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

Much assistance and moral support (though —— 1957. “Qeta≠ šel dibur ≠Ivri–yi«re±tag">eli”. Leshonénu at times also sharp criticism, due to differences 21:33–39. in structuralist orientation) came to Rosén —— 1964. “Israeli Hebrew texts”. Studies in Egyp- tology and linguistics in honour of H. J. Polotsky, from Haim Blanc, who received his American ed. by Haiim B. Rosén, 132–152. Jerusalem: Israel structuralist education at Harvard. Under the Exploration Society. qablan, Blanc popularized the —— 1968. “The Israeli koine as an emergent national קבלן pen-name standard”. Language problems of developing structuralist view of Modern Hebrew in his nations, ed. by Joshua A. Fishman and Charles A. .lešon bne ±adam ‘lan- Ferguson, 237–251. New York: John Wiley לשון בני אדם column guage of human beings’, published in the then- —— 1989. “Lešon bne ±adam”. Collected by Moshe .ma«a in Singer. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute משא prestigious literary supplement Garbell, Irene. 1930. “Fremdsprachliche Einflüsse im the early 1950s. These were later collected in modernen Hebräisch.” PhD dissertation. Berlin: Blanc 1989. University of Berlin. Unlike Rosén’s insistence on a single standard Hall, Robert A., Jr. 1950. Leave your language and uniform system, Blanc, a dialectologist of alone! Ithaca: Linguistica. Kuzar, Ron. 2001. Hebrew and Zionism: A discourse Arabic, showed great interest in language varia- analytic cultural study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. tion. He claimed that even if Modern Hebrew Rosén, Haiim B. 1955. Ha-≠Ivrit šelanu: Dmutah had not yet reached a stable state, it was not be-±or ši†ot ha-balšanut. Tel-Aviv: Am Oved. unique in that: “There is no reason to think —— 1958. ≠Ivrit †ova: ≠Iyunim be-ta≤bir ha-lašon ‘ha-nexona’. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer. that modern linguistics is limited in its scope —— 1966. ≠Ivrit †ova: ≠Iyunim be-ta≤bir. 2nd to ‘stable’ languages only” (Blanc 1953:67). enlarged edition. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer. Blanc’s (1968) paper “The Israeli koine as Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique an emergent national standard” sheds light générale. Ed. by Charles Bailly and Albert Seche- haye, with collaboration of Albert Riedlinger. on the process of the formation of an ‘emer- Lausanne / Paris: Librairie Payot. gent’ (rather than existing) standard, paying Weiman, Ralph W. 1950. Native and foreign ele- attention to the formation of two intermediate ments in a language: A study in general linguistics applied to Modern Hebrew. Philadelphia: Russell. native standards, Ashkenazi and Middle-East- ern, both having reached internally uniform Ron Kuzar pronunciations out of the more variegated pro- (University of Haifa) nunciations of their immigrant parents. The two intermediate standards differed mainly in Style-Switching ח ayin and≠ ע the pharyngeal pronunciation of ≤et in the Middle-Eastern standard, as opposed xaf in the Style-switching refers to the incorporation of כ alef and± א to their realization as Ashkenazi standard. non-Hebrew elements into a Hebrew text in Blanc was also the first linguist to collect order to convey foreignness in particular set- and transcribe a corpus of naturally occurring tings. Among the first scholars to identify style- Israeli Hebrew speech (Blanc 1957 and 1964). switching in the Bible and to deal with the In 1953, Polotsky founded the Department phenomenon in any detail were Rabin (1967), of Linguistics at the Hebrew University. Gar- with reference to the speech of the watchman bell, Rosén, and Blanc were among the teachers from Dumah in Isa. 21.11–12 ( Addressee- invited to be part of this enterprise. Polotsky Switching), and Kaufman (1988:54–55), with himself did not conduct research on Modern attention to the book of Job, the Balaam Hebrew, but his scholarly inspiration and leg- oracles, the Massa material in Prov. 30–31, and acy, along with those of his younger collabora- the aforementioned Dumah passage (but see tors, have nurtured a great deal of structural also Baumgartner 1941:609 n. 89 [=1959:228 linguistic research of Modern Hebrew, too n. 3] and Tur-Sinai 1965:594). In the words of voluminous to be considered here. the latter, with special reference to the impres- sive number of Aramaisms in these texts “We References have not to do with late language or foreign Avinery, Isaac. 1946. The achievements of Mod- authors, but rather with the intentional stylistic ern Hebrew (in Hebrew). Merhavia: Ha-šomer representations of Trans-Jordanian speech on Ha-tsa≠ir. Blanc, Haim. 1953. “±Ota ha-gveret”. Masa. Reprinted the part of Hebrew authors within Hebrew in Blanc (1989:63–70). texts” (Kaufman 1988:54–55).

