This could be naught but a very clear explanation rooted in obviously profound and inveterate consideration. It is yet another link in the chain that is your systematic approach to the Hebrew language and its morphology. "It's random." That's a great approach to linguistic analysis that does so much to disseminate better understanding of the language and the text that emerged as its expression. This has been so rewarding and corrective for me, as I've clearly been won over by "it's random" when the previous theory was so well developed and widely explanatory.
Out of curiosity, have you ever read Gesenius or studied through an actual grammar that addresses Hebrew systematically? I'm at a loss. You and Karl come to such divergent disagreements on how you understand the text, yet you both use the same methods for discovery — rejecting the whole of our previous knowledge of the language and developing your own theories based simply on your opinions, not taking all of anything into account. No systematic approach. No answer for anything. "It's random." Yep.