# I suggest someone/ to someone about something



## Dario88

Hi everyone


I've already read all the topics about "to suggest", subconjunctive etc. but I haven't found anything about this kind of sentence with "about", so I have 2 questions:


*First*: do I have to use "to someone"if I do want to give to him my advice? I have this doubt because all the exemples I've read are with a verb after "someone", but if there is no verb?
_I suggest someone/to someone about something_ (i.e. at school). I would choose the first one or just _I suggest something to someone_


*Second*: can i use the progressive form with -ing after "about" ? in this case do i have to use just someone or "to someone"?
_I suggest someone/to someone about doing something_. It sounds better to my ear than the same without "about".


Thanks for your kind answer


----------



## sound shift

Hello,

Please can you give us a complete sentence incorporating the construction that you wish to discuss?


----------



## Dario88

sound shift said:


> Hello,
> 
> Please can you give us a complete sentence incorporating the construction that you wish to discuss?



Sure!
1) I suggested Dario about clothes
2) I suggested to Dario about clothes
3) I suggested Dario about doing his homework (
4) I suggested to Dario about doing his homework

In 1) e 2) I have a doubt about the use of "to"
In 3) e 4) i'd like to know if those sentences can replace the sentence: I suggested that Dario do/did his homework

Thanks


----------



## sound shift

I am afraid none of your four sentences sound idiomatic to me. I personally could not produce any of these sentences.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Very simply, Dario, the verb_ suggest_ is *not* used with the preposition _about_.

You _suggest something_ (direct object) _to someone _(indirect object).

Or you _suggest that_ _someone do something._

_[Edit]: _Having re-read your four sentences, I wonder if you are confusing _suggest_ with _advise_.

Ws


----------



## Dario88

Wordsmyth...thank you. Is it the same with the verb "advise"?


----------



## Wordsmyth

No. With _advise_, the person to whom you give the advice is the direct object. So you don't _advise to someone_, you _advise someone _(_of_ or _about something,_ or _to do something_, or_ that ..._ _{clause}_).

In your examples, you could say:
 - I advised Dario about clothes
- I advised Dario about his homework _(though I would tend to say_ 'I gave Dario advice about his homework'_)_
 - I advised Dario to do his homework 
 - I advised Dario that he should do his homework _(or _I suggested to Dario that he do his homework_)
_- I advised that Dario should do his homework. (In this case, you may be giving the advice to someone else – his Dad, for instance).

Ws


----------



## Dario88

Ok advise and about are good friends! Thank you very much!


----------



## moonlight7

Wordsmyth said:


> You _suggest something_ (direct object) _to someone _(indirect object).
> Or you _suggest that_ _someone do something.
> _



Can I suggest *to someone *something?


----------



## Wordsmyth

Hello moonlight,

If the _something_ is a noun or a noun phrase, the normal word order would be '_something to someone_': 
- I suggested a game of darts to Jim. I suppose that "I suggested to Jim a game of darts" is possible, but it's not very natural English: it sounds awkward.

When the noun or noun phrase involves a gerund, the difference becomes even more marked:
- I suggested playing darts to Jim. I can't imagine anyone saying "I suggested to Jim playing darts".

However, if a subordinate clause is used, the '_to someone'_ does come first:
- I suggested to Jim that we play darts. (Alternatively, I suggested that Jim and I play darts, but that doesn't define to whom the suggestion was made).

Ws


----------



## moonlight7

Thanks, *Wordsmyth!*


----------



## moonlight7

And how should I say in this case: *"They do not suggest to anyone to do something beyond his or her strength."*?


----------



## wandle

Dario88 said:


> 1) I suggested Dario about clothes
> 2) I suggested to Dario about clothes
> 3) I suggested Dario about doing his homework
> 4) I suggested to Dario about doing his homework



These examples are incorrect as written, but 'suggested' could be changed to 'made suggestions' or 'offered suggestions':

1) I offered Dario suggestions about clothes.
2) I made suggestions to Dario about clothes.
3) I offered Dario suggestions about doing his homework. 
4) I offered suggestions to Dario about doing his homework.

