:14) arriveSF1cs [w-DEF.world dark]

‘We arrived [and/when it was dark]’ 73 Lit: close to (time of) the afternoon prayer. 74 Lit: and I spin from corner to corner. 75 Lit: and signs of anger (were) on him

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

94

Maria Persson

In (50), the statement that it was dark works both to locate the event in time and to describe the scene. The narrator goes on to comment on the lack of electricity in the village. In five of the examples there is a gram switch from a suffix form verb to the non-verbal clause, in the sixth example the main clause contains a combination the copula verb kān in suffix form and a participle.

5.2.4 Circumstantials following an expression with ṣār l(i)Within the Type 1 group, Bloch recognizes that an expression with ṣār l(i)- + noun/pronoun may be the head of a circumstance:76 (51) ṣār lak šahr ramaḍān ṭūlo [ġāyeb ʿanhon] (17:19:130)77 happenSF3ms PREP2ms month Ramadan lenght3ms [be.absentAPms PREP3cp]

‘all of Ramadan has passed for you [(being) away from them]’ (52) ʾana ṣār li ḫamsīn səne [mṣawwer] (27:3:184)78 1cs happenSF3ms PREP1cs fifty years [photographer]

‘Fifty years have passed for me [(being) a photographer]’ Only five examples of this were found in the texts. As in (51, 52) the predicate in all but one is a participle. In one, the participle is preceded by w(ə)- + pronoun: (53) ṣār lo tmānā-w-ʿəšrīn yōm [w-hūwe lāzeʾ bəlbēt] (17:4:126) happenSF3ms PREP3ms eight-w-twenty days [w-3ms be.gluedAPms PREP.DEF.house]

‘Twenty-eight days have passed for him [(while) he has refused to leave the house]’79 The one example with a finite verb instead of a participle consists of a negated progressive: (54) w-ʾana ṣār li tlət əsnīn – [māli ʿamma bəštəġel bhaṣṣanʿa] (1:101:38)80 76 Cf. also Grotzfeld (1965, 102). The expression consists of a combination of the verb ṣār, ‘happen’, and the preposition l(i)-, ‘for’, ‘to’, plus a pronoun or noun expressing the person to whom the period of time had elapsed. Whether this time span is long or short, the activity or event expressed in the clause must be of such a kind that it can have been ongoing for all that time; such as is expressed by a stative or a progressive. 77 Cf. Bloch (1965, 71). 78 Cf. Bloch (1965, 71). 79 A more literal translation would be “and he is glued to the house”.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

95

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic w-1cs happenSF3ms PREP1cs three years – [NEG1cs PROGR b.workPF1cs PREP.DEM.DEF.profession]

‘Three years had passed for me [(during which) I had not worked/while I was not working in this profession]’81 Thus, in all the examples there is a gram switch. The combination of the negation and the progressive in (54) creates the sense of stativity that is also implied in the participles and, I would assume, a necessary collocation for an expression such as ṣār l(i)-.82

5.2.5 Participial predicates With twenty-six instances of participle alone (whereof one introduced by w(ə)-), and with seventeen examples of pronoun/noun+participle (whereof ten introduced by w(ə)-), participial predicates constitute the most common variety (2/3) of what has been counted as Bloch’s Type 1 in my collected data. An example of the (w-) + pronoun/noun + participle variety is (55): (55) w-ʾəmm rəšdi raḥa tṭəʾʾ əlməskīne [w-hīye sākte] … (17:4:126) w-mother Rəšdi FUT burstPF3fs DEF.poor [w-3fs be.quietAPfs]

‘and Umm Rushdie was on the verge of exploding, poor one, [and/but she was quiet]’ The corpus, as said, contains thirty-six clauses that conform to Type 1 that are not introduced by w(ə)- and, of these, thirty-two are participial. The reason for the lack of conjunction here is structural. Consider (56-57): (56) bšūf ənnās [rāyḥa žāye] (1:6:2) b.seePF1cs DEF.people [goAPfs comeAPfs]

‘I see people [coming and going]’ (57) ʾərkod83 ʿala halbēt ʿala ḍaww ʿalbēt [mabṣūṭ]

(1:17:6)

runPF1cs PREP DEM.DEF.house PREP light PREP.DEF.house [happy]

‘I would run [happy] to the house in daylight’ 80 Cf. Bloch (1965, 70, 72). 81 As in all examples here the aim is not for idiomatic English translations but translations that are fairly close to the Arabic original. An even more literal translation would be “me not being at work in this profession”. 82 Cf. footnote 74 above. 83 Sic!

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

96

Maria Persson

To insert w(ə)- here is hardly conceivable.84 Since w(ə)-, then, is not an option, there is no overt marking in most of these clauses. It is the gram switch alone, the switch from a finite verb to a participle, which signals the non-main clause.

5.2.6 “Preposed circumstantial clause” Bloch also mentions the possibility of preposing the circumstantial clause, a construction that Kaye and Rosenhouse (1997, 308) suggested is especially common in colloquial Arabic.85 Brustad explains the phenomenon as a case of “frame-setting” or topicality: When circumstantial clauses occur in sentence-initial position, they function to give a temporal and descriptive frame within which the action of the main verb takes place. (Brustad 2000, 340) Bloch only recognizes the existence of Type 1 preposed circumstantial clauses. However, there are several examples in my database of preposed circumstantial clauses that do not conform to Bloch’s criteria. Of the twenty-nine preposed circumstantial clauses I have collected, sixteen conform both to Bloch’s description of Type 1 and the added comment that he gives that only pronouns, no nouns, are found to introduce these. These will be discussed in 5.2.6.1 followed by a survey of those that do not conform to Bloch’s description. According to Bloch, the use of w(ə)- is optional. It is possible that Bloch did not do a statistical survey of this; he found that both options existed and

84 See Bloch (1965, 71). I have found one possible exception to the rule that a participial circumstantial cannot be introduced by w(ə)-:

(i) lakān hēk bəddna nḍall ḥāṭṭīno ġēme sōda bəlbēt [w-ʾāʿdīn]? (17:52:140) then thus wish1cp stayPF1cp putAPcp3ms cloud black PREP.DEF.house [wsitAPcp] ‘should we then stay like this, having put him in the house as a black cloud and [(remain) sitting (doing nothing)]?’ As this is the only exception, and as the subject is mentioned shortly before both as a verbal inflection (nḍall) and, implicit, in the plural of the previous participle, I believe it is reasonable to posit a deleted pronoun here (w-nǝḥna ʾāʿdīn [w-1pc sitAPpc] ‘us sitting’). 85 Cf. also Blau (1960, 225) and Rosenhouse (1978, 229).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

97

concluded that the w(ə)- is optional.86 In my survey of the texts, however, I find that the cases without an introductory w(ə)- are much more common than those that are introduced by w(ə)-. The whole database contains only five examples of preposed circumstantial clauses introduced by w(ə)-. Conspicuously, all of these are found among the sixteen clauses conforming to Bloch’s Type 1 pattern. This still leaves the majority even of this limited group (eleven examples) without an introducing w(ə)-. Brustad suggested, in the above quote, that these clauses set a temporal and descriptive frame to the main activity or event. It seems, however, that the tendency for temporal frame setting is the strongest. In the modern urban Gulf Arabic data most of the preposed circumstantial clauses express time (Persson 2009, 276-277). In the present corpus, all the preposed circumstantial clauses are temporal. This indicates that this particular construction functions, at least in the two surveyed types of Arabic, as a specific type of temporal clause. After this introduction I will proceed to a survey of the clauses found in the database. I will first describe the sixteen clauses that do conform to Bloch’s criteria and then proceed to discuss the thirteen clauses that do not conform to this type.

5.2.6.1 “Preposed circumstantial clauses” that do conform to Bloch’s criteria Examples (58-60) are among those that conform to Bloch’s Type 1: (58) [w-nəḥna ballašna nəštəġel] tətḥassan ʾəžrətna (1:104:40) w-1cs startSF1cp workPF1cp] improvePF3fs salary1cs

‘[(As) I started to work] my salary was (increasingly) better’

86 Another possible reason would be that Bloch’s definition of circumstantial clauses has led to a different selection than that of the present study. While this may be true, it is worth noting that all but one of the clauses included in the present study have been translated by Bloch and Grotzfeld (1964) as temporal (als/wenn…) or simultaneous (während). The one exception is an example translated as a conditional: [bikūn hassammān māsek halʾannīne ʿamma ykǝtt bǝlʾannīne hadīke zēt] byəmroʾ hāda ššēḫ (25:2:180), translated as “Hatte der Krämer eine Flasche in der hand gehalten, indem er in diese Flasche Öl goß, so kam dieser Scheich vorbei ”. In other words the translation is “If … had a bottle in his hand, [then!] this sheikh would pass by”. As seen from my insertion of “then” the clause may be compared to other clauses included in the discussion in 4.2.2 on the ambiguity between the temporal and the conditional.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

98

Maria Persson

(59) [w-hū rāked] ma laʾa ʾəlla ʾārme maktūbe lḥākem qaraqāš (20:5:166) [w-3fs runAPms] NEG findSF3ms except sign writePPfs DEF.judge Qaraqash

‘[(As) he was running] he suddenly found a sign that said “judge Qaraqash”’ (60) [w-hūwe ʿam yfakker] šāf bāb əssabʿ nfataḥ

(28:4:186)

[w-3ms PROGR thinkPF3ms] seeSF3ms door DEF.lion be.openedSF3ms

‘[(As) he was thinking] he saw the door of the lion being opened’ As is seen from these examples, the double marking, where the clause is introduced by w(ə)- followed by a pronoun, is also found in the preposed clauses. However, as said above, most of the preposed clauses do not feature a w(ə)-. Example (61) has a participial predicate and, thereby, represents the most common type (ten of the sixteen examples): (61) [hūwe māši bǝššāreʿ] šāf sərk (28:1:184) [3ms walkAPms PREP.DEF.road] seeSF3ms circus

‘[(As) he walked in the street] he saw a circus’ A less common variety (four examples) has a finite verb: (62) [hūwe ʿam yġanni] - ma kənna nəfham ʿalē nəḥna (4:5:50) [w-3ms PROGR singPF3ms] – NEG beSF1cp understandPF1cp PREP3ms 1cp

‘[(While) he was singing] we did not understand him (i.e. what he was singing)’ There is also one instance of a non-verbal predicate: (63) [w-hūwe binǝṣṣ ǝlḥlāʾa] fāt kalb

(30:3:188)

[w-3ms PREPhalf DEF.shaving] enterSF3ms dog

‘[(As) he was halfway through shaving] a dog entered’ In addition to these, there is one example with bədd-: (64) [ʾana bǝddi rūḥ laʾand 87 žamāʿti lahnīke] - yəṣraḫu ʿalīyi hadōle (4:13:52) [1cs wish1cs goPF1cs PREP.LOC group1cs PREP.there] – shoutPF3cp PREP1cs DEM

87 Sic!

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

99

‘[(As) I want to go to my group over there] those (people) are shouting at me’ Although clauses with bədd- are generally counted among Type 3 by Bloch (see 5.4 below), I deem this to be closer to Type 1 as it is introduced by a pronoun.88 Bloch (1965, 73-74) also mentions cases such as (65) where the preposed circumstantial is followed by a more or less frozen non-verbal phrase with a nomen vicis of a locational verb: (65) [w-nǝḥna ʿam nǝštǝġel] - bžayyet wāḥed taḥṣaldār (4:16:54) [w-1cs PROGR workPF1cs] – PREP.comeVN one tax.collector

‘[(While) we were working] there came a tax collector’ As may be seen from the glosses, in all these examples there is a gram switch. Another peculiarity found within this group of clauses, but one that Bloch does not mention, is the placement of w(ə)- in the following examples: (66) fī wāḥed doktōr ʾāʿed bməstašfa lmažanīn - [māreʾ fi sāḥet əlməstašfa] w-ʾām ṣadaf wāḥed mažnūn. (43:1:198) there.is one doctor sitAPms PREP.hospital DEF.lunatics – [walkAPms PREP square 89 DEF.hospital] w-AUXSF3ms stumble.uponSF3ms one lunatic

‘There was a doctor (located) at the lunatic asylum – [(as) he was walking in the hospital square] he happened to meet someone mad.’ (67) [hūwe ʿamma yǝrfaʿlo ʿam ysarreḥ ǝššaʿrāt] - (…) - w-ʾāmet nʾarṭet šaʿra rāḥet (37:2:194) [3ms PROGR liftPF3msPREP3ms PROGR combPF3ms DEF.hairs] - (…) – w90 AUXSF3fs be.cut.offSF3fs hair goSF3fs

‘[(As) he was lifting his hair up combing it] – (…) – one hair broke and was gone’ The use of the w(ə)- here is interesting. Obviously, the circumstance in (66) is that the doctor was walking in the main area of the hospital and it was “as he was walking…” that he bumped into one of the patients “a crazy one”. This 88 Theoretically, this could also be an example of Type 3 where the pronoun (ʾana, ‘I’) is topicalized and, hence, the ‘real’ circumstantial, anyway, starts with bədd-. Such an interpretation is, however, not supported by the context. 89 Lit: he stood up. Cf. 4.3.3 above. 90 Lit: she stood up. Cf. 4.3.3 above.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

100

Maria Persson

also has the form of an ordinary preposed circumstantial. Yet, it is the second clause that has received a w(ə)-. Similarly in (67), it was while the barber was trying to create some kind of hairdo with the customers remaining three hairs that the (one) hair broke. The w(ə)- added to the second (main) clause is certainly not a coordinative conjunction but expresses the simultaneity inherent in the circumstantial. Yet, the placement of this w(ə)- seems to have become skewed as the speaker chose to use a “preposed circumstantial clause” - where use of w(ə)- is not very common in the surveyed texts.

5.2.6.2 “Preposed circumstantial clauses” that do not conform to Bloch’s criteria As said, of the twenty-nine preposed circumstantials I have collected, sixteen conform to Bloch’s description of Type 1, to which he adds the comment that only pronouns, no nouns, are found to introduce the preposed clauses. However, in the remaining thirteen instances found in the corpus, both w(ə)- and the pronoun are missing. For some of these, alternative interpretations are available, but some clearly have the same enhancing function as the sixteen cases discussed above.

a) Noun instead of pronoun The smallest deviation from Bloch’s description of what a ‘preposed circumstantial clause’ in Damascene Arabic should look like is found in (68): (68) [ʾabu ḥamdo rāžeʿ mn əlʾahwe] ləssa ma fāt mən bēto wəlla ʿabʾet ʿalē harrawāyeḥ (21:15:170) [Abu Hamdo returnAPms PREP DEF.café] yet NEG enterSF3ms PREP house3ms except pressSF3fs PREP3ms DEM.DEF.fragrances

‘[(As) Abu Hamdu was returning from the café] even before he entered his house the fragrances overwhelmed him’ Bloch states that only pronouns may introduce a preposed clause. Here, however, and in one other example, we find (the name) Abu Hamdo at the head of the clause. Similarly in (69) the clause is introduced by a noun: (69) [ǝlmfatteš ʿamma yāḫod ǝlbīlēt mn ǝrrǝkkāb] - žtamaʿ bṣāḥəbna (29:2:186) [DEF.inspector PROGR takePF3ms DEF.ticket PREP DEF.passengers] – meetSF3ms PREP.friend1cs

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

101

‘[(As) the inspector was collecting the ticket(s) from the passengers] – he came across our friend’ It is possible to regard this circumstantial expression, not as preposed, but as following the previous clause, which is how Bloch and Grotzfeld have interpreted this paragraph.91 The full context, with a rather literal translation, is as follows: (69b) wəṣel laryāʾ - [ǝlmfatteš ʿamma yāḫod ǝlbīlēt mn ǝrrǝkkāb] - žtamaʿ bṣāḥəbna (29:2:186) arriveSF3ms PREP.Ryāʾ - [DEFinspector PROGR takePF3ms DEF.ticket PREP DEF.passengers] – meetSF3ms PREP.friend1cs

‘he arrived in Ryāʾ - [the inspector is collecting the ticket(s) from the passengers] – he came across our friend’ To my understanding, it is equally, if not more, plausible to see the two latter events as a unit, i.e. that the conductor reached the protagonist’s seat while collecting the tickets. No matter the reading, the prefix form verb in the inserted clause creates a gram switch in the story otherwise told with suffix forms. By this, the non-main clause is marked as such.

b) Participial clause with no preposed subject In (70) there is neither a pronoun nor a noun subject to introduce the preposed circumstantial: (70) [šāleḥ əlfarde ttānye] tzakkar ʾənno … (26:5:182) [take.offAPms DEF.unit DEF.second] rememberSF3ms COMP…

‘[(as) he had taken off the other one (of his pair of boots)] he remembered that …’ The preposed clause starts with the predicate in the form of a participle. A gram switch occurs as this participial clause is followed by a suffix form verb.

c) Prefix form verb with ʿam or bThere are also instances with prefix form verbs (Bloch’s Type 3, see 5.4 below) in preposed position: 91 “Er kam in Ryāʾ an, da nahm der Schaffner die Billets von den Passagieren. Er traf unsern Freund und…”. I.e. “He arrived in Ryāʾ; then the conductor took the tickets from the passengers. He met our friend and…” (1964, 187).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

102

Maria Persson

(71) w-mnənzel bšwayyet ṭarḫūn - [btəġli lkəbbe] mənḥəṭṭəlha šwayyet naša (16:25:124) w-b.take.downPF1cp PREP.some tarragon – [b.boilPF3fs DEF.kebbeh] b.putPF1cpPREP.3fs some starch

‘and we put in some tarragon - [(when) the kebbeh boils] we add some starch to it’ Interestingly, it is only among the preposed circumstantials that I have found examples in the texts of Type 3 where the verb has a b-prefix. In all other examples of Type 3, the verb is preceded by the progressive particle ʿam- (cf. 5.4). Even more interesting, perhaps, is the fact that (71) is one of three examples in the database, only, of a preposed circumstantial without a gram switch.92 Context alone gives the temporal meaning here. One of the other two examples without a gram switch is also interesting since it contains a main clause that is surrounded by circumstantials. The second of these, the Type 2 [maʿo ḥmār], was mentioned in 3.3 above as example (12). The first circumstantial, however, is preposed. The example is repeated here as (12b) with both circumstantials marked by square brackets: (12b) [hūwe māši bhaṭṭarīʾ] - māši wāḥed [maʿo ḥmār] w-ʿabāyto ṭawīle (20:1:166) [3ms walkAPms PREP.DEM.DEF.road] – walkAPms one [PREP.3ms donkey] wcape3ms long

‘[(as) he was walking on the road] – there was one walking [(having) with him a donkey] and his cloak was long’ Not only is there no gram switch as both predicates are participles; the predicates are also identical (māši). Thus, what creates the sense of a preposed circumstantial here, in addition to context, is the pronoun that introduces the clause. Returning to examples with gram switching, there are some where a combined tense (auxiliary + main verb) causes the gram switch: (72) [bǝtkūn hannaṣbe ġalyāne bmayyet ǝlḥamḍ bmayyet ǝlbanadōra] mənsaʾʾeṭ halkūsa hēk layəstəwi (16:3:116) b.bePF3ms DEM.DEF.broth boiling PREP.water DEF.lemon PREP.water DEF.tomato] b.drop.downPF1cp DEM.DEF.zucchini thus CONJ.maturePF3ms 92 The other two feature participles in both clauses.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

103

‘[(When) the broth with lemon juice and tomato juice is boiling] we drop down the zucchini like this so that it will become done’ Here, again, there is a b-prefix, this time on the copula verb kān.

d) Suffix form There are two examples in the texts of preposed circumstantials with a suffix form verb. In one of the examples the suffix verb is a main verb: (73) [stawu baʾa] - nazzəlha lahaṭṭanžara baʾa … (16:11:118) [become.doneSF3cp PTCL] – putIMP2ms PREP3fs PREP.DEM.DEF.pot PTCL

‘[Then, (when) they are done], put into the pot…’ The main clause predicate nazzəlha, ‘put into it’, is an imperative which causes a gram switch. In the second example there is a combined tense where the suffix verb is an auxiliary combined with a main verb in the bare prefix form: (74) [ṣāru yǝġlu baʾa] ġaṭṭēnāhon (16:11:118) [AUXSF3cp93 boilPF3cp PTCL] coverSF1cp3cp

‘[then, (when) they boil] we cover them’ The main clause verb ġaṭṭēna, ‘we cover(ed)’ is a simple suffix form verb, which means that there is a gram switch in this example, too.

e) Type 3 with bəddFinally, the database also includes one example of a preposed circumstantial introduced by bədd- that conforms to the kind that Bloch counts as Type 3 (cf. 5.4): (75) [bəddo yəmši] ʾallo taʿa lahōn ya ʾaḫūna (22:9:174) [wish3ms walkPF3ms] saySF3ms.PREP3ms comeIPM2ms PREP.here VOC brother1cp

‘[(when) he wanted to go] he said to him, “Come here my friend!”’ As mentioned above in 5.2.6.1, there is yet another example of a circumstantial with bədd- that does not fit the patterns, namely (64) above.

93 Lit: They became. Cf. 5.2.4 above.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

104

Maria Persson

5.2.7 Clausal circumstantials at the text level. Bloch’s “verselbstständigter Zs” When Isaksson (2009b, 103-105) coined the term “circumstantial qualifiers on the text level”, and pointed out the hitherto unnoticed use of specific marking for these, the discovery itself of clauses that coincide in form with clauses that appear in various lists of ‘circumstantial clauses’, but that qualify a whole piece of text instead of (only) a particular clause, was not new. Bloch (1965, 74) described their occurrence in the Damascene data and called them “verselbstständigter Zs” i.e. circumstantial clauses that have become independent. Bloch also remarks that these clauses, such as (76), tend to function as general background remarks set off from the main line of the discourse: (76) ṣār yəġsəlha - [wəddənye šəte bard] - ṣār yəġsəl halʾəṭṭa AUXSF3ms

(32:5:192)

94

washPF3ms.3fs – [w-DEF.world winter cold] - AUXSF3ms washPF3ms DEM.DEF.cat

‘(and) started to wash her – [and it was winter and cold] – he started to wash the cat’ Note that the expression ṣār yəġsəlha, ‘he started washing it’, in (76) is repeated on both sides of the clause to mark the beginning and the end of the digression from the main line of the story. Bloch comments on this use of what he perceived as the circumstantial clause type, and even mentions the discourse-marking function of the repeated words. Nevertheless, he does not seem to have noticed the gram switch that marks the clause as a digression from the main line even when it is not introduced by w(ə)-: (77) kəll yōm yəṣrəfni – [əddənye ṣēf wənnhār ṭawīl] - yəṣrəfni ʾabl əlməġreb (1:17:6) every day dismissPF3ms.1cs – [DEF.world summer w-DEF.day long] – dismissPF3ms.1cs before DEF.sunset

‘every day he would dismiss me – [it was summer and the day was long] he would dismiss me before sunset’ (78) ʾəžu ḍayyafūni bʾadaḥ ʿaraʾ zġīr - [ʾana ma bəšrab ʿaraʾ] - ʾalabton (7:9:68) 95

AUXSF3cp

entertain.withSF3cp.1cs PREP.glass arak small – [1cs NEG b.drinkPF1cs arak] – tiltSF1cs.3cp

94 Lit: he became (both instances in this example). Cf. 5.2.4 above.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

105

‘they gave me a small glass of arak – [I don’t drink arak] – I tossed it down’ In all the examples quoted here there is a gram switch. In (76-77) that are also mentioned by Bloch, the switch is from verbal clauses too verb-less clauses; in (78) the story line is told with suffix form verbs moving the story forward and the digression is marked by the use of a prefix form verb.

5.3 Type 2: (w-) + predicate (prepositional phrase) + subject Type 2 is, in Bloch’s description, rather cohesive and does not receive much attention. Moreover, with only five instances, it is almost non-existent in the texts under survey. My collection of Type 2 clauses contains two examples that entirely coincide with the ones given by Bloch, one of them cited as (2) above. Of the other three, one is without w(ə)- : (79) marra – kənna sahrānīn bəllādʾīye [maʿna wāḥed darwīš šwayye] (9:1:70)96 time – beSF1cp spend.the.eveningAPmp PREP.Latakia [PREP1cp one poor somewhat]

‘one time – we were hanging out in Latakia in the evening [(having) with us someone who was a somewhat gullible (lit. poor)]’ The gram switch in this clause is one from a combined verb form with the copula verb kān to the non-verbal clause of the circumstantial. The next Type 2 clause contains a slightly more complex clause: (80) ənsaḥabna mən halḫān - [w-bwəššna nlāʾīlna (…) ši ʾərne nətʾāwa fīha šwayye] - labēn ma ʾənno təmši ḥarket əlbalad (1:40:16) withdrawSF1cp PREP DEM.DEF.inn – w-PREP.face1cs findPF1cp.PREP.1cp (…) some corner retreatPF1cs PREP3fs somewhat] – until REL COMP walkPF3fs movement DEF.city

‘We withdrew from this inn – [and we intended/intending97 to find (…) some corner to hide away in for a bit] – until the city started to move’

95 Lit: they came. Cf. 4.3.3 above. 96 Bloch (1965, 75). 97 Lit: in our face.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

106

Maria Persson

The prepositional expression, which makes up the Type 2 circumstantial, consists of a w(ə)- plus a noun creating a metaphor: “in our face (was)” meaning “we set before us to”, followed by a verbal phrase. The fifth instance of Type 2, mentioned also by Bloch (1965, 75) does not contain any new information: (81) šažžaʿət ḥāli - halmarra ṭāleʿ laḥāli [ma maʿi rfīʾ] - šažžaʿət ḥāli w-fətt (1:56:22) encourageSF1cs myself – DEM.DEF.time set.outAPms alone [NEG PREP1cs friend] - encourageSF1cs myself w-enterSF1cs

‘I took courage, this time I had gone on my own, no friend was with me; I took courage and entered…’ The phrase ma maʿi rfīʿ, ‘my friend was not with me’, which corresponds to Bloch’s Type 2, is an appositive to laḥāli, ‘on my own’. Both are added comments that constitute remarks on the circumstances surrounding the expedition. The remark in the second, that no friend was with the narrator, is, however, not a circumstance of his going on his own but a restatement of the same, in Dixon’s words a “same-event addition” (2009, 27). Consider the following, similar example: (82) waʾʾafūna žžēš – kəllīyātna musallaḥīn [maʿna msaddasāt] (5:3:60) stopSF3cp.1cp DEF.army – all1cp armPPcp [PREP1cp guns]

‘The army stopped us, we were all armed [(having) guns with us]’ Bloch gives a temporal-simultaneous interpretation to the phrase waʾʾafūna žžēš – kəllīyātna musallaḥīn: “das Militär hielt uns an, während wir alle bewaffnet waren und Revolver mit uns führten.” (my emphasis). The preceding clause, kəllīyātna musallaḥīn, ‘all of us were armed’, is according to Bloch (1965, 70) a circumstantial of Type 1 (without w(ə)-). Bloch, later on (1965, 75) mentions the expression within brackets, maʿna msaddasāt, ‘having with us revolvers’, as an example of Type 2 without w(ə)-. Hence, in his analysis, this is an example of two (different) circumstantial clauses placed after one another. Judging only from the German translation, however, Bloch and Grotzfeldt consider these phrases to be of equal status and possibly, with me, read the second as an appositive of the first. That the people had guns is not the circumstances of their being armed; it is just another way of saying that they were. Both clauses describe the circumstances surrounding the encounter with the police.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

107

More importantly, however, the circumstantial comment is far longer than Bloch in his analysis, with his formal approach, has recognized: (83) wṣəlna wəšš əṣṣəbḥ ʿand ʿala bəkra – waʾʾafūna žžēš – [kəllīyātna musallaḥīn maʿna msaddasāt – w-kamān žamāʿa tḫān yaʿni w-zkərtīye (…)98 w-kəllon tḫān yəlli maʿna] – waʾʾafūna žžēš ʿalʾasās yfattšūna – (5:3:60) arriveSF1cs face DEF.morning LOC PREP tomorrow - stopSF3cp.1cp DEF.army – [all1cp armPPmp PREP1cp guns– w-also group thugs meanPF3ms wrowdies(…) w-all3cp thugs REL PREP1cp] - stopSF3cp.1cp DEF.army PREP.grounds searchPF3cp.1cp

‘We arrived in the early morning the next day - the army stopped us, [we were all armed (having) guns with us – and also a group of thugs, you know, and rowdies (…) and all of them were thugs who were with us] – the army stopped us in order to search us’ The whole passage, from the first instance of waʾʾafūna žžēš ‘the army stopped us’ to the repetition of those same words, is a digression by the narrator from the main line of the story in order to provide the listener with more details, to describe the scene – the circumstances. The description of the circumstances, thus, contains much more than the fact that they were armed. The way in which this digression from the main line is set off as such, by a repetition of the words waʾʾafūna žžēš ‘the army stopped us’, was recognized by Bloch when he discussed “verselbstständigter Zs”(Bloch 1965, 74) and is also described elsewhere (Persson, 2014b).

5.4 Type 3: finite verbal predicate In his final category, Type 3, Bloch only includes finite verbs preceded by the particles b- or ʿam such as (84) and (85): (84) laʾa lʿālam [ʿamma tnādi] (31:1:188) findSF3ms DEF.world [PROGR shoutPF3fs]

‘he found people [shouting]’

98 mən žamāʿet əššāġūr w-mən žamāʿet mādənt əššaḥm = from the group of Šāġūr and from the group of Mādənt əššaḥm

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

108

Maria Persson

(85) laʾēna lʾarḍ [ʿam təlheb mətl ənnār] (1:73:28) findSF1cp DEF.earth [PROGR burnPF3fs like DEF.fire]

‘we found the ground [burning like fire]’ Only three such examples were found in the database: these two and example (3) above. Two of the three examples contain the doubly transitive verb laʾa (classical Arabic: laqiya), ‘to find’, whereas, in the third (3), the head clause features a combined tense with an auxiliary plus a participle. The most common variety of Type 3 in the database, constituting twentyone of the twenty-four instances, is an alternative form of Type 3 which is mentioned by Bloch: the finite verb introduced by bədd+pronoun. The noun bədd means ‘wish’ and the pronoun added to a noun is possessive.99 Hence, these clauses are final, expressing intention: (86) w-ʾəz ətḥarrak ərrəžžāl [bəddo ysāwīlna kāst əššāy] (1:44:16) w-PTCL moveSF3ms DEF.man [wish3ms makePF3ms.PREP1cs glass DEF.tea]

‘and then the man moved [(wanting) to make us a cup of tea]’ Bədd is a noun and constitutes the subject of a non-verbal clause which, in all the examples mentioned in this section, creates a gram switch. If the attached pronoun has a referent other than the subject of the main clause, the meaning is only final, with a mild imperative sense instead of a wish: (87) hāda lḥmār byəmši biwaʾʾef - žāybo [bəddak tsāwīli yā]. (36:3:194) DEM DEF.donkey b.walkPF3ms doPF2ms.PREP1cs ACC3ms]

b.stopPF3ms – bringAPms.3ms [wish2ms

‘this donkey (repeatedly) walks and stops – I have brought it [so that you can/for you to fix it for me]’100 In addition to the 21 examples mentioned here, the database contains three examples with bədd+pronoun that do not conform to the pattern. In two cases, bədd- is preceded by a w(ə)-:

99 Literally: ‘my/their/our etc. wish is to…’ used to express ‘I/they/we etc. want to…’. A suggested etymology is that it derives from the Classical Arabic bi-widdi x ‘in the desire of x’ (Ambros 1977, 92). 100 The donkey, that refuses to walk as soon as the owner wants to ride on it, has stopped outside a watchmaker’s shop and the owner likens it to a watch that constantly stops working.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

109

(88) baʾa wāḥed fāyet [w-bəddo yəshar] (9:5:72) PTCL

one enterAPms [w-wish.3ms spend.eveningPF3ms]

‘now, here someone has entered [wanting/intending to spend the evening]’ (89) kəll wāḥed ṭamar yəlli maʿo bhalʾarḍ [w-bəddo yənfod bʾēš? brīšo bəddo yənfod] (5:4:60) every one burySF3ms REL PREP3ms PREP.DEM.DEF.earth [w-wish.3ms get.throughPF3ms PREP.what? PREP.feathers.3ms wish.3ms get.throughPF3ms]

‘every one buried what he had with him in the ground [wanting to escape with what? Wanting to escape saving his skin]’101 As is often the case, w(ə)- introduces ambiguity between parataxis and hypotaxis. The next example deviates even more from the Type 3 pattern as both w(ə)- and a pronoun precedes bədd+pronoun: (90) baʾāl ənnōme ʿando bḫamsā w-ʿəšrīn līra – [w-ʾana bəddi bāt ʿala šarafo hallēle] (7:2:66) PTCL DEF.sleep LOC.3ms PREP.five w-twenty pound spend.nightPF1cs PREP honour3ms DEM.DEF.night

– [w-1cs wish1cs

‘Now, a night at his place was twenty five pound – [and I was intending to sleep at his expense102 this night]’ This example is similar to Bloch’s Type 1. The clause with bədd can be interpreted either as paratactic: “and I want to…” or as hypotactic: “I, however, want to…”.

5.5 Bloch’s ‘circumstantial expressions’ Bloch stated two main exceptions when formulating his definition of circumstantial clauses. One was the ‘ḥāl muqaddar’, to which I will return in the next section, and the other was what he called ‘circumstantial expressions’. The reason for their exclusion was twofold. One reason was formal: they do not always conform to any of his three structural forms. The second reason was functional: they describe the details of a (whole) situation. One example of these was given in 2.3 (example 4). Another one has been discussed later on (4.2.7, example 38). They are both repeated here for reference:

101 Lit: with his feathers. 102 Lit: at his honour.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

110

Maria Persson

(38) waʾʾafūna bʾǝrne [ʾafāna lǝlḥēṭ] (5:10:62) stopSF3cp.1cp PREP.corner [backs1cp PREP.DEF.wall]

‘they placed us in a corner [with our backs to the wall]’ (4) rəḥt ʿalbēt - [ḥēṭ ʿam biṣəddni w-ḥēṭ ʿam yrəddni] (1:88:34) goSF1cs PREP.DEF.house – [wall PROGR b.push.awayPF3ms.1cs and-wall PROGR pull.backPF3ms.1cs]

‘I went home [one wall pushes me away one wall pulls me back (=staggering from wall to wall)]’ In the light of the present study, there is no formal reason to exclude these clauses. In both the examples the hypotaxis is marked by a gram switch from a suffix verb to a verb-less clause (38) or to a clause with prefix verbs preceded by ʿam and, in one case, also by b- (4). Moreover, both are, in fact, qualifying other clauses, not whole situations. Therefore, in these two particular instances, I also see no reason to exclude them from the discussion on the functional grounds mentioned by Bloch. The same construction may, however, also be used for larger digressions at the text level where Bloch’s statement applies.

5.6 ḥāl muqaddar Bloch (1965, 81) also refutes the existence of the so called ‘ḥāl muqaddar’, the ‘implied circumstantial clause’, in Damascene Arabic. His main reason for this is the available parallel with la-, ‘in order to’ which, to him, shows that these clauses are final, not circumstantial. Interestingly, Bloch (1965, 76), as seen above, accepts the finality in clauses with bədd+pronoun and counts them as an alternative of his Type 3 clauses. He calls the combination a verb compound (Verbaleinheit) and likens bədd+pronoun with ʿam, saying that it functions as ‘a modifying particle’ (vermodifikatorischen Partikel).103 Bloch (1965, 76) notes that these examples often have a purposive meaning. The semantics of purpose, or more literally ‘wanting’, is implied in the bədd+pronoun phrase. At least in some instances, one could say that bədd functions as a pseudo-conjunction introducing a final clause. Bloch further observes that these clauses often occur with main clause verbs of motion. This would mean that they are parallel to the so called ḥāl 103 Cf. Ambros (1977, 92) who suggests that bədd- be analysed as a preposition or a “pseudo-verb”.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

111

muqaddar. Bloch’s motive for excluding the ḥāl muqaddar was, as mentioned, the possibility of a paraphrase with the preposition l(i)-. Such a paraphrase is, however also possible with clauses introduced by bədd. Cf. (86), which is repeated here for reference, with (86b): (86) w-ʾəz ətḥarrak ərrəžžāl [bəddo ysāwīlna kāst əššāy] (1:44:16) w-PTCL moveSF3ms DEF.man [wish3ms makePF3ms. PREP1cs glass DEF.tea]

‘and then the man moved (wanting) to make us a cup of tea’ (86b) w-ʾəz ətḥarrak ərrəžžāl [li-ysāwīlna kāst əššāy] w-PTCL moveSF3ms DEF.man [CONJ-makePF3ms. PREP1cs glass DEF.tea]

‘and then the man moved to make us a cup of tea’ The only difference between (86) and (86b) is that the volitive (wish) flavour of the intention is not explicitly expressed in the latter. As an argument to exclude the asyndetically juxtaposed clause combinations that have been called ‘ḥāl muqaddar’, Bloch also states that these and circumstantial clauses are formally distinct in Damascene Arabic. As mentioned above, Bloch only includes prefix forms preceded by b- and ʿam among the Type 3 circumstantials. This is because, according to him, the bare prefix form marks the final clause.104 Now, it is correct that all final clauses in the database are in the bare prefix form and this also corresponds to similar findings in modern Gulf Arabic (Persson 2009, 277-279). Bloch, thus, is right in making the connection between the bare prefix form and a sense of finality. The hypothesis that all (other) circumstantial clauses of this type are always introduced by a particle, however, is not entirely supported by the present study.105 Most importantly, however, with the recognition of gram switching, there is a different argument to abandon the concept of ‘ḥāl muqaddar’. This category was created in an effort to accommodate, within the perceived class of circumstantial clauses, those clauses that formally would fit into the lists of what had been labelled circumstantial clauses but that expressed finality instead of ‘attendant circumstance’ (cf. Persson 2009, 253-256). These so called ‘ḥāl muqaddar’ clauses fit well into the new perspective of gram switching as a general marker of hypotaxis. Together with other semantically non-specific 104 Cf. also Bloch (1965, 75). 105 Cf. Persson (2014).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

112

Maria Persson

non-main clauses, they occupy various positions on a scale of hypotactic marking, while the specific semantic interpretation of each clause is left to, as Blau (1960, 218) puts it, “die Phantasie des Zuhörers”.106

5.7 The significance of the ‘doubly marked’ circumstantial I noted above, (5.2.1), that Bloch’s Type 1 contains clauses introduced by w(ə)- followed by a pronoun and I briefly mentioned that the use of the pronoun here specifically indicates that the non-main clause describes one of the participants of the main clause. While many of the circumstantials dealt with in this treatise have an adverbial meaning, this particular construction is decidedly adjectival. Here, it is not the verb of the main clause that is qualified by the non-main clause. Rather, the non-main clause is a description of the state of the referent at the time of the state or event described in the main clause. So, for example, Umm Rashdi’s being quiet in (55) describes her, at the time of her being on the verge of exploding; it does not describe the way in which she was about to explode. (55) w-ʾəmm rəšdi raḥa tṭəʾʾ əlməskīne [w-hīye sākte] … (17:4:126) w-mother Rəšdi FUT burstPF3fs DEF.poor [w-3fs be.quietAPfs]

‘and Umm Rushdie was on the verge of exploding, poor one, [and/but she was quiet]’ Similarly, the non-main clause in (1) does not qualify the act of spending time but is a description of the state of the narrator while he was spending the time. (1) ʾaḍḍēna mədde mn əzzamān [w-nəḥna ʿam nətšawwa w-nətʾalla] (1:67:26) spendSF1cp period PREP DEF.time [w-1cp PROGR be.grilledPF1cp w-be.friedPF1cp

‘I spent some time [sizzling and frying (=frustrated)]’ The non-main clause in (55) is a non-verbal clause – it consists of a subject and a predicative attribute. 107 It is semantically closely related to what in standard Arabic is realized as the so called “circumstantial accusative”, in the dialects as a participial or adjective: 106 I.e. “the imagination of the listeners”. 107 It is also, particularly due to the explicit pronoun subject, semantically rather independent of the main clause. Cf. also Addeweesh (1985, 47-49).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

113

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

(57) ʾərkod ʿala halbēt ʿala ḍaww ʿalbēt [mabṣūṭ]

(1:17:6)

runPF1cs PREP DEM.DEF.house PREP light PREP.DEF.house [happy]

‘I would run [happy] to the house in daylight’ In (57) the passive participle mabṣūṭ, ‘happy’, does not in any way describe the act of running in the main clause. The boy is not running in a happy way. He is happy and he is running. It is his state of being that is described by the non-main clause.108 What made these clauses stand out to the Arab grammarians was the fact that, in the grammar of standard Arabic, the participle here is, as indicated above, in the accusative case.109 (91) yarkuḍu ḍāḥikan runPF3ms laughPAmsACC

‘He runs laughing’ (92) yarkuḍu dāʾiman runPF3ms constantPAmsACC

‘He runs always’ In (91) the verb is followed by a participle that indicates the state of the one running. The verb “run” cannot “laugh” – it is the person running who is, at the same time, laughing. In the second example the participle describes the frequency of the act of running. The boy is not constant – it is the act of running that is constant. Language, however, does not differentiate morphologically or structurally between these. Clauses such as (1) and (57) also fit into the system of gram switching. There is, usually, a gram switch between the two clauses. However, the use of the independent pronoun specifically signals that the non-main clause constitutes a description of the state of the referent of this pronoun. In this sense, these clauses may be said be markedly circumstantial, i.e. to have a syntactic form that coincides with a circumstantial reading, namely in the sense of ex-

108 Cf. Addeweesh (1985, 186): ”The major function of the single-word type of ḥāl is to describe the state or condition of the referent of the, ḥāl rather than the action of the regent verb of the ḥāl ”. Similarly, on page 192, Addaweesh describes examples of the type found in (1) above saying that “the basic function of the ḥāl is to describe the state or condition of the referent of the ḥāl rather than the action”. 109 Examples 91-93 are construed for the purpose of demonstration. Cf. for example Addeweesh (1985, 3).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

114

Maria Persson

pressing a state or activity that is simultaneous with the state or activity in the main clause.110 A clause featuring two verbs such as (93) also describes a state or activity that is simultaneous with the state or activity in the main clause: (93) rakaḍa yaḍḥaku runSF3ms laughPF3ms

‘He ran laughing’ However, this does not constitute a specific clause type. The gram switch indicates general hypotaxis and the same combination of one suffix form verb followed by a prefix form verb may, as has been demonstrated above, receive varying semantic interpretations depending on the semantic value and aktionsart of each specific verb and the general context in which the clause is uttered. Or, as Beeston put it in the passage quoted above (2.1); “… there is an unsophisticated lack of overt marks of the logical intention” (Beeston 1970, 89).

5.8 Summary The above has shown that Arab grammarians and grammarians of Arabic have discovered one part of circumstantial clause combining by recognizing a number of clause types regularly used for qualifying other clauses circumstantially. What they failed to see is that their lists did not capture a cohesive class of clauses but, rather, general strategies of non-main clause linking. Their lists were neither exhaustive nor cohesive and a large number of clauses with circumstantial meaning evaded the different nets that they had thrown. Only in the case of one of the clause types discussed by Bloch do form and function coincide to such an extent that it is possible to say that a specific clause type is used specifically to encode a circumstantial meaning. Namely, in the clauses featuring w(ə)- +pronoun discussed in the preceding section. In yet another case, clause type coincides with a specific meaning: nonmain clauses that precede their main clauses and that are introduced by a pronoun alone or w(ə)- + pronoun seem to be used, at least in the present 110 This corresponds well with the definition of ḥāl that Addeweesh (1985, 184-185) concludes to be the only possible: “a ḥāl is a construction whose function is to depict circumstances attendant on the referent of the ḥāl at the time the action or event of the regent occurred, whether such circumstances are temporary or permanent”. Cf. also Addeweesh (1985 191-192).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

115

corpus and the Gulf Arabic corpus previously surveyed, as a specific type of temporal clause. On a different note, a gram switch was observed in all but three of the 110 examples in the database which correspond to Bloch’s types. This further supports the hypothesis, stated above, that it is not gram switching that happens to coincide with circumstantials; instead it is the hypotaxis in circumstantials that is marked by gram switching.

6. Conclusion A variety of clauses have been described, in previous studies, under headings such as “ḥāl-clauses” or “circumstantial clauses”. As has already been pointed out by several scholars (Abboud 1986, 191; Isaksson et al. 2009; Premper 2002, 29), this approach has not led to the formulation of a clear syntactic category of “circumstantial clauses”. The analysis presented here, based on a database of Damascene Arabic from the 1950s, together with previous research, has confirmed that the reason for this confusion is that there are no syntactic grounds for the establishment of a class of “circumstantial clauses” on a par with, for example, “conditional clauses” and “relative clauses”. Of all the surveyed clauses, only one clause type combines form and function to such an extent that it can be said to be used specifically to encode a circumstantial meaning. Non-main clauses featuring w(ə)- +pronoun do generally receive a circumstantial reading, namely in the sense of expressing a state or activity pertaining to the referent of the pronoun that is simultaneous with the state or activity expressed in the main clause. Yet another clause type was distinguished by performing a specific function, namely non-main clauses that precede their main clauses and that are introduced by a pronoun alone or w(ə)+ pronoun. These were found to function, at least in the surveyed types of spoken Arabic, as a specific type of temporal clause. The survey took its starting point in Bloch’s treatment of, among others, the same database that has constituted the basis for the present study. Bloch followed the tradition in listing syntactic types of ‘circumstantial clauses’. In his final remarks he did, however, pinpoint the problem that constituted the impetus for the present survey: Nun ist es nicht leicht festzustellen, unter welchen Umständen für den gleichen Sachverhalt einmal die parataktische, einmal die hypotakti-

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

116

Maria Persson

sche Ausdrucksweise gewählt wird, wann man also etwa sagt: btəsʾal bidəllūk, und wann ʾəza btəsʾal bidəllūk.111 (Bloch 1965, 98) Whereas Bloch did not find an answer to his question, the results of the present project and its forerunner show that the choice between an asyndetic and a syndetic juncture is often not as arbitrary as it seemed to him. Moreover, many of the clause combinations that, to Bloch, seemed perfectly paratactic are, in fact, marked for hypotaxis, namely by gram switching. Gram switching, mainly in the form of a switch between verb forms but also comprising variations in mood marking as well as a switch from a clause containing a verbal gram to a verb-less clause, has been found to function as a general marker of non-main clause linking. This general marker occupies the second position in a scale of marking starting from no syntactic marking, via gram switching that marks the existence of hypotaxis, to more specific marking where the semantic type of the non-main clause is also marked: − − − −

No marking. Only context and/or intonation Gram switching only Gram switching + neutral conjunction (“and”) indicating the location, and thus the existence, of the linking Gram switching and conjunction - or conjunction alone - specifying semantic type of non-main clause

The discovery of gram switching implies the discovery of an overarching system of minimally marked non-main clause linking. Gram switching alone is used to mark such varying types of non-main clauses as adverbial clauses, final clauses, and conditional clauses. Then, there is a possibility of using a semantically non-specific conjunction such as w(ə)- (and) to indicate the location of juncture albeit not the (semantic) type of the non-main clause. Finally, the speaker can choose to use a semantically specific subordinating conjunction to clearly specify the semantics of the clause linking. Pragmatic reasons will thus decide whether a non-main clause is left unmarked at the syntactic and morphological level, marked with a gram switch, or marked by both a gram switch and a conjunction. Gram switching functions 111 I.e. “It is, however, not easy to determine the circumstances under which, at times a paratactic, at times a hypotactic way of expression is chosen for the [expression of] the s a m e fact; when one says btəsʾal bidəllūk, and when ʾəza btəsʾal bidəllūk”.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

117

as a marker of non-main clause linking in general. It is not limited to any of those types of clauses that have been called circumstantial. The diverse clauses that appear on various lists of “circumstantial” or “ḥāl-” clauses are found, together with other semantic clause types, at various levels of marking. Furthermore, gram switching as a general marker of hypotaxis is neither isolated to colloquial Arabic nor to spoken data, but is supported by Isaksson’s (2009a) findings in both Classical Arabic and Biblical Hebrew.

References Abboud, P. 1986. “The ḥāl construction and the main verb in the sentence.” In The Fergusonian impact: in honor of Charles A. Ferguson on the occasion of his 65th birthday. Vol. 1, From phonology to society, edited by J. A. Fishman, A. TabouretKeller, M. M. Clyne, B. Krishnamurti and M. Abudlaziz, 191-196. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Addeweesh, R. A. 1985. A syntactic and semantic study of ḥāl ‘circumstantial’ structures in modern literary Arabic prose literature. (PhD Diss.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor. Ambros, A. A. 1977. Damascus Arabic. Malibu, California: Undena Publications. Beeston, A. F. L. 1970. The Arabic language today. London: Hutchinson. Bergsträsser, G. 1924. Zum arabischen Dialekt von Damaskus. Vol. 1. Phonetik Prosatexte. Beiträge zur semitischen Philologie und Linguistik 1. Hannover: Verlag der Orient-Buchhandlung Heinz Lafaire. Blau, J. 1960. Syntax des palästinensischen Bauerndialektes von Bīr-Zēt, auf Grund der "Volkserzählungen aus Palästina von Hans Schmidt und Paul Kahle. WalldorfHessen: Verlag für Orientkunde Dr. H. Vorndran. Bloch, A. 1965. Die Hypotaxe im Damaszenisch-Arabischen: mit Vergleichen zur Hypotaxe im Klassisch-Arabischen. Wiesbaden: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft, Kommissionsvlg. F. Steiner. Bloch, A., and Grotzfeld, H. 1964. Damaszenisch-arabische Texte. Wiesbaden: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft, Kommissionsvlg. F. Steiner. Brustad, K. E. 2000. The syntax of spoken Arabic: a comparative study of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian, and Kuwaiti dialects. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Bybee, J., and Dahl, Ö. 1989. “The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world.” Studies in language, 13(1): 51-103.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

118

Maria Persson

Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D., and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Cantineau, J., and Heibaoui, Y. 1953. Manuel élémentaire d'arabe oriental (Parler de Damas). Paris: Klincksieck. Dietrich, A. 1956. “Damaszener Schwänke”. Zeitschrift der Deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 106: 317-344. Dixon, R. M. W. 2009. “The semantics of clause linking in typological perspective.” In The semantics of slause linking. A cross-linguistic typology, edited by R. M. W. Dixon and A. Y. Aikhenvald, 1-55. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eisele, J. C. 1999. Arabic verbs in time: tense and aspect in Cairene Arabic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Eksell, K. 1995. “Some punctual and durative auxiliaries in Syro-Palestinian dialects.” In Proceedings of the 2nd Internal Conference of l'Association internationale pour la dialectologie Arabe: held at Trinity Hall in the University of Cambridge, 10-14 September 1995, edited by J. Cremona, C. Holes and G. Khan, 41-49. Cambridge: University Publications Centre. Firanescu, D. R. 2003. “Le modalisateur aspectuel-temporel qām dans le parler syrien.” In AIDA, 5th Conference Proceedings, Cádiz september 2002, edited by I. Ferrando and J. J. Sánchez Sandoval, 481-492. Association Internationale de dialectologie Arabe. Cádiz: Servicio de Publicationes, Universidad de Cádiz. ———. 2008. “The moving sands of the modals raaH and ija in Syrian Arabic.” In Between the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Studies on contemporary Arabic dialects. Proceedings of the 7th AIDA Conference, held in Vienna from 5-9 September 2006, edited by S. Prochàzka and V. Ritt-Benmimoun, 185-194. Wien: LIT Verlags. Fischer, W. 2002. “Unterordnende und nebenordnende Verbalkomposita in den neuarabischen Dialekten und im Schriftarabischen.” In "Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten aramäisch, wir verstehen es!": 60 Beiträge zur Semitistik: Festschrift für Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by W. Arnold and H. Bobzin, 147-163. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Fleischman, Suzanne. 1990. Tense and narrativity: from medieval performance to modern fiction. Croom Helm romance linguistics series. London: Routledge. Givón, Talmy 2001. Syntax: an introduction. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. Grotzfeld, H. 1964. Laut- und Formenlehre des Damaszenisch-Arabischen. Wiesbaden: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

119

———. 1965. Syrisch-arabische Grammatik (Dialekt von Damaskus). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Isaksson, B. 2008. “Circumstantial qualifiers in the Arabic dialect of Kinderib (East Turkey).” In Between the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Studies on contemporary Arabic dialects. Proceedings of the 7th AIDA Conference, held in Vienna from 5-9 September 2006, edited by Veronika Ritt-Benmimoun and Stephan Procházka, 251-258. Wien: LIT Verlags. ———. 2009a. “Introduction.” In B. Isaksson, H. Kammensjö and M. Persson, 2009, 1-35. ———. 2009b. “An outline of comparative Arabic and Hebrew textlinguistics.” In B. Isaksson, H. Kammensjö and M. Persson, 2009, 36-150. ———. 2011. “The textlinguistics of the Suffering Servant: Subordinate structures in Isaiah 52,13-53,12.” In En pāsē grammatikē kai sophiā. Saggi di linguistica ebraica in onore di Alviero Niccacci, ofm, edited by G. Geiger and M. Pazzini, 173-212. Analecta: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 78. Jerusalem and Milano: Franciscan Printing Press and Edizioni Terra Santa. ———. 2013. “Subordination: Biblical Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by G. Khan, vol. 3, 657-664. Leiden: Brill. Isaksson, B., Kammensjö, H., and Persson, M. 2009. Circumstantial qualifiers in Semitic. The case of Arabic and Hebrew, edited by B. Isaksson. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 70. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Johnstone, B. 1990. “'Orality' and discourse structure in Modern Standard Arabic.” In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics, edited by M. Eid, vol. I, 215-233. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kammensjö, H. 2008. “Omständighetsbestämningar i samtida arabisklitteratur. (Circumstantial qualifiers in contemporary Arabic literature).” Paper presented at the Nordiska semitistsymposiet, Kivik, Sweden. ———. 2009. “Circumstantial qualifiers in contemporary Arabic prose – With a view to understanding variation.” In B. Isaksson, H. Kammensjö and M. Persson, 2009, 151-205. Kaye, A. S. and Rosenhouse, J. 1997. “Arabic dialects and Maltese.” In The Semitic languages, edited by R. Hetzron, 263-311. London: Routledge. Lewin, B. 1966. Arabische Texte im Dialekt von Hama: mit Einleitung und Glossar. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Lichtenberk, F. 2009. “The semantics of clause linking in Toqabaqita”. In The semantics of clause linking. A cross-linguistic typology, edited by R. M. W. Dixon and A. Y. Aikhenvald, 239-260. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

120

Maria Persson

Lord, C. 1993. Historical change in serial verb constructions. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. Malinjoud 1924. “Textes en dialecte de Damas.” Journal Asiatique, 204: 259-332. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2002. “Combining clauses into clause complexes. A multifaceted view.” In Complex sentences in grammar and discourse. Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson, edited by J. Bybee and M. Noonan, 235-319. John Benjamins. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., and Thompson, S. A. 1988. “The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’” In Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Typological studies in language, edited by J. Haiman and S. A. Thompson, 275-329. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. Oestrup, J. 1897. Contes de Damas. Leyde: Brill. Payne, T. E. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: a guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Persson, M. 2009. “Circumstantial qualifiers in Gulf Arabic dialects.” In B. Isaksson, H. Kammensjö and M. Persson, 2009, 206-289. ———. 2013. “Asyndetic clause combining in Gulf Arabic dialects. Auxiliary, adverbial and discourse functions.” Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 57: 5-39. ———. 2014a. “Non-Main Clause Linking and Verb Form Switch in Syrian Arabic: Is there a circumstantial clause?” In Strategies of Clause Linking in Semitic Languages: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Clause Linking in Semitic Languages 5-7 August 2012 in Kivik, Sweden, edited by B. Isaksson and M. Persson, 27-50. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 93, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———.2014b. “Verb form switch as a marker of discourse hierarchy in Semitic: a case study on Syrian Arabic.” In: From Tur Abdin to Hadramawt. Semitic studies. Festschrift in honour of Bo Isaksson on the occasion of his retirement, edited by Tal Davidovich, Ablahad Lahdo, and Torkel Lindquist, 117-128. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. Forthcoming. “Verb form switch as a marker of clausal hierarchies in urban Gulf Arabic.” In: Arabic and Semitic Linguistics Contextualized, edited by Lutz Edzard. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Premper, W. 2002. Die „Zustandssätze“ des Arabischen in typologischer Perspektive. Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang. Rosenhouse, J. 1978. “Circumstancial Clauses in some Arabic Dialects.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 128(2): 226-237.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Non-main Clause Combining in Damascene Arabic

121

Thompson, S. A., Longacre, R. E., and Hwang, S. J. J. 2007. “Adverbial clauses.” In Language typology and syntactic description, edited by T. Shopen. Vol. 2, Complex constructions, 237-300. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Woidich, M. 2002. “Verbalphrasen mit asyndetischem Perfekt im ÄgyptischArabischen.” Estudios de Dialectología Norteafricana y Andalusí 6: 121-192.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Clause Combining in Written Arabic

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic Michal Marmorstein, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem

1. Introduction Circumstantial clauses (henceforth: CCs) constitute a main type of clauses in Classical Arabic. In both the medieval and modern grammatical literature, the subject of CCs is dedicated a special chapter, and in recent years it has become the primary focus of three volume-length studies (Premper 2002; Isaksson et al. 2009; Waltisberg 2009). CCs make a highly intriguing topic of study, not just because of their particular syntactic and semantic character, but also because they challenge a basic ambition of any linguistic analysis, to reach a neat classification and a sharp demarcation of structural categories. Indeed, CCs in Arabic defy a categorical definition and thus compel us to think of the entire domain to which they belong. The present study is concerned with a variety of circumstantial clauses in Classical Arabic whose predicate is a verbal form. The discussion will focus on two issues: (a) the syntactic domain to which verbal CCs belong, i.e. the domain of complex predications; and (b) the paradigm of verbal forms shared by all complex predications. The aim is to deal with both the wide variety of structures related to the notion of the ‘circumstantial’, and the common trait of these structures, which justifies their analysis under a single heading. The analysis of verbal CCs in their syntactic domain will also be shown to be highly instructive in reaching a better understanding of the internal mechanism of the Classical Arabic verbal system. The analysis of verbal CCs is based on a large body of Classical Arabic prose, composed or compiled by the end of the 10th century A.D. The corpus comprises excerpts from the historical accounts of Ibn Hišām, al-Wāqidī and al-Ṭabarī, the belles lettres of al-Ǧāḥiẓ, Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ, and al-ʾIṣbahānī, and the traditions collected by al-Buxārī (see below the references list).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

126

Michal Marmorstein

Before discussing the domain of verbal CCs in Classical Arabic, a brief account of the literature on CCs in Arabic is deemed necessary. The purpose of this short review is not to cover the vast amount of writing on the topic, but only to sketch the development of the traditional concept of the ḥāl ‘circumstantial expression’ in modern studies on Arabic CCs, and to point out the principal ideas which characterize the discussion throughout, especially the hesitation as to the syntactic status of this type of clauses and the problem of capturing the semantic essence of the circumstantial relation.

2. A brief account of the circumstantial category in the literature 2.1 The ḥāl in Arabic grammatical tradition The concept of the ḥāl, as formulated in the Arabic grammatical tradition, deserves a separate study. Here I will only provide a general outline of the analytic procedure by which the ḥāl category was defined, and call attention to some important insights that are still relevant to a modern understanding of CCs. A simple clause such as (1) features the typical ḥāl ‘circumstantial expression’:1 an indefinite nominal (participle) which is governed by a verb (or by whatever has a verbal meaning) and thereby assigned the accusative case:2 (1) ḏahabtu rākiban goSC1csg PTCPmsg-acc

‘I went riding.’ The Arab grammarians define the ḥāl in relation to other constituents of the clause. These constituents are the object, the adverbial specification, the attribute and the predicate. By contrast to the mafʿūl ‘object’ (e.g. ḍarabtu ʿabda llāhi ‘I hit ʿAbdallāh’), the ḥāl is always indefinite, it cannot undergo transformation, 1 The term ḥāl is an abbreviation of ḥāl waqaʿa fī-hi al-fiʿl ‘the circumstance in which the verbal action took place’ (Sībawayhi I, 15). 2 The examples are glossed according to the Leipzig glossing rules, with the following additions: EMPH=emphasis particle, INTRO=introductory particle, JUSS=jussive, MOD=modifying particle, PASS=passive, PC=prefix conjugation (the yafʿalu pattern), PRON=pronoun, SC=suffix conjugation (the faʿala pattern), TOP=topicalizer. Proper names of people and places which don’t have a conventionalized English form are rendered in the original Arabic form in the translation.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic

127

from patient (of an active verb) to agent (of a passive verb), and it is compatible with intransitive verbs (Sībawayhi I, 15-16). The subject and the object have a different status (manzila) than the ḥāl, being the constituents by which the kernel structure of the clause is made complete. The ḥāl is therefore considered a faḍla ‘redundancy’ or ziyāda ‘addition’, as it occurs baʿdu tamāmi lkalāmi ‘after a complete clause’ (Ibn al-Sarrāǧ I, 213; Ibn Yaʿīš II, 4). The ḥāl and the tamyīz ‘(adverbial) specification’ (e.g. la-hū ʿišrūna dirhaman ‘He has twenty Dirhams’) are similar in being both indefinite accusatives whose function is to distinguish one situation from other possible ones and thus restrict the (main) predication (Ibn Yaʿīš II, 36). Both the ḥāl and the tamyīz are governed by the preceding predication, and hence marked as accusative or ‘dependent’, yet they are external to the structure which they follow (Sībawayhi I, 16).3 The ḥāl diverges from the general category of the ṣifa or waṣf ‘attribute’ (e.g. ḍarabtu Zaydan ʾabā-ka ‘I hit Zayd, your father’),4 as it can only indicate a transitory state, an accidental attribute and not an inherent property (Ibn al-Sarrāǧ I, 213). The ḥāl is not employed to identify or particularize an entity, but to convey an additional predicate. As such, the ḥāl (like other predicates) is in principle indefinite. The attribute, by contrast, agrees with its antecedent and hence may be either definite or indefinite. The grammarians often designate the ḥāl constituent xabar ‘predicate’. In his Kitāb, Sībawayhi interchanges between the terms ḥāl and xabar in cases where the ḥāl constituent follows a definite noun. In analyzing a clause such as hāḏā ʿabdu llāhi munṭaliqan ‘Here is ʿAbdallāh departing’, Sībawayhi refers to the constituent munṭaliqan as both xabar lil-maʿrūf ‘a predicate of a definite noun’ and ḥāl (I, 218). Later grammarians define as a rule the ḥāl as xabar and even xabar ṯāni ‘secondary predicate’ (Ibn al-Sarrāǧ I, 214; Ibn Yaʿīš II, 6). The only difference between a ḥāl and a genuine predicate is that 3 In the example ḏahabtu rākiban (lit. ‘went-I riding’), the ḥāl constituent rākiban is made external to the governing verb ḏahab-tu by the ‘interposition’ of the agent -tu, the same way as the tamyīz constituent dirhaman in the clause la-hū ʿišrū-na dirhaman (lit. ‘to-him twenty Dirhams’) is ‘separated’ from the governing noun ʿišrū-na by the tanwīn (or its equivalent -na); cf. Carter (1972) for the general principle of tanwīn boundary in Sībawayhi’s Kitāb. 4 Ibn Hišām (194-195) employs the term waṣf to refer to a super-category, under which the ḥāl, the xabar and the ṣifa are subsumed. The ḥāl is distinct from the xabar in being dispensable to the complete structure of the clause; it is distinct from the ṣifa in indicating a predicative rather than an attributive relation.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

128

Michal Marmorstein

the first, in its typical form, is not considered an essential part of the grammatical structure of the clause (Ibn Yaʿīš II, 17).5 However, the ḥāl may become indispensable when the predicative information, the point for which the clause is designed, is ‘gathered’ (munʿaqida) by it (Ibn Yaʿīš II, 9). Thus, in the example cited above, the ḥāl constituent munṭaliqan is analyzed as an essential part of the clause, communicating the sight of ʿAbdallāh while departing. The fact that the terms ḥāl and xabar sometimes overlap or are used interchangeably (the latter defining the first) is quite telling: it discloses the special identity of this syntactic constituent, which at the same time is both predicative (in its essence) and adverbial (in its position). In their strict formal analysis of the clause, the grammarians regard the ḥāl as peripheral, like any other adverbial; however, as far as the informativity (or ‘usefulness’) of the clause is concerned, the ḥāl is viewed as part of the predicative core. According to the Arab grammarians, the typical ḥāl is a plain noun-phrase, or to be more precise, a participial form. This is due to a basic principle of their grammatical theory, namely, that the prototype of a syntactic category, to which other members are analogous, is the most basic (non-derived or augmented) morphological constituent. When the ḥāl is realized as a full clause, it is considered to occupy the syntactic position of a simple ḥāl constituent (Ibn Yaʿīš II, 24ff.), and therefore be embedded.6 The dependency of the ǧumla ḥāliyya ‘circumstantial clause’ upon the main clause is marked by the conjunction wa- and/or by a resumptive pronoun, as illustrated in the examples below; in (2) the linkage is implicitly marked by the pronoun embodied in the verb, whereas in (3) it is explicitly marked, by the overt pronoun huwa and the conjunction wa-:

5 Thus, Ibn Yaʿīš (II, 7) explains that in a clause such as marartu bi-l-farazdaqa qāʾiman ‘I passed by al-Farazdaq standing’ the predication (ʾixbār) of ‘passing by’ is added another predicate (xabar ʾāxar), the only difference is that the first is obligatory (ʿalā sabīli l-luzūmi) whereas the latter is additional and therefore can be renounced (ziyādatan yaǧūzu l-istiġnāʾu ʿan-hā). 6 Cf. Goldenberg (1987-1988, 108): ‘In Arab grammatical tradition, subordinate (included, embedded) clauses are consistently defined in terms of the simple forms whose status they assume: the position where a noun, e.g., is required can be occupied either by a “plain noun” (ism ṣarīḥ) or by what virtually equals its meaning as a noun (=almuʾawwal bihī or mā fī taʾwīlihī) that is its “periphrasis” or “paraphrase”’.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic

129

(2) ǧāʾa Zaydun yarkabu comeSC3msg Zayd-nom ridePC3msg

‘Zayd came riding.’ (3) ǧāʾa Zaydun wa-huwa rākibun comeSC3msg Zayd-nom and-PRON3msg ridePTCPmsg-nom

‘Zayd came while he was riding.’

2.2 The circumstantial/predicative in modern grammatical descriptions of Arabic Detailed accounts of the discussion on CCs in Western grammars of Classical Arabic are found in Premper (2002, chapter 4) and Waltisberg (2009, 23-59). In this section I will only refer to the points where the modern approach does not follow the traditional one, but introduces some new observations, distinctions and terminology regarding the matter of CCs in Arabic. Western grammars do not conform with the Arabic grammatical tradition on one significant point: the ḥāl, which is conceived by the Arab grammarians as a unified category comprising simple and complex manifestations, is split into forms (word-units) and full clauses. The first are treated as parts of the simple clause, the latter as parts of the complex clause. It is interesting to notice the different renderings of the terms ḥāl and ǧumla ḥāliyya in these grammars. Wright (1898 II, 112-121) provides a literal translation of ḥāl as ‘state or condition’ whereas the clause initiated by wāw al-ḥāl is called ‘circumstantial clause’ (332). Reckendorf (1895 I, 101-102; 1921, 97-100) refers to both a nominal and an asyndetic verbal form as Prädikativum. By contrast, syndetic clauses are labeled Zustandssätze (549-564; 447-453). The same division between ḥāl forms and clauses is reflected in Fischer’s terminology (2002, 196, 220): both nominal and verbal circumstantial forms are defined as ‘predicative’, whereas syndetic clauses are treated separately and labeled ‘coordinate circumstantial clauses’ (209). Another point in which Western grammars differ from the Arabic tradition is in their applying a diachronic-comparative perspective to explain certain issues of Arabic grammar. The relationship between the ḥāl and the xabar is described by the Arab grammarians in structural terms: the first is analyzed as

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

130

Michal Marmorstein

an equivalent of the latter in a ‘transformed’ or ‘expanded’ clause.7 Western grammars, by contrast, describe an historical development in the opposite direction, whereby the predicative has originated from a circumstantial clause (cf. Reckendorf 1921, 295). Recent studies of CCs in Arabic (see above 1) depart to an even greater extent from the traditional model. The unified category of the Arab grammarians, split in Western grammars into predicative forms and circumstantial clauses, is further deconstructed. When considered within a modern typological approach, the topic of CCs is re-contextualized: rather than stressing the semantic homogeneity and the syntactic analogy between simple and complex CCs, the heterogenic nature of this set of structures – which extend from simple adverbial constituents to textual units – is put into focus. The circumstantial is no longer viewed as a micro-syntactic category of the simple clause, but as part of the macro-syntactic phenomenon of clause-linking. The traditional ḥāl-paradigm is replaced by a scale, accommodating varying degrees and manifestations of clause combining. Some CCs are accordingly involved in constructions exhibiting a high degree of ‘elaboration’, whereas others form part of highly ‘compressed’ constructions (Lehmann 1988, 216). As the paradigm is abandoned in favor of the scale, one is no longer concerned with the formal division between forms and full clauses; rather, all circumstantials are considered to be clauses, featuring a higher or a lower degree of finiteness or sententialization. On the junction scale (Raible, 1992), a participle such as rākiban (1) – which was treated by the Arab grammarians as the prototype of the ḥāl-paradigm – is analyzed as syntactically ‘degraded’ with respect to a finite form such as yarkabu (2), and even more so, a nominal clause such as wa-huwa rākibun (3). By the same token, the latter are not necessarily regarded as embedded (due to their substitution with the participi-

7 Talmon (2003, 40, 188-189, 296-297) explains the notion of xabar manṣūb ‘an accusative predicate’ as a syntagm that, due to the creation of a new syntactic structure, is ‘deprived of its first-degree predicate status and transforms consequently to a seconddegree predicate position marked grammatically by naṣb’. The alternation between ḥāl and xabar in Sībawayhi’s terminology may be better understood if put in a broader context. According to Levin (1979, 193ff.), besides genuine predicates, the term xabar is applied to those constituents in expanded verbal or nominal clauses – such as initiated by the auxiliary verb kāna, by di-transitive mental verbs or by the presentative hāḏā – which correspond to the predicate in the basic (underlying) nominal structure. Although marked by the accusative, all these have the function of a predicate.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic

131

al form), but rather as dependent clauses, integrated to some extent with their main clause.8 Not only from a syntactic point of view, but also from a semantic one, the circumstantial category is notoriously hard to define (König 1995). One of the solutions is to view the semantically unmarked or ambiguous character of CCs as their distinct property. Thus, Isaksson et al. (2009, 4) define CCs as ‘enhancing clauses’ which – by contrast to ‘particle-marked’ adverbial clauses – are not specific and can express a whole range of semantic relations: ‘general circumstantial, condition, reason, purpose, cause, time, space, manner, or means’. Waltisberg (2009, 358ff.) also regards the syndetically-linked variety of CCs as polyfunctional; while syndetic CCs indicate a ‘catalogue’ of semantic relations, their asyndetic counterparts serve the single ‘unspecific’ function of Erläuterung. Premper (2002, 275, 369) stresses the temporal relation and the textual function which correlate with the semantic ‘generality’ of CCs: syndetic CCs are simultaneous and thus serve background descriptions, whereas asyndetic CCs are sequential, thus marking a further progression or intention of the participants in the verbal event.

2.3 The problem of the circumstantial/predicative in Arabic: recapitulation Modern thinking on CCs in Arabic, influenced by the general study of clauselinking and clause-typology, redefines the discussion of the topic by addressing such problems as the formal identity of CCs and the nature of the semantic relation which they convey. CCs are found to be a heterogenic class of constructions, including verbal complexes, on the one hand, and with the textlevel structures, on the other (Premper, 369). Whether analyzed as semantically vague or polysemous, the meaning of CCs is considered to be implicit, thereby interpretable as ‘temporal’, ‘causal’, ‘modal’, ‘contrastive’ etc. in different contexts. Unlike other types of adverbial clauses, CCs appear to defy a clear-cut formal as well as functional determination. Rather than forcing 8 Some scholars draw a clear distinction between ‘hypotaxis’ or ‘dependency’ and ‘embedding’: the first indicate the combination of a main clause and a subordinate clause, the latter the inclusion of a clause as a constituent in a ‘higher’ clause, cf. Van Valin (1984), Halliday (1985, chapter 7). Circumstantial clauses, according to the same view, are not commutable with simple adverbial constituents (but only by way of a ‘grammatical metaphor’) and hence are regarded as essentially non-embedded, cf. Matthiessen and Thompson (1988).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

132

Michal Marmorstein

them into arbitrary boundaries, modern researchers resort to the large syntactic domain within which CCs operate. The present study follows the same general course and adopts the scalar model. Verbal CCs are accordingly not viewed as a micro-syntactic category, but as various realizations of the macro-syntactic phenomenon of complex predications and its semantic-pragmatic correlate of event-integration (cf. Givón 2001, II, 39ff.). Drawing on the traditional terminology we may say that, dealing with verbal predicates, we are not so much concerned with ḥāl constituents, but mainly with the fact of their being xabar. While studying verbal CCs from a ‘horizontal’ perspective, the ‘vertical’ perspective is not abandoned either. A close examination of the circumstantial-predicative variety of clauses in Classical Arabic discloses the strong formal tie by which all are bound: although considerably different from each other, in all these clauses the same set of verbal forms, marking distinct aspects of the complex predication, recurs. I shall apply the term ‘the predicative paradigm’ to this set of forms. The following discussion will focus on this paradigmatic regularity, which can be shown to cross-cut diverse syntactic levels, and the semantic oppositions marked by the predicative forms in each clause type.

3. The predicative paradigm The term ‘predicative’, as used here, refers to the syntactic position assumed by a predicate whose function is to complete the content expressed by another predicate, so as to form a complex predication.9 Complex predications consist of (at least) two predicates: the main or primary predicate, which is the grammatical nucleus of the complex, and the secondary predicate, which is often the semantically salient constituent. The fact that both predicates are fused into one complex entails that not only the predicative, but also the main verb does not constitute a self-contained predication; rather, both predicates depict one common occasion. 9 The term ‘converb’ would have been quite proper for the description of the predicative forms in Arabic, if not typically associated with non-finite verbs, cf. Haspelmath’s (1995, 3) definition of a converb as ‘a nonfinite verb form whose main function is to mark adverbial subordination’. I prefer the term ‘predicative’ for being general enough, i.e., for not being necessarily associated with a specific word-class (e.g. verb or noun) or a grammatical realization thereof (e.g. non-finite or accusative).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic

133

In Classical Arabic, the predicative paradigm consists of three forms: the prefix conjugation form yafʿalu, the participle fāʿilVn/mafʿūlVn and the modified suffix conjugation form qad faʿala. In this syntactic slot one may speak of a basic aspectual meaning of the forms: yafʿalu marking a dynamicprogressive situation, the participle marking a static state and qad faʿala marking a state resulting from a previous process. As for their temporal value, the predicative forms are essentially co-temporal, indicating either simultaneity or coincidence with the time frame established in the main clause: Table (1) – The predicative paradigm PREDICATIVE FORM

ASPECT

TEMPORAL VALUE

yafʿalu

dynamic-progressive

simultaneous, coincidental (terminal)

fāʿilVn/mafʿūlVn

static

simultaneous

qad faʿala

resultative

coincidental (initial)

The triad of yafʿalu, fāʿilVn/mafʿūlVn and qad faʿala constitutes the core of the predicative paradigm. It is not the normal case for the suffix conjugation form faʿala to function as a predicative. This may be explained by the fact that faʿala is used to indicate self-contained events (whence its use as the narrative form), not coinciding with other events. The same goes for the future form sayafʿalu, which rarely participates in complex predications (see below 4.1.4). Quite often, when faʿala and sa-yafʿalu are used, the predication involves a certain abstraction at the semantic level, allowing for some extension of the notion of common occasion.

4. The domain of complex predications A wide definition of complex predications, as such realizing a certain degree of syntactic and semantic integration between (at least) two predicates, covers a large and quite heterogenic group of structures. However, what is clearly not included in this group is the coordination of main predicates marking selfcontained events. One may sometimes encounter parallel versions of narratives, where the same set of events is either ‘compressed’ into one predication or presented in sequence. The difference between these two forms of packag-

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

134

Michal Marmorstein

ing is significant: in the first, an internally-viewed detailed scene is depicted, whereas in the latter the events are plainly reported by the external voice of the narrator. This distinction is clearly evident in (4) and (5), featuring two versions of the same story: (4) ṯumma nazala qābīlu min-a l-ǧabali ʾāxiḏan bi-yadi ʾuxti-hī (Taʾrīx 1, 144) then descendSC3msg Qābīl-nom from hand-gen sister-gen-PRON3msg

DEF-mountain-gen

takePTCPmsg-acc in-

‘Then Cain descended from the mountain holding his sister by the hand.’ (5) lammā qatala qābīlu ʾaxā-hu hābīla ʾaxaḏa bi-yadi ʾuxti-hī ṯumma habaṭa bi-hā min ǧabali būḏa (Taʾrīx 1, 144) when killSC3msg Qābīl-nom brother-acc-PRON3msg Hābīl-acc takeSC3msg inhand-gen sister-gen-PRON3msg then go_downSC3msg with-PRON3fsg from mountain-gen Būḏ-gen

‘After Cain killed his brother Abel he took his sister by the hand and then went down with her from mountain Būḏ.’ In the following sections, I will start by discussing closely integrated complexes, in which the predicative form is embedded; then, one type of dependent clauses – the syndetic circumstantial clause – will be discussed, and finally, mutually-dependent, setting and presentative clauses, will be shortly examined.10 These various constructions are all tied by the presence of the predicative paradigm.

4.1 Verbal complexes The term ‘verbal complex’ covers various manifestations of [main verb + embedded verb]. These range from closely integrated structures, involving auxiliaries and modifying verbs, to lexically and grammatically looser ones, where the main verb retains its full semantics.11 The main verb is the grammatical nucleus of the complex, in the sense that it marks the syntactic status of the entire complex, thereby ‘adjusting’ it into the text; the embedded verb 10 I do not discard the notion of embedding when discussing clause-combining (see above n. 8); rather, I maintain the distinction between ‘embedded’ and ‘dependent’ clauses: the first commute with plain nominal forms and are juxtaposed to the main clause, the latter are appended to the main clause by means of a conjunction. 11 The same verb can be realized either as a lexically ‘full’ verb (tāmm) or as a lexically ‘deficient’ one (nāqiṣ), which is then followed by a predicative form.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic

135

is usually the lexical pivot of the complex. Nonetheless, it should be stressed that both verbs convey some amount of grammatical and lexical information: the main verb is never entirely depleted (even the auxiliary kāna may be said to convey the notion of ‘being’), while the predicative form marks such categories as number, gender, diathesis and aspect. Verbal complexes present the same syntactic structure, regardless of the lexeme of the main verbs: the predicative – a verb(-derived) form in adverbial position – is juxtaposed to the main verb;12 both verbs exhibit subject-identity (including inalienable entities, see below (16)). The adverbial status of the predicative obtains a formal mark when the predicative is realized as a nominal (verb-derived) form, i.e., as the accusative participle. The finite forms yafʿalu and qad faʿala occupy the same syntactic position as the participle and thus acquire – by virtue of their paradigmatic interrelation – an adverbial status. The following discussion will focus on verbal complexes initiated by verbs of motion and state, perception and permission verbs, and speech verbs. Complexes initiated by auxiliary and modifying verbs, featuring a further semantic condensation (from a common to a single occasion), will be mentioned in brief, in order to provide a full picture of the phenomenon of verbal complexes. All the examples exhibit verbal complexes in main clauses.

4.1.1 kāna-compounds Compound kāna forms exhibit the highest degree of integration within a verbal complex. The auxiliary verb kāna indicates either a temporal or a modal meaning, whereas the predicative form expresses the content of the verbal situation as well as its internal unfolding. The opposition between the predicative forms resides thus in two domains: (a) the lexical domain, to which the issues of lexical compatibility and the valence of the verb-phrase belong; and (b) the grammatical domain, in which the aspect marked by the verbal form comes into play. The compound form kāna yafʿalu is the least lexeme-sensitive of all verbal forms:13 it may convey all types of verbal situations, both static and dynamic 12 On the internal constitution of compound verb forms and the adverbial status of the predicative complement, see Goldenberg (2000). 13 The compound form kāna yafʿalu was thoroughly studied by Nebes (1982). Nebes concludes that kāna yafʿalu is an imperfect whose marked time reference is past. The present discussion is not concerned with the general function of kāna yafʿalu; rather, the

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

136

Michal Marmorstein

(telic and a-telic), and be realized in both intransitive (active and passive) and transitive verb-phrases. 14 As for its grammatical aspect, yafʿalu depicts an unbounded situation: either one that continues throughout the period of time indicated by kāna, or one that constantly repeats itself. The repetition is frequentative by nature, i.e., it is not a mere iteration of the verbal situation, but a regular and predictable recurring which is valid through the entire period of time indicated by kāna.15 These distinctions are illustrated in (6)-(7): (6) wa-kāna rasūlu llāhi yuḥibbu l-faʾla wa-yakrahu l-ṭīrata (Maġāzī 1, 218) and-beSC3msg messenger-nom God-gen lovePC3msg hatePC3msg DEF-evil_omen-acc

DEF-good_omen-acc

and-

‘The Messenger of God used to love the good omen and to hate the evil omen.’ (7) wa-kāna mraʾan tanaṣṣara fī l-ǧāhiliyyati wa-kāna yaktubu l-kitāba lʿibrāniyya fa-yaktubu min-a l-ʾinǧīli bi-l-ʿibrāniyyati mā šāʾa llāhu ʾan yaktuba (Ṣaḥīḥ 1, 5) and-beSC3msg man-acc become_ChristianSC3msg in DEF-pre_Islam-gen andbeSC3msg writePC3msg DEF-writing-acc DEF-Hebrew-acc and-writePC3msg of DEFGospel-gen in DEF-Hebrew-gen what wantSC3msg God-nom that writeSBJV3msg

‘And he was a man [who] became Christian in the pre-Islamic era; he used to write in the Hebrew script and would write in Hebrew whatever God wished him to write from the Gospel.’ The compound form kāna fāʿilan/mafʿūlan shows a clear contrast to kāna yafʿalu, at both the lexical and the grammatical levels. The predicative participle is encountered almost exclusively in intransitive configurations. It is used to indicate a static situation which is viewed in its entirety, i.e., which does not break down into internal phases or recurrent instances. contrast between yafʿalu and the other verbal forms which co-occur with kāna is in focus. 14 ‘Intransitive’ and ‘transitive’ are used here in a strict sense, to refer to the grammatical relation between a verbal situation and its accusative complement(s). As a semantic concept, transitivity is obviously multi-faceted and scalar, see Hopper and Thompson (1980). 15 Cf. Kleiber (1987, 115) on the contrast between iterative and frequentative repetition: ‘Une phrase simplement itérative est une phrase qui présente une situation comme étant vérifiée à deux, trois… plusieurs reprises à l’intérieur d’un intervalle temporel […] Une phrase fréquentative, au contraire, présente l’itération comme s’étendant sur tout l’intervalle temporel’.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic

137

The predicative participle is used with stative lexemes, as illustrated in (8); notice that muḥibban is connected with its object by means of the preposition l-,16 whereas yuḥibbu in (6) has a direct object: (8) wa-kullu-hum kāna lī muḥibban wa-ʾilay-ya māʾilan wa-lī muṭīʿan (Riwāyāt 1, 35) and-all-nom-PRON3mpl beSC3msg to-PRON1csg lovePTCPmsg-acc and-to-PRON1csg inclinePTCPmsg-acc and-to-PRON1csg obedientPTCPmsg-acc

‘And everyone loved me and was favorably inclined to me and was obedient to me.’ The participle is also compatible with potentially transitive lexemes. In such cases, however, transitivity is often not exercised, as the verb occurs without an explicit object complement. Comparing the participle in (9) and yafʿalu in (7), we observe two points of contrast: (a) the participle kātiban has no object complement; (b) while yaktubu indicates recurring instances of writing, kātiban expresses not only a state, but one so stable that has achieved the status of a skill. This stands to reason, as the participle is an adjectival form, which by itself solely indicates an attributive relation. Whether that be accidental (temporary) or inherent is not specified by the participial form, but only by the context:17 (9) wa-qāla li-ʾuxti-hī ʾaʿṭī-nī hāḏihi l-ṣaḥīfata […] ʾanẓuru mā hāḏā llaḏī ǧāʾa bi-hī muḥammadun wa-kāna ʿumaru kātiban (Sīra 1, 226) and-saySC3msg to-sister-PRON3msg giveIMP2fsg-PRON1csg DEMfsg DEFleaf_of_book-acc […] look_atPC1csg what DEMmsg RELmsg comeSC3msg withPRON3msg Muḥammad-nom and-beSC3msg ʿUmar-nom writePTCPmsg-acc

‘And he said to his sister: Give me this leaf [of book…] so I will take a look at that which Muḥammad has brought; and ʿUmar was literate (lit. ‘writer’)’.

16 The Arab grammarians consider this l- as al-lām li-taqwīyat al-ʿāmil ‘the lām which strengthens the regent’, see Wright (1898 II, §29). Being a nominal form, the participle has less ‘power’ to govern an object complement; the lām thus serves as an explicit exponent of this grammatical relation. 17 Cf. Reckendorf (1906, 256). There are languages in which the distinction between an accidental and an inherent attribute is marked on the (inflected) adjectival form, see Goldenberg (1991).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

138

Michal Marmorstein

The compound form kāna qad faʿala (or qad kāna faʿala) embodies the meanings of anteriority and completion. Anteriority is doubly marked, by both the modifier qad and the auxiliary kāna. kāna qad faʿala functions in a similar way to kāna faʿala: it is mostly used to indicate background in the narrative. kāna qad faʿala has, however, a higher frequency and a wider distribution than kāna faʿala (in main clauses). The only lexical class which does not occur with kāna qad faʿala is that of verbs of state such as ʾaqāma ‘to stay’. This might be explained by the fact that kāna qad faʿala – due to the effect of qad – indicates a temporally framed situation, which is incompatible with stative background descriptions. Indeed, we often encounter kāna qad faʿala in contexts where temporality, or to be more precise, the successive order of the events, is salient to the narrative: (10) fa-lammā raǧaʿa baʿda ḥīnin ṭalaba ḥadīda-hū wa-kāna l-raǧulu qad bāʿa-hū (Kalīla wa-Dimna, 119) and-when returnSC3msg after time-gen ask_forSC3msg iron-acc-PRON3msg andbeSC3msg DEF-man-nom MOD sellSC3msg-PRON3msg

‘And after a while when he came back he asked for his iron, [but] the man had already sold it.’ The compound form kāna faʿala is less frequently used than kāna qad faʿala. In narratives, kāna faʿala is used when the relative order of the events is not deemed as important as the assertion of their actual occurrence. Notice the difference between (10) and (11), extracted from the same story: in the first case the temporal sequence is crucial to the point of the narrative (the man claims back his iron after the iron has already been sold); in the latter case, it is the events themselves (reported in the direct speech) that are given the most focus: (11) kuntu waḍaʿtu ḥadīda-ka fī nāḥiyatin min-a l-bayti fa-ʾakala-hū lǧurḏānu (Kalīla wa-Dimna, 119) beSC1csg placeSC1csg iron-acc-PRON2msg at side-gen of eatSC3msg-PRON3msg DEF-rats-nom

DEF-house-gen

and-

‘I had placed your iron at a corner of the house and the rats ate it.’

4.1.2 Modifying verbs Modifying verbs, ʾaxawāt kāna ‘kāna’s sisters’ in the grammatical tradition, serve to describe a certain phase or aspect of the verbal situation, which is expressed by the predicative form. In Classical Arabic, modifying verbs com-

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

139

The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic

prise several lexical classes;18 the main semantic distinction, however, can be drawn between two groups of verbs: those which indicate the initial phase of the verbal situation and those indicating its continuance or duration. There are no modifying verbs referring to the terminal phase of the verbal situation or to its accomplishment, hence this group of verbs is incompatible with the resultative meaning of qad faʿala. The predicative form yafʿalu is compatible with both groups of modifying verbs. The most common representative of the first is ǧaʿala ‘to start’: (12) fa-ǧaʿalū yaḍribūna-hum ḥattā nuqiḍat ṣufūfu-hum (Maġāzī 1, 226) and-startSC3mpl PRON3mpl

hitPC3mpl-PRON3mpl

until

destroySC.PASS3fsg

lines-nom-

‘And they started to hit them until their lines were destroyed.’ To the same group of inchoative verbs belong also verbs indicating imminence or intention: these verbs do not refer to the actual outset of the verbal situation but to the phase immediately preceding it, either in the physical or in the mental world of the agent: (13) fa-lammā ntahā ʾilā l-nahri lam yaǧid ʿalay-hi qanṭaratan li-yaqṭaʿa-hū wa-l-ḏiʾbu kāda yudriku-hū (Kalīla wa-Dimna, 63) and-when getSC3msg to DEF-river-gen NEG findJUSS3msg on-PRON3msg bridge-acc to-crossSBJV3msg-PRON3msg and-DEF-wolf-nom be_aboutSC3msg reachPC3msgPRON3msg

‘And when he got to the river he did not find a bridge to cross it over, while the wolf was about to reach him.’ yafʿalu often co-occurs with the second group of modifying verbs, indicating the continuance or duration of the verbal situation. The predicative participle is also quite common with the second group of modifying verbs. Example (14) illustrates the contrast between the predicative participle and yafʿalu with the modifying verb mā zāla ‘to not cease’: the first depicts a static situation while the latter depicts a dynamic one:

18 Modifying verbs, like kāna, can also be used as full verbs. See Waltisberg (2009 198199) for some ambiguous examples, where the verbal form may be interpreted either as a modifying or a full verb.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

140

Michal Marmorstein

(14) wa-qīla ʾanna-hū lam yazal muqīman bi-makkata yaḥuǧǧu wayaʿtamiru (Taʾrīx 1, 164) and-saySC.PASS3msg that-PRON3msg NEG ceaseJUSS3msg stayPTCPmsg-acc inMakka-gen performing_the_ḤaǧǧPC3msg and-performing_the_ʿUmraPC3msg

‘It was reported that he continued to stay in Mecca, performing the pilgrimages of the Ḥaǧǧ and the ʿUmra.’ As mentioned above, modifying verbs – expressing inchoative or durative meaning – are incompatible with qad faʿala. The form faʿala also rarely cooccurs with modifying verbs; the few existing attestations stem mostly from poetry.19 In my corpus I have encountered only one example in which a faʿala form co-occurred with a modifying verb, as illustrated in (15); the semantic compatibility of ʾarāda ‘to want’ and ʿasā ‘it might be’ may be explained by the fact that, as opposed to qad faʿala, faʿala does not imply the complete and concrete realization of the verbal situation: (15) fa-ʿasā-hu ʾarāda l-tafḍīla fī l-qismati (Buxalāʾ, 91-92) and-it_might_beSC3msg-PRON3msg wantSC3msg division-gen

DEF-preference-acc

in

DEF-

‘Perhaps he wanted [to be given] preference in the allotment [of the gifts]?’

4.1.3 Motion and state verbs Verbs expressing a movement towards a destination or a certain position or location in space are very common in complex predications. Such verbs indicate the outset or the setting of the verbal situation which is specified by the following predicative form. With this group of verbs we find the predicative triad yafʿalu, fāʿilan/mafʿūlan and qad faʿala, marking the opposition between a progressive, a static and a resultative aspect, respectively. As both the main verb and predicative verb refer to the same situation and are co-temporal, faʿala – being neither simultaneous nor coincidental – is excluded from the predicative paradigm. In both the traditional and modern grammatical literature, verbal complexes initiated by motion and state verbs provide the most typical example of circumstantial constructions (see above example 1). According to the Arab grammarians, the predicative form yafʿalu has two manifestations: (a) as ḥāl 19 See Reckendorf (1921, 297) for poetry quotations such as ʾaṣbaḥat ʿaḏalatnī.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic

141

muqārin ‘simultaneous circumstantial’, or as (b) ḥāl muqaddar ‘intended circumstantial’ (cf. Wright 1898 II, §8, 19-20). Modern grammars maintain the same distinction between yafʿalu forms which are ‘simultaneous with or following the action expressed by the governing verb’ (Fischer 2002, 220). In a short article, Abboud (1986) diverts attention from the predicative yafʿalu to the semantics of the main verb: since yafʿalu co-occurs with ‘eventcompletion’ verbs, it may refer either to the event or to its ‘eventual completion’. According to Abboud, such an explanation ‘obviates the need for a ḥāl muqaddar’ (195). A somewhat different view is presented by Waltisberg (2009, §5.2 and §5.6) in his work on circumstantial clauses. Although he, too, ascribes the interpretation of yafʿalu to the semantics of the main verb, Waltisberg suggests a neat separation between a ‘modal’ (simultaneous) and a ‘final’ (posterior) function of yafʿalu, which are then paired off with syndetic circumstantial clauses and final clauses respectively.20 A detailed examination of all the possible combinations reveals that the temporal value of yafʿalu is not solely determined by the content of the main verb, nor by that of the predicative verb, but by the interaction of both. We observe a general rule: if (at least) one of the verbal lexemes is potentially unbounded (a-telic), then yafʿalu is interpreted as simultaneous (totally overlapping); if neither is unbounded, then yafʿalu is interpreted as coincidental (partially overlapping), i.e., the situation expressed by yafʿalu proceeds from the one expressed by the main verb. This semantic relation should not be analyzed as mere succession, since both the main verb and yafʿalu refer to the same occasion, the first depicting its outset or setting, the latter its destination. The rule outlined above is demonstrated in the following set of examples, where the main verb indicates: (a) movement towards a destination, i.e., motion and goal; (b) movement in space with no goal; or (c) static position in space. In (16)-(17) the main verb belongs to the first group of motion verbs while the predicative verb indicates an unbounded situation, yafʿalu is thus interpreted as simultaneous; in (18) the main verb belongs to the first group of motion verbs while the predicative verb indicates a bounded situation, yafʿalu is thus interpreted as coincidental; in (19) the main verb belongs to the second group of motion verbs, yafʿalu is thus interpreted as simultaneous; also in (20), where the main verb belongs to the third group of state verbs, yafʿalu is interpreted as simultaneous: 20 See also the review of Waltisberg in Marmorstein (2011, 381-382).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

142

Michal Marmorstein

(16) fa-raǧaʿa bi-hā rasūlu llāhi yarǧufu fuʾādu-hū (Ṣaḥīḥ 1, 5) and-returnSC3msg with-PRON3fsg messenger-nom God-gen shiverPC3msg heartnom-PRON3msg

‘And the Messenger of God returned with them (i.e. the verses) his heart shivering.’ (17) fa-labisa dirʿa-hū wa-ʾaxaḏa sayfa-hū fa-xaraǧa yaʿdū (Maġāzī 1, 370) and-wearSC3msg armor-acc-PRON3msg and-takeSC3msg sword-acc-PRON3msg and-go_outSC3msg runPC3msg

‘He put on his armor, took his sword and went out running.’ (18) fa-xaraǧū yaṭlubūna-humā fī kulli waǧhin (Riwāyāt 2, 24) and-go_outSC3mpl look_forPC3mpl-PRON3mdu in all-gen direction-gen

‘They went out looking for both of them in all directions.’ (19) wa-marrū yaḍribūna bi-l-dufūfi wa-yazmirūna bi-l-mazāmīri (Maġāzī 1, 375) and-goSC3mpl strikePC3mpl in-DEF-tambourines-gen and-playPC3mpl in-DEFpipes-gen

‘They marched striking tambourines and playing the pipes.’ (20) fa-bātū yaṭlubūna-hū ḥattā yaʾisū min-hu (Riwāyāt 2, 178) and-spend_the_nightSC3mpl look_forPC3mpl-PRON3msg until give_hopeSBJV3mpl of-PRON3msg

‘They spent the night looking for him until they gave up all hope of [finding] him.’ Not only with verbs of (vectorial) motion, but also with verbs of caused motion, yafʿalu depicts the goal of the event launched by the main verb: (21) fa-ʾarsala ʾilay-hi yadʿū-hu (Riwāyāt 2, 29) and-sendSC3msg to-PRON3msg callPC3msg-PRON3msg

‘And he send to him [a message/messenger] inviting him [to come].’ yafʿalu in such cases is not strictly successive, neither does it indicate finality; rather, it indicates the terminal stage of the verbal situation. That the two notions, i.e., ‘final’ and ‘terminal’, are not simply overlapping can be demonstrated, inter alia, by the fact that proper final clauses, such as are introduced by an explicit operator (e.g. li- ‘for’), are external to the verbal situation and

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic

143

hence can be negated, whereas the terminal yafʿalu – being an internal and inseparable part of the verbal situation – is never negated. While coincidental or terminal yafʿalu forms cannot be negated, yafʿalu indicating simultaneity does exhibit negation with lā. Quite often, lā yafʿalu paraphrases the content expressed by the preceding (affirmative) predicative form: (22) wa-bātat ṣāhilatan xaylu-hum lā tahdaʾu (Maġāzī 1, 217) and-spend_the_nightSC3fsg calm_downPC3fsg

neighPTCPfsg-acc

horses-nom-PRON3mpl

NEG

‘Their horses stayed up the night neighing, they would not calm down.’ The predicative participle depicts a static situation. It may indicate: (a) the outcome of a previous process, in the passive form; (b) the persistence in a certain state, with dynamic lexemes; or (c) the endurance of a state, with stative lexemes. These three options are illustrated in the examples below. In (24), as is often the case, the participle is used to describe physical appearance, dressing and, especially, the girding of a sword (other parallel examples are Riwāyāt 2, 185: mutaqallidan; Sīra 1, 225: mutawaššiḥan); example (25) demonstrates the functional contrast between the participle and yafʿalu with regard to transitivity: the first figures in intransitive verb-phrases whereas the latter takes an object complement: (23) fa-makaṯa mumallakan ʿalay-hā ʾašhuran (Riwāyāt 2, 184) and-remainSC3msg enthronePTCP.PASSmsg-acc on-PRON3fsg months-acc

‘He remained its king (lit. ‘enthroned’) for several months.’ (24) fa-ʾaqbala muṣlitan sayfa-hū fī nafarin min-a l-yahūdi (Maġāzī 1, 372) and-approachSC3msg drawPTCPmsg-acc sword-acc-PRON3msg in group-gen of DEF-Jews-gen

‘He approached unsheathing his sword amid a group of Jews.’ (25) fa-xaraǧnā xāʾifīna naxāfu l-raṣada (Maġāzī 1, 28) and-go_outSC1cpl fearPTCPmpl-obl fearPC1cpl DEF-ambush-acc

‘We set out afraid, we were fearing an ambush.’ The last example illustrates a general principle of complex predications. One may refer to it as the principle of ‘increasing specificity’: each predicative is ‘piled up’ upon the previous one, thereby depicting in greater detail the given

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

144

Michal Marmorstein

situation. The increased specificity is obtained by the mere accumulation of predicates, and not by their internal order. Consider, for instance, (26)-(27), in which rakiba ‘to ride’ functions as either the main (specified) verb or the predicative (specifying) form: (26) lam ʾarkab xaṭwatan ḏāhiban wa-lā rāǧiʿan (Maġāzī 1, 26) NEG

rideJUSS1csg step-acc goPTCPmsg-acc and-NEG returnPTCPmsg-acc

‘I did not ride a single step either going or coming.’ (27) ʾaqbaltu rākiban ʿalā ḥimārin ʾatānin (Ṣaḥīḥ 1, 31) approachSC1csg ridePTCPmsg-acc on she_ass-gen

‘I came close riding on a she-ass.’ Quite often, the lexemes of both the main verb and the predicative form pertain to the same class of motion verbs. According to Waltisberg (2009, 286ff.), in such cases the participle serves to mark ‘situation-identity’ between the two verbal forms. It appears, however, that the notion of ‘situationidentity’ fails to capture the specifying function of the participle and its semantic contribution to the verbal complex. To be sure, there are cases where the content of both verbs is pretty similar. However, even in these, one is not concerned with mere tautology, but with the elaboration of the content of the main verb, often by indicating the point of departure or the direction of the motion: (28) wa-ʾaqbala ʾabū ǧubaylata sāʾiran min-a l-šāmi (Riwāyāt 2, 11) and-approachSC3msg ʾAbū_Ǧubayla-nom goPTCPmsg-acc from al-Šām-gen

‘And ʾAbū Ǧubayla came proceeding from al-Šām.’ (29) ḥattā qumtu fī qiblati-hī mustaqbila-hū (Sīra 1, 228) until get_upSC1csg in direction_of_praying-gen-PRON3msg facePTCPmsg-accPRON3msg

‘Until I stood in his direction of praying facing him.’ Unlike yafʿalu, the participle is rarely interpreted as indicating the terminal stage or destination of the verbal situation. Example (30) is one case that may be interpreted as such: (30) ǧiʾtu-ka ʿāʾiḏan bi-ka (Riwāyāt 1, 55) comeSC1csg-PRON2msg seek_protectionPTCPmsg-acc in-PRON2msg

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic

145

‘I came to you asking for your protection.’ In other cases where the main verb indicates vectorial motion, what one usually finds is the participle indicating an appointment or assignment, rather than the destination or goal. As an adjectival form, the participle is most suited for the expression of such attributes, whether these have a temporary or a permanent validity. Example (31) provides a good illustration of the distinction between the participle, indicating an appointment, i.e., an (intended) attribute (‘being sent as’), and yafʿalu, which breaks down this attribute into its actual instances (‘being sent to’): (31) fa-baʿaṯa llāhu ʾiblīsa qāḍiyan yaqḍī bayna-hum (Taʾrīx 1, 85) and-sendSC3msg God-nom ʾIblīs-acc judgePTCPmsg-acc judgePC3msg betweenPRON3mpl

‘God sent ʾIblīs as a judge to judge among them.’ As already mentioned above, a predicative faʿala is incompatible with motion verbs, due to its self-contained temporal framing (this is not to be confused with the notion of telicity: faʿala, with stative lexemes, may well indicate unbounded persisting situations). A predicative qad faʿala, on the other hand, does co-occur with motion verbs, indicating a process whose result is coincidental with the situation expressed by the main verb. As opposed to the coincidental yafʿalu, the tangent point of qad faʿala and the main verb is not the terminal but the initial stage of the latter. Like the other predicative forms, qad faʿala may refer to the motion itself, indicating the point of departure, or to the physical state of the agent: (32) fa-ǧāʾa ʾaʿrābiyyun qad ʾaqbala min tihāmata (Maġāzī 1, 46) and-comeSC3msg Bedouin-nom MOD approachSC3msg from Tihāma-gen

‘A Bedouin arrived [after] approaching from Tihāma.’ (33) wa-ʾaqbala l-mušrikūna qad ṣaffū ṣufūfa-hum (Maġāzī 1, 220) and-approachSC3msg DEF-polytheists-nom MOD alignSC3mpl lines-acc-PRON3mpl

‘The polytheists approached [being] already arranged in lines.’

4.1.4 Perception and permission verbs Perception verbs and (manipulation) verbs indicating permission form together a sub-group of complement-taking verbs in Classical Arabic. Both these classes of verbs head raising constructions. The term ‘raising’ refers to the

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

146

Michal Marmorstein

syntactic fusion of two clauses, a complement-taking verb and its propositional complement, whereby the subject of the second clause is fronted to the object position of the first. The raised element is in fact shared by both clauses, and cannot be analyzed as an exclusive member of either.21 The mechanism of raising allows for two interpretations of perception verbs: either as indicators of concrete perception, of an object and its condition (e.g. ‘I saw him doing’), or as indicators of notional perception, of a whole situation or fact (e.g. ‘I saw that he was doing’). The latter use may trigger a further shift or abstraction of the meaning of the verb, from physical perception to mental comprehension (e.g. ‘I realized that he was doing’).22 The distinction between the patterns of concrete and notional perception is not only semantic, but it also has syntactic correlates: (a) complement clauses introduced by the operator ʾanna are not free variants of raising constructions, but mostly interchange with the pattern of notional perception (Waltisberg 2009, 340); and (b) the paradigm of predicative forms which is compatible with the expression of notional perception is wider and includes also verbs not indicating co-temporality with the main verb. Thus, while the pattern of concrete perception involves only the predicative triad, yafʿalu, fāʿilan/mafʿūlan and qad faʿala, the pattern of notional perception also includes faʿala and sayafʿalu, both referring to events which are not envisaged as co-occurring with the moment of perception. The predicative form yafʿalu occurs with both patterns of concrete and notional perception. With the first pattern, yafʿalu depicts an ongoing situation, simultaneous with the moment of perception: (34) fa-raʾā-nī ʾatawaḍḍaʾu min kūzin xazafin (Buxalāʾ, 37) 21 In complex clauses such as ‘I found her gone’, Jespersen (1924, 122) suggests regarding the entire combination (‘nexus’) her gone as the object of the main verb. According to Givón (2001 II, 272), such cases exhibit the process of raising, whereby an argument of the subordinate clause is converted to an argument of the main clause. Waltisberg (2009, 322-323), on the other hand, views the raised element as still belonging to the embedded clause. As a matter of fact, this question cannot be decided, for the raised element is formally marked (through its case and agreement) as relating to both clauses at the same time. 22 According to the Arabic grammatical tradition, when raʾā and waǧada are not intended in their physical denotation (i.e., in the sense of ruʾyat al-ʿayn ‘the seeing of the eye’ or wiǧdān al-ḍālla ‘the finding of the lost beast’), but rather in their mental denotation, their ‘second object’ is indispensable to the structure, serving as the predicate of the first object (Sībawayhi I, 13).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic

147

and-seeSC3msg-PRON1csg perform_ablutionPC1csg from jug-gen pottery-gen

‘He saw me performing the ablution using [water from] a pottery jug.’ yafʿalu is also compatible with raʾā, when this indicates – rather than concrete ocular perception – the seeing of a certain scene in a dream or the envisioning of a scene: (35) ʾinn-ī qad raʾaytu ruʾyan […] wa-ʾarā bn-ī yaṭlubu-nī ṭalaban ḥaṯīṯan (Sīra 1, 254) INTRO-PRON1csg MOD seeSC1csg dream-acc […] searchPC3msg-PRON1csg search-acc hastily-acc

and-seePC1csg son-PRON1csg

‘I dreamt (lit. ‘I saw a dream’) […] and I see my son looking for me anxiously.’ With the second pattern of notional perception or comprehension, yafʿalu expresses a prediction, a situation that is not concomitant but posterior to that indicated by the main verb. As the conceived situation does not coincide with the moment of conceiving, the future form sa-yafʿalu may also be used: (36) fa-tarā muḥammadan yaḥṣiru-nā sanatan (Maġāzī 1, 368) and-seePC2msg Muḥammad-acc besiegePC3msg-PRON1cpl year-acc

‘Do you think that Muḥammad will besiege us for a year?’ (37) wa-ʾammā ṭalabu bn-ī ʾiyyā-ya ṯumma ḥabsu-hū ʿann-ī fa-ʾinn-ī ʾarā-hu sa-yaǧhadu ʾan yuṣība-hū mā ʾaṣāba-nī (Sīra 1, 254) and-TOP search-nom son-PRON1csg PRON1csg-acc then confinement-nomPRON3msg from-PRON1csg and-INTRO-PRON1csg seePC1csg-PRON3msg MODstrivePC3msg to befallSBJV3msg-PRON3msg REL befallSC3msg-PRON1csg

‘And as for my son’s looking for me and being withheld from me, I see it [as if] he will strive so that what happened to me will happen to him [too].’ The same as with verbs of motion and caused motion, when yafʿalu co-occurs with permission verbs it may be coincidental, referring to the terminal stage of the complex situation: (38) fa-qad ʾamara-nā ʾan lā nadaʿa-ka tastaqirru ʿalā l-ʾarḍi (Riwāyāt 1, 248) and-MOD orderSC3msg-PRON1cpl hold_firmPC2msg on DEF-ground-gen

that

NEG

letSBJV1cpl-PRON2msg

‘He has instructed us to not let you stick to the ground.’

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

148

Michal Marmorstein

The predicative participle is compatible with the expression of concrete as well as notional perception. In both cases it depicts a static situation, one that exists or persists at the moment of mental or physical perception: (39) ṯumma ǧāʾat-i mraʾatu l-ḥaǧǧāmi baʿda sāʿatin li-musāmarati ṣadīqatihā mraʾati l-ʾiskāfi fa-waǧadat-hā marbūṭatan (Kalīla wa-Dimna, 79) then comeSC3fsg wife-nom DEF-cupper-gen after hour-gen to-evening_chat-gen friend-gen-PRON3fsg wife-gen DEF-shoemaker-gen and-findSC3fsg-PRON3fsg tiePTCP.PASSfsg-acc

‘Then the wife of the cupper came after one hour to have an evening chat with her friend, the wife of the shoemaker, and she found her tied up.’ (40) fa-lammā waǧada-hū qāʿidan fī ʾaṣḥābi-hī ʾakabba ʿalay-hi wa-ʿānaqahū (Buxalāʾ, 43) and-when findSC3msg-PRON3msg sitPTCPmsg-acc among friends-gen-PRON3msg bend_downSC3msg on-PRON3msg and-embraceSC3msg-PRON3msg

‘When he found him sitting among his friends he bent down over him and embraced him.’ (41) fa-qultu yā rasūla llāhi mā la-ka ʿan fulānin fa-wallāhi ʾinn-ī la-ʾarā-hu muʾminan (Ṣaḥīḥ 1, 15) and-saySC1csg VOC messenger-nom God-gen what to-PRON2msg on so-and-so-gen and-by_God INTRO-PRON1csg EMPH-seePC1csg-PRON3msg believePTCPmsg-acc

‘So I said: O Messenger of God, what do you have [in mind] about so-andso, for by God, I think he is a believer.’ Also with verbs indicating permission, the predicative participle depicts a static situation; notice that in (42) the participle, as elsewhere, is intransitive, whereas the yafʿalu that follows has an object complement: (42) fa-ʾaxbara-nā ʾanna muḥammadan kāna ʿaraḍa li-ʿīri-nā fī badʾati-nā wa-ʾanna-hū taraka-hū muqīman yantaẓiru raǧʿata-nā (Maġāzī 1, 28) and-informSC3msg-PRON1cpl that Muḥammad-acc beSC3msg inspectSC3msg tocaravan-gen-PRON1cpl in start-gen-PRON1cpl and-that-PRON3msg leaveSC3msgPRON3msg stayPTCPmsg-acc waitPC3msg return-acc-PRON1cpl

‘And he informed us that Muḥammad was observing our caravan since we started our [journey] and that he had left him to stay [there] and watch for our return.’

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic

149

The predicative form qad faʿala in both patterns of concrete and notional perception, is used to indicate a process whose resultant state coincides with the time of perceiving or conceiving: (43) ʾasmaʿu l-ṣawta qad-i rtafaʿa fī ʾaʿlā qawrā (Riwāyāt 2, 47) hearPC1csg DEF-voice-acc MOD riseSC3msg from TOP-gen Qawrā-gen

‘I hear the voice already risen at the top of Qawrā.’ (44) ʾinn-ī ʾarā qurayšan qad ʾazmaʿat ʿalā l-xurūǧi (Maġāzī 1, 36) INTRO-PRON1csg

seePC1csg Qurayš-acc MOD decideSC3fsg on DEF-going_out-gen

‘I truly think that Qurayš have already decided to go out.’ As is usually the case, qad faʿala is preferred to faʿala when the chronological order of the events is deemed salient to the narrative; thus in (45), the fact that ʿAdī was already dead when the messenger found him, and not just the mere fact of his death, has great bearing on the later development of the narrative: (45) ʾinn-ī waǧadtu ʿadiyyan qad māta qabla ʾan ʾadxula ʿalay-hi (Riwāyāt 2, 191) INTRO-PRON1csg upon-PRON3msg

findSC1csg ʿAdiyy-acc MOD dieSC3msg before that enterSBJV1csg

‘I had found ʿAdī already dead before I entered upon him.’ In some cases, the perceived situation consists of a number of ‘slides’. Example (46) is a good illustration of the predicative triad; we observe that the order of the forms – first the participle, then yafʿalu and qad faʿala – is a fixed one, regardless of the nature of the matrix clause. This order may be regarded as iconic, reflecting the decreasing degree of integration of the predicative form with the main verb: (46) wa-la-ka-ʾann-ī ʾanẓuru ʾilay-kum ẓāʿinīna yataḍāġā ṣibyānu-kum qad taraktum dūra-kum xulūfan wa-ʾamwāla-kum (Maġāzī 1, 365) and-EMPH-as_if-PRON1csg lookPC1csg at-PRON2mpl departPTCPmpl-obl cry_outPC3msg children-nom-PRON2mpl MOD leaveSC2mpl homes-acc-PRON2mpl behind-acc and-possessions-acc-PRON2mpl

‘It is as if I look at you departing, your children crying out, [after] you have left your homes and possessions neglected.’ In my corpus, a predicative faʿala was not too often found in raising constructions. Unlike the temporally-bounded, coincidental qad faʿala, faʿala refers to

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

150

Michal Marmorstein

a self-contained period of time which is not referential to another. With concrete perception, faʿala is found with lexemes indicating an enduring state; notice in (47) the indefinite time frame indicated by the adverb zamānan ‘for a while’: (47) ʾinn-ī qad raʾaytu l-malika ʾaqāma bi-makāni-hī hāḏā zamānan lā yabraḥu min-hu (Kalīla wa-Dimna, 73) INTRO-PRON1csg MOD seeSC1csg DEF-king-acc staySC3msg DEMmsg time-acc NEG movePC3msg from-PRON3msg

in-place-gen-PRON3msg

‘Indeed I have seen [that] the king remained in this place of his for a while, not moving from it.’ faʿala is more likely to occur when perception is not intended in its physical sense, but in its mental one. Thus, faʿala is used in visions and dreams, or in the expression of realizations and conclusions: (48) raʾaytu rākiban ʾaqbala ʿalā baʿīri-hī […] fa-ʾarā l-nāsa ǧtamaʿū ʾilayhi (Maġāzī 1, 29) seeSC1csg rider-acc approachSC3msg on camel-gen-PRON3msg […] and-seePC1csg DEF-people-acc gatherSC3mpl to-PRON3msg

‘I saw [in a dream] a rider [that] approached on his camel […] I saw [that] the people gathered to him.’ (49) fa-ʾinn-ī ʾarā rīḥan qad hāǧat min ʾaʿlā l-wādī wa-ʾinn-ī ʾarā-hā buʿiṯat bi-naṣri-ka (Maġāzī 1, 29) and-INTRO-PRON1csg seePC1csg wind-acc MOD riseSC3fsg from TOP-gen DEFvalley-gen and-INTRO-PRON1csg seePC1csg-PRON3fsg sendSC.PASS3fsg with-helpPRON2msg

‘I see a wind has risen from above the valley and I think it has been sent to help you.’ As is the case elsewhere, the predicative faʿala is not encountered in the negative form; instead, lam yafʿal is used: (50) inhaḍ-i l-sāʿata ʾilā l-faḍli bni yaḥyā fa-ʾinna-ka taǧidu-hū lam yaʾḏan li-ʾaḥadin baʿdu (Riwāyāt 1, 30) get_upIMP2msg DEF-hour-acc to al-Faḍl_ibn_Yaḥyā-gen and-INTRO-PRON2msg findPC2msg-PRON3msg NEG allowJUSS3msg to-anyone-gen yet

‘Get up [and go] now to al-Faḍl b. Yaḥyā; you will find him not allowing anyone [in] yet.’

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic

151

4.1.5 Speech verbs Another defined class of verbs which are realized in verbal complexes are speech verbs. The predicative forms which co-occur with speech verbs are yafʿalu and the participle. These forms increase the specificity of the verbal situation by referring either to the content expressed or to the vocal quality of speech itself; notice that (52) exhibits an unusual case where the participle is followed by an object complement: (51) qāla l-ʾaʿšā yamdaḥu l-samawʾala (Riwāyāt 2, 27) saySC3msg al-ʾAʿšā-nom praisePC3msg al-Samawʾal-acc

‘Al-ʾAʿšā said praising al-Samawʾal.’ (52) qāla l-walīdu rāfiʿan ṣawta-hū (Buxalāʾ, 65) saySC3msg al-Walīd-nom raisePTCPmsg-acc voice-acc-PRON3msg

‘Al-Walīd said raising his voice.’

4.2 Syndetic circumstantial clauses The predicative paradigm is found not only in verbal complexes, i.e. in embedded clauses, but also at higher syntactic levels. In this section I will discuss one type of dependent clause, the circumstantial clause, in which the predicative triad is found. The aspectual oppositions between the forms are the same as those stated above: yafʿalu indicates an ongoing situation or process, the participle indicates a static situation and qad faʿala indicates a result. As mentioned above (2.1), the Arab grammarians described the ǧumla ḥāliyya ‘circumstantial clause’ as a complex (‘periphrastic’) manifestation of the ḥāl category. However, modern researchers, such as Premper (2002) and Waltisberg (2009), have demonstrated that the asyndetic ḥāl constituent and the syndetic ǧumla ḥāliyya do not interchange freely with each other. In fact, there are some significant formal and functional distinctions between them. Firstly, the subject of the syndetic CC is not necessarily co-referential with the subject of the main clause, thus both clauses do not necessarily refer to the same situation. It should be noted, however, that the subject of the CC is not entirely new, but can be retrieved from the previous context.23 23 It is rather unusual that the subject of the CC is newly introduced into the text. As the following example shows, although the subject is indefinite, it is strongly associated with other topics and hence may be regarded as presupposed (like inalienable entities): kuntu ʿinda šayxin min ʾahli marwa wa-ṣabiyyun la-hū ṣaġīrun yalʿabu bayna yaday-hi

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

152

Michal Marmorstein

Secondly, the syndetic CC is not lexeme-sensitive: it does not co-occur with specific classes of verbs. Thirdly, syndetic CCs are backgrounded whereas their asyndetic counterparts are foregrounded. The latter distinction is often correlated with the temporal relation marked by the syndetic and asyndetic clause, to wit, simultaneity vs. sequentiality or chaining (Premper 2002, 275). Although generally correct, this correlation is too sweeping: as has already been discussed, the predicative forms are either concomitant to or coincident with the time frame set in the main clause, thus they may precede, overlap or proceed from the situation indicated by the main verb. The formal and functional distinctions outlined above reflect different degrees of integration between the asyndetic and syndetic CCs and their matrix clause. The asyndetic predicative forms, occupying the position of an adverbial (accusative) complement, show a higher degree of integration than syndetic CCs, which are connected to their matrix clause as autonomous units (note that the participle in CCs takes the nominative case!). Also from a functional point of view, asyndetic predicative forms serve to single out a certain aspect, feature or stage of the complex situation; syndetic CCs, on the other hand, are comments elaborating on a certain entity, depicting in greater detail the situation indicated in the main clause or describing the setting in which the latter takes place. Except for some minor cases in which fa- is used, the CC is connected as a rule with -wa.24 wa- is a general connective particle, indicating the adjoining of two or more elements or clauses. The particular semantic relation between the adjoined clauses, whether it be chronological, causal, contrastive or other, is not indicated by wa- but determined by the given context.25 wāw al-ḥāl ‘the circumstantial wa-’ may introduce either a ‘nominal clause’ or a ‘verbal clause’: the first is headed by a topic entity with which the predicate is in full concord; the latter is initiated by a third-person verb whose subject shows only a partial agreement with it. Both patterns signal the functional distinction between ‘entity-oriented’ and ‘event-oriented’ clauses

(Buxalāʾ 38) — ‘I was at [a place of] a sheikh from the people of Marv, and a young boy of his was playing in front of him’. 24 For CCs introduced by fa-, see Nebes (1999). 25 For a different view of syndetic CCs, as such indicating a ‘catalogue’ of semantic relations, see Waltisberg (2009, 358).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic

153

(Holes 2004, 251-253).26 When the predicate of the circumstantial is yafʿalu or the participle, the nominal pattern is mandatory; with qad faʿala, the pattern of the verbal clause is mostly used, although one may encounter a few cases where the subject is fronted. Circumstantial clauses whose predicate is yafʿalu may refer to a situation parallel to the one indicated in the matrix clause. Being more general, the term ‘parallel’ is preferred to ‘simultaneous’, which captures only one possible interpretation of the circumstantial relation, namely the temporal. The parallel relation is sometimes interpreted as contrastive, especially when the subject of the CC is not only different from, but in fact confronted with the subject of the main clause: (53) fa-ǧaʿaltu ʾamšī ruwaydan wa-rasūlu llāhi qāʾimun yuṣallī yaqraʾu lqurʾāna (Sīra 1, 228) and-startSC1csg walkPC1csg slowly-acc and-messenger-nom get_upPTCPmsg-nom prayPC3msg readPC3msg DEF-Qurʾān-acc

God-gen

‘I started to walk slowly while the Messenger of God was standing, praying [and] reciting the Qurʾān.’ (54) fa-daxala ʿalay-hi raǧulun kāna la-hū ǧāran wa-kāna lī ṣadīqan fa-lam yaʿriḍ ʿalay-hi l-ṭaʿāma wa-naḥnu naʾkulu (Buxalāʾ, 38) and-enterSC3msg upon-PRON3msg man-nom beSC3msg to-PRON3msg neighbor-acc and-beSC3msg to-PRON1csg friend-acc and-NEG offerJUSS3msg to-PRON3msg DEFfood-acc and-PRON1cpl eatPC1cpl

‘When in came a man, a neighbor of his and a friend of mine, and he did not offer him food, though we were eating.’ Like the asyndetic yafʿalu, the circumstantial yafʿalu – when co-referential with the subject of the main verb – refers to the same occasion as the latter. Thus, in (55)-(57), the same verb, viz. qāla ‘to say’, is followed each time by a circumstantial clause, specifying the manner of speech, its location, or the content expressed:

26 See also Goldenberg (2006) for the functional distinction between verb-initial sentences and topicalizations in Arabic.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

154

Michal Marmorstein

(55) fa-lammā qāla surāqatu mā qāla wa-huwa yanṭuqu bi-lisāni ʾiblīsa šaǧuʿa l-qawmu (Maġāzī 1, 39) and-when saySC3msg Surāqa-nom what saySC3msg and-PRON3msg speakPC3msg with-tongue-gen ʾIblīs-gen be_courageousSC3msg DEF-people-nom

‘And when Surāqa said what he said, and he was speaking with the tongue of ʾIblīs, the people were encouraged.’ (56) samiʿtu ʿaliyyan yaqūlu wa-huwa yaxṭubu bi-l-kūfati (Maġāzī 1, 57) hearSC1csg ʿAliyy-acc sayPC3msg and-PRON3msg deliver_a_speechPC3msg in-alKūfa

‘I heard ʿAlī saying while he was delivering a sermon in Kufa.’ (57) […] qāla wa-huwa yuḥaddiṯu ʿan fatrati l-waḥyi (Ṣaḥīḥ 1, 6) […] saySC3msg and-PRON3msg talkPC3msg about intermediate_break-gen revelation-gen

DEF-

‘He said, while delivering a ḥadīṯ about the period of pause in revelation’ In syndetic CCs, yafʿalu is negated by lā. Quite often, lā yafʿalu occurs with verbs of knowledge, depicting a situation where one subject is ignorant about the activity of another: (58) fa-marrat-i l-ḥayyatu ʿalā l-xazanati wa-hum lā yaʿlamūna (Taʾrīx 1, 104) and-passSC3msg knowPC3mpl

DEF-snake-nom

by

DEF-keepers-gen

and-PRON3mpl

NEG

‘The snake passed by the keepers [and entered] while they did not know.’ Circumstantial clauses whose predicate is the participle are either coreferential with the situation indicated by the main verb, or refer to a parallel situation, as illustrated in the examples below. We observe that the participle in (59) follows a non-derived adjectival pattern (viz. faʿīl), depicting the mental state of the subject; in (60) the participle, as elsewhere (see above example 24), is used to refer to the physical appearance of the subject, his dress or girding (another example is Maġāzī 1, 39: wa-huwa mutawaššiḥun bi-sayfihī): (59) fa-ǧāʾa-nī wa-huwa ḥazīnun munkasirun (Buxalāʾ, 90) and-comeSC3msg-PRON1csg and-PRON3msg sad-nom breakPTCPmsg-nom

‘He came to me sad and [heart] broken.’

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic

155

(60) wa-ʾaxaḏa l-nabiyyu l-qawsa wa-ʾaxaḏa qanātan bi-yadi-hī […] wa-lmuslimūna mutalabbisūna l-silāḥa (Maġāzī 1, 215) and-takeSC3msg DEF-prophet-nom DEF-bow-acc and-takeSC3msg spear-acc inhand-gen-PRON3msg […] and-DEF-Muslims-nom dressPTCPmpl-nom DEF-weaponsacc

‘The Prophet took the bow and the spear in his hand […] while the Muslims were putting on their weapons.’ As with the asyndetic participle, the circumstantial participle occurs as a rule in intransitive verb-phrases, either with intransitive lexemes or, with transitive lexemes, in the passive form: (61) laqiya-hū safīhun min sufahāʾi qurayšin wa-huwa ʿāmidun ʾilā l-kaʿbati (Sīra 1, 246) meetSC3msg-PRON3msg fool-nom of fools-gen Qurayš-gen and-PRON3msg proceedPTCPmsg-nom toward al-Kaʿba-gen

‘One of Qurayš’ fools came across him while he was proceeding to the Kaʿba.’ (62) li-ʾanna-hū lā šayʾa yatawahhamu-hū mutawahhimun fī qawli qāʾili ḏālika ʾillā wa-huwa mawǧūdun fī qawli qāʾilin (Taʾrīx 1, 58) because-PRON3msg NEG thing-acc imaginePC3msg-PRON3msg one_imagining-nom in saying-gen one_saying-gen DEMmsg but and-PRON3msg findPTCP.PASSmsg-nom in saying-gen one_saying-gen

‘Because there is nothing which one may presume [to be implied] in this statement without existing in a statement such as […].’ On rare occasions the participle is encountered with an object complement. We observe, however, that the object in such cases is not a prototypical one, i.e. an individualized affected entity, but in fact, forms a collocation with the verbal form: (63) wa-kayfa yastaṭīʿu ḏālika wa-huwa ʾākilun ʿušban (Kalīla wa-Dimna, 92) and-how be_ablePC3msg DEMmsg and-PRON3msg eatPTCPmsg-nom grass-acc

‘How is he able to do that while being a grass-eater?’ Circumstantial clauses whose predicate is qad faʿala exhibit in the main the pattern of the verbal clause, although one may encounter a few cases in which the subject is fronted, as in (65):

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

156

Michal Marmorstein

(64) wa-raǧaʿa l-naǧāšiyyu wa-qad ʾahlaka llāhu ʿaduwwa-hū (Sīra 1, 221) and-returnSC3msg al-Naǧāšiyy-nom and-MOD destroySC3msg God-nom enemyacc-PRON3msg

‘The Negus came back [after] God had already destroyed his enemy.’ (65) wa-xaraǧa l-xabaru ʾilā l-nāsi wa-riǧālu banī l-muṣṭaliqi qad-i qtusimū wa-mulikū (Maġāzī 1, 411) and-go_outSC3msg DEF-news to DEF-people-gen and-men-nom Banū_al-Muṣṭaliqgen MOD divideSC.PASS3mpl and-possessSC.PASS3mpl

‘The news went out to the people, while the men of the Banū Muṣṭaliq had already been divided [among their captors] and become [their] property […].’ A plausible explanation to the different order of wa-qad faʿala vis-à-vis wahuwa yafʿalu/wa-huwa fāʿilun may be that the latter, which take the form of the nominal clause, are indeed plot-external descriptions, sometimes even generic or encyclopedic comments, centered on a certain entity, while wa-qad faʿala, though deviating from the main faʿala-plot-line and depicting an anterior event is not purely descriptive, but rather incorporated in the stream of events. Circumstantial clauses can be realized in the ʾinna la- clausal pattern. The particle ʾinna introduces the entire clause whereas la- precedes the predicate. When the predicate is verbal, la- is prefixed to either yafʿalu or the participle. The structure wa-ʾinna la- has an emphasizing function: it indicates that the content expressed in the clause stands against a certain expectation, explicit or implicit in the surrounding context, and that it is therefore remarkable. There is an important functional distinction between ordinary circumstantial clauses and wa-ʾinna la- CCs: unlike the first, the pattern wa-ʾinna la- is not merely descriptive or orientational (if at all), but it presents the personal evaluation of the narrator regarding the narrated situation. Thus, in (66) ʿĀʾiša says that it was an extremely cold day when the revelation came upon the Prophet, but nevertheless she saw that he was sweating; in (67), Maymūna is reported to be given medicine, despite the fact that she was fasting: (66) wa-la-qad raʾaytu-hū yanzilu ʿalay-hi l-waḥyu fī l-yawmi l-šadīdi l-bardi fa-yufṣimu ʿan-hu wa-ʾinna ǧabīna-hū la-yatafaṣṣadu ʿaraqan (Ṣaḥīḥ 1, 6) and-EMPH-MOD seeSC1csg-PRON3msg come_downPC3msg upon-PRON3msg DEFrevelation-nom in DEF-day-gen DEF-strong-gen DEF-cold-gen and-abatePC3msg from-PRON3msg and-INTRO forehead-acc-PRON3msg EMPH-dripPC3msg sweat-acc

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic

157

‘And I saw him [when] the revelation came upon him, in a very cold day, then it departed from him, while his forehead was dripping with sweat.’ (67) fa-la-qad luddat maymūnatu wa-ʾinna-hā la-ṣāʾimatun (Sīra 2, 1007; Waltisberg 2009, 159) and-EMPH-MOD administer_medicineSC.PASS3fsg PRON3fsg EMPH-fastPTCPfsg-nom

Maymūna-nom

and-INTRO-

‘And Maymūna was given the medicine while she was fasting.’ qad faʿala, which is rarely found in the nominal clause pattern, is also not found in the ʾinna la- pattern. Nevertheless, qad faʿala is compatible with the emphasizing particle la- which precedes the modified form. In the same manner as the emphasizing pattern wa-ʾinna-hū la-yafʿalu/wa-ʾinna-hū la-fāʿilun, wa-la-qad faʿala also has an evaluative function: besides the plain mention of an anterior event (which would have taken the form of wa-qad faʿala), la-qad faʿala imparts the impression of the narrator regarding this event: (68) la-qad ḥaddaṯa-nī ʿabdu llāhi bni ʿabbāsin ʾanna ʾādama nazala ḥīna nazala bi-l-hindi wa-la-qad ḥaǧǧa min-hā ʾarbaʿīna ḥiǧǧatan ʿalā riǧlayhi (Taʾrīx 1, 124) EMPH-MOD tellSC3msg-PRON1csg ʿAbdallāh_ibn_ʿAbbās-nom that ʾĀdam-acc descendSC3msg when descendSC3msg in-al-Hind-gen and-EMPH-MOD performing_the_ḤaǧǧSC3msg from-PRON3fsg forty-obl Ḥaǧǧ-acc on two_feet-PRON3msg

‘ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAbbās told me that when Adam came down it was in India; from there he had performed the pilgrimage to Mecca on foot forty times.’

4.3 Mutually-dependent clauses Mutually-dependent constructions are exocentric, that is, neither their first nor their second part may be said to function as the main constituent or nucleus to which the other is subordinate. In Classical Arabic, mutual dependency is marked as distinct from other types of interdependency by inverting the usual order of the conjoined dependent clause, from subsequent position to initial. The global meaning of a mutually-dependent construction is gathered from the sum of both its parts, so that neither one can be omitted without giving up much of the sense of the entire construction. Conditional sentences are perhaps the best known example of mutuallydependent constructions. The conditional meaning is only obtained by the juxtaposition of a protasis and an apodosis. In contrast to other types of dependent clauses, the conditional clause heads the entire construction. Moreo-

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

158

Michal Marmorstein

ver, it exhibits a different verbal paradigm than the one found in adverbial clauses which follow their main clause.27 Apart from conditional clauses, there are other types of mutuallydependent constructions. The present discussion focuses on those exhibiting the predicative paradigm. These constructions can be divided into two interrelated kinds: (a) setting clauses and (b) presentative clauses. There is an important difference between the verbal complexes and the syndetic CCs discussed above and the setting-presentative constructions to be discussed below: the first operate at the syntactic level of the complex-clause, and thus may be found in any type of discourse, e.g., dialogues, narratives, expositions, etc.; the latter operate at the text level and can only be found in narratives. They are, in fact, marked patterns of narration.28

4.3.1 Setting clauses Setting clauses are introduced by the conjunction (fa-)baynā/baynamā ‘while’. They take the first position in the complex construction (like conditional clauses), followed by a presentative clause (see below 4.3.2). baynā/baynamāclauses exhibit the pattern of the nominal clause (see above 4.2); in case the predicate is verbal, it is realized as either yafʿalu or the participle, always in the affirmative. Here, as well, we observe the opposition between the dynamic-progressive-transitive yafʿalu and the static-intransitive participle: (69) baynā ʾanā ʾamšī ʾiḏ samiʿtu ṣawtan min-a l-samāʾi (Ṣaḥīḥ 1, 6) while PRON1csg walkPC1csg when hearSC1csg voice-acc from DEF-heaven-gen

‘As I was walking I suddenly heard a voice from heaven.’ (70) fa-baynamā humā wāqifāni bayna yaday-hi ʾiḏ saqaṭa ṭāʾirāni ʿalā l-sūri (Riwāyāt 2, 180) and-while PRON3mdu standPTCPmdu-nom between two_hands-obl-PRON3msg when landSC3msg two_birds-nom on DEF-wall-gen

27 Prototypical conditional sentences exhibit a limited range of possibilities, the verbal form in the protasis - faʿala or yafʿal - triggers off the verbal form in the apodosis faʿala or yafʿal, both forms assuming a hypothetical meaning. By contrast, modifying adverbial clauses are free to follow a wide variety of clause patterns (Peled 1992, 140ff.), and the temporal or modal meaning of their verb, as is generally the case in dependent clauses, is relative to the referential point established in the main clause. 28 A fuller discussion of mutually-dependent constructions and their function in the narrative is found in Marmorstein (2014).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic

159

‘And while they were standing in front of him suddenly two birds landed on the wall.’ The modified form qad faʿala, incompatible with the durative (unbounded) meaning of baynā/baynamā, is not attested in this clause type. However, qad faʿala may be incorporated into the setting in the form of a circumstantial clause; notice that in (71) the subject of the circumstantial is fronted, so as to match the order of the baynā/baynamā clause: (71) fa-baynā ʾanā fī maǧlis-ī wa-l-xadamu qad ḥaffū bī wa-ǧawāriy-ya yataraddadna bayna yaday-ya ʾiḏā ʾanā bi-šayxin (Riwāyāt 1, 45) and-while PRON1csg in session_room-PRON1csg and-DEF-servants-nom MOD surroundSC3mpl with-PRON1csg and-maids-nom-PRON1csg frequentPC3fpl between two_ hands-obl-PRON1csg when PRON1csg with-old_man-gen

‘And while I was in my living room, the servants had already surrounded me and my maids were coming and going in front of me, suddenly there was an old man with me.’ Setting clauses may also take the form of the ʾinna la- pattern. The same as in baynā/baynamā-clauses, yafʿalu and the participle function as verbal predicates. The distinction between setting clauses introduced by baynā/baynamā and those introduced by ʾinna is not a syntactic one: both types of clauses exhibit a mutually-dependent construction with the same verbal paradigm. Rather, the distinction resides in the domain of expressivity: ʾinna, in this case (and in a different manner than its emphasizing function in CCs, see above 4.2), signals the presence of an internally involved, ‘homodiegetic’ narrator (Genette 1980, 245), telling the story from his own first-hand experience: (72) fa-wallāhi ʾinn-ī la-ʾamšī naḥwa-hū [...] ʾiḏ xaraǧa naḥwa bābi banī sahmin (Maġāzī 1, 31) and-by_God INTRO-PRON1csg EMPH-walkPC1csg toward-PRON3msg […] when go_outSC3msg toward gate-gen Banū Sahm-gen

‘By God, I was walking towards him [...] when suddenly he went out towards the gate of Banū Sahm.’

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

160

Michal Marmorstein

(73) fa-wallāhi ʾinn-ī la-qāʿidun fī ʾahl-ī ʾiḏ naẓartu ʾilā ẓaʿīnatin (Sīra, 2, 948; Nebes 2001, 120) and-by_God INTRO-PRON1csg EMPH-sitPTCPmsg-nom among family-gen-PRON1csg when lookSC1csg at woman_in_camel_borne_sedan-gen

‘By God, I was sitting among my people when suddenly I noticed a woman in a camel-borne sedan.’

4.3.2 Presentative clauses Presentative clauses take the second position in mutually-dependent constructions. There are two kinds of such presentatives: the first are headed by the particle ʾiḏ, followed by the verbal form faʿala; in the second, the particle ʾiḏā introduces the clause which exhibits the pattern [noun-phrase + the predicative paradigm]. 29 The predicative paradigm comprises the triad of yafʿalu, fāʿilun/mafʿūlun and qad faʿala. Interestingly, the participle in ʾiḏā-clauses – rather than taking the accusative case (as in verbal complexes) – assumes as a rule the nominative case:30 (74) wa-qāla qum bi-ʾiḏni llāhi fa-ʾiḏā huwa qāʾimun yanfuḍu l-turāba ʿan raʾsi-hī wa-qad šāba (Taʾrīx 1, 187) and-saySC3msg get_upIMP2msg with-permission-gen God-gen and-behold PRON3msg get_upPTCPmsg-nom shakePC3msg DEF-dust-acc from head-genPRON3msg and-MOD become_gray_hairedSC3msg

‘And he said: Rise, with God’s permission! And there he was standing, shaking the earth from his head, already gray-haired.’

29 The nominal presentee after ʾiḏā may be definite or indefinite. It either takes the nominative case or is realized as the genitive complement of the preposition bi- ‘with’. However, when followed by a predicative form, the nominal presentee is nearly always attested in the nominative. 30 In my corpus, as well as in the major grammars of Classical Arabic, there are no examples of ʾiḏā-presentatives in which the participle is attested in the accusative case. On the other hand, there are quite a few examples of presentatives introduced by hāḏā in direct speech, in which the participle takes the accusative. This double manifestation of the participle is explained by Bloch (1986) as a semanto-grammatical development of presentatives in Arabic, from ‘amplified’ constructions, in which the participle (or some other form) is adverbial (i.e. accusative), to ‘proclitic’ constructions, in which it is predicative (nominative). In a synchronic view, however, the fact that a fluctuation between both manifestations exists is by itself instructive: it reflects the adverbial-yet-kernel status of this ‘amplifying’ term, which, unlike other adverbials (e.g., temporal or locative), forms part of the predicative core of the clause.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic

161

(75) fa-ǧiʾtu ʾilā ʾibrāhīma l-mawṣiliyyi fa-ʾiḏā l-bābu maftūḥun wa-l-dihlīzu qad kunisa wa-l-bawwābu qāʿidun (Riwāyāt 1, 28) and-comeSC1csg to ʾIbrāhīm_al-Mawṣiliyy-gen and-behold DEF-door-nom openPTCP.PASSmsg-nom and-DEF-hall-nom MOD sweepSC.PASS3msg and DEFdoor_keeper-nom sitPTCPmsg-nom

‘I came to ʾIbrāhīm al-Mawṣilī, and behold, the door was opened, the hall was already swept and the door-keeper was sitting.’ (76) fa-fataḥa-hā la-hū fa-ʾiḏā fī-hā ṣūratu ʾādama wa-ḏurriyyati-hī kulli-him fa-ʾiḏā kullu raǧulin maktūbun ʿinda-hū ʾaǧalu-hū wa-ʾiḏā ʾādamu qad kutiba la-hū ʿumru ʾalfi sanatin (Taʾrīx 1, 156) and-openSC3msg-PRON3fsg to-PRON3msg and-behold in-PRON3fsg picture-nom ʾĀdam-gen and-progeny-gen-PRON3msg all-gen-PRON3mpl and-behold all-nom man-gen writePTCP.PASSmsg-nom at-PRON3msg term-nom-PRON3msg and-behold ʾĀdam-nom MOD writeSC.PASS3msg to-PRON3msg term-nom thousand-gen yeargen

‘He opened it (i.e. His hand) for him, and behold, in it there was the picture of Adam and all his progeny, and there was the [life] term of each man written down with him, and there was Adam, a term of thousand years already written down for him.’ Presentative clauses introduced by ʾiḏ and ʾiḏā express something unexpected, mufāǧaʾa ‘surprise’ in traditional terms, a sudden development or realization, perceived or conceived by a certain character. Unlike ʾiḏ-clauses, which present a further dynamic progression in the plot, ʾiḏā-clauses present an unfolding scene, a static tableau. In both cases, the overall construction exhibits what may be described as an aspectual asymmetry: in ʾiḏ-initiated presentatives, a static situation (baynā/baynamā-clause) is interrupted by a dynamic peak in the story; in ʾiḏā-initiated presentatives, a dynamic step forward in the plot (faʿala) is concluded in a static situation. It is this aspectual asymmetry that creates the dramatic moment of surprise in the narrative.

5. Conclusions Circumstantial clauses are one of the most intriguing topics of Arabic syntax. In this study I approached the problem of defining the circumstantial category by giving up a clear-cut demarcation of verbal CCs and resorting to the semanto-syntactic domain of event integration and complex predications to which

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

162

Michal Marmorstein

they belong. I discussed the entire range of complex predications: from closely integrated (and even fully grammaticalized) verbal complexes toward more loosely integrated structures, such as syndetic circumstantial clauses and textual units consisting of mutually-dependent, setting and presentatives clauses. Despite its heterogeneity, this variety of constructions was shown to be intrinsically related by the presence of the same set of predicative verbal forms: yafʿalu, the participle and qad faʿala, marking an ongoing situation, a state and an outcome, respectively. All three are co-temporal, either simultaneous or coincidental with the time frame set in the matrix clause. Table (2) summarizes the discussion on the domain of complex predications: Table (2) - The domain of complex predications in Classical Arabic SYNTACTIC LEVEL

THE PREDICATIVE TRIAD

yafʿalu verbal complexes

fāʿilan/mafʿūlan qad faʿala

OTHER VERBAL FORMS

faʿala (auxiliary, perception) sa-yafʿalu (perception)

wa-huwa yafʿalu circumstantial clauses wa-huwa fāʿilun/mafʿūlun wa-qad faʿala baynā/baynamā huwa yafʿalu setting clauses

baynā/baynamā huwa fāʿilun *qad faʿala not adjacent to baynā/baynamā ʾiḏā huwa yafʿalu

presentative clauses

ʾiḏā huwa fāʿilun/mafʿūlun ʾiḏā huwa qad faʿala

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic

163

The study of verbal CCs has also led to some interesting observations with regard to the Classical Arabic verbal system in general. Perhaps the most remarkable observation is that, in contrast to the general opinion, the simple finite forms faʿala and yafʿalu do not appear to function as a binary pair: as a predicative form, faʿala is quite marginal vis-à-vis the dominant role played by yafʿalu and its counterparts, the participle and qad faʿala. Moreover, it was shown that despite their close syntactic ‘resemblance’, yafʿalu and the participle are distinct at several semantic levels: 31 yafʿalu indicates a dynamicprogressive aspect and is used in transitive, more informative verb-phrases, whereas the participle indicates a static aspect and even permanent attributes (including appointments). Lastly, a clear functional distinction between qad faʿala and faʿala was noticed: the first is a resultative form which indicates a coincidental situation, while the latter is an eventive form which is used to indicate self-contained situations and thus is less frequently found in the predicative position.

References Primary sources Riwāyāt = Rannāt al-maṯāliṯ wal-maṯānī fī riwāyāt al-ʾaġānī. 2 vols. 1923 (vol I), 1946 (vol II). (Extracts from Kitāb al-ʾAġānī, ʾAbū al-Faraǧ al-ʾIṣbahānī). Edited by ʾAnṭūn Ṣāliḥānī. Beirut: al-Maṭbaʿa al-Kāṯūlīkiyya. Buxalāʾ=ʾAbū ʿUṯmān ʿAmr b. Baḥr b. Maḥbūb al-Ǧāḥiẓ, Al-Buxalāʾ. 1993. Edited by ʿAbbās ʿAbd al-Sātir. Beirut: Dār wa-Maktabat al-Hilāl. Kalīla wa-Dimna=ʿAbdallāh ʾIbn al-Muqaffaʿ, Kalīla wa-Dimna. 1926. Edited by Louis Cheikho. Beirut: Maṭbaʿat al-ʾĀbāʾ al-Yasūʿiyyīn. Maġāzī=ʾAbū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. ʿUmar al-Wāqidī, Kitāb al-Maġāzī. vol I. 1966. Edited by Marsden Jones. London: Oxford University Press. Ṣaḥīḥ=ʾAbū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. ʾIsmaʿīl al-Buxārī, al-Ǧāmiʿ al-Ṣaḥīḥ. vol I. 1862. Edited by Ludolf Krehl. Leiden: Brill. Sīra=ʾAbū Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Malik b. Hišām, Kitāb Sīrat Rasūl Allāh. 2 vols. 18581860. Edited by Ferdinand Wüstenfeld. Göttingen: Dieterichsche UniversitätsBuchhandlung. 31 The finite form yafʿalu is termed by the Arab grammarians al-muḍāriʿ l-ism al-fāʿil ‘the [form] resembling the participle’. The muḍāraʿa ‘resemblance’ stems from the paradigmatic interchangeability of both forms, see Sībawayhi (I, 2).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

164

Michal Marmorstein

Taʾrīx=ʾAbū Muḥammad b. Ǧarīr al-Ṭabarī, Taʾrīx al-rusul wa-l-mulūk. 15 vols. 18791901 (reprint 1964). Edited by Michael J. de Goeje et al. Leiden: Brill.

Secondary sources Abboud, Peter. 1986. “The Ḥāl Construction and the Main Verb in the Sentence.” In The Fergusonian Impact: In Honor of Charles A. Ferguson on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, edited by Joshua A. Fishman et al., vol. 1, 191-196. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bloch, Ariel A. 1986. “Presentative Structures and Their Syntactic and Semantic Development.” In Studies in Arabic Syntax and Semantics, 54-101. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Carter, Michael G. 1972. “‘Twenty Dirhams’ in the Kitāb of Sībawayhi.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 35: 485-496. Fischer, Wolfdietrich. 2002. A Grammar of Classical Arabic. 3rd ed. Translated by Jonathan Rodgers. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Genette, Gérard. 1980. Narrative Discourse. Translated by Jane E. Lewin. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction. 2 vols. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins Goldenberg, Gideon. 1987-1988. “The Contribution of Semitic Languages to Linguistic Thinking.” Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 30: 107-115 [=Studies in Semitic Linguistics, 1-9. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press]. ———. 1991. “On Predicative Adjectives and Syriac Syntax.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 48: 716-726 [=Studies in Semitic Linguistics, 579-590. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press]. ———. 2000. “The Structure of Compound Tense-Forms.” Igeret 18: 15-17 [In Hebrew]. ———. 2006. “On Grammatical Agreement and Verb-Initial Sentences”. In Loquentes linguis: Studi linguistici e orientali in onore di Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti, edited by Giorgio Borbone, Alessandro Mengozzi and Mauro Tosco, 333-339. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. “The Converb as a Cross-Linguistically Valid Category.” In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, edited by Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König, 1-55. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Domain of Verbal Circumstantial Clauses in Classical Arabic

165

Holes, Clive. 2004. Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties. 2nd ed. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse.” Language 56/2: 251-299. Ibn Hišām, Ǧamāl al-Dīn al-ʾAnṣārī. 2003. Šuḏur al-ḏahab. Edited by Muḥammad alSaʿdī Farhūd. Cairo/Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-Maṣrī wal-Lubnānī. Ibn Sarrāǧ, ʾAbū Bakr Muḥammad b. Al-Sarī. 1985-1988. Kitāb al-ʾUṣūl fī al-naḥw. 3 vols. Edited by ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn al-Fatlī. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risāla. Ibn Yaʿīš, Muwaffaq al-Dīn Yaʿīš b. ʿAlī. 2001. Šarḥ al-Mufaṣṣal lil-Zamaxšarī. 6 vols. Edited by Emīl Badīʿ Yaʿqūb. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿilmiyya. Isaksson, Bo, Kammensjö, Heléne and Persson, Maria. 2009. Circumstantial Qualifiers in Semitic: The case of Arabic and Hebrew. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: G. Allen and Unwin. Kleiber, Georges. 1987. Du Côte de la référence verbale: Les phrases habituelles. Bern/Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. König, Ekkehard. 1995. “The Meaning of Converb Constructions.” In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, edited by Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König, 57-95. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lehmann, Christian. 1988. “Towards a Typology of Clause Linkage.” In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, edited by John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson, 181-225. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Levin, Aryeh. 1979. “Sībawayhi’s View of the Syntactic Structure of kāna waʾaxawātuhā.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 1:185-213. Marmorstein, Michal. 2011. “A Review Article: Michael Waltisberg Satzkomplex und Funktion: Syndese und Asyndese im Althocharabischen.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 38: 361-390. ———. 2014. “Verbal Syntax and Textual Structure in Classical Arabic Prose.” In Strategies of Clause Linking in Semitic Languages: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Clause Linking in Semitic Languages 5-7 August 2012 in Kivik, Sweden, edited by B. Isaksson and M. Persson, 63-87. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 93,Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Matthiessen, Christian, and Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. “The Structure of Discourse and ‘Subordination’.” In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, edited by John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson, 275-329. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Nebes, Norbert. 1982. Funktionsanalyse von kāna yafʿalu. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

166

Michal Marmorstein

———. 1999. “Das Satzschema fa-huwa yafʿalu/fāʿilun/ Prädikativ für Vergangenheit in frühklassischer arabischer Erzählliteratur.” In Tempus und Aspekt in den semitischen Sprachen. Jenaer Kolloquium zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, edited by Norbert Nebes, 77-100. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2001. “Das Inzidenzschema im klassischen Arabischen: Ein Vorbericht.” In Sachverhalt und Zeitbezug: Semitistische und alttestamentliche Studien, Adolf Denz zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Rüdiger Bartelmus and Norbert Nebes, 113128. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Peled, Yishai. 1992. Conditional Structures in Classical Arabic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Premper, Waldfried. 2002. Die ‘Zustandssätze’ des Arabischen in typologischer Perspektive. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Raible, Wolfgang. 1992. Junktion: Eine Dimension der Sprache und ihre Realisierungsformen zwischen Aggregation und Integration. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Reckendorf, Hermann. 1895-1898. Die Syntaktischen Verhältnisse des Arabischen. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1906. “Zum Gebrauch des Partizips im Altarabischen.” In Orientalistische Studien, Theodor Nöldeke zum siebzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet, edited by Carl Bezold, vol. 1, 255-265. Gieszen: Alfred Töpelmann. ———. 1921. Arabische Syntax. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Sībawayhi, ʾAbū Bišr ʿAmr b. ʿUṯmān. 1881-1889. Al-Kitāb. 2 vols. Edited by Hartwig Derenbourg. Paris: L’imprimerie nationale. Talmon, Rafael. 2003. Eighth-Century Iraqi Grammar: A Critical Exploration of PreḪalīlian Arabic Linguistics. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Van Valin, Robert. D. 1984. “A Typology of Syntactic Relations in Clause Linkage.” In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 542-559. Berkeley: BLS. Waltisberg, Michael. 2009. Satzkomplex und Funktion: Syndese und Asyndese im Althocharabischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Wright, William. 1896-1898. A Grammar of the Arabic Language. 2 vols. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Clause Combining in Biblical Hebrew

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach Bo Isaksson, Uppsala University

Introduction The classical Hebrew verbal system is one of the greatest problems of Semitic linguistics. It has been a topic of debates and academic discussions in more than a millennium. The sad fact is that the grammatical understanding of the Hebrew tradition texts had been forgotten already in the Middle Ages (McFall 1982). Since then, the Biblical Hebrew verbal forms (tense- and/or aspect forms) have remained a mystery, and theories about them have, since the Jewish grammarian Jafeth ha-Levi (10th century), been based on inductive study of translations into other languages. “In the explanation of the tenses no appeal is made to a body of tradition, such as the Masoretes”, and this because the tradition was no more available (McFall 1982, 16). The theory that emerged among Jewish scholars was that the conjunction we put before a finite verb had a ‘conversive’ function and thereby could transform this verbal form into another tense form. The verb for past tense, qatal, with a prefixed we often acquired a futural or modal sense, which reminded of the meanings of the other finite tense form (yiqtol). By analogy, the conjunction wa (allomorph of we) was considered ‘converting’ yiqtol into a narrative past tense (wa-yiqtol).1 This “conversive theory” made overwhelming impact on the subsequent scholarly discussion on the Hebrew verbal system and still dominates the text books on Biblical Hebrew. It is a system of four different finite tense forms 1 In the present article we refers to the Hebrew morpheme wə with allomorphs wə, ū, wī, wå, wɛ, wa, and wā. In a similar way, wa refers to the morpheme wa + gemination with allomorphs way, wat, wan, wå̄ , and wa.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

170

Bo Isaksson

(or aspect forms), of which two lack a prefixed we and two have a prefixed conjunction. Though the system has four tenses, those tenses are distributed semantically into two main classes: 1) qatal and wa-yiqtol means past tense and anterior/perfective aspect, and 2) yiqtol and we-qatal means present time, future, modal meaning and imperfective aspect. This is the starting point for nearly all scholarly studies even today. On this four-part verbal system, various theories of tense-aspect-mood are applied to the Hebrew texts in a never-ending stream of dissertations and monographs, not to talk about papers and articles. And still, as with the Jewish grammarians, in focus of the discussion are the verbal forms as such and their relations; clauses are usually not considered.2 It is conspicuous that a comparative Semitic perspective has had so little impact on the question of the four-part Hebrew verbal system. No other Semitic language exhibits this strange constellation of four verb forms semantically ordered in pairs, and in no other Semitic language are there a ‘conversive’ or ‘consecutive’ wa that can transform verb forms from one conjugation to another. Seen in the perspective of the close relatives of Hebrew in Central Semitic, and taking into account the second millennium Amarna Canaanite (Rainey 1996), we would rather expect Biblical Hebrew to behave as one of several first millennium daughter languages of early Canaanite. We would expect that Biblical Hebrew had three basic finite verb forms (not four), two with prefixed inflection (reflexes of yaqtul and yaqtulu);3 and one with suffixed inflection (qatal). Utterly few scholars have dared to maintain this concerning Biblical Hebrew (among the few are Tropper 1988; Van de Sandhe 2008). We have reminiscences of the Canaanite system in Ugaritic and in Classical Arabic. It is significant that both Ugaritic and Classical Arabic have retained short final vowels, both in the nominal and the verbal inflections. This is not the case with the Northwest Semitic languages attested in the first millennium, B.C. Huehnergard writes: As one studies the tense-mood-aspect systems of Arabic, Ugaritic, Amarna Canaanite, and early Hebrew (and perhaps also early Aramaic, in view of the Tel Dan inscription with its preterite yqtl forms), one is struck by their overall formal and semantic similarity: besides the im2 Two exception are Andersen (1974) and Heller (2004), cf. Isaksson (2009, 22). 3 Bibliography in Bloch (2007, 142 note 3).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

171

perfective yaqtulu, we may mention the volitive or subjunctive yaqtula and the emphatic energic forms. Although the details remain unclear, it seems increasingly likely that the entire tense-mood-aspect system of these languages, both formally and semantically, can be reconstructed to a common ancestor. (Huehnergard 2005, 165).4 The most simple and straightforward and reasonable expectation of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system is that it should behave like an ordinary descendant of early Canaanite (Isaksson 2011, 173 note 1). This is the position taken in the present study. Biblical Hebrew is Central Semitic and it belongs to the Canaanite subgroup. Biblical Hebrew possessed the grams short yiqtol, long yiqtol, and the qatal, the imperative (IMP) and the cohortative.

Hypothesis: A word order revolution in Proto-Hebrew Somewhere in the period between the Amarna age (14th century), and before the Old testament texts were created, there occurred in Proto-Hebrew and its Canaanite sister languages no less than a grammatical revolution: a phonological change resulted in the loss of all short final vowels, and this in turn occasioned a subsequent morphological merger of the short and long prefix grams. The types yaqtul and yaqtulu both became yaqtul. This change occurred in all adjacent Northwest Semitic languages, Aramaic, Phoenician, Hebrew; but not, as far as we can understand, in the earlier Ugaritic (extinguished 1180 B.C.). We can observe a similar process of change in the modern Arabic vernaculars, which, in contrast to Classical Arabic, have lost short final vowels.5

4 The cohortative is discussed only occasionally in the present article. The cohortative ending was added only to first person forms of the prefix conjugation and the ending was facultative (Notarius 2013, 305), as it also seems to have been when added to the imperative (many first person prefix conjugation forms are clearly volitive without having a cohortative ending). When appended, the ending results in an explicitly signaled volitive gram. The cohortative ending seems to have been facultative also in Amarna Canaanite (Tropper and Vita 2010, 78). The cohortative was not subject to word order constriction in Biblical Hebrew (as were the VprefS and VprefL grams). I am hesitant to regard the ‘energic’ (which could be labeled ‘Vpref-N’) a separate gram. The functional meaning of the seemingly facultative n suffixes, except for some sense of emphasis, is still an open question (J-M § 61f.). 5 The whole Neo-Arabic language type is characterized by the loss of the ancient Central Semitic marking of the moods in the prefix conjugation. Corresponding functions are upheld with other syntactical means “zum Ausdruck temporaler, aspektueller oder modaler Sonderfunktionen” (Fischer and Jastrow 1980, 41-43).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

172

Bo Isaksson

Hebrew academic research has never seriously discussed the Biblical Hebrew verbal syntax in the light of the syntactical strategies that must have developed in Proto-Hebrew in order to handle the new situation with a partial morphological coalescence of two conjugations. It is the more remarkable, since the morphological difference between short form and long form – when this difference of phonetic reasons remained discrete (as in the Hifil and in many forms of the weak verb) – has been retained in Biblical Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew still upholds the distinction between a jussive yāqém ‘may he raise up’ and an indicative yāqīm ‘he will raise up’. It seems obvious that the linguistic instinct among the speakers of Biblical Hebrew retained a sensibility for the distinction between the two prefix conjugations, also after the partial merging of the forms. The individual Northwest Semitic languages all developed their own ways to handle this merger. Some discarded the short yaqtul type completely (thus Aramaic except in the most ancient inscriptions). The strategy that the ProtoHebrew speakers developed, to retain the distinction between short form and long form, was a limitation of word order. While word order in Amarna Canaanite was relatively free for both the short and the long prefix conjugations, Biblical Hebrew (even in the archaic poetry) has relegated the affirmative short yiqtol to first position in the clause, whereas the long yiqtol is used in other positions (such as after a negation, or after a topicalized first element).6 The word order constraints were part of a strategy to compensate for the partial formal mergers of the grams, whereby the short prefix form (the old Semitic yaqtul) “was assigned the clause-initial position” (Gzella 2011, 442), while the long prefix verb (the old Central Semitic yaqtulu) was placed in non-initial position. “[S]o word-order constraints to some extent restore the functional differentiation” (Gzella 2012, 101). Few Hebrew scholars have understood this restriction of word order in the light of a morphological merger (one of the few is Gzella 2011, 442; 2012,

6 Joosten (2012, 12) recognizes that “they may still be distinguished, at least in classical Hebrew prose, by paying attention to the syntax. The jussive usually takes the first position, while YIQTOL tends to occupy non-initial position in the clause” (also Joosten 1999, 15 note 3; Niccacci 1987). When Joosten talks about YIQTOL he means the reflex of Central Semitic yaqtulu. This usage of the term ‘yiqtol’ is misleading, since yiqtol in Biblical Hebrew may also code indicative narrative short prefix conjugation (in poetry, especially archaic poetry, Bloch 2009), and the jussive, both being reflexes of Central Semitic yaqtul.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

173

101). No one has tried to explain how the three basic conjugations of the Hebrew verbal system work in the light of this insight.7 Neither has an explanation been suggested for how clauses with these basic grams combine to communicate meaning. ‘Clause combining’ is a concept taken from Clause combining in grammar and discourse (Haiman and Thompson, eds., 1988). With this approach the scholar examines how different kinds of clauses combine in a specific language.8 The pattern of clause combining used in a text reflects the rhetorical intentions of the author or narrator (Matthiessen and Thompson 1988, 290, 299, 275). I assume that this is true also for Biblical Hebrew. In analysing texts, the ‘proof’ of my assumption will be that the texts communicate meaning in a more successful way than before; that the textual structure will become more understandable, more transparent. The details will be discussed below.

The clause in Biblical Hebrew A clause is a piece of linguistic code, a syntagm (spoken or written) that contains one predication (Lehmann 1988, 182; Haspelmath 1995, 11; Isaksson 2009, 7-23).9 The predication could be just a noun phrase (NP) as in (1). (1) Pattern: Spron-NP; zɛ šaʿar haš-šå̄ mayim ‘this is the gate of heaven’ (Gen. 28:17). 7 It is a pleasant duty to express thanks to my Autumn 2013 and Spring 2014 master and PhD student classes on Old Aramaic texts and Biblical Hebrew prose. Many of the topics discussed in the present article were opened up or refined in the discussions. I am especially indebted to PhD student Ambjörn Sjörs (forthcoming) who insisted on the importance of word order in Biblical Hebrew and pointed out negative Vsuff clauses as possible candidates for a renewed coding of negative clauses in the narrative storyline. 8 For an introduction to the notion of ‘clause combining’ in Arabic and Hebrew, see Isaksson (2009, 1-35). In the chapter “The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’”, Matthiessen and Thompson discuss how clause combining can be seen as “a grammaticalization of a very general property of the hierarchical structure of the discourse itself” (1988). 9 There is no need of the English term ‘sentence’ in biblical Hebrew. It is usually understood that a sentence includes several clauses, but the concept of ‘sentence’ has never been defined in a Semitic setting and it is unclear which clauses to include and which to exclude. In this article I prefer to use the more informative concept ‘clause combining’ in a discussion of relations between clauses. ‘Sentence’ is a concept that hides more than it clarifies.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

174

Bo Isaksson

The predicate of a verbless clause might be practically any non-verbal element of a clause, also a prepositional phrase (PrP) as in (2), where the utterance receives an implied modal tone. (2) Pattern: PrP-Snoun, VOC; ʿå̄ lay qillå̄ ṯəḵå̄ bənī ‘Your curse be on me, my son’ (Gen. 27:13). In the present article, clauses without a verbal element are called ‛noun clauses’ (NCl). It is not necessary that a clause contains a subject. If it does not, the subject is understood, as in Moses’ answer to YHWH at the burning bush, (3). (3) Pattern: NP (= NCl); maṭṭɛ ‘(It is) a rod’ (Exod. 4:2). This quotation constitutes a complete utterance with a predicate consisting of only one word. It is a main clause.10 If not a noun clause, the clause contains a predication encoded by a finite or infinite verb. A clause with a finite verb is probably the most common type of clause in the Hebrew Bible, as in (4). (4) Pattern: wa-VprefS-ADV; way-yå̄ måṯ šå̄ m ‘He died there’ (Judg. 1:7). Example (4) shows a clause consisting of a conjunction, a finite verb and an adverb. The verbal predicate in a clause may of course also be infinite. It is unusual that a verbal noun (VN) constitutes the predicate in a main clause.11 The active participle (PA), however, is rather often predicate in main clauses, and then usually in direct speech, to indicate the immediate future or an ongoing action (progressive aspect). An example of immediate future is shown in (5). 10 This is not to say that all utterances consist of clauses (that is, ‘predications’). Some utterances are just interjections (ʾăhå̄ h ‘Ah!’) or vocatives (ham-mɛlɛḵ ‘O king!’), (J-M §§ 105, 137g). 11 The prime examples of VN are the infinitive construct and the infinitive absolute (J-M § 49a), but other verbal nouns are sometimes used in similar functions.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

175

(5) Pattern: Spron-PA; ʾå̄ nōḵī mēṯ ‘I am about to die’ (Gen. 50:24). In the example, the subject is explicitly stated. A progressive aspect (with past reference) is found in example (6) in a main line clause. (6) Pattern: we-hinnē-PA-PrP; wə-hinnē ʿōmēḏ ʿal ha-yʾōr ‘He was standing by the Nile’ (Gen. 41:1). In (6) the subject is understood. It is justified to claim that the main characteristic of a clause is its predicate.12

The concept of ‘gram’ in Biblical Hebrew It is taken for granted that Biblical Hebrew was a normal human language which once possessed native speakers, and it is also assumed that Hebrew under its life span as a native spoken medium underwent changing processes according to the same rules as other languages. In particular, it is supposed that the verbal grammatical morphemes (‘grams’) in Biblical Hebrew had a history involving new formation, reanalysis, and interaction with the other grams. 13 Linguists who have investigated the grammaticalization of verbal grams in a cross-linguistic perspective have found that a gram develops according to the patterns of a few characteristic trajectories. This fact enables 12 In the present article clauses are given names by their predicates. A clause with a short prefix verb predicate is called ‘short prefix verb clause’ or simply ‘VprefS clause’, a clause with a suffix verb predicate is called ‘suffix verb clause’ (‘Vsuff clause’), etc. Clauses with infinite verbal predicates are called ‘verbal noun clauses’ (VN) and ‘participle clauses’ (‘PA’ or ‘PP’) respectively. Clauses with non-verbal predicates such as adjectives (ADJ), noun phrases (NP), prepositional phrases (PrP), adverbs (ADV), etc., are all subsumed under the common designation ‘noun clause’ (‘NCl’). 13 The structuralist approach is limited to just that, not more, not less. The grams have meanings of their own, and those meanings interact with and influence other grams in the verbal system. Since grams are regarded the basic units in a verbal system, TAM categories are not. “The B&D approach differs from most other treatments of tense and aspect in that the basic units are not ‘the category of tense’ and ‘the category of aspect’ but rather what we call grams” (Dahl 2000, 7; “B&D” here stands for Joan Bybee and Östen Dahl).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

176

Bo Isaksson

the Hebrew scholar to discuss the meanings of existing verbal grams in Biblical Hebrew, and with reasonable accuracy identify some plausible trajectories for each of the finite verbal grams (Isaksson 2011, 173-176).14 In the present article neither ‘aspect’ nor ‘tense’ 15 – not even ‘relative tense’16 – are taken as forming the basic constituents of the verbal system in Biblical Hebrew, but instead grams; “tense-aspect grams can crosslinguistically be classified into a relatively small set of types”. Gram types should be thought of “as relatively stable points along the paths of development that grams take in the course of grammaticalization processes” (both quotations Dahl 2000, 7).

