Expressions of evidentiality in two Semiticlanguages - Hebrew and Arabic Bo Isaksson 1. General remarks The topic I am about to discuss is a new one in Semitology. As far as I know there are no special studies on evidentiality in Semitic languages. I proceed on virgin soil, and what I suggest here are the first steps in a basic research. As my linguistic tool I have adopted the scalar concept of focality,1 which represents a refinement and elaboration of previous aspectual terminology. This concept enhances our understanding of the mechanisms behind the general linguistic phenomenon of renewal of the verbal aspect, not the least in the Semitic languages, and constitutes a pertinent example of the importance of introducing new definitions in scientific analysis. Unlike some other language families presented in this volume I have found few traces of a grammaticalization of the category or categories of evidentiality in Semitic languages. When such are found, they occur in border areas in the periphery of the main linguistic area where contact phenomena are prominent. For the present paper I have confined myself to showing how readings of inferential, reportive or direct evidentiality are expressed in Arabic and Classical Hebrew,2 leaving out for the moment the other branches of the Semitic language family. The Semitic languages basically possess two main verbal conjugations, with the exception of Akkadian, which exhibits a third tense/aspect form. The functions of the two conjugations in Hebrew and Arabic are much disputed, of course, and even more in Classical Hebrew than in Arabic. A reasonable account of the Arabic system is found in Comrie 1976. In both the mentioned languages the two conjugations are traditionally called "perfect" and "imperfect". For good reasons it is commonly held that the Semitic perfect qatal(a) has, or at least had in Proto-Semitic, a more nominal character, sometimes being equiva- The big problem in Classical Hebrew is the functional analysis of the so-called "consecutive tenses" or "converted tenses". Job 1:5: (1) kl 'amar lyyöb 'ülay häf'-ü b#n-ay for PRF-said-he Job: perhaps PRF-have-sinned-they sons-my.to the imperfect yiq-ol results in the "imperfect consecutive" wayyiq-ol. Prefixation of we. the focality of the imperfect is often neutralized to express future or modal shades of meaning. 'For Job said: Maybe my sons have sinned .to the perf. just as the perfect in southern German. adopting its temporal or aspectual value. in which the two basic conjugations mentioned above miraculously seem to take on the opposite functions just by the prefixation of the conjunction wa-l we. Prefixation of wa. capable of continuing an imperfect with apparently no change of meaning.(< Proto-Semitic *wa-) 'and'. which constitutes the historical narrative verb form par préférence. For most semanthemes. What has been stated above is intended only to serve as a background for the following examples from Classical Hebrew. a dubitative indirective is expressed by two post-terminal Hebrew perfects. However. q#-al results in the "perfect consecutive" weq#-al.384 Bo Isaksson lent to an adjective in a nominal clause. I shall not further elaborate on the Semitic verbal aspects. The imperfect in Hebrew and Arabic is the verbal conjugation used for the focal intra-terminal so-called "progressive" reading. 2. In numerous textbooks3 the imperfect consecutive is said to "continue" a perfect. Classical Hebrew In the narrative from the opening of the Book of Job. this nominal perfect in Classical Hebrew developed into a perfect in the European sense. however. a post-terminal in the present with at least some focality. In later Hebrew and already in Classical Arabic the perfect went further in the process to a straightforward non-focal non-post-terminal historical verb form in narrative texts. in Classical Hebrew a dubitative reading can be achieved by means of the particle 'ülay followed by 1) the perfect of . personal