Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad 2006 (in press). ‘Complement Clause Types in Israeli’,
Chapter 3 of Complementation: A Cross-Linguistic Typology,
edited by R. M. W. Dixon and A. Y. Aikhenvald, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3
Complement clause types in Israeli
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann
Complement clauses in Israeli (a.k.a. ‘Modern Hebrew’) demonstrate inter alia that the
fascinating, new, ‘semi-engineered’ language is caught in a war between prescriptivism
and descriptivism. For example, the prescribed complementizer ki ‘that’ is possible and
comprehensible but – as opposed to the usual complementizer she- ‘that’ –
unproductive (see §4.2). By and large, authors of Israeli grammars attempt –
deliberately or subconsciously – to force a ‘Mosaic’ grammar, which is Semitic, on a
‘mosaic’ language, which is made up of both Semitic and Indo-European components.
1. Basic information
The Israeli language emerged in Eretz Yisrael (lit. ‘Land of Israel’, which at the time
was known as Palestine) in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. It is one of
the official languages – with Arabic and English – of the State of Israel (established in
1948). Israeli is spoken to varying degrees of fluency by the 6.8 million citizens of
Israel – as a mother tongue by most Israeli Jews (whose total number is 5,235,000), and
as a second language by Israeli Muslims (Arabic-speakers), Christians (e.g. Russianand Arabic-speakers), Druze (Arabic-speakers) and others. It is also spoken by some
non-Israeli Palestinians, as well as by a few Diaspora Jews.
The genetic classification of Israeli has preoccupied linguists since the beginning
of the twentieth century. The still prevalent, traditional school suggests that Israeli is
Semitic: (Biblical/Mishnaic) Hebrew revived. I call this the ‘phoenix model’, as the
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
2
phoenix rises from the ashes. The revisionist position, by contrast, defines Israeli as
Indo-European: Yiddish relexified, i.e. Yiddish is the ‘substratum’, whilst Hebrew is
only a ‘superstratum’ providing the lexis and lexicalized morphology (cf. Horvath and
Wexler 1997). I call this the ‘cuckoo model’, as the cuckoo lays eggs in the nest of
another bird. My own mosaic view is that Israeli is simultaneously Semitic and IndoEuropean. Both Hebrew (in use as the Jewish liturgical language but lethargic as a
vernacular for more than 1700 years) and Yiddish (the revivalists’ mother tongue, the
contribution of which was not intentional, hence the term ‘semi-engineered’) act as its
primary contributors (rather than ‘substrata’). Israeli, therefore, falls into a mixed
category of its own, as a ‘phoenicuckoo hybrid’ (which often also resembles a magpie
as it collects features from various languages other than Yiddish and Hebrew).
Although Israeli phonetics and phonology are primarily Yiddish and its
morphology is mainly Hebrew, the European contribution to Israeli is not restricted to
particular linguistic domains and is evident even in its morphology. Thus, the term
‘Israeli’ is more appropriate than ‘Israeli Hebrew’, let alone the common signifiers
‘Modern Hebrew’ or ‘Hebrew’ tout court (cf. Zuckermann 1999, 2003, 2005,
forthcoming).
2. Grammatical profile
Israeli is a fusional synthetic language, with non-concatenative discontinuous
morphemes realised by vowel infixation. Consider, for example, yoháv ‘love:3msgFUT’,
i.e. ‘(he) will love’; mitahévet ‘fall.in.love:fsgPRES’, i.e. ‘(she) is falling in love’ – both
formed from the root ’.h.b., but fitted into two distinct verb-templates. Compare also the
following two verbs based on the root n.d.b.: yenadvú ‘volunteer:3pl’, i.e. ‘(they) will
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
3
volunteer (others)’; and hitnudávti ‘volunteer:1sgPAST: COERCIVE/INDUCIVE.hit–a–é– + –
u–á–’, i.e. ‘I (was) volunteered (by force)’.
However, Israeli is much more analytic than (Biblical/Mishnaic) Hebrew.
Whereas the Hebrew phrase for ‘my grandfather’ was sav-í ‘grandfather-1sgPOSS’, in
Israeli it is sába shel-ì ‘grandfather GEN-1sg’.2 Still, Israeli sometimes uses the Semitic
feature known as ‘construct-state’ (Israeli smikhút, glossed here as CONSTR), in which
two nouns are combined, the first being modified or possessed by the second. For
example, repúblika-t banánot, lit. ‘Republic-CONSTR bananas’, refers to ‘banana
Republic’; and mevakér ha-mdiná, lit. ‘comptroller DEF-state’, is ‘State Comptroller’.
However, unlike in Hebrew, the construct-state is not highly productive in Israeli (see
Zuckermann forthcoming). Compare the Hebrew construct-state ’em ha-yéled
‘mother:CONSTR DEF-child’ with the more analytic Israeli phrase ha-íma shel ha-yéled
‘DEF-mother GEN DEF-child’, both meaning ‘the mother of the child’, i.e. ‘the child’s
mother’.
Israeli is a head-marking language. It is nominative-accusative at the syntactic
level and partially also at the morphological level. As opposed to Biblical Hebrew –
whose constituent order is VAO(E) / VS(E) – but like Standard Average European (cf.
