I was wondering how Accordance parses imperfect waw-consecutive forms - as imperfects? as apocapated? as jussives? I've seen all three in instant details. For example:
וַיַּרְא in Gen 1:31
parsed in Accordance as "Qal wawConsec 3 masc sing apoc”
and in the same verse וַיְהִ is also parsed as "Qal wawConsec 3 masc sing apoc”
By “apocapated” does Accordance mean jussive, or something else? (I know apocapated refers to a shortened form – my students and I were just debating whether or not Accordance is implying it’s a shortened form of the imperfect as distinct from the jussive because the instant details doesn’t say “jussive” although” Jussive” is used by Accordance elsewhere
וַיַּעַשׂ in Gen 1:7 "Qal wawConsec 3 masc sing apoc" and in Gen 2:22 וַיִּבֶן
Qal wawConsec 3 masc sing apoc. This led me to assume that Accordance doesn't use the term "jussive" for these forms. But then I found this in Ruth 1:8: [יַעֲשֶׂה [יַעַשׂ in which both are listed as "Qal Impf 3 masc sing jussiveB" (the one on the right with the final he is not a jussive).
So my question is, in the Hebrew verb parsing (instant details), what does "apocapated" refer to - a shortened impf that is not a jussive, or does apocapated refer to the jussive (in Accordance-ease)? And if Accordance uses the term "jussive", why not for verbs that are actually jussives? and why use both "Impf" and "jussive" for a jussive in Ruth 1:8?
Thanks for the clarification!
Professor of OT and Hebrew @ Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC