# you're telling me



## yakor

Hello,
 according to the dictionary (this or one else)

*you're telling me* ⇒  slang  I know that very well....If it is transitive then the object is omitted here. The omitted object is "that" ot "it" (You're telling me that(it))  I don't see "me" as the direct object of "telling".


----------



## Loob

What is your question, yakor?


----------



## yakor

Loob said:


> What is your question, yakor?


Well, which is the object of "tell" here:"it" ot "that" omitted or is it "me"?


----------



## Cagey

I would say that both _it_ and _me_ are objects of _'tell'_.  However, we can also distinguish between them: _it_ is the direct object, _me_ is the indirect object.  This difference is apparent in a sentence like: _She told it to me._***

I agree with the dictionary's explanation of how we use _"you're telling me." _However,  the phrase exists as an idiom, and for the most part we don't analyze it as you have done.  To me, _You're telling me!_ s approximately equivalent to _"You're telling me something I already know very well and agree with._"  But I don't think about that when someone says it to me.  Instead, I feel pleased because they are expressing enthusiastic agreement with what I just said, whatever it was.  

***For a fuller explanation, see the British Council's Learning English website's page on double object verbs.


----------



## PaulQ

The problem is that “You’re telling me!” is never said on its own. It is a response to the preceding remark, that remark becomes the direct object:

A: “Did you see that? It’s huge!”
B: “You’re telling me!” = “You......are telling..........me.............that it is huge.”
....................................Subject....verb.........indirect object.....direct object


----------



## yakor

Cagey, In my origin question I asked about whether "me" is a direct object or not. I didn't ask whether "me" is an object/


----------



## PaulQ

...and I answered your question...


----------



## yakor

PaulQ said:


> //subject....verb.........indirect object.....direct object


Ok, so, I was right that "me" is an indirect object. We also have this idiom. But I was not sure that "me" is an indirect object in English.(in Russian "me" is an indirect object)
Also, I wonder what the phrase "Don't try to tell me" could mean. "me" is an indirect object, too?


----------



## yakor

PaulQ said:


> ...and I answered your question...


Thank you too


----------



## PaulQ

I don't immediately recognise "Don't try to tell me" as being similar: perhaps some context might help me? A sentence?


----------



## e2efour

In a phrase like _tell me the truth_ we have one of a number of verbs that take two objects. 
Whether or not you call _me_ an indirect object is a matter of convention. 

Note that we don't have a dative case in English as you do in Russian, so any explanation saying that _tell me_ means _tell to me_ is spurious.


----------



## PaulQ

I think that might be a little unhelpful: there is no doubt that the indirect *[to/for] me* is translated one way in Russian, whereas the direct object *me *is translated in another way and, if memory serves, so with all pronouns and nouns. If Yakor takes the 'convention' of direct and indirect objects, then it will be of great help him (and many others.)


----------



## yakor

Sorry, but I can't get you both  now. (((
Is "me" an indirect object in "You are telling me!"??(idiom)


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> Note that we don't have a dative case in English as you do in Russian, so any explanation saying that _tell me_ means _tell to me_ is spurious.


"me" is a direct object in the idiom"You are telling me!"?
As far as I know, every indirect object in English could be used with the preposition "to", when it is put after the direct object.
Maybe,"tell to" is some phrasal verb, so, "tell to me" and "tell me" is not the same thing. Also, "me" could be the direct object, so "tell me" could mean something else...
I just gave the concrete example. And asked about it. Not about if "tell me" and "tell to me" mean the same thing always. In my example it means the same thing, because "me" is an indirect object here. Or not?


----------



## yakor

PaulQ said:


> If Yakor takes the 'convention' of direct and indirect objects, then it will be of great help him (and many others.)


I can't get what you mean. They are different, anyway.


----------



## e2efour

In _You're telling me!_ you are asking what _me_ is.
Answer: _me_ is an object. What do you mean by the terms _direct object_ and _indirect object_?

Cagey has suggested that the phrase is an idiom, in which case what is the point of analysing it?


----------



## Cagey

yakor said:


> Cagey, In my origin question I asked about whether "me" is a direct object or not. I didn't ask whether "me" is an object/


  I thought I was answering your question here: 





Cagey said:


> I would say that both _it_ and _me_ are objects of _'tell'_.  However, we can also distinguish between them: _it_ is the direct object, _me_ is the indirect object.


----------



## yakor

Cagey said:


> :


Thanks,Cargey! So, "me" is an indirect object, while "it", being a direct object, is omitted. 
Could you tell me the case when "me" is an direct object after "tell"?


----------



## e2efour

yakor said:


> Could you tell me the case when "me" is an direct object after "tell"?



"You are late," he told me.
You're telling me!


----------



## yakor

But "me" is an indirect object in both cases.


----------



## Cagey

yakor said:


> Thanks,Cargey! So, "me" is an indirect object, while "it", being a direct object, is omitted.
> Could you tell me the case when "me" is an direct object after "tell"?


Native speakers don't always make a distinction between an indirect and direct object.  As e2efour says, there is no difference in form, so often the distinction does not seem to be useful to native speakers.  

I can't think of a case in which 'me' would be a direct object in the same way 'story' is, for instance, in "Tell a story."  

Please see the British Council's "Learn English" page on double object verbs. 
It includes 'tell' among its list of verbs taking to and an indirect object and offers these general rules:

5. If the *indirect o*bject is a *long phrase *we normally use *to *or *for*:​He showed his ticket *to the policeman standing by the door*.​
6. If the *indirect object *is a *pronoun *we normally use the N + V + N + N pattern:​I poured *him *another drink.​
There are some self-checking exercises at the bottom of the page which may interest you.


----------



## yakor

But I agree with you. I can't get the previous answer where it is said that "me" is a direct object.Why?
Is any case when "me" is a direct object after "tell"?


----------



## Cagey

As I said, native speakers are not taught to make that distinction.  

If it is useful to you and you understand it in this case, that seems sufficient, no?


----------



## e2efour

This is what the OED says:_"trans._ _to tell a person_ (the originally indirect or dative personal object becoming the direct)."

_Tell_ (a transitive verb) is followed by a direct object in (3) and the indirect object and direct object are reversed in (1). 

(1) Sit down and tell me about it. (Here _me_ is the direct object)]
(2) Listen carefully and tell me the truth. (Here _me_ is the indirect object)
(3) "I can't marry you, she told me, "because I don't love you." (Here there is only object, the direct object _me_).


----------



## Raynes

Not sure I want to get involved in this can of worms, but here goes...

The following came up in a Google search: 'An *indirect object* is a word or phrase that informs to whom or for whom something is being done. It can be a person, an animal, or a thing.' Here's the link: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/foreign-...indirect-objects-and-indirect-object-pronouns
So 'me' is the indirect object as the recipient of the information. 'He told that to me' = 'subject, transitive verb, direct object, indirect object', as previously mentioned. 

I'll put this forward as an attempt at a construction with 'me' as a direct object (feel free to shoot me down): 'John told Mary about me.' What do we think? Have I ruined it with the 'about'?


----------



## PaulQ

yakor said:


> Ok, so, I was right that "me" is an indirect object.


You should translate *me* as an indirect object in the dative.





> We also have this idiom. But I was not sure that "me" is an indirect object in English.(in Russian "me" is an indirect object)


Yes, I know.





> Also, I wonder what the phrase "Don't try to tell me" could mean. "me" is an indirect object, too?


For the purpose of translation, yes, you should treat *me* as an indirect object.


----------



## Cagey

Raynes said:


> [....]
> I'll put this forward as an attempt at a construction with 'me' as a direct object (feel free to shoot me down): 'John told Mary about me.' What do we think? Have I ruined it with the 'about'?


You haven't ruined the grammar, which is fine, but the sentence isn't an example of 'me' as a direct object.  'Me' is the object of the preposition 'about'.  

Here is _me _as a direct object:  _John heard me talk about Mary. _


----------



## e2efour

How can you have an indirect object when there is only one object? In _He told his brother_ we have a direct object (Od), not an indirect object (Oi). *A single object is always an Od.*

_Tell_ often has two objects (technically it is a _ditransitive_ verb) and when we have this structure (without a preposition) we have an Oi and an Od in that order.
_John told Mary the truth. _(_Mary_ is the Oi and _the truth_ is the Od)_
John told Mary about me. _(_Mary_ is the Od and _about me_ is a prepositional phrase. Here _me_ is just an object as Carey said. You can call it a direct object if you want, but this is not necessary.)

We do not have a "dative" in English (although we used to). Semantically, you can talk about the_ recipient (He gave me the money). _
When there are two objects like this, the recipient goes immediately after the verb.
You cannot switch the recipient with the_ Od (He gave the money me.). _Instead you have to use a preposition:_ He gave the money *to* me. _


----------



## wandle

We can say 'He gave it me'.


----------



## PaulQ

e2efour said:


> How can you have an indirect object when there is only one object? In _He told his brother_ we have a direct object (Od), not an indirect object (Oi). *A single object is always an Od.*


This might be so, but it is not the whole truth:

"John told the news to Mary and Mary told Jane." Jane is the indirect object with the implicit direct object "the news"[1]



> *Tell *often has two objects (technically it is a _ditransitive_ verb) and when we have this structure (without a preposition) we have an Oi and an Od in that order.
> _John told Mary the truth. _(_Mary_ is the Oi and _the truth_ is the Od)_
> John told Mary about me. _(_Mary_ is the Od and _about me_ is a prepositional phrase. Here _me_ is just an object as Carey said. You can call it a direct object if you want, but this is not necessary.)


If you call it a direct object, this would involve having, according to you, two direct objects, which on the face of it does not seem possible. 

The indirect object answers "to/for whom/what" / "to the benefit of whom/what."
The direct object answers "what/whom" (no *to *or *for*).

_John told Mary about me. -> _Mary is the indirect object. She is the person *to whom* John spoke about me.

Anything else is a Procrustean solution.



> We do not have a "dative" in English (although we used to). Semantically, you can talk about the_ recipient (He gave me the money). _
> When there are two objects like this, the recipient goes immediately after the verb.
> You cannot switch the recipient with the_ Od (He gave the money me.). _Instead you have to use a preposition:_ He gave the money *to* me. _


When the dative was common, *me *as an indirect object was considered dative and implied *to/for me*. It still does.

