Archive for the ‘Aspect’ category

The complicated morphology of the Semitic binyanim

June 16, 2008

Writing my section on morphology, I spent some time thinking about the nature of the binyanim in the Semitic languages. Namely, to what extent are the binyanim derivational and to what extent are they inflectional?

In short, derivation is the process by which the addition of an affix to a base morpheme creates a new word, either by giving a new meaning or shifting the lexical category. For instance, in English the suffix -er can be applied to a verb to create a noun meaning “one who does X”. Thus paint + -er > painter, “one who paints”. Another example is the use of the suffix -ize to change a noun into a verb, item + ize > itemize.

In contrast, in inflection an affix is used to to indicate grammatical information about the base morpheme, often called the stem. The type of information marked includes gender, number, case, tense, aspect, etc. Thus the plural marker -s in English is inflectional, not derivational.

In biblical Hebrew, we usually learn the binyanim in the section on verbs so that we memorize them in the verbal paradigms together with person, number, tense/aspect, strong and weak forms, etc. Because we associate them so strongly with verbs, I think most students consider the binyanim to be inflectional. In fact, when we parse a verb we give binyan along with all the other inflectional information. However, the binyanim are really derivational in nature. That is, they are part of the system in Semitic to build new words. This can be seen partly by the fact that generally Hebrew verbs do not appear in all of the possible binyanim.

The difference between drinking and causing someone else to drink has to do with the meaning of the verb, not its grammatical category. Dr Kaufman stressed this in class and urged us not to translate the hifil as “to cause X”, but rather to find an appropriate English verb in order to stress the lexical nature of the binyan. Of course, there is not always an appropriate verb. “To feed” is the causative of “to eat”, but what is the causative of “to drink”?

Arabic has several stem forms beyond Hebrew. Most interesting is probably the IX stem which is used with stative verbs denoting the inherent possession of qualities, such as color or physical defect, in order to express “to become X”. Thus, for instance, if the root ḥmr = ‘red’, iḥmarra = “to become red.” The rare XI stem has the same function, but is only limited to colors. This form lengthens the medial vowel of the IX form, thus iḥmārra.

Now, here is where inflection and derivation begin to blur. Is “to become red” really a new lexical meaning, or is it an inflection of aspect? That is, “to become” is really ingressive, a category of aktionsart or, as some call it, “lexical aspect”. With certain types of verbs in certain syntactic contexts, the binyanim may give Semitic languages an option for expressing aktionsart by varying the lexical nature of the verb. For example, in biblical Hebrew, the niphal may also have an ingressive sense when describing the subject as coming into a particular state.

This is still derivational in nature, but over time the process of grammaticalization (simply put, shifting a word/form that primarily has a lexical function to a grammatical one) may shift a binyan from a lexical derivation to an inflection of tense/aspect/mood. There are two possible examples from Akkadian.

The first example is the perfect iptarras in Akkadian. This form had always puzzled me since it is identical to the Gt form. However, it is common for a passive form to be grammaticalized into a perfective inflection. Thus, it makes sense that the Gt passive has been incorporated into the Akkadian TMA system as a perfect.

The second, and more complicated, is the iparras present-future form, which Akkadian shares only with Ethiopic and other modern South Semitic languages (yənäggər). The normal present-future form in Semitic is derived from *yaqtulu. Note the doubled middle radical in the Akkadian form, similar to the D-stem or piel. Could these forms be unrelated innovations in Akkadian and South Semitic which have grammaticalized the lexical meaning of multiplicity/repetition into a tense form? That is, repetition first shifted to progressive aspect before finally becoming a present-future tense?


Dobbs-Allsopp, F.W., “(More) On Performatives in Semitic” ZAH 17-20 (2004-2007): 36-81.

June 5, 2008

A performative utterance is one in which the uttering of the sentence does not describe or report an action, but is itself part of the action. Performatives are mainly part of social conventions and rituals such as greetings, vows, blessings, etc. Explicit performatives tend to be expressed by first-person-singular present tense verbs. For example, “I hereby name thee the Queen Elizabeth.” However, Dobbs-Allsopp notes that non-explicit performatives can occur as well, “The court finds the accused not guilty.”

