Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <vadim_lv AT center-tv.net>]

> 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.

Subjectively, I don't believe in exceptions in Hebrew. If one example
doesn't fit, then I'll better look for a different explanation.

> This explains lmo always taking an "object" and lamo never taking one -
> the former is construct and the latter is absolute.

But that would mean, they are semantically different, wouldn't it? If lamo
doesn't take an object, how could it be employed in smihut in the first
place?

> 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.

So many facts don't fit the identification of lmo with lamo.

Vadim Cherny