ENCYCLOPEDIA of HEBREW LANGUAGE and LINGUISTICS Volume 2 G–O

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS Volume 2 G–O

General Editor Geoffrey Khan

Associate Editors Shmuel Bolokzy Steven E. Fassberg Gary A. Rendsburg Aaron D. Rubin Ora R. Schwarzwald Tamar Zewi

Volume One

Introduction ...... vii List of Contributors ...... ix Transcription Tables ...... xiii Articles A-F ...... 1

Volume Two

Transcription Tables ...... vii Articles G-O ...... 1

Volume Three

Transcription Tables ...... vii Articles P-Z ...... 1

Volume Four

Transcription Tables ...... vii Index ...... 1

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 negation: pre-modern hebrew 801 state, an important condition which differenti- perspective (in Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Israel Ministry ates the revival of Hebrew from many other of Defense. Kohn, Hans. 1944. The idea of nationalism: A study cases of language reform and revival elsewhere. in its origins and background. New York: Mac- The lack of state support deprived revivalists millan. of ﬁnancial resources, institutional penetration, Rinott, Moshe. 1984. “Religion and education: and, most importantly, of monopolization of The cultural question and the Zionist movement, 1897–1913”. Studies in Zionism 5:1–17. the revival process in the hands of one institu- Shavit, Yaacov. 1993. “A duty too heavy to bear: tion only. Turf wars between the Va≠ad and Hebrew in the Berlin Haskalah, 1783–1819, other Hebrew institutions were rife. Yet, this between classic, modern and romantic”. Hebrew was a mixed blessing. The non-state environ- in Ashkenaz: A language in exile, ed. by Lewis Glinert, 111–128. New York / Oxford: Oxford ment and institutional rivalries had the extraor- University Press. dinary effect that at the earliest stage of revival Smolenskin, Perets. 1924. Perets Ben Moshe Smolen- and reform the task was shouldered by a wide skin: Articles, vol. 1 (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Keren range of concerned individuals, societies, and Smolenskin. organizations, making the process much more ÷lker Aytürk democratic, participatory, and popular com- (Bilkent University, Ankara) pared to other reforms in the world, which were more or less top-down in character.

References Negation: Pre-Modern Hebrew Aytürk, ÷lker. 2010. “Revisiting the language factor in Zionism: The Hebrew Language Council from Biblical Hebrew possesses a series of negative 1904 to 1914”. Bulletin of the School of Oriental particles, each used to negate a specific gram- and African Studies 73:45–64. Bar-Adon, Aaron. 1986. “On the contribution of matical form or syntagma. Two different types the Second Aliya to the revival of the Hebrew of negators may be identified: (a) those used language” (in Hebrew). Proceedings of the Ninth in sentential negation; and (b) those used in World Congress of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem, constituent negation (see especially Snyman 4–12 August, 1985, Division D, vol. 1, 63–70. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies. 2004, based on Minimalist Syntax). For a Bartal, Israel. 1993. “From traditional bilingualism different model, which posits three different to national monolingualism”. Hebrew in Ashke- types (item negation, constituent negation, and naz: A language in exile, ed. by Lewis Glinert, clausal negation), see Waltke and O’Connor 141–150. New York / Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1990:657. Barzilay, Isaac E. 1959. “National and anti-national Sentential negation implies that the nega- trends in the Berlin Haskalah”. Jewish Social Stud- tive form has scope over the whole subsequent ies 21:165–192. Ben-Yehuda, Eliezer. 1943. Collected writings of Ben phrase or sequence that follows; see the usages Yehuda, vol. 1 (in Hebrew). Jerusalem-Talpiot: and the accompanying illustrations in the first Ben-Yehuda Publications. section below. Constituent (and item) negation Efrati, Natan. 1997. “The revival of the Hebrew implies that the negative form is subcategorized language and the Zionist movement” (in Hebrew). for a specific lexical category, hence, it takes a Lłšonénu la-≠Am 48:93–134. Haramati, Shlomo. 1978. The three who preceded specific category as its complement and thus Ben-Yehuda (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Yad Yitshak has scope over this category only; see the illus- Ben Zvi. trations in the second section below. Both kinds ——. 1984. “Yisrael Halevi Teller: A reformist grammarian from the First Aliya” (in Hebrew). of scope are to be observed in Hos. 1.6 (cited in Kathedrah 31:91–124. Waltke and O’Connor 1990:657), each intro- lò, the most common negative ל ֹא Harshav, Benjamin. 1990. “An essay on the revival duced by ְקָ ֥רא ְשׁ ָ ֖מהּ ֣ל ֹא ֻר ָ ֑ח ָמה :of language” (in Hebrew). Alpayim 2:8–54. particle in Biblical Hebrew Herzl, Theodor. 1896. A Jewish state: An attempt at < qërå ִכּ֩י ֨ל ֹא ִ֜אוֹסיף ֗עוֹד ֲאַר ֵח ֙ם ֶא ֵ ֣ת־בּית ִי ְשָׂר ֵ֔אל :a modern solution of the Jewish question. London David Nutt. šëmåh< lò rù™åm< å< kì lò ±òsìƒ ≠ò≈ ±≥ra™èm ±Æμ-bèμ ——. 1960. The complete diaries of Theodor Herzl, yi«rå< ±èl ‘Call her name Lo-Ru™ama/Not-Pitied, vol. 2. New York / London: Herzl Press and for I will not continue anymore to have pity on Thomas Yoseloff. lò serves as ל ֹא Karmi, Shlomo. 1997. One nation and one language: the House of Israel’. The first The revival of language from an interdisciplinary constituent negator (as part of the proper name

