Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

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 Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/