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

behema be-ßurat ±adam, a loan transla- tihye kaved ‘handle things lightly, with humor אדם tion from JS beema en forma de benadam; (lit: ‘don’t be heavy’; JS no seas pezgado, see amor niš±ar≥ חמור נשאר חמור ;’(bar minan ‘God forbid! (lit. ‘outside pezgado above בר מינן of us’ in Aramaic, originally with reference to ≤amor ‘a stupid person cannot become clever ,gehinam ‘desperate situation’ (lit. ‘a donkey stays a donkey’; JS azno nasio גיהנם ;’(the dead (pronounced ginan in JS; this word, based on azno kedo ‘he was born a donkey, he stays a a place name mentioned in 2 Kgs 23.10, came donkey’)’ (for more examples see Schwarzwald .(Rosenthal 2009 ;1993 חכם ;(to mean ‘hell’ in post-biblical Hebrew oxma≥ חכמה ,’(’axam ‘rabbi (also: ‘smart≥ kapará References כפרה ,’(’great stupidity (lit. ‘wisdom‘ ‘it’s a pity, but don’t worry about it (lit. ‘pen- Rosenthal, Ruvik. 2005. Dictionary of Israeli slang (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Keter. -kaparat Rosenthal, Ruvik. 2009. Dictionary of Hebrew idi כפרת עוונות ance’; an abbreviation of .megila ‘long, oms and phrases (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Keter מגילה ;’(’avonot ‘expiation of sins≠ boring document (lit. ‘scroll’, and also one of Schwarzwald (Rodrigue), Ora. 1993. “Remnants of the ‘Five Scrolls’ in the Bible: Song of Songs, Judeo-Spanish in Modern Hebrew” (in Hebrew). tag">Pe≠amim 57:33–49. Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther)’, Sivan, Reuven. 1990. Moments in the revival of .Hebrew (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Rubinstein מלכים ,’(’mal±ax ‘good person (lit. ‘angel מלאך melaxim ±alef ‘well off’ (from the Hebrew אל"ף Ora (Rodrigue) Schwarzwald ממזר ,(name of the biblical book 1 Kings (Bar-Ilan University) mamzer ‘cunning (lit. ‘bastard’)’. Some of the expressions may be found in Yiddish and other Jewish languages as well, but the fact that in JS their pronunciation was quite similar to that of Juncture (prosodic) Modern Hebrew may have led to their having been borrowed directly from JS. Prosodic juncture concerns the compartmen- Finally, there are very many loan translations talization and partitioning of syntactic enti- that can be attributed to JS, though some of ties in spoken discourse by means of prosodic marking. The suprasegmental intervals that are משנה :them occur in other languages as well mešane maqom mešane mazal the building blocks of the resulting prosodic מקום משנה מזל ‘he who changes places changes luck’ (JS troka structure have been termed ‘intonation units’ lugar troka mazal or abolta kazal abolta mazal (Chafe 1994), ‘intonation(al) phrases’ (Gussen- hoven 2004), ‘intonation-groups’ (Cruttenden הוא אוכל ;(’!change place/village, change luck‘ hu ±oxel li me-ha-yad ‘I support him; 1997), ‘tone groups’ (Halliday and Matthiessen לי מהיד I can manipulate him (lit. ‘he eats from my 2004) and ‘breath groups’ (Grice 2006:778). Izre’el (2005) has suggested that the intonation איך נפלת/ ;’(hand’; JS me komer de la mano ex nafalta/nafalnu ‘what a failure (lit. unit (IU) encapsulates the basic structural unit± נפלנו ‘how you/we fell’, JS: komo kaítes/kaímos)’; of spoken Modern Hebrew, with IU Complex .bala≠ ±et ha-dvarim/ (or Utterance) as a hierarchically higher unit בלע את הדברים/את הלשון ±et ha-lašon ‘he ate his words, regretted (lit. The definition of such IUs remains debated. It ‘swallowed the words/the tongue’; JS englutir seems commonly accepted that IUs are defined by internal criteria (e.g., a “coherent intonation האכיל אותו בכפית ;’(las palavras/ la eluenga he±exil ±oto be-kapit ‘explained in great detail contour” in Chafe 1994; Izre’el 2005; cf. Ladd (lit. ‘fed him with a spoon’, JS: dar a komer kon 1986) as well as by prosodic boundary phenom- .(herim roš ‘was impudent ena (“external criteria” in Cruttenden 1997 הרים ראש ;’(kuchara (lit. ‘raised his head’; JS: alevantar kavesa)’; Some descriptions of prosodic structure argue nafal me-ha-šamayim ‘fell from that the IU should be defined and analyzed נפל מהשמים within a hierarchical framework, which is termed עזוב שטויות ;(the sky’ (JS kayo de los sielos ≠azov štuyot ‘stop the nonsense! (lit. ‘leave the prosodic hierarchy, with smaller prosodic ;sam regel units combining into larger ones (Ladd 1986 שם רגל ;’(stupidities’; JS deša šakas ‘make (someone) trip (lit. ‘put leg’; JS meter el Nespor and Vogel 1986). More recent theo- (en lo dam ‘coward (lit. ‘he has ries of prosody are found in Ladd (1996± אין לו דם ;’(pie no blood’; JS no tiene sangre en las venas ‘he and Gussenhoven (2004). Currently, the most -al widespread phonological framework for rep± אל תהיה כבד ;’(’has not blood in the veins © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 juncture (prosodic) 433 resenting prosodic structure is the autosegmen- 2004, Nara, Japan, March 23–26, 2004: Proceed- tal-metrical framework (Pierrehumbert 1980; ings. SProSIG (ISCA Special Interest Group on Speech Prosody), ed. by Bernard Bel and Isabelle Beckman and Pierrehumbert 1986; Ladd 1996). Marlien, 677–680. Beijing: Chinese Academy of For examples of literature applying this frame- Social Sciences. work to Tiberian Hebrew, see Dresher (1994) Aronoff, Mark and Mary-Louise Kean. 1980. Junc- or DeCaen (2005; 2009). The major tool for ture. Saratoga, California: Anma Libri. Barbosa, Plínio, Sandra Madureira, and César Reis. applying the autosegmental-metrical framework 2008. Proceedings of the speech prosody 2008 is ToBI (Tones and Break Indices; Beckman and conference. Campinas, Brazil. Hirshberg 1994; Beckman and Ayers 1997). For Beckman, Mary and Elam Ayers. 1997. Guidelines applications of this tool to Modern Hebrew, see for ToBI labelling. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University. for example the work of Hila Green (e.g. Green —— and Julia Hirshberg. 1994. The ToBI annota- and Tobin 2008; 2009). tion conventions. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State The boundaries of IUs may be cued by such University. prosodic phenomena as final lengthening (inter —— and Janet Pierrehumbert. 1986. “Intonational structure in Japanese and English”. Phonology alia, Wightman et al. 1992), domain initial 3:255–309. strengthening (Keating et al. 2003), assimila- Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and tion resistance (Nespor and Vogel 1986), pitch time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: Uni- movements (Cruttenden 1997:34; Ladefoged versity of Chicago Press. 2006), fast initial speech (‘anacrusis’ in Chafe Cruttenden, Alan. 1997. Intonation. Cambridge: 1994:59 and Cruttenden 1997:32) or pause Cambridge University Press. (Cruttenden 1997:30). The occurrence and DeCaen, Vincent. 2005. “On the distribution of major and minor pause in Tiberian Hebrew in the the prominence of the cues signaling prosodic light of the variants of the second person inde- juncture differ per language. There is a wide pendent pronouns”. Journal of Semitic Studies range of studies into the acoustic correlates of 50:321–327. IU boundaries in Modern Hebrew. Work on ——. 2009. “Theme and variation in Psalm 111: Phrase and foot in generative-metrical perspec- elicited speech (Laufer 1987; 1996) suggests tive”. Journal of Semitic Studies 54:81–109. the following hierarchy of boundary cues: pitch Dresher, Bezalel Elan. 1994. “The prosodic basis reset > cross-boundary change of speech rate of the Tiberian Hebrew system of accents”. Lan- > pause. An investigation into spontaneous guage 70:1–52. Green, Hila and Yishai Tobin. 