The Biblical Hebrew Verb (Learning Biblical Hebrew): A Linguistic Introduction

With a plethora of figures and examples, Cook introduces the reader to the subtleties of the ancient Hebrew verb and the varieties of its recent linguistic analysis. His presentation succeeds in summarizing and succinctly explaining many alternative descriptions of the verbal system. Both the seasoned expert in the Hebrew Bible and those with less experience will learn a great deal here. This volume will be a valuable tool in my own future research and teaching.

—Eric D. Reymond, Yale Divinity School

Building on his earlier works on the verbal system, Cook’s new publication offers a comprehensive linguistic analysis of all verb forms attested in the Hebrew Bible. The book brings together the latest scholarship on the topic and provides copious examples from prose and poetry. Highly recommended for serious students and scholars of Biblical Hebrew.

—Hélène M. Dallaire, Denver Seminary

With a rich background in both academic research and teaching, Cook skillfully bridges the gap between basic learning and scholarly analysis. His work stands out for its clarity and practical application, making complex linguistic theories accessible. Cook’s insights into the Biblical Hebrew verb system are invaluable, offering an essential resource for both students and scholars seeking a deeper understanding of the language.

—Elitzur A. Bar-Asher Siegal, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

"Students looking for direction in demystifying verbal syntax and semantics will find a valuable resource in this volume. Cook brings together his extensive insight as a scholar and his years of experience as a teacher to help readers better understand the Biblical Hebrew verb. He deftly provides clear explanations of complicated grammar and linguistic discussions with extensive examples. The Biblical Hebrew Verb will prove to be a go-to presentation for years to come."

—H. H. Hardy II, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University

"Cook offers an updated treatment of the Hebrew verbal system, including an accessible introduction to formal approaches to linguistic modeling and illustrating the light these can shed on ancient linguistic systems. For advanced students and specialists who want a deeper understanding of Hebrew verbal syntax and semantics, The Biblical Hebrew Verb will be a most welcome resource."

—Andrew Burlingame, Wheaton College

Cook has written an introduction to the Biblical Hebrew verbal system intended for an intermediate level between textbooks and scholarly treatises. Without simplifying too much, several views of the verbal forms are presented, and the reader is guided to linguistically sound and reasonable explanations of the many obscure uses in the system. Cook also guides the reader to further scholarly literature and facilitates the transition to advanced-level studies.

—Bo Isaksson, Uppsala University

The Biblical Hebrew Verb

Learning Biblical Hebrew

Beginning Biblical Hebrew

Intermediate Biblical Hebrew

The Biblical Hebrew Verb

The Biblical Hebrew Verb

A Linguistic

Introduction

John A. Cook

© 2024 by John A. Cook

Published by Baker Academic

a division of Baker Publishing Group

Grand Rapids, Michigan

BakerAcademic.com

Ebook edition created 2024

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file at the Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

ISBN 9781540967220 (casebound) | ISBN 9781540961129 (paperback) | ISBN 9781493444168 (ebook) | ISBN 9781493444175 (pdf)

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are the author’s translation.

Baker Publishing Group publications use paper produced from sustainable forestry practices and postconsumer waste whenever possible.

