Patterns and Meaning: The Role of Syntax in the Significance of a Hebrew Verb
Janet Dyk
Werkgroep Informatica
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Abstract
Biblical Studies and digital databases – What is the ideal relationship between the two? What constraints
does the one put upon the other? What elements from the one science can be formulated in terms of the
other science in order to create a fruitful interaction between them? How does one best account for human
decisions taken in creating a database? In pursuit of answers to these questions, examples will be taken
from the field of verbal valence research in which I am presently involved.
Introduction
Inspired by the work of James Barr, Eep Talstra saw the need of taking language data seriously when
interpreting a Biblical text. The emerging science of computing provided an instrument for collecting
and analyzing large amounts of language data. Talstra envisioned implementing the computer to
search for examples which would provide the basis for clear choice of interpretation for a particular
text. But for what does one search in order to achieve insights into the significance of a text? Separate
words or phrases? Surface text or underlying paradigmatic information? Particular combinations
within a construction? Any aspect to be searched for must be isolatable in order to be retrievable from
the database. With the choice for a database of the language data, the science of linguistics provided a
key to isolating and encoding the smallest elements bearing significance. From the beginning, it was
Talstra’s intention to set up the database in such a way that it was exploitable for different research
goals and accessible from divergent theoretical platforms.
Starting from the isolated morphemes, programs were constructed which recognized patterns of
morphemes as words, patterns of words as phrases, patterns of phrases as clauses, patterns of clauses
as sentences, and patterns of sentences as text hierarchy. Each level has its own system of organizing
the information at that level; different characteristics of language play a role at the various levels.
Each new research goal with which the database is approached gathers its data by raking through
the material from a new perspective. More refined demands for consistency emerge in aspects or at
levels which had not been in focus before. Emerging insights demand that the database be enriched
with new categories in order to be able to exploit its potential for further research goals and in order to
be able to interact with other approaches and theories.
The research project in which I am currently involved is entitled ‘Bridging the Gap between Data
and Tradition’, funded by the Netherlands Scientific Organization (NWO). In this four-year project
which began in August 2010, Reinoud Oosting, Oliver Glanz, and I analyze the patterns of elements
occurring around a verb in the Classical Hebrew. Different combinations of elements occurring with
the same verb result in different meanings, which are not always or not sufficiently recognized in
translations and interpretations of the texts. In this research the formal patterns of language yield a
concrete basis for certain aspects of the interpretation or translation of a construction. In the end, the
database is to be enriched with the results of this valence research.
Valence
So what is valence? In the majority of languages a verb is necessary as the core of the most frequent
type of sentence structure. Not only do various types of verbs reveal their differences by means of the
patterns in which they occur, for example, transitive verbs versus verbs of movement, but a single verb
may occur in a variety of syntactic patterns which influence the particular meaning in a given instance.
Lexica often provide a broad range of meanings for a single verb, but it is not always clear under
which conditions a specific significance is to be preferred. Exegetes and translators sometimes take the
liberty of choosing rather freely from the available dictionary glosses without realizing that it could be
that specific elements in the context pose restrictions on the choice of rendering.
1
The French linguist Lucien Tesnière (1893–1954) introduced the term ‘valence’ into linguistics. He
borrowed the term from chemistry where it is a measure of the number of bonds formed by an atom of
a given element. For most elements in chemistry the number of bonds can vary. The number of bonds
and the elements bonded with result in different compound elements, for example, the element oxygen
in H2O and CO2.
With regard to language, the term ‘valence’ is used to refer to various types of relations, such as:
 lexical valence—‘lexical items that communicate a negative or positive attitude’,1 such as
‘ensure’, with a positive ring to it, and ‘conspire’, with negative connotations
 semantic valence—the thematic relations within a sentence, that is, the role that a phrase has
in the action or state presented by the verb. For example, the agent, who performs an action of
the verb, and the patient, who undergoes the action. These thematic roles are sometimes also
called ‘participant role’, ‘semantic role’, or ‘deep case relations’
 syntactic valence—the number and kind of arguments controlled by a verbal predicate
Our research is concentrated on the latter type, that is, on syntactic valence.
Valence is thus the ability of a verb to occur in specific patterns of other sentence constituents.2
How important a verb is within a sentence can be seen in the fact that the chosen verb determines the
basic structure of the sentence involved, not so much in the order of elements as in the number and
nature of elements occurring in that sentence. How much of this can be captured in a database and
what would be the best way to encode such information?
The other elements in a sentence indicate the participants filling a role in the action of the verb as
well as providing information on diverse aspects of the situation in which the action takes place, such
as location, time, manner, and other accompanying circumstances.3
Theoretical Questions
There are various types of syntactic valence said to be characteristic of a certain verb, ranging from
impersonal or avalent—a verb without arguments, such as ‘it rains’ (although technically ‘it’ is the
grammatical subject of this verb, it is only a dummy subject, that is a syntactic placeholder without a
concrete referent; no other subject may replace it; in many languages, there would be no subject at
all)—to multivalent, such as the English verb ‘bet’ with four arguments in: ‘the fool bet him five quid
on “The Daily Arabian” to win’, where ‘the fool’, ‘him’, ‘five quid’, and ‘The Daily Arabian’ are all
arguments of the verb ‘bet’.
Each verb requires a certain number and type of arguments to be grammatically correct. This
means that theoretically one must discover which valence a specific verb has. At the same time it is
true that a verb can occur with different valence patterns. In order to preserve the theory that a verb
has a particular inherent valence, the terms ‘valence reduction’ or ‘valence expansion’ are used. An
example is the verb ‘eat’, which by nature is said to be transitive, as in ‘he eats an apple’. However
this can be reduced to a monovalent construction, ‘he eats’, without becoming ungrammatical. On the
other hand, monovalent verbs, such as ‘sleep’, which commonly occur without a direct object, can
occur with the direct object, such as in the sentence, ‘she sleeps the sleep of the innocent’. This is then
called ‘valence expansion’.
We are thus saddled with a theoretical problem: on what basis can you determine that a verb is
monovalent and has undergone expansion when it occurs with a direct object instead of calling the
verb divalent or transitive? Or, that it is divalent or transitive by nature and undergoes ‘valence
reduction’ when it occurs without a direct object? Is that which occurs the most frequently—that is,
statistics—determinate? What happens then when the language shifts in its preference and the
statistics change?
Besides this, a verb together with a specific element does not necessarily mean the same as when
that verb occurs without that element, for example, the verb ‘eat’ does not mean the same in the two
sentences ‘he eats an apple’ and ‘he eats’. The latter is about the act of eating in general, while the
former is about eating something specific.
1
2
3
Livia Polanyi and Annie Zaenen, ‘Contextual Valence Shifters’, p. 1.
D.J. Allerton, Valency and the English Verb, London: Academic Press, 1982, 1, 2.
Allerton 1982, 57, 58.
2
When registering which elements occur with a verb, distinction is made between required elements,
which are called ‘complements’, and optional elements, which are called ‘adjuncts’. It is not a simple
matter to define the distinction between those elaborators required by the verb to accompany it, and
those elements occurring freely in any sentence. Tests designed to distinguish the two on the basis of
semantic, morpho-syntactic or functional criteria have proven to be less than water tight.4 There seem
to be ‘no formal or operational criteria for the distinction’ and no types of constituents that are by
nature a complement or an adjunct.5 For example, a phrase indicating location is sometimes merely
extra information, but with verbs of movement these locative phrases, telling where to or where from
the movement takes place, consistently form a part of the pattern occurring with such verbs.
Furthermore, in running texts, elements which are commonly viewed as obligatory for a particular
verb could be omitted because the information is present in the context. Even when elements can be
omitted without creating ungrammaticality, the meaning of the sentence may be altered by the
presence or absence of this optional element, that is, it is not the case that the sentence with the extra
element entails the sentence without it.6
Compare the meaning of ‘go’ in the sentences ‘I’m going to the city’, meaning that I will move in
the direction of the city, ‘I’m going to cook’, meaning I am undertaking the activity of cooking, and
‘I’m going’, meaning I am leaving at this minute, or, alternatively, that I—and not someone else—am
the one who is departing.
As interesting as the question concerning the theoretical valence of a particular verb may be, before
we can develop a theory as to the inherent valence of a verb, we need to focus on the various meanings
a verb can have in the diverse syntactic combinations in which it occurs.
Practical Approach
Since there are no formal or operational criteria for distinguishing the various elaborators in the
sentence, I follow the following steps:
1. collect all occurrences of a verb with the complete patterns of elements as they occur in the
data;
2. sort these by pattern;
3. analyze the differences between the various patterns, observing what relation the separate
sentence constituents have to the verb involved.
Although a verb can have different meanings, most often the meaning is coupled to the specific pattern
in which in occurs in a particular case. In this way, the multiple meanings to be found in a dictionary
entry turn out not to be available as translation or interpretation at all times and in all cases. In this we
see that syntax and semantics are intimately related, for the meaning of a structure is portrayed
through, expressed in and carried by the pattern in which it occurs.7 At times it is the syntactic pattern
which determines the difference and sometimes it is the lexical characteristics of an item occurring
with the verb which influences the significance.
In relation to what we make retrievable in the database: which information is formal, ‘hard’ data
and how much is interpretation on the part of the researcher? Which data comes from the syntax and
which from the lexicon? Is it possible to capture those elements which determine the differences
between verbal valence patterns in a single series of decisions? When there are various elements
governed by the verb, at which point is the significance of the pattern established? What is the
hierarchy between the various elements which affect the meaning?
Reinoud Oosting, Oliver Glanz and I began this project by tackling the verbs with the most
complex valence patterns, particularly those occurring with double objects. The idea was that if we
could account for the worst cases, the others would fall into place. We are not far enough to be sure
our assumption will hold up, but the results are encouraging thus far.
See H. Vater, ‘Distinguishing between Complements and Adjuncts', in: W. Abraham (ed.): Semantic Case and
Grammatical Relations (= Studies in Language Companion Series I) (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1978), 21-45.
5
Cf. Vater 1978: 39.
6
Cf. H. Günter, ‘Valence in Categorial Syntax', in: W. Abraham (ed.): Semantic Case and Grammatical Relations
(= Studies in Language Companion Series I) (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1978), 131.
7
On the ‘Projection Principle’, see L. Haegeman, Introduction to Government & Binding Theory (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1991), 47, 59, 63.
4
3
With the verb ‫שים‬, ‘set, place’, as a case study, I try first to relate the range of meanings for this
verb found in dictionaries to elements present in the construction.
Range of Meanings for ‫שים‬
The dictionary entries include the following meanings for this verb: ‘put’, ‘set’, ‘pay attention to’,
‘intend’, ‘establish’, ‘ordain’, ‘appoint’, ‘constitute’, ‘make’, ‘determine’, ‘fix’, ‘station’, ‘transform
into’, ‘constitute’, ‘fashion’, ‘prepare’, ‘work’, ‘bring to pass’, and so forth.
How exact are the limitations from the context on which meaning should be selected? Which
elements in the context are important in this? Are there general principles which apply to a wide range
of verbs? What can be formally registered in and retrieved from the database?
Syntactic Patterns with ‫שים‬
The verb ‫ שים‬provides interesting examples because of the different patterns in which it can occur. The
chief elements with which verb ‫ שים‬occurs include:
 direct object
 location
 benefactive (or malefactive) where the referent is affected positively (or negatively) by the
situation expressed by the clause
The most frequently occurring pattern is with a single object and a location; the verb then means
‘place something somewhere’, for example:
Ex 2:3
‫ותשם בה את־הילד‬
‘she (Moses’ mother) placed the child in it (the ark) (NAB8)’
However, this verb can occur with more than one object, and this affects the meaning. When occurring
with two (or sometimes even more) direct objects—also called a ‘double-object’ construction—the
verb takes on the meaning of ‘make something into something else’, for example:
1 Sam 8:1
‫‘ וישם את־כניו שפטים לישראל‬he made his sons judges over Israel’ (BBE)
When a single object is present but a locative is lacking, the verb means: ‘prepare, put in place,
institute, appoint’:
1 Kgs 2:19 ‫וישם כסא לאם המלך‬
Ex 4:11
‫מי שם פה לאדם‬
‘and he had a throne placed for the queen mother’ (TNK)
‘Who appointed a mouth for man?’ (YLT)
When the verb occurs without an object, not even an object to be inferred from the direct context, it
has a more intransitive meaning: ‘make preparations, put in place’, though these expressions in
English contain a direct object.
8
The abbreviations for the Bible translations are taken from Bible Works: AFR (Afrikaans Bible 1953), ASV
(American Standard Version), A83 (Afrikaans), BBE (Bible in Basic English), CAB (Castillian Bible Version),
CJB (Complete Jewish Bible), CSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible), DBY (Darby Bible), ERV (English
Revised Version), ESV (English Standard Version), GNV (Geneva Bible), GWN (God’s Word to the Nations),
LBA (La Bíblia de las Americas), LEI (Leidse Vertaling), LUV (Lutherse Vertaling), NAB (New American
Bible), NAS (New American Standard), NBG (Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap 1951), NBH (Nueva Biblia de los
Hispanos), NBV (Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling 2004), NET (New English Translation), NIB (New International
Bible), NIRV (New International Reader’s Version), NJB (New Jerusalem Bible), NLT (New Living
Translation), NVI (La Nueva Versión International), RVA (Reina Valera Actualizado 1989), RVG (Reina Valera
Gomez), R60 (Reina Valera Revised 1960), R95 (Reina Valera Update 1995), SRV (Reina Valera 1909), SVV
(Statenvertaling 1637), TNK (JPS Tanakh), WEB (The Webster Bible), W78 (Willibrord Vertaling 1978), W95
(Willibrord Vertaling 1995), YLT (Young’s Literal Translation).
4
1Kgs 20:12 ‫‘ ויאמר אל־עבדיו שימו וישמו על־העיר‬Set yourselves. And they set themselves against the
city’ (DBY)
After sorting through much data, a series of yes–no questions to be answered concerning the context
of a verb emerged. About the same time that these questions were becoming clear to me, my
colleague, Reinoud Oosting, commented that two elements present in a construction are sufficient to
determine the meaning of the verb in that instance. As it turned out, the series of the questions I had
formulated reflects this insight, as well as presenting a hierarchy for ranking the importance of an
element in determining the significance of the construction: after two elements have been registered,
other elements no longer change the significance of the verb, even when those elements stall can be
counted as complements of the verb.
The following elements seem to be determinative for ‫שים‬:
 the presence of the object: no object, single object, multiple objects – each results in a different
significance
 the presence of a location: no locative, a single locative, multiple locatives
All other elements, including the benefactive do not further affect the basic meaning determined by the
above elements. To reflect these insights in the database, the direct objects, locatives and benefactives
occurring with this verb need to be distinguished and retrievable. Once the patterns have been
recognized—initially this will be more or less tagging on the part of the researcher—programs can be
developed to ensure consistency in the treatment of other cases.
In what follows, I will use the renderings in Bible translations to focus on two aspects:
 cases where the number of direct objects occurring with the verb yield distinctive meanings
 cases where a particular element has a specific function in relation to the verb
Examples where a Verb occurs with Different Numbers of Direct Objects
Although the pattern with a single object and a location is readily translated correctly, both the double
object pattern and the pattern without a locative give rise to more variety in the renderings.
One of my favorite examples – and I apologize to those who have heard this one before – can be
found in 1 Kgs 5:23 [9]. I am fond of this example because it was one of the first examples which
alerted me to the role of verbal valence in determining significance and because it illustrates so
practically how exact a valence pattern can express a actual situation. In the story about the building of
the temple, King Hiram of Tyre gave Solomon cedars, and said, using the verb ‫שים‬, ‘set, place’:
1 Kgs 5:23 [9] ‫אני אשימם דברות בים עד־מקום‬
KJV
NIV
NBG
SVV
R60, 95
RVA
‘and I will convey them by sea in floats unto the place’
‘I will float them in rafts by sea to the place’
‘ik zal het in de zee aan vlotten leggen tot aan de plaats’
‘ik zal het op vlotten over de zee doen voeren, tot die plaats’
‘y la enviaré en balsas por mar hasta el lugar’
‘y yo las transportaré en balsas por mar hasta el lugar’
In this construction there are two direct objects: ‘them’ (the cedars) and ‘rafts’. Many translations take
the most common meaning of the verb and translate the second direct object as though it indicated
where the cedars were to be placed. However, the syntactic pattern with a double object means ‘make
something into something else’. And that is exactly what you do with large trees: you make them into
rafts, you do not put them upon rafts. It is encouraging to see that there are some translations which
indeed do reflect the double object pattern correctly:
NIRV
NLT
NRSV
NBV
CAB
‘I’ll make them into rafts. I’ll float them to the place’
‘... and build them into rafts. We will float them along the coast to...’
‘I will make it into rafts to go by sea to the place...’
‘Ik zal er vlotten van laten maken om ze over de zee te vervoeren’
‘con ellas yo hare balsas que vayan por mar hasta el lugar’ (also LBA, NBH)
5
It is noteworthy that two locative expressions also occur in this example: ‘by the sea’ and ‘unto the
place ...’. Their presence shows the potential of the Hebrew verb to stack valence patterns, something
which often requires separate clauses in the translation, as is reflected in the translations. However,
once the significance has been determined by the double object, the locative no longer makes the
meaning revert to the meaning present with a single object and a location: ‘set something somewhere’,
though this significance can be added to the whole, sometimes requiring a separate verb in translation.
The second object can be introduced by a preposition with the constraint that the first object and
the second object together form a ‘small clause’, that is, the prepositional phrase cannot introduce a
location or the benefactive of the verb.
Ps 79:1 ‫שמו את־ירושלם לעיים‬
‘They made Jerusalem become heaps’ (YLT)
A few translations appear to revert to the meaning ‘place, put’, making the second object the location
where Jerusalem is placed, instead of the significance the verb has in a double-object construction:
KJV ‘they have laid Jerusalem on heaps’
The double-object construction appears to have been missed by most translations in the potentially
sexually loaded text:
Song of Songs 6:12
lit:
‫נפשי שמתני מרכבות עמי־נדיב‬
‘my soul made me [to be] the chariots of a willing / noble / incited people’
A few recognize the significance of the double-object construction, some adding ‘like’ to smooth out
the translation. These all transcribe ‘Amminadib’ as a name, which leaves the text more obscure in its
connotation:
KJV
WEB
YLT
SRV
‘my soul made me like the chariots of Amminadib’
‘my soul made me {like} the chariots of Amminadib’
‘my soul, It made me – chariots of my people Nadib’
‘hame mi alma hecho Como los carros de Amminadab’
Most translations, however, resort to the common ‘place something somewhere’ significance, in which
case the sexual overtones are gone and ‘Amminadab’ is translated:9
AFR ‘my verlange my verplaas op die waens van my edele volk.
DBY ‘My soul set me upon the chariots of my willing people’
NBH ‘mi alma me colocó Sobre los carros de mi noble pueblo’
Examples where a Particular Element has a Specific Function in Relation to a Verb
From the patterns occurring with ‫שים‬, it becomes clear that the preposition ‫ל‬, ‘to, for’ indicates the
person or thing for whom or for which the action takes place. A phrase beginning with ‫ ל‬can indicate
where something is placed only when occurring in combination with ‫עיני‬, ‘eyes’, or ‫פני‬, ‘face’, or ‫נגד‬,
‘opposite, over against‘. Without one of these additional elements, the phrase beginning with ‫ ל‬refers
to the one affected by the action. In most of the following examples no locative is mentioned, resulting
in the meaning ‘appoint’, though the many of the translations render ‘give’:
Ex 4:11
NET
YLT
‫מי שם פה לאדם‬
‘Who gave a mouth to man?’
‘Who hath appointed a mouth for man?’
9
Likewise, Dutch: LEI, NBG, NBV, SVV; English: NIB, NIRV, TNIV, TNK; Spanish: CAB, NVI, R60, R95,
RVA, RVG.
6
Ex 15:25
AFR
NJB
TNIV
‫שם שם לו חק ומשפט‬
‘Daar het Hy vir hulle ’n insetting en verordening vasgestel’
‘There he laid down a statute and law for them’
‘There the LORD issued a ruling and instruction for them’
Ex 21:13
BBE
ESV
SRV
‫ושמתי לך מקום אשר ינוס שמה‬
‘I will give you a place to which he may go in flight.’
‘I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee.’
‘yo te señalaré lugar al cual ha de huir’
Num 6:26
TNK
YLT
NVI
R60
placed)
‫וישם לך שלום‬
‘and grant you peace!’
‘and appoint for thee – peace’
‘y te conceda la paz.’
‘y ponga en ti paz’ (translating as though the ‫ ל‬phrase indicates where the peace is to be
Ps 19:5
NAS
NET
‫לשמש שם אהל בהם‬
‘In them He has placed a tent for the sun’
‘In the sky he has pitched a tent for the sun.’
In an example already mentioned, most translations render the ‫ ל‬phrase as though it were related to the
judges, thus rendering often with ‘over Israel’, taking the phrase to be a specification of ‘judges’:
1 Sam 8:1 ‫( וישם את־כניו שפטים לישראל‬TNIV)
BBE
‘he made his sons judges over Israel’(similarly, DBY, KJV, YLT)
NAB
‘Samuel appointed his sons judges over Israel’ (similarly, NIB, NIRV, TNK)
TNIV ‘he appointed his sons as Israel’s leaders’
LEI
‘[hij] stelde hij zijn zonen tot rechters over Israel aan’ (similarly, NBG, SVV)
NBV
‘[hij] benoemde hij zijn zonen tot rechters over Israël’
R60
‘puso a sus hijos por jueces sobre Israel’(similarly, R95, RVG. SRV)
RVA
‘puso a sus hijos como jueces de Israel
However, another possibility is that with this verb, the phrase indicates for whose benefit the judges
were instituted: ‘for Israel’. Here the researcher makes a decision whether to follow the majority of
interpretations and relate the ‫ ל‬phrase to ‘judges’, or follow roles of this phrase with the syntactic
pattern occurring with this verb.
The consistency of this significance should be maintained in texts where the text is enigmatic, as
in:
Gen 4:15
‫ישם יהוה לקין אות‬
The vast majority of the translations render the ‫ ל‬as though it indicates the place where the sign was
set:
BBE
KJV
‘And the Lord put a mark on Cain’ (similarly, NET, NRSV, NIV, NLT)
‘And the Lord set a mark upon Cain’
For such a translation, a different Hebrew preposition is necessary, namely, ‫על‬, ‘upon’. Most Spanish
translations render the phrase with ‘sobre’ (‘upon’) or ‘en’ (‘in’), thus indicating the place where the
sign was set.
Sometimes the translations seem to admit that they are uneasy with the construction and therefore
render the Hebrew idiom quite literally word for word, which results in an non-idiomatic expression in
the target language which is not readily understood, such as:
SVV
YLT
‘En de HEERE stelde een teken aan Kaïn’
‘and Jehovah setteth to Cain a token’
7
‘Entonces el SEÑOR le puso una marca a Caín’
NVI
The pattern occurring here is most consistently rendered as ‘he instituted a sign for Cain’, as indeed a
few translations do:
‘And Jehovah appointed a sign for Cain’
‘And the LORD appointed a sign for Cain’
‘And the LORD appointed a sign for Cain’
ASV
ERV
NAS
Exactly what the sign was in not clear, but neither is that clear when we translate that a sign was put
upon Cain. Whatever it was, the valence pattern indicates that the sign was instituted for Cain or on
Cain’s behalf, not that a sign or mark was put upon him.
