ehllverbalsystem-joosten (1)

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE

AND LINGUISTICSVolume 3

P–Z

General Editor

Geoffrey Khan

Associate Editors

Shmuel BolokzySteven E. FassbergGary A. Rendsburg

Aaron D. RubinOra R. Schwarzwald

Tamar Zewi

LEIDEN • BOSTON2013

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3

Table of Contents

Volume One

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ viiList of Contributors ............................................................................................................ ixTranscription Tables ........................................................................................................... xiiiArticles A-F ......................................................................................................................... 1

Volume Two

Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... viiArticles G-O ........................................................................................................................ 1

Volume Three

Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... viiArticles P-Z ......................................................................................................................... 1

Volume Four

Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... viiIndex ................................................................................................................................... 1


verbal system: biblical hebrew 921


Hatav, Galia. 1997. The semantics of aspect and modality: Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew (Studies in Language Companion Series 34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

——. 2010. “Relative and absolute tense inter-pretation in Modern Hebrew”. Hebrew Studies 51:261–285.

Holst, Søren. 2008. Verbs and War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew verbal system and the Qumran War Scroll (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Studia Semit-ica Upsaliensia 25). Uppsala: Anacapri Uppsala.

Joosten, Jan. 1996. “The indicative system of the Biblical Hebrew verb and its literary exploitation”. Narrative syntax and the Hebrew Bible, ed. by Ellen J. van Wolde, 51–71. Leiden: Brill.

——. 1999. “The long form of the prefix conjugation referring to the past in Biblical Hebrew prose”. Hebrew Studies 40:15–26.

——. 2002. “Do the finite verbal forms in Biblical Hebrew express aspect?” Journal of Ancient Near East Studies 29:49–70.

Joüon, Paul. 1923. Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press.

Joüon, Paul and Takamitsu Muraoka. 1991. A gram-mar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press.

Kustár, Péter. 1972. Aspekt im Hebräischen (Theolo-gischen Dissertationen 9). Basel: Friedrich Rein-hardt Kommissionsverlag.

Kutscher, Eduard Y. 1971. “Hebrew language, Mish-naic”. Encyclopaedia Judaica 16, 1590–1607.

——. 1982. A history of the Hebrew language. Jeru-salem: Magnes.

Leo, Christopher. 1817. An examination of the four-teen verses selected from Scripture, by Mr. J. Bel-lamy, as a specimen of his emendation of the Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Longacre, Robert. 1992. “Discourse perspective on the Hebrew verb: Affirmation and restatement”. Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. by Walter Bodine, 177–189. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisen-brauns.

——. 1996. The grammar of discourse. 2nd edition. New York: Plenum.

McFall, Leslie. 1982. The enigma of the Hebrew verbal system: Solutions from Ewald to the present day. Sheffield: Almond.

Michel, Diethelm. 1960. Tempora und Satzstellung in den Psalmen. Bonn: Bouvier.

Mishor, Mordechai. 1983. The tense system in Tannaitic Hebrew (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Niccacci, Alviero. 1990. The syntax of the verb in classical Hebrew prose. Trans. by Wilfred G. E. Watson (Journal for the Study of the Old Testa-ment Supplement Series 86). Sheffield: JSOT Press.

Penner, Ken. 2006. “Verb form semantics in Qum-ran Hebrew texts: Tense, aspect, and modality between the Bible and the Mishnah”. PhD disser-tation, McMaster University.

Pérez Fernández, Miguel. 1999. An introductory grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew. Trans. by John Elwolde. Leiden: Brill.

van Peursen, Wido T. 2004. The verbal system in the Hebrew text of Ben Sira (Studies in Semitic Lan-guages and Linguistics 41). Leiden: Brill.

Rocine, Brian. 2000. Learning Biblical Hebrew: A new approach using discourse analysis. Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Helwys.

Rogland, Max. 2003. Alleged non-past uses of qatal in classical Hebrew (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 44). Assen: Royal van Gorcum.

Schneider, Wolfgang and Oskar Grether. 1974. Gram-matik des biblischen Hebräisch: Ein Lehrbuch. Munich: Claudius-Verlag.

Segal, Moshe. 1927. A grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon.

Sharvit, Shimon. 1980. “The ‘tense’-system of Mish-naic Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Studies in Hebrew and Semitic languages dedicated to the memory of Professor Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, ed. by Gad Ben-Ami Sarfatti, Pin™as Artzi, Jonas Greenfield, and Menachem Kaddari, 110–125. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press.

Silverman, Michael H. 1973. “Syntactic notes on the waw consecutive”. Orient and occident: Essays presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, 167–175. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker.

Talstra, Eep. 1997. “Tense, mood, aspect and clause connections in Biblical Hebrew: A textual approach”. Journal of Northwest Semitic Lan-guages 23:81–103.

Tene, David. 1971. “Linguistic literature, Hebrew”. Encyclopaedia Judaica 16, 1390–1397. Jerusalem: Keter.

Zuber, Beat. 1986. Das Tempussystem des bib-lischen Hebräisch: Eine Untersuchung am Text (Beiheft zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 164). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Ken M. Penner(St. Francis Xavier University)

Verbal System: Biblical Hebrew

As in other languages with a conjugated verb, so in BH (= Biblical Hebrew) different verbal forms express distinct nuances of tense, aspect, and mood. Traditionally, the BH verbal system has been viewed as being organized around a central opposition: qa†al (the ‘perfect’) versus yiq†ol (the ‘imperfect’); but this analysis has proved wrongheaded. Both historical consid-erations and a synchronic approach show that the BH system is more complex and cannot be reduced to a mere binary opposition. Precise definition of verbal usage is difficult in any language, all the more so in a dead language, attested in a relatively small corpus, composed of texts created over a period of perhaps one thousand years. But the contours of the system are sufficiently clear.

922 verbal system: biblical hebrew


1. A D i a c h r o n i c V i e w

Although the way they combine into a complex paradigm is unique, the building blocks of the BH system were all inherited from proto-West Semitic (Bergsträsser 1929:9–14). It is helpful to review the different Hebrew ‘tenses’ from a historical perspective:

– The common Semitic preterite *yaq†ul, attested in Akkadian (iprus) and residually in Aramaic, Arabic and Sabaean, is preserved in wayyiq†ol (the ‘imperfect consecutive’), which in weak verbs typically exhibits the short form of the prefix conjugation, e.g., way-ya≠al ‘and ויעל ,’wa-yhì ‘and it was ויהיhe ascended; and he raised’).

– The secondary optative function of the pret-erite (Gai 2000; contra Hetzron 1969) is preserved in the Hebrew jussive (short with weak verbs: יהי yëhì ‘let it be’, יעל ya≠al ‘let him ascend; let him raise’; → Jussive).

– The imperative and the lengthened prefix conjugation ending in *-<å (< *-an), both with ample parallels in the other Semitic languages, are preserved in Hebrew with a volitive meaning close to that of the jussive (→ Imperative and Prohibitive: Pre-Modern Hebrew; Cohortative).

– The long form of the prefix conjugation, *yaq†ulu, appears to be a West Semitic inno-vation and is attested in Hebrew, Ugaritic, Aramaic, and Arabic. Originally expressing a present-future/imperfective meaning, it evolved in proto-Hebrew into a modal form expressing nuances of futurity and eventual-ity (yiq†ol).

– The suffix conjugation with the meaning of a perfect is also a West-Semitic innovation; as in some other West Semitic languages, this form (qa†al) further developed into a preter-ite in Hebrew, entering into competition with wayyiq†ol.

– A special non-indicative use of the suffix conjugation that may first have developed in conditional sentences (Moran 1961) came to be associated specifically with the form with prefixed conjunction (weqa†al).

– The active participle started out as a typi-cal verbal noun designating the agent. In Hebrew it developed verbal uses as compen-sation for the functions that the long form of the prefix conjugation lost: present-future/imperfective.

Whether Hebrew inherited a form cognate to the East Semitic present-future iparras is debated (Kottsieper 2000). If it did, the form would appear to have coalesced functionally with yiq†ol. No distinct function can be attrib-uted to it.

2. A S y n c h r o n i c V i e w o f t h e V e r b a l S y s t e m i n C l a s s i c a l P r o s e

Classical Hebrew prose, as attested in the books of Genesis to Kings, presents a gram-matical system that is surprisingly unified. The core verbal paradigm is made up of eight forms representing five functional categories:

Form Functionwayyiq†ol preteriteqa†al anteriorityparticiple contemporaneityyiq†ol, weqa†al modality (non-volitive)cohortative, modality (volitive) imperative, jussive

A few remarks in regard to form, function and syntax will justify this scheme.

Form: In regard to outer form, the grouping of different morphological items under a single functional heading may seem peculiar, but it is not unparalleled (e.g., in Coptic, several tenses have a negative form that is etymologically dis-tinct from the affirmative).

– Yiq†ol and weqa†al express the same modal functions and relate to one another as posi-tional variants: while weqa†al can occur only at the head of the clause, yiq†ol is practically limited to clause-internal positions (for osten-sible cases of clause-initial yiq†ol in reality rep-resenting the jussive, see below under syntax).

– The volitives make up a suppletive para-digm organized by grammatical person: the first person is expressed by the cohortative, the second by the imperative (the jussive in negated clauses), and the third by the jussive.

Function: it is expedient to ascribe a single core function to each form or group of forms and to view divergences from this core function as contextual applications.

– Wayyiq†ol basically locates a process at some point in time in the past. In narrative, succes-

verbal system: biblical hebrew 923


sive wayyiq†ol forms typically present suc-cessive events in the story, but the form as such does not imply sequence; it regularly expresses contemporary events (e.g., 1 Sam. 18.11; 1 Kgs 18.24) or even forms of back-tracking and anticipation (Washburn 1994). As a preterite, wayyiq†ol naturally takes a leading role in narrative, but it also occurs in direct speech, e.g., וימת ני א ה־אלמנה אשי išš<å-±alm<ån<å ±<ånì way-y± איש <åmåμ ±ìšì ‘I am a widow, my husband died’ (2 Sam. 14.5).

Wayyiq†ol positively expresses deictic tense (Kurylowicz 1973): It locates the event (E) at a reference time (R) that precedes the speech time (S): E=R<S. All other verbal forms take their reference time from the context (Hatav 1997): in narrative, R is past, while in direct speech R usually coincides with S, but may also be located in the past or the future.

– Qa†al basically expresses anteriority with regard to reference time. In direct speech, this function may imply that the result of the process still obtains at speech time: qa†al then expresses the meaning of a perfect. With verbs expressing states and activi-ties of the inner person, this meaning may require a present-tense translation in Eng-lish: נתי ;z<åqantì ‘I am old’ (Josh. 23.2) זקעתי -y<å≈a≠tì ‘I know’ (Gen. 12.11) (Dobbs ידAllsopp 2000). However, qa†al is also used to express events that are remote: Its func-tion then approaches that of the preterite (note the co-occurrence of the ‘perfect’ and ‘preterite’ usage in the same passage, e.g., י יתי לשנ ה הי ה ועת ן הז תי את־הירד י עבר כי במקל≠ kì ∫ë-maqlì מחנות <å∫artì ±Æμ-hay-yardèn haz-zÆ wë-≠aμt<å h <åyìμì li-šnè ma™≥nòμ ‘with only my staff I crossed this Jordan, and now I have become two companies’ (Gen. 32.11; see also Deut. 10.22; 2 Sam. 19.10). A special usage is found in ‘performative’ expressions such as נתתי n<åtattì ‘I hereby give’ (Gen. 1.29), where the notion of anteriority is interpreted in terms of certainty (Rogland 2003).

