Modality, Reference

and Speech Acts

in the Psalms

Andy Warren
Wolfson College

Submiued for the degree of PhD

Cambridge University
October 1998
 DECLARAnON MODALITY, REFERENCE AND SPEECH ACTS IN THE PSALMS
Andy Warren

This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome o' This study, based on earlier work in Psalmic language and forms, comparative semantics and

work done in collaboration. Biblical Hebrew syntax, examines reference and modality in the Psalms, focussing particularly
on Interrogative, Negative and Imperative sentence-types.
It is not substantially the same as any dissertation that I have submitted for a degree or diplom. The Introduction (ch. I) surveys previous work on the distinctive language of the Psalter

or other qualification at any other University. No part of my dissertation has already been or i: (Tsevat, Sappan, Dahood), as well as in sociolinguistics (Finley, Wilt), formulaic language

being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification. (Culley) and form-criticism (Gunkel, Westermann, Aejmelaeus). Studies in comparative
linguistic semantics and pragmatics are presented (Lyons, Levinson), especially speech-act
This dissertation does not exceed 80,000 words in length, with the exception of ｈ･｢ｲ･ｾ theory (Austin) and modality (Palmer). Structuralist method (Collins, Prinsloo) and Biblical

citation, as permitted by the Degree Committee. Hebrew Narrative syntax studies (Richter, Talstra; Schneider, Niccacci; Andersen, Longacre)
are also surveyed.
Reference (ch. 2) considers the pragmatic function of exophoric 'Reference', particularly in
terms of participant reference, and the syntactic function of endophoric 'Relation', especially
pronoun topicalisation. Metonymy and discongruence are characteristic of reference in the
Psalms.
Modality (ch. 3) argues for the existence of three modally-distinct verbal systems: a Deontic
system [+MOD, +VOL) based on short-form yiq!ol, an Epistemic system [+MOD, -VOL] based on
long-form yiqtol, and an Indicative system [-MOD] based on qatal and the predicative participle
(developing Joosten, Niccacci). Vocative function is closely related to modality.
Incerrogalive (ch. 4) looks at the various basic morphemes involved in clausal, nominal and
adverbial Interrogation. A range of modal, Negative and Exclamative functions are identified.
Negative (ch. 5) considers briefly the relationship between modally-distinct sentence types
and the various forms for argumental and clausal Negation.
Imperative (ch. 6) considers the morphological 'imperative' as well as the D-system
('jussive' and 'cohortative'); also the Affirmative Deontic particle -/la' and Deontic use of
nominal clauses.
The Conclusion (ch. 7) surveys the most significant results and offers some suggestions for
further implications of this work.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION

On the academic side: I must first most warmly thank Geoffrey Khan. It has been a privilege I The years of this thesis have seen
have him as my supervisor, and I've always walked out of his office encouraged. Any elasticit a death and a birth.
in my 'procrustean bed' is thanks to him, though I'm sure I've still not produced the lucid ｰｲｯｾ

he'd have liked. John Emerton and Robert Gordon both also supervised this thesis for sho: It is therefore dedicated to
periods towards the beginning, and it has been funded by the Karten Trust and the Britis my Father (d. 22-07-97) and Marcus (b. 28-10-96)
Academy; to all of these I am very grateful.
... and to the work of the Gospel among the Birifor people in northwest Ghana
Tyndale House, Cambridge, has been a wonderful place to work, and [ will not forget my yeal
sharing a carrell with John Hoskin, and the friendship of the warden, Bruce Winter. I am ver
grateful to Wolter Rose for reading several chapters of this thesis in the final week.

But despite all the academic work which might have been to my profit, I would look back 0

my years in Cambridge as loss were it not for the wonderful fellowship [ have enjoyed with m
dear brothers Eliya Mohol, Vincent Ifeanyi Ogu and Stephen Chi vasa, whose love, grace an
humility do credit to their Lord and mine. Were it not also for the family of God at City Churc
Cambridge, especially my pastor, David Coak; my cell leaders, Gcrry and Tessa, who've bee
as father and mother to me; my precious 'porcupines', Caroline and Justine, who've shown m
that 'encouragement' means both 'challenge' and 'comfort'; my 'Reisegeflihrten', John an
Rhian and my 'unofficial godson' Marcus Trystan, who's brought such a thrill to the years c
this thesis; also so many others at City Church who have shown me something of the glory 0

God in their love and faith.

May the Lord, of whom academic language often speaks so lightly, bear with the inadequacy 0

my words.
 CONTENTS

Ahbreviations ..................................... vii

Glossary . ...... ix

Chapter I: INTRODUCTION . I
I. Language of the Psalter. .. I
1.1. Lexis.......................... .. 2
1.2. Morphology............. .............................3
1.3. Syntax .. 5
1.4. Sociolinguistics 7
1.5. Formulaic Composition .. 8
1.6. Other Studies .. 9
2. Theoretical Background 10
2.1. Comparative Semantics... 10
2.1.1. Communication Theory.. .. 10
2.1.2. Speech-Act Theory .. 1I
2.1.3. Modality............... . 14
2.1.3.1. Utterance Tv!'c . .. 16
2./.3.2. IIlocutiolJory Force . . 16
2./.3.3. SenJelZce Type.. . ................••........ ... 18
2.1.3.4. Modal Splellls. .. 18
2.1.3.5. Moo<I............ .. 20
2.1.3.6. Hebrew Mo()(},- .. 21
2.1.4. Thematic Roles . .. 21
2.1.5. Structuralist Semantics and Bihlical Hebrew 22
2.2. Biblical Hebrew Narrative Syntax 23
2.2.1. Traditional Syntax 23
2.2.2. Richter. Talstra and Automatic Text Processing 24
2.2.3. Textlinguistics.. . 25
2.2.3./. Weinrich 10 Niccacci-Foml-lo-Funcrwn ..........••................................................ 25
2.2.3.2. Anderse11 10 w1Jgacre-Func(;on.IQ.Fonn ... 29
2.2.3.3. Conclusion .30
2.3. Conclusions for the Language of the Psalms. . 3I
3. Interrogativc-Negative-Imperative . 32
3.1. Modality................... .. 32
3.2. Deep-Structure Syntax .. 33
3.3. Points of Contact. ...34
4. Corpus and Approach... .. 35

Chapter 2: REFERENCE .37

I. The Referential Lexicon-Primary Referents. .. 37
1.1. The Implications of Text-Type Identification. .. _..................... .37
1.2. The Referential Triangle and its Place in Rhetorical Analysis 38
1.3. Reference to Rhetorical Person. .. 39
 Modality. Reference lInd Speech Act.\' ill tile ｉｊｷｬｭＮｾ Co11lenh III
11

lA. Form-critical locus . ....................... ... 41 204.4. qUial as Perfect . KO

2. Dcixis.. . . ...................... .43 204.5. Pcrfonnative Funclion .. KI

2.1. Definition . . . 43 2.4.6. Dcontic Function . 87

2.2. Pronominal Deixis and Adversalivily .......................... 45 204.7. Epistemic Function .. . . 92

2.2.1. Topiealisation . . 45 204.8. yiqtol and qUial in Discourse 94

2.2.2. Adversativity . .................... . 46 204.9. Conclusions on the Biblical Hebrcw Verbal System . 96

2.2.3. Adversative wc/", and Pronoun . .......................... . 47 2.5. Syntactical Morphemes . 100

2.2.3./. wa":lni ill SubjeCl Position . ........................................... . 50 2.5.1. Post verbal Syntax 102

2.2.3.2. wa"2 ni ill Extrapo.H·tioll . . 50 2.5.2. Word-Order Rulcs .. 103

2.2.3.3. AlIlicipalOr.v COfllra... t . . 51 2.5.3. Traditional Word Order . 104

2.3. Adverbial Deixis .... . 51 3. Subordination . 104

2.3.1. Manner: kell . . 51 3.1. Direct Discourse .. 105

2.3.2. Cause: liikifll. '·a{·kifll .. . 52 4. Scope ... 108

2.3.3. Time: 'allu . ........................... . 52 5. Vocative...... 109

2.304. Logical:'uz .. ..................................... . 53 5. I. Syntactical Status . 110

204. Conclusion . ....................................... 54 5.1.1. Clausal Subject . 110

3. Exceptivity............ . . ............................................................ 54 5.1.2. Minor Clause Predieator. .. I1I

4. Mctonymy . ..................................................... 55 5.2. Rhetorical Function . I1I

5. Discongrucnce . .............. 57 6. Conclusion.. . 112

6. Conclusion ..... . 58
Chapter 4: INTERROGATIVE . 113

Chapter 3: MODALITy............ . 59 I. Introduction. . 113

I. Introduction ... 59 1.1. Basic Morphemes . 113

2. Main-Clause Modification . 60 2. Clausal: ha. "im .. 114

2.1. Introduction . 60 2.1. Syntactic Functions . 115

2.1.1. An Illustration: Existcntial C1auscs . 60 2.1. I. Complementiser. I 15

2.1.2. Morpheme Types 62 2.1.2. Coordination 115

2.2. Lexical Morphemes 63 2.2. Semantic Functions I 17

2.3. [ntemal Grammatical Morphemes-Voice/Stem 64 2.2. I. Iodicati ve .. . I 17

204. External Grammatical Morphemes-Verbal MoodlTcnsc/Aspect 64 2.2.2. Epistemie Possibility ('can·)...................................................... . 117

204.1. Intcrrelationship of Constituents 65 2.2.2. J. Potentialis of Ability 118

2.4.2. Order of Constitucnts: MTAV 66 2.2.2.2. Potentialis of Liability 118

2.4.3. Long-Form yiqiol as Moda!..... . 68 2.2.3. Epistemic Necessity ('must') 119

2.4.3. J. Typically modal yiq{ol... . 70 2.3. Pragmatic Functions 119

2.4.3.2. £,·te"ded Fwrctiotls . 71 2.3.1. Interrogative . I 19
2.4.3.2.1. General Present aJ Present Potcntialis 71 2.3.2. Negative Epistemic . 119

2.4.3.2.2. Pm" Iterative .. . 74 2.3.3. Ncgative Deontic . 119

2.4.3.2.3. Pasl Prospective .. ........................................................75 204. Ncgativc: halO' . 120

2.4.3.2.4. Cmclli.f;oll . .......... 76 204.1. Affirmative Indicative . 120

2.4.3.3. Mac/allv Marked . . 76 204.2. Aftinnative Deontic............. 121

2.4.3.3. J. Negmjve Presellt .. . 76 204.3. Ncgative Deontic . 121

2.4.3.3.2. Interrogative Prt'se1!t .77 20404. EXclamativc . 121

2.4.3.3.3. Cmufit;mwJ ｐｲ･ｓＨｾＱｉｴ .78 2.5. Unmarkcd......... ... 121

2.4.3.1.4. Cone/usirm .......78 3. Nominal: mu. mi . 122

2.4.3.4. Argumt'1Jls OgOilUI MOl/al ｹｩｱｾＶＱＮ . 78 3.1. Non-Human: ma.................... . 122

iv ModalilY. Refercllce "lid Speech AI'/.' ill thc P.",lm.,. CfUIll"l'S

3.1.1. Interrogative. .. 122 4.6.1. Nominal: 'ell ......... 142

3.1.2. Negative Indicative .. 123 4.6.2. I-System: /0' . 142
:1.2. Human: mi...... .. .. 123 4.6.3. E-System: /(5" . ..... 142
3.2.1. Interrogative 123 4.6.4. D·System:'al- . .. 142
3.2.2. Indclinite Epistemic . 124 4.6.5. D-Systcm Final: p,w .... 143
3.2.3. Ncgativc Indicative .. 124 5. Affirmative .. .... 143
3.2.4. Aflirmativc Dcontic..... .. ....... 125 6. Conclusion .. ......... 143
4. Advcrhial . 126
4.1. Time: miilay. 'ad-malay. '·ad·,llIa. 'ad-ma. kamma.............. . 126 Chaptcr 6: IMPERATIVE .. 145
4.1.1. Aflirmative Dcontic: matay... .. 126 I. Introduction .. 145
4.1.2. Ncgative Deontic: 'ad-matay. '·ad-alla. "ad-ma, kamma .. 127 1.1. Formal Typcs..... .. _ 146
4.1.3. Exclamative. .127 1.2. Syntactic Function and Argument Structure . .. 148
4.2. Manner: 'ek.'eka.. . . .. 127 1.3. Semantic Function 152
4.2.1. Negative Indicative .. 127 2. Modification . .... 155
4.2.2. Negative Epistemic 127 2.1. The Affirmative Modal Clitic -/la' 155
4.2.3. Negative Deontic .. 128 2.1.1. Sociolinguistic Treatments: Finlcy and Wilt 156
4.2.4. EXclamative 128 2.1.2. Directi vc .. 159
4.3. Place:'ayye. me'ayill.'alla............................................... .. 128 2.1.3. Prccati ve .. _................... 160
4.3.1. Interrogative. ...128 2.1.4. Vocative........ .. 160
4.3.2. Negative Indicative.. .... 128 2.1.5. Expressive. .. . 161
4.3.3. Negative Epistemic . 129 2.1.6. Conclusion 161
4.3.4. Aftirmativc Deontic.. .. .. 129 2.2. Paragogic he .. 162
4.4. Purpose: lamma, ma. 'al·ma 129 2.2.1. Adhortative 163
4.4.1. Ncgative Epistemic. . .. 129 2.2.2. Cohortative .. 163
4.4.2. Negative Dcontic .. . 129 2.3. Deontic Auxiliaries .. 164
4.5. Quality: kammii. ma.. .... 130 3. Imperative.............. .. 166
4.5.1. EXclamative . 130 3.1. Form .. 166
5. Conclusion 131 3.2. Syntactic Function and Argument Structure.. .. 166
3.3. Semantic Function . 167
Chapter 5: NEGATIVE . 135 3.3.1. Directive. Precative and Hortative 168
I. Introduction 135 3.3.2. Obligative, Permissive and Prohibitive 169
1.1. Basic Morphemes 135 3.3.3. Volitives .. 169
2. Synl<lctic Function 135 4. Cohortative .. 171
2.1. 16' and'al- 135 4.1. Form............ .. 172
2.2. Non-Negatables.. . 136 4.2. Syntactic Function and Argument Structure. .. 172
3. Argumental: 16' . 137 4.3. Semantic Function .. 173
4. Clausal. 137 4.3.1. Introduction .. 173
4.1. Nominal: 'ell. 10' .. 137 4.3././. Mail! C/aases . 174
4.2. I-Systcm Verhal: ·'ell. /0" . 138 4.3./.2. Subordinate Clauses. . t 76
4.3. E-System Verhal: la' 138 4.3./.3. Comparative Studies .. 178
4.3.1. 'Skewing': Deontic 10' 139 4.3./.3.1. Byblial! .. .. 178
4.4. D-Systcm Verhal:'al- . 139 4.3./.3.1. Arabic........ .. 179
4.4.1. 'Skcwing': Non-Deontic Function .. 140 4.3.2. Directive-precative ('rcqucst-cohortativc') 180
4.5. D-System Final: pt1!/I.. .. .. 141 4.3.3. Directive-hortative (true 'cohortativc) 182
4.6. Unmarked Verbal: bal .... 142 4.3.4. CommissivelExpressivc ('rcsolvc-cohortative') 183
v, Modalir:r. Re/en'lIn' llml Sp('('ch Acts in flte P.\'alms

4.3.4./. Commissive-I'romissivt' ('vow ofI'm;,,;!' ') ..........................•................•....... 186 ABBREVIATIONS

4.3.4.2. Commi.u;ve-/lluposi"e (lrue ﾷｲ･Ｚｾ ..()ll'f!·)" ......................... 187

4.1.4.1. Expressive ('call ,,(I,mi... ·) ............ 188

ATAT Arbeiten lU Text und Sprache im Alien Testament
4.3.5. Epistemic Functions . .189
BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgarlensia
4.3.5.1. Po.uibility ("can') ..189
HI Biblicallmerpretatiol/
4.3.5.2. Necessity ('m/w') .. 190
HN Hiblische Notizen
4.3.6. Negative.......... . 191
Ba Bibliotheca Oriel/talis
4.3.7. 'Skcwing' ('unmarked cohorlative' and ·pseudo.eohorlative·) 192
BZAW Beihefle wr Zeitschrift fUr die aluestamentliehe Wissenschaft
5. Jussive . .. .. ........................................................... 193
FOTL The Forms of the Old Testament Literature
5.1. Form . . 193
FS Festsehrift
5.2. Syntactic Function and Argument Struclure ..................................... 195
HS Hebrew Studies
5.3. Semantic Function ..... .............................................. 198
JHL Journal of Biblical Literalure
5.3.1. 2nd·Person Jussive . ........... 198
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies
5.3.1.1. Affirmative ...... ..................................... 198
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
5.3.1.2. Negative ("vetitive 'i. ..................................................... 199
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
5.3.2. 3rd-Person Jussive ...... ..................................................... 200
JoP Journal of Pragmatics
5.3.2.1. Affirmative. ..............................................200
J017 Journal of Translation aruJ Textlinguistics
5.1.2.2. Negative .... ................................................... 203
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testamem
5.3.2.3. Metonvmy .. ...................................................... 203
JSOTS Journal for the Sludy of the Old Testament Supplement Series
5.3.3. 'Skewing' ('pseudo·jussive·) .............................................. 204
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
6. Deonlie Non-Yerbal Clauses .. ..................................... 204
I..A Libel' Amtuus
7. Calls to Praise and Calls of Praise . ......... 206
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NMES Near and Middle East Series
Chapter 7: CONCLUSION 209
NOT Note...,' 011 Trallslation
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
Bibliography .. ......................................................... 211
OPTAT Occasional Papers in Translation and Textlinguistics
Or Orienlalia
OS Orien/alia Suecana
aTE Old Testament Essays
OTS Oudtestamentische Studien
RB Revue biblique
RdQ Revue de Qumran
SIL Summer Institute of Linguistics
SSU Studia Semitica Upsaliensia
SVT Supplements to Yetus Testamentum
TB-NBZJ Theologische Bucherei: Neudruckc und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhunderl
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
TYI/Bul Tyndale Bullerin
UBS United Bible Societies
VT Vetus Testamentum
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien wm Alien und Neuen Testament
ZAH Zeirschrift fur A/rltebraistik
ZAW Zeirschrifr flir die aluesramemliche Wissenschaft
 GLOSSARY

Actanl panicipant in the speech siluation: Psalmisl, God, Enemy/-ies; also community.
AdvP Adverh Phrase.
Artirmative opposi le polarity to Negati vc.
Agenl thematic role.
Anterior the/unct;on I-MOD, +PASTI and Ihe corresponding/arm qa!o!.
Aspect Ihe grammatical renex of internal lemporal consliluency, in particular
[±PROGRESSIVEj.
Assenive type of illocutionary force.
asyndetic without conjunction.

Beneficiary Ihematic role.

Commissive type of illocutionary force.
Conslative non-performative.
Contemporaneous Constali vc the /I",ct;on [-MOD, -PAST, -PROG] and Ihe corrcsponding/orm qo!e! ha'.
Contemporaneous Cursi vc the/unction [·MOD, -PAST, +PROG] and Ihe corresponding/arm ha' qOte!.
Contemporaneous lhe function [-MOD, -PAST J and the corresponding/arm qote/.
D-system the class of/arms (analogous to English imperative) centred on shon-form yiq!6!
('jussive'), and also including;'a:q!alti ('cohortative'), Negative'ol·liq!o!
(,velitive') and 'vocative intensifier' ·na'; supplemented by lhe person-unmarked
(orm qalo! ('imperative) and qatlti ('adhonativc').
D-system yiq!6! (also 'shon-form yiq!ol', '.'·;lJtol-x'. 'jussive') PRE2 (DeCaen), PK (KF) (Richter),
YIQTOL-x (Niccacci).
Declarative sentence-type paradigmatic with Inlerrogalive and Imperative.
type of illocutionary force.
declarative praise praise of God focussing on what God has done-form-critically, the 'Song of
Thanksgiving' (also 'confessional praisc').
Deontic the/uncl;on [+MOD, +vOLI (from Greek bEt, 'there is need');
the modal system concerned with volition, e,g. English imperative.
descriptive praise praise of God focussing on who God is-form-critically, the 'Hymn'.
desiderative sub-type of Deontic-Expressive modal force.
Directive type of illocutionary force.
directive sub-type of Deontic-Directive modal force.
E-system the class of forms (analogous 10 English subjunctive) cenlred on long-form y;q!o!
(optionally with nun paragog;cum), and also including: Negative /0" liq!o!
('prohibitive' when used Deontieally) and conlinuation form waqala!;
supplemented by the person-unmarked form lJlllO! ('inlinilive absolute').
E-system yiq!o! (also 'long-form yilJ!o/', 'x-y;lJlOl') imperfecl(ive), prelix conjugation (PC), PRE I
(DeCaen), PK (LF) (Richler), x- YIQTOL (Niccacci).
Epistemic the/unction [+MOD, -VOL[ (from Greek ｅＢＧｃｔｴｾＡＭＬｬ 'knowledge');
the modal system concerned wilh opinions. e.g. English subjunctive.
Experiencer thematic role.
Expressive type of illoculionary force.
honative suh-type of Deontic-Directive modal force.
ha' qo!e! (also 'Contemporaneous Cursive') idenlifying nominal clause
 Modality. RlIen'ttn' and Speech Act.\" in the Psalms Glo....'iar.\
"
I-system the dass of forms (analogous to English indicative) centred on 'la!al ('perfective') imperfectum cunsecuti,'ul1I, wayyPRE2 (DeCaen), wa=PK (KF) (Richter),
and also including; continuation form wayyi'l!ol. Supplemented by the person- WAYYIQTOL (Niecacci).
unmarked form 'lotiil ('predicalive participle'). H',Jqa!a[ consecutive perfect

lIIocutionary force Constative, Assertive, Declarative, Directive, Commissive, Expressive. '({'q!iJili (also 'cohortative').

Imperative Deontic function, and the corresponding D-system forms: ungrammatical (in examples from modern languages):
sentence-type paradigmatic with Interrogative and Declarative: treated helt unattested (in Biblical Hebrew examples).
alongside Interrogative and Negative. 'is pragmatically equivalent 10'.

imperalive the verbal form ＬＱＶＡｾｱ the morphological imperative (from Latin impero, 'te
command'). Capitalisation is used in the text for certain technical terms including the two types of deixis (Referential.
Indicative thefunctiOtt {-MOD]. Rclational), the three primary actams (Psalmisl, God, Enemy), the two types of Psalmic discourse (Praise and

Interrogative sentence-type paradigmatic with Imperative and Declarative; treated here alongside Lament), the various themalie roles, the three lypes of modality (Indicative, Epislemic, Deomic), the three
Negative and Imperative. sentence types (Declarative, Interrogative, Imperalive), the two types of polarity (Negative and, when marked,

Linguistic Attitude Discourse vs. Narrative. Affirmative) and the six lypes of illocutionary force (Constative, Assertive, Declarative, Directive, Commissive,

main/subordinate clause also independent/dependent clause, Expressive). Common Negative, Interrogative and Imperalive particles are transliterated.

Modality the grammatical renex of assertivity or reality, in particular, [±MODAL.

±VOLlTIONALI· All biblical references are to the Psalter unless otherwise stated, and only Psalm citations are vocalised. Translated

Mood the formal realisation of modality in the D- or E-systems of Biblical Hebrew. arc marked as my own (ALW) or from the NRSV.

MTA Mood-Tense-Aspect.
Negative opposite polarity to Affirmative:
sentence-type treated here alongside Interrogative and Imperative,
NP Noun Phrase.
obligative sub-type of Deontic-Directive modal force.
optative sub-type of Deontie-Expressive modal force.
Patient thematic role.
performative a speech act.
permissi vc sub-lype of Deontic-Directive modal force.
polarity Negative VI. Affirmative,
precative sub-type of Deontie-Directi ve modal force.
prohibitive suh-type of Deontic-Directive modal force.
PsIs) Psalms, Psalter.
psIs) other psalmic Old Testament texts.
ｬｯＡｾｱ (also'imperative'),
qo!iil (also 'Contemporaneous') participle,
qo!iilhli' (also 'Contemporaneous Constative') classifying nominal clause,
qa!al (also 'Anterior') perfect(ive), suffix conjugation (SC), SUFF (DeCaen), SK
(Richter), QATAL (Niccaeci).
Referential exophorie reference to real-world context.
Relational endophoric reference to linguistic cotext.
SpeakerlAddressee siluationally-dependent referential terms indicating hypothetical 'players' in a
communicati ve event.
S- Clause.
Tense the grammatical rellex of time, in particular, [±PAST).
Thematic role syntactic function, e.g. Agent, Patient. Experiencer, Beneliciary.
volitional a less technical equivalent to Deontic (from Latin vola, 'to want').
VP Verb Phrase.
 Chapter I
INTRODUCTION

An overview is allempted here of previous treatments of Psalmic language. Then work from several lIelds
in comparative linguistic semantics and pragmalics, and from Hebrew Narrative syntax rcscan.:h. is
introduced as the basis for the ensuing Ireatment of Biblical Hebrew.

I. Language of the Psalter

The language of the Biblical book of Psalms has often been looked at in rhetorical terms,
ranging from popular appreciation of its deep expressiveness and vitality to more technical
descriptions by linguists. A characterisation of the latter type is given by Collins:
variation of the modes of discourse is an observable feature in the language of the psalms. The most
striking quality of this variation. however. is its abruptness. The readiness to permit abrupt changes in
modes is a distinctive characteristic of psalm composition .... Besides being frequent and abrupt the
variation is also quite arbitrary. There appears to be considerable freedom of choice in the selection of the
mode of discourse from one verse to the next. there are no rules of the grammar of psalm composition
which restrict the use of the options available linguistic environment does not appear to be a governing
factor .... 1

It is this 'variation of the modes of discourse' which underlies the present work. Coil ins uses
the term to refer to the rhetorical or text-type features, 'narration, reflection, direct address,
invocation, interrogation, petition ele.', explaining that
each mode of discourse is characlerized by observable linguistic features: e.g. the grammatical person
selected for the verbs and pronouns, the tense and mood of the verbs, the use of vocative interjections etc.

It is these linguistic features which are investigated here. The two most significant of Collins's
'observable linguistic features', reference (pronominal and morphological) and mood (whether
marked in the verb or the clause), are systematised, and the latter classified in terms of
typological modalities. I contend that the 'dynamic of faith and crisis in prayer',2 so integral to
the rhetorical dynamic of the Psalms, lies in pronominal and modal shifts, together with the
fore- and backgrounding of actants and actions which this effects. The power of these prayers
lies in the very fact that
There is no fixed syntagmatic relationship between the units. no prescribed order in which they must occur3

[n other words, the Psalms thrive on the rhetorical figure of oralio vllriata. 4

IColi ins. T.. 'Decoding the Psalms: A Structural Approach to the Psalter', JSOT 37 (1987) 41-60 (43).
2Collins. 'Decoding the Psalms', 46.
3Collins. 'Decoding the Psalms', 45.
4Waltke. B.K. and O'Connor, M.. All ImroducTioll TO Biblical Hebrew S.wTax (Winona Lake. [nd.: Eisenbrauns,
1990) 570.
 Modality. Rl1erellu! lInd Speech ACfJ i" Ihe Psalms Introc/ll(:t;OIl

The following section reviews some of the existing literature on the language of the biblica ＧＮ Ｌｶｾ and '7:1, both of a 'modal' character. 12 Further major categories are the terms for
Psalms. attempting to characterise that distinct idiom used in Biblical Hebrew verse, '1' v' praise/prayer (l"':1, '7'::>:-t, "'Q!, ]1Jnn, :-t,,, on, p.." n:1V,l1'TZi, ""V) and for law (m'l1,

:1..,'v:-t, Dialectus Poetica'5 or 'die Dichtersprache'.6 O"'i7D, O'..,V'O, n'l1). These six lexical groupings together account for over 35% of the
words occurring solely or predominantly in the Psalter and already give insight into the
1.1. Lexis
distinctives of psalmic language. It is concerned, above all, with the relationships between three
The dislinctive lexis of the Psalter was noted by Gesenius,7 who lists both poetic variants fe primary actants, particularly in terms of praise (Psalmist to God) and conformity with the law
common words used in prose: (Psalmist as against Enemy).
Mensch: prose 0,1<:: verse V'llot. Pfad: prose l"; verse n,lot. Wort: prose ':::l,; I'use :1'::>lJ. schauel Hebrew poetic language has been described as exhibiting 'iiberhaupt eine krliftige Kiirze des
prose ［Ｇｎｩｾ verse :11n. kommcn: prose Nl:1; verse :1.i'1N Ausdrucks'.13 In grammatical terms this is largely true-psalmic language is highly elliptical

and words ('poet. Epithew') which occur with a different meaning in verse: and syntactically economical; however, extensive multiplication of lexical items and
synonymous parallelism contribute to what is in fact a high level of redundancy.14 This
":::ll<:: prose der Starke; verse GOIl. ":::l 1<:: prose der Slarke; verse Stier. Pferd (e.g. 'Bulls of Bashan'
:1l:::l'::>: prose alba; verse luna. ,:I: prose Feind; verse :::l'1<: accounts, at least in part, for the characteristic lexis of the Psalms. The term 0' ,'i7D,

'commandments', for example, occurs only in Psalms, including twenty-one times in the
Many of these and similar differences between the texis of prose and verse can be accounte,
Torah-Psalm 119, where other words for commandments are also used extensively; the need for
for by the later date--<>r later redaction--<>f certain Psalms, or the use of archaisms.
variation has led to the use of a less common term from the wider lexical stock of the language.
Tsevat's A Study of the Language of the Biblical Pmlms,8 though relying on a rathe
The same point could be made for the use of ｔｚｩＧｾ and ｯＬｾ in synonymous parallelism I 5 and
simplistic statistical methodology,9 identifies a number of lexical items which can b
for the multiplication of divine names in Psalm 57:
confidently asserted to belong to a distinct psalmic idiom. It is striking how many of thes
:'?l! '.lJl '::>j.(j' P:'::>l.' 0':1'::>1<:'::> I<:-=,Pl<:. 57:3
terms can be classified into groups referring to the Psalms' three primary actants: 10
I cry to God Most High, 10 God who fultills his purpose for me. (NRSV)
Occltring solely in Psalms (occltring predominantly in Psalms I I ) We may conclude from this brief sketch that the texis of the Psalter is highly 'marked', in
I. Ps.1lmisl and community l" "I(",:::l'::> "V', p:::ll m'/:::l'::> (,'on.o':1'::>l(m':1' '1(", :1'::>nl)
the sense that, compared with standard prose, terms chosen will often carry features such as
[one could add other metonymous tem>s: "'1'1', "':::l:::l, ＧｖｾｬＮ "I'll
archaism or Aramaic derivation (taken, that is, from the wider chronological and geographical
2. God Abstractions, Names 'lllJttI ":::l:::l, ｾ＾ＺＧＨｉ :1Vl.'. '/lV'P M" (:1" 1"'::>l.', 'V'P) [also C,..,lJ:
Metaphors O'lIJ, l.''::>O, "'1'10, Il.', :::llVlJ (plJ. :10MlJ, ',:1) lexical stock of the language), or be in some other way unusual (perhaps having a usually more
3. Enemies [O'j,pV/:::lI:::l ":::l", 0''::>'::>':1, pml,r'l( 'VV'.O',"V restricted range of meaning).
(0'1( l, C"I, ,:S, ",:S, O'lJP, O'VOlJ, lotJVlJ, C' DV
Types (1"1( ':::l'::>lJ, C':::l"l) 1.2. Morphology

This represents around 40% of those terms which occur solely in the Psalms and 20% of thosl In defence of the lexical emphasis of his study, Tsevat argues that,
which occur predominantly there, showing that lexical multiplication is an important feature il One cannot expect major morphological differences belween the idioms of various types of biblical
lilerature. The speaker or writer may alter his vocabulary in a given siluation, but he can hardly apply
participant reference. Two other words identified by Tsevat as predominantly psalmic art
another set of verbal prefixes without the risk of speaking or writing unintelligibly. Nor does the poetical

5Sappan, R.. The Typical Fealllres of the Sylltax of Biblical Poetry ill its Classical Period (Jerusalem: Kiryal·
Sepher, 1981) IV.
('Gesenius. W. and Kautzsch, E., Hebrliische Grammatik (Repr. Darm"adt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft
1991; Leipzig, 1909) 14-15 §2q. 12Though V"lJ is completely absenl from the Psalter, despite 72 occurrences elsewhere in the Old Testament;
7Gescnius-Kautlsch, Grammatik, 17 §2s. Tseval, Language of the Biblical Psalms, 31; Barr, J.. 'Why? in Biblical Hebrew', JTS 36 (1985) 1-33.
KTscval. M., A SllIdy of the Lallguage of the Biblical Psalms (JBL Monograph Series IX; Philadelphia: Sociey 01 13Gesenius-Kautlsch. Grammarik. 17 §2s.
Biblical Lilerature, 1955). 14Prinsloo refers to 'word pairs and parallelism 10 retard progression', and to the ultimate intention of this as
9Tsevat, i.L/IIguage of the Biblical Psalms, 6-9. 'facililation of the communication process': Ptinsloo. W.S., 'A Comprehensive Semioslruclural Exegetical
IOSee ch. 2, ",clion I below. Approach', OTE7/4 (1994) 78-83 (82).
15 22:7; 80: 18: 140:2 (49:2 arguahly rellects a class distinction between the two).
11 For criteria for Ihis, see Tscval, Lallguage of the Biblical Psalm.f. 7.
 Modolity. ｒｬｾｊｦ｟Ｇｮ ｉｕ ｣ 011(1 SpCi'CIr Aca h, lire Psalms 1"tH'tltlC"fi,Nt

structure of the psalms allow for the development of a syntax appreciably different from other types of 1.3. Syntax
hiblieal verse. 16
In his Einfiihrung in die semitischen Sprachen, Bergstrasser characterised the syntax of Biblical
The same point is expressed in a more balanced way by Wallke and O'Connor:
Hebrew in general as principally governed by three elements: the verbal system, allernation
Poelic traditions (and 10 a lesser exlent all li!erary lradilions) prcserve older vocahulary and grammalical
forms that have been lost from ordinary speech and plain prose. The lexical and morphological resources
between syndesis and asyndesis. and the use of particular word order patlerns;20 he went on
thus tend 10 be larger. These linguistic facts inleract in complex ways with other slructural features of thcn to speak of the freedom with which these may be used (compare Collins above) and the
Hehrew verse. It is important to see lhe grammar ifl poetry in lhe context of Hehrew grammar. Loose resulting poetic potential:
notions of a special vocabulary and grammar ofpoetry arc linguistically uninformed. 17 Die beherrsehenden syntaktisehen Ausdrueksminel des Hebraisehen sind das reieh enlwiekelte
This point is essential to the present work. I argue that many modal verb forms and clause types Verbalsys!em, der Weehsel zwisehen grundsa!zlicher Syndese und gelegentlieher besonderen

occur by definition only in the text-type known as Discourse (as against Narrative). 18 No such Ausdruckszwecken dienender Asyndese. und die Verwendung bestimmteer Stellungslypen-von den
einfachen Unterschieden der Stellung Subjekt-Verb oder umgekehrt bis zu komplizierten Formen. Schon
grammatical distinction can then be made within Discourse between verse and 'ordinary
mit diesen Mineln gelingl es, auch Unterordnung auszudriicken. Fur die Verwendung dieser Minel besteht
speech'-it is only at the 'macro-structural', 'stylistic' or 'rhetorical' level that they may be ziemliche Bewegungsfreiheit. So iSI das Hehr. eine nuancen- und farbenreiche Sprache, vorLuglich befahigt
distinguished. The following morphological distinctives of the Psaller are therefore to be zum Ausdruck gesleigenen Erlebens wie zu lehendiger Schilderung und anschaulicher Erzahlung, ohne

explained, just as the above lexical distinctives, simply in terms of diachronic change, doch einen hohen Grad gedanklicher Scharfe zu erreichen; eine Dichler- und Propheten-, keine
Denkerspraehe. 21
borrowing and variation.
Distinguishing verse, Niccacci writes that,
Morphological distinctives include: 19
Poetry has its own rules concerning the use of tense and, unfortunately, they arc still mysterious; they
I. The use of unusual pronominal suffixes: cannot be derived from prose and vice versa.... in contrast Wilh prose, poetry offers a very limited number
ISI-person singular in ')" Wilh preposilions (139: 1I ' )'31:J); 2nd-person feminine singular in '::1- with of linguis!ic markers for identifying the funclion of individual forms and verhal constructions in a text 22
singular substanlives (103:3a '::ml1) and verbs (137:6 ＧＺ ｊ ｄｉｾＩＬ and in '::J h
with plural substanlives
Tsevat has characterised the language of the Psalter itself:
(103:4a '::J' ｾｉｽＩ and prepositions (116:7h '::J'"?l?); 3rd-person singular and plural in 10- with substantives,
This condensed speech frequently contains the syntactical essentials alone. Suhordinate clauses arc rare,
ｲｾ and prepositions (5:12 10'':>11); 3rd-person plural in la" wilh verhs (5:11 mn":"1).
and subordinating conjunctions even more so. All this restricts the possihility of syntactic varieties. On the
2. On the verb, the long (non-apocopated) imperative of hiph'·j[ ;-JtJ) (31:3 lJlN ;-JtJ;-J); also other hand. word order is so free Ihat (here is hardly a standard from which deviations may be noted.
uncontracted nun energicum (72:15 Ｇ［ＭｊＩＺ Ｌｾ 50:23 ＧＩｮｾＺｊ and apparently functionless;-J- Finally, lhe use of lhe so-called tenses oflen escapes syntactical regulalion 23

(adhortative and cohortative; see ch. 6 below). What these comments show is that the syntax (as above, the morphology) of Hebrew verse is
3. On the noun, the litterae compaginis (114:8 u'vo) and enclitic mem (59:6 ｭｎｾＳ C';-J"N); stylistically but not systematically different from that of prose. 24 If the stylistic distinctive of
a plural absolute in ,. (144:2 'OV) and use of the pluralis intensivus (103:4 c'on,); also the Psalms' morphology is markedness, in terms of there being so many unusual forms, that of
prefixed nominal palterns (88: 19l1ZJno) and reduplicating plurals (133:3 "';'). their syntax is unmarkedness, in that distinct functions are much less consistently marked
4. Among the prepositions, long unsuffixed forms of those which normally take plural suffixes formally than in prose. Some characteristic features which have been noted include: 25
(32:5 '''1'). monoliteral prepositions (92:8 ,o:J) and 10 (44: II • )0); non-reduplicating suffixed
10 (18:23 ')0).
5. Non-elision of;, (36:6 ｣ＧＹｾ［Ｚｊ 86: 11 l";'N).
20For the first and last of these, see ch. 3 below.
Thus the morphology of the Psalter is 'marked' in that otherwise unusual forms, which are
21 Bergstrasser, G., EillfuhnUlg ill die semitischefl Sprachen: Sprachprobefl lllld grammarische Skizzefl (Munchen:
often archaic, are frequently used, with the result that forms 'draw attention to themselves'. Max Hueber Verlag, 1928) 45-46.
22Niccacci, A.• The SYflrax of the Verb jfl Classical Hebrew Prose. lr. W.G.E. Watson from Sifllassi del verbo
ebraico flella prosa I,iblica c1assica, 1986 (JSOTS 86; Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1990) 10-12. Contrast, however,
DeCaen, V.. Ofl the Placemeflt afld Iflterpretariofl of rhe Verb ifl Standard Biblical Hebrew Prose (Dissertation,
l6-rseval, ulllguage of the Biblical Psalms, 13.
University of ToronlO: UM!. 1995) 306-310.
I7Wallke-O'Connor, SYfltax. 58-59 §3.4e.
23Tsevat, Language of the lJiblical Psalms. 13-14.
1BSee below on WeinrichlSchneiderfNiccacci.
19-rhis is JUS! a selec!ion of some more striking fonns. More extensive surveys have already been made; Dahood, 24DeCaen, Placemeflt ofld IflterprelatiOlI. 18; O'Connor. M .. Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona ·Lake, Ind.:
M. and Penar. T., 'The Grammar of lhe Psalter, in Psalms (The Anchor Bihle 17A; New York: Doubleday, 1965- Eisenbrauns. 1980) 5-20.
25See also Dahood and Pcnar. 'Gmmmar of the Psalter".
70) 361-456; Tsevat, Laflgunge of rhe Biblical Psalm.L
 ModaliTY. Re/('n-tu-(- mul -,"/w(Th ACh ill the P.\"ulms /lJfrod"cr;oll 7

I. Omission of the relative parlicle i V N, 26 the direct-object marker,27 prepositions ('oj? fOl He includes in this the redundant use of the independent personal pronoun, the copula, the
'''v O'Oj?; similarly, the adverbial use of nouns [ij?vl); omission of a preposition ｯ｣ｵｾｩｮｧ in infinitive absolute and an internal (cognate) object. He further uses transformations to argue for
an a-colon from a synonymously parallel b-colon;28 use of 'double-duty' suffixes; asyndelon in parallelism between active and passive forms, or where there is ellipsis. 38
generaL29 Syntactical studies have been made of the Psalter by Battle 39 (generative grammar),
2. Use of prepositions to refer to a place hej(Jre movement ('l:IN::1, 'from his nostrils') and Michel 40 (textlinguistics), Gibson 41 and O'Connor. 42 Discourse analysis of Psalms is practiced
avoidance of ｖｾ (::1, ":1j?" '" in:J); STalus conSlmetus before prepositions ('::1 'om-":J). in particular by Bible translators, such as Bliese,43 Graber,44 Wendland,45 Bratcher and
3. Extended rection of prepositions, relative particles, question words and Negation. Reyburn. 46
4. Use of a pronominal copula (though never in early poetry).30
1.4. Sociolinguistics
5. Unusual uses of the verbal conjugations. such as the jussive used with personification 01
natural elements; qii!al used statively. Sociolinguistics considers extra-grammatical features such as power-relationships between
6. Anarlhrous use of certain nouns (fiN, 0'/0'0', O'OV, VOV; OiN, 1"0, DV) and divine actants, the requirements of face-saving/giving and politeness. These factors are particularly
epithets (:1'''N, ,,'''v, 'iV }.31 important in the study of the particles in Hebrew, such as Brongers on h a [o,'47 and Wilt on
7. Lack of agreement in gender or number by adjectival or participial predicates, and in numbel -nii'48, as well as studies of Deontic forms, such as Finley on 'the proposal' .49 Coli ins has also
by the suffix of ":J (''':J referring to a plural antecedent);32 3rd-person agreement in a relative used them in his characterisation of the Psalter. 50 The terms Speaker and Addressee are used
clause with a vocative. 33 here to refer to the actants within the speech situation, thus interacting with the other referential
8. One-member sentences, whether in the form of exclamations (e.g. :1):1, "7'j?) or one-member categories of grammatical person (1st, 2nd, 3rd) and what I call rhetorical person (God,
possessive sentences (e.g. D"7:1' N"7, O:1'''n); the latter category may also include the ',VN Psalmist, Enemy). They refer to hypothetical 'players' in a communicative context, not actual
construction;34 short ('one-term') ':J clauses (::1'0 ':J). processors/receptors, and are hence also used where Psalms were most probably originally
9. Expression of comparison by coordination (comparant-'-compare}.35 composed (and perhaps even intended to be received) in written form.
10. Separation of a relative clause from its antecedent. 36 There is, of course, a lot of Speaker-switching in the Psalms, as well as many cases-
Sappan, in his Typical Features of the SynTax of Ihe Psalms, has suggested that some including, most crucially, with Deontic forms-where the identity of the Addressee is unclear.
syntactic phenomena occur in the Psalms for metrical and euphonic reasons:
in order to give the statement a fuller sound than that or the bare verbal form 37 38Sappan, Syntax of Biblical Poetry, X-XI. One might also consider in this respect Chomsky's Negative and
modal transformations (see section 3 below).
39Battle, J.H .• Syntactic Structures in the Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Psalms (Diss. University of Texas at
Austin; Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, Inc., 1969).
40Michel. D., Tempora utld SarzstellulIg in den Psalmen (Abhandlungen zur Evangelischen Theologie, Band I;
26Occasionally, Ire-is used instead, or the relative pronoun vi, asyndcsis, or a participial relative clause or Bonn: H. Bouvicr u. Co. Verlag, (960).
'semirelalivc'; Shlonsky, U., Clause Structure alld Ward Order ill Hebrew alld Arabic: All Essay itl Camparative 4 IGibson. J.c.L., 'The Analomy of Hebrew Narrative Poctry'. in Auld, A.G. (cd.), Understatuling Poets and
Semitic SYlltax (Oxford Studies in Comparativc Syntax; Oxrord: OUP. 1997) 36. Asyndetic relative clauses Prophets. Essays in HonourojGeorge Wishart Anderson (Shcfficld: JSOT Press, 1993) 141-48.
represent 'one of the most striking features or DP'; Sappan, Syntax of Biblical Poetry, XXXtIl. 420'Connor. Hebrew Verse Structure.
27Occasionally, la is used instead. 43Bliesc, L.F., '$truclurally Marked Peak in Psalms 1-24', OPTAT 4 (1990) 265-321.
28Sappan. SYIl/lVC of Biblical Poetry. XXXI. 44araher, P.L., 'A TexIlinguislic Approach to Undcrstanding Psalm 88', OPTAT4 (1990) 322-39; 'The Slructural
29-rhough this is queslioncd in Sappan, Syntax of Biblical Poetry. XXXI. Meaning of Psalm 113', OPTAT 4 (1990) 340-52.
30Sappan. Syn/{lX of Biblical Poetry, XXI 45Wendland, E.R. (cd.), Discourse Perspectives an Biblical Hebrew Poetry (UBS Monograph 7; Reading/New
3th has heen suggcstcd that this is characteristic of spoken language in general; Rcndshurg, G.A .. Diglassia ill York: UBS. 1994); Discourse Atlalysis alld the Psalms: An Introductioll ....ith Exercises for Bible Trallslators
Allciem Hebrew (Amcrican Oriental Scries 72; Ncw Haven. eN: Amcrican Oriental Socicty, 1990) 177-8. (draft copy).
32Sappan, Syntax of Biblical Poetry, XXIII. 46Bratcher. R.G. and Reyburn, W.D., A Halldbook all Psalms (UBS Handbook Scries; New York: UBS, 1991).
33Sappan, Syn/{vc of Biblical Poem', XXXII!. 47Brongers. RA., 'Some Remarks on the Biblical Particlc halo", OTS 21 (1981) 177.89.
34Sappan. Syntax of Biblical Poe/l)', XXVI-II. 48Wilt. T., 'A Sociolinguistic Analysis of NA"', VT46 (1996) 237-55.
35Sappan. Syll/Q.< of Biblical Poetry, XXXI-I1. 49Finley. T.J., 'The Proposal in Biblical Hebrew: Preliminary Studies Using a Deep Struclure Model', ZAH 2
J6Sappan . SW/laX of Biblical Poetry. XXXII!. (1989) 1-13.
.17Sappan, Srntax of Biblical Poe/l)'. V. 50Collins. 'Decoding thc Psalms' .
II Mot/ality. Reference (lilt! .","(>ecd, Acts i" ,ht, Psalms Introdm',il",

When the Addressee is God, there is usually no evidence that he has heard the Psalmist (hencl /.6. Other Studies

my use of 'Speaker-Addressee' rather than 'Speaker-Hearer'. In addition to the specific studies discussed above, several other approaches to the Psalms have
been influential. Form criticism, from Gunkel's still excellent Eillleitung in die Psalmen,61
/.5. Formulaic Composition
through other work by Begrich,62 Westermann,63 Crlisemann,64 Aejmelaeus 65 and Broyles,66 to
In ancient times nobody sought to be original. The shelter of convention. however awkward to moden
the important though unfinished commentary by Gerstenberger,67 has contributed much to the
readers. was abandoned only in case of ulmost need. In Ihe oral communication with God. psalm languag,
and form were the shelter. They covered great and small. lhe lonely genius and Ihe man in charge of lh, present discussion of form and function in the Psalms. Its daughter, Rhetorical criticism,
regular Temple service. 5 I contributes similarly, as in the works of Muilenburg 68 and his followers, the many publications
Culley's Oral Formulaic Language in the Biblical Psalms52 has had a major impact on thl of Pierre Auffret, and the survey and bibliography by Watson and Hauser,69 though here there
way most modern researchers read the psalms. It has been the primary introduction to Biblica is the greater emphasis on the Psalm as a unit. Cult-functional criticism of such as Mowinckepo
studies of the oral composition studies of the Homer scholars Lord and Parry.53 Though hi: situated the Psalms in the worship life of ancient Israel (albeit often questionably).
categorisation of formulas is often too strict (I see standard formulas as influencing many text: The most important commentaries cover a similar range, from the older work of GunkePI to
which share no lexical items and little surface structure), his formulaic systems and formula: Kraus,72 the controversial linguistic work of Dahood,73 lhe rhetorical analyses of
constitute the basis for much syntactical analysis of the Psalms. Work on thest Gerstenberger 74 and most recently the very well-received commentary of Hossfeld and
'commonplaces' leads into a better appreciation of syntactical structures throughout psalmil Zenger.7 5
language.
The oral composition perspective has been considered an important factor in translation 0

the Psalms. 54 A comparable category of 'sememes' has been used by Collins,55 and the word· 6lGunkel. H., Einteitullg in die Psalmen. Die Gal/ullgell der religiosen Lyrik Israels (Goningen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprechl. 1933).
pair in Hebrew poetry has been argued to be also 'formulaic' in Culley's sense. 56
62Begrich. l .• 'Die Verlrauensaullerungen im israclitischen Klagelied des Einzelnen und in seinem babylonischen
The rapidly-expanding field of Biblical Hebrew poetics has not been considered central t< Gegensluck'. Z4 W 46 (1928) 221-60; 'Das prieslerliche Heilsorakel'. Z4 W 52 (1934) 81-92; Gesammelte Studiell

the present work, since we are concerned with Discourse as against Narrative, rather than verSI ZWII Altell Tesramefll (TB-NBZl 21; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag. 1964).
63Weslermann. e., Lob und Klage ill den Psalmell, 5., erweiterte Aunage von Das Lobell GOl/es in dell Psalmen
as against prose. Some of the most important recent contributions have been those by KugelY (Goningen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprechl, 1977).
Watson,58 O'Connor59 and Alonso Schokel. 60 6 4 Crusemann. F., Studien VII" Formgeschichte VOII Hymllus und Danklied ill Israel (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1%9).
65Aejmelaeus. A.• The Traditional Prayer in the Psalms (BZAW 167; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986).
66Broyles, e.c.. The Conflict of Faith and Experience in Ihe Psalms: A Form·Critical aruJ Theological Study
(lSOTS 52; Sheffield: lSOT Press, J989).
51Tsevat, Language of the Biblical Psalms, 37. 67Gerstenberger, E.S., Psalms: with all Introduction 10 Cultic Poetry, Part I (FOTL XIV; Grand Rapids:
52culley, R.e., Oral Formulaic Language in the Biblical Psalms (NMES 4; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Eerdmans, 1988); also Der bil/ende Mensch: Bil/ritual und Klagelied des Einzelnen im Alten Tesrament (WMANT
51; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980).
1967).
531be work of these scholars has also been applied to several other fields, including e.g. lhe Qur'an; Neuwirth, A., 68Muilenburg, l., 'Form Crilicism and Beyond'. JBL 88 (1969) 1-18; also the earlier 'A Study in Hebrew
Studien zur Komposirion der mekkanischell Suren (Studien zur Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Rhetoric: Repelition and Style', in Congress Volume: Copenhagen 1953 (SupplVT I; Leiden: Brill, 1953).
Orients NF 10; Berlin: Waiter der Gruyter, 1<)81). 69Watson, D.F. and Hauser. A.J., Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on
54S c hrag, B.E.. "Translating Song TeXiS as Oral Composilions·. NOT6 (1992) 44-62. History and Method (Biblical Interpretation Series 4; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994).
55Collins. 'Decoding the Psalms'; sce discussion below. 70Mowinckel, S.. The Psalms in Israel's Worship, tr. D.R. Ap-Thomas (The Biblical Scminar; Sheffield: lSOT
56Watson, W.G.E.• Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide 10 it.\" Techniques (lSOTS 26; Sheffield: lSOT Press. 1984) Press. 1962).
7lGunkel. H., Die Psalmen (Gullinger Handkommentar zum AlIen Testament 11.2; Gotlingen: Vandenhoeck &
136.
57Kugel. l.L.. The Idea of Biblical Poetry. Parallelism alld its History (New Haven/London: Yale University Ruprecht. 1926).
72Kraus, H.-I.. PsalmC/!. 5 .• grundlegend uberarbeitete und veranderle Aullage. 2 Bande (Biblischer Kommenlar
Press. 1981).
58Watson. W.G.E., Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse (lSOTS 170: Sheffield: lSOT Press, 1994); Altes Testamenl XV/I-2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Ncukirchener Verlag. 1978).

Classical Hebrew Poetry. 73Dahood. M .. Psalms (The Anchor Bible 16-17A; Ncw York: Doubleday. 1965-70).
590'Connor. Hebrew Verse Structure. 74 Gerstenberger, E.S., Psalms: with an IlItroduction 10 Otitic Poetry. Part I (FOTL XIV; Grand Rapids:
60Alonso Schokel. L.. A Manual of Hebrew Poetics (Subsidia Biblica 11: Rome: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Eerdmans. 1988).
75Hossfeld, F.-L. and Zenger. E.• Die Psalmen (Die neue !'chlcr Bibel 2<); Wurzburg. 1993).
Biblico. 1988).
10 Modality. Ref(·rnlCe tu"l SpelT" ACf.\ ill the Psalm.\" Introduction 11

2. Theoretical Background 'actan!'. 'Interpersonal' and 'Vocative' are purely pragmatic functions, governed by (and
un interpretable without) a speech situation with Speaker and Addressee, 'Interpersonal' has

2,/, Comparative Semantics often been subdivided into that which is Speaker-oriented ('Expressive') and that which is
SpeakerlAddressee-oriented ('Social'); this distinction is clarified by speech acts (when defined
The study of Biblical Hebrew has centred in recent years around tense-aspect and discourst
according to Speaker-Addressee relations) or modality (see below), 'Vocative' is usually
features of the verbal system, Modal semantics has been neglected, Therefore this sectior
Addressee-oriented and may involve 'instrumental' function (Speaker attempting to influence
reviews some of the results of comparative linguistic research into semantics and pragmatics
Addressee), hence 'Conative', These relationships may be depicted, reordered, as follows:
before they are applied in subsequent chapters to Biblical Hebrew.
Conmwllicative function: Grammlltical person: Pragmatic role: Linguistic .Hady:
2././. Communication Theory 2. Expressive Ist person Speaker Pragmatics
2b. Social SpeakerlAddressee Pragmatics
There is more to language than just its propositional content. Various terms have been used t(
3. Vocative 2nd person Addressee Pragmatics
define five primary communicative functions: 76
I. Referclltial 3rd person Context Pragmatics/Semantics
My term: Biihler lakobso/l 77 Lyo/l.\·78 HaJliday 79 4. Relational Cotext Syntax
I. Referemial Darstellung Referential Descripli ve Idcational
This thesis deals principally with modality in the Psalter, hence it is situated in the first three of
2. l/lterperso/lal Ausdruck Emotive Expressive Interpersonal
2b. (if distinguished) Phatic Social these fields. Syntax is not treated extensively, though super-sentential syntax in the form of
3. Vocative Appell Conative textlinguistics (see below) does inform the analysis. In the study of Psalms, more than perhaps
4. Retational Tcxtual in any other body of text, we may say that

These distinctions are important at many points in this thesis. 'Reference' is the time has surely come to replace ontological arguments with functional arguments, for what is
important to readers, critics and authors alike. is what literature does, and not what itmeans81
semantic/pragmatic function, connecting text 'exophorically' with real-world context;
This is then the contribution of speech-act theory.
contrasts most distinctly with 'Relation', a syntactic function, connecting text 'endophorically
with linguistic cotext. 80 Hence first and second-person pronouns will tend to refer Referentiall} 2./.2. Speech-Act Theory
to Speaker and Addressee in Discourse, whilst third-person pronouns may refer eithel Speech-act theory, as first presented in John Austin's 1955 Oxford lectures, posthumously
Referentially in Discourse (often supported by a nod or pointing towards the person concerned published as How to do Things with Words,82 and continued particularly by Searle,83 contrasts
or Relationally in Narrative, anaphorically picking up an earlier reference to a particulaJ 'constative' and 'performative' utterances (only for Austin to explode his own distinction in ch.
10, see below). Functionally, 'performatives' are utterances such as 'I hereby name this ship
76Re!erentiat may also be known as: Transactional, Propositional, Cognitive, Designative, Representational the Mr. Stalin', which are not trulh-eonditional (cannot be denied) and arc token-reflexive (they
Semantic, Factual-Notional, Experiential; /merpersollal may also be known as: Interactional, Attitudinal; Socia
may also be known as: Interaction-Management Information, Phatic Communion (Malinowski). refer to themselves-'I hereby .. .').84 They perform 'speech acts' or 'ilJocutionary acts',
77Also lists 'metalinguistic' and 'poetic'; Levinson, S.c., Pragmatics (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics defined most famously by Austin as the
Cambridge: CUP, 1983) 41.
78Lyons. J., Semamics, 2 vols. (Cambridge: CUP, 1977) 1. 50-5 I-also the terms of Buhler, Jakobson and others
see also Brown, G. and Yule, G., Discourse Allatysis (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: CUP 81Thc literary critic Wolfgang Iser cited in White, H.C. (cd.). Speech Act Theory al/d Biblical Criticism (Semeia
1983) 1. 4'1; Decatur. GA: Scholars Press. 1988) 2.
79Halliday, MA.K., 'Language Structure and Language Function', in J. Lyons (ed.), New Horizo"-' itl Linguistic! 82Austin, J.L., How to do Thitlgs with Words: Thc Wjffiam lames Lectures delivered at Harvard Utlil'enin' il/
(Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970) 140-165-also others' terms. Followed by Khan, G.A., Studies itl Semiti, /955, 2nd edn.. ed. J.O. Unnson and M. Sbisa (Oxford: OUP, 1976). The samc argument is presented more brietly
Symax (London Oriental Series, Vol. 38; Oxford: OUP, 1998) xxv and Waltke-O'Connor. Syntax. 343. and less technically in Austin, J.L., 'Pcrformative Utterances', in J.L. Austin. Philosophical Papers. ed. J.O.
8O'ReferentiarrRelational' is uscd by Richter, W.. Grw,dlagcl/ cil/cralthebriiischetl Gral1lmatik, 3 vols (ATAT 8. Urmson and G.J. Warnock; 3rd cdn. (Clarendon Paperbacks; Oxford: OUP, 1979) 233-52.
10.13; SI. Ottilien: EOS, 1978·80) 1,81; and 'Context'rCotext' hy Loprieno. A., Allcietlt Egyptian: A Litlguisti, 83S ea rle, J.R., Speech Acts (Cambridge: CUP, 1969); £rpressioll atld Meal/il/g: Studies itl the Theory of Speed,
l/ltroductiol/ (Cambridge: CUP, 1995) gO-83, bOlh in discussions of deixis (see ch. 2 below). 'Endophoric' Acts (Cambridge: CUP. 1979); Searle, J.R. and Vanderveken. D., Foundations of {({oclI/iotlary Logic (Cambridge:
(anaphoralcataphoraV'Exophoric' is coined by Halliday. M.A.K. and Hasan. R.. Cohesiol/ in Ellglish Ｈｅｮｧｬｩｳｾ CUP, 1985).
Language Series No. 9; London: Longman. 1976) 33, where they note that 'Exophora is not merely a synonym for 84Token-retlexivity is the characteristic of self-reference in sentences such as 'This sentence contains live words'
referential meaning'. but refers to referential junctiol/. or l' i'1no,rv '1 hereby scnd you': Lcvinsnn. Pragmatics, 57; Lyons, Scmantics I, 13.15.
12 Mm/,,/iIL ｒｾｴｩＧｲ ｉｬＨＬ "lid ｓｰｾ･｣ｨ ACls ill Ihe Psalms IHlrt}{luct;ull 1.1

performance of an uct ill saying something as opposed to performance of an acl of saying somcthing' 85 I. Declaralives (Exercitives, Declarations, Explicit Performatives) e.g. '1 hereby excommunicate you.'
Austin demonstrates that performative function can in fact be achieved in any grammatica 'I herehy ... '-Assertion of inlluence or cxcrcising of power; effecl immediate changes in the
institutional state of affairs and tcnd to rely on elaborate extra-linguistic institutions.
form (person, voice, mood, tense), that the 'explicit performative' form 'I hereby".' cat
2. Assertives (Verdictives, Representatives; cf 'Referential' above) e.g. '[ hereby assert thal .
achieve many other functions (habitual, 'historic present') and that some speech acts have n< 'X is true' (conviction)-Exercise of judgement; giving a finding as to somelhing (fact, or value) which
corresponding explicit performatives (e.g. *'1 insult you!'). Nevertheless, his basil is for different reasons hard to be certain about; commit S to truth of expressed proposition.
characterisation is helpful. Austin's preliminary formal distinction reads as follows: 3. Direclives (compare 'Vocative/Conative' above) e.g. '( hereby request that .

... any ullerancc which is in fact a performative should be reducible, or expandible, or analysable into 'H is to do something' (wish)--Allempts by S 10 get H to do something.

form, or reproducible in a form, with a verb in the first person singular present indicative activ 4. Commissives e.g. ., hereby promise that.

(grammatical)86 'S will do something' (imention)-Assuming of an ohligation or declaring of an intemion-promising

or otherwise undertaking, declaralions or announeemems of intention; commit S to some future action.
The mark of a performative verb is then that
5. Expressives (Behabitives: compare 'Expressive' above) e.g. '1 hereby thank you.'
there is an asymmelry of a systematic kind between [this first person singular present indicative activel an
'S's allitude'-Adopting of an allitude; social behaviour; express a psychological state in S.
other persons and tenses of the very same verb. 87
Thus for example, 'I bet' is (usually) performative, whilst 'he bets' and 'I betted' are not, bu The 'Performative Hypothesis', outlined in Austin's chapter 10, argues that

describe what happens/happened when he says or 1 said. 'I bet'. every semence has as its highest clause in deep or underlying symactic struclUre a clause of [a] form ... that
corresponds to the overt prefix in the explicit performative. 91
Speech acts are considered as comprising three components: 88
In other words every utterance has prefixed to it a higher clause of the form
l..ocUliollary ael Meaning-'the ullerance of a sentence with determinate sense and reference I (hereby) Vp you (that) S'
e.g. Saying, 'Shoot her"
and so even statements (,constatives') can be seen to be 'performative'. This result is
I/loculilmaryael Force-'the making of a statement, offer, promise, etc. in ullering a sentence, b
virtue of the convemional force associated with it (or with its explicit pcrformativ intuitively correct-we know that any utterance presented as objectively true remains relative

paraphrase)' e.g. ordering, urging or advising the Addrcssee to shoot her. to the Speaker, and that its truth conditions lie not only with the propositional content of S', but
Perlocll/iollaryacl Achieving of certain ･ｨｬＧｾｳｴ｣ｦ bringing about of effects on the audience by mean also with the higher clause of saying. The Performative Hypothesis is highly debatable as a
of ullering the sentence, such effects being special to the circumstances of ullerance'
theory of how language actually functions,92 but it has proven useful in the study of Biblical
e.g. persuading, forcing or frightening the Addressee into shooting her.
Hebrew in the analysis of vocatives and focus-markers. 93
The logical structure of the illocutionary act itself has three elements: 89 Speech-act theory was first introduced to many Biblical scholars by Waiter Houston 94, and it
Phraslic propositional content, p has been widely received, informing work by MacDonald,95 Zatelli 96 and, on Psalms,
Tropic 'sign of mood'-the kind of speech act
Neuslic 'sign of subscription' to the speech act

The illocutionary force of an utterance is thus the product of its tropic and its neustic, Tht
tropic distinguishes between statements ('it is so'), questions ('is it so?') and mands ('so bt
9lLevinson, Pragmatics, 247, also 244.
it!'), whilst the neustic distinguishes the Speaker's commitment to what he is saying (e,g. 92See argumentation in Levinson, Pragmalics, 243-263.
request vs. command, possibility vs. necessity, permission vs. obligation), 930'Connor, Hebrew Verse Slruclure, 79-82.
94Houston, W., 'What Did the Prophets Think They Were Doing" Speech Acts and Prophetic Discourse in the Old
There are five basic classes of illocutionary force in Sear/e's system: 90
Testament', BII (1993) 167-88,
95MacDonald. PJ., 'Discourse Analysis and Biblical Interpretation', in Bodine, W.R. (ed.), Linguistics and
RSAustin, How 10 do ThinRs wilh Words, 99-100; also cited in White, H.C. (ed.). Speech ACI Them)' ,,"d Biblical Biblica/ Hebrew (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 153-76.
Criticism. 3. 96Zatell i, I., 'Pragmalinguistics and Speech-Act Theory as Applied to Classical Hebrew'. ZAH 6 (1993) 60-74;
86Austin. How la do Tltings wilh Word,-, 61-62. .Analysis of Lexemes from a Conversational Prose Text: /11111 as signal of a performative utterance in I Sam.
87Austin, How (a do Things wilh Words, 63. 25:41', ZAH 7 (1994) 5-11.
8RBased on Levinson. Pragmatics, 236, and Austin, How to do Things wilh Words, ch. 10.
89Hare cited in Lyons, Semantics 2, 749.
90Based on Levinson, Pragmatics, 240; Searle, Expression and Meaning; Austin, How to do ThinRs with Words,
ch. 12; Gross, H.. Einfiihnmg in die gern/lmislische Lingllislik (Munich: iudicium verlag GmbH. 1990) 151-53.
 Modalily. RL'ji.. rCllCl' (Jml ｨ｣ＧＨ＾ｾｬｓ Acts in the Psalm.," Imroducl;oJl 15
14

Irsigler97 There has been a Semeill volume devoted entirely to the application of speech-act verbs, particles, c1itics or even simply intonation. Some of the modal systems and functions
99 which Palmer finds grammaticalised in the languages of the world are as follows: 107
theory to biblical texts 98 as well as, most recently, an impressive study by Wagner.
Speech-act theory stands conceptually between communicative function (above) and SEMANTIC FUNCTION GRAMMATICAL FORM
Utterance Type lIIocul. Force Sentence Type Modat Svstems and Functions 10R
modality (below); in the words of John Lyons, STATEMENT Constative assertive (Realis) He is rich
lhe theory of speech-acts ... gives explicit recognition to the social or interpersonal dimension of language- Declarative
behaviour and provides a general framework ... for the discussion of the syntactic and semantic distinctions EPISTEMIC (possihility/necessity)
STATEMENT Assertive DECLARATIVE JUDGEMENTS
that linguists have traditionally described in termS of mood and modality. 100 Answer apodietive Twice two must be four
conditional Sei er reich
It must be noted, however, that, at both the communication-theoretical and speech-act levels, hypothetical (Irrealisl Wenn er reich ware
no utterance has just one function. This is borne out by the difficulty of establishing a coneessional Quoiqu'il soit riehc
potential (Potentiolis) He can speak Welsh
classiticalOry scheme for communicative functions (e.g. Social may overlap with Conative),IOI purposive in order that he might be rich
speculative Er muBte reieh sein
the polyvalency of any given utterance (though a pure Expressive function is considered by dubilative Hc may be rich
necessitative He must be rich (else ... )
Lyonsl02 and one might argue for the monovalency of explicit performatives), the lack of one- assumptive He would (will) know
EVIDENTlALS
to-one correlation between communicative functions and illocutionary force, Austin's quotative Er soil reich sein
visual He annPars to be rich
demonstration that even Constatives are in some sense 'performative', and the lack of one-to-
.Q!J,£STlON INTERROGATIVE (interrogative)
one correlation between functional categories (communicative function, illocutionary force, DEONTlC (permission/obligation)
MAND Directive IMPERATIVE compulsive He has to go
utterance type) and formally distinct moods or modal markers. S>H: Command. obligative He ought to go/we should go
Demand. Advice
Invitation. Pcnnission imperative Go'
Prohibition directive He must go
2./.3. Modality
H>S: Request. Prayer prescriptive Er soli gehen
Jeder Satl realisiert eine Satzarlen- (sentence type]. (mindestens) eine Leistungsfunktion {utterance type] Wish. Entreaty advisory You should go
Request for Permissior permissive He may go
und eine Modalit;;t [modality 1. 103
Warning precative Go, please
The funclional analyses of communication and speech-act theory discussed above correlate Recommendation hortative Let us go
Ex hortation 109 purposive It is bound to rain
with the formal study of typological grammatical modality. Modality has been variously delihcrative Shall I go?
understood as the expression of 'attitudes and opinions', different speech acts, subjectivity, conditional Ought to, should. might
Commissivc promissive I will go / it shall be done
non-factivity, non-assertion, non-actuality or remoteness,104 possibility and necessity, 105
threats I will kill you! / You die!
'eingeschrankte Giiltigkeit'; 106 it is expressed in different languages by verbal moods, modal Expressive VOLlTIVES
optative May he still be alive!
desiderati ve Would he were alive'
fear I am afraid lest he go
intentional in order that he may go
EVALUATIVES
prediction/warning
971rsiglcr. H., 'Psalm-Rede als Handlungs-, Wirk- und AussageprozeB: Spreehaktanalyse und poSitive doubtlseepticism
surprise
Psalmeninterpretation am Beispicl von Psalm 13', in Seyhold, K. and Zcnger. E. (eds.), Nelle Wege der regret ... that he should ...
PsalmellforIchurlg (FS Beyerlin; Herders Biblisehe Studien, Band I; Freihurg: Herder. 1994). Exclamation Exclamativc exclamative
9RWhite, (cd.), Speech Acr Theory olld Biblical Criricism. emphatic affirmati ve
99Wagncr, A.. Sprechakte lwd SprechaktQnalyse im Aften Te,\'tameflt: U",ersuchuIIgen im biblischetl Hebriiisclt an
der Nalllsrelle ZlVischell Halldhmgsebelle ulld Gral1ll1larik (BZAW 253; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997).
l07palmer, Mood [lIId Modality: Lyons, Semantics 2, 725-849. Tcrminology from Palrner. Mood and Moda/ity,
100Lyons. Sellumrics 2. 725.
23-26 er passim; Gihson, J.CL.. Davidson's /f11fOdllctory Hebrew Grammar-Syntax, 4th Edition (Edinburgh:
101 Lyons. Semolllics I. SS.
102 Lyons. Semalllics 1,79-80. T&T Clark, 1994); and Waltke-O'Connor. Syntax.
103Richter. Gnmd/ogen 3.48. 108Examples arc given in French and German where modal forms arc not availahle in English. They may be
I04Lyons, Semallrics 2. 796 n. 4. translated as follows: Conditional: If he is rich; Hypothetical: If he wcre rich; Coneessional: Though he is rich;
I05palmer. F.R.. Mood alld Modality (Camhridge Texthooks in Linguistics: Camhridge: CUP. 1986) 4. Speculative: Hc is probably rich, He is perhaps rich: Quotative: He is said to be rich; Prescriptive: He is to go.
I06Weinrieh. H., Tempus. Besprochelle IIlId er:.tih/re Weir. 3rd edn. (Sprache und LiteralUr 16; Stuttgart: Pahner also refers to the 'Discoursc' and 'Speaker/Hearer knowledge' systems of some languages.
I09Lyons. Semall1ics 2. 746: Austin. HOl" 10 do ｔｨｩＢＮｾ Ｌ "'itll Words. 76-77.
Kohlhammer. 1977) 210.
16 Modality. H(!'er<'"ce ll11d Speech ACTS in tire P.wlms l"tnn!Uf"lilm 17

2./.3./. Utterance Type Expressives usually 'cannot be performed except by saying something',I14 so that when
The above presentation begins on the left with the three basic utterance types, statement, expressed as an explicit performative, the same word is used. 115 They are characteristically
question and mand, extended to four if Exclamation is included. 1 10 The answer to a question expressed with interjections (of various origins) in Exclamative sentences making an
may in some systems be distinguished from a statement. 'Mand' is used by Lyons lll to refer to exclamation.
that subclass of Directives where the Speaker wants the action carried out; it is classified above e.g. Thank you" Explicit per[.: '[ herehy thank you'
.wciolinguistically according to the relationship between Speaker and Addressee. I 12
Questions are problematic here. It is unclear from comparative study whether questions are
2./.3.2. lllocutionary Force properly classified as a kind of Directive (gelling the Addressee to give information), or a kind
The five types of performative utterance and the supposedly non-performative Constatives can of Assertive (expressing doubt, with the indirect force of expecting information to be
be considered in relation to the four primary utterance types and their grammatical realisations. supplied). I 16 On the one hand, the common practice of analysing questions as sub-types of
Constatives are truth-conditional, 'non-modal' utterances, in which 'we abstract from the mands
illocutionary ... aspects of the speech-act, and we concentrate on the locutionary' .113 They are ... enable[s] us to handle the illocutionary force of the three main classes of utterances in terms of the two
characteristically expressed with the indicative in Declarative sentences making a statement: primitive notions of asserting and issuing mands. 117
On the other hand, the verbal form of questions usually corresponds to that of statements. I 18
e.g. 'It is raining.' Explicit perf.: - ('It is true that ... it is raining')
Lyons distinguishes between asking of an Addressee afactual question (e.g. 'Is the door
Because Constatives are theoretically opposed to performatives (though Austin himself finally
open?') and posing (with no Addressee) a deliberative question (with the sense of '/ wonder
shows them to be in fact equally 'performative') and 'non-modal', they are excluded from the
whether the door is open'). He concludes that
present work. Corresponding statements and factual questions, on the one hand, and corresponding mands and
Assertives involve an element of objective doubt. They are therefore characteristically deliberative questions. on the other, can be said to have the same phrastic and tropic, hut to differ in their
expressed with modal verbs or the subjunctive in Declarative sentences making a statement: neustic. 119
(n other words, the binary opposition statementlmand [± VOLITION] is retained in the tropic
e.g. ·It will be raining in London by now.' Explicit pe't:: 'I hereby assert that ... it is raining there.'
('sign of mood'), with assertion/doubt [± DOUBT] superimposed upon it in the neustic ('sign of
Declaratives have extralinguistic function and must be non-modal, since they are token- subscription') thus: 120
reflexive. They are characteristically expressed with the first-person simple present indicative [- VOLITION]
Tropic [+VOLlTlON]
in Declarative sentences making a statement: Ne/lstic 'it is so' 'so be it"
[-DOUBT]
e.g. '[ hereby name this ship X' Explicit perf.: '] hereby declare that ... this ship is called X' Statement Mand
'I say so'
Directives involve volition. They are characteristically expressed with the imperative, [+DOUBTI Faclual Deliberative
jussive, cohortative, optative etc. in Imperative sentences issuing a mand: '] don't know' Question Question

e.g. 'Come here" Explicit perf.: 'I hereby command you to come here'

Commissives involve indirect volition (purpose); they are characteristically expressed with
the future in Declarative sentences making a statement:
114 Austin, How to do Things with Words, 120.
e.g. '[ will come tomorrow' Explicit pe,f.: 'I hereby promise to come'
I15Compare the discussion of deloeutive verbs in ch. 3, section 2.4.5. below.
116See Palmer. Mood and Modality, 78-81; Lyons, J., llllroduction to Theoretical Linguistics (Cambridge: CUP.
1968) 308.
117 Lyons, Semalllics 2, 753.
II0Lyons, Semamics 2, 745. ｯｓｾｉ also Richter, Gf/lnd/agen 3,185: 'Der Aussage kann die Frage zugeordnet werden.'
I11 Lyons, Sell/amics 2, 746; coined by the hehaviourist, B.F. Skinner. 119Lyons, Semalllics 2, 755.
112> signifies 'greater than' in terms of social hierarchy. I20Th is presentation still seems problematic to mc, since mands and factual questions both require an Addressee,
IUAustin, Ho,," to do Things with Words. 145-46. whereas statements and dcliberative questions do not.
IK Modality. Heferellct' (llId SpC'('ch At'I.... ill l!le Psal",,\" Inll"ot!uctiml 11}

2. J.3.3. Sentence Type these two systems (as in English subjunctive vs. imperative) or between strength of modality

Declarative, Interrogative and Imperative are 'traditionally regarded as the three main c1asse within the systems (as in English must vs. may). 1:!8

of sentences":!' and correspond characteristically to the three main utterance types, statemen l
Tropic I EP[STEMIC DEONTIC
! (subjunctive) (imperative)
question and mand. This is to say,
Neustic 'it is so 'so oc it"
undeniable. though only imperreet correspondences hold between rormal and semantic reatures i
language. 122 STRONG
Neeessity Obligation
(mll.l"1)
However. it is well known that language involves form-to-function 'skewing' and that it i [t must be raining. You musl come in.
'( say so'
possible, for example, to issue a mand (e.g. 'Tell me the time') using a statement (e.g.
WEAK
Possibility Permission
wonder if you could tell me the time.') or a question (e.g. 'Have you got the time?'). Levinsc (may)
It may be raining. You may come in.
provides some amusing, yet quite idiomatic, examples: 123 '( dont know'

Statement I'd be much obtiged if you'd close the door. Future is usually classified as belonging to Epistemic modality. 129 This is reflected in the use in
You ought to close the door.
English of a 'modal verb', will, and the formal analysis of the Arabic auxiliary sawfa as not a
It might help to close the door.
tense marker, but a 'modal anchor' .130 As noted above, future represents Commissive
[ am sorry to have to tell you to please close the door.
Question Can you close the door? illocutionary force., though related to the Deontic 'promissives',
Would you mind closing the door? This two-way distinction is expanded to four by von Wright:
May [ ask you to close the door?
Atethic modes of truth
Did you forget the door'>
Epislemic modes of knowing
Now Johnny. what do big people do when they come in'!
Deantic modes of obligation
Okay, Johnny, what am [going to say next?
£tistential modes of existenee
This skewing may be expressed in terms of scntences with literal force as against indire
The distinction between Alethic and Epistemic is analogous to Austin's distinction between
speech acts (Austin, Searle),124 or natural meaning as against non-nawral meaning (Grice).1
Constatives and Assertives (which, as we have seen, he finally resolves). Palmer concludes:
One might alternatively say that an utterance is 'the pairing of a sentence and a cOnlext' (Ba
... there is no formal grammatical distinction in English. and, perhaps, in no other language either, between
Hillel)126-the meaning of a sentence is the domain of semantics; that of an utterance, tl alethic and epistemie modality. .. Tbere is no distinction octween the uses of is to state wbat is logically
domain of pragmatics. I27 true and what the speaker believes, as a matter of fact, to be true. 131
Existential sentences are considered in chapter 3 below.
2./.3.4. Modal Systems
A further 'Dynamic' modality is suggested by von Wright,132 to describe utterances such as
h may be said that in the Epistemic modal system, the Speaker tries to get the words to mall
'Marcus can speak Welsh' or simply, 'Marcus speaks Welsh'. This corresponds strikingly to
the world, whilst in the Deontic system (or strictly only in its Directive 'core'), he tries to g
Joosten's standard example of modal (potentia/is) yiqtol for the general or habitual present: 133
the world to match the words. The modal forms of a given language may distinguish betweet

121 Lyons, Semanlics 2, 745; 'exclamalives', 'impreeatives' and 'optatives' are also suggested by Levinsc 128Palmer, Mood and Modality, 57-58, 98. though note his reservations. pp. 20-21: see also his discussion of have
Pragmatic-f. 42. 10 and can; pp. 11, 103-4. See the application of this schema in Warren. AL, 'Did Moses permit Divorce? Modal
122Chomsky, N., Syntactic StrllC/llre.< (Janua Linguarum tV; The Hague: Moulon & Co., 1957) 101. wi'qii!al as Key to NT Readings or Deuleronomy 24: 1-4', TynBu/49.1 (1998) 39-56.
I 23S eleclCd from Levinson, Pragmatics. 264-65. I29 Pal mer. Mood aud Moda/ia·. 216-18. also referring to the morphological futures of French and Russian.
I24Levinson. Pragmatics. 263-76. 130Shlonsky, C/QII.I"e Struc/llre and Word Order in Hebrew aud Arabic. 96.
125Levinson, Pragmatics, 16-18. t31 Palmer. Mood and Modality, 11.
I :!6Levinson, Pragmatics, 18-19. 132palmer. Mood and Modality. 12.
I 27 For a further retinement of the distinction. see Levinson, S.c., 'Three levels of meaning', in Palmer, F.R. (ed 133Joosten, J., 'The Indicative System of lhe Biblical Hebrew Verb and its Literary Exploitation'. in van Wolde,
Grammar aud Meaning (FS Lyons: Cambridge: CUP, 1995) 90-115: sec also comments above on how tl E. (cd.), Narrative Syntax arid the Helnew Bible: Paper.< of the Titbllrg Conference /996 (Leiden: EJ. Brill. 1997)
grammar of verse relates to that of prose. 51-71 (58).
20 Moe/ult'.\', RelenJrlce £llld Speech Acts ;1/ ti,e Psalms Iwrotlu( 'ion 21

The attempt to get the world to match the words involves Directives when the Addressee has
The door turns I willlUrn I can turn on its hinges. the power to act (hence, e.g. 'request-cohortatives') and Commissives when the Speaker has the
This is discussed at length below. 1.1 4 power to act (hence 'resolve-cohortatives·).
Expressives may be considered in two classes. Volitives have Directive force without being
2.1.3.5. Mood
From comparative study. Palmer identifies, amongst others. the modalities in the table above. addressed to the one with the power to act (i.e. Addressee 7' agent) and are often used in

Thi.. list is, of course, neither systematic nor comprehensive, though it does cover the vast indirect speech acts (e.g. Expressive 'May I not be put to shame" in place of Directive 'Don't

majority of the modal functions known to be grammaticalised in the languages of the world. let me be put to shame!'). Optatives are realisable; desideratives are unrealisable. Intentional

Judgements and Evidentials are commonly considered the two main types of Epistemic fits here as the opposite of fear. though it has also been included under Epistemic-purposive.

modality:I.15 the latter is not relevant to English or Biblical Hebrew. In [ndo-European Evaluatives include the Expressive side of warnings (Vocative), though this of course merges

languages. Epistemic modality is characteristically expressed with the subjunctive, optative into Directive force (Conative).
At many points, as we have seen, clear distinctions cannot be made in the study of verbal
(Greek) or modal verbs (English).
The questionable status of Interrogative as Assertive (Epistemic) or Directive (Deontic) has mood, since no principled basis has yet been developed for modal distinctions. The above

been discussed above. Palmer accepts the possibility of understanding Interrogative modality as range of modal functions does provide a basis, however, for our consideration of Hebrew

an independent category, which sometimes functions Dubitatively (rather than necessarily vice forms.

ver.ml.16). I tentatively follow Lyons's distinction between factual queslions (Assertive- 2.1.3.6. Hebrew Moods
dubitative) and deliberative questions (Directive-deliberative). The marked main-clause modal functions in Biblical Hebrew are listed by Richter as:
The impcrative can, depending on context, fulfil all of the functions listed in the left-hand Emphasc, Wunsch. Eventualis, Frage, Verneinung, Beteuerung. I.19

column under mand and so is clearly unmarked for intensity (neustic). It may therefore be These are expressed by both a range of modal particles and by verbal mood. Mood has been

described as the unmarked member of the Directives just as the indicative is the unmarked traditionally understood as only embracing the morphological imperative qJ!i51, short-form

member of the Assertives. I .17 In fact, it can be shown in Biblical Hebrew that the imperative yiqti51 ('jussive') and "(1!qplii ('cohortative'). However, Joosten in particular has argued for a
may also fulfil non-Directive Deontic functions such as optative (e.g. 128:6 T J:::l? 0' ｊＺｬＭ ｕｾＧＬ modal understanding of long-form yiq!i51 too, and this is key to the present work. 140

'May you see your children's children!'). 2.1.4. Thematic Roles

Formally, too, the imperative is unmarked, being most often the shortest verbal form in a
Finally, we should mention an area of linguistic theory which has provided a framework for our
language (e.g. Latin, English, French, German, Hebrew). Deontic function can be expressed in
study of reference. The argument structure ('valency') of lexical verbs and adjectives can be
European languages, however, with imperative, subjunctive or optative moods. Similarly in
described by identifying the various 'thematic roles' which they assign. A fairly standard
Hebrew, we find Deontic function expressed with imperative qiJ!i5/, long-form yiq!i5/
inventory of thematic roles might read as follows (where E [entity 1 is a person or thing, and P =
('preceptive imperfect') or even qii!a/ ('precative perfect'); meanwhile, lhe otherwise Deontic
'expressed by the predicate'): 141
short-form yiq!i51 ('jussive') can be used in the dependent wayyiqti51 form. 138
Agellt/Actor E who intentionally iniliates action P.
PatiellllGoa/ E undergoing action P.
Theme E moved hy aClion P.
1.14See ch. 1, section 2.4.1.2.1. helow.
I 35Pillmer. Mood alld Modality. 57. Experiencer E experiencing (psychological) slate P.
1.16S o Lyons, Selllalllics 2, 748. BelleficiarylBellefaclive E bcnctiuing from action P.
"7 'Straightfnrward stalements of fact (i.e. categorical assertions) may be dcscrihed as epislemicillly non-modal'
(Lyons. Sel//alllics 2. 797); 'the imperative is "deolllically non-mooal" (Palmer, Mood alld ModalitL 29); ... the
Illlpe ra ti ve is hest secn as the unmarked mcrnher of the deontic system. or rather of the directive suh-systcm. just I 39 Richter, Grulld/agell 1, 167.

as the Dcclarative is the unmarked memher of the epistcmic system· (Palmer. Mood alld Modali"·. 1(8). Similarly 140See ch. 1 helow.
Richter. Gnmdlagen 1. t85: .Ab neutrale Glieder werden Aussage und Aufforderung gesetz.t'. 141 Simplified from Haegeman. 1... tll/roduClioll 10 G""emlllenl alld Billdillg Theory, 2nd edn., 1994 (Blaekwell
I.1KS ee ilbothe concept of 'indirect volitives': Jolion. P. and Muraoka. T.. A Grammor of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols Texthooks in LinguiSlics I: Oxford: Blackwell. 19lJl) 49-50. See also Halliday, 'Language Structure and
(Rome: Editrice Ponlitico btilUlO Bihlico. 1'191) 181-86. Language Function', 14tl·44.J; Bailie. Snr'"o;c Struclllres.
 IlIrrmlucri(nI
22 MOl/alit,·. HeJ,'rence and Speech Acts ill tile P.wlms

E lowards which activity P is direcled. Collins describes sentences as 'conjugable', 149 he is referring to variation both in utterance type
Goal
Source E from which something is moveu as a resull of activity P. or mood, and in grammatical person.
Location place in which action or state P is situated. Secondly, Collins looks at 'patterns of relationships in force between the semantic constants'

Thus, for example, 'put' and 'givc' are both trivalent, but have different thcmatic structure: (a more grammatically-informed equivalent of form criticism) and binary oppositions such as
people (the just I the wicked), ways (right way I wrong way) and results (happiness I ruin).150
put He [Agent I put the book IPatient] on the table [Location I.
give He [Agent) gave the book [Palienl]10 his brother [Beneliciaryj. Thirdly, Collins refers to 'narrative analysis', introducing Greimas's 'actantial model' with
intersecting axes of 'communication' (Sender gives Object to Recipient), 'volition' (Subject
These terms will be particularly important in our description of Deontic forms.
conveys Object to Recipient) and 'power' (Opponent impedes Subject; Sender sends Helper to
2.1.5. Structuralist Semantics and Biblical Hebrew Subject). 151 Such an analysis properly belongs to the field of 'semiotics' .152
It would be improper to write a section on semantics without mentioning lames Barr. 142 His Several of Collins's points have been taken up in the present work, particularly the emphasis
work informs the method of this thesis throughout, as well as having established authoritative on utterance types, reference and mood, the identification of binary oppositions and the use of a
principles of linguistic argumentation for most of what has been written since his Semantics of sociolinguistic distinction between actants.
Biblical Language. His influence is seen in many works on Biblical semantics such as those by 'A Comprehensive Semiostructural Exegetical Approach' is described in a paper of the same
Sawyer,143 Arthur Gibson 144 and Sappan. 145 title by Prinsloo. 153 'Semiostructural' means that 'meaning is determined via the structure of
Two short but important theoretical papers by Coli ins and Prinsloo have introduced formal the text' .154 He emphasises the use of poetic conventions:
linguistic semantics to the study of the Psalter. These both stand in the tradition of Saussurean Poetic conventions arc defined ... as Ihe conscious ordering of language so that linguistic phenomena occur
in a concentrated larm at differenllanguage levels, with Ihe resull that the lexl concerned is classified as
'structuralist', 'synchronic', text-immanent approaches, which informs the field of discourse
poetry. The language levels concerned are those of phonology, morphology and syntax. Linguislic
analysis (see below on textlinguistics). phenomena include panern formalion on these Ihree language levels, as well as conscious deviation from
In Collins's 'Structural Approach to the Psalter', 146 semantic abstraction is attempted at established pallerns in order to achieve a parlicular effecl. 155
three levels. 147 The first level is that of 'semantic constants' or 'sememes' -'the recurring Within the text, these poetic conventions have 'segmenting, cohesive and communicative
statements that can be said to constitute the raw material or building blocks of the psalms.' This functions' 156; in the terms of communication theory introduced above, one might then say that
reduction of utterances to 'the common denominator of underlying statements' is achieved by poetic conventions function Relationally and Interpersonally.
analysing 'modes of discourse', a category including narration, reflection, direct address,
2.2, Biblical Hebrew Narrative Syntax
invocation, petition, interrogation etc., and defined by linguistic features such as grammatical
person, tense, mood and vocatives. These 'modes of discourse' are thus analogous to Austin's
2.2.1. Traditional Syntax
'illocutionary acts', Weinrich's 'Sprecherhaltungen' or Longacre's 'text-types',148 and when
[n recent years, the classic traditional studies of Hebrew syntax 157 have been challenged by
works with a much more sophisticated theoretical basis. Three full syntaxes, in particular, by

142Espccially: Barr, 1.. Tile Semalltics of Biblical Language (Oxford: OUP. 1%1); Comparative Philology and the
149Collins, 'Decoding the Psalms', 43.
Text of the Old Testamellt (SCM Press, 19(8).
150Collins, 'Decoding the Psalms', 48-52.
143Snwyer, J.F.A., Semalltics ill Biblical Research: New Method" for Defillillg Hebrew Words for Salvation
151Collins, 'Decoding the Psalms', 52-55.
(Studies in Bihlical Theology Second Series 24; SCM Press, 1972): and sce especially his rndically anti-
152For a good introduction to semiotics in Old Testament studies, see van Wolde, E., Words become Worlds:
elymologising: Sawyer, J.F.A.. 'Types of Prnyer in the Old Testament. Some Semantic Ohservations on Hilpnllel.
Semamic SlIldies of Getlesis /·/1 (Biblical Interpretation Series 6; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1994), 113-48.
Hilhannen, etc.', Semitics 7 (1980) 131-43.
153prinsloo, 'A Comprehcnsive Semiostructural Exegetical Approach'.
144Gibson, A., Biblical Sen/{/lItic Logic: A Prelimillary Allalysis (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 19111).
145Sappnn, R., The Rhetorical·Logical Cla.uificmioll of Semalltic Challges, ET; lifSt puhl. 1983 (BrnunlOn: Merlin 154prinsloo, 'A Comprehcnsive Semiostructural Exegetical Approach',llO.
155prinsloo, 'A Comprehensive Semiostructural Exegetical Approach' ,llO.
Books, 1987).
I56prinsloo, 'A Comprehensive Semiostructural Exegetical Approach',1l2.
146Collins, 'Decoding the Psalms'.
157For example, Konig. E.. Historisch-Comparative Syntax der Hebriiischell Sprache (Leipzig: J.c. Hinrichs'sche
147Collins, 'Decoding Ihe Psalms'. 42.
Buchhandlung. 1897); Gescnills-Kautzsch. Grammatik; Bergstriisser, G.. Hebriii.<che Grammotik, 11. Teil:
148See seclion 2.2.3.2. hclow.
 Modality. Re./'r!rence and Speech AdS ill ｴｨｬｾ P.wlllls IntnJlluctitJ/1

Williams,158 Waltke-O'Connor I59 and Gibson l60 bridge the gap to a wide range of sometimes 2.2.3. Textlinguistics
highly complex work, especially from the field of 'text-linguistics'. Several surveys are available of the wide range of work produced in the 'textlingustics' ,167 or
super-sentential syntax. of Biblical Hebrew in the last thirty years; 168 the present survey is
2.2.2. Richter, Talstra alld Automatic Text Processing
therefore very cursory, concerned to fulfil only the requirements of the present study.
The Munich 'school' of Wolfgang Richter,161 Harald Schweizer,162 Waiter GroB,163 Hubert
Most modern textlinguistic work on Biblical Hebrew deals with the interpretation of the
Irsigler lM and Theodor Seidel. all of whom publish in the ATAT series founded by Richter. has
Hebrew verbal conjugations (qii!al-wayyiqt61 vs. yiq!61-wiJqii.WI) and word order (SVOIVSO)
produced top quality linguistic work, which has suffered from over-formalisation. making it
rather than with other discourse-level features such as the use of personal and demonstrative
inaccessible (or, probably more to the point, unattractive) to most traditional linguists. Their
pronouns and particles. Such study is almost always based on some form of texHype
strictly distributionalist 165 form-to-function methodology has (like that of Chomsky) been
identification.
motivated by an interest in the computerised analysis of texts. Transliteration forms a part of
Two of the most influential books in Hebrew textlinguistics have been Alviero Niccacci's
this task. serving morphemic analysis, 166 though there have also been a number of structural
(formal) Syntax and Robert Longacre's (functional) Joseph.1 69 Both authors refer to having
analyses of extended texts, including Psalms and other poetic texts.
become acquainted, via review articles by Eep Talstra,170 with Wolfgang Schneider's
Eep Talstra and the Werkgroep Informatica at the Free University of Amsterdam naturally
Grammatik. 171 which, in turn, bases its 'Funktionsbestimmung der Tempora' on Harald
(since they are also concerned with computers) share the Munich form-to-function method.
Weinrich's Tempus: Besprochene und erziihlte Welt. The influences can thus be traced as
They concentrate more on the textual level. however, and so overlap more with the equally
follows:
form-based textlinguistics of the Weinrich-Niccacci tradition (as against the functional
Weinrich (1964) -> Schneider (1974) -> Talstra (1978/82) -> Niccacci (1986) -> Longacre (1989)
descriptions of Andersen-Longacre). Ironically in the light of his high-tech applications. Talstra
continues to maintain. against Weinrich-Niccacci, that traditional grammar has much to We will first consider the work of Weinrich and Niccacci, then turning separately (for reasons
contribute. which will become obvious) to Longacre.

