Lamoh - what is the parsing of that word? (last word of Isaiah 53:8)

A place for those new to Biblical Hebrew to ask basic questions about the language of the Hebrew Bible.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
ralph
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Lamoh - what is the parsing of that word? (last word of Isaiah 53:8)

Post by ralph »

kwrandolph wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:41 pm Years ago I was in a discussion about this word למו. In looking at its uses, it refers to either singular as in Genesis 9:26–27 and Deuteronomy 33:2, though usually refers to plural.
You can't make a sure case that either of those are singular.

Your example from Gen 9:26 and Gen 9:27 וִיהִי כְנַעַן, עֶבֶד לָמוֹ (Canaan is not just a person but a nation).

Deuteronomy 33:2 is plural. "a fiery law unto them.".
stevenmiller wrote: I don't see a single entity as group in
Job 3:14; 6:19; 14:21; 22:17
great examples, thanks
stevenmiller wrote: Just looking at a lot, but not all of the uses, I theorize that lamo means something like its sound-alike לעמו "to/for his people" or "to/for his/their extended people/group"
would there be many examples of Lahem that aren't relating to people?

perhaps we should consider how often lahem is used for "those objects"!
Ralph Zak
kwrandolph
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Lamoh - what is the parsing of that word? (last word of Isaiah 53:8)

Post by kwrandolph »

ralph wrote: Tue Mar 02, 2021 2:13 am
kwrandolph wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:41 pm Years ago I was in a discussion about this word למו. In looking at its uses, it refers to either singular as in Genesis 9:26–27 and Deuteronomy 33:2, though usually refers to plural.
You can't make a sure case that either of those are singular.

Your example from Gen 9:26 and Gen 9:27 וִיהִי כְנַעַן, עֶבֶד לָמוֹ (Canaan is not just a person but a nation).
At the time Noah made the curse, all three of the persons named were individuals, not nations.
ralph wrote: Tue Mar 02, 2021 2:13 amDeuteronomy 33:2 is plural. "a fiery law unto them.".
In Deuteronomy 33:2, למו is found twice, the first time I read as referring to God.

As I understand its uses, at least three times למו refers to individuals, not groups. Thus I read the context of Isaiah 53:8 as referring to an individual.

Karl W. Randolph.
ralph
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Lamoh - what is the parsing of that word? (last word of Isaiah 53:8)

Post by ralph »

kwrandolph wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 1:22 pm Gen 9:26 Gen 9:27
In Deuteronomy 33:2,
gen 9:26 and gen 9:27 you don't take as prophetic then? you think that it's just the individual(canaan), that would be a slave and not the people/descendents of canaan?

I guess maybe that could make sense 'cos we don't see Canaanites as servant to Shem..

Or maybe
it's connected to the promises to israel Deut 15:6 "..and thou shalt rule over many nations, but they shall not rule over thee" and Gen 27:29 "..Let peoples serve thee, and nations bow down to thee. Be lord over thy brethren.."

though they are quite different statements to Gen 9

so maybe right that it's individual there in Gen 9.

Or Gen 9 could be a promise re the future.

Actually.. Gen 9:27 "God enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be their servant."

So do you think it means one individual Canaan is serving the entire tribe of Yaphet? makes no sense..

So it seems like Gen 9:27 is clearly a Them.

deuteronomy 33:2 JPS 1917 has "them" both times for Lamoh. "rose from Seir unto them" and "fiery law unto them"

If you take it as "rose from Seir to him", then I don't really see how that works.
Ralph Zak
User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Lamoh - what is the parsing of that word? (last word of Isaiah 53:8)

Post by SteveMiller »

ralph wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:46 pm
SteveMiller wrote: I think it is significant that lamo is only used in poetry
Definitely not only used in poetry! (and you'd have to be pretty fluent in hebrew to identify poetry anyway.. 'cos poetry can involve plays on words).
I don't see a single use that is not poetic. Some poetry is difficult to recognize, but these are all obvious. i.e song of Moses, Psalms, non-narrative parts of Job and prophets.
Klein also says it is only used poetically.

I count 7 uses of lamo (not counting lemo) that are not used at the end of a clause. That is 7 out of about 50.
ralph wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:46 pmThis site has a hebrew bible search

http://sparks.simania.co.il

These are instances of למו
http://sparks.simania.co.il/bibleSearch ... 7%9E%D7%95

50-60 instances
Bibleworks gives me 57 hits (including the preposition lemo). I looked at them all. All are poetic, even lemo.
Searching the mo suffix in BibleWorks is difficult. I search for words ending in mo, and get 1534 hits, mostly words that end in mem and have a 3ms suffix.
Is the site you give better for this kind of search?