pronoun. used before labials). an existential particle yës 'there is'. far away]. mase. and a noun tiqw# 'hope'.'and'. (4) 'ülay yës tiqw# perhaps EXT hope 'Perhaps there is still hope. In this function of the perfect there is no trace of the much spoken of so-called "perfect consecutive". The two verbal items häfü and be'ku carry the same non-focal indirect meaning of doubt.Expressions of evidentiality in Hebrew and Arabic 385 ü-befk-ü 'Höhlm bi-lb#b-#m and-PRF-have-offended-they God in-heart-their and offended God in their hearts. as you allege. The transition from basic post-terminal focality of the Hebrew "perfect" to a value of non-focality in both cases is determined by the dubitative particle ülay 'perhaps'.' A state expressed by a pronoun and the active participle yosèb gets a dubitative nuance of suspicion by means of the particle ülay.' A doubt about a historical event is expressed by a stative simple nominal clause introduced by the dubitative particle ülay. sing. hü' is the 3 pers. In Joshua 9:7 (3) and Lamentations 3:29 (4) a nominal clause receives a nuance of doubt by being prefixed by ülay: (3) 'ülay be-qirb-ï 'att# yôsêb perhaps in-vicinity-my MS-you PART-live 'Perhaps you live near me [and not.' The perfects häf-ü and be'ku are connected by the conjunction ü 'and' (being a complementary allomorph of we. To sum up so far. A further example is found in Genesis 43:12 (2) 'ülay mi!gé hü' perhaps mistake it 'Maybe it was a mistake.' In (4) doubt about the present state is expressed by a verbless nominal clause consisting of the dubitative particle. prima facie evidence with nuances of astonishment. of course. The dubitative particle "ülay is capable of attaching a nuance of doubt to every Hebrew proposition. "Isaac has blessed Jacob". And his inference is introduced by ki. as the inferential meaning in Genesis 28:6 shows: (5) wa-y-yaf 'Ësâw kl bërak and-iPFC-he-saw Esau that PRF-has-blessed-he 'Then Esau realized that: Isaac has blessed 'et YcCqôb we-!illah 'ötö Paden-( ACC Jacob and-PRF-has-sent-he him Padan-LOC Jacob and sent him to Padan Aram Yi"h#q Isaac Ar#m Aram l#-qahat l-ö mi!-!am 'i!!a for-iNF-taking to-him from-there wife to take a wife from there'.. However. indignation or shock (Waltke—O'Connor 1990: 676). as Lambdin (1971: 168) says. which like its English counterpart "that" is a demonstrative in origin: "Then Esau realized this: Isaac has thus blessed Jacob and sent him .. Such a function naturally is capable of expressing an immediate inference from the perception of a situation. the here-and-now-ness. as in 1 Kings 10:7: . The two perfects bërak and !illah bear the same post-terminal low-focal if not high-focal reading. of the situation. but such is not the case.386 Bo lsaksson the verb. And the two constructions are not exhaustive.and the post-terminal in the present (+POST (-PAST)) !illah (perfect).". In Hebrew the presentative particle hinnë has the nuance of vivid immediacy. This example could easily be taken as a simple statement of fact. It functions as a bridge in narrative contexts for the introduction of a perception. Also in this example we may observe that there is no trace of a perfect consecutive equalling an imperfect. an evidential reading may be expressed without special particles. or 2) a simple nominal clause. Esau's conclusion that Jacob has received the blessing results from the fact that Jacob is suddenly absent. The inferential is expressed by the post-terminal in the present bërak (perfect) which is then continued by the proclitic conjunction we. not even half had been told to me!' ha-hësï DET-half The queen of Sheba visited king Solomon. have been taken captive. and their wives and sons ü-b'nôtë-hem ni!bu wa-y-yi!!