,mònìm ‘times’ (Gen. 31.7 ֹמ ִנים (Building on these studies, Rendsburg (1991; ment, etc.; f n-ß-l (hif≠il) meaning ‘take נצ"ל focused on the two main environments 41); g) the root (1996 in which style-switching is employed: a) when away’ (Gen. 31.9, 16), whose normal Hebrew way-ya≈bèq ַו ַיּ ְד ֵ ֥בּק (the scene shifts to a foreign land; and b) when a meaning is ‘save, rescue’; h ְו ֣ל ֹא ְנ ַט ְשׁ ַ֔תּ ִני (foreigner is present in the land of Israel. A third ‘and he overtook’ (Gen. 31.23); i arena is also surveyed below, namely c) the wë-lò në†aštanì ‘and you did not allow me’ š-b-q שׁב"ק use of different dialects or registers of Hebrew (Gen. 31.28), calquing on Aramaic within inner-Hebrew contexts. ‘leave, forsake, abandon’, but also ‘allow’; and gënu∫μì ‘I was robbed’ (Gen. 31.39 ְגֻּ ֽנ ְב ִתי (Narratives set in a foreign land are found j most notably in Gen. 24 and Gen. 30–31, [2x]), an inflected participle (for these items see both of which are situated in Aram. In the first both Greenfield 1981:129–130 and Rendsburg episode, Abraham’s servant travels to Aram to 2006:166–168). procure a bride for Isaac. In the second, Jacob In addition to these more subtle nods to flees his native land to live with his uncle Laban Aramaic, the author also placed an actual in Aram for twenty years. These changes in two-word Aramaic phrase into the mouth of >yëg: ar «åh< ≥≈ùμå ְיַ ֖גר ָשׂ ֲה ָ ֑דוּתא ,the geographical setting of the Genesis narra- Laban, namely tives permit the author to pepper his Hebrew ‘heap of testimony’ (Gen. 31.47), the trans- text with a host of Aramaic-like features. Note lational equivalent of Jacob’s Hebrew term gal≠è≈ ‘heap of witness’, somewhat akin ַגּ ְל ֵ ֽﬠד that the examples presented below occur not only in direct speech (where they may be more to Shakespeare’s use of the single expression et expected), but in the narrator’s descriptions as tu, Brute in Julius Caesar, as a reminder that well (in an effort to transport the reader totally in its actual setting the entirety of the dialogue to the land of Aram). amongst the Romans took place in Classical Elements of style-switching in Gen. 24 Latin, not Elizabethan English. Some schol- lòhè haš-šåmayim< ars would classify this last Hebrew-Aramaic)± ֱא ֵֹלהי ַה ָשּׁ ַמ ִים (include: a (illustration (along with the English-Latin one ֲא ֶ֨שׁר ֽל ֹ ִא־תַ ֤קּח (God of heaven’ (Gen. 24.3, 7); b‘ ±≥šÆr lò-μiqqa™ ‘that you not take’ (Gen. 24.3), as Code-switching, that is, with the involve- ment of more than one language—reserving the דלא with the negator calquing on Aramaic -im used term style-switching for lexical and grammati± ִאם dë-là±, instead of expected Hebrew cal issues within a single language, even if many גמ"א in oaths and swearings; c) the verbal root g-m-± ‘give drink’ (Gen. 24.17); d) the verbal of the features bespeak foreignness (Aramaic .(r-y ‘pour’ (Gen. 24.20); e) the ver- mainly, in the texts canvassed herein-≠ ער"י root š-±-y ‘gaze, watch’ (Gen. 24.21); The Massa material in Prov. 30–31 is not שׁא"י bal root —im-lò ‘but rather’ (Gen. 24.38), technically a story set in a foreign land± ִא ֧ם־ל ֹא (f kì ±im; instead the reader is presented with proverbial ִכּי ִאם instead of standard Hebrew mig: dån< òμ ‘choice gifts’ (Gen. 24.53); wisdom emanating from Massa in the Syrian ִ֨מ ְג ָדּ֔נֹת (g ka≈ ‘jug, pitcher’ (9x in Desert—but the effect is similar. The clearest ַכּד and h) the noun Genesis 24) (most of these items were identi- instances of atypical linguistic usages that color ’bar ‘son ַבּר (fied by Rofe (1990), who sees them as evi- the composition as foreign are: a ’mëlå< úìn ‘kings ְמ ָל ִֽכין (dence of this chapter’s late date of composition; (Prov. 31.2 [3x]) and b see Rendsburg 2002:24–32 for a more proper (Prov. 31.3). Both features reflect the Ara- interpretation of the data). maic tinge, with the former replacing standard bèn ‘son’, and the latter employing ֵבּן Elements of style-switching in Gen. 30–31 Hebrew ìn- ִ-ין g: å< ≈ ‘fortune’ (Gen. 30.11), with the masculine plural nominal ending ָ ֑גד (include: a .ìm- ִ-ים reference to the naming of Gad; b) the root instead of standard Hebrew z-b-d ‘give a gift’ (as both noun and The book of Job, on the other hand, is זב"ד verb), with reference to the naming of Zebu- entirely situated in a foreign land, to wit, the lùz ‘almond’ (Gen. land of Uz—in the area where the southern ֣לוּז (lun (Gen. 30.20); c šåq< è≈; Syrian and northern Arabian deserts meet—and ָשׁ ֵקד instead of standard Hebrew ,(30.37 (way-yè™amnå< ‘and they were in heat’ the main characters (Job and his three friends ַו ֵיּ ַ ֖ח ְמ ָנה (d (Gen. 30.38), invoking the Aramaic 3fpl form; are all associated with lands in the general l-p (Hiph≠il) ‘exchange’ region (see Job 1.1, 2.11). The result is a book-™ חל"ף e) the root (Gen. 31.7, 41), with reference to wages, pay- replete with both Aramaic and Arabian lexical © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 style-switching 635 ִאישׁ ֶא ָת־א ִחיו and grammatical features—far too numerous to 21.18, or the similar expression inventory here (see Greenstein 2003, who also ±ìš ±Æμ-±å< ™ìw ‘one the other’ (lit. ‘each man his discusses the poetic function of these foreign brother’), e.g., Exod. 32.27; and b) the particle .iš ‘there is, there are’ (2 Sam± ִ ֣אשׁ elements). of existence The best illustration of a foreigner in the land 14.19), in contrast to standard Biblical Hebrew .(yèš (Rendsburg 2003 ֵישׁ -of Canaan utilizing foreign (again, Aramaic like) lexical and grammatical features occurs in On a related, though slightly different tack, Num. 22–24, when the prophet Balaam is sum- the author of Ruth may have attempted to moned from Aram to curse Israel. His speech, portray the language of Boaz and Naomi, presented in the form of poetic oracles, includes representing the older generation in the narra- a host of linguistic elements that achieve the tive, with more archaic features, especially in style-switching effect: a) the reduplicatory plu- contrast to the diction of Ruth, representing .(harërè ‘mountains of’ (Num. 23.7); the younger generation (Campbell 1975:25 ַהְרֵרי ral ,.yiμ™aššå< ∫ ‘be counted, be consid- Thus one finds: a) vestigial dual forms, e.g ִי ְת ַח ָ ֽשּׁב (b ֲﬠ ִשׂ ֶ ֛יתם ,(immå< úÆm ‘with you’ (Ruth 1.8≠ ִﬠ ָמּ ֶכ ֙ם ered’ (Num. 23.9), with the hitpa≠el serving ’lå< úÆm ‘to you ָל ֶ֔כם ,(for the passive, as occurs with the T-stem in ≠≥«ìμÆm ‘you did’ (Ruth 1.8 Aramaic (in Hebrew one expects the nif≠al, (Ruth 1.9); b) an older historical vocalization [μa≠≥∫ùrì ‘you shall [not ַת ֲﬠ ִ ֖בוּרי ßùrìm in the word ֻצִר ֙ים (but Aramaic lacks the N-stem); c ‘mountains’ (Num. 23.9), evoking the Aramaic pass (Ruth 2.8); c) paragogic nun forms, e.g., ,(μi≈båq< ìn ‘you shall cling’ (Ruth 2.8 ִת ְד ָבִּ ֖ קין ;(rò∫a≠ ‘dust-cloud’ (Num. 23.10 ֣רֹ ַבע (cognate; d ִי ְשׁ ֲא ֖בוּן ,(yiqßòrùn ‘they harvest’ (Ruth 2.9 ִי ְקצֹ ֙רוּן ִנ ָ֔טּיוּ (na™aš ‘divination’ (Num. 23.23); f ֙ ַנ ַח ֙שׁ (e ַתּ ַﬠ ִֽשׂין ,(ni††åy< ù ‘stretched out’ (Num. 24.6), preserving yiš±≥∫ùn ‘they draw (water)’ (Ruth 2.9 final-yod) verb, as ta≠a«ìn ‘you shall do’ (Ruth 3.4); and d) archaic) ל"י the root letter yod of a w-yrdty וירדתי ,.2fs suffix-conjugation forms, e.g ַמ ְל ֻכ ֽתוֹ (occurs in some dialects of Aramaic; g ושכבתי ,(malúuμò ‘his kingdom’ (Num. 24.7); and h) ‘you shall go down’ (Ruth 3.3 ketiv —(yëg: år< èm ‘he devours (bones)’ (Num. 24.8), w-škbty ‘you shall lie down’ (Ruth 3.4 ketiv ְי ָגֵ ֖רם with a denominative verb based on Aramaic all in the speech of the two older characters (for ,gÆrÆm ‘bone’ (Rendsburg 2006:169–171; further discussion, see Holmstedt 2010:47–49 ֶגֶּרם see also the extremely detailed treatment in though the conclusion there is slightly different Moyer 2009:47–192). than the one presented here). Young (1995) opines that certain Aramaic- A different approach to much of the same like features in the book of Kings are intended material is taken by Bar-Asher (2008), who to reflect the foreignness of the Aramean believes that the aforecited dual verbs and pro- characters. Thus, for example, Naaman uses nouns, along with other forms in Ruth, reflect the Aramaic form of the infinitive construct a phonological (and not a morphological) phe- /bë-hišta™≥wåy< å< μì ‘in my prostrating nomenon, namely, the coalescing of /m/ and /n ְבּ ִה ְשׁ ַתּ ֲחָוָ֨י ִ ֙תי myself’ (2 Kgs 5.18); while the king of Aram in the speech of the female characters (Naomi èúò ‘where’ when especially), as a way to represent women’s± ֵא ֣יכֹה uses the interrogative addressing his servants. speech. Style-switching may also occur within inner- These illustrations demonstrate the extent Hebrew contexts (in which case the definition to which the ancient Israelite literati would presented in the opening sentence above may manipulate language in their literary construc- require slight adaptation). For example, the tions. The portrayal of foreignness, along presumably Judahite author of the David story with different dialects and registers within the incorporates Israelian (northern) Hebrew (IH) Hebrew realm, was accomplished by means of elements into the speech of the wise woman style-switching in a variety of different literary- of Tekoa (to be associated with Tekoa of the linguistic contexts. Galilee, not Tekoa near Bethlehem). IH traits hå-< ±Æ™å< ≈ ±Æμ-hå-< References ָה ֶא ָ ֛חד ֶא ָת־ה ֶא ָ ֖חד (include: a ±Æ™å< ≈ ‘the one [struck] the other’ (2 Sam. 14.6), Bar-Asher, Elitzur A. 2008. “Linguistic markers in the while standard Biblical Hebrew would use the book of Ruth” (in Hebrew). Shnaton 18:25–42. Baumgartner, Walter. 1941. “Was wir heute von der .”ìš ±Æμ-rè≠èhù ‘one the hebräischen Sprache und ihrer Geschichte wissen± ִאישׁ ֶא ֵת־ר ֵﬠהוּ collocation other’ (lit. ‘each man his friend’), e.g., Exod. Anthropos 35:593–616 (Reprinted in Zum Alten © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 636 stylistic alternation in modern hebrew Testament und seiner Umwelt: Ausgewählte und (more or less) the same meaning. Freedom in Aufsätze, 208–239. Leiden: Brill, 1959). making such choices is limited by the rules of Campbell, Edward F. 1975. Ruth. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. the language (Enkvist 1964:1–56). Greenfield, Jonas C. 1981. “Aramaic studies and the Bible”. Congress Volume Vienna 1980, ed. by 2. Types of Alternative John A. Emerton, 110–130. Leiden: Brill. Expressions Greenstein, Edward L. 2003. “The language of Job and its poetic function”. Journal of Biblical Litera- ture 122:651–666. Stylistic alternatives exist at different levels Holmstedt, Robert D. 2010. Ruth. Waco, Texas: of linguistic structure. Thus, for example, at Baylor University Press. the morphological level one has a choice, in Kaufman, Stephen A. 1988. “The classification of the North West Semitic dialects of the biblical period Modern Hebrew, between the regular genitival bet ha-melex ‘the king’s בית המלך) and some implications thereof”. Proceedings of construction ’šel ‘of של the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies: house’), use of the possessive particle Hebrew and Aramaic Languages, 41–57. Jerusa- ( ha-bayit šel ha-melex literally הבית של המלך .lem: Magnes Moyer, Clinton J. 2009. “Literary and linguistic ‘the house of the king’), or an amalgam of both beto šel ha-melex literally ‘his ביתו של המלך) studies in Sefer Bil≠am (Numbers 22–24)”. PhD dissertation, Cornell University. house of the king’). Similarly, one has a choice Rabin, Chaim. 