Zuckermann forthcoming) and English, the usual constituent order of Israeli is AVO(E)
/ SV(E). Thus, if there is no case marking, one can resort to the constituent order. Israeli
is characterized by an asymmetry between definite Os and indefinite Os. There is an
accusative marker, et, only before a definite O (mostly a definite noun or personal
name). Et-ha is currently undergoing fusion and reduction to become ta. Consider taví
l-i et ha-séfer ‘give:2msgsIMP (puristically FUT3) DAT-1sg ACC DEF-book’ (i.e. ‘Give me
the book!’), where et, albeit syntactically a case-marker, is a preposition (cf. Danon
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
4
2002), and ha is a definite article. This sentence is realised phonetically as taví li
ta-séfer.4
2.1 Nouns
Israeli nouns show number, normally only singular and plural. Each noun is either
m(asculine) or f(eminine), the latter often being created by adding a suffix to the
unmarked masculine. For instance, whereas manhíg is ‘male leader’, manhig-á is
‘female leader’ (note the addition of the feminine suffix -a). Similarly, khayál is ‘male
soldier’ and khayél-et is ‘female soldier’; profésor is ‘male professor’ and professor-it is
‘female professor’.
Pronouns have ‘case forms’ consisting of a preposition plus a suffix: nominative
(e.g. aní ‘I’), accusative (ot-í ‘me’), dative (l-i ‘to me’) and genitive (shel-í ‘my’).
However, NPs which are not pronouns do not bear case marking. The only exceptions
are the above-mentioned accusative marker et (or ta), and the lexicalized allative
(‘to/towards’) case (which, serendipitously, is based on the historical accusative case,
see Weingreen 1959), e.g. ha-báit ‘the house’ > ha-báyt-a ‘to the house’; yerushaláim
‘Jerusalem’ > yerushaláym-a ‘to Jerusalem’; tsafón ‘north’ > tsafón-a ‘to the north’.
New allative phrases, e.g. tel avív-a ‘to Tel Aviv’, are not normally used unless one is
trying to sound high-flown or jocular.
Adjectives agree in number, gender and definiteness with the nouns they modify,
e.g. ha-yéled ha-gadól, lit. ‘DEF-boy DEF-big’, i.e. ‘the big boy’; yelad-ím gdol-ím, lit.
‘boy-mpl big-mpl’, i.e. ‘big boys’.
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
5
2.2 Verbs
As opposed to Biblical Hebrew, which had only a perfect/imperfect distinction, Israeli
has three tenses: past, present and future. In the past and future, verbal forms differ
according to gender, number and 1st, 2nd and 3rd person. However, in the present tense,
verbs are only conjugated according to gender and number and there is no person
distinction. The historical reason is that the forms of the Israeli present can be traced
back to the Hebrew participle, which is less complex than the historical perfect and
imperfect forms.
Verbs are transitive, intransitive or ambitransitive (labile). Ambitransitivity is
usually of the S=A type, e.g. dan shatá etmòl ‘Dans drank yesterday’ (cf. dan shatá
etmòl bíra ‘Dans drank yesterday beero’). However, owing to Americanization, there are
more and more ambitransitive verbs of the S=O type, e.g. ha-séfer mokhér tov ‘Thebooks sells well’ (cf. grísham mókher et ha-séfer tov ‘Grishams sells ACC the-booko
well’); yésh po máshehu she-meríakh ra ‘There.is here somethings that-smells bad’ (cf.
aní meríakh po máshehu ra ‘Is smell here somethingo bad’).
In addition to the rich plethora of inflected verbal forms, there is a tenseless form,
which is usually referred to in Hebrew linguistics as the ‘infinitive’ (see §4.4, §4.5), cf.
Israeli makór natúy, lit. ‘inflected origin’. It consists of the allegedly historical basic
verb form (Israeli makór, lit. ‘origin, source’; often similar to the 2nd person masculine
singular imperative form, which derives from the historical imperfective), preceded by
the dative preposition le- (or li- or -la), which can refer to ‘in order to’. For example, lenashék ‘INFIN-kiss’, i.e. ‘to kiss’ (cf. nashék ‘kiss:2msgIMP); li-shmór ‘INFIN-guard’ (cf.
shmor ‘guard:2msgIMP); la-lékhet ‘INFIN-go’ (cf. lekh ‘go:2msgIMP).
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
6
2.3 Clauses
The main clause in Israeli consists of (a) clause-initial peripheral markers, e.g. discourse
markers; (b) NP(s) or complement clause(s); (c) a predicate – either verbal, copular or
verbless; (d) clause-final peripheral elements, e.g. discourse markers. The only
obligatory element is the predicate, e.g. higáti ‘arrive:1sgPAST’. Sentences (1), (2) and
(3) are examples of a verbal, copular and verbless clause, respectively.
(1) [ester]A
Esther
{[akhlá]V
eat:3fsgPAST
[tapúakh]O}
apple
‘Esther ate an apple.’
(2) [ester]CS
Esther
{[hi]COP
COP:fsg
[akhót
sister
shel-ì]CC}
GEN-1sg
‘Esther is my sister.’
(3) [ester]VCS
Esther
{[khakham-á]VCC}
clever-f
‘Esther is clever.’
There are many types of subordinate clause, e.g. adverbial (denoting time, place,
condition, concession, reason, result, goal, state, comparison), adjectival/relative,
nominal/complement. I shall first describe the difference between a she- complement
clause and a relative clause (§3). Just like English that, the relativizer she- also acts as a
complementizer. Only after having established a clear distinction between relatives and
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
7
she- complements, shall I go on to describe the six main structural types of complement
clauses, and their syntactic functions (§4).
3. The difference between she- complement clauses and relative clauses
Unlike a relative clause, which is only part of an argument (O/S/A/E), a complement
clause is itself an argument (O/S/A/E). Consequently, there are several criteria to
distinguish between relative and complement clauses in Israeli: passivization,
topicalization, coordination and interrogation. Whereas only complement clauses can
undergo passivization and topicalization, only relative clauses can be coordinated with
adjectives. In interrogation, a complement clause answers a different type of question
from that answered by a relative clause.
3.1 Passivization
A complement clause – but not a relative clause – can be the target of passivization.
Consider the following complement clauses:
(4) [anì]
I
{yodéa
<she-hì
know:msgPRES
COMP-she
yaf-á>O}
beautiful-fsg
‘I know that she is beautiful.’
(5) {yadúa
know:msgPRES:PASS
l-i}
DAT-1sg
<she-hì
COMP-she
‘It is known to me that she is beautiful.’
yaf-á>S
beautiful-fsg
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
8
In (5) the complement clause from (4) is the target of passivization, just like an NP
object. On the other hand, in (6), she-niytá yafá ‘who became beautiful’ behaves like an
adjective and cannot be the target of passivization, i.e. it is a relative clause.
(6) raíti
see:1sgPAST
et
[ha-ishá
[she-niytá
yaf-á]REL]O
ACC
DEF-woman
REL-become:3fsgPAST
beautiful-fsg
‘I saw the woman who became beautiful.’
3.2 Topicalization
A complement clause – but not a relative clause – can be topicalized, as, for example, in
(7), which is based on (5):
(7) [[ze]
<she-hí
PROXmsg
yaf-á>]S
COMP-she
{yadúa
beautiful-fsg
l-i}
know:msgPRES:PASS
DAT-1sg
‘That she is beautiful is known to me.’
Sentence (8) is topicalization by fronting of the complement clause in (9):
(8) [[ze]
<she-yóram
PROXmsg
COMP-Yoram
ohév
et
íris>]O kul-ánu yodím
love:msgPRES
ACC
Iris
all-1pl
know:mplPRES
‘That Yoram loves Iris we all know.’
(9) kul-ánu yodím
all-1pl
know:mplPRES
<she-yóram
COMP-Yoram
‘We all know that Yoram loves Iris.’
ohév
et
íris>O
love:msgPRES
ACC
Iris
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
9
Israeli prefers not to begin a sentence with a she- clause. The solution the language has
found is to insert a ze ‘that, this’ demonstrative as an external head. The result is that the
she- complement clause is in apposition to ze. In other words, once the complement
clause is put in a sentence-initial position, it has to transform into a complex O (or S in
the case of passivization – see (7)) consisting of an NP and a complement clause in
apposition (see §4.1). The result is ‘complementary distribution’ of a complement
clause and a complementation strategy of sorts – as in the case of Tariana (Chapter 8).
That said, it is indeed possible to topicalize the complement clause without ze.
However, such a structure is highly marked, rare and requires intonation of
topicalization, with a rising-falling contour at the end of the topicalized constituent:
(10) <she-yóram
COMP-Yoram
ohév
et
íris>O
kul-ánu yodím
love:msgPRES
ACC
Iris
all-1pl
know:mplPRES
‘That Yoram loves Iris we all know.’
3.3 Coordination
While a complement clause cannot be coordinated with an adjective, a relative clause
can. After all, the relative clause within an O is itself a modifier of the NP heading the
O. Consider the relative clauses in (11) and (12):
(11) raíti
see:1sgPAST
[yaldá [she-hí
girl
‘I saw a girl who is clever.’
REL-COP
khakham-á]REL]O
clever-fsg
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
(12) raíti
see:1sgPAST
10
[yaldá
yaf-á
[she-hí
khakham-á]REL]O
girl
beautiful-fsg
REL-COP
clever-fsg
‘I saw a beautiful girl who is clever.’
In (12), an adjective is added to (11). Such a move is impossible in the case of (13),
which contains a complement clause:
(13) koév
hurt:msgPRES
l-i
DAT-1sg
<she-ló
COMP-NEG
notním
la-kélev
ókhel>S
give:mplPRES to:DEF-dog food
‘It hurts me that no food is given to the dog.’
3.4 Interrogation
Whereas a complement clause could serve as an answer to a question beginning with
what (Israeli ma, cf. What did you hear? I heard that Danny was coming), a relative
clause could serve as an answer to a question beginning with which (Israeli éyze, cf.
Which fruit do you like here? I like the fruit which is red). That said, in the case of a
complex O/E (see §4.1), the complement clause can also serve as an answer to a
question beginning with which (e.g. Which news did you hear? I heard the news that
Danny was promoted).
4. Structural types of complement clauses
Israeli has six main types of complement clause, classified here according to structure
(e.g. the complementizer type):
(a) she- ‘that’ (§4.1)
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
11
(b) ki ‘that’ (§4.2)
(c) im ‘if’ / interrogative (§4.3)
(d) ‘infinitive’ (§4.4)
(e) im/interrogative + ‘infinitive’ (§4.5)
(f) reduced complement clause (§4.6)
All these types are used in the O slot. All except (f) can be used in the A/S slot – see (5)
and (16) for (a) and (33) and (48) for (c). Complements (a), (b) and (c) can take all the
TAM properties available to main clauses. However, (d) and (e) can only take an
infinitive and the verb in (f) must be in the present tense. Negation is possible within all
Israeli complement clauses. In (d) and (e), the negator has to appear right before the
‘infinitive’. Raising is possible only in (f) – see (43).
4.1 She- ‘that’ complement clause
This is the unmarked, most common complement clause, often used as a fact
complement clause but also for activity and potential meanings:
(14) hu amár
l-i
he say:3msgPAST
<she-én
DAT-1sg
COMP-EXIST.COP:NEG
l-o
késef>O
DAT-3msg
money
‘He told me that he had no money.’
