# Write me or Write to me?



## marco_bcn

Hi everybody,

Is there a difference between "If you have further questions, don't hesitate to write me" and "If you have further questions don't hesitate to write to me? The former example sounds a bit weird to me.

What about the verb "to contact"? Does it imply that there has been no previous conversation between the two? I mean, you can use it only when you start the conversation? E.g. If you have further questions, don't hesitate to contact me (correct or incorrect?).

Are there more common ways of expressing the above mentioned idea without running the risk of my English becoming too colloquial?

Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

Marco


----------



## Benjy

*P*ersonally *I*'d say dont hestitate to write to me. *Y*ou don't write somebody, you write things to them (although you might write on them). *D*on't hesitate to contact is fine, you might also consider don't hesitate to get in touch.


----------



## ekeating

I believe that the difference is in the formality of the writing.  It is fine, loosely, to say "...write me" as though to a friend (meaning, Why don't you write me?).  In more formal writing, I would preferentially use  "...write to me".  

Likewise, as a close, your suggestion is fine (contact me) in formal writing.  I would not use "...in touch" in that same forum, but it is definitely acceptable informally.

Just my thoughts...hope it helps.


----------



## Rob625

'Write me' is American. In British English we say 'write to me'.


----------



## marco_bcn

Thank you both.


----------



## Tabac

Rob625 said:
			
		

> 'Write me' is American. In British English we say 'write to me'.


 
I, an American, was going to suggest the opposite.  Curious!


----------



## abc

I think both sides of the pond use *write me* and *write to me*.


----------



## Rob625

In British English, 'write me' as in the original examples is definitely wrong.

 "If you have further questions, don't hesitate to write me."
 "If you have further questions don't hesitate to write to me."

As with other verbs, we can leave out the 'to' for the indirect object when there is also a direct object:

 Write me a letter when you have time.
 He gave me a dog.
 He gave the dog to me.
 He wrote me a letter.
 He wrote a letter to me.

 Write to me every day.

 Write me every day.

I think that all these, including the ones with a red cross, are acceptable in American English


----------



## marco_bcn

Thanks Rob, now I'm convinced. See, I work as a technical writer and sometimes i have to adjust my style to my manager's whims. You've proved him wrong now, although he'll never know.

What I'm still not sure about is the use of "to contact". Does one contact somebody only when s/he writes to him/her for the first time?

What about the verb "to register"? For example, do you register ON/TO/IN Yahoo? I have doubts as to the correct preposition. 

Best,
Marco.


----------



## Benjy

marco_bcn said:
			
		

> Thanks Rob, now I'm convinced. See, I work as a technical writer and sometimes i have to adjust my style to my manager's whims. You've proved him wrong now, although he'll never know.
> 
> What I'm still not sure about is the use of "to contact". Does one contact somebody only when s/he writes to him/her for the first time?
> 
> Best,
> Marco.



no.. you can contact people all the time, which is why you can stay "in contact" as such


----------



## marco_bcn

Thanks Benjy! That's useful information.


----------



## jacinta

marco_bcn said:
			
		

> What about the verb "to register"? For example, do you register ON/TO/IN Yahoo? I have doubts as to the correct preposition.
> 
> Best,
> Marco.



Register with Yahoo (the same as *join* Yahoo)
Register to vote
register online


----------



## Nick

I usually say "Register *at* Yahoo" (or whichever site).


----------



## jacinta

Yes, you're right, Nick.  That's how I say it, too, come to think of it.

jacinta


----------



## flaze

I find that 'sign up at' is more ambivalent than 'sign up with', because 'at' has connotations of a place at which to sign up, whereas 'with' straightforwardly says that one is signing up to be a member of the organisation, and nothing more.


----------



## opsb

flaze said:


> I find that 'sign up at' is more ambivalent than 'sign up with', because 'at' has connotations of a place at which to sign up, whereas 'with' straightforwardly says that one is signing up to be a member of the organisation, and nothing more.



To use on and at in the same sentence: 'register on the page at...'

With regards to write (to) me, I'm from England and I can't remember a single occasion where I've heard 'write me' used, it's always 'write to me', I think it's very much an Americanism.


----------



## flaze

I can already use 'on' and 'at', thanks! 

I agree that 'write me' is Americanism - no self-respecting Englishman or lady would be seen dead uttering such  linguistic blasphemy!


----------



## ddnz

Rob625 said:


> 'Write me' is American. In British English we say 'write to me'.



That's what I thought...I would always use the preposition - write *to* me - as would most other New Zealanders.


