Chapter 4 : A Study of Conditional ם ִא Constructions
4.3. Speech-Act Conditionals
4.3.4. ם ִא Speech-Act Oaths, Vows and Curses
4.3.4.1. The Status of Q clause Ellipsis in Conditional Oaths
It is impossible, Kitz observes, “for an oath to exist without a curse. Thus an oath is really nothing more than a form of conditional cursing” (2014: 38). Because of this, oaths are most commonly analyzed as “statements introduced with ם ִא that are to be regarded as conditional sentences” and, van Leeuwen states, sentences “in which the consequent clause is generally missing” (van Leeuwen 1973: 34). For this reason he discusses the use of ם ִא in oaths as examples of ellipsis. Conklin (2011: 31) calls them “incomplete conditional sentences,” as does Naudé (2013b: 978). Ellipsis occurs in 119 conditional oaths, 82% of all instances. Examples (130) and (131) demonstrate the ellipsis common in BH conditional oaths. They can be compared with the conditional oath in example (129) above that does not elide the Q clause.
(130) Gen. 42:15
...
ם ֥ ֶׁכי ִח ֲא אוֹ ָׂ֛ב ְב־ם ִא י ִּ֧ ִכ ה ִֶּׁ֔ז ִמ וּ ִ֣א ְצ ֵת־ם ִא ֙הֹע ְר ַפ י ַּ֤ ֵח
׃ה ָנ ָֽ ֵה ן ַֹ֖ט ָק ַה
“…as Pharaoh lives, you shall not leave this place unless your youngest brother comes here!
(131) Ps. 95:11
ָֽ ִת ָחוּנ ְמ־ל ֶׁא ןוּ ָ֗אֹבְְ֝י־ם ִא י ָּ֑ ִפ ַא ְב י ִת ְע ֥ ַב ְש ִנ־ר ֶׁש ֲא
׃י Therefore in my anger I swore, “They
shall not enter my rest.”
The complete conditional oath for (131) would presumably be similar to ָחוּנ ְמ־ל ֶׁא ןוּאֹבְי ם ִא ,ה ...י ִנ ָא רוּר ָא, or something similar that invokes a curse.
While it is true that many conditional oaths are “incomplete” syntactically because they lack the Q (consequent) clause, they are most definitely not communicatively incomplete.
Ellipsis is common in everyday language and reflects the Gricean maxim to give as much information as is needed and no more. It is used when a speaker or narrator is certain that the truncated information will not result in a lack of relevance and meaning. Therefore, curses and oaths involving ellipsis should not be considered incomplete. The most probable explanation for the frequent ellipsis of the Q curse clause is language taboo, as Conklin (2011:
4) notes.
In all conditional oaths and vows, ם ִא functions as it does in other conditional constructions: it notifies the hearer or reader that a hypothetical scenario will be considered and it prompts the construction of hypothetical mental spaces in which the information will be elaborated. The Q clause mental space in linguistically complete oaths (those that have an overt Q clause) is structured by the linguistic information provided. When the Q clause is not uttered, there is no overt linguistic information available to elaborate a mental space. Since
conditional curses were commonly used throughout the ANE,380 we must assume that the set phrases such as ה ָוֹהְי־י ַח and ףי ִסוֹי הֹכ ְו םי ִהלֹ ֱא ך ְל־ה ֶׁשׂ ֲעַי הֹכ prompted the semantic frames and domain information associated with curses. Hearers and readers used this background information to schematically elaborate the implied Q clause.
There are 151 ם ִא-conditional oaths in the BH corpus381 and 5 conditional vows.382 Outside of the Psalms, every use is in direct speech. BASE and V-POINT are therefore in the Character Domain. This is expected since oaths and vows are speech-acts that reference post-speech, hypothetical FUTURE eventualities. In the Psalms, the BASE and V-POINT is always either in the Narrator Domain or the Character Domain. When in the Character Domain the oath is in text that is represented as speech, as the following example:
(132) Ps. 89:36
׃בָֽ ֵז ַכ ֲא ד ֥ ִו ָד ְל־ם ָֽ ִא י ָּ֑ ִש ְד ָק ְב י ִת ְע ִ֣ ַב ְש ִנ ת ַח ַָ֭א “Once and for all I have sworn by my holiness; I will not lie to David.”
