Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53:8

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Vadim Cherny <vadim_lv AT center-tv.net>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53:8
  • Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:48:20 +0000

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/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page