-a finite purpose, thereby serving as the equiva ל ֹא Lo-Ru™ama/Not-Pitied), while the second ִה ָ ֧שּׁ ֶמר ְל ָ֛ך ֶפּ ְן־תּ ַד ֵ ֥בּר ִֽﬠם־ ,.lò functions as sentence negator (negating the lent of English ‘lest’, e.g hiššåm< Ær lëúå< pÆn-të≈abbèr ַי ֲﬠ ֖קֹב ִמ ֥טּוֹב ַﬠ ָ ֽד־רע .(’kì ‘for, because ִכּי clause introduced by ≠im-ya≠≥qò∫ mi†-†ò∫ ≠a≈-rå< ≠ ‘guard yourself, 1. Sentential Negation lest you speak with Jacob either good or bad’ (= ‘that you not speak to Jacob about any- lò (5188 occurrences, including ortho- thing’) (Gen. 31.24) (Waltke and O’Connor ל ֹא .1.1 graphic varieties) is used to negate independent 1990:661). lë-∫iltì (78 occurrences) serves to ְל ִב ְל ִתּי .1.6 ְו ֽל ֹ ָא־מ ְצ ָא ֩ה ַה ֙ ָיּוֹנה ָמ֜נ ַוֹח ְל ַכף־ verbal clauses, as in wë-lò-må< ß±å< hay-yònå< mån< òa™ lë-úaƒ-ragl: åh< negate the infinitive construct or a dependent ַר ְג ָ֗להּ ְל ִב ְל ִ ֙תּי ַשׁ ַ ֣לּח ,and the dove did not find a resting-place for its verbal clause, as in, respectively‘ -lë-∫iltì šalla™ ±Æμ-hå-< ≠åm< ‘not send ֶא ָת־ה ָ֔ﬠם ֥ל ֹא ;(feet’ (Gen. 8.9, with suffix-conjugation verb ַ ֙ו ָיּ ֶשׂם ְי ָ ֤הוה ;(lò yìråš< úå< zÆ ‘this-one will not inherit ing forth the people’ (Exod. 8.25 ִֽי ָיר ְשׁ ָ֖ך ֶ ֑זה way-yå< «Æm ְל ַ֙ק ִ֙ין ֔אוֹת ְל ִב ְל ִ֥תּי ַה ֹכּוֹת־א ֖תוֹ ָכּ ֹל־מ ְצ ֽאוֹ .(you’ (Gen. 15.4, with prefix-conjugation verb >-èn (747 occurrences; technically, YHWH lë-qayin ±òμ lë-∫iltì hakkòμ-±òμò kål± ֵאין .1.2 ayin) is used to negate mòß±ò ‘and YHWH put a mark upon Cain, so± ַאִין the construct form of nominal clauses, and hence may serve as the that none who might find him would slay him’ ,biltì ‘only ִבּ ְל ִתּי yèš ‘there (Gen. 4.15) (on the base form ֵישׁ opposite of the particle of existence .(none except, not until’, see below, §2.6 ְו ַה ֣בּוֹר ֵ ֔רק ֵ ֥אין ֖בּוֹ is/are’ (which occurs 140x), as in -bal (76 occurrences) is a poetic syn ַבּל .wë-hab-bòr rèq ±èn bò måyim< ‘and the pit 1.7 ָ ֽמִים lò, used especially before the ל ֹא was empty, there was no water in it’ (Gen. 37.24, onym of ènÆnnù prefix-conjugation verb, in particular the nif≠al± ֵא ֶ ֥יננּוּ שֹׁ ֵ ֖מַע ְבּקֵֹ ֑לנוּ ;(with implied copula m-w-† ‘shake’ (for reasons which מו"ט šòmèa≠ bë-qòlènù ‘he does not harken to our form of -bal ַבּ ִל־תּ ֽמּוֹט ,.voice’ (Deut. 21.20, negating the participle, with are not readily transparent), e.g the requisite pronominal suffix attached; 103x timmò† ‘it (sc. the world) shall not be moved’ with suffixes; see also Rechenmacher 2003). (Ps. 93.1). This particle may occur more fre- -al (730 occurrences) is used in nega- quently in Israelian (northern) Hebrew compo± ַאל .1.3 ַוּב ֙ ֽל־י ֹ ְאמ ֙רוּ ,.tive commands or prohibitions, especially one- sitions (Rendsburg 2003a:20), e.g time prohibitions (see the contrast at §1.4 u-∫al-yòmrù ‘and they do not say’ (Hos. 7.2), below), with the 1st-person cohortative, with especially given the fact that the neighboring ,bl regularly (in fact בל the 2nd-person prefix-conjugation as the nega- Phoenician dialect uses .(l± is not attested in Phoenician לא tion of the imperative, and with the 3rd-person ,ÆƒÆs occurs mainly in poetry± ֶא ֶפס .1.8 ַאל־ :jussive, as in the following, respectively èn (see above± ֵאין al-±Ær±Æ bë-mòμ hay-yål< Æ≈ ‘may chiefly as the equivalent of± ֶאְר ֶ ֖אה ְבּ ֣מוֹת ַהָיּ֑ ֶלד a≈ ±ÆƒÆs måq< òm≠ ַ֚ﬠד ֶ ֣א ֶפס ָמ ֔קוֹם ,.I not see the death of the child’ (Gen. 21.16); §1.2), e.g ִכּ ֶ ֖י־א ֶפס ִבּ ְל ָﬠ ָ ֑די ;(until there is no room’ (Isa. 5.8‘ ַאל־ ;(al-tìr±ì ‘do not fear’ (Gen. 21.17± ַא ִ ֣ל־תּ ְיר ִ֔אי ’al-yèra≠ bë-≠ènÆúå< ‘let it not be bad in kì-±ÆƒÆs bil≠å< ≈åy< ‘for there is none besides me ֵיַ ֤רע ְבּ ֵﬠ ֙ ֶינ ֙יָך your eyes’ (Gen. 21.12). (Isa. 45.6). ÆrÆm, which bears the meaning† ֶטֶרם .lò is utilized before a prefix-conjuga- 1.9 ל ֹא .1.4 tion verb to negate the command, especially in ‘before’ (see, e.g., Gen. 19.24; Exod. 12.34), ְוֵ ֤נר ,.legal prohibitions with lasting force (contrast also may serve to connote ‘not yet’, e.g wë-nèr ±(lòhìm †ÆrÆm yiúbÆ ֱא ִֹלה ֙ים ֶ ֣טֶרם ִי ְכ ֶ֔בּה ,the usage under §1.3 above), for instance ’and the lamp of God had not yet gone-out‘ ֥ל ֹא ִֿתְר ָ ֖צח ֣ל ֹא ִֿת ְנ ָ ֑אף ֣ל ֹא ,within the Decalogue lò μirßå< ™ lò μin±å< ƒ lò μign: ò∫ ‘you shall not (1 Sam. 3.3, with prefix-conjugation verb, as ִֿת ְג֔נֹב ְוּשׁ ֵ֕מוּאל ֶ ֖טֶרם ָי ַ ֣דע ֶא ְת־י ָ ֑הוה ;(murder, you shall not commit adultery, you more commonly u-šmù±èl †ÆrÆm yå< ≈a≠ ±Æμ-YHWH ‘and Samuel ִמ ְבּ ָשָׂר ֙ם ֣ל ֹא ת ֹ ֵ֔אכלוּ ;(shall not steal’ (Exod. 20.12 mib-bë«år< åm< lò μòúèlù ‘of their flesh you shall did not yet know YHWH’ (1 Sam. 3.7, with -lò μassìg: suffix-conjugation verb, as more rarely, prob ֤ל ֹא ַת ִסּ ֙יג ְגּ ֣בוּל ֽ ֵר ֲﬠ ָ֔ך ;(not eat’ (Lev. 11.11 y-d-≠ ‘know’ [as a verb יד"ע gë∫ùl rè≠≥úå< ‘you shall not remove the bound- ably here because ary-stone of your neighbor’ (Deut. 19.14). that expresses a state] regularly takes the suffix- pÆn (133 occurrences) serves to negate conjugation to indicate present time; see Cook ֶפּן .1.5 dependent verbal clauses, especially those with 2006:32–33).

’biltì ‘only, none except, not until ִבּ ְל ִתּי .Constituent Negation 2.6 .2 ְוַ ֧גם ,.typically serves an adverbial function, e.g wë-gam: ±ån< òúì lò ָא ֹנ ִ ֛כי ֥ל ֹא ָשׁ ַ ֖מ ְﬠ ִתּי ִבּ ְל ִ֥תּי ַה ֽיּוֹם -lò may be employed to negate non ל ֹא .2.1 verbal categories, including nouns and proper šåma< ≠tì biltì hay-yòm ‘and indeed, I, I did not names, adjectives, adverbs, numerals, preposi- hear (about this) until today’ (Gen. 21.26); tions, and pronouns (Snyman and Naudé 2003: though it also can serve as a negative particle, biltì †åh< òr hù ִבּ ְל ִ֥תּי ָט ֛הוֹר ֖הוּא ִֽכּ ֥י־ל ֹא ָט ֽהוֹר lò ±ìš dë∫år< ìm as in ל ֹ֩א ִ֨אישׁ ְדּ ָבִ ֜רים ָא֗נֹ ִכי ,.e.g ,(253 ±ån< òúì ‘I am no man of words’ (Exod. 4.10); kì-lò †åh< òr ‘he is not pure, indeed not pure’ .(lò ™å< úåm< ‘non-wise’ (Deut. 32.6); (1 Sam. 20.26 ֣ל ֹא ָח ָ ֑כם -For more detailed treatments of the distribu ֧ﬠֶֹרף ְו ֽל ֹא־ ;(lò-±èl ‘no-god’ (Deut. 32.21 ל ֹ ֵ֔א־אל òrÆƒ wë-lò-ƒån< ìm ±Ær±èm ‘(my) nape tion of the morphological forms of negation, with≠ ָפִ ֛נים ֶאְר ֵ ֖אם and not (my) face I will show them’ (Jer. 18.17, many more illustrations of each kind of nega- see also Waltke and O’Connor 1990:661). tion (from both §1 and §2), see GKC 478–483; –al may negate nouns, especially van der Merwe, Naudé, and Kroeze 1999:318± ַאל .2.2 when an “added volitional nuance” is sug- 320; Waltke and O’Connor 1990:660–662; gested (Joüon and Muraoka 2009:573), e.g., Williams and Beckman 2007:142–152; Joüon .ål-< †al wë-±al-må< †år< ‘(let there and Muraoka 2009:567–573 ַא ַ ֧ל־טל ְו ַא ָל־מ ָ ֛טר be) no dew and no rain’ (2 Sam. 1.21). In other instances, where such tone is not indicated, e.g., 3. Negation and Modality që™ù-mùsår< ì wë-±al-kås< Æƒ ְק ֽח ָוּ־מוּסִ֥רי ְו ַא ָ ֑ל־כּ ֶסף ‘receive my instruction, and not silver’ (Prov. 3.1. To illustrate some differences in usage, 8.10), we may be dealing with another Israel- note the different negative particles in the fol- ian Hebrew feature (Rendsburg 2003a:24); for lowing passages. In Gen. 42.9 Joseph accuses ְמַר ְגּ ִ ֣לים ַא ֶ֔תּם ִלְר ֛אוֹת :šk w-±l ngh his brothers of being spies™ חשך ואל נגה a cognate usage, see mëraggëlìm ±attÆm lir±òμ ֶא ֶת־ﬠְרַ ֥ות ָה ָ ֖אֶרץ ָבּ ֶ ֽאתם .(darkness and not light’ (Deir ≠Alla 1.6–7‘ al negates an ±Æμ-≠Ærwaμ hå-< ±år< Æß bå< μÆm ‘You are spies! To± ַאל In other instances .2.3 elided directive (see also below §3, §5), e.g., see the nakedness of the land you have come!’ lò serves to ל ֹא diršù-†ò∫ wë-±al-rå< ≠ ‘seek Their negative response with ִדְּר ֥שׁוּ־טוֹב ְו ַא ָ ֖ל־רע ֣ל ֹא ֲאדִֹ ֑ני ַו ֲﬠ ָב ֶ ֥דיָך ָ ֖בּאוּ ִל ְשׁ ָבּר־ :good, and [do] not [seek] evil’ (Amos 5.14); deny his accusations lò ±≥≈ònì wa-≠≥∫å< ≈Æúå< bå< ±ù lišbår-±òúÆl ֽ ֹא ֶכל ַי ְסֵּ ֥ר ִני ְי ָ ֖הוה ַא ְְך־בּ ִמ ְשׁ ָ ֑פּט ַא ְל־בּ ַא ְפּ ָ֖ך ֶפּ ַן־תּ ְמ ִﬠ ֵ ֽט ִני yassërènì YHWH ±aú-bë-mišpå< † ±al-bë-±appëúå< ‘No, my lord, for your servants came to obtain pÆn-tam≠ì†ènì ‘chastise me, O YHWH, but in food’ (v. 10). In Gen. 33.9 Esau refuses Jacob’s ְי ִ֥הי ְל ָ֖ך ֲא ֶשׁ ָ ֽר־לְך :measure; [do] not [chastise me] in your wrath, gift with the volitive statement lest you reduce me to naught’ (Jer. 10.24); yëhì lëúå< ±≥šÆr-lå< ú ‘Let what is yours remain bë-±òra™- yours!’. Jacob’s negative reply accordingly ְבּ ֽ ֹאַר ְח־צ ָדָ ֥ קה ַחִ ֑יּים ְו ֶ ֖דֶרְך ְנ ִת ָ ֣יבה ַא ָ ֽל־מֶות ַא ָל־נ ֙א ִאם־ :al± ַאל ßë≈åq< å< ™ayyìm wë-≈ÆrÆú nëμì∫å< ±al-måw< Æμ ‘in employs the modal negative -al-nå< ±im± ֙ ָנא ָמ ָ ֤צ ִאתי ֵ ֙חן ְבּ ֵﬠ ֶ֔יניָך ְו ָל ַק ְח ָ ֥תּ ִמ ְנ ָח ִ ֖תי ִמ ָיּ ִ ֑די [the path of righteousness there is life; and [in the way of the trail, no death’ (Prov. 12.28). nå< må< ßå< μì ™èn bë-≠ènÆúå< wë-låqa< ™tå< min™å< μì mib-bëlì serve the miy-yå< ≈ì ‘No, please, if, please, I have found ִמ ְבּ ִלי bëlì and ְבּ ִלי .2.4 function of ‘without’, especially in poetic texts, grace in your eyes, you will take my gift from bëlì ƒåša< ≠ ‘without transgres- my hand’. In Judg. 4.20, Sisera instructs Jael ְֽבּ ִ֫לי ָ ֥פ ַשׁע ,.e.g mib-bëlì-±ìš ‘without concerning what to say should someone come ִמ ְבּ ִל ִ ֖י־אישׁ ;(sion’ (Job 33.9 ְו ָה ָי ֩ה ִא ִ֨ם־אישׁ ָי ֜בוֹא ְוּשׁ ֵא ֵ֗לְך ְו ָא ַ ֛מר ֲהֵ ֽישׁ־ :people’ (Zeph. 3.6). to her tent wë-håy< å< ±im-±ìš yå< ∫ò u-š±èlèú ֥ ֹפּה ִ ֖אישׁ ְו ָא ַ ֥מְר ְתּ ָ ֽא ִין -èn pre± ֵאין A closely related usage is .2.5 ceding a noun, conveying the sense of ‘no, wë-±åmar< h≥-yèš-pò ±ìš wë-±åmart< ±åyin< ‘And it u-l- will be, if a man comes, and he asks, “Is there ְוּל ָשׁ ֣לוֹם ֵ ֽא ֵ֗ין־קץ :without’. Examples include šål< òm ±èn-qèß ‘and to peace [there will be] a man here”, then you shall say “No”’. In this -case, the negative response to the yes-no ques ָי ִ ֖מים ;(’no end’ (Isa. 9.6, see English ‘endless åyin< (see also± ָא ִין yèš is ֵישׁ yåm< ìm ±èn mispår< ‘days without tion predicated with ֵ ֥אין ִמ ְס ָ ֽפּר number’ (Jer. 2.32, see English ‘innumerable’); below, §6.1). These examples illustrate that u-n™òšÆμ lå-r< ò∫ ±èn mišqål< within conversation the choice of the negative ְוּנ ֥חֹ ֶשׁת ָל ֖רֹב ֵ ֥אין ִמ ְשָׁ ֽ קל ‘and much bronze, beyond weighing’ (1 Chron. depends upon the previous utterance with which lò serves to negate responses to ל ֹא :see English ‘unweighable’). it is paired ,22.3 © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 804 negation: pre-modern hebrew

