See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317080991

Government and binding

Chapter · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

2 8,213

1 author:

Jacobus A Naudé
University of the Free State
284 PUBLICATIONS   778 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Alterity in religious translation View project

Machine translation system View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jacobus A Naudé on 23 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF
HEBREW LANGUAGE
AND LINGUISTICS
Volume 2
G–O

General Editor
Geoffrey Khan

Associate Editors
Shmuel Bolokzy
Steven E. Fassberg
Gary A. Rendsburg
Aaron D. Rubin
Ora R. Schwarzwald
Tamar Zewi

LEIDEN • BOSTON
2013

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

Table of Contents

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

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

72
The accusative is retained mostly when the
noun governs another genitive, corresponding
to the verb’s subject, e.g., ‫אכילת הילד את התפוח‬
±axilat ha-yeled ±et ha-tapua≤ ‘the boy’s eating
the apple’. An excellent Biblical Hebrew exam-
ple is ‫ ְ ֽכּ ַמ ְה ֵפּ ַ֞כת ְס ֤ד ֹם וַ ֲﬠמ ָֹר ֙ה‬kë-mahpèúaμ së≈òm
wa-≠≥mòrå< ‘like the overthrow of Sodom and
Gomorrah’ (Deut. 29.22) vs. ‫ים‬
‫ת־ﬠמ ָ ֹ֔רה‬ ְ ‫ ֶא‬kë-mahpèúaμ ±(lòhìm ±Æμ-së≈òm
ֲ ‫ת־ס ֣ד ֹם וְ ֶא‬
wë-±Æμ ≠≥mòrå, < literally ‘like God’s overthrowing
Sodom and Gomorrah’ (Amos 4.11).
Adjectives, too, impose formal constraints on
their complements. Some adjectives govern a
preposition, e.g., -‫ אחראי ל‬±a≤ray le- ‘respon-
sible for’, -‫ גאה ב‬ge±e be- ‘proud of’, ‫מרוצה מן‬
meruße min ‘satisfied with’. Adjectives expressing
modality, like modal verbs, govern an infinitive
verb form, e.g., ‫≠ עלול לעשות‬alul la≠a«ot ‘liable to
do’, ‫ רשאי לעשות‬rašay la≠a«ot ‘allowed to do’.
References
Allerton, David J. 2006. “Valency Grammar”. Ency-
clopedia of language and linguistics, ed. by Keith
Brown et al., vol. 13, 301–314. Oxford: Elsevier.
Anderson, John M. 2006. “Case Grammar”. Ency-
clopedia of language and linguistics, ed. by Keith
Brown et al., vol. 2, 220–233. Oxford: Elsevier.
Berman, Ruth Aronson. 1978. Modern Hebrew struc-
ture. Tel-Aviv: University Publishing Projects.
Cohen, Chaim. 1999. “The idioms / -‫ִשׁ ַלּח אש ב‬
‫ ִשׁ ַלּח באש‬and the literary source of Amos 1:3–
2:5 in light of the Amarna letters” (in Hebrew).
Lłšonénu 62:7–13.
Emerton, John Adney. 2001. “Looking on one’s
enemies”. Vetus Testamentum 51:186–196.
Glinert, Eliezer. 1989. The grammar of Modern
Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
GKC = Kautzsch, Emil (ed.). 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew
grammar. Trans. by Arthur E. Cowley. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to Govern-
ment and Binding Theory. 2nd edition. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Halevy, Rivka. 2005. “Transitive verbs with ±et:b
(accusative:non-accusative) alternation in Hebrew”
(in Hebrew). Language studies 10, ed. by Aharon
Maman and Steven E. Fassberg, 31–64. Jerusalem:
Institute for Jewish Studies, The Hebrew Univer-
sity of Jerusalem.
——. 2007. “Transitive verbs with non-accusative
alternation in Hebrew: Cross-language compari-
son with English, German and Spanish”. On inter-
preting construction schemas: From action and
motion to transitivity and causality, ed. by Nicole
Delbecque and Bert Cornillie, 61–102. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
——. 2009. “The ‘load’ / ‘spray’ alternation in
Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 71:181–201.
Jenni, Ernest. 1999. “Einleitung formeller und famil-
iärer Rede im Alten Testament durch ±mr ±l- und
