Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
introduction
The Hebrew language employs the combination of two separate particles in order to express
a negative rhetorical question (cf. Latin nonne?). 1 According to the vowel pointing of the
MT, the negative rhetorical particle consists of the interrogative {h} + the negative particle
lōʾ > halōʾ. 2 Scholars have long observed that in certain contexts, the Hebrew negative inter-
rogative seems to warrant an asseverative meaning. 3 For example, in H. A. Brongers’ study
of this particle, he provides the following assessment of its meaning in light of an ancient
Near Eastern cultural context:
I would like to thank Dennis Pardee and Rebecca Hasselbach of the University of Chicago and Aaron Butts of
Catholic University of America for insightful critiques of earlier versions of this essay. This study has benefited
greatly from their interaction. Any persistent deficiencies, however, are my own.
1. Cf. also the alternative negated rhetorical question construction, as in the following example: הצרי אין בגלעד
“ אם רפא אין ׁשםIs there no balm in Gilead, nor physician there?” (Jer. 8:22). On the rhetorical question in both
Hebrew and Ugaritic, see Moshe Held, “Rhetorical Questions in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew,” ErIsr 9 (1969):
71–79.
2. Written defectively halōʾ (120x): Gen. 13:9; 19:20; 20:5; 27:36; 29:25; Exod. 4:11; 4:14; 14:12; Num. 12:2;
12:14; 22:37; 23:12; 23:26; 24:12; Deut. 11:30; 31:17; 32:34; Josh. 10:13; Judg. 4:6; 4:14; 5:30; 6:13; 6:14; 9:28;
9:38; 10:11; 11:7; 11:24; 14:15; 15:2; 15:11; Ruth 3:1; 3:2; 1 Kings 1:13; 14:29; 15:23; 15:31; 16:5; 16:20; 16:27;
18:13; 22:46; 2 Kings 4:28; 5:12; 14:15; 14:18; 14:28; 15:6; 15:36; 16:19; 18:27; 19:25; 20:20; 21:17; 21:25; 23:28;
24:5; 1 Chr. 19:3; 21:3; 21:17; 22:18; 2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:5; 13:9; 16:8; 18:17; 20:6; 20:7; 20:12; 25:26; 28:10;
32:11; 32:12; 32;13; Job 1:10; 4:6; 4:21; 7:1; 8:10; 10:10; 10:20; 12:11; 13:11; 21:29; 22:5; 31:3; 32:4; Ps. 14:4;
44:22; 53:5; 54:2; 56:9; 56:9; 56:14; 60:12; 85:7; 94:9; 94:10; 108:12; Prov. 8:1; 22:20; Eccles. 6:6; Isa. 10:8;
10:9; 10:11; 36:12; 44:8; 57:11; Jer. 26:19; Ezek. 12:9; 17:12; 18:25; 18:29; 21:5; 24:19; 26:15; Amos 5:20; or
plene halōwʾ (294x): Gen. 4:7; 31:15; 34:23; 37:13; 40:8; 42:22; 44:5; 44:15; Exod. 33:16; Num. 14:3; 22:30; Deut.
32:6; Josh. 1:9; 22:20; Judg. 8:2; Ruth 2:8; 2:9; 1 Sam. 1:8; 6:6; 9:20; 9:21; 10:1; 12:17; 15:17; 17:8; 17:29; 20:30;
20:37; 21:12; 23:19; 26:1; 26:14; 26:15; 29:3; 29:4; 29:5; 2 Sam. 2:26; 3:38; 4:11; 10:3; 11:3; 11:10; 11:20; 11:21;
13:4; 13:28; 16:19; 19:14; 19:23; 1 Kings 1:11; 2:42; 11:41; 15:7; 16:14; 22:18; 22:39; 2 Kings 1:18; 2:18; 5:13;
6:11; 6:32; 8:23; 10:34; 12:20; 13:8; 13:12; 15:21; 18:22; 20:19; Ezra 9:14; Neh. 5:9; 13:18; 13:26; Esther 10:2; Ps.
139:2; Prov. 14:22; Isa 8:19; 28:25; 29:17; 36:7; 37:26; 40:21; 40:28; 42:24; 43:19; 44:20; 45:21; 48:6; 51:9; 51:10;
57:4; 58:6; 58:7; Jer. 2:17; 3:1; 3:4; 5:3; 7:19; 13:21; 22:15; 22:16; 23:24; 23:29; 33:24; 35:13; 38:15; 44:21; Ezek.
13:7; 13:12; 17:9; 17:10; 18:23; 24:25; 34:2; 37:18; 38:14; Joel 1:16; Amos 6:13; 9:7; Obad. 5, 8; Jonah 4:2; Mic.
1:5; 2:7; 3:1; 3:11; Hab. 1:12; 2:6; 2:7; 2:13; Hag. 2:3; Zech. 1:6; 3:2; 4:5; 4:13; 7:6; 7:7; Mal. 1:2; 2:10.
3. E.g., Ezekiel 38:14: “ הלוא ביום ההוא בׁשבת עמי יׂשראל לבטח תדעSurely on that day, when my people Israel
dwell securely, you will know.”
In the oriental way of thinking in colloquial speech one must avoid any statement that may pos-
sibly offend the partner. Hence the remarkable phenomenon that in cases where the partner is
supposed to be fully aware of the positive content of the statement this is nevertheless preceded
by the interrogative particle. This is nothing but courteousness, comparable with our introducing
of a statement by the friendly “As everyone knows” or “As generally acknowledged.” 4
Essentially, Brongers operates under the assumption that the asseverative meaning stems
from the nature of the negative interrogative rhetorical question, which usually expects a pos-
itive response. 5 For the most part, Bronger’s analysis falls in line with the traditional view,
exemplified in GKC’s remark on the positive force of the negative interrogative particle: “It
serves merely to express the conviction that the contents of the statement are well known to
the hearer, and are unconditionally admitted by him.” 6
Another approach has been offered by some Northwest Semitic grammarians, namely one
which posits a new etymology for the asseverative meaning, separate and therefore distinct
from the negative interrogative particle. 7 One of the more prominent studies on this topic
is that of Michael L. Brown, who promotes the new asseverative etymology on the follow-
ing grounds: 1) many examples throughout the Hebrew Bible are better suited to a meaning
roughly equivalent to hinnēh ‘Look!, Behold!’ and 2) comparative evidence attests the exis-
tence of an affirmative particle hlw ‘Look!, Behold!’ 8
Much of the discussion has focused on the existence of presentative/asseverative particles
in other Northwest Semitic languages as proof that a similar particle must have existed in
Classical Hebrew as well. Perhaps Ugaritic has provided the most fodder for the debate with
its presentative particle hl ‘Look!, Behold!’ allegedly providing the comparitive evidence
for a counterpart in Hebrew, though now lost as a result of the MT’s conflating it with halōʾ.