ְו ִא ֙ישׁ ֽל ֹ ַא־י ֲﬠ ֶ ֣לה ִﬠ ָ֔מְּך ְו ַג ִ֥ם־אישׁ ַא ֵל־יָ ֖רא ְבּ ָכ ָל־ה ָ ֑הר al negates responses to volitive± ַאל ,statements ַגּ ַם־ה ֤צּ ֹאן ְו ַה ָבּ ָק ֙ר ַא ִל־יְר ֔עוּ ֶא ֖ל־מוּל ָה ָ ֥הר ַה ֽהוּא -ayin negates responses to sen± ַאִין sentences, and tences predicated with the existential particle. wë-±ìš lò-ya≠≥lÆ ≠immå< ú wë-gam-: ±ìš ±al-yèrå< bë-úål- < < < < As such, what have been described as ‘reduced hå-hår gam-haß-ßòn wë-hab-båqår ±al-yir≠ù ±Æl-mùl hå-h< år< ha-h verbal clauses’ with the negative (Waltke and ù O’Connor 1990:661) should more precisely be ‘No one shall come up with you, and also no one should be seen on the entire mountain; and also linked to a preceding utterance within a dialogic the flocks and the herds should not graze opposite exchange (Miller 2005b). that mountain’ (Exod. 34.3) 3.2. At the same time, though, the domains al appear sometimes to overlap. The first sentence is a prohibition formed by± ַאל lò and ל ֹא of lò with the regular prefix-conjugation (not ל ֹא -This can best be seen by comparing the follow ing paired passages, with the former comprising jussive). The second and third sentences involve .al with jussives to indicate exhortations± ַאל the legal prohibition in the Torah, and the latter constituting the axiomatic parallel from wisdom The following examples have syntactically literature (Qimron 1983:475; 1986:80): parallel sentences in which the second sentence comprises a stronger prohibition that the first ֤ל ֹא ַת ִסּ ֙יג ְגּ ֣בוּל ֵ ֽר ֲﬠ ָ֔ך sentence: lò μassìg: gë∫ùl rè≠≥úå< ֽ ָר ֵאשׁ ֶ ֥יכם ַא ִל־תּ ְפָ ֣רעוּ ׀ ִוּב ְג ֵד ֶ ֤יכם ֽל ֹ ִא־ת ְפ ֙ר ֹ ֙מוּ You shall not remove the boundary-stone of your‘ neighbor’ (Deut. 19.14) råš< èúÆm ±al-tiƒrå< ≠ù u-∫ig: ≈èúÆm lò-μiƒròmù Your heads do not make-bare, and your clothes‘ ַא ַ֭ל־תּ ֵסּג ְגּ ֣בוּל ָ ֑עוֹלם you shall not rend’ (Lev. 10.6) ±al-tassèg: gë∫ùl ≠òlåm< ‘Do not remove the boundary-stone of yore’ (Prov. The progressively stronger prohibition in the 22.28; 23.10) second sentence is particularly apparent in the :following proverbial example ִֽכּ ִי־ת ֥דֹּר ֶ֨נ ֶד ֙ר ַל ָ ֣יהוה ֱא ֶֹ֔להיָך ֥ל ֹא ְת ַא ֵ ֖חר ְל ַשׁ ְלּ ֑מוֹ kì-μiddòr nÆ≈Ær la-YHWH ±(lòhÆúå< lò μë±a™èr ַא ִ֭ל־תּ ְתַרע ֶא ַ ֣ת־בּ ַﬠל ָ ֑אף ְו ֶא ִ֥ת־אישׁ ֵ֝ח ֗מוֹת ֣ל ֹא ָת ֽבוֹא lëšallëmò al-ti ra -ba al å< w - - š m l å< ‘When you vow a vow unto YHWH your God, you ± μ ≠ ±Æμ ≠ ± ƒ ë ±Æμ ±ì ™è òμ ò μ ∫ò shall not delay to fulfill it’ (Deut. 23.22) ‘Do not associate with a “lord of anger”; And with a “man of temper” you shall not come’ (Prov. 22.24) ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁ ֩ר ִתּ ֨דֹּר ֶ֜נ ֶדר ֵ ֽל ִ֗אֹלהים ַא ְל־תּ ַא ֵח ֙ר ְל ַשׁ ְלּ ֔מוֹ ka-±≥šÆr tiddòr nÆ≈Ær l-èlòhìm ±al-të±a™èr lëšallëmò ‘When you vow a vow unto God, do not delay to In the rhetoric of Boaz’s speech to Ruth, the fulfill it’ (Qoh. 5.3) speaker moves from an exhortation not to glean in another field to a stronger prohibition .lò, against moving away from Boaz’s workers ל ֹא Observe how the Torah prohibition uses ַאל while the wisdom text exhortation utilizes ַא ֵל־תּ ְל ִ ֙כי ִל ְלקֹ ֙ט ְבּ ָשׂ ֶ ֣דה ַא ֵ֔חר ְוַ ֛גם ֥ל ֹא ַת ֲﬠ ִ ֖בוּרי ִמֶ ֑זּה al (the different English renderings above, ‘you± shall not’ and ‘do not’, respectively, represent ±al-tèlúì lilqò† bë-«å< ≈Æ ±a™èr wë-gam: lò μa≠≥∫ùrì an attempt to capture the different wordings in miz-zÆ the original). ‘Do not glean in another field; and also you shall In other instances, the same passage will not pass from this(-place)’ (Ruth 2.8) employ both negative particles in the same syntactic construction. At times, this stratagem may 4. Word Order and Scope be used simply for the sake of variation (Qimron 1983:477–478), as in the following verse (note 4.1. Word order, with specific attention to the that different translation strategies are employed placement of the negative article, may affect in this and the following passages in an attempt the meaning and scope. Compare, for example to capture the different usages in the original): (Steiner 1997:168):