The quote frame that precedes this verse is in 89:19. The Q-clause which would contain the curse is omitted. Although the qatal oath-frame verb י ִת ְע ַב ְש ִנ situates the oath as completed or
PAST, the P clause verb is yiqtol. A perfect have sworn construal of ְע ַב ְש ִני ִת portrays the effects of the PAST (relative to speech time) oath as current at time of speaking. This permits the
FUTURE TIME oriented yiqtol. I propose that this shift from qatal to yiqtol is the result of a shift, not just in V-POINT, but also in what Cutrer designates “a FACT/PREDICTION status in speech domain spaces.” The qatal is used to promote a FACT construal relevant at speech time. The mental space configuration which results follows:
380 See Kitz (2014).
381 Gen. 14:23 (2x); 21:23; 24:38; 26:29; 31:52 (2x); 42:15, 16, 37; 43:9; Exod. 22:7b; 10; Num. 14:23, 28, 30, 35; 32:11;
Deut. 1:35; 32:41; Josh. 14:9; 22:24; Jdg. 11:10; 1 Sam. 3:14, 17; 14:39, 45; 17:55; 19:6; 20:9; 24:7, 22 (2x); 25:22, 34;
26:10, 19b; 28:10; 30:15 (2x); 2 Sam. 3:35; 11:11; 14:11, 19; 15:21a; 19:8, 14; 20:20 (2x); 1 Kgs. 1:51; 2:8; 17:1, 12; 18:10a;
20:10, 23, 25; 2 Kgs. 2:2, 4, 6; 3:14 (2x); 4:30; 5:16, 20; 6:31; 9:26; Neh. 13:25 (2x); Job 1:11; 2:5; 6:28; 17:2; 27:4 (2x), 5;
31:7-8; 9-10; 16, 19, 20, 29, 31, 33, 36, 38, 39; Ps. 7:4 (2x); 7:5; 44:21; 89:36; 95:11; 131:2, 132:3 (2x), 4; 137:5, 6 (2x);
Qoh. 2:7; 3:5; 5:8; Isa. 5:9; 8:20; 14:24; 22:14; 62:8 (2x); Jer. 15:11 (2x); 22:6, 24; 38:16 (2x); 42:5, 6 (2x); 44:26; 49:20 (2x); 50:45 (2x); 51:14; Ezek. 5:11; 14:16 (2x), 20 (2x); 16:48; 17:16, 19; 18:3; 20:3, 31, 33; 33:11, 27; 34:8-10; 35:6; 36:5, 7; 38:19; Amos 8:7; Mal. 2:2 (2x); 3:10.
382 Gen. 28:20; Num. 21:2; Jdg. 11:30; 1 Sam. 1:11; 2 Sam. 15:8.
Figure 4.10: Mental Space Configuration of Ps. 89:20b, 36.
The diagram represents the flow of linguistic information from the speech verb ר ֶׁמאֹת ַו that opens a series of spaces in the Character Domain where God’s speech in 89:20c onward is represented as direct speech.383 In 89:36 the speech verb י ִת ְע ַב ְש ִנ does several things. First, it prompts the construction of embedded direct speech, the actual oath. The qatal form indicates that the eventuality is a FACT, relevant at speech time. In the oath, ם ִא prompts the construction of a hypothetical space in which the P clause is elaborated by the linguistic information ֵז ַכ ֲא ד ִו ָד ְל־ם ִאב .
383 The space configuration from vv.20c-35 is not included for two reasons: First, including it would make the diagram too long and secondly, it would obscure the issue under discussion, the oath.
CHARACTER DOMAIN
The diagram also seeks to display how the entire conditional oath construction was properly interpreted as an oath with a Q clause. Universally, conditional space builders like if, si (in Spanish), se (in Portuguese) and ם ִא typically prompt the construction of two spaces, one for the P clause and a second for the Q clause. This has been demonstrated in diagrams of content conditionals and other ם ִא conditionals discussed in this study. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that BH hearers and readers expected Q clauses. Cartledge (1992: 15) proposes that if functions as the “reminder” that a curse is invoked when the curse is not enunciated in the Q clause. However, since ם ִא does not prompt curse construals in other conditionals, Cartledge’s proposal is improbable, and unadvisable since it would require enriching ם ִא’s semantics in an ad hoc manner.