2.2.3.1. Weinrich to Niccacci-Form-to-Functioll

Niccacci was the first to take up the full implications of Weinrich's textlinguistic interpretation
of the linguistic category of 'tense'. Weinrich had demonstrated that. in Indo-European
Verlmm (Repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1991; Leipzig, 1929); Blau, J., A Grammar aJ languages (French, German, English 172), tense is not so much a temporal category, with
Biblical Hebrew (Porta Linguarum Orientalium, Neue Serie XlI; Wiesbaden: 01t0 Harrasowitz, 1976); Joiion-
Referential value, as a textual category. with Relational value. In other words. what has always
Muraoka. Grammar.
158Williams. RJ., Hebrew S)'lItax. An Outline (Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1967).
159Waltke--D'Connor, S)',lIax.
I60Gibson, Davidson's S)'rlIax. 1671n America, referred to as 'Discourse Analysis'; more recently, also 'Narrative Syntax', in the sense of 'the
161Most notably: Richter. Grundlagen; Untersuchungen zur Valenz althebraischer Verben (ATAT 23/25; SI. syntax of narratives' (e.g. van Wolde (cd.), Narrative Symax and the Hebrew Bible).
Ottilien: EOS, 1985/86). I68S ee particularly van der Merwe, CH.J.. 'An Overview of Hebrew Narrative Syntax Research', in van Wolde.
162Schweizer. H.. Metaphorische Grammatik: Wege zur Integration "on Grammatik und Textirllerpretation in der E. (cd.). Narrative S)'lItax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of fhe Tilburg Conference 1996 (Lciden: EJ. Brill, 1997)
EXegese (ATAT 15; SI. Ottilien: EOS. 1981). 1-20; Eskhult. M., 'The Old Testament and Text Linguistics', OS 43-44 (1994-95) 93-103; Dawson, D.A., Text-
163Groll, W., 'Das nicht substantivierte Partizip als Pradikat im Relativsatz hcbraischer Prosa', JNSL 4 (1975) 23- Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (JSOTS 177; Sheffield: lS0T Press, 1994).
47: Verl'fo,.m und Funktion wayyiqtolfii,. die Gegenwart? £in Beifrag zur Synuu poetischer althebraischer Texte 169Longacre, R.E., Joseph: A Star)' of Divine Providence. A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of
(ATAT I; SI. Ottilien: EOS. 1976); Die Pendenskonstruktion im Bibli.,chen Hebriiisch: Studie zum althebriiischen Genesis 37 atul39-48 (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1989).
SafZ I (ATAT 27; SI. Ottilien: EOS. 1987). 170Talstra, E., Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. I. Elements of a Theory'. BO 35 (1978) 169-174; 'Text
164lrsigler. H.. £injiihrung in dllS hiblische Hebriiisch. I. Ausge"·iihlte Abschnille der althebriiischen Grammatik Grammar and Hebrew Bible. 11. Syntax and Semantics'. BO 39 (19R2) 26-38.
(ATAT9; SI. Ottilien: EOS, 197R). 171 Schneider, W.. Gramm(l/ik des biblischen Hebriiisch (Munich: Claudius Verlag. 1982); referred to in Niccacci,
165Talstra. E.. 'Text Grammar and Biblical Hebrew: The Viewpoint of Wolfgang Schneider', JOIT 5(4) (1992) Syrllax, 9 and Longacre, R., ·Discourse Perspective on the Hebrew Verb: AfTirmation and Restatement'. in
269-97 (283). Bodine. W.R. (cd.), LinguisticJ and Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake. Ind.: Eisenbrauns. (992) 177 n. I, where he
I66Richtcr. W.. Biblia HebraiclIfranscriplll (8hl/ (ATAT 33: SI. Ottilien: EOS. (991/93), prepared in: Richter, also acknowledges Niecacci.
W .. Transliteration lIlId Tra1l.d:riplir)ll-Objekt- 11l1d merasprachliclte Me/aze;chellsysleme ?ur Wiedergabe 172Weinrich, Tempus. 71. warns against English, however: 'In Englischen hat die Kombination von
twbriiiscber Texte (ATAT 19: St Ottilicn: EOS. 1983). Erzahltempora und genauen Zcitangaben sHirker gefestigt als in anderen Srrachen.·.
26 Modalin. N('/en'!It'(' {l/u} .\'peecll Au.\' i" lhe Psalms IlIfrot!{wtlO1I 27

been known as the 'sequence of tenses' is a more significant factor, belween one senlence and Beriicksiehligung von Zcilen und Zcilpunklen und crkWren dic Verwendung des Presenl tense in der
Zusammcnfassung des tnhalls als gattungs- oder situationsspezitisches Signal dafiir, dall es sich um einen
the next, than actual time reference.
hcspreehenden TexI handelt. 179
Verhal forms should be described nol on Ihe hasis of Iheir lime relerence outsidc Ihe world of leXI [Iensel
nor on Ihe hasis of reference to their mode of aClion (either compleled or conlinuous) laspecl! hut rather as Thus there are two 'Tempus-Gruppen' (a grammatical category), 'besprechende Tempora' and
linguistic signs that guide and determine the mode of communication. 173 'erzahlende Tempora', and these function solely to define the text-types (textual category)
Weinrich begins by showing how the category of grammatical person, 'im ... informations- 'Besprechen' and 'Erziihlen' .180 The 'Signalwert' (see above) of these, argues Weinrich, is one
theoretischen Sinne', effects not only a semantic (Referential), but also a syntactic (Relational) of 'Sprechhaltung' or 'Linguistic Attitude' t81 (a psychological category)-intended to produce
fundion-a 'grobe Vorsortierung del' Welt': in the Addressee a receptive attitude of 'Gespanntheit' or 'Enlspanntheit' respcctively.182 Thus:
Unler dem Gesichlspunkl del' Kommunikalion wird die Weh groh eingeleilt in die Posilionen Spreeher Erzahlende Rede laBI dem Horer Freiheil zur Dislanzierung.
('Sender'), Horer rEmpfiinger') und 'alles uhrige' (Reslkategorie).174 Besprechende Rede engagiert ihn: Sprecher und Horer hahen zu agieren und zu reagieren. 183
[n a linguistic tradition that can be traced back to the Greek grammarian, Apollonius Dyscolus, Discursive texts, such as speech or the exposition to a narrative, tend to use the German
other categories are, by extension from the primacy of the Ist person in communication, also 'Prasens, Perfekt, Futur und Futur 11',184 whilst Narrative tends to use the German 'Priiteritum,
interpreted in terms of deixis, Plusquamperfekt, Konditional und Konditional II'. Similar groupings have been made by
verslanden als die Zcigefunktion derjenigen Spraehelememe, die sich auf den lch-hier-jetzl-Punkt als die Weinrich and Niccacci for other languages: 185
nrigo der personalen. lokalen und temporalen Deixis beziehen. 175
AlTITUDE Discourse Narrative
Thus, after discussing the syntactic functions of person and determination (the definite article),
GernUIII Prasens, Perfekl, Futur lilt Prateritum, Plusquamperfekt, Konditional [Ill
Weinrich establishes the hypothesis: French Presenl, Passe compose, FUlUr [/11 [mparfail, Passe simple. Plus-que-parfail,
Was nun die heiden skizzienen Bcispiele der Person· und Artikcl-Morpheme hetrifll, die hier kurz Passe anlerieur, Condilionnel [Ill
hcsprochen worden sind, so gewinne ich aus ihnen durch Extrapolation die Erwartung, daB es sieh aueh mil lwliall Presente, Passalo prossimo, Futuro [mperfello, Passaw remOlo, Trapassalo, Condizionale
den Tempora, die im TeXlgebraueh die gleiche Obslination Idefined as 'hochgradige Rekurrenzwerte'I76j Ellglish Presenl, Present perfect, Future Imperfect, Simple pasl, Past perfecI, Condilional
wie die synlaktischen Klassen Person und Artikel erkennen lassen, ahnlieh "erhahen durfle und daB man Hebrew x-yiq!61, weqil!al. (x-)qiltal, NC, wayyiq!6l, we-x-flillal
folglich auch die Signalwene des Besprechens und Erzahlens so verstehen muB, daB durch diese Signale Volilive
die Kommunikalionssituation in ciner Weise verandert wird, die fur den Horer hochsl relevam iSl. 177

So Talstra summarises Weinrieh's theory in terms of participant reference:

Some verbal forms refer to the actual silUalion of communication; olhers refer 10 acts or facts outside Ihe
domain shared by speaker and lislener. 178
I79Weinrich, Tempus, 46.
This communication-theoretical background is essential to our understanding of the Referential 180Weinrich, Tempus, 20. Schneider, Gramma/ik, 189 §48.3.3 n. 9, goes so far as 10 say: 'Das Perfekt iSI also
and Relational values of personal reference (ch. 2 below) and verbal modality (ch. 3 below). eigenllich gar kein Tempus, wcil cs gegenuber der grundlegenden Opposition: Erzahlen/Besprechen indifferent
isl.' 11 is just this excessive insistence on syntactic over semanlic function which Talstra criticises in his review
Contrasting the opening paragraph of George Grwell's /984 ('Winston Smith ... slipped articles.
quickly through ... ') and the summary of its contents by the literary critic Abraham Lass 181 So Watson: 'Linguislic attitude: Discourse/Narralive' (Nieeaeci. S)'Il/QX, 19-20) from Niecacci's
'atteggiamento Iinguislieo: commento/narrazione' (Niccaeci, A.. Sill/assi del verbo ebraico nella prosa biblica
('Winston Smith takes time off ... '), Weinrich comments:
c/ossica (Studium Bihlicum Franciseanum Analccla 23: Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press. 1986) 14); Talstra
Was isl hier geschehen? Die wiedergegebenen Ereignisse sind olfenbar die gleiehen. Was laBt sic in dem hegan wilh 'Orienlalion: NarrativeIDiscursive' ('Texl Grammar and Biblical Hebrew', 272), but now prefers
eine" Buch im Prelerit, im anderen Buch aber im Presenl erseheinen? Hat die Zeit solche Wirkung? Eine 'Domain: Narrative/Commenl' (van der Merwe, 'An Overview of Hebrew Narralive Syntax Research'. 15: and the
solche Annahme halle keinen Sinn. Denn die Zeil dieses Romans iSI, das wird deullich genug gesagt, das lille of Talstra's recent book, Talslra. E. (cd.), Narra/i1'e and Comment (FS Schneider; Amsterdam: Societas
Jahr 1'184, also weder Vergangenheit noch Gegenwart. Wir interpretieren daher den Befund ohne Hebraica Amslelodamensis, 1995»: de Regl has modified the concepl slighlly and lermed it 'domain' (Talslra,
'TexI Grammar and Biblical Hebrew'. 281).
182Weinrich. Templ/s, 33. Talslra, 'Text Grammar and Biblical Hehrew·. 283, is highly critical of this
173Talstra. 'TexI Grammar and Bihlieal Hebrew'. 271. 'psychologising' explanation as used by Niccacci and others: 'narrative and disCllrsil (! are not psychological
l

174Weinrich, Teml'lIs. 2'1. concepts abouI Ihe slate or mind of a wriler or speaker hut, rather, labels Ihal deline a set of linguistic markers'.
17SWeinrieh, Templls, 32. IR3Schneider, Grammatik, 183 §48.1.3.1.
I76Weinrich, Teml'lIs. 14. IR4'Fulure It· refers 10 whal is termed in English Ihe 'Future Perfect'.
t77Weinrieh, Templl", 33. IRSWeinrich. Teml'l/s. 18 (German), 39 (French): Niecacci, SinTaHi. 14 *3 (!lalian): SYIlTaX, 19 *3 (English); 20
17RTalslra. 'Text Grammar amI Biblical Hehrcw'. 271. §3 (Hehrew).
2X Modality. Reference and Speech Acl.\' il/ the I'.wJtIIS Introducr;l}f/ 29

As Talstra says. 'most p[sjalms ... are completely discursive'; IK6 the present study is therefore 2.2.3.2. Andersen 10 Longacre-Function-to-Form

concerned primarily with long-form x-yiqt6/, weqii!a/ and the Deontic forms. The 'functionalist' 190 Tagmemics l91 model of Kenneth and Evelyn Pike l92 and Francis

Within these categories, a text is given 'Relief (Watson: 'Emphasis (or highlighting)', Andersen,193 and of Longacre's own earlier work,194 forms the background to Longacre's

'Prominence'; here, 'Salience') through a distinction of background and foreground tenses. .In.\·eph. For this reason, it seems, Longacre has much to add to the textlinguistic model of
Weinrich and Niccacci, and in fact it is this Tagmemics model which has informed Khan's
SALIENCE Discourse Narrative
[Simplc pastl study of extrapositionl 95 and Eskhult's of we(subj)qii!a/ clauses,l% and has been popularised
Foreground [Volitive. Present!
Volitive. x-yiqtot (indic.). (x-)qotal, NC wayyiqtol by David Allan Dawson. 197
Background [Circumstantial/gerund / past pt. I [Imperfect / past perfect I One of the distinctives of Andersen's work is his insistence on 'a grammatically-organized
ｷ･ＭｸｱｩＡ｡Ｏｾ }\·e-x-yiQriJl. weNC weqiital. we(-x-)qiiral. we-x-viqtol. NC
hierarchical structure'. 198 This is reflected in Longacre' s extensi ve 'verb-rank schemes' , that is,
The Discourse foreground is by definition non-past, and that of Narrative, past. The verb verhal speClrums ... from clauses thal are relatively dynamic to clauses that are relativcly static 199

forms have absolute temporal reference in the foreground and 'relative tense' in the [prefer to term these salience-graded 'predication hierarchies',200 and Longacre has developed

background ('Sprechperspektive', Watson: 'Linguistic perspective'): 'Rtickschau' (Watson: them for the text-types or 'genres',201 'Narrative',202 'Predictive',203 'Hortatory'204 and,

'Recovered information (i)'; e.g. the Perfect), 'Null-Stufe' ('Degree zero (0)') and implicity (since it is the inverse of the others) 'Expository'. 205 Thus the category of Salience is

'Vorausschau' ('Anticipated information (.L)').187 further differentiated from foreground/background (WeinrichlNiccacci) to a full spectrum of
predication-types, and the category of Linguistic altitude from Discourse/Narrative to a range
PERSPECfIVE Discourse Narrati\'e

i [present perfect I [past perfect I of text-types. 206 Longacre himself comments:

x-qiital ....e-x-qc/lal (CNC)
o [present / volitivel [simple past / imperfectI
I90Talstra. 'Text Grammar and Biblical Hehrew', 283.
Volitive. (x-)qotal. x-yiqtol (indic.), NC wayyiqtol
191 Longacre, JosefJh. 311-13; Dawson, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. 70-107 .
.L (futurcl [conditional I I92For example. Pike, K.L. and E.G., Grammatical A'lalysis (Dallas: SIL. 1977).
.\·;qtol. final clauses viq!ol 193Andersen. F.1.. The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Petllareuch (JBL Monograph Series XIV; Nashville:
Ahingdon. 1970); The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew (Janua Linguarum. Series Practica 231; The Hague: Mouton &
Combining all three categories and applying them to Biblical Hebrew, Niccacci gives a Co. N.V .. 1974). In the preface to The Hebrew Verbless Clause. Andersen acknowledges a deht to Pike and
linguistic equivalent to Collins's 'rhetorical' characterisation of Hebrew verse cited at the head Longacre.
194Longacre, R.E., An A/latomy of Speech Nations (Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press, 1976); The Grammar af
of this chapter: Discourse (New York, 1983).
in Discourse all three axes of time (present. past and future, or in teXl-linguistic terms: degree zero 0. 195Khan, Studies in Semitic SytllOX, xxxiv. acknowledges a debt to Joseph Grimes, Robert Longacre and Teun van
recovered information i, anticipated information .j. of Linguistic Perspective ... ) can be in the foreground Dijk.
of the Prominence .... In other words. all three axes of time (or the three levels of Linguistic Perspective) 196Eskhult, M., Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in Biblical Hebrew Prose (Acta Universitatis
can comprise a main line of communication .... This provides Discourse with a very much greater variety Upsaliensis. SSU 12; Uppsala. 1990).
of possibilities than is true of Narrative where the fundamental axis (the past) is unavoidably fixed. 188 197Dawson, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. The Pikes. Andersen, Longacre and Dawson are all Bible
translators-field Iinguisls working with the Summer Institute of Linguistics, the academic hranch of Wycliffe
In terms of particular forms, then: Bihle Transtators.
The foreground can he denoted hy the jussive YIQTOL and the other volitional forms (imperative, I 98Talstra, 'Text Grammar and Biblical Hebrew', 283, who comments that 'Schneider. as well as the European
whorlative) and hy the indicative x-YIQTOL ... , (x-)QATAL ... and simple noun clauses: the hackground 'distrihutionalists' in general, could benefit greatly from the introduction of this concept into their theories if one
can he indicated hy simple noun clauses. usually preceded hy WAW (contemporaneity). WAW-x-QATAL were able to develop a model integrating the search for formal text markers with the notion of textual hierarchy.'
(anteriority); recovered information is indicated by QATAL (preceded hy '::l, iV ｾ etc.), anticipated I99Longacre, JosefJh, 81.
200Since nOl all predications involve verhs'
information hy indicative YIQTOL, various kinds of linal clauses etc. 189
201 For an early distinction of dccp*struclurc and surface-structure genres according to the (wo parameters,
'succession' and ·projection'. see Longacre, Anatomy of Speech NoriollS. 199-206.
202Longacre. JosefJh. 81.
IX6Talstra. E.. 'Text Grammar and Hehrew Bihle. I'. 172. 20JLongacre. JosefJh, 107.
2C»Longacre. JosefJh, 121.
187Weinrich. Tempu"" 58.
188Niccacci. Syntax. 170 (ahhreviations resolved). 205 Lungacre, JosefJh. I 11.
206So also Winther-Nielsen. cited in Eskhult, 'The Old Testament amI Text Linguistics'. 95.
I89Niceacci. Syntax. n.
'0 Modality. Rejt'l"eun' uwl SI'('('cll A("(,- in '/'l' 1'.\'01111.\ IlIIrot!H< Imll .11

My work differs from [Sehneider's and Nlccacci'sl mainly in regard to my sharper insistence on the Firstly, in Discourse, the referential lexicon will be restricted to a number of primary
relevance of discourse types to the analysis 207 actants, unlike in narrative, where any number of characters can appear. The primary actants
( acknowledge with Longacre a more complex hierarchy of predications, but like Weinrich- will be those identified as the grammatical Ist and 2nd persons (functionally. Speaker and
Niccacci do not differentiate teXl-lypes beyond Narrative vs. Discourse. Instead of focussing on Addressee), the 1st person being obligatory, of course:
supposedly different meanings of the same verb form in different text-types (so Weinrich- The dialectic character of the prayers is also portrayed Ihrough a high incidence of tirst- and second-person

Niccacci). I consider the extent to which particular meanings (and hence the corresponding verbal forms 21 I

forms) are restricted to particular linguistic situations, for example: The 3rd person slot will be free.
The actual present is naturally limited to direct speech. 208 Secondly, Discourse exhibits a greater tendency towards subject topicalisation:
Thus tense is interpreted according to speech context (Narrative defaulting for past and nUl only the non-narrative character. hut also the very spatial relation of a dialogue puts the participants in
focus. and thus would account for the prior position of the subject. 212
Discourse for non-past)-it is a deictic category.
In other words, Discourse is a highly deictic and pragmatically-fixed 'speaker orientation'.
2.2.3.3. Conclusion Whilst in Narrative, the narrative sequence may be considered topicalised (hence, in the
The scholars reviewed above are still imeracting vigorously. Two major conferences should be foreground, uninterrupted wayyiqtol forms), in Discourse. the participants are topicalised, as is
mentioned. The Seminar on Discourse Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (Summer Institute of in fact required by the focus on the primary actants. The subject is most often topicalised to
Linguistics. Dallas 1993) produced the volume Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics;209 indicate a subject shift. 213
and the Tilburg Conference on Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible (Nederlandse Thirdly, there is the influence of pragmatics/sociolinguistics. The referential value of deictic
Onderzoekschool voor Theologie en Religiewetenschap, Tilburg 1996) produced Narrative terms such as personal pronouns is pragmatically assigned; indeed, there are some
Syntax and the Hebrew Bible. 2lo These conferences highlighted the particularly controversial pragmatically-assigned thematic roles which have no grammatical realisation 214 On the other
emphases of the various scholars, such as Niccacci's nominal clause vs. verbal clause hand, sociolinguistic factors influence the Speaker's choice of certain expletives for redressive
distinction and Joosten's modal yiq!ol, as well as the methodological oppositions, such as action to 'give face' to the Addressee (e.g. -1111'),215 and may extend the scope of Negative,
Niccacci's textlinguistics vs. Joosten's traditional morpho-syntax. An ongoing debate between Interrogative and Imperative to the speech turn 216 Many of these pragmatic/sociolinguistic
Andersen/Longacre-style textlinguistics (represented by Bryan Rocine) and generative syntax features of Discourse correspond to textlinguistic features in Narrative, where personal
(represented by Vincent DeCaen) has been conducted for several years on the email discussion pronouns are assigned according to principles of clausal and argument relations, there is greater
group ('electronic conference') b-hebrew. use of logical expletives, the scope of MTA values is limited to the clause,217 and thus episode-
Most important for the present work is the identification of Psalmic language as having the boundaries are marked by TA.
Speaker Orientation I Linguistic Attitude (Weinrich, Niccacci) or text-type (Longacre)
'Discourse'-a mode of communication with distinctive prominence features (Longacre, 2.3. Conclu.l'ionsfor the Language of the Psalms
Niccaeci) and tense-aspect system (Niccacci). This has important implications for both The above discussions of the language of the Psalter and of some new theoretical approaches
reference and mood. The Mood features of Discourse have been characterised by Niccacci yields the following linguistic characterisation of the Psalter:
(cited above), and particularly involve a distinctive range of (primarily modal) verb forms, such
as long-form yiqtol, short-form yiqtol ('jussive') and the cohortative. The Reference features of
Discourse have not received mueh attention in the literature; three distinctives should be
211 Prinsloo•. A Comprehensive Semiostructural Exegelical Approach', 82.
mentioned. 212Eskhuli. Srttdies ill Verbal Aspecr alld Narraril'e Techniqlle, 39, though see <llso Weinrich, Tempus on the
'Ohst;nation' of the categories Person. Article and Tense.
213See on topicalisation and adversalivity in ch. 2 below.
207 Longacrc. 'Discourse Perspective', 177. 21 4 See ch. 6 on Dircclive-precative cohortatives and 3rd·person jussives.
20Mlooslen, J.. 'The Predicative Participle in Biblical Hehrew·. ZAH 2 (19S9) 128-59 (141). 215Will. .A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Ni.. ",241-42.
20'JBergen. R.D. (cd.). Biblical Hebrew alld Discourse LillgttiIlic.\· (Dallas: SIL. 1994). . . 216· . it is assumed thatlhe (non-)use of ·lIii·' functions at the turn level. rather than the elause leveL': Will. 'A
210 van Wolde. E. (cd.). Narrari,'e Sytl/ax alld rhe Hebrell' Bible: Papers of rile TillJllrg COllferellce 1996 (Biblical Sociolinguistic Analysis of NA". 243.
Interpretaliol\ Series 29: Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997). 21 7 Disrcgarding for the moment the possihilily of MTA·ncutral ·cOTllinuatiun-forms·.
 Intnlductifl"
Modality. ｒ･ｦ ｲ ｬｊｃ ｾ and Speech Acts", the ['.'ialms

Characterisation Markedness most languages, Negation is lexicaLLy rather than lI!orpllOsyntacticaLLy realised, ＲＱｾ whilst

I. Lexis-Nominal Primary ActanlS Marked Interrogative can often be realised in word-order and Imperative is most often
2. LeXiI-Verbal PraisclPray. Save/Destroy Marked morphological. 220
3. Morl'llOlol'Y Modal Marked
The subjunctive mood has already been mentioned. If realis modality is expressed
4. SyJ!1lH Subordination Unmarked
Discourse Marked grammatically primarily with the indicative. irrealis modality is expressed in classical
5. Speaker Orientation
Il. Prominence Backgrounding Marked languages with the imperative, optative and subjunctive. 221 Some types of Negativity exhibit
irrealis (perhaps better, 'non-assertive') features, particularly in some subordinate clause types,
A particular emphasis in the nominal lexis of the Psalter is on the three primary actants,
such as causal (Latin 'non quod' + subjunctive; similarly Spanish 222 ), relative with Negated
referred to in marked forms such as psychophysical substitutes, descriptive terms and unusual
antecedent (Spanish 'Ningun hombre que' + subjunctive 223 ), purpose, fear and conditional
names instead of personal pronouns or deixis; emphases of verbal lexis are the psalm-act itself
clauses, and reported speech. Where there is 'Negative raising' ('i.e. where the negative
(praise and prayer) and the acts of deliverance which are subject-matter of the thanksgiving or
belongs syntactically ... or semantically to the subordinate c1ause'224), the subjunctive is
prayer. Throughout, there is a high level of lexical multiplication and redundancy.
required in Romance and the conditional/subjunctive particle 6bt (+ past) in Russian. 22s
Morphological variation can also been seen, for example in the frequent use of the
Negation further distinguishes between Epistemic and Deontic modality in the English modal
adhortative and long forms of prepositions and pronouns, though it is the frequency of modally
verbs may and must; it has been shown to be related by 'dubativity' to Interrogative226 and is in
marked terms that is most striking.
fact included in some definitions of the concept 'modality' in terms of all the 'non-
It is at the syntactical level that the language of the Psalter may be described as unmarked,
propositional' elements of a sentence. 227 Finally, it has been said that:
especially in its many different uses of asyndetic relations between clauses.
A propositioJl ... is a unit or communication, that is, il affirms, denies, questions or commands
Finally, the Discourse speaker orientation of the Psalter is marked by the characteristic
something 228
personal reference and modal verb forms. The Prominence feature may also be described as
This work deals with the latter three of these.
marked in the sense that there is frequent interchange between fore- and backgrounding.
3.2. Deep-Structure Syntax
3. Interrogative-Negative-Imperative
The relationships between Interrogative, Negative, mood, tense and aspect are considered in
chapter 3 below with reference to generative grammar. Chomsky's earliest presentation of his
After foundational studies on reference (with a view to argument hierarchy) and modality (with
'transformations' of a 'kernel' clause refers to compound sentences, Negative, passive and
consideration of predication hierarchies), I have chosen to treat the three grammatical features
Interrogative/Imperative: 229
of Interrogativity, Negativity and Imperativity. This juxtaposition can be justified from a range
of viewpoints, as there is considerable overlap between these three features at several levels.

219Though some languages have Negative verbs etc.: see e.g. Egyptian and Japanese.
3.1. Modality
2200r. indeed, indicated by the absellce of morphological marking On the bare stem.
221 Subjunctive forms are used volitionally in many European languages. and tbe non-assertive nature of questions
Interrogative and Imperative clauses, together with Declarative clauses, represent the
and subordinate clauses has been argued cross-linguistically to indicate that the latter develop out of the former;
grammatical reflexes of the three basic and universal utterance types-statement, question and Harris. A.C. and Campbell, L.. Historical Syntax in CrosI-Lillguistic Persl'ecti,'e (Cambridge Studies in
mand, corresponding to the typological moods Indicative, Dubitative and VolitionaJ.218 The Linguistics 74; Cambridge: CUP, 1995) 293-308.
222palmer. Mood and Modality. 184.
term 'modal' is used here to distinguish Interrogative, Imperative etc. ('modal' -irrealis) from 223Palmer. Mood and Modalit)'. 219.
Indicative ('non-modal' -realis). 22 4 palmer. Mood alld Modalitv. 145.
ns Palmer. Mood and ｍｯ､｡ｬｩｾＢ 219.
But what does Negativity have to do with these two 'modal' clause types? It is clearly not
226Haegeman. L.. The Sy"tax of Negation (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 75; Cambridge: CUP. 1996).
paradigmatic with them, since all three principal clause types can be Negated. Moreover, in 227 E.g. Lewis lists tense, aspect. Interrogative and Negative; Palmcr. Mood alld Modalitr. 14-15.
228Beekman. J. and Callow. J.. Translatillg the Word of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Zonde;van, 1974) 272.
229 Cbomsky. Sylltactic Structures. 61-84; Lyons. l .. Chofllskr. Rev. edn. (Fomana Modern Masters; Glasgow:
Fontana/Collins. 1977) 118-9.
218Pahner. Mood alld Modllli/I'. 23-33.
34 1l1odaJlly. Hc:ll'rnln' "lid Spel'ch Au.\" in the Psalms 1",n/t/lIe'film

2 4 3. Negative and Interrogative nominal clauses have predicate-subject word order. 234
Kemel: simple Affirmative active Declarative 4. mii has both Interrogative ("what''") and Negative ("not') senses 235

ｂｾ｜Ｇ trm,.gormations: complex Negative passive Interrogati vcllmperati ve. 5. llllerrogative and Negative can be combined in the panicle 'alii (Hebrew haw'; Latin 1I01l1le) 'to draw
close allention to the cenaillly of the following assenion', i.e. Negative Interrogative = emphatic
The second and fourth of these transformations are considered in this study. The first, Affirmative Declarative. The panicle frequently oeeurs together with Imperative (optative perfect,
subordination, has had to be omitted for reasons of space, since it involves discourse-level imperative, jussive. energetic).

considerations (between f;)auses). The third transformation is realised in Hebrew within the
Diachronic study shows many relationships between markers of Negative and Interrogative in
verbal stem morphology (niph'al, pu'al, hoph'al). Generative grammar considers some or all
Semitic languages 236
of these categories under a node termed INFL[ection]. 230
The modal verbs of English itself have a set of properties which bring together the features 4. Corpus and Approach
considered here; Huddleston has coined the acronym NICE:23t
Text criticism tends to purge the more glaring cases of abruptness by viewing some psalms as eompilations
Example Function
of originally separate psalms or by designating panicular verses as secondary additions. This proeedure
Negative I can't go. Deny
simply produces an alternative lext. In this study we are taking the text of Psalms as it is 237
Inversion Musll come? Question
The choice of the canonical book of Psalms as a corpus for syntactic description should not
Code Yes, you must. Repeat
Emphatic Affirmation He will he there. Confirm need defending. 238 Canonical books have often been considered in isolation, whether in terms
of theology (Deuteronomy, Psalms), language in general (Deuteronomy, Ezra-Nehemiah) or
Inversion and Code are characteristic respectively of questions and answers, pragmatically-
syntax in particular (the Joseph narrative and Jonah (Blau), the Joseph narrative (Longacre], the
determined discourse functions_ Emphatic affirmation, like answer, is grammaticalised as a
succession narrative (Richter), Samuel-Kings (DeCaenJ). Neither the thought nor the language
distinct verbal mood in some languages (so Palmer above) and also represents a discourse
of any Old Testament book can be isolated from its historical or canonical context, but both can
function in the pragmatic or Referential (as opposed to Relational) sphere_ Thus these
be extracted for particular study, and this is the purpose of the present work. It should be noted
properties bring together Negation, Interrogation and the English modal verbs.
that what is universally recognised as the most thorough of modern studies of psalmic syntax
Finally, Richter selects the three features considered here as paradigmaticaltransformations:
uses just fourteen assorted texts (O'Connor 239 ). The present work is concerned, then, with a
Die merkmallose Form iSI in versehiedenen Richtungen modil1zierbar. Merkmallose Aussage steht der
merkmalhaflen Frage liNT], merkmallose Affirmation der merkmalhaflen Negation [NEG], merkmalloser closed corpus and a particular range of linguistic phenomena, not with a historical literary
Realis den merkmalhaften Irrealis, Eventualis [IMP] gegenUber. type. 240 It considers the relationship of grammatical form to a distinct type of language,

3.3. Points of Contact

These theoretical principles of language can be seen to be at work in a wide range of points of
234Wright, Grammar. 296.
contact between Interrogative, Negative and Imperative in Semitic languages. To take some 235Compare Greek Iln used as an interrogative particle when a negative answer is expected to the question. OUK
can also have this function, and both Illl and OUK are more often used in rhetorical questions than in real ones
assorted points of contact from the grammar of Arabic:
(Beekmann and Callow, Trallslatillg the Word of God, 236-37).
I. Negative. Interrogative and Affirmative (/0, 'truly') free a clausal subject from 'grammatical intluenee- 236Faber, A., 'The diachronie relationship betwecn negative and interrogative markers in Semitic', in Kaye, A.S.
(accusative marking) by a governing 'verb of the heart', e.g. '[think aid [Nom] is not truthful' 232 (ed.), Semitic Sllldies (2 vols: FS Leslau: Wiesbaden: Ono Harrassowitz, 1991) 411-29.
237Collins. 'Decoding the Psalms', 58 n. 3. For a structuralist rationale. see Collins, 'Decoding the Psalms', 41:
2. Negative, Interrogative and Affirmative nominal clauses ean have an indefinite subject 233
Talstra. 'Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. 1',169; Saussure, F. de_ Cours de linguistique genera le (Paris; Payol.
1916) 3D. Compare also Tsevat, Lallguage of the Biblical Psalms. 12: 'With such a large amount of material as the
basis of the inquiry, characteristic phraseology is as likely to bc omiued as added in the process of textual
230S ec for example Shlonsky. Clause Structure and Word Order in Hebrew and Arabic, 3. referring to IP (the corruption:
'funclionallayer') as comprising Asp(ect). T(ensclP and NegP. 238 See Tsevat. Lallguage of the Biblical Psalms, 1-4: Coli ins. -Dccoding the Psalms', 41.
23t Palmer. Mood olld Modalit)', 25. 90-91. 2390'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure.
232Wright, W.. A Grammar of the Arabic Language. 3rd edn., rev. W. Robertson Smith and MJ. de Goeje 240Compare the corpus of Tsevat, Language of the Biblical Pmlms, 4-5. My linguistic analysis eoutd be skewed
by many factors. not only 45 and the narrative 78 and 105. hut also the cxcessively-formulaic aerostics (9-10: 25:
(Cambridgc: CUP. 1896).51.
2J3Wright. Grammar. 261.
,4; Ill: 112; 119; 145). the refrains and douhlcts (14 = 53: 40:t4-18 = 70: 57:8-12 = 108:2-6: 60:7-14 = 108:7-
 Modality. Reference a"d S/JeecIJ Aos ill the P.w/ms

Chapter 2
The method of the present work is strongly influenced by structuralist grammatical study,
REFERENCE
that is, that which works from form to function:
The real question Ihat should he asked is: "How are the syntactic devices available in a given language put
to work in Ihe actual use of this language"" (Chomsky)24I The term 'Reference' in this chapter refers primarily to two distinct features. The first is the pragmatic
le seul objet de la linguistique, c'cstla vie normale et rlOguliere d'un idiome deja eonstitulO (Saussure)242 function of exophoric 'Reference' to real-world context; we are concerned particularly with participant
O'Connor expresses the rationale for this approach with reference to rhetorical questions: reference, the use of the three grammatical persons 10 refer to the three rhetorical persons (or 'aetants') and
Rhetorical questions are questions in form a"d assertions (or the like) by conversational implication. Both the difference between reference by name. description, pronoun or verbal morphology. The second is the
facts must he treated. The theory of grammar (as of any scientilic inquiry) requires Ihat complex facts be syntactic function of endophoric 'Relation' to linguistic cotext; this covers all kinds of deixis, nominal and
treated in terms of simpler ones. Thus. the interrogative shape of rhelorieal questions must be accounted for adverbial, and requires a discussion of pronoun topicalisation and its most frequent function. adversativity.
hefore their assertive function is described 243 Metonymy and discongruence are two features of participant reference in the Psalms which affect the

More recent Hebrew grammars follow this trend (e,g. Gibson, Waltke-O'Connor),244 referential value and agreement features of referential terms.

Reference is considered first, and in terms specific to the sociolinguistic context of the
I. The Referential Lexicon-Primary Referents
Psalter, with its three primary actants. Much of this discussion. and the whole of the subsequent
chapler on modality is, however, not specific to the Psalter, but to the Linguistic Attitude of
Discourse (as distinct from Narrative). The lalter chapter therefore makes extensive use of I.i. The implications of Text- Type identification

stretches of Discourse from other parts of the Old Testament in order to establish a clear view The text-type Discourse was shown above to involve a restricted referential lexicon, subject
of the verbal system. The results of these two chapters are then used in the analysis of topicalisation and the influence of pragmatics/sociolinguistics.' For the Psalter, in particular,
Interrogative, Negative and Imperative sentences in chapters 4-6. After consideration of the the grammatical 1st person is by definition always the Psalmist except in reported direct
basic morphemes and structures concerned with that sentence type, we look at the range of speech, especially what are usually termed priestly 'oracles' (i.e. the voice of God, e.g. 50). The
rhetorical functions which can be achieved pragmatically. Frequently, we see how one 2nd person is usually God, but not always:
grammatical form may be interchangeable with another; this is the rhetorical figure of Direct address. This is obviously the most frequent mode of discourse and Ihe address is made chielly to
God. but it may be to others such as the king (Pss. 20, 25) or the wicked (Ps. 52)2
heterosis245 or enallage 246 (e.g. Interrogative l'o:> '0 ｾ Negative l'o:> r N). We thus
The 3rd person in the Psalter is usually the Enemy/-ies_ This is the natural result of a strong
attempt to bridge the gap driven by Western Latin-based models of grammar between the-in
moral dualism (good/evil) intersecting with a certain social dualism (master/servant),
Arabic models, integrated-fields of grammar, rhetoric and poetics,247 as well as accounting in
rendering:
part for a much wider tendency towards form-function 'skewing' as attested to by the titles of
some recent form-critical works on the Psalms, such as Frost's' Asseveration by Thanksgiving' Good Evil
Mas/er GOD Idols
and Fuchs's Die Klage als Gebe1.. 248
t t
Servant PSALMIST ENEMY
e community E Enemies
14), Ihe many imperatives addressed to God in 119. the singular imperatives addressed 10 the community in the
'wisdom Psalms' and 'Songs of Ascent' and the plural imperative calls 10 praise in the 'Hallelujah' Psalms. Since the Psalmist's world thus consists primarily of a horizontal plane in which he interacts
241Chomsky, SYlltactic SlfIlcwres. 93. with the Enemy. and a vertical plane in which he interacts with God, the language of Psalms
242Saussu/e, Cours, 105.
(and of prayer in general) is concerned with these two relationships and three actants,
2430'Connor. Hebrew Vene Structltre, 12.
24411lOUgh compare Andersen, Selltel/Ce, 35.
245Waltke-O'Connor. Syll/a:c. 572 §34.4e.
246'die Ersetzung einer Wortart, einer Konjugationsform odcr eines Kasus durch eine andere Wortart,
Konjugalionsform oder Kasus': Biihlmann, W. and 5cherer. K.. Srilfigure" der Bibel: eill kleilles
NlIchsc1rlage werk (Biblisehe Beitrage 10: Fribourg: Schweizerisches Kalholisches Bibelwerk. 1973) 74.
ICh. I, section 2.2.3.3.
247 van der Merwe. 'Overview', I.
2Collins. 'DeCoding the Psalms', 43. It is because of these 'others' that I reject Tsevat's definition of a Psalm as
248 Frost, S., .Asseveration by Thanksgiving'. VT 8 (195X) 3XO-<}(): FlIChs, 0 .. Die Klage als GelJet: eille
'man's address to God in metrical rorm'; Tsevat, Lallguage of the Biblical Psatms, 4).
rl",ologische Ilesimlllllg illlI Beis"iel des Pmlrll.' 22 (Miinchcn: KiiscJ-Vcrlag. 1982).
 l<eIl'rellce
38 Modality. Referellce (/1It! Sl'e,'ch Acts ill the Psalms

The largest set of such words is terms for the Enemy (Cl'U, Cl'OV, Cl'11V', T:3'U(, ＧＺＳ ｾＩＬ
1.2. The Referential Triangle and its Place in Rhetorical Analysis
though it also occurs with ｃｬＧ［Ｌ ｾ referring to 'other gods'8 It is important that ｔＺＳＢｾ and
Die Klage ;', den Psalmell ist dreigliedrig. Sie ist nach den drei Subjckten gegliedert: Gott-der
'::;l' ｾ are treated identically here-in our study, too, they will both fill the rhetorical 3rd-person
Klagende-die Feinde]
. there arc three elements which occur with such regularity that they can be taken as cardinal points slot, since they have the same referent and are only specified with respect to plane of relation
4
around which all the statements hinge. They arc: the protagonist. the opposition and God. (represented by the sides of the rhetorical triangle).
It has been recorded as a con vention of the first group of psalms that there are three main actants or groups
S Secondly, relationship between God and the Enemy is essentially one-way-the Enemy
of actants. to wit the suppliant, Yhwh and the wicked, who arc represented as enemies of the suppliant.
himself 'forgets God' (9: 17; 14//53; 50:22; 119: 139), whilst God punishes the Enemy,
The three primary actants in the language of the Psalms are represented here by the points of a
avenging his servants.
triangle within a category of 'rhetorical person'. Of course, not all psalms have a Ist person,
Thirdly, whilst the Enemy is impactcd by the linguistic force of speech acts such as curses
some being purely liturgical (15; 24; 134), hymnic (113), sapiential (I, 112) or narrative (the
on the horizontal level, he also receives the literal force of God's intervention on the vertical
body of 78; 105); other characters also appear-the community of Israel, idols etc. 6 However,
level.9 This dual origin of the effective force of a curse-from the Speaker and then the source,
the relational triangle will prove to be a useful heuristic tool.
God-is analogous to the linguistic fact that the subject of a (1st-person) request cohortative
GOD
(e.g. Ｌｾｬ［ＧＭＳＺｖ 'may I not be put to shame' 31 :2) or a 3rd-person jussive (e.g. ,';l!:l', 'may
(2nd person)
they fall' 5: 11) is not the source of the action. The thematic role of the source is here termed
'Causer', to indicate its relation to causative valency relations. 10 The rhetorical function of such
forms may be termed 'causativum divinum' --deliberate avoidance of reference to God.

1.3. Reference 10 Rhetorical Person

PSALMIST ENEMY
The three unireferential semantic sets referred to here as 'rhetorical person' can be referred to
(1st person) (3rd person)
in:
The God-Enemy axis of this triangle has been added here-it was not present in the above I. any of the three grammatical persons,

moral and social dualism matrix. It therefore has three distinctive properties: 2. singular or plural number,
3. subject, object, prepositionally-governed or construct position, and
Firstly, God and the Enemy do not share anyone feature (either good/evil or
4. nominal or pronominal/orm.
master/servant). The contrast is highlighted by the distinctive pronunciation tradition of the
However, as we have seen, their prototypical or 'iconic' values correspond to those of 1st, 2nd
poetic books, as reflected in the Massoretic Text's placing of paseq euphemisticum
and 3rd grammatical person. They govern other syntagms at the formal level (e.g. plural
before or after the Divine Name lor other terms for God-o';"I'7N, 'l'N, ;"I'''N, even the pronoun ;"Il"\N],
to prevent its being joined, in the reading, to a word, which-in the opinion of the aceentuators-it was not imperatives are not addressed to God) and at the functional level (e,g. calls of praise are not
seemly,OIO;"I ,,::l:l 0'100, to bring into contact with it. 7 addressed to the Enemy).
'Rhetorical Person' is, then, the place of the referent in the moral/political/social world of
the Psalms. God stands appropriately at the head since he is the Judge whom the Psalms call to
'end the violence of the wicked (Cl' 11 1lI,) and establish the righteous (v' ＬｾＩＧ 7:9. His just
judgement and siding with the righteous are the prerequisites for prayers of lament and petition.
3Westennann, Lob and Klage, 128.
4Collins, 'Decoding the Psalms', 45.
Sprinsloo, .A Comprehensive Semiostructural Exegetical Approach', 82.
8 Also with (usually following) certain verbs of condemning (NllO. ::lV il, l'Nl. l'l"\l, 'lin, nJl) even when God is
6The placing of the community with the Psalmist is not ideal, since it results in equating self-exhortations with
grammatical subject, O'::li indicating 'a plurality' and even Pl." 'as conveying a strongly anthropomorphic idea';
exhortations addressed to the community, which sometimes appear very similar to those addressed to the Enemies.
Wiekes, Treatise, 97.
On the other hand. it is valuable in removing thc distinction between, for example, individual and communal
9Compare the very useful discussion of modern-day blessings in Bruder, K.A., 'A pragmatics for human
laments.
relationship with the divine: An examination of the monastic hlessing sequence', JoP 29 (1998) 463-91 (471-72).
7Wickes. W.. A Treatise 011 the Accentuation of the three so·called Poetical Books of the Old Tesrametll. Psalms.
10See ch. 6. section 1.2 below.
Prorerbs. 'Uld Job (Oxford: C1arendon Press, 1881) <:)7.
40 Modality. Ne/i!rel/l't' and Speech Acts ill 'hi' Psalms 41

Considering the Temple-based cultic 'Sitz im Leben' of at least most of the Psalms, one Thus names have the highest referential value, in that their referents are absolute, being
might compare these three poles with three stages in a Priestly 'graded holiness': 1I lexically determined. It is for this reason that the name of God is most often used (especially in
the lament Psalms), reflecting the psalmist's concern, in a polytheistic world, to ensure correct
0' TV"v TV"v 'mll;,tl ｾｏｴｬ

Holy of holies profane/clean unclean addressing of the message to the Addressee, lest it be lost in transmission and received by some
sanctuary Temple courts outside other deity.17 This is one aspect of what might be considered overspecification, as against the
God Israel nations
frequent apparent underspecification in other parts of Psalms. 18 Descriptions, and then
The 1st person (clean) is the Psalmist, ＧＩｾＬ ＧｔｖｾＩＬ 'I'n', ''',:::l:J, --n,12 who is :::l:::l"-':::l, pronouns, are less referential, their referents being determined by context or cotext. Verbal
v' .,:S, ete. Sometimes, reference is made to the faithful community, though this cannot be morphology has the lowest referential value, being specified purely pragmatically by reference
equated for our purposes with the :::l'-";'v, which usually serves simply as the Addressees of to real-world context or textually by relation to Psalm cotext. It has the advantage of lending
the Psalmist's testimony to God's faithfulness. more 'cohesion"9 to a text and not interrupting its flow.
The 2nd person (holy) is God alone. The Divine Name ;'1;" predominates in books I and Rhetorical force is the inverse of referentiality. That is, a name, for example, IS more
lIIB- V (Psalter Y), with 0' ［ＬＮ ｾ in book II and HIA (Psalter E); the 'seam' in book HI is the referential but less rhetorically forceful than a pronoun.
evenly balanced Psalm 84 (seven occurrences of both Y and E). Hence the differences between Name -> Description -> Pronoun -> Verbal Morphology
some parallel passages: 13 R e f e r e n t i a L i t y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Rhetorical Force

14 [Yj predominantly ;'1;" 11 53 [E) exclusively 0' ;"N In pragmatic terms, a name or description in fact has no rhetorical force, since, though
40:14-18 [YI ;'1;,'I'J.,N 11 70 [El O';'''N 14
identifying the referent, it does not identify the Addressee within the clause. For example, with
108:2-6 [E d5 1 ;'1;" 11 57:8-12 [E] 'J"N
1)';,':>N ;'1;" 11 I Chr 16:34-36 [Y=E) ｬ ｾｔｖＧ Ｇ［Ｌ Ｚ＾ｾ
a 3rd-person verb, a name may function as subject or vocative: 2o
106:1.47-48 [Yl
l'OTZ1' ;";", Thc LORD will protect you' 121:7
The 3rd person (unclean) is the Enemy, the ＺｬＧｈｾＬ 1:S, ,,:S, "11 'o'j?o, 0""';', the
'TZ1':::l' ;";", 'LORD, may they be put to shame"
O'l1TV, who practice ｮｾｴｬ ［ also the 0'1), 0'011.
This shows that it has no value in specifying the Addressee. Rhetorical force in participant
Participants can be referred to by a name, description, pronoun or verbal morphology: 16
reference is achieved by specifying the participants in relation to the Speaker; for this purpose,
Name Description Pronoun Verbal morphology
verbal morphology is very powerful.
(Proper Noun) (Common Norlll) (Free Pronoun) (Bound Pronoun)
qii!al yiqtol There are thus two types of prominence against which the features of grammatical and
1. ＩＧｖｔｉｾＧＨ l"::ll1 1JnJN l'lN 1J-I'n- -J/-N rhetorical person are set:
2. in;," ｯＧ［Ｌ Ｚ＾ｾ ilnN on-/J:l- -n
0;' I N1;' 1-/0 -ni' 1. Argument hierarchy (function): Subject-Direct Object-Indirect Object-Prepositional Object etc.
3. 1:3/ ::l'1N
2. Rhetorical force (lexical form): Verbal Morphology-Pronoun-Description-Name
These various forms of participant reference lie on a continuum of referentiality:
1.4. Form-critical locus
Name -> Description -> Pronoun -> Verbal Morphology
Westermann has taught us to see psalmic language as riding on a sliding scale between praise

11 Jenson. P.P.. Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (JSOTS 106; Sheffield: JSOT and lament, referring to
Press. 1992).
12See below on metonymy.
130ther parallel passages which show no particular tendencies are: 181Y/Ejl12 Sam 22 [Y/El (one changc in the
latter to Y);60:7-14 [E]11108:7-14 [El; 105:1-15 [YIIII Chr 16:&-22 [Yj;')6IYjlll Chr 16:23-33. 17Aejmelaeus, The Traditional Prayer, 56.
14But compare 40: 18b ｾ＾ＺＬ［Ｇ with 70:6b ;'1;'" 18See van der Merwe's comments on the importance of this for narrative syntax; van der Merwe. 'Overview'. 6.
15Togelher with 90, these are the two cxceptions 10 Ihe distribution as prcsented here. 19Halliday and Hasan, Cohesion.
160r cven zero anaphora. Not all of these options occur in the Psalter. Sce Giv6n's Iconicity Principle: 'The more 20Interestingly, there are no cxamples in the Psalter of a vocative immediately preceding a 3rd-person jussive,
disruptive. surprising, discontinuous or hard to process a topic is. the more coding material must be assigned to perhaps because of the ambiguity. See ch. 3 below on word order and the interpretation of yiqtol-x vs. x-yiq!ol. and
il.': Summcr Institute of Linguistics (cd.). Field Linxuisr;o' 199R Grammar (SIL. 1998) 131. ch. 6, section 5.1. on the jussive.
 4.1
42 Mod"lit,·. /(eji.'rl'IICC "lid Speech Acts ill che Psalms

of shifting Praise and

die den ganzen Psalter bcslimrnende polare Enlsprechung von Klage
und Lob 21 patterns of shift in personal referent, which go together with patterns
tive. Imperati ve), to
would like to characte rise the entire dynamic of the psalms as riding
on two interacti ng Lament on the gramma tical base of clause-ty pes (Declara tive, Interroga
and lament 22 and the make up the rhetorical anistry of the psalms.
planes/d imensio ns-West ermann' s bipolar attittulin al plane of praise
tripolar relerential plane of God, Psalmist and Enemy.
2. Deixis
GOD

(2nd person)
2.1. Definition

PRAISE ＼ Ｍ Ｍ Ｍ ｚ Ｋ Ｍ ｾ ｜ Ｍ Ｍ Ｍ Ｍ ＾
/\ LAMENT
'Deixis' is a functional term for a group of words which have little
conlent, but function beyond the limits of the sentence . Richter
or no inherem semantic
gives a useful definitio n of
pronominal deixis:
Sail hervorzuh eben und mil dem
PSALMIS T ENEMY Die Deixis dienl dazu, das im Nomen Ausgedrii ekle in einem
Satzen (Relalion) oder auBerhalb von
( I st person) (3rd person) Bezeichne ten auBerhalb des Satzes zu verbinden. sei cs in weiteren
Satzen (Referenz); hier verweisl sie auf Sachverha lte. 23
matrix:
These. two planes intersect completely to present a response-referent It has already been noted in chapter I above how referential
(pragma tically-d efined) deixis is
dei xis is most characteristic
Praise Lament
restricted to Discourse, whilst relational (textlinguistically-defined)
I. Psalmist nl:llZll(. ;'';>')1( of Narrative.
( am a worm. not a man
I will rcjoice' I will he happy! Many kinds of clausal constituents have deictic terms in Hebrew:
Tnl(
2. Cod Nominal Personal pronoun (dislal) I/Q;'-YClJ"1I(-,)n)x I X' ;,/1(';' -!"lXmnX -')1(
I will acknowled ge you' Why have you forgotlen mc')
alive pronoun (proximal) ;'':>1( I n'7-;'7
Demonstr
3. Ellem.'" 'n':> ＨｬＧｮＺ＾ ＭｸＧｾ n';:);, [., lZII( ) I , I
Relati ve pronoun
May you strike all my enemies on lhe chcek' How my encmies have multiplicd ' Interrogative ;'0 1'1:1 1;'1-'1(

the Psalms; we are Adjectival Demonstrative adjective (distal) 110;,;, I X';,;,/I(' ;';'
This matrix is useful in tracing the shift of rhetorica l person within Demonslr ative adjective (proximal) ;'':>1(;' 1,.,,1;'-;'1 ;'
particularly interested in lines such as: Inlerrogalive ;'0 I ;'0':> I ［Ｇｏｾ I ;'1:1;:)T I(
I
:Ip-'onr, l ;';;'/'(1 Q';J"}':> '!"l':;:J n!:lil:l:>. 71:7 Verhal Adverbial p, ;,:>
I have becn like a portenllO many. bUI you arc my slrong refuge. (NRSV) Article Cl
Interrogali vc particle
:nr,JlZI' :'l':lll) 'lZI.:J'1
Lellhem curse, but you will bless. Lel my assailanls he put 10 shame;
,oi? ｬＮＬｾｮ
may your servanl he glad. (NRSV)
;'D/'(' ';'1;l;,-,';>':>j?' 109:28 Clausal

ions and adverbs) and

"
A range of other terms, known as 'Discour se Deixis' (e.g. many conjunct
:T:"1'i'!:l ＧｮｾＮｲｬＡＭｉＨＧ［＾ ＧｩｾＱ ｙＢｾＺ［ｬ ')'?:> Dl,lO:>. 119:87
the above are those most
your precepls. (NRSV) 'Social Deixis' (e.g. honorifi cs) could be added to this list,24 but
They have almost madc an end of me on carth; but J have nol forsaken on (Richter 's 'Nah-' and
l Ist person to Praise importan t for the present discussio n. The 'distal/p roximal' distincti
The first of these switches from Lament focussing on the rhetorica l texture of a Psalm.
of 109:28 shifts from Lament 'Fern-D eixis') is also importan t, since it contribu tes to the rhetorica
focussing on the 2nd person. Similarly, each of the parallel cola s in chapter 4 below.
(I st person) to Praise (I st Indicative pronouns are consider ed here, and Interrogative pronoun
(3rd person) to Praise (2nd person); and 119:87 shifts from Lament Their Referential values
debatabl e of course (e.g. Personal pronouns are distinguished by person, number and gender.
person). The assignment of cola to particular rhetorical persons is
in showing up recurrent can be defined in pragmatic terms as follows:25
119:87 as Ist person), though this kind of analysis may prove useful

of poles of 'prayer' and/or 'wisdom'

2lWesterm ann, Lob lIlId Klllge, 6. Onc might argue for lhe addilion 80-83 on conlexl and cotexl.
evil aClion is spoken of often with only minor reference to 23Richter. Crl/nd/age n 1,81. Sce also Loprieno. Allcielll Egyptian.
(rhetorically neulral-a genre in which rightcous and
24 Levinson. Pragmarin ·. 54-96.
the sclf or God', personal inlCresls).
nally-acccpled lerm.
l Phrase. clausal category of Illood. 25The lcrm 'reprcsent ative' is wined here in lhe abscnce of a conventio
22Vcrh-Phmse. proposilional catcgorics. unrclaled IOlhe Inllccliona
 Modality. Refl'rent'e alld Speech Acts ill rhe Psalm.\'
Hlfl'renc'(' 45
44

In the Semitic, and even in many non-Semitic, languages such as in Greek and Latin, for example, the third
PersOtJ Referell1ial value
persons of the personal pronoun arc nol taken from the same paradigm as that of the first and second
1st sg. Speaker (occasionally, also Speakcrs, e.g. 129)
persons JO
2nd sg. Addressee (occasionally, also Addressee.', e.g. Dcut passim)

3rd sg. Animate or inanimate communication·cxtcrnal referenl Generalisations have also been made cross-linguistically:
I st pI. Speakers (exclusive), or First and second person pronouns cannot be impersonal. they are intrinsically fully referenlial. There arc no
Speaker+Addressee (inclusive), or first or second person expletives, only "third" person expletives. Benveniste makes the typological claim
Speaker(s)+other ('represenlative') that in many languages "the 'third person' is not a 'person'; it is really the verbal fonn whose function is to

Addressees (exclusive), or express the lIon-person,,31

2nd pI.
Addressee + other communication-cxternal referenl(s) ('represenlalive') A further distinction exists between Speaker and Addressee themselves. This distinction is
3rd pI. Animate or inanimate communication+cxtcrnal referents
initially evident in morphology in the lack of gender-marking in the Ist-person-this
The distinctions between inclusive and exclusive 1st and 2nd person plurals are important in grammatical person is bound to the (self-defining) function 'Speaker'. The distinction is
the analysis of, for example, plural directive cohortatives (e.g. ;';I':>J, 'Let us go'), where they expressed formally in the Hebrew pronouns in the 2nd-person morpheme -1-, which is also
distinguish true directives (e.g. 'They said, "Let us go .. .''') from hortatives (e.g. 'He said to his present in yiq{ol and qatal morphology.
brother, "Let us go .. ,"'). They may also aid our understanding of difficult texts such as Demonstrative pronouns are formed from the two 'Grundmorpheme', -h (distal) and -I/;,':>N
ＺＢ ｾ ｬ 0.:;'''';:1 "'J •.ｴＡｉｾｊＧＷ ＧＺＢｬｲＮ ｾＯｩ Ｑ TN, 'n'o':! ;"1;,;"1';;1 11:1 '"J ;? (proximal).32 The' I, H «za?), ;, t «zi?) system suggests case-marking within the proximal
I have put my hope in the LORD, how can you say to my soul, 'Flee to your mounlain like a hird!' (ALW) system,33,t being originally a relative pronoun. 34
The qare and many later commentators amend ,-nJ to • iU, though "'!:l:! 0;1...,;' 'iU is Finally, in addition to the use of the -k- morpheme in 2nd-person enclitic personal pronouns,
perhaps best understood as 'representative' 2nd-person plural, that is a common battle taunt, it occurs in Interrogative TN, in the adverbial p and ;';1, emphatic and restrictive lN/pN
addressed to an army including the Psalmisl. 26 and emphatic and conjunctive';I. h- also occurs as the article and Interrogative particle, as well
An important functional distinction exists between the Inrerlocutive persons (Speaker and as in ;'J;', 1;' and ［Ｌｾ Ｎ Other deictic terms in Hebrew include the complementary adverbs of
Addressee) and the Delocutive (Other), and it may be said that there is a 'hierarchy of salience' place, ;'!:l, 'where?', and cv, 'there'.
from the 1st person, 10 2nd to 3rd persons 27 This distinction may be seen in the way that the
referents of 1st and 2nd-person pronouns are defined in the above table Referentially by the 2,2. Pronominal Deixis and Adversariviry

speech situation, whilst 3rd-person pronouns also have the possibility of being Relationally
2,2.1, Topicalisation
defined-they may relate back to an earlier description of the Enemy, for example. The
Here, the function of topicalisation is dealt with; the formal question of what is the unmarked
distinction is expressed formally in the Hebrew pronominal system by use of the proximal
word order for verbal clauses is treated in chapter 3 below,
morpheme ·'n- ('JmN-'[;I]JN, 1/0rlN-rlN/;, rl N) as against the distal 'deiktische[s]
Grundmorphem' h- (]!O;'_N';,/N,;,);28 similarly, among the enclitic personal pronouns, the In Hebrew, if a VSO paradigm for clause constituents is held to, SVO word order must be

proximal mopheme -k- marks the 2nd person,29 whilst the distal -h- marks 3rd person, This accounted for in terms of either stylistics (e.g, constituent weight), syntax above the clause
(textlinguistics) or pragmatics (topicalisation).
phenomenon has been noted in several languages;

26S ee discussion below, ch. 3. section 3.1.

30Muller. 'Ergative Constructions', 270.
27Terms from Loprieno, Ancient Egrptian. 105-8. Sec also Weinrich, Tempus, 29.
31 Shlonsky, Clause Structure and Word Order ill Hebrew alld Arabic. 123. Demonstrated also with l' ｾ (pp. 140-
28Riehter, Grundlagen I, 82-4. Richter notes Ihat 'JnJN is at most secondarily assimilated 10 this pallem. Note
also the frequent cases where ｾＧ［Ｂｉ is interpreted as related 10 the verb ;"1';"1, e.g. 102:28 Nl;"1-;"IjlN' Sappan, 41) and independent pronouns versus qaral-form suftixes (pp. 215).
32See also the combined forms 1'7;"1, ;"11'7;"1 and '1'7;"1; Richter, Gnmdlagell I. 87.
Syntax of Biblical Poerry, XVI-XVII.
33Riehter, Grulldlagen I, 87.
29Egyptian opposes 1st-person k 2nd- anu 3rd-person t in independent pronouns and the
to
34'the true relative pronoun' (Williams, SYlltax, 27 § 129); 'das alteste RPron' (Richter, Grlllullagell 1,88 n. 247);
stativelpseudopanieiple endings: Loprieno, Ancient Egyptiall, 65.Muller, H.-P.. 'Ergative Constructions in Early
ｾｉｩ is 'probably a vernacular clement' (Seow, CL., 'Linguistic Evidence and the Daling 01 Qohelct', JBL 115
Scmitie Languages', JNES 54 (1995) 261·71 (269) prescnts the use of -k- in the 2nd-person of the suffix
(1996) 643-66 (662)). Compare Shlonsky, Clause Structure alld Word Order in Hebrew alld Arabic, 132-33.
,onjugation in some Semitic languages as evidence for crgativity.
46 Modalill'. Reference and Speech Acts in the Psalllls
47

C/au.\·e constituents in Hebrew tend to be 'light', three-term construct phrases being quite
w,J"alld) or time adverbial (W;1'lllld). Typically, this involves 'adversative wow'. This is the
rare and relative clauses being easily reduced. Nevertheless, this factor has not received
case for example in the axis of Psalm 52, otherwise so similar to Psalm I:
sufficient consideration amongst scholars.
... O'!1':>1oI n'.:J.:J ｈ ｾ Ｚ ｜ ｮ Ｇ ｰ ')/(1, 52:10
Syn/{lx above the clause has become strongly argued as the principal reason for certain kinds But [ am like a green olive tree in the house of God.... (NRSV)
of subject topicalisation 35 Schneider and Niccacci have seen discourse function in (we)-
2.2.3. Adversative waw and Pronoun
subject-qa!al clauses within a chain of narrative wayyiq!6l forms, and Eskhult has linked this
with an aspectual study, On the other hand, the distinctions between x-yiq!6l and yiq!6/-x, and As Tsevat notes,43 wa,'a nl and wa"anahnu often occur in the Psalms as subject of a verbal

between hu' q6til and q6telhu' have been shown by Niccacci and Joosten respectively to be clause; this is also true of w;1"alla and, less frequently, of other personal pronouns. 44 It is much

not textlinguistic but semantic (modality and aspect respectively).36 rarer outside the Psalter and can be shown in most cases to be rhetorically significant in terms

Topicalisation is used here to refer to the pragmatically-significant fronting of any element of establishing contrast along one of the three axes of the rhetorical triangle. 10/30 occurrences

of a clause. Its most frequent function in the Psalms is for contrast, or 'adversativity'. of wll"(lnl in the Psalms are translated in the NIV as 'bur 1', and 12/21 occurrences of W;1'alld as
'but you'. This is a substantially higher proportion of adversative wows than is seen in the Old
2.2.2. Adversativity
Testament as a whole and supports the view that the syntactic markedness of a pronominal
Adversativity37 is marked or unmarked shift in referent, particularly between verbal arguments subject can have an inherently contrastive function. Between the three poles, there are six
of the same type (e.g. subject-subject or locativc-Iocative). Usually there will be some inherent logical relationships of contrast, five of which are attested in the Psalter using adversative
opposition already present in the contrasted elements, such as rhetorical person or grammatical wow. 45

person, or there will be a common element in the two contrasted predications. This functions at
GOD
a number of levels, from a higher textual level, down to the relation of arguments between
ｾ ｾ
clauses, down further to the relation of arguments within a clause. Shifts in subject-topic GOD -> PSALMIST GOD-> ENEMY
between clauses are an important feature of the Psalter. .:J.:J':> '''.:J':> 0';'':>101 ... .:J'tl llol (not attested)
Psalm 1 hinges on the axis ... O'VTO"l;'l p-N'7 (v. 4), the change of rhetorical person (73:t-2) '':>n '10) 0110::1 ')1011
Truly God is good ... to those who are pure in heart.
(TO'IoC;'l [= j?' ':f, v. 6]1 O'VTO.,) distinguishing two distinct parts of a psalm in a
But as for me. mv feet had almost stumbled
Deuteronomy-style contrast of blessing and curse. 38 Though similar contrasts are made of
PSALMIST -> GOD
comment in vv. 1-2 ( ... ON '::J ..• N'7), we are concerned here only with shift in ropic. 39 ENEMY-> GOD
;'1;"" 'l1TZ1!) '':>11 :"1"101 'n"lOIol
•.. O;"!).:J 1111'.:J' ;,);,
Adversativily can be marked in a variety of ways, including verbal forms (such as wllyyiQ!6/ (32:5) 'nloltln 1111 nlol ｾ J :"InN' (59:8-9) 10':>-i'nTZ1n ;'1;" :"Inlol1
marking 'actions, events, or states, which are to be regarded as the temporal or logical sequel of I said. "I wi 11 confess my transgressions to the There they are. bellOWing with their mouths ...
actions, events, or states mentioned immediately before'40) and particles ("ap,41 k;42 and, after a LORD," and vou forpave the 2uilt of mv sin. But vou lau2h at them. 0 LORD.

Negative clause, typically kI ·'im). Here, however, we are primarily concerned with purely
71 I':
syntactical markers of adversativity-fronting of a constituent such as a pronoun (wa"anf, PSALMIST ENEMY
PSALMIST -> ENEMY ENEMY -> PSALMIST
T.,nlol 'V!)) :"Iv.:J, ,nTZ1 :"1101':>0 0)'0"
:l5But compare 100sten's strong refutal; loosten. 'The Iodicative System'. (63:9-10) f11'nnn.:J 1101.:J' .•. :"1O;" (26:10·11) l':>loI 'on.:J ')1011
:l6Sec ch. J below. My soul clings to you. ' .. whose right hands arc full of bribes.
37Williams. Sytl/ax. 71 § 432; Waltke--{)·Connor.Sytl/G.X. 129 §8.3h. Also often referred to as ·Convcrsativity·.
But those who." shall 20 down into the depths J But as for me, I walk in m ime Tit
38The contrast is heightened in LXX's repeated mix Ｎ［＼ｷｾｵｯ
39( also do nol consider preposilionally-govemed topics such as those in 115: I ".:J::I 1n lOTZ1':>-'::1 1)':> 101':>.
40Gesenius-Kaul7..5ch. 3311 §llla. cited in Annuri. A., 'The Hebrew Verb in Poetic Context: Psalm 44'. Presented
at the University of Leiden (19lJ4) 15. n. 48, 43Tsevat. Language of the Biblical Psalms. 25 no. 163,
41 Annuri. 'Psalm 44'. Ill. 44Loprieno. Arrcierrt Egyptian, I 12.
HWhen preceded by a Negative clause. ki usually gains adversative Il>rce; Annuri. 'Psalm 44'. 15. 22. 45Translations are from the NRSV.
4X Modali!.'. Rl1ereflce and Speech ACH ;n ,IJi' P.w/nu Referellce 4\1

This presentation shows that adversative wa·'ani, wa'atla and wiJhbnma functions throughout wa·'ani tends to introduce stative clause types (e.g. nominal clauses) in contrast with the modal
the rhetorical world of the Psalms to establish contrasts between the three primary aclants. In verbal character of preceding imprecations against the Enemy.
fact, both WG··ani and waeallii occur in Psalm 59 as macrostructural devices, establishing The most frequent function of the term wa'ani itself is contrast in both topic and comment
contrasts between the Enemies and God (wa'·Gttii, vv. 6, 9) and the Enemies and the Psalmist across two lines. However, it should be noted that there are some differences between the use
(wl/'''ni, v. 17)46 Westemlann has shown how these terms occur at key points in the individual of wa"oni in Hebrew and the use of 'But as for me' in English.
lament-they may mark the transition from the lament to the confession of trust or from the The English expression tends to signal a contrast of topic and comment, and the topic is
petition to the assurance of being heard 47 Thus they are key markers, not only of shift in usually new-English favours verses such as:
grammatical and rhetorical person, but also of the shift from Lament to Praise. They will be destroyed, but as for me, I will be saved.

As Westermann has further noted, or

The contrast is actually madc. not by the waw, but by the structure of the sentence 48 ＺＧｊ ＾ｾＱ ,v:Jv'· 1'(':>-010/ ':>;JIo/':> Ｇｊ ｾｰ :1r;l:1, 59:16-17
This is supported by the homonymy of adversative (,but') and copulative ('and') wnw and the ... l.'or'T ivi., ｐＧＺｬＯｯ Ｑ ｾ Ｂｖｾ 'J/o/1 Ｇｊ ｾｰ i:>
absence of WQW in some adversalive contexts: They roam about for food, and growl if they do nOl get their fill.
But I will sing of your might: I will sing aloud of your steadfast love in the morning. (NRSY)
ＧｔｾＡ＿ ;17n101 ＮｬｾＺＧｶ 'ilo/ ... ｃｊＮｾｯｪ N'n:m 17:14b-15
May their bellies be lilled .. As for mc, I shall behold your face in righteousness (NRSY) In these examples, there is a contrast between topics ('they ... I') as well as between comments
:O;;liv:J O)UI.:l:J ｾＧＭＢｐＱｬｩ o':n ,:>,!'<v n i ' ... 55:16·7 ('be destroyed ... be saved' and 'growl ... sing').

ＢｖＧｾｊ Ｚ :11:1". N)vN ｏＧｾ Ｚ＾ｎＭＧＺ＾ｉｯＯ 'JIo/. In Hebrew, by contrast, it is possible to have no contrast between topics-wo,'ani may open
... let them go down alive to Sheol: for evil is in their homes and in their heans. direct speech:
But t call upon God. and the LORD will save me. (NRSY)
:'TV'v-iCl P':S'-':>l? ';J':>o ｾＹＱｩＧ 'J/o/" 26
Some of the functions of adversative WQW with a personal pronoun may be exemplified from HI have set my king on Zion, my holy hill." (NRSY)
the occurrences of wG'ani. Often occurring as the last49 or penultimate 50 line of a Psalm, these or be repeated:
references to lhe self often involve what Gunkel called 'Beweggriinde des gottlichen Ｚｬ［ ｾ '11','Cl mO:1::l' ｾＩｉｯＯ 10/':>, il?.;l:-'J/O/1 73:22·3
Einschreitens'-appeals to the Psalmist's need 51 or righteousness.52 Compare, for example: :TO'-,':J ＧＺＱｉｲＧｊｾＭｬＹ "r,lZ'l ＧｾＱｯＯ
:'J;JJWi1 0';;':>10/ li'1l,"V' ＺｊｾｄＧ ＧｾｬＡ 'JIo/" 69:30 I was stupid and ignorant: I was like a brute beast toward you.

But I am lowly and in pain: let your salvation, 0 God. protect me. (NRSY) Nevertheless I am continually with you: you hold my right hand. (NRSY)

:' ｊｾｄＧ 'JO!l l?1o/ 'Pi1:J 'JIo/" 26: 11 or there may simply be no contrast conceivable between the cola:
But as for me, I walk in my integrity: redeem mc, and be gracious to me. (NRSY) Ｚ［ＢｬｾＱＡ ｊ ｉＧｩｾＺ ｬ l11i?,:n' ＢＱｾＧＺ＾ＡＩ l1!1r.;l ｾＺｮＡｬ 88:13-14
with the 'lraditional prayers':53 :1P'j7i1 Ｇｦ ｬ＿Ａ ｦＱｩ ＿ｾＮ［ｬＢ '11VIV :11:1' T?1o/ ')/0/1
ＺＧｊｾ ＧｾｬＡ ＢｲｾＭＧ［Ｚｊ Ｇｊｾｄ '''Io/-:1Jlj 25:16 Are your wonders known in the darkness, or your saving help in the tand of forgetfulness?
Turn to me and be gracious to me. for I am lonety and afflicted. (NRSY) But I, 0 LORD, cry out to you ... (NRSY)

... ＧｩＱｾ＿ｃｬ 'Oi"\::l 'JIo/:-';:J :11:1' 'Jp!lW 26:1 In the latter two examples, though a translation with 'But as for me .,.' would not be possible,
Vindicate me, 0 LORD, for I have walked in my integrity .... INRSV) 'But I .. .' is acceptable, Prominence is given not only to the subject, but to the entire clause.
Hebrew also allows less sharp contrasts between comments:
46Compare also 55:24.
... ｾＹＱＡ ｯＯ ｾＧＺ＾ ｶｩｮｾＬ '?/o/1 :,J:1' O'.'Cl-':>:;1 mOiO'... 38: 13
470lkn considered in terms of a 'Heitsorakel·. Bcgrich, 'Das pricsterlichc Heilsorakcl'; Weslermann, C. Praise
alld Lame", ill the Psalms tf. K.R. Crim and R.N. Soulen (Edinburgh: T&T C1ark. 1965) 70-75. [They] meditate treachery all day long. Butl am like the deaf, I do not hear ... (NRSV)
48Westerrnann. Praise and Lame",. 71. and the topic is not necessarily new (it may have already occurred as an object, for example):
49 17: 15: 40: 18: 55:24.
... :11:1' 'i1m,?.:;! T?l? ')/0/' ＺＧｉＮｬｑｾ ＧｖＡｬｾ i1Di?? ']l! ,n; O)O'.:1:J ... 31:14-15
5013:6: 41:13: 52: 10: 59: 17.
51 E.g. ｾｊＧ p' :IN' , ｊｾＮ '1 am poor and needy'. Culley's fornlUla J I: 4C1: 17-1 XII 70:5-6: 69:30. . .. as they scheme together against me. as they plot to take my life. But [ trust in you. 0 LORD ... (NRSV)
52 13:6: 26: 11: 31:15: 41: 12-13: 55:24. One would require 'But as for me myself .. .' in English here.
5JAcjmclacus. The Traditiotlal Prayer.
 Reference 5I
50 Modalil)". Reference (111(/ ｓｲＨｾ･ｬＢｨ Art.\' HI fIll' P.Wl/ms

Where there is no contrast between comments, the wilw is, of course, conjunctive. 54
But for me it is good to he near God ... (NRSV)
2.2.3.1. wa'ani in Subject Positio/l or in the possessive: 63
The subject position is the most frequent for wO"Dni, mostly contrasting the Psalmist with the ... jiip 'v,.:J':> ｾＱＡ＾ＺＧｮ［ｺ｣ Ｌｾ Ｇ ... :'VD"':> ,:>,?V ｯＧｾ ［ nD!':( ;,n ')'O?!?" 35:12-3
Enemy:)) They repay me evil for good; my soul is forlorn .... But as for me, when they were sick, I wore sackcloth

l j'l!' V':l ':l':> ｾＮﾻＺＧ ., ｾｊＬｩｮｬＢｪ "pan:l ' ｾＧ .... ,,:>, i',- ":$ 13:5-6 ... (NRSV)

my foes will rejoicc. Butl have trusted in your covenant love. May my heart rejoice in your salvation' 2.2.3.3. Anticipatory Contrast
(ALW)
The contrast is not always with what precedes; occasionally, it is with what follows. A
... C'T!':>N n';J:l 1"V':l.n'pl ＧＩｾ 52:10
particularly important example of this in the Psalter is 'niON ')N,64 followed by the report of
Butl am like a green olive tree in the house of God .... (NRSV)
an experience which did not accord with expectations.
The preceding reference to the Enemy may be as a subject,56 subject of a jussive,57 object,58
prepositional object 59 or even Addressee. 60 It is thus not really true, as Waltke-O'Connor 2.3. Adverbial Deixis
claim, that,
It has been seen above how adversativity may be expressed by free-standing pronouns, often
When two clauses in contrast arc joined hy a waw-adversative, a species of waw-disjunctive, the suhject
often comes first in both 61 with 'adversative wow'. There are a range of other deictic terms, too, however, which may
There may alternatively be contrast with the community:62 function in the same way. In particular, there are those of manner (ken), cause (Ioken, 'ai-ken),
'.':> :lipn' ' .. ｾＢ ',,':IN' ')l! Ｇｾ Ｌ ... ｔｖｪ＿ｾｏＭＧＺ＾［ｊＢｐ ,M0tz7'1'V'.V: 40:17-18 time ("aUn) and logical deixis Coz).
But may all who seek you rejoice and he glad in you ... As for mc, I am poor and needy, hut the Lord takes
2.3.1. Manner: ken
thought for me. (NRSV)
'jn ',or Ol!O:J. ＮＬｾｩＧ ::l:;1':> ":;l':> C';,':>N ':>.N':'V'':> ｾｬＮｯＬ Ｚ 73:1 Adverbial deixis of manner is usually achieved by means of the particle p, 'thus'.
Truly God is good to the upright. tu those who are pure in heart. But as for mc, my feet had almost ken may be used together with k-, functioning at the clausal level just as it does at the
stumhled ... (NRSV)
argumental level. The clausal function is normally achieved in prose with ... P ... ｩｴｺＷｎｾＬＶＵ

2.2.3.2. wa'ani in Extraposition but in verse itz7N is often omitted,66 so that the clausal form ;"1tz7VN-p '::IN ;"1tz717:1, 'As my
The English syntactic structure used to express the adversative nature of wO"Dni, 'But as for father did, so will I do', corresponds exactly to the argumental form' )N-P , ::IN:I, 'As was my
me' is itself extrapositional, requiring repeated reference to the same clausal constituent in the father, so am I' .67 This is clearly analogous to the colloquial English' He did it like an expert'
main clause (' As for me, I .. .'). In Hebrew, the extraposed 1st person may be recovered in the meaning both 'He did it as an expert does' (clausal) and 'He did it as if he were an expert'
object position: (argumentaI).
';1 i;1:Jr,Ji;1 'on:l. ＧｩｾＱ ... Ｇｾｬ＿ ';J'N ｬＡＧＺＢ ｉ ＭｎｾＧ ';1 J:l::S;>D-'? 'j"ll!,:,:.nN!:l 41:12-3 Both functions of p ... ｾ are attested in the Psalter. Argumental: 68
By this I know that you arc pleased with me; because my enemy has not triumphed over me. But you have
:C',W);' 'p 1:,' ";1)-"':l c'.:m:J t27:4
upheld me because of my integrity ... (NRSV) Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the sons of one's youth. (NRSV)
or under a preposition: and c1ausal: 69

54 102:12: 109:24; 118:7.

63 69: 14; 73:2.
55Similarly 38: 14.
64Tseval. umguage of 'he Biblical Psalms. 26 no. 164. See also ch. 3 un direct discourse. 30:7; 31 :23; 41 :5; 82:6;
56 55:24; 59: 16; 109:4: 1J9:X7
116:10-11.
57 71: 13.
65So 48:9.
5H5:7 (with ohject topicalisalion and similar reference to the Enemy as 55:24); 31 :7.
66As also in many other contexts; see ch. I above.
59 26:9.
67So I Sam 25:25 N';'-P 1CTZ1:J: 48: 1I In':>;,n P C';'?N lr.lV:J.
60 52: 1-9.
68Similarly 4X:II: 103:15.
6IWaltke-O'Connor, S\,//lOX, 129 ｾＸＮＳｨ
6YSlmilarly 83: 15-16: 123:2.
62 17:15.
ｾＲ Modality. RefereuCl' wld SI'('('ch Acls ;11 '!le I'.wlm.\

:O';"I"N T'N ＩＧｾｩＱ ＧＱｚ ｄｾ P O'P-'i7'''W'17 nl:l'1 Ｂｾｉｃｬ 42:2 This is the case in the Psalmist's warning to the kings of the earth in the light of the LORD's
As a deer longs for Ilowing streams. so my soul longs for you, 0 God. (NRSV) dominion:
ken may refer also to an infinitival clause: .. , :10"!1:;J' 1.)1"!1:;J1. 1pl'(:l 10'''N ,:l" II'( 2:5·10

:;"19::1':1 :l;l" ｎＺｊｾＱ l:::n;"l p ＱＩＧｏｾｲｯＢ 90:12 :1"1'( 'O.,1Z1 ""01.;"1' 1"';l1Z10 0'::1';>0 ;"10171

So teach us to counl our days that we may gain a wise heart. (NRSVI Then he will speak to them in his wralh. and terrify them in his fury ...
Now therefore. 0 kings. he wise; he warned. 0 rulers of the earth. (NRSV)
or to a temporal clause:
:llpm 1";"I:l) 1:"190 1=1 1N'} ;"IQ;"I 48:6 Something of this consequential meaning is evident in the assertion of present confidence in the
As soon as they saw it, Ihey were aSlounded; they were in panic, they took to Ilighl (NRSV) light of future security:
Often its referent is very difficult to identify, 70 ［ＢｉＮＱＷｾ 01.':l ';"I::IO:l ｾＢｳ［ＬＮｩ ＩＧ 27:5·6

2.3.2. Cause: laken. 'ai-ken

'b1::l'::lO Ｇ ｾ "r 'VN' on; ;"1'':'171
For he will hide me in his shelter in the day of lrouble ... Now my head is lifted up above my enemies all
The particle laken, like its Interrogative counterpart, lamma, most often refers not to purpose around me ... (NRSV)

(which one might have expected), but cause: 71 Secondly, wi/'atta may be used, like hinne (the standard performative marker), halt)"
:01pN-":;l ',i'o'o"::1 "9i1 ")),, ;"11.;"1' 'l'1';1Z1 16:8·9 (InterrogativelNegative) and wa'anl (pronominal deixis) to signal a performative utterance,?4
:nt;l;J';> p1Z1' ＧｾＺｬＭＨ "1:l:l 'n:'1. ｾ＿ｭＢｬＺＧ p';> This may be the best interpretation of
( keep Ihe LORD always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. :'j""9'P ."1l'1'}ON ＧＱＷｾｪｉＢ［ )}V '?I'I ;"I)l:N,O";:J 119:67
Therefore my heart is glad. and my soul rejoices; my body also rests secure. (NRSV) Before I was humbled [was going astray, but now f pledge myself 10 your word. (ALW)
liiken nearly always involves a shift of rhetorical person, from God to Psalmist (16;8-9) or Similarly, Wi/'atta may be used to signal a question:
community (73: 10), from community to God (78:21), or from Enemy to Psalmist: :N';"I 71" 'n"r:lll'1' Ｇｾ ｉＨ ＧｪＢｾ ＩＭ［Ｂｉｑ :"1\:1171 39:8
:Tj"l'l: 'l'1:l.01'( ＱＺｊＧ［＾ｉＢｾＭｬｚ 0.:;l1Z1;"1 0')0 119:119 "And now, 0 Lord. what do I wail for" My hope is in you. (NRSV)
All the wicked of the earth you count as dross; therefore (love your decrees. (NRSV) The response to a blessing may also be introduced by 'atta:
cal-ken also refers to cause: ... "n'VO ;"Ii.;"I' ｾＧＱＢ［ ｖＮ ｾＧＺｬＱｪ ;"ID17 20:7
:T'::l!1P Ｂｖｾ VJ.1Z1 "1';"I"N.O'i1"N l!1'PO p-"l: l:1Z1.' ＮｭＱｚ ｾｎ 'j),;s 0::l::'1'( 45:8 Now I know Ihat the Lord has ordained salvation for his anointcd (ALW)
You love righteousness and hate wickedness. Therefore God. your God. has anointed you wilh Ihe oil of This is a common juxtaposition of elements,75 and it appears that 'aua functions-as elsewhere
gladness beyond your companions (NRSV)
also "anl (135:5, .. ':I 'lW,' ')10( ':I) and demonstratives (41:12 ... ':I ＧｩＱｾＬＧ mO:J; 56:10
and similarly often involves shift of rhetorical person, from community 72 to God (45:3; 45:8),
.. , ':I ＧｮｾＢＭ［ ｬ Ｉ to signal a formal expresssion of faith. This formula shows well the common
from God to Psalmist (18:50; 46:3; 119: 129), or from Psalmist to Enemy (45: 18). It may mark
function of temporal ('alta), pronominal ("anI) and demonstrative (zot, Zie) deictic elements,?6
a paragraph-level shift of comment (1:5) or a shift from Lament to Praise (42:7).
Finally, calla occurs frequently in the Psalter in the formulaic expression ｏ ＿ ｗ Ｍ Ｌ ｾ ;,nyo,

2.3.3. Time: cana in blessings of God (113:2; 115:18) or ofIsrael (121:8: 125:2; 131:3).

Proximal temporal deixis is the basic meaning of 'alia, which frequently occurs with
2.3.4. Logical: 'az
adversative wow. Two main functions are essential to the present work.
Logical deixis is exhibited by the particle 'oz. [n Narrative,'az standardly occurs with the
Firstly, wi/"alfa may frequently be used to express logical consequence:
yiqlO/ form and functions temporally. referring to the general past.7 7
... used like the English ··so" or "therefore" .. to relate a preceding circumstantial c1ause to a following

volitional clause .. 73

74 74:6 is too debatable to form pan of this argumen!. ;"1nl: alone m<lrks a commissive in 12:6 01i7N ;"Il'1l: .. ( now

7061 :'1; 63:5: 63:3 ['so ( sec you"!I; 65: 10; 127:2; 128:4; 147:20. anse . .
75 '1'1:75: 140:13.
71Similarly 73:6:. 73:10; 78:21; 119:119.
76(n contrast, a relative clause with' ilY,'- Io(? (18:44; 35: 11: K1:6) often <K:curs in the come" of the Enemy.
Ｗｾｬｮ fal:l an individual. though performing the same function as the cOI11fnullIly-an ally of (he Psalmisl.
77See ch. 3 on yiq!o[ for general pas!.
7JWil!. . A SllcilllinguiSlic Analysis of NA ". 238.
 Hel"Tt'm'l'
54 Modality. Rejl'Tt'IWt· (/Iul Spt!('ch Ad.\" ;11 'he Psalms

;'1,ri '))1Vo" ＧＱＩ ｾ i'1ril!1 loC7y' ｾｉ 126:2 ... )'0:;>-01'1 ':l O'PTP'Cl p-N' 1:4
The wicked are nOI so. but are like chaff thallhe wind drives away. (NRSY)
::1':>1'1-0., i11,l!1"'? ;'1i;'1" 0".,);'1 0:1):;1 ＱｾｏｎＧ II:!.
Occasionally '::J alone can have this sense:
Then our mouth was filled wilh laughter, and our tongue wilh shOUIS of joy:
then it was said among the nations, "The LORD has done great things for them." (NRSY) ... ";J:;:> 1j1 "'pv'-';J ＧＩＮｾ 1'1'; ;'1i;'1' u,? 1'1':> 115:1

In the Psalms,'iiz most often functions to mark a final clause after a Directive ('Do X, then Y Not to us. 0 LORD. nolto us. bUllO your name give glory (NRSY)

It may follow an Interrogative sentence, whether nominal Interrogative:

will happen'):7H
ＺＧｐＢｾ '0 Ｇｾ Ａ ｉ ［ＧＱＮｾＭＧｙｖｪＱ j11)1.,-ON 130:3-4
:::1) ｾＧＡｐ ｄ 'j1';:')' 0[1'1'1 IN. '::1-"VO'-'l'1 'Tl::1l! l\!m O'''lID OJ 19:14

Keep back your servant also from the insolent: do nol let them have dominion over me. Then I shall be ... :1!.1'':>DCl"'10 ''-':l

blameless. and innocent of great transgression. (NRSY) If you, 0 LORD. should mark iniquities, Lord. who could stand"

or after an Expresssive-desiderative (I 19:6 ＬｾｭＧ 'Oh that ... ') or a resultative question (69:5). But there is forgiveness with you .. (NRSY)

The reference may be to general present (2:5) or future (19: 14) time, in accordance with the or clausal Interrogative:
... ｪＱｎＡＭＧｩ＿ｦＱｾ O';'1':>/(. W,;'1 44:22·23
standard range of meaning of Epistemic yiqrof.7 9
... 01:;'1-0,:;:> 1));';'1 ｔＧＺ＾ｬ ｾ［ｊ
'iiz may occasionally occur with qiiral. 40:8 Ｇｩｬｏｾ IN is probably performative-'so I
Cannot God perceive this? ...
hereby say ... ' .80 89:20 ill:!' IN may be explained as referring to a specific point in the past
Yet for your sake we are being killed all day long•... (ALW)
(as opposed to general past). 119:92 IN ... ,."., requires qii.ral as the apodosis to an unreal
Thus we see a further relationship between Negative and Interrogative highlighted by an
condition. adversative particle.

2.4. Conclusion
4. Metonymy
In this section, we have considered the various deictic pronouns and adverbs which most
commonly function as Relational (text) and Referential (context) deixis within the Psalter. We In the discussion of Psalm 145 which began this chapter, it was noted that terms such as 'your
have seen that this function often involves not only shift in rhetorical person, but also shift in name' and 'their eyes' are used to refer to 'you' and 'they' respectively. This is the rhetorical
modal force. from, for example, statement to question, mand or performative utterance. Thus feature of metonymy, and the terms used 'pars pro {Qrum'82 in place of participant reference
referential shift has been shown to interact closely with modal shift in the texturing of Psalm (which itself is lowered to the adnominal or 'genitive' level) are described as 'psychophysical

language. substitutes'.83
:n";l7 pl!1' Ｇ ｔｐＺ Ｑ Ｇ ｬｾ ＧｾＱＺ ｬ ':»:1 '::1':>.n9\!7 P7 16:9

3. Exceptivity Therefore my heart is glad, and my soul rejoiees: my body also rests secure. (NRSY)

ＧｾｔｐＺ Ｑ :'1':> ;'1/;:1:;:> ｊｾ［ＮｺｩＧ ;.':> ｾｭ ＱＧ［ l'!i\!l!'l ［ＧＱｴｊｾ '.':>loC O';'1':>loC 63:2
It was noted above 81 that a range of conjunctions may be considered as 'discourse deixis'. One :0'9-'':>::1 Tl:'1 ;'1:3-1":'!'I::1
particularly striking form for adversative discourse deixis is 'exceptive' [CN-]'::J ... [P-]N'7. o God, you are my God, I seek you, my soul thirsts for you: my Ilesh faints for you, as in a dry and weary

This occurs twice in Psalm I, once at clausal level: land where there is no waler. (NRSY)

... DloC ':l ::1l!1' /(':> ... ,0" /(':> ... l':>;'1 /(':> 1:1-2 :071.,,:> O'.;,,:>loC ';:,':>m ＧｾＺ［Ｑ＾ＭＬＳ ＧＺ Ｑｾ ＾ '''/(l!1 ;'17:;:> 73:26

... does nol walk ... does nol stand ... does not sit but rather .. (ALW) My flesh and my heart may fail. bUI God is lhe strength of my heart and my portion forever. (NRSY)

And once at a higher level of discourse:

82S tr iclly, synecdoche.

78Similarly 51 :21: 56: 10: 96: 12.
83Lauha. R.. Ps)'chophysischer Sprachgebrallch illl Allell Tesrtllllelll: Eille Slrukl/lrSetl/alllische A,wlyse VOII :J'?
79S ee ch. 3 below.
et!)) llnd n, '1. I. Emotionen (Annalcs Acadcmiae Sdcntiarum Fennicac: Disscnationcs Humanarum LiUerarum
80S ee ch. 3. section 2.4.5. on perfom,alive funclion.
35: Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. 1983).
HI Section 2.1.
56 Modaliry, Hrtrre//<'e (/I/(/ SI,('/'('II Acrs ill rhe Psalms Rt'.Ji'rc/I('e
57

ｾＢＭＮｮＧＺ ｾＬ 1ir)" Ｇｾ ＿ＷＺ ｬＱ ',:I" ;'11.;;' i'11,::m" " V!:,. ［ＢＱｾ ｮＺｊｾＱ ［ＢＱｾｏＺ ｬｊ R4:J has an extremely important theological aspect, of course, in that it avoids the risk of charges of
My soul longs, indeed it faints for the courts of the LORD; my heart and my Oesh sing for joy to the living animism or polytheism.
God, (NRSV)
Thirdly, and related to the above questions, is the increased use within the Psalter, in place
In these examples, the terms 'ITO:l, "1:l:J, ':l" ':l:l" Ｇｔｏｾｬ and 'INTO are all used in
of the imperative, of cohortatives and jussives (person-marked Directives) with their more
metonymous reference to the self, enabling the Psalmist to speak of his own well-being in
complex argument structure. H6 This is analogous to the use of the passivum divinum (e.g.
terms of the well-being of his 'flesh', 'heart' etc.. This function is analogous to three other
;'l,:lTOl'l O'VTO, mvnl, '(he arms of the wicked shall be broken', avoiding reference to
forms of reference-skewing.
God) or the derived feature of causativum divinum as, for example, in
The first is the use of Names and Descriptions, as discussed above in section 2.3. If the
:''?l! ＢＹｾ ':J ;"1};'l',? ｾＷｚｔＮＧｽｬ ［ ｊ［ＧｩｚｉＱｾｬ Ｂ 'j,:> "J' 13:6
Psalmist or God refers to himself using a name, such as 'NITO' or ;'11;'1', or a description, such
May my heart rejoice in your salvation, may I sing 10 Ihe LORD because or what he h'as done for me.
｡ｾ l'::l17 or O';"1'N, the corresponding agreement throughout will be in the 3rd person, creating (ALW)

an asymmetry between grammatical and rhetorical person. This may have an important or
rhelorical function, in accentuating the sociolinguistic aspect-emphasising Speaker-Addressee :C'I;l-'vOVI;l01 ＧｾｊｔｚＷＰＧ ［ＧＱ ＿ｾ ［Ｇｬ Ａ ｏｎＭＧＺ＾ｾ 0'00 Ｇｊ Ｚ＾ ｾ［ＢＱ 69'15
status relations. Thus the Psalmist's reference to himself as T1:l17 will emphasise his inferiority rescue me from sinking in the mire; let me be delivered from my ･ｮ ｾｩ ｳ ｡ｮｾ ｦｲｾｭ ;he ､ｾ･ｰ waters.
(NRSV)
(it will 'give face' to the Addressee 84 ), whilst God's reference to himself as O';"1'N will
emphasise his superiority. A particularly striking example of this is Hannah's triple use of The causarivum divinum exists for cohortatives and 3rd-person jussives, and implies three

ljloN to refer to herself and use of ;"11;"1' to refer to God in her prayer in I Samuel I: Il. A actants-the subject. the Agent and the Addressee (the latter two both being God). This is the

collective singular use may be seen in: most oblique and indirect form of request available in Biblical Hebrew.

:"N 'JTZ7 , npTZ7' ｾｊＮＢﾷＧ ｢ｬＺ 1[.)):' i'11:1TZ7 ;'11.;'1'.::lWJ:I ＧＷｚｔｾＢ ill!1TZ7' ｾ ＬＢＧ 10' 'I:J 14:7
The feature of metonymy is also related to other concerns of the present work, such as to
o that the deliverance of Israel would come from Zion' When the LORD restores the fortunes of his what extent loTO ［ＢＱＧ ｾ can really be considered as equivalent rhetorically to l'1N or to ;"1N
people. let Jacob rejoice; let Israel be glad' (ALW) in contexts such as:
;"11;"1'

In this example, the desiderative ljl' '0 shows the Psalmist's personal involvement in his :::)11"'-'::> ;'1');'1' :l0TZ7 ｾＱＢＧ［ ｾｉＱＺＧ ｊｬＰＭ＿ＬＱ ;'.:;!"}J:I 54:8
prayer. He is part of Israel himself, and is in fact praying the equivalent of ;"1 no TON ;'1" IN- With a freewill offering ( will sacrifice 10 you: I will give thanks to your name, 0 LORD, for it is good.
(NRSV)
praying for himself, just as much as Hannah. Analogous to this question of Speaker-reference is
the interpretation of the strength-neutral Deontic particle -nil"' and of Deontic verbal forms as One final particularly striking use of metonymy in the Psalter is the use of abstract nominal

precative (requests) or directive (commands).85 complements in nominal clauses, such as: 120:7 Ol'TO 'IN, 'I am all peace': 109:4 ［ＢｾｬＧ 'IN,
'I am all prayer'.87
Secondly. the Psalms exhibit reference to nature praising God.
:11'(':>1:'1 C:Cl' C.li': l'"!.!:tCl "?J:l1 C'O'?7Cl, ＧＱＡｴＰｾ 96: 11-12

ｱ［ｬ｟ｖｾＧＭＺ＿ｬ ｾＬｉＢｽｊｩＱ ＱｾＢＭＨｉｴＡｬＬＭｾＱ ｾﾥ＾ＺＧｉＮＷ＿ ｽＢＧ

5. Discongruence
Letlhe heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice; let the sea roar, and all that lills it;
Various irregularities may be noted in the referential structures of the Psalms.
ktthe field exult, and everything in il. Then shall all the trees oflhe forest sing for joy. (NRSV)
Firstly, arguments may be expressed with forms from higher up the argument hierarchy,88
Just as the use of the divine name enables the Psalmist to cry more Expressively (and less
such as when a direct object is expressed with a bare subject pronoun (e.g. 89:48 'IN-':JI.
Directively) l' :l'1N ＱＺｬ ｾＧ 0' ;"1'N Olj?" 'Let God arise, lel his enemies be scattered' (68:2)
'Remember me!'): or they may be expressed with forms from lower down the argument
instead of ';"N 'W'T010l 0l10l' 0l01j?, 'Arise, Lord, save me, my God t ' (3:8), so the use of
hierarchy, such as when direct objects are marked with' (e.g. the 'accusative of theme' in
jussives enables him to cry out to the creation to praise God without directly addressing it. This

86See below ch. 6.

H4S ee Ihe discussion of Wilt's treatment or .//{y in ch. 6. seclion 2.1. below. 87CofT1pare also 119:94' ｊｾ 1". '( am yours'.
H5See below ch, 6, H8S op hislicaled argument hierarchies are given by Richter. Gnl1ldlagefl 3.41,93.
5X Modality. HeII'n'uce ami Speech Acts ill/he P.mlm.'i

Chapter 3
:1,:1'"7 ＬｾＧｮ 'Sing the LORD',x') and hence, presumably, also :1,:1'':> ,,,':1, 'Acknowledge the
MODALITY
LORD'). Arguments may be lowered from the subject to the lowest position (agentive 'by'
with a passive verb) in order to avoid too direct reference to God; this is known as the passivum
The tenn 'modality' refers to the cross-linguistic feature which may be described as the grammaticat reflex
divinumltheologicum, and has a counterpart in what I refer to in the study of request-
of assertivity or reality. A language may give it grammatical realisation in distinct verbal moods. and I
cohortatives and 3rd-person jussives as the causativum divinum. With the passive, arguments
argue that this is in fact the case in Biblical Hebrew. which has thrcc moods: a Deontic mood I+MOD.
may even be omitted completely for the same reason: +VOL) based on short-form yiq!6l, an Epistemic mood [+MOD, -VOLj based on long-fonn yiq!61, and an
:;',;" ｯＧｩＢ ｾ 191D1 ［Ｇｾ ｬＧｐｪ Ｑ 0'17'P,,,-11171" ':J 37:17 Indicative mood [-MOD) based on the Anterior qii!al form supplemented by the predicative participle.

I'or the arms of the wicked shall he hroken. hut the LORD upholds the righteous. (NRSV) Features closely relatcd to modality are considered, such as subordination and vocative, as well as the
question of the scope of Interrogative, Negative and Imperative force. Other fonns of clausal modification
Secondly, a modifier of the Addressee of a vocative is usually in the 3rd person (e.g. Mic 1:2
such as passivity and tense-aspect are considered throughout because they share certain formal
o"7::J 0'017 ＧＱＷＰｾＬ 'Hear, nations, all ofyou!')90 characteristics with modal markers.
Thirdly, there may be discongruence of number, especially in the case of reference 10 the
community (e.g. ｬｉＸＺＱＭＴＧｾｪ ｾｲｮｯ Ｇ ... ＢＷｾＭＧ ｉＧｏＭ ＬｯｾＧ 'Let Israel say ... Let I. Introduction
the house of Aaron say ... '91).
The style of the first psalms is generally that of prayers, and a high incidence of imperatives, emphatic
fonns, jussives, hortatory sentences, exclamations and asseverative particles are found. \
6. Conclusion
This characterisation of the Psalms in terms of Deontic modality ('imperatives', 'jussives',
We have considered various types of reference to the main actants in the Psalms, as well as a 'hortatory sentences'), expletives ('exclamations') and other forms marked for emphasis
wide range of forms for nominal, adverbial and discourse deixis. Such forms not only situate a corresponds to the wide functional range of the Linguistic Attitude of Discourse (as opposed to
Psalm Referentially and give it cohesion 92 Relationally; they also give it a rhetorical texture, Narrative).
'tying down' 'distal' abstract statements or descriptions into a 'proximal' real-world or literary That these various functions are, like reference-shift, all clause-level functions is shown
context. Since truly Referential deixis is absent from Narrative, this is one of the key elements clearly in their common textlinguistic function: 2
One of the functions of rhetorical questions is to introduce a new theme or topic .... Another evidence of
behind the rhetorical force of the Psalms.
change of theme is the use of the vocative form of address.... Other detai Is of the discourses, such as
change of participant, or a change in the tense, mood, or aspect of a verb, may indicate that a new unit is
starting 3

Every occurrence of such forms will certainly not indicate a new unit, since, in Weinrich's
terminology, these features are characteristically 'obstinat' (highly recurrent). For this very
reason, however, a change in clause type or MTA marking4 will exhibit a high degree of
salience.

1Prinsloo, 'A Comprehensive SemiostruclUral Exegetical Approach', 82.

2Benveniste shows that 'There can be no rclation between discontiguous elements .... The distinction bctween
X9de Bocr, P.A.H., 'Cantate domino: an crroneOu, dativc')', OTS 2t (\981) 55-67. See also 21:9: 25:\1; 34:4: foreground and background functions is made on the textual level, and so is not affected by verb forms. but by the
sentence i.e. word order.'; loosten, Tilburg handout; similarly, 'The Indicative System', 56.
129:3: 135:10-1\: and with ,01: 47:7-X: 60:4: OX:5.
3Beekman and Callow, Translating the Word of God, 279-80.
90Wahke--{)'Connor, Srlltill, 77 §4.7d.
4Weinrich: 'Tempus-Ubergange'; Niccacci: 'transizioni temporali'; Walson: 'tense-shifts' Andersen: 'episode
91S cca lso 124:1 cf. \29:1.
boundaries' .
'12Halliday and Ha'an. Cohesioll ;11 ElIglish. L·h. 2.
60 Modaliry. Referellce (lIId Speech Acts ill rhe Psalms Modllli/\· 61

2. Main-Clause Modification This is clearly true diachroniwl/y too for the equivalents of 1'1< in other Semitic languages,
such as Aramaic [1'':> and Arabic laysa 8 It should be noted, however, that the two terms yes and
There are many ways in which a simple unmarked clause can be modified-for restriction,
ett do not occur in fully complementary distribution, since yes is usually restricted to existential
inlensification, mood, polarity etc.. Here we are concerned with the modification of main
(e.g. O';'1':>N-ll7' 58:11), possessive (e.g. ':>l<ill7'':> 0':1':>1< 117' I Sam 17:46) and locative
clauses by means of internal grammatical, external grammatical and lexical morphemes.
clauses, whilst en can also Negate nominal clauses which have a nominal subject, such as those
2.1. Introduction with adjectival or prepositional complements, and also (if the subject is a c1iticised pronoun)
those with a nominal or participial 9 complement. Negation is compatible with all MTA values
2.1.1. An Illustration: Existential Clauses except the mood-neutralised consecutive forms, waqiilal and wayyiqrol.
The three functions considered in this thesis-Negative, Interrogative and Imperative-----can be Certain relationships can be shown to hold between Interrogative, Negative and Imperative.
well illustrated for existential c1auses,5 since their non-verbal character excludes MTA features Firstly, Negative and Interrogative have the same effect on the choice of verb form. We see
in the unmarked clause. The forms we are concerned with are as follows: complementary distribUlion of Affirmative plus wayyiqrol (which is consecutive and so MTA-
Affirmative (1nl) Negative (Im) neutral 10) and Negative plus qiilal (the Indicative Anterior form):
MTA-unmarked: lV'[;"I] l'X[;"IJ

MTA-marked: qii!al ;"1';"1[;"1) ;"1';"1 I(':>[;"IJ The spirit of the LORD came upon him.
long-fonn yiq!6l ;"1';"1'[;"11 ;'1';"1' 1(':>(;"1)

short-fonn yiq!6l ';'1' ';"I' ':>1(

there was no longer any spirit in them

The relationships between these various forms can tell us something about the relationships This can be explained as due to the compulsory initial position of wayyiqtol (a syntactic
which exist between their corresponding functions. The form ;'1';'1' /<';>;'1 shows that the order of criterion) and the discontinuative function of Negation (a semantic criterion). Under
constituents is Int-Neg-M. Interrogative, we see the same complementary distribution; here it is attributable to the same
Interrogativity has one distinct formal marker used throughout the system (hayeslha'en), factors and to the distinction in Linguistic Attitude between Narrative and Discourse, since
though it may be left unmarked. 6 Since it is the highest-level feature, it is compatible with all Interrogative implies a Speaker-Addressee relationship, and so is limited by definition to
other forms, with the exception of Deontic modality. Discourse.
Within the predication, the primary distinction (before MTA values) is that of polarity. It Secondly, the clitics corresponding to these three functions relate in similar ways to the verb.
has three distinct forms:'en for nominal and participial clauses, 10' for Indicative and Deontic Negative "al-, Deontic Affirmative -nii" and Consecutive wa= are the only particles in
Epistemic clauses, and 'al- for Deontic clauses. The distinct lexeme,'en, for nominal and Hebrew exclusively associated with the verb, and whereas these three select short-form yiqrol -
participial Negation is probably derived diachronically from an Interrogative morpheme, but x, so 10" selects long-form x-yiqrol.11 Even when the Consecutive wa= stands with qiiral, it
synchronically, it may be interpreted as 10" yes in the light of the analogy between Negative, selects a distinct form with a similar fronting of the stress to that seen in short-form yiqrol -x .
conditional and Interrogative patterns in the Indicative Cursive: 7 Thirdly, the relationship between Negative and Interrogative can be seen in that ha"en is
normally used where an Affirmative answer is expected.
Neg: 'ell-Su-Ptcp Ｂｾｩ＿ l-J'I(
Cond: 'im·yU-Su-Ptep ＢｾｩＧ l-lV' Cl( ... ':> ;"IlVl( 'r.n:-":>::I1 Tnl( mJ::I::I l'N;'1 Judg 14:3
Int: hQ-yeJ-Su-Ptcp ＢｾｩＧ l-l!1'-;'1 Isn't there a woman among the daughters of your relalives and among all my people. that ...

8Joosten, 'The Predicative Participle', 137.

9Here termed the Indicative Cursive.
5A class of nominal clauses which has no subject. only a predicate and complement: there may also be a I()See below. section 2.4.7.
prepositional adjunct in la (allrihutive •., lV'. '1 have') or e.g. ba (Iocative y,l(::1 lV', 'There is in the land'). IIRichter. Gru1/dlagell 2. 75: 'Nur die Konj \Va=. die Neg 'al. die Wunseh-Ptk lIa(') und der (nf abs sind
6Scc ch. 4. seclion 2.5. on unmarked clausallmerrogatives. ausschlieBlich mil dem Verb verbunden. Dabei setzen 1/ii( '). ·al. IVO= (PK KF) und 10(' I (bei PK:LF) die Wahl
7Joosten, 'The Predicative Participle'. 137: he further notes that the modal verb ;"1::11( occurs exclusively in these hcstimmtcr Konjugalionsformcn voraus. Diese eingeschranktcn Fugungswerte deuten auf Realisierung
clause types. heslirnmtcr Funktioncn hin.·
 Mod(l!itr
62 Mot/ulity. Reference fUllI SII('cch Acts i" the /)salm.,·

There exists .. a K",dwioo rrulll Ihe lexical-semantic propenies or vcrhs. to their propositional-semanlic
Effectively, then, we may say that Interrogative x Negative = Aflirmative. 12
propenics in coding slates/events/aclions, and onward 10 Iheir contcxlualized properties in connecled
These links, illustrated here with respect to existential clauses. show up a complex
discourse. The TAM syslcm in grammars lhus rellects this gradation, whcrchy some fc:=alUrcs may he
interrelationship of parts of language which are often considered as functioning independently. viewed as having a narrower. lexical-semanlic scope. olhers as having a wider proposilional scope, and
We will see in the following how several linguistic functions, especially Negative, Interrogative others yet as having the widest, discourse-pragmalic scope. h is also common for lhe same coding unit. say
a morpheme, to code a cluster or Icxieal, propositional and discourse functions 20
and Imperative, but also conditional, consecutive and various types of emphasis, all interact
around the central parameter of modality, which is also fundamental to the Hebrew verbal 2.2. Lexical Morphemes
system. 13
Particular lexical morphemes are characteristic of particular clause types. Those corresponding
2.1.2. Morpheme Types to Negative, Interrogative and Imperative are therefore considered in more detail in the
The following discussion of main-clause morphemes will be structured around a distinction respective chapters.
made by Moscati,l-l and followed by Richter,15 between lexical,I6 internal grammatical, Lexical words 21 are conventionally distinguished from grammatical words. The latter (in his
external grammatical I? and syntactical morphemes. Lexical morphemes correspond to the terminology, 'Funktionsworter'), are distinguished by Richter 22 as deictic pronouns, deictic
(mostly trio) consonantal roots of Hebrew. Internal grammatical morphemes are inflectional adverbs. prepositions, and a fourth, eclectic class of non-deictic words which do not combine
types (vocalisation. consonant doubling, stress) such as for broken plurals and passive with an enclitic personal pronoun. This class includes: Modalwort, 'das in Verbindung mit
conjugation. External grammatical morphemes are verbal, nominal and adverbiaJl8 pre-, in- einem Hauptwort oder Satz steht' (ha. /0", lu,'e, "al),23Konjunktion 'die einen Satz einleitet'
and suffixes. SyntaCTical morphemes are constituted by word order or independent elements (WJ, ki, '0, gam, "ap) and Interjektion, 'die einen Satz ersetzt'. [n the terms of Communication
such as auxiliary verbs. Theory introduced in chapter I above, modal words belong primarily to the Interpersonal
Each of these kinds of morphemes may modify the entire clause: (Social/Expressive) function of language, conjunctions to the Relational and interjections to the
Semanlische Funktionsklassen, die den Satl belreffen, druekt .. , das Verh mit den grammalischen Vocative.
Morphemen fur Imp, Koh, Juss, Energicus, mil den grammatischen oder lexikalischen Morphemen fUr
Modal words form the basis for the forms for Negation and Interrogation. There is much
Aktionsart, Aspckl, Tempus, usw. aus. Ebenfalls auf dcr Salzebene wirken, dureh eine Wortan (Mod)
overlapping of morphemes (e.g. Negative 'en / Interrogative'ek),24 corresponding to a broader
bezeichnet oder nichl, die Modalil3ten. durch grammatische Morpheme am Verh, durch Wortart (Intj)
bereichnet oder nieht, dic Leistungsfunktionen der Sprachc, vor aHem Darslellung. Appell, Kundgabe.
19 functional overlap (e.g. Negative lm:J ｲｾ / Interrogative lm:J 'D). Related functional

Thus the modal 'layer' with which we are concerned here may involve modal clitics such as categories are conditional (e.g. conditional/Interrogative / precative' im cf disjunctive
-niY or "a/- (lexical), inflections such as the increase of arguments under causative (internal question ha ... ";m), relative, exclamatory and indefinite (e.g. Interrogative / relative /
grammatical), modal reductions as the short-fonn yiq!6l and the tone-fronting in wayyiq!6l and exclamatory / indefinite m( 25 ).

wiJqii!al and modal suffixes such as the cohortative and adhortative -a ending (external Conjunctions may mark inter-clausal relations such as coordination/apposition (w.J),26
grammatical), and modal verbs such as ｾＧＬ ｾＺｬ and C'i7 (syntactical). Throughout, we will alternativity ('0) and cause (ki). However, they also express restriction (raq.'ak), and
have to consider at what grammatical level a morpheme is functioning:

20Givon, T .. Sylllax: A FUllctiOl/llI-Typologicallnrroduction (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Bcnjamins,

12Sec ch. 4, section 2.4 below.
13For an example of how modal categories can be used to characlcrise 'main-clause verhs, verbs of reponing, l'Ig4/90) I. 26'1-70. Sce also Jooslen's account of Benvenistc's theory of linguistic levels; loosten. 'The Indicative
Systcm'.52-57.
verbs of divorcing and conditional clauses', sec Warren. 'Did Moses pem'it Divorce'''.
21 A diffcrent use of thc term 'lexical' to that in 'lexical morphcmc'-hcre it refcrs to function; Ihcre it referred 10
14Moscati, S. (cd.), All Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Lang'/lIges: Phonology and
form.
Morphology (pona Linguarum Oricntalium. Neue Serie VI; Wicshaden: OltO Harrasowitz. 1964) 71.
22Similarly Wahkc-O'Connor, Syllfax, 66-67 §4.2.2d-e.
15Richter, Grwultagell I. 91.
DTherc arc three modal words which call combine with an cnclilic personal pronoun: 'hl,.vd and '';d. The
16convenlionally termed 'free morphemes'. bUI also 'rOOI morphemcs' (Moscati); ·Grundmorphcme'. 'Lexcme'
fom,er two have becn discussed incidcnlally ahove.
(Richler).
HSee Faber, 'The diachronic relationship'.
17Convcntionally termed 'hound' morphcmes.
25Richter. GnU/dtagell I, 26.
18E.g. -am. cOlltra Richter. GrllI/cl/agen 1.91: 'Grammatische Morpheme sind beschrankt auf Nomen und Verb.'
2(,Scc panicularly Andcrscn, Sentence.
IlJRichter. Grundi<.gen I. 35.
64 Modality, Reference alld Speech Act.\" in 1}1(' P.W/IIIS

(1994)35 and, in conjunct ion

with those of, for example , have been pursued also by Turner (1876), Eskhult (1990), Gibson
intensific ation (ki,'ap, hen). Some of these function s overlap
and in conjunct ion with relative
or use of a cognate infinitive . with absolute tense, by Huehner gard (1988) and Buth (1992),
topicalis ation and casus pendens, and the figura etymologica,
(1960) and Niccacci (1990),
as Referen tial tense, by Hendel (1996). Discour se theories are held by Michel
Interjections serve primaril y for focus-m arking. They often function
Finally, a modal view of the
to the real-wor ld cOnlext just as and, in conjunc tion with aspect, by Waltke- O'Conno r (1990).
equivale nts to conjuncl ions (Relatio nal), relaling the clause
rg. 36 Zuber (1986) and Joosten
and Imperati ve function s are system is held by Turner (1876) as interpret ed by Ljungbe
conjunct ions relate a clause to its linguisti c cotext. Vocative
( 1996).
closely related, as is that of the topic-ma rker'a:t- .
these four verbal paramete rs,
In the followin g, we will be concerne d with the interacti on of
2.3. Internal Gramma tical Morphe mes-Voi ce/Stem backgro und of the textlingu istic
and, in particula r, with the category mood. Against the
nd the Hebrew verbal system
27 present work, though transitiv ity ('Oiscou rse'-bas ed) study reviewed in chapter 1, I undersla
The various options for clausal voice are not essential to the
mood (1oosten ).
. The function s of passivity primaril y in terms of relative tense (Kurylow icz. OeCaen) and
is a category closely related to emphasi s, vocative and modality
oned, focus,28 and each of
have been consider ed as: divinum , agent unknown , agent unmenti 2.4.1. Interrelationship of Constituents
of the Psalter. True passive
these has some importan ce for the sociolin guistic context been insuffici ently recognis ed
In the discussio n of the Hebrew Verbal System, it has generally
no imperati ve pu"al or hoph"al
imperativ es seem logically impossib le;29 Hebrew therefore has inlo one another' .37 Loprieno
to what extent the categori es of mood, tense and aspect "'merge"
'nn!:l 'I<TZlJT1, 'Be lifted up,
forms, but imperati ve niph'al forms are attested (e.g. 24:7 o'::>w expresse s well the nature of the interactio n:
also resists Negation . where they are comhined with
ancient doors!').3 0 Imperati vity thus resists passivity just as it Sincc these verbal categories [TAMI overlap in actual slrings of discourse,
by the context and by lhe lexical choices of the speaker. it is more
semantic references provided
2.4. External Grammatical Morphe mes-Ver bal Moodn'e nselAJpu ;t prediclable--<lbviou sly not on the lheorelical level. bUl rather in terms of the likelihood for a form ID
10 be perfeelive, i.e. presented as
were revicwed in chapter I. actually occur in spoken or wriuen discourse -for a preterile predicalion
Some recent textlingu istic treatmen ts of the Hebrew verbal system (yet) completed. and for an action
completed, for a lemporally unmarked form to be imperfeclive. i.e. nol
has been treated. These are: mood
There are four principal paramete rs within which the system expected to take place in lhe future 10 convey Ihe allitude of the speaker
ID this expecled predication, i.e. 10

e function [±CONT]INUATION. 38
[±MODjAL, tense [±PASTj, aspect [±PERF]ECTIVE31 and discours exhibil modal features
[0 discours e
32
Historica lly, the prevailin g view has shifted from tense to aspect In cross-lin guistic perspect ive, it has been noted that,
in varying degrees pasllensc,
Tense theories were held by all Hebrew gramma rians, such as Geseniu
s (1813), until the The aspeclual type [of tanguagel is defined by a marked lerm lhal combines
with such as Joshua Blau (1976), perfeclive aspect and realis mood 39
middle of the nineteen th century; they have remained popular
objectiv e/extern al4o tempora l
OeCaen (1995). Aspectu al It may well be that every language expresse s in some way
Jouon (1923), Rainey (1990), Gropp (1991) and, most recently,
(aspect)4 1 and subjecti ve truth
tense 33 ) and then Oriver
34 relation s (tense), subjecti ve/intern al tempora l relations
theories, introduc ed via Ewald's relative tense theory (i.e, 'Perfect'

coming close 10 relative tense; e.g.

R.S .. 'In Ihe Margins of the Hebrew 35Though significantly redefined as Slales \'.>. aClions, and lherefore
27Hal1iday, 'Language Struclure and Language Function', 151-2; Hendel, 114-20(11 6).
(1996) 152-8t (t57, 176). Kurylowicz, 'Verbal Aspecl in Semilic', 01'42 (t973)
Verhat System: Situation, Tense, Aspect, Mood', ZAH9
Biblical Hebrew Verbal System', JOTT
36Ljungberg, B.-K., 'Tense, Aspect, and Modalily in some Theories of the
28Wright. Grammar I, 50 § 74. 7t3 (1995) 85-86 and pers. comm.
Passive, Ihe Jussive being used
29Cnmpare Wrighl on Arabic: 'There is no special form to express lhc Imperative 37Lyons, Introduction. 317.
instead.'; Wrighl, Grammar I. 63 § tOI. Hehrew Prefix-Conjugalions', HS 29
.18Loprieno, Ancierll Egyptian. 75; similarly, Huehnergard, l., 'The Early
JUSee ch. 6, section 3.2 below. (1988) 19-23 (20-21 ).
default fur perfeclivity; DeCacn,
.110r. perhaps more correclly, ·±tMPERFECTIVE', since mosl languages 39DeCaen. Placemefll and Ifllerpretation. 51.
Ploceme1ltOl1d Illfelpretat ;ofl. 147. As a deictic category. like pronominal
(Historic Texts and lnterprelers in 40This is not the same as 'ahsolule' tense, which does not properly exis!.
.12Fnr surveys. sce McFal1, L.. The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System definition relalive (DeCaen. pers. comm.'. See lhe use of S(peech-acl). E(venl) and
1982) and van der Merwe, 'Overview'. reference, lense is hy
Bihlical Scholarship 2; Shcffield: The Almond Press, e Texthooks in Linguistics; Cambridge:
R(eference point) in lhe lhe lreatments hy Comrie. B.. Ten.fe (Cambridg
dislinctions is discussed in Comrie, B..
.1.1The rclalionship belwecn lhe rclativc lense. 'Perfecl', and aspcclual Ljungberg , 'Tense. ASpeCl, and Modalily '; DeCaen, Placemefl l arid Interpretatioll; and
52-65. CUP, t976) 122-30;
AJI"'('( (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: CUP, 1985) HendeI. 'In Ihe Margins' .
: DeCaen, V., 'Ewald and Driver on Biblical Hebrew 'Aspect': Anteriority and the
.14Note DcCaen's discussion (Comrie, Aspect, 5) and Pustejovsky:
12')-5 t; see also Joosten, 'The Predicative Panicipte '. t54, on 41S ee Comrie's definilion of ASpeCl as 'inlernaltcmpurat conslituency'
Orientalisl Framework'. ZA H 9 (1996) ng larger level representations of narr<Jlives or texts,
'While (cmporal relationships arc imponant for constructi
Kurylowit.:z·s conlrihulit Hl.
 ＢＮｴ［ｬ ､ｯ ｾｬ 1>7
Modality. Reference 1I1/(1 5;peecll Act.\' il1 tll(' P!wlm..\'

syntax, congrue nt with 'meaning '4'J), under a node lNFL.

It has been shown that contrary 10
Hebrew has no tense element,
condition ality (mood). It has often been argued, however , that
MTA.50 Mood, though most often
icz, who shows clearly that many common assumpt ions, they in fact occur in the order
but solely aspect; this has been shown to be impossib le by Kurylow
the verb, but of the clause. Thus
tense,42 and thus further that marked in verbal morphol ogy, is strictly a feature not of
aspectua l distinctio ns can only be made within an identifia ble
function of the verb 43 Palmer writes:
In binary verbal systems aspect can be only a cOfllext·conditioned tertiary
Latin and Greek or modal verbs in
in the followin g. The modal system of most familiar languages, whether it is mood in
Some further interdep endencie s of these paramete rs can be shown the verhal system of the language
English. is formally associated, along with tense, aspect and voice, with
functions , so that, for example ,
Firstly, tense marking will often imply aspectua l and modal ... does not relate semantically
(and even gender, number and person are marked on the verb). But modality
[+MOD] (so Loprieno above). ly. therefore. there arc languages in
[+PAST] will tend to imply [+PERF] and [·PAST) will tend to imply to the verb alone or primarily. but 10 the whole sentence. Not surprising
of present tense are strictly verbal complex 5 I
It will be shown below that not only future, but also many types which modality is marked elsewhere than on the verb or within a
) forms, thus indicatin g
modal. In most Europea n language s, it is also true that [·PAST]
implies [.PERF], that is, a present It should be noted that most world language s front Imperati ve (Deontic
']e chante', interpret ed by default the primacy of mood within their word order.
tense will tend to have imperfec tive aspect, as in the French
Interroga tive and Negative , so
as 'I am singing'. Biblical Hebrew and modern English, 44
by contrast , have a 'perfecti ve Above mood, there stand the other higher level features of
:
default' 45 that we have the followin g order of constitue nts at deep structure
[+PERF] will tend to imply 1nl > Neg > Mood > Tense> Aspect> Verb
From the perspect ive of aspect, we can say the converse , that
to the entire predicati on (i.e. stands
past. Howeve r, it should be noted This ordering reflects the fact that Negative usually applies
[+PAST]. A complete d action will tend to be referred to in the
and Interroga tive function s within
, which is an aspectua lly outside the verb phrase at the head of the predicat e phrase);
that both pastness and perfectiv ity are distinct from the 'perfect'
language (i.e. stands outside the
time frame. 46 Referent ial language similarly to conjunct ions in Relation al
imperfec tive 'relative- absolute tense', which may exist in any
ogy and syntax can be verified in
that they will often refer to predicat e phrase). This result from the study of morphol
Finally, modal forms [+MOD] will tend to be [.PERF) in
in the uncertai nty (Epistem ic) or semantic terms, too:
incomple te situation s, and [.PAST) in that they will tend to be my thinking. modality is very
I whote·heartedly agree with you that the order should be MTA. In
says,
volition (Deontic ) of the future or present. Hence, as DeCaen and more in the realm of the pragmatic/sociolinguistic dimension of language.
obviously outside the core,
No language save the artificial Esperanlo ha.' a future tense that is not subject 10 decomposition into irrealis lexicon for its meaning. (and highly
whereas aspect is the innermost . drawing both from morphology and
47
and/or nonpast and/or perfective aspeel. and perhaps mostly inlluenced by
inOuenced by syntax), and tense navigating in the deictic dimensions,
these three is the stativity or
A fourth category which has been shown to interact with semantics. 52
48 ed here reflected III Biblical
'situation ' of the lexical verb. We see the ordering of constitu ents which we have establish
in the discussio n of existenti als
Hebrew, as already seen in the form ;";" N'm (Int-Neg -Mod)
2.4.2. Order of Constituents: MTA V
above. Some example s from the Psalter are:
consider s the three categori es of
Consider ing the form of natural language s, generati ve syntax
structure (pre-tran sformati on
tense, mood and aspect as together heading the clause in deep Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers ... ? (NRSV)

cited in Shlonsky, Clause Structure

aspect looks at the finer details of the lemporallandscape inside each evenl.';
Do not hide your face from me ... (NRSY)
alld Word Order ill Hebrew alld Arabic. 49).
e Participle', 154. Examples cited by
42Kurylowiez, 'Yerbal Aspect in Semitic', 114: Joosten, 'The Predicativ
vs. aorist and French imperfect vs. past historic; and in the present.
Joosten are, in the pasl, Greek imperfect
Bihlical Hebrew actual present >alli q6!iitvs. factual present qa!iil'ulli.
4JKurylowicl.. 'Yerbal Aspect in Semilic', 118. to the generalive·semanties hypothesis the deep structure of a sentence
is its semantic
requiring (as in Hebrew) the use of 49· According
44ln English, the bare simple present, e.g. 'I sing'. is interpreted as perfective. Lyons, Chomsky. 94. A logician might be more likely 10 think of il in terms of illoeulionary (or
e. In French. the simple present, 'le ehante' may be representa tion.'
the participle in 'I am singing' 10 express the progressiv
perhaps even perlocutionary) force.
progressive or perfective. in Linguistics: Cambridge: CUP.
50Hopper. P.J. and Traugoll, E.C.. Graflllllatica/izatioll (Cambridge Textbooks
Ｎｮ｣ｾＵＴ Placement and InterpretQtion.
/lIterpretarioll. 183; Comrie, Aspect. ch. IY'!3) 142-43.
-l0For the Perfective/Perfect/Past distinction, sec DeCaen. Placelllellt alld 51 Palmer. Mood and Modillity, 2.
3. situation· internal time (aspect) and
futures' (Ljungberg. pers. comm.). 52Ljungberg. pers. comm. Compare Comrie. Aspect, 5. who contrasts
-l7lA'Caen, P/acemem (/lId /nterpretatioll. 263. Though Dahl argues 1(" 'pure situation-external time (tense).
-lSHendel. 'In the Margins'. 154·58.
 Modality. Rl1i'f('1In' wul Sp('('cll AdS in the Psalms ,\!oda/i,y h9
6X

The kind of ordering of constituents performed by Generative Grammar as discussed above has [+MOD]. Throughout the literature on the Hebrew verbal system, comments can be found

been illustrated for Biblical Hebrew by Battle. He posits the sample sentence: 53 suggesting a relationship between long-form yiqtol (and its continuation form waqotal) and
modality. So, for example S.R. Driver:
0":'1 o':>t!ln':J Oi'1J:',t!I'':> n::J:J '011':> ;":'1' Ｇ ｾ ｏ i'101'/:'1 i'11'/ ;'':»' 1'/':> ';"0" 01'/ :'1 ';"ji'::S p':>
ＧＰｬ＿ｾＱ ＢＭＺｊｾ denote two concrele evenls: ,,03:" .," denole lwo ahstract possihililies. the conlext rixing
Cj NPIVocl 1nl Cj NPISuhjl Neg V NP(Ohjl NPllSl NP[lOI NPIMannl NPllntenl\ NPIPlaccl NPfTimel
lhe particular conditions upon which lheir heing realized depends 55
Therefore. Zedekiah. will not Jeremiah reveal the truth from the mouth of God to his penple with strength
for their salvation in Jerusalem today" or Gesenius-Kautzsch:
... es ist gleichgiillig. ob das Eimreten [von Handlungen. Ereignisse oder Zuslandel als ein sicher zu
The morphology of Biblical Hebrew supports the position of mood between TA and IntlNeg in erwartendes oder nur als ein subjektiv vorgcslelltes oder gewiinschtes und somit als ein nur evemuelles
that TA is marked morphologically (grammatical morphemes) and Int/Neg with particles hezeiehnel werden soli (modalistischer Gebrauch des Imperf.)56
(lexical morphemes), whilst mood uses both morphology (e.g. cohortative -a) and particles It is perhaps Lambdin who comes closest among the standard textbooks to a modal description

(e.g. -lIa). of yiq!ol:

This discussion has argued for a constituent order in deep structure of: Interrogative- Wilh the exception or lhe ruture usage. where lhe aclion described may be quite specific. the imperfect is
otherwise used 10 describe action conceived by lhe speaker as gencral. non·specific. habilual, potential. or
Negative-Mood-Tense-Aspect. This has two major implications for the present work. Firstly,
to some degree prohable. It is nOl entirely accurale. however. 10 describe such an action as incomplcle or
Interrogative, Negative and Imperative are the clause types considered in the following unfinished, as is often done 57
chapters; it is argued that they are all related to the concept of modality, and it is shown how Long-form yiq!ol is morphologically distinct in some forms and stems from a short-form
they function within the rhetoric of the Psalter. Secondly, a constituent order of MTA is yiq!ol.58 In an important paper on a 'A Neglected Point of Hebrew Syntax',59 Niccacci has
integral to the view of the Hebrew verbal system presented here, which iconically (i.e. with demonstrated that this morphological distinction corresponds to a syntactical distinction
surface structure reflecting deep structure) distinguishes verbal forms first by mood, then by between x-yiqtol and yiq!ol-x; he calls the latter 'jussive', and characterises the former as
tense, then by aspect as follows: 54 'simply future, not volitive ... , indicative'.60 The description of any verbal form as 'simply
MOOD future ... indicative' seems problematic from the outset, since as we have already seen, future

I+MOD) [·MODI is properly a form of Epistemic modality. In the following, [ therefore accept Niccacci's
I I
Modal System TENSE distinction between the two forms, as well as his (conventional) interpretation of yiq!ol-x as
ｾ ｾ ｾ ｾ
Deontic [+MOD, +VOL], but analyse x-yiq!ol with Joosten as Epistemic [+MOD, -VOL].61
I+YOLI [·vOLI [+PASTI [·PASTI
I
ASPECT
ｾ ｾ

I·PROGI I+PROGI
.J, .J,
Dcontic Epislemie Anterior Conslalive Cursive 55Driver. S.R.. A Treatise 011 the Use of the Tenses ill Hebrew alld IOme other syntactical Questiolls (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1892) 114.
That this is the correct way of understanding the basic distinctions in the Hebrew verbal system 56Gesenius-Kaulzsch, Grammatik, 324 § 107a. See also. in parlicular. Gesenius-Kaulzsch's review in the same
will be argued in the following. First, however, we must consider the key to the system-the paragraph of Knudlzon's view: ·[[mperf. seIze I die Handlung usw. zu dem Bewu6tsein, Uneil oder Gefiihl des
Redenden in direktere Beziehung.'
yiq!ol form. 57Lambdin, T.O., Imroducrioll la Biblical Hebrew (London: Danon. Longman and Todd. 1971) 100 §91. The
proper counterpart to such a characterisation muS! he realis modality. not (coll"a DeCaen. Placemenr alld
2.4.3. Long-Form yiq\6l as Modal IIllerprelalioll. 184) progressive aspect.
Long-form yiqtol is usually understood in tense theories as [-PAST] and in aspectllal theories as 58The distinction is usually considered as renecting dual origins. in Proto-Semitic yaqlulu for relative fUlUre. weak
volition and. mosl strikingly.l-progressivel (DeCacn. Placemenl alld IIIIerpretatioll. 184). and yaqlul for prelerite
[.PERF]; these categories have been shown above to be often associated with modal forms and lhe volitional paradigm. ThaI is, yiql61 is nol 'univocal'; Eskhult. S"'dies ill Verbal Aspecr. 19.
59Niccacci. A., 'A Neglected Point of Hebrew Syntax: Yiqtol and Position in lhc Sentence'. LA 37 (1987) 7-19.
53 Battle, SyllTaclic S,rucrures, 20. based on Chomsky. N., A.,pecrs of the Theory of Synrax (Camhridge. Mass.: 60Niccacci..A Neglected Point'. 8; similarly 9 § 1.2: 'weQalal ... always indicates simple ruture'; correeled in
MIT Prcss. 1'.165). Niccacei. Synrax. 73-96.
54Comparc the nesting preliminarily offered hy DcCacn. PIl,cement and InterpretaTion, 54: his assumption of 61Jooslen uses the terms 'extrinsic' and 'intrinsic' modality: Jonsten. J., 'Bihlical Hehrew weqalal and Syriac hwti
TMA encourages him towards an esscnlially lcnsc-hascd theory. qalet expressing repetilion in lhc past'. lAH 5 (1'.1'.12) 1-14 (13-14). He in facl argues from weqarallo "iql61.
 Modality. ｒ･ｪＨＧＬＮｮｾ Spc('ch Acts in ti,e Psalms Modo/ay 71
70 lIlId

Joosten considers the Hebrew verbal systcm in tcrms of three 'subsystems'. The Deontic T;;l'jo/ :'1" ')Z1!'1:;l: ｊＺＢＮ ﾷｾｐＢ 66:3
50 great is your power that your enemies musl critlge before you. (ALW)
modal subsystem (here, 'D-system') is characterised throughout by verb topicalisation (as also
Here, there is no element of volition on the part of Speaker or subject, and we might speak
Niccacci's argument for yiqtoL-x as jussive):
rather of (externally contingent) 'necessitative' modality. A further example from the Psalter is:
Dcontic system: cohortative. imperative. jussive. 'ol-liq!o[
:J''V/!/ ｾｬ ＢＨｉ Ｚｾｴ ＱｩＧ ｾｖＧＮＢ 69:5
The Epistemic modal subsystem (here, 'E-system') centres around long-form yiq,oL: What [ did not steal must I now restore"? (NR5V)
Two of Waltke-O'Connor's examples can be shown by relationship with "::J' to have a
Epistemic system: x-yiq!ol, ",aqii!al,16" liq!ol
potentialis meaning (see below). Again, it is striking that many of Waltke-O'Connor's
The Indicative non-modal subsystem (here, '[-system') stands in opposition to both of these:
examples are Interrogative, Negative or dependent, and have indefinite subjects. These are of
Indicative system: wmyiq!61. q{l!ol. qo!el course all categories which one might suspect are related to modality.

Essential to the development of this view have been a relocation of the predicative participle 2.4,3,2, Extended Functions
into the Hebrew verbal system,62 where it functions as Indicative Contemporaneous (cursive Therc are some functions of yiq,oL for the past and present which, it might be argued, must be
[+PROG) ha' qo!eL vs, constative [-PROG) qo!eL ha'), and a demonstration that several Indicative, and disprove the present contention that yiq!oL is fundamentally modal. Three key
purportedly Indicative uses of yiqtoL are in fact extensions of its modal nature,63 This quite examples are the general present (which is here reanaIysed as present potentiaLis), the past
radical reanalysis, which goes so far as to say that iterative and what I here term the past prospective,
From the point of view of the system, the indicative functions of I'iq!ol are negligible,64
2.4.3.2.1. General Present as Present Potetltialis
is developed below in a fuller way than has been done by Joosten himself. 65 Firstly, I consider
Waltke-O'Connor describe the 'general present' uses of yiq!ol as (non-modal) 'progressivc',
morc conventionally 'modal' uses of yiq.toL, then turning to its broader functional range, as
'incipient' and 'habitual'68 Joosten instead shows that the participle provides the Hebrew
conditioned both by extension of its own inherent modal properties and by forms of clausal
progressive form, whilst these uscs of yiq!oL refer to an event's 'Liability to happen', i.e.
modality. The wiJqiitaL 'continuation form' is considered later.
'potentialis' ,69
2.4.3, J. TypicaLLy modaL yiq!61 [n the discussion of modal systems in chapter I above, it was suggested that a sentence of
Amongst Waltke-O'Connor's categories for modal yiq,oL,66 'permission', 'deliberation', the type 'Marcus can speak Welsh' might be best described as 'Dynamic' modality, since it
'obligation' (permissive, deliberative, obligative in the terms of ch. I here) and 'desire' are involves no volition (so is not Deontic) or contingency (hence not Epistemic),70 It was in fact
typical Deontic modal functions and relate closely to the jussive and cohortative,67 Many of classified as Epistemic, however, on the understanding that there is in fact a condition present:
Waltke-O'Connor's examples are Interrogative or dependent. .... if he wants to', The same implicit condition is present in many English sentences with
Several of their examples of 'obligation' as well as the entire categories of 'capability' and 'will'; for example, the sentence, 'An unused book will gather dust' really means, 'If a book is
'possibility' may be distinguished, however, in that they relate to Epistemic, rather than not used, it will gather dust', Thus this potentiaLis function covers not only abiLity ('can
Deontic, modality, This is the case, for example, with: speak'), but also liabiLity ('will [tend to] gather'), and both of these functions can be expressed
with an apparcntly non-modal form: 'Marcus speaks Welsh' or 'An unused book gathers dust',

62Joostell, 'The Predicative Participle'.

63Jooslen, 'Biblical Hebrew .v"qcita/'.
68Waltke-O'Connor, Syntax, 504-6 §31.3.
MJoosten, 'Biblical Hebrew w'qci!a/' , 14 n. 82.
65He has not yet convinced Ihe consensus how Niccacci's and Revell's descriptinns of his Epistemic system as 69Joosten also comments elsewhere on Ihe relalionship between factual preselll and potentiali,,: 'This is clearly an
'indicative' can be 'mostly a matter of terminology' (Joostell, 'Biblical Hebrew ""qii!a/', 13 n. 78; van der applicalion of the tactual-present function: the action is envisaged as a potentiality. not as actually going on.'
Merwe. 'Overview', 16 n. 29) and has qualified his own presentation as 'only a rapid schema, not a serious (Joosten, 'The Predicative Participle', 148). It will be shown below that the tange of E-system yiqto/ in fact covers
attempt to describe the BH verbal system.' (Joosten, 'Biblical Hebrew ".eqiita/'. 14). the full range presented in ch. I, section 2.1.3.2. above, that is, necessary (related 10 Joosten's 'liable') to possible
(related to Joosten's 'able'). The corresponding Epislemic functions, obligative and pennissive, are atlested t(>r
66Wahke-O'Connor, SyntU(. 506·9 §3IA.
67The modal range Permissive to Ohligative is discossed wilh relalion to "',Jqii!at in Warren, 'Did Moses permit short-form yiq/ol and for Deontic use of Ihe E-system,
70Ch. I, scclion 2.1.3.4.
Divorce'!'.
 Modalil)' 7\
72 Modality. Rt'fel"f'Il("(, olld SPC('clr ACTS ill the Psalms

That potentialis covers both ability and liability is important for the interpretation of 'They couldn't get up', by Psalm 18:39 mj/ ''?:J''-I'(,?', 'They couldn't get up'.7S A funher

Joosten's main example in Hebrew:?1 example can be seen within the parallelism of:
:'/J))' i!'lV ｲｾ ＭｯＯ ｃ il[1 ,:;>': Ｇｆｏｾｮｯ 78:20
The door !Urns on its hinge and a sluggard on his hed. (ALW) can he give even bread, or provide mcatto his people'} (ALW)

Though the first clause of this proverb refers to the inherent ability of the door, the second To take one other recent grammar, many of Gibson's general present yiq!6ls can be

clause, moo-'?!V ｾＧｏ '?:::lY (after resolution of verb-gapping), is clearly not concerned with interpreted as poten/ialis of liability. He cites firstly comparisons: 76

ability (*'A sluggard can turn'), but with liability ('A sluggard will tend 10 turn'). Further, the :l,::I;"1 vi' iV/oC::I Judg 7:5
as a dog will lap (ALW)
underlying condition is clearly not' A sluggard will turn, if ... ', but can only be discovered by
';"1Yi-'/oC V'/oC i:l" iV/oC::I O')O-,/oC 0')0 ;"1VO-'N ;"1,;"1' i:l" boo 33:11 77
decomposing '?:::l!V into the semantic constituents [+ANIMATE, +LAZY]: 'A person will turn, ifhe
. as a man will speak to his friend (ALW)
is lazy'. Thus conditionality, and hence Epistemic modality, is implied by both ability ('can'),
:O';"1'/oC l'?/oC ＩｾＱ ＧＭＺ 'inq p O'9-'j7'OW')) ).i;1il "/oC:> 42:2
and liability ('will tend to'), and the content of the condition may be expressed in either an As a deer will long for Slreams of water, so my soul will long for you. God. (ALW)
adjective ('unused') or a nominal subject ('?:::lY). :O'i;:1 D.;"1"il ｉＺｃｯＯＮｖｬｩＺ［ｊＭｾＩｩＱｉＺＧ ［ｾＱＢ 83:15
Potentia/is of ability may be seen in many examples of yiq!ol in the Psalter: As tire will burn a foresl, and as a flame will sel tire to mountains. (ALW)
:"D-m)D' ｾ Ｌ 0'7/oC:>1 v9v/oC /oC? Vin:>, ')/oC1 38:14 The first four of these refer to general characteristics of dogs, friends, deer and fires under
But I am like a deaf man-l can't hear: and like a mute. who can't open his mouth. (ALW)72 certain conditions. Dogs do not spend all their time lapping, nor do fires always burn forests 78
It frequently occurs with both content and polar questions: Though 42:2b might seem more problematic, it should be noticed that longing implies the
:'/JP'. '0 ＬｾＮＯｯｃＧ ［ＢＱｾＭｩｔ［ｬｖｩ il1)'11-0/oC 130:3
condition of dissatisfaction.
If you, 0 LORD. should mark iniquities, Lord, who could stand') (NRSV)
Secondly, Gibson cites 'proverbial sayings and general truths':
... il/oC!-ii?!'1: 0';"17/oC. /oC?!'! 44:22
ＺＱＢ［ｓｾ P ;"1''';''1''::1:> Ｂ Ｙ ｾ i'::II):> VU/oC, 103:15·16
Cannot God perceive this') ... (ALW)
:'0'j70 ,W ＧＩｾ Ｚ＾ＧＮＭＯｯｃＢ W'/oC, ＧｾＭ［ＢＱＡＺｬ 11':-' ';:>
The relationship of yiq!6/ 10 what we know as modal verbs has been demonstrated quite
As for man. his days are like grass; he will flourish like a flower of the field.
apart from extended grammatical discussions. In an old work on formulaic expressions in
For when the wind has passed over it. it is no more: and its place will not recognise il any more. (ALW)
Biblical Hebrew idiom, Lande writes: The nature of the condition implied by potentialis yiq!t5/ of liability here is made clear by the
Da die Hilfsverben im Hebraisehen im grossell Ganzell fehlen, Ubernimmt das bIosse Imperfekt des
ensuing verses, which speak of the contrasting benefits for those who fear God.
Hauplverhes, das wir im DeuIschen mit dem Hilfszeitwon verbinden, ihre Stelle.?3
Finally, Gibson lists uses 'of a characteristic or a habit':
She cites as examples 2 Sam 2:22 NVI'( TI'(', 'Wie konnte ich ... ?' and I Sam 26:9 (corr.)
Ｚｴ ｬｾ ｚｉｏ i.:pl'l ,j,lZI," ;"19:>1;1 ＧＱＢ［Ｎｾｬ ｐＧｾ ＢＷｪ 37:30
n' ｖ ｯ ｾ ,,' n?v' '0, 'Wer dUrfte seine Hand and den Gesalbten , .. legen?', then going on to
The mouth of a righteous man will uller wisdom and his tongue will speak justice. (ALW)
discuss the Desiderative idiom li1' '0. 74 Two of Waltke-O'Connor's examples can be clearly
In conditional terms, 'If a man is righteous, he will.,.'. But here, as in all the above examples,
shown to have potentialis meaning by the use of one of very few modal verbs in Biblical
one element in the modal Qature of the clause is the indefinite nature of the subject. One might
Hebrew, '?;", in parallel texts. Deuteronomy I: 12 I'( VI'( ;"l:J'I'(, 'How can I carry', is parallelled
compare the use of the French subjunctive after an indefinite subject.
by Deuteronomy 1:9 j1I'(V , .. ?:J'I'(-N'?, 'I cannot carry', and 2 Samuel 22:39 po'v' I'('?',

75Waltke-O'Connur, Sy1lULt. 507 §31.4e and n. 28. See also Blau, 86 §62, on V,J V"';"1 Gen 43:7: 'perhaps
710ffered at Tilhurg: also in Joosten. 'The Indicative System'. 58. This example seems funher problematic. hecause of the modal colour of the interrogation: "could we know''': in fact, the modal pOlentia[;s lies already ill
however. since Jooslen himself had earlier cited it as an e,ample of Ihe archaic 'general present' ('The Predicative the "iq!ot fonn.
76Gibson, Davidson'" Sy1lULt. 74·75 §63b. Gibson's own e,amples arc reinterpreted here, with funher e,amples
Participle'. 156-7)'
72The 3rd-pcrson reference in hf3 makes this a (autologous non-restrictive relative clause. added from the Psalter as necessary.
73L.ande. I., formethaJte Wendll1lge1l der Umgllng.uprache im Atle1l TestameJll (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1949) 90. 77The habilual wiJqii!at in the Iirst clause corresponds to yiqlot in the parallel Num 12:8.
78See also 2 Sam 17: 12 'u;"1 '0' iVN::I, 'as the dew falls.
74Scc ch. 4. section 3.2.4. helow.
74 Moda/iry. Nt1i'u'IIn' alld Speech Act.\" in 'he P.m/III.\" Modtllifr 75

In conclusion, we might consider a cross-linguistic treatment of 'gnomic' ullerances. The subordinate clause here must exist in the past, not the present,80 since, however early one
Lyons 79 shows that these may be timeless, omnitemporal or non-deictically time-bound. They dates this text, there is clearly a historical displacement from the writer and a parallel with
may use present tense in languages where this is the semantically unmarked tense, past tense ＬｾｪｯＢ .
when basing a general truth on past experience, iterative aspect when basing it on what is One rather idiosyncratic aspectual treatment of the Hebrew verbal system lends surprising
usually the case, and Epistemic modality when subjective. The f/oteTltialisl'conditionality' support to this 'past iterative' interpretation of yiqtol. In his excursus on the 'precative perfect',
argumenl put forward above is therefore only one aspect of these utterances, and, as we shall Moses BUllenwieser87 discusses an 'imperfect of progressive duration', reading for example
see below, some occurrences of qii!al may also be analysed as gnomic. ｾｪＱ［ｊＧ 'became more and more filled with smoke' (lsa 6:4), "'ON' 'speaks ever more clearly'
2.4.3.2.2. Past heralive (Isa 40: l), ;'''17' 'The mist lifted in layers' (Gen 2:6) and even a sequence of verbs of striking
'Iterative', 'habitual' or 'frequentative' past represents a (non-modal) tense-aspect description with disease (Job 16: 13-14),
of yiq!o/lw3qii!aI 80 Joosten has argued, however, that this is 'a regular extension '81 of the as descriplive of Ihe nature of the disease from which Job was suffering. A person slricken wilh
elephantiasis actually dies hy inches: Ihe members of the body rol away and drop off onc by one 88
main, modal function, comparable to the use of 'would' for iterative past in English 82 and the
Though these examples might not be best translated with English 'would', they are clearly
iterative use of the Greek optative and Latin subjunctive. 83
iterative. They cannot be truly progressive, due to their punctual AktioTlsart.
Often the context demands an iterative reading, whether it be in the exposition to a Narrative
Finally, Niccacci has shown that following ';'" (a position which he interprets as an
(which is presented in the Linguistic Attitude Discourse):
apodosis), yiq!ol-x {usually Deontic) can perform this same function. 89 So, for example:
;')OV:lil ... ;'fDV' ... ;'ilOV:l' ... lil' .. , lilJ' ;'0'0' 0'0'0 ... ;,':>v, 1 Sam 1:3.7 84
on':>-':>:lN':> ;'OfD ""0' Ｌ ｾ ｶ ',0 ';'" 2 Kgs4:8b
And he would go up .. year hy year ... and he would give he would give ... and she would provoke her
And so, every lime (Elisha) passed by, he used 10 turn Ihere to eat hread. (Nieeacci)
... he wuuld do ... she would provoke her. (ALW)

or in an iterative interpolation: 85 Since it is located in the past, this function of yiqtol is not frequent in the Psalter. We find

... ,o,p' ... ;";" ." N3' ... ;";" ... N"'P' ... ;'D)' ... np' ;'VD' Exod 33:7-11
some examples in the historical Psalms:
:':>N-"nv, '::Jip,' Ｌ［ ｾｽＧＬ C.n11-CN 78:34
... '::I" ... ＬｯｾＢ ... ' " ... ;";" ... ,t)'::I;', ... ＧｾＳＩＧ
When he had killed chem, Ihen Ihey would seek him and would return and would pursue God. (ALW)90
And Moscs would take ... and would pitch .. and would call and it would happen that ... would go out
... and it would happen that ... would rise .. and would stand and would look ... and il would happen 2.4.3.2.3. Past Prospective
Ihal ... would descend ... and would stand ... and would speak (ALW) Joosten's examples of the past prospective yiq!ol include:
General historical background may also be presented in this way: ;':l::Jil ;':l::l, ;'1;"-':>V ＮＬＧＺ＾ｾｮｭ I Sam 1:10
o'c)n;, '0' 'N':>O' P ':l [Jl' O'V::I'N ,':>-'N':>O" Gen 50:3 And sbe prayed to Ihe Lord and was on Ihe point of crying. (ALW)
And they fulfilled forty days for him, for thus Ihey would fulfil the days of embalming. (ALW) O':>tzt,.." N::J' O':>fD::IN' "V;' " , ;'V' 'Vln N::I" 2 Sam 15:37
And David's friend Hushai entered the city just as Ahsalom was about to enter lerusalem. (ALW)

'O'O:l' ilo;,n Exod 15:5

The deep walers were ahout to cover them. (ALW)

,:::l il'O' 'fDN ,'':>n-nN ;,':>n VfD'':>N' 2 Kgs 13:14

79Lyons, Setlullllics 2,681. And Ehsha became ill with the illness of which he was going to die. (ALW)
80Waltke-O'Connor, SymQX, 502-3 §31.2h: Gibson, Davidsoll's Syll/ax, 73-74 §63a.
81 Jooslen, 'Bihlical Hebrew ","qa/{ll', 12.
82100sten, 'Biblical Hebrew ,,"'qa!/I!'. 8.
83S ee also Eskhult, Sludies ill Verbal Aspecl, 43: ＧｬＱＢｾｨ｡ｹｩ indicalcs the fUlurc or (strikingly enough) habituality in
lhe past'.
84Prohlemalic here are what loosten calls a 'false slarl' in v. 4a (laken up al the cnd of v. 7); loosten, J .. 86Comra Gibson, Davidsol/ '., SYI//{u, 74 §63b.
'Workshop: Meaning and Use of the Tenses in I Samuel 1', in van Wolde, E. (ed.), Narral;"e SYlllax alld Ihe 87Bullenwieser, M., The Psalms (The Lihrary of Biblical Studies: New York: KTAV, 1969) 18-25.
Hebrew Bible: Papers of Ihe Titburl! COllferellce 1996 (Leiden: E.l. Brill. 1997) 72-83. Slrikingly. it is just this 88Bullenwieser, Psalms, 20.
pasS<Jge that is promoled by DeCaen. PIt,c<'mclI/ alld III/upreloliol/. 261-62, as evidence in f"vour of his tense 89Niccacci, 'A Neglecled Point', 13 §2.3.
theory; he unconvincingly reads '.;'1101 here as 'Narrative Present'. 90Similarly throughoul this Psallll. lhough there are also several 11"0."I';q!0Is with apparently the same function.
K5Nole the "'ayr;qliil narralive sequences which precede "nd follow chis passage. Sec similarly 2 Sam 15: 1-6. Misvocalisation of originally H','y;q!o!s scems possible. though k'{/yyilf.1ii/ itself can he iterative.
71> ModalilY. Hl'!('re"ct' lIlId S/Jl'edr Acts in 'lie P.W/IIIS 77

Waltke-Q'Connor describe this function of yiq!ol as non-modal 'incipient' or 'ingressive' and (It should be noted how many of the above examples of past potentialis yiqtoL are Negative or
so translate 'bega/l weeping', 'while Absalom began entering', 'began to cover them'.91 The Interrogative.) These examples confirm the relationship discussed in chapter I between
key to a defence of Joosten's reading lies in the punctual Aktiol/Sart of the verbs used here. Negative and mood. The same point can be made for Arabic Lam yaqtuL, description of which
'Entering', 'covering' and 'dying' clearly do not happen over a period of time, so we must as an allomorph of qa!ala is clearly wrong, since they are distinguished by the feature [±MOD].
translate 'to be about to' (prospective mood with punctual Aktionsart) rather than 'to begin to' 2.4.3.3.2. Interrogative Present

(incipient aspect with durative Aktionsart). Joosten has tentatively suggested that
2.4.3.2.4. Conclusion ... the use of yiq!o[ to refer lO the real present in questions ete .. is modal; in a question the action is not
entircly "real", it is questioncd 95
These three extended functions of yiq!ol are essential to an understanding of the basic meanig
This can be shown most clearly in conversational exchanges:%
of the yiqtol conjugation as modal. If it is accepted that present and past uses of yiq!ol are
potentialis (ability: 'can speak' or liability: 'will turn'), iterative ('would go up') or prospective l!Ii':J1.:l ｾｉｊ ＺＧ ｾｉｬＢ ＭｎｮＧ ... l!Ii':Jil;'10 Gen 37:15·16
What are you looking for" .. I'm looking for my brothers. (ALW)
('was about to-), it will no longer be possible with Niccacci to describe yiq!ol-x as 'indicative'.
iln.,:J ':lJN 'il.,:J) '''l!I 'J!:lO ... ':l'il ;'1JN1 ilN:J ;'111.:l-'N Gcn 16;8
2.4.3.3. Modally Marked Where have you come from and where are you going? ... I'm Oceing from Sarai my mistress. (ALW)

The above extensions of the modal capacity of yiq!ol have had to be carefully argued, relying ... 1JnJN O''':J11 '" N1:Jil r N01 l'il ;'1JN )udg 19: 17·18
as they do on complex matters of contingency and Aktionsart. This next category, however, Where are you going and where arc you coming from ... We are passing through ... (ALW)

looks at three characteristically modal clause-types (Negative, Interrogative and conditional), We therefore note the rule as formulated by Gross:
Auf Frage nach individuellem gegenwartigem Sachverhalt mit x-yiq!ol anlwortet PIZ fUr individuellen
marked for modality by lexical morphemes. Even Eskhult, with his strong aspect theory,
gegenwartigen Sachverhalt 97
acknowledges that these are special cases:
The ('real') answer resorts to the predicative participle,98 indicating that the ('unreal')
... there arc particles that deny, dispute or question the full and real activity of a verhal form, such as
question's yiqtol is associated with the (weak) 'I don't know' element in the neustic of factual
negalions. interrogatives. conditional panicles etc. It goes without saying (hat such panicles deprive yiq!ol

«'yaq!utu) from executing its cursive vatue. 92 questions, which distinguishes them from (strong) 'I say so' statements. 99
Modal yiq!ol can be shown to stand in these contexts in complementary distribution to the Interrogative yiqtol can further be seen in adverbial Interrogatives of purpose and time.
(Indicative Contemporaneous) predicative participle in unmarked contexts 93 l:J:J' 11,,' ;'11.:l" ":JNil N' ;'10'1 ':l:Jil ;'10' I Sam 1;8
Why are you crying and why aren't you eating and why is your heart down') (ALW)
2.4.3.3.1. Negative Present
The participle may be Negated with yiq!ol.94
How long will you go on getting drunk? (ALW)
VOlt" N' ;'10,1i" ml1J ;'1'il!:ll!l i''' ;'1:J"-'11 il":J'O N';"1 ;'1Jn1 I Sam 1;13
And Hannah was speaking in her heart; only her lips were moving and her voice could not be heard.
Finally, a good example of a rhetorical question with potentialis yiq!ol comes from an
(ALW) unlikely source, Joshua Blau (a tense theorist), who comments:
The participles here may be considered as 'historic present' according to a theory of absolute [OenI43;7 V'J 111";'1 referring 10 the past [!), perhaps because of the modal colour of the interrogation;
"could we know" 100
lense, or, better, 'progressive/Contemporaneous' in a relative tense theory. The function of
Negated yiqtol is clearly related to Dynamic potentialis of ability as discussed above.
" on' 1'(" O"):J:J ';'1D:J" I Kgs I

And Ihey covered him with clothes. but he could nol get warm. (ALW) 951oosten. 'Bihlical Hebrew "''''1lltal'. 14 n. 82.
96)oosten. 'The Predicative Participle'. 157 and n. 107.
97Groll. W.. 'Das nicht substantivierte Partizip', 46.
'JXThough the Pt-S word ordcr in ludg 19; 18 corresponds to what )oosten calls the 'constalive Of factual present'
as opposcd to S-Pt 'cursive or actual present'. This distinction is doubtless correct, hUI loosten's argument for
91 Waltkc-O'Connor. SrI/tax, 503-4 §31.2c. JUdg 19; 18 is weak-he spcaks of Ibe 'interpretive' clemcnl in the Lcvite's reply; loosten, 'The Predicative
92Eskhult, STI/dies il/ Verbat ASpeCT. 43. Participle'. 150.
93)oosten. 'The Predicative Participle'. 99S ec ch. I.
94)o{lsten. 'Tbc Predicative Participle'. 144 n. (0).157 n. 107. IIK1Blau. Grammar. 86 *62.
 Mor/ality. Reference ond Speech ACIJ i" the Psalms Mod"lilY
7X

suggests a modal meaning, since the dislocation of a situation from real time (such as in
It has been shown that Interrogative yiqto/ corresponds not to the participle as a whole, but
subordinate clauses), like its ascription to an indefinite subject, makes it irrealis, i.e. modal.
only 10 its cursive aspect (hll' qotel as opposed to qa(eI htl').IOI
Each of the examples given invites a modal reading. 106 All of DeCaen's 'narrative presents' are
2.4.3.3.3. Conditional Present
further iterative,107 those in the background are relative future 108 and those with'iiz can also be
As is shown throughout the current work, conditionality shares with Interrogativity a modal
reanalysed,109
neustic. We have already seen examples of "im as Interrogative conjunction (following ha) with
Khan 110 has argued against the modal understanding of the Hebrew verbal system presented
yiqta/ (78:20 under 2.4.3.2.1. above). We can compare its conditional function:
by Zuber. I1I He writes,
［ＧＱＢｶＧＭｾＢ .,. ,'j1j1J' ." ;'1"m, ... ＢＧｾＭｭｺｬｊＺｮ .. , 'Jj1":Jn ... ［ＧＱｾＢｪ ［ＧＱｾＢＭｏｎ I Sam 1:11
The form yiql61 ... is oftcn uscd in contexts whcrc il is most casily inlerpreled as expressing indicative
IF you look ... and you rememher me .. and you don't forget .. and you give ... THEN 1 will give him.
mood. This applies particularly to thc use of yiq!6110 refer to the present tense.
will nOI go up. (ALW)
Though I would have the same reservations as Khan about the kind of methodology used by
Even concessive uses of "im take yiq(o/: 102
Zuber (using the LXX and Vulgate), the above discussion should have demonstrated that there
are a range of functions within the present (potentialis, Interrogative, Negative, conditional)

Though your sins arc like scarlet, Ihcy will be whitc like snow. which, though not normally shown to be such by Greek, Latin or English translations, are in
Though they are rcd like crimson, they shall he like wool. (ALW) fact 'modal' in a broader sense.
The Epistemic modality here might be brought out in English by use of the subjunctive: Finally, Joosten himself comments that there may be Indicative uses of yiq(al in ancient
'Though your sins be ... ', poetry .112 The example he cites is:
Some temporal expressions also have a conditional flavour: ::JlI7nj1' ｾＬ O'U::J' pll7' "'::J" OV-1;'1 ... ＧｊＢ ｬｉＷｾ .. , ＧｊｾＢ ... ':J Num 23:9
:llZl" , .. ［ＧＱｾＢｊＧ ,'j1N:l;'1' ". "O)"V I Sam 1:22 1see him ... I behold him ... a people living alone, and not reckoning ilsclf among the nations' (NRSV)
Oncc he is weaned .. then ['11 bring him and he will appear and he will stay. (ALW) It should be clear from what has been said above, however, about the relationship between

2.4.3.2.4. Conclusion mood and conditionality, that this sentence could easily be translated as temporal protasis
It has now been shown that the three modal clause types of Negative, Interrogative and followed by apodosis:
conditional require yiq(o/ in place of the participle. This strongly supports our thesis that, whilst When ... [see him ... [behold him .. (Then ... ) Behold a nalion that will live apart, that doesn't considcr
living among the nations! (ALW)
the participle is Indicative Contemporaneous, yiq(al is modal.
This translation accounts for the use of yiq(ol forms, explains the use of ki, links the two bicola
2.4.3.4. Arguments against Modal yiq!ol
(J;'l ", '::I, 'When I see ... Behold!'), and accords better with the context, since it reads the
I have shown throughout the above discussion how the examples of supposedly Indicative
yiq(ol presented by those who hold to a tense or aspect-based view of the Hebrew verbal system
can be reanalysed as modal. Here I consider some more specific arguments against a modal
106 1 Sam 5:5 volition-'the pricsls of Dagon will not I are not prepared to ...'; I Sam \6:7 pOlell1ialis-'can see';
view of yiq(a/. I Sam 19:24 relative future-'for Ihis reason Ihey were to say ... '; I Sam 20:2 assumptive-'my father wouldn't
DeCaen'sl03 relative tense theory of the Hebrew verbal system is highly susceptible to a ... withoul lelling me'; \ Sam 24: 14 relalive future-'as the old proverb was 10 say .. .' (authorial commcnt,
showing 13h occurring in the proverh 14ah,h).
modal interpretation of yiq!ol. He describes yiq(ol as 'simple present tense', then subclassifying 107DeCaen, Placemenl alld InlerpretOlioll, 261; just as his cxamples of the corresponding sequential form,
into two Indicative functions (generic and narrative present) and two modal functions (irrealis w,1qii!al (290-91) and the Fula subjunctive (288,89).
108 2 Sam 12:3\ 'and thus he was 10 do to all the cities ... .'; I Kgs 3:4 'hc was 10 offer a thousand burnt offerings
and Epistemic/Deontic).I04 His description of the generic present as 'timeless'105 already
109 1 Sam 6:3 conditional-'iflhell you're healed, then wc'lI know .. .'; I Sam 20:12 Interrogative-'willl nOI
send 10 you ... '?'; 2 Sam 5:24ajussive (Deontic'); 2 Sam 5:24h relative future-'will he ahout to go OUI.
II0Khan, G.A .. 'Review of B. Zuher, Das Tempussyslem des hihlischen Hebriiisch. Eine Untersuchung am Text',
101 Joosten, 'The Predicalive Participle', 157-8.
VT46(1996) 143-44.
102Jooslen, 'The Predicative Participle'. 157 n. 107.
I1I Zuber, B., Do., Tempussystem des biblischell Hebrtiisch. Eille U,uersuc!wlIg am Text (BZAW 164: Berlin de
IlHDcCacn, Placemelll alld lll1erpre/(/lian.
Gruyter, t986).
Itl4DcCacn, Placemelll and IlI1erprelOli,m. 257-66.
112Joosten, 'The Predicative P<lrticiple'. 157 n. 107.
IIlSDcCaen. Placemellt and lll1erprerari,m. 259.
lll) Ivtodolity. Reference and Speech Acts ill rlt(' Psalms Modality KI

second bicolon as referring to Israel's claim to live in her own land ("apart'), not remaining (Gen 48:6; Lev 4:3; I Sam 8: 18; 2 Sam 17: 12) are distinguished by a shift in deictic centre. I 18

nomadic ('among the nations'). Within a subordinate clause, there may also be such a shift to the (present) speech act from a

Having presented the evidence for modal yiq!ol, and having addressed several objections to main clause reference point in the past (Deut 4:13) or future (I Sam 3:12/ Exod 4:21, I Sam

this view, it must be acknowledged that other views are tenable, and that there are likely to be 12:24). Similarly, the 'epistolary' perfect function is governed purely by a shift in the deictic
cases where yiq!ol appears to more naturally invite an Indicative reading. Nevertheless, in my centre from Speaker/Writer to Addressee/Reader. I 19 The 'prophetic' perfect is clearly a

view, reading yiq!ol as modal best accounts for the largest number of occurrences. secondary function-a 'context-conditioned perfective future'I2o of qa!af. In Klein's much-
cited Ireatment 121 several examples are Interrogative (and so modally marked at clause level);
2.4.4. qa!al as Perfect
several are gnomic (see above on potentialis yiq!ol); the concept of performativity is not even
The qa!al form is usually understood in tense theories as [+PAST) and in aspeclUaltheories as
mentioned,I22 despite these utterances typically issuing from a bearer of authority
[+PERF); these categories are particularly associated with the modal value [-MOD). If, as has
(prototypically, of course, God Himself);123 and no consideration is made of the prophetic
been argued above, yiqtol forms the basis of a Hebrew modal system, qa!al must form the basis
formula ｾＬ Ｎ ｉｏｾ ｾＺ＾Ｌ which may itself signal a shift of deictic centre to the time when the
of the non-modal system [-MOD). But here we also find the predicative participle for
revelation being reported was first received. 124 From a deictic centre in the present, present
contemporaneity, forcing the interpretation of qa!al as [+PAST).I 13 It should be emphasised at
states may be expressed using a stative verb such as Ｚ ｊｾｎ in the qa!al form; I25 imminent future
this point, however, that just as the participle is properly not present. but 'Contemporaneous',
states may be expressed similarly (e.g. Num 17:27 ｵＢＧＺ ｊｾＬ 'we are going to die!'), as may
so qa!al is not properly past, but 'perfect' or 'Anterior', that is, relative past. 114
future actions of which the starting point is perceived as in the past (e.g. I Sam 16:8 Cll::JlU;:1,
The morphological and syntactic differentiation within yiqtol (x-yiq!ol vs. apocopated yiq!ol-
'you are going to return'). The 'precative' perfect is treated below. 126
x) has been shown to be related diachronically to its dual origins in Proto-Semitic yaq!ulu and
yaqtul, and synchronically to a dual function as Epistemic vs. Deontic. It has frequently been 2.4.5. Perfonnative Function

noted that the tree of functional types is unbalanced in that qa!al is not subject to a comparable In this and the following two sections, we look first at a definitively Indicative function

secondary distinction. I 15 This is explained by Gesenius as follows: (Performative), then at the two varieties of modal function (Deontic and Epistemic) to see how
Das Perfekt hat nur eille Form, da es nicht in der Weise des Impf. zum Ausdruck von Modusverhahnissen they may be fulfilled by different forms.
dienen kann. 116
In fact, however, just as Epistemic x-yiq!ol contrasts with Deontic yiqtol-x (so Niccacci), and
118But see Comrie, Tellse, 77-82, who shows that the perfect is not fully congruous with future perfect and
Cursive hii' qO!el with Constative qo!el hii' (so loosten), so qa!altoo has several alternative pluperfect.
functions, governed sometimes by word order. I17 119As in Latin and Greek, Sec Pardee, 0 .. 'The "Epistolary Perfect" in Hebrew Letters', RN 22 (1983) 34-40,
especially n. 7; Levinson, Pragmatics, 73-74,
Within the realis-perfect function, qa!al may cover a broad range. Past perfect ([ Sam 17:20
120Kurylowicz, 'Verbal Aspect in Semitic', I 18; compare-less formally-Joiion-Muraoka, 363 § [12h: 'not a
and passim), present perfect (Exod 4:21; I Sam 3:[2; 12:14,24; ler 45:4) and future perfect special grammatical perfect, but a rhetorical device.', Buttenwieser, Psalms, 21, notes that it always occurs in
alternation with yiqtOl.
121 Klein, G.L., 'The 'Prophetic Perfect", JNSL 16 (1990) 45-60.
I13So especially DeCaen, Placemellt alld lmerpretatioll. l22tn earlier editions of his Grammatik, Schneider, 205 §48.6.3, had attempted to explain the entire 'prophetic'
114See Ljungherg's comment on the order of constituents above. Even languages traditionally undcrstood as perfecl 'a Is einen Sonderfall performativen Sprechens'; this was retracted in the 5th edition in the light of
tense-bascd use tense relatively-e.g. loosten refers to the historic present as a linguistic universal; 'The criticisms of such as Talstra. Nevertheless, several of Klein's examples <1ilJ, :Fl' , ｔＢｾＬ ｾ ｬｾＩ are in fact clearly
Predicative Paniciple', 142. performative.
I15h is a 'terminal node'. See Eskhult, Studies ill Verbal Aspect, 20: 'The idea, that causes the suffix conjugation 123See further helow. Klein, 'The Prophetic Perfect', 45, rightly notes that, despite the term 'prophetic perfect',
to oppose the two forms of the prelix conjugation, is that the suffix conjugation is essentially static. Being static, it the Speaker is not always God; it remains true, however, that authority is usually involved.
is also arermillal. that is. there is no analysis of the vcrhal content in Cl continuum oetween given limits. In contrast. 124Talstra, 'Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. 11', 28: "mr still has its past perspective function', responding to
the prelix conjugation stands for motion. Something happens. This presupposes a heginning and an end of the the claim in Schneider, Grammatik, 205 §48.6.3.2 (corrected in the 51h edition), that this is performative,
verbal activity. Onc has to reckon with an initial point and a terminal point of the verbal activity. Thus the prefix 1250n the relationship hetween Mood and Aspect, see Loprieno, Allciefll Eg,lptiall, 125, where he shows how in
conjugation is lIo1J-aterm;lIol.· Egyptian, direct (main-clause) or indirect (subordinate) volitional modality occasions in 'adjective verbs' a
116Gesenius-Kautzsch, 136 *4Xb n. I. 'semantic shift ... from the static ['he good'] to the dynamic meaning ['hecome good']'.
I 17Colltra Joosten, Tilburg: ''10(el is only a predicate, whilst '10!ol is a verb form and so has no distinction at this 126See helow, 2.4.6. on Deontic function. Max Rogland. working under Professor Muraoka al Leiden University,
level hetween SV and VS.' is prcparing a new study on qo!al, including the 'precative' function.
X2 Modality. ｒ･ｦ ｲ ｬ ｃ ｾ (1"'/ S/J(,f'ch ,lu.\ i" 111(' 1'-"01",.\-
X.I

Both Old and New Testament accounts of origins (Gen I :3; John I: I) suggest a certain Suhjecl Speaker (t st or self-referential Jrd person)l35
power in divine words, so that Ewald could wrile of what we will describe as 'performative Indirect Ohject (oplional) Addressee (2nd person)
Silualion dynamic
qiital' that
Mood Indicalive [-MODI
it is especially frequenl in ullerances of God, whose will is equivalent to his deed.) 27
Tense-Aspect present perfective I·PAST. +PFV I-English simple present I Hehrew qaral
Buttenwieser uses similar terms to explain the 'prophetic' and 'precative' q{lfal:
Polarity Affirmali ve I-NEG I
lis origin is primarily 10 be explained in terms of Ihe primilive man's hclief in Ihe magic power of the word. Adverhial marking English -herehy', Hehrew ＺＱｊＬＩｾＶ 01':1, ＺＱＬ ｾ (also 1"'7:1, 'JN1, :11'("',11"137)
The primilivc man reasoned that, if he spoke of his wish as already fulfilled, its fulfilment was hound to
follow. 128 The range of lexical items used in this way is governed by Austin's first pair of felicity
Such comments, together with over-etymologising and over·theologising discussions of the conditions for speech acts:

word 1:;1 ':'l as embracing both dianoetic and dynamic elements, 129 have provoked justifiably
A.I There mUSI exist an accepled conventional procedure having a cenain conventional effecl. the
strong allacks from such as James Barr l30 and Anlhony Thiselton u1 However, this backlash procedure 10 include Ihe ullering of eenain words hy ccnain persons in ceriain circumstances.
should not be allowed to inhibit us from investigating Hebrew verbal usage in terms of the A.2 The parlicular persons and circumstances in a given case must be appropriale for the invocalion of
the panicular procedure involved. I Ｓｾ
comparable categories of Speech Act Theory; 132 such a discussion will not, of course, be

characterised by theological claims about the unique effective power of divine utterances, but That is to say, there must exist a verbal convention for specific actants in specific
by a more general appreciation of the functioning of linguistic conventions and authority circumstances A paradigmatic example of an explicit performative might be l'? 'n11 :lllJJ T1JT1,
structures.) 33 'I hereby promise you', where there is an accepted convention of swearing (perhaps reflected in
The 'explicit' performative (English: 'f hereby name this ship", ') may be defined formally the etymology of V11 :lllJ), where an authorily adduced in support of the oath is not invalid (such

a5: 134 as in '[ swear by my head') and the Speaker has the power to fulfil what he promises (see Matt

5:34-36; Heb 6: 13-16), Common performative verbs include 1nl , ,JJ and ItlN.I39
An important subclass of performative verbs, referrcd to by Benveniste as 'verbes

delocutifs', consists of verbs not just referring to a Speech Act, but actually derived from the

127Ewald, H.. Syntat of the Hebrew Language of the Old Tesrament, tr. l. Kennedy (Edinburgh: T&T C1ark,
1881) 5 §135c.
128Bullenwieser, Psalncr. 24. 135 Austin's 'mark of a performalive verb' was 'asymmetry belween the firsl person singular present indicative
I 29£.g. Procksch, 'The Word of God in Ihe Old Testament', in TDNT s.v. )"iyoo (1942) 91-100 (93): 'Only in the active and Olher persons and tenses of the vel)' Same \·erb.'; Austin, How to do Thillgs with Words, 63,
Heh. ':;1" is Ihe malerial concept with its energy fell so vitally in lhe verbal concept that the word appears as a 1J6Zatelli, 'hllh as signal ofa performative utterance'.
material force which is always present and at work, which runs and has the power to make alive'. 'Dianoetic vs. 7
1J These are nol normally included in such a list. However. 1"'7:1 seems to have this function in Josh 1:9 and ludg
dynamic' is analogous to 'propositional content vs. i1locutionary force'. 6: 14; , JN1 (compare also the lopicalised Agent in Aramaic ｯｾ 0' TO ' JD) in Gen 48:22, Num 3: 12 (with ;'1J:1)
IJOBaIT, SenulIItics, 129-40. and Ps 2:6; :11'" in Deut4:5; and IN in Ps 40:8.
IJIThiselton, A.C.. 'The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings', JTS NS25 (1974) 283-99. 138 Auslin, How to do Things with Words, 14-15.
132Phrastic/tropic; compare also the temlinology of communication Iheory (ReferentiallInterpersonal) and 1J9Hillers, D,R., 'Some Performative Utterances in Ihe Bihlc', in Wrighl. D.P., Freeman, D.N. and Hurvitz, A.
modalily (proposilional content/modalily). (cds.), Pomegranales and Golden Bells: Studies in Near Easlern Rilual, Law, and Literature in Hooor of laeob
1J3Compare Talstra, 'Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. 11', 28-29. Milgrom (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenhrauns, 1995) 757-66 ciles: n"TO, '71" TO, TO"j/:1, :11:::r, "j/!l:1, Ｚｬ ｾＬ ＢｾＺＱＬ
1J4Compare Schneider, Gral1llllarik, 204 §48,6.2: 'I. der Sprccher iSI Subjekl, 2. das Verb sleht im Prasens, 3. die ＱＧＺｬｾ ＱＬ lilJ, NTOJ,lO), "):1, OND, ."n, :1D',l':l, ,n:l, IDN, also adding ,'7' meaning 'adopl' (Ps 2:7),
2. Person kann als indirektes Ohjekt vorkommen, 4. es kann "hiermit" eingcfiigl werden, 5. der Satz iSl nicht :l:1N meaning 'declare love' (Exod 21:5), and Aramaic NJTO meaning 'divorce'.l would add 11:1 01 Chron 29:2),
negativ.': also. critiquing Schneider's application of Leech's second sylllaclic marker of a performalive ullerance '0'7 (DeuI4:5), nj/'7 (Num 3:12),lnJ (Gcn 9:3; 23:11. 13; 48:22; I Kgs 3:12-13; I Chron 29:3; ler 34:17-18 with
(= Austin's grammatical condition), Talslra, 'Text Grammar and Hebrew Bihle. !I', 28: '2. The verb is in simple copulative waw), ＺＱｴｶｾ (2 Sam 14:21: 1 Kgs 3:12), :11:::r Oosh 1:9, Ihough nol 2 Sam 13:28); I would delete
present tense. In Hebrew: perfect lense'. Similarly, Hendel, 'In the Margins', 156. Eskhult's "coincidenl case" is Hillers's examples of n'7IV, which I read as epistolary '1cilal, and rcplace Ihem wilh ludg 6: 14 (see below). ludg
also in fact perlormalive (Eskhult, SlIIdies ill Verbal Aspect, 21); Gen 14:22 ' , ' 'il!J'I:1 is an idiom, meaning 'I 1:21":l y'N:1-"N '"il) :1J:1 ＧｾＷＱＺ :1":1' seems highly prohlcmalic_ since Ihe SV word order suggests a
herehy swcar'; Lusl. l., 'The raised hand of Ihe Lord in DeUI 32:40 according 10 MT, 4QDeutq, and LXX', Textus non-volilional reading of ;1'l:" ;"';'''. which in (urn would tend to suggesl reading" ilJ') as perfect. noL
18 (1995) 33·45 (42), though colltra his explanation pp. 44-45. performalive. Many performative qa!als are rightly rendered (and oflen marked with 'hereby') in NRSV, which,
however. similarly renders several participles (see oelow). SC'c also the lisl in O·Connor. Hebrew Verse Structure.
410.
X4 Modality. Reference Cllld Sp('l't"" AdS '-1/ tilt' Pm/ms
85

characteristic form of its utterance. 140 Thus, in English, 'to welcome' means 'to say
"welcome'" (similarly 'to hail', 'to sweetheart' and Latin 'salutare'). [n Biblical Hebrew, these 'You arc my son: I herehy beget you. '147

have usually been incorrectly termed 'declarative pi'el/hiph'il'. They occur especially in legal and in a passive in the common Aramaic phrase CVU C'TZ7 ')0 (e,g. Ezra 6:8). Deontic
contexts: ｪ＿Ｇ ｾ［Ｇ and V'TZ7.,;, mean 'to say "N';' ｪ＿Ｇ ｾ IN';' VTZ7.,'" (civil law); ";'u and modality is the first of Austin's 'more primitive devices in speech, ... roles which can ... be
NO!' mean 'to say UN';' .,,;,U IN';' NOU'" (ritual law); ;'i?) means 'to say "N';' 'j?)"'. Two taken over by the device of the explicit performative'; 148 Biblical examples include imperatives
non-legal terms are important for the present thesis: .,TZ7N means 'to say "N';' '.,TZtI«", and (e.g. ':1" '''P Gen 1:28; 9: I; 35: 11 (sg.); ;':1.,:1 ;";" Gen 12:2) and jussives (e.g. Gen 1:3
l,:I 'to say N';' l''':I'. The last of these examples is questionable, since it may be .,'N ';").
denominative (..J;':)I:I) rather than delocutive (--iN';' In:l); for the same reason, ""j? is not It is important to note, however, that an 'explicit' performative is distinguished by the
delocutive. 14t particular form characterised above. If a Speech Act is 'the performance of an act in saying
Performative function is important for the study of Hebrew verbal modality because it is by something', then its Negation, for example, will not constitute the performance of that act.
definition non-modal. If a Speech Act is 'the performance of an act in saying something', then Therefore, Negated transformations of performative qu!al in fact employ qalel or yiqtal. 149
the act becomes 'real' as the utterance is made, so irrealis forms cannot be used here. The qu!al Both of these forms also occur in the Affirmative in contexts where they have been confused by
form is the obvious choice, since it is non-modal and perfective,142 but it is surprising, in the modern scholars with the performative as follows.

light of English and other European languages, that Hebrew should use a past tense for this The Contemporaneous Constative, qate/ ha', is, like the English performative '[ hereby
function. It cannot be right to understand these actions as name ",', defined as [-MOD, -PAST, -PROG), though it is, interestingly. incompatible with
obschon aul\crlich erst im Vollwg hcgriffen, doch als in dcr Vorslellung bereits vorliegende hingestellt 143 ;,);,.I so One might compare: ISI
since this would be to rob the utterance of its very nature as token-reflexive (referring to itself). 'j"-10X 31:IS: 140:7: 142:6 'JX 'ox 4S:2
l11XO ',,':>X1!I Prov 30:7 lnN ' JX ':>N 1!1 Jcr38: 14
It would seem better to say that,
1J"1;' , .. l':> 1J"1;' 7S:2 1 Chron 29: 13
Die dem Perfekt sonsl eigene Perspeklive iSl auf Null verkurzt. I44 l':> 1JnJX C' ,10 .. , ;"'l)1

In other words, this is a strictly secondary function of qUfal, governed not by its inherent Joosten describes these participial forms as utterances which 'describe themselves: the

semantics, but pragmatically.14S utterance is at the same time an action and the description of that action',IS2 so only very

Austin himself drew attention to the inadmissibility of person, voice, mood and tense as narrowly (perhaps deliberately!) avoiding calling them performative,IS3 However, each

definitive of performatives. 146 A 3rd-person example is l"O" ... ;')'''N ｬｉＺ ｾ ":1;', spoken by
example can be read differently, in a way which is more true to the constative nature of qafe/

Araunah himself (2 Sam 24:23). Amongst non-modal forms we find performatives expressed in
ha' (circumstantial, conditional and 'activity of the inner person' respectively),

nominal clauses Even the Contemporaneous Cursive, ha·' qafe/ [+PROG), appears to be used comparably to
performative qu!al,IS4

140Hillers. D.R., 'Delocutive Verbs in Bihlical Hebrew', JBL 86 (1967) 320-24, who himself fails to identify
delocutives as a subclass of performatives. Hillers' own treatment has been badly misunderstood by Waltke- 147Translalion from Hillers, 'Some Performative Utterances'. 764,
O'Connor, 402-4 §24.2f-h; 438-39 §27.2e, 148Auslio. How 10 do Thillgs wilh Words, 73.
141 Wallke-O·Connor. 402-3 §24.2f cite ':>'P. showing lhat their misunderstanding of Hillers lies in their taking 149Talstra, 'Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. 11', 28,
'dciocutive' as ajlmcliOlJa[ category. ralher than (so Hillers) u reference 10 a particular formal derivation. They go ISOJoosten, 'The Predicalive Participle', 135.
on (I'. 403 n. 25) to equate Hillers's 'delocutive' with Jenni's 'deklarativ', causing great confusion among their IS\ Several of the following examples of performative qa!,,1 are from Hillers, 'Some Performative Utterances',
examples. 761-4, and those of lhe consLative participle arc from Jooslell. 'The Predicative Participle', 150-51.
1420r. rather, non-imperfeclive-as a perfect lellse. it does 1I0t have its own aspeclual value. bUl is subjecl to a IS2Jooslen, 'The Prediealive Participle', ISO-SI.
'perfective default· (so DeCaen. Placemefll alld tfllerpretalloll). 1530n I Chron 29: 13, Joosten. 'The Predicative Participle'. IS I. goes further. saying '''Wc thank you" performs
143Gesenius-Kautzsch, 322 § 100i. the <lcl of thanking and informs <lhout this performance', Compare Gunkci's comment thal 'Der ,., Psalm beginm
I44Schneider, Grammalik. 204 §48.6.2.3. in hymllischem Ton ... -Lwur nicht in der dafur uhlichen Form der Aufforderung Will Juheln, aber in der
14SHendel, ·tn the Margins'. IS6: ' ... the performalive .. , in which an action is effected pragmatically by verhal seheneren einer Beschreihung des Preisens I Sam 2.1: Ps 19.2.': Gunkel. Psalmen. 327.
declaration': compare Jouon-Muraoka. 363 §112h, on the 'prophelic' perfect. IS4The examples of hiY '10let here are my own.
146See ch. I. scclion 2,1.2. above.
 Modality. Reference and .\'{)('('c/, Act.\ i" Ihe P.wllurs Modalil\' X7
X6

"nnJ Im.uim IS ) 1;"1) '));'1 Num 25:12 but here bOlh scholars are wrong to describe these as performative. Hillers's qii!als are
';"IW"lji 17:6: ＶＴｾＵＱＺＹ loC""1ji '));'1 ler 34:17 156 epistolary, 161 not referring to a Speech Act ('I hereby send you'), but to the sending of gifts or
"ji"i:l-jiN ' jl::>ji;'1"l Gen 6:8: 9: 11 ｾＢＬＭｬＺ ＬＧｬｪ O'ji::> '));'1 ＧｾＩ Gen 9:9
royal subjects with a letter ('I am sending to you herewith'); a truly performative 'nn':nv may
n"i.:l "'tli:l 89:4 ;"l',::l jl,::J ' ＺｊＩｾ ;'1);'1 Exod 34: 10
be found in Tnn':>lV Ｌ［＾Ｚ ｾ ... ;'1 In:l:l l':> (Judg 6: 14), where Ihe Directive force is also
ｾｬｪｊＺ ｏ 'jl,::>':> ＬｾＱＧ［ DCUl-l:S ｏＺ ｊ［Ｂｉｾ 'D':>::> ' :llIo( Deut4:1
")::> ＧＩｾ Isa 42:9 marked by the opening imperative l':>. Joosten's qatel'Oni form, constative ｬｮｾ Ｇｬｾ n':>,lV, is
'''');'1 Deul 30: 18
Several of Ihese forms have been read as performative by the translators of the NRSV. which shown to be a futurum instuns (like the English present progressive 'I am sending you') by its

reads, for example, 'I hereby grant him ... ' (Num 25: 12) and 'I hereby make a covenant' (Exod repetition in v. 4 in the cursive ｬｮｾ n':>,lV ＬｾｬＧ and by the fact that the command to go, l':>,
34: 10). But all these forms can be better understood within the normal function of the does not appear until 3: 1,4. 11. 162
Contemporaneous Cursive as progressive,juturum instans or circumstantial. Secondly, we considered above Joosten's example:

Performative qatet hii' is explained by Joosten diachronically, as gradually replacing qii!al ')"';'1 ... l':> 'l' ";'1 75:2 and l" ＧＩｮｊｾ o',m ... ［ＧＱ Ｂ ｾＧ 1Chron 29:13

in this function.'57 But such a solution seems unnecessary in the light of reservations already But this particular verb occurs most often neither in the qii!al nor the constative qa!el "anl, but
in the cohortative yiq!al [+MOD. +VOL], as in:
expressed by Austin:
... sometimes, if somebody says '1 mn sorry'. we wonder whether this is just the same as 'I apologize' -in ｬＢｾ (18:50; 35:18; 71:22).l::>ro ［ＧＱＢｾ (54:8), ;";" ;"'K (9:2; 7:18; 109:30; 111:1).;" ［ＢＬｾ

which case of course we have said it's a performative ullerance--or whether perhaps it's to be taken as a (118:19), ;'1';"" ［ＧＱＢｾ (32:5).
description, true or false, of the state of his feelings. If he had said 'I feel perfectly awful about it', then we It was noted above that both qatel and x-yiq!al provide Negative eqttivalents to performative
,hould think it must he meant to be a description of the ,tate of his feelings. If he had said 'I apologize', we qiiral, but here we are dealing with a Deontic form [+MOD, +VOL] functioning very similarly to
should feci this was clearly a performative ullerance, going through the ritual of apologizing. But if he says
a performative ｛ｾｍｏｄ｝Ｎ Functionally, this is not surprising, since Deontic forms are often
'I am sorry' there is an unfortunate hovering between the two. This phenomenon is quite common. We
often find cases in which there is an obvious pure performative utterance and ohvious other ullerances relaled to performatives, but formally it seems highly problematic; Ihe difference can probably
connected with it which are not performative hut descriptive, but on Ihe other hand a good many in between not be retlected in English. Perhaps an explanation might be found in Austin's description of
where we're nOl quite sure which they are. .. on some occasions they seem positively to revel in Deontics such as ｬＢｾ as 'primitive forms', later supplanted by a social convention with an
ambiguity.158
explicit performative, u',,;,. This would suggest that 75:2 is a relatively late Psalm and that
Thus there is a scale of:
the use of 'l' ,,;, belongs to some formalised procedure of acknowledgement of God.
Performative ｉｾｐｒｏｇ Ｍ＾ 'grey area'-> Descriptive I +PROG J
This latter question is probably the greatest irony of the entire verbal system-that the one
English 'I apologize' 'I am sorry' 'I feel perfectly awful about it'
.JG Il ; qo!el
form which is by definition Indicative bears such close links to Deontic forms. We now
Hebrew qii!alti qotel >Q"i
consider how non-Deontic forms can perform Deontic function.
Without compromising our theory, then, we can acknowledge that there is 'ambiguity' in qa!el
·'llnl. There remain two further problems for the performative, both stemming from 2.4.6. Deontic Function

comparisons of Hillers's performative qii!als and Joosten's qa!els. The E-system ｛ｾｖｏｌ｝ is sometimes used Deontically [+vOL]-the 'preceptive imperfect' ,163

Firstly, the verb n':>lV is cited by both Hillers I59 and Joosten 160 as follows: 'injuncti ve 'l64 or 'heischendes Prasens'.165 This occurs especially in divine pronouncements in

'i1n':>ro I Kg, 15:191t2Chrnn 16:3; ｾＩＧ n':>,ro Ezek2:3

2 Kg, 5:6: 2Chron 2: 12

161 These same examples of qii!lll are adduced by Pardee, 'The "Epistolary Perfect'''. 37
155See examples in Hillers. 'Some Performative Utterances'. 762, and my notc above. 162Compare also the future perfect.. [ will have sent you' in Ex 3: 12.
I56 Here a performative reading may be supported by reading the parallellem1 ' "i1) in the same way. 163MacKenzie, R.A.F., 'The Formal Aspect of Ancient Near Eastern L1W'. in McCullough, W.S. (ed.), The Seed
of" Wisdom (FS Meek; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964) 31-44 (42).
157Joosten, pers. comm. (letter of 12-6-97).
IMWilliams. Symox. 32 § 173.
158Austin, 'Performative Utterances'. 246-47.
16SFen,ham. F.e.. 'Law'. in Douglas, J.D. and Hillyer. N. (ed'.I. Th,' lllllsrmfl·d Bible Dictionary, part 2
159Hillers, 'Some Performative Utterances'. 764.
(Leicester: IVP. 1980) 882-89 (X82).
160JooSlen, 'The Predicative Participle'. 151
 Modalit)'. Referel/ce (/1/11 S''''''''Il ACI.' il/ IIle P.wlllls

early legal texts,I66 and is distinctive of Biblical apodictic law, being unknown in cuneiform Here, the Deontic force (also that of God's original '::INn ＧＺｉｾ in 2: (6) is not obligative but

texts.167 Long-form x-yiq!61 (even with markedly non-volitional nun paragogicum l68 ) is used permissive. 172 It is this permissive function which is present in the Negative 'prohibitive' form

in place of short-form yiq!ol-x ('jussive' and 'cohortative'), 'prohibitive' 10' liq!ol in place of (i.e. 'you cannot', not 'you don't have to').

'vetitive"al-riqtol, and infinitive absolute in place of imperative. 169 Hence, in the Decalogue This Deontic use of the E-system has generally perplexed grammarians. In the light of the

for example, we find, for the Negative Deontic, the form T'l'T'l'-N' instead of Ｇｔ ｬ ＭＧｾ (so also above discussion of E-system yiqtol, however, it is not surprising-it is simply the Deontic

81: 10) and. for the Affirmative Deontic, infinitive absolute ｩ ｄ ｾ instead of imperative i::lt: counterpart (obligation/permission) to Epistemic (necessity/possibility) long-form yiq,/ol, as for

... .,:J:l .. , .,1:17 ... NIZlj) N' ... ［Ｇｉｚ ｾＬＧＭｎ ... ;";"-N' Exod 20:2·17 example in 'present po/entialis'. This Deontic use of long-form yiqtol may be compared with

... ,on,. N" ... ［ＧｊｾｪＩＭｎＧ ... :JJJjl N" ... "lNJ,' N" ... n:njl N" the use of English 'may' and 'must' both Epistemically and Deontically,173 and Deontic use of

In the same context, we also find forms with nun paragogicum used Deontically, such as the infinitive absolute may be compared with the Deontic use of infinite forms in several other

pll1vn ＬＮｾ (v. 23). Lastly, we should perhaps also list here Deontic use of the E-system's languages, e.g. Italian infinitive: Nonfumare; English participle: No smoking. 174
Most striking, however, is the use of the Indicative Anterior qa!al [-MOD] Deontically
continuation form wiJqatal. 170
[+vOL]-the 'precative [or more strictly, optative] perfect'.175 Just as Deontic use of the E-

Ojl:Jj):l1 ... 1';'1 ... OJ),'OP1 .. , jl.:J'1 ... O"JJIZI' ＱｾＧＭＢｊＺ ｛ 1';'1 system is most often restricted to address by God to men (strong neustic-command), so
Hear. 0 Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone You shall love. Keep [in your heart] ... Deontic use of the Indicative Anterior form is most often restricted to address by men to God
Recitc them ... and talk ... Bind them ... fix them ... and write them ... (NRSV) (weak neustic-request); 176 it is characteristic of the Psalms. l77 The context is always
'IN 1!!1.,p ':I O'\!;T'P OJ)'';'1 OJ)IZI'i'jl;'1 O:l';"N ;'1;" IN ':I Lev 11:44
otherwise marked as Deontic, since this use is
ｾＢＭＧ［ｎ ｙ \!;TO';' Y'IZI;'-,:I:J O:l'jl\!;T!)J-"N 1NOlJjl N'" . invariably found alternating with the imperfect or the imperative; it is by this outward sign Ihat the
I am the LORD your God, so make yourselves holy; and be holy for I am holy: and do not make yourselves precative perfect may unfailingly be identified. 178
unclean wilh any swarming creature that crawls on the carth. (ALW) Between them, BUllenwieser l79 and Dahood l80 list up to 30 precative perfects, 181 though many
All of these E-system forms occur Deontically in all three grammatical persons,17I A Ist- of these have been challenged. I ｾＲ From the context, BUllenwieser argues quite convincingly:
person example may be seen in Eve's 'Is it conceivable (hat any sane writcr, when turning from the gloom of the present to the glory of the past,
should fail 10 indicate Ihe change of scene and leave it 10 the reader to divine what he means to say? We
"Wc may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden." (NRSV)

I72CoflTra Finley, 'The Proposal', 9. suggesting that all Deontic uses of the infinitive absolute (also part of the E-
system) 'can be described as commands'.
I73See above ch. I, section 2.1.3.2. Gesenius-Kautzsch, 329 § 107r-s, similarly write of the 'Iizitativ' use of
potentialis long-form yiq!6l (though they generally confuse primary and 'skewed' functions of long-form yiq!6/).
174palmer, Mood and Modality, 114.
I66This has been shown separately for nun paragogicunI (Driver, S.R.. NOTes on The Hebrew Text and the 175The suffix conjugation is used Deontically also in Vgaritic, Aramaic, Syriac and Arabic: Moran, W.L., 'The
Topography of The Books of Sanluel, 2nd rev. edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) 30-31) and the infinitive Hebrew Language in its Northwest Semitic Background', in Wright, G.E. (ed.), The Bible and the At/cjeflT Near
absotule (Finley. 'The Proposal', 9). It occurs also in human speech in Ruth I:8b (k"Tib). £ost (FS Albright: London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961) 54-72 (65). Wallke-Q'Connor, 494 §30.5.4c, actually

167Mackenzie, 'The Formal Aspect', 42-43. claim (following Ginsberg) that this is 'one of the original functions of the perfect'. As I show below, it should
､･ｴ ｲｰ ｬｮ ｾＶＱ as 'contrastive' in Hoftijzer, J.. The Fllnctiol/ and Use of The lml'etfect Forms with Nutl better he seen as an obl igatory secot/dw'y funclion.
Paragogicllm in Cla55ical Hebrew (The Netherlands: Van Gorcum. 1985). See also more recently the 176Finley, 'The Proposal', 10; Hende!. 'In Ihe Margins', 171.
phonological explanation in Kaufman, SA.. 'Paragogic nun in Bihlical Hebrew: Hypercorrection as a Clue to a I77Waltke-O'Connor, SyflTOX, 494-95 §30.5.4d.
Lost Scrihal Practice'. in Zevit. Z.. Gitin, S. and Sokoloff. M. (eds.), Solvitlg Riddles atld Unryitlg Ktlots: Biblical, 178Buttenwieser, Psalms, 21; Dahood, Psalms I. 20.
Epigraphic. otld SemiTic Swdies itl Hotlor of Jot/os C. Greet/field (Winona Lake. Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 95-99 179Bultenwieser, Psalms, 18-25.
180Dahood. Pmlllls I, 20.
(98). where wav.,·iq!ol and qiiTal forms are discussed.
181 3:8; 4:2, 8: 7:7; 9: 14, 18; 17:3; 22:22; .'1 :6; 39: 10; 44:27; 54:9; 55: 19; 56:9; 57:7c; 61 :4,6: 63:3; 67:7: 73:23;
169The inlinitive absolute shares the incompatibility with Negation exhihited hy Ihe imperative (Finley, 'The
Proposal'. 6). Volitional use of the inlinitive ahsolute is also attcsted in Arahic qllltili (Wrighl. Grammar 1,62). 83: 11; 85:2-4; 94: 17: 102: 18: 110:3; I 19: 121. Onc further good example not ciled by them is I Chron 17:27
l':J" j)"N';' ［Ｇｪｬｾ which is shown 10 he Deolltic hy the parallel 2 Sam 7:291':J1 'N';' ［Ｇｪｬｾ Ｎ
170Joosten. 'Bihlical Hehrew ""'wi!al'.
11l2See the discussion in Finley, 'The Proposal'. 7-8.
171 Cot/Tra Finley. 'The Proposal'. 8.
l)() Modality. Refere1/ce (lml '\·I'('t.'c'/r Act,\" ill/he Psalms Afm/ality 'il

may be sure Ihat the Hebrew wrilers of old werc governcd by Ihe same rules of c1emenlary logic and that is, more 'imperfective'. Similarly, it has also been suggested that Deonlic uses of qiira/ ([-
commOn sense as present-day aUlhors.· I R,
system) may be considered more 'perfective' Deontic than the D-system itself.'9o In rhetorical
Essential to the argument of Dahood, one of the major proponents of the precative perfect, is an
terms, then, the most solemn, permanent legal pronouncements will be expressed with the E-
optative (a variety of 'emphatic') interpretation of kf. 184 What has been largely overlooked in
system, the most urgent, panicky cries for help with the I-system, and everything inbctween
the extensive discussion of emphatic ki lR5 is the relationship which naturally exists between, on
with the usual D-system. Hence the following interpretation of the three alternatives for
the one hand, the conjunctive functions of conditionality Cif ... ') and complementiser Che said
Deontic function:
Ihal .. .'), and on the other, the main clause modal function 'optative'. The link may be seen in
E·sysrem D-syslem /-sys/em
the dual function of modal particles and Deontic moods in several languages:
Forms: long-form yiq/al. "" liqlol. q6101 shon-form yiq!ol. ·'al-liqI61. qJlril qa!allo
Conjuflcrio/J Oplalive 'preceplive imperfect' 'jussivc' 'precative perfect'
English 'If you had been here, .... (conditional) 'If only you had been here!' AspecI: [mperfeclive -> Unmarked -> Perfective
'I knew .. that you would come.' (complememiser) 'Oh thar hc would come"
German 'Warst du da gewesen .... (conditional) 'Warst du nur da gewesen' , Whilst this interpretation fits the facts well, its weakness lies in that it introduces an lIspeclua/
French 'le savais .. que tu viendrais.· (complemenliser) 'Qu'il vienne!' parameter to the interpretation of forms which wc have already shown to be modally
distinguished. A more consistent interpretation may lie in noting from a sociolinguistic
In the terms of the Performative Hypothesis,186 one can say that such optative clauses are
standpoint that the 'preceptive imperfect' is most often used by God to l1Iall and the 'precative
governed in deep structure by a higher clause of wishing which is not realised in surface
perfect' most often by man 10 God. Thus one might profitably consider the distinction as
structure. Given this inherent relationship between subordinating and main-clause functions, it
modal-just as the formal systems (E-system, D-system, I-system) are distinguished in the
is not necessary to consider emphatic ki a separate category from its conditional and
'tropic' ('sign of mood'-modal quality) element, so the corresponding Deontic functions are
complementising functions; 187 rather, it should be viewed as following naturally from them.
distinguished in the 'neustic' ('sign of subscription'-modal force) element l91 on a scale of
The modal function of qQlal under ki (and elsewhere) is then an example of the same 'mood
command (directive) to request (precative): 192
neutralisation' which we sce in w3qa!a/ and wayyiqlol (see below).188
The difference betwcen the Deontic force of 10" tiqtol (E-system) and "al-tiq!ol (D-system) Verbal Syslem (Iropic): E·sywem D-system I-syslem
Use: God to man man 10 God
is usually characterised as aspectual, the former expressing 'a more permanent prohibition' , 189
Modal strength (neustic): directive -> -> precalive

183Bullenwieser, Psalms, 22. Compare Aejmelaeus's argument against emphatic ki Ihat 'One should nOI impose
Ihe logical structure of one's own language on Hebrew and categorically regard it as impossible for a causal
connective 10 appear in contexts like those where':I is found .... I ... regard':I as a connective rather than an
emphatic or asseverative particle. In this statement I include the instances in the imperative hymns as well as those
in complaint prayers.': Aejmelaeus, A., 'Function and Interpretation of ':1 in Biblical Hebrew', JBL 105 (1985)
193-209 (205).
I84Dahood, Psalms 2, 404. die punkluelle Stammform hal: ein Befehl "seize dich in Bewegung!" iSI naheliegender und naltirlicher als ein
185For a survey of views On emphalic ki. see Claassen, WT.. 'Speaker-Orientatcd Functions of ki in Biblical Befehl "gehe eine Slunde lang spazieren!" Fur den nichl punktuellen Befehl verwendel das Semilische aussagende
Hebrew', JNSL 1I (1983) 29-46 (29-36). Both Claassen and. later, Aejmelaeus, 'Function and Interpretation of Formen durativen Charakters. Aussagende Formen dienen auch dem Ausdruck des Vcrbots; der Imperativ selbsl
':1', argue against an emphatic interpretation. kann nichl negierl werden.'
186See ch. I, seclion 2.1.2. 1905 ee Hendel, 'In the Margins', 171; Muraoka, T.. Emphatic Words And SlruC/IIres 111 Biblical Hebrew
1870n the relationship between the various subordinating functions of ':1, see Giv6n, T., 'The Evolution of (Jcrusalem: The Magnes Press & Leiden: EJ. Brill. 1985) 84-85.
Dependent Clause Morpho-Syntax in Biblical Hebrew'. in Traugoll, E.C. & Heine. B. (eds.), Approaches 10 191 Sce ch. I. section 2.1.2.
Grommalicalizatiof/, vol. 2 (Typological Studies in Language 19: Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 192Compare Finley, The Proposal'. 11.
1991) 257-310.
I88Comparc Aejmelacus's commcnllhal. "Just as" is used in narration li.e. Narrative) as a universal connective to
introduce clauses. ':1 appcars in argumentative lyres of texis (i.e. Discoursel as a kind of argumentative
coordinalOt': Aejmelaeus, 'Funclion and Imerprclation of ':1'.205.
189Finley, 'The Proposal'. 6; Williams. Syn{(H, :n ｾ 1B: Gibson. Davidsof/'s Symax. 81 §66: Waltke-O'Connor.
SW/ilL<. 567 §34.2.1 b: most extensivcly. Bergstr';"er. EillJiillrllllg. 11-12: 'Gemeinsemitisch ist, daB der Imperativ
 Modality. Refl'HJtI('(J ellIll S/1t ('rh Art.\" ill the PS(llms
J Moda/ir.\ I)J

This interpretation is confirmed by Ihe co-occurrence of 'weak' modal particles with the much speculation 202 It centres around the nature and origin of the form wO=. To the range of
l
'precative perfect', such as optative ki (as shown above), desiderative 1[1' 'I;) and la l)3, past solutions reviewed by Kustar 203 have most recently been added, for waqa!ol,204 the
precative 01'( '::J (Gen 40: l4),'im-na' (Gen 18:3)194 and _na',195 and Epistemic DVI;)::J .196 radically anti-'etymologizing'205 theories of Washburn ('the 1 prefix is an inflection, not a
In all of the above cases, Deontic function is still marked by verb fronting. conjunction'206) and Joosten (' ... weqa!al is not to be equated in any way with simple qii!al; it
should be considered as a separate formal category with its own function.'l07) and, on the other
2.4.7. Epistemic Function
hand, that of DeCaen ('wayyPRE2 is subject to decomposition', 108 'the abstract formative 1-'-1
Just as the E-system was shown above to have Deontic function in certain (especially formal)
of the wayyPRE2 is analyzed as a COMP bearing the modal feature [_IMPI'2(9). The function
contexts, so it appears that, as a politeness form in an informal context, the D-system can have
of the particle(s) may be seen in comparative perspective to be 'tense [more properly, mood 210 )
Epistemic function:
neutralizing' ,211 indeed in DeCaen's main example, Zulu, the 'determining factor [is) the
difference between realis and irrealis in the head of the neutralization chain' ,212 prompting him
C:J'';>N :1::l1Vl1 :1,nnVl1 :1:J-'); :1:J';>l ,);l:11 'lN1
to characterise wayyiq,ol as 'sequential realis' and waqiitol as 'sequential irrealis',213 thus
Then Abraham said 10 his young men. "Stay here with the donkey;
the boy and I will go over lhere; we will worship, and lhen we will come back to you:' (NRSV) supporting the modal (as opposed to his own tense-based) distinction between qa!aLlwayyiq!ol

Here, ;'l::J'n is clearly from the D-system morphologically, and is preccded by a topicalised and yiqto/lwaqiita/ proposed here. 214 The functional range of wayyiq!ol for present 215 and

subject (i.e. this is not the E-system x-yiq!o/ structure). Though volition is grammaticalised pluperfect 216 is accommodated by this analysis, since it does not attribute to wayyiqtol any TA

here, the cohortatives cannot be Directive-precative l97 'request' (since Abraham is addressing features.

slaves), Directive-hortative (since the slaves are not going with him) nor Expressive (since they
refer to a future extra-linguistic act). They must therefore be Commissive-promissive, the point

at which the D-system shades into the Epistemic, losing its volitional force.
The Indicative qiita/ form has Epistemic l98 function especially in the form of waqii,al,199
though this form may also function Deontically, sequential to an imperative,200 cohortative,201 202Consider, for example, a characteristic popular Jewish commenl published recently: "'In thc Bible time is
reversed," said Sleinsalz, noting an odd quirk in the original Hebrew texl of lhe Old Testament. "The future is
or-most famously in the Sama', as above-to an Indicative nominal clause. The mutual form- always wrillen in the past tense. and lhe pasl is always wrillen in {he future tense." "Why"" I asked. "No one
to-function cross-matching of the sequential forms (I-system qa!a/ ... woyyiq,o/ vs. E-ID- knows," he said. "We may be moving againslthe stream of time," said Steinsalz. noting that the laws of physics
are "lime-symmetric," lhatthey run JUSl as well backwards as forwards in time.'; Drosnin, M.. The Bible Code
system yiq!ol ... waqiita/) has been central to most recent study of the Hebrew verbal system,
(London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1997) 175.
and, together with forms such as past yiq!ol (after "az) and the 'prophetic perfect', the source of 203Cited in Wallke--O'Connor, Syntax, 544·45 §33.1.2b.
204The case is not complelely the same for ｬ｡ｴ ｱｾｷ and wa\"yiqfo/, since the laller may begin an episode, whilst
the fonner never does. Niccacci, S)'Iltax, 82, considers this 'proof thal [w<>qatalj is always a continuation fonn.'
193Hendel, 'In the Margins', 172; BUllenwiescr, Psalms, 20-21. See e.g. Num t4:2 1lnO-'';>. 205Jooslen, 'Biblical Hebrew ,yl!qiital', 3.
194Hendel. 'In lhe Margins'. 173. It should be noted thal Hendel's examptes of supposedly 'real-remole Epistemic 206Washburn, D.L., 'Chomsky's Separation of Syntax and Semantics', HS 35 (1994) 27-46.
qatal' are all faully. Gen 43:9 is Negative, so unreal. Judg 16: 17 is unreal ('If I had beell shaved, .. .'), in contrast 207Jooslen, 'Biblical Hebrcw weqii!al', 7. See also his arguments against other views, pp. 3.6.
to the real ('If Ihey/you tie .. .' ete.) yiq!o/s in vv. 7, 11 and 13. Jer 37: 10 is unreal ('If you had defealed .. .'). since 208DeCaen. Placement and Interpretalioll, 290.
the lighting is ovcr-lhe Babylonians have withdrawn (vv. 5, t t). Hendel himself (n. 88) shows how 2 Sam 15:33 209DeCaen, Placement and Interpretation, 296. Compare Michel's reference to 'ein demonslratives Prafix *]1';
can be explained. His further examples are all queslions-an unreal category. Michel. Tempora Ulld SatlStel/llng. 47 §5,9 citing Kiihler-Baumgartner.
195. lIcJ ' does have a tendency in lhis direclion (so Wilt, 'A Sociolinguistic Analysis of NA "l, though see my 210DeCaen himself refers to 'lhe tense-mood neulralization in Zulu'; DeCaen. Placel/lellt and llllerpretation. 2.
discussion in ch. 6, seclion 2.1. below. 211 DeCaen. Placemellt alld Illlerpretarion. 284-89; contra Joosten. Much work has heen done recently, especially
196Wehrle, J.. 'Die PV k'=m'·ar als IndikalOr fUr den Satzmodus in Sprechakten', in GroB. W.. Irsigler, H. and hy SIL linguists working on formerly undescribed languages. on 'serial verb conslructions' in which (as has often
Seidl. Th. (eds.). Text. MetllOde IIlId Gralllnwtik (FS Richter; SI. Ollilien: EOS, 191)]) 577-94. becn claimed for Hebrew), the entire series bears the MTA-fealures of the head verb.
197For the terms used here. sec ch. 6. section 4 below. 212DeCaen, Placemelll and Interpretatioo, 285.
198Niccacci, SYlltaX. 73-1)6. 213DeCacn, Placement and Interpretation. 293.
I99This is essential 10 the view of lhe Hebrew Verbal System represented here, as it is to a part of ilS initial 214Still, the cross-matching can only be explained as 'seleclional restrictions'; DeCaen, Placement and
argumentation hy Joosten: 'Biblical Hcbrew \..,eqcJ!al'. InterpreIation. 296.
2OORichter. Gnmdlogen 3.200. 215GroB, W., wayyiq!olfur die Gegelllmrt'
201 E.g. Ruth 2:2. 216Collins. c.l.. 'Thc wayyiqlOI as 'pluperfecl': when and why'. rn/Bill 46.1 (11)1)5) 117-40.
'J4 Modality. Reference and Spl'l'ch AClX in ,hi' P,wz!m.Ii Modalil\" 'J5

This 'mood neutralisation' of the Indicative Anterior qiital is not solely a feature of system. There are two other major forces also at work in the Psalms, however, which bring

'consecutive' wiiw. however. 217 Several other clause types involve mood neutralisation, together yiqlOI and qii!al.

including Deontic 'k; ete. + qii!al' (see above), unreal conditional "im + qii!al' , real conditional Firslly, there is the alternation of qii!al and yiqlOI within a bicolonfor purely poetic reasons.

'lu + (D- or E-system) yiqI6['218. It should be noted that these sequential forms under mood This may involve qii!al-(way)yiq!ol or (way)yiqtol-qiital; lhe order of elements and the use of

neutralisation bear the same feature of verb topicalisation as the D-system. the wayy- conjunction does not appear to affect lhe meaning. This pattern is frequent in Psalms

Our adoption of DeCaen's argument for why the continuation forms should cross-match and appears in many cases to involve no semantic distinction between the cola-Dahood222

with the main-clause forms remains problematic. DeCaen does not show clearly how he has lists qii!al-yiqlol alternations functioning as past. present, future and optative. It may even

moved from mood-neutralisation to the ascription of new modal values to waqiiral and involve alternation with the same root (38: 12; 93:3).223 A good example, where the time-frame

wayyiql61. It appears that, as is often done,219 he is identifying a feature of 'remoteness' in both is clearly past,224 is:

modality and the [+PAST) feature of qii!al. This fits well with my analysis, however the ::170 :1;J'''O ';:)-"1:' 'Jm:JN Ol:'.':l ";"19:J ＱＩｖｎＬｬＮＺｓＢｾｎＱ ｊＺｬｎｾｩ＿ ＺＱＮｽｾ ［ｬ 81:8
In distress you called (qiital), and I rescued you (wQv\'iqt6/); I answered you (yiq!61) in the secret place of
converse is not the case, since short-form yiqlOI is not marked for tense, but is simply modal
thunder; I tested you (yiqt61) at the waters of Meribah. Selah (NRSV)
(Deontic). The best solution we can suggest thus far is therefore that after mood-neutralisation
Kugel interprets this phenomenon as 'completion or complementarity ... the integration of A
of qatal and yiqlOl upon their being placed in a sequential position after the conjunction (as
and B into a single whole'225 or 'the sort of intermeshing represented in English by a
waqii!al and wayyiq!ol), the pastness of qii!al attracted waqii!al to the E- and D-systems, and
subordination',226 translating, for example: 227
wayyiq!ol then moved by analogy to accompany qii!ol in the I-system.
:1[1''':J 01117" ,,;)1' ＢＧＬＮｾ ｾｐｬ ""'0, 111:5
Having now considered the two principal verbal forms in Biblical Hebrew (yiq!ol and qii!al), Giving food to his worshippers I he keeps his covenant forever 11 (Kugel)
a definitively Indicative function (perfective) and the two types of modal function (Deontic and In some cases, however, it might be argued that the opposition does carry semantic weight:
Epistemic), we are almost ready to draw up our conclusions on the verbal system. First, 1),,';)' N? ?N"V'1 1)7;" N" O:1.,:JN ';) 1)':JN :1;"1N-';) Isa 63:16
however, we must look at a pragmatic feature which is distinctive of Discourse such as the For you are our father, though Abraham does not know us and Israel does not acknowledge us ... (NRSV)
Psalter and which may often result in irregular usages. Read in the light of Kugel's characterisation of synonymous parallelism as 'A is so, and what's
more, B',228 we might translate in a way which retains the non-modaUmodal opposition:
2.4.8. yiq!ol and qii!al in Discourse
... though Abraham does not know us (qii!al stalive), and even if Israel were not to acknowledge us
It has already been noted above that the 'precative perfect' is (yiq!6/).
... invariably found alternating with the imperfect or the imperative; it is by this oulward sign that the In the light of the references to lJ'::lIoC, it appears that 'Abraham' is probably not to be
precative perfect may unfailingly be identified. 220
understood as synonymous with 'Israel' here, but as a reference to the historical figure, so that
As Buttenwieser continues,
one might in fact translate' Abraham did not know us'. Then the modal distinction lies in the
Asimilar alternation of the perfect and imperfect marks the use of lhe prophetic perfect; it is a sure sign by
which true prophecies may be distinguished from vaticillia ex evenlU. 221
Thus both precative (Deonlic) and prophetic (Epistemic) functions of qiital only occur where
their secondary modal function is indicated by nearby yiq!ol forms. As has been noted above, 222 Dahood. Psalms 3. 420-22.
the performative function of qii!al similarly tends to occur in context with forms from the D- 22JHeld. M.. The YQTL-QTL (QTL·YQTL) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and in Ugaritie', in
Ben-Horin. M.. Weinryb, B.o. and Zeitlin, S. (eds.), Sill dies alld Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman (Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1962) 281·90; Berlin, A.. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press. 191\5) 35-36.
217DcCaen, Placement and Interpretation, iii: Tense neutralization .. involv[es) a complex interaction hetwccn 224The view of short-form yiq!61 as orginally a preterite (so Held, 'The YQTL·QTL (QTL·YQTL) Sequence', with
lense, mood and pragmalieo-discourse factors.' reference 10 Ugaritie; scc also Kienast, B.. 'D"s Punklualthema *japrus und seine Modi'. Or 29 (1960) 151-67) is
218Hendcl, 'In the Margins'. 172 and n. 82. generally opposed in tbe present work, though it cannol he eomplctely ruled oul.
219Hendcl, 'In the Margins'. 171-72; Palmer, Mood and Modalit\'. 209-10. 225Kugel. The Idea of Biblical Poetn·. 19.
220Buttenwieser. Psalms, 21. 226Kugel. The Idea of Biblical Poet/)'. 17.
22IThat is, 'prophecies after the evenl'-what others have termed 'apophecy' (e.g. Agrippa d'Aubigne, Les 227 Kugel. The Idea of Biblical Poelrl'. 18.
Tragiqllex); Buttcnwicser, Psalms. 21. 228Kugcl, The Idea of Biblical Poet;\,. 1·58,
'/6 97

expectation that though hopes cannot be set on Abraham (past), they might have lain with Indo-European and AfroiJsiatil: languages itnd represents one of the features of syntaclilation as a
diachronic process. of "genesis of synlax. ex. Ｒｊｾﾷ Ｎ･ｳｲｵｯ｣ ｩ､
Israel (present). "l:JJ and v.,' may be read as functionally equivalenl. 229
Similarly Joosten refers to the extended (present potentialis, past iterative, past prospective)
Secondly, there is the (closely related) adaptation of set formulas. This may be seen
and modally-qualified (present Negative, Interrogative, conditional) uses of yiqtol, together
functioning within a Psalm:
with stative and performative uses of qii!al as 'traces of an earlier stage of the language'.233 He
:'Dr:" ｾＬｊＧ l"N 'Di"l:! Ｇｊｾｱ ... 'i"l:l?C1 'Di"l:! Ｇｊｎｾ Ｚｬ ;-T,\;-T' Ｇ＿ＱｾｰｊＧ 26:1-11
.. for as for mc, [ have walked in my integrity .. But as for mc, [ walk in my integrity. explains what DeCaen calls 'the paradox of the imperfective ... excluding the progrcssive'234

It also occurs across a major formulaic complex such as that consisting of l'(ij7 and OTW :230 cliachronically:
At a certain moment in the history of the Hehrew language the present tense funclion was renewed through
. when I cry.. . and answer mc! Ｇｊ ｾ N'i?N 27:7
Ihe use of the predicative participle.... PC Lviq!all and SC Iqatalllost their presenl-lensc funclions almost
answer me. . when I call ' ｊｾ N'i?N 102:3
completely ... The SC was pushed to onc side to hceome a past lense (more exactly: a form expressing
I cry .... and he answers me ' JJ\:' N'i?N 3:5
anteriority to the moment of speaking). the PC moved over to the other side to become a form expressing
I cry .... hut you do not answer ;-TJ\:i"l 101':>' N'i?N 22:3
rnodali ty 235
I call on you, for you will answer me ' JJ\:i"l ':J IN'i?N 86:7
When they call to mc, I will answer them ,;-TWN , 'IN'i?' 91:15 Though Joosten's ensuing examples of continuing functional overlap are impressive, this

I cry: answer me ' JJ\: 'i"\N'i? 119:145 diachronic perspective may weaken our appreciation of how the various elements function
... I called, you answered me ' JJ\:i"l ' i"\tot'i? 138:3 together in a synchronic system.
I called ... answered me ' JJ\: 'I1N'i? 118:5
The system of Hebrew verbal inflection is tripartite, opposing by mood: qiital, long-form x-
I cry .... that he may answer me ' JJ\:' 1 ' i"ltot'i? 120:1
I call upon you. for you will answer me 'JWi"l -':l l'i"lN'i? 17:6 yiq.rol ancl short-form yiq!ol-x. 236 These form the basis for three systems, which also have
you called ... ; I answered you lJ\:N ... mni? 81:8 associated person-unmarked forms and continuation forms: 2J7
Answer me when [ call 'D\: ' N'i?:I 4:2
S\'Slem Paradigm/orm., Supplementary forms
They cried. ... he answered them. OJ\:' 0' N'i? 99:6
I-system qa!al ('perfeclive') Negation: ta' qatal; 'in qale!
answer us when we call lJN'i? ... ,JW' 20:10
Continuation: ｾＢＧ｡ｹｩｱＡｯｬ

Verb forms represented here include yiq!ol, wiJyiq,ol, wayyiqtol, qiital, qotel, imperative, Person-unmarked: qalil ('predicative participle')
E-syslcm long-form x-yiqf61 ('imperfectivc') Negation: ta' liq!al ('prohihilive' when used Deontically)
infinitive absolute; clause types include circumstantial, causal, adversative, purpose, result,
(±nun paragogicum) Continualion: WiJq(/!ul
consecutive. Such grammatical variation within a formula is analogous to the lexical variation Person-unmarked: qaf6l (,infinitive ahsolute')
which Culley highlights as the heart of oral formulaic composition. 231 D-system short-form viq!al-x ('jussive') Negation:'ul·liq!al Cvetitive')
There are therefore both grammatical and poetical forces at work within the Psalter which '«q!iJlii (,cohonalive') Person-unmarked: q,Jlal ('imperative'). qa!lii ('adhortative')

result in otherwise unexpected juxtapositions of qiital and yiq!61 forms. These account for the The I-system has a perfective default,238 so that qii!al cannot bear further aspectual
vast majority of forms in the Psalter which do not accord with the view of the verbal system distinctions. 239 This has, however, led to the introduction of the participle (as in English) for
presented here.

2.4.9. Conclusions on the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System 232 Loprieno, Ancielll Egyptian, 82
233 Joosten, 'The Predicative Participle', 157, referring to the Actual/Cursive Present function as passing from
Modality in Semitic languages has often been described in terms of secondary functions or
yiq«j/ to /11;' q(Hil and the Factual/Constative Presenl passing from qalal 10 qOlel hi; '. Pre- and Suflixing
diachronic change: morphology supports this view. COIl"Iparc also Austin's description of Dcolllics as 'prirnilivc' as against the
The evolution from a semanlic to a syntactic mood. from a verhal category whose choice depends solely on performative (sce 2.4.5 above).
the speaker's altilude to Ihe predication to a form only used in a set of subordinate clauses, is known from 23 4 DeCaen, Ptacemenl and tlllerprelalioll, 267.
235 Jooslen, 'The Predicative Participle', 157.
236Eskhull, Studies ill Verbal Aspect. 19-20; DcCaen. Ptacemelll and Interpretalion, 105.
229S 0 also 142:4-5 and Deut 33:'/. 237Joosten, 'The Indicative System'.
23001' course there arc many other factors al work in these lexts. including subordination. nominalisalion. adverbs 238DeCaen, Placemenl and b"erpre/(I/ion. 184 ele. Similarly. Eskhult, 51lldies in Verbat Aspect. 20: 'Bcing Sialic.
of instrument (' "JljJ) and lemporal adverhs/conjunctions (0":1, '"J ,3:1). Translations arc from the NRSV. it is also alerminal, that is, there is no analysis of the verhal conlcnl in a cOnlinUUIll hctwcen given limils·.
23lCulley. Oral Forml/I"ic LlIlIgl/ag", 30. 239See above on the relationship between 1+I'ASTj and !+PERFECfIVEI.
 Modality, H(1(!I'l'IIn' alld Sp('('ch Act.\' ill the Psalm... Modalit)'

imperfective aspect in all timc framcs. 24u Progrcssivc aspcct is cxprcssed by thc participlc, Primary Functions MOOD
which occurs, in the present, alone and after thc subject (h[i"' qo!e/ [.PROG] cf qo!e/ hCt' [- I+MOD) I-MOD]
Mood: (rrealis Realis
PROG]), and in the Deontic system and thc Indicative Antcrior,24I together with the MT-
I<: :>l I
marking 'placcholder' verb ;";' (yaM qo!e/ and hiiyiih qo.te/ respectively).242 [+VOLI [.VOL) .j,
Modal Systcm: Deontic Epistcmic Indicative
Thc D-systcm is closely related to the E-system, and is characterised by verb-topicalisation I I 1
I 1 TENSE
(viq!o/-x vs. x- yiqfol) and vowel reduction (short-form yiq!o/ vs. long-form yiqto/; imperative
1 1 I<: :>l
vs. infinitive absolute). I I [+PASTI ,·PASTI
Relative Tense: 1 I Anterior Contemporaneous
Starting with the branching of functions given in 2.4.2 above, the system may be prcsented I I I I
I I I ASPECT
as in thc diagram opposite. The most rea/is forms appear on the right-formally, a verbal noun
I 1 1 I<: :>l
lacking inflection in a subject-initial nominal clause, and functionally [-MOD]. The most 1 1 1 [-PROGI [+PROGj
Aspect: I I I Conslative Cursive
irrea/is forms appear on the left-formally, a fully inflected verb in a verb-intial verbal clause, 1 I r I I
.j, .j, .j, .j, .j,
and functionally [+MOD, +YOL].
Deontic Epistemic Anterior Constative Cursive
It should be clear from this presentation and thc above discussion of MTA relationships how (European cqui valenlS: optative subjunctive perfect pres. simple pres. prog.)
the Hebrew verbal system has come to be analysed differently. It is quite true that qii!a/ is past
[+PAST] and perfective (under a 'perfective default'), whilst x-yiqt6/ is future [+MOD, -VOl].
Secondary Functions present potelllialis Performative
But both tense- and aspect-based theories err crucially in sometimes reading yiqtol as Indicative past iterative Epistolary
non-past [-MOD, -PAST) i.e. present. Hence the space devotcd above to demonstrating the past prospecti ve
tnt, Neg, cond
basically modal meaning of x-yiqtol.
The above discussion has presented an analysis of a forma/ system; it is not claimed that it
accounts for all uses of the Hcbrew forms. As Kurylowicz comments in dismissing the category Verbal Forms D-system E-system I-system
I<: .j, :>l
of aspect from Hebrew morphology, Paradigm Fonns: short-formyiq{OI-x long-fonn x-yiq{ol qii{al
It is of course not the possibility of expressillg certain meanings and shades-they may he expressed in any '(J!qtJla (±IlUIl paragogicum)

language-hut thc cxistence of verbal categories which interests us here. 243

'jussivc', 'cohortative' 'imperfecl(ive)' 'perfect(ivc)'
Negation: 'al-tiq!al la'tiq!al la' qi1{al
We have been looking for what he calls 'system-conditioned' (that is, primary) functions,
'velitjvc' 'prohibitive'
rather than 'context-conditioned' (or secondary) ones,244 and it is in this sense that Joosten can Continuation Fonns: wJqii!al wayyiq!al
say that ·per[. consecurivwn' ';mp! consecU/;vum'

From lhe point of view of the system, the indicative functions of yiq!al are ncgligihle. 245 Person-unmarked Fonns: qa!al, qatla qii!al qa{il hu' hu' qO{it
'imperativc' . 'infinitive absolule' 'prediC3livc participle'
It is a 'Morphocentric Fallacy'246 to suggest that MTA values are completely determined by 'adhortativc' 'classifying' 'identifying'
verbal morphology. MTA values need to be understood in terms of both verbal morphology
and features of the sentence, as is clear already from the above distinctions of modal system (x-
'Skewing' DeolJlic Epistemic IlIdicative
'prccali ve perfect' 'prophetic perfect'
'prcceptive imperfect' Epistemic yiq!61-x
240DeC"en, Ptocemelltwzd IlIferpretat;o//; Joosten, 'The Predicative Participle'.
Conditional: 'imqii.!al 'imyiqla[
241 That is, in the presence of TA-features; sce 2.1.1. above.
kiqiital tu yiqtal
242DcCaen, Ptoceme//t and IlIlerpretarioll, 222. It has been suggested that the use of the auxiliary is characteristic
of spoken language: Rendshurg, Diglossia, 145-49. Sequential: wJqiital wayyiqta[
243Kurylowicl., 'Yerbal Aspect in Scmitic', 115. 'ozyiqlol
244KurylowiCl. 'Yerbal Aspect in Semitic'. 115.
245Joosten, 'Biblical Hebrew weq"!al', 14 n. 82. Relative modality: irrea!;s -> -> -> -> -> realis
246DcCaen, Placeme//t alld IlIlerpreWt;oll, 68.
HMI Modality, Rlier('tlce and Speech Au.\' ill (he Psalms Mot/aliIV 1111

yiqtol vs. yiqtol-x) and aspect (ha' qo!el vs. qo!el ha '), not to speak of other pragmatic factors. For Ｑｾ｢ｲ･ｶ clauses the ｣ｩｳｾ｢ Hebrew word order is .'erb + subjeCl (VS). This verb-tirst word order usually
ohtains where a clause has no intfoduclOry material, where a clause hcgins with a ｈｙＱＧＭｲ｣ｬ｡ｩｶｾ
Joosten argues from Benveniste's niveaux de ["analyse linguistique:
Ｈｉｲｾ､ｩｴｯｮｬｹ .....(I ... -consecutive..) construction. or where a clause begins with Ｑｾｩ｢ｲ･ｶ､ｾ Ｎｳｬ｡ｩｲ･ｴｾｭ 252
A verbal form as such-meaning: a verbal form as one element in a verbal paradigm-expresses an
DeCaen has, however, drawn attention to the often neglected distinction between 'basic' and
ｴ｣｡ｲ ｳ｢ｾ function which should be described in terms of tense, aspect and modality. With this basic,
'morphological' function. the verbal form can be deployed in several 'text-linguistic' or discourse 'dominant or statistically prevalent' word order,253 which legilimates, via a theory of
functions. transformations, a view of the statistically less prevalent word order (SV) as basic. The SV
These discourse functions ｣ｲｾ not 10 be played down: thcy are real, and they should be described in a
view has been held most famously by loUon (though this section of his grammar was changed
grammatical treatment of BH [Biblical Hebrew}. From Ihe point of view of Ihe individual verbal forms,
to VS in Muraoka's revision), as well as Stau and, most recently, DeCaen; Loprieno considers
however. discourse functions are secondary, Ｑｾｵｴｸ･ｮｯ｣ ｳｮｯｩｴｾ｣ ｬｰ of a more basic temporal, aspectual or
modal function. VSO original in all Semitic languages, shifting to SVO in Arabic and Hebrew and to SOV in
Discourse functions arc not inherent to the verbal form. but 10 the clauses within which the verbal form is modern Ethiopic languages. 254 Some of the strongest arguments in favour of SV are the clear
incorporated 247
modal distinction in dependent clauses between SV (coordinate, realis) and VS (subordinate,
Lyons comments similarly in cross-linguistic perspective:
irrealis), and the link between this fact and the dependent nature of sequential wayyiqto[255 VS
It is an empirical fact thal lense, like person. is commonly, though not universally, realized in the
thus appears 10 be used only for Deontic main clauses (as above) or dependent clauses. The
morphological variations of Ihe verb in languages. Ｌｹｬ ｡｣ｩｉＱ ｾ ･ｓ however, tense is a category of the
sentenee. 248 strange concepts of 'inverted verbal clause'256 or 'complex noun clause' are thus no longer

Thus lhe recognition of a broader functional range does call for explanation (as has been given needed.

above for yiqtol), but does not necessarily affect the 'system'. Since, then, word order distinguishes belween the two modal systems (yiq!ol-x vs. x-yiqtol)
Perhaps the most remarkable feature of this presentation by comparison with more and between aspects in the Contemporaneous (Cursive ha' qo.tel vs. Constative qo!el ha'), and
lraditional treatments is the crucial role played by word order. x-yiqtol vs. yiqtol-x distinguishes marks the 'mood neutralised' functions of yiq!ol and qa!al (wayyiq!ol and waqatal), it is above
Epistemic and Deontic modal systems (Niccacci's 'Neglected Point in Hebrew Syntax'249) and all the pragmatic value of word order with which we are concerned here.2 57 This is
hu' qo!el vs. qorel ha' distinguishes Cursive and Constative aspects in the Contemporaneous acknowledged even from a VS perspective by such as Loprieno:

(Joosten's great contribution 250 ). We therefore turn now to consider word order. one of the main functions of a topicatized VP is precisely Ihe definition of the diathetic. temporal or modal
ｳ･ｲｵｴｾ ｦ governing the higher predication; in other words, since the themalized VP is assigned all the verbal
2.5. Syntactical Morphemes features of the utterance, the inevitable consequence of the concentration of semantic functions on the head
VP is thc pragmatic emphasis on the rheme258
Moscati uses the term 'syntactical morphemes' to refer to 'the order of words or ... and (making an almost opposite point) Givon:
independent elements' .25\ We have seen in the above how the copular verb ;-";-' has come to ｾ VSO language is 'pragmatically schizophrenic'. since Ihe new information portion of the sentence is

function as just such an independent element-as an 'auxiliary verb' similarly to Moscati's seattered on both sides of the topic/subject. 259

example, the Arabic future particle sawfa. In this section, we will be principally concerned with The two principal VS structures in Biblical Hebrew (Deontic yiq!ol-x and sequential wayyiq!ol)

syntactical clause modification in terms of word order (especially verb-subject [VS)). are subject to this 'pragmatic schizophrenia'.

The predominant view on Hebrew verb order is currently that it is VS. So, for example,
Waltke-O'Connor:
252Waltke-Q'Connor, SYlIlax, 129 §8.3b.
253 DeCaen. Placemellt alld IlIlerpretatioll, 136.
254Loprieno. Allciel/l Egyptiall, 3.
255Compare the general rule in Proto-Indo-European. that unaccented words arc placed in second position in main
clauses. and the verh is accented in suhordinate clauses.
256Jenni. E., Lehrbuch der Hebriiischell Sprache des Altell Testamellls (Basel & ｆｲｾｮｫｦｵ am Main: Helbing &
247 Joosten, Tilburg handout. Lichlenhahn, 1981) 71 §6.3.1.6.
248Lyons, Sel/lalllics 2, 678; similarly Comrie, Tellse. 12. 257See Ljungberg above on the 'pragmalic' nature of modality.
249Niccacci. A.. 'A Neglected Point'. 258Loprieno, Allciellt EgJptiall, 124.
250Joostcn. 'The Predicative Participle'. 2WGivon, T.. The drift from VSO to SVO in biblical Hehrew: The pragmatics of tense-aspect'. in Li. CN. (ed.),
::!51 Muscali, Comparative Grammar, 72. M,'c!ul1Iisms o/S\,//((Ictic Clul1Ige (Austin: University of ｔ･ｸｾｳ Press, 1977) 181-254 (2411.
102 Mm/a lily. Rt'fereru:e and Speech Act.\" ill rite PsalmJ A-fllt/otity 10.1

A word should be added on auxiliary verbs. It has already been noted that ;";' has this Latin 266 OV/vo -/PN gnlNG ANINA rclnlNRel stalASt
function, however there are a number of other verbs which also function modally in various French -/VD -IPN gnlNG anlNA -IN Rei -lASt
English -/VD -IPN GN/ng AN/- -IN Rei -lASt
different contexts. ;':1/'(, 'to want to' is interestingly restricted to Negative, Interrogative and
Biblical Hebre ..· -/VD -/PN -/NG -INA rclnlNRel -lASt
conditional c1auses. 260 ,,:>' 'to be able to' is often used in parallel with a modal yiqli5L form
(e.g. Dellt 1:9/112; 2 Sam 22:39// Ps 18:39; Ps 78:20). Yerbs such as D'j?, /'(':::l,l";, and :::l;" This is to say that Biblical Hebrew lIsually postposes an object to its governing verb (vov',

are often used in the imperative to modify modally another imperative.26I "i) and :::l'tI;, 'nv,v 40:2), a noun to a governing preposition (i':10 ')?V" 40:3), a nomen rectum to its

represent modal modification only in terms of the Speaker's altitude to an action. ""n, "in, nomen regens (P';' tI'tI 40:3), an adjective to its noun (Win i'W 40:4), a relative clause to

'1°', :::lH!7,0:JW and i;'O have been described as 'relative verbs';262 though requiring a its antecedent (mtl:::lO ;";" DW-iW/'( i:::l);' 40:5) and a standard of comparison to a

complement like modal verbs, they are most often translated into English with an adverb. 263 comparative adjective (' "in:1 '1"/'(0 T .,:m:::l en' - :1,tI 84: 11). Biblical Hebrew can therefore
Finally, a similar function to that normally expressed in English by modal verbs may be be characterised as a surprisingly consistent Head-Dependentlanguage.267

expressed in Hebrew by means of the use of a cognate or synonymous infinitive (e.g. Num 2.5.2. Word-Order RuLes
17:28 ＢＩＧｾ non 0/,(;', 'Must we all die?'); this function might alternatively be described as
A standard cross-linguistic inventory of particular classes of Word-Order Rules may help in
aspectual, as is clearly the case with the auxiliary verb "?:J [+PFV).
characterising Biblical Hebrew: 268

2.5./. Posrverbal Syntax I. Relational word ordcr rules: S.O, V

2. Stylistic-prosodic word order rules: stressed, heavy (usually second and linal positions)
Two main word-order types have been identified in the languages of the world: I. those which
3. Pragmatic word order rules: focus. topic (usually first position)
tend towards Dependent-Head structures, and 2. those which prefer Head-Dependent
4. Other word order rules: S 1 f 0
structures 264 These two theoretical types can be characterised as either: Animatc } precedes ｾ Inanimate
Agent J l Patient
I.OH:
SOY We may apply these in turn:

VP -> Object-Verb-Auxiliary I. SYO is the normal word order in independent Indicative main clauses, and YSO in
pp -> Noun-Postposition dependent clauses (Epistemic and 'mood neutralising') or Deontic main clauses.
NP -> Standard of Comparison-Adjective/GenitivelDetemlincrlRelative Clause/Numeral-Noun
2. Heavy NPs (whether S or 0) are frequently put in final position.
2 HO:
(S)V(S)O 3. Object-topicalisation (OY) is common in Discourse, and verb-topicalisation (YS) in
VP -> Auxiliary-Vcrb-Objcct Narrative. OS is extremely rare (as in other world languages).269
pp -> Preposition-Noun 4. Subject-topicalisation, in the form of an independent pronoun or a noun in casus pendens,
NP -> Noun-Adjcctive/GenitivelDetermincrlRelative C1auselNumeral-Standard of Comparison
is frequently employed in the Psalter, particularly, as a pragmatic-rhetorical feature to highlight
When predominant structures are compared (DH/HD), no natural language corresponds shifts in topic. The topic is usually animate and is the Agent. Thus frequently wa'anf or
consistently to one of these types (secondary structures are given in lower case):265 ｷ｡ﾷＧ ｮ ｾ ｴｬＩＮ

260Jooslen, 'Thc Predicativc Paniciplc'. 137 n. 40.

