ENCYCLOPEDIA of HEBREW LANGUAGE and LINGUISTICS Volume 3 P–Z

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS Volume 3 P–Z

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

Talmudic literature, ed. by Mena™em Zevi Kadd- Shim’on Sharvit, xx–xxx. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan ari and Shim’on Sharvit, 169–174. Ramat-Gan: University press. Bar-Ilan University press. Segal, Moshe H. 1927. A grammar of Mishnaic ——. 1991. Post-Biblical Hebrew syntax and seman- Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon. tics: Diachronic studies in Hebrew (in Hebrew). ——. 1928. “On the structure of oath and vow 2 vols. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. statements in Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu ——. 1998. “On deontic modality in Mishnaic 1:215–227. Hebrew”. Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew (Scripta ——. 1932. “The structure of conditional clauses” Hierosolymitana 37), ed. by Moshe Bar-Asher and (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 4:191–211. Steven E. Fassberg, 197–217. Jerusalem: Magnes. ——. 1936. A grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (in Khan, Geoffrey. 2006. “Some aspects of the copula Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Dvir. in North West Semitic”. Biblical Hebrew in its Sharvit, Shim’on. 1998. “Infinival sentences in Mish- Northwest Semitic setting: Typological and his- naic Hebrew: A syntactic and semantic study”. torical perspectives, ed. by Steven E. Fassberg and Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew (Scripta Hierosolymi- Avi Hurvitz, 155–176. Jerusalem: Magnes and tana 37), ed. by Moshe Bar-Asher and Steven E. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Fassberg, 336–348. Jerusalem: Magnes. Kutscher, Eduard Yechezkel. 1962. “The language ——. 2008. Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew (in Hebrew). of the Hebrew and Aramaic letters of Bar-Kose∫a Jerusalem: Bialik Institute. and its generation, second article: The Hebrew let- Waldman, Nahum M. 1989. The recent study of ter” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 26:7–23. Hebrew: A survey of the literature with selected ——. 1982. A history of the Hebrew language. bibliography. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Ed. by Raphael Kutscher. Jerusalem: Magnes and Press. Leiden: Brill. Kurzon, Dennis. 1980. “Iconic syntax in rabbinical Moshe Azar codes”. The Jewish Law Annuals 3:71–83. (University of Haifa, Emeritus) Mishor, Mordechay. 1983. “The tense system in Tannaitic Hebrew” (in Hebrew). PhD dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Moreshet, Mena™em. 1983. “The predicate that pre- Syntax: Modern Hebrew cedes two subjects in Rabbinic Hebrew with references to Modern Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Hebrew language studies presented to professor Ze’ev Ben- 1. Introduction £ayyim, ed. by Moshe Bar-Asher, Aron Dotan, Gad B. Sarfatti, and David Téné, 359–378. Jeru- Modern Hebrew is a fusion language, includ- salem: Magnes. in Mish- ing elements from all the historical layers of את Oron, Yokheved. 1989. “Nominative naic Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Studies in the Hebrew the language. To quote Ben-£ayyim (1992:59), language and the Talmudic literature, ed. by “nothing in it has died and so there exist— Mena™em Zevi Kaddari and Shim’on Sharvit, and are in use—different chronological layers 27–34. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. Peretz, Yitzhaq. 1967. The relative clause (in side by side, not on top of one another as in Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Dvir. languages with a historic continuity”. How- ín our ever, very frequently, in cases in which A אַל Qimron, Elisha. 1983. “The particle ancient sources” (in Hebrew). Hebrew Language succeeds A of an earlier layer of Hebrew, both studies presented to professor Ze’ev Ben-£ayyim, ed. by Moshe Bar-Asher, Aaron Dotan, Gad B. A and A´ coexist, though differentiated either Sarfatti, and David Téné. Jerusalem: Magnes. functionally or stylistically. In addition, apart ——. 1992. “Considerations on modal tenses from recent grammaticalizations and pragma- in Mishnaic Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 55:89–96. tizations, there are also inherited constructions Sarfatti, Gad B. 1980. “Determination of fixed that are reinterpreted under the influence of phrases formed by means of the construct state in similar constructions found in the contact- Mishnaic Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Studies in Hebrew languages to which Hebrew speakers/writers and Semitic languages dedicated to the memory of Prof. Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, ed. by Gad B. have been exposed over the more than one Sarfatti, Pin™as Artzi, Jonas C. Greenfield, and hundred years of its existence, especially Slavo- Mena™em Zevi Kaddari, 140–154. Ramat-Gan: Yiddish at the revival time and English in more Bar-Ilan University Press. recent decades. ——. “The prosodic function of the definite article in Rabbinic Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu Unlike morphology, the syntax of Mod- 44:185–201. ern Hebrew is dynamic and subject to rapid ——. 1989. “Definiteness in noun-adjective phrases changes. The microsyntax (‘internal form’) of in Rabbinic Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Studies in Modern Hebrew is Semitic (Goldenberg 1996), the Hebrew language and the Talmudic literature: Dedicated to the memory of Dr. Mena™em though there are a few scholars who con- Moreshet, ed. by Mena™em Zevi Kaddari and tend that it is a distinct Europanized language

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 708 syntax: modern hebrew different from its classical Semitic origin (Rosén constructs the plural is suffixed to the genitive suggested that it be renamed ‘Israeli Hebrew’). noun, at the end of the construct form, and not bar בר מצוות ,.Yet, the macrosyntax displays strong influence to the construct head noun, e.g of European languages. Its Semitic essence is mißvot ‘parties of Bar-Mitzva’, instead of nor- bne mißva. In contemporary בני מצווה clearly demonstrated by the use of the pure mative יותר/פחות nominal clause (lacking a copula; Nominal Hebrew the comparative determiners Clause), word order of determinant noun co-occur occasionally as superlatives (possibly before determiner ( Word Order), agreement English-induced). As a result, the definite article between noun and adjective ( Agreement), is not attached to the adjective as normatively and the profuse use of the genitive construc- required, but is rather preposed as a definite היא אחת ,.tion of construct state nominals ( Construct marker of the entire phrase, e.g hi a≤at ha-«a≤qaniyot השחקניות היותר מוכשרות -State). Unlike some other spoken Semitic lan guages (e.g., neo-Aramaic and neo-Ethiopian ha-yoter muxšarot ‘she is one of the most tal- languages), Modern Hebrew still preserves the ented actresses’. inherited (Hebrew, Semitic) patterns of verbs A deviation from the classical order of deter- and nouns. Synthetic verb and noun patterns, minate before determiner and from agreement however, are employed in complementary dis- in definiteness occurs in a very limited number tribution with analytic constructions comprised of cases, crucially where the determiner is השחקנית ,.of a semantically depleted verb or noun and a interpreted as a ‘semantic prefix’, e.g -ha-«a≤qanit ha-safeq הספק-ילדה ספק-אישה nominal adjunct carrying the lexical burden of the expression (Halevy 2000b). Transitiv- yalda safeq-±iša ‘the semi-child semi-woman -ha-heqšer ha-≤uß ההקשר החוץ-לשוני ;’ization of unergative/unaccusative ( Unac- actress cusative) verbs is spreading within present-day lešoni ‘the extra-linguistic context’. Hebrew, while, on the other hand, there is a The definite article is encoded in the voca- dan דן היקר ,’ha-more ‘Teacher המורה ,.remarkable expansion of datival constructions tive, e.g ( Dative). ha-yaqar ‘Dear Dan’. In colloquial language, Modern Hebrew is susceptible to rapid pro- however, undetermined vocatives prevail, too גברת ,.cesses of change not only because of its inten- (possibly Yiddish/English-induced), e.g מותק, ;’nehag ‘driver נהג ;’sive exposure to European languages, but also gveret ‘Miss, Lady -moteq, ma qara? ‘Sweetie, what hap מה קרה? due to the special circumstances of its relatively recent revival as a medium of everyday and pened?’. In the case of inalienable nouns (nouns spoken language confronting new semantic and of appurtenance) the definite article is an imper- pragmatic needs. sonal marker which can only be replaced by a הלב נשבר ,.possessive pronoun or suffix, e.g 2. Determination ha-lev nišbar ‘one’s heart breaks’. With nouns ( Definite Article) denoting time the definite article denotes ‘this’, ha-≠erev ‘this evening’. In colloquial הערב ,.e.g Modern Hebrew has retained the classical discourse the definite article serves frequently for האמא הזאת, תמיד מתע־ ,.agreement between noun and adjective, includ- emotive meaning, e.g (ha-±ima ha-zot, tamid mit≠arevet ‘That (the רבת ing demonstrative modifiers following a head !חכם, היוסי הזה ;’noun, not only in gender and number, but also Mum, she always interferes in definiteness. However, with respect to the ≤axam, ha-yosi ha-ze! ‘That (the-) Yossi is marking of definiteness in the construct state smart!’. there is often inconsistency between normative Generic nouns are commonly marked by a ha-dat הדת ,.and casual usage. While in normative usage neutralized definite article, e.g the definite article is attached only once, to ‘religion’. In equational sentences the generic the genitive noun, in colloquial language it noun may alternatively co-occur in the indefi- may be preposed to the entire construct state, nite form, namely without any special mark- (pengwin hu ≠of ‘(the פינגווין הוא עוף ,.particularly, but not only, in highly lexical- ing, e.g ha-≠orex din penguin is a bird’ ( Generic). Hebrew has העורך דין ,.ized constructs, e.g orex ha-din; only definite articles, hence colloquial language≠ עורך הדין the lawyer’, instead of‘ and in the same fashion in some lexicalized utilizes various devices to denote indefiniteness,

