''ze'' can be used most of the time. It sounds less formal but otherwise it's always a good alternative as long as the word is not stressed.
''hun'' is used instead of ''hen'' because it's the indirect object (dative case) and because no preposition is used. ''hen'' is used as a direct object or when a preposition is used.
You can determine the indirect object by asking (if I remember correctly) "to/for whom + predicate + subject + direct object'' which would be ''for who do we cook a meal?'', the answer is: for them.
This probably sounds rather complicated, which is why most native speakers mix up hen and hun all the time. So no need to worry about it really.
It should be noted that the hen/hun distinction is made up a few centuries ago and therefore not really 'maintained' in informal context.
Rigelkentian is, as far as I know, German. I spent a long time living in Germany as a young adult and speak it as comfortably as English, and prefer using it when speaking with Germans.
would it be safe to then assume that: "Wij koken HUN een maaltijd" = "We cook them a meal." While "Wij koken een maaltijd voor HEN" = "We cook a meal for them"?
wij koken hun een maaltijd is an odd-sounding sentence, but your point about "hun" and "voor hen" is correct.
The most common way to say this would be: wij koken een maaltijd voor ze (even more common is to leave the maaltijd out and say: wij koken voor ze). The DL sentence seems to be picked to appeal to English-speaking learners.
I think they're just trying to find a way to sneak in an indirect object using the verbs and vocab we've learned so far. :)
Wij koken hun een maaltijd is not how a Dutch person would express cooking them a meal. First of all the use of hun is incorrect here. hun can only be used if it expresses a possessive adjective, p. ex. :it is their meal.. 'het is hun maaltijd'. 'Wij koken hun maaltijd' therefore would mean 'we are cooking their meal'.
So most important of all, if you are not sure about the difference between 'hen' and 'hun' remember 'hun' is about possessing something.
Louise, "hun" is not merely used in possessive forms! I don't know why you would say that. In general, you use "hen" after a preposition, e.g.: "ik geef het boek aan hen" or "wij koken een maaltijd voor hen". If you leave out the preposition, use "hun": "ik geef hun het boek" or "Wij koken hun een maaltijd". The sentence is correct. See an explanation in Dutch here: https://onzetaal.nl/taaladvies/hun-hen/
Read again what I wrote.
Wij koken hun een maaltijd is not a sentence any Dutch person would say. Wij koken een maaltijd voor hen though is. Since you are cooking for someone the preposition is 'voor', hence hen..
Hope this helps. Source: being Dutch
Hi Louise, I agree that it is not very standard these days, but it is not incorrect.
It is incorrect but within twenty years it will be correct as many Dutch use hun/hen wrongly. If you want to sounds Dutch better to use it incorrect as then you'll make the same mistake many Dutch make. Grammarly and officially hun is still wrong. Hun can only be used when talking about possession.
Please have a look at the link provided by Pauline, which gives the exact following example:
Hij schonk hun een kopje koffie in. (hun = 'voor hen')
It seems actually that Pauline is correct, and it happens as in Germany with Sie, but they've maintained its use. Wir kochen Ihnen Essen. Wir kochen Essen für Sie. Wir kochen Ihren Essen. Which solely in this last case its linked with the genitive case.
I see you're also taking German - not sure if you've gotten as far as the dative there, but the same idea here for hen and hun in the plural is what you find in German in the masc singular den - dem. hen is accusative (what are you cooking? I'm cooking a meal. meal=direct object). Hun is dative (for whom are you cooking the meal? I'm cooking them a meal. them=indirect object).
Because it's the indirect object of the sentence and it's not followed by a preposition.
I've been having an issue with a lot of the verbs, how can you tell when koken is cook versus when it means are cooking, it seems to be purely contextual based off the app
it can mean both. it could be "we cook them a meal" or "we are cooking them a meal"