"He thanks me for my help."
Translation:Li dankas min por mia helpo.
"Li dankas al mi por mia helpo? Why is that not correct? It makes sense to me to use "al"... Anyway it was accepted as a correct answer for "Ŝi dankas al mia patrino" before. just sayin'
The examples in PIV all use danki + direct object.
"Danki al iu" seems like a Germanism to me.
It is accepted right now. I don't get why "min" is in this statement. As the object is "mia helpo" which was linked with "pro". I could imagine "Li dankas al mi mian helpon". as a correct solution but using "min" here doesn't make any sence for me.
The grammatical object of the verb, in both English and Esperanto, is the person being thanked.
The action that caused the thanks is in a prepositional phrase.
In this respect, Li dankas min pro mia helpo and "He thanks me for my help" are grammatically very similar.
I'm not sure why you're surprised to see min in the Esperanto statement, when the English sentence clearly has "me" in it, or why you think that mian helpon should be in the accusative (as if it were a direct object) when "my help" is not the object of "thank" in the English sentence.
I'm not a native english speaker. Probably, that's why it sounds weird for me.
As I think the person to whom I thank is not an object. Why would it be? I believe it's dative (case), beacuse my grateful gratitude goes for their benefits, and nothing happened to them (they were not used either thought of). Whereas the thing I'm grateful for or in other words the thing I was given - which can be words and even physical objects - is clearly an object. Or I'm grateful for the action that happened. See the following example: "Bonvolu doni al mi pomon!" Vi donas al mi pomon. Right now I've got an apple and I'm so glad and thankful. Why I am thankful? Becuase I asked for somthing (object), I got that thing (object) and I'm so glad to own it. Obviously, you are the one to whom I will thank it. However you were not an object nothing happened to you. You didn't give yourself to me.
Maybe, I haven't managed to go outside of the box that my mother tongue (Hungarian) made.
German and Slovak agree with you that the person thanked is in the dative case. French and Greek, on the other hand, have the person thanked in the accusative case, like Esperanto.
So different languages treat this differently: similar to "give" or "tell" (dative = benefit or target or recipient) or similar to "normal" verbs.
"to help" is also not uniform; German and Slovak again have dative (= benefit), while French and Greek again have the accusative... and Esperanto here allows both possibilities! Even Zamenhof used both helpu min and helpu al mi.
So, "it's just the way it is", I suppose, more or less -- helpi goes both ways, danki only with accusative in classical Esperanto as far as I can tell.
Why not pro? Why por? That's contrary to what I've learned. Li dankas min pro mia helpo. Because of my help. Sorry, I don't understand why "por" is used instead of "pro".
But the most overlap is here:
- vi dankos min por tio = you will thank me for that
- vi dankos min pro tio = you will thank me for that
The reason they can be both used to mean about the same thing, is because “pro” is saying “thanks on account of that” i.e. showing motive for the thanks. Whereas “por” is used in the sense of paying thanks for that (and we know that “por” can be used in paying expressions).