Pere: No I didn’t say “must be”, rather I said might be, and appears to be so. So unless a good argument from context proves that it isn’t, I’m leafing that open as a possibility.
So what contextual clues are you using to say that it isn’t? Karl W. Randolph. On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Pere Porta <[email protected]> wrote: > Karl, > > after all the posts you, me and other list members have sent on the issue > HLK-NP$ in Ecc 6:9, are you still thinking that NP$ must be a Niphal form? > > Kind regards, > > Pere Porta >
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
