A sentence to analyze,

Mi ĵetis la pilkon la knabon.

I threw the ball to the boy.

1. The dictionary on this site didn't tell me whether or not ĵeti is a transitive or intransitive verb. (Not cool)
2. Assuming that it is a transitive verb then "ĵetis la pilkon" is correct because "la pilkon" is the direct object.
3. My main problem is with the indirect object "la knabon"
but,
3.1, Is "la knabon" using "n" to indicate direction, and if so, doesn't that sentence really mean "I threw the ball in the direction of the boy"?, There is a difference between throwing something in the direction of something and throwing something to something.
3.2, Wouldn't "al la knabo" make more sense?

Is anyone willing to help me understand these points?

In theory one can express indirect objects by leaving out the preposition and using the accusative of the noun. But i would highly recommend not to do this, when there already is a accusative-object.

captainzhang:A sentence to analyze,

Mi ĵetis la pilkon la knabon.

I threw the ball to the boy.

Eblas ja uzi akuzativon anstataŭ ol uzi prepozicion, sed ne eblas uzi du akuzativojn. Via frazo do ne ĝustas. Vidu:

It is indeed possible to use the accusative instead of a preposition, but it is not possible to use 2 accusatives. Your sentence is thus incorrect. See:

http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akuzativo#Duobla_akuz...
http://www.esperanto.mv.ru/Seppik/lec11.html
http://bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/verboj_frazrolo...

Mi simple dirus: Mi ĵetis la pilkon al la knabo.

I would simply say: …

Fenris_kcf:In theory one can express indirect objects by leaving out the preposition and using the accusative of the noun. But i would highly recommend not to do this, when there already is a accusative-object.

I see, so are you saying that "al la knabo" would make more sense because there is already an accusative in the sentence. I understand how people would use the accusative for indiect objects as well instead of prepositions but it makes things more ambiguious. If you didn't know which way a person meant in this sentence then it could mean either "I threw the ball to the boy" or "I threw the ball towards the boy" which are significantly different. The one implies that the boy caught the ball while the other is more ambiguious.

I do appreciate your time and input, thanks.

Dominique:

captainzhang:A sentence to analyze,

Mi ĵetis la pilkon la knabon.

I threw the ball to the boy.

Eblas ja uzi akuzativon anstataux ol uzi prepozicion, sed ne eblas uzi du akuzativojn. Via frazo do ne gxustas. Vidu:

http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akuzativo#Duobla_akuz...
http://www.esperanto.mv.ru/Seppik/lec11.html
http://bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/verboj_frazrolo...

Mi simple dirus: Mi jxetis la pilkon al la knabo.

I'm still a beginner at Esperanto and had to use google translate for your post. It seems like both posts so far confirm my suspicions about the sentence. Thank you for posting.

captainzhang:I'm still a beginner at Esperanto and had to use google translate for your post. It seems like both posts so far confirm my suspicions about the sentence. Thank you for posting.

Ah, sorry, I did not notice that it was in the English forum. So I've just edited my previous comment to add English translations.

captainzhang:I see, so are you saying that "al la knabo" would make more sense because there is already an accusative in the sentence. I understand how people would use the accusative for indiect objects as well instead of prepositions but it makes things more ambiguious. If you didn't know which way a person meant in this sentence then it could mean either "I threw the ball to the boy" or "I threw the ball towards the boy" which are significantly different. The one implies that the boy caught the ball while the other is more ambiguious.

To further muddy the waters ...

There's a very good book called "Being Colloquial in Esperanto" which the author has been kind enough to post on-line with corrections (i.e. I'm not linking to pirated material):

Jordan's Colloquial Esperanto.

In Section 4.1.6.2.3 he points out that a lot of people use the accusative pronoun (not noun) as an indirect object even though it's not technically correct, so "mi ĵetis lin la pilkon" would certainly be understood and perhaps even unremarked-upon. But it's not really right (linguistically you could be just as easily throwning a boy at a ball, though it's not likely in real life).

Slightly off-topic, but how would you distinguish between:

I threw the ball at the boy, or I threw the egg at the politician, and
I threw the ball to the boy

which are both different to:

I threw the ball towards the boy.

It seems to me that in Esperanto 'al' may cover all three cases.

sudanglo:Slightly off-topic, but how would you distinguish between:

I threw the ball at the boy, or I threw the egg at the politician, and
I threw the ball to the boy

which are both different to:

I threw the ball towards the boy.

It seems to me that in Esperanto 'al' may cover all three cases.

We could use kontraŭ, right?

Bruso:To further muddy the waters ...

There's a very good book called "Being Colloquial in Esperanto" which the author has been kind enough to post on-line with corrections (i.e. I'm not linking to pirated material):

Yes, I want a copy of that book but the only copies I can find online are ridiculously expensive. If I am to study something I prefer a paper medium so I can highlight, comment, and annotate it.

Bruso:In Section 4.1.6.2.3 he points out that a lot of people use the accusative pronoun (not noun) as an indirect object even though it's not technically correct, so "mi ĵetis lin la pilkon" would certainly be understood and perhaps even unremarked-upon. But it's not really right (linguistically you could be just as easily throwning a boy at a ball, though it's not likely in real life).

"mi ĵetis lin la pilkon"
The first thing I would think reading that would be,
"I threw him the ball"