Were it popular to teach cases in English, we would have:

Nominative......Accusative.......Genetive........ Dative
......I..................me.................mine........[to/for] me

In languages that declare themselves to have cases, knowing the above is a useful guide to the learner. It may be wise to tell the student that linguists do not consider (i) the adjectives *direct *and *indirect *or (ii) the names of the cases, or (iii) even the concept of cases, to be relevant, but nevertheless, it helps. 

On the other hand, there are levels of learning, and the advanced learner or those with ambitions towards the academic side will need to know accurately how English is viewed.

[1] 


> As we've seen, an Indirect Object usually co-occurs with a Direct Object. However, with some verbs an Indirect Object may occur alone:
> 
> _  David told the children_
> 
> although we can usually posit an implicit Direct Object in such cases:
> 
> _ David told the children the news_


http://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/function/inobj.htm


----------



## e2efour

PaulQ said:


> "John told the news to Mary and Mary told Jane." Jane is the indirect object with the implicit direct object "the news".



If you’re adding words, you could equally well add “Mary told the news to Jane”, which is not an example of an indirect object as I have described it.



PaulQ said:


> _John told Mary about me._
> If you call _me_ a direct object, this would involve having, according to you, two direct objects, which on the face of it does not seem possible.



What do you think ditransitive means, except to imply the existence of two objects? There are two objects in this sentence, one of which is a prepositional object. _Told_ is used monotransitively here, which means that _me_ must be a direct object (if we use this term).



PaulQ said:


> The indirect object answers "to/for whom/what" / "to the benefit of whom/what."
> The direct object answers "what/whom" (no *to *or *for*).
> 
> _John told Mary about me. -> _Mary is the indirect object. She is the person *to whom* John spoke about me.



We are not talking about _speak_. _Tell_ is the relevant verb: “She is the person *who *John *told* me about.” Where is the indirect object here?

Why do you insist on the need for _tell_ to have an indirect object? Do you not accept the sentence _She told me last week_? I can only see one object here, which means it must be a direct object.
It's all very well saying that semantically she must have told me _about something_, but that's not the form of words used here.

What is the difference between _she told me_ and _she informed/apprised/notified_/_promised me_? It you take a semantic approach, you could say that verbs like _inform_ involve the existence of a _recipient._ Such verbs have to be learnt individually. _I told him the truth_ is unlike _I informed him the truth. __I told my father the news_ is unlike _I explained my father the news _or_ I informed my father of the news._

To summarise, the terms _indirect object _and _direct object_ come from traditional grammar. There is no need for them. We do not have a dative case in modern English and words like _dative_ should only be used with reference to a language in which nouns are declined. It may be helpful when teaching English to analyse sentences in terms of recipients and beneficiaries, but that is a semantic approach.


----------



## e2efour

wandle said:


> We can say 'He gave it me'.


This is a variant limited to pronouns.
Quirk et al. would say that it is an informal variant of _He gave it to me_ and that it is BE.

Whether or not it's acceptable in AE I am not sure.


----------



## ewie

Surely if you're translating from English to Russian (or another language that uses cases), *all* you need to know is that English _me_ can be *either* direct or indirect object: you just need to pick the one that makes sense in Russian (etc.).


----------



## PaulQ

e2efour said:


> PaulQ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "John told the news to Mary and Mary told Jane." Jane is the indirect object with the implicit direct object "the news".
> 
> 
> 
> If you’re adding words, you could equally well add “Mary told the news to Jane”, which is not an example of an indirect object as I have described it.
Click to expand...

Did you see the word, ‘implicit’?


> PaulQ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _John told Mary about me._
> If you call _me_ a direct object, this would involve having, according to you, two direct objects, which on the face of it does not seem possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think ditransitive means, except to imply the existence of two objects?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Did you see the word “direct”?





> There are two objects in this sentence, one of which is a prepositional object.


I would prefer “prepositional phrase acting as the direct object.” Cf. _John told Mary the joke._


> PaulQ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The indirect object answers "to/for whom/what" / "to the benefit of whom/what."
> The direct object answers "what/whom" (no *to *or *for*).
> 
> 
> 
> We are not talking about _speak_. _Tell_ is the relevant verb: “She is the person *who *John *told* me about.” Where is the indirect object here?
Click to expand...

”John told me about who(m) -> me = i.o., (See “prepositional phrase acting as the direct object.” Cf. _John told Mary the joke.)_

John gave Mary a present.

Mary is the person to whom John gave a present.

Does that help?





> Why do you insist on the need for _tell_ to have an indirect object?


because it is a ditransitive verb (if you know what that means…)





> Do you not accept the sentence _She told me last week_? I can only see one object here, which means …


… that you did not read the footnote in my post above nor took note of the word 'implicit'.





> To summarise, the terms _indirect object _and _direct object_ come from traditional grammar. There is no need for them.


Well, that is certainly one opinion.





> We do not have a dative case in modern English and words like _dative_ should only be used with reference to a language in which nouns are declined. It may be helpful when teaching English to analyse sentences in terms of recipients and beneficiaries, but that is a semantic approach.


