The cyclic nature of negation: From implicit to explicit. The case of Hebrew Bilti (‘not’)

Abstract

The Hebrew negation adverbial bilti ‘not’ seems to function very differently in Biblical Hebrew than it does in Contemporary Hebrew. This paper addresses this difference and discusses its evolution. The main question addressed in this paper is: How has Hebrew bilti, originally an exceptive marker (with sentential scoping), ended up functioning solely as a privative in contemporary Hebrew? First, this paper argues that the biblical usage of bilti was expanded and turned into a polyfunctional (or ‘polysemous’) item. This happened via a constructionalization process which led to grammatical changes (‘grammaticalization’): The initially implicated negation (via a generalized implicature) turned explicit (semantic). In addition, in Hebrew’s later periods, the usage of bilti was narrowed and it became a privative. Thus, firstly, a pragmatically motivated path of constructionalization of bilti in Biblical Hebrew is suggested. That is, the “pragmatic negation” that arose via a generalized implicature shifted to the semantic level (performing semantic negation, explicit negation). Secondly, bilti’s functions in post-biblical Hebrew periods are outlined, tracing its narrowing functions until its fixation in Contemporary Hebrew as a privative.

Keywords:
Publication history
Table of contents

1.Introduction

The Hebrew bilti has not received much attention in linguistic literature. However, Glinert (1982) provides a syntactic-semantic study of negative and non-assertive environments in Contemporary Hebrew. He mentions the fact that the Hebrew negators lo ‘no’/‘not’, i- ‘not’, xoser ‘lack of’ and bilti are used in various ways and that bilti negates adjectives – it involves ‘constituent control’, i.e., its scope extends only to the constituent immediately containing it, namely the adjective itself. Therefore, it functions as a prefixal negator per se; see Example (1):

(1)
ze
this
lo
not
haya
was
bilti-xuki
neg -legal

‘It was not illegal’

In addition, Glinert claims that a comparison of Hebrew i-efshar ‘not possible’ with the constituent negator bilti ‘un-’ in the corresponding adjective compound bilti-efshari ‘impossible’ reveals that a sentence negator can readily be added to bilti-efshari but not to i-efshar. Hence the latter is already a case of sentence negation; see Examples (2ab):

(2)
  1. ze
    this
    lo
    not
    bilti-efshari
    neg -possible

    ‘It’s not impossible’

  2. * ze
    *this
    lo
    not
    i-efshar
    neg -possible

    *‘it’s not not possible’

Thus, claims Glinert, it is no surprise that i-efshar permits ‘negative’ generalizers in the same way that any negated verb does, while bilti-efshari does not; see Examples (3a3b):

(3)
  1. i-efshar
    neg-possible
    lir’ot
    to.see
    klum
    anything

    ‘It’s not possible to see anything’

  2. * bilti-efshari
    * im-possible
    lir’ot
    to.see
    klum
    anything’

    ‘It’s impossible to see anything’

However, Glinert does not focus on the semantic-pragmatic function of bilti and does not provide its history or diachronic development. Other papers, including Levi (2008)Levi, Alissa 2008 “Hebrew Negative Polarity Items šum and af .” In Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics, ed. by Sharon Armon-Lotem, Gabi Danon, and Susan Rothstein, 313–336. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, focus on Hebrew Negative Polarity Items (henceforth NPIs). Levi claims that bilti is a derivational negator which changes the meaning of the adjective it attaches to: it forms a new adjective with the reverse meaning.11.Horn (1989) claims that it often happens that a prefix produces a ‘contrary’ term, for example: the word unjust generally implies the opposite of just, unwise means more than ‘not wise’ and approaches foolish, unhappy is not far from miserable, etc. (also see Jespersen 1917Jespersen, Otto 1917 “Negation in English and Other Languages.” Historisk-Filologiske Meddelelser 1.Google Scholar, 144). In addition, Horn claims that negation of X cannot be considered as oppositional or contrary to X. Rather, it simply refers to what is different. She notes that the Hebrew adjective negator bilti-creates a more extreme and absolute negation compared to the negation marker lo ‘no/not’. However, this paper is the first of its kind–it provides a thorough diachronic investigation of the Hebrew bilti and outlines its various uses throughout history, starting with biblical bilti.

2.Background and terminology

2.1Constructionalization

A construction, according to Goldberg (1995)Goldberg, Adele 1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar, is any linguistic string that exhibits form-function correlation, at least part of which is non-compositional (where a compositional computation of the construction’s parts does not add up to its total meaning). Basically, a construction is a form-meaning or a form-function pairing, with symbolic links found between the form and the meaning (Langacker 1987Langacker, Roland 1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, Vol. 1. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar, 1991 1991 “Cognitive Grammar.” In Linguistic Theory and Grammatical Description, ed. by Flip G. Droste, and John E. Joseph, 275–306. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 2008 2008Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). In Traugott and Trousdale’s (2013Traugott, Elizabeth. C., and Graeme Trousdale 2013Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 22) definition:

Constructionalization is the creation of form-meaning (combinations of) signs. It forms new type nodes, which have new syntax or morphology and new coded meaning, in the linguistic network of a population of speakers. It is accompanied by changes in degree of schematicity, productivity, and compositionality. The constructionalization of schemas always results from a succession of micro-steps and is therefore gradual.

There are basically two kinds of constructionalization: grammatical constructionalization and lexical constructionalization (Trousdale 2012Trousdale, Graeme 2012 “Grammaticalization, Constructions and the Grammaticalization of Constructions.” In Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections, ed. by Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems, and Tanja Mortelmans, 167–198. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). In grammatical constructionalization, constructions come to serve a more procedural function. For example, some [NP of NP] constructions in English have developed into complex determiners or quantifiers (Traugott 2008a): (a) kind of a problem, a bit of a liar, (not) a shred of honor. In lexical constructionalization, constructions come to serve a more referential function, e.g., the development of mono-morphemic forms from historically complex forms involving productive suffixes (Trousdale and Norde 2013). This paper focuses on both grammatical and lexical constructionalization and show that the constructionalization that was previously grammatical has turned lexical.

2.2Grammaticalization

The term was first used by A. Meillet (1921/1912)Meillet, Antoine 1921/1912 “L’évolution des formes grammaticales.” Scientia (Rivista di Scienza) 12 (26), 130–148.Google Scholar. Traditionally, grammaticalization is a process which turns lexemes into grammatical formatives. However, grammaticalization also makes grammatical formatives still more grammatical (Kuryłowicz 1965Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1965 “The Evolution of Grammatical Categories.” Diogenes 51: 55–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). Similarly, Lehmann (2005)Lehmann, Christian 2005 “Pleonasm and Hyper Characterisation.” In Yearbook of Morphology, ed. by Geert Booij, and Jaap van Marle, 119–154. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar claimed that any grammatical change leads to a new grammar and that the term grammaticalization could be interpreted as ‘the creation of new grammar’.

Grammaticalization may refer to the process of grammatical change or its outcome (the formation of the new piece of grammar). This paper focuses on its outcome rather than the process itself. The process of change is thus recognized as constructionalization. As claimed by Lehmann (2005)Lehmann, Christian 2005 “Pleonasm and Hyper Characterisation.” In Yearbook of Morphology, ed. by Geert Booij, and Jaap van Marle, 119–154. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar:

grammaticalization of a particular formative is but a by-product of the grammaticalization of a construction. If there is an element that mediates the relation between the constituents of a construction, then grammaticalization of the construction will involve grammaticalization of this element.

This paper supports Lehmann’s view with a focus on the constructionalization process leading to grammatical change in Hebrew.

2.3Negative Polarity Items (NPIs)

A Negative Polarity Item is often referred to as an item that is scoped over by negation (either explicitly or implicitly), and often asymmetrically so, with its positive counterpart (Ladusaw 1996Ladusaw, William 1996Negation and Polarity Items. In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, ed. by Shalom Lappin, 321–341, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar). NPIs often play important linguistic roles, as in the case of English any, which widens the noun category it scopes over to include ‘marginal’ members (counter to expectation), thus creating a strengthened, absolute negation (Kadmon and Landman 1993Kadmon, Nirit, and Fred Landman 1993 “Any.” Linguistics and Philosophy 16 (4): 353–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). In this paper, bilti may also be considered a Negative Polarity Item (NPI) at some point in its history, but a special type of NPI, since it later ‘took on negation’ and became a negation item in its own right. The process is referred to in the literature as the Jespersen’s Cycle (Jespersen 1917Jespersen, Otto 1917 “Negation in English and Other Languages.” Historisk-Filologiske Meddelelser 1.Google Scholar). See Section 2.4 below.

2.4Jespersen’s Cycle

The term Jespersen’s Cycle (named for Jespersen 1917Jespersen, Otto 1917 “Negation in English and Other Languages.” Historisk-Filologiske Meddelelser 1.Google Scholar) was first used by Östen Dahl (1979)Dahl, Osten 1979 “Typology of Sentence Negation.” Linguistics 17: 79–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar to refer to the process by which an expression of negation in a language evolves. It has been the subject of various studies on negation (notably van der Auwera 2009van der Auwera, Johan 2009 “The Jespersen Cycles.” In Cyclical Change, ed. by Elly van Gelderen, 35–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). French pas ‘a step’ which turned into ‘not’ is the prototypical example of such a cycle and is typically mentioned in studies throughout the extensive literature on Jespersen’s cycle (see Example [4]). The French example remains central, even though even Jespersen himself studied various languages:

(4)
Je n’ai meme pas
I didn’t walk/take a step
Je ne sais pas
I don’t know anything
Je ne sais pas
I neg know neg
‘I don’t know’
Je sais pas / J’sais pas
I know neg / I’know neg
‘I don’t know

Jespersen focused on the weakening and strengthening processes which cause this cycle:

the original negative adverb is first weakened, then found insufficient and therefore strengthened, generally through some additional word, and this in turn may be felt as the negative proper and may then in the course of time be subject to the same development as the original word.(Jespersen 1917Jespersen, Otto 1917 “Negation in English and Other Languages.” Historisk-Filologiske Meddelelser 1.Google Scholar, 4)

This cycle has been elaborated and also dubbed as the negative cycle (see van Gelderen 2008van Gelderen, Elly 2008 “Negative Cycles.” Linguistic Typology 12: 195–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). However, this paper makes several claims regarding such linguistic cycles:

  1. Weakening and the need to strengthen one’s claim or “intensify predicate negation” (Chatzopoulou 2013Chatzopoulou, Katerina 2013 “Re(de)fining Jespersen’s Cycle.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 31–40.Google Scholar) are not the sole reasons for such a cycle to emerge. Any discursively-recruited function, such as following social codes (e.g., being polite) or expressing the speaker’s stance, can also motivate such cycles. In fact, anything that can fulfill the speakers’ discursive needs can motivate linguistic change and, as a result, create linguistic cycles.

  2. It is not always the case that an item constructionalized with negation in a process that involves negation deletion becomes a negator. The constructionalization of a linguistic item with negation in a Jespersen’s-like cycle can also evolve differently. This is the case of the ‘only’ evolved meaning of the English but (life is nothing but a dream > life is but a dream).

  3. The morpho-syntactic change of material deletion is not exclusive to negation (neg drop). See, for example, the way Trudgill’s (1995)Trudgill, Peter 1995 “Grammaticalisation and Social Structure: Non-standard Conjunction-Formation in East Anglian English.” In Grammar and Meaning, ed. by Frank R. Palmer, 136–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar do becomes a conjunction (conditional causative connector) because of material deletion: do in east Anglian English has become a conjunction equivalent to otherwise as a result of the deletion of material such as because if [Pronoun]. For example:

    Don’t you sleep there, because if you do you’ll be laughing on the wrong side of your face.

    Don’t you sleep there, do you’ll be laughing on the wrong side of your face.

  4. Constructionalization is always involved in cyclic change and the above-mentioned material deletion (Jespersen’s cycle, Trudgill’s do) occurs at the construction level and not in the individual item level. (e.g., ne [VERB] pas > [VERB] pas and because if [Pronoun] [proposition] > do [proposition]). Construction-wise, the construction shortens the phrase and grammaticalization takes its path due to constructionalization processes. In other words, constructionalization might lead to material deletion and morpho-syntactic shortening of the construction (often involving prosodic changes). That, in turn, might lead to the grammaticalization processes.

  5. The general claim should be that it is the recruited implicated pragmatic function that becomes semantic, and this happens very often, though not exclusively, with negation.

Indeed, the need to strengthen one’s claim or “intensify predicate negation” (Chatzopoulou 2013Chatzopoulou, Katerina 2013 “Re(de)fining Jespersen’s Cycle.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 31–40.Google Scholar) is a common reason for cycles of change to occur. However, other reasons might motivate such changes. One of those reasons is expressing the speaker’s stance, as in the case of questions recruited for stance-based purposes, which turn into “rhetorical questions” and later evolve into exclamatives (see Bardenstein 2022 2022 “The Case of Question-Based Exclamatives. From Pragmatic Rhetorical Function to Semantic Meaning.” Intercultural Pragmatics 19 (2): 209–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). In addition, another reason for the change is to conform with social codes, as in the case of English can/could recruited for the purpose of polite requests and evolving into polite question constructions (also causing the verb ask to become a polysemy (‘request/‘ask a question’). Other argumentative purposes include expressing rectification (see Bardenstein 2020 2020 “Persistent Argumentative Discourse Markers. The Case of Hebrew Rectification-Marker beʕecem (‘actually’).” Journal of Pragmatics 172, 254–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) and argumentative exclusion (also see Traugott 1997Traugott, Elizabeth 1997 “ Unless and But Conditionals: A Historical Perspective.” In Conditionals Again, ed. by Angeliki Athenasiadou, and René Dirven, 145–167. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Bardenstein and Ariel 2019Bardenstein, Ruti, and Mira Ariel 2019 “ Ela (‘but’) in the Mishna and in Contemporary Hebrew (in Hebrew).” Balshanut ivrit 73: 45–61.Google Scholar), which is the topic of this paper. In a nutshell, such cycles are all about the recruited-pragmatic function becoming semantic. Such cycles are motivated by various linguistic reasons. French pas ‘not’ is only different than English but ‘only’ in the sense that the former was recruited for negation-strengthening and the latter for exclusivity strengthening. Therefore, the former became a negator while the latter became an exclusion operator. In both cases, however, the explicit negation marker dropped (je ne se pas > je se pas ; life is nothing but a dream > life is but a dream). The Jespersen’s cycle is essentially a cycle of constructionalization which is based on pragmatic inferencing becoming semantic. Even though it is usually referred to as a cycle of grammaticalization (‘noun’ < ‘negation operator’) or semanticization (‘a step’ < ‘not’), it is actually a cycle, among other cycles, by which the pragmatically recruited function becomes semantic.

In recent work, linguists have researched the essence of cyclic developments at the semantic/pragmatic level of change (see Ghezzi and Molinelli 2014Ghezzi, Chiara, and Piera Molinelli 2014Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar; Hansen 2014Hansen, Maj-Britt M. 2014 “Cyclicity in Semantic/Pragmatic Change: The Medieval Particle ja Between Latin iam and Modern French déjà .” In Discourse and Pragmatic Markers. From Latin to the Romance Languages, ed. by Chiara Ghezzi, and Piera Molinelli, 139–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 2015 2015 “Phénomènes de cyclicité dans l’évolution des marqueurs pragmatiques.” Keynote talk, 4th International Symposium on Discourse Markers in Romance Languages . Heidelberg, Germany, 6–9 May.; Bardenstein, forthcoming). Hansen (2014Hansen, Maj-Britt M. 2014 “Cyclicity in Semantic/Pragmatic Change: The Medieval Particle ja Between Latin iam and Modern French déjà .” In Discourse and Pragmatic Markers. From Latin to the Romance Languages, ed. by Chiara Ghezzi, and Piera Molinelli, 139–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar, 2018 2018 “Cyclicity Phenomena in the Evolution of Pragmatic Markers. Examples from Romance.” In Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change, ed. by Salvador Pons Bordería, and Óscar Loureda Lamas, 51–77. Amsterdam: Brill.Google Scholar) has focused on “semantic/pragmatic cycles” or “cycles of pragmaticalization” (also see Ghezzi and Molinelli 2014Ghezzi, Chiara, and Piera Molinelli 2014Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). Hansen (2018) 2018 “Cyclicity Phenomena in the Evolution of Pragmatic Markers. Examples from Romance.” In Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change, ed. by Salvador Pons Bordería, and Óscar Loureda Lamas, 51–77. Amsterdam: Brill.Google Scholar discusses two types of cycles: onomasiological and semasiological. The first is about the renewed recruitment of an item for a discursive purpose (e.g., strengthening of a claim; also see Bardenstein, forthcoming) once bleaching has taken its course. The second involves processes of grammaticalization/pragmaticalization. Its essence is tracing different processes which occur to one linguistic item through the course of history. Both types of cycles seem to be involved in the Jespersen’s cycle and both are “discursive motivation-based cycles.” In addition, the former type of cycle (onomasiological) is based on one very specific discursive motivation that has been bleached and needs renewal (e.g., argumentative strengthening of negation). This renewal can either be of a different item (see ainz/plutôt and nunc/or/maintenant in Hansen 2018 2018 “Cyclicity Phenomena in the Evolution of Pragmatic Markers. Examples from Romance.” In Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change, ed. by Salvador Pons Bordería, and Óscar Loureda Lamas, 51–77. Amsterdam: Brill.Google Scholar) or the same identical item. For example, spoken Palestinian Arabic (PA) ishi ‘a thing’ > ‘not’ and its cyclic recruitment (two different ishis used in one utterance) as a negation strengthener (also see Bardenstein 2016Bardenstein, Ruti 2016 “The Hebrew Adverbial bixlal .” Entrepalavras 6, 10–28, jul./dez. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) takes the following path of evolution:

(5)
ma ba’aref ishi
not know.I thing
‘I don’t know anything’
baaraf(i)sh
know.not
‘I don’t know’
baaraf(i)sh ishi
Know.not thing
‘I don’t know anything

In the above example, the evolution of PA ishi ‘a thing’ > suffix (i)sh ‘not’ is presented. After neg drop and ishi taking on negation, the original ishi ‘thing’ was recruited to perform its original purpose – strengthening of a negative claim – once again. In comparison, imagine a girl (or a boy, for that matter) wearing red lipstick to go on a date. After a while, the girl might kiss that date of hers and the lipstick then fades. If she wishes to put on lipstick again, she can then either put on the same lipstick once again (over the faded one) or choose to wear a different lipstick (maybe even borrow it from a friend). This is similar to what motivates onomasiological cycles. The same need/motivation arises again (the reason is cyclic) and can be fulfilled with either the same item or a different one. The latter type of cycle (semasiological) is not based on bleaching and renewal at all. It is based on one linguistic item that goes through grammaticalization/pragmaticalization, and after being grammaticalized/pragmaticalized, it is the changed item (and not its original counterpart) that is recruited once again to serve a linguistic purpose. For example, Hebrew mi yodea ma ‘who knows what’ (see Bardenstein 2022 2022 “The Case of Question-Based Exclamatives. From Pragmatic Rhetorical Function to Semantic Meaning.” Intercultural Pragmatics 19 (2): 209–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) was originally recruited as a rhetorical question ‘who knows what?’ to convey the speaker’s strong negative stance and has evolved into an intensifier. Then, the intensifier ‘who knows what’ was recruited once again for the purpose of mitigation. It was constructionalized under the scope of negation marker lo ‘not’ and became a down-toner- lo mi yodea ma. Interestingly, other similar question constructions (mi yodea kama ‘who knows how much’ < lo mi yodea kama/ mi yishma ‘who will hear’ < lo mi yishma) were recruited for the same negative-stance purpose and have evolved similarly. This, in turn, might be considered a case of an onomasiological cycle. In other words, the two cycles are intertwined since both of them arise due to the cyclic discursive need/motivation of the speaker. However, while the former (onomasiological) is linked to one specific motivation, the latter is linked to one specific item involved in an evolutionary process for inter-related but potentially different discursive motivations.

Lastly, since the cycles involve polysemization (the item might turn into a polysemy as in the case of French pas ‘a step’ < ‘not’) and potential bleaching of the original meaning/function might take place, there are cases of hybrid words; e.g., Hebrew afilu: af+im+lu ‘and+if+wishing’ and the case of Hebrew ela: im+lo ‘if+not’. In those instances, speakers renewed the original conditionality meaning/function with an added explicit conditional im ‘if’ and formed: afilu im ‘even if’ and ela im ‘unless’ in order to mark conditionality once again. Meaning change often involves the evolution of a particular type of content-level meaning or function into one or more particular types of context-level meanings or functions (since, naturally, it becomes a ‘polysemy’ or ‘polyfucntional’). However, in these cycles, it is the context level (pragmatic) motivation that leads to content-level (semantic) entities.

This paper discusses how an argumentative exclusion marker, namely, Hebrew bilti, cyclically evolved into a negator (a privative). The claim made is that it underwent both types of cycles through the path of history, from an originally exclusion marker to a privative.

2.5The history of Hebrew

The most ancient period of the Hebrew language is Biblical Hebrew. Most of the biblical books (except two) are written in an ancient form of the language we call Biblical Hebrew. It is not only the language the Bible was written in, but it was the everyday spoken language of the Israelites after the tribes conquered Canaan 3,000 years ago (circa 1,200 bce). At circa 200 CE, the Israelites were exiled from Canaan and Hebrew ceased to be their spoken language. After that era, Hebrew was used mostly as a written language, known as Rabbinical Hebrew and this is the language that the Mishnah was written in. Rabbinical Hebrew was also a language of the Babylonian and Jerusalem books of the Talmud dated circa 500 CE. Rabbinical Hebrew was also the language of varied midrashim of later dates (that is, Talmudic literature including legends based on biblical verses and homiletic interpretations of Jewish law). After 200 CE, Jews prayed and studied the Torah in Hebrew, but it was not a spoken language. Significant Jewish thinkers wrote texts about science, philosophy, poetry, medicine, mathematics and grammar in Hebrew, but they too, did not converse in Hebrew. It was only at the turn of the 20th century that Hebrew was revived as a spoken language. A new Hebrew was created (often referred to as ‘The New Hebrew’). However, the revived Hebrew of that era is very different from Contemporary Hebrew. When the State of Israel was founded in 1948, and notably, when the Hebrew Academy was established in 1953, language arbiters made decisions about the Hebrew language which affected its everyday use. During those years, the vast majority of population of the young State of Israel were immigrants who were not native Hebrew speakers, so this authoritative guidance was necessary. Over the course of time, a more ‘natural’ Hebrew was spoken by Israeli-born speakers, for whom Hebrew was their mother tongue. However, language is a dynamic force. For the purpose of this paper, Contemporary Hebrew refers to the Hebrew spoken in the year 2022.

2.6Methodology and corpora

This paper used a corpus-based approach (Tognini-Bonelli 2001Tognini-Bonelli, Elena 2001Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) and bilti is examined diachronically throughout the history of Hebrew. Other than the Bible (circa 1,200 bce), the corpora included the Ma’agarim corpus (the historical dictionary project of the Academy of the Hebrew language)22.The corpus website address: [http://​maagarim​.hebrew​-academy​.org​.il​/Pages​/PMain​.aspx] for Rabbinical Hebrew (3rd-5th century) through 1930. From the year 1930 to the end of the 20th century, the Jpress corpus was used (Historical Jewish Press) of the National Library of Tel-Aviv University.33.The corpus website address: [http://​web​.nli​.org​.il​/sites​/JPress​/Hebrew​/Pages​/default​.aspx] For the contemporary (21st century) corpus, the heTenTenThe hetenten https://auth.sketchengine.eu/#login?next=https%3A%2F%2Fapp.sketchengine.eu%2] corpus was used.44.A written, big data corpus. The corpus website address: [Hebrew Web 2014 (heTenTen14, Meni/Alon tagged + lempos)] for the Hebrew and [English Web 2013 (HenTenTen13) with old sketches] for the English.

