TL

”You answered yourself, did you not, by affirming that a singular can be generic.”

Of course it CAN be. Anything can be anything, but it is context that determines.

”What it appears that you are asking is to show the reason for the “irregular and unusual grammar change” based on the acceptance of your contextual understanding. But surely you must realise that this type of language is based on your preconceived conclusion and understanding of the context.”

Based on the context of skipping from modesty and attire of all women, to a new topic of a specific admonishment from Paul to Timothy to allow a woman to teach a man, we can see that something quite different is being addressed. And in that the singular has specific significance. Instead of general encouragements of activity, now it is about allowing a particular woman to learn (something women were not encouraged to do by the Judiaizers) in the manner and attitude of a student (quietness and submission). The not teaching and not usurping of authority of a singular man are also unusual and require the good reader to go back and look for the full subject matter that is being dealt with here, which is found in chapter one.

”i find it much harder to accept your contextual understanding which has Paul shoot off in a rather different direction between v10-11 which can only be understood by reference back to earlier parts of chapter 1. This for me, seems like the irregular and unusual approach.”

On the contrary, good exegesis ALWAYS looks for how the author has been building up to a point to see the conclusion more accurately. The concept that a sentence or two can be understood clearly without reading before and after it is irresponsible reading. And from there one builds irresponsible doctrines with errors in them. And errors in doctrines will always hurt the people of God somewhere, somehow.