About the Grammar Layer

The grammar layer visually represents the grammar and syntax of each clause. It also displays alternative interpretations of the grammar. (For more information, click "Expand" to the right.)

The grammatical diagram provides a way to visualise how different parts of a sentence work together. It represents the “surface-level” grammar, or morphosyntax, of a sentence. Morphosyntax includes both the form of words (morphology) and their placement in the sentence (syntax). This approach to visualising the text, based on the Reed-Kellogg diagramming method, places the grammatical subject in one slot, the verb in another slot, and modifiers and connectives in other slots.

For a detailed description of our method, see the Grammar Creator Guidelines.

Grammar Visuals for Psalm 88

The grammar layer visually represents the grammar and syntax of each clause. It also displays alternative interpretations of the grammar. (For more information, click "Grammar Legend" below.)

Visualization	Description
	The clause is represented by a horizontal line with a vertical line crossing through it, separating the subject and the verb.
	The object is indicated by a vertical line that does not cross the horizontal line of the clause. Infinitives and participles may also have objects. If the direct object marker (d.o.m.) is present in the text, it appears in the diagram immediately before the object. If the grammar includes a secondary object, the secondary object will appear after the object, separated by another vertical line that does not cross the horizontal line of the clause.
	The subject complement follows the verb (often omitted in Hebrew) separated with a line leaning toward the right. It can be a noun, a whole prepositional phrase or an adjective. The later two appear modifying the complement slot.
	When a noun further describes or renames the object, it is an object complement. The object complement follows the object separated by a line leaning toward the right.
	In a construct chain, the noun in the absolute form modifies the noun in the construct form.
	Participles are indicated in whatever position in the clause they are in with a curved line before the participle. Participles can occur as nominal, where they take the place of a noun, predicate, where they take the place of a verb, or attributive, where they modify a noun or a verb similar to adjectives or adverbs.
	Infinitives are indicated by two parallel lines before the infinitive that cross the horizontal line. Infinitive constructs can appear as the verb in an embedded clause. Infinitive absolutes typically appear as an adverbial.
	The subject of the infinitive often appears in construct to it. In this situation, the infinitive and subject are diagrammed as a construct chain.
	The object of the infinitive is indicated by a vertical line that does not cross the horizontal line of the infinitival clause.
	Modifiers are represented by a solid diagonal line from the word they modify. They can attach to verbs, adjectives, or nouns. If modifying a verb or adjective, it is an adverb, but if modifying a noun, it is an adjective, a quantifier, or a definite article. If an adverb is modifying a modifier, it is connected to the modifier by a small dashed horizontal line.
	Adverbials are indicated by a dashed diagonal line extending to a horizontal line. These are nouns or infinitives that function adverbially (modifying either a verb or a participle), but are not connected by a preposition.
	Prepositional phrases are indicated by a solid diagonal line extending to a horizontal line. The preposition is to the left of the diagonal line and the dependent of the preposition is on the horizontal line. They can modify verbs (adverbial) or nouns (adjectival).
	Embedded clauses are indicated by a "stand" that looks like an upside-down Y. The stand rests in the grammatical position that the clause fulfills. Extending from the top of the stand is a horizontal line for the clause. If introduced by a complementizer, for example כִּי, the complementizer appears before the stand. Embedded clauses can stand in the place of any noun.
	When clauses are joined by a conjunction, they are compound clauses. These clauses are connected by a vertical dotted line. The conjunction is placed next to the dotted line.
	Within a clause, if two or more parts of speech are compound, these are represented by angled lines reaching to the two compound elements connected by a solid vertical line. If a conjunction is used, the conjunction appears to the left of the vertical line. Almost all parts of speech can be compound.
	Subordinate clauses are indicated by a dashed line coming from the line dividing the subject from the predicate in the independent clause and leading to the horizontal line of the subordinate clause. The subordinating conjunction appears next to the dashed line.
	Relative clauses also have a dashed line, but the line connects the antecedent to the horizontal line of the relative clause. The relative particle appears next to the dashed line.
	Sentence fragments are represented by a horizontal line with no vertical lines. They are most frequently used in superscriptions to psalms. They are visually similar to discourse particles and vocatives, but most often consist of a noun phrase (that does not refer to a person or people group) or a prepositional phrase.
	In the body of the psalm, a horizontal line by itself (with no modifiers or vertical lines) can indicate either a discourse particle or a vocative (if the word is a noun referring to a person or people group). A discourse particle is a conjunction or particle that functions at the discourse level, not at the grammatical level. Vocatives can appear either before or after the clause addressed to them, depending on the word order of the Hebrew.
	Apposition is indicated by an equal sign equating the two noun phrases. This can occur with a noun in any function in a sentence.

Hebrew text colors
Default preferred text	The default preferred reading is represented by a black line. The text of the MT is represented in bold black text.
Dispreferred reading	The dispreferred reading is an alternative interpretation of the grammar, represented by a pink line. The text of the MT is represented in bold pink text, while emendations and revocalizations retain their corresponding colors (see below).
Emended text	Emended text, text in which the consonants differ from the consonants of the Masoretic text, is represented by bold blue text, whether that reading is preferred or dispreferred.
Revocalized text	Revocalized text, text in which only the vowels differ from the vowels of the Masoretic text, is represented by bold purple text, whether that reading is preferred or dispreferred.
(Supplied elided element)	Any element that is elided in the Hebrew text is represented by bold gray text in parentheses.
( )	The position of a non-supplied elided element is represented by empty black parentheses. For example, this would be used in the place of the noun when an adjective functions substantivally or in the place of the antecedent when a relative clause has an implied antecedent.

Gloss text colors
Gloss used in the CBC	The gloss used in the Close-but-Clear translation is represented by bold blue text.
Literal gloss >> derived meaning	A gloss that shows the more literal meaning as well as the derived figurative meaning is represented in blue text with arrows pointing towards the more figurative meaning. The gloss used in the CBC will be bolded.
Supplied elided element	The gloss for a supplied elided element is represented in bold gray text.

v. 1

v. 2

v. 2b The preferred reading follows the one found in most modern translations and which sounds more plausible content-wise being a merism (‘day and night’). It is still a difficult reading for two reasons: (a) יוֹם used adverbially without a preposition, which does not seem to be attested elsewhere in the Bible; (b) יוֹם... לַיְלָה are asyndetic and separated from each other, a very unusual construction. We therefore analyse this hard verse as made of two asyndetic clauses, with the verb elided in the second one, to get "I have been crying out by day [and I have been crying] at night before you". For the sake of simplicity though, we rendered this verse in the CBC as "I have been crying out day and night before you". BHS emends MT to אֱלֹהַי שִׁוַּעְתִּי יוֹמָ֑ם צַעֲקָתִי בַלַּיְלָה נֶגְדֶּךָ with dittography assumed in יְשׁוּעָתִי and haplography in יוֹם, but that reading is not supported by any of the Ancient Versions.

v. 2b alt #1 This alternative is similar in meaning to the preferred reading, but assuming one clause, with יום and לילה being separated and asyndetic, and yet forming one phrase, which is less plausible than our preferred reading.

v. 2b alt #2 This reading is suggested by NLT, GNT and ZÜR, and may also be understood that way in LXX. It considers this verse as made of two asyndetic clauses, with the second one being a nominal one with an adverbial predicate ("I am before you at night"). It is less preferable semantically, as it abolishes the elegant merism and in general makes less sense ("crying in the day while [standing] in front of YHWH at night"). Another fact that speaks against this reading (namely, two distinct clauses) is the absence in MT of a dagesh lene in the ב of בלילה and the conjunctive accent (טרחא) in preceding word צָעַקְתִּי.

v. 2b alt #3 Alternative is suggested by both Targum and NET, but not supported by either the MT or LXX and may therefore be a case of intentional emendation or harmonisation with the next verse, that has the explicit noun תְּפִלָּתִי in both MT and LXX.

v. 2b & v. 3a alt #4 Alternative is suggested by CEV and NRSV. This reading assumes 2b to be a subordinate temporal clause of the main clause in 3a. It is thus understood as "When at night I cry out before you, may my prayer come before you!" The syntactic structure underlying this reading is of a construct chain with a verb, namely a predicate, as the nomen rectum. This particular usage of the construct chain is very common with time-determinators as nomen regens, and particularly following בְּיוֹם (N.B. our verse lacks the preposition), cf. Gesenius §131d. Interesting similar cases in Psalms are 102:3 and 56:10.

vv. 3-4

v. 4b חַיַּי The noun חַיִּים "life" is pluralia tantum, i.e. a noun used in the plural only, with no singular form attested. Most of these nouns are abstract in meaning (JM §90f); cf. note on תוֹעֵבוֹת in v. 9b.

v. 5

v. 5b The relative clause here is asyndetic, with the retrospective pronoun לוֹ being omitted, common in poetry (JM §158c).

v. 6

v. 5b-6 The preferred reading follows the MT division between vv. 5 and 6, the same one that is found in Jerome, Peshitta, TgPs and reflected by almost all Modern translations. We prefer to maintain this division between v.5 and v.6, as the clause במתים חפשי is strongly related to the content of v. 6: חפשי and חללים both designate the lowest rank among the dead (cf. Hossfeld and Zenger 2005, 395). Additionally, 2 Chr 26:21 offers an interesting relation between בית החפשית and the verb נגזר (similarly to what we see in v. 6). For further discussion on v. 6, see The Meaning of חָפְשִׁי in Ps 88:6.

v. 5b-6 alt #1 Alternative follows the division between vs. 5 and 6 as found in the LXX only and which takes במתים חפשי as part of the previous clause in v. 5b, instead of its own new clause.

v. 7

v. 7 בִּמְצֹלוֹת LXX and Peshitta have the alternative metathetic reading בְּצַלְמָוֶת. Although this reading is viable and fits perfectly within the context, we prefer to keep the MT reading, because of the recurring motif in the psalm of "water" as one of the major elements mentioned in the metaphorical description of the psalmist's miserable condition (cf. vv. 8, 18), neatly complementing the two other elements mentioned in our verse, namely the "pit" and the "darkness." (cf. Poetic Feature "The primordial elements").

v. 8

v. 9

v. 9b תּוֹעֵבוֹת The noun תּוֹעֵבוֹת in our verse is in plural of abstraction: "An abstract noun is quite often expressed by a plural, which properly speaking aims at the various concrete manifestations of a quality or of a state" (JM §136g-h). LXX has a singular noun for תּוֹעֵבוֹת, perhaps so as to bring about agreement between the subject of the verbal notion of the noun תּוֹעֵבָה and the psalmist (singular).
v. 9c The last clause (starting with כָּלֻא) is elliptical in terms of subject and verb. The preferred interpretation considers שַׁתַּנִי as the underlying verb, with כָּלֻא an object complement. This interpretation was chosen for the sake of harmony with the first part of the verse, with YHWH serving as subject and active agent of all three actions (cf. also the refuting argument for the alternative just below).

v. 9c alt The alternative reading assumes a nominal clause with an underlying pronominal subject אֲנִי understood. Although supported by most modern translations (+LXX) it seems less desirable, as a nominal clause with an elided subject is rare when not preceded by הנה and not in third person (JM §154c). This is enhanced by the fact that such a reading would entail a change of subject that would have been expected to be overtly marked (YHWH --> I)

v. 10

v.10 מֶנִּי The form מֶנִּי, common in the Psalms, is a poetic variant of the preposition מִן with the addition of a paragogic yod (cf. JM §103d).

v. 10 alt #1 Alternative offers a viable reading not attested by any ancient version or modern translation. In addition to that, the following facts speak against this reading:

דָאֲבָה and עֹנִי belong to the same contextual domain.
The root עני is repeated three times, and always in the "complaining" parts, never in the framing statements of appeal (vv. 2-3, 10b-c, 14).
v. 10a and 10b will be less balanced in terms of poetic words if we take מִנִּי עֹנִי to be part of 10b.
The atnah at בְּכָל-יוֹם is a strong indication for this phrase to be considered as part of 10b, not 10c.

