# ואינך in 1 Kings 21:5



## Isidore Demsky

What would be an exact translation of *ואינך* in 1 Kings 21:5?
וַתָּבֹא אֵלָיו, אִיזֶבֶל אִשְׁתּוֹ; וַתְּדַבֵּר אֵלָיו, מַה-זֶּה רוּחֲךָ סָרָה, וְאֵינְךָ, אֹכֵל לָחֶם.

Would it be "and do not," "and you do not," or simply "not"?                 

(And would I be correct in assuming it's second person singular masculine?)


----------



## Egmont

Yes, it's second person singular masculine; Jezebel is speaking to Ahab.

I'd translate it as "and you do not [eat bread]."


----------



## Isidore Demsky

Thank you.


----------



## Isidore Demsky

Is there anything in the structure of the word itself that tells you it's second person singular masculine (or do you have to deduce that from the context of Jezebel speaking to Ahab)?


----------



## arielipi

ך of possesion here should tell you its second person singular, though masculine or feminine it doesnt tell you without context/niqqud.


----------



## Mosho

Since it's the bible it has "nikkud" representing vowels. masculine would be "ein-ha" and feminine "ein-eh". In modern hebrew nikkud isn't used in everyday life and you have to tell by context.


----------



## arielipi

Mosho said:


> Since it's the bible it has "nikkud" representing vowels. masculine would be "ein-ha" and feminine "ein-eh". In modern hebrew nikkud isn't used in everyday life and you have to tell by context.


The bible doesnt come with niqqud! people added the niqqud to it -.-
Also its einech, not ein-eh.


----------



## Mosho

People also wrote the bible, what's your point? Any bible you would get today has it.
And technically it's neither "ein-eh" nor "einech", that would be a different sound as well. I was just pointing out the difference.


----------



## triptonizer

Hi Isidore

Perhaps it helps to add that strictly speaking אין is a noun ("nothingness", "non-existence"), and can take pronominal suffixes just like any other noun (with some irregular forms).


----------



## origumi

triptonizer said:


> Perhaps it helps to add that strictly speaking אין is a noun ("nothingness", "non-existence"), and can take pronominal suffixes just like any other noun (with some irregular forms).


Actually אין is an adverb in the phrase under discussion.


----------



## Isidore Demsky

origumi said:


> Actually אין is an adverb in the phrase under discussion.



So if used as an adverb, would the "ך  of possesion"  still tell you its second person singular?


----------



## origumi

Isidore Demsky said:


> So if used as an adverb, would the "ך of possesion" still tell you its second person singular?


Some adverbs occur also in connexion with suffixes, thus יֶשְׁךָ‎ thou art there, 3rd sing. masc. יֶשְׁנוֹ‎[5] (but see note below), 2nd plur. masc. יֶשְׁבֶם‎; אֵינֶ֫נִּי‎ I am not, 2nd sing. אֵֽינְךָ‎, fem. אֵינֵךְ‎, 3rd sing. אֵינֶ֫נּוּ‎, fem. אֵינֶ֫נָּה‎, 2nd plur. אֵֽינְכֶם‎, 3rd plur. masc. אֵינָם‎.—Also עוֹדֶ֫נִּי‎ I am yet (עוֹדִי‎ only in בְּעוֹדִי‎ and מֵֽעוֹדִי‎), עֽוֹדְךָ‎, עוֹדָךְ‎, עוֹדָם‎.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius'_Hebrew_Grammar/100#GHGpar-100-o


----------



## arielipi

Isidore Demsky said:


> So if used as an adverb, would the "ך  of possesion"  still tell you its second person singular?


Yes.


----------

