# Pay for/to



## eddiemel7778

Hi there! I have a question. When I say "I paid the waiter for the coke." means that I bought the coke and gave the money to the waiter, right?
Can I say like this: "I paid for the coke to the waiter"?

Now if I bought a coke for my sister, can I say like this: 
"I paid for the coke for my sister"?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Kevin Beach

No, you can't use the verb "to pay" like that, because you would be giving it two indirect objects, instead of one direct object and one indirect object.

You pay somebody _[direct object]_ for something _[indirect object]_.

But to pay to somebody _[indirect object]_ for something _[indirect object]_ is wrong, because there are too many indirect objects.


----------



## Miragirl

Can I say like this: "I paid for the coke to the waiter"?
 no, you would say "I paid the waiter for the coke."


Now if I bought a coke for my sister, can I say like this: 
"I paid for the coke for my sister"?
 no, you would say "I paid the waiter for my sister's coke."


----------



## Salvage

eddiemel7778 said:


> Hi there! I have a question. When I say "I paid the waiter for the coke." means that I bought the coke and gave the money to the waiter, right? Yes, correct.
> Can I say like this: "I paid for the coke to the waiter"? No.
> 
> Now if I bought a coke for my sister, can I say like this:
> "I paid for the coke for my sister"? OK, but better is "I paid for my sister's coke."
> 
> Thanks in advance.


----------



## sdgraham

Note that if you mean a Coca Cola, "Coke" is a registered trademark and thus, a proper noun that must be capitalized.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

When you say "I paid for the Coke for my sister" (which is a correct and grammatical sentence), "pay for" is a phrasal verb, with "the Coke" being the direct object of "pay for". Meanwhile, "for my sister" is a prepositional phrase modifying "the Coke"; "my sister" is the object of the second "for", which is a preposition. There are no indirect objects in the sentence at all. One would find an indirect object in "I gave my sister the Coke"; "Coke" there would be a direct object, and "my sister" an indirect object.

Your proposed sentence "I paid for the Coke to the waiter" is not correct or natural. You could correct it, however, to "I paid the waiter for the Coke".


----------



## ray8838

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> When you say "I paid for the Coke for my sister" (which is a correct and grammatical sentence), "pay for" is a phrasal verb, with "the Coke" being the direct object of "pay for". Meanwhile, "for my sister" is a prepositional phrase modifying "the Coke"; "my sister" is the object of the second "for", which is a preposition. There are no indirect objects in the sentence at all. One would find an indirect object in "I gave my sister the Coke"; "Coke" thre would be a direct object, and "my sister" an indirect object.
> 
> Your proposed sentence "I paid for the Coke to the waiter" is not correct or natural. You could correct it, however, to "I paid the waiter for the Coke".



I don't think there is any direct object or indirect object in the above sentence. "I paid for the Coke for my sister": "for the Coke" is an adverb phrase to modify the verb "paid" while "for my sister" is an adjective phrase to modify the noun "Coke". An Direct object or an indirect object is NOT part of a prepositional phrase.

e.g. You give me the report.  "the report " is an direct object while "me" an indirect object


----------



## ray8838

No, you can't use the verb "to pay" like that, because you would be giving it two indirect objects, instead of one direct object and one indirect object.

 You pay somebody _[direct object]_ for something _[indirect object]_.

 But to pay to somebody _[indirect object]_ for something _[indirect object]_ is wrong, because there are too many indirect objects.>>>>>_*i  think there is nothing to do with direct or indirect objects because the nouns are all in the prepositional phrase (adv or adj phrase).

*_"I paid for the coke to the waiter">>>>>_*Both "for the coke" and "to the waiter" are prepositional phrase (adverb phrase in this case) to modify the verb "paid".  I think it is **grammatical, but it is quite odd and obviously bad English.

What if we put it in this way:"I paid to the waiter for the coke"? Is it acceptable to you guys, native speakers?, though it is much better to rewirte as "I paid the waiter for the coke".  In the latter sentence,  "the waiter" becomes an direct object ( not in a perpositional phrase) while the indirect object still does not exist.

Please enlighten me if i am wrong.  After all, I am not a native English speaker!!!


*_


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

ray8838 said:


> I don't think there is any direct object or indirect object in the above sentence. "I paid for the Coke for my sister": "for the Coke" is an adverb phrase to modify the verb "paid"


 
As noted above, I disagree.  I would say that there is a verb "pay", and a phrasal verb "pay for", which has a slightly different meaning:


----------



## kitenok

> I would say that there is a verb "pay", and a phrasal verb "pay for"


 
I agree with this view. The phrasal verb "to pay for" even has its own past participle, at least in AE: "This Coke is already paid for. You can't charge me again!"