----------



## Sparky Malarky

Why not *write me*?  We say *call me*.  We would not say *call to me*. We would not say *telephone to me*. We would not say *email to me*.

Write to me = write a letter and send it to me.
Write me = contact me.  Do so by letter.


----------



## JungKim

Sparky Malarky said:


> Why not *write me*?  We say *call me*.  We would not say *call to me*. We would not say *telephone to me*. We would not say *email to me*.
> 
> Write to me = write a letter and send it to me.
> Write me = contact me.  Do so by letter.



The verbs 'write' and 'call' are different in that the former requires as its primary complement what is to be written, such as a letter, a response and an email, whereas the latter requires who is to be called, such as "me". 
The verbs 'telephone' and 'email' are similar to 'call' in the same sense.


----------



## ddnz

The only example that could fit with the American usage of the verb (i.e. "write me" without a direct object) is this one:

_*Write me* as one that loves his fellow-men.
_
A  quick search reveals this come from the poem Abou ben Adhem by James  Henry Leigh Hunt and, according to my understanding, "write me" here  means "write my name" (see the poem for the full context). All the other  examples  in that list have a direct object (so sweet a reply, a note, etc) and  as far as I can tell from the preceding posts, it is the usage with just  an indirect object that was being discussed.

Anyway, I had a look in the BNC and there are a few examples:

_Give 'em all my autograph that *write me*.’

I realize you can't *write me* here._
_
The problem was that Kier had friends in the town council and, as  Campbell pointed out, ‘my eneemys here have wrote to My Lord Grange; if  the man is sett at liberty I begg it may be by y[ou]r interest, and that  you'll be so good as *write me* so, for it will do me service in this  place’._

So there are a few examples, but they are relatively  very infrequent compared to the 116 examples of "write to me" in the  corpus.

Also, I found this: _But when I was seeing him he offered to write me a *check *for five  million pound, I said, I couldn't take a *check *for five million pound  because I was a  to me._

How British is *that* ?! ;-)


----------



## boozer

ddnz said:


> ... and  as far as I can tell from the preceding posts, it is the usage with just  an indirect object that was being discussed...


Oh, I had not realised that, somehow.


----------



## flaze

boozer said:


> Following certain comments about the "un-Britishness" of 'write me' , I am tempted to give some examples from the British National Corpus, which contains a total of 32 of them.
> 
> _He finds his own words for the mood in a letter to Helen on 6 May '98: ‘I am glad my unkind letter allowed you nevertheless to write me so sweet a reply...
> 
> I know Ellen Garwood loved to call him Mr Green, and when she would write me letters thinking that...
> 
> Write me as one that loves his fellow-men.
> 
> Mum said that as a Christian She was not going to write me a note when there wasn't anything wrong with...
> 
> __...and in exchange for this little attention he would write me a six-month permis de séjour.
> _
> Combined with all possible pronouns and names like write her/him/them/you/Mary/Tom, etc., those 32 hits will likely become hundreds.
> 
> In addition, I have read quite a few grammar books, exclusively British, and I definitely remember seeing this usage described as legitimate, along with similar ones like 'Call me a taxi', 'Okay, you're a taxi', etc.
> 
> PS. Of course, 'write me' could well stand for both 'write to me' and 'write for me', I think.



Ok, let's get this straight. In all the examples you have given (except the third), 'write me' is followed by a direct object.

red: indirect object
blue: direct object
green: preposition
pink: object of preposition

1. write me... a reply
2. write me letters
3. write [about] me (poetic use)
4. write me a note
5. write me a...permis de séjour


When you have a direct _and_ indirect object, the indirect object (me) can go a) in front of the direct object:

E.g.

He bought me it
They sold her a card
We gave the child the dog.

Or, b) you can have the direct object first followed by the indirect object with a preposition.

He bought me it                          -->          He bought it for me
They sold her a card                    -->          They sold a card to her
We gave the child the dog             -->          We gave a dog to the child

Now, in the _absence_ of a direct object, the preposition is kept.

E.g. 

Speak to me.
Write to me.
Listen to me.
Take from the rich, give to the poor.

So, one might say that the American use of 'write me' is, in fact, grammatically incorrect (although there are so many exceptions in English, I can't really assert this, even for the sake of bashing American English, hoho). In any case, even if Shakespeare or others used 'write me' in a poetical sense, which they may well have, it doesn't make it a normative use of such a structure. 