Contents

Illustrations

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations

Introduction

1. Linguistic Background

1.1. Introduction

1.2. Linguistic Theory

1.2.1. The Minimalist Program and Distributed Morphology

1.2.2. Formal Semantics and Discourse Representation Theory

1.2.3. Linguistic Typology

1.3. What Is Biblical Hebrew?

1.4. Terminology

2. The Thematic Domain

2.1. Introduction

2.2. Root and Category: Dual-Category Forms

2.2.1. The Infinitive: A Verbal Noun

2.2.2. The Adverbial Infinitive: A Verbal Adverb

2.2.3. The Participle and the Stative: Verbal Adjectives

2.3. Situation Aspect

2.4. The Verb Phrase and Intransitive Predications

2.4.1. Stativity and the Stative in Biblical Hebrew

2.4.2. Copular and Existential Clauses

2.5. The Binyanim, Valency Alternations, and Non-overt Complements

2.5.1. The System of Binyanim

2.5.2. Voice and the Binyanim

2.5.3. Transitivity, Causation, and Ditransitive Clauses

2.5.4. Valency and Missing Objects

2.6. Lexical Expression of Phasal Aspect

3. The Inflectional Domain

3.1. Introduction

3.2. Tense-Aspect-Mood/Modality (tam)

3.2.1. Tense

3.2.2. Viewpoint Aspect

3.2.3. Mood and Modality

3.3. Biblical Hebrew tam System: An Overview

3.3.1. Biblical Hebrew tam System Described

3.3.2. Biblical Hebrew tam System Explained

3.4. The Past-Narrative Conjugation

3.4.1. Diachronic Development of the Past Narrative

3.4.2. Semantics and Discourse Pragmatics of the Past Narrative in Prose

3.4.3. Semantics and Discourse Pragmatics of the Past Narrative in Verse

3.5. The Perfective Conjugation

3.5.1. Diachronic Development of the Perfective

3.5.2. Realis Perfective

3.5.3. Irrealis Perfective

3.6. The Participle Used Predicatively

3.6.1. Diachronic Development of the Participle

3.6.2. Adjectival Aspects of the Participle

3.6.3. Predicative Behavior of the Participle

3.7. The Imperfective Conjugation

3.7.1. Diachronic Development of the Imperfective

3.7.2. Form and Functions of the Imperfective

3.8. The Directive-Volitive Irrealis Subsystem: Imperative and Jussive

3.8.1. Diachronic Development of the Directive-Volitive Subsystem

3.8.2. Semantics of the Directive-Volitive Subsystem

4. Dynamic Syntax and the Biblical Hebrew Verb in Context

4.1. Introduction

4.2. Discourse הי״ה

4.3. The Temporal Structure of Discourse

4.4. The Biblical Hebrew Verb in Context

4.4.1. Prose Narrative: Genesis 18

4.4.2. Legal Code: Leviticus 16:1–28

4.4.3. Prophetic Speech: Zephaniah 1

4.4.4. Poetic Verse: Psalm 33

Glossary of Linguistic Terms

Works Cited

Index of Subjects

Index of Scripture

Index of Hebrew Examples

Illustrations

Figures

1.1. Hierarchical Phrase Structure

1.2. Bottom of Distributed Morphology Hierarchy

1.3. The Thematic and Inflectional Domains

2.1. Infinitive

2.2. Adverbial Infinitive

2.3. Participle/Stative

2.4. A Model of Events

2.5. Event Models for Situation Types

2.6. Intransitive Verb Phrase

2.7. Copular Clause

2.8. Existential Clause

2.9. Inchoative הי״ה Clause

2.10. Percentage of Roots Occurring in 1–7 Binyanim

2.11. Passive and Middle Voice

2.12. Unaccusative and Causative Alternation

2.13. Passive Causative

2.14. Unergative and Causative Unergative

2.15. Passive-Causative Ergative

2.16. Trivalent/Ditransitive Clause

3.1. The Inflectional Domain

3.2. Branching Timeline

3.3. Semantic Mapping of the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System

3.4. Development of Latinate Futures

3.5. Grammaticalization of English Wolde/Would

3.6. Past Tense (Realis Mood)

3.7. Perfect and Perfective Aspect (Realis Mood)

3.8. Irrealis Perfective

3.9. Predicative Participle

3.10. Perfect Progressive Participle

3.11. Imperfective

3.12. Directive-Volitive Irrealis Subsystem

4.1. The Complementizer Phrase Left-Periphery Domain

Tables

1.1. Labels for the Biblical Hebrew Conjugations

2.1. Feature Chart for Situation Aspect

2.2. Stative-Dynamic Morphological Distinction

2.3. The System of Binyanim

3.1. Taxonomy of Modalities

4.1. Determination of (Un)boundedness

4.2. Interpretations of Interclausal Relationships

Acknowledgments

Many people have contributed to this book in innumerable ways. My thinking about its subject matter has been sharpened by my interaction with other scholars and/or their published works, most notably my frequent coauthor Robert Holmstedt. Asbury Theological Seminary afforded me a sabbatical during which the majority of this book was written, and two of my students, Hannah Hopkinson and Ashley Klein, assisted me along the way. Finally, I am thankful to my wife, Kathy, who is an inestimable partner in all my endeavors.

