THE NON-VERBAL CLAUSE IN QUMRAN HEBREW

THE NON-VERBAL CLAUSE IN QUMRAN HEBREW

PROEFSCHRIFT

ter verkrijging van

de graad van doctor aan de universiteit leiden,

op gezag van de rector magnificus dr. d.d. breimer,

hoogleraar in de faculteit der wiskunde en

natuurwetenschappen en die der geneeskunde,

volgens besluit van het college voor promoties

te verdedigen op dinsdag 31 oktober 2006

klokke 15:00 uur

door

MARTINUS FERDINAND JOZEF BAASTEN

geboren te haarlem

in 1964

PROMOTIECOMMISSIE Promotor: Prof. dr. H. Gzella

Copromotor: Dr. W.Th. van Peursen

Referent: Prof. dr. J. Joosten (Université Marc Bloch, Straatsburg)

Overige leden: Prof. dr. A. Griffiths

Prof. dr. A.M. Lubotsky

Prof. dr. H.J. Stroomer

Prof. dr. I.E. Zwiep (Universiteit van Amsterdam)

Quam ob rem angor iste, qui pro amico sæpe capiendus est, non tantum valet, ut tollat e vita amicitiam, non plus quam ut virtutes, quia non nullas curas & molestias adferunt, repudientur.

M. Tullius Cicero, Lælius sive De amicitia

Voor Sjef

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE xiii

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 The Linguistic Nature of Qumran Hebrew 2

