Biblical Hebrew Forum

[HarryJ_Harm AT kastanet.org]

Dear Randy,

Greetings from Mississippi.

I will have to take a look at the grammar of Ruth 1.17 again.  I have 
followed interpretation b.  I find that it fits the context better than
interpretation a does because Ruth had just declared that death would
not separate her from Naomi.  She would be buried where Naomi was buried.

SIncerely,

Harry J. Harm  :{)

=========================================================================
here is a possibly ambiguous oath, with a footnote that is given to
students:

ko ya`ase Y"H li vexo yosif
ki ha-mavet yafrid beni uvenex

for b-hebrew:
a. thus may He do and double do...[if I do otherwise]...,
     indeed death will be what separates us [nothing else].
b. thus may He do and double do
     if even death will separate us. [i.e. death will not separate us]

my own answer from a footnote for students:
        ki after the curse/oath formula generally introduces something
affirmed. Here it is death and only death that will separate Ruth from
No`omi.
        For the oath to mean 'if even death would separate...', 'even death
will not...'
one would have expected im 'if' [=certainly NOT] or possibly ki-im (cf. 2
Sm 3.35).
        Cf. 1 Sm 14.44, 20.13, 2 Sm 3.9, 1 K 2.23, 19.2 (19.2 with plural
verbs for gods!).
        In oaths in general, im will introduce the condition being sworn
against (=he will NOT do it), while
im-lo will introduce something that the person swears to not let not happen
(=he will certainly do it).

---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: HarryJ_Harm AT kastanet.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.