Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2025 / The Predicative Infinitive Construct in Phoenician and Punic

The Predicative Infinitive Construct in Phoenician and Punic

Summary

The paper studies a Phoenician, Punic and Neo-Punic verbal pattern: the infinitive construct introduced by the preposition l- ("to"), abbreviated l-+IC, used as an independent predicate rather than as a complement of a finite verb. Earlier scholarship, chiefly Krahmalkov (1987), focused on its future reading. Many independent cases were also forced into dependence on a nearby verb, often unconvincingly. The authors collect the predicative instances from a defined inscriptional corpus and sort them by modal function. The corpus spans the earliest dialect (Byblos) through Neo-Punic, from the homeland to the Mediterranean settlements. They propose two successive grammaticalization steps. First, l- fuses with the infinitive and becomes an almost mandatory marker. Second, the fused unit detaches from its governing verb and becomes predicative. Both the deontic readings (wish, command, imperative, prohibition) and the epistemic future reading are traced back to the original direction/purpose meaning of l-. Finally, the authors explain the matching predicative use found in Qumran Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew as the result of contact with Phoenician. The authors take this as evidence of how deeply the construction was rooted in Phoenician.

Key points

  • The study is limited to l-+IC, not bare infinitives, because the authors treat it as a grammaticalized unit whose meaning cannot be read off its parts. Krahmalkov (2001) lists 38 IC occurrences, 33 of which carry l-.
  • Two of Lehmann's grammaticality parameters support the fusion of l-: shrinking paradigmatic choice (other prepositions are crowded out) and semantic bleaching (l- merely flags the infinitive).
  • An ambiguous bridging stage is illustrated by a 4th-century BCE inscription from Kition, Cyprus (KAI 288). A loosening of the link to the main verb is shown by a Carthage Tophet text (KAI 302, c. 406–405 BCE).
  • The modal functions are classified as deontic (wish, command, imperative, prohibition) and epistemic (future). The construction is attested in every period and region where Phoenician was spoken.
  • In LBH and QH the borrowed construction overlapped functionally with yiqtol and wəqatal. Through that paradigmatic link it later spread to a habitual sense, which the authors see as a secondary Hebrew extension. The proposed contact setting is the Persian-period southern Levant.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. A change of analysis is only taken as proven when the form appears where the old reading is impossible (e.g., l-+IC with no verb to govern it), not in ambiguous contexts. — For Mova (learn): Self-induced repair rules could be accepted only after firing on "diagnostic" sentences where the competing parse is ruled out, serving as a built-in negative control.
  • I2. Ambiguity is treated as an expected transition stage with two legitimate readings, rather than noise to be resolved arbitrarily. — For Mova (tree): When witness parsers split on whether a to-infinitive attaches to a verb (xcomp/advcl) or stands loosely, the case could be kept as an explicit two-reading item rather than forced into one silver label.
  • I3. A frequent preposition+verb sequence is analysed as one fused construction with its own function, justified by measurable criteria (reduced alternatives, bleached meaning). — For Mova (tokens): Similar frequency-and-substitution tests could decide when English sequences like "to"+verb or "be to"+verb deserve a construction-level tag carrying a modal feature, instead of being read word by word.
  • I4. Each independent infinitive is labelled with a modal value (wish, command, prohibition, future) derived from one source meaning (direction/purpose). — For Mova (frames): English "be to"/bare-infinitive predicates such as "You are to leave" or headline "President to visit X" could map to deontic or future frames through a single purpose-based rule, which keeps the explanation traceable.
  • I5. A form that becomes interchangeable with existing forms in some contexts can inherit their remaining functions, explaining how the habitual sense emerged. — For Mova (world): When two constructions share slots in the event-time model, their shared functions could be stored as an explicit overlap table, so that a new reading such as habitual is justified by the paradigm rather than guessed.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

Fields: Linguistics & languages

Topics: Semitic languages

Cite

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.24425/for.2025.157010

@inproceedings{fofliger2025predicative,
  title = {{The Predicative Infinitive Construct in Phoenician and Punic}},
  author = {Fofliger, Ophir Carmel and Cohen, Ohad and Zewi, Tamar},
  booktitle = {Folia Orientalia 62},
  year = {2025},
  doi = {10.24425/for.2025.157010},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.24425/for.2025.157010}
}

