THE SYNTACTIC ENCODING OF THE COLLABORATIVE NATURE OF QOHELET ’ S EXPERIMENT

The language of the book of Qohelet has both intrigued and frustrated generations of scholars due to its abundant orthographic, morphological, syntactic, and lexical peculiarities. One linguistic feature that has not received proper attention, however, is the presence and syntactic position of the first-person subject pronoun  אני , e.g., 1:16 דברתי אני עם־לבי . The independent subject pronoun is variously described as pleonastic, a strategy for emphasizing the subject, and a strategy for marking an important narrative point. However, none of these descriptions accurately describe its use in the book, and so in this essay I will address the syntax and function of Qohelet's use of the first-person subject pronouns.


INTRODUCTION
The language of the book of Qohelet has long puzzled scholars.After more than three centuries of critical study, terms like 'aberrant' (Seow 1997:11) and 'idiosyncratic' (Schoors 1992:1) continue to be used to characterize the book's language.The linguistic profile of the book is indeed unique and appears to be a mix of styles, stages, registers, and dialects.For instance, the orthography has been linked with Phoenician, two words ( and ) have often been identified as lexical borrowings from Persian, multiple other lexemes or grammatical features have been labeled Phoenicianisms, Aramaisms, and Grecisms, and some items (e.g., the use of the relative element in addition to the more common ) have been associated with 'late, vernacular' Hebrew (see Seow 1996 for a concise overview of the linguistic features used in dating the book).With that said, the linguistic profile of every book in the Hebrew Bible is unique, and perpetuating the view that the grammar reflected in Qohelet somehow deviates fundamentally from other examples of ancient Hebrew may well keep us from grammatical insight into the book.
In this essay I will address one 'idiosyncratic' feature of Qohelet's language -its use of the subject pronoun after a finite verband demonstrate that Qohelet's pronominal syntax is fundamentally no different than that of any other ancient Hebrew text.Specifically, I will demonstrate how the author of Qohelet has used the post-verbal subject pronoun to formalize grammatically a literary method to describe Qohelet's thought experiment: he did not do it alone, but with his as a partner.

THE PROBLEM OF POST-VERBAL PRONOUNS
Certain aspects of the first-person grammar of Qohelet figure prominently in commentary upon the book: the use of the firstperson narrative voice and the choice of the first-person pronoun over the longer form .One aspect that has not received due attention, however, is the use of a first-person subject pronoun with a finite verb, an example of which is given in (1).
I spoke, I to 2 my : "I -look -I made myself great and added wisdom (to myself) over any who was before me over Jerusalem."And my has (also) seen much wisdom and knowledge (1:16).
Set within the context of the Hebrew Bible, there are two features that distinguish Qohelet's use of the subject pronoun: its presence and its syntactic placement.The first-person pronoun occurs twenty-one times in conjunction with a finite verb in the book.The book only has eighty-one first-person verbs within its 222 verses, so that more than one out of four verbs has an independent subject pronoun.A quick comparison with the rest of the Hebrew Bible, summarized in Table 1, suggests that Qohelet differs significantly from the Hebrew Bible in its use of the 1cs pronoun.
2 As HALOT (s.v. ) indicates, the verb allows a number of prepositions to mark its complement, i.e., the person to or with whom the speaking is occurring: -, and are the most common, but -is also used;; see, e.g., Num 12:6, 8;; 1 Sam 25:39;; Hos 1:2;; Hab 2:1;; Zech 1:9, 13-14;; 2:2, 7;; 4:1, 4-5;; 5:5, 10;; 6:4;; Song 8:8.Michael V. Fox has suggested (personal correspondence) that since the majority of thecollocations occur in prophetic contexts, it may signal both intimacy and one-way communication rather than a genuine dialogue.A one-sided conversation is precisely what takes place in Qohelet and thus I have translated the preposition as "to" rather than "with."The chart highlights a number of striking facts.First, the frequency of first-person pronoun with finite verbs is considerably higher in Qohelet than in the rest of the Hebrew Bible.Second, the position of the pronouns is opposite the dominant pattern elsewhere: Qohelet overwhelmingly places the pronoun after the verb whereas the first-person pronoun in other biblical books typically precedes the verb.The much more common pre-verbal placement of the pronoun in the Hebrew Bible is illustrated in (2).Because I will be with you and this will be the sign for you that I have sent you: when you take the people out of Egypt you shall honor God upon this mountain' (Exod 3:12).
8 I take topic to isolate one among multiple known entities in the discourse or to set the scene (e.g., with temporal or locative phrases).See Holmstedt 2009a for further discussion. 9I take focus to identify a constituent to be in a contrastive relationship with possible alternatives.A constituent is typically presented as carrying focus by syntactic position, intonation, or specific focus items ly frequent with the first-person verbs.Moreover, the post-verbal placement of the first-person pronoun in Qohelet contrasts both with the pre-verbal placement of second-and third-person subject pronouns in that same book 10 and of all subject pronouns in the Hebrew Bible as a whole.All of this raises two closely-related questions: why is the first-person pronoun used so much in Qohelet and why is it consistently placed post-verbally?
Kautszch notes that the independent pronouns with a finite verb -which is already inflected for person, number, and gender, are 'used, ... as a rule, only to give express emphasis to the subject' (1910: §135).On this feature in Qohelet, though, he includes a separate remark: Different from this is the pleonastic addition of the separate pronoun immediately after the verb (according to Delitzsch on Song 5:5 perhaps a trace of popular language), e. g.Why would the independent pronoun "express emphasis" in most cases but be "pleonastic" in a handful of cases, including all the occurrences in Qohelet?The principle of parsimony suggests that if the independent pronoun used with a finite verb has a place within the linguistic system of most biblical books it is unlikely to be superfluous in one book and a few isolated verses elsewhere.Moreover, as Waltke and O'Connor aver, "it is doubtful that any (e.g., Heb "only").See Holmstedt 2009a for further discussion.
10 There are only six cases of a second-and third-person pronouns with a finite verb in Qohelet: pre-verbal, see 3:14 (3ms), 7:22 (2ms), 7:29 (3mp), 8:15 (3ms), 10:10 (3ms);; post-verbal, see 9:16 (3ms).Although 7.22 includes both an overt subject pronoun and mention of the , the second-person address makes it clear that Qohelet is not speaking about himself or his , and thus this verse is not relevant for the " " argument.Even so, the function of the subject pronoun in 7:22 is worth examining: the overt, pre-verbal pronoun likely marks focus, communicating a contrast between the addressee and the servant mentioned in the preceding verse, e.g., "your knows that also you [vs.your servant, from v. 21] have cursed others."In 7:29 the preverbal subject pronoun marks a change in topicthe agent shifts from God to humankind.Thus, 7:22 and 29 both represent typical uses for pre-verbal subject pronouns in biblical Hebrew.
11 Keeping to a purely structural explanation, van der Merwe et al. assert that the "independent personal pronoun follows the verb only in cases where a waw consecutive + imperfect or waw consecutive + perfect makes it impossible for the independent pronoun to precede the verb" (1999: §36.1).This is not descriptively accurate for Qohelet, though, since eight of the twenty cases in the book follow the perfect verb without a on the front: 1:16;; 2:1, 15, 24;; 3:17, 18;; 5:17;; 7:25.major linguistic element can truly be superfluous or redundant " (1990: §16.3.2a). 12Pleonasm is best used to describe constructions or features that belong to the realm of usage rather than to the formal grammar of a language;; for instance, the second, repeated prepositional phrase in Deut 2:27 ( "on the road, on the road I will walk;;" cf.Waltke and O'Connor 1990: § §7.3-4) is formally superfluous even though it likely serves to signal focused 12 In place of pleonasm as a linguistic explanation, Waltke and O'Connor offer three reasons for the use of the pronoun used with a finite verb.I quote the introductory paragraph here and follow it with a brief critique.
There are three reasons why an independent pronoun is used with a finite verb;; in all three cases both possible word orders are found, pronoun + verb and verb + pronoun, although the former is much more common.The first reason involves a syntactic hole in the language-this is neither a pleonastic nor an emphatic use.The other two involve logical contrast and psychological focus-both of these may loosely be termed emphatic (1990: §16.3.2b).
The second two of Waltke and O'Connor's three reasons for the use of the pronoun with a finite verb deserve some comment.Although they distinguish between logical contrast and psychological focus, it is doubtful whether such a distinction is conceptually valid or even descriptively accurate for the examples they cite.Setting up a contrast is one of the functions of the linguistic notion of "focus."Moreover, many of the examples they provide to illustrate the third reason -psychological focus -present a contrast.In fact, taking together all the examples that Waltke and O'Connor adduce for the second two reasons, it is possible to sort out those that are used to present the referent of the pronoun with focus and those that are used to mark one entity (the referent of the pronoun) among multiple choices as the topic of the ensuing predication.(See Holmstedt 2009a for an information structure model in which focus and topic in biblical narrative are described.) The first type that Waltke and O'Connor address, the "syntactic hole," is the use of the independent pronoun in so-called "coordinate subject" phrases;; (i) provides an example with a first-person pronoun, which provides a closer parallel to the Qohelet data though it is less common than second-and third-person pronouns in coordinate structures.i to the Gibeah that belongs to Benjamin (I) came, I and my concubine, to spend the night (Judg 20:4;; see also Judg 12:2;; 1 Kgs 1:21;; 2 Chr 32:13).
