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

Ephratt, Michal. 1981. “Initial bkp in nouns after such as temporal, causal, and complement prepositions” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 45:40–55. clauses (3). Henkin, Roni. 1997. “Dissimilation of bkp in verbal clusters, a grammatical problem of the verb in spoken Hebrew” (in Hebrew). A present to Hadasa, (1) RC (clausal modifier of a nominal head): ָ ֽא ֹנ ִ ֙כי ְי ָ ֣הוה ֱא ֶֹ֔להיָך ֲא ֶ ֧שׁר ֵהוֹצ ִ ֛אתיָך ֵמ ֶ ֥אֶרץ ִמ ְצַ ֖ר ִים -ed. Yaakov Ben-Tulila, 199–209. Beer-Sheva: Ben ån< òúì YHWH ±Æß lòhÆúå< ±åš≥ Ær± ִמ ֵ ֣בּ ֥ית ֲﬠ ָבִ ֑ ֽדים .Gurion University Joüon, Paul and Takamitsu Muraoka. 2006. A gram- < < mar of biblical Hebrew. Roma: Pontifical Biblical hòßèμìúå mè-±ÆrÆß mißrayim mib-bèμ ≠≥∫å≈ìm Institute Press. ‘I am YHWH, your god, who brought you GKC = Kautzsch, Emil (ed.). 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew out from the land of Egypt, from the house grammar. Trans. by Arthur E. Cowley. Oxford: of slavery’ (Deut. 5.6) Clarendon. Morag, Shelomo. 1959. “Planned and unplanned (2) NP-internal PP (phrasal modifier of a nomi- ַוֵ֨יּ ֶלְך ִ֜אישׁ ִמ ֵ ֧בּית ֶ ֣ל ֶחם ְי ָ֗הוּדה ָל ֙גוּר :(development in Modern Hebrew”. Lingua nal head way-yèlÆú ±ìš mib-bèμ lÆ™Æm ִבּ ְשׂ ֵ ֣די ָ֔מוֹאב .263–8:247 Ravid Diskin, Dorit. 1995. Language change in child yëhù≈å< lå< g9 ùr bi-«≈è mò±å< ∫ ‘and a man from and adult Hebrew. New York: Oxford University Press. Bethlehem of Judah went to live in the ter- ——. 1998. “Acquisition of derived nominals in ritory of Moab’ (Ruth 1.1) Hebrew: Developmental and linguistic principles”. (3) Complement clause (clausal modifier of ַוּב ִמּ ְד ָבּ ֙ר ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ָר ִ֔א ָית ֲא ֶ ֤שׁר ְנ ָשׂ ֲא ָ֙ך :(Journal of Child Language 25:229–266. verbal head ——. 2001. “Vowel reduction in Modern Hebrew: < < < u-∫am-mi≈bår ±≥šÆr rå±ìμå ±≥šÆr ְי ָ ֣הוה ֱא ֶֹ֔להיָך Traces of the past and current variation”. Folia Linguistica 35:371–397. në«å< ±≥úå< YHWH ±Æß lòhÆúå< ‘and in the wil- Rosén, Haiim B. 1977. Contemporary Hebrew. The derness where you saw that YHWH, your Hague: Mouton. god, carried you’ (Deut. 1.31) Shatil, Nimrod. 2003a. “On the meaning of some developments in spoken Hebrew’s morphology” (in Hebrew). Hebrew: A living language 3, ed. by We can formally define RCs by combining two Rina Ben-Shahar and Gidon Toury, 329–352. Tel- properties that are both syntactic and semantic Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad. ——. 2003b. “Successions of consonants in the in nature: subordination and a pivot constituent binyanim qal and nif’al in spoken Hebrew” (in (de Vries 2002:14; 2005:127–128). As a subor- Hebrew). Haivrit Wea≤yoteha 2–3:291–310. dinate clause, RCs (like other phrasal or clausal Schwarzwald (Rodrigue), Ora. 1981a. Grammar and adjuncts, such as adjectives and adverbs) are reality in the Hebrew verb (in Hebrew). Ramat- Gan: Bar-Ilan University. grammatically dependent on the constituents ——. 1981b. “Grammaticality in Modern Hebrew”. they modify (the head). They may be syntacti- Middle East Studies 13:11–19. cally optional, even though their content may ——. 1984a. “Analogy and regularization in mor- be semantically necessary for the identification phophonemic changes: The case of the weak verbs in post-biblical and colloquial Modern Hebrew”. of the head within the discourse. Afroasiatic Linguistics 9:15–28. Concerning the pivot, notice a difference ——. 1984b. “Markedness relations in the pro- between relative and complement clauses in יהוה nunciation of the prefixed particles in Modern (1) and (3): in the RC in (1) the head NP Hebrew”. Afroasiatic Linguistics 9:73–86. Weinberg, Werner. 1966. “Spoken Israeli Hebrew: YHWH ‘YHWH’ plays two roles, one within Trends in the departures from classical phonol- the matrix clause (as the predicate nomina- ogy”. Journal of Semitic studies 11:40–68. tive) and one as the head of the appositive RC; in (3) the NP YHWH plays only one Nimrod Shatil < < në«å±≥úå ְנ ָשׂ ֲא ָ֙ך Zefat Academic College) role, as the subject of the verb) ‘carried you’ within the complement clause. Another way to characterize the pivot con- Relative Clause: Biblical Hebrew stituent is, as Downing notes, that “RCs have the form of clauses from which [a copy of the The ‘relative clause’ (RC) is the primary strat- antecedent] . . . has been deleted” (1978:379; egy for modifying a nominal constituent (i.e., also Andrews 2007:206). In other words, the the relative head) with a clause-level constitu- head plays a role within the RC because it has ent (1). The RC thus contrasts both with non- been extracted and promoted to the higher clause-level nominal modifiers, such as Noun clause. This process of ‘promotion’ is illustrated Phrase (NP)-internal prepositional phrases (PP) for Biblical Hebrew (henceforth, Hebrew) (2), and with clause-level modifiers of verbs, in (4):

