Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2021
Edited by Mark Dingemanse, Eva van Lier and Jorrig Vogels
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 38] 2021
► pp. 163–178

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF

‘Between’ constructions in Biblical Hebrew

 | Utrecht University
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with Utrecht University.

Published online: 29 October 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00055.zwa
Abstract
Unlike its English counterpart between, the Biblical Hebrew (BH) preposition bên does not allow a conjoined object (between A and B), but it uses additional prepositions in two typologically unusual patterns: bên A wə-bên B ‘between A and-between B’ and bên A lə-B ‘between A to-B’. This article shows that these two patterns, and their equivalence with the English one, can be accounted for semantically, on the basis of the underlying filter behaviour of the ‘betweenness’ meaning.
Article outline
  • 1.Bên patterns
  • 2.The problem in more detail
  • 3.Some assumptions
  • 4.The basic idea
  • 5.Two more betweenness varieties
    • 5.1Betweenness and convex hulls
    • 5.2Betweenness and intervals
  • 6.Back to the Hebrew patterns
    • 6.1Spatial and non-spatial
    • 6.2ûvên and lə-
    • 6.3Two and more
    • 6.4Three different models for a complete picture
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (22)
References
Barr, James. 1978. “Some notes on ben “between” in Classical Hebrew.” Journal of Semitic Studies 23(1): 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dindelegan, Gabriela Pană (ed). 2016. The Syntax of Old Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elliger, Karl & Rudolph, Willhelm (eds). 1977. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Habel, Christopher. 1989. “Zwischen-Bericht.” In Raumkonzepte in Verstehensprozessen, Christopher Habel, Michael Herweg & Karl Rehkämper (eds), 37–69. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J. & van den Toorn, M. C. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Tweede, Geheel herziene druk. Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff Uitgevers/Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hardy, Humphrey Hill. 2014. “Diachronic development in Biblical Hebrew Prepositions: A case study in grammaticalization.” PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. “Coordination.” In Language typology and syntactic description, vol. II: Complex constructions, Timothy Shopen (ed), 2nd ed., 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herskovits, Annette. 1986. Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnston, Judith R. & Slobin, Dan I. 1979. “The development of locative expressions in English, Italian, Serbo-Croatian and Turkish.” Journal of Child Language 6(3): 529–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Joüon, Paul & Muraoka, Tamitsu. 2006. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landman, Fred. 1989. “Groups, I.” Linguistics and Philosophy 12(5): 559–605. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mark, David & Egenhofer, Max J. 1994. “Modeling Spatial Relations between Lines and Regions: Combining Formal Mathematical Models and Human Subjects Testing.” Cartography and Geographical Information Systems 21(3): 195–212.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Keefe, John. 1996. “The spatial prepositions in English, Vector Grammar and the Cognitive Map Theory.” In Language and Space, Paul Portner, Mary A. Peterson, Nadel Lynn & Merrill F. Garrett (eds), 277–316. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H., ter Meulen, Alice & Wall, Robert E. 1990. Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1996. Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van der Horst, Joop M. 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Syntaxis. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van der Wouden, Ton. 2015. “Tussen andere lezingen.” Paper presented at the the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of the Netherlands, 7 February 2015, Utrecht.
van der Zee, Emile & Watson, Matt. 2004. “Between space and function: How spatial and functional features determine the comprehension of between.” In Functional Features in Language and Space: Insights from Perception, Categorization, and Development, Laura Carlson & Emile van der Zee (eds), 116–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2009. Co-Compounds and Natural Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Waltke, Bruce K., O’Connor, Michael Patrick & O’Connor, Caroll. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winter, Yoad. 1998. “Flexible Boolean Semantics: Coordination, Plurality and Scope in Natural Language.” Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue