preposition + pronominal suffix combos incorrectly given lemma of 1992

[AndyHubert]

The following outlier form-lemma combos should not have the /1992 in their lemmas since these are normally considered pronominal suffixes. (262 occurrences)

וְ/כָ/הֵם c/k/1992 וְ/לָ/הֶם c/l/1992 וּ/מֵ/הֶם c/m/1992 כָ/הֵם k/1992 כָּ/הֵם k/1992 לָ/הֶם l/1992 לָ/הֶן l/1992 מֵ/הֶם m/1992

I can correct these in the parsing data and so they will reflect the correct lemmas on export.

[DavidTroidl]

The first instance only occurs once, in 2Sam 24:3. It is listed the same way in the Interlinear Bible on WORDsearch. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament points out: Unlike the singular, the third person plural forms occasionally combine with prepositions, "by them" (Habakkuk 1:16, etc.). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. So this does not seem like something we can categorically decide.

[AndyHubert]

I should have pointed out that the two big ones are לָ/הֶם and מֵ/הֶם. The former form appears 638 times and according to the ETCBC is always parsed as a preposition with a suffix. But it has the lemma of l/1992 in 159 of these occurrences (the others simply have a lemma of l). The latter appears 92 times, 90 of which have the m/1992 lemma and 2 have the simple m lemma, but once again they all are parsed as a preposition with a suffix in the ETCBC.

Given that we have likewise parsed them as a preposition + suffix, I was making this suggestion so that our lemmas and parsings would be consistent.

(I should also mention that forms like לָ/הֵמָּה on the other hand are parsed as a preposition + personal pronoun and so appropriately have the l/1992 lemma.)

[DavidTroidl]

I would think the presence of the he-tsere on the 1st, 4th and 5th forms is a good indication that they should be left as they are. The others, with the he-segol, could probably be changed, as a blanket parsing, and left to the discretion of the editors.

[AndyHubert]

Will do.

[AndyHubert]

I believe that three of these were inadvertently updated to a lemma of l or m but should not have been:

Jer 10:2 - מֵ/הֵֽמָּה Jer 14:16 - לָ/הֵ֔מָּה Eccl 12:12 - מֵ/הֵ֖מָּה

Given the ה at the end of the form, I believe these should be restored to the lemma l/1992. Thoughts?

[DavidTroidl]

Yes, thanks for catching that.

[DavidTroidl]

I just made the corrections.