The Role of in Questions

Trevor Peterson 2003?

1 Introduction and Background

The demonstrative pronoun in Biblical Hebrew (BH) is generally acknowledged to play a special role in the formation of questions. To the beginning student, it seems to lack a proper place in the sentence, or as though something else that should be there were missing. Intermediate students are taught that this use of the demonstrative is common in BH and given some simple strategy for translating it. They know that if they need extra help, they can turn to the standard grammars for more information, but once they get comfortable with its presence, they probably dont give it much more thought. Joon states that originally was a demonstrative adverb (here; there) and it is still found used as such (enclitically or otherwise). He goes on to assert that whenever is used, what it refers to can be pointed to, whether actually or mentally (1991, 2:531). Waltke and OConnor describe demonstratives generally as independent deictic words that may be used as pronouns, taking the place of a noun, or as adjectives, qualifying or determining a noun. As deictic words, they point out or call attention to someone or something (1990, 306). This general description fits well with the more ordinary uses of the demonstrative, but it is not always quite as clear how, if at all, the demonstrative continues its deictic force when applied to questions. Even less clear is how it can properly be considered a pronoun or adjective in such situations. Although the distinctive role of in questions has been observed by several Hebrew grammarians, most of them have had little to say about its significance. Joon remarks only that is often added to an interrogative word, without any notable change in meaning (1923, 444; 1991, 2:532). Somewhat more common is an observation like that of Gesenius, that the demonstrative is used zur Verstrkung (1995, 295). Similarly, 1

Koehler and Baumgartner say that the demonstrative strengthens the interrogative (2001, 264). According to Waltke and OConnor, the construction seems to emphasize the question and is best rendered by an emphatic adverb or phrase (1990, 312). A bit more descriptively, Knig says that the demonstrative is used to heighten the Eindringlichkeit und Lebhaftigkeit of questions (1897, 481). Kautzsch says the demonstrative is used to emphasize interrogatives and generally glosses his examples using doch, which Cowley translates as now (1896, 436; 1910, 442). Elsewhere he says it is used to give vividness to the question (1910, 475). The sum of these remarks is that the demonstrative strengthens or emphasizes questions.1 Somewhat more descriptive comments add that the demonstrative relates questions more closely to what has already been mentioned or to the speaker. Ewald suggests that the demonstrative makes the question nicht blo lebendiger, wie durch ,sondern auch noch nher auf das schon erblickte oder hervorgerufene bezogen (1870, 804805). Delitzsch agrees that the demonstrative macht die Frage lebendiger und giebt ihr bestimmte Beziehung (1887, 104). Brown et al. say the demonstrative imparts directness and force, bringing the question or statement made into close relation with the speaker (1907, 261). This heightened speaker role is more carefully delineated by van der Merwe et al., as they observe that demonstrative pronouns combined with interrogative pronouns sometimes express the surprise or amazement of a speaker about a state of affairs in the form of a rhetorical question (1999, 259). Such questions acquire emotional weight, providing indications of the speakers attitude that emerges in relation to the content of the question (323), sometimes particularly expressing a degree of irratation [sic] (324, 325). Similarly, Muraoka notices keen concern and interest on the part of the speaker and asserts that the original deictic force places the speaker, as it were, in the midst of the situation as a self-conscious participant (1985, 134). Here there is a clear connection between the general deictic thrust of the demonstrative and its specific use in questions. Schneider also explains the use of the demonstrative in terms of its deictic force, whereby es bezieht die Frage direkt auf die Sprechsituation und fordert vom Redepartner Antwort (1989, 240). In the discussion already noted, Muraoka voices a suspicion that the construction has actually resulted from the gradual coalescing of two orig1 Wright also says of Arabic that the demonstrative is used to render the interrogation more lively (1898, 2:312).

inally separate sentences (1985, 136). Elsewhere he opines that the original function of the demonstrative pronoun seems to have been to mark the preceding phrase as extraposed and forming a cleft sentence (2:533). A similar conclusion arises in connection with Arabic grammar, where debate surrounds the function of the demonstrative as a relativizer (Fleischer 1885, 1:355). Goldenberg surveys the discussion and concludes that the construction (for both Hebrew and Arabic) is the imperfectly-transformed cleft sentence (1977, 13032).