3.The constructionalization path of Hebrew bilti

In this section, a diachronic constructionalization path of the Hebrew bilti, from a Biblical exceptive marker to a privative, will be presented. The evolution includes different processes of constructionalization which lead to grammaticalization:

3.1Biblical bilti

Hebrew bilti ‘not’ occurs 108 times in the Hebrew bible, in both early and later books and assumes multiple functions. According to the Even Shushan Dictionary (1980), bilti is a negation word which originates from Hebrew bala ‘to wear out’, see 2.1.1.55.Hebrew bli ‘without’ comes from the same origin according to the same source.

Let us examine bilti’s different functions in Biblical Hebrew: as an ‘exclusion operator’, a conditioned-exception npi, as a component of ‘negation collocations’, and lastly, as a prefix and a privative:

3.1.1 Bilti as an exclusion operator

Bilti ‘not’ is structured out of balt + “y compaginis” (see halot), like its counterpart bli ‘without’: bal + y. First, it can be adjoined by different pronominal suffixes (inflected) as in Examples (67). In the first person singular, it is homonymous with the absolute form, since “y compaginis” drops before pronominal suffixes (Example [7])66.G stands for the Hebrew name for ‘God’.:

(6)
ein
There.is.no
kadosh
sacred
ka-G,
as-God,
ki
for
ein
there.is.no (one)
bilt-xa
except for-you

‘There is no one holy like the Lord; there is no one except for you[Samuel I 2:2]

(7)
ve-elohim
and-God
zulat-i
besides-me
lo
neg
teda,
know.fut.2sg
u-moshia
and-savior
ein
none
bilt-i
except-me

‘You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me[Hosea 13:4]

In the above examples, bilti functions as an exclusive particle meaning ‘except (for)’. Under the scope of existential negation, it bears an ‘only’ conventionalized implicature, since ‘there is no God but me’ is naturally strengthened to the more informative ‘I am the ONLY God’. In (5), the first part of the verse states that there is no one as sacred as God and the second part of the verse provides the reason why (starting with the causative ki ‘because’), i.e., there is no other god as sacred as God because there is no other god except for God. Hence, God is the ONLY God. In (6), the two parts of the verse bear the same argumentative point. Zulati in the first part of the verse is parallel to bilti in the second part of the verse, which seems to strengthen the claim made in its first part. This is because negating all alternatives and making an exception (‘No one but X’) can be said to be stronger (argumentatively, rhetorically) than simply using ONLY X.77.This is a rhetorical schema common to religious texts. Syntactically, in the above Examples (56), bilti excludes referents that appear in the form of a pronominal suffixes, but bilti is also used to exclude referents in the form of lexical NPs, as in the following examples:

(8)
Ki
Because
lo
not
milu
followed
axaray
after.me
,bilti
except
kalev
Caleb
ben-yefune
son-Jephunneh
ha-knizi,
the-Kenizzite
ve-yehošua,
and-Joshua,
ben-nun:
son-Nun:
ki
because
mil’u axarei
they.followed
G
God

‘The Lord’s anger was aroused that day and he swore this oath: ‘Because they have not followed me wholeheartedly, not one of those who were twenty years old or more when they came up out of Egypt will see the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob–not one except Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite and Joshua son of Nun, for they followed the Lord wholeheartedly.’ [Numbers, 32: 10–12]

(9)
Va-yomer
and-said
avimelex
Abimelek
lo
not
yadati,
I.knew
mi
who
asa
did
et
acc
ha-davar
the-thing
ha-ze;
the-this;
ve-gam
and-also
ata
you
lo
not
higadeta
told.you
li,
to-me,
ve-gam
and-also
anoxi
I
lo
not
šamati
heard
bilti
except
hayom
today

Literally: ‘And Abimelek said, “I don’t know who has done this. And you did not tell me, and I did not hear about it except today.”

Interpretation: ‘But Abimelek said, “I don’t know who has done this. You did not tell me. I heard about it only today.” [Genesis, 26]

In (8), bilti excludes Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun from the category of people who have not followed God wholeheartedly. First, the punishment is declared: no one above twenty years of age will get to see the promised land. Then, the exception is given. In (9), the speaker wishes to emphasize the fact that what he just heard is new to him. Excluding ‘today’ from the category of days in which the speaker has not heard the news (rejecting all alternative days in the category of days in which the speaker could have heard the news) argumentatively strengthens the speaker’s conveyed message that serves as justification, as if to say: ‘Today is the only/first day I have heard the news’. In addition, the use of multiple negations (not knowing about it, not being told about it, not even hearing about it) both strengthens and foreshadows the message that only now (today) the king is aware of the news.

Such an interaction between explicit negation and an exclusion marker to convey an ‘only’ generalized implicature for argumentative strengthening purposes is linguistically common and is also evident in the case of Hebrew ela ‘rectificational but’ (originally im+lo ‘if not’; see Bardenstein and Ariel 2019Bardenstein, Ruti, and Mira Ariel 2019 “ Ela (‘but’) in the Mishna and in Contemporary Hebrew (in Hebrew).” Balshanut ivrit 73: 45–61.Google Scholar) and in the case of the English but (originally be utann, meaning ‘be outside’). In the latter case, but’s interaction with negation in the construction nothing but (Traugott 1997Traugott, Elizabeth 1997 “ Unless and But Conditionals: A Historical Perspective.” In Conditionals Again, ed. by Angeliki Athenasiadou, and René Dirven, 145–167. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar). It is later semanticized in a Jespersen-like cycle into ‘only’, as in ‘life is but a dream’. As witnessed thus far, bilti functions as an exclusion marker in the following pattern:

[negative claim] bilti [noun] → only generalized implicature

However, in all the examples so far bilti falls under the scope of negation (either existential negation ein or verbal negation lo). Indeed, there are many such biblical uses of bilti as an exclusion operator, since under the scope of negation, it conveys ‘only’ a generalized implicature, which is argumentatively very useful. It rejects alternatives to – and strengthens the sole existence of – the item it scopes over. But is bilti as an exclusion operator used solely under the scope of negation? Both previously mentioned the Mishnaic ela and English but were originally used in both positive and negative contexts and were only later fixated under the scope of negation, turning them into NPIs (Negative Polarity Items). Is that the case of bilti? The answer is yes. Even though there is only one such detectable biblical case, bilti does occur in Biblical Hebrew in a context that does not include explicit negation:

(10)
zoveax
sacrifices
le-elohim
to-god
yaxaram
will.be.destroyed
bilti
except
le-G
to-God
levado
alone

Literally: ‘Whoever sacrifices to a god, shall be destroyed, except to the Lord alone.’ Interpretation: ‘Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed.’. [Exodus, 22: 19]

In (10), bilti excludes the Lord’ from the gods whom sacrificing to involves punishment (destruction). The pattern of the sentence is similar to what we have witnessed with negative contexts:

[Claim] bilti [PP: preposition+ noun]

While syntactically the exclusion is of a preposition phrase and not a noun ((sacrificing) to the Lord), it can be claimed to pragmatically exclude the Lord from all other gods, similarly to the exclusion we have witnessed. This is also evident in the Dicta translation of Example (10), which translates this verse as: “Whoever sacrifices to any other god than the Lord must be destroyed”. The Lord is excluded from the category of gods to whom sacrificing entails destruction. Lastly, though the above example does not include explicit negation, the use of the verb yaxaram ‘destroyed’ bears ‘negativity’ in the sense of its discursive connotation.

3.1.2 Bilti as a conditioned-exception npi

In addition to the above discussed exclusive function, biblical bilti also forms part of a complex ‘unless’ operator. This operator is an npi. We have already seen that bilti triggers an ‘only’ generalized implicature within the scope of the negation. Next, when conveying future scenarios, bilti is additionally interpreted as a conditional connective, (‘except if’, ‘unless’), as in (11):

(11)
…lo
…not
tir’u
you.will.see
pan-ai,
face-my
bilti
except
axi-xem
brother-your
it-xem
with-you

‘Their father said to them, “Go back and buy us a little more food”. But Judah said to him, “The man warned us solemnly, ‘You will not see my face again unless your brother is with you’.” [Genesis, 47: 2–3]

In Example (11), the use of bilti under the scope of the negation is a conditional use that also raises an ‘only’ generalized implicature, as if to say ‘only if you come back with your brother will you receive food. In this ‘unless’ use, bilti is fixated as an npi and can only function so within the scope of negation.

