In Hebrew, the piel and hifil stems sometimes take a double direct object. A/C 2.3.1e. Notice the two objects in red here in Genesis 37:23. Both are the object of the verb פשט.
וַֽיְהִ֕י כַּֽאֲשֶׁר־בָּ֥א יוֹסֵ֖ף אֶל־אֶחָ֑יו וַיַּפְשִׁ֤יטוּ אֶת־יוֹסֵף֙ אֶת־כֻּתָּנְתּוֹ֔ אֶת־כְּתֹ֥נֶת הַפַּסִּ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָלָֽיו׃
Gesenius writes that verbs with a meaning of making, forming or building will often take two objects, the first is object proper and the second the material from which it is built. Similarly, such verbs can have two objects, the first the object proper and the second the product which is produced; see §5.
Hi, I’m struggling to find a reason for English translations’ choice for אַתָּ֗ה תַּנְחִיל֙ אֶת־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֔ה אֶת־הָאָ֕רֶץ (Joshua 1:6). Oftentimes something around the lines of “You shall give as inheritance (to) this people the land.” Is there a rule regarding which accusative will be the Direct Object and which will function as the Indirect Object? Thanks
As well as what dictates we place a “to” in there?
So when you have a verb in the hifil, it is common to translate these with an English infinitive (and thus using “to”). So in Joshua 1, translators will often render the verb here as: “You will cause this people to inherit…”
This is the best way to capture the causative meaning of the hifil.
An indirect object is something different. A double accusative doesn’t mean that one noun is the direct object and the other an indirect object. In a double accusative, both nouns are considered to be direct objects.
So in Joshua 1, both “people” and “land” are considered to be direct objects. Be careful not to confuse this with thinking that one of these is the direct object and the other an indirect object.
See here for indirect objects: https://beingtaught.us/language/complement/indirect-object/