Waltke and O'Connor are correct that the pronoun in such cases is not pleonastic.The coordinate structure in (i), , would be illformed without the pronoun.However, this ill-formedness is due to a requirement for more than one constituent in a coordinate phrase and Waltke and O'Connor are not correct in identifying the pronoun -indeed, the entire coordinate phrase -in such examples as the syntactic subject of the clause (see above § 4, for further discussion).information (i.e., Moses recounts how he told Sihon, the Ammonite king, that the Israelites would travel only on the road through the Ammonite territory).Syntactically, though, the 'pleonastic' repetition is an example of apposition.Indeed, since the repetition in Deut 2:27 has syntactic (apposition) and pragmatic (focus) descriptions, it suggests that pleonasm is a useless category.
There have been a number of non-pleonastic proposals for the use of the first-person pronoun in Qohelet.Driver suggests that the post-verbal pronoun highlights major stages in Qohelet's 'meditations' (1892:202, n. 1) while Muraoka argues that in general it expresses emphasis on the subject and that in Qohelet in particular the pronoun expresses the 'meditating ego of Qoheleth, as he observes and meditates upon the world around him and human life in it' (1985:49;; so also Joüon and Muraoka 2006: §146c).Isaksson, in his 1987 study of the verb in Qohelet, denies any 'emphasis' on the subject when the pronoun follows the verb in Qohelet (so also Schoors 1992:160-61).Rather, like Driver 1892, he suggests that 'the pronoun is added in instances of greater importance, where the narrative halts for a moment to make a conclusion or to introduce a new thought' (Isaksson 1987:171, and also 166-67).And, finally, Fredericks 1988 suggests an analysis quite different from the others: When Qoh wished to describe an act or thought as simple past (preterite), he added to the conjugated perfect, thus referring to his specific quest.This principle would show plausibly how Qoh tried to avoid a confusion in describing past and present acts and thought with only one verbal aspect, when a distinction was necessary.The implication for those first singular perfects without the subsequent pronoun is that they are allowed any tense within the normal scope of the BH perfect, i.e., perfective, pluperfective..., present ..., as well as preterite.With this suggestion comes an intelligible translation with more direct means of determining the time to which Qoh refers when speaking of matters involving his past.Thereby he has expanded the options with which he may clearly indicate his intentions.(1988:69) Fredericks' proposal that the pronoun is tied to the semantics of Qohelet's verbal system finds no parallel in any other book and thus is highly unlikely unless we admit deep systemic-and unique-changes to the grammar of the book of Qohelet, that is, unless we consider Qohelet to have a unique grammar, distinguishing it from any other attested grammar of ancient Hebrew.The structural connection observed by Driver and Isaksson is coincidental since, while post-verbal does appear at what are arguably literary transitions or high-points, it does not appear at all such locations in the book (compare the list of occurrences with the structural analyses reflected in, e.g, Seow 1997, Fox 1999, or Krüger 2004).This leaves us with only the emphasis-based proposal, which is essentially correct and could easily be re-cast in terms of recent information structure frameworks using the concepts 'topic' and 'focus' (a la Heimerdinger 1999, Shimasaki 2002, or Lunn 2006).Lacking from any current account of Qohelet's use of the pronoun with the finite verb, though, is an account of the postverbal position of the pronoun -and this is, in my opinion, the key to the puzzle.

HEBREW AS A PRO-DROP LANGUAGE
Before I address the post-verbal position of the 1cs pronouns in Qohelet, it is necessary to consider some general characteristics of BH pronominal syntax.BH is a prototypical example of what is called a "pro-drop" or "null-subject" language (Naudé 1991(Naudé , 1993;;; Holmstedt 2009b).The finite verbs are inflected with morphologically rich affixes (i.e., the verbal affixes are portmanteau morphs, carrying a bundle of person, number, and gender agreement features). 13In most languages with rich verbal morphology, overt subject noun phrases and pronouns are absent more often than not;; that is, they are "dropped."The way that this is articulated in generative syntax is that subject noun phrases and overt subject pronouns are in complementary distribution with a covert/null pronoun, typically referred to as "little pro." 14 The pro-drop status of BH explains why the Hebrew Bible-from early to late literature-exhibits numerous clauses lacking an overt subject, as in ( 3) and (4).
and pro (= Nebuchadnezzar) brought them (to) the land of Shinar, (to) the house of his gods (Dan 1:2).
