Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 15/12/2004 18:11, Vadim Cherny wrote:

> ...
>
> > 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?
>
>  
Not at all. The noun PANIYM in the absolute means "face", and takes no 
"object", and can be prefixed by L- to give a form LPANIYM. The noun 
PANIYM in the construct state, in the form PNEY, means "the face of", 
and must be followed by an "object". Prefix L-, and you get LIPNEY which 
means "to the face of" and thus "in the presence of", which must still 
be followed by an object and functions as preposition.

My hypothesis is that the relationship between LAMO and LMO is the same 
as that between LPANIYM and LIPNEY. And I have seen nothing syntactical 
or morphological to falsify this hypothesis.

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