1.2 The Corpus and the Selection of its Material 8

1.3 The Non-Verbal Clause and its Linguistic Nature 11

1.3.1 Clause, Sentence and Phrase 12

1.3.2 Predication: Verbal and Non-Verbal 13

1.3.3 The Non-Verbal Clause: An Acknowledged Clause Type? 15

1.3.4 The Semantics of ‘To Be’ 17

1.3.5 The Morphological Categories of Non-Verbal Predicates 20

1.3.6 Other Predicative Elements 22

1.3.7 One-Membered Clauses 25

1.4 Theoretical Approach 27

1.4.1 Three Levels of Linguistic Description 28

1.4.2 Extraposition 34

1.4.3 Focus, Cleft and Pseudo-Cleft Sentences 35

1.4.4 The Pronominal ‘Copula’ 38

1.4.5 Definiteness and Determinedness 39

1.5 The Non-Verbal Clause and Comparative Semitics 40

1.5.1 Akkadian 41

1.5.2 South Arabian 43

a. Epigraphic South Arabian 43

b. Modern South Arabian 44

1.5.3 Ethio-Semitic 45

a. Ge‘ez 45

b. Tigrinya 49

c. Tigré 50

d. Amharic and Argobba 50

e. Other South Ethiopic Languages 52

1.5.4 Central Semitic 53

a. Classical and Modern Standard Arabic 53

b. Ugaritic 55

c. Phoenician and Punic 56

d. Modern Hebrew 57

e. Syriac and Other Types of Aramaic 59

2. A SURVEY OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH 63

2.1 The Non-Verbal Clause in Biblical Hebrew 63

2.1.1 Albrecht and Other Early Studies 63

2.1.2 Andersen’s Approach 72

2.1.3 Hoftijzer’s View 79

2.1.4 Muraoka’s Approach 83

2.1.5 Richter’s Study 88

2.1.6 Revell’s Study 88

2.1.7 Zewi’s Approach 90

2.1.8 Niccacci’s Approach 92

2.1.9 Michel’s Approach 93

2.2 The ‘Tripartite’ Non-Verbal Clause in Biblical Hebrew 95

2.2.1 Albrecht 95

2.2.2 S.R. Driver 97

2.2.3 Bendavid 99

2.2.4 The Formal Approach: Andersen, Sappan 100

2.2.5 Emphatic Theories: Geller and Muraoka 104

2.2.6 Information Structure: Zewi and Niccacci 109

2.2.7 The Functional-Transformational Approach: Buth, Shimasaki 112

2.2.8 Blau 115

2.3 Previous Research on the Non-Verbal Clause in Mishnaic Hebrew 116

2.4 Previous Research on the Non-Verbal Clause in Qumran Hebrew 118

3. THE NON-VERBAL CLAUSE IN QUMRAN HEBREW 121

3.1 The Theoretical Approach 121

A. BIPARTITE NON-VERBAL CLAUSES 123

3.2 The Nominal Clause 123

3.2.1 NPd–NPd 123

3.2.2 NPd–NPi 127

3.2.3 NPi–NPd 134

3.2.4 NPi–NPi 138

3.2.5 DPr–NPd 141

3.2.6 DPr–NPi 147

3.2.7 NPd–DPr 149

3.2.8 NPi–DPr 149

3.2.9 PPr–NPd 150

3.2.10 PPr–NPi 157

3.2.11 NPd–PPr 161

3.2.12 NPi–PPr 162

3.3 The Prepositional Clause 166

3.3.1 PP–NPd 166

3.3.2 PP–NPi 170

3.3.3 Excursus: The Copper Scroll 173

3.3.4 PP–DPr 175

3.3.5 PP–PPr 175

3.3.6 NPd–PP 177

3.3.7 NPi–PP 180

3.3.8 DPr–PP 184

3.3.9 PPr–PP 184

3.3.10 PP–PP 186

3.3.11 Clauses with Two Contrastive Constituents 187

3.3.12 Conclusions 189

3.4 The Non-Verbal Clause with Interrogative Constituents 191

3.4.1 Int–NPd 191

3.4.2 Int–NPi 192

3.4.3 Int–DPr 194

3.4.4 Int–PPr 194

3.4.5 Int–PP 195

3.4.6 NPd–Int 195

3.4.7 NPi–Int 195

3.4.8 DPr–Int 195

3.4.9 PPr–Int 196

3.4.10 PP–Int 196

B. ‘TRIPARTITE’ NON-VERBAL CLAUSES 196

3.5 Ex || PPr–X 196

3.5.1 NPd || PPr–NPd 196

3.5.2 NPd || PPr–NPi 201

3.5.3 NPi || PPr-NPd 202

3.6 Ex || X–PPr 203

3.6.1 NPd || NPd–PPr 203

3.6.2 NPd || NPi–PPr 203

3.6.3 NPd || PP–PPr 204

3.6.4 NPi || PP–PPr 204

3.7 X–PPr || Ex 205

3.7.1 NPd–PPr || NPd 205

3.7.2 NPi–PPr || NPd 205

3.7.3 PP–PPr || NPd 206

3.7.4 PPr–PPr || NPd 206

3.7.5 DPr–PPr || NPd 207

3.7.6 Int –PPr || NPd 207

3.7.7 NPi–PPr || NPi 208

3.7.8 Int–PPr || NPi 208

3.8 X–PPr || VC 209

3.8.1 NPi–PPr || VC 209

3.8.2 Int–PPr || VC 209

3.8.3 Int–DPr || VC 210

3.9 Disagreement of the Pronoun 210

C. EXISTENTIAL CLAUSES 212

3.10 Non-Verbal Clauses with 212 יש

3.11 Non-Verbal Clauses with 214 אי�

3.11.1 (w)’yn NPi 214

3.11.2 w’yn NPi ADV 215

3.11.3 w’yn ADV NPi 217

3.11.4 w’yn ∅ ∅ 218

3.11.5 Preceding PPs 218

3.11.6 Preceding NPs 219

3.11.7 Unique Construction 219

3.12 Miscellaneous Remarks 220

3.12.1 Parallel Constructions with ואי� and 220 לאי�

3.12.2 Poetic Alternation אי� / א)ו(ל 220

3.12.3 Adnominal Uses 221

3.12.4 Alternatives for possessive 222 ל

3.12.5 Various Aspects 223

3.13 Hnh + NP 223

4. CONCLUSIONS 227

ABBREVIATIONS 237

BIBLIOGRAPHY 243

SAMENVATTING 265

CURRICULUM VITÆ 269

PREFACE

he research for the present dissertation was initially carried out on the basis of a research fellowship granted by the Center of Non-Western Studies (presently Research School cnws), Leiden University, during the years 1993–1997. I am deeply grateful to this institution for having given me the opportunity to work in its building at the Nonnensteeg, a buzzing beehive of young scholars from all possible backgrounds. It remains a rare privilege indeed to have studied for several years in an academic environment where during lunch the topic of conver-sation would usually range from Tibetan Buddhist concepts of the afterlife to the lienzo of Jucutácato, while at dinner the history of Tigrinya literature would be discussed, along with Ancient Egyptian basketry or the Bhāsa problem. And then in between, during the oc-casional coffee or tea break, new vistas could suddenly open on the Antichrist in Ah. med Bīcān’s Dürr-i Meknūn or the emergence of eth-nology as a scholarly discipline in eighteenth-century Europe. Despite the fact that Leiden regulations prevent Ph.D. students from thanking those involved in the evaluation process of their dis-sertation, several people deserve to be mentioned here. First of all, I am grateful to my previous supervisor, Professor T. Muraoka, for his contribution to my development as a scholar. Furthermore, it is worth noting that Professors J. Hoftijzer, A.J. Drewes and D. van Arkel, as well as Dr. H.B.Th. Schot, have made a profound impression on me as teachers and human beings. Finally, without the constant support of my friend Sjef Laenen this book would not have been initiated, pur-sued or completed. I can do no better than dedicate the work to him.

martin f.j. baasten

T