----------



## Orange Blossom

I can think of only one way in which "I paid for the coke for my sister" would work.

The sister ordered a coke.  Perhaps she has to go to the powder room, so she gives the money to the speaker.  He takes his sister's money to pay for the coke.

I can just hear the sister say, "Here, pay for my coke for me please." while handing her sibling some money.

Orange Blossom


----------



## cycloneviv

ray8838 said:


> _*
> What if we put it in this way:"I paid to the waiter for the coke"? Is it acceptable to you guys, native speakers?*_



No. I'm sorry, but it's not acceptable, for the same reasons that "I paid for the *C*oke to the waiter" is not acceptable.


----------



## ray8838

cycloneviv said:


> No. I'm sorry, but it's not acceptable, for the same reasons that "I paid for the *C*oke to the waiter" is not acceptable.


_*>>>>>>>it is incorrect because the direct object is missing.  How about " i paid $5  to the waiter for the coke"? is it OK?*_


----------



## Orange Blossom

ray8838 said:


> _*How about " *_i_* I paid $5  to the waiter for the coke"? is it OK?*_



That sentence is fine.  You could also say, "I paid the waiter $5 for the coke.

Orange Blossom


----------



## panjandrum

ray8838 said:


> _*>>>>>>>*_it _*It** is incorrect because the direct object is missing.  How about " *_i _*I** paid $5  to the waiter for the coke"? *_is *Is*_* it OK?*_





Orange Blossom said:


> That sentence is fine.


I don't think so.
I paid $5 to the waiter?
I paid the waiter $5. 


> You could also say, "I paid the waiter $5 for the coke.
> Orange Blossom


Better


----------



## Loob

Like GreenWhiteBlue, I think there are two distinct verbs here: _pay _and _pay for_ 

I paid $5 for the coke
I _{subject} _paid_ {verb}_ $5 _{direct object} (for the coke} prepositional phrase._

I paid the waiter for the coke
_I {subject} paid ... for {verb}  the waiter {indirect object} direct object (the coke} _


----------



## panjandrum

The phrasal verb _pay for_ takes as object the thing that is purchased.
Who is going to _pay for_ the ice cream?

The normal verb _pay _takes two different kinds of object.
—the person who receives the payment;
—the amount paid.
I paid $5.
I paid the pedlar.

In both forms, it is possible to indicate, using a prepositional phrase, what was bought.
I paid $5 for the charms.
I paid the pedlar for the charms.


----------



## eddiemel7778

Thank you all for your answers.


----------



## ray8838

panjandrum said:


> I don't think so.
> I paid $5 to the waiter?
> I paid the waiter $5. Better


>>>

*"I give Tom the report"

or" I give the report to Tom.*"  *For the same reasoning:

It is correct to say "I paid $5 to the waiter" or "I paid the waiter $5.'*


----------



## ray8838

Loob said:


> Like GreenWhiteBlue, I think there are two distinct verbs here: _pay _and _pay for_
> 
> I paid $5 for the coke
> I _{subject} _paid_ {verb}_ $5 _{direct object} (for the coke} prepositional phrase._
> 
> I paid the waiter for the coke
> _I {subject} paid ... for {verb}  the waiter {indirect object} direct object (the coke} _


>>>>>>*I would say that the structure of the above two sentence is the same*.  *How can you distinguish between them and say one is prep. phrase and another one is direct object.???*


----------



## ray8838

panjandrum said:


> The phrasal verb _pay for_ takes as object the thing that is purchased.
> Who is going to _pay for_ the ice cream?
> 
> The normal verb _pay _takes two different kinds of object.
> —the person who receives the payment;
> —the amount paid.
> I paid $5.
> I paid the pedlar.
> 
> In both forms, it is possible to indicate, using a prepositional phrase, what was bought.
> I paid $5 for the charms.
> I paid the pedlar for the charms.



_*Actually i don't think "pay for" is a phrasal verb.  A phrasal verb is a verb plus a preposition or adverb which creasts a meaning different from the original verb, e.g. pay off (to bribe).  I would treat "pay for" as a 'verb+preposition".  It is similar to those words like "look at" "provide for" "prepare for"

So, "I paid $5 to the waiter for the coke">>>$5 is an direct object, "to  the waiter" and "for the coke" is prepositional phrase, and  there is no indirect object in this sentence.

