Lamentations 3:28-30 - Let him sit, put, give?

[talmid56]

Chris, would you mind expanding a little on why you found Unfolding Word's section on the jussive unhelpful? It does note that jussives are 3rd pers. forms, while imperatives are 2nd pers. forms. That is one way they distinguish between them. As for the "Qal Jussive" thing, they also give the forms for the other stems, Niphal, Hiphil, and others. I don't yet see a problem here. Now, I have no affiliation with, or personal attachment to, the site. I'm just mentioning it as a possible useful resource. It should also be noted (from the site's founders) that it is intended for people who have little to no language or grammar training before using the site. So if it seems a little "simple", that is why. It doesn't necessarily mean that it cannot be useful.

[Jason Hare]

1. Well hold on there for a minute Jason, so much for my honesty, I could have looked at Num 10:35 you know. Anyway I am so fixated on Jussives these last four days that I actually failed to pay attention to that Patach underneath that Vav, darn it! But I do not think my approach to verbs can be surmised from this humongously humiliating error. When you stare at the same issue for long enough, occasionally the finer details become a blur, an excuse I know, but it is true. Anyway, just saw the actual translation.

That certainly makes me feel better. I thought we would have to find a way to lead you through an entire review of the Hebrew verb. I’m glad you just overlooked the patach. That’s a relief.

The verbs in blue are vayyiqtol and the one in red is a jussive. Basically, וַיְהִי sets up a narrative past string and וַיֹּ֫אמֶר continues it, introducing the speech instance. In between these two vayyiqtol forms is the temporal setting (בִּנְסֹעַ הָאָרוֹן, “while the ark was traveling [around]”). If you think about it, the וַיְהִי could be left off of translation altogether.

The first element of the speech (ק֫וּמָה) is an imperative, calling on Yahweh to “arise!” The second (וְיָנ֫וּסוּ) is a jussive, calling on Yahweh’s enemies to “run away!” The jussive is not giving permission for them to run away. It is TELLING THEM to run away, but not addressing them directly. In Greek, this would be handled with a third-person imperative (written like φευγόντων or φυγόντων in the indicative active, “let them run away!”). English is just lacking in that specific mood form, so we use the auxiliary terms “let” and “may.”

2. Having scoured many references and scriptures, there really is quite a lot of divergent opinions on what constitutes a Jussive WHEN the grammatical cues are missing. I hit one example after another, but here is an interesting one: Job 20:23 :

יְהִ֤י ׀ לְמַלֵּ֬א בִטְנ֗וֹ יְֽשַׁלַּח־בּ֭וֹ חֲר֣וֹן אַפּ֑וֹ וְיַמְטֵ֥ר עָ֝לֵ֗ימוֹ בִּלְחוּמֽוֹ׃

Some English translators make this into a Jussive, including Robert Chisholm, the Vav is absent here I actually noticed - but I feel that the normal Qal imperfect with the KJV translation sounds absolutely perfect. So who is closer to the original writer's thought in this one? It is not always easy. On top of that, I notice that the Jussive does not always have to be "Let or "May, as grammars tend to emphasize, but it can be translated as Subjunctive, 'should like to would like to'. Am I wrong here?

There are two keys indicating the jussive here: (1) the short form of the first verb (יְהִי instead of the yiqtol יִהְיֶה) and (2) the short form of the second verb (יַמְטֵר instead of the yiqtol יַמְטִיר).

It struck me today that perhaps there’s a misunderstanding because, IIRC, English is not your native tongue. You might be connecting “let/may” with the permission structure in English (“May I go to the bathroom?” “You may go.” or “Will you let me go to the bathroom?” “Yes, I will let you go.”) This “let/may” in the jussive is just the way that English handles giving commands in the third person. We do not have a jussive or third-person imperative. So, we use “let” or “may” to express a command for the third person. It has nothing to do with permission, which might be confusing you. Is that what’s happening?

3. I am just going to throw this one in because it is related to the original question, it does actually appear that there is an equal divide between this verse from Lamentations being in the Jussive or just a normal imperfect. For example, A.W Streane says it is a Hortative (I like that don't you) a jussive in other words, just like many others agree with you Jason. On the other hand the well known Naegelsbach comments that this should be translated as in verse 28 to 29; "...that He sits alone...that he puts his mouth...". So my issue is not with your interpretation at all for I accept everything you say, especially grammatically, but it is with the ambiguity of such verses that allow for both interpretations that are absolutely equally applicable?

So my question is, can you offset the equally balanced interpretations towards it being a Jussive? Though I think I like the word Hortative, my choice for this from now on methinks.

Whether “hortative” or “jussive,” the idea is that we are basically giving a third-person command. Either encouraging or ordering someone to do something without talking directly to them. One might argue that a form is incorrect, that it should be yiqtol instead of jussive, but one would do that on the basis of personal interpretation rather than on the basis of the language itself. If it were the case, you would need to argue that the form needs to be changed in the text. I know there are instances like this, and I’m not saying it should not be done in this verse. I’m just going off of what is clearly written, even though what is written could be wrong for whatever reason.

[Chris Watts]

Hi Jason,

There are two keys indicating the jussive here: (1) the short form of the first verb (יְהִי instead of the yiqtol יִהְיֶה) and (2) the short form of the second verb (יַמְטֵר instead of the yiqtol יַמְטִיר

Yes I noticed the Hiphil disengages the hireq yod, and saw that as Jussive.

It struck me today that perhaps there’s a misunderstanding because, IIRC, English is not your native tongue. You might be connecting “let/may” with the permission structure in English

I have always associated 'may' and 'let' with modes of politeness or having submissive renderings, but a couple of videos and some research expanded for me the whole realm of what this concept really entails. By the way what is this : IIRC?

Thanks Jason for your perseverance, I have learned much more than just the Jussive - a footnoted topical reference in grammar books, but what is lacking in these is the fact that the Jussive needs to be treated with as much detail in grammar books as they give to the normal perfects and imperfects, they should define the concept very clearly, then demonstrate with plenty of examples not just three verses with the suffix נה and then two with the prefixed negation אל. demonstrate how it can be recognised, and especially with the vav, as this was missing from all my reading examples.

I even have an old Weingreen book and it devotes a mere two or three sentences to it without any clarifications at all. I almost feel as if it needs to be treated as a separate conjugation, a bit like the Spanish Subjunctive, a nightmare that one is by the way.

=======================================================================================================================

Hallo Talmid :

Chris, would you mind expanding a little on why you found Unfolding Word's section on the jussive unhelpful?

I read this page on at least two occasions over the last year at least, and again last week before I posted to the forum. I still, after reading, did not understand how to recognise the Jussive at all. This is where it falls down. Secondly, the Paradigm - is exactly the same as any imperfect table that you get at the back of any basic grammar book, so that does not help you to recognise the Jussive either, so those tables are redundant information. Thirdly, that wonderful Vav, that was a clincher, where is talk of the Vav here? Nowhere, so that is missing also. Their explanation mirrors the same old platitudes as you get in any grammar book, summing up the jussive in a few sentences does not cut it. They should be differentiating between the Vayiktol and the Veyiktol.

I read the grammar books, searched Gesenius (I usually am able to follow, slowly I must admit, the way he explains things, but he simply complicated the issue on this topic unfortunately and I really needed that bottle of wine afterwards), anyway i also searched the various other books I have and still felt that I needed to post to the forum.

From what I have learned I feel that the Jussive needs to be given a separate chapter in books and not treated alongside the Imperfect as though it was an anomaly and a part of the imperfect. But if I am mistaken on this one, please let me know. Thank you.

Kind regards
Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

IIRC = if I remember correctly

[Jason Hare]

I even have an old Weingreen book and it devotes a mere two or three sentences to it without any clarifications at all. I almost feel as if it needs to be treated as a separate conjugation, a bit like the Spanish Subjunctive, a nightmare that one is by the way.

You’ve got me wondering how Kutz/Josberger and Pratico/Van Pelt present on this topic. I want to look it up when I get home.

[Chris Watts]

Just an interesting snippet from this pdf here : https://ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress. ... l-2005.pdf From end of page 1 to page 2....

Traditional treatments of modality in Biblical Hebrew identify yiqtol, qatal, wayyiqtol, and
weqatal as indicative or non-modal and Imperative, Jussive, and Cohortative as non-indicative,
modal, or volitive. However, scholars have long recognized that the boundary between
indicative yiqtol and volitive Jussive and Cohortative is tenuous: the forms are frequently
morphologically indistinguishable, and unambiguous yiqtol forms often express the same modal
nuances that are primarily associated with the Jussive and Cohortative.

E. J. Revell claimed word order distinguishes indicative and non-indicative or modal uses of the prefix forms: Jussive
and Cohortative and modal yiqtol appear clause initially, whereas indicative yiqtol appears clause medially (1989:14–17).
Revell’s students have built on his observations. Ahouva Shulman has established in her
dissertation and subsequent articles that the morphologically distinct modal forms in the prose of
Genesis through 2 Kings overwhelmingly occur at the beginning of the clause (1996).

