# Fires which they had ordered to keep burning



## VicNicSor

> The tiger fires which the Japanese had  ordered to be kept burning all night had long ago been swamped and  killed by the incessant rain.
> 
> Source: The Narrow Road to the Deep North, by Richard Flanagan.


http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2979239

Is it correct to use the passive like that? I'd expect it to be either
The tiger fires which* the Japanese had ordered to keep* burning all night had long ago been swamped and killed by the incessant rain. 
or
The tiger fires which* had been ordered to be kept* burning all night had long ago been swamped and killed by the incessant rain. 
Because _The tiger fires which the Japanese had ordered to be kept burning_ is like _The Japanese had ordered to be kept __the tiger fires__ burning_.
What do you think?
Thank you.


----------



## Mahantongo

Your first version doesn't work because you cannot order a fire to keep burning, as fires are unlikely to obey your commands. 

Your second version creates a double passive structure unnecessarily, and you lose who it was that ordered the fires be kept burning.


----------



## bennymix

The author's version is best, but your second, revised, could work:

OP2# _The tiger fires which* had been ordered, by the Japanese, to be kept* burning all night had long ago been swamped and killed by the incessant rain. _

As Mahan said, above, your first version does not work.
---

It's a complex structure, Vik;   no wonder it puzzled you.


----------



## VicNicSor

I don't understand why my first option doesn't work
The object of "had ordered" is "to keep burning" (not _the fires_), and the object of "to keep burning" is "the tiger fires". Like:
_ The tiger fires which the Japanese had ordered to keep burning = the food which my mom told me to eat._
Am I wrong?


----------



## bennymix

Sorry, Vik.  You misread.   The Japanese did NOT 'order the fires to keep burning.'   That would be like ordering rain to keep coming.
The Japanese ordered the captives to keep the fires burning.  OR,  Japanese ordered **that the fires be kept burning, by the captives."

Compare.  Mom ordered that the dog be fed, by me = Mom ordered that I give the dog food. 

This is NOT:   Mom ordered the dog to feed.   or Mom ordered that the dog be fed by the dog himself.


----------



## VicNicSor

bennymix said:


> Sorry, Vik.  You misread.   The Japanese did NOT 'order the fires to keep burning.'   That would be like ordering rain to keep coming.
> The Japanese ordered the captives to keep the fires burning.  OR,  Japanese ordered **that the fires be kept burning, by the captives."
> 
> Compare.  Mom ordered that I give the dog food.   =  Mom ordered that the dog be fed, by me.
> 
> This is NOT:   Mom ordered the dog to feed.   or Mom ordered that the dog be fed by the dog himself.



One question. Do I correctly understand you mean that:_
The tiger fires which the Japanese had ordered *someone* to keep burning__
__The tiger fires which the Japanese had ordered to keep burning__
_?


----------



## bennymix

Yes, your X'd sentence is wrong.    It should say "to be kept"


> _The tiger fires which the Japanese had ordered to keep burning___{X}


----------



## VicNicSor

bennymix said:


> Yes, your X'd sentence is wrong.    It should say "to be kept"



So, leaving out an indirect object is what was the problem...
Then I don't understand something again. The original doesn't have an indirect object in it, but it's correct... why...?
"The tiger fires which the Japanese had ordered to be kept burning" = *the Japanese had ordered the tiger fires to be kept burning* -- do you mean this one is correct?


----------



## bennymix

> "The tiger fires which the Japanese had ordered to be kept burning" = *the Japanese had ordered the tiger fires to be kept burning* --



These have about the same meaning, though only the latter is a sentence.

Notice this is NOT the same as in your first post:



> _The Japanese had ordered to be kept __the tiger fires__ burning_.


 Vik's first post.

I do see your issue.   "ordered the fires" sounds like "ordered the coffee".


----------



## wandle

The problem part of the sentence is a relative clause:


VikNikSor said:


> the ... fires which the Japanese had ordered to be kept burning



If we take the relative clause out and make it a simple sentence, then we have: _'The Japanese had ordered the fires to be kept burning_'. 

If we said, '_The Japanese had ordered the fires to keep burning'_ , this would mean that the Japanese had given orders to the actual fires.

In other words, in the expression _'A orders B to do C'_, A is the person who gives the order, B is the person who receives the order and C is the action which B is ordered to do.


----------



## VicNicSor

I didn't know such a pattern exists: someone orders something to be done

Thank you, everybody !


----------



## bennymix

> In other words, in the expression _'A orders B to do C'_, A is the person who gives the order, B is the person who receives the order and C is the action which B is ordered to do.



Agreed, Wandle.  Nicely explained.   And I would add, for Vik's information: 

"A orders B to do C" can be re-arranged as "A orders that C be done by B"  **more or less**.

There is some slippage, since the order might not be given directly to B, in the second version.  (President tells Secretary of Defence, "Order General Watkins to attack the enemy port of X." )

Hence, to get exact equivalence,  "A orders that C be done by B, such order being given directly to B."


----------



## VicNicSor

bennymix said:


> Agreed, Wandle.  Nicely explained.   And I would add, for Vik's information:
> 
> "A orders B to do C" can be re-arranged as "A orders that C be done by B"  **more or less*.
> 
> There is some slippage, since the order might not be given directly to B, in the second version.  (President tells Secretary of Defence, "Order General Watkins to attack the enemy port of X." )
> 
> Hence, to get exact equivalence,  "A orders that C be done by B, such order being given directly to B."


Thank you.


----------



## Mahantongo

VikNikSor, one reason that a writer may choose the passive voice is that it can allow the actor who performs the action to go unnamed.


_The king ordered his servants to close the palace gates.
The king ordered that the palace gates be closed by his servants.
The king ordered that the palace gates be closed._

Note that you can't say "the king ordered the gates to close"; the gates are inanimate objects, and will not close themselves because a king says something to them.  By using a passive construction, someone is still performing the action, even if you don't mention those gate-closing servants in the sentence.  In the same way, if the king wants those gates to stay closed, it would do little good for him to say that to the gates themselves.  Instead, he needs to tell the servants to keep the gates closed, and we can end up with a structure much like your original one:
_The king had ordered that the gates be kept closed.
The gates which the king had ordered to be kept closed were broken open by the rebel army.
_


----------



## VicNicSor

Mahantongo said:


> VikNikSor, one reason that a writer may choose the passive voice is that it can allows the actor who performs the action to go unnamed.
> 
> 
> _The king ordered his servants to close the palace gates.
> The king ordered that the palace gates be closed by his servants.
> The king ordered that the palace gates be closed._
> 
> Note that you can't say "the king ordered the gates to close"; the gates are inanimate objects, and will not close themselves because a king says something to them.  By using a passive construction, someone is still performing the action, even if you don't mention those gate-closing servants in the sentence.  In the same way, if the king wants those gates to stay closed, it would do little good for him to say that to the gates themselves.  Instead, he needs to tell the servants to keep the gates closed, and we can end up with a structure much like your original one:
> _The king had ordered that the gates be kept closed.
> The gates which the king had ordered to be kept closed were broken open by the rebel army.
> _


Thank you,
but I see that I was misunderstood by you and Benny.
By saying "The tiger fires which the Japanese had ordered to keep burning all night" I didn't mean  the Japanese *had ordered the tiger fires *to keep burning all night. What I meant was The Japanese *had ordered *to keep burning the tiger fires all night. That is, I just omitted the indirect object (those who were ordered by the Japanese). I should just have put it in the sentence the way I did in #6.


----------



## Mahantongo

VikNikSor said:


> Thank you,
> but I see that I was misunderstood by you and Benny.
> By saying "The tiger fires which the Japanese had ordered to keep burning all night" I didn't mean  the Japanese *had ordered the tiger fires *to keep burning all night.



We did not misunderstand you at all, and we told you what the problem with your sentence was.  While that may not have been what you meant, it is what your sentence *actually says.*  Furthermore, keeping the sentence active voice and adding "someone" as we find in #6 was not your only alternative. If you want to continue to have an unnamed actor feed the fires and keep them burning, then you have to go to the passive voice: the Japanese did not order the fires to keep burning, but instead had ordered the fires to be kept burning.  There is an enormous difference between the two statements.  As a result, your first suggestion was incorrect, and could not be used.


