# Indirect v.s. Direct Object



## sageo

Hello everyone,
I am doing a search on direct and indirect objects and so far this is what i have found: 
A direct object is a noun that follows a transitive verb.
For example, I took the paper. Paper = direct
An indirect object is a noun that receives whatever the action is. For example, I gave someone the paper or I gave the paper to someone. someone = indirect.
If I missed anything on the indirect/direct objects or if there is anything anyone would want to add please do so.


----------



## Sr. Moose

You're doing great, sageo!  Though, your example _"I gave the paper to someone"_ does not contain an indirect object.  In this instance, _"to someone"_ is a prepositional phrase:

_"Mom cooks us a fantastic dinner every Thanksgiving."_ (indirect object)
_"Mom cooks a fantastic dinner for us every Thanksgiving."_ (prepositional phrase)

All of your other statements, on the hand, are perfect.


----------



## sageo

What exactly are indirect questions and direct questions?


----------



## Lucretia

_



I gave the paper to someone" does not contain an indirect object. In this instance, "to someone" is a prepositional phrase.
		
Click to expand...

_
Sorry, I disagree, Sr.Moose. *Someone* is an indirect object. We're talking about functions, aren't we? OK, if you say _I gave someone the paper_, will its function change? Quite obviously not.
_Prepositional phrase_ can have different functions, that's why this kind of parsing is not precise.


----------



## elroy

Lucretia, the view you adopt represents one way to look at it, but not *the* way.

To me (and to most other people), "to me" does not contain an indirect object.


----------



## Lucretia

So, in 
_Give *me *the paper_ and _Give the paper to *me*_ they have different functions? I am the same object in both, the same action. Just a different place. Isn't it so?


----------



## elroy

The express the same idea but they have different grammatical classifications.

"To" is a preposition in English (unless it's part of an infinitive or unusual construction like "he came to") so what comes after it is an object of a preposition - no more, no less.  It can express a variety of ideas, but that's irrelevant.

This is the traditional approach.  As I said above, there are alternative views that would consider the object of "to" an indirect object - just like you.

English arguably has too many prepositions, and a lot of what we express using prepositions is expressed in other languages with an inflection.  Since English is not an inflected language, however, we must rely on prepositions - and it's simply much more straightforward to classify all the objects they govern as simply that: objects of prepositions.  If we were to worry about what they were expressing in each case, we would have to come up with all kinds of new grammatical categories.


----------



## ireney

Sorry to barge in the discussion but this is something that has always confused me (from a theoretical point of view). 

I am not saying that that the prepositional phrase _is_ (in this case) the indirect object. I mean I always classify it as one in my mind for convinience's sake (since this is how it is classified in Greek) but it doesn't follow I am right.

However aren't we really talking about two different things? Grammatical and syntactical role/definition?

For instance in Lucretia's examples 
*Give me the paper* 
*Give the paper to me*
for instance, "the paper" is grammatically a noun and syntactically a direct object as I see it.
"me" (1st sentence) is grammatically a pronoun and syntactically an indirect object
"to me" (2nd sentence) is grammatically a prepositional phrase and syntactically an indirect object.

Again, I am not saying I am right in these assumptions but I would really love a clarification on the terms.


----------



## elroy

Hm...to me an "indirect object" has always been a grammatical classification (an "object of a preposition" too) - but your approach is interesting.  

I don't know if it's widespread, but it certainly makes sense!


----------



## okey-dokey

ireney said:


> Sorry to barge in the discussion but this is something that has always confused me (from a theoretical point of view).
> 
> I am not saying that that the prepositional phrase _is_ (in this case) the indirect object. I mean I always classify it as one in my mind for convinience's sake (since this is how it is classified in Greek) but it doesn't follow I am right.
> 
> However aren't we really talking about two different things? Grammatical and syntactical role/definition?
> 
> For instance in Lucretia's examples
> *Give me the paper*
> *Give the paper to me*
> for instance, "the paper" is grammatically a noun and syntactically a direct object as I see it.
> "me" (1st sentence) is grammatically a pronoun and syntactically an indirect object
> "to me" (2nd sentence) is grammatically a prepositional phrase and syntactically an indirect object.
> 
> Again, I am not saying I am right in these assumptions but I would really love a clarification on the terms.


 
Isn't grammar (in the spoken language) an analysis of syntax, morphology and phonology?