The implication of these sentences is less strong than saying 'I advised Dario...' or 'I offered Dario advice...'
'Advice' has more in it of recommendation, or even direction, than 'suggestion'.


----------



## PaulQ

Another way to look at it is that *to suggest* takes a direct and an indirect object (although the indirect object can be implied rather than spoken.)

I suggest A to B = I suggest direct object to indirect object.

The indirect object is prefaced by *to *or *for. *These are the *only *prepositions that can be used.

"I suggest a new handle for the brush, that one is broken."
"I suggested a new car to Jim/my husband, but he says he has no money."

It is not possible to reverse the order of the objects unless the direct object is a subordinate clause. (See Wordsmyth above.)


----------



## PaulQ

moonlight7 said:


> And how should I say in this case: *"They do not suggest to anyone to do something beyond his or her strength."*?


You need a subordinate clause as the object:
*"They do not suggest that anyone does something beyond his or her strength."*


----------



## Wordsmyth

PaulQ said:


> [...] The indirect object is prefaced by *to *or *for. *These are the *only *prepositions that can be used.
> "I suggest a new handle for the brush, that one is broken."
> "I suggested a new car to Jim/my husband, but he says he has no money."


I'm not sure that "*for* the brush" is the indirect object of "suggest". I see it as a prepositional phrase that is the complement (or arguably the adjunct) of the noun phrase "a new handle".  

Besides, in the same kind of construction, there's also *with*: "I suggest a good Burgundy with your meal"; and *on, in*: "I suggest flowers on the table and a pot-plant in the hall"; and *under, behind, *"I suggest hiding under the hedge, or behind the tree"; in fact pretty much any preposition you like.

I'm inclined to suggest that an indirect object of "suggest" can be prefaced *only* by *to* (until someone finds something I haven't thought of!). 


PaulQ said:


> You need a subordinate clause as the object:
> *"They do not suggest that anyone does something beyond his or her strength."*


 I agree: when the sentence becomes long enough that a string of phrases could be clumsy or confusing, a subordinate clause is the neatest solution. In this case, the strictly correct form would be "They do not suggest that anyone *do* something ..." (subjunctive). Although Paul's form is often heard in colloquial English, it's potentially ambiguous because 'suggest + subjunctive' and 'suggest + indicative' have different meanings:

"Suggest" takes the subjunctive when it's proposing that something should or might be done : 
- "How can he become fitter?" – "I suggest that he *go* to the gym"  (= I think he should go ...).
"Suggest" takes the indicative when it's expressing an assumption of a fact : 
- "I've no idea where he goes every evening." – "I suggest that he *goes* to the gym"  (= I think he goes ...)

_[I find your signature comment particularly pertinent, Paul.] _

Ws


----------



## moonlight7




----------



## Forero

I believe _suggest_ is one of those verbs that require a direct object and do not admit an indirect object. I use the term _indirect object_ to refer to an object that follows immediately after the governing verb without the use of a preposition:

_I gave them three chances._. [_Give_ admits an indirect object.]
_He asked me my name._ [_Ask_ admits an indirect object.]
_I warned him not to do it._ [_Warn_ admits an indirect object.]
_I suggested him something._ [_Suggest_ does not admit an indirect object.]

_Suggest_ does admit a prepositional phrase with _to_, and the best position for such a prepositional phrase depends on the length and complexity of the direct object. We usually put a long prepositional phrase after a short direct object:

_I suggested that brush to all the members of the international team._

And a short prepositional phrase before a long direct object:

_I suggested to Jim a new handle for the broken brush._

When the direct object and the prepositional phrase are of close to the same length, we usually put the direct object closer to the verb:

_I suggested that to Jim._

This helps to balance the sentence but is not a grammatical requirement.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Forero said:


> I believe _suggest_ is one of those verbs that require a direct object and do not admit an indirect object. *I use the term indirect object to refer to an object that follows immediately after the governing verb without the use of a preposition:*
> 
> _I gave them three chances._. [_Give_ admits an indirect object.] _[...]_
> 
> _Suggest_ does admit a prepositional phrase with _to_, _[...] _



Forero, this is just a question of semantics (or varying schools of thought) — and if you want three different definitions, just ask two grammarians!

Your definition of indirect object (my bold in your post) seems much narrower than any definition I know: e.g. "a word or group of words representing the person or thing with reference to which (but not upon which) the action of a verb is performed", indirect objects often being sub-divided into 'prepositional (or adpositional)' (_I gave the book to him_) and 'non-prepositional' (_I gave him the book_).

By that definition, _suggest_ is a verb that can admit an indirect object (but only prepositional). 

That said, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that it's often best to answer questions in the forum by example rather than by grammatical tags (especially where they're debatable and debated) that change nothing in the example text  — and when it comes to examples, we're all pretty much in agreement in this thread.

Ws


----------



## yakor

Hello,





Wordsmyth said:


> No. With _advise_, the person to whom you give the advice is the direct object. So you don't _advise to someone_, you _advise someone _(_of_ or _about something,_ or _to do something_, or_ that ..._ _{clause}_).
> 
> 
> - I advised Dario to do his homework
> - I advised Dario that he should do his homework _(or _I suggested to Dario that he do his homework_)
> _


Hmm, I always considered that the noun/pronoun after the verb "advise" is an indirect object as in "give me something".
What is "to do his homework" if it is not the direct object then?


----------



## yakor

Wordsmyth said:


> "a word or group of words representing the person or thing with reference to which (but not upon which) the action of a verb is performed", indirect objects often being sub-divided into 'prepositional (or adpositional)' (_I gave the book to him_) and 'non-prepositional' (_I gave him the book_).
> 
> By that definition, _suggest_ is a verb that can admit an indirect object (but only prepositional).


But what prevents the verb "advice" being a verb that can admit an indirect non-prepositional object?
-He advices all people not smoking.
-He advices all people not to smoke.
-He advices all people to smoke in the street.


----------



## Wordsmyth

yakor said:


> Hmm, I always considered that the noun/pronoun after the verb "advise" is an indirect object as in "give me something".
> What is "to do his homework" if it is not the direct object then?


"Advise" is not like "give". "Give me something" = "give something to me". "Advise me of/about something" can't be rephrased as "advise something to me". In "advise me", "me" is the direct object. You can find that in plenty of reference sources. 

In "I advised him to do his homework", "to do his homework" is a non-finite clause which, together with the direct object "him", forms the complement of the verb "advised". 


yakor said:


> But what prevents the verb "advice" being a verb that can admit an indirect non-prepositional object?_ [...]_


The verb is _advise_; (_advice_ is a noun). Your first sentence, in your post above, is not correct English. In your second and third examples, what prevents "all people" from being an indirect object is the fact that it's a direct object (see above).

But this thread is essentially about "suggest". "Advise" came up only as a side-issue, by comparison with "suggest". So I propose that any further discussion of this be in a separate thread. 

Ws


----------



## Mahantongo

yakor said:


> Hello,
> Hmm, I always considered that the noun/pronoun after the verb "advise" is an indirect object as in "give me something".


You were mistaken.  You may either advise someone about something (as in the examples with Dario), with "advise" followed by the direct object, or you may follow "advise" with the advice you are giving (as in "I advise caution when dealing with werewolves.")   However, I cannot think of any way of using "advise" in which it would have an indirect object.


----------



## yakor

Forero said:


> _I suggested that brush to all the members of the international team._


Could one say instead of this sentence
-I advised that brush to all the members of the international team?
Is the meaning of "suggest" the same as of "advise"? As I can see "suggest" and "advise" don't take the indirect object?
Could one say also, instead of this sentence
-I offered _that brush to all the members of the international team.
_Which meaning is closer to "suggest"- "to offer" or "to advise"?
Or maybe "recommended"?
-I recommended that brush to all the members of the international team?
I'm really comfused, because I would use all these four verbs in this case.


