וְהָ֣אֲנָשִׁ֔ים טֹבִ֥ים לָ֖נוּ מְאֹ֑ד וְלֹ֤א הׇכְלַ֙מְנוּ֙ וְלֹֽא־פָקַ֣דְנֽוּ מְא֔וּמָה כׇּל־יְמֵי֙ הִתְהַלַּ֣כְנוּ אִתָּ֔ם בִּֽהְיוֹתֵ֖נוּ בַּשָּׂדֶֽה׃
“But those involved had been very friendly to us; we were not harmed, nor did we miss anything all the time that we went about with them while we were in the open.
(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation—an adaptation of the NJPS translation—showing a slight modification projected for October 2023. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew term containing אִישׁ—in this case, its plural form אֲנָשִׁים—by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this document, pp. 11–16.)
The speaker has been describing the present dire situation to Abigail. He now refers to David’s band in terms of that situation: he uses the situating noun in order to introduce characterizing information that he deems as essential for grasping that situation. This is a classic discourse function of the situating noun. (The narrator employs the same means of communication in vv. 2–3, with regard to Nabal and Abigail, respectively.)
As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘the men’ nowadays tends to be construed as a sortal noun phrase, which puts undue emphasis on the referents’ masculinity—and reduces the effectiveness of the discourse function. In contrast, the revised rendering regards the referent in terms of the situation, as salient participants.