±mr l-”. Vielseitigkeit des Alten Testaments. Fest-
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3
government and binding
schrift für Georg Sauer zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by
James Alfred Loader and Hans Volker Kieweler,
17–33. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Reprinted
in: Jenni, Ernest, Studien zur Sprachwelt des Alten
Testaments 2, ed. by Jürg Luchsinger, Hans-Peter
Mathys, and Markus Saur, 48–64. Stuttgart: Kohl-
hammer, 2005.
Joüon, Paul and Takamitsu Muraoka. 2006. A gram-
mar of Biblical Hebrew. Revised English edition.
֙ ‫ֹלה‬
ִ ‫ְכּ ַמ ְה ֵפּ ַכ֤ת ֱא‬ Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Kaddari, Menahem Zvi. 1992. “‫ ראה ב־‬as an
expression of empathy in Biblical Hebrew” (in
Hebrew). Language Studies 5–6 (Israel Yeivin
Festschrift), ed. by Moshe Bar-Asher, 67–78. Jeru-
salem: Magnes.
Malessa, Michael. 2003. “Biblisch-hebräisch ‫ִדּ ֶבּר‬
‫ל־‬/‫ל‬
ְ ‫ ֶא‬und ‫את‬/‫ם‬ֵ ‫ ִדּ ֶבּר ִﬠ‬im Vergleich”. Hamlet on a
hill: Semitic and Greek studies presented to Profes-
sor T. Muraoka on the occasion of his sixty-fifth
birthday, ed. by Martin F. J. Baasten and Wido Th.
van Peursen, 333–340. Leuven: Peeters.
——. 2004. “Zur Semantik des Verbs NTN G
‘geben’ mit der Präposition ±el statt l-”. Folia Ori-
entalia 40:337–343.
——. 2006. Untersuchungen zur verbalen Valenz im
biblischen Hebräisch. Assen: Van Gorcum.
van der Merwe, Christo H. J. 1992. “Is there any
difference between ‫ירא מפני‬, ‫ ירא מן‬and ‫ירא‬
‫”?את‬. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
18:177–183.
Milgrom, Jacob. 1971. “‫בּעד‬/‫( ”כּפּר על‬in Hebrew).
Lłšonénu 35:16–17.
Mishor, Mordechay. 2008. “The rection of the verb
‫( ”סייע‬in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 70:615–626.
Rubinstein, Eliezer. 1971. The verb phrase (in
Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad.
Sinclair, Cameron. 1991. “The valence of the Hebrew
verb”. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society
20:63–81.
Stern, Naftali. 1994. Dictionary of Hebrew verbs:
The valence and distribution of the verb in Con-
temporary Hebrew (in Hebrew). Ramat-Gan: Bar-
Ilan University Press.
Mikhal Oren
(University of Haifa)
Government and Binding
To date the most productive work using formal
theoretical models in Generative (Chomskyan)
approaches to explain syntactic constructions
in Hebrew has been done in terms of Govern-
ment and Binding (GB) Theory and the Mini-
malist Program ( Generative Grammar and
Hebrew).
GB Theory (or the Principles and Parameters
Model) is a syntactic model of human language
centered around universal principles argued
to be common to all languages, and specific,
distinct sets of parameters the values of which
 government and binding
are fixed in one of a limited number of ways
to derive the particular grammar of a specific
language. For example, Hebrew, English, and
Afrikaans differ with respect to the neutral
word order of sentences as a result of different
settings of the parameter related to each of the
relevant principles. Biblical Hebrew word order
is typically V(erb)S(ubject)O(bject), whereas in
English it is S(ubject)V(erb)O(bject). For Afri-
kaans main clauses the basic word order is
SVO, but in embedded clauses the word order
is SOV.
1. T h e o r e t i c a l O v e r v i e w
GB is outlined primarily in Chomsky (1981;
1982; 1986a; 1986b). It was developed dur-
ing the late 1970s as an adequate approach to
explain cross-linguistic uniformity, but it also
involved the enrichment of descriptive tools to
describe the linguistic facts that adult speakers
inadvertently know, as well as the acquisition
of that capacity in an individual. Language