----------



## ireney

Mea culpa but, well, I needed two terms didn't I? I know that "grammar" is really all-inclusive but I admit to sinning and using the Greek convention we sometimes employ (just because it takes less time/is simpler to say that "X is grammatically this and syntactically that " than "X is such a part of  speech and has this syntactical function"


----------



## okey-dokey

In Quirk et al's grammar the analysis is like this:

*Give me the paper* 
_Me_ is called an indirect object and _the paper_ a direct object.

*Give the paper to me *
_To me_ is a prepositional object and _the paper_ a direct object.

They reserve the expressions _indirect_ and _direct object_ for objects (of ditransitive verbs) that have no leading preposition, and _prepositional object_ for those that do have a leading preposition.

They also use _prepositional object_ for ditransitive verbs that have an indirect object when the other object is lead by a preposition. For example, _warn_ as in _Kate warned Jack of the dangers_.


----------



## river

Here's another way of looking at it:

Only the indirect object can be paraphrased by a prepositional phrase functioning as an *adverbial*, beginning with either _to_ or _for_. The choice of the preposition is governed by the main verb of the clause. 
We gave _her_ (IO) _everything_ (DO). ​We gave _everything_ (DO) _to her_ (A). 

http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/grammar/cl_io.htm​


----------



## Lucretia

Yes, our grammars are different and I don't think it's worth any effort to find out which of them deserves to be called traditional. I've dealt with grammar since the Beatles' Magical Mystery Tour  and I've never heard that after a preposition words cease to be indirect objects.
OK, further debates seem to be pointless.


----------



## okey-dokey

river said:


> ... Only the indirect object can be paraphrased by a prepositional phrase functioning as an *adverbial*, beginning with either _to_ or _for_. The choice of the preposition is governed by the main verb of the clause.


 
I think this says that when there is an indirect object and a prepositional phrase the latter can not be lead by _to_ or _for_. However the following sentence is an example with for:

He blamed her for the divorce.
_Her_ is the indirect object.

I would be wary of any rules laid down in grammar books. One can always find counter examples.


----------



## LV4-26

ireney said:
			
		

> "to me" (2nd sentence) is grammatically a prepositional phrase and syntactically an indirect object.


I tend to agree with the general idea (apart from the terminology). But I differ in that I think the indirect object can't include the preposition. Therefore in both sentences, the indirect object is "_me_" (alone, without the _to)_..

As far as vocabulary goes, I'd talk of _part of speech_ where you use _grammatically_ and _function_ where you use _syntactically._
Hence,
*me*, part of speech = pronoun, function = indirect object.


----------



## stallcombe

Examples: I saw Mary last week;, Mary is the Direct <object, on the other hand in the sentence I gave Mary a bunch of flowers, Mary is the indirect Object. You can find as information as you like on Randolph Quirk's grammar.


----------



## okey-dokey

stallcombe said:


> Examples: I saw Mary last week;, Mary is the Direct <object, on the other hand in the sentence I gave Mary a bunch of flowers, Mary is the indirect Object. You can find as information as you like on Randolph Quirk's grammar.


 
... if you can afford it!


----------



## modus.irrealis

I had a debate on this issue on these boards a while ago, and I ended up doing a lot of reading on it and I thought I'd add what I found out, although a lot of this might be repeating stuff in earlier posts. In one paper* I found, three main approaches were outlined for analyzing sentences like

I gave her (O1) a gift (O2)
I gave a gift (O) to her (PP)

It says the traditional, pre-modern analysis was that O1 and PP were both called indirect objects and O and O2 direct objects. So the entire "to her" is the indirect object (my guess is probably because they both translate a Latin dative).

The next analysis was to separate O1 and PP and call only the first an indirect object, and the latter is just a prepositional phrase. It seems to have developed out of something like Irene's point, except that the criticism was, using the paper's terminology, that O1 and PP share a semantic role but differ syntactically (since one can be made the subject of the passive sentence but not the other), so a grammatical analysis should distinguish them.

The final analysis is very different, at least on the surface, since it calls O1 and O primary objects and O2 a secondary object, and PP is still a prepositional phrase. Basically the idea here is that O1 and O share more grammatical properties than O2 and O do.

Sorry for a longish post and repeating other people's points, but some of these questions of how to analyze sentences can be pretty fascinating.

* If any one's interested, I'd be happy to give the reference.


