| 20. Linguistic Exegesis The vav wayyiqtol form vatikhi {וַתִּקְחִ֞י | wat-tiqqôṯ} links this accusation to the preceding context; the repeated direct object marker et {אֶת־ | et} and parallel nouns banayikh {בָּנַיִךְ | ba-na-yikh} and benotayikh {בְּנוֹתַיִךְ | be-no-ta-yikh} intensify the charge; the infinitive construct le-e-khol {לֶאֱכֹל | le-ʾe-khol} serves as a purpose clause for the sacrificial act described by vatizbachim {וַתִּזְבָּחִ֥ים | wat-tiz-ba-ḥîm}; and the chiastic pairing of mittaznutekh {מִתַּזְנוּתָ֥ךְ | mit-taz-nu-tekh} and mittaznutayikh {מִתַּזְנוּתָֽיִךְ | mit-taz-nu-ta-yikh} around the rhetorical question introduced by hameat {הַמְעַט | ham-me-ʿaṭ} heightens the cumulative indictment of spiritual unfaithfulness. |