After a lengthy exchange with Al Pietersma, I have revised and updated my earlier note on Isa 1:2-3. The conclusions I reach, of course, are attributable to me alone.
Determining what a translator – ancient or modern – had in mind in translating as he/she does is a complex task. A determination hinges in part on the presumed relationship of translation production and reception. To my mind, a translator – ancient or modern – is the first receptor of his/her own translation. Translation reception takes place first of all within a feedback loop in the act of translation production. The feedback loop may be described in the following way. The tendency is for a translator to receive the source text indirectly, through the glosses in her mother tongue she associates with its words. In the process of making said associations, the translator is asking the question, what, globally speaking, does the text mean. The answer that is reached depends on the glosses the translator tentatively associated with the words of the original as much as, and probably more than, the words of the original per se. What the words of a text in translation mean, for the translator herself, depends on what they mean in the larger context of the translation, not what they mean (any longer) in the source text.
Bottom line: one must be careful not to infer too much about the meaning of a word in translation Greek based on the meaning of the word it translates in Hebrew or Aramaic.
The revised note is here.