German: Why does "helfen" take an indirect object?

Fleisch-bot

Fleisch-bot

New Member
English
In sentences like "Hilf mir", why do we use the dative case? It sounds like it's saying "help to me" or something.
 
    • How can you tell that "help me" does not use the dative case?

    In the unlikely event that you still differentiate between "who" and "whom": Would you ask "Who do you help" or "whom do you help"?
     
    @Frieder, that doesn't prove anything, because in English "whom" is both accusative and dative:

    Whom did you see? (accusative)
    Whom did you give the pen? (dative)

    In English, there is no morphological distinction between accusative and dative. Even in pronouns, the only remnant of overt case marking in modern English, accusative and dative are merged.
     
    I don’t disagree. It says that it derives from a dative form in Old English, and that in Modern English, it’s objective case (accusative + dative). Do you disagree with anything I said in my last post?
     
    Frieder said:
    How can you tell that "help me" does not use the dative case?

    In the unlikely event that you still differentiate between "who" and "whom": Would you ask "Who do you help" or "whom do you help"?
    Click to expand...
    From what I believe, "me" is the direct object in "help me" which derectly receives the verb. "I kick the ball", "I help the man", etc. That makes "me" the accusative case. If It was something like " Give help to me" then it would be the indirect object, and therefore the dative case.
    If I have all that straight then that's why I'm a bit confused about "hilf mir". I'm wondering if there are some extra, invisible components that are implied but long lost.
     
    In IE languages the dative case is frequently used to denote the beneficiary of the action, and "help" naturally involves a semantic argument of that kind.
    Cf. Rus. помочь +D, Lt. padėti +D., Lat. auxilior +D., An.Gr. βοηθέω +D.
    In Old English the verb helpan also used the dative case:
    þū manegum helpst - you help many (people)
    Short answer: because it's the verb's government model. :)
     
    Last edited:
    Fleisch-bot said:
    why do we use the dative case?
    Click to expand...
    I can't see why you should be that surprised or confused. Languages are not all alike, and in German the verb helfen is not transitive and requires the dative case. There are numerous other cases in which the two languages are not identical in the use of verbs, cf. for example answer my question = antworte auf meine Frage.
     
    bearded said:
    I can't see why you should be that surprised or confused. Languages are not all alike, and in German the verb helfen is not transitive and requires the dative case. There are numerous other cases in which the two languages are not identical in the use of verbs, cf. for example answer my question = antworte auf meine Frage.
    Click to expand...
    As it has been established before, English and German aren't really different here. In English, the dative-accusative distinction just isn't visible any more and the concept of transitivity extends to both direct and indirect objects.
     
    Well, Fleisch-bot is a native English speaker, and he/she evidently perceives 'me' (in 'help me') as a direct object, i.e. accusative.
    To be more accurate, I shouldn't have used the adjective 'transitive', and should have written instead: the German verb helfen does not govern a direct object, but only indirect objects (dative).
    But I think that the core of my remark remains valid: one shouldn't be astonished to find that each language has its own peculiarities.
     
    bearded said:
    Well, Fleisch-bot is a native English speaker, and he/she evidently perceives 'me' (in 'help me') as a direct object, i.e. accusative.
    Click to expand...
    Direct and indirect objects are only distinguishable in English if both occur in a sentence. For verbs with only one object, the distinction is neutralised.
     
    bearded said:
    Did you consider Fleisch-bot's #7 above? I think that direct and indirect objects are well distinguishable in the speakers' minds.
    Click to expand...
    Once a distinction has vanished, speakers can only rely on theoretical descriptions in textbooks to analyse a construction. Theoretical descriptions can hardly even be complete and may lead to wrong conclusions. Maybe you have come across wrong categoisations of words as either predicative adjectives or adverbs by German speakers in this forum. In contemporary German, this distinction is purely theoretical and Germans have no intuition for it any more. And why should they if it doesn't matter for constructing and understanding German sentences?

    In this particular case, the oversight is that @Fleisch-bot concentrated on the dative case describing the person receiving something, which is obviously the primary meaning of the dative case and is therefore at the centre of textbook descriptions. In our case, the description of the object as the beneficiary of the action of helping takes precedence over the description as the patient of the action and this is the reason for dative case and the text book heuristic mir=to me, which in most cases works like a charm, is effectively a red herring here.
     
    First of all: German is not the only language where “to help” is construed with the dative. The same is the case with Greek βοηθέω.

    Second: It is true that in English the dative and accusative pronouns have merged in a single form. The two cases are however functionally distinct in that the dative can always be rephrased with “to”. (“Give him the pencil” = “Give the pencil to him”). This is not the case with the direct object.
     
