As you can see, folgen takes an object in the dative case (eurem Hund).
There are handful of verbs that require an object in the dative, rather than accusative case.
(Other useful ones include helfen "to help" and danken "to thank".)
I don't think there's a good reason for "why" except for "that's just the way it is in German".
well, I guess it does go conform with the general role of dative objects as only indirectly affected (for folgen) or as receivers/beneficiaries (for helfen and danken). But of course it‘s easy to think of verbs where accusative objects fulfill these roles, e.g. jn. unterstützen (to support sb.).
In the case of danken there is also a second factor why the beneficiary is indicated with a dative object: danken can also take a second object in accusative case which denotes the cause of thanks: jn. etw. danken, for example: Deine Kinder werden es dir danken. This is extremely rare in modern German though (pretty much restricted to a few more or less fixed expressions); usually the cause for thanking is indicated with für + Akk.: Er dankte seinen Eltern für die Unterstützung.
Google is your friend ;) Here is a non-exhaustive list: https://www.thoughtco.com/frequently-used-german-dative-verbs-4071410
For some of the verbs on the list the syntactician in me would argue that either the dative argument is not strictly speaking an object (e.g. gelingen “to succeed, to turn out good”), or there are both a dative and an accusative object (e.g. glauben “to believe”). But from a learner’s perspective the important thing is that they can all take a dative argument without there also being an accusative one.
Whatever masculine noun the speaker is currently talking about. It could be any masculine noun (well, folgen implies that the subject can change speed and direction out of its own accord, so it’s not a rolling ball or something). It could be another dog (der Hund) or a spy (der Spion) , a bird (der Vogel), a man (der Mann), a helicopter (der Hubschrauber)… Without a context we don’t know.
"eurem" means Your here, what are the other possessive pronouns like? is dein different with eurem??
Thank you, Could you please suggest link so that i can observe the rest of the possessive pronouns such as " meinem_deinem_seinem and.....?
Giyf ;) you can see the whole paradigm here.
Don’t get too intimidated, though, it looks a lot more to learn than it actually is. In fact, probably only the stems:
- 1st pers.sgl.: mein
- 2nd pers.sgl.: dein
- 3rd pers.sgl.: sein (m.), ihr (f.) sein (n.)
- 1st pers. pl.: unser
- 2nd pers. pl.: euer/eur- (the second -e- is lost when an ending is added)
- 3rd pers. pl.: ihr
- 2nd pers. polite = 3rd pers. pl.: Ihr
The endings are the same for all of them, and in fact the same as with the indefinite article, kein etc, so you should already know them.
These charts may help: https://deutsch.lingolia.com/de/grammatik/pronomen/possessivpronomen
Duo doesn't accept "He follows your dog"
Was this a listening exercise ("type what you hear") or a translation exercise?
Do you have a screenshot showing that translation being rejected?
Because "He follows your dog." has been an accepted translation for at least 3 years, as far as I can tell.
Better think about them in terms of prototypical applications than rigid definitions. Accusative marks the thing that is directly affected by the action, the one it is performed on. Dative marks a more indirectly involved participant, most typically a recipient or beneficiary (the name “dative” actually comes from the Latin word for “to give”). But the way these prototypes are applied isn’t always straightforward. For example for folgen, it isn’t clear if the object should better be viewed as a patient or a beneficiary (a semanticist would say it’s neither and rather call it a theme) so I think it’s better not to try and analyse the functions more precisely. It’s probably more practical to simply get used to which cases are used with which verbs and use the prototypical functions of the cases a mnemonic rather than a reason for why this or that case is used.
Practically speaking, when a verb only has one object it will be an accusative one almost all of the time, so it’s probably most economical to remember which verbs do not use accusative. A few common ones which use dative:
- jemandem folgen ‘to follow sb.’ (maybe because the object isn’t affected directly?)
- jemandem helfen ‘to help sb.’ (the object is the recipient of help)
- jemandem antworten ‘to answer sb.’ (the object is the recipient of the answer)
- jemandem gefallen ‘to be pleasing to sb.’ (the object isn’t directly affected but only experiences an emotion, similar to the construction “mir ist kalt”)
There are even a handful of verbs which take an object in genitive case but those tend to be fairly high register and/or the genitive object can be replaced by a prepositional construction. (Also interestingly these verbs are usually reflexive, I don’t know.) For example:
- sich einer Sache/an eine Sache erinnern ‘to recall sth.’ (in common speech it’s now much more common to use an + accusative rather than a genitive object)
- sich einer Sache bedienen ’to make use of, to employ’
- sich einer Sache vergewissern ‘to make sure of, to confirm’
If you had a listening exercise for this sentence, then you have to type what you hear.