----------



## bennymix

One issue is that 'order' can take two kinds of objects:  persons or events.

Compare  "The principal of the school ordered a fire drill." {fire drill, direct object}  
"The principal ordered {that a fire drill be carried out}." {clause with action as direct object}

Also:  The principal ordered the emptying {D.O.} of the building.  {+that the building be emptied}

===
However for human objects.  "The principal ordered the teachers to conduct a fire drill." "teachers" is direct object.

Passive based on DO:   The teachers were ordered to conduct a fire drill, by the principal.

Other passive.    A fire drill conducted by the teachers was ordered by the principal.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you for the answers.

Though, Benny, why are you saying "teachers" is the direct object? The "ordered" has two objects: "to conduct a fire drill" (direct) and "teachers" (indirect), am I wrong?


----------



## Myridon

VikNikSor said:


> What I meant was The Japanese *had ordered *to keep burning the tiger fires all night. That is, I just omitted the indirect object (those who were ordered by the Japanese).


The full sentence would be: 
The Japanese had ordered someone to keep the tiger fires burning all night.  "Someone" is the direct object.  "Tiger fires" must be between "keep" and "burning."  The tiger fires burn.  You do not burn the fires.


----------



## bennymix

The grammar books seem to insist that the indirect object be a person.

Benny: 





> However for human objects.  "The principal ordered the teachers to conduct a fire drill." "teachers" is direct object.



Vik: 





> why are you saying "teachers" is the direct object?



Because they are.   It's the same as "The principal ordered the teachers out of the room."

From M-W unabr:



> _3a_ *:*  to give orders to *:* command
> <_ordered_ the troops to advance>
> *
> :*  require or direct (something) to be done
> <dissolving the Diet and _ordering_ new elections  — F. A. Ogg & Harold Zink>


----------



## VicNicSor

Myridon, Benny, _He ordered (whom?) her (what?) to go there_. Benny, you just said "books seem to insist that the indirect object be a *person*". So why is "teachers" direct object?


----------



## bennymix

See the dictionary entry and examples, Vik.  :  Post#20.


----------



## VicNicSor

bennymix said:


> See the dictionary entry and examples, Vik.  :  Post#20.


I don't understand what those dictionary examples prove.
 ... ordered the troops to advance = why do you think the direct object here is 'troops' and not 'to advance'...?


----------



## Mahantongo

bennymix said:


> The grammar books seem to insist that the indirect object be a person.



I'm not sure why.
_Martha gave her rosebush some fertilizer.
Martha gave fertilizer to her rosebush.

Mother Hubbard fed her dog a steak.
Mother Hubbard fed a steak to her dog.

I bought my car a new floor mat.
I bought a new floor mat for my car.
_


----------



## VicNicSor

... an indirect object is _"*the recipien*t" _of the direct object.


Mahantongo said:


> I'm not sure why.
> _Martha gave her *rosebush *some fertilizer.
> Martha gave fertilizer to her *rosebush*.
> 
> Mother Hubbard fed her *dog *a steak.
> Mother Hubbard fed a steak to her *dog*.
> 
> I bought my *car *a new floor mat.
> I bought a new floor mat for my *car*.
> _


The bold words I see as those _recipient_s. In the sentence "The principal ordered *the teachers* to conduct a fire drill", I see *the teachers *the same way**.


----------



## Mahantongo

Indirect objects precede the direct object in the sentence.  Where is your direct object, if "the teachers" is indirect?  You should also keep in mind that the word "order" can have very different meanings; if you speak of a general ordering his soldiers to attack, and a shopper ordering a new dress by mail, you don't have the same meaning at all!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

VikNikSor said:


> ... an indirect object is _"*the recipien*t" _of the direct object.
> 
> The bold words I see as those _recipient_s. In the sentence "The principal ordered *the teachers* to conduct a fire drill", I see *the teachers *the same way**.


You order someone to do something -_ someone _is the direct object.

You give a rosebush some fertilizer - ie. you apply some fertilizer to the rosebush - the _fertilizer_ is the direct object, and the_ rosebush_ the indirect object.

I'm afraid that you are wrong to suggest that _the teachers_ are an indirect object in your sentence.


