"הן גנבו לו את המדליות."
Translation:They stole his medals.
15 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
I think yes. This specific usage of the word לו (actually the preposition ל) implies the ownership of the direct object: הן גנבו לו את המדליות = הן גנבו את המדליות שלו, הוא ביטל לי את הפגישה = הוא ביטל את הפגישה שלי etc..
Does this mean literally that they stole them, as in robbed him, or could it be metaphorical, as in he was expected to win the medals and they unexpectedly won them instead? In English it could have either meaning, and I'm wondering if that's true for Hebrew also.
Here we see again The lamed of disadvantage which we first saw in Ha-kelev sheli akhal li et shiurei ha-bayit My dog ate my homework. This lamed implies that something was done without permission or against one’s will, so this is a little different than “Hen ganvu et ha-medaliot shelo,
the the same way that “I told her not to touch it but she went and messed it up” is different than a simple “I told her not to touch it but she messed it up.”
1532
Not sure where you got that this lamed is about something done without someone's permission. This is just a way to express this idea in Hebrew. הם גנבו את המדליה שלו and הם גנבו לו את המדליה mean exactly the same thing, the latter being much more common and more natural when speaking.
- 1532
I can only see he wrote:
"marks the person for or against whom an action is directed."
And that is correct. But, there is no mention of something being done without someone's permission or against one's will, like you wrote. It's a simple expression of an action being done to someone. And saying הם גנבו לו is more natural than saying הם גנבו את ... שלו. There is nothing sinister behind those constructions.
Sorry; here’s the correct link. I was quoting the sixth-down comment of radagastthebrown, who is a native Hebrew speaker. The comment begins The expression הוא אכל לי...
They stole his medals makes it clear that they are his medals, but that fact is not clear in your sentence.