Accusative: question 5 of Lesson 6.6

The questions in Lesson 6.6 ask for the noun in the accusative case to be identified. Below is question 5. The answer is shown as "Thomas." Is this correct? When I ask who/what is being burned, I find it is the CD, not Thomas. 5. Ich brenne eine CD für Thomas. I’ll burn a CD for Thomas.

it's important that you remember that in accusative the direct object is the person, animal or thing that the action of the sentence is happening *to*. Ich brenne eine CD für Thomas: although the action is burning the cd the reason behind it is, for Thomas, you can use question words for the accusative whom (wen) or what (was)to figure out what the accusaitive is so for whom or for what are is the action being done for. in the sentence Ich brenne eine CD für Thomas the action (brenne eine CD) is being done for Thomas. the action isn't just "brenne/burning" the full action is "brenne eine CD/burning a cd" what action am i performing? i'm burning a cd(brenne eine CD) not i'm burning(brenne) so if the action is burning a cd then for whom or for what am I doing it for? what is the reason for the action? well the reason for burning a cd is für Thomas/for Thomas. whenever you're in doubt it's good to use the questions for whom or for what is the action of the sentence happening to? (for accusative anyway) they are slightly different for the others. hope this helps!

another tip that might help you, is that certain prepositions are always followed only by the accusative or dative. The tricky ones are the ones that can be both. Pertaining to your question though, you see that it says "für Thomas" and "für" is one preposition always used in conjunction with the accusative. Hope that helped, -Cooper

I agree with Cooper. Thomas is the indirect object but it is in the accusative case because of the preposition für. Für is one of the prepositions that are followed by the accusative case, like durch, für, gegen, ohne, and um. This sentence shows how an indirect object sometimes has to be in the accusative case. The original question is a good one . . . Thomas in not being burned . . . the CD is, therefore the CD is the direct object of the verb burned. I think I'm right. Any arguments?

Correction Thomas is not being burned, not in. sorry for the typo.

Hello, @t3chn1ck - can you please delete or correct your post? The questions are not to ask "for who" or "for what" to find a direct object. The question is, "burns what?" I am studying accusative and it seems this issue has been corrected. Clearly dmar and Cooper are correct. :| See below the marks regarding this not quite happy face... Lesson link: http://members.rocketlanguages.com/lessons/78 "The direct object is a person, animal or thing that the action of the sentence is happening to" :| Better: http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/direct_object.htm Subject + Verb + what? or whom? = Direct Object Lesson Question: Use the question words whom or what to find out what the direct object of the sentence is. :| Proper question: Ask verb + whom or what to find the direct object. But if you remember just the one line above, you don't need anything else. Subject + Verb + what? or whom? = Direct Object 5. Ich brenne eine CD für Thomas. I’ll burn a CD for Thomas. Keep in mind that "only the masculine articles change when used in the accusative." der->den, ein->einen CD is feminine. die/eine CD (f) to burn a CD / to rip a CD : http://www.dict.cc/?s=eine+CD Now here's a sample from his latest CD. Jetzt eine Hörprobe aus seiner neuesten CD. Declination: http://www.dict.cc/deutsch/CD.html Verb Conjugation: http://www.dict.cc/deutsch/brennen.html Let's try... Ich = subject brenne = verb eine CD = Direct Object for Thomas = Prepositional Phrase or something like that... Try the same phase with a masculin noun as the direct object to get the proper effect of learning the difference between nominative and accusative: a match / ein Spiel (n) an aromatic candle / eine Duftkerze (f) a candle stick / ein Kerzenhalter (m) -Jason :| The question in the lesson is a little long-winded and puts a preposition at the end of the sentence. I hate that in written and edited material. They did the same thing with both of their phrases. An English teacher in the United States would not have accepted that sort of work.

That's the way I learned English grammar too, but I suspect I'm much older than you. That rule (don't end a sentence with a preposition) , like so many grammar rules, has kind of gone by the wayside.