# direct / indirect object



## Ibn Nacer

Hello,

In Arabic, Is there a difference between a * direct  object* and an *indirect object* ? How  to  differentiate between the two?

PS : Please read this : http://arabic.tripod.com/Pronouns3.htm  and this http://arabic.tripod.com/Pronouns4.htm


----------



## Egyptlover

I'm sorry but I never heard of something like that in Arabic; well, maybe that's why I don't like to explain Arabic grammar in English terms because there're words that don't have synonyms in English because the two languages are very different in their structures and grammars. However, let me tell you that if the word "object" means "مفعول", then it'll always be "منصوب" and if a noun plays its role, it'll be "مبني في محل نصب", but the nouns that are attached to a preposition or serves as "مضاف إليه" (the second noun in an 'iDafa structure') are always "مجرورة" and if pronouns come instead of them they'll be "مبنية في محل جر".

Hope this helps


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Egyptlover said:


> I'm sorry but I never heard of something like that in Arabic; well, maybe that's why I don't like to explain Arabic grammar in English terms because there're words that don't have synonyms in English because the two languages are very different in their structures and grammars. However, let me tell you that if the word "object" means "مفعول", then it'll always be "منصوب" and if a noun plays its role, it'll be "مبني في محل نصب", but the nouns that are attached to a preposition or serves as "مضاف إليه" (the second noun in an 'iDafa structure') are always "مجرورة" and if pronouns come instead of them they'll be "مبنية في محل جر".
> 
> Hope this helps



Yes you are right but I have a problem  with attached pronouns (here                                                                                                               فَعَلَهَاْ and أَعْطَيْتُكَهُ is a discussion about this)
Some verbs can have two pronouns suffixes, example: أَعْطَيْتُكَهُ. I wanted to know  what is the grammatical function of both pronouns and if there was a  difference between the two. 
I think that * the first pronoun* refers to the *indirect object* and *the second pronoun* refers to the *direct object*. That is why the sentence أَعْطَيْتُكَهُ means "I gave  *it* *to  you*" and not "I gave *you* *to  him*". So "*you*" is *indirect  object  *and " *it*" is *direct object.
*
What do you think ? Please.


PS : In the sentence "I gave  John the book", John is the *indirect object* of the verb. Dans la phrase "J'ai  donné un livre à John", John est le complément d'objet indirect du  verbe. http://www.wordreference.com/enfr/indirect object


----------



## Mahaodeh

By direct and indirect object, do you mean مفعول به أول ومفعول به ثان? I will assume so, in this case the answer would be: It depends on the verb and the pronouns!

In the example you gave: أعطيتكه, the verb أعطى is متعد بمفعولين, hence it would be:
أعطى: فعل ماضي مبني على السكون لاتصاله بتاء الفاعل
التاء: تاء الفاعل ضمير متصل في محل رفع فاعل
الكاف: ضمير متصل في محل نصب مفعول به أول
الهاء: ضمير متصل في محل نصب مفعول به ثان


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Mahaodeh said:


> By direct and indirect object, do you mean مفعول به أول ومفعول به ثان? I will assume so, in this case the answer would be: It depends on the verb and the pronouns!


Thank you very  much.
Yes, it  is this: I think that "مفعول به أول" is an indirect object and that "مفعول به ثان" is a direct  object. That is why the sentence أَعْطَيْتُكَهُ  means "I gave  *it* *to   you*" and not "I gave *you* *to  him*". So "*you*"  is *indirect  object  *and " *it*"  is *direct object.

*


Mahaodeh said:


> In the example you gave: أعطيتكه, the verb أعطى is متعد بمفعولين, hence  it would be:
> أعطى: فعل ماضي مبني على السكون لاتصاله بتاء الفاعل
> التاء: تاء الفاعل ضمير متصل في محل رفع فاعل
> الكاف: ضمير متصل في محل نصب مفعول به أول
> الهاء: ضمير متصل في محل نصب مفعول به ثان



Thank you very  much for this analysis. However this does not help  me to know if the meaning of the sentence أَعْطَيْتُكَهُ is "I gave  *it* *to    you*" or "I gave *you* *to  him*".

