Hebrew jussive vs. imperfect
For Psalm 40:3 (=MT 40:4) the BHS has the verb יִרְאוּ
tagged as an imperative ("many will see"). The NET notes however see this as jussive ("may many see"). Are the forms of the jussive and imperative identical here in the Hebrew? What has be confused is that in my paradigm charts in the BHRG
1) the Jussive is always listed as 3rd pers sing. but the above word is tagged as 3rd pers plural.
2) the jussive is supposedly a shortened form of the imperative (although that seems to contradict the paradigm charts where it the same...)
Comments
-
The difference between the jussive and imperfect is only visible in a few cases, such as III-weak verbs (but not every form), hollow verbs, and hiphils (with strong verbs too). The form of the verb used for the jussive (if it differs from the normal imperfect) is also the form used in the so-called vav-consecutive (except with hollow verbs, for linguistic reasons that I can lay out if you want...)
At an earlier (reconstructed) stage of Hebrew, imperfect verbs had a final vowel on them indicating mood. A normal imperfect would be yaqtulu, a jussive yaqtul, with no final vowel. That's why it's called the shortened form. (This is based on observed changes in Hebrew, as well as comparative semitic data with Arabic and other languages which have preserved the final mood vowel.)
Formally speaking, there's no way to tell if this form is jussive or imperfect (though context might help.) The forms are identical in the 3pl of III-weak verbs.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton
0 -
shark tacos said:
For Psalm 40:3 (=MT 40:4) the BHS has the verb יִרְאוּ tagged as an imperative ("many will see"). The NET notes however see this as jussive ("may many see"). Are the forms of the jussive and imperative identical here in the Hebrew? What has be confused is that in my paradigm charts in the BHRG
1) the Jussive is always listed as 3rd pers sing. but the above word is tagged as 3rd pers plural.
2) the jussive is supposedly a shortened form of the imperative (although that seems to contradict the paradigm charts where it the same...)
My BHS 4.2 has it tagged as a qal impf 3 m p which seems correct to me. It is definitely not an impv. In many cases the Impf and juss are the same so it can be a judgment call.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
My BHS 4.2 has it tagged as a qal impf 3 m p which seems correct to me. It is definitely not an impv.
Sorry that was a typo from me, I meant imperfect (like in the title).
0 -
Thanks Ben,
Ben said:The difference between the jussive and imperfect is only visible in a few cases, such as III-weak verbs (but not every form), hollow verbs, and hiphils (with strong verbs too).
What's a hollow verb? I've never heard of that.
Ben said:Formally speaking, there's no way to tell if this form is jussive or imperfect (though context might help.) The forms are identical in the 3pl of III-weak verbs.
Can you point me to any discussions of this? I have the BHRG, GKC, and Waltke & O'Connor, is there anything in those about that?.
0 -
shark tacos said:
What's a hollow verb? I've never heard of that.
A hollow verb is a verb whose 2nd radical is waw or yod such as קום or שׂים. The yod or waw disapears in many forms only to reappear in others.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
GKC 48b,g. I don't have BHRG, and Waltke/O'Connor 34.2.1 (and surrounding sections)
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton
0 -
Thanks!
So... now I'm wondering how exactly the tags are determined in the BHS and AFAT for jussive verbs when they are the same in form as the imperative? Are they only tagged as jussive where the form is clearly different?
0 -
bump
0 -
shark tacos said:
Thanks!
So... now I'm wondering how exactly the tags are determined in the BHS and AFAT for jussive verbs when they are the same in form as the imperative? Are they only tagged as jussive where the form is clearly different?
The short answer is no. The WHM 4.2 and AFAT however, deal with this issue differently. The AFAT treats Jussives as their own form and gives them an independent tag. The WHM 4.2 tags Jussives as Imperfect with Jussive meaning. So a AFAT Imperfect search would exclude what they've classified as Jussives while a WHM 4.2 Imperfect search would have both Imperfects and Jussives. These databases have different philosophies and this is a prime example of how it affects their tagging. On the whole the WHM 4.2 is much more complex and catalogs a LOT more stuff than the AFAT, which is simpler.
Note the difference in the number of Jussives the two databases notices. This is because it is a judgment call when the form of the Imperfect and Jussive are the same.
Prov. 15:23
0