Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG]

Dear Mark,

Thank you for your interesting analysis. I am glad you were able to 
make good use of this data and follow up on our earlier 
correspondence.

I am still rather suspicious about the -MOW really being a singular 
suffix on nouns. Here are the two cases you found:

@ncfdcX3mp        K.AP."YMOW      JOB 27:23     N   S 
@ncbpcX3mp        P.FN"YMOW       PSA 11:7      N   S[6] 

Now I note that in Job 27:23 the suffix is perhaps not actually -MOW 
but simply the regular 3rd person singular masculine pronominal suffix 
-OW, because the base noun is a dual and its final -M has not been 
dropped. BDB notes this (s.v. KAP) as a dual. PSA 58:7, 59:13 are also 
duals, with the -MOW or -OW suffix which you have listed as plural. In 
this case we could end up with PSA 11:7 being unique, which is 
suspicious. I wonder if the psalmist has (irregularly, but for the 
sake of good poetry) taken the form PFNIYM, plural in form but 
singular in meaning, as a singular noun and added to that the -OW 
suffix.

Of all the occurrences of -MOW as a singular suffix, we are then left 
with 4 occurrences of LAMOW and 3 of (FL"YMOW which you identify as 
singular, hardly impressive evidence for a special form:

@PpX3ms           LFMOW           GEN 9:26      P   S 
@PpX3ms           LFMOW           GEN 9:27      P   S 
@PpX3ms           LFMOW           ISA 44:15     P   S 
@PpX3ms           LFMOW           ISA 53:8      P   S 
@PpX3mp           (FL"YMOW        JOB 20:23     P   S 
@PpX3ms           (FL"YMOW        JOB 22:2      P   S 
@PpX3mp           (FL"YMOW        JOB 27:23     P   S 

The Genesis examples can easily be understood as plural, referring to 
the "his brothers" of v.25, as one would expect from poetic 
parallelism here [three lines ending L:)EXFYW - LFMOW - LFMOW].

Isaiah 44:15: I see some implicit plurality here in that LAMOW is 
doing double duty, for the WAY.I$:T.FXW. and WAY.ISGFD - even though 
there is only one object, described variously as )"L and PESEL. Are 
there any other such instances of pseudo-plurality?

Isaiah 53:8: BHS suggests an appropriate emendation to LAM.FWET 
following LXX.

The three Job examples must be singular if MT is correct (which BHS 
doubts). Two (20:23, 27:23) can be explained as alliteration or 
rhyming.

So I conclude that the only good evidence for a singular -MOW suffix 
is from the divergent dialect of the book of Job.

You quoted me then wrote:

>>But I also still wonder if modern comparative linguistics can help to 
>>answer whether this suffix can really be both singular and plural, or if 
>>we have to look for such explanations as "dignified singular."

> After considering this for awhile, it occurred to me that I was
> surprised by Peter's wondering. After all, we have at least one
> well-known case of an ambiguous pronominal suffix in Hebrew, sometimes
> singular (3rd masculine), other times plural (first person) in the
> word MIM.EN.W. It is easy to show in other languages grammatical
> structures doing more than one duty.

Perhaps you misunderstood my wondering - in the sense of being 
uncertain rather than being amazed. Of course such ambiguity occurs. 
My point was an invitation to others to comment on whether analogous 
suffixes in other Semitic languages are singular, plural or both. This 
is especially relevant in view of the non-Hebrew influences on the 
language of Job.

Dale Wheeler is I think the person who would be interested in reports 
of errors in the WTS database. His E-mail: dalemw AT teleport.com. I 
would consider that the corrections that need to be made are to mark 
all occurrences of LFMOW as plural, except perhaps for Isaiah 53:8 
(which must be singular if MT is followed), and to mark as singular 
(FL"YMOW in Job 20:23 and 27:23. Any other changes would be highly 
debatable.

Peter Kirk