(15) shamáti
hear:1sgPAST
<she-ha-profésor-it
COMP-DEF-professor-fsg
tekudám>O
promote:3fsgFUT:PASS
‘I heard that the female professor will be promoted.’
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
12
Although she- complement clause usually appears in the O slot, it can easily be in the S
slot (see (5) above) and even in the A slot – just like in Yiddish and other European
languages – as follows:
(16) {[margíz]V
annoy:msgPRES
[ot-à]O}
ACC-3fsg
<she-okhlím
COMP-eat:mplPRES
khatul-ím>A
cat-pl
‘It bothers her that cats are eaten.’
By and large, she- complement clauses can follow almost all PRIMARY-B verbs, as well as
all verbs denoting SECONDARY CONCEPTS other than beginning SECONDARY-A verbs (see
Tables 1 and 2).
The Israeli complementizer she- [∫e] ‘that’ can be traced back to the Hebrew
complementizer she- ‘that’, which derives from the Hebrew relativizer she- ‘that’. There
is no consensus about the origin of the latter. It might be a shortened form of the
Hebrew relativizer ‘asher ‘that’, which is related to Akkadian ‘ashru ‘place’ (cf.
Semitic *‘athar), similar to the case of Goemai (Chapter 9). Alternatively, Hebrew
‘asher derived from she-, or it was a convergence of Proto-Semitic dhu (cf. Aramaic dī
below) and ‘asher. The Hebrew relativizer ‘ashér is the origin of the Israeli relativizer
ashér ‘that’, which is much less common than the Israeli relativizer she- ‘that’. Whereas
Israeli she- functions both as complementizer and relativizer, ashér can only function as
a relativizer.
Complex O/E with an NP and a she- complement clause in apposition
Like that complement clauses in English, she- complement clauses can sometimes
appear in a complex O/E argument involving an NP followed by a complement clause
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
13
in apposition (cf. (8) in Chapter 1, as well as Dixon 1991: 141-2). The NP can be a noun
like ha-uvdá ‘the fact’ or ha-khadashót ‘the news’ or ha-teórya ‘the theory’ or hahanakhá ‘the assumption’, as in (17):
(17) hem satrú
et
they contradict:3plPAST
akhréy
ha-mávet>]O
after
DEF-death
[[ha-hanakhá]NP
ACC
DEF-assumption:f
<she-yésh
COMP-EXIST.COP
khaím
life
‘They contradicted the assumption that there is life after death.’
Obviously, the noun is modifiable by an adjective before the apposed complement
clause:
(18) hem satrú
et
they:m contradict:3plPAST
<she-yésh
COMP-EXIST.COP
[[ha-hanakhá
ACC
ha-rovákh-at]NP
DEF-assumption:f DEF-common-f
khaím
akhréy
ha-mavét>]O
life
after
DEF-death
‘They contradicted the common assumption that there is life after death.’
However, non-modifiable words can also be used in complementation. Consider the
adverb kakh ‘so, thus, that’ and the masculine singular proximal demonstrative ze ‘this,
that’, which, like a generic noun, can act as the head of an apposed complement clause.
Kakh and ze are often used in the case of a complement-taking verb which requires a
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
14
preposition. They can be added between the verb and the complementizer she-.
However, this is not a necessity and Israeli allows she- after a preposition, as follows:
(19) hen
makhú
al
they:f protest:3plPAST
on
l-o
avodá>]E
DAT-3msg
work
[(kakh/ze)
<she-ló
(so/PROXmsg)
natnú
COMP-NEG
give:3plPAST
‘They protested that he was not given work.’
The difference between kakh and ze is that kakh sounds high-register, whereas ze sounds
colloquial. That said, only ze can occur after a complement-taking verb with no
preposition. Furthermore, when the complementation occurs at the beginning of a
sentence, it is only possible to use ze (see §3.2).
4.2 Ki ‘that’ complement clause
Instead of using the she- complementizer, an Israeli formal writer could use the rare
complementizer ki ‘that’, which derives from the Hebrew complementizer kī ‘that’,
from kī ‘because’. (Hebrew kī was replaced by ‘asher/she owing to the calquing of
Aramaic dī/zī, which functions both as complementizer and relativizer – cf. Deutscher
2000: 64). Consider the following minimal pair:
(20) ha-neeshám
DEF-accused:msg
taán
claim:3msgPAST
<ki
COMP
‘The accused claimed that he was innocent.’
hu
khaf
mi-pésha>O
he
clean
from-crime
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
(21) ha-neeshám
DEF-accused:m
zuká
[ki
acquit:3msgPAST:PASS
CAUS
15
hu
khaf mi-pésha]CAUS
he
clean from-crime
‘The accused was acquitted because he was innocent.’
Whereas in (20) ki introduces a complement clause, in (21) it introduces a causal clause.
But such versatility can easily result in ambiguity, for example after the verb hevín
‘understand’:
(22) hevánti
understand:1msgPAST
[ki
REL/CAUS
kvar
hisbíru
already explain:3plPAST
et
ze]CAUS/COMP
ACC PROXmsg
‘I understood that it has already been explained.’
OR ‘I understood because it has already been explained.’
Consequently, ki is often avoided even by Israelis attempting to write in a high register.
As opposed to she-, I believe that ki should be categorized as a prescriptive
complementizer tout court. That said, some French-speaking immigrants to Israel use
the complemetizer ki less rarely than other Israelis because of the phonetic similarity to
the French complementizer que ‘that’.5 Bendavid (1967: 147) calls this multiple
causation phenomenon hidamút sheló midáat ‘subconcious assimilation’ – cf. ‘use
intensification due to phonetic matching’ (Zuckermann 2000: 316).
With regard to the distribution of ki, although it can replace she- in most cases, it
cannot do so, for example, following LIKING verbs such as aháv ‘love, like’, saná ‘hate’,
heedíf ‘prefer’ (see Table 1). As opposed to she- complements, ki complements cannot
follow verbs denoting SECONDARY CONCEPTS.
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
16
Furthermore, whereas she- complement clauses can be topicalized in colloquial
speech (see (10)), ki clauses cannot be. The reason for this syntactic restriction might be
that whereas topicalization is colloquial in Israeli, ki is highly prescriptive, resulting in a
clash. Unlike she-, ki complement clauses are not normally the target of passivization.
4.3 Im ‘if’/Interrogative complement clause
Both im ‘if’ and interrogative complement clauses can follow almost all ATTENTION
verbs, as well as conception, memory, knowledge, credence and prediction (THINKING)
verbs, and saying, proposition, report, asking and demonstration (SPEAKING) verbs.
4.3.1 Im ‘if’ complement clause
Im ‘if’ complement clauses – in contradistinction to interrogative complement clauses –
can also follow LIKING verbs, as well as modal and emotive verbs denoting SECONDARY
CONCEPTS.
Im clauses often, but not always, have a potential – rather than fact/activity –
meaning. Consider (23):
(23) aní
I
tohé
<im atá
wonder:msgPRES
if
you:2msg
rotsé
la-vó>O
want:msgPRES
INFIN-come
‘I wonder if you would like to come.’
Im complement clauses can be the target of passivization. They can follow all PrimaryB verbs except those of supposition, remorse, promise and command – see Table 1. This
distribution is similar to the case of interrogative complement clauses, although the
latter can follow command verbs.
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
17
4.3.2 Interrogative complement clause (vis-à-vis direct speech)
In addition to the verbs already mentioned in §4.3.1, interrogative complement clauses –
as opposed to im ‘if’ complement clauses – can follow command SPEAKING verbs.
Interrogative clauses often, but not always, have a potential – rather than fact/activity –
meaning. Consider (24):
(24) hi
giltá
l-i
she reveal:3fsgPAST
DAT-1sg
<matáy [ha-hor-ím
when
shel-à]
DEF-parent-pl
GEN-3fsg
yagíu>O
arrive:3plFUT
‘She revealed to me when her parents would arrive.’
Historically, one might regard the interrogative complement clause as a semi-direct
speech clause: emór li: “matáy atà ba?” > emór li matáy atà ba > amárta li [matáy atà
ba] – Tell me: ‘when [do] you (2msg) come?’ > Tell me when you (2msg) come > You
(2msg) told me [when you (2msg) come]. Direct speech is commonly used in Israeli, for
example in informal speech or story-telling. Unlike English, the present tense in Israeli
direct speech does not become past in indirect speech, and there is no change of
constituent order. Thus, besides the distinct intonation, the only difference between an
interrogative complement clause and direct speech is the pronoun used. Juxtapose (25)
and (26):
(25) hu shaál
he ask:3msgPAST
ot-ì
ACC-1sg
<ma
anì
what I
rotsé>O
want:msgPRES
‘He asked me what I wanted.’
(26) hu shaál
ot-ì:
[ma
atà
rotsé
?]Direct Speech
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
he ask:3msgPAST
ACC-1sg:
you:2msg
what
18
want:msgPRES ?
‘He asked me “What do you want?”’
Although I have no doubt that European languages such as Yiddish (a primary
contributor to Israeli) are an important source for Israeli interrogative complement
clauses, such clauses seem to have pre-existed in Hebrew (the other primary contributor
to Israeli). Consider, for instance, the Biblical Hebrew sentence lo noda‘ [mi hikkáhu]
‘it be not known [who hath slain him]’ (Deuteronomy 21:1). Such multiple causation, or
multi-sourcedness, corresponds with the Congruence Principle, according to which if a
feature exists in more than one contributor – whether primary or secondary – it is more
likely to persist in the target language (see Zuckermann 2003; cf. ‘convergence’ in
Thomason and Kaufman 1988).
Interrogative + she- relative clause
Interrogative complement clauses should not be confused with relative clauses which
modify an interrogative functioning as an NP, as follows:
(27) dáni
Danny
makír
et
know:msgPRES
ACC
[[mi]NP
who
[she-higía
etmòl]REL]O
REL-arrive:3sgPAST
yesterday
‘Danny knows the one who arrived yesterday.’
(28) yósi
ve-rúti
mitkhartím
al [[ma]NP
Yossi and-Ruthie regret:mplPRES on
‘Yossi and Ruthie regret what they did.’
what
[she-hèm asú]REL]E
REL-they
do:3plPAST
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
(29) hu hitkavén
le-[[má]NP
he mean:3msgPAST
[she-hù
to-what
REL-he
19
amár]REL]E
say:3msgPAST
‘He meant what he said.’
(30) ahávti
<[[ekh]NP
like:1sgPAST
[she-hì
how
REL-she
hirtsetá]REL]O
lecture:3fsgPAST
‘I liked the way she lectured.’
4.4 ‘Infinitive’ complement clause
Complement clauses beginning with a tenseless verb, commonly referred to as
‘infinitive’ (see §2.2) are often potential (31), but they can also describe activity (32).