3.1.3 Bilti ‘im ‘except if/unless/if not’

Biblical bilti, as an exclusion operator, also appears with the explicit conditional marker ’im ‘if’, as a collocation bilti ‘im ‘unless/ if not’, as in Example (12):

(12)
ha-yelxu
the-will.go
šnayim
two
yaxdav
together
bilti im
except if
no’adu
were.agreed
ha-yis’ag
The-will.roar
ariye
lion
ba-ya’ar
in.the-forest
ve-teref
and-prey
ein lo
there.is.not to.him
ha-yiten
int-will.give
kfir
young.lion
kolo
his.voice
mi-me’onat-o
from-den-his
bilti im
except if
laxad
caught

‘Do two walk together, unless they have agreed to do so? Does a lion roar in the thicket, when it has no prey? Does it growl in its den when it has caught nothing?’ [Amos, 3: 3–4]

In (12), bilti im occurs as part of a rhetorical question. The context of these rhetorical questions is ‘Negatively Biased’ (see Ladusaw 1996Ladusaw, William 1996Negation and Polarity Items. In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, ed. by Shalom Lappin, 321–341, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar), i.e., the conveyed message of these rhetorical questions is of negative polarity (see Sadock 1971Sadock, Jerry 1971 “Queclaratives.” Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 7, 223–232.Google Scholar, 1974 1974Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York; San Francisco; London: Academic Press.Google Scholar). These are questions whose obvious ‘answers’ are of opposite polarity. The verse rhetorically claims that two people would not walk together unless they know each other, and that a lion does not roar when it has no prey, and that it does not growl in its den unless it had caught something (if it didn’t catch anything). Note that here, bilti is still used as an exceptive to which a conditional was added meaning ‘if not’ = ‘unless’. A similar process occurred with English but (Traugott 1997Traugott, Elizabeth 1997 “ Unless and But Conditionals: A Historical Perspective.” In Conditionals Again, ed. by Angeliki Athenasiadou, and René Dirven, 145–167. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) and Hebrew ela (Bardenstein and Ariel 2019Bardenstein, Ruti, and Mira Ariel 2019 “ Ela (‘but’) in the Mishna and in Contemporary Hebrew (in Hebrew).” Balshanut ivrit 73: 45–61.Google Scholar). Both were added with a conditional ‘if’, creating the collocations but if and ela ‘im (ken) respectively and functioning as ‘unless’ operators.

However, unlike but if and ela ‘im, bilti ‘im can also function as an exclusive operator unconditionally, as in Example (13)88.In this verse, bilti ‘im ‘except if’ is not used conditionally, but rather back again as an exclusive operator, since under the scope of negation, bilti ‘im denotes exclusiveness.:

(13)
Lo
neg
niš’ar
remains
lifney
before
adoni
lord,
bilti im
except if
gviatenu
bodies.1pl
ve-adamatenu
and-land.1pl

‘There is nothing left for our lord, only our bodies and our land.’ [Genesis, 47: 18]

Example (13) demonstrates a non-compositional use of bilti im (unlike its ‘unless’ usage in [12]). The example demonstrates the use of bilti im within the scope of explicit negation lo ‘not’ in a non-conditional manner (no longer functioning as a conditional), even though im ‘if’ (a conditional) in explicitly included. This demonstrates bilti im’s constructionalization under the scope of negation to convey an argumentatively stronger claim (in [13], the speakers convey a message of ‘we have nothing but our bodies and lands’ which is argumentatively stronger than simply “listing” what they have- their bodies and their lands). Imagine the difference between “the truth” and “nothing but the truth – the latter is argumentatively stronger than the former.

3.1.4 Ad bilti ‘until no more’ as a negation collocation

The collocation ad bilti has two functions in the bible. One is of conditionality, and one is of the negative outcome of a prolonged act of beating someone, basically meaning ‘until therewas nothing left of him’. The latter is the most common one. Ad bilti ‘until no more’ occurs seven times in the bible, once conditionally (Example [14]) and six times non-conditionally, with no exclusiveness and with no ‘only’ implicature (see Example [15]), in all six non-conditional occurrences, it occurs as part of the phrase ad bilti hesh’ir lo sarid ‘until there was nothing left’:

(14)
man
šaxav
lie.3ms
ve-lo
and-not
yakum
rise.3ms
ad
until
bilti
no more
šamaim lo
skies not
yakitsu
arise.3pl
ve-lo
and-not
yeoru
awake.3pl
mi-šnatam
from-sleep.3pl

Literally: ‘A man lies down and does not rise until no more skies shall not arise and not awaken’9

Interpretation: ‘So he lies down and does not rise up till the heavens don’t exist anymore, people will not awake or be roused from their sleep’ [Job, 14: 12]

(15)
va-yaku
and-strike.3pl
oto
him
ve-et
and-acc
banav
sons.3ms
ve-et
and-acc
kol
all people.3m
amo
until no more
ad bilti
leave.3ms
hiš’ir lo
to.him
sarid;
survivor

‘So they struck him down, along with his sons and his whole people, until no more was left of him. [Numbers, 21:35]

In (14), ad bilti ‘until no more’ is used with an explicit negation as part of a future exclusive conditioned scenario. However, in (15), ad bilti ‘until no more’ functions differently. It is not used as part of a future conditioned exclusive scenario. In addition, it does not occur under the scope of negation, therefore there is no ‘only’ implicature. It is an independent negator, demonstrating the process of a Jespersen-like cycle. It is used as part of a scenario of ‘until nothing is left’. This use of ‘until nothing is left’ occurs six times in the Bible (unlike the previous use of ad bilti which occurs only once). In other words, ad-bilti which does not occur under the scope of negation denotes the eventual stage of nothingness – as in the case of the prolonged act of war and beating a warrior (and his sons and people) to death which is described as a scenario where eventually there are no survivors left.

3.1.5 Le-bilti as an adverbial negation operator

Adjoined with the preposition le ‘to’, le-bilti ‘to not’ functions as an adverbial negation, as in the following Examples (16-17):

(16)
va-yomar
and-say.3ms
lo
to.him
G
God
laxen
thus
kol
all
horeg
killing.3ms
kain
Cain
šivataim
seven.times
yukam
be.avenged.3ms
va-yasem
and-put.3ms
G
God
le-kain ot
to-Cain mark
le-bilti
to not
hakot
striking
oto
him
kol
all
mots’o
finding.3ms.him

‘But the Lord said to him, “anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.’ [Genesis, 4: 15]

(17)
Va-ye’otu
and-agree.3pl
ha-kohanim
the-priests
le-bilti
to not
kaxat
taking money
kesef
from
me’et ha-am
the-people
u-le-bilti
and-to not
xazek
maintenance
et
acc
bedek
strengthen
ha-bait
the-house

‘The priests agreed that they would not collect any more money from the people and that they would not repair the temple themselves.’ [2 Kings, 12: 9]

In (16), le-bilti is also used with the ‘until nothing is left’ denotation similarly to what we witnessed before in Example (15). Le is the infinitive marker governed by the verb and bilti marks negation. In (16), le-bilti is used to negate a potential scenario of people beating Cain until he dies (‘until nothing is left of him’). That is the reason why God puts a mark on Cain–to prevent this from happening (to prevent this outcome). Similarly, there is one more preposition phrase mi-bilti, literally ‘from not’ that is evident biblically, but occurs only twice in the Bible (once in Ezekiel 16:28 and once in the following example):

(18)
mi-bilti
from-no
yexolet
ability
G le-havi et
God to-bring acc
ha-am
the-people
ha-ze
the-this
el ha-arets
to the-land
ašer
which
nišba
promise.3ms
lahem
to.them
va-yišxat-em
and-slaughterd.3ms-them
ba-midbar
in.the-wilderness

‘The Lord was not able to bring these people into the land he promised them on oath, so he slaughtered them in the wilderness.’ [Numbers, 14:16]

This use of mi-bilti is a causative one (and so is its occurrence in Ezekiel). While le-bilti denotes outcome prevention (‘so as not to’), mi-bilti denotes causation (‘because not’ /due to the fact that not’). It denotes the reason (a negative one) for the outcome that follows it. In (18), it is the extinction of the people – the context is a ‘nothing left’ outcome rather than a denotation (‘until there were none of them left’). Syntactically, mi- bilti can occur at the beginning of an utterance, and not just between two propositions.