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 relative clause: biblical hebrew 351 Relative Elements .2 ֶ֜אֶרץ ֲא ֶשׁ ַ ֣ר־תְּר ִתּי :Relativization with a gap (4) ÆrÆß ±≥šÆr-tartì ___ låh< Æm = [NP± ָל ֶ֗הם ±ÆrÆß [RC tartì ±ÆrÆß låh< Æm]] ‘A land that I The constituents that mark Hebrew RCs are explored ___ for them’ (Ezek. 20.6) variously referred to as ‘relative pronouns’, ‘relative adverbs’, or more generally, ‘relative In RCs that have a resumptive constituent, the particles’. Cross-linguistically, relative elements gap/trace/copy has been overwritten lexically fall into three basic categories: relative pro- with a coreferential item, such as the clitic pronouns, relative particles (sub-divided into com- noun on the accusative marker in (5): plementizer, marker, and affix), and resumptive pronouns (see de Vries 2002:62–63, 155–178). (5) Relativization with a resumptive element: Relative and resumptive pronouns, as their -hå-< ±år< Æß ±≥šÆr tår< ù ±òμåh< name implies, carry pronominal agreement fea ָה ָ֙אֶר ֙ץ ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ָתּ ֣רוּ ֹא ָ֔תהּ ‘The land that they explored it’ (Num. tures (person, gender, number, and/or case) 13.32) which in some way match the agreement features of the relativized noun in its roles within There is significant cross-linguistic diversity in the RC. Relative markers are similar in that RC features (see Downing 1978; Lehmann they show some pronominal characteristic(s), 1984; de Vries 2002; Andrews 2007). The e.g., agreement features; however, the agree- parameters which are relevant for Hebrew, ment features on relative markers do not reflect and are therefore discussed in the remainder the relative head’s syntactic role within the of this entry, are (1) the hierarchical status of RC but rather its role within the matrix clause the RC, namely whether it is embedded within (relative markers provide what is essentially the Determiner Phrase (= DP, i.e., Noun Phrase redundant information, which explains why with a determiner head) or whether it has the they are a very rare relative element type cross- status of a correlative); (2) the type of rela- linguistically). In contrast to pronouns and tive element; (3) the presence and position of markers, relative complementizers and affixes the relative head; and (4) the semantics of the do not carry agreement features. modification (restrictive or appositive). Hebrew uses both relative markers and complementizers, the latter being more common 1. The Hierarchical Status of by far. Based on historical-comparative recon- Relative Clauses struction and a few hints in the Hebrew Bible, it seems that Hebrew used to employ a relative RCs may be embedded or correlative. Hebrew marker which was homophonous with the so- restrictive RCs are embedded, and most are called near demonstratives (see Exod. 13.8; adjacent to the NP heads that they modify, as 15.3, 16; 2 Sam. 14.2; Isa. 25.9; 42.24; 43.21; in (6) (a few RCs are extraposed, that is, at a Pss. 9.16; 10.2; 17.9; 31.5; 32.8; 74.2; 78.54; distance from their head; see Holmstedt 2001; 104.8, 26; 132.12; 142.4; 143.8; Job 19.19; forthcoming). Prov. 23.22; Est. 2.13, and also possibly Hab. 1.11; Ps. 62.12; Job 15.17). Remnants of this (6) Typical Hebrew restrictive relative clause: usage occur mostly in biblical poetry, as in (7): = hå-< ±å< ≈åm< ±≥šÆr-bår< å< μì ָה ָא ָ ֤דם ֲא ֶשׁ ָר־בָּ ֙ר ִ ֙אתי [DP hå< [NP ±å< ≈åm< [RC ±≥šÆr-bår< å< μì]]] ‘the (7) Archaic Hebrew relative pronoun: bërìμì wë-≠è≈òμì zò ְבִּר ִית֮י ְו ֵﬠדֹ ִ֥תי ֗זוֹ ֲא ַ֫ל ְמּ ֵ ֥דם (man that I created’ (Gen. 6.7 ±≥lammë≈èm ‘my covenant and my laws (hå-< ‘the’ marks the begin- that I will teach them’ (Ps. 132.12 ָה- In (6) the determiner ’å< ≈åm< ‘man± ָא ָ ֤דם ning of the DP, with the NP šÆr- In (7) the demonstrative/relative marker agrees≤± ֲא ֶשׁ ָר־בָּ ֙ר ִ֙אתי within the DP and the RC bår< å< μì ‘that I created’ within the NP (visually in gender with the feminine relative head, represented by the brackets). Correlative RCs, but not in number (the compound head is in contrast, are not adjacent to the NP with which plural, while the relative marker is singular). they are associated, but rather in an adjoined Whatever morphological case would have been position, syntactically separated from their cor- marked on the relative markers in an earlier