Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Ruth 1:11

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Bryan Rocine" <596547 AT ican.net>
  • To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Ruth 1:11
  • Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 23:05:24 -0500



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
gender.
>
<snip>

. 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.

Shalom,
Bryan



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

315-437-6744(w)
315-479-8267(h)



  • Ruth 1:11, Jonathan Brubaker, 02/26/1999
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • Re: Ruth 1:11, Ben Crick, 02/26/1999
    • Re: Ruth 1:11, Bryan Rocine, 02/27/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page