Unlike twice-occurring mi-bilti, le-bilti is quite common in the Bible, occurring in no less than 81 different verses, occasionally more than once in one verse.

3.1.6A summary of bilti’s Biblical preposition-phrase uses

The following table provides the number of occurrences for each of bilti’s biblical functions as part of a preposition phrase:

Table 1.Biblical preposition-phrase bilti
mi-bilti ad bilti le-bilti
2 7 81

The above table demonstrates bilti’s most frequent function as a part of a preposition phrase, following the preposition le-‘to’. Out of a total of 108 occurrences of bilti in the Bible, le-bilti occurs eighty-one times in different verses. Bilti as part of the preposition phrase ad bilti occurs seven times and mi-bilti occurs only twice. This shows that le-bilti had been very commonly used, contextually demonstrating an outcome.

Next, bilti’s functions in post-biblical periods will be examined, narrowing them to the point where bilti is solely used in Contemporary Hebrew as a privative. Interestingly, the function which was rare in the Bible is the most common usage in Contemporary Hebrew.

3.1.7 Bilti as a privative

In addition to its above functions/meanings, Biblical bilti also functions as an independent (non-collocative) privative. It occurs within a single proposition (no longer connecting two propositions) therefore demonstrating the cyclic nature of bilti, from denoting inter-proposition implicated negation to denoting explicit negation as a (prefix) privative. This is demonstrated in (19):

(19)
make
strike.3ms
amim
peoples
be-evra
in-anger
makat
striking
bilti
not
sara
ceasing
rode
subjugate.3ms
ba-af
in-fury
goim
nations
murdaf
aggression
bli
without
xašax
relent

‘Which in anger struck down peoples, with unceasing blows, and in fury subdued nations with relentless aggression.’ [Isaiah, 14: 6]

In (19), bilti functions as a prefix privative. It negates the adjective ceasing and creates a private meaning ‘non/un-ceasing’ which describes the nature of the beatings in this context (unstoppable blows). Here too, the context is one which leads to ‘a nothing left’ outcome. This use of bilti, as a privative is also evident in the following example:

(20)
ve-lo
and-not
diber
speak.3ms
ša’ul
Saul
meuma
anything
ba-yom
on.the-day
ha-hu
the-he because
ki
say.3M event
amar
he
mikre
not
hu bilti tahor
pure
hu
he
ki
because
lo
not
tahor
pure

‘Saul said nothing that day, for he thought, “Something must have happened to David to make him ceremonially unclean–surely, he is unclean’ [1 Samuel, 20: 26]

In the above example, bilti functions as a (prefix) privative. Interestingly, the explicit negation Hebrew lo ‘not’ negating the same adjective ‘pure’ follows it (lo tahor ‘not pure/clean’). Here, bilti functions as a negator parallelly to another negator. Gilnert (1982)Gilnert, Lewish 1982 “Negative and Non-assertive in Contemporary Hebrew.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 45 (3): 434–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar calls this use of bilti ‘an adjective negator’.

3.1.8The constructionalization of Biblical Hebrew bilti and other exceptives

The following diagram summarizes the path of bilti’s constructionalization which leads to its grammaticalization as a negator. This constructionalization path also is relevant to other exception-based negators, such as Hebrew ela ‘rectificational but’ and English but (also see Traugott 1997Traugott, Elizabeth 1997 “ Unless and But Conditionals: A Historical Perspective.” In Conditionals Again, ed. by Angeliki Athenasiadou, and René Dirven, 145–167. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar):

Stage I: Exception= ‘not’ generalized implicature
Stage II: Negation + Exception= ‘only’ generalized implicature
Stage II: Negation + npi exception = exclusive ‘only’
Stage III: Jespersen’s Cycle
Stage IV: The implicit (either ‘not’ or ‘only’) becomes grammaticalized (explicit). In both cases, we witness a constructional deletion of the explicit negator (existential negation), resulting in implicit materials becoming explicit.

While Hebrew bilti and English but shifted into stage III (a negation operator and an exclusiveness operator respectively), Hebrew ela ‘rectificational but’ has not shifted to stage IV and remains at stage II. In Contemporary Hebrew, ela is still used solely as an npi (see Bardenstein and Ariel 2019Bardenstein, Ruti, and Mira Ariel 2019 “ Ela (‘but’) in the Mishna and in Contemporary Hebrew (in Hebrew).” Balshanut ivrit 73: 45–61.Google Scholar). All in all, various languages do not change identically, but they do demonstrate cross-linguistic clines of the implicit becoming explicit.

3.1.9 Bilti in post-biblical periods

In Rabbinical Hebrew (the literature of the Mishnah and Talmud, in the 3rd-5th centuries), bilti is rarely used. In the Mishnah, it occurs twice; both occurrences are direct quotations from the biblical book of Numbers. In the Talmud and Midrash, bilti occurs seven times, again as a direct biblical quote. It is only between the years 500–700 CE that bilti is used (also very rarely so) not as part of a direct quote from the bible, as in the following example:

(21)
xayal
soldier
ani
I
ad
until
an
where
yasig
achieve
gvurot
heroism
be-hagig-I
in-thought-1S
le-netel.
to-burden.
bilti kintse
not end
darka-v
ways-3ms
oto
him
le-netel
to-burden

‘I am a soldier till heroism in my thoughts become a burden. Not the end of the roads is a burden’ (I am a true soldier who no longer thinks about his glory and heroism. Neither about how he will end up) [Josef Bar Nissan, sacred poetry and prayer, between the years 500–700 CE]

Interestingly, between the years 800–900 CE, in post-Babylonian literature, bilti is used (still quite rarely) similarly to Hebrew ela ‘but’ and the English but, as a rectification connector, a use that is not witnessed in the Bible, as in the following example:

(22)
Ein
There.is.not
lahem
to.them
ovdey
workers.of
Sadot
fields
Ve-pardesim
and-orchards
Ve-ganot
and-gardens
ve-kramim.
and-vineyards.
ve-ein
and-there.is.not
xoršin
plowing
ve-zor’in
and-planting
ve-kotsrin
and-harvesting
ve-botsrin,
and-reaping
ela
but
hakol
everything
konim
buying.3pl
be-kesef.
in-money.
ve-ein
and-there.is.not
lahem
to.them
šum
no
avodat
work.of
adama lo
earth no
xariša
plowing
ve-lo
and-no
ktsira
harvesting
ve-lo
and-no
amilat
harvest.of
kramim,
vineyards,
bilti
but
hakol
everything
kanui be-ksafim
bought in-moneys

‘And they have no field work and orchards and gardens and vineyards. And they don’t plow or plant or harvest, but (ela) all is bought with money. And they have no agriculture what soever, no plowing and no harvesting and no grape harvest, but (bilti) all is bought with money.’ [Eldad ha-Dani (Jewish merchant and traveler), stories of the Kairouan community to the world Jewry, part 11, after the year 880].

In the above example, (22), bilti is used parallelly to Hebrew ela ‘but’. The first part of the phrase discusses the fact that the people do not have fields or gardens and they don’t plow or harvest. Ela ‘but’ is used as a rectification connective, substituting thes rejected assumption of the expected state of affairs (agricultural work) with an alternative claim (the actual state of affairs) of buying everything with money. In comparison, bilti in the second part of the phrase is used similarly. After once again rejecting all expected forms of agriculture, they are replaced with the actual state-of-affairs of buying everything (paying with money). In other words, the phrase “But everything is bought (with money)” occurs twice in a similar manner. Once precedes ela and once precedes bilti.