The El Amarna (EA) particle allû has had a similar effect, leading some scholars to posit yet
another etymological relative of the newly proposed Hebrew asseverative. 9 Finally, Aramaic
has made its own contribution to this newly proposed etymology, offering the particles hlw
(Imperial Aramaic) and ʾalūw (Biblical Aramaic) for consideration in the conversation about
Hebrew hlʾ. 10
4. H. A. Brongers, “Some Remarks on the Biblical Particle halōʾ,” OtSt 21 (1981): 178.
5. Ibid., further states: “Actually, ‘questions’ of this kind are best translated in an affirmative way by inferring
‘as you know’ or ‘as everyone knows.’”
6. GKC, §150e.
7. Perhaps alluded to in Joüon, §161c.
8. Michael L. Brown, “ ‘Is it not?’ or ‘Indeed’: HL in Northwest Semitic,” Maarav 4/2 (1987): 201–19.
Consequently, Brown argues that Hebrew halōʾ needs to be re-analyzed as the conflation of two distinct Semitic
particles: the affirmative *halūwʾ and the negative interrogative halōʾ, outlining the following conclusions as a result
of his study: 1) improvements in translation, especially where verses were forced to accommodate a presupposed
interrogative negative sense; 2) changes in lexical organization, now listing hlʾ under *halūwʾ, and not under lōwʾ,
subdivision ha + lōwʾ; 3) clarification of etymology: BH *halūwʾ = Ugar. hl, EA/Akk. allû, Aram. hlw, ʾrh, ʾalūw,
ʾarūw (which he equates with ʾarūwm and ʾarēy), MH harēy, whereas BH ha + lōʾ = Arab. ʾalā, Tg. Aram. halāhʾ, both
in form and function; and 4) probable revocalization of *halūwʾ or hallūwʾ. In a similar fashion, though slightly
nuanced from the presentation of Brown, Daniel Sivan and William Schniedewind (“Letting Your ‘Yes’ Be ‘No’
in Ancient Israel: A Study of Asseverative לֹאand הֲלֹא,” JSS 38 [1993]: 226) argue for a bipartite etymology, stat-
ing that “[a]longside asseverative lû there existed another etymologically unrelated form, namely *halū (II )הלא.”
9. E.g., Brown, “HL in Northwest Semitic,” 207–11, contra Sivan and Schniedewind, “Letting Your ‘Yes’ Be
‘No’,” 211, who wisely question the validity of this connection due to the phonological matters discussed below.
10. It should be noted here that little attention has been devoted to the evidence from Targumic Aramaic, where
both asseverative and negative interrogative particles co-exist. See the discussion of the evidence from Aramaic
below.
McAffee: A Reassessment of the Hebrew Negative Interrogative Particle hlʾ 117
The following essay, then, will attempt to evaluate the legitimacy of this alternative ety-
mological proposal for Hebrew halōʾ. Does the comparative evidence indeed make it nec-
essary to reconstruct a now lost asseverative particle for Classical Hebrew? Furthermore,
does the earlier approach, which makes an allowance for the gradual development of the
original rhetorical negative question to a positive assertion in function, fail to account for
those instances in the Hebrew Bible where the negative interrogative seems forced? Toward
the end of this discussion, the syntax of Hebrew halōʾ will be considered briefly as another
source of evidence in evaluating this new hypothesis, asking the question: does this particle
correspond syntactically to other Hebrew particles? These questions will be entertained in
what follows in an attempt to assess the available evidence for or against the newly recon-
structed Hebrew asseverative.
Ugaritic hn
Morphologically, the Ugaritic particle hnny amounts to an expansion of the presentative
particle hn: hn + -n + -y. Scholars have noted this capacity of the particle, as for example
C. H. Gordon, who interprets hn- as the equivalent of the Hebrew particle hinnēh, ‘behold’,
but does not comment specifically on the expanded form hnny. 11 Similarly, Stanislav Segert
translates hn as ‘behold, lo’, but also notes that hn “and its derivatives hnn, hnny, and hl (and
perhaps hlm) usually occur at the beginning of a clause,” categorizing hn- and hl- together at
least on the syntactical level. 12 Daniel Sivan also glosses hn (hinnī?) as ‘behold’ on analogy
to Hebrew hinnēh, 13 but elsewhere categorizes hnny and hlny as locative adverbs meaning
‘here, hither’. 14 Joseph Tropper identifies hn as both a “Lokaladverb” meaning ‘hier’, citing
Hebrew hennāh, Arabic hunā, ha/innā, and Akkadian anna/i- for his categorization, 15 as
well as the demonstrative pronoun hnd (hanna + dī/ā) ‘dieser’ and adverb hn (ha/innV)
‘siehe!’ 16 In an extensive review of Tropper’s landmark grammar, Dennis Pardee suggests
that the entire category for his locative hn depends upon a single example (RS 16.402:31),
and that in this case it should be etymologically related to Arabic hunā rather than Hebrew
hinnēh. 17 Bordreuil and Pardee define hn as a deictic particle (related to the Hebrew definite
11. C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965), 109.
12. S. Segert, A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language: With Selected Texts and Glossary (Berkeley and Los
Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1984), 81.
13. Daniel Sivan, A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2001), 185.
14. Ibid., 180.
15. Joseph Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000), 737.
16. Ibid., 229, 794–850.
17. Dennis Pardee, Review of J. Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik, AfO 50 (online version only, 2004): 116,
197, 365; <http://www.univie.ac.at/orientalistik/?page=Archiv%20f.%20Orientforschung&m=7&PHPSESSID=66
234a3eb0dd4908605f4b5a5a98ec18#pardee>. Concerning the Hebrew particles h + n, he argues from comparative
evidence for three historical forms: deictic particle /han-/, local particle /hun-/, and conditional particle /hin-/.