So, in conclusion, in British English 'write me' = WRONG. ;-)


----------



## boozer

I know full well what a direct and indirect object is, thank you, flaze. I simply had not realised the version with indirect object alone was being discussed, as I said in post 23.  I agree that 'write me' on its own is incorrect. In fact, I apologise for this confusion...


----------



## flaze

Posts 22 and 23 had been written while I was writing mine, haha. - I guess that will teach me to be more to the point. Anyway, other people may not know the difference between ind. and dir. objects, but hopefully if they are reading this thread they now will


----------



## boozer

flaze said:


> Anyway, other people may not know the difference between ind. and dir. objects, but hopefully if they are reading this thread they now will


 You did a great colourful job of explaining it anyway. It should not simply go down the drain.


----------



## lucas-sp

I hate to be the voice of reason, but maybe we should check in with our friends the Oxford dons? Here's the OED on "to write":





> *17.* ​*a.* To compose a letter, note, etc.; to communicate information, etc., send word, by writing; to conduct epistolary correspondence. Also with for (a person or thing) or to (do something). [...]
> 
> *b.* With preps., as to (also unto, till), or indirect personal object (cf.7b). Also const. of.
> In group (a), freq. from c1560. In group (b), rare until c1770; freq. from c1790; often regarded as commercial or colloquial in U.K.; standard in U.S.


Group (a) here is "write to/unto someone"; Group (b) is "write someone" (no preposition). They go on to give examples. Some of them are so gosh-darn British I could cry:





> (All from Group B) _c_1374   Chaucer _Troilus & Criseyde_ v. 1303   Thow hast not wreten here syn þat she wente... Now write here þanne [_MS. Gg_. to hire].
> 1928   D. L. Sayers _Lord Peter views Body_ iv. 74   He wrote me yesterday and said he'd accidentally left a bag in the cloakroom.
> 1953   P. G. Wodehouse _Performing Flea_ 69   She is going to find out about quarantine and then write me.


And many more. So, "write [someone]" is certainly not incorrect, although it may be _less common_ in BE than it is in AE. It also dates back to well before 1770.


----------



## flaze

lucas-sp said:


> It also dates back to well before 1770.



Which makes the use pretty out of date. Modern British English is quite different from what it was in the 1920's! In any case, it's more grammatically consistent to say 'write to me', which is probably why _that_ is the prevailing use now in the UK.


----------



## lucas-sp

Look at what the OED says about "write someone" without a preposition:





> *In group (b), rare until c1770; freq. from c1790; often regarded as commercial or colloquial in U.K.; standard in U.S.*


It was relatively rare until 1770, although certainly in existence since Chaucer (among others) used it.

It began to be used frequently around 1790. 

Today, it is standard in the US; it is common in the UK but it is not regarded as belonging to the most formal, high-toned register of language.

The OED says quite clearly that this is a usage that has become _more popular_ over time in both the UK and US, not that it has become _less popular_​.


----------



## flaze

lucas-sp said:


> Today, it is standard in the US; it is common in the UK but it is not regarded as belonging to the most formal, high-toned register of language.



Probably because of American influence? I like to think I subscribe to the 'formal, high-toned register of the language'.  I don't believe it's all that popular though - none of my friends would say 'write me' and if they did someone else would probably correct them, haha.


----------



## lucas-sp

flaze said:


> Probably because of American influence?


I don't think Chaucer was particularly influenced by American usage. The OED says that "write" in this sense has taken an "indirect personal object" for centuries in English, before the discovery of America. 

Some other uses:





> 1795   Ld. Nelson in _Dispatches & Lett._ (1845) II. 32   As I write you,..I shall not write Mrs. Nelson this day.
> 1854   Thackeray _Newcomes_ I. xxxi. 310   Clive..wrote me about the transmogrification of our schoolfellow.1905   H. Ellis _Stud. Psychol. Sex_ IV. 239   She wrote me saying that she could not see me any more.


Thackeray, Lord Nelson, Havelock Ellis - none of them are really known for their Americanisms, are they? This usage began in English as spoken and written in England. The OED describes a clear difference between AE and BE, though, in that AE uses "write someone" in all contexts, while it is considered informal in BE.

"Informal," not "wrong" or "grammatically incorrect."


----------



## flaze

Well I still think it is wrong and grammatically incorrect, for reasons I gave above. However, I appreciate you're American and understandably protective of your language. I shall say no more on the subject.


----------



## lucas-sp

flaze said:


> Well I still think it is wrong and grammatically incorrect, for reasons I gave above. However, I appreciate you're American and understandably protective of your language. I shall say no more on the subject.


