mjhjmtu

In 2 Kings 4:4 we read:

Erat autem Jonathae filio Saul filius debilis pedibus : quinquennis enim fuit, quando venit nuntius de Saul et Jonatha ex Jezrahel. Tollens itaque eum nutrix sua, fugit : cumque festinaret ut fugeret, cecidit, et claudus effectus est : habuitque vocabulum Miphiboseth.

The English translation has:

And Jonathan the son of Saul had a son that was lame of his feet: for he was five years old when the tidings came of Saul and Jonathan from Jezrahel. And his nurse took him up and fled: and as she made haste to flee, he fell and became lame: and his name was Miphiboseth.

I highlighted the part that confuses me. It is unclear to me how we are to know that the individual who "fell and became lame" is the son of Jonathan and not his nurse. Both are third person singular so it could well be that cecidit, et claudus effectus est applies to the nurse. Is this identification purely based on context? Or am I missing a linguistical clue somewhere else in the verse helping out in the identification of the subject to which the verbs apply?

Claudus effectus est is masculine, so it can't be the nurse. And the previous sentence stated that it was the son, not the nurse, who was lame.

ETA: as Hugh and Cerberus point out, this doesn't apply to cecidit, which could refer to either one: "she fell [and dropped the child] and he was made lame", or "he fell [out of the nurse's arms] and was made lame". The latter seems more likely to me, but the grammar is ambiguous.

As others have remarked, Latin cecidit could in theory refer either to the nurse or the child. But in the original Hebrew the corresponding וַיִּפֹּל is unambiguously masculine (verbs have gender in Semitic languages).

PS. The "2 Regum" of the Vulgate is "2 Sam." in the MT and KJV.