@article {3092222, title = {Modelling linguistic causation}, journal = {Linguistics and Philosophy}, year = {Forthcoming}, abstract = {This paper develops a formal methodology for capturing and representing the semantics\ of causal expressions in natural languages. Focusing on two causative constructions{\textemdash}covert\ causatives (change-of-state verbs) and overt causatives (the verb cause){\textemdash}it provides a proof of\ concept for analyzing the distinguished meanings of different causative constructions.
We adopt the formal framework of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to analyze causality\ and integrate it into model-theoretic semantics for interpreting causal statements. In our approach,\ the selection of a cause within a particular construction depends on its inclusion in a\ sufficient set of conditions that bring about the effect, as well as on specific properties of the cause\ itself. To formalize this process, we introduce the concept of causative-construction selection\ (CC-selection), which captures how speakers select a causative construction that aligns with the\ relational structure between states of affairs. For each relevant condition within the sufficient\ set, CC-selection determines whether it can be encoded as the cause in a statement articulated
through a specific causative construction, thereby describing a particular state of affairs. We argue\ that CC-selection plays a central role in shaping the meaning of causal statements.
By leveraging the SEM framework, CC-selection effects can be formally explained through\ contrasts within the structure of a model. For instance, notions of sufficiency and necessity, which\ play a crucial role in these selections, are rigorously defined within SEM, allowing for a precise
account of CC-selection effects. This paper further illustrates how CC-selection accounts for contrastive\ inference patterns across constructions. By focusing on the two causative constructions\ central to our discussion, it resolves longstanding puzzles associated with change-of-state verbs.
The proposed framework establishes a foundation for the systematic study of causal language,\ bridging semantics and philosophy while providing tools to investigate the interplay between\ causative constructions and their associated causal meanings.}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA. and Baglini R.} } @article {3173360, title = {A Formal Approach to Reanalysis and the Early Semantic Stability Hypothesis: Exploring the Test Case of the Negative Counterfactual Marker ʾilmale in Hebrew and Aramaic}, journal = {Linguistics}, year = {2024}, abstract = {

This study delves into the intricate process of reanalysis, wherein linguistic expressions undergo grammatical or semantic changes, or sometimes both. The primary objective of this study is to explore the theoretical aspects surrounding historical changes of this nature. To facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the topic, we provide a formal description of reanalysis as an analytical tool. Our formal description allows for the differentiation of various change scenarios, enabling us to identify distinct types of shifts from one analysis to another. This approach not only focuses on what has been reanalyzed, be it the morphology, syntax or the semantics, but also emphasizes the interplay between all three linguistic modules (Form, Grammar, and Meaning) and their relationships. This holistic perspective enables a systematic examination of the significance of what remains constant at both points in time during the reanalysis process. The key insight arising from this analysis leads us to propose and substantiate the Early Semantic Stability Hypothesis. This hypothesis posits that the truth-conditional semantics of the original proposition remain unchanged throughout reanalysis, either in all contexts or in specific "bridging contexts" where the reanalysis occurs. To demonstrate these phenomena, we present a compelling test case, focusing on the development of the counterfactual conditional marker ʾilmale in Hebrew and Aramaic. Through a detailed examination of the syntactic and semantic reanalyses it underwent, we observe the emergence of unique semantic features. By adopting a formal semantic perspective, we address fundamental questions such as the level of ambiguity required for reanalysis to take place, the potential existence of universal constraints on reanalysis, and potential motivations driving these linguistic changes. This investigation provides valuable insights into the intricate mechanisms at play during reanalysis and contributes to the broader understanding of linguistic evolution and development.

}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2023-0022} } @article {3173359, title = { Verabal strategies for expressing reciprocity: the case of Hebrew }, journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics}, volume = {9}, year = {2024}, pages = {1-45}, abstract = {

This paper delves into the semantics of the reciprocal construction recognized in the literature as "verbal" or "lexical" reciprocals. A common assumption is that predicates of this construction inherently encode a symmetric meaning, often marked morphologically in many languages. This paper advocates for a crucial distinction between two types of predicates: rec-predicates (e.g., the Hebrew verb hitna{\v s}ek {\textquoteright}kiss{\textquoteright}) - a class of predicates that do not inherently denote symmetry but carry an underspecified meaning, so that in specific defined contexts, they can induce a symmetric reading. In contrast, sym-predicates (e.g., the Hebrew attribute zehe {\textquoteright}be identical{\textquoteright}) - this class of predicates inherently encodes symmetric relations. Drawing upon Winter{\textquoteright}s (2002) typology of verbs, it is posited that rec-predicates are dyadic, taking two atoms as their arguments, while sym-predicates are monadic, with a single argument denoting a set. The analysis in this paper adopts Bar-Asher Siegal{\textquoteright}s (2020) methodology for identifying strategies expressing reciprocity and is substantiated with a survey of the various syntactic structures in which the relevant predicates manifest, along with their diverse interpretations. The paper critically examines previous analyses of these predicates, scrutinizing both empirical and theoretical challenges encountered by these analyses. With a specific focus on verbal strategies for expressing reciprocity in Hebrew, the study, informed by the shared characteristics identified in previous research, suggests that the conclusions drawn for Hebrew may be applicable to other languages as well.

}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal Elitzur A.} } @article {3143221, title = { The derivatives of Barth\&$\#$39;s law in the light of Modern Arabic dialects }, journal = {Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies}, year = {2023}, abstract = {In 1894, Jacob Barth proposed that the preformative conjugation in some of\ the Semitic languages goes back to a {\textendash} generally bygone {\textendash} inverse\  correlation\ between the thematic vowel of the stem and that of the conjugational prefix.