1967. “An Arabic phrase in Isa- iah”. Studi sull’Oriente e la Bibbia, offerti al P. between independent and suffixed pronouns, -ha-mišpa≤a šeli ver המשפחה שלי Giovanni Rinaldi del 60o compleanno, 303–309. for example mišpa≤ti ‘my family’ (possessive משפחתי Genoa: Studio e Vita. sus אהבתיה / ahavti ±ota± אהבתי אותה ;(Rendsburg, Gary A. 1991. “The strata of Bibli- pronoun cal Hebrew”. Journal of Northwest Semitic Lan- guages 17:81–99. ±ahavtiha ‘I loved her’ (object pronoun). ——. 1996. “Linguistic variation and the ‘foreign’ In syntax, too, there are choices. For exam- factor in the Hebrew Bible”. Israel Oriental Stud- ple, one can choose between nominal and ver- תביעת ההסתדרות היא הקמת ,.ies 15:177–190. bal clauses, e.g ——. 2002. “Some false leads in the identification of tvi≠at ha-histadrut hi haqamat איגוד מקצועי Late Biblical Hebrew texts: The cases of Genesis 24 and 1 Samuel 2:27–36”. Journal of Biblical ±igud miqßo≠i ‘The demand of the Histadrut Literature 121:23–46. is the establishment of a trade union’ ver- -ha ההסתדרות תובעת להקים איגוד מקצועי sus .” ִאשׁ The particle of existence“ .2003 .—— Me™qarim be-Lašon 9:251–255. ——. 2006. “Aramaic-like features in the Penta- histadrut tova≠at lehaqim ±igud miqßo≠i ‘The teuch”. Hebrew Studies 47:163–176. Histadrut demands that a trade union be estab- Rofé, Alexander. 1990. “An enquiry into the lished’. Another syntactic choice is between betrothal of Rebekah”. Die Hebräische Bibel und an active and a passive sentence, e.g., המזכירה ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf -ha-mazkira katva ±et ha כתבה את המכתב Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Erhard Blum, Christian Macholz, and Ekkehard W. Stege- mixtav ‘The secretary wrote the letter’ versus ha-mixtav nixtav המכתב נכתב על ידי המזכירה .mann, 27–39. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag Tur-Sinai, Naphtali H. 1965. “Hašpa at ha- Aramit ≠ ± al yede ha-mazkira ‘The letter was written by ≠al ha-≠Ivrit šel ha-Miqra”. Enßiqlopedya miqra±it ≠ (Encyclopaedia Biblica), vol. 1, 593–595. the secretary’. Other syntactic choices include Young, Ian. 1995. “The ‘Northernisms’ of the Isra- that between a predicate and a predicate clause moše hevi ±et ha-mixtav משה הביא את המכתב) -elite narratives in Kings”. Zeitschrift für Althebra istik 8:63–70. משה הוא Moshe brought the letter)’ versus‘ moše hu še-hevi ±et hamixtav שהביא את המכתב Gary A. Rendsburg (Rutgers University) ‘Moshe is the one who brought the letter’; that between an adverb and an expanded predicate הוא hu ßa≤aq harbe versus הוא צחק הרבה) ;’(hu hirba liß≤oq ‘He laughed a lot הרבה לצחוק Stylistic Alternation in Modern Hebrew that between an adverb and an inner object ’našam ≠amuqot ‘He breathed deeply נשם עמוק) našam nešima ≠amuqa נשם נשימה עמוקה Introduction versus .1 ‘He took a deep breath’; for a detailed discus- According to one definition, style is the conse- sion see section 3 below); between a simple quence of a choice between alternative expres- sentence and one with an element fronted for ha-yeled הילד אכל את התפוח בהפסקה) sions available in a language which convey focus © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3