The general meanings of grams Grams have meanings that may be aspectual or temporal or modal or a combination of such meanings. A gram has usually acquired several meanings during its development. Early ‘archaic’ meanings are often synchronically attested side-by-side with later meanings. Because of this, grams cannot be said to possess a ‘basic’ meaning from which the others in some way can be derived. Working with grams makes the long debated question whether SBH is an ‘aspect language’ or ‘tense language’ a less crucial issue. However, the meanings displayed in the grammaticalization paths discussed below mainly concern aspectual concepts. In the present article the aspect meanings are defined according to the ground-breaking study The Evolution of Grammar, by Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994):17 − “Resultatives signal that a state exists as a result of a past action. The resultative is often similar to the passive in that it usually makes the patient the subject of the clause but differs in that a resultative may apply to an intransitive verb, as He is gone, without a change of subject” (Bybee et al. 1994, 54). − “Anteriors (or ‘perfects,’ as they are often called) usually develop from resultatives. Anteriors differ from completives in being relational: an anterior signals that the situation occurs prior to reference time and is rele14 This approach to the Hebrew verbal system is taken also by T. D. Andersen (2000), Cook (2006; 2012), and Andrason (2010; 2011a; 2011b; 2012). 15 For an up-to-date survey of research, see Cook (2012, chapter 1). 16 Advocated by some Hebrew scholars, such as Hatav (1997). 17 Boldface within quotation is my emphasis.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

−

−

−

− − −

177

vant to the situation at reference time. Anteriors are typically translated with the English perfect and often accompanied by the relational adverbs ‘already’ and ‘just’” (Bybee et al. 1994, 54). Unlike resultatives, anteriors can be used with numerical adverbs like ‘twice’. Anterior grams generally tend to develop additional perfective meanings. “Perfectives signal that the situation is viewed as bounded temporally. Perfective is the aspect used for narrating sequences of distinctive events in which the situation is reported for its own sake, independent of its relevance to other situations (Hopper 1982). It is thus often used to refer to situations in the past” (Bybee et al. 1994, 54-55). Immediate future is a future meaning that is typically expressed by a perfective gram (‘bounded future’; Bybee et al. 1994, 83; Isaksson 2009, 134). An imperfective gram “views the situation not as a bounded whole, but rather from within, with explicit reference to its internal structure”; “an imperfective situation may be one viewed as in progress at a particular reference point, either in the past or present, or one viewed as characteristic of a period of time that includes the reference point, that is, a habitual situation. Imperfective forms are typically used in discourse for setting up background situations, in contrast with perfective forms, which are used for narrating sequences of events”. “Imperfectives may be applicable to either past, present, or future time” (Bybee et al. 1994, 125-126). “Progressive views an action as ongoing at reference time” (Bybee et al. 1994, 126). Gnomic presents “apply to generic subjects and basically hold for all time” (Bybee et al. 1994, 126). Zero present: “some languages have two grams that we have classified as presents. In all these cases, it is clear that one is an older, more grammaticized (or zero) gram and the other is a younger developing gram, and in three out of four cases, it appears that this younger gram has developed from a progressive” (Bybee et al. 1994, 144).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

178

Bo Isaksson

The grams in Biblical Hebrew18 The short prefix gram (VprefS) The most archaic finite gram in Semitic except the imperative is the short prefix verb (Arab. yaqtul, Akk. iprus, SBH short yiqtol, Rainey 2003a, 400). We can trace its formation back in Afro-asiatic times, but it is presently not possible to state how it was formed or according to which trajectory it was grammaticized. We do not know whether it, in its first beginning, followed a resultative gram trajectory or an imperfective gram trajectory. Or, was another type of verbal formation. We do know, however, the meanings displayed by the VprefS in the attested Semitic languages. The most frequent meanings, also in Biblical Hebrew, were the jussive and the indicative perfective (Bloch 2009, 38; Rainey 1986, 5). In the earliest stages of Semitic, VprefS was the prime narrative form in the storyline.19 But VprefS could be used also for generally valid facts, a general present (Tropper 1998, 161, 172f; Andrason 2011a, 48). Whatever the VprefS was in early Semitic, it was not a ‘preterite’, it was not a past tense. The enigma of the VprefS gram in Semitic consists of the seemingly contradictory meanings by which the gram is used (Joosten 2012, 15). There seems to be no common grammaticization path by which a narrative ‘tense’ may develop into a ‘jussive’, nor one by which a ‘jussive’ develops into a narrative gram (Isaksson 2009, 126). The most plausible explanation is that VprefS was inherited in Semitic as a so-called ‘zero-gram’ (Huehnergard 1988, 22; Stempel 2012) or ‘zero present’ (Bybee et al. 1994, 144). In many respects it behaves in SBH like the ‘old present’ described by Haspelmath (1998; cf. Isaksson 2009, 126) or the socalled ‘injunctive’ in Indo-European, “the zero or unmarked tense and mood” (Kiparsky 1968, 34). A zero gram can be used as a general gnomic present. A zero gram may also develop ‘jussive’ connotations. And it can usually be used as a storyline gram in narratives. 18 ‘Biblical Hebrew’ is here taken as the variety that is commonly called Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH) with the exclusion of Late Biblical Hebrew. Occasionally, also archaic Biblical Hebrew will be considered. The linguistic difference between SBH poetry and archaic poetry has often been overestimated. The most prominent feature adduced for the archaic poetry – the narrative perfective (wa-)VprefS clauses – are found in ordinary pre-exilic psalms as well (Bloch 2009, 37). 19 The term ‘storyline’ refers to the main line in a specific discourse type: narrative prose.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

179

More common than marking narrative contexts, however, is not marking them – quite a considerable number of languages use unmarked verb forms in narrative contexts (Dahl 1985, 113).

The long prefix gram (VprefL) The long prefix gram, as found in Central Semitic, is probably an innovation in Semitic. The Central Semitic formation of the VprefL, yaqtulu, starts with the short prefix gram and adds some suffixes to mark the imperfective aspect (Huehnergard 2005, 164-165; Rainey 1986, 5; Meyer 1966 § 63). This point of departure is significant also for an understanding of the nature of the short prefix gram. In such a process of renewal of the verbal system, a fresh encoding of the imperfective aspect was needed. The starting point for such a renewal cannot have been something completely different. It could not have been a decidedly ‘jussive’ gram, nor a dedicated ‘preterite’ formation. Whatever it was, its meaning was used to encode the imperfective aspect with the help of the aspect markers -u and -na: 3ms yaqtul-u, 3mp yaqtulū-na. In the imperfective trajectory, this long prefix gram acquired the meanings of actual present, habitual action, future, and a command (Tropper 1998, 178-181).

The suffix verb gram (Vsuff) The suffix verb was inherited in Semitic as a stative/resultative formation (Rainey 2003b). The West-Semitic innovation is a development according to the resultative trajectory and has acquired all the expected meanings of such a gram: stative/resultative with sometimes a general present, but also anterior, perfective, immediate future, and optative (Tropper 1998, 182-184). The optative meaning of the Vsuff is archaic and close to the use of the passive participle in SBH noun clauses, as in (7).20 (7) Pattern: PP-Spron-PrP; bå̄ rūḵ ʾaḇrām lə-ʾēl ʿɛlyōn ‘Blessed be Abram by God Most High’ (Gen. 14:19; ESV). The same construction, but with a divine subject, may be perceived as an eternal truth without optative connotations, which is seen in (8).

20 The examples of NCl clauses with PP predicate are adduced to illustrate how the prototypical archaic meanings of the Vsuff gram occurred. For a treatment of Vsuff clauses, see section C.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

180

Bo Isaksson

(8) Pattern: PP-Snoun; bå̄ rūḵ ʾēl ʿɛlyōn ‘Worthy of praise is the Most High God’ (Gen. 14:20; NET).21

Prose and poetry in Biblical Hebrew It is reasonable to suppose that most poetic texts in the Hebrew Bible were composed by poets who were contemporary with – and shared the same cultural community as – the original composers of the prose texts, otherwise they would not have been understood (Joosten 2012, 414). There are poetic pieces which are more archaic and lack some of the features that are found in SBH prose, and such differences should be treated accordingly as representing a somewhat earlier state of the language. However, most poetic texts must be assumed to belong to the same state of Hebrew as the prose texts. This conclusion has far-reaching consequences. A trustworthy linguistic approach to the prose texts in SBH should be expected to stand the test of poetic texts as well. The poetic texts were produced in the same language as the prose texts (Isaksson 2009, 38 with note 7). In the present article poetic text samples will sometimes be adduced as SBH usage, side-by-side with prose examples. It is assumed that “verbal meanings in poetry are basically the same as in prose” (Joosten 2012, 413).22

A cross-linguistic typology of semantic clausal relations It is a great advantage, while working with a dead language, to refer to a cross-linguistic typology of the semantics of clausal relations such as that in Dixon (2009). Such a typology may suggest what kind of semantic relations between clauses should be expected, also in a Biblical Hebrew text.23

21 Some optative meanings of Vsuff may be connected with the immediate future meaning, since ‘imminent activity’ (be about to) easily receives a modal nuance (Dixon 2012, 26), cf. Isaksson (2009, 131-132). 22 This also implies that a verbal form like VprefS that may have general present or ‘zero’ meaning in poetry, cannot, just on the basis of prose usage, be deemed to be inherently ‘preterite’ (against the assumption of Joosten 2012, 413). 23 In the present article ‘main clause’ and ‘non-main clause’ refer to the syntactic marking of a clausal relation, while ‘focal clause’ (FC) and ‘supporting clause’ (SC) pertain to the semantic relation. It is often the case that the syntactically marked ‘non-main clause’ must be analysed as ‘focal clause’, Dixon (2009, 1-5).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

181

The following semantic clausal relations are common in Hebrew:24 − Temporal succession: second clause in temporal sequence. Indicates that the actions or states happened in that iconic order (Dixon 2009, 9). − Relative time: “The supporting clause serves to place the event or state of the Focal clause in temporal perspective” (in English: before, when, while, etc.), (Dixon 2009, 10).25 − Comment/background: Although Dixon’s relative time clause accounts for many of the typical Central Semitic attendant circumstance clauses, it does not seem to include ‘comment clauses’ and more general ‘background’ clauses, which are frequent in SBH narrative prose. − Consequence relations are basically of three types: 1) clauses showing cause or reason; 2) clauses showing result; 3) clauses showing purpose. To these basic types Dixon adds clauses showing ‘cause with no necessary result’ and clauses showing ‘natural result’ (Dixon 2009, 17-23, 4445), which are pertinent in some SBH contexts. − Additions are exceptionally common in SBH. In such a clause linking there are “two pieces of information (one in each clause) which are not in a Temporal relation, or in a relation of Condition, Consequence, Possible consequence, Alternatives, or Manner. We refer to this as Addition” (Dixon 2009, 26). Dixon recognizes four basic types of additions, and all of them can be attested in SBH: 1) Unordered addition: “two distinct events which are semantically or pragmatically related but for which no temporal sequence is assumed”. Dixon’s example is: Mary peeled the potatoes and John shelled the peas. “The temporal information is not considered relevant and is not stated”. 2) Same-event addition: “two clauses describe different aspects of a single event” (Dixon 2009, 27). The supporting clause here “describes an aspect of the event which follows from that described by FC”, and the focal clause “details main aspect of event”. One of Dixon’s examples is: Mary came first in her race [and won the 24 The term ‘clause combining’ (taken from Haiman and Thompson 1988) is here used as synonymous with ‘clause linking’ in Dixon (2009). Both terms presuppose some kind of syntactic marking of the linking. If marking is only semantic (‘inference’) it is more fruitful to utilize Dixon’s ‘focal clause’ in relation to ‘supporting clause’. 25 ‘Focal clause’ (FC) is a clause that “refers to the central activity or state of the biclausal linking”; the opposite concept is ‘supporting clause’ (SC) “which may set out the temporal milieu for the Focal clause, or specify a condition or presupposition for it or a preliminary statement of it” (Dixon 2009, 3).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

182

Bo Isaksson

prize]SC. 3) Elaboration: “the second clause echoes the first, adding additional information about the event or state described” by the focal clause. An English example given by Dixon is: [John telephoned]SC he invited us to dinner. 4) Contrast: “In this kind of linking, the information conveyed by the Focal clause contrasts with that provided in the Supporting clause, and may be surprising in view of it” (Dixon 2009, 28). One of Dixon’s examples is, [John is rich]SC but he is not happy. Dixon’s definition of ‘addition’ is basically negative (what it is not). A positive definition of ‘addition’ will be used here: ‘accompanying action’, which involves clauses that in some respects describe events occurring in a certain (general or logical or temporal) connection with the first clause. From this definition follows that a clause describing an accompanying action always comes after another clause (which is termed ‘pre-clause’ in the present article). Accompanying action clauses are not necessarily simultaneous with the action described by the pre-clause, nor are accompanying actions necessarily consequences of the action in the pre-clause. As described by Dixon (2009, 28), addition clauses may – by inference from the context – describe ‘temporal linking’ and ‘result’.26

The concept of ‘main line’ and non-main clause linking It is assumed that practically all texts in the Hebrew Bible contain syntactically marked main lines (Niccacci 2014; Isaksson 2013).27 Significant features in the syntactic coding of main lines are, 1) the conjunction wa or we, 2) absence of conjunction (asyndesis), 3) a specific verbal gram (or no verbal gram in a NCl), and 4) a specific word order. The coding of the main line may be stable as in narrative prose (wa-VprefS) or instructional discourse texts (we-Vsuff clauses), but it may also vary, and usually does so in direct speech and poetry. A poem may begin with three jubilating Ø-Vsuff clauses, as in (9). (9) Pattern: Ø-Vsuff+Ø-Vsuff+Ø-Vsuff; 26 Dixon illustrates by [Mary left John]SC and he went into a monastery, an example of inference of both ‘temporal succession’ and ‘consequence: result’ (Dixon 2009, 9, 17, 28) 27 The concept of ‘main line’ in my terminology replaces that of ‘coordination’. As I abstain from using the cumbersome term ‘subordination’ it is probably wise not to use ‘coordination’ (Isaksson, forthcoming c). The term ‘main line’ has the advantage of stressing the textual nature of our primary linguistic source.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

183

ʿå̄ laṣ libbī be-YHWH rå̄ må̄ qarnī bə-YHWH rå̄ ḥaḇ pī ʿal ʾōyəḇay ‘My heart rejoices in the LORD; in the LORD my horn is lifted high. My mouth boasts over my enemies’ (1 Sam. 2:1; NIV). Then the same poem may go on with a new main line of NCl clauses, (10): (10) Pattern: Ø-NCl+kī-NCl+Ø-NCl; ʾēn qå̄ ḏōš kə-YHWH kī-ʾēn biltɛḵå̄ , wə-ʾēn ṣūr k-ēlōhēnū ‘There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.’ (1 Sam. 2:2 NIV).28 The same poem continues by changing the main line once again, and now to a negated jussive VprefS clause (11): (11) Pattern: jussive ʾal-VprefS; ʾal-tarbū ṯəḏabbərū gəḇōhå̄ ḡəḇōhå̄ ... ‘Do not keep talking so proudly ...’ (1 Sam. 2:3; NIV). Besides the discourse types in which the main line coding is more or less a convention (such as in narrative prose and instructional discourse), it is not possible to define syntactically what constitutes a main line. “There are no devices in the grammar specific to coordination” (Cormack and Smith 2005, 395). This must be left to the pragmatics of the text itself. In archaic poetry the narrative short prefix verb is unrestrained by the (oral) literary style of a narrative storyline (in which the clause must begin with the conjunction wa) and quite often exhibits a main line of indicative perfective Ø-VprefS clauses with past time reference, as in (12). (12) Pattern: [VN]+[VN]+Ø-VprefS! [bə-hanḥēl ʿɛlyōn gōyīm] [bə-hap̄ rīḏō bənē ʾå̄ ḏå̄ m] yaṣṣeḇ gəḇūlōṯ ʿammīm lə-mispar bənē yiśrå̄ ʾēl ‘[When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance], [when he divided all mankind], he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel’ (Deut. 32:8).

28 The kī-clause is here taken with NIV as a main clause, the kī being interpreted as an emphatic adverb, ‘surely’. The kī-clause could also be taken as a reason clause with kī as a subordinating conjunction (in which case it should not be treated as part of the main line).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

184

Bo Isaksson

In direct speech the coding of the main line likewise shifts freely, as the shift to a VprefL main line shows in (13). (13) Pattern: Spron-Vsuff; Spron-VprefL!; mī śå̄ m pɛ lå̄ -ʾå̄ ḏå̄ m; ʾō mī yå̄ śūm ʾillēm ʾō ḥērēš ʾō p̄ iqqēaḥ ʾō ʿiwwēr ‘Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind?’ (Exod. 4:11; ESV) The main line in (13) begins with a Vsuff clause with anterior meaning. And then it proceeds with a main line VprefL clause with continuous or habitual meaning. None of the clauses is dependent on the other. They constitute independent rhetorical questions. Within a main line, clauses are linked with ‘equal status’ (Halliday 2004, 374). Since “the grammar is only capable of providing asymmetric structures” a shift of status is encoded by a ‘digression’ from a main line in which “[c]oordination appears to be symmetric”.29 The shift of status may be marked by several syntactic signals. It may be signaled by a ‘switch’ in the clausal pattern, that is, a switch of ‘clause type’ (Isaksson 2013); by the presence (or absence) of the conjunction we/wa; and/or by an explicitly subordinating conjunction (which usually also involves a ‘gram-switch’). It may be argued that a shift of status may also be signaled by the semantic context alone. In the latter case the linking is syntactically unmarked (it is ‘inferred’). Since signaling a status shift by subordinating conjunctions is a relatively commonplace syntactic feature it will be treated just accidentally in this article. Only the conjunction we/wa will receive a fuller attention.

The conjunction we/wa and the absence of it (asyndesis) In accordance with the comparative Semitic evidence, it is assumed that Hebrew inherited only one conjunction wa from early Canaanite, and that the morphological differentiation we/wa is an internal or secondary innovation.30 29 Isaksson (2013); the quotations are from Cormack and Smith (2005, 395). Since a nonmain clause may precede its main clause, it could be argued that the term ‘digression’ is misleading. But ‘main line’ is a textual (‘macro-syntactic’) concept that usually involves several clauses, and so the term is justified at least on a textual level. A ‘digression’ must be distinguished from the case when there is a shift from one main line to another main line. 30 Thus Müller (1983; 1991); Pardee (2012, 287 note 12). The Masoretic pointing of the conjunction before the short prefix verb indicates two distinct morphemes, wa (the main allomorph of which shows a gemination of the following consonant wayyiḵtoḇ < *wa-

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

185

The we/wa is one conjunction with complementary allomorphic distribution. The wa allomorph serves basically to distinguish the syndetic indicative VprefS (wa-VprefS) from modal (“jussive”) VprefS (we-VprefS).31 I propose that the basic function of the conjunction we/wa is to signal a clause as an addition in the sense of being an accompanying action in relation to the action or state in a preceding clause (Isaksson, forthcoming a).32 Thus, an accompanying action clause practically always occurs in a certain connection with a preceding ‘pre-clause’.33 This is illustrated in (14): (14) Pattern: Ø-Vsuff+Ø-Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}+{wa-VprefS}+{wa-VprefS}; så̄ rū mahēr min had-dɛrɛḵ ʾăšɛr ṣiwwīṯīm, ʿå̄ śū lå̄ -hɛm ʿeḡɛl massēḵå̄ {way-yištaḥăwū lō} {way-yizbəḥū lō} {way-yōmərū ...} ‘So quickly they have turned aside from the way I ordered them to follow! They have cast a metal statue of a calf, {worshipped it}, {sacrificed to it} {and said, ...}’ (Exod. 32:8; CJB).34

31

32 33

34

yaktub, Gzella 2012, 101) and wə (with its allomorphs). There are two distinct reflexes of one original morpheme, wa (with allomorphs) before an indicative VprefS, and we (with allomorphs) before a non-indicative VprefS and all other instances of the conjunction. Several explanations of this fact are possible: 1) The Masoretes, 1000 years later in their texts with vowel signs for synagogal recitation, handed over a syntactic signal that did not belong to the original Hebrew language (thus Van de Sande 2008; and Revell 1984, 444, advocates the end of the biblical period). 2) The distinction might have been introduced already in Proto-Hebrew in order to explicitly signal the indicative (‘narrative’) short yiqtol (wa-VprefS), in distinction to the jussive and purposive short yiqtol (we-VprefS, J-M § 116). Rainey (1986, 6). Joosten (2012, 14-15): “an ancient prefixed preterite was preserved in a well-defined syntactic environment. The term ‘waw conservative’ has been proposed”. Revell (1984, 443): “This could have arisen naturally before 3ms waw consecutive imperfect forms from roots III h, which had initial stress. This form of the conjunction could then have been transferred to other forms as a distinguishing mark of the otherwise generally unmarked semantic category ‘waw consecutive imperfect’. Since other forms did not have initial stress, the consonant following the conjunction had to be doubled to maintain the length of the syllable.” And contrary to my conclusion in Isaksson (2009, 117). When some types of main line coding (like wa-VprefS) develop to a standard feature of a certain type of discourse, some exceptions may occur, as when a new narrative begins with a wayyiqtol clause. An example is wayhī ʾīš ʾɛḥå̄ ḏ ‘Once there was a certain man ...’ (1 Sam. 1:1). In a prose text a yəhī (Ø-VprefS) would have been perceived as a dedicated modal verb. Curly brackets are used in this article to mark out indicative uses of VprefS that do not take part in a narrative storyline.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

186

Bo Isaksson

In this example of direct speech in the mouth of YHWH, the main line is coded by two (asyndetic) Vsuff clauses. The three wa-VprefS clauses are additions related to the immediately preceding Vsuff clause (ʿå̄ śū lå̄ -hɛm ʿeḡɛl massēḵå̄ ), which constitutes the pre-clause. The wa-VprefS clauses code actions that accompany the ‘They have cast a metal statue of a calf’. It would be a mistake to translate the wa-VprefS clauses with anterior tense, as if they were on par with the two Vsuff clauses. An interpretation should be able to account for the gram switch from Vsuff to VprefS clause. A translation of all five verbs as being part of the same main line and with the same temporal or aspectual meaning fails to explain the syntax. 35 The accompanying actions could be rendered by a “then” or “on that occasion” (if meaning is temporal) or with a “at that” if maximal clarity would be needed in the translation: ‘in that occasion they worshipped it, sacrificed to it, and said, ...’. An accompanying action clause marked by an initial we/wa is not an independent clause. The event time of the wa-VprefS clauses depends on that of the pre-clause. In a similar English example, (15a) I have seen John and he smoked a cigar, there are two clauses, one in the perfect tense, and one in the past tense. The perfect tense clause I have seen John has a specific inferred event time: the time when the seeing of John occurred. The second clause is an accompanying action. It could be translated and on that occasion he smoked a cigar, but this ‘on that occasion’ is not necessary. What signals the special and possibly nonmain accompanying action is the shift to the English past tense. With this construction the past tense clause and he smoked a cigar ‘takes over’ the event time of the perfect tense clause. We could say that an accompanying action has a ‘local event time’ that depends on the event time of the preclause. This dependency on the pre-clause indicates that and he smoked a cigar has not an illocutionary force of its own. In this dependency of the event-time in the pre-clause (and often also of other properties in the pre-clause) lies the special character of ‘non-main clause’, which a clause with an initial conjunction we often displays in Biblical Hebrew, and this also pertains to the so-called ‘consecutive tenses’, which sometimes, in specific text types have stiffened in a certain function (such as

35 Thus NIV, CSB, ESV, etc.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

187

in procedural discourse). It is in the light of this dependency upon a pre-clause we can understand the perceived ‘conversion’ of tense, mode and aspect, which occurs in clauses of the type we-qatal and wayyiqtol.36 How an addition easily receives notions of result or consequence is illustrated by (15b). (15b) Do that again and I’ll break your neck.37 It is easy to see that relations between the clauses in (14) and (15a-b) are not ‘commutative’: the order of the clauses cannot be changed without drastically changing the meaning of the utterances. The clauses after we and and respectively presuppose the fore-going pre-clause. This is usually a distinguishing feature of additions in Biblical Hebrew (except for some rare cases of unordered addition in main clauses, Dixon 2009, 26; 1 Sam. 2:7). An accompanying action is not the same as an attendant circumstantial clause (Isaksson 2009, 19-21). Attendant circumstantial clauses are regularly signaled by asyndesis in Biblical Hebrew (absence of we). In (16) the asyndetic participle clause is somewhat ambiguous since it could also refer to the plural subject of the main clause, but the pragmatic setting settles the case and we infer that the participle niṣṣå̄ ḇīm refers to the two objects Moses and Aaron. In the translation below the circumstantial clause is rendered by a relative ‘who were waiting’ in order to avoid referential ambiguity (thus ESV). (16) Pattern: wa-VprefS-Onoun+[Ø-PA]; way-yip̄ gəʿū ʾɛṯ Mōšɛ wə-ʾɛṯ ʾAhărōn [niṣṣå̄ ḇīm liqrå̄ ṯå̄ m bə-ṣēṯå̄ m mē-ʾēṯ parʿō] ‘They met Moses and Aaron, [(who were) waiting for them, as they came out from Pharaoh]’ (Exod. 5:20). An example of an explicitly coded attendant circumstantial clause in English is (17). (17) I have seen John smoking a cigar.

36 The details of the two syntagms will be discussed in C.2 and A.1.2 respectively. 37 The example is taken from Verstraete (2005, 618).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

188

Bo Isaksson

In example (17) the circumstantial clause smoking a cigar is much more specific about the simultaneousness of the action than the accompanying action in (15a).38 When a we clause describes a state its predicate is usually non-verbal (i.e. it is a NCl clause) or a participle. Such clauses are better characterized as signifying an accompanying state. On a scale from dependence to independence (in relation to the main clause) accompanying state clauses in Biblical Hebrew are relatively less dependent, while asyndetic attendant circumstance clauses, as in (16), are more tightly linked to the main clause. The relation is often hard to render in English. General but clumsy phrases that usually do the job are ‘at that’ or ‘on that occasion’ (the latter temporal), an example of which is (18). (18) Pattern: wa-VprefS+[we-Snoun-PA]; wat-tērɛḏ baṯ parʿō li-rḥōṣ ʿal ha-yʾōr [wə-naʿărōṯɛhå̄ hōləḵōṯ ʿal yad hayʾōr] ‘Then Pharaoh's daughter went down to the Nile to bathe, [and on that occasion her attendants were walking along the riverbank].’ (Exod. 2:5). The translators hesitate on how to translate the participle clause in (18). Some (like ESV) has a circumstantial clause, ‘while her young women walked beside the river’, while others (like NIV) prefer a less dependent rendering, ‘and her attendants were walking along the riverbank’.39 In SBH prose, which is characterized by the preferences of an oral narrative tradition (Isaksson 2009, 36), a characteristic feature is the concatenation of clauses with the conjunction we/wa, a feature that resembles the structure of modern spontaneous speech in English (Givón 2001, I:299; Isaksson 2014b). This characteristic of narrated prose texts has often been interpreted as a general preference for ‘coordination’ in Biblical Hebrew. This is not at all

38 Polak (2014, 192-193) points out that the asyndetic circumstantial clause is more integrated in the main clause, while a we clause (with preposed subject) that breaks the narrative sequence is more marked and salient. Its status is different, and it may act “as a trigger for the ensuing narrative”, often used in literary composition. As Lehmann (1988) has shown, integration in another (main) clause is a scalar category, not a matter of either-or. 39 An example with NCl is 1 Sam. 1:24 (wa-VprefS+[we-NCl]).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

189

evident.40 The pre-clause and the accompanying action clause are sometimes of equal status, but in many other cases they are of unequal status (Bloch 2009, 40 note 26). Since addition clauses (signaled by we/wa) may describe a wide variety of clausal relations, such as background information, comment, elaboration, contrast, temporal linking (by inference), result of a previous action (by inference), temporal succession (by inference) and even (depending on the predicate) something close to attendant circumstances, a definition of ‘coordination’ that includes the whole gamut of such clauses is not productive.41 In a narrative context, specifically, such clauses constitute digressions from the storyline (except for the storyline of ‘wayyiqtols’ itself).42 An asyndetic clause is often a non-main clause.43 If non-main, it is practically always circumstantial (Isaksson 2014d, 129, 132, 134).44

Fronting as a signal of topicalization in Biblical Hebrew It is nowadays recognized in the Hebrew grammatical discussion that fronting of a non-verbal element serves to signal that element as in some sense topicalized (Van der Merwe, et al. 1999, 346-347).45 It is widely agreed among those Hebraists and linguists who have addressed the problem that preverbal clause components are marked either in order to highlight an element that is in focus, or to show a new topic that is entering the discourse. (Lunn 2006, 29). 40 Also the English conjunction and may connect clauses with unequal status, cf. Verstraete (2005, 618). The concepts used here, ‘main line’ and ‘non-main clause’ have the advantage of supporting a textlinguistic perspective (Isaksson 2013; forthcoming c). 41 The explanatory force of the term would be drastically reduced. 42 In the ‘normal’ case, a main line is characterized by the consistent use of the same gram. There are several exceptions to this rule of thumb, however, many of which will be discussed below. An exception that will not be discussed in this article is the negation of the imperative, which is coded by ʾal-VprefS (jussive, prohibitive meaning), as in the equal status clauses in Ps. 10:12. 43 For a discussion of non-main clauses, see Isaksson (2014d, 115; 2013; 2014e; 2015). 44 The remarkable exceptions are the VprefS clauses, which may be non-main, but which never seem to express attendant circumstantial action. 45 In accordance with the terminology introduced by Niccacci, such a non-verbal element is called an “X” element. Such an element can also “be adverbial, i.e. an adverb proper, or a preposition + noun / pronominal suffix” (Niccacci 1987, 8). It is understood that the ‘X’ element is not a negation, since a preverbal negation is not topicalized.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

190

Bo Isaksson

In (19) the first VprefL clause has a topicalized object noun. In the second clause (also VprefL) a prepositional phrase is topicalized. Very few translators have managed to topicalize both corresponding elements in English. In the ESV rendering below, emphasis of the object in the first clause is achieved by the powerful adverb ‘nothing’. In the second clause ESV has topicalized the prepositional phrase by giving it clause-initial position. (19) Pattern: Ø-Onoun-lō-VprefL + Ø-PrP-VprefL; kål maḥmɛṣɛṯ lō ṯōḵēlū bə-ḵōl mōšəḇōṯēḵɛm tōḵəlū maṣṣōṯ ‘You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwelling places you shall eat unleavened bread.’ (Exod. 12:20; ESV).

Summary of the introduction Biblical Hebrew is an ordinary descendant of early Canaanite, with the five basic finite grams short prefix verb (VprefS), long prefix verb (VprefL), suffix verb (Vsuff), imperative (IMP) and cohortative (VprefA). It is hypothesized that the word order restrictions of VprefS and VprefL are caused by the partial morphological merger of the respective grams. A cross-linguistic typology of semantic clausal relations has been presented (Dixon 2009). It will constitute the basic semantic terminology when analysing clause combining in the biblical texts. The concept of ‘main line’ has been introduced as the basic textlinguistic concept that defines a main clause: a main clause takes part in the coding of a main line. A non-main clause represents a ‘digression’ from the main line. The conjunction we/wa has been discussed as basically signalling a clause as an ‘addition’ in relation to a previous ‘pre-clause’. Additions can be main clauses or non-main clauses.

A. Clause combining and the VprefS gram in Biblical Hebrew Due to the restricted word order in Biblical Hebrew practically all VprefS verbs in affirmative clauses are clause-initial in our extant Biblical Hebrew texts. There are some exceptions to this rule, and most of them are due to the specific character of the Biblical Hebrew clause. Vocatives and predislocations were not perceived to take part in the clause, for example. The exceptions will be discussed below.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

191

Negated clauses pose no problem when it comes to identify a prefix verb as short or long. The negation ʾal is specialized for the VprefS clause with jussive meaning. Since there is no risk of confusion with an ʾal-VprefS clause, word order is free in such clauses. The negation lō poses no problem either, because it does not negate indicative VprefS clauses. When a prefix verb is negated by lō, we know that the verb is long. So indicative VprefS clauses are not negated. This means that the familiar storyline in prose, the narrative core of wa-VprefS clauses is not negated, at least not by a negation lō and a VprefS verb. The wa-VprefS syntagm is not ‘split up’, and this in order to avoid confusion. Indicative lō was used before the VprefL, not before VprefS. But that is not the end of the story. Since indicative perfective lō-VprefS did exist in the Canaanite of the Amarna tablets,46 the question arises as to what replaced it as negated clause in the storyline. The reasonable answer is the we-lō-Vsuff clauses, discussed in C.3.3. Masoretic pointing indicates a secondary distinction in the morphology of the original Semitic conjunction wa: the allomorph wa (usually with gemination of following consonant) was read before an indicative VprefS, and the allomorph we before a modal VprefS (and all other cases). Thus affirmative VprefS clauses exhibit three variant patterns, Ø-VprefS, we-VprefS, and waVprefS, all three having a clause-initial VprefS.

A.0.1 Exceptions in word order and morphology There are some exceptions to the rule of a clause-initial VprefS. One concerns the vocative. An initial vocative was not perceived to belong to the clause, and so does not affect the fronted position of the VprefS, as can be seen in (20). (20) Pattern VOC, Ø-VprefS+Ø-VprefS; ʾattå̄ YHWH tišmərēm, tiṣṣərɛnnū min had-dōr zū lə-ʿōlå̄ m ‘Do thou, O LORD, protect them! Guard us forever from this generation’ (Ps. 12:8).47

46 Even without word order constraint: a-na-ku / la-a iš-me a-na ša-šu-nu (pattern: Spronlā-VprefS) ‘I did not listen to them’ (EA 136:14-15 quoted from Rainey 1996, 212). 47 Another example is Yəhūḏå̄ ʾattå̄ yōḏūḵå̄ ʾaḥɛḵå̄ ‘Judah, may your brothers praise you!’ (Gen. 49:8; VOC, PRE-DIS, Ø-VprefS with resumptive pronoun).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

192

Bo Isaksson

Likewise, a pre-dislocation was felt not to belong to the clause, and so does not violate the rule of initial verb position (Niccacci 1987, 12):48 (21) Pattern: PRE-DIS, Ø-VprefS!; wə-han-naʿar, yaʿal ʿim ʾɛḥå̄ w ‘As for the boy, let him go back with his brothers.’ (Gen. 44:33) The Masoretic accent at han-naʿar is distinctive (Ṭip̄ ḥå̄ ) and indicates that the han-naʿar is not the direct subject of the clause.49 With the negation ʾal clarity was achieved as to which prefix gram was intended. For this reason it was unnecessary to place the ʾal-VprefS syntagm in clause-initial position. This is illustrated in example (22). (22) Pattern: ADV-ʾal-VprefS!; raq ʾal yōsep̄ parʿō hāṯēl ‘Only let not Pharaoh cheat again’ (Exod. 8:25; ESV).50 Mostly, the morphological distinction between VprefS and VprefL is upheld when possible (Rainey 1986, 7).51 When a discrete VprefL! is encountered in a text, it is normally intended to have the meaning of a long prefix verb.52 This is of great value in the interpretation of Hebrew texts. But there are exceptions, and they are not few. Examples of morphologically long forms intended to function as VprefS are found here and there and the signal that the short form meaning was intended is most often a clause-initial position. 48 Same observation by Niccacci (1987, 2.1.2). ‘Pre-dislocation’ is here used in the sense of ‘left-dislocation’, or ‘casus pendens’ in older literature. The terms ‘right’ and ‘left’ presuppose a written medium and are less pertinent when large parts of texts may have been orally transmitted at a first stage after their creation. 49 Another example is wə-hå̄ -ʿōp̄ yirɛḇ bå̄ -ʾå̄ rɛṣ ‘and the birds, may they multiply on the earth’ (Gen. 1:22; pattern we-PRE-DIS, Ø-VprefS!), with accent ṭip̄ ḥå̄ . 50 Another example is Gen. 37:22, wə-yāḏ ʾal tišləḥū ḇō ‘but don't lay a hand on him’ (NIV), with pattern we-Onoun-NEG-VprefS. Also Exod. 16:19. 51 Rainey’s scheme of three indicative verb forms and three injunctive verb forms (1986, 8) is, however, contradictory. He speaks of “The injunctive use of the imperfect”, although the yaqtulu in his scheme is only indicative. 52 When a verb form is morphologically discrete, as the yōsep̄ in (22), I add an exclamation mark to the abbreviation. The exclamation mark is not added to a wa-VprefS syntagm, since the wa allomorph of the conjunction exclusively marks the gram as short (and indicative). When way-yiqtol syntagms occur as formal wa-VprefL, it is a later development in Biblical Hebrew, and has no significance for the meaning and function of the verb (Bloch 2007).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

193

(23) Pattern: VprefSᴸ+[we-VprefS]; yå̄ qūm ʾå̄ ḇī [wə-yōḵal miṣ-ṣēḏ bənō] ‘Let my father sit up [and eat of his son’s game]!’ (Gen. 27:31; TNK) The yāqūm in (23) has the meaning of a jussive and it is fronted. We would have expected a short yå̄ qŏm, of course, but the context forces us to analyse the verb as a jussive VprefS, although the formal reading is a long prefix verb (‘VprefSᴸ’). It seems that a clause-initial position in some instances, also in archaic poetry,53 was felt to be a sufficient signal of short prefix verb meaning, even when the morphology of the verb contradicted its position.54

A.1 VprefS clauses encoding a main line Main clauses with a VprefS verb as predicate are most frequently either narrative perfectives with past time reference, or ‘jussives’. Less frequently the VprefS gram may also have a general present meaning. The meanings will be discussed below.

A.1.1 The VprefS clause with jussive meaning (24) Pattern: Ø-VprefS+[we-VprefS]+Ø-VprefS!; yå̄ qūmū [wə-yaʿzərūḵɛm] yəhī ʿălēḵɛm siṯrå̄ ‘Let them rise up [to help you]! Let them give you shelter!’ (Deut. 32:38; NIV). In (24) two asyndetic VprefS clauses form a main line with jussive meaning. The two asyndetic clauses are seemingly of equal status. Of the two, the second form is discretely short (yəhī), while the first (yå̄ qūmū) could formally be long. What settles the analysis is 1) that also the first VprefS verb is fronted in its clause, 2) that the main line also contains a discretely short form (yəhī), and 3) that the semantic context favours a jussive meaning in both clauses.

53 An example is yå̄ qūm ʾɛ̆lōhīm yå̄ p̄ ūṣū ʾōyəḇå̄ w ‘May God arise, may his enemies be scattered!’ (Ps. 68:2; NIV; pattern Ø-VprefSᴸ+Ø-VprefS). Examples with indicative (‘perfective’) meaning but long form are taḵrīăʿ in Ps. 18:40 (Ø-VprefSᴸ), and tå̄ ḵīn in Ps. 18:2 (elaboration). The phenomenon is further discussed in the introduction to section C.2. 54 The [we-VprefS] in (23) is a purpose clause. Such clauses will be treated under A.2.3 below.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

194

Bo Isaksson

The main line pattern in the example is coded by asyndetic VprefS clauses with jussive meaning.55 The negation ʾal is the exclusive negation of the jussive VprefS gram. If ʾal is prefixed to a Vpref verb, every receiver of the text knows that the verb is short and jussive in meaning, as in (25).56 (25) Pattern: Ø-ʾal-VprefS; ʾal taʿămoḏ ‘don't delay!’ (Gen. 45:9; NIV). The verb in (25) is not discretely short, but because of the negation ʾal it is safe to analyse the verb as a jussive. A non-main clause may of course precede its jussive VprefS main clause and does not violate the rule of clause-initial affirmative VprefS. This is shown in the following example. (26) Pattern: [PREP-VN]+Ø-VprefS!+Ø-VprefS; [bə-šūḇ YHWH šəḇūṯ ʿammō] yāḡel yaʿăqōḇ yiśmaḥ yiśrå̄ ʾēl ‘[When the LORD restores his people], let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad!’ (Ps. 14:7; NIV) Also in (26) the main line is encoded by asyndetic VprefS clauses with jussive meaning. The ‘digression’ in the form of a VN clause is placed before the two main line clauses. The meaning of the VN clause in relation to the main line is ‘relative time’, rendered by NIV with the conjunction ‘when’.57 A main line of affirmative jussive VprefS clauses is characterized by asyndesis and clause-initial position of the verb.

55 The we-VprefS clause constitutes a non-main clause with consequence-purpose meaning (Dixon 2009, 22; J-M § 116). See A.2.3 below. 56 If indicative VprefS ever was negated in pre-Biblical (‘proto-’) Hebrew, the expected negation would have been lō, as can be seen in Amarna Canaanite (Rainey 1996, 212). Possible exceptions (the existence of lō-VprefS clauses) are discussed by Ges-K § 109 d,k; König 1897 III § 191 c,g (I thank Ambjörn Sjörs for these references). The fact that lō-yiqtol was associated with the long prefix verb (VprefL) and indicative VprefS was not (no longer?) negated, raises the question which type of negative clause replaced the indicative lō-VprefS in Biblical Hebrew. A reasonable alternative is that (we-)lō-Vsuff did the job, see C.3.3. 57 VN clauses as non-main clauses are only incidentally discussed in the present article. They are treated in Isaksson (2007).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

195

A.1.2 The VprefS clause with indicative perfective meaning In Biblical Hebrew prose texts, the literary convention requires the affirmative clauses in a storyline to be syndetic with the ‘indicative’ allomorph wa of the conjunction. (27) Pattern: wa-VprefS+wa-VprefS; wayḇīʾūhū yərūšå̄ layim wayyå̄ måṯ šå̄ m ‘They brought him to Jerusalem and he died there.’ (Judg. 1:7). Both clauses in (27) are syndetic and have an initial conjunction wa. This allomorph of the conjunction is a signal in the Masoretic reading tradition that the prefix verb is short and indicative.58 The basic meaning of the conjunction (‘accompanying action’) is usually neutralized in the chain of a narrative main line (‘storyline’). In the typical case, as in (27), the chain is iconic, and a second clause is perceived to express a temporal succession (the default interpretation). The wa allomorph in a VprefS chain is sometimes absent, especially in archaic poetry, although the meaning is unmistakably indicative and the aspect perfective with past reference: (28) Pattern: Ø-VprefS+Ø-VprefS+Ø-VprefS+Ø-VprefS; yimṣå̄ ʾēhū bə-ʾɛrɛṣ miḏbå̄ r ū-ḇə-ṯōhū yəlēl yəšīmōn yəsōḇəḇɛnhū yəḇōnənēhū yiṣṣərɛnhū kə-ʾīšōn ʿēnō ‘He found him in a desert land, and in the howling waste of the wilderness; he encircled him, he cared for him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.’ (Deut. 32:10; ESV). All interpreters take this passage as a narrative with perfective verbs. None of the verb forms is discretely short, but the context and the fact that all four verbs are put in fronted position in their clauses, signal that the prefix verbs are short in (28).59 In a West-Semitic perspective, VprefS is the older formation while Vsuff is an innovation. As can be seen in (28), the indicative perfective VprefS 58 This is a valuable information to a late reader when confronted with difficult contexts, where the form of the verb is not discrete. 59 This does not mean that the four Ø-VprefS have the same textual function as wa-VprefS clauses. In (28) the VprefS clauses have equal status, but they are not additions, and temporal succession is not implied.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

196

Bo Isaksson

could be used independently of Vsuff in archaic poetry (as it could in Amarna Canaanite). This is a feature that is less common in Biblical Hebrew prose, where the Vsuff tends to introduce a series of events (and gradually takes over more and more indicative functions from the old VprefS).60 When negative storyline clauses of the type *we-lō-VprefS turned out unacceptable in pre-Biblical Hebrew because of the risk of confusion with the we-lō-VprefL clause type, it was replaced by the we-lō-Vsuff clause (see C.3.3).

A.1.3 Main line VprefS clauses that are neither jussive nor perfective As was indicated in the introduction, the VprefS gram is by itself not just a jussive, nor by its nature just a perfective. The jussive and perfective meanings are triggered by specific contexts, and there are meanings of this old ‘zero’ gram that cannot be classified as jussive or perfective. (29) Pattern: wa-VprefS; way-yilqəṭū ʾōṯō bab-boqær bab-boqɛr ‘Morning after morning they gathered it.’ (Exod. 16:21) The VprefS clause in (29) has frequentative or habitual meaning, but it would be premature to conclude that the VprefS gram itself has this meaning. Habituality is signaled by the two adverbs bab-boqɛr bab-boqɛr ‘morning after morning’. It is more to the point to state that the VprefS gram allows for a frequentative meaning in certain contexts. As the example shows, the VperfS gram is not ‘punctual’ as is sometimes maintained, and it is not just perfective. That the VprefS has a prototypical meaning that is far from ‘punctual’ is shown by its ability to express also a general or continuous actions: (30) Pattern: wa-VprefS; wa-yḥī yaʿăqōḇ bə-ʾɛrɛṣ miṣrayim šəḇaʿ ʿɛśrē šå̄ nå̄ ‘Jacob lived in Egypt seventeen years.’ (Gen. 47:28)

60 I know of only a few possible prose examples of indicative perfective Ø-VprefS clauses in SBH: Judg. 2:1 (J) (Ø-VprefS+wa-VprefS in the beginning of direct speech), 6:5 ([kīSpron-Snoun-VprefL]+Ø-VprefS ‘[When they invaded with their cattle and tents], they came as thick as locusts’). Clause-initial in relative clause, 2 Kgs 8:29 (J), 9:15 (J), Hab. 3:14, Ps. 7:16. In poetry numerous examples: Deut. 32:8,9,10,11, 33:8,10, Exod. 15:7, 17, Ps. 8:7, 18:17,19,41,44,45, 22:19. (J) refers to Joosten (1999, 24) who quotes the example as in some sense a problematic “yiqtol”.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

197

What is described in (30) is a situation, a state, rather than a single event. Even as a state it is characterized by a certain activity.61 The ‘zero’ meaning of the VprefS gram makes it suitable for gnomic contexts as well, which can be seen in (31): (31) Pattern: Ø-VprefS!; yaḏreḵ ʿănå̄ wīm bam-mišpå̄ ṭ ‘He guides the humble in what is right.’ (Ps. 25:9; NIV) The most natural translation of this poetic sentence is a general present. It characterizes the way the Lord deals with humble persons. The VprefS is certainly dynamic but it expresses a general (or gnomic) present.62 A discrete short form is found in (32) where a general state of affairs with past reference is expressed:63 (32) Pattern: wa-VprefS+[kī-NCl]+[we-Snoun-PA]; way-yɛʾɛ̆haḇ yiṣḥå̄ q ʾɛṯ ʿēśå̄ w [kī ṣayid bə-p̄ īw] [wə-riḇqå̄ ʾōhɛḇɛṯ ʾɛṯ yaʿăqōḇ] ‘Isaac loved Esau because he had a taste for fresh game, but Rebekah loved Jacob.’ (Gen. 25:28; NET) The VprefS in (32) describes a state in a main line, and the corresponding state of Rebekah as an accompanying concurrent circumstance is coded by a participle clause signifying a continued state of attention.

61 Bo-Krister Ljungberg has rightly remarked at a seminar in Uppsala that the 17 years can be viewed ‘as a single whole’ and thus with a perfective aspect. 62 Other examples are Ps. 25:12 and Prov. 1:5 (Ø-VprefS+[we-VprefS!] ‘The wise man listens [to increase in learning]’). The form of the initial verb in the latter examples is not discrete and could formally be a long prefix verb as well. But it is clause-initial, which, as we have seen, is an indication of a short prefix verb. The second clause is a purpose clause and does not belong to the main line (J-M § 116). 63 I regard the form to be discrete because of the wa allomorph, which signals that the following Vpref is short.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

198

Bo Isaksson

A.2 The VprefS clause encoding a non-main clause A.2.1 The asyndetic VprefS clause A.2.1.1 Ø-VprefS with a modal nuance (purpose) Non-main asyndetic VprefS clauses with a discrete (‘short’) morphology are rare. A purpose clause with a VprefS gram usually accords with the pattern we-VprefS (J-M § 116). An asyndetic example is (33). (33) Pattern: IMP+we-IMP+[Ø-VprefS!]; qaḥ ʾɛṯ maṭṭəḵå̄ wə-hašleḵ lip̄ nē parʿō [yəhī lə-ṯannīn] ‘Take thy rod, and cast it down before Pharaoh, [that it become a serpent].’ (Exod. 7:9; JPS) Asyndetic purpose clauses with the VprefS gram are unusual, but the example shows that in a clear context (in this case a preceding imperative) it was permissible to discard the conjunction we.64

A.2.1.2 The non-main Ø-VprefS with indicative meaning A syndetic wa-VprefS clause in non-main position may often describe an elaboration of the preceding main line clause, and this function is sometimes found also with an asyndetic clause. For the modern interpreter the distinction between an elaboration and a temporal linking (and result) is sometimes difficult to discern, especially in poetry, in that both can be coded by the same syntactical construction. A reasonably clear example is (34). (34) Pattern: Ø-Vsuff+{Ø-VprefS};65 nå̄ ṭīṯå̄ yəmīnəḵå̄ {tiḇlå̄ ʿēmō ʾå̄ rɛṣ} ‘You stretched out your right hand {(and) the earth swallowed them}.’ (Exod. 15:12)

64 Another asyndetic VprefS! clause with purpose nuance is hiššå̄ mɛr ləḵå̄ [ʾɛl tōsɛp̄ rəʾōṯ på̄ nay] ‘Take care [that you do not see my face again]’ (Exod. 10:28; NRS; pattern IMP+[Ø-NEG-VprefS!]), where the negation ʾal is read with an unusual vowel ɛ. Further example: Ps. 13:6, with a Ø-VprefS in a third person purpose clause, and then a ØVprefA purpose clause in the first person. This is in accord with J-M § 116, which also discusses the syndetic we-IMP clause as having a sense of purpose in second person clauses, as in example (54): wə-hašleḵ which could be interpreted as ‘to cast it down (before Pharaoh)’. Other examples: Gen. 47:29 and Exod. 7:9. 65 Indicative non-main VprefS clauses are enclosed within curly brackets.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

199

In (34) there is a temporal succession between the stretching out the hand and the swallowing of the earth. But the receiver of the text also perceives that there is a causal relationship between the two actions: it is implied that the swallowing in some sense is a consequence (result) of the Lord’s stretching out his hand. A Ø-VprefS clause may also code an elaboration of a state in a noun clause. Also the following example, (35), is from a poetic text and the VprefS may be interpreted as a result clause.66 (35) Pattern: NCl + {Ø-VprefS + [we-Onoun-VprefL] + [we-OnounVprefL]}; ʾēl mōṣīʾō mim-miṣrayim kə-ṯōʿăp̄ ōt rəʾēm lō {yōḵal gōyīm ṣå̄ rå̄ w [wəʿaṣmōṯēhɛm yəḡå̄ rēm] [wə-ḥiṣṣå̄ w yimḥå̄ ṣ]} ‘The God who brought him out of Egypt is for him like the horns of the wild ox, {that he devours the nations who are his adversaries [and at that he crushes their bones in pieces], [and shatters them with his arrows]}.’ (Num. 24:8) The noun clause is best interpreted as a main line clause characterizing the God who brought Israel out of Egypt. He defends them. When an enemy approaches them, this enemy will find that Israel’s God is like the horns of the wild ox. The switch to a VprefS clause has the effect of a result of this characteristic of God: he devours the nations who are his adversaries.67 A non-main asyndetic VprefS clause is not an expression of concomitant (circumstantial) action, as is usually the case with non-main asyndetic VprefL and Vsuff clauses (B.2.1 and C.3.1).

A.2.2 The non-main syndetic wa-VprefS clause The wa-VprefS clause is indicative, and usually describes a dynamic action. The conjunction (wa) indicates an action or state that occurs in connection with another action or state. Thus, as a digression from another type of main line, a wa-VprefS clause may describe for example an elaboration, a sameevent addition, an additional action with an implied temporal linking, an im-

66 The example could also be interpreted as a purpose clause (thus modal), ‘to devour the nations ...’, but no translator seems to take this path of interpretation. 67 The remaining Vpref grams are not clause-initial, and should be analysed as long prefix grams in accompanying action clauses: crushing, shattering. See B.2.2, below.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

200

Bo Isaksson

plied temporal succession, or an implied result (Dixon 2009, 26-28). The details are elaborated below.

A.2.2.1 The non-main wa-VprefS as a general accompanying action The non-main wa-VprefS as a general accompanying action is rare (but see (39)). The more frequent meanings of non-main wa-VprefS clauses are elaboration and temporal succession. They are implied meanings derived from the wa-VprefS clause as an accompanying action clause (signaled by wa) with a VprefS gram predicate. The general semantic meaning of addition, without implied nuances are most easily perceived when the pre-clause describes a habitual action. In (36) this habitual action in the pre-clause is coded by an active participle (PA). (36) Pattern: we-Spron-PA+{wa-VprefS}; wǝ-hī yōšɛḇɛṯ taḥaṯ-tomær dǝḇōrå̄ bēn hā-rå̄ må̄ ū-ḇēn bēṯ-ʾēl bǝ-har ʾɛp̄ rāyim {way-yaʿălū ʾēlɛhå̄ bǝnē yiśrāʾēl lam-mišpå̄ ṭ} ‘She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; {and on that occasion the Israelites came up to her for judgment}.’ (Judg. 4:5) Within a context of narrative prose, in the story of Deborah, the participle clause introduces a piece of background information. The listener is informed that the prophetess Deborah used to sit under a certain palm, and when she sat there, the Israelites came to her. She did not sit there all the time, but from time to time she did, and then the Israelites came to her for judgment. The wa-VprefS clause depends on this local time reference, i.e. the event time of the PA clause which brings about the interpretation of punctual but habitual events (each time she sat there). Thus, the VprefS clause can be interpreted as having a temporal connotation ‘at those occasions’ = ‘then...’ (cf. C.2.1.2 below). Since the implied meaning is habitual, it is perhaps natural to analyse the VprefS clause as a general accompanying action that in the context takes on a frequentative meaning. A habitual meaning is found also in a direct quotation of Jacob in his argument with Laban. (37) Pattern: NCl+[Ø-Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}]; zɛ lī ʿɛśrīm šå̄ nå̄ bə-ḇēṯɛḵå̄ [ʿăḇaḏtīḵå̄ ʾarbaʿ ʿɛśrē šå̄ nå̄ bi-štē ḇənōṯɛḵå̄ wə-šēš šå̄ nīm bə-ṣōnɛḵå̄ {wat-taḥălep̄ ʾɛṯ maśkurtī ʿăśɛrɛṯ mōnīm}]

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

201

‘It is now twenty years for me in your household: [I have served you fourteen years for your two daughters, and six years for your flock; {and you changed my wages ten times}].’ (Gen. 31:41) In this direct quotation, the circumstantial asyndetic Vsuff clause works as an elaboration of the initial noun clause: ‘in that I have served you fourteen years for your two daughters...’. The Vsuff clause adds additional information about the twenty years described in the NCl. Then, there is a switch to a wa-VprefS clause to add further information with an accompanying action clause: during these twenty years, Laban changed Jacob’s wages ten times. The wa-VprefS clause is not an elaboration of Jacob’s serving, and it is not a temporal succession. It is a separate accompanying action (with a different actant) that occurs during Jacob’s 20 years of hard work. The most natural aspectual meaning of the Vsuff clause is anterior. Jacob stands in front of Laban and summarizes his life in Laban’s household: I have served fourteen years, I have served six years. The wa-VprefS clause is dependent on the Vsuff clause and takes over its event time. It has a ‘local’ temporal reference, and should not be interpreted as an anterior, because it is not anterior in relation to the Vsuff clause. This is the effect and meaning of the switch: in relation to the Vsuff clause the waVprefS clause describes an action that accompanies it, and it is semantically dependent on the action described by the Vsuff clause. A general indicative accompanying action is found in wa-VprefS2 of (38). (38) Pattern: kī-ADV-Vsuff1 + {wa-VprefS1} + Ø-ADV-Vsuff2 + {waVprefS2}; kī šešɛṯ yå̄ mīm ʿå̄ śå̄ 1 YHWH ʾɛṯ haš-šå̄ mayim wə- ʾɛṯ hå̄ -ʾå̄ rɛṣ ʾɛṯ hay-yå̄ m wə-ʾɛṯ kål ʾăšɛr bå̄ m {way-yå̄ naḥ1 bay-yōm haš-šəḇīʿī} ʿal kēn bēraḵ2 YHWH ʾɛṯ yōm haš-šabbå̄ ṯ {wa-yqaddəšēhū2} ‘For in six days the LORD made1 heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, {and rested1 on the seventh day}. Therefore the LORD blessed2 the Sabbath day {and made it holy2}.’ (Exod. 20:11; ESV) Example (38) illustrates that the interpretation of a switch of clause type (here perfective Vsuff / perfective VprefS) depends on the text type. In narrative prose, we would interpret the Vsuff clauses as coding a perfective event with topicalized preposed adverbs, kī šešɛṯ yå̄ mīm ‘for in six days’ and ʿal kēn ‘Therefore’. In that case both Vsuff clauses and wa-VprefS clauses would have been clauses within a narrative storyline (the wa-VprefS clauses without

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

202

Bo Isaksson

topicalized elements). But the passage is quoted from the ten commandments. The two Vsuff clauses are uttered as a reason for the Sabbath commandment. In such a context, the Vsuff clauses are perceived as main clauses. The two wa-VprefS clauses are accompanying actions, and in the first clause (waVprefS1), the relation, by implication, is one of temporal succession. First, God created heaven and earth and sea in six days, then, on the seventh day, he rested. The second wa-VprefS (wa-yqaddəšēhū) expresses a general ‘and (in that connection) he made it holy’. The most natural and less strained interpretation of wa-VprefS2 is that the consecration (‘made it holy’) was an act that accompanied the blessing. Not necessarily as a result, however, nor as something that temporally succeeded it.

A.2.2.2 The wa-VprefS when the pre-clause has anterior meaning When the pre-clause has anterior meaning, the wa-VprefS clause has a time reference that relates to the time reference of the pre-clause, i.e. the waVprefS has a ‘localized’ time reference, cf. example (14) above. In other words, the wa-VprefS does not have an independent time reference in such cases. The translators may be pressed to render the wa-VprefS clause with the anterior or pluperfect, but this is not what the switch to wa-VprefS expresses. The accompanying action of the wa-VprefS clause ‘takes over’ the event time of the pre-clause, and even when the Vsuff of the pre-clause has anterior meaning, the following wa-VprefS still expresses the meanings that accord with the properties of an indicative non-main VprefS addition clause: perfective action, temporal succession, elaboration, etc. A nuance of temporal succession is found in (39). (39) Pattern: we-Snoun-Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}; wə-ḥɛḇɛr haq-qēnī nip̄ rå̄ ḏ miq-qayin mib-bənē ḥōḇå̄ ḇ ḥōṯēn mōšɛ {way-yeṭ ʾåhå̆ lō ʿaḏ ʾēlōn ba-ṣʿannīm} ‘Now Heber the Kenite had left the other Kenites, the descendants of Hobab, Moses' brother-in-law, {and on that occasion he pitched his tent by the great tree in Zaanannim near Kedesh}.’ (Judg. 4:11) The whole example (40) is a piece of background (‘comment’) information. The receiver of the text needs the information of an event that had happened before the now of the storyline about Deborah. This is one of the passages that have been taken to prove that VprefS grams may also have resultative meaning. But this conclusion does not take into account the reason for the gram

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

203

switch. The wa-VprefS clause depends on the Vsuff clause for its event time. In relation to the Vsuff clause it is not anterior, it is just a clause describing an accompanying action that supplies more information about Heber’s moving to a place near Kedesh. When we analyse the wa-VprefS clause as an accompanying action, it is not necessary to interpret the clause as resultative or anterior. In the example, the wa-VprefS has a meaning of ‘pure’ accompanying action, that is, it lacks implied temporal or logical connotations.68 In other instances of wa-VprefS with anterior pre-clause, the meaning is often one of temporal succession, as in (40). (40) Pattern: kī-Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}; kī-śå̄ rīṯå̄ ʿim ʾɛ̆lōhīm wə-ʿim ʾănå̄ šīm {wat-tūḵå̄ l} ‘for you have striven with God and with men, {and in that connection you prevailed}.’ (Gen. 32:29) As usual, the temporal value of the wa-VprefS clause depends on the (point in) time of the event in the preceding anterior Vsuff, and it is therefore not itself anterior. The reason for the switch (to a wa-VprefS clause) is to express a temporal succession, nearly a result. Jacob’s prevailing can be conceived of as a result of his striving with God and men.69 It is not necessary that the temporal reference is past time. With a present or present anterior pre-clause, a switch to a wa-VprefS clause may describe a generally valid action in the present, as in (41). (41) Pattern: Onoun-Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}; qaštō ḏå̄ raḵ {wa-yḵōnənɛhå̄ } ‘he has bent his bow {and (on that occasion he) aims it}.’ (Ps. 7:13) In (41) the interpretation of a temporal succession presupposes that the aiming follows after having bent the bow (with the foot).70 68 This is the case also in Num. 23:4 with the switch Onoun-Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}, ‘I have prepared the seven altars {and on that occasion I offered a burnt offering of one bull and one ram on each altar}. 69 A nuance of temporal succession after an anterior pre-clause is found also in Exod. 18:8 (Vsuff+{wa-VprefS} within a relative construction), Gen. 31:34 (we-Snoun-Vsuff + {wa-VprefS}+{wa-VprefS}), 39:13 (with kī-Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}), Judg. 4:11 (SnounVsuff+{wa-VprefS}). 70 A case with general present tense in the pre-clause is Ps. 3:5 with Onoun-VprefL+{waVprefS}, and a clear temporal linking with a nuance of result: ‘I call out to the LORD,

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

204

Bo Isaksson

An addition that expresses a temporal linking may often receive result connotations (Dixon 2009, 28). This is the case in (42). (42) Pattern: we-Onoun-Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}; wǝ-ʾɛṯ ha-yḇūsī yōšēḇ yǝrūšå̄ layim lō hōrīšū bǝnē ḇinyå̄ mīn {way-yēšɛḇ ha-yḇūsī ʾɛṯ bǝnē ḇinyå̄ mīn bīrūšå̄ layim ʿad hay-yōm haz-zɛ} ‘The Benjamites, however, did not drive out the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; {to this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites}.’ (Judg. 1:21; NIV) This passage in the account of the conquest of Canaan is a comment on a shortcoming of the Benjamites: they did not drive out the Jebusites. The function of the switch to a VprefS clause is to describe the result of this imperfection, a result that lasted until the present time of the storyteller. Considering the function of this switch, it is justified to translate, ‘therefore the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites to this day’.71 Sometimes, an addition with a connotation of temporal linking does not describe a result clause. It may receive other nuances according to the context, and one example is (43) which displays a temporal linking with a nuance of contrast. (43) Pattern: kī-Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}; kī rå̄ ʾīṯī ʾɛ̆lōhīm på̄ nīm ʾɛl på̄ nīm {wat-tinnå̄ ṣel nap̄ šī} ‘I have really seen God face to face, {and yet my life was spared}.’ (Gen. 32:31) In the example, the Vsuff clause is a resultant present state of facts. The main point here is that, although the wa-VprefS clause certainly describes a temporal linking, this action cannot in any way be called a result of the preceding action. The addition coded by the wa-VprefS clause in this context describes a contrast (Dixon 2009, 28). An anterior pre-clause may also. in rare cases. express an irreal action, something that could have happened, but for some reason did not. In such cases a following wa-VprefS clause is also irreal, as in (44). {and he answers me from his holy mountain}’ (NIV). Another present tense example is 1 Sam. 2:6 (with a PA pre-clause). 71 Similar result connotations of wa-VprefS clauses (after anterior pre-clauses) are found in Gen. 30:27, 44:20 (result of divination).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

205

(44) Pattern: ADV-Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}+{wa-VprefS}; kī ʿattå̄ šå̄ laḥtī ʾɛṯ yå̄ ḏī {wå̄ -ʾaḵ ʾōṯəḵå̄ wə-ʾɛt ʿamməḵå̄ bad-då̄ ḇɛr} {wattikkå̄ ḥēḏ min hå̄ -ʾå̄ rɛṣ} ‘For by now I could have stretched out my hand {and (in that connection) I struck you and your people with a plague} {and you were wiped off the earth}.’ (Exod. 9:15) The irreality of the action is signaled by the ʿattå̄ ‘now’ and the Vsuff gram. The Vsuff clause, in this context, receives a nuance of ability or possibility. There is nothing in the two wa-VprefS clauses that signals an irreal action. Instead, the notion of irrealis is taken over from the Vsuff clause on which the wa-VprefS clauses depend. The additions, coded by the wa-VprefS clauses, are implied temporal successions, the last (‘and you were wiped off the earth’) with a nuance of result.

A.2.2.3 The wa-VprefS expressing temporal succession or result A temporal succession is one of the most common implied meanings of a waVprefS clause, as in (45). (45) Pattern: Snoun-Vsuff+we-ADV-VNabs-Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}; ʾīš miṣrī hiṣṣīlå̄ nū miy-yad hå̄ -rōʿīm wə-ḡam då̄ lō ḏå̄ lå̄ lå̄ nū {way-yašq ʾɛṯ haṣ-ṣōn} ‘An Egyptian rescued us from the shepherds. He even drew water for us {and watered the flock}.’ (Exod. 2:19) In this direct quotation, the main line is coded by the two Vsuff clauses that are not temporally related. The wa-VprefS clause codes an action that specifically accompanies the action in the second Vsuff clause, and the implied meaning of the wa-VprefS is a temporal succession.72 A result is a frequent implied meaning of a wa-VprefS clause (Dixon 2009, 28). Only the context decides on the correct meaning for a translation. A straightforward example is (46). 72 Similar cases of wa-VprefS clauses with an implied meaning of temporal succession. but without the nuance of result. are: Gen. 24:16 (PA+{wa-VprefS}+{wa-VprefS} + {wa-VprefS}), 25:8 (NCl/wa-VprefS in genealogy), 27:33 and 30:30 (both NCl/waVprefS in direct speech), 37:7 and 41:3-4 and 41:18 (all three in dream account), 44:28 (Vsuff/wa-VprefS in direct speech), Exod. 6:25 (genealogy), 14:10 (Vsuff/wa-VprefS), 15:19 (Vsuff/wa-VprefS archaic poem), Judg. 18:18 (Vsuff/wa-VprefS), 2 Sam. 1:27 (Vsuff/wa-VprefS poem), Ps. 3:6 (Vsuff/wa-VprefS ‘I lie down {and sleep}’).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

206

Bo Isaksson

(46) Pattern: Snoun-Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}; han-nå̄ ḥå̄ š hiššīʾanī {wå̄ -ʾōḵēl} ‘The serpent tricked me, so I ate.’ (Gen. 3:13; CJB) It is of course acceptable to translate, ‘The serpent deceived me, and I ate’ (thus ESV), since also the English addition clause ‘and I ate’ has an implied sense of result. A wa-VprefS clause may express a result also from other types of preclauses. In (47) a habitual meaning is expressed in a pre-clause with a long prefix verb gram. (47) Pattern: VN+ADV-VprefL+{wa-VprefS+we-lō-Vpref}; middē ʿălōṯå̄ h bə-ḇēṯ YHWH kēn taḵʿīsɛnnå̄ {wat-tiḇkɛ [wə-lō tōḵal]} ‘Whenever Hannah went up to the house of the LORD, her rival provoked her {till she wept and did not eat}.’ (1 Sam. 1:7; NIV) In the example, the habitual meaning of the first VprefL is triggered by the initial adverbial VN phrase. The wa-VprefS clause is an accompanying action that in the context receives a habitual meaning and a sense of result. The waVprefS clause is dependent on the pre-clause for such meanings. It takes over the past reference and the habituality, and adds an implied nuance of result. In (48) the temporal reference is past time, but there is no notion of habituality. (48) Pattern: Ø-PrP-Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}; ʾɛl han-naʿar haz-zɛ hiṯpallå̄ ltī {way-yittēn YHWH lī ʾɛṯ šəʾēlå̄ ṯī ʾăšɛr šå̄ ʾaltī mē-ʿimmō] ‘This is the child I then prayed for, {and the LORD granted my request}.’ (1 Sam. 1:27) This is taken from the direct speech of Hannah to the priest Eli, and before this quotation she says ‘Pardon me, my lord. As surely as you live, I am the woman who stood here beside you praying to the LORD’ (NIV). Now she has the boy with her, and in (49) she says with a topicalized object constituent (formally PrP): this is the child. The main clause in (48) is the Vsuff, and the wa-VprefS is just an addition, ‘and the Lord granted my request’, with implied temporal succession, which of course may be interpreted as a result (Dixon 2009, 28).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

207

A wa-VprefS clause may also express a temporal succession from the action in a participle pre-clause, as in (49). (49) Pattern: Snoun-PA+we-PA+Ø-PA+{wa-VprefS}; YHWH mēmīṯ ū-məḥayyɛ mōrīḏ šå̄ ʾōl {way-yå̄ ʿal} ‘The LORD deals death and gives life, casts down into Sheol {and raises up}.’ (1 Sam. 2:6) Example (49) displays four clauses, semantically divided into pairs, PA + wePA and PA+{wa-VprefS}. The first pair describes the continual activity of the Lord dealing with life and death, but the second pair, with the switch to a VprefS clause, encodes a temporal succession. First the Lord casts down into Sheol, and then, after that, he raises up. There is no consequence implied in this switch, and the wa-VprefS clause, which is marked as indicative by the form of the conjunction, has an unmistakable general present meaning. Although the example is from a piece of poetry which is regarded archaic, we can observe that a generally valid present was compatible with the trajectory of the VprefS gram.73

A.2.2.4 The wa-VprefS clause expressing elaboration An addition may describe an elaboration, and this is true also of wa-VprefS clauses. What characterizes an elaboration with the VprefS gram is a dynamic action. An example is the comment on Joram son of Ahab in (50). (50) Pattern: wa-VprefS+lō-PrP+{wa-VprefS}; way-yaʿăśɛ hå̄ -raʿ bə-ʿēnē YHWH, raq lō ḵə-ʾå̄ ḇīw ū-kə-ʾimmō {way-yå̄ sar ʾɛṯ maṣṣəḇaṯ hab-baʿal ʾăšɛr ʿå̄ śå̄ ʾå̄ ḇīw}

73 Other wa-VprefS clauses with result meaning are Gen. 3:10 (Onoun-Vsuff+{wa-VprefS +[kī-NCl]}+{wa-VprefS}), 3:17 (kī-Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}), 7:20 (Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}), 12:19 (direct speech: ADV-Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}), 15:6 (‘Abram believed the LORD, {and he credited it to him as righteousness}’ NIV), 19:11, 19:30, 20:6, 20:12 (NCl+{wa-VprefS}: ‘the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; {and so she became my wife}’ JPS), 21:1, 26:28, 27:36, 29:17, 31:42, 34:7, 36:8, 39:14, 42:6, 44:20, 45:7, 49:17, Judg. 6:34, 20:5, 1 Sam. 1:13 (‘Hannah was speaking in her heart; only her lips moved, and her voice was not heard. {Therefore Eli took her to be a drunken woman}’ ESV), 1:27, Hab. 3:6, Prov. 1:24 (Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}: ‘Because I have called {and you refused to listen}’ ESV). The we-lō-Vpref clause is discussed in section B.2.2.1.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

208

Bo Isaksson

‘He did evil in the sight of the LORD, but not to the same degree as his father and mother. {He did remove the sacred pillar of Baal that his father had made}.’ (2 Kgs 3:2; NET) The first wa-VprefS clause in (51) partakes in the storyline. It is followed by a clause that could be taken as a noun clause (‘though not like his father and his mother’) with implied subject (‘he’) or as a Vsuff clause with implied verb (‘he did not act like his father ...’). Be that as it may, the last wa-VprefS clause elaborates on this negative fact (not like his father and mother) and adds further details about this shade of positive behaviour: he removed the pillar of Baal. Elaborations with wa-VprefS are fairly common in direct speech, as in (51), where two wa-VprefS clauses add additional facts about the rhetoric question by Laban in dialogue with Jacob. (51) Pattern: Opron-Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}+{wa-VprefS}; mɛ ʿå̄ śīṯå̄ {wat-tiḡnoḇ ʾɛṯ ləḇå̄ ḇī} {wat-tənaheḡ ʾɛṯ bənōṯay ki-šḇūyōṯ ḥå̄ rɛḇ} ‘What have you done? {You deceived me}, {and you carried off my daughters like captives in war}.’ (Gen. 31:26) The initial rhetorical Vsuff clause is a question that amounts to an accusation: ‘you have done something unacceptable’. The two wa-VprefS clauses add further information about the action referred to by the Vsuff clause and specify the unacceptable actions taken by Jacob. As usual, the wa-VprefS clauses depend on the event time of the Vsuff clause and do not in themselves signal anterior action. Elaboration is a frequent function also in poetry. In a poetic context, the dynamic action of the VprefS often elaborates on a pre-clause that expresses an eternal truth, as in (52).74 (52) Pattern: NCl+{wa-VprefS}; kī l-YHWH məṣūqē ʾɛrɛṣ {way-yå̄ šɛṯ ʿălēhɛm tēḇēl}

74 Another conspicuous case of a NCl expressing a state and wa-VprefS describing a dynamic elaboration is 2 Sam. 14:5 ʾăḇå̄ l ʾiššå̄ ʾalmå̄ nå̄ ʾå̄ ni {way-yå̄ måṯ} ‘Alas, I am a widow; {my husband died}’ (TNK). Also 2 Sam. 14:6 with NCl+{wa-VprefS}+{waVprefS}+{wa-VprefS}.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

209

‘For the foundations of the earth are the LORD’s; {on them he set the world}.’ (1 Sam. 2:8) The noun clause in this passage of archaic poetry describes an eternal truth and no action is implied in it. The wa-VprefS adds additional details on this truth with a finite dynamic transitive verb. It is not necessary, as most translations do, to render the VprefS gram by an anterior.75 A perfective past reference, as in a narrative storyline, is enough, ‘he set the world on them’. This ability of the wa-VprefS clause to characterize a generally valid truth is employed in the self-presentation of the Lord by his name, as in (53). (53) Pattern: NCl+{wa-VprefS+[we-ADV-lō-Vsuff]}; ʾănī YHWH {wå̄ -ʾērå̄ ʾɛl ʾaḇrå̄ hå̄ m ʾɛl yiṣḥå̄ q wə-ʾɛl yaʿăqōḇ bə-ʾēl šaddå̄ y [ū-šəmī YHWH lō nōḏaʿtī lå̄ hɛm]} ‘I am the LORD. {I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, [but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them]}.’ (Exod. 6:3; ESV) The repeated self-presentation of the Lord by his name, ‘I am YHWH’ might seem tautological, but is repeatedly accompanied by actions that are intended to reveal who he is. His name, his identity, is step by step made known by actions. In this example, what it means that his name is YHWH is elaborated by information about his actions in the past, when he revealed himself to the patriarchs. By implication, his name will be more fully understood by the actions that led to the exodus out of Egypt. The wa-VprefS clause “echoes the first” noun clause ‘I am YHWH’, ”adding additional information about the event or state described” (Dixon 2009, 27).76

75 Thus NIV, ‘For the foundations of the earth are the LORD’s; on them he has set the world’. 76 The Vsuff clause is an addition to the VprefS clause, with a meaning of contrast (Dixon 2009, 28). Further examples of elaborating wa-VprefS clauses are Gen. 10:19, 12:16, 13:12 (‘but Lot lived in the cities of the valley {and set up his tent near Sodom}, HCSB), 19:19, 19:25, 26:29, 32:24; 34:13 and 37:18 (both without switch and implied elaboration), 40:23, 41:51, 46:12 (elaboration in genealogy), 46:18, 50:13 (no switch), Exod. 1:7, 1:17, 1:18 (Vsuff/wa-VprefS: ‘Why have you done this thing, {letting the boys live}?’ TNK), 9:23, 16:17, 16:20, 18:4, 24:11, Judg. 2:11, 2:17, 2 Sam. 22:39 (VprefL/wa-VprefS: ‘they cannot get up; {they fall at my feet}’ NET), 1 Kgs 8:24, Amos 2:9, Job 7:6, Ps. 18:33 (PA/wa-VprefS: ‘It is God who arms me with strength {and makes my way perfect}’ NIB), 29:9.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

210

Bo Isaksson

Wa-VprefS clauses are often elaborations of resultative pre-clauses in poetry. Example (54) shows a wa-VprefS having a general present meaning in (possibly) archaic poetry: (54) Pattern: Snoun-Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}; YHWH lam-mabbūl yå̄ šå̄ ḇ {way-yēšɛḇ YHWH mɛlɛḵ lə-ʿōlå̄ m} ‘The LORD sits enthroned over the flood; {the LORD sits enthroned as king forever}.’ (Ps. 29:10; ESV) The context is eternal truths, so it is natural to follow most translators here and interpret the Vsuff gram, not as an anterior, but with its prototypical resultative meaning ‘is enthroned’ (which ESV renders ‘sits enthroned’). The waVprefS expresses an elaboration of this eternal fact (emphasized by the PrP ləʿōlå̄ m ‘for ever’). The addition cannot, in this instance, be interpreted as a temporal succession, and a nuance of result is not a natural reading.77

A.2.2.5 The wa-VprefS clause expressing same-event addition The case of a same-event addition, that is, “two clauses describe different aspects of a single event” is often hard to distinguish from elaboration (Dixon 2009, 27). A possible example is (55). (55) Pattern: Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}; kå̄ lå̄ ʿå̄ nå̄ n {way-yēlaḵ} ‘As the cloud fades {and vanishes}.’ (Job 7:9; ESV) The zero-gram VprefS is well equipped to express also generally valid actions, corresponding to an English general present. The wa allomorph of the conjunction indicates that the VprefS is indicative, it describes a real action (though not in a storyline and not with past time reference). There is no temporal difference between the clauses, and what is expressed by the switch is an addition, in which the pre-clause and the addition clause are just different aspects of the same event.78

77 The mɛlɛḵ ‘as king’ is an adverbial expression, which can be interpreted as an infinite predication of its own (and thus a clause), ‘being a king’, Isaksson (2009, 39). 78 Some other possible examples of same-event addition are Gen. 34:29 (Vsuff/wa-VprefS ‘All their wealth, all their little ones and their wives, all that was in the houses, they captured {and plundered}’ ESV), 35:3, 39:18.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

211

A.2.3 The syndetic we-VprefS clause and the we-...ʾal-VprefS clause The we-VprefS clause is distinguished in the Masoretic reading tradition as being modal in contradistinction to wa-VprefS which is indicative. Both are clause-initial. With the negation ʾal this type of clause is discrete (as to the ‘short’ nature of the Vpref) and there is no restriction of word order. The syntactic construction we-...VprefS is an addition with a jussive meaning, ‘and thereby he should ...’, but it seems that this type of syntagm has received a more restricted meaning. Such clauses practically always describe a purpose and relates to a pre-clause that may be an imperative, noun clause, cohortative, long prefix clause, we-Vsuff clause, a jussive VprefS clause, and even an indicative narrative VprefS clause.79 Even when there is no gramswitch, as in a clause linking of the type Ø-VprefS/we-VprefS, the we-VprefS clause usually has an unmistakable flavour of purpose. The purpose meaning of we-VprefS clauses is recognized by standard grammars, and there is no need of an extensive exposition of all cases (J-M § 116; Nyberg 1972, § 87d). A simple example is (56). (56) Pattern: IMP+[we-VprefS]; qirʾɛn lō [wə-yōḵal lå̄ ḵɛm] ‘Call him, [that he may eat bread].’ (Exod. 2:20; ESV) Purpose clauses often conform to the symmetry that third person clauses have a we-VprefS pattern, and second person clauses a we-IMP pattern (thus J-M § 116). This is illustrated in (57). (57) Pattern: IMP+we-IMP+[we-VprefS!]; śå̄ nā ḥaṭṭå̄ ṯī ʾaḵ hap-paʿam wə-haʿtīrū l-YHWH ʾɛ̆lōhēḵɛm [wə-yå̄ ser mēʿå̄ lay raq ʾɛṯ ham-må̄ wɛṯ haz-zɛ] ‘Now therefore, forgive my sin, please, only this once, and plead with the LORD your God [only to remove this death from me].’ (Exod. 10:17; ESV) The example is instructive, in that the first addition (we-IMP) is not as distinctly purposive as is the we-VprefS clause. The addition of the imperative, ‘and plead thereby with the Lord’, can be interpreted as a purpose clause ‘for79 Examples of pre-clauses (with following we-VprefS): VprefL (as a positive command) Gen. 42:20; VprefA Gen. 34:23, Exod. 8:4; we-Vsuff (we-qatal) Exod. 2:7; PA (participle clause) Exod. 14:17.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

212

Bo Isaksson

give my sin [so that you plead with the Lord]’ (J-M § 116f), but also with a looser connection to the first imperative as an accompanying imperative.80 The pre-clause may also be a VprefS clause. It is rare, though, that the preclause is an indicative perfective. One of these rare cases is from archaic poetry (58). (58) Pattern: Ø-VprefS+[we-VprefS]; təḇīʾēmō [wə-ṯiṭṭå̄ ʿēmō bə-har naḥălå̄ ṯəḵå̄ ] ‘You brought them in [to plant them on the mountain that is your own.’ (Exod. 15:17) The passage is an account of the exodus, and in such an archaic context a fronted ‘narrative’ perfective VprefS without the conjunction wa is a fairly common feature. The verbs are morphologically non-discrete, but they are clause-initial, which is a signal of the short prefix verb, and the following weVpref clause fits well in an interpretation as a purpose clause against many translations.81 There are several examples of a jussive pre-clause with a succeeding purposive we-VprefS clause, which means that the linking lacks a gram-switch, only the added conjunction signals the semantic relation. This is shown in (59). (59) Pattern: Ø-VprefS+[we-VprefS]+[we-ʾal-VprefS]; tiḵbaḏ hā-ʿăḇōḏå̄ ʿal hå̄ -ʾănå̄ šīm [wə-yaʿăśū ḇå̄ h] [wə-ʾal-yišʿū bə-ḏiḇrē šå̄ qɛr] ‘Make the work harder for the people [so that they keep working] [and pay no attention to lies].’ (Exod. 5:9) The example shows an initial main line jussive VprefS in the second person (the ‘pre-clause’). It is followed by one positive purpose clause and another 80 Other examples of we-VprefS purpose clauses are, Gen. 27:29, 30:3 (‘Sleep with her [so that she can bear children for me]’, NIV), 31:37, 38:24, 42:16, Exod. 4:23 (and many similar), 9:22, 10:21. In this first person the syndetic cohortative (we-VprefA) is the common alternative although in many cases the form of the verb is often not discrete (could be a VprefS or VprefL). Only our acquaintance with the discrete cases make us conclude that the cohortative is intended when first person is involved. Two morphologically discrete examples are Gen. 19:5 (IMP+[wə-nēḏəʿå̄ ]) and 23:4 (IMP +[wəʾɛqbərå̄ ]). 81 Such as NAB, ‘You brought them in, you planted them on the mountain that is your own’.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

213

purpose clause negated by the modal negator ʾal. It is reasonable to conclude that the two purpose clauses have equal status.82 As can be seen in (59), purpose clauses may be negated by the modal negation ʾal, which is illustrated also in (60). (60) Pattern: IMP+[we-ʾal-VprefS]; riḡzū [wə-ʾal-tɛḥɛ̆ṭå̄ ʾū] ‘Tremble with fear [that you do not sin]!’ (Ps. 4:5)83 Since ʾal only negates jussive VprefS verbs, word order in such clauses is free and a topicalized constituent may be placed before the negated verb, as in the legal language of (61), where two object nouns are placed in topicalized position before the verb and its negation: (61) Pattern: Ø-PrP-VprefL+[we-Onoun-we-Onoun-ʾal-VprefS]; mid-dəḇar šɛqɛr tirḥå̄ q [wə-nå̄ qī wə-ṣaddīq ʾal tahăroḡ] ‘Have nothing to do with a false charge [not to put an innocent or honest person to death].’ (Exod. 23:7)

A.3 Summary In affirmative clauses the VprefS gram is restricted to clause-initial position in order not to be confused with the VprefL gram. In negative clauses (negation ʾal) there is no such restriction of word order for the VprefS gram. The VprefS gram is used in both main line and in non-main clause linking. VprefS is zero-marked as to tense and mood. Its most frequent uses in a main line are as a perfective verb in past time contexts, and as a modal (jussive) verb. But it is also used to express a general (timeless) present. The wa allomorph signals that the VprefS is indicative (wa-VprefS), whereas the we allomorph signals the verb to be modal (usually with a purposive nuance). In prose (with very few exceptions) an asyndetic VprefS signals that the verb has jussive meaning (Ø-VprefS), whereas early poetry shows examples of indicative (usually narrative perfective) Ø-VprefS clauses.

82 Other examples of VprefS/we-VprefS clause linkings with purpose nuance: Gen. 1:6 (‘Let there be a vault between the waters [to separate water from water]’ NIV), 1:9, Exod. 5:21. 83 Or, as NJB, ‘Be careful not to sin’.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

214

Bo Isaksson

As a non-main clause wa-VprefS often expresses elaboration, temporal succession, and result. Sometimes, however, it is just an addition, an accompanying action in relation to the pre-clause.

B. Clause combining and the VprefL gram As already mentioned, the partial morphological coalescence of the short prefix gram and the long prefix gram led to radical restrictions in the word order of VprefL clauses. While the yaqtulu gram in Old Arabic retained a greater freedom, which allowed for a fronted position in the clause, ProtoHebrew (preceding the Biblical Hebrew texts) developed word order strategies to avoid confusion between the original VprefS and the original VprefL.84 A clause-initial prefix verb came to be perceived as short (indicative or jussive), and this position was consequently avoided when a long prefix verb was to be used in affirmative clauses. In such clauses a VprefL form was generally non-initial.85 In negative clauses on the other hand, there was generally no danger of confusion since ʾal was exclusively used before short jussive VprefS, and lō came to be the normal negation before VprefL (Tropper 1998, 178). A negation lō before a prefix verb was usually a signal of a VprefL verb in Biblical Hebrew, in sharp contrast to the free use of lā in Amarna Canaanite before both VprefS and VprefL verbs (Rainey 1996, 211-212). In poetry the VprefL gram could also be negated by bal.

84 With the term ‘Proto-Hebrew’ I suggest a transition stage when short final vowels (including the case vowels of the noun) were being dropped and resulting syntactical changes took place. “These developments were essentially completed or at least in an advanced stage when the Northwest Semitic languages of Iron Age Syria-Palestine appeared on the stage of history after ca. 1000 BCE” (Gzella 2012, 6). 85 Relative clauses are unaffected by the word order rule, as in Ps. 34:9 ʾašrē hag-gɛḇɛr ‘blessed is the one who takes refuge in him’ (...NP-REL; NIV). In some cases the syntactical status of a VN phrase may cause bewilderment, as in asyndetic Exod. 30:20 [Ø-be-VN]+Ø-VprefL, which could be argued to represent an exception. But it should be observed that ‘embedding’ is a scalar concept. The gradual integration of the desententialized (VN) clause in the VprefL clause (Lehmann 1988, 183) in such cases makes the linguistic instinct perceive the VprefL as non-initial (the VN phrase being positioned before it as an element in the same clause). Similar examples are Exod. 33:8,9.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

215

B.1 VprefL clauses encoding a main line It is well known that the VprefL clause in the main line often codes future time reference or habitual action. Sometimes, but not as often as could be expected, it is also used with its prototypical imperfective meaning of a progressive present (Bybee et al. 1994, 126). Future time reference is probably the most common meaning of a main line VprefL clause. One example is (62). (62) Pattern: kī-VprefL!+we-PrP-VprefL; kī yå̄ ḏīn YHWH ʿammō wə-ʿal ʿăḇå̄ ḏå̄ w yiṯnɛḥå̄ m ‘The LORD will vindicate his people and relent concerning his servants.’ (Deut. 32:36; NIV) In this passage the two clauses form a main line of VprefL clauses with future reference. None of the verbs is clause-initial. It is reasonable to assume that the addition indicated by the conjunction we, in this case (without a gramswitch), means a concatenation of clauses of equal status. (63) is an illustration of the typical morphology of the VprefL gram: when a discretely long form is available (in this case yå̄ ḏīn in contradistinction to VprefS yå̄ ḏen) then this long form is also used.86 The rule of non-initial VprefL is sometimes virtually violated by ellipsis, as in (63). (63) Pattern: ʾāz-VprefL! + we-lō-VprefL + ()-VprefL! + we-lō-VprefL!; ʾå̄ z yiqrå̄ ʾūn-nī wə-lō ʾɛʿɛ̆nɛ, yəšaḥărūn-nī wə-lō yimṣå̄ ʾūn-nī ‘Then they will call to me but I will not answer; they will look for me but will not find me’ (Prov. 1:28; NIV) The four clauses in (63) form two pairs of the type ʾāz-VprefL!+we-lōVprefL. In the second pair, however, the ʾāz is understood (here indicated by parentheses). Three of the four verbs are discretely long and have future reference.87 86 The exceptions are usually in the opposite direction. Surprisingly often long forms are used as short, and then always in initial position. 87 Three of the verbs in (64) exhibit a ‘nun paragogicum’, which is commonly supposed to originate from the long prefix form in Central Semitic, cf. the Arabic ‘indicative’ plural yaqtulūna (Rainey 1986, 7). As for the III infirmae verb ʾɛʿɛ̆nɛ, it should probably not be regarded as discrete (Tropper 1998, 165; J-M §§ 79m, 114g note 3). Other examples with future reference (and discretely long forms): Gen. 49:10 (lō yå̄ sūr šeḇɛṭ mīhūḏå̄

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

216

Bo Isaksson

An expression of future easily receives a nuance of obligation and indirect command. This is shown in (64). (64) Pattern: ADV-VprefL!; kō tōmərūn l-aḏōnī lə-ʿēśå̄ w ‘Thus you shall say to my lord Esau.’ (Gen. 32:5; ESV) The verb is not fronted and it has a ‘nun paragogicum’, both signals of a long prefix verb. It is a command by Jacob directed at his servants. A progressive present VprefL is perceivable in the two clauses of (65), which displays two asyndetic clauses of equal status in direct speech. (65) Pattern: Ø-ADV-VprefL!+Ø-ADV-VprefL!; ma-t-tərīḇūn ʿimmå̄ dī, ma-t-tənassūn ʾɛṯ YHWH ‘Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you put the LORD to the test?’ (Exod. 17:2; NIV) Both verbs show a ‘nun paragogicum’ and the progressive present meaning. This meaning of the VprefL gram is sometimes encountered in SBH, although the active participle increasingly takes over this function.88 As can be expected, instead of a progressive present meaning the VprefL is often used as a general present (Bybee et al. 1994, 127, 153). This is shown in (66). (66) Pattern: VOC, Spron-VprefL!+Ø-Spron-VprefL; YHWH, mī yå̄ ḡūr bə-ʾåhå̆ lɛḵå̄ , mī yiškon bə-har qåḏšɛḵå̄ ‘LORD, who may dwell in your sacred tent? Who may live on your holy mountain?’ (Ps. 15:1; NIV) The two clauses in (66) have equal status, and in the first the VprefL is discrete. The (timeless) general present receives a nuance of permission: ‘who may ...’. The verb is non-initial in both clauses.89 ‘The scepter will not depart from Judah’), Prov. 2:6, Ps. 16:4 (with purpose nuance in main line). 88 A progressive present VprefL, in a usage that comes close to a performative function, is found in Deut. 32:40, kī ʾɛśśå̄ ʾɛl šå̄ mayim yå̄ ḏī ‘I lift my hand to heaven and solemnly swear’ (NIV). 89 A general present is perceivable also in Ps. 9:9 (wə-hū yišpoṭ tēḇēl bə-ṣɛḏɛq, yåḏīn ləʾummīm bə-mēšå̄ rīm ‘and he judges the world with righteousness; he judges the peoples with uprightness’, ESV), where the second verb is discretely long in an elliptic

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

217

The VprefL is not confined to one (or two) specific temporal reference(s), which is shown in its use as past habitual (67). (67) Pattern: ADV-VprefL; kēn yaʿăśɛ šå̄ nå̄ ḇə-šå̄ nå̄ ‘He did the same every year.’ (1 Sam. 1:7; CJB) The verb is not discrete here, but it is non-initial and this together with the meaning makes it reasonable to conclude that the long form is intended. Habituality is signaled by the adverbial phrase šå̄ nå̄ ḇə-šå̄ nå̄ ‘year by year’.90

B.2 The VprefL clause encoding a non-main clause When the VprefL gram is used in a non-main clause its prototypical imperfectivity often results in a dynamic description of an attendant or accompanying action (“background situations”, Bybee et al. 1994, 126). The function of attendant circumstantial clause is apparent in an asyndetic VprefL clause, but also an addition signaled by we and a VprefL clause often results in a meaning close to a circumstantial expression, although in a more independent clause. In narrative prose, the circumstantial VprefL clause is rather uncommon, a fact that contrasts with classical Arabic (Isaksson 2009, 84-89, 91-92). Two contrasting VprefS/VprefL are only rarely found when the VprefS is a storyline clause. An attendant action is more often coded by other types of clauses, such as an active participle.

B.2.1 The asyndetic VprefL clause B.2.1.1 The Ø-NEG-VprefL clause A Ø-NEG-VprefL clause in non-main position codes an attendant circumstantial action without a topicalized element. The emphasis is on the absence of the action itself. The negation is lō, in poetry sometimes bal. A negated non-

clause (understands an initial subject hū from the first clause). Another case of general present is Gen. 2:24 ʿal kēn yaʿăzåḇ ʾīš ʾɛṯ ʾå̄ ḇīw wə ʾɛṯ ʾimmō ‘That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife’ (NIV) with a slight nuance of habituality. Also Gen. 43:32. The rare instances with ʾå̄ z and VprefL represent a special case and should be discussed separately (possibly a case of diegetic present). 90 Other examples of habitual VprefL clauses are Gen. 32:33 (or general present), Exod. 4:11, 34:34, Job 1:5.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

218

Bo Isaksson

main asyndetic VprefL clause with negation lō in prose is used to describe the old aged patriarch Israel in (68). (68) Pattern: we-Snoun-Vsuff+[Ø-lō-VprefL]; wə-ʿēnē yiśrå̄ ʾēl kāḇəḏū miz-zoqɛn [lōʾ yūḵal li-rʾōṯ] ‘Now the eyes of Israel were dim with age, [so that he could not see].’ (Gen. 48:10; ESV) In (68) the circumstantial meaning of the VprefL clause (‘in that’) receives a nuance of result (‘so that’). The general attendant circumstance meaning of the clause, ‘not being able to see’, is understood as a resulting state (Isaksson 2009, 7-10). An example with the negation bal in poetry is (69). (69) Pattern: Ø-Vsuff+[Ø-bal-VprefL]; ṣå̄ rap̄ tanī [bal timṣå̄ ] ‘You have tried me [without finding]’ (Ps. 17:3) Example (69) shows an asyndetic VprefL clause expressing an attendant circumstance. The poetic negation bal with a VprefL gram introduces a circumstantial clause ‘not finding’ which is better rendered ‘without finding (anything)’.91

B.2.1.2 The Ø-X-VprefL clause When an element ‘X’ (other than a negation) is positioned before the verb, this element becomes topicalized. 92 Examples of X-VprefL clauses being digressions from a narrative storyline of wa-VprefS in prose are unusual and show quite specific constructions. One example is (70) with repetitive clauses. 91 The CSB (2009) renders the negated VprefL as if the clause was an addition with perfective aspect (though neutralized by the negation): ‘You have tried me [and found nothing evil]’. But the syntax, an asyndetic VprefL clause, is that of an attendant circumstance. Other cases of an asyndetic switch Vsuff/lō-VprefL are: Exod. 10:29 (ADVVsuff+[Ø-lō-VprefL!]), Amos 8:2 (Ø-Vsuff+[Ø-lō-VprefL!] with reason nuance), Ps. 5:5-7 (kī-lō-Vsuff+[Ø-lō-VprefL]+[Ø-lō-VprefL] with two reason clauses). 92 The clause is still an attendant circumstantial clause, but that does not mean that it always codes an ongoing action concomitant with the preceding clause. It can also code a rule that is valid at the same time, as in Exod. 35:2 Ø-ADV-VprefL+we-PrP-VprefL + [Ø-Snoun-VprefL] ‘Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.’ (ESV).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

219

(70) Pattern: wa-VprefS + [Ø-Snoun-VprefL] + [we-Snoun-VprefL]; wa-yhī qōl haš-šōp̄ å̄ r hōlēḵ wə-ḥå̄ zēq məʾōḏ [mōšɛ yəḏabber] [wə-hå̄ ʾɛ̆lōhīm yaʿănɛnnū ḇə-qōl] ‘The blast of the shofar grew louder and louder, [while Moses was speaking and God was answering him with thunder].’ (Exod. 19:19; NAB) The storyline wayhī is succeeded by two repetitive participles hōlēḵ wə-ḥå̄ zēq (J-M § 123s), and then follow two VprefL clauses that describe what was going on during the repeated blasts of the shofar. The VprefL clauses express two dynamic actions that we infer interact with each other: God and Moses speak to each other in a dialogue during a period of time. The first VprefL clause is asyndetic and the second is added to the first with a we. The two VprefL clauses have seemingly the same status. The signal of the linking is the asyndesis and the switch to a long prefix verb gram. The two subject nouns Moses and God are topicalized (placed before the verb).93 If a narrative storyline is interrupted by a VprefL clause, an explicit adverb is usually needed in the construction, as with ṭɛrɛm ‘not yet’ in (71), and ʿal kēn in (72). (71) Pattern: wa-VprefS+[Ø-ṭɛrɛm-VprefL]; way-yiśśå̄ hå̄ -ʿå̄ m ʾɛṯ bəṣēqō [ṭɛrɛm yɛḥmå̄ ṣ] ‘So the people carried off their dough [still unleavened].’ (Exod. 12:34; NJB) The event time of the VprefL clause is that of the storyline. In this non-main position, the imperfective VprefL takes over the event time of the main clause and describes a concomitant state ‘not yet being leavened’. The adverb ṭɛrɛm ‘not yet’ emphasizes the simultaneity of the two actions. When a comment with habitual meaning is inserted into the storyline a VprefL clause may be utilized, with an explanatory adverb in topicalized position.

93 A similar example is 1 Sam. 13:17-18 (wa-VprefS+[Ø-Snoun-VprefL+we-SnounVprefL + we-Snoun-VprefL]) where the “difficult case” Ø-Snoun-VprefL is discussed by Joosten (1999, 24: “prospective”) and Driver (1892 § 163) as a main clause (like most other clauses). Also Exod. 19:19 (wa-VprefS+[Ø-Snoun-VprefL] + [we-SnounVprefLN]), and 1 Kgs 3:4.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

220

Bo Isaksson

(72) Pattern: (wa-VprefS +) [Ø-ADV-VprefL + [we-Vsuff] + [we-Vsuff]]; [ʿal kēn yaʿăzåḇ ʾīš ʾɛṯ ʾå̄ ḇīw wə ʾɛṯ ʾimmō [wə-ḏå̄ ḇaq bə-ʾištō] [wə-hå̄ yū lə-ḇå̄ śå̄ r ʾɛḥå̄ ḏ]] ‘[That is why a man leaves his father and mother [and is united to his wife] [and they become one flesh].]’ (Gen. 2:24; NIV) The digression from the storyline in (72), coded by an asyndetic VprefL clause (and subsequent accompanying actions with we-Vsuff clauses),94 has the function of a narrator’s comment. The comment is beside the main line, it is not part of the narrative scene, but at the same time it is directly relevant to what has been related (the creation of the woman).95 Non-main asyndetic VprefL clauses in SBH are mostly found in direct speech or poetry. In (73) a circumstantial clause describes a reason in Sara’s direct speech. (73) Pattern: Onoun-Vsuff+[Ø-Snoun-VprefL]; ṣəḥōq ʿå̄ śå̄ lī ʾɛ̆lōhīm [kål haš-šōmēăʿ yiṣḥaq lī] ‘God has brought laughter for me, [in that everyone who hears will laugh at me].’ (Gen. 21:6)96 Abraham’s wife is pregnant at an old age and she feels embarrassed for what people will think. She feels that God has brought laughter on her, and in a circumstantial clause she gives the reason for this statement: since everyone will laugh at me. Since the circumstantial clause expresses her expectation of people’s laughter, a future time rendering is natural. Sara’s expectation is a present state, but what she expects lies in the future.97

94 The we-Vsuff clauses will be discussed in section C.2. See also Isaksson (forthcoming a). 95 In archaic poetry, where a ‘storyline’ is still sometimes coded by asyndetic VprefS clauses, a circumstantial VprefL is sometimes found to code a digression, as in Ps. 18:21 Ø-VprefS + [Ø-PrP-VprefL!] ‘the LORD dealt with me according to my righteousness [rewarding me according to the cleanness of my hands]’, where the circumstantial clause amounts to a same-event addition (different aspect of the same action). 96 The LXX marks the reason nuance by a γὰρ: ὃς γὰρ ἂν ἀκούσῃ συγχαρεῖταί μοι. 97 A poetic example of a circumstantial switch from a Vsuff clause is found in Ps. 6:10 (Vsuff+[Ø-Snoun-Onoun-VprefL]). It is a same-event addition of the type Mary came first in her race, [winning the prize] (Dixon 2009, 27).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

221

An asyndetic VprefL clause may encode an attendant circumstance in relation to practically all types of main clauses. In (74) the main line is a PA clause. (74) Pattern: we-Spron-PA+[Ø-Snoun-VprefL]; wa-ʾănī hinnī mēḇī ʾɛṯ ham-mabbūl mayim ʿal hå̄ -ʾå̄ rɛṣ lə-šaḥeṯ kål bå̄ śå̄ r ʾăšɛr bō rūaḥ ḥayyīm mit-taḥaṯ haš-šå̄ må̄ yim [kål ʾăšɛr bå̄ -ʾå̄ rɛṣ yigwāʿ] ‘I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it [whereby everything on earth will perish].’ (Gen. 6:17) The VprefL clause in this example has the same event time as the preceding PA clause, namely a point in the future.98 A VprefL clause often constitutes an attendant circumstantial clause in relation to a preceding imperative, jussive (VprefS) or we-Vsuff clause. In (75) the main line is a jussive clause. (75) Pattern: ʾal-VprefS+[Ø-Snoun-VprefL+[we-Vsuff]]; ʾal yippol lēḇ ʾå̄ ḏå̄ m ʿå̄ lå̄ w [ʿaḇdəḵå̄ yēlēḵ [wə-nilḥam ʿim hap-pəlištī hazzɛ]] ‘Let no man’s heart fail because of him; [for your servant will go [and fight with this Philistine]].’ (1 Sam. 17:32) The asyndetic VprefL clause with fronted subject is a circumstantial clause saying, ‘in that your servant is going’. In this case the VprefL does not take over an event time from the main line (which, here, is a jussive), instead it forms a reason for the appeal in the jussive (main line) clause.99 An imperative clause with a circumstantial VprefL clause is found in (76).

98 Other cases of a switch PA/VprefL: Exod. 13:22, 1 Sam. 2:8 (with two VprefL clauses PA + [Ø-PrP-VprefL!] + [we-Onoun-VprefL]), Num. 24:16 (PA + [Ø-Onoun-VprefL! + PA+PP]: ‘Word of him who hears God's speech, who obtains knowledge from the Most High [in that he beholds visions from the Almighty [prostrate], [but with eyes unveiled]]’). Examples of a switch NCl/VprefL: Exod. 16:25 (with result nuance), Gen 49:27 (with two VprefL clauses: NCl+REL+[Ø-PrP-VprefL]+[we-PrP-VprefL]), Ps. 5:10 (NCl+[Ø-Onoun-VprefL]). 99 The we-Vsuff clause expresses an affirmative accompanying action (without topicalized element) in relation to the VprefL clause, taking over its event time: ‘and (thereby) fight with this Philistine’, see section C.2.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

222

Bo Isaksson

(76) Pattern: IMP+[Ø-ADV-VprefL-Onoun]; ʿăśē ləḵå̄ tēḇat ʿăṣē gop̄ ɛr [qinnīm taʿăśɛ ʾɛṯ hat-tēḇå̄ ] ‘Make yourself an ark of gopher wood [making the ark with rooms].’ (Gen. 6:14) The VprefL clause in (76) has the same event time as the imperative (that is, future), but does not describe a separate action. The asyndesis signals concomitant action and codes one of the actions that should be taken while making the whole ark: ‘making the ark with rooms’.100 As is well-known, we-Vsuff (‘we-qatal’) clauses are extremely frequent in instructions, and in such contexts they must usually be analysed as forming the instructional main line. It is less well-known that VprefL clauses often form circumstantial clauses in relation to the backbone chain of we-Vsuff clauses. An example is (77). (77) Pattern: we-Vsuff+[Ø-PrP-VprefL]; wə-nå̄ ṯattī ʾɛṯ haṭ-ṭabbå̄ ʿōṯ ʿal ʾarbaʿ hap-pēʾōṯ ʾăšɛr lə-ʾarbaʿ raḡlå̄ w [ləʿummaṯ ham-misgɛrɛṯ tihyɛnå̄ haṭ-ṭabbå̄ ʿōṯ lə-ḇātīm lə-ḇaddīm lā-śēṯ ʾɛṯ haš-šulḥå̄ n] ‘you fasten the rings to the four corners at its four legs [in that the rings that hold the poles used for carrying the table shall be close to the rim].’ (Exod. 25:27) VprefL clauses such as in (77) are usually translated as if they were part of the back bone of instruction, but switches of this kind create an information structure even in an instructional text (Isaksson 2014a, 35-37). We-Vsuff clauses may, just as well, describe repetitive actions in a narrative context. In such instances, a VprefL clause may also function as a circumstantial. In (78) two circumstantial clauses are involved in the clause combining. (78) Pattern: we-Vsuff+[Ø-Onoun-VprefL]+[we-Onoun-VprefL]; wə-šå̄ p̄ əṭū ʾɛṯ hå̄ -ʿå̄ m bə-ḵål ʿēṯ [ʾɛṯ had-då̄ ḇå̄ r haq-qå̄ šɛ yəḇīʾūn ʾɛl Mōšɛ] [wə-ḵål had-då̄ ḇå̄ r haq-qå̄ ṭōn yišpūṭū hēm]

100 I analyse the qinnīm ‘rooms’ as adverbial, ‘with rooms’. Other examples of IMP/VprefL: Exod. 16:16, 19:12, Job 7:7 (IMP+[Ø-lō-VprefL!] with a nuance of reason); possibly also Ps. 17:8 (IMP + [Ø-PrP-VprefL]).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

223

‘and they rendered decisions for the people at all times, [and hereby they referred to Moses the more difficult cases], [while they themselves settled all the minor cases].’ (Exod. 18:26) In (78) a habitual action is described by a we-Vsuff clause. Two attendant circumstantial actions, likewise habitual, are coded by two VprefL clauses of which the first is asyndetic. It is a description of a procedure with two actions going on simultaneously, the difficult cases and the minor ones.101 In this kind of concatenation of two circumstantial clauses, the asyndesis of the first VprefL clause is the signal of simultaneity (with the action in the we-Vsuff clause) and the we in front of the second VprefL clause signals that the two have equal status (both are circumstantial in relation to the main line we-Vsuff clause).

B.2.2 The syndetic VprefL clause Clauses of the types we-NEG-VprefL or we-X-VprefL connect as additions to a previous clause. The simple *we-VprefL clause became unacceptable in Proto-Hebrew because of confusion with the (purposive) clause-initial weVprefS clauses (A.2.3). Instead the emerging we-Vsuff clause (C.2), also affirmative and with no topicalized element, replaced the old *we-VprefL clause. This is the reason why the innovative we-Vsuff clauses gradually ‘took over’ meanings typical of the VprefL gram. This is also the reason why the innovative we-Vsuff clauses with new meanings ‘could not be negated’ nor ‘could be split up’ by a topicalized element ‘X’ between the we and the Vsuff. There was no need to. Such functions (negative meaning, topicalized constituent) were retained by the old VprefL clause types.102

101 Other instances of we-Vsuff/Ø-X-VprefL clause combining: Gen. 17:20 (we-Vsuff + [Ø-Onoun-VprefL!]), Exod. 8:7 (NCl + [we-Vsuff + [Ø-ADV-VprefL]), 12:4 (weVsuff + [Ø-PrP-VprefL]), 25:28 (we-Vsuff + [Ø-Onoun-VprefL!]), 25:29 (we-Vsuff + [Ø-Onoun-VprefL!]), 25:31 (we-Vsuff+[Ø-Onoun-VprefL!]+[Ø-Onoun-VprefL]). 102 This is also the reason why the we-Vsuff syntagm with innovative meanings similar to the VprefL gram has been perceived by the grammars to constitute an unbreakable unit, a conjugation, a ‘gram’ of its own (Isaksson, forthcoming a).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

224

Bo Isaksson

The verb in VprefL clauses is strictly non-initial.103 The various functions of a syndetic VprefL clause derive from two basic facts. As an accompanying action (we marks ‘addition’) it is connected to a previous action, state, wish or command. And as an imperfective clause (because of its VprefL predicate) it may describe many possible nuances, such as futurity, habituality, and continuous action. And take on apodictic meanings (‘you shall’ > ‘you must’).

B.2.2.1 The syndetic NEG-VprefL clause The dominating negation before a VprefL verb is lō. This negation is normally a signal that the prefix verb is long. When the VprefS/VprefL distinction was threatened by collapse and the affirmative we-Vsuff syntagm in many addition clauses superseded the VprefL gram, the negative addition clauses of the type we-lō-VprefL were retained because they were unambiguous. In this sense, we-lō-VprefL clauses, as also the we-X-VprefL clauses, represent a retention, an ‘archaism’. If the explanation above is right, and the we-Vsuff type of clause in affirmative clauses without topicalized element replaced the *we-VprefL clause type, then we should expect to encounter cases where we-Vsuff clauses interact with the we-NEG-VprefL clauses which are of equal status. This is, in fact, a very frequent feature in Biblical Hebrew texts. One example is (79). (79) Pattern: we-kī-VprefL!+[we-Vsuff]+[we-lō-VprefL!]+[we-Vsuff]; wə-ḵī yərīḇūn ʾănå̄ šīm [wə-hikkå̄ ʾɛṯ rēʿēhū bə-ʾɛḇɛn ʾō ḇə-ʾɛḡrōp̄ ] [wə-lōyå̄ mūṯ] [wə-nå̄ p̄ al lə-miškå̄ ḇ] ‘If men quarrel [and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist] [and he does not die] [but is confined to bed],’ (Exod. 21:18; NIB) The whole verse 18 in (79) is a protasis in legal discourse (the apodosis does not concern us here). This protasis is built by four clauses of which the first is the main clause introduced by the particle kī, which here functions as a temporal conditional marker (conjunction).104 What concerns us in this legal protasis is the series of accompanying actions (legal circumstances) that are coded by one we-Vsuff clause, one we-lō-VprefL clause, and again one we-Vsuff 103 This syntactic feature is the decisive mark of a VprefL verb. Usually, the morphology agrees with the syntactic mark, but in the rare cases when a morphologically long prefix verb is clause-initial, it is intended as short, as in Ps. 18:40. 104 The we before the kī probably connects this legal case with previous legal cases stated in Exod. 21.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

225

clause. Legal cases have to be very specific and the main clause in the protasis, ‘If men quarrel’ must be qualified by three further circumstances, of which one is negative. These accompanying actions all have equal status. The we-lō-VprefL represents the old accompanying action construction, the weVsuff represent the innovation when *we-VprefL could no longer be used. Another example, with a we-Vsuff clause and a we-lō-VprefL clause of equal status, is (80). (80) Pattern: Ø-Snoun-VprefL + ʾim-lō-Vsuff + [we-Vsuff] + [we-lō-VprefL]; šəḇūʿaṯ YHWH tihyɛ bēn šənēhɛm ʾim lō šå̄ laḥ yå̄ ḏō bi-mlɛḵɛṯ rēʿēhū [wəlå̄ qaḥ bəʿå̄ lå̄ w] [wə-lō yəšallēm] ‘(then) an oath before the LORD shall settle (the issue) between them that the neighbor did not lay hands on the other person's property, [and at that the owner shall accept (this)], [and (the neighbor) shall not make restitution].’ (Exod. 22:10) Example (80) shows the apodosis of a legal case concerning a man who leaves his animal to his neighbour for safety, “If a man gives a donkey, an ox, a sheep or any other animal to his neighbour for safekeeping and it dies or is injured or is taken away while no-one is looking” (NIB). Example (80) describes how such a case is settled legally. There shall be an oath before God, and in two additive clauses the actions are stated that should accompany the oath, from the side of the owner of the animal, and from the side of the neighbor. The negative clause is coded by a we-lō-VprefL clause, the affirmative accompanying action is coded by a we-Vsuff clause.105 The general meaning of a we-lō-VprefL clause is an accompanying negated action with imperfective aspect. When the pre-clause has a Vsuff verb predicate, the Vsuff sometimes describes an anterior action which contrasts with the imperfective aspect of the additive syndetic VprefL clause, which may result in a habitual present or a future (81).

105 Other examples of equal status we-Vsuff and we-lō-VprefL clauses: Gen. 9:15 (weVsuff+we-lō-VprefL), 17:5 (we-Vsuff+we-lō-VprefL+we-Vsuff), Exod. 9:4 (hinnēSpron-PA+[we-Vsuff]+[we-NEG-VprefL!]), 10:5, 12:13, 12:23, Exod. 21:22 (kīVprefL+[we-Vsuff] + [we-Vsuff] + [we-lō-VprefL]), 21:29 (ʾim-NCl+[we-Vsuff] + [we-lō-VprefL]+[we-Vsuff], in protasis), 21:33 (we-kī-VprefL+ʾō+kī-VprefL+we-lōVprefL), 22:10 (we-Vsuff+we-lō-VprefL, within apodosis), 1 Sam. 1:11 (ʾim-VNabsVprefL+we-Vsuff+we-lō-VprefL).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

226

Bo Isaksson

(81) Pattern: Spron-Vsuff + [we-lō-VprefL] + we-Vsuff + [we-lō-VprefL]; ha-hū ʾå̄ mar [wə-lō yaʿăśɛ] wə-ḏibbɛr [wə-lō yəqīmɛnnå̄ ] ‘Has he said, [and will not do it]? Or has he spoken, [and will not fulfill it?]’ (Num. 23:19; ESV) The proposed translations of the VprefL clauses in (81) vary, of course, considerably. A present tense rendering ‘Has he spoken [and at that does not fulfill it]?’ is quite as correct. The point in this clause combining is to express an action that is closely connected with the Vsuff pre-clause, not as an attendant circumstantial clause, but as an action that temporally succeeds the Vsuff clause and is closely connected with it. Also a modal (jussive) VprefS clause may be qualified by one or two syndetic VprefL clauses that express an accompanying (apodictic) action. (82) Pattern: ʾal-VprefS+[we-lō-VprefL]+[we-Onoun-VprefL]; ʾal tōḵəlū mim-mɛnnū nå̄ ū-ḇå̄ šēl məḇuššå̄ l bam-må̄ yim kī ʾim ṣəlī ʾēš rōšō ʿal kərå̄ ʿå̄ w wə-ʿal qirbō [wə-lō ṯōṯīrū mim-mɛnnū ʿaḏ bōqɛr] [wə-hannōṯå̄ r mim-mɛnnū ʿaḏ boqɛr bå̄ -ʾēš tiśrōp̄ ū] ‘Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in water, but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts. [And you shall let none of it remain until the morning]; [anything that remains until the morning you shall burn].’ (Exod. 12:9-10; ESV) The three clauses in (82) should not be rendered as having equal status, as many translations do. The role of the switch from jussive to syndetic VprefL clauses is to express accompanying (apodictic) actions in the future, ‘at that you shall let none of it remain ...’. The second VprefL clause has a topicalized object constituent han-nōṯå̄ r mim-mɛnnū ʿaḏ boqɛr ‘anything that remains until the morning’ (see next section).106 Since the VprefL gram is not confined to a specific temporal reference, a we-lō-VprefL may code an accompanying action to a narrative main line of wa-VprefS clause, although this is rather infrequent in narrative prose. In such a position the VprefL gram is “neutralized” by the negation (the event is not realized) and may in some instances to function as a perfective Vsuff gram.

106 Other examples of modal pre-clauses are with we-lō-VprefL: Gen. 42:20 (we-OnounVprefL+[we-VprefS+[we-lō-VprefL]), 47:19 (IMP+[VprefA+[we-lō-VprefL!] + [weSnoun-lō-VprefL]]), and Exod. 9:28 (IMP+[we-VprefA+[we-lō-VprefL!]]).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

227

(83) Pattern: wa-VprefS+[we-lō-VprefL]; way-yuggaḏ lə-šå̄ ʾūl kī ḇå̄ raḥ då̄ wīḏ gaṯ [wə-lō-yōsēp̄ ʿōḏ lə-ḇaqšō] ‘And it was told Saul that David was fled to Gath; [and he sought no more again for him].’ (1 Sam. 27:4; JPS) The example gives the kethiv rendering with a verb ywsp that formally can be also a Qal participle, but a prefix verb is more probable. 107 A we-lō-Vsuff clause would have been more mainstream SBH, and this is also what the qere offers here: wə-lō-yå̄ sap̄ (cf. C.3.3).108

B.2.2.2 The syndetic X-VprefL clause The ‘X-VprefL’ type of clause has a topicalized element placed before the verb, as was shown already in example (83). Since the verb in such a clause was non-initial, this type of clause was not in danger of being confused with a VprefS clause. In some contexts such a clause describes a background action. In other contexts, and depending on the pre-clause, it describes a subsequent action or state. The latter is true of the we-X-VprefL clauses in example (84). (84) Pattern: NCl + [we-Snoun-VprefL] + [we-Snoun-VprefL] + [we-SnounVprefL]; šənē ḡōyīm bə-ḇiṭnēḵ [ū-šənē ləʾummīm mim-mēʿayiḵ yippå̄ rēḏū] [ū-ləʾōm mi-lʾōm yɛʾɛ̆må̄ ṣ] [wə-raḇ yaʿăḇoḏ ṣå̄ ʿīr] ‘There are two nations in your womb. [From birth they will be two rival peoples]. [One of these peoples will be stronger than the other], [and the older will serve the younger].’ (Gen. 25:23; CSB) The pre-clause in (84) is a noun clause describing a present state in a direct speech quotation. The three VprefL clauses that follow describe actions that clearly succeed the state in the noun clause. The three are directly connected

107 Thus also Joosten (1999, 24) who regards it a “yiqtol”, but refers to it as the qere version. 108 A case with we-lō-Vsuff and the same verb is found in 2 Sam. 2:28 which also exhibits an example of we-lō-VprefL in a prose text (J: “past modal”). Instances of we-lōVprefL in similar positions with past time reference have often been regarded difficult or problematic. Some more examples are: Gen. 2.25 (J: “past modal”) (wa-VprefS + [we-lō-VprefL]), Judg. 6:4 (wa-VprefS+[we-lō-VprefL]), 12:6, 1 Sam. 1:7 (wa-VprefS + [we-lō-VprefL]), 2 Sam. 1:22 (PrP-Vsuff + [we-Snoun-lō-VprefL!]), Ps. 18:38 (ØVprefS + [we-VprefS] + [we-lō-VprefL!]; with perfective past time Ø-VprefS), 18:39 (Ø-VprefS+[we-lō-VprefL]). (J) = Joosten (1999, 24).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

228

Bo Isaksson

to the state coded by the noun clause, but with future event time. Semantically, they may also be analysed as elaborations of the NCl clause. The elaborations constitute a prophecy on the meaning of the twins in Rebekah’s womb. What marks the VprefL clauses as accompanying actions is the ū (allomorph of we) before the first VprefL clause. The other two occurrences of we bind the three VprefL clauses together as having equal status (cf. the discussion of (78)).109 An accompanying action of the type we-X-VprefL sometimes acquires a nuance of contrast, due to the topicalized X-element. An example is (85). (85) Pattern: ADV-Spron-PA+[we-Onoun-VprefL]; ʿal kēn ʾănī zōḇēăḥ l-YHWH kål pɛṭɛr rɛḥɛm haz-zəḵå̄ rīm [wə-ḵål bəḵōr bå̄ nay ʾɛp̄ dɛ] ‘Therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all the males that first open the womb, [but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem].’ (Exod. 13:15; ESV) In this example, the VprefL clause codes an action that is concomitant with that in the preceding clause: ‘but at that I redeem all firstborn of my sons’. The PA clause expresses a habitual action, and so does the VprefL clause, which describes a contrasting exception in the general procedure of sacrificing all that opens a womb. A we-X-VprefL clause may, in specific contexts, receive a nuance of result, as in (86). The example shows an addition, and the context favours a result interpretation (Dixon 2009, 28).110 (86) Pattern: Ø-Vsuff+[we-Snoun-VprefL]; på̄ ḏå̄ nap̄ šī mē-ʿăḇōr baš-šå̄ ḥaṯ [wə-ḥayyå̄ ṯī bå̄ -ʾōr tirʾɛ] ‘He redeemed my life from going down to the place of corruption, [and my life sees the light]!’ (Job 33:28; NET) In (86) Elihu son of Barakel states, with a Vsuff clause, that God redeemed (perfective) or has redeemed (anterior) his life from going down in šaḥaṯ (here 109 Other instances of NCl + syndetic VprefL are Ps 1:2 (kī-NCl+[we-Onoun-VprefL!] with result nuance), and 18:23 (kī-NCl+[we-Onoun-VprefL!]). 110 An explicit result is rendered by the German SCL, ‘er hat meine Seele erlöst, daß sie nicht ins Verderben hinabgefahren ist, so daß mein Leben das Licht wieder sieht!’. Other instances of Vsuff pre-clause with syndetic X-VprefL are: Gen. 4:14 (Vsuff+[we-PrP-VprefL] with result nuance), 2 Sam. 1:22 (PrP-Vsuff+[we-SnounVprefL!]).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

229

in pause: šå̄ ḥaṯ). The consequence is that his life can see light. The accompanying action clause takes over the event time from the Vsuff clause and adds a result clause with dynamic action: ‘from then my life sees light’. In relation to a storyline of wa-VprefS clauses, the syndetic VprefL clause is not as frequent as could be expected. The extant examples show the same variation of meaning as we have seen above. A pure addition is found in (87). (87) Pattern: wa-VprefS +[we-VNabs+VprefL]; wat-tiṯpallel ʿal YHWH [ū-bå̄ ḵō ṯiḇkɛ] ‘Hannah prayed to the LORD, [weeping bitterly].’ (1 Sam. 1:10; NIV) The NIV translation has correctly perceived that there is a linking between the wa-VprefS clause and the VprefL clause. The addition expresses ‘and at that she wept bitterly’ with an imperfective aspect and with a concomitant event.111 An addition with a VprefL verb may also function as an elaboration (Dixon 2009, 27). This is shown in (88). (88) Pattern: wa-VprefS+[we-Snoun-VprefL]; way-yarʿem baš-šå̄ mayim YHWH [wə-ʿɛlyōn yitten qōlō bå̄ rå̄ ḏ wə-ḡaḥălē ʾēš] 111 The prototypical imperfective meaning of the VprefL gram is sometimes hard to perceive in non-main addition clauses with VprefL predicate. In (87) the VprefL gram is not more ‘iterative’ than the initial wa-VprefS clause (which however is compatible with continuous or iterative actions, see (29) and (30)). But the main clause in (87) is by implication continuous (‘prayed to the Lord’) and this is probably the reason for the choice of a VprefL gram in the addition clause. It is to be expected that the properties of the VprefL gram are not fully realized in non-main clauses. “Difficult cases” of weX-VprefL clauses with ‘neutral’ or close to ‘punctual action’ after a wa-VprefS clause are: Gen. 37:7 (J: “past modal”) (we-hinnē-Vsuff + we-gam-Vsuff + we-hinnē-VprefL; ‘then your bundles came gathering around mine’), Exod. 8:20 (wa-VprefS+[we-PrPVprefL]), Deut. 2:12 (J) (we-PrP-Vsuff+ [we-Snoun-VprefL], ‘but the descendants of Esau drove them out (successively)’), 2 Sam. 15:37 (wa-VprefS+[we-Snoun-VprefL]; ‘So Hushai David's friend came into the city; and Absalom was at the point of coming into Jerusalem’ JPS), 23:10 (J: “iterative”) (wa-VprefS+[we-Snoun-VprefL]; ‘The Lord brought about a great victory that day [and the troops came strolling back to him – only to strip the slain]’), 1 Kgs 7:15,23 (J: “iterative”) (a special usage specifying the circumference of bronze pillars), 20:33 (wa-VprefS + "..." + [we-Snoun-VprefL]), 21:6 (J: “anomalous”) (kī-VprefL+wa-VprefS ‘Because I was talking to Naboth the Jezreelite and said to him’), Ps. 8:6 (wa-VprefS+[we-Onoun-VprefL] ‘You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crown him with glory and honour.’), 22:19 (ØVprefS+[we-PrP-VprefL]), 78:72 (wa-VprefS+[we-PrP-VprefL]), Isa. 6:4 (waVprefS+[we-Snoun-VprefL]). (J) refers to Joosten (1999, 24).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

230

Bo Isaksson

‘Then the LORD thundered from heaven, [and at that the Most High gave forth His voice – hail and fiery coals].’ (Ps. 18:14) A reasonable interpretation of this piece of archaic poetry is that the two clauses describe the same action, not two different actions. The description in the VprefL clause, ‘gave forth his voice – hail and fiery coals’, supplies additional information about the thundering from heaven.112 A syndetic X-VprefL clause may of course also be added to an imperative. A pure addition is shown in (89). (89) Pattern: IMP+[we-Onoun-VprefL!]; wə-śīm kɛsɛp̄ ʾīš bə-p̄ ī ʾamtaḥtō [wə-ʾɛṯ gəḇīʿī gəḇīăʿ hak-kɛsɛp̄ tå̄ śīm bə-p̄ ī ʾamtaḥaṯ haq-qāṭōn] ‘and put each man's money in the mouth of his bag. [In the mouth of the youngest one’s bag put also my silver goblet].’ (Gen. 44:1-2; NAB) The translators have had difficulty when rendering this clause combining. The action performed by the VprefL clause is not an elaboration and not a result, nor a reason. It is a separate accompanying action that is to be performed in close connection with that in the imperative clause.113 When a we-X-VprefL clause interacts with a we-Vsuff clause, the two clauses usually have equal status, the we-X-VprefL clause representing a syntactic retention, while the we-Vsuff clause is the innovative expression with no topicalized element (C.2). The meaning is often futural, habitual, or apodictic. A future meaning is found in example (90).114 (90) Pattern: we-Vsuff+*we-Onoun-VprefL!; ū-nəṯattīw lə-ḡōy gå̄ ḏōl *wə-ʾɛṯ bərīṯī ʾå̄ qīm ʾɛṯ yiṣḥå̄ q ‘and I will make him into a great nation, *but my covenant I will establish with Isaac’ (Gen. 17:20b-21a)

112 Other instances of indicative VprefS + syndetic X-VprefL are: Exod. 8:20 (wa-VprefS +[we-PrP-VprefL]), Isa. 6:4 (wa-VprefS+[we-Snoun-VprefL]), Ps. 8:6 (wa-VprefS + [we-Onoun-VprefL]), 78:72 (wa-VprefS + [we-PrP-VprefL] same-event addition). 113 Other instances of IMP + syndetic VprefL are: Gen. 24:14 (IMP+[we-Onoun-VprefL] pure addition), Exod. 5:18 (IMP + IMP + [we-Snoun-NEG-VprefL] + [we-OnounVprefL];), and Job 6:24 (IMP+[we-Spron-VprefL!] result). 114 The equal status we-X-VprefL clauses are marked by *.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

231

The two clauses are separated by a verse border in the written text, which for a modern reader tends to conceal the continuity of the procedural main line in which the clauses are of equal status, only that the second clause has a topicalized object noun, ‘my covenant’. A similar addition of a clause with topicalized subject and equal status can be perceived in (91). (91) Pattern: we-Vsuff+*we-Snoun-lō-VprefL; ū-nəṯattīw l-YHWH kål yəmē ḥayyå̄ w *ū-mōrå̄ lō yaʿălɛ ʿal rōšō ‘then I will give him to the LORD all the days of his life, *and no razor shall touch his head.’ (1 Sam. 1:11; ESV) In contexts of longer promises, the core of the promised actions is often coded by the affirmative we-Vsuff clauses without topicalized element, expressing only the actions themselves. In such a main line, a syndetic VprefL clause expresses either a negative action or a clause with topicalized clause constituent, mōrå̄ ‘razor’. In (91), ‘I shall give him to the Lord ... [and razor shall not touch his head]’, there is no result nuance involved in the VprefL clause, nor a contrast. The VprefL has the same event time as the we-Vsuff clause (future). A negation in such a clause is placed after the topicalized element (mōrå̄ ‘razor’), immediately before the verb.115

B.3 Summary The VprefL gram is restricted to non-clause-initial position. Its negation is lō (in poetry sometimes bal). As a main clause it expresses the meanings to be expected from an imperfective gram trajectory: progressive (less frequent in SBH), future, habitual, iterative, and apodictic meanings. The VprefL gram is frequent in instructions and procedural discourse (alternating with we-Vsuff clauses).

115 Other instances of equal status we-Vsuff and syndetic X-VprefL clauses: Gen. 6:19 (we-Vsuff+we-PrP-VprefL!), 17:6 (we-Vsuff+we-Snoun-VprefL), 30:42 (we-Vsuff + we-PREP-VN+lō-VprefL!), 44:9 (REL-VprefL + [we-Vsuff + we-Spron-VprefL]), 47:24 (we-Vsuff+we-Snoun-VprefL), Exod. 4:21 (we-Vsuff+we-Spron-VprefL+we-lōVprefL), 7:15, 7:17-18, 12:12, 12:22 (we-Vsuff+we-Spron-lō-VprefL), 13:13, 18:23, 21:35, 23:11, Judg. 2:3, 1 Sam. 1:5 (wa-VprefS + [we-Vsuff + we-PrP-VprefL, with habitual action and contrast), 1 Kgs 8:35, Amos 2:3 (we-Vsuff+we-Onoun-VprefL), 4:7 (we-Vsuff+we-PrP-VprefL!] habitual main line), Ps. 1:3 (we-Vsuff+we-SnounVprefL!).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

232

Bo Isaksson

When the clause is affirmative and there is no need of a topicalized clausal element, the expected *we-VprefL clause is supplanted by a we-Vsuff clause; a syntax that is characteristic of SBH (but not of the archaic poetry). The non-main asyndetic VprefL clause usually codes an attendant circumstance (always of the type Ø-X-VprefL or Ø-lō-VprefL). This clause type is mostly found in poetry. The non-main syndetic VprefL clause is an addition carrying meanings that are expected from an imperfective gram. It often has habitual or futural meanings, but sometimes it also comes close to a circumstantial clause. As an addition it may also acquire a nuance of result, depending on the context. Also, as non-main clauses we-X-VprefL or we-lō-VprefL clauses alternate with equal status we-Vsuff clauses (affirmative and without topicalized element).

C. Clause combining and the Vsuff gram The grammaticalization path of a resultative gram starts with a resultative meaning (‘he is gone’) and then normally develops an ability to take on also anterior meanings (‘he has gone away’). In a final stage the gram can express a perfective aspect (‘he went away’) and eventually also a past tense. In addition to this gamut of meanings, with a perfective aspect that is not temporally restricted to the past, future events may be viewed as bounded (‘prospective future’) and express optative nuances. The Vsuff gram in Standard Biblical Hebrew can express all these meanings. In such cases, the gram is still not a past tense (Bybee et al. 1994, 63-87, 93 and the summary on 95; Isaksson 2009, 134).

C.1 Vsuff clauses encoding a main line A resultative Vsuff in main line is mostly encountered in poetry. An example is found in Hannah’s prayer (92). (92) Pattern: Ø-Vsuff+Ø-Vsuff+Ø-Vsuff; ʿå̄ laṣ libbī b-YHWH rå̄ må̄ qarnī be-YHWH rå̄ ḥaḇ pī ʿal ʾōyəḇay ‘My heart exults in the LORD; my horn is exalted in the LORD. My mouth derides my enemies.’ (1 Sam. 2:1; ESV)

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

233

Hannah bursts out in praise after having born a son. In all three Vsuff clauses, a present state of joy and praise is described.116 The anterior meaning of the Vsuff is found in all kinds of texts, not the least in direct speech, as in (93). (93) Pattern: Ø-Vsuff+we-gam-Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}; då̄ nannī ʾɛ̆lōhīm wə-ḡam šå̄ maʿ bə-qōlī {way-yittɛn lī bēn} ‘God has vindicated me; he has listened to my plea {and gave me a son}.’ (Gen. 30:6) The reference is to an already completed action, the results of which are still relevant to the present situation of the speaker. It is reasonable to hold that the two Vsuff clauses have equal status.117 The perfective aspect views the action as a bounded whole and in narrative this is, consequently, rendered by an English past tense. In a royal chronicle, this usage of the Vsuff often codes a main line, as in (94). (94) Pattern: Snoun-Vsuff; w-īhōrå̄ m bɛn ʾaḥʾå̄ ḇ må̄ laḵ ʿal yiśrå̄ ʾēl bə-šōmərōn bi-šnaṯ šəmōnɛ ʿɛśrē l-īhōšå̄ p̄ å̄ ṭ mɛlɛḵ yəhūḏå̄ ‘Joram son of Ahab became king of Israel in Samaria in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah.’ (2 Kgs 3:1; NIV) The action is viewed as a bounded whole, in this context in the past, in a specific year in the history of Israel.118

116 Other instances of resultative Vsuff are: Num. 23:21 (‘Er schaut kein Unrecht in Jakob, und er sieht kein Unheil in Israel’, SCL), 2 Sam. 1:26 (Ø-Vsuff+ Ø-Vsuff+ Ø-Vsuff), Ps. 6:8 (Ø-Vsuff+Ø-Vsuff), 14:2. A significant relative clause with Vsuff is found in 2 Kgs 3:14 (‘As the LORD of hosts lives, before whom I stand’, ESV). 117 The main point here is not the wa-VprefS clause, which is treated under another heading above (A.1.2), and which codes an elaboration of the preceding Vsuff (or, alternatively, a temporal succession). Nearly all translators render the VprefS as an anterior. But when linked to the Vsuff clauses as an addition it takes over the temporal reference from them. It is not a new main clause. Other instances of anterior Vsuff in main line: Exod. 5:3 (Snoun-Vsuff), 5:10 (kō-Vsuff ‘This is what Pharaoh has said’, but many translators render this with present tense), 5:22 (ADV-Vsuff+ADV-Vsuff). 118 Other perfectives in main line: Gen. 27:35, 31:31 (kī-Vsuff+kī-Vsuff, with adverbial kī), Exod. 15:13 (Ø-Vsuff+Ø-Vsuff), 2 Sam. 23:2 (Snoun-Vsuff+[NCl]+Ø-Vsuff+PrPVsuff).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

234

Bo Isaksson

A proof that Vsuff is still not a past tense in SBH would be that it can be used for the immediate future (Bybee et al. 1994, 95). An example is (95). (95) Pattern: IMP, Vsuff; rəʾē nəṯattīḵå̄ ʾɛ̆lōhīm lə-p̄ arʿō ‘See, I make you as God to Pharaoh.’ (Exod. 7:1; NAS) The clause is often rendered by English perfect tense, but the event is still not fulfilled at the time of speech. Immediately before God’s utterance, Moses has exclaimed, ‘Behold, I am unskilled in speech; how then will Pharaoh listen to me?’ (NAS).119 The immediate future may also have nuances of potentiality, or an action that nearly could have happened, as in (96). (96) Pattern: ADV-Vsuff; kī ʿattå̄ šå̄ laḥtī ʾɛṯ yå̄ ḏī ‘For by now I could have stretched out my hand.’ (Exod. 9:15; NIV) God’s utterance is a threat to Pharaoh and an expression of the ability of God, and, yet, it is still not performed. The optative meaning of Vsuff is rare also in Arabic (Bybee et al. 1994, 93; Isaksson 2009, 132), and in Hebrew it usually needs an adverbial particle to be realized, as in (97). (97) Pattern: kī-ʾim-Vsuff+[CONJ-VprefL]; kī ʾim zəḵartanī ʾittəḵå̄ [kaʾăšɛr yīṭaḇ lå̄ ḵ] ‘Only remember me, [when it is well with you].’ (Gen. 40:14; ESV) Neither kī nor ʾim are conjunctions here, it is not a protasis. The ʾim particle expresses a polite ‘if only ...’.

C.2 The we-Vsuff (‘we-qatal’) clause The we-Vsuff clause in SBH exhibits an astonishing variation in meaning and temporal reference. The meanings are partly those otherwise found with the VprefL gram. This has led to the supposition that the ‘we-qatal’ syntagm 119 The immediate future is close in meaning to the bounded whole of a performative action. It is often hard to distinguish the one from the other: Gen. 1:29 (hinnē-Vsuff), 9:13 (Onoun-Vsuff, NET: ‘I will place my rainbow in the clouds’, NAS: ‘I set My bow in the cloud’), 14:22, 23:11.13, 41:41, 47:23 , 48:22.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

235

represents a separate gram in Biblical Hebrew (the term commonly used is ‘conjugation’). But there is no comparative evidence of two different kinds of suffix conjugations, nor is there comparative support for different stress patterns of the conjunction we with a Vsuff verb (Joosten 2012, 15). The position taken in the present article is that ‘we-qatal’ consists of the normal conjunction we and the normal verbal grammatical morpheme Vsuff. At the same time it is evident that, with the widened scope of the we-Vsuff type of clause, something has happened in the Hebrew verbal system that contrasts with neighbouring Canaanite languages. Meanings that are relatively rare in main line Vsuff clauses (cf. C.1 above), are frequently used in the weVsuff syntagm, especially the future, habitual and modal meanings. From the perspective of the ‘normal’ meanings of the Vsuff gram, it is conspicuous that the ‘new’ and unexpected meanings of the we-Vsuff clauses are those we would expect of the imperfective gram of the Hebrew verbal system, the VprefL. The innovative word order restrictions in Hebrew already discussed above were the result of a dramatic change that forced the speakers of (Proto-) Hebrew to radically reorganize the syntax of the verb in order not to lose contact with fundamental distinctions in the system of verbal grams. This radical change was caused by the loss of short final vowels and the subsequent loss of the old distinction yaqtul/yaqtulu. The dropping of final vowels led to a partial loss of the distinction between the short prefix verb and the long prefix verb. It was lost in the whole regular verb flection, except Hifil. The nearly complete morphological merger of the VprefS gram and the VprefL gram, gave rise to word order strategies in order to maintain the functional distinction between the two prefix grams (Gzella 2012, 100).120 As we have seen above, the solution was to place the VprefS verb in clause-initial position (except for the conjunction we/wa and except for clauses negated by ʾal). For the same reason, the VprefL gram could no longer be allowed to occupy a fronted position. With this restricted word order, and with the use of initial particles, the distinction between the VprefS gram and the VprefL gram was upheld, at least temporally, in Biblical Hebrew. It would be understandable if, after some time, the linguistic instinct sometimes failed to capture the meaning of the morphological distinction between, say, yå̄ qūm and yå̄ qŏm. Morphological mistakes could be allowed anyway, because the functional 120 See the introduction, Hypothesis: A word order revolution in Proto-Hebrew.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

236

Bo Isaksson

distinction was upheld by word order itself. In this perspective, the morphological distinction represented an archaism in Biblical Hebrew. We sometimes encounter forms that are long (VprefL) from a morphological point of view, but are placed in initial position and are evidently intended to be interpreted as jussives or indicative perfectives (‘VprefSᴸ’, cf. example (23)). This is where the we-Vsuff clause fits in. The Vsuff gram in the we-Vsuff syntagm is always clause-initial, and the conjunction we marks it as being an addition, an accompanying action. The we-Vsuff clause came in use in cases when a VprefL clause was no more acceptable. An accompanying action coded by a we-VprefL clause type would cause confusion with the (usually purposive) we-VprefS type (with a clause-initial VprefS). And confusion was avoided by using the we-Vsuff clause instead, presumably with a gradual widening of its application spectrum. The we-Vsuff clause took over some of the meanings and functions of the old simple syndetic affirmative VprefL clause (with no topicalized element). As soon as a negation was needed, or a topicalized (‘X’) element should precede the verb, the old VprefL clause was retained: we-lō-VprefL or we-X-VprefL. This fact has made some scholars conclude that the we-Vsuff syntagm “could not” be split up by a negation, that the we-Vsuff clause could not be negated. But there was no need for such ‘split’, there were already negated VprefL clauses available that complied with the word order rule: a we-X-VprefL or we-lō-VprefL could not give rise to confusion. The fact that we-Vsuff is an addition means that there is always a clause that precedes it, and to which it refers, a ‘pre-clause’.121 This does not mean that the pre-clause is always a main line. It is often not a main line and sometimes it is only a tiny noun clause coding a temporal predication. The weVsuff clause(s) rather often, from a textual point of view122 – codes a main line. So, there is nothing mystical about the we-Vsuff clause and it is not “equal with” a “yiqtol” clause, as is often maintained. And the we-Vsuff syntagm is not a gram of its own. The we-Vsuff clause codes an addition, the range of application of which has been widened beyond what we are used to see for other Vsuff clauses. It is a simple accompanying action, because it is always 121 See the section A cross-linguistic typology of semantic clausal relations, in the introduction. 122 Which is the perspective to be taken when we determine the main line in a text.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

237

affirmative and lacks a topicalized element. Its focus is on the verbal action itself. This is beautifully illustrated in (98), taken from legal discourse. (98) Pattern: (kī-VprefL+[we-Vsuff]+[ʾō-Vsuff]) ...; (kī yiḡnoḇ ʾīš šōr ʾō śɛ [ū-ṭəḇå̄ ḥō ʾō məḵå̄ rō]) ... ‘(If a man steals an ox or a sheep, [and kills it or sells it]),’ (Exod. 21:37; ESV) Example (98) shows the protasis construction (marked by parentheses) of a legal case. As is so common in legal discourse as well as in other protasis complexes, the protasis contains additional conditions, and in this case the additional conditions are coded first by a we-Vsuff clause then by an alternative action. The we-Vsuff clause describes an action that, in this legal case, must accompany that in the main protasis clause (the kī yiḡnoḇ ʾīš šōr ʾō śɛ) for the case to be valid. But the disjunctive alternative, signaled by ʾō, is not a we-Vsuff clause as we would possibly expect, but a Vsuff clause. Since this clause is completely parallel, the alternatives are symmetric and of equal status (Dixon 2009, 30). This ʾō-Vsuff clause has the same meaning and function as the we-Vsuff clause. Example (98) shows that the we-Vsuff syntagm is not a conjugation. It also shows that the conjunction we in a we-Vsuff clause is a ‘normal’ conjunction we with additive meaning. In the example, the we (in this case the allomorph ū) marks the following Vsuff as an accompanying action and in the disjunction clause there is no need to mark this a second time.123 There are instances when the we-Vsuff clause is actually ‘split up’, when there is no negation involved and no ‘normal’ topicalized element (which would result in a VprefL clause). This is the case with the adverb gam ‘also; moreover’ in (99). (99) Pattern: Ø-lō-VprefL + kī-NCl + [we-Vsuff] + [we-gam-Vsuff] + [weVsuff] + [we-Vsuff]; lō-tiqrå̄ ʾɛṯ-šəmå̄ h śå̄ rå̄ y kī śå̄ rå̄ šəmå̄ h [ū-ḇēraḵtī ʾōṯå̄ h] [wə-ḡam nāṯattī mim-mɛnnā ləḵå̄ bēn] [ū-ḇēraḵtīhā] [wə-hāyəṯå̄ lə-ḡōyīm] ‘you shall not call her Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. [I will bless her], [and moreover I will give you a son by her]. [I will bless her], [and she shall give rise to nations];’ (Gen. 17:15-16; NRS) 123 A similar example with disjunction is Exod. 22:13 (we-kī-VprefL +[we-Vsuff+ʾōVsuff+[Ø-NCl]]), also within a protasis.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

238

Bo Isaksson

In (99) we encounter an instruction to Abraham, but also a promise and a prophecy. The initial VprefL clause (lō-tiqrå̄ ʾɛṯ-šəmå̄ h śå̄ rå̄ y) is followed by we-Vsuff clauses describing actions that will accompany the renaming of Sarah. In this series of four we-Vsuff clauses, the second has an inserted gam ‘moreover’ between the conjunction and Vsuff verb. The meaning of the verb in this clause is the same as the surrounding we-Vsuff clauses, that is, future event time.124

C.2.1 The meanings of the we-Vsuff clause C.2.1.1 Pure accompanying action A ‘pure’ accompanying action lacks connotations of result and time. It just describes an action that is done in a certain connection with that of the preclause, not necessarily concomitant with it (but could be so). An example is (100). (100) Pattern: wa-VprefS+[we-Vsuff]; wa-yhī hay-yōm way-yizbaḥ ʾɛlqāna [wə-nå̄ ṯan li-p̄ ninnå̄ ʾištō ū-lə-ḵålbå̄ nɛ-hå̄ ū-bənōṯɛ-hå̄ må̄ nōṯ] ‘One such day, Elkanah offered a sacrifice. [And at that he gave portions to his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters.’ (1 Sam. 1:4) The addition in (100) is ‘pure’, in that there is no relation of result or temporal succession. The eating of the sacrifice was part of the offering. It is pertinent to ask why this we-Vsuff was not expressed by a new wa-VprefS (way-yitten). The answer is that the context is habitual, and habituality is one of the meanings the we-Vsuff ‘took over’ from the imperfective VprefL gram in simple affirmative clauses. The whole context is habitual, because year after year this specific offering was performed by Elkanah. No habituality is perceived in the next example, but instead a future time reference. (101) Pattern: ʾal-VprefS+[Ø-Snoun-VprefL+we-Vsuff]; ʾal yippol lēḇ ʾå̄ ḏå̄ m ʿå̄ lå̄ w [ʿaḇdəḵå̄ yēleḵ wə-nilḥam ʿim hap-pəlištī hazzɛ] ‘Let no man’s heart fail because of him; [for your servant will go and fight with this Philistine].’ (1 Sam. 17:32)

124 For a separate study of we-Vsuff clauses, see Isaksson (forthcoming a).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

239

The example shows three clauses. The jussive should be identified as the main clause. The next clause is asyndetic, so it is not an addition. It relates to the jussive clause by describing a reason why no man’s heart should fail. This reason clause is a typical attendant circumstantial clause, meaning ‘in that thy servant will go’ (the nuance of reason is understood). The continued action ‘and fight with ...’ should have been coded by a simple we-VprefL clause (wəyillå̄ ḥem) but, since such a clause was not allowed, the we-Vsuff clause was used in its stead. For historical reasons, the two clauses have equal status, in spite of the formal ‘gram switch’ that is displayed in the construction. In the next example there is neither future time, nor habituality in the meaning of the we-Vsuff clause (102). (102) Pattern: wa-VprefS+[we-Vsuff]; way-yōṣē ʾōṯå̄ h məšå̄ rəṯō ha-ḥūṣ [wə-nå̄ ʿal had-dɛlɛṯ ʾaḥărɛhå̄ ] ‘Then his servant brought her out, [and at that he bolted the door after her].’ (2 Sam. 13:18) The example illustrates what we would expect from an ‘original’ or ‘prototypical’ we-Vsuff clause. The we-Vsuff describes an action that accompanies that in the storyline, and the aspect is perfective with past temporal reference.125 Since the storyline is made up of wa-VprefS clauses, a new wa-VprefS (possibly *way-yinʿal) would have been unable to stress the close connection between the two events. The diachronic scope of Biblical Hebrew, and a reasonable assumption of a gradual widening of the semantic span of the we-Vsuff clause, justify an examination of one early and one late example of the usage of we-Vsuff clauses. The first example, (103), has been adduced by Notarius (2013, 288) as signifying a diachronic state when there was no special we-Vsuff clause, that is, with meanings close to a VprefL.

125 Amnon’s servant brings Tamar out of the house after Amnon has raped his sister. And as an accompanying action the servant bolts the door after her. The same type of switch is found in Judg. 3:23. This wə-nå̄ ʿal is commonly regarded as an example of “non-consecutive waw” or “copulative waw” or a textual error. The New English Translation (2004) remarks, “The Hebrew verb is a perfect with nonconsecutive vav, probably indicating an action (locking the door) that complements the preceding one (pushing her out the door)”. Driver (1913) suggests textual error with reference to GesK § 112tt, and so also Joüon and Muraoka (2006 § 119z).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

240

Bo Isaksson

(103) Pattern: Ø-Vsuff + we-Vsuff + we-Vsuff + we-Vsuff + we-Vsuff + weVsuff; då̄ raḵ kōḵå̄ ḇ miy-yaʿăqōḇ, wə-qå̄ m šeḇɛṭ miy-yiśrå̄ ʾēl, ū-må̄ ḥaṣ paʾăṯē Mōʾå̄ ḇ, wə-qarqar kål bənē šēṯ ‘A star is risen from Jacob, (thereby) a scepter comes forth from Israel; It smashes the brow of Moab, destroys all children of Seth. Edom becomes a possession, Yea, Seir a possession of its enemies.’ (Num. 24:17-18) This famous prophecy of Balaam is commonly held to be a piece of archaic poetry and is not easily compatible with what standard grammars describe to be normal usage of we-Vsuff clauses. The introductory Vpref clauses not quoted here (‘What I see for them is not yet, What I behold will not be soon’) sets the event time to sometime in the future. The heart of the prophecy (this example) then shifts to an asyndetic Vsuff clause. The listener perceives that the shift to a suffix verb raises the intenseness of the prophetic event by presenting it as something definite, as a resultative meaning, situated in the future: ‘a star is risen from Jacob’. With a context of prophetic future, the ØVsuff clause då̄ raḵ raises the imagination of the listener by stating that the action already occurs in the vision of the prophet. This prophetic future Vsuff is a well-known phenomenon in prophetic speech, but what is remarkable here is that the following we-Vsuff clauses seem to have the same meaning and temporal reference as the initial asyndetic då̄ raḵ. This passage could then be seen as a confirmation of Notarius’ observation. But there are some further observations to be made. The Ø-Vsuff clause and the we-Vsuff clauses have the same event time and the same verbal aspect. The we-Vsuff clauses follow after an initial asyndetic clause, då̄ raḵ. There is no variation in word-order, no subject or object is put before the verb. The series of five we-Vsuff clauses is quite spectacular: it is as if the poet wanted to avoid other positions of the verb, and for a specific reason. It is possible to interpret the we-Vsuff clauses as having a semantic relation to the initial asyndetic Vsuff då̄ raḵ: they can be construed as coding something additive to the initial statement: A scepter is risen from Israel, the rest are further details that are connected with this future event. It is not possible to interpret all we-Vsuff clauses as result clauses, some may be, but not all. If there is a meaning of consequence-result in some of the we-Vsuff clauses, this must be inferred from an analysis of the context, it is not explicitly coded by the we-Vsuff clauses themselves. The same holds for an interpretation of temporal succession. Some of the we-Vsuff clauses

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

241

can be pressed to express temporal succession, but not all of them. They just express actions that accompany the initial Ø-Vsuff clause. Example (103) is archaic poetry and what we observed concerning the function of the we-Vsuff clauses could be regarded the starting point of the internal development of the we-Vsuff clause, that is, (103) shows additions with ‘normal’ prophetic Vsuff properties. An alleged example from the diachronic end of the development, close to the ‘extinction’ of the we-Vsuff clause, is supplied by Joosten (2012, 16). He gives an example of a “copulative we-qatal”, in (104). (104) Pattern: (quotation) +we-Vsuff+we-lō-Vsuff; “......” wə-hɛḥɛ̆rīšū hå̄ -ʿå̄ m wə-lō ʿå̄ nū ʾōṯō då̄ ḇå̄ r ‘"...." But the people were silent and did not say a word in reply.’ (2 Kgs 18:36; TNK) The we-Vsuff clause in (104) comes directly after a long speech by the commander of the Assyrian army outside the walls of Jerusalem. This coding of what looks like a narrative thread by a we-Vsuff clause appears to Joosten to be non-classical Hebrew syntax. We would have expected a wayyiqtol syntagm here. It is hard to interpret this wə-hɛḥɛ̆rīšū with some of the usual functions of the we-Vsuff syntagm: it is certainly not modal, it is not future, it is not purposive, it is not a result clause, and it is hardly habitual action either. The people on the walls kept silent, not as a reaction of the speech, but on the command of king Hiskia. But what could certainly be stated about the weVsuff clause is that it is an action that accompanies the speech of the Assyrian commander: ‘at that speech the people kept silent’. In view of the diachronic extremes in the usage of the we-Vsuff syntagm, it is reasonable to suppose that the we-Vsuff clause went through a development from the earliest stage represented by the archaic poetry, a stage which in this respect resembles the earliest Northwest Semitic inscriptions, also the Aramaic ones. Then the we-Vsuff syntagm took over some additive usages from the VprefL gram (the simple ones without negation and without topicalized elements) and developed a broad semantic spectrum, including modal meanings, future, and habituality. The end stage constituted a return to ‘normal’ Vsuff meanings in addition position, that is additive we plus the Vsuff gram. It is reasonable to suppose that this renewed ‘normal’ additive narrative we-Vsuff should be understood in the light of the gradual displacement of

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

242

Bo Isaksson

narrative wayyiqtol with the qatal and we-Vsuff syntagms in late Biblical Hebrew.

C.2.1.2 A temporal connotation: ‘then’ The accompanying action easily lends itself to be interpreted as a temporal ‘then’, ‘at that occasion’, when the pre-clause involves an expression of time or condition or (legal) case. In such instances it is often incorrect to analyze the pre-clause as a main line clause, and the focal clause (the event at that time) must be analyzed as main line clause.126 This is evident in (105). (105) Pattern: [kī-VprefL]+we-Vsuff; [kī yəḏabber ʾălēḵɛm parʿō lēmōr ‘tənū lå̄ -ḵɛm mōp̄ ēṯ’] wə-ʾå̄ martå̄ ʾɛl ʾahărōn ... ‘[When Pharaoh says to you, ‘Prove yourselves by working a miracle,’] then you shall say to Aaron ...’ (Exod. 7:9; ESV) The temporal clause with an initial kī is a non-main clause in this linking, and the we-Vsuff clause achieves a temporal nuance because of the semantic properties of the pre-clause. In (105) there is no nuance of result or consequence involved, but in other contexts this ‘then’ of the we-Vsuff clause approaches that of the ‘then’ of the apodosis in a conditional clause linking. The same temporal nuance without any shade of consequence may be achieved when the pre-clause is coded by a participle, as in (106). (106) Pattern: Spron-PA+[we-Vsuff]+[we-Vsuff]; ka-ḥăṣōṯ hal-laylå̄ ʾănī yōṣē bə-ṯōḵ miṣrå̄ yim [ū-mēṯ kål bəḵōr be-ʾɛrɛṣ miṣrayim...] [wə-hå̄ yəṯå̄ ṣəʿå̄ qå̄ ḡəḏōlå̄ bə-ḵål ʾɛrɛṣ miṣrå̄ yim] ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt [and then every firstborn male in the land of Egypt will die ...] [and there will be a great cry of anguish through all the land of Egypt ...]’ (Exod. 11:4-6) The example illustrates the habit of forming chains of we-Vsuff clauses that are syntactical additions to the initial pre-clause, and which often constitute the textual main line of the passage. In (106) the pre-clause ‘I will go throughout Egypt’ is certainly not unimportant, but it is the more detailed weVsuff clauses that are focal (Dixon 2009, 6). In a sense, the we-Vsuff clauses 126 For ‘focal clause’, see the introduction, section A cross-linguistic typology of semantic clausal relations, and Dixon (2009, 3).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

243

could be classified as elaborations of the pre-clause, were it not for the conspicuous temporality in the text.127 The conspicuous syntactic applicability of the we-Vsuff clause is illustrated when the pre-clause is not a finite clause, as the PA in (106), or when the pre-clause is an infinitive, as in (107). (107) Pattern: [PREP-VN]+we-Vsuff; [bə-yallɛḏḵɛn ʾɛṯ hå̄ -ʿiḇriyyōṯ] ū-rəʾīṯɛn ʿal hå-ʾåḇnå̄ yim ‘[When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women], ye shall look upon the birthstool.’ (Exod. 1:16; JPS) Even when the pre-clause is an infinite clause it would be incorrect to analyse it as being a constituent in the we-Vsuff clause. The conjunction we still marks a juncture between two clauses, and in Hebrew this kind of clause combining is no anomaly. The event time is determined by the pre-clause (future), but there are still two separate clauses involved in the linking. This is also the case when the pre-clause is a noun clause containing just a temporal predicate, as in (108). (108) Pattern: [NCl]+we-Vsuff; [ʿōḏ məʿaṭ] ū-səqå̄ lūnī ‘[A little more] and they will stone me!’ (Exod. 17:4; NAB; NET) The pre-clause consists of a temporal adverb as predicate and the we-Vsuff clause amounts to a temporal ‘then’-clause: ‘when just a little more time (is gone), then they will stone me’.128 Not surprisingly one or more we-Vsuff clauses may follow an initial imperative: ‘Do that, and then ...’.129 Example (109) shows a somewhat complex

127 The brackets could therefore be placed around the pre-clause instead. 128 Examples like (107) and (108) are often taken as “proof” that we-Vsuff is a “conjugation” of its own. But Exod. 12:3 [bɛ-ʿå̄ śōr la-ḥoḏɛš haz-zɛ] wə-yiqḥū lå̄ hɛm ʾīš śɛ ləḇēṯ-ʾå̄ ḇōṯ śɛ lab-bå̄ yiṯ is a similar example with a prefix conjugation we-Vpref after a temporal predication (NCl coded by a PrP), and is not a “proof” that we-Vpref is a separate weyiqtol conjugation (wə-yiqḥū should be analysed as a jussive we-VprefS). 129 It is by no means a rule that an imperative must be continued by a we-qatal clause. More frequently imperative clauses are concatenated, as in Gen. 27:13, 42:18, 45:17, Exod. 2:9, 6:11, 12:31, 14:13, 16:33, 17:5, 17:9, and many more. Some, but not all, such examples of Ø-IMP+Ø-IMP linking are serial verb constructions, some (but possibly not all) examples of Ø-IMP+we-IMP linking express purpose (J-M § 116).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

244

Bo Isaksson

clause structure (in the instruction for Noah’s Ark), which involves imperative, long prefix verb and we-Vsuff clauses with a ‘then’ nuance. (109) Pattern: IMP+Ø-ADV-VprefL+[we-Vsuff]; ʿăśē lə-ḵå̄ tēḇaṯ ʿăṣē ḡop̄ ɛr qinnīm taʿăśɛ ʾɛṯ hat-tēḇå̄ [wə-kå̄ p̄ artå̄ ʾōṯå̄ h mib-bayiṯ ū-miḥūṣ bak-kop̄ ɛr] ‘Make yourself an ark of gopher wood making the ark with rooms, [and at that/then you should cover it inside and out with pitch]].’ (Gen. 6:14) The main general command in this example is coded by an imperative, ‘make yourself an ark’. The we-Vsuff clause is not about the rooms (referred to in the VprefL clause), but, in some way, qualifies the imperative, and concerns the whole ark, not the making of the rooms: the ark should be covered inside and out with pitch, an action that should accompany the building of the ark.130

C.2.1.3 Conditional constructions A conditional clause combining semantically involves an ‘if’-part (‘protasis’) and a ‘then’-part (‘apodosis’). Since a we-Vsuff clause, as we have seen, may express a temporal or logical ‘then’-meaning, it is often a suitable choice for an apodosis.131 An illustrative example is (110). (110) Pattern: (ʾim-VprefL+[we-Vsuff])+(we-Vsuff); (ʾim yå̄ ḇō ʿēśå̄ w ʾɛl ham-maḥănɛ hå̄ -ʾaḥaṯ [wə-hikkå̄ hū]) (wə-hå̄ yå̄ hammaḥănɛ han-nišʾå̄ r li-p̄ lēṭå̄ )

130 Other examples of temporal ‘then’ we-qatal clauses are found in Exod. 8:12 (IMP+weIMP+[we-Vsuff]), 8:23 (ADV-VprefL+[we-Vsuff+[CONJ-VprefL]]), 8:25 (hinnēSpron-PA+[we-Vsuff] +[we-Vsuff]), 12:48 (ʾāz-VprefL+[we-Vsuff]), 13:19 (VNabsVprefL+[we-Vsuff]), 16:5 (hinnē-Spron-PA+[we-Vsuff] + [we-Vsuff] + [we-Vsuff] + [we-Vsuff] + [we-Vsuff]), 16:6-7 ([NP]+we-Vsuff+ [NP]+we-Vsuff), 17:11 ([CONJVprefL!]+we-Vsuff+[CONJ-VprefL!]+we-Vsuff), Amos 4:2, 9:13-15 (many cases in prophetic contexts). 131 This function of the conjunction, “wāw of apodosis”, is attested also in early Akkadian (Sargonic) royal inscriptions (Kogan 2014, 54). It goes without saying that this and other designations of we (“waw of coordination”, “inversive waw”, “waw of succession”, “waw of accompaniment”, “waw adequationis”) do not refer to separate waws, not even separate “meanings” of waw but are in fact semantic descriptions of the relations of the clauses that are connected by waw (cf. J-M §§ 115, 117, 150p, 151a, 174h note 1).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

245

‘(If Esau comes to the one camp [and attacks it]), (then the camp that is left will escape).’ (Gen. 32:9; ESV)132 Conditional clause linkings are usually more complicated than in (110), but the example nevertheless permits some important observations. The example constitutes one finished utterance with just those three clauses. The apodosis is a we-Vsuff clause (wə-hå̄ yå̄ ...). The protasis consists of a complex of two clauses, of which the second is a we-Vsuff clause, wə-hikkāhū. Since wəhikkāhū is not an apodosis, what does it express? It functions just like other we-Vsuff clauses. The role of the wə-hikkāhū in the protasis is to add another condition; the condition becomes more specific by the we-Vsuff clause. The condition contains two specific events: if Esau arrives, and also attacks the camp. The most intriguing observation from example (110) remains, however. There is no specific syntactic marking of the apodosis. There are admittedly two we-Vsuff clauses in the example, but only one is contained in the apodosis, the other codes an addition within the protasis. In (110) the protasis is syntactically marked (by the conjunction ʾim). But we cannot by the syntactic coding alone determine where the apodosis begins. The beginning of the apodosis must be inferred from the pragmatic and semantic context, and, possibly, from the intonation (which is mainly unavailable to us modern readers). When the apodosis is to begin with a negative clause, the more ancient construction, with the VprefL gram, is used, and then with asyndesis. (111) Pattern: (kī-VprefL!+[we-Vsuff]+[we-Vsuff])+(Ø-lō-VprefL); (kī-yå̄ qūm bə-qirbəḵå̄ nå̄ ḇī ʾō ḥōlēm ḥălōm [wə-nå̄ ṯan ʾēlɛḵå̄ ʾōṯ ʾō mōp̄ ēṯ] [ū-ḇå̄ hå̄ -ʾōṯ wə-ham-mōp̄ ēṯ ...]) (lō ṯišmaʿ ʾɛl diḇrē han-nå̄ ḇī ha-hū ʾō ʾɛl ḥōlēm ha-ḥălōm ha-hū) ‘(If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you [and announces to you a sign or wonder], [and the sign or wonder spoken of takes place], ...) (then you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer).’ (Deut. 13:2-4)

132 For clarity, the protasis and the apodosis are enclosed within parentheses in a conditional clause combining.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

246

Bo Isaksson

In (111) the protasis is rather complicated with two affirmative addition clauses coded by we-Vsuff. The apodosis in this case is negative, ‘then you must not listen ...’, and in this case there is no need of the innovative we-Vsuff clause type. A lō-VprefL could be used without risk of confusion.133

C.2.1.4 A result connotation When time is not the foremost semantic part of the pre-clause, a nuance of result is often perceived in the we-Vsuff clause, also when there is no conditional linking in the construction. (112) Pattern: we-Snoun-Vsuff+we-Snoun-Vsuff+[we-Vsuff]; wə-yaʿăqōḇ šå̄ maʿ kī ṭimmē ʾɛṯ dīnå̄ ḇittō, ū-ḇå̄ nå̄ w hå̄ yū ʾɛṯ miqnēhū baśśå̄ ḏɛ [wə-hɛḥɛ̆rīš yaʿăqōḇ ʿad bōʾå̄ m] ‘Now Jacob heard that he had defiled his daughter Dinah. But his sons were with his livestock in the field, [so Jacob held his peace until they came].’ (Gen. 34:5; ESV) In (112) Jacob is informed of the raping of his daughter Dinah, but because his sons are in the fields he can do nothing for the moment. The result (weVsuff wə-hɛḥɛ̆rīš ...) is that he keeps silent until they arrive.134

C.2.1.5 Legal cases Legal cases often make use of a linking with one or several we-Vsuff clauses, as in (113). (113) Pattern: NP+[we-Vsuff+[Ø-Onoun-Vsuff]]; wə-ʿå̄ rēl zå̄ ḵå̄ r ʾăšɛr lō yimmōl ʾɛṯ bəśar ʿårlå̄ ṯō [wə-niḵrəṯå̄ han-nɛp̄ ɛš hahī mē-ʿammɛhå̄ [ʾɛṯ bərīṯī hēp̄ ar]] ‘Any uncircumcised male who will not let himself be circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin – [that person will be cut off from his people, [because he has broken my covenant]].’ (Gen. 17:14; CJB) 133 Other examples of conditional clause combining with we-Vsuff clauses involved: Gen. 27:45 (([PREP-VN]+[we-Vsuff])+(we-Vsuff);), 28:20-21 (ʾim-VprefL+[we-Vsuff] +[we-Vsuff] +[we-Vsuff] +[we-Vsuff]), 32:9 ((ʾim-VprefL+[we-Vsuff])+(we-Vsuff)), Exod. 4:8 ((ʾim-lō-VprefL + we-lō-VprefL) + we-Vsuff), 12:44 (([NCl + [we-Vsuff]) + (ʾāz-VprefL)), 1 Sam. 11:3 ((ʾim-NCl-PA)+(we-Vsuff)). 134 Other examples of result nuance in a we-Vsuff clause are: Gen. 17:13 (VNabs+VprefL+[we-Vsuff]), 29:15 (INT-(kī-NCl + [we-Vsuff])), 30:15 (INT-NCl + [we-Vsuff]), 47:22, Judg. 1:24, Isa. 6:7, Ps. 18:35 (PA+[we-Vsuff]).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

247

(113) is a legal case, the case with the uncircumcised man. We can interpret the initial noun phrase (NP) with Carl Brockelmann as an ‘eingliedrige Nominalsats’ (Brockelmann 1956 § 13). It is an imagined situation when an uncircumcised man appears. Even if the phrase is short, typical for legal language, it is a predication. And after this pre-clause comes the we-Vsuff clause, coding the action that should accompany the case with the uncircumcised man: ‘on that occasion the person must be cut off’. We could of course translate: ‘an uncircumcised man should be cut off’, and that would give good meaning and possibly accord well with English legal language. But this is not the way Biblical Hebrew codes the case. First we have the case, and then by we-Vsuff clauses is stated the punishment which should or must accompany that case.135

C.2.2 we-Vsuff clauses encoding instruction or procedure we-Vsuff clauses are used extensively in instruction and procedure, and in such instances the chain of we-Vsuff usually constitutes a main line. 136 A simple example of instruction is one of the ten commandments, where the weVsuff is seemingly not a main clause, is (114). (114) Pattern: ADV-VprefL+[we-Vsuff]; šēšɛṯ yå̄ mīm taʿăḇoḏ [wə-ʿå̄ śīṯå̄ kål məlaḵtɛḵå̄ ] ‘Six days you shall labor [and at that do all your work].’ (Exod. 20:9) The initial commandment is complemented by another clause coding an action that should accompany the first. The we-Vsuff clause is a commandment in this context, but it is not something that is expected to occur after the six days or as a result of the six days. Nor is the we-Vsuff clause a purpose clause. The action of the we-Vsuff is to be performed during the six days. The we-Vsuff clause means that on the six days all work must be done.137

135 The non-main Ø-Onoun-Vsuff clause is not our main concern in the present section. It codes a circumstantial clause giving the reason for the punishment (‘since he has ...’), see C.3.1. 136 I am not concerned, here, with all possible types of discourse that make a conspicuous use of we-Vsuff clauses, such as procedural, hortatory, expository, or instructional discourse. There are semantic differences, and they certainly represent different Sitz im Leben, but the syntactic are less dramatic. In SBH they can be subsumed under the heading ‘discourse type with a main line of affirmative we-Vsuff clauses’. 137 Long chains of main line we-Vsuff clauses are found in the instruction on the building of the tabernacle, Exod. 25-26.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

248

Bo Isaksson

(115) Pattern: 10we-Vsuff1 + [Ø-NCl+ we-NCl + we-NCl] 11 + we-Vsuff2 + [Ø-ADV-VprefL] + we-Vsuff3 + 12 we-Vsuff4 + we-Vsuff5 + [we-NCl] + [we-NCl]+ 13 + we-Vsuff6 + we-Vsuff7; wə-ʿå̄ śū1 ʾărōn ʿăṣē šiṭṭīm [ʾammå̄ tayim wå̄ -ḥēṣī ʾårkō] [wə-ʾammå̄ wå̄ -ḥēṣī råḥbō] [wə-ʾammå̄ wå̄ -ḥēṣī qōmå̄ ṯō] 11 wə-ṣippīṯå̄ 2 ʾōṯō zå̄ hå̄ ḇ ṭå̄ hōr [mib-bayiṯ ū-mi-ḥūṣ təṣappɛnnū] wə-ʿå̄ śīṯå̄ 3 ʿå̄ lå̄ w zēr zå̄ hå̄ ḇ så̄ ḇīḇ 12 wə-yå̄ ṣaqtå̄ 4 lō ʾarbaʿ ṭabbəʿōṯ zå̄ hå̄ ḇ wə-nå̄ ṯattå̄ 5 ʿal ʾarbaʿ paʿămōṯå̄ w [ū-šətē tabbå̄ ʿōṯ ʿal ṣalʿō hå̄ -ʾɛḥå̄ ḏ] [ū-šətē tabbå̄ ʿōṯ ʿal ṣalʿō haš-šēnīṯ] 13 wə-ʿå̄ śīṯå̄ 6 ḇaddē ʿăṣē šiṭṭīm wə-ṣippīṯå̄ 7 ʾōṯå̄ m zå̄ hå̄ ḇ ‘They shall make1 an ark of acacia wood [its length being two and a half cubits and its width a cubit and a half and its height a cubit and a half]. And you shall overlay2 it with pure gold [– overlaying it both inside and outside –], and you shall put3 a molding of gold around it. You shall cast4 four rings of gold for it, and put5 them on its four feet, [and at that two rings are on the one side of it], [and two rings are on the other side of it]. You shall make6 poles of acacia wood, and you shall overlay7 them with gold.’ (Exod. 25:10-13) (115) is a short quotation from a long instruction on how to make the tabernacle, “the most sacred and important object of Israel’s worship” (NET notes). The instruction starts with an imperative in verse 2, dabber ʾɛl bənē yiśrå̄ ʾēl wə-yiqḥū lī tərūmå̄ ‘Speak to the people of Israel, that they take for me a contribution’ (ESV). The main line in (115) is made up of seven we-Vsuff clauses detailing the different moments in the work. Syntactically, the we-Vsuff clauses are additions that take over the apodictic nuance of the first clause in verse 2, actions that should accompany the imperative. From the perspective of the text, the we-Vsuff clauses make up the core of the instruction. Some of the we-Vsuff clauses are qualified by (asyndetic) circumstantial clauses, and in one occasion there is an addition of two noun clauses describing an accompanying state. The first, we-Vsuff1, clause in (115) states the making of the ark of acacia wood, and it is followed by three circumstantial noun clauses stating the length, breadth and height of this ark. The noun clauses are the

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

249

measures needed to perform the action in Vsuff1. Also after we-Vsuff2 (wəṣippīṯå̄ ) more details are given about the action in Vsuff2, but this time the extra information is given in a dynamic clause with a finite verb: an asyndetic ADV-VprefL clause (see B.2.1.2). The attendant circumstantial meaning and the finite verb could be translated ‘in that you overlay it both inside and outside’. Finally, after the fifth we-Vsuff clause there follow two syndetic noun clauses describing states that should accompany the we-Vsuff5, ‘and on that occasion two rings are on one side, and two (other) rings on the other side’.