2 Aims and Methodology

It seems that a more systematic study of these interrogative constructions is in order. This is not to say that some worthwhile points have not been made in these other discussions, but the treatment is generally incomplete and imprecise. Little attention is paid to the possibility that different interrogative pronouns may behave differently with the demonstrative. The syntactic role of the demonstrative is not normally discussed, unless the construction is analyzed as a cleft sentence, and no one seems to have looked seriously at the semantic implications of that analysis. Pragmatic significance is suggested, but the remarks are usually vague; detailed treatment of real examples is generally absent. In this study, I have tried to collect and categorize syntactically all of the relevant data in the Hebrew Bible and to evaluate each according to semantic and pragmatic associations. This includes a careful treatment of interrogative constructions that use the demonstrative (and careful weeding out of questions that use the demonstrative in irrelevant roles), but it also requires regular comparison with interrogative constructions that do not use the demonstrative. I have tried to pay close attention to how the construction behaves in three categories of biblical materialpoetry, classical prose (CBH), and late prose (LBH). There are probably other distinctions that could be made, but these lines at least are reasonably clear and often significant. Above all, I have tried as much as possible to avoid assuming the conclusions and to let usage determine meaning. There is a positivistic danger in such a methodology, of assuming that because the evidence is insufficient to assign significance, no significance therefore exists. But my concern is to avoid results based on generality, as seems to have been a problem in earlier treatments. If I miss some conclusions in the process, at least a baseline will exist for further analysis.

3 Analysis
There appear to be six types of questions that exhibit this use of the demonstrative: questions formed by , , , ,and and polar questions (often marked with .)Each question type is treated separately below.

3.1 Questions Formed by

Of the questions that use some combination of and , about 60% appear in prose material and 40% in poetry. Of those instances that appear in prose, about 80% are in material that could be classified as CBH and 20% in LBH. This combination also shows up as a single interrogative pronoun ( ) in Rabbinic Hebrew (RH), which Segal identifies as a natural devel opment out of the use in BH. He describes the earlier state as an enclitic particle to add strength and directness to the question, with a shift of emphasis through constant use from to ,especially as Hebrew words have a tendency of shifting forwards the accent.2 The result is that in RH the question is in the demonstrative (1908, 661). Segal cites various examples from BH that show the shift in meaning, all of which are addressed here (662). On the few occasions that appears by itself, it always functions syn tactically as the adverbial predicate of a nominal clause (Gen 4:9; Deut 32:37; 1 Sam 26:16; Prov 31:4). This is also the simplest and most common situation in which we find with . In 1 Sam 9:18, Saul asks: Where is the seers house? The predicate precedes the subject, as usual in a verbless clause with indefinite predicate. Apart from that, the interrogatives seem to come obligatorily at the beginning of their clauses, and the demonstrative almost always follows immediately. In this particular example and in Jer 6:16, there is no obvious significance to the use of the demonstrative. In Isa 66:1, the demonstrative may give a note of added implausibility to the two rhetorical questions, while Job 38:19b seems to presume that the addressee is not expected to know the answer. In Isa 50:1, the demonstrative is not used with the question that follows, but could add a degree of contraexpec tation similar to that found in the first question. In Job 28:12, 20, there
I do not mean to comment here on Segals explanation of the shift or to imply by lack of comment that I agree with it. I cite his discussion only to show his observation of the relationship between BH and RH usage.
2