Performativity is a function of pragmatic discourse context, and Dobbs-Allsopp further argues that it must not be confused with verbal semantics. That is, there are no “performative perfects” in Biblical Hebrew if by that term we mean that a possible semantic meaning attached to the perfective form is performativity. Rather it is the context and the linguistic and social conventions that are king. Thus, it is better to understand that it is convention to use a perfective (suffix conjugation) when making an explicit performative statement.

An important example of the performative occurs in Gen 15:18:

Gen 15:18 בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֗וּא כָּרַ֧ת יְהוָ֛ה אֶת־אַבְרָ֖ם בְּרִ֣ית לֵאמֹ֑ר לְזַרְעֲךָ֗ נָתַ֙תִּי֙ אֶת־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֔את

On that day, the Lord made a covenant with Abram saying, “To your seed I hereby give this land…”

Notice how the perfective form is glossed as a present to reflect English convention. This passage reflects the language and ideology of a royal land grant (See M. Weinfeld JAOS 90(1970)), and the covenant ceremony is obviously a symbolic and ritual act. Especially important is the fact that the passage narrates the dialogue rather than being a mere record of a legal transaction. It is thus a representation of the legal act of granting itself.
It is clear from 15:7 that the land has not yet been given to Abraham, and from 15:18 that it will not be given to him, but his descendants. However, if YHWH merely meant to inform Abram that he will be giving the land in the future, one would expect the imperfect as in Gen 12:7:

Gen 12:7 וַיֵּרָ֤א יְהוָה֙ אֶל־אַבְרָ֔ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר לְזַ֨רְעֲךָ֔ אֶתֵּ֖ן אֶת־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֑את

And the Lord appeared to Abram, and he said, “to your seed I will give this land”.

The transfer of ownership and actual act of possession do not need to be simultaneous to be legally binding. Thus, the covenant ceremony of Genesis 15 is not a simple promise to be granted to Abraham’s descendants at some time in the future, but it is itself the legal granting of the land.

While the use of a first-person-singular present-indicative-active is not essential to a performative utterance, its use is not accidental. Performatives are events and they are characteristically self-referential, thus it makes sense that explicit performatives make use verbs in the first person. In English, the word “hereby” further marks self-referentiality and helps pragmatically to mark a performative utterance. Dobbs-Allsopp argues that in Hebrew כֹה “thus” may sometimes function similarly, as in the phrase “thus says the Lord”.

Why then are performative statements disposed toward present-active-indicative forms (or perfectives in Semitic and Slavic)? German and English tend to grammaticalize tense in the verbal morphology. Tense is a deictic category, meaning it relates a situation temporally to a deictic center which is usually the time of speaking. Since performatives are at the same time utterances and actions, they can be conceptualized as occurring precisely at the time of speaking.

Aspect, on the other hand, is not a deictic category and is concerned not with the temporal location of a situation, but its internal contour. There are commonly two categories of viewpoint aspect: perfective and imperfective. Described simply, a perfective form is used to describe a situation as a single whole with both endpoints in view, while an imperfective form makes explicit reference to the internal temporal structure of the situation without reference to the beginning or end. Since performatives are conceptualized as punctual situations, ie an action that begins and ends at the moment of speech, they naturally lend themselves to perfective aspect. Thus languages that mark aspect by verbal morphology have a strong tendency to use perfective forms for the performative.

Interestingly, Koine Greek tends to use an imperfective form for performatives. However, this seems to occur because the imperfective aspect form is commonly used neutrally as a present tense form and is therefore unrelated to aspect. On the other hand, Polish, which is an aspect based language, uses both the perfective and imperfective forms for performative utterances. In tense based languages there can be no such variation since performatives must be located temporally in the present. Dobbs-Allsopp thus suggests that the use of the performative in Semitic is significant for understanding the development of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system. If the suffix conjugation is used for performatives, then it cannot be said to grammaticalize past tense, but it must be primarily an aspectual form.

In contrast to the classical use of a perfective, Qumran Aramaic and Classical Syriac prefer the participle for performatives. This suggests that Aramaic verbal system has undergone a significant shift from a binary aspect-based language (perfect/imperfect) to a tripartite tense-based language (past/present/future) where the perfective form has become a past tense form, the imperfect a future, and the participle is used for present tense.

