# imi/iti, imo/ito, etc.



## albondiga

Hi all,

So obviously I would only use "im X" (and not "et X") to say "with X," if the indirect object X was a noun (e.g., "with the books," "with Sarah," etc.)... but if X is a pronoun ("with me," "with him," etc.), it seems that both "im" and "et" can be used interchangeably (thus "imi" or "iti", "imo" or "ito", etc.)... 

Is this accurate?  Is one version used more than the other?  Is there a trend of increasing usage of one or the other?


----------



## Nunty

In speech and most writing we tend to use את (et) more than עם when we're using a prepositional pronoun suffix (which is a term I just made up). I mean, we would say

*ani holeket l'tayyel im Dani*
and
*ani holeket l'tayyel ito

*Is that what you're asking?


----------



## albondiga

Nun-Translator said:


> In speech and most writing we tend to use את (et) more than עם when we're using a prepositional pronoun suffix (which is a term I just made up). I mean, we would say
> 
> *ani holeket l'tayyel im Dani*
> and
> *ani holeket l'tayyel ito
> 
> *Is that what you're asking?



Yes, thanks!

So, if that's the case, when would _imi_, _imo_, etc. be used with this meaning? Are they more formal-sounding? Old-fashioned? Are they used much at all, and if so then under what circumstances would they be used?


----------



## pachyderm

They're formal and old-fashioned


----------



## albondiga

Thanks!  Actually, what prompted this thread is that I had recently read that both "are in common use," but my own perceptions matched Nun-Translator's answer... So I thought that my own perceptions might have been wrong, but now I think the problem is that the book I was reading is a few decades old!


----------



## Nunty

Well, an old book is certainly part of it, but it doesn't hurt to know that this exists. You'll find these im- forms in the siddur, in some poetry, classic Hebrew literature... 

But what do I know? I misspelled ממוצע. (Still smarting from that one...)

Yours was a good question, and you're in the right place to get answers.


----------



## albondiga

Nun-Translator said:


> Well, an old book is certainly part of it, but it doesn't hurt to know that this exists. You'll find these im- forms in the siddur, in some poetry, classic Hebrew literature...



Hmm, so if that's the extent of its recognition currently, now I have to wonder why something written _only _a few decades ago says that both "are in common use"... (Unless it has greatly diminished in use during a very short time span, that's a misleading statement...)

Anyway, thanks for your help!


----------



## Nunty

That is not it's only use, but it is not current in speech. If you have a chance, listen to a recorded speech of an Israeli politician from the 1960s, for example. That is not very long ago, but some usages are very different. I believe there are sociological reasons that are specific to Israel that have speeded up the changes, but language is always dynamic. Listen to or read Harry Truman or FDR; they do not use language in the same way as Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon, and certainly not like either of the Bushes.

Another point is that language learning books are prescriptive in nature, are written at a given point of time and are sometime not even "with it" in regard to spoken language even when they are relatively new.

Back to albondiga's remark. Remember, he said it is both formal and old-fashioned. You will still find the im- usage occassionally in formal speech or writing.

This is making me feel old. I'll stop now.


----------

