genitive vs dative- first declension

I would have translated just as you did. In my experience the dative is
commonly positioned just before the verb. Perhaps in a larger context it
might be obvious that it is meant to be dative, but as written, I read it as
genitive.

So here's an example where word order helps clarity.

thanks, and i will try to remember that dative is commonly positioned before the verb.

You're welcome.
Check in from time to time as you continue.

george, for some reason i am not getting an email telling me i have a reply, so i am late in responding. [i have able2know working on the no email problem.] I'm reviewing what i've learned so far, translating the answers (english sentences in the back) into latin. The most confusing part for me is indirect object vs object of preposition.
for a sentence to have an indirect object, does it have to have a direct object? Can you always tell it is an indirect object because the sentence makes sense if you take out the direct object? id est "I am giving money to the poet", taking out money, "I am giving to the poet" makes sense, so poet is the indirect object, and not object of the preposition "to"?
Can a prepositional phrase serve as the direct object?
Correct me where i am wrong in the following.
"I am sailing the boat" Boat is direct object. sentence trans= Scapham navigo.
"I am sailing the boat to the island." Boat is direct object, island indirect (and dative). sentence trans. Scapham insulae navigo.
"i am sailing to the island." No direct object, prep phrase "to the island" serves as direct object, island is object of prep "to", island is accusative and the prep "to" is included. sentence translation: Ad insulam navigo.
thank you

> for a sentence to have an indirect object, does it have to have a direct
> object?
Yes.

> Can you always tell it is an indirect object because the sentence makes
> sense if you take out the direct object?
I don't think so.

> Can a prepositional phrase serve as the direct object?
No.

> Correct me where i am wrong in the following.

> "I am sailing the boat" Boat is direct object. sentence trans= Scapham
> navigo.
Navigo would not take scapham as a direct object. You would say Navigo in scapha.

> "I am sailing the boat to the island." Boat is direct object, island
> indirect (and dative). sentence trans. Scapham insulae navigo.
"Island" is not an indirect object. It is the object of the preposition "to".

>"i am sailing to the island." No direct object, prep phrase "to the island"
> serves as direct object, island is object of prep "to", island is accusative
> and the prep "to" is included. sentence translation: Ad insulam navigo.
"Island" is not a direct object here. It is the object of the preposition "to".
There is no direct object in this
sentence.

I'm confused. My question,
"I am sailing the boat" Boat is direct object. sentence trans= Scapham
> navigo.
Your reply;
Navigo would not take scapham as a direct object. You would say Navigo in scapha.

I would translate "Navigo in scapha" as "i am sailing in the boat", or/ "i am sailing on the boat." (I assume scapha=ablative, with macron over the a).
In the sentence, "I am sailing the boat.", why is boat not the direct object of the verb sailing? It seems to me the same as "I am chopping wood."; or "I am writing a letter."; or "I am plowing the soil." [here I am assuming wood, letter, and soil are all direct objects.]

Yes, but navigo does not take a direct object except when it used in the
sense of "sail over", "sail through" or "navigate". Perhaps you should use
another verb, like do ("give").

So, are there only certain verbs that can have indirect objects?
as in, I am giving water to the farmer? "Aquam agricolae do"
I am telling stories to the poet? "Fabulam poetae narro."
I am plowing the soil for the farmer? "Terram agricolae aro."
with indirect objects being agricolae, and poetae?

answer two-
I looked up indirect object. It said an indirect object is the person to whom something is given, told, or refused, etc. (et cetera) [it is the cetera that has me stumped.]
Can an indirect object be something besides a person?
I am giving water to the tree?
I am planting flowers for the birds?

I'm only saying that one particular verb, navigo, does not take a noun
referring to a sailing vessel as a direct object.

> Can an indirect object be something besides a person?
Yes.

> I am giving water to the tree?
"Tree" is not an indirect object but the object of the preposition "to".

For it to be an indirect object, the "to" would be not be stated but understood.

"I am giving the tree water."

this is helping. I'm getting closer.
In my latin book; "Nautae fabulam narro" is interpreted in the back of the book as; "I am telling a story to the sailor." Surely it could also be interpreted as "I am telling the sailor a story". Of the two English translations, is the second the only correct answer? (where "to" is understood but not stated)?

I would think that either English translation is correct. Both convey the
sense of the Latin.

It must just be this authors preference to place the indirect object after the direct object with prep "to" (or for). An example he gives in the excercises: "Puellae poetae fabulas narrant", he translates "The girls are telling stories TO the poet." However, I NOW know that IF the sentence can be written as: "the girls are telling the poet stories", then poetae is the indirect object (and dative).
[Learning Latin sure does strengthen your English grammar.]
Thanks George, you have been a big help.