603

ISSN 1013-8471 Journal for Semitics 19/2 (2010) pp. 603-627

THE “GUESSING” QATAL. THE BIBLICAL HEBREW SUFFIX CONJUGATION AS A MANIFESTATION OF

THE EVIDENTIAL TRAJECTORY1 A. ANDRASON

ABSTRACT

This paper aims at demonstrating that the Biblical Hebrew (BH) qatal may provide inferential nuances compatible with the evidential semantic domain. First, the reader is familiarized with the general notions concerning resultative and evidential expressions viewed from the panchronic perspective: in particular, their grammatical and functional development (three prototypical evolutionary scenarios labeled “anterior, simultaneous and evidential paths”) is discussed. Next, employing the panchronic methodology, the author hypothesizes that being recently defined as a prototypical resultative diachrony, the BH suffix conjugation should provide uses which – besides corresponding to the anterior and simultaneous paths – would also reflect the third evolutionary track commonly followed by resultative constructions, i.e., the evidential trajectory, and in particular, that it would offer inferential readings. Afterward, he verifies the hypothesis, analyzing various examples where the qatal seems to display evidential force. This analysis indicates that the formation may provide inferential value corresponding to the category of a guessing perfect: a previously performed action is not witnessed by the enunciator himself but is assumed to have happened because of the available physical or generally assumed evidence and because of the application of human deduction mechanisms. Finally, the author demonstrates that languages which possess more regular overt evidential categories (Turkish and Icelandic) frequently employ them in order to translate specific examples where the qatal has inferential force. All of this demonstrates that the semantic potential of the BH suffix conjugation is compatible with the evidential – in particular inferential – domain which in turn positively verifies the panchronically posited hypothesis.

1 This article is a result of the research project carried out by me in co-operation with

prof. Christo Van der Merwe in the Department of Ancient Studies (University of Stellenbosch) in 2010. I would like to thank Prof. van der Merwe for his comments on the previous version of this paper as well as for his unceasing and passionate willingness to discuss with me all details of the Hebrew language.

604 A. Andrason

LINGUISTIC PRELIMINARIES: RESULTATIVES AND EVIDENTIALS

According to evolutionary linguistics, grammatical constructions undergo a structural and functional development following determined principles. These evolutionary laws – extrapolated from extensive empirical research (cf. for instance, Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer 1991a and Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994) and subsequently tested on numerous languages from various families – seem to be typologically universal and have received a systematic form under the Grammaticalization Theory (viz., morphosyntactical growth,2 cf. Haspelmath 1999, Hopper & Traugott 2003 and Heine 2003) and Path Theory (viz., functional progression, cf. Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994 and Dahl 2000).

As far as the functional progress is concerned, the grammatical advance consists in an ordered and unidirectional acquisition of new values; this means that the grammatical life of a construction is composed by consecutive stages during which new meanings are incorporated and generalized, and which together form a linear trajectory, called path. This cline, linking all segments of the evolution of a gram, depicts and, to a certain degree, pre-determines its possible evolution, from the very beginning where it functions as a lexical periphrastic expression to the functional apogee as an aspect, tense or mood, and after that to an inevitable decay and loss.

Founded on this deterministic view, the recently emerged panchronic approach affirms that meanings which are synchronically provided by a formation must reflect such successive phases of a universal typologically wide-spread diachronic development. In other words, functional and structural characteristics that are synchronically provided by a gram mirror consecutive, prearranged and unidirectional diachronic stages; synchronic meanings are “frozen” pictures of a gram’s history (Dahl 1985; Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer

2 It is important to distinguish between these two frameworks. Even though

grammaticalization – involving morphosyntactical modifications – is related to changes in meaning and thus to semantics, it primarily concerns the structural development of linguistic constructions, in particular their morphologization, de-categorialization, affixation, clitization, fusion, phonological reduction etc. (for detail, see Hopper & Traugott 2003). On the other hand, the path theory, presenting a more specific view, is exclusively concerned with the functional growth of grams.

The “guessing” qatal 605

1991b; Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994 and Dahl 2000 and Andrason 2010b). The methodology combines the traditionally distinct diachronic and synchronic approaches and explains synchronically available data making use of diachronic evidence and evolutionary universals (for details see Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer 1991b; Croft 2003 and Andrason 2010a, 2010b, 2010c and 2011).

In accordance with laws of the panchronic analysis, if a gram conveys meanings which reflect a given functional path, it is expected to do so consistently – it must match a trajectory! Conversely, a formation may not offer “accidental” values that could separately correspond to different evolutionary tracks. Thus, a construction should (a) provide meanings which mirror several stages of the path it pursues, and (b) participate at the same time in all available sub-paths universally inherent to that tract.

Let us describe these two assumptions in detail. The first assumption states that since the grammatical life is a journey during which a formation progresses on a linear trajectory, meanings provided by a form must echo initial, intermediate and advanced segments of the cline. The least frequent (peripheral) functions usually correspond either to more original stages of the development (values that the gram “let go” and that are contemporarily expressed by new transparent constructions) or to its more advanced phases (values that will become dominant later but have not been generalized yet). The prototypical meanings of the formation are located between these two extremes, i.e., values which the gram expresses most frequently: its core unmarked uses. In regards to the second assumption, at least at the beginning of the functional development and the grammaticalization process, the formation is expected to experience various evolutionary scenarios determined for one particular type of input locutions. Put differently, if a given path consists of several sub-tracks (cf. the resultative development below which includes three main trajectories) the original expression should follow all available evolutions without being restricted to a single specific sub-cline. However, at later evolutionary stages, in accordance with the law of generalization3 and specialization,4 the formation

3 During the process of generalization, a set of possible restrictions in the use of a

given form diminishes – put differently, until the construction has been fully grammaticalized, it progressively increases the set of possible occurrences. The phenomenon may be illustrated by the development of the progressive aspect and its consecutive spread to stative verbs. These verbs, because of their semantic content,

606 A. Andrason

tends to be associated with one of the sub-paths; in other words, one sub-trajectory is generalized for all contexts (for example, for all types of roots or lexemes constituting the gram), and thus the gram itself is specialized as an expression of one particular evolutionary development (Hopper & Traugott 2003). As a consequence, the other sub-trajectories suffer a progressive decay.