( D#wîd and-daughters-their PRF-has-been-taken-captive and-iPFC-lifted-he David and daughters were taken captive! Then David w'-h#-'#m '"!er 'itt-ö 'et-qöl-äm and-DET-people which with-him Acc-voice-their and his men lifted up their voice and wept. David and his men arrive at Ziklag and realize with consternation that it has been burned down by the Amalekites. The particle hinnë is followed by the Hebrew perfect in the passive. w1-hinnë and-behold s'mf# b#-es u-n'iê-hem u-b'në-hem FS-PASS-PART-burned in-fire and-wives-their and-sons-their it (is/was) burned down. This is illustrated by a few more examples below. and behold. huggad 'has/had been reported'.' wa-y-yibkü and-iPFC-wept-they In this example hinnë introduces a moment of shock and indignation.Expressions of evidentiality in Hebrew and Arabic (6) 387 we-lö' he'emantï la-d-d'b#rim 'ad '"!er bâ'tï but-not pRF-believed-I for-DET-words until that PRF-had-come-I 'But I did not believe the reports until I had come wa-t-ti'éna 'ën-ay w'-hinnë lö' huggad l-i and-iPFC-saw-they eyes-my and-behold not PRF-had-been-told to-me and my own eyes saw: Behold. The Amalekites are not . including David's two wives. and when she saw his splendour with her own eyes she realized with astonishment that she had been misinformed. The sight of the burned city makes them realize that their wives. 1 Samuel 30:3: (7) wa-y-y#bo' D#widwa-"n#s-#w 'el-h#-îr and-iPFC-came-he David and-men-his to-DET-city 'David and his men came to the city. We may infer that after hinnë a post-terminal easily takes on an inferential meaning as in many other languages. sons and daughters. 157 times in the Old Testament. The narrative chain is interrupted by the macro-syntactic marker hinnë that in fact has two functions: firstly. what has happened is immediately clear to the men of David. However. that is. which is used to mark a circumstantial temporal clause as part of a larger narrative unit. it marks the following post-terminal clauses as a description of an impression. a dissociation is introduced. the narrative chain is being interrupted by an impression. then secondly by a further inference expressed by the Hebrew perfect nisbü '(they) have been taken captive'. it marks the same clauses as a whole to be part of the larger narrative web.388 Bo Isaksson there. but only temporarily. The particle hinnë together with its short form hen occurs 1. somewhere in the text world. which is continued by the non-post-terminal items wa-y-yi!!( 'and lifted up' and wa-yyibkü 'and wept'. by emphatically pointing to the localization point in the text world. The effect of the particle hinnë is that the chain of events in the main narrative thread is interrupted. Instead. it is a macro-syntactic4 sign used in a narrative to emphatically create a deictic centre of its own. at most.5 In this example the narrative chain is represented by the non-focal or. although it does not introduce inferential readings in every occurrence. "Be watchful now. wa-y-y#bo\ wa-y-yiss#\ wa-y-yibkü. The wives and the children are not present before their eyes. in the localization point (0 L or O2). and the following text is marked as an impression of some kind. and I would propose that it must be regarded as the foremost inferential marker in the Hebrew language. that is. We could say that hinnë as a macro-syntactic marker tells the reader or listener. it will soon be continued!". lowfocal so-called "imperfect consécutives". Yet. In this function hinnë is similar to another frequent macro-syntactic marker in Classical Hebrew. of the orientation point of the speech act. yet their state of being captive is inferred from the sight of the burned city. being non-post-terminal past verbal items. wayhi does not seem . not necessarily visual. It should be pointed out that hinnë is not a marker of the primary orientation point (Os). secondly. namely wayhi with a temporal clause. The fire is probably not even burning anymore. In this example the inferential marker hinnë is followed first by a nominal clause consisting of the adjective serüfä 'burned' (passive participle) + the adverbial phrase b#-es 'in fire'. The verb following hinnë in the example is a Hebrew perfect that is a focal post-terminal nearly equivalent to a stative or an adjective: "dead" or "is having died" or "is being dead". It directs the attention to what is directly perceived. One of the mothers—in fact the real mother—says (1 Kings 3:21): (8) w#-'#qum ba-b-boqer lr-hënîq and-iPFC-I-went-up in-DET-morning for-iNF-nursing 'I got up in the morning to nurse my son. the deictic character of hinnë.Expressions of evidentiality in Hebrew and Arabic 389 capable of determining evidential nuances and so has no bearing for the topic of the present volume. drawing the attention to the orientation point 0 L of the text. we-hinnë and-iPFC-arrived-they there DET-Gibeah-LOC. A case with hinnë and a nominal clause expressing direct evidentiality is found in 1 Samuel 10:10: (9) wa-y-yäbö'ü Mm ha-g-Gib'#t-#. met) before her eyes. We may note that the presentative particle hinnë is never followed by the historical verb form "imperfect consecutive".' In this example. and behold: hebel n"bT-Im liqrä't-ö procession-csTR(of) prophets against-him a procession of prophets (was coming) against him. which is expressed simply by a nominal clause with a noun phrase hebel rfbîïm . namely.' The example exhibits a rather common construction. Naturally. Whether the clause to follow expresses inferentiality or direct evidentiality. hinnë functions as a marker of direct evidentiality. The first example is taken from the well-known story about the two women quarrelling about a child before King Solomon. hinnë directs the attention of the reader to the sight of Saul and his companion. hinnë always introduces a nominal clause or one with a post-terminal perfect. and the one to follow. and-behold 'They arrived there at Gibeah. makes it suitable to readings of direct evidentiality. her son lying dead (Heb. 'et-benï ACC-son-my w'-hinne met and-behold dead and behold: he was dead. after the presentative particle. The proclitic interrogative particle ha. 'They saw: he prophesied with the prophets.and the adverb gam 'also' express astonishment and a portion of doubt in spite of the direct evidence of seeing Saul prophesy together with the other already known prophets.. the noun Iflôm 'dream'. The particle hinnë followed by a nominal clause is also capable of expressing an inferential reading if the context signalizes that possibility.. which is not so much a question to someone as an inference in astonishment. In the next verse a case of inferential reading follows in a famous biblical passage. With hesitation..' Pharaoh wakes up and opens his eyes and from what he sees he draws the reasonable conclusion that what he had experienced was only a dream. and-iPFC-saw-they and-behold with prophets PARTf'-prophesied-he. It takes the form of a question. and this is expressed by only one word. The ability of this powerful particle to mark a situation as being .. Genesis 41:7: (11) way-y-îqas Para w'-hinnë fflôm and-iPFC-he-woke up Pharao and-behold dream 'Then Pharaoh woke up (and realized): (It was) a dream. the people around have to infer from what they see that Saul is also a prophet. 1 Samuel 10:11: (10) wa-y-yi'u we-hinn$' im n'bf-ïm nibb#'.390 Bo Isaksson ^ ^ *'< 'a procession of prophets' and a prepositional phrase liqrä't-ö 'against him'. wa-y-yö'mer h#-'#m 'îs 'el rtë-hu: Ma-z-zé and-iPFC-said-it DET-people (each)man to friend-his: What-this And they asked each other: "What is this h#y# l'-ben Qïsl H"-gam Sä'ül PRF-has-happened to-son-csTR(of) Qish? QUE-also Saul that has happened to the son of Qish? Is Saul also ba-n-n'bl'-Tm? among-DET-prophets? among the prophets?' . as if already a fact to be observed..Expressions ofevidentiality in Hebrew and Arabic 391 present before the eyes of the observer. there is no clear-cut and stable indirective in Classical Hebrew. then proceed with two examples from modern literary Arabic (Taha Husain). The condition is vividly displayed to the listener.. iPF-you-shall-bury-me 'When I am dead. I would nevertheless propose that the expression 'änökl met T (am) dead' possesses a certain degree of focality because of the preceding particle. bury me .. 