# Double Accusative



## Flaminius

I am wondering how Hebrew constructs sentences where two nouns in accusative can assume different roles.  More specifically, verbs like _teach_ and _ask_ take two types of nouns modified by the accusative marker _-'ēt_.

1a. ani melamed et Śara wa-Ja`el.
I teach Sarah and Yael.
1b. ani melamed et kol ha-subjeqţim be-bejt ha-sefer ha-ze.
I teach all the subjects in this school.
The beneficiary of the act of teaching is marked by _-'ēt_ in the former and the theme of the teaching in the latter, sentence.

2a. tish'al oti im jesh lakhem she'elot.
Ask me if you have questions.
2b. hu' shuv sha'al et ha-she'ela she-hu' sha'al lifnej jomajm.
He again asked the same question that he asked the day before yesterday.
In the former sentence, the accusative marks the target of questions, whereas, in the latter, it marks the very questions being asked.

Now, my question is whether or not it is possible to use these two different instances of _-'ēt_ in the same sentence.  How do you say, "I teach Sarah and Yael all the subjects in this school" and "He asked me the question he asked the day before yesterday"?

Sentences with double accusative are avoided in most of the languages I know.  I would like to know the case of Hebrew.  ma da`atkhem?

toda me-ro'sh,
Flam


----------



## noali

Flaminius said:


> I am wondering how Hebrew constructs sentences where two nouns in accusative can assume different roles. More specifically, verbs like _teach_ and _ask_ take two types of nouns modified by the accusative marker _-'ēt_.
> 
> 1a. ani melamed et Śara wa-Ja`el. ani melamed et sara ve-yael
> I teach Sarah and Yael.
> 1b. ani melamed et kol ha-subjeqţim be-bejt ha-sefer ha-ze. ani melamed et kol hamiktso'ot bebet ha-sefer ha-ze.
> I teach all the subjects in this school.
> The beneficiary of the act of teaching is marked by _-'ēt_ in the former and the theme of the teaching in the latter, sentence.
> 
> 2a. tish'al oti im jesh lakhem she'elot. (you've used the verb "tishal" which is in singular and the "lakhem" which is in plural .you need to be consistent..meaning: tishal oti im yesh lekha sheelot/ tishalu oti im yesh lakhem sheelot. I must aslo say that this sentence doesn't sound so great to me.. I would say something like : im yesh leja sheelot, tish'al oti. )
> Ask me if you have questions.
> 2b. hu' shuv sha'al et ha-she'ela she-hu' sha'al lifnej jomajm.
> He again asked the same question that he asked the day before yesterday.
> the day before yesterday is often called "shilshom".
> In the former sentence, the accusative marks the target of questions, whereas, in the latter, it marks the very questions being asked.
> 
> Now, my question is whether or not it is possible to use these two different instances of _-'ēt_ in the same sentence. How do you say, "I teach Sarah and Yael all the subjects in this school" and "He asked me the question he asked the day before yesterday"? ani melamed et sara ve-yael et kol hamiktso'ot bebeit ha-sefer haze. and "hu sha'al oti et (ota) hase'ela she'hu sha'al shilshom. " the version with "ota" sound's better. "otá" means "the same (feminine) " the same question = ota hashe'ela.
> 
> Sentences with double accusative are avoided in most of the languages I know. I would like to know the case of Hebrew. ma da`atkhem?
> 
> toda me-ro'sh,
> Flam


 

as for the main part of your question (the double accusative thing) ..I didn't quite get what you're asking here..so I hope others would help too.


----------



## Flaminius

noali said:


> as for the main part of your question (the double accusative thing) ..I didn't quite get what you're asking here..so I hope others would help too.



Your sentences



> ani melamed *et* sara ve-yael *et* kol hamiktso'ot bebeit ha-sefer haze.
> hu sha'al *oti* *et* (ota) hase'ela she'hu sha'al shilshom.


answer exactly what I wanted to know.

In either sentences, the accusative marker _-'ēt_ is used to mark nouns with two different roles to play in the sentence; the beneficiary and the content, of the action in the former sentence and the target and the content, of the action in the latter one.


----------



## noali

Flaminius said:


> Your sentences
> 
> answer exactly what I wanted to know.
> 
> In either sentences, the accusative marker _-'ēt_ is used to mark nouns with two different roles to play in the sentence; the beneficiary and the content, of the action in the former sentence and the target and the content, of the action in the latter one.


 
oh..now I get it.. oops..


----------



## pachyderm

Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't English allow double accusatives as well?
(Ask the boy a question)


----------



## elroy

pachyderm said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't English allow double accusatives as well?
> (Ask the boy a question)


 "The boy" would be considered a dative object in English - but it's actually irrelevant because English nouns have no case inflections, and accusative and dative pronouns are identical.


----------



## Flaminius

pachyderm said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't English allow double accusatives as well?
> (Ask the boy a question)


This sets me thinking....



> ani melamed *et* sara ve-yael *et* kol hamiktso'ot bebeit ha-sefer haze.
> hu sha'al *oti* *et* (ota) hase'ela she'hu sha'al shilshom.


Is it possible to change the order of the two noun phrases marked by _-'ēt_?  And what happens to the sentential order if either of the accusative markers were, if at all possible, to be replaced by other prepositions?


----------



## pachyderm

In Hebrew it's _possible _to change the order of just about anything, but one ordering tends to be more common. The following word orders sound unnatural, though in my judgment still grammatical:
?1a. אני מלמד אנגלית את שרה
1b. אני שואל שאלה את שרה
For some reason, these example appear to become even more unnatural when you substitute pronouns for the dative ("Goal") argument:
2a. אני מלמד אנגלית אותך
2b. אני שואל שאלה אותך

As far as I understand, in modern syntax it's become widely acceptable to view all derivation trees as binary, and this would explain why one of the arguments tends to be perceived as more tightly connected to the verb.

As for other preposition, I've seen לימד used with ל for the goal argument, but it's very archaic usage (my guess is it's Mishnaic Hebrew). Can't say the same for שאל though.


----------