Evidence for such a distribution is well attested in all branches of Central Semitic, yet it remains disputed whether it should be reconstructed for
Proto-Semitic as well. This paper makes use of new data from a living
Semitic variety, namely the Arabic dialect of Ḥugariyyah in the south of
Yemen, where the pattern observed by Barth is still operative. We examine
the interaction of the conjugational prefixes with the dialectal future tense
marker {\v s}(a)-, and point to cases where the inverse correlation is violated.
We outline a sequential development, starting with a phonetically-driven
re-distribution of the preformative vowels, and followed by their reanalysis
as integral to the prefix. We then propose that comparable developments may
have taken place in other Semitic varieties, predominantly Akkadian, and
thus view the Akkadian preformative conjugation as a derivative of a former
inverse correlation, as reconstructed by Barth.
\ }, url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X22000866}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal Elitzur A. and Shachmon Ori} } @article {3138924, title = {Review of H. H. Hardy IIThe Development of Biblical Hebrew Prepositions}, journal = {Review of Biblical Literature}, volume = {2022}, year = {2022}, url = {https://www.sblcentral.org/home/bookDetails/1001224} } @article {3138923, title = {Review of H. H. Hardy IIThe Development of Biblical Hebrew Prepositions}, journal = {Review of Biblical Literature}, volume = {2022}, year = {2022}, url = {https://www.sblcentral.org/home/bookDetails/1001224} } @article {3125849, title = { Kol-\še-hu in Rabbinic and Modern Hebrew }, journal = {Leshonenu }, volume = {84 }, year = {2022}, pages = {110-143}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A.} } @article {Elitzur_Bar-Asher_Siegal_97826756, title = {Causal selection \– the linguistic take}, journal = {Experiments in Linguistic Meaning}, volume = {1}, year = {2021}, pages = {27-38}, abstract = {Causal Selection is a widely discussed topic in philosophy and the cognitive sciences, concerned with characterizing the choice of {\textquotedblleft}the cause{\textquotedblright} among the many individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions on which any effect depends on. In this paper, we argue for an additional selection process underlying causal state-ments: Causative-Construction Selection, which pertains to the choice of linguistic constructions used to express causal relations. By exploring this phenomenon, we aim to answer the following question: given that a speaker wishes to describe the relation between one of the conditions and the effect, which linguistic constructions are avail-able? We take CC-selection to be more crucial than causal selection, since the latter is in fact restricted by the linguistic options resulting from the former. Based on a series of experiments, we demonstrate that factors taken previously as contributing to causal selection should, in fact, be considered as the parameters that license the various lin-guistic constructions under given circumstances, based on previous knowledge about the causal structure of the world (the causal model). These factors are therefore part of the meaning of the causative expressions.}, doi = {10.3765/elm.1.4887}, url = {http://doi.org/10.3765/elm.1.4887}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. and Noa Bassel and York Hagmayer} } @article {3092198, title = {The Formation and the cognitive knowledge of literary langauges: the case of Hebrew and Aramaic in the Middle Ages.}, journal = {Hebrew Studies}, year = {2021}, pages = {343-363}, abstract = {This paper characterizes Medieval Hebrew and Aramaic as literary languages and seeks to explain how a {\textquoteright}literary language{\textquoteright} namely a language used mainly in literary contexts arises, while utilizing three types of research: comparative philological research, which compares different languages and texts in terms of their vocabulary and grammar; sociolinguistic research, which examines the social functions of language use; and psycholinguistic research, which (in this particular case) examines issues of language acquisition. The paper builds on philological studies of literary languages to explain how the grammar of these languages evolves. It assumes that the acquisition of such languages is similar to second-language acquisition, while taking into account that these languages are both acquired and used in a strictly literary context. The main argument of the paper is that literary languages should be studied the same way as other languages, because ultimately after making some adjustments motivated by their particular functions they are compatible with the standard models of second-language acquisition.}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA.} } @article {3092197, title = {Review of Sjors, Ambji:Srn: Historical Aspects of Standard Negationin Semitic. Leiden/Boston: Brill 2018. XVI, 478 S. 8\° =Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 91.}, journal = {Orientalistische Literaturzeltung.}, volume = {116}, year = {2021}, pages = {376-379}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA.} } @article {3125848, title = {\"Central issues in the study of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic in light of the studies of Eljakim Wajsberg\"}, journal = { Leshonenu }, volume = {82}, year = {2020}, pages = {129-147}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A.} } @article {Elitzur_Bar-Asher_Siegal_80724188, title = {Are Literary Languages Artificial? The Case of the Aramaic of the Zohar}, journal = {Aramaic Studies}, year = {2020}, pages = {1-22}, abstract = {Few studies have focused on the Aramaic of the Zohar, and to this day, only one of these presents a completed grammatical analysis. Scholars have dealt at large, however, with the question of whether the Aramaic of the Zohar is artificial or not. I briefly review the history of the literature around this question, then propose my own criteria to examine whether a language of a given text is indeed artificial. Finally, I put this methodology into practice, as I investigate the nature of Zoharic Aramaic by examining specific linguistic phenomena in the relevant corpus.}, issn = {1477-8351}, doi = {10.1163/17455227-bja10002}, url = {http://doi.org/10.1163/17455227-bja10002}, author = {Elitzur Bar-Asher Siegal} } @article {Elitzur_Bar-Asher_Siegal_75843175, title = {A formal approach to reanalysis: The case of a negative counterfactual marker}, journal = {Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America}, volume = {5}, year = {2020}, pages = {34-50}, abstract = {This paper proposes a formal definition of reanalysis, while emphasizing the importance of the distinction between two different kinds of reanalysis: those in which the change is confined to the grammatical level, and those in which it is confined to the semantic level. After tracing the history of a negative counterfactual conditional marker in Hebrew and Aramaic which underwent both syntactic and semantic reanalyses, the paper assesses the concept of reanalysis with focus on the following questions: Is reanalysis a single, clearly-defined phenomenon, and if so, what is its nature? Is it merely a\ descriptive\ label for a certain observable state of affairs, or does it\ explain\ diachronic changes? Alternatively, perhaps it is a theoretical\ constraint, a theoretical requirement that linguistic change must be associated with specific environments where reanalysis can take place? A detailed analysis of the marker and its evolution yields the following broad hypothesis: Reanalysis of a linguistic form does not change the truth conditions of the proposition that contains it, regardless of whether the reanalysis is on the grammatical level or on the semantic level.}, issn = {2473-8689}, doi = {10.3765/plsa.v5i2.4792}, url = {http://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v5i2.4792}, author = {Elitzur Bar-Asher Siegal} } @article {3092200, title = {The History of the Formsאילולי and אלמלי: Linguistic, Diachronic, and Textual Transmissions.}, journal = {Leshonenu}, year = {2019}, pages = {95-111}, abstract = {

In the scholarship, the discussions of the semantics of Aramaic אלמלי/אלמלא אילולי/אילולא throughout the history of Hebrew have focused on the function of these expressions as sometimes simply marking the head of a counterfactual con

In the scholarship, the discussions of the semantics of Aramaic\ אלמלי/אלמלא אילולי/אילולא\ \ throughout the history of Hebrew have focused on the function of these expressions as sometimes simply marking the head of a counterfactual condition, but at other times denoting "if not." This paper is divided into two, separately published parts. The first part follows the tradition that the answer to this puzzle lies in historical changes and dialectal variations. The second part \ examines various alterations that occurred during the transmission of the texts in which these forms appear. This type of study has the ability to shed light on the semantic interpretations of these expressions and, at the same time, on the linguistic knowledge of those who transmitted these texts. Thus, this paper aims to contribute to the linguistic analysis of these expressions and to our understanding of the ways in which talmudic texts were transmitted, namely, the phenomena that could affect their content.

In the scholarship, the discussions of the semantics of Aramaic אלמלי/אלמלא אילולי/אילולא throughout the history of Hebrew have focused on the function of these expressions as sometimes simply marking the head of a counterfactual con

In the scholarship, the discussions of the semantics of Aramaic\ אלמלי/אלמלא אילולי/אילולא\ \ throughout the history of Hebrew have focused on the function of these expressions as sometimes simply marking the head of a counterfactual condition, but at other times denoting "if not." This paper is divided into two, separately published parts. The first part follows the tradition that the answer to this puzzle lies in historical changes and dialectal variations. The second part \ examines various alterations that occurred during the transmission of the texts in which these forms appear. This type of study has the ability to shed light on the semantic interpretations of these expressions and, at the same time, on the linguistic knowledge of those who transmitted these texts. Thus, this paper aims to contribute to the linguistic analysis of these expressions and to our understanding of the ways in which talmudic texts were transmitted, namely, the phenomena that could affect their content.

In the scholarship, the discussions of the semantics of Aramaic אלמלי/אלמלא אילולי/אילולא throughout the history of Hebrew have focused on the function of these expressions as sometimes simply marking the head of a counterfactual con

In the scholarship, the discussions of the semantics of Aramaic\ אלמלי/אלמלא אילולי/אילולא\ \ throughout the history of Hebrew have focused on the function of these expressions as sometimes simply marking the head of a counterfactual condition, but at other times denoting "if not." This paper is divided into two, separately published parts. The first part follows the tradition that the answer to this puzzle lies in historical changes and dialectal variations. The second part \ examines various alterations that occurred during the transmission of the texts in which these forms appear. This type of study has the ability to shed light on the semantic interpretations of these expressions and, at the same time, on the linguistic knowledge of those who transmitted these texts. Thus, this paper aims to contribute to the linguistic analysis of these expressions and to our understanding of the ways in which talmudic texts were transmitted, namely, the phenomena that could affect their content.

In the scholarship, the discussions of the semantics of Aramaic אלמלי/אלמלא אילולי/אילולא throughout the history of Hebrew have focused on the function of these expressions as sometimes simply marking the head of a counterfactual con

In the scholarship, the discussions of the semantics of Aramaic\ אלמלי/אלמלא אילולי/אילולא\ \ throughout the history of Hebrew have focused on the function of these expressions as sometimes simply marking the head of a counterfactual condition, but at other times denoting "if not." This paper is divided into two, separately published parts. The first part follows the tradition that the answer to this puzzle lies in historical changes and dialectal variations. The second part \ examines various alterations that occurred during the transmission of the texts in which these forms appear. This type of study has the ability to shed light on the semantic interpretations of these expressions and, at the same time, on the linguistic knowledge of those who transmitted these texts. Thus, this paper aims to contribute to the linguistic analysis of these expressions and to our understanding of the ways in which talmudic texts were transmitted, namely, the phenomena that could affect their content.