relate in the matrix clause (see Srivastav 1991; stage of Hebrew is no longer discernible. Based de Vries 2002:17; Andrews 2007:214–217). on comparison with Ugaritic in particular, we © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 352 relative clause: biblical hebrew ְו ֶ ֣שׁ ַבע ַ֠ה ָפּרוֹת ָ ֽהַר ֨קּוֹת ְו ָהָר ֜עֹת ָהעֹ ֹ֣לת ַא ֲחֵר ֶ֗יהן (assume that these Hebrew relative markers (10 would at one time have carried agreement fea- wë-šÆ∫a≠ hap-pår< òμ hå-raqq< òμ wë-hå-r< å< ≠òμ tures matching the gender, number, and case of hå-< ≠òlòμ ±a™≥rèhÆn ‘and the seven lean and the relative head in its matrix clause syntactic ugly cows that come up after them’ (Gen. role. 41.27) In time, Hebrew abandoned the common -ha- as a relative complemen ַה- Semitic demonstrative/relative markers and The status of came instead to use one of two etymologically- tizer in Hebrew is related to a more general -šÆr cross-linguistic observation, namely the syn≤± ֲא ֶשׂר ,unrelated relative complementizers šÆ-. The RCs in example (8) illustrate tactic and semantic similarities between RCs ֶשׁ- and relativization with these two complementizers: and attributive adjective modification (for a brief overview, see Andrews 2007:208–212). (8) Hebrew relative complementizers: In Hebrew both RCs and adjectives are post- .-ha ַה- nominal, and both may be marked by In light of examples such as (11), in which the ֶא ַ ֽת־ה ַמּ ֲﬠ ֶשׂ ֙ה ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ַנ ֲﬠ ָ ֣שׂה ַ ֽת ַח ַת־ה ֶ֔שּׁ ֶמשׁ (a) ha-, though the ַה- Æμ-ham-ma≠≥«Æ ±≥šÆr na≠≥«å< μa™aμ-haš- adjective does not have the± šÆmÆš ‘the deed that was done under the NP does, and (12), in which the adjective does ha-, though the NP does not (for ַה- sun’ (Qoh. 8.17); have the ;more examples, see Rendsburg 1990:103–112 ֶא ָת־כּ ַ ֽל־ה ַמּ ֲﬠ ִ֔שׂים ֶ ֽשׁ ַנּ ֲﬠ ֖שׂוּ ַ ֣תּ ַחת ַה ָ ֑שּׁ ֶמשׁ (b) ±Æμ-kål-ham-ma≠≥«ìm šÆn-na≠≥«ù ta™aμ Holmstedt 2010:27–31; forthcoming), it is haš-šåm< Æš ‘all the deeds that were done highly likely that Hebrew RCs and attribu- under the sun’ (Qoh. 1.14) tive adjectives are structurally related (see Isac 2003; also Goldenberg 1995). ֲא ֶשׂר As the two examples in (8) show, neither ְו ֻﬠָ ֣זּא ְו ַא ְח֗יוֹ ְבּ ֵ ֙ני ֲא ִ ֣ב ָינ ָ֔דב ֹנ ֲהִ ֖גים ֶא ָת־ה ֲﬠ ָג ָ ֥לה (šÆ- carries agreement features of (11 ֶשׁ- šÆr nor≤± ∫ >wë-≠uzzå< wë-±a™yò bënè ±≥∫ìnå< ≈å ֲח ָד ָ ֽשׁה -šÆ- is ortho ֶשׁ- any kind. Both are clitics and graphically prefixed to the first constituent of nòh≥g9 ìm ±Æμ-hå-< ≠≥g9 ål< å< ™≥≈åš< å< ‘and Uzzah the RC (although in the Dead Sea Scrolls it and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, were driving occurs unattached to the RC and is written the new cart’ (2 Sam. 6.3) way-yå< ∫ò hèlÆú ַוָיּ֣ב ֹא ֵה ֶל ְ֮ך ְל ִ ֣אישׁ ֶ ֽה ָﬠ ִשׁיר֒ (with a word-final ±alef four times in 4QMMT: (12 4Q394 f3–7i.4, 11, 19 and 4Q394 f3–7ii.13). lë-±ìš hÆ-≠åš< ìr ‘and a traveler came to a Hebrew also utilizes a third relative comple- man who was wealthy’ (2 Sam. 12.4) mentizer, which is homophonous with the pre- ַה- ha-: It is important to note here that Hebrew ַה- fixed definite article ha- relatives are subject to a number of con- straints: they do not allow the presence of ְתּ ַ ֣רוּמת ֵבּ ֱית־א ֵֹ֗להינוּ ַה ֵהִ ֙ר ֙ימוּ ַה ֶ֙מּ ֶל ְ֙ך ְויֹ ֲﬠ ָ ֣ציו . . . (9) tërùmaμ bèμ-±Æß lòhènù ha-hèrìmù ham- copular pronouns, negation, topicalization, or mÆlÆú wë-yò≠≥ßåw< . . . ‘the offering of the wh-elements, and relativize only the subject of house of our God that the king and his the RC. counselors . . . lifted up’ (Ezra 8.25) One more relative element used in Hebrew is covert. Relative clauses with such an element ,’ha- intro- are often referred to as ‘asyndetic’, ‘unmarked ַה- In (9) the relative complementizer duces a finite verbal RC, which happens only ‘bare’, or, the term used here, ‘zero’ RCs. rarely in ancient Hebrew (see Waltke and Hebrew allows zero-relativization from any O’Connor 1990:338–340; Joüon and Muraoka position, such as object (13) or subject (14)–(15) 2006:503–505). Though rare, such examples (on zero participial relatives, see also Waltke :(ha- was in fact a rela- and O’Connor 1990:338–339 ַה- strongly suggest that tive element and not only a definite article. The -må-had-d< å< ∫år< haz ָ ֽמ ַה־ה ָדּ ָ ֤בר ַה ֶזּ ֙ה ָﬠ ִ ֣שׂ ָית ָ֔לּנוּ (data show that the preferred verbal form in (13 < < < ha- relatives, in all stages and registers of zÆ ≠å«ìμå llånù ‘What is this thing you have ַה- ancient Hebrew, was the participle (10) (see done ___ to us? ’ (Judg. 8.1) ֣גּוֹי חֹ ֵ֗טא ַ֚ﬠם ֶ ֣כּ ֶבד ָﬠ ֔וֹן ֶ ז֣ ַ רע ְמֵר ִ֔ﬠים ָבִּ ֖נים ַמ ְשׁ ִח ִ ֑יתים (Joüon and Muraoka 2006:505; contra Waltke (14 and O’Connor 1990:339): gòy ™ò†è ≠am kÆ∫Æ≈ ≠åw< òn zÆra≠ mërè≠ìm © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 relative clause: biblical hebrew 353 < bånìm maš™ìμìm ‘a nation (that) ___ sins, a anoints) shall make atonement’ (Lev. people (that is) ___ heavy (with) iniquity, 16.32) a seed (that) ___ does evil, sons (that) ___ act corruptly’ (Isa. 1.4) As (18a–d) show, Hebrew employs resumptive < ,(bë-±ÆrÆß lò låhÆm ‘in a land pronouns in all positions—nominative (18a ְבּ ֶ֙אֶר ֙ץ ֣ל ֹא ָל ֶ֔הם (15)

(that is) ___ not theirs’ (Gen. 15.13) accusative (18d), and oblique (18b–c)—in relatives introduced by a relative complementizer. As is the case in English, too, zero subject- The use of resumptive elements in ancient relatives in Hebrew occur almost only with Hebrew patterns precisely according to Keenan participial and adjectival (14) or verbless (15) and Comrie’s (1977) ‘noun phrase accessibility predicates. The rare example of a ﬁnite predi- hierarchy’ (NPAH): Subject > Direct Object > cate within a zero subject-relative, as in (16), Indirect Object > Oblique > Genitive > Object simply proves the rule: of Comparison. Keenan and Comrie summarize the hierarchy :habbì†ù . . . ±Æl- as follows ַה ִ֙בּ ֙יטוּ . . . ֶ א ָל־שָׂ ֖רה ְתּ ֶחוֹל ְל ֶ ֑כם (16) < < «årå të™òlÆlúÆm ‘look . . . to Sarah (who)

___ bore you’ (Isa. 51.2) On the basis of data from about fifty languages, we argue that languages vary with respect to which NP positions can be relativized, and that the Finally, Hebrew zero-relatives may contain a variation is not random. Rather, the relativizability resumptive pronoun, as in (17), although this of certain positions is dependent on that of others, is not common: and these dependencies are, we claim, universal. The Accessibility Hierarchy (AH) . . . expresses the < relative accessibility to relativization of NP positions Æß lòhìm lò yë≈å≠ùm ‘gods in simplex main clauses. Here, ‘>’ means ‘is more± ֱא ִ ֹ֖להים ֣ל ֹא ְי ָד ֑ﬠוּם (17) (that) they have not known them’ (Deut. accessible than’. . . . The positions on the AH are 32.17) to be understood as specifying a set of possible grammatical distinctions that a language may make. We are not claiming that any given language Hebrew allows the use of resumptive pronouns in necessarily distinguishes all these categories, either ha- relatives; (18a–d) in terms of RC formation or in terms of other ַה- all RC types except for illustrates resumption in RCs introduced by the syntactic processes (1977:66). .šÆr≤± ֲא ֶשׁר complementizer While the NPAH addresses primarily the positions from which languages can access a noun ְו ַא ֶ֨תּם ַה֜יּוֹם ְמ ַא ְס ֶ ֣תּם ֶא ֱת־א ֵֹלה ֶ֗יכם ֲא ֶשׁר־ (18a) for relativization, it also strongly predicts the ֣הוּא ִ ֣מוֹשׁ ַיע ָל ֶכ ֮ם ִמ ָכּ ָל־ר ֵעוֹת ֶ ֣יכם ְו ָצֽרֹ ֵת ֶיכ ֒ם wë-±attÆm hay-yòm më±astÆm positions in which a language using a resump- ±Æμ-±Æß lòhèúÆm ±≥šÆr-hù mòšìa≠ lå< úÆm mik- tive strategy may use resumptive pronouns. That kål-rå< ≠òμèúÆm wë-ßår< òμèúÆm ‘and you, is, Keenen and Comrie note that if a language today, have rejected your God who he uses resumption, it will use it first and more [and no one else] delivers you from all often in the less accessible positions ‘down’ the your calamities and distresses’ (1 Sam. NPAH (1977:92). 10.19) To summarize resumption in Biblical Hebrew (for a detailed survey, see Holmstedt ֲא ָב ֮ל ֲא ֵשׁ ִ ֣מים ׀ ֲא ַנ ְח ֮נוּ ַﬠ ָל־א ִח ֒ינוּ ֲא ֶ֨שׁר (18b) ål< ±≥šèmìm ±≥na™nù 2002:90–107), we find resumptive elements∫≤± ָר ִ֜אינוּ ָצַ ֥רת ַנ ְפ ֛שׁוֹ ≠al-±å< ™ìnù ±≥šÆr rå< ±ìnù ßåra< μ naƒšò ‘surely most often as NP-internal ‘possessive’ suffixed we are guilty concerning our brother, who pronouns (18b) and pronouns in prepositional we saw the distress of his life’ (Gen. 42.21) phrases (18c), which account for the genitive, oblique, and indirect object positions on the ְכּ ַמ ֲﬠ ֵ ֧שׂה ֶ ֽאֶר ִץ־מ ְצַ ֛ר ִים ֲא ֶ ֥שׁר ְי ַשׁ ְב ֶתּ ָ ֖ם־בּהּ ֣ל ֹא (18c) kë-ma≠≥«è ±ÆrÆß-mißrayim ±≥šÆr NPAH. The omission of resumption at these ַת ֲﬠ ֑שׂוּ yëša∫tÆm-båh< lò μa≠≥«ù ‘like the custom position in Hebrew RCs is very rare. Resump- of the land of Egypt, which you dwelt in tion in the accusative position does occur (18d), it, you shall not do’ (Lev. 18.3) but can also be omitted. In the nominative wë-úippÆr subject position resmption occurs very rarely ְו ִכ ֶ֨פּר ַהכֹּ ֵ֜הן ֲא ֶשׁ ִר־י ְמ ַ ֣שׁח ֹא ֗תוֹ (18d) hak-kòhèn ±≥šÆr-yimša™ ±òμò ‘and the (18a). Thus, the less accessible the position on

priest who one anoints him (= whom one the NPAH, the higher frequency of