----------



## VicNicSor

Mahantongo said:


> Where is your direct object, if "the teachers" is indirect?


"To conduct a fire drill" is what I consider to be the direct object. 


Thomas Tompion said:


> You order someone to do something -_ someone _is the direct object.


What is "to do something" then?


----------



## VicNicSor

Mahantongo said:


> Indirect objects precede the direct object in the sentence.


Why do you think so?
I brought him a book -- here the indirect object (he) precedes the direct object (book).
I brought a book to him -- do you mean "book" turns into the indirect object?


----------



## wandle

VikNikSor said:


> What is "to do something"?


'To do' is an infinitive expressing purpose, completing the sense of the verb 'order'; 'something' is the direct object of 'to do'.


----------



## VicNicSor

wandle said:


> 'To do' is an infinitive expressing purpose, completing the sense of the verb 'order'; 'something' is the direct object of 'to do'.


If an infinitive phrase is used as a noun it's a direct object. 
I told him *a story*. I told him* to come over here*. Both boldfaced phrases act as a noun so they both are _direct objects_. Do you disagree?


----------



## wandle

I do. The phrase 'to come over here' expresses a purpose: this means it has a syntactical role different from that of a noun.
We can see that because it is equivalent to the clause 'that he should come over here'.


----------



## VicNicSor

wandle said:


> I do. The phrase 'to come over here' expresses a purpose: this means it has a syntactical role different from that of a noun.
> We can see that because it is equivalent to the clause 'that he should come over here'.


I told him* to come over here*.
If it's a purpose, then it means I told him _why_? Does that make sense?
If it acts as a noun, then it means I told him _what_? To come over here is *what* I told him.


----------



## wandle

VikNikSor said:


> I told him* to come over here*.
> If it's a purpose, then it means I told him _why_?


No, it does not mean 'why?'. 

The verb 'told' in this case means 'ordered'. 'To come over here' completes the sense of the order by stating what is to be done: it expresses the intent of the order.

Of course, an infinitive phrase can also be equivalent to a noun: '_To travel hopefully is better than to arrive'._
Here, neither infinitive is expressing a purpose.


----------



## VicNicSor

wandle said:


> No, it does not mean 'why?'.
> 
> The verb 'told' in this case means 'ordered'. 'To come over here' completes the sense of the order by stating what is to be done: it expresses the intent of the order.
> 
> Of course, an infinitive phrase can also be equivalent to a noun: '_To travel hopefully is better than to arrive'._
> Here, neither infinitive is expressing a purpose.


'_To travel hopefully is better than to arrive'. -- _here the infinitive phrase also acts as a noun, but also as the *subject* of a sentence. In _I told him to come over here _the infinitive phrase acts as an *object*. They both equally act as nouns. 
 If you say "completes the sense", you are talking about a "complement". A complement is not "what". In _I'm angry_, "angry" is the complement. It can't act as a noun. _To come over here_ can.


----------



## wandle

In this case, there is no 'what' involved. There is a purpose, which is an intention, not a fact.


----------



## VicNicSor

*What* did you tell him? I told him *to come over here*. How come there's no 'what'...?


----------



## VicNicSor

Infinitve phrases pretty well act as nouns (the object), and that's not my invention.


----------



## VicNicSor

wandle said:


> In this case, there is no 'what' involved. There is a purpose, which is an intention, not a fact.


_I told him *to do his homework* --_ the infinitive is a direct object. _ 
I hurried home *to* *do my homework *--_ the infinitive is "a purpose".


----------



## bennymix

Hi Vik
You are confusing to kinds of sentences:   You are suggesing that my sentence## is like
"John gave her the letter."   This is not the case.

You are correct that an infinitive clause can serve as object--for example a direct object.    "The principal wanted to conduct a fire drill;




> However for human objects. [##] "The principal ordered the teachers to conduct a fire drill." "teachers" is direct object.
> 
> Passive based on DO:   The teachers were ordered to conduct a fire drill, by the principal.
> 
> Other passive.    A fire drill conducted by the teachers was ordered by the principal.


Vik:


> Though, Benny, why are you saying "teachers" is the direct object? The  "ordered" has two objects: "to conduct a fire drill" (direct) and  "teachers" (indirect), am I wrong?