}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA.} } @article {3092199, title = {The Interrogative-Indefinite Puzzle in the Context of Biblical Hebrew}, journal = {Journal for Semitics}, volume = {28}, year = {2019}, abstract = {The biblical corpus features a number of verses in which interrogative pronouns appear in non-interrogative contexts. The same phenomenon is observed in many other languages and gives rise to the question known in the linguistic literature as {\textquotedblleft}the interrogative-indefinite puzzle,{\textquotedblright} namely, what is the natural connection between the interrogative and indefinite functions. This paper seeks to explore how this question should be examined in the context of the Biblical Hebrew data. It will be argued that a consideration of typological observations can yield important insights into this question. Subsequently, it proposes a formal semantic analysis of the indefinite pronouns in question and shows how the proposed approach can help explain their distribution.}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA.} } @article {3092230, title = {The Hebrew-Based Traditions in Galatians 4:21\–31}, journal = {Early Christianity}, volume = {9}, year = {2018}, pages = {404-431}, abstract = {Dieser Artikel schl{\"a}gt vor, den Fokus f{\"u}r das Gesamtargument in Gal 4:21{\textendash}31 auf Jes\ 54,1 zu legen. Der Gedankengang des Paulus wird offenbar klarer, wenn das Wort\ בעולה aus Jesaja in seiner sp{\"a}thebr{\"a}ischen Bedeutung als {\quotedblbase}nicht jungfr{\"a}ulich{\textquotedblleft} interpretiert\ wird statt in seiner gew{\"o}hnlichen biblischen Bedeutung als {\quotedblbase}die, die den\ Mann hat{\textquotedblleft}, die sich auch in der Formulierung der Septuaginta (τῆς ἐχούσης τὸν\ ἄνδρα) wiederfindet. Die vorgeschlagene Lesart l{\"o}st einige interpretative Probleme,\ auf die manche Leser der Galaterpassage bereits hingewiesen haben, und erkl{\"a}rt\ insbesondere die argumentative Funktion des Jesajaverses. Die Annahme der
sp{\"a}thebr{\"a}ischen Bedeutung stimmt au{\ss}erdem mit weiteren Verwendungen midraschisch\ und semitisch basierter Tradition {\"u}berein, die an anderen Stellen in Gal 4\ zu finden sind. Die resultierende Lesart wird auf {\"a}hnliche Weise gest{\"u}tzt durch die
etwa gleichzeitig entstandenen Schriften Philos von Alexandrien und gibt Aufschluss\ {\"u}ber die Existenz hebr{\"a}ischer Traditionen in der j{\"u}disch-hellenistischen Welt.}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA. and Bar-Asher Siegal M.~} } @article {3090217, title = {How to apply the Principle of Charity when reading Saussure\’s Cours}, journal = {Beitr{\"a}ge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft }, volume = {28}, year = {2018}, pages = {311-325}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA} } @article {3090218, title = {Scientificity \– Humanities \– demarcation criteria}, journal = {Katharsis}, year = {2018}, pages = {61-76}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA} } @article {3092201, title = {Can the Grammar of Babylonian Aramaic Be Used in Evaluating the Language of the Zohar, and If So, How?}, journal = { Kabbalah: Journal for the Study of Jewish Mystical Texts}, year = {2017}, pages = {17-28}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA.} } @article {3092202, title = {Notes concerning the emergence of negation words in the Semitic languages}, journal = {Leshonenu}, year = {2017}, pages = {44-63}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA.~} } @article {3092204, title = {Philological Research with Sociolinguistic Constraints}, journal = {Carmillim }, year = {2017}, pages = {176-199}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA.} } @article {3090219, title = {The pursuit of science: A Study in Saussure\’s Philosophy of Science through the Lens of a Historical Discussion}, journal = {Beitr{\"a}ge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft}, volume = {27}, year = {2017}, pages = {253-290}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA} } @article {3092231, title = {\‘Rejoice, O barren one who bore no child\’: Beruria and the Jewish-Christian Conversation in the Babylonian Talmud. The Faces of Torah.}, journal = {Studies in the Texts and Contexts of Ancient Judaism in Honor of Steven Fraade, Journal of Ancient Judaism.}, year = {2017}, pages = {199-220}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA. and Bar-Asher Siegal M.} } @article {3092203, title = {Rhetorical Questions in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic}, journal = {Language Studies}, volume = {17}, year = {2017}, pages = {179-204}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA.~} } @article {3090215, title = { The pinnacle of de Saussure\&$\#$39;s achievements is also an admission of failure פסגת הישגיו של דה־סוסיר היא גם הודאה בכישלון. }, journal = {Haaretz [Internet]}, year = {2016}, url = {https://www.haaretz.co.il/literature/study/.premium-1.2855253}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA} } @article {3092225, title = {Discourse update at the service of mirativity effects: the case of the Discursive Dative. Proceedings of SALT (Semantic and Linguistic Theory)}, year = {2016}, pages = {103-121}, abstract = {The classic model of conversation based on the Common Ground (CG), introduced by Karttunen (1974), Lewis (1979) and Stalnaker (1978), was shown to be insufficient for accounting for various conversational phenomena (inter alia Portner 2004, 2007, Farkas \& Bruce 2009, Murray 2014). This paper further strengthens this line by analyzing a type of non-truth conditional non-core dative termed the Discursive Dative (DD) as a discourse management device (Krifka 2008, Repp 2013). The DD signals that the asserted proposition p constitutes an exception to a normative generalization believed by the speaker to be shared by the speech event participants. In order to capture the notion of exception we propose to divide the CG into two sets of worlds, those consistent with previous assertions and their presuppositions (CGA) and those consistent with generalizations (CGG). The DD signals a non-inclusion relation between the asserted proposition and the CGG. This enables us to distinguish between different types of mirativity effects, by drawing a distinction between adding a proposition p that was not previously in the speaker{\textquoteright}s expectation-set (inter alia DeLancey 1997, 2001, Rett 2009, Peterson 2013, Rett \& Murray 2013) and the present case of the DD, where p can very well be in the speaker{\textquoteright}s expectation-set, but objectively expected that ~p.}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA. and Boneh N.} } @article {3092206, title = {Linguistics and Philology in the Study of the Epigraphic Finds from the Judean Desert: The State of the Art and Reflections on Future Studies.}, journal = {Leshonenu~}, year = {2016}, pages = {247-268}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA.} } @article {Bar-Asher2016, title = {Reconsidering the emergence of non-core dative constructions in Modern Hebrew}, journal = {Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics}, volume = {84}, year = {2016}, pages = {309-322}, abstract = {This article critically scrutinizes the perceived view that the emergence of non-core dative constructions in Modern Hebrew is due to a Slavic-Yiddish influence. It studies the Biblical and Mishnaic sources, showing that these language strata contain highly similar constructions to the ones in Modern Hebrew. It additionally shows that paral-lel constructions existed in languages spoken in the Jewish communities at the time of the revival, revealing that this linguistic phenomenon is typologically widely attested. We therefore claim that this could be an example of an internalization of the old gram-mar in the new spoken language, enhanced by the fact that similar constructions are reflected in the non-Hebrew native languages of the revival era speakers. These speak-ers, at the same time, imported into their colloquial Hebrew a sub-type of non-core dative{\textemdash}the discursive dative{\textemdash}to which they could not have been exposed through the ancient written texts, since this type of dative construction occurs only in the spo-ken language.}, url = {https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004310896/B9789004310896_024.xml}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal, E.A. and Boneh, N.} } @article {3092205, title = {The Semitic templates from the perspective of reciprocal predicates}, journal = {Proceedings of the 10th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting}, year = {2016}, pages = {16-30}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA.~} } @article {3092208, title = {The case for external sentential negation: evidence from Jewish Babylonian Aramaic}, journal = {Linguistics}, volume = {53}, year = {2015}, pages = {1031-1078}, abstract = {This paper has a twofold goal: (i) In the context of negation in general to provide a clear conceptual distinction between internal and external negation, which is summarized as follows:\ Internal negation/ predicate denial: the negative statement is about the topic of the sentence. It provides new negative information about the topic of the clause.\ External negation: it is a statement about a statement; it provides information about the truth value of the root proposition, i.e., reverses it; (ii) In the context of the Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (=JBA) to present an analysis according to which\ l{\={a}}w\ is marked for external negation, while\ l{\={a}}\ is the unmarked negator, which usually appears in internal negation. I propose that in various contexts\ l{\={a}}w, which historically functioned as a complete clause, was reanalyzed as an independent negator and thus grammaticalized as an external negation. The support for this hypothesis comes from historical, syntactic, and functional evidence. Moreover, this paper demonstrates a connection between its two goals: although Jewish Babylonian Aramaic is a historic language, its data still provoke a discussion on negation in a more general way. The following claims have been stated among those who argue that with respect to negation the TL framework is more suitable for natural languages: (i) Standard negations represent predicate denials and (ii) Natural languages do not express external negations without subordination (it is not the case that/it is not true that{\textellipsis}) Following our analyses for the data from JBA, it becomes clear that claim (2) is not true. Moreover, paying attention to the environments in which the\ l{\={a}}w\ appears in JBA reveals contexts that should be classified as cases of external negation even when it is not marked syntactically, for the distinction which has been made between the two categories is a conceptual one and not a syntactic one. Accordingly, claim (i) is also not accurate, as in other languages, we do find standard negations in such contexts.}, url = {https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/ling-2015-0025/html?lang=en}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA.} } @article {RN921, title = {Reconsidering the Emergence of Non-core Dative Constructions in Modern Hebrew}, journal = {Journal of Jewish Languages}, volume = {3}, year = {2015}, pages = {309-323}, type = {Journal Article}, abstract = {This article critically scrutinizes the perceived view that the emergence of non-core dative constructions in Modern Hebrew is due to a Slavic-Yiddish influence. It studies the Biblical and Mishnaic sources, showing that these language strata contain highly similar constructions to the ones in Modern Hebrew. It additionally shows that parallel constructions existed in languages spoken in the Jewish communities at the time of the revival, revealing that this linguistic phenomenon is typologically widely attested. We therefore claim that this could be an example of an internalization of the old grammar in the new spoken language, enhanced by the fact that similar constructions are reflected in the non-Hebrew native languages of the revival era speakers. These speakers, at the same time, imported into their colloquial Hebrew a sub-type of non-core dative{\textemdash}the discursive dative{\textemdash}to which they could not have been exposed through the ancient written texts, since this type of dative construction occurs only in the spoken language.}, doi = {doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/22134638-12340056}, url = {http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/22134638-12340056}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. and Boneh, Nora} } @article {3092207, title = {Review of, Shatil Nimrod, Developments in Contemporary Hebrew}, journal = {Lǝ{\v s}on{\'e}nu }, volume = {77}, year = {2015}, pages = {413-417}, url = {https://www.jstor.org/stable/26697404?refreqid=excelsior\%3Afce88708e0e52a2b861d945dff03cb30\&seq=1}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA.~} } @article {RN922, title = {What Is New in the -Strategy for Expressing Reciprocity in Modern Hebrew and What Are Its Origins?}, journal = {Journal of Jewish Languages}, volume = {3}, year = {2015}, pages = {245-258}, type = {Journal Article}, abstract = {This essay focuses on various aspects of the\ np-strategies for expressing reciprocity in Modern Hebrew and inquires about their origin. It attempts to determine the exact type of relationship that exists between the contemporary constructions and their equivalents in older periods. It describes a situation in which Modern Hebrew added a new\ np-construction to express reciprocity, due to a calque of a construction existing in Indo-European languages. This is an interesting example of the way Modern Hebrew grows richer by incorporating external influence. The new construction did not replace the older one, an inheritance from Mishnaic Hebrew. Instead, it provided a means to distinguish between registers. Despite the semantic and the syntactic resemblance between the new and the old constructions, they remained independent, and they differ in their sociolinguistic distribution, grammatical properties, and semantic nuances.}, doi = {doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/22134638-12340051}, url = {http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/22134638-12340051}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A.