(31) [hem] {bikshú
mi-dáni
<li-knót
they ask:3plPAST from-Danny
mataná le-natalí>O}
INFIN-buy
present to-Natalie
‘They asked Danny to buy a present for Natalie.’
(32) od
still
lo
siámnu
<le-haavír
NEG
finish:1plPAST
INFIN-move
et
ha-khafats-ím>O
ACC
DEF-item-pl
‘We have not yet finished moving the items.’
‘Infinitive’ complement clauses can appear in the S slot, as follows (see also (48)):
(33) <le-hitahév>S
INFIN-fall.in.love
{ze
COP
‘To fall in love is important.’
khashúv}
important
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
20
The following verb types do not use the ‘infinitive’ complement clause: (a) ATTENTION;
(b) THINKING: supposition, credence, prediction; (c) LIKING: remorse; (d) SPEAKING:
proposition. All the others do – see Tables 1 and 2.
4.5 Im/Interrogative + ‘Infinitive’ complement clause
Im/interrogative + ‘infinitive’ complement clauses can follow almost all ATTENTION and
SPEAKING verbs,
as well as conception, memory, knowledge and prediction (THINKING)
verbs, but not LIKING verbs. Consider (34) and (35):
(34) [hi] {tagíd
she
l-i
say:3fsgFUT
<im li-fgósh
DAT-1sg
if
INFIN-meet
ot-à
be-[yóm khamishí]>O}
ACC-3fsg
in-day
fifth
‘She will tell me whether to meet her on Thursday.’
The ambiguity here – either ‘she will tell me on Thursday’ or ‘we shall meet on
Thursday’ – exists in Israeli too.
(35) [ha-moré
DEF-teacher
le-nehigá] {masbír
to-driving
<ekh
explain:msgPRES how
le-hatslíakh
ba-tést>O}
INFIN-succeed
in:DEF-test
‘The driving teacher explains how to succeed in the test.’
4.6 Reduced complement clause
In Israeli it is difficult to distinguish between a reduced complement clause and an NP
object followed by a participle acting as a modifier (either a relative clause or a deverbal
adjective).6 Consider (36):
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
(36) raíti
21
[kélev noshékh]O
see:1sgPAST
dog
bite:msgPRES
‘I saw a biting dog.’
OR ‘I saw a dog biting.’
(37) raíti
see:1sgPAST
et
<ha-kélev
ACC
DEF-dog
noshékh>O
bite:msgPRES
‘I saw the dog biting.’
In (37), there is a complement clause, although the object of ‘biting’, a transitive verb, is
not mentioned. Reduced complement clauses are in the present and it impossible to
change their tense. In (36) there are two possible readings: either a mere NP object (‘a
biting dog’) or a complement clause (‘a dog biting’). One of the criteria which can be
used to distinguish between the two readings is to check whether an object can be added
to the verb (or participle), in this case noshékh ‘biting’. This works in the case of
transitive verbs. If it is possible, then it is a complement clause.
(38) raíti
<kélev
see:1sgPAST
dog
noshékh
ot-à>O
bite:msgPRES
ACC-3fsg
‘I saw a dog biting her.’
Sentence (38) is based on (36) but whereas (36) is ambiguous, (38) is not. Similarly,
(39) is based on (37):
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
(39) raíti
see:1sgPAST
et
<ha-kélev
ACC
DEF-dog
noshékh
ot-à>O
bite:msgPRES
ACC-3fsg
22
‘I saw the dog biting her.’
The picture gets complex when considering (40):
(40) raíti
see:1sgPAST
et
ACC
[ha-kélev
DEF-dog
ha-noshékh]O
DEF-bite:msgPRES
‘I saw the biting dog.’
The modifier ha-noshékh ‘DEF-bite:msgPRES’ can be analysed either as a deverbal
adjective (with the ha appearing due to the required definiteness agreement between
nouns and adjectives) or as a reduced relative clause (with ha- as a ‘relativizer’, as
opposed to the unmarked she-). Supporting the relative clause analysis is the fact that it
is possible to add an object to the clause in (40). In that case, however, hanoshékh otá
‘that is biting her’ will have to be a relative clause modifying the dog – see (41).
However, here some native-speakers perceive a change of meaning.
(41) raíti
see:1sgPAST
et
ACC
[ha-kélev
DEF-dog
[ha-noshékh
ot-à]]O
REL-bite:msgPRES
ACC-3fsg
‘I saw the dog that is biting her.’
Although the noshékh ‘biting’ complement clauses involve a transitive verb, from (37)
one should conclude that whenever the noun is definite but the following participle/verb
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
23
is not, there is a complement clause. Consider (42), where noshévet ‘blowing’ is an
intransitive verb:
(42) shamáti
hear:1sgPAST
et
<ha-rúakh
noshév-et>O
DEF-wind:f
ACC
blowing-f
‘I heard the wind blowing.’
It is possible to raise the subject of the complement clause to the O slot within the main
clause, as follows:
(43) shamáti
hear:1sgPAST
ot-[à] i
<[Ø]i
ACC-3fsg
Ø
noshév-et>O
blowing-f
‘I heard it [the wind] blowing.’
Finally, compare (43) with (44), where the construct-state is an NP object, not a
complement clause. The head of the NP neshivá ‘blowing’ is a deverbal noun
(‘gerund’). (One might consider such nominalization a complementation strategy.)
(44) shamáti
hear:1sgPAST
et
ACC
[[neshivá-t
blowing-CONSTR
ha-rúakh]CONSTR]O
DEF-wind
‘I heard the blowing of the wind.’
5. Complement-taking verbs
Table 1 features the distribution of complement clauses among verb types outlined in
Chapter 1. The symbol ‘√’ means ‘possible’ whereas ‘~’ means ‘possible but unlikely’.