acquisition is regarded as the transition from
the state of the mind at birth (the initial cogni-
tive state) to the stable state that corresponds
to native and mother-tongue knowledge of a
natural language. The initial cognitive state is
called Universal Grammar (UG). GB postulates
that some linguistic properties are universal,
constant, and invariant because the innate lan-
guage faculty of humans determines them. The
stable state is a particular grammar and relates
to those linguistic properties that are relevant
to a specific language. Acquiring a language
amounts to fixing the parameters of UG on
the basis of experience. The child interprets
the incoming linguistic data through the ana-
lytic devices provided by UG, and fixes the
parameters of the system on the basis of his/her
analysis of incoming data drawn from his/her
linguistic experience (Hyams 1986).
The way in which parameters are set deter-
mines the direction in which the grammar of
a particular language will develop, that is, it
determines the specific grammatical properties
of that language in its mature state. Thus, the
‘Principles and Parameters approach’ provides
not only a plausible framework for a theory of
language acquisition, but also a program for
language typology. The explanations provided
in GB do not claim to describe the meaning of
constructions, but see them as part of the for-
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3
73
mal properties (or ‘nuts and bolts’) of Hebrew
which Hebrew shares with other languages that
have similar properties.
2. N u l l S u b j e c t s
One major example of a typological classifica-
tion based on the Principles and Parameters
approach concerns the observation that lan-
guages can be divided into those with optional
subjects (i.e., null subject or pro-drop languages)
and languages with obligatory subjects (i.e.,
non-null-subject languages or non-pro-drop
languages). In this regard Chomsky (1981:65)
introduced the ‘Avoid pronoun Principle’,
which imposes the choice of a null subject over
an overt pronoun where possible. The pro-drop
or ‘null subject’ parameter determines whether
the subject of a clause can be suppressed in the
surface structure. English is a non-null-subject
language, since the subject must be expressed
overtly as an independent personal pronoun
(e.g., I am going to the movies this evening).
By contrast, Italian is a null-subject language,
because it allows phonologically null sub-
jects in tensed sentences (e.g., Vado al cinema
stasera ‘go [1st person singular] to the movies
this evening’). Numerous proposals have been
made concerning the way in which null subjects
are ‘licensed’, that is, given their syntactic role
(see Rizzi 1982; Borer 1989; Jaeggli and Safir
1989:29–31; Shlonsky 1997).
The availability of null subjects in Hebrew
correlates with the inflectional richness of
agreement on the verb form (Borer 1989). Borer
has observed that the present tense form in
Modern Hebrew, which is specified for subject
agreement of gender and number, but unspeci-
fied for person, is incapable of identifying null
subjects with specific reference (e.g., /‫אתה‬/‫אני‬
‫ הוא רוצה גלידה‬±ani/±ata/hu roße glida ‘I/you
[ms]/he wants [ms] ice cream’ versus *‫רוצה‬
‫* גלידה‬roße glida *‘wants [ms] ice cream). In
the past and future tenses, which are speci-
fied for subject agreement of person as well as
number and gender, null subjects with 1st and
2nd person referents are freely available (e.g.,
‫ אכלתי גלידה‬±axalti glida ‘ate [1cs] ice cream’).
According to Borer (1984; 1989) 3rd person
null subjects with specific reference are also
available in past and future tenses, but only
where there is a coreferential N(oun)P(hrase),