C.3 Vsuff clauses encoding a non-main clause Under this heading non-main Vsuff clauses will be treated that are not of the we-Vsuff type (C.2).

C.3.1 The asyndetic Vsuff clause (type Ø-X-Vsuff or Ø-Vsuff)138 The asyndetic Vsuff clause in non-main position is basically a clause describing an action concomitant with the main clause. Such a clause exhibits the familiar properties of the Vsuff gram. Usually, in narrative prose, the meaning of the gram is perfective, but also anterior meaning is possible. As usual, a clausal constituent before the verb is topicalized (the ‘Ø-X-Vsuff’ type of clause). An attendant clause with the Vsuff gram may have the functions of reason, comment, even elaboration. As an attendant clause, it may also code a temporal clause. An attendant perfective clause is found in (116). (116) Pattern: wa-VprefS+[Ø-PrP-Vsuff]+[we-PrP-Vsuff]; way-ḥappeś [bag-gå̄ ḏōl hēḥel] [ū-ḇaq-qå̄ ṭōn killå̄ ] ‘And he searched, [(in that he) began with the eldest] [and ended with the youngest].’ (Gen. 44:12) The ESV marks the non-main status of the Vsuff clauses by English ingforms, ‘And he searched, [beginning with the eldest] [and ending with the youngest]’ (Isaksson 2009, 19-21), but this translation fails to account for the aspect of the Vsuff verbs. A translation ‘(in that) he began with the eldest...’ would be more precise with its perfective aspect. The concomitant circumstantial action is perfective, and describes the same action as in the wa-VprefS

138 Here are discussed instances where X is a topicalized element, but not when X is a negation.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

250

Bo Isaksson

clause, only in more detail. The example shows that an asyndetic Vsuff clause can be analysed as an elaboration in SBH.139 A corresponding negative clause usually has the negation lō. In such a clause a topicalized element is placed before the negation, which is positioned immediately before the verb. With the negation the perfective aspect is neutralized and the action itself is in focus, as in (117). (117) Pattern: wa-VprefS+[Ø-Onoun-lō-Vsuff]+[we-Onoun-lō-Vsuff]; wa-yhī šå̄ m ʿim-YHWH ʾarbå̄ ʿīm yōm wə-ʾarbå̄ ʿīm laylå̄ [lɛḥɛm lō ʾå̄ ḵal] [ū-mayim lō šå̄ ṯå̄ ] ‘Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights [without eating bread] [or drinking water].’ (Exod. 34:28; NIV) The advantage of using the English ing-form, as NIV does, is that it renders the circumstantial clause combining also in an English translation, but ESV with its ‘He neither ate bread nor drank water’, is a more faithful rendering of the perfective aspect.140 The anterior aspect of an asyndetic Vsuff clause is illustrated well in (118). (118) Pattern: we-NCl+[Ø-Vsuff]; wə-ʾaḇrå̄ hå̄ m wə-śå̄ rå̄ zəqēnīm bå̄ ʾīm bay-yå̄ mīm [ḥå̄ ḏal li-hyōṯ lə-śå̄ rå̄ ʾoraḥ kan-nå̄ šīm] ‘Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years. [The way of women had ceased to be with Sarah].’ (Gen. 18:11; ESV) The asyndetic Vsuff clause in (118), without topicalized element, supplies a detail that concerns only one actant in the main clause (NCl). It is not exactly

139 Other examples of attendant perfective asyndetic Vsuff clauses, some of which function as elaborations, are: Gen. 1:27 (wa-VprefS+[Ø-PrP-Vsuff]+[Ø-ADV-Vsuff]), 13:12 (wa-VprefS+[Ø-Snoun-Vsuff]+[we-Snoun-Vsuff]), 25:18 (wa-VprefS+[Ø-PrPVsuff]), 31:41 (NCl+[Ø-Vsuff+{wa-VprefS}]), 41:11 (wa-VprefS + [PrP-Vsuff]), 41:48 (wa-VprefS+[Ø-Onoun-Vsuff]), Exod. 8:13 (wa-VprefS+[Ø-Snoun-Vsuff]), 1 Kgs 18:6 (wa-VprefS+[Ø-Snoun-Vsuff]+[we-Snoun-Vsuff]), 2 Kgs 3:3 (wa-VprefS + [Ø-ADV-Vsuff]+[Ø-NEG-Vsuff]). An asyndetic Vsuff comment clause is found in Gen. 4:20 (wa-VprefS+[Ø-Spron-Vsuff]). 140 Another negative asyndetic example is Exod. 8:27 (wa-VprefS+[Ø-NEG-Vsuff]).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

251

an elaboration, but an attendant circumstance with anterior (pluperfect) aspect. It could be accurately translated ‘at which the way of women had ceased...’.141 It is not necessary that the asyndetic Vsuff clause is placed after the main clause, though this is the most common case. An example of a pre-posed nonmain Vsuff clause with anterior aspect is (119). (119) Pattern: [Ø-Vsuff]+Ø-VprefA; [hɛḥɛ̆yītå̄ nū] nimṣå̄ ḥēn bə-ʿēnē ʾăḏōnī ‘[You have saved our lives]; may it please my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh.’ (Gen. 47:25; ESV) The pre-posed asyndetic Vsuff clause supplies the reason for the wish expressed by the Vpref clause, so it could be translated ‘[Since you have saved our lives] let us find favour before my lord!’ (or. ‘let us be grateful ...’).142

C.3.2 The syndetic X-Vsuff clause Clauses with an initial we and a clausal constituent before the verb are additions because of the we, and have a topicalized element (‘X’).143 This kind of clauses has not undergone the same broadening of the semantic spectrum as has we-Vsuff clauses.144 What characterizes this kind of addition clauses is the topicalized fronted element which can be utilized to achieve contrast with a constituent in the main clause, or, if not contrast, an impression of mutuality: A, and/but also B. Such constructions are often close to what Dixon terms ‘unordered additions’, which involves “two distinct events which are semantically or pragmatically related but for which no temporal sequence is assumed” (2009, 26, 28). The action in the we-X-qatal clause may code a less important, less salient action which just accompanies the main action, as in (120). (120) Pattern: wa-VprefS+[we-Onoun-Vsuff]; way-yēṣē ʾălēhɛm lōṭ hap-pɛṯḥå̄ [wə-had-dɛlɛṯ så̄ ḡar ʾaḥărå̄ w]

141 Other anterior examples are: Gen. 43:23 (NEG-VprefS+[Ø-Snoun-Vsuff]+[Ø-SnounVsuff]), Exod. 14:3 (NCl-PP + Ø-Vsuff), Deut. 32:6 (NCl + [Ø-Spron-Vsuff + {waVprefS}]). 142 Other examples with preposed asyndetic Vsuff: Deut. 32:21 ([Ø-Spron-Vsuff]+[ØVsuff] + we-Spron-VprefA), 32:39 ([Ø-Vsuff]+we-Spron-VprefL). 143 I do not include negations among the ‘X’ elements. Negative syndetic clauses require a separate treatment, in C.3.3. 144 And this because there was no need to. we-X-VprefL clauses were retained in SBH.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

252

Bo Isaksson

‘But Lot went out to them at the doorway, [and shut the door behind him].’ (Gen. 19:6; NAS) Both clauses have a perfective aspect, but it is not evident that the Vsuff clause codes a temporal sequence. The core of wa-VprefS clauses in the storyline has an implied iconic sequentiality, which is the default interpretation of the addition clauses in the storyline. When this chain is interrupted by an additive we-X-Vsuff clause – one of the most frequent digressions from the storyline in SBH narrative prose – then the default iconic chain is broken, and the we-X-Vsuff is felt as an accompanying action for which a temporal sequence is not assumed. In most cases the topicalization of the X-element is more salient than in (120). This is the case in (121), where two objects are emphasized, and at the same time the clause signals an action that is separate from that in the main clause. (121) Pattern: NCl+[we-Onoun-NEG-Vsuff]; ʾiššå̄ qəšaṯ rūăḥ ʾå̄ nōḵī [wə-yayin wə-šēḵå̄ r lō šå̄ ṯīṯī] ‘I am a woman oppressed in spirit; [I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink].’ (1 Sam. 1:15; NAS) The example is from direct speech, and the main clause in this case is a noun clause. The addition has anterior aspect and the wine and the spirit are topicalized because the priest Eli has accused Hannah of being drunk. The topicalization would have been better rendered in English with ‘neither wine nor strong drink have I drunk’. Very typical for narrative prose is that the topicalized element creates an impression of complementation. The Vsuff clause with the topicalized element is a complementary action in (122). (122) Pattern: wa-VprefS+[we-Onoun-Vsuff]; way-yɛʾsor ʾɛṯ riḵbō [wə-ʾɛṯ ʿammō lå̄ qaḥ ʿimmō] ‘So he made ready his chariot [and took his army with him].’ (Exod. 14:6; ESV)

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

253

Both verbal grams are perfective in (122), and a temporal sequence is not assumed.145 There may even be a complete mutuality between topicalized subjects as in the same-event addition of (123), which describes two actions that are concomitant (Lunn 2006, 48: “Parallel focus”).146 (123) Pattern: wa-VprefS+wa-VprefS+[we-Snoun+Vsuff]; way-yippol ʿal ṣawwərē ḇinyå̄ mīn ʾå̄ ḥīw way-yeḇk [ū-ḇinyå̄ mīn bå̄ ḵå̄ ʿal ṣawwå̄ rå̄ w] ‘Then he fell upon his brother Benjamin’s neck and wept, [and Benjamin wept upon his neck].’ (Gen. 45:14; ESV) Neither sequentiality nor simultaneity are necessarily assumed in an addition clause. But as (123) shows, in a certain pragmatic context the Vsuff clause may be understood as an attendant action, which is illustrated also in (124). (124) Pattern: wa-VprefS+[we-Snoun-Vsuff]; way-yaʿaś yəhōšūăʿ ka-ʾăšɛr ʾå̄ mar lō mōšɛ lə-hillå̄ ḥēm ba-ʿămå̄ lēq [ūmōšɛ ʾaḥărōn wə-ḥūr ʿå̄ lū rōš hag-giḇʿå̄ ] ‘So Joshua did as Moses told him, and fought with Amalek, [while Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill].’ (Exod. 17:10; ESV) We understand that Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up the hill simultaneously with Joshua’s fighting with Amalek. The rendering ‘while’ in the ESV translation is not explicitly supported by the syntax, but in the pragmatic circumstances it is justified. The topicalized element in the Vsuff clause very often contrasts with a constituent in the main clause (Lunn 2006, 48), as in (125).

145 Similar examples of an accompanying action by a we-X-Vsuff clause are: Gen. 2:20 (wa-VprefS+[we-PrP-lō-Vsuff]), 14:16 (wa-VprefS + [we-Onoun-Vsuff]), 15:10 (waVprefS + wa-VprefS + [we-Onoun-lō-Vsuff]), 18:33 (wa-VprefS+[we-Snoun-Vsuff]), 24:46 (wa-VprefS + [we-gam-Onoun-Vsuff]), 24:53 (wa-VprefS+ wa-VprefS + [weOnoun-Vsuff]), 26:15 (wa-VprefS + [we-Onoun-Vsuff + {wa-VprefS}]), 27:16 (waVprefS + [we-Onoun-Vsuff]), 28:16 (NCl+[we-Spron-Vsuff]), 33:17 (wa-VprefSPrP+[we-PrP-Vsuff]), 37:36 (wa-VprefS+[we-Snoun-Vsuff]), 39:4 (wa-VprefS+[weOnoun-Vsuff]), 43:15 (wa-VprefS + [we-Onoun-Vsuff]), 43:22 (wa-VprefS + [weOnoun-Vsuff + [Ø-NEG-Vsuff]]), 47:21 (wa-VprefS+[we-Onoun-Vsuff]). 146 Cf. the “canonical instance of Same-event Addition” mentioned by Dixon (2009, 27): “You are together with me; (and) as for me, I am together with you”.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

254

Bo Isaksson

(125) Pattern: wa-VprefS+[we-Snoun-Vsuff]; wa-yhī hɛḇɛl rōʿē ṣōn [wə-qayin hå̄ yå̄ ʿōḇēḏ ʾăḏå̄ må̄ ] ‘Abel took care of the flocks, [while Cain cultivated the ground].’ (Gen. 4:2; NET) The topicalized Cain contrasts with Abel, and sequentiality is not assumed. It is not expressly stated, but the two situations are implied to go on simultaneously. The main point in the text is not the temporal relation between the events, but the contrasting activities of Abel and Cain.147 If sequentiality is to be stressed and a sequential adverb be put in topicalized position, then a Vsuff clause must be utilized in the storyline (thus Joosten 2012, 43), as in (126), since a we-ADV-VprefS clause would have been misunderstood as a VprefL clause. (126) Pattern: wa-VprefS1-"..." + wa-VprefS2 + *we-ADV-Vsuff1-Snoun + wa-VprefS3 + *we-Snoun-Vsuff2 + wa-VprefS4; wat-tōmɛr1 "ma på̄ raṣtå̄ ʿå̄ lɛḵå̄ på̄ rɛṣ!" way-yiqrå̄ 2 šəmō på̄ rɛṣ *wə-ʾaḥar yå̄ ṣå̄ 1 ʾå̄ ḥīw ʾăšɛr ʿal yå̄ dō haš-šå̄ nī way-yiqrå̄ 3 šəmō zå̄ raḥ *wə-yōsēp hūrad2 miṣrāymā way-yiqnē4-hū pōṭīpar sərīs parʿō ‘And she said1, "What a breach you have made for yourself!" Therefore his name was called2 Perez *Afterward his brother came out1 with the scarlet thread on his hand, and his name was called3 Zerah. *Now Joseph was taken down2 to Egypt, and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, bought4 him’ (Gen. 38:29–39:1)148 147 Other similar contrast clauses with Vsuff are: Gen. 1:10 (wa-VprefS+[we-PrP-Vsuff]), 4:4 (wa-VprefS+[we-Snoun-Vsuff]), 4:5 (wa-VprefS+[we-PrP-Vsuff]), 25:6 (waVprefS + [we-PrP-Vsuff]), 25:34 (wa-VprefS + wa-VprefS + [we-Snoun-Vsuff]), 27:6 (wa-VprefS+[we-Snoun-Vsuff]), 29:17 (we-NCl+[we-Snoun-Vsuff] ‘Leah's eyes were weak, but Rachel was beautiful in form and appearance’ ESV), 31:5 (NCl-PA+[weSnoun-Vsuff]), 31:47 (wa-VprefS+[we-Snoun-Vsuff]), 32:2 (wa-VprefS+ [we-SnounVsuff]), 33:17 (wa-VprefS+[we-Snoun-Vsuff]), 35:18 (wa-VprefS+[we-SnounVsuff]), 37:11 (wa-VprefS+[we-Snoun-Vsuff]), 41:54 (wa-VprefS+[we-PrP-Vsuff]), Exod. 9:6 (wa-VprefS + [we-PrP-lō-Vsuff]), 9:23 (wa-VprefS + [we-Snoun-Vsuff] Moses acts on his part and YHWH acts on his part), 1 Sam. 1:22 (wa-VprefS+[weSnoun-Vsuff]), 2 Kgs 3:22 (wa-VprefS+[we-Snoun-Vsuff]). Topicalized elements without contrast: Exod. 9:25 (wa-VprefS+[we-Onoun-Vsuff]+[we-Onoun-Vsuff]). 148 The index numbers refer to sequences of verbs.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

255

A wa-VprefS addition often has a nuance of consequence (related to the previous clause), which is the case in VprefS2 in (126). This is the reason for the translation ‘Therefore’ (thus ESV). The we-X-qatal clause is an addition, but it becomes expressly sequential by the ʾaḥar ‘thereafter’. The first Vsuff clause with topicalized adverb ʾaḥar takes part in the storyline with a special emphasis on the sequentiality of the clause, which could not have been expressed by only a default wa-VprefS. The second Vsuff clause has a topicalized subject personal noun (Joseph), and this topicalization re-introduces an actant that has been absent in the narrative during chapter 38 of Genesis. Joseph is now returned to the scene, and this could not have been done with just a wa-VprefS clause (which can have no topicalized element). Topicalized VprefS clauses were available no more in the SBH narrator’s linguistic outfit. Instead, in some instances, Vsuff clauses had entered the storyline. What we call a ‘break’ is the result of a new actant being introduced by a topicalized element in a Vsuff clause (cf. Isaksson 2009, 122).149 In sum, the we-X-Vsuff type of clause seems to have retained its mainly nonsequential character in relation to a SBH storyline. It is most often an accompanying action that breaks the default sequentiality of the chain of wa-VprefS clauses. But there are examples of an intrusion of we-X-Vsuff clauses into the storyline, which is only to be expected.150 And such is even more the case with the we-lō-Vsuff clauses that will be discussed in the next section.

149 It has been argued that the meaning of the Vsuff is actually pluperfect. Westermann (1982, 53) translates (with reference to Ges-K § 142b) “Als Joseph nach Ägypten gebracht worden war, kaufte ihn Potiphar, der Kämmerer des Pharao” (Ges-K argues that the pluperfect meaning is the result of the preposed subject). This is absolutely possible. Anterior is one of the expected meanings of a resultative gram like the Vsuff. But also perfective aspect is. If the meaning is pluperfect, the clause is background and not part of the storyline. The problem is that this pluperfect is not explicitly stated, it is only implied from the pragmatic context. And a perfective meaning gives good meaning as well to the storyline. 150 An example is the special ‘reportive’ narrative style used in the account of the building of the tabernacle, where the wa-VprefS clauses are often not perceived as by default expressing temporal succession. In such cases a we-X-Vsuff clause becomes part of the main line, only that there is a topicalized ‘X’ element in the clause, Exod. 36:33-34.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

256

Bo Isaksson

C.3.3 The syndetic lō-Vsuff clause The indicative VprefS clause was no longer negated in SBH. In the new restricted word order a *we-lō-VprefS clause could be mistaken for a long prefix verb clause. We can expect that a restriction of a narrative main line to just affirmative clauses was unacceptable, and that the coding of negative storyline clauses underwent a renewal. The natural new negative candidate to enter the storyline was the we-lō-Vsuff clause, with perfective aspect (Joosten 2012, 42). When we examine the cases of such clauses, this turns out to be true. To a greater extent than the we-X-Vsuff type, the we-lō-Vsuff clauses have entered the SBH narrative storyline and complemented the affirmative wa-VprefS clauses with corresponding negative clauses. A simple and clear example of a we-lō-Vsuff in storyline is (127). (127) Pattern: wa-VprefS+we-lō-Vsuff; wa-yḥazzeq YHWH ʾɛṯ lēḇ parʿō wə-lō šillaḥ ʾɛṯ bənē yiśrå̄ ʾēl ‘But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go.’ (Exod. 10:20; ESV) In (127) the Lord hardens the heart of Pharaoh, and the result is that he does not let the people go. Such a result is a typical function of the implied default sequentiality of a storyline. Both clauses are perfective with an implied past time reference. In the next example (128) the actions are not inner attitudes and decisions, as in (127), but concrete physical events. (128) Pattern: wa-VprefS+*we-lō-Vsuff+[kī-NCl]; way-yå̄ ḇōʾū må̄ rå̄ ṯå̄ *wə-lō yå̄ ḵəlū lištōt mayim mim-må̄ rå̄ [kī-må̄ rīm hēm] ‘They came to Marah, *but they could not drink the water at Marah [because it was bitter].’ (Exod. 15:23) A clear temporal succession is perceived between the wa-VprefS clause and the Vsuff clause. After they arrived at Marah, they found that they could not drink the water. It is a result of observation and many translations have tried to manage the clausal relation by making the wa-VprefS a subordinate temporal clause, ‘When they came to Marah, they could not drink its water’.151 This accounts for the temporal succession but does not faithfully render the storyline wa-VprefS clause way-yå̄ ḇōʾū må̄ rå̄ ṯå̄ ‘They came to Marah’. 151 Thus NIV, and similarly JPS, ESV, NRS, NAS, NJB, RSV.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

257

The examples abound, but only one more will be given here, the one about the dove which was sent out by Noah, in (129).152 (129) Pattern: wa-VprefS+*we-lō-Vsuff +wa-VprefS; wa-yšallaḥ ʾɛṯ hay-yōnå̄ mē-ʾittō lirʾōṯ hă-qallū ham-mayim mē-ʿal pənē hå̄ -ʾăḏå̄ må̄ *wə-lō må̄ ṣəʾå̄ hay-yōnå̄ må̄ nōăḥ lə-ḵap̄ raḡlå̄ h wat-tå̄ såḇ ʾēlå̄ w ʾɛl hat-tēḇå̄ ‘Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. *But the dove could not find a resting place for its foot, and returned to him to the ark.’ (Gen. 8:8-9) In translating the we-lō-Vsuff clause many English versions prefer to replace the negative clause with a positive one, such as ‘but the dove found no resting place...’ (CSB). It is understood that the dove searched with no result. The example shows how an affirmative wa-VprefS clause continues the storyline after the we-lō-Vsuff.153 Besides the syndetic negative Vsuff clauses that have entered the Hebrew storyline, there is of course the usual kit of clausal relations where the we-lōVsuff type is involved. Whether the we-lō-Vsuff clause is to be considered of equal status or not mainly depends on the pre-clause being a Vsuff clause or not (examples (130) – (132)). When a we-lō-Vsuff clause follows a Vsuff preclause it is usually a clause with equal status that codes an accompanying action, with meanings that are characteristic of the Vsuff gram, (130). (130) Pattern: Ø-ADV-Vsuff+*we-lō-Vsuff; zɛ šå̄ lōš pəʿå̄ mīm hēṯaltå̄ bī *wə-lōʾ-higgaḏtå̄ lī bammǣ kōḥăḵå̄ gå̄ ḏōl ‘These three times you have teased me *and you have not told me.’ (Judg. 16:15)

152 The asterisk marks the discussed new clause when it is part of the main line. 153 Other examples of storyline we-lō-Vsuff clauses in narrative prose: Gen. 26:22, 31:33.34, 38:20, 39:6, 40:23, 45:1, Exod. 1:17, 2:3 (we-lō-Vsuff+wa-VprefS), 6:9, 7:13 (and similar examples in Exod. 7:22, 8:15, 8:28, 9:7, 9:12, 10:27), 7:21.23, 8:14, 9:11, 10:15.27, 11:10, 13:17, 14:20, 15:22, 16:18.20.24, Judg. 2:23, 3:28, 6:10, 8:20. 28.34.35 (wa-VprefS + we-lō-Vsuff + we-lō-Vsuff), 10:6, 11:17.18, 13:21, 14:6.9, 15:1, 16:9, 19:10 (similar examples 19:25, 20:13), 2 Kgs 3:26, Job 2:12.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

258

Bo Isaksson

In this direct speech of Delilah she accuses Samson of having teased her. The meaning is anterior in both Vsuff clauses, and we have no reason to regard the negative clause as non-main.154 With another type of pre-clause, the we-lō-Vsuff clause will be of nonequal status and codes a non-main accompanying action. In (131) the preclause is an infinite clause. (131) Pattern: PREP-VN+[we-lō-Vsuff]; ʿal hasgīrå̄ m gå̄ lūṯ šəlēmå̄ lɛ-ʾɛ̆ḏōm [wə-lō zå̄ ḵərū bərīṯ ʾaḥīm] ‘...Because she sold whole communities of captives to Edom, [and at that disregarded a treaty of brotherhood].’ (Amos 1:9) The passage from Amos describes the reasons for God’s judgment, and one reason is coded by an infinitive construct and a following accompanying action expressed by a Vsuff verb. The two clauses describe the same event, and the Vsuff clause in this case can be argued to have perfective meaning (as in the translation), but anterior is also possible.155 In (132) the pre-clause is a NCl and the following we-lō-Vsuff clause is likewise of unequal status, this time with anterior meaning. (132) Pattern: hinnē-NCl+ [we-lō-Vsuff]+[we-Vsuff]+[we-Vsuff]; hinnē-nå̄ ʾat ʿăqå̄ rå̄ [wə-lō yå̄ laḏt] [wə-hå̄ rīṯ] [wə-yå̄ laḏt bēn] ‘Look here! You are barren [and have not borne children], [but you will be pregnant], [and will bear a son].’ (Judg. 13:3) The example is a direct speech of an angel of God to the wife of Manoah. It starts with a well-known fact for the woman; she is barren and has not borne children. In this case, the we-lō-Vsuff clause amounts to the same as an elaboration, it describes a state (the NCl) with an accompanying negated dynamic action (‘you have not borne’).156 Of the four clauses in (132) the first two

154 Similar examples, all with Vsuff clauses and anterior meaning, are: Gen. 13:5.6, 22:12 (with implied causality), Ps. 18:22. 155 There are many similar linkings in Amos. Another is found in Gen. 42:21 (REL + Vsuff +[Ø-PREP-VN+[we-lō-Vsuff]]) where the Vsuff has perfective meaning. 156 The following two we-Vsuff clauses code accompanying actions that illustrate how the we-Vsuff clause type has taken over meanings from the no longer acceptable *weVprefL clause. The two we-Vsuff clauses express a promise with future time reference.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

259

represent syntactical retentions (NCl Protosemitic, Vsuff Westsemitic), while the we-Vsuff clauses represent an innovation in SBH.157

C.4 Summary The Vsuff gram exhibits meanings that are typical of grams of the resultative trajectory: stative, resultative, anterior, perfective. Diachronically, the Vsuff increasingly competes with the older VprefS as a perfective gram in past tense narratives. Typically, the more expressive Vsuff gram introduces a story and is then followed by a chain of less expressive wa-VprefS clauses. The we-Vsuff clause in SBH has taken over the functions of the VprefL gram when there is no need of a topicalized element or a negative clause. This is the reason why we-Vsuff clauses often exhibit meanings that are close to those of the VprefL gram. The we-Vsuff is an addition, and as such it can also, depending on the context, express a result meaning after a conditional clause. Other Vsuff clauses, for example we-lō-Vsuff or we-X-Vsuff, have retained meanings that are characteristic of the old Vsuff gram. We-lō-Vsuff clauses may function as negated storyline clauses, and as such they supplant otherwise expected syndetic *lō-VprefS clauses which are unacceptable in Biblical Hebrew due to their being non-clause-initial.

Conclusion In the present article I attempt to understand the Hebrew Verbal system in the light of how clauses are linked Biblical Hebrew texts. It is a study based on raw data collected in a database on linked clauses from prose and poetry in Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH) and archaic Hebrew poetry. The perspective is comparative. Biblical Hebrew is expected to behave as a descendant of early Canaanite. A central text-linguistic concept for the analysis in this article is the ‘main line’. A main line is a text-linguistic concept defined by the pragmatics of the text. A main line, thus, is a pragmatic concept, but in the specific language it is coded by specific syntactic patterns. This means that a non-main clause, 157 A similar linking with we-NCl+[we-lō-Vsuff] is found in the previous verse (Judg. 13:2). Isa. 53:3 has a PA+[we-lō-Vsuff] linking in a difficult context (Isaksson 2011).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

260

Bo Isaksson

encoding a break from the main line, will also be syntactically marked as a digression from the main line. The basic function of the conjunction we/wa is to signal a clause as an addition in the sense of being an accompanying action in relation to a preceding clause. In an accompanying action the event time is dependent on that in the previous clause (the ‘pre-clause’). The conjunction we/wa is not an exclusively ‘coordinating’ conjunction. The pre-clause and the accompanying action clause are sometimes of equal status, sometimes of unequal status. If they are of equal status, they often (but not always) have the same type of predicate (the same ‘gram’). The investigation concerns the three basic finite verbal grammatical morphemes (grams) in SBH, the suffix verb (Vsuff), the short prefix verb (VprefS) and the long prefix verb (VprefL), and how they behave in clause combining. They are the grams that are most extensively discussed in Hebrew scholarship. When the morphological distinction between the VprefS and the VprefL grams was (partially) lost in Proto-Hebrew, word order became the decisive strategy to cope with the risk of confusion. The old yaqtul (VprefS) was assigned clause-initial position, and the old yaqtulu (VprefL) was placed in noninitial position. This strategy concerned the affirmative clauses. In negative clauses, word order has remained free because of a specialization of the two basic negations. The negation ʾal was confined to the VprefS with jussive meaning, while the negation lō was used in other cases. This means that an indicative VprefS could no longer be negated. In its stead, we-lō-Vsuff clauses were introduced into a narrative storyline. The widespread idea that the wa-yiqtol syntagm is a conjugation of its own, and that the wa-VprefS cannot be ‘split up’, is an ‘optical illusion’. Word order constraints have replaced negative wa-VprefS with we-lō-Vsuff, and *we-X-VprefS with we-X-Vsuff. There is only one VprefS gram, and this gram may occur in three types of affirmative clauses, Ø-VprefS (modal or indicative), we-VprefS (modal/purposive), and wa-VprefS (indicative).158 The wa-VprefS clause codes an indicative accompanying action. Frequent inferred functions of wa-VprefS clauses are elaboration, temporal succession, 158 Contrary to the scheme in Joosten (2012, 39) which excludes the modal (jussive) VprefS and implies that verbal grams in SBH are either indicative (wa-VprefS and Vsuff) or modal (VprefL and we-Vsuff).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

261

and result. An asyndetic VprefL clause codes a circumstantial event. The nonmain Ø-lō-VprefL clause codes a circumstantial action without a topicalized element, the non-main Ø-X-VprefL clause has a topicalized element ‘X’. Syndetic clauses of the types we-lō-VprefL or we-X-VprefL connect as additions to a previous clause. The *we-VprefL clause, affirmative and with no topicalized element, had become unacceptable in Biblical Hebrew because the prefix verb in this case was clause-initial. It was replaced by the emerging we-Vsuff clause type, which was also affirmative and lacked topicalized element. This is the reason why innovative we-Vsuff clauses gradually ‘took over’ meanings typical of the VprefL gram. The wide-spread idea that a we-Vsuff clause (with close upon imperfective meaning) could not be ‘split-up’ is an ‘optical illusion’. There was no need of a split-up. Equal status clauses of the types we-lō-VprefL and we-X-VprefL were already available. They represent a syntactical retention in Biblical Hebrew. It is the we-Vsuff that is the new formation. In the main line of procedural discourse, we-Vsuff clauses interact with equal status we-lō-VprefL and we-X-VprefL clauses. The we-Vsuff clause type does not represent a separate gram in SBH. It is a type of clause that expresses an affirmative accompanying action to a previous clause. As such, it is a clause type that exists in all Central Semitic languages. What is special to SBH in a comparative perspective is that the weVsuff, due to the word order constraints, has taken over some of the functions of syndetic imperfective VprefL clauses. The we-Vsuff is never a circumstantial clause (because it is an addition). A non-main asyndetic Vsuff clause describes a circumstantial action with meanings typical of the Vsuff gram. It may be anterior, but also perfective. The non-main we-X-Vsuff clause has not undergone the same broadening of the semantic spectrum as has we-Vsuff clauses. In relation to a storyline of wa-VprefS clauses, it usually breaks the default sequentiality of the chain of wa-VprefS clauses and signifies an accompanying action with a topicalized element, often with notions of contrast or mutuality or a complementary action. It does not normally signal a temporal succession. The typical we-XVsuff clause does not take part in the storyline. There are instances, though, when the we-X-Vsuff takes part in the storyline, especially when X is an adverb which signals temporal succession (such as ʾaḥar ‘afterward’).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

262

Bo Isaksson

The we-lō-Vsuff clause has replaced the no longer acceptable *we-lōVprefS. To a greater extent than the we-X-Vsuff type, the we-lō-Vsuff clauses have entered the SBH narrative storyline and complemented the affirmative wa-VprefS clauses with a corresponding negative clause. Outside the storyline the we-lō-Vsuff clause codes an accompanying action with the properties typical of its predicate (the Vsuff gram).

References Andersen, Francis I. 1974. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. Janua Linguarum 231. The Hague. Andersen, T. David. 2000. “The evolution of the Hebrew verbal system”. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 13 no. 1: 1-66. Andrason, Alexander. 2010. “The panchronic yiqtol: Functionally consistent and cognitively plausible?”. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 10: 1-63. ———. 2011a. “The biblical Hebrew verbal system in light of grammaticalization – the second generation”. Hebrew Studies 52: 19-51. ———. 2011b. “The biblical Hebrew verbal system in light of grammaticalization – the second generation”. Hebrew Studies 53: 351-383. ———. 2011c. “The BH weqatal. A homogenous form with no haphazard functions (Part 1)”. Journal of Nortwest Semitic Languages 37 no. 2: 1-26. ———. 2012. “The BH weqatal. A homogenous form with no haphazard functions (Part 2)”. Journal of Nortwest Semitic Languages 38 no. 1: 1-30. Bloch, Yigal. 2007. “From linguistics to text-criticism and back: wayyiqṭōl constructions with long prefixed verbal forms in biblical Hebrew”. Hebrew Studies 48: 140-170. ———. 2009. “The prefixed perfective and the dating of early Hebrew poetry—A reevaluation”. Vetus Testamentum 58: 34-70. Brockelmann, Carl. 1956. Hebräische Syntax. Neukirchen: Kreis Moers. Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Bybee, Joan L., and Östen Dahl. 1989. “The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world”. Studies in Language 13 no. 1: 51-103. CJB = Complete Jewish Bible. Cook, John A. 2006. “The finite verbal forms in biblical Hebrew do express aspect.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 30: 21-35.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

263

———. 2012. Time and the biblical Hebrew verb: The expression of tense, aspect, and modality in biblical Hebrew. Linguistic studies in ancient West Semitic 7. Cormack, Annabel, and Neil Smith. 2005. “What is coordination?” Lingua 115: 395418. CSB = Holman Christian Standard Bible. Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. ———. 2000. “The tense-aspect systems of European languages in a typological perspective”. In Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe, edited by Östen Dahl. 3-25. Empirical approaches to language typology (EUROTYP) 20:6. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Dixon, R. M. W. 2012. Basic linguistic theory. Vol. 3, Further grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dixon, R. M. W., and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, eds. 2009. The semantics of clause linking: A cross-linguistic typology. Explorations in linguistic typology 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reprint, paperback edition 2011. Driver, Samuel Rolles. 1892. A treatise on the use of the tense in Hebrew and some other syntactical questions. 3 rev. and improved ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Reprint, Wipf & Stock: Eugene, Oregon, 2004. ———. 1913. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel with an Introduction on Hebrew Palaeography and the Ancient Versions and Facsimiles of Inscriptions and Maps. 2nd rev. and enlarged ed. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. ESV = The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Fischer, Wolfdietrich, and Otto Jastrow, eds. 1980. Handbuch der arabischen Dialekte. Porta Linguarum Orientalium N.S. 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ges-K = Gesenius, Wilhelm, and Emil Kautzsch. 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew grammar. Translated by A. E. Cowley. Edited by Emil Kautzsch. 2nd revised English ed. Oxford: Clarendon. Reprint, 1976. Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction. Rev. ed. 2 vols. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. Gzella, Holger. 2011. “Northwest Semitic in general”. In The Semitic languages: An international handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael P. Streck and Janet C. E. Watson. 425-451. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. ———. 2012. “Introduction” and “Ancient Hebrew”. In Languages from the world of the Bible, edited by Holger Gzella, 1-13, 76-110. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

264

Bo Isaksson

Haiman, John, and Sandra A. Thompson, eds. 1988. Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Typological studies in language 18. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Halliday, Michael A. K. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar. Edited by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 3rd rev. ed. London: Arnold. Haspelmath, Martin. 1998. “The semantic development of old presents: New futures and subjunctives without grammaticalization”. Diachronica 15 no. 1: 29-62. Hatav, Galia. 1997. The semantics of aspect and modality. Evidence from English and biblical Hebrew. Studies in language companion series 34. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Heller, Roy L. 2004. Narrative structure and discourse constellations: An analysis of clause function in biblical Hebrew prose. Harvard Semitic studies 55. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbraun. Hopper, Paul J. 1982. Tense-aspect: Between semantics & pragmatics: Containing the contributions to a symposium on tense and aspect, held at UCLA, [Los Angeles], May 1979. Typological studies in language (TSL) 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Huehnergard, John. 1988. “The early Hebrew prefix-conjugations”. Hebrew Studies 29: 19-24. ———. 2005. “Features of Central Semitic”. In Biblical and Oriental essays in memory of William L. Moran, edited by Agustinus Gianto. 155-203. Biblica et orientalia 48. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Isaksson, Bo. 2007. “Semitic circumstantial qualifiers in the Book of Judges: A pilot study on the infinitive.” Orientalia Suecana 56: 163-172. ———. 2009. “Introduction” and “An outline of comparative Arabic and Hebrew textlinguistics”. In Circumstantial qualifiers in Semitic: The case of Arabic and Hebrew, edited by Bo Isaksson, 1-35 and 36-150. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 70. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. ———. 2011. “The textlinguistics of the Suffering Servant: Subordinate structures in Isaiah 52,13-53,12”. In En pāsē grammatikē kai sophiā. Saggi di linguistica ebraica in onore di Alviero Niccacci, ofm, edited by Gregor Geiger and Massimo Pazzini, 173-212. Collana Analecta: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 78. Jerusalem; Milano: Franciscan Printing Press; Editioni Terra Santa. ———. 2013. “Subordination: Biblical Hebrew”. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan, vol. 3, 657-664. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2014a. “Clause linking strategies in the narrative and instructional discourse of Joseph’s speech in Gen. 45: 3-15”. Journal of Semitic Studies 59 no. 1: 15-45.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

265

———. 2014b. “The main line of a biblical Hebrew narrative and what to do with two perfective grams.” In Proceedings of the Oslo–Austin Workshop in Semitic Linguistics, Oslo, May 23–24, 2013, edited by Lutz Edzard and John Huehnergard, 73-94. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 88. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2014c. “Archaic biblical Hebrew poetry: The linking of finite clauses”. In Strategies of Clause Linking in Semitic Languages: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Clause Linking in Semitic Languages 5-7 August 2012 in Kivik, Sweden, edited by Bo Isaksson and Maria Persson, 109-141. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 93. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. Forthcoming a. “The so-called we-qatal conjugation in Biblical Hebrew once again”. In 11. Mainz International Colloquium on Ancient Hebrew (MICAH), 1.-3. November 2013: Forthcoming in KUSATU: Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt. ———. Forthcoming b. “‘Subordination’: Some reflections on Matthiesen and Thompson’s article "The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’" and its bearing on the idea of circumstantial clause in Arabic and Hebrew”. In Arabic and Semitic Linguistics Contextualized, edited by Lutz Edzard. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. Forthcoming c. “Clause combining in the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:1-43). An example of archaic Biblical Hebrew syntax”. In Biblical Hebrew Linguistics: Papers from the 16th WCJS, Jerusalem 2013, edited by Tania Notarius and Adina Moshavi: Eisenbrauns. Joosten, Jan. 1999. “The long form of the prefix conjugation referring to the past in Biblical Hebrew prose”. Hebrew Studies 40: 15-26. ———. 2012. The verbal system of Biblical Hebrew. A new synthesis elaborated on the basis of classical prose. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 10. Jerusalem: Simor. J-M = Joüon, Paul, and Takamitsu Muraoka. 2006. A grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2nd rev. English ed. Subsidia Biblica 27. Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press. Reprint, 2009 with corrections. JPS = JPS Holy Scriptures 1917 (English). Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. “Tense and mood in Indo-European syntax”. Foundations of Language 4 no. 1: 30-57. Kogan, Leonid. 2014. “Waw sargonicum. On Parataxis in Sargonic Royal Inscriptions”. Zeitschrift für Assyriologi 104 no. 1: 42-55. König, F. Eduard. 1881-97. Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache. 3 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Reprint, Hildesheim, 1979.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

266

Bo Isaksson

Kraus, Hans-Joachim. 1978. Psalmen. 5th ed. 2 vols. Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament 15. Neukirchen. Lehmann, Christian. 1988. “Towards a typology of clause linkage”. In Clause combining in grammar and discourse, edited by John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson, 181-225. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lunn, Nicholas P. 2006. Word-order variation in biblical Hebrew poetry: Differentiating pragmatics and poetics. Paternoster biblical monographs. Carlisle: Paternoster Press. Meyer, Rudolf. 1966-1972. Hebräische Grammatik. 3rd ed. 4 vols. Sammlung Göschen. Berlin: de Gruyter. Müller, Hans-Peter. 1983. “Zur Geschichte des hebräischen Verbs – Diachronie der Konjugationsthemen”. Biblische Zeitschrift 27: 34-57. ———. 1991. “wa-, ha- und das Imperfectum consecutivum”. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 4: 144-160. NAB = The New American Bible. NAS = The New American Standard Bible. NET = The New English Translation Bible. Niccacci, Alviero. 1987. “A Neglected Point in Hebrew Syntax: Yiqtol and Position in the Sentence”. Liber Annuus (Studium biblicum franciscanum) 37: 7-19. ———. 2014. “Background constructions inside the main line in biblical Hebrew”. In Strategies of Clause Linking in Semitic Languages: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Clause Linking in Semitic Languages 5-7 August 2012 in Kivik, Sweden, edited by Bo Isaksson and Maria Persson, 179-189. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 93. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. NIV = The New International Version. NJB = The New Jerusalem Bible. Notarius, Tania. 2013. The verb in archaic Biblical poetry: A discursive, typological, and historical investigation of the tense system. Studies in Semitic languages and linguistics 68. Leiden – Boston: Brill. NRS = New Revised Standard Version Bible. Nyberg, Henrik Samuel. 1972. Hebreisk grammatik. 2nd ed. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Pardee, Dennis. 2012. “The biblical Hebrew verbal system in a nutshell”. In Language and nature: Papers presented to John Huehnergard on the occasion of his 60th birthday, edited by Rebecca Hasselbach and Na'ama Pat-El, 285-318. Studies in ancient oriental civilization 67. Chicago: Oriental institute of the University of Chicago.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A Clause Combining Approach

267

Polak, Frank. 2014. “The circumstantial clause as trigger: Syntax, discourse and plot structure in biblical narrative”. In Strategies of Clause Linking in Semitic Languages: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Clause Linking in Semitic Languages 5-7 August 2012 in Kivik, Sweden, edited by Bo Isaksson and Maria Persson, 191-203. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 93. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Rainey, Anson F. 1986. “The ancient Hebrew prefix conjugation in the light of Amarnah Canaanite”. Hebrew Studies 27: 4-19. ———. 1996. Canaanite in the Amarna tablets: A linguistic analysis of the mixed dialect used by scribes from Canaan. Vol. 3, Morphosyntactic analysis of the particles and adverbs. Handbook of Oriental Studies: The Near and Middle East 25. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2003a. “The yaqtul preterite in Northwest Semitic”. Hamlet on a hill: Semitic and Greek studies presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the occasion of his sixtyfifth birthday no. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 118: 395-407. ———. 2003b. “The suffix conjugation pattern in ancient Hebrew tense and modal functions”. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 40: 3-42. Revell, E. J. 1984. “Stress and the waw ‘consecutive’ in biblical Hebrew”. Journal of the American Oriental Society 104: 437-444. RSV = Revised Standard Version of the Bible. SCL = The German Schlachter Version. Sjörs, Ambjörn. Forthcoming. The history of sentential negation in Semitic. PhD diss. Uppsala. Steiner, Richard C. 2000. “Does the Biblical Hebrew conjunction –w have many meanings, one meaning, or no meaning at all?”. Journal of Biblical Literature 119 no. 2: 249-267. Stempel, Reinhard. 2012. “The injunctive in Semitic”. In Studia Andreae Zaborski dedicata, edited by Jerzy Chmiel, Anna Krasnowolska, Tomasz Plański, Ewa Siemieniec-Gołaś, Lidia Sudyka and Joachim Śliwa. 523-528. Folia Orientalia 49. Cracow: Polish Academy of Sciences. TNK = JPS TANAKH (English). Tropper, Josef. 1998. “Althebräisches und semitisches Aspektsystem”. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 11: 153-190. Tropper, Josef, and Juan-Pablo Vita. 2010. Das Kanaano-akkadische der Amarnazeit. Lehrbücher orientalischer Sprachen. Section I: Cuneiform Languages 1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

268

Bo Isaksson

Van der Merwe, Christo H. J., Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. 1999. A biblical Hebrew reference grammar. Biblical Languages: Hebrew 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Reprint, 2004. Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2005. “Two types of coordination in clause combining”. Lingua 115: 611-626. Westermann, Claus. 1982. Genesis. Vol. 3, Genesis 37-50. Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament I:3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Clause Combining in Modern Spoken Aramaic

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho Eran Cohen, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem

0. Introduction This paper discusses circumstantial expressions at different levels in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho. The Jewish dialect of Zakho (henceforth JZ) is a relatively well attested dialect of North Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA, see Khan 2007). The most salient feature of this entire group is that the old Semitic verbal system, found in the earlier phases of Aramaic, had been lost and the language(s) had undergone an extreme restructuring of the verbal system, which now consists of old participles and nomina actionis. This change created fascinating verbal systems, each consisting of many forms, whose components are relatively transparent (both synchronically and diachronically). This rich verbal system makes the description of circumstantial expressions a desideratum, since it is difficult to predict which forms participate in this function. No such description has been attempted so far of any single dialect.1 The only comprehensive description of this dialect (Cohen 2012) refers to various aspects of the phenomenon, but not under one heading. The text used as a corpus for this inquiry includes mainly folktales as well as other stories; in short, it is basically a corpus of folk literature. Most of it had been collected by H. J. Polotsky during the 1940s and it is handwritten in narrow transcription. The corpus typically exhibits a radically different syntax for each of the textemes, namely, dialogue and narrative. This dichotomy concerns us here, since various backgrounding devices in narrative are similar

1 An MA thesis is currently being prepared in Jerusalem by Nikolaus Wildner, attempting to describe the phenomenon in the literary Neo-Aramaic dialect of Urmi.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

272

Eran Cohen

to circumstantial expressions at sentence level, but are marked by different forms or exponents. These expressions have in common an adverbial expression of a nonspecific semantic nature (namely, it is often difficult to state whether the original nuance is temporal, final, or concessive), and characteristically depict the state of one of the arguments in the “main” clause. I use quote marks because the circumstantial expression is not always a subordinate clause, and consequently we do not always have a main clause.

1. Sentence level It seems a good idea to start at sentence level, because this level is valid for the entire language, independently of texteme or genre. In other words, strategies that express circumstantiality at sentence level are not specific to a certain environment, and can be found everywhere. For this reason, these expressions have a wider applicability. At this level there are two types of circumstantial expression – simple and complex, or rather, unipartite and bipartite. What characterizes these expressions is a strong tendency to show agreement with the argument whose state is described (termed, in the Arab tradition ḏū [or ṣāḥib] al-ḥāl). This is explained in Goldenberg (1985, 336-337 [=1998, 185-186]) as the result of the double relationship this type of adverbial function has, like any adverbial, to the predicative link, and to the argument whose state it describes. The first type (unipartite) consists of an adjective, a participle or a gerund:

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic of Zakho

(1) ʿād-ıt custom-NUC

day

ʾēna

DET

spring

wḗwā-la PST-be-3FS

kud

g-šāte

mınn-a

{qamāya}

each-NUC

PRS-drink.3MS/CP

from-3FS

first.MS

nāš-ıt

day

people-NUC DET

273

bāžer (...)2

g-nabl-ī-wa

town

IPFV

g-māyes. PRS-die.3MS

ımm-ıt gyān-u

3

-bring-3CP with-NUC self-3CP

xa

qaṭūsa, g-ma-štḗ-wā-la {qamē-sa} DET cat-FS IPFV-CAUS-drink.3CP-OBJ.3FS first-FS ‘The custom of this spring was (that) anyone who drinks from it {firstMS} dies. The people of that town, (when they would come down to the spring to drink water,) they would bring a catFS with them (and) let itFS drink {firstFS}’ PT 144 The circumstantial expression ‘first’ shows, by its gender morphemes, the reference to one of the arguments – in the first case it is ‘anyone who’, which is conceived as masculine (qamāya), whereas in the second case, it is the cat, which is feminine in JZ (qamēsa). (2) ū

lıbb-e

pıš-le

CONN

heart-3MS

AUX-3MS

still

GER.fantasize

ū

ʾēn-e

mēnōxe

bıt

gawd-ıt ʾıstatt-e

GER.look

at

body-NUC mistress-3MS

CONN

eye(s)-3MS

hēš mharhōre

{hādax šulxāya ū-purʾāya} ||šulxēsaFS ū purʾēsaFS thus naked.MS CONN-uncovered.MS ‘He (lit. his heart) was still having improper thoughts and his eyes were looking at his mistress’s bodyFS, (||she/it) (being) stark nakedMS (FS)’ PT 786 šulxāya ūpurʾāya lit. ‘naked and uncovered’ (masculine) occurs originally in the text, while šulxēsa ūpurʾēsa (feminine) is added to the left of the text in the original manuscript. The former could only refer to the man looking at his mistress (in both senses), that is, ‘him (being) naked and uncovered’. The 2 (...) stands for a part skipped for relative irrelevance, which is given in the translation within brackets. See also exx. (15) and (17) below. 3 The glosses generally follow the Leipzig rules. Some combinations are only partly predictable: 1. The present morpheme k/g- with backshifting (BSH) morpheme -wa(-) produce an imperfect(ive) (IPFV); both preterites (PST) with -wa(-) result in a plusquampreterite (PLPT); the future morpheme p/b- (FUT) with -wa(-) yields a special form which mostly denotes irrealis. The construct state, namely, the bound form, or the head of the construction, is glossed by NUC (for nucleus).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

274

Eran Cohen

latter, on the other hand, could refer to either the mistress or her body (both feminine singular). The adverbial syntagm contains two adjectival forms in adverbial function, and the syntactic link is made clear by the form of the adjective. The same thing happens when the circumstance is expressed by a participle: (3) ʾáw jwanqa DET

youngster

qam-dōq-ī́-wā-le

gō bāžır

PLPT-catch-3CP-OBJ.3MS

in town

{ʾısya

ʾımmıt

parrōke}

PTCP.come.MS

with

textiles

‘They had caught the youngster in the city, {(having) comeMS with textiles}’ PT 789–90 The perfect participle ʾısya agrees in gender and number with the youngster. However, when the expression consists of the gerund, there is no expression of agreement between it and the described argument: (4) pıš-lu

mēnōxe bıd

dō

AUX-3CP

GER.look

DET

man

{hādax

tīwa

xa

taxta}

thus

PTCP.sit.MS

DET

chair

ū

ṣīwa

at

rıš on

nāša

l-

bırk-e knee-3MS

CONN

wood

to

{ū

bīsāya

ʾıll-e bıd

daw jaʾōza}

at-3MS with

DET

CONN GER.come

ax

‘They began looking at this man, {sittingMS on a chair}, the (piece of) wood on his knee, {and coming at it (=the wood) with the ax}’ PT 510 Whereas tīwa ‘sitting’ reflects masculine singular, the gerund bīsāya ‘coming’ does not. Nevertheless, both have the same function.4 There is a third bipartite circumstantial nexus in the example, consisting of a prepositional phrase (underlined). The negative form of the gerund in this function, formed by the negative particle la with the infinitive, is seldom attested, and often has the privative meaning of ‘without’: 4 Note that in some languages, the gerund does inflect for person, e.g., Gǝʿǝz maṣiʾ-o ‘him coming’ maṣiʾ-aka ‘you coming’, etc.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic of Zakho

(5) ʾāwa

pıš-le

bıkxāka

PRON.3MS AUX-3MS GER-laugh

ū

bıgmāṣa dīd-a

CONN GER-smile OBJ-3FS

{la

šqal

ṭım-ıt

xabra

NEG

INF.take.NUC

essence-NUC

word

ū

la

fham

CONN NEG INF.understand.NUC

275

maʿne

dīd-e}

meaning

POSS-3MS

‘He started laughing and smiling, {not taking in the essence of the word(s) and not understanding its meaning}’ PT 867 It should be noted that the construction here is different: whereas the gerund takes a direct object, these negated infinitives take their complement nominally, in a genitive construction, and therefore they are found in the construct state and marked accordingly (fham instead of the unbound form fhāma) as the nucleus of the construction (NUC). The simple circumstantial expression is occasionally expanded to specify another part, the theme (that is, the given entity), between which and the rheme (the new information) there exists a clear predicative relationship, or a nexus. Compare exx. (6) and (7): (6) ū

msupy-ā-la

CONN PRT.deliver-OBJ.FS-3FS

{hādax

ḥmıl-ta}

thus

PTCP.stand-FS

‘And she died (lit. delivered it [i.e., her soul]) {standing}’ PT 853 (7) {ʾāya PRON.3FS

hādax

ḥmıl-ta},

ham mír-rā-le:

thus

PTCP.stand-FS

too

PRT.say-3FS-DAT.3MS

‘{She standing}, nevertheless she said to him:’ PT 852 The same function is now expressed by a complex form, which is a predication, or a nexus, but a dependent one, (7): an independent nexus in JZ would have involved a copula between the personal pronoun ʾāya ‘she’ and the participle ḥmılta ‘standing’. The same idea is found in the following pair of examples, (8) and (9): (8) mpıq-le

xūwe mın

dūk-e

PRT.get_out-3MS

snake from

place-3MS

{dwīqa

p-pumm-e

xá

dıhwa}

PTCP.hold.MS

in-mouth-3MS

DET

gold_coin

‘The snake came out from its place, {holding a gold coin in his mouth}’ PT 453

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

276

Eran Cohen

(9) mpıl-la

dıbba l-ʾarʾa

PRT.fall-3FS

bear

{hēš ʾīz-a

duq-ta

bıt

bāb-ıt

PTCP.hold-FS

at

father-NUC DET child

still hand-3FS

to-ground

dō yāla}

‘The she-bear fell to the ground, {its paw still holding the child’s father}’ PT 752 Here too, ʾīza duqta ‘its paw holding’ is a dependent nexus. Yet another example for a bipartite circumstantial syntagm is underlined in ex. (4) (ū-ṣīwa lbırk-e ‘and the (piece of) wood on his knee’), where the rheme is a prepositional phrase. These nexal, or predicative circumstantials are often associated with inalienable body parts of one of the arguments (this type is mentioned and exemplified in Polotsky 1996:23-26, under “NON-FINITE PREDICATIVE GROUPS”).5 Note that these syntagms occur occasionally with the adverb hādax (otherwise meaning “thus”), whose function here is merely to point out a circumstantial expression, rather than refer to manner. The bipartite dependent circumstantial expression can sometimes interchange with a finite verbal form that occurs in the very same function and is hence analyzed as subordinate. Compare exx. (10) and (11): (10) pıš-la

gō

pōẓ-e

{ū

bōl-a

bıʿlāqa

AUX-3FS GER.bend_over

bıkyāpa

in

torso-3MS

CONN

hair-3FS

GER.touch

bıd pās-e

ū

gubʾēn-e}

at

CONN

forehead-3MS

face-3MS

‘She was bending over his torso, {her hair touching6 his face and his forehead}’ PT 868

5

xa surta d Mart Marjam brun-o go xpaq-o ‘a picture of the Madonna (with) her son in her bosom’ (Mois de Marie 142, 10 mentioned in Polotsky 1996, 24). Polotsky, however, does not separate between attributive and circumstantial function with regard to these syntagms. 6 Theoretically, the substantive and gerund could be analyzed as ellipsis of the auxiliary copula pıš-la (3FS); however, the substantive bōla is masculine while the auxiliary is 3rd person feminine, so the probability that this is an ellipsis is not very high.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic of Zakho

(11) pıš-la

bīsāqa

ū

bıkwāša …

AUX-3FS GER.go_up CONN

GER.go_down

{u

ʾēn-a

la-g-ʿalq-a

ū

la-k-tafq-a

CONN

eye-3FS

NEG-PRS-meet-3FS

CONN

NEG-PRS-notice-3FS

bıt ču

ʾazāla

in

goer

NEG

ū CONN

277

ʾasāya} comer

‘She began ascending and descending … {(while) her eye does not meet (n)or notices any passer(s)-by}’ PT 855 In ex. (11) there is an asyndetic subordinate clause consisting of two kšāqıl forms, which basically denote the general present. In this slot, in narrative, these forms express circumstantial indicative concomitance. Note that the verbal form in the clause ʾēn-a la g-ʿalq-a ‘her eye does not meet’ in this function is the syntactic equivalent of the dependent bipartite expression bōl-a bıʿlāqa ‘her hair touching’. This is one of the reasons to conclude that the verbal form is subordinate, since it interchanges with a non-clausal unit. The circumstantial present is found in the following example as well: (12) sē-lu PRT.come-3CP

kutr-u ḥakōm-e

{k-ṭāʾe

ıl yalunk-u}

both-3CP king-PL

PRS-look_for.3CP

to children-3CP

‘Both kings came {looking (lit. they look) for their children}’ PT 126 Other forms are capable of occurring in this function – for instance, the subjunctive as well as the form used in dialogue to denote the prospective or the future (ex. (13)): (13) muzvır-ru

l-gyān-u

{d

PRT.turn-3CP

to-SELF-3CP

THAT SBJV.come.3CP

l-bēsa} ū

ṭrē-lu

b-lazzi

to-house

PRT.drive-3CP

in-speed

CONN

ʾāse

(//b-āse) FUT-come.3CP

‘They turned around {in order (//intending) to go back home} and drove hastily’ PT 889 This example is taken as is from the text, where the form b-āse ‘intending to go’ constitutes a close alternative to the purpose clause d ʾāse ‘in order to go’ (the latter is syndetically subordinate, marked by d-). Both verbal forms are part of the circumstantial paradigm. Subjunctive forms with backshifting -wa(-) occur occasionally following matrix verbal forms, which denote the past. However, this “agreement” is not

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

278

Eran Cohen

consistent, and mostly it is impossible to provide a consistent linguistic rationale for the function of these -wa forms. In this case, however, with the prospective p-šāqıl form, it is possible: (14) qam-dārē-la

ʾáy dıste ʾáp-āya

PRT-put.3MS-OBJ.3FS DET

pot

ū

xmāra {b-āse

ṭrē-le

CONN PRT.drive-3MS

rıž

too-PRON.3FS on

l

donkey FUT-come.3MS to

dán qapy-e DET

log-PL

bēsa} house

‘He put the pot as well on top of the logs of wood and led the donkey, {intending to go back home}’ PT 919 (15) xá yōma (…) one day

yōm-ıt

ʾrōta

wḗwā-la.

day-NUC

Friday

PRT.be-3FS

mpıq-lu

mbínnōke

drangi {b-āsē-wa

l bāžer}.

PRT.go_out-3CP

morning

late

to town

pıš-la

šaḅsa

PRT.become-3FS

FUT-come.3CP-BSH

Saturday

ū

ʾāni

hēš wē-lu

go barīya.

CONN

PRON.3CP

still

in

COP-3CP

desert

‘One day, (when they were in the city in which they used to sell fabrics,) it was Friday. They left late in the morning, {intending to go back to the city}. It became Sabbath (while) they are still in the wilderness’ PT 51– 52 The p-šāqıl-wa form (“future in the past”, mostly used for counterfactual apodoses) is here circumstantial and prospective, like p-šāqıl (ex. (14)). However, in all attested cases of the form p-šāqıl-wa as circumstantial, the expressed intention turns out immediately not to have been realized. For instance, in ex. (15), they are not able to get home, because they cannot travel during the Sabbath. Another example is ex. (22) below, where the giant who is about to be slaughtered is not really a giant but rather a little girl. The implications are that there is a modal difference between the two forms: one is neutral; the other expresses an unrealized intention.

2. Text-level circumstantial expressions I now move on to the grey area above sentence level, where there are phenomena which express circumstantiality that is mostly related to larger units

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic of Zakho

279

than the sentence. Some phenomena are described and explained within the framework of the text. Grounding, in narrative, refers to the fundamental opposition between foreground and background. However, the foreground (or mainline, whose main function is to move the plot forward) is rather uniform in JZ narrative, consisting mainly of the two preterites. In addition, one occasionally comes across narrative events in disguise (until clauses which feature full-fledged events, for instance).7 On the other hand, the background (off-line material, or comment mode), has many functions and effects that involve quite a few exponent types: character description, circumstantial description, topical setting of various forms subdividing the text, etc. For instance, some of the descriptive part at the beginnings of folktales is quite similar in principle to circumstantial expressions, but its scope of reference is the entire story. In many cases it is what seems to be an adverbial that has this function; but unlike an adverbial, which interchanges in its slot only with other adverbial syntagms (e.g., the interchange of an adverbial clause with a simple adverb), in this slot this interchange is of a wilder nature – it could be an adverbial, a bare independent-looking clause, a presentative clause, etc. Not all of the background is relevant to our discussion, but several phenomena from it definitely describe the circumstances of an argument.

2.1 Plusquampreterite šqıl-wā-le, qam-šāqıl-wā-le and šqīla wēle Despite the punctual value usually attributed to them, plusquampreterites do not represent an event in narrative, but are rather part of the rich array of necessary off-line information. They are often found among other off-line forms, but not exclusively (ex. (16)):

7

ʾrıq-le basr-u hīl qam-dāwıq-le brōna dīd-a ‘He pursued them until he caught up with its son’ (82).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

280

Eran Cohen

(16) xá yōma one day

ṓha

jōtyāra

zıl-le

l

šūla

DET

peasant

PRT.go-3MS

to

work

ū

baxt-e

CONN

wife-3MS PRT.do-3FS

ʾuz-la

aw

yōma

nehra.

DET

day

laundry

wē-la

bıšṭāxa

jull-e

COP-3FS

GER.hang

clothes

{ū

bır

ḥakōma

qímwa-le

mın

šınsa

CONN

son

king

PLPT.get_up-3MS

from

sleep

ū

ysíqwa-le

CONN

PLPT.go_up-3MS

ū

ʾēn-e

nzır-ra

CONN

eye(s)-3MS

PRT.look-3MS

ū

xrū-le

ū

mpıl-le

ıl

dūk-ıt

gıyān-e

CONN

PRT.faint-3MS

CONN

PRT.fall-3MS

to

place-NUC

SELF-3MS

rıš

gār-et

on

roof-NUC

bēs-ōhūn} house-3CP

ıl

day xamsa

to

DET

maid

‘One day the peasant went to work and his wife did that day the laundry. (While) she is hanging clothes, {the prince had woken from sleep and had gone up to the roof of their house}, his eye caught a glimpse of the maiden and he fainted and fell right there’ PT 499 The preterite forms here generally move the plot forward, whereas the forms in boldtype (in fact, the entire phrase in curly brackets) report incidents that had taken place prior to the main line of the story. They are explanatory in nature, rather than eventive (for instance, if they had been given as preterites). In this specific case, these forms provide an explanation for the connection between the prince and the woman doing laundry. (17) xá yōma musē-lu one day

PRT.bring-3CP

{ʾáw jwanqa DET

youngster

trḗ jandurm-e

dīd-a

two gendarme-PL

POSS-3FS DET

qam-dōq-ī́-wā-le

gō bāžır

PLPT-catch-3CP-OBJ.3MS

in town

ʾısya

ʾımmıt parrōke}

PTCP.come.MS

with

xá

jwanqa (…) youngster

textiles

‘One day, two of her gendarmes brought a youngster, (his hair loose and falling over his shoulders, and his beard barely growing.) {They had caught the youngster in the city, (having) comeMS with textiles}’ PT 789– 90 Here too, the clause in curly brackets explains where the youngster comes from, without being a part of the chain of events, or the mainline. Here these forms are in fact couched in a description – the youngster’s physical appear-

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic of Zakho

281

ance. These forms describe circumstances that are previous or anterior to the reference time of the events. In exx. (16) and (17) the circumstantial information explicitly refers to one of the arguments. In the periphery of these cases, we find similar, explanatory, plusquampreterites, which do not specifically refer to an argument: (18) šqıl-lu PRT.take-3CP

īxāla d-ōhun

ū

zıl-lu

food

CONN

PRT.go-3CP

mın

mbínnōke ū

from

morning

POSS-3CP

hīl

CONN till

palgıdyōm, noon

{dunye šxínwā-la

rāba}, qēṭa

wē-le

world

very

PRT.be-3MS

PLPT.be_hot-3FS

summer

‘They took their food and walked from morning till noon, {it had been very hot}, it was summer’ PT 41 Note that here, perhaps due to the nature of the verbal lexeme (‘be hot’), no punctuality is detected. It is true that the plupreterites/pluperfects šqıl-wā-le, qam-šāqıl-wā-le and šqīla wē-le show anteriority vis-à-vis the preterites šqıl-le and qam-šāqıl-le. Actually, that is the only temporal opposition on the narrative plane (except for subordinate clauses, inside which there is an entirely different set of oppositions). Note, however, that this temporal opposition is somewhat secondary (compared, for instance, with the opposition between the same forms in dialogue), since the important issue here is not simply when it happened, but rather that it happened sometime before (or was over by a certain reference point) and that it is relevant, even crucial, for the understanding of what happens, expressed as narrative events.

2.2 Presentative constructions: postposed vs. preposed Neo-Aramaic dialects often have two types of copula, simple and “deictic”, or “presentative”, which consists of an additional deictic element. The presentative copula in this dialect occurs mostly in the 3rd person, is not found in subordinate clauses and has several functions: 1. It is used, mostly in dialogue, as the main copula of compound tenses (to wit, present perfect and present progressive) in the third person; 2. it reflects the character’s point of view when complementing a verb of perception; and 3. in the narrative, it constitutes a circumstantial clause.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

282

Eran Cohen

Naturally, the 3rd function is the one we focus upon. The presentative circumstantial clause may both precede and follow the clause(s) to which it refers. (19) zıl-le PRT.go-3MS

wē-le

basr-e

ʾáw ṣīwāya

after-3MS

DET

bırʾāla

COP-3MS GER.shake

lumberjack

{u CONN

mın zdoʾsa lá

ʾāxıl-le

ʾarya}

from fear

SBJV.eat.3MS-OBJ.3MS

lion

NEG

‘The lumberjack followed him {(while) he is shivering out of fear lest the lion eat him}’ PT 667 (20) tū-la

mʿōšē-la

{ʾīxāla

PRT.sit-3FS

PRT.eat-3FS

food

xa tawırta

u

ṭḷāhá ʾızz-e}

one cow

CONN

three

dīd-a

wē-le

POSS-3FS COP-3MS

goat-PL

‘She sat (and) ate supper, {her food is one cow and three goats}’ PT 412–413 In these two cases, the scope of the presentative clause is local, consisting only of the preceding clause (‘following’ in ex. (19), and ‘eating’ in ex. (20)). These cases are quite different from the ones where the presentative syntagm precedes. In such case, it forms some kind of interdependency with the clauses that follow. It is worthwhile noting that in these cases the function is narrative rather than enhancing, namely, hardly any new information is being added: (21) ū

škıl-le

bıd

ʾīxāla

CONN

PRT.start-3MS

at

INF-eat

{wē-le

ū

sē-lu

ʾıll-e

mšalxān-e

CONN

PRT.come-3CP

on-3MS

robber-CP

COP-3MS

bīxāla} GER.eat

‘He started eating. {(while) he is eating}, robbers came upon him’ PT 524 The underlined syntagm in ex. (16) is similar (‘she is hanging clothes...’). These preposed presentative clauses have an anchoring function (note that they tend to resume previous text parts – in ex. (16) it is the woman doing laundry, in ex. (21) it is eating), and consequently they link between text parts. To use Givón’s terms (Givón 1987), the preposed clause(s) serve as a grounding device, both anaphoric and cataphoric, namely, it has ties with both preceding and following parts of the text, very much like a topic. The

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic of Zakho

283

postposed presentative clause, on the other hand, does not have this function, and it is far more specific as a circumstantial expression.8 Moreover, the latter adds new information whereas the former consists of mostly given information. For this reason, such examples (such as (16) and (21)) should be considered a different circumstantial, perhaps an “abstract circumstantial”.

2.3 ay dammıt constructions: postposed vs. preposed The expression (ʾay) dammıt is the construct state of (ʾay) damma ‘the minute’, and functions as a temporal conjunction (‘the minute that...’). In the following example, the (ʾay) dammıt syntagm repeats presupposed information and functions as an anchor, as the preposed presentative clauses discussed in the previous section. In fact, such examples belong to the setting paradigm. This is the main function of ay dammıt clauses in narrative (ex. (22)): (22) bır

ḥakōma qam-ma-mpıl-le

son.NUC king

{ay damm-ıt DET

moment-NUC

mōrum-le bır PRT.lift-3MS

ṓha kapōra.

PRT-CAUS-fall.3MS-OBJ.3MS

mpıl-le

PRT.fall-3MS DET

ḥakōma

son.NUC king

DET

giant

ṓha kapōra} giant

sēpa dīd-e

b-qāṭíl-wā-le

sword POSS-3MS

FUT-kill.3MS-BSH-OBJ.3MS

‘The prince knocked down this giant. {As soon as this giant fell}, the prince raised his sword, intending to kill him’ PT 89 The circumstantial clause in ex. (22) is an explicit resumption of the fall. An explicit object pronoun in the clause at the end (underlined) stands for the argument whose state is depicted. However, these clauses often show less explicit reference. Ex. (23) has a type of resumption, which requires some inference on the part of the listener:

8 Ramsay (1987) shows this behavior in pre-and postposed conditional and temporal clauses in English.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

284

Eran Cohen

(23) ... ū

qam-māpıq-la

ay

čūčıksa

PRT-take_out.3MS-OBJ.3FS DET

CONN

bird

ū

qam-zābeḥ-la

ıl

daw gōra.

CONN

PRT-slaughter.3MS-OBJ.3FS

on

DET

{damm-ıt

man

kuš-le

dımm-a

rıš daw gōra},

moment-NUC

PRT.come_down-3MS

blood-3FS on

DET

ṭrıṣ-le

pıš-le

ṣāx ū

qım-le

PRT.heal-3MS

PRT.become-3MS

well

PRT.get_up-3MS

CONN

man

rıš ʾaql-e on foot-3ms

‘...took out the small bird and slaughtered it over the man. {The moment its blood dripped over the man}, he healed, became well and stood up on his feet’ PT 103 Note that the dammıt clause tells us of blood flowing (as a direct inference from slaughtering a bird, as well as in repeating what is said earlier in the text). These circumstantial clauses are not particularly informative, but rather functional, viz. of linking what precedes to what follows. When the dammıt clause follows the clause to which it refers, it has in fact the microsyntactic adverbial function, which means that the scope of the “temporal” clause is local, referring to the clause in which it is embedded: (24) nāš-e man-PL

k-ṣafn-ī-wa

ʾıbb-e

IPFV-watch-3CP

at-3MS

{ʾáy damm-ıt DET

moment-NUC

čār nıkā́ r

g-māxḗ-wā-le

jaʾōza

IPFV-strike.3MS-OBJ.3MS

hatchet

ṣīwa}

four side (piece of) wood

‘People were watching him {while he would strike (with) the hatchet around the (piece of) wood}’ PT 509 (25) ḥakōma +rāba king

very

qḥır-re PRT.be_sad-3MS

damm-ıt

mıt-le

moment-NUC

PRT.die-3MS

+

pālavan

dīd-e

acrobat

POSS-3MS

‘The king was very sad when his acrobat died’ PT 769 These postposed dammıt clauses are not many, and only occasionally are they circumstantial (e.g., ex. (24), but not ex. (25), which is a regular temporal

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic of Zakho

285

clause). Some of them are similar to ex. (27), in having the verb xzēle in the clause (‘when he saw’). When containing presupposed information and being preposed, these clauses have the same function as the presentative constructions (which are definitely non-subordinate). When postposed, they have a local scope and refer to one clause, and are occasionally analogous to the microsyntactic expressions, compare exx. (26) and (27): (26) lašš-ıd

dṓ

gōra mzurzeʾ-la

body-NUC DET

man

{damm-ıt

ġzē-le

ʾḗ

baxta

PRT.see-3MS

DET

woman thus

moment-NUC

PRT.shake-3FS

ū

mare

jurʿıta}}

CONN

owner

courage

{hatxa

mare lıbba owner heart

‘The man’s body shook {when he saw the woman, {so brave and courageous}}’ PT 853 (27) u

rāba

bxē-le

CONN

very

PRT.weep-3MS CONN

{bıd

ġzāy-ıt

ʾarxa dīd-e

{bıd dṓ

mūjıb}}

INF.see-NUC

guest

in

manner

in

ū

lıbb-e

qız-le

heart-3MS

PRT.burn-3MS

POSS-3MS

DET

‘so he wept a lot and felt pity (lit. his heart burned) {seeing his guest {in this condition}}’ PT 614 Note that the clause headed by dammıt (ex. (26)) is syntactically equivalent to the infinitive construction (ex. (27)), which is not the gerund, so it seems (the gerund is never complemented this way, cf. ex. (5)). Moreover, circumstantials which involve seeing may contain yet another potential circumstantial as part of the argument structure of seeing verbs (marked by a second set of curly brackets in both cases).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

286

Eran Cohen

2.4 Other “adverbial” constructions: basır The syntagms headed by conjunction basır ‘after’ are a special case. In exx. (28) and (29), the two seemingly different cases are related: (28) sē-le PRT.come-3MS

xā

gōra ū

DET

man

w-īʾıl-le

ū

šqıl-le

xā

CONN-PRT.enter-3MS CONN PRT.take-3MS

ū

mpıq-le. #

CONN

PRT.go_out-3MS

psıx-le

dıkkāna

CONN PRT.open-3MS

store

līra

one coin

{basır mpıq-le} after

PRT.go_out-3MS

qam-dāwıq-le

ū

mír-rē-le

PRT-catch.3MS-OBJ.3MS

CONN

PRT.say-3MS-DAT.3MS

‘a man came, opened the store, entered, took one coin and came out. # {After he came out}, he caught him and said to him’ PT 3–4 This “adverbial” clause is functionally similar to an “independent” clause: (29) wıḷḷa ʾō PTCL DET

yāla

zıl-le

duq-le

ʾurx-e

boy

PRT.go-3MS

PRT.seize-3MS

way-3MS

u

zıl-le,

CONN

PRT.go-3MS PRT.go_out-3MS

mpıq-le

from town

mın

bāžer}, zıl-le

xá

bāžer

xēta

from

town

DET

town

other

PRT.go-3MS

mın bāžer. # {mpıq-le PRT.go_out-3MS

‘So the boy left, took his direction and left, got out of town. # {He got out of town}, went to another town’ Meehan and Alon 1979 5.5–6.1 In both examples events, which have just been told are repeated immediately thereafter. The difference is that in ex. (28) the events are repeated within an adverbial basır clause, whereas in ex. (29) the repetition is packaged as a seemingly independent clause. Nevertheless, the structures are macrosyntactic analogues. Such basır clauses are mostly boundary markers, for instance, after the number sign (#) in ex. (29), a new episode begins, that is, a break in the text rather than any “enhancing” function, or information regarding the whereabouts of one of the arguments. Since the information in each case is repeated, the constructions are of a low communicative value. The same applies to the independent clause in ex. (29). This type of circumstantiality has a function of text-boundary.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic of Zakho

287

2.5 (In)dependent constructions The following pair (exx. (30) and (31)) creates a situation for which it is more difficult to account: (30) bale {ʾāni but

PRON.3PL

hādax žġīl-e

bıd danya

šuʾāl-e

thus

busy-PL

in

matter-PL

DET

ū

bıd

dan

taxmīn-e

go dáy x(ıp)parta}

CONN

in

DET

thought-PL

in

ū

ḥakōma tū-le

ʾımmıt

mıjlıs

dīd-e

CONN

king

with

council

POSS-3MS

PRT.sit-3MS

dugout

DET

‘But {(while) they (were) busy with these matters and with these thoughts in the dugout}, the king sat with his council’ PT 472 (31) {anya PRON.(3)PL

žġıl-lu

bıd maḥkōye

d-ōhun}

PRT.be_busy-3CP

in

POSS-3CP

talk

u

ḥakumta ū

xıddamta dīd-a

CONN

queen

CONN

servant

wē-lu

bıdrāya

rāyi

ū

tagbir l-xāwxēta

COP-3CP

GER.put

counsel

CONN

advice

POSS-3FS

to-RECP.PRON

‘{(while) they were busy with their conversation}, the queen and her maid are/were consulting each other’ PT 808–809 In both examples the initial syntagm resumes previous information, thus acting as a textual anchor. More specifically, these “circumstantials” function as markers for the shifting between two parallel episodes: note that no argument in the second clause is referred to in the first clause. This is textual circumstantiality – the first mentioned, parallel episode is used as a circumstantial lean-on for the second episode. The difference between the examples lies in the nature of the syntagm and in the relationship with the other clauses in the example: Ex. (30) has a dependent nexus, consisting of ʾāni (personal pronoun) and žġīle (adjective), which together do not amount to a full clause (since a copula is necessary for that), and all this is followed by a preterite. The relationship is a unidirectional dependency; the dependent nexus is the dependent part. It resumes actions reported in the previous episode. In ex. (31) a preterite (žġıl-lu) is followed by a presentative construction, which in this case is textually foregrounded. Such a presentative clause, as we find in ex. (31), does not generally occur alone and is formally interdependent with the first part (the preterite žġıl-lu). Note that normally, it is the

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

288

Eran Cohen

presentative clause that is considered circumstantial (compare §2.2); in this case it is impossible: anya žġıl-lu ‘they were busy…’ is the “circumstantial” syntagm that resumes the previous episode in the text that seems to co-occur with this episode (compare also ex. (15), with a temporal setting). The following table is an attempt to capture this case of skewing:

ex. (30):

ex. (31):

macrosyntactic circumstantial

macrosyntactic foremost entity

syntactically dependent

syntactically independent

ʾāniPERS.PRON ... žġīl-eADJ

ḥakōma tū-lePRET

syntactically independent

syntactically interdependent

anyaPRON žġıl-luPRET

wē-luPRESENTATIVE COPULA bıdrāyaGER

One reason for this behavior might be the nature of the verbal lexeme of √žġl, which is like a carrier verb, namely, a pro-form which can represent another verbal lexeme, such as the verb do in English. Another peculiar detail is that both sides of each example are interconnected by the connective u, like the Arabic fa. This phenomenon occurs in various combinations in JZ (conditional structures, free choice quantification, as well as presentatives, see §2.2).

2.6 Copular expressions Some examples consist of non-presentative copular clauses. These clauses usually depict a permanent attribute, and in narrative such an attribute always has an off-line, background function. Some of these cases may be analyzed as circumstantial (exx. (32) and (33)): (32) pıš-le

ʾáw

PRT.become-3MS

DET

gōra rāba dōlamánt man

very rich

ū

mıtū-le

yalunke

dīd-e

ıl madāres

CONN

PRT.put-3MS

children

POSS-3MS

to schools

{u

ʾāwa

CONN

pıš-le

sawōna}

PRON.3MS PRT.become-3MS

old-man

u

hḗš g-ēzıl-wa

ıl

ṣīw-e

ta ṣapxāṭır ʾaw

jawāhar

CONN

still

to

tree-PL

to for

diamond

IMPV-go.3MS

dīd g-yāwíl-wā-le

xūwe

REL IMPV-give.3MS-DAT.3MS

snake

DET

‘The man became very rich, put his children in schools, {and (although)

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic of Zakho

289

he became old}, he would still go to the woods for the diamond which the snake used to give him’ PT 632 (33) basır

qam-mēsē-la

baxt-ıt

after

PRT-bring.3MS-OBJ.3FS

wife-NUC two

trḗ

{ū

ʾanya

trē

yalunke… lá wēwā-lu

dīd-a},

CONN

PRON-(3)CP

two

children

POSS-3FS

NEG-PRT.be-3CP

kudyom k-kard-á-wā-lu everyday

IMPV-chase-3FS-OBJ.3CP

‘After he brought the second wife, {(since) these two children … were not hers}, everyday she would chase them away’ PT 142–143 In ex. (32), we can compare two clauses featuring pıšle ‘he became’: the first (underlined) is given as an event (‘he became rich’), whereas the second (in bold) seems to be a circumstantial clause. The common denominator of both exx. (32) and (33) is the combination of 1. the connective u; 2. a personal pronoun; and 3. a verb of being. Moreover, the facts revealed are inherent rather than local in nature (getting old, children originating in another woman), but their relevance to the text where they figure is circumstantial, namely, concessive (ex. (32)) and causal (ex. (33)).

2.7 Imperfect(ive) forms Last but not least, Neo-Aramaic is capable of expressing several aspectual oppositions, and most dialects dispose of at least one form which signals past imperfective, in our case, it is k-šāqıl-wa. The form in JZ consists of the general present k-šāqıl with backshifting morpheme -wa(-). This form is not usually a part of the subordinate circumstantial clause we discussed under §1 (i.e., where we find the forms k-šāqıl, p-šāqıl and p-šāqıl-wa): here they do not constitute part of another clause but rather join the perfective forms by juxtaposition or interconnection. Compare exx. (34) and (35): (34) ū

ḥakōma

tū-le

ʾımmıt

mıjlıs

dīd-e

CONN

king

PRT.sit-3MS

with

council

POSS-3MS

{ū

gı-mbāqır-wa ū

gı-mšāwır-wa

CONN

IMPV-ask.3MS

ʾımmıt

wazīr-e dīd-e

mā

ʾōz-i

bıd danya nāš-e}

with

vizier-PL

what

SBJV.do-3CP

in

CONN

POSS-3MS

IMPV-consult.3MS DET

man-PL

‘the king sat down with his council {and was asking and consulting his viziers, what they should do with these people}’ PT 472

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

290

Eran Cohen

(35) ū

tū-lu

ū

xšū-lu

hēš

CONN

PRT.sit-3CP CONN PRT.think-3CP

ū

mšōwır-ru

bıt

xawxét

still

CONN

PRT.consult-3CP

in

RECP.PRON

‘So they sat down and thought more and consulted each other’ PT 466 In both examples someone is sitting and consulting. Sitting is put into the preterite that generally denotes punctuality. Consulting, however, is expressed in different aspects: imperfective (gı-mšāwır-wa) in ex. (34) and perfective (mšōwır-ru) in ex. (35). The functional difference is that whereas the imperfective forms describe, the perfective forms narrate. Ex. (36) tells about a recently blinded giant chasing the protagonist, who is also the storyteller: (36) ʾrıq-li PRT.run-1CS

urx-ıt

xá

saʿa

way-NUC

one

hour

u

ʾāwa

CONN

PRON.3MS PRT-make.3MS-OBJ.3FS

qam-ʾāwız-la

{lá-k-xāzē-wa,

bale

g-māyıx-wa

NEG-IMPV-see.3MS

but

IMPV-sniff.3MS

ū

l-mūjıb

myāxa

CONN

to-manner smell

p- xá

gāve,

in one step

g-mandē-wa

gāve}

IMPV-throw.3MS

step

‘I ran the distance of one hour, whereas he did it in one step. {He was not able to see, but he was sniffing and taking a step according to the smell}’ PT 394 It is quite clear in this case that the imperfective forms here describe the circumstances in which the chase took place.

3. Recapitulating and concluding The circumstantial expression at sentence level is quite uncomplicated in that all its participants share the same paradigm, or in other words, take the same syntactic slot and may interchange with each other (see table). The main differences between the finite verbal forms in this function are modal, namely, fact – purpose – intention (realized and unrealized). The various possibilities of circumstantial expressions at clause level are summarized in the following table:

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic of Zakho CIRCUMSTANTIAL EXPRESSIONS AT SENTENCE LEVEL

EX.

perfect participle

(3)

gerund

(4)

adjective

(1)

unipartite

291

adjective non-clausal syntagms

(pro)noun

subordinate clauses

(7), (9)

gerund

(10)

prepositional phrase9

(4)

subjunctive

(purpose)

(13)

general present

(indicative)

(11), (12)

prospective

(intention)

(13), (14)

prospective (w/backshift)

(unrealized intention)

bipartite

(verbal forms)

perfect participle

(15)

At text level, different exponents are found expressing circumstantiality, which is found mostly in the narrative texteme of folktales. These examples are all opposed to the preterites standing for narrative events and making up the mainline of the story. The various circumstantial expressions constitute off-line information:

9 This structure, with the opposite order (prepositional phrase—noun) is a unipartite existential circumstantial: mpıq-le garxet aw xūwe {ū-p-pumme xa dehwa} ‘The snake came out again, {(with) a gold coin in his mouth}’ (443).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

292

Eran Cohen NARRATIVE COMMENT MODE

(TRADITIONAL) NAME

NARRATIVE FUNCTION(S) AND BEHAVIOR

šqıl-le qam-šāqıl-le

preterites

representing narrative events

1

šqıl-wā-le qam-šāqıl-wā-le šqīla wēle

plupreterites pluperfects

2

k-šāqıl-wa

imperfect(ive)

3

x–wē(wā)le, pıšle–x

copular clauses

4

basır clause

temporal clause

boundary marker

5

dependent constructions

absolute phrase

shifting between parallel stories

commute with a finite, independent verbal clause

6

wēle-x

presentative constructions

7

ay dammıt clause

temporal clause

when prepose =grounding CC

when postposed =local CC

FORM

(mostly) punctual, explanatory

character- and circumstantial descriptions commute with a finite, independent verbal clause

First, specialized verbal forms – imperfective and plusquampreterite (2 and 1 in the table). To these we may add copular clauses (3) and presentative expressions (6), all these exponents are non-subordinate, namely, not having a function inside another clause, but rather forming interdepencies with the other clauses at play. Presentative expressions (6) are nevertheless similar to (ay) dammıt clauses (7) in their sensitivity for order – when preposed they serve as circumstantial to an entire chain of clauses whereas their postposition means that they are quite local in scope. Preposed, they tend to have low communicative value (since they mostly contain presupposed information) and thus serve a more technical function. Dependent constructions (5) have been dealt with above, under sentence level; however, they have been found to occasionally interchange with a seemingly independent, punctual clause. In this case, they shift the mainline between different episodes that take place at the same time. They seem to be related to another type, non-circumstantial but rather textual~adverbial expression of time – a group of verbs which are used to denote the progress of

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic of Zakho

293

time (such as zılle ‘went’ or urre ‘passed’) and constitutes, although it seems ‘independent’, an adverbial anchor: example and glosses ʾur-ra PRT.pass-3FS xa

xa DET

šapsa… week

basır after

DET

šapsa… week

hīl till

zıl-la

xā

PRT.go-3FS

DET

šabsa… week

translation

structure

‘A week went by...’

“main” clause

‘After a week...’

prepositional phase

‘By the time a week went (by)...’

conjunctional phrase

In these examples there seems to be an independent clause here, which has the same function as the adverbially marked clauses below it. Such substitution group is analogous to the cases we had in exx. (30) and (31) above, except that these do not shift between parallel stories but rather are used to mark various subdivisions in the text (compare also ex. (15)).

References Cohen, E. 2012. The Syntax of Neo-Aramaic: The Jewish Dialect of Zakho. Gorgias Neo-Aramaic Studies 13. Piscataway: Gorgias. Givón, T. 1987. “Beyond foreground and background.” In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, edited by Russell Tomlin, 175–188. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Goldenberg, G. 1985. “On Verbal Structure and the Hebrew verb.” In Language Studies 1, edited by M. Bar-Asher, 295–348. Jerusalem: Magnes (in Hebrew; English translation in Goldenberg 1998, 148–196). ———. 1998. Studies in Semitic Linguistics. Jerusalem: Magnes. Khan, Geoffrey. 2007. “The north-eastern neo-aramaic dialects.” Journal of semitic studies 52.1: 1-20. Meehan, Charles and Alon, Jaqueline. 1979. “The Boy Whose Tunic Stuck to Him: A Folktale in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho (Iraqi Kurdistan).” Israel Oriental Studies 9: 174–203. Polotsky, H. J. 1996. “Notes on a Neo-Syriac Grammar”. In Studies in Modern Languages, Israel Oriental Studies 16, edited by Shlomo Izre’el and Shlomo Raz, 11– 48. Leiden: Brill. PT= Polotsky, H. J. Zakho Texte 1944-1947 (unpublished) Ramsay, V. 1987. “The Functional Distribution of Preposed and Postposed ‘if’ and ‘when’ Clauses in Written Discourse.” In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, edited by R. S. Tomlin, 383–408. Typological Studies in Language 11. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Clause Combining in Epigraphic South Arabian

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean Jan Retsö, University of Gothenburg

1. Survey of research In his comparative grammar of the Semitic languages, C. Brockelmann gave a short survey of what he called Zustandssätze in Semitic (Brockelmann 1913, 501ff.). This syntactic category was defined in semantic and syntactic terms as clauses which do not bring progression in a narrative but indicate circumstantial conditions to the main event told and are equivalent to predicative complements or temporal adverbials (“…Sätze die nicht einen Fortschritt im Bericht bringen, sondern Nebenumstände der Handlung darstellen und daher für das Sprachgefühl Prädikative oder Zeitadverbien vertreten”). The marking of such clauses is made, according to Brockelmann, either by asyndetic attachment to a main clause or syndetic marking by the particle wa- or its equivalent. It is evident that Brockelmann’s survey was not complete. In his comparative grammar, he often adduces examples from the Modern South Arabian languages based on the documentation which was available one century ago, mainly accessible through the documents of the Austrian expedition to South Arabia in 1898-99, but he never gives examples from the epigraphic South Arabian languages, which also by then were fairly well documented mainly through the works of J. Halévy and E. Glaser. The reason was probably that there was no comprehensive systematic grammatical description of these languages available. Such a description appeared for the first time in 1943 written by M. Höfner. In her grammar, the possible existence of circumstantial clauses is passed over. She mentions, however, the occurrence of ‘short’ imperfects ‘im konsekutiven Sinn’ referring to events in the past tense such as e.g. w-ywm hwṣt-hw … w-yʕqb ḫms1t ḫrfn b-ḍr qtbn ‘when he appointed him … so that

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

298

Jan Retsö

(so dass) he pursued warfare against Qataban for five years’ (Höfner 1943, 75; the text is Gl. 481, 2 = CIH 375 = Ja 550). The meaning of ‘konsekutiv’ seems to be ‘causal’ i.e. an event causes another to occur. This is a phenomenon taken up by later scholars. The circumstantial clause was introduced to the grammar of Epigraphic South Arabian by A. F. L. Beeston in his sketch of the grammar of the epigraphic South Arabian languages from 1962. Beeston claims the existence of a construction in Sabaean and Minean similar to the ḥāl-complement in Arabic and gives the following examples: CIH 548:-4 l-yngs1n s1lḥ-hw w-dmw-m b-s2yʕ-hw ‘if his weapons are defiled, there being blood on his garment’ RÉS 311:1.2 tbʕkrb …rs2w ʕm w-ḏ-rs2wts1 ṣryʕm bn mrqdm s1ṭd ṭly ‘TBʕKRB … priest of ʿAmm – the chief of his priestly college being ṢRYʕM from MRQDM’. The first example is from Haram, an area where the texts show some deviations from Standard Sabaean (Stein 2007). The second is Minean. The complements in these two examples are verbless clauses introduced by w- aligning them with the similar construction in e.g. Arabic and Biblical Hebrew. They do not say much about the possible ḥāl-construction in Sabaean. As far as the use of finite verbs in ḥāl-clauses is concerned, Beeston states the following: The perfect is a narrative tense denoting events in past time and includes the meanings of both perfect and pluperfect in European languages. The imperfect conveys a present or future notion, whether this be in (in main clauses) relative to the drafting of the text, or (in subordinate clauses) relative to the action of the main clause (Beeston 1962, 25). The last clause then claims the existence of the equivalent of the ḥāl in the Arabiyya. According to Beeston, the imperfect with w- ‘is frequently not simply coordinate with the preceding verb, but has a consequential or modal force’ as in RÉS 3945:2 (Beeston 1962, 61): hṯb mwy ḏhb-hw rymn w-ykn fnwtm fnwtm ‘[he] repaired [Vsuff] the water supply of his alluvial land RYMN so that it should be arranged canal by canal’.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

299

Similarly in RÉS 3945:16: ʕtb bn ns2n ʔl wḍʔt s2ft-hmw ns1rn ʔlʔltn w-yhrgw ‘he designated [Vsuff] from Nashan those whose dedication to the gods was ordained, so that they should be slain’. Beeston also admits that the imperfect in a few cases may function like the Hebrew consecutive, i.e. as a narrative tense indicating successive events. The only reference he adduces to Sabaean is to the inscription Ry 535 (= Ja 576), which contains many such cases which Beeston characterizes as ‘anomalous’. In his grammar on Sabaean published 20 years later, he describes the different uses of the perfect, one of which is characterized as follows: [The perfect … may convey] an event anterior to the time of the immediately preceding clause (this being other than the principal verb of the text). In this case, w-fʕl corresponds to an Ar[abic] ḥāl-structure wa-qad faʕala and should be rendered by an English pluperfect. This usage is not always easy to detect, but it has important consequences for the understanding of a text, since it means that we cannot automatically assume that the sequence of presentation of verbs A w B w C represents the temporal A → B → C, but on the contrary the temporal sequence may be B → A → C, with clause B understood as ḥāl […] The imperfect may present various degrees of futurity (relative either to the time of writing or to some anterior event), with or without modal overtones (Beeston 1984, 19). Unfortunately, Beeston does not adduce any examples of subordinate clauses of this kind with finite verbs as predicate. But it is obvious that he sees the verbal and clause complementing system in Sabaean being more or less identical with that in Arabic, i.e. the Arabiyya. Among Beeston’s examples, one might quote the following one which, without being directly referred to in the passages quoted above, still could be seen as proof of his assumption: RÉS 3945:15-16: nḍw gnʔ hgr-hw ns2n ʕd hs2rs2-hw w-hgrn ns2n yhḥrm bn mwfṭm ‘he tore the wall of his town Nashan until he destroyed it completely, but he forbade the town Nashan (or: the town Nashan was forbidden) to be burnt’.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

300

Jan Retsö

The tense reference of the verb yhḥrm in this example fits quite well into Beeston’s model. Beeston thus discerns three different functions of the subordinate imperfect in Sabaean: ‘present/future’, ‘consequential’ and ‘consecutive’ (or successive) relative to the action of the main clause. The main characteristic of the ḥālcomplement in Sabaean is thus, according to Beeston, identical with the modern concept of gram-switch, i.e. the breaking of a series of finite verbs with identical TAM form by another one. In 1965 Ja. B. Gruntfest published a study called ‘Consecutive Constructions in South Arabian’ in which he tackled the problem that had become visible in Beeston’s grammar from 1962, viz. that the imperfect seems to have two functions: as a marker of contemporaneity or rather non-past like its equivalent in Arabic, and as a narrative tense similar to the ‘imperfect consecutive’ (wayyiqtol) in Biblical Hebrew. According to his study, ‘consecutives’ are found in Minean and Sabaean, not in Qatabanian. Finite forms in Sabaean have temporal meaning, perfect designating past tense, and imperfect present/future. Gruntfest based his analysis on quite a small number of texts which he divided into two groups: one consisting of early texts, viz. the early Sabaean RÉS 3945, RÉS 3946, Ja 550 (= Gl 481), RÉS 3858, RÉS 4176, and the Minaean RÉS 2975 and RÉS 3022, the second encompassing fourteen texts, the most important of which are RÉS 3427, Ry 535 = Ja 576 + Ja 577, Ja 574, Ja 601, Ja 602, Ja 633, most of which are now dated to the Middle Sabaean period. From the first group we quote the following examples: Ja 550:2: w-ywm hwsṭ-hw ykrbmlk wtr w-yʕqb b-ktbn bʕly s1bʔ w-ʔs2ʕbn ḫms1t ḫrfn b-ḍr qtbn. Gruntfest translates: ‘and when YKRBMLK WTR appointed him and he led the troop of (against?) Sabaʾ and the tribes [during] five years in the war of QTBN’. RÉS 3945:16: w-ʕtb bn ns2n ʔl wḍʔt s2ft-hmw ns1rn ʔlʔltn w-yhrgw Gruntfest translates: ‘and he appointed those from Nashan concerning whom order came from the gods and they were killed’. This translation indicates successive or sequential events: ‘first … and then’. In his comment, however, he seems to indicate that the relationship between the main clauses with the

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

301

verb in the perfect tense, and the subordinate imperfect is that of causality: YKRBMLK WTR commanded him and because of this (poėtomu) he led the troop; he appointed people from Nashan and because of this they were killed. The imperfects thus have a consecutive (or rather causal) meaning as indicated by Höfner in 1943. We notice the difference between Gruntfest and Beeston in the interpretation of RÉS 3945:16. The same structure should be seen in the following examples (the first of which Gruntfest does not translate): RÉS 3945:1-2 w-ywm hʕḏb mʕs2rt s1bʔ … w-ytʔmmw w-yḥtẓyw … wyns2ʔ… 16-17: w-s1tmḫḍ … w-ymḫḍw A translation based on the RÉS reads as follows: ‘and when he renewed the tribal assembly of Saba … so that they obeyed and became successful … and he appropriated … so that it was handed over’. RÉS 4176:3 w-hwṣt tʔlb …l-ġrḍ … w-yġrḍw ‘and [the god] Taʾlab commanded … to speed up the work … and they speeded up’. RÉS 3945:2 w-ywm ṣdq ʕṯtr w-ʔlmqh ḥg-hmy w-yhṯb mwy ḏhb-hw rymn wykn fnwtm fnwtm w-ḏrym ḏrym. ‘and when he fulfilled the commandment of Athtar and Ilmuqah and repaired the water of his rain-watered field RYMN so that it became canals and terraces’. RÉS 3945:14 w-ywm ns2ʔ ṯnym mns2ʔm w-ygnʔ gnʔm ‘and when he went out to war a second time and constructed a wall’. In RÉS 3945:2 the first subordinate consecutive governs a second consecutive. In the two last examples Gruntfest sees a ‘weakening’ of the consecutive meaning of the subordinate verb, becoming more like a stylistic variation of the past tense. Gruntfest rejects Beeston’s interpretations of these passages as subordinate final clauses ‘so that … should’ in accordance with the possible meaning of finite ḥāl-constructions in Arabic. In Gruntfest’s analysis the subordinate clauses mark factual consecutive, not modal (see further below). In his view, modal subordination is marked by the particles l- and k-, not by w-.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

302

Jan Retsö

The most thorough analysis of texts from the second group is given to the Sabaean Ja 576 + Ja 577 (= Ry 535), in spite of some lacunae one of the longest Sabaean texts preserved, written during the joint reign of the Sabaean kings Ilsharaḥ Yaḥḍub and Yaʾzil Bayyin in the 240ies CE. The verbs in the narratives alternate between imperfect and perfect in a way in which it is difficult to see any governing rule at a first glance. Beeston characterized this text as ‘anomalous’. Gruntfest’s conclusion is that the ‘consecutive imperfect’ by this time has degenerated into an alternative past tense marker used as a stylistic variation. The explanation of the haphazard use is thus diachronic: it is a survival of the earlier function of the imperfect as a consecutive, clearly observable in the text from the earlier group. The old consecutive ‘so that’, indicating factual consequence, has developed into a narrative past tense. Gruntfest‘s analysis is important to this discussion since its consequence is the rejection of the existence of verbal circumstantial clauses in Sabaean. As we can see from his translations and comments, his term ‘consecutive’ is not altogether clear. Sometimes it simply implies an event following another; sometimes it indicates a consecutive or causal relationship between two events. The evidence from Ry 535/Ja 576 is also problematic since this text is quite idiosyncratic. Gruntfest himself suggests that large parts of it constitute an extract from a literary work, a royal chronicle or the like. In his grammar of the Ancient South Arabian languages from 1966, G. M. Bauer basically accepts Gruntfest’s analysis (Bauer 1966, 7-77) without discussing the differences of opinion between Gruntfest and Beeston. He acknowledges, however, the existence of circumstantial complements but does not give any concrete or systematic description (Bauer 1966, 112). The latest scholar who has commented extensively on this issue, N. Nebes, also adheres to the idea that the finite verbal system in Arabic represents a system of relative tenses. Nebes’ analysis of Sabaean is based on the concept of a relative tense system applied on Semitic especially by the German scholars A. Denz for an Arabic dialect (Denz 1971), W. Gross and R. Bartelmus for Biblical Hebrew (Gross 1976; Bartelmus 1982) and M. Streck for Akkadian (Streck 1995; cf. Cook 2012, 7ff.). This model is also followed by S. Weninger in his description of the verbal system in Geez (Weninger 2001). Nebes presents his view of the Sabaean verbal system in detail in his study from 1994. This study is based on a corpus of ca. 950 cases of prefix forms in Sabaean epigraphic texts from ca. 700 BCE to the 6th century CE.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

303

Characterising the suffix form as marking anteriority (Vorzeitigkeit), i.e. past tense in relation to a reference point that can be located before, together with, or after the ‘present’ of the text, i. e. Speech-time, the prefix forms are said to mark simultaneity (Gleichzeitigkeit) and posteriority (Nachzeitigkeit; Nebes 1994, 204; cf. Nebes 1990, 63; Nebes and Stein 2004, 465). In a paper from 1990, Nebes had already discussed the circumstantial clause in Sabaean. It is defined as the equivalent of the Arabic wa-huwa yafʕalu. The Sabaean equivalent to the Arabic wa-huwa yafʕalu should be whʔ yfʕln which, according to Nebes, is not found in Sabaean (and not in Biblical Hebrew either, cf. Nebes 1994, 208). What we do find in Sabaean is a circumstantial clause with nominal constituents as in the Harami text CIH 533:2-4: bhn qrbh mrʔ ywm ṯlṯ ḥgtn w-hʔ ḥyḍ ‘because on the third day of the pilgrimage a man had approached her, when she was menstruating´ (cf. Nebes 1990, 65-66). The absence of verbal circumstantial clause in Sabaean is, according to Nebes, due to the fact that Sabaean does not possess a finite verbal form denoting relative simultaneity. The prefix form can only mark simultaneity with the ‘now’ of the text, i.e. it can be an ‘absolute’ present tense of the kind we find in European languages. In a subordinate clause, however, the prefix form can only mark posterity (Nebes 1990, 66-67). A complication is the use of prefix forms in main clauses in what seems to be continuous narratives referring to the past. Beeston also refers to its use as presenting a situation envisaged as a consequence or as a concomitant result of a preceding past-time act (Beeston 1984, 20; cf. Bauer 1966, 77). Nebes’ German term for this is ‘Progressfunktion’ which is defined as ‘activities … which in a context of actions move forward in time’ (‘Tätigkeiten … die in einem Handlungszusammenhang zeitlich fortschreiten’; Nebes 1994, 206; cf. Nebes 1995, 85f., 190 ff., 269 f.). The word progression will be used here as an English equivalent. By this Nebes explains the use of prefix forms in narrative past context and associates it with the so-called imperfect consecutive in Biblical Hebrew. This should also be seen as ‘progression’, i.e. indicating posteriority in relation to an event preceding it in time (Nebes 1994, 208-209). Nebes sees the verbal system in Sabaean as being very close to the one in Biblical Hebrew. In his opinion the BH yiqṭol (with or without a preceding w-) denotes simultaneity or posterity in relation to the textual ‘now’ but only

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

304

Jan Retsö

posterity in relation to relative ‘now’. A special case is, then, the marking of ‘progression’ in BH. This language has a special form, the so-called imperfect consecutive, consisting of the apocopated form of the imperfect with a prefixed wa- (+ an originally geminated consonant) marking the ‘Progressfunktion’, viz, posterity in relationship to a preceding event: ‘and then’ or ‘after that’. The difference between BH and Sabaean is that the latter does not have any special marking of progression (at least nothing observable in the unvocalised texts we have). The Sabaean prefix forms thus only mark ‘progression’/consecutivity and posterity in subordinate clauses, not simultaneity. According to Kogan and Korotaev (1997, 235), the imperfect in Sabaean denotes actions in the future or actions without time restriction, but also actions in the past regarded as consequences of other past actions. They quote Ja 631:29-31: w-bʕww b-llyn ḥyrt ʔḥbs2n w-yhrgn bn ʔḥbs2n ʔrbʕ mʔnm ʔs1dm ‘they attacked the camp of the Habashites at this night and killed of the Habashites 400 men’. There are also cases with imperfect without w- indicating past actions without consecutive meaning such as Ja 631:28: w-l-ṯlṯm ywmm ybrrn ‘and on the third day they came into the open [to fight]’. Stein (2003), Nebes and Stein (2004), Stein (2011; 2013) basically follow Nebes (1990) and (1994). The tense system is seen as a relative one, the imperfect expressing simultaneity and posteriority (Stein 2003, 166f; Nebes and Stein 2004, 465; Stein 2011, 1063-65; id.: 2013, 131-133). The latter leads to its function as a progressive past. Circumstantial clauses expressing simultaneity with verbal predicate, such as the Arabic wa-huwa yafʕalu, ‘cannot be identified in Old South Arabian with certainty’, only clauses with a nominal predicate (Nebes and Stein 2004, 476; Stein 2013, 165).

2. Evaluation of the research A crucial factor, in the discussion about circumstantial clauses in Sabaean, thus turns out to be the function of the imperfect, the Vpref. We have seen that scholars have differing opinions on that issue. According to Beeston, it may indicate contemporaneity with absolute past. Gruntfest sees it as a variant of absolute past originating from a consecutive function. Nebes claims that it always marks posterity in the absolute past. Beeston’s analysis is quite sketchy and he does not give a complete comparison between the Arabiyya system and the Sabaean one. This is problemat-

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

305

ic since he does not provide any good examples which would relate the two systems to each other. Gruntfest’s conclusions relate Sabaean more closely to Biblical Hebrew. But his analysis leaves the reader confused because one has to assume a rather haphazard use of the two basic finite verbal forms of the language in some literary texts in Sabaean. The claim, that Vpref and Vsuff can be used more or less optionally, is somewhat unsatisfactory. It can be argued that there should be a difference between causality and successive events: the latter are not necessarily caused by a preceding event. That this interpretation is not unproblematic is clear from Beeston’s translation of the example from RÉS 3945:16: ‘he designated from Nashan those whose dedication to the gods was ordained, so that they should be slain’. Beeston uses another concept viz. that of intended consecutivity: the sentence does not say that these people were killed, only that this was the intention. In classical Greek a distinction is made between intended and factual consecutivity and it might be worthwhile to keep this distinction in mind. Consecutivity and causality are categories that establish a kind of link between events which, as a rule, is absent in a narrative of successive events. This kind of linking is the one intended by the concept progression used by the German scholars. Such a linking of events does thus not necessarily indicate any consecutive, causal or final relationship. It goes without saying that these distinctions can be crucial for an understanding of a text. Another question is whether the language codes these distinctions and, if so, in which way. Nebes has a narrow definition of circumstantial clauses. His definition of the ḥāl-complement as wa-huwa yafʕalu i.e. S+Vpref does not conform to the traditional definition which is broader (see below). His claim that the Sabaean Vpref marks simultaneity only in main clauses, and never in subordinate or complementary ones, is an allegation which remains problematic. According to Nebes, Sabaean Vsuff fʕl is ‘vorzeitig’ regardless of the Relationswert. Vpref yfʕl(n) is ‘gleichzeitig’ and ‘nachzeitig’ in main clauses but not ‘gleichzeitig’ in subordinate clauses. As will be shown here, there are facts which speak against. If Nebes’ analysis is correct, Sabaean, unlike Biblical Hebrew, would not make any visible distinction between marking of posterity and progression. A problem is that Sabaean indeed seems to make such a distinction, viz. by the employment of the infinitive. Thus, in a middle Sabaean text we find a sequence like this (Ja 576:3):

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

306

Jan Retsö

w-ṯbrw w-hbʕln w-qmʕ w-hs1bʕn ‘and they destroyed [Vsuff] and seized [inf] and subjugated [inf] and plundered [inf]’. The perfect ṯbrw is followed by three infinitives, in derived and augmented verbal forms usually marked with an n-suffix. These forms undoubtedly mark progression in accordance with Nebes’ analysis and would thus be an alternative way of making this distinction. Sabaean would thus have two different ways of marking progression. Although not impossible, this still is somewhat unsatisfactory. The use of non-finite infinitival forms like finite forms is also sporadically found in Biblical Hebrew where the so-called absolute infinitive may be employed in this way. But, unlike the Sabaean infinitive, this is quite rare in BH and the absolute inifinitive does not replace the consecutive (progression-marking) but may replace all kinds of finite forms (Gesenius 1910 § 113.4 (y)). Nebes’ claim that circumstantial clauses with finite verbs do not exist in Biblical Hebrew also has to be sustained by detailed argument since most descriptions of that language assumes this to be the case. Nebes’ claim that Biblical Hebrew has no verbal circumstantial clauses denoting simultaneity thus remains controversial and cannot be used as a supporting argument for the absence of circumstantial clauses in Sabaean. Several scholars, if not most of them, assume the contrary to be the case. There is a plethora of examples in the Hebrew Bible which look very much identical to the circumstantial clauses yafʕalu syntagm in the Arabiyya (see eg. Gesenius 1909, 489-491; Driver 1892, 31-33, 206; Davidson 1901, 185-190; Meyer 1972 III, 92; Andersen 1974, 77ff.; Joüon/Muraoka 1996 § 159; Isaksson 2009; Eskhult forthcoming, 32). The examples given by Waltke/O’Connor (1990, 504) Nebes rejects without any argument (‘… sind anders zu interpretieren’). Others have argued against as well (Kuhr 1929, 37; Joosten 2012, 125ff.). The argument against their existence seems to be that since yiqtol (long Vpref) does not mark present tense in main clauses (this being the task of the active participle) it cannot have this function in CC complements (Joosten 2012). This argument is, however, doubtful. Most scholars admit that yiqtol can have this function in the poetic language, especially in archaic poetry. This usage thus belongs to an earlier stage of the language. It is thus not to be excluded prima facie that it might have preserved this function in certain syntagms in later prose even if,

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

307

admittedly, of rare occurrence. The claim that yiqtol never marks simultaneity leads to strained explanations of many passages (cf. Cook 2012, 219f). It is worth adducing a few prosaic passages that by many scholars are seen as containing circumstantial clauses (Waltke/O’Connor 1990, 504): wayyåḇoʾ ḥûšay … håʕîr w-ʔaḇšålom yåḇoʾ yrûšålåyim ‘Hushay came into the city while Abshalom was entering Jerusalem’ (2 Sam. 15:37). wayyånuʕû ʔammoṯ hassippîm … w-habbayiṯ yimmåleʾ ʕåšån ‘The doorposts shook … while the temple was filled with smoke’ (Isa. 6:4). wayyaʕalû ʔîš yisråʔel hûʾ qåm wayyaḵ bapplištîm … w-håʕåm yåšuḇû ʔaḥaråyw ʔaḵ lp̄ aššeṭ ‘And the men of Israel retreated. He stood his ground and struck the Philistines … while the troops returned after him but only to strip the dead’ (2 Sam. 23:9-10). wattiṯpallel ʕal YHWH ûḇåḵō tiḇkǣ ‘She prayed to YHWH weeping’ (1 Sam. 1:10). These examples have two characteristics which mark them as having a special function: S+V word order and a gram-switch. They are also characterized by chiasm. In Classical Greek one would have the mèn … dè construction. One might compare a modern Arabic translation of these passages which shows how Arabic can handle different kinds of relationships between events in a narrative. fa-ʔatā ḥūšay … wa-ʔabšalūm yadḫulu. fa-htazzat …wa-mtalaʔat. fa-ʔaqāma wa-ḍaraba … wa-raǧaʕa. fa-ṣallat … wa-bakat bukāʔan. The main narrative line is marked by fa- + Vsuff (‘perfect’). Then there are two ways of marking simultaneity, either by wa- + Vsuff or wa- + Vpref. It is obvious that the Arabic translator has interpreted these passages as containing different kinds of circumstantial clauses. This also shows how the analysis is dependent on an understandig of the narrative structure of the text. If one acknowledges the existence of circumstantial clauses with a verbal predicate

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

308

Jan Retsö

indicating simultaneity (as well as anteriority and posterity) in Biblical Hebrew, this does not immediately disprove Nebes’ analysis of Sabaean but the support of a parallel in another Semitic language disappears. From the survey given here, it also appears that the scholars who have commented on the question about (verbal) circumstantial clauses in Sabaean have used quite different concepts and definitions. The usual definition of ḥāl is that it gives a comment on a clause which refers to events or states simultaneous or prior to that clause. In the Arabiyya-system the simultaneous event is coded by the imperfect indicative, the prior event by the perfect form, often preceded by the particle qad. This is often seen as a kind of gram-switch, i.e. the breaking of a series of parallel morphosyntactic elements, signaling another syntactic-semantic category. The scholars quoted add several other concepts: finality (Brockelmann), consecutivity (Höfner), causality (Gruntfest) and progression (Gruntfest, Nebes); concepts which should be kept apart.

3. The question of tense/aspect The problem of tense versus aspect will not be discussed in detail here. Suffice it to quote a clarifying presentation of the categories involved, ultimately based on the writings of Carlota Smith as referred to by Notarius (2011, 277f., cf. Cook 2012, 7-18) and basically followed in this study: Time in language involves a linkage between three times – Event Time (ET), Reference Time (RT) and Speeech Time (ST) and is controlled by by three possible relations (anteriority, coincidence, posteriority) within two temporal nodes: (1) ST and RT, (2) RT and ET. There are three patterns of temporal interpretation in discourse – deictic, anaphoric, and sequential: deictic time establishes reference to ST, anaphoric time refers to another, non-ST, contextually established RT, and sequential time builds an autonomous temporal succession of events/situations, usually in chronological order. The three time patterns bracket together with three groups of situational entities […] eventualities, which include specific events […] and states; general statives […] and abstract entities. In addition to the time patterns and situation entities Smith postulates regularities of text-progression. Text-progression can be temporal through the temporal locations of eventualities, spatial through the spa-

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

309

tial location of states, and metaphorical through the informational space of the text. These three temporal dimensions(time in discourse, aspectual entities in discourse and text progression) shape the linguistic character of five discourse modes narrative […], report […], description […], information […] argument. Without saying it explicitly, Beeston, in his two studies on Sabaean, assumes a relative tense system for Sabaean (as well as for Arabic) which is also partly assumed by Nebes for Sabaean. Translated into the terminology quoted above this means that the suffix form (the ‘perfect’) locates an event anterior to a reference time (RT), which in its turn can be coincidental, anterior or posterior to ST. The prefix form (the ‘imperfect’) locates an event as coincidental with RT which in its turn may be anterior, coincidental or posterior to ST. This is thus what Smith/Notarius label anaphoric time. The concept of progression, as used by the German scholars, would be sequential time in accordance with the Smith/Notarius model. There is thus a possibility that a language marks anaphoric time and sequential time in the verbal system but not deictic time. In a language with such a system all verbal forms at a first glance can refer to anteriority, coincidence or posteriority vis-à-vis ST. This has led many scholars to claim that Biblical Hebrew is tenseless language (Notarius 2011, 276). This is correct only if tense is defined as absolute tense which, however, is an unnecessary narrowing of the concept.

4. The ḥāl concept: The case of the Arabiyya It is obvious that the concept of ḥāl complements in the grammar of the Arabiyya plays a central role in the discussion about circumstantial clauses in other Semitic languages including Sabaean. Beeston leans heavily on the Arabiyya-grammar in general in his description of Sabaean and its sister languages. Nebes’ starting point is the Arabiyya syntagm finite verb + wa- + explicit subject + imperfect indicative which he claims does not exist in Sabaean. Both scholars take their point of departure in morphosyntactics. But, as we have seen, there are also other concepts involved in the discussion such as ‘consecutive’ and ‘progression’ which are semantic. The discussion is part of a larger issue, viz. the combining of clauses with finite verbs, which semantic categories are involved and how they are marked, of which a tentative typolo-

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

310

Jan Retsö

gy is presented by Dixon (2009). In order to clarify concepts, a short survey of how the relevant syntagms are handled in the basic descriptions of the grammar of the Arabiyya is a good starting point. But the issue is also connected with how the verbal system in these languages is understood. The notion of gram switching and its function, which plays a crucial role in the description of the phenomenon, is intimately connected with the TAM system. In order to understand how the relevant phenomena appear in Sabaean, it is necessary to have some grasp of the position of the Sabaean verbal system within the Semitic languages as a whole. The following is a preliminary sketch of this background. In the standard descriptions of the Arabiyya the following syntagms are relevant to this discussion (cf. Waltisberg 2009, 2-19).

1) Progression The concept progression (not to be confused with the term progressive) is often used by German scholars together with, or instead of, consecutive in the sense of the presentation of successive events in a narrative structure. But, since consecutive also has other meanings, it is advisable to make some distinctions. The term progression should be reserved for a series of independent events that follow each other in a narrative line. In the Arabiyya it is marked by the particle fa- The fa- indicates the temporal succession of the reported events (Reckendorf 1895, 463; Reckendorf 1921, 316-320; Fischer 1987 §329; Waltisberg 2009, 5; Isaksson 2009, 39ff. cf. Dixon 2009, 9ff.). It should be observed that the subsequent verb may be Vsuff or Vpref indicative which actually may indicate several kinds of progression. Nebes distinguishes between ‘zeitlicher Progress’ and ‘folgerndes Progress’ (Nebes 1995, 190 ff.). The latter belongs to the syntagms treated in the following paragraphs: fa-stabaqnā ʔilā ḏī ḥusumin fa-sabaqnā-hum ʔilay-hi fa-nazala l-ḥusaynu fa-ʔamara bi-ʔabniyati-hi fa-ḍuribat ‘We raced towards Dhū Ḥusum and we got there before them. Then Ḥusayn dismounted and gave orders about his tents and they were erected’ (quoted by Isaksson loc. cit.)

2) Juxtaposition When linked by wa-, the events coded by the verbs are not ordered in a chain. Events are presented on the same temporal reference point but there is no

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

311

temporal structuring between them (Reckendorf 1895, 446-455; Reckendorf 1921, 320ff.; Waltisberg 2009, 5). We here have a case which Smith/Notarius would classify as spatial textual progress and which is part of Dixon’s category Addition (unordered or same-event, Dixon 2009, 26ff.). A suggested term for this is juxtaposition: fa-ʔarsala ʕazza wa-ǧalla s-sakīnata wa-hiya rīḥun ḫaǧūǧun … fataṭawwat ʕalā mawḍiʕi l-bayti … wa-ʔumira ʔibrāhīma ʔan yabniya … fabanā ʔibrāhīmu wa-baqiya ḥaǧarun fa-ḏahaba l-ġulāmu yabnī šayʔan… ‘God sent the sakīna which is a strong wind … and it encircled the place of the House … [by then] Abraham was ordered to build … Abraham then built but a stone remained (= was missing). Then the young man went to build something else…’ (aṭ-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh I:275). If verbs coordinated by fa- may be translated with ‘and then’, verbs with wawould be ‘and also’, ‘further’. In the example just quoted we see that not only the nominal circumstantial clause is introduced with wa- but also clauses with Vsuff. The wa- indicates a pause in the sequence of events telling an additional event (cf. also Reckendorf 1895, 456).

3) Focus On looking through the examples of ḥāl and ‘consecutive’ constructions with fa- listed by Reckendorf and others, there appears a category that might be singled out under its own label. Consider the following (Reckendorf 1921 § 164): sakata saktatan fa-ʔaṭāla-hā ‘he was quiet for a long time’ (lit.: ‘he was quiet and he prolonged it’) karra bi-nā r-rikāba fa-ʔasraʕa ‘he made his horse rush towards us with great speed’ (lit.: ‘he made the horse rush … and speeded it up’). The verb marked by fa- in these cases hardly implies a subsequent action. Instead, they indicate a close-up of the main verb, by a more detailed exposition of the verb. This is equivalent to Dixon’s term elaboration, a subcategory of Addition (Dixon 2009, 27ff.). There is a further asyndetic variant of this (Wright II, 288; Waltisberg 2009, 6):

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

312

Jan Retsö

saǧada ʔaṭāla ‘he prayed for a long time’ ġannā ʔaḥsana ‘he sang beautifully’ qāma saǧada la-hu ‘he arose and prostrated himself before him’ ʔarsala ʔaʕlama ʔabā-hu ‘he sent (and) informed his father’.

4) Factual consecutive Like the ḥāl concept, the term consecutive as used in the discussion seems to cover several distinct categories. The definition suggested here is that of events that state a consecutive relation, i.e. an event which in some ways follows from another one. The category (equivalent to Dixon’s Consequence) may be divided in consequences that are factual and those which are modal, i.e. imagined, wanted, feared etc. (Dixon 2009, 17ff.). It then appears that the Arabiyya would use fa- for the factual consecutive. The tense in both clauses is identical which makes it morphosyntactically but not semantically identical with category 1) above (Reckendorf 1895, 455-466): ḍarabtu-hu fa-bakā ‘I hit him and then ( = so that) he cried’ ʔamara bi-l-bābi fa-ʔuġliqa ‘he gave an order about the door and it was shut/then ( = so that) it was shut’

5) Modal consecutive For the modal, i.e. intended consecutive, the rule given is with fa- + Vpref subjunctive (Reckendorf 1895, 747ff.). yā nāqu sīrī ʔilā sulaymāna fa-nastarīḥā ‘O camel! Go to Sulaymān so that we may rest!’ But the subjunctive is not all prevailing. Even Vpref indicative occurs: karihtu ʔan ʔaḫruǧa-kum fa-tamšūna fī ṭ-ṭīni

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

313

‘I loathed to let you go out so that you might walk in mud’ The subjunctive may be ambiguous: lā taʔtī-nī fa-tuḥaddiṯa-nī ‘you do not come to me 1) so that you might tell me’ 2) ‘so that you tell me’ (you come but cannot tell).

6) Coordinated circumstantial clause This syntagm is defined as complements coordinated to a preceding finite verb with wa- + subj. + finite verb. Unlike the cases treated above, the verb has a relative tense value with its reference point indicated by the governing verb (Reckendorf 1895, 553, 556; Fischer 1987, 185f.). ʔaqbalat ʕīrun wa-naḥnu nuṣallī ‘Camels came while we were praying’ kataba bi-ḏāka ʔilā hišāmin wa-yastaʔḏinu-hu fī-hi ‘He wrote about this to Hisham asking him for permission for it’ Both circumstantial clauses present an activity which is going on when something new happens. The simultaneity of the situation is coded by the Vpref verb in the circumstantial clause. It is actually the classical coincidence case. The difference between the two sentences is that the complement clause marked by wa- in the first one has a subject different from the governing clause whereas in the second the subject is identical. We observe that in the latter case we actually do not have a circumstantial clause according to the definition since there is no element before the verb. ʔa-nuʔminu laka wa-ttabaʕa-ka l-ʔarḏalūn ‘Shall we believe you when contemptible men have followed you?’ fa-ntabaha wa-qad šaddū-hu ‘He was informed, in that they had arrested him’. These clause complexes include circumstantial clauses marking events which are anterior to the event coded in the governing clause, marked by Vsuff verbs.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

314

Jan Retsö

7) Predicative circumstantial clauses This syntagm is defined as an asyndetic complement (verbal, nominal), i.e. complements with no linking element (Reckendorf 1895, 550, 555; Reckendorf 1921 § 450; Fischer 1987 § 408, 431). A suggested characterisation of the complement in these cases is a concretization/singling out or adding a feature to the governing verb (underlined in the examples): fī-hi taqūlu ʔuḫtu-hu tarṯī-hi ‘His sister talks about him lamenting him’. ǧāʔū-kum ḥaṣirat ṣudūru-hum ‘They came to them their bosoms being contracted’ (cf. Q 4:90). daḫala l-bayta lā yusallimu ʕalay-ya ‘He entered the house without greeting me’. This construction often has a final meaning largely depending on the semantics of the verb. It occurs especially after verbs of motion: baʕaṯa ʔilā muʕāwiyata yaṭlubu ṣ-ṣulḥa ‘He sent a messenger to Muʔāwiya asking/in order to ask for armistice’ ḫaraǧtu ʔanā wa-ʔabī nataṣayyadu ‘I went out with my father to hunt’. This syntagm can be transformed into a noun in the accusative case: qāma māddan ṯawba-hu bi-yadin = qāma yamuddu ṯawba-hu bi-yadin ‘He stood up straightening his mantle with his hand’. Summing up this survey, we thus have the following main semantic categories involved in the discussion about the circumstantial clause: 1 progression ‘and then’ 2 juxtaposition ‘and also’, ‘as well as’ 3 focussing ‘more precisely’ 4 factual consecutive ‘and because of that [it happens]’ 5 modal consecutive ‘so that it may/might [happen]’ 6 coordinated circumstantial complement = clausal attribution ‘while’ 7 predicative circumstantial complement = verbal attribution ‘in that’

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

315

They can be classified into the following categories: Progression (=1): the introduction of new verbal sememes, referring events occurring in temporal succession, more or less independent of each other. This is Dixon’s subcategory ‘temporal succession’, one of his temporal linking types (Dixon 2009, 2). Focus (=2-3): attribution of characteristics to a verb, derivable from the verbal sememe, belonging to the semantic sphere of the verb, or simply characterisation of the verb. This would be Dixon’s linking type Addition subcategorized as ‘unordered addition’, ‘same-event addition’ or ‘elaboration’ (Dixon loc. cit.). Consecutive (=4-5): events/states following each other in succession but with a causal link between them, either factual or imagined, Dixon’s linking type Consequence. Background (= 6-7): commenting the circumstances in front of which the events and states take place. This is more difficult to integrate into Dixon’s linking types since it may belong to Temporal as well as Addition. The morphosyntactic means available in the Arabiyya for coding these categories are the following (MC = main clause): a. b. c. d. e. f.

MC wa-+pron/subj. + Vpref/Vsuff MC Vpref/Vsuff MC V identical tenses MC fa+Vpref/Vsuff identical tenses MC fa + Vpref subjunctive MC wa+ Vpref./Vsuff. identical tenses

It is 6) and 7) / a) and b) which represent the traditional finite ḥāl-clause in Arabic. But it is clear that the semantic structures of these two categories are not limited to them. From the survey of the Arabiyya it appears that there is no watertight distinction between these categories. On the whole, the traditional definition of verbal ḥāl-clauses can definitely be questioned (cf. Nebes 1990 n. 6). The circumstantial clause in case 7) often seems to indicate an addition to the semantic contents of the governing verb, not a specification, even if the complement can often be located in the ‘semantic sphere’ of the governing verb. To send someone can often imply asking for something (but

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

316

Jan Retsö

not necessarily); taking off one’s clothes can imply a following washing (but not necessarily), and so forth. We are dealing with a kind of attribute to a verb, an extension of the verbal domain. A complement of the kind described in 7) can also have a final meaning: ‘he did this in order to…’. There is no explicit signalling when this is intended. It might be observed that there is no clear-cut semantic dividing line between syntagms 3), 5), 6) and 7). The traditional verbal ḥāl-clause thus turns out to represent two different categories: background comment to a clause and extension of the domain of a verb. But these distinctions can also be coded by other syntagms than the traditional ḥāl-clause. The constructions are often replaceable by each other. The two sentences in 3) above could also be formulated as 7): sakata saktatan yuṭīlu-hā karra bi-nā r-rikāba yusriʕu A clause like ‘God’s messenger asked’ can be formulated in the following ways: saʔala rasūlu llāhi yaqūlu saʔala rasūlu llāhi qāʔilan saʔala rasūlu llāhi fa-qāla The fa-construction, followed by a verb in the same tense as the preceding one, is obviously a variant of the traditional asyndetic ḥāl-clause. It is thus evident that the different morphosyntactic means used by the language do not always signal one category only. This is partly due to the fact that it is not always possible or desirable for the language to make the proper distinctions.

5. The Sabaean verbal system in a Semitic perspective The existence in Sabaean of clauses with nominal constituents functioning like the corresponding Arabic ḥāl-clauses seems not to be contested by any of the scholars (cf. Nebes 1990, 64; Stein 2013, 127f.). The bone of contention is clauses with a finite verbal predicate. The essential facts are that Sabaean often uses the finite prefix forms (Vpref) in contexts where one would expect a suffix form (Vsuff). The use of prefix forms as an equivalent to an absolute past tense in Sabaean is thus unquestionable. The question is if this phenomenon lends support to the assumption of the existence of circumstantial clauses

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

317

in that language, or the opposite. As far as the Vpref is concerned, we notice that there are divided opinions among the scholars who have commented upon it: present tense or progression, i.e. consecutive narrative. The question about circumstantial clauses is thus closely connected with how the Sabaean verbal system is understood (cf. Nebes 1994). The basic outline of the system of finite verbs in Semitic languages can be classified into the following separate systems: Terms a) Akkadian b) Northwest-Central Sem. c) Ethiosem.

1. iparras yaqtul-u yəqattəl

2. iprus yaqtul yəqtəl

3. qatal qatal

The term common to all three variants is term 2) and it can be assumed that it constitutes a common morphological heritage. Term 1) has been characterized by different labels: imperfective aspect, durative, cursive, progressive, simultaneous, and present tense and a definite analysis will not be made here. There is widespread agreement that 1) is an innovation in the verbal systems of Akkadian and Ethiosemitic (Rundgren 1959; Kouwenberg 2011, 85-123; Cook 2012, 95-120), albeit a very ancient one. We may thus notice that Akkadian and Ethiosemitic have used similar morphological means to create this term. It may be claimed that the NWCS group shares the innovation but uses a different morphology. The function of term 1) in all three groups, however, is more or less the same. Since term 1) is innovative we have to assume a privative opposition as the result: term 1) is the marked term with supposedly a clear-cut function; 2) remains the default category. So, if term 1) functions as cursive-present and so forth, term 2) fulfils the remaining categories, not only perfective, anteriority, past tense etc., but different modalities like future, volitive, habitual, and irrealis. It may, however, be observed that, since term 1) tends to intrude into the remaining domains of term 2), its function as a future tense is widespread. The languages in groups b) and c) have yet one term, 3), which is also considered an innovation. The morphology of the term shows its origin in the nominal system and it is usually seen as an original resultative perfect: ‘I stand’ =/< ‘I have stood up’, originally limited to verbs of certain semantic classes but developing towards a general marker of anteriority, perfective aspect or past tense. It has thus intruded into the semantic/functional field of

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

318

Jan Retsö

term 2) which is receding on all fronts (Cook 2012, 96-97, 99-105). We can observe how qatal, not only replaces yaqtul in its anteriority/perfective/past tense functions, but also as a posteriority/future tense, most evident in the socalled perfect consecutive in Biblical Hebrew. There are, thus, two major innovations resulting in the verbal systems we see in the early Semitic languages: innovation I creating a marked cursiveimperfective-present form, and II creating a perfective-punctual-past form. We shall not go into the further developments, especially in NWSC where yaqtul-u later on is replaced in many functions by the participle qātil/qotel (Joosten 2012). One should observe the difference between NWCS languages and Akkadian/Ethiosemitic in creating term 1). NWCS uses the yaqtul (iprus) but adds a vocalic element. The two resulting variants of the Vpref in NWCS we shall call long (term 1) and short (term 2) respectively. There is a further differentiation in verbs from weak roots between long and short Vpref with alternating long and short theme vowels like the Arabiyya yaqūm(-u) # yaqŭm; yabnī # yabnĭ. This differentiation is thus not a common Semitic heritage (cf. Revell 1984; Kouwenberg 2010, 476f.; 499). It should be added that the nun paragogicum, sporadic in Biblical Hebrew (yiqṭlūn etc.) but compulsory in the long Vpref in some other languages (Phoenician, Aramaic), should not be considered a basic common characteristic of the long Vpref. Worth noting is also that it seems clear that, even if the Arabic complex belongs to the NWCS-languages, not all forms of Arabic have undergone both innovations. The imperfects with b-, t- and k-prefixes in many modern dialects should be seen as representing innovation I, i.e. the creation of term 1 (Retsö 2014). But most dialects do not have these devices and do not use participles as finite forms either. All known forms of Arabic do, however, have innovation II. The Sabaean verbal system appears as a binary system with Vsuff opposed to Vpref. The Vsuff is identical to the qatal-form in NWCS and Ethiosemitic. The Vpref occurs in two variants: one with a –n(n)-suffix and one without. These are sometimes called long and short imperfects respectively (Stein 2003, 166), which is unfortunate considering the meaning of these terms in NWCS where they stand for something else. It is better to use a neutral designation like Imperfect I for the n-less form, and imperfect II for the one with the n-augment (cf. now Stein 2011, 1061 and id. 2013, 80).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

319

The Vpref paradigm of the 3rd person looks as follows: Sing.

dual.

plur.

Impf. I

yqtl tqtl

yqtl-y *tqtl-y

yqtl-w tqtl-n

Impf. II

ytql-n tqtl-n

yqtl-nn tqtl-nn

yqtl-nn tqtl-nn

Impf. I

ybny tbny

ybny-y tbny-y

ybny-w tbny-w

Impf. II

ybny-n tbny-n

*ybny-y *tbny-y

ybny-nn *tbny-nn

Strong roots

Roots IIIw/y

The shape of the Vpref from IIIw/y roots leads to the assumption that there is no visible trace in Sabaean of the short imperfect of the NWCS (cf. Beeston 1983, 16; Stein 2011, 1061; 2003, 192, 194 n241: a form l-yʔt from the verb ʔty ‘to come’ is found three times in one inscription RÉS 4176 but the same text also has l-yqny). Even if the South Arabian script has no vowel signs it could well have made a difference between short and long imperfects of IIIw/y roots as Ugaritic does (Stein 2003, 194) since final long vowels are written plene. As long as we do not have evidence of the opposite, the conclusion to be drawn is that the Sabaean imperfect I is the ancient iprus/yaqtul unaffected by the differentiation processes observable in NWCS. Imperfect I would thus have looked something like *ya/iqtol – *ya/ibnī – *yi/aqūm. At the same time Sabaean has the Vsuff forms like all the NWCS languages. It thus shares these two features with Ethiopic (Geez) but unlike that language it does not have the iparras/yəqattəl form (Nebes 1994b). Noticeable is that Ethiosemitic does not have any variation between long and short imperfects either. From what we can observe from the writing system, Sabaean stands out as a fourth type of organisation of the verbal system alongside Akkadian, the NWCS, and Ethiosemitic. It has innovation II but not innovation I. We should reckon with a qatal with meaning/function similar to the equivalent in Ethiosemitic and, to a certain extent in NWCS.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

320

Jan Retsö

The Sabaean yqtl can thus be expected to have the function of simultaneity/non-past/future etc. But if the diachrony is as has been sketched here, it can be expected that it also can have the function of anteriority/past tense etc. in certain syntagms and/or text types, survivals of an earlier stage of the language. The Sabaean system is in many respects reminiscent of the verbal system visible in Archaic Biblical Hebrew (Joosten 2012, 411-434; Notarius 2013; Eskhult forthcoming). Many of the poetic texts in the Old Testament exhibit features in the verbal system that seem to represent a stage prior to the one found in Standard Biblical Hebrew (see especially Notarius 2013). In ABH we find several cases where the long and short Vpref are used in the same way, both as narratives, modalities and as circumstantial complements. Similar features are found also in Ugaritic (Greenstein 2006). Another group of Semitic languages where a similar system is found is, remarkably enough, several forms of Arabic, e.g. modern Arabic dialects like the dialects of Naǧd and Tchad and several others which do not have traces of innovation I above, only II. But also the Arabiyya itself, in spite of having had both innovations, nonetheless often shows a use of verbal forms strongly reminiscent of ABH and the dialects mentioned. There are, thus, good typological parallels in other Semitic languages to the structure of the Sabaean verbal system assumed here which, then, becomes more likely if one liberates oneself from the traditional idea that ‘Protosemitic’ must have had a morphology more or less identical with that of the Arabiyya. The question that arises is: if the yqtl gram can fulfill all these functions in the language discernible in ABH, in some Arabic dialects and Sabaean; are there any means in these languages to separate at least some of the functions, given that there are no morphological means available? The yqtl would basically have non-anteriority functions, although it is amply documented that it may well be employed as a narrative tense, and in many instances it is not possible to see it as a past progressive or the like, distinguishing it from qtl. Instead, many of those instances might represent syntactic fossils, survivals of a stage when the Vpref was the sole finite form in the language. If we assume that there ever was such a stage in the forebears of Semitic, it is likely that there still was some morphological differentiation within the Vpref category. This question will be treated by the present author in a forthcoming study.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

321

6. Clause combining in Arabic: Three examples We shall adduce three examples from Arabic illustrating some of the intricacies of clause combining, two examples from the Arabiyya and one from a modern spoken form. The first Arabiyya example is found in an episode in Ibn Isḥāq’s account of the battle of Ḥunayn (Ibn Isḥāq 846, 8ff, cf. Nöldeke 1963, 68f): wa-rasūlu llāhi yaqūlu ḥīna raʔā mā raʔā min-a n-nāsi: ‘ʔayna ʔayyuhā n-nāsu’ wa-lam ʔara n-nāsa yalwūna ʕalā šayʔin fa-qāla yā ʕabbāsu uṣruḫ ‘yā maʕšara l-ʔanṣāri yā maʕšara s-sumrati’ qāla fa-ʔaǧābū: ‘labbayka labbayka’ qāla fa-yaḏhabu r-raǧulu li-yaṯniya baʕīra-hu fa-lāyaqdiru ʕalā ḏālika fa-yaʔḫuḏu dirʕa-hu fa-yaqḏifu-hā fi ʕunqi-hi fayaʔḫuḏu sayfa-hu wa-tursa-hu wa-yaqtaḥimu ʕan baʕīri-hi wa-yuḫallī sabīla-hu wa-yaʔummu ṣ-ṣawta ḥattā yantahiya ʔilā rasūli llāhi… ‘The apostle said when he saw the people [in confusion in the battle], ‘Where [are you going] men?’ And I did not see anyone paying heed to anything, and he said ‘O Abbas, cry loudly: ‘O ʾansār, O comrades of the acacia tree!’’ and they answered ‘Here we are, here we are!’; then the man tried to turn his beast but could not do it; then he took his mail, threw it on his neck, took his sword and shield, got off his mount and let it go its way and make for the voice until he came to the apostle…’ The series of Vpref from fa-yaḏhabu definitely refers to a succession of events which take place in the absolute past indicated by the Vsuff fa-ʔaǧābū. The translation by Guillaume 1955 ad loc. is wrong, but reflects the fact that the use of the Vpref is contrary to what is expected from the presentation in most grammars and textbooks of Arabic. One may also notice the introductory ḥāl-clause which stands in front of the clause with the governing verb. The second Arabiyya example is taken from the ḥadīths about the ḥaǧǧ describing the ritual of stone-throwing at Minā (al-Bukhārī: Ṣaḥīḥ: K. al-ḥaǧǧ: bāb 136, 137): No. 1748 (ʕAbd ar-Raḥmān b. Yazīd about ʕAbdallāh b. ʕUmar:) ḥaddaṯa-nā ʔanna-hu ntahā ʔilā l-ǧamrati l-kubrā ǧaʕala l-bayta ʕan yasārihi wa-minan ʕan yamīni-hi wa-ramā bi-sabʕin wa-qāla hākaḏā ramā llaḏī ʔunzilat ʕalay-hi sūratu l-baqarati

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

322

Jan Retsö

‘He [ʕAbd ar-Raḥmān] said: He [ʕAbdallāh] came to the big stela having put the Temple on his left and Mina on his right; he thereby threw seven [stones] and said/saying: This is how the one on whom the 2nd sura was revealed threw’. The Vsuff/perfects have different functions in this passage. The first indicates the main event: Abdallah (after having performed some ceremonies) arrives at the big stela. The asyndetic ǧaʕala refers to a situation resulting from his preparatory movements. He has seen the stela and then takes a position, ensuring that the Temple (= the Kaʿba?) is on his left before he starts the throwing of stones. This clause is thus a traditional ḥāl-complement. The throwing is introduced by wa- plus a verb in the perfect followed by another wa- plus a perfect verb where Abdallah comments the throwing. The use of wa- and not fa- indicates juxtaposition, i.e. that the throwing as well as the comment takes place while continuously keeping the Temple to his left. The ceremony is described in more detail in other ḥadīths: no. 1750: fa-stabṭana l-wādiya ḥattā ʔiḏā ḥāḏā bi-š-šaǧarati ʕtaraḍa-hā fa-ramā bi-sabʕi ḥaṣayātin yukabbiru maʕa kulli ḥaṣātin ‘Then he went down the middle of the valley until, when he had come near the tree, he stood opposite to it. Then he threw seven pebbles saying Allāhu ʔakbar with every pebble’. no 1751: … ʔannahu [Abdallāh b. ʕUmar] kāna yarmī l-ǧamrata d-dunyā bi-sabʕi haṣayātin yukabbiru ʕalā ʔiṯri kulli ḥaṣātin ṯumma yataqaddamu ḥattā yushila fa-yaqūmu mustaqbila l-qiblati. ‘… that [Abdallah] pelted the closest stela with seven pebbles saying Allāhu akbar after every pebble; then he went forward to get to a level ground and stood facing the qibla’. In 1750 we have two successive events told with fa- + Vsuff : ‘he went down’ and ‘he threw’ and then an asyndetic Vpref indicating what was taking place while he threw. The Vpref receives its absolute tense value through the preceding Vsuff. In 1751 it can be observed how the same throwing is expressed by a Vsuff of the ‘auxiliary’ kāna ‘it/he was’ + a Vpref. The meaning is hardly iterative or habitual but an event in the past. The syntagm kāna yafʕalu evidently has the same function as faʕala.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

323

no.1752: ḥaddaṯanā… : ʔinna ʕAbdallāh b. ʕUmar … kāna yarmī lǧamrata d-dunyā b-sabʕi ḥaṣayātin ṯumma yukabbiru ʕalā kulli ḥaṣātin ṯumma yataqaddamu fa-yushilu fa-yaqūmu mustaqbila l-qiblati qiyāman ṭawīlan… ‘Abdallah threw seven stones at the First stela, then saying Allāhu ʔakbar on every stone; then he went forward and stood on a level ground facing the qibla for a long while’. In 1752 we notice the same Vpref indicating the accompanying event (yukabbiru) but this time it is preceded by the particle ṯumma, ‘then’, ‘afterwards’. The following verb is marked in the same way followed by a third one, likewise a Vpref, this time introduced by fa-. It is hard to see these Vpref as ḥālimperfects. An alternative is to see them as habitual: every time Abdallah performed the ceremony of ramy he used to… The problem with this is that the ḥadīth is finished by the quotation like in no. 1748, an indication that even this one refers to one specific occasion. We would rather have a series of progressing events starting with kāna yarmī, i.e. all the Vpref receive their tense value from kāna which locates the events reported as successive, i.e. progress, in the absolute past. The following version of the ceremony describes how the Prophet himself performed it: No 1753: kāna ʔiḏā ramā l-ǧamrata l-latī talī masǧda minan yarmī-hā bisabʕi ḥaṣayātin yukabbiru kullamā ramā bi-ḥaṣātin ṯumma taqaddama ʔamāma-hā fa-waqafa mustaqbilan-i l-qiblati rāfiʕan yaday-hi yadʕū wakāna yuṭīlu l-wuqufa ṯumma yaʔtī l-ǧamrata ṯ-ṯāniyata fa-yarmī-hā bi-sabʕi ḥaṣayātin yukabbiru kullamā ramā bi-ḥaṣātin ṯumma yanḥadiru ḏāta l-yasāri mimmā yalī l-wādiya fa-yaqifu mustaqbila l-qiblati rāfiʕan yadayhi yadʕū ṯumma yaʔtī l-ǧamrata l-latī ʕinda l-ʕaqabati fa-yarmī-ha bi-sabʕi ḥaṣayātin yukabbiru ʕinda kulli ḥaṣātin ṯumma yanṣarifu wa-lā yaqifu ʕinda-hā. ‘It happened that, when he threw [stones] at the stela which is in the direction of the mosque at Mina, he threw seven stones at it saying Allāhu ʔakbar every time he threw a stone. Afterwards he posed himself in front

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

324

Jan Retsö

of it and stood, turning towards the qibla with his hands raised, praying. He made his standing long.’ ‘Then he came to the second stela and threw seven stones at it saying Allāhu ʔakbar every time he threw a stone. Then he went down on the left side which is in the direction of the valley; he stood, turning towards the qibla with his hands raised praying.’ ‘Then he came to the stela which is at the gorge and threw seven stones at it saying Allāhu ʔakbar with every stone. Then he departed, not standing at it.’ It is close at hand to see this as series of habitual acts, an interpretation which definitely is possible according to standard Arabic grammar. According to the sources, however, the Prophet fulfilled the obligation of the ḥaǧǧ only once in his lifetime, viz. during the ‘pilgrimage of farewell’ which, consequently, was not only the last but also the first (Peters 1994, 247-248). Even if he might have taken part in some of the rituals before the call (not reported in any source), the report in the ḥadīth strongly suggest that the description of the ḥaǧǧ al-wadāʕ is that of one particular performance. A striking feature in these Arabiyya examples is the use of the (long) Vpref in a narrative sequence. We notice that its progress function is usually somehow marked morphosyntactically which makes it possible to single out the Vpref used as off-line comments. But the employment of the same form in sequential narrative and off-line comments is worth observing when we now turn to the next example. The following are pieces from a story told in the modern dialect of Central Arabia (Sowayan 1992, 86-92). This dialect belongs to those which do not have the b-imperfect or its equivalents.

§ 006 wi-tḥafaḏ ̣ ar-rǧāl. taʕāṭa l-ʕlūm, ytanāgalōn-h ar-rǧāl min wāḥdin lwāḥid, wa-l-wāld ywarrṯ-ah lu-wlid-uh.

‘So men have memorized old stories. They have handed them down to each other, passing them on from one to the other, the father bequeathing them to his son’.

The two Vsuff (perfects) are followed by two Vpref which most likely should be seen as complements of type 7) and 6) respectively, thus a traditional ḥāl-

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

325

complement where the Vpref verbs receive their temporal value from the two preceding Vsuff.

§§ 008-009 raǧǧālin habb luh saʕad b-ayyām-uh. yāṭa an-nuḥūs, allah yarḥam-uh; ʕagīdin yraćbin wi-yʕayyir w-yāṣal al-ʕaduww tatlīh ar-rǧāl yōm ad-dinya nāhb wmanhūb.

‘A man who had luck in his lifetime (lit. for whom luck had blown). He walked to the brink of danger, God have mercy on his soul; a bold leader who led mounted men on raids, went raiding on a mount and reached far-off enemies; Men followed him in the days when there was the custom to plunder and be plundered.’

The Vsuff habb is a general characteristic of the destiny of the hero: he has had a lucky life. The following Vpref tell what he used to do. They indicate habitual events during his lifetime, thus having a preterite temporal value.

§§ 039-043 gāl … w-yanhaǧūn miʕ-uh bass sabʕih alli ṣmalaw miʕ-uh, akṯar an-nās yadrōn ibin Gdūr wa-la yadrūn wiš tiṣīr tāl as-sālfih. w-yićīn ʕala aš-šararāt b-rāf, ḏị lʕin ysammūn-uh raf yaḫabrūn-uh ha-lǧimāʕat w-yalga buh, ṭawwal allah ʕimrik, sabʕ byūt šarārah w-yāḫiḏ-hum kill ḥalāl-ihum yōm ḫaḏā-hum w-yiǧīk minćif. w-yōm innuh ǧa hal-uh wi-yʕazl arbaʕ ʕadad arbaʕ an-nāgih w-yaṣlig-hin ʕala al-hirbid. gāl: ‘haḏō-lin ʕan nāgit-ak’ w-yiǧūn al-bāgyat wi-ytigāsimōn-ah.

‘He said [‘…’] and only seven left together with him who held on to/had joined him. Most people feared Ibn Gdur and did not know how this affair would end. He [Hidlul] attacked ash-Shararat on Raf, a mountain called Raf, these men here in the audience know it. He found on it, may God give you long life, seven tents of ash-Shararat and he plundered them, took all their livestock. When he had plundered them he turned back. When he came/had come back to his people, he set aside four camels- a number equal to the number of a camel’s legs – and drove them straight to al-Hirbid. He said: ‘Take them in place of your camel’. The rest of the camels they divided among themselves.’

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

326

Jan Retsö

The Vsuff gāl gives the absolute time reference: anterior to speech-time. There follows a series of Vpref coordinated with w- which likewise must have the same time reference. Unlike the preceding cases, these Vpref refer to a series of unique and consecutive events. In a conventional Arabiyya text one would expect a series of Vsuff coordinated by fa-. Also, many dialects would probably have preferred Vsuff here. From these Arabic examples we can see that there is an alternative way of reporting independent successive events in a narrative chain. Instead of the usual linking of Vsuff with fa-, Vpref indicative can be used (cf. Nöldeke 1963, 68:i ff.; Nebes 1982, 199ff.). Such a series of Vpref is introduced by a Vsuff, thus locating the whole sequence mostly anterior to speech-time. If we now assume that the Vpref should be seen as a gram marking non-anteriority or even simultaneity, its function in these sequences is that of marking simultaneity with a reference point anterior to speech time. It is, thus, not exactly a praesens dramaticum but a ‘past present’. It is present, i.e. simultaneous, to a reference point in the absolute past. The Arabic examples indicate that this is a grammatical device that can be used not only for occasional off-line comments but also when there is a chain of several successive events to be told. One could say that the whole series of successive events are off-line in relation to the main verb. The paradox is that the relationship between the Vpref used in this way and the governing verb is exactly the same as in a traditional ḥāl-construction. That construction is also a ‘past present’ if the governing verb is a Vsuff. The Arabiyya has a device to differentiate between the two, viz. by introducing a circumstantial clause with asyndeton or S-V word order. But we can see from some examples quoted above that this is not compulsory: the verb may well be linked only by a wa-, e.g. kataba bi-ḏaka ʔilā hišāmin wa-yastaʔḏinu-hu fīhi ‘He wrote about this to Hisham asking him for permission for it’. In the Naǧdi dialect we do not see such a clear-cut distinction. Vpref expressing habitual, circumstance, progression and general absolute present are not consistently morphosyntactically distinct. The criterion often used for defining a ḥāl-complement clause, viz. gram switching, is not valid. The listener/reader is left to his own judgement whether there is a progression in a mainline or an off-line comment (cf. M. Persson in this volume). It thus seems possible to state that, in languages which only show innovation II, the Vpref is a general default category that can appear in all kinds of temporal contexts. It is obvious that it can express absolute anteriority, i.e.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

327

traditional past tense, but that is not an exhaustive description. A possible solution is to see it as a marker of relative simultaneity. It may then be simultaneous to speech time, which makes it equivalent to the traditional present tense; from there it may develop into a future tense or modal indicator, and finally, it may be simultaneous to a reference point in the absolute past. In the Arabiyya, the syntagm Vsuff/pref + a Vpref/suff as a circumstantial complement is well known and has been thoroughly analysed (Nebes 1982; Premper 2002; Waltisberg 2009). It is usually understood as an off-line comment. But even in the Arabiyya there are plenty of cases where the Vpref reports successive events in the absolute past indicated by a Vsuff verb in the context, thus progress. The same is found in several modern Arabic dialects. It is explicitly described for the Arabic in Chadic/Northern Nigeria (Roth 1979, 41-52; Owens 1993, 144) and Yemen (Watson 1993, 74-75) but traces of it are probably widespread (cf. Feghali 1928, 71ff). The difference between circumstantial complement and progress may be marked by specific syntactic devices as the Arabiyya usually does, but this is not necessarily so. When the context is clear, the language can skip the explicit marking. The main-line – off-line contrast can be made explicit if desirable but can also be neglected (Persson in this volume). Another aspect of this is the status of the off-line commenting clauses. They are usually seen as subordinate to the clauses of the main-line in a narrative. In the Naǧdi example quoted above it can, however, be asked whether this is a meaningful statement. The neat distinction between main-line and off-line is blurred morphosyntactically since there is no consistent marking of the difference. On many occasions the reader/listener is left to him/herself (sometime possibly noticing intonation) to decode the textual flow. It is worth mentioning in this context that the off-line comments in Akkadian, where contemporaneity is distinctively marked by the iparras-form, are not marked as subordinate clauses: the verbs lack the –u suffix which is the hallmark of subordination in Akkadian (Streck 1995).

7. The omnipotent Vpref: The case of Ugaritic The different forms of Arabic quoted above do not exhibit a consistent use of Vpref as non-anterior. The use of Vpref in past narratives seems to be a stylistic variant, perhaps to mark a rapid succession of events. Most forms of Arabic have innovation I and II, and the use of Vpref in the Arabiyya in the func-

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

328

Jan Retsö

tion shown could be a diachronic fossil. Even Archaic Biblical Hebrew does not show a consistent use of the verbal forms in this manner. The evidence in both these languages is ‘disturbed’ by the differentiation process between long and short Vpref in Biblical Hebrew and the grammaticalization of the opposition between Vsuff and Vpref in the Arabiyya. Ugaritic is included in the NWCS language group showing both innovations. Since the discovery of the Ugaritic texts it has been observed how frequent the use of Vpref in narratives is (Hammershaimb 1941, 86ff.; cf. Smith 1994, 39). Most scholars have assumed that it is the short Vpref that is used as narrative, even if the morphology is often not discernible in the vowelless script. E. Greenstein put a definite question mark at the separate function of long and short Vpref in Ugaritic (Greenstein 2006). According to him, the morphological variation exists but has no semantic or syntactic function. It is only a phonetic/allomorphic variation within the Vpref category (a similar suggestion for the origin of long and short forms in BH was earlier suggested by Revell in 1984). The arguments against this analysis by Hackett (2012) are not decisive. They are based on one quite short text of a special kind of discourse and, even if one would agree with the analysis, it might be questioned how representative this evidence is. Gzella (2010), who supports the idea of a grammatical differentiation between long and short Vpref in Ugaritic, nevertheless points out that the evidence is not unambiguous. A more unconventional solution would be that we see in Ugaritic the beginnings of a differentiation in the use of the Vpref-forms. The Ugaritic Vpref would thus still to a large extent have the same multifarious functions as we have seen in the Arabic examples but at the same time shows the signs of a grammaticalization process of an originally allomorphic variation. This is a dominant feature in the literary Ugaritic texts and examples can be found everywhere. Below follow a couple of specimens from the so-called Baal cycle (KTU I.3.2-22; Smith 2009, 91-123): ʕbd aliyn bʕl sid zbl bʕl arṣ qm yṯʕr wyšlḥmh ybrd ṯd lpnwh bḥrb mlḥt qṣ mri ndd yšʕr wyšqynh ytn ks bdh

he served mightiest Baal waited on the prince, lord of the earth he stood, arranged and offered him food sliced a breast for him with a salted knife, a cut of fatling he stood, served and offered him drink put a cup in his hand

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

krpnm bklat ydh bk rb ʕẓm ridn mt šmm ks qdš ltphnh aṯt krpn ltʕn aṯtrt alp kd yqḥ bḫmr rbt ymsk bmskh qm ybd wyšr mṣltm bd nʕm yšr gzr tb ql ʕl bʕl bṣrrt ṣpn

329

a goblet in both his hands a large imposing vessel a rhyton for mighty men a holy cup women may not see a goblet Athirat may not eye a thousand jars he drew of the wine a myriad he mixed in his mixture he stood, chanted and sang cymbals in the virtuoso’s hands sweet of voice the hero sang about Baal on the summit of Sapan

The three introductory Vsuff indicate parallel events which are not sequential. Then follow three Vpref possibly describing a sequence of events. There are two more Vsuff in the text with the same function as the three introductory ones. The Vpref in this passage could well be interpreted as sequential and/or focus but also as equivalents to the Arabic imperfects in a ḥāl-clause: ‘he stood, arranging, offering’ etc. More difficult is it in the following example (KTU 1.4.23-29; Smith 2009, 391-426): hyn ʕly lmpḫm bd ḫss mṣbṭm yṣq ksp yšlḥ ḫrṣ yṣq ksp lalpm ḫrṣ yṣqm lrbbt yṣq ḫym wtbṭḫ

The skilled one ascended to the bellows tongs in the hands of Hasis he cast silver, he poured gold he cast silver by the thousands gold he cast by myriads he cast a canopied resting-place

This passage can be read as a sequence describing casting activities even if some of them do not necessarily have to be seen as a sequence. But the most natural understanding of the passage is that it describes how a deity ascends, performs the casting of metals, and finally constructs a resting-place. The use of Vpref as a narrative progress is thus well documented in Ugaritic (Tropper 2000, 688ff.). There are also numerous cases of Vpref which we can read as an off-line comment (KTU 1.3.II 17-26; Smith 2009, 127-194): whln ʕnt lbth tmġyn tštql ilt lhklh wl šbʕt tmtḫṣh bʕmq

And look! Anat arrives at her house the goddess takes herself to her palace but she was not satisfied with her fighting in the valley

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

330

Jan Retsö

tḫtṣb bn qrtm tṯʕr ksat lmhr tʕr ṯlḥnt lṣbʔm hdmm lġzrm mid tmtḫṣn w tʕn tḫtṣb w tḥdy ʕnt tġdd kbdh bṣḥq ymlu lbh bšmḫt kbd ʕnt tšyt

battling between the two towns she arranged chairs for the soldiery arranged tables for the hosts footstools for the heroes She fought violently, looking around she fought (and) Anat surveyed her inwards swelled/swelling with laughter her heart filled with joy Anat’s inwards with victory

The verbs tʕn and tḥdy in ll. 8-9 can be read as off-line comments (Tropper 2000, 692, 906; the iterative classification of ll.10-11 is doubtful) but also as markers of progression. The presence or absence of the linking w is not necessary for the off-line intrepretation. There is, thus, no specific marking of circumstantial complements in Ugaritic. The language possesses a Vpref form which seems to have the value of non-anteriority. Anteriority seems to be the value of the qatal-form, i.e. Vsuff., most frequently marking anteriority in relation to speech time. One of the main functions of the qatal in a narrative is to locate the series of events in the (absolute) past. The events are then told by Vpref which, thus, indicate contemporaneity/simultaneity with a Reference Time which is anterior to Speech Time. The picture emerging is thus that of a continuum of steps between the main-line ordering of events and off-line comments. There cannot be any strict binary opposition between main-line and off-line. Progressive main-line events can be expressed by Vpref indicating contemporaneity with a RT in the absolute past. But also off-line comments are expressed by Vpref, this time contemporaneous with the event time of the main-line. It seems that, in the examples here, there is no explicit marking of the difference between these functions of the Vpref. The hierarchy of events is given by the context and the semantics of the verbs. The picture given by these examples, especially the Ugaritic ones, shows a remarkable similarity to Sabaean. The alternation between a Vsuff marking anteriority, mostly absolute, i.e. past tense, and a Vpref which has a wide range of functions is the same as we find in Sabaean. The system discernible in some forms of Arabic, as well as in Archaic Biblical Hebrew, appears fully exposed in these two languages. The function of the verbs in Ugaritic may thus throw much light on the system in Sabaean.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

331

8. Analysis of Sabaean texts Equipped with these insights we can turn to the Sabaean evidence. Three texts have been chosen from the three main periods of Sabaean for a preliminary analysis of the possible occurrence of circumstantial clauses with a finite verb. The first one is the report by the Sabaean ruler Karibʾil Watar about his deeds, datable to ca. 680 BCE. The second is a description of a series of campaigns undertaken in the 240s CE by the Sabaean kings Ilsharaḥ Yaḥḍub and Yaʾzil Bayyin. The last one is the large inscription by Abraha, the Ethiopian ruler of Himyar ca. 530-550 CE. These three texts are of a narrative character and represent Old Sabaean, Middle Sabaean, and Late Sabaean respectively. The main aim of this presentation is to study the interaction in a narrative text between different verb forms in a narrative text.

RÉS 3945 This is the largest of the early Sabaean texts carved on a wall in the temple at Ṣirwāḥ consisting of 19 long lines. It is a Tatenbericht by the first empire builder in Arabia, Karibʾil Watar, and is by most scholars nowadays dated to ca. 680 BCE. The interpretation is based on the latest translation of the text by W. Müller (1983). The text consists of a main clause as an introductory statement with a Vsuff verb, followed by eleven paragraphs of varying length, describing the deeds of the ruler. All paragraphs are introduced by the particle ywm which is a temporal conjunction ‘when’, introducing temporal subordinate clauses, analogous to the use of Arabic yawma, Biblical Hebrew yôm and Akkadian inūma. The word means ‘day’ and stands in the construct state to the clause(s) that follow. The conjunction ywm, in this text, is always followed by a Vsuff verb. The paragraph as a whole mostly tells about activities with Vsuff verbs always preceded by w-. The text contains 109 occurrences of Vsuff verbs enumerating the deeds of the king. Against this stand 13 occurrences of Vpref verbs. To this come a few cases of finite verbs in relative clauses or clauses with specified particles such as kḏ. Some passages will be presented that illustrate the function of clausal complements. In every instance the subject is the ruler himself although this is explicit only in the introductory clause. The syntactic constellation allows for two interpretations. Firstly, all paragraphs introduced by ywm with following Vsuff verbs are subordinate clauses to the introductory statement. The whole text is a kind of background exposi-

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

332

Jan Retsö

tion to the introductory verb hfṭn which is the main event in the text. It follows from this that the events told in the ywm paragraphs either have been accomplished before the hfṭn-event itself or are parts of it. This means that the whole text should not be read as a report of events and achievements presented in succession. It is rather a juxtaposition of achievements, somewhat reminiscent of the so-called Display-texts by the Assyrian kings, thus: ‘These are the things K. did when he… and when he… and when he…’. A structure reminiscent of this one is found in the prologue to Hammurabi’s law: inūma Anum ṣīrum šar annunaki

When Anum the mighty, king of the annunaki,

Ellil bēl šamê u erṣetim, šāʔim šīmat Ellil, the lord of heaven and earth, the mātim determiner of the destiny of the land, Ana Marduk, mārim rēštim ša Ea ellilūt kiššat nišī išīmū-šum

to Marduk, the first-born son of Ea determined the lordship of all mankind,

ina igigi ušarbiū-šu Bābilam šum-šu ṣīram ibbiū

raised him among the igigi, gave Babylon its illustrious name,

made it preeminent on the earth, ina kibrātim ušāterū-šu in its midst everlasting kingship, ina libbi-šu šarrūtam dārītam ša kīma šamê u erṣetim išdā-ša who established its [the kingship] foundations like heaven and earth, šuršudā inūmi-šu Ḫammurabi … iāti … šumī By then they called me Hammurabi, by ibbiū my name.

If we see the last inūmi-šu clause as a main clause to which the preceding ones are subordinated (which is the usual understanding of the text according to the translations), one could also imagine that clause as an introduction to the section: ‘The gods called me … when they … when they [had?]… when they [had?]’. That would mean the structure of our text was in accordance with the first alternative above.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

333

Secondly, the introductory Vsuff verb is an independent main clause not coordinated with the following. The following ywm-clause with its Vsuff verb is subordinate to the following verbs which are in main clauses. The Vsuff represents a narrative line: ‘These are the things K did. When he … then he … and then he…’. This is the syntagm we find in the Naǧdi examples quoted above. It is also identical with the Akkadian one with a temporal clause with inūma (lit. ‘on (ina) the day when’ (ūma = accusative, construct state) followed by one (or several) main clause(s): inūma innamru (verb in the subjunctive indicating subordination)… aqbī-kum (verb in the indicative indicating main clause) ‘When we saw each other … I said to you’ (von Soden 1969, 222). A similar clause structure is found in Biblical Hebrew, e.g.: Wayhî byôm dibber YHWH ʔel mošē bʔereṣ miṣrayim wayḏabber YHWH ʔel mošē leʾmor ʔanî YHWH … wayyoʾmer mošē lip̄ nê YHWH ‘When the Lord spoke to Moses in the land of Egypt, the Lord spoke to Moses saying: ‘I am the Lord…’ then Moses said…’ (Ex 6:28-29). Both BH and Akkadian usually (but not always) clearly mark the transition from subordination to main clause level, BH by the use of the wayyiqtol, Akkadian by the use of the subjunctive in the subordinate clause. Such a device does not seem to exist in Sabaean which, thus, is very reminiscent of the Naǧdi Arabic example above. The problem of the interpretation of the Vpref. in our text remains. Are they off-line comments or do they indicate progression in a main-line or sequentiality? The first alternative seems more likely considering the fact that, with the exception of the first verb which occurs in one special instance in the text, no explicit subject is found with the verbs. The reason for this is that agent, i.e. the grammatical subject, is always the ruler himself. This is also the interpretation by the translators. It is also difficult to argue that the series of Vsuff must represent sequentiality (pace Stein 2013, 2:47). In some cases they may, in others not, but there is no grammatical indication of a difference. The Naǧdi Arabic example shows that such an ambiguity exists. Four ywm-sections, apart from the introductory statement, are chosen; three dealing with ‘civilian’ activities, and one report on military activities against the city of Nashan, present-day as-Sawdāʾ, in the area of Maʿīn.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

334

Jan Retsö

/1/ ʔlt hfṭn krbʔl wtr bn ḏmrʕly These are the things that Karibʾil Watar, mkrb s1bʔ b-mlk-hw l-ʔlmqh w-l- son of Dhamarʿaliy, MKRB of Saba assigned/dedicated/presented to Ilmuqah s1bʔ and Saba when he had become king

The verb that summarizes Karibʾil’s achievements in his introductory statement is ‘give’, ‘assign’ etc. The noun mlk is uncertain: ‘reign’ or ‘become king’ or ‘acquire something’. ywm hwṣt kl gwm ḏ-ʔlm w-s2ymm w-ḏ-ḥblm w-ḫmrm w-ḏbḥ ʕṯtr s2lṯm ʔḏbḥm w-nyk ḥwbs1 w-ʔlm ʕṯtr w-ynr b-trhm w-whb ʕṯtr w-ḥwbs1 ḫlfm

when he established the whole community of gods and protecting deities and of covenant and favour, and slaughtered to A ʿ thtar three sacrifices, and NYK (celebrated a hieros gamos with?) Ḥawbas, and made a banquet for Athtar, lighting a fire in TRHM, and gave robes (?) to ʿAthtar and Ḥawbas.

The first ywm-paragraph is introduced by the so-called covenant formula referring to some kind of ritual renewal of the Sabaean community. The sequence contains five Vsuff verbs connected by w-. The Vsuff verbs do not necessarily express progression. The translators of the text, (Rhodokanakis in RÉS, W. Müller 1983), see the following Vsuff as a continuation of the ywmclause, thus following alternative 1) above. The main event would thus be represented by the verb hwṣt which means some religious ceremony, and the following Vsuff rather function as focussing, i.e. giving details of the contents of the ceremony. Since we do not know exactly the procedures of this ritual, it is premature to pinpoint a definite function of the Vpref so far but it is reasonable to assume that the Vpref has a function different from that of the Vsuff. Between the fourth and the fifth Vsuff in the sequence we find a Vpref ynr which is seen as derived from NWR ‘fire’ etc. It can be interpreted in two ways: either ‘and thereby lighting a fire’ (background off-line comment) or ‘and then lighted a fire’ (progression). w-ywm hʕḏb mʕs2rt s1bʔ w-yʔtmmw

‘and when he reorganized the assembly of Saba in that they obeyed him

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

335

w-yḥtẓyw mns2ʔ-hmw k-ʔḥd b-ʕs1y and their military actions/posse were successful together in performing ṣdqm right /2/ w-yns2ʔ ʔs1m l-mtʕ qny-hw and everybody rising to make its property thrive’.

