"I looked up the meaning of the kanji in a dictionary."
Duo. I hate you sometimes...these sort of questions confuse first time learners who have only, to this point, seen wo with jisho and hikimasu. Now you change the direct object and expect learners to know that's why there is now a de to the left of the verb...well most learners wouldn't recognize a direct object if it bit them on the ass and most lerners are already struggling with wo de he and ni! You should atleast try and explain some of the grammatical points before each lesson.
The explanation is more in the definition of the word and the way it and the particles を, は & で are used.
So the verb means more like "to consult/refer to (a dictionary)", with a dictionary or other source of reference being implied. So in sentences like 辞書を引いてください, which translates to "look it up in a dictionary", more literally means "consult a dictionary", with dictionary being the Direct Object.
In this current sentence, 漢字の意味を辞書で引きました, dictionary is no longer the DO because this means something more like "I looked up the meaning of the kanji USING a dictionary.
If we tried to write this any other way, it simply wouldn't make sense. If we try は, then we get 漢字の意味は、辞書を引きました, which would mean something like "The kanji's meaning, I consulted a dictionary". This gives us why it can't be 辞書を in this sentence.
I understand what を (object) and で (place where something happens or you do something in this case) mean but doesn't the direct object usually go right before the verb?
de で particle https://www.thoughtco.com/particles-de-4077278
辞書で 漢字の意味を引きました is also accepted.
In this exercise, there are two very similar sentences:
One uses は and the other uses を and if you swap them, the answer is marked incorrect. Does adding すぐに change the particle? My very limited understanding would say that both should be accepted in both cases. If this is not the case, I'd love to know why.
My epiphany came when I realized that を does not directly connect 'kanji' with 'dictionary'. All the previous uses of を had been short simple sentences where the object being acted upon was always followed directly by the action.
So this is "The meaning of the Kanji"| "In the dictionary"| ”consult"
That when used in a single sentence mean
"(I) Look(ed) up the meaning of the kanji in the dictionary"
I had じしょで 漢字の意味を引きました. ("じしょで かんじのいみをひきました)
Is that wrong? If so, can anyone explain? Duolingo says that I used the wrong word, but 辞書 and じしょ mean the same thing don't they? Or maybe it was the placement? This is discouraging because I can't identify if this is truly wrong or what's exactly wrong with it.
Yes, this. I'm completely confused by saying 引きました for looking up the meaning of a kanji. It seems as if the sentence is saying that someone opened the kanji. 辞書を引いて漢字の意味を調べました。And if I wanted to say look it up in a dictionary, I might say 辞書を引いて, but that means open a dictionary, or use a dictionary. But if we remove dictionary and just say 漢字を引いて it doesn't make sense.
Is it just me, or does something about this seem wrong?
Japanese particles can come in any order the speaker would like. Some orders might be less common or more for poems and such, but any order really is admissible.
This sentence could be written two different ways:
If we add in subjects to be a little more specific, we could write it more ways
However, 3-6, You'll either never hear, or extremely seldom, even though you could do it; you might see odd constructions like this more frequently in poems in order to fit certain schemes / morae counts
I'm wondering why 調べます is not accepted in any of these sentences. I was taught to use 調べる for looking stuff up. I have never seen 引く used in this context before, so I've learned something too, but I'm really surprised that duo hasn't accepted shiraberu once no matter how many combinations I try.
In another exercise in this lesson "難しい漢字は辞書を引いてください" means "please look up difficult kanji in your dictionary" (literally "As for difficult Kanji, please consult your dictionary"). And yet here we can't use
漢字の意味は辞書を引きました ("as for the meaning of the kanji, I consulted a dictionary").
It appears it's been like this for at least 3 years so the contributors have intentionally been rejecting any reports that the sentence above is an acceptable alternative. But for the life of me I can't see why the distinction... .