i.e., only in some embedded clauses (e.g., ‫תליתה‬
74
‫ אמרה לאיתמר שהצליח‬talita ±amra le-±itamar
še-hißlia™ ‘Talita said to Itamar that succeeded
[ms]’, where the null subject of the past tense
verb ‫ הצליח‬hitslia™ ‘succeeded’ unambiguously
refers to Itamar).
Expletive (or dummy) subjects (such as it in
the English sentence It seems to me that . . .)
may be null subjects in all three tenses in Mod-
ern Hebrew, presumably because this class of
null subjects is unspecified for person agree-
ment features. Subject agreement of expletive
subjects takes the unmarked masculine singu-
lar form (e.g., ‫ נראה שאיתמר שׁוב מאחר‬nir±e
še-±itamar šuv me±a≤er ‘seems [ms] that Itamar
again is late).
Like expletive subjects, null subjects with
non-specific, indefinite reference are available
in all tenses. This class never alternates with
overt pronouns (e.g., ‫שותים המון מיץ בארץ‬
šotim hamon miß ba-±areß ‘drink [mpl] lots of
juice in the country’ = ‘people drink lots of juice
in the land [i.e., Israel]’).
Naudé (1991; 1993; 1994a; 1994b) dem-
onstrates the specific aspects of null subjects
for Biblical and Qumran Hebrew. In the light
of characteristics of null-subject languages
generally, it is preferable to identify so-called
coordinate subjects with independent personal
pronouns in Biblical Hebrew as adjuncts rather
than sentence subjects (e.g., ‫וְ ֵ ֽא ְל ָכ ֙ה וְ יָ ַר ְד ִ ֣תּי ַﬠל־‬
‫עוֹתי‬
ֽ ָ ‫תוּלי ָאנ ִ ֹ֖כי וְ ֵר‬ ְ ‫ ֶ ֽה ָה ִ ֔רים וְ ֶא ְב ֶכּ ֙ה ַﬠ‬wë-±èlú<å
ַ ֔ ‫ל־בּ‬
wë-y<åra≈tì ≠al-hÆ-h<årìm wë-±Æ∫kÆ ≠al-bëμùlay
±≥nòúì wë-rè≠òμay ‘and I will go up and down
on the mountains and mourn for my virgin-
ity, I and my companions’ [Judg. 11.37]). The
structural position of an independent pronoun
as a coordinate subject coincides with that of a
dislocated constituent in a left/right dislocation,
namely, a constituent that is base-generated in
an adjunct position (Naudé 1999:75–99).
3. C o n s t i t u e n t O r d e r
One of the central concerns of GB is to charac-
terize the positions in which nominal elements
can appear in a specific language. For example,
the derivation of the English sentence John was
persuaded is based on, first, the representation
of an abstract underlying linguistic structure
[—was persuaded John] which reflects the lexi-
cal properties [+transitive] of the lexical item
persuade. Second, there is a transformation
(‘Move alpha’, which means move anything
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3
government and binding
anywhere), which has the potential to move
the noun phrase subject into the subject posi-
tion. Third, there is a principle (the ‘Case
filter’) which requires that every phonetically
realized NP must be assigned (abstract) Case.
Finally, John must move to the subject position
to receive (nominative) Case and this yields the
English word order SV.
GB constrains quite narrowly the possible
ordering among constituents within the verb-
less clause (DeCaen 1999:109–131; see also
DeCaen 1995). The underlying (or, deep) struc-
ture has the order Subject, Participle, Prepo-
sitional Phrase (dative), Prepositional Phrase
(temporal). There are only three possible varia-
tions in the surface order: (1) Subject (topical-
ized), Participle, Prepositional phrase (dative),
Prepositional Phrase (temporal). This order is
rare. (2) Prepositional Phrase (temporal), Sub-
ject, Participle, Prepositional Phrase (dative).
This order is most common. (3) Prepositional
Phrase (dative), Subject, Participle, Preposi-
tional Phrase (temporal). This order is obliga-
tory when the Subject is pronominalized and
refers to a participant which is the focus of the
paragraph or the discourse.
