>
>In Ruth 1:10, the group wants to know why the imbedded speech
>begins with KIY. Their leaning right now is that it could be an
>entire verbless relative clause that is being fronted. To
>"unfront" it and thus show what they see the unmarked form as
>being, it would translate something like, "We are returning to
>your people so that (we can be) with you." The other main option
>that they put forward was an X-yiqtol relative clause that
>explained why they were kissing and crying and calling out (not
>necessarily in that order!): "Because (it is) with you (that) we
>are returning to your people."
>
>What think ye?
I think that many times in narrative one should understand the kiy as a
simple narrative link and leave it untranslated. I call it the "recitative
kiy" and it functions in the same way as the "recitative Hoti" of NT fame.
Try leaving it out and see what happens to your translation. It is, to be
sure, useful in Hebrew, but completely useless in English.