This is not difficult for beginning students to read and a re-worded form of this sort of explanation should be written in every grammar book. Although I would re-interpret the following " appear clause initially, whereas indicative yiqtol appears clause medially" in a much better way. What exactly is he saying here? And what precisely does she mean by "Morphologically distinct modal forms"? (Possibility and Intent and Necessity - this about covers the whole range of human speech? I realise that documents like these are intended for those who speak a completely different language which in itself requires deciphering, but a couple of examples here would have been nice to demonstrate the difference.

Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

Just an interesting snippet from this pdf here : https://ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress. ... l-2005.pdf From end of page 1 to page 2....

Traditional treatments of modality in Biblical Hebrew identify yiqtol, qatal, wayyiqtol, and
weqatal as indicative or non-modal and Imperative, Jussive, and Cohortative as non-indicative,
modal, or volitive. However, scholars have long recognized that the boundary between
indicative yiqtol and volitive Jussive and Cohortative is tenuous: the forms are frequently
morphologically indistinguishable, and unambiguous yiqtol forms often express the same modal
nuances that are primarily associated with the Jussive and Cohortative.

E. J. Revell claimed word order distinguishes indicative and non-indicative or modal uses of the prefix forms: Jussive
and Cohortative and modal yiqtol appear clause initially, whereas indicative yiqtol appears clause medially (1989:14–17).
Revell’s students have built on his observations. Ahouva Shulman has established in her
dissertation and subsequent articles that the morphologically distinct modal forms in the prose of
Genesis through 2 Kings overwhelmingly occur at the beginning of the clause (1996).

This is not difficult for beginning students to read and a re-worded form of this sort of explanation should be written in every grammar book. Although I would re-interpret the following " appear clause initially, whereas indicative yiqtol appears clause medially" in a much better way. What exactly is he saying here? And what precisely does she mean by "Morphologically distinct modal forms"? (Possibility and Intent and Necessity - this about covers the whole range of human speech? I realise that documents like these are intended for those who speak a completely different language which in itself requires deciphering, but a couple of examples here would have been nice to demonstrate the difference.

Chris watts

“Morphologically distinct” are what I was saying about them being shorter (for example, יַ֫עַשׂ from יַעֲשֶׂה and יַמְטֵר from יַמְטִיר). It just means that the jussive has a different form from the yiqtol. In most cases, the yiqtol and the jussive look the same.

The unmarked word order for Hebrew places the verb in second position to other elements in the sentence. Vayyiqtol is marked for narrative past and has the verb fronted. The וַיְהִי element is often added to place material before the vayyiqtol without destroying its form. I know of only one instance in which a temporal element is raised up before the vayyiqtol without וַיְהִי. For example, Deut 4:30:

בַּצַּ֣ר לְךָ֔ וּמְצָא֕וּךָ כֹּ֖ל הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֑לֶּה בְּאַחֲרִית֙ הַיָּמִ֔ים וְשַׁבְתָּ֙ עַד־יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ וְשָׁמַעְתָּ֖ בְּקֹלֹֽו׃

In both instances of the veqatal here (which is a consecutive, albeit for the future), the condition of the verb is fronted and the vav clause marker not removed. We would perhaps expect it to appear as follows, but it doesn’t:

וּבַצַּר לְךָ יִמְצְא֫וּךָ כֹּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵ֫לֶּה וּבְאַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים תָּשׁוּב עַד־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶ֫יךָ וְשָׁמַעְתָּ֫ בְּקֹלֹו׃

Again, this is the only verse that I’m aware of that does this (there could be others, but it is still very rare). Normally, the verb is in second position within a sentence, but the jussive and other volitionals (including imperatives) pull the verb forward (“left-movement” or “fronting”).

[Chris Watts]

The unmarked word order for Hebrew places the verb in second position to other elements in the sentence. Vayyiqtol is marked for narrative past and has the verb fronted. The וַיְהִי element is often added to place material before the vayyiqtol without destroying its form. I know of only one instance in which a temporal element is raised up before the vayyiqtol without וַיְהִי. For example, Deut 4:30:

בַּצַּ֣ר לְךָ֔ וּמְצָא֕וּךָ כֹּ֖ל הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֑לֶּה בְּאַחֲרִית֙ הַיָּמִ֔ים וְשַׁבְתָּ֙ עַד־יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ וְשָׁמַעְתָּ֖ בְּקֹלֹֽו׃

In both instances of the veqatal here (which is a consecutive, albeit for the future), the condition of the verb is fronted and the vav clause marker not removed. We would perhaps expect it to appear as follows, but it doesn’t:

וּבַצַּר לְךָ יִמְצְא֫וּךָ כֹּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵ֫לֶּה וּבְאַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים תָּשׁוּב עַד־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶ֫יךָ וְשָׁמַעְתָּ֫ בְּקֹלֹו׃

Again, this is the only verse that I’m aware of that does this (there could be others, but it is still very rare). Normally, the verb is in second position within a sentence, but the jussive and other volitionals (including imperatives) pull the verb forward (“left-movement” or “fronting”).