I think you will see that this is what I said. And I would add that the ideas of direct and indirect objects are valuable to native English speakers who may wish to study other languages.


----------



## e2efour

ewie said:


> Surely if you're translating from English to Russian (or another language that uses cases), *all* you need to know is that English _me_ can be *either* direct or indirect object: you just need to pick the one that makes sense in Russian (etc.).



That's true. But if you are a Russian speaker and want to translate to English, you want to avoid mistakes like _He said me_ and _He told to me_ or _He allowed to me_. A knowledge of what is meant by indirect and direct objects will help you in these cases.


----------



## yakor

Raynes said:


> The following came up in a Google search: 'An *indirect object* is a word or phrase that informs to whom or for whom something is being done. It can be a person, an animal, or a thing.' Here's the link: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/foreign-...indirect-objects-and-indirect-object-pronouns
> So 'me' is the indirect object as the recipient of the information. 'He told that to me' = 'subject, transitive verb, direct object, indirect object', as previously mentioned.


I totally agree with it. So, in "I'm telling you", or "You are telling me!" "me" and "you" are the indirect objects. They mean the persons to whom something is being told. But I'm not sure why you tell that you put this forward as an attempt at a construction with 'me' as a direct object??


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> This is what the OED says:_"trans._ _to tell a person_ (the originally indirect or dative personal object becoming the direct)."
> 
> _Tell_ (a transitive verb) is followed by a direct object in (3) and the indirect object and direct object are reversed in (1).
> 
> (1) Sit down and tell me about it. (Here _me_ is the direct object)]
> 
> (3) "I can't marry you, she told me, "because I don't love you." (Here there is only object, the direct object _me_).


I see "me" as an indirect objects here, because "me" means the person-recipient of the information. You give the information to me while telling something to me.


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> How can you have an indirect object when there is only one object?
> _......
> John told Mary about me. _(_Mary_ is the Od and _about me_ is a prepositional phrase. Here _me_ is just an object as Carey said. You can call it a direct object if you want, but this is not necessary.)


But the other object, the direct one, is just simply omitted. Why not? It is so used to omit words in speech when sense is saved.  
Yes, "about me" is a prepositional phrase, and this prepositional phrase, as a part/member of the sentence, is a direct object of  the verb "told"(John told (to whom?)Mary(the indirect object), John told (what?) about me)


----------



## e2efour

To PaulQ:

I suggest you address what is said in the OED (see my post #24).

Modern grammar analyses the sentence _We bought some shoes for them_ as "some shoes" = direct object, "for them" = prepositional phrase complement (PPC), "them" = prepositional object. Some traditional grammarians call _for them_ or _them _an indirect object.

This sentence is not the same as _We bought them some shoes_, in which there is an indirect object (_them_) followed by a direct object (_some shoes_).


----------



## e2efour

yakor said:


> But the other object, the direct one, is just simply omitted. Why not? It is so used to omit words in speech when sense is saved.
> Yes, "about me" is a prepositional phrase, and this prepositional phrase, as a part/member of the sentence, is a direct object of  the verb "told"(John told (to whom?)Mary(the indirect object), John told (what?) about me)



I would be interested to see how you analyse _He told me last month. _How does it differ from _He asked me last month_?


----------



## Einstein

If the concept of the indirect object creates problems, we can say that in these cases "tell" means the same as "inform", so that "me" becomes a direct object.


----------



## PaulQ

e2efour said:


> I would be interested to see how you analyse _He told me last month. _How does it differ from _He asked me last month_?


What did he tell/ask you? Whatever it was, that was the direct object.



Einstein said:


> If the concept of the indirect object creates problems, we can say that in these cases "tell" means the same as "inform", so that "me" becomes a direct object.


Yes, as in the more obvious, "He hit me." and "He gave me the present."


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> I would be interested to see how you analyse _He told me last month. _How does it differ from _He asked me last month_?


He-subject
told me last month-extended predicate
told-simple predicate
me-indirect object
last month-adverbial(adverb phrase)
.....
In _"He asked me last month_", "me" is a direct object, while all the rest is the same as in _He told me last month._
And  I see the difference because we have two different verbs with different  meanings. The verb "ask" implies the direct object inside itself.
He asked...=He had got a question/request about/of something...
When  you use the verb "tell" it is not clear what someone tells...(a story, a  truth, some information)So "tell" needs the direct object from this  list. Using "tell" only with "me" doesn't clarify the situation without  the context.
When you inform someone(direct object), it is clear that you gave some information to him.
When you tell someone (if it is considered to be the direct object) what do you do to someone?


----------



## e2efour

There is no difference between _ask_ and _tell. _They are both ditransitive verbs (having two objects), and sometimes monotransitive verbs (having one object).

Compare the following sentences:
1a _He told me a secret._ (ditransitive)
1b _He asked me a favour_. (ditransitive)
In both cases _me_ is the indirect object and comes straight after the verb.

2a _He told his father. __(monotransitive)_
2b _He asked his father_. (monotransitive)
In both cases _his father_ is the direct object (as it must be since there is no indirect object).

3a _"You are mad, he told her.”_
3b _"Are you mad," he asked her. _
In both cases _her_ is the direct object.

4a _He told me about the accident._
4b _He asked me about the accident._
In both cases you have a direct object (_me_) and a prepositional object (_the accident_).

In 2a, 3a and 4a you can replace _tell_ with _inform. _But you cannot do this with 1a, when you must say_ He informed me of a secret._

_You cannot analyse these sentences from the point of view of your language, since ask__ and tell__ take different cases (and 1b is like 4b)_.


----------



## ewie

e2efour said:


> That's true. But if you are a Russian speaker and want to translate to English, you want to avoid mistakes like _He said me_ and _He told to me_ or _He allowed to me_. A knowledge of what is meant by indirect and direct objects will help you in these cases.


Yes but in that case it's not _me_ you need to know (because that's invariable), it's how the verb _tell_ works (I'm only addressing _tell_ here as that is was the original subject of this thread).


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> 2a _He told his father. __(monotransitive)_
> 2b _He asked his father_. (monotransitive)


I'm not sure that I know what these sentenses mean without a context.


_


e2efour said:



			You cannot analyse these sentences from the point of view of your language, since ask..
		
Click to expand...

_


e2efour said:


> _ and tell__ take different cases (and 1b is like 4b)_


He asked me to walk with him.
He told me a story.
These  verbs are different and they take diferent cases. So, I don't  understand how one could tell there is no difference between them(((
I think, in"You are telling me!", "me" is an indirect object, but the whole phrase means"No need to tell me about it, I know it perfectly".
"You are telling me" came from "You are telling me about it!"
"You are telling me!" is an ellipsis, having become the slang phrase.


----------



## e2efour

_He asked/told me to walk with him._
I did not give any examples of this structure (verb + direct object + infinitive).

The sentence _He told me a story_ is an example of an indirect object + direct object.

What do you mean by "they take different cases"? _Me_ is an object pronoun, used as an indirect or a direct object. Its form does not change depending on whether it is a direct or an indirect object. It makes no sense to talk about different cases unless you're speaking a language like German or Russian.

_You're telling me_ is an idiom. How do you know it *means* "You are telling me about it"? It has more than one meaning, depending on how it is spoken.


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> _You're telling me_ is an idiom. How do you know it *means* "You are telling me about it"? It has more than one meaning, depending on how it is spoken.


Yes. it's an idiom, which came whether from the line"You are telling me about it" or "You are telling me it". But these lines are  uttered with the same intonation and have the same meaning, so it doesn't matter from which line this idiom came from. We deal with an ellipsis. Also, according to 
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tell?s=t
14. to give an account or report: Tell me about your trip.,

the verb" tell is used without an object.
I think they mean that "tell" has no direct object here. "me" is an indirect object. It is what I mean. Although I would tell that about your trip is an direct object((( Nothing clear.


----------



## e2efour

Let's see what the OED says:

"you're telling me, there is no need to tell me; I know that only too well."

Any mention of _tell me about it_ or _telling me it_ has nothing to do with this phrase. There is no ellipsis.

The dictionary you quote gives _verb (used without an object)_ and then gives a phrase with an object! Need I say more?


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> The dictionary you quote gives _verb (used without an object)_ and then gives a phrase with an object! Need I say more?


Sorry, but I see "me" after "tell" and "me" is an object (direct or indirect-I don't know)
"You are telling me!"-"You are telling me what I know"or "You are telling me about what I know"...something like that.


----------



## e2efour

The dictionary should have said _can be used without an object._


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> The dictionary should have said _can be used without an object._


Which object?


----------



## e2efour

Any object_. _The example given in the dictionary is_ Who can tell?_


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> Any object_. _The example given in the dictionary is_ Who can tell?_


 I don't understand what you say and I doesn't have the answer on my question, because I see different opinions here.
"Who can tell"? Where did you see it? 
I asked about "me" in "Tell me about your trip" and "You are telling me!".
"me" is an object, this dictionary tells there is no object with "tell". It's strange((


----------



## yakor

This souce http://www.e-grammar.org/direct-indirect-object/ tells that 2. We can use the verbs _promise_, _show_, and _tell_ with the indir. object only, but without a preposition. Compare the examples:
_I can't promise you._ (Or: _I can't promise it to you._)
_Show him._ (Or: _Show it to him._) 
_Can you tell me?_
So, "me" "him" "you" are the indirect objects. It is possible to use indirect objects only, without the direct objects.
So, "me" in "You are telling me!" is an indirect object.(You are telling me the known thing, the things I know and so on..)


----------



## e2efour

I think it is important to make a difference between _semantics_ and _syntax_.
Broadly speaking, syntax deals with what is grammatically correct, while semantics deals with meaning.
Something may be syntactically incorrect but semantically correct. For example, _I no like _has some meaning (semantically), but it is not grammatical (syntactically incorrect). The semantically incorrect (i.e.; meaningless) and well-known sentences _Colourless green idea sleep furiously_is perfectly grammatical (correct syntax).