does not need to be any particular intensification of the second question in each pair, but the demonstrative could function to heighten the rhetorical force. Particularly because there are so few instances of used alone, it is hard to say with any degree of confidence that adds anything to the meaning or forcefulness of the question; several examples do allow for such addition, but others seem less likely. often appears in the construction , where it is difficult to see any unique force distinguishing it from . Like , the construction appears mostly as the predicate of a nominal clause, as in 1 Sam 30:13: And where are you from? There is no indication that the accompanying question has any extraordinary forcefulness, and although David and his men are probably anxious for some information about their enemies, there is no clear reason why this question in particular should be emphasized in some special way. The same can be said for 2 Sam 1:13, and the indirect questions of Judg 13:6 and 1 Sam 25:11 are even less likely to show any special forcefulness. can also appear as an adverbial modifier in a verbal clause, as in 2 Sam 1:3: Where are you coming from? The same question appears in Job 2:2, and in Gen 16:8 only the tense and gender of the verb are different. Again, there is no clear indication of emphasis, and in the last instance, the accompanying question with no emphatic device suggests that this question is not emphatic either.3 (Indeed, it would seem that Hagars destination is the more pressing question.) The word order, as in all the examples, also parallels that of a question without the demonstrative (taking the whole interrogative construction as one constituent). The more elaborate constructions cannot be accounted for as cleft sentences in any straightforward manner. The remaining instances of with the demonstrative approach the RH construction to varying degrees. In several cases, the noun is added to the interrogative construction that modifies a verbal clause, as in 1 Kgs 13:12:
The conjunction might be understood to carry forward the force of the demonstrative, as appears to happen with some uses of the particle of appeal.
3

 Which way did he go? The syntax is much the same as that already seen, but the addition of makes a locative or directional force redundant in .The same structure appears with an imperfect verb in 2 Kgs 3:8 and Job 38:19a, 24. 2 Chr 18:23 is an interesting case of this construction (here, with a perfect verb), in that it parallels 1 Kgs 22:24, but with some differences. In 1 Kgs 22:24, Zedekiah asks: Where did the spirit of Hashem leave me? In 2 Chr 18:23, the question reads: Which way did the spirit of Hashem leave me? Both readings seem to communicate the same idea, but the latter may fit better with the expected pattern in this sort of question. A similar construction occurs in only two passages. Again, a noun is added to the interrogative, thereby diminishing the locative or directional force of .In 2 Sam 15:2, Absalom asks: What city are you from? In this construction, it seems that has almost no locative meaning but serves only to introduce the question. In Jonah 1:8, appears as the object, so that the question as a whole has no real locative sense. All the way at the RH end of the range, appears in Qoh 2:3 as the subject of its clause: What is good for people? Here and in 11:6, there is no locative sense at all. The force of seems to 5 have disappeared entirely.
The use of here does not lend support to the idea that the demonstrative is basically uninflected in this role. This noun has variable gender and is always treated as masculine in connection with the demonstrative (see Zehnder 2004, 43). 5 Here we might also include the anomalous construction in Jer 5:7, but without other examples to compare, it is probably best left aside.
4

The use of the demonstrative with in the end seems unlikely to con tribute any special force to the interrogative alone. Indeed, the bare interrogative is a good deal less common and seems to have the same range of emotional potential. On the other hand, does appear to develop on its own into a construction that can have varying degrees of locative or directional force, in some cases none at all. These last cases, as observed by Segal, generally parallel the RH interrogative . There does not seem to be any clear relationship between meaning and dialect or genre.

3.2 Questions Formed by

The use of the demonstrative with appears exclusively in prose, almost entirely in CBH. It occurs only twice in a nominal clause (Exod 4:2; 1 Kgs 21:5) and only twice as the subject of its clause (Exod 4:2; 1 Sam 10:11). The interrogative always begins the clause, and the demonstrative always follows it immediately. In verbal clauses, the next constituent is always the verb, as is also the case with interrogative constructions lacking the demonstrative. As pointed by the Masoretes, Hashem asks Moses in Exod 4:2: What is in your hand? There does not appear to be any particular emphasis to the question, or any sense in which it places Hashem or Moses more directly in the speech situation.6 Indeed, some instances of a similar construction without the demonstrative seem to be more emphatic (1 Sam 26:18; Jer 11:15). On the other hand, Jezebels question in 1 Kgs 21:5 may express anxiety or surprise or demand an explicit answer: Why are you so depressed that you wont eat any food? If the force of is to be applied at any one specific point in the question, it would seem to be the interrogative itself, or since the interrogative functions adverbially, to the predication as a whole. The examples of verbal clauses tend to be somewhat more clearly emphatic in context. 1 Sam 10:11 seems to express some heightened level of surprise or incredulity:
6 This question, however, may not be a legitimate example of the phenomenon under consideration here. The demonstrative could simply function as an ordinary demonstrative pronounWhat is that in your hand? If this reading is taken, the evidence for appears more consistent.

