the parsing of the waw consecutive/jussive

[Catherine Mc]

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!

Catherine McDowell

Professor of OT and Hebrew @ Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC

 

 

 

[Helen Brown]

If you search the Help files for Apocopated the first result, at

Comprehensive Reference > Grammatical Definitions > Hebrew and Aramaic Verbs

gives you:

Other

The "other" tags include the jussive and cohortative which do not fit into the above categories. These tags can only be accessed when perfect, imperfect or wawConsecutive are selected.

and a table which starts with:

Apocopated Describes a form in which a final consonant or unaccented vowel is dropped from a word.

 

You will find definitions of all the Greek and Hebrew tags in these Help pages, but not necessarily all the special Targum, Peshitta, or Ugraitic tags.

 

These are basic explanations. If you do not get sufficient help here, you are welcome to email The Groves Institute with specific questions about the tagging.

[Helen Brown]

This Zondervan blog today on a new book (The Biblical Hebrew Companion for Bible Software Users) deals exactly with some of these issues.

[Tim Hall]

I read the article and it seems like a great book. I especially like How Accordance was listed first in the title of the Article .

[Martin Z]

As far as I know, Imperfect waw consecutives (Iwc) can have apocapated forms. Iwc can never be jussive. They are two different categories and never have the same form (homonyms).

 

Imperfect (not waw consecutive) and jussive sometimes have different forms. In this case, jussive is the apocapated.

Jan Joosten in his book, The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew, says: "The jussive form is distinct from YIQTOL in some forms of III-h verbs, some forms of II-w/y verbs, some forms of the hiphil and in some suffixed forms. In all other cases, the two forms are formally identical" (p. 314).

 

When the two forms are formally identically, yet the context/syntax demands it to be jussive (normally jussive comes in the beginning of a clause, or is negated by ʾal), the Bible softwares such as Accordance would say something like "Qal Impf 3 masc sing jussive," indicating it is exactly the same form as Impf, yet it should be parsed as jussive in this context.

BibleWorks in this case (Ruth 1:8) is less confusing:

parsing information for the short form:"עשׂה verb qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular jussive in both form and meaning apocopated."

parsing information for the long form: "עשׂה verb qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular jussive in meaning, but no unique form for jussive."

 

Correct me if I'm wrong~