A similar re-alignment of the verbal system occurs in post-classical Hebrew where the participle also begins to be used for peformatives:

1 Chr 29:13 וְעַתָּ֣ה אֱלֹהֵ֔ינוּ מוֹדִ֥ים אֲנַ֖חְנוּ לָ֑ךְ

And now, our God, we thank you.

This suggests that a similar shift from a verbal system that grammaticalizes aspect to one that primarily expresses tense is occurring in ancient Hebrew. Dobbs-Allsops finishes the article by discussing the difficulties in identifying performatives, and he devotes a lengthy section to the prostration formula found in letters in Ugarit and the other peripheral Akkadian dialects.

Dobbs-Allsopp, FW, “Biblical Hebrew Statives and Situation Aspect,” Journal of Semitic Studies XLV/1 (Spring 2000), 21-53.

March 18, 2008

In this paper, Dobbs-Allsopp discusses the Biblical Hebrew stative in respect to situation aspect. Specifically, he observes that stative verbs do not always merely describe a state, but they can be used to express dynamic and change-of-state meanings as well. This is not an anomaly, but follows from the fact that while statives do not inherently contain a dynamic component, such a constituent can be added. However, the reverse is not true – an “action” verb is inherently dynamic and no constituent can cancel this to create a stative meaning.

Aspectuality is compositional in nature. That is, there are several parameters which contribute to the overall “temporal contour” of a situation. The primary two parameters are labeled variously as aspect and aktionsart, grammatical aspect and lexical aspect, or as Dobbs-Allsopp prefers, viewpoint aspect and situation aspect.

Following Comrie, viewpoint aspect indicates how an author/speaker “views” a situation and is most commonly divided into perfective and imperfective. Viewpoint aspect also tends to be marked formally by the verbal morphology.1 A perfective form is used to describe a situation as a single whole with both endpoints in view, while an imperfective form makes explicit reference to the internal temporal structure of the situation without reference to the beginning or end.

Situation aspect then further specifies the internal temporal structure. Because this is largely related to the semantics of an individual verbal stem, it tends not to be generalized and marked formally by an inflectional pattern. However, the Semitic languages, including Biblical Hebrew, do maintain an inflectional difference between stative and “non-stative” verbs. Dobbs-Allsopp describes the second class as “events” (they can also be called “fientive”). This division between states and events is the most basic in Vendler’s list, with events then being sub-categorized as activities, accomplishments, and achievements.2

Therefore, Dobbs-Allsopp suggests that it is situation aspect which can help explain how Biblical Hebrew statives can be shifted to express not only a stative meaning, but also dynamic and change of state meanings. Specifically, the cognitive features telicity, durativity, and dynamicity are the most relevant. Telicity is the existence of a goal, durativity is the characteristic of a state/event to last for an interval of time, and dynamicity is associated with change and activity.

Like aspect in general, situation aspect seems to be compositional in nature. This means that it does not only depend on the semantics of the verb itself, but also other parameters within the clause, sentence, etc. Thus telicity, durativity, and dynamicity may either be inherent in the verbal stem, or they may be contributed to the verb through objects, prepositional phrases, etc. A common example can be given with the verb ‘to run’:

a) Will ran.

b) Will ran a mile.

c) Will ran to the playground.

In a) the running is unbounded – we know nothing about the beginning or end of the action. However, the addition of a direct object in b) and of a prepositional phrase in c) gives the goal of the running which shifts the situation aspect from an activity to an accomplishment.

Here Dobbs-Allsopp largely follows Mari Bromman Olsen (see in describing the effects of the combinations of telicity, durativity, and dynamicity:

Privative Lexical Aspect Features3

Sit. Aspect Telic Dynamic Durative Examples
State + know, have
Activity + + run, paint
Accomplishment + + + destroy
Achievement + + notice, win

In other words, a state is purely durative, while an activity is both durative and dynamic. Adding a goal to an activity (as in b) and c) above) adds telicity, which shifts it to an accomplishment. An achievment is dynamic and telic, but not durative. An event is therefore marked for dynamicity and can never be shifted to a stative meaning. However, by adding a dynamic constituent, Biblical Hebrew statives can be shifted to events. For example, D-A suggests the following pairs of sentences:

2Sam 7:22 ‏ עַל־כֵּ֥ן גָּדַ֖לְתָּ אֲדֹנָ֣י יְהוִ֑ה

Therefore, you are great O Lord God…

1Sam 2:26 ‏ וְהַנַּ֣עַר שְׁמוּאֵ֔ל הֹלֵ֥ךְ וְגָדֵ֖ל וָט֑וֹב

And the lad Samuel grew greater and greater and better and better…

In the first sentence, גדול is clearly stative, however in the second sentence the durative adverbial use of הלך adds a sense of progression suggesting that it is an activity. A direct object can sometimes shift a stative to an accomplishment:

Is 24:5 ‏ וְהָאָ֥רֶץ חָנְפָ֖ה

And the earth was defiled

Jer 3:9 ‏ וַתֶּחֱנַ֖ף אֶת־הָאָ֑רֶץ

And she defiled the earth

Other constituents which can affect dynamicity are instrumental clauses:

Job 18:6 ‏ א֖וֹר חָשַׁ֣ךְ בְּאָהֳל֑וֹ

The light is dark in his tent

Is 5:30 ‏וָא֔וֹר חָשַׁ֖ךְ בַּעֲרִיפֶֽיהָ

…And the light is darkened by his clouds

Or purpose clauses:

Lev 5:2 ‏וְה֥וּא טָמֵ֖א

…And he is unclean

Ezk 22:3 ‏וְעָשְׂתָ֧ה גִלּוּלִ֛ים עָלֶ֖יהָ לְטָמְאָֽה

(a city) that makes idols to defile itself.

Stative verbs can gain dynamic meaning when they occur as participles:

Dt 23:6 ‏כִּ֥י אֲהֵֽבְךָ֖ יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶֽיךָ

For the Lord your God loves you

Pr 17:17 ‏בְּכָל־עֵ֭ת אֹהֵ֣ב הָרֵ֑עַ

A friend loves at all times

This shift may be due to the progressive nature of the participle, and it also occurs in the collocation היה + predicative participle.

In addition to shifts toward dynamic meaning, Biblical Hebrew statives also occur with change of state meanings, usually ingressive but also egressive. There seem to be two primary contexts for such a meaning. First is when a stative occurs in a narrative sequence:

Ex 7:18 ‏וְהַדָּגָ֧ה אֲשֶׁר־בַּיְאֹ֛ר תָּמ֖וּת וּבָאַ֣שׁ הַיְאֹ֑ר

Then the fish which are in the Nile will die and the Nile will become foul…

The ingressive meaning occurs because the pragmatic context implies a change of state. The second situation is when the stative is accompanied by a punctiliar frame:

2 Sam 13:36 ‏וַיְהִ֣י ׀ כְּכַלֹּת֣וֹ לְדַבֵּ֗ר וְהִנֵּ֤ה בְנֵֽי־הַמֶּ֙לֶךְ֙ בָּ֔אוּ וַיִּשְׂא֥וּ קוֹלָ֖ם וַיִּבְכּ֑וּ

And when he finished speaking, look, the princes entered, and raised their voice, and began weeping…

Here the stative בכה is inherently marked for durativity. When set in a punctiliar context, ie the moment when he finished speaking, it triggers an ingressive meaning, focusing on the beginning of the action. In other words, the moment of the change of state. Note that this is a pragmatic implicature and not a semantic feature.

In sum, aspect is best viewed as a compositional. There are morphological parameters, but also semantic and pragmatic parameters. For a comprehensive theory of aspect, it is important to consider the contributions of these other parameters beyond verbal inflection (or in reverse, when analyzing the meaning of an inflectional pattern, take care that your reading is not being influenced by such factors beyond the bare verbal morphology).


1. The Slavic languages are paradigmatic, Biblical Hebrew is obviously debated. D-A follows Waltke-O’Connor in seeing the suffix conjugation and the wayyiqtol as perfective, while calling the prefix conjugation “non-perfective” since in the history of the language, due to the dropping of final vowels, several originally separate prefixed forms have fallen together.

2. Vendler’s four categories are the common subdivision of situation aspect, though other categories have been suggested, most notably “semelfactives”.