Abbreviations

General and Bibliographic

Andersen-Forbes Andersen-Forbes Database, developed by Francis I. Andersen and A. Dean Forbes (accessed in Accordance Bible Software) Arnold-Choi Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax . 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. ASV Authorized Standard Version BDB Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament . Oxford: Clarendon, 1951. BH Biblical Hebrew BHRG Christo H. J. van der Merwe, J. A. Naudé, and Jan Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar . 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia . Edited by Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983. CBH Classical Biblical Hebrew cf. confer , compare cont. continued DCH Dictionary of Classical Hebrew . Edited by David J. A. Clines. 9 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 1993–2014. ed(s). editor(s), edited by, edition e.g. exempli gratia , for example ESV English Standard Version ET English translation et al. et alii , and others etc. et cetera , and so forth ETCBC The ETCBC (WIVU) Linguistic Database, developed by the Werkgroep Informatica at the Free University of Amsterdam, edited by Eep Talstra. German Bible Society and Netherlands Bible Society, 2004, 2014 (accessed in Accordance Bible Software). ex(s). example(s) fig(s). figure(s); figuratively Fr. French GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar . Edited by Emil Kautzsch. Translated by Arther E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910. Groves-Wheeler Groves-Wheeler Westminster Hebrew Morphology, v. 4.20 (accessed in Accordance Bible Software) HALOT The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament . Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–99. IBHS An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax . Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Joüon Paul Joüon. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew . Translated and revised by Takamitsu Muraoka. 2nd ed. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006. KAI Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften . Herbert Donner and Wolfgang Röllig. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1966–69. ketiv the reading preserved in the consonantal text (Aramaic for what is written) KJV King James Version LBH Late Biblical Hebrew lit. literally n., n note NASB New American Standard Bible NIV New International Version NJPS Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures; The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text NRSV New Revised Standard Version OED Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 20 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. qere the reading preserved in the Tiberian vocalization (Aramaic for what is read) rev. revised (by) RSV Revised Standard Version s.v(v). sub verbo ( verbis ), under the word(s) vs. versus v(v). verse(s)

Grammatical and Linguistic

1 first person 2 second person 3 third person ACT active ADJ, adj. adjective ADV, adv. adverb AdvP adverb phrase AG agent AINF adverbial infinitive AP adjective phrase AspP aspect phrase C common (gender) CAUSE cause CauseP cause phrase COMP complementizer CP complementizer phrase DIR directive DIR-VOL directive-volitive DYN dynamic E event time e event/situation e1, e2, etc. event 1 , event 2 , etc. of foreground EF event frame EXIST existential particle ( יֵשׁ ) F feminine FUT future time/tense HI Hiphil HO Hophal HT Hithpael IMPV imperative INF infinitive intr. intransitive IPFV imperfective IR-PFV irrealis-perfective JUSS jussive LOC, LOC location M masculine MID middle MP mood/modality phrase N, n noun NEG-EXIST negative existential particle ( אַיִן ) NI Niphal NP noun phrase P plural PASS passive PAST past time/tense PAT patient PERF perfect aspect PerfP perfect phrase PFV perfective PI Piel PN past narrative PP prepositional phrase PPTC passive participle PredP predicate phrase PRES present time/tense PRET preterite PRO pronoun copula PROG progressive PTC participle PU Pual Q Qal R reference point/time RX modal accessibility relationship (e.g., R DEONTIC ) RF reference frame R-MID reflexive/reciprocal middle S singular S speech time STA stative subst. substantive S-V subject-verb word order TAM tense-aspect-mood/modality TP tense phrase tr. transitive v verb VoiceP voice phrase VOL volitive vP verb-classified root VP verb phrase V-S verb-subject word order w actual world w′ possible world xP any (x) phrase