} } @article {3092213, title = {Some generalizations concerning the morphology of the verbal system of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic}, journal = {Nit{\textquoteright}e Ilan: Studies in Hebrew and Related Fields Presented to IIan Eldar}, year = {2014}, pages = {103-118}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA.} } @article {3092211, title = {From a Non-Argument-Dative to an Argument-Dative: the character and origin of the qṭil li construction in Syriac and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic}, journal = {Folia Orientalia}, year = {2014}, pages = {59-101}, abstract = {This paper aims at tracing the origin of the emergence of a new tense in the history of Eastern Aramaic, the bases of which are the historical passive participle (qṭil) with a conjugation that originated from a cliticization of a datival pronominal expression (li). In many of the Eastern Neo Aramaic dialects the descendants of these forms exhibit features of an ergative system, in expressing the past tense. Studies often focus on the final stage of this process when the tense is established. The current paper, however, focuses on the previous stages of this diachronic process. Thus, it is about the origin of the use of the dative with the passive participle (the qṭil li construction) with a special interest in Syriac and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (=JBA). In the past scholars repeatedly argued that the use of the dative indicates that originally this was a {\textquotedblleft}possessive-perfects{\textquotedblright}. In this paper I make the case that the qṭil li construction is definitely not a possessive one. Instead, I will argue, that this is a regular passive construction. Accordingly, the passive participle has the function of expressing the tense-aspect while the datival expression denotes the agent. In light of this, I propose that the use of the dative to denote the agent developed from its ability to mark a non argument experiencer. With certain verbs, particularly in passive constructions, it wasanalyzed as an argument-dative denoting the agent (in the sense of the subject of the active sentence). In this case we are dealing with a shift from a Non-Argument-Dative to an Argument-Dative. At the next stage, the requirement of anticipatory pronouns to agree with all definite arguments, laid the foundation for the new inflection in the Neo Eastern Aramaic dialects. Previous studies argued that the Aramaic development was a result of contact with Iranian languages. I point to a new parallelism between the development that occurred in the history of the Eastern Aramaic dialects and the development in some of the Iranian languages. I claim, however, that we are dealing with a case of {\textquotedblleft}convergence{\textquotedblright} in the limited sense of the term, since languages in the same area, show similar developments through internal and external factors. The various discussions throughout the paper are of significance beyond the scope of the Aramaic construction for the following issues: 1) the cross-linguistic distribution of possessiveperfect constructions; 2) the origin of an ergative system; 3) the existence of a formal distinction between argument and adjunct; and 4) a presentation of a case of {\textquotedblleft}convergence{\textquotedblright}. * This paper is a development of Bar-Asher (2008). I am grateful to Ariel Gutman for his translation of the original Hebrew into English. I dedicate this paper to the memory of Wolfhart Heinrichs, a great teacher and a wonderful person, with whom I discussed many parts of this paper.\ }, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA.~} } @article {RN780, title = {Modern Hebrew non-core dative in their context}, journal = {Lǝ{\v s}on{\'e}nu}, volume = {76}, year = {2014}, pages = {461-495}, type = {Journal Article}, url = {https://www.jstor.org/stable/24328469?seq=1}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A and Boneh, Nora} } @article {RN757, title = {Notes on the history of reciprocal NP-strategies in Semitic languages in a typological perspective}, journal = {Diachronica}, volume = {31}, year = {2014}, pages = {337{\textendash}378}, type = {Journal Article}, abstract = {Among Semitic reciprocal constructions, a division is seen between two types: 1) two-unit constructions, with two components, each filling a different argument position of the verb, and 2) one-unit constructions, with an anaphora that co-refers with the subject (that must be plural) and occupies only the non-subject position required by the verb. The goal of this paper is to explain how these constructions developed, specifically: 1) how did the various types of two-unit constructions evolve? and 2) could diachronic chains be identified in order to explain the development of the one-unit constructions from the two-unit constructions? Previous work on question (1) focuses on the range of phrases that tend to develop into reciprocal markers. Such accounts, however, do not explain how these constructions developed the specific meanings they have. I argue that consideration of the semantics of these constructions is crucial for understanding their evolution. Instead of {\textquoteleft}reciprocal constructions{\textquoteright} it is better to see them as denoting {\textquoteleft}unspecified relations{\textquoteright}. As for (2), various attempts have been made to explain such processes focusing on Indo-European languages, which do not capture the Semitic developments; therefore I propose an alternative hypothesis, according to which the one-unit constructions result from a reanalysis of the two-unit constructions.}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A} } @article {3092212, title = {Reciprocal NP-Strategies in Jewish Dialects of Near Eastern Neo-Aramaic in Light of Parallel Semitic Constructions}, journal = { Journal of Jewish languages }, year = {2014}, pages = {49-77}, abstract = {This article focuses on the origin of the forms of various NP-strategies for expressing reciprocity in the Jewish dialects of North Eastern Neo-Aramaic (nena). The discussion concerning the origin of these forms is of special interest when considering their historical relationship with their regional ancestors from Late Aramaic (Syriac, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, and Mandaic). This discussion is conducted in light of what has been previously discussed concerning similar constructions among the Semitic languages and cross-linguistically. This article also elaborates on the relationship between reciprocal constructions and sociative- comitative- collective expressions.}, url = {https://brill.com/view/journals/jjl/2/1/article-p49_2.xml}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA.} } @article {Bar-Asher2013, title = {Reconsidering the study of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic: Five decades after E.Y. Kutscher and his influential methodology}, journal = {Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft}, volume = {163}, year = {2013}, pages = {341-364}, abstract = {E.Y. Kutscher emphasized that the goal of the scholarship on Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (= JBA) is to reconstruct the historical language of the Jews speaking Aramaic in Babylonia in the first millennium ce. Given this task, the philologist must consider all forms and constructions that appear in the textual evidence of this dialect in order to determine what reflects the original language and what results from textual corruptions during the transmission of the texts. This methodology became the scholarly consensus for the academic study of JBA. However, no one who follows Kutscher{\textquoteright}s methodological tradition ever provided clear criteria for recognizing what should be considered original JBA. Therefore, this paper tries to piece together the methodological assumptions behind this quest to identify the original language. However, when considering the sociolinguistic model of diglossia, and the various types of developments that could take place in the transmission of the texts it becomes clear that those criteria are not decisive, and that the same phenomena can be explained in various ways. Consequently it is proposed that: 1) We may have to be satisfied with the fact that it is not always possible to determine which phenomenon is original. Often it is only possible to raise the various options regarding each and every form; 2) It is not advisable to determine generally which one of the manuscripts provides the most reliable textual evidence for all the linguistic phenomena (the so-called {\textquotedblleft}best manuscript{\textquotedblright}), as this may change in each case. Consequently, it is suggested, instead, to discuss phenomena rather than sources, and focus on internal relations between forms and structures.}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA.} } @article {3092214, title = {Non-anaphoric uses of the demonstrative pronouns in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic}, journal = {Lǝ{\v s}on{\'e}nu }, year = {2012}, pages = {229-266}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA.} } @article {3092215, title = {Review of, Alvestad Silje and Lutz Edzard, la-ḥ{\v s}ob,but la-ḥ{\u a}zor? Sonority, Optimality and the Hebrew פ\"ח forms.}, journal = {Journal of Semitic Studies }, volume = {56}, year = {2011}, pages = {404-406}, url = {https://academic.oup.com/jss/article/56/2/404/1678729}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA.~} } @article {Bar-Asher2011, title = {The epistolary terms k\&$\#$39;t, k\&$\#$39;nt in official Aramaic, the feminine endings in Aramaic dialects and other dialectal features in the history of Aramaic}, journal = {Ancient Near Eastern Studies}, volume = {48}, year = {2011}, pages = {199-231}, abstract = {This paper concentrates on the etymology of the epistolary terms\ k{\textquoteleft}t, k{\textquoteleft}nt\ in Official Aramaic and proposes that they are related to the root\ k-{\textquoteleft}-n, used both in official correspondence from Middle Assyrian and in the Amarna letters. In this discussion various dialectal features in the history of Aramaic are discussed, among them: rule ordering with regards to the assimilation of the consonant\ {\textendash}n, and the insertion of an anaptyxis between clusters of two final consonants; the existence of two allomorphs in Aramaic for the feminine ending,\ -at\ and\ {\textendash}t; and a consideration of the existence of some connection between the dialect of the Sefire inscription and the dialect of the Hermopolis letters.}, url = {https://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content.php?url=article\&id=2119592\&journal_code=ANES}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal, E.A.} } @article {RN183, title = {From Typology to Diachrony: Synchronic and Diachronic Aspects of Predicative Possessive Constructions in Akkadian}, journal = {~Folia Linguistica Historica}, volume = {32}, year = {2011}, pages = {43-88}, type = {Journal Article}, abstract = {This study uses typological surveys of predicative possessive constructions across languages and illustrates how a typological study may contribute to a historical discussion. More specifically it provides an account of such constructions in the history of Akkadian. The typological surveys reveal that various constructions in Akkadian not only connote possession accidently, but rather are tokens of predicative possessive constructions. Thus, this article provides a synchronic survey of different marginal predicative possessive constructions in Akkadian, of different dialects and from different periods, most of them unnoticed in the literature. Second, once these constructions are identified, assuming their existence in the history of a language may contribute to explaining other related phenomena, either as motivations for certain diachronic developments or as historical syntactic/semantic explanations for other phenomena. In the context of Akkadian, it will be first and foremost used to explain the origin of the Akkadian verb i{\v s}{\^u}m, the equivalent of the English verb {\textquoteleft}to have{\textquoteright}, as Akkadian is unique among the Semitic languages in having a finite verb for this function.}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A.} } @article {RN618, title = {Notes on reciprocal constructions in Akkadian in light of typological and historical considerations}, journal = {Semitica et Classica}, volume = {4}, year = {2011}, pages = {23-42}, type = {Journal Article}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A} } @article {Bar-Asher2011, title = {On the passiveness of one pattern in jewish babylonian aramaic - A linguistic and philological discussion}, journal = {Journal of Semitic Studies}, volume = {56}, year = {2011}, pages = {111-143}, abstract = {In this paper I discuss the passiveness of one pattern in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, the pattern which consists of the passive participle and the preposition {\textquoteleft}l {\textquoteright} followed by a pronominal suffix. I will demonstrate that this pattern is indeed a passive construction. For this purpose I will deal with the definition of what a passive construction is in general, then apply this definition to the construction under review, and conclude my discussion by treating some of the possible objections that could be raised against this analysis. As will become clear, this pattern, like similar patterns in other languages, raises the crucial question whether it is possible to have a passive sentence without a clear active partner. This paper will endorse a positive answer to this question.}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal, E.A.} } @article {3092232, title = {Who separated from whom and why? A philological study of 4QMMT}, journal = {Revue de Qumran}, year = {2011}, pages = {229-256.}, abstract = {The incomplete phrase ] פרשנו מרוב הע [ from 4QMMT is often read as
פרשנו מרוב העם . Translated as {\textquotedblleft}we have separated ourselves from the multitude/
majority of the people,{\textquotedblright} this line stands at the heart of many discussions
concerning the composition of 4QMMT and is allegedly the Qumran community{\textquoteright}s
self-perception of their relationship with the other Jewish fractions,
specifically referring to their schism with the rest of the nation.