In medieval times, in the field of literature and science (examples 200–353 from the corpus) in the writings of Azariah dei Rossi (a Jewish-Italian historian and scholar), bilti is increasingly used as a privative, as in the following example:

(23)
hinam
they.are
be-emet
in-truth
bilti
not
niglim
visible
lanu,
to.us
ax
but
lo
not
me-heyot-enu
from-being-1pl
bilt
not
yexolim
able.pl
le-hasig
to-attain
tsorat
shape.of
ha-nefašot
the-souls
be-mar’e
in-appearance.of
ha-ain
the-eye

‘They are indeed undetectable to us, but not because of our being incapable of attaining the shape of those souls by the way they look to the eye.’ [Azariah dei Rossi, Me’or Enayim,page 43, part 2, 1573].

Toward the end of the 18th century, especially in the writings of Solomon Pappenheim (a linguist and poet), bilti was increasingly used as a privative, as in the following examples:

(24)
Hevenu
bring.1pl
hakol
everything
be-pizur
in-scattering
ve-be-helket
and-in-piece
axat
one
hena
here
ve-axat
and-one
hena,
here,
ad
until
ki
that
efšar
possible
še-yaskil
that-learn.3ms
ha-kore
the-reader
mi-le-tafs-am
from-to-understand-them
be-zixron-o
in-memory-3ms
axar
because
še-yihiye
that-be.3ms
mekabel
receives.ms
otam
them
be-seder
in-order
bilti
not
ratsuf
continuous

‘We have brought it all scattered and in one piece here and one piece there, until the reader would be fooled to comprehend them in his memory since he had gotten them in a discontinuous order. [Shlomo Pepenhaim, 1784]

(25)
ve-kol
and-all
hemšexiut
continuation
mimeno
outside from-3ms
bilti
not
efšar
possible

‘And any continuation, except for this one, is impossible’. [Shlomo Pepenhaim, 1784]

In both examples, (24) and (25), bilti functions as a privative, similarly to the prefixes un, dis and im. 99.Interestingly, right before Example (25), we witness the use of an explicit exclusive particle xuts me (‘except for’), while bilti, originally an exclusion marker, is used as the negation particle.

In the beginning of the 20th century, especially in the writings of Hayim Nahman Bialik (Israel’s ‘national poet’), there seems to be an abundant use of bilti ‘im within the scope of explicit negation, with its ‘nothing but’ meaning (see Example [26]):

(26)
lefi
according.to
tiv’-I
nature-1s
ve-txunat-I
and-character-1s
ein-eni
not-1s
bilti
not
‘im
if
paitan
lyricist
mešorer
poet
be-xesed
in-grace
elion
high

‘In my nature and character, I am nothing but a lyricist, a gifted poet.’ [Hayim Nahman Bialik, The Deck Hand, p. 166, col. 2, 1931]

Interestingly, after the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, an article was published in a leading newspaper, Ma’ariv (Figure 1), stating that on the previous day, in the meeting of the state counsel, a linguistic debate had taken place. There was an argument about whether to use the term bilti ‘im or alternatively ela ‘im ken. After a two-minute debate, a decision was made. The Prime Minister himself (David Ben-Gurion) supported the latter since he named it an ‘archaic term’. The Minister of Transportation had a different opinion (using bilti ‘im), and the Justice Minister was neutral. After taking a vote, ela ‘im ken won by a small majority.

Figure 1.Ma’ariv, 20.5.1948
Figure 1.

Thereafter (after this ‘victory’ of ‘ela ‘im ken’), the use of bilti ‘im faded and is no longer in use in Contemporary Hebrew. In addition, all the other uses of bilti are no longer evident in Contemporary Hebrew. It is solely used as a privative, based on 100 random examples taken from the hetentenThe hetenten https://auth.sketchengine.eu/#login?next=https%3A%2F%2Fapp.sketchengine.eu%2] corpus.

Interestingly, in contemporary Hebrew, bilti as a privative is heavily restricted, not only since it solely scopes over adjectives, but also because of the nature of the adjectives it modifies. Bilti in Contemporary Hebrew can only scope over three types of adjectives:

  1. Passive forms of verbs that function as non-static adjectives, such as nisbal ‘bearable’ in bilti nisbal ‘unbearable’, nidle ‘exhaustive’ in bilti nidle ‘inexhaustible’, mekubal ‘acceptable’ in bilti mekubal ‘unacceptable’ etc.

  2. Passive-potential of verbs that function as non- static adjectives (passive forms of verbs that encompass potential fulfillment such as laxic ‘pressable’ in bilti laxic ‘unpressable, hafix ‘reversable’ in bilti hafix ‘irreversible’, etc.).

  3. Adjectives that denote a non-static nature, such as convencyonali ‘conventional’ in bilti convencyonali ‘unconventional’ and xuki ‘legal’ in bilti xuki ‘illegal’ or a potential fulfillment of it such as efšari ‘possible’ in bilti efšari ‘impossible’.

However, bilti cannot scope over static-denoting adjectives such as gadol ‘big’ in #bilti gadol ‘un-big’, xaxam ‘smart’ in #bilti xaxam ‘un- smart’, mekubal ‘popular’ in #bilti mekulkal ‘un-popular’, etc. This is very similar to the equivalent function of English negation prefixes, such as the prefix im and in that cannot scope over (as a prefix) static-denoting adjectives such as big, smart, popular etc. This comparison to English of course, requires further research.

This observation regarding bilti calls for an explanation, which I believe si be found in the history of ‘bilti’. In my view, this issue is beyond the scope of this paper and calls for future analysis. However, I also believe several factors must be taken into consideration: First, bilti started out as a connector scoping over whole propositions (providing exception to a previous claim)–and not merely a prefix scoping over adjectives (describing a state of affairs). Secondly, bilti was originally used (in the bible) and it was very commonly used following the preposition le- to denote an outcome. These facts probably affected its scoping over particular constituents and the nature of those constituents (instances that denote an outcome–usually a reversable state of affairs rather than a statice, general one). These factors will require a more thorough examination in future research.

Lastly, I will mention a rare innovative use of bilti in Contemporary Hebrew- as an independent (no longer a pre-adjective prefix negator but rather a general description of a person or situation) which has been witnessed in the last two years. This usage was advanced by a popular Israeli TV show, Eretz Nehederet (‘A Great Country’), a satirical Israeli television show, which made its debut on November 7, 2003. The show features satirical references to current affairs and specifically to another popular TV show character, Super Nanny, and sarcastically depicts the main character there (Michal Daliot) as a character who describes children as “bilti”. It is probably the construction bilti-X (X is an adjective) that has undergone a process of ‘compactization’ (see Bardenstein 2016Bardenstein, Ruti 2016 “The Hebrew Adverbial bixlal .” Entrepalavras 6, 10–28, jul./dez. DOI logoGoogle Scholar) in contemporary colloquial Hebrew as an independent negator, as in the following example:

(27)
super
Super
nani
Nanny
al
on
ha-xikui
the-impersonation
be-erets
on-Eretz
nehederet:
Nehederet:
Kulam
Everyone
omrim
say.3pl
še-ha-yeled
that-the-boy
ha-ze
the-that
hu
he
bilti.
bilti’.

‘Super Nanny on the impersonation in Erets Nehederet: Everyone is saying that kid is “intolerable”.