YOU ARE WELCOME TO MAKE COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE !!!!

*_


----------



## panjandrum

ray8838 said:


> >>>
> "I give Tom the report"
> or" I give the report to Tom."  For the same reasoning:
> It is correct to say "I paid $5 to the waiter" or "I paid the waiter $5.'


In this example, $5 is the direct object, the waiter is the indirect object.

This is not the same version of the verb _pay _that is used in:
_I paid the waiter._
- where the implication is that I settled the bill, completely, with the waiter.





ray8838 said:


> Actually i  *I *don't think "pay for" is a phrasal verb.  A phrasal verb is a verb plus a preposition or adverb which creasts creates a meaning different from the original verb, e.g. pay off (to bribe).  I would treat "pay for" as a 'verb+preposition".  It is similar to those words like "look at" "provide for" "prepare for"
> 
> So, "I paid $5 to the waiter for the coke">>>$5 is an direct object, "to  the waiter" and "for the coke" is prepositional phrase, and  there is no indirect object in this sentence.
> [...]


Your example is, indeed, not using _pay for_ as a phrasal verb, as in:
_I paid for the coke._

On the other hand, there are different definitions of _phrasal verb_ depending on where you look 

_(Please don't write using bold italics all the time. It is rather like shouting.  The normal forum font is good enough for the rest of us.)_


----------



## johndot

It seems to me that the two verbs of the title, “to pay” and “to pay for” are getting mixed up. The issue has become rather clouded.
 
Both verbs are transitive but the first *may* take a direct object, and the second, because of the preposition ‘for’, *must* take a direct object. 
 
“To pay” may take the direct object ‘money’, or ‘attention’, or ‘a visit’. ‘A waiter’ is not the direct object of “to pay” because ‘a waiter’ is *who* you pay, not *what* you pay.
 
“To pay for” takes the direct object ‘Coke’, ‘a service’, ‘one’s mistakes’. Quite obviously, ‘a waiter’ cannot be a direct object here, either.
 
In post #1 eddiemel7778 gives three sample sentences and asks if they are correct:
 
*1:* I paid the waiter for the Coke.
*2:* I paid for the Coke to the waiter.
*3:* I paid for the Coke for my sister.
 
Here is my analysis, or interpretation if you like, of those three sentences:
 
*1:* This is correct, and consists of subject, verb, and adverbial phrase. The speaker has chosen to use the verb “to pay” intransitively so there is no direct object.
 
*2:* In this sentence the speaker may have wished to use either the verb ‘pay’ or ‘pay for’. If he meant the former, “paid” would have been used transitively—but the direct object is missing, and the direct object is what would have been necessary to pay to the indirect object: ‘the waiter’. If the speaker had meant the latter, the direct object of “paid for” is ‘the Coke’, and the sentence is fine if it stops there. But ‘to the waiter’ *has* been included, presupposing that the intended verb was “pay”; thus two different verbs are trying to serve contradictory purposes.
 
*3:* This sentence is fine—but it is ambiguous: without further information it might mean “I paid for my sister’s Coke,” or “I paid for the Coke on my sister’s behalf.”


----------



## panjandrum

johndot said:


> [...]
> 
> “To pay” may take the direct object ‘money’, or ‘attention’, or ‘a visit’. ‘A waiter’ is not the direct object of “to pay” because ‘a waiter’ is *who* you pay, not *what* you pay.
> [...]


By my, and the OED's, understanding, in the sentence "_I paid the waiter,_" _the waiter_ is the direct object.  The relevant definition of pay:
_*pay*
To give to (a person, organization, etc.) money that is due for goods received, a service done, a debt or obligation incurred, etc.; to remunerate._


----------



## ray8838

panjandrum said:


> In this example, $5 is the direct object, the waiter is the indirect object.>>>>agreed
> 
> This is not the same version of the verb _pay _that is used in:
> _I paid the waiter._
> - where the implication is that I settled the bill, completely, with the waiter.
> 
> >not agreed.  I paid the waiter (just without mentioning exactly what has been paid)
> 
> 
> Your example is, indeed, not using _pay for_ as a phrasal verb, as in:
> _I paid for the coke._>>>>not agreed.  I think the "pay....for" in my example is the same as in "I paid for the coke"  ."pay for " is separable because the verb "pay" can be transitive or intransitive.
> 
> On the other hand, there are different definitions of _phrasal verb_ depending on where you look >>agreed


----------



## panjandrum

ray8838 said:


> panjandrum said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]
> This is not the same version of the verb _pay _that is used in:
> _I paid the waiter._
> - where the implication is that I settled the bill, completely, with the waiter.
> >not agreed.  I paid the waiter (just without mentioning exactly what has been paid)
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with?
> The definition of pay that I quoted is transitive, with the payee (the waiter in this instance) as the object.
> 
> The implication of the sentence "I paid the waiter," is that I settled the bill.  If I had not paid the amount due, in total, I would have to modify the sentence.
Click to expand...