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 negation: pre-modern hebrew 805 Ellipsis: Biblical Hebrew). Examples with ) ִ ֤כּי ֣ל ֹא ָ֭ל ֶ֭נ ַצח ִי ָשּׁ ַ ֣כח ֶא ְב ֑יוֹן ִ ֣כּי ֥ל ֹא ְשׁ ֛אוֹל ֶ ֖תּוֹד ָךּ ָמֶו ָ ֣ת :kì lò lå-n< Æßa™ yiššå< úa™ ±Æ∫yòn sentence negation include >kì lò šë±òl tò≈Ækkå< måw< Æμ yëhalëlÆkkå ְי ַה ְל ֶ ֑ל ָךּ ‘for not forever will the destitute be forgotten’ (Ps. 9.19, i.e., he will be remembered) ‘for Sheol cannot acclaim you, Death [can- ַא ִל־תּ ֵ ֣תּן ֵשָׁ ֣נה not] praise you’ (Isa. 38.18); and >al-tittèn šènå< lë-≠ènÆúå± ְל ֵﬠ ֶ ֑יניָך ֝וּ ְת ָ֗נוּמה ְל ַﬠ ְפ ַﬠ ֶ ֽפּיָך ְ֭ל ָ֭עוֹלם ל ֹ ֶא־א ְשׁ ַ ֣כּח ִפּ ֶ ֑קּוּדיָך lë-≠òlåm< lò-±Æška™ piqqù≈Æúå< u-μnùmå< lë-≠aƒ≠appÆúå< ‘do not give sleep to ‘forever I will not forget your charges’ (Ps. 119.93, your eyes, [nor] slumber to your eyelids’ (Prov. i.e., I will never forget) 6.4) (see also GKC 283). Examples with con- ִ ֛כּי ֶ ֥ח ֶסד ָח ַ ֖פ ְצ ִתּי ְול ֹ ָ ֑א־ז ַבח :stituent negation include ™kì ™ÆsÆ≈ ™å< ƒaßtì wë-lò-zå< ∫a ְו ַ ֥ד ַﬠת ֱא ִ ֹ֖להים ֵמעֹ ֽלוֹת -lò negates the follow ל ֹא ,In the first passage ,lå-n< Æßa™ ‘forever’ and thus wë-≈a≠aμ ±(lòhìm mè-≠òlòμ ‘for fealty I desire ָל ֶנ ַצח ing adverbial serves as a constituent negator, while in the and not sacrifice; and knowledge of God [and ְק ֽח ָוּ־מוּסִ֥רי lò before not] burnt-offerings’ (Hos. 6.6); and ל ֹא second passage, the placement of -që™ù-mùsår< ì wë-±al ְו ַא ָ ֑ל־כּ ֶסף ְ֝ו ַ֗ד ַﬠת ֵמ ָח ֥רוּץ ִנ ְב ָ ֽחר the verb indicates its function as a sentential negator. kås< Æƒ wë-≈a≠aμ mè-™år< ùß ni∫™år< ‘receive my 4.2. Recognition of the scope of the negative instruction, and not silver; and knowledge, [and provides the means to solve the interpretation not] choice gold’ (Prov. 8.10). True, in both of -these examples, the b-line includes compara ַו ֲא ַמְר ֶ֕תּם ֥ל ֹא ִי ָתּ ֵ ֖כן of the two negative forms in ,min- ‘more than’ before the final word ִמן tive ֶ ֣דֶּרְך ֲאדָֹ ֑ני ִשׁ ְמ ָעוּ־נ ֙א ֵ ֣בּית ִי ְשָׂר ֵ֔אל ֲה ַ֙דְר ִ ֙כּי ֣ל ֹא ִי ָתּ ֵ֔כן wa-±≥martÆm lò yittå< úèn but the parallelism demands the understanding ֲה ֥ל ֹא ַדְר ֵכ ֶ ֖יכם ֥ל ֹא ִי ָתּ ֵ ֽכנוּ dÆrÆú ±≥≈ònåy< šim≠ù-nå< bèμ yi«rå< ±èl h≥-≈arkì lò indicated in the translations given, since ‘and yittå< úèn h≥-lò ≈arúèúÆm lò yittå< úènù (Ezek. knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings’, 18.25). Sivan and Schniedewind (1993:215) ‘and knowledge more than choice gold’ would .h≥-lò should not be under- denude the stichs of their impact ֲהל ֹא propose that stood as a negative. Instead, they understand it as the asseverative use of the negative and 6. Negative Polarity in interpret it as indeed; hence the verse should Quantification Structures be rendered: ‘Yet you say, “The way of the and Oaths LORD is not equal”. Hear now, O House of Israel! Is my way not just? Indeed, it is your Items of different syntactic categories may act as ways that are not just’. The question arises, negative polarity items in negative statements. ayin± ַא ִין however, whether it is indeed difficult to under- 6.1. On occasion the absolute form stand Ezek. 18.25 as having two negatives. (attested 42x altogether) occurs with different GKC (483) posits that two negatives in the word order (noun before the negative par- ayin± ַא ִין same sentence do not neutralize each other, ticle, see above, §1.2), suggesting that but rather make the negation more emphatic. serves as a substantive indicating non-existence, wë-±å< ≈åm< ±ayin ְו ָא ָ ֣דם ַ֔א ִין ַ ֽל ֲﬠ ֖בֹד ֶא ָ ֽת־ה ֲא ָד ָ ֽמה ,.The distinction drawn between sentential and e.g constituent negation solves this issue: the first la≠≥bò≈ ±Æμ-hå-< ±≥≈åm< å< ‘there was no man to -wë ְו ֥כַֹח ַ ֖א ִין ְל ֵל ָ ֽדה ;(negative is an instance of constituent negation, work the ground’ (Gen. 2.5 as it negates only the verb following, while úòa™ ±ayin lëlè≈å< ‘there is no strength to give the second negative is an instance of sentential birth’ (Isa. 37.3). >më±ùmå ְמ ָאוּמה negation. Accordingly, the verse should be ren- 6.2. The indefinite pronoun dered: ‘And you said, “The way of the Lord is ‘anything, something’ typically occurs in not fair”. Hear now, O house of Israel! Is my negated sentences and hence serves to express lò-≠å< «ìμì ל ֹ ָא־ﬠ ִ ֣שׂ ִֽיתי ְמ ֔א ָוּמה ,.way not just? Is it not your ways, (that) are not ‘naught, nothing’, e.g ֵ ֣אין ְמ ֑א ָוּמה ;(just?’ (Snyman and Naudé 2003:258–264; see më±ùmå< ‘I did nothing’ (Gen. 40.15 also Moshavi 2007). ±èn më±ùmå< ‘there is nothing’ (1 Kgs 18.43; see also Gen. 22.12). -ìš lit. ‘man, person’, func± ִאישׁ Negation and Ellipsis 6.3. When .5 tions as an indefinite pronoun (van der Merwe, The negative particle may be elided, especially Naudé, and Kroeze 1999:262) in a negative in texts characterized by poetic parallelism statement, the resultant meaning is ‘no one © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 806 negation: pre-modern hebrew ַ ֽו ַאﬠֶ ֛נּה ֶא ֶ ֥ת־ז ַ רע ָדִּ ֖וד ְל ַ ֣מ ַﬠן ֑ז ֹאת ַ ֖אְך :negation, as in ְשׁ ָמ ֵ ֣ﬠנוּ׀ ֲאדִֹ֗ני ְנ ִ֙שׂיא :’at all, not a single one wa-≠annÆ ±Æμ-zÆra≠ dåw< ì≈ lë-ma≠an ֥ל ֹא ָכ ַל־ה ָיּ ִֽמים ֱא ִ ֹ֤להים ַא ָתּ ֙ה ְבּ ֵ֔תוֹכנוּ ְבּ ִמ ְב ַ ֣חר ְק ָבֵ ֔רינוּ ְק ֖בֹר ֶא ֵת־מ ֶ ֑תָך zòμ ±aú lò úål-hay-yåm< ìm ‘and I will afflict the ִ ֣אישׁ ִמ ֶ֔מּנּוּ ֶא ִת־ק ְב ֛רוֹ ֽל ֹ ִא־י ְכ ֶ ֥לה ִמ ְמּ ָ֖ך ִמ ְקּ ֥בֹר ֵמ ֶ ֽתָך šëmå< ≠ènù ±≥≈ònì në«ì ±(lòhìm ±attå< bë-μòúènù offspring of David because of this, but not bë-mi∫™ar që∫år< ènù që∫òr ±Æμ-mèμÆúå< ±ìš mim- forever (lit. ‘all the days’)’ (1 Kgs 11.39). The ִ ֤כּי ֣ל ֹא kòl is similar, as in כֹּל mÆnnù ±Æμ-qi∫rò lò-yiúlÆ mimmëúå< miq-që∫òr substantive use of kì lò ∫ë-mòμò yiqqa™ hak-kòl ְ֭במוֹתוֹ ִיַ ֣קּח ַה ֑כֹּל mèμÆúå< ‘“Hear us, my lord, you are a prince of God among us; in the choicest of our tombs, ‘for when he dies he will carry nothing away’ -wë ְו ִה ֵנּ ֙ה ִנ ְשׁ ַ ֣חת ָה ֵא ֔זוֹר ֥ל ֹא ִי ְצ ַ ֖לח ַל ֽכֹּל ;(bury your dead; none of us will withhold from (Ps. 49.18 you his tomb to hinder you from burying your hinnè niš™aμ hå-< ±èzòr lò yißla™ l-ak-kòl ‘and dead”’ (Gen 23.6). behold, the loincloth was spoiled, it was useful .(for nothing’ (Jer 13.7 ִאישׁ . . . ל ֹא Analogous to the foregoing .6.4 -kòl is used with a floated quanti כֹּל lò . . . kål (cita- When ל ֹא . . . ָ כּל ìš . . . lò is the syntagma± kòl lit. ‘all, each, every’) followed fier (that is, when the quantifier appears after כֺּל :tion form by an undetermined noun phrase to express an the constituent with which it is associated and has a pronominal suffix referring back to its ְו ֽל ֹ ִא־י ָכֵּ ֧רת ָכּ ָל־בּ ָ ֛שׂר ֖ﬠוֹד absolute negation, as in wë-lò-yikkår< èμ kål-bå< «år< ≠ò≈ mim-mè antecedent; see Naudé 2011b:351–352) in a ִמ ֵ ֣מּי ַה ַמּ ֑בּוּל ham-mabbùl ‘and no flesh will be cut off again negative sentence, the term has the nuance of ֶ֚א ֶפס ָק ֵ ֣צהוּ ִתְר ֶ֔אה ְו ֻכ ֖לּוֹ ֣ל ֹא ִתְר ֶ ֑אה not all’, as in‘ ֽל ֹ ִא־י ָפּ ֵ ֥לא ;(by the waters of the flood’ (Gen. 9.11 lò-yippål< è mimmëúå< kål-då< ∫år< ±ÆƒÆs qå< ßèhù μir±Æ wë-úullò lò μir±Æ ‘you shall see ִמ ְמּ ָ֖ך ָכּ ָל־דּ ָ ֽבר ‘no matter is too hard for you’ (Jer. 32.17; see only a fraction of them, you will not see them also Exod. 10.15; 20.10; Prov. 12.21). In this all’ (Num. 23.13). kòl functions as a distributive The same negative polarity is found with the כֺּל construction quantifier (as opposed to a universal quanti- other negative particles. In 2 Sam. 12.3, the :kòl כֹּל fier, see below) and its semantic nuance is negative existential marker is used with >wë-lå-r< åš ְו ָלָ ֣רשׁ ֵ ֽא ֗ין־כֹּל ִכּ֩י ִא ִם־כּ ְב ָ֙שׂה ַא ַ ֤חת ְק ַט ָנּה non-specific and implicitly inclusive (Naudé 2011a:413; 2011b:358–359). The same per- ±èn-kòl kì ±im-ki∫«å< ±a™aμ që†annå< ‘and the tains to the undetermined substantival use of poor man had nothing but one little ewe-lamb’. lë-∫iltì (followed by infinitive ְל ִב ְל ִתּי ,Similarly ַ֭ל ִישׁ ִגּ ֣בּוֹר ַבּ ְבּ ֵה ָ ֑מה ְול ֹ ָ֜א־י ֗שׁוּב ִמ ְפּ ֵני־ kòl, as in כֺּל kòl in כֹּל layiš gibbòr bab-bëhèmå< wë-lò-yåš< ù∫ mip- construct; see above §1.6) negates ֽכֹל ַ ֙ו ָיּ ֶשׂם ְי ָ ֤הוה ְל ַ֙ק ִ֙ין ֔אוֹת ְל ִב ְל ִ֥תּי ַה ֹכּוֹת־א ֖תוֹ ָכּ ֹל־מ ְצ ֽאוֹ pënè-úòl ‘the lion is mightiest among beasts and does not turn back before anything’ (Prov. way-yå< «Æm YHWH lë-qayin ±òμ lë-∫iltì hakkòμ- òμò kål-mòß±ò ‘and YHWH put a mark upon± כֹּל The constituent introduced with .(30.30 Cain, so that none who might find him would ְו ָכ ָל־דּ ֙ם ֣ל ֹא :kòl may precede the negative, as in .(wë-úål-dåm< slay him’ (Gen. 4.15 ת ֹ ְאכ ֔לוּ ְבּ ֖כֹל ְמוֹשׁבֹ ֵת ֶ ֑יכם ָל ֖ﬠוֹף ְו ַל ְבּ ֵה ָ ֽמה lò μòúlù bë-úòl mòš∫òμèúÆm lå-< ≠òƒ wë-lab- 6.5. The structure of oaths, regularly intro- im lit. ‘if’, partake heavily of± ִאם bëhèmå< ‘and you shall eat no blood whatso- duced by ever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of ellipsis, due mainly to their formulaic nature, your dwelling places’ (Lev. 7.26; see also Lev. which tends to truncate over time under the 16.29; Exod. 12.16; 12.43; 15.26). pressures of familiarity (Conklin 2011:4–7). -kòl precedes a determined noun Furthermore, an oath depends on the suppres כֹּל When phrase it has the sense of a collective universal sion of an imprecation upon a person so that -im introduces oath content, a nega± ִאם quantifier and indicates “the totality of the when (specific) group or whole” (Naudé 2011a:413; tive statement is expressed: ‘[May God curse 2011b:357–358). In the singular it bears the me] if I do this’ = ‘I will not do this’. Contras- im-lò lit. ‘if not’ introduces± ִאם־ל ֺא nuance of individualization. In a negative sen- tively, when tence it means ‘none’ or ‘nothing’ in the plural oath content, a positive statement is expressed: = ’May God curse me] if I do not do this]‘ ִ֥כּי ָכ ְ֝ל־דּ ָבָ ֗ריו ,.and ‘any’ in the singular; see, e.g (kì úål-dë∫år< åw< lò-ya≠≥nÆ ‘for he will ‘I will do this’ (GKC 472; Conklin 2011:9 ֣ל ֹ ַא־י ֲﬠֶ ֽנה .(Oath/Curse Formulae: Biblical Hebrew ) ֣ל ֹא ;(answer none of man’s words’ (Job 33.13 ִאם־ל ֺא im and± ִאם lò μòúlù mik-kòl ≠èß hag-gån< The phrases introduced by ֽת ֹ ְאכ ֔לוּ ִמ ֖כֹּל ֵ ֥ﬠץ ַהָ ֽגּ ן ‘you shall not eat of any tree of the garden’ ±im-lò function thus as protases of incomplete (Gen 3.1). The same pertains to constituent conditional clauses—the former for negative © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 negation: pre-modern hebrew 807 oaths and the latter for positive oaths—as illus- tÆ™på< ß ‘I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, trated by the following: do not stir up and do not awaken love, until it pleases’ (Song 8.4, note the parallel lines in .(im± ִאם Song 2.7; 3.5, with the standard form ִא ִם־מ ֙חוּט ְו ַ ֣ﬠד ְשֽׂר ַ֔וְֹך־נ ַﬠל ְו ִא ֶם־אַ ֖קּח ִמ ָכּ ֲל־א ֶשׁ ָ ֑ר־לְך ±im-mì-™ù† wë-≠a≈ «ëròú-na≠al wë-±im-±Æqqa™ mik- < kål-±≥šÆr-låú 7. Diachronic Issues ‘(I raise my hand to YHWH, El Elyon, creator of heaven and earth, [and swear that]) if from thread Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) ( Biblical Hebrew, to sandal thong, if I take anything of yours, [may I be cursed]’ (Gen. 14.[22–]23, i.e., ‘I will not take Late) evinces several developments, two of anything of yours, from thread to sandal thong’). which are noted here. -lò liqtòl syntagma func ל ֹא ִל ְקטוֹל The .7.1 tions as a prohibitive twice in the book of ְי ָ֗הוה ִי ְהֶי֤ה שֹׁ ֵ֙מ ַ֙ע ֵ ֽבּ ֵ֔ינוֹתינוּ ִא ֥ם־ל ֹא ִכ ְד ָבְר ָ֖ך ֵ ֥כּן ַנ ֲﬠ ֶ ֽשׂה YHWH yihyÆ šòmèa≠ bènòμènù ±im-lò úi-≈∫år< úå< Chronicles, modeled on the parallel usage in »wë-lò lëhiμya™è ְו ֥ל ֹא ְל ִה ְת ַי ֵ ֖חשׂ ַל ְבּכָֹ ֽרה :kèn na≠≥«Æ Aramaic ‘YHWH will be a witness (lit. ‘one who hears’) lab-bëúòrå< ‘not reckoned-in-the-genealogy as ֤ל ֹא ָל ֵשׂ ֙את ֶא ֲת־א ֣רוֹן ;(between us, if we do not act in accordance with first born’ (1 Chron. 5.1 your proposal, [may we be cursed]’ (Judg. 11.10, < < lò lå«èμ ±Æμ-±≥ròn hå-±(lòhìm ‘not to ֽ ָה ֱא ִֹ֔להים .(’i.e., ‘we will act carry the ark of God’ (1 Chron. 15.2). Note < lå ָ ֥לא ְל ַב ָטּ ָ ֽלא Conklin (2011:76) demonstrates that when Biblical Aramaic examples in ָלא ;(lë∫å< ††ål< å< ‘not to be stopped’ (Ezra 6.8 > > > ,kì ±im lit. ‘but if’ introduces oath content ִכּי ִאם .lå lëhašnåyå ‘not to be changed’ (Dan ְל ַה ְשׁ ָנ ָיה -the two particles should be analyzed as inde ִ ֛כּי ֥ל ֹא ,pendent rather than compound, which is to say, 6.9, 16). The one additional BH example kì lò lëhazkìr bë-šèm YHWH ְל ַה ְז ִ ֖כּיר ְבּ ֵ ֥שׁם ְי ָ ֽהוה the two-word phrase does not function as an asseverative marker. Examples include: ‘for no one shall utter the name of YHWH’ (Amos 6.10), most likely represents an isogloss -between Israelian Hebrew and Aramaic. (How ַו ִיּ ָשּׁ ַ֨בע ָדִּ֜וד ֵל ֗ ֹאמר ֣כֹּה ַי ֲﬠ ֶשׂ ִ ֤ה־לּי ֱא ִֹלה ֙ים ְו ֣כֹה יֹ ִ֔סיף ִ ֣כּי kì lò ִ ֣כּי ֤ל ֹא ְל ִהוֹר ֙ישׁ ,ever it is to be explained ִא ִם־ל ְפֵ ֧ני ֽב ַוֹא־ה ֶ ֛שּׁ ֶמשׁ ֶא ְט ַﬠ ֶ ֖ם־ל ֶחם ֥אוֹ ָכ ְל־מ ֽא ָוּמה way-yiššå< ∫a≠ dåw< ì≈ lèmòr kò ya≠≥«Æ-lì ±(lòhìm lëhòrìš ‘for they did not dispossess’ [Judg. 1.19] wë-úò yòsìƒ kì ±im-li-ƒnè ∫ò-haš-šÆmÆš ±Æ†≠am- is not an example of this usage, since the phrase < lÆ™Æm ±ò úål-më±ùmå expresses past tense rather than a prohibitive.) -lë-±èn before a substan ְל ֵאין And David swore, “Thus will God do to me and 7.2. The particle‘ thus will he add; [I swear] that, if I eat bread or tive occurs eight times in LBH with the sense anything else before the sun comes up, [may I be lë-±èn šë±èrìμ ְל ֵ ֥אין ְשׁ ֵאִ ֖רית ְוּפ ֵל ָ ֽיטה ,.cursed]”’ (2 Sam. 3.35, i.e., ‘I will not eat…’). ‘without’, e.g u-ƒlè†å< ‘without a remnant or escape’ (Ezra -lë-±èn mispår< ‘without num ְל ֵ ֣אין ִמ ְס ָ ֑פּר ;(9.14 ַח ְי־י ָהו ֙ה ִֽכּ ִי־א ַ ֣ם־ר ְצ ִתּי ַא ֲחָ ֔ריו ְו ָל ַק ְח ִ֥תּי ֵמ ִא ֖תּוֹ ְמ ֽא ָוּמה ְל ֵ ֥אין ַמְר ֵ ֽפּא ;(ay-YHWH kì-±im-raßtì ±a™≥råw< wë-låqa< ™tì ber’ = ‘innumerable’ (1 Chron. 22.4™ mè-±ittò më±ùmå< lë-±èn marpè ‘without remedy’ = ‘incurable’ ‘(By) the life of YHWH, [I swear] that, if I run after him, (2 Chron. 21.18). then I will get something from him’ (2 Kgs 5.20) 7.3. Many LBH developments, including the two aforenoted ones, are found in the book 2 Kgs 5.20 (see also 1 Sam. 26.10; 2 Sam. of Ben Sira (see van Peursen 1999). At other 15.21; Jer. 51.14) falls into the category of times, however, said book evinces unexpected positive oaths consisting of full conditional sen- usages, not necessarily tied to diachronic devel- kì. opments. Prime among these is the expanded ִכּי tences following the complementizer ,ma as a negative particle (see above ַמה ma (for a cognate use of ַמה ,Occasionally .6.6 ka∫ed mimmeúa כבד ממך מה תשא ,.form, see Arabic mà, used to negate the suffix- §6.6), e.g ,im to intro- ma ti««a± ‘that which is too heavy for you± ִאם conjugation) occurs in place of do not take up’ (Ben Sira 13.2 (A)) (see van ִה ְשׁ ַ ֥בּ ְﬠ ִתּי ֶא ְת ֶ ֖כם duce negative polarity, as in ,Peursen 1999:232). In this and other instances ְבּ ֣נוֹת ְי ָרוּשׁ ָ ֑לםִ ַמ ָה־תּ ִ ֧ﬠירוּ ֽוּ ַמ ְה־תּ ֽﬠְֹר ֛רוּ ֶא ָת־ה ַא ֲה ָ ֖בה hišba≠tì ±ÆμúÆm bënòμ yërùšål< åyim< presumably the book of Ben Sira is imitative of ַ ֥ﬠד ֶשׁ ֶתּ ְח ָ ֽפּץ ma-tå< ≠ìrù u-ma-të≠òrërù ±Æμ-hå-< ±ah≥∫å< ≠a≈ šÆt- BH usages, including rare ones.