2008. “Intonation in Hebrew has shown that speech rate should be Hebrew-speaking children with high-functioning placed higher in the hierarchy: final lengthening autism: A case study”. Barbosa et al. 2008: > pitch reset > pauses > fast initial speech (Amir 237–240. et al. 2004; Izre’el 2009). In a subsequent study ——. 2009. “Prosodic analysis is difficult . . . but worth it: A study in high functioning autism”. fast initial speech was clustered together with International Journal of Speech-Language Pathol- final lengthening into a single rhythm cue high ogy 11:308–315. up in the hierarchy (Silber-Varod and Amir Grice, Martine. 2006. “Intonation”. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2nd edition), ed. by Keith unpublished). Other studies no longer deal with Brown, 778–788. Oxford: Elsevier. initial rush and consider only the left side of the Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone boundary domain, that is the boundary cues at and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University the end of an IU (e.g., Silber-Varod 2011). The Press. Halliday, Michael and Christian Matthiessen. 2004. characteristics of the most frequently occur- An introduction to functional grammar. 3rd edi- ring IU boundary in planned Modern Hebrew tion. London: Edward Arnold. speech have been found to include three bound- Izre’el, Shlomo. 2009. “From Speech to Syntax — ary cues: an ‘up-down’ pitch reset pattern (i.e., From Theory to Transcription” (in Hebrew). Mas’at Aharon: Linguistic Studies Presented to rising tone at the end of an IU and a transition Aron Dotan, ed. by Moshe Bar-Asher and Chaim E. downwards to the onset of the following IU), Cohen, 590–610. Jerusalem: Bialik. final lengthening and pause (Silber-Varod and ——. 2005. “Intonation units and the structure Kessous 2008). of spontaneous spoken language: A view from Hebrew”. Proceedings of the IDP05 International Symposium on Discourse-Prosody Interfaces (CD- References ROM), ed. by Cyril Auran, Roxanne Bertrand, Amir, Noam, Vered Silber-Varod, and Shlomo Catherine Chanet, Annie Colas, Albert Di Cristo, Izre’el. 2004. “Characteristics of intonation unit Cristel Portes, Alain Reynier, and Monique Vion. boundaries in spontaneous spoken Hebrew: Per- Aix-en-Provence, France. Online at http://aune.lpl ception and acoustic correlates”. Speech Prosody .univ-aix.fr/~prodige/idp05/actes/izreel.pdf. © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 434 juridical hebrew Keating, Patricia, Taehong Cho, Cecile Fougeron, couched. Alt’s classic study (Alt 1966) differ- and Chai-Shune Hsu. 2003. “Domain-initial artic- entiated between two major types of juridical ulatory strengthening in four languages”. Phonetic Interpretation, ed. by John Local, Richard Ogden, formulations in Hebrew, ‘casuistic’ and ‘apod- and Rosalind Temple, 143–161. Cambridge: Cam- ictic’, distinguished by a combination of stylis- bridge University Press. tic markers and content. Casuistic laws present Ladd, D. Robert. 1986. “Intonational phrasing: The a hypothetical case and are framed in the con- case for recursive prosodic structure”. Phonology Yearbook 3:311–340. ditional mode. Laws which are not casuistic ——. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: are apodictic. However, as Laserre (1994:xxi) Cambridge University Press. has pointed out, the apodictic category groups Ladefoged, Peter. 2006. A course in phonetics. 5th together too many linguistic types to be useful; edition. Southbank, Victoria, Australia: Thomson, Wadsworth. these include negative and positive commands, Laufer, Asher. 