----------



## Thomas1

ireney said:


> Sorry to barge in the discussion but this is something that has always confused me (from a theoretical point of view).
> 
> I am not saying that that the prepositional phrase _is_ (in this case) the indirect object. I mean I always classify it as one in my mind for convinience's sake (since this is how it is classified in Greek) but it doesn't follow I am right.
> 
> However aren't we really talking about two different things? Grammatical and syntactical role/definition?
> 
> For instance in Lucretia's examples
> *Give me the paper*
> *Give the paper to me*
> for instance, "the paper" is grammatically a noun and syntactically a direct object as I see it.
> "me" (1st sentence) is grammatically a pronoun and syntactically an indirect object
> "to me" (2nd sentence) is grammatically a prepositional phrase and syntactically an indirect object.
> 
> Again, I am not saying I am right in these assumptions but I would really love a clarification on the terms.


 
I think you’re on to something.
I’d say that _to me_ is a prepositional phrase which, if I remember well, functions as an adverbial if we are speaking of its syntactical function in a clause and it functions as a complement if we are speaking of its syntactical function in a phrase.

I came across the term _oblique object_ that refers to any object like element of a clause which is introduced by a proposition. 
Taking your examples into consideration:
*Give me the paper*
give – verb
me - indirect object
the paper – direct object

*Give the paper to me*
give – verb
to me - oblique object
the paper – direct object

Here you can note hardly any difference between them since they both represent the “beneficiary”.
The difference between the two (i.e. _oblique _and_ indirect objects_) is more visible when the oblique object is introduced by a different preposition, let’s use your example and add a “donor” to it:
Take the paper *from Tim* and give it *to me*.

Here you can clearly see that in the first clause it couldn’t be an indirect object since _take Tim the paper _rather won’t do. _To me_ is semantically corresponding to _me_ in our sentence but if you take into consideration _from Tim_ there come up some problems.

There are also differences in passivization of such sentences. The ones with _indirect objects _can be passivized and the ones with_ oblique objects_ rather not.

Tom


----------



## sageo

> It seems to have developed out of something like Irene's point, except that the criticism was, using the paper's terminology, that O1 and PP share a semantic role but differ syntactically (since one can be made the subject of the passive sentence but not the other), so a grammatical analysis should distinguish them.





> There are also differences in passivization of such sentences. The ones with _indirect objects _can be passivized and the ones with_ oblique objects_ rather not.


What is the passivization do you guys are talking about?


----------



## Thomas1

sageo said:


> What is the passivization do you guys are talking about?


The thing is that you can make an indirect or direct object a subject of a your sentence when you turn it into passive, e.g:
_He gave her a rose._
-dO --> subject 
_A rose was given her (by him)._
-iO --> subject
_She was given a rose (by him)__._

However, if you use adverbial
_He gave a rose to her._
It cannot be rephrased as:
_She was given a rose to by him._

_Tom_


----------



## sageo

Thanks a lot to everyone who have helped me on this. =D


----------



## Maicolnait

In my point of view, the important thing is the meaning. If two sentences as
*



Give me the paper
give – verb
me - indirect object
the paper – direct object

Give the paper to me
give – verb
to me - oblique object
the paper – direct object

Click to expand...

* 
have different meaning, grammar has to find the way to express that differences. Call them Indirect Object or Prepositional Phrase or Oblique object, it doesn't matter.
*Give me the paper*
The important thing is that somebody has to *Give me* something.

*Give the paper to me*
The important thing is that you have to *Give the paper* to someone. 

Different meaning, different structure (mentally and grammatically speaking). Do I speak my mind?


----------



## Outsider

I disagree, Maicolnait. I see absolutely no difference _in meaning_ between those two sentences. If there is a difference, it's the morphology and the syntax.


----------



## LV4-26

I agree (and disagree) with both of you.
The use of the structure Verb + Direct Object + to + NP (as in _give the paper to me_) can 

1. result from a wish to stress the recipient, i.e. _give the paper *to me*, not to anybody else._

2. be a simpler way of wording the sentence when the IO/PP/OO/whateveryouwannacallit is too long.
Give the man in the crowd with the multicoloured mirrors on his hobnail boots the paper 
Give the paper to the man in the crowd with the multicoloured mirrors on his hobnail boots 
(by kind permission.... )


----------



## okey-dokey

LV4-26 said:


> I agree (and disagree) with both of you.
> The use of the structure Verb + Direct Object + to + NP (as in _give the paper to me_) can
> 
> 1. result from a wish to stress the recipient, i.e. _give the paper *to me*, not to anybody else._ But you can also stress me in _Give *me* the paper._
> 
> 2. be a simpler way of wording the sentence when the IO/PP/OO/whatever-you-wanna-call-it is too long.
> Give the man in the crowd with the multicoloured mirrors on his hobnail boots the paper
> Give the paper to the man in the crowd with the multicoloured mirrors on his hobnail boots
> (by kind permission.... )


----------



## ireney

Just to say a big "thank you" for all of you who by your posts gave me better ways to describe what I called "grammatically" being unsure what the right term would be to describe what I meant by that (after thinking about it a bit more I decided that I don't like "part of speech" either since a phrase cannot be called "part of speech" really, or can it?  ).