1- For this translation : "I gave  *it* *to     you*" : "*you*" is *indirect  object  *and " *it*" is *direct object *and so  "*مفعول به أول*" is an* indirect* object and "*مفعول به ثان*" is a  *direct*  object.

2- For this translation : "I gave *you* *to   him*" : "*you*"  is *direct  object  *and "*him*"  is *indirect object *and so  "*مفعول به أول*" is an *direct* object and "*مفعول به ثان*" is a  *indirect*  object.


----------



## Outsider

Generally speaking, the direct object corresponds to the *accusative case*, and the indirect object corresponds to the *dative case*. There may be some exceptions, but this is the basic idea.


----------



## Ghabi

Ibn Nacer said:


> However this does not help  me to know if the meaning of the sentence أَعْطَيْتُكَهُ is "I gave  *it* *to    you*" or "I gave *you* *to  him*".


I think for the latter you have to say: أَعْطَيْتُهُ اِيّاكَ.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Ibn Nacer said:


> Thank you very  much for this analysis. However this does not help  me to know if the meaning of the sentence أَعْطَيْتُكَهُ is "I gave  *it* *to    you*" or "I gave *you* *to  him*".



Technically, it's about the sequence: the first one is مفعول أول and the second is مفعول ثاني (this is one of the few cases in Arabic were sequence does matter). So, if you wanted to say the opposite (I gave you to him) you can simply say: أعطيتُهُكَ. But then again, you can also say: أعطيته إياك as Ghabi mentioned.



Outsider said:


> Generally speaking, the direct object corresponds to the *accusative case*, and the indirect object corresponds to the *dative case*. There may be some exceptions, but this is the basic idea.



Grammatically speaking and up to my knowledge, there is no dative case in Arabic. The verb أعطى simply needs two objects (يتعدّى بمفعولين) and both objects are منصوب, there is no difference between them at all. It works exactly the same way as: علّم، زوّج، أسمع، حسِب الخ


----------



## clevermizo

Mahaodeh said:


> Technically, it's about the sequence: the first one is مفعول أول and the second is مفعول ثاني (this is one of the few cases in Arabic were sequence does matter). So, if you wanted to say the opposite (I gave you to him) you can simply say: أعطيتُهُكَ.
> 
> 
> Grammatically speaking and up to my knowledge, there is no dative case in Arabic. The verb أعطى simply needs two objects (يتعدّى بمفعولين) and both objects are منصوب, there is no difference between them at all. It works exactly the same way as: علّم، زوّج، أسمع، حسِب الخ



Yes there's no real thing in Arabic that grammatically corresponds to "indirect object" or "dative case." For example, in the case of أعطيتك إياه, "you" or ــك would in English be called an indirect object. Furthermore, in قلته لك， "to you" or لك would also be called an indirect object. In general, the indirect object is whomever receives the مفعول or I suppose the مفعول ثان.  So clearly in Arabic this syntax depends on the verb and how the verb is used. 

I'd say that "indirect object" per se does not exist in Arabic as a discrete grammatical case.

In colloquial Arabic however, I think it can exist. In Levantine dialects for example, you say قلتلك إياه which follows the same arrangement as أعطيتك إياه, so you might call the colloquial suffix ــلك an indirect object as it seems to occupy the same role as المفعول الأول


----------



## Mahaodeh

clevermizo said:


> In colloquial Arabic however, I think it can exist. In Levantine dialects for example, you say قلتلك إياه which follows the same arrangement as أعطيتك إياه, so you might call the colloquial suffix ــلك an indirect object as it seems to occupy the same role as المفعول الأول



Can you rephrase or elaborate on this, I didn't quite get your point.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Mahaodeh said:


> Technically, it's about the sequence: the first one is مفعول أول and the second is مفعول ثاني


 Yes, I understand that. My problem is not that.  

 Consider the first example أَعْطَيْتُكَهُ   , there are two objects:A - The thing that is given (eg a book).
B- The person who receives the thing.​How to know which pronoun refers to A and how to know which pronoun refers to B ? Does it depend on the context? Or it is fixed by the order of pronouns?

I think (But I'm not sure) that it is fixed by the order of pronouns (and not by the context) so *the first pronoun* refers to B (*indirect object*) and *the second pronoun* refers to A (*direct object*). That is why the sentence أَعْطَيْتُكَهُ  means "I gave  *it* *to   you*" and not "I gave *you* *to  him*"

*I wonder if this is correct. Is this a rule? Is it always like this?

* 



Mahaodeh said:


> So, if you wanted to say the opposite (I gave you to him) you can simply say: أعطيتُهُكَ. But then again, you can also say: أعطيته إياك as Ghabi mentioned.


As far as I know it is not correct to write أعْطيتُهُكَ because we must respect the order (first, second and third person). In this case it is necessary to use إيا with suffix pronoun.


But from what you say, it seems you think the meaning of the sentence depends on the order of pronouns and not the context.

Indeed if the meaning depended on the context then why change the order of pronouns (or use إيا with suffix pronoun) to say "I gave you to him"  ?


----------



## Ghabi

Ibn Nacer said:


> I think (But I'm not sure) that it is fixed by the order of pronouns (and not by the context) so *the first pronoun* refers to B (*indirect object*) and *the second pronoun* refers to A (*direct object*). That is why the sentence أَعْطَيْتُكَهُ  means "I gave  *it* *to   you*" and not "I gave *you* *to  him*"


This is also what I know. That's why I think we need to use _iyyaa_ for the latter.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Ibn Nacer said:


> Yes, I understand that. My problem is not that.
> 
> Consider the first example أَعْطَيْتُكَهُ   , there are two objects:A - The thing that is given (eg a book).
> B- The person who receives the thing.​How to know which pronoun refers to A and how to know which pronoun refers to B ? Does it depend on the context? Or it is fixed by the order of pronouns?
> 
> I think (But I'm not sure) that it is fixed by the order of pronouns (and not by the context) so *the first pronoun* refers to B (*indirect object*) and *the second pronoun* refers to A (*direct object*). That is why the sentence أَعْطَيْتُكَهُ  means "I gave  *it* *to   you*" and not "I gave *you* *to  him*"
> 
> *I wonder if this is correct. Is this a rule? Is it always like this?
> 
> *



It's the context and the order. You ALWAYS get it from the context; but in some cases order makes a difference in how we understand the context. In the verb أعطى the first object is the one/person that is given (B) while the second object is the thing given (A). Sometimes the sequence changes, but in this case one or both are not objects hence the order does not make a difference any more.

ex. أعطيته لك gives the same meaning as أعطيتكه (i.e. you are the B and it is the A); the sequence differs but in this case the pronoun kaaf (for 'you') is not an object grammatically.



Ibn Nacer said:


> As far as I know it is not correct to write أعْطيتُهُكَ because we must respect the order (first, second and third person). In this case it is necessary to use إيا with suffix pronoun.



OK, maybe. I don't know of this rule and frankly I would probably say أعطيته إياك but personally I'm not aware of a rule. What I did is that I removed the pronouns:

أعطيت زيدا الكتاب

أعطيت الكتاب زيدا

Then added the pronouns again without changing who is the first person and who is the second (i.e., Zaid remained in the second person and the book remained in the third). and ended up with أعطيتهك.

Anyway, when one says أعطيته إياك the order remains the same.



Ibn Nacer said:


> But from what you say, it seems you think the meaning of the sentence depends on the order of pronouns and not the context.
> 
> Indeed if the meaning depended on the context then why change the order of pronouns (or use إيا with suffix pronoun) to say "I gave you to him"  ?