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 syntax: modern hebrew 709 semi-copular forms. While 3rd person copular אחד particularly use of the unstressed numeral ±e≤ad (and respectively in feminine and plural pronouns function as identifiers or classifiers of -the subject-noun, ze often functions as a com פגשתי ,.ezo), e.g± איזו eze (fs± איזה forms) and ,(pagašti ba≤ur ±e≤ad/±eze ment on the subject-noun (Rosén 1977a:247 בחור אחד/איזה בחור yeladim ze «im≤a ‘Children ילדים זה שמחה ,.ba≤ur ‘I met some guy’ (Agmon-Fruchtman e.g 1982; Wintner 2000; for a generative account are (=means) happiness’. see Danon 2001). 4. Nominal Predicates 3. The Copula Suffixed with a Pronominal ( Copula; Nominal Clause; Extraposition) Subject In Biblical Hebrew 3rd person pronouns in the middle or at the end of a nominal sen- Unlike verbal predicates, the subject of a nomi- tence stand for resumptive pronouns of an nal predicate is not included in it. Nevertheless, extraposition construction (used in 3rd person in some exceptional cases a nominal predica- even when the subject is a 1st or 2nd person tion can co-occur with a suffixed pronomi- pronoun). However, due to the weakening nal subject, e.g., as person-like copular, e.g., harehu ‘he is’; as object-like הריהו / hino הינו of nominal sentences and to the fact that the expressive value of the extraposition is worn personal pronoun attached to an existential yešnam ±anašim ‘there are ישנם אנשים :out, 3rd person pronouns evolved in Mod- verboid ern Hebrew into agreement markers reinter- people’ (employed in Modern Hebrew only for enxa± אינך מחובר preted as copular markers similar to verbal 3rd person); and respectively forms in Indo-European languages (Berman me≤ubar ‘you are not connected’. Reduced and Grosu 1976; Goldenberg 2005; for gen- nominal predicates suffixed by possessive pro- erative accounts see Doron 1986; Greenberg nouns occur occasionally in some restricted -ha-hefex hu forms of one-term sentences (infrequently evi ההיפך הוא הנכון ,.e.g ,(2008 ;2002 ašrexa± אשריך ,.ha-naxon ‘the opposite is the truth’. Copular denced in Biblical Hebrew), e.g ;’(’ze ‘it/this’, ‘you must be lucky (lit. ‘your happiness זה markers can be realized with tiqvati ‘(it is) my hope (=‘I hope’)’. In תקוותי זהו-זה ,.ma ‘what’, e.g מה mi ‘who’, and מי zehu-ze ‘that’s it’ (available only in 3rd person some rare cases the reduced nominal predicate bi-rßoni ברצוני ,.be- ‘in’, e.g ב- mihu ha-mevugar is preceded by מיהו המבוגר כאן? ;(singular mahu ‘(it) is my wish (lit. ‘in my desire’)’. Reduced מהו חופש? ;’?kan? ‘Who is the adult here ≤ofeš? ‘what is freedom?’. Modern Hebrew predicates suffixed by a 1st person singular pro- currently employs 3rd personal pronouns for noun can be encountered in a limited number ,.of participles of Rabbinic Hebrew origin, e.g אני הוא המנהל ,.fronting and topicalization, e.g ki-mdumani ‘it seems to כמדומני / domani דומני ani hu ha-menahel ‘I (and nobody else) am± the manager’. Extraposed constructions with me (lit. ‘seem I/as seem I’)’. A nominal predica- postposed 3rd person independent pronouns tion composed of a free personal pronoun followed by a nominal predicate (rare in Biblical לא ,.attested in Biblical Hebrew) are rare, e.g) אני תקווה ,.lo kol ha-noßeß zahav hu ‘all Hebrew; Kogut 1993) is unusual, e.g כל הנוצץ זהב הוא kuli tiqva ‘I hope/I have כולי תקווה / that glitters is not gold (lit. “not all that glitters ±ani tiqva .’(’hine hope (lit. ‘I am hope’ / ‘I am all hope הנה ,gold [is] he”)’. In formal language (lit. ‘here, behold’) plus a suffixed pronoun Inherited adverbial gerundives, almost exclu- -sively time adverbials, suffixed by a posses הדיבור הינו מאפיין של ,.features as copula, e.g ha-dibur hino me±afyen šel ha- sive-like pronominal subject are employed in המין האנושי min ha-±enoši ‘speaking is a characteristic of Modern Hebrew in a very limited fashion and the human species’. In colloquial language, only in formal language and journalistic writ- be-šuvo ‘on his returning (when בשובו ,.ze ‘it (lit. ‘this’)’ ing, e.g זה ,noninflected, invariable features instead of 3rd person copular forms, he returned)’. Construct states with a gerundive ha-ma†ara ze (hi) head appear almost exclusively in lexicalized המטרה זה (היא) ללמוד ,.e.g be-vo ha-yom ‘when בבוא היום ,.lilmod ‘the goal is to learn’. Yet, frequently phrases, e.g there is a functional distribution between these the day comes’.

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 710 syntax: modern hebrew 5. Possessive Constructions tic, and sometimes syntactic) between these and the Genitive Relation inherited constructions. The construct state ( Possession; Genitive) is the bound and lexicalized form, preserved for vocabulary extension by lexicalized com- Modern Hebrew is a ‘non-habere’ language, pounds, and for annexation of definite nouns with no distinct verb meaning ‘have’ or ‘pos- and numerals. The analytic šel-phrase, on the sess’. To mark possession Hebrew employs an other hand, is the free construction, the rela- existential predicate, for present tense the ver- tions between its components more transpar- en in negative), and inflected ent. In colloquial language this construction is± אין) yeš יש boid haya ‘be’ elsewhere, a datival noun or pro- preferred particularly, but not exclusively, to היה noun marking the possessor, and a noun denot- express possessive relationships. Nonetheless, -yeš li sefer ‘I it should be stressed that the semantic relation יש לי ספר ,.ing the possessee, e.g have a book (lit. “there is to me [a] book”)’. ships between the constituents in the genitive However, as a presentational noun (non-topi- construction are very wide-ranging, and that cal) the syntactic position of the possessee-noun possessiveness is only one of them. Inherited is not clear, as in the definite construction it is paronomastic constructs, mostly in the plural typically encoded (in possessive and existen- (like in Rabbinic Hebrew), are utilized for be-qole qolot בקולי קולות ,.tial constructions alike) with features normally intensification, e.g .’(’very loudly (lit. ‘in/with voices of voices‘ יש לי את הספר ,.associated with the object, e.g yeš li ±et ha-sefer ve-yeš ±oto Definite constructs comprised of an adjectival ויש אותו גם בספריה gam ba-sifriya ‘I have (object marker) the book head (singular or plural) and a construct noun and it (±et-direct object pronoun) is also in the in the plural function as superlative genitives, -gdole ha-±omanim ‘the great גדולי האמנים ,.library’ (Glinert 1990; Henkin 1994). In col- e.g loquial language, there is occasionally a lack est artists’. In newly emerging compounds with of agreement between the existential predicate a nominal component reanalyzed as a semantic and the noun, whether representing the pos- suffix or prefix, the morphosyntactic properties sessed object or the subject-argument (Kuzar of the classical construct are not strictly kept, -evrat/≤evra-bat ‘daugh≥ חברת/חברה-בת ,.e.g .(345–2002:343 (ha-)±av-†ipus ‘(the) (ה)אב-טיפוס ,’Possessive datives encoded without the ter company yeš/haya as commonly prototype’ (Kahana 1998). Analytic šel-phrases יש/היה overt existential used in Biblical Hebrew can be encountered are currently utilized for metaphorical quantifi- gal šel גל של קונים ,.cation and qualification, e.g (היה היה ,.in some special environments, e.g חומה של שתיקה ;’hayo haya melex) ve-lo qonim lit. ‘wave of shoppers) מלך) ולו שלוש בנות šaloš banot ‘(Once upon a time there was a ≤oma šel štiqa lit. ‘wall of silence’. An innovation king) and he had three daughters (lit. ‘to him of Modern Hebrew (possibly Yiddish- or Eng- la- lish-inspired) is the construction of the emotive לכובע שלי שלוש פינות ;’(’three daughters kova≠ šeli šaloš pinot ‘my hat has three corners genitive, in which the head noun is an attribute- noun preceding the noun which denotes the בקשה לי אליך ;’(’lit. ‘to my hat three corners) baqaša li ±elexa ‘I have a request of you (lit. owner of the attribute (unlike the usual order of ‘a request to me to you’)’. The genitive rela- head noun followed by modifier), but the sec- tion provides Modern Hebrew with a rich ond noun is the one which controls the agree- and varied set of constructions for expressing ment of the nominal phrase (Halevy 2000a), hi moteq šel yalda ‘she היא מותק של ילדה ,.the relation between two nouns, or between a e.g noun and its modifier. Modern Hebrew inte- is a sweetie of a girl (lit. ‘sweetness of a girl’)’. grates the Biblical annexation in the construct Double genitive constructions, with a posses- state along with the post-Biblical (Mishnaic) sive pronoun agreeing with the adjunct noun šel-phrase and double genitive ( Construct and suffixed to the initial head noun, are found kar†is-≤aver only in formal language and denote almost כרטיס-חבר ,.State; Genitive), e.g ,.kar†is šel exclusively possessiveness and ownership, e.g כרטיס של חבר ,’member(ship) card‘ -hoda≠ato šel ha-«ar ‘the min הודעתו של השר כרטיסו