===
I do see your reasoning:  If 'The principal wanted to conduct a fire drill' has the infinitive as object, why not say that 'to conduct a fire drill'is an object in ##

'The principal ordered the teachers {IO} [to conduct a fire drill]{DO}."   Notations reflect Vik's thinking. {=They are incorrect.}

The problem Vik is this is NOT like W:  "The principal ordered the teachers a big banquet."

"to conduct" is not like a banquet, even if you say, The principal was ordering the conducting of a fire drill.   In effect, you're re writing the sentence to say that 
X: the principal ordered the conducting of a fire drill on the part of the teachers.

This would require further re write to fit your analysis.
Y:  the principal ordered of the teachers, the conducting of a fire drill.

Notice that even then, the result is not parallel to.

W:  "The principal ordered the teachers a big banquet."

Def'n of Indirect Object  [M-W]



> grammar : a noun, pronoun, or noun phrase that  occurs in addition to a direct object after some verbs and indicates the  person or thing that receives what is being given or done


----------



## wandle

VikNikSor said:


> *What* did you tell him? I told him *to come over here*. How come there's no 'what'...?


The sentence 'What did you tell him?' is ambiguous. It could mean 'What information did you give him?' or 'What instruction did you give him?'
We have to distinguish clearly these two different senses of the verb 'tell'. 

(a) 'Tell' means 'inform'. It may be followed by a noun, noun phrase, indirect question or noun clause expressing the factual information involved. 
'I told him the time', 'I told him the time of day', 'I told him what the time was', 'I told him that it was three o'clock'. 
We can call this factual content 'the what' or the information.

(b) 'Tell' means 'order' or 'instruct'. It may be followed by a purpose clause or an infinitive phrase expressing the purpose or intent of the order. 
'I told him to come here', 'I told him that he should come here'.
We cannot call this purpose 'the what' or 'the why'. We can call it the intent, the order or the instruction.

We can always identify a phrase expressing purpose, because when we convert it to an equivalent clause we find that a modal verb or verb form is needed.

'I told him the time' is equivalent to 'I told him what the time was'. 
The verb 'was' is not modal; therefore no purpose is involved in this case.

'I told him to come here' is equivalent to 'I told him that he should come here'. 
Here, the verb 'should come' is modal; therefore purpose is involved in this case.


VikNikSor said:


> _I told him *to do his homework* --_ the infinitive is a direct object. _
> I hurried home *to* *do my homework *--_ the infinitive is "a purpose".


In both those examples, the infinitive phrases are expressing purpose.
We can distinguish two types of purpose: what I intend to do myself and what I intend someone else to do.

'I decided to come here' expresses what I intended to do myself.
'I told him to come here' expresses what I intended the other person to do.

Purpose is equally involved in both cases.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thanks for the answers !

One question:
1. I want *you to go there*
2. I tell *you to go there*
3. I order *you to go there*
I knew that the bold part in 1 is so-called (at least in Russian) "complex object". I've just learned, from some grammar sources, that so is the bold part in 3. If you say that 2 is absolutely identical to the other two, then I'll consider it "complex object", too.


----------



## Mahantongo

VikNikSor said:


> I brought a book to him -- do you mean "book" turns into the indirect object?


No.  It means that this sentence *has no indirect object*.  "Book" is not an indirect object in this sentence; it is instead the object of the preposition "to".  In the three examples I gave, the same concept was expressed in sentences of two different kinds: sentences with indirect objects, and sentences with prepositional phrases.  However, a prepositional phrase is *not *the same thing as an indirect object.


----------



## VicNicSor

Mahantongo said:


> No.  It means that this sentence *has no indirect object*.  "Book" is not an indirect object in this sentence; it is instead the object of the preposition "to".  In the three examples I gave, the same concept was expressed in sentences of two different kinds: sentences with indirect objects, and sentences with prepositional phrases.  However, a prepositional phrase is *not *the same thing as an indirect object.


I see, thank you.


----------



## bennymix

You are right that 1 and 3 are more complex, since a clause may be substituted:  I want you to go there =   I want that {you go there}.