I know who is the one receiving and the thing that is given from the order, but I know which one is in the second or the third person from the choice of pronoun (haa' or kaaf).


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Mahaodeh said:


> It's the context and the order. You ALWAYS get it from the context; but in some cases order makes a difference in how we understand the context. In the verb أعطى the first object is the one/person that is given (B) while the second object is the thing given (A). Sometimes the sequence changes, but in this case one or both are not objects hence the order does not make a difference any more.
> 
> ex. أعطيته لك gives the same meaning as أعطيتكه (i.e. you are the B and it is the A); the sequence differs but in this case the pronoun kaaf (for 'you') is not an object grammatically.



Thank  you very much.

In the case of *a verb with two  pronouns suffixed*, it depends *only* on the order of pronouns, do you  agree with me?

If we say that it depends on  context then I ask this question: Is it possible that in context أعْطيتُهُكَ means "I gave  *it* *to  you*" and that in another  context  it means "I gave *you* *to  him*" ?

I think  the answer is no and that أَعْطَيْتُكَهُ always means "I gave  *it* *to   you*" whatever the context.




Mahaodeh said:


> OK, maybe. I don't know of this rule and frankly I would probably say  أعطيته إياك but personally I'm not aware of a rule. What I did is that I  removed the pronouns:
> 
> أعطيت زيدا الكتاب
> 
> أعطيت الكتاب زيدا
> 
> Then added the pronouns again without changing who is the first person  and who is the second (i.e., Zaid remained in the second person and the  book remained in the third). and ended up with أعطيتهك.
> 
> Anyway, when one says أعطيته إياك the order remains the same.
> 
> 
> 
> I know who is the one receiving and the thing that is given from the  order, but I know which one is in the second or the third person from  the choice of pronoun (haa' or kaaf).



Ok thank  you very much.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

John  used these words : direct object (*مفعول مباشر* ) and indirect object (*مفعول غير مباشر*) but elroy wrote this:



elroy said:


> I agree with you, Josh. Actually, I was surprised  that Cherine corrected you in the other thread. *يدرّس الرجل للطلاب*  simply does not sound right to me. Whether or not there was a "direct  object" (I place it in quotes because I am referring to the Arabic _equivalent_  of a direct object), I would not use the *ل* . Therefore, I would  say
> 
> *يدرّس الرجل الطلاب * (The man teaches the students)
> 
> and
> 
> *يدرّس الرجل الطلاب الإبحار الشراعي * (The mean teaches the  students sailing)
> 
> To me, *درّس *is definitely *فعل متعدّ *(the opposite, by the  way, is *فعل لازم*) - because it is indeed  transitive. *Nevertheless, the terminology you use is not, to my  knowledge, accurate in Arabic grammar. I have never heard of مفعول  مباشر or **مفعول غير مباشر . In Arabic, both direct and  indirect objects are called **مفعول به.  The one that appears first (which will be the indirect object, assuming  no prepositions) is simply called **مفعول به اول, and the one that  follows (the direct object) is **مفعول به ثاني. If you use the  preposition **ل  (which as I said I would not do in this case),  there is no** مفعول به but an **اسم مجرور.*
> 
> Compare the following sentences (both of which are correct):
> 
> *اعطيت الولد القلم* - I gave the boy the pen.
> *اعطيت القلم للولد* - I gave the pen to the boy.
> 
> The first one has a *مفعول به اول* and a *مفعول به ثاني*,  while the second one has a *مفعول به*, a *حرف جر*, and an*  اسم مجرور*.
> 
> I hope that helps clarify things a little bit.




***************
an other message of elroy :



elroy said:


> I know what you mean, but "indirect object" does   not usually refer to an object of a preposition but to an object that is   indirectly acted upon, _to_ or _for_ whom the action is done   (but the "to" or "for" is not explicitly expressed).
> 
> أعطيت الولد التفاحة - I gave the boy the apple.
> In this sentence, الولد is *an indirect objec**t*.
> 
> Thus, verbs that take indirect objects are by definition transitive   because it is impossible to have an indirect object without a direct   object.
> 
> But I agree with you that verbs that need a preposition before their   object(s) are intransitive.


