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.

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 hitnašek 'kiss') - 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 'be identical') - this class of predicates inherently encodes symmetric relations. Drawing upon Winter’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’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.

 

In 1894, Jacob Barth proposed that the preformative conjugation in some of the Semitic languages goes back to a – generally bygone – 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 š(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.
 

Causal Selection is a widely discussed topic in philosophy and the cognitive sciences, concerned with characterizing the choice of “the cause” 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.

This paper characterizes Medieval Hebrew and Aramaic as literary languages and seeks to explain how a 'literary language' 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.

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.

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.

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.

 

 

 

 

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 “the interrogative-indefinite puzzle,” 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.

Dieser Artikel schlägt vor, den Fokus für das Gesamtargument in Gal 4:21–31 auf Jes 54,1 zu legen. Der Gedankengang des Paulus wird offenbar klarer, wenn das Wort בעולה aus Jesaja in seiner späthebräischen Bedeutung als „nicht jungfräulich“ interpretiert wird statt in seiner gewöhnlichen biblischen Bedeutung als „die, die den Mann hat“, die sich auch in der Formulierung der Septuaginta (τῆς ἐχούσης τὸν ἄνδρα) wiederfindet. Die vorgeschlagene Lesart löst einige interpretative Probleme, auf die manche Leser der Galaterpassage bereits hingewiesen haben, und erklärt insbesondere die argumentative Funktion des Jesajaverses. Die Annahme der
späthebräischen Bedeutung stimmt außerdem mit weiteren Verwendungen midraschisch und semitisch basierter Tradition überein, die an anderen Stellen in Gal 4 zu finden sind. Die resultierende Lesart wird auf ähnliche Weise gestützt durch die
etwa gleichzeitig entstandenen Schriften Philos von Alexandrien und gibt Aufschluss über die Existenz hebräischer Traditionen in der jüdisch-hellenistischen Welt.