I see one singular usage of lamo:
Isa 44:15b ‎ ֙ וַיִּשְׁתָּ֔חוּ עָשָׂ֥הוּ פֶ֖סֶל וַיִּסְגָּד־לָֽמוֹ
He made it a graven image, and prostrated himself to it.

I think the meaning of lamo here is that the image includes many images.
I don't think lahem could be used here, because there is no plural antecedent.
If lo was used, then it would just be that one image.
The same applies to Noah's curse and blessing in Gen 9.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)
User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Lamoh - what is the parsing of that word? (last word of Isaiah 53:8)

Post by SteveMiller »

I looked up all the mo pronoun suffixes. I did it by searching for all the words ending in mo, and then searching the resultant list for 3ms and 3mp pronoun suffixes of prepositions (13x), nouns (23x), verbs (18x), adverbs (2x)

Prepositions:
Besides lamo, there are only 2 other prepositions with the mo suffix:
עָ֜לֵ֗ימוֹ -12x
Deu 32:23 I will heap mischiefs on them
Job 6:16 ref singular ice
20:23 it will rain upon him into his flesh
21:17 their calamity comes upon them - ref to plural wicked
22:2 unto himself the wise man is profitable
27:23 men swhall clap their hands at him
29:22 upon them my speech dropped
30:2 upon them
5 they cry after them
Ps 5:11 You will cover them
55:16 let death sieze upon them
64:8 by their tongue they make him fall upon them
אֵלֵ֣ימוֹ -1x
Ps. 2:5 speak to them

nouns - 23x
צָרֵ֑ימוֹ (Deut. 32:27 WTT) their adversaries
‎ עֲנָבֵ֙מוֹ (Deut. 32:32 WTT) their grapes
‎ אֱלֹהֵ֑ימוֹ (Deut. 32:37 WTT) where are their gods
‎ זְבָחֵ֙ימוֹ (Deut. 32:38 WTT) their sacrifices
‎ בָּמוֹתֵ֥ימוֹ (Deut. 33:29 WTT) their high places
‎ עָ֜לֵ֗ימוֹ בִּלְחוּמֽוֹ (Job 20:23 WTT) it will rain upon him into his flesh
‎ עָלֵ֣ימוֹ כַפֵּ֑ימוֹ (Job 27:23 WTT) he shall clap his hands at him. 3ms verb. indef pronoun
‎ מֽוֹסְרוֹתֵ֑ימוֹ (Ps. 2:3 WTT) let us break their (God and Christ's) bonds asunder
‎ עֲבֹתֵֽימוֹ (Ps. 2:3 WTT) cast away their cords from us
‎ פָנֵֽימוֹ (Ps. 11:7 WTT) His (God's) countenance beholds the upright
‎ חֶלְבָּ֥מוֹ (Ps. 17:10 WTT) their fat
‎ פִּ֜֗ימוֹ (Ps. 17:10 WTT) their mouth
‎ פִּ֭רְיָמוֹ (Ps. 21:11 WTT) you will destroy their fruit from the earth (and their seed just mem)
‎ שִׁנֵּֽימוֹ (Ps. 35:16 WTT) they have gnashed their teeth against me
‎ בָּתֵּ֙ימוֹ (Ps. 49:12 WTT) their inward thought is their houses are forever
‎ שִׁנֵּ֥ימוֹ בְּפִ֑ימוֹ (Ps. 58:7 WTT) break their teeth in their mouth
‎ חַטַּאת־פִּ֗ימוֹ דְּֽבַר־שְׂפָ֫תֵ֥ימוֹ (Ps. 59:13 WTT) sin of their mouth, word of their lips
‎ עֵינֵ֑מוֹ (Ps. 73:7 WTT) their eyes go out from fatness
‎ נְסִיכֵֽמוֹ׃ (Ps. 83:12 WTT) make all their nobles as Zeba and Zalmunna
‎ עֻזָּ֣מוֹ (Ps. 89:18 WTT) You are the beauty of their strength
‎ שְׂפָתֵ֣ימוֹ יְכַסּוּמוֹ (Ps. 140:10 WTT) Let the mischief of their own lips cover them