Symbols

′ prime sign indicating an intermediate or sub-phrase in the tree diagram figures (e.g., Pred′) ״ denotes the uninflected Hebrew root (e.g., הי״ה ) , is simultaneous with (e.g., R,E = R is simultaneous with E) ? grammatically awkward or questionable * unattested or reconstructed & conjunction and ± positive/negative value for features < precedence relationship or derived from = is equal to ≠ is not equal to > follows hierarchically − negative value for features + positive value for features ≈ approximately equivalent to ⊂ is included in (e.g., A ⊂ B = A is included in B) ⊃ includes (e.g., A ⊃ B = A includes B) → diachronically develops into/shifts to Ø null constituent / or √ root % percent §(§) section(s) × times

Old Testament / Hebrew Bible

The list below is in English canonical order, but Scripture references in the text and notes are listed in Hebrew canonical order to match BHS. Versification also follows BHS whenever it differs from traditional English Bible chapter and verse divisions.

Gen. Genesis Exod. Exodus Lev. Leviticus Num. Numbers Deut. Deuteronomy Josh. Joshua Judg. Judges Ruth Ruth 1 Sam. 1 Samuel 2 Sam. 2 Samuel 1 Kings 1 Kings 2 Kings 2 Kings 1 Chron. 1 Chronicles 2 Chron. 2 Chronicles Ezra Ezra Neh. Nehemiah Esther Esther Job Job Ps(s). Psalm(s) Prov. Proverbs Eccles. Ecclesiastes Song Song of Songs Isa. Isaiah Jer. Jeremiah Lam. Lamentations Ezek. Ezekiel Dan. Daniel Hosea Hosea Joel Joel Amos Amos Obad. Obadiah Jon. Jonah Mic. Micah Nah. Nahum Hab. Habakkuk Zeph. Zephaniah Hag. Haggai Zech. Zechariah Mal. Malachi

Introduction

The verb is a central component a student must master to become proficient in a language. Such mastery begins with learning how to recognize (or parse) the forms of the verb (i.e., morphology). As students progress, the syntax and semantics of the verb forms become increasingly important for interpreting texts. The importance of the verb in any clause is largely self-evident. It is the constituent on which almost everything else in the clause depends, and it forms a crucial connection to preceding and subsequent clauses in the discourse.

The importance of the verb in mastering a language is matched by its complexity in comparison with other components of grammar. These complexities fall into two basic areas: valency and tense-aspect-mood/modality (TAM). Valency refers to how many constituents verbs require to be grammatical. For example, the English verb run is grammatical with just a subject (e.g., Joseph ran), whereas the verb hit requires both a subject and an object (e.g., Aaron hit Jim). Tense-aspect-mood/modality concerns the array of temporal ideas encoded by verbs. These parameters (i.e., tense, aspect, mood/modality) are closely intertwined, making any attempt to analyze one of them independent of the others a somewhat artificial exercise. Together they determine the time in which an event occurs (tense), the temporal character of the event itself (aspect), and whether the event is an actual occurrence or a potential one (mood/modality). Valency in Biblical Hebrew (BH) is determined by the binyan, or stem, used to create a verb out of a root. For example, the root דב״ר plus the Piel binyan yields the verb דבר (he spoke), here the 3MS perfective form. In BH, tense-aspect-mood/modality is associated with the verbal conjugations, which have been subjected to as many analyses as they have labels (qatal, perfect, perfective, suffix; yiqtol, imperfect, imperfective, prefix; etc.).

