| 21. Linguistic Exegesis The verse opens with an existential negation, ein-sarid {אֵין־שָׂרִיד | ʾên-śārîḏ} ‘there is no remnant’, which states absence as a settled fact. The following lamed-infinitive phrase leokhlo {לְאָכְל֑וֹ | ləʾāḵlô} ‘for him to eat’ functions as a purpose/availability complement, indicating that nothing remains available for consumption. The inferential connector al-ken {עַל־כֵּ֝֗ן | ʿal-kēn} ‘therefore’ marks a tight logical consequence: the earlier lack becomes the basis for the outcome clause. The second clause uses a negated imperfect, lo-yakhil {לֹא־יָחִ֥יל | lō-yāḥîl}, with tuvo {טוּבֽוֹ | ṭûḇô} ‘his prosperity’ as its object; in context, the verb’s semantic range (“endure” or “be hoped for”) points to the same outcome—his good fortune will not continue into the future. The two short clauses form a cause-to-result progression typical of Hebrew poetry, heightening the certainty that greedy consumption is followed by the collapse of prosperity. |