1987. Intonation (in Hebrew). Jeru- participial and relative clauses, and curses. salem: Institute for Judaic Studies, The Hebrew Still, it is possible to differentiate between two University of Jerusalem. categories of legal formulations on the basis of ——. 1996. “Pauses in Fluent Speech and Punctua- tion” (in Hebrew). Studies in Hebrew and Jewish syntactic structure. Some laws describe a situa- Languages Presented to Shelomo Morag, ed. by tion or a potential case, and then stipulate a legal Moshe Bar-Asher, 277–294. Jerusalem: Center for consequence; others instead state positive or Jewish Languages and Literatures, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Bialik. negative commands or permissions. For the first Nespor, Marina and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic type the term ‘casuistic’ can be retained; the sec- phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. ond type will be referred to as an ‘order’, a term Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The phonetics and pho- which subsumes affirmative commands, negative nology of English intonation. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. commands (prohibitions), and permission. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge: 2. Juridical Language of the MIT Press. Bible Silber-Varod, Vered. 2005. Characteristics of prosodic unit boundaries in spontaneous spoken Hebrew: Perceptual and acoustic analysis (in Most of the Bible’s casuistic laws are arranged Hebrew; English abstract). MA thesis, Tel-Aviv in what are called ‘codes’: the Covenant Code University. (Exod. 20.19–23.33), the Priestly Code (Exod. ——. 2011. The SpeeCHain Perspective: Prosodic- Syntactic Interface in Spontaneous Spoken Hebrew. 25–31; 34.29–Lev. 16; and parts of Numbers), PhD dissertation, Chaim Rosenberg School of Jew- the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–27), and the Deu- ish Studies, Tel Aviv University. teronomy Code (Deut. 12–26). Casuistic laws —— and Noam Amir. “Acoustic cues of intonation in the Hebrew Bible are most often formulated unit boundaries in spontaneous Hebrew speech”. Unpublished Ms. as conditional sentences. The condition clause —— and Loïc Kessous. 2008. “Prosodic boundary (protasis) in such laws is commonly introduced ,’kì, ‘when, in the case that ִכּי patterns in Hebrew: A case study of continuous by the particle intonation units in weather forecast”. Barbosa et al. 2008:265–268. which may be preceded by a noun (the most nÆƒÆš ֶנ ֶפשׁ ìš ‘man’ and± ִאישׁ Wightman, Colin, Stephanie Shattuck-Hufnagel, frequent being Mari Ostendorf, and Patti Price. 1992. “Segmental ‘soul, person’). If another, subordinate case duration in the vicinity of prosodic phrase bounda- is adjoined to the law, it is introduced by ries”. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America aú± ַאְך ִאם ,’o ‘or± אוֹ ,’wë-)±im ‘(and) if) (ְו) ִאם .1717–91:1707 /wë-håy< å< ±im/kì ‘and if ְו ָה ָיה ִאם/ ִכּי ’,im ‘but if± ’wë-±im . . . kì ‘and if/when ְו ִאם . . . ִכּי Hans Rutger Bosker when’, or wë-±im-nÆƒÆš kì μÆ™(†å< ‘If a ְו ִא ֙ ֶם־נ ֶפ ֙שׁ ִ ֣כּי ֶ ֽת ֱח ָ֔טא) (Leiden University) person sins’ [Lev. 5.17]). The verbs in both the condition (protasis) Juridical Hebrew and the consequence (apodosis) clauses may be in the second or third person imperfect, 1. Terminology and or the third person imperfect in the condition Classification clause and a perfect with waw consecutive in the consequence clause. The verb in the condi- ִ ֤כּי ַא ָתּ ֙ה ,.Juridical formulas are syntactic structures tion clause can also be a participle, e.g >kì ±attå ָ ֣בּא ֶא ָל־ה ָ֔אֶרץ ֲא ֶשׁ ְר־י ָ ֥הוה ֱא ֶ ֹ֖להיָך ֹנ ֵ ֣תן ָ ֑לְך in which legal, moral, or religious laws are © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3