# ישמור-צאתך ובואך (usage of את)



## airelibre

Why is it ה' ישמור-צאתך ובואך rather than ה' ישמור את צאתך ובאוך? I would have thought that tzetcha and boecha were definite and thus required et as the subjects of the phrase.
Thanks


----------



## arielipi

et is only a helper word - one that is not required at any time, but makes it easier to follow the sentence.


----------



## origumi

arielipi said:


> et is only a helper word - one that is not required at any time, but makes it easier to follow the sentence.



בהחלט, מאז ומתמיד. השווה למלכים ב' י"ט כ"ז, שם שתי הצורות (עם ובלי "את") מופיעות בפסוק אחד:

וְשִׁבְתְּךָ וְצֵאתְךָ וּבֹאֲךָ יָדָעְתִּי וְאֵת הִתְרַגֶּזְךָ אֵלָי


----------



## MuttQuad

arielipi said:


> et is only a helper word - one that is not required at any time, but makes it easier to follow the sentence.



I was taught that "et" is required before a direct object. Did my teachers and rabbis mislead me?


----------



## airelibre

Would it be considered bad form in Modern Hebrew not to use את where it is usually used?


----------



## origumi

MuttQuad said:


> I was taught that "et" is required before a direct object. Did my teachers and rabbis mislead me?


In both Biblical and Modern Hebrew _et_ is indeed expected before a definite direct object. In both however it is dropped sometimes when the meaning is clear. In the Bible _et _can also appear before indirect object or even the subject: וַיִּוָּלֵד לַחֲנוֹךְ אֶת עִירָד, וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ חֲנוֹךְ אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים.



airelibre said:


> Would it be considered bad form in Modern Hebrew not to use את where it is usually used?


Generally speaking, _et_ should be there. It can be dropped in certain places as an artistic or stylistic measure but this should be done with extreme caution.


----------



## airelibre

origumi said:


> Generally speaking, _et_ should be there. It can be dropped in certain places as an artistic or stylistic measure but this should be done with extreme caution.



Ok, thanks


----------



## Albert Schlef

origumi said:


> In the Bible et can also appear before indirect object or even the subject: וַיִּוָּלֵד לַחֲנוֹךְ אֶת עִירָד, וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ חֲנוֹךְ אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים.



Gosh! When we were in school the teachers told us "אין לי את הכסף לזה" is incorrect (correct: "אין לי הכסף לזה").

So, "אין לי את הכסף" is actually correct?!


----------



## origumi

Albert Schlef said:


> Gosh! When we were in school the teachers told us "אין לי את הכסף לזה" is incorrect (correct: "אין לי הכסף לזה").
> 
> So, "אין לי את הכסף" is actually correct?!


LOL for that you'd need יחסים טובים את האלהים or at least את מנכ"ל האקדמיה ללשון. Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi.


----------



## arbelyoni

The origin of יש את sentences in Modern Hebrew is in dispute, and there are different arguments for and against them.
This wiki article and this post sum it up quite well.


----------



## Drink

origumi said:


> In the Bible _et _can also appear before indirect object or even the subject: וַיִּוָּלֵד לַחֲנוֹךְ אֶת עִירָד, וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ חֲנוֹךְ אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים.



And my ulpan teacher was all over me for saying "כואב לי את הראש". I should have shown her this verse.



Albert Schlef said:


> Gosh! When we were in school the teachers told us "אין לי את הכסף לזה" is incorrect (correct: "אין לי הכסף לזה").
> 
> 
> So, "אין לי את הכסף" is actually correct?!




The way I see it is that יש/אין sentences are nominal sentences not verbal sentences. In the Bible at least את at the very least requires a verb or participle, as far as I know.


----------



## bazq

Drink said:


> The way I see it is that יש/אין sentences are nominal sentences not verbal sentences. In the Bible at least את at the very least requires a verb or participle, as far as I know.



There are phrases in the bible where "את" appears in existential sentences = היו לו את or something like that, though I don't know where. My memory fails me.
I don't know if it appears with "יש/אין" or only with "היה" though...


----------



## airelibre

Drink said:


> And my ulpan teacher was all over me for saying "כואב לי את הראש". I should have shown her this verse.


In Modern Hebrew that is wrong. Imagine saying it in a different order: את) הראש כואב לי)
I imagine the cases it happens in the bible may be slips.


----------



## Drink

airelibre said:


> In Modern Hebrew that is wrong. Imagine saying it in a different order: את) הראש כואב לי)



I know that, but for me that's what comes out when I'm on the spot.



airelibre said:


> I imagine the cases it happens in the bible may be slips.



Such slips (can) evolve into grammar rules.


----------



## Albert Schlef

origumi said:


> וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ חֲנוֹךְ אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים.



The definition for et in ויקימילון says that את also means עם ‎(as in "יוֹסֵף בֶּן שְׁבַע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה הָיָה רֹעֶה אֶת־אֶחָיו בַּצֹּאן"), which is the apparent meaning in this verse too. So this verse isn't relevant for our discussion.

They also say:


על פי הדעה המקובלת, אין קשר של מוצא בין אֶת בהוראה זו לבין אֶת א. שתי המילים הזדהו בצורת היסוד מסיבות פונטיות, אבל בנטיות ההבדל ביניהן נשמר (אוֹתוֹ לעומת אִתּוֹ).
[...]
על אף שבמקרא המילה "את" משמשת לעתים גם בצורת היסוד, בשפה התקנית משמשת המילה בנטיות בלבד, כחלופה הרווחת בדיבור ובספרות לנטיות המילה "עם".


----------



## Drink

Albert Schlef said:


> The definition for et in ויקימילון says that את also means עם ‎(as in "יוֹסֵף בֶּן שְׁבַע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה הָיָה רֹעֶה אֶת־אֶחָיו בַּצֹּאן"), which is the apparent meaning in this verse too. So this verse isn't relevant for our discussion.
> 
> They also say:
> 
> 
> על פי הדעה המקובלת, אין קשר של מוצא בין אֶת בהוראה זו לבין אֶת א. שתי המילים הזדהו בצורת היסוד מסיבות פונטיות, אבל בנטיות ההבדל ביניהן נשמר (אוֹתוֹ לעומת אִתּוֹ).
> [...]
> על אף שבמקרא המילה "את" משמשת לעתים גם בצורת היסוד, בשפה התקנית משמשת המילה בנטיות בלבד, כחלופה הרווחת בדיבור ובספרות לנטיות המילה "עם".



Yes, there's also "קטנתי מכל החסדים ומכל האמת אשר עשית *את* עבדך". It is also unclear here whether this is את as in אותי or איתי. I don't think that we can say for sure which one it is for either of the verses.


----------

