zewi, tamar. 2013. “nominal clause.” in: khan, g. ed. encyclopedia of hebrew language and...

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE

AND LINGUISTICSVolume 2

G–O

General Editor

Geoffrey Khan

Associate Editors

Shmuel BolokzySteven E. FassbergGary A. Rendsburg

Aaron D. RubinOra R. Schwarzwald

Tamar Zewi

LEIDEN • BOSTON2013

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3

Table of Contents

Volume One

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ viiList of Contributors ............................................................................................................ ixTranscription Tables ........................................................................................................... xiiiArticles A-F ......................................................................................................................... 1

Volume Two

Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... viiArticles G-O ........................................................................................................................ 1

Volume Three

Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... viiArticles P-Z ......................................................................................................................... 1

Volume Four

Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... viiIndex ................................................................................................................................... 1


830 nominal clause


ed. by Juliane House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, 115–126. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

——. 1996. “Shifting roles: A challenge strat-egy in news interviews on Israeli television” (in Hebrew). Hadassah Kantor jubilee book, ed. by Ora Schwarzwald and Yitzhaq Shlesinger, 85–95. Ramat Gan: Language Research Papers.

——. 1997. “Journalistic discourse in modern Hebrew: Saturated environments” (in Hebrew). Shay la’Hadassa: Research in the Hebrew language and in Judaic languages, ed. by Yaacov Ben Tolila, 211–227. Beer Sheva: publisher.

——. 2000. “Irony in news discourse” (in Hebrew). Raphael Nir jubilee book: Studies in communica-tion, linguistics and language teaching, ed. by Ora Rodrigue-Schwarzwald, Shoshana Blum-Kulka, and Elite Olshtain, 237–248. Jerusalem: Carmel.

——. 2001. “Addresser, addressee and target: Nego-tiating roles through ironic criticism”. Negotiation and power in dialogic interaction, ed. by Edda Weigand and Marcelo Dascal, 125–137. Amster-dam: John Benjamins.

——. 2006a. “Positionnement par le défi: Les négo-ciations des rôles dans l’interview televise”. Ques-tions de Communication 9:135–149.

——. 2006b. “Roles and identities in news inter-views: The Israeli context”. Journal of Pragmatics 38:154–179.

——. 2007. “Quantity scales: Towards culture- specific profiles of discourse norms”. Dialogue and culture, ed. by Marion Grein and Edda Weigand, 141–152. Amsterdam / Phildelphia: John Benjamins.

——. 2008. Positioning in media dialogue: Nego-tiating roles in the news interview. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

——. 2009. “‘Friend and enemy’: Intertwined posi-tioning in the news interview” (in Hebrew). Hebrew Linguistics (Balšanit ≠Ivrit) 62–63:299–322.

——. 2011. “Conveying indirect reservations through discursive redundancy”. Language Sciences 33:295–304.

Weizman, Elda and Shoshana Blum-Kulka. 2003. “Misunderstandings in the political interview”. Misunderstanding in social life, ed. by Juliane House, Gabriele Kasper, and Steven Ross, 107–129. London: Longman.

Weizman, Elda, Irit Levi, and Isaac Schneebaum. 2007. “Variation in interviewing styles: Challenge and support in Al-Jazeera and on Israeli television”. Political discourse in the media: Cross-cultural perspectives, ed. by Anita Fetzer and Gerda Eva Lauerbach, 197-223. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Elda Weizman(Bar-Ilan University)

Nominal Clause

1. I n t r o d u c t i o n

Narrowly defined, clauses are nominal if their predicate is a noun and not a verb. A broader

definition regards any clause whose predicate is any part of speech other than a verb as a nomi-nal clause. Such a predicate can be a noun, an adjective, an adverb, a particle, a prepositional phrase, or even a certain type of clause. In line with this definition, nominal clauses are also called ‘non-verbal’ or ‘verbless’ clauses. The lat-ter term implies an analysis according to which a copulative verb is understood, although omit-ted from the clause. This view is sometimes espoused by scholars working within the frame-work of transformational generative grammar, especially its later offshoots (e.g., DeCaen 1999; Sinclair 1999, regarding Biblical Hebrew, and more references regarding other Hebrew stages below), but is by no means shared by all. While scholars like Sinclair (1999) may view nominal clauses as a subclass of verbal clauses with a copulative verb, an essential difference between the two should be emphasized: in a nominal clause the predicative relation is expressed syn-tactically, by mere juxtaposition of subject and predicate, while in the verbal clause the pred-icative relation is expressed morphologically, in a single verbal form which contains all three of its components: a subject indicated by inflection pronouns, a lexeme constituting a predicate, and a predicative relation between them (Gold-enberg 1995:2–4, 1996:175).

The nominal clause is a very central syntac-tic pattern in Semitic languages, although it is in no way restricted to them. On nominal clauses in Semitic languages see, e.g., Buccel-lati (1968), Cohen (1984), Contini (1982), Goldenberg (1983), Hodge (1975), Huehner-gard (1986), Kaddari (1971), Kraus (1984), Muraoka (1975), Naudé (1994), Pennacchi-etti (1987), Wertheimer (2002), Zewi (1995, 2007), and more references in Zewi & Lev (2008:108–115).

2. T h e S t r u c t u r e a n d T y p o l o g y o f H e b r e w N o m i n a l C l a u s e s

The basic structure of a nominal clause is bipar-tite: it has two main parts standing side by side; the predicative relation is syntactically implicit, and not represented by any specific clause constituent. While the word order of bipartite nominal clauses can be either subject-predicate or predicate-subject, word order preferences and distribution have varied throughout the

nominal clause 831


in discussions of the nominal clause in all other stages of Hebrew as well.

Nominal clause patterns are often divided into ‘clauses of classification’ (‘qualification’/‘description’) and ‘clauses of identification’. According to Polotsky, this division was intro-duced by Praetorius (Polotsky 1962:416, note 2, and references to Praetorius there), who made a distinction between ‘clauses of classification’ in which the predicate classifies or qualifies the subject and is usually indefinite, and ‘clauses of identification’ in which the predicate identifies the subject and is usually definite. This basic distinction is frequently found in descriptions of nominal clauses in Biblical Hebrew. It is fundamental, for example, in Andersen (1970; note especially Andersen 1970:32 and Blau 1972:70). It is also found, e.g., in Bendavid (1971:723–735), Contini (1982:43–46) and Muraoka (1985:7–9); see also short discus-sions and references in Zewi (1994:152–153), Waltke & O’Connor (1990:130–135) and Wil-liams (2007:198).

