"Ik heb de neushoorn nodig."
Translation:I need the rhinoceros.
This site is making me increasingly aware that I can't reliably spell "rhinoceros" without a spell check.
I also just copy and paste it in. Also why are the Dutch so obsessed with rhinos.
A version of heb(I have)is used in all the other excercises containing "nodig". I interpret it as "having a need/i have a need", if that makes sense?
I would love clarification on this as well. Is there some type of rule for always having heb with nodig?
There's no verb for 'need' so 'nodig hebben' is 'to have need of'. Some version of 'heb' is required. In sentences hebben is conjugated as normal according to the subject and nodig moves to the end.
Is 'de neshoorn' a reduced indirect object. Comparing to 'ik heb de nodig van de neshoorn'(unreduced indirect object)'
There is no indirect object. The words ‘nodig hebben’ should be considered as a fixed construction that takes only a subject and a direct object. Thus in “Ik heb de neushoorn nodig” is ‘de neushoorn’ the direct object w.r.t. ‘heb … nodig’ and ‘Ik’ is the subject of the sentence. There is no indirect object nor can there be.
Your example *“Ik heb de nodig van de ne[u]shoorn” is ungrammatical (and also incomprehensible to me, a native Dutch speaker). In no way can ‘nodig’ be a noun, hence ‘de nodig’ does not make sense.
I hope this helps at all!
By the way, I think the term ‘reduced indirect object’ is non-standard terminology. It just refers to the omission of the preposition. For instance in “I give her the gift”, ‘her’ is a ‘reduced’ indirect object, because the preposition ‘to’ is omitted: “I give the gift to her”.
So is the construction 'nodig hebben' is similar to a verb with a separable prefix, like 'aanraken' in a sense, that that first part goes to the end of the sentence?