How does Accordance handle the jussive in Hebrew?

[Enoch]

In making its tags on tagged Hebrew text with identifications in instant details (also in interlinear?) how does Accordance handle the jussive.  Does it mark all the imperfect occurrences as alternatively jussive forms (when they are the same) so that the reader can make his own interpretation, & make a distinction between a form which could be jussive (considered out of context) vs a form which must be jussive and cannot be imperfect?

[mbcvida]

It looks like the tags for jussive and cohortatives are based on their form or the meaning in context. When you search for verbs, you are given a category called other that lists jussive both, jussive form, jussive meaning - this assumes that there are some jussives that are not in a jussive form, but jussive in meaning. OR there are those who have a jussive form, OR you can find both (form or meaning)

[Enoch]

What I would want is 1) words which have a jussive morphology when it is the same as imperfect (though the context may require imperfect interpretation)

2) words which are strictly jussive in form where the jussive is distinct in form from the imperfect, 3) both cases 1 & 2.

[Kristin]

Hi @Enoch,

I just wanted to mention I would appreciate that also, but I don't think that is something Accordance is able to edit, since, if I am not mistaken, the tagging is done by whoever provided the text to Accordance. Hopefully someone can correct me if I am mistaken.

Kristin

[mbcvida]

Accordance verbal tags as jussivemeaning are #1

Accordance verbal tags as jussiveform are #2

Both jussive are #3

 

[Jordan S]

It depends on the database you are using. Westminster makes the distinction between form, meaning, or both (form and meaning). ETCBC only provides the yiqtol tag and does not provide a jussive tag. Andersen-Forbes uses a jussive tag that includes both the form and/or meaning. In other words, it lumps them all together based on their interpretation. You could leverage the Text command to compare these databases. For example, you could search the HMT-W4 for: [VERB JussiveMeaning]‏ @- ‎[MT-AFD ‏ ‎[VERB jussive]‏ ‎]‏ which would show you each instance where the two databases disagree. There appears to be 183 instances. 

 

[Kristin]

Hi @Jordan S,

If you don't mind, I have a similar tagging question concerning the vav consecutive. Given that the vav consecutive can flip tenses, if something is tag as a Qal vav consecutive, could you clarify how each of the texts you mentioned above tag it? In other words, if the Qal tag reflects BEFORE or AFTER the consecutive flip? I suspect the different texts handle it differently.

[Jordan S]

First, you can change your settings to display traditional terms (i.e., "perfect") or "qatal" terms.

 

HMT-W4 and ETCBC both provide an imperfect consecutive tag (wayyiqtol).

ETCBC does not provide a "perfect consecutive" tag at the word level like the HMT-W4 does. However, you can search for WQtX and WQt0 clauses in ETCBC Syntax. 

 

In Anderson-Forbe there is a perfect consecutive as well as an imperfect consecutive. However, there are also tags for a prefixed preterite form that is distinct from the wayyiqtol and the yiqtol. See the list from their grammar: