# Who has my book?



## Gwunderi

Shalom,

If I ask: "Who has a new book?"
למי יש ספר חדש

But if I ask: "Who has *my* book?"
למי יש הספר שלי

Is that really correct? Doesn't למי יש mean "whom belongs?" rather than "who has?" 
Than the second sentence would mean: Whom belongs my book (rather nonsense)?

I know that languages sometimes have "nonsense" terms and you have to "shut up and learn"  

Toda raba


----------



## arbelyoni

> If I ask: "Who has a new book?"
> למי יש ספר חדש
> 
> But if I ask: "Who has *my* book?"
> למי יש הספר שלי


That is correct.

"Whom does my book belong to" would be למי שייך הספר שלי.


----------



## amikama

Gwunderi said:


> But if I ask: "Who has *my* book?"
> למי יש הספר שלי


That's correct, but a more natural translation would be:
אצל מי הספר שלי?

(See the recent discussion about אצל.)


----------



## Gwunderi

arbelyoni said:


> That is correct.
> 
> "Whom does my book belong to" would be למי שייך הספר שלי.



I see. I think שייך is an adjective (shayakh) and must be declined? I didn't know it yet.

And למי litterally means "to who(m)" and not "of who(m)" - think I had a little blackout. So it makes (a bit more) sense.

תודה רבה


----------



## Gwunderi

amikama said:


> That's correct, but a more natural translation would be:
> אצל מי הספר שלי?
> 
> (See the recent discussion about אצל.)



I read the whole discussion, where you also make exactly the same example. 
If that's a more natural way, I will use this - תודה רבה


----------



## Gwunderi

Little clarification:

If you mean a specific book (my book, your book, this book), than you (can) say:
אצל מי הספר שלי / שלך / הזה

But if you ask "who has *a* new book?", than you say: למי ספר חדש

Of course (?) I think I understood when to use אצל, not exactly like the French "chez" or the Italian "presso", but almost. It was a clarifying discussion for me too.


----------



## JaiHare

It should be pointed out, though, that in modern Hebrew people tend to use את with the possessive.

למי יש את הספר הזה?
"Who has this book?"

If I wrote a book and am presenting to an audience, I might ask who has a copy of my book with the question that was originally asked:

למי יש את הספר החדש שלי?
"Who has my new book?"

But if I bought a book and don't know who I lent it to, I might ask my friends what was suggested later in the thread:

אצל מי הספר שלי?
"Who has my book (with him)?"

Hebrew is such a cool language.


----------



## Gwunderi

JaiHare said:


> If I wrote a book and am presenting to an audience, I might ask who has a copy of my book with the question that was originally asked:
> 
> למי יש את הספר החדש שלי?
> "Who has my new book?"
> 
> But if I bought a book and don't know who I lent it to, I might ask my friends what was suggested later in the thread:
> 
> אצל מי הספר שלי?
> "Who has my book (with him)?"



That's exactly how I would say "instinctively" (when I use it like the Italian "presso").

I'll try to remember to add the את

And thanks to you now I also found how to place the "?" at the end of the sentence.
מה נשמע?



> Hebrew is such a cool language.



 Very true


----------



## Albert Schlef

JaiHare said:


> It should be pointed out, though, that in modern Hebrew people tend to use את with the possessive.
> 
> למי יש את הספר הזה?
> "Who has this book?"



 You mean "colloquial Hebrew", not "modern Hebrew". The latter still has to be grammatically correct, whereas your sentence isn't: "the book" in the Hebrew sentence is the subject, and a subject can't be prefixed by "את" (which is only for objects).


----------



## Gwunderi

Albert Schlef said:


> "the book" in the Hebrew sentence is the subject, ...



That's true, I didn't notice it. So you mean only in "colloquial Hebrew", as Albert says, and that's good for me to know but not to learn before I'm really familiar with the languate (in about 5-10 years )

תודה רבה


----------



## JaiHare

Albert Schlef said:


> You mean "colloquial Hebrew", not "modern Hebrew". The latter still has to be grammatically correct, whereas your sentence isn't: "the book" in the Hebrew sentence is the subject, and a subject can't be prefixed by "את" (which is only for objects).



Just so happens, though, that if you don't use את in this construction, people in the street will think you've said something wrong. When you say "colloquial," it should be stressed that this is the standard spoken form of the language. It is certainly the way that native Hebrew speakers use it, having adapted the convention of the Europeans who have verbs that mean "have" that take direct objects, even though we all agree that יש\אין is not a transitive verb (but rather an existential particle).


----------



## Gwunderi

JaiHare said:


> It is certainly the way that native Hebrew speakers use it, having adapted the convention of the Europeans who have verbs that mean "have" that take direct objects, even though we all agree that יש\אין is not a transitive verb (but rather an existential particle).



I made a little research with "למי יש את", first in Google, where I got millions of results, and than also in an Israeli newspaper (YNet), and also there you get about 100 results. So it really seems that, though it's gammatically not correct, it has become common use even in newspapers?

I learn with a book who was printed in 1992 and last edited in 2009, and which was (and is?) also used in "ulpanim" for German speakers - and there you find only the form without את. But perhaps in school itself you learn both forms.

It's interesting to know the way it become common use through immigrants from Europe.
So I will learn both forms - at least now I'll not get confused when I see it once with and the other without את

תודה רבה


----------



## JaiHare

Gwunderi said:


> I made a little research with "למי יש את", first in Google, where I got millions of results, and than also in an Israeli newspaper (YNet), and also there you get about 100 results. So it really seems that, though it's gammatically not correct, it has become common use even in newspapers?
> 
> I learn with a book who was printed in 1992 and last edited in 2009, and which was (and is?) also used in "ulpanim" for German speakers - and there you find only the form without את. But perhaps in school itself you learn both forms.
> 
> It's interesting to know the way it become common use through immigrants from Europe.
> So I will learn both forms - at least now I'll not get confused when I see it once with and the other without את
> 
> תודה רבה



It took me a little while to get used to using it (that is, including the את because it's counter-intuitive for those who study the language from a theoretical point of view), but having been in Israel for five years now, it's become second nature.


----------