3. From Olsen, “The Semantics and Pragmatics of Lexical Aspect Features” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences Volume 24, Number 2, Fall 1994, 361-376. What Olsen adds to the discussion is the idea that telicity, durativity, and dynamicity are privative features, not equipollent. This means that they are not binary oppositions [+telic]/[-telic], but rather they are either marked [+telic] or unmarked. Further, features that are inherent in the verbal stem itself cannot be cancelled out by other sentence constituents. For example, a verb that is inherently telic, like ‘to win’, can never describe a state or activity. On the other hand, features that are unmarked in the verbal stem can be marked by other sentence constituents. Therefore a stative can be potentially shifted to an activity or an accomplishment.

The Biblical Hebrew verbal system and aspect

February 7, 2008

My blog probably receives the most hits from searches on aspect and aktionsart, so I figure that this is what people are interested in (or struggling to understand). I have also been doing some reading on the topic of the Biblical Hebrew verb system recently, specifically the pair of articles by Jan Joosten and John Cook in JANES. Charles at Awilum recently posted links to the latest issue of JANES including the Cook article. Also, there was some discussion of the topic over at Ancient Hebrew Poetry. I have posted summaries of these articles in separate posts (click on the author’s names above), and I would also like to give some of my reflections here.

Language is constantly undergoing change. The Neo-Grammarian school has focused on sound change as the major component of language change, but language changes on all linguistic levels: phonological, morphological, syntactic and “text-linguistic”. Thus verbal systems are not static entities. By seeking a systematic explanation of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system, purely synchronic analyses risk misunderstanding the inconsistencies produced by slow historical change. I greatly appreciated Cook’s article for incorporating a diachronic explanation of the various layers of the verbal system.

Still, while I completely agree with his explanation of the BH verbal system, I wonder if it is best to describe it as “aspectual” when there are really a mix of forms, some marking aspect such as the qatal, some marking tense such as wayyiqtol, and some in-between such as yiqtol (which retains older aspectual meanings in some contexts, but seems to be moving towards simple tense in others)? It may be correct typologically to call it an “aspectual” system, but this does not imply that verbal forms are primarily marked for aspect, but never tense. 

Oh well, I am at home with a sick kid and now I’m rambling…

Cook, John, “The Finite Verbal Forms in Biblical Hebrew do Express Aspect,” JANES 30 (2006), 21-35.

February 7, 2008

Here John Cook responds to Joosten’s earlier article which argued that BH yiqtol mainly expresses future tense/mood, and therefore the BH verb system is not primarily aspectual. He argues first that, contrary to Kurylowicz, aspect is more fundamental to verbal systems than tense. Secondly, he argues that even though they are not its primary uses in BH, yiqtol can indeed be used to express real present and attendant circumstances in the past, and Joosten’s future/modal description of yiqtol does not account for these uses. However, an aspectual model combined with a diachronic-typological understanding of how verbal systems develop within a language can give a more coherent and comprehensive explanation of the BH verbal system.

In arguing against the real present use of yiqtol, Joosten noted that many supposed cases occurred in questions, which seem to be inherently modal. However, Cook counters that non-modal verb forms can be used in a question, such as qatal and participle as in Jd 18:3. Further, Joosten’s first example is Gn 37:15b:

וַיִּשְׁאָלֵ֧הוּ הָאִ֛ישׁ לֵאמֹ֖ר מַה־תְּבַקֵּֽשׁ׃

And the man asked him, “What are you seeking?”

The part of the question that is “irreal” is the object of the search, not the action of looking. With further examples, Cook concludes that yiqtol can indeed be used to express real present.

For the case of attendant circumstance in the past, Cook’s best example is 2 Sam 15:37:

וַיָּבֹ֥א חוּשַׁ֛י רֵעֶ֥ה דָוִ֖ד הָעִ֑יר וְאַבְשָׁלֹ֔ם יָבֹ֖א יְרוּשָׁלִָֽם׃

Hushai, David’s friend, entered the city when Absalom was entering the city.

Again, it is difficult to take this in any way as modal or habitual, and it can be concluded that yiqtol can indeed express attendant circumstance in the past. Therefore, Joosten’s examples do not rule out an aspectual approach if Cook can also explain the statistically dominant use of yiqtol as future/modal.

