Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

> >Besides the fact that all lamo refer to plural, ...
>
> This, if you remember, was the original point at issue. The argument was
> that in Isaiah 53:8 and several other places it is very difficult for
> lamo to be plural.
>

Not just plural, but collective plural: am, zvaot

> >... you need to dwell into etymology of lamo ...
>
> Or speculate on the etymology of lamo. A derivation from lahem is
> possible, but by no means certain.
>
lhemo, actually, not lahem
Your argument about smihut, if correct, would only mean that lmo derived
from lamo. This says nothing about the meaning of either. To find out the
meaning, we need to establish the etymology.
As I wrote earlier, your example of lifnei demonstrates well that smihut
meaning is likely a considerable expansion. We cannot make conclusions as to
the meaning of lamo from the mere fact that derivative form (basically, a
preposition) lmo is used few times (only) as emphatic for singular.

Vadim Cherny