Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>]

>
>   [Pere]
>> If you ask: "Why not "mul"?,
>>
>
> [Karl]
>


>  Still asking, as I have not seen your evidence to the contrary.
>


>  [Pere]
>
>>  you know my answer: because in the English language there are no nouns
>> having their plural ending in -k
>>
>
> [Karl]
>


>  I am reading this as a -K suffix, not as a plural noun. (I assume you
> meant “Hebrew”, not “English”.) Right now I am guessing (until shown a
> better option) that this is a hophal with a second person singular suffix.
>
> [Pere]

No, I mean English: are there in the English language any nouns having a
plural that ends in L (on in K or in M or in P or in T....)?

The answer is: NO.
Maybe you'll say: As far as we have not read ALL the texts that have been
written in English the whole history along... we cannot be sure that in
English there is/are not one or more nouns whose plural ends in -L (or in P
or in B or in M...)

Would this be rational, Karl?

So, Hebrew lacks the pattern "hofal of verbs ayin-waw + second person
singular pronoun": this pattern is not found within the 9,000 pattern
collection I've gathered.

By the way, do you really feel that Qohelet and Song are --or can be-
from the same pen? These two books... aren't they of a quite different
style?

Hearty,

Pere Porta

>
>>
>>
>