As for the meaning: Let's take the following example.

A:So, *I gave the paper to George* and told him [.....].
B:But you didn't tell me how he reacted to the news
A: Well, I don't know! I* gave him the paper*, told him blah blah blah and left.

The same meaning isn't it? 

That said, I am still struggling to get in grips with the need to complicate things. Why shouldn't we call the "to someone" and indirect object? Let's take another example:

I gave him the paper. Unless I am mistaken, we all agree that "him" is an indirect object in this case. Now let's suppose I am hard of hearing or just looking out the window or thinking of my boyfriend and I haven't noticed Who you gave the paper to. And I ask. What will the answer be? "To him" right? Or "I gave the paper to him" if you feel like wasting breath and give me the full sentence implied by "to him". Does that mean that the indirect object "him" changes function in this case?

Hope you can make sense of that little piece of brilliant composition!


----------



## LV4-26

okey-dokey said:
			
		

> But you can also stress me in _Give *me* the paper_.


You can. Would you?


----------



## Outsider

ireney said:


> As for the meaning: Let's take the following example.
> 
> A:So, *I gave the paper to George* and told him [.....].
> B:But you didn't tell me how he reacted to the news
> A: Well, I don't know! I* gave him the paper*, told him blah blah blah and left.
> 
> The same meaning isn't it?
> 
> That said, I am still struggling to get in grips with the need to complicate things. Why shouldn't we call the "to someone" and indirect object? Let's take another example:
> 
> I gave him the paper. Unless I am mistaken, we all agree that "him" is an indirect object in this case. Now let's suppose I am hard of hearing or just looking out the window or thinking of my boyfriend and I haven't noticed Who you gave the paper to. And I ask. What will the answer be? "To him" right? Or "I gave the paper to him" if you feel like wasting breath and give me the full sentence implied by "to him". Does that mean that the indirect object "him" changes function in this case?


I would call it an indirect object in both cases, though this may be because in Portuguese the two constructions are interchangeable.


----------



## ireney

Outsider that's where my problem lies. In Greek the preposition doesn't change its function either. That's why I call it "indirect object" in my mind for convenience's sake. However it's not Portuguese or Greek we are talking about (though I am glad to hear that Portuguese are sensible too   )


----------



## Lucretia

> Now let's suppose I am hard of hearing or just looking out the window or thinking of my boyfriend and I haven't noticed Who you gave the paper to. And I ask. What will the answer be? "To him" right? Or "I gave the paper to him" if you feel like wasting breath and give me the full sentence implied by "to him". Does that mean that the indirect object "him" changes function in this case?


Attagirl, Irene!


----------



## modus.irrealis

Thomas1 said:


> The thing is that you can make an indirect or direct object a subject of a your sentence when you turn it into passive, e.g:
> _He gave her a rose._
> -dO --> subject
> _A rose was given her (by him)._


I have to say that, in my variety of English at least, you can't say this -- you'd have to say "A rose was given to her." And if someone asked me, I would say it's not Standard English, but I wonder what others think.



ireney said:


> That said, I am still struggling to get in grips with the need to complicate things. Why shouldn't we call the "to someone" and indirect object?



Because if you distinguish them, you can make neat rules like "in English, the indirect object can become the subject of a passive sentence" which would be false if you called both things indirect objects. It just makes it more convenient to distinguish them if you want to explain what's going on. And isn't it like active and passive sentences, where you could say that "Mary" and "by Mary" have the same function in "Mary murdered him" and "He was murdered by Mary?"


----------



## Outsider

modus.irrealis said:


> And isn't it like active and passive sentences, where you could say that "Mary" and "by Mary" have the same function in "Mary murdered him" and "He was murdered by Mary?"


Semantically, you can say that "Mary" is the agent in both sentences.

Syntactically, though, "Mary" is the subject of the first sentence, but a complement in the second. The subject of the second sentence is "he".