Among five main functional paths which lead to the formation of aspects, tenses and mood, only one – known as “resultative path” – is relevant for our study. In general terms, the resultative trajectory depicts the development of original resultative locutions and their gradual transformation into expressions of taxis,5 aspect and tense (Maslov 1988; Nedjalkov & Jaxontov 1988; Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994; Dahl 2000; Squartini & Bertinetto 2000 and Andrason 2010a). The path consists of two major sub-trajectories: the anterior and simultaneous sub-paths (Maslov 1988:64; Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994:92 and Andrason 2010a). The former (i.e., anterior sub-path) presents the

usually do not form progressive expressions (Comrie 1976). However, during grammaticalization, this constraint disappears which signifies in turn that all verbs, irrespectively of their meaning, can derive the progressive aspect.

4 The specialization consists in the elimination of alternative constructions employed originally to indicate a determined meaning or in the elimination of other evolutionary possibilities. Finally, this leads to the election of one form that covers all contexts in which a given gram may be used, or to follow one type (trajectory) of the evolution. Consequently, the specialization equals the “thinning out of the field of candidates for grammaticalization” and reduction of possible ways of development (Hopper & Traugott 2003:118). Let us analyze the following example from French. At the begging of the grammaticalization process, to negate a verb, Old French employed a set of negative morphemes, such as pas, point, mie, gote, amende, arest, beloce and eschalope. Their selection depended on the meaning of the predicate that was to be negated. Thus, the choice of a particular negator was originally conditioned by the semantic context in which it appeared. The word pas “step” appeared with verbs of movement, mie “piece, morsel” with verbs that were related to the concept of eating and giving, the lexeme goutte “drop” occurred with verbs of drinking, etc. Nowadays, one form (i.e., the lexeme pas) has been generalized for all contexts and thus specialized as the expression of a simple general negation, independently of the semantic value of the verb. All other possible negators that were in use in Old French have been abandoned or restricted to some particular uses. This concise explanation of the phenomena of generalization and specialization also indicates that the two processes are closely related.

5 The term “taxis” makes reference to the phenomenon of relative tenses. In this model, the notions of anteriority, simultaneity and prospectivity are crucial (Maslov 1988).

The “guessing” qatal 607

evolution of resultative proper expressions through perfects toward aspectually perfective categories and, finally, to simple past tenses.6 The latter (i.e., simultaneous sub-path) codifies the change of resultative constructions into actual statives, persistent statives and then into simple present tenses.7 This evolutionary bifurcation is typologically well documented and corresponds to a synchronically common phenomenon whereby dynamic and stative roots employing the same, originally resultative, morphology offer two distinct meanings: respectively those of perfect and past, or those of stative and present (Holm 1988, Nedjalkov 1988 and Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca 1994). This signifies that dynamic verbs predominantly follow the anterior sub-path while stative roots tend to develop in accordance with the simultaneous sub-path.

The anterior and simultaneous drifts constitute major evolutionary tendencies of resultative formations in all languages. However, scholars have detected another process which frequently affects these constructions, the so called evidential sub-path. The connection between resultatives and evidential, especially inferential, non-first hand and hearsay, meanings is a well documented phenomenon and has been observed by a wide range of linguists such as Comrie (1976), Dahl (1985), Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca (1994), Lindstedt (2000), Faller (2002) and Aikhenvald (2004).

According to the evolutionary typology, resultative constructions at the beginning of their grammatical life denote actual effects of previously

6 This evolutionary scenario may be illustrated by the development of the Latin

expression habeo scriptum in the French language. The original Latin locution with the resultative proper meaning – literally corresponding to a sentence “I have/possess something written” – acquired in Old and Middle French the value of a prototypical perfect. Subsequently, in Modern French it turned into a discursive perfective past and finally in the last few decades it has become acceptable as a narrative past (Brunot & Bruneau 1933 and Mauger 1968).

7 This evolution may be exemplified by preterite-present verbs in Germanic languages such as Icelandic kunna “know how to” or vita “know something or someone”. These predicates, albeit morphologically corresponding to the simple past, have stative present meaning (and thus are usually inadmissible in progressive constructions). In recent times, the majority of such predicates have developed a simple present value that has in turn lead to their admissibility in progressive formations. Another example of the simultaneous sub-path may be provided by the Latin verb meminī or Greek οiδα which even though formally perfects had present meaning, respectively “I remember” and “I know”.

608 A. Andrason

performed actions – the resulting (simultaneous to the main time frame) state of a previously performed (anterior) action is thus viewed as relevant to the cognitive sphere of the enunciator (stage 1) (Comrie 1976 and Johanson 2000). Progressively, this initial value develops into inferential or indirect sense: the available results and human deductive capacity enable the speaker to assume that a previous action must have happened even though he has himself not witnessed it (stage 2). This inferential meaning of resultatives and perfects is a widespread tendency and may be observed for instance in Nordic Germanic languages – e.g., in Swedish and Icelandic – where the “have” perfect (a successor of an earlier resultative expression) may function as an inferential guessing gram (Haugen 1972, Jónsson 1992 and Lindstedt 2000). At the next stage of this functional progression, the inference may also be based on a general assumption and hearsay (stage 3, as for instance the Persian perfect, labeled “distanced past”, Lazard 1985). Afterwards, the construction acquires reportative values (referential) and finally introducing a broad range of non-first hand meanings develops into a general properly evidential gram (stage 4) (Aikhenvald 2004:112-117, 279-281). Such advanced stages of the development may be illustrated by the Turkish evidential miş-perfect (both inferential as well as non-first hand and referential, Johanson 2003) or by the Macedonian perfect in l (Lindstedt 2000).8 This entire – highly complex – process may be graphically represented by the following figure (Figure 1): STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4 RESULTATIVE INFERENTIAL INFERENTIAL BROAD NON-FIRSTHAND

EVIDENTIAL PROPER BASED ON

RESULTS BASED ON ASSUMPTION

AND HEARSAY

VISIBLE

TRACES

Figure 1: Evidential development of resultative constructions

8 The Icelandic, Turkish and Persian evidential categories will be described in section

“Comparative verification” below.

The “guessing” qatal 609

Consequently, the emergence and generalization of evidential extensions for resultative and perfect formations follow a strictly determined cline whereby the direct implication of the enunciator (witness > inference > assumption and hearsay > report) and the availability of first hand facts (direct physical results > direct evidence points out to an un-witnessed fact > assumed evidence points out to an un-witnessed action > no direct evidence available and/or pertinent) are progressively weakened. Later, once the original resultative construction has reached the fourth evolutionary stage – and functions as a prototypical evidential category – the gram may acquire various epistemic extensions corresponding to non-indicative moods of probability and doubt (Aikhenvald 2004:116).

