Ruth 1:11

Bryan Rocine 596547 at
Sat Feb 27 23:05:24 EST 1999

Hi friends, 

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,
13:21, 33:26.

I.e., perhaps gender agreement for the 2 f. p. pronominal suffix was simply
a low grammatical-correctness priority.


B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13208


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list