----------



## Josh_

Ibn Nacer said:


> Josh  used these words : direct object (*مفعول مباشر* ) and indirect object (*مفعول غير مباشر*) but elroy wrote this:


That post was written a long time ago (almost five years ago)).  It can be disregarded now.  At that time I was just starting out with Arabic grammar and must have been translating directly from English, applying English grammatical terminology to Arabic.  I am much more knowledgeable about Arabic grammar, now.  ​


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Josh_ said:


> That post was written a long time ago (almost five years ago)).  It can be disregarded now.  At that time I was just starting out with Arabic grammar and must have been translating directly from English, applying English grammatical terminology to Arabic.  I am much more knowledgeable about Arabic grammar, now.  ​


Yes you  are right. I mentioned this because I want to know if there is a  distinction between direct object and indirect object in Arabic grammar. But apparently there  is still no clear answer....

So the question  is how Arabic speakers know the difference? For example, how do  they know that أَعْطَيْتُكَهُ  means "I gave  *it* *to   you*" and not "I gave *you* *to  him*" ? How do they learn  this? How do they teach it?...etc.




Josh_ said:


> Yes, I think you would have to rely on context, as Maha said in the  other post, in many cases.  You would most often encounter words and  phrases in context anyway, not in isolation.  There are other instances  in which confusion could arise, such as the oft-cited example بيت صديقي  الجديد.  Is this "my friend's new house" or "my new friend's house."   Only context (or in this case full voweling) would tell.
> 
> At any rate the structure أَعْطَيْتُكَهُ,  in which two pronouns are attached to a verb, is somewhat archaic, and  rarely used nowadays.  As Ghabi and Maha alluded to in the other thread,  the structure is أَعْطَيْتُهُ اِيّاكَ is used.  But even that is  somewhat lofty.  You can just simply use أعطيته لك, which may be the  most common, or most simple structure.


- I do not  think  (but I'm not sure) that the meaning depends on context. I think that أَعْطَيْتُكَهُ   always means "I gave  *it* *to   you*".
- The structure  أَعْطَيْتُهُ اِيّاك means "I gave *you* *to   him*" not "I gave  *it* *to    you*". So to say   "I gave *you* *to   him*" it  is  necessary to use إيا  with suffix  pronoun  because it is not correct to write أعْطيتُهُكَ (indeed we must respect the order (first, second  and third  person)).

To me this proves that it's the order of pronouns that  determines  the meaning and not the context.


----------



## Ibn Nacer

Bonsoir,

Voici un texte tiré d'un livre disponible sur le net et dont je donne  les références juste après :



> Rem. a. The suffix attached to إِيَّا   is always that which would
> occupy the second place, if appended to the verb. In certain cases
> this form alone is used, either for the sake of precision or of  euphony.
> 
> Thus, _he gave me to him _must be worded أَعْطَاهُ إِيَّايَ,
> to distinguish it from أَعْطَانِيهِ _he gave him  to me_ ; but it is euphony
> which requires أَعْطَاهُ إِيَّاهُ, _he gave it to him_,  instead of أَعْطَاهُهُ.


 *R**éférences :*

 A GRAMMAR OF THE ARABIC LANGUAGE, TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF  CASPARI, AND EDITED WITH NUMEROUS ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS
 BY *W. WRIGHT*, LL.D., LATE PROFESSOR OP ARABIC IN THE UNIVERSITY  OF CAMBRIDGE.

 THIRD EDITION REVISED BY W. ROBERTSON SMITH, LATE PROFESSOR OF ARABIC  IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE AND M. J. de GOEJE, PROFESSOR OF ARARIC  IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LEYDEN.


----------