It should be noted that if a language possesses two resultative diachronies, the one which mirrors intermediate stages of the resultative path (various perfect meanings such as universal,9 experiential,10 iterative,11 indefinite12 and hodiernal13 perfects) is more likely to develop an evidential strategy than the formation which reflects the initial phases of the resultative trajectory (resultative proper, resultative14 and performative15 perfects). In other words,

9 The universal perfect (labeled also inclusive perfect) indicates that an action or state

holds without interruption from a moment in the past to the present time, e.g., I have known Max since 1960 (Jónsson 1992:129–145 and McCawley 1971).

10 The experiential perfect indicates that the subject has an experience of having performed a given action. Put differently, the event is expressed as an experience which occurred at least once, and which might have been repeatable, e.g., I have read ‘Principia Mathematica’ (Jónsson 1992:129–145 and McCawley 1971).

11 The iterative perfect is a subcategory of the experiential perfect – the difference consists in the fact that this time, a given event must have occurred several times, e.g., I have seen this movie twenty times.

12 The indefinite perfect indicates general past events without stating its exact temporal location, or in other words “the situation referred to stops before the moment of speaking” (Depraetere & Reed 2000:97), e.g., We have had dreams, and there is no one to interpret them (Gen 40.8).

13 The hodiernal perfect expresses past actions that were accomplished within the last 24 hours. In English, one uses the simple past in this function: This morning I bought a newspaper. However, in Spanish the perfect (pretérito perfecto) is most frequently employed: Esta mañana he comprado un periódico.

14 The resultative perfect emphasizes the current (present) results of a prior (past) action as in I cannot come to your party – I have caught the flu (Jónsson 1992:129–145).

15 The performative perfect corresponds to performative acts (Austin 1962) – such

610 A. Andrason

typical perfects (more advanced resultative diachronies) rather than resultative proper constructions (original resultative trajectories) are expected to provide evidential values, in particular the inferential one (Aikhenvald 2004). EVIDENTIAL MEANING OF THE BIBLICAL HEBREW QATAL –

PANCHRONICALLY DEDUCED HYPOTHESIS

The Biblical Hebrew (BH) qatal has recently been defined as a manifestation of an exemplary resultative diachrony (Andersen 2000, Cook 2002, 2006). This means that the formation provides meanings which correspond to consecutive stages of a grammatical development whereby original resultative lexical expressions develop into taxis, aspectual and deictic temporal grams following strictly predetermined principles as posited by the Path Theory (see above in the first section “Linguistic preliminaries”). As expected, the values offered by the qatal reflect the two major resultative sub-paths, namely the anterior and simultaneous trajectories. As far as the anterior sub-path is concerned, certain values of the gram mirror initial phases of this functional progression (resultative proper meaning), others match intermediate phases (various perfect meanings such as performative, inclusive, experimental, iterative and indefinite perfects) and further correspond to its advanced segments (perfective past or discursive simple past). Moreover, in accordance with principles governing the evolution of resultative expressions, the qatal derived from stative roots shows functions that parallel another sub-path of the resultative trajectory during which initial resultative locutions are gradually transformed into actual statives, persistent statives and finally present tenses (cf. simultaneous sub-path). Yet again, the stative qatal provides functions which reflect original (actual stative meaning), intermediate (persistent stative meaning) and profoundly developed (simple present meaning) stages of the above mentioned universal progression (for details of this argumentation see Andersen 2000, Cook 2002 and 2006).

As a typical resultative diachrony, and thus providing uses that mirror consecutive phases of the anterior and simultaneous clines, one expects that the qatal would offer values which correspond to the third resultative sub-path, the evidential track. Put differently, given the panchronic principle of adequacy

expressions are synonymous with performing a given activity.

The “guessing” qatal 611

between categories and their paths, we assume that the functional load of the BH construction is not limited to meanings reflecting the anterior sub-path and the simultaneous sub-path, but also includes uses which are consistent with the third common type of development, i.e., with the evidential sub-path. In particular, since the qatal mirrors various intermediate stages of resultative development providing a wide range of perfect uses, we expect that the gram – consistently with the universal proximity between perfects and inferentials – will provide readings in which it corresponds to the category of a guessing perfect. In the following section we will verify this hypothesis analyzing whether the BH suffixed formation provides inferential readings.

BIBLICAL EVIDENCE

The evidential force of the qatal or its compatibility with the evidential semantic domain has commonly been ignored in grammar books. It has not been mentioned by traditional temporal or aspectual approaches (Gesenius et al. 1909, Brockelmann 1908-1913/1961, 1916 and 1956, Bauer and Leander 1918-22, Joüon 1923 and Weingreen 1939) neither by modern syntactic, discourse-pragmatic nor by grammaticalization schools (Waltke & O’Connor 1990, Niccacci 1990 and 2000, Joosten 1992 and 2002, Van der Merwe, Naudé & Kroeze 1999, Andersen 2000, Cook 2002 and 2006, Lambdin 2001, del Barco 2003 and Putnam 2006). The evidential value of the suffix conjugation has also been omitted by linguists who developed their models from the diachronic perspective (Kuryłowicz 1973, Huehnergard 1988, Rainey 1988 and 1996, Bubenik 1998, Kienast 2001 and Lipiński 2001).16 16 On the other hand, modal values of the qatal have been noted by all grammarians.

These modal uses of the BH gram have, however, nothing in common with the evidentiality. The modal qatal appears in explicit modal context: in conditional protases (with the particle אם and in some cases כי), it expresses real and possible conditions that logically and/or temporally precede the event described in the apodosis; in hypothetical phrases with לו, both in protases and apodoses, it corresponds to an irrealis. When one of the two parts of a conditional period is not expressed, the gram may provide an optative meaning of an unrealizable or counterfactual desire. Finally, the qatal may offer precative readings: it can express realizable whishes. Since the modal qatal always appears in modal (lexical or syntactical) contexts providing uses which reflect advanced stages of the modal