With this volume, I aim to fill a niche that lies between textbook treatments of the BH verb and scholarly treatises on the verb, of which both sorts of works I have written. The textbook treatments lack the space (and students at that stage lack the capacity) for the sort of analysis required by the multifaceted character of verbal systems. The scholarly treatises tend to lose students in the larger linguistic debates about the nature of the typological categories (and subcategories) of tense, aspect, and mood/modality of the BH verb. Thus, here I largely eschew the conundrums of linguistic theory and the history of BH verb theory, though the interested reader can consult my earlier monograph on this (Cook 2012c). Textbook treatments of the verb supply students with the range of meanings available for a form or construction, but they often leave unstated (or at least understated) the factors that must be taken into account to arrive at the most suitable interpretation of a verb in a given context. I think of this division between textbook and treatise as the difference between description and explanation. Students wishing to progress in their mastery of the language must move from simply describing the meaning of a given verb to understanding the various factors that explain how that meaning is composed. Developing this skill requires both a linguistic framework that accounts for meaning compositionally and some knowledge of the history of the language, which is the primary form that linguistic explanations take. I have provided numerous examples throughout the present text (with additional references in the footnotes) to enable readers to further explore instances of a given category and to test the categorizations I have proposed.

I recognize that the English translations I have provided are awkwardly literal at times, but this is done to make the syntax and semantics of the Hebrew text more apparent; I do not intend them as elegant translations. A constant danger of working with a corresponding gloss language and analytical metalanguage is that the approach may veer into an analysis of the gloss translation rather than the language sample in question. Let the awkwardness of the English gloss translations remind the reader that the Hebrew text is the focus of the analysis.

Chapter 1 introduces the reader to some fundamental linguistic ideas relevant to analysis of the BH verb. The remaining chapters treat the verb sequentially from lower to higher levels of the linguistic hierarchy—that is, from morphemes to larger syntactical structures. Chapter 2 examines the unique status of some verb types, the binyanim, valency and related syntactic phenomenon, and compound verbal expressions that constitute phasal aspect. In chapter 3, I turn to the conjugations and TAM of the BH verb. Finally, chapter 4 deals with the verb within the highest linguistic level, the text or discourse. The examination of several stretches of text explicates the mutual interaction among verbal forms to shape the discourse temporally.¹

1. Readers interested in further analysis of this nature can consult the growing selection of handbooks on the Hebrew Bible by me and/or Robert Holmstedt, such as Holmstedt, Cook, and Marshall 2017; Cook 2019; and Cook and Holmstedt (forthcoming).

Chapter 1

Linguistic Background

1.1 Introduction

Economy of language results in speakers/writers employing a single linguistic construction for a variety of functions. Native speakers are adept at both using and interpreting these one-to-many relationships. Non-native speakers, by contrast, may struggle to make sense out of the manifold meanings or functions that are associated with a form or construction. This problem can be exacerbated in biblical studies, where the language has traditionally been treated in the context of philology and exegesis. Philology is concerned with deciphering ancient texts, and exegesis is similarly concerned with understanding specific biblical texts. The lists of meanings for a word in the lexica or for grammatical constructions in the traditional grammars derive from the meanings determined for the words/forms through philological and exegetical examination of specific texts. The problem is that lexica and grammars provide only sporadic guidance as to which meanings belong to which occurrences in the text. It is easy to fall into the trap of treating these resources like an open menu from which we can select to our liking which meaning to apply to a given text, which is to say we instinctually choose which meaning best fits the context.

A Latin-based grammar framework is the traditional way to bring some order to the sprawling meanings or functions that are associated with a grammatical expression, because it provides a taxonomy of categories (parts of speech) and grammatical functions with which to organize the data. Thus יְהָוה in the bound, or construct, phrase דְּבַר־יְהָוה (the word of Yhwh) can be described as the genitive based on its affinity with the of relation expressed by the Latin genitive case (GKC §89). Unsurprisingly, Latinate categories are frequently ill-suited to the Semitic language BH, and rather than helping, they may obscure the categorization and function of a BH construction. In contrast to the focus of philology and exegesis on the unique and the taxonomic approach of traditional grammar, the linguistic approach adopted here is primarily concerned with explicating the internal or cognitive structure of grammar. As a theory-based approach (i.e., theory of human language), this method seeks to rationally organize the language phenomena in a way that allows us to explain the grammatical structures and make predictions about the grammaticality and meaning of BH constructions.

