Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <596547 AT ican.net>]

Dear Ian,

Thanks for the valuable points.  You wrote re lack of concord between
references to collective nouns:

> The following observations, however, would need to be borne in mind by
anyone
> undertaking such a study of the literary purpose of such variation:
> 
> 1. Each book of the Masoretic text has its own profile in terms of its
> preference for singular/ plural with `am.
> 

Might book-to-book variation actually be evidence *for* pragmatic
significance of the distributioon of sg. and pl. references to collective
nouns?  We don't expect the distribution of behaviors with pragmatic
significance to be as regular as say rules of grammar, do we?  We expect
the practice of one author to vary from another, each work to have
something of its own discourse techniques.  Or no?

Is the distribution of pl and sg references to collective nouns reflective
of "optional" behavior rather than "obligatory"?

Thanks in advance,

Shalom,
Bryan


B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13208

315-437-6744(w)
315-479-8267(h)