resumption. © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 354 relative clause: biblical hebrew Resumption in Hebrew relatives not only typically full NPs and are positioned immedi- corresponds to the NPAH, but can also be con- ately before the relative word. Often, however, nected to verbal valency. That is, the resump- RCs exist without an apparent head; compare tive element fulfills the RC verb’s selectional the two RCs in (20) and (21): features (requirements such as an accusative ַו ְי ַס ֵ ֥פּר :complement or an oblique complement, for (20) Relative clause with an overt head ָה ֶ ֖ﬠ ֶבד ְל ִי ְצ ָ ֑חק ֵ ֥את ָכּ ַל־ה ְדּ ָבִ ֖רים ֲא ֶ ֥שׁר ָﬠ ָ ֽשׂה example a locative PP). In the case of verbs that select an oblique complement, resumption wa-ysappèr hå-< ≠Æ∫Æ≈ lë-yiß™åq< ±èμ kål-had- is regularly present. However, in the case of the dë∫år< ìm ±≥šÆr ≠å< «å< ‘and the servant related accusative or nominative positions—the more to Isaac all the things that he had done’ accessible positions on the NPAH—the pres- (Gen. 24.66) ַﬠד־ :ence of resumption is used to mark the relative (21) Relative clause with a null head ֨שׁוּב ַא ָף־א ִ֜חיָך ִמ ְמּ ָ֗ך ְו ָשׁ ַכ ֙ח ֵ ֣את ֲא ֶשׁ ָר־ﬠ ִ ֣שׂ ָית head within the RC with the pragmatic feature ™a≈-šù∫ ±aƒ-±å< ™ìúå< mimmëúå< wë-šå< úa≠ ֔לּוֹ :(Focus, as in (19 ±èμ ±≥šÆr-≠å< «ìμå< llò ‘until the anger of your (zòμ hå-< brother subsides and he forgets (what ֣ז ֹאת ָה ָ֗אֶרץ ֲא ֶ֨שׁר ִתּ ְת ַנ ֲח ֤לוּ ֹא ָת ֙הּ ְבּ ָ ֔גוֹרל (19) ±år< Æß ±≥šÆr tiμna™≥lù ±òtåh< bë-g9 òrål< ‘this you did to him’ (Gen. 27.45) [no more, no less] is the land that you shall inherit it by lot’ (Num. 34.13) In (20) the head of the RC is clear: it is the DP ,had-dë∫år< ìm ‘the things’. In contrast ַה ְדּ ָ ִב ֖רים The resumptive element at the accusative posi- in (21) the syntactic head of the RC is null (this ,’hå< -±år< Æß type of RC is also variously referred to as ‘free ָה ָ֗אֶרץ ,tion in (19) marks the RC head for Focus; according to the author of this text, ‘independent’, and ‘headless’). Many null-head Moses was making the point that it was pre- RCs in Hebrew are like (21), in that the accusa- èμ precedes the RC; but the fact± ֵאת cisely this land, no more, no less, which the tive marker Israelites were to inherit. that neither clauses nor particles (such as the -šÆr) are case≤± ֲא ֶשׁר To mark resumption, Hebrew uses inde- relative complementizer ֵאת pendent pronouns, clitic pronouns (accusative marked (that is, they are not preceded by or oblique), or semantically related adverbs ±èμ) constitutes evidence for a nominal syntactic šåm< ‘there’). Note that here the head which simply cannot be ‘seen’, and whose ָשׁם such as) inflectional affixes on verbs are not taken as interpretation is constrained by the syntactic pronouns or as the syntactic subject; rather, and semantic domain established within the RC they are understood as agreement features sig- as well as the discourse context. naling grammatical relationships (see Crystal The heads of RCs can be in one of two 2008, s.v. ‘inflection/inflexion’; also Waltke basic positions, inside (internally-headed) or and O’Connor 1990:691 under ‘inflection’; outside (externally-headed) the RC (see Down- Joüon and Muraoka 2006:124). For those who ing 1978; Lehmann 1986:664–667; de Vries take the affixes to constitute syntactic pronouns 2002:16–20; Andrews 2007:208–213). Hebrew (e.g., GKC 117; Goldenberg 1998), each case RCs are of the externally-headed type, as all the of an inflected verb would contain a nomina- Hebrew examples given so far illustrate. So, for -had ַה ְדּ ָ ִב ֖רים tive resumption (note that such a position runs example, in (20) the relative head ֲא ֶ ֥שׁר ָﬠ ָ ֽשׂה counter to Keenan and Comrie’s NPAH, in dë∫år< ìm ‘the things’ is outside the RC which the subject/nominative position is the ±≥šÆr ≠å< «å< ‘that he had done’. Closely related to least accessible for resumption and thus the this issue of RC head position is the linear order least common). of head and RC. Cross-linguistically there exist four main structural types: (1) postnominal 3. Relative Heads RC, (2) prenominal RC, (3) circumnominal RC, and (4) correlative RC. As all the examples The head of a RC does not only have a syntac- so far show, Hebrew RCs are post-nominal: the tic role in the matrix clause but, by coreference, head always precedes the RC. also has a role within the RC; the head is the The position of the determiner with respect RC’s semantic ‘pivot’. In the most easily iden- to the relative head and the RC is also a distin- tifiable RCs, the heads are obvious—they are guishing feature cross-linguistically. Languages © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 relative clause: biblical hebrew 355 place the determiner before both the head A restrictive RC provides information necessary and RC (e.g., English), between the two (e.g., for the head to be correctly identified among a Swedish; de Vries 2002:19), or after both (e.g., set of possible discourse referents, which in Indonesian; Lehmann 1984:95). In Hebrew the (24a) would consist of all the contextually determiner is never final, but may be in either likely books (e.g., books on the shelf, books on initial (22) or middle (23) position, since nouns the desk). An appositive RC does not define or in general may be determined by a prefixed limit the head, as in the three books in (24b), article or a suffixed possessive pronoun. but simply adds information that the speaker/ writer has deemed of interest to the audience. A maximalizing RC does not identify the head ַו ִתּ ְשׁ ַל ֙ם ָכּל־ :Determiner in initial position (22) wat-tišlam like a restrictive but, unlike an appositive, does ַה ְמּ ָל ָ֔אכה ֲא ֶ ֥שׁר ָﬠ ָ ֛שׂה ַה ֶ ֥מּ ֶלְך ְשׁ ֖ ֹֹלמה kål-ham-mëlå< úå< ±≥šÆr ≠å< «å< ham-mÆlÆú limit the context of the head. In (24c), for šëlòmò ‘And all the work that the king example, the maximalizing construction speci- Solomon had done was complete’ (1 Kgs fies that all three books on the table were taken 7.51) and that there were no more than three books on the table. Biblical Hebrew uses restrictive ַו ְי ַ ֤כל ֱא ִֹלה ֙ים :Determiner in middle position (23) wa-yúal and appositive RCs, but no maximalizing RCs ַבּ ֣יּוֹם ַה ְשּׁ ִב ִ֔יﬠי ְמ ַל ְאכ ֖תּוֹ ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ָﬠ ָ ֑שׂה ±Æß lòhìm bay-yòm haš-šë∫ì≠ì mëlaútò ±≥šÆr are discernible in the various corpora of the ≠å< «å< ‘And God finished on the seventh day language. his work that he had done’ (Gen. 2.2) Some languages use morphological, lexical, orthographic, or intonational devices to dis- 4. Semantic Features of tinguish between restrictive and appositional Relative Clauses RCs, but many languages do not. English, for example, uses lexical choices (‘which’ versus Many languages have non-finite in addition to ‘that’), intonational pauses, and orthographic finite verbal RCs. But the structural features signals (commas) to distinguish between restric- of relativization often differ depending on the tive and appositional RCs. Hebrew, in contrast, finite versus non-finite verbal semantics within does not appear to use any lexical or ortho- ha- relatives, graphic means for distinguishing between the ַה- ,the RC. As noted above in §2 the great majority of which are participial or two semantic RC types, and even if it did use adjectival, are restricted to subject-relativization; intonational means at some time, we no longer also noted in §2, Hebrew zero-relatives are have access to this feature. Even so, apposi- overwhelmingly restricted to predicates other tive RCs can be discerned in ancient Hebrew than finite verbs. texts if we take the following four cross-lin- In addition to the finite versus non-finite guistic tendencies into consideration (see de semantic divide in the RCs of many languages, Vries 2002:182–196): (1) a head cannot be a including Hebrew, RCs may be classified into unique referent and support a restrictive RC; one of three categories based on their semantic (2) restrictive RCs only modify DPs, whereas relationship to the head: restrictive, appositive appositive RCs may modify any type of head; (or non-restrictive), and maximalizing (de Vries (3) an indefinite head must be specific to sup- 2002:chapter 6). The three types are illustrated port an appositive RC; and (4) zero-relativiza- in (24), for English: tion implies restrictive semantics. The example in (25) illustrates a typical (24) The three semantic categories of relative appositive RC in Hebrew. clauses (modified from Grosu and Land- YHWH ְי ָ ֑הוה ֲא ֶ ֧שׁר ִֽהוֹצ ֲיא ָ֛ך ֵמ ֶ ֥אֶרץ ִמ ְצַ ֖ר ִים (man 1998:128): (25 ±≥šÆr hòßì±≥úå< mè-±ÆrÆß mißrayim ‘YHWH,

