> > [Pere] >> If you ask: "Why not "mul"?, >> > > [Karl] >
> Still asking, as I have not seen your evidence to the contrary. > > [Pere] > >> you know my answer: because in the English language there are no nouns >> having their plural ending in -k >> > > [Karl] > > I am reading this as a -K suffix, not as a plural noun. (I assume you > meant “Hebrew”, not “English”.) Right now I am guessing (until shown a > better option) that this is a hophal with a second person singular suffix. > > [Pere] No, I mean English: are there in the English language any nouns having a plural that ends in L (on in K or in M or in P or in T....)? The answer is: NO. Maybe you'll say: As far as we have not read ALL the texts that have been written in English the whole history along... we cannot be sure that in English there is/are not one or more nouns whose plural ends in -L (or in P or in B or in M...) Would this be rational, Karl? So, Hebrew lacks the pattern "hofal of verbs ayin-waw + second person singular pronoun": this pattern is not found within the 9,000 pattern collection I've gathered. By the way, do you really feel that Qohelet and Song are --or can be- from the same pen? These two books... aren't they of a quite different style? Hearty, Pere Porta > >> >> > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