1. Ok Jason, the Morphological explanation - understood. But this Deut 4:30. I have struggled hard to understand what the issue is here - I simply do not get it. What is wrong with the first part of the verse by beginning it with 'When', instead of with a conjunction added to the adjective 'Oppression/tribulation'?

2. Why would you have expected it to read differently? Sorry, it's impossible for me to understand the reasoning here.

3.

Normally, the verb is in second position within a sentence

Again unsure what you mean here,I have always understood hebrew to be a SVO construction, allowing of course for flexibility and creativity.

4.

Normally, the verb is in second position within a sentence, but the jussive and other volitionals (including imperatives) pull the verb forward (“left-movement” or “fronting”).

But there is no Jussive here! If there is then that's a week wasted.

Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

But this Deut 4:30. I have struggled hard to understand what the issue is here - I simply do not get it. What is wrong with the first part of the verse by beginning it with 'When', instead of with a conjunction added to the adjective 'Oppression/tribulation'?... Why would you have expected it to read differently? Sorry, it's impossible for me to understand the reasoning here.

Literally, “in the trouble to you and all these things shall find you.” It would obviously normally be “and in the trouble to you all these things shall find you,” with the “and” at the beginning of the clause. The same in the second phrase, which is literally “in the end of days and you shall return unto Yahweh your God and obey his voice,” which should be “and in the end of days you shall return unto Yahweh....” You can certainly see how the vav is interrupting the phrase and wouldn’t normally be there.

Again unsure what you mean here,I have always understood hebrew to be a SVO construction, allowing of course for flexibility and creativity.

I’m actually surprised that you said SVO. I would have expected you to say VSO, which is what most people think. I would not say SVO but XV, in which X stands for any element that has been fronted for whatever reason. So, if the time marker has been fronted then the verb follows it (in “second position”) before the subject and then the object. If there is nothing else that has been fronted, then the subject comes before the verb. In the case of Deut 4:30, there is no regular justification for the insertion of a vav between the temporal element and the verb, but since the vav has been inserted, the form is veqatal for the future element.

But there is no Jussive here! If there is then that's a week wasted.

I didn’t say that there was a jussive. I was talking about word order, not jussives.

[Chris Watts]

But this Deut 4:30. I have struggled hard to understand what the issue is here - I simply do not get it. What is wrong with the first part of the verse by beginning it with 'When', instead of with a conjunction added to the adjective 'Oppression/tribulation'?... Why would you have expected it to read differently? Sorry, it's impossible for me to understand the reasoning here.

Literally, “in the trouble to you and all these things shall find you.” It would obviously normally be “and in the trouble to you all these things shall find you,” with the “and” at the beginning of the clause. The same in the second phrase, which is literally “in the end of days and you shall return unto Yahweh your God and obey his voice,” which should be “and in the end of days you shall return unto Yahweh....” You can certainly see how the vav is interrupting the phrase and wouldn’t normally be there.

Again unsure what you mean here,I have always understood hebrew to be a SVO construction, allowing of course for flexibility and creativity.

I’m actually surprised that you said SVO. I would have expected you to say VSO, which is what most people think. I would not say SVO but XV, in which X stands for any element that has been fronted for whatever reason. So, if the time marker has been fronted then the verb follows it (in “second position”) before the subject and then the object. If there is nothing else that has been fronted, then the subject comes before the verb. In the case of Deut 4:30, there is no regular justification for the insertion of a vav between the temporal element and the verb, but since the vav has been inserted, the form is veqatal for the future element.

But there is no Jussive here! If there is then that's a week wasted.

I didn’t say that there was a jussive. I was talking about word order, not jussives.

Hallo Jason,

1. There seems to be some debate about BH having a SVO or VSO word order. I obviously learned from the beginning that BH was an VSO, and I took that for granted, but after sometime I could not really notice either category dominating, so ignored this particular classification. However, you mentioned XV, Mmm...interesting, this is new to me.

2. I would like to put my foot right in it and say, is it me? I feel that that the vav is missing for a good reason. You say :

You can certainly see how the vav is interrupting the phrase and wouldn’t normally be there

I read the opposite effect. It feels to me that, if there was a conjunction - a continuation from the previous verses with the vav inserted, the text would read of any particular trouble, just maybe sort of 'Anytime' that tribulation happens. The absence of that continuation, the absence of that vav, 'Interrupts' the flow in a very significant manner. It is pointing to one particular oppression, not just any. My feeling.

3. regards the Jussive - my misinterpretation.

Thank you Jason. you have been most helpful, in many ways.

Chris watts