Well, I don't agree that )$R can represent an antecedent at all, singular or plural, in the sense you meant. At least, this is unproven if the example put forward, Ezekiel 23:28, is anything like the best example. And this is what the original discussion was about. You can't argue ")$R can represent either a singular or plural antecedent, therefore )$R can represent an antecedent". You need to come up with examples where )$R unambiguously represents an antecedent, i.e. where it fills a noun slot in the main clause. This is necessary to refute my theory that )$R is simply a conjunction i.e. it does not fill a noun slot in either main or subordinate clause.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.