| 13. Linguistic Exegesis The verse opens with the interrogative hameat {הַמְעַ֗ט | ha-me-ʿat} ‘is it little?’, a rhetorical question expressing protest. The conjunction ki {כִּי | ki} introduces the first accusation in the Hiphil perfect heelitanu {הֶֽעֱלִיתָ֙נוּ | he-ʿe-li-ṯa-nu} ‘you have brought us up,’ where the first-person plural suffix marks collective experience. The construct chain meeretz zavat chalav udevash {מֵאֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ | me-’er-eẓ za-vat kha-lav u-de-vash} ‘from a land flowing with milk and honey’ employs a noun of abundance to depict prosperity. The infinitive construct lahamitenu {לַהֲמִיתֵנוּ | la-ha-mi-ṯe-nu} ‘to put us to death’ expresses purpose, while bamidbar {בַּמִּדְבָּר | ba-mid-bar} ‘in the wilderness’ provides spatial contrast. A second ki-tishtarer {כִּי־תִשְׂתָּרֵ֥ר | ki-ti-sh-ta-re-ir} ‘for you surely rule’ shifts to the Hitpael imperfect to accuse of domineering, and the infinitive absolute gam-hishtarer {גַּם־הִשְׂתָּרֵֽר | gam-hi-sh-ta-re-ir} ‘also you lord it’ intensifies the charge through repetition. English reorders the clauses for clarity while preserving the escalating protest and rhetorical force of the Hebrew. |