American literature is so much richer now that you've graciously given us - well - all of British literature! It's interesting how non-protective you are about your big name authors...

The OED, by the way, isn't known as a loosey-goosey anything-goes resource. These are well-documented cases of _actual English use _- in this case, British English use. I'm not being protective of my language; I'm just pointing out an odd prejudice against this usage.

Also, note that the growing popularity of "write someone" began in the late 18th century, which is a bit before any strong "American influence" would be exerted on BE.


----------



## flaze

lucas-sp said:


> I'm just pointing out an odd prejudice against this usage.



Aghh, I shouldn't go against my word, but it's just irresistible.  

It's really not an 'odd' prejudice. It's quite sensible. To be honest, I don't care if Nelson was accustomed to writing 'write me' in a letter - he's not famous because of his grammar! Or indeed Chaucer - whose language only somewhat resembles modern English. It sounds wrong, because according to the grammar of object pronouns it IS. People use funny constructions all the time, probably because they are thinking about more pressing things, like (in Nelson's case) wondering about whether or not to write to his wife. Odd constructions go in and out of fashion - it doesn't make them right.  

I also notice that Americans have commented on this thread that in formal contexts, they would use 'write to you', and not 'write you'. Why is that? Presumably because 'write to you' sounds 'more correct', which is quite telling.


----------



## Loob

flaze said:


> It sounds wrong, because according to the grammar of object pronouns it IS.


I don't know how you can argue that, flaze.  Would you also argue that "Tell me!" is wrong, because we also say "Tell me the answer!"?


----------



## lucas-sp

flaze said:


> I agree that 'write me' is Americanism - no self-respecting Englishman or lady would be seen dead uttering such  linguistic blasphemy!


The evidence of philology has shown that:

A) many self-respecting Englishmen and ladies use "write me," and have done so over the last seven centuries of English usage, and
B) it is not originally an American usage

"Write me" is fine to use in AE, even in formal and business correspondence. ("Write your congressperson!" is a set phrase; I easily could say "Please write me if you have any questions" in a business letter.) There is a larger distinction between "write me" and "write to me" in BE, but that doesn't mean that BE doesn't use "write me" - instead, it just uses it in a different way than AE.


----------



## JustKate

"Write me" is fine. "Write to me" is also fine. I would have no problem using either one in both formal and casual correspondence. And even if "Write me" were used only for less formal writing, so what? Less formal isn't the same thing as incorrect.

The fact is, Flaze, you have a prejudice against "Write me." That's fine - we all have them, and that most definitely includes me. It is because of my prejudices that I avoid "utilize" in my writing and speech, and I also avoid "over than" used in the sense of "more than," and I will continue to do so, I suspect, until my dying day. I also dislike "contact" as a verb, though I may get over that eventually because, darn it, it's so useful in certain circumstances. But as for the other two, I don't like them and I don't have to like them. Similarly, you don't have to like "Write me" (or "Tell me" ?) , and you too can avoid it until your dying day. But everybody needs to realize that just because we dislike something, that doesn't make it wrong.


----------



## flaze

Loob said:


> I don't know how you can argue that, flaze.  Would you also argue that "Tell me!" is wrong, because we also say "Tell me the answer!"?



That is a good point, I have to confess. I don't know why we don't say 'tell to me', it's one of the many dreaded 'exceptions'. But if 'tell to me'  were in circulation along with 'tell me', I'm sure it would be preferred by grammars.

When you have a choice between something internally logical and something not, which would you prefer? Since 'write to me' exists both in America, and England (the more natural choice), and Americans admit to using 'write me' in more formal contexts to sound better, which would you go with?


----------



## Loob

I'm afraid I don't accept your premise, flaze.

I don't, myself, say "Write me!" without a following direct object: it doesn't work in my variety of BrE.  But I would never in a million years say that "Write me!" was *wrong*, when it is well-attested that native speakers of English do, in fact, use it.


----------



## flaze

JustKate said:


> The fact is, Flaze, you have a prejudice against "Write me."



Is it that obvious? 



> It is because of my prejudices that I avoid "utilize" in my writing and speech, and I also avoid "over than" used in the sense of "more than," and I will continue to do so, I suspect, until my dying day.


 
'utilise' sounds sort of pseudo-technical, but I'm not above using it now and then. As for 'over than', I think you're right in that it's best avoided . 



> I also dislike "contact" as a verb



Well you had to see that coming - English is constantly changing nouns into verbs


----------



## JuanEscritor

What about _text_, _email_, and _message_?