– A compound consisting of the participle and an explicit nominal or pronominal subject is used to express contemporaneity with regard to reference time. The expression of the real, ongoing, present, e.g., ש מבק י ± אנכ <ånòúì më∫aqqèš ‘I am seeking’ (Gen. 37.16) and of attending circumstances in narrative, ולוט

ם ער־סד בש ב wë-lò† yòšè∫ bë-ša≠ar-së≈òm יש‘And Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom’ (Gen. 19.1), are strictly the domain of the participle and cannot be expressed by other verbal forms. This shows that the predicative participle is a full-fledged component of the BH verbal system. Secondary usages of the participle include reference to the general present or to the imminent future (Joosten 1989).

– Yiq†ol and weqa†al are basically prospective; from the point of view of a given reference time, they express that the process was not yet begun. Contextually, this basic function translates into a multitude of modal nuances, both epistemic and deontic. The use of yiq†ol with modal verbs like יכל y <åkol ‘to be able’ and in questions pertaining to the present is insignificant from the point of view of the system (Joosten 2004). A special usage is the expression of iterative processes, especially in past-tense contexts: prospective modality is interpreted in terms of repeated action, exactly as in the case of English will/would, e.g., ‘He will sit like that for hours’; ‘Some-times I would see Gerald in the Café Royal’.

– The volitives are prospective too, but they add a nuance of speaker volition. Following another volitive, a question, or even a state-ment, they may be used to express purpose or intended result, e.g., ף hòßì±ùh<å הוציאוה ותשרwë-μi««<årèƒ ‘Bring her out and let her (i.e., so that she may) be burnt’ (Gen. 38.24). As expressions of the will of the speaker, they are more tightly linked to speech time than the other verbal forms. However, the forms occasionally express purpose and intended result in past-tense contexts, e.g., החפץ י במות י כהנ hÆ-™<åƒèß yëmallè ימלא את־ידו ויה±Æμ-y <å≈ò w-ìhì kòh≥nè ∫ <åmòμ ‘Anyone who wanted he consecrated to be (i.e., so he would be) (among the) priests for the high places’ (1 Kgs 13.33).

The five formal categories make up a system in the Saussurian sense of the word, i.e., instead of speaking of each form as imbued with meaning, it would be more correct to say that verbal meaning arises from the opposition of different forms on the paradigmatic level. An efficient way of structuring the system is to dis-tinguish an indicative and a modal subsystem. Within the indicative system, wayyiq†ol stands

924 verbal system: biblical hebrew


opposed as a past tense to tense-less qa†al and participle; qa†al expresses anteriority, while the participle expresses contemporaneity. Within the modal subsystem, the non-volitive forms stand opposed to the volitives.

Syntax: In BH, the default word order has the verbal form precede other constituents. The VSO word order may be modified for pragmatic reasons (e.g., for topicalization or focalization). However, because of the alliance between some of the verbal forms and the conjunction -ו wë-, which is necessarily clause-initial, verbal syntax exhibits some disconcerting peculiarities.

– The chain of events in narrative is naturally expressed by wayyiq†ol, but when any ele-ment comes between the conjunction and the verb (e.g., the negation, a temporal adverb, or a marked clausal constituent), qa†al must be used instead. In this case, the temporal and aspectual value of qa†al is practically identical to that of wayyiq†ol. It is not always easy to distinguish this preterite use of qa†al from its retrospective (‘pluperfect’) use in narrative.

– Conversely, in direct speech, successive ret-rospective clauses might be expected to be expressed with qa†al, and sometimes are, e.g., ים יר המ דתי את־ע ה גם־לכ מתי ברב nil™amtì נלח∫ë-rabb <å gam-l <åúa≈tì ±Æμ-≠ìr ham-m <åyim ‘I have fought against Rabbah; moreover, I have taken the water city’ (2 Sam. 12.27). The combination of wë + qa†al, however, although attested, e.g., ף והחל י ב תל ה ואביכן ים מנ רת עש י wa-±≥∫ìúÆn hèμÆl bì את־משכרתwë-hÆ™(lìƒ ±Æμ-ma«kurtì ≠≥«ÆrÆμ mònìm ‘Yet your father has cheated me and changed my wages ten times’ (Gen. 31.7), is ambiguous since it might easily be interpreted as weqa†al with future (or past iterative) reference. This explains why, instead of wë + qa†al, one often finds wayyiq†ol in direct discourse. In such cases, the value of wayyiq†ol equals that of qa†al.

