38 Adina Moshavi means of computer searches, as well as the exegetical uncertainty regarding some of the cited examples of this phenomenon (34). Yes-no questions were identified as rhetorical if they serve as implicit assertions with a polarity opposite to that of the question. Although there is a group of unanswered yes-no questions in BH with non-reversed polarity, most of these are probably not RQs, but conducive questions (35). In the conducive question the speaker has a prior belief or expectation regarding the answer to the question, e.g., “Is that you, Henry?” (36) Some conducive questions do not expect an answer, potentially blurring the distinction between conducive and rhetorical questions (37). Closer inspection, however, reveals important difference between the two types. Unlike RQs, conducive questions do not serve as implicit assertions, nor are their answers obvious(38). More strikingly, the expected answer to an affirmative conducive question often does not have reversed polarity; thus the expected answer to the affirmative “Is that you, Henry?” is “Yes.” It should be noted that the RQ, as defined here, is clearly distinguished from the exclamation on semantic and pragmatic grounds, notwithstanding Joüon-Muraoka’s (§162a) comment that “the line between question and exclamation is often ill-defined.” RQs are semantically questions, defining a adverb; on this see MOSHAVI, “Syntactic Evidence”; A. MOSHAVI, “Rhetorical Question or Assertion? The Pragmatics of alh in Biblical Hebrew”, JANES 32 (forthcoming). (34) On unmarked questions, see, e.g., A.B. DAVIDSON, Hebrew Syntax (Edinburgh 1901) §121a; GKC §150a; H.G. MITCHELL, “The Omission of the Interrogative Particle”, 3 Old Testament and Semitic Studies in Memory of William Rainey Harper (ed. R. HARPER et al.) (Chicago, IL 1908) 115-129; A. SPERBER, A Historical Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. A Presentation of Problems with Suggestions to their Solution (Leiden 1966). The questions listed in the above references contain a fair number of RQs, but only a few of these express logical arguments, i.e., Exod 8,22; 1 Sam 21,16; 22,7. On ambiguities involved in some purported examples of unmarked questions, see B. KEDAR, “The Interpretation of Rhetorical Questions”, “Sha’arei Talmon”. Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (ed. M. FISHBANE – E. TOV – W.W. FIELDS) (Winona Lake, IN 1992) 146-148 (Hebr. section). (35) On purportedly rhetorical questions with non-reversed polarity, see, e.g., R. GORDIS, “A Rhetorical Use of Interrogative Sentences in Biblical Hebrew”, AJSL 49 (1933) 212-217; KEDAR, “Interpretation of Rhetorical Questions”, 149; DE REGT, “Discourse Implications”, 60-64. The questions cited in these sources bear no functional resemblance to the RQ-as-retort (see n. 6, above), which is the only kind of yes-no RQ I am aware of that has non-reversed polarity. Most of the questions cited, such as the tyarh ‘have you seen’ formula (e.g., 1 Sam 10,24) are really conducive. One well-known example, Jer 31,19, is indeed rhetorical, but may have reversed polarity; see, e.g., VAN SELMS, “Motivated Interrogative Sentences in Biblical Hebrew”, 148-159; HELD, “Rhetorical Questions”, 79; GREENSTEIN, “Interpreting Ancient Texts”, 452. (36) On the distinction between rhetorical and conducive questions see R.A. HUDSON, “The Meaning of Questions”, Language 51 (1975) 17-18; ILIE, What Else Can I Tell You, 55-56. (37) Compare, e.g., the answered question in 1 Sam 26,17 and the identical unanswered one in 1 Sam 24,16. (38) In addition, the discourse functions of rhetorical and conducive questions are distinct. In BH prose dialogue conducive questions are typically used to confirm a belief of the speaker (e.g., Gen 43,29); to express surprise (e.g., 1 Sam 10,11); to show the speaker that the hearer knows something to be true (e.g., 1 Kgs 21,19), or to draw attention to a particular fact (e.g., 1 Sam 10,24). None of these functions are characte- ristic of Biblical RQs.