Peter Kirk wrote:
But if "The reduced vowel may elongate back to kamatz in pausal", lamois simply the non-pausal variant of lmo, or vice versa. <
You assume that schwa in lmo is a reduction, and therefore might elongate. I
don't recall elongation of schwa into kamatz in l:noun form. Why should l:mo
elongate, then? The schwa under preposition is not an immediate reduction.
I think there is semantic gap between cmo, bmo, lmo, and lamo. While the
former preceed an object, lamo itself could be employed as an object.
Compare, say, cmo boker with nega lamo in Isaiah 53:8. This is why I agree
with Steinberg that lamo (unlike lmo) includes a pronoun (l:hem:o).
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.