When we talk about indirect object and direct object, we are firstly using traditional terms, and secondly we are taking a semantic approach. Modern grammar deals with objects not with indirect and direct objects, since they cannot be identified by _case_ (English has no case system for nouns, although it does have a limited case system for pronouns (_I_ and _me_, _we_ and _us_ etc.)). They can sometimes be identified by position (_He gave me a book), _where the indirect object comes immediately after the verb.

Your original question was about an idiom (_You're telling me_). There is only one object in this sentence (_me_). Any other object is created semantically. You can only identify the semantic indirect object either by position in the sentence or by using semantic terms, such as the _recipient_ (_She gave me an apple) _or the _beneficiary_ (_I bought her a new dress)._ 

But what is the situation in sentences like _Tell me truthfully: have you seen him? _You could argue (semantically) that this is equivalent to saying _Tell me _(indirect object)_ something _(direct object, i.e_. _whether you have seen him)_. _But in _Tell me truthfully_ there is only one object. Likewise in _Please call me a taxi, she told him._There is a rule that if there is only one object, it is called the direct object. In other words, an indirect object can only exist if there is also a direct object. However, traditional grammarians sometimes refer to this single object as an indirect object.

I have explained that _tell_ can be used with one or with two objects. Examples using one object: _She told me off, "Don't eat that," she told him, Can you tell me? _Examples using two objects: _Tell me the truth, They told me the answer._

There is one solution to your confusion. Traditionally, there are different views about the terms direct object and indirect object. In Russian you have no problem in deciding what the indirect object is, because of the dative case. You could (*and I strongly recommend you to do this*) take the view that all that matters is identifying an object. Trying to distinguish indirect objects from direct objects can be like searching for the holy grail. Stop looking for it! All these verbs (like _promise_, _show _etc.), which sometimes have indirect objects and sometimes do not have indirect objects_, _often have different grammatical patterns. Compare _Her mother told her to go to bed_ and _He said to her, "Go to bed_." The meaning of _told_ here is _asked_ (which does not have an indirect object, except semantically in sentences like _She asked her a question_) or _ordered_, and both these verbs are followed by the infinitive. _Said_, on the other hand, must be followed by the preposition _to_ if it is used with a pronoun.

I will finish by quoting the view of a traditional grammar (Quirk et al.):
"Some (people) apply the term 'direct object' to an indirect object if it is the only object (e.g. you in _I'll show you_ or his children in _He's teaching his children_). Others again apply the term 'object' exclusively to the first (or only) object."

These two points of view are those of the traditionalists (_Some_ ...) and the modernists (_Others ..._).

I hope that some of the above is of help to you.


----------



## yakor

Thank you, I think I should open the new thread about the direct and indirect  object in English. I think it is important for a foreign student to get  if the object means _recipient and_ _beneficiary_ or it means thing(someone) on which the action  spreads "I'll show you" could mean "I'll show you to my parents" (you is  the direct object)
"I'll show you my parents"(you is the indirect object)
As to "_He's teaching his children_", I don't see how "his children" could be the indirect object, even if it means "He's teaching his children to swim".
The  phrase "his children" means the object on which the action of the  subject "he" spreads. "his children" is the direct object, the object  which 
experiences the action of the subject.


----------



## Loob

yakor said:


> I think I should open the new thread about the direct and indirect  object in English.


Yakor, different grammarians have different views.

If you're thinking that opening a new thread will result in a single, definitive view, then - I'm sorry, that's not going to happen


----------



## Phil-Olly

e2efour said:


> Let's see what the OED says:
> 
> "you're telling me, there is no need to tell me; I know that only too well."
> 
> Any mention of _tell me about it_ or _telling me it_ has nothing to do with this phrase. There is no ellipsis.
> 
> The dictionary you quote gives _verb (used without an object)_ and then gives a phrase with an object! Need I say more?



Sorry, can't resist adding my tuppence worth.

In the above example: "You're telling me (indirect object), there is no need to tell me (indirect object); I know that (direct object) only too well."  Seems crystal clear to me.


----------



## Einstein

In "he taught us French", "French" is the direct object, while "us" is indirect: he taught French to us.
In "he taught us", "us" is the direct object. He instructed us.

Passives formed from indirect objects - "he was given a present", "you've been told a lie" - cause a lot of problems for foreign students of English. Unfortunately they also seem to cause problems for text-book authors, who blithely present "he was given a present" as a normal example of the passive (where the student would instinctively say "a present was given to him"). The problem is ignored and the teacher has to sort it out with the students.


----------



## yakor

Loob said:


> Yakor, different grammarians have different views.
> 
> If you're thinking that opening a new thread will result in a single, definitive view, then - I'm sorry, that's not going to happen


  No, I would like to meet one single finite view)))


----------



## yakor

Phil-Olly said:


> Sorry, can't resist adding my tuppence worth.
> 
> In the above example: "You're telling me (indirect object), there is no need to tell me (indirect object); I know that (direct object) only too well."  Seems crystal clear to me.


Sorry, but I agree with what you tell. too. What did you want to tell by it?


----------



## yakor

Einstein said:


> In "he taught us French", "French" is the direct object, while "us" is indirect: he taught French to us.
> In "he taught us", "us" is the direct object. He instructed us.
> 
> Passives formed from indirect objects - "he was given a present", "you've been told a lie" - cause a lot of problems for foreign students of English. Unfortunately they also seem to cause problems for text-book authors, who blithely present "he was given a present" as a normal example of the passive (where the student would instinctively say "a present was given to him"). The problem is ignored and the teacher has to sort it out with the students.