3. B i b l i c a l H e b r e w

Joüon & Muraoka (2006:531–538) remark that about two thirds of the bipartite nomi-nal clauses in Biblical Hebrew are in subject-predicate, and one third in predicate-subject order. Predicates in any of these patterns may belong to all word categories. Word order may, however, be constrained in other respects.

Subject-predicate word order has been asso-ciated with the following specific semantic and syntactic clause types in Biblical Hebrew: (a) circumstantial clauses, e.g., ים בשמ וראשו wë-ròšò ∫aš-š <åmayim ‘. . . with its top in the heavens’ (Gen. 11.4); (b) positive subordinate clauses introduced by אשר ±≥šÆr, e.g., אשר־ש ב ודב ת חל וא זב ∫šÆr hì z<å∫aμ ™<ål<å∫ ù-≈ë≤± ה <åš ‘Which flows with milk and honey’ (Num. 14.8); (c) clauses coordinated by the conjunc-tive w<åw, e.g., יה יבות כל־נת ו עם דרכי־נ יה דרכdër שלום <åúÆh<å ≈arúè no≠am wë-úål nëμì∫òμÆh<å š<ålòm ‘Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace’ (Prov. 3.17); (d) the second of two contrastive clauses, e.g., י־ כיו ה מנער יש מלחמ תה והוא א kì na≠ar ±att<å נער אwë-hù ±ìš mil™<åm<å min-në≠ur<åw ‘For you are but a youth, and he has been a man of war from his youth’ (1 Sam. 17.33), in which the

history of the language. The word order is not always easy to identify. Thus all scholars admit that in Biblical Hebrew both subject-predicate and predicate-subject sequences exist, but they still occasionally disagree on how subject and predicate in a nominal clause should be identi-fied, whether one of the two sequences might be considered functionally-pragmatically marked, and if so, which of them it is.

The various approaches to identifying subject and predicate in a nominal clause in Biblical Hebrew can be roughly subsumed under three main types. Two of these rely on functional and pragmatic considerations, using criteria like measure of definiteness and context to deter-mine which component is the ‘known informa-tion’ or the ‘given constituent’ and which is the ‘new information’ or the ‘information said about the given constituent’. Both approaches commonly, though not always, use terms like ‘theme’/‘topic’ and ‘rheme’/‘comment’, and define the roles of the subject and predicate similarly, and yet they may differ in their final analysis.

The one approach does not differentiate functional-pragmatic from syntactic-formal considerations, and analyzes nominal clauses only on one level. The following are some of the studies, by no means entirely identical, which take this approach: Andersen (1970), Michel (1994), Muraoka (1985, 1990, 1991, 1999), Niccacci (1993, 1999), Revell (1989, 1999), Van Wolde (1999), Zewi (1994).

The other approach puts more emphasis on formal criteria, mostly measures of definite-ness, and insists on differentiating two levels of analysis: functional-pragmatic and formal-syntactic; see, e.g., Buth (1999), Dyk & Talstra (1999), Lowery (1999).

A third approach rejects the bipartite view of nominal clauses; rather, it analyzes them as underlyingly tripartite or verbal clauses involving deletion. As stated above, this is an approach taken mainly by linguists working in the transformational generative framework, e.g., Sinclair (1999) and DeCaen (1999), men-tioned above; but see also objections, e.g., in Sadka (1980:230–233).

A general outline of these approaches regard-ing Biblical Hebrew can be found in Zewi & Van der Merwe (2001). The main arguments and standpoints in all these works are present

832 nominal clause


first clause presents predicate–subject sequence; (e) the second clause in a chiastic construction, e.g., ים ים רב ילך במ שב ך ושביליך ו bay-y בים דרכ <åm darkÆú<å ù-šë∫ìlëú<å bë-mayim rabbìm ‘Thy way was through the sea, thy path through the great waters’ (Ps. 77.20).

Clauses with the following semantic and syn-tactic characteristics are typically in predicate-subject order: (a) clauses preceded by verbs of speech, e.g., ה מלחמ קול ה אל־מש אמר וימחנה -way-yòmÆr ±Æl MòšÆ qòl mil™<åm<å bam בma™≥nÆ ‘He said to Moses, “There is a noise of war in the camp” ’ (Exod. 32.17); (b) sub-ordinate clauses preceded by כי kì, e.g., י כנה ה י־חיות כ ת עברי ה ת המצרי ים כנש א kì lò לúan-n<åšìm ham-mißriyyòμ h <å-≠i∫riyyòμ kì ™<åyòμ hènn<å ‘Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous’ (Exod. 1.19); (c) negative subordinate clauses introduced by אשר ±≥šÆr, e.g., י א־מבנ ל ר אשמה ה ל šÆr lò mib-bënè Yi«r<å±èl hèmm<å≤± ישרא‘Who were not of the people of Israel’ (1 Kgs 9.20); (d) protasis and apodosis of conditional clauses, e.g., יא ה ת ואם־ב אתו ן והמת הוא ן אם־ביה im bèn hù wa-h≥mittÆn ±òμò wë-±im baμ hì± וחw<å-™<åy<å ‘If it is a son, you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, she shall live’ (Exod. 1.16), in which there are two protases, and ין ואם־אכי אנ ה wë-±im ±ayin mèμ<å ±<ånòúì ‘If not, I מתshall die’ (Gen. 30.1), with a nominal clause in an apodosis; (e) interrogative clauses, e.g., מה־ך mam-ma«kurtÆú<å ‘What shall your משכרתwages be?’ (Gen. 29.15), ן הז ק ם אביכ השלום h≥-š<ålòm ±≥∫ìúÆm haz-z<åqèn ‘Is your old father well?’ (Gen. 43.27); (f) blessing and curse for-mulas, e.g., ה b<årùú hù la-YHWH ברוך הוא ליהו‘Blessed be he by the LORD’ (Ruth 2.20), ארור ה השד חית ל ומכ ה מכל־הבהמ årùr ±att<å>± אתה mik-kål hab-bëhèm <å ù-mik-kol ™ayyaμ ha«-«<å≈Æ ‘Cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals’ (Gen. 3.14). Predicate-subject word order is always used when a personal or a demonstrative pronoun is the predicate, e.g., אמו יא hì ±immò ‘She is its mother’ (1 Kgs הל ,(3.27 ישרא יך אלה לה èllÆ ±(lòhÆú<å Yi«r<å±èl± א‘These are your gods, O Israel’ (Exod. 32.4). Such or similar constructions, in full or in part, are described in Andersen (1970), Joüon & Muraoka (2006:531–538), Muraoka (1985:14–17), Revell (1989), Waltke & O’Connor (1990:130–135), Zewi (1994:149–150, 154, 157–158). Hoftijzer (1973) emphasizes the role of contrast.

4. E x t e n d e d N o m i n a l C l a u s e s

All stages of Hebrew also manifest extended types of nominal clauses, which include addi-tional personal or demonstrative pronouns in a variety of word-order patterns. There is no generally accepted term for these clauses, which have variously been called ‘tripartite/three member nominal clauses’ or ‘compound nominal clauses’ (e.g., Gross 1999; Joüon & Muraoka 2006:538–540; Muraoka 1999; Zewi 1999, 2000; and also see Goldenberg 2006 regarding the use of this terminology in Syriac and general Semitic linguistics).

The types and distribution of extended nomi-nal clauses have undergone some changes over time (see below for different stages of the language), and their correct analysis has been the subject of scholarly debate, especially the proper interpretation of the syntactic role of the additional independent and demonstrative pronouns employed in them. Such pronouns have been analyzed by some scholars as copu-las ( Copula, and see below) representing the predicative relation in the clause, while others regard them as anaphoric or cataphoric pronouns referring to an extraposed subject. Certain scholars occasionally combine these two approaches. Still others define the role of the independent pronouns in nominal clauses in terms of emphasis, prominence, and agreement clitics. As presented in more detail below, these views may vary according to one’s syntactic approach, and can at times also be interpreted by the same scholar differently with respect to different stages of Hebrew.

5. E x t e n d e d N o m i n a l C l a u s e s i n B i b l i c a l H e b r e w

Many of the scholars who consider all occur-rences of the independent personal pronoun in the so-called tripartite nominal clause a copula, and its absence as the omission of a copula, belong to the generative-transforma-tional school, e.g., DeCaen (1999), Sinclair (1999), and see also Williams (2007:50) and the definition of the copula in Van der Merwe et al. (1999:356). The more traditional view, in agreement with views held by Arab gram-marians, as well as by adherents of linguistic approaches like ‘functional sentence perspec-tive’, ‘functional syntax’, ‘pragmatics’, etc.,

nominal clause 833


consider the independent pronouns in these clauses as resumptive pronouns in casus pendens or extraposition. For the most part such pronouns are analyzed as subjects referring to explicit extraposed subjects, e.g., Andersen (1970:36), Blau (2001:20), Driver (1892:267–274), GKC (1910:453), Goldenberg (2005, 2006), Gross (1987:123–144), Joüon & Muraoka (2006:538–540), Michel (1966/1972,1994), Zewi (1994, 1996, 1999a, 2000).

Niccacci (1999) defines the role of the extra-posed component in certain extended nominal clauses in terms of apposition. According to one view such an analysis applies only to nomi-nal clauses in which one sentence constituent is indefinite, while in clauses both of whose con-stituents are definite (also considered a ‘clause of identification’) the independent pronoun is regarded as a copula. Such a standpoint has been expressed by those working in the frame of generative-transformational approach, but also by earlier more traditional scholars as well, e.g., Ewald (1881:135–136), Albrecht (1888:250–252) following Ewald, and Brockel-mann (1913:104–105). More recently Sappan (1981:92–93) has argued that the independent personal pronoun is a copula, but suggests that it developed from a pattern involving extraposition. Bendavid (1971:704) argues that both explanations of the pronoun, copula and extraposed constituent, are valid, and that each holds for a different set of examples, and Sadka, referring to Biblical and Modern Hebrew alike (1980:238–239, 1981:24), asserts that these two explanations are not contradictory but complementary.

While the motivation for the emergence of extended nominal clauses in Biblical Hebrew is fairly obscure, the independent personal pro-nouns appearing in all or some of these clauses are sometimes explained as expressing emphasis or prominence (e.g., Driver 1892:270; Muraoka 1985:67–77; Blau 2001:25, 28–29; Joüon & Muraoka 2006:538–540). Such an approach is also taken by Khan (2006:166–176), who furthermore suggests that the independent per-sonal pronouns gradually developed grammati-cal features typical of copulas. Khan brings support for his theory from a comparison with similar developments of the copula in North Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects. For further discussion see Goldenberg (2005), Muraoka (1999:198–210), and Zewi (1996).

One extended nominal clause pattern in Bib-lical Hebrew is attested in לך ן מ יר סיח י חשבון ע כוא י ה ±-kì £Æšbòn ≠ìr Sì™òn mÆlÆú h<å האמר ©Emòrì hì ‘For Heshbon was the city of Sihon the king of the Amorites’ (Num. 21.26). In this clause there is an independent personal pronoun in final position, following the predicate ן סיח יר עי לך האמר ìr Sì™òn mÆlÆú h≠ מ <å-±©Emòrì. The first clause member חשבון £Æšbòn is frequently analyzed as an extraposed subject, resumed by the personal pronoun. When a nominal clause in this pattern is part of a subordinate clause which follows a verb denoting an act of mind (one of the so-called ‘verbs of the heart’, ±af ≠àl al-qulùb in Arabic), its subject may anticipate the subordinate clause and play the role of an object of the verb in the main clause, creating a pattern known as prolepsis, e.g., עת ד מען ליא ה ה חז ק י כ ה יהו את־יד רץ הא י lë-ma≠an כל־עמda≠aμ kål ≠ammè h<å-± <årÆß ±Æμ ya≈ YHWH kì ™≥z<åq<å hì ‘So that all the peoples of the earth may know that the hand of the LORD is mighty’ (Josh. 4.24) (Zewi 1996). The phrase ה יהו ya≈ YHWH in this example is the יד extraposed subject that has become the object of the main clause. Other Biblical Hebrew pat-terns display independent personal pronouns in clause medial position, e.g., יהוה הוא יק צדßaddìq hù YHWH ‘The LORD is in the right’ (Lam. 1.18), and יהוה ר אשר־יבח יש הא ה והיwë-h הוא הקדוש <åy<å h<å-±ìš ±≥šÆr yi∫™ar YHWH hù haq-q<å≈òš ‘And the man whom the LORD chooses shall be the holy one’ (Num. 16.7).

The last two examples in fact represent two distinct patterns. In the former the first clause member יק -ßaddìq is indefinite, and com צדmonly analyzed as the predicate, while in the latter the first clause member h<å-±ìš ±≥šÆr yi∫™ar YHWH יהוה ר אשר־יבח יש is definite and האfrequently analyzed as the subject. The first of those two patterns is very common in Biblical Hebrew also with demonstrative personal pro-nouns within interrogative clauses, e.g., ה את הא ו אם־ל י עש »ha-±att<å zÆ bënì ≠ê זה בנ <åw ±im lò ‘. . . whether you are really my son Esau or not’ (Gen. 27.21). A parallel construction in which the third clause member is a verb, e.g., מי־הוא ני mì hù yaršì≠ènì ‘. . . who will declare me ירשיעguilty?’ (Isa.50.9), could be interpreted as a cleft sentence ( Cleft Sentences).