a) Restrictive: I took the three books that who__ brought you out of the land of were on the table. Egypt’ (Deut. 6.12) b) Appositive: I took the three books, which were on the table. The proper name YHWH in (25) is a unique c) Maximalizing: I took the three books referent and thus cannot be further defined by that there were on the table. means of a restrictive RC. © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 356 relative clause: biblical hebrew The appositive RC in (25) modifies a DP, as Hebrew employs one additional strategy for do almost all Hebrew RCs; rarely, though, an unambiguously marking a RC as restrictive: the RC may modify a non-DP head, such as the bound form of the head; when the head is ‘in clausal head in (26). construct’ with the relative clause proper, as in (29), the RC is restrictive. ָוּמ ְל ֨אוּ ָב ֶ֜תּיָך ָוּב ֵ ֣תּי ָכ ֲל־ﬠ ָב ֶד ֮יָך ָוּב ֵ ֣תּי ָכ ִל־מ ְצַר ִי ֒ם (26) ִבּ ְמ ֛קוֹם ֲא ֶשׁ ִר־י ְשׁ ַ ֥חט ֶא ָת־העֹ ָ ֖לה ִל ְפֵ ֣ני ְי ָ ֑הוה (u-mål< ±ù (29 ֲא ֶ֨שׁר ֽל ֹ ָא־ר ֤אוּ ֲאבֹ ֶ֙ת ֙יָך ַו ֲא ֣בוֹת ֲאבֹ ֶ֔תיָך ∫ått< Æúå< u-∫ått< è úål-≠≥∫å< ≈Æúå< u-∫ått< è úål- bi-mqòm ±≥šÆr-yiš™a† ±Æμ-hå-< ≠òlå< li-ƒnè mißrayim ±≥šÆr lò-rå< ±ù ±≥∫òμÆúå< wa-±≥∫òμ YHWH ‘in (the) place that he slaughters ±≥∫òμÆúå< ‘and your houses and the houses the burnt offering before YHWH’ (Lev. of all of your servants and the houses of 4.24) all of Egypt shall be filled [with locusts, v4]—which your fathers and your ances- When the bound form of a head is combined tors have not seen. . . .’ (Exod. 10.6) with a zero-marked relative, as in (30) (see Holmstedt 2008a), the restrictive semantics are Since restrictive RCs can only modify DPs, thus grammatically signaled by two distinct the RC in (26), which modifies an entire event devices: (the houses filling with locusts), must be an bë-yòm dibbÆr YHWH ְבּ֗יוֹם ִדּ ֶ֨בּר ְי ָ ֧הוה ֲא ֵל ֶ ֛יכם (appositive. (30 An appositive RC can modify an indefinite ±≥lèúÆm ‘On the day [that] YHWH spoke NP, but only if the NP has a specific reading, to you’ (Deut. 4.15) as (27) demonstrates.

ְו ֽל ֹ ָא־תִ֥ קים ְל ָ֖ך ַמ ֵצּ ָ ֑בה ֲא ֶ ֥שׁר ָשֵׂ ֖נא ְי ָ ֥הוה ֱא ֶ ֹֽלהיָך (27) < < < < References wë-lò-μåqìm lëúå maßßè∫å ±≥šÆr «ånè Andrews, Avery D. 2007. “Relative clauses”. Lan- YHWH ±Æß lòhÆúå< ‘and do not erect for guage typology and syntactic description, vol. 2: yourself a memorial stone, which YHWH Complex constructions, ed. by Timothy Shopen, your god hates’ (Deut. 16.22) 206–236. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, David. 2008. A dictionary of linguistics and .maßßè∫å< phonetics, 6th edition. Oxford: Blackwell ַמ ֵצּ ָ ֑בה ,(The head NP of the RC in (27 ‘memorial stone’, is indefinite but clearly con- Deutscher, Guy. 2009. “Nominalization and the textually specific. If the RC were restrictive, a origin of subordination”. Syntactic complexity, ed. by Talmy Givón and Masayoshi Shibatani, reading which at first sight may indeed seem 199–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. more natural, the clause would prohibit a Downing, Bruce T. 1978. “Some universals of rela- -maßßè∫å< ‘memorial stone’ that tive clause structure”. Universals of human lan ַמ ֵצּ ָבה specific YHWH hates (versus others that he does not), guage, vol. 4: Syntax, ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, 375–418. Stanford: Stanford University Press. a distinction which does not fit the context of GKC = Kautzsch, Emil (ed.). 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew Deuteronomy. grammar. Trans. by Arthur E. Cowley. Oxford: Finally, zero-marked RCs, such as the Clarendon. Goldenberg, Gideon. 1995. “Attribution in Semitic example in (28), cannot have an appositive languages”. Langues orientales anciennes: Phi- interpretation: lologie et linguistique 5–6:1–20 [Reprinted 1998. Studies in Semitic linguistics: Selected writings, :ed. by Gideon Goldenberg, 46–65. Jerusalem ַו ִיּ ְז ְבּ ֤חוּ ַל ָיהו ֙ה ַבּ ֣יּוֹם ַה ֔הוּא ִמ ַן־ה ָשּׁ ָ ֖לל ֵה ִ ֑ביאוּ (28) Magnes]. way-yizbë™ù la-YHWH bay-yòm ha-hù ——. 1998. “On verbal structure and the Hebrew min-haš-šål< ål< hè∫ì±ù ‘and they sacrificed to verb (English translation of 1985 Hebrew paper). YHWH on that day from the booty (that) Studies in Semitic linguistics: Selected writings, they had brought’ (2 Chron. 15.11) ed. by Gideon Goldenberg, 148–196. Jerusalem: Magnes. Grosu, Alexander and Fred Landman. 1998. “Strange haš-šål< ål< ‘the booty’ relatives of the third kind”. Natural Language ַה ָשּׁ ָ ֖לל In (28), the DP head is only fully identified by the restrictive RC, i.e., Semantics 6:125–170. it is the booty which they had brought that they Holmstedt, Robert D. 2001. “Headlessness and extraposition: Another look at the syntax of Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages .”אשר sacrificed, not the booty that, e.g., they had left at home. 27:1–16. © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 relative clause: rabbinic hebrew 357

