[g] Rem. In 2 Ch 3521 a negative final clause with וְאַל־ is dependent on an imperative, forbear from (meddling with) God... that he destroy thee not. As a rule, however, negative final clauses are attached to the principal sentence by means of וְלֹא and a following imperfect; so after an imperative, Gn 422, 1 K 142, 1844; after a jussive, Ex 3020, Neh 69; after a perfect consec., Ex 2835, 43, 30:12, Nu 185; after לֹא with an imperfect, Lv 106, Nu 183, Dt 1717 neither shall he multiply wives unto himself (וְלֹא יָסוּר לְבָבוֹ) that his heart turn not away; 1 S 2014, 2 S 2117, Jer 1121; after אַל־ with jussive, Lv 109, 1143, 162, 2 S 1325, Jer 256, 3720, 3824 f.; after the asseverative אִם with the impft., Gn 1423; even after a simple imperfect, Jer 104 with nails... they fasten it (וְלֹא יָפִיק) that it move not; after a participle, Jb 97.
[h] (b) Frequently in conditional sentences (as in Arabic), either in the protasis or in the apodosis, cf. ψ 4512 יִתְאַו should he desire... then...; 104:20 תָּ֫שֶׁת... וִיהִי if thou makest darkness, then it is night; so also in the protasis, Ex 224, Lv 1524, Is 4128, Ez 147 (וְיַ֫עַל), Jb 3429; in the apodosis, Ex 79 then will it (not, then shall it) become a serpent; Pr 99 after an imperat. in the protasis; Jb 1016, 135, 2228. In a negative apodosis, Gn 412 (לֹֽא־תֹסֵף, but see above, d). In 2 K 627 אַל־יֽוֹשִׁעֵךְ (if the Lord do not help thee, &c.) is to be explained as a jussive in a negative protasis.
[i] Rem. Undoubtedly this use of the jussive (in conditional sentences) is based on its original voluntative meaning; let something be so and so, then this or that must happen as a consequence. Certain other examples of the jussive, however, show that in the consciousness of the language the voluntative has in such cases become weakened almost to a potential mood, and hence the jussive serves to express facts which may happen contingently, or may be expected, e.g. Nu 2219 (מַה־יּׄסֵף, but cf. above, d); Jb 933 there is no daysman betwixt us, that might lay (יָשֵׁת, hence plainly a subjunctive=qui ponat; also in Nu 2319 נִֽיכַזֵּב that he should lie is probably intended as a jussive); Ec 514; so after interrogative sentences, Jer 911 who is the wise man, וְיָבֵן qui intelligat hoc?; Ho 1410.
[k] Moreover, in not a few cases, the jussive is used, without any collateral sense, for the ordinary imperfect form, and this occurs not alone in forms, which may arise from a misunderstanding of the defective writing, as Dt 2821, 36, 32:8, 1 K 81, Is 121, Mi 34, 58, ψ 116, 1812, 212 Qerê (מַה־יָּ֫גֶל, Keth. יָגִיל), 25:9, 47:4, 90:3, 91:4, 107:29, Pr 1525, Jb 1327, 1533, 189, 2023, 3722, 3311, 3614, 3824, Ec 126 (verse 7 יָשֹׁב, but immediately afterwards תָּשׁוּב), Dn 812, —but also in shortened forms, such as יְהִי Gn 4917 (Sam; יִהְיֶה), Dt 288, 1 S 105, 2 S 524, Ho 61, 114, Am 514, Mi 12, Zp 213, Zc 95, ψ 7216 f. (after other jussives), 104:31, Jb 1812, 2023, 26, 28, 27:8, 33:21, 34:37, Ru 34. This use of the jussive can hardly be due merely to poetic licence, but is rather to be explained on rhythmical grounds. In all the above-cited examples, in fact, the jussive stands at the beginning of the sentence (and hence removed as far as possible from the principal tone), in others it is immediately before the principal pause (Is 426, 502, ψ 6815, Pr 2325, Jb 2414, 293, 4019), or actually in pause (Dt. 3218, Jb 239, 11, La 350), and is then a simply rhythmical shortening due to the strong influence of the tone. Moreover, since the jussive in numerous cases is not distinguished in form from the imperfect (§ 48 g), it is frequently doubtful which of the two the writer intended. This especially applies to those cases, in which a subjunctive is to be expressed by one or other of the forms (cf. § 107 k and m–x).
