Going through the basic puzzle on lernu, and I'm on Lesson 12 (male/female pronouns).

We learned direct objects earlier, so I was confused about test 3,4, and 5.

Number 3:

She has many children.
Sxi havas multajn infanojn.

Number 4:

He and she are good friends.
Li kaj sxi estas bonaj amikoj.

(Shouldn't this read ...estas bonajn amikojn? She and he are... are what? good friends)

Number 5:

He hates to be in the city.
Li malamas esti en la urbo.

(I assume the direct object is 'to be' while the indirect object would be 'in the city'... or am I wrong?)

It's been a hot minute since I did much with grammar rules.

GabrielWithoutWings:Going through the basic puzzle on lernu, and I'm on Lesson 12 (male/female pronouns).

We learned direct objects earlier, so I was confused about test 3,4, and 5.

Number 3:

She has many children.
Sxi havas multajn infanojn.

Number 4:

He and she are good friends.
Li kaj sxi estas bonaj amikoj.

(Shouldn't this read ...estas bonajn amikojn? She and he are... are what? good friends)

Number 5:

He hates to be in the city.
Li malamas esti en la urbo.

(I assume the direct object is 'to be' while the indirect object would be 'in the city'... or am I wrong?)

It's been a hot minute since I did much with grammar rules.

The reason it isn't bonajn or amikojn in that situation is amikoj, or friends, is the predicate nominative of 'Li kaj ŝi'. I am fairly new at this, but I believe the rule only applies to direct objects. It is a predicate nominative because the verb 'estas' is a being verb.

Not sure about about your first question, but you seem to be right as rain about the prepositional phrase acting as indirect object. I am new to Esperanto though, so take me with a grain of salt.

Ĝis!

GabrielWithoutWings, you're on the right track but at the same time a little off the right track

"Li kaj ŝi estas bonaj amikoj."
The reason why it ISN'T "bonajn amikojn" is because "estas" doesn't take a direct object (or an "accusative noun"). Estas is a simple copula which describes the act of being, therefore it simply connects to nouns together, it doesn't describe any action unto anything.

Therefore "Mi estas granda kato" is correct, because I am the big cat, not doing something to the big cat

"Li malamas esti en la urbo" is a different slice of cake.
"esti" is an infinitive form of the Esperanto verb "to be", so it's like being a direct object in this case, except we don't think of it like that because it causes confusion, rather we just think of "esti" as being an infinitive.

En la urbo is an indirect object though, totally correct. To use european case names, this would be the "inessive case" (the case of being inside something), but that name's really only helpful if you're learning Finnish or Hungarian.

To use "est-" as a direct object, you could replace the infinitive "esti" with the direct object form of "esto" (being, existence).

"Li malamas eston en la urbo".

The problem with this is that it could be interpreted as "He hates the being (another existence, the act of existence, his own existence) in the city" which is potentially confusing. So we use "esti" rather than the direct object to indicate that he hates the act of existence and not just any other interpretation of "being". If you actually wanted to say "existence" as in "thing that exists", you could say "malamas estaĵon"

Sorry if that was longwinded or complicated, but hopefully it was helpful to you (if not feel free to berate me!)

EDIT: Check Polaris' suggestion, I think his advice is better and more concise.

Thanks for the help.

I understand... but I don't understand. I consider myself fairly intelligent, but learning new languages? It just kinda slides right off of my brain, so I'm having to apply myself with gusto.

LOL

In regards to Number 3, I actually didn't have an issue with it. I just posted it for clarity in light of Number 4 where the problem began.

Now, I must be off to learn past and future tense, and will most likely stab myself in the face repeatedly after that.

GabrielWithoutWings:

He and she are good friends.
Li kaj sxi estas bonaj amikoj.

(Shouldn't this read ...estas bonajn amikojn? She and he are... are what? good friends)

Direct objects get acted upon. When you use the word "to be" (esti) or it's various forms, you're not acting upon anything, so there is no direct object.

Number 5:

He hates to be in the city.
Li malamas esti en la urbo.

(I assume the direct object is 'to be' while the indirect object would be 'in the city'... or am I wrong?)

The expression "in the city" is a prepositional phrase--it is not an indirect object. As an infinitive (to be), word esti is a part of your verb phrase---"hates to be". Therefore, it does not take the accusative ending.

Polaris:The expression "in the city" is a prepositional phrase--it is not an indirect object. As an infinitive (to be), word esti is a part of your verb phrase---"hates to be". Therefore, it does not take the accusative ending.

If you don't mind me asking what are the differences between an indirect object and a prepositional phrase? I always thought that they were all indirect objects, however I'm guessing that the indirect object only applies to the the functions of a dative case or its equivalent?

ceigered:If you don't mind me asking what are the differences between an indirect object and a prepositional phrase? I always thought that they were all indirect objects, however I'm guessing that the indirect object only applies to the the functions of a dative case or its equivalent?

An indirect object is more or less equivalent to the function of a dative case, yes. I have always associated the dative case with indirect objects.

erinja:

ceigered:If you don't mind me asking what are the differences between an indirect object and a prepositional phrase? I always thought that they were all indirect objects, however I'm guessing that the indirect object only applies to the the functions of a dative case or its equivalent?

An indirect object is more or less equivalent to the function of a dative case, yes. I have always associated the dative case with indirect objects.

Ah right, cheers for that. I guess I'm applying mathematics a bit too much to linguistics and expecting all prepositional phrases to be indirect objects