261 Waltkc-O'Connor, Syntax, 574-5 §34.5. I a. See below ch. 6, scclion 2.3.
262Schneider, Grammatik, 220-21 §50.5-6. 266Preposed relative clauses: e.g. 'Quod pOluimus, id fccimus.' Also with no anlccedcnt: 'Qui numquam timel
263'Formverbum', 'relatives Verhum' or 'erganzungsbedurftigc Vcrhcn'; Jcnni, Lehrbuch, 255-6 §23.3.3. SlUltus est'.
264 Harris and Campbell, Historical Syntax. 196-239 267Waltke-O'Connor. S\'Il/ax, 137 §9.lc. Similarly consislenl HD languages include Samoan and Swahili; OH
265Harris and Campbell. Historical Synta.< . 230-32, give Latin. French and English; [hc analysis of Biblical languagcs includc Japanese and Turkish; Radford, A.. Tmllsformatimral Gramnl(lr. A First Course (Camhridgc
Hebrew is my own. Textbooks in Linguistics: Cambridge: CUP. 1988),39.
268Harris and Camphell. Historical SYlltaX. 238.
269Harris and Camphcll. Historical SYII/ax. 238.
104 Modlllity. Reference alltl Speech ACH ill the Psalm." Modalill' 105

2.5.3. Traditional Word Order delerminelsl the olher. and ... the only possible conceplion of parataxis lisl th'll in which dependence
hetween clauses lis I mutuaL 27 J
Having considered some of the pragmatic and universal aspects of word order, we are now in a
Thus the Hebrew continuation forms (wayyiq!6l and WJqiital) are properly hypotactic or 'co-
better position to look back to traditional treatments of Biblical Hebrew. The traditional view of
subordinate' ,274 and probably (as argued above) will not bear their own MTA features.
Arabic grammar completely neglected any distinction betweep. dominant (statistically-
Since we are here concerned primarily with main clauses, we will consider just one special
prevalent) and basic (systemic) word order:
type of clausal embedding which is particularly important for study of the Psalter-<lirect
any clause heginning with a verb is a verbal clause (YC): any clause heginning with a noun is a nominal
speech or 'direct discourse' 275
c1ause 270
It was valuable, however, in that it concentrated on 'theme-rheme' or 'known-new' rather than
3. I. Direcl Discourse
'subject-predicate'. Here, we have seen that Verb-Subject is characteristic of Deontic or
Many modern European languages mark indirect ('reported') speech grammatically, with shifts
dependent clauses, and Subject-Verb of Epistemic main clauses and Indicative clauses. The
in both reference (deictic pronouns and time and place adverbs) and mood (from realis to
Predicate-Subject order of the Contemporaneous Constative is not a problem for this
irrealis).
classification, since the participle is not intlected and so does not qualify for full verbal status.
e.g. He said, '1 ,,-,ill meel you here tomorrow'. -> He said lhat he would meel her/here the next day.
In any case,
Biblical Hebrew marks indirect speech with the referential shift alone, and even the
Su-Ptcp (the actual present) is in Biblical Hebrew the normal sequence. Statistically it is aboul four limes as
frequent as Ptep_Su 271 complementiser ＨＮＬｴｬＷＱｯＨ｛ＭｮｾＩＬＲＷＶ 'that') is usually absent. This kind of indirect speech is not

Deontic verbal modality corresponds to the 'Imperative' clause types discussed below in attested in the Psalms, though it is possible that ki after verbs such as ;'1"" is to be interpreted in

chapter 6. 'Negative' and 'Interrogative' clausal modality involve transformations which make this way:277

NEG or INT the head of the clause, to which the verb is then attracted. Thus all three types of :1'01} 071)7':> ';:J ::I1p-':;> :1:';"7 n1:1 1.'6:1

clausal modality with which we are concerned in this thesis (also CON D) involve verb- Acknowledge hefore the LORD lhat He is good. for his covenanllove is elernal. (ALW)

topicalisation and hence a strong pragmatic focus. This is a key element of the rhetorical force
Direct speech, by contrast, is frequent in the Psalms, though both introductory particles such
as ＬｯｾＧＺＱ (e.g. 71: 11) and ＮＬｯｾＧＬ (e.g. 35:27),278 and even introductory verbs of speaking are
so often noted in the Psalms.
often omitted (11: I; 22:9; 46: 10-12). Direct speech may be marked by preceding Ｎ ＬｏｾＺ
in the Amerior form: 12:5; 30:7; 32:5; 16:2; 31: t5; also 1::1':>::1 it.:lN: 10:6. 11. 13; 14: tl/53: t;
3. Subordination
in a Deontic form: 35:3, 21, 25, 27
in yiq!ol in a vow or praise: 35: 10
Having considered the modification of main clauses, we now turn to the non-main, or
in y;qtol in a subordinate clause: 't.:ll(' ltl 13:5
'subordinate' status of some clause types, which may be considered a kind of textlinguistic
ｾｯＬＮ may also occur in the middle of the direct speech:
modification of the clause. It has been commented by many scholars that clausal dependency
:1':> n.'P: ｾｖＬＧＱｩｉＺ［ｾＷＱ :1).;'1' '91(' ｏＧｪ＿ｾ ＺＭＧｐｬＡ O',J1'::I1( i1j7J!'et.:lC"Jl1 '.Vt.:l 12:6
should not be seen in black-and-white terms; Loprieno, for example, distinguishes between
"Because the poor are despoiled, because the needy groan, I will now rise up." says the LORD; '" will
parataxis, hypotaxis (semantic dependency), subordination (syntactic dependency) and place them in the safely for which they long." (NRSY)
embedding (unmarked subordination--circumstantial/adverbial).272 It has even been argued
that there is no true pamtaxis:
273Haiman.1.. NaIl/ral S.\'Il/{/x: lcollicit)' alld Erosion (Cambridge: CUP. 1985) 217 n. I. reponing the work of
lhe mere fact that clauses are conjoined in discourse ipso facto makes them dependent on each other
Paul (I lI80).
there [can I be no purely parataclic relationship belween clauses. at least in the sense that neither
274Winlher-Niclsen ciled in Eskhull, 'The Old TeStamenl and Texl Linguislics', 94.
275See also O·Connor. Hebrew Verse Structure. 409-414 §8.1.
276Givon. ·Evolulion·. The use of '(ct- in these eonlexts (e.g. 2 Kgs 8:5) seems strange (or proves lhat "cct- marks
not Ihe direct ohject. but focus). since the expression i1":;> iON shows that the complement or it.:lN is an
270Talstra, 'Te'l Grammar and Hehrew Bible, ", 169-70. Sec also Schneider. Grammarik, 160-61 §44.1.2; adverbial ('how'?' l, not a direcl objecl (·whal'!').
Gesenius-KauIIsch. Grammatik. 471 §1401'. 277Similarly 54:8. ::1'0 ':;> only ever occurs after verbs of speaking. Note Blau's description of ::1'0 ':;> as a
271 loosten. 'The Predicative Participle'. 140. 'eomplelive c1ausc': Blau. Grammar. 82-3.
272Loprieno. A"cielll EgytJli(/II. 165. IK9-90. 225. 27XMeier. S.A.. Slwaki"g n[Speaking: Markillg Direct Discol/rse ill Tire Hebrew Bible (SVT 46: Brill. 1992).
106 ＮｹＨｩｬ｡､ｯｴｾ Reference und Speeclr Au.\ (11 111(' /'wllll.\ Modlllil\' 107

Certain other verbs appear to refer to specific speech acts (N,P to questions and mands) and In Psalm 31 :23, we find a similar subject shift taking place:
pnn;, to the prayer 'J)n): :1'''1( 'p1W::1 ',junj"l ,ip ｊＺＱｖｾｗＬ ｰｾ 1'.)'j; Ｇ Ｉ ｾ ｏ ",,1-1)) 'imp ＧｪＢｬ ｹｾ Ｇｾ ＱＮ 31:23
I had said in my alann, "[ am driven far from your sight."
:pl}j"l1( , ,j'1(:"'1(1 1()j?1( :-IV1' "]'71( 30:9-11
But you heard my supplicalions when [ cried out to you tor help. (NRSV)
:"]!'Ol( ＢＩｾＺＭｉ 'Pli ."1'1';1 j"ln.l;r?1( "'''''::1 "O'}::1 ｶＺｐＭ ｉｾ
Il seems most likely that' )N1 here does not link the time of speaking with the expression in the
:" 'Il;-Tl'.:-I :-11.:-1" ＱｽｾＩＧ Tl'.Tl'-VI;ll!:'
preceding verse, "::$0 ,'V:1 ,., non N":>!l;', i.e. 'he made wonderful his faithfulness to me
To you. 0 LORD. I cricd, and 10 the LORD I made supplication:
"What protit is thcre in my death, if I go down to the Pit" Will the dust praise you? Will it tell of your when [ was in a besieged city and [ said ... ', but emphasises the contrast (also frequently
faithfulness" Hear. 0 LORD, and he gracious to me! 0 LORD, he my helper'" (NRSV) attested elsewhere 282 ) between' ",ON and pN,283 so suggesting translation as 'Though [ ... '
There are then many other ways of marking direct speech, such as: or 'Whilst I ... '. The special referential and temporal frame of the direct-speech colon aa
:1'V1DlO-':;J c';:"I(' 1'1( 10:4 ＨＧｉｾｮＺＱ locates it in the context described in v. 13a) means firstly that God, who was referred to
'There is no God' is all his Ihoughts. in the 3rd person in vv. 22-23aa (non), is here referred to in the 2nd person (T)' 11).
which is, of course, equivalent to: Secondly, the 1st-person subject of 'nr,)) must also be conceptualised as distinct from that of
'n,ON (the person being described in the past, and the Speaker/Psalmist in the present).284
He has thought. 'There is no God'.
Thirdly, the qii!a[ forms in aa and b will be translated as English simple past, since they refer to
Very often, however, the speech is completely unmarked (e.g. 46: II l, a distinctive feature of
the timellocation of vv. 11-13 ＩＱＺｮｾｉＧＨ and vv. 14-18 ('V'll7:1) respectively, whilst the qii!a[
Biblical poet ry 279 It is therefore to referential shift that we must look in order to distinguish
form in afl will be translated as English present perfect. None of these distinctions would apply
direct speech 28U
to indirect speech. What is striking is that the 2nd person reference to God is then continued
In Psalm 2, for example, the shift from 3rd (v. 2) to ISI person (v. 3) marks a shift in
into the next bicolon, in an almost imperceptible shift back to the present time frame:
Speaker, the Enemy moving from 3rd-person subject of v. 2 to Speaker of v. 3; similarly
v.22-23aa Mainline 3rd person
(though this time marked with ':11'), God moves from 3rd-person subject of vv. 4-5 to
v.23all Direct Discourse 2nd person
Speaker of v. 6. The same shift may occur, however, between a 3rd-person subject (vv. 4-5) v. 23h Mainline 2nd person
and a Ist-person Speaker-subject. The idenlification of Direct Discourse within the Psalms is
Thus I translate:
therefore bound up with the question of subject shift considered in chapter 2 above. 1st-person
Though [ thought in my alann, "[ have heen driven out of your sight",
Direct Discourse by the PsaLmist may be distinguished for our purposes from Narrative (e.g. in fact you heard the sound of my prayers when [ called out to you.
vv. 1-2) as involving 1st (e.g. v. 7a) or 2nd-person (e.g. v. 10-12aa) reference. Thus Psalm 2 A striking example of deictic shift may be observed in Psalm 11: I:
may be analysed as follows: :'1P:S C.:I,;' 1'U Ｇ｟ｬＡｩｏｾＧ ＱｾＰ Ｈｪｬ TI(, 'j"l'OI} Tl1Tl';l 11:1 "u r
Narrative subject = Enemy [ have put my hope in the LORD, how can you (pt.) say to my soul, 'Flee (pt.) to your (pt.) mounlain like a
vv. 1-2
v.3 Direct Discourse Speaker = Enemy bird!' (ALW 285 )

vv.4-5 Narrdlive subject = God The direct speech takes the referential Locus away from that of Ｇｬ ＷｾＩＬ hence the plural katib,
v.6 Direcl Discourse Speaker = God which was perhaps a common battle taunt (addressed to a 'representative' plural).286 There is a
v.7 Direct Discourse Speaker = Psalmist
vv. 7b-9 DirecI Discourse Speaker = God
vv. 1O_12b 281 Dircct Discourse Speaker = Psalmist
2821sa 49:4b; Jer 3:20: Zeph 3:7b; Ps 82:7: Job 32:8.
283Waltke-O'Connor, Sylltax, 670-71 §39.3.5d.
284 Just as in 4:7 ... )10 1)1(,'-'0 C' ,01( C' ::1" where the 3rd-person C'::1' and 1st-person 1)- have Ihe same
279Meier. Speaking of Speaking. 32-37 § 1.6.2. referents. Similary Ps 39.
280The direct speech may report Ihe words of God (46:10). the Enemy (42:11: often marked with the taunt ｔｬｾＺ 285This reading renders the singular qare and emendations such as (BHS) 10:::l ,;, ｵｮ ｾＭ｣･ｳ ｡ｲｹ by reading "O:S
35:21. 25: 40: 16: 70:4) or the self (42: 10). as an adverbial accusative: its laek of agreement with 1,,) is unprohlematic with this interpretation.
2810ne might make a hreak here at v. 12a", though v. 12at! c1carly functions as a warning and v. 12h "l!:'1( 286Compare, for example, 124:7: 'We have escaped like a bird from the snare of the fowlers: the snare is broken,
functions in my view (unlike l1'::1 ) as directive. and wc havc escaped.' (NRSV). See also Ihe discussion above in ch. 2. seclion 2.1.
ｉＨｾ Modality. Rell'rc'lIce and Speech Act,,- i" ,Il(' P,w,I",_,- ,\4at/alily

special rhetorical effect in this displacement of (he situation. It is 'inteltextual' in that it evokes ｾｽｃＺｉＮ ,P 'Ji" 1.:;1 o'on., ＱｾＢｬＡ ［ＩＬ TN""'" ＧｾＩＡ［ｬ ＭＢ ｕＡＧＱ Ｚｊ ｴｬＭＮＺ Ｉ［Ｂｉｑ JI:20
the military context in which it would normally be spoken. o how abundant is your goodness that you have laid up for those who fear you, and accomplished for those
who take refuge in you, in the sight of everyone' (NRSV)
A fourth example of referential shift may be seen clearly in a conversational exchange:
There are also, of course, the characteristic 'double-duty suffixes'.291
:lUj?:;l!'1 ;"1;;"1' ｎＱｩＭｾＩｔ ＿ＡｾＧ 1lUj?:;l '.::l". Ｂ Ｙｾ ::1" 27:8
"Come:' my heart says. "seek his face'" Your face. LORD. do t seck. (NRSV) Extended scope may also be seen in the features with which we are concerned here.

The complex reference has resulted in textual problems, including the 2nd-person sg. l'::>, the Interroglllive force may extend over two cola: 292

plural HCjJ::l and the 1st-person ')0. The NRSV has emended to 1');:) IOjJ:;) ... l'::>, so that the ... '."it '1:1;"1111 "lU!:l.l 'r1[11;'lUi1-;"IO 42:6
Why are you cast down, 0 my soul. and why arc you disquieted within me? ... (NRSV)
Speaker of the a-colon ('my heart') is not the same as the Addressee of the b-colon ('LORD'),
or the particle may be repeated:
and the use of direct speech involves person shift in the object of 1Oj):;) ('his face'; 'your face').
These four examples have shown how direct speech is primarily governed by shifts in
,,' '."it '1:I;"Ii1-;"I01'-' lU!:l) 'r1[11;'lUi1-;"IQ 42: 12
Why are you cast down, 0 my soul, and why are you disquieted within me? .. (NRSV)
grammatical and rhetorical person, so that this particular element of clausal or textual
The same is true of the Interrogative particle itself:
modification is shown to be bound up with the referential texturing of the Psalms.
:;"Ii1VN C':-'1i1l! 0)1 ｏＧＺ Ｎ ｬｾ ""JV.::l ":;J1N;'. 50:13
Do I eat the flesh of bulls. or drink the blood of goats" (NRSV)
4. Scope
:,1'" ｊＢＱｾ 'l'p'-N"1 Ｇｾ Ａ Ｑ n.)I' C'I:I?1"''';'. 77:8
Is it for ever that the Lord will reject.
It has already been noted above that modal features such as Interrogative, Negative and
though on this see also the discussion of disjunclive questions in chapler 4.
Imperative do not carry over into subordinate clauses; this is because subordination itself
Negative force may also have extended scope: 293
involves a type of modality, as can be seen from the paradigmatic relationship of conditional
:' ＩＢ ｏｾｩＱ .1i1Q[1:;n ' )1''' :>11"1 ｾＢＭｬＺＮ＿ｪＳ ＡＱＮ ;"1;.;"1: 38:2
wilh these three other features, and the suggested Interrogative origin of some types of
o LORD, do not rebuke me in your anger, Of discipline me in your wrath. (NRSV)
subordination). In other words, the scope of modal features is standardly limited to the clause in
or the particle may be repeated:
which they occur 287 It is especially when modal features occur together that problems may
ＺＧＩ ＢｬｏｾｩＱ ＮｬｊＢｩ［ ｴＧＱＺ［ｬＭＢｾＱ ')!'1':>1i1 ＮＱＡＺｬｾＭＢ ;"11;"1' 6:2
arise, as can be seen from the English modal verbs: o LORD, do not rebuke me in your anger, or discipline me in your wrath. (NRSV)
The main problem of interpreting, in a regular way, negation with modals is that there is often no formal
Imperative force, lastly, is 'obstinat' (Weinrich)-it is almost always marked on the verb,
way of indicating whether it is the main verb or the modal that is negated. Thus in English can Of and may
and so is not subject to the same problem of scope.
110/, if used epistemieally. negate the modal (no permission), while mus/tl'/ negates the main verb
(obligation not to)288
Amongst the features which may have extended scope 289 or do 'double duty'290 in the 5. Vocative

Psalter are prepositions (e.g. ::l):

Vocatives are formally nominal-the naming or description of the Addressee; they have
:1lU'i?-,;"I 1J';-'':>N·''.I1.::l Ｇｾｑ "1;"11:11 ;"1;;"1' ｾＧＱＢ 48:2
therefore been considered already in chapter 2 above. However, they are discussed here
Great is the LORD and most highly praised in the city of our God. His holy mountain (ALW)
because their pragmatic force may be that of Directive or Expressive speech acts 294 First, we
the nomen regells in a construct relationship (e.g. ' ,'):
consider some problems with the form and typical occurrence of vocatives, then their rhetorical
:PI:1 ｾＧＱｉＺ＿ｪｵｩＱＢｬＺＡｾＧ 1lUj?: n1;) ｾ ＧＢ , J"1l:1tp 141:9
Keep me from the trap that they have laid for me. and from the snares of evildoers. (NRSV) function,

and the relative marker (iVl'():

287Compare Wcinrieh's use of the term 'obstinal" with reference to person-marking. the anicle and tense. 291 See Dahood and Penar.
288Palmcr. Mood alld Modali/y. 220. 292Sce also Dahood and PenaL 438-39. For another interesting example with the cohonative. see Jer 4:21.
289'Ausdehnung der Rektionskrafl"; Gesenius-Kautzsch, 401 § 119hh. 293See also Dahood and Penar. 437-39.
290S ce the many examples in Dahood and PenaL 'Grammar of the Psalter'. 429-444. 2lJ4'Funktioncn. die ... zur Lcistungsfunklion dcr Kundgabc gchorcn'; Richter. GrundlaKen 3.151.).
110 Mot/ality. Reference mul Speech Act.\' in 'he flSllllll.\· Modality III

5.1. Syntactical Status 5.1.2. Minor Clause PredicalOr

Two main contrasting proposals have been made for the syntactical status of vocatives. The In deep structure terms, 'vocatives occur with predicates, but are not related to them as

first views them as often part of the clause, relating to a Deontic verb form like a subject to a arguments'300 O'Connor therefore terms vocatives 'minor clause predicators'301 or 'the

non-Deontic verb form. The second views them as forming a clause in their own right. remnants of a predication', 'remnants of clauses which are uniformly reduced before they
appear in an utterance' ,3D:! coinciding with their theoretical status (under the Performative
5.1.1. Clausal Subject
Hypothesis 303 ) as governed by a higher clause of saying. 304 He claims that this explains the
Considering the jorm of vocatives, we may draw an analogy between: (rare) vocative marker "-it is in fact the normal preposition 'to', which marks the Addressee
the minimal prayer: l"':::l ;";" 'LORD, bless" vocative + Deontie verb (+VOLI
of a higher clause of speaking and is normally deleted together with that higher clause. Thus
the minimal sentence: l"':::l' ;";" 'The LORD will bless.' subject + non-Deontic verb [-VOLI.
Zeph 3: 16b 'N"" rr"N c"v,..,' ", for example, is to be read '(He says) to Jerusalem, "Don't be
Seen in this way, a vocative 'functions, from the standpoint of surface structure, as the
afraid'" .305 Dahood presents a long list of examples from the Psalms,306 though many of these,
subject' .:!95 However, this raises the question of the grammatical person of a vocative, since
like Zeph 3: l6b, could easily be read as not vocative at alp07
vocatives occur not only with Imperatives, but with 1st, 2nd and 3rd-person Deontic forms. 296
Vocatives do not function as subjects to 1st-person Deontics (cohortatives),297 since in 5.2. Rhetorical Function
Directive ('May I .. .') and Expressive ('I will .. .') cohortatives, the Addressee is not the same
Underlying the frequent occurrence of vocatives in the Psalter is an important theological
as the verbal subject, and in hortative cohortatives ('Let us .. .'), the Addressee(s) constitute
consideration-specification of the divine Addressee in a polytheistic environment:
only a part, with the Speaker, of the inclusive 1st-person subject. Self-address is normally in
Diese Sine erklart sich aus einer Urzeit, da die Betenden vie le Golter kennen, und das Gebet daher zuniichst
the form of (3rd-person) psycho-physical substitutes such as Ｇｖｾ or ':::l". den Namen des Gones nennen mul3, an den es sich richtet. damit dieser es vernehme und herbeikomme 308
Vocatives do function as subjects to both imperatives (despite their lack of person-marking) For this reason, vocatives occur most often at the start of a Psalm. They also occur-perhaps
and to other 2nd-person Deontics (jussives). for the same reason-at the start of new units of discourse, and thus signal a change of
e.g. l"':::l ;";" 'LORD. bless!'
theme,309 a shift of Addressee or a greater intensity of address.
l..,:::lil ;";" 'LORD, may you bless"
Vocatives may also occur medially, between 'relative' verbs and their ｣ｯｭｰｬ･ｾ ｮｴｳＺ
Vocatives have been argued to function as subjects to 3rd-person Deontics (jussives) as in
ＧＮＩＡｉ Ｚｬｾ ［Ｌｴｮｾ ;'1;". ;,;mu 6:5
..,'N ';"T' .298 However, it seems strange to read .." N here as vocative at all, and I would refer to
Turn, 0 LORD, save my life .. (NRSV)
it rather as a normal subject within the D-system as discussed above.
or between two repeated cola:
i.e. ..,'N ';" 'Let light exisl!' Deontie
ｾ＿ｐ ｾｊ［Ｂ
cf ';" ..,'N 'Light will exist.' Epistemic ... ';:J':> O';,':>N. ':::l':> 57:8
My heart is steadfast, 0 God, my heart is steadfast. ... (NRSVj
It should also be noted, however, that vocatives do have a further link with the 3rd person in
that this is the person in which they are modified: 299
O?:l 0'011 '110V Mic t:2 3000'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 80.
Hear. nalions, all of you! 301 O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 79-82.
3020'Connor, Hebrew Verse Struc/!/re, 306. This is a generativist 'higher predicate analysis': O·Connor. Hebrew
This ambiguity in the person status of vocatives may be compared with the ambiguous case
Verse Structure, 79.
status of Arabic vocative (nominative without nunation, or accusative if first term in an idafa). 303Referred to in passing by O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure. 80.
304Similar arguments apply to 'focus-markers' such as wa'Glli (see ch. 2, section 2.2.3. above, and O'Connor.
Hebrew Verse Structure, 79-82) and interjections (see Richter. Grulldlagell 3,158-59).
295Finley. The Proposal', 9. Compare the development of the Egyptian vocative marker (referential) into an 3050'Connor, Hebrew Vase Structure. 80-81.
anaphoric deictic particle (relational) and then into a delinite article; Loprieno, AI/cieflf Egyptial/, 68. Compare ch. 306Dahood and Penar. 'Grammar of Ihe Psalter', 407-8.
6. section 5.1. below. 307Nevertheless, this is a remarkable conjunction of synchronic and diachronic linguistics in addressing an
296Finley. The Proposal'. 9. otherwise unresolved problem.
297 COil/m Finley. The Proposal' . 9. 308Gunkel. EillleitlUlli. 121-22 §4.4. Sce also Begrich, 'Die Vertrauensiiul3crungen·.
:!98Finley. 'Tbe Proposal', 9. 309So also rhetorical questions and modal torms; see the quotation from Beekman and Callow at the start of this
299Wahke-O'Connor, Syntax, 77 §4.7d. chaptcr; Tml/.I'latinli thl' Word o{God. 279-80.
112 ModalitL ｒｬｾｲｻＧ ｴＢｗｬＧ and Spl'l'ch Acts ill fhe Psalm...

or in the middle of a sentence: Chapter 4

ＺｬｮｾＧｄ Ｚｊ ,;-:t':> Ql7:Jl/1J Ｇａｾ ｏＧＬｊｬＯＱｾＢ［Ｚ l':"IQD ;"1.'1> 89:50 INTERROGATIVE
Where are your fonner acts of Cllvenantlove, Lord, which in your faithfulness you swore [0 David" (ALW)
:'J,'D' n:;JI:I,' ｏ＿ｔｾｮＬＺ ＢｉｮＺ［ｊｬＯＱｾＭｏｎ 137:5
Having shown how Epistemie and Deontic modality function within the Hehrew vcrbal system as a whole,
If I forget you. 0 Jerusalem. lel my right hand wither! (NRSY)
we here turn to one of our three modal sentence-types to consider how the use of distinct Interrogative
These Jailer types have been termed 'double-duty vocatives'.310 forms interacts with modal verbal forms and fcatures of unreality or non-assenivity, Since Interrogative and
Multiplication of vocatives usually occurs clause-final: Impemlive are mutually exclusive. we will he concerned here primarily with Epistemic modality and the E-
system, However, at the pragmatic level, both Epistemic and Deontic force are carried by Interrogatives,
Ｇ｢ Ｚ＾ｾ 'Jp'Wi" "1'" ":;ni? 3:8
Rise up. 0 LORD' Deliver me. 0 my God' (NRSY)
We have seen that, in its simplest form, a prayer may consist of just two components: an I. Introduction

address (vocative) and a plea (imperative), e.g. "0 God, help!".311 In the Psalms, vocatives and
Interrogative forms can be distinguished according to the element questioned, whether that be:
Imperatives do in fact most commonly co-occur. 312 However, the minimal prayer may be even I. the entire clause (S "),
smaller-the Directive/Expressive function of an Imperative alone ("Help!") can under certain 2. 'a nominal argument (pronominal subject or object-NP), or
circumstances 313 be effected by the vocative alone ("0 God'''). Whilst an Imperative becomes 3. an adverbial adjunct (AdvP)

a true prayer only when accompanied by a vocative, a vocative can be a true prayer by implying These categories form the basis for the present discussion.

an Imperative.3 14 This implied function lies behind many vocatives in the Psalms. Thus, having
1.1. Basic Morphemes
considered the status of vocatives as clausal subjects or independent predications, and having
Clausal Interrogation is (optionally) marked with the deictic panicle ha. Nominal Interrogation
seen how they define the Addressee and structure discourse. it should be noted that they are
prototypically takes the m- morpheme, an indefinite (dubitative) nominal, which is
most often loaded with the appeal to God for his attention and aid. Unencumbered as they are
with the f1allering epithcts of babylonian psalms,315 the address of the biblical Psalms relies not
distinguished for human/non-human. Adverbial Interrogation prototypically takes the 'e-
morpheme, an alternative adjectival. These latter two morphemes are highly productive in
on a captatio benevolentiae. but on the force of the vocative itself to move God to respond.
Biblical Hebrew, generating a range of Interrogative (and hence also relative and indefinite)
pronouns and adverbs.
6. Conclusion
Indefinite m- Altenlarive ｾ･ﾷ
The major part of this chapter has been devoted to presenting an analysis of the Hebrew verbal Humall Non·HflnWIl
system centred around three subsystems, distinguished by mood: I-system (qti!al), E-system Nominal Subject 'D
Direct Object 'O-"N
(long-form yiq!i5I) and D-system (short-form yiq!i5I). This analysis, as well as the comments
Indirect Object ＧｏＭ Ｚ＾ｾ
above on word order, vocative etc., will be fundamental to the following discussion of
Adnominal 'Op,'O':>
Interrogative, Negative and Imperative sentence-types in the Psalms. IndefinitelNegative

Adverbial Time ｾｯ Ｌ ｾｊｉＨＭＢｙ

Manner ＢＡｬＧｉＨﾷｬＧｾ
310Sy analogy with doublc·duty suffixes etc.: for more examples. see Dahood and Penar, 'Grammar of the Place ［ＢｬＡ ＧｾＬ (")'1(, ＱＧｾ
Psalter", 439-41.
Purpose "D. "D':>. "D- ':>Y
.111 Antturi. A., 'How do lhe Psalms Mean Pray"'-An Essay on the Use of Yerhal Conjugations in the Hebrew
Quality "D::J
Psalter', Presented atlhe University of Hamhurg (1996) 5.
JI2Yocatives also co-occur wilh olher Deontic forms such as cohortatives and jussives (see below) and Dislocati ve
Interrogatives. It has hccn suggested thal vocatives are most easily identified hy their juxtaposition with a 2nd- Cause 'D':> ＮｊＺｾＱＯｬＧ '0"l/1:J ;"lD 1l7'. n'D
person pronoun or an imperati ve: Waltke-O"Connor, SY/ltfLt. 130 §8.3d. Instrumenl 'D:J ;"lD:J
3IJFclicity conditions: sce ch. I. section 2,1.2. ahove. Other 'D ＧＮＬｮｾＮ 'D-':>Y. 'D':>, 'DO ;"lD nnn
314Antturi. 'How do thc Psalms mean pray"'. 5 n, 18.
JI'Begrich. 'Die Yenraucnsau[\crungen·. esp. 184.
114 Modality, Reference amI Speech Acts in the P.mlm.'i /lIterrogalive 115

As can be seen from the top-right and bottom-left corners of this table, there is some 'skewing' Interrogative function is not thereby attached to the particular phrase, but is most often linked
of terms. Adjectival'e- functions nominally in combination with a qualified pronoun (;'"11-' NI), to the entire clause. This may be seen in the repetition of the particle before the subject and
whilst nominal m- functions adverbially when governed by a preposition. Each of the three (with N") before the verb:
primary morphemes, ha, m- and'e- may also function as a complementiser, as is predictable ｾ ＧｄＺ ｔＭ［ｾｎ l'i?';!'-Ol( V9117' N':>;-T ｾｬｊ V;11ll 94:9-10
from both the Performative Hypothesis (see above, chapter I) and cross-linguistic studies :nl!:' ｯＺ ｲｾ '7)70;:1 rl';:>" ｔＭ［ｾｎ o'u. '\=l'll
which have shown that object and relative clauses tend always to derive from Interrogatives. 2 He who planted the ear, does he not hear? He who fonned the eye, does he not see')
He who disciplines the nations, he who teaches knowledge to humankind, does he not chastise? (NRSV)
In contrast to this marking of both subject and verb, the particle may have extended scope,
2. Clausal: ha,'im
leaving a second Interrogative clause unmarked:
Clausal Interrogation is known variously as 'yes-no', 'polar' or 'nexus' questions. It is usually :,'V ｭｾＬＧＺ＾ 'l'9'-N?' Ｇｾ ｬ Ｈ n.ll' O'O'?W':>;-T. 77:8
marked with ha, though'im may also be used (especially in Interrogative coordination), or Must the Lord reject for ever and not again be favourable? (ALW)

there may be no marking.

2.1. Syntactic Functions
ha may be formally c1iticised to a Noun Phrase [subject]:
In addition to the independent main-clause function of Interrogation, Interrogative morphemes
Doesn 'tthe ear-planter hear' may function as complementisers and in Interrogative coordination.
a Noun Phrase [object]:
2.1.1. Complementiser
nfl ':>:;n: ｬ ｏｾ＾ＺＧｮｯ 78:20b
It is clear in many languages that relative and object clauses are related to questions. In
... can he give even bread?
English:
a Prepositional Phrase [time]:
Question: Who's been sitting on my chair'
Relative clause: He suddenly saw Goldilocks, who was sitting in his chair.
[s it for cver that you will be angry with us'
Object clause: He asked who'd been sitting on his chair.
a Prepositional Phrase [indirect object]:
The marker of clausal Interrogation may also be related to that for an object clause. In
colloquial German:
[s it for the dead that you do wonders?
Question: Ob du noch fertig bist? Are you ready yet?
a Verb Phrase: Object clause: Sie fragte ihn, ob er noch fertig sei. She asked him if he was ready yet.
In Hebrew, both ha and'im may have this function after verbs of perceiving:
Will dust aeknowledge you?
:o'J1':>/It-nN 117'" ＧＺ＾［ｬｚＱｾ lZ1:ll ＧＭｾｲＺｱＮ＾ ＧＬｎｭ 1:3-':>;-' "i'117;'"1 ｏｐｔｾＧ｢ ;'"I1;'P 14:2
an Adverb Phrase: The LORD looks down from heaven on humankind to see if there are any who are wise, who seek after
God. (NRSV)
Do you indeed decree what is right, you gods? :07'V l'71:3 'lrm' ';3 :3:!!.v-l"-ON ;'"IN" 13924
or an existential particle: See if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting. (NRSV)
ＺｏＧ［Ｍｔ ＾ｎ ｮｬｾ 117"·':>';:>lZ1r.l lZ1:;-T mN'':>. 14:2
2.1.2. Coordination
... to see if there are any who are wise, who seek after God.
Double questions may be formally conjunctive or disjunctive. We may compare conjunctive
and disjunctive forms for affirmative, Negative and Interrogative sentence-types:

Conjunctive Disjunctive
Affirmative Y'X (Both) X and Y Y'N X (Either) X or Y
I Loprieno. Ancient egyptian. 70. reads the Egyptian correspondent, j!. as localising and translates with a cleft Negative YN':>,XN':> Neither X nor Y YON ':>XN':> Not X but Y
sentence: 'which messenger is (he onc who came to you'!' . Y;-T1 X;-T X"y')
Interrogative YON X;-T (Whether) X or Y'
2Harris and Campbell, Historical Sytnax. ch. 10.
116 Modo"'.". R(il'rC/fCC and Speech Acts in the Psalms In/crrogll{;\'C 117

In the Psalter, within a line, the disjunctive pattern is used (ha .. . 'im ... ), or a single question These alternatives exist because of the close relationship between sequential and result clauses.

with internal conjunction (ha ... wa ... ); between lines, apposition is used (ha ... ha ... ). The second concerns the modality of the a-colon N'l'-;'!VV/1 0'/10';', which appears to be

There may be form-to-function 'skewing', with the disjunctive pattern having conjunctive potentialis (Epistemic: 'Can you do wonders for the dead?!'), shading into volition (Deontic:

function: 'Do you want to do wonders for the dead?!'). Similarly, the b-colon may have alternative
Doppelfragen [ruhrenl mit (Olot,) Olot - " nieht notwendig Gegensatze ein; viclmehr dient die Disjunktion readings as Epistemic ('Or do [i.e. can] the shades rise to acknowledge you?') or Deontic ('Or
(so namentlich in dichter. parallelism"s membron/1Il ... ) haung nur dazu, diesel be Frage mit anderen do you intend the shades to rise to acknowledge you?': read as subordinate: 'so that the shades
Worten zu wiederholen und auf dieser Weise nacbdrucklieher zu gestalten. 3
(will) rise to acknowledge you?').
There are no functionally disjunctive Interrogatives in the Psalter. 4
The remaining Interrogative strings in the Psalter exhibit a number of these features:
The longest string in the Psalter consists of six 5 full questions:
, ••• ;, :"'111' 1'11:!"'" .,'9"Iot':>, ＧｾＢ ＱＡ ｮＮｾＬＧ O'O'?";':>;"1. 77:8-10
0 .. , ;, :''''1'. """'1':> ""ON ｾｏＧ ,:-,ot:t ｾＡＺｮ Ｌ［ｾ＿ｏ '!:It:)TV' O'':>t:tJ' b'o ＧｾＱｬ ＮＧ ,,:il-;':;J;' P
Olot ... ;, :'011':> ＧＮＡｬｾ ｴｯｬ ＭＺｾｲ n[1 ':>;w Ｌ［ｾｯ ＾ＺＧｮｯ
Olot ... ;, ＹｾＧ［Ｚ "pn, Ｂ ｎ ｾ ｙｾｪ＿Ｍｏｬｯｴ ＧＺ＾ｾ it1Jn n;Jo/"
Can God layout a table in the wilderness? .. can he give even bread, or provide meat to his people?
Is it for ever that the Lord will reject? And will he not continue to take pleasure"
(ALW)
Has his love stopped for ever" Has his word ended for all time')
Has God forgotten what being gracious is" Or has he in anger shut up his compassion? (ALW) Olot ... ;,
Here, we seen Negation occurring in just one of two coordinated questions (v. 8), apposition
;, :no ｏ Ｉ ｾ "'1(:1"0;"1 n';J" lot"" 0") ...,0'"
within the scope of Interrogative (v. 9) and a disjunctive form with conjunctive (in fact The ear-planter. doesn't he hear, or the eyc-former, doesn't he see'"
appositive) function. The discipliner of nations. doesn't he punish, the teacher of knowledge to men') (ALW)

The second longest string in fact contains only one true biclausal sentence. , ... :1 :;'pl!.'1:I O''''1,nl1 o:n ｏＧｾ Ｚ ｬ ｯＨ ＧＩｐｾ ':;J,Iot;"1. 50:13
Olot ... ;, "p"n' ,mi': O'NJ;I'''OIot lot':>p-;'TVI111 O'.i''lO'';' 88:11-13 Do [ eat the llesh of bulls. or drink the blood of goats') (ALW)
=1'l"'T.;l!'l.;l ｊｔｏＧＭＺｬ ｴｯ Ｌｾｮｬ ｬ［ＺｖｾＧ 'pO';'
It is thus clear that "im may stand in place of ha in both Interrogative complements and
::1:l!.'J ｾ Ｇｙ 1nj?"'1:!' ｉＺＡ＾ＧｾＱ ll!.'n:;l 1171';'
coordinate Interrogatives. Related to this are the uses of "im as a conditional marker and in the
Is it for the dead that you do wonders' Or do the shades rise to acknowledge you?
oath formula. 6
Is your love talked about in the grave? Your faithfulness in Destruction?
Are your wonders known in the darkness? And your rightcousness in the land of forgetfulness? (ALW)
2.2. Semantic Functions
Here, we see a subject-shift within a conjunctive sentence of disjunctive form. Since the second
action conceptually results out of the first, it might be suggested that the verse be translated Interrogation may be used with the modal types Indicative, Epistemic possibility and Epistemic
with a purpose clause: necessity.
Is it for the dead that you do wonders, SO that tbe shades (will) rise to acknowledge you?
2.2.1. Indicative
There are at least two reasons why both of these reading are possible. The first is related to the
Interrogative with Indicative modality is only attested in an existential clause:
double potential of the affirmative Declarative equivalent:
:o':1':>Iot-nlot l!.""'1 ':>';Jl!.'O TV:" ｐ＾ＺＧＭｾｊ ｬＺｲ ｯＮ＾ＧＬｴＱ Ti'l!.';' b'o% :11;" 14:2
1'"'' 'l0'i': O'Iot?'; Iot'P';'l!.'l'1l ｏＧｉｾ
The LORD looks down from heaven on humankind to see if there are any who are wise, who seek after
11 is for the dcad that you do wonders, and the shades risc 10 acknowledge you.
God. (NRSY)
11 is for the dead that you do wonders, so that thc shadcs (will) rise to acknowledge you.

2.2.2. Epistemic Possibility ('can')

ha may be used with E-system yiq!61 to express either one of the two types of porentialis
3Gesenius-Kautzsch, Grammatik, 497 §150h; similarly, Andersen, Sel/tence. 149. This is what Andersen, discussed in chapter 3 above-ability or liability.
Sel/tel/ce. 57. describes as apposition; when all the t(,lIowing material is new, he tern,s it 'asyndetic coordination'.
4Sappan, Smtat of Biblical Poetry. XXIX.
5S ome how Walson. Classical Hebrew POef"'", 33t.J. secs ,even. 61rrespective of the origins of Ihe oath formula. it should be noted thal in most oaths. ';m could be replaced by Ira
liS Modality. R,j,'rence a/ld Speech Acts i/l the Psalms /II/t,,.'-Oglllll'l' 11')

2.2.2. I. Potentialis of Ability ＺｾＧＮｶ ｬＢｾＺ ｪＱｩ＿ ＳＧ ＷＡＩ lTl'n:;l V::'1'\1 8813
Can your wonders be known in the darkness, and your righteousness in the land of forgetfulness" (ALWj
Subjectively-based potentialis of personal ability was discussed above as an important
However, it may also concern the inherent characteristics of animates:
secondary function of E-system yiq!a/7 and in terms of a distinct 'Dynamic' modality.8 It may
ｎＧＺ＾ｰＭｾｔｬ ｖｲ ｏＧＮｪＱＰＬ＿ｾ 88: 11
also be lexicalised in the modal verb ＢｾＧＮ
Is it for the dead that you do wonders'! (ALW)
:,;;IIO:;l ,i)':>TV l.'V'? ＧＺ＾ｾ ＧＺ＾ｾ ｜Ｑ ＬＮ ｏｾ ｏＧｾ ［ｎ Ｚ ｬ ,,":l'}'1 7819-20
ＧｾｰｶＧ 0'':>1:1)1 b'O ＧＺｬ Ｑｾ ＢｾＭ Ｚ［ｬ ＢＱ J;"l
Do you indeed decree what is right, you gods') (ALW)
＾ＺＧｾｊＱ ,NTl' ｬＧｾＭｏｎ j1[1 ＺＬｾ＾Ｇ Ｂｾｯ ＾ＺＧｮｯ
Can God layout a table in the wilderness' ... can he give even bread. or provide meat to bis people? 2.2.3. Epistemic Necessity ('must')
(ALW)
:i'V ｪＱＧｾＬ Ｚ＾ "1'P'-N':>, Ｇｊｩｾ nw o'o,?w':>;,. 778
A contrast is established here between the historical fact of God's having provided water Must the Lord reject for ever and not again be favourable'! (ALW)
(,.:m', ... :D:1 1:1) and the questioned possibility of his also providing food (["1 ＢｾＬ [CJ1!l
vv. 19b, 20aa). The three potentia/is clauses have similar structure: Must you be angry with us for ever' (ALW)

Verb Phrase Modal Verb Verb Form Interrogative 2.3. Pragmatic Functions
I n ':>V l'Y ':> ':>:l'
on':> lm ':>:l'
yiq!ol

yiq!ol
"\1 19b

20ba
Most Interrogative sentences in the Psalter are rhetorical, that is, they have an Expressive rather
than Social communicative function-they do not expect an answer. Their pragmatic-rhetorical
,NTV J1:l yiq.col ON 20bll
function is usually related to their semantic function.
Thus r:>' is parallel to njl ":>,, and means 'can provide'-potelltialis force is carried by the
2.3. I. Interrogative
yiq!al form alone. Between these clauses, there appears to be some fluctuation in the focus of
the Interrogation-in vv. 19b and 20bfl, the verb is initial, showing that the community are True Interrogative is only attested in an Indicative existential clause:

questioning God's ability (the modality of the clause); in v. 20ba, the object is topicalised and :0';"1'1'1-[11'1 Tl',,' ";llOO v:" ＧＭｾｩｏＬＢｎＱｴ J:l-'V "1'j)Tl';"1 ｯｾ Ｇ｢ ｾ Ｎ［ＱＢ 14:2
The LORD looks down from heaven on humankind to see if there are any who are wise, who seek after
topic-marked with gam. Thus there is both modal contrast between a rea/is past action (hen +
God. (NRSV)
qii!a/) and a potentia lis question (ha + gam + yiq!al), and referential contrast between
2.3.2. Negative Epistemic
c'''m/c'o and ＮｩｬＢｮＯｃＧｚｔｾ
Further examples include: Interrogative Epistemic Possibilitive sentences ('Can?') function pragmatically as Negative
::l' t11,O':>VJ:l ＬＢＮｾ N';"1-';:J nN)-'i7t1: 0':1'1'1. N'" 44:22 Epistemic utterances ('Cannot'; equivalent to la'):
Cannot God perceive this'! For he knows heart-secrets. (ALW) ＺＢＧｦＱＰｾ ｩＧｾ ［ ｬ ｩｐｾ . "i";"1 30: 10
Can dust acknowledge you? Can it declarc your truth? (ALW)
Can dust acknowledge you? Can it declare your truth? (A LW) ｾ lnON i')' 1'1' ｖｾＢ li" 1'1'*, Dust C3nnot acknowledge you. It C3nnot declare your truth.

2.2.2.2. Potentialis of Liability 2.3.3. Negative Deontic

Objectively-based potentia/is of liability or logical possibility is particularly related to Interrogative Epistemic necessitative sentences ('Must?') function pragmatically as Negative
inanimates. Deontic utterances (equivalent to "a/-) when addressed to the subject ('Doesn't have to',
:i:m-',Y ＧＹｾ ";S' [1');"1 N9:l l':ll}';'. 94:20 implying 'Don't let it happen!').
Can an evil thronc be allied wilb you ....) (ALW)
:i'P m:n, '1'0'-N" 'Ji!'l nw o'07'y':>;,. 77:8
Must the Lord rcject forever and nol again be favourablc" (ALW)
ｾ nll'-':>N*, Do not rcject for ever, Lord, and be favourable again'

7Ch. 3. section 2.43.2.1.

8Ch. I, section 2.1.3.4.
120 Modali,y_ Refl're11l:e and Speech ACTS i" the Psa{m.\' IJlIl'rrog(uive 121

This pragmatic function is not prescribed by the modal verb form yiqrol-it may also be 2.4.2, Ajjirmarive Deonric

effected by qiital: Interrogative Negative Epistemic sentences function pragmatically as affirmative Deontic
:;,'70 "Qn, 'li-:::Il');lj(-ON Ｌ ｾ "')1} n;npT'l 77: 10 utterances when addresssed to the subject:
Has God forgotten what being gracious is" Or has hc in anger shuI up his compassion'? (ALW) :l:;l-motZl' iOJ;'- ＬＩｾｮｪＱ ::I,tZl8 T'l8101:-N',, 857
ｾ ... l'!)j)j1-'N ... n:>Tzm-'N*, Do nol forgct what being gracious is! Do not in angcr shut your Will you not revive us again, so Ihat your people may rejoice in you') (NRSY)
compassion! ｾ ,rn T'lr::l'tZI*, Rcvivc us again. so that your people may rejoice in you'

2.4. Negarive: halo' 2.4.3. Negarive Deonric

Since Interrogative is in many cases rhetorically equivalent to Negative, when combined with Interrogative Negative Indicative sentences function pragmatically as Negative Deontic
/0', it is susceptible to the 'Law of Double Negation'.9 utterances (equivalent to 'a/- ) when addressed to the subject:
N'm Icitct rhetorische Fragen ein, die den Charakler einer bekriiftigenden Behauplung annehmen :,)'j1'N::I:S::l O';1'N' N;m-N" ')[;In)T O';"N T'li)IoI-N"CT 60:12
kiinnen,lO Have you not rejecled us, 0 God" You do not go out, 0 God, wilh our armies, (NRSY)
i.e. 77:8 ;1 ＢｾＫ + 'l0' ='l0' or INT x NEG =AFF ｾ Umlj1-"N*, Do not rejecI us, 0 God' Go oUI, 0 God, with our armies'

This strong Affirmative function of halO", which we have also seen as marking a speech act,11 This is the Negative equivalent to 77: 10 above:
has been suggested by some to be optional, e.g. Eskhult: 60:12 ,mmr N';' ｾ ,)mlj1-'N 'Have you not rejected us?' ｾ 'Do not reject us"

The particle halo' vacillatcs between being interrogatory (=IIOtllle) and asseverative. 12 77: 10 n:>tZlCT ｾ n:>tZlj1-'N 'Has God forgotten?' ｾ 'Do not forget"

Usually, as in the case of Eskhult, this view that it 'vacillates' is based upon a suspicion that
2.4.4. Exclamalive
some occurrences of halO' are 'a remnant of a Hebrew interjectory har ,13 Such a conjecture is
Brongers's Interrogative nonne examples are almost all exclamative, as in:
unnecessary in the light of the quite predictable interaction of Negation and Interrogation to
:t:I'::I'. N"CT ri!";:J:-ON J;9tZ1' N?;' ｊｬｾ ｊ［ＡＬｾ Ｇ 94:9-10
produce an affirmati ve force.
:j1n 0)101 '9'70;:1 n';,,' N"CT c'u, '9'CT
Brongers's survey of the functions of ha/a" distinguishes in a similar way to Eskhult: 14
The ear-planter. doesn'l he hear, or the eye-former, doesn't he see?!
I. IIOllne: genuine questions expecting an affirmativc answer
The discipliner of nations, doesn'l he punish, the leacher of knowledge 10 men? (ALW)
2. him';;: asking attention
The 'undertone of some reproach' 15 to which Brongers refers may be seen when halo' occurs
(Brongers's further suggestions should mostly be subsumed under these two.)
in a motivation for divine intervention, protesting the Psalmist's righteousness:
2.4.1. Affirmative Indicalive Ｚｴ ｉＡＢｪＩ Ｑｾ "1'90'j)j1::1" ｎｾｴｚｬ T'l'.;" ｭＺＬｎＭｏｰｲＩｾｔ 139:21
Do I not hate those who hale you, 0 LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? (NRSY)
Examples of Brongers's hinne meaning of halO" might be:
The reproach may be directed to an absent Enemy:
:"1[1")!)O::l N7CT' "1)N)::I ' ｪＱｾＰＧ ;'1;)'!V ［ＧｊＺｬＮｾ T'lD'l;ly ',,) 56:9
You have kept count of my tossings; put my tears in your bottle. Are they not in your record? (NRSY) ＺＧｎｾｪＨ K? ;'1;" on? Ｇ Ｚ ｊｾ 'Oli', '?::JK ｾｮ '''VP-':;' 'W': N'CT 144
Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the
:O':t:I;:1 ,iN::I O'i'l,N ＧｾＡＩＺ＾ 1';:1;"1;'1', 'n,::) Ｇｾｮ N"CT ｏｬＬｲＢｾ ,&!)) 8';$;' ';I 56:14
LORD') (NRSY)
For you havc delivered my soul from death, and my feet from falling, so that I may walk before God in the
light of life. (NRSY)
2.5. Unmarked

Under some circumstances, a clausal Interrogative may be unmarked:

Eine Frage brauchl nicht dureh ein besonderes Fragewort (Pron. oder Adverb) eingefiihn zu wcrdcn.
9Mathematically, .p x -I' = p2; in logic, --p infers p and vicc versa; Horn. L.H .. A Natllral History of Negation Hautig geniigt schon die entsprechende Betonung der Wone, einen Fragesatz als solchen zu kennzeichen.
(Chicago: Chicago University Prcss, 1989) xiii. . .. So hesnnders, wenn dcr Fragesatz dureh , an einen vorhergeh. Satz angekniipft ist ... oder wenn er .
J()Sehneider. Gral/lll/ntik, 226 §51.3.5. cin negativcr ist ｾｎＨ = ｘｾＰ flo""e?).16
11 Sce ch. 3, section 2.4.5. above.
I2Eskhuh, Stlldies ill Verbal Mpect, 82.
13Eskhuh, Studies ill Verbal Aspect, 86 15Brongers, 'Somc Rcmarks on thc Biblicall'article halt!". 179.
14 Brongers. 'Some Remarks on thc Biblical Particle haw". 16Gescnius-Kautzsch, Gral/ll1lalik, 495 § 150a.
122 tvlodlllily. Rtjerellce and Spl'l'"h Acf.\ III ,ht' I'wlllls Inrt'fTugllrit'l! ID

An example from the Psalter (wilh Epislemic necessilative viqto/) is: 3.1.2. Negative Indicative

::;1''01:/ '/:/ ＧＩＢｬ ｪＮｾＺＢｉＨＧ "''O!'I 69:S It may function as equivalent to a Negative Indicative (equivalenl to 'en) in both nominal
What I did not steal must I now restorc" (NRSV) clauses and verbal clauses:
:"])"l1:)!'I ＱｩｾＩＢ "P¥"]')';"1 )"lnrp-:'I( ')"l"''''::) "0'::) ))::p-;"11:) 30:10
3. Nominal: ma, rni What profit is there in my death, ir I go down to the Pit" Will the dust praise you" Will it tell of your
faithrulness') (NRSV)
Nominal Inlerrogalives are often referred to as 'wh-' or 'x-queslions', and are marked in ｾ 'I,:),::) ))3::)-1'1(*, There is no protit.

Biblical Hebrew with the 111- or 'I" morphemes. ma refers 10 an indefinile non-human; mi refers :'l!!?-;"1Q ｶＢｾＧ pp"'" ''''))''lrp;''1.'? 11:3

10 an indefinile human. Ir the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do"" (NRSV)
ｾ :'))0-1'1( v"3*, The righteous can do nothing.
3.1. Non-Human: ilia ＺＧｾﾥ ';"1)')t:DD-':? ;"1!.;"1" ::)'.'01:/-;"19 116:12

What can I give hack to the LORD for all his benefits to me" (ALW)
In addition to its nominal uses, ilia may function adverbially as equivalent to /iilllma (purpose)
ｾ ::)''01(-1'1(*. I can't give back anything.
or kalllma (manner);17 relaled to lhis is lhe non-occurrence of'eet-ma and (in the Psalter at
ma with 'lamed of interest' 19 may be equivalenllo a rhetorical queslion or to Negation:
least) of nul as a verbal subject. 18
:..,ml:/' ::)0;) 1''''';''1 ＰＩｾｩＱ ':J ｏｾ［ＢＱＮＺＧ Ｍ［ＢＱｑ 114:5
It may function as a complementiser after verbs of knowing (l.'" 39:5; Ｂｾｉ 89:48), hearing Why is it, 0 sea, that you nee? 0 Jordan, that you turn oack" (NRSV)
())Ol17 85:9) and fearing (NI' 56:5, 12; 118:6), for example: :TP-"V 'f1''''::) I(lp)"l) 'j?n .,?O, Ｂ｝Ｇｾ［ＱＰ 0';'1'1( ＢＧＹｾ ｲ ｰｾ Ｉ 50:16
:" "'lp:;! ［ＢＱｐｖｾＭ Ｐ I()'I( 1(':' ＩＺＨｉＧｾＰＱ［ｄｮｬＢ ''':;J' ""!'I 0';"1'1(::) 56:5 But to the wicked God says: "What right have you to recite my stalutes, or take my covenant on your lips"
In God (I praise his word'). in God I have put my trust-I do not need to be afraid of what tlesh can do to (NRSV)

mc. ｾ l ' 1'1(*, You have no right

The construction ... ' ｾ [NPI-;'/J tS equivalenl to English 'nothing' (compare ... :J ＧＬｾ
3.1.1. Interrogative
below): 20
ma clearly functions as a lrue factual question when followed by an answer (even if given by
:))'vO)"l '? O':l/:{:"p, ')):Jl)"l-':J '0).):-/-;"19 8:5
the same Speaker): What are human beings that you are mindful of them, monals that you care for them') (NRSV)
:1(';"1:'1' 'h,r:n)"l' ',1'1'C ')"l';v-;"11;) ［ＢＱｾﾥＧ 39:8 ':J 'OUI'C-l'I'C*, Humans are nothing that you should.

"And now, 0 Lord, what do I wait for') My hope is in you. (NRSV)

:;"1:1:)" ｾｖＬｰ 17 "".0'-;"11;)' "]'.lf1'-;"11;) 120:3-4 3.2. Human: mi

:O'I.:lD'" '.',q DV' ｏＧｬ｜ｾ ｃ -";D ';m Unlike ma, mi can also occur marked by "eet- ('o-nN).
What shall be given to you') And what more shall be done to you, you deceitful tongue? It may function as a complementiser after verbs of knowing (l.'" 39:7), for example:
A warrior's sharp arrows, with glowing coals of the broom tree! (NRSV)
:oP0Io/-'1:) )).)'-I'C" Ｂ ｾ Ｓ P:1;);"1' '::);"1-11:/ ｖＧｎＭｬ Ｇ Ｉ ｬｾ O';l::)-llo1 39:7
Aside from the adverbial Interrogatives below, there is one example of ma within a Surely everyone gocs about like a shadow. Surely for nothing they are in turmoil; they heap up, and do not
prepositional phrase: know who will gather. (NRSVj

:"]":;1,:J .,QV:' )!"l"'I:/-)"l:-/ ＧＱｊＺＢ［ｾﾥ ｾＰＱＢ［ 11'1:9

3.2.1. 11Iterrogative
How can young people keep their way pure') By guarding it according to your word. (NRSV)
lIIi clearly functions as a true factual question when followed by an answer. The answer may be
given by the same or another Speaker in the context of an entrance liturgy:21

17Sce hclow. sections 4.4. and 45.

Ｑｾｬｮ comparative Scmitic pcrspectivc. Ihe particle may have a very wide range of functions. For Arabic, Baalbaki,
R.. 'Reclassification in Arab Grammatical Theory', iN ES 54 (I '1'15) 1-13 (2), lists nominal functions: I'IWaltke-O'Connor, Srl/tlLf. 323 § 18.30.
interrogative. exclamativc. conditional. fully definite. relative. qualified indefinite: amJ particle functions: otiose, 20Also 144:3.
compensatory. restringcnl. verhal noun, negation. 21 Similarly 15: 1-2 and 24X
124 Modality. Reference and Sl'el'ch Acl.\' in ,,,(' I>wlm.\ 125

:'V"i? ｏ Ｇ ｰ ｾ ｏＬｰｾｃＧｴｊ Ｂｾ ＧＭ ＧＺ ｬ ＺＱＧ ＾ｾ ＭＧＯｊ 24:3-4 , J1O::l '0' O':1':>N l' N "W':>::lO Isa 44:6·H

::1;1'0':> V;;lV) N7' ',Vl:l) N'1p':> N1p)-N':> -'VN ::l:;J':>--'::l' O'P:;J 'P) 'nv"'-':>::l ":1 1'N' '''V''::lO ;,,':>N V';'
Who shall asccndthc hill of the LORD'! And who shall stand in his holy place" ... besides me there is no god. Who is like me'!
Those who have clean hands and pure hearts, who do not lift up their souls to what is false, and do not ... Is there any god besidcs mc" There is no other rock: I know not onc. (NRSV)
swear deceitfully. (NRSV) 11/1 may also function as Negation in verbal clauses (equivalent to "en), especially with
:;,'?l:i ,,':J:;J0 l':>P N';' ｭｾＺ［ｊ Ｑ ［Ｂｉｾ "'::l:;J;' ｬｾＮＧｊ '''1 N';"I'/J 24:10 potelltialis yiQ!61 (Possibility):
Who is this King of glory"
:O'':>N '.)::J::J "i.;"I'( ;"10,,' ［ＢｉｾＮＧ＿ ｔＧｉｾ pnW::l.'O '::l ＷＺＹｾ
The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory. Selah (NRSV)
For who in the skies can be compared to the LORD" Who among the heavenly beings is like the LORD
(NRSV)
3.2.2. Indefillite Epi.Hemic
ｾ ;,,;"1'':> l'V' ;:>nv::J rN*, No one in the skies can be compared to the LORD.
ml may have indefinite function, equivalent to English 'whoever: 22
This structure may be used by the Psalmist to lament human frailty: ,OV' '0, 'Who can
Ｇｾｏ Ｚ ｾＱＷＧｬ 1),," ;'l'" W"l' T'N" ;'1-'0 25: 12
stand?' (76:8: 130:3: 147: 17; similarly 19: 12; 89:49: 90: 11; 106:2); the Enemy may boast
Who arc they that fear the LORD" He will leach them the way that they should choose. (NRSV)
;-IN,' '0, 'Who can see?' (64:6; similarly 59:8). The modality may also be Epistemic
ｾ Whoever fears the LORD will be taught the way he should choose.
necessity:
ＺｾＧｄ n'N-'':> ｯＧＶｾ ::l.;"IN O','n l'l:ln;"l ｊＯＧｾＢｎｖ 34: 13-4
:"Ol:lN '.00 "O'-I'lV9 ;"1.'.;"1' N)'N '00 'VV'\ ','N ;"I'.'" 27:1
:;'9'0 '.::J'O l'n!?V' V)O ])'v':> ';J)
The LORD is my light and my salvation-whom need I fear" The LORD is the stronghold of my life--{)f
Which of you desires life, and covets many days to cnjoy good"
whom need I be afraid" (ALW)
Keep your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking decei!. (NRSV)
ｾ I need not be afraid of anyone.
ｾ Whoever desires life ... should guard his tongue
or even Deontic:
3.2.3. Negative Illdicative
ＺＬ ｾ Ｇ Ｚ＾ｾｰＭｏｖ '':> ::J.:1'i'l'-'O o'p,o-CV Ｇ Ｚ＾ＬｃＧｉ ｾＭＧｏ 94:16
[t may function as Negation in nominal clauses (equivalent to 'en): Who will [wants 101 rise up lor me against the wicked" Who will stand up for me against evildoers'! (ALW)
ｾ No onc is prepared to rise ur for me .. No onc is prepared to stand up for me ...
:')7 ｐ Ｂ ｾ 'P 'J[1N 1)'\1PV ,'::JJJ.'J?v':>,:> ＬＮ ｯｾ '.VN 12:5
those who say. "With our tongues we will prevail; our lips are our own-who is our master?" (NRSV) Interrogatives and 'en may occur in synonymous parallelism:
ｾ 'J':> P"N rN', We have no master. :l7-;"I"P '0 ＧＺ＾ ｎｖｾＧ T1::JI m9::l 1'l't'::l 6:6
This occurs especially in conjunction with ... ::l :23 For in death thcre is no remembrance of you; in Sheol who can give you praise'! (NRSV)
ｾ ... in Sheol no onc can give you praISe.
:l'O:;J '1;) O';,':>N' m7.,J i)'.V¥-'VI'( onr,,-"v O';,':>Nlni?":11 71:19
and your righteousness, 0 God, reach the high heavens, You who have done great things, 0 God. who is
3.2.4. Affirmative Deontic
like you'! (NRSV)
ｾ l'O:l ,'N·. There is none like you. Desiderative ml occurs most perhaps famously in David's
:O'i"'''N;:J ＬＺ＾ＮｾＧ ':>.N-'O l;:J-'''' v"I':;J O';"I'?N, 77:14 ,vv::J ,VN ｯｮＧＺ＾ＭｩＧｬ ｾ Ｌｎｾｏ c'o ');:>V' '0 2Sam23:15
Your way, 0 God, is holy. What god is so great as our God'! (NRSV) "0 that someone would give me water 10 drink from the well of Bethlehem that is by Ihe gatc!" (NRSV)
ｾ O';,':>N::l ':>'''J ':>N-rN', There is no god as great as God. This case is particularly interesting because it shows how easily Expressive--desiderative force
or with' ,v'? ::l;J/' il':>, I :24 can be mistaken for Directive-David's mighty men do in fact fetch him some water, to his
:')';"I':>N 'n,?,) ,,3 '9' ＺＱｾＮ［ＢｉＧ '71V':>::JO ｎｾＧＢ 'O'::l 18:32 great displeasure. 25 Examples in the Psalter are:
For who is God exceplthe LORD? And who is a rock besides our God') (NRSV)
:onN-"lI Ｇｊ Ｚｬｾ 'P ＭＢｾＹ ,'v 'J':>::J'.'o 60:11
ｾ 'J',,':>N 'n':>'1 ":1 1'N' ;"1,:1' '.,V':>::JO ;"I,':>N rN*, There is no God ... There is no rock.
Who will bring me to the fonified cily? Who will lead me to Edom" (NRSV)
[n fact, Interrogatives and 'en may occur together:

22Similarly 107:43.
23 l ,O::l '0 similarly 35: 10: 71: 19: 89:9: 113:5.
24Similarly 73:25 with ellipsis. 25See also 2 Sam 15:4I',N:::l Ul:lV 'J;JV'-'7J, "If only (were judge in the land'''.
126 Modality. Reference and .)/,('('('/1 Act.\" i" 1"<' P.\"{/Ims l"tt'rnJgtlt;\'e 127

::'11:'1' T.il;> ｾＧＬ ')'''))-:'19) ::I1P ｬＮｲＧＭＢｾＩ ｾｬＮｲＬＧ｢ 0',::1, 4:7 :';"1'::1 ::1'1'::1 '::1:;3':>-01'::1 ｾＱｪＧＺ＾Ｌｬ ｾ＿Ｇ Ｂｉ［Ｇｾ ','r,lO'OZ1l"'!::l :'1?';:Jvjo( lOll

There are many who say, "0 thal we might see some good! Let the light of your face shine on us, 0 I will study lhe way lhat is hlamcless, When shall I allain it" I will walk with integrity of heart wilhin my

LORD'" (NRSY) house (NRSY)

... may il come to ｾ･ｭ
Most characteristically, desiderative ml occurs in the formula li1' '0, which occurs in the
Old Testament in progressive stages of fossilisation, 'von der reinen Frage iiber die 4.1.2. Negative Deontic: cad-matay, Cad-ami. cad-mii, kamma
wiinschende Frage zur reinen Wunschpartikel';26 the latter form has a clausal object and is Other temporal Interrogatives occur with necessitative yiq!a/ (markedly E-system e.g. 4:3;
usually best translated with the modal verb 'permit', rather than 'give' 27 Only the 'wiinschende 13:3) in all grammatical persons (1st-person 13:3 ｾ ＧＱｩ ［ ＺＢＭｾｊＱＧ 2nd-person 79:5 .. , :10-,,:;
Frage' is attested in the Psalter: ＧｬｊｾｩＱ［ 3rd-person 94:3 'I"Y' ... 'im-"Y),29 Their pragmatic function is that of a Negative
.. , ':>W:llll' jI)),V' 'p':m ＱｾＧ 'P 14:7
Deontic (equivalent to 'a/- ):
o that deliverance for Israel would come from Zion! (NRSY)
:n:$,l? lr.lV Ｚ ｉ Ｇｾ ＱＧｾ ';$ 'l'!:1' ｏＧＺ Ｑ ＾ｾＬ 'pr,l-")) 74:10
Ｚ ＧＱｐｖｾＧ :'11;)',1'jo( ＾［ＺＧＱｾ ＬｾｉＺ '':>-lj1'-'7;l Ｇ ｾ Ｑ 55:7
How long, 0 God, is the foe to scoff? Is the enemy to revile your name forever" (NRSY)
And I say, "0 thall had wings like a dove' I would lly away and be at rest. (NRSY) ｾ ,:s ＧｬＮＬｮ Ｍ Ｚ＾ｾﾷ May the enemy not scoff'

;'jI-:1'n' ｯＧ ｏＺ ｬｉ ＧｏｔＱ ｾｖｉｊ 'VO).:'1:;J'I!7;:T ＺＧＱｾＬｦ :'11;l:;J ｾＢＩ 35:17

4. Adverbial How long, 0 LORD, will you look on') Rescue me from their ravages, my life from lhe lions' (NRSY)
ｾ ＺＧＱｾＢｪｉＭＧＺ＾ｾ Ｌ Do not look on'

4.1. Time: matay, cad-matay, Cad-ana, Cad-rna, kamma The same function is shown once by qa!a/:
:"l/J)) jI'?Ojl::lI'})V)) '!'r,l-'W ｪｉＱｾＺ［ｊ ｓ ｯＧｾ Ｚ＾ :'11:'1' 805
miitay may be a complementiser after a verb of desire Ｈｾｯ Ｉ in:
o LORD God of hosts, how long will you be angry with your people's prayers" (NRSY)
ｾ＾ＺＧＱ ｯ ')0 ＺＧＱｾＬ Ｇ ｾＧ［Ｚｊｾ '!,r,l '.1:1 ＢｾＬ＾ＺＧ Ｂｾ ＱＧＺ ｢ 'VO) ＺＧＱｾｲＮｬＺＤ 42:3 ｾ ｬｖＱＧｪｉＭ Ｚ＾ｾＧＬ Do not be angry'
My soul lhirsts for God, for the living God. as to when I will be able to go in and see the face of God.
(ALW) 4. 1.3. Exclamative
'ad-matay is more clearly a complementiser after a verb of knowing (:;"') in: 'ad-matay may be used alone as an interjection: 30
::'19-")) ))." ｕｄｾＺＢ Ｇ ｾＧ［ＺｬＩ .,,\1-)'!'l ＧＩＮｾ ｾＬＢ ,)'ht11/'l 74:9 :','}r,l-")) :1;,:1' Ji!'n ＢｾｲＮｬ :'17:1::1) 'vo)l, 6:4 ＧｾＱｪＺ j?
We do not sce our emblems; there is no longer any prophet, and there is no one among us who knows how My soul also is struck with terror, while you, 0 LORD-how long? (NRSY)
long. (NRSY)
4.2. Manner: 'ek, 'eka
4.i.1. Affirmative Deontic: miitay
matay occurs with Permissive yiqtal (markedly E-system e.g, 42:3; 94:8) in all grammatical 4.2.1. Negative indicative
persons (1st-person 42:3 ｾＧＺｬ 'no; 2nd-person 94:8 ''''::Jt1m 'no; 3rd-person 41:6 'no 'ek with qara/ functions as a Negative statement, 'Surely not!' (equivalent to /0'):
mo'). It often occurs in parallel with a D-system form (cohortative 42:3; 101:2; imperative '1':":;::1 :'1;:" 1!7:' ｾＱＢＺＧＭ＼Ａ :1.:;J'N ＧｾｬＺｉ 73: 11
94:8).28 And they have said. "How does God know?" and "Is there knowledge in the Most High""

:,':>';JI!7j1 'J:Jr,l o''''O::l,' OP.:;J 0'.,;;::1 ')'::1, 94:8

ｾＬ V.,' N"', God doesn't know ... There is no knowledge ...
Understand, 0 dullest of the people: fools, whcn will you he wise" (NRSY)
4.2.2. Negative Epistemic
... be ｾ･ｳｩｷ
Deuteronomy 1: 12 ｾ ＬｾＧｊＺ Ｑ 'How can 1 carry', was cited above in support of the present
potentia/is reading of yiqta/,31 since it is parallelled by Deuteronomy 1:9 ｾＱｩ ｾ ... ＢＺ ｊＧｾＭ ＢＬ 'I

2\1Also 13:2; 62.4; 82:2; 89:47: 119:84, Compare I Sam 16: I, where the verh is in the Contemporaneous Cursive
foml (futurum illslalJs): ｾＧｋｴＺＱＭＢｎ ｾＺｬｎ ｩｏ :'InK ｾｲＧｬＺＭｾＮ 'How long are yOll going to grieve over SaulT.
26Landc. Forlllellwfte Welldllllgell. 91.
27Jongcling, B.. 'L'cxpression /1/\' ytll dans I'ancien testament', VT 24 (1974) 32-40 (34), ,0Also 74:9; 90: 13,

28Also 41:6: 119:82.84, "Ch, 3, seclion 2.4.3.2.1.

12X Modalit.\'. Reference lIt1l1 !l'p<'ed, Act.\' ;11 t!l(' Psalms JII(·"/"{I).:I/fil'e 12')

cannot carry'. These two texts show the equivalence not only of yiq!al and the modal verb ':>::1', 4.3.3. Negative Epistemic
however, but also of'eka and /i5". An example from the Psalter with Possibilitive modality is: With possibilitive yiq!al, a locative Interrogative functions as 'Not anywhere' (equivalent to

ｾｊ［ＺＧ "1Qi!,: Ｇ＿ｾＮ ［Ｇｾ ＢＭ ｴｯＭｭｾ Ｂｴｏｾ TN 137:4 10'):

How could we sing the Lord's song in a foreign land' (NRSY) :n)::lN T)!;lo ［ＬｾｩＺｮ l!11iO l'?N ［ＬＮｾ 139:7
ｾ "to) N'*. We can't sing
Where can ( go from your spirir! Or where can ( flee from your presence" (NRSY)
ｾ n'::lN N'? ... l'?N N'*, I cannot go away from your spirit. [cannot flee from your presence.
4.2.3. Negative Deontic
'i!k with yiq!al addressed to the subject may have Negative Deontic force (equivalent to 'al-): 4.3.4. Affirmative Deontic
［ＢＡＺｬｾ O::J';' '-T1) ＿ＧｾｬＺＡｯｴＮ "ONj1 TN. 'j1'OI} ;",;";1 11:1 'iU;? The nominal clause structure of 42:4 above may be used as a challenge to reveal something by
[n the LORD (take refuge: how can you say to me, "Flee like a hird to the mountains'''' (NRSY) questioning its presence. It thus gains Deontic force:
ｾ 1iONj1-'?N*. Don't say to me.
ｬＺ ｎｏＧｾＱｪ ［ i;-:T'?' 8V.:;ltO) ｾｐＧ O')I'N';:1 "']'iQrt ［ＧＮ ｾ 89:50

4.2.4. Exclamative Lord. where is your steadfast love of old, which hy your faithfulness you swore to David? (NRSY)

Exclamative function may be borne by'ek in a way similar to kamma: 4.4. Purpose: Himma, ma, 'al-ma
;j1i;,7:;l-10 ,1:lJ'l"!:lQ ｊＺＩｾｖ ;'9tO'? ':;, TN 73:19
Various functions of 'Why' in Biblical Hebrew have been discussed at length by lames Barr. 32
How they are destroyed in a moment. swept away utterly hy terrors! (NRSY)

Most famously, of course, this occurs in Lamentations. Here, we do not need to consider maddii a ", since it does not occur in the Psalter. 33
Interrogatives of purpose occur with necessitative yiqtal (markedly E-system e.g. 68: 17) in
4.3. Place: 'ayye, me'ayin. 'ana all grammatical persons (I st-person 49:6 :-:,':-: ;'0':>; 2nd-person 10: I "011 n ;";" ;'0':>

'ayve may be a complementiser to a verb of seeing in: j/m,::J; 3rd-person 79: 100;";'':>:-: ;"N 0");' ',ON' ;'0':».

;'ilV N,::l: ｎ＿ＧＭ ［ＱＺ ＩＧｏ ｾｲ ')'V N;PN 121:1-2

4.4. I. Negative Epistemic
ｱｾＢｬ［ O'PT?' ;,k>v ;,p' evo "IV.
lamma can have Negative Epistemic force (equivalent to la'):
flirt up my eyes to the hills [to seel where my help might come from.
My help is from the LORD, maker of heaven and earth. (ALW) ;')::l'O' ';mv nv V) '1:l';=1 N)'N,;'r,l7 49:6
Why should I fear in times of trouhle, when the iniquity of my persecutors surrounds me? (NRSY)
4.3.1. Interrogative ｾ N""N N':>*, (do not need to fear. (so 56:5 etc.)

This same text is most often read as a direct question: 4.4,2, Negative Deontic
;':"I'l! N;J: ｲｾｬＺ ＢｯＧＩ［ＺＱ ＧＭ ＿ｎ ')'V.N;PN t21:1-2
liimma can have Negative Deontic force (equivalent to'al-) when addressed to the subject-
:l"l:l1 ･ＧＮｲＬｬｾ ;,k>v" ;'1;" ｯｾ "IV,
lames Barr refers to these as 'hypothetical deprecations' .34 Examples include: 35
(lift up my eyes to the hills-from where will my help come?
My help comes from the LORD, who made heaven and earth. (NRSY) ＧＷｴｲｳＺｾ ［ ＡｬＩＺｾＧ Ｇｪｏｴｾｮ "!'00 ｔＮｾＡ［ｬＭ ＢＹＧ＿ 44:25
Why do you hide your face? Why do you forget our affliction and oppression" (NRSY)
4.3.2. Negative Indicative ｾ T)!:l 'nOn-'?N*, Don'l hide your face' Don't forget ... '

The common taunt T71':>N ;"N / 0;";''7:-: ;":-: (42:4, 11; 79:10; 115:2) is pragmatically ;to,in N':> ｾｰＧｬＺ ＿ＧｩＬ O'i"!':>N ＩＧ＿ｔ ｾ no ;'P-':>l! 10:13
Why do the wicked renounce God, and say in their hearts, "You will not call us to account"" (NRSY)
equivalent to T ;,'7:-: rN-the question is not where he is, but whether he really exists:
ｾ l!tO, l'Nr'?N*, Let not the wicked renounce God ..
;"']';,'?N ;"N 0';;:1'-':;1 '7N 'ON::l ;'7']109" en':>. 'j1l!Oi '':>-;'8';:1 42:4
My tears have heen my food day and night, while people say to me continually, "Where is your God'"
(NRSY)
32Barr, 'Why?'
ｾｔ［Ｇ ｎ l'N*, YourGoddocsn'lexist.
33See also Ihe comments of O'Connor, Hehreu' Verse Stntctllre. 304.
34 Barr, 'Why?', 19-22.
35Also 2: I h: 10: I: 42:6. IOh: 43:2h, 5: 44:24: 52:3: flX: 17: 74: Ih, 11: 79: 10: 88: 15: 115:2.
1111 ModalilY. Reference "lid S/W{TIt Ads ill 'he P.falms 111

1J;'11N ｾＧＭＺｬＱ C·;'':>N':>. '':>'m;, ＧＮ＿ｾ ＧｬＺ ［ＬｮＭ ＧｹＱＢｬｏＡ ｾ 'rlr11nlOn-;,0 42:12 ＺｃＧＹｐ［ＱＭ＾ｾ "'],1;' ［Ｌｾｮ 'lON ｉＢｾ ＭＧＺ［ｊ ｉ "']OlO, ,':'1Io(-;':;l ｮ Ｇ ｩ Ｌ ｾ ;'1;" 8:2

:';:T'N' 'il;> n.V1lO·

o LORD, our Sovereign, how majeslic is your name in all Ihe earth' You have set your glory ahove the
heawns. (NRSV)
Why are you cast down, 0 my soul. and why are you disquieled within me? Hope in God; for I shall again
praise him, my help and my God. (NRSV) ＺＬｮｾＭ｣Ｎ C'nlo( n:l)U C'p-;,y, :l1U-;'y;'P 133: I

ｾ 'O;,n-'N ... 'nmnlOn-'N*, Don'l he cast down! Don'l he disquieted' How very good and pleasant it is when kindred live logether in unity' (NRSV)

The last of these shows its relation to Deontic force by the parallel imperative. kammfi qualifies a noun within a Prepositional Phrase:
lamHlIl + qii!al has the same Negative Deontic function, and almost always occurs parallel to Ｚｃ ｔｾＭＧｊ ｉ Ｚ＾ J:1N.::T.:;l ｾＧＭｹＱ ［ＢＺｰｩＧｎ "G-;'o Ｇ ｊ ｗ Ｇ ｾ ｉ 89:48
Rememher how short my time is- for whal vanity you have created all mortals' (NRSV)
a clause with E-system yiqto/: 36
::I:'N I'n?:I l'?N "iT;'9? 'Ji}n:;110 ;'97 "l:'0 Ｇ＿ｾＶ ;'':!O'N 42:10
I say to God. my rock, ",Why have you forgonen me" Why must I walk aboul mournfully hecause the 5. Conclusion
enemy oppresses meT' (NRSV)
= ;':l'X-'N .,. ＧｊｮｾｬｏｮＭＧ＿ｎＪＬ Don't forgel me' May I not have 10 walk ... ! In this chapter. we have considered all the questions in the Psalter. Distinct syntactic functions

:",]""');;9 IN;J:I l!llo( If?ll:' n:$,l7 J:1n 1t c';,'?x, ;'197 74: I of Interrogative morphemes include use as a complementiser and in Interrogative coordination.
God. why have you cast us off for ever') Why must your anger smoke against the sheep of your pasture? However, it is at the pragmatic level that we find a wide range of distinct functions, springing,
(ALW) in particular, from the Epistemic modality of yiq!o/.
= l'Vl:'-'?N ... nJtn-'?x*, Don't cast us off for ever! May your anger not smoke '

This latter text may be compared with an equivalent with yiqrol: Interrogative force was found in:

:'J/:lO ｔｾｬ［＾ ,·...,on ·.V!lJ n,1tn ;'1;'1', ;'97 88:15 0+ p.om. cl. Is there a wise person? .

LORD, why must you cast my soul olP Why musl you hide your face from me? (ALW) ;'10 [obj.1 What do I wail for? . •n"i?;'O 39:8
ｾ ,nOn-'N ... nJln-'N*. LORD, don't cast my soul off! Don't hide your face ... ' .. ｾ + yiqJ6! Who shall ascend the hill of the LORD" . ;";"-,;':1 ;,,?v·-·o 24:3

ｾＢＱＧ［ ere. + .....i q!ol From where will my help come'? '"V N:I' 1'1(0 121:1
4.5. Quality: kammii, ma
Affirmative Indicative force (equivalent to hinne) was found in:
Though kamma might be thought to be an Interrogative of Manner, it does not in fact refer to
N'?C1 + nom. cl. Arc they nOl in your record?
quality, but only to quantity. This is show most clearly by its collocation with terms such as Negative Indicative force (equivalent to "en or 10') was found in:
'nJ (92:6), Ｌｾｭ (92:6),.:n (3:2) and comparative 10 (119: 103). ;'0 + nom. cl. What profit is there in my death? '0,:1 l:::l:l-;'O 30:10

4.5./. Exclamative "0 + nom. cl. Who is like you" l'O:J '0 71:19

TX +qii!a/ How does God know? '?N-V" ［Ｇｾ ｘ 73:11

kamma may qualify a verb, in which case it is usually qiira/:37
;"1":< elc. + nom. cl. Where is your God'! T;,'?N ;"X 42:4
:"']·...,:::ll!lMO 'POl! ＬｾｯＧ ;'1;'1' TPVO Ｇ＿ ｾＭ［ＧＱＷ 92:6
How great are your works. 0 LORD' Your though Is are very deep! (NRSV) Indefinite Epistemic force was found in
:C;"lOl(':! '0::ll!;'0 Ｌ ｾ "']'1" ＧＺ ｬｩ＿ｾＭ［ ＱＰ ''1, 139:17 "0 + nom. cl. Who is il lhal desires life?

How weighty to me are your Ihoughts, 0 God' How vast is the sum of Ihem' (NRSV) Negative Epistemic force (equivalent to /6") was found in:
kamma may occur with yiqtol: 38 rt + yiq{o/ Can dUSl acknowledge ｹｯｵｾ ＬｾｬＺ l'1';' 30:10
ｏＧ［ＭｾＬｊﾷ｢ＮｯｎＧＺ lnl!H":l1'l'P-MOlO'"']Il!:::l ;,i.;,: 21:2 TI( + viqro/ How cou Id we sing? ,'lOJ TN 137:4
LORD, in your strength a king can he happy and in your salvalion how greally he can rejoice' (ALW)
;''' N elc. + yiq{61 Where can I go from your spiril"! In,,o l'?N ;'IN 139:7
kamma may also qualify a predicative adjective: 39 Why should I fear?
;'0' + yiq!o/ N"N ;'0' 139:7

.It, Also 2: I: 22:2: 4.1:2: 80: 13.

.17Also 3:2: 104:24: 119:97: 119: 103.
,lXAlso 78:40, though not possihilitive but past hahilual \·iq/,i!.
.19 Also 8: 10: 31 :20: 31l:8: 1l1l:3: 84:2.
 Modulif.'", Reference and Speech Ad.\ III tile PStllm,,- In

or with ｮＺ＾ｾ
Affirmative Deontic force (equivalent to 'im, Ui or ki) was found in:
Negative
Will you nO( revive us ag.ain?
Interrogative [time)
Who will show us good'!

When wi 11 you be wise'!

Interrogative [purposel + yi,!!ii[ n:lTt'il ;'0" 44: 25

Where is your steadfaSllovc'! T,on ;"/0/ 89:50 Interrogative Ipurposel + qatot 'Jiln:lTt' ;'0" 42: 10
:1"N <,fe + nom. cl.
Interrogative [clausal) ?/o/ mJn n:JlD';"1 77: 10
NegllT;"e Deo/ltic force (equivalent to 'al- ) was found in:

ｾ + ."iq,6/ Must the Lord reject for ever'! 'J,1l nJl' 0'0",J;?;"1 77:8 At several points, both yiq./ol and qaral forms have been listed, whilst it has at the same time
o + qaral Has God forgonen what being grJcious is? ;"11l il1Jn n:Jl!I;"1 77:10 been commented that the pragmatic force IS particularly associated with the modal potential of
1JilnJl 0';"1'/0/ ;"1il/O/-/O/?;"1 60:12
ｾＢｎ + qiira1 Have you not rejected us. God? yiqro1. A solution to this apparent problem may lie in noticing that many of the qatal forms are
"jiO-'1' ere. + yiq{61 How lon£ . God. is the enemy lO scoff! ,;I ",.,n' 0';"1"/0/ 'ilO-'J; 74:10 of verbs of stative character, which have no yiqtol option (V", ;";', ':1,1)40 This suggestion is
.. 0.':)-'3' etc. + qa.!al nJlD'lI "iiO-'V 80:5
How long will you be angry? clearly partially right, though it is belied by parallel texts such as 74: I I1m! ;'0':1 and 88: 15
11:1
l" N + yiq!o/ I-Iow can you say'! 'iI:lllil T/o/ mm ;'0\ as well as the general frequency of nJ! and ｮＺ＾ｾ in the yiqro1 form.
:10" tIC. + y;q.ro{ Why must you hide your face? ,'jlQil T Jtl-;"10" 44:25 Amongst the various forms discussed above, it is striking that Negative Indicative force is
:"'1;:)" + qa.!ol Why have you forgotten me? 'Jiln:JlD' ;'0" 42:10 most often carried by nominal Interrogatives ml and ma, whilst Negative Deontic force is most
Exc/alllative force was found in often carried by verbal Interrogatives (halO', 'ad-matay, "ek and lamnul). There is clearly more
:-r:'0 + Y1q!6/ The ear.plantcr. doesn't he ｨ･｡ｲＧＡｾ 1I0lD" /0/';"1 pll lIDJ;"1 94:9 work to be done on this. The fact that Interrogatives can also carry affirmative force has earnl
How long'!! '"O-'V 6:4 this type Ihe name 'queclaratives' 41
;"10lD'? ";"1 TN 73:19
TIl +qaral How they are destroyed! The term 'rhetorical question' has been avoided in the above discussion. 42 It has become
How great are your works! TlD'lIO ,':>,r;"10 92:6
clear that there is a wide range of pragmatic functions which can be fulfilled using Interrogative

Negative Deantie is clearly the most frequent function of Interrogative forms in the Psalter morphemes-many more than is commonly assumed. To refer to these all as 'rhetorical

and, together with the equivalent Negative Deontic form in'al-, it cuts across several formulae. questions' would be to misrepresent their overwhelming preponderance over the very few real
('unskewed') Interrogatives in the Psalter. Il would also be to neglect the significance of clausal
So with ,no:
T Jtl 'ilOil-"/O/ 27:9; 69: 18; 102:3; 143:7 modality for the interpretation of such 'skewed' forms.
Negative

Interrogative [purpose] j'ilOil T Jtl-;"10' 44:25; 88: 15

Interrogative [time) T Jtl- il/o/ j'ilOil ;, JIl-'V 13:2

Interrogative [lime] ,ilOil ;"1I;)-'V 89:47

with nJl:

Negative

Mlirmative (marked)

Aflirmative (unmarked) jlnJl ;"1illl' 89:39; 60:3

Interrogative [purposel + yiq{o[ 'lD'tlJ mlil ;"10" 88:15

Interrogative Ipurposel + '!o!ol , JjlnJ I ;"10':> 43:2; 74: I

Interrogative lelausal) ' n i l nJl' 0'0?1)7";"1 77:8

Interrog.ative {c1ausal}-Ncgativc 40Woher Rose, pets. comm.

41 Levinson, 373.
42Surveyed in Beekman and Callow, Trc/Ils[Clling rhe Word of God, ch. 15; see also O'Connor, Hebrew Verse
Structure. 12.
 Chapter 5
NEGATIVE

Negative panicles are discussed ahove in the contexl of Interrogative halo·' (ch. 4) and helow in the contexl
of jussive'al·liqlol and cohonalive 'al'>lcq!;JI{i (ch. 6). Here, we hrieny consider the inlerrelalionship of
differentlypes of Negation and how they relate to modal verbal forms.

I. Introduction

Hebrew appears to have a full system of Negation for nominal clauses ('en), non-Deontic
verbal clauses ([oJ), Deontic verbal clauses Cal-), and final clauses, both finite (pan) and
infinite (/abilli).1 In the Psalms in particular there is also the mood-unmarked bal. These
morphemes exhibit significant differences in syntactical status, though not in semantic load. 2

1.1. Basic Morphemes

There is no unifying basis for the Negative morphemes comparable to that which we have seen
for Interrogative morphemes. ·'en and ·'al- appear to be related to the Interrogative'ayy
morpheme, ·'al- may be read as 'a compound of *'ayy with asseverative *la ... before a jussive
verb',3 bal and labilti may be related to'abiil. 4

2. Syntactic Function

2.1.16' and 'al-

In verbal clauses, non-Deontic modality takes the adverb 10·':

... 'Ij.!? :i:::n(':> '1jl;l-"[1!? C:\!I 53:6
There they shall be in great terror, in terror such as has not been .... (NRSY).
Deontic clauses take the proclitic 5 "al-:
:1'91i1'':> pm' ＧＮ［ＱＭＧＺ＾ｪｯＨｾ '0f.lll17o 1?-';'1'-"jo( 109: 12

May there he no one 10 do him a kindness, nor anyone to pity his orphaned children. (NRSY)
These particles have different syntactic status, Negating quite different parts of the predication.