612 A. Andrason

In contrast with the grammatical tradition, Isaksson (2000:391) affirms that – albeit Biblical Hebrew (as well as Classical Arabic) lacks grammaticalized “clearly-cut and stable” evidential categories, inferential and referential meanings being determined contextually, for instance, by the use of auxiliary particles such as hinnē – if a finite form is used to connote evidential nuances, it is exclusively the perfect: the BH qatal and the Arabic qatala, and never the imperfect: the BH yiqtol and Arabic yaqtulu (Isaksson 2000:391 and 397). Thus, in Isaksson’s opinion, the qatal is compatible with the idea of evidentiality but in order to provide inferential and referential meanings it must employ other independent lexemes – it functions thus as a part of a lexical periphrastic evidential expression. More specifically, the presence of the particle hinnē supposedly imposes a strong evidential tone on the qatal (Isaksson). Let us analyze the following example provided by Isaksson (2000:387): (1) 1 Sam 30:3

םבניה ו םונשיה שבא השרופ הוהנ יראל־הע אנשיוו דוד ויבא םתיה ובנ

׃נשבו When David and his men came to the city, they found it burned down, and their wives and sons and daughters taken captive.17

In this fragment David and his companions, after having arrived at Ziklag, see that the Amalekites had destroyed the city and left the place – Ziklag is burned to the ground and the enemy is not there anymore. On this ground – but clearly without having witnessed the fact personally – they draw a conclusion that their wives, sons and daughters must have been carried away as prisoners by the Amelekites. Consequently, the qatal נשבו may be understood evidentially, as an

trajectory (epistemic possibility and probability) – and conversely given the fact that it does not provide meanings that mirror initial phases of the modal development (such as ability, obligation, desire), the modal qatal could be understood as an example of the modal contamination (Smith 1991, Cook 2002 and Andrason 2011).

17 All verbs that appear in the qatal construction, as well as their translations, will be given in bold type. The Hebrew quotations match the text of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Westminster Hebrew Morphology (1996). The English translation, unless stated otherwise, reflects The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (1989).

The “guessing” qatal 613

example of the inferential force. Isaksson (2000:388) claims that this is due to the use of – what he labels – “the inferential marker hinnē”.

Also the next example (2) offers a clear inferential value and, similarly to the previous case, employs the particle hinnē together with a verb in the qatal form: (2) 2 Kgs 7:6

ם את־מחנה השמיע׀ ואדני ול אר ול רכב ק ול סוס ק יל ק ול ח ויאמרו גד

יש יו א כר הנה אל־אח ל1 נו ־עליש ל מ י ישרא ים את־מלכ י החת ואת־מלכ

ים וא מצר עלינו׃ לב

For the Lord had caused the Aramean army to hear the sound of chariots, and of horses, the sound of a great army, so that they said to one another, ‘The king of Israel has hired the kings of the Hittites and the kings of Egypt to fight against us.’

In the above introduced fragment, Arameans having heard the sound of approaching enemy army – made by their chariots, horses and soldiers – assume that Israelites received the aid of the Hittites and Egyptians in the war. Thus, given physical (concretely, audible) evidence, they conclude that a determined event must have happened (the agreement between their enemies) – such a reading offers a strong inferential tone.

However, what distinguishes Isaksson’s example from our fragment is the fact that in the former the particle hinnē introduces a piece of evidence (the fact that the city is burned down) while in the latter, it presents a drawn assumption (the inferred agreement between the Israelites, Hittites and Egyptians). Thus, the lexeme hinnē cannot be understood as a consistent marker of the evidential meaning; if it was an evidential particle, instead of presenting available physical signs from which the guess has been deduced, it would regularly mark inferred, assumed or reported events as prototypical evidential categories (both periphrastic and fully grammaticalized) do.18

18 According to Van der Merwe & Naudé (forthcoming) these two uses of the hinnē

may be classified as follows: in (1) wehinnē is used to “point to the cognitive effects on a character or […] the speaker him-/herself” and may be understood as a clause deictic and as a discourse marker (Van der Merwe & Naudé forthcoming:473-474);

614 A. Andrason

Furthermore, one can detect several instances where the sole qatal – i.e., without the presence of hinnē – appears to display a strong referential force, for example in Gen 37:33, Gen 43:23, Gen 44:28, Gen 29:32-33 and 2 Kgs 3:23. In all these cases, the enunciator makes an assumption about an anterior event given available physical evidence and applying his deduction capacity. Let us analyze all of the above mentioned examples in detail.

In the following verses (3), Jacob is shown clothes which he recognizes as belonging to his youngest son Joseph. The garment was previously ripped and dipped in blood by his other sons. Having in front of him these pieces of evidence (Joseph’s ragged robe with visible blood marks), the father concludes that his son must have been torn and devoured by a wild animal. (3) Gen 37:31-33

נת ויקחו ף את־כת יר וישחטו יוס ים שע נת ויטבלו עז בדם׃ את־הכת 31 נת וישלחו32 ים את־כת יאו הפס ם ויב את ויאמרו אל־אביה אנו ז מצ

א נת הכר־נ וא בנC הכת Dא׃אם־ ה

ה אמר ויכיר נת וי י כת ה חיה בנ תהו רע ף אכל ף טר יוסף טר 33

31Then they took Joseph’s robe, slaughtered a goat, and dipped the robe in the blood. 32They had the long robe with sleeves taken to their father, and they said, “This we have found; see now whether it is your son’s robe or not”. 33He recognized it, and said, “It is my son’s robe! A wild animal has devoured him; Joseph is without doubt torn to pieces.”

In another verse (4), the steward of Joseph’s house after having heard the explanation given by Jacob’s sons regarding the money which they had found in their sacks, answers that it must have been God himself who had put the treasure there. He builds his assumption on three beliefs: the power of God, the Israelites’ story according to which Jacobs’ sons did not have any knowledge of the origin of the silver, and finally the fact that the money has been returned.

in (2) the particle provides or prepares the ground of another preposition, in this case, an implied directive (ibid.: 477). It is noteworthy that Van der Merwe & Naudé (forthcoming) do not list the alleged inferential value in their review of the functions of hinnē.

The “guessing” qatal 615

(4) Gen 43:23 ם שDום ויאמר או לכ ם אל־תיר י אDהיכ ןנ אביכם ואDה ם ת מטמון לכ

ם תיכ ם באמתח א כספכ י ב ם ויוצא אל ון אלה את־שמע

He replied, ‘Rest assured, do not be afraid; your God and the God of your father must have put treasure in your sacks for you; I received your money.’ Then he brought Simeon out to them.

The same type of argumentation as in (3) above may be observed in the next passage (5) where Jacob assumes the death of his son Joseph due to fact that he has been shown his torn clothes and because he has not seen him from the time the boy had left the house. (5) Gen 44: 27-28 אמר י עבדC וי ינו אב ם אל ם את י ידעת ים כ אשתי׃ ילדה־לי שנ 27

א י האחד ויצ ר מאת 1 ואמ ף א ף טר יו וDא טר עד־הנה׃ ראית 28

27Then your servant my father said to us, ‘You know that my wife bore me two sons; 28one left me, and I said, Surely he has been torn to pieces; and I have never seen him since.

In the following fragment (6) each time Leah conceives a child, she assumes that this happens because God must have acknowledged her affliction. Put differently, from the fact that she has conceived and delivered male offspring Leah infers that God must have seen and heard what was happening to her. The evidential value of the qatal is particularly clear in verse 33 where the form עשמ is employed beside the wayyiqtol יויתן־ל . In this sentence, the qatal form expresses an inferred assumption (God’s act which the woman has not personally witnessed) while the yiqtol introduces a witnessed fact (Leah has given birth to a child for the second time). (6) Gen 29:31-33

ה׃31 ל עקר ה ורח ח את־רחמ ה ויפת ה לא וירא יהוה כי־שנואהר 32 לד לאה ות ן ות א ב ו ותקר ן שמ י ראוב ה כ הכי־ אמר י יהוה רא בעני

י ני העת כ י׃ יאהב איש

616 A. Andrason

הר לד עוד ות אמר בן ות עכי־ ות ה יהוה שמ כי כי־שנוא י אנ ויתן־ל

א גם־את־זה ו ותקר ון׃ שמ שמע 33

31When the Lord saw that Leah was unloved, he opened her womb; but Rachel was barren. 32Leah conceived and bore a son, and she named him Reuben; for she said, “Because the Lord has looked on my affliction; surely now my husband will love me.” 33She conceived again and bore a son, and said, “Because the Lord has heard that I am hated, he has given me this son also”; and she named him Simeon.

In the next example (7), the Moabites, seeing that the water was as red as blood, drew a conclusion that the kings of Israel had certainly fought and killed each other. Thus, the Moabites’ assumption is based on a palpable physical fact and on the general knowledge that the war was about to come. (7) 2 Kgs 3:23

ם ויאמרו ה ד ב ז ים נחרבו החר יש ויכו המלכ הו א את־רע

They said, “This is blood; the kings must have fought together, and killed one another. Now then, Moab, to the spoil!”

What links all of the above examples is the fact that the qatal – without the presence of the particle hinnē or any other consistent formal marker19 – provides a clear inferential value corresponding to the category of a guessing perfect: a previously performed action is not witnessed by the enunciator himself but is assumed to have happened because of the available evidence and general human deduction mechanisms. Put differently, in all the presented cases, the qatal expresses actions which have previously occurred without being personally witnessed by the speakers; consequently, they assume that the event has taken place not because they have experienced it, but because of the available evidence and human inference capacity. Such a meaning is a prototypical domain of the evidential and, more narrowly, inferential grams. Finally, since in all of these examples, the inferential reading coincides with the anterior value of the gram, the category – as already mentioned – matches the category of a

19 It is interesting that in three examples, the qatal is preceded by the infinitive

absolute: (1) ף ף טר טר ף (3) , ף טר טר and (4) ב נחרבו החר .

The “guessing” qatal 617

guessing perfect. It should be observed that in order to translate the above examples either

The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version, or other editions frequently employ the English evidential analytic expression must have + past participle20 (cf. examples 8.a-e below). The example (7) is rendered with an inferential force twice employing the adverb certainly (8.f). Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the example quoted by Isaksson (2000) has also been translated providing the inferential nuance periphrastically by means of the verb realize (8.g). (8) a Listen! The king of Israel must have hired Hittite and Egyptian troops

to attack us… (Holy Bible: Contemporary English Version 1995) (2 Kgs 7:6) (cf. example 2)

b A wild animal must have eaten him (Holy Bible: New Living Translation 2004); … Joseph must have been torn to pieces (God’s word 1996) (Gen 37:33) (cf. example 3)

c …the God of your father must have put treasure in your sacks for you. (The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version 1989) (Gen 43:23) (cf. example 4)

d He must have been torn to pieces by wild animals (The Holy Bible: Good News Translation 1992) (Gen 44:28) (cf. example 5)

e …the kings must have fought together… (The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version 1989) (2 Kgs 3:23) (cf. example 7)

f 32“Certainly, the Lord has seen my misery; now my husband will love me!” 33She became pregnant again and gave birth to another son. She said, “Certainly, the Lord has heard that I’m unloved, and he also has given me this son.” (God’s word 1996) (Gen 29:32-33) (cf. example 6)

g When David and his men saw the ruins and realized what had

happened to their families… (Holy Bible: New Living Translation 2004) (1 Sam 30:3) (cf. example 1)

Finally, one may find cases where the qatal offers the inferential force based not on palpable physical evidence but rather is generally assumed or deduced from

20 Anderson (1986) classifies the English expression must have as an evidential.

618 A. Andrason

a common belief. For instance, in Gen 19:8 (example 9) Lot offers his two daughters to the crowd gathered in front of his house in order to protect the messengers (angels) whom he had invited home to spend the night. He thus affirms that – given the fact that his daughters are not married and because of a general assumption whereby unmarried women are virgins – the young girls have presumably not yet had any sexual relation with men. In this passage, as in the example quoted by Isaksson (2000), the evidence – but not the assumption as in example (2) – is introduced by a compound expression based on the particle hinnē: (9) Gen 19:8

א י הנה־נ י ל ות שת ר בנ יש ידעו Dא־ אש ם ן אתה אוציאה־נא א ועשו אליכ

ן וב לה ם כט ק בעיניכ ים ר ר אל־תעשו האל לאנש ן דב או כי־על־כ בצל ב

קרתי׃

Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.

Yet again, the inferential force of the qatal is related to the perfect meaning of the verbal form, and more specifically to its experiential and universal-inclusive present perfect value.

Our analysis suggests that the BH qatal is compatible with the evidential semantic domain and thus that it may convey evidential connotations; in particular it can provide inferential readings, based both on the physical and assumed evidence. This value of the BH gram is clearly bound by context but – contrary to the opinion defended by Isaksson – is not imposed by particles as hinnē; quit the opposite, the qatal itself is able to express inferential situations. This means that the bare verbal form qatal harmonizes with the inferential meaning or put differently, the semantic potential of the BH gram includes the inferential domain. COMPARATIVE VERIFICATION: TURKISH AND ICELANDIC

Since in the examples above the qatal appears to offer a clear inferential tone,

The “guessing” qatal 619

one expects that this meaning will overtly be preserved in languages which include in their grammatical repertoire a properly evidential category. This means that if a language has an explicit evidential gram it should employ it when translating the inferential type of the qatal.

