# Usage of the particle את



## enJoanet

hello!
can someone please explain to me why in the following sentence ha´khalon is no preceded by "et" as it is usually the case for definite objects...

"atem rotsim et ha´shulkan al yad ha´khalon".

In my  coursbook this sentence is translated as follow "Would you like the table by the window"...

thanks in advance!


----------



## origumi

"et" is for definite *direct* object (like Latin accusative but not fully equivalent). It's not for indirect object (like Latin dative, ablative).


----------



## enJoanet

that makes a whole lot of sense..!!
thanks!


----------



## enJoanet

hey!
another question just popped into my head:
what if you have two definite direct objects following each other?
for instance:
We´d like a table and the menu, please

which one (if any!) is correct:
"atem rotsim et ha´shulkan v´ha tafrit, b´vakasha"
or
"atem rotsim et ha´shulkan v´et´ha tafrit, b´vakasha"

thanks in advance!


----------



## MaNitma

Almost 

The correct version would be
"*anakhnoo *rotsim shulkan v'et ha'tafrit, b'vakasha"

anakhnoo = we
atem = you (pl. m.)

"a table" as a direct object = "_shulkhan_"
"the table" as a direct object = "_et ha'shulkhan_"

"a menu" as a direct object = "_tafrit_"
"the menu" as a direct object = "_et ha'tafrit_"


----------



## MaNitma

By the way, it is grammatical to drop the "et" particle altogether, but it almost never happens in the spoken language.


----------



## origumi

enJoanet said:


> We´d like the table and the menu, please
> 
> which one (if any!) is correct:
> "atem rotsim et ha´shulkan v´ha tafrit, b´vakasha"
> or
> "atem rotsim et ha´shulkan v´et´ha tafrit, b´vakasha"


Both are good. One "et" can apply for both, or you can repeat it. 



MaNitma said:


> By the way, it is grammatical to drop the "et" particle altogether, but it almost never happens in the spoken language.


I think that in pratice nobody have omitted the "et" since the death of Ben Gurion. Are you sure that "et" is optional?


----------



## MaNitma

origumi said:


> I think that in pratice nobody have omitted the "et" since the death of Ben Gurion. Are you sure that "et" is optional?



Well, I couldn't find any reliable source stating neither that it's mandatory nor that it's optional. I suppose the Hebrew Academy will have the answer for us.

Two discussions I found about the subject:
http://sf.tapuz.co.il/shirshur-1072-41406746.htm
http://sf.tapuz.co.il/shirshur-384-7487119.htm


----------



## enJoanet

ok lovely! thanks a lot!
so, to sum up:
when you have more than one definite direct object in the same sentence, the particle can be repeated or not but in any case the first definite direct has to be preceded by the particle....


what follows might be off-topic, but is this something that generally occurs in Hebrew? That is, if I wanted to say:
"I´m visiting my friends and my family"
"Ani mevaker ha- khaverim sheli v ha- mishpakhah sheli".

another example:
family, friends and girlfriend live here in tel-aviv. (I know it sounds blunt, but oh well...it´s just for the sake of grammar!!  )
mishpakhah, v´khaverim v´khaverah garim poh b´tel-aviv.

thanks!


----------



## amikama

enJoanet said:


> so, to sum up:
> when you have more than one definite direct object in the same sentence, the particle can be repeated or not but in any case the first definite direct has to be preceded by the particle....


Correct 



> what follows might be off-topic, but is this something that generally occurs in Hebrew? That is, if I wanted to say:
> "I´m visiting my friends and my family"
> "Ani mevaker ha- khaverim sheli v ha- mishpakhah sheli".


I think that this sentence doesn't sound natural in Hebrew. I would say:
אני מבקר *את *החברים ו*(את)* המשפחה שלי.
(The second את is optional.)



> another example:
> family, friends and girlfriend live here in tel-aviv. (I know it sounds blunt, but oh well...it´s just for the sake of grammar!!  )
> mishpakhah, v´khaverim v´khaverah garim poh b´tel-aviv.


This sentence doesn't sound natural too. Firstly, no need to repeat _ve_- every time; it's added only before the last article in the list. Secondly, I think that חברה (girlfriend) should be definite (you have only one girlfriend, no? ). So I'd say:
משפחה, חברים והחברה גרים פה בתל-אביב.
(although I'm still not sure it's sounds natural.) Anyway, there is no direct objects in this sentence, so no את particles here.


----------



## enJoanet

ok!
I´m just getting started in Hebrew, so I´m going to transliterate your corrections just to be sure I got it right!! 

so the first would be:
ani mevaker et´ha´khaverim sheli v´et´mishpakah sheli
(the second "et" being optional)


and the second now:
mishpakhah, khaverim v´ha´khaverah garim poh b´tel-aviv...

Would the following sentence sound more natural to you?
ha´mishpakha sheli, ha´khaverim sheli v´ha´khaverah sheli garim poh b´tel-aviv.
 (My family, my friends and my girlfriend live here in Tel-Aviv.)

thanks!


----------



## Clara_

Hello, 
would anybody mind telling me if my sentence is correct? There may be other mistakes than את 
Thank you.

אני צריכה עוד 1 או 2 חודש(ים) בחפש לעשות את כל מה שאני רוצה לעשות
I need one or two months more of vacation to do all that I want to do.


----------



## amikama

Clara_ said:


> אני צריכה עוד 1 או 2 חודש(ים) בחפש לעשות את כל מה שאני רוצה לעשות
> I need one or two months more of vacation to do all that I want to do.


I don't think your sentence is incorrect, but I would say:
אני צריכה עוד חודש-חודשיים חופש לעשות (את) כל מה שאני רוצה לעשות

(Again, את is optional here too.)


----------



## elianecanspeak

But is the "et" consistently used in biblical Hebrew, as in "et ha shamayim v'et ha aretz"?

Or does it vary with the period?


----------



## just a normal guy

I'm not an expert but as much as I know, ET is consistently used in the biblical Hebrew-e.g.: "Kakh na et binkha et yekhidkha asher ahavta et itskhak" Genesis,22,2. as well as in modern Hebrew.


----------



## origumi

just a normal guy said:


> ET is consistently used in the biblical Hebrew ... as well as in modern Hebrew


Basically this is correct, yet there are enough exceptions to make some grammarians to conclude that "et" had more general use. For example

אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר *אֹת*וֹ אֱלֹהִים
בְּהִוָּלֶד לוֹ *אֵת* יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ
בְּיוֹם הִגָּמֵל *אֶת* יִצְחָק
וְהַחֲזִיקִי *אֶת* יָדֵךְ בּוֹ
וַיְהִי אֱלֹהִים *אֶת* הַנַּעַר
כִּי *אֶת* שֶׁבַע כְּבָשֹׂת תִּקַּח מִיָּדִי

All from Genesis 21.


----------