verbs: 18x
‎ יְכַסְיֻ֑מוּ (Exod. 15:5 WTT) the depths covered them
‎ יֹאכְלֵ֖מוֹ (Exod. 15:7 WTT) your wrath consumed them
‎ תִּמְלָאֵ֣מוֹ (Exod. 15:9 WTT) My soul shall be satisfied upon them
‎ תּוֹרִישֵׁ֖מוֹ (Exod. 15:9 WTT) my hand shall dispossess them
‎ כִּסָּ֣מוֹ (Exod. 15:10 WTT) the sea covered them
‎ תִּבְלָעֵ֖מוֹ (Exod. 15:12 WTT) the earth swallowed them
‎ יֹֽאחֲזֵ֖מוֹ (Exod. 15:15 WTT) trembling seized on them
‎ תְּבִאֵ֗מוֹ וְתִטָּעֵ֙מוֹ (Exod. 15:17 WTT) You shall bring them and plant them in the mt of Your inher
‎ וְגֵרַשְׁתָּ֖מוֹ (Exod. 23:31 WTT) that you may disposess them
‎ יְבַהֲלֵֽמוֹ׃ (Ps. 2:5 WTT) in His fierce anger He will terrify them
‎ תְּשִׁיתֵ֤מוֹ׀ (Ps. 21:10 WTT) You shall set them as a fiery furnace
‎ תְּשִׁיתֵ֣מוֹ (Ps. 21:13 WTT) You will set them as a shoulder
‎ וַֽתְּפַלְּטֵֽמוֹ׃ (Ps. 22:5 WTT) Our fathers confided in Thee and You delivered them
‎ תְּשִׁיתֵ֥מוֹ (Ps. 45:17 WTT) You shall ordain them to be princes
‎ עֲנָקַ֣תְמוֹ (Ps. 73:6 WTT) pride encompasses them
‎ וַ֜תַּשְׁקֵ֗מוֹ (Ps. 80:6 WTT) You have given them to drink tears
‎ שְׂפָתֵ֣ימוֹ (יְכַסּוּמוֹ) (Ps. 140:10 WTT) let the mischief of their own lips cover them

adverb - 2x
‎ וְֽאֵ֫ינֵ֥מוֹ (Ps. 59:14 WTT) and they will be no more
‎ אֵינֵ֑מוֹ (Ps. 73:5 WTT) they do not have the hardships of mankind

All these 56 uses of mo are poetic except for Exo 23:31.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Lamoh - what is the parsing of that word? (last word of Isaiah 53:8)

Post by Jason Hare »

Great information, Steve!
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
ralph
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Lamoh - what is the parsing of that word? (last word of Isaiah 53:8)

Post by ralph »

some more info

According to A grammar of biblical hebrew, by Jouon P and Maraoka T.

On P.313-314 it has section $103f that discusses the word Lamoh

p313
Image

p314
Image

Image

And here from Gesenius $103f


Image

now looking at the footnote

Image

He mentions a bunch of cases where the Moh suffix is he says, singular, and it'd have to be very forced to say it were plural.

As an example he mentions Psalms 11:7

https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2611.htm (an orthodox jewish website that uses JPS 1917 translation)

Psalms 11:7 פָנֵימוֹ Pnei-moh - His face

And Gesenius has other examples I mention above, besides Pneimoh.

So. Usually plural. Sometimes singular.

Curious to know what ducky would make of Gesenius's argument that lamoh can be singular and that some lamoh are singular. e.g. it uses the moh suffix, and see the pneimoh example.
Ralph Zak
ducky
Posts: 770
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Lamoh - what is the parsing of that word? (last word of Isaiah 53:8)

Post by ducky »

Hi Ralph,

Since there are more than a few lines for me to write to explain what I think, I will do it on the weekend.

Meanwhile, just a little thing.

In your post, you said that Gesenius "mentions a bunch of cases where the Moh suffix is he says, singular, and it'd have to be very forced to say it were plural".

But when I read your uploaded picture from his book, I read the opposite (and maybe I didn't understand).
I read that he says (about the "mo" suffix) that "It is true that in such places... למו can be better explained as plural".
So he actually says, about the למו verses that he brings, that there is no problem to see them as plural (and even better to do).

What he does say, is about the למו in the case of Isa. 44:15 which he claims that its "explanation as plural would be extremely forced".

So about this verse...
It already appears in this thread.
And I would quote myself from this thread (which I took the examples from SHaDaL).
we once talked here about the plural of "dignity" (which usually comes before references of God (or even a false god).