You mean that everything is correct?
"He was given a present" is OK to say as well as "The present was given to him"?


----------



## Phil-Olly

yakor said:


> Sorry, but I agree with what you tell. too. What did you want to tell by it?



I know you and I agree.  It was for e2efour's benefit.  I thought he was quoting the OED somehow to prove his point, not ours!


----------



## Chasint

yakor said:


> You mean that everything is correct?
> "He was given a present" is OK to say as well as "The present was given to him"?


Yes.

"He was given a present"
"He was asked a question"
"He was told a lie"

All correct.


----------



## e2efour

yakor said:


> Sorry, but I agree with what you tell. too. What did you want to tell by it?



I think you would find it more useful to study how a verb like _tell_ is used, rather than trying to find "indirect objects".


----------



## yakor

Biffo said:


> Yes.
> 
> "He was given a present"
> "He was asked a question"
> "He was told a lie"
> 
> All correct.


You mean that it is correct for every case where the construction "verb+indirect object+direct object" is met/occures?
Could every indirect object be presented as a direct object with the verb in passive?(I was allowed to come in. I was brought a present)


----------



## Chasint

yakor said:


> You mean that it is correct for every case where the construction "verb+indirect object+direct object" is met/occures?
> Could every indirect object be presented as a direct object with the verb in passive?(I was allowed to come in. I was brought a present)


I hesitate to say in every case. That would take too long to check. However:

I was allowed to come in. 

 I was brought a present. 

Notes

1. Maybe you should start a new thread.
2. Things get even worse. 'Monotransitive' verbs can have an indirect object.


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> I think you would find it more useful to study how a verb like _tell_ is used, rather than trying to find "indirect objects".


But why is it wrong to use "tell" here? Should I use "say"? "tell" could be used as "say", couldn't it?


----------



## yakor

Biffo said:


> I hesitate to say in every case. That would take too long to check. However:
> 
> I was allowed to come in.
> 
> I was brought a present.


Thank you, Could you tell me the reason, why I can't use "tell' in my #62 post?


----------



## Chasint

yakor said:


> Thank you, Could you tell me the reason, why I can't use "tell' in my #62 post?


Please repeat the sentence in question. I'm not sure exactly which part you are referring to.


----------



## e2efour

Instead of _tell _you have to say:

_I agree with what you say/you are saying._
_What did you want to say by this? _(Better is _What did you mean by this?_)


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> Instead of _tell _you have to say:
> 
> _I agree with what you say/you are saying._
> _What did you want to say by this? _(Better is _What did you mean by this?_)


But "tell" could be used instead of "say" according to the dictionary.(but only "say" is not used instead of "tell)
He told/said to open the door.
He said that it was/is correct.
He told me that it was/ys correct.
So, I can't get where I'm mistaken/


----------



## yakor

Biffo said:


> Please repeat the sentence in question. I'm not sure exactly which part you are referring to.


Please read the last post where we discuss it. I'm questioning the use of "tell" instead of "say".


----------



## Phil-Olly

"Tell" is rarely used without an (indirect) object, e.g.

"He told me where to go, but I didn't understand what he was telling me."
or
"He told me where to go, but I didn't understand what he was saying."

There are odd exceptions, usually in the imperative, when "Oh, do tell me what happened!" gets shortened to "Oh, do tell." 
or in the negative,
"I'll tell the teacher what you did!"  "Oh, no.  Please, don't tell."


----------



## yakor

Biffo said:


> 1. Maybe you should start a new thread.
> 2. Things get even worse. 'Monotransitive' verbs can have an indirect object.


Yes, I should. What do you mean? For example?


----------



## yakor

Phil-Olly said:


> "Tell" is rarely used without an (indirect) object, e.g.


I agree. "Tell" means "communicate information". "Communicating" something couldn't be without a receiver.
But I meant "tell", not "say. (We are communicating by writing here, not using live speech) I should have written, "What did you want to tell me by this(these words, in this sentence)", yes?


----------



## Aspara Gus

yakor said:


> *you're telling me* ⇒  slang  I know that very well


It's not slang; it's a standard idiom in AmE.


----------



## Chasint

yakor said:


> Yes, I should. What do you mean? For example?


Hit me.  (punch me - direct object)
Hit a ball. (strike a ball with a bat - direct object)

Example of "hit" with indirect objects
 
Note: In tennis "a winner" can mean "a winning shot".

Tennis coach to player: _In your next match I want you to go out there and hit me some winners._  (This means "hit some winning shots against your opponent _for_ me")
Tennis player to coach: _Okay. In that case, during practice,   I need you to hit me some easy shots._ (This means "hit some easy shots _to_ me")

Now, wrestling this back on topic, let's look at the difference between "say" and "tell."