References

52 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Ariel, Chanan. 2014. ‘Ha-maqor ha-naṭuy ha-mešameš ke-poʕal χ̲ ivuy bi-mgilot Qumran [The Predicative Usage of the Infinitive as Indicative Verb in the Dead Sea Scrolls]’. In Niṭʕe Ilan: Studies in Hebrew and Related Fields Presented to Ilan Eldar, edited by Moshe Bar-Asher and Irit Meir, 29–49. Jerusalem: Carmel. find
  2. Barré, Michael L. 1983. ‘An Unrecognized Precative Construction in Phoenician and Hebrew’. Biblica 64 (3): 411–422. find
  3. Cohen, Ohad. 2005. ‘Šimušim predicativiyim be-ṣurot ha-maqor ha-naṭuy לטקל ba-ʕivrit šel bayit šeni: bi-lšona šel megilat Ester u-vi-lšon megilot midbar Yehuda [Predicative Uses of the Infinitive Construct לטקל in the Hebrew of the Second Temple Period: The Language of Esther and the Dead Sea Scrolls]’. Meχ̲karim be-lašon [Language Studies] 10: 75–99. find
  4. Cohen, Ohad. 2013. The Verbal Tense System in Late Biblical Hebrew Prose. Harvard Semitic Studies 63. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. find
  5. Cohen, Ohad. 2020. ‘The Impact of Spoken Varieties on Literary Texts in Southern and Central Palestine during the Persian Period’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 46 (2): 1–20. find
  6. Cohen, Ohad. 2023. ‘Ha-rav lešoniyut ve-xur ha-hitux ke-xoχ̲ ot meʕaṣvim ba-ʕivrit ha-miqraʔit ha-meʔuχ̲ ret [The Significance of Multi-Lingualism and of the Canaanite Melting Pot on Shaping Late Biblical Hebrew]’. Balšanut ʕivrit [Hebrew Linguistics] 76: 105–134. find
  7. Cooke, George Albert. 1903. A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions: Moabite, Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, Nabataean, Palmyrene, Jewish. Oxford: Clarendon Press. find
  8. Cross, Frank Moore. 1979. ‘A Recently Published Phoenician Inscription of the Persian Period from Byblos’. Israel Exploration Journal 29 (1): 40–44. find
  9. Crystal, David. 2003. A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics. 5th ed. Oxford: Blackwell. find
  10. Davis, Nathan. 1863. Phoenician Inscriptions from Carthage. London: Printed by order of the Trustees. find
  11. Dillmann, August. 1881. Hr. Dillmann las: Über eine neuentdeckte punische Inschrift. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. find
  12. Donner, Herbert, and Wolfgang Röllig. 2002. Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften: Band I. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. find
  13. Donner, Herbert, and Wolfgang Röllig. 1968. Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften: Band II Kommentar. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. find
  14. Driver, S.R. 1892. A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. find
  15. Février, J.G. 1952. ‘L’inscription néopunique Cherchell I’. Revue de l’histoire des religions 141 (1): 19–25. find
  16. Fox, Andrew Jordon. 1984. The Evolution of the Hebrew Infinitive, Form and Function: a Diachronic Study with Cross-Linguistic Implications. Los Angeles: University of California, University Microfilms International. find
  17. Friedrich, Johannes, and Wolfgang Röllig. 1999. Phönizisch-Punische Grammatik. Edited by Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo with the collaboration of Werner R. Mayer. 3rd ed. Analecta Orientalia 55. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico. find
  18. Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. ‘From Purposive to Infinitive, a Universal Path of Grammaticalization’. Folia Linguistica Historica 23: 287–310. find
  19. Hawkins, John David. 2012. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions: Volume 1. Inscriptions of the Iron Age. Berlin: De Gruyter. find
  20. Hopper, Paul J. 1991. ‘On some Principles of Grammaticalization’. In Approaches to Grammaticalization: Volume 1. Theoretical and Methodological Issues, edited by Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine, 17–35. Typological Studies in Language 19,1. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. find
  21. Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  22. Huehnergard, John. 2019. ‘Proto-Semitic’. In The Semitic Languages: Second Edition, edited by John Huehnergard and Na‘ama Pat-El. 49–79. London and New York: Routledge. find
  23. Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin LTD. find
  24. Joüon, Paul, and Takamitsu Muraoka. 2006. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico. find
  25. Kautzsch, Emil, ed. 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by A.E. Cowley. 2nd English ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. 1994–2000. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill. find
