1) Lambdin (p 200) did not list the construct plural as eyney but as eynot;
though he shows eyn (ayin- .. - yod - nun) as a construct singular (is that
.. a reduced segol? .. instead of ...); the .. yod that follows the nun
perhaps is just missing from Lambdin's list, a misprint or oversight, or is
it helping to join to the following word like an elision in English?
I suspect also that the vowel pointing is much later than the original
poetry. To what extent is 'such pointing' an overlay of tradition? And
perhaps an overlay inviting a controlled response to the poetry... (Not that
there should not be some controls - even the poet would allow that.)
2) Your transcriptions here will take me some more time to fathom.
Again here the construct eluded my defocussed eye. Will I find a construct
wherever there are two adjacent nouns?
This form of concatenation seems very
powerful and semantically suggestive. The question occurs to me that, the
pointing being late, the original poet must have been expressing a
relationship between nouns that is known from their sequence and the
concatenation + suffix changes would tip the reader/hearer to the construct
even without the pointing.
3) 'To them' How simple! And here I was looking up a root LHM! :)
4) Lambdin calls the distinction qamats and qamats hatup 'a' vs 'o' and he
says something in the pre-lesson (p XXVI) about using 'o' for a closed,
unaccented syllable. [tricky to tell the computer where the accent is!]
I can't find qamatz qatan in Lambdin at the moment.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.