"MarYah deception" ???

[Paul Younan]

I didn't see anything there where you pointed out that (Mau-Re`) was the singular construct, and not the absolute as you claimed a couple of posts above.

My bad, I mistyped - it's a construct, not an absolute.

I agree with you that Luke 14:23 and a couple of other verses suggest the emphatic for (Mau-Rau`) vs. the absolute.

OK, now that we agree that the emphatic is MRA, and not MRYA, let's go on to your next point.

However, if (Mau-Rau`) is the singular emphatic, it doesn't make (MauR-Yau`) a proper noun.

I didn't say that. I said MRYA is not the emphatic of MRA. I left open the question, what is it then?

Other nouns add a consonant to create two singular emphatics. It is done to add an attribute to the base emphatic, such as turning "the-day" into "this-day", or "the-week" into "the-Sabbath", likely a literal meaning to the effect of "the-weekend" or "the-last-of-week".

What does the irregular form for "this day" (yowmana) have to do with MRA ?

Similarly, for (MauR-Yau`) it is a matter of determining what that added attribute is. You are convinced it makes it a proper noun. I am of the opinion it shares the same added attribute used for the "captive" noun, more a grammatical device of some sort, likely a type of denominative emphatic similar to "this-day" vs. "the-day", but of course not "this".

Ah, you mean something akin to "THEEE Lord" with a long e, as opposed to "Thuh Lord". I got it.

The Shabya noun, captive, is not special. It is how the noun is supposed to be formed from the pattern Ca-C-Y-a for a III-weak verb root. So it is not akin to MRYA at all.

Again, the question becomes - are you aware of any other noun root that applies that pattern? SHBA is a verb, so is ASA (heal). If not (and you won't find a single example), then you cannot claim that MRYA is grammatically an Emphatic for MRA.

It is its own special word, reserved for God alone. That's one clue.