| 13. Linguistic Exegesis The narrative marker vatomer {וַתֹּ֙אמֶר֙ | wa-ṯōmer} ‘and she said’ initiates direct discourse. The subject ha’ishah {הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה | hā-ʾiš-šā(h)} follows the vav consecutive, a common pattern in Hebrew narrative. Velamah {וְלָ֧מָּה | wə-lā-mā(h)} introduces an interrogative clause, challenging khashavta {חָשַׁבְתָּה | ḥā-šav-tā(h)} ‘you planned’, a Qal perfect verb addressing the king’s prior intent. The demonstrative kazot {כָּזֹ֖את | kā-zōṯ} ‘like this’ emphasizes the nature of the action. The prepositional phrase al-‘am Elohim {עַל־עַם אֱלֹהִים | ʿal-ʿam ʾĕ-lō-hîm} ‘against the people of God’ frames the target of criticism. The Piel infinitive construct umiddaber {וּמִדַּבֵּ֨ר | u-miḏ-ba-ḇēr} ‘by speaking’ links the king’s words to his culpability. The noun clause hadavar hazeh {הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה | ha-dā-wār ha-zē} ‘this word’ is elaborated by the simile ke’ashem {כְּאָשֵׁ֔ם | kə-’ā-šēm} ‘as guilty’, where the Qal participle expresses equivalence between speech and self-condemnation. Finally, the Hiphil infinitive construct hashiv {הָשִׁ֥יב | hā-šî-ḇ} ‘cause to return’ paired with the Niphal participle et-nidcho {אֶת־נִדְּחֽוֹ | ʾet-nid-dā-ḥō} ‘his banished one’ forms a purpose clause introduced by levilti {לְבִלְתִּ֛י | lə-ḇil-tī} ‘in order that not’, explaining the reason for the king’s fault. The repetition of hamelekh {הַמֶּלֶךְ | ha-me-leḵ} ‘the king’ bookends the critique, underscoring personal responsibility. |