# The meaning of את after a few verbs



## Konstantinos

מנקים את
מנקה את
רוחץ את
משקה את
מסדרים את
מסדר את
שם את
תולה את
מגהץ את
שוטף את


----------



## arielipi

its a copula... it doesnt exist in english... after that comes the subject.


----------



## Konstantinos

I like Hebrew more now... Thank you arielipi...


----------



## Drink

arielipi said:


> its a copula... it doesnt exist in english... after that comes the subject.



Wrong twice: It's not a copula it's preposition. And after it comes the direct object not the subject.

It is usually only used if the direct object is definite.


----------



## arielipi

Drink said:


> Wrong twice: It's not a copula it's preposition. And after it comes the direct object not the subject.
> 
> It is usually only used if the direct object is definite.


Ok, thanks for the correction (i never really remember the names)ץ
just fyi - et can be seen as a copula as it can always be omitted (just saying).


----------



## evilwarlock

Is there anything else you can possibly expound on about the preposition that would help me understand it?


----------



## Drink

evilwarlock said:


> Is there anything else you can possibly expound on about the preposition that would help me understand it?



It just marks the direct object (and only when it is definite). There isn't much else to it. It can sometimes help to distinguish the direct object from the subject if the word order is changed:

הילד אכל את התפוח (ha-yeled achal et ha-tapuach) = The boy ate the apple.
את התפוח אכל הילד (et ha-tapuach achal ha-yeled) = The boy ate the apple. (_not_ The apple ate the boy.)

but:

את הילד אכל התפוח (et ha-yeled achal ha-tapuach) = The apple ate the boy.
התפוח אכל את הילד (ha-tapuach achal et ha-yeled) = The apple ate the boy. (_not_ The boy ate the apple.)


----------



## arielipi

Drink, its incorrect, i can e.g. say
קח את ילדינו הביתה
not he hayediah there. et relates to our children, not to the house.
to the extreme:
קח את ילדינו לביתם.


----------



## Drink

arielipi said:


> Drink, its incorrect, i can e.g. say
> קח את ילדינו הביתה
> not he hayediah there. et relates to our children, not to the house.
> to the extreme:
> קח את ילדינו לביתם.



In those sentences, את ילדינו is the direct object, while הביתה and לביתם can be considered either adverbial phrases or indirect objects. So I don't understand your point.


----------



## arielipi

That you dont have to have he heayediah when having et.
when i think about it, when speaking with the possesive form, you cant not have the word et; while regularly speaking you can omit it at any time.


----------



## Drink

arielipi said:


> That you dont have to have he heayediah when having et.
> when i think about it, when speaking with the possesive form, you cant not have the word et; while regularly speaking you can omit it at any time.



I didn't say you have to have a he heayediah, just that it has to be definite. A noun can be definite without a he heayediah if it has a possessive suffix (ילדינו), if it is a proper noun (ישראל), or if it is a smichut followed by a definite noun (ארץ ישראל, ארץ ילדינו, ארץ הילדים).


----------



## evilwarlock

It was stated that את is usually only used if the direct object is definite. What are the exceptions?


----------



## Drink

evilwarlock said:


> It was stated that את is usually only used if the direct object is definite. What are the exceptions?



It is never used when the direct object is indefinite and it is almost always used when the direct object is definite. There are no regular "exceptions"; it is just simply omitted sometimes.


----------



## David S

Drink said:


> It is never used when the direct object is indefinite and it is almost always used when the direct object is definite. There are no regular "exceptions"; it is just simply omitted sometimes.



When is it okay to omit and when is it mandatory?


----------



## Drink

David S said:


> When is it okay to omit and when is it mandatory?



What I was trying to say is that it is never mandatory, but always preferred (when the noun is definite).


----------



## hadronic

arielipi said:


> et can be seen as a copula as it can always be omitted (just saying).



"Copula" doesn't mean something that can be omitted.
The copula in Hebrew (verbe "to be" in the present) is omitted, but it doesn't mean that omittable words are copulae.


----------



## hadronic

The only instances of et-dropping when object is definite that I know of, are before "hakol"  and before "zot" (vs. "et ze").
I don't think I've ever seen that in any other context that is not biblical.


----------



## arielipi

Drink said:


> What I was trying to say is that it is never mandatory, but always preferred (when the noun is definite).


but in possessive form it is mandatory (or at least very strange when omitted) - any explanation to that?


----------



## hadronic

Drink already explained that.


----------



## Drink

arielipi said:


> but in possessive form it is mandatory (or at least very strange when omitted) - any explanation to that?



Can you give some examples of when you would omit it?


----------



## arielipi

Drink said:


> Can you give some examples of when you would omit it?



I'm saying I can't think of any


----------



## Drink

arielipi said:


> I'm saying I can't think of any



Not necessarily possessives, just any examples.


----------



## arielipi

הילד אכל התפוח


----------



## Drink

arielipi said:


> הילד אכל התפוח



So people actually say that? I could take a guess and say that the difference with possessive suffixes might be that they sound formal and people tend not to drop את in formal situations.


----------



## hadronic

Isn't et-dropping precisely more formal?


----------



## arielipi

it is hadronic, but in possessive form i cant take it out.


----------



## David S

Are you saying that this is correct:

הילד אכל (את) התפוח האדום

but you must leave in the את with:

הילד אכל את התפוח שלי?

What about with names?

Can you say:

אני מבקר אמא ולירון

or do you need the את between מבקר and אמא/לירון?


----------



## hadronic

Arielipi talked about possessive *suffixes*. So not constructions like " ha-tapuax sheli" , but rather  "tapuxi" (if you can say such a thing... ).


----------



## arielipi

Possessive suffixes, names I can't take out the et word. Sounds unnatural


----------



## David S

Would it be accurate to say that "את" is optional before "ה" but if there is no "ה" then "את" is mandatory?


----------



## arielipi

To me yes.


----------



## arbelyoni

arielipi said:


> but in possessive form it is mandatory (or at least very strange when omitted) - any explanation to that?


I don't think it's mandatory or stranger than dropping את in other positions.


----------