In the sentences "Give me the paper" and "Give the paper to me", though, there is neither a semantic difference between "him" and "to him", nor any particularly relevant syntactic difference.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Outsider said:


> In the sentences "Give me the paper" and "Give the paper to me", though, there is neither a semantic difference between "him" and "to him", nor any particularly relevant syntactic difference.



I agree with the parts you didn't quote which is why I disagree with you here, because there are many syntactic differences, one being whether it can become the subject of a passive sentence, e.g. "He donated money to the hospital" cannot become "The hospital was donated money" even though "to the hospital" has the same semantic role as "to me" in "He gave the paper to me." The biggest difference perhaps is that you can predict whether a verb can use both ways of expressing the "indirect object" solely on the basis of the meaning, so it just seems to be a useful distinction to make.


----------



## Thomas1

modus.irrealis said:


> I have to say that, in my variety of English at least, you can't say this -- you'd have to say "A rose was given to her." And if someone asked me, I would say it's not Standard English, but I wonder what others think.
> 
> 
> 
> [...]quote]
> 
> Thanks for the comment. When I was writing that I also thought it was a little off. Though, I remember I studied that and the author gave similar examples, I will search for them and if manage to dige them up surly post them.
> 
> What would you say about the following:
> _Bill gave her the name Ringo._
> _She was given the name Ringo by Bill_
> _The name Ringo was given her by Bill._
> 
> In the meanwhile I found this type of word order on the Net:
> a large tract of land *was given him by* the town of Pequot
> http://www.google.pl/search?hl=pl&q=%22was+given+him+by&lr=
> 
> His real education *was given him by* the writings of Voltaire and the Encyclopedists, and by the example of Frederick the Great.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor
> 
> 
> The ''Ronzo'' end of his name *was given him by his* Zeta Tau Alpha ''sorority sisters,”
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/magic_and_magicians/index.html?s=oldest&
> 
> Now I am starting to have doubts if it is indeed possible but the examples I found seem to be okay. I’d also like to see what others (preferably natives--but each comment will be of value) would say.
> 
> Tom


----------



## modus.irrealis

Thomas1 said:


> What would you say about the following:



What I understand is that whether native English speakers find them acceptable or not varies, but for me they all sound wrong, and I'd like to see either a "to" inserted before the "him/her" or see them rewritten with a different subject.


----------



## okey-dokey

modus.irrealis said:


> I agree with the parts you didn't quote which is why I disagree with you here, because there are many syntactic differences, one being whether it can become the subject of a passive sentence, e.g. "He donated money to the hospital" cannot become "The hospital was donated money" even though "to the hospital" has the same semantic role as "to me" in "He gave the paper to me." The biggest difference perhaps is that you can predict whether a verb can use both ways of expressing the "indirect object" solely on the basis of the meaning, so it just seems to be a useful distinction to make.


 
By _it can become_ do you mean _it is acceptable_?

I agree that "The hospital was donated money" sounds a bit odd but you do hear it especially in the form, "They were donated money."


----------



## Outsider

modus.irrealis said:


> I agree with the parts you didn't quote which is why I disagree with you here, because there are many syntactic differences, one being whether it can become the subject of a passive sentence, e.g. "He donated money to the hospital" cannot become "The hospital was donated money" even though "to the hospital" has the same semantic role as "to me" in "He gave the paper to me." The biggest difference perhaps is that you can predict whether a verb can use both ways of expressing the "indirect object" solely on the basis of the meaning, so it just seems to be a useful distinction to make.


Three questions:

1) Is "indirect object" a semantic or a syntactic notion? My impulse would be to say that it is semantic, but your definition would make it syntactic. I admit that it has some appeal, though.

2) Couldn't you just as well say that it is the verb "to donate" which conventionally requires a preposition after it?

3) What are the other differences?


----------



## Maicolnait

Outsider says:


> I disagree, Maicolnait. I see absolutely no difference _in meaning_ between those two sentences. If there is a difference, it's the morphology and the syntax.


I find difficult to share your opinion. If we accept that one sentence changes its meaning depending on the context (literal o real) where it appears, how am I going to accept that different sentences possess the same meaning? Perhaps (that is the point!!) you are considering irrelevant what I am not: First: meaning; Second: sintaxis.


----------



## Outsider

Maicolnait said:


> If we accept that one sentence changes its meaning depending on the context (literal o real) where it appears, how am I going to accept that different sentences possess the same meaning?


I don't follow you. Two different sentences can obviously have the same meaning. Otherwise, translation between languages would be impossible! 
Even different nouns in the same language can have the same meaning.


