shimshon asks for the opportunity to take revenge from the plishtim one more time - paam echad. (this has now become a popular song.) the noun paam is normally nekeivah - paam achat. why does the navi use the masculine in this case. (this question always bothers me when people sing the song.) (it's also a pretty macabre verse to use as a song - but i guess that is a question beyond your competence and a matter of taste.)
dmartin, raanana,eretz yisroel
The verse says "ha'Pa'am ha'Zeh." This is the only place in Tanach where a masculine modifier is used with the word "Pa'am," although the Gemara in three other places uses the word "Echad" with the word "Pa'am," although most of the time the word "Achas" is used. The simple answer would be that "Pa'am" is interchangeable -- see Tosfos in Kidushin 2b (DH Kashu Kera'i).
It could be that Shimshon was beseeching Hash-m to give him back his strength, represented by the trait of masculinity. (See Rashi to Bamidbar 11:15, and see Berachos 32a, that when it says a Lashon Nekeivah when it should have said a Lashon Zachar, it is alluding to weakness.)
1. Your answer is very good. Sefer Shoftim, though, is not the only place in Tanach where the word "Pa'am" is used with a masculine modifier. See Shmuel II 23:8, where the word "Pa'am" is modified by the word "Echad" in the Ksiv, for which the Kri is "Achas." Your answer, though, is appropriate there as well -- the topic of the verse there is the Chashivus of the Pe'ulah being done and thus it is appropriate for the Ksiv to be in Lashon Zachar.
2. In addition to Tosfos in Kidushin which you quote, see also Rashi to Bereishis 32:9 and the Ibn Ezra. (The Ibn Ezra referred to is not in his Perush on Chumash. Source is not known but it is quoted by Tosafos Yomtov Nazir 2:2 DH ha'Zeh, re 'Deles.')
3. In the "Ha'Meir" journal, we dealt at length with the topic of gender irregularity, we quoted many instances of irregularities, and we proposed our so-called "gender change theory." What you write is consistent with our approach there.
(I used the word "irregularity" but this must not be misunderstood.
There is of course nothing irregular in the Torah. The suggested rule is an integral grammatical device. I trust this is obvious.)
With regard to "Pa'am" being Loshon Zachar, see Yad Malachi Kllal 309 "Kol Davar Shein Boi
Ruach Chayim Zachreihu Vnakveihu" [NOTE: This is from the Ibn Ezra that we referred to. -MK].
Also in addition to your nice answer, I would add that "Lfa'amo" that says by Shimshon (which means according to many Mforshim something that happened from time to time) also refers to a G-dly "Ruach" as the Gemara says 9b , hence the Paam is said in the Zachar.