| 16. Linguistic Exegesis The line opens with af {אַ֭ף | ʾap̄} ‘indeed’, an intensifier that pushes a conclusion forward. The sequence af + ki-nitav {כִּֽי־נִתְעָ֥ב | kî-niṯ-ʿāḇ} functions idiomatically in an a fortiori argument (“how much more/less”), so the clause is not merely causal but escalatory. Two Niphal participles, nitav {כִּֽי־נִתְעָ֥ב | kî-niṯ-ʿāḇ} ‘detestable’ and veneelach {וְֽנֶאֱלָ֑ח | wə-neʾĕlāḥ} ‘corrupt’, form a stacked predicate describing the subject before his characteristic behavior is specified. The compound ish-shoteh {אִישׁ־שֹׁתֶ֖ה | ʾîš-šōṯeh} ‘a man drinking’ uses a participle to portray a settled pattern rather than a single act. The simile ka-mayim {כַמַּ֣יִם | kam-māyim} ‘like water’ gives the comparison rhetorical force: wrongdoing is consumed as readily and repeatedly as a necessity. English renders the participles with adjectival predicates (“detestable and corrupt”) and keeps the “drinks … like water” image to preserve the verse’s moral satire. |