If the particle wo is used to indicate direct object why isn't it used in some sentences where there are direct objects?


I'm confused about the use of the wo/o particle. I've read many times that is
used to indicate direct objects, but in phrases like this there is a direct
object and there isn't a particle wo to indicate it.

[code]

    Watashi wa Hana desu.
    
[/code]

At least in Spanish (not sure in English) "Hana" would be considered the
direct object. It is wo omitted in certain phrases or the meaning of "direct
object" is not exactly the same as in other languages or how it is?




Not all complements are direct objects.

* * *

Let's look at each language, one by one:

  * ## English

> I **am** _Hana_.

_Be_ is an intransitive copular verb, here in its form _am_. It takes _Hana_
as a copular complement, but that complement is not a direct object. Instead,
it's what is traditionally known as a "subject complement", sometimes called a
"predicative complement" in modern grammar.

Why? Because the grammar differs from that of a direct object. You can have an
adjective as a copular complement, but not as direct objects.

  * ## Spanish

> (Yo) **soy** _Hana_.

_Ser_ is a copular verb, not a transitive verb, here in its form _soy_. It
takes _Hana_ as a copular complement, but that complement is not a direct
object. Almost all uses of Spanish verbs can be considered transitive or
intransitive, but in this use _ser_ is usually put in a separate, very small
group of copular verbs with their own special grammar.

Why? How does a copular complement differ from a direct object in Spanish?
Well, try putting a pronoun in that position. Object pronouns take accusative
case, but as copular complements, pronouns take nominative case instead. So
copular complements can't be considered a kind of object.

  * ## Japanese

> (Watashi wa) _Hana_ **desu**.

_Desu_ is a copular auxiliary, but not a verb. In this use, it directly
follows its copular complement, _Hana_ , without any particle in between. This
complement is not a direct object. As you've noticed, _Hana_ cannot be marked
by _o_ here, which is some of the best evidence we have that it's not a direct
object.

You'll learn later that sometimes _o_ marks things other than direct objects,
but direct objects can pretty much always be marked by _o_. This is an
"accusative case particle", the equivalent of using the object form of a
pronoun in Spanish.

As you can see, the grammatical details in each language differ, but _Hana_
isn't a direct object in any of them.

* * *

Note: I've transcribed を as _o_ here, but it's the same thing you wrote as
_wo_.




Not all complements are direct objects.

* * *

Let's look at each language, one by one:

  * ## English

> I **am** _Hana_.

_Be_ is an intransitive copular verb, here in its form _am_. It takes _Hana_
as a copular complement, but that complement is not a direct object. Instead,
it's what is traditionally known as a "subject complement", sometimes called a
"predicative complement" in modern grammar.

Why? Because the grammar differs from that of a direct object. You can have an
adjective as a copular complement, but not as direct objects.

  * ## Spanish

> (Yo) **soy** _Hana_.

_Ser_ is a copular verb, not a transitive verb, here in its form _soy_. It
takes _Hana_ as a copular complement, but that complement is not a direct
object. Almost all uses of Spanish verbs can be considered transitive or
intransitive, but in this use _ser_ is usually put in a separate, very small
group of copular verbs with their own special grammar.

Why? How does a copular complement differ from a direct object in Spanish?
Well, try putting a pronoun in that position. Object pronouns take accusative
case, but as copular complements, pronouns take nominative case instead. So
copular complements can't be considered a kind of object.

  * ## Japanese

> (Watashi wa) _Hana_ **desu**.

_Desu_ is a copular auxiliary, but not a verb. In this use, it directly
follows its copular complement, _Hana_ , without any particle in between. This
complement is not a direct object. As you've noticed, _Hana_ cannot be marked
by _o_ here, which is some of the best evidence we have that it's not a direct
object.

You'll learn later that sometimes _o_ marks things other than direct objects,
but direct objects can pretty much always be marked by _o_. This is an
"accusative case particle", the equivalent of using the object form of a
pronoun in Spanish.

As you can see, the grammatical details in each language differ, but _Hana_
isn't a direct object in any of them.

* * *

Note: I've transcribed を as _o_ here, but it's the same thing you wrote as
_wo_.