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
24
A blank means ‘does not occur’.
<place Table 1 about here>
There are verbs which always require a preposition following them, e.g. makhá ‘protest’
– see (19). Many others, however, may require a preposition to follow them only in
specific circumstances. Tables 1 and 2 mark whether a specific complement clause can
follow the verb regardless of whether or not the verb requires a preposition between the
verb and the complement clause. Note that no ‘infinitive’ complement clause follows a
preposition.
Some verbs, especially negative promise ones such as hizhír ‘warn’, require
irrealis semantics and can take the prescriptive complementizers pen, bal, levál and
shéma ‘lest’, resulting in a rare type of Israeli complementation, which cannot be the
target of passivization:
(45) hizhárti
warn:1sgPAST
ot-ò
ACC-3msg
<bal/levál/pen/shéma yedabér>E
lest
speak:3msgFUT
‘I warned him not to speak.’
Negation and modality are often interlinked in Israeli. Consider ma she-ló taasé, lit.
‘what REL-NEG do:2msgFUT’, i.e. ‘whatever you do’, as well as the following minimal
pair:
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
(46) hodíu
le-dalít <she-[[má]
notify:3pmPAST to-Dalit
COMP-what
[she-hì
REL-she
25
taasé]REL]S yaazór>O
do:3fsgFUT help:3msgFUT
‘Dalit has been notified that what she will do will help.’
(47) hodíu
notify:3pmPAST
le-dalít <she- má
she-hì
lo
taasé
to-Dalit
REL-she
NEG
do:3fsgFUT
yakhshílu
ot-à>O
fail:3plFUT
ACC-3fsg
COMP-
what
‘Dalit has been notified that no matter what she does, she will fail.’
6. Secondary concepts
Table 2 features the distribution of complement clauses among verb types denoting
secondary concepts outlined in Chapter 1. It is clear from the table that, by and large,
secondary verbs in Israeli do not take the ki ‘that’, im ‘if’, interrogative, or
interrogative+‘infinitive’ complement clause.
<place Table 2 about here>
As one can see in the ‘emotive’ section in Table 2, some Israeli adjectives can take a
complement clause as an argument – cf. the cases of Matses (Sentences (20) and (21) in
Chapter 10) and Goemai (Chapter 9; note, however, that Goemai ‘adjectives’ are
actually verbs coding property concepts). Consider (48), said to be the last words of
Yosef Trumpeldor, soldier and early pioneer-settler in Eretz Yisrael, spoken on 1 March
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
26
1920, when he was mortally wounded while defending Tel Hai, a settlement in the
Galilee:
(48) tov
good
<la-mút
INFIN-die
beád
arts-énu>S
for
land-1plPOSS
‘It is good to die for our country.’ (cf. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.)
7. Concluding remarks
Israeli has six main types of complement clause and does not require complementation
strategies. It can use direct speech (see §4.3.2) and nominalization (see end of §4.6).
Israeli complementizers (other than the archaic pen, bal, levál and shéma) all have some
other grammatical function. Thus, Israeli provides yet another illustration of the
statement that ‘the great majority of complementizers are homonymous with some other
grammatical form in that language’ (Dixon 1995: 184). One of the main difficulties is
how to distinguish between a reduced complement clause and an NP object with a
modifier. By and large, Israeli complementation types and their frequency correspond
with Yiddish and Standard Average European, although the forms used are Hebrew.
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
Ty
pe
Verb
A
T
T
E
N
T
I
O
N
raá
shamá
sam lev
heríakh
see
hear
notice
smell
perception
gilá
matsá
khasáf
badák
discover
find
uncover
check
discovery
khasháv
shakál
dimyén
khalám
think
consider
imagine
dream
conception
suppose
assume
presume
supposition
heníakh
shiér
T savár
H
I tahá
N
K zakhár
I shakhákh
N
G hevín
L
I
K
I
N
G
Translation
Semantic
Class
perception
perception
perception
discovery
discovery
conception
conception
conception
supposition
supposition
complement clause type
she- ki
supposition
remember
forget
memory
understand
knowledge
yadá
hikír
know
be familiar
with
knowledge
heemín
khashád
believe
suspect
credence
nikhésh
nibá
khazá
guess
predict
foresee
prediction
aháv
saná
heedíf
matsá khen
beenáv
hitkharét
pakhád
khashásh
nehená
love, like
hate
prefer
like
preference
regret
fear
be afraid
enjoy
memory
im
inter
infin
prediction
prediction
preference
preference
preference
remorse
fear
fear
joy
reduced
~
~
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
~
~
~
~
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
~
√
√
~
√
√
√
~
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
~
~
~
~
~
√
√
~
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
~
~
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
~
~
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
~
~
√
√
√
√
√
~
~
~
√
√
√
√
√
√
knowledge
credence
inter+infin
√
√
√
√
(high register)
wonder
27
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
Ty
pe
S
P
E
A
K
I
N
G
Verb
Translation
Semantic
Class
28
complement clause type
she- ki
im
inter
infin
√
√
inter+infin
reduced
√
√
√
√
~
~
~
~
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
~
~
~
~
~
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
~
~
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
~
~
~
√
√
√
~
~
~
√
√
√
~
requesting
√
~
√
√
requesting
√
~
√
√
requesting
√
~
√
√
amár
hodía
sipér
yidéa
say
notify
tell
inform
saying
teér
taán
hisbír
tsién
heelíl
describe
claim
explain
mention
allege
proposition
diveákh
perét
report
detail
report
hivtíakh
iyém
hizhír
promise
threaten
warn
promise
makhá al
hitlonén
kavál al
protest about
complain
complain
about (high
complaint
saying
saying
saying
proposition
proposition
proposition
proposition
report