v. 11

v. 11: הֲ - אִם construction Both הֲ and אִם are taken as interrogative particles, working on the higher level of discourse. אִם is commonly found in disjunctive yes/no mutually exclusive questions ("is it X or Y?"). In few cases in the Bible we find אִם functioning as an independent interrogative particle, namely neither in a disjunctive nor in a conditional clause setting, but introducing an independent clause of its own (1Kings 1:27; Is 29:16), which strongly suggests that it can function other than as a subordinating conjunction (cf. JM §161d-e). We therefore give it a particle status in our analysis.
v. 11b The verbal sequence יָקוּמוּ יוֹדוּךָ is analyzed as an (asyndetic) hendiadys.
The word סֶּלָה is absent in LXX.

v. 12

v. 12 Just like in v. 13, the interrogative particle הֲ spans over both parts of the disjunctive question. In fact, the question here is merely rhetoric and not disjunctive: "Double questions... need not always be mutually exclusive; frequently the disjunctive form serves (especially in poetic parallelism) merely to repeat the same question in different words, and thus to express it more emphatically... The second member may, therefore, just as well be connected by a simple וְ" (Gesenius §150h). We therefore assume an elided waw here, like the one explicit in v. 13. This waw is also attested in LXX and some Hebrew manuscripts.

v. 13

v. 14

The waw opening the verse is not understood as a coordinative one connecting v.14 with v.13, but as a marker of a topic-shift (אני), beginning a new section in the psalm. It is therefore represented in the diagram as an element belonging to clause-level.

v. 15

v. 16

v. 16 יָגֵעַ LXX, Jerome, and Peshitta have יָגֵעַ instead of גֹּוֵעַ. We consider the former a dispreferred emendation, as גוע is lectio difficilior. The reason is that גוע, a perfective glossed as "expire one's last breath" is not attested anywhere in the Bible in its participle form. This would turn it into an imperfective-telic verb ("to be about to expire one's last breath"), a hard but very possible (and highly graphic) reading. In addition to that, since the psalm is obsessive with the idea of death, we take גוע as the preferred reading, also supported by all modern translations.

v. 16b alt #1 נִשֵֹּאתִי אִמָּךָ Alternative is based on the LXX (ὑψωθεὶς δὲ ἐταπεινώθην) and Peshitta (ܐܬܬܪܝܡܬ ܘܐܬܡܟܟܬ), which can be translated as: ‘I'm lifted up and (then) brought low’. The alternative is made possible through a revocalisation of both words: נִשֵֹּאתִי is read as a Niph'al verb instead of Qal, while אִמָּךָ is read as a Niph'al verb of the root מככ (‘be brought low, humiliated’) instead of the noun אֵמֶיךָ, with an omission of the mater lectionis in the MT. This reading is dispreferred as it is not clear how ‘being lifted up’ is compatible with the message of the psalm, especially as the preceding line is emphasizing how he's been afflicted since youth. The MT text, on the other hand, fits well with the psalm's message.

v. 16c אָפוּנָה The MT reading אָפוּנָה from the unattested root פונ is emended here to אֶפּוֹרָה from the root פור (cognate to פרר "tear/break") to get "I keep being torn apart") in Niphal. This text is attested in 4Q98c, which Longacre and Strawn (2022) argue is part of the proto-Massoretic 4Q85. Skehan et al. (2000) explains LXX ἐξηπορήθην "I am desperate" as onomatopoeia for the 4Q98c reading, although the meaning is different. BHS suggests an emendation to אָפוּגָה "I keep being numb" from the root פוג, which otherwise it not supported by any version and fits in less with the context. For a full analysis of this line, see The Text and Meaning of Ps. 88:16b.