אל יטהר בם כלי ,The two LBH features described above (§7.1 §7.2) appear even more prominently in Qum- ±l y†hr bm kly ran Hebrew (QH). ‘He shall not purify in them a vessel’ (CD 10.12) 8.1. For the first one, note four examples in אל יאכל איש ביום השבת כי אם המוכן ולוא לצעוד בכול אחד the well-known passage l y±kl ±yš b-ywm h-šbt ky ±m h-mwkn± מכול דברי אל בקציהם ולוא לקדם עתיהם ולוא להתאחר מכול מועדיהם ולוא לסור מחוקי אמתו ‘A person shall not eat on the Sabbath day except (w-lw± lß≠wd b-kwl ±™d m-kwl that which is prepared [in advance]’ (CD 10.22 ללכת ימין ושמאול dbry ±l b-qßyhm w-lw± lqdm ≠tyhm w-lw± lht±™r אל יבוא במים לגעת בטהרת אנשי הקודש m-kwl mw≠dyhm w-lw± l-swr m-™wqy ±mtw llkt ymyn u-«m±wl ‘and not to step upon any ±l ybw± b-mym lg≠t b-†hrt ±nšy h-qwdš of the words of God regarding their times, and ‘He shall not enter the water [so as not] to touch not to advance their festival-times, and not to the purity of the holy men’ (1QS 5.13) delay any of their appointed-times, and not to אל ידבר איש בתוכ דברי רעהו diverge from the laws of his truth to go either right or left’ (1QS 1.13–15) (see further Qim- ±l ydbr ±yš b-twk dbry r≠hw ron 1986:78). ‘A person shall not speak during the words of his 8.2. For the second usage, note such exam- fellow’ (1QS 6.10) ’l-±yn r™mym ‘without mercy לאין רחמימ ples as al ‘not’ has± ַאל l-±yn sly™h ‘without 8.4.2. The extent to which לאין סליחה ;(1QS 2.7) l-±yn šryt penetrated the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls לאין שרית ;(pardon’ (1QS 2.14–15 ‘without a remnant’ (1QS 4.14; 5.13), as well may be observed in the following example, l-±yn which presents both the biblical text referenced לאין קום ,.as instances before infinitive, e.g lò, as expected [2x]) and the Qumran ל ֹא qwm ‘not to rise (again)’ (1QM 18.2) (see fur- (with al [2x]) (in this case, the± ַאל ther Qimron 1986:77). reworking (with 8.3. To be sure, standard BH usages also English translations do not attempt to capture appear within the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS); see, the difference): l-blty htysr b-y™d לבלתי התיסר ביחד עצתו ,.e.g ל ֹ ִא־י ְהֶי֤ה ְכ ִל ֙ ֶי־ג ֶב ֙ר ַﬠ ִל־א ָ֔שּׁה ְול ֹ ִא־י ְל ַ ֥בּשׁ ֶ ֖גּ ֶבר ִשׂ ְמ ַ ֣לת ßtw ‘not to be disciplined in the Ya™ad of his≠ ִא ָ ֑שּׁה w-bly sly™h ובלי סליחה ;(counsel’ (1QS 3.6 < m-bly lò-yihyÆ úëlì-g: Æ∫Ær ≠al-±iššå wë-lò-yilbaš gÆ∫Ær ֯מב ֿלי הון ;(without pardon’ (4Q417 2i . 16‘ imla iššå< hwn ‘without wealth’ (4Q417 2i. 19). Nonethe- « μ ± less, the passages cited above illustrate the man- ‘There shall not be a man’s article upon a woman; and a man shall not wear the dress of a woman’ ner in which LBH continues quite naturally in (Deut. 22.5) QH (Rendsburg 2010:223–224). אל יהיו כלי גבר על אשה . . . ואל ילבש ̇כתונ[ ת] אשה -Qumran Hebrew reflects other develop .8.4 ments as well, most prominently the greatly ±l yhyw kly gbr ≠l ±šh . . . w-±l ylbš ktwn[t] ±šh al ‘not’ (396x, according ‘There shall not be a man’s article upon a± ַאל increased use of to one count, keeping in mind that the DSS woman . . . a man shall not wear the tuni[c] of a corpus is much smaller than the biblical canon), woman’ (4Q159 2.6–7) especially before general negative commands al ‘not’ in the± ַאל prohibitions, etc.), which in BH (as per above, 8.4.3. The increased use of) lò (Qim- DSS most likely results from two separate ל ֹא are typically introduced by (1.4§ ron 1983:478–479; 1986:80–81). forces at work. First, the general breakdown 8.4.1. Among the many legal injunctions in in the distinction between the standard prefix- lò ל ֹא al ‘not’, the follow- conjugation (yiq†ol), typically negated by± ַאל the DSS introduced by ing are but a representative sampling: in BH (see above, §1.1), and the modal usages ַאל jussive, cohortative), typically negated by) al in BH (see above, §1.3), readily observable± אל ירחץ איש במים צואים ±l yr™ß ±yš b-mym ßw±ym in QH ( Dead Sea Scrolls: Linguistic Features),