של חבר ,’aver ‘a friend’s card/ticket≥ kar†iso šel ≤aver lit. ‘card/ticket of his of a ster’s announcement’ (Rosén 1977a:149–160, friend’. Modern Hebrew has, however, devel- 179–184; Berman 1978:231–323; Azar 1986; oped a functional distinction (stylistic, seman- Glinert 1989:24–49). © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 syntax: modern hebrew 711 In addition, Modern Hebrew makes ample inalienability (appurtenance) and alienability b«ari ‘my בשרי (use of the inherited adjectival constructs. The (non-appurtenance possession ’ha-ba«ar šeli ‘my meat הבשר שלי reversed adjectival construct’ co-occurs in lexi- flesh’ versus‘ yeled (Rosén 1977a:151–153). The possessive dative ילד קצר ראיה ,.calized expressions, e.g qßar re±iya ‘a shortsighted boy’ (Goldenberg is currently employed when referring to an 1996:170–173; Halevy 2000b; for a different affected possessor, crucially of an inalienable ko±ev li ha-roš ‘I have כואב לי הראש ,.perspective see Rosén 1968:98–101); and also object, e.g adjectival constructs with stative verbs, nota- an headache (lit. “aches to me the head”)’. bly verbs of abundance and wearing/covering be- 6. The Function of Pronouns ב- otherwise co-occurring with applicative qarqa≠ revuyat קרקע רווית מים ,.with’, e.g‘ Although insertion of overt pronouns (crucially חייל חבוש ;’mayim ‘watered/saturated land ayal ≤avuš qasda ‘helmet-wearing sol- in 1st and 2nd person) is not necessary with≥ קסדה dier’ (Bliboim 2000). Modern Hebrew also has past and future tense forms, they are encoded at its disposal, however, the option of encod- for expressive purposes, for highlighting the ואת—מה את אומרת? (ing adjectival phrases in a head plus adjunct subject (as topic or focus e≠ar qal le-seruq ve-±at—ma ±at ±omeret? lit. ‘and you—what do» שיער קל לסירוק ,.relation, e.g ze ±ani (še-)nißa≤ti זה אני (ש)ניצחתי ;’?easy-to-comb hair’. Biblical construct states you say‘ may also stand for periphrastic adjectives, e.g., ‘it is me who won’; or for marking contrastive ata dibarta± אתה דיברת ואני עשיתי ,.anašim) bne tarbut ‘civi- subjects, e.g± ) (אנשים) בני תרבות .’(ešet ≤evra ‘socialite’ va-±ani ≠a«iti ‘you spoke and I have done (it± אשת חברה ,’(lized (people (Goldenberg 1998d). There is a requirement for an explicit 3rd Encoding denominative adjectives with suffix person subject, whether noun or pronoun, ,i in competition with the classical construct much more than in previous layers of Hebrew- -י avar šelah hu≥ חבר שלה הוא באותו חוג ,.represents a departure from classical Hebrew. e.g Unlike in classical Hebrew where the denomi- be-±oto ≤ug ‘her boy-friend is (lit. ‘he’) in the native adjective ( Adjective) with the suffix same department’; notably in topicalization, —ha-horim ההורים—הם תמיד יעמדו לצידנו ,.i mainly indicates ‘someone or a collec- e.g- -י tive of the origin of’, in Modern Hebrew it is hem tamid ya≠amdu le-ßidenu ‘parents—they’ll דני ,.employed as a suffix of denominative adjectives always be on our side’; by duplication, e.g dani hu hu ha-zoxe ‘Dani (and הוא הוא הזוכה indifferent to their meaning, and it has become a major device for denominal adjective forma- none else) is (lit. ‘he he’) the winner’; or as a כל אדם והשקפותיו הוא tion. Noun phrases with denominative adjec- retrospective pronoun tives first deployed in Modern Hebrew at the kol ±adam ve-hašqafotav hu ‘each person and revival time under the influence of Russian as his own views (lit. ‘his views he’)’. In some equivalents to the inherited classical constructs exceptional cases of highly literal register, the (Rosén 1977a:192; 1977b:118). Contemporary 3rd person singular pronoun is employed with Hebrew, however, has developed a functional an endophoric function (referring to previously הוא אשר/ ,.differentiation between them and the construct mentioned content in the text), e.g hu ±ašer/še-±amarti ‘that is what (lit. ‘he שאמרתי ’ßevet refu±i ‘medical staff צוות רפואי ,.state, e.g (consisting of various professionals in the medi- that’) I said’. Yet, 3rd person verbal forms are ßevet rof ±im ‘phy- often to be found without an overt pronoun צוות רופאים cal area) versus sicians’ staff’ (consisting of medical doctors) (treated in generative framework as ‘pro-drop’) (Taube 1990). Denominative adjectives of this ( Pro-Drop), e.g., in both embedded and ≠dani yada דני ידע שייכשל kind are excluded from predicative position. coordinated clauses The semantic and syntactic composition of še-yikašel ‘Dani knew that he would fail (3rd dani דני לא למד, ולכן נכשל ;’(such phrases is similar to that of phraseo- person pro-drop logical expressions of noun +adjective (Rosén lo lamad, ve-laxen nixšal ‘Dani didn’t study and 1977a:83–93; Halevy 1992:531). therefore (he) failed (3rd person pro-drop)’; in Modern Hebrew employs both bound and narrative discourse as a stylistic device for עקב אחריה כשיצאה ,.free possessive pronouns for purposes of sty- creating continuity, e.g aqav ±a≤areha kše-yaß±a≠ וחשב מה יאמר לה listic variation or, occasionally, differentiates them semantically, e.g., for distinction between ve-≤ašav ma yomar lah ‘he followed (3rd person © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 712 syntax: modern hebrew pro-drop) her when she left (3rd person pro- The conventionalized pronominal reciprocal drop) and he thought (3rd person pro-drop) expression ( Reciprocals) in Modern Hebrew what he would say (3rd person pro-drop) to is the Rabbinic Hebrew construction of a dou- ze . . . ze זה . . . זה bled demonstrative pronoun במאמר ,.her’; and also in relative clauses, e.g ba-ma±amar še-hißig ba- ‘each other, one another (lit. ‘this (ms) . . . this שהציג בכנס הודה ל-. . . kenes hoda l-. . . ‘in the paper that he introduced (ms)’)’, where the demonstratives are inflected (3rd person pro-drop) at the conference he for gender and number. This reciprocal con- זה ,.thanked (3rd person pro-drop) . . .’. 3rd person struction is susceptible to mixed gender (e.g zo [fs] . . . ), though this is frowned זו . . . [plural verb forms without the explicit pronoun ze [ms are currently used to designate impersonality upon by ‘purists’. The reciprocal expression e≤ad . . . ha-šeni ‘each other, one± אחד . . . השני .(Impersonal Constructions) (Bar 2007 ) (Pro)nominal expressions of generic ref- another (lit. ‘the one [ms] . . . the second [ms]’)’ erence in Modern Hebrew can also express (also available in the feminine) is an innovation impersonal views by using generic nouns and of Modern Hebrew. In higher registers it may be ha-±e≤ad . . . mišnehu האחד . . . משנהו replaced by הבנאדם צריך גם ליהנות מהחיים ,.pronouns, e.g ha-ben±adam ßarix gam lehanot me-ha-≤ayim ‘a ‘each other, one another (lit. ‘the one . . . his man also needs to enjoy (his) life’ (colloquial); second one’)’ (restricted to masculine singular). iš . . . re≠ehu איש . . . רעהו The biblical expression אנשים צריכים גם ליהנות מהחיים or alternatively ±anašim ßrixim gam lehanot me-ha-≤ayim ‘peo- ‘each other, one another (lit. ‘a man . . . his com- ple also need to enjoy (their) life’. A generic 2nd panion’)’ (available also in feminine singular) person masculine singular pronoun is employed represents a higher register (Halevy 2011a; in speech acts expressing advice, instructions, 2011b). The reflexive pronoun in Modern Hebrew אם אתה בצרה אתה ,.and general truth, e.g im ±ata be-ßara ±ata mitqašer ( Reflexive) is the grammaticalized inflected± מתקשר לשגרירות eßem ‘self (lit. ‘bone’)’, which came≠ עצם la-šagrirut ‘if you (generic) are in trouble you noun (generic) call the embassy’. into use in the post-biblical period. Modern Apart from lexical, inflected demonstratives Hebrew also encodes reflexivity in the morpho- ( Demonstrative Pronouns; Deixis) there is logical verbal patterns of hitpa≠el (commonly) widespread use in the current language of and nif ≠al (rarely), as in Biblical Hebrew and ze ‘it’ in the follow- unlike in Mishnaic Hebrew, where the reflexive זה (invariable (concordless ing functions: (a) as a pro-copular marker and is almost exclusively encoded in the syntactic particularly as a comment on the subject-noun construction of a transitive verb and inflected (see above); (b) as a reference to a situation reflexive pronoun ≠eßem ‘self’ ( Binyanim: known in the discourse, or alternatively as Modern Hebrew). The functional distinction a conceptually empty pro-subject (expletive), between reflexives expressed in verbal mor- kax/kaxa ze ba-≤ayim phology and in those expressed by syntactic כך/ככה זה בחיים ,.e.g ze margiš constructions in Modern Hebrew occasionally זה מרגיש נעים ;’it is like that in life‘ מכר ,.na≠im (colloquial) ‘it feels good (nice)’; (c) as results in semantic differentiation e.g maxar ≠aßmo ‘(he) sold himself’ versus עצמו רק זה חסר לי, ,.a means of foregrounding, e.g .’hitmaker ‘(he) became addicted התמכר raq ze ≤aser li, lihyot ≤ole ‘this is להיות חולה זה ;’what I’m missing (sarcastically), to be ill ze hu še-nißea≤ ‘it is he who won’; 7. Impersonal Constructions הוא שניצח (d) in emphatic context, e.g., in exclamatory ( Impersonal Constructions) zehu-ze siyamnu זהו-זה סיימנו expressions, like ze Impersonalization is associated with agency זה מה-זה משעמם ;’that’s it, we’ve finished‘ ma-ze meša≠amem ‘this is so boring’; and in defocusing and generalization of habitual states -ex of affairs, or, rather, with lack of a distinct (indi איך זה (ש)שכחת ,.rhetorical questions, e.g ze (še-)šaxa≤ta ‘how did you forget (lit. ‘how viduated, referential) subject. Different con- is it that you forgot’)’; (e) in formal register, structions ranging on a descending cline from as part of a temporal adverbial phrase (pre- 3rd person plural active to passive and middle sumably remnant of an adverbial clause), e.g., voice are employed for denoting an action of an .