If the voice says eurem Hund, you have to type eurem Hund and not deinem Hund.
If you didn't have a listening exercise but still ended up in this discussion, I don't know what could have happened -- it would help if you could make a screenshot, upload it somewhere, and paste a link to it in the discussion.
Basically speaking, a direct object is the object or person directly affected by the verb action. You hit something, then that something is directly affected by the hitting. The indirect object is somebody (rarely an object) who is only affected in a more peripheral way. The stereotypical example is giving something to someone. In English, if there is only one object, people tend to speak of it as direct by default.
In German we don’t usually speak of direct or indirect objects but of accusative or dative objects (very rarely genitive ones), and yes, which one you need depends on the verb. 99% of the time if there is only a single one it’s accusative, but there are verbs with a single dative or genitive object, like folgen which needs dative (presumably because the followed person is not directly affected by the following). Other examples are antworten (to answer) and helfen (to help).
"He follows you guys' dog." rejected?
No, this was not a listening one, it was a "type English" question.
Can anyone explain why this isn't accepted? Preferably Mizinamo lol but still, I thought "eurem" was the dative masculine possessive of Ihr, and as an accepted translation for 'Ihr' is "you guys/y'all", so should eurem's translation be "you guys'"
As for the rest of the sentence, I know I got the rest right. German doesn't distinguish between imperfect and perfect present so that couldn't be the problem.
Is “you guys” usually accepted as a translation for ihr? If so, then your sentence should definitely be accepted. Some other courses use it as a standard translation for plural “you”, but I guess you could also make the point that it’s a bit slangy and possibly regional? Not sure what the policy on this course is.
On an unrelated note, a slight correction on terminology if I may: ”Follows” vs “is following” are both imperfective. Imperfective means we do not look at the action as a single “point” in time as perfective does. For example “he ate a sandwich” would be perfective aspect (I’m assuming that’s what you meant since you contrasted it with imperfect. Perfect can sometimes mean something slightly different from perfective). In any case, since perfective – “point-like” – actions by their very nature happen instantly, they can’t be occurring in the present. So present perfective is not a thing in any language to my knowledge. The difference between “follows” and “is following” is two different types of imperfective: “Is following” is progressive (ongoing), while “follows” is more ambiguous. It could be habitual (occurring regularly: “He follows your dog every Wednesday.”) or gnomic (general truth: “The moon follows the sun across the sky.”).
Yes, if “you guys” is accepted for ihr, then your sentence should be accepted, too.
For English (and other modern Western European languages) specifically, the term “perfect” refers to the tense which is formed from the verbs for “have” and in other languages sometimes “be” + the past participle, i.e. “has followed”. It can have a variety of meanings, most of which are some variation on a past/present hybrid, for example that the action started in the past and is still ongoing now (e.g. “I have lived here for three years”), or that we’re talking about the present results/effects of a past action (e.g. “I have baked you a cake”). In a few languages (including German) it has simply pretty much replaced the old “imperfect” (non-perfect past tense, the equivalent of “followed”). Outside of Indo-European languages though, the term “perfect” isn’t particularly well defined. And it’s also easy to confuse with “perfective”, something definitely different but much more common cross-linguistically speaking.
The speaking exercises haven't loaded on my phone for about two weeks now and updating the app hasn't helped, anyone else had this problem? I press the button to speak, and five minutes later it will still be frozen so I end up giving up and pressing the "can't speak now" button.
Here, is "eurem" for the plural? For the formal? Just the dative form of "dein"?
The stem eur- indicates that the owner is "you, plural, informal" -- i.e. something belonging to the people (more than one) that you are talking to and whom you know well enough to speak to informally.
The ending -em indicates that the following noun is in the dative case and is either masculine or neuter.
So eurem Hund shows that there is one dog who is owned by several people (whom you are talking to now).
(Or you might be talking to just one of the owners but using the plural "you" to show that you know that the listener is just one of the owners.)