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 negation: pre-modern hebrew 809 -bal gains a spe ַבּל may have led to the confusion regarding the 9.3. The negative particle ל ֹא employment of the ‘proper’ negative parti- cific usage in Rabbinic Hebrew, replacing cle (Qimron 1983:479; 1986:81). Second, the lò in the shortened reference to a biblical pro- ∫al tašu∫ ַבל תּשׁוּב :al hibition. Examples abound± ַאל Ya™ad sectarians may have sensed that lò μåš< ù∫ ‘you shall ֤ל ֹא ָת ֙שׁוּב .is more literary and perhaps more archaic (in (Mishna tag">Pe±a 6.4; cf al∫ ַבל ֵיָר ֶאה ַוּבל ִי ָמּ ֵצא ;([lò (see not return’ [Deut. 24.19 ל ֹא their minds) than the standard form brief comment in Qimron 1983:479; for gen- yera±e u-∫al yimmaße (Mishna Pesa™im 3.3; cf. wë-lò-yèrå< ±Æ ‘and there shall not be ְו ֽל ֹ ֵא־יָר ֶ֨אה .(eral orientation, see Rendsburg 2010 lò yimmå< ßè ‘there ֥ל ֹא ִי ָמּ ֵ ֖צא ;[seen’ [Exod. 13.7 בל תתן כסף ;([Rabbinic Hebrew shall not be found’ [Exod. 12.19 .9 ֶ֨את־ .bal titten keseƒ (Mekhilta Neziqin 3; cf >Æμ-kaspëúå± ַכּ ְס ְפּ ָ֔ך ֽל ֹ ִא־ת ֵ ֥תּן ֖לוֹ ְבֶּ ֑נ ֶשְׁך ְוּב ַמְר ִ ֖בּית -In Rabbinic Hebrew (RH), the rules gov .9.1 lò-μittèn lò bë-nÆšÆú u-∫-marbìμ ‘your money do ַאל ,lò ל ֹא—erning the three main negators èn—are essentially the same as in not give to him, neither with interest nor with± ֵאין al, and± bal te∫aššel בל תבשל ;([BH (Segal 1927:223). A few basic points are increase’ [Lev. 25.37 lò-μë∫aššèl ֽל ֹ ְא־ת ַב ֵ ֥שּׁל .to be noted, nonetheless (see especially Azar (Mekhilta Kaspa 20; cf 1995:167–187; Pérez Fernández 1997:174). ‘you shall not cook’ [Exod. 23.19; 34.26]); bal is limited to such references בּל Within the presentation of the innumer- etc. While .9.2 able laws which appear in the Mishna, Tosefta, and is not productive, this particular usage, in lò, may result from the ל ֹא and the compilations of halakhic midrashim place of expected one still finds the older BH system in place, affinity between RH and northern dialects such lò serving to indicate the inter- as Israelian Hebrew and Phoenician (note that ל ֹא that is, with diction, though normally with the verb in the the Mishna and related texts were compiled in 3rd person (and not the 2nd person, for which Sepphoris and Tiberias, two major urban cen- ters in the Galilee; for general orientation, see ל ֹא ֵי ֵשׁב ,see above, §1.4). Thus, for example .(lo yeše∫ ±adam Rendsburg 2003b ָא ָדם ִל ְפ ֵני ֵה ָסּ ָפּר ָסמוְּך ַל ִמּ ְנ ָחה e (thus the± ֵאי liƒne has-sappar samuú lam-min™a ‘a person 9.4. The negative particle does not sit before the barber close to Min™a’ vocalization according to the manuscripts; (i± ִאי Mishna Shabbat 1.5, i.e., on Friday, as Sabbath later reading traditions altered this to) ֵאי appears 271x, most commonly in the phrase ל ֹא ֵי ֵצא ַה ַח ָיּיט ְבּ ַמ ֲחטוֹ ָסמוְּך ַל ֲח ֵשׁ ָיכה ;(approaches e ±eƒšar ‘not possible’, though also in± ֵא ְיפ ַשׁר lo yeße ha-™ayya† be-ma™≥†o samuú la-™ašeúa e yadua≠ ‘not± ֵאי ָי ַדוּע ,.the tailor does not go out with his needle other combinations, e.g‘ close to darkness’ (Mishna Shabbat 1.6, i.e., known’ (Mishna Yevamot 15.7). This mor- once more, on Friday, as Sabbath approaches). pheme appears once in the Bible (see Prov. 31.4 qere), in a section replete with non-standard ֵאין Just as common, however, is the use of אי en before the 3rd person masculine plural usages, and finds congeners in Phoenician± ,(y ‘no, not’, Ugaritic ay (indefinite pronoun± ָס ֵפק ֲח ֵשׁ ָיכה ָס ֵפק ל ֹא ֲח ֵשׁ ָיכה ֵאין participle, as in suggesting that it too constitutes a northern ְמ ַﬠ ְשִּׂרין ֶאת ַהַוּ ַודּ ִיי ְו ֵאין ַמ ְט ִבּ ִילין ֶאת ַה ֵכּ ִלים ְו ֵאין .saƒeq ™ašeúa saƒeq lo ™ašeúa Hebrew feature ַמ ְד ִל ִיקין ֶאת ַה ֵנּרוֹת ±en me≠a««erin ±et haw-waddayi we-±en ma†bilin 9.5. An exceedingly common new form in -law ‘not’ (628x in the Tannaitic cor ָלאו et hak-kelim we-±en madliqin ±et han-nerot ‘if RH is± there is doubt of darkness or no darkness, one pus), borrowed from Aramaic, used especially ,’we-±im law ‘and if not ְו ִאם ָלאו does not tithe (even) the certain-food, and one in the phrase -im kiw± ִאם ִכּ ֵיוּון ִלבּוֹ ָי ָצא ְו ִאם ָלאו ל ֹא ָי ָצא ,.does not immerse vessels (for purification), and e.g one does not kindle the lights’ (Mishna Shabbat wen libbo yaßa we-±im law lo yaßa ‘if he has fixed his heart [i.e., intended to do so], he has ֵאין ֲסוֹח ִטין ֶאת ַה ֵפּירוֹת ְל ִהוֹציא ֵמ ֶהן ַמ ְשׁ ִקין ;(2.7 ±en so™a†in ±et hap-perot lehoßi me-hen mašqin fulfilled [his obligation], but if not, [then] he ‘one does not squeeze the fruits to extract has not fulfilled’ (Mishna Berakhot 2.1; see also from them juice’ (Mishna Shabbat 22.1). On Mishna Rosh ha-Shana 3.7; Mishna Megil- we-±im law ±asur ‘but ְו ִאם ָלאו ָאסוּר ;(lah 2.2 + לא the distinction between the combinations 3ms prefix-conjugation, on the one hand, and if not, it is prohibited’ (Mishna Shevi≠it 2.10, -3mpl participle, on the other, see Sharvit following a statement to the effect ‘if such-and + אין 1980:116. such occurs, it is permitted’; see also Mishna © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 810 negation: pre-modern hebrew

Shabbat 18.2; Tosefta Demai 7.4; Tosefta Pesa™im Fox on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, 2.14; etc.). ed. by Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis R. Magary, 37–52. Winona Lake, Indiana: 9.6. Several negative particles attested in Eisenbrauns. BH, and still productive in QH, do not occur ——. 2005b. “Linguistics”. Dictionary of the Old in RH (except in biblical quotations and/or in Testament: Historical books, ed. by Bill T. Arnold later Amoraic texts in imitation of BH). These and Hugh G. M. Williamson, 657–669. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity. bëlì / Moshavi, Adina. 2007. “Syntactic evidence for a ְבּ ִלי ;’ÆrÆm ‘before, not yet† ֶטֶרם include in Biblical Hebrew”. Journal of הלא ÆƒÆs ‘none, with- clausal adverb± ֶא ֶפס ;’mib-bëlì ‘without ִמ ְבּ ִלי .pÆn ‘lest’ (all discussed above). The Northwest Semitic Languages 33:51–63 ֶפּן out’; and last of these is replaced by the exceedingly com- Naudé, Jacobus A. 2011a. “The interpretation and translation of the Biblical Hebrew quantifier .šemme ‘lest’ (279x in the Tannaitic KOL”. Journal for Semitics 22:408–421 ֶשׁ ֵמּא mon corpus; the vocalization given, with ßere, is per ——. 2011b. “Syntactic patterns of quantifier float in .šemme, with segol, in Biblical Hebrew”. Hebrew Studies 52:121–136 ֶשׁ ֶמּא ;MS Kaufmann A50 šemma, Pérez Fernández, Miguel. 1997. An introductory ֶשׁ ָמּא ;[MS Parma 3173 [de Rossi 138 grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew. Leiden: Brill. with qameß, in later printed editions). To cite van Peursen, Wido Th. 1999. “Negation in the but one example, quoting a passage provided Hebrew of Ben Sira”. Sirach, scrolls, and sages: Proceedings of a second international symposium ל ֹא ֵי ֵצא earlier, now with its continuation, see ,on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira ַה ַח ָיּיט ְבּ ַמ ֲחטוֹ ָסמוְּך ַל ֲח ֵשׁ ָיכה ֶשׁ ֵמּא ִי ְשׁ ַכּח ְו ֵי ֵצא and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University, 15–17 lo yeße ha-™ayya† be-ma™a†o samuú la-™ašeúa December 1997, ed. by Takamitsu Muraoka and šemme yiška™ we-yeße ‘the tailor does not go- John F. Elwolde, 223–243. Leiden: Brill. out with his needle close to darkness, lest he Qimron, Elisha. 1983. “Milit ha-šelila ±al bi-mqoro tenu ha-qedumim”. Hebrew language studies presented forget and go out’ (Mishna Shabbat 1.6). to Professor Ze’ev Ben-£ayyim, ed. by Moshe Bar- 9.7. Finally, note that the BH indefinite Asher, Aharon Dotan, David Tene, and Gad Ben- .më±ùmå< ‘anything, some- Ammi Sarfatti, 473–482. Jerusalem: Magnes ְמ ָאוּמה pronoun thing, naught, nothing’ (see above, §6.2) is ——. 1986. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Atlanta: Scholars Press. in nominal אין and לא“ .kelum Rechenmacher, Hans. 2003 ְכּלוּם replaced by the MH equivalent kål më±ùmå< clauses”. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages ָכּל ְמ ָאוּמה possibly derived from) ‘any naught’, a phrase which actually appears 29:67–85. Rendsburg, Gary A. 2003a. “A comprehensive guide ל ֹא :in Gen. 39.23). Sample usages include to Israelian Hebrew: Grammar and lexicon”. Ori- .lò ≠a«a úelum ‘he has done noth- ent 38:5–35 ָﬠ ָשׂה ְכלוּם -2003b. “The geographical and historical back .—— ֵאין ָה ֶﬠ ֶבד ַח ָיּיב ְכּלוּם ;(ing’ (Mishna Yoma 5.7 ±en ha-≠e∫ed ™ayya∫ kelum ‘the slave is not ground of the Mishnaic Hebrew lexicon”. Orient indebted at all’ (Mishna Gi in 4.4). 38:105–115. †† ——. 2010. “Qumran Hebrew (with a trial cut [1QS])”. The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly References contributions of New York University faculty and Azar, Moshe. 1995. The syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew alumni, ed. by Lawrence H. Schiffman and Shani (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: The Academy of the Tzoref, 217–246. Leiden: Brill. Hebrew Language. Segal, Moshe H. 1927. A grammar of Mishnaic Conklin, Blane. 2011. Oath formulas in Biblical Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon. Hebrew. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Sharvit, Shimon. 1980. “The ‘tense’ system of Mish- Cook, John A. 2006. “The finite verbal forms in naic Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Studies in Hebrew Biblical Hebrew do express aspect”. Journal of the and Semitic languages dedicated to the memory of Ancient Near Eastern Society 30:21–35. Prof. Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, ed. by Gad B. GKC = Kautzsch, Emil (ed.). 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew Sarfatti, Pin™as Artzi, Jonas C. Greenfield, and grammar. Trans. by Arthur E. Cowley. Oxford: Mena™em Kaddari, 100–125. Ramat-Gan: Bar- Clarendon. Ilan University Press. Joüon, Paul and Takamitsu Muraoka. 2009. A Sivan, Daniel and William Schniedewind. 1993. “Let- grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2nd reprint of the ting your ‘yes’ be ‘no’ in ancient Israel: A study of Journal of Semitic ”. ֲהל ֹא and לא 2nd edition, with corrections. Rome: Gregorian & the asseverative Biblical Press. Studies 38:209–226. van der Merwe, Christo H. J., Jackie A. Naudé, and Snyman, F. P. J. 2004. The scope of the negative lò± Jan H. Kroeze. 1999. A Biblical Hebrew reference in Biblical Hebrew (Acta Academica Supplemen- grammar. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. tum 3). Bloemfontein: UFS-SASOL Library. Miller, Cynthia L. 2005a. “Ellipsis involving nega- Snyman, F. P. J. and Jackie A. Naudé. 2003. “Sen- tion in biblical poetry”. Seeking out the wisdom of tence and constituent-negation in Biblical Hebrew”. the ancients: Essays offered to honor Michael V. Journal for Semitics 12:237–267.

al± אל ,(Steiner, Richard C. 1997. “Ancient Hebrew”. The for a SVO language (Miestamo 2007 lo as sentence negators must directly לא Semitic languages, ed. by Robert Hetzron, 145– and 173. London: Routledge. —en± אין Waltke, Bruce K. and Michael Patrick O’Connor. precede the verb or predicate, as does 1990. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew syntax. except that the latter can directly precede the Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. subject in literary style, in which case it is unin- ka-rega≠ ±en «ara כרגע אין שרה לבד ,.Williams, Ronald J. and John C. Beckman. 2007. flected, e.g Williams’ Hebrew syntax. 3rd edition, revised and en± אין .’expanded. Toronto: University of Toronto. levad ‘at the moment Sara is not alone has a further function, type c in Croft’s typol- Jacobus A. Naudé ogy (1991): a quasi-verb acting as a negative (University of the Free State existential, a counterpart to the present tense Bloemfontein, South Africa) yeš ‘there is/are’ or ‘is יש Gary A. Rendsburg existential quasi-verb ,’en zman ‘there isn’t time± אין זמן ,.Rutgers University) present’, e.g) .’hu ±enenu ‘he isn’t here הוא איננו en and± אין ,Besides their unique morphology yeš fail some syntactic tests for a present יש Negation: Modern Hebrew tense verb, e.g., they never occur after the rela- -sfa ספרים המתקבלים ha-, thus ה- Sentence Negation tive marker .1 rim ha-mitqablim ‘books that are received’ but sfarim ha-±enam *ספרים האינם מתקבלים Sentence negation in Modern Hebrew is syntac- not .’al, mitqablim ‘books that are not received± אל ,tic, chiefly using one of three negators en. (a) For negative 2nd person Overall, then, there is symmetry between± אין lo and לא commands, the canonical form is the particle affirmative and negative structure, save in 2nd al person commands—typologically, a common± אל תזוז ,.al with the bare future tense, e.g± אל tazuz ‘don’t move’; the imperative form is not situation. A counterpart to sentence negators, available in the negative. Formal style also uses the (colloquial) particle of emphatic affirmation זה כן ,.ken directly precedes the predicate, e.g כן אל ,.al in 1st and 3rd person commands, e.g± אל -ze ken zaz ‘it does move’. Evidence that sen זז al niška≤ ‘let us not forget’. (b) In most± נשכח lo is used, e.g., tence negators are internal to the clause is the לא other contexts, the particle -fact that a higher negator can operate in tan אתה לא תזוז ,.in statements and questions, e.g זה לא שהוא ,.ata dem with sentence negation, e.g± אתה לא זז? ,’ata lo tazuz ‘you won’t move± ze lo še-hu lo me≠unyan ‘it’s not that לא מעוניין lo zaz? ‘you aren’t moving?’; in other types of .’he’s not interested שלא ,’lo lazuz ‘no moving לא לזוז ,.request, e.g בוא לא ,’še-lo yazuz ‘he’d better not move יזוז bo lo nazuz ‘let’s not move’; in subordinate 2. Negation Scope נזוז clauses; and as a pro-sentence of various types, lo ‘no, don’t’. A more prohibitive ‘don’t’ The scope of sentence negation generally focuses לא ,.e.g -asur ‘(it is) forbidden’. (c) Formal styles on part of a sentence by one of three meth± אסור is ,en as negator in ods: (a) intonational stress on the constituent± אין favor the use of the particle the present tense, one of several morphological (b) appending an adversative phrase, with the and syntactic differences between present tense option of repositioning the negator directly en is usually inflected for ahead of it, or (c) moving the constituent± אין .and past or future agreement with its subject and needs no overt being negated forward, where possible, and subject in the 1st and 2nd person, as if it were repositioning the negator directly ahead of it: ani lo menaqe ha-yom± אני לא מנקה היום (an auxiliary verb, while any lexical verb pres- (a אני לא מנקה היום (I’m not cleaning today’, (b‘ (אתם) ,.ent continues to inflect as normal, e.g ani lo menaqe ha-yom ±ela ma≤ar± אלא מחר atem) ±enxem zazim ‘You are not±) אינכם זזים אני ara ±ena levad ‘Sara is ‘I’m not cleaning today but tomorrow’ or» שרה אינה לבד ,’moving -ani menaqe lo ha± מנקה לא היום אלא מחר אין not alone’. However, unlike verbs, inflected ±en cannot invert with the subject noun with yom ±ela ma≤ar ‘I’m cleaning not today but ani lo ha-yom± אני לא היום מנקה (tomorrow’ (c *עכשיו אינם זזים אהוד ,.which it agrees, e.g לא אני מנקה ,’axšav ±enam zazim ±ehud ve-«ara ‘now menaqe ‘I’m not cleaning today≠* ושרה lo ±ani menaqe ha-yom ‘I’m not cleaning היום Ehud and Sara are not moving’. As is normal