Genesis 1:1 the fourth Hebrew word is never translated to English

[IshChayil]

I think Ish was stating that et was needed precisely because it is already definite, the et doesn't make it definite (that's what the he is for). That is, et is need when the following word is a definite object.

That's correct Shibboleth

 

[IshChayil]

Although I would like to point wa'et is translated. I'm trying to find the need to have an untranslatable definitive maker to declare that a definitive object is definitive.

Actually only the "wa" from the "wa'et" gets translated. w (vav) is a conjunction which prefixes to other words; it can not exist by itself solo.

 

[IshChayil]

I also found this page, which describes the use of et as a form of personal pronoun (in the objective case).

That's a good website, but the grammar geek in me has to qualify this.
"et" is not acting as a pronoun here. It is simply taking a pronominal suffix which can not stand alone. These same suffixes can be affixed to the verb in Biblical Hebrew (not modern).
So the famous "ʿāzawtanī" (you have forsaken me). The ī suffix is the objective "me". In the bible you can say this 2 ways:
1-āzawtanī
2-āzawta ōtī
both mean "you have forsaken me". So really the unstranslatible Definite Direct Object marker את is used as a stand in for the suffix which means "me" unless we attach it to the verb directly. This allows you to do things in Hebrew poetry or for emphasis like ōtī āzawta "ME, you have forsaken".
So the DDO is still marking the definite direct object in the cases you are referencing, but in this case it's the suffix following the marker rather closely than on a separate word.

 

[IshChayil]

Yeah I just read that all is always an adjective in Hebrew. This is helping me with my Hebrew at least.

This is not true, כול khōl can be used substantivally to mean "everyone", "each one", etc.

 

[IshChayil]

Another speculation: maybe ox could be considered definite because it belongs to the following "whose". Ha- isn't the only way to make a noun definite.

An ox -- the one belonging to whom -- have I taken?

Exactly... I tried to boil down the rules for definiteness for simplicity sake but you are correct; if you guys just think through it if the noun is qualified somehow in definiteness(or is a name), then it's definite. Once we start asking "whose ox" (which btw is kind of funny that in Hebrew "who" is mĪ (pronounced me), I got a bunch more of those but I digress....
so when you say "whose ox" or "ox of whom" you have already treated it similarly to it being someone's ox. "My ox" is definite, and so is "the ox of what's-his-name"

 

[IshChayil]

1 Samuel 12:3

הִנְנִ֣י behold
עֲנ֣וּ here I witness
בִי֩ in
נֶ֨גֶד against me before
L-rd

Some of the stuff is not mapped to the right Hebrew word so let's just adjust a little bit...

הִנְנִ֣י behold (I am here)
עֲנ֣וּ here I witness (just witness [it's an imperative])
בִי֩ in (here it doesn't mean in, here it means against me)
נֶ֨גֶד against me before (just before)
...
מִ֣י or whose (just whose)
בּ֑וֹ in (the therewith belongs here, it's the waw at the end)
וְאָשִׁ֖יב therewith? and I will restore (just "and I will restore")

 

[IshChayil]

Good work guys, keep up the great grammar work!

 

[Shibboleth]

That's a good website, but the grammar geek in me has to qualify this.
"et" is not acting as a pronoun here. It is simply taking a pronominal suffix which can not stand alone. These same suffixes can be affixed to the verb in Biblical Hebrew (not modern).

Thanks for the clarification. I actually did realize that, but was somewhat simplifying, since I'm thumb typing on my phone during the work day. From a high level, an untranslatable word marking objective case + personal pronoun suffix is gramatically serving the function of a pronoun.

 

[Nikud]

Actually, Kevin, there are a number of studies demonstrating that the alef-tav occurances point to Yeshua.

https://sharperiron.org/article/logos-midrash-john-11-4