  26. Krahmalkov, Charles R. 1974. ‘A Carthaginian Report of the Battle of Agrigentum 406 BC (CIS i, 5510. 9–11)’. Rivista di Studi Fenici 2: 171–177. find
  27. Krahmalkov, Charles R. 1987. ‘The Periphrastic Future Tense in Hebrew and Phoenician’. Rivista degli Studi Orientali 61: 73–80. find
  28. Krahmalkov, Charles R. 2000. Phoenician-Punic Dictionary. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters. find
  29. Krahmalkov, Charles R. 2001. A Phoenician-Punic Grammar. Leiden: Brill. find
  30. Kuteva, Tania et al. 2019. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  31. Kutscher, Edward Yechezkel. 1982. A History of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. find
  32. Lehmann, Christian. 2015. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. 3rd ed. Berlin: Language Science Press. find
  33. Levi Della Vida, Giorgio, and Maria Giulia Amadasi. 1987. Iscrizioni puniche della Tripolitania (1927–1967). Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider. find
  34. Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press. find
  35. Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Vol. II. London: Cambridge University Press. find
  36. Matras, Yaron. 2007. ‘The Borrowability of Structural Categories’. In Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, edited by Yaron Matras and Jeanette Sakel, 31–73. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. find
  37. Matras, Yaron. 2020. Language Contact. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  38. Mor, Uri. 2015. ‘One More Look at the Negation of the Infinitive Construct in Second Temple Hebrew’. Vetus Testamentum 65: 437–456. find
  39. Mor, Uri. 2019. ‘Ha-maqor ha-naṭuy ha-predicativi ba-ʕivrit šel ha-bayit ha-šeni [The Predicative Infinitive Construct in Second Temple Hebrew]’. In Šinuy ve-šonut ba-lašon [Language Change and Variation], edited by Ruth Berman, 65–77. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. find
  40. Muraoka, Takamitsu. 2020. A Syntax of Qumran Hebrew. Leuven: Peeters. find
  41. Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and Modality. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pat-El, Na‘ama. 2013. ‘On Negation in Phoenician’. In Linguistic Studies in Phoenician, edited by Robert D. Holmstedt and Aaron Schade, 47–67. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. find
  42. Plautus, Titus Maccius, and Alfred Ernout. 1938. Plaute Comédies Tome V: Mostellaria, Persa, Poenulus. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. find
  43. Qimron, Elisha. 2018. A Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi. find
  44. Röllig, Wolfgang. 2011. ‘Phoenician and Punic’. In The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, 473–479. Handbücher zur Sprach-und Kommunikationswissenschaft 36. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. find
  45. Roschinski, Hans Peter. 1988. ‘Punische Inschriften zum MLK-Opfer und seinem Ersatz’. In Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, Volume II.4: Grab-, Sarg-, Votiv-und Bauinschriften, edited by Christel Butterweck, 606–620. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Solá-Solé, Josep. find
  46. M. 1961. L’infinitif sémitique: contribution à l’étude des formes et des fonctions des noms d’action et des infinitifs sémitiques. Paris: H. Champion. find
  47. Sznycer, Maurice. 1972. ‘Quelques observations sur la grande inscription dédicatoire de Mactar’. Semitica 22: 25–43. find
  48. von Soden, Wolfram. 1995. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik, 3rd ed. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico. von Wright, Georg Henrik. 1951. An Essay in Modal Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub. Co. find
  49. Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael Patrick O’Connor. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. find
  50. Wilson-Wright, Aren M. 2019. ‘The Canaanite Languages’. In The Semitic Languages: Second Edition, edited by John Huehnergard and Na‘ama Pat-El, 509–532. London and New York: Routledge. find
  51. Yon, Marguerite, and Maurice Sznycer. 1991. ‘Une inscription phenicienne royale de Kition (Chypre)’. Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 135 (4): 791–823. find
  52. Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1997. Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. New York: Oxford University Press. find

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/fofliger-2025-predicative-infinitive-construct-phoenician-punic/