The negation of the non-verbal clause in early Syriac.

• Author: Joosten, J.

0. Introduction

   The last quarter century has seen a notable increase in studies of the Semitic non-verbal clause (NVC). This is a promising development: though its structure is far from simple, the NVC is relatively more transparent than the verbal clause; it is therefore a logical starting point for syntactical research. Moreover, since elements of the Semitic verbal system have probably grown out of non-verbal types of predication,(1) the NVC is likely to teach us a few points of importance for a correct understanding of the Semitic verbal clause. In order to reach beyond the impressive results of the syntactic research undertaken in the last century,(2) present-day scholarship must adopt a relatively new approach to Semitic syntax, one characterized as truly linguistic (i.e., structural(3)) and, therefore, free of the imposition of Indo-European categories on the Semitic languages. The study of the NVC may prove to be an important stage in the formation of this approach.(4)

   While we await a new Grundriss, much work remains to be done on the "nuts and bolts" of even the simpler types of NVC in the different languages and dialects. The present paper wishes to make a modest contribution to the description of the NVC in Syriac.

1. The positive NVC in Syriac: an outline

   The researches of G. Goldenberg present a clear and uniform theory of the Syriac NVC.(5) His theory is summarized in the present section in a slightly modified way (see especially section 1.3.); for an understanding of the structure of the positive NVC must precede that of the negated NVC.(6)

   1.1. Nucleus: Pr-EPP

   The most usual type of non-verbal clause is structured around a nucleus consisting of the predicate (Pr) + an enclitic personal pronoun (EPP).(7) The EPP refers to the subject (Su)(8) and accords with it in gender and number. This nucleus suffices to constitute a clause, e.g., seda (h)w "It is a ghost" (Matt 14:26 Cureton(9)).

   If the Pr consists of more than one word, the EPP is attached to the first word of the Pr (but status constructus or preposition + noun are counted as one word). E.g., a(y)k mal ake ennon dasmaya "They are as the angels of heaven" (Matt 22:30 Cureton).

   To the nucleus an explicit Su may be added, either before or after the nucleus. Examples:

   Su-Pr-EPP nir(y) ger bassim (h)u "For my yoke is easy" (Matt 11:30(10))

   Pr-EPP-Su bnay here ennon bnaya "The sons are free men" (Matt 17:26)

   These clauses with an explicit Su recall similar clauses in Biblical Hebrew. However, whereas in Biblical Hebrew they must be viewed as cases of extraposition of the Su (e.g., ha nasim ha elleh s lemim hem ittanu "As to these men, they are friendly with us," Gen 34:21),(11) in Syriac they are merely representative of the normal way to build a NVC.

   Clauses that are not structured around a nucleus consisting of Pr-EPP fall in three categories (sections 1.2., 1.3. and 1.4.).

   1.2. Nucleus "participial"

   Certain types of adjectives have no need of an EPP in order to build a clause. The bare form of the adjective in the status absolutus expresses nexus, e.g., tkil al alaha "He is confident in God" (Matt 27:43). In this type of clause, the adjective takes the place of Pr-EPP; in the clauses described above, it constitutes the nucleus. Again an explicit Su may be added to this nucleus. Examples:

   Su-Adjective rawrbanayhon sallitin layhon "Their great men have authority over them" (Matt 20:25)

   Adjective-Su ma qattin tar a "How narrow is the gate" (Matt 7:14)

   These clauses follow the same basic structure as the clauses described in section 1.1. However, whereas in those clauses the Su must be expressed by an EPP, in these the 3rd p. Su is implicit in the Pr. Goldenberg ascribes this to a process of "verbalization": like the active participle (qatel "he kills") these adjectives have acquired certain verbal characteristics, notably the capacity to express in their bare form the 3rd person pronominal Su (tkil "he trusts").(12) In view of their proximity to the active participle, Goldenberg termed them "participials."

   1.3. The identificatory NVC

   In the clauses defined in sections 1.1. and 1.2. the Pr is usually indefinite. With a definite Pr the character of the clause changes since the Pr is less clearly an item of new information about the Su. The clause is rather an identification of two known elements--whence the term "identificatory" NVC. It is often hard to decide in these clauses which element is Su and which is Pr.(13) This has certain repercussions on the structure of these clauses.(14)

   1. In identificatory NVCs with a fronted pronoun the EPP is attached to the pronoun indiscriminately, whether the pronoun is Su or Pr. In a clause like ena na msiha "I am the Messiah" (Matt 24:5), the syntactic structure does not indicate which element is Su and which is Pr.(15) This means that clauses of this structure may be found where the pronoun is the Su, e.g., a(n)t (h)u msiha breh d alaha haya...