– In the modal subsystem, the dynamics of word order are even more intricate. Weqa†al and yiq†ol are mere positional variants, as was stated above: the former occurs at the head of the clause, the latter takes a non-first position. Ostensible cases of yiq†ol in first position, including cases of wë + yiq†ol, are to be analyzed as jussives (with non-weak verbs, yiq†ol and jussive are mostly homony-

mous). Contrast the yiq†ol in ם ישמעו וכל־העwë-úål-h<å-≠ <åm yišmë≠ù ‘All the people will hear’ (Deut. 17.13) and the jussive in ישמעו ים yišmë≠ù h<å-≠i∫rìm ‘Let the Hebrews העברhear!’ (1 Sam. 13.3).

3. V e r b a l U s a g e i n P o e t r y

For a variety of reasons, verbal usage in poeti-cal texts very often fails to conform to the rules of classical prose as set out above. Many excep-tions reflect archaic or archaizing style. For instance, in proto-Hebrew the short form of the prefix conjugation might be used as a preterite, even if it did not take the form of wayyiq†ol. Traces of this archaic usage are found in Deut. 32.8–18 and perhaps some other old poems (Notarius 2007), e.g., ר מדב רץ בא ימצאהו yimß<å±èhù bë-±ÆrÆß mi≈b<år ‘He found him in a desert land’ (Deut. 32.10). Later poets, who knew this type of syntax from the study of old texts, imitated it in their writing, without neces-sarily distinguishing long and short forms, e.g., יע תס ים ממצר פן ≠gÆƒÆn mim-mißrayim tassìa ג‘You brought a vine out of Egypt’ (Ps. 80.9).

Another source of aberrations is → Poetic License: poets often used verbal forms in a figurative way, presenting events belonging to the future as if they had already come to pass, or addressing creatures and inanimate objects with volitive verbal forms in order to per-sonify them. It should also be noted that poetry typically expresses a wider range of speech acts than discursive or narrative texts.

4. L a t e B i b l i c a l H e b r e w

Late Biblical books such as Ezra and Nehemiah, Chronicles, Esther, Daniel, and Ecclesiastes also evidence a number of usages that diverge from classical syntax (Eskhult 2000). For instance, the classical distinction between yiq†ol and the jussive shows signs of breakdown, with the lat-ter turning into a positional variant of the for-mer (Qimron 1987). Regular yiq†ol is used with a volitive force, e.g., יחיה לעולם לך -ham המmÆlÆú lë-≠ol<åm yi™yÆ ‘May the king live forever’ (Neh. 2.3), and the jussive occurs in predictive statements, e.g., א אליו כרצונו עש הב »wë-ya≠a ויhab-b<å ±èl<åw ki-rßònò ‘the invader will do as he pleases’ (Dan. 11.16). The sole criterion for the use of either form is its position in the clause: in clause-internal position yiq†ol is used, while

verbal system: modern hebrew 925


at the head of the clause one usually finds the jussive. Cases of wë + yiq†ol are not necessarily to be analyzed as jussives, e.g., גב לך־הנ ויחזק מwë-yÆ™(zaq mÆlÆú-han-nÆ;gÆ∫ ‘And the king of the south will be strong’ (Dan. 11.5). It also appears that the use of weqa†al to express itera-tive processes in the past is unattested in Late BH (Joosten 2006).

Many of the typical differences between Late and Classical BH can be shown to reflect dia-chronic development of the language. In many respects, LBH is to be regarded as a transi-tional phase between Classical and Rabbinic Hebrew.