----------



## Mahantongo

yakor said:


> Could one say instead of this sentence
> -I advised that brush to all the members of the international team?


No, that does not make sense.



> Is the meaning of "suggest" the same as of "advise"?


No, it isn't. 



> Could one say also, instead of this sentence
> -I offered _that brush to all the members of the international team._


Yes, but note that "the members of the team" are not an indirect object.  They are instead the object of the preposition "to".  If you want to have them as an indirect object, then you need to rearrange the sentence and say "_I offered the members that brush_."  Note that English has an aversion to indirect objects made up of many words, and that is why -- as in your example -- they tend to become objects of prepositions instead.


----------



## yakor

Mahantongo said:


> No, that does not make sense.


But why does the verb advise take the direct object which is not the person. 
_The makers advise__ extreme caution __when handling this material._



Mahantongo said:


> Yes, but note that "the members of the team" are not an indirect object.  They are instead the object of the preposition "to".  If you want to have them as an indirect object, then you need to rearrange the sentence and say "_I offered the members that brush_." .


But if one says "_I offered  that brush to members", isn't "members" the indirect object?_


----------



## Andygc

yakor said:


> But if one says "_I offered  that brush to members", isn't "members" the indirect object?_


Different advisers have differing opinions. The British Council's grammar pages are perfectly happy to describe the object of the preposition as the indirect object of the verb.

To me it seems bizarre to say that in "I offered members that brush", members is an indirect object, but in "I offered that brush to members" it isn't.


----------



## yakor

Andygc said:


> To me it seems bizarre to say that in "I offered members that brush", members is an indirect object, but in "I offered that brush to members" it isn't.


I'm not sure what you mean, do you disagree with Mahantogo?


----------



## wandle

Andygc said:


> To me it seems bizarre to say that in *(a)* "I offered members that brush", members is an indirect object, but in *(b)* "I offered that brush to members" it isn't.


If it is part of the definition of an indirect object that it has no preposition, then *Mahantongo's* point is valid.

Two things seem clear: 
(1) that the expression 'members' in sentence (a) is semantically equivalent to the expression 'to members' in sentence (b);
(2) that the grammatical function of the word 'members' differs in the two sentences, as regards both position and need for a preposition.


----------



## Wordsmyth

yakor said:


> _[...] _Which meaning is closer to "suggest"- "to offer" or "to advise"?
> Or maybe "recommended"?
> -I recommended that brush to all the members of the international team?  _[...] _


As Mahantongo has said, "advised" can't be used in that sentence if you keep the same construction.

_Suggest, recommend_ and _offer_ all have different meanings. Have you tried looking them up in the dictionary? You might then conclude that _recommend_ is closer to _suggest_ than _offer_ is, but I don't see what practical use that conclusion could have — you still can't substitute _recommend_ for _suggest_ without changing the meaning. 


yakor said:


> But why does the verb advise take the direct object which is not the person.
> _The makers advise__ extreme caution __when handling this material.  _ _[...] _


 Because it does! Both constructions exist: 'advise something' and 'advise someone to do something'. The first construction is also valid for "suggest"; the second one is not.


yakor said:


> _[...] _But if one says "_I offered that brush to members", isn't "members" the indirect object?_





yakor said:


> _[...]_ As I can see "suggest" and "advise" don't take the indirect object? _[...] _


There are two different schools of thought about the definition of 'indirect object': see posts #18, #19. #25, #27 and #29. The one that Andy and I adhere to is the one I've seen most frequently in grammar reference sources; but the one proposed by Forero and Mahantongo is also often encountered (no doubt you guys will say the reverse!). Wandle is wisely keeping his options open. One thing is sure: if you're talking about indirect objects you have to give the definition you're using.

If you use the definition that includes both prepositional and non-prepositional indirect objects, then:
- "members" is the indirect object in your sentence above;
- "suggest" can take an indirect object, but "advise" cannot.