(mi-)ze zman rav ‘it has been a long unspecified agent (Taube 2007; Berman 2011) (מ)זה זמן רב time (since)’ (Halevy 2006). In addition, there is a paradigm consisting of © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 syntax: modern hebrew 713 different parts of speech for weather, circum- experiencer role (frequently with evaluatives, stantial (‘thetic’) predicates, and modal and rarely with modals) is involved, it invariably aval li≥ חבל לי להפסיד evaluative predicates of syntactically, morpho- appears in the dative logically, and lexically mixed groups, lacking lehafsid ‘(it’s) a pity if I lose (lit. ‘pity to me to זה (pronominal and number marking (known in lose’)’. Insertion of non-lexical (expletive ,agam, an acronym ze ‘it’ is confined to more colloquial registers≥ חג"מ Hebrew literature as ze hirgiš זה הרגיש לי מוזר לשמוע את זה ,.aser guf u-min ‘lacking person e.g≥ חסר גוף ומין for and number’, suggested by Rosén 1977a:220). li muzar lišmoa≠ ±et ze ‘it felt strange to me to Unlike their restricted occurrence in Bibli- hear that’. A subset of subjectless predicates cal Hebrew, impersonal passives in 3rd per- includes one-term sentences consisting of a תפקידך לדאוג ,.son singular are common in Modern Hebrew, noun and suffixed pronoun, e.g tafqidxa lid±og la-seder ‘(it’s) your duty to לסדר generally as a more formal alternative to their active-voice plural-verb counterparts. They can worry about (i.e., take care of) order’ (Rosén be derived from transitive as well as from 1977a:218–222; Kuzar 2000). lo yesula≤ lo לא יסולח לו ,.intransitive verbs, e.g ‘he will not be forgiven (lit. ‘[it] will not be for- 8. Grammaticalization of hu≤la† Function Words הוחלט לשנות את החוק ;’(’given to him lešanot ±et ha-≤oq ‘(it) was decided to change ( Grammaticalization) hu≤la† še-ha-≤oq הוחלט שהחוק ישונה / ’the law yešune ‘(it) was decided that the law would/will Modern Hebrew has developed pronominal be changed’. In some fixed expressions, such as determiners (adjectives) which did not exist hu≤la† ‘decided’ above, the impersonal passive earlier and has also reanalyzed some inherited preserves the verb-governed preposition, e.g., nominal and adverbial adjuncts. The bound oto (and its other 3rd אותו hu≤la† ≠al ‘it has been decided upon’. accusative 3rd person הוחלט על The 3rd person masculine plural of an active- person counterparts), which functioned in Rab- voice verb is the unmarked construction for binic Hebrew as an anaphoric demonstrative ,(’oto ±adam ‘that man± אותו אדם ,.denoting a depersonalized discourse stance in pronoun (e.g standard Modern Hebrew. Unlike the imper- has been reanalyzed in Modern Hebrew (possi- sonal passive and middle voice, 3rd plural bly under the influence of European languages) impersonals express agentivity, i.e., they refer as a signifier of intense identification, conveying קניתי ,.to the action of a presupposed but indetermi- the meaning of ‘that very, self same’, e.g qaniti ±oto ma≤šev ‘I bought the אותו מחשב הרסו ,.nate human agent (Taube 2007:280), e.g et may± את harsu ±et ha-bayit ‘they demolished/ same computer’. The object marker את הבית ha-bayit be added regardless of the apparent duplication הבית נהרס destroyed the house’ versus neheras ‘the house was destroyed’. Past tense that results, and even with no definite article ,.ha- (the definite article is optional), e.g ה- ,is associated with more specific information (-qaniti ±et ±oto (ha קניתי את אותו (ה)מחשב whereas the use of the timeless or habitual present or of the irrealis mood typically reflects ma≤šev ‘I bought that same computer’, and in -qan קניתי אותו מחשב כמו שלך colloquial usage אם שותים לא ,.a generalized point of view, e.g im šotim lo nohagim ‘if (when) you drink iti ±oto ma≤šev kmo šelxa ‘I bought the same± נוהגים (3mpl impersonal) you don’t drive (3mpl)’. computer as yours’. Yet, its original meaning as The paradigm of modals and evaluatives an anaphoric demonstrative still prevails in the agam) is one of the most dynamic and standard written language (Agmon-Fruchtman≥ חג"ם) heterogeneous paradigms prevalent in Modern 1982:20; Glinert 1989:97). Hebrew. Consider, for example, an evalua- An innovation of Modern Hebrew is the ’ke- ‘as כ- ka-ze composed of כזה adjective מעצבן לחכות tive, subjectless, finite verb like ze זה me≠aßben le≤akot ‘(it’s) annoying to wait’. incorporating the definite article and (ka-±ele כאלה ka-zot, cpl כזאת Some of these predicates take only infinitival ‘this (one)’ (fs yeš lehamšix meaning ‘such’ (possibly inspired by European יש להמשיך ב- ,.complements, e.g

כזה בית / bayit ka-ze בית כזה .,.be- ‘(it is) necessary to go on with . . . ’, while languages), e.g others take as complement only substantiv- ka-ze bayit ‘such a house’. Any preposition can ke- ‘as’, which כ- yitaxen be applied to it, even another ייתכן שאבוא ,.še- clauses, e.g ש- ized še-±avo ‘(it is) likely that I’ll come’. When the results in duplication (Rosén 1977a:44–53; © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 714 syntax: modern hebrew

Agmon-Fruchtman 1982:78–79, 81–82). In collo- še-±ata kol kax ≤axam, lo mevin lit. ‘even .’ka-ze void you, that you are so smart, don’t understand כזה quial discourse, noninﬂected of deictic content is employed on the supra- A direct object resumptive pronoun is regu- sentential level, as a lexical hedge, and as a larly omitted in Hebrew (it is encoded only in quotative (Ziv 1998; Maschler 2001). cases where clarity calls for it). However, in Another innovation of Modern Hebrew, a some cases even other resumptive pronouns result of grammaticalization, is the adverbial are omitted, in particular time adverbial pro- ,(ke- nouns (already attested in Biblical Hebrew כ- ke-±ilu ‘as if, like’, composed of כאילו חייבים לפעול לפני שיגיע היום שכבר יהיה ,.ilu ‘if’. Unlike e.g± אילו as’ and counterfactual‘ ayavim lif≠ol lifne≥ מאוחר (בו) לעשות משהו ke-±ilu does not require a modal כאילו ,ilu± אילו (še-yagia≠ ha-yom še-kvar yihye me±u≤ar (bo הוא מתנהג כאילו (ש)הוא המנהל ,.tense, e.g hu mitnaheg ke-±ilu (še-)hu ha-menahel ‘he is la≠a«ot mašehu ‘we should act before we reach behaving like (lit. ‘as if [that]’) he were (lit. ‘is’) the day (on which) it will already be too late to the chief manager’. In colloquial language it is do something’. Infrequently, in casual usage, also encountered as an independent clause of some other oblique pronouns are omitted, e.g., ha-ši†a השיטה שהשתמשנו (בה) לא מתאימה ke-±ilu כאילו איכפת לה ,.sarcastic meaning, e.g ±ixpat lah ‘as if she cares’ [~ she doesn’t not še-hištamašnu (bah) lo mat±ima ‘the system that ;ke-±ilu features prominently in some we used (it) isn’t appropriate’ (Maschler 2011 כאילו .[care speakers’ colloquial discourse, most frequently for a generative framework Doron 1982; Borer ,ašer ‘who± אשר for sustaining the speaker-hearer link (similar 1984). The Biblical relativizer to ‘like’ in English), especially for hedging, which’ features only in higher registers in Mod- -ha- preceding a par ה- self-rephrasal, focus-marking, and quotation ern Hebrew, and so does ha- is also ה- Maschler 2001; 2009:127–170). ticiple form (in Biblical Hebrew) bi-xlal lit. ‘in general’ is an found, albeit rarely, as a relativizer of verbs בכלל The word הסטודנטים הלומדים כאן ,.example of the pragmatization of an inher- in the past form), e.g ited conjunct. In Mishnaic Hebrew it con- ha-s†uden†im ha-lomdim kan ‘the students who noted ‘including, inclusive’. In spoken Modern are studying here’. Hebrew it evolved into an emphatic determiner, Content clauses ( Content Clause) in Modern ,Hebrew function in four syntactic roles: subject היא לא e.g., as an emphatic negative determiner hi lo yoda≠at bi-xlal le«a≤eq predicate, attribute, and object (Biblical Hebrew יודעת בכלל לשחק ‘she doesn’t know at all how to act (theatrical)’. has no content clauses in the predicate role, while Unlike English at all, in colloquial Hebrew it content clauses in the subject and attributive roles עובדה are rare), e.g., substantivized subject clause הוא ,.also occurs in positive constructions, e.g /uvda še-hu lo niv≤ar ‘it is a fact≠ שהוא לא נבחר ,hu yi«re±eli? lo ישראלי? לא, הוא בכלל מצרפת hu bi-xlal mi-ßarfat ‘Is he Israeli? No, he is the fact is that he was not elected’; substantivized ha-be≠aya הבעיה היא שאין הסכם actually from France’ (Migron 2005). predicate clause hi še-±en heskem ‘the problem is that there is no 9. Subordinate Clauses agreement’. Content clauses of these types are in common use in Arabic-inﬂuenced Medieval Encoding a relative clause ( Relative Clause) Hebrew, however, it seems that their modern use with a freely movable resumptive (retrospec- was inspired by the contact-languages of revived tive) pronoun is a notable feature of Modern Hebrew (Zewi 2009). ha- In standard formal language subordinating הציור שהתבוננת בו Hebrew, for example ראש הממשלה ,.ki, e.g כי še- is replaced by ש- ßiyur še-hitbonanta bo ‘the painting that you roš ha-memšala טען כי לא אישר את ההסכם הציור ,looked at (lit. ‘at it’)’, or, alternatively -ha-ßiyur še-bo hitbonanta lit. †a≠an ki lo ±išer ±et ha-heskem ‘the Prime min שבו התבוננת ‘the painting at which you looked’. The asyn- ister claimed that he did not approve/had not še- by ש- detic construction (lacking formal subordina- approved the agreement’. Replacing ki is possible only with a content clause. It כי ha-ßiyur bo hitbonanta הציור בו התבוננת (tion represents standard formal language (Reshef is not licensed with a relative clause (Landau 2004). Subject-relatives are occasionally real- 1976; Kogut 1984). ized with an embedded subject pronoun, e.g., Adverbial clauses are introduced by vari- ,gam ±ata, ous function-words (of time, location, manner גם אתה, שאתה כל כך חכם, לא מבין © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 syntax: modern hebrew 715