While it is most common for an overt subject noun phrase or pronoun to be dropped when the agent/patient subject of the verb is the most recently used verbal subject, the examples in (3) and ( 4) illustrate that even a distant subject may be filled by pro if the referent is apparent from the context.In (3) the previous agentive subject to be mentioned (in v 6) is Yhwh, but it is contextually clear that Peninah was the agent of vexation for Hannah.It is also clear that Hannah was the one who wept and not Peninah, even though Hannah has not been explicitly identified as an agent since v. 5.In both cases, the identity of the agent is sufficiently easy to reconstruct based on the context that the use of overt subject noun phrases is unnecessary.Similarly, in (4) the last explicit agentive subject in the context is "the Lord," but it is contextually clear that Nebuchadnezzar is the agent of the exile, making an overt noun phrase or pronoun to mark the shift between agents unnecessary.
The two examples in ( 3) and ( 4) demonstrate that an overt subject noun phrase or pronoun is often lacking in BH and yet the lack is syntactically licensed.15My explanation of ( 3) and ( 4) also illustrates how the identification of pro is related to the discourse: in BH pro is used when its ability to access its antecedent within the discourse is high, the referring noun phrase subject is used when the accessibility is low, and an overt pronoun is used when the antecedent is marked for topic or focus (see Gutman 1999Gutman , 2004 for a similar analysis of modern Israeli Hebrew).
Qohelet exhibits the same pro-drop syntax as the rest of the Hebrew Bible, as (5) demonstrates. 16nd pro (I) set my to seek and to investigate with wisdom concerning all that happens under the heavens (1:13).
The point at which Qohelet's language use does differ is with the verb-pronoun constituent order, which the numbers in Table 1 suggest is a highly marked order.

PRE-VERBAL, POST-VERBAL, AND CONJOINED SUBJECT PRONOUNS
By far the dominant order when pronouns are used with finite verbs is pronoun-verb (by at least four-to-one, with all pronouns), not verb-pronoun as we have in Qohelet.Moreover, since an overt pronoun in a pro-drop language marks the subject with topic or focus status, the expected (and statistically dominant) position is initial, i.e., located somewhere in the clausal area preceding the final position of verb, as in ( 6), repeated from (2).
Because I will be with you and this will be the sign for you that I have sent you: when you take the people out of Egypt you shall honor God upon this mountain (Exod 3:12).
With that said, Hebrew clause structure does allow for post-verbal focus constituents, as the constituents preceded by and in ( 7) and ( 8) demonstrate.
and Judah said to Simon, his brother: Go up with me into my allotment and let us fight against the Canaanite, then pro (I) shall go, I too, with you into your allotment (Judg 1:3).and Sheba fell (upon the livestock) and took them and they killed the servants by sword and pro (I) escaped, only I alone, to tell you (Job 1:15).
Post-verbal focus on the verbal subject, whether with pronouns or noun phrases, is much less frequent than pre-verbal focus.It is possible that this highly-marked combination of the use of the overt pronoun and the post-verbal placement, which is somewhat syntactically disruptive (with some similarity to interjections and vocatives), is used for an even higher degree of contrast than the more common pre-verbal focus.(Admittedly, though, the precise pragmatic function of post-verbal pronouns in Hebrew has not been investigated adequately and requires further examination.)Aside from the precise pragmatics of post-verbal subject focus in general, what is significant for this study is that the vast majority of post-verbal subject pronouns in the Hebrew Bible are of the type illustrated in ( 9) and (10).
and pro (they) drank, he and the men that were with him (Gen 24:54).and pro (he) hardened his , he and his servants (Exod 9:34).