First, he demonstrates that qatal does indeed express perfect aspect based on a typological comparison of the stative. Statives in perfect forms very often express a present state while statives in past tense forms express past states. As the examples from Is 55:9a and 1 Sam 10:23 show, the qatal follows the pattern of a perfect while the wayyiqtol follows that of a past tense:

Is 55:9a כִּֽי־גָבְה֥וּ שָׁמַ֖יִם מֵאָ֑רֶץ כֵּ֣ן גָּבְה֤וּ דְרָכַי֙ מִדַּרְכֵיכֶ֔ם

For, as the heavens are higher than the earth, so also are my ways higher than your ways.

1 Sam 10:23b וַיִּתְיַצֵּ֖ב בְּת֣וֹךְ הָעָ֑ם וַיִּגְבַּהּ֙ מִכָּל־הָעָ֔ם

And when he stood among the people, he was taller than all the people.

Next, he argues that typological comparison suggests that perfect verbs only develop in languages that already feature imperfect verbs. By implication, yiqtol must be imperfective. How then can we explain its overwhelming future/modal use, but relatively rare use in the real present and attendant circumstance in the past?

Verbal systems are not static, but like language in general, undergo constant change. Typological studies have found several common paths of development. The two that are of interest for BH are:

Perfective-Past: resultative > perfect > perfective > past 

Progressive-Imperfect: progressive > imperfect

This suggests that a verbal form which begins as resultative (a verb which results in a state or condition) slowly becomes perfect (describing an action as an undifferentiated “whole”) and then perfective, before finally marking simple past tense. As these verbal forms develop, the verbal system can become assymetrical for two reasons: 1) Verb forms can retain their older function alongside the development of new functions, and 2) Multiple forms can have the same function since new layers are always emerging.

Thus qatal and wayyiqtol both developed along the Perfective-Past path. During classical BH qatal is in the perfect stage, but in the post-Biblical period it becomes a simple past tense. At the same time, wayyiqtol is an older form which is already a simple past tense. In post-Biblical Hebrew it drops out of use. Both the yiqtol and participle are developing along the Progressive-Imperfect path. In BH yiqtol is the older form and is being displaced by the participle, which has become the preferred form to express the real present and attendant circumstance in the past. However, in questions yiqtol remains preferred. Again, in post-Biblical Hebrew the participle further displaces yiqtol to also express the future, relegating yiqtol to modal uses.

Joosten, Jan, “Do the Finite Verbal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Express Aspect?” JANES 29 (2002), 49-70.

February 7, 2008

Jan Joosten takes up the question of the nature of the BH verbal system, arguing that the qatal/yiqtol forms do not primarily express the aspectual opposition between perfect/imperfect. Instead, he argues that, while the qatal does primarily express perfect aspect, the main role of the yiqtol is future/modal.

His first argument is that the yiqtol form is not regularly used to express the real present or an attendant circumstance in the past, the two most prominent functions of the imperfect in aspect languages. The primary cases where yiqtol appears to be used as a real present are in questions, but questions are inherently “modal”. In declarative sentences the predicative participle is the usual form for real present. The participle can also be used with the presentative particles הנה and הלא, highlighting its use as a real present.

In Joosten’s example, “John was reading when I entered the room,” the form “was reading” is imperfective and describes the attendant circumstance for the perfect form “entered”. Again, in BH the regular form for attendant circumstance is not the yiqtol, but the participle as shown in 2 Sam 18:24:

‏ וְדָוִ֥ד יוֹשֵׁ֖ב בֵּין־שְׁנֵ֣י הַשְּׁעָרִ֑ים וַיֵּ֨לֶךְ הַצֹּפֶ֜ה אֶל־גַּ֤ג הַשַּׁ֙עַר֙

David was sitting between the two gates when the watchman went to the roof of the gate…

The yiqtol form is indeed used for iterative/durative action in the past, which is a function of the imperfect in aspect languages. However, Joosten argues that repetitive action has no inherent relationship to the notion of imperfect aspect and may only be associated with imperfect verbal forms accidentaly. In fact, many aspect languages use perfective forms for repetitive action and others use modal forms. Again, the iterative use of yiqtol may reflect its modal function rather than imperfective.

Therefore, Joosten concludes that the primary role of yiqtol is for “action which has not yet begun”, whether it is simple future or modal. If so, yiqtol should not be understood in opposition to the perfect qatal, but in comparison with the other modal forms such as weqatal, cohortative, jussive, and imperative.