R e f e r e n c e sBergsträsser, Gotthelf. 1929. Hebräische Gramma-

tik, vol. 2. Leipzig: Hinrichs.Dobbs-Alsopp, F. W. 2000. “Biblical Hebrew stat-

ives and situation aspect”. Journal of Semitic Studies 45:21–53.

Eskhult, Mats. 2000. “Verbal syntax in Late Biblical Hebrew”. Diggers at the well: Proceedings of a third international symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea scrolls & Ben Sira, ed. by Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde, 84–93. Leiden: Brill.

Gai, Amikam. 2000. “The connection between past and optative in the classical Semitic languages”. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 150:17–28.

Hatav, Galia. 1997. The semantics of aspect and modality: Evidence from English and Biblical Heb-rew. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hetzron, Robert. 1969. “The evidence for perfect *yáqtul and jussive *yaqtúl in Proto-Semitic”. Journal of Semitic Studies 14:1–21.

Joosten, Jan. 1989. “The predicative participle in Biblical Hebrew”. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 2:128–159.

——. 2004. “Do the finite verbal forms in Biblical Hebrew express aspect?” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 29:49–70.

——. 2006. “The disappearance of iterative WEQA¢AL in the Biblical Hebrew verbal system”. Biblical Hebrew in its Northwest Semitic setting: Typological and historical perspectives, ed. by Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz, 135–147. Jerusalem: Magnes and Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

Kottsieper, Ingo. 2000. “Yaqattal—Phantom oder Problem? Erwägungen zu einem hebraistischen Problem und zur Geschichte der semitischen Sprachen”. Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 1:27–100.

Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1973. “Verbal aspect in Semitic”. Orientalia 42:114–120.

Moran, William L. 1961. “The Hebrew language in its Northwest Semitic background”. The Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by George Ernest Wright, 54–72. Garden City, New York: Doubleday.

Notarius, Tania. 2007. “Ma≠arexet ha-zmanim ba-šira ha-miqra±it ha-±arxa±it we-ha-qlasit”. PhD disserta-tion, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Qimron, Elisha. 1987. “Consecutive and conjunctive imperfect: The form of the imperfect with Waw in Biblical Hebrew”. Jewish Quarterly Review 77:151–153.

Rogland, Max. 2003. Alleged non-past uses of QA¢AL in Classical Hebrew. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Washburn, David L. 1994. “Chomsky’s separa-tion of syntax and semantics”. Hebrew Studies 35:27–46.

Jan Joosten (University of Strasbourg)

Verbal System: Modern Hebrew

1. I n t r o d u c t i o n

Verbs in Modern Hebrew are formed exclu-sively through one traditional type of discon-tinuous word-formation, i.e., root-pattern formation, in contrast to nouns and adjectives, which can also be formed through other types of word-formation such as reduplication, pre-fixation, suffixation, blending, compounding, acronyming and conversion ( Word Forma-tion; Derivation). Changes in verbal patterns for a given root bring about changes in diath-esis and/or aspect in the resulting verbs.

Verbs in Modern Hebrew inflect for tense (past, present, and future), mood (imperative), person (first person, second person, and third person), number (singular and plural), and gen-der (masculine and feminine). There are also infinitives and gerunds ( Inflection; Tenses; Gender; Infinitive; Verbal Nouns).

The internal structure of verbs in Modern Hebrew is as follows; inflection is external to word-formation:

[INFLECTION [prefix] + [WORD-FORMATION [root] + [pattern]] + [suffix]]

Citation forms of verbs in Hebrew are tradi-tionally 3ms. past forms, e.g., למד lamad ‘to study’, לימד limed ‘to teach’, etc., though some modern dictionaries cite them in the present ms. forms, e.g., לומד lomed, מלמד melamed, etc. Verbs in Modern Hebrew are arranged by root in traditional dictionaries, but more and more modern dictionaries arrange them alphabeti-cally, like the members of other word classes (for general descriptions of Modern Hebrew verbal system see Rosén 1977; Berman 1978; Glinert 1989; Schwarzwald 2001; 2002; Coffin and Bolozky 2005; Bolozky 2007).

ehllverbalsystem-joosten (1)

Documents