However, although the clause may be called the Direct Object (of the clausal kind), that would not-- as you analyzed above, make 'you' the indirect object  and 'go there' the direct object.    This structure cannot, as you suggest be assimilated to "I send you a letter"  which **in the main clause, contains DO and IO.

In other words, we don't intermingle the levels.  I want that {Joe arrest Larry}.  has a 'complex' [=clausal, ] DO in braces.   Within that clause, Joe is subject and Larry is the Direct Object.   However we would not say, as you proposed, that the verb 'want' has an indirect object 'Joe' and a direct object 'arrest Larry' (nor 'Larry' by itself, either).





VikNikSor said:


> Thanks for the answers !
> 
> One question:
> 1. I want *you to go there*
> 2. I tell *you to go there*
> 3. I order *you to go there*
> I knew that the bold part in 1 is so-called (at least in Russian) "complex object". I've just learned, from some grammar sources, that so is the bold part in 3. If you say that 2 is absolutely identical to the other two, then I'll consider it "complex object", too.


----------



## wandle

I have never met the phrase 'complex object' before in any of the languages in which I have studied any grammar. 
Here is a comment from one language website:

Could you explain to me when we use Complex Object?


> it's an idea invented by Russian academics who studied English. You won't find the phrase in any native English grammar texts.


To judge from the present thread, it does not seem to me to be a valid way of analysing English sentences.


----------



## intolerandus

Complex object is also known as _accusativus cum infinitivo_.


wandle said:


> Here is a comment from one language website:
> Could you explain to me when we use Complex Object?
> it's an idea invented by Russian academics who studied English


That's sheer ignorance.


----------



## intolerandus

VikNikSor said:


> Thanks for the answers !
> 
> One question:
> 1. I want *you to go there*
> 2. I tell *you to go there*
> 3. I order *you to go there*
> I knew that the bold part in 1 is so-called (at least in Russian) "complex object". I've just learned, from some grammar sources, that so is the bold part in 3. If you say that 2 is absolutely identical to the other two, then I'll consider it "complex object", too.


English syntax is rather a complicated thing. The construction in question is only used with several verbs, and "tell" is not one of them.


----------



## wandle

intolerandus said:


> Complex object is also known as _accusativus cum infinitivo._


The construction known in English as accusative and infinitive is one form of indirect statement.

A little further internet searching brings up the following extract from a philosophical text, which gives a different definition of a complex object:

Gabriel Nuchelmans <Appellatio Rationis> in Buridan, <Sophismata>, IV, 9-15


> there are also intentional verbs, especially of knowing and believing, which require a complex object, namely an expression, in Latin mostly an accusative and infinitive phrase, which signifies that something is the case.


This means that any such expression, not just an accusative and infinitive, is a complex object. 

Take the famous words of the American Declaration of Independence _'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created  equal, etc._' 
In this example, the two propositional expressions (a) 'these truths to be self-evident' and (b) 'that all men are created equal' are both instances of a complex object as defined above. (The second of these, incidentally, is introduced not by a verb, but by the noun 'truths'.)

To put it another way: the expression 'complex object' can refer to any expression which has a proposition as its content; which means it is not the name of a grammatical construction, since there are various different constructions which can be used for such an expression.


----------



## intolerandus

wandle said:


> This means that any such expression, not just an accusative and infinitive, is a complex object.


Exactly. The term "complex object" is absolutely transparent and has a literal meaning.

_I eat bread._ (subject - predicate - object)
_The captain ordered *the goods to be loaded* at once._ (subject - predicate - *complex object* - adjunct? I'm not sure how you call it.)

The same construction can be used with a participle:
_I saw him *enter* the room._ (complex object; infinitival; the infinitive is bare after verbs as "see")
_I saw the small bird *carrying* a twig in its beak._ (complex object; participial)


wandle said:


> Take the famous words of the American Declaration of Independence _'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created  equal, etc._' In this example, the two propositional expressions (a) 'these truths to be self-evident' and (b) 'that all men are created equal' are both instances of a complex object as defined above.


 I agree. The same construction exists in other European languages (as I'm sure you're perfectly aware).


----------



## intolerandus

wandle said:


> To put it another way: the expression 'complex object' can refer to any expression which has a proposition as its content; which means it is not the name of a grammatical construction, since there are various different constructions which can be used for such an expression.