3. Colloquial Arabic Al-Ç)afîr.. In this case there is a conflict between the vividness of the expression and the fact that the verbal content is unreal. and to express such readings. tiqb'rê-nï Behold I dead. ' .7 To sum up. Bedouin in northern Arabia (Ingham 1986: text 7).' . 3. usually a particle such as hinnë is required together with a post-terminal perfect or a nominal clause. also makes it capable of expressing an imagined situation.1. be it a condition or supposition. In this first survey I shall begin with some examples of indirective expressions from modern Arabic dialects. Arabic Traditional Arabic grammars have little to say about indirective readings.. (13) ibn'rë'ir yarn rna'at hël-u 'alë-h Ibn 'Urai'ir day PRF-returned force-his to-him 'When Ibn 'Urai'ir's horsemen came back m#gdubaw al-Freid not PRF-have-caught-they al-Furaid he saw that they had not caught al-Furaid.. and conclude with some instances from Classical Arabic. as in Genesis 50:5 (Brockelmann 1956: §4): (12) hinnë 'änökl met. And yet the speaker is obviously not yet dead. ' . Classical Arabic k(anna corresponds to cinn. the sentence says "Ibn 'Ura%ir.' In the modern Najdi Arabic dialect (Saudi Arabia). giving the news a stative nuance: 1l Dufir c#sb-în '(that) Äl-Dafir (are) winners'. as kdanna 'as.392 Bo Isaksson The translation of this piece of text is by the field worker and editor Bruce Ingham. like' in Classical Arabic. seeing that his men are returning alone. A case of reportive evidentiality is found in another text from the same tribe (Ingham 1986: text 13). because to achieve a topicalization the main perceptive subject "Ibn TJrai'ir" has been put at the beginning of the sentence (so-called absolute nominative). literally 'winners'. in a nominal clause. they had not caught al-Furaid". the day his force came back to him. II: 80A): (15) ka-'annafi 'udnay-hi waqran like-that in ears-his hardness 'It seems that in his ears (was) hardness (of hearing). in this case with postterminal meaning. To make the evidential reading clear. Arabic. makes use of particles. However. the fact that they had not caught al-Furaid becomes a matter of inference. like Hebrew. For the inferential reading the Arabic perfect gdubaw 'they had caught' is used. Taken literally. (14) u b(ad ga hal-habar ba!!iro-h g#law inn and then PRF-came DET-news good-news-his PRF-told-they that 'And then the news came to him and they brought him good news that ••'. By this construction. the editor adds "he saw". here with a nuance of both inferentiality and uncertainty (Wright [1975].' The reportive is expressed by an active participle c#sb-în.: 1l Dufir c#sb-în u l# 'al$-ham ÄI-DafTr PART-winners and not by-them the Al-Çafïr had won the battle and that there was nothing wrong with them. The following example is taken from another field report by Bruce Ingham (Ingham 1994: 128): (16) cinn-ih maytfham w#gid like-he not iPF-he-understands much 'He does not seem to understand much. Then they hit him with 3#wayye. Then they put him bi-öqslgän %adars iri-oxygen tent in an oxygen tent. corresponding to Classical Arabic imperfect taqülu 'you say': (17) tigil gayy-hum iPF-you-say PART-having-come-them 'It seems they received a warning ( ilm nidir tigil knowledge warning you-say gayy-hum !ayy having-come-them something or something.' . In Najdi Arabic an active participle of a verb with a telic-action type of Aktionsart conveys the meaning of a state following the completion of an action (Ingham 1994: 90.) he took it. 4ërb-ïn-o ba-!