If you use the definition that requires indirect objects to be non-prepositional, then:
- "members" is not the indirect object in your sentence above;
- neither "suggest" nor "advise" can take an indirect object.

Of course, none of this changes any principles of grammar. It's jut a question of labelling. Whichever definition you prefer, you can say "suggest something to someone", but you can't say "suggest someone something".

Ws


----------



## wandle

Wordsmyth said:


> Wandle is wisely keeping his options open.


Not so much that as giving the grounds for *Mahantongo's* position without drawing the conclusion.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more reasonable it seems.


----------



## yakor

Mahantongo said:


> Yes, but note that "the members of the team" are not an indirect object.  They are instead the object of the preposition "to".  If you want to have them as an indirect object, then you need to rearrange the sentence and say "_I offered the members that brush_."


But what about  "to"+"the members of the team" (to the members of the team) Could it be considered to be the indirect object?


----------



## Wordsmyth

wandle said:


> Not so much that as giving the grounds for *Mahantongo's* position without drawing the conclusion. _[...]_


 Fair enough.

Ultimately it all depends on whether you prefer the idea that verbs can have two kinds of object (direct and indirect), or three kinds (direct, indirect and prepositional).

My preference for the former lies mainly in the fact that if something isn't direct it must, by definition, be indirect; and if something isn't indirect it must be direct. Saying that an object is neither direct nor indirect is, to me, like saying that something is neither variable nor invariable, but ... umm, what?


wandle said:


> [...] (2) that the grammatical function of the word 'members' differs in the two sentences, as regards both position and need for a preposition.


 I think there's a fair case for saying that "members" has the _same _grammatical function: it has a dative function in both the sentences. The dative case is usually expressed by a prepositional phrase beginning with "to" or "for", but the non-prepositional form is an echo of the Old English inflected dative. 

"I offered that brush to members" = "I offered {to members} that brush". In Old English, {to members} would have been an inflected dative form of "members" (no preposition). In modern English, the inflection has disappeared, but there's still no preposition when the indirect object precedes the direct object: "I offered {members} that brush". Position doesn't necessarily alter grammatical function; (compare "I said" with "said I": "I" is the subject in both cases). 

Anyway, for better or worse, the two definitions of 'indirect object' both exist, so I guess 'you pays yer money, you takes yer choice'.

Ws


----------



## Mahantongo

Wordsmyth said:


> My preference for the former lies mainly in the fact that if something isn't direct it must, by definition, be indirect; and if something isn't indirect it must be direct.


Unless your definition takes into account that the labels assigned to grammatical categories are rather artificial, and may not have the same meaning they have in ordinary conversation.  Try this: in some languages, verbs have a perfect tense, and an imperfect tense.  Following your logic, there can only be these two tenses, because everything that isn't perfect is by definition imperfect, and everything that is not imperfect is perfect.  I realize this makes the present tense disappear, but hey, logic is logic.


----------



## Forero

As I learned it (in Arkansas in the fifties and sixties), the object of a preposition is just the object of that preposition, not of any verb.

"He gave a book to me", "He bought a book for me", "He asked a question of me", "He asked me for my name", and "He warned me of the fact he had a knife" may have (nearly) the same respective meanings as "He gave me a book", "He bought me a book", "He asked me a question", "He asked me my name", and "He warned me that he had a knife", but grammatically they are different.

When and where did (some) grammarians start calling (some) objects of (some) prepositions indirect objects of verbs?


----------



## Wordsmyth

Mahantongo said:


> Unless your definition takes into account that the labels assigned to grammatical categories are rather artificial, and may not have the same meaning they have in ordinary conversation.  Try this: in some languages, verbs have a perfect tense, and an imperfect tense.  Following your logic, there can only be these two tenses, because everything that isn't perfect is by definition imperfect, and everything that is not imperfect is perfect.  I realize this makes the present tense disappear, but hey, logic is logic.