In the Figure 4.10, the space in which י ִת ְע ַב ְש ִנ is elaborated is colored in order to indicate that the rich frame information associated with swearing an oath is prompted by י ִת ְע ַב ְש ִנ and becomes available to the hearer/reader as soon as י ִת ְע ַב ְש ִנ is uttered or read. Frame information includes the fact that oaths are conditionals. Conditional constructions have Q clauses and in oaths, the curse is in the Q clause. If the Q clause is not expressed linguistically, as here, both the culturally supplied frame information and the ם ִא-conditional construction information instruct the hearer or reader to construct a space for the unexpressed Q clause and fill it schematically. The Access Principle (see Chapter 3.4.1, example (10)) would guide the hearer to identify the speaker of the oath with the curse and YHWH as the one called on to implement the curse. In this verse, YHWH is both and the same.
The traditional stance regarding the meaning of ם ִא and אֹל־ם ִא clauses in oaths is that ם ִא introduces a negative statement and אֹל־ם ִא oath clauses express a positive statement. This understanding is stated by van Leeuwen (1973:37):384
Die…Schwurpartikeln ʼim, „gewiss nicht”, und ʼim lō, „gewiss”, aus den Bedingungssätzen wird zwar von den meisten Gelehrten befürwortet, hat aber auch ihre Gegner gefunden. Vor allem hat man es öfters als schwer empfunden die implizierten Selbstverwünschungen im Munde YHWH’s denken zu müssen, wie es z.B. in Deut. i 35 der Fall wäre. Wenn man aber erwägt, dass das Bewusstsein vom eigentlichen Sinn der Schwurformel frühzeitig verloren ging, so dass ʼim einfach die Bedeutung „wahrlich nicht"
und ʼim lo „wahrlich" ausdrückte, wird dieses Bedenken hinfällig.385
384 See also GKC (§149b); Gogel (1998: 225, 286); J-M (§165); Naudé (2013a: 806).
385 “The idea … that the oath particle ‘im, has the meaning “certainly not”, and ‘im lo “certainly” is indeed supported by most academics, but does have its opponents. Above all it has often been hard to think out what the implied self-cursing must be in the mouth of YHWH, as would be the case e.g. in Deut. 1:35. When one considers, however, that the awareness of the actual meaning of the cursing formula was lost early on, resulting
However there is no evidence that “dass das Bewusstsein vom eigentlichen Sinn der Schwurformel frühzeitig verloren ging” (van Leeuwen 1973: 37). To the contrary, the oath in Neh. 5:13 indicates that as late as the Second Temple period, a curse was part of an oath. If this is true, then there is no need to redefine ם ִא as van Leeuwen, Gogel (1998: 286)386 and most translations do.
The traditional understanding of ם ִא and אֹל־ם ִא clauses in oaths seems to be dependent on the structuralist conception of semantics in which sentence meaning is entirely compositional. Since the curse is usually not expressed linguistically, this approach to semantics results in the need to ignore the straightforward conditional construals prompted by ם ִא and אֹל־ם ִא and supply meaning resulting in translations that (1) ignore the plain hypothetical semantics of the particle, and (2) consequently must supply otherwise unmotivated meanings such that in curses/oaths ם ִא is assigned the meaning surely not and
ם ִא
אֹל־ surely, meanings that (3) reverse the positive and negative semantics of the terms.
Contra the structuralist understanding of semantics, cognitive linguists argue that meaning construction is “primarily conceptual rather than linguistic in nature” (Evans and Green (2006: 214) and argues that “linguistic semantic meaning radically underdetermines actual utterance interpretation in general” (Ariel 2008: 264). Conklin (2011: 30) explains that BH contains a “diverse collection of formulas that share a common purpose of solemnizing or authenticating the content of an oath”.387 Kitz (2014) provides supporting evidence for their status by establishing the existence of parallel formulas from cognate languages. I propose that these curse formulas and the conditional structures used with them be considered BH constructions that prompted the hearer/reader to access a rich CURSE/OATH frame.388 This frame prompted the hearer/reader to construe what followed as a curse, whether the Q clause of the conditional was spoken or not. If it was not, the construction allowed the person to
“recover” this underdetermined meaning via implicature. This is what the shaded mental spaces in Figure 4.10 above attempt to capture.389
in ʼim simply meaning “truly not” and ʼim lo “truly”, these misgivings became irrelevant.” (Translation by Margaret Cheeseman.)
386 She states that אֹל־ם ִא “comes to serve as an emphatic negative”.
387 Some were characterized by עבש, רוּר ָא, י ִל ה ָלי ִל ָח, others by the phrase x-י ַח or ףי ִסוֹי הֹכ ְו םי ִהלֹ ֱא ך ְל־ה ֶׁשׂ ֲעַי הֹכ and variants of the latter. Each would be considered a separate construction.
