...So maybe we come back to the lamo-lmo distinction being something like an absolute-construct one. Remember that a construct form can never (or at least very rarely) be pausal or take a disjunctive accent, and an absolute form can never (or very rarely) take maqqef. And lmo would be the regular construct contraction of lamo, wouldn't it? In any case, the rule seems to be that when the construct is connected to what is followed by maqqef, as in three of the four cases of lmo (the fourth is textually doubtful), the stress is shifted on to the following word, and as a result the qamats is reduced to sheva.
But, anyway, not all lamo are pausal. Perhaps we can state thus: some pausal
lamo might be equal to lmo, but not all lamo are equal to lmo.
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 emphatic lmo) includes a pronoun (l:hem:o).
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.