"Tell me a story."  (Tell a story _to_ me)

"Say me a prayer." (Say a prayer to God _for_ me)


______________________________________________________________________
*Say Me a Prayer*
If in my sleep tonight I cut the ropes
And hear not the bell that wakes the day
Say me a prayer
That all may carry my songs to dark_
*P*_*oem by Echezonachukwu Nduka*_
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/say-me-a-prayer/


----------



## Einstein

yakor said:


> You mean that everything is correct?
> "He was given a present" is OK to say as well as "The present was given to him"?


Excuse the late reply; Biffo has already confirmed that this is correct.
In English it is perfectly acceptable to form a passive from an indirect object, so the sentence "They told him a lie" can be transformed into the passive starting from either the direct object (a lie) or the indirect object (him):
- A lie was told to him
- He was told a lie
For speakers of other languages the second sentence is illogical and defies analysis. My point was that writers of text-books should give more attention to this. Perhaps they think that if they don't mention it the students won't notice it, but in my experience they do. In fact it's very unlikely that students will spontaneously construct a sentence of this kind.


----------



## yakor

Aspara Gus said:


> It's not slang; it's a standard idiom in AmE.


The dictionary says it is a slang, not me.


----------



## yakor

Cagey said:


> As I said, native speakers are not taught to make that distinction.
> 
> If it is useful to you and you understand it in this case, that seems sufficient, no?


I would say that in Russian we even don't have the term "direct" or "indirect object". They both are just complements to us, which denote different things.
But in English it is really not clear what these complements mean; whether the object on which the action spreads, or the object for the sake of which the action is done. So, I'm still not there with "tell me" when it is used only with the pronoun. I think "me" is the complement to the verb "tell", that means the object(indirect) which takes the information which was told.


----------



## PaulQ

He..............................gave..................the dog..............................................a bone
Subject........................verb................indirect object.....................................direct object
Who does the action......verb......the beneficiary/recipient of the action.........the object that was verbed.

He..............................taught..................them..............................................Russian.
Subject........................verb................indirect object.....................................direct object
Who does the action......verb......the beneficiary/recipient of the action.........the object that was verbed.

He..............................taught..................them.
Subject........................verb................direct object
Who does the action......verb.........the object that was verbed.

Does that help?


----------



## yakor

PaulQ said:


> Does that help?


No, it's clear...But  I ask about the case with "tell me"...
"You are telling me" If "me" is the indirect object (the beneficiary) what is the direct object then? I understand it as "what I know", "the thing which is known to me".


----------



## Chasint

yakor said:


> No, it's clear...But  I ask about the case with "tell me"...
> "You are telling me" If "me" is the indirect object (the beneficiary) what is the direct object then? I understand it as "what I know", "the thing which is known to me".


The answer is simple. You will occasionally see/hear the full form, e.g.

_"John is annoying"_
_"You're telling me John is annoying!"_
or as a question
_"You're telling me John is annoying?"_


----------



## e2efour

You've been told that _You're telling me_ is an idiom. Another is _He's dangerous, __I'm telling you!_
There is no object apart from _you_. _I'm telling you_ can be replaced by _Believe me!_ or _Take it from me!

_Of course, you can expand this idiom to include another object (as Biffo has done), but the phrase contains only one object.
There is nothing missing in the phrase.


----------



## PaulQ

_"John is annoying"_
_"You're telling me John is annoying!"

_You............................are telling..................me..........................................John is annoying!
Subject.........................verb................indirect object.....................................direct object
Who does the action.......verb......the beneficiary/recipient of the action........the object that was verbed.

You............................are telling..................me...............................................a lie!
Subject.........................verb................indirect object.....................................direct object
Who does the action.......verb......the beneficiary/recipient of the action........the object that was verbed.


----------



## Aspara Gus

yakor said:


> The dictionary says it is a slang, not me.



OK, your dictionary is wrong.


----------



## yakor

Biffo said:


> _"You're telling me John is annoying?"_


So, the direct object is what someone tells the other. In this case it is _John is annoying. _
One just omits this saying in order to avoid doubling.


----------



## yakor

Aspara Gus said:


> OK, your dictionary is wrong.


It's your dictionary in such a case.

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/tell


----------



## yakor

e2efour said:


> You've been told that _You're telling me_ is an idiom. Another is _He's dangerous, __I'm telling you!_
> There is no object apart from _you_. _I'm telling you_ can be replaced by _Believe me!_ or _Take it from me!
> 
> _Of course, you can expand this idiom to include another object (as Biffo has done), but the phrase contains only one object.
> There is nothing missing in the phrase.


Many idioms (not all) came from some long expressions in brief form. If the phrase contains only one object it doesn't mean that this object is direct.


----------



## Aspara Gus

yakor said:


> It's your dictionary in such a case.
> 
> http://www.wordreference.com/definition/tell



I never use it.

Here are a few other sites which mark this expression as informal:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/you-re-telling-me
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/You're+telling+me!
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/you're_telling_me


----------



## yakor

Paul,You consider that the direct object is omitted in an idiom/slang"You are telling me!" and "me" is cosidered to be an indirect object?


----------



## yakor

Thanks, Aspare. I will try it. I like when there are examples after explanation of the word.
_<-----Off-topic question removed----->_


----------



## Florentia52

This thread has provided an exhaustive discussion of the original topic, and will be closed.


----------