118 Journal of the American Oriental Society 135.1 (2015)
article /han-/ and the presentative particle hēn/hinnēh) which can be expanded with suffixed
elements (in this case -n + -y). 18
Ugaritic hl
The particle hl has garnered a number of interpretations, but it appears as though most
scholars have viewed it primarily as a deictic particle. Gordon explains that functionally,
hl may “emphasize the sentence it introduces” and simply translates ‘lo’. 19 The deictic
nature of hl is without dispute, 20 but the expanded forms (i.e., hln, hlny) also demonstrate
an additional locative sense in Ugaritic letters. For Tropper, hl serves primarily as a deictic
particle in both its initial and expanded forms: hl, hln, hlny = ‘siehe!’, 21 though he briefly
notes a possible connection with Hebrew halōʾ ‘nicht?’, implying that the Ugaritic hl and
the Hebrew form traditionally understood as the negative interrogative (interrogative ha +
negative lōʾ = negative rhetorical question expecting affirmative answer) are etymologically
related. 22 Brown has attempted to make the same etymological connection, suggesting that
the “emphatic” force of the Ugaritic form compels a reanalysis of Hebrew halōʾ in certain
cases, which would reduce it to the status of being a synonym of hinnēh. 23 For Brown at
least, this etymological connection is primarily grounded on those usages of hnny and hlny in
the formulaic greeting under the assumption that in those cases they simply mean ‘behold’, 24
without any consideration of the independent examples of hlny at the beginning of letters. If
one can demonstrate that hlny functions as a locative in those settings, this connection would
be weakened, since the contexts of Hebrew halōʾ would not readily lend themselves to a
locative interpretation. It seems that Pardee is right in suggesting that hlny is the particle that
takes on “locative nuance”; 25 though hl can function deictically, the locative sense is well
attested in Ugaritic letters. 26
According to this proposal, /han-/ and /hun-/ collapsed to the form /hinn-/, save the definite article realized as
/han-/ (n. 1294).
18. Pierre Bordreuil and Dennis Pardee, Manuel d’ougaritique (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 2004), 55–56, 77.
19. Gordon, 109. He also discusses the ability of hl to take suffixes, most notably -n (110).
20. See DUL, 336–37.
21. Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik, 750–51.
22. Ibid., 750. See also John Huehnergard, “Asseverative *la and Hypothetical *lu/law in Semitic,” JAOS 103
(1983): 571 n. 23, where he posits “[Aramaic] hlw is to be compared with Ugaritic hl, Arabic halā/ʾalā, and possibly
Hebrew halōʾ or hāləʾāh.”
23. Brown, “HL in Northwest Semitic,” 202–7. Brown suggests that “hlny is an exact parallel to hnny in the let-
ters” (p. 204), but as will be set out below, this is an oversimplification of the data. On Hebrew halōʾ, see also Sivan
and Schneidewind, “Letting Your ‘Yes’ Be ‘No’,” 209–26; Brongers, “Some Remarks,” 177–89.
24. E.g., hlny/hnny ʿmn s̆lm . . . ṯmny ʿmk mnm šlm rgm ṯṯb ly “Here with me all is well . . . there with you,
whatever is well return word to me.”
25. Pardee, review of J. Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik, 365.
26. E.g., note the expanded form of hl-: hlny ʿmny kll šlm “Here with me all is well” (RS 11.872:9–10). Note
that all occurrences of hlny cited in this study occur within epistolary contexts. Perhaps the nature of direct speech
makes this nuance more feasible, especially in letter writing, where the need for correspondence arises from the fact
that two parties are separated geographically.
27. Cf. hnny: RS 8.315/KTU 2.11:10; RS 18.031/KTU 2.38:6; RS 18.147/KTU 2.46:6; RS 29.095/KTU 2.71:5;
RS 34.124/KTU 2.72:7; and hlny: RS 3.427/KTU 2.1:3; RS 11.872/KTU 2.13:9; RS 15.174/KTU 2.21:7; RS
McAffee: A Reassessment of the Hebrew Negative Interrogative Particle hlʾ 119
for the addressee to return word to him concerning his own state of well-being. A typical
formula might look something like the following: hlny/hnny ʿmn s̆lm . . . . ṯmny ʿmk mnm
šlm rgm ṯṯb ly “Here with me all is well . . . there with you, whatever is well return word
to me.” 28 As to the initial elements of the formula in question, it has often been noted that
both hlny and hnny are utilized in the “here-there” formulation. However, some scholars
move one step further in arguing that this interchange may indicate that the particles hlny
and hnny were synonymous in their meaning and function. 29 One cannot deny that these two
particles are interchangeable in this type of formula, 30 but as Pardee has already noted, their
distribution does not warrant their being interpreted as complete synonyms, at least without
qualification. He observes that in spite of the fact that hlny and hnny both occur in what he
calls the “double well-being formula,” hlny often occurs at the beginning of the main body
of the letter, whereas hnny does not:
Certains textes permettent d’établir une distinction sémantique entre hn- et hl-: il s’agit de
l’usage du seul hl- pour introduire le corps de la lettre lorsqu’il ne s’agit pas de la formule
de bien-être, toujours en rapport avec la situation de l’expéditeur. En plus du sens présentatif,
“voici,” ce mot comporte donc la nuance locale d’“ici.” 31
This observation in essence attempts to show that outside of the formulaic expression of
well-being, hlny is the particle of choice to denote the writer’s distance from the respective
addressee. This situation contrasts with that of hnn(y) in its restriction to the formulaic well-
being address, casting doubt on the innate ability of this particle to denote a locative nuance. 32
By way of example, RS 94.2479 exhibits such a distinction between the two: (5) hlny . hnn .
b . (6) bt . mlk . kll (7) šlm . ṯmny (8) ʿm . ʾadty . mnm < šlm > (9) w . rgm tṯṯb (10) ʿm . ʿbdh
“Here, behold, in the house of the king, all is well; there with my lady, whatever < is well >
may she return word to her servant.” 33
Morphology of hlny
The vocalization of the expanded form hlny is all but certain thanks to its appearance
in a polyglot vocabulary with the syllabic spelling al-li-ni-ya, 34 presumably representing
a normalized form halliniya. Earlier treatments of this expanded particle proposed that
the final -ny must represent the 1 c. pl. pronominal suffix, i.e., utilizing a matres lectionis
16.379/KTU 2.30:8, 12; RS 29.093/KTU 2.70:11; RS 17.434/KTU 2.73:8; RS 94.2406:3; RIH 77/01/KTU 2.77:8;
RIH 77/21A/KTU 2.78:4; RIH 77/21A/KTU 2.78; RIH 77/25/KTU 2.79:2.