1.2 Linguistic Theory

Every scientific field has theories and technical terminology, which can be a challenge to understanding the field. As the scientific study of language, linguistics is heavily indebted to the fields of logic and mathematics because these provide a metalanguage with which to describe human language itself without confusing the language of analysis with the language being analyzed. In this section, I introduce some of the basic principles employed in this treatment of the BH verb. Throughout the book I minimize the technical terminology and modeling as much as possible without losing their benefit. At the end of the book is a linguistic glossary, which will be of great benefit to the reader throughout the book.

In this study, I combine insights from a number of linguistic theories, including the minimalist program and distributed morphology, formal semantics and discourse representation theory, and linguistic typology. Such a synthesis is not to be done lightly, because many linguistic theories have conflicting underlying assumptions about human language. However, the only potential conflict among these particular theories is between linguistic typology, which is strongly associated with functionalist approaches to language, and the other four, which are all formalist in character. Distributed morphology developed out of and operates within the minimalist program. Similarly, discourse representation theory developed out of formal semantics, and though it has some divergent assumptions about language, there have been efforts to reconcile them with formal semantics (Partee 2016: 16). Although simplistic, one could say that formalist theories (which analyze language at the deep, or abstract level) and typology (which classifies and generalizes at the surface level) approach the data from opposite sides, which can make them mutually informing rather than conflicting (so Baker and McCloskey 2007: 295; see Holmstedt 2016: 36–37).

1.2.1 The Minimalist Program and Distributed Morphology

Several structural insights that inform this work and the Cook and Holmstedt grammar volumes (2013; 2020) derive from the minimalist program and are shared or extended by distributed morphology. All of these are motivated at least in part by the overriding principle of parsimony or linguistic economy.

The first structural insight has to do with constituency structure. Constituency refers to the way in which words are grouped into increasingly larger units to make up a phrase or clause. While language occurs linearly, some words are syntactically more closely related to others, creating a hierarchy. Analyzing syntax hierarchically provides a way to resolve syntactic ambiguities of the sort illustrated by the phrase American history teacher (see other examples in Kroeger 2005: 27). Does this refer to a teacher of American history (fig. 1.1a) or an American who teaches history (fig. 1.1b)? These different interpretations are associated with two different hierarchical analyses, in which the closer two constituents are combined first (i.e., lower on the tree diagram or more embedded in the bracketing). In fig. 1.1a, American and history are the closer constituents and are thus combined first. In fig. 1.1b, the closer constituents are history and teacher.

Figure 1.1. Hierarchical Phrase Structure

Distributed morphology extends this hierarchical structure downward into the domain of morphology. Hence slogans like syntax all the way down and syntax within the word are used to describe the theory of distributed morphology (Siddiqi 2009). The theory posits that word building (morphology) begins with an underspecified root, which is initially classified by word class (noun, verb, adjective, etc.). This word then combines with other words based on its classification and valency or syntactic role. Hence, the bottom of the distributed morphology tree looks like fig. 1.2, in which a root (√) is combined with a word class (x = classifier of any word class) to create a word of that class (xP = x phrase).

Figure 1.2. Bottom of Distributed Morphology Hierarchy

The hierarchical approach describes the clause construction as constituted by various values or functions that combine to create phrases, which are classified by the most important, or head, word (hierarchically speaking) in the phrase. For example, American history teacher is a noun phrase (NP), because teacher is the head word modified by the other two words, regardless of which analysis from fig. 1.1 is adopted. Looking upward, the tree is divisible into a thematic domain and an inflectional domain, which are separated in fig. 1.3 by the curved line between them.