[https://​www​.mako​.co​.il​/tv​-morning​-news​/articles​/Article​-c5745f659e0e161006​.htm]

This innovative use of bilti can be said to be the shortened version of privative bilti before adjectives such as nisbal ‘tolerable’, as to mean that children (and later other people and situations) are ‘intolerable’ while the adjective is only implicit. The process of a prefix becoming an independent linguistic particle is also evident with other adjectival prefixes, such as Contemporary Hebrew natul (‘without’) which started out as natul-cafein (decaffeinated). In this case, it is the prefix itself that bears adjectival negation preceding a noun (coffee) and there is no explicit subject that it prefixes. With natul, it is the almost exclusively in the context of coffee that the noun has become redundant (natul is rarely used in other contexts). However, one might claim that these are not parallel, as the TV show is responsible for the innovation and the propagation, but the interpretation of bilti children has to do with the fact that we expect children to be obedient, and they are often not. In other words, here too there is a specific attribute that is understood. For instance, impossible, undisciplined, but not un-pressurable (not capable of being under pressure). In our case, no two interpretations arise in the same context. In a specific context, the “compact” form is the only one interpretable. In a coffee shop, natul stands only for decaf, as in the following example:

(28)
Eix
How
moci’im
take-out.pl
et
acc
ha-kafe
the-coffee
mi-kafe
from-coffee
natul?
de

‘How do you take out the coffee from a de-[caffeinated)] coffee’ [https://​www​.calcalist​.co​.il​/local​/articles​/0,7340,L​-3530671,00​.html]

In (28), the speaker claims that there is still caffeine in de-caffeinated coffee and explains how to purify the coffee from caffeine.

4.Summary and conclusions

In this paper, I have discussed the biblical bilti’s versatile functions, from an exclusive operator (from which negation is implied – denoting ‘pragmatic negation’) to a negation operator which semantically denotes negation. Bilti is claimed to have undergone the process of a Jespersen’s cycle of constructionalization, from functioning as an npi to functioning as a negation operator. In addition, in later periods of the Hebrew language, bilti has narrowed its multiple biblical uses into one – as a privative. In Contemporary Hebrew, it functions solely as a privative, which is, moreover, quite restricted in terms of which adjectives it can modify. This use also includes the colloquial and innovative independent ‘compact’ use of the privative bilti (with no explicit adjective). More elaboratively, this paper first argues that the biblical usage of bilti was expanded and turned into a polyfunctional (or ‘polysemous’) item. This happened via a constructionalization process which led to grammatical changes (‘grammaticalization’): The initially implicated negation (via a generalized implicature) turned explicit (semantic). In addition, in Hebrew’s later periods, the usage of bilti was narrowed and it became a privative. Thus, firstly, a pragmatically-motivated path of constructionalization of bilti in Biblical Hebrew is suggested. That is, the “pragmatic negation” that arose via a generalized implicature shifted to the semantic level (performing semantic negation, explicit negation). Secondly, bilti’s functions in post-biblical Hebrew periods were outlined, tracing its narrowing functions until its fixation in Contemporary Hebrew as a privative.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank prof. Mira Ariel for her useful comments.

Notes

1.Horn (1989) claims that it often happens that a prefix produces a ‘contrary’ term, for example: the word unjust generally implies the opposite of just, unwise means more than ‘not wise’ and approaches foolish, unhappy is not far from miserable, etc. (also see Jespersen 1917Jespersen, Otto 1917 “Negation in English and Other Languages.” Historisk-Filologiske Meddelelser 1.Google Scholar, 144). In addition, Horn claims that negation of X cannot be considered as oppositional or contrary to X. Rather, it simply refers to what is different.
4.A written, big data corpus. The corpus website address: [Hebrew Web 2014 (heTenTen14, Meni/Alon tagged + lempos)] for the Hebrew and [English Web 2013 (HenTenTen13) with old sketches] for the English.
5.Hebrew bli ‘without’ comes from the same origin according to the same source.
6.G stands for the Hebrew name for ‘God’.
7.This is a rhetorical schema common to religious texts.
8.In this verse, bilti ‘im ‘except if’ is not used conditionally, but rather back again as an exclusive operator, since under the scope of negation, bilti ‘im denotes exclusiveness.
9.Interestingly, right before Example (25), we witness the use of an explicit exclusive particle xuts me (‘except for’), while bilti, originally an exclusion marker, is used as the negation particle.

References

Bardenstein, Ruti
2016 “The Hebrew Adverbial bixlal .” Entrepalavras 6, 10–28, jul./dez. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 “Persistent Argumentative Discourse Markers. The Case of Hebrew Rectification-Marker beʕecem (‘actually’).” Journal of Pragmatics 172, 254–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022 “The Case of Question-Based Exclamatives. From Pragmatic Rhetorical Function to Semantic Meaning.” Intercultural Pragmatics 19 (2): 209–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardenstein, Ruti, and Mira Ariel
2019 “ Ela (‘but’) in the Mishna and in Contemporary Hebrew (in Hebrew).” Balshanut ivrit 73: 45–61.Google Scholar
Chatzopoulou, Katerina
2013 “Re(de)fining Jespersen’s Cycle.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 31–40.Google Scholar
Dahl, Osten
1979 “Typology of Sentence Negation.” Linguistics 17: 79–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghezzi, Chiara, and Piera Molinelli
2014Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt M.
2014 “Cyclicity in Semantic/Pragmatic Change: The Medieval Particle ja Between Latin iam and Modern French déjà .” In Discourse and Pragmatic Markers. From Latin to the Romance Languages, ed. by Chiara Ghezzi, and Piera Molinelli, 139–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 “Phénomènes de cyclicité dans l’évolution des marqueurs pragmatiques.” Keynote talk, 4th International Symposium on Discourse Markers in Romance Languages . Heidelberg, Germany, 6–9 May.
2018 “Cyclicity Phenomena in the Evolution of Pragmatic Markers. Examples from Romance.” In Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change, ed. by Salvador Pons Bordería, and Óscar Loureda Lamas, 51–77. Amsterdam: Brill.Google Scholar
Gilnert, Lewish
1982 “Negative and Non-assertive in Contemporary Hebrew.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 45 (3): 434–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1917 “Negation in English and Other Languages.” Historisk-Filologiske Meddelelser 1.Google Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit, and Fred Landman
1993 “Any.” Linguistics and Philosophy 16 (4): 353–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1965 “The Evolution of Grammatical Categories.” Diogenes 51: 55–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladusaw, William
1996Negation and Polarity Items. In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, ed. by Shalom Lappin, 321–341, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Langacker, Roland
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, Vol. 1. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991 “Cognitive Grammar.” In Linguistic Theory and Grammatical Description, ed. by Flip G. Droste, and John E. Joseph, 275–306. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
2005 “Pleonasm and Hyper Characterisation.” In Yearbook of Morphology, ed. by Geert Booij, and Jaap van Marle, 119–154. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Levi, Alissa
2008 “Hebrew Negative Polarity Items šum and af .” In Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics, ed. by Sharon Armon-Lotem, Gabi Danon, and Susan Rothstein, 313–336. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine
1921/1912 “L’évolution des formes grammaticales.” Scientia (Rivista di Scienza) 12 (26), 130–148.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerry
1971 “Queclaratives.” Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 7, 223–232.Google Scholar
1974Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York; San Francisco; London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tognini-Bonelli, Elena
2001Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme
2012 “Grammaticalization, Constructions and the Grammaticalization of Constructions.” In Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections, ed. by Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems, and Tanja Mortelmans, 167–198. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth
1997 “ Unless and But Conditionals: A Historical Perspective.” In Conditionals Again, ed. by Angeliki Athenasiadou, and René Dirven, 145–167. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth. C., and Graeme Trousdale
2013Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter
1995 “Grammaticalisation and Social Structure: Non-standard Conjunction-Formation in East Anglian English.” In Grammar and Meaning, ed. by Frank R. Palmer, 136–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan
2009 “The Jespersen Cycles.” In Cyclical Change, ed. by Elly van Gelderen, 35–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly
2008 “Negative Cycles.” Linguistic Typology 12: 195–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar

Corpora

Ma’agarim Database (MD): The Historical Dictionary Project of the Academy of the Hebrew Language
The hetenten
https://auth.sketchengine.eu/#login?next=https%3A%2F%2Fapp.sketchengine.eu%2]

Address for correspondence

Ruti Bardenstein

Department of foreign literatures and linguistics

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and Shenkar College

Ben Gurion 1 boulevard

Beer-Sheva

Israel

[email protected]

Biographical notes

Dr. Bardenstein is a lecturer and researcher at the Ben-Gurion University and a senior lecturer at the Shenkar College. Dr. Bardenstein is mainly interested in Pragmatics, Historical Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis and the different interfaces of linguistics.