ICompare the extensive system in Egyptian. covering contradiction. non-existence and conlrariely. and atlaching
Negation to verbs ('Ncgalive verhs'). complement infinitives ('not to hear'), conjunctions ('that nOl') and even
relative pronouns ('who/which not'-'functionally equivalent to a positive relative pronoun controlling a negative
predication'); Loprieno. Ancienl Egyprian, 70, 73. 89-90,101,126-28.
2Swiggers, P.. 'Paradigmalical Semantics'. ZAH 6 (1993) 44-59 (52).
3Fahcr, 'The diachronic relalionship', 422.
40n ctymologies, sce Faher, 'Thc diachronic relationship' and Tromp. NJ., 'The Hehrew Particle bar. OTS 21
(1981) 277-87.
5Like the monosyllahic prepositions and particles ':>N, ＬｾＮ Ｌｾ Ｎｾｃ 10, 1!l. Waltke-O'Connor, 5\'1110.<. 64 §4.2.la.
 Modality. Reference and Sf'(,cch tlels 11/ Ihe p.",I",s 1.17

We will start by looking at Latin. It is well known that Latin purpose (functionally modal) 3. Argumental: 16'
and result (functionally non-modal) clauses are in the affirmative formally indistinguishable.
The Negation of clausal elements other than the Verb Phrase does not usually interact with
taking' ut + subjunctive'. [n the Negative. however. we see the following pattern:
Purpose mm .. ne + subjunctive modality. and so is not particularly significant for the present study. However, it is interesting
Result /lun ... ulllun + subjunctive for its variety of syntactical structures and their relationship to Interrogation.
[n other words. ne (Greek ",i);6 Hebrew'al-) is Deontic (D-system), as against non (Greek ou; A Negative Noun Phrase may appear within a Prepositional Phrase
Hebrew lii'), which is non-Deontic (E-II-system). As a modal particle, ne also appears with the :0i"l','no:l ＢＧＺｉ ｾｎＧＺ＾Ｑ J1i"!'N':>:I .lov-';JoJ' 44:13
subjunctive for a prohibition. postclitically in Interrogatives and preclitically with some verbs You have sold your people for a trine. demanding no high price fot them. (NRSY)

(e.g. nescire, to not know; nelle. to not want). The Negative Deontic in Latin or Greek with the We saw a similar phenomenon in Interrogation [nominal]:
subjunctive/optative corresponds to the Hebrew jussive. Thus we can distinguish between the ＺｬＧｾＢ ｊ '0:0':> Ｑ ｮ Ｌ ｾ Ｍ ｮ ｎ Ｇｖｊｾ［ＧＱＺ ｊｉＧ ;'1!?::;l 119:9
How can young people keep their way pure? By guarding it according to your word. (NRSY)
syntactic roles of 'al- and lty:
Within a Prepositional Phrase, the Negator is moved outside of a construct phrase.
·'al- is a proclitic particle for propositional Negation. It relates to the propositional content of
:;'11;),0 '!,l):O 16:1 '!,'?l)n ［ＱｾＧＮｉ ［Ｑ 'f'q, ;'1::;l':O;::>;:1 ;::>.,:r ;1;.;1' ;1)(0:0 17:1
the verb in the same way as agreement (person, gender, number), mood (modal verbs or verbal
Hear a just cause, 0 LORD; attend to my cry; give ear 10 my prayer from lips free of deceit. (NRSY)
modality) and aspect marking. [n phrase-structural terms. 'al- is a functional term. 7 and appears
An oblique Noun Phrase may also be Negated with 10':
in the INFL(ection} position.
:;11.;1' '!1Nt;lr:t'N':>1 'pWl)-N':> O'.IV 'rll ｾＩＱＧＢ 'ilIl))':> ＱＺｊＬｾ ;'1);1 '::J 594
16' is an adverb for clausal Negation. It relates to the clause in the same way as adverbs of
Even now they lie in wait for my life; the mighty stir up strife against me. For no transgression or sin of
time. manner. place. [n phrase-structural terms, 16' is a lexical term. and appears in the Adjunct mine, 0 LORD (NRSY)

position. An Adverbial or Prepositional Phrase may be Negated with li5". The deictic adverb p is
This distinction is similar to that made in Greek: Negated in 1:4 (C' VllI,;' p- N'?). Negation is further attached to Prepositional Phrases of time
IU1 .. is the negative of will. wish, doubt. [f ou denies the fact,l',i denies the idea8
(n::!)" N" 9: 19), instrument (c:nn:l N'? 44:4), delocative (N:f1r.lr.l N" 75:7) or cause (-"v N'?
Though there are some surprising positions of ·'al-. what is not normally attested is the Tn:l150:8).11
collocation of E-system 16·' with D-system forms 9 or D-system ·'al- with E-system forms. The An Adjective Phrase may be Negated with /6": ＢｎＭｾＧｬＺ l" 36:5 or "on-N" ',) 43: I.
Negators belong consistently to their respective formal paradigms. This coherence of formal
systems is seen also in the non-occurrence of D-system -na" with the infinitive absolute (E- 4. Clausal
system) or precative perfect (I-system). 10

2.2. Non-Negatables 4.1. Nominal: 'en, 15'

Certain forms in Biblical Hebrew resist Negation. These are the person-unmarked imperative Existential clauses were considered as an example at the beginning of chapter 3 above. Unlike

(D-system) and infinitive absolute (E-system) and the continuation forms waqii!al (D/E- the Affirmative yd, the Negative 'en can take subject clitics and occurs with both

systems) and wayyiq!ol (I-system). existentialllocative clauses and copular nominal clauses. t 2
ＺＢＡＱｎＭｏｾ 1'k :l1p-;'1WV 1'1'1 m,?N:i Y;Jn' "9 ':>.::J;:1 14:3
They have all gone astray. they are all alike perverse; there is no one who does good. no, not one. (NRSY)

:N:$rJJ N'" Ｑ［ Ａｚ Ｚ ＾ ［ｬｾＱ ｊ Ｇｎ ［Ｑｾ ＧＺｬｖｾ｜ 37:36

61ntercstingly, I'ti also occurs with Interrogative; e.g. John 8:53. Again [passed by. and they were no more; though [sought them. they could not be found. (NRSY)
7S ee Shlonsky, Clallse StrllCllIre and Word Order in Hebrew and Arabic: 'the functional layer' .
8Robcrtson. AT., A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in tI,e Light of Historical Research, 3rd edn., 1919
(New York: Hodder & SloughlOn. 1914) 1167. Compare also Lyons Semalllics 2. 771 on the Negation of phrastic
vs. tropic. IIV,:I-N':> 10:6 may require emendation.
9Though see section 4.3.1. helow. 12Andersen. Sentence, 82-85; Sappan. Syntax of Bihlical Poern. XXYI; for modern Hebrew, see Shlonsky.
tOFinley. 'The Proposal'. 10. C!all.,e Struclllre and Word Order in Hebrew and Arabic SX·!! I.
 Nl'gtIJi"l' 1.l'J
Modality. Re!l'n'"cF a"d S"C'I'c/' Ae'" ill the I'.'illlms

10' sometimes appears in this function.13

Necessitative yiq!OI occurs very fre4ucntly with 10", especially with 1st-person forms of Ni'
'I need not be afraid' (e.g. 56:5; 56: 12; 118:6; 26: I; also 27:3; 91 :5; 112:7-8), ｜ｴｮｾ 'I need not
::1r,l-'l! l!." 'Jj',N'"N'" ｎＧｾ 'W-rN Ｇｊ ＬｎＢｾ N." ｾｮｲ［ｩＧｊ 74:9
Wc do not see our emblems; there is no longer any prophet. and there is no onc among uS who knows how be ashamed' (e.g. 119:6,46,80; also 127:5) and mD 'I need not stumble' (e.g. 62:3,7; 118: 17;
long. (NRSV) also 112:6; 125:1).
:'':> Ｇ［ ｎＭＢｏｾＮＱＺ Ｇ ｾＱＺ ｮＡ ｾＬ［ w" 09': N)i?N ';,",N 22:3 :D!:"::J 'J!'I nNi::J :19D"0 '7l:',O'i'J:1-0N '::J'? N)"-N'; ';'J['IO '7l:' ;,i['lJ:1-0N 27:3
o my God. I cry by day. but you do not answer; 'md hy night. butlind no rest. (NRSV) If a camp should set up against me. my heart does not need to be afraid. If a hanle should rise up against
:!!) T'J' N7 ;'J:1.N. J,"'\'.' 1'!J1T';N N':> ';=1 5:5 me. I am going to trust in this. (ALW)
For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil will not sojourn with you. (NRSV)
4.3.1. 'Skewing ': Deontic 16'
4.2. I-System Verbal: 'en, 16' The Deontic use of the E-system, especially in apodictic legal texts, was noted in chapter 3

The Indicative Anterior is Negated with 10': above. It was also shown that the difference between the 'vetitive' "al- + jussive. and the
:'" ';J'N J:1nt;l1Z1-N'" 'Jp'':>' '? ;".;".100"1'/ 30:2 'prohibitive' /6" + long-form yiqtol is not one of urgency vs. permanence, but of strength of
I extol you. LORD. for you have lifted me up. and have not let my enemies rejoice over me. (ALW) Directive force.
The Indicative Contemporaneous is Negated with 'en: There are most surprisingly also instances where 10' occurs with the jussive. 14 This mixing
:D;=1-::J)::J ［ＧｎＭｾｬＺ［Ｇ '1::JJ ';'!:l-::J)::J !!)!7,J l';OCl:-rN 33:16 of E-system and D-system forms must be considered quite exceptional.
A king is not saved by his great army; a warrior is not delivered by his great strength. (NRSV) Neither of these types is altested in the Psalter.
One might compare with this lalter example the way in which Deontic passivity is also usually
expressed using the qotel form. 4.4. D-System Verbal: 'al-

The non-Negation of the imperative and complementary distribution of imperative and "al- +
4.3. E-System Verbal: 16'
2nd-person jussive' may be explained with reference to the distinction between 'not necessary'
The relationship between Negation and modality is shown clearly by the large number of and 'necessary not': 15
occurrences of 10' with modal verbs in the Psalter, including Possibilitive 'J::>' (e.g, 18:39; ... denial of permission is equivalent to giving instructions not to act. since 'Not-possible' is equivalent to
36:13; 40:13; 101:5; 129:2; 139:6; compare Interrogative in 78:19-20) and Permissive 'J 11''1) 'Necessary-not' in a logical system. The imperative thus expresses 'necessity'. but the negated
subjunetive.jussive. etc .• 'no possibility·.16
(e.g. 16:10; 66:9; 121:3; 140:9). The structure:' 'lD' is also related to Negation, since it
In Deontic terms, 'Not Permitted that p' is equivalent to 'Obliged that not p'. Since Negation
involves Affirmativity (e.g. 41 :9; 77:8).
tends to attach itself to the modality of the clause ('neustic'-Permission/Obligation) rather
Possibilitive yiq!ol occurs with 10':
than to the propositional content ('phrastic' -p), it is therefore the former pattern which is
ＢｾＱＺ N?' ｯ［ＬｾＧ o'."'!! Ｌ ｾ Ｂ N?1 ＿Ｌ［ＭＺｾ ｯ 115:5·7

:11n',' N?' ｏ［Ｇｾ ＧＱｾ W9lU' N?' ＰＺＱｾＬＰＧ［Ｑｾ

ＺｏｾＢｊＺ 1i;,''"N'' 1:1';" 10/';, o;,'':>J'}.l'V'o' N'" 0;",'

They have mouths, but cannot speak: they have eyes. bUI cannot sce.
14Broekelmann. c.. Hebriiisehe SYlltax (Neukirchen Kreis Moers: Verlag der Buehhandlung des
Erziehungsvereins. 1956) 3-4 §5a.
They have ears, but cannot hear; they have noses. but cannot smell. 15 1 rely in the following on Palmer. Mood and Modality. passim and Lyons, Semantics 2, 725-849.
They have hands. but cannot feel; legs. but cannot walk; they cannOI make a noise in their throats. (ALW) 16Palmer. Mood alld Modalit)'. 113. referring to Latin. Greek, Syrian Arabic and Amharic. Some proviso must be
:;'9" ',"'-';:;> N"" ［ＧＮｾＭ Ｇ［Ｍ o'no;" N" 115:17 made, however. As Palmer writes. ' ... it would be a mistake to emphasize these logical relations t'XI much. for
It is not the dead that can praise the LORD. nor 'lIlyone that goes down inlo silence. (ALW) there is a difference .... In purely logical lerms. 'not possible' (I>Ia)' 1101) is equivalent to 'necessary not' (mlls/II'I).
hut denying permission is not the same as ohliging someone not to act. Wc only deny permission if we are in a
This latter text may be compared with one of our Interrogative examples: position to grant it. but can lay an ohligation not to act when it is not normally up to us to give permission.'
:l"o!'l .,'.r.0 'Pl:' .l"'0 30:10 (Palmer. Mood and Moda!ir)', 99); similarly: 'There is clearly a complementary relalionship between possibilit)'
Can dust acknowledge you? Can it declare your trulh" (ALW) and necessity in epistemie modality (possihle thal not =not necessary that; not possible that = necessary lhat noll.
and possibility forms (may. eanl arc primary. since they arc used in both kinds of Negalion in both possibilty and
necessity. By contrast. in deontic modality. lhere is no complementary relationship (not permitted thal "" obligatory
Ihatnol). and the default appears to be necessit), (must. need).' (Palmer. Mood IIl1d Moda!it)', 58, 98).
I-"Sappan. Sl"lIIax of Bih!iml Poetry, XXXII.
140 Modality. Reference lIwl Spcech A cl.\" ill tire Psal",,\ Neguti,'c 141

preferred. This can be best illustrated in languages where the modality is lexicalised in a modal Ｇｾ＾Ｚ Ｍ ＢｑＱｩ Ｎ Ｇｄ ｬ Ｚ ｾＧＭ ｬＺ Ｑ ｩＧｊＺ ＱＡｬＧ ｾｉＢ［Ｇ 6:2

verb: LORD. may you not strike me in your anger and may you not punish me in your fury. (ALW)

ＺＧｬＬｄｾｩＱ ＮＱｩ ｹｮｾＱＮ 'l!1':J1i1 ＮＱＡＩＺｓｪ＿ｾＭＧＺ＾ｾ ［ＢｉＱＮ ｾ 38:2

'Not Permilled Ihal p' 'Obliged that not p'
LORD. may you not strike me in your wrath or punish me in your fury. (ALW)
Negative fleust;c (Jhros/ic IIeustic Negative phraslic
Frellch lu ne peux pas fairc *tu dois ne pas faire [n the light of the many possible positions we have seen for Interrogative ha, and our
German du darfsl nichl lun *du mullt nicht-tun demonstration that "al- relates similarly to the verb, this should perhaps not be so surprising. It
Ellg!i.l'h l7 you cannot do 'you have 10 not do is then not necessary to read '01- here, with some commentators, as relating to the Prepositional
Phrase: 'Let it not be in anger that you punish me,'21 Instead, ·'01- belongs to the clause
Thus the Biblical Hebrew prohibition'al-liqr61 is in fact 'Negative + Permissive'. This
irrespective of its position.
Permissive understanding of the jussive explains the infrequent occurrence of the affirmative
2nd-person jussive (since the imperative will be preferred for Obligative). It also supports our 4.5. D-System Final: pren
view of the Hebrew verbal system, since the Epistemic equivalent of Deontic Permission is
Although the present work is primarily concerned with main-clause functions, it is worth
Possibility, and this (in the form of present potentialis) we showed to be key to understanding
commenting on the Negative Deontic final conjunction pfFrI, which marks a Negative purpose.
long-form yiqt61.
peen standardly occurs with E-system yiqrol following an imperative: 22
Detailed discussion of Negated cohortatives and jussives is saved until we have considered
:i11r,l;:! ｬＺ ＭｎＧｾｬ ',i'j;' ;"I"N;:! 'I:T'N ［Ｂｉｾ Ｇ 'llV;"Il;l';J;"I 13:4-5
affirmative equivalents. IS
:01pN ':J 1".i: ＧＮｾＺｓ 1'[1';;1' Ｇ ｾ ｎ '9W-ll:l

4.4.1. 'Skewillg': Non-Deotllic Function Consider and answer me, 0 LORD my God' Give Iighl to my eyes, or' will sleep the sleep of dealh,
and my enemy will say, .., have prevailed"; my foes will rejoice because [ am shaken. (NRSY)
'al- appears in some unexpected contexts. JoUon-Muraoka comment,
:1'); ｐｾ［ ｊ Ｇｬｾｊ Ｍ Ｚｬ Ｑ ｾＧ O'P;;I-'l! 91 12
In (1OClry wc encounler some cases where ':>N is used instead of N':>, whether in order 10 give a more
On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will nOI dash your fOOl againsl a stone. (NRSV)
energetic nuance or for stylistic embellishment. t9
[n two cases. however, peen appears to stand at the head of a Deontic main clause, where we
Their examples include:
would normally expect'al-:
:1';;1':': lCl:lp Ｑ［Ｂ Ｎｩ Ｑ ＧＭ Ｚ＾ｾＧ ｬＢｾ［ ｊ ,lCN' ';"I'T}'\ Ｑ［Ｂ ｾｏｬｃＧ ;"1'.;"1' 41:3 ,lCN1 ;?
The LORD prolects Ihem and keeps them alive; they are called happy in the land. You do not give them up :'''':'11;"1 ＧＮｾｬＡ '?n'O,p:J ＧｾＺＬＭ ｮｏｬｃＧＭ Ｚｬ ＧｩＱ ｏｾ Ｇ［Ｚｊ 38:17

10 the will of their enemies. (NRSY) For I pray, "May they nol rejoice over me!" Whenever my foot stumbles.lhey boast. (ALW)

ＺＧｾｏ ［ＢｉＮｾｖｬｃＱ ＢｾＧ ｾｄＱＧ ':>;:JNi1 ｎｖＧＭＺｬ［ＡｾＮＢ ＱＨｯ ＧＭ［ｮｾＮｩｚｬ 11';i':>N N.:J.: 50:3 '1.06 ｬｃＮｾｮｊＧＭ Ｚ＾Ａ ｉ \"3 W'1j?N ;"11;"1' 1'7N 28:1
Our God comes and does not keep silence, before him is a devouring fire, and a mighly tempest all around :,1;:1 ",1:-011 'i1':>W011' 'lPO ;"I.lCn[1-1l:l

him. (NRSY) To you, LORD, , cry. My rock, do not keep silent from me' Do nol be quiet from me lest' become like

Both of these could be debated, especially in the light of our distinction between E- and D- those who go down to the pit. (ALW)

systems, however, JoUon-Muraoka may be right that the 'vocative' nature of ·'al- (usually This should not be as surprising as is often suggested. We saw in chapter 4 above how the

occurring with Deontics) is here used for 'a more energetic nuance'. This might be compared Interrogative/conditional subordinating conjunction ., im can function as an Interrogative

with our description of -rlO" as a 'vocative intensifier'. complementiser or coordinating conjunction. Similarly here, we find a subordinating

Even more strikingly, ·'01- 'occasionally ... occurs before a strongly emphasized member of conjunction taking a main-clause function.

the sentence other than the verb': 20

17Strangely, the prololypical English examples, 'may' and 'must', permit both readings-'You may nol do'='You
must not do' !
ISSee ch. 6 below. 2ts o , for example. Gunkcl on 6:2: 'den Gegensalz zu dem Wunsche: "nichl in deinem Zorn strafe mieh" bildet:
*
19Joilon-Muraoka.604 1601": also 377 114k. * "strafe mich ｏｬＺ ｃｏｾ nach dem Rechlc" Jer 10,24.': Gunke!. P.'a!mell, 21-22.
20Waltke-{)'Connor. 567 ＪＮｾＴＲｬ･ 22Also 2: t 2: 7:2-3: 13:4; 50:22: 59: 12:
 N('gtllit'l' 1-1.\
1·\2 Modality. Reference £lnd Spet'c/' I\Cl.\" In 'hi' Psalms

4.6. Unmarked Verbal: bal 4.6.5. D-System Final: p:En

Almost half of all Biblical occurrences of bal are to be found in the Psalter (31 out of 68); the
:1'''N.;'-1Q v,jN'l'''V? "'p ｾ＾ＺＧＭＢｄ TT1 ｾＬ［ ｯ opv':> 10: 18
to do justice for the orphan and the oppressed, so thatthosc from earth may strike terror no morc. (NRSY)
remainder are nearly all in Isaiah and Proverbs. 23 Two particular uses should be mentioned.
Firstly, bal occurs very frequently with the verb tmJ, more frequently. in fact, than the
5. Affirmative
otherwise more frequent lo' (10:6; 17:5; 21:8; 30:7; 46:6; 93:1; 96:10; 104:5; with lo': 15:5;
112:6).24 Secondly, it occurs at four points in the Psalter where ｯＧ［ ｊｾＭＧＺ＾ ｬ should almost It was noted briefly at the end of chapter 5 that the marked Affirmative I-system ｮｭｬＭＧｬｾ

certainly be emended to ｏＧ ｾ Ｚ＾ (44: 15; 57: 10; 149:7; 108:4). Thus this particle is unusually (44:10) can function pragmatically as equivalent to Negative D-system ｭ ｲ ｮ Ｍ Ｂ ｾ (44:24). This

restricted in both the idiom to which it belongs and its syntagms. perhaps surprising result is analogous to the equivalence of certain focus markers such as himll!
At the same time, however, bal is in fact the most multi-functional of all the Negative and Wi)" atta, and Interrogative ha or halo'.

particles-it can stand in place of "en, lO'. "al- or pa!n.

6. Conclusion
4.6.1. Nominal: 'en
ｾ＾ＺＧＭ ［Ｑ Ｚ ｯＧｾＬ［ ｾｉＧＺｊ ［ ＱＧ Ｂｾ ＿Ｂ［ｾＧ ｾＹＧ Ｂ 16:2 It has been shown above how Negative markers belong fairly consistently to each of the three
I say to the LORD. "You are my Lord;' have no good apart from you." (NRSY) verbal subsystems we have identified. and that the various Negators have different syntactic
status. In contrast to Interrogation, which has a wide range of pragmatic-rhetorical functions in
4.6.2. I-System: liY
Biblical Hebrew, Negation does not tend to function in such a variety of ways as it does in
:;'?9 ｊＺＧｉｖＮｾｲＬｬＭＧＺ＾ｾ ";1!;lV "'V."1'I' ,,, ｾｬｦｉＧＺｊ［ ｉＧＺｊ Ｑｾ Ｂ＾ Ｇｊ 21:3
European languages. Rhetorical features of Negation such as litotes (Affirmation by Negation
You have given him his heart's desire, and have not withheld the request of his lips. Selah (NRSY)
of the contrary) are not common.
4.6.3. E-System: 16'
bal occurs within the full range of the E-system, from possible:
ＺｴｉＧｑＢ Ｍ ＾ｾ ':>i..,· ".:J..,-'W Ｌ［ＮｾＩ ｾｉ ＿ｾｖＱＮＢ［ Ｇ v.J? ""Nl '1?r,l Ｂ［ｾＧ 93:\
Thc LORD has become king-he has clothed himself in majesty: the LORD has clothed himself--he has
girded himself with strength. Surely the world is established-it cannot move. (ALW)
ＺｬＧ ｾｲｹ n,p:;,':> ｾ＾ＺＧＭ ｶＬｩＢ ｾ＾ＺＧＭＮ ｖｊＢ ｾｊＧ＾Ｚ Ｍ ｖＱｑｉＧＺｊ 104:9

You set a boundary that they may not pass. so that they might not again cover the earth. (NRSY)

to necessary:
:C?'V':> ｾ＾ＺＧＭｎｑｏ ')':>1VJ ｾＹＧ ＮＱｾｬＧ 30:7
As for me.' said in my prosperity. '" can never be moved:' (ALW)

4.6.4. D-System: 'a1-

Ｌ ｾＭＧ Ｚ＾ｖ＿ c'.V'W..,N vyp'iJ m"':>v ':>':>,il..,;,':> v'i ";l-:t':> ｾ＾ＺＧＭｉｊｬｴ＾ＺＧｩ 14\:4

:O;"QVlr,lJ Ｇｾ＾Ｚ Ｍ ｎ ＧｴＺｩｏ

Do not turn my heart to any evil, to busy myself with wicked deeds in company with those who work
iniquity: do not let me cat of their delicacies. (NRSY)
This reading seems convincing in the light of the preceding ｴｬｪＱＭＧＺ＾ｾＬ though the cohortative is

unmarked.

23Tromp. The Hebrew Particle bar. 277-78.

24Cullcy's formula 46.
 Chapter 6
IMPERATIVE

The term 'Imperative' in this chapter refers not only to the verbal form q3tiil ('imperative'), but also to ils
lengthened form qo!1ii ('adhortative') and 10 the entire D-system, centred on short-form yiq!ol-x ('jussive')
and also including:'<eq!31a ('cohortative'), the Negalive 'al-tiq!61 ('vetilive') and Ihe continuation form
w3qii!al (more properly germane to the E-sySlem). The chapter hegins oy considering those morphemes
which are oCten considered to mark Deonlic force and ends by looking at Dconlic uses of nominal clauses.

I. Introduction

In his comparison of Babylonian, Egyptian and Old Testament psalms, Westermann writes:
Wahrend in den iigyptischen PsaImen die Vokaheln des Lobens ganl uberwiegend indikativisch sind. also
schildern, sind sie im Alten Testament in ihrer ganlen Fulle fast nur imperativisch. In den iigyptischen
Psalmen wird stiindig in der betrachtenden Haltung das Loben und Preisen der GOller als geschehend
beschrieben; in den Psalmen des Alten Testaments wird fast nur dalu gerufen. Dort ist es Faklum, hier
Forderung; dort das GOll Gegebene, hier das GOll gesehuldete; dort iSI GOll der, der das Lob bekommen hat
und bekommt; in Israel ist Gmt der, dessen Tun immer neu lum Lob ruft. 1
This should alert us to the primary rhetorical importance of this grammatical type in the Psalter,
and it is in the light of this functional importance that we consider the various Deontic forms of
expression.
Longacre-style 2 formal identification of main- and off-line clauses necessitates the
establishment of a 'verb-rank cline', These dines must be text-type-specific, however, and
none have been offered yet for poetry, Dawson suggests it will not be possible:
poetic concerns displace text-type features sufficiently that text-Iype identification of highly poetic
passages is nearly impossible, or at best, irrelevant 3
However, some attempts can be made at identifying a main line in the grammar of the Psalms. I
would begin by considering imperatives a likely candidate for the role of main-line verb forms.
This is supported by the suggestions, considered in chapter I above,4 that the imperative might
be considered 'deontically non-modal', and that the main line of discourse is Deontic. Thus
Discourse would have a Deontic main-line (Searle's Directives) for which the unmarked form
is the imperative, whilst Narrative has an Indicative main-line (Searle's Assertives) for which
lhe unmarked form is qiital. Support comes from Michel, who, having rejected narrative texts
as a guide to the meaning of the tenses in Hebrew, looks to the Psalms, 'deren Handlungen in

IWeslermann, Lob tUfd KI"ge, 38-9. Compare similarly the Qumran hoday)'ot, New Testament hymns, Psalms of
Solomon and the Qur'iill.
2Longacre, Joseph; see also ch. I, seclion 2.2.3.2. ahovc.
3Dawson, Text-Lillguistics ,wd Biblical Hebrew, 191 n. 69.
4Scct ion 2.1.3.5, following Palmer. Mood alld MOlI,,/i/l·. 29.
146 Modllli/.\". Rt1(·r(.'t1Cl' (Ind Spl'ech Acts ill the P.wlmJ IIII{Jcrlll;I'e 147

alien drei ZeitslUfen liegen'. 5 It is just this fact that the Psalms are in many ways nol temporally marking;16 however, it is most likely the reverse which is true diachronically, since a range of
framed that suggests the primacy of Deontic forms. cross-linguistic observations indicate Ihe primacy of the imperative form itself. 17 The
Three terms used in this chapter, almost synonymously, for both forms and functions are: imperative may be lengthened by the same paragogic -a syllable that we see in the cohortative,
'Ocootic' formally. the D-syslem. as distincl from E-system and (-system; funclionally [+MOD. to form the 'adhortative'. Here, we therefore consider the 'volitional class' 18 to consist of the
+VOLl as distinct from Epistemic l+MOD. -vOLI· D-system, supplemented by the imperative and ad hortative forms. The class may therefore be
(from Greek OEl. 'there is need')
presented as follows (together with E-system counterparts): 19
'Imperative/-al' chosen as a Latinate counterpart to Interrogalive and Negative: lower case
'imperative' refers to the form qiJ!ol. the morphological imperative. Name Derivation from Form Person D-system E-sysrem
(from Latin impero. 'to command') short·fom. yiqrol name Sit/gular Plural Sit/gular Plural
D-system (persoll-marked)
'volitional' a less lechnical equivalent 6
le cohortative paragoge 'teqriJlii 1 ;'170j?N ;'170 j?J ':>OvN '?Ov)
(from Latin volo, 'to want')
2) jussive yiqrol 2 m. '?OJ?,; ,?OJ?,, '?Ov rl ,'?Ov,;
Terms used as full or partial equivalents by other scholars (but not here) include: f. , '?Ov,; ［Ｌ＿ｪｏ ｾＱＧ "Ov,; ;'1 ［Ｌｶｏ＾ＺＧｾ
Jj jussive yiqrol 3 m. ':>OJ?' ,'?OJ?' '?Ov' ,'?Ov'
'VOlilivc' DeCaen 7. Gibson. 8 Jouon-Muraoka. 9 Niccacci 10: here used to refer to a sub-type of
f. ?OJ?,; ［Ｌｶｏ＿ｾＱＧ［ '?OV,; Ｑｩｶ｢＿Ｇｾ ［
Deontic modality analogous to Expressive illocutionary force. including in particular
Imperarive (person-unmarked)
optative. desiderative, fear and intention clauses. I I
2i imperalive aphaeresis 2 m. '?OJ? ''?OJ? '?OJ?,; ''?Ovrl
'voluntative' Gesenius-Buhl 12 for 'cohortalive', Brown-Driver-Briggs 13 for 'cohortative or
f. ''?OJ? ｶｏ＿ＧｾＱ ［ ''?OJ?,; ;'1 ［Ｌｰｯ＿Ｇｾ
jussive'; not used here.
2a adhortalive aphaeresis, paragoge qa!ili 2 ;'170;7 ,op,;
'Directive' here used to refer to a lype of illocutionary force corresponding 10 the ullerance type
'Mand'. a sub-type of Deonlic modality.
Thus the class has three distinct forms for the 2nd-person: with person-marking ('jussive').
'desidcrali ve' Gesenius-Kaulzsch-Cowley I4 from lhe German WIIl/schsarze: 15 here, a subclass of
without person-marking ('imperative') and without person-marking but with lengthening
volitivc.
('adhortative ').20
1.1. Formal Types This presentation of the Deontic forms treats them as a distinct 'volitional class', as distinct

It has already been shown that Biblical Hebrew has a distinct D-system, centering on short- from the several other forms which may in particular contexts be used with Deontic force (e.g.

form yiq!61. This provides 2nd and 3rd-person 'jussive' forms directly, and the 1st-person 'precative perfect', 'preceptive imperfect'). One important recent contribution to the study of

'cohortative' by addition of a paragogic -a syllable. The 'imperative' may be understood Biblical Hebrew Deontic function (Finley, 'The Proposal' 2 I ) has suffered from its lack of a

synchronically as also stemming from short-form yiq!61, with aphaeresis of the initial person-
16So Wright, GramnUlr 1,61: 'The Imperative ... may be described as formed from the Jussive by rejecting lhe
prefix of lhe 2d pers. sing.'; similarly Finley, 'The Proposal', 5: 'From a synehronic perspeclive, it is convenient 10
describe the imperative form as consisting of the PC base plus endings withoUl the personal prefix'; similarly
Bravmann. ciled in Waltke-o'Connor, Synra:c, 567 §34.2.2a n.9.
5Michcl, Tempora "nd Sarzstellll/lg, 13. 17For some of these, see ch. I and the discussion below. Waltke-O'Connor, Symax, 567 §34.2.2a n.9 describe the
6See Waltke-o'Connor. Syntax, 565 §34.1 b. yiqrol-first view as dominant. but this is certainly nOl true in cross-linguistic perspective. Compare Brockelmann.
7DeCaen. Placement and hllelpreralion, 112. Sylllax, I §2. who considers the infinitive absolute 'die allesle Form des Befehls" Similarly Finley, 'The
8Gibson, Davidson's Synta:c. 80-83 §65-08. Proposal', 5: 'From a diachronic viewpoint, ... the Hebrew imperative developed from an intini!ival form which
9Jouon-Muraoka. 373 § 114. had no prctixes·. Such suggestions of a relationship between the imperative and the inlinitive absolute supporlthe
IONiccacci. Symar. passim. presenl view of there being distinct D- and E-systems. with often parallel funclions.
11 See eh. I. section 2.1.3.5. above. 18So also Waltke-O'Connor. Synrax, 565 §34.1 b; DeCaen, Placement and Interpretarion, 112; Kennett. R.H.. A
12Gesenius. W. and Buhl, F.. Handworrerbllch iiber das alre Testament, unverandener Neudruck der 1915 Shorr Accounr of rhe Hebrew TellJes (Cambridge: CUP. 190 I) 24.
erschienenen 17. Autlage (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1962) 190. 19Four forms are considered here. all of which can be considered in some sense volitional. They are all based on
13Drown, F.. Driver, S.R. and Briggs. CA .• A Hebrew and English Lexicol/ of rhe Old Testament (Oxford: lhe yiq!ol forms and all lake the riqlol forms of pronominal suffixcs.
C1arendon Press. 19(6) 254. 200n the relalionship belween person-marked and person-unmarked forms. see Palmer. Mood at/d Modaliry. 109.
14Gesenius, W. and Kautzsch. E.. Hebrew Gram"",r, lr. A.E. Cowley (Oxford: C1arendon Press. 1910) 476 § 151. Ill.
15Gcsenius-Kaulzsch. Gmmmarik. 499 § 151. 21 Finley, 'The Proposal'.
14X Modality. R(r('rellce and Speech Acts in/he Pwil",.\" IIII!Jerafil't, 14')

clear view of the system 22 By failing to distinguish between short-form yiq!ol and long-form roles (syntactic functions 29 ), and affecting agreement relations and participant reference. Basic
yiq!ol, he fails to notice the several pairings of true D-system forms with Deontic uses of forms formal distinctions, and the conventional distinction between cohortatives of resolve and
from the E-system ('preceptive imperfect') and I-system ('precative perfect'),23 These pairings request, yield the following five standard types:
include, for example, the person-unmarked, non-Negatable forms-imperative (D-system) and Type Example Thematic role of
infinitive absolute (E-system)-and the Negation forms-'vetitive"al-tiq!ol (D-system) and Addressee (God)
Ic resolve-cohortative T1'T1' T1"N .( acknowledge you!' Agent
'prohibitive' 10' tiq.tol (E-system).
I c request-cohortative T1Cn:1N-"N 'May I not be put to shame" 'Causer'
Diachronic study, based especially on Arabic,24 sees in this variety of forms three distinct 2i imperative 'Save!'
T1V'\!nT1 Agcnt
Proto-Semitic Deontic conjugations-hortative (as distinct from 'cohortative', which refers to 2j 2nd-person jussivc T)O ,non-7N 'May you not hidc your facc" Agcnt
the 1st person only), imperative andjussive, which stand alongside the indicative forms: 3j 3rd-person jussivc ':1" '?)' 'May my hcart rejoicc' 'Causer'

For/ll Conjugation (Characteristic) Proto·Semitic (B·LI Moran) Arabic correspondem From the examples given here, it should be noted that these are all fairly common formulaic
'irq/aid hortative (paragogic he) Affckt-Aoristl'emphatic' juss. subj. yaqtula, energ. yaqlulanlla phrases (reflecting the high frequency of all five types), that the Negative form has been chosen
qa!ol imperative (person-unmarked) imperative "uqtul
for the request-cohortative and the 2nd-person jussive (since both of these rarely occur in the
short yiq!ol jussive (apocopation) Kurz-Aoristljussive jussive yaqtul
affirmative form), and that the translations with 'May' locate the modal force outside of the
long "iq!ol prcfix conj. (person prcfix) VolI-Aoristldurative indicative yaqtulu
clause (showing that the Addressee is not necessarily identical with the subject).
wayyiqlol w-pretix conj. (waw + juss.) Waw-Aorist
qalal suffix conj. (person suffix) punctual qarala The argument structure of a verb is normally dictated by its inherent valency, that is,
whether it has a direct object, indirect object, location ete. (hence here, in order to simplify
This view may be supported by the presence in Biblical Hebrew of occasional 1st-person
discussion, only active or stative examples have been chosen). However, there may be
jussives and 3rd-person cohortatives (e.g. 20:4).25 It is clear, however, that jussive and
participants in an action who are not explicitly referred to (not realised at surface structure) but
cohortative were later, at least, perceived as belonging to one class, since it is the lengthened
nonetheless require the assignment of a a thematic role. This is the case of the Addressee with
form of the cohortative which is used to form the 1st-person of wayyiq!ol in the Dead Sea
some D-system forms. 30
Scrolls 26 Though Biblical Hebrew usage is otherwise preserved in Qumran,27 by the time of
The Addressee is grammaticalised as the subject of the verb in in all 2nd-person forms
Mishnaic Hebrew, cohortative and adhortative had died out completely, as well as jussive in all
irrespective of person-marking (i.e. both imperative and jussive) and mood (Le. also in the
but a few cases. 28
Indicative), and in the resolve-cohortative, where Addressee=Speaker=lst person 31 In such
/.2. Syntactic Function and Argument Structure cases, the Addressee simply bears the thematic role of Agent.
In the case of request-cohortatives and 3rd-person jussives, however, there is no reference to
The two basic formal types considered here (person-marked cohortative and jussive, and
the Addressee in the surface structure of the text. We know that O1W':lN-?N and':l? ?)' are
person-unmarked imperative and adhortative), in conjunction with the categories of person and
addressed to God,32 and in fact, that he is expected to act to ensure that these things happen, but
number, produce a great variety of different argument structures, involving a range of thematic

22Finley, 'The Proposal', 8. 29See ch. I, section 2.1.4. above.

23Thus Finley's lA. 2A, 28 I. 2C and 2D are true D-system forms: 18.282 and 2E are from the E-system which 3UFor a similar discussion. see Halliday, 'Language Structure and Language Function'. 160.
may be used Deontically (the 'preceptive imperfect', including the 'prohibitive'); 2F is the I-system used 31 Hence Richter, Gn",dlagen 3, 137, describes the imperative and resolve-cohortative as 'einpolig' in that they
Deontically (the 'precative perfect'). The 'skewing' of functions was discussed in ch. 3. section 2.4.6. above. have just one argument. The situation with the 2nd-person jussive is in fact rather more complicated, since there is
24Moran. 'The Hebrew Language'. 64. a distinction between the Addressee and the subject, as shown by the way in which 'May ... ' in English locates the
25Gibson, Davidsan's Symax, 82 §67 Rem. I: Waltke-O'Connor, Syrllur. 564 §34.la modal force oUlside the clause.
26Qimron, E.. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Harvard Semitic Series; Allanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986) 321n linguistic terms, the Addressee is essel1liallO the propcr functioning of the ulterance on the pragmatic Icvel-
44-46 §310.122. 129. Grice's conversational maxim of relevance requires that imperatives have such a context (Levinson, Pragmatics
27Kcsterton. J.c.. 'Cohortative and Short Imperfcct Forms in Serakim and Dam. Doc.', RdQ 47 (1986) 369-82. 107) and the performative hypothesis for speech acts puts the volitional clause below a higher D-slructure clause
28S ega l. M.H .. A Grammar "f Mi.,I"flIic Hel,rel\' (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1958) 72-3. 01"1 (hereby) VI' you (that) S", where, of course, the 2nd person is 'IS explicit as for a normal imperative.
150 M",I"IiIy. ReFlellce a"d Speech Aea i" rhe Psalm.l· ItIlpertl1;\'(' 151

thcre is no explicit reference to him]3 We may therefore say that the Addressee in such cases billyiill jUllction form God Enemies £mmple
hiph'il caus-slat. 2i Agcnt Expericnccr ＱＢ［ｎｾＧｄｏ 'be guilty
has a pragmatically-determined thematic role. 34
qal ficntive 3j 'Causcr Experiencer , ':>tl , 'fall'
I term this thematic-role 'CauseI" to correspond with the 'causative' relationship which it
represents,35 and leave it in inverted commas to indicate that it is pragmatically assigned. The hiph"il caus-fient. 2i Agcnt Paticnt 'Dn',;"1 $'go away

Whether or not ｃｬ ｾ is considered as having an implicit active sense (Gesenius-Buhl: 'bliBen'),

'Causer' of a stative qal or passive niph'al request-cohonative corresponds 10 the Agent of a
its basic meaning is stative ('to be guilty'), thus the object ｯｦ｣Ｇｬ ｉｾ［ＢＱ is in fact an Experiencer
hiph'il 2nd-person Deontic: 36
Example and the subject of the hiph'il form is an Agent of the state. The subject of the verb "?!:IJ is not an
bi"."t1n fil1lerio" form Cod Psalmist
Experiencer ［ＢＱｾ Ｚ ｏＨＭＧ ＾ｎ 31:2 Agent, but an Experiencer, since this verb is not truly fientive but 'middle', like intransitive
qal stativc le (req) 'Causer
Patient 'break' in English (e.g. 'The window broke' as against causative 'He broke the window'). Thus
hiph'il causative 2j Agent
Both may be present in one verse in synonymous parallelism, both when the cohortative is the variation in the verb types of 5: 11 from stative ｃｬ ｉｾ to middle "?!:IJ to fientive n'J involves
a variation in the thematic role of God (the Addressee) from Agent of a hiph'il imperative
passive:
:o't;l-'j?1;lP90' 'i-/JIZm' ｎｱＺｾＱＢ［ Ｇｾ＾Ｚ Ｍｎｄｊ［ﾥＱＢ 0'00. 'J"'3;"1 69: 15 (o'llI/«;"1) to 'Causer' of a 3rd-person jussive ('"?!:I') to Agent of a hiph"il imperative (n',;"1),

Save me from mire so that I don't sink: may I be saved from those who hate me and from depths of water. and of the Enemies from Experiencer of a state ('being guilty') to Experiencer of an action
(ALW) ('falling'), to Patient of an action ('causing to go away'). It interacts with variation in
and when it is stative: prepositional phrase types (]o, ｾＬ ｾＩＬ forms of 3rd-person reference (including possessive
ｾｊＧＺ .,.'r:t';"1D ;"1¥'N' N'!'-;"1y ＧＹｾ J1;JD' ＿ｪｾＧ ;"11;"1' ＱＢ［ｬＺ ｾｊＧ 39:5 suffixes and two forms of object suffix), and-most distinctly-alternation in subject from 2nd
Lel me know. LORD, my end and whatlhe measure of my days is' May I know how neeting I am' (ALW)
person (God) to 3rd person (Enemies) (0 2nd person (God) to 3rd person (Enemies). This is an
Similarly, the 'Causer' of a fientive qal 3rd-person jussive corresponds to the Agent of a hiph"il
aspect of the rhetorical dynamic of the Psalms that has not been given systematic treatment
3rd-person Deontic:
before.
bi"yan function form Cod Enemies Example
It should be noted that the thematic role 'Causer' is consistently assigned to the Addressee in
qal fientive 3j 'Causer' Experiencer ｄ ｾＳｭＧＱＢ［Ｐ '''tl' 5: 11
request-cohortatives and 3rd-person jussives, irrespective of the voice of the form. The subject
hiph'il causative 3j Agent Patient m.,D;"1D:J o"tl' 140:11 37
may be an Agent when the verb is active (e.g. 'May he kill .. , !'), an Experiencer when the
A good example of the interplay of syntactic and pragmatic thematic roles can be seen in
verb is stative (e.g. 'May he be ashamed!') or a Patient when the verb is passive (e.g. 'May he
5:11: be killed!').
:l;;J "T,l":I 1D!1''':} ｏ［ＢＱＧｹｾｴｬＮＺｊｾ O.;:t't\1;SPDT,:I '1';>tl' O';';'.N ＰＶＧｔｖｾ［Ｌ 5:11
In terms of conventional rhetorical analysis, this use of a thematic role of 'Causer' can be
Make Ihem bear their guilt. 0 God; lel them fall by their own counsels; because of their many
helpfully compared to the use of the 'passivum divinum' or 'passivum theologicum', defined as:
transgressions cast them out. for they have rebelled against you. (NRSY)
die Meidung des Gottesnamens durch Gebrauch einer passiven Konstruktion, bei welcher der Agens nieht
genannt wird, der aber nach dem Kontext nur Gott sein kann 38
33Furtber. the subjects of these verbs are nOl Agents (as in the resolve-cohonalivel, but Experiencers-the prayer This is the primary use of the passive in Wright's discussion of Arabic. 39 An example from the
is nOl thal God would make the Psalmist himself or his heart do something (This would require a 3-place Psalter can be found in the a-colon of:
prcdicate). but that he would make thcm experience something.
]4For this addition of arguments to an utterance beyond those of its lexical vcrb. I refer to Gricc's idea of non· :;"11;"1' o'P"::;! IT,:l10' ｭ＿Ｌｊ［ＢｾＱ ｾＧｉＢ ＭｬＧ ｩＮＢｉ＿Ｇｾ ｏ 37:17
natural meaning or meaning-nn. which distinguishes a speaker·meallillg from the inherent senlence·meaning: For the arms of the wicked shall be broken, but the LORD upholds the rightcous. (NRSY)
Levinson. Pragmatics. 16-17. See also below on 'Competence roles'. I therefore refer to the grammaticalising-away of reference to God in the request-cohortatives
35Halliday comes 10 a similar conclusion in a very different way through his discussion of ergalivity in modern
English: Halliday, 'Languagc Structure and Language Function'. 157. In affirmative request-cohonatives (i.e. and 3rd-person jussives as the rhetorical figure of' causativum divinum'.
requests for permission). it is beller termed ·permiller·.
36S ce Waltke-O'Connor. Syll/ax. 355-57 §21.2.2d-m.
.17The lcxtual questions often raised here do not need to affect our discussion, since this is undoubtedly a possible
form. It has seemed advantageous to take an example of the same vero. '?!:». since it must have the same argument 3Spax cited in Biihlmann and Scherer. Slilfiguren der Bibel. 85.
J9Wright, Grammar. 50.
slruclUrc.
152 M(J(/oh'.". Reference and Speech Acts in 'ht' Pwl",x IlIlper(lfll'l' 15.1

1.3. Semantic Function Ihe imperalive. as Ihe principal mood of will and desire. is onlOgenelically more basic Ihan Ihe
indicalive. Ihe mood of stalement. 44
We have already considered the imperative as 'unmarked' or 'neutral' with respect to the D- many aUlhors refer 10 Ihis as the instrumental function of language and Ihink of it as heing especially haSlc
system. It is formally unmarked in that, in Hebrew as in mosl known natural languages, it is the or primitive45

shortest verbal form and has no person marking. 4o Though-probably mistakenly--eonsidering It should be noted. however, that this function is not concerned only with commands, but with
the person-marked forms earlier, Driver offers a characteristic non-technical explanation of 'will and desire' (Expressive communication) and 'instrumental' function (Vocative/Conative
why the imperative should be the shortest verbal form: communication).46
The parallelism of form hetween Ihe jussive and Ihe imperalive. makes il probable thatlhe origin of Ihis The 'core' of the Deontic system is Directive. A Directive is an
ahhreviation or apocopalion is 10 be traced 10 Ihe quickened and haSly pronunciation of a person issuing a IUllerancej by means of which Ihe speaker gets the lislener 10 do something for him 47
command: Ihe eurlness and compactness of the form corresponding 10 the ahrupl and peremplory tone with
It involves much more than straightforward commands, however:
the language of one in such a situalion would naturally assume 41
The imperative seems to do no more than express. in Ihe moSl neutral way. the notion Ihat Ihe speaker is
In fact, in the light of the present view of the Hebrew verbal system, we may think in terms of a favourably disposed towards Ihe action. He merely 'presents' a proposition. jusl as with the declarative, hUI
progression: for aClion. not merely for acceptance as Irue. by the hearer 48

E-system: long-form yiq!iil Thus recent descriptions offer listings such as the following:
.J,
command, prohihition, permission. request, exhonation, entrealy49
[mess-shift!
.J, command, specific or general •... advice or admonition... giving permission or an invitation, ... making a
[apocopation I request or entreaty50
.J,
D-systcm: shon-form yiqtiil ('jussive') Such descriptions are rarely formalised, since the factors which result in one form (whether
.J,
imperative, cohortative or jussive) having this range of meanings belong to a field which has
[aphaeresis I
.J, only quite recently received formal description-that of 'pragmatics' .
Unmarked Deontic: qatvl ('imperalive')
.J, Starting with the assumption of 'univocality' (the principle of 'one form-<lne meaning'), it
[paragogej should be the case that,
.J,
qillla ("adhonative') ... for each ... grammatical category, lexical ilem. and perhaps syntactic conslruction .... one can establish
a set of necessary and sufficienl conditions such Ihat every permitted use of the form will be allowed by
Though, as has been noted, it is unlikely that this reflects a historical progression, it does both these condilions. and every rejecled use of Ihe form will be disallowed by these conditions. In different
rightly reflect the formal relationships with which we are concerned, as well as corresponding contexts, Ihe form in queslion might be given different inlerpretations, hut Ihese would always he
predictable on the basis of the interaction of Ihe meaning of Ihe item (as given by Ihe necessary and
to some of functional features. It has already been seen above 42 that Deontic use of the E-
sufficient condilions) with features of the conlexl, i.e. Ihe meaning ilselfwould be invariable. 51
system tends to be directive, whilst that of the I-system tends to be precative; the D-system
Lyons lists six such 'features of the context', which he terms 'different kinds of knowledge or
itself covers the whole range. Here, we can compare the directive formality at the top of the
competence which have a bearing on the situational appropriateness of utterances' .52 The first
scale ('preceptive imperfect') with the urgency at the bottom (paragogic he in cohortative and
of these is key to the interpretation of Hebrew Deontic forms:
adhortative; -nd·'). Further, we may note the rhetorical effect of person-marking-person-
(i) Each of the participants muSl know his role and status.
unmarked forms topicalise the action more fully than D-system forms with their person-
marking prefix 43 44Lyons, Sell/alllics 2.746.
The putative primitive nature of the imperative form coincides with claims by many scholars 45Lyons. Sell/alliin I, 130. Similarly. 'giving commands. ralher than making statements. is the more 'basic'
funClion of language.': Lyons. tntraduction. 307.
that Deonticfullctioll is primitive: 46For Ihese terms. see ch. I. section 2.1 I.
47Lyons. J.. Semantics I, 130.
4gPalmer. Mood and Modality. 29-30.
40Palmer. Mood and Modality. 29. 49Finlcy. 'The Proposal'. 11.
4lDriver. Tenses. 52. 50Ci,oson. Davidson's Sylllar. 80-81 §66.
42S ee ahove ch. 3. seclion 2.4.6. ::; [Colllric. Tense. 1R.
4]This is nollo say ,ha( is in any sense 'more urgen!' (contra Waltkc-O·Connof. Syntax, 571 *34.4a). 51Lyons. Sell/antics 2.574-85: Levinson. Pragmatic<. 23.
 Modality. Reference and Speech "Cl.\" ill Iht' r.wlms Inrpertl/iw' 155

'Role' and 'Status' were discussed in informal terms above in chapter 2; here, they need to be Alongside Directivity, Deontic function also includes Commissive and Expressive speech
specified in more detail. acts. Commissives include promises and threats (often expressed in Hebrew with 'resolve-
By 'Role', Lyons means two distinct features: cohortatives'). Expressives include volitives, that is, optative (realisable hopes), desiderative
I. Deicric role,l' arc those of Speaker and Addressee as represented hy the grammatical feature of person. (non-realisable wishes),57 and expressions of fear and purpose (intentional); and also
2. Social roles are cui lure-specific. inslilulionalised functions which affect the use of, for example. the
evaluatives, that is, predictions/warnings, and some expressions of surprise and regret.
'Royal we', politeness forms, or the tulvolls distinclion.

By means of Deictic roles it is indicated who is issuing a Mand (the Speaker) and who is
2. Modification
expected to hear it (though this is not necessarily the same as the one expected to act upon it-
it may be the Speaker himself). Social roles do not affect the interpretation of Deontic forms, There are certain types of clause modification specifically associated with volitional modality,
though they do affect certain linguistic features of the Psalms such as the plurale majestatis, the including syntactical morphemes such as the modal c1itics -/la" (Affirmative) and 'al-
passivum divinulII and what I have termed the eausativum divinum. 53 We also need to specify a (Negative); grammatical morphemes such as stress-shift and apocopation in the jussive (short-
third feature for our purposes here: form yiq!ol from long-form yiqtol), aphaeresis in the imperative, and paragogic he in the
3. Competence roles are concerned with the ability or inability of an actant to realise the proposilion
cohortative and adhortative; and syntactical morphemes such as the use of particular auxiliary
expressed.
verbs. Most of these are dealt with elsewhere in the present work; here, we are concerned with
It is this latter feature which has already been used tacitly to distinguish between 'request-
the c1itic -na', paragogic he, and the use of modal auxiliaries.
cohortatives' (Addressee is competent) and 'resolve-cohortati"'es' (Speaker is competent); it
also distinguishes between the function of a 3rd-person jussive ('May my heart rejoice'- 2.1. Tire Affimuuive Modal Clirie -na'
Addressee is competent) and its Epistemic counterpart ('My heart will rejoice'-3rd-person
The clitic -nil' is generally accepted as having broadly Deontic force, and it is often commented
subject is competent). [t is this competence which results in the Addressee being assigned the
that it occurs almost always in the context of Deontic force. 58 Its distribution in the Psalter
thematic role 'Causer' in the case of 1st and 3rd-person Deontic forms as shown above.
raises some interesting questions, however, since it occurs c1iticised to cohortative (122:8):
'Status' is the relative social standing of the actants-the Speaker is a superordinate,
:1;;1 O'''lp Iq-;'"}::l'1'l '}i"n ＧｾＡ ｉ WO", 1228
subordinate or peer with respect to the Addresse. For the sake of my relatives and friends I will say, "Peace he within you." (NRSV)
These two features put us in a position to distinguish between several types of Directive imperative (50:22; 80: 15; 118:25 [2x]; 119: 108):
force. Firstly, directive (command) and precative (request) utterances are those in which the :"';:10 nn ＧｬＢＱＰＯＨＺＢＱｾ ;",/( '!1:lTll ,'/(!,/(rU'::l 50:22
Addressee is competent; they are usually distinguished by status-superordinate Speakers use Mark this, Ihen, you who forget God ... (NRSV)

directives and subordinate Speakers use precatives. Secondly, in the case of hortative 3rd-personjussive(7:IO; 118:2-4 [3x]; 119:76; 124:1; 129:1):
(exhortation) utterances, both Speaker and Addressee are competent, and there is no reference .. , ｪＯＧＮｾ p':lrn C'Ylp' Y" ＯＨｾＭＧ ［ｬ 7:10
made to status. Thirdly, obligative (demand) and permissive (permission) utteranees 54 are the o let the evil of the wieked come to an end, but estahlish the righteous ... (NRSV)
Deontic equivalents of Epistemicl,J necessary and possible;55 obligatives are Speaker-oriented Interrogative (115:2):

(disregarding Hearer volition), whilst permissive are Hearer-oriented (disregarding Speaker- :O;";'''/( ＯＨｾＺＢ［ ＡＧｉ 0:;1;:1 "/J/(' ［ＧＯ ｬｾＬ 115:2
Why should the nations say, "Where is their God"" (NRSV).
volition).56 Lastly, prohibitive (prohibition) is the Negative form of permissive (i.e. 'you may
Negative (116:4, 16; 118:25 [2x]-in the form /lOl'l/;"l)I(, a contraction of I(J-"1(59):
not', not 'you don't have to') and-it should be noted-is Speaker-oriented,
ＺＯＨｾ ;'1)"3:3;, ［Ｌｩ ＧﾷｉｯＺＮｾ ｘｾ ;'ll'iC,;, ;".;", ＯＨｾ 118:25
Save us. we beseech you, 0 LORD' 0 LORD. we beseech you. give us success! (NRSV)
5JSee above, ch. 2.
54Compare here causalivity, which may similarly be permissive or obligative-'let me' or 'make me'. On the
relationship between causative and the D-system, see above on argument structure. 57palmeL Mood alld Modality, 116.
S5r.e. just as English 'must' and 'may' can have Epistemic and Deontie functions (see ch. I, section 2.1.3.2. 58Finley, 'The Proposal', 8.
above). so also Hebrew I·iqtnl. 59-rhe full form Xl-'/( is common elsewhere in the Old Testament (especially Genesis and Numbers). Some have
56See the discussion with binary parameters in Warren, 'Did Moses pennit Divorce"', 52. suggested. however.• hat NJN' in fact originates from NJ ;"'1N.
 MOl/illity. Reference alld Spt>(>("Jt Ac"H ill lilt' /'.owllla 157
156

and prepositions (116: 14, 18) Only rarely does fr' indicate a command. in which case it stresses resignalion on Ihe speaker's part to

:'Pl,-':>:;:l':> Ｉ Ｂ［ＭＧｾｎ ＨＧｉｐ ｾｊ｛ ;-TV'-'? -,:1) 116:14,18 something not really desired ... or displeasure 70

I will pay my vows to the LORD in the presence of all his people. (NRSV) Normally, of course, Deontic function will be precative when the Speaker is subordinate to the

Thus 13 of the 20 occurrences are clearly volitional, as well as the 4 Negative occurrences Addressee, and directive when the Speaker is superordinate. However, the particle -/lk' may. he
(since they are bound with 'al- and occur in context with adhortatives); it can also be seen that suggests, subvert this:
The post-positive w' and the pre-positive 'n' or "nh either dellect aHention from Ihe authority of the
throughout the Old Testament, ｾ ｲ Ｂ ｾ Ｌ ｾｲｯｾ and ｾｲ［Ｑｊ always precede an explicit or
speaker if the listener is subordinate, or stress submissiveness if the listener has greater authority. The pre-
implicit request. However, it cannot be simply stated that -fla' is an all-purpose volitional
positive form could be called a particle of exhortation .... When the speaker has greater authority, the
particle. Firstly, it occurs in the clearly non-volitional contexts of ｾ ｲ ［ Ｑ Ｇ ｾ and ｾｲ［ＱＢ ｕＬ particle n" perhaps indicates close identification with the listener, almost in an empathetic sense. 7 1
Secondly, it has cooccurrence restrictions with Deontic uses of E-system forms such as the Thus Finley is suggesting that -na" is essentially precative, irrespective of the speech situation
infinitive absolute ('preceptive imperfect') and of the Indicative Anterior ('precative in which it is used. It is definable semantically and not susceptible to reinterpretation by
perfect');60 these cooccurrence restrictions of the Affirmative particle might be compared with sociolinguistic factors such as Speaker-Addressee relations,
those of the Negative particle "al- with the imperative and Deontic use of its E-system More recently, Wilt has argued that the meaning of -na' is definable, though only within the
counterpart, the infinitive absolute, sociolinguistic dimension. Though he makes no reference to Finley, and his viewpoint is very
This remarkable distribution of -flii' invites questions as to its meaning, Standard grammars different, his conclusion is remarkably similar, What Finley viewed as precative/exhortation,
tend to describe it as having even to the point of 'deflect[ing] attention from the authority of the speaker', Wilt describes as
a usually weak entreating nuance, which is roughly equivalent to a stressed and lengthened Please in
'redress' or 'giving face' to the Addressee,
English 61
Like the present study, Wilt's paper is concerned above all with the relationships pertaining
Variations on this traditional view of -fla" as precative are held by Jotion-Muraoka, Gibson,62
between the primary actants in the speech situation, and the factors he identifies are 'relational
Blau.63 Finl ey 64 and Wilt,65 the latter having quite convincingly repudiated Lambdin's66 and
desires, power relationships, emotional duress, and minimal threat to face,'72 A request is a
Wallke-0'Connor's67 more recent and quite unusual view of -/la" as a logical particle,
'Face Threatening Act', since it threatens the Addressee's face by exerting power over him, A
However, further analysis of the function of this particle is required, and we will therefore
'bald' request is therefore made only:73
consider in detail two recent sociolinguistic discussions before turning to a treatment in terms
I. in situations of particular urgency or strong emotion. disputes and warnings.
of speech-acts, 2. in (inherently non-threatening) offers, suggestions etc., particularly 'approval of a request made by H',
and
2.1.1. Sociolinguistic Treatments: Finley and Wilt 3. where S is 'vastly superior' to A, particularly when God addresses mortals and when a political (though
In his broader discussion of 'the proposal' ,68 Finley comments that whilst -na' may be not domestic) head addresses his subjects.

precative, In other words, a request is made without redress only when there is no threat to the face of the
N' is oftentranslatcd "ptease": I) a requcst ... 2) an exhortation ... 3) an entreaty,69 Addressee (2), or where the question of face-threatening is obscured by particularly great
it is rarely directive strength of Deontic force (I) or Speaker status (3). On the other hand, 'redress' may be made,
that is, 'face' given to the Addressee; this may be achieved by means of _no,'74 or, for example,
6OFinley, 'The Proposal', 10. self-denegrating ｬＢＱＺｬｾ or l no ｾ (e.g. 116: 16; I Sam 11),75 In Wilt's corpus, this happens
61 Joiion-Muraoka, Grammar, 350 § 105c.
almost always when man addresses God, and-because of 3 above-very rarely when God
62ciibson, Davidson's SynlCLr. 80 §65: 'impart!sl a mild precative nuance which scarcely needs to be represented
in Engl.'.
63Blau claims that-nii' has the same function as ;"1:J"?; Blau. Grammar, 87 n. 1-2,
70Finley. 'The Proposal', 10.
MFinley, 'The Proposal', 10.
71 Finlcy, 'The Proposal', 10.
65Wilt, 'A Sociolinguistic Anatysis of NA-'·.
72Wilt, 'A Sociolinguistic Analysis of NA'" 251.
66Lambdin, 11Ilrodllclion, 170.
73Wilt, .A Sociolinguistic Analysis of NA-" 244-46.
67Waltke-O'Connor, Syntax, 578 *34.7a.
74Wilt, .A Sociolinguistic Analysis of NA " 242.
(>8Finley, 'The Proposal'.
75S cc (he discussiun or metonymy in ch. 2 above.
69Finley. 'Tbe Proposal', 10.
I 51! Modality, Reference llnd SpCt'clr Acts ;Il l/rt' P'llll1l.\' 159

addresses man. 76 It has been commented elsewhere that this exceptional divine use of -na" may This may be because 3rd-person jussives areforflllllly expressive (not directive), in that they do
be restricted to requests to do something 'that transcends human comprehension'.7 7 not grammaticalise the Addressee.
Wilt finds that 42% of the occurrences of -na" and 16% of the non-occurrences function to We therefore now turn to consider the occurrences of -na' in the Psalter in terms of their
'enhance the relationship' between Speaker and Addressee, that is, for the benefit of both. This Deontic force, whether strong (directive) or weak (precalive).
category includes reconciliation, comfort and offers of and requests for a blessing; it
2./.2. Directive
corresponds roughly to Finley's 'precative'. Many of the remaining occurrences of -nii' involve
In the Psalms, -lIa" is most often used with 3rd-person jussives. calling the community to praise
requests which exceed 'the normal expectations/obligations of the relationship'; these may be
( 118:2, 3, 4; 124: I) or lament (129: I).
summarised as those which disadvantage the Addressee, benefit the Speaker considerably more
In Psalm 118, the firstjussive 'stage-direction' IO-,ON' follows a plural imperative '''';',
than the Addressee, or test the Addressee's commitment to the Speaker. 78
which presumably has the same referent as the jussive's own collective singular subject,
An interesting applications of Wilt's finding can be seen in his treatment of cohortatives:
-/10" is used generally, if nOl always. with exclusive cohonatives and never wilh inclusive ones.... The
Ｇｎ ｾ Ｎ The subsequent plural jussives refer to sub-groups of the whole-Israel's priests and
inclusive cohonative is inheremly a positive-face appeal that minimizes face threat: "( wam you to do X God-fearers:
hut. don'l worry. I'll do il wilh you." The exclusive cohortative. however. in proposing a group action Ihal
Number ofsubject/verb
excludes the addressee. would encourage use of a politeness marker in order to minimize the threat that the
addressee might feel. 79 ｰｬＮＯｾ

Expressed in my lerms, then, hortatives (inclusive cohortatives) have inherently weak Deontic sg./sg. :nOI} 071)1" ';J ＿ｾＧｬｚｊ Nr'QW

force, whilst directives (exclusive. request-cohortatives) may require redress in the form of the pl./sg. :1001} ｯ＿ｵｾＮＬ ';J ｐＺＱｾＭｊＢ［ N)-"ON:

particle -na'. pl./pl. :non ｯ＿ｵｾＮＬ ';J :1}:1' ＧｾＢ ｎｾ ＢＧｏｎＺ

Wilt concludes: o give thanks to Ihe LORD. for he is good; his steadfast love endures forever'
That na is indeed a politeness marker seems evident from the above analysis.... "please" would probably
c LCI Israel say, "His steadfast love endures foreveL"
Let the house of Aaron say. "His steadfast love endures forever:'
he an appropriate rendering in most. if nOl all. of Ihe occurrences that we have considered.
Let those who fear the LORD say. "His steadfast love endures forever:' (NRSV)
This is an impressive conclusion to a very persuasive paper; however, it does not go far enough
for our purposes here. In considering modality, giving translational equivalents is not sufficient, The options of singular and plural reference to Israel are both used similarly in the Psalms of
since we can easily sense the difference between English 'please' in: Ascent:
Please leave the room at once! (directive-a command hy a superordinate), ＺＢｾＬ ＡｬｚｊＧ ｎｾＺＢＧＱ［Ｉｎ ,J? ｊｚｬｽＺｾＱ :11:1' ",., 124:1
Please can I have a biscuit'! (precative-a requesl hy a subordinate). and If it had not been the LORD who was on our side-leI Israel now say ... (NRSV)
Please take a seal' (permissive-an invitalion by a superordinate)
ＺＢｾＧ ｬ ｚＭ Iq:",OW ')'17J.':l 'In':!:I n:;l}. 129:1
Further, the occurrences of -nii' with 3rd-person jussives cannot be idiomatically translated into "Often have they allacked me from my youth"-Iet Israel now say .. (NRSV)
English with 'Please' (which is restricted in English to directives where Addressee =agent): The occurrence of the formula ＢｎｾＧ Nr,ON' only at the beginning of Psalms necessitates a
... 0'170/' 17'-> ＧｊｬＬｲＭｾｎ 7:10 Deontic, rather than logical, understanding of -nii",80 consistent with the probable cultic origin
'0 let Ihe evil of the wicked come to an cnd, please of the formula. However, the precative 'entreating nuance' seen by JoUon-Muraoka is not
present, but rather an authoritative directive force. This is supported by the particle's only other
use in the Psalms by a superordinate-here, God is speaking to the Enemy:
76Wilt. 'A Sociolinguistic Analysis of NA" 245.
:":10 ｲ ｾ Ｇ 'l'->ON'-l!l ;:n?N 'n:>lZJ "NI ｎｾＭＧｊ Ｚ ｬ 50:22
77Hamilton. V.P.. The Book of Gelles;s. Chaplers 1-17 (NICOT; Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans. 1990) 394.
Mark this. Ihen. you who forgcl God, ... (NRSV)
referring toGen 13:14; 15:5; 22:2: Ex 11:2.
78S ome others. such as 'S asks H to disguise H's identity' (Will. 'A Sociolinguistic Analysis of NA..... 248) are not
relevant to the prescnl discussion. Wilt's note Ihat bargaining is usually hald can he hest explained in modal
terms-these clauses are effectively conditional protascs. followed by an apodosis. and are so nOI marked for
volition.
79Wilt, 'A Sociolinguistic Analysis of NA" 250. XOCO/llra Lambdin. IlIIrodllCl;OIl. 170.
160 Modality. Reference and Speech An.\ ill the VwllHs Imp<,IlIt',',' Ihl

2./.3. Precative Agent/'Causer'. This may support our argument for u 'vocative intensifier' understanding of

In lament contexts. the particle appears to have an entreating tone much like that described by -/lii', since the vocative force cannot be so strong when distributed to a plural Addressee.

JoUon-Muraoka. It occurs always in combination with a 'Bcweggrund des gottlichen To take an example, then, ｾ r ｾｈＧ (80: 15, cited above) is not intensified action like

Einschreitens', an element which adhortative ;,:::nl!1 (6:5) and some uses of the D-stem and figura etymologica,84 nor is it
Isolll auf JHWH Eindruck machen. sie IsolIl aber wgleich. indem sie ausgesprochen werden, des emphatic personal reference like some uses of the vocalive or 3rd-person jussive, but an
Klage"dell Her: trosten und der Hilfe Goues versichern 81 intensified Deontic. It is not the nature of the modality which is affected but its intensity. Thus
Examples are: it is perhaps Seow who comes closest of the grammarians to the true meaning of -na' when he
•.• ｪ Ｉ Ｂ ｾ P'::I;;' O'j;lp, j;, ｉＨｾＭＬｹＩ 7:10 describes it as occurring 'for emphasis or to express urgency or immediacy. '85 His non-
o !ct the evil of the wicked come to an end. but establish the righteous .. (NRSY)
technical terminology corresponds to the 'vocative intensifier' analysis presented here.
I(r':l1o/ ｾＬＧＱＨＺ［ｬＳ 0';,,:>1( 80:15
Tum again, 0 God of bosts ... (NRSY) 2.1.5. Expressive

When -nii' occurs in conjunction with resolve-cohortatives, interpersonal force can play no
Let your steadfast love become my comfon ... (NRSY)
part, since the Speaker and Addressee are identical. Therefore, it may be best viewed as
performing an intensifying function similar to that of figura elymologica (see also below),
Accept my offerings of praise, 0 LORD ... (NRSY)
';'':>I(:J ＧｬｚｊｾＩ ':»;; ;";":J lZJ'lZJl( lZJ'l!I IS361:10
11 can be combined with the free-standing particle ｾＩ to further intensify the appeal
[ will greatly rejoice in the LORD. my wbole being shall exult in my God ... (NRSV)
:K, ;'.1:1'''3;' ［ＧｾＢ ＱＨｾ Ｚｬ ｉＨｾ ;'.l!'b,;, ［Ｇｾ ＢＮｉＨＩ ｬＺ 118:25
The intensification lies with the volition itself (propositive), rather than with the vocative force.
Save us. we beseech you, 0 LORD' 0 LORD, we beseech you, give us success' (NRSV)
e.g. :l:;J O':lp ｉＨｲ［ＧｾＺｊｽｾ 'Ji" Ｇｾｉ ｴ 1l;r,J':>. 122:8
This precative tone is quite distinct from the strongly directive nature of the examples in the
For the sake of my relatives and friends I will say. "Peace be within you." (NRSV)
previous section.
In the psalms, pleonasm is often used to the same effect, especially in the expression ［Ｇｉ ｬＡＱｾ

2.1.4. Vocative ［Ｇ ｏｬｾＧ .

We have seen that the force of -nii' is neither in itself directive nor precative (that is, it has no Ｚ［Ｇｾｏｬ ［ＬｾＧｩＡＱｬＺｊ＾ p:q ｯＧ［Ｌ Ｚ＾ｾＮ ';3':> ｾ ｰ 57:8
My heart is steadfast. 0 God. my heart is steadfast. ( will sing and make melody. (NRSV)
inherent semantic value), though it appears to intensify the directive or precative force of the
Ｚ［Ｇｾｐｬ ;'!;" ]':> ｬＺｊｚＮＧｾ［ tl.!;ll!lo'-'On 101: I
clause (0 which it is attached. I therefore borrow a term from communication theory 82 and refer
I will sing of loyalty and of justicc: to you. 0 LORD. I will sing. (NRSY)
to the force of -nii' as that of a 'vocative intensifier', that is, it intensifies not the type of
Similarly simple repetition and the feature of parallelism itself:
Deontic modality, but the act of communication itself.
'" '::I ':J"I(-,:>y Ｇｾ :In, ;";":J ')'v ;'0, ;";":J ':J':> l'':>Y I 5am2:1
This may related interestingly to the question of grammatical number. It is striking that, both My heart is triumphant in the LORD, my head is raised in the LORD; my mouth laughs over my enemies
in commands and requests, only about 18% of Old Testament occurrences of -nil' accompany a (ALW 86 )

plural Agent/'Causer'.83 Though there are more singular than plural Deontic forms in the Old
2./.6. Conclusion
Testament anyway, this still indicates a stronger tendency to use -nii' with a singular
The present interpretation of -nii' as a 'vocative intensifier' explains several of the problems
mentioned above.
XIGunkcl. Eillleirullg, 231 §6.18.
X2As introduced in ch. I. section 2.1 I. abovc.
X'Gen 19:2.7; 37:6: 40:8: 45:4; 47:4: 50:4; Ex 10: 11: 12:9; Num 12:6: 16:8,26; 20: 10; 22: 19: Josh 2: 12; 22:26;
Judg H:5: 9:2; 11:19: 19:9.23; I Sam 14:7.29: 16:17: 22:7: 23:22: 2 Sam 2:14; 13:17.28: 20:16; 24:14; 1 Kgs
20:7; 2 Kgs 4: 10; 5:7: 6:2; 7: 13: 9:34; 18: 19: (sa I: 18; 5:3: 7: 13; 19: 12; 36:4; 47: 13; 5: I. 21; 7: 12; 18: I I: 18: 13: H4Waltke-O'Connor, Syntax. 584-85 05.3.la-c and n. 23.
25:5; 27: 18; 30:6: 35: 15: Ezek 18:25; 33:30; Mic 3: 1.9; 6: I; Hag 2: 15. IH: Zcch 1:4: Mal 1:8,9; 3: to; Job 6:29: R5Scow, CL., A Grammar for Bibliw{ He",.e ... (Nashville: Ahingdon Press, 1987) 173. See. however. Wilt's
13:6: 17:10; Cant 7:9: Lam 1:18; Ena 10:14; Neh 5:10.11; 1 Chr 29:20. (In E. 3:18: 5:3: Num 20:17; 2 Sam criticism; Wilt.. A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Nit ,. 239.
13:25: Jon I: 14. the subject is plural. but he pcrmillcr is singular. Furthcr. in thc casc of a plural cohortative, the 86Translation from Warren. A.L.. Tile SOllg oIHlIIlllah, I Sam 2: 1·10. A TexflllIl Studyfocussillg 011 Lirurgical u',e
fal"t thal onc thing is hcing ｳｾＮｩ､ hy everyone means Ihat thefe is nol really a plural focus.) (Unpublished MPhil dissenation; Cambridge. 1994).
ｉｦｬｾ Modality, Reference lInd Speedl A, 'IS III '''l' /)sa[ms I",pl'rfllll'(' Ifl.\

Firstly. it explains the otherwise inexplicable 1-1 r:1' 1-1 (115:2) and ｾｲ ;,,)) (116: 14, 18) 2.2.1. Adhortative
cited at the beginning of this discussion. 1-1)-;" 1-1 is an example of vocative intensification of an The adhortative ending occurs approximately as often in Tsevat's psalmic corpus as in prose,
Interrogative. 1-1)-;',)) may be described as a b-colon modal intensification of an Epistemic a- which is, as he notes a very much higher level of occurrence proportionate to amount of text:
colon-righteousness becomes sacrifice, as relationship to God becomes relationship to the ;'1'?t:li7 is relatively more than eight limes more frequent in the psalms as it is in the reS! of the Bible.
Moreover, it occurs in lhe psalms more often than lhe simple form "t:lj? For the psalms. ;'1'?t:li7 is the
community; in more specific terms, the vocative force of -/la" here might be read as part of the
normal imperative. 92
call for witnesses to the repayment of his vow.
Though this is true statistically, it should be noted that the figures are offset by a number of
Secondly, it explains the clause-initial use of 1-1)1-1/;')1-1, which almost always in the Old
verbs which occur very frequently in the Psalter in the longer form. As Gibson says,
Testament occurs with the imperative. 87 Since Negative 'al- cannot appear with the imperative,
in some verbs the longer form has become fixed. as ;'1v,n hastell. ;'1"'11 awake. ;'1 \!1' l;'1 bring near.
-/la' is to be interpreted here as a placeholder for 'al- in an exclamation: ;'111.:JV;'1 swear, and others. 93
;'V!:>l ;'1p"r.l ;'11;'1" ｾＮＱＧ［ ... 116:4 Similarly, Finley has discovered that the ad hortative is especially common with 'weak verbs,
"No. LORD' Save my life'" (ALW)
especially middle-weak roots' .94 This phenomenon may also account for the much more
［Ｇｾｏ ｲＮｬＢ ｄｮｦＱＡＺ＾ＢｬｲｑｾＭｰ ＢｐＮＺｊｬＱＭＧ ｾ ｔＧＮＺｊｾ ＧｬｾＭ ［ｊ ＧＱ Ｎ［ ［ＧＱｾｬ ｉ 116:16
frequent use in the Psalter of the long form of the imperative of ;'0) (hiph "il), which is usually
"No. LORD! For I'm your servant, the son of your servant girl! Loose my fellers'" (ALW)88
apocopated 95
Thirdly, my interpretation is compatible with Wilt's sociolinguistic analysis. It should be
With respect to function, Waltke-O'Connor claim that
noted that the English "Please!" can also have the function of a vocative intensifier, standing
No differentiation is possible between the regular and long (;"T:) forms of the imperative. since they occur
alone as an appeal for the Addressee's attention, rather like the expression, "Excuse me!". in similar contcxts. 96
Fourthly, since a vocative intensifier is compatible with a range of modal functions, we can Particularly in the light of Tsevat's observations on the distribution of adhortatives in the
see how it functions within an entire speech turn rather than restricted to the c1ause. 89 Hence it Psalter, this would seem to be a correct observation. Several suggestions have been made as to

may be c1iticised in principle to any part of speech, including prepositions, for example. the function of the suffix; JoUon-Muraoka alone mention 'emphatic ... honorific
Lastly. it becomes clear that the incompatibility of -/la' with the infinitive absolute or euphony' 97 It therefore seems likely that paragogic he has a similar function to that we have
precative perfect90 is for the same reason as the incompatibility of 'al- with these forms. The established for -/la', as a 'vocative intensifier', unspecified with regard to type of Deontic
Affirmative c1itic -nii" and the Negative c1itic "al-. though not having inherently Deontic force.
meaning, both belong to the Linguistic Attitude of Discourse, that sphere of language in which
2.2.2. Cohortative
participant reference is determined by the roles of Speaker and Addressee, and which admits
both Deontic and vocative functions (unlike Narrative). In terms of the linguistic system, the E- Within the D-system it is striking that the 1st-person form (cohortative) should be lengthened
and the 2nd and 3rd-person forms apocopated. This may be explained diachronically, but there
system and I-system forms which lie behind the 'preceptive imperfect' and the 'precative
are also clear reasons on the synchronic level why a 'vocative intensifier' should be
perfect' belong to the Linguistic Attitude of Narrative.
systematically added to 1st-person expression of volition-there is a significant interplay here
2.2. Paragogic he between reference and questions of modality.

The paragogic he in the cohortative (where it distinguishes E-system and D-system forms) and A question is raised in the first place by 1st-person Epistemic forms for the future, since it

in the adhortative (where it appears simply to strengthen the Deontic force) appear to be related will often be the case that Ist-person futures (especially of fientive verbs) will carry an element

functionally/synchronically, albeit not necessarily formally/diachronically.91 of volition. By analogy, it is natural that 1st-person expressions of volition, where the Speaker

87Finley, 'The Proposal'. 8. 92Tsevat. LanguaRe olthe lJihlical Psalms. 24-25 no. 159.
88Reading as 'precative perfect'. 93Gibson. Dm'idl'on',I' SI't/((L<. 81 §6fl Rem. I. Waltke-O'Connor. Syntax. 571 §34.4.
89Wilt. 'A Sociolinguistic Analysis of NA" 242-43. 94Finley. 'The Proposal'. 5 n. 13.
'iOFinley, 'The Proposal', 10. 95Tsevat. ul1IRuage oJ the IJihliml Psalms, 25 no. 160.
9lS ee . however. Waltke-O'Connor. Syntax. 568 §34.2b: 'The collOrtati"e. like the alternative Qal imperative with 96Waltke-O'Connor. Srntal. 571 §34.4.
ＺＧｉｾＮ suffix. is derived from an carlier Canaanilc yaqlUla volitional conjugation.' 97Jouon-Muraoka. GralJ/II/{//'. 143 §48d.
I/H Modality. Reference and Speech Acl.\ ill f//(' Psalms l"'I'Crtlli\·e 165

is also the subject. whether they be precative, directive. optative etc., should attract forms for or a 3rd-person jussive:

vocative intensification such as paragogic he. In this perspective, the cohortative and jussive Ｚｩｾｏ m'i Ｇｾ 1'1=I[1i ')'Oii?' i;'11;) ｩｾｖｬＩＧｏ m'l7 ＧＩｾＭＢＺ［ｬ ＬＮ Ｍ ｾ 79:8
Do not remember against us the iniquities of our ancestors; let your compassion come speedily to meet us.
truly do form a 'volitional class' or D-system.
for we are brought very low. (NRSY)

2.3. Deontic Auxiliaries There are a few examples of the auxiliary occurring in the jussive:

As has already been noted,'J8 there are various types of auxiliary verb functions in Biblical
Hebrew, some of which are specifically related to Deontic modality. In particular, there is the
:')O[1.)i'1 ::l0i'11 ＩｩｾＧ［ ::l.,n
use of the imperative of a verb of motion functioning '[fJormelhaft und als eine Art
Just as you have shown me many difticulties and evils. (so now) revive me again. and from the depths of
Tempuszeichen [i.e. mood marker]',99 or 'as an auxiliary or interjection',loo followed by
the earth, bring me up again'
another verb in a Deontic form. The dependent verb may be joined syndetically (e.g. 66:5 ':J'? Increase my greatness and comfort me again. (ALWI02)
ＧｾＢＩ or asyndetically (e.g. 46:9 Hn-D'?), though in the Psalter asyndesis is much more The dependent verb may sometimes appear in the form of a lamedised infinitive or even a
common. Such auxiliary verbs include, most commonly, mj? and ,;'0 in the singular nominalisation l03 under'? (i.e. 'JY'V,;' ;'01j? -> *'W'V';'"? ,l1:nj? -> *'nY'v'" ;,o'j?).
addressed to God, and 1o:'::J and l"?;' in the plural addressed to the community; they are most Both of these alternatives occur in one verse: 104

often translated with adverbial expressions. :;"Irpm 'i'1":lIV'? ;"1;;"1" '.1?':!;"I' ;'11.;"1'. ;"I;!" 40:14
Since the auxiliary is most often in the imperative, the dependent verb may be in any other Graciously, LORD, deliver me; LORD, hurry to my aid! (NRSY)

Deontic form which has a Deontic element, though it is in fact most often another imperative: A further alternative involves 'he-Iocativum' in place of the preposition ,:105

'm"i ［ＧＱＰ ｾ ";'11;"1' '.1Jl7 ";"IQ 143:7 :T'Ol:1 W9' ＧＮＱＢｾ ')1 ;"Ij1)IV ;"Ir,nj/. 44:27

Answer me quickly, 0 LORD; my spirit fails .... (NRSY) Rise up to our help' And redeem us for the sake of your steadfast love' (NRSY)

:')P'l!";'1' ｮＬ Ｇ ｾｭ i'1'.::l' ＿ＡＺＧＢｾｬ［ｮｭ ''? ;'1';"1 '.1.":'3;"1 ;"1);"10 ｾｬＩ ｾＬ ;"I;J;'1 31:3 These structures appear to have three main functions.

