Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 16/12/2004 20:42, Vadim Cherny wrote:

> Karl:
>
> As far as I understand and agree with Peter's argument, it only means that 
> lmo is smihut form of lamo.
> Peter's argument, as I see it, neither explains the origin of lamo (which, in 
> my opinion, is l:hem:o), nor impeaches the collective plural meaning of lamo.
>  

While I dealt with syntax only, not semantics, the implication of the 
use of the construct (I assume "smihut" is an alternative for 
"construct") is that it has the same semantics as the absolute except 
for the linkage to the following noun phrase. So, if the construct is 
not semantically plural, neither is the absolute. That is, if lmo can be 
used with a singular noun phrase and so is semantically neutral with 
respect to number, so is lamo - and the majority use of it in plural 
contexts is coincidental.

> The fact that very few instances of lmo may possibly relate to singular is 
> easily understandable, since smihut form evolved into preposition, and its 
> semantics expanded.
>  

Possible, but unlikely in my opinion.

> How do we know that it is lamo, not lmo in Isaiah? ...

It has to be because this is the end of a verse, and of a grammatical 
phrase (followed by a WAYYIQTOL verb), and so this cannot be a construct 
form - even if the Masoretes messed things up completely.

> ... Well, if you don't believe Masoretes wrote absolutely correct, you have 
> no material to study the Bible, since every word could be vocalized 
> differently to suit almost any meaning.
>  


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