To: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>, "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>, <biblicalist AT yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Num. 32:42
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:53:38 +0200
Does anyone have any idea why there is no mappiq in the last letter of the
word LH, third word from last in Num. 32:42? The mappiq is missing in both
BHS and in the Aleppo-based Breuer prints.
Yigal Levin
This question of yours maybe could refer as well to the same word in Rt 2:14
and in Zc 5:11?
A way to find an answer to this question would perhaps be: are there in the
Bible some other cases where a final suffix H meaning "her" or "she" (and
that from a theoretical viewpoint should have the mappiq dot) lacks mappiq?