388 As proposed by Kay and Fillmore (1999) a frame is a schematization of experience and is held in long-term memory. Cognitive linguists maintain that words cannot be understood independently of semantic frames and that they play a role in authorizing the grammatical behavior of words. Lakoff (1987) refers to them as Idealized Cognitive Models. See especially Coulson (2001). See also Evans and Green (2006: 222-230) for a brief summary.
389 The possibility exists that the meanings of ם ִא and אֹל־ם ִא underwent semantic shifts via a process such as
“context-induced reinterpretation” (see e. g. Andrason 2012d); Heine et. al (1991), Heine 2010; Rhee 2012;
The proposed proscription against enunciating the actual curse would be part of this frame so that when the curse was not enunciated, the ם ִא and אֹל־ם ִא clauses would still be interpreted conventionally. ם ִא clauses would be interpreted as they typically were in conditional clauses:
If I…; אֹל־ם ִא clauses would be interpreted If I do not…. No recourse to “special” usage would be required in the lexicon.390 Whether or not the linguistics of ם ִא-conditional oaths in which ellipsis of the Q clause occurs should be reflected in translation is a question of the skopos391 and translation’s brief, and is not a linguistic issue proper.
The verb frequency in the P and Q clauses in oaths occur as follows:
Table 4.17: Conditional Oath P Clause Verb Forms
Yiqtol392 Qatal393 Ellipsis394 Weqatal395 ש ֶׁי396
111 (74%) 28 (19%) 6 (4%) 2 1
(1%)
Traugott 2012a). However, the use of ם ִא and אֹל־ם ִא in curse/oath forms is stable throughout the MT. ם ִא and אֹל־ם ִא’s use in curse formulas in what is considered Early Biblical Hebrew is identical to its use in texts
considered to contain Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew. If context-induced reinterpretation of the particle in this context did occur, it occurred before the current text was fixed, because there are no traces of shift evident in the MT. Further research is required to verify if this shift did occur.
390 Research into negation by linguists and psychologists (Horn 1985: 143-44, 152; Horn 1989) has recognized that negation, such as that found in אֹל־ם ִא clauses, automatically evokes the corresponding positive mental scenario, and sets up an alternative mental space in which the positive alternative is considered (Dancygier (2012) and Sweetser (2006)). Fauconnier and Turner (2002: 29) noted that There is no milk in the fridge makes sense only in a context where the positive presence of milk is cognitively available. This suggests an explanation for why the lexicons and translations argue that negative אֹל־ם ִא clauses mean the positive alternative.
391 See Nord (1997).
392 Gen. 14:23b; 21:23; 26:29; 28:20; 31:52 (2x); 42:15; Num. 14:23, 28, 30, 35; 21:2; 32:11; Deut. 1:35; Josh. 14:9; Jdg.
11:10, 30; 1 Sam. 1:11; 3:14, 17; 14:45; 19:6; 20:9; 24:7, 22 (2x); 25:22; 26:10; 28:10; 30:15 (2x); 2 Sam. 3:35; 11:11;
14:11; 15:8, 21a; 19:8, 14; 20:20 (2x); 1 Kgs. 1:51; 2:8; 17:1; 20:10, 23, 25; 2 Kgs. 2:2, 4, 6; 3:14 (2x); 4:30; 5:16; 6:31;
Neh. 13:25 (2x); 1 Chron. 4:10; Job 1:11; 2:5; 6:28; 27:4 (2x), 5; 31:7-8, 16, 19, 29, 36, 38; Ps. 89:36; 95:11; 132:3 (2x);
132:4; 137:5, 6 (2x); Song 2:7; 3:5; 5:8; Isa. 5:9; 8:20; 22:14; 62:8 (2x); Jer. 22:6, 24; 38:16 (2x); 42:5; 44:26; 49:20 (2x);
50:45 (2x); Ezek. 5:11; 14:16b, 20b; 17:16; 18:3; 20:3, 31, 33; 33:11, 27; 36:7; 38:19; Amos 8:7; Mal. 2:2 (2x); 3:10.
393 Exod. 22:7b, 10; Deut. 32:41; Josh. 22:24; 1 Sam. 17:55; 25:34; 2 Kgs. 5:20; 9:26; Job 31:7-8, 9-10, 20, 21, 31, 33, 39;
Ps. 7:4a, 5; 44:21; 31:2; Isa. 14:24; Jer. 15:11 (2x); 51:14; Ezek. 16:48; 33:27; 35:6; 36:5.