The second of these patterns is employed after long subjects, e.g., ב לשא היצאת עלמה ה והיה ה ואמר ך׃ מכד ים מעט־מ יני־נא הש ק יה אל י ואמרת

834 nominal clause


ה אש ה וא ה ב אשא יך לגמל ם וג ה שת ה גם־את אלי י יח יהוה לבן־אדנ wë-h אשר־הכ <åy<å h<å-≠alm <å hay-yòßèμ liš±ò∫ wë-±<åmartì ±èlÆh<å hašqìnì n <å më≠a† mayim mik-kaddèú. wë-±<åmër <å ±èlay gam ±att<å šëμè wë-=gam li- =gëmallÆú<å ±Æš± <å∫ hì h<å-±išš<å ±≥šÆr hòúìa™ YHWH lë-∫Æn ±≥≈ònì ‘Let the young woman who comes out to draw, to whom I shall say, “Pray give me a little water from your jar to drink,” and who will say to me, “Drink, and I will draw for your camels also,” let her be the woman whom the LORD has appointed for my master’s son’ (Gen. 24.43, 44).

6. N o m i n a l C l a u s e s i n t h e D e a d S e a S c r o l l s

As in Biblical Hebrew, nominal clauses in the Dead Sea scrolls exhibit both bipartite and extended patterns containing independent per-sonal pronouns. In bipartite clauses predicates which are noun phrases, prepositional phrases, and infinitives appear in both predicate-subject and subject-predicate order; adjectives and pas-sive and active participles, independent personal pronouns and demonstrative pronouns, and interrogative particles as predicates appear only in predicate-subject order, and content clauses as predicates appear only in subject-predicate order (see Zewi 2007b:67–73, 2008:279–285). Both orders appear in subordinate and non-subordinate clauses alike. Examples of predicate-subject patterns are, e.g., (יום) כיא הזה היום ki (yom) mil™ama hay-yom מלחמה haz-ze ‘For this (day) time is an appointed time of battle’ (1QM 15 12); ועם אביונים יד גבורתכה we-≠im ±e∫yonim yad ge∫urateúa ‘And yet your mighty hand is with the oppressed’ (1QM אם ;(14–13 13 להניא ואם היא להקים [. . . א]ם היא ברית im le-haqim hi we-±im le-hani± לעבור ±im la-≠a∫or brit hi ‘[. . .i]f it should be ful-filled or annulled. If (the oath) is to transgress the covenant’ (4Q271 4 ii 11–12). Examples of subject-predicate order are, e.g., עת והיאה ’we-hi ≠et ßara ‘It is a time of distress צרה(1QM 1 11–12); כול על פחדם [וא]מ[ת]ם אשר ašer pa™adam [we-±e]ma[ta]m ≠al kol± הגואיםhag-go±im ‘The fear and dread of whom are on all the peoples’ (1QpHab 3 4–5). A content clause as the predicate of a nominal clause, e.g., נכבדים על ובזו רבים על ילעיגו אשר pišro פשרו ±ašer yal≠igu ≠al rabbim u-∫azu ≠al niúbadim ‘Its interpretation: they deride the powerful and despise the honoured men’ (1QpHab 4 1–2), is

a type found only in Dead Sea exegetical texts and does not correspond to any nominal clause pattern in either Biblical or Rabbinic Hebrew. Extended patterns are infrequent in the Dead Sea scrolls. Clauses with an independent per-sonal pronoun in third position following the predicate are very rare, e.g., אשר חרם [כל הוא להמית הגואים [בח]וקי מאדם אד]ם יחרים [kol ™erem ±ašer ya™arim ±ada]m me-±adam [be-™]uqqe hag-go±im le-hamit hu ‘[“Anything devoted”,] whoever devotes to destruction a ma]n (among men?) [by the l]aws of the gen-tiles is to be put to death’ (4Q270 6 iii 16). Examples with independent personal pronouns in medial position are slightly more frequent, albeit limited to an exegetical formula: כיא היחד עצת הוא ki hal-le∫anon hu ≠aßat הלבנון hay-ya™ad ‘Because Lebanon, (it) is the Council of the Community’ (1QpHab 12 3–4).

As with nominal clauses in other stages of Hebrew, scholars have employed a variety of different syntactic approaches to analyze the patterns which appear in the Dead Sea scrolls. One approach argues that formal-grammatical and functional-pragmatic approaches should be united in nominal clause analysis, and considers the extended patterns as extraposi-tions (Zewi 2007b, 2008). Another insists on separating these levels of analysis, and uses the functional terms ‘theme’ and ‘rheme’, but still treats the extended patterns in terms of extraposition (Baasten 1997, 1999, 2006). A treatment of nominal clauses with additional pronouns within the frame of transformational-generative grammar is found in Naudé (2002a and 2002b). Naudé rejects the analysis of the pronouns in nominal clauses, ‘verbless clauses’ in his phrase, as resumptive pronouns in extra-positions, ‘left-dislocations’ in his phrase, and suggests that they function as agreement clitics.

7. R a b b i n i c a n d M e d i e v a l H e b r e w

Rabbinic Hebrew also displays the two simple bipartite nominal clause orders subject-predicate and predicate-subject. According to Azar, the regular order is subject-predicate, e.g., הכל hak-kol šalom ‘All is in order’ (Mishna שלוםTamid 1:3), while predicate-subject order is restricted to direct discourse and certain types of subjects and predicates, such as indepen-dent personal pronoun subjects, e.g., קל והלא

nominal clause 835


הוא wa-halo qal we-™omer hu ‘Is it not וחומר a qal vehomer’ (Mishna Eduyot 6:2) predicates indicating measurement, and the interrogative particle מה ma, the word אחד ±e™ad, the word -eze, and personal and demonstrative pro± איזהnouns as predicates (Azar 1995:71–79; see also another classification of nominal clauses in this period according to definiteness of the clause components and their word categories, instead of their roles as subjects or predicates, in Muraoka 1990).

Extended nominal clauses appear at this stage as well. As in Biblical Hebrew, an independent personal pronoun can follow a predicate at the end of a nominal clause, e.g., אחד שם שלשתן šeloštan šem ±e™ad hen ‘All three in fact fall הןinto a single prohibition’ (Mishna Keritot 3:6), or in second position, e.g., רפת בקר היא זו reƒet baqar hi zo ‘That would be little more than a cattle shed’ (Mishna Bava Batra 6:4).

A new pattern in Rabbinic Hebrew has an independent personal pronoun in second posi-tion preceding its predicate, e.g., ככר הוא עירוב kikkar hu ≠eru∫ ‘A loaf of bread is [what is to be used for] an erub’ (Mishna Eruvin 7:10) (Azar 1995:79–81; Muraoka 1990:241–247). While Muraoka analyzes this pattern as an extraposition, and the role of the independent personal pronoun in it as making the preced-ing element more prominent, Kaddari suggests that it functions as a ‘nominal predicator’, i.e., an element which marks the predicate, in the majority of the Rabbinic Hebrew examples (Kaddari 1991:257–261, 267). Kaddari rejects the analysis of independent personal pronouns in Rabbinic extended nominal patterns as copu-las (Kaddari 1991:261), but Muraoka believes that the role of these pronouns in making a clause component more prominent weakened already in late Biblical Hebrew, and that they developed certain characteristics of a copula (Muraoka 1990:246).

The scholarly literature has little to say about Medieval Hebrew. One paper, by Kaddari, deals with the function of the independent personal pronouns in the Responsa Hebrew (Kaddari 1991:268–276). Kaddari identifies numerous examples, including an independent personal pronoun between the subject and the predicate. This personal pronoun, according to his researches, lacks intonation and has no syntactic role. Kaddari argues that it is not a copula and suggests instead that it be analyzed

as a semi-copula introduced into Hebrew as a calque due to the influence of foreign languages (Kaddari 1991:271).

8. M o d e r n H e b r e w

Both bipartite nominal clauses and extended types containing an independent personal or demonstrative pronoun exist in Modern Hebrew, but the various word-order patterns in which they appear differ from earlier stages of the language. Modern Hebrew bipartite nomi-nal clauses are common in the order subject-predicate. Examples from daily Hebrew are, e.g., הסטודנטית עסוקה ha-s†uden†it ≠asuqa ‘The student is busy’, זה חלום ze ≤alom ‘It is a dream’, and from Hebrew literature אנחנו עולים חדשים צברים ana≤nu ≠olim ≤adašim ve-±atem± ואתם ßabarim ‘We are new immigrants and you are Sabras [Israel-born]’ (Amir 1992:67).

Predicate-subject word order is generally absent in the spoken and daily language but is attested in literature, e.g., כי ידעה וכבר היא שווא u-xvar yad≠a ki ha±ašamat האשמת šav hi ‘And she already knew that it was a false accusation’ (Liebrecht 1986:25), נכבדה שאלה še±ela nixbada u-me≠anyenet hi ‘It ומעניינת היאis an important and interesting question’ (Sha-lev 1998:14).

Extended nominal clause patterns containing supplementary independent personal or demon-strative pronouns are frequent in Modern Hebrew, with pronouns in medial position pre-ceding the predicate. Examples from colloquial Hebrew: כדור הוא ha-≠olam hu kadur העולם ‘The universe goes round’, literally ‘The uni-verse is a ball’, ילדים זה שמחה yeladim ze sim≤a ‘Children bring joy’, literally ‘Children are joy’. Examples from literature: היא העמדת-פנים כל kol ha≠amadat panim hi giluy panim גילוי-פנים‘Every concealment is disclosure’ (Oz 1968:31), Mozart hu qosem ‘Mozart is a מוצרט הוא קוסםmagician’ (Amir 1992:121).

Patterns in which the supplementary pro-nouns follow their predicate also appear in Modern Hebrew, but they mostly occur in medial position, especially in literature, e.g., שלי ביותר המוקדם הזיכרון zehu ha-zikaron זהו ha-muqdam be-yoter šeli ‘This is my earliest memory’ (Be±er 1998:163), in which זהו zehu is a combination of זה ze + הוא hu, and אבל עובדה מוחה את מילא החדש החשמלי שהמקרר היא, חדשות בחרדות סבתא של aval ≠uvda± הצייקני

836 nominal clause


hi, še-ha-meqarer ha-≤ašmali he-≤adaš mile ±et mo≤a ha-ßayqani šel savta ba-≤aradot ≤adašot ‘But it is a fact that the new electric refrigerator filled grandma’s miserly mind with new anxiet-ies’ (Shalev 1998:175).

There are a number of different views on the status of the independent pronouns in extended nominal clause patterns in Modern Hebrew. Berman & Grosu (1976), Berman (1978:183–211), and Shlonsky (1997:39), working within the framework of transformational-generative grammar, regard such pronouns as copulative and their absence in bipartite nominal clauses as a case of a null copula. Doron (1986), using a similar linguistic approach, views the inde-pendent personal pronoun in these clauses as an agreement clitic. Azar (1976:214) applies the copulative interpretation only to a limited group of nominal clauses whose two nominal phrases are definite. Rubinstein (1968:116–118) and Rosén (1965:169) argue that the independent personal pronoun in nominal clauses evolved from an extraposed sentence part in Biblical Hebrew to a copula in later stages of Hebrew, while Sadka (1980: 238–239, 1981:24) finds no contradiction between the two main explana-tions, copulative and extrapositional, regarding them as complementary.

The independent pronouns in Modern Hebrew nominal clauses are obligatory in cer-tain patterns, and optional or totally avoidable in others. This question still awaits further corpus-based research (Rubinstein 1968, with a transformational-generative orientation, is so far the only available comprehensive study). Some suggestions concentrate on the dichot-omy of classificatory clauses, in which personal pronouns are optional or nonexistent, versus clauses of equation, identity, or identification, and with generic subjects, in which the per-sonal pronouns are mandatory ( Equative Sentence) (e.g., Berman & Grosu 1976; Green-berg 2002).

9. N e g a t i o n a n d t h e E x p r e s s i o n o f T i m e a n d A s p e c t i n N o m i n a l C l a u s e s

Negation ( Negation) in nominal clauses is marked by לא lò, e.g., Biblical Hebrew י־לא־ כהוא ל ישרא לך kì lò mÆlÆú Yi«r<å±èl hù ‘. . . that מit was not the king of Israel’ 1 Kgs 22.33). In clauses containing participle and adjective

predicates negation is marked by לא lò or אין ±èn, e.g., Biblical Hebrew א ל שר א ה ומן־הבהמה ù-min hab-bëhèm<å ±≥šÆr lò †ëhòr<å ‘. . . and טהרa pair of the animals that are not clean’ (Gen. 7.2), compare with ה ר איננה טהר ה אש בהמ ומן־הù-min hab-bëhèm<å ±≥šÆr ±ènÆnn<å †ëhòr<å ‘. . . and of animals that are not clean’ (Gen. 7.8). These particles serve in all stages of the language. In Modern Hebrew the choice of לא lò or אין ±èn for the negation of participles and adjec-tives depends on style and register (see GKC 1910:479–480; Joüon & Muraoka 2006:567–570; Williams 2007:144, 146–147 for Bibli-cal Hebrew; Azar 1995:167–177 for Rabbinic Hebrew; Berman 1978:145–146, 220–223 for Modern Hebrew). In Rabbinic as well as other stages of Hebrew negation by אין may occur with predicates other than participles and adjec-tives (see Azar 1995:167–171 for this use in Rabbinic Hebrew). Negation by אין is also used in existential clauses, which form an indepen-dent non-verbal clause type, distinct from nomi-nal clauses ( Existential Clauses).