And this is what you see.

You quoted Isaiah 44:15
אַף-יִפְעַל-אֵל וַיִּשְׁתָּחוּ, עָשָׂהוּ פֶסֶל וַיִּסְגָּד-לָמוֹ

And check Isaiah bove (42:17)
הָאֹמְרִים לְמַסֵּכָה אַתֶּם אֱלֹהֵינוּ

Or Ex. 32:4
יַּעֲשֵׂהוּ עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל

So here you see that the reference to the singular "god" is with the grammatical "they"
אתם אלהינו - "you(p) our gods"
אלה אלהיך - "these are your gods"

So same thing is with the quotes that you brought
the "god" is singular, but it is addressed in the grammatical plural.
And I don't think that this explanation is "forced". It just uses the same style that was used in the same book two chapters before - which no one has a problem with it.
Overthere it refers to the מסכה as plural. And here it refers to the פסל as plural.

****
David Hunter
ralph
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Lamoh - what is the parsing of that word? (last word of Isaiah 53:8)

Post by ralph »

ducky wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 12:42 pm Hi Ralph,

Since there are more than a few lines for me to write to explain what I think, I will do it on the weekend.
Thanks
ducky wrote: Meanwhile, just a little thing.

In your post, you said that Gesenius "mentions a bunch of cases where the Moh suffix is he says, singular, and it'd have to be very forced to say it were plural".
Yes.

I showed an image of where he wrote that but i'll make it more explicit

Image

And incase the print isn't clear enough in that picture, there he lists-

Paneimoh Psalms 11:7,

Kapaimoh Job 27:23

Alaimoh Job 20:23, 27:23, (beside Alav), and especially Job 22:2

ducky wrote: But when I read your uploaded picture from his book, I read the opposite (and maybe I didn't understand).
I read that he says (about the "mo" suffix) that "It is true that in such places... למו can be better explained as plural".
So he actually says, about the למו verses that he brings, that there is no problem to see them as plural (and even better to do).
He says that Most cases of Lamoh are plural, and some are singular.

So he is saying that the Moh suffix can be singular or plural.

To the argument that Lamoh is always plural, his examples of the Moh suffix(which is on various words words) sometimes being singular are relevant.

I'm not sure if a strong case can be made that there are any uses of Lamoh that are unquestionably singular. But it's undeniable that the Moh suffix can be singular.

So my point is, that if one wants to argue that lamoh has to be plural for grammatical reasons about the word, then that doesn't stand.. because moh is a suffix that can be singular, as proven by the cases (not lamoh), where there is no question that the moh suffix is being singular.

So my point to you isn't that Lamoh anywhere is probably singular.. My point is that it could technically be translated singular or plural, because the Moh suffix can be singular or plural, and he proved that the Moh suffix can be singular or plural, with those examples of it being singular e.g. Paneimoh that I mentioned Gesenius mentioning.
ducky wrote: So about this verse...{isaiah 44:15}
It already appears in this thread.
yeah i'm not really asking about that isaiah
ducky wrote: What he does say, is about the למו in the case of Isa. 44:15 which he claims that its "explanation as plural would be extremely forced".
I know we discussed isaiah 44:15, so I didn't mention that.

All i'm saying is that Gesenius made a case, given the examples I gave from him, not involving lamoh, that that moh suffix can be singular or plural.

So if you want to decide whether it's singular or plural, you have to consider the context of e.g. does what it is saying make sense in singular does it make sense as plural. I'm not talking about lamoh specifically. But any noun with a moh suffix.
Ralph Zak
ducky
Posts: 770
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Lamoh - what is the parsing of that word? (last word of Isaiah 53:8)

Post by ducky »

Hi Ralph

I read The Gesenius words again. And even though he claims that the answer to the question of, if למו can be a singular form, "must be affirmative", he didn't bring any examples for that. The only examples that he brings are of those that he claims about them that indeed can be seen as plural. And for the examples of singular form, he brings only one (The Isa.) and I addressed it in my last post.
So the only thing that is left is the cases of עלימו כפימו and פנימו.
That's it.

So my post here will refer only to those cases since there is no point in arguing with a claim that has no examples behind it. And I don't think we can find למו that cannot be seen as plural.

So After all this, we are left with only 3-5 cases of עלימו עלימו עלימו כפימו פנימו that are claimed to be singular.