One such language is Turkish. Turkish has an overt evidential category, namely the miş form, labeled “reportative mood” (Attaoullah 1940:307 and Lewis 1967). This category – which morphologically consists of an agglutinative miş morpheme suffixed to a verbal base stem or to aspectual and temporal morphemes such as iyor (progressive), ir (aorist) and ecek (future) – stands in paradigmatic contrast to non-evidential verbal constructions (Johanson 2003:275). Consequently, non-evidential verbal forms possess their overt evidential counterparts: the perfect or past, either unmarked or first-hand, gel-diz “he has come, he came” offers its evidential variant gel-miş “he has obviously come/came, he must have come”. In the latter example, the speaker deduces a fact either by inference built on physical and/or assumed evidence or by hearsay (Aikhenvald 2004:40) – thus he introduces situations which have taken place without being witnessed by him (Attaoullah 1940:297 and 307). The miş form itself derives from a perfect participle (whose morphological characteristic is yet again a miş morpheme) which expresses the completion of the action (Pritsak1963:42-43 and Johanson 2001:1731).

In accordance with our expectations, various cases with the evidential qatal (discussed in detail in the previous section) are translated into Turkish by means of the evidential miş category; either using its finite form (as in 10.a and 10.b) or employing the post-terminative miş participle (11.a) accompanied additionally by an inferential marker such as olmalı ‘must be’ (11.b) or gerek “is necessary” (11.c). Finally, in one example, the particle besbelli “evidently” together with the simple past parçaladı “broke” is chosen in order to express inferential meaning (12).21

(10) a Bakın, İsrail Kralı bize saldırmak için Hitit ve Mısır krallarını 21 On the other hand contrary to our expectations, the qatal in Gen 29:32 (example 6)

is translated in Turkish by means of the simple (non-evidential) di-past, gördü ‘he saw’ (the other inferential qatal in this passage is rendered by means of a nominal gerund construction insensitive for the parameter of evidentiality).

620 A. Andrason

kiralamış!22 (evidential past 3.sg./pl., lit.: they must have hired) Look, the kings of Israel must have hired kings of Hittite-land and of

Egypt so that they would attack us (cf. example 2) b Parayı Tanrınız, babanızın Tanrısı torbalarınıza koydurmuş (evidential

past 3.sg, lit.: he must have put). Your God, the God of your fathers must have put in your sacks (cf.

example 4) (11) a Erkek yüzü görmemiş (post-terminative miş-participle, having-not-

seen) iki kızım var. I have two daughters who (must) have not seen a man (cf. example 9) b Onu yabanıl bir hayvan yemiş (post-terminative miş-participle, eaten)

olmalı (it must be) A wild animal must have eaten him. (cf. example 3) c Krallar kendi aralarında savaşıp (post-terminative miş-participle,

having-fought) birbirlerini öldürmüş olsalar gerek (it is necessary). The kings must have fought and killed each other (cf. example 7) (12) Besbelli (evidently) bir hayvan parçaladı (simple past 3.sg/pl, they

broke / have broken), bir daha göremedim onu. Evidently a beast has torn [him] apart, I have not seen him again…

(cf. example 5)

Even though not as paradigmatically as in Turkish, the Icelandic language employs quite straightforward evidential categories. In Icelandic (as in various Scandinavian languages, cf. Haugen 1972, Lindstedt 2000 and Aikhenvald 2004), the inferential anterior events are commonly expressed by means of the hafa perfect which morphologically corresponds to the English present perfect23 (Jónsson 1992). In contrast, the vera búinn að perfect (lit. “to be finished with doing something”) – a younger resultative gram which reflects more original

22 The Turkish examples are taken from Kutsal Kitap – Yeni Çeviri (1999). 23 The hafa perfect consists of the auxiliary hafa “have” and an uninflected past

participle, e.g. ég hef gert which corresponds to I have done in English.

The “guessing” qatal 621

stages of the anterior cline – does not provide the inferential meaning; this situation is consistent with the conclusion reached by Aikhenvald (2004:116) who affirms that “if a language differentiates perfects and resultatives, the latter are likely to acquire the non-firsthand extension”. Neither the Icelandic simple past – a cognate to the English simple past tense – conveys evidential nuances. It is therefore highly important to note that the majority of cases where the qatal displays an inferential force, the Icelandic translation uses the hafa perfect (see examples 13.a-e below): (13) a Sjá, Ísraelskonungur hefir leigt gegn oss konunga Hetíta og konunga

Egyptalands til þess að ráðast á oss. Look, the king of Israel must have hired kings of Hittites and kings of

Egypt so that they would attack us (cf. example 2) b Það er kyrtill sonar míns. Óargadýr hefir etið hann. This is my son’s robe. A beast must have eaten him. (cf. example 3) c Verið ókvíðnir, óttist ekki! Yðar Guð og Guð föður yðar hefir gefið

yður fjársjóð í sekki yðar. Be secure, do not be afraid; your God and the God of your fathers must

have given you treasures in your sacks… (cf. example 4) d Drottinn hefir séð raunir mínar. […] Drottinn hefir heyrt að ég er

fyrirlitin... God must have seen my fortune [...] God must have heard that I am

hated... (cf. example 6) e Sjá, ég á tvær dætur, sem ekki hafa karlmanns kennt. Look, I have two daughters which have not known a man. (cf. example

9)

Another explicit way of expressing the inferential meaning in Icelandic consists of employing the verb hljóta “be expected, must”24 together with the infinitive of the main verb. If the inference involves an event which is anterior to the present time frame, the perfect infinitive is employed, i.e. the infinitive of the auxiliary verb hafa “have” + the past participle of the main verb, as in English

24 On the other hand, this verb cannot convey an obligation meaning of the English

must as in I must do it before tomorrow.