    This has to do with the nature of this particular action, I suppose. There is no passive effect the object posseses - i.e. there is no stable quality to associate with a person that is now "helped" (roughly speaking, such as in "beaten" where the result is obvious), given that the notion of "help" is too general as such.

    English is a dangerous language - it can provoke you to help people actively, finally and irrevocably.. :)
     
    Last edited:
    fdb said:
    First of all: German is not the only language where “to help” is construed with the dative. The same is the case with Greek βοηθέω.

    Second: It is true that in English the dative and accusative pronouns have merged in a single form. The two cases are however functionally distinct in that the dative can always be rephrased with “to”. (“Give him the pencil” = “Give the pencil to him”). This is not the case with the direct object.
    Click to expand...
    This "always" is exactly the mistake. This heuristic covers most cases of the lost Old and early Middle English dative objects but not all. There are cases where the distinction is functionally lost. This is list the ing-form of verbs: In most cases it is possible reconstruct if it is a participle or a gerund but in some cases the distinction is lost.
     
    Btw, At the time of asking this question, I did not know of the existence of "Verben mit dativ". So I see now that helfen is just one of a list of many verbs that skip the direct obj. and take only a indirect obj. I'm just glad to I know I was right to be confused, seeing as how there are videos and such dedicated just to that grammar point.

    Edit: Although certain verbs make sense to my English-speaking ear, such as fehlen, as in "Du fehlst mir", because I interpret that as "you are missing (from me/my life)", vs "I miss you". But certain verbs, such as helfen, are less obvious.
     
    Last edited:
    Fleisch-bot said:
    Btw, At the time of asking this question, I did not know of the existence of "Verben mit dativ". So I see now that helfen is just one of a list of many verbs that skip the direct obj. and take only a indirect obj. I'm just glad to I know I was right to be confused, seeing as how there are videos and such dedicated just to that grammar point.
    Click to expand...
    You are absolutely right. This is far from trivial.
     
    Fleisch-bot said:
    Edit: Although certain verbs make sense to my English-speaking ear, such as fehlen, as in "Du fehlst mir", because I interpret that as "you are missing (from me/my life)", vs "I miss you". But certain verbs, such as helfen, are less obvious.
    Click to expand...
    Think of it this way: In German “helfen” is an intransitive verb, as in “Kann ich helfen?” As such it cannot take a direct object, but it can be modified by a dativus ethicus: “Kann ich dir helfen?” = “Can I be of help for you?”. In English the cognate “help” can be transitive or intransitive.
     
    fdb said:
    Think of it this way: In German “helfen” is an intransitive verb, as in “Kann ich helfen?” As such it cannot take a direct object, but it can be modified by a dativus ethicus: “Kann ich dir helfen?” = “Can I be of help for you?”. In English the cognate “help” can be transitive or intransitive.
    Click to expand...
    I think this is the key to solving this question for me. I understand it clearly now. Thank you very much.
     
    In Dutch, helpen gets a direct object, not an indirect object.

    :tick: Ik help hen. (literally "Ich helfe sie.")
    :cross: Ik help hun. (literally "Ich helfe ihnen.")

    However, the hen/hun distinction was made up by a prescriptivist and is absent in every dialect of Dutch. For most people, hen can't be a possessive pronoun and otherwise hen and hun can be used interchangeably.
    Still, the passive sentence looks like this:

    Ze worden geholpen (door mij).

    This makes me think that helpen indeed requires a direct object, at least in Dutch. The direct object is turned into the subject of this passive sentence. This can't happen with indirect objects.

    berndf said:
    This "always" is exactly the mistake. This heuristic covers most cases of the lost Old and early Middle English dative objects but not all. There are cases where the distinction is functionally lost. This is list the ing-form of verbs: In most cases it is possible reconstruct if it is a participle or a gerund but in some cases the distinction is lost.
    Click to expand...
    Can you give other examples of such words? In Dutch, you can always add aan, bij or voor to the indirect object.

    EDIT: Other verbs that require an indirect object in German but a direct object in Dutch: danken, gratulieren, glauben, gelingen, antworten, dienen, folgen, gefallen, schaden...

    There is also the opposite: fragen, bitten, kosten require a direct object in German but a indirect object in Dutch.