This type of construction is most often described as a way to highlight some feature of the subject, whether indicating a shift from a singular agent to a group, specified by the coordinate subject, as in (9), or emphasizing the primary agent-hood of the first constituent in the coordinate phrase, as in (10) (Waltke and O'Connor 1990: §16.3.2c;;see also Revell 1993). 17This may be so, but it is not clear that the coordinate phrases are actually the syntactic subjects in these clauses.Naudé 1999 argues cogently that 17 Contrary to Waltke and O'Connor (1990: §16.3.2b),I propose that such examples do contain "emphasis," since there are ways of expressing accompaniment without using the independent pronoun and coordinate phrase.That is to say, the use of the coordinate structure with the independent personal pronoun is not the only syntactic option and as one among multiple options likely should be associated with a pragmatic function.Consider the unattested but grammatical rewriting of (i) from above in n. 11 to (ii) below, with a comitative prepositional phrase in place of the independent pronoun -coordinate phrase (see 1Kgs 16:17;; 2Kgs 8:21;; Ruth 1:7, 22;; 2Chr 1:3;; 12:1 for attested syntactic parallels).i i to the Gibeah that belongs to Benjamin I came, and my concubine with me, to spend the night.
Finally, I agree with Doron 2000 that comitative phrases like that in (ii) are likely "small clause adjuncts of the form [SC and DP with him]" (2000:93, n. 5).
such coordinate phrases are verb phrase adjuncts rather than the subject constituents themselves.He appeals to examples like (11), which contains a similar coordinate phrase but also has an explicit subject noun phrase.
and Og, the king of Bashan, went out to meet us, he and all his people, for battle at Edrei (Deut 3:1).
In (11) the coordinate phrase cannot be the syntactic subject since that position is already filled by the overt noun phrase .Nor can the coordinate phrase be rightdislocated, since it is positioned before another prepositional phrase adjunct . 18 The phrase is instead "an adjunct that is generated in the position it occupies in overt syntax" (1999:91).By analogy with this type, Naudé suggests that the coordinate "subject" phrases, like those in ( 9) and ( 10), are also adjuncts instead of syntactic subjects;; the syntactic subject of each clause is the null subject pro, which is resumed either by the entire coordinate phrase (9) or just the first conjunct of the coordinate phrase (10). 19In other words, verbs may have an overt subject, as in ( 11), or a covert (pro) subject, as in ( 9) and ( 10), and either type of subject may be qualified by a later coordinate phrase that specifies something about the subject.

A SYNTACTIC SOLUTION AND A LITERARY EXPLANATION
We may now return to Qohelet and its pronouns.Again, the primary question is, Why is the subject pronoun used postverbally, particularly if it is not the syntactic subject?If Qohelet wanted simply to emphasize that these are his observations and complaints, then why not use the more typical pre-verbal subject pronoun for focus?The answer lies in a specific contrast that Qohelet establishes and wants to keep in his audience's mind.To see how this is accomplished, let us start with the data laid out in Table 2, in which I have listed and categorized the relevant clauses in Qohelet.
18 Right-dislocation, in which a constituent on the edge of a clause is coreferential with an overt constituent within the clause, is identical to left-dislocation except that the dislocated constituent follows, or is on the right edge, of the clause proper, as in (i) below.In the more common leftdislocation, the dislocated constituent precedes, or is on the left edge, of the clause proper, as in (ii).
(i) They came out to meet us, John and James.
(ii) John and James, they came out to meet us. 19See Holmstedt 2009b for more on coordinate subject examples and the apparent lack of agreement with many of their verbs.In the first column are the occurrences of the first-person pronoun without any coordinate phrase.In the second column the pronoun is immediately followed by a preposition and the word "heart, mind."The third column presents what I consider to be the two linguistic and interpretive keys to the syntax and use of the first-person pronoun in Qohelet: the first example shows the pronoun coordinated with by the simple conjunction -, the second example shows as an accusative complement following a finite verb and the first-person pronoun.
Let us now consider individual verses to see how the author has used the grammar of pronoun syntax for his rhetorical ends.The example in 7:25, given in full in ( 12), suggests in particular that neither the pronoun nor the noun , with which is coordinated, is the syntactic subject.
pro (I) turned around, I and my , to understand and to investigate and seek wisdom and accounting (7:25).
