Standard Arabic exhibits 'that trace' effect in one instance in the extraction of the subject from an 'anna' clause while the extraction of the object and the subject of an 'an' clause may be extracted freely in the formation of WH-question. The extraction of the subject of an 'anna' clause may not be extracted unless the extracted position is marked by a clitic on the complementizer 'anna'. If the clitic appears in place of the moved NP in an 'an' clause it renders the sentence ungrammatical. The adoption of the Government and Binding Framework, Chomsky (1981), (1982) and in particular Case Theory, Government theory and the Empty Category Principle (ECP) enable us to explain this distinct behaviour in the extraction of the subject of an 'anna' clause and show that the appearance of the clitic is predicted by the proposed analysis. It is argued that the clitic appears in the extraction of the subject of an 'anna' clause in order to properly govern the trace left by the extracted subject, and so as not to violate ECP. Since verbs are proper governors in SA, extraction of the subject of an 'an' clause must apply from a governed position. In fact this is exactly what our analysis predicts. Since 'an' is not a case assigner and since we are assuming that government and case are assigned only to the right, AGR and verb preposing are obligatory in an 'an' clause to assign case to the subject NP. Therefore extraction of the subject leaves a trace properly governed by the verb. In the extraction of the subject of an 'anna' clause on the other hand, since 'anna' is a case assigner and assigns a cusative case to its subject, AGR and verb preposing may not apply. Thus, the extraction of the subject leaves a trace which is not properly governed in violation of ECP, and the clitic must appear in order to properly govern the trace left by movement. / Arts, Faculty of / Linguistics, Department of / Graduate

Abstract GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS BIBLICAL HEBREW TEXTS ACCORDING TO A TRADITIONAL SEMITIC GRAMMAR Richard Charles McDonald, Ph.D. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2014 Chair: Dr. Russell T. Fuller Although linguistic Hebraists are dissatisfied with traditional grammatical analysis, this dissertation demonstrates that traditional Semitic grammar--primarily based on Arabic grammar and grammarians--still provides the most simple, clear, and accurate description of biblical Hebrew grammar. Chapter 1 illustrates the role of Arabic grammar in the study of Biblical Hebrew grammar. From the inception of biblical Hebrew grammatical studies, Jewish scholars drew from the insights of Arabic grammar. For centuries afterwards, Jewish and Christian Hebrew grammarians followed this method. In recent decades, grammarians have turned to modern linguistic principles, leading to a misunderstanding of various points of Biblical Hebrew syntax. Chapters 2 and 3 analyze the syntax of select verses in Genesis 2 and 3, respectively. Barry Bandstra's Genesis commentary in the Baylor Press series serves as the main point of comparison between the traditional Semitic approach and the modern linguistic approach. Each chapter introduces typical categories and definitions of traditional Semitic grammar, and critiques Bandstra's analysis when it contradicts Semitic grammar. Both chapters discuss a few main grammatical issues; in these discussions, other linguistic Hebraists are taken into consideration. For example, chapter 2 argues that the terms `nominative,' `genitive,' and `accusative,' are still valid grammatical categories in biblical Hebrew syntax, contra Jan Kroeze. Chapter 2 also contends that the pronoun הוּא is not a copula. Chapter 3 demonstrates that the Hebrew verb היה is not a copula but a real verb showing action, and that the energic suffixes on the imperfect do, in fact, have semantic value and do show emphasis. In chapter 4, the analysis shifts to Ruth 1. Robert Holmstedt's commentary on Ruth from the Baylor Press series serves as the point of reference. There are three main discussions in the chapter. First, the chapter outlines biblical Hebrew word order in opposition to Holmstedt's claim that the typical word order is Subject-Verb. Second, the chapter demonstrates that the masoretic accents are crucial for biblical Hebrew syntax. Third, the chapter critiques Holmstedt's theory that the particle ⚀הַ marks headless relative clauses. The remainder of the verses are utilized to highlight traditional analysis or to contradict Holmstedt. Appendix 1 outlines Geoffrey Khan's use of comparative Semitics to defend his copula pronoun theory. The excursus contends that Khan reinterprets Semitic grammar through discourse analysis, and that his copula pronoun theory cannot be substantiated. Appendix 2 differentiates between the participle as a verbal adjective (the traditional Semitic definition), and John A. Cook's placement of the participle in the class of `adjective.' This appendix maintains that the participle cannot be included in the biblical Hebrew verbal system. Appendix 3 responds to the external reader's critiques regarding the author's Arabic descriptions, the analysis of the reflexive Niphal, the use of the masoretic accents, and casus pendens.

The present work is concerned with the influence of English grammar, syntax, idiom and style upon contemporary literary Arabic. Loan-words-which have been arabicized or directly adopted into Arabic have not been included in this study. The work is in two parts. Part I treats the historical background of the influence, the native attempts at resistance or adaptation, a historical survey of the standard Arabic (a definition of this is given later in this chapter), previous studies and observations in this field, and evaluation of the material used, which covers works (books) as well as the press. Biographical notes of the authors used in this work and their association with the patterns and examples quoted in Part II are included here. At the end of Part I there is a Questionnaire answered by three of the authors treated in this mark, namely Najib Mahfuz, Ahmed Zaki, and Jabra Ibrhim Jabri.

No description available.

Originally presented as authors thesis, Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1976. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 131-139).