-!ok three times PART-stood-still heart-his.' (19) tlatt marrât dëqir qalb-o. 95). PART-they-hit-him by-shocks '(I have heard that) Three times his heart stood still. The construction with an active participle (gayyhum < active. he---în-o a-little. tigil.Expressions ofevidentiality in Hebrew and Arabic 393 Najdi Arabic exhibits another particle to express nuances of doubt and inference. -hum) expressing inference is in some respects similar to the examples of grammaticalized evidential categories found in border area Arabic dialects in close contact with Turkic languages. g#y la-h#l-o. g#yy + object suff.' A speculative nuance is achieved here by repeating tigil 'you say' (Ingham 1994: 129). In the Adana district of Turkey this internal capability of the Arabic participle has developed to a full-fledged expression for reportive/inferential nuances due to the influence of surrounding Turkic vernaculars:8 (18) $hid-ha (= Turkish Onu almi") PART-he-took-it(FS) '(As I heard. PART-he-came to-situation-his PART-they-put-him (electric) shocks and he recovered his senses. part. 2. It is not used as a narrative tense form. which has been confirmed by one of the recent field workers in the area. N. 3fp zarab-in) the third person forms of the new conjugation are unmarked as to person: 3ms q#id 'he (reportedly or seemingly) sat down'. The first and second person forms of the new conjugation are rarely used. Taha Husain. Guram Chikovani (forthcoming). for which the old perfect is still used. it has been re-utilized to create a new finite verbal conjugation expressing—according to I. unbeknown to him. Like in the old perfect (Qa(qa-Darja 3ms zarab 'he struck'. 3fp q(dat < q(id-at. 3mp q(dln < q(id-in. Vinnikov—the "unlängst vergangene Zeit" (Vinnikov 1965: 262. In the Arabic Qa(qa-Darja dialect of Uzbekistan the old active participle is rarely used as adjective-attribute or nomen agentis. some of which. This is in fact an evidential category. Fischer 1961: 253). one of his students said to him: . Instead. fa-lamm# haraga on chest-his and-he not iPF-he-knew and-when PRF-went-out-he down on his chest. 3mp zarab-ü. 3fs zarab-it. 394 Bo Isaksson The Arabic counterpart of the Turkish -mi" construction in these two examples is an active participle that has developed into a reportive/inferential about something that has recently occurred. 3fs q(da < q(id-a. In his Al-Ayy#m 'The days' it is told of a teacher (Husain 1942: 18): (20) 'akala data yawmin dibsan.-. Modern literary Arabic: Taha IJusain From Modern Standard Arabic I have chosen an example of an evidential reading in the famous autobiography of the father of the Arabic novel. 3. fell 'al# "adri-hi wa-huwa la yadrï. This development may be observed also in the Arabic dialects of Uzbekistan—another peripheral language area. When he went out 'il#d-darsi q#la la-hu ba'du tal#mldi-hi: to DET-lesson pRF-said-he to-him someone(of) students-his to lecture. fa-saqata bddu-hu PRF-ate-he certain day ACC-treacle and-PRF-fell-it some-of-it 'One day he was eating treacle. Fa-lam yagid suddenly PRF-woke-he Sahib Badr al-Dïn. And-not lPF-he-found 'Suddenly Sahib Badr al-Dïn woke up and could not find 'ahä-hü. In this case the inferential is expressed by the Arabic perfect (you have been eating: 'akalta) without additional particle. so he got up fearful and found 'l-b#ba 'l-ladï 'statraqa min-hu maftühan DET-ACC-door which PRF-escaped-he from-it Acc-open. And this inference is . namely the prima facie evidence of treacle on the chest. you have been eating treacle!" 9 One of the students (b(du tal#mîdi) notices traces of treacle (ace: dibsan) on the breast of his teacher (on his breast: 'aid sadri-hi) and from that infers that he has previously eaten treacle. fa-qäma faztan wa-wagada Acc-brother-his and-got-up-he fearful and-PRF-found-he his brother. both categories presenting an event not in itself but via its results (Comrie 1976: 110). Sahib Badr al-Dïn draws the conclusion that something evil has happened to his brother. This past eating is not presented per se. which illustrates the semantic similarity between the perfect and the inferential. the door—through which he had escaped—open. Classical Arabic Inference of indirect evidence can be expressed without any particle in Arabic as well as Hebrew.10 (21) 'Id-i 'ntabaha s-$#hibu Badru d-dini. but is inferred from the result of the action.Expressions of evidentiality in Hebrew and Arabic 395 y# sayyid-ï 'akalta dibsan oh Sir-my PRF-have-eaten-you treacle "Sir.3. 