Patrick

Thanks gengwell and Tl and Cheryl,

But let me just say this last point since hopefully it will clarify. My example did not include v13-15 because that was not what Cheryl asked those who disagree with her to show. She simply asked to give a reason for the shift from v10-11. Therefore my example simply did that.

Now considering that we are all in agreement that it is grammatically possible for the singular to be generic, it is obviously therefore not ‘unusual’ for this to happen. It can be a normal part of grammar.

So my example showed how contextually shifting to the singular makes sense and by extension still apllies to the whole. I then pointed out that this fits fine with the traditional contextual understanding.

Now, clearly this hasn’t satisfied you and that is ok, but i only wanted to point out that it is possible and that Cheryl’s challenge relies on the faulty premise that one accept her contextual approach. Many other points/questions have appeared which are really irrelevant to this point so i have not engaged with them, like i said, for simplicity and clarity.

So i will leave it at that. I see no real benefit continuing to discuss side topics when it has been difficult enough to get a good, healthy discussion on this one. I’m not really interested in straw men and ad hominem attacks (and no Cheryl, i’m not Mark??). I sure hope you don’t label me as someone who refuses to answer the tough questions.

Blessings