    English
    (them / to them)    		German
    (sie / ihnen)    		Dutch
    (hen / hun, aan hen)
    I help them. (acc)Ich helfe ihnen. (dat)Ik help hen. (acc)
    I thank them. (acc)Ich danke ihnen. (dat)Ik (be)dank hen. (acc)
    I congratulate them. (acc)Ich gratuliere ihnen. (dat)Ik feliciteer hen. (acc)
    I believe them. (acc)Ich glaube ihnen. (dat)Ik geloof hen. (acc)
    /Das gelinge ihnen nicht. (dat)Het lukt hen niet. (acc)
    I reply to them. (dat)Ich (be)antworte ihnen. (dat)Ik (be)antwoord hen. (acc)
    Ik geef antwoord aan hen. / Ik geef hun antwoord. (dat)
    I serve them. (acc)Ich diene ihnen. (dat)Ik dien hen. (acc)
    I follow them. (acc)Ich folge ihnen. (dat)Ik volg hen. (acc)
    It pleases them. (acc)Das gefallt ihnen. (dat)Het bevalt hen. (acc)
    It hurts them. (acc)Das schadet ihnen. (dat)Het schaadt hen. (acc)
    I ask them their name. (dat)Ich frage/bitte sie nach ihrem Namen. (acc)Ik vraag hun naam aan hen. / Ik vraag hun hun naam. (dat)
    I (will) cost them €100. I (will) cost €100 to them. (dat)Ich koste sie 100€. (acc)Ik kost €100 voor hen. / Ik kost hun €100. (dat)

    Please tell me if this contains any mistakes.
    English is nearly always like Dutch, as far as I can tell.
     
    Last edited:
    fdb said:
    First of all: German is not the only language where “to help” is construed with the dative. The same is the case with Greek βοηθέω.
    Click to expand...
    Βοηθέω in Ancient Greek literally means "epí boḗn théō", i.e. run to a cry (for aid of someone), and this may be an explanation for the dative.

    On the other hand, in Modern Greek the same verb takes the accusative.
     
    Last edited:
    Red Arrow said:
    I help them. (acc)
    Click to expand...
    There is no think as accusative in modern English. Etymologically, them is dative and not accusative but that doesn't matter. English has only one single objective case and not an accusative and a dative case.

    Same is true for Dutch, where both Dutch hen and hun descend from the Old Dutch dative pronoun. Like in English, the original accusative pronoun is lost.

    Dutch and English grammarians have constructed a direct-indirect opposition with mostly aligns with the lost accusative-dative opposition but not exactly. As you have correctly pointed out, the modern hem-hun opposition is an artificial early Modern Dutch invention to mark the newly created direct-indirect opposition and not the historical dative-accusative opposition. Old Dutch helpan took a dative object. I wasn't able to assess the status of helpen in Middle Dutch as only very few cases had remained where dative and accusative could still be distinguished. This suggests that the use was fluctuating.
     
    How would you translate the following sentence to German?

    Ze worden (door mij) geholpen.
    They are being helped (by me).

    This sentence looks a bit clumsy in English, but sounds fine in Dutch. It might for instance be used in a store (ze refers to costumers).
     
    Last edited:
    Red Arrow said:
    How would you translate the following sentence to German?

    Ze worden geholpen (door mij).
    They are being helped (by me).

    This sentence looks a bit clumsy in English, but sounds fine in Dutch. It might for instance be used in a store (ze refers to costumers).
    Click to expand...
    I think it's "Ihnen wird (von mir) geholfen".

    -----------------------------------------------------------
    Cross-posted with bearded and I'm glad we agree!
     
    Red Arrow said:
    So German can make sentences with no subject (no nominative) :eek:
    Click to expand...
    Correct, German has subjectless passives:
    Hier wird gearbeitet. = There are people at work here.
    The only formal requirement is that the finite verb is in 2nd position. If there is nothing that could occupy the 1st position, a dummy es is inserted:
    Es wird gearbeitet = People work.
     
    In English, the passive voice extends to both direct and indirect object:
    1. The book was given to him.
    2. He was given the book (not: *Him was given the book.)
    Would 2. be possible in Dutch as well? In German, 2. is not possible (Ihm wird das Buch gegeben, not *Er wird das Buch gegeben).
     
    fdb said:
    I think that dative and accusative have merged completely in Demotic Greek. Is that right?
    Click to expand...
    The dative is functionally replaced by the genitive, so that the distinction remains intact. It is now accusative vs. genitive and not accusative vs. dative any more.
     
    fdb said:
    I think that dative and accusative have merged completely in Demotic Greek. Is that right?
    Click to expand...
    Dative was initially merged with genitive.
    E.g. in "του δίνω κάτι = I give him something", "του" is genitive, but in ancient Greek the verb "δίδωμι" required the dative.
    But in some cases the ancient dative was merged with accusative, as in verb βοηθώ.
    The dative has also been replaced by prepositional phrases: του (gen.) δίνω = δίνω σε (to) αυτόν (accus.) --> I give him ...
     
    Last edited:
    berndf said:
    Correct, German has subjectless passives:
    Hier wird gearbeitet. = There are people at work here.
    The only formal requirement is that the finite verb is io_On 2nd position. If there is nothing that could occupy the 1st position, a dummy es is inserted:
    Es wird gearbeitet = People work.
    Click to expand...
    Of course, now it's obvious. It works the same way in Dutch.

    :tick: Hier wordt gewerkt.
    :tick: Daar/er wordt gewerkt.
    :tick: Aan hen wordt een boek gegeven.
    :tick: Er wordt hun een boek gegeven.
    :tick: Hun wordt verweten dat...

    :tick: Hij wordt geholpen.
    :cross: Aan hem wordt geholpen.
    :cross: Hem wordt geholpen.

    ("Wordt hem geholpen?" could work in the informal language of Flanders because hem be a subject as long as it's not at the start of a sentence.)

    So what strikes me about "Ihnen wird geholfen" is not the lack of a subject (which can also happen in Dutch) but rather the presence of an indirect object next to helfen.
    berndf said:
    In English, the passive voice extends to both direct and indirect object:
    1. The book was given to him.
    2. He was given the book (not: *Him was given the book.)
    Would 2. be possible in Dutch as well? In German, 2. is not possible (Ihm wird das Buch gegeben, not *Er wird das Buch gegeben).
    Click to expand...
    Same in Dutch.

    :tick: Hem wordt een boek gegeven.
    :tick: Er wordt hem een boek gegeven.
    :cross: Hij wordt een boek gegeven.
     
    berndf said:
    Correct, German has subjectless passives:
    Hier wird gearbeitet. = There are people at work here.
    Click to expand...
    Resembles some dialectal North Russian constructions that can be roughly translated as "here with.wolves (is) walked" ("wolves walked here") and the like. :) The zero subject is neuter singular.

    Standard Russian, however, uses subjectless (non-imperative) sentences in a much more limited number of constructions, predominantly with negations (including the negative predicative нет ~"there is no").
     
    Last edited:
    fdb said:
    Think of it this way: In German “helfen” is an intransitive verb, as in “Kann ich helfen?” As such it cannot take a direct object, but it can be modified by a dativus ethicus: “Kann ich dir helfen?” = “Can I be of help for you?”. In English the cognate “help” can be transitive or intransitive.
    Click to expand...
    Wow, thank you!

    This is the first cogent explanation of helfen + dative I’ve ever seen.
     
    berndf said:
    In English, the passive voice extends to both direct and indirect object:
    1. The book was given to him.
    2. He was given the book (not: *Him was given the book.)
    Would 2. be possible in Dutch as well? In German, 2. is not possible (Ihm wird das Buch gegeben, not *Er wird das Buch gegeben)
    Click to expand...
    The werden-passive in German can only promote an accusative object into the subject position. But you can use the bekommen-passive to do the same with the dative: Ich bekomme das Buch gegeben.
     
    fdb said:
    This is "umgangssprachlich", according to DWDS.
    Click to expand...
    This might be. I just wanted to show that it is possible to form a passive with a dative complement in German. If it is colloquial, it is not slang and it is definitely available in the standard variety. It is absolutely acceptable to use this in everyday conversations or job interviews. That being said, I would only recommend the construction with ditransitive verbs (such as geben, schenken, schicken, überreichen and the like) because with verbs like "helfen", which only has one complement, it sounds a little funny - even humorous - but is still grammatically correct. I consider myself an educated person and it gives me the greatest pleasure to shift between higher and lower registers during conversations to create a certain effect. So I would definitely ask my customers Sie bekommen schon geholfen? 'Are you being helped already?' People often appreciate this slightly humorous tone and, if you are a non-native speaker, it shows that you know your German.
     
    Red Arrow said:
    Still, the passive sentence looks like this:

    Ze worden geholpen (door mij).

    This makes me think that helpen indeed requires a direct object, at least in Dutch. The direct object is turned into the subject of this passive sentence. This can't happen with indirect objects.
    Click to expand...

    There's an (in)famous German ad that is incorrectly formed like this:

    Da werden Sie geholfen! :cross: (instead of Da wird Ihnen geholfen! :tick: ) ;)

    feldbusch.jpg
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top