3. Such an instance is found in a classical text rendered by $akir al-Batlunï in Kit#b Tasliya al-Haw#tir. fa-q#la: min hun# g#'a !-!arrul and-PRF-said-he: From here PRF-has-come-it DET-evil. And he said: From here came the evil!' By the sight of the open door. #bitu? Q#la: PART-wearing-under-arm oh 0'bit? PRF-Said-he: wear under your arm. .alone is not permitted in this case (Wright [1975]. y# . Wa-h#d# that forty day.umma -allaqa-h#. which particle is required for the perfect to express an affirmative proposition. forming laqad. But this . II: 176 A). The emphatic proclitic particle la.396 Bo Isaksson expressed by the Arabic perfect g(a 'it has come'. Another example exhibiting a reportive reading is from the section about the Umayyad poet Qays ibn Darîh (died 690) in Kit#b al-'ag#nî:12 (23) Dakara 'Brut 'A'isata 'anna-hu 'aq#ma 'al# PRF-has-reported-he Ibn 'Ä'isa that-he PRF-remained-he on 'Ibn '3'isa has reported that he (Qays ibn Darlh) continued with d#lika 'arba'Jna yawman. without additional evidential particle. The next example from Classical Arabic is taken from Abu 1-Farag al-Isfahänfs Kit#b al-ag#ni.and qad. la. Then PRF-has-he-divorced-her. the arm!' In this instance the astonished inference is emphasized by two emphatic particles. Qalü: La-qad ta'abba-ta DET-desert-demon. PRF-Said-they: EMF PRF-have-worn-under-arm-you The desert demon. Then he (reportedly) divorced her. But-this this in 40 days. 0'bit? He said: Al-Güla. from the section about the pre-Islamic poet Ta'abba!a $arran:11 (22) Q#la la-hu qawmu-hu: M# kun-ta PRF-said-it to-him NOM-tribespeople-his: What PRF-were-you 'His fellow tribesmen said to him: What did you mut(abbitan. They said: You have really worn something evil under !arran! ACC-evil. Notes 1. Or perfect. 1998. It should be observed that hinnë like its Arabic conterpart 'inna (Wright II. never an imperfect. which has included only classical Hebrew and a few varieties of Arabic. Pointed out by Waltke—O'Connor (1990: 675). Only due to external linguistic influence. Conclusions In this tentative survey. 4. is-not in-(what is)true is not true. Phraseology and Syntax of Arabic Dialects Spoken in Turkey". 8. held in Uppsala. For this text-linguistic concept. 6. For the concept of focality and some symbols used in that connection. Turkic and Iranian Vernaculars in Eastern Anatolia and Iran. see Isaksson (1998). 7. 78D) take a following substantive or pronoun in the accusative. The obvious reportive nuance is expressed by a perfect -allaqa-h# 'he (reportedly) divorced her' with the pronominal feminine suffix -h# 'her'. paper read at the Workshop on Investigating Languages in Contact: Semitic.' In this example a tradition about the poet is referred to and evaluated. The two examples that follow are quoted with kind permission from Stephan Procházka. 5. "The Influence of Turkish on the Lexicon. such as Chronicles and Ezra/Nehemiah. I have concluded that there are no internal tendencies towards a grammaticalization of the evidential categories. Such readings are instead frequently determined by auxiliary particles. see Johanson 2000. 4. is an Arabic dialect likely to develop grammaticalized evidential categories. For example the widespread Lambdin (1971).Expressions of evidentiality in Hebrew cmé'Arabic 397 laysa bi-"ahîhin. 107 and 163. it is exclusively a perfect. I exclude from this concept the latest varieties of the Biblical Hebrew canon. 3. in locations at the periphery of a language region. as the example hinnë ní 'here I am' (Genesis 22:1) shows. If a finite verbal form is used to express inferential or reportive nuances. 2. . 24-26 August. No auxiliary particles are needed in this case. Fischer.) Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Reprinted with corrections. 