Figure 1.3. The Thematic and Inflectional Domains

The thematic domain is where valency (e.g., voice, transitivity, etc.) is determined, indicated by the voice phrase (VoiceP) and cause phrase (CauseP). Determinations by verb type (e.g., stative, dynamic, copular, etc.) and the system of binyanim in BH can be associated with the thematic domain. By contrast, the system of BH verbal conjugations is associated with the inflectional domain, where distinctions of tense, aspect, and mood/modality (TAM) are represented by the tense phrase (TP), aspect phrase (AspP), and mood/modality phrase (MP), respectively. There is also a left-periphery complementizer phrase (CP), which comes into play only in the discussion of the discourse הי״ה (see §4.2 and fig. 4.1). This hierarchy serves to make explicit the contribution of each constituent and parameter (e.g., voice, tense, etc.) to a clause.

The second insight from the minimalist program is null constituents. Null constituents contribute to the syntactic structure but are phonologically unexpressed. Like many other languages, BH allows clauses in which the subject or copular predicate is unexpressed (ex. 1). The lack of an overt subject is resolved by the recovery of an antecedent in the context that agrees with the verbal inflection (i.e., person, gender, and number). In ex. 1a the antecedent is the overt subject of the preceding clause, מצרים (Egyptians). The null copula is interpreted as a verbless predication based on the juxtapositioning of the subject and predicate phrases (ex. 1b).

In both cases, the interpretation of the clause depends on a subject or copula being structurally present, despite not being overtly expressed. This suggests the validity of a principle that has been a part of generative grammar since its earliest stage—namely, that a clause consists of a subject and a predicate (Chomsky 1957: 27). The absence of one of these two constituents (driven by the principle of parsimony) requires the positing of a null constituent. Otherwise, we would have to explain why the presence of a subject or verb seems to be optional, since it is present in some clauses but not others.

Finally, a third principle that derives from the minimalist program is constituent movement. Here again, parsimony is the driving factor. By positing word-order movement in, for example, English interrogative clauses, the clauses in ex. 2, can be related to one another: the interrogative is derived from the declarative by inversion of the subject and auxiliary (Chomsky 1957: 90).

1.2.2 Formal Semantics and Discourse Representation Theory

Semantics, the study of meaning, has a long history rooted in philosophy. Formal semantics traces its history back to philosophical logic studies of the 1970s, and notably the writings of Richard Montague (1974; see Partee 2016: 5–13; Portner and Partee 2002). A number of principles of semantics emerged from these studies and have become pervasive in semantic theory. The first and most fundamental of these is the compositionality principle, which treats the meaning of an expression as determined by the meaning of its parts and how they are combined (see Pagin and Westerståhl 2011). For example, the meaning of the sentence Pam likes Broadway shows is determined by the meaning of each of the constituents (Pam, likes, and Broadway shows) as they are syntactically combined (i.e., Pam is the subject, likes is the predicate, and Broadway shows is the object complement).

Any approach to meaning must first determine what meaning is. In answering this question, philosophers and linguists recognize two sorts of meaning, famously distinguished in Frege’s (1892; ET 1948) essay (see Textor 2011; Abbott 2010, 2011) using the sentence in ex. 3a.

Frege notes that the expressions morning star and evening star share the same reference or extension—the planet Venus; yet they have different senses or intensions (i.e., morning star describes the appearance of Venus at dawn whereas evening star describes it at dusk). This difference is evident from the tautological character of exs. 3b–c in contrast to the meaningfulness of ex. 3a. A referential or extensional approach to meaning is notably limited in being unable to account for meaning in modal expressions. For example, consider George believes Mark Twain wrote A Tale of Two Cities. Intensionally, if George really believes that Mark Twain was the author of A Tale of Two Cities, the sense of the statement is meaningful or true. However, extensionally it is false, because Charles Dickens is the actual author of A Tale of Two Cities (see Lyons 1977: chap. 7; Kroeger 2019: 225–26).