And you asked in your last post if could these cases actually be the examples or the proof or those that give "the legitimacy" for seeing the "mo" suffix as singular.

And my answer for that, in my opinion, is No. (with a Capital N).
Because these are only 3-5 cases.
And we are talking about a very common form (a pronoun) that occurs hundreds of hundreds of times in biblical poetry.
And also the "mo" suffix itself is over a hundred times.
And they all act as plural.

And so, if there are only 3-5 cases that act as singular, these cases should be called "exceptions for the rule",
And Not: "part of the rule".

The reason that I wrote 3-5 cases is that, in my opinion, two of the five examples should be understood as singular.
And so, with that, we are only left with 3 cases.

I'm sorry for the long post.
But basically, if that was your question, then no matter how we analyze these 5 cases, the answer would still be, in my opinion, that since the number of cases can be exampled on one hand, and these small amount of cases are the only ones that were fished from an ocean of potential cases, then these 5 cases are just exceptions that act differently for some reason. whether the reason is understood or not.

*******************************************
Before talking about the specific verses, let us look better at what we are talking about.
The perspective.
And it is important - because you ask to learn a rule from these cases.
So we must see it from the right perspective:

A. Gesenius brings only 5 cases.
The cases are Psalms 11:7 (פנימו), Job 27:23 (כפימו), Job 20:23 (עלימו), Job 27:23 (עלימו), Job 22:2 (עלימו).
So These are only 5 cases from hundreds (of hundreds) of potential cases.

B. Not only that these are just 5 cases,
4 of the 5 cases are from one book - the book of Job.
So should we use these 4 examples that appear in only one book to teach us the rule about all of the other cases that are spread all over the bible?

C. Not only that 4 of the 5 cases are from one book - the book of Job,
3 of the 4 cases that are in the same book are actually the same word (עלימו).
So should we let the one word עלימו (that comes three times in the same book) teach us the rule about all of the other cases that are spread all over the bible?

(And you can look at steve's list above in this thread (that excludes the למו) to understand the perspective better).

********************************************************************************************************
The form that ends with the "mo" suffix is a grammatical plural form. You and I can agree to that.
If there are cases where the "mo" act differently, we should look for a reason for that.
Definition and meaning (in any case) don't just pop up from thin air. Something must trigger them to act like they act.

So what can be the cause for the plural "mo" suffix to act as the singular suffix?

A. One option is through an analogy with the singular pronoun for the singular noun (and verb) that also ends with a vowel "o" (like סוסו=his horse, ידו=his hand).

B. And that would be combined with two other optional reasons:
1. The beauty of the text.
Together with (A), it could be that in some places, the writer wanted to emphasize a word, or make its reading slower, or to vary his poetry. And for that, he used the archaic plural suffix "mo" for the singular. And since the "o" suffix belongs to the singular form as well, it didn't seem so wrong to do it.
2. Again, for the beauty of the text. But in this case, by comparing the sounds of the word to another word in the verse. So the reader would repeat the same sound or syllable, or vowel. so the same sounds ring again. And once again, it wasn't so wrong to do since the "o" suffix is similar for both singular and plural.

C. Another option for a word (or a combination of words) to act differently than excepted, is that the word is part of an old idiom that was "stuck" in the text from the memory or by tradition. And so, it lives its own life inside the "new" text.

***********************************************************

Now for the verses.
Psalms 11:7 (פנימו), Job 27:23 (כפימו) ,Job 20:23 (עלימו), Job 27:23 (עלימו), Job 22:2 (עלימו)

1. Job 22:2 הַלְאֵ֥ל יִסְכָּן־גָּ֑בֶר כִּֽי־יִסְכֹּ֖ן עָלֵ֣ימוֹ מַשְׂכִּֽיל
In this case, in my opinion, the עלימו is plural (and shouldn't be on the "naughty list").
It is to be compared with another verse in this chapter.
Job 22:21 הַסְכֶּן־נָ֣א עִמּ֣וֹ וּשְׁלָ֑ם בָּ֝הֶ֗ם
The בהם and the עלימו refer to the same thing.
(and once again, I don't see it forced at all).