Formal Patterns and Researcher’s Input
We have already seen that the relation of a sentence constituent to the verb can be interpreted in
various ways and that this makes a difference in the interpretation of the text. There are several points
where the input of the researcher is determinate for the analysis, in particular in the choice of parsing
of an element which assigns its relation to the verb, and in the assumption of the presence of an
element not explicit in the text, thus making explicit that which is assumed to be implicit information
in the text.
With the verb ‫ שים‬the input of the researcher is particularly noticeable in regard to the phrase
introduced by ‫ל‬, since with this verb the ‫ ל‬phrase can introduce three different elements: the location
something is placed (though only in combination with certain other elements), the one affected by the
action (benefactive), and the second object.
Ps 85:14
‫וישם לדרך פעמיו‬
Disregarding for the moment the renderings of the verb itself, we note that there are translations with
the ‫ ל‬phrase as locative, some adding an extra object (‘ze’; ‘us’; ‘nos’), some also taking the two
phrases following the verb to be a single one:
AFR
NBG
SVV
DBY
KJV
NBH
R95
RVG
R60
‘en dit let op die weg van sy voetstappe’ (simiarly, LEI)
‘en zijn schreden richten op de weg’
‘en Hij zal ze zetten op den weg Zijner voetstappen ’
‘and shall set his footsteps on the way’
‘and shall set us in the way of his steps’ (similarly, WEB)
‘Y pondrá por camino Sus pasos’
‘y sus pasos nos pondrá por camino’
‘y nos pondrá en el camino de sus pasos’
‘Y sus pasos nos pondrá por camino’
Some translations take the ‫ ל‬phrase as the benefactive; however, it is noteworthy that all of these
switch the content of the unmarked noun phrase and the ‫ ל‬phrase, rendering as though the ‫ ל‬were
attached to ‘his steps’ instead of to ‘a way’:
A83 ‘en ’n pad maak vir sy koms’
BBE ‘making a way for his footsteps’
NET ‘and prepares a pathway for him’ (with added benefactive ‘him’; rest reduced to direct object)
NIB ‘and prepares the way for his steps’ (similarly, TNIV)
NIRV ‘It prepares the way for his coming’
NVI ‘y le preparará el camino’ (benefactive ‘le’ added; rest reduced to direct object)
A few translations with the ‫ ל‬phrase as second object:
8
YLT ‘And maketh His footsteps for a way!’
RVA ‘y hará de sus pasos un camino’
This final possibility, which is represented by a minority among the translations, would appear to
reflect the patterns of this verb most consistently.
In corpora in many languages, elements which are present in the context may be taken to be
understood and therefore be skipped within a particular clause. In the following case the presence of
the object ‘stone’ can be assumed from the context. I propose that this assumption be annotated in the
database, so that the valence pattern of the verb is clear. However, the exegete or researcher is required
to make an additional interpretation of an element to determine what the sense of the verse is.
Gen 28:11 ‫וישם מראשתיו‬
If ‫ מראשתיו‬is taken as a location, then the translation would be: ‘he placed (the stone) at his head
end’;10 if, however, ‫ מראשתיו‬is a NP object, then the translation should be: ‘he made (the stone) his
pillow’.11 Two constructions in the context provide comparable material:
Gen 28:18 ‫ויקח את־האבן אשר־שם מראשתיו וישם אתה מצבה‬
‘and he took the stone, which he had made his pillow / placed at his head end, and made
it a pillar’
Gen 28:22 ‫והאבן הזאת אשר־שמתי מצבה יהיה בית אלהים‬
‘and this stone, which I have made a pillar, shall be the house of God’
In the second part of both verses, few would question that the stone is ‘made to be’ the pillar, due to
the fact that the ‫ מצבה‬is not readily taken to be a location. In spite of this contextual information, it
remains a question of interpretation whether ‫ מראשתיו‬is to be taken as a location, yielding the rendering
‘place at’, or as the second object, yielding the rendering ‘made into’. The parsing labels should make
clear which decision the researcher has taken so that those consulting the database are alerted to the
possibilities of an alternative. In this way the database is kept open for different research goals and
approached from divergent theoretical platforms.
Hierarchy in Role of Sentence Constituents for ‫שים‬
The verb we are looking at occurs with different constellations of elements which result in distinct
renderings. What happens when the elements of more than one pattern occur within a single text? An
example can be found in:
2 Kgs 10:8 ‫שימו אתם שני צברים פתח השער עד־חבקר‬
Here there are two objects (‘them’; ‘two heaps’) and a location (‘opening of the gate’). If the doubleobject construction is determinate, the rendering would be ‘make them into two piles’ and the location
would be secondary; if the location is determinate, then the rendering would be ‘place them at the
gate’ and the information over the two piles would be secondary. The difference in this case would
appear to be small, but in some texts it is more essential, as with the large trees being made into floats.
From the examples studied, the following questions need to be answered in the appropriate order in
order to capture the significance of in a construction:
 does the verb have an object?12
 if so, does it have another object?  results in meanings: ‘make X [to be] Y’
 if a single object, is there a locative?  results in meaning: ‘place something somewhere’
10
See LEI, NBG, NBV, BBE, ESV, NAB, R60.
See SVV, KJV, CAB, R95, RVA.
12
Often in translations, the rendering will choose a verb, not so much because it is the usual equivalent for the
verb in the source language, but because in the target language the verb matches the object present.
11
9
 if a single object and no locative ‘prepare something, put something in place, institute
something’
 if no object, with or without locative  ‘prepare, make ready, put in place’ (intransitive)
Hierarchy between Direct Objects in Multiple Object Constructions for ‫שים‬
Due to time limitations, I will only mention the following without the documentation. When multiple
objects occur in a clause, the primary object is made into the secondary one, as in ‘make the cedars
into floats’; ‘make his sons judges’. We have found the following hierarchy to be valid between the
objects:
 suffix > ‫( את‬object marker) phrase > noun phrase > prepositional phrase
 when the object phrases have the same form, the order in which they occur is determinative:
first comes first
A Flow Chart for Hebrew Verbs
From the analysis of various verbal patterns it has become clear which items influence the significance
of a form. This information can be brought together in a flow chart where the pertinent questions are
asked to guide one to the appropriate significance.
The chart here presented is filled in for the verb we have focused on, but it appears that it will be
possible to deduce a flow chart which will be able to process any verb. The various paths a verb takes
through the flow chart reveals its own distinctive potential of combining with its environment. Such a
schema of pertinent decisions can be applied to ensure consistency in the treatment of data, to track
down sources of differences in interpretation and translation, to gain insight into the valence of a verb,
and to enhance the knowledge of the nature of the Hebrew language.
[FLOW CHART ‫]שים‬
Summary
Translators and exegetes when not recognizing the peculiarities of the construction before them tend to
resort to the most common meaning of the verb before them and try to make sense of the passage by
making explicit information assumed to be implicit in the text or by making other slight adjustments.
A few translations stick rigidly to the form of the source text, but in doing so produce a rendering
which does not make much sense in the target language. Yet there are often translations to be found
that followed the specific pattern of elements occurring with the verb in question. In creating a reliable
database it is essential that the choices made by the researcher be annotated, both as to the relation of
an element to the verb (required for its rendering or extra information) and as to the assumption of
information present elsewhere in the context. This allows other researchers to be more alert to whether
they would like to make a different choice at that point.
There are relatively few elements which are determinative in the significance of a verb. These have
been made explicit in a flow chart of yes–no questions for separate verbs; but these can be brought
together into a single Flow Chart for Hebrew Verbs. The most determinative element for the
significance of a verb is the direct object. It is not unusual for translations to search for an appropriate
verb to match the direct object present, even if that verb is not a usual rendering of the Hebrew verb
used.
There remains yet much to be discovered, sometimes small details, sometimes radically different
translations with far-reaching theological consequences. In spite of all the monkish effort, the insights
gained from time to time make this endeavor most rewarding.
10