Naudé (1990) provides a generative syntactic
analysis of topicalization and dislocation in
Biblical Hebrew. Topicalization involves the
movement of a constituent to the beginning
of the sentence (e.g., ‫≠ ֶﬠ ֶ֣בד ָא ִ ֤ביָך ַ ֽו ֲאנִ ֙י ֵמ ָ֔אז‬e∫e≈
±a∫ìú<å wa-±≥nì mè-±<åz ‘the servant of your
father I was formerly’ [2 Sam. 15.34]). Dis-
location also involves constituents that are
located at the beginning of the sentence, but,
unlike topicalized constituents, dislocated con-
stituents are generated in their surface positions
֑ ‫ ַכּ ְס ְפָּך֥ וּֽ זְ ָה ְבָך֖ ִ ֽל‬kaspëú<å u-zh<å∫ú<å lì-hù
(e.g., ‫י־הוּא‬
‘your silver and your gold, it belongs to me’
[1 Kgs 20.3]). Topicalization and disloca-
tion differ in that a topicalized constituent is
resumed (e.g., by a resumptive pronoun) in the
main sentence, whereas a dislocated constituent
is not (Naudé 1990:128).
GB also provides insight into the syntax of
Biblical Hebrew participial forms. For exam-
ple, the structure of Biblical Hebrew allows the
use of participles in attributive constructions
while maintaining the verbal characteristics of
the verbal form, that is, its verbal valency (e.g.,
‫יה‬
ָ֙ ‫יוֹשׁ ֶ֙ב‬
ְ ‫ָה ָ֡א ֶרץ ֲא ֶשׁר֩ ָﬠ ַ֙ב ְרנוּ ָ֜בהּ ָל ֣תוּר א ָֹ֗תהּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ א ֶֹכ ֶ֤לת‬
‫ ִ֔הוא‬ha-±<årÆß ±≥šÆr ≠<å∫arnù ∫<åh l<åμùr ±òμ<åh ±ÆrÆß
±òúÆlÆμ yòš∫Æh<å hì ‘the land which we crossed
 government and binding
into to explore it is a land eating its inhabitants’
[Num. 13.32]). English, in contrast, does not
allow these constructions, but requires that a
relative clause be used (Dyk 1994).
4. P r o n o m i n a l C l i t i c s
Borer (1984) demonstrates that parametric syn-
tax can be used to provide illuminating explana-
tions of clitic constructions in Modern Hebrew,
which were meagerly noted previously.
Parametric syntax assumes that the pronomi-
nal clitic is an overt explication of subject
agreement features and thus deprives the com-
plement NP of its case. This principle explains
the restriction of clitics to right branches of
bound constructions, as exemplified by the
following Modern Hebrew examples with the
definite article clitic:
‫ בית המורה‬bet ha-mora ‘house of the teacher’ =
‘the teacher’s house’
‫ דלת בית המורה‬delet bet ha-mora ‘door of the
house of the teacher’
‫ ידית דלת בית המורה‬yadit delet bet ha-mora
‘the handle of the door of the house of the
teacher’
‫ *הבית המורה‬ha-bet ha-mora *‘the house the
teacher’
Parametric syntax explains the presence of
the dummy case marker ‫ של‬šÆl ‘of ’: an indepen-
dent device is needed in order to assign case to
the complement NP ‫ המורה‬ha-mora.
‫ הבית של המורה‬ha-bayt šel ha-mora ‘the house
of the teacher’ = ‘the teacher’s house’.
Since a clitic is an overt explication of the case
features of a preposition, a fronted WH (inter-
rogative) element cannot receive case from the
preposition; an independent device is required
to assign case to the WH element. Such a
device is available for free relatives, but not for
questions. In free relatives (i.e., relative clauses
without an overt head) the pronominal clitic
occurs alongside the extracted NP (cf. ‫מי שביתו‬
‫ שלו נשרף‬mi še-beto šelo [e] ni«raf ‘the one
whose house is burned’), but it is not allowed
for questions (cf. ‫ **מי ביתו שלו נשרף‬mi beto
šelo ni«raf **‘whose house is burned?’).
Doron (1986:313–332) has presented an
argument that the pronoun that appears option-
ally in nominal sentences in Modern Hebrew
(and in Arabic) is not a copula, but a pronomi-
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3
75
nal clitic, which is the phonological realization
of agreement features. Naudé builds on this