28. For an analysis of this formula, see Pardee, “Une formule épistolaire en ougaritique et accadien,” in Semitic
and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
2003), 446–75.
29. Daniel Sivan, A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language, 180, glosses hlny ‘here, hither’ and hnny ‘here’. More
emphatically, Brown, “HL in Northwest Semitic,” 204.
30. On hlny and hnny, see Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik: hnny ‘hier’ §81.11c; hlny ‘siehe’ §81.4e.
31. Pardee, “Une formule épistolaire,” 451 n. 13. See also the comments in his review of J. Tropper, Ugaritische
Grammatik, 116, 197, 365–66.
32. RS 8.315:10 (KTU 2.11:10); RS 18.031:6 (KTU 2.38:6); RS 18.147:6 (KTU 2.46:6); RS 29.095:5 (KTU
2.71:5); RS 34.124:7 (KTU 2.72:7).
33. Bordreuil and Pardee, Manuel d’ougaritique, 94–95.
34. J. Nougayrol, Ugaritica 5: Nouveaux textes accadiens, hourrites et ugaritiques des archives et bibliothèques
privées d’Ugarit (Mission de Ras Shamra 16; Paris: Geuthner, 1968), 138; see also J. Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocab-
ulary in Syllabic Transcription (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 121, though Huehnergard normalizes the form
as hallinīya.
120 Journal of the American Oriental Society 135.1 (2015)
“Behold, we . . .” 35 From a strictly syntactical point of view, this analysis would not work
in the well-being formula where the pronominal element is already attached to the follow-
ing preposition ʿm- (e.g., hlny ʿmny šlm “Here, with me it is well”). In terms of morphology,
it is difficult to maintain that the Ugaritic language possessed matres lectionis at all, 36 and
so it is no doubt better to interpret the -n and -y of hlny as expansion particles, or enclitics:
demonstrative particle ha(n) + enclitic li + enclitic -ni + enclitic -ya. 37 Taking the two enclit-
ics together, Kjell Aartun identifies the final -ny of both hlny and hnny as “die Derivations
endung -ny” functioning adverbially. 38 In short, the demonstrative han- provides the base
form, to which these various enclitic elements are added: han + ni + ya > hannaniya; han +
li + ni + ya > halliniya. 39
The morphosyntax of Ugaritic hl/hln/hlny poses serious problems for the attempted ety-
mological connection with Hebrew halōʾ. From a strictly morphological viewpoint, if one
takes the only vocalized attestation of this particle seriously, the doubled l is not reflected
in the Masoretic pointing halōʾ. 40 Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible can one find evidence of a
doubled lamed; so it must be acknowledged from the start that any etymological connection
resorts to emending the Hebrew text, as Brown suggests. 41 The difficulty of this connection,
however, does not end here, since it is assumed that the underlying proto-Semitic particle
of the various reflexes evident in the Semitic languages is the asseverative lū. For example,
Brown sets out to argue in his discussion that along with Biblical Hebrew ha + lōʾ, there
also existed an interjection *halūʾ, which he declares “is an exact cognate of Ugaritic hl, Old
Aramaic hlw (= Biblical Aramaic ʾalūw. . .), and EA allū.” 42 Setting aside for the moment the
latter two proposed etymologies, the syllabic rendering of Ugaritic hlny attests an /i/ vowel
following the l, and not the asseverative /u/ vowel. 43 As argued above, the etymology of hlny
35. See Ch. Virolleaud, “Fragments alphabétiques divers de Ras Shamra,” Syria 19 (1938): 343, noted by H. L.
Ginsberg, “Baal’s Two Messengers,” BASOR 95 (1944): 29.
36. See Bordreuil and Pardee, Manuel d’ougaritique, 74, where they highlight the typical features of languages
that employ matres, features that are noticeably lacking for Ugaritic.
37. Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription, 121, believes the final -y is not a mater lec-
tionis, followed by R. Hawley, “Studies in Ugaritic Epistolography” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 2003), 712
n. 89. See also Pardee, review of J. Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik, 369, where he proposes the etymology /han-/
+ /l/ > /hall-/ as more likely than Tropper’s reconstruction of a distinct locative particle /hal-/ + /l/ (Ugaritische
Grammatik, 750). It should be noted here that the precise function of the enclitics -n and -y is not entirely certain. I
have adopted the terminology of Pardee in simply calling those particles with enclitic(s) expansion forms (see his
remarks on hlny and hnny in his review of J. Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik, 116, 197, 365–66).
38. Kjell Aartun, Die Partikeln des Ugaritischen (Kevelaer: Butzon & Berker, 1978), 57 n. 550. In this note,
Aartun also references the ability of these particles to function as “Lokaladverbs,” though not mentioned by Brown,
“HL in Northwest Semitic,” 203 n. 4.
39. See also Rebecca Hasselbach, “Demonstratives in Semitic,” JAOS 127 (2007): 21–22, where she notes that
in Semitic the element -n is often associated with near deixis while the element -l most likely indicated far deixis.
As it relates to Ugaritic hnny and hlny, it is difficult to identify real world, areal distinction in their usage in the
letters, i.e., hlny = far versus hnny = near. (The problem for the Ugaritic situation is that the opposite appears to be
the case, since hlny expresses the writer’s situation, as opposed to the addressee’s.) On the other hand, one can read-
ily acknowledge that the demonstrative element *han of both hlny and hnny distinguishes these particles from the
Semitic far demonstrative Hasselbach reconstructs as *ʾVl. For Ugaritic, hnny and hlny denote the close proximity
of the speaker in contradistinction to the distance of the addressee, demarcated with ṯmny.
40. Also noted by Sivan and Schniedewind, “Letting Your ‘Yes’ Be ‘No’ in Ancient Israel,” 211.
41. At no point in Brown’s discussion of Ugaritic hl does he cite the attested vocalized form al-li-ni-ya first pub-
lished by Nougayrol in 1968 (see Brown, “HL in Northwest Semitic,” 202–7); nor does he account for the evidence
of a doubled l in the El Amarna asseverative al-lu, which would also create problems for a connection with Hebrew
halōʾ (ibid., 207–11; see also the discussion on EA allû below).
42. Brown, “HL in Northwest Semitic,” 202.
43. On the asseverative, see Huehnergard, “Asseverative *la,” 570–76.
McAffee: A Reassessment of the Hebrew Negative Interrogative Particle hlʾ 121
most likely involves an expansion of the demonstrative hn: han + li + ni + ya > halliniya,
and thus would not be related to the Semitic asseverative at all. The presentative nature of
the shortened form hl (< *han + li), as well as hn (< *han), would then arise from its demon-
strative origin instead of from an etymological connection with the asseverative particle.
Furthermore, the specific locative usage of hlny and hnny evident in Ugaritic letters with the
meaning “here” seems more appropriate for a demonstrative etymology than would be the
case for the asseverative connection. Even before one considers an alternative asseverative
etymology for Hebrew halōʾ, it seems likely that the Ugaritic hl may be the wrong particle
for comparison, both on morphological and syntactic grounds. 44
Ugaritic ʾal
On the other hand, Ugaritic might possess a more likely relative to the EA presentative
particle allû, though with reference to Ugaritic one must exercise caution in drawing d efinite
44. The argument of Sivan and Schniedewind, “Letting Your ‘Yes’ Be ‘No’,” 210–11, that “it is impossible
to understand II הלאas a rhetorical question with the interrogative ה
ֲ since Ugaritic does not possess an interroga-
tive h,” therefore cannot be sustained, since these authors are operating under the assumption that Ugaritic hl and
Hebrew halōwʾ are cognates.
45. See A. F. Rainey, “Some Presentative Particles in the Amarna Letters,” UF 20 (1988): 214–20; ibid.,
Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 159–67; and Daniel Sivan, Grammatical Analysis and
Glossary of Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts of the 15th–13th C.B.C. from Canaan and Syria (Kev-
elaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1984), 129–30. Note also the secondary forms al-le (EA 94:163), al-le-mi (EA 83:53),
al-le-e (EA 122:41), al-la (EA 101:14), and al-la-mi (EA 83:38), which Rainey (“Some Presentation Particles,” 214)
suggests might represent a type of delineation.
46. See the discussion on the history of the interpretation of allû in Rainey, “Some Presentation Particles,”
214–18.
47. CAD 1:358. Note also Sivan, Grammatical Analysis and Glossary, 129–30, where he lists this particle under
the heading “Interrogatives.” Sivan and Schniedewind (“Letting Your ‘Yes’ Be ‘No’,” 211), however, appear more
hesitant about this connection.
48. Rainey, “Some Presentative Particles,” 214. See also Hasselbach, “Demonstratives in Semitic,” 23, where
she reconstructs the plural base for the PWS far demonstrative ʾul(±li).
49. Sivan, Grammatical Analysis and Glossary, 130; Rainey, “Some Presentative Particles,” 214; and Sivan and
Schniedewind, “Letting Your ‘Yes’ Be ‘No’,” 211, all note this problem.
122 Journal of the American Oriental Society 135.1 (2015)
conclusions in light of unvocalized texts. That being said, the particle ʾal (ʾallū) is well
attested in several Ugaritic texts with an assevertive function, 50 e.g., KTU 1.4 VII 45:
dll . ʾal . ʾilʾak . l bn ʾilm . mt
Indeed, I will send a messenger to Môtu, son of ʾIlu. 51
The existence of the Ugaritic asseverative ʾal offers a more appropriate etymological parallel
to EA al-lu, and furthermore, it maintains a functional distinction from the local adverbial
usage of hl (along with its permutations hln, hlny) evident throughout Ugaritic epistlography. 52
50. Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik, 805–6; Bordreuil and Pardee, Manuel d’ougaritique, 74.
51. For additional references, see Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik, 805–6; DUL, 47.
52. Note also that ʾal would then be distinguished from the proclitic asseverative l- in Ugaritic. On this particle,
see Huehnergard, “Asseverative *la,” 583–84.
53. Sivan and Schniedewind, “Letting Your ‘Yes’ Be ‘No’,” 210, especially n. 3. They also point out that since
the Hebrew negative לאis almost never spelled plene (35x of approximately 5200 occurrences), הלואmust evince
an earlier asseverative particle. For more on the significance of the plene spelling, see discussion below.
54. Brown, “HL in Northwest Semitic,” 211.
55. hlʾ: Dan. 3:24; 4:27; 6:13; ʾlw: Dan. 2:31; 4:7; 4:10; 7:8. For a discussion of hlʾ from the perspective of
Aramaic, see B. A. Mastin, “The Meaning of halāʾ at Daniel IV 27,” VT 42 (1992): 234–47. Brown (“HL in North-
west Semitic,” 214 n. 70) does acknowledge that the situation in Aramaic is distinct from that of Biblical Hebrew.
Additionally, both hlʾ and hlw are attested in Targumic Aramaic (see discussion to follow).
56. E.g., introducing a letter: kʿn hlw ḥlm ḥzyt “Now look, I saw a dream” (KAI 270:1–2); introducing a new
aspect of a subject: hlw bbyt ʾwkn “Look, with regard to BT ʾWKN” (KAI 233:9) (see DNWSI, 1:280).
McAffee: A Reassessment of the Hebrew Negative Interrogative Particle hlʾ 123
problematic, since the expanded form hlny, vocalized al-li-ni-ya, exhibits a geminated l,
which is noticably absent from the Biblical Aramaic form ʾalūw. 57
At this point in the discussion one might be led to question the validity of the comparative
Aramaic data, especially as it relates to those dialects in close proximity to the biblical tradi-
tion. In suggesting the development *ha (inter.) + *lā (neg.) > *halā “Is it not?,” is the pres-
ence of the interrogative {h} in Biblical Aramaic halāʾ largely the result of Hebrew influence,
or can this feature be inherently Aramaic? If the interrogative {h} only occurs in Jewish
dialects of Aramaic, one might have to admit its Hebrew origin. Indeed, there is evidence
outside of the Jewish Aramaic dialects for the existence of an interrogative {h}. In the Ashur
ostracon, one finds a clear example of the interrogative {h}:
plsr [ys̆]ʾl hṣdʾ hny mlyʾ ʾlh
PN asks: “Are these words true?” (KAI 233:12)
There seems to be agreement among commentators that the initial {h} of hṣdʾ should be
interpreted as the interrogative, and one would be hard-pressed to find a better suggestion
contextually. 58 It is therefore unnecessary to assume automatically that the negative interrog-
ative particle of Biblical Aramaic must be due to Hebrew influence since the interrogative
{h} does appear outside the direct influence of Biblical Hebrew. Consequently, Aramaic has
the same potential that is inherent within the Hebrew language to form a negative interroga-
tive consisting of the negative particle + interrogative {h}.