----------



## okey-dokey

Outsider said:


> Three questions:
> 
> 1) Is "indirect object" a semantic or a syntactic notion? My impulse would be to say that it is semantic, but your definition would make it syntactic. I admit that it has some appeal, though.
> 
> 2) Couldn't you just as well say that it is the verb "to donate" which conventionally requires a preposition after it? But _donate_ doesn't require a preposition any more than _give_ does.
> 
> 3) What are the other differences?


----------



## Thomas F. O'Gara

Sageo:

To set aside these polemics and address your second question in your second post, and indirect question is one that is imbedded in a statement, e.g., "He asked me if he could go to the store."

"Can I go to the store?" would be a direct question.


----------



## Outsider

okey-dokey said:


> But donate doesn't require a preposition any more than give does.


It does, between itself and the beneficiary of the donation.


----------



## okey-dokey

Outsider said:


> It does, between itself and the beneficiary of the donation.


 
I disagree. As evidence, here are some sentences from the British National Corpus that have active verb groups using _donated_.

At the same time, Hawker Siddeley offered to make the one I would use, and other firms donated equipment and food.

Central Council is very grateful to all those who donated prizes or sold tickets to help reach this excellent result. 

A few local shops also donated bookshelves.

Darlington Health Authority have donated office furniture and Mr Duck, of Carpet Market, and Colin I'Anson have donated and laid the carpet in the reception area.

These and many others are examples of donate without a following preposition just as the pattern for verb _give_.


----------



## gaer

Maicolnait said:


> *Give me the paper*
> The important thing is that somebody has to *Give me* something.
> 
> *Give the paper to me*
> The important thing is that you have to *Give the paper* to someone.


I'm a bit surprised that more people have not disagreed with you.

I see a difference in structure, but I don't see a difference in meaning if the sentence is simple statement without any stress, which in my opinion is quite possible. However:


1) *Give* me the paper.
2) Give _*me*_ the paper.
3) Give me the _*paper*_.

1) *Give* the paper to me.
2) Give the *paper* to me.
3) Give the paper to *me*.

Number one seems very odd to me, because it would imply that you are stressing the verb. In other similar sentences with different verbs, stressing the verb might be more useful:

*E-mail *the paper to me. (Don't send it using regular mail.)

Two puts stress on what is being given: the paper.

Three puts stress the receiver? Who is receiving the paper?

To me it is stress rather than structure that makes the emphasis clear.

Gaer


----------



## Outsider

okey-dokey said:


> At the same time, Hawker Siddeley offered to make the one I would use, and other firms donated equipment and food.
> 
> Central Council is very grateful to all those who donated prizes or sold tickets to help reach this excellent result.
> 
> A few local shops also donated bookshelves.
> 
> Darlington Health Authority have donated office furniture and Mr Duck, of Carpet Market, and Colin I'Anson have donated and laid the carpet in the reception area.


Those are not the *beneficiaries of the donation*.


----------



## okey-dokey

Outsider said:


> Those are not the *beneficiaries of the donation*.


 
Pardon me but have I said there are? I'm simply refuting your statement that donate has to take a preposition. My examples show that it does not. Or, to put it another way, there does not have to be a beneficiary.


----------



## gaer

okey-dokey said:


> Darlington Health Authority *have?* donated office furniture and Mr. Duck, of Carpet Market, and Colin I'Anson *have?* donated and laid the carpet in the reception area.
> 
> These and many others are examples of donate without a following preposition just as the pattern for verb _give_.


Surely "Mr. Duck" must be followed by "has". Is "Authority", used in this way, plural in BE?

Gaer


----------



## Outsider

okey-dokey said:


> Pardon me but have I said there are? I'm simply refuting your statement that donate has to take a preposition. My examples show that it does not.


And that's a straw man, because I was talking about *what comes between those verbs and the beneficiary* of the action. Please read my posts more carefully, before "refuting" claims they never made.


----------



## modus.irrealis

okey-dokey said:


> By _it can become_ do you mean _it is acceptable_?


Yes, and being sloppy I didn't explicitly say it, but I always meant, in my English, because I've found out lots of these acceptability judgments vary.



> I agree that "The hospital was donated money" sounds a bit odd but you do hear it especially in the form, "They were donated money."


For me, personally, that sounds just as odd (albeit perfectly understandable).



Outsider said:


> 1) Is "indirect object" a semantic or a syntactic notion? My impulse would be to say that it is semantic, but your definition would make it syntactic. I admit that it has some appeal, though.


