0

I am a little unsure on how to write this with proper grammar:

"Wir erlauben uns Ihnen den Betrag gutzuschreiben" or "Wir erlauben uns den Betrag Ihnen gutzuschreiben".

I am inclined towards the 1st. The DO is usually next to the verb, thus the IO is one place further.

So which one is it? Best Regards,

DanielC
  • 103
  • 3
  • 2
    Mind, in German there is no such thing as direct or indirect objects. That's constructs you find in English, but not in German. In German you have the different cases, like Akkusativ, Dativ and Gentiv and often an object in Akkusativ might correspond to an indirect object in English and a direct object to Dativ. But that is not a given. – planetmaker Apr 01 '22 at 12:05
  • 2
    Question about direct and indirect objects (asked and answered in German): https://german.stackexchange.com/q/34000/1487 Conclusion: They exist in some languages, but not in German. German has accusative objects, dative objects, genitive objects and prepositional objects. But nothing like direct or indirect objects. These terms are misleading when talking about German grammar. They can be useful in 90% or 95% of all situations, but in 5% to 10% they are not helpful. Better think in the correct categories. Forget direct and indirect objects. – Hubert Schölnast Apr 01 '22 at 12:47
  • @Hubert Schölnast: Yet "direct object" is a common term in linguistics, which is supposedly universal, for example. I'm often disappointed and confused because English grammatical terms, even ones that are supposed to apply to all languages, don't apply to German. It's like watching a baseball game where the announcer keeps talking about Fallrückzieher. – RDBury Apr 01 '22 at 13:49
  • @RDBury: Vocative case, dual number and T–V distinction are also very common terms in linguistics. But does it mean that it makes sense to use them in any language's grammar? No, it doesn't. English for example has none of these features. And for this reason you can't find the terms "vocative", "dual" and "T-V distinction" in any textbook about English grammar. ... – Hubert Schölnast Apr 01 '22 at 21:56
  • ... And for the very same reason you will not find the terms "direktes Objekt" or "indirektes Objekt" in any German textbook about German grammar. It just makes no sense to use these terms in German grammar, because these terms are not compatible with German grammar. – Hubert Schölnast Apr 01 '22 at 21:56
  • @Hubert Schölnast: Yes, linguistics has terms for features not present in English, but it seems only when they can added without contradicting existing jargon. Linguistics texts in English only talk about direct and indirect objects without even considering that a different classification might exist. Linguistics is supposed to be a theory of all languages, not just English with a bit of additional jargon to account for languages with unusual features. – RDBury Apr 01 '22 at 22:28
  • ... As you might guess, this has been something of a "pet peeve" for me for a while now. I'm trying to understand German grammar as a practical matter, so I can better understand German. Reading reference materials in German is often difficult for me so I often go to English sources instead, ones that are supposed to cover languages other than just English. For example the English Wikipedia article for "Object (grammar)" talks about direct and indirect objects, and mentions English, Latin, Chinese, among other languages. But little of what they have to say is applicable to German. – RDBury Apr 01 '22 at 22:53
  • @RDBury: »Linguistics texts in English only talk about direct and indirect objects without even considering that a different classification might exist.« – Yes, I am aware of this very bad habit. It is precisely this narrow-minded ignorance that is the problem. Linguists lump all languages together. English-speaking German teachers adopt this wrong terminology and in the end the people who learn German as a foreign language have problems to understand the German grammar because it was taught to them wrongly. – Hubert Schölnast Apr 02 '22 at 07:18

1 Answers1

2

Both is possible.

Generally, the first version is better:

Wir erlauben uns Ihnen den Betrag gutzuschreiben.

The second version

Wir erlauben uns den Betrag Ihnen gutzuschreiben.

puts the focus on "Ihnen", and would be appropriate if there were multiple possible recipients for the amount.

Additional remarks

"Wir erlauben uns" corresponds to the English "we take the liberty of" and implies that we made a decision here that we weren't totally entitled to make, e.g. the way of compensating wasn't settled beforehand, and we decided to do a refund instead of sending a replacement.

If this interpretation isn't intended, I'd simply omit that part and write

Wir werden Ihnen den Betrag gutschreiben.

And, although through the orthography reform it's no longer obligatory, I'd place a comma for readability reasons:

Wir erlauben uns, Ihnen den Betrag gutzuschreiben.

Ralf Kleberhoff
  • 926
  • 4
  • 5
  • I don't think there's anything better in the first version. It's just more common and there might be situations where you exactly want the emphasis changed by the "uncommon" (and definitely, valid) word order of the second version. It, as always, depends: Wir erlauben uns, den Betrag Ihnen* gutzuschreiben - und nicht Herrn Müller, weil den mögen wir nicht* – tofro Apr 01 '22 at 11:33
  • But even in that case "Wir erlauben und ihnen den Betrag gutzuschreiben - und nicht Herrn Müllen, denn den mögen wir nicht" would still sound more natural. – haxor789 Apr 01 '22 at 11:43
  • 1
    The rule of thumb is pronouns precede nouns, regardless of which is the direct or indirect object. There may be circumstances where either order is possible, but for learners it's probably best to learn and use the "default" order until you develop an ear for what "sounds" right or wrong. – RDBury Apr 01 '22 at 12:09
  • @RDBury Agree, but it's still important to know there's nothing "better" or "more correct" with the more common way of saying it. – tofro Apr 01 '22 at 12:42