----------



## ray8838

johndot said:


> It seems to me that the two verbs of the title, “to pay” and “to pay for” are getting mixed up. The issue has become rather clouded.
> 
> Both verbs are transitive but the first *may* take a direct object, and the second, because of the preposition ‘for’, *must* take a direct object.
> 
> “To pay” may take the direct object ‘money’, or ‘attention’, or ‘a visit’. ‘A waiter’ is not the direct object of “to pay” because ‘a waiter’ is *who* you pay, not *what* you pay.>>>not agreed. "to pay the waiter" is OK.
> 
> “To pay for” takes the direct object ‘Coke’, ‘a service’, ‘one’s mistakes’. Quite obviously, ‘a waiter’ cannot be a direct object here, either.>>>not agreed.  "to pay for the waiter" may mean "to pay on behalf of the waiter"
> 
> In post #1 eddiemel7778 gives three sample sentences and asks if they are correct:
> 
> *1:* I paid the waiter for the Coke.
> *2:* I paid for the Coke to the waiter.
> *3:* I paid for the Coke for my sister.
> 
> Here is my analysis, or interpretation if you like, of those three sentences:
> 
> *1:* This is correct, and consists of subject, verb, and adverbial phrase. The speaker has chosen to use the verb “to pay” intransitively so there is no direct object. >>>agreed
> 
> *2:* In this sentence the speaker may have wished to use either the verb ‘pay’ or ‘pay for’. If he meant the former, “paid” would have been used transitively—but the direct object is missing, and the direct object is what would have been necessary to pay to the indirect object: ‘the waiter’. >>>>agreed
> If the speaker had meant the latter, the direct object of “paid for” is ‘the Coke’, and the sentence is fine if it stops there. But ‘to the waiter’ *has* been included, presupposing that the intended verb was “pay”; thus two different verbs are trying to serve contradictory purposes.
> >>>not agreed.  "pay....for..."  is the same as "pay for" , because "pay" can be transitive or intransitive.
> *3:* This sentence is fine—but it is ambiguous: without further information it might mean “I paid for my sister’s Coke,” or “I paid for the Coke on my sister’s behalf.”>>>agreed, but why do we need to be so precise??


----------



## sound shift

According to this http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O29-OBJECT.html some "grammarians" regard "the waiter" in "I paid the waiter" as a direct object and others see it as an indirect object.


----------



## ray8838

panjandrum said:


> ray8838 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with?
> The definition of pay that I quoted is transitive, with the payee (the waiter in this instance) as the object.
> 
> The implication of the sentence "I paid the waiter," is that I settled the bill.  If I had not paid the amount due, in total, I would have to modify the sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>To be precise, I agreed to the implication , as you mentioned, of the sentence, but I am just not sure what you are going to illustrate with this sentence.
> 
> Anyway, thanks for your feedback.  I really learn much from you guys.
Click to expand...


----------



## johndot

I’m sorry, panjandrum, I can’t agree with your comments in post #24 about ‘the waiter’ being the direct object of ‘I paid’. (I take note of sound shift’s post #28)
 
It may be that we’ll have to agree to differ on this matter, but before we do, I’d like to make these observations:
 
To my mind, the definitions of ‘to pay’ in Chambers 21st Century and Encarta make it quite clear that, where the verb is used transitively, it is ‘money’ which is the direct object (this from Encarta: *to pay*, give money for something; _transitive and intransitive verb_ to give somebody money for work done or for goods [...]).
 
We have agreed that this sentence is perfectly valid: “I paid the waiter 5€ for the Coke.” But if, as you suggest, ‘the waiter’ is the direct object—what does that make the 5€ ?
 
I will read sound shift’s link as soon as I have time; I’ll be genuinely interested to see what arguments are offered for the ‘waiter-as-direct-object’ line of thought.


----------



## panjandrum

Reading the definitions in the OED, including the one I quoted twice above, this verb can take three very distinct direct objects (not two as I suggested earlier - I overlooked bills ).

*An amount of money.*
OED definition II.2
_To give, transfer, or hand over (money, or its equivalent) in return for goods or services, or in discharge of an obligation; to deliver (a sum or amount owed)._
_I paid the waiter $5._ 
The direct object is $5; the waiter is the indirect object.
I paid $5 to the waiter.
I gave the girl a kiss.  I gave a kiss to the girl.

*A person, organisation, etc.*
OED definition II.3
_To give to (a person, organization, etc.) money that is due for goods received, a service done, a debt or obligation incurred, etc.; to remunerate._
_I paid the waiter._

*A requirement for payment.*
OED definition II.4
_To give money or goods in discharge of (a debt, tax, wage, ransom, etc.)._
_I paid the bill._


----------



## sound shift

johndot said:


> I will read sound shift’s link as soon as I have time; I’ll be genuinely interested to see what arguments are offered for the ‘waiter-as-direct-object’ line of thought.


Unfortunately, John, no arguments are offered. The page states merely that there are two schools of thought.


----------



## Loob

I very much like johndot's analysis in post 23. 

My instincts cry out against "the waiter" being a direct object of "to pay". If it's an indirect object in "I paid the waiter £5", I want it to be an indirect object in "I paid the waiter".

But I have been looking at my _Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English,_ which sees 5 basic "valency patterns" for verbs:
_(1) intransitive (subject + verb)_
_(2) monotransitive (subject + verb + direct object)_
_(3) ditransitive (subject + verb + indirect object + direct object)_
_(4) complex transitive (subject + verb + direct object + object predicative)_
_(5) copular (subject + verb + subject predicative)_

And it strikes me that (subject+verb+indirect object) is not a standard valency pattern.

I therefore (with some kicking and screaming) agree with panj that "the waiter" is the direct object in "I paid the waiter".

Sadly, I couldn't read sound_shift's link.


----------



## johndot

Unfortunately, John, no arguments are offered. The page states merely that there are two schools of thought. (sound shift, post #32)
 
Thank you, sound shift. I find that encouraging!
 
*pay*_
To give to (a person, organization, etc.) money that is due for goods received, a service done, a debt or obligation incurred, etc.; to remunerate._ (panjandrum, post #24)
 
panjandrum: (I assume the quote above is from the OED?) I agree entirely with the definition—it’s virtually word-for-word what is to be found in other dictionaries.
 
However, in this definition, and in others that you’ve furnished, there is no mention of the direct object—which doesn’t surprise me. This is *just* a definition, and only the entry-word is given its part of speech.
 
Nevertheless, the definition indicates to the reader how the word functions in a sentence and the crucial words in the extract above are “To give [...] money [...]” (my underlining). In other words, in order ‘to pay’ you give cash, or a cheque, or payment in kind... but you do *not* give waiters or drinks.
 
Furthermore, my understanding has always been that a direct object cannot have a preposition attached to it (either actually or implied), and that’s another reason for denying direct object status to the waiting staff.
 
(In post #31, panjandrum, you give OED definitions II.3 and II.4 but they’re not strictly on-topic so I’ll say only: I agree with them entirely, and, they alter nothing of what I’ve written here.)


----------



## Piotr_WRF

Oh my, what a mess has the loss of cases and declension created in the English language.


----------



## Loob

Piotr_WRF said:


> Oh my, what a mess has the loss of cases and declension created in the English language.


Piotr, there are (often) different ways to analyse any particular sentence.  I imagine the same is true for other languages.

I don't think the loss of case endings has very much to do with the present question


----------



## Piotr_WRF

Loob said:


> I don't think the loss of case endings has very much to do with the present question



What was the situation in Old English? Would _I paid five pounds_ and _I paid the waiter_ have the same form? I don't know but I'm really curious.


----------



## panjandrum

johndot said:


> [...]
> *pay*_
> To give to (a person, organization, etc.) money that is due for goods received, a service done, a debt or obligation incurred, etc.; to remunerate._(panjandrum, post #24)
> 
> panjandrum: (I assume the quote above is from the OED?) I agree entirely with the definition—it’s virtually word-for-word what is to be found in other dictionaries.[...]


As stated in my post, the quotation is from the OED.

I'm surprised that you agree with the definition - in which _pay _is said to be the equivalent of _give to_ and _remunerate _- yet have difficulty in accepting _the waiter_ as the direct object of _pay_, used in this way.

Each OED definition indicates in parentheses what is the object of the verb in this particular usage.

What, I wonder, is the object of _pay _in _He who pays the piper calls the tune_?

This conversation supports the view that soundshift quoted earlier - there are two schools of thought.