——. 2008a. “The restrictive syntax of Genesis i 1”. ±en lo mi yattirennu ‘there is no one to render Vetus Testamentum 58:56–67. it permissible’ (Tosefta Mena™ot 6.20) are to ——. 2008b. “The relative clause in Canaanite epi- graphic texts”. Journal of Northwest Semitic Lan- be analyzed as containing a subject clause in yattirennu יתירנו + (mi (subject מי guages 34:1–34. the form of ——. 2010. Ruth: A handbook on the Hebrew text. (predicate), lit.: ‘there is no one: who will Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press. permit it’, and not as a subject noun phrase ——. Forthcoming. The relative clause in Bibli- mi) and a relative מי) cal Hebrew (Linguistic Studies in Ancient West in the form of a head še- (see also ש- Semitic). Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. clause lacking its relative word Isac, Daniela. 2003. “Restrictive relative clauses Ben-£ayyim 1958:234, contra Segal 1927:205; ašer is employed± אשר vs. restrictive adjectives”. Asymmetry in gram- 1936:225). The Biblical mar, vol. 1: Syntax and semantics, ed. by Anna Maria Di Sciullo, 27–49. Amsterdam: John only when the rabbinic text either alludes to a ויעש כל אשר אמר—כל Benjamins. Biblical passage, as in —way-ya≠a« kol ±ašer ±amar אשר אמר לו חתנו -Joüon, Paul and Takamitsu Muraoka. 2006. A gram mar of Biblical Hebrew. Rev. edition. Rome: Pon- kol ašer amar lo otno ‘ “and he did all that tiﬁcal Biblical Institute. ± ± ™ Keenan, Edward L. 1985. “Relative clauses”. Lan- he had said” (Exod. 18.24)—all that his father- guage typology and syntactic description, vol. 2: in-law had said to him’ (Mekhilta to Yitro 199) אפילו ראה Complex constructions, ed. by Timothy Shopen, or cites a benediction formula, as in 141–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University apillu< ± את הפת ואמר: ברוך אשר ברא את הפת זו .Press Keenan, Edward L. and Bernard Comrie. 1977. ra±a ±et hap-pat we-±amar: baruú ±ašer bara ±et “Noun phrase accessibility and universal gram- hap-pat zo ‘Even if he saw the bread and said: mar”. Linguistic Inquiry 8:63–99. Blessed be He who created this bread’ (Tosefta Lehmann, Christian. 1984. Der Relativsatz: Typolo- gie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen, Berakhot 4.5). Null-head relatives are possible. Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: They are found (1) in benediction formulae נברך שאכלנו משלו ,.ašer), e.g± אשר Gunter Narr. (similarly to ——. 1986. “On the typology of relative clauses”. ne∫areú še-±aúalnu miš-šello ‘Let us bless [Him] Linguistics 24:663–680. Mallinson, Graham and Barry J. Blake. 1981. of whose [food] we have eaten’ (Jerusalem Language typology: Cross-linguistic studies in Talmud Berakhot 12.3); (2) after the emphatic atta hu± אתה הוא ani hu ‘I am’ and± אני הוא .syntax. Amsterdam: North-Holland hu is here to be considered a הוא) ’Rendsburg, Gary A. 1990. Diglossia in ancient ‘you are Hebrew. New Haven, Connecticut: American Ori- ental Society. copula in a nominal clause, not the head of אני הוא שאמרתי והיה העולם ,.Srivastav, Veneeta. 1991. “The syntax and semantics the relative), e.g of correlatives”. Natural Language and Linguistic ±ani hu še-±amarti we-haya ha-≠olam ‘I am Theory 9:637–686. who commanded and the world was created’ de Vries, Mark. 2002. The syntax of relativization. אתה הוא שגזרתה לשורפה ;(Amsterdam: LOT. (Mekhilta Yitro 193 ——. 2005. “The fall and rise of universals on ±atta hu šeg-gazarta le«orpah< ‘You are who relativization”. Journal of Universal Language ordered to burn her’ (Jerusalem Talmud Teru- 6:125–157. mot 46.2); (3) before a passive participle, e.g., Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O’Connor. 1990. An intro- me™ussar מחוסר כיפורים, שלא רחוץ ידיים ורגליים ,duction to Biblical Hebrew syntax. Winona Lake Indiana: Eisenbrauns. kippurim, šel-lo re™uß yadayim we-raglayim ‘[or] one lacking atonement, [or] one without Robert D. Holmstedt (The University of Toronto) washed hands and feet’ (Mishna Mena™ot 1.2). It is important to note here that not every ;še- functions as a relativizer ש- occurrence of še- can also function as a subordinating ש- Relative Clause: Rabbinic Hebrew element which makes a clause or a clause frag- ment a constituent part of a sentence’s gram- A relative clause is a subordinate clause that matical structure (subject, predicate, object, ההורג נפש שלא modiﬁes its noun head (also called its ‘ante- or adverbial). For example, in -ha-horeg nepeš< šel-lo be-≠edim ‘Who בעדים cedent’) in a way similar to that of attributive adjectives. Relatives in Rabbinic Hebrew are ever kills a soul without witnesses’ (Mishna šel-lo שלא בעדים always introduced by a relative word (Kutscher Sanhedrin 9.5) the sequence še- be-≠edim ‘without witnesses’ is not a null-head ש- which is almost exclusively ,(1959:34 relative, but an adverbial constituent of the אין לו מי יתירנו that, which’. Sentences like‘ © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3