promise
promise
complaint
complaint
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
register)
tsivá
horá
pakád
order
order
command
hiftsír (be) urge (in)
command
command
command
(high register)
bikésh (mi) request
(from)
darásh (mi) demand
(from)
shaál
ask
hokhíakh
liméd
lamád
herá (le)
shikhnéa
prove
teach
learn
show (to)
convince
asking
demonstration
demonstration
demonstration
demonstration
demonstration
√
√
√
√
√
~
~
~
~
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Table 1: Classification of Primary-B Verbs
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
Element
Translation
Type
tsaríkh
khová
yitakhén
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y
A
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y
B
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y
C
(lo)
batúakh
khavál
kedáy
Semantic
Class
complement clause type
she-
ki
im
inter infin inter+infin
modal
modal
modal
√
√
√
modal
√
not worth modal
-while
modal
worthwhile
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
should
must
might,
perhaps
(un)sure
reduced
√
√
kef
tov
atsúv
yafé
fun
good
sad
beautiful
emotive
emotive
emotive
emotive
hitkhíl
himshíkh
hifsík
siém
gamár
begin
continue
stop
finish
finish
beginning
beginning
beginning
beginning
beginning
nisá
hishtadél
try
try hard
trying
trying
√
√
√
√
ratsá
kivá
ikhél
hitkavén
tikhnén
hityamér
heemíd
paním
want
hope
wish
intend
plan
pretend
pretend
wanting
wanting
wanting
wanting
wanting
wanting
wanting
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
asá
garám (le-)
hekhríakh
hirshá (le-)
natán (le-)
azár (le-)
hitnadév
make
cause (DAT)
force
allow (DAT)
allow (DAT)
help (DAT)
making
making
making
making
making
making
making
volunteer
29
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Table 2: Classification of Verbs Denoting Secondary Concepts
√
√
√
√
√
√
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
30
References
Bendavid, A. 1967. leshón mikrá veleshón khakhamím (Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic
Hebrew), Vol. 1. Tel Aviv: Dvir.
Danon, G. 2002. ‘Case and Formal Definiteness: the Licensing of Definite and
Indefinite Noun Phrases in Hebrew’. Ph.D. Dissertation, Tel Aviv University.
Deutscher, G. 2000. Syntactic Change in Akkadian. The Evolution of Sentential
Complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
------. 1995. ‘Complement Clauses and Complementation Strategies’, pp. 175-220 of
Grammar and Meaning, edited by F. R. Palmer. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Haig, G. 2001. ‘Linguistic Diffusion in Present-Day East Anatolia: From Top to
Bottom’, pp. 195-24 of Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance. Problems in
Comparative Linguistics, edited by A. Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Horvath, J. and Wexler, P. 1997. Editors of Relexification in Creole and Non-Creole
Languages – With Special Attention to Haitian Creole, Modern Hebrew, Romani,
and Rumanian (Mediterranean Language and Culture Monograph Series, vol.
xiii). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Rothstein, S. 1995. ‘Small Clauses and Copular Constructions’, pp. 27-48 of Small
Clauses, edited by A. Cardinaletti and M. T. Guasti. New York: Academic Press.
Thomason, S. G. and Kaufman, T. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic
Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
31
Weingreen, J. 1959. A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. (2nd edition)
Zuckermann, G. 1999. Review Article of N. Sh. Doniach and A. Kahane (eds), The
Oxford English-Hebrew Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
International Journal of Lexicography 12: 325-46.
------. 2000. ‘Camouflaged Borrowing: “Folk-Etymological Nativization” in the Service
of Puristic Language Engineering’. D.Phil. Thesis, University of Oxford.
------. 2003. Language Contact and Lexical Enrichment in Israeli Hebrew. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
------. 2005. haivrít kemítos (Hebrew as Myth). Tel Aviv: Am Oved.
------. forthcoming. ‘Multiple Layering in Israeli’ in Grammars in Contact. A CrossLinguistic Perspective, edited by A. Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon.
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann – www.zuckermann.org
32
Footnotes
1
Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon read a draft of this chapter and
provided invaluable suggestions for improvement.
A note on the transcription: whereas á is primary stress, à is secondary stress. If a
stress is not mentioned in a bisyllabic word, it means that there are two possible
stresses.
2
Etymologically, shel ‘of’ (GEN) consists of the relativizer she- ‘that’ and the
(dative) preposition le ‘to’.
3
Note that unlike Hebrew, in Israeli many semantically imperative constructions
consist of morphologically future verbs.
4
Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, did not like the et particle and
would have liked to have replaced taví li et ha-séfer with taví li ha-séfer. (It has been
suggested that he was not keen on diplomatic relations with etyópya ‘Ethiopia’ for the
same reason.) However, such a puristic attitude is hardly ever seen these days and taví li
ha-séfer is non-native.
5
French que is traceable back to Proto-Indo-European *kwe, which is also the
origin of Modern Persian ke (cf. Haig 2001: 200), and which has been alleged to be
ultimately related to Hebrew kī. If this is the case, the phonetic similarity between
French que and Israeli ki cannot be put down to pure serendipity – cf. ‘incestuous
phono-semantic matching’ in Zuckermann (2003).
6
Cf. formal generative linguists’ ‘complement small clause’ and infinitival ECM
(Exceptional Case Marker), e.g. Rothstein (1995).