394 Gen. 14:23a; 42:16; 1 Sam. 26:19b; Job 17:2; Jer. 42:6 (2x).
395 Ezek. 17:19; 34:8-10.
396 Ps. 7:4b.
Table 4.18: Conditional Oath Q Clause Verb Forms397
Yiqtol398 Weqatal399 ןִי ַא400 Qatal401 Participle402 17 (63%) 7 (26%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%)
There is a clear preference for yiqtols in both P and in the Q clause (when it is expressed).
In content conditionals, I demonstrated that yiqtols are the preferred verb form for referencing post-speech eventualities in direct speech conditionals. Every conditional oath that occurs in narrative, Job and the prophets is in direct speech. In the Psalms, most conditional oaths are in a participant’s direct speech, such as in (132) above. The five that are not in direct speech403 are in the Narrator Domain, written from BASE of the narrator/writer.
This results in all deictic references being parallel to those in direct speech. This preference is maintained in ם ִא-conditional curses as can be seen in (133) where the yiqtol references a post-speech eventuality.
(133) Ezek. 20:3
ה ַֹּ֤כ ם ִֶּׁ֔ה ֵל ֲא ִ֣ ָת ְר ַמ ָא ְו ֙ל ֵא ָר ְשׂ ִי יַּ֤ ֵנ ְק ִז־ת ֶׁא ר ֵָ֞ב ַד ם ָָ֗ד ָא־ן ֶׁב ֙י ִנ ָ֙א־י ַח םי ָּ֑ ִא ָב ם ִ֣ ֶׁת ַא י ַ֖ ִתֹא ש ֹ֥ר ְד ִל ֲה ה ִִּ֔וה ְי יִ֣ ָנֹד ֲא ֙ר ַמ ָא
׃ה ָֽ ִוה ְי י֥ ָנֹד ֲא ם ַ֖ א ְנ ם ִֶּׁ֔כ ָל ש ִ֣ ֵר ָד ִא־ם ִא
“Son of man, speak to the elders of Israel, and tell them: ‘This is what the sovereign Lord says: Are you coming to seek me? As surely as I live, I will not allow you to seek me, declares the sovereign Lord. (NIV)
This preference is so strong that with the exception of the oaths found in Job 31, every P clause yiqtol references a FUTURE TIME eventuality. The exceptions occur in the final speech in Job 31:7, 16, 19, 20, 9, 36 and 38. Clines (2006: 978) comments that the “distinctive form in this speech is the oath of purification, sometimes called an “oath of clearance,” which “would have been spoken after the failure of pre-trial arbitration.” If his understanding of the form is correct, then it follows that the oath curses would refer to events prior to the speech since the purpose would have been to declare oneself innocent of charges. Accordingly past or present perfect verb forms are used in all English, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and German
397 The paucity of verbs reflects Q-clause ellipsis. Q-clauses occur 27 times. The percentages for the verbs are based on this figure and excludes the apocopated Q clauses, which occur 199 times or 82% of all Q clauses.
398 1 Sam. 3:17; 14:39; 2 Sam. 19:14; 1 Kgs. 20:10; Job 31:7-8, 9-10, 21, 38, 39; Ps. 7:5; 44:21; 37:5, 6b; Jer. 22:24; 42:6 (2x); Ezek. 35:6.
399 Gen. 28:20; Num. 21:2; Jdg. 11:30; 1 Sam. 1:11; 2 Sam. 15:8; 19:8; 1 Chron. 4:10.
400 1 Sam. 8:20.
401 Isa. 14:24.
402 1 Sam. 26:19b.
403 Ps. 7:4 (2x), 5; 137:5-6.
translations. The yiqtol forms are interspersed among qatal forms. The current state of understanding of BH offers no explanation for why these yiqtol forms were chosen and how they were construed differently than the surrounding qatal forms.
Most of the P clause qatal forms,404 reference pre-speech eventualities and thus locate the action in PAST TIME, as in (134).405
(134) Josh. 22:24
ר ָֹּ֑מא ֵל תא ַֹ֖ז־ת ֶׁא וּני ֥ ִשׂ ָע ר ִָּ֔ב ָד ִמ ֙ה ָג ָא ְד ִמ א ַֹּ֤ל־ם ִא ְו הַ֖ ָוהי ָֽ ַל ְו ם ֶֹּׁ֕כ ָל־ה ַמ ר ִֹּ֔מא ֵל ֙וּני ֵ֙נ ָב ְל םַּ֤ ֶׁכי ֵנ ְב וּ ִ֨ר ְמאֹי ר ָָ֗ח ָמ
׃ל ָֽ ֵא ָר ְשׂ ִי י ֥ ֵהלֹ ֱא
“If we did not do this because we were worried that in the future your
descendents would say to ours, ‘What part do you have with YHWH, God of Israel?,’ [may we be cursed].” (My translation).