Good try! Except that "perfect" isn't a tense; it's a grammatical aspect that applies _only_ to past actions. And all past actions _are_ either perfect (originally meaning 'completed') or imperfect (originally 'uncompleted'): there's no third option. Tenses are a different thing, so the existence of the perfect and imperfect aspects doesn't preclude the present tense. (It's like: all mammals are either human or non-human, but that doesn't mean reptiles don't exist!)

So I'd say my direct/indirect reasoning still holds water, 'cos hey, logic _is _logic.


Forero said:


> _ [...] _When and where did (some) grammarians start calling (some) objects of (some) prepositions indirect objects of verbs?


I get the feeling we may have something of a US/UK divide here (note Andy's comments). What I learned at school (UK) was the definition I gave in #19 (by which prepositional object phrases _are _indirect objects). I've also found a UK textbook dating from the fifties that gives just that definition, so this isn't some newfangled thing that (some) grammarians have invented.

I suspect that the term 'indirect' might provide a possible clue as to which was the original concept:
- The definition I gave (#19): "a word or group of words representing the person or thing _with reference to which (but not upon which) _the action of a verb is performed". The words in _italics_ do represent the idea of 'indirect'.
- The definition you gave (#18): "an object that follows immediately after the governing verb without the use of a preposition". I can't see anything there that would inspire anyone to name it 'indirect'. In fact, if you think about it, that definition perfectly fits a direct object! (In "I drank water", 'water' comes immediately after the governing verb without the use of a preposition.) ...

... So how would you define your concept of an indirect object in a way that differentiates it from a direct object?

Ws


----------



## wandle

Wordsmyth said:


> What I learned at school (UK) was the definition I gave in #19 (by which prepositional object phrases _are _indirect objects). I've also found a UK textbook dating from the fifties that gives just that definition, so this isn't some newfangled thing that (some) grammarians have invented.


 I was taught the same.


> I think there's a fair case for saying that "members" has the same grammatical function: it has a dative function in both the sentences. The dative case is usually expressed by a prepositional phrase beginning with "to" or "for", but the non-prepositional form is an echo of the Old English inflected dative.


The fact that the old inflected dative has been largely replaced by prepositional phrases is key to this question. That shows that the grammatical equivalence here subsists not between 'members' and 'members' but between 'members' and 'to members'. That in turn shows that the grammatical function of 'members' is different in each case: otherwise, the meaning of 'to members' would be 'to to members', and the meaning of that would be ... etc, etc.


> Position doesn't necessarily alter grammatical function


In this case, it is decisive. 'I offered members the brush' makes good sense; 'I offered the brush members' does not.


> how would you define your concept of an indirect object in a way that differentiates it from a direct object?


Let me have a go:

_'a word or group of words, which (a) represents the person or thing with reference to which (but not upon which) the action of a verb is performed, (b) is not governed by a preposition and (c) may take position ahead of the direct object.

_'May take'  because we may say either 'I gave him it' or 'I gave it him'.


----------



## Wordsmyth

wandle said:


> _[...] _The fact that the old inflected dative has been largely replaced by prepositional phrases is key to this question. That shows that the grammatical equivalence here subsists not between 'members' and 'members' but between 'members' and 'to members'. That in turn shows that the grammatical function of 'members' is different in each case: otherwise, the meaning of 'to members' would be 'to to members', and the meaning of that would be ... etc, etc. _[...]_


OK, that's the algebra, and I can't fault it. What I should have said is that "members" in the one sentence has the same grammatical function as "to members" in the other: they're both dative, and so they're both indirect (by my understanding of 'indirect').


wandle said:


> _[...] _Let me have a go:
> 
> _'a word or group of words, which (a) represents the person or thing with reference to which (but not upon which) the action of a verb is performed, (b) is not governed by a preposition and (c) may take position ahead of the direct object. __[...] _


OK, but only (a) intrinsically represents the idea of 'indirect' (_to which (but not upon which)_). The other parts add independent features. If they were all necessary to define such an object, it might be called an 'indirect non-prepositional repositionable object' (INRO?)! 

