This claim clearly clashes with the piqatlmidde conditional construction, in which all apodoses are either precative or imperative (or their negative counterparts), and in which likelihood is neutral, i.e., unspecified.
Wasserman claims that the precative is compatible with the particle -man (pp.
In several cases one finds a block of direct speech marked by umma x-ma, which functions instead of the precative in the apodosis (e.g., AbB 12, 38:26-27).
A common feature of both pattern is that they constituate the majority of cases deviating from the otherwise obligatiory modal congruence (where precatives are linked via-ma only with precatives, indicatives only with indicatives), in such a way that a case of modal incongruence is generally a singal for one of these patterns.
The apodosis contains directives, viz., precatives or imperatives.
A third-person rendering is probably better in light of the formal parallel with lines 248-49 (see presently) and the fact that there is a shift away from the future and precative
verb pattern in this context.
In chapter three he examines evidence for the existence of a proto-Semitic syllabic [[blank].sup.*]l- form as the underlying form for lams of both the asseverative type (Arabic lam of emphasis, in-) and the precative type (Arabic lam of command, li-).
Also, while most of the discussion at the end of chapter three in which the [[blank].sup.*]l- solution was developed dealt with the precative li- and not the asseverative la-, when the discussion picks up again on this point in chapter four the reference is to the asseverative la-.
Note, in addition, that except for example 266 Deutscher's examples are all directives, i.e., precatives
, imperatives, and cohortatives), it would be better, so it seems, to draw the line between directives (which tend with rare exceptions to interconnect paratactically) and non-directives (which tend to take infinitive constructions).