 Whats up with the son of Kish? In 2 Kgs 1:5, Ahaziahs messengers have returned without fulfilling their mission. He asks: Why did you come back? Ahaziah is understandably frustrated, because their mission was to find out whether he would die of his ailment. Again, the point of emphasis seems to be the predication as a whole. Similar frustration is evident in Micahs question when his idols and priest have been stolen (Judg 18:24): So how can you ask me, Whats up with you? Interestingly, the immediately preceding question lacks the demonstrative ( ,) although it seems that he would be no less exasperated. A major difference, however, is that this first question implies its own obvious answer (that he has nothing left), where the following question probably demands some explanation or assumes that no adequate explanation can be given. An explanation is also expected in Gen 27:20, where Isaac is genuinely surprised that his son has returned so soon: How did you find it so quickly, my son? Here the main action is the doing quickly, which seems to be the point where attention should be focused. In these examples where the force of the interrogative is adverbial, it seems safe to generalize a focus on the main predication, whether expressed by a finite verb or otherwise. It seems that questions involving demand an explicit answer, thus ruling out their use as embedded questions or rhetorical questions with obvious answers. But it remains to examine the largest category of questions with the demonstrativethose using . When the interrogative serves as the object of a finite verb, is used instead of . More to the point, the finite verb is always the perfect form of G. This construction always expresses exasperation and never implies an answer. This is not to say that the question could not go unanswered (cf. Gen 42:28), but it can only assume the lack of an adequate answer. Similarly, the construction never forms an embedded question. A few examples will suffice to show the pattern: 8

 What have you done to me? Here in Gen 12:18, Pharaoh has been struck by a plague on Abrams account, giving him good reason to be frustrated. It should be noted, however, that Abimelech reacts the same way to a similar scenario in Gen 20:9, but without using : What have you done to us, and how have I offended you? Perhaps it could be argued that in this case the punishment was only threatened, not carried out, so that Abimelech is less frustrated than Pharaoh, but it seems like a forced objection (see also v. 10). Besides, Gen 26:10 presents a similar reaction to a similar scenario, and this time Abimelech uses the demonstrative, even though he is not even threatened with punishment. A similar comparison can be drawn between Gen 3:13, which uses ,and Gen 4:10, which does not, and between Gen 29:25 and 31:26. Other examples (Exod 14:5, 11; Judg 2:2; 15:11; Jonah 1:10) fit the same pattern and require no further comment. Again, similar constructions without the demonstrative can function as embedded (Gen 2:19; 37:20) or rhetorical questions (Gen 27:37; 44:16), but they also have the full range of meaning available to constructions with the demonstrative. is there fore not obligatory when a question is emotionally charged or demands an answer but seems to mark questions with as such. Conceivably, all of these question types could be analyzed structurally as cleft sentences, but such an analysis is not terribly helpful and could be misleading. In English, for instance, to ask What is it that you did to me? would generally ask particularly about the nature of the action. (Did you kick me or punch me?) In these questions, however, the general thrust is to express exasperation at the actthe nature of the act is not really under discussion.

3.3 Questions Formed by

The use of the demonstrative with appears overwhelmingly in CBH prose. Only about 20% of the occurrences are in poetry, and of the prose examples, all fall within CBH. functions only as an adverbial modi fier and is positioned almost exclusively at the beginning of its clause. It also tends to modify verbal or participial clauses, in which the predicator (verb or subject-participle complex) follows the interrogative construction, 9