The next ywm-section, referring to general actions by the rulers, is introduced by a Vsuff (hʕḏb) and is here followed by three Vpref all coordinated by w-. It is possible to read them as factual consecutives ‘so that they obeyed him’, ‘so that they were successful’. It can also be understood as focused, seeing the activities designed by the Vpref as specifications of the Vsuff. This is also how the translators render it. The problem is once again the verbal semantics, especially of the introductory Vsuff. hʕḏb. Then follows a section dealing with irrigation projects undertaken by the ruler. Such actions, such as the building and restoration of temples by the Mesopotamian kings, were important also for ideological reasons. w-ywm ṣdq ʕṯtr w-ʔlmqh ḥg-hmy w-yhṯb mwy ḏhb-hw rymn w-ykn fnwtm fnwtm w-ḏyrm ḏyrm

and when he correctly had performed the ordinance of both ʿAthtar and Ilmuqah, making the water of his irrigated land RYMN turn back so that a canal became a canal and a flooded field a flooded field (cf. Beeston 1962, 61).

w-ḥmy ḥrt-hw ʕhl l-mʔwdn bn kḏ tḍʔn brḥm l-ḏhbnhn w-l ʔrʕn

and surrounded his water conduit ʕHL to the border with a wall so that it would not flow out freely to the two irrigated fields and to ʔRʕN w-hṯb zm ḥmy mwtrm and led back the water of the wallḏ-s1twdn bn hwdym surrounded MWTRM which was irrigated from HWDYM And acquired ḤṢṢM and ḌʕRTM, the w-ʕs1y ḥṣṣm w-ḍʕrtm ḏhb mydʕm irrigated field of ?, all the amount of kl ms1qy zm wtr w-/3+/wqh water from WTR and WQH w-b-f krbʔl wdy w-tʔw zm wtr w- And by the order of Karib ʾil the water of wqh WTR and WQH flowed and streamed

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

336

Jan Retsö

The two Vpref yhṯb and ykn are ambiguous: factual consecutive or focus? All depends on the semantic content of the Vsuff ṣdq which is not clear-cut. As far as the Vsuff are concerned, it seems difficult to argue that they represent a continuous sequence of actions, thus describing one large irrigation project. The impression is rather that of several projects. On the other hand we must admit that we do not get a clear picture of the activities described due to our ignorance of the geography and the terminology employed. The following two ywm-sections deal with Karibʾil Watar’s military operations in the Ǧawf area north of Marib. The second one is the longest one in the inscription. w-ywm mḥḍ ns2n w-wfṭ ʔhgr-hw w- and when he defeated Nashan and burnt gbḏ ʕs2r w-byḥn w-kl ʔḏhb-hw b-ʔḥd his city and plundered ʕS2R and BYḤN and all his irrigated fields with one mns2ʔm posse w-ywm ns2ʔ ṯnym mns2ʔm w-ygnʔ And when he mobilized a second posse gnʔm ḏ-bhw s3wkt ns2n w-ns2qm b-s2ft in order to raise a wall with which Nashan and Nashqum were surrounded ʕṯtr s2lṯt ḫrfm III on the order of ʿAthtar for three years

The Vpref ygnʔ seems here to indicate imagined consecutive, i.e. ‘in order to build a wall’ (pace Gruntfest 1965). The object (gnʔm) to this verb has an attributive relative clause with a Vsuff verb (s3wkt). w-hbʕl ns2qm w-bʕḍ-h l-ʔlmqh w-ls1bʔ w-hrg ns2n ʔlfʔ w-hrs3ḥ s1mhyfʕ wns2n w-hṯb ʔbḍ/15+/ʕ whb-hw mlk s1bʔ lʔlmqh w-l s1bʔ

And seized Nashqum and its surroundings for Ilmuqah and for Saba and killed thousand from Nashan and swept away Sumayfaʿ and Nashan and returned the areas which the king of Saba had given him, to Ilmuqah and Saba

And appropriated his cities QWM, w-s1tmḥḍ ʔhgr-hw qwm w-gwʕl w-dwrm w-fḏm w-s2bm w-ʔhgr ʔykm GWʕL, DWRM, FḎM and Shibam and the cities of ʔYKM, all that Sumayfaʿ kl ḏ-qny s1mhyfʕ w-ns2n b-ʔykm and Nashan had acquired in ʔYKM.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

337

w-s1tmḥḍ b-bḍʕ-hw l-mhyʕ ʔwṯnn ʕd And appropriated in his area the stretch of the borderstones until the border of wṯn mnhytm l-ʔlmqh w-l s1bʔ MNHYTM for Ilmuqah and for Saba w-s1tmḥḍ ʕḏb ẓlm w-ʕḏb ḥmrt

And appropriated the cultivated fields of the black ones and the cultivated fields of the red ones

w-fqḥ ṯʕd mlk ns2n w-ns2n bn mwy And opened the irrigation area of the mḏb king of Nashan and of Nashan from the waters of [the river] Madhab w-nḍw gnʔ hgr-hw ns2n ʕd h/16-/s2rs1-hw w-hgrn ns2n yhḥrm bn mwfṭm

And took away the wall of his city Nashan until he uncovered its fundaments but protecting the city of Nashan from burning (cf. Beeston 1984, 19)

w-ʕtb-hw ḫrs2 byt-hw ʕfrw w-ḫrs2hgr- and destined for him the destruction of hw ns2n his palace ʕFRW and the destruction of his city Nashan And imposed a tribute on Nashan for w-bḍʕ b-ẓhr ns2n s3lʔm ʔfklt w-ʕtb bn ns2n ʔl wḍʔt s2ft-hmw ns1rn priests, and destined those from Nashan about whom order had proceeded from ʔlʔltn w-yhrgw the gods to be killed (cf. Beeston 1962, 61; Gruntfest 1965 ad loc.)

The Vpref yhḥrm looks very much like a CCC of the kind we find in Arabic: ‘he broke down the wall … forbidding the burning of the city’. This is the only case in this text where we find an asyndetic attachment of a Vpref. One should also observe the SV word-order. The second one, w-yhrgw, is a consequence of the ordering, ʕtb. Some of the Nashanites (bn ns2n) were to be killed according to divine commandment. The use of the Vpref indicates that it is an intended i.e. imagined consequence.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

338

Jan Retsö

And destined for Sumayfaʿ and Nashan w-ʕtb s1mhyfʕ w-ns2n kḏ yḥwr 1 2 1 s bʔ b-hgrn ns n w-kḏ ybny s mhyfʕ that Sabaeans should settle in Nashan and that Sumayfaʿ and Nashan should w-ns2n byt ʔlmqh b-wsṭ hgrn ns2n build a temple for Ilmuqah in the centre of the city of Nashan w-s1tmḥḍ mwy ḏ-qfʕn bn /17+/ smhyfʕ w-ns2n w-ys1tmḥḍ yḏmrmlk mlk hrmm

And appropriated the water of QFʕN from Sumayfaʿ and Nashan so that YḎRMLK king of Haram should appropriate it

w-s1tmḥḍ bn s1mhyfʕ w-ns2n ḥrrtn ḏt mlkwqh w-yhmḥḍ nbṭʕly mlk kmnhw w-kmnhw bn ḥrrtn ḏt mlkwqh ln ʔwṯn wṯn krbʔl

And appropriated from Sumayfaʿ and Nashan the water conduits of MLKWQH in order to hand it over to NBṬʕLY king of Kaminahu and Kaminahu, from the water conduit ḎT MLKWQH to the border stones that Karibʾil had established

This formula occurs three times in the text: the Vsuff s1tmḫḍ followed by wVpref yhmḫḍ. The interpretation could be that of an intended consequence, i.e. ‘in order to give it’ or a commenting focus: ‘thereby giving it’. w-gnʔ ns2qm w-hbkl-hw s1bʔ l-ʔlmqh w-l s1bʔ

And surrounded Nashqum with a wall and assigned it to Sabaeans as a settlement for Ilmuqah and Saba

The language employed in RÉS 3945 obviously uses the Vsuff both in sequential narrative and non-sequential narrative. It does not seem that the language makes any grammatical distinction. On the other hand, it is possible to see the Vprefs functioning as comments of different kinds. One should beware of having a too narrow definition of off-line, circumstantial etc. The Arabiyya evidence teaches us to see the gram-switch, evident in this inscription as a grammatical signal, marking a distinct syntagm with several different meanings.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

339

Ja 576:1-16+577:1-19 The two texts Ja 576 and Ja 577 are both found on the outer wall of the Awwām temple in Marib. It is most likely that they belong together, constituting the longest text we have from the reign of the two kings of Saba Ilsharaḥ Yaḥḍub and Yaʾzil Bayyin, both reigning in the 240s CE. Together it encompasses 35 long lines and is, thus, one of the longest texts preserved from preIslamic Arabia. Like many of the dedicatory texts from the period, this one is divided into distinct paragraphs. The introduction follows the conventional usage in these inscriptions when the two kings state how they have dedicated a number of statues to the god of the Awwām temple in Marib, which is followed by nine sections introduced by the expression ḥmdm b-ḏt ‘as thanks for’ (576:1, 3, 577:6 (bis), 8, 15, 16, 18 (bis)) thus giving the reason for the dedicatory act. All the ḥmdm-sections are introduced by a Vsuff verb: hws2ʕ (sections I, II, IV, V, VI, VIII) or ḫmr (sections III, VII, XI), both verbs meaning the same: ‘grant, bestow a favour’. Section II is the longest, encompassing 19 lines of 35 preserved altogether (= 576:3-16 + 577:1-6), and is a more or less continuous narrative about the military campaigns of the kings. It is subdivided in smaller paragraphs by the particles bn-hw or bʕd-hw ‘after that’ or ‘from there’. There are 15 such sections in 576 and 5 in the following section in 577. Mostly, however, the narrative is conducted by finite verbs coordinated by w- or f-. The subordinate paragraphing with the particles bn-hw or bʕd-hw is also found in some of the other ḥmdm b-ḏt units. The long narrative sections in Ja 576-577 are, according to Gruntfest, a rare specimen of historical writing in Sabaean, being extracts or imitations of otherwise lost royal chronicles. This observation is interesting and should be kept in mind when trying to analyse the syntax. We shall present an analysis of the first part of the inscription, section I, i.e. the general introduction, and the first part of section II dealing with a conflict between the king of Saba, Ilsharaḥ Yaḥḍub, and mainly the king of Himyar. The text in section I has the conventional introduction reporting that the two kings have dedicated (Vsuff: hqnyy) statues to the god of Marib as thanks for (ḥmdm b-ḏt section I) the help that Ilmuqah has given (Vsuff + [progression] infinitive: hws2ʕ w-hrdʔn) to the kings against all who have risen (Vsuff: tns2ʔw) against them, people from the north, the south, the sea and the dry land. This should be seen as a general summary of what is told in details in the following section. The verbs are Vsuff with one infinitive.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

340

Jan Retsö

There follows a subsection of I introduced by w-l-ḏt ‘and also because’. Here it is told that Ilmuqah has helped (hws2ʕ) to capture MLK king of Kinda and his ally MRʔ LQS king of ḪṢṢTN in the town of MRB; they gave (Vsuff: whbw) their sons as pledges; they also gave (whbw) booty. The three main verbs, as well as those in subordinate clauses, are Vsuff. This episode takes place somewhere northeast of Marib. Then follows Section II with a detailed report of the campaigns in the highlands west of Marib against Himyar and its allies. The section starts by reporting how the god of Saba, Ilmuqah, has helped the Sabaean king to defeat Ḥabashat, Sahratum and Shammar of dhu Raydan, i.e. Himyar, three enemies controlling the western mountains and the vast plains both south and north of the Yaslaḥ pass, who had had some alliance with the king of Saba but had broken the oath. Ilsharaḥ and Saba go up from Marib to Ṣanʿā and attack Himyar, Radman and MḌḤY. They take Shamatan’s land and the city of DLL, the house of Yahir and the city of Azwar in the land of Qasham. Qasham is the area just north of the Yaslaḥ pass south of Ṣanʿā, where several encounters with the Himyarites and their allies take place in the following. After that Ilsharaḥ is attacked from Qasham; his army goes to the town of Baʾsan where Shammar’s troops have gone. These troops are defeated. They then proceed to the plain of DRGʕN. The Raydanites avoid them. They go to the land of MHʔNF just southwest of the Yaslaḥ pass, taking booty; they go up the pass of YLRN taking the town of TʕRMN. Then they return to Naʾiḍ, a town situated on the eastern part of the plain north of the Yaslaḥ pass, which has been made a base for the Sabaeans. Ilsharaḥ now advances to eastern Qasham taking the town of Ayḍam, then returning to Naʿiḍ. Ilsharaḥ then advances back to MHʔNF taking the two towns of ʕṮY in the western part of their territory. From there they go towards the town of ḌFW encountering the tribes of MHʔNF and MḎRḤ. They do not take the town. From there they return to the area around YKLʔ. They meet troops of Raydan/Himyar. In the battle MRḤḌN is crushed but saved by the prince of YKLʔ. They return to Naʿiḍ. The Himyarites pursue them to wadi NGRRM. A truce is made with YKLʔ. The Sabaeans return to Naʿiḍ and then to Ṣanʿā.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

341

Section II:1 (= ll. 3-4) w-ḥmdm b-ḏt hws2ʕ ʔlmqh ʕbd-hw ʔls2rḥ yḥḍb b-ḫrʔn w-s2kr w-nqm ʔḥzb ḥbs2t w-ḏ-s1hrtm w-s2mr ḏ-rydn wʔs2ʕb ḏ-ḥmyrm b-ḥbl ḥblw bʕd s1lm wgzm gzmw

w-ys3mkw bn hgrn mrb ʕdy hgrn ṣnʕw lḍbʕ w-hṣrn bʕly s2mr ḏrydn w-ʔs2ʕb ḥmyrm w-rdmn w-mḍḥym

w-yʕdwn mlkn ʔls2rḥ w-ḏ-bn ʔqwl-hw w-ḫms1-hw w-ʔfrs1-hw ʕdy ʔrḍ ḥmyrm w-ṯbrw w-hbʕln w-qmʕ w-hs1bʕn byt ḏ-s2mtn w-hgrn dll w-byt yhr w-hgrn ʔẓwr b-wṯnn b-ʔrḍ qs2mm b-ywm hġrw

And as thanks because Ilmuqah has assisted his servant Ilsharaḥ Yaḥḍub in opposing, defeating and taking vengeance on the units of Habashat, S1HRTM and Shammar of Raydan and the tribes of Himyar because of the revolt they made after the peace and oath they had sworn And they ascended from the town of Marib to the town of Ṣanʿā in order to fight and to fall upon Shammar of Raydan, the tribes of Himyar, Radman and MḌḤYM And the king Ilsharaḥ and some of his governors, his infantry and his cavalry went over to the land of Himyar And they crushed, seized, subjugated and plundered the house of S2MTN and the city of DLL, the house of YHR and the city of Azwar at the boundary in the land of QS2MM on the day they made the raid

w-ylfyw bn hnt hgrn mhrgtm w- and brought back from these towns s1bym w-ġnmm ḏ-ʕs1m spoils, captives and booty in great numbers The main narrative of section II is introduced by the phrase ḥmdm b-ḏt hws2ʕ ‘as thanks because [the god Ilmuqah] has shown favour [to his servant the king]’ by fighting and frightening and taking revenge on the Ethiopians, the S1HRTM and Shammar of Himyar who obviously had had an alliance (ḥbl) with the kings of Saba which they had broken (gzmw). Then follows wyms3kw ‘and they ascend, go up’ (w + Vpref), viz. from Marib to the highlands around Ṣanʿā. This is continued by w-yʕdwn ‘and he marches into’ (w + Vpref) viz. the land of Himyar. The events there are then described with the verb ṯbrw ‘they destroyed (w + Vsuff) followed by three infinitives: w-hbʕln

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

342

Jan Retsö

w-qmʕ w-hs1bʕn ‘seize’, ‘subjugate’, ‘take revenge’. There follows an enumeration of cities and regions taken by the Sabaeans which is summarized by a concluding phrase: b-ywm hġrw w-ylfyw ‘on the day/when they raided (Vsuff) and LFY (w +Vpref) ‘got’, ‘obtained’ booty from all these cities. The three Vpref verbs clearly refer to events in the past. It should, however, be noticed that they both refer to the preliminaries of the action: ascending into the highlands and marching into the land of Himyar. Then follows the action: destruction (ṮBR). The use of infinitives after a finite verb to indicate subsequent activities is a well known fact in Sabaean (Höfner 1943, 63-66; Kogan and Korotaev 1997, 236). If one has made up one’s mind already, it is possible to read the sequence as a series marking progression: He granted them favour – then they ascended – then he marched in – then they destroyed – first they raided – then they took booty. But this is a very insensitive way of reading a text. A more natural reading would be to see the ‘granting of favour’ as a summary of the whole enterprise followed by some details of the events, illustrating/commenting/characterizing the overreaching act of divine favour. The ascending and marching are preliminaries. The main event is constituted by the military operations in the land of the enemy which is described by a series of four verbs indicating a sequence of events. In this case it is possible to see the two preceding Vpref as not belonging to the main narrative line but as background. One should also notice Gruntfest’s suggestion that the section is an excerpt from a literary text, a royal chronicle or the like. This remains a hypothesis although it might explain several features in this text which is extraordinary in many ways. One might envisage a preceding clause, now replaced by the thanksgiving summary, which stated the preparations for the war and the leaving of the capital told by Vsuff verbs. The final notice of raiding and taking booty is structured as a sequence Vsuff + w + Vpref. It can be read ‘they raided and then took booty’ or ‘they raided so that they took booty’ but also ‘they raided taking booty’. What is important is that all readings are possible. The last suggestion gives the syntagm more possibilities.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

343

Section II:2 (= l. 4) w-bn-hw f-hwṣlw ʕdy byn hgrnhn

And from there they assembled in [the area] between the two cities

Section II:3 (= ll. 4-5) w-bn-hw f-ybḥḍn mlkn ʔls2rḥ yḥḍb w- And from there Ilsharah Yaḥḍub and b-ʕm-hw ḏ-bn ʔqwl-hw w-ḫms1-hw w- with him some of his governors and his infantry and his cavalry abruptly atʔfrs1-hw tacked and they attacked to the town of BʔS1N w-ybḥḍw ʕdy ḫlf hgrn bʔs1n 1 1 2 w-qdm-hmw ʔs d hys r s mr ḏ-rydn And the soldiers who Shammar of Raydan from the tribe of Himyar had disbn ʔs2ʕb ḥmyrm l-hʕnn ʕdy wṯnn patched in order to protect the boundary came before them w-ytqdmw b-ʕm-hmw b-ḫlf hyt hgrn and they attacked them in the region of the city of BʔS1N bʔs1n 1 1 w-ḫmr-hmw ʔlmqh hs ḥtn hmt ʔs dn And Ilmuqah showed them favour in destroying these Himyarite soldiers ʔḥmrn w-yhrgw bn-hmw mhrgm ḏ-ʕs§m w- and they killed a great number of them and they took the captives and the tmlyw s1by w-qny hyt hgrn bʔs1n slaves of the city of BʔS1N as booty

Then follow two paragraphs, the first introduced by the syntagm bn-hw f- + Vsuff, the second by bn-hw f- + Vpref. It has been shown that this syntagm, i.e. an element in a clause (subject, object, prepositional phrase) followed by f- + finite verb, is a means of marking the category of progress in several Sabaean texts (Nebes 1995, 211-213), viz. when it stands as an introduction to a paragraph. In a past narrative context it is, then, to be expected that the verb following f- is a Vsuff which also dominates in the material. Another syntagm is when the f- is followed by an l + Vpref/suff. But in Nebes’ corpus there are 18 cases where we find a Vpref after f-which, according to him, functions as a narrative past tense, thus in the same way as f- + Vsuff (Nebes 1995, 44-46). Of these, 13 occurrences are found in Ja 576+Ja 577. This text is datable to ca. 240 AD when the kings Ilsharaḥ Yaḥḍub and Yaʾzil Bayyin are known to have reigned. Two more texts, with one occurrence in each, are dated to the same period (Ir 32 and Ry 533), ca. 200 AD. This use of Vpref as a narrative past tense with the f-prefix is, thus, a phenomenon specific for a small group

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

344

Jan Retsö

of texts, written during one century under reigns of kings stemming from the highlands of Yemen (Hamdān, Gurat, Ḥimyar). Nebes’ remarks that this use of Vpref is reminiscent of the consecutive imperfects in Biblical Hebrew and that there is evidence that the f- represents some kind of influence from the north (Nebes 1995, 269 n. 65, 66). One could, however, suggest another reading. The two Vpref forms of BḤḌ, ‘to invade’, ‘make an incursion’ are not reporting a sequence. The latter could be seen as a focus of the former: ‘he invades with his army … indeed, he makes an incursion even to the border’. The incursion is also a preliminary that leads up to the confrontation w-qdm-hmw ‘then the soldiers sent by Shammar of Himyar confronted them’. We would have a presentation similar to the one in II:1: two Vpref verbs as a preliminary to the main event told by Vsuff. There follows a Vpref w-ytqdmw ‘they attack’, followed by a Vsuff wḫmr-hmw, reporting the assistance of the deity. This is followed by another Vpref: w-yhrgw reporting the consequence of the divine assistance: ‘so that they were able to kill’. It can be claimed that the Vpref verbs in this sequence function as a kind of subordinate complement which can well be translated by past tense but at the same time as subordinate clauses: ‘when the king made an incursion, an incursion even to the border, [then] he was confronted by Shammar; when they attacked them they were helped by the deity so that they killed (could kill) many of them’. Then follows the last event: w-tmlyw ‘then they took booty’. This would give a main line represented by Vsuff with comments off-line by Vpref. It should be observed that the comments off-line, from an extralinguistic viewpoint, are not necessarily background comments. They could very well be integrated into the main line sequence and told by a series of Vsuff connected by w-. The paradox is that main line events can be told as off-line comments just as, in western European languages, main-line sequences can be told by temporal subordinate clauses. Narrative syntax is not necessarily iconic.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

345

Section II:4 (ll. 5-7) w-bnh-hw f-hṣrw ʕdy ḏt mẓʔw ʕdy And from there they set out until they brrn ḏ-drgʕn arrived at the plain of DRGʕN w-tflw mṣr ḏ-rydn w-ʔl qdm-hmw And the troops of Raydan went away and did not precede them

Section II:5 w-b ʕd-hw f-yṣbʔw b-ʕly ʔrḍ And from there they proceeded towards mhʔnfm w-yhys1rw bḥḍm ḏ-bn the land of MHʔNFM and they dispatched in an attack some of the infantry ḫms1-hmw b-ʕly ʔrḍt mhʔfm against the land of MHʔNFM 1 w-lfyw b-hw mhrgtm w-s by w- And they got from there spoils and capġnmm ḏ-hrḍw-hmw tives and booty which satified them

Section II:4 reports a series of three sequential events by Vsuff verbs: ‘they set out’, ‘they arrived’, ‘the [others] went way’. The use of Vsuff for a comment: ‘they did not confront them’ is perhaps connected with the negation. Otherwise, a Vpref would be the expected form. Section II:5 has a structure similar to e.g. II:3: two Vpref: ‘they proceeded’, ‘they sent in troops’ followed by a Vsuff: ‘they obtained, got [booty]’. An idiomatic translation would be: ‘Afterwards, when they proceeded’ or: having proceeded and sent in troops, [then] they took booty’.

Section II:6 (= ll. 6-7) w-bn-hw f-s3mkw mqln ḏ-ylrn w- And from there they went up through the pass of YLRN and harassed the city of nḥbw hgrn tʕrmn TʕRMN w-ḫmr-hmw ʔlmqh hbʕln hyt hgrn And Ilmuqah showed them favour in tʕrmn w-ylfyw bhw mhrgtm w- taking this city of TʕRMN and they got ys1byw kl ʔwld w-ʔnṯ-hw w-ymtlyw from there spoils from the dead and took all its children and women captive and kl ʔbʕl-hw took as booty all the married men

This section almost looks like a Classical Arabic text. The first two Vsuff report two successive events followed by a third stating that the operation was a successful thanks to divine assistance. Then come three Vpref verbs describing the outcome of the operation, viz. the capture of the enemy and taking of

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

346

Jan Retsö

booty. The Vpref do not, of course, represent progression but comments to the main series of events.

Section II:7 (= ll. 7-8) w-bn-hw f-ytʔwlnn ʕdy hgrn nʕḍ w- And from there they returned to the city of Naʿiḍ and some of his infantry was rtʕ b-ʕm-hw ḏ-bn ḫms1-hmw installed by it 2 1 w-yhṣr mlkn ʔls rḥ yḥḍb w-ʔs d qrbw And the king Ilsharaḥ Yaḥḍub and b-s3n-hw bn ḫms1-hmw w-ʔfrs1-hmw soldiers who had approached him from his army and cavalry set out 2 2 w-yhṣrw b-ʕly ms rqt ʔrḍ qs mm And they fell upon the eastern part of the land of QS2MM 1 3 w-yhs bʕw w-hs ln hgrn ʔyḍmm And they plundered and emptied the city of ʔYḌMM 2 2 w-ybḥḍw kl ms rqt qs mm And they raided all eastern part of QS2MM 1 w-ylfyw b-hw mhrgtm w-s bym ḏ- And they got spoils and captives in ʕs1m great numbers

Section II:8 w-bn-hw f-ygbʔw ʕdy hgrn nʕḍ

And from there they came to the city of Naʿiḍ

Section II:9 (= ll. 8-9) w-bn-hw f-yhṣrn mlkn ʔls2rḥ yḥḍb w- And from there the king Ilsharaḥ ḏ-bn ḫms1-hw w-ʔfrs1-hw ʕdy ʔrḍ Yaḥḍub and some of his infantry and his cavalry set out for the land of mhʔnfm MHʔNFM w-yqmʕw w-hbʕln hgrnhn ʕṯy w-ʕṯy And they subjugated and seized the two cities of ʕṮY and ʕṮY w-ylfyw b-hw mhgrtm w-s1bym w- And they got from there spoils, capmltm w-ġnmm ḏ-ʕs1m tives, riches and booty in great numbers

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

347

Section II:10 (= l. 9) w-bn-hw f-ytʔwlw b-ʕly hgrn ḍfw

And from there they returned to the city of ḌFW w-ykbnn b-hw ḏ-mḏrḥm w-s2ʕbn And they met there Ḏ-MḎRḤM and the mhʔnfm tribe of MHʔNFM 2 w-yhbrrw s ʕbn mhʔnfm b-ʕly mqdmt- And the tribe of MHʔNFM came into hmw w-hs1ḥt-hmw mqdmt-hmw the open against their vanguard and their vanguard defeated them ʕdy ḏt ḥml-hmw hgrn ḍfw until the city of ḌFW let them enter w-yhrgw bn-hmw mhrgm ḏ-ʕs1m And they killed a great many of them

In section II:7 we have here the same structure as in II:3 and II:5. The first verb is a Vpref ytʔwlnn ‘to return’ followed by a Vsuff w-rtʕ ‘to post’, ‘station’ (troops etc.). The Sabaeans, thus having returned to the town of Naʿiḍ, stationed troops there and made it their base. Then follows the report of two major military expeditions; one against the land of Qasham (section II:7, 8) told by five Vpref verbs, then one against the tribe of MHʔNF (II:9, 10). This is told by seven Vpref. The paragraphs II:7-10, thus, contain only one Vsuff which, on the other hand, presents perhaps the major event: the establishment of a military base from which military expeditions are undertaken. We should notice that the progress, i.e. the sequentiality, is marked by the w-bn-hw fconstruction, not by the verbal grams. The paragraphs are thus ordered in a temporal sequence, but not necessarily the events told within each.

Section II:11 (= l. 9) And from there they returned to the region of the city of YKLʔ w-ykbnn b-hw ḏ-bn ʔqwl ḏ-rydn w- And they encountered there some of the mṣr ḥmyrm governors of Raydan and the force of Himyar w-hbrrw w-tqdmn b-ʕm-hmw w-hs1ḥt- And they came out into the open and hmw bn mrḥdn attacked them and routed those from MRḤDN until the ruler of YKLʔ let them enter ʕdy ḏ-ḥml-hmw s3ʔd yklʔ 1 And they got from them spoils in great w-lfyw bn-hmw mhrgtm ḏ-ʕs m numbers w-bn-hw f-tʔwlw ʕdy ḫlf hgrn yklʔ

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

348

Jan Retsö

Only one Vpref appears in this paragraph, possibly indicating a circumstantial event: ‘and from there when they returned to the area of the town Y, thereby encountering (ykbnn) the Himyarites, they came out into the open and advanced towards them and routed them until the s3ʔd of the town of YKLʔ admitted them, [alternatively took them by storm] and then they took booty from them’.

Section II:12 (l. 9) w-bn-hw f-tʔwlw ʕdy hgrn nʕḍ w-yʔdb-hmw hmt ʔḥmrn k-l-yqdmnn lmhrgtm ʕdy s1r ngrrm w-yhṣrn mlkn ʔls2rḥ yḥḍb w-ḏ-bn ʔqwl-hw w-ḫms1-hw w-ʔfrs1-hw ʕdy ḏt mẓʔw s3d yklʔ w-ʔl hbrrw hmw ʔḥmrn l-mhrgtm w-gbʔw w-tʔwlw ʕdy hgrn nʕḍ w-bn hgrn nʕḍ f-ytʔwlw ʕdy hgrn ṣnʔw b-hwbltm w-mhrgtm w-ʔḫyḏtm w-s1bym w-ġnmm d-ʕs1m

And from there they returned to the city of Naʿiḍ And those Himyarites challenged them to attack for war trophy in the valley of NGRRM And the king Ilsharaḥ Yaḥḍub and some of his governors and his infantry and his cavalry set out until the ruler of YKLʔ arrived And the Himyarites did not come out into the open to fight And they went and returned to the city of Naʿiḍ And from the city of Naʿiḍ they returned to the city of Ṣanʿā with animals as booty, spoils from those killed, prisoners, captives and booty in great numbers

A new attack by the Himyarites is reported after the Sabaeans have returned to their base in Naʿiḍ. The challenging (yʔdb) of the Himyarites, and the reaction (yhṣrn) by Ilsharaḥ Yaḥḍub, are reported by Vpref verbs. The following events, the arrival of the Sabaeans (mẓʔw), the non-appearance of the Himyarites on the battlefield (ʔl hbrrw), the leaving and return of the Sabaeans to their base (gbʔw, tʔwlw), are told by Vsuff, the meaning obviously being that these events should be seen as successive. The whole section about the first war between Saba and Himyar is concluded with a bn X f- construction reporting the final return of the Sabaeans to Sanʿā. This is made by a Vpref (ytʔwlw), admittedly somewhat difficult to explain. An English rendering of

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

349

the passage could mark the verbal forms: ‘they arrived … they (the Himyarites) did not go out … they (the Sabaeans) went/retired and returned to Naʿiḍ and from that town, then returning to Sanʿā with booty’.

CIH 541 This text is a report by Abraha, the Ethiopian general who took part in the conquest of Himyar in 525 CE and after some years made himself king of Himyar. The text is carved on a stele that originally stood in Marib, probably near the church that, according to the text, was constructed there after the Ethiopian conquest. The text is written in four columns on the four sides of the stele which is approximately 2 meters high. It is the longest text preserved from pre-Islamic Arabia, 136 lines altogether. We choose the introductory passages dealing with a revolt against the Abraha and the breaking of the dam in Marib.

ll. 9-17 w-s1ṭrw ḏn ms3ndn k-qs1d

‘They [the Ethiopians] wrote this inscription when w-hḫlf b-gzmn yzd bn Yazid the son of kbs2t ḫlft-hmw Kabshat, their governor revolted and violated the oath, ḏ-s1tḫlfw ʕly kdt w-dʔ kn l-hw ḫlftn he whom they had appointed as governor over Kinda when they had no governor 1 1 1 w-qs d w-ʕm-hw ʔqwl s bʔ ʔs ḥrn mrt He revolted, and together with him the rulers of Saba, Saḥar, Murrat ṯmmt w-ḥns2m w-mrṯdm w-ḥnfm Thumamat, Ḥanash, Marthad, Ḥanif ḏ-ḫll w-ʔzʔnn ʔqwln of Khalil, the Ya ʾzanites rulers mʕdkrb bn s1myfʕ w-hʕn Ma ʿdikarib son of Sumayfaʿ, Haʿan w-ʔḫwt-hw bny ʔs1lm and his brothers, the sons of Aslam.’

The succession of events reported in the paragraph is that first the Ethiopians have installed (s1tḫlfw) a ḫlft, a khalīfa, over the tribe of Kinda. Their chief Yazid has given an oath (hḫlf b-gzmn) to him but later he has revolted (qs1d) together with other chieftains, some from the old Sabaean aristocracy. The

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

350

Jan Retsö

writing of the text (s1ṭrw) is then the last event to be told. All events are told by using Vsuff verbs but not in an iconic sequence. Instead, the events are reported in reverse order: writing, revolt, oath, viceroy. This is made possible by the use of the explicit marking of different kinds of subordinate clauses, most important the particle k which functions as a temporal conjunction. Worth noting is the clause w-dʔ kn l-hw ḫlftn ‘they did not have a governor’. This must refer to conditions before the appointment of Yazid, thus an inserted clause giving the background to the appointment. The verb kn (= kāna) thus refers to a situation anterior to the preceeding s1tḫlfw: they had not had a khalifa before the appointment of Yazid (cf. Piotrovsky 1998 ad. loc.). This is, thus, a typical anterior ḥāl-clause in accordance with classical Arabic grammar.

ll. 17-24 w-k-ʔs1y grh ḏ-zbrn yʔfqn bqh [m]lkn

‘and when he [the king] ordered Garah from Zabran to control, by royal decree, the east[ern province] they killed him b-ms2rqn w-hrg-hw w-s1ḥt[w] and destroyed mṣnʕt kdr w-yzd gmʕ ḏ-hṭʕ-hw the castle of KDR; then Yazid gathered [those] who obeyed him bn kdt w-ḥrb ḥḍrmwt from Kinda and made war against Hadramawt w-ʔḫḏ mznm hgn ʔḏmryn w-ʕ[...]d and he captured MZN, a freedman from Dhamar and returned to ʕbrn Abran.’

Eight more or less successive events are told by Vsuff verbs. One has the impression that the sequence w-hrg-hw w-s1ḥt[w] ‘they killed and destroyed’ in an older text could have been told by Vpref verbs as a kind of progression/comment on the preceding. We should observe the asyndetic Vpref yʔfqn, ‘in order to control’, an example of the ḥāl muqaddar of Classical Arabic grammar. In an older text the introductory k would not occur. Instead one would expect ywm or w-bn-hw f-.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

351

ll. 24-32 w-wṣḥ-hmw ṣrḫnw s2t[ʔ]w w-gmʕw ʔgyz-hmw ḥbs2t [w]ḥmyrm b-ʔʔlfm b-wrḫ ḏ-qy[ṣ]n ḏ-l-s1bʕt w-ḫms1y w-s1ṯ mʔtm w-s2tʔw w-wrdw mqly s1bʔ w-s2ʔmw bn ṣrwḥ ʕly nbṭm ʕdy ʕbrn

‘and a cry came to them; they arose and gathered their armies of Ethiopians and Himyarites in thousands in the month of Dhu Qayṣan in the fifty-seventh and six hundredth year and they arose and descended the passes of Saba and went northwards from Ṣirwāḥ towards NBṬM to Abran.’

Noticeable here is the use of the verb s2tʔ ‘to rise up’ but which looks like an auxiliary, such as Arabic ʔaḫaḏa, ǧaʕala. Once again the successive events are told by Vsuff coordinated by w-.

ll. 32-41 w-k-wṣḥw nbṭm ḏkyw s1rwt-hmw kdr ʔly w-lmd w-ḥmyrm w-ḫlyf-hmw wṭh w-ʕwd-h ḏy gdmn w-wṣḥ-hmw yzd bnbṭm w-hʕd-hmw yd-hw qdmy ḏkyn

‘and when they arrived at NBṬM they sent their army to KDR: the ʔLY, the LMD and the Himyarites and their vice-commander WṬH and ʕWDH from GDM; and Yazid came to them in NBṬM and gave them his hand before the sending of the army’.

We notice the difference between the introduction to this paragraph and the preceding one. In the latter we have a main clause: ‘and it came to them’. Here it is clearly subordinated by the particle k: ‘when they arrived…’ Otherwise the events pass review by Vsuff verbs.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

352

Jan Retsö

ll. 41-55 w-k-wṣḥ-hmw ṣrḫm bn s1bʔ k-ṯbr ʕrmn w-ʕwdn w-ḫbs2m w-mḍrft ḏ-ʔfn b-wrḫ ḏ-mḏr[ʔ]n w-bʕdn ḏ-l-s1bʕt wṣḥ-hmw ḏn ʕhdn hqdmw b-rdnn brṯ ydnn ʕrbn ʔlht dʔ gbʔw ʕm yzd w-k-kl-hmw hʕdw ʔyd-hmw w-rhn-hmw b-br[…] w-s1rwytn ḏ-hḏ[kyw] kdr qrnw ʔqwln ʔlht qs1dw

‘And then (k) an appeal came to them (= Abraha and his men) for help from Saba that (k) the dam and its surrouding wall had been destroyed and ḪBS3M and the side walls of the distributor in the month of MḎRʔN in the seventh year. After (bʕdn) this report had come to them they appointed assistants (?) in order to (brṯ) subdue the ʕRB who had not returned with YZD And when (k) all of them had assured their loyalty and given hostages … the army that they sent out to KDR garrisoned the chieftains/rulers that had revolted’.

Of the ten finite verbs reporting the events, two are Vsuff in main clauses (marked in the transcription). All the other ones are Vsuff (with one exception) in subordinate clauses, clearly marked by conjunctions k, bʕdn, brṯ. The Vpref verb is undoubtedly in a final subordinate clause: hqdmw … brṯ ydnn ‘they sent them out in order to subdue’. We may observe that all events taking place in the absolute past are Vsuff. Vpref indicating absolute past are not found here. There are several more passages similar to this one in the text which, thus, shows a kind of discourse structuring much more explicit than in the earlier texts.

Explicit marking of CCC Brockelmann did not mention the particle ʔənzä in Geez or the kad + participle construction in Syriac in connection with the Umstandssätze. In these two languages, these particles obviously function more or less as indicators of

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

353

clausal complements equivalent to the traditional ḥāl in Arabic with or withour wa-. Geez has a few examples that appear to be CC-complements which are factual or modal consecutives (Brockelmann 1913, 501ff.): fännäwomu yəḥoru ‘he sent them out so that they went’ mäṣaʔku ʔəmut məslekä ‘I have come to die with you’ ʔəllä ʕärgu yəsgädu läbäʕal ‘those who had come up to celebrate the festival’ The multifarious use of the particle k- in Sabaean has been noticed by the descriptions of the language (Höfner 1942, 167-168; Beeston 1962, 62-63; id. 1984, 50-51; Bauer 1966, 105; Kogan and Korotaev 1997, 239-240; Stein 2003, 207-209; Nebes and Stein 2004, 474-477). According to Nebes and Stein (2004), it may introduce a verbless circumstantial clause (CIH 541:6667): w-qds1w bʕt mrb k-bhw qs1s1m ‘they held a mass in the church of Marib as there was a priest in it’. The question remains whether it may introduce a verbal CCC. If so (see Bauer 1966, 105), Sabaean would have a construction similar to the Geez ənzä + finite verb or the Syriac kaḏ + participle. Let us consider the following examples:

Ja 618:6 (cf. Ja 627:5, 10, Ja 643:27, Ja 647:16; Ja 735:11) … bḏt hwfy-hmw ʔlmqh b-tbs2rt tbs2rw b-ʕm-hw k-ymlʔn mnḫt-hmw ḏ-yfd ‘…because Ilmuqah has given them the oracle they asked for so that they may fill up their basin Ḏ-YFD’ (= consecutive).

Ja 577:9 ṯhb-hmw k-yṣwynn ʔmrʔ-hmw ʔmlk s1bʔ k-hʕs1mw hḫṭʔn w-wʕd-hmw kys2ryn-hmw mlk ḥḍrmwt b-ʕbr ʔmrʔ-hmw ʔmlk s1bʔ… ‘he answered them that he would inform his lords the kings of Saba that they have continued to commit offences, and promised them that the king of Ḥaḍramawt would protect them against the kings of Saba’ (= object clause).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

354

Jan Retsö

YM 440 = CCIAS 39.11/06 no. 4, cf. Ja 752:10 w-ḥmdw mqm ʔlmqh k-ḫl-hmw bn qblm ḏ-wdq ʕl-hmw ‘and they praised the power of Ilmuqah because he [had] delivered them from a calamity which befell them’ (= causal clause).

CIH 313:4-5 (reconstructed) w-tʔlb ry[m f-wqh-hmw b-ms1ʔl-hw lhmw] w-l-ʔmrʔ-hmw bny ʔʕyn kys1ʕdn-hmw nʕm[tm w-wfym] ‘and Taʾlab of Riyam determined for them and their lords, the Aʾyanites in order to give them prosperity and safety’ (= final clause).

Ja 643:18-19 w-mlk ḥḍrmwt w-mṣr-hw f-bm-hwt ywmn s1bʔw ʕdy ḫlf hgrn yṯl k-s1fhw bʕw-hmw krbʔl byn w-mṣr-hw bn hgrn mryb ‘and the king of Ḥaḍramawt and his troops in this very period fought in the region of the city of Yathull foolishly acting treacherously against Karibʾil Bayyin and his troops’ (= ḥāl-clause). The classification of these clauses may be discussed, but the main point is that the particle k- seems to be used as a general marker of dependent clauses, regardless of semantics. The texts quoted are from different periods but it seems that the explicit marking with k- is a feature which is rare in the Old Sabaean texts, with increasing frequency in Middle and Late Sabaean. The trend towards explicit marking of different kinds of clausal complements is a feature apparent in the late inscription CIH 541 analysed above. This language might thus have been on the same line of development as Geez and Syriac before it died out.

9. Concluding remarks The aim of this study has not been to present a complete exposition of CCC and/or its equivalent based on a corpus extracted from the entire Sabaean epigraphic material. It has been judged necessary, instead, to pinpoint the problems before such a project can be undertaken. Since the grammatical and semantic structure in this language are not yet completely understood (it is not even certain which morphosyntactic features, if any, should be looked for in

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

355

order to collect a corpus), a typological Semitistic perspective based on the quite spectacular progress made in other areas of Semitic studies concerning the verbal system and its function during the last two decades should first be established. One result from the study of the sample texts plus the general Semitic perspective given here, especially of the position of the Sabaean verbal system within a Semitic context, is that a strict distinction between main-line and offline markings is not visible. Also, a strict division between coordination and subordination should be avoided. The assumption of a strict binary system blurs the linguistic realities. It is obvious that in many Semitic languages, ancient and modern, there are many different clausal relations in a coherent text. It is possible to see how verbal clauses often have different degrees of dependency on each other. The category labelled juxtaposition above can be said to represent the highest degree of independency among verbal clauses. Such an agglomeration of verbal clauses is held together by being enacted on the same stage, or participating in the same situation, more or less simultaneously. When progress is introduced, we have a higher degree of dependency which can be coded in different ways. A chain of successive events can be syntactically linked in several ways. We have seen that in many Semitic languages we find ample use of Vpref verbs in progress-contexts which indicate a kind of dependency. The same holds for the difference in the Arabiyya between fa- + Vsuff and wa- + Vsuff. And we have seen that the Arabiyya also can use fa- + Vpref in a progress function. Arabic dialects can even use wa- + Vpref in this function, a usage which is more or less normal in Ugaritic literary language and of which we have ample traces in Archaic Biblical Hebrew and Sabaean. This usage abolishes the formal distinction between progression or main-line presentation and circumstantial off-line comments. The absence of the equivalent of the Arabic wa-huwa yafʕalu construction in Sabaean pointed out by Nebes does not imply the total absence of clauses with a similar semantic content and function even if there are few examples of asyndetic Vpref which appear to be similar to Arabic CCC. Nebes’ claim, that there are no direct analogies to the Arabic ḥāl-clauses with finite verbs since the Vpref in a Sabaean subordinate clause never has the temporal value of simultaneity to a main clause, can definitely be questioned. The claim is founded upon an understanding of the verbal system of Sabaean which is not the only one possible. The supporting argument, that no such clauses exist in Biblical Hebrew, is not tenable.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

356

Jan Retsö

All this tells us that it is premature to make too categorical statements about the clause syntax of Epigraphic South Arabian based on classical Arabic grammar. Beyond and before the regulated, rule-governed morphosyntax of that language lies another world, now visible in the documents of the ancient languages of the Middle East and South Arabia. It seems that we need a new model of the Semitic verbal system as it appears in some of the earliest documented languages, including Sabaean. The ḥāl-marking, syndetic and asyndetic, in the Arabiyya stands out as a survival, of an earlier stage when the relative tense value of the Vpref allowed it to be used as a general finite form both in narrative sequences and backgrounds as well as modal. The whole system of clause linking has been systematized in the Arabiyya although, as we have seen, there is ample documentation of an earlier stage. The tendency everywhere has been to differentiate the, as it seems, archaic usage of the Vpref. In Ugaritic we observe the employment of the particle p in narrative progress sequences which in the Arabiyya has become the general indicator of progress, just as the wayyiqtol form in BH is a secondary differentiation of the general Vpref. with a similar function. In Sabaean we see the beginning of a marking of progress by the use of the infinitive instead of a finite verb which, however, never developed into a full-fledged finite category. Just as Arabic, Sabaean tended to develop a special marking of background clauses by the use of particle k. A close analogy is Geez which in general uses ʔənzä. This is a development which deserves a separate investigation. A general, final reflection is that it is unlikely that the use of different verbal grams does not represent semantic distinction. The varying use of Vsuff and Vpref in the languages discussed here should be understood as representing different meanings. But at the same time one should be wary of overinterpretation. If one assumes that the verbal forms discussed here function in a relative tense system, one should try to see it as such and perhaps nothing more. It becomes likely that Vpref, for example, does not mark durative, progressive, cursive, imperfective, and so forth. In a tense system we should reckon with temporal distinctions, nothing more. Differences between punctual, semelfactive, stative, durative etc. are of course relevant, but are perhaps not marked by the Vpref-Vsuff grams. These categories may be located anywhere on a temporal axis. The main factors signalled by the verbal grams are time location and degrees of dependency.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

357

The linguistic study of the epigraphic South Arabian languages is, in spite of several groundbreaking works, still in its beginnings. This is true especially for the syntax of these languages, while, at the same time, the volume of documents is increasing continuously. This study is a modest contribution towards a broader understanding of these languages.

Summary The existence, as was assumed by A. F. L. Beeston, of clauses in Sabaean similar to the traditional ḥāl-construction in Arabic, defined as the kāna yafʿalu syntagm, was cast into doubt by Y. Gruntfest and N. Nebes. According to the latter the Vpref in Sabaean indicate simultaneity, i.e. absolute present tense, only in main clauses. In subordinate clauses it always indicates future tense. The Vpref can also mark progression, i.e. consecutivity in a narrative chain. Consequently, the kāna yafʿalu syntagm, that is Vpref indicating contemporaneity in the past tense, does not exist. Nebes’ analysis turns out to be too narrow and influenced by a view on the verbal system in Biblical Hebrew, a view which many scholars do not follow. A closer look into the Arabiyya shows that the ḥāl-construction is only one subgroup in a set of clause-combining devices which serve as comments, expansions and off-line comments to a main verbal clause. A comparison between the verbal systems in Ugaritic, the Arabiyya, and several modern Arabic dialects shows a much more variegated uses of the Vpref than usually assumed. The Vpref appears as off-line comments to a main-line verbal clause, as actual or general present tense in a main clause, and even coding the main line of a narrative in the absolute past tense. This multifarious use of the Vpref appears also in Sabaean although in different degrees during the 1200 years of documentation of the language. In the late Sabaean texts it looks as if we get a more explicit system of coding subordination by using specific particles (‘conjunctions’). But the many different uses of the Vpref in Sabaean, with good parallels in other Semitic languages, ancient and modern, should make us cautious in assuming a too limited definition of its function as well as about the definition of subordinate commenting clauses. The handling of clause combining in Sabaean turns out to represent a fairly archaic stage, paralleled by Ugaritic and Archaic Biblical Hebrew, but also by some modern Arabic dialects, especially on the Arabian Peninsula. The strict regulation of the Vpref in off-line subordinate clauses according to

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

358

Jan Retsö

the Arabiyya grammar turns out to be a late stage in the development of the CCC.

References Andersen, F. I. 1974. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. The Hague/Paris. Bartelmus, R. 1982. HYH. Bedeutung und Funktion eines hebräischen ”Allerweltwortes” – zugleich ein Beitrag zur Frage des hebräischen Tempussystems. St. Ottilien. Bauer, G. M. 1966. Jazyk južnoaravijskoj pis’mennosti. Moskva. Beeston, A. F. L. 1962. A Descriptive Grammar of Epigraphic South Arabian. London. ———. 1984. Sabaic Grammar. Manchester. Brockelmann, C. 1913. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen II. Berlin. al-Buḫārī. 1423/2002. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Buḫārī. Ṭabʕa ǧadīda maḍbūṭa wa-muṣaḥḥaḥa wamufahrasa. Dār Ibn Kaṯīr: Dimašq - Bayrūt. CIAS = Corpus des inscriptions et antiquités sud-arabes t. I section 1. Louvain, 1977. CIH = Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum pars IV. Inscriptiones ḥimyariticas et sabaeas continens t. II. Parisiis, 1911. Cook, J. 2012. Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb. The Expression of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake. Davidson, A. B. 1901. Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Hebrew Syntax. 3rd ed. Edinburgh. Denz, A. 1971. Die Verbalsyntax des neuarabischen Dialektes von Kwayriš (Irak) mit einer einleitenden allgemeinen Tempus- und Aspektlehre. Wiesbaden. Dixon, R. M. W. 2009. “The Semantics of Clause Linking in Typological Perspective.” The Semantics of Clause Linking. A Cross-linguistic Typology, edited by R. M. W. Dixon and A. Aikhenvald, 1-55. Oxford. Driver, S. R. 1892. A Treatise on the Uses of Tenses in Hebrew and some other Syntactical Questions. 3rd ed.. Oxford. Eskhult, M. 2011. “Thoughts on Phrases and Clauses Expressing Circumstance in Biblical Hebrew Narration.” En pāsē grammatikē kai sophiā. Saggi di linguistica ebraica in onore di Alviero Niccacci, ofm, edited by G. Geiger. Jerusalem. ———. Forthcoming. “A Discussion on the Date of Job from a Syntactic Perspective”. Feghali, M. 1928. Syntaxe des parlers arabes actuels du Liban. Paris. Fischer, W. 1987. Grammatik des klassischen Arabisch. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

359

Gesenius, W. 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, edited and enlarged by E. Kautzsch. 2nd English ed. by A. E. Cowley. Oxford. Greenstein, E. L. 2006. “Forms and Functions of the Finite Verb in Ugaritic Narrative Verse.” Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting. Typological and Historical Perspectives, edited by S. Fassberg and A. Hurwitz, 75-102. Jerusalem/Winona Lakepp. Gross, W. 1976. Verbform und Funktion: wayyiqtol für die Gegenwart? Ein Beitrag zur Syntax poetischer althebräischer Texte. St. Ottilien. Gruntfest, Ja. B. 1965. “Konsekutivnyje konstrukcii v južnoaravijskom jazyke.” Kratkije Soobščenija Instituta Narodov Azii 86: Istorija i filologija Bližnego Vostoka, Semitologija. 129-147. Moskva. Guillaume, A. 1955. The Life of Muhammad. A Translation of Isḥāq’s Sīrat rasūl Allāh. Oxford. Gzella, H. 2010. Review of: A manual of Ugaritic, by P. Bordreuil, and D. Pardee (Winona Lake 2009). Bibliotheca Orientalis 67, 3-4: 367-371. Hackett, J. A. 2012. “Yaqtul and a Ugaritic incantation text.” In Language and Nature: Papers Presented to John Huehnergard on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, edited by R. Hasselbach and N. Pat-El, 111-118. Studies in Ancient Civilization 67. Chicago. Hammershaimb, E. 1941. Das Verbum im Dialekt von Ras Schamra. Eine morphologische und syntaktische Untersuchung des Verbums in den alphabetischen Keilschrifttexten aus dem alten Ugarit. Kopenhagen. Höfner, M. 1943. Altsüdarabische Grammatik. Leipzig. Ibn Isḥāq = Das Leben Muhammed’s nach Muhammed Ibn Ishâk, edited by F. Wüstenfeld I-II. Göttingen, 1858-60. Isaksson, B. 2009. “An Outline of Comparative Arabic and Hebrew Text Linguistics.” In Circumstantial Qualifiers in Semitic: The case of Arabic and Hebrew, edited by B. Isaksson, 36-150. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 70. Wiesbaden. Ja = Jamme, A. Sabaean Inscriptions from Maḥram Bilqîs (Mârib). Baltimore 1962. Joosten, J. 2012. The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose. Jerusalem. Joüon, P. and T. Muraoka. 1996. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Roma. Kogan, L. E. and A. V. Korotayev. 1997. “Sayhadic (Epigraphic South Arabian).” In The Semitic Languages, edited by R. Hetzron, 220-241. London/New York. Kouwenberg, N. J. C. 2010. The Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background. Winona Lake.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

360

Jan Retsö

Kuhr, E. 1929. Die Ausdrucksmittel der konjunktionslosen Hypotaxe in der ältesten hebräischen Prosa. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax des Hebräischen. Leipzig. Meyer, R. 1972. Hebräische Grammatik III: Satzlehre. Berlin/New York. Müller, W. W. 1983. “Altsüdarabische und frühnordarabische Inschriften.” In Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments Bd I Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden. Historisch-chronologische Texte. 268-282 Gütersloh. Nebes, Norbert. 1982. Funktionsanalyse von kāna yafʿalu. Ein Beitrag zur Verbalsyntax des Althocharabischen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Tempus- und Aspektproblematik. Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 1. Hildesheim. ———. 1988. “The Infinitive in Sabaean and Qatabanian Inscriptions.” Proceedings of the Seminar of Arabian Studies 21: 63-78. ———. 1990. “Gibt es im Sabäischen ‘Zustandssätze’ analog dem arabischen Schema wa-huwa yaf’alu und wa-huwa fī l-bayti?” In XXIV Deutscher Orientalistentag in Köln. Ausgewählte Vorträge, edited by W. Diem and A. Falaturi, 61-69. Stuttgart. ———. 1994. “Verwendung und Funktion der Präfixkonjugation im Sabäischen.” In Arabia Felix. Beiträge zur Sprache und Kultur des vorislamischen Arabien. Festschrift für Walter W. Müller zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by N. Nebes, 191-211. Wiesbaden. ———. 1994. “Zur Form der Imperfektbasis des unvermehrten Grundstammes im Altsüdarabischen.” In Festschrift Ewald Wagner zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by W. Heinrichs and G. Schoeler, vol. 1, 59-81. Beirut. ———. 1995. Die Konstruktion /fa-/ im Altsüdarabischen. Syntaktische und epigraphische Untersuchungen. Wiesbaden. Nebes, N. and P. Stein. 2004. “Ancient South Arabian.” In The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of the World's Ancient Languages, edited by R. D. Woodard, 457-487. Berlin/Boston. Nöldeke, Th. 1963. Zur Grammatik des classischen Arabisch. Wien 1897. Reprint, Darmstadt. Notarius, T. 2011. “Temporality and Atemporality in the Language of Biblical Poetry.” Journal of Semitic Studies 56:2, 275-305. ———. 2013. The Verb in Archaic Biblical Poetry. A Discursive, Typological, and Historical Investigation of the Tense System. Leiden/Boston. Owens, J. 1993. A Grammar of Nigerian Arabic. Wiesbaden. Peters, F. E. 1994. Muhammad and the Origins of Islam. New York. Piotrovsky, M. 1997. “Les causes d’une disparition.” In Yémen. Au pays de la reine de Saba’. 219. Paris: Institut du monde arabe.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

The Problem of Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC) in Sabaean

361

Premper, W. 2002. Die “Zustandssätze” des Arabischen in typologischer Perspektive. Frankfurt/M. Reckendorf, H. 1895. Die syntaktischen Verhältnisse des Arabischen. Leiden. ———. 1921. Arabische Syntax. Heidelberg. RÉS = Répertoire d’épigraphie sémitique t. VI. Paris, 1935. Retsö, J. 2014. “The b-imperfect revisited.” In Proceedings of the Oslo-Austin Workshop in Semitic Linguistics, Oslo, May 23 and 24, 2013, edited by L. Edzard and J. Huehnergard, 64-72. Wiesbaden. Revell, E. J. 1984. “Stress and the waw ‘consecutive’ in Biblical Hebrew.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 104: 437-444. Roth, A. 1979. Esquisse grammaticale du parler arabe d’Abbéché (Tchad). Paris. Rundgren, F. 1959. Intensiv und Aspektkorrelation. Studien zur äthiopischen und akkadischen Verbalstammbildung. Uppsala /Wiesbaden. Smith, M. 1994. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle Vol. I: Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU 1.1-1.2. Leiden/New York/Köln. Smith, M. and W. Pitard. 2009. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle Vol. II: Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU /CAT 1.3-1.4. Leiden/Boston. von Soden, W. 1969. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. Roma. Sowayan, S. A. 1992. The Arabian Oral Historical Narrative. An Ethnographic and Linguistic Analysis. Wiesbaden. Stein, P. 2003. Untersuchungen zur Phonologie und Morphologie des Sabäischen. Epigraphische Forschungen auf der Arabischen Halbinsel 3. Rahden/Westf. ———. 2007. “Materialien zur sabäischen Dialektologie: Das problem des amiritischen (“haramischen”) Dialektes.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 157:13-47. ———. 2011. “Ancient South Arabian.” In The Semitic Languages. An International Handbook, edited by S. Weninger et al., 1042-1073. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 36. Berlin/Boston. ———. 2013. Lehrbuch der sabäischen Sprache 1. Teil: Grammatik. Subsidia et Instrumenta Linguarum Orientis 4,1. Wiesbaden. Streck, M. P. 1995. “ittašab ibakki ‘weinend setzte er sich’: iparras für die Vergangenheit in der akkadischen Epik.” Orientalia N.S. 64: 33-89. aṭ-Ṭabarī. Tārīkh = Annales Abu Djafar ibn Djarir at-Tabari, edited by M. De Goeje et al. Vol I. Leiden, 1879. Tropper, J. 1997. “Subvarianten und Funktionen der sabäischen Präfixkonjugation.” Orientalia N.S. 66: 34-57.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

362

Jan Retsö

———. 2000. Ugaritische Grammatik. Altes Orient und Altes Testament 273. Münster. Waltisberg, M. 2009. Satzkomplex und Funktion. Syndese und Asyndese im Althocharabischen. Wiesbaden. Waltke, B. K. and M. O’Connor. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake. Watson, J. E. C. 1993. A Syntax of Ṣanʿānī Arabic. Wiesbaden. Weninger, S. 2001. Das Verbalsystem des Altäthiopischen. Wiesbaden. Wright, W. 1896-98. A Grammar of the Arabic Language I-II. 3rd ed. Reprint, Beirut 1974.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Clause Combining in East Semitic

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian* Eran Cohen, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem In memory of Prof. Gideon Goldenberg A great scientist and a precious man

0. Introduction It is quite difficult to define circumstantial expressions on syntactic grounds:1 they are of a different structure and complexity and consequently do not answer to a limited set of structural criteria. This is the case of Akkadian: the oldest amply-attested Semitic language does not conform to the accepted tradition of what a circumstantial expression is in Semitic. This in fact is one of the basic insights of any syntactic comparison between sibling-languages. Akkadian is unlike Arabic, which regularly features the indefinite accusative participle (FĀʿILAN), or the pattern wa–x—YAFʿALU (as well as several other expressions, see Marmorstein’s contribution in this volume). Nor is it similar to Biblical Hebrew, which has a pattern similar to Arabic, for instance, waw– x—QĀṬAL in narrative (e.g., Niccacci 1990, 62–72). There are, of course, other expressions (see various forms and patterns throughout Isaksson, Kammensjö and Persson 2009, 36-150). Akkadian has its small share of morphological possibilities, but its main instrument to express circumstantiality is the use of certain forms within its syntax of chaining.

* I would like to thank Mr. Nikolaus Wildner for his corrections and remarks. 1 Less so on semantic grounds: “Any word or words expressive of some fact subordinate to the main course of the narrative, or descriptive of some circumstance attaching or appertaining to the action denoted by the principal verb, may form a circumstantial clause or secondary predicate: an adverb, a genitive or ablative absolute, a participle or other word in apposition to the subject—all of which qualify the main action by assigning the concomitant conditions under which it took place, be they modal, causal, or temporal— are familiar instances” (Driver 1892, 195).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

366

Eran Cohen

0.1 Literature review The phenomenon of Umstandssätze or Zustandssätze described in the different sources is not one but two. One is mentioned or discussed in all the sources, which describe the literary language (Literary Old Babylonian or Standard Babylonian – Hecker 1974, Wilcke 1977, Streck 1995), in which 2 IPARRAS forms have some kind of circumstantial function, basically occurring only in the narrative of the epic (and in dream accounts, see Cohen 2006, 64–66). Although related, this phenomenon is not the one on which this paper concentrates. It has been given ample consideration, despite the fact that it occurs basically in the literary language and only rarely elsewhere.3 We will return to it below (§4). The first “modern” reference to circumstantial expressions in Akkadian is found as early as 1907: Wenn dem ersten mit -mâ verbundenen Präteritum oder Permansiv ein Präsens folgt, so ist der zweite Satz als Zustandssatz, zuweilen auch mit finaler, kausativer etc. Bedeutung aufzufassen: innabitma ibáḳam ziḳnášu = er floh, indem er sich den Bart zerraufte; (Meissner 1907, 63) Thus an attempt was made to equate an Akkadian form to the well-known Arabic circumstantial clause pattern wa–x–YAFʿALU with a form like IPRUS– ma IPARRAS. A similar attempt is found further in GAG §159: “Sätze, die den Zustand kennzeichnen (vgl. die arab. Ḥāl-Sätze!), in dem die unmittelbar davor genannte Handlung ausgeführt wurde, stehen immer im Prs. auch bei vergangenen Handlungen (s. z. B. aB pī-šu īpusam-ma izakkaram ana X “er hub an, indem er zu X sprach” [...]; iddi rigma Tiāmat ul utāri kišassa “T. stiess ein Geschrei aus, indem 2 Among other forms which participate in this function—PARIS, non-verbal clauses (NVCs), UL IPRUS—see Wilcke (1977) and Cohen (2006, 54–63). 3 See, e.g., CH §141–143, where IPARRAS forms have a similar function; in the letters it is just as rare: al[p-am] ipṭur–ma {šamm-ī ikkal} [imq]ut–ma imtūt ox-ACC

3CS.free.PST–CONN plant-OBL.PL 3CS.eat.NPST 3CS.fall.PST–CONN 3MS.die.PF

‘He released the o[x], {it was eating grass}, [it f]ell and died’ (AbB 11, 7:13–14). Note that the Leipzig glossing rules are applied with the examples; the square brackets are habitually used in transcribing reconstructed broken entities. For this reason, curled brackets or bold typeface are used to mark the circumstantial clause (CC).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian

367

sie den Hals nicht umwandte” En. el. IV 71); sie werden meist mit, seltener ohne -ma angeschlossen. Wie es scheint, sind solche Sätze ebenso wie die gleichartigen, in §158f genannten Finalsätze nur der Dichtung eigentümlich, in ihr aber sehr beliebt.” (my emphasis) Steiner (1985), in his work titled “Umstandssätze im Akkadischen”, is unfortunately the least informative of all other sources: it is an unsuccessful attempt to prove that IPARRAS forms which follow the connective particle -ma are synchronically subordinate (by trying to show that the particle -ma actually subordinates) and thus constitute subordinate Umstandssätze in Akkadian. First, -ma is not a subordinating, but rather a chaining device (see Cohen forthcoming). Subordination is quite clearly marked in Akkadian, and -ma does not necessarily occur with it. Second, subordination is hardly a requisite for circumstantiality: looking at the jumla ḥāliyya pattern found in Arabic (e.g., wa–x–YAFʿALU), it is not at all certain that this prototypical syntagm is subordinate rather than chained. Third, Steiner uses for his inquiry materials for which he does not distinguish for dialect and genre, some of them seriously outdated. The other strategy, which is described below, occurs everywhere – in letters, laws and literature. Nevertheless, it is described succinctly in Rowton (1962, 271–278) and Kraus (1987, 41–45). Consequently, there is much more to be said about it in this regard – on the syntactic context in which the phenomenon occurs and the forms which participate, which constitute the main purpose of this article. The fact that this type of circumstantial expression occurs independently of genre or textual environment (it may occur almost anywhere) makes it fundamental to Akkadian syntax. The strategy is described as a stative PARIS form that is connected forward by the particle -ma and thus constitutes the circumstantial clause (CC) syntagm. The first to describe this was Rowton (1962): In this syntax the clause with permansive describes circumstance in which the event of the second clause took place. The circumstance of which the first clause speaks often consists of the state of the subject at the time of performing action which the second clause speaks of. The event of the second clause is very often the result of the circumstance in the first clause, but, as already pointed out by Lambert, this is by no means always the case. What we have here is a simple form of syntax in which parataxis is used instead of subordination. In OB the enclitic particle usually de-

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

368

Eran Cohen

notes no more than sequence of events when it is affixed to the preterite or the perfect. But when affixed to other tenses it usually denotes a logical connection of some sort between the two sentences it joins. We are concerned here only with the combination permansive+present or preterite (and variants thereof). (Ibid., 272; my emphasis)4 Kraus (1987) discusses “Koppelungen”, which are a wide variety of pairs of verbal expressions where the first has some kind of modificatory function with regard to the second.5 His pairs are characterized by a unity of tense, modus, person and number across the two clauses, to which we can add polarity as well, that is, being affirmative or negative. The type dealt with below, namely, the stative in circumstantial function, is described ibid. (41–45). Here, when a stative is the first part of the Koppelung, there is a difference: no unity is found with regard to aspect (to which we intend to add other characteristics below: polarity, mood, person and perhaps tense). This kind is described as follows: Die Satzkoppelungen dieser Sondergruppe beschreiben Handlungen und den Zustand ihres Subjekts, der sie ermöglicht, verursacht oder rechtfertigt. (Kraus 1987, 41; my emphasis) All these sources speak of the stative as the exponent of circumstances, mostly in conjunction with one more clause. There is an emphasis on the paratactic nature of the connection. The aim of this paper is to provide a more precise characterization of the (macro)syntactic conditions in which this phenomenon occurs and the members of the class, namely, what other forms belong to this group which signals circumstantiality. This should, in addition, facilitate the identification of the phenomenon.

0.2 A short typological ID of Old Babylonian Old Babylonian (henceforth OB) is the oldest attested Semitic language. It is found written in cuneiform in a huge number of assorted texts – letters, laws, 4 Following Rowton, an addition was inserted into GAG3 (§159): “In Dichtung wie Prosa finden sich Zustandssätze der Form “Stativ(-ma)+Verbum finitum”, wobei der Stativ die Umstände angibt, in denen sich die Handlung des zweiten Verbs abspielt”. The syntax is explained below, §3. 5 The classical example is ul t-atūr–ma ul t-ali-am ‘you did not come up again’ (AbB 7, 178:3), see §5 below.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian

369

divinations, epic literature, and more. It is an inflecting language, featuring the Semitic three case system, as well as root and pattern word formation. The syntactic features of OB are dwelt upon below, §2.

1. Circumstantial expressions at sentence-level As is made clear in GAG (§147), we find very few circumstantial examples in OB within the confines of the sentence, consisting of two almost specialized morphological strategies, which seem to be based on adjectives: (1) wēd-ūt-am single-ABST-ACC

attalak 1CS.go.PF

‘I have come alone’ (AbB 13, 149:13) Note that the circumstantial expression is in the accusative (termed in GAG §147 ‘der adverbiale Akkusativ des Zustandes’). The first type consists of a derivation from the adjective 6 followed by the abstract marker -ūt-. The result is sometimes different, semantically, from the homophonous rare abstract nomen actionis (compare wašbūtum ‘sitting’): (2) šaql-ūs-su

šeʾ-am

rare-ABST-GEN.3MS barley-ACC

suḫr-ı̄ –ma

šām-ı̄

look_for.IMP-FS–CONN

buy.IMP-FS

‘It being rare, look for barley and buy (some)’ (AbB 14, 140:31) (3) ana mīn-im to

what-GEN

šūm-ū

lā

bašl-ūs-sunu

garlic-PL

NEG

ripe-ABST-GEN.3MP 3.PASS-dig_out-NPST-MP

in-nappal-ū

‘Why is the garlic dug out unripe (lit. their-unripe-ness)?’ (AbB 12, 25:12–14) (4) kasp-am marṣ-ūs-su

ašaqqal

silver-ACC difficult-ABST-GEN.3MS 1CS.pay.NPST

‘I will weigh the silver with difficulty (lit. its-being-difficult)’ (AbB 9, 61:27)

6 This judgement is based upon the meaning (e.g., šaqlum ‘rare’, rather than ‘weighed’), with the addition of the derivational morpheme (-ūt-), which forms abstracts. The nomen actionis (e.g., wašbūtum ‘sitting’) is not particularly related to the verbal adjective, and is mainly found in objective function: wašb-ūs-su iqb-û-nim ‘They told me (of) his staying…’ (AbB 13, 21: 13). See also balṭ-ūs-su in ex. (37).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

370

Eran Cohen

Note that exx. (2)–(4) include, in addition, explicit reference to one of the arguments: subject in the case of lā bašl-ūs-sunu ‘(in) their being unripe’, referring to the garlic, but of the object in the other two cases – the barley (in ex. (2)) and the silver (in ex. (4)). This reference to one of the arguments in the clause is considered as a basic feature for circumstantial expressions – that is, different from what is repeatedly said in the Assyriological grammatical literature, e.g., Rowton (1962, 272) and Kraus (1987, 41), that the circumstantial generally refers to the subject. Himmelmann and Schultze-Berndt 2005 term this “participant-oriented adjuncts”, where the participants are the “main” predicate’s core arguments. The second form is a limited gerundial form, which seems to consist of an adjective (or lexeme) followed by the unique morpheme -iššī- and a genitive pronoun, which is functionally similar: (5) erî-ššī-šu naked-ADV-GEN.3MS

lā

illakam

PROH

3CS.come7

‘Let him not come naked (lit. to his naked)’ (AbB 12, 178:6’) This gerundial form may serve as the rheme of the clause8 as well as the circumstantial expression which depicts the state of one of the arguments and refers to it (in this case it is the subject) with the attributive pronoun. This form may occur focused as well: (6) wēd-iššı̄ -ka–ma single-ADV-GEN.2MS–PTCL

tūr return.IMP.MS

‘Return alone! (lit. to your single)’ (AbB 14, 208:10–11) This gerund is marked, additionally, by the focus particle -ma.

7 In independent, non-interrogative, non-conditional clauses, the form IPARRAS (otherwise present-future), when preceded by the negative particle lā, functions as a prohibitive (glossed PROH). This form is part of the directive domain, the negative counterpart of the precative (=jussive) and the imperative. 8 E.g., inanna anāku er-îššī-ya NOM.1CS naked-ADV-GEN.1CS now u mārat-ki erî-ššī-[š]a CONN daughter-GEN.2FS naked-ADV-GEN.3FS ‘Now, I am naked and your daughter is naked (lit. to my/her naked)’ (AbB 6, 102:8–9).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian

371

Other, sporadic means are the preposition ina with various kinds of abstract nouns, which, together with the negative particle lā, mean ‘without’ and function as the negative of the gerundial constructions: (7) šumma IF

aššat

awīl-im

itti

zikar-im

šan-îm

wife.NUC

man-GEN

with

male-GEN

another.MS-GEN

ina itūl-im

ittaṣbat

in

3CS.PF.PASS-catch

sleep.INF-GEN

‘If a man’s wife is caught lying with another male...’ (CH §129) This is a very good case showing an infinitive construction as circumstantial: itti zikarim šanîm ina itūlim ‘lying with another male’ does not explicitly refer to the wife, but since lying with someone else is a digression mostly with regard to a (married) woman, the prepositional syntagm must refer to her. Other examples occur with the negative particle: (8) ina lā in

NEG

wašb-ūt-i-ya

PN...

sit-ABST-GEN-GEN.1CS

an[a]

bīt-im

unūs-su

to

house-GEN

equipment-GEN.3MS 3CS.CAUS-PF-enter

uš-t-ērib

‘In my absence, PN9… has brought his equipment into the house’ (AbB 6, 116:7–9) In this case the form wašb-ūt-um is the nomen actionis, which is here the equivalent of the infinitive. Note that no explicit relationship is marked between the adverbial syntagm and the clause, and it is left to be inferred. The following example refers implicitly in its circumstantial prepositional syntagm to the subject argument in the clause: (9) [šeʾ]-um barley-NOM

šakin

ina lā

rīq-ūt-im–ma

STV.put.3MS

in

empty-ABST-GEN-PTCL

ul

uš-ābil-akkim

NEG

(1)CS.CAUS-carry-DAT.2FS

NEG

‘There is [bar]ley.10 I did not have (it) sent to you only due to lack of time’ (AbB 11, 40:9–10)

9 PN=proper name; GN=geographical name; CN=canal name. 10 There is no need to interpret šeʾum šakin as an ad hoc counter-factual conditional (had there been...), as is done in the edition.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

372

Eran Cohen

The particle in ex. (9) (as well as in ex. (6) above) is analyzed as the focus particle -ma. The ina infinitive constructions, described by Aro (1961, 215-251) as denoting temporal or instrumental phrases, are also a strategy for the expression of circumstantiality. They show varying complexity. The simplest (and rarest in this function) is what we have in ex. (7) – ina parāsim. In most cases, however, it is somewhat more complex: a genitive suffix pronoun representing the agent is appended to the infinitive construction, as in ex. (10): (10) awīl-um

ina lā

lamād-i-šu

man-NOM

in

be_aware.INF-GEN-GEN.3MS

marušt-um

imaqqut-aššum

trouble-NOM

3CS.(be)fall.NPST-DAT.3MS

NEG

‘Trouble will befall the man (when) unaware’ (YOS X:31 xii:32-35) In other cases, an object is found preceding the entire infinitive construction: (11) šumma

šamn-um m-ê oil-NOM

IF

itb-û 11

ina nadî-ka

water-OBL.PL in

cast.INF.GEN-GEN.2CS

3.rise.PST-MP-CONN

‘If the oil, upon your pouring water (on it), rises...’ (CT V pl. 4–6, L. 32, Aro 1961, 239) One expression with this structure has even become a fixed expression: ṭuppī/kunukkī (anniam) ina amārim/amārika ‘upon (your) seeing my tablet…’. In addition to the object, other arguments may precede the infinitive: (12) anāku NOM.1CS

ana bīt-im

ina erēb-i-ya

to

in

house-GEN

enter.INF-GEN-GEN.1CS

pān-ī-ya

ulawwā–ma

attatial

face-OBL.PL-GEN.1CS

(1)CS.surround.NPST–CONN

1CS.PF.lie_down


‘Upon my entering the house, I wrapped my face and lay down’ (AbB 14, 110:20–21; Aro 1961, 237)

11 šamnum ‘oil’ takes here the plural form of the verb.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian

(13) šumma

alp-um

sūq-am

ina

alāk-i-šu


IF

ox-NOM

street-ACC

in

go.INF-GEN-GEN.3MS

awīl-am

ikkip–ma

uš-t-amīt

man-ACC

3CS.gore.PST–CONN

(3)CS.CAUS-PF-die


373

‘If an ox gores a man to death while passing through the street’ (CH §250, Aro 1961, 238) This construction is distinct enough also when occurring with a core argument preceding the infinitive construction without the genitive suffix pronoun: (14) šiṭert-am document-ACC

ina šakān-im

ašar

in

place.NUC hand-GEN

put.INF-GEN

id-im

ašakka[n]-šu 1CS.put.NPST-ACC.3MS

‘Upon submitting the document, I will place it in a suitable place’ (AbB 14, 148: 21–22) This pattern includes a rare expression of the subject: (15) m-û

ina maqāt-im

water-NOM.PL

in

ana našpak-i-šu

fall.INF-GEN to

silo-GEN-GEN.3MS

l-i-tēr




DIR-3CS-return

‘Water falling, let him return (the grain) to the silo’ (AbB 9, 215:9–11; Aro 1961, 222) (16) PN ina alāk-im in

2 būr eql-am ... n-u[ka]llam-šu

go.INF-GEN

bur

field-ACC 1CP-show.NPST-ACC.3MS

‘PN arriving, we will s[ho]w him the field of two bur...’ (AbB 9, 72:9– 11) These rare occurrences are very similar in function to the rest of the examples. The infinitive construction with the argument inserted between the preposition and the infinitive is basically not found as a circumstantial expression, but rather as a core argument (Aro 1961, 229).12 By maintaining this close juncture between the preposition and the infinitive, the language made its first step

12 dayyān-am šuāti judge-ACC

DEM.OBL.MS

ina dīn

idīn-u

en-êm

in sentence-NUC 3CS.sentence.PST-SUBORD change.INF-GEN

ukann-ū-šu–ma (3).convict.NPST-MP-ACC.3MS-CONN

‘They will convict this judge in changing the sentence he gave’ (CH §5).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

374

Eran Cohen

toward a gerund, which however had not developed any further, as far as we can tell. The examples so far all have in common the fact that they constitute part of another sentence, clearly fulfilling a formal adverbial function within the confines of sentence-level. However, the relationship with one of the core arguments is not explicitly marked in all cases (e.g., exx. (11) and (15)). Before moving on to the heart of the matter, circumstantial clause combining (given the acronym CCC), one first has to provide an explanation as to the way the syntax of Old Babylonian Akkadian works.

2. Clause combining in OB syntax Everyday OB shows differential element orders: in nominal and adverbial syntagms, modifiers basically follow (e.g., substantive—adjective, preposition—attribute), whereas in verbal syntagms modifiers precede, namely, the verbal form takes the last position, following its arguments (subject—object— verb). Subordination in OB is a clear, formally marked phenomenon: it always involves an explicit syntactic nucleus which is often marked as such (either a substantive, a pronoun or an adverb~preposition~conjunction)13 and the verbal form is basically marked by the subjunctive, namely, the mark of subordination. The clauses thus marked serve, with their nuclei, as part of another clause – as substantive, adjective and adverbial clauses: (17) kīma as

anāku

eppeš-u

qibī-šum

NOM.1CS

1CS.do.NPST-SUBORD

tell.IMP.MS-DAT.3MS

‘Tell him that I cultivate (the field)’ (AbB 3, 2:45) The clause in ex. (17) is an embedded, subordinate object clause. However, subordination is not the only strategy for clause combining; in addition to subordination, OB has the asymmetrical connective particle -ma. This particle creates a series of verbal forms (as well as of other predication types), a linguistically-pertinent, non-reversible clause sequence which is characterized by “modal” congruence.

13 They may sometimes constitute the same entity: kīam ‘thus’ (unbound form) vs. kīma ‘like, as’ or ‘that, when, since, etc.’ (bound, nucleus form).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian

375

These series, where forms are interconnected via the particle -ma are termed domains. These are units larger than the clause, which roughly parallel the paragraph in other languages and different genres. There are three major domain types: indicative, directive and subjunctive (or attributive), each comprising different forms.14 The forms in each domain do not interconnect in principle via -ma with other forms (the circumstantial expressions constitute one notable exception), and thus we have what may be termed domain congruence (for a full description of this syntax, see Cohen 2014).

2.1 The indicative domain The indicative domain is termed after the common feature of the forms which occur in it: (18) u

eql-ī

CONN

errēš-um

ana

field-GEN.1CS to

errēš-im

iddin-ū–ma

farmer-GEN

3.give.PST-MP-CONN

uqallil-anni–ma

farmer-NOM 3CS.humiliate.PST-ACC.1CS–CONN

ana maḫar rabiān-im u

šīb-ūt

to

elder-MP.NUC city.GEN

front

mayor.GEN

aw-ât-im

anni-āt-im

matter-PL-OBL

mār-ī

CONN

maḫrī-šunu

DEM-FP-OBL

maḫ[ar]

son-GEN.1CS front.NUC

āl-im

allik–m[a] 1CS.go.PST–CONN

aškun–ma

front-GEN.3MP 1CS.put.PST–CONN

rabiān-im u

šīb-ūt

āl-im

mayor-GEN

elder-MP.NUC

city-GEN

CONN

īpul-anni–ma

kīam

aqbī-šum#

3CS.reply.PST-ACC.1CS–CONN

thus

1CS.say.PST-DAT.3MS

‘Moreover, they gave my field to a farmer and the farmer humiliated me, so I went in front of the mayor and the city elders and stated these matters in front of them, and my son answered me in front of the mayor and the city elders and I told him thus’ (AbB 9, 268:11–21) In the example, there are only forms denoting the preterite, but other forms may occur in the same domain. There is no obligatory referent continuity in the verbal forms, and the only mandatory features are basically continuity of the same mood, in this case the indicative, and the particle -ma, which naturally does not follow the last clause in the chain. 14 There are other, less important domain types, e.g., in pronominal questions, protases, and apodoses.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

376

Eran Cohen

Within the indicative domain, when the chain consists of preterite forms (as we have in ex. (18)), it tends to end with a special form: (19) ana PN

ṭupp-am

uš-ābil–ma

to

tablet-ACC

(1)CS.CAUS-carry.PST–CONN answer.NUC tablet-GEN

PN

meḫer

ṭupp-i

uš-ābil-am–ma

[u]š-t-ābil-akkum #

(3)CS.CAUS-carry.PST-DAT.1CS–CONN

(1)CS.CAUS-PF-carry-DAT.2MS

‘I sent PN a tablet, he sent me a response and [I] sent (it) to you’ (AbB 3, 55:30–32) The formal difference between the final form and the rest of the forms is an infixed t (ušābil vs. uš-t-ābil). This verbal form has several functions, the most common of which is to mark off a chain of preterites. In other syntactic contexts, it has altogether another function.

2.2 The attributive domain The attributive domain consists of forms marked as such by the subordinative morpheme (glossed as SUBORD). Its function is to mark the clause as the attribute of a preceding nucleus. Such nucleus may be a noun (which is often marked accordingly by the so called “construct state”, i.e., the unbound form), a pronoun or a preposition/conjunction. The noun governed by the nucleus is marked by the genitive case, whose sole function is to mark it as an attribute. In fact, the subordinative morpheme can be considered an allomorph of the genitive case: it marks verbal clauses as attributes, while the latter marks nominals as attributes, both are found in the same syntactic slot: (20) #aššum TOP.MARK

{#kīma

dunn-ī

ḫabt-u#}

THAT

farm-GEN.1CS

STV.rob.3MS-SUBORD

t-ešm-û–ma

t-akkud-u–ma

2MS-hear.PST-SUBORD–CONN

t-ašpur-am

#

2MS-write.PST-DAT.1CS

2MS-worry.PST-SUBORD–CONN

umma

atta–ma

QUOT

NOM.2MS

‘As for (the fact that) you heard {that my farm was robbed} and you worried and you wrote to me as follows: ...’ (AbB 7, 116:4–6) This kind of chain is sometimes tricky, since the formal exponent of these attributive predicative forms is sometimes neutralized (e.g., the last form in ex. (20), tašpuram, where the subordinative morpheme is masked by the dative morpheme -am, which neutralizes the difference between subordinative

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian

377

and indicative). Since, however, this domain must follow a nucleus which marks its beginning (unlike the other two domains), we can identify it fairly well. Note that in ex. (20) we have two attributive domains, one within the other, each beginning with a nucleus (aššum and kīma respectively) and ending when there is no more -ma.

2.3 The directive domain The directive domain consists of directives, i.e., the collective term used here for jussives, imperatives, cohortatives and prohibitives: these diverse forms function as a suppletive group found in the same paradigm and accordingly share a function: (21) ina

ṣāb

PN1 u

from

army.NUC

ittī-šu

l-i-llik–ma

with-GEN.3MS

DIR-3MS-go–CONN

5 ūm-ī

{adi

5 day-OBL.PL

until

PN1

PN2

u

PN2

and

ṣāb-um troop-NOM

ištu GN illak-ū-nim#} from

ina āl-ānī

l-i-ptarrik-ū–ma

in

DIR-3-ITER.trouble-MP–CONN

cities-OBL.PL

100

and

3.come.NPST-MP-ALL15

ḫarrān-āt-im {ša

ī-ten-errub-ā-nim#}

[i]šteat ū šitta

caravan-PL-OBL PRON.NUC

3-ITER-come_in-FP-ALL

one

l-i-dūk-ū–ma

or two

l-ī-dur-ā #

DIR-3-strike-MP–CONN DIR-3-fear-FP

‘Let one hundred troops from the troops of PN1 and PN2 go with him, and let them cause continuous difficulties in the cities for five days {until PN1 and PN2 come from GN}, and let them strike at one or two caravans {that come in regularly} so that they be afraid’ (AbB 11, 193:13–23) Inside two individual directive clauses, one finds in addition two occurrences of the attributive domain (marked by curly brackets). Note that the attributive forms of the verb are not interconnected with the directives, but embedded in the clauses. The notions expressed by the clauses in the directive domain are 1. an expression of will (imperative, jussive); and 2. finality (in non-initial clauses only). For instance, the second and third directives (underlined) express will, whereas the fourth directive (līdurā) expresses finality. The latter 15 This morpheme (ventive, allative) is one which, with verba movendi, points in the direction of the speaker.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

378

Eran Cohen

is, furthermore, a notion that needs to be examined for a potential circumstantial function. Two more notions are 3. indirect command, or order content; and 4. concessive-conditionality (see §3.3.1). A case of deontic content expression is found in ex. (22): (22) qibī-šum–ma

l-i-llik–ma

aḫ-ā-šu

tell.IMP.MS-dat.3MS–CONN

DIR-3CS-go–CONN

l-itr-am–ma

{l[ām]a

attalk-u}

brother-ACC-GEN.3MS

DIR-3CS.lead_forth–CONN

before

1CS.PF.leave-SUBORD

nikkass-ī-šunu

l-ī-puš-ū

account.OBL.PL-GEN.3MP

DIR-3.do-MP

‘Tell him he should go and (OR: in order to) bring over his brother so they can do their accounting {before I (will) have left}’ (12, 44:16–21) The second and third directives (underlined) are taken to be the notional (rather than syntactic) content of the order (and consequently not a potential circumstantial). The attributive domain in this example is clearly marked (curly brackets). The directive domain has its own unique complement syntax, as compared with the other domains: (23) qi[b]ī–ma tell.IMP.MS–CONN

ma[mman

l]ā

udabbab-šu {directive domain}

PRON.INDEF

PROH.