Just as with the evidence adduced in Naudé 1999 and illustrated above in ( 9)-( 11), the lack of agreement between the firstperson-singular verb and the first-person-plural coordinate phrase indicates the non-subject status of the coordinate phrase: picks up and resumes the null pro syntactic subject of the verb and adds the information .Here we see most clearly Qohelet highlighting that while he was the instigator and is the primary reporter of the experiment, he was not alone in his quest.The coordinate phrase must reside in a post-verbal focus phrase. 21 The examples in the middle column in Table 2 add a syntactic complexity since the nominative pronoun and prepositional phrase are not coordinated;; indeed, the prepositional phrase in these examples, illustrated in (13), should be taken as the indirect object (oblique complement) for the verbs of speaking and .
pro (I) spoke, I, with my : "I -look -I made myself great and added wisdom (to myself) over all who were before me 21 To elaborate briefly within a generative framework, the focus phrase (FocP) is likely adjoined to the "tense" phrase (TP), which would place it above (and in front) of the verb.Thus, the verb must have raised out of TP into the complementizer phrase (CP) domain, resulting in the postverbal placement of the focus phrase with .It is as of yet unclear to me how to motivate the raising of the verb into the CP. over Jerusalem."And my has (also) seen much wisdom and knowledge (1:16).
Following basic generative linguistic theory, I make the assumption that a verb and its modifiers (whether complements or adjuncts) are adjacent at some point in the derivation of a clause.The implication for examples like (13), in which the subject pronoun intervenes between the verb and its complement is that the verb has raised higher than the subject pronoun.This verb-raising allows the pronoun and indirect object prepositional phrase to be combined into a single, complex constituent that may be marked for focus. 22he final set of examples, in the left column in Table 2, are to be explained similarly.They reflect verb-raising and the subsequent placement of the subject pronoun in a post-verbal focus phrase, although they do not have a conjunct or a prepositional phrase with as do the previous two sets of examples. 23Even so, what is important to recognize in all three constructions is the use of the pronoun within a post-verbal focus phrase.When the pronoun is alone in the focus phrase, Qohelet is asserting that the following observations or conclusions are his alone;; when the pronoun is accompanied in the focus phrase by a conjunct or a prepositional phrase Qohelet is emphasizing the collaborative nature of his investigation.
To see how this works out, consider 1:13, given in ( 14), Qohelet introduces his experiment partner, indicating in the first half of the verse that he commissioned his .Moreover, I suggest that the second half of the verse is actually Qohelet's preview of his 's conclusion for the project.
And pro (I) set my to seek and to investigate with wisdom concerning all that happens under the heavens: it is an unfor-tunate task (that) God has given to men to be occupied with (1:13).
In the following two verses, given in (15), Qohelet notes his own participation and, I suggest, his ultimate conclusion.
pro (I) saw all the events that happen under the sun, and, see here -everything is absurd and (like) chasing wind!What is bent is not able to become straight, and what is lacking is not able to be counted (1:14-15).
It is in 1:16, provided again in ( 16), that Qohelet first uses the post-verbal phrase including the first-person pronoun to reinforce grammatically that the experiment was carried out in partnership by Qohelet and his .
pro (I) spoke, I with my : "I -look -I made myself great and added wisdom (to myself) over any who was before me over Jerusalem."And my has (also) seen much wisdom and knowledge (1:16).
Moreover, in v. 16 Qohelet establishes that in addition to both parties engaging in the actual experiment, he and his discussed their findings afterwards.Note how Qohelet distinguishes what is true about just him, by using within the quote, and what is true of his apart from him: his had also seen much wisdom in the course of the experiment.In 2:1, given in (17), Qohelet addresses his in the second person.
pro (I) said -I with 24 my : Come and I will have you experience joy;; look upon goodness.See -this also is absurd!(2:1).
Qohelet does not directly address his anywhere else in the book (the second-person address in the remainder of the book is apparently aimed at Qohelet's audience), but he does admit in 2:20, 24 Elsewhere -prepositional phrases are spatial or temporal adjuncts when collocated with the verb .Qohelet, however, is manipulating the idiom , and so the nuance of the preposition must be taken from context.Here in 2:1 and also in 2:15;; 3:17, 18, the preposition -marks the goal ("with X") or the indirect object ("to X") of the speech activity.Also see above, n. 1, for a similar discussion on the collocation of and -.
provided in (18), that he tried to influence the conclusions that his was drawing.
And pro (I) turned around, I, to put my in a state of despair about all the acquisition(s) for which I have exerted myself under the sun.(2:20).
Here the pronoun is used (without a prepositional phrase or second conjunct) in order to contrast Qohelet's actions from that of his .Qohelet describes how he tried to convince his that his toil was not enjoyable, apparently in response to the positive conclusion that the had already drawn: ( 2:10).
With the Qohelet-and-his-framework in mind, the statements in 1:17 and 2:3, given in ( 19) and ( 20), make much better sense than they are typically credited with.