with rare exceptions. In participial clauses, the subject always precedes the participle. There are only two nominal clauses in which appears, one prose and one poetic. In the first, Esau asks (Gen 25:32): So why should I have a birthright? His exaggerated statement of mortality that precedes the question marks this utterance as emotionally charged. Contrary to the expectation of the story, his birthright is insignificant in light of his anticipated demise. The other example is in Amos 5:18: Why would the day of Hashem be for you? Here, there does seem to be an expression of surprise, and although an answer may not be absolutely necessary, it is not assumed enough to prevent the prophet from continuing to describe what the day will be like. All of the participial clauses with the demonstrative could conceivably allow for an answer, but several can be rhetorical, with an assumption that no good answer is possible (Num 14:41; 2 Sam 12:23; 1 Kgs 14:6). 1 Sam 26:18 does express heightened frustration and demand for an answer: Why is my lord chasing his servant? In 2 Sam 18:22, Joab could be puzzled, and Josh 7:10 may be almost comical. It seems, then, that the trend in participial questions with the demonstrative is to express some contraexpectation of one sort or another. There are other ways to do so, as in 1 Kgs 2:22: And why are you asking Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Here the use of the conjuction in itself marks some emotional heightening, since it opens an utterance (Miller 1999). The examples of verbal clauses with the demonstrative also seem to have some observable degree of emotional intensity. When David comes to the battlefield, 1 Sam 17:28 states explicitly that Eliab is furious with him. He asks David: Why did you come down? 10

There is no need to wonder whether this is an emotionally charged question. Eliab may expect an answer from David, or he might think that no good answer is possible. Num 11:20 reports the peoples complaining, stating explicitly that they wept as they asked: Why did we ever leave Egypt? Here it seems even more likely that the question is rhetorical, not expecting an answer, although the emotion is assured (see also Exod 5:22; 17:3). On the other hand, Gen 33:15 has very little indication of heightened emotion, as Jacob asks Esau: Why should my lord be so nice to me? If anything, Jacob should probably be less inclined to get emotional at this point, since hes trying to be subtle about his desire to separate from Esau.7 Furthermore, there are several instances where questions without the demonstrative have a rather explicit emotional force. Gen 12:1819 has already been considered as an example of with the demonstrative, but it exhibits two instances of without the demonstrative. In Gen 43:6, Israel asks his sons: Why did you treat me so badly as to tell the man you had another brother? Here the emotional level is undeniably high, but the demonstrative is not used. Three similar examples show God questioning peoples motives. In Gen 32:30, Jacobs wrestling partner asks: Why do you ask my name? An identical question appears in Judg 13:18, and in the same way, Hashem asks in Gen 18:13 about Sarahs laughter. All three questions suggest some degree of surprise at the other persons words or actions, perhaps with an edge of irritation. They seem somewhat rhetorical, not so much in that
Perhaps, however, the problem is with the notion that we should expect emotional heightening. It would make sense for Jacob to act as though he did not expect Esaus generosity, which lines up with the use of the construction in several other instances.
7

11

they have an obvious answer but in that they serve their function simply by being asked, without any need for an answer. Several other examples could be adduced to show the same features. 1 Sam 20:8 may suggest disappointment or incredulity: Why should you bring me to your father? (This example is also interesting from the standpoint of word order, since the prepositional phrase is fronted before the interrogative.) Exod 2:20 and 2 Sam 3:24 show surprise and urgency; 2 Sam 19:43 expresses indignation. In the poetic examples, Jer 20:18 shows regret; Jer 6:20 suggests anger; Job 9:29 shows depression; and Job 27:12 might communicate disappointment. Most of these questions could be rhetorical; and while analysis as cleft sentences is generally possible, the focus would tend to fall on a verification of the reason for some action, whereas most of these questions do not seem to be so concerned with the particular reason as with the lack thereof.

3.4 Questions Formed by

Closely related to questions with are those with .Only one exam ple appears with the demonstrative (Neh 2:4): What would you ask for? The word order is normal for participial questions. Nehemiah is terrified of making his feelings known before the king, but the kings reaction seems to be much more positive than he expected. Unless this question is the only indication, there is no reason to think that the king is asking with any heightened emotion, particularly with any surprise or irritation. If the demonstrative indicates any special focus, it would probably be on . This example would make sense as a cleft sentence (Exactly what is it that youre asking of me?), but with such limited evidence it is hard to say anything conclusive. The question does quite obviously demand an answer, but so apparently do Jer 16:10; 22:8; and Ezek 21:12, and none of these passages uses the demonstrative.