Time and aspect in nominal clauses are com-monly expressed at all stages of the language by the finite verb היה h<åy<å, e.g., ים ה מ והמבול הירץ -wë-ham-mabbùl h<åy<å mayim ≠al h<å על־הא±<årÆß ‘. . . the flood of waters was upon the earth’ (Gen. 7.6) in Biblical Hebrew, and היה הארץ ha-±arets haya ≠iton meßuyan ‘Haaretz עיתון מצויןwas an excellent newspaper’ (from an internet talkback) in colloquial Modern Hebrew. This verb has two functions. It is an auxiliary verb which, in the case of nominal clauses, may be considered a copula of sorts, as in the lat-ter examples ( Copula); it is also a full verb in existential clauses ( Existential Clauses) (see discussions and examples, e.g., in Nicca-cci 1990; Sadka 1981; Trommer 1999; Zewi 1999b:198–203). In Biblical Hebrew its use in nominal clauses for the expression of time and aspect is optional. Time can be expressed by time particles and adverbs alone, e.g., י־חצור כלה הא כל־הממלכות אש ר יא ה ים kì £<åßòr לפנlë-ƒ<ånìm hì ròš kål ham-maml<åúòμ h<å-±èllÆ ‘For Hazor formerly was the head of all those king-doms’ (Josh. 11.10), in which the time particle is לפנים lë-ƒ<ånìm. Indeed, the expression of time in Biblical Hebrew is sometimes left to the context, as in the following example, whose latter part has already been mentioned above: רץ על־הא ים מ ה הי והמבול שנה מאות ש בן־ש ח ונwë-Nòa™ bÆn šèš mè±òμ š <ån<å wë-ham-m<åbbùl

nominal clause 837


h<åy<å mayim ≠al h<å-±<årÆß ‘Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came upon the earth’ (Gen. 7.6), in which the time of the first clause שנה מאות ש בן־ש ח wë-Nòa™ bÆn ונšèš mè±òμ š<ån<å is expressed by the second tem-poral clause רץ ים על־הא ה מ -wë-ham והמבול היm<åbbùl h<åy<å mayim ≠al h<å-±<årÆß, whose time is expressed by the verb היה h<åy<å. The lack of an overt expression of time is especially common in circumstantial and other subordinate clauses, e.g., יא ה מיהוה י כ ידעו א ל ואמו יו wë-±<å∫ìw ואבwë-±immò lò y<å≈ë≠ù kì mè-YHWH hì ‘His father and mother did not know that it was from the LORD’ (Judg. 14.4), in which the sub-ordinate clause יא י מיהוה ה kì mè-YHWH hì is כin the past tense though it does not contain any time particle or adverb. Note also the following two parallel examples, the first without and the second with a verb היה h<åy<å: ה־ סא מחר ת כעשמרון ער בש קל בש ים שער ים וסאת קל בש לת סk<å-≠èμ m<å™<år së± <å sòlÆμ bë-šÆqÆl wë-s<åμayim së≠òrìm bë-šÆqÆl bë-ša≠ar Šòmròn ‘Tomorrow about this time a measure of fine meal shall be sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, at the gate of Samaria’ (2 Kgs קל יהיה ,(7.1 לת בש קל וסאה־ס ים בש ים שער סאתער שמרון ר בש s<åμayim së≠òrìm bë-šÆqÆl כעת מחù-së±<å sòlÆμ bë-šÆqÆl yihyÆ k<å-≠èμ m<å™<år bë-ša≠ar Šòmròn ‘Two measures of barley shall be sold for a shekel, and a measure of fine meal for a shekel, about this time tomorrow in the gate of Samaria’ (2 Kgs 7.18) (Zewi 1999b).

P r i m a r y S o u r c e sAmir, Eli. 1992. Scapegoat (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv:

Am Oved. (31st repr. 2000).Baumgarten, Joseph M. et al. eds. 1996. Qumran

cave 4.XIII: The Damascus document (4Q266–273). (DJD XVIII). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Be±er, Haim. 1998. The pure element of time (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Am Oved.

Duhaime, Jean. 1995. War scroll (1QM; 1Q33; 4Q491–496 = 4QM1–6; 4Q497). The Dead Sea scrolls, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with English translations II, ed. by James H. Charles-worth, 80–203. Tübingen & Louisville: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) & Westminster John Knox Press.

Liebrecht, Savyon. 1986. “Pigeons” (in Hebrew). Apples from the desert: Short stories, 15–41. Tel Aviv: Sifriyat HaPoalim (9th repr. 1992. Jerusa-lem: Keter).

Martínez, Florentino G. and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. eds. 1997. The Dead Sea scrolls study edition I: IQI–4Q273, 10–21. Leiden: Brill.

Neusner, Jacob. 1988. The Mishnah: A new transla-tion. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Nitzan, Bilhah. ed. 1986. Pesher Habakkuk: A scroll from the wilderness of Judaea (1QpHab) (in

Hebrew). Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute Publish-ing House.

Oz, Amos. 1968. My Michael (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Am Oved (37th repr. 2003. Jerusalem: Keter).

Shalev, Meir. 1998. In his house in the wilderness (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Am Oved (2nd repr.).

R e f e r e n c e sAlbrecht, Carl. 1887, 1888. “Die Wortstellung im

hebräischen Nominalsatze I–II”. Zeitschrift für alt-testamentliche Wissenschaft 8:218–224, 249–264.

Andersen, Francis I. 1970. The Hebrew verbless clause in the Pentateuch. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Azar, Moshe. 1976. “The emphatic sentence in Mod-ern Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Cole 1976:209–229.

——. 1995. The syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew. Jeru-salem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language & University of Haifa.

Baasten, Martin. F. J. 1997. “Nominal clauses con-taining a personal pronoun in Qumran Hebrew”. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a symposium held at Leiden Uni-versity, 11–14 December 1995, ed. by Takamitsu Muraoka; John F. Elwolde, 1–16. Leiden: Brill.

——. 1999. “Nominal clauses with locative and possessive predicates in Qumran Hebrew”. Sir-ach, scrolls, and sages: Proceedings of a second international symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University, 15–17 December 1997, ed. by Takamitsu Muraoka; John F. Elwolde, 25–52. Leiden: Brill.