2-3. Job 27:3 יִשְׂפֹּ֣ק עָלֵ֣ימוֹ כַפֵּ֑ימוֹ וְיִשְׁרֹ֥ק עָ֝לָ֗יו מִמְּקֹמֽוֹ
This verse can be understood in a few ways.
(in the manner of its subject/s (and objec/s), and how they are "divided" in the verse).
I don't want to talk about the possible ways.
But in one way, we can understand the עלימו using the singular pronoun, with the כפימו using the plural pronoun,
while in the other way, it is the opposite, and we can understand the עלימו using the plural pronoun, with the כפימו using the singular pronoun.
And in another way (and this is the way you read) - we can understand them both using the singular pronoun.
So I'll go with this (for this post).
In this case, if we read them as singular, and with that, accept to see the two "mo" suffixes (or one of them) as unnecessary "mo" suffixes, I would say that the last word of the verse ממקמו is part of the reason.
As I wrote above, it could be that since the verse ends with the "mo" sound (of ממקמו) - it gives the other two words the "inspiration" to use that sound.
especially, if one word of the two already has the "mo" suffix for the right reason - and so, in this case, the two "mo" affected the third one to have it too.
And to support this claim, we can look at the next verse in the list that also has the same style.

4. Job 20:23 יְהִ֤י׀ לְמַלֵּ֬א בִטְנ֗וֹ יְֽשַׁלַּח־בּ֭וֹ חֲר֣וֹן אַפּ֑וֹ וְיַמְטֵ֥ר עָ֝לֵ֗ימוֹ בִּלְחוּמֽוֹ
Also here, it seems to me, that the last word בלחומו "helped" the עלימו to get its form.
(And also here. there are those who understand it as plural, as switching from the singular character )which is the example of the plural) --- to the plural themselves. But I don't want to spend time on that because it is a little bit "tricky" - and I don't say that this couldn't be (especially at the end of the whole allegory) but it is not something that would be "proved" decisively, and it is not the point of this post to try explaining Jobs' verses - But anyway... This "Switch" between singular and plural brings us to the next case).

5. Psalms 11:7 כִּֽי־צַדִּ֣יק יְ֭הוָה צְדָק֣וֹת אָהֵ֑ב יָ֝שָׁ֗ר יֶחֱז֥וּ פָנֵֽימוֹ
This case is a little bit hard to explain with the plural pronoun.
But the thing is... is that also the two common understanding (with singular) is hard to accept.
And so I think that this case - the ישר יחזו פנימו - is somehow a short style phrase that refers to a longer and complete one - which we don't know about. (maybe).

But anyway, Since I didn't find this verse comfortable to read, I looked at the list of English translations to find out what the common translations are.
So there are two:
1. [NKJV]: His countenance beholds the upright.
2. [NIV]: The upright will see his face.

1. Reading it as "His countenance beholds the upright" is problematic - because the פנים(=countenance) does not see.
There is no place that says the "face" sees. It is only the "eyes" or the "people" and so on... But not the "face" (I took these words from Ibn-Ezra - which eventually I'll bring also his explanation (which is also not perfect)).

2. Reading it as "The upright will see his face" also has a problem. Because the ישר(=upright) is a singular form, while the יחזו (is a plural verb form). And so, the so-called subject ישר doesn't fit the predicate יחזו.
Unless we would say that the ישר(=upright) is a singular form that is used as an example for the plural. And if we're gonna say that, why won't we go and explain the previous case like that? (with a "switch"). (Like I finished my words on the previous verse).

So both translations don't "sit well" for me.
Another explanation is given by Ibn-Ezra. He says that the verb יחזו is linked to the people (in verse 4) or just to those who see (impersonal subject) - and they will see ישר - which refers to God's ways of justice (as in וישר משפטיך in Ps. 119:137). And the פנימו would be "before their face") - but then there would be a missing prefix for the פנימו.
So it is also not perfect, but I feel that this is on the right way more than the others.
If you want to read his words - they are translated (with notes that explain his explanations) on the Alhatorah site.

****************************************

So to summarize...
1. Gesenius brings only 5 cases from all over the bible. 4 of the 5 are from the book of Job alone, and 3 of the 4 are actually the same word. So That cannot be seen as a rule or to "set a rule" - But only to be seen as exceptions.

2. Not every word in these cases that Gesenius brings is indeed a case. Because some of them really can be seen as plural. some more, some less. So basically, it is less than five cases.

3. But even if one accepts all of them as no-doubt plural forms, it still, and I'm sorry for saying that again and again, but it still cannot "set up" a new rule for that form - But these cases should be seen just as exceptions that acted that way for a reason (and we tried to figure out what are the reasons).

Sorry for exhausting you with this long post.
I hope you won't respond in kind.
David Hunter
Post Reply