----------



## boozer

boozer said:


> I agree that 'write me' on its own is incorrect.


I probably agreed rather hastily because I myself would not say it and because of the misunderstanding I was guilty of. Even on its own, though, 'write me' does sound like something that has been said before.


----------



## flaze

Loob said:


> I'm afraid I don't accept your premise, flaze.
> 
> I don't, myself, say "Write me!" without a following direct object: it doesn't work in my variety of BrE.  But I would never in a million years say that "Write me!" was *wrong*, when it is well-attested that native speakers of English do, in fact, use it.



To be frank, native English speakers say a lot of things - it's no indicator that they're right, haha. I admit that 'write me' could just be another exception in English, just as 'tell', but I have a strong feeling that if Americans did not say 'write me', no one would maintain that in modern English it is acceptable. But, hey, it exists and nothing I say will make it go away so what the heck?


----------



## Loob

flaze said:


> I have a strong feeling that if Americans did not say 'write me', no one would maintain that in modern English it is acceptable.


Yes, possibly.  Though the OED citations include examples from BrE writers such as Iris Murdoch.





flaze said:


> But, hey, it exists


Yes, it does.


----------



## sunnyweather

Hello, 

It's an interesting thread and exchange of opinions. Let me ask a question connected with the expression 'Write me...'

What about: 

Write me what you like doing. (as written to a friend)

or 

Write me what you like doing in your free time.

or

Write me what you'd like to do at the weekend.

I suppose they are OK as informal senteces. Am I right?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hello Sunnyweather.

You've got some excellent posts in this thread from Lucas-sp.

My strong impression is that older generations used to say and write _Write me_, whereas today we would say _Write to m_e.

I'd strongly advise you to say_ Write to me _now, because it's become the norm, so much so that there are many English people who think _Write me_ is wrong, instead of being old fashioned.


----------



## Loob

Re post 45

They don't work for me, I'm afraid, sunnyweather.  I'm fairly sure they would work in AmE.

Interestingly, they wouldn't work in (my version of) BrE if you added "to", either: "Write me what you like doing" "Write to me what you like doing".

I'd need to say/write "Write *and tell me* what you like doing".


----------



## Şafak

"Write me" is the literal translation from Slavic languages. I'd suggest using "tell me" no matter what means of communication you're using to talk to the person.


----------



## sunnyweather

Thank you for your comments.


----------



## kentix

Loob said:


> They don't work for me, I'm afraid, sunnyweather. I'm fairly sure they would work in AmE.


No, they don't really.  

And for the same reason you pointed out.


Loob said:


> Interestingly, they wouldn't work in (my version of) BrE if you added "to", either: "Write me what you like doing" "Write to me what you like doing".


"Write me" in AE is exactly the same as "write to me". We simply don't have to include "to" to get that meaning. So if it doesn't work with "write to me", and it doesn't, then it doesn't work with "write me" either.

You could use Loob's suggestion or say something like "Write (to) me about what you like doing."


----------



## DonnyB

sunnyweather said:


> Hello,
> 
> It's an interesting thread and exchange of opinions. Let me ask a question connected with the expression 'Write me...'
> 
> What about:
> 
> Write me what you like doing. (as written to a friend)
> 
> or
> 
> Write me what you like doing in your free time.
> 
> or
> 
> Write me what you'd like to do at the weekend.
> 
> I suppose they are OK as informal senteces. Am I right?


I would mark all three as wrong in BE.  Probably the easiest way of fixing them is to do them as "Write *and tell* me ...." as Loob has suggested (#47)


----------



## JungKim

kentix said:


> You could use Loob's suggestion or say something like "Write (to) me about what you like doing."


"Write me what you" is about 15 times more productive than "Write me about what you" in Present-day English (after WWII), though, according to this Ngram. What's going on?


----------



## DonnyB

JungKim said:


> "Write me what you" is about 15 times more productive than "Write me about what you" in Present-day English (after WWII), though, according to this Ngram. What's going on?


No idea.  But what we've been telling everyone in this thread is that *"write me..."* is_ wrong_ in modern BE, and you need to say "write *to* me" or "write *and tell* me" instead.


----------



## JungKim

DonnyB said:


> No idea.


No idea about the Ngram or kentix's suggestion to add "about"?



DonnyB said:


> But what we've been telling everyone in this thread is that *"write me..."* is_ wrong_ in modern BE, and you need to say "write *to* me" or "write *and tell* me" instead.