Based on a philological study of the components of this line I propose
the following alternative reading: פרשנו מרוב הע[מים [. I argue that considering
the intertextual relationships between 4QMMT with the relevant passages
from Deuteronomy and Ezra, and examining the uses of the root פרש in the
relevant contexts in the Targumin and in rabbinic texts that this alternative
reading should be the default one, or at least as plausible as the common one.
Consequently, I examine how this reading should influence our understanding
of the nature of 4QMMT.}, url = {https://www.academia.edu/753655/_Who_separated_from_whom_and_why_A_philological_study_of_4QMMT_}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA.~} } @article {RN1027, title = {Dual Pronouns in Semitics and an Evaluation of the evidence for their Existence in Biblical Hebrew}, journal = {Ancient Near Eastern Studies}, volume = {46}, year = {2009}, pages = {32-49}, type = {Journal Article}, abstract = {In the context of establishing the pronominal dual forms of proto-Semitic, philologists sought for vestiges of such forms in different non-related branches of the Semitic family of languages. This paper starts with an updated reconstruction of the Proto-Semitic{\textquoteright}s dual pronouns based on all the information at our hands, and consequently examines the evidence proposed in the literature for vestiges of these forms in the biblical consonantal text, especially the most recent support made by Rendsburg. In a list of publications Rendsburg proposed to strengthen this hypothesis by using statistical considerations. This paper will reject his conclusions and will refute his arguments by demonstrating that merely counting examples can be very misleading; either separately counting examples found in the same biblical context with some unique dialectical features falsely increases the number or, far worse, some examples should not even be considered at all since there are other motivations for the use of their peculiar forms.}, url = {https://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content.php?url=article\&id=2040708\&journal_code=ANES}, author = {Bar-Asher Elitzur A.} } @article {3092233, title = {Linguistic Markers in the Book of Ruth}, journal = {Shnaton {\textendash} An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies}, year = {2008}, pages = {25-42}, author = {Bar-Asher EA.~} } @article {3090220, title = {How an Empiricist Founds a New Science: An Epistemological Inquiry in Ferdinand de Saussure\’s Linguistic Theory.}, journal = {Du c{\^o}t{\'e} de chez Saussure, A l{\textquoteright}occasion de ses anniversaires(1857: naissance, 1907: premier Cours de linguistique g{\'e}n{\'e}rale)}, year = {2008}, pages = {23-38}, author = {Bar-Asher EA} } @article {3092216, title = {The Imperative Forms of Proto Semitic and a New Perspective on Barth\’s Law}, journal = {Journal of American Oriental Society}, volume = {128}, year = {2008}, pages = {233-255}, author = {Bar-Asher Siegal EA.} } @article {3090221, title = {The Notion of Tradition in the History of Linguistics}, journal = {Beitr{\"a}ge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft}, year = {2007}, pages = {277-288}, author = {Bar-Asher EA} } @article {3092217, title = {Review of, Sharvit Shimon, Language and Style of Tractate Avoth Through the Age}, journal = {Hebrew Studies}, volume = {48}, year = {2007}, pages = {101-104}, url = {https://www.jstor.org/stable/27913864?seq=1}, author = {Bar-Asher EA.~} } @article {3092234, title = {Nahmanides\’ Hidden Motives in the Treatise \‘Quntres Dina D\’Garme\’ }, journal = {Sidra}, year = {2005}, pages = {57-67}, author = {Bar-Asher EA.~} } @article {3092235, title = {An Explanation of the Etiology of the Name Ammon in Genesis 19, Based on Evidence from Nabataean Aramaic and the Safaitic Arabian Dialect}, journal = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Althebraistik}, year = {2004}, pages = {3-10}, author = {Bar-Asher EA.} } @article {3092236, title = {Theodor Herzl\’s Theory of Quasi-Contract - Ideological Background to Theodor Herzl\’s Theory of the Moral Justification for the Establishment of a State.}, journal = {Hayo-Haya }, year = {2004}, pages = {7-23}, author = {Bar-Asher EA.~} } @article {3092237, title = {Head Covering \– Mosaic or Jewish Law?}, journal = {Akdamot }, year = {2000}, pages = {101-115}, author = {Bar-Asher EA.~} } @article {3090222, title = {A Reexamination of a Talmudical Discussion \‘teqafo kohen\’}, journal = {Sinay }, year = {2000}, pages = {48-80~}, author = {Bar-Asher EA and Furstenberg Y.} }