The qatal verb וּני ִשׂ ָע refers to the building of an altar in Josh. 22:10, which occurred prior to the speech event, hence PAST. The actual curse is apocopated.
The qatal grams in (135) appear to be used primarily to promote epistemic doubt or distance via the PAST time framesemantics of the qatal:
(135) Ps. 7:4-6 (Eng. 3-5)
י ִתי ִ֣ ִשׂ ָע־ם ִא י ַהלֹ ֱָ֭א הִ֣ ָוה ְי4
׃י ָֽ ָפ ַכ ְב ל ֶׁו ֥ ָע־ש ֶׁי־ם ָֽ ִא תא ָֹּ֑ז
׃ם ָֽ ָקָּי ֵר י ִ֣ ִר ְרוֹצ ה ַ֖ ָצ ְל ַח ֲא ָו ע ָּ֑ ָר י ֥ ִמ ְלוֹ ָֽש י ִת ְל ַמ ָָ֭ג־ם ִא5
׀י ִִ֓דוֹב ְכוּ יָּ֑ ָי ַח ץ ֶׁר ִ֣ ָא ָל ס ִֹ֣מ ְר ִי ְו ג ֵָ֗ש ַי ְו י ִִ֡ש ְפ ַנ ׀ב ִֵ֨יוֹא ף ֹ֥ד ַרַָּֽ֣ ִי6
׃ה ָל ָֽ ֶׁס ןִ֣ ֵכ ְש ַי ר ַ֖ ָפ ָע ֶׁל
3O LORD my God, if I have done this, if there is wrong in my hands, 4if I have repaid my ally with harm or plundered my foe without cause, 5then let the enemy pursue and overtake me, trample my life to the ground, and lay my soul in the dust.
As was seen in other direct speech narrative conditionals, qatals primarily promote a pre-speech, PAST TIME construal. This is the unmarked construal. But, the qatal gram is also used for epistemic distancing to cast doubt on the assertion, as was discussed regarding the conditionals in 2 Kgs. 7:4, example (16) above.
404 Exod. 22:7b, 10; Deut. 32:41; 1 Sam. 17:55; 25:34; 2 Kgs. 5:20; 9:26; Job 31:7-8, 9-10, 20, 21, 31, 33, 39; Ps. 7:4a, 5;
44:21; 31:2; Isa. 14:24; Jer. 15:11 (2x); 51:14; Ezek. 16:48; 33:27; 35:6; 36:5. The text of Jer. 15:11 has manuscript issues. Commentaries are deeply divided about multiple questions in this verse. See Thompson (1980: 391-393) for a discussion of the issues.
405 These include Exod. 22:7b, 10; Josh. 22:24; 2 Kgs. 9:26; Job 31:7-8, 9-10, 20, 21, 31, 33, 39; 44:21; 131:2;
Isa. 14:24; Ezek. 16:48; 36:5. Some such as Job 31:20, 21 may profile perfectivity, which is typically associated with a past time frame.
Only 27 Q clauses of conditional curses in oaths are explicit.406 In these, BH shows a strong preference for the yiqtol, followed by the weqatal. Together they used in 89% of these clauses.
The five conditional vows407 in the corpus include Gen. 28:20; Num. 21:2; Jdg. 11:30; 1 Sam.
1:11; 2 Sam. 15:8. As noted above, vows are distinguished from oaths in that they are always directed toward the deity and never involve a curse. They share conditionality with curses.
Yiqtols are used in the P clauses of all 5 vows. In 4 of the 5, infinitive absolute-yiqtol sequences occur. It is generally maintained that the infinitive absolute-yiqtol sequence indicated a strong commitment to the assertion of the verb.408 Since vows are negotiations, we would expect the person making the vow to attempt to convince YHWH of his commitment to fulfill his end of the deal. The infinitive absolute-yiqtol sequence met this need.
In summary, in all conditional oaths and vows, ם ִא functions as it does in all conditional constructions to alert the hearer or reader that a hypothetical scenario will be considered and prompt the construction of hypothetical mental spaces in which the information will be elaborated. The yiqtol is the preferred verb form in both P and Q clauses. When qatals occur in P clauses, they typically reference pre-speech eventualities or evoke epistemic distance.