622 A. Andrason

to have done – such a method of rendering the inferential qatal may be found in (14.a). Finally, the adverbs vissurlega ond sannalega “certainly, surely” together with the passive resultative (vera “be” + past participle) may render the evidential value explicitly, as illustrated by 14.b and 14.c. In consequence, all instances where the qatal connotes inferential nuances are translated in Icelandic by means of evidential expressions. (14) a Þetta er blóð! Konungunum hlýtur að hafa lent saman og þeir hafa

unnið hvor á öðrum... This is blood. The kings must have clashed together and they have

killed one another (cf. example 7) b Vissulega er hann sundur rifinn. Og hefi ég ekki séð hann síðan. Certainly he has been (lit. is) torn apart. And I have not seen him

since then… (cf. example 5) c Sannlega er Jósef sundur rifinn Surely Joseph has been (lit. is) torn apart (cf. example 3)

In consequence, Turkish and Icelandic25 data indicate that languages which possess more regular overt evidential categories frequently employ them in order to translate the examples where the qatal shows inferential force. Such a fact demonstrates that in all of the above quoted examples the BH gram typologically correspond to – though certainly does not equal – inferential constructions; its value is clearly inferential and it is thus compatible with a portion of the evidential semantic domain.

25 Also the Persian “distanced past” based on the perfect forms – composed by the past

participle/resultative and the auxiliary budan “be”, and frequently employed to convey several evidential nuances such as inference, presumption or hearsay (Lazard 1985) – is used in transaltions of various instances of the BH inferential qatal. Cf. the following examples taken from Farsi Bible 1995: Gen 37:33 (cf. example 3 above) دريده...خورده است (lit. must have torn [him] apart and eaten), Gen 43:23 (cf. example 4 above) گذاشته است (lit. must have put) or 2 Kgs 3:23 (cf. example 7 above) .(must have faught) افتاده اند

The “guessing” qatal 623

CONCLUSION

Before drawing the final conclusion let us first summarize all of the evidence introduced so far. Given the fact that the qatal is defined as an exemplary resultative diachrony – it provides meanings which match consecutive phases of the anterior and simultaneous trajectories – we have hypothesized that it should offer values mirroring the third resultative sub-path, i.e., the evidential track, and that, in particular, it should express inferential nuances. Next, although the majority of linguists have not included the evidential force in their definitions of the functional load and/or semantic potential of the gram, we have observed that Isaksson (2000) understands the qatal as being compatible with the idea of evidentiality. However, according to this scholar, in order to provide inferential and referential meanings, it is necessary that the BH gram appears with other independent lexemes (especially with the particle hinnē) forming evidential periphrases. On the contrary, our data demonstrate that the qatal may convey inferential connotation, based both on the physical and assumed evidence, without an obligation to employ the particle hinnē or any other consistent markers. Even though the inferential value of the BH gram is bound by context, the qatal itself is able to express inferential situations. Consequently, the bare verbal form qatal is compatible with the evidential sense, while the use of other supposedly evidential lexemes (such as hinnē) is optional. Thus, the semantic potential of the BH gram includes the inferential domain. We have also noted that the inferential force of the qatal is always related to the perfect meaning of the category. This means that the Hebrew formation approximates the category of a guessing perfect. Finally, the comparison with Turkish, Icelandic and Persian translations indicates that in languages where more regular overt evidential categories are found, our examples with the inferential qatal are frequently rendered by such evidential formations. Also in English versions the inferential qatal is sometimes translated by means of an analytic inferential must have expression or by other lexical evidential periphrases.

In consequence, since the qatal can provide inferential readings – being thus compatible with inferential meaning – a portion of its functional load overlaps with the semantic domain prototypical for two stages of the evidential path; during these stages a resultative and/or perfect formation conveys inferential meanings, both deduced from palpable physical evidence and generally

624 A. Andrason

assumed. Hence, in accordance with our hypothesis, the BH gram is not restricted to two resultative sub-paths but also offers uses which match the third possible type of the resultative development, i.e. the evidential trajectory.

On the other hand, our conclusion does not imply that the qatal is a grammaticalized evidential gram – such a statement is certainly false. The inferential force of the BH formation is only one of the various semantic areas which characterize the gram and which correspond to different phases of the resultative path and its sub-tracks. The evidential meaning of the qatal strongly relies on the context and the introduction of physical signs or general assumptions – only in cases where objective or assumed evidence is presented, the qatal may be interpreted with an inferential tone. Consequently, the BH gram does not equal the Turkish miş category; however, in its evidential uses it seems to be equivalent to the category of a guessing perfect. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aikhenvald, A 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aikhenvald, A & Dixon, R M W (eds.) 2003. Studies in evidentiality. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins. Andersen, D 2000. The evaluation of the Hebrew verbal system, Zeitschrift für

Althebraistik 13:1-66. Anderson, L L 1986. Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: typologically

regular asymmetries, in Chafe & Nichols 1986:273–312. Andrason, A 2010a. The Akkadian Iprus from the unidirectional perspective, Journal of

Semitic Studies 55/2:325-345. 2010b. Iparras – two diachronies in a single morphology, Journal for Semitics

19/1:160-192. 2010c. The panchronic yiqtol. Functionally consistent and cognitively

plausible, Journal of Semitic Scriptures 10 (10). 2011 (forthcoming). The BH weqatal. A homogenous form with no haphazard

functions. Part 1 and 2, Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages. Attaoullah, F A 1940. Turkish self-taught and grammar. London: Marlborough. Austin, J L 1962. How to do things with words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bauer, H. & Leander, P 1918-22. Historische Grammatik der Hebräischen Sprache des

Alten Testaments. Halle: Max Niemeyer. Barco, J F Del 2003. Temporalidad, aspecto, modo de acción y contexto en el verbo

hebreo bíblico, Miscelánea de Estudios Árabes y Hebráicos 52 (sección Hebreo):3-24.

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Westminster Hebrew Morphology (Electronic edition) 1996. Stuttgart: German Bible Society.

The “guessing” qatal 625

Biblían 1912. Reykjavík: Hið íslenska Biblíufélag. Blake, B J & Burridge, K (eds.) Historical Linguistics 2001. Amsterdam, Philadelphia:

John Benjamins. Brockelmann, C 1908-1913. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen

Sprachen. Berlin (Reprinted 1961. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag). 1916. Semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin, Leipzig: G.J. Göschen’sche

Verlagshandlung. 1956. Die Tempora des Semitischen. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirschener

Verlag. Brunot, F & Bruneau, C 1933. Précis de grammaire historique de la langue française.

Paris: Masson. Bubenik, V 1998. Grammatical and lexical aspect in Akkadian and Proto-Semitic, in

Schmid 1998:41-56. Bybee, J, Perkins, R & Pagliuca, W 1994. The evolution of grammar. Chicago, London:

The University of Chicago Press. Chafe, W & Nichols, J (eds.) 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology.

Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Comrie, B 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, J 2002. The Biblical Hebrew verbal system: A grammaticalization approach.

PhD dissertation. Department of Hebrew and Semitic Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

2006. The finite verbal forms in Biblical Hebrew do express aspect, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Studies 30:21-35.

Croft, W 2003. Typology and universals. 2nd ed). Cambridge: CUP. Dahl, Ö 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell. Dahl, Ö (ed.) 2000. Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin, New York:

Mouton de Gruyter. Depraetere, I & Reed, S 2000. The present perfect progressive: constraints on its use

with numerical object nps, English Language and Linguistics 4/1:97-114. Faller, M T 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Ph.D.

dissertation, Stanford University. Farsi (Persian) Bible 1995. Colorado Spring: International Bible Society. Fillmore, C J & D T Langendoen (eds.) 1971. Studies in linguistics and semantics. New

York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Gesenius, W, Kautsch, E & Cowley A 1909. Gesenius’ Hebrew grammar. Oxford:

Clarendon Press. God’s Word 1996. Grand Rapids: World Publishing. Haspelmath, M 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible?, Linguistics 37:1043-

1068. Haspelmath, M (ed.) 2001. Language typology and language universals. Berlin, New

York: Walter de Gruyter. Haugen, E 1972. The inferential perfect in Scandinavian, The Canadian Journal of

Linguistics 17:132-139. Heine, B 2003. On degrammaticalization, in Blake & Burridge 2003:123-146. Heine, B, Claudi, U & Hünnemeyer, F 1991a. From cognition to grammar. Evidence

626 A. Andrason

from African languages, in Traugott & Heine 1991:149-187. 1991b. Grammaticalization. A conceptual framework. Chicago: UCP. Holm, J 1988. Pidgins and creoles. Vol. 1. Theory and structure. Cambridge: CUP. Holy Bible: Contemporary English Version 1995. Nashville: ABS. Holy Bible: New Living Translation. 2nd ed. 2004. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House

Publishers. Hopper, P & Traugott, E 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Huehnergard, J 1988. The early Hebrew prefix-conjugations, Hebrew Studies 29:19-23. Isaksson, B 2000. Expressions of evidentiality in Hebrew and Arabic, in Johanson &

Utas 2000:383-399. Johanson L 2000. Viewpoint operators in European languages, in Dahl 2000:27-187. 2001. Vom Alttürkischen zu den modernen Türksprachen, in Haspelmath

2001:1719-1741. 2003. Evidentiality in Turkic, in Aikhenvald & Dixon 2003:273-291. Johanson, L & Utas, B (eds.) 2000. Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighboring

languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Joosten, J 1992. Biblical Hebrew weqāṭal and Syriac hwā qāṭel expressing repetition in the

past, Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 5:1-14. 2002. Do the finite verbal forms in Biblical Hebrew express aspect?, Journal

of Ancient Near East Studies 29:49–70. Joüon, P 1923. Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique. Roma: Institute biblique Pontifical. Jónsson, J G 1992. The two perfects of Icelandic, Íslenskt mál 14:129-145. Kienast, B 2001. Historische Semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz

Verlag. Kuryłowicz, J 1973. Verbal aspect in Semitic, Orientalia 42:114-120. Kutsal Kitap – Yeni Çeviri 1999. New York: American Bible Society. Lambdin, T 2001. Introducción al hebreo bíblico, traducido por Maria Luisa Melero y

Noé Reyes. Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino. Lazard, G 1985. L’inférenciel ou passé distancié en Persan, Studia Iranica 14:27-42. Lewis, G L 1967. Turkish grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lindstedt, J 2000. The perfect – aspectual, temporal and evidential, in Dahl 2000:365-

383. Lipiński, E 2001. Semitic languages outline of a comparative grammar. Leuven, Paris,

Sterling: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies. Maslov, J 1988. Resultative, perfect and aspect, in Nedjalkov 1988:63-85. Mauger, G 1968. Grammaire pratique du français d’aujourd’hui. Paris: Hachette. McCawley, J D 1971. Tense and time reference in English, in Fillmore & Langendoen

1971:96-113. Nedjalkov, V (ed.) 1988. Typology of resultative constructions. Amsterdam,

Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Nedjalkov, V & Jaxontov, S 1988. The typology of resultative constructions, in

Nedjalkov 1988:3-63. Niccacci, A 1990. The syntax of the verb in Classical Hebrew prose. Sheffield: JSOT. 2002. Sintaxis del hebreo bíblico. Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino. Pritsak, O 1963. Das Alttürkische, in Spuler 1963:27-52.

The “guessing” qatal 627

Putnam, F C 2006. Toward reading & understanding Biblical Hebrew. (www.FredPutnam.org)

Rainey, F 1988. Further remarks on the Hebrew verbal system, Hebrew Studies 29:35-42.

1996. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets. Vol. II. Morphosyntactic analysis of the verbal system. Leiden: Brill.

Schmid, M (ed.) 1998. Historical linguistics. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and Historical Linguistics (vol. 164). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Smith, M S 1991. The origins and development of the waw-consecutive: Northwest Semitic evidence from Ugaritic to Qumran. Winona Lake: Einsenbrauns.

Spuler, B (ed.) 1963. Handbuch der Orientalistik. Altaistik. Turkologie. Leiden, Köln: Brill

Squartini, M & Bertinetto, P M 2000. The simple and compound past in Romance languages, in Dahl 2000:385-402.

The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version 1989. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

The Holy Bible: The Good News Translation. 2nd ed. 1992. New York: ABS. Traugott, E C & Heine, B (eds.) 1991. Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. 2.

Amsterdam: Benjamins. Van der Merwe, C H J & Naudé, J (forthcoming). A Biblical Hebrew reference

grammar. Revised version. Van der Merwe, C H J, Naudé, J A & Kroeze, J H 1999. A Biblical Hebrew reference

grammar. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Waltke, K & O’Connor, M 1990. An introduction to Biblical Hebrew syntax. Winona

Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Weingreen, J 1939. A practical grammar of Classical Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon

Press.

Alexander Andrason University of Stellenbosch Department of Ancient Studies Private Bag X1, 7602 Matieland South Africa University Complutense in Madrid Department of Hebrew and Aramaic Studies Edificio D, Ciudad Universitaria 28040 Madrid Spain E-mail: aleksand@hi.is