And pro (I) set my to know wisdom;; and knowing blindness and folly-I came to recognize that also this was wind-chasing (1:17).
For (19) I suggest that the use of two infinitive phrases indicates two investigative paths (cf. the NJPS translation and also Fox 2004:10). 25Qohelet directs his "to know" wisdom and for himself he chooses the other-and ultimately unsatisfying-path of "knowing" foolishness.The difficult verse in (20) may be interpreted in a similar vein.
pro (I) went about with my (by dragging my flesh along with wine, though my was guiding with wisdom) to grasp foolishness, until (the time) that I see what is good for humans, 25 In ( 19), is often subject to emendation.The central question is whether the item is a second occurrence of infinitive "to know" or "knowing," as I have taken it, or the homophonous noun "knowledge" (so the ancient versions and some modern commentators;; see, e.g., Longman 1998:77, 84).For some of those who follow the versions and take as the second in a sequence of four nouns, "wisdom and knowledge, blindness and folly," the second pair "looks like an addition based on 2:12a or 7:25" (Fox 1999:173;; cf. Seow 1997:124-25).However, we need not emend or revocalize the conjunction in so that it is understood as the second noun in a word pair.
which they should do under the heavens the number of the days of their lives (2:3).
The first half of the verse in (20) presents some difficulty.The problems are what it means to , what the root means in the context, and how to relate both the infinitive phrase and following the conjoined participial clause back to the main clause headed by the verb .The collocation of and is often taken as another way to express mental activity: "Qoheleth is not examining material pleasures so much as his responses to them.Hence he goes about, meditates, within his heart" (Fox 1999:177, emphasis in original).Thus, the prepositional phrase is often read as the mental space, "within my mind" (e.g., Crenshaw 1987:69, 77;; Longman 1998:87, 89), or the mental means, "with my mind" (see, e.g., Seow 1997:126-27).But if Qohelet treats his as his experiment partner, then the -preposition indicates accompaniment not location or means. 26 The meaning of is best kept to its attested range, "pull, drag, draw," rather than the guesses that are motivated by the context of this verse ("tempt" NJPS;; "cheer" NRSV, Longman 1998:89, Provan 2001:65;; "stimulate," Barton 1908:77;; "bathe," Lohfink 2003:51).After all, the image of "dragging" oneself to do something is not all that opaque and in the context of Qohelet's experiment it suggests that he forced himself to follow paths that he suspected might result in less than desirable experiences, all for the sake of determining .On the final interpretative crux, the relationship of the main clause to what follows, numerous commentators take as a parenthetical clause (see, for example, Barton 1908:77;; Lauha 1978:48;; and Crenshaw 1987:78) but not the first infinitival phrase , as I do.I suggest that the more general intellectual nature of 27 makes better 26 The root is used only twenty-four times according to HALOT: Num 10:33;; 13:2, 16, 17, 21, 25, 32;; 14:6, 7, 34, 36, 38;; 15:39;; Deut 1:33;; Judg 1:23;; 1Kgs 10:15;; Ezek 20:6;; Job 39:8;; Prov 12:26;; Qoh 1:13;; 2:3;; 7:25;; 2 Chr 9.14.Used as a verb it selects an accusative complement, typically marked with , and rarely occurs with prepositional phrases:to mark the indirect object in Num 10:33, Deut 1:33, and Ezek 20:6, to mark an oblique complement in Num 15:13, -to mark the spatial confines of the activity in Judg 1:23, and -to mark the means in Qoh 1:13. 27The conjunction -on the front of the infinitival complement phrase is not an obstacle.Indeed, if it were not preceded by a -it might be mistakenly taken with the immediately preceding material rather than with the initial finite verb .This example is a case of the -simply marking the front edge of a phrase or clause;; when the -functions in such ways, it serves a syntactic role alone (i.e., it is semantically vacuous).
sense as the complement of and also that the contrast between how Qohelet induces his "flesh" to behave and the steadfast behavior of his fits the dual nature of the experiment.Rather than a statement of "youthful bravado" (Seow 1997:127), this verse indicates that Qohelet was accompanied by his in his investigation of foolishness, although in accordance with the division of labor in 1:17, he admits that his continued to be a source of wisdom even while he used wine to induce himself (lit.his "flesh") to explore the darker side.
