"MarYah deception" ???

[Jerry]

Paul, I don't know of any parallel to the MR` root, even among noun roots. It seems to be unique to itself. So turning (MauR-Yau`) into the proper noun MarYah is always going to be a speculative venture, IMO. I doubt your case can be proven any more than I could prove that it is a singular emphatic.

For example, (Mau-Re`) is unique. I don't know of any other root, where such a construction would be the singular construct if (Mau-Rau`) is the singular emphatic. It would instead be the plural emphatic. Yes, (MauR-Yau`) is unique, but so is (Mau-Ra-Yau`). So if (MauR-Yau`) is the proper noun MarYah, then what is (Mau-Ra-Yau`)?

There is a finite number of forms that a root conforms to. They are singular absolute, construct, and emphatic. And plural absolute, construct, and emphatic. Six of in total. Sometimes, singular absolute and construct are inflected the same. MR` is a large root, with many examples. The SEDRA 3 listing is the only way that it's various inflections can be aligned to the six grammatical forms. It is the only way to put the puzzle together.

To assume that MarYah exists, is to assume that the singular absolute never occurs in the root. Possible, but unlikely in such a large sample. We know that by context (MauR-Yau`) works as "the-Lord" or "a-lord" in all examples. We know that MarYah doesn't. It doesn't in Matthew 22: 43 & 45.

It could be that (Mau-Rau`) is the singular emphatic, and not the absolute. In fact, it is the weakest link in my argument. It could be that (MauR-Yau`) is something beyond that of singular emphatic. But even then, I would not be convinced that MarYah is the answer.

Just my reflections on the subject. I am not convinced I am correct, but not convinced I am wrong either. It is just where I am at this moment of time.