Well, my reading of the thread is different. Lucas-sp, citing OED, and Loob, among others, have been opposing branding "write me" (without another following object) as wrong even in modern BE.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JungKim said:


> Well, my reading of the thread is different. Lucas-sp, citing OED, and Loob, among others, have been opposing branding "write me" (without another following object) as wrong even in modern BE.


You are right to pay attention to them, JungKim.

The point is that_ Write me_ has become old fashioned, so you shouldn't use it, unless you wish to sound old fashioned.


----------



## DonnyB

JungKim said:


> Well, my reading of the thread is different. Lucas-sp, citing OED, and Loob, among others, have been opposing branding "write me" (without another following object) as wrong even in modern BE.


Really?  Well, I can only respond based on my own experience as a native speaker of using and speaking the language, and I've definitely seen that use of "write me" (i.e. followed by a _direct_ object) described as typically American, and labelled as wrong in modern BE in many previous forum threads. So I wouldn't use it.

Obviously, if you think otherwise, that's fine: I shan't feel at all offended.


----------



## JungKim

DonnyB said:


> I've definitely seen that use of "write me" (i.e. followed by a _direct_ object) described as typically American, and labelled as wrong in modern BE in many previous forum threads.


Assuming the red portion is not a typo, please note that originally this thread was about "write me" without any following direct object. Lucas-sp and Loob's discussions were also about "write me" without any following direct object, until sunnyweather asked a different question about "write me" followed by a direct object in the form of a fused relative construction (_what you..._).



DonnyB said:


> Obviously, if you think otherwise, that's fine: I shan't feel at all offended.


I haven't told you what I think about the issue, because it won't matter at all.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

DonnyB said:


> Really?  Well, I can only respond based on my own experience as a native speaker of using and speaking the language, and I've definitely seen that use of "write me" (i.e. followed by a _direct_ object) described as typically American, and labelled as wrong in modern BE in many previous forum threads. So I wouldn't use it.
> 
> Obviously, if you think otherwise, that's fine: I shan't feel at all offended.


Funnily enough I find _*Write me + a direct object*_ entirely normal in modern BE.

Whatever is wrong with _*Write me a letter when you have a moment*_?  It's entirely idiomatic in modern BE.

It's _*Write me*_ without the direct object which is old fashioned.


----------



## JungKim

Thomas Tompion said:


> Funnily enough I find _*Write me + a direct object*_ entirely normal in modern BE.
> 
> Whatever is wrong with _*Write me a letter when you have a moment*_?  It's entirely idiomatic in modern BE.
> 
> It's _*Write me*_ without the direct object which is old fashioned.


But Loob and others objected to sunnyweather's examples, where the direct object is in the form of a fused relative construction (e.g., _what you like doing_). Does what you call an "entirely idiomatic" construction suddenly not work when the direct object is in the form of a fused relative construction?


----------



## Loob

JungKim said:


> Well, my reading of the thread is different. Lucas-sp, citing OED, and Loob, among others, have been opposing branding "write me" (without another following object) as wrong even in modern BE.


Umm, actually, I was opposing *branding "write me" (without another following object) as "wrong"* -full stop.


JungKim said:


> But Loob and others objected to sunnyweather's examples, where the direct object is in the form of a fused relative construction (e.g., _what you like doing_). Does what you call an "entirely idiomatic" construction suddenly not work when the direct object is in the form of a fused relative construction?


I agree with you that it's interesting that we can say "Write me a letter" but we can't say "Write me what you like doing".

Why doesn't it work? I'm not sure: this thread is the first time I've thought about it.  Perhaps it's because the "what" clause is an indirect question rather than a fused relative construction?


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> Why doesn't it work? I'm not sure: this thread is the first time I've thought about it.  Perhaps it's because the "what" clause is an indirect question rather than a fused relative construction?


That's a good point. Yes, they're better analyzed as an interrogative clause than as a fused relative construction.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Loob said:


> Umm, actually, I was opposing *branding "write me" (without another following object) as "wrong"* -full stop.
> 
> I agree with you that it's interesting that we can say "Write me a letter" but we can't say "Write me what you like doing".
> 
> Why doesn't it work? I'm not sure: this thread is the first time I've thought about it.  Perhaps it's because the "what" clause is an indirect question rather than a fused relative construction?


And I wouldn't be happy with (though I'd stop short of calling it wrong) _Write me saying what interests you (_because of the old-fashioned_ Write me)_; it would have to be _Write to me saying what interests you_, or _Write me a letter saying what interests you_.


----------