conjugation (yiq†ol forms). Present tense is הוא התקשר .še-, e.g ש- etc.) subordinated by hu hitqašer ±eleha ±a≤are construed in the participle form. It agrees with אליה אחרי שפגש אותה še-pagaš ±otah ‘he called her after (lit. ‘after the grammatical subject only in number and that’) he met her’. In standard language in some gender. Unlike the situation in European lan- ve- ‘and’ is favored guages, the tense system of Modern Hebrew ו- rare cases the conjunction še- for subordination, e.g., lacks specific forms for expressing relative ש- over normative en tenses. Thus Hebrew does not require sequenceאין להשתמש בו מאחר שפג / ופג תוקפו lehištameš bo me±a≤ar še-pag / u-fag toqpo ‘it of tenses, but instead there is embedding of the should not be used since (lit. ‘since that’ / ‘since ‘absolute’ time of the situation (as opposed to לא יצאתי כי חשבתי ,.and’) its validity has expired’. the speaker’s situation), e.g lo yaßati ki ≤ašavti še-titqašer ‘I didn’t שתתקשר The linking of a subordinate clause to a preceding preposition frequently requires the go out because I thought you would call’ (Shar- nucleus of a constituent devoid of semantic vit 2008). content referring to the content of the clause, The Participle .11 זה ,’kax ‘so כך e.g., cataphoric elements such ze ‘this/that’, or words with a very general ( Participle) ,’uvda ‘fact≠ עובדה semantic content, such as -be-xax še-hiskim ‘by having The participle, in both its active and pas בכך שהסכים ,.e.g ,sive forms, though morphologically nominal בגלל העובדה ;’(”agreed (lit. “in that [he] agreed biglal ha-≠uvda še-hiskim ‘because of is tense-characterized and is not exclusively שהסכים having agreed (lit. ‘because of the fact that nominal, though it retains nominal and sub- [he] agreed’)’ (these elements are termed ‘space stantivized functions (for the development of words’ in Ornan 1971). the present tense see Gordon 1982; Zewi and Subordinative conjunctions ( Conjunc- Reshef 2009). Unlike the past and future forms, tions) with wh-words (interrogatives), such as it is not inflected for person, but for gender and -matay ‘when’ are not number alone. The tense formed with a partici מתי efo ‘where and± איפה part of traditional Hebrew syntax (the use of ple is unmarked for time and modality (similar antecedent interrogatives with the subordina- to the Greek aorist; Rosén 1977b:194–195). It mi ‘who’ and can refer to the speaker’s present, but may also מי še- is available only for ש- tor ma ‘what’). Instead, nouns which belong to refer to the future or past depending on what מה the lexical domain of the interrogative word is implied by the adverbial complement, e.g., ma≤ar ±ana≤nu ≠ozvim ‘we are מחר אנחנו עוזבים ,be-ša≠a še- ‘when בשעה ש- ,.are preferred, e.g be-maqom še- ‘where’. In leaving tomorrow’. As a descriptive historical במקום ש- ,’while ,še- appears present it features in narrative-historical texts ש- ,colloquial language, however also adjacent to adverbial interrogatives. A and in telling jokes, conveying a dramatic, emo- construction of interrogatives with the subor- tional dimension. In spoken language active lo ‘no’ as a generalizing participles in the impersonal form of the 3rd לא še- and ש- dinator enclitic devoid of negating meaning is an inno- person plural co-occur frequently in modal vation of Modern Hebrew (probably due to functions ( Optative Expressions). One of the distinctive features of Modern לאן שלא נלך יראו אותנו ,.Slavic influence), e.g le-±an še-lo nelex yir±u ±otanu ‘wherever we go Hebrew is the remarkable extension of passive (lit. ‘wherever we won’t go’), they will see us’ participle forms ( Passive), crucially in the pat- (Rosén 1977b:73, 229). terns of mefo≠al and muf≠al, which refer not to the result of an action, but to the noun associated 10. Tenses with the verb, or are denominative in the first te±ur mefora† ‘a detailed תיאור מפורט ,.place, e.g חולצה משובצת ;’The opposition between the verb forms in (=with details) description Modern Hebrew is essentially temporal (pres- ≤ulßa mešubeßet ‘checkered shirt’. Modern ent, past, future), except for the imperative. Hebrew also utilizes mefo≠al and muf≠al to Past and future tense agree with the gram- denote an activity or process that occurs in the ha-sisma הסיסמא מוחלפת כל חודש ,.matical subject in number, gender, and person. present, e.g Past tense has suffix conjugation (qa†al forms), mu≤lefet kol ≤odeš ‘the password is changed while future tense has predominantly prefix every month’. The actional passive participles © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 716 syntax: modern hebrew

לא נכנסים בלי רשות ,.of mefo≠al and muf ≠al are employed to denote expressing modality, e.g deliberate and resultative actions or states, lo nixnasim bli rešut ‘you don’t (=you should whereas the equivalent forms of middle-passive not) enter without permission’. Periphrastic nif≠al and hitpa≠el are employed to denote ongo- constructions are utilized as well, e.g., employ- הייתי אוכל עכשיו ing actions, and are not marked as deliberate ing the composite past tense (hayiti ±oxel ≠axšav glida ‘I would (like to גלידה ,.actions ( Binyanim: Modern Hebrew), e.g היה ha-ßeva≠ mit≤alef ba-layla eat now an ice cream’. The complex form of הצבע מתחלף בלילה ‘the color changes at night’. Also, as opposed haya ‘was’ and present participle in expressions hayiti הייתי רוצה / מעוניין / מבקש / מעדיף to other adjectival forms, mefo≠al and muf≠al such as azaq roße / me≠unyan / mevaqeš / ma≠adif ‘I would≥ חזק ,.denote the result of an action, e.g me≤uzaq ‘strengthened’ (Rosén like / be interested / ask / prefer’ is common to מחוזק—’strong‘ 1956; Doron 1999; Taube 2009). mark the optative and mitigated requests. There are also lexico-syntactic constructions 12. Modality and Aspect for urging or challenging (equivalents to the הבה נלך ,.Biblical Hebrew cohortative), e.g bo nelex בוא נלך The loss of Biblical Hebrew morphological hava nelex (formal register) or .qadima, holxim lit קדימה, הולכים ;’distinctions (of the jussive and cohortative) is ‘let’s go qadima, lex קדימה, לך ;’(compensated in Modern Hebrew by lexical ‘forward, going (us and syntactic means ( Optative Expressions). ‘forward march, get going’. Coordinated verbs Modal ways of expression often interact with with an initial depleted motion verb in syndetic -ve-) or asyndetic con ו- the domain of tense/aspect. The common strat- (with the conjunction egy to mark the optative (wish, desire, hope) is struction are another lexico-syntactic strategy, lexu (ve-)tedabru ±ito ‘go לכו (ו)תדברו איתו ,.še- e.g ש- by employing the subordinating particle attached to a future form indicating a potential (cpl) (and) talk (cpl) with him’. ov, še-yelex ‘okay, he Grammatical aspect is inflectionally† טוב, שילך ,.tense, e.g may go’. The most common lexical expression unmarked ( Aspect: Modern Hebrew; Aspec- halevay še- tual Markers). Thus, Modern Hebrew utilizes הלוואי ש- for denoting a wish is ‘were it that’ (Rabbinic Hebrew inheritance). the tripartite temporal system for modal- The simple future is marked as optative or as a aspectual meanings, usually combined with inherited lexical adverbs. Out of the Rabbinic יואל ,.mitigated demand in formal language, e.g yo±el (na) ±adoni la≠amod ‘will Hebrew modal-aspectual periphrastic system (נא) אדוני לעמוד you, Sir (lit. ‘will he, my lord’), be so kind as Modern Hebrew makes extensive use only of -haya ‘to be’ in the past + present parti היה .’to stand up In directives, e.g., speech-acts of request, sug- ciple. However, whereas in Rabbinic Hebrew gestion, instruction, permission, and the like, this periphrastic construction denotes a state le-) is currently ( Syntax: Rabbinic Hebrew), in Modern ל- the infinitive construct (with na) lo lehaf- Hebrew it regularly marks the habitual past) (נא) לא להפריע ,.employed, e.g .(lavo (besides its modal-counterfactual function לבוא מחר? ;’ria≠ ‘(please) do not disturb ma≤ar? ‘shall I come (lit. ‘to come’) tomor- Habitual action may also be expressed, how- הוא היה מגיע / ,.row?’. In some fixed expressions an infinitival ever, by the simple past, e.g ≠hu haya magia≠ / higia הגיע כל בוקר באופנים form or a nominal form of the verb suffixed with a possessive pronoun denoting the object kol boqer be-±ofanayim ‘he used to arrive every participant is employed to convey the modal morning with bicycles’. When used with stative pa≤ad ‘to fear, be afraid’, it פחד ,.lehazkirxa verbs, e.g להזכירך ,.meaning ‘I/we want to’, e.g -is interpreted as an actualization of a dura לידיעתך ;’(’as a reminder (lit. ‘to remind you‘ l-idi≠atxa ‘for your information’. Interrogatives tive state viewed as frequentative (Boneh and .(lama ‘why’ followed by a subor- Doron 2008; 2010 למה such as dinating particle and negator, are employed in The future form is employed to denote habit- spoken language in speech-acts such as giving ual action, subjective assumption, or general advice, making suggestions, and posing rhetori- truth (typically referring to an indefinite or רק משוגע ימשיך להתעקש ,.lama generic subject), e.g למה שלא תצא לחופשה? ,.cal questions, e.g raq mešuga≠ yamšix lehit≠aqeš kax ‘only a כך še-lo teße le-≤ufša? ‘why don’t you not take a vacation?’