Three other principles of meaning from formal semantics are intertwined. Meaning is defined as truth conditional and model theoretic. These are related to each other in the correspondence theory of truth: that is, a statement is meaningful if it is true, and it is true if it corresponds to some state of affairs or model world. Such an approach can adequately treat both extensional/referential and intensional/sense meanings by positing both the existing world and possible worlds. Consider again George believes Mark Twain wrote A Tale of Two Cities. Extensionally or referentially, a world in which Mark Twain authored such a book does not exist, and so it is false. However, in the model theoretic possible world of George’s belief, Mark Twain did write the book, and so intensionally it is a true statement by virtue of that correspondence.

In the past few decades formal semantics has become concerned with the distinction between semantics and pragmatics. Pragmatics has to do with the context-dependency of meaning. Meaning can be dependent on the extralinguistic context, such as when I point to something and ask What is that? It can also be dependent on other sentences in the discourse or text. Dynamic semantic theories account for meaning as a product of updating from one sentence to the next in the discourse. One such theory, discourse representation theory, has focused on deictic and temporal references (see Kamp, Genabith, and Reyle 2011). For some deictic references to be meaningful, an anaphoric link is required between one clause and another. For example, in the sentence George believes that Mark Twain wrote A Tale of Two Cities, but he is mistaken, the pronoun he is uninterpretable (and so meaningless) unless the meaning of the second clause is analyzed in conjunction with the preceding one, which contains the antecedent. Successively reported events can be temporally related to one another in different ways, which similarly requires analyzing the meaning of a predicate based on the preceding one. For example, Barbara arrived and Ron cooked dinner suggests that the two events occur in succession: first Barbara arrived and then Ron cooked dinner. By contrast, Ron was cooking dinner and Barbara arrived is most naturally interpreted as Barbara arriving while Ron was cooking dinner. The temporality of the discourse is thus a matter of updating the temporal progression of events by incorporating one event into the preceding series of reported events.

1.2.3 Linguistic Typology

A fundamental question in the linguistic study of BH or any ancient language is How do we know? Linguists rely heavily on native speaker intuition to supply an answer to this question, using it to adjudicate whether something is grammatical and/or what an utterance means. In the case of an ancient language for which we lack native speakers, we must begin by assuming the grammaticality of the data unless some overwhelming weight of data indicates otherwise. The question of how we know an utterance means what we think it means has long plagued the BH verb debate. Linguistic typology offers a way forward.

Linguistic typology is the systematic study of cross-linguistic variation. Just as generative theory aims to determine universal principles and parameters (variations) in human language, typology seeks to identify the limits of variability in human language structures (see Daniel 2010). An ever-growing body of literature began in the 1980s on verbal systems in the world’s languages. This literature provides a good profile of how verbal systems are configured and operate. It furnishes a sort of check on any theory of the BH verb. An analysis that shows no similarity to any of the rich array of other verbal systems is suspect because it lies beyond the known limits of variability in verbal systems. The subfields of diachronic typology and grammaticalization enrich the typological profiles of the world’s verbal systems by examining them in their dynamic change over time, positing universal patterns not just of verbal system configuration but of their development (Croft 2003: chap. 8). Such data provide even more help in adjudicating analyses of the BH verb, since the BH data are diachronically diverse.

1.3 What Is Biblical Hebrew?

Recognizing that BH is diachronically diverse prompts the need to comment on what BH is. We rather casually regard BH as a language, but language can be understood in different ways. For example, Edward Ullendorff (1977: 16) famously rejected the notion that BH was a language, claiming that it was too incomplete to constitute a system of communication. If we accept Ullendorff’s restricted understanding of language, then we must concur that the Hebrew Bible contains only a fragment of the larger system of communication that is the ancient Hebrew language. Ullendorff’s understanding of language is akin to our commonplace use of the term to refer to the Hebrew language, English language, Russian language, and so on, all of which also have strong political and/or sociological overtones. The early linguist Bloomfield (1926: 155) defines language as the totality of utterances that can be made in a speech-community, which sidesteps any sociopolitical implications for the term. Chomsky (1986: 21–24) classifies definitions such as Bloomfield’s (and, by extension, Ullendorff’s) as E[xternal]-language. He