——. 2006. The non-verbal clause in Qumran Hebrew. PhD Thesis. Leiden: Leiden University.

Bendavid, Abba. 1971. Biblical Hebrew and Mish-naic Hebrew I–II (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Dvir.

Berman, Ruth A. 1978. Modern Hebrew structure. Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects.

Berman, Ruth and Alexander Grosu. 1976. “Aspects of the copula in Modern Hebrew”. In Cole 1976:265–285.

Blau, Joshua. 1972. “≠Al mivne ha-mišpa† ha-šemani ba-tora: Review of F. I. Andersen, The Hebrew verbless clause in the Pentateuch, Journal of bibli-cal literature monograph series XIV, Abingdon Press, Nashville, New York 1970, pp. 128” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 37:69–74.

——. 2001. “Independent third-person anaphoric (and cataphoric) pronouns in nominal clauses: A proposed historical model” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 63:19–29.

Brockelmann, Carl. 1908, 1913. Grundriss der ver-gleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen I–II. Berlin: von Reuther & Reichard (repr. 1982. Hildesheim: Georg Olms).

Buccellati, Giorgio. 1968. “An interpretation of the Akkadian stative as a nominal sentence”. The Jour-nal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 27:1–12.

Buth, Randall. 1999. “Word order in the verb-less clause: A generative-functional approach”. In Miller 1999:79–108.

Cohen, David. 1984. La phrase nominale et l’évolution du système verbal en sémitique. Etudes de syntaxe historique. Leuven: Peeters.

Cole, Peter. ed. 1976. Studies in modern Hebrew syntax and semantics: The transformational-

838 nominal clause


generative approach. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.

Contini, Riccardo. 1982. Tipologia della frase nomi-nale nel semitico nordoccidentale del I millennio a.C [Typology of the nominal clause in the North-west Semitic of the 1st millennium B.C.E.]. Pisa: Giardini.

DeCaen, Vincent. 1999. “A unified analysis of verbal and verbless clauses within government-binding theory”. In Miller 1999:109–131.

Doron, Edit. 1986. “The pronominal copula as agreement clitic”. The syntax of pronominal clit-ics, ed. by Hagit Borer, 313–332. Orlando: Aca-demic Press.

Driver, Samuel R. 1892. A treatise on the use of the tenses in Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon Press (repr. 1969).

Ewald, Heinrich. 1881. Syntax of the Hebrew lan-guage of the Old Testament. Edinburgh. (trans. Kennedy, J. from the 8th German ed. 1870).

GKC 1910 = Kautzsch, Emil. ed. 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press (trans-lated by A. E. Cowley).

Goldenberg, Gideon. 1983. “On Syriac sentence structure”. Arameans, Aramaic and the Aramaic literary tradition, ed. by Michael Sokoloff, 525–568. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University:97–140. = Goldenberg, Gideon. 1998. Studies in Semitic lin-guistics. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

——. 2005. “Pronouns, copulas and a syntactical revolution in Neo-Semitic”. 2005. Studi afroasi-atici: Contributi presentati all’XI incontro ital-iano di linguistica camito-semitica (Bergamo, 5–7 giugno 2003), ed. by Allesandro Mengozzi, 243–257. Milano: Franco Angeli.

——. 2006. “Comments on ‘three approaches to the tripartite nominal clause’ in Syriac by Wido van Peursen”. 2006. Corpus linguistics and textual his-tory, ed. by Percy S.F. van Keulen and Willem Th. Van Peursen, 175–184. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Greenberg, Yael. 2002. “The manifestation of generic-ity in the tense aspect system of Hebrew nominal sentences”. Themes in Arabic and Hebrew syntax, ed. by Jamal Ouhalla and Ur Shlonsky, 267–298. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gross, Walter. 1987. Die Pendenskonstruktion im biblischen Hebräisch. St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag.

——. 1999. “Is there really a compound nominal clause in Biblical Hebrew?” In Miller 1999:19–49.

Hodge, Carleton T. 1975. “The nominal sentence in Semitic”. Afroastic Linguistics 2:69–75.

Hoftijzer, Jacob. 1973. “The nominal clause recon-sidered”. Vetus Testamentum 23:446–510.

Huehnergard, John. 1986. “On verbless clauses in Akkadian”. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 76:218–249.

Joüon, Paul and Takamitsu Muraoka. 2006. A gram-mar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome: Editrice pontificio istituto biblico (revised English edition).

Kaddari, Mena™em. Z. 1971. “Verbless sentence and clause types in Biblical Aramaic”. International Congress of Orientalists 27:112–113.

——. 1991. Post-Biblical Hebrew syntax and seman-tics: Studies in diachronic Hebrew I (in Hebrew), 223–276. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University.

Khan, Geoffrey. 2006. “Some aspects of the copula in North West Semitic”. Biblical Hebrew in its

Northwest Semitic setting: Typological and histor-ical perspectives, ed. by Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz, 155–176. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press & Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

Lowery, Kirk, E. 1999. “Relative definiteness and the verbless clause”. In Miller 1999:251–272.

Michel, Diethelm. 1966/1972. “Nur ich bin Jahwe”. Theologia Viatorum 11:145–156.

——. 1994. “Probleme des Nominalsatzes im bib-lischen Hebräisch”. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 7: 215–224.

Miller, Cynthia. L. ed. 1999. The verbless clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic approaches. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

Muraoka, Takamitsu. 1975. “On the nominal clause in the old Syriac gospels”. Journal of Semitic Stud-ies 20:28–37.

——. 1985. Emphatic words and structures in Bib-lical Hebrew. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press & Leiden: Brill.

——. 1990. “The nominal clause in Late Bibli-cal Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew” (in Hebrew). 1990. Language Studies 4, ed. by Moshe Bar-Asher, 219–252. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University.

——. 1991. “The Biblical Hebrew nominal clause with a prepositional phrase”. 1991. Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic syntax: presented to prof. J. Hoftijzer on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, ed. by Karel Jongeling et al., 143–151. Leiden: Brill.

——. 1999. “The tripartite nominal clause revis-ited”. In Miller 1999:187–213.

Naudé, Jacobus A. 1994. “The verbless clause with pleonastic pronoun in Biblical Aramaic”. Journal for Semitics 6:74–93.

——. 2002a. “Verbless clauses containing personal pronouns in Qumran Hebrew”. Journal for Semit-ics 11:126–168.

——. 2002b. “The third person pronoun in tripartite verbless clauses of Qumran Hebrew”. Pronouns-grammar and representation, ed. by Horst, J. Simon and Heike Wiese, 161–182 Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Niccacci, Alviero. 1990. “Sullo stato sintattico del verbo hàyà” [On the syntactic status of the verb hàyà]. Liber Annuus 40:9–23.