proposal to argue that the 3rd person pronoun
in so-called tripartite nominal constructions in
Biblical Hebrew has the status of a pronominal
clitic (e.g., ‫יכם ֖הוּא ַהנִּ ְל ָ ֥חם‬ ֶ֔ ‫הו֣ה ֱא ֹֽל ֵה‬
ָ ְ‫֖ל ֹא ִ ֽתּ ָיר ֑אוּם ִ ֚כּי י‬
<
‫ ָל ֶ ֽכם‬lò tìrå±ùm kì yhwh ±łlohènù hù han-nil™åm <
<låúÆm ‘do not be afraid because YHWH your
God, he fights for you’ [Deut. 3.22]). The inser-
tion of this pronominal clitic is best construed as
a type of ‘last resort strategy’ (like ‘do-support’
in English). In other words, the pronominal clitic
is obligatory in nominal clauses which have a
definite/specificational noun phrase in predicate
position where it is necessary for the semantic
interpretation following from the various sub-
categorial relations that hold between subjects
and predicates (Naudé 2002a; 2002b; cf. also
Naudé 1994c).
Finally, GB provides an explanation for the
so-called ethical dative ( Dative). It is not a
sentence constituent, but a reflexive anaphor
that must be translated in English as x-self
(e.g., ‫ל־א ֶרץ ַהמּ ִֹר ָיּ֑ה‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֶל‬wë-lÆú-lëú<å ±Æl-±ÆrÆß
֖ ֶ ‫ְך־ל ָ֔ך ֶא‬
<
ham-mòriyyå ‘and take yourself to the land of
Moriah’ [Gen. 22.2]) (Naudé 1995:1–9).
References
Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric syntax: Case studies
in Semitic and Romance languages. Dordrecht:
Foris.
——. 1989. “Anaphoric AGR”. The null subject
parameter, ed. Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth Safir.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chomsky Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and
binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
——. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the
theory of government and binding. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press.
——. 1986a. Knowledge of language: Its nature,
origin and use. New York: Praeger.
——. 1986b. Barriers. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
MIT Press.
DeCaen, Vincent. 1995. “On the placement and
interpretation of the verb in Standard Biblical
Hebrew prose”. PhD dissertation, University of
Toronto.
——. 1999. “Verbal and verbless clauses within
government-binding theory”. The verbless clause
in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic approaches, ed. by
Cynthia L. Miller, 109–131. Winona Lake, Indi-
ana: Eisenbrauns.
Doron, Edit. 1986. “The pronominal ‘copula’ in
agreement clitic”. The syntax of pronominal clit-
ics, ed. by Hagit Borer, 313–332. New York:
Academic Press.
Dyk, Janet W. 1994. Participles in context: A com-
puter-assisted study of Old Testament Hebrew.
Amsterdam: Free University Press.
76 grammarians: karaite
Hyams, Nina. 1986. Language acquisition and the
theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Kenneth Safir. 1989. “Para-
metric theory.” The null subject parameter, ed.
by Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth Safir, 1–44. Dor-
drecht: Kluwer.
Naudé, Jacobus A. 1990. “A syntactic analysis of
certain dislocations in Biblical Hebrew”. Journal
of Northwest Semitic Languages 16:115–130.
——. 1991. “Qumran Hebrew as a null subject
language”. South African Journal of Linguistics
9:119–125.
——. 1993. “On subject pronoun and subject noun
asymmetry: A preliminary survey of Northwest
Semitic”. South African Journal of Linguistics
11:17–28.
——. 1994a. “The asymmetry of subject pronouns
and subject nouns in Qumran Hebrew and cog-
nates”. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
20:139–164.
——. 1994b. “Towards a typology of Qumran
Hebrew”. Journal of Northwest Semitic Lan-
guages 20:65–83.
——. 1994c. “The verbless clause with pleonastic
pronoun in Biblical Aramaic”. Journal for Semit-
ics 6:74–93.
——. 1997. “The syntactic status of the ethical
dative in Biblical Hebrew”. Journal for Semitics
9:129–165.
——. 1999. “Syntactic aspects of co-ordinate subjects
with independent personal pronouns”. Journal of
Northwest Semitic Languages 25:75–99.
——. 2001. “Independent personal pronouns in
Qumran Hebrew syntax”. Journal of Northwest
Semitic Languages 27:91–112.
——. 2002a. “The third person pronoun in tripartite
verbless clauses of Qumran Hebrew”. Pronouns:
Representation and grammar, ed. by Horst J.
Simon and Heike Wiese, 161–182. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
——. 2002b. “Verbless clauses containg a personal
pronoun as subject in Qumran Hebrew”. Journal
for Semitics 11:126–168.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dor-
drecht: Foris.
Shlonsky, Ur. 1997. Clause structure and word order
in Hebrew and Arabic: An essay in comparative
Semitic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jacobus A. Naudé
(University of the Free State, Bloemfontein,
South Africa)
Grammarians: Karaite
In the Middle Ages Karaite grammarians devel-
oped systems of Hebrew linguistic thought that
differed in some fundamental ways from those
that were adopted by the Rabbanite grammar-
ians. The corpus of Karaite grammatical texts
that have come down to us can be classified
broadly into two main traditions, which we
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3
View publication stats
shall refer to respectively as the early tradition
and the tradition associated with the grammar-
ian ±Abù al-Faraj Hàrùn.
1. T h e E a r l y T r a d i t i o n
The main source of our knowledge for the early
tradition of Karaite grammatical thought is an
extant grammatical text by ±Abù Ya≠qùb Yùsuf
ibn Nù™, which is datable to the second half of
the 10th century. Ibn Nù™ was heir to a tradi-
tion of Hebrew grammar that had developed
among the Karaites of Iraq and Iran. This was
brought to Jerusalem in the migrations of Kara-
ites from the East during the 10th century. Ibn
Nù™ himself was an immigrant from Iraq. The
grammatical text that is attributed to Yùsuf
ibn Nù™ is referred to in the colophons either
simply as the ‫ דקדוק‬diqduq ‘fine grammatical
investigation’ or as ‫ נוכת דקדוק‬nukat diqduq
‘points of fine grammatical investigation’ (Khan
2000a). In what follows it will be referred to it
by its shorter title.
The Diqduq is written in Arabic, though
much of the technical terminology is Hebrew. It
is not a systematically arranged description of
the Hebrew language, with the various aspects
of grammar presented in separate chapters,
but rather a series of grammatical notes on
the Bible, together with sporadic exegetical
comments. Occasionally, a general principle
of grammar is discussed, but in most cases
grammatical concepts are not explained and
their sense must be inferred from the context
in which they are used. The work covers the
entire Bible, selecting words and phrases that
are deemed to require elucidation and analysis.
The work does not offer instruction on the
rudiments of Hebrew grammar, but concen-
trates on points that Ibn Nù™ believed may
be problematic for the reader or concerning
which there was controversy. These problem-
atic issues are generally referred to within the
text as masà±il (singular mas±ala ‘question’).
The work as we have it in manuscripts appears
to be the record of oral teachings to students in
the classroom.
As is the case with many of the Karaite gram-
matical works, some of the extant manuscripts
of the Diqduq contain an abridged version of
the original text.
The main concern of the Diqduq is the analysis
and explanation of word structure. On various