> Lewis,
>
> I'm not sure you're understanding the question. I'm absolutely certain
> that Lee realizes that (aM is normally a collective noun. I know I
> realized that with my response to the original question. But, if it is a
> collective, why is it only *grammatically* treated as a collective in the
> 3ms pronominal suffix. All the other referents are 3mp (i.e., the
> participle and the two yiqtols). How do you propose we explain the
> plurals?
You're quite right - Lee kindly wrote me off-list, and I
realized that I missed that difficulty in the verse.
Interestingly, this is not the only verse where (aM is
treated both as plural and as singular. A cursory search
turned up the following examples in Exodus:
Ex. 4:31 - WaYYa):aM"N Hf(fM WaYYi$:M:(W.
Ex. 12:27 - WaYiQoD Hf(fM WaYiY$:TaX:aWW.
Ex. 16:4 - W:YfCf) Hf(fM W:LfQ:+W.
Ex. 17:2 - WaYYfReB Ha(aM (iM Mo$eH WaYYo(M:RW.
(and similarly Ex. 20:15; Ex. 33:4; Ex. 33:10; Lev. 11:32;
Num. 20:3; Num. 21:7; Num. 25:2; Josh. 6:20; Josh 24:16;
Josh. 24:21; Judges 9:42; Judges 20:22; Judges 21:2;
1 Samuel 4:3; 1 Samuel 4:4; 1 Samuel 14:32. I did not
continue my search past this point, having satisfied
myself that this was not a rare occurrence.)
Does the relative frequency of this interesting phenomenon
suggest the possibility that Biblical Hebrew may have
regarded this collective noun as having a dual character as
both a singular assembly and a plural collective that did
not necessarily require consistent treatment within a
verse?