57. It should be noted here that although Biblical Aramaic ʾarūw is often cited as a by-form of ʾalūw (e.g.,
HALOT, 1824, following Bauer and Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen [Halle, 1927], §266a, b), one
should be cautious on this connection, especially in light of the qetib-qere within the MT where one is to read final
-h instead of final -w (see Dan. 7:2; 7:5–7; 7:13). The Imperial Aramaic form apparently underlying the Biblical
Aramaic form is ʾrh (much less common than hlw), attested two times in a Hermopolis papyrus with the presenta-
tive meaning ‘behold’: wkʿt ʾrh spr lh s̆lḥty bs̆mh (TAD A2.4:5, 8). The form in Biblical Aramaic may have arisen
out of a confusion with the more prominent hlw, realized as ʾalūw therein. At any rate, the simple fact that Imperial
Aramaic attests both hlw and ʾrh in Egyptian Aramaic contexts makes it less likely that the latter should be derived
from the former. Also, one should not confuse this form with the later Jewish Aramaic conjunction ʾrwm (= Tg Onq
ʾry) ‘because, since’ (see Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, 2d
ed. [Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University Press, 2002], 73b).
58. E.g., KAI 2, 285, and John C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Inscriptions 2 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971), 108.
59. It should be noted, however, that Hebrew influence likely extends to the expansions as well.
124 Journal of the American Oriental Society 135.1 (2015)
60. Gen. 4:7; 13:9; 19:20; 20:5; 27:36; 29:25; 31:15; 34:23; 37:13; 40:8; 42:22; 44:5; 44:15; Exod. 4:11; 4:14;
14:12; 33:16; Num. 12:2; 12:14; 14:3; 22:30; 22:37; 23:12; 23:26; 24:12; Deut. 3:11 (Heb. halōh!); 11:30; 31:17;
32:6; 32:34.
61. Gen. 4:7; 13:9; 19:20; 20:5; 29:25; 31:15; 34:23; 37:13; 40:8; 42:22; 44:5; Exod. 4:11(variant); 4:14; 14:12;
33:16; Num. 12:2; 14:3; 22:37; 23:12; 23:26; 24:12; Deut. 3:1; 11:30; 31:17; 32:34.
62. It is important to note that this is not a rhetorical question in the Hebrew text, but a real question expecting
a response.
McAffee: A Reassessment of the Hebrew Negative Interrogative Particle hlʾ 125
• Num. 12:14: “ תתכנע מן קדמוי שבעה יומיןShe must humble herself before him for
seven days.” The Hebrew text: “ הלא תכלם ׁשבעת ימיםWould she not be humbled for
seven days?” Here, Neofiti leaves this Hebrew particle untranslated.
Neofiti provides a number of expansions in which hlʾ occurs independent of Hebrew
translation.
• Gen. 6:3: In response to the sons of God taking the daughters of men for wives, the
Lord states that none of the generations to come will be judged according to the judg-
ment of the flood-generation, and then retorts:הלא מחתם הוא קדמוי סדר דינא דדרʹ׳
“ דמבולאIs not the order of the judgment of the flood-generation sealed before him?”
Immediately following are two assertions introduced with hʾ ‘Behold!’ According to
such an interpretation, this expansion would then begin with a negative statement,
“No one else will be judged like the flood-generation,” followed by a negative rhe-
torical question “Is their judgment not sealed?,” and then two exclamatory remarks
introduced by hʾ: . . . “ יהבית בבני אנשא הא רוחיBehold, I have set my spirit within
the sons of man . . .”; . . . “ ארכא מאה ועשרין שנין הא יהבית לכוןBehold, I have set for
you the span of one hundred and twenty years . . .”
• Gen. 44:18: This lengthy expansion manifests hlʾ as well as the presentative particle
hʾ + negative lʾ. The context is that of Judah pleading before governor Joseph upon
finding the royal cup in Benjamin’s bag, where the tone of Judah’s pleading is cer-
tainly deferential in the Hebrew text, but inflamatory here as Neofiti presents a threat-
ening Judah: הא. . . הלא מן זמנא קדמייא דאתינן לוותך הוויית אמר לן מן קדם ייי אנה דחיל
“ לא אשתמע לך ולא אתני לך מה עבדו תרין אחיי שמעון ולוי בכרכאFrom the former time
that we came to you, were you not saying to us, ‘From before the Lord I fear’? . . .
Look, it must not have been heard by you, and it must not have been related to you
what my two brothers, Simeon and Levi, did to the city of Shechem!”
• Num. 34:21: Moses exclaims fearfully at the sight of Og, king of Butnin: הלא דין הוא
“ עוג דהוה מחסד לאברהם ושרהIs this not Og, who was cursing against Abraham and
Sarah?”
• Deut. 1:1: The rhetorical force of this expression cannot be overstated, as Neofiti
heralds the first words out of the mouth of Moses in his Deuteronomistic address: הלא
“ במדברה ובטורא דסיני איתיהיבת לכון אוריתה בני ישראל ובמישריה דמואבWas it not in
the desert and at Mount Sinai that Torah was given to you, O sons of Israel, and in the
plain of Moab?” This introductory comment is directly followed by another question
signaled by kmh.
• Deut. 33:2: “ הלא גלי וידיע קדמויIs it not revealed and known before me?”
One further example from Neofiti should be mentioned where the particle hlw shows up
with an affirmative sense:
• Num. 12:1: ומללת מרים ואהרן במשה על עסק אתתה כושיתה די נסב והלו אתה כושיה הות
“ ציפורה אתתה דמשהMiram and Aaron spoke against Moses concerning the Cushite
woman whom he had taken; and behold, the Cushite woman was Zipporah, the wife
of Moses!” The sense of hlw is undoubtably presentative and more likely relates ety-
mologically and semantically to Biblical Aramaic’s ʾlw, contrary to its more popular
association with hlʾ. 63
63. See Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 165, where he briefly remarks: “Note the unique
spelling of הלוTN Num 12:1,” assuming that hlʾ is a variant of hlw. One might also compare this particle with
126 Journal of the American Oriental Society 135.1 (2015)
As the above examples from Targums Onqelos and Neofiti show, hlʾ serves as the default
interpretative particle for Hebrew halōʾ. Furthermore, none of the examples examined,
whether translation or expansion, necessitates a departure from the negative rhetorical ques-
tion interpretation, a fact that might lend support for the traditional etymology—interrogative
{h} + the negative particle for Hebrew halōʾ (i.e., as a negative rhetorical question)—being
operative for Aramaic hlʾ as well. In every case except two, Onqelos and Neofiti trans-
late Hebrew halōʾ with hlʾ; in the one case in which Neofiti utilizes something different, it
highlights the negative rather than the affirmative aspect of the Hebrew expression, making
an asseverative meaning unlikely. On the other hand, the sole example of hlw in Neofiti
exemplifies the asseverative particle more common in earlier Aramaic, which seems to have
undergone a development separate from that of hlʾ (interrogative {h} + negative lāʾ). 64 The
fact that both Biblical and Targumic Aramaic continue to utilize these two particles in dis-
cernably distinct ways makes it difficult to maintain that hlʾ is a conflation of the two; one
of the them would have to fall out of use and thus be replaced by the other. This does not
appear to be the case for Aramaic.
The final {ʾ} in these two attestations indicates that this compound particle (interrogative {h}
+ negative particle lōʾ) had a life all its own outside of Biblical Hebrew. Orthography aside,
in the case of the Lachish ostracon, if one were to argue for the possibility of an asseverative
force here, it would be awkward in this context, since in all likelihood the letter records the
appeal of an inferior to his superior. 67 The most natural explanation of hlʾ in this instance
would be an urgent, yet courteous question with the intent of invoking a positive reponse,
namely, a rhetorical question. On the other hand, the situation evinced in the ostracon from
Shephelah suggests hostility rather than politeness as the writer castigates his servant for
apparent disobedience. 68 The thrust of this rhetorical question is reinforced by the mere fact
Onqelos’s conditional asserverative pariticle ʾillūw, which also evinces a lu asseverative element: conditional ʾi(y)n +
asserverative lūw > ʾillūw. This particle occurs seven times throughout Onqelos, and translates a number of Hebrew
constructions: Gen. 46:30 (1cs cohorative); Lev. 10:19; Num. 12:14 (infinitive absolute); 22:29 (Heb. lūw); Deut.
32:27a (Onq ʾiyllūw lāʾ = Heb. lūwlēy); 32:27b (Heb. lūw).
64. Cf. El Amarna allû (see CAD, 1:358), Ugaritic ʾal (RS 3.367iv/KTU 1.2i:13, 14, 15), and also Imperial
Aramaic hlw (DNWSI, 1:280), Biblical Aramaic ʾlw (BDB, 1080: Dan. 3:31; 4:7; 4:10; 7:8).
65. On this ostracon, see F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp et al., Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Period of the
Monarchy with Concordance (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 2005), 322–24.
66. On the Shephelah ostracon, see André Lemaire and Ada Yardeni, “New Hebrew Ostraca from the She-
phelah,” in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, ed. Steven
Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 197–223.
67. The opening address ʾl ʾdny yʾws̆ “To my lord Yaʾus̆” (Lach. 6.1) unquestionably indicates an inferior-
superior situation.
68. Brongers (“Some Remarks,” 179) cites the following examples from the Hebrew Bible where hlʾ appears
with an “undertone of some reproach”: Abimelech in his defense to God (Gen. 20:5), Jacob to Laban (Gen. 29:25),
McAffee: A Reassessment of the Hebrew Negative Interrogative Particle hlʾ 127
that he specifically states “I sent you,” followed by the interrogation “Will you not return
to me a report?” 69 The negative rhetorical question serves to press upon the recipient of the
letter the urgency of the matter, compelling him to fulfill his obligation.
It is also worth pointing out that thus far only hlʾ occurs throughout the Hebrew inscrip-
tions without any trace of the hypothetical *halū recently posited for Hebrew. Of course,
one cannot build an argument against its existence from silence alone, but in light of the
difficulties inherent in the recently proposed etymologies outlined above, its absence here
only serves up another strike against the proposal that Hebrew hlʾ represents the conflation
of halōʾ and halūʾ.
In this context, hlwʾ naturally marks a negative rhetorical question parallel to the following
question marked with the interrogative {h}. 72 A few verses later, the non-plene form appears:
Num. 22:37: הלא ׁשלח ׁשלחתי אליך לקרא־לך
Did I not certainly send for you to call to you?
From these two examples, it is difficult to argue contextually that the former is better suited
for an asseverative particle while the latter better fits the negative interrogative. The same
might be said of two further examples:
Reuben rebuking his brothers (Gen. 42:22); Miriam and Aaron in their dispute with Moses (Num. 12:2), Ahab to
Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22:18), and Yahweh addressing his people Israel (Isa. 44:8).
69. Lemaire and Yardeni (“New Hebrew Ostraca,” 198) comment: “As is well known from Biblical Hebrew,
the interrogative negative HLʾ probably has here an assertive meaning,” though they translate the statement as a
rhetorical question.
70. For references, see n. 1.
71. To my knowledge, no one seems to address this question in the literature on Hebrew hlʾ.
72. Note also that the initial negative question should be of rhetorical force, strengthened by the fact that only
the second question solicits a response from Balaam.
128 Journal of the American Oriental Society 135.1 (2015)
1 Kings 1:11: הלוא ׁשמעת כי מלך אדניהו בן־חגית ואדנינו דוד לא ידע
Have you not heard that Adonijah, son of Haggith, has become king, and our lord David
does not know (of it)?
1 Kings 1:13: הלא־אתה אדני המלך נׁשבעת לאמתך
Have not you, my lord the king, sworn to your maidservant?