Incline your ear to me; rescue me speedily. Bc a rock of refuge for me, a strong fortress to save me. Firstly, auxiliaries such as c'j? and ,;'0 in addressing God appear to express urgency. 100
(NRSY) Secondly, auxiliaries such as 1o:'::J and l'?;' in addressing the community appear to express
There may be 'gapping' across two cola, especially where a vocative intervenes: exhortation. The fact that these can be distinguished from c'j?, I'(,::J etc. in address of God
:j1.,;llZJ o'vrp" Ｇｾｬｚｊ 'n7 Ｇ［ｬ ｾＭＧＺ［ｊ ｩＧＱｾ 0'::l;"l-'::l ＧＺＱｾ ＧＮＱＬｲｾ ［Ｂｉ ;"11;"1' ;"19';:' 3:8 belies Andersen's claim that,
Rise up, LORD, to save me, my God! May you strike all my enemies on the cheek, may you break the teeth The first verb becomes semantically empty, functioning merely as a hortatory particle. 107
of the wicked' (ALW)
Thirdly, there are certain auxiliaries which function as politeness forms. IOR
ｾ＿Ｇｏｩ Ｚ ;"11;"1' ＺＢｾＮＱＧｩ '?-'VOlV 0' ＮＱＺ［ｬｾＧ Ｗ 34: 12 101
:;"Irpm 'i'1":lIV' ;"1;.;"1' '.1?':!;'1' ;"11;"1'. ;'1;l" 40:14
Come, 0 children. listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the LORD. (NRSY)
Graciously, LORD, deliver me; LORD, hurry to my aid! (NRSY)
The dependent verb may be an inclusive (hortative) cohortative:
:UplV' .,,:!., ［ＢｉｬＡＧｾ ;"lp''? ;"IP':'.1 ,::l". 95:1
o come, let us sing to the LORD; let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation! (NRSY) 102Reading the E-system long-fonn yiq!ols in v. 20 as jussives loo.
103 A nominalisation is defined as a NP with the argument slructure or a verb. E.g.
:'.1lZJV ＧｾＱＮＭ Ｇ［ＱｉＢ ;"I:;"::l.1 ;"Il!)::l.1, ＱＮｊｚｬｩｪ｛ｾｉＢ［ ＮｬＺ ｾＧ 95:6 'help': <agent> possessive genitive. <theme> of-genitive
o come. let us worship and bow down. let us kneel before the LORD, our Maker! (NRSY) ;'1V1lZJ':<agent> JlOssessive genitive e.g. I Sam2:ll"V'l!1'::l 'i'1nolZJ
:,1l1 Ｇｾ ＺＱｬｚｊＧＭｏｬｚｊ ＮＬｾｴＧＭｎＢ ".30 Oi'n::l.1' ＧＺｬＢ ｏｾ 83:5 <theme> JlOsscssivegenitivee.g. Ps 22:2 ',.,V,lZJ'O j/m., 'Ji'1:11V ;"10' ｾＢ ＮｾＢ
In Ps 22:2. the external thematic role is absorbed as in the case of a passive verh-hy the raising of the object to
They say. "Come. lel us wipe them out as a nation; let the name of Israel be remembered no more."
ｴｨＨｾ genitive position.
(NRSYj 100COInpare 106:4-5.
I05g0:31)' ;"I"VlZJ'" ;'1::l? appears to have hoth IJ and this additional he.
9RSee ch. 3. section 2.5. above. t06lnterestingly. these occur only very rarely together wilh -1/<1'; Wilt. 'A Sociolinguistic Analysis of NI." 239-
99S chneider. Gmmmmik. 202 *48.5.4. 40.
IOOWaltke-O'Connor, Syllf(L<. 574-5 n4.5.la. 107 Andersen, Se,lIence. 56-57 §3.10.1.
101 COInpare 66: 16 ;'1"!:lON' n'OlZJ-'::l' . IOXCompare 119:108.
166 Modality. ｒｬｾｲＨＧ ･ ｣ llnd Speech Act.\- in I/W Psalms 167

T'::l' Ｇ＿ｾＬ［ ;,nl:' 2 Sam 7:29 109 :T";lP-'?l; ｃｬｮｾ［Ｌ Ｇ 'D/?-"l; ;".;" ;';J'l!I 90:13

now therefore may it please you to hless the house of your servant ... (NRSV) Turn, 0 LORD' How long'! Have compassion on your servants! (NRSV)

Of the use ohl'n;" it has been said, And the verb NVJ occurs in the niph'al several times:
Man umschreibt ... den hlossen Imperaliv mit einem Ausdruck. der den Gedanken enthall. dass das ＺＰＢｾ t:l.!;)l!I1:I Ｎｾ＿ＧＬ ;'':1'.l:, ＬＩＮｾ n'i::ll;:::I ｾｖ ［ＧＮ ＢｬｩＺ ｾ ｉ ;,i;,' ;'Q';'? 7:7
Verlangte dem Andern vielleicht nichl angenehm sein konnte. und erhoht dadurch den Wen des Rise up. LORD. in your anger; be lifted up at the fury of my enemies: and wake up. my God; may you
Gewahrens. IIO appoint a judgment. (ALWill )

Thus this is the best equivalent in Biblical Hebrew to English ·please'. ＺｃｬＧｾｲ＿［ '?'1:1)' :::I,l!I;:! Yi,N.;:! ｉＡｬｾＺｴ ＮＧ［ｾｉＡｬ 94:2
Be lifted up. judge of the eanh; give the proud haek what they deserve! (ALW)

3. Imperative ＺＢＧ［ ｊｾＰ 1'?9 ｾＬｪ Ｇｃｬ＿Ｇ Ｚ ＧｔＢＡｮｾ ＧｾｬＡｉｾ［ＢｃｬｪＧ ＡｴｾＩ Cl'''1l;V ＧｾｬＡｉ 24:7
Lift up your heads. 0 gates' and be lifted up. 0 aneiel1l doors' that the King of glory may eome in. (NRSV)

The parallel between 'NV and 'NVJ;' in the last of these examples shows that there may not
3.1. Form
be a great difference in meaning between the qal and niph'al forms of some verbs. I 12
The minimal form of the imperative has already been noted. Like the English imperative, it In fact, the form for true passive directivity in Biblical Hebrew is the passive participle in a
lacks both mood-marking (such as paragogic he) and person-marking (such as within the yiq!6l Deontic nominal clause. I 13
paradigm), retaining only number- and-in cross-linguistic perspective, quite distinctively- Causativity is fundamental to the semantics of certain verbs which often occur in Deontic
gender-marking. With only one full vowel in the 0-marked masculine singular form, the forms in the Psalms, such as V 10' , ＢｾｊＬ :lVj7 and ［ＧｾｊＮ Others verbs which occur most often in
imperative is the shortest verbal form in the language, as is also the case in most other inflected the qal also occur in the hiph'il, such as, from the ;'-stanza of Psalm 119, ;"', 1':1, l", ':IV,
languages (including all the Semitic languages). O'j7. In these eight verses, there are three 1st-person objects (vv. 33-35) and two metonymous
Ist-person references (v. 36-37), several of which could equally have been expressed with
3.2. Syntactic Function and Argument Structure
cohortatives. 114
The imperative has certain characteristic features in its argument relations.
Reflexivity is unattested with Deontic modality in the Psalter, however certain terms are
Firstly, it should be noted that 2nd-person objects will not be attested. Imperative forms are
common in other forms of Old Testament literature, e.g. l!I'j7n;"1.
inherently 2nd-person themselves and so express a 2nd-person object by means of a reflexive
Finally, even stativity is occasionally compatible with Deontic modality:
stem (hitpa'el; e.g. ,v'j7n;"1, 'sanctify yourselves') or metonymy (e.g. ｏｾＺｉ ＧＺ＾ '1!I'i',
Ｚ［Ｇｩ ｾ Ｇｦｬｽ ｾＱＺｉ ＧｾＢｏＭ Ｚｊ 'Jp'l!t,;,,? ｩＺＧｾ ｓ ,,'Oi: ｾＬｪ ＿ pV/? ＿ＧｾＮ ｩ ,., ;";' 71:3
'sanctify your hearts'). Be to me a roek of refuge, a strong fortress. to save me. for you are my roek and my forlress. (NRSV)
The occurrence of the particular verbal forms in the G- (qal, niph 'at) and corresponding D- :''? -nv-;,',,,];,,.;,,' ＧｊｾｲＺｮ ;'.'.;"-Vr,ll!l 30:11
stems (pi'el, pu'al) at all is purely a question of lexis, even in the case of those verbs which Hear, 0 LORD, and he gracious to me! 0 LORD. he my helper!" (NRSV)

occur in both. Of syntactical importance is whether passivity (niph 'al, pU'al, hoph'al), However, it could well be argued that these forms are better read as ingressive aspect: 'become
causativity (hiph'il, hoph'al) and reflexivity (hitpa'el) can occur together with volitional
modality.
3.3. Semantic Function
True passivity is inherently incompatible with directivity, since the former is patient-oriented
and the latter agent-oriented. Nevertheless, there are niph'al Deontics in Ihe Psalter. The imperative can fulfil most Deontic functions. For example, Finley shows that it fulfils five

Ｚｙｩｾ Ｇｴｬｾ Ｇｾｯ Ｎ［ ,,?' ;Jl!I;' Cl' :J,?o ;'i:l;'. 2: 10 out of his six Directive functions (the only exception being Negative): 115
Now therefore. 0 kings. he wise; he warned. 0 rulers of the earth. (NRSV)

Certain verbs in the niph"al in fact have stative meaning:

I11 Reading as 'preeative perfect'.
112Middle or retlexive readings are possihle; see also the question of ergativity in Biblieal Hehrew.
I 13 See seclion 6 below.
I09Wilh a parallel in I Chron 17:27 whieh appears 10 he 'precatlve perfect' 114See the above discussion on the relalionship of cohonative (0 eausative.
IIOLmde. Formelha!re Welldllllget1. 106. 115 Adapled from the tahle in Finley. 'The Proposal'. I \.
 ｉｬ ｦｗｲｻ ｴ［ｾ ＨＮ 11,')
I ilK Modality. H(1"('1'('1/(l' mill Speech Aus it! the Psalms

hlllU;OI1 Form Thus terms referring to God's responsibilities. such as li.:::n:J here, those referring to his
command imperative 116 nature, such as l.,on:;J and ｬｮｪｊＢｾＮＺ Ｌ express the Psalmist's sense of entitlement to a hearing.
prohihition 2nd-person jussive The Deontic force of the utterances which they modify is therefore best termed directive. There
permission imperative. 2nd-person jussive
are other forms of 'motivation for divine intervention' which accompany precative utterances.
r.:qucst imperative. 3rd-person jussive. cohortative
exhortation imperative. 3rd-person jussive. cohortative however, in particular, references to the Psalmist's distress:
entreaty imperative. 3rd-pcrson jussive ＺＧＩｾ ';so1:1 ';J ＧｾＢＬｯ ')."':3:1 ".NO 'f'l,:'''-'::J \jq"-"N ＺＱｾＧＲ ｪ＿［ＺＱ 142:7
Give heed to my cry. for I am brought very low. Save me from my persecutors. for they are too strong for
Here, we consider the use of the imperative form within the modal categories we have
me. (NRSV)
established above, making Directive and Expressive speech acts.
A second situation In which normal Speaker-Addressee relations are subverted is where
3.3.1. Directive, Precative and Hortative God speaks hortatively (that is, for the Addressee's benefit), making an invitation to the

Directive, precative and hortative utterances equate Addressee and Agent; they are therefore community:
ＺＱ ｾＢｏ Ｎ TO:":::Jn,:1 O'):ro f'Nr.l "I"l!OCl."I';:'''N :11;1' ':')N 81:11
the natural realm of the imperative form.
I am the LORD your God, who hrought you up out of the land of Egypt. Open your mouth wide and I will
It has already been noted that directive utterances will tend to be made by a superordinate,
till it. (NRSV)
precatives by a subordinate and hortatives by an equal (also that there are 'face-saving'
or to the King:
strategies such as the use of the particle -no' which, in the opinion of some scholars, subvert
:f"!:1-'o!:)N "Ii1\n!'(1_ ｱｲｾＱｦｉＢ 0"). :1?i1N' , )00 "NW 2:8
this). Thus most imperatives addressed to the Enemy will be directive: Ask of me, and t will make the nations your heritage. and the ends of the earth your possession. (NRSV)
:"::J:: "'v :1i.:1'·I:f,lo/-';:J Ｑｾ '''V!:)-'':;J ')1;)0.,.,1c:l 6:9 :T")'}" 0.,,, Tj'N',,'WN-"l! Ｇｾ ｏＢ ::.TZI ｾｎＢｩＧ :11:1' ON) 110:1
Depart from me, all you workers of evil. for the LORD has heard the sound of my weeping. (NRSV) The LORD says 10 my lord, "Sit al my right hand until I make your enemies your footstooL" (NRSV)
Thus most imperatives addressed by the Psalmist to God will be precative: In many such cases, the hortative is followed by a apodosis (as here, 1;'lN"7Dl'n and ;'lJilN')
:"1.,0" W9" ' )i1' TZI1:1' , !ZI!:») Ｇ ＺｾＱ :11:1'. :1;;JH:r 6:5 which shows how the action of opening, asking etc. will work to the Addressee's benefit.
Turn. 0 LORD, save my life; deliver me for the sake of your steadfast love. (NRSV)

Most imperatives addressed by the Psalmist to the community will be hortative: 3.3.2. Obligative. Permissive and Prohibitive
:')!ZII: ;'1.1:1'-')!:)" ;'1:;"::)' :1l!)::J)1 :1JI1DW) 1N::. 95:6 Obligative, permissive and prohibitive utterances all allow an Agent other than the Addressee.
o come. let us worship and bow down. let us kneel before the LORD, our Maker! (NRSV) They are therefore normally expressed in English with 'must', 'may' or 'must not I may not'
There are certain situations in which normal Speaker-Addressee relations are subverted. rather than an imperative, and in Hebrew they are properly the domain of the jussive (0-
This happens, for example, when the Psalmist speaks directively to God: system; of course, prohibitive force cannot be expressed using the imperative). However, it is
Ｚｮ ｰｾ n.)m-"N ＺＱｾＧ［＿ ＺｴＧ ＬｽＮ ｾ lW'i1 :11;)7 :1,!1p 44:24 possible to use the imperative to express the granting of permission:
Rouse yourself' Why do you sleep. 0 Lord? Awake, do not cast us off forever' (NRSV)
:'Pl!'TZI 1:)1 ')iry:::J' ';J:;:1" 1:)1 "N '))j?ry 139:23
In this case, it is the semantics of the verb .,1V which have determined our reading as (Go ahead and) search me, 0 God, and know my heart; (go ahead and) test me and know my thoughts.
directive-the Psalmist has arrogated the right to call God to wake up. There are many other (ALWINRSV)

cases too, however, where the Psalmist appears to attempt to exercise authority over God Waltke-O'Connor's 'sarcastic' imperatives belong to this category. 11 7
(threatening his 'face'). The basis for these is the covenallt relationship which exists between
3.3.3. Volitives
God and the Psalmist, and it is by means of 'motivations for divine intervention' that the
Optative and desiderative utterances may occur in any grammatical person. Like obligatives,
Psalmist reminds God of his responsibilitics:
permissives and permissives, they allow an Agent other than the Addressee, and are therefore
:''':::JTZlr.l ')V':::Ji1:"'N' ＺＱＮＧｮｾ ｬｩＱＬＡｾｎＺ ｊ ')?r.lQ 119:116

Uphold me according [0 your promise. that I nMy live. and let me not he put to shame in my hope. (NRSV)
properly the domain of D-system forms. rather than imperatives.

117Wahke-D'Connor. SYII({U, 571 ＮｨＴ Ｓｾ

t 16Alsn the inlinitive ahsolute. from the [·system.
170 Modality. Hejc'rt'I/('e ami Speech Acl.\" ill the Psalms IlIIperurivl' 171

2nd-person optative imperatives occur especially where the verb is stative or in the niphcal. personified natural world. 126 Psalm 148 provides an extended example. The ,,:>,;, calls to praise
since the subject of such forms is not an Agent. in this psalm are addressed consecutively to:
(unspecitied)-angels-earlh. hcavcn amJ sca-elemcnlS-llora-fauna-pcoplc-{unspecified).
ＺｬＢｾ ｙＧｾｃｬＭ Ｚ＾ｾ ':>p O'!1':>N O'l;lTP:1-'?li :1Qn 57:6
Be exalled. 0 God. ahove the heavens. Lel your glory he over all the earlh. (NRSV) At several points, it could be argued that literal vocal expressions of praise are expected from

Even dynamic, transitive imperatives may have optative force when the ultimate deep-structure animals, or (under metonymy) from the human or other animate inhabitaOls of the earth. sea

Agent-in fact, in the terms introduced above, a 'Causer' -is other than the Addressee: 118 etc.. However, in the light of the jussive '':>7;'' in vv. 5 and [3. and what has been shown here

:'?N':l1Z1'-'?P o'''TP'T,1:;1'? 0'.):;1-:11'1" 128:6 of the optative use of the imperative, it would seem better to understand as optative: 'Let them
May you see your children's childrcn. Peace he upon Israel' (NRSV) praise the LORD'. In the above examples, we saw that since 10seph had power to incarcerate,
:1' ;:1'1'1 ｾＧｩ :1" p::m :11:1', n7TZ1' "!lli-:10Q 110:2 1esus to heal and the Psalmist to bless, these were also Declarative speech acts. This is not the
May Ihe LORD send oul from Zion your mighty sceptre' May you rule in the midst of your enemies' case here, since the Psalmist does not have power to declare the LORD praised by the creation.
(ALW)
Psalm 148 is therefore Expressive-optative, as should already have been clear from the
[n the latter of these two examples, both Waltke-O'Connor I19 and Gibson 120 read ;"., in the
unspecified Addressee in vv. I and 14.
light of n'?TZ1', which they read as future. Hence the imperative is described as an example of
This conclusion contrasts with those of many grammarians, who discuss personification as a
'heterosis' 121 or 'equivalent to a strong subjective expression of fut.' .122 I instead read n7lV' as
particular characteristic of imperatives or jussives. 127 [n fact, there is personification here, but it
jussive (with topicalised object) and the imperative as Deontic-volitive. 10lion-Muraoka come
consists solely in the reference to inanimates praising, not in their being addressed. The
close to this interpretation:
Psalmist in Psalm 148 is not addressing anyone, but expressing his desire that the whole
the imperative. along with the jussive and cohorlative, is essentially a form for expressing the speaker's
will, wish or desire. Thus "0l!l:1 ... signifies: "I want you to be incarcerated." I 23 creation should praise the LORD. [n the words of Finley,
... imperalive forms can sOl11climes he used in a rhetorical way. That is. even as a rhclOrical question is not
However, in this example (spoken by Joseph to his brothers, Gen 42: 16) there is a further
really asking for information. so Ihe "rhelOrical impcralivc" is nOI really making a proposal li.e. Dircclive
important element preseOl, namely the authority of the Speaker to effect changes in the world utteranee I. 128
merely by expression of his will. [n other words, these are performative utterances. Thus 'be
incarcerated in fact means 'May you be incarcerated", which in the context of 10seph's 4. Cohortative
"
authority means 'I hereby incarcerate youI'. Simi[arly, turning to the New Testament, we may
say that Jesus's 'Be healed!' (Mark 5:34)124 in fact means 'May you be hea[ed!', which in the Having considered the person-unmarked imperative form, we now turn to the person-marked
D-system forms. The view of the Hebrew verbal system presented in chapter 3 above is
context of Jesus's authority means 'I hereby heal you!'. Looking back to the above examples
foundational to the present discussion, in particular its demonstration that x-yiq!ol is properly
from the Psalter, these optatives are performative in the context of the Psalmist's own authority
an Epistemic form and the basis of a 'E-system', whilst yiqtol-x is properly a Deontic form, the
to bless, even to bless a superordinate such as the king himself. 125
basis of a 'D-system'. The cohortative belongs to this D-syslem, though not strictly to the same
The use of the imperative with optative function (not only the jussive, as is often assumed)
explains one question in the Psalms which has drawn much comment-address of the
paradigm as 2nd and 3rd-person jussives, since it has the paragogic he suffix (discussed above,
section 2.2.).

ｉ ｾｆｵｲｴｨ･ｲ ｸ｡ｭｰｬ･ｳＺ 119:115; 139:19.

I 19Wahke-Q·Connor. Synrax. 572 §34.4c.
IｾｏＨｪｩｨｳｯｮＬ OMidson·.\· Syntax. 81 §66 Rem. 2.
121 Wahke-O'Connor, Synlar. 572 §34.4c.
I ｾＲＨｪｩｨｳｯｮＮ Dm'idso" '.\' Synrar, 81 §66 Rem. 2. 126Gibson. Davidson's Syntax, 81 §66 Rcm. 2.
123 Joiion-Muraoka. Grammar. 379 § 1140. I27Gihson. D{/l'idso,,'s Sy,lIo.r, 81 §66 Rcm. 2; 82 §67 Rem. 4; Wallkc-Q'Connor. SynlOx, 570 §34.3d; 572-7)
IHAnolher passive example; for a stative examplc. see Malt K:3: 'Be clean". §34.4c.
ＱＲｾｔｨｩｳ analysis may also explain the highly dchaled l";"I ;"I);; Ｌ ｖ ｾ 8:2. Ｎｹ･ｬｮｩｆｾＲＱ 'The Proposal'. 12.
 172 Modi/lity. Refert'lIn' i/lld Speech Acts ill the Psalms Impcrllth'e 17.1

4.1. Form 4.3. Semantic Function

The cohortative is distinct from its E-system counterpart in all stems and weak-verb types
4.3.1. Introduction
except III-;-r (except ［ＭｲＮｾＹ［Ｍｲｾ 77:4; ［Ｍｲｾｮｺ 119: 117; Isa 41:23) and ｉ Ｍｾ verbs (except ｾＧＺｬＩＮ
The term 'cohortative' is derived from the Latin 'cohortor ut + subjunctive', meaning 'to
Attested irregular forms include:
encourage, exhort'; this is properly just one of several types of cohortative force,
I. Paragogic hi! hcars segol instead of qa/1/aes (' AhslUmpfung'129) in Ps 20:4 and I Sam 28: 15
According to Driver, paragogic he in the cohortative
2. 2nd·person cohortative: no examples, despite earlier suggestions.
has the effect of marking with particular emphasis the concentration of the will upon a particular object-
3, 3rd-person cohortative: Oeut 33: 16; [sa 5: 19 (twice); Ezek 23: 161:>,20; Joh 11: 17; Job 22:21; Ps 20:4,
ｾＺｊＢ let liS go, we wOllld fain go, the idea being expressed with more keenness and energy, and with a
Upon object c1iticisation, the cohortative becomes indistinguishable from its E-system dceper personal interest or emotion, than by the mere imperfect l"J. 132

counterpart. Therefore, many commmon forms such as ｬ Ｂ ｾ cannot appear in the present Similarly, recently, Waltke-O'Connor:
The cohortative expresses the will or strong desire of the speaker. ID
discussion, although it is likely that, by analogy with forms such as ;-r,;-r' ｾＬｲＭ［ and ;-r,' ｔｬＷｾ
Similarly, in diachronic perspective, Bauer-Leander:
［ＭｲＧｏｉｾＧ , l"N hides a cohortative form,
Ocr Ajjekt·Aorist [i.e. cohortativel ... entstand vielleicht durch das Zusammenwachsen der Verbform mit
der (im Arah. in Ausrufsatzen hiiufig gebrauchten) [nterjektion *G, die zum Ausdruck der Absicht oder der
4.2, Syntactic Function and Argument Structure
hcahsichtigten Folge diente. 134
Like the imperative, the cohortative may occasionally occur (contrary to expectations) in a A 'weaker' view of paragogic he as an optional emphatic particle added to long-form yiqu51
passive form. l3o The synonymous 'save' verbs, 11 v' and ｾ ｾｊＬ which usually occur in the has been gradually replaced since Gesenius and increasing comparative study of Semitic
hiph'il stem, occur occasionally in the niph'al with passive meaning: languages (especially Arabic) with an appreciation of it as marking a distinct verbal
ＺｾｬＮｮＺ ｊＧ T il;l".l'C::" Ｇｾｊ IZIC1 ｃＧｬＢｾＮｏ 80:4 conjugation. us Thus Driver is in fact referring to a function of Deontic modality which is given
Restore us, 0 God; let your face shine. that we may be saved. (NRSV)
full grammatical expression in Hebrew verbal morphology. It remains debated whether the
:"'PD Tpn:l ｾｰＧｉｚ ｬＧｃ ｾｬＡＮｉｚ ＧＮｎ 'J"l!O 119:117
cohortative originates from the Proto-Semitic subjunctive yaqtula, or from the 1st-person
Hold me up, that ( may be safe and have regard for your statutes continually. (NRSV)
singular ethical dative -ja suffix 136 which produces the Akkadian ventive 137 and Arabic
As the NRSV translations show, these are both result clauses. There is one apparently main-
energetic yaqtulanna. 138 This possible 'ethical dative' origin tS instructive in that it
clause passive (niph"al) cohortative in the Psalter:
demonstrates the subjective, Speaker-oriented force of the suffix.
:o'9-'vI;1V91J' 'i,oiZm' ｎｾＤＺ＿ＬＮＧ［ ＧｾＢＭｃ ｬ ｴｾＡ Ｇ［ tI'tllJ. 'J7':$;1 69:15
Save me from mire so that [ don't sink; may [ be saved from those who hate me and from depths of water.
(ALW)
Even this example, however, is shown to be subordinate by Held's argument for a set
factitive-passive sequence in Hebrew and Ugaritic poetry. 131 Thus the only three examples of
1320river, Tenses, 51 §45.
passive cohortatives occur in subordinate clauses. Though this is striking, it is probably not I 33Waltke-0'Connor, Symax, 573 §34.5.la.
significant, since Deontic force occurs in the passive voice in several passive imperatives (see I 34 Bauer. H. and Leander, P" Historische Grammatik der Hebriiischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes, L Band
(Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962) 273 §36d.
above) and in Deontic nominal clauses (see below). The type of Deontic force which is
1350river, Tenses, 61·2 §58 Obs. I. See also above, 2.2.
compatible with passivity is optative, since this does not equate Addressee and Agent; the 136 von Soden comments that this 'ursprunglich nur eine Bewegung zu "mir" her ausdriiekte, sehr friihzeitig aber
auch schon fiir emsprechende Bewegungen zu anderen hin gebraucht wurde, wenn diese von ihrem Zielpunkt aus
forms most commonly used will therefore be request-cohortatives and 3rd-person jussives (as
angesehen wurdcn.'; von Soden, W" Grl/ndriss der akkadischen Gramnwtik (Analecta Orientalia 33/47; Rome:
shown above, section 1.2.), as well as nominal clauses, where the Addressee is 'Causer'. Pontitleum (nstitutum Bihlicum, 1969) 107 §82a.
13 7 From Latin venire. 'to come', i.e. direction towards (originally 'towards me').'Energic· is 'the etymological
term for what in Assyriology is called. from one of its functions. the venlive.'; Bergstrasser. G., Introduction to the
I 29Gesenius-Kautzsch, Grammatik, 137 §4Bd. Semitic Langllages: Text Specimells (lnd Grammatical Sketches, tr. PT. Oaniels (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.
130Colltra Gesenius-Kautzsch, Grammatik, 137 §4Xc. 1983) 27 §2.1.1. n. e.
131 Held, M" 'The Action-Result (Factitive-Passive) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Bihlical Hehrew and 13Rprohahly related to epelllhetic ('£'nergic ') flllll in Hchrcw. particularly since ener!<h ulIn does not normally
Ugaritic', JBL 84 (1965) 272-82. One might compare alSll the imperatives in 24:7,9. occur with short-form yiq!o/ O[ U'(l.\:\·iq,({j/; assm;ialctl hy some with the panicle -nii',
174 Mor/(Ilil.\', He!('rclln: llnd Speech ACIS ill the P.wtlms I",pera/ire ＱＷｾ

All the various views of the cohortative reviewed in the following have in common an The 'request-cohortative' [2] is referred to as 'Let me ... ·,148 'wish or entreaty·.149
understanding of its basic meaning as optative, nuanced pragmatically according to role and 'Bitte' .150 'Bitte um Erlaubnis' .151 'Aufforderung', 152 'where the speaker cannot effect a desire
status as discussed above. 139 without the consent of the one addressed' 153. I term it 'Directive-precative·.

:'? ',:I'N Ｇ［ｉＢｾ ＭＧＺ＾ｬＡｉ Ｂｾ ＬＺ ｬｎＭＧ ＾ Ａｉ 'J"1ni;l.;:l :l:::l 'i:J':>.N 25:2

4.3.1.1. Main Clauses
My God, in you I trust-may ( not be ashamed. Illay my enemies not rejoice over me. (ALW)
Gibson distinguishes three main-clause cohortative uses by the Speaker's freedom to act:
The inclusive plural 1st-person Deontic [3) is referred to as 'mutual encouragement', 154
When the speaker is free the cohort. expresses intention or resolve [11 ... When he is dependent on others it
expresses a wish or entreaty [21 . In the plur. a note of mutual encouragement is often present 'exhortation',155 'cohortative',156 'de[n) Redende[n) [mit dem Gesprachspartner] zu
Especially if preceded by. as a kind of auxiliary, the plur. imper. of a verb of motion 131. 140 gemeinsamer Tatigkeit verbinden[d]' ,157 where 'the speakers usually seek to instigate or
The 'resolve-cohort{/tive' [I) is referred to variously as '\ will .. .'.141 'intention or encourage each other to some action'158. The plural subject includes both Speaker and
resolve' .142 'Selbstaufforderung' .143 'Affekt-Aorist' expressing' Absicht oder ... Wunsch', 144 Addressee(s). \ term it 'Directive-hortative'.
'optative',145 'where the speaker has the ability to carry out an inclination·. 146 'we promise :'"."Tn' ＬｾｴｚＱ "90")' 'f1N ｾＧＢＱ ｾＬ＾Ｚ 34:4
.. .' 147 I refer to it in terms of its illocutionary force: 'Commissive' when it involves an Magnify the LORD with me and let us exalt his name together. (ALW)

Addressee-oriented promise (such as in a 'vow of praise'): Thus. the main-clause schema looks as follows:

ＺＱＷＧ ＾［Ｚｴｾ D';ll? Dp :::l) ｬＺ＿ｩｾ＾Ｇ "piN. 35:t8 Speech act (Searle) Modality English rendering Hebrew example
Then t will acknowledge you in the great assembly; in a great multitude (will praise you. (ALW) Directive preeative ('request") May I not he ashamed "tZ1':::lN-':>N
or a Speaker-oriented purpose (indirect volition): hortative Let us exalt his name together "n' ＬｾｴｚＱ ［ＬｾｯＬＮ Ｉ

2 Commissive ('resolve') promissive [ wi 11 acknowledge you l"N

:"))" ｾｬ＿ＧＢｽ 'r:::l D'pn:;l ＧＮｾ＿ Ｂ ｽｾｴｚＱｎ ,.),i!7':>:::l ｾｮｬＺｴＧｎ ";'"}' Ｌ ｾ ｴｚＱｾ 'J"1'Ol!l 39:2
purposive [ will keep my ways from sin ｾｮｬＺｴＧｎ ';'" "'OtZ1N
[ said...[ will keep my ways from sinning with my tongue; I will keep a muzzle over my mouth as long as
3 Expressive ('resolve') expressive I rejoice in you l:::l ｎｾ＾ＺＧＢ
there's a wicked man before me."
or 'Expressive' when it involves a Speaker-oriented utterance with no referential function Each of these functions stems from the basic optative meaning of the cohortative:

(purely Interpersonal communication);

ＺｔｦＱＧｎＬｾｲＧＺ＾ｾ ［ＧＢ ｬｾ ［ ＧＬＺ ｬ ＭＧｾＺ ｬ ;".;" ［Ｇｾｩｎ 9:2·3

ｾ＾ＺＧ Ｌ :l0tZ1 ［ＧＩｾｬ l;l ［Ｇｾ ｎＧ ;'(:l0tZ1N
( acknowledge the LORD with all my heart. t recount all your miracles.
I am happy and ( rejoice in you. I make music about your name, Most High. (ALW)

1J9See above, section 1.3.

140Gibson, Davidson's Symax, 82 §68.
141 Driver. Tenses. 53-54 §49. 148Drivcr. Tell.res, 53 §49.
142Gihslln. Davidson'" SnllG.<, 82 §68. 149Gibson, Davidsot/'s Syt/tax, 82 §68.
143Brockclmann. S.l"ntax, 5 §6c-d; Meyer. R.. Hebriiische Gmmmatik. 3rd edn. (Berlin. 1966-72) 47 §100,4b. 150Brockclmann, Syt/I<Lr. 5 §6d; Meyer. Gramlllatik, 47 § 100,4b.
I44Baucr-Lcander. Grallllllarik. 274 §36m. ISI Brockelmann. Sylllax, 4 §6b.
145Williams. Syt/tax. 34 § 184. 152Bauer-Leander. Gralllmatik, 274 §36n.
I 46Waltke-o·Connor. Syt/tar. 573 §34.5.1a. I53Waltke-o'Connor, Sylllax, 573 §34.5.la.
147 Niccacci on Exod 20: 19 at Tilburg. I54Gibson, Davidsot/'s Synrax. 82 §68.
ISSFinley. The Proposal', 10.
I56Williams, Sylllar, 34 § 185.
I57Brockclmann. Syt/tax. 4 §6a.
I 58Waltke-O'Connor. Smtax. 573 ＱＮｾＴＳﾧ a.
176 Modality, Ri/en-Itu' and Speech Acts in the P.wlms /1Il1'l'rali\'(' 177

optative usually Deontic English mod<J1 verb 'should' in a conditional protasis: 'Should I make my hed
I
Role A COMPETENT in Sheol ... '. Temporal clauses after IV also occasionally use the cohortative. 171
I<:: ';,/
As with main-clause uses, there are a number of occurrences after ｷ｡ Ｍ｣ｯｮｳ･｣ｵｴｩｶ･ｉＷｾ
Ves No
';,/ where, it is claimed, the cohortative '[konkurriert) mit dem Imperf. cons.. 173 and is
Address A PRESENT
&<:: ';,/
'funktionslos geworden' 174. Since wayiqtol itself has a measure of final force, these
I<:: Ves No occurrences are not as problematic for a coherent theory of the cohortative as are apparently
I I
Directive Commissive Expressive functionless main-clause uses Cpseudo-cohortative').
I I I
SCOMPETENT A-ORIENTED I
Thus the subordinate-clause schema looks as follows:
Role
&<:: ';,/ I<:: ';,/ I
No Ves No English rendering Hebrew example
Ves I
I I I I I I Final Purpose I lie down in order 10 sleep ;')I!!'Nl 'j1:l::lV ')101
hortative prccative promissive purposive expressive Resull/Cond. apodosis Do good 10 your servant l':lY-"Y "0)
... and I'll keep your word l i : l ' ;'iOI!!Nl ...
Thus hortatives require the competence of both Speaker and Addressee, whilst at the other end,
2 Expressive Conditional protasis If I make my bed in Sheol, "1NI!! ;')1':nn
Expressives require the absence of an Addressee at all. It should be noted that the feature of ... lhere you arc 175 l ) ; ' ...

status is not relevant here, since there are no directive cohortatives in the Psalms. Temporal Unlil I underSlood their end OI1'inN" ;"1)':1101-,)1

4.3.1.2. Subordinate Clauses This presentation may also be seen in terms of binary parameters:
To these main-clause types, we need to add several subordinate uses. optative
I
Especially after an imperatival main clause, the cohortative may have the function described
SUBORDINATION
as 'Purpose',159 'intended result',160 'Finalsatz',161 'Nachsatz zu einem ｩｭｰＮＧＬＱＶｾ 'die sich aus 1
FOLLOWING MAIN CLAUSE
dem Befehl ergebende Folge', 163 which 'often occurs after another volitional form ... and &<:: ';,/

Ves No
somelimes after a question' 164. With similar function,165 it may occur in a conditional apodosis ';,/

('then .... ),166 where it most commonly '[folgt) aufImperf. im Vordersatz'.167 I term this use Final Expressive
I I
'final', distinguishing between purpose and result (including conditional apodoses). MAIN CLAUSE DEONTIC UNREAL
I<:: ';,/ &<:: ';,/
More surprising is the use of the cohortative in a conditional protasis Cif .. .'),168
Ves No Ves No
'Bedingungen',169 'Real gedachte Bedingungen' after'im 'in der Vergangenheit' 170. This is the I I I I
resultlapodosis purpose conditional protasis temporal
Epistemic equivalent of the Deontic (optative) sense-one might compare the use of the
Finally, one distinctive structure which deserves mention here is Held's 'factitive-passive'
sequence of identical verbs. Since the second verb (niph '"al) expresses passively the same
159Driver. Te/1ses, 59 §55; Williams, Syfl/ax, 35 §187: Waltke-Q'Connor. S\"II/(Lr. 575 §34.5.2a. action as the first (usually, hiph'"il), and the object of the first is the subject of the second, there
I60Waltke-Q'Connor, Syfl/ar, 575 §34.5.2b.
161 Meyer. Gralllmatik. 101-102 §117.1. is a very close relationship between the two clauses.
162Brockelmann. Synrat. 134 § 135e.
163Bruekelmann. SynrlLr, 165 §176c.
164Waltke-Q'Connor. Syntax, 575 §34.5.2b.
165CoII/rtI Waltke-Q'Connor. SYI/({L<. 573 §34.5.2a. who treat use in prolasis and apodosis 171 E.fI. 73: 17. Gibson. David.<ol/·s Syntax, 83 §68 Rem. 2. The exceptional example of a 3rd-person eohonative
166Waltke-O"Connor. SYI//(Lr. 573 §34.5.2a. with waw consecutive in Ezek 23: 16 (q;m') is also temporal. 'And when she lusted .... she senl ... '.
167Meyer.Grammatik,114§122.3c. I72Gihson. Davidson's Smrax. 83 §68 Rem. 3.
16XGihson, Davidsol/ 's SWrrlu, 83 §68 Rem. 2: Waltke-Q'Connor. SYI//ar, 573 §34.5.2a. Blau claims there are just I73Meycr. Grammarik, 48 § 100Ah.
Ihree examples in the Old Testamenl. Ps 139:8: Joh 16:6: Joh 19: 18: ciled in Waltke-O·Connor. Syntax. 575 174lrsigler, Eil/jiihrUtlg, 95 §17. 1.2.
§345.2h n. 23. I 75Though 139:8 may suggest a kind of gapping comparable to that in 106: 16 as analysed hy O'Connor, Hel>rell'
169 Brockc1mann, Sylllar. 134 §135h. Verse Structure, 128-29. If so, the eohortative here may he onc of purpose, though ;"I)1':!Nl ... O'QV pON-ON
170Brockelmann, S\"IIf/LL 156-57 § IMhy. seems strange.
17K Modality. Reference (lmi Sp(i('ch Ad" 11' th" I',wlnu Imperative 17'1

:O';>-'j?OV9::11 ＧｾｏＡｚｬｏ ＺＧＱｾ ｎ :'1lf;ltJI(-':>l'1' 0'00. ＧＩ Ｚ＾ ｾ［ ｔ 69:15 and about 15% occur in conditional sentences (in either protasis or apodosis). Purpose clauses
Save me from mire so that I don't sink; may I be saved from those who hate me and from depths of water. consistently have 'modal congruence' 183--either:
(ALW)
Main clause-Purpose clause £mmple
This pattern may also explain many other texts, however, in which a imperative is followed by
indicative-indicative 'He is gathering [-ul ... that he may [Ill take [-ul'
a cohortative of related meaning. 176 The pattern may be fientive-passive (e.g. ［ＧｬＱｗｾ 'J,110, juss./impJmqtula-juss./imp./yaqrulll 'Let him not gather I-al ... that he may [Iiltake I·al'
'Help me and may I be saved" 119:117), fientive-stative Ｈ［ＬｴｬＧＺ ｾＧ 'J'l1-:'J, 'Open my eyes
This is Moran's primary evidence for the 'volitive' (i.e. Deontic) nature of yaqtula. He
and may [see' [19: 18), causative-passive (e.g. ;'l1TZJ'J' 'J:::l'W;' 'Restore us ... and May
concludes that the use of yaqtula in purpose clauses 'must ... reflect Canaanite idiom' I84 and
we be saved!' 80:4,8,20) or causative-stative (e.g. ［ＧＱＬｾ 'Jll',';', 'Let me know ... May
that the perfect correspondence with Hebrew usage 'proves conclusively that ... we are dealing
I know!' 39:5; similarly 119:125). Held refers to this as an 'Action-Result' sequence; I would
with a specifically Canaanite morpheme' 185. On the use of yaqtulll in conditional protases,
prefer to view it in terms of synonymous parallelism. Though the level of subordination (if
Moran comments:
there is any) is therefore debatable, it should be noted that these uses agree with our patterns for
In [Hebrew), exactly as in Amarna. cohortative and jussive are frequently employed in conditional
both main and subordinate clauses. sentences of the real type; in [Arabic I. the jussive is regular in the same type, and the subjunctive is also
Only main-clause uses of the cohortative are considered in the following, since these possible, though with the restriction tha! it appears only in the second member of a compound protasis. the
tirst member containing ajussive. 186
subordinate uses are related to questions of the wayyiq.rol, which has not been treated here.
In Byblian, therefore, we see a pattern of uses:
4.3.1.3. Comparative Studies
main clause optative [i.e. Expressive], preeative [i.e. Directivel
4.3. U.1. Byblian
subordinate purpose, intended result
By far the most important comparative material for the study of the Hebrew cohortative comes conditional protasis or apodosis
from Byblian as presented by Moran. I77 Byblian shows the cohortative to be, rather than
In Moran's own words,
ventive in origin, in fact 'a remnant of the earlier "subjunctive"', since 'the use of the
The use of yaqtula in the Byblos leuers is almost without exception that of a volitive, that is, in a main
cohortative is substantially identical with that of yaqtula in Byblos'. I78 Like Arabic, then, clause it is virtually equivalent to a jussive; in a subordinate clause dependent on a volitive it expresses
Byblian has a prefix-conjugation mood pattern of u-a-0 representing indicative-subjunctive- purpose or intended result. Other uses [conditional, after verbs of fearing l87 eu'.1 can be paralleled by the
use of the subjunctive in Arabic,I88
jussive. There is also an energic in -na, which occurs most frequently in questions. 179
Hence the following schema:
'Almost two-thirds'l80 of occurrences have a 'jussive-purposive' sense, whether 'direct
volitive' (optative, precative, directive)181 or 'indirect volitive' (purpose or intended result) 182, I. Directive precative
2, Expressivc optative, conditional protasis
3. Final purpose, result, conditional apodosis
4.3.1.3.2. Arabic
Until Moran's work on BybIian, there was considerable debate as to whether the Hebrew
176Though ( would nOl, with Held, want to make emendations on the basis of it.
I77Moran, W.L., 'Early Canaanite yaqrula', Or 29 (1960) 1-19; 'The Hebrew Language', 64; Waltke-O'Connor, cohortative corresponded formally to the Arabic subjunctive yaqtula or to the energetic
Syrllllx, 573 § 34.5. yaqtulanna. It now seems clear that the energic is represented in Hebrew morphology only by
178Moran. 'The Hebrew Language', 64.
179Moran. 'Early Canaanite yaqlllla', 9.
180Moran, 'Early Canaanite yaqtula', 7, compare 'over seventy per cent', Moran, 'The Hebrew Language', 64.
IRI Moran, 'Early Canaanite vaqf,,{a', 2-5. All of Moran's 36 occurrences arc 3rd-person, most being directives,
where, however, the Addressee is subject, e.g. 'And so may the king give his servanl a garrison', though there are 18'Moran, 'Early Canaanite yaqru{a', 9. A tempting analogy is the use of Greek sunjunctive and optative
also passive forms e.g. yu-da-Ilalll, 'may it he given' and optatives e.g. la yi-is-pu-m-all/, 'May he not write'; this subordinated 10 primary and historic sequence main clauses respectively.
contrasts with the situation in Hehrew, where 3rd-person jussives are most often not addressed to the subject, but IR4Moran, 'Early Canaanite yaqt"I,,', 64.
to the 'Causer', e.g. 'May they die"; the exceptional Hehrew 2nd and 3rd-person cohortatives are all either 185Moran, 'Early Canaanite yaqlllla', IJ.
optalive (Deul 33:16; loh 22:21; Isa 5:19; Ps 20:4), or dependent-temporal (Ezek 23:16 qJre wilh waw- 186Moran, 'Early Canaanite -"aqrula', 15.
consecutive). tinal-result (Ezek 23: 16 with w<lw-consecutive; loh I I: I7). 1871n fact. of course, simply Negative purpose.
IS2Moran. 'Early Canaanile yaqfU/o', 6-7. Moran's 13 Ol.:l:urrcnccs include ISI and 3rd-pcrson forms. 18RMoran, W.L., 'New evidence on Canaanite taqf,,{ti(llo)'. JCS 5 (195 I) 33-35 (3).
IXO Modalit)', Referellce mul Sp('('ch ,'('1.\ in 'lte /).w/",.\ ｉｭｻｊ｣ｾｲｬ ｩＢｉＧ IXI

the particle -na'. Functionally, however, it remains the case that the Hebrew cohortative shares The preceding v. 14 and the a-colon here are both Directive, and in fact there is a clear contrast
much of the semantic range of the Arabic emphatic. made between U7:l'O', 'may they be satisfied', in v. 14 and ［ＧｉｙＺｬｔｖｾ here. Therefore it seems

I. yaq1ll1a suhjunclive, i.e. Ihe grammalical reOex of logical dependence. right to read ;'IY:l ｾｏＧ as Directive. Further Y:l '0 is translated in terms of an experience, nOl just
2..mqllll<ll/lla emphalie fUlUre used in: all altilUde (which might have supported a Commissive reading: 'I will take satisfaction in ... ').
a. asseverations [Commissive I
:"r':;J';"1 1ZI'i' It'':l :l'!':l ;"1l;':l!lIJ. T,:sn 1.:J1ZI' ':l'i?nl '!}:l!' "VN 65:5
b. commands, prohihilions. wishes. and queslions [Directive, Expressive, Interrogalivel
How good it is for the onc you choose and draw near so that he can live in your courts' May we receive
c. condilionals: apodosis of correlative clauses inlroduced by III [Commissive) satisfaction in Ihe goodness of your house, the holiness of your temple!
cl. prolasis alkr 'ill1",,;IR9 lconditionall
Again, Y:l '0 is ambiguous. Kraus and Gunkel read Epistemically 'Laben dlirfen wir uns .. .',
4.3.2. Directive-precative ('requesl-cohorrative ') Dahood Directively 'May we be fully imbued .. ,' and AV and NRSV Commissively 'We shall

'Request-cohortatives' are Directive in that it is the Addressee who is competent to fulfil the be satisfied'. My Directive reading is related in part to the term Ｇｩ ｏｾＮ Unlike the l":l

proposition; they are precative in that they are only ever spoken by a subordinate. Because they formula, which is normally Declarative ('I hereby bless you!') or Expressive ('May you be

do not grammaticalise the Addressee, they involve him pragmatically, requesting that he act as blessed l '), the Ｇｩｏｾ formula is exclamative ('How good it is ... I') but also conditional (' ...

a 'Causer' to realise a state in the life of the Speaker, to cause something to happen to him, or for the man who .. .'). Ｇｩ ｏｾ thus has implied Directive force-it is a prompt to a particular

to cause him to act in some way. It may be this thematic role of 'Causer' which prevents kind of action. In 65:5, this background may support our reading of;'lv:l TV) as Directive-the

'request-cohortatives' and 3rd-person jussives from having directive force-the focus remains Psalmist is asking to be included in the good experienced by one who 'is chosen'.

on the I st-person Speaker. Alternatively, it may concern politeness forms-just as the Psalmist ::1."1'1 '.J!:lO ｏｊＧＭｾｉ '7 ｯｮｾＱＧ［ 8'.';'1-':J 61:4-5

often avoids reference to God by using I st and 3rd-person Deontic forms, so God may :;'1,?0 T?P "'9:l ［ＢＱＰｮｾ ｄＧｐ ＿ ｾ ＱＢ［Ｚｊｾ ｬＮ ［ＢＱＬｕｾ
May you be a refuge to me, a strong lOwer againsl the enemy'
deliberately avoid reference to himself
May I live in your lent for ever, take refuge in the shelter of your wings. Selah (ALWl
It was shown above (1.2) how 'request-cohortatives' and Directive 3rd-person jussives share
Here, ［ＧｉｩＱＩｾ is read as Directive in the light of the preceding 'precative perfect' and, indeed,
a particular argument structure ('May 1 be ... I' / 'May they be ... I'). The force of these form
Ihe elllire surrounding context, which is precative.
is that of indirect speech acts-Expressive forms ('May X happen!') used with Directive
:'nv)':! T'v!:l Ｇｾ ;'1;!':1':;l ;"1.:;J";:tnN' 119:45
function ('Make X happen!').190 Thus these forms may be compared with the optative use of And may I walk in freedom, for I have pursued your precepts. (AL W)
the subjunctive in Romance languages: 'Que j'habite .. .' 61:5, 'que soit devaste' 69:26;191 Here again, I read Directive because it is in God's hands where the Psalmist walks-the
since this is not available idiomatically in English, English normally uses distinct causative Addressee is competent.
verbs such as 'to tell' Y"';'I, 'to guide' lii;'l. :D'r,l-'P'OVr,101 'i:o.IZJO· ;'1.'?:QN ＱｾＢＭｎｏｬ［Ｚ｟Ｇ ＱＢ［ 0'00, 'J?'::l;'1 69:15
In direct speech in narrative parts of the Old Testament, the request-cohortative occurs Save me from mire so Ihat [don't sink; may [be saved from those who hale me and from depths of water.

frequently as a politeness form on the lips of a subordinate. There are relatively few examples (ALW)

in the Psalms, perhaps owing to the forceful. direct tone of this genre. ＺＧｊｾ ".'':1-;'10 ;'1¥'I'( N'i1-;'10 '9'. ＢｾＰＱ ':Sv ;'1;.;'1' 'Jp',,;'1 39:5
Lel me know, LORD. my end and what the measure of my days is! May I know how flecling 1 am' (A LW)
ＺｬｮｾＧｯ Y'1:>;:t::J';'1J;:lZ1N T.JQ ;'1lnN v'::l:l. 'i!'t 17:15
As for me. Olay I sce your face in (my) righteousness! May I receive satisfaction, when I awake. in your
These forms, parallel with causative imperatives, appear to be clear main-clause Directives,
likcness' (ALW) however, they may be subordinate according to Held's 'factitive-passive' sequence. 192
Three further main-clause cohonatives are cited as optative (and thus implicitly Directive)
by MicheI 193 -;'I)Ji) 20:6; 1"10: 35: 18; ｾｉＧ［＾Ｂ 69:31. However, one of our main criteria for
distinguishing Directive forms has been the compelence of Speaker or Addressee, and verbs of
189Wrighl. Grammar 2. 24 § 14; 43 § 19d.
190The relationship of the 'Causer' to Ihe suhject of a eausativc (hiph'il) imperative has already been noted (39:5;
praise such as these usually refer to actions within the Speaker' competence, and so are
69:15).
191 Jacquct. L.. Les P.wl/IlIles et le coeur de /'/1OIIIIII£': ElUde texlllelle. lirteraire el doerrillale. 3 vols (Belgique: tlJ2 Scc scction 4.3.1.2. above.
Duculol. 1975) illlne 19JMichd. T"1II1mm "lid ｓ｡ｲｾｳｬ･ ｕ ｬｧＮ 155 §25,R2-4.
182 Modality. Reference and Spcech Af"I.\ in lh(' j',"oIIllJ IlIIperutil<e IX.\

Commissive. Nevertheless, there are a few cases where verbs of praise appear in context to be The presence of two distinct parties (Speaker(s) and Addressee(s» is often made explicit by thc
used Directively: use of an auxiliary imperative, often of a verb of motion: 198
ＺＧｖＡＩｾ i\l..,:p ｊＺＱｲＮＬｾ Ｇｾｊ ＿ＭｩＱｉ i:1'N)")!'1't l.'OJ:l::l Ｚ Ｑ ｾ ｏ ｖ ｎ Ｑ ＺＱｾＧＮｊ 31:8 : " r ':>!'I)V'-OV ":W-N':>, '1)0 ＰＷＧｮＺＱｾ 1:1':> ｾＰＱＢ 83:5
May I rejoice and be happy in your love. Ihal you have perceived my amiclion, you have known it from Ihe They say, "Come, Ict us wipe them out as a nalion: let thc name of Israel be rcmemhered no more."
amiction, of my soul. (ALW) (NRSV)
Here, rejoicing is understood as the natural consequence of the main request, which is that God :1JpV' "3':> ＺＱｊ＿Ｇ ｾ :1l:1'':> ｊＢｾＱＺ 1:1':> 95:1-6
would 'perceive' and 'know', It should also be noted that the preceding colon, ［Ｌ ＧＭ ［＾ｾ Ｇｊｾ :1':> ｾＧ ［ｊ i'11"'':I1::l' :1)1i'1::l ＱＧｾＡＩ :1-?'i?J
'nnO::l, is normally followed by a request form such as ［ＧｔｖＺｬｾＭＧ［＾ ..194 :1JVr :1.1.:1'-'J!)':> ＺＱｾＢｬｊＧ :1l!):1J1 :1;r'1i1VJ 1N::l.
Finally, there may be some further complication of Speaker-Addressee relations: o comc, let us sing to the LORD; Ict us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation'
ＺｔＧ Ｚ＾ｬＨｶｯＧ Ｚ＾ｾ :1;.:1' N.':>Q' ':»'J 1J'.:1':>N'OV::l1 ｬｩ ｊ＿ＱＮｖＧｾ ＺＱｾｊＩ 20:6
Lct us come into his presence with thanksgiving; ICI us make ajoyful noise to him wilh songs of praise! .

May wc shout for joy over your victory. and in the name of our God set up our hanners. May the LORD
o come, lel us worship and bow down, let us kneel hefore the LORD. our Maker' (NRSV)
fultill all your petitions. (NRSV) The Directive force of these cohortatives is marked not only by paragogic he. but also by their

3rd-person jussives are normally addressed to God CCauser'), with the Enemy as subject dependence on the modal verbs of motion l';>;' and ｾＧＺ ｬＬ

(Patient or Experiencer) of a passive or stative verb: 'May they be destroyed!'; in Psalm 20, ＺＱＩｮｾ 10V :190,.,J1 'f1N :1::1'" Ｇ ｾ 34:4
however, 3rd-person jussives are addressed to the king (Experiencer), with God as subject
o magnify the LORD wilh mc, and let us exalt his name together. (NRSV)
Here. the inclusive cohortative is paralleled by an imperative with' nt<.
(Agent): 'May he answer you!'. Similarly, request-cohortatives are normally addressed to God
:1;:J Ｑｊｖ ｉｾＱＺ :1'?'P :1).:1' :1)!'l! ＰＱＧＺ ｲｾ Ｑ 118:24
CCauser'), with the Speaker as subject (Patient or Experienccr) of a passive or stative verb:
This is the day that the LORD has made; let us rejoicc and he glad in il. (NRS V)
'May I be saved"; in Psalm 20:6, however, the request-cohortative is addressed to the king
That this is hortative is shown by the context of I st-person praise together with imperative and
CCauser'), with the Psalmist as subject (Experiencer), though we know that it is in fact not the
2nd-person jussive calls to the community to praise:
king who is understood as the final 'Causer', but God, These three thematic roles are related in
... "':1 ... l001.,N ... l',N ... li1N .. , :1"N ... noN' ... "'.':IN' ... .,ON' ... "':1
that a desire is expressed before God that he will cause a victory to be experienced by the king
Finally, an example where a linguistic explanation improves on cult-functional and
with the result that the people rejoice,I95
etymological answers:
4,3.3. Directive-hortative (tme 'cohortative) ＺＱ［ ｊＧＺＱｾｉｊｩｚＷ ｏｾ［Ｂ ':>J)::l ＧＺｬＡｾ ＢＺ ｲｾ ［ ｬＮ ＺＱｾＮ ［ｬ Ｂ ｏｾ lJ;l;:J 66:6
True hortative cohortatives are 'inclusive plural' forms, that is, those in which both the He turned the sea into dry land; within the river, they went over on fool. Therefore lel us rejoice in him!
(ALW)
Speaker(s) and the Addressee(s) are competent. 196
Unless we amend with most translations to mOTVJ 'we rejoiced' (AY, NRSY), we might have
e.g. Caroline said to lustine. "Let's go out to dinner!"
The Hesseys said to their cell group. "Let's go punting'" to consider either Kraus's theory of a Jordan festival (for which -';'J is most unusual) or

They are therefore not the same as the 'exclusive plural' Expressive or Commissive 'resolve- Dahood's reading of 0' and -';'J as a parallel pair (so Byblian) and 0 TV as 'behold!' (so

cohortatives' , 197 where the action is effected solely by the Speakers. Akkadian). Instead, it is worth noting that many languages take (exophoric) place-deictic terms
e.g. Caroline and lustine said, "Let's go out to dinner!" for use in (endophoric) text-dei xis, This is most probably the case here, with 010 meaning 'in
The Hesseys said, "We'd like to take you out punting'"
this (fact)'; the English 'therefore' is, of course, also derived from place-deictic 'there',

4,3.4. Commissive/Expressive ('resolve-cohortative')

194Culley's formula 37 and relaled forms: 31 :2; 25:2: 71: I; 141 :8; 13:6; 7:2; 31: 15-16.
Up to this point in the discussion, I have usually referred to 'resolve-cohortatives', where the
1955o Michel. Telllpom lIlId Sw:stellllllg. 157. though he seems to equate 'Wunsch/Bille' (Dircclivc) and
'LobgclUhdc' (Commissive) as againsl 'Sclhslaufforderung' (Commissive)! Speaker is competent, as 'Commissive' utterances, that is. those which 'commit the Speaker 10
1965omc languagcs in West Africa and Australia havc cxclusive ("we and not you') and inclusive ('wc/l and you') some future action' (Searle). In form-critical terms, this is the 'vow of praise':
ISI-person plural forms.
197CO/llr{l Michcl. Telllp0r{l IIIIlI SlI1:stellllllg, 155 §25 and Wallke-O·Connor. SYlltaX. S73 §34.5.la. who fail to
distinguish. IY8Sec ahove, section 2.3.
IK4 Modality. Rl"/('f('lIce lInd Speech Act.\' ill the PSlJlms

ｾＮｉｐＧＭ ［Ｚ 10lQ'" ＺＱｾ Ｇ O:U;l Ｚ ｬＢｾ P-"3: IK:50

. what we should lCel tempted to say is that any utterance which is in fact a performative should he
redueihle. or expandihle, or analysahle into a form. or reproducihle in a form, with a verb in the tirst person
For this I will extol you. 0 LORD. among the nations. and sing praises to your name. (NRSY)
singular present indicative active. 205
::J'O-':l :1p' ::l0TZl ｾＢＱＺ ｾｉｊＺＡ Ｑ Ｍｪｬ ;"I.;l"}J:J 54:8
Thus though Gunkel is describing the -vo\v of praise', his definition fits perfectly the
With a freewill offering I will sacrilice to you; I will give thanks 10 your name, 0 LORD, tor it is good.
INRSYl grammatical conditions at least for explicit performatives. Thus we may borrow Austin's first
Place (O'1J:J), reason ＨｐＭＧｊｾＩ and manner (e.g. ,'J:l:J) deixis strengthen Ihis interpretation. contextual criterion for performatives in order to distinguish between Commissive vow and
In other cases, especially at the beginning of a Psalm, there is clearly no future reference: Expressive call:
If 'I apologize' is to he happy. the statement Illust he Irue that:
:'" ':;1'/0( ＢＧｾＭＱｚｔＹｮｄ 'Jf1'"'' '? ;"I1;"1'.:p:l0'-'1( 30:2
(i) I am apologizing. 206
I will cxtol you. 0 LORD. for you have drawn me up, and did nOllet my tOes rejoice over me. (NRSY)
:,!-n.o'?,V" "p:lTZl' :1:;Ji::;JNl ＰｾＢｬ ｾＢＱ ｬＧ 1°0'-'1( 145: I
The language of speech acts has thus been useful in analysing formally what has previously
I will extol you. my God and King. and bless your name forever and ever. (NRSY) only received rather vague informal description. However, it may be objected to an Expressive
Here, then, and in the absence of contextual indications to the contrary, it would seem better to translation of ｬｏｯＧ ｾ as 'r exalt you' that the normal form for this reading should be qaral.
choose an Expressive interpretation, translated as an explicit performative: since it was shown above that performativity is by definition Indicative and therefore takes the
:Ti""N"!:lJ-":;J ;"I"'I!:lOI(· ';:J"-":;J:J ;"11;"1' ｾＢｉ ［ 92-3 qatal form [-MODj.207 The answer lies in the fact that we are here concerned with an
:11:"V 10TZl :1)011( l;;l ＺＱ［ｓＧｖｾ ＺＱｾｏｔｚｬｾ Expressive, not a Declarative. Declarative utterances such as ＩｖＡｊＺＮｾＱｪＧ usually occur in the
I acknowledge the LORD with all my heart. I recount all your miracles. explicit performative form (here, qiira/), and have been said to
I am happy and I rejoice in you. I make music about your name, Most High. (ALW) effect immediate changes in the institutional state of affairs and tend to rely on elaborate extra-linguislic
This ambiguity between Commissive ('vow of praise') and Expressive ('call of praise') has institutions.

been noted by several scholars: 199 By contrast, Expressive utterances such as ｾＧ ｊ ＬＰｬ may occur in any form (especially
Idas Ge!iibdel lindet sich aucb gcwohnlich am SchluB des babylonischen Klageliedes. Dort folgt es interjections or volitional forms), and are concerned with:
unminelhar auf Klage und Sine und erscheint damit als ein abschlieBendes. besonders wirksames Mine! del' Adopting of an attitude; attitudes and .wc;ol behMiour: express a psychological state in S.
Oh<:rre<!ung des GOlles. 101 hebraischen Klagclied wird das Geliihde von del' Bille durch die GewiBheit del'
Thus, though an expression such as ［ＢｉＺ Ｉ ｊｾ is often thought to impaI1 a blessing, it in fact only
Erhorung getrennt. Damit I1iIIt auf diescs ein andcres Licht. Es ist nicht mehr Millel der Oberredung, es ist
expresses a blessing, since unlike in the case of ＧｮｾＺｊＡｖ J, there is in fact no 'extra-linguistic
Ausdruck eines aufwallenden DankgefUhles. (GunkeI 2OO )
Ｇｮｾ lOTZl ｾｏｬＺＡｩＱ ist niehl die Formel eines Geliibdes. das del' Klagende in seinem Lied ahlegt. sondern institutions' for blessing. The existence of speech acts in qiiral and yiqtol forms of the same
bereits del' Einsatz des Dank- und Lobliedes (Ps 66,16; 109,30; 107,32) (Kraus on 22:23 201 ) verb therefore seems problematic-it is possible that whilst the quite frequent ;'Di:J ｾ is
... das Lobgeliibde. das dann oft iibergeht in Goneslob. (Weslermann 202 )
Expressive, those few occurrences of 'n:n:J (Gen 17:20) or '):l,:J (118:26) refer to specific
In other words, as the Psalmist makes his vow of future praise, he 'overnows' with an
ritual context.
expression of praise in the present. Frost terms this' Asseveration by Thanksgiving' .203
Looking back now to our example above (9:2-3), we can see that these verbs fit well with
The form of this quite ambiguous utterance is as follows: Searle's paradigmatic expressives (thank, congratulate, apologise, condole, deplore, welcome).
Die Form des Geliibdes ist, da del' Betel' selbst hier zu handeln gedenkt [i.e. future vowl. natiirlicherweise
These are the social ＨｬＢｾＩ and expressive Ｈ［ＬｮｯＡｖｾＩＲＰＸ terms of Psalmic praise, the substance
ein Satz. dessen Yerh in del' ersten Person steht. Del' Modus ist entweder das Imperfekt odeI' del'
Kohortativ 204 of 'declarative praise' (Westermann).
This characterisation from Gunkel bears striking similarities to Austin's initial grammatical Finally, the problem of translation into English remains, since 'I will exalt' sounds future

definition of explicit performatives: (despite its being derived from German volitional wo//ell, 'to want') and-as we have seen-'I

205 Austin, Ho,,' to do Thillgs with Words. Of course. he goes on to include many passive utterances as well as 2nd
199 Also Frost. 'Asseveration hy Thanksgiving'.
and 3rd-person lorms. It is this dellnition that is formalised hy the perfonnative hypothesis (initially by Austin
200Gunkcl. Eilllei/llllg, 248.
himselt) into a matrix clause for all utterances: I (herehyl Vp you (Ihat) S'; Levinson. Pragmatics. 244.
201 Kmus, Pm/mell, 330.
206This is elsewhere referred to as the functionalteSl for explicit pcrlomatives: "To say x was to do y'.
202WeSlermann. Lob IIlId Klage, 44.
207 Ch. 3, section 2.4.5 ahove.
20)Frost 'Asseveration by Thanksgiving',
208Lyons. Semoll/;cs 1.50-1.
2C14 Gunkcl. Eilllei/llllg. 248.
 Mm/oli'y. f{('jl'ri'lJce "lid Speech Acts ill the Pxalnu ImpCTlII;l'I.' IH7
Plo

exalt' sounds performative. Whichever form is chosen, its Expressive force should be :')'Y T?!? ［ＧＺＤｙ ｾ l7n n-T":l l'lN) i':>':>TDN 32:H
I will instruct you and teach you the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you. (NRSY)
remembered.
4.3.4.2, Commissive-purposive (true 'resoLve ')
4.3.4./, Commissive-promissive ('vow of praise')
As should be clear from the flow-chart above. purposive is distinguished from promissive by
Moran comments that,
the lack of Addressee-orientation. Though a commitment is made to the Addressee, it is not for
Iln Byhlian, Hehrew and Arahicl, it is only in the comeXl of a condilional sentence that we "nd yaqlula
with the force of a future assevcrative [i.e. Commissivel 209 the Addressee's benefit, but purely issuing from the volition of the Speaker. These could be

This may be seen functioning within one colon: said to be true 'resolve' cohortatives, since they are 'resolutions' or 'promises to the self,
:;'"}3N Tpn ;';.;" 'm; ,., 119: 145 The resolve is perhaps made most clear by the term' i'l,ON, '[ said (10 myself)' or 'I
... answer me, 0 LORD. I will keep your statutes. (NRSY) decided':
This is related to the fact that vows of praise tend to occur at the end of a lament. 2lO :"))':> Yp"} 'i1:l o'pm;> 'p':> ;"1."}OTDN '.)lil1':>:l I'np!1o ":;J" ;':'l0TDI'( ｎｾＧｮ 39:2

Typical examples are: I said, "I will keep my ways from sinning with my tongue; [ will keep a muzzle over my mouth as long as

:11:':>Y ｄｔｏＭＢ［ｾＧ ＾ＺＳＧｊｪｬ Ｇｾ ｄ ［ Ｂ［ｾＧ ;"1:nN 7;18 there's a wicked man hefore me." (... then' spoke with my tongue ... )

I will give 10 the LORD the thanks due to his righteousness, and sing praise to the name of the LORD, the :'n'l.:;1 T):;1'''.;''1l.;''11P:> ［ＢＱＮ ｽＡＺ＾ｏｾ Ｇｮ Ｑ［ＩｎｾｏｉＧＨ 7J:IS
Most High. (NRSY) If' had said, '" will talk on in this way." , would have been untrue to the circle of your children. (NRSY)
ｬｾＮ Ｇ＾Ｚ Ｉ ｮ ｴ Ｌ［ ｬＺｾＢ O';-;,:>I'(-OTD ｾＱＺ［＾Ｇ＿ＬＢ 69:31 The Psalmist may resolve to meditate, n'w: 214
I will praise the name of God with a song; [ will magnify him with thanksgiving. (NRSY) :Tnn,1'( ｭＬ ＧｪｎｬＧ［ ＱｉｔＬ ｄｾ T.';?!:>:l 119:15
There may be explicit reference to the vow: I will meditate on your precepts, and fox my eyes on your ways. (NRSY)

:01.' 01: ''',,) Ｇｯ Ｚ＾ｾ＿ 'P'? lDTD ＼ＱｾｄＩＢ［ P 61:9 Ｚ［ＢＱｲ ｊＧ ｚＷｾ Ti;1il'(':>!)) ＧｾＺｬ 1)1;"1 ,1;=1:> ";"1 145:5
So I will always sing praises to your name, as I pay my vows day after day. (NRSY) On the glorious splendor of your majesty, and on your wondrous works. I will meditate. (NRSY)
A vow in the middle of a Psalm may attest the Psalmist's 'GewiBheit der Erhorung':21I or to praise
:1':>':>;:11< 013!? 0li:l :l) ＧＺ＾ｾｩ＿ ｬ 1"1'(, 35:18 :'D:l 'Jl"?;"1n "0;:1' np-':>:;>:l ＨＧｬｮＭ Ｌ［ｾ ;';)1:;11'( 34:2
Then I willlhank you in the great congregation; in the mighty throng' will praise you. (NRSY) I will hless the LORD al all times; his praise shall continually be in my mouth. (NRSY)

The vow is not necessarily one just of praise, but may also involve the making of a sacrifice: The community may resolve to worship God:
:';:;':>1'( 0',;-;':>1'( ."b:l 1,lNl '.':>' i nDOTD '1'(-':>1'( 0';;':>1'( ｮｾ 10-':>1< Ｑｾ Ｇ Ｂ［ 43:4 :l'?l"} O,'"1rt'? ;';!'1J'iTD)' "v'):>TDO':> ｾｬＺＱＢ［ 132:7
Then' will go to the altar of God, to God my exceeding joy; and I will praise you with the harp, 0 God, my "Let us go to his dwelling place; let us worship at his footstool." (NRSY)
God. (NRSY) The Enemy may resolve to break free from the dominion of God's king:
or a vow to testify to what God has done: :1I,)'[1:l)1 1)90 ［ＢＱＺ ＾Ｇ＿ｔｄｾｬ 10'pnOlp-jll'( ［Ｇｩ＿ｮｾｬＮ 2:3
:':l1:V: ｬＧｾＱ Ｈ O'Nt;lr:J,'T;J"}' ｏＧｾ ｚＷＡＩ ［ＢＱＺ ＬＰＧ＿ｾ 51:15 212 "Let us burst their honds asunder, and cast their cords from us." (NRSY)
Then I will teach transgressors your ways. and sinners will return 10 you. (NRSY) The Enemies' resolve may be marked with ,ON:
Psalm 101 appears to bea royal pledge of obedience (Kraus: 'eine von der Intention des :0';'':>1'( ｭｾｯ ｮｾＧｬ ＿ ［ＢＱｾＧＺ ＿ ｬＧｏｾ Ｇｐｾ 83:13
Bekenntnisses durchpu!ste LoyalilatserkHirung'213), though only a few 1st-person forms are who said. "Let us lake the pastures of God for our own possession." (NRSY)

marked as Deontic, Finally, God himself may express his resolve

Finally, promises may also be made by God himself: :"1;)1< n,?o j:>0P' O;Jl!I ｾＱＺｔ＾Ｇ＿ｪ［ ;,i,':>YN lil1'i?:l ,:l' 0';"1':>1'( 60:8
Gud has promised in his sancllIary: "With exultalion , will divide up Shechem. and ponion oul Ihc Yalc of
Succoth. (NRSY)
209Moran, 'Early Canaanite yaqluta', 15,16.
210Gunkel lisls 7: IR; 27:6; 43:4: 51: 15: 57:8: 69:31; 86: 12. Wcstcrmann lists 79: 13: 80: 18: 115: 16-18. Further
cxamples might include 22:23; 35:27-28: 54:8: 71 :22.
211 Kraus. Psalmell, 429. Compare Gcrstcnhcrger. Psalms. 152. Similarly. 144:9.
212Similarly 45: 18.
214Similarly, 119:48.
2tJKraus, Psalmell, R5R.
 Modolity. RC/"rel/a l/I/d Speech Acts il/ the P.W/lms I",p('ral;,>e Ill')
IllS

4.3.4.3. Expressive ('call afpraise ') For this, see the discussion of ;"-,'7'7;, above (section 3.4.1.) and that on the relationship
Finally, Expressive utterances are those which have no Addressee, but are solely an expression between calls to praise and vows to praise below (section 7.1.).

of the Speaker's attitude. Meditation may also be the subject of an Expressive utterance: 217
Most typically, Expressive utterances occur at the beginning of a Psalm, in an initial ｾｖＬＧｮ ［Ｚ T,,'':>'':>r:;l'.l?VJ;l-':>:;>.:I 'j"'.JC1' 77:13
expression of praise. In songs of thanksgiving (Westermann's 'declarative' praise), this has ( contemplate all your work, and on your deeds ( meditate. (ALW)

been considered by Gerstenberger (following Criisemann) as an offertory formula ('I am giving Or the declaration of a formal statement: 218

thanks to you').215 This cannot be correct, since it interprets as Indicative forms which are :lTV':> ［ＬＺ ＾ＮＬｶｾ In':l1N... 50:21
... But now ( rebuke you. and lay the charge before you. (NRSV)
markedly Deontic.
:Tf1'N':>tlJ-':>:;> ｾｏｬｴＱＺＢ［ ｉＺＮ＾［ ＧＭ ｾ ;".;"1' ;"1;""N 9:2-3 4.3.5. Epistemic Functions
:l;'':>V :pv ［ＢＱＩｏｬｾ 1;;1 ;';,l':>VN' ;"1r:t0VN It was argued in chapter 3 above that long-form yiqtol forms the basis of an Epistemic system,
I praise the LORD with all my heart. ( recount all his miracles
whilst short-form yiq!i51 ('jussive'), together with'req!illii ('cohortative'), forms the basis of a
I am happy and rejoice in you. I make music to your name, Most High. (ALW)
Deontic system. 'Skewed' forms were noted, such as the Deontic 'precative perfect' and
These forms do not describe the Speaker (self-description, which would require hii' qi5!el, the
'preceptive imperfect', and the Epistemic 'prophetic perfect' and wilqiiral. One unusual use of a
Cursive present), nor the speech itself (explicit performative, which would require qii!al), nor
D-system form was noted-;'::I'7J, 'we will go' in Genesis 22:5, and it was commented that this
do they refer to some future act of praise (Commissive). Instead, they are simply an expression
was related to the Commissive-promissive function, though 'shading into' the Epistemic.
of praise, comparable with expressions such as ［Ｌｮｾ :l1t:l ;'0::1 or ［Ｌｮｾ 1'..,:1·
Here, we consider two Epistemic functions of the cohortative, possibility and necessity.
The song of thanksgiving may begin with the formula ;''''OIN' ;'''''!l1N:
Gibson comments that,
:''''::l:J-'ll'C ［ＢＱｾｏ ＡｱＧ ［ＢＱ Ｚ Ｇｖｾ O,!.,':>N '.:I':> ｾ＿Ｌ 108:2-4
... it is not likely that notions of obligation, compulsion or possibility arc present in the form itself219
:iD!?' ［ＢＱ Ｚ Ｇｖｾ i,i:J' ':>.:IJCl ;"1":1'V
This may be well illustrated by considering his examples of can (Exod 32:30, Jer 6: 10) and
:O'(o:lN-':>:;l ＢｾＱＰＧ Ｂ ;'1;"1' O'.OJ;:;l l.,'N
must (Isa 38: 10, Jer 4:21), all of which in some way express lexically the dubitative context,
My heart is steadfast, God; ( sing and make music. even my glory,216
two of them being Interrogative.2 2o They all further involve an external possibility or necessity,
Awake, 0 harp and lyre' I call the the dawn to awake!
( acknowledge you among the nations, LORD, and I make music about you among the peoples. (ALW) showing them to be Epistemic.

though it may also end a hymn (104:33). The relationship between Deontic and Epistemic systems was considered in chapter I, where
. In hymns ('descriptive' praise), an expressive cohortative appears to stand in a similar place it was shown that Deontic permission and obligation are related to Epistemic possibility and

to an imperative: necessity respectively.22J This fact underlies the 'skewed' functions considered in chapter 3, as
:;'1;"-"1'( 'VD) '.':>':>Cl ;':-'':>':>;:1 146:1-2 well as those considered here-since short-form yiq!ol has been shown to cover the entire range
:',,'V.:I 'i:l':>I'(' ［ＧＺｉｯｾ ＧｾｄＺ ｬ ;'!;" ［ＢＱＷＧＺ＾ｃｬｾ from permission to obligation, it is to be expected that its 'skewed' uses will cover possibility
Praise the LORD' Praise the LORD, my soul! to necessity.
I praise the LORD throughout my life; I make music to my God as long as (live. (ALW)
4.3.5.1. Possibility ('can ')
:'D.:I ＱＢｾＧＰ Ｈ V''''I'( i"l1. i.,':> ［ＢＱＺＧＮｬｚｉｾ 07'V ;'1;"1'. ';"'01} 89:2·6
Epistemic Possibility is mentioned briefly in most treatments of the cohortative. 222 In the
:O'V"i' ':>;'i'.:I ｾｬＧＢＺＨｉ ;').;"1' ｬｴ＾ＺＧｾ 0'90/ ,.",',
I sing the loving acts of the LORD forever; to every generation I recount your faithfulness with my mouth. present work, it has already been considered at length in our discussion of the verbal system,
And may the heavens acknowledge your wonder, LORD, and your faithfulness in the assembly of holy
ones. (ALW) 217Similarlv 119:55
21H Also 2:7 ;'iDON; 42: 10 ［ｾＧｏｩＱＢ 78:2 ;"1 V , .:II'( ... ［ＢＱｮ ｄｾ［ 122:11 ;"1i.:l.,I'(; 122:9 ;"1Vi'.:II'(.
2lSGerstenbergcr, Psalms, 73-74. Compare Eskhult's "coincident" qii!al; Eskhult. Stlldies ill Verbal Aspect, 21. 219Gibson. Davidsoll',I' SYlllax. 83 §68 Rem. 3.
Sce also the discussion of pcrformativily in ch. 3. section 2.4.5. above. 220... '"iOI'( 'JI'( .... '''O-''V . ... '':>'V .... 'O-':>V. Sce also Driver. Te1/.l'es. 59 §55.
216Reading as coordinated binol1lination, i,e. 'My heart is steadfast: I sing and make music, God even my glory.'; 221 Ch. I. section 2.1.3.2.SlUdies in Verbal Aspect, ibson.
O'Connor, Hebrew Vene SrnKtllre, 112·13. 12l\. 222Driver. TellSes. 59 *55: Gihson, Davidson '.I' Sl'IlIax, 113 *68 Rem, .1: Waltke-O'Connor. Sl'IlIax, 573 §34.5.la.
11)0 Moda/ity. Refe'-ctlce and Speech Act.\" ill lhe IJ'iulms IlIIl'erative l'i1

though under a different name-pOTentialis as a presenl Epistcmic function of long-form However, he then goes on, on the assumption that the cohortative must always be Deomic. to
.l'iqtol 223 The same term is used by Moran in his treatment of Byblian yaqtula, noting that argue weakly that there is in fact an element of volition present in these cases. Finally, in any
several of his forms which are not otherwise accounted for occur in questions: examples where no volition is arguable, he refers to the cohortative as having lost its
In all "I' these occurrences a potenlialmeaning would tit ｾＲｬＮｹｴ｣･ｦｲｰ meaning. 229 This is of course not the view taken here-the cohortative of necessity does not
Waltke-O"Connor describe this function as 'when the speaker's will involves dubiety, an involve volition, but is an Epistemic function of this D-system form. 23o
indefinite potentiality'.225 The cohortative of necessity occurs most frequently in the Psalms with the verbs n' TO, 'to
It was shown for long-form yiq!ol that the present potentialis function can cover not only moan' and O1D;'1, 'to mumble':2J1
ability.226 but also liability, and this is also the case in Gibson's examples:
O:>ilNtm 'v:> ;"!:l:>N '';>'N Exod 32:30 ... I have 10 mumhle. (ALW)
Perhaps I can alOne for your sin. [abililyl :'';>';7 Vql!1'1. ;'P;'N1 ;'':1'!D':C ＮｾＢＱＺＧｏ ';7:>1 :>'p 55:18
1V0l!1'1 ;"1,'nll ;',:>,N 'O-';>V Jer6:10 ... I have 10 moan and mumble ... (ALW)
Against whom shall [speak and lestify, thallhey may hear" (Iiabilityj It may refer to other expressions of mourning:
Jeremiah 6: 10 is not concerned with the prophet's ability to speak, but with the liability that ::>:'N l't:1t:> l'?N ";7-;"197 'J.l1 n :;'lV ;'1;l7 "v';>o ';>N';> ;'":101N 42:10
when he speaks, people will listen; this is a further examplc of the conditional element in I say to God. my rock. "Why have you forgonen me') Why must [ walk about mournfully becausc the

Epistemic Possibility. enemy oppresses me"" (NRSV)

Since, as has been mentioned, Possibility is the Epistemic equivalent of Deontic Permission, ｬＺ ＡＱｾ Ｂ［ 'TON ｾｐＱｎｬｩＧ ｏｾＡｬＧ l!))1 ｾ＿Ｇ ｾＧ 88:16
[ am wretched and have been on the poinl of death from my youlh. [ have been weighed down with fear of
it is to requests (for Permission) that this use of the cohortative is most closely related. This is
you and (had to) despair. (ALW)
the reason for Waltke-O'Connor's incorrect description of Possibility as 'optative'. One good
Or to situations of danger:
example from the Psalter is in fact conditioned by the optative modality of the preceding
clause: I have to lie down among lions ... (ALW)
ＺＰＱｐｬＡ ｾＧ ;"1!;l1.l!':C ＾ＺＢｾＱＰ ':>N. ',-,n'-'o 'ON1 55:7
4.3.6. Negative
So thal I say, "0 that I had wings like lhe dove' [could lly away and res!." (ALW)
Another is in fact formally unmarked The Negated cohortative occurs principally in one formulaic expression: ｏＱｔＧｾｎＭ＿ＺＲＳ
:,:;n nr,nl'e Ｎｾ＾［Ｇ 011;"1'-"l!1-nN ｾｉｚＱＬＢ TN 137:4 :'" ';I'N 1;S';>V:-';>l'e ･Ｇｬ＾［ ＭｎｾＱＯｯ ｰＧＬｾＱ ｴｮ 'i:!';>N 25:2
How could we sing lhe Lord's song in a foreign land? (NRSV) o my God, in you [ lruSI: do not lel me be put to shame; do nOllet my enemies exult over me. (NRSV)
It is usually part of an expression of trust, usually with ' ｮｾ ｬｾ or ' n'on ｬ ｾ (31 :2; 71: I),
4.3.5.2. Necessity ('must')
which may be inverted (TnN..,v ':I ［ＧＱｔｏＧｾｎＭ＿ 31:18). Other elements which may take the
Necessitative 'must' is discussed at length by Driver,227 who describes cohortative must as 'the
place of the Negated cohortative in this position are jussive (' ｔｏｾｊ il1n-?N 141 :8; Ｌｾ＿ ?)'
vexati.uima quaestio of Hebrew syntax'. He characteristically gives a good pre-scientific
13:6) and imperative (')l:'TO';'1 7:2; 'J?'::m31:15-16), suggesting that ［ＧＱｔｏｾｎＭ＿ should be
explanation of the relationship between Deontic and Epistemic function:
... the intention or wish Ivolilionl which the cohorlative properly expresses. appears 10 be so limited and read as precative, 'May I not be ashamed!'. The 'unmarked cohortative' ｔｏＧｾｎＭＧ may occur
guided by external conditions imposed upon lhe speaker Ihat Ihe idea of impulse from wilhin seems ID in the same position:
disappear before thal of compulsion from without 228 Ｚｬｾ ';"0':1-':> l!11.:JN·-';>l'e ＱｴＺ［ｾＧ＿Ｉ 'l!1!:l),;'1)Oo/ 25:20
o guard my life. and deliver me; do not lel me he pUlto shame, for [ lake refuge in you. (NRSV)
ｃＧｾｓＳＲ ch. 3. seelion 2.4.3.2.1. above, Most striking, however, is the occurrence of E-system forms in this position:
22 4 Moran. 'Early Canaanite yaqtllla', 19 n.l.
225Waltke-0'Connor, Syntax, 573 §34.5.1 a.
226S ee also Jer 20: 10. 22<JOriver, Tenses, 55-6 S51
227Driver. Tel/ses. 55-58 §51-3. 2JOFor an E-system example. see 81 :6.
228Driver. rellws. 55 §5!. Citing also Oclillseh on 55:3: 'ich soli oder ich III1ISS von Selbsterregw,gel/. die von 231 Also 77:4.7. This has sometimes been rclcrred 10 as the 'emphatic indicalive' use of Ihe cohonative.
ausscn bcdingl sind'; Driver. Tenses. 57 n. 2. ｳＧｹ･ｬ ｵｃＲＳｾ fomlUla 37. Olher forms arc precalive (69: 15\ and su"ordinale (Ill): 158).
192 Modalily. Re/ernU'c and Siu'(T" Acts ill lhe /)salms Imperlll;l't' 1'13

:'" '1p:;1 ［ＧＺＡＷｖｾＭ ｏ NyN 1'1" ｾｎＢｲＭ［ＧｯＬＱＺｬ［ｮｩＧ ":;J' ''';'N ｢Ｇ［ ｾｃｊ 56:5 It appears that authors of late hooks of the OT were altracted to the cohonative as an eminently archaic
In God, whose word I praise, in God I trust: I am not afraid: what can flesh do to me? (NRSY) feature, but often used it wrongly as it was no longer an integral pan of their language. 2.15
This would seem to be a problem, However, two important differences should be noted. Firstly, or Gibson's examples, 66:6 has already been argued above to be hortative. 55:3, 18; 57:5;
the D-system form occurs always with 2nd-person address and the E-system form with 3rd- 77:4, 7: 88: 16 have been classed as Epistemic necessity. This leaves only 42:5, which may be
person reference. Secondly, the E-system form occurs mostly followed by md ... (56:5; 56: 12; read as Expressive of formal statement:
118:6; only 26: I without); it seems likely that this is to be read as a complement clause rather ｪ｜ＧｾＭ ｬＡ O;'}N ｬｾＺ［Ｑ ＧＺｊｶｾ ';J , 1!lo.; ＧＬｬｾ :1:;lOl!l/o1, ;-r'1:Jl/o1 ;,"N 42:5

than as a question. 233 We may therefore establish a contrast between: :llln )1P0 ｭＬｾｲＭ［ ｾＯｩＧＢＭ ｾＮＱＺ O'.;-r';N

［ＭｲｗＧｾｎ Ｂ ＧｩＱｮｬ［ ｾ ｬｾ ':1.,N 25:2 These I bring to rememhranee and pour out my soul. how I used to go along with the crowd. I used to lead

My God, in you I have put my trust-may I not he ashamed' Ihem 10 the house of God with the sound of shouts of joy and thanksgiving. a multitude celehrating a feast.
(ALW)
and
There are undoubtedly rare cases where the cohorrative does appear to lack Deontic force. This
,., ':!7::J :1:!7V'-;-rO N"N 1'1" ｾｯｮ｜ｪＧ ｾｎＢｲＭ［Ｇｏ 56:5
In God I have put my trust-I do not need to he afraid of what flesh can do to me.
occurs especially where the cohortative stands in poetic parallelism with non-D-system forms

Thus ;-rVl:JN-"N is Deontic-precative, whilst W1' N N':> is Epistemic-necessitative. such as wayyiqtol (e.g. Prov 7:7), qa!al (e.g. 119:55) or long-form yiqto/ (e.g. 73: 17; 75: 10;
77: 12). Descriptions of these as 'in poetry to give a vivid representation of the past ...
4.3.7. 'Skewing' ('unmarked cohortative' and 'pseudo-cohortative ')
indicating ... energy or impulse'236 may be appropriate, as well as considerations of the
Throughout the Psalter, we find E-system forms functioning Deontically ('unmarked relationship to the subordinate functions of the cohortative (such as final) as considered briefly
cohortative') and D-system forms functioning Indicatively ('pseudo-cohortative'). above 237 The present view has succeeded in integrating many problem cases, however.
Unmarked forms may in fact have volitional force carried over from a preceding D-system
form: 5. Jussive
:'l)!:!7' Ｌ ｾＮ ＺＱｬＡＧ［ｾ ＺＱＩＮ［ＭｲＧｾ ［Ｍｲｾｮｬ ':J", 95:1·2

:" ＩＡＧＮ ｾ ｭＧＱＰ ｾ ［ＭｲＩｩ ｬｾ Ｂｾ ;,r,n;;>l 5.1. Form

:'llZ1 V ;-r.'.;"-'l!:l' ［ＭｲＺ Ｇ ｾｊ ;'l!.';1:Jl' ;-rlr:t,';1:!71 ＮｾＨｉＧ
The jussive is distinct from its E-system counterpart only in singular unsuffixed forms of the
o come, let us sing to the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation!
Let us come into his presence with thanksgiving: let us make a joyful noise to him with songs of praise' hiph'i/ stem and of weak verbs 11-1, !I-gem. and III_:l.238 [t only regularly exists in the 2nd and
(NRSY) 3rd persons, though attested 1st-person forms include:
The form here in v. 2, v'.,), is clearly meant to be understood as Deontic in the light of the
I. "'ION Deut 18: 16: Ezek 5: 16: Hos 9: 15: Zeph 1:2-3.
preceding :lV'.,) and other D-system forms. 2. .,);-rOl Hos 11 :4: Job 23: I I.