Notably, Qohelet does not use the pronoun after the verb in (20).As I have already demonstrated, the pronoun is syntactically optional and thus Qohelet is not compelled to use it to produce well-formed statements.Instead, as Table 2 helps to show, Qohelet's pattern is to use the -plus-construction when he engages his in conversation (1:16, 2:1, 15;; 3:17, 18) or when he and his take action together (7:25).He omits the pronoun more often than not, which is expected. 28After the first instance of the -plus-construction in 1:16, Qohelet repeats it to remind his audience that the experiment was carried out by the twosome.When he does not want to emphasize that the pair were engaged together, he omits the pronoun.
The final set that needs explanation is the type in the left column in Table 2: the thirteen that exhibit the subject pronoun following the finite verb but no mention of the .These are simple cases of the overt subject pronoun used to mark focus.Once he has established that he and his carried out the experiment together, he is able to use the first-person pronoun alone to identify the majority of experiences and conclusions as his rather than his partner's.In other words, when he states in (21) that And pro (I) saw, I, all the acquisition(s) and all the skill of the work -that it is (out of) a man's jealousy of his neighbor (4:4).

CONCLUSION
Does Qohelet really exhibit a "peculiar use of the pronouns," as Schoors asserts (1988:82)?Not at all.Qohelet's use of pronouns reflects syntactic options that are well-represented throughout the biblical corpus of ancient Hebrew.The post-verbal pronoun allows the book's author to present this structure, establish that Qohelet and his work together but do not always share experiences or draw similar conclusions, and then manipulate the association created between the grammar and the rhetorical structure to present certain observations and conclusions as only Qohelet's, not those of his .The I-and-my-strategy appears mostly in the first two chapters of the book and while the basic cooperative nature of the experiment is not jettisoned, the author invokes it infrequently in the rest of the book.As a literary convenience this differs little from the monarchic-Solomonic persona that is also dropped after chapter two: once well-established as a part of the audience's reception filter, the continued mention of such literary strategies is often uneconomical and even a distraction.
Why is Qohelet, the character (and perhaps the implied and real authors behind Qohelet) so interested in establishing that experiment was a cooperative venture?Because it allows Qohelet the character both to experience the wilder, seedier, even debauched side of life and keep himself, by virtue of the counter experiences of his , from becoming thoroughly distasteful to the audience.Without both sides of the experiment, Qohelet's argument would be transparently facile.The post-verbal pronoun strategy reflects the author's rhetorical skill and linguistic ingenuity;; it is masterful use of language, neither odd nor ungrammatical.

APPENDIX A: THE HEBREW 1CS SUBJECT PRONOUN DATA
This appendix does not include the hundreds of cases of secondand third-person pronouns with finite verbs.Preliminary study indicates that the pre-verbal position with these pronouns outnumbers the post-verbal position by four-to-one in the Hebrew Bible.There is no clear reason that the syntax and pragmatics of the pronouns should differ depending on the person (first, second, third) and so the analysis of the first-person singular pronoun presented in this essay should apply to all other subject pronouns (see above, n. 9, for a list of the second-and third-person pronouns in Qohelet).
opening line of a speaker transition as well as all ensuing introductions: (i) Speaker Transitions in The Dispute Between a Man and His Ba Line 4: w wp .n. r. n b3."I opened my mouth to my ba" Line 31: dt.n n. b3."What my ba said to me" Line 33: d. "I said" Lines 55-56: w wp .nn. b3.r.f "My ba opened his mouth to me" Lines 85-86: w wp .n. r. n b3."I opened my mouth to my ba" Line 147: dt.n n. b3(. ) "What my ba said to me" Notice that the reader is not allowed to forget who is engaged in this exchange.More to the point, rather than reducing the introductory phrase after the first instance of each to "I said" and "he/it replied," or something similarly concise, the reader is given the full -repetitive and superfluous -introduction at every transition (ll. 4, 31, 55-56, 85-86, 147) but one (ln.33).29This is similar to Qohelet's frequent reminder in the first four chapters that he engaged his to experiment with him.It is possible that the author of Qohelet had picked up from his knowledge of Egyptian literature both a topos in the use of the parallel to the use of the ba and the textual and rhetorical strategy of repeatedly mentioning both experiment partners lest his audience forget the cooperative nature of his investigation.30BIBLIOGRAPHY Barton, G. A. 1908

TABLE 1 : FINITE VERBS WITH 1CS INDEPENDENT PRONOUNS IN QOHELET AND THE HEBREW BIBLE
11

TABLE 2 : THE USE OF THE 1CS INDEPENDENT PRONOUNS IN QOHELET
. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes.ICC 17. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.Battistella, E. L. 1996.The Logic of Markedness.New York: Oxford University Press.