# Auzi + indirect object?



## chatkigazouille

Hello again!

I have a question on how we use the verb auzi. The below passage is from Matei 9:

(Cornilescu)
11 Fariseii au văzut lucrul acesta şi au zis ucenicilor Lui: „Pentru ce mănâncă Învățătorul vostru cu vameşii* şi cu păcătoşii**?”
12 Isus *i-a auzit* şi le-a zis...

My question: why i-a auzit and not l-a auzit?
- Ce a auzit Isus? --> întrebarea Fariseilor

Acum "întrebarea" este complementul direct, nu-i așa? Apoi de ce utilizăm pronumele obiect indirect?

Mersi!


----------



## farscape

He heard *them* thus the i for plural. Isus i-a auzit pe ei, Fariseii.


----------



## chatkigazouille

@farscape I see. Thank you!


----------



## metaphrastes

In fact, neither the original Greek nor many versions of the Bible have any pronoun here:
Greek: ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς *ἀκούσας *εἶπεν αὐτοῖς...
King James: But when Jesus *heard *_[that]_, he said unto them...
Biblia Sinodală: Şi *auzind *El, a zis...

The pronoun "i", in Cornilescu's version, is one of those words added for the sake of clarity, that many editions put either in italic, or between square brackets, or in gray letters, so that the reader know that they are not to be found in the original text.

See however that King James version added a pronoun referring to _what was heard, the words said by the Pharisees. _While Cornilescu referred the pronoun to _those persons who said those words, the Pharisees themselves. _Both interpretations are possible and do not distort the intent of the sacred text in any way. However, the pronoun is dispensable and for that reason the Romanian Synodal Version and many others do not have it.

Maybe you were influenced by the reading of King James' version to think that the pronoun there _should _refer to _what was said _and not to _those who said those words. _Here, the issue is inoffensive but in other cases it might not be so - thus it shows how important is to take as a pattern the text in its original language. And - since your point here is mostly learning Romanian language - not assuming that the Romanian text you have by Cornilescu should match any version (as King James) word by word.


----------



## chatkigazouille

@metaphrastes nah actually I just wasn't aware that "i" was a direct object pronoun for "them", I thought it's only for indirect object.

Originally I'd thought that the only d.o.p was "le" (that's the reason I asked why it was not "le" before my post got edited) but yeah the more you know. It's totally not a big deal whatsoever, I verified English versions (ESV, NASB, NIV) and French (LSG, Martin, Darby) and I think they use different words anyways.


----------