v. 17

v. 17 צִמְּתוּתֻנִי MT has an anomalous form, which Gesenius calls "barbarous"(cf. §55d). Seemingly a Piʿlel form (with its second ת), the shuruq vowel at the first ת, is not compatible with the expected morphology of Piʿlel. The MT form seems to be a corruption of the 3rd person plural qatal ending. We therefore go with the emendation of BHS (supported by some medieval Hebrew manuscripts) and prefer to read the form as the basic Pi'el צִמְּתוּנִי.

v. 18

v. 19

v. 19b מְיֻדָּעַי מֵחֹשֶׁךְ The preferred reading is based on a revocalisation of the text which matches both LXX and Jerome. This reading suggests a parallelism between 19a and 19b, with the verb implied in 19b, and מֵחֹשֶׁךְ parallel to מִמֶּנִּי, to get: You have caused my beloved and my friend to shun me, (and you have caused) my acquaintances (to shun) distress (which is my condition)." "Darkness" can figuratively be used for "distress" as can be seen in passages such as Ps 18:29. The reason for this reading to have been chosen as the preferred one is that, in addition to requiring no emendation, it results in an elegant parallelism and unproblematic grammar. An alternative reading takes מַחְשָׁךְ as an adverbial indicating directionality ("you pushed my acquaintances into darkness"), but that reading is not viable grammatically and contextually. For the full argumentation, see exegetical issue on v. 19b.

v. 19b alt #1 The explicit MT version, represented by ESV, lit. "My acquaintances are darkness" involves no emendation, but is a hard reading. Some understand it as "My acquaintances have become darkness," i.e. "I cannot see my acquaintances anymore". The problem with this reading is that מַחְשָׁךְ means "a dark place" and not "darkness".

v. 19b alt #2 This alternative reading takes מַחְשָׁךְ as an adverbial locative ("my acquaintances are in darkness"), but that reading is not viable grammatically and contextually.

v. 19b alt #3 Many modern translations read this line as "darkness is my closest friend." This requires changing the plural possessive suffix into a singular one through a simple revocalization. Dahood 1968, 307 reads this line in the same way, but with no revocalisation, explaining מידעי as pluralis majestatis, which seems less likely for an entity of unauthoritative nature such as a friend. Additionally, a different word order would have been expected in this case (see exegetical issue The Text and Meaning of Ps. 88:19b).

v. 19b alt #4 This reading is suggested by Rashi and some manuscripts, and assumes a שֹ instead of a שׁ so as to get a different noun derived from the root חשֹך "spare." The translation should be "My acquaintances are withheld (from me)." This reading is not represented by any modern translation and is less preferred because it abolishes the reading with the root חשׁך, which is a repeated root across the psalm with a poetic significance. It could, however, be an intentional pun playing on the equivocal reading of the ש letter; cf. analysis of Ps. 5, where a similar ambiguity arises in the very last word of the psalm.

v. 19b alt #5 This reading involves an anacoluthon: it starts with a continuation of the parallelism initiated in the previous line, which is then immediately interrupted, switching into an exclamatory fragment מַחְשָׁךְ: "[you caused] my acquaintances [to stay away from me]... darkness!". This strong and plausible reading is suggested by some exegetes. For the full argumentation, see exegetical issue on v. 19b.

v. 19b alt #6 This reading follows Vulgate's "abstulisti" assuming, along the same lines of alternative #4, the root חשֹך, to get the translation "You have withheld my acquaintances (from me)". In addition to the reasons against alt #4, which apply here as well, this reading is not preferred as it involves an emendation of the text.

Bibliography

Dahood, Mitchell. 2008. Psalms II: 51-100: Introduction, Translations, and Notes. Vol. 17. Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. 2005. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51-100. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

Longacre, Drew, and Brent A. Strawn. 2022. "A New Identification of a Psalm Manuscript from Qumran: 4Q85 + 4Q98c", Dead Sea Discoveries 30, 2: 152-159.

Skehan, Patrick W., Eugene Ulrich, and Peter W. Flint. 2000. “4Q85. 4QPsc.” In Qumran Cave 4, XI: Psalms to Chronicles, 49–61, plates VII-IX. DJD 16. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Psalm 88 Grammar