My point was that such a distinction should be made. I do prefer "indirect object" for the syntactic notion, and there are terms like "recipient" or "beneficiary" (when the preposition is "for") that I feel are more directly related to the semantic aspect, but it's just terminology, so I don't think what the actual terms are is all that important (if we can live with terms like "voice" and "case" which don't give any clue to what they mean, any other term should do).



> 2) Couldn't you just as well say that it is the verb "to donate" which conventionally requires a preposition after it?


Yes, of course, although since all such verbs can take the preposition (as far as I can tell), it seems the exceptions that should be listed are those than can have the preposition-less indirect object. I'm not sure if that answers your question, though.



> 3) What are the other differences?


What I'm about to say is only valid for the English I speak, and other people might disagree with my judgments, but here goes:

If the direct object is "it," I have to use the preposition, so "I gave it to her" and not "I gave her it."

I can insert words before the indirect object when it has the preposition but not when it doesn't, so "I gave the money, I tell you, to _her_" but not "I gave, I tell you, _her_ the money."

In questions, only the preposition form can be used, so "Who did you bake the cake for?" but not "Who did you bake the cake?" (Although it might be possible with "give" -- I don't know, but after thinking about it, I feel a "to" is necessary at the end -- but certainly not with "bake").

Those are some differences for me.


----------



## okey-dokey

gaer said:


> Surely 1 "Mr. Duck" must be followed by "has". 2 Is "Authority", used in this way, plural in BE?
> 
> Gaer


 
1. Mr. Duck and and Colin I'Anson have ...

2. This has been the subject of many threads. In general when the subject has the sense of organised human endeavour the present tense verb phrase can take the plural form in BE. However, you hear both forms used.


----------



## gaer

okey-dokey said:


> 1. Mr. Duck and and Colin I'Anson have ...


Oops!  
I misread this part:

Mr Duck, of Carpet Market, *and* Colin I'Anson have…

No question here.


> 2. This has been the subject of many threads. In general when the subject has the sense of organised human endeavour the present tense verb phrase can take the plural form in BE. However, you hear both forms used.


 
Thank you for the concise answer. I was aware that there are many "subjects" of this sort that are plural in BE but nut in AE. For some reason I missed the threads discussing the underlying principle. I guess that "authority" is one these words.

Now, back to direct and indirect objects. Sorry if I got off-topic… 

Gaer


----------



## okey-dokey

modus.irrealis said:


> Yes, and being sloppy I didn't explicitly say it, but I always meant, in my English, because I've found out lots of these acceptability judgments vary.
> 
> For me, personally, that sounds just as odd (albeit perfectly understandable).
> 
> 
> My point was that such a distinction should be made. I do prefer "indirect object" for the syntactic notion, and there are terms like "recipient" or "beneficiary" (when the preposition is "for") that I feel are more directly related to the semantic aspect, but it's just terminology, so I don't think what the actual terms are is all that important (if we can live with terms like "voice" and "case" which don't give any clue to what they mean, any other term should do).
> 
> Yes, of course, although since all such verbs can take the preposition (as far as I can tell), it seems the exceptions that should be listed are those than can have the preposition-less indirect object. I'm not sure if that answers your question, though.
> 
> What I'm about to say is only valid for the English I speak, and other people might disagree with my judgments, but here goes:
> 
> If the direct object is "it," I have to use the preposition, so "I gave it to her" and not "I gave her it."
> 
> I can insert words before the indirect object when it has the preposition but not when it doesn't, so "I gave the money, I tell you, to _her_" but not "I gave, I tell you, _her_ the money."
> 
> In questions, only the preposition form can be used, so "Who did you bake the cake for?" but not "Who did you bake the cake?" (Although it might be possible with "give" -- I don't know, but after thinking about it, I feel a "to" is necessary at the end -- but certainly not with "bake").
> 
> Those are some differences for me.


 

If the direct object is "it," I have to use the preposition, so "I gave it to her" and not "I gave her it." Certainly in BE you can hear "I gave her it for her birthday." 

I can insert words before the indirect object when it has the preposition but not when it doesn't, so "I gave the money, I tell you, to _her_" but not "I gave, I tell you, _her_ the money." And also with adverbials: "I gave the money willingly to her" and *"I gave willingly her the money."

In questions, only the preposition form can be used, so "Who did you bake the cake for?" but not "Who did you bake the cake?" (Although it might be possible with "give" -- I don't know, but after thinking about it, I feel a "to" is necessary at the end -- but certainly not with "bake"). But only in questions that have a WH-pronoun that refer to the indirect object in the context - such as _who_ and _what_.


----------



## okey-dokey

gaer said:


> Thank you for the concise answer. I was aware that there are many "subjects" of this sort that are plural in BE but nut in AE. For some reason I missed the threads discussing the underlying principle. I guess that "authority" is one these words.
> 
> ...
> Gaer


 
It's not authority but rather _Darlington Health Authority_. It's like a local council or local government body.


----------



## Maicolnait

Gaer said:


> I'm a bit surprised that more people have not disagreed with you.


Perhaps other trheads keep them amused...

What I'm trying to explain, and perhaps the previous two sentences are not helping to me, is that different sentences, different structures, have "to carry" a difference in meaning between them.
Grammar is a natural device whose main function is to communicate ideas or feelings. If grammar has developed different structures is because these structures are necessaries to express different meanings. I don't find another reason.

Outsider said:


> I don't follow you. Two different sentences can obviously have the same meaning. Otherwise, translation between languages would be impossible!
> Even different nouns in the same language can have the same meaning.


Has the sentence "translator, traitor" got any sense to you?
What I'm trying to say is that on the origins of the languages' birth was, mainly, the necessity to communicate different ideas or feelings. Because of that necessity our brain articulated different sintaxis or ways to create words and sentences. The only reason that I find for the existence (ethimologicaly speaking) of different words, structures, etc, is because they *have to* mean different things, becaus *it belongs to its deep nature*. Have you got a different explanation for this?


----------



## okey-dokey

Outsider said:


> And that's a straw man, because I was talking about *what comes between those verbs and the beneficiary* of the action. Please read my posts more carefully, before "refuting" claims they never made.


 
OK. I must have got lost in the various arguments there seem to be in this thread. Apologies.


----------



## gaer

Maicolnait said:


> If grammar has developed different structures [it] is because these structures are necessaries to express different meanings. I don't find another reason.


I'm sure you meant to put "it" in your sentence, right?

I think different ways of saying the same thing develop for many reasons other than the need to express different meanings. Certainly this might be true in some situations, but I can't agree that it is always so. Perhaps you don't mean "in all cases". Am I misinterpreting your point?

Gaer


----------



## panjandrum

I'm a late arrival to this thread, bemused by what might keep people engaged for so many posts.  I've read to this point, but may have missed the messages.



Maicolnait said:


> [...] Grammar is a natural device whose main function is to communicate ideas or feelings. If grammar has developed different structures is because these structures are necessaries to express different meanings. I don't find another reason. [...]?


That is a very courageous statement.
In English, there are usually many different ways of saying exactly the same thing using different grammatical structures.  

*Sometimes* the choice of structure communicates something different.  But just because it can does not mean it must.

Donate can be used with a single object or (with a preposition) two objects.

I may donate a plastic monkey.
But you have no idea what is to happen to this monkey.
I cannot tell you without using a preposition.
I may donate a plastic monkey to Children in Need.

I couldn't possibly say:
I will donate Children in Need a plastic monkey.

But I could give Children in Need a plastic monkey.


----------



## Maicolnait

I'm sure you meant to put "it" in your sentence, right?
Gaer said:


> I think different ways of saying the same thing develop for many reasons other than the need to express different meanings. Certainly this might be true in some situations, but I can't agree that it is always so. Perhaps you don't mean "in all cases". Am I misinterpreting your point?


 
Thank you so, Gaer, for correcting my mistakes. I hope my poor English could be anyway understandable.

It's a difficult question for me. There are many people all over the world that can not find the difference between, let's say, to steal and to rob. Look at the Inuit people; they've got more than ten different ways to name the* white* colour (for recent snow, for ice close to collapse or to break, for ice, etc).We can make the use of language that we consider depending on the situation we are involve: depending on *our culture*, in the widest meaning of the word. I believe I am not the most suitable person to say if there are sentences, structures, words, etc that mean *exactly the same* in a particular context or situation, or in a particular language, of course (my level of knoledgement are really short, as you can easily check , sorry for that). We have to take into consideration that our current grammar it has been suffering a very long and painful process of skimming or selection. I do really think that we, as human beings, are today less "animals" than we were two thousands years ago, and one of the reasons is that that we speak more properly, accurately. What I try to establish -to myself- is a clear point of departure; *first: meaning, then: sintaxis.*
Perhaps I am wrong: I'm not trying to persuade anyone.
And I promise stop talking right now. Sorry for the brick.


----------