I still can't see any reason for complicating the idea of 'indirect' (opposite of 'direct') with a number of other constraints that seem to serve no purpose except to create a new, arbitrary definition. (I'm viewing that, of course, from the point of view of the creation and the intrinsic sense of the term 'indirect object', rather than from the angle of building a definition to fit an alternative perception).

It would be interesting to see whether that more complex definition actually appears in any language reference or teaching source.

Ws


----------



## wandle

Wordsmyth said:


> they're both dative, and so they're both indirect (by my understanding of 'indirect').


The argument cuts both ways: if (a) 'members' and (b) 'to members' are equivalent in the respective sentences, it follows not only that the dative meaning is present in 'members' in case (a) , but also that it is absent in 'members' in case (b).

To put it another way, in 'to members', the dative meaning depends on both words and is not expressed by 'members' alone. 
Otherwise, there would be no need for 'to'.


> The other parts add independent features. If they were all necessary to define such an object, it might be called an 'indirect non-prepositional repositionable object'.


Why? The features are essential to the definition, but they are not part of the term. If they had to be, terms would become too long and unwieldy to be usable. 


> I still can't see any reason for complicating the idea of 'indirect' (opposite of 'direct') with a number of other constraints that seem to serve no purpose except to create a new, arbitrary definition.


The reason for a new definition (which I believe has arisen from modern studies) is to accommodate the difference between the two ways of expressing an indirect object while maintaining a consistent analysis and consistent use of terms.


----------



## wandle

Wordsmyth said:


> It would be interesting to see whether that more complex definition actually appears in any language reference or teaching source.


The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar gives the following:


> *indirect object*
> 
> A noun phrase which is licensed by a ditransitive verb and which typically occurs after the verb and before the direct object, and carries the semantic role of recipient or goal. When a pronoun is used, it appears in the accusative case.


That definition I believe encompasses features (a) and (c) of my attempt. After examples (all non-prepositional), it adds:


> In traditional grammar, many phrases that express a recipient or goal are regarded as indirect objects, whatever their position, like the prepositional phrases headed by for and to in the following example:
> 
> _They bought a new bicycle for her, and gave it to her_
> 
> Many modern grammars (e.g. CaGEL, OMEG) do not classify such prepositional phrases as indirect objects.


----------



## sdgraham

Forero said:


> As I learned it (in Arkansas in the fifties and sixties), the object of a preposition is just the object of that preposition, not of any verb.
> 
> "He gave a book to me", "He bought a book for me", "He asked a question of me", "He asked me for my name", and "He warned me of the fact he had a knife" may have (nearly) the same respective meanings as "He gave me a book", "He bought me a book", "He asked me a question", "He asked me my name", and "He warned me that he had a knife", but grammatically they are different.
> 
> When and where did (some) grammarians start calling (some) objects of (some) prepositions indirect objects of verbs?



Likewise in Illinois and California during the same time period.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Wandle, re your #39: OK, two sides of an argument, to which there appears to be no single conclusion. End.

Re your #40: Thanks for the OED extract. So it seems we once had (and still have) a 'traditional' definition. Then along came some 'modern' grammarians and invented a different one. What we don't know (and I can't find it anywhere) is *why *on earth they would do that, or what was wrong with the existing definition. All we have now is havoc, as numerous threads in the forum show. In this thread we have some people saying that _suggest _can take an indirect object, others saying it can't. There's no disagreement about how _suggest_ actually behaves; the confusion arises from the two conflicting definitions of the 'indirect object' label.

With the traditional meaning, it's easy to explain to a learner in simple terms: if you give something to someone, the 'something' is the direct object, and the person you give it to is the indirect object.

With the other meaning, I suppose it's something like this: if you give something to someone, the 'something' is the direct object, and the person you give it *to *is the indirect object as long as you don't say "*to*" to say who you're giving it *to*.

But the two meanings are now out there, both widely used (the British Council, as Andy pointed out, is one among many sources that use the traditional definition). Conclusion: no sensible discussion about indirect objects can be had without the participants first defining what they mean by the term.

Ws


----------

