| 29. Linguistic Exegesis The verse opens with halo {הֲלֹ֣א | hă-lōʾ} ‘is it not’, an interrogative-negative particle that expects agreement and functions as a pointed rebuke. The first clause uses the perfect sheeltem {שְׁ֭אֶלְתֶּם | šə-ʾel-tem} ‘you asked’, presenting the act of inquiry as something they should already have done; its object is the construct chain ovrei derekh {ע֣וֹבְרֵי דָ֑רֶךְ | ʿō-vrê dā-reḵ} ‘passers of road’, appealing to ordinary, widely available witnesses. The second clause is joined with vav and shifts to an imperfect tenakeru {תְנַכֵּֽרוּ | tə-nak-kērû} ‘you recognize/discern’, portraying a continuing failure to perceive. The placement of veototam {וְ֝אֹתֹתָ֗ם | wə-ʾō-ṯō-ṯām} ‘and their signs’ before the negator lo {לֹ֣א | lōʾ} ‘not’ foregrounds the “signs” as the key evidence being ignored. The paired questions form tight poetic parallelism: consulting the wayfarers and recognizing their “signs” belong together, so refusal to acknowledge the evidence appears willful rather than merely uninformed. |