----------



## johndot

And it strikes me that (subject+verb+indirect object) is not a standard valency pattern. (Loob, post #33)
 
Quite right, Loob, and I say that this backs up my argument!
 
When chatting or writing informally you might indeed say “I paid the waiter.” But let’s be honest—it’s not a complete sentence, is it? Would you, without preamble, blurt out “I paid the waiter”? No, I don’t think so, because it’s not a complete idea—which is what a ‘proper’ sentence must be. What you are in reality saying is “I paid for the drinks,” and the conversational shorthand of “I paid the waiter” is accepted because it’s readily understood.
 
Let’s try another tack: how would our original sentence be declined if we still used all six Latin cases?
 
I paid the waiter 5€ for the drinks
 
I = nominative (subject)
paid = verb
the waiter = dative (because the money went to him)
5€ = accusative (direct object of verb, the ‘thing’ that was paid)
for the drinks = dative (because the money paid for them)


----------



## Orange Blossom

johndot said:


> Nevertheless, the definition indicates to the reader how the word functions in a sentence and the crucial words in the extract above are “To give [...] money [...]” (my underlining). In other words, in order ‘to pay’ you give cash, or a cheque, or payment in kind... but you do *not* give waiters or drinks.
> 
> Furthermore, my understanding has always been that a direct object cannot have a preposition attached to it (either actually or implied), and that’s another reason for denying direct object status to the waiting staff.



A person or organization can be the direct object of pay.

I paid the landlord. <-- Landlord is the direct object of paid.  I certainly cannot be an indirect object in this case.

I paid $5 dollars toward my rent. <-- $5 is the direct object in this sentence.

Now, what if I combine the two sentences?  Suddenly paid becomes a verb with both a direct object and an indirect object.

I paid the landlord $5 toward my rent. <-- In this case, landlord is the indirect object and $5 is the direct object.  This is why I can rewrite the sentence as follows:

I paid $5 to the landlord toward my rent. <-- $5 is still the direct object.

From post 1:



> Can I say like this: "I paid for the coke to the waiter"?



No, because waiter in this case waiter needs to function as the direct object of "paid" regardless of whether the verb is 'paid' or "paid for".



> "I paid for the coke for my sister"?



As I stated earlier, this can work if the speaker is using the sister's money to pay for the coke.  The speaker is paying on the sister's behalf.

I paid for my sister's coke. <-- This has a different meaning.  This means I used my money to pay for my sister's coke.

Orange Blossom


----------



## ray8838

Orange Blossom said:


> A person or organization can be the direct object of pay.
> 
> 
> 
> From post 1:
> 
> Can I say like this: "I paid for the coke to the waiter"?
> 
> No, because waiter in this case waiter needs to function as the direct object of "paid" regardless of whether the verb is 'paid' or "paid for".
> 
> >>>>basically agreed, but please note that the sentence works well with the verb "paid" not "paid for", while I argure that "paid for" is itself not a verb or phrasal verb, but is just "verb+preposition".
> 
> The above sentence can be rewritten with the verb "paid" in order to be grammatical, as:-
> I paid the waiter for the Coke; or
> I paid something ($5) to the waiter for the Coke;
> I paid something ($5) for Coke to the waiter.
> 
> However, If you treat "paid for" as a verb/phrasal verb, I don't know where I should place ' the waiter"??? You can only rewrite the sentence as follows:
> 
> I paid for the Coke. (full stop) "the Coke" is the so called "direct object" in this case., then where should I put the "indirect objects" "the waiter" as well as the $5???? (more than one indirect objects???)


----------



## sound shift

ray8838 said:


> I paid for the Coke. (full stop) "the Coke" is the so called "direct object" in this case., then where should I put the "indirect objects" "the waiter" as well as the $5???? (more than one indirect objects???)



Then you would say "I paid the waiter $5 for the Coke."

(I don't think "to pay for" is a phrasal verb, as the meaning is apparent from the words themselves.)


----------



## ray8838

sound shift said:


> Then you would say "I paid the waiter $5 for the Coke."
> 
> (I don't think "to pay for" is a phrasal verb, as the meaning is apparent from the words themselves.)>>>exactly


----------



## Loob

Whether or not people accept that there is a phrasal verb "pay for" depends on their definition of phrasal verb.  I do see "pay for" as a phrasal verb; so does my _Collins Cobuild Phrasal Verbs Dictionary_.

That said, in _I paid the waiter $5 for the Coke,_ the verb is "pay" not "pay for".


----------

