This contribution offers a critical evaluation of John Screnock’s hypothesis that the basic word order in 1QM is subject-verb, with inversion triggered by fronting of non-subject elements or by the use of intransitive verbs. After a detailed examination of the evidence, the opposite conclusion is reached. Basic word order is verb-subject, with inversion to subject-verb order with pragmatically marked subjects (focus fronting). There seems to be no causal relationship between transitivity and word order. Furthermore, it is argued that Screnock’s interpretation of 1QM 1:1–3 (which flows from his transitivity-based analysis) is highly unlikely, as it leads to a division of sentences that would produce a structure practically unattested in the rest of the text. In addition, the findings are applied to the general discussion of word order in Hebrew, in particular as an argument against recent attempts at describing Biblical Hebrew as a language with basic subject-verb order.

中文翻译：

---

再次关于战争卷轴中的词序 (1QM)

这一贡献对 John Screnock 的假设进行了批判性评估，即 1QM 中的基本词序是主语-动词，倒置由非主语元素的前置或使用不及物动词触发。在详细检查证据后，得出了相反的结论。基本的词序是动词-主语，主语-动词顺序倒置，带有语用标记的主语（焦点前置）。传递性和词序之间似乎没有因果关系。此外，有人认为 Screnock 对 1QM 1: 1-3（源自他基于及物性的分析）的解释极不可能，因为它会导致句子的划分，从而产生一种在文本的其余部分实际上未经证实的结构. 此外，研究结果适用于希伯来语词序的一般性讨论，