12. Wolfdietrich 1961 "Die Sprache der arabischen Sprachinsel in Uzbekistan". Guram forthcoming "The morphological system of the Qashqadaryan Arabic Dialect of Central Asia". Augustin (eds. Ingham. Carl ) ! 1956 Hebräische Syntax. 25 vols. Abu 1-Farag al-Isfah'nî (1957-62. 28 March . vol. in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of L'Association Internationale pour la Dialectologie Arabe. The author-editor lived in Egypt and died 1477.. Beirut: D'r al-0aq'fa.398 Bo Isaksson 9. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. a famous Arabic poet and philosopher who lived 973-1057. Abu 1-Farag al-Isfah'nî (1957-62.). vol. !ákir al-Batlùnï (1882: 138). Cambridge 1995. in: K. 1994 Najdi Arabic: Central Arabian. Bo 1998 " 'Aberrant' usages of introductory w'h#y# in the light of text linguistics". "Lasset uns Brücken bauen. Johanson. Lars 1992 Strukturelle Faktoren in türkischen Sprachkontakten. 29:5. Neukirchen: Neukirchen Verlag. London: KPI. . This is told about 'Abu l-'Alà' al-Ma'arrï.". (Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums. An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Isaksson. Husain. held on Malta. Traditions of the Al-Dhaßr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1978. 21: 144). 1976. Sitzungsberichte der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main. References Abu 1-Farag al-Isfah'nî 1957-62 Kit#b al-agânï.. Schunck—M. Cairo: Al-Maaref. 11. 10. Brockelmann. London Oriental and African Language Library. 42. The author died 967. Comrie. Bruce 1986 Bedouin of Northern Arabia.-D. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. 9: 178).2 April 1998. 1. Der Islam 36: 233-263. Collected Communications to the XVth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament. Taha 1942 Al-Ayyäm. Bernard 1976 Aspect. Chikovani. Malta. Goeje. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Supplement Series. William [1975] A grammar of the Arabic language. 2000 "Viewpoint operators in European languages.).. 1896-98. d. Vinnikov. DET—determinative (definite) particle." in: S. in: N. Niccacci. Bratislava. Studia Semitica Philologica Necnon Philosophica loanni Bakos Dicata. Abbreviations M—masculine. Thomas O. p—plural. Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Lambdin. Boretzky—W. Translated from the German of Caspari and edited with numerous additions and corrections. Enninger—Th. IPF —imperfect. Isaak Natanovich 1965 "Materialien zur Grammatik des Dialektes der Ka(ka-Darjiner Araber. PRF—perfect. Winona Lake. Watson.). QUE—question particle. Longman and Todd. . LOC—locative particle. Reprint (as paperback). Waltke. Reprint. 1976. Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. ACC—accusative. Stolz (eds. Translated from the Italian by Wilfred G. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49: 1-11. PART—participle. etc. 1996b "On Bulgarian and Turkic indirectives". Alviero 1990 The syntax of the verb in Classical Hebrew prose. 1971 Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. Segert (ed. F—feminine.—Michael Patrick O'Connor 1990 An introduction to Biblical Hebrew syntax. EXT—existential particle. Dialekte. !akir al-Batlûnï 1882 Kit#bu tasliyati l-haw#-iri fi muntahab#ti l-mulahi wa-n-naw#diri.Expressions of evidentiality in Hebrew and Arabic 399 1996a "Kopierte Satzjunktoren im Türkischen". Paradigmen der Verbalformen. IPFC—imperfect consecutive. INF—infinitive. Sprache und ihre Dynamik in mehrsprachigen Situationen. Kontakte. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. in 1. Revised by W. 261-276.). Areale. Beirut: Al-Ma!ba'a al-Adabiyya. E. J. 86. s—singular. 3MS—third person masculine singular. 84-94. Sheffield. EMF—emphatic particle. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Smith and M. CSTR—construct state." in: Osten Dahl (ed. Wright. R. Bruce K. (Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung 24. 3d ed. London: Darton.) Bochum: Brockmeyer.
Report "Expression of Evidentiality in Hbrew & Arabic—Bo Isakson"