3CS.harass-ACC.3MS

‘O[r]der that (lit. and) n[o one] should harass him’ (AbB 12, 13:17–18) (24) mamman lā PRON.INDEF NEG

dubbub-šu

[i]qtabī-šunūšim {indicative domain}

harass.INF-GEN.3MS 3CS.PF.tell-DAT.3MP

‘[He] ordered them that no one should (lit. any[one no]t to) harass him’ (ibid. 12–13) The same events are referred to in two different domains: Whereas the indicative verbal form in ex. (24) (‘he ordered them’) is formally complemented by an infinitive in accusative status (‘not to harass’), which is its formal object, the directive domain in ex. (23) works differently: Here object clauses or infinitives are rare (compare, for instance, ex. (17)). Normally, the content of the order is conveyed as a chained (rather than subordinate) clause, using an entirely different strategy (lit. ‘order and let no one harass him’).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian

379

2.4 Domains and their relationship to CCC The domain syntax, or chaining, presented in the previous sections, is the main vehicle of circumstantial clause combining in Old Babylonian. However, like one more paradigm,16 the protasis paradigm in the paratactic conditional pattern (Cohen 2012, 78–90), it sometimes deviates from modal congruence. This strategy operates clearly above sentence level, at the chain, or paragraph level.

3. The circumstantial clause in OB: forms, constraints and paradigms The following example is taken from the Eshnunna law collection, but it illustrates the spirit of these constructions very well: (25) {šumma kalb-um IF

šegī–ma}

dog-NOM

bābt-um

STV.raving.3MS–CONN

ana bēl-i-šu

municipality-NOM to

master-GEN-GEN.3MS

kalab-šu

lā

iṣṣur–ma

dog-GEN.3MS

NEG

3CS.guard.PST-CONN

awīl-am iššuk–ma

uš-t-amīt

man-ACC 3CS.bite-PST–CONN

3CS.CAUS-PF-die

uš-ēdī–ma (3)CS.CAUS-know.PST–CONN

‘{If a dog is raving} and the ward authorities notify its owner but (the owner) does not guard his dog and it bites a man and kills him...’ (LE §56) The first form in the legal protasis is šegi ‘it is raving’, which serves as circumstance to the entire chain of events mentioned. They are all interconnected via the connective particle -ma. However, despite the fact that the example is representative, many details need to be verified in order to provide the fullest picture possible for this phenomenon – forms, location in the chain, polarity and other issues. Note that the dog in the first clause takes various syntactic positions in the following clauses: in the second clause it is genitive (‘his master’), in the third it is accusative (‘does not guard his dog’) and in the last two clauses, it is the agent (‘it bites a man and kills (him)’). This CC is poten16 By “paradigm” I mean a syntactic substitution group, namely, a set of forms that share the same place in the syntagm and hence the same function.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

380

Eran Cohen

tially more extensive in function than what is mentioned in the literature as describing ‘the state of the subject’ (end of §0.1).

3.1 Forms This presentation includes an expansion of the paradigm, namely, the group of forms which participate in this function, as well as some refinement as to the syntactic conditions where it occurs. It seems that, in addition to the stative form which denotes the circumstantial function, it is now possible to consider several other forms in this function: First, the negative preterite UL IPRUS, which seems, very much like the stative PARIS, to constitute, or represent the circumstances. This idea is tested against affirmative forms in the same position below. Additionally, non-verbal clauses (NVCs) seem to take part in this paradigm as well. First and foremost, however, it is the stative form, reinforced by semantically similar forms: statives “de facto”, or syntactic statives.

3.1.1 Statives The stative is a predicative form which denotes all kinds of states (Kouwenberg 2010, 163-164), as such it naturally expresses circumstances which are non-eventive. Another important research (Loesov 2011) is a description of the temporal, aspectual and diathesis-related characteristics of the stative. The cases of stative with past time dynamics (ibid., 86-88) are viewed semantically as kind of pluperfects, which does not contradict circumstantiality:17 (26) {alp-ū

ša

PN

ox-NOM.PL

PRON.NUC

ina qāti

PN1 u

in

hand

CONN

ḫalq-ū–ma} STV.be_lost-3MP–CONN

PN2

tamkār-im

iṣbat-ū-šunu–ma

merchant-GEN

3.seize-MP -ACC.3MP–CONN

‘{Oxen of PN having been lost}, they found them in possession of PN1 and PN2 the merchant...’ (Goetze 1958, 28:4–8. Loesov 2011, 287 “Oxen of PN had been lost, and…”) It is possible to see here the general sense of circumstantiality vis-à-vis more specific nuances, such as concessivity:

17 See my other paper in this volume (“Circumstantial clause combining in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Zakho”), §2.1.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian

(27) {ittī-kunu

381

bāʾer-ūt-am e[pē]š-am kullum-ū–ma}

with-GEN.2MP

hunt-ABST-ACC do.INF-ACC

t-aprikam–ma

ana bāʾer-ūt-im

2MS-hinder.PST–CONN

to

STV.instruct-3MP–CONN

epēš-im

hunt-ABST-GEN do.INF-GEN

[ul t-]addin-aššunūti NEG

2MS-give.PST-ACC.3MP

‘{They were assigned to d[o] the fishing with you}, but you hindered and did [not] allow them to do the fishing’ (AbB 11, 112:18–22) In the examples, there is mostly an explicit resumptive element (marked by an underline), but not always: (28) {u CONN

inanna

šatt-um

gamr-at–ma}

now

year-NOM

STV.finish-3FS–CONN

eql-am

ina erēš-im

ul

t-akm[is]

field-ACC

in

NEG

2MS-finish.PST

plow.INF-GEN

‘{And now the year is over} but you have not fin[ish]ed plowing the field’ (AbB 10, 96:7’–8’) In this case the CC does not directly refer to any core argument. The farther away one is from sentence-level, the less consistent this feature becomes. Loesov (2011, 287-8, n. 56) claims that the functional difference between IPRUS and PARIS in chain-initial position is rather one of markedness, where 18 PARIS explicitly signals background. In this framework, the differences between PARIS forms and affirmative IPRUS forms are viewed as more critical to the system and they are consequently shown and discussed throughout. In the following sections, various types of statives in this function are examined. The first feature to be checked is polarity.

18 “… in narrative passages, the relationship between paris-ma iprus and iprus-ma iprus chains is that of markedness. The chain paris-ma iprus may suggest explicitly that there is something “backgrounding” in its first link, while iprus-ma iprus is a default expression” (Loesov 2011, 287-8, n. 56).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

382

Eran Cohen

3.1.1.1 Affirmative stative (29) {ina CN

m-û

maṭ-û–ma}

in

water-NOM.PL

STV.little-3MP–CONN

eqel

bilt-i-ni

ul

ikaššad-ū

field.NUC

yield-GEN-GEN.1CP

NEG

3.reach.NPST-MP

‘{The water in the CN-canal was in small quantity}, so it cannot reach our yield’ (AbB 4, 39:8–10) (30) {atta NOM.2MS

ana mār-ūt-i

nadn-āta–ma}

to

STV.give-2MS–CONN

son-ABST-GEN

ana ilik to

bīti (sic)

ilkum-service.NUC house.NUC

ab-ī-ka

ilteq-ū-ka

father-GEN-GEN.2MS 3.PF.take-MP-ACC.2MS

‘{You were given up for adoption} so they took you to the ilkum-service of your (adoptive-)family’ (AbB 7, 125:13–15)

3.1.1.2 Negative stative Negative statives are not different: (31) {aḫ-ū-ni

ṣēḫr-um

aššat-am ul

aḫiz–ma}

brother-NOM-GEN.1CP young-NOM.MS

wife-ACC

PN ab-ū-ni

aššat-am

uš-āḫis-su

wife-ACC

(3)CS.CAUS-hold.PST-ACC.3MS

father-NOM-GEN.1CP

NEG STV.hold.3MS–CONN

‘{Our young brother had no wife}, so PN our father married him to a wife’ (AbB 3, 2:11–12) (32) {kasp-am silver-ACC

ul

naši-āku–ma}

NEG STV.carry-1CS–CONN

ukult-am ul

ašām

food-ACC

1CS.buy.PST

NEG

‘{I carried no silver}, so I did not buy food’ (AbB 1, 132:7–8) In addition, most stative forms are passive, and take no direct object. In that they resemble intransitive lexemes. However, in a small number of examples, we encounter CC examples which feature active statives; this is verifiable by their explicit direct object. Exx. (31) and (32) are negative forms with an explicit accusative object.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian

383

3.1.1.3 Active stative forms Exx. (33) and (34) are affirmative: (33) {PN

annikīam

saniq-niāti–m[a]}

here

STV.check.3MS-ACC.1CP–CONN

alāk-am

ana

ṣēr-ī-ka

ula

n-ileʾʾi

go.INF-ACC

to

back-GEN-GEN.2MS

NEG

1CP-be_able.NPST

‘{PN is checking on us here} so we cannot come to you’ (AbB 9, 88:6– 11) sanāqum (‘check’) is here an active lexeme, and the speakers are the recipients. In the following example, the lexeme našûm is active again: (34) {ṣuḫār-ū-ya servant-NOM.PL-GEN.1CS

šipāt-im

naš-û–ma}

wool-OBL

STV.carry-3MP–CONN

PN īmur-šunūti–ma ... 3CS.see.PST-ACC.3MP–CONN

šipāt-im

imtašaḫ

wool-OBL

3CS.PF.take_by_force

‘{My servants were transporting wool}, PN saw them and ... took the wool by force’ (AbB 1, 95:7–11) Note that the propensity toward a causal nuance (exx. (29)–(33)) is not exclusive: like ex. (26), ex. (34) is a neutral circumstantial.

3.1.1.4 Syntactic statives Syntactic statives are forms which have a stative meaning but do not comply with the morphological structure of statives. This happens because these forms, in addition to their meaning (exist, have, know, etc.) do not show any paradigmatic opposition with other terms, that is, with different functions. For instance, the verb bašûm ‘exist, be’ occurs almost exclusively in IPARRAS formation (otherwise denoting non-past), but having hardly any temporal opposition, it has come to cover the entire temporal spectrum, much like the stative: (35) {u CONN

šīm-um

ul

ibaššī–ma}

ul

attalkam

merchandise-NOM

NEG

3CS.exist.NPST–CONN

NEG

1CS.leave.PST

‘{There was no merchandise} so I did not leave’ (AbB 12, 53:21–22; see similarly ex. (55)) The same applies to IPRUS verbal forms without an opposition of other forms, such as išûm ‘have’ and edûm ‘know’:

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

384

Eran Cohen

(36) {kasp-am

elī-šu

īš-û–ma}

silver-ACC

on-GEN.3MS

(3).have.PST-MP–CONN

nīš-ī-šu

ešer itrû

people-OBL-GEN.3MS

10

3.take_away.PST.MP

‘{He owes them silver}, so they took away ten (of) his people’ (AbB 1, 74:14–15; see also ex. (75)) (37) PN mār-ī son-GEN.1CS

ištu since

8 šan-āt-im

iḫliq-anni–ma

year-PL-OBL 3CS.get_lost.PST-ACC.1CS–CONN

{balṭ-ūs-su

ul

īdē–ma}

kīma

mīt-im

live-ABST-GEN.3MS

NEG

(1)CS.know.PST-CONN

as

dead-GEN

kisp-am

aktassip-šum

funerary_offering-ACC

1CS.ITER.make_funerary_offering-DAT.3MS

‘My son PN disappeared on me 8 years ago, and {I did not know (whether) he was still alive (lit. his living)}, so I have kept making funerary offerings as if he were dead’ (AbB 13, 21:5–9) The CC consisting of stative forms is easy to spot. Further below we continue to explore their additional characteristics, so as to be able to characterize them as fully as possible.

3.1.2 Negative IPRUS forms In addition to the statives, there are other forms which participate in this function in the same syntactic setting. They are analyzed as part of the paradigm. The first form is the negative preterite, UL IPRUS. This form is shown to be different from the affirmative IPRUS in Epic Old Babylonian (Cohen 2006, 5960), where UL IPRUS is considered part of the background, whereas IPRUS is part of the foreground. The reason for this is that this form is dramatically less transitive (using the terms as explained in Hopper and Thompson 1980 as well as Lazard 2002), since the patient is not actually affected. Consequently, the effect is similar in nature to less transitive forms, such as other background forms. The following pair of examples features the difference between affirmative and negative IPRUS forms following an initial boundary:

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian

(38) # {mamman

ul

INDEF.PRON

NEG

385

īkim-anni–ma19} 3CS.deprive.PST-ACC.1CS–CONN

etbiam–ma

attalkam

1CS.rise.PST–CONN

1CS.go_away.PST

‘{Nobody deprived me (of anything)}, so I rose and went away’ (AbB 5, 193:8’–9’). (39) # {PN

eqel

ab-i-ya

īkim-anni–ma}

field.NUC

father-GEN-GEN.1CS

3CS.deprive.PST-ACC.1CS–CONN

ana

rēd-im

ittadin

to

soldier-GEN

3CS.PF.give

‘{PN deprived me of my family’s field} and gave it to a soldier’ (AbB 4, 16:8–11) Negative verbs, even lexemes which otherwise denote telic actions, are nevertheless characterized in a similar manner to the stative. It should be noted how similar the function of ul īkimanni–ma ‘(no one) deprived me’ is to the statives mentioned above: it is not part of the chain of actions,20 whereas the same verb in the affirmative (ex. (39)) certainly is. The following pair is similar: (40) #

{ana GN gerr-um

ul

imqut–ma}

ul

allik #

to

NEG

3CS.fall.PST–CONN

NEG

1CS.go.PST

caravan-NOM

‘{A caravan did not arrive (lit. fall) in GN} so I did not go’ (AbB 2, 77:4–6) (41) #

{PN1

ṣuḫār-ī ... slave-GEN.1CS

PN2

imqut–ma} 3CS.fall.PST–CONN

ubtazziʾ-šu (3)CS.PF.hurt-ACC.3MS

‘{PN1 my servant ... attacked PN2} and hurt him’ (AbB 2, 115:6–10) Here too, the verbal form in ex. (40) has only indirect effect (not coming) whereas in ex. (41) it has a direct effect and hence shows far stronger transitivity. 19 Lit. i-TE-m[a]-an-ni-ma. 20 “A PROTOTYPICAL ACTION ... is an effective volitional discrete action performed by a controlling agent and actually affecting a well individuated patient” (Lazard 2002, 152).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

386

Eran Cohen

Negation in the case of IPRUS is critical, then, since it marks the verbal form as different in nature from the affirmative form in the chain.

3.1.3 Non-verbal clauses Since the statives are found somewhere on the scale between full-fledged verbs and non-verbal clauses (NVCs),21 it makes sense to examine the latter as well. NVCs turn out to be relevant and both types of NVC (unipartite and bipartite) are found in circumstantial function. The crux lies in the interpretation of the particle -ma at the end of the clause: it may be analyzed as a focus marker (for which see Cohen 2005b, 3234), signaling a preceding focus, or as a connective: (42) {ina in

qab-î-ni

eql-um

mād-um–ma}

command-GEN-GEN.1CP

field-NOM

much-NOM-PTCL

izni-anniāti 3CS.be_angry.PST-ACC.1CP

‘{On our command the field is abundant}, so he got angry with us’ (AbB 3, 58:13-17) The non-verbal clause which describes the field may denote either focus on mādum (as is interpreted in GAG §126e and in Kouwenberg 2000, 34) OR connection forward, and consequently some kind of logical relation with the following clause. In Cohen (2005a, 266, n. 31) there are two previously unexplained examples, which are now explicable, and are consequently discussed below (exx. (51) and (52))

3.1.3.1 Unipartites Unipartite NVCs are clauses consisting of one part only, which is essentially the predicate (or better, the rheme, namely, the new information). Exx. (43) and (44) are analyzed in Cohen (2005a:251-253) as a substantive followed by the focus- or rheme-marking particle -ma (also GAG §126e) and termed “causal existentials”: (43) ṣuḫār-um servant-NOM

{tidūk-um–ma}

ul

illikam

combat-NOM–PTCL

NEG

3CS.come.PST

21 For a description of NVCs in OB, see Cohen (2005a).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian

387

‘The servant, {(because there was) combat}, has not come’ (AbB 7, 55:12–13) (44) ṣubāt-am

{ul gerr-um–ma}

garment-ACC

NEG

ul ušābil-akki

caravan-NOM–PTCL

NEG

(1)CS.send.PST-DAT.2FS

‘(As for the garment about which you wrote), {(since there was) no caravan}, I did not send you the garment’ (AbB 7, 11:4–6) The fact that these examples consisted of an entity which was, at the same time, both a substantive and a clause, made it difficult to be certain of the function of the particle -ma. Huehnergard (1986, 238 n. 74) terms such examples “one-word existential clauses”, and states that the particle “serves to isolate the word from preceding and following clauses”. This special structure had to be re-evaluated, in order to be able to provide some explanation for the particle. A comparison conducted between the standard case of CC in OB (ex. (46)) and the case in question (ex. (45), which is similar to exx. (43) and (44)) highlights the similarity: (45) aššum since

lā

t-allikam

umma

anak[u–m]a

NEG

2MS-come.PST

QUOT

NOM.1CS

{midde

awāt-um–ma}

ul

illikam

perhaps

matter-NOM–PTCL

NEG

3CS.come.PST

‘Since you have not arrived I said “{perhaps (there was some) matter} so he has not come”’ (AbB 8, 99:12–13) (46)

{maruṣ–ma}

ul

illikam

STV.be_sick.3MS–CONN

NEG

3CS.come.PST

‘{He (was) sick} so he has not come’ (AbB 2, 212:9–10) The comparison of these two structures suggests that perhaps the situation is analogous, namely, that both the substantive (which functions as a unipartite clause) and the stative occupy the same functional slot: both are circumstantial, chained forward by the particle -ma. That is, the particle in this case is not analyzed as a focus particle anymore, but rather as a connective. The following example is similar:

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

388

Eran Cohen

(47) [x-x-o

{ṣ]ibûs-su–ma}

[ṭu]rd-aš-šu–ma

need-GEN.3MS–CONN

send.IMP.MS-DAT.1CS-ACC.3MS–CONN

[o ṣ]ibût-ī

l-ī-puš

need-GEN.1CS

DIR-3CS.do

‘{(There is a) need of him}, so [se]nd him to me and let him do my [n]eed’ (AbB 12, 14:9–11) The unipartite clause may even express modality, epistemic as well as deontic: (48) šā[r]-um

kīma ištakn-u

wind-NOM

as

3CS.PF.settle-SUBORD

{lū

mūš-um–ma}

PTCL

night-NOM–CONN 1CP-let_in.NPST–CONN

n-ušerreb–ma

ṭēm-am report-ACC

n-išaparram 1CP-send.NPST

‘As soon as the wi[n]d has subsided, {even if it is night}, we will take (the barley) in and send a report’ (AbB 7, 84:6’–8’) (49) kunukk-ī-ka

šalm-ūt-im

iddin-ū-nim

document-OBL.PL-GEN.2MS

whole-MP-OBL

3.give.PST-MP-DAT.1CS

{kīma

iddin-ū-nim

mūš-um–ma}

as

3.give.PST-MP-DAT.1CS night-NOM–CONN

{ul eptē–ma} NEG

rīq-t-am

1CS.open.PST–CONN empty-FS-ACC

ul

amnu

NEG

1CS.count.PST

‘They gave me your undamaged documents. {When they gave (them) to me, (it was) night}, so {I did not open (them)} so I could not count the empty one’ (ABIM 20:61–63) Comparing the syntagms lū mūšum–ma (ex. (48)) and mūšum–ma (ex. (49)), it is clear that they are opposed: both are found in the same syntactic slot, functioning as circumstantials. The difference between them is one of modality: it is realized as concessive-conditionality (in ex. (48)) vs. causality (in ex. (49)). Note that mostly these unipartites do not show any explicit reference to an argument, the exception is in ex. (47) (the reference is underlined). This may be partially attributed to the nature of the unipartite clauses, i.e., which mostly consist of a substantive.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian

389

3.1.3.2 Bipartites In addition to the unipartite NVCs, which needed a more elaborate analysis, some bipartite NVCs are found, which helps us to put everything in perspective. With NVCs that terminate with the particle -ma, as is mentioned above, the particle may mark the second element as focus: (50) u CONN

eql-am

šuāti

šan-ûm–ma

field-ACC

DEM.OBL.MS

another-NOM-FOC 3CS.claim.NPST–CONN

taʾīšt-um

ka-tt-um–ma

loss-NOM

yours-FS-NOM-FOC

ibaqqar–[m]a

#

‘Even if (it is) somebody else (who) claims the field, the loss is yours’ (AbB 11, 69:6’-8’) Ex. (50) ends with a NVC followed by the particle -ma, which is analyzed as focus for two reasons: first, the letter ends there, so the NVC cannot constitute a CC for what follows. Second, the two segments šanûm ‘somebody else’ and kattum–ma ‘yours’ contrast each other, which is a common rationale for focus marking in OB. In other examples the decision is difficult, but in others focus is totally out of the question: (51) umm-u mother.NOM

ina

maḫrī-ka

u

mār-u

ina maḫrī-ya

in

front-GEN.2MS

CONN

son.NOM

in

front-GEN.1CS

uḫtalliq-ū–ma (3).PASS.cause_loss.PST-MP–CONN

{u

šū

kāṣir-um–ma}

CONN NOM.3MS

šīpāt-im PN iddin-am

textile_weaver.NOM–CONN wool-OBL

3CS.give.PST-DAT.1CS

‘The mother near you and the son near me were caused a loss, {but he being a carpet-weaver}, PN22 gave me wool...’ (AbB 7, 187:18–22) The fact that a relevant person is a textile weaver is reported several lines before and is not contrasted or contested, so the particle -ma cannot be explained away as focus. However, as a connective with what follows it makes perfect sense. Moreover, the order personal pron—noun (here and in the following examples) is not the usual order of elements and occurs otherwise only when there is a special emphasis on the first element:23 It is clearly not the case 22 PN is marked as focus by a focus pattern, see Cohen (2005b, 34-35). 23 See Cohen (2005a, 265) for this order.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

390

Eran Cohen

here, which makes it easier to regard this order, with the following particle -ma, as distinctive: (52) u

aššum

PN ša

bīs-su

PRON.NUC

maḫrī-ka

CONN

TOP.MARK

house-GEN.3MS front-GEN.2MS

{u

šū

aḫ-ī–ma}

CONN

NOM.3MS

brother-GEN.1CS–CONN

arḫiš

aššas-su

u

mār-ī-šu

[p]uṭram–ma

quickly

wife-GEN.3MS

CONN

son-OBL.PL-GEN.3MS

release.IMP.MS–CONN

‘And, as for PN whose house is in front of you, {he is my brother}, so release his wife and sons…’ (AbB 2, 170:10–15) (see perhaps AbB 14, 92:11–15, where the ‘main’ form is possibly a conditional, as in exx. (74) and (75)) The bipartite NVC functions as a CC just as the stative. The following example may belong here as well. In ex. (53) we have difficult, poetic lines, which may well contain a modal bipartite clause with this special element order: (53) {atta

lū

šamš-um–ma}

ṣēt-ka

l-u-štaḫan

NOM.2MS

PTCL sun-NOM–PTCL

heat-GEN.2MS

{atta

lū

ina

ṣill-i-ka

NOM-2MS

PTCL cedar-NOM–PTCL

in

shadow-GEN-GEN.2MS

ṣ[ēt-um]

ay-y-iḫmuṭ-anni

heat-NOM

NEG.DIR-3CS-burn-ACC.1CS

erēn-um–ma}

DIR-1CS-REFL.warm

‘{May you be the sun},24 so I can warm myself in your heat; {may you be a cedar} so the h[eat] does not scorch me in your shadow’ (AbB 9, 228:16–20) Like the unipartite clause in ex. (48), the bipartite NVC is capable of expressing modality. There are other circumstantial NVCs, without personal pronouns:

24 The first syntagm is an enigma as regards the analysis what kind of a lū syntagm this is, whether deontic (‘be the sun’), epistemic (‘if you are the sun’) or asseverative (‘you are the sun’).

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian

(54) {ṭupp-āt-u-ya

ina qāti

391

ab-ī-ya–ma}

tablet-PL-NOM-GEN.1CS in

hand.NUC father-GEN-GEN.1CS–CONN

adi ab-ī

lā

illikam

ul

adân

till father-GEN.1CS

NEG

3CS.come.PST

NEG

1CS.litigate.NPST

‘{My tablets are in my father’s hands}, so before my father comes I will not litigate’ (AbB 11, 55:23–25) Note that the CC is compatible with an adverbial clause. (55) {PN

erî-ššī-šu–ma}

mimma

ina qāt-i-ya

naked-ADV-GEN.3MS–CONN

INDEF.PRON

in

[u]l ibaššī–ma NEG

3CS.exist.NPST–CONN

hand-GEN-GEN.1CS

ul

ulabbis-s[u]

NEG

(1)CS.dress.PST-ACC.3MS

‘{PN is being naked}, but there was [n]othing in my hand so I did not dress him’ (AbB 12, 178:5–7 and see similarly ibid. 3’–5’) Note that in ex. (55) there are two circumstantial syntagms – the NVC as well as the existential clause which follows it. There is one difficulty with these non-verbal constructions which has not been addressed: contrary to the principles of the domains (§2 above), where the same mood is observed throughout the chain, when circumstantial NVCs are involved, this so-called modal congruence is less strictly maintained. For instance, in exx. (48), (52) and (65), where the particle -ma interconnects two different modi on each of its sides. One could have excused it by the mere fact that these are non-verbal clauses, but it so happens that NVCs in OB are modally sensitive and express it (by the particle lū). Some of these clauses are indicative, yet they are compatible with modal clauses in the chain as well as the other way around.

3.2 Constraints There are several constraints which characterize CCs in OB: position in the chain, and reference to arguments.

3.2.1 Position in the chain Clauses consisting of initial stative forms followed by a connective particle and another clause have long been recognized as circumstantial, as has been mentioned in the literature review (§0.1). The following pair is almost a textbook pair, illustrating the crucial importance of clause order:

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

392

Eran Cohen

(56) {maruṣ–ma} STV.be_sick.3MS–CONN

ul

illikam

NEG

3CS.come.PST

‘Being sick (lit. {he is sick and}) he has not come’ (AbB 2, 212:9–10) (57) ward-am

t-addin-am–ma

slave-ACC

2MS-give.PST-DAT.1CS–CONN

ištu t-addin-a (sic)

maruṣ

since 2MS-give.PST-DAT.1CS

STV.be_sick.3MS

‘You gave me a servant but since you gave (him) to me, he has been sick’ (AbB 11, 94:22) Note that the form itself (maruṣ) is not enough to tell us whether it is circumstantial or not. The syntagmatic factor, namely, the location in the syntagm is indispensable: when maruṣ ‘he is sick’ is initial (as it is in ex. (56)) it constitutes the circumstances (and specifically the cause) of the agent in the following clause; when final (ex. (57)), it is not circumstantial at all but rather functions as the main message. The initial place of the stative means its location at the beginning of the chain, following a syntactic boundary. The following examples follow such a boundary: (58) #

{PN

annikīam

saniq-niāti–m[a]}

here

STV.check.3MS-ACC.1CP–CONN

alāk-am

ana ṣērī-ka

ula

n-ileʾʾi

go.INF-ACC

to

NEG

1CP-be_able.NPST

back-GEN.2MS

‘{PN is checking on us here} so we cannot come to you’ (AbB 9, 88:611, =ex. (33)) (59) #

{inūma

t-uṣ-û

marṣ-āta–ma}

when

2MS-exit.PST-SUBORD

STV.be_sick-2MS–CONN

pī-ya

ul

ēpuš-akkum

ul

unaʾʾid-akka

mouth-GEN.1CS

NEG

1CS.do-DAT.2MS

NEG

(1)CS.instruct-ACC.2MS

‘{When you went out, you were sick}, so I did not talk to you, did not instruct you’ (AbB 1, 8:8–10) Ex. (59) follows a syntactic boundary, it is the beginning of a chain. The subordinate clause at the beginning (inūma tuṣû) is a part of the CC clause. However, all types may actually occur also in mid-chain:

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian

(60) eql-am ina GN field-ACC in

{CN

ēriš–ma

kīma t-īd-û

1CS.plow.PST–CONN

as

393

2MS-know.PST-SUBORD

sekir–ma}

m-û

ul

ibašš-û

STV.be_closed.3MS–CONN

water-NOM.PL

NEG

3.exist.NPST-MP

‘I plowed the field in GN, but as you know, {CN is closed} so there was no water’ (AbB 6, 115:7–9) The stative form sekir occurs in mid-chain and still functions as a circumstantial to what follows: it constitutes the reason why there is no water. In ex. (61) the form UL IPRUS is circumstantial, occurring in mid-chain position: (61) 2 būr eql-am 2 bur

ina

field-ACC in

kanikt-im

iknuk-šum–ma

seal-GEN

3CS.seal.PST-DAT.3MS–CONN

{adi

inanna

ina

lā

rēq-ūt-im

ul

illikam–m[a]}

till

now

in

NEG

empty-ABST-GEN

NEG

3CS.come.PST–CONN

eql-am

ul

t-a[dd]iš-šum#

field-ACC

NEG

2MS-give.PST-DAT.3MS

‘He sealed a field of 2 bur for him, {but till now, in the absence of time, he did not come}, so you did not give him the field’ (AbB 4, 51:9–13) The form ul illikam–ma in mid-chain is no doubt a circumstantial clause. However, compared to the last clause in ex. (56) (ul illikam# ‘he has not come’), it is easy to realize that the last position in the chain cannot host a circumstantial clause. The last clause in ex. (56) is negative, but does not constitute a circumstantial clause. The same applies here, in ex. (61), where ul taddiššum# is not a circumstantial either. The same applies in the following example: (62) 1 1

šiqil

kasp-am

sheqel.NUC silver-ACC

ušābilam–ma (1)CS.send.PST–CONN

{têr-ēt-um

ul

išlim-ā–ma}

ul

uṣ-û-nim

omen-PL-NOM

NEG

3.be_good.PST-FP–CONN

NEG

(3).go_out.PST-MP-ALL

‘I sent you one sheqel of silver but {the signs were not good} so they did not go out’ (AbB 12, 129:5–6) The initial boundary turns out to be non-pertinent, since mid-chain position is just as normal for circumstantial function. What is important are the criteria “clause-final” and “non-clause-final”. It is worthwhile to note that the prevalent notion expressed in all these suggested cases of CC is causality. This is true for cases of NVCs as well.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

394

Eran Cohen

3.2.2 Explicit reference to the arguments There are however, cases which are borderline: they consist of stative forms found in the right syntactic constellation, but do not show an explicit, or almost-explicit, reference to one of the arguments in the following clause(s). The following two cases, both featuring the stative form mād–ma, are a case in point: (63) {šeʾ-um

ina bīt-im

barley-NOM in

house-GEN

mād–ma}

pīḫ-ū

STV.much.3MS–CONN

beer_jar-NOM.MP

ul iml-û NEG

3.be_filled.PST-MP

‘{The barley in the house is plenty} but the beer jars are empty’ (AbB 9, 177:3–4) In ex. (63), the grain itself is not an argument in the following clause, still, the beer in the jars, which is the unspecified issue in the following clause, is logically related to the grain. The nuance here is concessive. A similar semantic relation exists above in ex. (60), where the canal and the water are closely related. In ex. (64), on the other hand, the long distance mentioned in the first clause is merely the reason for the inability to deliver: (64) {šidd-u distance-NOM

mād–ma}

ištu

maḫrī-ya...

STV.much.3MS–CONN

from

front-GEN.1CS

šūbul-am

ul

eleʾʾi

send.INF-ACC

NEG

1CS.be_able.NPST

‘{The distance is great} so I cannot send ... from my place’ (AbB 11, 66:21–23) The difficulty in ex. (64) is real: in these examples we have trouble relating the state depicted in the circumstantial clause to the following clause. It is much easier in the following case, where there is not a stative formation, but rather a non-verbal clause: (65) {šeʾ-um

ša

maḫrī-k[a]

ula

mād-um–[ma]}

barley-NOM

PRON.NUC

front-GEN.2MS

NEG

much-NOM–CONN

išar-iš

l-i-mḫ[u]r-ū

straight-ADV

DIR-3-receive-MP

‘{The barley in your possession is not much}, so let them receive (it) duly’ (AbB 9, 88:14–16)

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian

395

The NVC consisting of an adjectival predicate is a rarity. Such NVCs are generally realized with the stative form (as in ex. (64)). This circumstantial clause does not explicitly refer to any argument in the second clause, but nevertheless there exists a connection: the barley is in fact the non-specified object in the second clause. The cases with stative forms where no connection exists with the following clause are not many: (66) 1 pān

šeʾ-am

baši-am

{nakr-um

barley-ACC

STV.exist.3MS-DAT.1CS

enemy-NOM

bāb-am gate-ACC

ṣabit–ma}

šūbul-am

ul

eleʾʾi

STV.hold.3MS-CONN

send.INF-ACC

NEG

1CS.be_able

‘I have one pān (of) barley. {The enemy blocks the gate}, so I cannot send (it). (AbB 9, 160:20–23) The enemy holding the gate is, like several CC examples, the reason why barley cannot be delivered, but it is different from the more conventional cases in that the state is related to the following clause only indirectly. Yet another type of example, already discussed above (§3.1.3.1), seems to belong semantically, but turns out to be somewhat different syntactically: (67) u CONN

kīma t-eštenemm-î as

{nukurt-um–ma}

2-ITER.hear.NPST-FS war-NOM–CONN

mamman

bāb-am

ul

uṣṣi

PRON.INDEF

gate-ACC

NEG

(3)MS.leave.NPST

‘and as you keep hearing, {(since there is) war}, no one exits by the gate’ (AbB 6, 64:15–17) This example belongs with the group of unipartite NVCs; the entity in question constitutes an existant, which, despite the logical relationship with the following clause, has no direct relationship with any following argument, and consequently no explicit reference.

3.3 Other forms Apart from the forms attested so far in the circumstantial slot, there are other forms which need examination: various functions of the directive forms LIPRUS as well as of IPARRAS.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

396

Eran Cohen

3.3.1 Directive clauses In §2.3 above, it was shown that non-chain-initial directives may denote finality (as well as indirect commands). The notion of finality as well as some other functions of the chained directive need to be examined for a potential circumstantial function – whether it is consistent and whether it is formulable (thus becoming predictable). In the first slot in the chain, directive forms usually express the will of the speaker. At that very slot, however, there exists an additional, rare notion – concessive conditionality:25 (68) {kasp-am silver-ACC

ū šeʾ-am

l-i-kill-ū-nikkum–ma}

or barley-ACC

DIR-3-have_available-MP-DAT.2MS–CONN

lā t-amaḫḫar PROH.2MS-accept

‘{Even if they have silver or barley available for you}, do not accept’ (AbB 14, 37:13–15; see also AbB 9, 260:10–15) Concessive-conditional may be considered a natural candidate for circumstantial expressions. In fact, ex. (68) is perfectly analogous to lū mūšum–ma in ex. (48), already established as a positive circumstantial. The notion of finality (e.g., exx. (21) and (22)) is generally circumstantial in meaning as well; the difficulty with it is that it is not found in the slots discussed so far (namely, non-final positions), and is rather found in noninitial positions. Another problem is circumscribing the notion syntactically – it is deeply related to the verbal lexemes around it, for example, it typically follows verba movendi. For this reason these directive clauses are excluded.

3.3.2 IPARRAS clauses Another form, which especially needs to be examined, is IPARRAS, otherwise the praesens/imperfect. This form, although part of the background in the language of the epic, is very rarely found in circumstantial function outside it (see n. 3 above for a few exceptions). One reason for this may be the prominent role the form IPARRAS has in the protasis of the paratactic conditional pattern (see §7 below). The sole exceptions to this are cases with UL IPARRAS

25 In a previous study (Cohen 2005b, 144–60), I describe this paratactic pattern as one in which the first member is a directive form (1st or 3rd person), whereas the second member may consist of indicative or directive forms.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian

397

in this syntactic constellation which occur following the adverb adīni ‘till now’: (69) {adīni still

ṭēm-ī

šeʾ-am

anni-am

ul

akammisam–ma}

barley.ACC

DEM-ACC

NEG

1CS.harvest.NPST–CONN

ul

report-GEN.1CS

NEG

ašpurak-kum 1CS.write.PST-DAT.2MS

urram

kīma

aktamsa

tomorrow

as

1CS.PF.finish 1CS.write.NPST-DAT.2MS–CONN

ašappar-akkum–ma

‘{I have not yet harvested this barley} so I did not send you my report. Tomorrow, as soon as I have finished I will send you…’ (AbB 10, 167:12–16) Note that adīni … ul aparras–ma is not quite a present-future, nor is it prospective, as the other cases of IPARRAS, but rather some kind of present perfect. UL IPARRAS–ma (the negated praesens) is often found as a (paratactic) conditional protasis, which is another paradigm altogether. In addition, cases of 2nd person negative forms ul t-aprus–ma and ul t-aparras–ma function only as protases. The difference between the circumstantial and the paratactic protasis paradigms is summarized under §7 below.

3.3.3 CC Paradigm and constraints The table below summarizes all forms which participate in the circumstantial paradigm and the various constraints which go along with it:

syntactic location

CC paradigm predicative forms

non chain-final clause NVC

paris ul iprus adīni ul iparras (concessive) liprus unipartite: P bipartite: S—P and P—S (modal and indicative)

forward connection

-ma

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

398

Eran Cohen

4. Epic narrative In Streck (1995, 35; 53–55; 79-83) it is stated that these circumstantial sentences with IPARRAS have the same function as cotemporaneous temporal clauses in other genres (inūma, kīma iparrasu ‘when he decides’ etc.). Streck adds that these cases are unlike the Arabic ḥāl in that the (non-modal) circumstantial sentence can precede its main clause and does not have to come with an explicit connective (mostly the particle -ma). This type of circumstantial sentence occurs only in the literary texts. The difficulty with this focus on IPARRAS forms is that in the narrative parts of the epic, the main arena for Streck’s inquiry, other forms have this function just as well (e.g., PARIS forms, NVCs and even negative IPRUS forms, see Wilcke 1977 and Cohen 2006). When attempting to portray a function, one needs to take into consideration all the forms that are somehow related: they occasionally form a substitution group, a paradigm. The circumstantial paradigm as discussed so far is analogous to the phenomenon of setting in the narrative of the epic. It is those circumstantial pieces of information which serve as background, or informational basis, for the entire stream of events that follows, rather than for just one clause. This was already reported by Wilcke 1977 for the beginning of the epic, and is in fact valid for the entire epic (ex. (70)):

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

399

Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian

(70) Lambert, Millard and Civil 1969 I, 1–13 line 1 2

4 5 6 7 8 9

11 12 13

{inūma ilūNOM awīlumNOM {When the gods, (as) man, ublūPFV dullaACC izbilūPFV šupšikkaACC}

adverbial clause

bore corvée-work, suffered toil} šupšik ilī rabīSTV–ma The toil of the gods was great:

paris

dullumNOM kabitSTV mādSVT šapšāqumNOM work was heavy; distress was much. rabūtumNOM anunnakuNOM sebettamACC The great Anunnaki, the seven, dullamACC ušazbalūIMPV igigīOBL they would make the Igigi bear the toil.

iparras

anu abūšunuNOM šarruNOM Anu, their father, the king, mālikšunu qurāduNOM enlil their counsellor, Enlil, the hero, [guz]zalušunuNOM ninurta their chair-bearer, Ninurta, EVENTS

10

form

BACKGROUND

3

text

[u] gallušunuNOM [en]nugi [and] their canal inspector, Ennugi, qātamACC īḫuzūPFV qātiša held hand in hand;

iprus

isqamACC iddûPFV ilūNOM izzūzūPFV They threw a lot, the gods, (and) divided: anu īteliPF šamêšša (and) Anu went up to heaven;

iptaras

IMPV=imperfective (IPARRAS); PV=perfective (IPRUS)

This genre exhibits a different syntax; for this reason, the forms in narrative are given different names, which are closer to their actual functions. No glosses are supplied, but the idea seems to be clear: in the background (ll. 1–6) we

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

400

Eran Cohen

have 1. a temporal clause (ll. 1–2);26 2. three statives (ll. 3–4); and 3. an imperfective (l. 6). All these forms are specialized exponents to express the background, or in other words, information circumstantial to the events themselves. The events follow a list of participants (ll. 7–10), looking like a chain – two preterites (ll. 11–12) followed by a chain-ending perfect (l. 13). The opening of the epic is in fact a larger-scale circumstantial construction. The table shows the similarities and differences between the two paradigms: The circumstantial paradigm vs. background forms in epic narrative: other genres

epic narrative

circumstantial clause paradigm ul iprus paris NVC imperfective IPARRAS has no function in the CC paradigm

background

foreground

same ⇐ forms ⇒

ul iprus paris NVC

+iprus

the main difference

iparras

+iptaras

The grey area denotes the forms commonly used for both the background in the narrative of the epic as well as for the circumstantial clause in the other genres. The only difference is the form IPARRAS which is not used in circumstantial clauses, perhaps because it is identified with the protasis of the paratactic conditional pattern.

5. The phenomenon of hendiadys Old Babylonian, like Biblical Hebrew, has a mechanism where with specific lexemes (e.g., ‘return’) two chained verbal forms represent one modified event. Ex. (71) contains such a classical Koppelung (for which see Kraus 1987), where in the first slot the lexeme târum ‘return’ occurs:

26 This interpretation is found in the original edition (Lambert, Millard, and Civil 1969). I prefer it because it accounts for perfective forms in the background, which may happen inside a subordinate setting clause that, only in its entirety, is part of the background.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian

(71) [arḫ]iš

šāpir-ī

[quick]ly

ṭuppa-šu

[an]a PN

supervisor-GEN.1CS tablet-GEN.3MS

l-i-llikam–ma

lā

DIR-3CS-come–CONN

PROH.3CS.return–CONN

401

itâr–ma

to

lā

idabbub

PROH.3CS.speak

‘May my supervisor’s tablet quickly come, and let him not claim again (lit. let him not return and claim)’ (AbB 12, 92:9’–11’) The first verbal form, a regular prohibitive,27 does not represent an ‘event’, but rather an auxiliary function, denoting the notion of recurrence, which is rendered in English by ‘again’. Note that this cannot, by the current standards, be considered a function in its own right, but a special serial verb construction that has to do uniquely with the lexeme târum ‘return’, which may occur with other verbal forms (namely, in various tenses and modi) as well. This case is very limited: the verb târum is identical in tense, modus, person, number and polarity to the clause that follows, and there is a limit to what entities can occur between the two verbal forms. In the epistolary corpus past-related forms (preterite and perfect) are in general not used with this expression, and when they occur with this lexeme they usually are a full-fledged verbal form: (72) ana ṣuḫr-i-ya to

attūr–ma

youth-GEN-GEN.1CS

1CS.PF.return–CONN

[ku]ru[m]mat-ī

iṣṣe[ḫ]ir

[fo]od_r[at]ion-GEN.1CS

3CS.PF.dim[in]ish

‘Have I returned to my youth that (lit. and) my [fo]od r[at]ion has dimi[n]ished?’ (AbB 2, 150:6–9) (73) itūr-am–ma

aḫat-ki

3CS.return.PST-ALL–CONN

itbeam–ma

kīma īmur-u

sister-GEN.2FS as

3CS.see.PST-SUBORD

ittalka

3CS.rise.PST–CONN 3CS.PF.go

‘She came back and when she saw your sister, she got up and left’ (AbB 2, 103:9–11) In both examples (72) and (73), despite the full congruence, the first verbal form represents an independent event. It is impossible to describe this phenomenon as part of any adverbial or circumstantial framework because it is impossible to circumscribe the exact

27 See n. 7.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

402

Eran Cohen

syntactic behavior, namely, in what precise conditions this phenomenon occurs. It is not part of the paradigm of the circumstantial clause.

6. The paratactic conditional pattern Conditional protases are sometimes considered as part of the circumstantial territory (Isaksson, Kammensjö and Persson 2009, 28, 245-246, 260-263), in view of the often circumstantial function of the protasis. However, in Old Babylonian the protasis of the -ma conditional pattern (Cohen 2012, 78-90) is quite different from the circumstantial clause described below. In fact, the circumstantial expression is compatible with the paratactic conditional pattern, which a priori means that they constitute different categories. In exx. (74) and (75) the circumstantial clause precedes the conditional pattern: (74) u

{kallat

PN napi-at–ma}

daughter_in_law.NUC PN

CONN

(PARIS–ma)

STV.take_as_pledge-3FS–CONN

ina nakkamt-im

t-uṣṣî-ši–ma

from storehouse-GEN

2MS.CAUS-go_out.NPST-ACC.3FS–CONN

maḫrī-ki

l-i-šib

before-GEN.2FS

DIR-3CS-dwell

‘Furthermore, {the daughter-in-law of PN is taken as pledge}, so should you release her from the storehouse, let her stay with you’ (AbB 9, 270:10–15) (75) {kâti

īšū-ka–ma}

OBL.2CS

(1)CS.have-ACC.2MS–CONN

šani-am

ešeʾʾī–ma

another-ACC 1CS.look_for–CONN

ṭāb-kum STV.be_good.3MS-DAT.2MS

‘{Me having you}, should I look for someone else, would it please you?’ (AbB 9, 226:4–6) The stative form napiat in ex. (74) and the syntactic stative īšu in ex. (75) both immediately precede a protasis clause, which in both examples consists of the form IPARRAS. The following table compares the two paradigms:

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian

403

form

circumstantial clause

-ma conditional protasis

ul iprus-ma

functions as a preterite

functions as a future perfect; (2nd person is always conditional)

paris–ma

the most common form (occurs only once, in the negative)

iparras–ma

(only with adīni ul)

the most common form

(S)-P–ma (NVCs)

part of the paradigm

non-occurring

Note that these two groups have a minimal overlap of forms – UL IPRUS is the only form found in both paradigms and in those cases it is usually easy to tell them apart based on the following clause type (for instance, apodoses are basically non-past). The other forms are specialized: IPARRAS is the default conditional protasis in this pattern, whereas NVCs and statives are found only in the CC paradigm.

7. Summary In the last part, we recapitulate the strategies which are used to express circumstantiality in Old Babylonian Akkadian. Note how important the paradigms are, namely, the groups of participating forms in each function, in characterizing the patterns. The first paradigm is the one used at clause level: 1. CLAUSE-LEVEL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EXPRESSIONS -iššī-GEN.PRON -ūt-(GEN.PRON)

(all part of the clause)

#(core argument) ina (lā) PARĀSIM/PARSŪTIM (-GEN. PRON)#

The morphology is not very rich, there are two almost specialized exponents (-iššī- and -ūt-), the latter are found with other functions as well. An interesting syntagm, whose core consists of an infinitive construction with ina, is central to the expression of circumstantiality at clause-level. CCs above clause level, which are actually chained forward, seem to be more common in OB. The following table reflects what we knew before this inquiry: the stative form in this function has been known for half a century. The unipartite NVCs are described in Kraus (1984, 43-44), Huehnergard (1986, 235 n. 61, and 238 n. 74) and in Cohen (2005a, 249-253), but the con-

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

404

Eran Cohen

nection with the CC stative had not been made. The stative was thought to occur initially: 2. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EXPRESSIONS ABOVE CLAUSE-LEVEL (initial stage)

initial syntactic boundary is considered a must (based on examples from the grammatical literature on Akkadian)

⇓

# paris–ma (ex. (56)) STV.3MS–CONN (both forms deemed non- ⇕ related) existential substantive+ focus particle –ma (ex. (43))

⇓ syntactic boundary

(current stage)

initial syntactic boundary is non-pertinent; the CC is in principle a non-chain-final clause.

S=subject P=predicate

⇓ CC syntagm: all forms belong to one paradigm predicative forms

NVCs

paris ul iprus adīni ul iparras (concessive) liprus unipartite: P bipartite: S—P and P—S (modal/indicative)

forward connection

-ma

The second table shows the results of the current inquiry: the connection exists between various types of NVCs (uni- and bipartite alike) and various predicative forms in addition to the stative. It is now possible to see that the phenomenon is a rich paradigm, which is both definable and recognizable. Its place in the chain is anything but chain-final, except for NVCs and concessive LIPRUS, which are only attested at the beginning of the chain.

References AbB = Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung. Leiden: Brill 1964–. ABIM = Akram Al-Zeebari, Altbabylonische Briefe des Iraq-Museum, PhD Dissertation, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität zu Münster. Münster, 1964. Aro, Jussi. 1961. Die akkadischen Infinitivkonstruktionen. Studia Orientalia 26. Helsinki: Societas orientalis fennica. CH = Codex Ḫammurabi

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Circumstantial Clause Combining in Old Babylonian Akkadian

405

Cohen, Eran. 2005a. “Addenda to non-verbal clauses in Old Babylonian.” Journal of Semitic Studies 50.2: 247-279. ———. 2005b. The modal system of Old Babylonian. Harvard Semitic Studies 56. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2006. “The tense-aspect system of the old babylonian epic.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 96.1: 31-68. ———. 2012. Conditional Structures in Mesopotamian Old Babylonian. Languages of the Ancient Near East 4. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2014. “The domain: a formal syntactic unit above sentence level.” In Strategies of Clause Linking in Semitic Languages: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Clause Linking in Semitic Languages 5-7 August 2012 in Kivik, Sweden, edited by B. Isaksson and M. Persson, 233-252. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 93. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Driver, Samuel R. 1892. A Treatise of the Use of the Tenses in the Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. GAG = Wolfram von Soden. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. 3rd ed. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1995. Goetze, Albrecht. 1958. “Fifty Old-Babylonian Letters from Harmal.” Sumer 14: 3–78 & Pls. 1–24. Hecker, Karl. 1974. Untersuchungen zur akkadischen Epik. AOAT 8. NeukirchenVluyn: Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker. Himmelmann, Nikolaus, and Eva F. Schultze-Berndt. 2005. Secondary predication and adverbial modification: the typology of depictives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. “Transitivity in grammar and discourse.” Language 56.2: 251-299. Huehnergard, John. 1986. “On verbless clauses in Akkadian.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 76: 218-249. Isaksson, Bo, Heléne Kammensjö, and Maria Persson. 2009. Circumstantial qualifiers in Semitic: The case of Arabic and Hebrew, edited by Bo Isaksson. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 70. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Kouwenberg, Norbert J. C. 2000. “Nouns as verbs: the verbal nature of the Akkadian stative.” Orientalia 69.1: 21-71. ———. 2010. The Akkadian verb and its Semitic background. Languages of the Ancient Near East 2. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

406

Eran Cohen

Kraus, Fritz R. 1984. Nominalsätze in altbabylonischen Briefen und der Stativ. Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks 47/2. Leiden: North-Holland Pub. Co. ———. 1987. Sonderformen akkadischer Parataxe, die Koppelungen. Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks 50/1. Leiden: North-Holland Pub. Co. Lambert, Wilfred G., Alan R. Millard, and Miguel Civil. 1969. Atra-Hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Lazard, Gilbert. 2002. “Transitivity Revisited as an Example of a More Strict Approach in Typological Research.” Folia Linguistica 36.3-4: 141–190. Loesov, Sergey. 2011. “The Suffixing Conjugation of Akkadian: In Search of Its Meaning.” Babel und Bibel 6: 75–148. Meissner, Bruno. 1907. Kurzgefasste assyrische Grammatik. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Rowton, Michael B. 1962. “The use of the Permansive in classic Babylonian.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 21.4: 233-303. Steiner, Gerd. 1985 “Umstandssätze im Akkadischen.” In XII. Deutscher Orientalistentag, ausgewählte Vorträge. Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplement 6, edited by Wolfgang Röllig, 86–102. Wiesbaden. Streck, Michael P. 1995. “ittašab ibakki ‘weinend setzte er sich’: iparras für die Vergangenheit in der akkadischen Epik.” Orientalia 64: 33–91. Wilcke, Claas. 1977. “Die Anfänge der akkadischen Epen.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 67: 153-216. Yaron, Reuven. 1988. The laws of Eshnunna. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Magnes. YOS X = Albrecht Goetze. Old Babylonian Omen Texts. Yale Oriental Series. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947.

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Index of terms

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

408

Index of terms

accompanying action, 10, 182, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 195, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 206, 217, 221, 224, 225, 226, 228, 229, 230, 236, 237, 238, 239, 242, 252, 253, 255, 257, 258, 260, 261, 262 active participle, 9, 19, 20, 24, 47, 88, 174, 200, 216, 217, 306 addition, 10, 181, 182, 185, 186, 187, 189, 200, 202, 204, 205, 207, 210, 211, 223, 224, 231, 236, 241, 242, 245, 246, 248, 251, 255, 260, 311, 315 addition clause, 182, 206, 229, 252, 253 additional, 89, 182, 208, 209, 237, 311 additive, 16, 18, 48, 225, 237, 240, 241, 252 adjacency, 18, 45 adverbial, 16, 39, 46, 58, 70, 74, 75, 80, 84, 90, 112, 116, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 135, 152, 158, 160, 189, 206, 210, 217, 222, 233, 234, 272, 274, 279, 284, 286, 292, 371, 374, 391, 399, 401 adversative, 35, 58, 68, 69, 75, 82, 87 Afro-asiatic, 178 Akkadian, 10, 11, 244, 302, 317, 318, 319, 327, 331, 333, 365, 366, 367, 374, 403, 404 Aktionsart, 22, 114 anterior/anteriority, 22, 23, 31, 32, 138, 156, 157, 170, 176, 179, 184, 186, 201, 202, 203, 204, 208, 209, 210, 225, 228, 232, 233, 249, 250, 251, 252, 258, 261, 281, 299, 303, 308, 309,

313, 317, 320, 326, 327, 330, 350 apodosis, 157, 158, 224, 225, 242, 244, 245, 246 Arab grammarians, 77, 79, 90, 113, 114, 126, 128, 129, 130, 137, 140, 151, 163 Arabic dialects, 13, 20, 21, 65, 320, 327, 355, 357 Arabic vernaculars. See spoken Arabic, Arabic dialects Arabiyya, 10, 298, 299, 304, 306, 308, 309, 310, 312, 315, 318, 320, 321, 324, 326, 327, 338, 355, 356, 357 Aramaic, 171, 241 aspect, 18, 19, 22, 23, 31, 32, 37, 42, 43, 44, 45, 133, 135, 136, 138, 140, 152, 163, 169, 170, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 181, 187, 195, 197, 218, 220, 225, 229, 232, 233, 239, 240, 249, 250, 251, 252, 255, 256, 308, 317, 327, 368 aspectual, 21, 22, 30, 55, 69, 71, 133, 151, 161, 176, 186, 201, 289, 309, 380 asyndesis, 18, 19, 24, 39, 40, 45, 46, 50, 80, 182, 184, 187, 194, 219, 222, 223, 245, 326 asyndetic clause, 17, 19, 24, 29, 32, 40, 41, 46, 47, 49, 50, 65, 78, 152, 189, 193, 198, 216, 240 attendant CC, 58, 64, 70, 90, 111, 114, 181, 187, 188, 189, 217, 218, 221, 223, 226, 239, 249, 250, 251, 253 auxiliarization, 72, 73 auxiliary, 21, 28, 34, 41, 42, 45, 47, 66, 69, 71, 72, 88, 102,

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Index of terms

108, 134, 135, 138, 322, 351, 401 auxiliation, 19, 41, 45, 50 b(i)-prefix, 30, 42, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 102, 103 background(ed), 60, 89, 104, 131, 138, 152, 177, 181, 189, 200, 202, 217, 227, 255, 279, 288, 310, 316, 331, 334, 342, 344, 350, 356, 381, 384, 396, 398, 399, 400 backgrounding, 271, 381 bədd, 81, 82, 98, 99, 103, 108, 109, 110, 111 Biblical Hebrew, 9, 21, 55, 56, 117, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 178, 180, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 194, 195, 196, 214, 224, 232, 235, 239, 242, 247, 259, 261, 298, 300, 302, 303, 305, 306, 308, 309, 318, 320, 328, 330, 331, 333, 344, 355, 357, 365, 400 bipartite, 272, 274, 276, 277, 291, 386, 389, 390, 397, 404 body of texts. See corpus (of texts) bounded, 141, 149, 177, 232, 233, 234 Canaanite, 170, 171, 172, 191, 194, 196, 214, 235, 259 causality, 9, 16, 48, 258, 301, 305, 308, 388, 393 CCC, 8, 10, 297, 337, 352, 353, 354, 355, 358, 374, 379 CCs, 391, 403 Central Semitic, 10, 170, 171, 172, 179, 181, 215, 261 chain, 195, 222, 247, 252, 255, 259, 261, 280, 292, 310, 326, 355, 357, 375, 376, 379, 381, 385, 386, 391, 392, 393, 396, 397, 400, 404

409

chained, 367, 378, 387, 396, 400, 403 chaining, 152, 365, 367, 379 circumstance, 7, 58, 64, 65, 66, 68, 75, 90, 94, 99, 106, 111, 126, 181, 188, 197, 218, 221, 232, 251, 274, 326, 365, 367, 379 circumstantial, 7, 58, 365 circumstantial clause, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 24–32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 77, 79, 84, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 100, 104, 106, 109, 110, 111, 114, 115, 125, 128, 130, 141, 151, 153, 156, 159, 187, 188, 217, 218, 220, 221, 222, 223, 226, 239, 247, 250, 281, 282, 283, 284, 289, 297, 298, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 311, 313, 314, 315, 316, 326, 331, 353, 365, 366, 367, 374, 379, 393, 394, 400, 402 circumstantial clause, asyndetic, 24, 29, 31, 33, 37, 40, 41, 49, 63, 66, 129, 130, 131, 201, 248, 261, 316 circumstantial clause, syndetic, 24, 25, 26, 28, 35, 36, 39, 45, 48, 49, 50, 131, 134, 141, 151, 152, 158, 162 circumstantial clause, verbal, 161, 163 circumstantial expression(s), 10, 11, 63, 64, 101, 109, 126, 217, 271, 272, 273, 275, 276, 278, 279, 283, 290, 291, 365, 366,

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

410

Index of terms

367, 369, 370, 373, 375, 396, 402, 403, 404 circumstantial qualifier, 15, 104 circumstantiality, 10, 11, 272, 278, 286, 287, 291, 365, 367, 368, 372, 380, 403 Classical Arabic, 9, 22, 26, 70, 108, 117, 125, 126, 129, 132, 133, 138, 145, 157, 160, 162, 163, 170, 171, 217, 345, 350, 356 clause, 57, 127, 173, 175, 297, 370 clause combination(s), 9, 16, 46, 50, 55, 67, 69, 76, 111, 116 clause combining, 7, 9, 38, 56, 65, 77, 89, 130, 173, 190, 214, 222, 226, 230, 232, 243, 244, 260, 321, 357, 374 clause hierarchy, 55, 80 clause linking, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24, 25, 29, 32, 38, 40, 43, 45, 46, 48, 50, 57, 58, 77, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 87, 116, 181, 211, 242, 356 clause-initial, 172, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 197, 199, 211, 212, 214, 215, 223, 224, 235, 236, 260, 261 coalescence, 172, 214 coincidental, 9, 140, 141, 143, 145, 149, 162, 163, 309 comment (textlinguistic), 66, 70, 73, 74, 75, 85, 87, 94, 96, 100, 106, 107, 152, 156, 181, 189, 202, 204, 207, 219, 220, 249, 279, 292, 300, 308, 316, 322, 324, 326, 327, 329, 330, 333, 334, 338, 344, 345, 346, 350, 355, 357 completives, 176

complex predication, 125, 132, 133, 140, 143, 161 concessive, 16, 35, 40, 49, 75, 272, 289, 378, 388, 394, 396, 397, 404 concomitance, 277 concomitant, 147, 152, 199, 219, 222, 228, 229, 238, 249, 253, 303, 365 conditional, 9, 16, 38, 59, 60, 65, 76, 78, 80, 81, 89, 97, 115, 116, 157, 158, 224, 242, 244, 245, 246, 283, 288, 370, 371, 379, 390, 396, 397, 400, 402, 403 conjugation, 21, 22, 172, 173, 235 consecutive, 35, 40, 49, 170, 185, 186, 239, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310, 311, 312, 314, 317, 318, 326, 336, 344, 353 consequence, 57, 181, 187, 199, 229, 240, 242, 255, 302, 303, 304, 312, 315, 337, 338, 344 consequential, 298, 300 contemporaneity, 300, 304, 330, 357 contrast clause, 131, 152, 182, 189, 204, 228, 251, 261 conversive theory, 169 coordinated, 28, 37, 65, 66, 68, 72, 73, 85, 311, 313, 314, 326, 333, 335, 339, 351 coordination, 25, 65, 66, 68, 86, 133, 182, 183, 188, 189, 244, 355 copula, 20, 39, 83, 85, 86, 94, 103, 105, 275, 276, 281, 287, 288 co-referential, 151, 153, 154 corpus (of texts), 10, 15, 17, 24, 47, 48, 87, 95, 97, 100, 115,

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Index of terms

125, 140, 149, 271, 302, 343, 354, 401 co-temporal, 9, 22, 36, 133, 140, 162 Damascene Arabic, 9, 55, 56, 59, 62, 63, 80, 100, 110, 111, 115 database(s), 15, 32, 56, 61, 64, 66, 70, 73, 78, 80, 81, 90, 91, 93, 96, 97, 102, 103, 108, 111, 115, 259 dependent, 9, 24, 45, 50, 67, 80, 84, 127, 131, 134, 151, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 184, 188, 201, 206, 260, 275, 276, 277, 287, 288, 292, 307, 354 desententialized clause, 24, 30– 31, 35, 40, 47, 49 digression, 9, 55, 66, 73, 74, 85, 86, 87, 104, 105, 107, 184, 190, 194, 199, 220, 260, 371 discourse, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 26, 28, 35, 41, 42, 48, 49, 50, 55, 68, 73, 104, 158, 173, 177, 178, 183, 185, 187, 189, 224, 237, 247, 261, 308, 309, 328, 352 discrete, 172, 192, 195, 197, 198, 211, 212, 216, 217, 385 domain, 9, 125, 126, 132, 133, 135, 159, 161, 162, 316, 370, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379 Egyptian Arabic, 8, 15, 17, 18, 33 elaboration, 8, 43, 46, 50, 130, 144, 182, 189, 193, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 207, 208, 209, 210, 228, 229, 230, 233, 243, 249, 250, 251, 258, 260, 311, 315 embedded, 26, 28, 44, 66, 128, 130, 131, 134, 146, 151, 284, 374, 377 embedding, 44, 88, 131, 134, 214

411

enhancing, 16 enhancing clauses, 16, 48, 90, 131 enhancing function, 100, 286 equal status, 63, 106, 184, 189, 193, 195, 213, 215, 216, 223, 224, 225, 226, 228, 230, 231, 233, 237, 239, 257, 260, 261 Ethiosemitic, 10, 317, 318, 319 fa-, 152, 158, 307, 310, 311, 312, 321, 322, 323, 326, 355 faʿala, 126, 133, 138, 140, 145, 146, 149, 150, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163 final, 60, 63, 71, 75, 78, 79, 80, 88, 89, 107, 108, 110, 111, 115, 116, 141, 142, 170, 171, 214, 232, 235, 272, 301, 305, 314, 316, 319, 342, 348, 352, 354, 356, 376, 392, 393, 396, 397, 404 final vowels, 171, 235 finality, 41, 79, 82, 110, 111, 142, 308, 377, 396 finite verb, 92, 94, 96, 98, 108, 169, 170, 174, 249, 309, 313, 331, 342, 343, 353, 356 finite verbal gram, 176 first position. See clause-initial focal, 58, 180, 181, 242 focal clause, 181, 182 focus particle, 370, 372, 387, 404 foreground(ed), 152, 279, 287, 384 fronted, 146, 153, 155, 159, 191, 193, 195, 212, 214, 216, 221, 235, 251 Geez, 302, 319, 352, 353, 354, 356 general present, 178, 179, 180, 193, 197, 203, 207, 210, 216, 217, 277, 289, 291, 357

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

412

Index of terms

gerund, 272, 274, 275, 276, 285, 291, 370, 374 gerundial, 370, 371 gnomic present, 177, 178 gram switching, 9, 16, 17, 18, 29, 32, 34, 41, 46, 47, 48, 49, 55, 56, 57, 60, 79, 76–89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 110, 111, 113, 115, 116, 186, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 207, 210, 219, 222, 226, 239, 300, 307, 308, 310, 326, 338 gram(s), 35, 47, 60, 76, 89, 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 199, 202, 235, 253, 260, 347, 356 grammaticalization, 19, 20, 40, 41, 42, 45, 47, 49, 50, 71, 175, 176, 232, 328 grammaticalized, 9, 20, 41, 42, 45, 47, 162 grammaticization, 178 grammaticized, 177, 178 grounding, 17, 279, 282, 292 Gulf Arabic, 40, 55, 56, 80, 97, 111, 115 ǧumla ḥāliyya, 36, 128, 129, 151 habitual, 22, 23, 24, 34, 177, 179, 184, 196, 200, 206, 215, 217, 219, 223, 225, 228, 230, 231, 235, 238, 241, 317, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326 ḥāl, 7, 9, 15, 38, 58, 63, 64, 65, 66, 71, 72, 76, 77, 79, 88, 89, 90, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 117, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 140, 151, 152, 272, 298, 299, 300, 301, 305, 308, 309, 311, 312, 315, 316, 321, 322, 323, 324, 326, 329, 350, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 398

ḥāl muqaddar, 71, 110, 111, 141 head clause, 16, 27, 28, 48, 59, 60, 66, 70, 71, 73, 83, 84, 89, 91, 108 hypotaxis/hypotactic, 8, 15, 16, 24, 32, 35, 40, 47, 48, 49, 50, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 76, 77, 79, 81, 83, 86, 87, 89, 109, 111, 114, 116, 117 immediate future, 177 imperative, 47, 75, 81, 85, 103, 108, 171, 178, 189, 198, 211, 221, 222, 230, 243, 244, 248, 370, 377 imperfect, 24, 33, 47, 135, 185, 192, 273, 292, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 308, 309, 318, 319, 324, 396 imperfective, 22, 170, 171, 177, 178, 179, 215, 219, 224, 225, 229, 235, 238, 261, 289, 290, 292, 317, 318, 356, 399, 400 indicative, 10, 172, 178, 183, 185, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 201, 202, 207, 210, 211, 212, 214, 215, 230, 236, 256, 260, 277, 291, 308, 309, 310, 312, 326, 333, 375, 376, 377, 378, 391, 396, 397, 404 inferred, 9, 16, 18, 31, 48, 58, 60, 184, 186, 240, 245, 260, 371 infinite, 174, 175, 210, 243, 258 infinitive, 11, 174, 243, 258, 274, 285, 305, 306, 339, 356, 371, 372, 373, 378, 403 inherent time reference, 20, 21 injunctive, 178, 192 instructional discourse, 182, 183, 247 integration, 9, 24, 41, 46, 47, 50, 132, 133, 135, 149, 152, 161, 188, 214

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Index of terms

interlacing, 9, 16, 45, 48 intransitive, 39, 40, 47, 49, 127, 136, 143, 148, 155, 158, 176, 382 iparras, 317, 319, 327, 366, 367, 370, 383, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 403, 404 iprus, 178, 317, 318, 319, 366, 380, 381, 383, 384, 386, 393, 397, 398, 399, 400, 403, 404 iptaras, 399, 400 junction, 130 juncture, 17, 66, 80, 83, 116, 243, 373 jussive, 126, 172, 178, 179, 183, 185, 189, 191, 193, 194, 196, 211, 212, 213, 214, 221, 226, 239, 243, 260, 370, 377 juxtaposed, 63, 65, 69, 71, 78, 111, 134, 135 juxtaposition, 41, 58, 157, 289, 311, 314, 322, 332, 355 locational(s), 69, 71, 72, 78, 79, 88, 99 long prefix gram, 179, 214 long prefix verb, 9, 172, 192, 193, 194, 197, 206, 214, 216, 219, 224, 235, 244, 256, 260 -ma, 367, 368, 370, 372, 374, 375, 377, 379, 386, 387, 389, 390, 391, 397, 398, 402, 403, 404 main clause, 8, 16, 17, 19, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 55, 56, 57, 60, 65, 66, 73, 74, 79, 81, 89, 91, 94, 102, 103, 108, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 128, 131, 133, 134, 146, 151, 152, 153, 158, 174, 180, 183, 184, 187, 188, 194, 206, 219, 224, 229, 233, 239, 247, 249, 250, 251, 252,

413

253, 272, 297, 298, 300, 315, 331, 332, 333, 351, 355, 357, 398 main line, 10, 55, 66, 70, 73, 74, 75, 85, 86, 87, 104, 107, 175, 178, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 189, 193, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199, 205, 212, 215, 216, 220, 221, 222, 223, 226, 231, 232, 233, 235, 236, 242, 247, 248, 255, 256, 257, 261, 280, 344, 357 marked, 9, 11, 16, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 45, 48, 49, 50, 57, 58, 60, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 91, 101, 102, 105, 110, 112, 115, 116, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 135, 137, 138, 146, 152, 157, 158, 180, 182, 184, 186, 188, 189, 207, 230, 237, 245, 272, 275, 277, 285, 293, 301, 306, 307, 309, 310, 311, 313, 317, 318, 323, 324, 327, 347, 352, 356, 367, 370, 371, 374, 376, 377, 378, 381, 389 markedness, 35, 55, 57, 76, 381 Masoretes, 169 matrix clause, 9, 46, 149, 152, 153, 162 Minean, 298, 300 modal, 10, 23, 34, 37, 39, 72, 82, 131, 135, 141, 158, 169, 170, 174, 176, 180, 185, 191, 198, 199, 211, 213, 226, 227, 229, 235, 241, 260, 278, 290, 298, 299, 301, 312, 314, 327, 353, 356, 365, 374, 379, 390, 391, 397, 398, 404 modifying verbs, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

414

Index of terms

mood, 44, 60, 80, 116, 170, 178, 368, 375, 391 morphological merger, 171, 172, 235 motion verbs, 22, 42, 140, 141, 144, 145 mutually-dependent clauses, 157 narrative prose, 178, 181, 182, 183, 200, 201, 217, 226, 249, 252, 257 negative clause, 173, 191, 194, 214, 225, 245, 250, 256, 257, 258, 260, 262 Neo-Aramaic, 271 nexal, 276 nexus, 146, 274, 275, 276, 287 nomen actionis, 369, 371 nominal clause, 26, 31, 33, 35, 39, 49, 130, 152, 156, 157, 158 non-circumstantial, 292 non-main clause, 8, 9, 18, 27, 29, 32, 39, 46, 56, 57, 60, 64, 70, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 89, 91, 93, 96, 101, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 180, 182, 184, 186, 189, 194, 198, 217, 242, 249 non-subordinate, 285, 292 non-verbal clause, 82, 84, 94, 105, 108, 112, 386, 394 Northwest Semitic, 170, 171, 172, 214, 241 noun clause, 174, 175, 179, 199, 201, 208, 209, 211, 227, 236, 243, 248, 249, 252, 258 noun phrase, 27, 28, 173, 247 nucleus, 16, 132, 134, 157, 273, 275, 374, 376, 377 OB. See Old Babylonian (OB) off-line, 10, 279, 288, 291, 324, 326, 327, 329, 330, 333, 334, 338, 344, 355, 357

Old Babylonian (OB), 11, 366, 367, 368, 374, 379, 384, 387, 389, 391, 400, 402, 403 optative, 23, 179, 180, 232, 234 parallel, 63, 153, 154, 237, 287, 329 paratactic, 25, 64, 65, 69, 77, 78, 81, 87, 109, 116, 368, 379, 396, 397, 400, 402 parataxis, 44, 64, 65, 66, 109, 367 paris, 366, 367, 380, 381, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 403, 404 participial, 58, 88, 90, 92, 95, 96, 98, 101, 112, 128, 131, 137 participle, 9, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 39, 40, 43, 47, 49, 50, 60, 77, 79, 82, 87, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 101, 108, 113, 126, 130, 133, 135, 136, 137, 139, 143, 144, 145, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 175, 187,188, 197, 200, 207, 211, 227, 242, 272, 274, 275, 318, 352, 353, 365 passive participle, 19, 113, 179 past tense, 20, 22, 169, 170, 178, 186, 232, 233, 234, 297, 300, 301, 302, 303, 316, 317, 320, 327, 330, 343, 344, 357 perception verbs, 29, 135, 145, 146 perception, concrete, 146, 150 perception, notional, 146, 147, 148, 149 perfect participle, 274, 291 perfective, 22, 170, 177, 178, 179, 183, 191, 193, 195, 196, 197, 201, 202, 209, 212, 218, 226, 227, 228, 232, 233, 239, 249, 250, 252, 253, 255, 256, 258,

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Index of terms

261, 289, 290, 317, 318, 399, 400 permission verbs, 135, 145, 147 Phoenician, 171, 318 poetry, 9, 140, 172, 178, 180, 182, 183, 193, 195, 196, 198, 207, 208, 209, 210, 212, 213, 214, 217, 218, 220, 230, 231, 232, 240, 241, 259, 306 polarity, 368, 379, 381, 401 postposed, 281, 283, 284, 285, 292 pre-clause, 182, 185, 186, 187, 189, 200, 202, 203, 204, 206, 208, 210, 211, 212, 225, 226, 227, 228, 236, 238, 242, 243, 246, 247, 257, 258, 260 predicate, secondary, 127, 365 predication, 9, 37, 43, 46, 73, 74, 127, 128, 132, 133, 173, 174, 210, 236, 243, 247, 275, 374 predicative, 20, 112, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 158, 160, 162, 163, 272, 275, 276, 297, 314, 376, 380, 397, 404 predicative paradigm, 132, 134, 140, 160 prefix conjugation, 18, 19, 24, 25, 33, 126, 133, 171, 172, 243 prefix form, 18, 20, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 40, 47, 49, 60, 63, 71, 75, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 93, 101, 103, 105, 111, 114, 172, 215, 302, 303, 309 prefixed inflection, 170 preposed (clause), 92, 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103,

415

188, 251, 255, 282, 283, 285, 292 present tense, 17, 21, 204, 226, 233, 303, 306, 317, 327, 357 present time, 21, 170, 204 presentative clauses, 134, 158, 162, 279, 282, 283 preterite, 170, 178, 179, 180, 185, 280, 287, 290, 325, 368, 375, 376, 380, 384, 401, 403 privative, 274, 317 progressive, 22, 23, 30, 31, 33, 42, 69, 76, 77, 84, 94, 95, 102, 133, 140, 158, 163, 174, 175, 177, 215, 216, 281, 304, 310, 317, 320, 356 progressivity, 23, 30, 35, 41 prose, 9, 15, 48, 125, 172, 173, 180, 185, 188, 191, 195, 196, 213, 218, 227, 259, 306 prospective future, 232 protasis, 157, 158, 224, 225, 234, 237, 244, 245, 246, 379, 396, 397, 400, 402, 403 Proto-Hebrew, 171, 172, 185, 214, 223, 235, 260 pure addition, 229, 230, 238 purpose, 16, 30, 37, 40, 49, 110, 131, 181, 198, 211, 212, 247, 277, 290 qad, 9, 76, 133, 135, 138, 139, 140, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 153, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 299, 308, 313 qad faʿala, 9, 133, 135, 138, 139, 140, 145, 146, 149, 151, 153, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 162, 163 Qatabanian, 300

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

416

Index of terms

qatal, 169, 170, 171, 187, 211, 222, 234, 241, 242, 243, 244, 251, 255, 317, 318, 319, 330 raising, 145, 146, 149, 151 reanalysis, 20, 21, 175 reason, 16, 131, 181, 220, 221, 239, 249, 251, 258, 394, 395 reference time, 176, 177, 281, 309 relative clause, 8, 9, 24, 27, 38, 59, 60, 66, 70, 76, 83, 87, 88, 115, 196, 233, 331, 336 relative tense, 22, 176, 302, 309, 313, 356 relative time, 181, 194 result, 60, 81, 85, 89, 151, 181, 182, 187, 189, 198, 199, 200, 203, 204, 205, 206, 218, 228, 240, 246, 256, 261, 303 resultative, 23, 31, 32, 133, 139, 140, 163, 176, 178, 179, 202, 210, 232, 233, 240, 255, 317 resumptive, 128, 381 rhetorical organization, 7, 16, 46 Sabaean, 10, 297, 298, 299, 300, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 308, 309, 316, 318, 319, 320, 330, 331, 333, 334, 339, 340, 342, 343, 349, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357 same-event addition, 106, 181, 199, 210, 220, 230, 253, 315 semantic relationship, 9, 16, 18, 40, 41, 43, 48, 49, 58, 65, 78, 80 sentence level, 10, 272, 278, 290, 291, 292, 379 sequentiality, 152, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 261, 333, 347 setting clauses, 158, 159, 162 short prefix gram, 178, 179, 214 short prefix verb, 9, 175, 178, 183, 184, 193, 197, 212, 235, 260

simultaneity, 35, 37, 41, 63, 67, 100, 133, 143, 152, 219, 223, 253, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 313, 320, 326, 327, 330, 355, 357 simultaneous, 9, 26, 28, 30, 31, 69, 83, 84, 93, 97, 106, 114, 115, 131, 133, 140, 141, 146, 153, 162, 182, 308, 317, 326, 327 slot, 8, 10, 133, 277, 279, 290, 376, 387, 388, 395, 396, 400 specifying, 37, 38, 40, 49, 78, 116, 144, 153, 229 speech verbs, 135, 151 spoken Arabic, 18, 20, 21, 40, 59, 115 state verbs, 140, 141 stative, 22, 24, 94, 137, 138, 143, 145, 179, 356, 367, 368, 380, 382, 383, 384, 385, 387, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 402, 403, 404 stative verbs, 22 storyline, 48, 50, 173, 178, 183, 185, 189, 191, 195, 196, 201, 202, 208, 209, 210, 217, 218, 219, 220, 229, 239, 252, 254, 255, 256, 257, 260, 261, 262 subjunctive, 171, 277, 291, 312, 313, 315, 333, 374, 375 subordinate, 22, 41, 44, 45, 50, 64, 65, 74, 78, 128, 131, 146, 157, 256, 272, 276, 277, 281, 289, 291, 298, 299, 300, 301, 303, 304, 305, 327, 331, 333, 339, 340, 344, 350, 352, 355, 357, 365, 367, 374, 378, 392, 400 subordinate clause, 22, 41, 44, 45, 50, 64, 65, 131, 146, 272, 277, 281, 291, 298, 299, 301, 303,

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

Index of terms

304, 305, 327, 331, 333, 340, 344, 350, 352, 355, 357, 392 subordinating conjunction, 8, 48, 55, 78, 80, 116, 183, 184 subordination, 17, 49, 65, 68, 88, 132, 173, 182, 301, 327, 333, 355, 357, 367, 374 subordinative, 16, 376 suffix conjugation, 22, 28, 32, 33, 126, 133 suffix form, 18, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 40, 47, 49, 60, 68, 76, 77, 79, 83, 84, 86, 87, 89, 93, 94, 101, 103, 105, 114, 316 suffix verb, 9, 82, 103, 110, 175, 179, 190, 240, 260 suffixed inflection, 170 supporting, 58, 181 supporting clause, 182 switch of clause type, 184, 201 syndesis, 24, 45 syndetic, 8, 9, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 35, 36, 37, 40, 45, 48, 49, 50, 63, 65, 116, 129, 131, 134, 141, 151, 152, 154, 158, 162, 185, 195, 198, 199, 211, 212, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 236, 249, 251, 256, 257, 261, 297, 356 syntagm, 10, 130, 173, 191, 192, 211, 223, 224, 234, 235, 236, 237, 241, 260, 274, 276, 282, 283, 287, 288, 306, 309, 313, 314, 322, 327, 333, 338, 342, 343, 357, 367, 371, 379, 390, 392, 403, 404 Syrian Arabic, 55, 60 TAM, 171, 175, 300, 310 temporal linking, 182, 189, 198, 199, 203, 204, 315 temporal succession, 181, 182, 189, 195, 199, 200, 201, 202,

417

203, 205, 206, 207, 210, 233, 238, 240, 255, 256, 260, 261, 308, 310, 315 temporality, 9, 16, 35, 48, 138, 146, 243 tense form, 21, 169 tense switching, 17, 49 tenses, 169, 170, 186, 281, 302, 315, 368, 401 terminal, 133, 139, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147 texteme, 272, 291 text-level, 10, 278 time frame, 9, 20, 133, 150, 152, 162 topicalized, 25, 99, 172, 189, 190, 201, 206, 213, 217, 218, 219, 221, 223, 224, 226, 227, 228, 230, 231, 236, 237, 241, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 261 trajectory, 175, 178, 179, 207 typological, 10, 71, 130, 320, 355, 368 Ugaritic, 10, 170, 171, 319, 320, 327, 328, 329, 330, 355, 356, 357 unequal status, 189, 260 unipartite, 272, 291, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 395, 397, 403, 404 unmarked, 9, 16, 19, 20, 23, 25, 29, 34, 35, 48, 49, 57, 60, 77, 87, 116, 131, 178, 179, 184, 185 unmarked tense and mood, 178 unordered addition, 181, 187, 315 we/wa, 10, 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 260 verbal clauses, 92, 105, 152, 155, 355, 357, 376

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7

418

Index of terms

verbal complexes, 9, 131, 134, 135, 140, 144, 151, 158, 160, 162 verbal noun, 174, 175 verbal system, 9, 10, 125, 163, 169, 170, 171, 173, 175, 176, 179, 235, 271, 302, 303, 309, 310, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 355, 356, 357 verbicization, 20, 21, 48 verbless clause, 174 verbs of motion, 19, 24, 39, 41, 110, 135, 147, 314 verbs of posture, 19, 39, 41, 46, 50, 71 word order, 26, 27, 45, 171, 172, 173, 182, 190, 191, 211, 213, 214, 235, 236, 256, 260, 261, 307, 326 Vpref, 10, 33, 34, 171, 194, 197, 199, 206, 207, 211, 212, 240, 243, 251, 304, 305, 306, 307, 310, 312, 313, 315, 316, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 347, 348, 350, 352, 355, 356, 357 VprefL, 9, 171, 179, 184, 190, 191, 192, 194, 196, 199, 203, 206, 209, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 241, 242, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 251, 254, 258, 259, 260,261 VprefS, 9, 171, 174, 175, 178, 180, 182, 183, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193,

194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 223, 224, 226, 227, 229, 230, 231, 233, 235, 236, 238, 239,243, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 259, 260, 261, 262 Vsuff, 9, 10, 33, 173, 175, 179, 180, 182, 184, 185, 186, 190, 191, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 218, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245,246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 298, 299, 305, 306, 307, 310, 311, 313, 315, 316, 318, 319, 321, 322, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 333, 334, 335, 336, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 347, 348, 350, 351, 352, 355, 356 xabar, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132 yafʿalu, 9, 126, 133, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 357, 365, 366, 367 yiqtol, 169, 172, 192, 194, 196, 227, 236, 306 zero present, 177, 178 zero-gram, 178, 210 Zustandssätze, 59, 129, 366, 368

© 2015, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-10405-0 ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-19049-7