| 3. Linguistic Exegesis The verse continues a boundary description with the initial verbal clause veyarad-yammah {וְיָֽרַד־יָ֜מָּה | wə-yāraḏ-yām·māh} ‘and it went down seaward,’ where the directional yammah supplies orientation (toward the Mediterranean) rather than naming the sea explicitly. The prepositional phrase el-gevul {אֶל־גְּב֣וּל | ʾel-gəḇûl} ‘to the boundary of’ introduces a construct relationship that is specified by the following gentillic hayafleti {הַיַּפְלֵטִ֗י | hayyaplēṭî} ‘the Japhletite,’ marking a recognized local group or district. The verse then stacks limit markers with ʿad {עַ֣ד | ʿaḏ} ‘as far as’ and a second gevul {גְּב֧וּל | gəḇûl} to show successive boundary points, first at beit-khoron {בֵּית־חוֹרֹ֛ן | bêṯ-ḥôrōn} and qualified by tachton {תַּחְתּ֖וֹן | taḥtôn} ‘lower,’ distinguishing it from an upper counterpart. The phrase ve-ad-gazer {וְעַד־גָּ֑זֶר | wə-ʿaḏ-gāzer} adds a further endpoint in the same chain. The closing clause vehayu {וְהָי֥וּ | wə-hāyû} introduces a resultant summary: the expressions tetsato {תצאתו | təṣāʾtô} and totse'otav {תֹצְאֹתָ֖יו | tōṣəʾōṯāw} function appositionally as termination language for allotment borders (“its outgoing point(s)”), and the final yammah {יָֽמָּה | yām·māh} specifies that these endpoints face the sea. |