Karl:
As far as I understand and agree with Peter's argument, it only means that
lmo is smihut form of lamo.
Peter's argument, as I see it, neither explains the origin of lamo (which, in
my opinion, is l:hem:o), nor impeaches the collective plural meaning of lamo.
The fact that very few instances of lmo may possibly relate to singular is
easily understandable, since smihut form evolved into preposition, and its
semantics expanded.
How do we know that it is lamo, not lmo in Isaiah? ...
... Well, if you don't believe Masoretes wrote absolutely correct, you have
no material to study the Bible, since every word could be vocalized
differently to suit almost any meaning.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.