:"'ON m?o ｩＯｯｾｮ o;>w ;-rj?"r:tN ;'I'?VH ｾ＿ｩＧｬＡＱ ＢｾＮＧ C';,':>N 60:8 3. Other apocopated III-;-r forms Job 23:9; Neh I :4: (sa 41 :23,28 (proh. cs.).
God has promised in his sanctuary: "With exultation I will divide up Sheehem, and portion out the Yale of 4. Reduced hiph'il forms: I Sam 14:36 (parallel with cohortatives'): Isa 42:6 (proh. cs.).
Suecoth. (NRSY)
The jussive (short-form yiq!ol) has already been discussed in terms of its relation, as the
This 'carrying-over' of Deontic force may be seen functioning at a 'macro' level in Psalm 101,
basis of the D-system, to long-form yiq!ol and the E-system (ch. 3 above). In many (even very
where only the first two verses are marked as Deontic, though the entire Psalm is undoubtedly
recent) treatments, no distinction is made between the D-system and E-system forms (e.g.
to be understood as a vow.
Finley); in others, the presence of modal markers such as' al- is used to distinguish. Only
The 'pseudo-cohortative' is shown by its context (0 be non-Deontic.2 34 This is normally
explained as incorrect use of an archaic feature:
23'Jouon-Muraoka. Grammar, 375 § 114c n. 2.
2.16 0 river, Tetlses, 58 §54. Compare von Soden, Gn/lldriss. 107 §82h on Akkadian ventive: 'Oie Oichtung
cinschl. Konigsinschriften verwendet den Yentiv z.T. vielleicht aus rhythll1ischen Grunuen weit hauliger als die
233Culley's formula 140. Prosa, hesonders hei den mit aI/a hzw. dem Oativ des Pronomens verhundenen Yerhen des Sprechens.'
234Driver. Tellses. 57-58 §53: Gihson. Dm'idsol/'s SYIIJax. 83 §68 Rem. .1: Meyer. Grammarik. 47 § IOO.4b: 23 7Meyer. GrammaJik, 47 § IOO,4b.
Waltke-O'Connor. S.I'lIflIx. 573 §34.5.3a. 238Exccpt: Isa 35:4: Deut 32:7.
1<)4 Modalit)', Reference and Speedl AdS in (ht' P.mlms Impf.'r{lr;vt! 1<)5

relatively recently have clear criteria been established for the distinction. In his review of This is the nonnal feature of subjecl-topicalisation, as discussed in chapter 2 above:
Schneider's Grammatik, Talstra clearly formulated the rules for a jussive reading of yiq!i5l, Ｚ｣Ｌ ＾ｔ＿Ｇｾ 'Oln'N T9' ;,'i.;,' 1ft' Ｂｾ Ｌ 'l1 ;".;" 29:11
including most importantly that clause-initial yiqti5l is to be read as Deontic. 239 This has been May the LORD give strength to his people' May the LORD hless his people with peacc' (NRSV)

more amply illustrated by Niccacci's paper, 'A neglected point of Hebrew syntax', where it is Ｇｎ＾Ｚ ＭＰＷＡｬｾ ＧｄＢ Ｚ iVii?-";:1-':>N ＧｾＱＩ ｾｬＱＡ Ｇ ;'I;l;' ＢＧｬ ＱＰｾ｜ＺｊＢＧｎＭｮＢｶ 43:3
o send out your light and your truth: let them lead me; let them hring me to your holy hill and to your
stated:
dwelling. (NRSV)
I. A YiqlOl in the lirst position of a senlence is always jussive: on the contrary, indicative Yiqtol always
Naturally, it may cause confusion,248 but it should be noted that the same ambiguity exists in
occupies the second position 240
Niccacci therefore refers to x-yiq!i51 and yiq!i5I-x. The first belongs to our E-system, and the English, where the imperative is identical in fonn to the present simple indicative (except in the

second to our D-syslem. Though this result may seem facile, it should be noted that in a case 3rd person singular). Hence a fonn such as
Cyclists dismount
such as Psalm 72, it has completely revolutionised interpretations-whilst KJV and NIV had
is usually most likely to be read as indicative iterative, i.e.
rendered almost the entire Psalm in the future ('He will judge .. .'), NRSV reads optative ('May
-What do people do at zehra crossings'!
he judge .. .'). -Well, mothers take their children's hands, and cyclists dismount.
The jussive shares this feature of verb-topicalisation on the one hand with the continuation In the context of a sign at a crossing, however, the expression is easily understood as a vocative
form wayyiqti5I,24 I which also exhibits the same apocopation, and on the other with the followed by an imperative. The force may be strengthened by an exclamation mark, as in
remainder of the D-system. 242 The jussive can thus be compared with Deontic uses of the Biblical Hebrew often by-nti','al- or other Deontic particles: 249
subjunctive or modal verbs in modern European languages: 243
CYCLISTS
Vil-'e le roi! Que Dieu te hCnisse ...
Moge Gott dich scgncn ... DISMOUNT!
Es lebe der Konig!
Long li,'e the King' May he hless .

In fact, the topicalisation of Deontic forms has been shown to operate In cross-linguistic
perspective. Giv6n explains this pragmatically:
The more presuppositional a clause is, the more likely it is that the suhject would he known to both hearer Though it is standard practice that 'der Begriff "Jussiv" wird nur dann gebraucht, wenn es
and speaker and thus high in lopicalily244 sich wirklich urn eigene Formen handelt' ,250 we have now shown that we are in fact concerned
Topicalisation of Deontic forms has been described as retlecting an intention 'daB der here with the features of:
Ausdruck des Befehls auf eine einzige Silbe konzentriert erscheint'. 245 In syntactical terms, it is I. apocopation (when visihle)
2. topicalisation (in the absence of subject-topicalisation)
the realisation of modality at the head of the clause, as shown by our argument for MTAV in
3. the absence of nun paragogicum and nun energicum, which only occur with long-form yiqlol (see ch. 3)
chapter 3 above 246 Because topicalisation is so key to the correct interpretation of jussives, it
4. the presence of vocativcs. and Deontic particles such as -nQ" and '01-.
must also be noted that: In the following, we will distinguish between 'marked jussives' (those with apocopation),
1.3. Jussive Yiqtol can also occupy thc second position in a sentence 247
'unmarked jussives' (those forms which cannot be apocopated, but which may be argued to be
Deontic from context) and 'pseudo-jussives' (apocopated forms with non-Deontic function).
239Talstra, 'Tcxt Grammar and Hehrew Biblc. 11', 31.
240Niccacci, 'A Neglected Poinl', 7. 5,2. Syntactic Function and Argument Structure
2410n the/unctional relationship between short-form yiq!ol and wuyyiq!ol, sce Givon, 'Drift'.
242Gihson, Dal'id,wn's Syll/ax, 80 §65. We considered above how the argument structures of the five basic Deontic types relate
243 Sec similarly ch. 3, section 2.4.6. above on thc 'prccativc perfect' with ki. together. It was shown that 3rd-person jussives have a similar argument structure to request-
244Givon, 'Drift', 184.
245Gesenius-Kautzsch, Craml/l(J/ik, 137 §48f.
246See also Hopper and Traugott. Crammaticalizatioll, 142-43. 248[n fact, it also tends diachronically to promote a shift from VS to SV syntax; Giv6n, 'Drifl', 195.
247Niccacci, 'A Neglccted Point', 9; similarly, Gihson. D"l'idJOII'" Sl'IIraX, HO §65; DeCacn, Placemellt alld 249Kesterton, 'Cohortalive', in fact uses 'al· as a mark of DCOnlic forcc.
I"teq,retalio". 280. 250Schneidcr, Crammalik, 92 §26.2.1. Compare Driver, Tell"es, 52·3.
196 1')7

cohortatives, requiring the pragmatic assignment of a thematic role "Causer' for the Addressee. Deontic 2nd-person yiq!ol is shown by Given to gradually gradually fall out of use during the

We may consider this in terms of the referential triangle, since in the Psalms, as we have seen, time period of Biblical Hebrew-though in Early Biblical Hebrew (Genesis), yiq!ol occurs in

grammatical person and rhetorical person typically coincide (1st person = Psalmist, 2nd person 27% of 2nd-person Deontics (as against the imperative in 73%), it is then 'on the wane from

=God, 3rd person = Enemy). here onward' ,255 occurring in only 3% of cases in 2 Kings,256 and having died out completely
by the time of the book of Esther 257 Given's lack of differentiation between long and short-
GOD
form yiq!olmeans that his sample includes many 'skewed' E-system 'preceptive imperfects',
IL ｾ
rather than true jussives. Nevertheless, the occurrence of such 'skewed' forms in a particular
function suggests the simultaneous (or earlier) existence of 'unskewed' forms in that function.
Thus the jussive (and-especially on God's lips-the Deontic function of its E-system
71
counterpart), whilst dying out, frequently occurs alongside the imperative; in the Psalter, there

PSALMIST ENEMY are probably about as many affirmative 2nd-person jussives as there are Negated cohortatives
or Negated 3rd-person jussives. The view of the system held here is therefore that the D-system
In terms of this triangle, a request-cohortative is addressed up the Psalmist-God axis and
consists of cohortative and 2nd and 3rd-person jussive forms, supplemented by the imperative
functions back down the same axis. A 3rd-person jussive is addressed up the Psalmist-God axis
(which is 'Deontically non-modal').
and functions down the God-Enemy axis. Any force inherent in the imprecation or curse (that
Finally, the argument structure of 2nd-person jussives is different from that of imperatives.
is, and performative function) is based upon a common assumption that God will in fact hear
An imperative topicalises the VP itself, assigning the 2nd-person Agent only pragmatically; a
and act (the same is, of course, true for blessings etc. 251 ).
jussive, on the other hand, topicalises the 2nd-person subject of the verb. Both 2nd and 3rd-
2nd-person jussives include reference to the 2nd-person alone, and up to this point, they
person jussives usually have a Patient or Experiencer as subject, and 3rd-person jussives
have been considered equivalent to imperatives. A first question, though is the complementary
pragmatically assign a 'Causer'.
distribution of imperatives and Negated 2nd-person jussives; this has been considered above
The relationship between 2nd and 3rd-person jussives can be seen in:
(ch. 5). A second question is posed by the quite restricted occurrence of affirmative 2nd-person
... ｩ ＿ Ｂ ｾ PDi1' b'vrp, V':1 ＧＩＬｲＭｾｘ 710
jussives.
o let the evil of the wicked come to an end. but establish the righteous ... (NRSY)
Those grammarians who want to be able to view the 1st-person cohortative, 2nd-person
Both clauses are unquestionably addressed to God, though he is 'Causer' in the first and Agent
imperative, 2nd-person Negated jussive and 3rd-person jussive as 'work[ing] together to form a
in the second. Whilst the Enemies' evil is raised in the first clause to the position of subject of a
volitional class'252 tend to consider affirmative 2nd-person jussives as historical remnants, to
stative verb, the righteous person is in the second the object of a transitive verb.
be disregarded in the same way as we are here disregarding 1st-person jussives and 2nd and
The relationship between imperatives and 3rd-person jussives can be seen in:
3rd-person cohortatives. 253 Even if an attempt is made to include affirmative 2nd-person
:X';Ji:1 T':>x 'i"lli'rp,' 'i170i1 ;'l!01V ;".;", 102:2
jussives, their role is described in such a way as to render them equivalent to Negative Hear my prayer, 0 LORD; let my cry come to you. (NRSY)
imperatives (which of course do not exist!): and in the mixing of forms in:
Because of the mutually exclusive relationship between the imperative and the prohibitive [properly,
';""':>;" ... ';"00,' ... "" ... "" ... ' ' ' ' ... "" ... ,,010/' ... ,,;, 107
'vetitive'!. the former is unskewed [i.e. unmarked! when it appears on Ihe surface for a positive proposal.
;,,-,,:>,:>;, .. , '':>':>;'' ... ,,:>,:>;, ... ,':>'m' ... (,6) ,;",:>,:>;, ... ,,:>,:>;, ;" ,.,,:>;, 148
while the laller is unskewed for a negative proposal. 254
Interestingly, forms are also mixed in translation. I 17 reads ,;,m::. TV ,';>';>;" but is rendered
in Romans 15: 11 ulvELn ... EnUlvwcHwoav, 'Praise (2nd-person imperative) ... let them praise
251 See Bruder, 'A pragmatics for human relationship wilh the divine'. (3rd-person imperative)'.
252Waltke-O'Connor, Syntax, 565 *34.1 b. Similarly DeCaen. Placement alld IlIterpretation, 112: 'a single
"volitive" conjugalion' and Lambdin.lflIroduction, 118: 'In meaning these three fom1 a single paradigm'.
253They are not considered al all by Gesenius-Kautzsch, Cramm",ik; Waltke-O'Connor, ｾｸ｡ｬｹｓ Gibson, 255Givon, ·Drift'. 205.
Dm'id.wm 's Sytlt(l).:.
256Giv6n. ·Drift'. 214.
25 4Finlcy, 'The Proposal'. 6. 25 7Gi"ln. 'Drift', 221.
IlJX Modality. Reference and Spel'ch 1\('1.\' illlh(' Vwlms I"'!)l'rll/in' IlJlJ

5.3. Semantic Function The markers we have established for Deontic function are very irregular in this Psalm. The
Psalm is undoubtedly primarily Deontic, with a marked 3rd-person jussive in v. 2b and verb-
The term 'jussive' is derived from the Latin 'iuhere ut + subjunctive', meaning 'to order'; this
subject word-order in vv. 4-5. However, the subject-verb word-order in v. 2a (which I read as
is one of its relatively minor functions, and its full range is more restricted than what we have
subject-topicalisation) and qii!al form in v. 7a (which I read as 'precative perfect') have caused
seen of the cohortative. Like the cohortative, the 'basic meaning' of the jussive is optative, and
some confusion amongst scholars. Here in v. 5, I read ';) as a Deontic marker (despite its usual
it is by its address that it becomes a Directive utterance. Then it is sociolinguistic factors such
occurrence with qii!a/) and v. 5b as optative, since the address to God is not clear enough to
as Speaker-Addressee relations which distinguish between directive and precative. 258
really call it directive.
Gibson refers to the 3rd-person jussive as used to express a
command, ... to give advice. encouragement. or permission.... to express a wish. request. or entreaty .. Or Ｚ｣ｲ ｴｾＭＧｊ ｬ ':l'l!" iON"" ｎ､ＧＭ ｾ l!JUN :ll!J;:t lJO:3

in pronouncing a benediction or malediction. 25lJ You turn man back to dust, and say. "Turn back, mortals," (ALW)

Waltke-O'Connor list the following; Since this form is followed by the I-system continuation-form, wayyiqtol, and reports in the
Superordinate to subordinate command. exhortation. counsel. invitation or permission hiph'il what appears in direct speech in a Deontic qal, it seems likely that this is in fact a
Subordinate to superordinate urgent request. prayer. request for permission 'pseudo-jussive' as should be translated non-Deontically.
Such lists are, of course, very similar to those usually given for the eohortative, as well as (as :,)):-'j'\'IT':>? l!J::nj'\'-D ;"I'?'? ';"I': ｬ ＡｊｮｾｪＧ｜ｬＡｊ Ｉ t04:20
we have seen above) for the imperative. When you bring down the darkness. it becomes night; it is then that all the forest wildlife arc out. (ALW)
In the following, we will consider 2nd and 3rd-person jussives separately, in first their After revocalisation to ';"'. (which seems almost certain), it would appear to be the conditional
affirmative, then their Negative forms. context which has provoked use of the jussive form. 260
Amongst unmarked forms, we see some better examples. 'Permissive' function is clearly
5.3./. 2nd-Person Jussive
seen m:
5.3././. Affirmative ｜ＧｪｊｾｓＺ［ｏ Ｇｾｩ ',:J:J ':>.11:;1 t:I:ll!":l ｏｾＧｪ ｜Ｎ 2:9
The affirmative 2nd-person jussive is scarcely mentioned by most grammars, as it is so rare. As You may break them with a rod of iron, you may dash them in pieces like a POller'S vessel." (ALW261)

we have seen above, however, it is clearly present in Biblical Hebrew, albeit 'on the wane'. This function has already been shown to be fulfilled by the E-system 'preeeptive imperfect' (as
There are only four marked jussives in the Psalter, all of which are rendered as non-Deontic in Gen 2: 16 ｮｾｄＧ ［Ｉｾ ＿Ｇ it is the Deontic counterpart to Epistemic possibility (potentialis-
in most translations. 'may').
Directive function is seen in:
:O';"I"N ＧＬｊｾｏ O'V!?,,' '."1:lN' ｬＡｊｾＭＧｊｾｏ ))'."1.or,l;"l:J 'l.'JI1 lo/l? 'l.'J;"I:J 68:3
As smoke is blown away, so blow them away; as wax melts before fire, let the wicked be destroyed before
:'J\-I!'1)!l :lpm Ｇ Ｗ ｾ :l'D
God. (ALW)
Just as you have shown me many difficulties and evils, (so now) revive me again, and from the depths of
the earth, bring me up again! Some other forms which have been suggested as 2nd-person jussives are susceptible to
Increase my greatness and comfort me again. (ALW) emendation (e.g. 49:20).
Here, the long-form yiq!ols in v. 20 speak against a jussive reading, though the context and the
5.3./.2. Negative ('vetitive')
fact that both forms in v. 21 are markedly Deontic strongly support it. The function is precative.
As has been mentioned, Negated 2nd-person jussives occur in complementary distribution with
:;"170 0t;Uj1 ｲｩｾＺ［ｬ O'DN':>' "Jl"O 0'',))) ot)l!Jj'\-':J Cl'ON':> ,iJ'}" mOl!J: 67:5
imperatives. Their combination with the Deontic Negative c1itic'al- marks them as Deontic,
May the peoples be happy and and sing for joy; may you judge nations rightly and may you comfort
peoples in the carth. Selah (ALW)

260Eskhult. Swdies in Verbal Aspect, 25. Compare also his comments on Negation: 'when the verbal content is
258Compare Waltke-O'Connor's terms: 'directed from a superior to an inferior' (such as commands, e.g. divine presented as but contingent, the contrast hetween the cursive !shorl-li>rm riqr61j and the constative lIong-form
jussives) and 'directed to the divine realm (explicitly or implicitly)', which can be henedictions or maledictions; riqtrill form fades away. The opposition is neutralized.' (Eskhult. Srudies if/ Verbal Aspect. 29).
Waltke-O'Connor, SYf/ral'. 568 *34.3a. 261 Following Emerton, J.A., 'The translation of the verhs in the imperfect in Psalm 11.9'. iTS NS29 (1978) 499-
25lJGibson. Dm·idsof/·sSrf/((Lt. XI-2 §67. 503
2(Ml A1odalily. ReferellCl' (It1l! Sl'el'c!l ,1(fJ ill the Psalms Iml'('rati\'(' 201

hence there are many forms clearly marked as jussive outside of those few which exhibit modal verbs in English and German. Like lhe 'request-cohortative', it has a pragmatically-
apocopation. The combination is referred to as the 'vetitive'. assigned argument structure which lends itself parlicularly to precative rather than directive
Negated 2nd-person jussives occur especially in two formulaic expressions, ,non-';>N use. So Finley:
TJ!:l, 'do not hide your face' and ,nnn-';>N 'do not get anxious'. The skewing [pragmatically-assigned argument structurellhat takes place with PC3 [3rd-person \';q!oll
highlights the stress on the inferiority of the speaker. though in ｾｲ｡ instances it can occur f(x a command or
ｪＱＧｾｃ ':1.,Ij; ｬＮＬｾ ［ ＧＱｾ ＭｄＧｔ ｾ -'JOO T)!;l ';'0;'-'1'/ 27:9
prohihilion 263
:'pV' ':1'101 'J:1Il;,i:"'1'/1 Ｇ ｊ Ｎ ｖ ｄ ｮ Ｍ Ｇ ｾ
Of those uses which he terms 'command', Finley comments:
Do nOl hide your face from me. Do not lum your servant away in anger. you who have heen my help.
The PC3 wilh the command seems usually 10 he associated with a surface structure subject that is
Do not cast me off. do nol forsake me. 0 God of my salvation! (NRSV)
inanimate. either for rhetorical efleet or for divine creation le.g. Gen I:.' 12 (>4
The formula T J!:l ,non-';>N is often associated with the prayer' DV, 'answer me' (69: 18;
In fact, 3rd-person jussives may have as subject the communily, the Enemy, God or elements
102:3; 143:7). It is adapted in 119 into Tm3/J 'JOO ,norr';>N, 'do not hide your precepts
of the creation.
from me'.
By metonymy, the Psalmist himself may be the subject in an Expressive ullerance analogous
::1?111 'Vj;::J Nij7i':",1'/ O'P"10:;1 ,.ni1n-'1'/ 37: I
to Expressive cohorlatives:
Do not fret hccause of lhe wicked; do nol he envious of wrongdoers (NRSV)
:j?';! Tfl1::lO-':;i Ｇｾ l!iiDN 'J'v'. WP 119:172
This formula only occurs in 37 (vv. I, 7, 8), though it is used similarly to the analogous and
My tongue responds to your word, for all your commandments arc rightcousncss. (ALW)
extremely common (though morphologically unmarked) N,' n-';>N (e.g., in a similar context,
:'';>li' ｾＹＧ ｾＧ :1!:1" ＺＱＢＧｖｾ "l!il;1V'::J ' j , ＧＩｾ '.,in1,l:;1 ｾｽｬＰＧＺ 'Jl'(1. 13:6
49:17). I will sing 10 thc LORD. hccause hc has deah ooumifully with me. (NRSV)
These two formulas show the use of the Negated 2nd-person jussive as both precative and He may be the subject in a Oirective-precative utterance: 265
directive. The precative function may concern not doing bad to the Psalmist (119:43; 132: 10; ｾｖｴＬｊＧＺ l.t:l!;lVO' V'C1il1 ＧｖＡＺｬＩｾＧｮｦＱ 119:175
138:8; 141 :8) or not doing good to the Enemy (140:8). LCI me live thall may praise you. and Ict your ordinanccs help mc. (NRSV)

A Permissive function may be seen in: or of a Commissive-promissive ('vow of praise'):

＿［ｪＢＭｾｐ O'.V'N-ilN ｪ［ｔｰＢｾ il1"'V "1il,i:1':> j;j i:;l:t' Ｇｾ ＭｄｪＱＭＧ Ｏ 141:4 :'';>li' ｾＹＧ ｾＧ :1).:1'';> ｾｖＮＧＢＱＺ ｾＧＷｚＱ Ａｬｩ ' j , ＧＺ＾ｊｾ ",-mQ:;J ｾｽｬＰＧＺ 'Jl'(1 136

ｾｬＬｲｊＱ ｏＧ Ｚ ＱｾＧＢＺｎ ｩｊｏ As for me, I have trusted in your love. My heart will rejoice in your salvation' I will sing 10 Ihe LORD

Do not lurn my heart to any evil, to busy myself with wicked deeds in company with Ihose who work Occause he has been generous to me' (ALW)

iniquity; do not lel me eal of their delicacics. (NRSV) The community may be the subject of a 'call to praise':266
A more explicit Permissive rendering of the jussive form might be 'Do not allow my heart to :lOV' "::J:;I'1 'A'l'( Tt!;l' Ｑｾ ｪｽｖＢ ＧｎＱＺ ｊｾ j1';z,l! "1Vl'( 0.'1r':>:;i 86:9

incline .. .', understanding ;"l DJ as having some causative implication. In other words, the As for all the nalions you have made, may Ihey come and worship llcfore you, Lord. and may they glorify
your name. (ALW)
Psalmist is nol suggesting that God would ever make him incline to evil (Obligative), but that
or the king of a blessing:
he might allow him to (Permissive). This is the point made by Carmignac in his reading of the
:1:11iVl'I' o'1r':>:;i 1::J ＱＧｬｩｊ［ＺＬＱＢｾＧ 1p;z, pr 'VDV-' J!l' O?ij;':> 10V ':1' 72: 17 j?
New Testament parallel as not Obligative ('Do not cause us to go into temptation') but
May his name cndure forever. his fame continue as long as Ihe sun. May all nations he blessed in him; may
Permissive ('Cause that we do not go into temptation')262 Ihey pronounce him happy. (NRSV)

By metonymy, the community may be the subject of a call to faithfulness: 267

5.3.2. 3rd-Person Jussive
::1'.:1'';> ｩ［ＺＧＢＱｃｏｾｴｲ Ｇｊ［Ｚｾ Ｐ 1'9W1 1j?ln 31:25
5.3.2./. Affirmative Dc strong. and let your hean take courage. all you who wait for the LORD. (NRSV)
As has already been noted, the structure of the 3rd-person jussive is familiar from Oeontic use
of the subjunctive and optative in classical languages, que + subjunctive in French, and cerlain 263 Fi nIcy. 'The Proposal'. I I: also 9.
2MFinlcy. 'The Proposal'. 9.
265 Also I 19:80.
ｾＶＲｃ｡ｮ ｩｧ ｣Ｎ l .. "'Fais que onus n'cnlrtOnS pas dans la lcnlation": La portcc d'unc negation devant un verhe au 266Also 22:27. 32; 14:7//53:7; 69:33.
causatir. RII72 (1965) 218-26. 267 Also 27: 14.
 Modality, Reference llllil Sp('('ch A 0.\ in IIU' I'wtlmx 20,\

Thc Enemy may be the subject of a curse against him: ＺＧｮｾＬ＿ lJ1N-;'1tJ;'1 Ｇｦｬｾｮ TJ!;)'. N1::Ji) xx:)

ＺｙＧｾ［Ｚｔ m'nnn::J Ｇ ｎ ｾ Ｚ ＧＺｏｾ 1l!.'j?::J' ＧｑｭｾＱ［ ;'1Q;'" 63:10 let my prayer come hefore you: incline your car to my cry. (NRSV)
But as for those who are seeking my life. let them go the depths of the earth' (ALW) and God's blessing: 274
Other imprecations against the Enemy are aimcd at things 'possessed' by him (35:6; 37: 15; :l"? U'I:1' Ｌ ｖ ｾ ｑ Ｑ Ｉ Ｌ ＿ ﾥ ;'11.;'1' l'OIT';'1' 3322

69:26; 109: 13), The Enemy may also be the subject of a self-imprecation by the Psalmist: Let your steadfast love, 0 LORD. be upon us. even as we hope in you, (NRSV)

Ｚ［ＧＱｾＰ pl!." Ｇｾﾥ ,.,1::J::" '.:n Y'l:1? 00"1 JV:1 ＧｩＡＱｾ ::J"N '1": 7:6 Many other subjects occur in the making of blessings, curses and prayers, as well as

let the enemy pursue and overtake me. trample my life to the ground. and lay my soul in the dust. Selah expressions of Permission: 275
(NRSV) :'1;J:;J;:T l'',l N::J:1 0'?1V Ｇｮｾ 1/(V1 OJ'l!.'N) o"'¥l!.' 'Nl!.' 24:'1
God may be the subject of blessings of the Self: 26X Lift up your heads. gates' and lift up. eternal doors! And the King of glory may enter. (ALW)
ＰｾＱＧ［Ｚ 1J;:tN 1'J!;) ',N,: 1);J'::J" 1),J1}' O';1"N 67:2 (This reading fits much better than the standard translations with the scenario of a procession
May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face to shine upon us. Selah (NRSV) arriving at the gate of the city.)
(Here. we must consider-as above for the cohortative-whether the pluralIst person is
5.3.2.2. Negative
inclusive or exclusive), Blessings of the king:
Negated 3rd-pcrson jussives are not particularly more rare than Negated cohortatives or 2nd-
ＺｙＧｾＭ ｏｾｉＧＨＭ ｖ ＬｩＺＱｾｯＬＧ o.:-'l? 0;0 , , ' \ 72:8
person jussives. 276 They occur especially in curses of the Enemy:277
May he have dominion from sea to sea. and from the River to the ends of the eal1h. (NRSV).
:1'y1jl'" l j ;n ';'1'-'1'(1 'O1} lVO '::>-';'1'-'1'( 109:12
or blessings of the community:269
May there he no onc to do him a kindness. nor anyone to pity his orphaned children. (NRSV)
:;'1'!O ;'1)lZI" Ｑｖｾｮｬ lflnJo-':;J '.:JP 20:4
but also in prayers for the Self or the community:278
May he remember all your offerings, and regard wilh favor your burnt sacrifices. Selah (NRSV)
:]11:l-':;J ".::J-D'lZI,"-'N1 If' )ON:l p;:T 'Q¥t>. 119: 133
:1:J,; 0';))1 Ｇｐｾ Ｑ D);IVO::J Ｎｾ ＱＧｏ T1': 25:9
Keep my steps steady according 10 your promise, and never let iniquity have dominion over me. (NRSV)
May he lead the humble to justice and teach the humble his way, (ALW)
(Here, we note again the relationship between 3rd-person jussives and causative imperatives).
(In this latter case, NRSV reads 'He leads ... ', failing to note that the proper form for such
descriptions is the participle [as in 25:8 and, prototypically, 113]). God may also be subject in 5.3.2.3. Metonymy
curses against the Enemy:270 Primarily responsible for the large number of 3rd-person jussives in the Psalter is the referential

:m""T) n',::J;o piz7,?' ｮｾＯｪＱｬ ｊ［ＺＢＭｉｚｩｾ Ｇ Ｚｊ ｾｮＮＧＱ ［ 12:4 skewing effected by metonymy. Metonymy was discussed above, particularly in terms of
May the LORD cut off all tlauering lips, the tongue that makes great boasts (NRSY) 'psychophysical substitutes' ,279 Thus the Psalmist may say 'v!:n '7'7;,nn (34:3) instead of
By metonymy, God may also be subject of blessings of Him Himself: 27t ;,'7'7;'N (69:31), ':1'7 '7)' (13:6) instead of ;,'7')N (9: 15), , i1!:lV ;'))In (71:23) instead of ;'))1)
:clw-'p ;'1j')l?P l)::JO ;'1p' cl' ';'1' 113:2 (20:6) or • !It!:l) ;,'on instead of ;,r::mN:
Blessed he the name of the LORD from this time on and forevermore. (NRSV)
:.-11;Cl ',::JV'. , { ;'1pnN TPP-";l::J1 ＧＮｶｾ ;'1:91}"'P ',:J ')j1} C';1"/( 'J)1} 57:2
Elements of the creation may, as Finley says, be the subject of a 3rd-person jussive. In the Be merciful la me, God, be merciful to me, for in you my soul takes refuge; in the shelter of your wings I
Psalms, this occurs in (Expressive) 'calls of praise':272 lake refuge until the troubles pass. (ALW)
ＺＧｾ ＰＱ O'Cl' O,l!" Y'!:l;:T 'F'1 O'Q'PCl. ,nolV' 96:11 The use of such substitutes may even be accompanied by an imperative, such as in 'lV!:l) ''7'7;,
Let the heavens be glad. and let the earth rejoice: let the sea roar. and all that tills it (NRSV) ;";"- i1N (146: 1).280 As Waltke-O'Connor write,
Finally, other common subjects of 3rd-person jussives are the Psalmist's prayer: 273

274 Als080:18: 119:173.

268Also 27:5: 47:4: 90:17; 119:76. 275 Also 24:7.
269 Also 9: 10: 25:9: 72: 13: 91 :4: 115: 14. 276Coll/I"Q Finley. The Proposal'. 9,
270Also 54:7: 140: 11. 277 Also 69:26. 28.
271 Also 104:31. 278 Also 74:21.
272 Also 97: I, 279See above. ch, 2. section 4,
273 Also with /(1::J: 18:779: 11: 102:2: 119: 170. Similarly. 65:3, 2XOS cc the discussion of calls to praise and calls of praise in section 7 helow.
ｾＨＩ Modlllil\'. }(ej'('rem'e and Speech Act.\" in 'he Psalms ImI'CfO(il'e

Constructions that differ in grammar on the surface level of the language (e.g .. 'May I ... : lirst person: '0 above, we now turn to the Deontic use of non-verbal clauses. This is a particularly COllllllon
my soul, may you .. : second person: 'May my soul .... · third person) are at a deeper level semantically feature in the Psalter and in all Discourse 285
equivalent 281
In Deontic non-verbal clauses with a prepositional predicate, word order distinguishes
Though metonymous forms are usually semantically equivalent to deictic forms, it should be
between modal functions 286 Directives have predicate-subject word order:
noted that they are structurally distinct in terms of the verbal forms which they select, and often
::1'?0 1\1:;J':l 1::1V-'l? :1P.'1Z7';' ;".;"'? 3:9
rhetorically distinct, since they distinguish at surface structure between the Speaker and parts of
Deliverance hclongs 10 the LORD: may your blessing be on your people' Selah (NRSV)
his person ('soul', 'heart', 'lips' etc.).
:l":l:l l"l;(::t-":;J "l? O'i1'N ｏＧｾ ｐＢＭｬＡ ;"1/;'" 57:6 = 108:6
Be exalied. 0 God, ahove Ihe heavens. Let your glory he over all the eanh. (NRSV)
5.3.3. .Ske wing' ('pseudo-jussi ve .)
whilst optatives have subject-predicate:
As for the cohortative above, it has been shown that many jussive forms otherwise read non-
ＺＢｾ Ｑ ｚＷＧＭＢｬＡ 0''''P T p" ＢｾＧ［ＭｊＺＩｏ 128:6
Deontically are in fact Deontic in force. There remain however several examples of what one
May you sce your children's children. Peace he upon Israel' (NRSV)
might call the 'pseudo-jussive' 282 :'?:l ,n'?;'f1 "01;1' np-":;J:l ［ＢＮ ＬＧＭｮｾ ;':;J':;JN 34:2
The 'pseudo-jussive' may be shown by a non-Deontic marker such as /iF: May I hless the LORD always! May his praise always be in my mouth' (ALW)
ＧＡｬｾｕＺ Ｌｾ :17'l!'-P' ';:l Ｚｬ ｈｾ ｾＱｚＷ ＭｎＢ 89:23 O:l::lV ;";" Ruth 2:4
The enemy shall not outwit him, the wicked shall not humhle him. (NRSV) May the LORD he with you' (ALW)

by a parallel text: A non-verbal clause with a passive participial predicate is the most common way of
:C'j?ry1Z7 '.:lll c':;,'-n:;Jvn 'i':;JO "Q,:l':lO ,".'0 11Z711 ｾＮｶｮ 18:12 expressing volition in the passive voice. Most common forms are 1n.:J and "";'0. The subject
He made darkness his covering around him, his canopy thick clouds dark with water. (NRSV) may be 2nd-person (;";" ［Ｇｩｬｾ 1,..,:1 119: 12; ;";"'? ｄｬ ｾ D':I'.,.:J l15: 15) or 3rd-person
(2 Sam 22: 12 reads il1Z7"). Or by the context: 283 ('''':1:1 D1Z7 1"":1 72: 19; ;";" D1Z7:1 Ｇ［ＱＺｾ 1,.,:1 118:26). Though it is usually clear that the
ｬＺＩＧｃｾ ｏＺ ':l'1Z7 ＮＧｦｾＩＱＢ N;;>'T'l! 1Z7')N. :l1Z7Q 90:3 sense of these clauses is Deontic (in fact, optative), there are some debatable cases. 113:3 is
You turn man back to dust, and say, "Turn hack, mo[[als:' (ALW)
clearly optative, as can be seen from the preceding imperative ,,:>,,;, forms.
Since this form is followed by the I-system continuation-form, wayyiq!ol, and reports in the
:;'1;" 0l!' "'7;'::1' \ioI1:l::l-'V V::I.1Z7-n,I::l::l 113:3
hiph'il what appears in direct speech in a Deontic qal, it seems likely that this is in fact a From the rising of the sun to its selling the name of Ihe LORD is to he praised. (NRSV)
'pseudo-jussive' as should be translated non-Deontically. When put together with ".,) ＨＮＬｾｯ ";'0' ;";" ".,) 48:2; 96:4; 145:3), it is normally
Several 'pseudo-jussives' occur in subordinate clauses (e.g. 58:5) or questions (e.g. translated: 'Great is the LORD and greatly to be praised!' (NRSV). This seems highly
121: I ).284 The reasons for this have been mooted above, but certainly bear further problematic, since the first predicate must be understood as Indicative, whilst the second is here
investigation. understood as Deontic. The solution lies perhaps in the idea that passive participles have an
inherent modal meaning of potentialis, as we see in attributive uses, such as ｾＢＺＱＩ DV 102: 19,
6. Deontic Non-Verbal Clauses
.,'U DV ('yet to be born') 22:32 or WlU ('to be feared') 76:8 287 Thus we can read:

Having considered here the D-system of Deontic verbal forms, and the related imperative, and :O';'''N-'':;J-''l! N';" N":1') ｉＺｾＧ "7;'::1' ;,p' ＢＱＧｾ ',:I %:4
For great is the LORD, and greatly to he praised: he is to be revered ahove all gods. (NRSV)
having made brief mention of other forms which may have Deontic function in chapter 3
:'V1Z7' '.;""N ｃＱＢｾ Ｇ ＧＺＢＬＱｾ l":;J' ＺＱＬ［ Ｇｾ ｮ 18:47
The LORD lives' Blessed be my rock. and exalied he Ihe God of my salvation (NRSV)

281 Waltke-O'Connor, Snrtax, 565 §34.1 h. Compare also Tsevat on Indicative praise: 'The difference between
"He" and "Thou" psalms is merely a stylistic onc': Tsevat. Lang,wge of/he Bil>lical Psalms, 76 n, 8, In defence of
this. he misappropriates Gunkel, who in fact makes hoth chronological and a1tilUdinal distinctions hetween 2nd
and 3rd-person forms; Gunke!. H.. Eill/ei/llTlg, 285Blau, Grammar. 84 §57: Butlenwieser. Pmlms, 20.
282Gesenius-Kautzsch. Gramnw/ik. 335 § l09i-k. 25:9: 47:4: 'Ill:): 107:29. 2H6Compare Gihson's comments on word order: Gihson. Davidson's Snrtax. 54-55 §49 Rem. 2.
283 Also I1 :6. 287Waltke-0'Connor, Sw/ox. 620 §37.4d: Ahhoud. P.F. cl aI., Elel1lenllln' Mm/em SllIlIdord Arabic (Camhridge:
1X40n (he jussivc in ddihcrative questions in Al1lharic. scc Pall11cr. Mood Gnd Modality, Ill. CUP. 1983) 585
2116 Modality. Reference and SI'l'l'C!t A"IS ill lhe P.mlm.'i Imperllt;l'e 2117

In all of these examples, the clause may be understood as having an underlying short-form [n each of these cases, there is a progression from Expressive cohortative to Directive
yiQro/ form of ;";,.288 [n languages such as English, 'to be' and 'to have' are not true verbs, imperative. The comparison may be seen also in two Psalms which are otherwise very similar
simply placeholders for MTA features; in Hebrew, no placeholder is needed, though it is in theme and, we may assume, place in the cult:
occasionally present: ;':J':JJ ;'I1'::>J1 ;'1ni1VJ 1N:J ,.. 11',J ... ;'O';?J ;'I1"J ... ;'D'J 1::>7 95

:l'? 1J71}' ＡｬｾＧｊＱ＾Ｚｖ ;'V1' :pDI}-';" 33:22

o come, let us sing ... let us make a joyful noise ... Let us comc let us make a joyful noise ... 0 come.
let us worship and bow down, let us kneel ... (NRSY)
Let your steadfast love, 0 LORD, be upon us. cvcn as wc hope in you. (NRSY)
W;?i1 .. , 1Ji'l1 ... 1NV ... 1);',;, ... 1)')""1;' 81
:C"?W-'l!1 ［ＧｾｬＡｯＧｬＩＺｊｏ ;,p' CTZ1 ';" 113:2
Sing aloud ... shout for joy ... Raisc ... sound ... Blow ... (NRSY)
Blesscd be the name of the LORD from this time on and forevcrmore. (NRSY)
A synchronic answer to this question is given most eloquently by a non-Hebraist, C.S.

7. Calls to Praise and Calls of Praise Lewis, in his Reflections on the Psa/ms. 29t He asks,
why ... did praising God so often consist in telling other people to praise Him' Even in telling whales,
The two most common functions of Deontic forms in the Psalter are in 'calls to praise' snowstorms, ctc., to go on doing what thcy would ccrtainly do whether we told them or no(')292

(Directive imperatives and jussives) and 'calls/vows of praise' (Expressive and Commissive He answers his own question in pan:
( had not noticed ... that just as men spontaneously praise whetever they value. so they spontaneously urge
cohonatives). These two functions largely share a common lexis in n:lTD, ,PO, ,01, " ID, ;,,'
us 10 join them in praising it: "Isn't she lovely? Wasn't it glorious? Don't you think that magnificentT The
and '7'7;,. The most common calls to praise are ,'7'7;" "';', "'TZi, ,,01, ,:J,:::l and ,:::l;'; the Psalmists in telling everyone 10 praise God are doing what all men do whcn they speak of what thcy care
most common calls/vows of praise are ;"'N, ;"'IDN, ;"OIN, ;,n'TDN, ;"OTZiN. Thus the about 293
community and the Self are called upon to do the same thing, with the exception of those forms [n other words, these Directive utterances might in fact be better described as Expressive-as
like '7'7;, which predominate in one category due to formulaic use, The most striking pair is exclamations rather than commands. As we have seen above in our discussion of the optative
",;, and ;"'N :289 function of the imperative, this accounts for the use of imperatives in apparent address of the
"1;' 30:5; 33:2; 97: 12; 100:4; 105: I; 106: I; 107: I; 118: 1,29; 136: 1,2,3,26 natural world.
;"'N 7: 18; 9:2; 18:50; 28:7: 30: 13; 35: 18; 42:6, 12; 43:4-5; 44:9; 52: 11; 54:8; 57: 10; 71 :22; 79: 13;
Considering the question diachronically, we may look at two formulaic expressions which,
86:12; 108:4; 109:30; 111:1; 115:28; 118:19,21; 119:7; 138:1-2; 139:14 290
though based on an imperative and so apparently Directive ('call to praise'), appear to be used
There is some evidence that these 'calls to praise' and 'calls of praise' may have become in
Expressively ('call of praise'): ;"-,'7'7;, and N)-N'TZi,;,.
some measure functionally equivalent. Consider, for example:
It seems to me quite likely that the cult-functiona[ school is correct in describing ;"-''7'';, as
'J';,':>N':> ,:>,) ,:J;' N';?N ;";" cv ':J DeU132:3
For I will proclaim the name of the LORD; ascribe greatness to our God' (NRSY)
spoken by a choir-leader (such as Kenaniah, c'"TZiO;' NIDO;' ,ID;', 'leader of the music of

:'p:J 'i'1"?;'fl "Di}' np-':>:;l:J ;'Tp'-nN ［ＧｾＺ ｬ ｾ 34:2-4 the singers' I Chr 15:27, also v. 22):
It is in fact the precentor's exhortation to the choir which re-echoes in this "introit"294
:1n1;lV" ＱｾＩＧｃ 'polZ!' ＧＮｬｚＡｴｾ ':>i'::1i1n ;".;'T':;1.
Even Mowinckel, however goes on to say that:
:Y'ln' Ｌｾｖ ;':;>O"J, '/iN ;,p'" Ｇ＿ ｾ
Occasionally the exhortation is inclusive: "0 come, let us sing", or still more personally: "I will praise the
I will bless the LORD at all times; his praise shall continually he in my mouth.
Lord", and similar expressions. The "1" may originally have meant the leader of the choir or the cultic act,
My soul makes its boast in the LORD; Ictthe humble hear and he glad.
the spokesman of the congregation. But it was also appropriate to express the poct's personal and emotional
o magnify the LORD with me. and let us exalt his name together. (NRSY)
rclation to his theme, his identification of himself with what he had to say.295
'Ji' ,,:>;,:s nOI ... 1":JI;' ... W',,;' ... 'Ni;? ... ",;, ... l"N Isa 12:1-6
Thus the 'call to praise' function may be fulfilled by a variety of forms, inlcuding Directive-
I will give thanks to you .
Give thanks ... call ... make known. proclaim . Sing praiscs ... Shout aloud and sing for joy (NRSY) hortative and Expresssive cohortatives. On the other hand, the imperative form may have other

288S o e.g. Dawson, Text-Lillguistics alld BilJlical Hebrew. 197: 'thc Yerblcss clause ... presupposes a Jussive 291 See also Driver, Tenses, 59-61 §57-58.
form of ;";': 292Lewis. C.S., ReflectiollS Oil/he Psalms (London: HarpetCollins, 1958) 77.
289 A most striking feature here. though not significant for the pre,cnt work. is the way in which ",;, is usually 293Lewis. Reflectiolls, 80.
followed by':>. whilst ;"'N is not. 294Mowinckel. The Psalms illlsrae/'s Worship. 82.
290 Also 32:5 unmarked cohOl1ativc. 295 Mowinckcl, The Psalms ill Israel '.I' Worship, 82.
 201( Mod"lity. Relereno! ulld Speech Act.\" ill lilt' r.\"(llm.\

functions-Mowinckel refers at one point to 'the responsory "Hallelujah'" .296 A progression in Chapter 7
use of the term may be seen in at least four stages: CONCLUSION
I. Directive ;'1,-,,?,?;"1 as a call to praise imegrated within a Psalm (e.g. start of 113: 117: 135: 146; 148;
ISO. End of '15)
2. Expressive;'1' -,,?,?;'1 as: I. optative unerance in address of non-humans (sec scction 3.4.1. ahove). and
This thesis began by considering Collins's description of the Psalter in terms of 'variation of
2. a formulaic expression with linle meaning at the start and end of many Psalms: taken up as a the modes of discourse'. It has gone on to consider the range of different forms of participant
structuring device in the hooks-and then book-entitled [J''?;'j1 (104-106. 111-113. 115-117. 146- reference (ch. 2), the relationships between three distinct verbal subsystems (Indicative,
150)
Epistemic and Deontic; ch. 3) and the broad functional range and frequent pragmatic
3. Formulaic UAA11AOUlU with linle meaning (since not translated) in LXX and NT (Rev IY: 1.3.4,6).
There may he some residual awareness of its meaning in Rev 19:5: u,vEin -.:<jl 6ujJ 'H'WV ｾｮｶｵｴｊ Ol equivalence of the sentence types Interrogative, Negative and Imperative (chs. 4-6). Key points
boUAOl uutOu. 'Praise our God. all you his servams ... ' (though this may simply originate from LXX in the analysis have been the discussions of: E-system yiqto/ as a key to the reanalysis of the
Ps 1\3: 134; 135). verbal system; the 'skewed' realisation of Performative, Deontic and Epistemic functions; the
4. Formulaic Hallelujah wilh linle meaning (since not translated) in many modern churches. A recent
pragmatic functions of Interrogative sentences; and the functional range of the Deontic particle
popular hook on Christian praise has offered an excellent treatment of Psalmic praise language, and of
the term ;,,-,,?,?;, in particular. whilst failing to even refer to its formal nature as a call to praise 1297
no" and the cohortative.

The term I'(J ;'Y'V,;' occurs occurs only once in the Psalter (118:25), and is then used in I have argued, on the one hand, for the univocality of many basic morphemes, that is, that

the Greek transliteration wauvvu at Jesus's 'triumphal entry' into Jerusalem (Matt 21 :9, 15; short-form yiq!ol, long-form yiq!ol, qo!a/, each set of Interrogative morphemes, the particle

Mark 11:9, 10; John 12: 13). [t seems likely that it underwent a similar process to that we have nii', paragogic he etc. each has a single basic meaning from which others are derived. On the

seen for ;"-,'7'7;" and that, other hand, a great pragmatic overlap has been shown between, for example, all three verbal
the waving of palm-hranches and the cries of Hosanna which welcomed Jesus were a spontaneous gesture subsystems being used Deontically ('preceptive imperfect', 'precative perfect') or between
of religious exuberancc. without any reference to a particular festival and without the supplicatory meaning Interrogatives and Negative Deontics.
of the original phrase in Ps. I 18 29X
It is hoped that Biblical scholars will take up the two main challenges of this work. Firstly, it
Again, there may be some residual awareness of its meaning in E"-''lOOV ＮｾｩＭｷＧｬ ｾｏｬｕ ""uulo, 'Have
is neither tense nor aspect nor discourse function which lies at the heart of the Hebrew verbal
mercy on us, son of Davidl' (Matt 9:27; 20:30), and it is striking that the Greek transliterates
system, but modality, and an appreciation of yiq!ol as basically Epistemic is essential.
not a Hebrew form, but an apparently Aramaic one.
Secondly, the field of linguistic pragmatics has much to teach us about how to differentiate
These two terms show quite clearly a diachronic tendency for a Directive utterance ('call to
between distinct contextually-governed functions of a given form; if Biblical scholars will learn
praise') to become Expressive ('call of praise'). This fits with the synehronic description by
to use the language of speech acts, impticatures and conversation analysis, the description of
C.S. Lewis above, with the occasional optative function of the imperative (section 3.3.3. above)
Biblical Hebrew grammar will gain greatly in precision.
and the similar tendency for Commissive cohortatives ('vow of praise') to become Expressive
Finally, it is hoped that linguistic work such as this will inform appreciation of the rhetorical
('call of praise') (section 4.3.4. above). This tendency is highly distinctive of the Biblical
artistry of the Psalms, which are in any case so open to misunderstanding due to their disputed
tradition of worship, and it has been argued to set it apart from that of other religions. 299
Sitz im Leben and many obscure concepts. Linguistics can then better serve, and give authority
to, our understanding of the Psalmists' true spirituality.

Ｎｬ･ｫ｣ｮｩｷｯｍＥｾ The Psalms in Israel's Worshi", 82.

297 Daniels. J.T., 7'l,e Hallelujah Facror (Crowoorough: Highland Books. 1985).
298Taylor. J.B., ·Hosanna·. in Douglas. 1.0.. Hillyer, N. and Wood. D.R.W. (eds.). Nell' Bible Dicrionary. 3rd edn.
(Leicester: (VP. 1996) 482.
2<J9E.g. contrasting with the Qur'llll: 'The Bihlical phrase "Praise ye the Lord:' Ilrallalu-wi/rl implies personal
responsihility. gratitude. activity: the Moslem phrase j"ollulII,du liliihi. "the Praise is God's"l expresses
suhmission. inevitahleness, passivity. fmalism.': Zwemcr. S.M .. Tile Mo.v/em Doctrine a/God: All Essay on The
Character (lmi Atrrilmtes of Allah according to the Koran {lml Orthodox Trlfdi'ilm (Boston. New York and
Chicago: American Tract Society. 1905) 99.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abooud. P.F. et al.. Elememary Modern Standard Arabic (Cambridge: CUP. 1983).
Aejmelaeus, A., 'Function and Interpretation of ':J in Biblical Hebrew', lBL 105 (1985) 193-209.
- - - - . The Traditional Prayer in the Psalms (BZAW 167; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986).
Alonso Schokel, L., A Manual of Hebrew PoeTics (Subsidia Biblica 11; Rome: Editrice Pontifieo IstitulO Bihlico.
1988).
Andersen. F.l., The Hebrew VerbleH Clause in the Pell/ateuch (JBL MonogTaph Series XIV; Nashville:
Abingdon, 1970).
- - - - , The Sell/ence in Biblical Hebrew (lanua Linguarurn, Series Practica 231; The Hague: Mouton & Co.
N.V .• 1974).
AnlluTi, A.. 'The Hebrew Verb in Poetic Context: Psalm 44', Presented at the University of Leiden (1994).
- - - - . 'How do the Psalms Mean Pr.y·'-An Essay on the Use of Verbal Conjugations in the Hehrew
Psalter', Presented at the University of Hamburg (1996).
Austin. J .L.. How 10 do Things wiTh Word.... The William lames Lectures delivered at Harvard University i1l 1955,
2nd edn., ed. J.O. Unnson and M. Sbisa (Oxford: OUP, 1976).
- - - - . 'Performative Ulleranees', in J.L. Austin, Philosophical Papers, ed. J.O. Urmson and G.J. Warnock;
3rd edn. (Clarendon Paperbacks; Oxford: OUP. 1979) 233-52.
Baalhaki. R., 'Reclassifieation in Arab Grammatical Theory', lNES 54 (1995) 1-13.
Barr. J .. The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: OUP, 1961).
- - - - , Comparative Philology multhe Text of the Old Tesramem (SCM Press, 1968).
- - - , 'Why" in Biblical Hebrew'. lTS 36 (1985) 1-33.
Bailie. J.H .. Symactic Structures in the MasoreTic Hebrew TeXT of the Psalms (Diss. University of Texas at Austin:
Ann Arbor. MI: University Microfilms, Inc., 1969).
B:lUer. H. and Leander, P., HislOrische Grammatik del' Hebrtiischen Sprache des Alten Tesramell/es, I. Band
(Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962).
Beekman. J. and Callow, J., TranslaTing the \Vord of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1974).
Begrich, J .. 'Die VertrauensauBerungen im israelitischen Klagclied des Einzelnen und in seinem hahylonischen
Gegenstiick', Z4 \V 46 (1928) 221-60.
- - - - . 'Das priesterliehe Heilsorakel', Z4 \V 52 (1934) 81-92.
- - - - , Gesammelte Studien zum Altetl Testamelll (TB-NBZJ 21; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1964).
Bergen, R.D. (cd.), Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics (Dallas: SIL, 1994).
Bergstrasser. G .• Einfiihrung in die semitischen Sprachen: Sprachproben und grammatische Skiuen (Miinchen:
M.x Hueher Verl.g, 1928).
- - - - , Introduction 10 the Semitic ｌ｡ｮｧｵ Ｌｾ･ｳＺ TeXT Specimens and Grammatical Sketches, tr. PT. Daniels
(Winona Lake, Ind.: Eiscnbr.uns, 1983).
- - - - , Hebrtiische Grammatik, Il. Teil: Verhum (Repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliehe Buchgesellschaft. 1991;
Leipzig, 1929).
Berlin, A.. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloominglon: Indiana University Press, 1985).
Blau. J., A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Porta Linguarum Orientalium. Neue Serie XII; Wiesbaden: OIlO
Harrasowitz, 1976).
Bliese, L.F., 'Structurally Marked Peak in Psalms 1-24', OPTAT 4 (1990) 265-321.
Bratchcr. R.G. and Reybum, W.D.. A Handbook on Psalms (UBS Handhook Series; New York: UBS. 1991).
Brockclmann, c., Hebrtiische Synrax fNeukirchcl1 Kreis Mocrs: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins.
1956).
212 MOc!o!ify. Reference Clnd Speech Acts in the P.m/lIIs lIi!JI/(lgmph" 21.1

Brongers, H.A .. 'Some Remarks on the Bihlieal Panicle ha I6". OTS 21 (1981) 177-89. Fensham, F.C., 'Law', in Douglas. 1.D. and Hillyer. N. (eds.), The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, part 2 (Leicester:

Brown. F.. Driver. S.R. and Bnggs. C.A., A Hebrew alld English LexicolI of the Old Testamellt (Oxford: IVP. 1980) S82-89.
Clarendon Press. 1'1(6). Finley, T.l .• 'The Proposal in Biblical Hebrew: Preliminary Studies Using a Oeep Slructure Model'. ZAH 2 (1989)
Brown. G. and Yule. G .. Discourse Allalysis (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: CUP, 1983). 1-13.
Broyks. c.c.. The COllfliCl of Failh alld £rperiellce ill the PsalmJ: A Form-Crilical alld TIIeological SllIdy Frost. S.. 'Assevemtion by Thanksgiving'. YT8 (1958) 380-90.
(JSOTS 52; Shcffield: lSOT Press, 1989). Fuchs. 0 .. Die Klage als Gebet: eille Iheologische Besillfllmg am Beispiel des Psalms 22 (Miinchen: Koscl- Verlag,
Bruder. K.A .. 'A pragmatics for human relationship with the divine: An examination of the monastic blessing 19S2).
sequence', loP 29 (1998) 463-91. Gerstenberger. E.S .. Del' billellde Memch: Bitlrituallllld Klagelied des Eillzelllell im Altell Tesl(llllenr (WMANT

Buhlmann, W. and Scherer. K.. Stilfigurell del' Bibel: eill Heilles Nachschlagewerk (Biblische Beitrage 10; 51; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980).

Fribourg: Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk. 1973). - - - - , Psalms: with all InrrodllClion 10 Cultic Poetr)', Part I (FOTL XIV: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988).

BUllenwieser, M., The PJalms (The Library of Biblical Studies: New York: KTAV. 1%9). Gesenius, W. and Kaulzsch, E.. Hebraische Grammatik (Repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,

Carmignac, 1.. '''Fais que nous n'entrions pas dans la tentation": La portce d'une negation devant un verbe au 1991; Leipzig, 1909).
causatif, RB 72 (1965) 218-26. Gesenius. W. and Kautzsch, E.. Hebrew Grammar. 11. A.E. Cowley (Oxford: C1arendon Press, 1910).
Chomsky. N., Syntactic Structllres (lanua Linguarum IV; The Hague: MOUlOn & Co., 1957). Gesenius. W. and Buh!. F., Handwbrterbllch uber das alle Tesramenl, unveranderter Neudruck der 1915

- - - - . Aspects of the Theory of Sylltax (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1965). erschienenen 17. Aullage (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1962).

C1aasscn, W.T.. 'Speaker-Orientated Functions of ki in Biblical Hebrew', lNSL 11 (1983) 29-46. Gibson, A.. Biblical Semalllic Logic: A Prelimillar\' Analysis (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981).
Collins, C.l., The wayyiqlol as 'pluperfect': when and why'. TYIIBuI46.1 (1995) 117-40. Gibson. 1.C.L.. 'The Anatomy of Hehrew Narrative Poetry', in Auld. A.G. (cd.), Understanding Poets and

Collins, T.. 'Occoding the Psalms: A Structural Approach to the Psalter', lSOT 37 (1987) 41-60. Prophets. Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson (Shertield: JSOT Press, 1993) 141-48.

Comrie, B.. Tellse (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: CUP, 1976). - - - - . Davidson's Itllrodllctory Hebrew Grammar-Synrax, 4th edn. (Edinburgh: T&T CIark, 1994).

- - - - . Aspect (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: CUP. 1985). Giv6n, T., 'The drift from VSO to SVO in biblical Hebrew: The pragmatics of lense-aspeet', in Li, C.N. (ed.),

Crusemann. F.. Studiell ｾｵｲ For/llgeschichte VOII Hymllus ulld Donklied in Israel (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Mechallisms ofSyn/llctic Challge (Austin: Universily of Texas Press, 1977) 181-254.
Neukirchcner Veriag. 1969). - - - - . 'The Evolution of Dependent Clause Morpho-Syntax in Biblical Hehrew'. in Traugoll. E.C. & Heine,

Culley. R.C.. Oral Formulaic Lallguage ill Ihe Biblicol Psalms (NMES 4; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, B. (eds.). AI,proaches 10 Grammalicalizatioll, vof. 2 (Typological Studies in Language 19; Amsterdam

1967l- and Philadelphia: lohn Benjamins. 1991) 257-310.

Dabood. M.. Psolms (The Anchor Bible 16-17A; New York: Doublcday, 1965-70). Grabcr. PL. 'A Texllinguistic Approach 10 Understanding Psalm 88'. OPTAT 4 (1990) 322-39.
Dahood, M. and Penar, T., 'The Grammar of the Psalter', in Psalms (The Anchor Bihle 17A; New York: - - - - , 'The Structural Meaning of Psalm 113', OPTAT4 (1990) 340-52.
Doubleday, 1%5-70) 361-456. Gross, H.. Einfiihrullg ill die gemul1liSlische Linguislik (Munich: iudicium vcriag GmbH, 1990).
Daniels, 1.T.. The Hallelujah Factor (Crowborough: Highland Books, 1985). Gro6, W., 'Das nieht substantiviene Partizip als Pradikat im Relativsatz hebraiscber Prosa', lNSL 4 (1975) 23-47.

Dawson, D.A.. Text-Lillguistics and Biblical Hebrew (lSOTS 177; Sheffield: lSOT Press, 1994). - - - - . Verbform ulld Funktioll wayyiq!ol fur die Gegenwarr? Ein Beilrag lur Sylltax poetischer
de Boer, P.A.H.. 'Cantate domino: an erroneous dative?', OTS 21 (1981) 55-67. althebraischer Texte (ATAT I; St. Ollilien: EOS, 1976).

DeCaen. V.. 011 the Placement alld Interpretation of the Verb in SIandard Biblical Hebrew Prose (Dissertation, - - - - , Die PendenskansIrllktion illl Biblischell Hebraisch: Studie ,UIIl althebraischen Sat, I (ATAT 27; SI.
University of Toronto: UMI, 1995). Ollilien: EOS, 1987).
- - - - , 'Ewald and Driver on Biblical Hebrew 'Aspect': Anteriority and the Orientalist Framework'. ZAH 9 Gunke!. H., Die Psalmen (Gollinger Handkomlllentar zum Alten Testament 11.2; GOllingen: Vandenhoeck &
(1996) 129-51. Ruprechl, (926).
Driver, S.R., A Trearise Oil the Use of the Tellse., ill Hebrew and some olher sYll/actical Questiolls (Oxford: - - - - , Einleitung ill die Psalmen. Die Gallungen del' religiiisen Lyrik Israe/.' (Giillingen: Vandenhoeck &
Clarendon Press. 1892). Rupreeht, 1933).
- - - - , Notes on the Hebrew TexI atlll the Topography of Ihe Books of Samuel. 2nd rev. edn. (Oxford: Haegeman, L., IlItroduclioll to Govemmenr alld Bindillg Theory, 2nd edn., 1994 (Blackwell Textbooks in
Clarendon Press. 1913). Linguistics I; Oxford: Blackwell, 1991).
Emerton, 1.A., 'The translation of the verbs in the imperfect in Psalm 11.9', lTS NS29 (1978) 499-503. - - - - - , The SYlltax of Negalioll (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 75; Camhridge: CUP. 1996).
Eskhult, M.• S/lIdies ill Verbal Aspect alld Narrative Techllique ill Biblical Hebrew Prose (Acta Universitatis Haiman. 1.. Nawral Sylltax: ICOllicily alld Erosioll (Cambridge: CUP, 1985).
Upsaliensis. SSU 12: Uppsala, 1990). Halliday, M.A.K.. 'Language Structure and Language Function', in 1. Lyons (cd.), New Horizons in Linguistics
- - - , 'TI'e Old Testament and Text Linguistics'. OS 43-44 (1994-95) 93-103. (Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1970) 140-165.
Ewald, H.. Syll/lU oflhe Hebre'" umgllage oflhe Old Teslamenr. 11. J. Kennedy (Edinhurgh: T&T Clark. 1881). Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R.. Cohesion ill English (English Language Series No. 9; London: Longman, 1976).
Fabcr. A.. 'Tbc diachronic relationship between negative and interrogative markers in Semitic'. in Kaye. A.S. Hamilton, V.P.. The Book afGellesis, Chapters 1-17 (NICOT; Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans. (990).
(cd.). Semitic Studies (2 vols; FS Leslau; Wiesbaden: 0110 Harrassowitz, 1991) 41 1-29.
21-1 /\,focltllin", R(:!'ert!m.:e a"d Speech Acts in the p,.wlm,\" lJihlifJgnll'h.' ｩＧｉｾ

Harris. A.C. and Campbell. L.. Hi."orical Syntax in CroH·Lingllistic Perspective (Camhridge Sludies in Kennett. R.H .. ;\ Short Account of the Hebrew Tell.,e.\· (Camhridge: CUP. 1901).
Linguistics 74; Cambridge: CUP, 1995). Kesterton. J.c.. 'Cohortativc and Shorllmpcrfect Forms in Semkim and Dam. Doe.". RdQ 47 (1986) 369-1\2.
Held. M.. "The YQTL-QTL (QTL-YQTL) Sequence of Identical Verhs in Bihlical Hehrew and in Ugaritic·. in Ben- Khan. G.A .. Stud;',." in Semitic Syntax (London Oriental Series, Vol. 38; Oxford: OUP. 1988).
Horin. M.. Weinryh, B.D. and Zcillin. S. (eds.). Studies "nd Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman - - - - . 'Review of B. Zuber. Das Tempussystem des hiblischen Hehriiisch. Eine Untersuchung am Text'. VT
(Leiden: EJ. Brill. 19(2) 281-90. 46 (1996) 143·44.
- - - - , "The Action-Result (Factitive-Passive) Sequence of Identical Verhs in Biblical Hehrew and Ugaritic', Kienast. B.. 'Das Punktualthema 'japrus und seine Modi'. Or 29 (1960) 151-67.
lBL 84 (1965) 272·82. Klein, G.L.. 'The 'Prophetic Perfect", lNSL 16 (1990) 45-60.
Hendel. R.S .. 'In the Margins of the Hehrew Verhal System: Situation. Tense. Aspeet. Mood', ZAH 9 (1996) 152- Konig. E.. Histori"ch·Comparative Syntax der Hebriiischell Sprache (Leipzig: J.c. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung.
81. 1897).
Hillers. DK.. Deloeutive Verhs in Biblical Hebrew', lBL 86 (1967) .120-24. Kraus, H.-J .. P.wlmell. 5.. grundlegend tiherarbcitete und veranderte Aullage. 2 Bande (Biblischer Kommentar
- - - - , 'Some Performative Utterances in the Bible', in Wright. D.P.. Freeman. D.N. and Hurvilz, A. (eds.), Altes Testament XVII-2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1978).
Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies ill Near E"stern Ritual. Law. and Literature in Honor of Kugel, J.L.. The Idea of Biblical Poetry. Parallelism alld its History (New HavenlLondon: Yale University Press.
l"cob Milgrom (Winona Lake, [nd.: Eisenbrauns, 19951757·66. 1981 ).
Hoftijzer. J., The Function and Use of the Imperfect Forms ",ith Nun Paragogiwm in Classical Hebrew (The Kurylowicz. 'Verbal Aspect in Semitic', Or42 (1973) 114-20.
Netherlands: Van Gorcum. 1985). Lambdin, T.O., Ir/troduction to Biblical Hebrew (London: Darton, Longman and Todd. 1971).
Hopper. P.J. and Traugott, E.C.. Grammaticalization (Camhridge Texthooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: CUP, Lande.l.. Formelhafte Wellduogell der Umgallgssprache im Alten Testament (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1949).
1993). Lauha, R., Psychophysiscl'er Sprachgebrauch im Altell Testametlt: Eine struktur"ematltische Allaly"e VOII .:I'.
Horn. L.IL A Natural History of Negation (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1989). ｊｾｖ ulld nl"l. I. Emotiollen (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae: Dissertationes Hurnanarum
Hosskld. F..L. and Zenger, E., Die Psalmen (Die neue Echter Bihel 29: Wtirzhurg, 1993). Linerarum 35; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1983).
HouslOn. W., 'What Did the Prophets Think They Were Doing') Speech Acts and Prophetic Discoursc in the Old Levinson. S.C .. Pragmatics (Camhridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: CUP, 1983).
Testament', BII (1993) 167-88. - - - - . 'Three levels of meaning', in Pahner. F.R. (ed.), Grammar alld Meallillg (FS Lyons; Cambridge: CUP.
Huehnergard, J.. "The Early Hebrew Prefix-Conjugations', HS 29 (1988) 19-23. 1995190-115.
Irsigler. H.. £in/iihrung ill das biblische Hebriiisch. I. Ausge"'iihlte Abschnitte der althebriiischen Grammatik Lewis, C.S .. Reflections 011 the Psalms (London: HarperCollins, 1958).
(ATAT9; St. Ottilien: EOS, 1978). Ljungherg. B.-K.. ·Tense. Aspect. and Modality in some Theories of the Biblical Hehrew Verbal System', 10IT
- - - - - . ·Psalm·Rede als Handlungs-, Wirk- und Aussageprozell: Sprechaktanalyse und Psalmeninlerprelation 713 (1995).
am Beispiel von Psalm 13'. in Seybold, K. and Zenger. E. (eds.). Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung (FS Longacre, R.E., An Anatomy of Speech Notiolls (Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press, 1976).
Beycrlin; Herders Biblische Studien, Band I; Freiburg: Herder, (994). - - - - . The Grammar of Discourse (New York, 1983).
Jacquet, L.. Les Psaumes et le coeur de I'homme: Etude texruelle. litteraire et docrrinale, 3 vols (Belgique; - - - - , loseph: A Story of Diville Providellce. A Text Theoretical and Textlillguistic Analysis of Gellesis 37
DuculOl, 1975). alld 39-48 (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1989).
Jenni. E.. Lehrbuch der Hebriiischell Sprache des Alten Testamellts (Basel & Frankfurt am Main: Helbing & - - - - , 'Discourse Perspective on the Hebrew Verb: Anirmation and Restatement', in Bodine, W.R. (ed.).
Lichtenhahn, 1981). Linguistics alld Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake. Ind.: Eisenbrauns. 1992).
Jenson, P.P., Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly COllceptioll of the World (JSOTS 106; Sheffield: JSOT Press, Loprieno, A., Ancietlt Egyptian: A Linguistic IlItroduction (Cambridge: CUP, 1995).
1992). Lust. J., 'The mised hand of the Lord in Deut32:40 according 10 MT, 4QDeutq, and LXX', Textus 18 (1995) 33-
Joosten, J., 'The Predicative Participle in Biblical Hebrew', ZAH 2 (1989) 128·59. 45.
- - - - , 'Biblical Hebrew weqiital and Syriac hwii qiitel expressing repetition in the past'. ZAH 5 (1992) 1-14. Lyons. J.,ltltroductioll to Theoretical Linguistics (Cambridge: CUP, 19(8).
------. 'The Indicalive System of the Biblical Hebrew Verh and its Literary Exploitation'. in van Wolde. E. - - - - . Semantics. 2 vols. (Cambridgc: CUP, 1977).
(ed.), Narrative Sytltax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conferellce 1996 (Leiden: EJ. - - - - , Chom.fky, Rev. edn. (Fontana Modern Masters; Glasgow: FontanalCollins. 1977).
Brill. 1997) 51-71. MacDonald. PJ .. 'Discourse Analysis and Biblical Interpretation', in Bodine. W.R. (ed.). Linguistics and lIibliwl
- - - - . 'Workshop: Meaning and Use of the Tenses in I Samuel I'. in van Woldc, E. (ed.), Narrative Sylltax Hebrew (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. 1992) 153-76.
ami the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Ti/burg COllferellce 1'J96 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997) 72-83. MacKenzie. R.A.F.. 'The Formal Aspect of Ancicnt Near Eastern Law', in McCullough. W.S. (ed.), The Seed of
Jotion. P. and Muraoka, T.. A Grammar of Biblical Hebre .... 2 vols (Rome: Editrice Pontitieo 1stitulO Biblico, Wi"dom (FS Meek; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964) 31·44.
1991). McFall. L.. The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal S\,stem (Historic TeXIS and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship 2:
Kaufman. S.A.. 'Paragogic nun in Biblical Hebrew: Hypcrcorrectiol1 as a Cluc 10 a Lost Scribal Practice'. in Zevit, Shcflield: The Almond Press. 1982).
Z.. Gitin. S. and Sokoloff. M. (eds.). Sot.'illg Riddles (md Ulltyillg K,lOts: Biblical. Epigraphic, alld Meier, S.A.. Speaking (ifSpeakillg: Marking Direct Discourse in The Hebre ... Bible (SVT 46; Brill. 1992).
Semitic Swdies in HOllor of 10llas C. Greellfield (Winona Lake. Ind.: Eiscnbrauns. 1995) 95-99. Meyer, R.. Hebriii"c1te Grammatik. 3rd edn. (Berlin. 1966-72).
216 Modality. Re/l'rellc(' mul Speech Acts ill 'he P.mlnl." 217

Michel. D.. Tempow IIlId Sar:.<teJlullg ill dell P.wlmell (Ahhandlungen zur Evangelischen Theologie. Band I; - - - - . 'Types of Prayer in the Old Testamenl. Snme Semantic Ohservations on Hitpallel. Hithannen. etc'-.
Bonn: H. Bouvicr u. Co. Verlag. 1960l. Semitics 7 (1980) 131-43.
Moran. W.L.. 'New evidence on Canaanite taqtllili(lIa)'. JCS 5 (1951) 33-35. Schneider. W., Gmmmalik des biblischell Hebriiisch (Munich: Claudius Verlag, 1982).
- - - - . 'EarlyCanaanile raqtul,,·. Or 29 (1960) 1-19. Schrag. B.E., 'Translating Song Texts as Oral Compositions'. NOT 6 (1992) 44-62.
- - - - . 'The Hehrew Language in its NOrlhwest Semitic Background'. in Wright. G.E. (cd.). The Bihle and the Schweizcr. H., Metaplroriscll(1 Grammatik: Wege zur fnll'gratio" \'Ofl Grammatik und Texrimeq,retat;on in de,.
Ancient Near East (FS Albrighl; London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1961) 54-72. Exegese (ATAT 15; SI. OUilien: EOS. 1981).
Moseati. S. (cd.). All I"troductioll to the Compar{/f;,'e Grammar of the Semitic Lallguages: Phollologyalld Searle. J.R .• Speech Acts (Cambridge: CUP. 1969).
Morphology (Porta Linguarum Orientalium. Neue Serie VI; Wieshaden: Olto Harrasowitz. 1964). - - - - . Expressioll alld Meallillg: St"dies i" the Theo'.'" of Speech ACls (Camhridge: CUP. IlJ79l.
Mowinckel. S.. The Psalms ill Israel's Worship. Ir. D.R. Ap-Thomas (The Bihlical Seminar; Sheffield: JSOT Searle, J.R. and Vanderveken. D.. FOUlld{/fiOllS of lIIocutio"arT Logic (Cambridge: CUP, 1985).
Press. 1962). Segal, M.H .• A Gmmmar of Misliflaic Hebrew (Oxford: C1arendon Press. 1958).
Muller. H.-P.. 'Ergative Constructions in Early Semitic Languages', JNES 54 (1995) 261-71. Scow. CL., A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew (Nashville: Ahingdon Press. 1987).
Muraoka. T.. Emphatic Words Alld Structures III Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press & Leiden: E.J. - - - - , 'Linguistic Evidence and the Dating ofQohelct'. JBL 115 (1996) 643-66.
Brill. 1985). Shlonsky, U.• Clause Structure and Word Order ill Hebrelr alld Ambic: All Essay ill Comparative Semitic Syf/la.<
Neuwirth. A.. Studietl :ur Kompositiml der mekkGtlischell Surell (Studien zur Sprache. Geschichte und Kultur des (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax; Oxford: OUP. 1997).
islamischen Orients NF 10; Berlin: Waiter del' Gruyter, 1981). Summer Institute of Linguistics (ed.). Field Li"guistics 1998 Grammar (SIL, 1998).
Niccacc;, A.• SintaHi del verbo ebraico tlella prosa biblica classica (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Analecta Swiggers. P., 'Paradigmatical Semantics·.lAH6 (1993) 44·59.
23; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1986). Talstra. E.. 'Texl Grammar and Hehrew Bihle. I. Elements of a Theory', Ba 35 (1978) 16lJ-174.
- - - - . The S)'fIIO-< of the Verb ill Classical Hebrew Prose. tr. W.G.E. Watson from Silltassi del verbo ebraico - - - - . 'Text Grammar and Hehrew Bihle. 11. Synlax and Semantics'. Ba 39 (1982) 26-38.
lIella prosa biblica classica. 1986 (JSOTS 86; Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1990). - - - - , 'Text Grammar and Biblical Hebrew: The Viewpoint of Wolfgang Schneider'. JOTT 5(4) (1992) 269-
- - - - . 'A ｎｾｧｬ･ ､ Point of Hebrew Syntax: Yiqlol and Position in the Senlence·. LA 37 (1987) 7-19. 97.
O'Connor. M.. Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake. Ind.: Eisenhrauns. 1980). - - - - (cd.), Narrative Gild Commellt (FS Schneider; Amsterdam: Socielas Hebraica Amstelodamensis. 1995).
Palmer. F.R .. Mood atld Modality (Camhridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: CUP. 1986). Taylor, J.B., 'Hosanna'. in Douglas, J.D .. Hillyer, N. and Wood. D.R.W. (eds.), Nell' Bible Dictiolla,)', 3rd edn.
Pardee, D.. 'The "Epistolary Perfect" in Hehrew letters'. BN 22 (1983) 34-40. (leicester: IVP. 1996) 482.
Pike. K.l. and E.G .. GrammLltical Allalysis (Dallas: SIL, 1977). Thisehon. A.C, 'The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings'. JTS NS25 (1974) 283-99.
Prinsloo. W.S.• 'A Comprehensive Semiostructural Exegetical Approach'. aTE 7/4 (1994) 78-83. Tromp. N.J.. 'Thc Hehrew Panicle ba/'. OTS21 (1981) 277-87.
Procksch. 'The Word of God in the Old Testament '. in TDNT S.V.My", (1942) 91-100. Tseval. M.• A Study of rhe Language of the Biblical Psalms' (JBL Monograph Series IX; Philadelphia: Sociey of
Qimron, E., The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Harvard Semitic Series; Atlanla. GA: Scholars Press, 1986). Biblical Literalure. 1955).
Radford, A.. Transformational Grammar. A First Course (Cambridge Textbooks in linguistics; Cambridge: CUP, van der Merwe. CH.J., 'An Overview of Hebrew Narrative Syntax Research'. in van Wolde. E. (ed.). Narrative
1988). Syntax alld the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conferellce 1996 (leiden: E.J. Brill. 1997) 1-20.
Rendshurg. G.A.. Diglossia ill Ancient Hebrew (American Oriental Scries 72; New Haven. CN: American Oriental van Wolde, E., Words become Worlds: Semalltic Studies of Gellesis 1-11 (Bihlical Interpretation Series 6; leiden:
Society, 1990). E.J. Brill, 1994).
Richter, W., Grutldlagetl eitleralthebriiischell Grammatik. 3 vols (ATAT 8,10.13; SI. Ottilien: EOS, 1978-80). - - - - (cd.), Narrative S)'lItax and the Hebrew Bible: Paper.,· of Ihe Tilburg COllferellce 1996 (Biblical
- - - - . TrallSliteratioll ulld Trallskriptioll-Objekt- ulld metasprachliche Metazeichellsysteme zur Wiedergabe Inteepretation Series 29; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1997).
hebriiischer Texte (ATAT 19; SI. Ottilien: EOS, 1983). von Soden. W.. Grrllldriss der akkadischell Grammatik (Analecta Orientalia 33/47; Rome: Pontilicum Institutum
- - - - , Ulltersuchullgetl zur Valetlz althebriiischer Verben (ATAT 23/25; SI. Oltilien: EOS, 1985/86). Biblicum. 1969).
- - - - . Biblia Hebraica trallscripta (BhO (ATAT 33; SI. Ottilien: EOS. 1991193). Wagner. A.. Sprechakte wld Sprechaktallalyse im Altetl Testamet/t: Ullrersuchullgell ill/ IJiblischell Hebriiisch at/
Roberlson. A.T., A Grammar of the Greek New Testametlt ill the Light of Historical Research, 3rd edn .. 1919 der Nahlstelle :wischell Handlwlgsebene wld Grall/II/atik (BZAW 253; Berlin: de Gruyler. 1997).
(New York: Hodder & Sloughton. 1914). Wallke. B.K. and O·Connor. M.. All IlIIrodllctioll ((} Biblical Hebrell' SYllta.\ (Winona lake. Ind.: Eisenhrauns.
Sappan. R.. The Typical Features of the Sylltax ()f Biblical Poerry in its Classical Period (Jerusalem: Kiryat- 1990).
Sepher, 1981). Warren. A.L. The S(JIIg of Hall/rah. I Som 2: 1-10. A Texrual Stud,. focussillg Oil Liturgical Use (Unpuhlished
- - - - . Ti,e Rhetorical-Logical Classificatiotl of Semmlric Challges, ET; first puh!. 1983 (Braunlon: Merlin MPhil disserlalion; Camhridge. 1994).
Books. 1987). _ _ _ _ , 'Did Moses permit Divorce') Modal wiiqii!al as Key to NT Readings of Deuteronomy 24: 1-4'. TplUul
Saussure. F. dc. Cours de lillguistique gellerale (Paris: Payol. 1916). 49.1 (1998) 39-56.
Sawyer. J.FA.• Semalltics in Biblh'ol Research: New Merhods for De!inillg Hebrew Words for Salvation (Studies Washhurn. DL. 'Chomsky' s Separation of Syntax and Semantics. HS 35 (1994) 27 -46.
in Bihlieal Theology Second Series 24: SCM Press. 1972). Watson. W.G.E.. Cla.Himl Hebrcll' PoeT"': A Guide to il.l' Tn'llI/i'lt/cs (JSOTS 26: Shertield: JSOT Press. 1984).
21 K Mot/lI/it)". Reference (wd Speedl AdS il/ 'he Psalms

- - - - . TradiliUlwl Techl/iques il/ Clas,\'iCllI Hebrew Verse (lSOTS 170; Sheftield: JSOT Press. 1994).
Wats"n. D.F. and Hauser. AJ .. RhelOriCllI Crilicism of Ihe Bible: A Comprehen.,i,'e Bibliograpl,,' wilh Nores all
Hislor\' alld Melhod (Biblical Interpretation Series 4: Leiden: EJ. Brill. 1994).
Wehrlc. J.. 'Die PV k'=m'al als Indikator fur dcn Satzmodus in Sprechakten', in Groll. W.. lrsigler. H. and Seidl.
Th. (eds.). Texl. MelllOde WIlJ Grammatik (FS Richler; SI. Ollilien: EOS. 1991) 577-94.
Wcinrich. H.. Tempas. Besl'l'Ochelle alld erziihlle Well. Jrd edn. (Sprache und Literatur 16; SlUllgart:
Kohlhammer. 1977).
Wcndland. E.R. (cd.). Discoarse Penpecli,'('s 011 BibliCllI Hebrew Poetry (UBS Monograph 7; ReadinglNew
York: UBS. 1994).
..- - - - , Discourse Allalnis alld Ihe Psalms: All (IIlrodllcliol/ ...ilh Exercises for Bible Tromlaton (draft copy).
- - - - . Lob ulld Klage il/ del/ Pm(me", 5.. erweitcrlc Aullage von Dm utbell GOl/es il/ den Psalmell
(Gollingen: Vandcnhocck & Ruprecht, 1977).
We"ernlann. C.. Praise alld Lamelll il/ Ihe Psalms Lr. K.R. Cri m and R.N. Soulen (Edinhurgh: T&T Clark. 19(5).
WhiLC. H.C. (cd.), Speech Act Theor.l' alld Biblical Criticism (Scmeia 41; Decatur, GA: Scholars Press. 1988).
Wickes. W.. A Trealise 01/ Ihe Accelllualio" of Ihe three so-cal/ed Poelical Books of Ihe Old Tes/(lmelll. Psalms.
Proverbs. al/d Job (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1881).
Williams. RJ .. Hebrew Syntax. All OUIIi"e (Toronto and Buffalo; University of Toronto Press. 1967).
Will. T.. 'A Sociolinguistic Analysis of NA-", VT 46 (1996) 237-55.
Wright. W.. A Grammar of Ihe Arabic LlIIIguage. 3rd edn .. rev. W. Robenson Smith and M.I. de Goeje
(Cambridge: CUP. 1896).
Zaldli. I.. 'Pragmalinguistics and Speech-Act Theory as Applied 10 Classical Hebrew'. ZAH 6 (1993) 60-74.
- - - - . 'Analysis of Lcxemes from a Conversational Prose Text: Imh as signal of a performative ullerance in
Sam. 25:4r. ZAH 7 (1994) 5-11.
ZuNor. B.. Om Tempussyslem des biblischell Hebrai.lch. Eille UllIer.\·uchuIIg am Texl (BZAW 164; Berlin de
Gruyter, 1986).
Zwemer. S.M.• The Moslem Doctrille of God: All Essay 011 Ihe Ch"raCler "lid Atlribules of AI/oh according 10lhe
Koran alld Orthodox Traditio" (Boston. New York and Chicago: American Tract Society. 1905) 99.