[b-hebrew] Isaiah 53:8
peterkirk at qaya.org
Wed Dec 15 11:54:03 EST 2004
On 15/12/2004 14:29, Vadim Cherny wrote:
>But, anyway, not all lamo are pausal. Perhaps we can state thus: some pausal
>lamo might be equal to lmo, but not all lamo are equal to lmo.
>I think there is semantic gap between cmo, bmo, lmo, and lamo. While the
>former preceed an object, lamo itself could be employed as an object.
>Compare, say, cmo boker with nega lamo in Isaiah 53:8. This is why I agree
>with Steinberg that lamo (unlike emphatic lmo) includes a pronoun (l:hem:o).
So maybe we come back to the lamo-lmo distinction being something like
an absolute-construct one. Remember that a construct form can never (or
at least very rarely) be pausal or take a disjunctive accent, and an
absolute form can never (or very rarely) take maqqef. And lmo would be
the regular construct contraction of lamo, wouldn't it? In any case, the
rule seems to be that when the construct is connected to what is
followed by maqqef, as in three of the four cases of lmo (the fourth is
textually doubtful), the stress is shifted on to the following word, and
as a result the qamats is reduced to sheva.
This explains lmo always taking an "object" and lamo never taking one -
the former is construct and the latter is absolute. What is doesn't
explain is why the few cases of kmo and bmo in the absolute are not the
longer forms *kamo and *bamo.
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
More information about the b-hebrew