. Participles are also feasible for crazy person would go on insisting like that’; © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 syntax: modern hebrew 717 Conditional Clause). The realis conditional ) ידוענים—הם ידברו איתך ואחרי דקה ישכחו ממך ,im ‘if± אם yedu≠anim—hem yedabru ±itxa ve-±a≤are daqa is encoded with the conjunction yiške≤u mimxa ‘celebrities—they will talk to whether’. When future forms occur in both pro- you and in a minute they will forget about you’. tasis (conditional) and apodosis (consequent), In journalese and narrative style, the future the reference is to something that may happen; form is frequently employed as a relative tense when past forms are employed, the reference to denote a terminal point in a sequence of is to something that conceivably might have events in the past (attested in Biblical Hebrew, occurred, and when encoded in the present, the but possibly inspired by European languages), referemce is to a general truth. The counterfactual (irrealis) construction is comprised of the דיבורה היה ישיר ורך, תכונה שרק כעבור ,.e.g אילולא lu ‘if’ (negative לו / ilu± אילו diburah haya yašir ve-rax, conjunction שנים אלמד להעריך lule) plus simple past in the protasis לולא / txuna še-raq ka-≠avor šanim ±elmad leha≠arix ±ilule ‘her speaking was direct and tender, a trait and composite past tense in the apodosis, e.g., ,ilu / lu yada≠ti± אילו / לו ידעתי, הייתי מספר לך -which only years later I would learn to appreci ate’. The near future is expressed by adverbs, hayiti mesaper lexa ‘if I had known, I would be-qarov ‘soon, in a short time’, have told you’. A simple past in the apodosis בקרוב ,.e.g amad ‘to is very rare, and is commonly restricted to the≠ עמד or by depleted verbs, crucially יכולתי להפסיד הכול, ,.yaxol ‘can’, e.g יכל halax ‘to verb הלך be about to (lit. ‘to stand’)’ and yaxolti lehafsid ha-kol, ±ilu אילו שמעתי בקולו be going to (lit. ‘to go’)’ in the participle or šama≠ti be-qolo ‘I could have lost everything, if הוא עומד להגיע ,.past form plus infinitive, e.g ,I had listened to him’. In less formal language הם ;’hu ≠omed lehagia≠ ‘he is about to arrive hem holxim lenaßea≤ ‘they are it is common to use the composite past in both הולכים לנצח going to win’. The Rabbinic Hebrew nominal parts of the construction, or even replace the lu with לו / ilu± אילו ßafuy counterfactual conjunction צפוי atid ‘future’ and≠ עתיד expressions -im. Asyndetic pseudo-conditionals of verb± אם expected’ are employed in formal language to‘ initial order are widely prevalent in juristic מחר צפוי לרדת ,.express a forecasted event, e.g ביטל התלמיד את הרשמתו, יקבל ,.ma≤ar ßafuy laredet gešem ‘tomorrow rain register, e.g גשם ,bi†el ha-talmid ±et haršamato את כספו חזרה is expected (lit. ‘expected to fall’)’. Periphrastic constructions comprised of a depleted verb and yeqabel ±et kaspo ≤azara ‘should the student a noun are frequently utilized to connote the cancel his registration, he will get his money lexical character of the action (Aktionsart), back’ (Bar 2001; 2003). נתקף ,.such as inchoative or ingressive, e.g Word Order .13 העלה אבק ;’nitqaf ≤arada ‘got anxious חרדה a†af≥ חטף תנומה ;’he≠ela ±avaq ‘became dusty tnuma ‘took a nap’ (calque from Yiddish). In contrast to Biblical Hebrew, which is clas- Constructions inherited from Rabbinic Hebrew sified typologically as a Verb-Subject (VS) lan- incorporating an infinitival verb adjacent to a guage, Modern Hebrew has evolved into a finite verb with a lexically adverbial meaning Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) language in terms are widespread, typically in literally language, of basic (i.e., unmarked) word order. This -hirba lesaper ‘used to tell a change is clearly felt not only in the spo הרבה לספר ,.e.g lot (lit. ‘increased to tell’)’; or with consecutive ken language, but also in written and formal/ verbs the first one usually of adverbial meaning, literary registers. However, Modern Hebrew hosif ve-±amar ‘said again (lit. allows, and in some cases requires, sentences הוסיף ואמר ,.e.g ‘added and said’ = ‘went on saying’)’. Another which are predicate-initial, and like in classical lexico-syntactic strategy for conveying aspec- Hebrew, noun modifiers (adjectives, determin- tual meaning is the use of pairs of synonyms ers, and noun adjuncts) follow the head noun, or near-synonyms (hendiadys), e.g., to denote a and in genitive relation the possessee noun ne≠elam precedes the possessor. VS or rhematic order is נעלם ואיננו perfective/resultative event ve-±enenu ‘(he) disappeared (lit. ‘[he] disap- generally the unmarked order in the following peared and is not’)’ (Tzivoni 1993a). cases (commonly with indefinite subject and יורד גשם :Modern Hebrew employs different mor- unaccusative verb): (a) existentials phemes and constructions in conditional clauses yored gešem ‘it is raining’; with verbs denoting

-laßet yaßati ba יצאתי בזמן, אבל האוטובוס איחר qara nes ‘a miracle קרה נס ,.occurrence, e.g occurred’; statements of existential possession zman, ±aval ha-±o†obus ±e≤er ‘I left on time (lit. en), ‘to leave I left’), but the bus was late’. A similar± אין yeš and יש involving the verboids) yeš li mexonit ‘I have a car’; construction of extraposed infinitive prevailed יש לי מכונית ,.e.g -in Rabbinic Hebrew and is widespread in Yid פרצה ,.b) assertion of generic situations, e.g) .(parßa se≠ara ‘a storm erupted’; (c) asser- dish ( Yiddish Influence on Hebrew סערה -Cleft sentences ( Cleft Sentence) are com כואב לי הגב ,.tion of physical conditions, e.g ko±ev li ha-gav ‘my back aches’; (d) modal mon in Modern Hebrew, unlike in previous -strata of the language. When the focalized (rhe טיפש הוא ,.evaluative/volitive) expressions, e.g) matized) element is a noun it may be preceded מעניין הסיפור ;’ipeš hu lo ‘stupid he is not† לא ze (and its feminine זה me≠anyen ha-sipur ha-ze ‘this story is inter- by the demonstrative הזה ze זה הנשיא שיקבע ,.daruš nisayon ‘experience is and plural parallels), e.g דרוש ניסיון ;’esting required’; (e) phraseological expressions, e.g., ha-na«i še-yiqba≠ ‘it is the president who will afsa kol tiqva ‘all hope was decide’; or it may be followed by a 3rd personal± אפסה כל תקווה lost’; (f) announcing and setting down rules, pronoun, sometimes along with a demonstra- ,ze ‘it זה lo ya≤ane ±adam tive pronoun. Otherwise, non-lexical לא יחנה אדם את רכבו ב- ,.e.g זה רק בערב שהיא כזאת ,.et rixbo be- ‘a man shall not park his vehicle this’ is employed, e.g± in . . .’. Subjects in VS word-order tend fre- ze raq ba-≠erev še-hi ka-zot ‘it is only in the quently to lose subject-verb agreement and evening that she is like that’. Lack of agreement nominative case, typically in colloquial speech, between the rhematized pronoun and the verb ,mat±im lax «imla ‘a dress in the substantivized clause occasionally occur מתאים לך שמלה ,.e.g lo ±ani ze še-hifsiq ‘it לא אני זה שהפסיק ,.magia≠ lo e.g מגיע לו נשיקה ;’fs) suits (ms) you) nešiqa ‘he deserves a kiss (lit. ‘arrives [ms] to is not I who stopped (3ms)’. Furthermore, the him a kiss [fs]’)’ (Kuzar 2002; 2005). substantivized clause may be asyndetic, (form- As stated above, like in classical Hebrew, ing imperfectly transformed cleft sentences, זה אתה ציירת את זה? ,.noun modifiers—adjectives, determiners, and Goldenberg 1998b), e.g noun adjuncts—follow the head noun. In geni- ze ±ata ßiyarta ±et ze? ‘is it you (who) painted it?’ tive constructions the possessee noun precedes (Wertheimer 2001; Bar 2009). the possessor. A deviation from this order occurs only in new compounds where the first 14. Negation constituent is interpreted as a ‘semantic prefix’ ( Negation) (see §2 above). Various fronting operations allow for change Whereas in Classical Hebrew the negator of -en, in Mod אין of focus or topicalization of a non-subject nonverbal predicates is mainly lo. Only לא element. Among these marked orders are ern Hebrew it is standard to use en אין constructions of extraposition (topicalization, for existentials and possessive clauses is en± אין lo and לא right/left dislocation, Extraposition) and obligatory. The choice between cleft-sentences (focalization, rhematization) before nominals and participles depends on the ( Word Order). stylistic level of the text. In highly literary style it In extrapositional sentences the expressive is not recommended to use the compound form הוא איננו,.en + personal pronoun, e.g± אין subject’ (theme) is fronted (Schwarzwald 1976; of‘ hu ±enenu / ±eno ba-bayit ‘he is not / אינו בבית ילדים שגדלים בתנאים כאלה ,.Bar 2004), e.g אין ,.yeladim še-gdelim bi-tna±im (3ms) at home’, but rather its bare form, e.g אפשר להבין אותם en hu ba-bayit. The canonical negator± הוא בבית ka-±ele ±efšar lehavin ±otam ‘children who grow al telex ‘don’t± אל תלך ,.al, e.g± אל up in such conditions—one can understand in modals is אל al niška≤ ‘let us not forget’; or± אל נשכח ;’go זה בדם שלו, them’; or in rear extraposition al lanu liškoa≤ ‘we (dative) should± לנו לשכוח ze ba-dam šelo, ha-musiqa ‘it is in his המוסיקה אל דאגה blood, (the) music’. not forget’, and rarely in nominal form For the purposes of extraposition of the ±al de±aga ‘no worry (= ‘don’t worry’)’. However, ,.en are also present in modals, e.g± אין lo and לא lexical component of the predicate Modern אין להיכנע ;’še-lo ta≠ez ‘don’t you dareשלא תעז Hebrew employs a paronomastic construction .’le- + finite verb (tautologi- ±en lehikana≠ ‘we should not surrender/give up ל- of infinitive with Additionally, there are negated verbs in the לצאת ,.cal infinitive, Goldenberg 1998c), e.g © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 syntax: modern hebrew 719 future that have evolved into modal expressions, (Halevy 2007; Al-Zahre and Boneh 2010). lo ye±amen ‘unbelievable’ (Glinert The modern usage of the subject-coreferential לא ייאמן ,.e.g 1982; Tzivoni 1993b). dative pronoun is most likely a reinvention of A notable feature of Modern Hebrew is the the construction found on a limited scale in use of doubly negated constructions, crucially Biblical Hebrew. Presumably, like the ethical with originally positive nouns which evolved dative, it spread into Modern Hebrew through klum the Yiddish-Slavic substrate languages of the כלום :into negative expressions. Such are .af pa≠am first generation of speakers of Modern Hebrew± אף פעם ,’(’nothing (lit. ‘something‘ af ±e≤ad Due to similar motivation is the increasing± אף אחד ,’(’never (lit. ‘even once‘ ‘nobody (lit. ‘even one’)’, and their cognates. preference for possessive datives employed to The above negative noun phrases interact with mark the speaker’s stance regarding the effect nixnesu נכנסו לה לחדר ,.on the possessor, e.g אף אחד לא בא ,.the canonical negators, e.g ±af ±e≤ad lo ba ‘nobody came (lit. ‘nobody did lah la-≤eder ‘they entered into her (lit. ‘entered not come’)’. The response in an exchange such to her’) room [~‘she didn’t want them to’]’. A: ma ≠a«ita? B: klum Noteworthy is also the preference for dative א: מה עשית? ב: כלום as נמאס לנו ,.lo klum) ‘A: What have marking of the experience role, e.g לא כלום instead of) you done? B: Nothing’ is thus considered as nim±as lanu ‘we are sick of (it) (lit. ‘loathsome an elliptical negation (Levy 2008). In negative to us’)’. The preference for dative marking is polarity contexts with indefinite nouns the con- often so strong that the ordinary non-dative -option seems the marked one, having a some לא הבנתי ,.struction may imply ‘not even’, e.g lo hevanti mila ‘I didn’t understand (even) what different interpretation. Furthermore, as מילה a (single) word’ (literal reading ‘I didn’t under- in many European languages, in the unmarked stand a word’) (Sharvit 2008). Illogical nega- word order there is a preference for dative-first tion is occasionally realized elsewhere as well, ordering, unlike in Classical Hebrew (Mishor .(ad še-lo tešalem 1994≠ עד שלא תשלם לא תיכנס ,.e.g lo tikanes ‘you won’t get in unless you pay (lit. ‘until you won’t pay you won’t get in’)’. 16. Changes in Valency and Modern Hebrew is thus considered a ‘negative Case-marking of concord’ language. Slavo-Yiddish influence is Role-participants a possible explanation for this shift in Modern Hebrew (Altbauer 1964:2–4). Unergative and unaccusative verbs are occasionally subject to transitivization in standard 15. ‘Free’ Dative Modern Hebrew depending on the vantage Constructions ( Dative) point from which the event is presented, e.g., a≤iti ±et ha-±agam ‘I swam» שחיתי את האגם ba-±agam ‘in the באגם Modern Hebrew exhibits traits of a dative-ori- the (whole) lake’ (versus ha-«a≤qan לשער השחקן בעט את הכדור ;(’ented language (Berman 1982:35). This is man- lake ifested by an expansion of ‘free’ (non-valence, ba≠a† ±et ha-kadur la-ša≠ar ‘The player kicked -ba≠a† be בעט ב- non-lexical) dative clitics deployed for creat- the ball into the goal’ (versus ing greater affective closeness between hearer, ‘kicked at’). Transitivization of unergatives/ speaker, and the message. Most conspicuous unaccusatives is amply attested in commercial asim ±el ≠al ‘flying† טסים אל על ,.is the use of ethical dative pronouns that are advertising, e.g be-±el ≠al ‘with EL באל על not co-referential with any argument in the EL AL’ (instead of sentence (absent from other periods of Hebrew, AL’) (Borochovsky 1988:21–26). and most likely due to Yiddish influence), e.g., Modern Hebrew admits diathesis alterna- ha-yeled ≤ala lanu ‘the child got tions in case-marking or semantic arguments הילד חלה לנו sick on us (lit. ‘to us’)’; and likewise the use of of a verb which leave the form of the verb the subject co-referential dative pronoun, e.g., unchanged, but add to or change the meaning yom ±e≤ad hi pašu† of the verb. The case alternation of accusative יום אחד היא פשוט נסעה לה be- ‘in’ is ב- et/Ø) and non-accusative± את) na«≠a lah ‘one day she just (simply) left (lit. ‘to her’) [~fancy that! / at her leisure]’. Both are maintained especially, but not only, in verbs dan דן משך בחבל ,.non-lexical datival pronouns functioning on of contact by motion, e.g the suprasentential (pragmatic, illocution) level mašax ba-≤evel ‘Dan pulled on the rope’ (versus © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 720 syntax: modern hebrew

-et ha-≤evel ‘the rope’). The alterna- Al-Zahre, Nisrine and Nora Boneh. 2010. “Coref± את החבל be- ‘in’ is the ‘marked’ erential dative constructions in Syrian Arabic and ב- tive construction with Modern Hebrew”. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic one. It invokes a view from within, marking the Languages and Linguistics 2:248–282. action as intensive and intentional, or rather as Armon-Lotem, Sharon, Gabi Danon, and Susan imperfective and partitive. Furthermore, this Rothstein (eds.). 2008. Current issues in genera- construction is a morphosyntactic device to tive Hebrew linguistics. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. -Azar, Moshe. 1976. “Ha-smixut ha-pruda ve-ha אור השמש ,.induce a metaphorical reading, e.g .(or ha-šemeš hika be-fanav ‘the sun smixut ha-kfula ba-≠itonut ha-yomit” (in Hebrew± היכה בפניו Xeqer ve-≠iyun be-mada≠e ha-Yahadut: Sifrut, light struck his face’ (Halevy 2007a). : A locative alternation is maintained in ‘spray’ / Miqra ve-lašon, ed. by Efrat Carmon, 9–26. Haifa: University of Haifa. -Bar, Tali. 2001. “Expression of temporality, modal דן ריסס צבע על הקיר / ריסס ,.load’ verbs, e.g’ -dan rises ±et ha-ßeva≠ ≠al ha-qir / ity and perfectivity in contemporary Hebrew con את הקיר בצבע rises ±et ha-qir be-ßeva≠ ‘Dan sprayed the color ditionals as compared with non-conditionals”. on the wall / sprayed the wall with color’. The Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlan- des 91:49–83. ‘marked’ construction is the one with the loca- ——. 2003. If, conditional sentences in contempo- tion as a direct object complement, implying a rary Hebrew: Structure, meaning, and usage of holistic effect (Halevy 2008b). tenses. Munich: Lincom Europa. Modern Hebrew also retains the Biblical loc- ——. 2004. “Extraposition in Modern Hebrew”. Folia Orientalia 40:23–39. ative alternation of ‘swarm’ / ‘drip’ and related ——. 2007. “On pronouns in Hebrew verbal sen- .tences”. Bar and Cohen 2007, 257–275 הנהר שרץ תנינים / ,.verbs of abundance, e.g ha-nahar šaraß taninim / ——. 2009. “On cleft sentences in contemporary תנינים שרצו בנהר Hebrew”. Goldenberg and Shisha-Halevy 2009, taninim šarßu ba-nahar ‘the river swarmed 337–355. with alligators / alligators swarmed in the Bar, Tali and Eran Cohen (eds.). 2007. Studies in river’. In the initial subject-location alternate, Semitic and general linguistics in honor of Gideon which is the ‘marked’ construction, the indefi- Goldenberg. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Ben-£ayyim, Ze’ev. 1992. “An ancient language in nite complement (the agent) is realized in the a new reality” (in Hebrew). The struggle for a lan- accusative-adverbial case, similar to the tamyiz guage, 36–85. Jerusalem: The Academy of Hebrew in Arabic (accusative of specification or limita- Language (originally published in Lłšonénu la-≠Am tion). Namely, it specifies the subject-location 4 [1956]). Berman-Aronson, Ruth. 1978. Modern Hebrew in terms of the content or substance that is structure. Tel-Aviv: University Publishing Projects. applied to it (Halevy 2008a). ——. 1979. “Form and function: Passives, middles, b-ide ‘by’ and impersonals in Modern Hebrew”. Berkeley בידי / al yede על ידי The prepositions introduces an agentive complement in the pas- Linguistics Society 5:1–27. ——. 1982b. “Dative marking the affectee role: Data sive construction (this preposition is not found from Modern Hebrew”. Hebrew Annual Review in this function in previous strata of Hebrew) 6:35. in contrast to governed prepositions, which do ——. 2011. “Revisiting impersonal constructions in not precede agentive complements, e.g., Hebrew: Corpus-based perspectives”. The typo- logy of impersonal constructions, ed. by Andrej הזמרת -ha-zameret luvta ≠al Malchov and Anna Sierwieska, 323–355. Amster לוותה על ידי אקורדיוניסט yede ±aqordyonis† ‘the singer was accompanied dam: John Benjamins. .Berman-Aronson, Ruth and Alexander Grosu. 1976 שירתה לוותה בנגינה by an accordionist’ versus “Aspects of the copula in Modern Hebrew”. Stu- ,širatah luvta bi-ngina be-±aqordyon dies in Modern Hebrew syntax and semantics באקורדיון ‘her singing was accompanied by the playing of ed. by Peter Cole, 265–284. Amsterdam: North an accordion’ (Taube 1996). Holland. Bliboim, Rivka. 2000. “Adjective annexation and its equivalents”. Lłšonénu 63:81–106. References Boneh, Nora and Edit Doron. 2008. “Habituality Agmon-Fruchtman, Maya. 1982. A question of and habitual aspect”. Theoretical and crossling- determination: Determinative and delimitative cat- uistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, ed. egories in Israeli Hebrew (in Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: by Susan Rothstein, 321–347. Amsterdam: John Papyrus. Benjamins. Altbauer, Moshe. 1964. “New negation construction ——. 2010. “Modal and temporal aspects of habitu- in Modern Hebrew”. For Max Weinreich on his ality”. Syntax, lexical semantics, and event struc- seventieth birthday: Studies in Jewish languages, ture, ed. by Malka Rappaport-Hovav, Edit Doron, literature and society, ed. by Lucy S. Dawidowicz and Ivy Sichel, 338–363. Oxford: Oxford Univer- and Max Weinreich, 1–5. The Hague: Mouton. sity Press.