3.5 Questions Formed by

Questions that exhibit in combination with a demonstrative appear only in poetry. The interrogative is always first, and clause types are divided 12

rather evenly between verbal, nominal, and participial. The word order is straightforward enough, especially since the interrogative always functions as the subject of its clause, so that the predicate nominative or participle or verb follows immediately with one exception (Jer 46:7). Since all of the examples are poetic, it would not necessarily be possible to conclude much from word order anyway, but it is quite straightforward nonetheless. The nominal clauses tend not to require answers, whether the answer is obviously negative (Who knows?) or obvious from the context of the question (Who da man?). They do, however, generally focus on the content of the interrogativethe identity of the person in question. Ps 24:8 asks: Who is the king of glory? The answer is already obvious, but the question provides an opportunity to declare itto announce the coming of Hashem. The same question is repeated in v. 10, with a slight variation: Who is the king of glory? This time, the personal pronoun is added to the interrogative construction. This addition does seem to favor the analysis of a cleft sentence, since the interrogative and demonstrative as the main clause could be expanded by the personal pronoun as a copula. In any event, the expansion further heightens the focus on the interrogative. Ps 25:12 asks: Who is the man who fears Hashem? Again, the focus is on the identity of the person in question. He will be described in what follows. In this instance, a cleft-sentence analysis seems less likely, since it would require two relative clauses in such rapid succession. Jer 49:19 and 50:44 ask the same set of questions: Who is like me? Who can summon me? Who is the shepherd who can stand against me? The first two questions lack the demonstrative, which may suggest that it is not particularly significant in the third. On the other hand, it could show a heightening of the claims being made. This construction appears with only in the Song of Songs. In 6:10, the other women ask of the beloved: 13

 Who is the one who looks down like the dawn? The structure seems to work well as a form of praise, whether directed toward God or humans (see also Song 3:6; 8:5; and Isa 63:1 with participial clauses). It also works as a form of rebuke, as in Job 38:2: Who darkens counsel with ignorant words? The sense seems to be something like Who dares? Again, the focus is on who, but this time to single out such a person in accusation. A similar question appears also in Job 42:3, where only the participle is different ( C). There are three examples of verbal clauses, all of which express defiance toward human ability (Jer 30:21; 46:7; Lam 3:37). Here, the identity of the person in question is a point of focus, so that it may contrast with God, who is superior. The use of the demonstrative in clauses thus seems to have a reason ably consistent profile. The demonstrative appears to place focus on the interrogative, thereby drawing attention to the identity of the person in view. There is usually some heightened emotion involved, whether praise, rebuke, or disdain. On the other hand, these conclusions should not be too strong, since all the attested uses are in poetic material, which will tend to have heightened emotion in comparison with other genres. In addition, there are several examples of used without the demonstrative that ex press heightened emotion in the same types of functions (Pss 18:32; 24:3; 34:13; 77:14).

3.6 Polar Questions

There seem to be only two instances of with a polar question, both of which happen to appear in the same episode. In Gen 27:21, 24, Isaac asks essentially the same question twice: ()( ) Are you really my son Esau (or not)? In the first version, the interrogative prefix and the alternative are included; in the second version, both are absent. This difference seems to have no effect on the grammar of the core question, however, so it can be safely set aside. The subject of the nominal clause precedes the predicate, as should 14

be expected when both are definite. Indeed, there are several similar questions (without ) in CBH, all of which have the interrogative prefix, and all of which also seem to follow the normal structure of nominal clauses. In Judg 13:11; 2 Sam 9:2; 20:17; and 1 Kgs 13:14, both subject and predicate are definite and appear in that order. In Judg 12:5 and 2 Sam 15:27, the predicate is indefinite and precedes the subject. The structure does not seem to be easily explained here as a cleft sentence. If it were, the focus would fall on the personal pronoun, producing a sense like Is it you that is my son Esau (or not)? But Isaacs problem is not that he has a list of candidates from which to choose his sonhe wants to know whether this person is in fact Esau. The force of is therefore to stress the facticity of the whole predication. If it had to be attached to any one constituent, the predicate would make more sense than the subject. (Esav? Really?) The position of seems here to be solely a matter of placing it immediately after the first word in the question. Any such conclusion must be tentative, however, since there are so few data to consider in connection with this type of question. Furthermore, where the construction does occur, it is only with a very simple nominal clause, which by its very nature will not generally yield much structural information. Still, these examples are relevant to the question of syntactic structure, in that they would have to be treated as exceptional if the cleft sentence analysis were applied. Beyond that, they also support the notion that the placement of the demonstrative is fully dependent on that of the interrogative particle.

4 Conclusions
If an ironic conclusion is permitted, descriptions of the demonstrative in questions tend to overgeneralize. To say that it conveys heightened emotion or strengthens a question is to say too little. Yes, the demonstrative does seem to function in many cases where emotion is apparent, but there are several instances where heightened emotion of any sort seems unlikely in a question with the demonstrative. In questions with ,the demonstra tive does not appear to contribute anything at all. Indeed, it is the form without the demonstrative that occurs rarely, and the combination of with eventually develops into a single word with its own semantic trajectory. Even with the other interrogatives, where it seems that the demonstrative serves some distinct function, clarification is needed. Usage with 15

seems to be the clearest case. Although the evidence for nominal clauses is too limited to draw hard conclusions, the usage in verbal clauses follows a rather consistent pattern of expecting an answer or presuming that no good answer is possible, and of focusing attention on the predication to show some sort of heightened emotion, or perhaps better, expectation. In the case of clauses using ,the emotion expressed seems always to be exasperation, and the addressee is generally implicated with some inexcusable offense. Other interrogatives are less clear. The possibility of a rhetorical question using the demonstrative and assuming some obvious answer is much better in a number of cases. seems to have a more re stricted pattern of usage, appearing with the demonstrative only in poetry and only in questions that draw positive or negative attention to the person being asked about. One general problem with assigning focus or emotional intensity to the use of the demonstrative with interrogatives is that interrogatives in themselves tend to draw focus, which probably has a lot to do with why they are almost always clause-initial. The addition of the demonstrative does not seem to change the clause structure in any way, nor for that matter does it seem to function as its own constituent. It is simply compounded with the interrogative, perhaps to heighten what the interrogative is already doing, but otherwise contributing little to the dynamics of the question. On the other hand, the fact that the demonstrative never appears in embedded questions does seem to say something about its role.8 Exactly what it says can be a little bit more difficult to pin down. Another problem with several of the descriptions is that they dont seem to be based on any real observation of the data. As has already been noted, the emphatic description seems to miss a lot of distinctions; but some deictic descriptions almost give the impression of not having considered the data at all. The reasoning seems to be that the demonstrative is a deictic indicator, therefore it must have some deictic force where it appears with interrogatives. Such a supposition might seem logical by inference, but it fails to explain anything. What would it even mean for the demonstrative to function here as a deictic? It cannot express person deixis, since such questions can refer in the third person and often do not assume a particular identity, much less one related to the speech situation. There is no sense in which it can express time deixis, except perhaps to stress the present, which is also not possible in several cases. The only way that it can con8 Again, a worthwhile comparison might be drawn with the behavior of , in that it is not used with indirect volitives.

16

ceivably express spatial deixis is in combination with ,but there it does not seem to have any distinctive force, nor is the place to which it refers directly connected with the speech situation. Since the questions are usually rather isolated utterances embedded in narrative, there is little opportunity for discourse deixis (Levinson 1994, 85556). To say nebulously that the demonstrative points to the speech situation is no different from suggesting that it focuses on everything. In the end, it doesnt really contribute anything to the readers understanding. Having said this, I do conclude that a deictic understanding of the demonstrative as used in questions can be quite helpful. What needs to be explicated is that the type of deixis found here relates directly to the inherent deixis of questions. A question always presupposes a speech situation, in that the questioner must express some internal desire or feeling by the very act of asking. It is this reflection of the speakers attitude that seems to find a clearer expression through the use of the demonstrative. As already indicated, it may be misleading to think in terms of emotional intensity, because attitude can be clearly expressed without resorting to emotion. Where the demonstrative seems to mark some heightening, it may be best to describe that heightening as an attitude of contraexpectation.9 Whether the particular feeling expressed is surprise, irritation, or confusion, the common thread seems to be that the questioner has reason to expect that things would be other than they are. Finally, the cleft sentence explanation, while undoubtedly appropriate to several examples, fails to describe fully interrogative constructions with the demonstrative, particularly in polar questions. It also leads to a distorted sense in some passages, either because it adds focusing that is not really present or because it focuses on the wrong constituent. It may be that the construction somehow evolved out of a cleft-sentence form, but at the stage exhibited in the Hebrew Bible, its use cannot be fully accounted for by such a model. The use of the demonstrative in questions does in general seem to serve a strengthening purpose, seen most fully in its use with and .If it ever had a significant role in questions, it does not seem to play such a role in BH. Of the remaining categories, only has enough examples to draw significant conclusions, but it seems that the role of the demonstrative is less well-defined here. Perhaps this lack of definition has to do with the weaker syntactic association between the interrogative pronoun and the core predication. It must be understood that the demonstrative is only one
9