Setting aside for the moment the lack of a discernable distinction in usage between the
two, what can be made of the overall distribution of the plene versus the non-plene forms
throughout the Hebrew Bible? If two separate historical forms underlay these two spellings,
one might expect them to share a fairly even distribution. On the contrary, one finds more
evidence for a stylistic variation from one book to another. The most drastic examples of this
tendency can be found in Samuel, Chronicles, and Job. Without exception, Samuel utilizes
exclusively the plene form, 73 while in the cases of Chronicles and Job, only the non-plene
spelling appears. 74 Or what might be said of the Kings narrative, where the two are evenly
distributed (non-plene spelling 24x, plene spelling 20x)? 75 Such a discrepancy in the distri-
bution of plene versus non-plene spellings would be better accounted for on stylistic grounds
rather than as a hypothetical confusion of two historically distinct particles. Nonetheless, the
distribution of the two Biblical Hebrew orthographies and the consistent vocalization require
that, if two etymologies lie behind the forms, the two had fallen together into a single form
by the time that Biblical Hebrew as we know it came to be. 76
73. 1 Sam. 1:8; 6:6; 9:20; 9:21; 10:1; 12:17; 15:17; 17:8; 17:29; 20:30; 20:37; 21:12; 23:19; 26:1; 26:14; 26:15;
29:3; 29:4; 29:5; 2 Sam. 2:26; 3:38; 4:11; 10:3; 11:3; 11:10; 11:20; 11:21; 13:4; 13:28; 16:19; 19:14; 19:23.
74. 1 Chr. 19:3; 21:3; 21:17; 22:18; 2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:5; 13:9; 16:8; 18:17; 20:6; 20:7; 20:12; 25:26; 28:10;
32:11; 32:12; 32;13; Job 1:10; 4:6; 4:21; 7:1; 8:10; 10:10; 10:20; 12:11; 13:11; 21:29; 22:5; 31:3; 32:4.
75. hlʾ: 1 Kings 1:13; 14:29; 15:23; 15:31; 16:5; 16:20; 16:27; 18:13; 22:46; 2 Kings 4:28; 5:12; 14:15; 14:18;
14:28; 15:6; 15:36; 16:19; 18:27; 19:25; 20:20; 21:17; 21:25; 23:28; 24:5; hlwʾ: 1 Kings 1:11; 2:42; 11:41; 15:7;
16:14; 22:18; 22:39; 2 Kings 1:18; 2:18; 5:13; 6:11; 6:32; 8:23; 10:34; 12:20; 13:8; 13:12; 15:21; 18:22; 20:19.
76. Rebecca Hasselbach (private communication) has also pointed out to me this well-known tendency for
the negative particle in general, which attests the plene spelling by itself (lōwʾ) and with an attached b- preposition
(belōwʾ) (see BDB, 518).
77. Adina Moshavi, “Syntactic Evidence for a Clausal Adverb הלאin Biblical Hebrew,” JNWSL 33 (2007):
51–63. See also ead., “ הֲלֹאas Discourse Marker,” HS 48 (2007): 171–86; ead., “Can a Positive Rhetorical Question
Have a Positive Answer in the Bible?” JSS 56 (2011): 253–73.
78. Moshavi, “Syntactic Evidence,” 55, citing R. D. Huddleson and G. K. Pullman, The Cambridge Grammar
of the English Language (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002), 789.
McAffee: A Reassessment of the Hebrew Negative Interrogative Particle hlʾ 129
these strictures, it is argued that when interrogative {h} and negative lōʾ occur in a “preposed
finite clause,” the two should be separated by the preposed noun clause, as noted in the fol-
lowing example:
Gen. 18:25: הׁשפט כל הארץ לא יעׂשה מׁשפט
Will the judge of all the earth not practice justice?
However, she argues, there are a number of instances where the interrogative {h} is not sepa-
rated from the negative particle and fronted according to the example cited above, but halōʾ
in its entirety is fronted, reflecting the syntax of clausal adverbs (e.g., hnh, hn, ʿl kn, etc.).
She cites the following example from Judges:
Judg. 11:7: הלא אתה ׂשנאתם אותי
Do you not hate me?
For Moshavi, this syntactic distinction offers additional evidence for the existence of a
Hebrew particle hlʾ that is something other than the negative interrogative. She calls this
theoretical form a clausal adverb that in essence functions as a presentative particle resem-
bling hnh. 79
The theory espoused by Moshavi is certainly appealing on the syntactic level, since it
attempts to explain what looks like an anomaly for typical Hebrew clausal syntax. On the
other hand, this proposal does not take into consideration the etymological merits of posit-
ing two separate forms underlying halōʾ/halōwʾ, now confused in the Masoretic tradition, but
simply relies upon the earlier studies on the problem already cited in this study. The appeal to
syntax does not remove the etymological problems for proposing two separate Hebrew forms
as I have outlined them above, and therefore cannot provide the final word of the matter. On
the contrary, Moshavi’s syntactic evidence could point us in an entirely different direction,
namely, that halōʾ/halōwʾ is undergoing reanalysis as a single particle, irrespective of its sepa-
rate parts (i.e., interrogative {h} + negative lōʾ).
Semantics of hlʾ
Perhaps the evidence as it currently stands on this matter should lead one to revisit ear-
lier formulations on the semantics of this form, namely that negative rhetorical questions
lead naturally to positive assertions. Practically speaking, one can reasonably argue for later
developments wherein this negative interrogative acquires an affirmative sense, since more
often than not its rhetorical effect assumes an affirmative answer. 83 One might compare the
English expression “Isn’t it?,” which has for the most part become the equivalent of “It is”
in popular usage. Such a development might explain those difficult cases in the Hebrew
Bible for which a negative rhetorical question feels awkward. 84 As far as Targums Onqelos
and Neofiti are concerned, none of the examples cited in this study bars a negative rhetorical
question interpretation, and neither do the Hebrew Vorlage they represent. So in the end, it
might be more prudent for Hebrew grammarians to return to where they left off from the
earlier explanations proposing a probable development from negative rhetorical question to
affirmation, since the more recently proposed etymologies create more questions than they
do answers.
83. A similar conclusion is reached by Mastin, “The Meaning of halāʾ at Daniel IV 27,” 238, where he notes,
concerning the affirmatory use of hălōʾ, “This is a natural development from halôʾ = ‘nonne?,’ and Aramaic halāʾ
could either have come to signifiy ‘surely’ in the same way or have acquired this sense under the influence of
Hebrew halôʾ.” Note, however, that the affirmative sense does not always hold, as in the case of Targum Neofiti Gen.
23:36, where translators emphasize the negative sense of the expression, rendering Hebrew hlʾ with Aramaic hʾ lʾ.
84. Note the examples listed by Brongers, “Some Remarks,” 180–88.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.