596547 at ican.net
Sat Feb 27 23:05:24 EST 1999
Bro. Ben wrote re Rut 1:11:
> I think you will find that when Naomi is addressing her daughters-in-law
> as *married women* she gives them the gender of their late husbands; but
> when she kisses them as *individuals* she gives them their natural
. All this talk of sons and
> husbands caused Naomi to use the gender-inclusive masculine LaCeM,
> instead of the feminine-specific LaCeN.
Another possibility: The 2 f. p. pronominal suffix --ken is only used
about fifteen times in the Tanak. The 2 m. p. pronominal suffix --kem is
used without gender agreement with a near verb almost as many times (7 x).
In spite of what the grammars say, perhaps --kem is simply a functional
free variation for --ken. Sort of like when we say "does everyone have
*their* Bible?" The rules say we should use the singular *his* or
*his/her* to agree with the *everyONE*, but plural *their* has become <ugh>
a virtual free variation.
The seven hits are as follows: Rut 1:11, 1:13, Jer 44:25, 48:6, Eze 13:19,
I.e., perhaps gender agreement for the 2 f. p. pronominal suffix was simply
a low grammatical-correctness priority.
B. M. Rocine
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13208
More information about the b-hebrew