Again, I would bracket use of the demonstrative with as somewhat different.

17

of several means to mark a question pragmatically and that the way it marks questions can vary depending on the particular interrogative pronoun. On the whole, though, it does help to express speaker attitude where it is used.

References
[1] Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds. 1907. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. [2] Delitzsch, Franz. 1887. Neuer Commentar ber die Genesis. Leipzig: Drffling und Franke. [3] Ewald, Heinrich. 1870. Ausfhrliches Lehrbuch der hebrischen Sprache des alten Bundes. 8th ed. Gttingen: Dieterichschen. [4] Fleischer, H. L. 1885. Kleinere Schriften. 3 vols. Leipzig: S. Hirzel. [5] Gesenius, Wilhelm. 1995. Hebrisches und aramisches Handwrterbuch ber das alte Testament. Edited by D. Rudolf Meyer, Herbert Donner, and Udo Rterswrden. 18th ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. [6] Goldenberg, Gideon. 1977. Imperfectly-Transformed Cleft Sentences. Pages 12733 in vol. 1 of Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Held at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1319 August, 1973, under the Auspices of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Edited by Avigdor Shinan. 4 vols. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies. [7] Joon, Paul. 1923. Grammaire de lHbreu biblique. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. [8] Joon, Paul. 1991. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. 2 vols. Subsidia biblica 14. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. [9] Kautzsch, E. 1896. Wilhelm Gesenius hebrische Grammatik. 26th ed. Leipzig: Vogel. [10] Kautzsch, E. 1910. Gesenius Hebrew Grammar. Translated and revised by A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon.

18

[11] Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner, eds. 2001. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon. Revised by Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm. Translated and edited by M. E. J. Richardson. 2 vols. Study ed. Leiden: Brill. [12] Knig, Eduard. 1897. Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebrischen Sprache. Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebude der hebrischen Sprache 2/2. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. [13] Levinson, S. 1994. Deixis. Pages 85357 in vol. 2 of The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Edited by R. E. Asher and J. M. Y. Simpson et al. Oxford: Pergamon. [14] Merwe, Christo H. J. van der, Jackie A. Naud, and Jan H. Kroeze. 1999. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Biblical Languages: Hebrew 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. [15] Miller, Cynthia L. 1999. The Pragmatics of waw as a Discourse Marker in Biblical Hebrew Dialogue. Zeitschrift fr Althebraistik 12:16591. [16] Muraoka, T. 1985. Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes. [17] Schneider, Wolfgang. 1989. Grammatik des biblischen Hebrisch: Ein Lehrbuch. 7th ed. Mnchen: Claudius Verlag. [18] Segal, Moses H. 1908. Minaic Hebrew and Its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and to Aramaic. Jewish Quarterly Review 20:647737. [19] Waltke, Bruce K., and M. OConnor. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. [20] Wright, William. 1898. A Grammar of the Arabic Language: Translated from the German of Caspari. Edited by W. Robertson Smith and M. J. de Goeje. 2 vols. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [21] Zehnder, Markus. 2004. Variation in Grammatical Gender in Biblical Hebrew: A Study on the Variable Gender Agreements of , Way. Journal of Semitic Studies 49:2145.

19