——. 1993. “Simple nominal clause (SNC) or verb-less clause in Biblical Hebrew prose”. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 6:216–227.

——. 1999. “Types and functions of the nominal sentence”. In Miller 1999:215–248.

Pennacchietti, Fabrizio A. 1987. “La struttura della frase nominal tripartita di identificazione in ebra-ico e in siriaco” [Structure of tripartite nominal clauses of identification in Hebrew and Syriac]. Atti della 4ª giornata di studi camito-semitici e indeuropei, Bergamo, Istituto universitario, 29 novembre 1985, ed. by Giuliano Bernini and Ver-mondo Brugnatelli, 157–174. Milano: Edizioni Unicopli.

Polotsky, Hans J. 1962. “Nominalsatz und cleft sen-tence im Koptischen”. Orientalia 31:413–430. = Polotsky, Hans J. 1971. Collected papers, 418–435. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

Revell, Ernest J. 1989. “The conditioning of word in verbless clauses in Biblical Hebrew”. Journal of Semitic Studies 34:1–24.

nominalization: biblical hebrew 839


——. 1999. “Thematic continuity and the condi-tioning of word order in verbless clauses”. In Miller 1999:297–319.

Rosén, Haiim B. 1965. “On some types of verbless sentences in Biblical Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Report of the Third World Congress of Jewish studies, Jerusalem, 25th July–1st August 1961, 167–173. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies.

RSV = May, Herbert G.; Bruce M. Metzger. eds. 1977. The new Oxford annotated Bible with the Apocrypha: Revised standard version. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rubinstein, Eliezer. 1968. The nominal sentence: A study in the syntax of contemporary Hebrew (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.

Sadka, Issac. 1980. “הוא והכינוי הנושא ייחוד משפט [Mišpa† yi≤ud ha-nose ve-ha-kinuy hu]” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 44:224–239. = Sadka 1997:59–74.

——. 1981. “A re-examination of the verbal copula ‘haya’ (‘be’)” (in Hebrew). Hebrew Computational Linguistics 17:5–32. = Sadka 1997:75–101.

——. 1997. Studies in Hebrew syntax and semantics (in Hebrew). Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University.

Sappan, Raphael. 1981. The typical features of the syntax of Biblical poetry (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer.

Shlonsky, Ur. 1997. Clause structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic: An essay in comparative Semitic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sinclair, Cameron. 1999. “Are nominal clauses a distinct clausal type?” In Miller 1999:51–75.

Trommer, Pnina. 1999. “Semantic and pragmatic study of the copulative verb” (in Hebrew). Hebrew Linguistics 44:33–46.

Van der Merwe, Christo. H. J., Jacobus A. Naudé and Jan H. Kroeze. 1999. A Biblical Hebrew reference grammar. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Van Wolde, Ellen. 1999. “The verbless clause and its textual function”. In Miller 1999:321–336.

Waltke, Bruce K. and Michael O’Connor. 1990. An introduction to Biblical Hebrew syntax. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

Wertheimer, Ada. 2002. “Syriac nominal sentences”. Journal of Semitic Studies 47:1–21.

Williams, Ronald J. 2007. Williams’ Hebrew syntax. Toronto: University of Toronto Press (third edition revised and expanded by John C. Beckman).

Zewi, Tamar. 1994. “The nominal sentence in Bibli-cal Hebrew”. Semitic and Cushitic studies, ed. by Gideon Goldenberg and Shlomo Raz, 145–167. Wiesbaden: Harrassovitz.

——. “Subject-predicate word order of nominal clauses in El-Amarna letters”. Ugarit-Forschungen 27:657–693.

——. 1996. “Subordinate nominal sentences involv-ing prolepsis in Biblical Hebrew”. Journal of Semitic Studies 41:1–20.

——. 1996. “The definition of the copula and the role of 3rd independent personal pronouns in nominal sentences of Semitic languages”. Folia Linguistica Historica 17:41–55.

——. 1999a. “Tripartite nominal clauses and appo-sitions in Biblical Hebrew”. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 36:36–47.

——. 1999b. “Time in nominal sentences in the Semitic languages”. Journal of Semitic Studies 44:195–214.

——. 2000. “Is there a tripartite nominal sentence in Biblical Hebrew?” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 26:51–63.

——. 2007. “Nominal clause patterns in the Geez Octateuch”. Studies in Semitic and general lin-guistics in honor of Gideon Goldenberg, ed. by Tali Bar and Eran Cohen, 181–207. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

——. 2007b. “Nominal clause patterns in the Dead Sea scrolls” (in Hebrew). Sha’arei Lashon: Stud-ies in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Jewish languages presented to Moshe Bar-Asher I, ed. by Aharon Maman, Steven E. Fassberg and Yochanan Breuer, 64–80. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute.

——. 2008. “Nominal clauses in the Dead Sea scrolls”. Journal of Jewish Studies 59:273–291.

Zewi, Tamar and Emily Lev. 2008. “Bibliography of the nominal clause in the Semitic languages with a special attention to all levels of Hebrew”. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 34:105–127.

Zewi, Tamar and Christo H. J. Van der Merwe. 2001. “Biblical Hebrew nominal clause: Defini-tions of subject and predicate”. Journal of North-west Semitic Languages 27:81–99.

Tamar Zewi(University of Haifa)

Nominalization: Biblical Hebrew

In the Hebrew Bible various parts of speech can function syntactically as nouns. Preposi-tions, prepositional phrases, finite verbs, rela-tive clauses, phrases, adverbs, and particles may serve as nouns while retaining their original part-of-speech forms.

These relatively less common occurrences are all manifestations of what is called ‘nomi-nalization’. Recognition of the existence of nominalization can lead to new understandings of some long-held grammatical concepts. For example, the general rule that the construct state represents governance by one substantive of the immediately following one needs to be modified to admit cases of a preposition or a prepositional phrase serving as the second term of the construction, e.g., נו ממ ד ≈kë-±a™a כאחmim-mÆnnù ‘as one of us’ (Gen. 3.22); השכוני ים אהל ∫ haš-šëúùnè ב =å-±ååh=ålìm ‘those dwelling in tents’ (Judg. 8.11). The prepositional phrase which appears in these examples instead of the expected governed noun is nominalized as a unit and serves as the genitive of the noun in the construct state. Nominalized preposi-tions and prepositional phrases can also be governed by other prepositions, e.g., י באחרית bë-±a™≥rè ha-™≥nìμ ‘with (what is) after החנthe spear’ (2 Sam. 2.23) or serve as the objects

zewi, tamar. 2013. “nominal clause.” in: khan, g. ed. encyclopedia of hebrew language and...

Documents