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 syntax: modern hebrew 721 Borer, Hagit. 1984. “Restrictive relatives in Mod- linguistica camito-semitica (Bergamo, 5–7 giugno ern Hebrew”. Natural Language and Linguistic 2003), ed. by Allesandro Mengozzi, 243–257. Theory 2:219–160. Milan: Franco Angeli. —— (ed.). 1986. The syntax of pronominal clitics. Goldenberg, Gideon and Ariel Shisha-Halevy (eds.). New York: Academic Press. 2009. Egyptian, Semitic and general grammar: Borer, Hagit and Joseph Grodzinsky. 1986. “Syntac- Workshop in memory of H. J. Polotsky. Jerusa- tic cliticization: The case of Hebrew dative clitics”. lem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Borer 1986, 175–217. Gordon, Amnon. 1982. “The development of the par- Borochovsky, Esther. 1998. “ Šarim ≠aßma±ut (singing ticiple in Biblical, Mishnaic and Modern Hebrew”. independence): From indirect complementation to Afroasiatic Linguistics 8:121–166. direct complementation” (in Hebrew). Hebrew Greenberg, Yael. 2002. “The manifestation of generic- Linguistics 43:15–28. ity in the tense aspect system of Hebrew nominal Danon, Gabi. 2001. “Syntactic definiteness in sentences”. Themes in Arabic and Hebrew syntax, the grammar of Modern Hebrew”. Linguistics ed. by Jamal Ouhalla and Ur Shlonsky, 267–298. 39:1071–1116. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Doron, Edit. 1982. “On the syntax and semantics ——. 2008. “Predication and equation in Mod- of resumptive pronouns”. Texas Linguistic Forum ern Hebrew (nonpseudocleft) copular sentences”. 19:1–48. Armon-Lotem, Danon, and Rothstein 2008, ——. 1986. “The pronominal copula as agreement 161–196. clitic”. Borer 1986, 313–332. Halevy, Rivka. 1992. “Free and restricted adjectives ——. 1999. “The passive participle” (in Hebrew). in contemporary Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Language Hebrew Linguistics 47:39–62. studies 5–6, ed. by Moshe Bar-Asher, 521–536. ——. 2000. “Word order in Hebrew”. Studies in Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Afroasiatic grammar, ed. by Jacqueline Lecarme, ——. 2000a. “Functional changes of šel phrases in Jean Lowenstamm, and Ur Shlonsky, 41–56. The contemporary Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu Hague: Holland Academic Publishers. 63:61–80. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. “The role of Russian ——. 2000b. “Complementary distribution of single and Yiddish in the making of Modern Hebrew”. versus expanded lexical units in Modern Hebrew: Poetics Today 11:111–130. Reflections on the character of contemporary Giora, Rachel. 1982. “Seder ha-milim ba-mišpa† Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 63:294–309. ve-ya≤aso ±el ha-†ex†”. ≠Iyunim be-≤eqer ha-«ia≤ ——. 2006. “The function of nonlexical ze in Con- (in Hebrew), ed. by Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Yishai temporary Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu Tobin, and Raphael Nir, 263–301. Jerusalem: The 68:283–308. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. ——. 2007a. “Transitive verbs with non-accusative Giv’on, Talmy. 1976. “On the VS order in Israeli alternation in Hebrew: Cross-language compari- Hebrew: Pragmatics and typological change”. Syn- son with English, German and Spanish”. Trends in tax and semantics, ed. by Peter Cole, 231–248. linguistics: On interpreting construction schemas, Amsterdam: North-Holland. from action and motion to transitivity and causal- Glinert, Lewis. 1982. “Negative and non-assertive in ity, ed. by Nicole Delbecque and Bert Cornillie, Contemporary Hebrew”. Bulletin of the School of 61–102. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Oriental and African Studies 45:434–470. ——. 2007b. “Indirect’ adjective + noun construct ——. 1989. The grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cam- phrases in contemporary Hebrew” (in Hebrew). bridge: Cambridge University Press. Ša≠are lašon, ed. by Aharon Maman, Steven E. ——. 1990. “Yeš and yeš lo in formal contempo- Fassberg, and Yohanan Breuer, vol. 3, 96–116. rary Hebrew—Subject or object?” (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Bialik Institute. Hebrew Linguistics 28–30:207–212. ——. 2007c. “The subject co-referential l- pronoun Goldenberg, Gideon. 1996. “Ha-≠Ivrit ke-lašon Šemit in Hebrew”. Bar and Cohen 2007, 299–321. ≤aya”. Ha-lašon ha-≠Ivrit be-hitpat≤utah u-v- ——. 2007d. “Functions of infinitival forms in Mod- hit≤adšutah, ed. by Joshua Blau, 148–190. Jerusa- ern Hebrew”. Hebrew Linguistics 60:63–80. lem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. ——. 2008a. “Case alternations in swarm-class verbs ——. 1998a. Studies in Semitic linguistics. Jerusalem: in Hebrew and the meaning of Tamyiz”. Language Magnes. studies 11–12, ed. by Steven E. Fassberg and ——. 1998b. “Imperfectly transformed cleft sen- Aharon Maman, 89–105. Jerusalem: The Hebrew tences”. Goldenberg 1998a, 116–122 (originally University of Jerusalem. published in Proceedings of the Sixth World Con- ——. 2008b. “The ‘load’/‘spray’ alternation in gress of Jewish Studies Jerusalem, 127–133. Jerusa- Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 71:181–201. lem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1977). ——. 2011a. “Reciprocal constructions in Hebrew: ——. 1998c. “Tautological infinitive”. Goldenberg Between syntax and lexicon” (in Hebrew). 1998a, 66–122 (originally published in Israel Ori- Lłšonénu 73:401–422. ental Studies 1 [1971]:36–85). ——. 2011b. “The grammaticalization of bipartite ——. 1998d. “Attribution in Semitic languages”. reciprocal markers in Hebrew”. Hebrew Studies Goldenberg 1998a, 46–65 (originally published in 52:265–272. Orientales anciennes philologie et linguistique 5–6 Henkin, Roni. 1994. “Yeš lo ±et ze: Do existence and [1995]:1–20). possession ‘subjects’ really take the accusative in ——. 2005. “Pronouns, copulas and a syntacti- Hebrew”. Hebrew Linguistics 38:41–54. cal revolution in Neo-Semitic”. Studi afroasiatici: Kaddari, Menachem Z. 1984. “A morpho-syntac- Contributi presentati all’XI incontro italiano di tic phenomenon in Modern Hebrew journalese” © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 722 syntax: modern hebrew (in Hebrew). Hebrew Computational Linguistics ed. by Menachem Z. Kaddari, 98–105. Jerusalem: 22:47–50. Kiryat Sefer. Kahana, Chaim. 1998. “The semantic prefixes of ——. 1977a. ≠Ivrit †ova, 3rd edition. Jerusalem: Modern Hebrew” (in Hebrew). PhD dissertation, Kiryat Sefer. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. ——. 1977b. Contemporary Hebrew. The Hague: Kogut, Simcha. 1984. Content clauses: Their nature Mouton. and constructions. Jerusalem: The Hebrew Univer- ——. 1982. “±Aspeq†im be-≤eqer seder ≤elke sity of Jerusalem. ha-mišpa† ba-≠Ivrit ha-Yi«re±elit ha-ktuva” (in ——. 1993. “Alternative usage of independent and Hebrew). Proceedings of the Eighth World Con- suffixed personal pronouns to express possession gress of Jewish Studies: Divison D, 43–49. in Biblical Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Studies in Bible Rubinstein, Eliezer. 1968. The nominal sentence: A and Exegesis 3:401–411. study in the syntax of contemporary Hebrew (in Kuzar, Ron. 2000. “ ±Ašre ha-ma±amin and similar Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad. constructions in the different phases of Hebrew” ——. 1970. The verb phrase (in Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: (in Hebrew). Hebrew Linguistics 46:55–67. Hakibbutz Hameuchad. ——. 2002. “The simple impersonal construction Sharvit, Yael. 2008. “Hebe†im šel ha-seman†iqa šel in texts represented as colloquial Hebrew” (in zman ha-ne†iya ba-≠Ivrit ha-modernit”. Theoretical Hebrew). Speaking Hebrew: Studies in the spo- Hebrew linguistics, ed. by Galia Hatav, 139–162. ken language and in linguistic variation in Israel Jerusalem: Magness. (Te≠uda 18), ed. by Shlomo Izre’el, 329–352. Tel- ——. 2008. “Bare minimizers”. Armon-Lotem, Aviv: Tel-Aviv University. Danon, and Rothstein 2008, 293–312. ——. 2005. “The contribution of the pattern of Schwarzwald, Ora. 1976. “Regarding the grammati- existential sentence to existential meaning” (in cality and creation of extrapositional sentences” Hebrew). Language studies 10, ed. by Steven E. (in Hebrew). Bar Ilan Annual 13:321–340. Fassberg and Aharon Maman, 101–112. Jerusalem: Taube, Dana. 1990. “On denominal adjectives in Modern Hebrew”. Studies in -י The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. with the suffix Landau, Rachel. 1976. “Mišpa† ha-ziqa u-mišpa† Hebrew and other Semitic languages presented to levay ha-toxen le-sugav ba-≠Ivrit šel yamenu”. Chaim Rabin, ed. by Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, Biqoret u-faršanut 7–8:132–136. Shelomo Morag, and Simcha Kogut, 117–132. Levy, Alissa. 2008. “Hebrew negative polarity Jerusalem: Akademon. items—šum and ±af ”. Current issues in generative ——. 1996. “Agent complement in passive construc- Hebrew linguistics, ed. by Sharon Armon-Lotem, tions in Modern Hebrew”. Israel Oriental Studies Gabi Danon, and Susan Rothstein, 313–336. 16:113–130. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ——. 2007. “Impersonal and passive constructions Maschler, Yael. 2001. “Veke’ilu haragláyim sh’xa in contemporary Hebrew”. Bar and Cohen 2007, nitka’ot bifním kaze (‘and like your feet get stuck 277–297. inside like’): Hebrew kaze (‘like’), ke’ilu (‘like’), ——. 2008. “The functional distribution of the pro- and the decline of Israeli dugri (‘direct’) speech”. nouns hu and ze in cleft sentences in Contemporary Discourse Studies 3:3, 295–326. Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 70:533–552. ——. 2009. Metalanguage in interaction: Hebrew ——. 2009. “Passive participle in Modern Hebrew”. discourse markers. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Goldenberg and Shisha-Halevy 2009, 317–336. John Benjamins. Tzivoni, Lea. 1993a. “Means of expressing perfect, ——. 2011. “On the emergence of adverbial connec- iteration, continuation and tense in written Israeli tives from Hebrew relative clause constructions”. Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 56:55–87. Constructions: Emerging and emergent, ed. by ——. 1993b. “Negation in Israeli Hebrew” (in Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder, 293–331. Berlin: Hebrew). PhD dissertation, The Hebrew Univer- Walter de Gruyter. sity of Jerusalem. Melnik, Nurit. 2006. “A constructional approach Wertheimer, Ada. 2001. “More thoughts about cleft to verb-initial constructions in Modern Hebrew”. sentences” (in Hebrew). Hebrew Linguistics 49: Cognitive Linguistics 17:153–198. 21–34. Migron, Hagit. 2005. “Expressions similar to Hebrew Wintner, Shuly. 2000. “Definiteness in the Hebrew bixlal”. Linguist List 16. noun phrase”. Journal of Linguistics 36:319–363. Mishor, Mordechai. 1994. “The order of the objects Zewi, Tamar. 2008. “Content clauses in Hebrew” ±oto and lo” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu la-≠Am (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 70:627–657. 55:147–156. Zewi, Tamar and Yael Reshef. 2009. “The active Muchnik, Malka. 1989. “Expressions of tense, mood participle and temporal expressions in Hebrew” and aspect in Modern Hebrew” (in Hebrew). (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 71:315–344. Hebrew Linguistics 27:29–54. Ziv, Yael. 1995. “Me≠anyen ha-sefer ha-ze Interesting Ornan, Uzzi. 1971. “Hebrew grammar: Syntax”. this book: A special construction in spoken Hebrew” Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 8, 142–175. Jerusalem: (in Hebrew). Hebrew Linguistics 39:29–39. Encyclopaedia Judaica. ——. 1998. “Hebrew kaze as a discourse marker and Reshef, Yael. 2004. “The Modern Hebrew asyndetic lexical hedges: Conceptual and procedural proper- relative clause: The rise of a new syntactic mecha- ties”. Discourse markers: Description and theory, nism”. Folia Linguistica Historica 25:115–134. ed. by Andreas H. Jucker and Yael Ziv, 203–221. Rosén, Haiim B. 1956. “The mefu’al pattern in Israeli Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 20:139–148. ——. 1968. “Adjectival compounds and complex Rivka Halevy adjectives in Israeli Hebrew”. Bar Ilan volume in (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) humanities and social sciences, decennial volume 2, © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3