Well, as I've said, the meaning of the expression "complex object" is literal.


----------



## wandle

If the quotation from Nuchelmans above is regarded as definitive, two things follow:

(1) that 'complex object' refers to propositional expressions only: this means it does not include, in the examples above, the phrases 'the goods to be loaded at once', 'him enter the room', 'the small bird carrying a twig in its beak';

(2) that the propositional expressions which 'complex object' does refer to include not only the accusative and infinitive, but any indirect statement, such as: nominative and infinitive (e.g. in Greek), 'that' clauses in English and 'quod' clauses in Latin (to go no further).


----------



## intolerandus

wandle said:


> (The second of these, incidentally, is introduced not by a verb, but by the noun 'truths'.)


I'm not sure I got your point. There's the difference between "complex object" and subordinate clauses.
I expect him to come here.
I expect *that he will come here*. (I don't know how this type of a subordinate clause is called in English, but that is not, strictly speaking, an object, as far as I'm concerned.)


----------



## intolerandus

wandle said:


> (1) that 'complex object' refers to propositional expressions only: this means it does not include, in the examples above, the phrases 'the goods to be loaded at once', 'him enter the room', 'the small bird carrying a twig in its beak';


It appears to me that I've misunderstood you; I don't completely realise what you mean by "propositional expressions" and don't follow your logic.


wandle said:


> (2) that the propositional expressions which 'complex object' does refer to include not only the accusative and infinitive, but any indirect statement, such as: nominative and infinitive (e.g. in Greek), 'that' clauses in English and 'quod' clauses in Latin (to go no further).


 I know no Greek, but nominative and infinitive is a well-known construction also called "complex subject"  
"quod-clauses" in Latin are to my mind normal subordinate clauses, they're not an object.


----------



## VicNicSor

To Wandle #52: they include certain verbs which take _noun or pronoun (objective) + infinitive_ as the object. It's used with a lot of verbs but "tell" seems to be excluded. Those objects are not "propositional expressions only" but don't include "that-clauses".


----------



## wandle

'Complex object', like 'complex subject', is a new term to me. I suspect neither term is very helpful in dealing with English expressions such as 'told him to come here' or the topic phrase 'the fires ... ordered to be kept burning'. Each of these clearly expresses a purpose and is equivalent to a clause, and therefore has a corresponding relation to the sentence (adverbial, not objective). Some grammarians declare that such phrases actually are clauses. In my eyes they are neither clauses nor objects but infinitive phrases of purpose.


intolerandus said:


> I don't completely realise what you mean by "propositional expressions" and don't follow your logic.


  In my efforts to find out what this 'complex object' is supposed to be, I quoted the extract from Nuchelmans describing it as 'an expression ... which signifies that something is the case'.  That is a propositional expression: a statement that something is the case. This is not the same kind of expression at all as an infinitive phrase of purpose. However, a Greek nominative and infinitive does assert a proposition of that kind and therefore fits the description given by Nuchelmans. My purpose in mentioning that was to show precisely that it is not equivalent to an infinitive phrase of purpose.


intolerandus said:


> "quod-clauses" in Latin are to my mind normal subordinate clauses, they're not an object.


 In referring to 'quod' clauses in Latin, 'that' clauses in English and Greek nom. and inf., I was careful to show that I was speaking of these only as varieties of indirect statement:


wandle said:


> (2) that the propositional expressions which 'complex object' does refer to include not only the accusative and infinitive, but _any indirect statement, *such as*_: nominative and infinitive (e.g. in Greek), 'that' clauses in English and 'quod' clauses in Latin (to go no further).


 In Latin, 'quod' clauses may be causal ('quod' meaning 'because') or may (especially in later Latin) be indirect statements ('quod' meaning 'that').
 In English, 'that' clauses may be relative clauses, purpose clauses, result clauses or indirect statements. 
 However, in either case, my comment was referring only to the use in indirect statements.


----------



## VicNicSor

Maybe what is implied by Complex Object in Russian is not exactly the same what Nuchelmans meant.


----------



## wandle

If so, might it not be helpful if we could have a definition of that Russian concept (even if only to eliminate it from our enquiries)?


----------



## intolerandus

wandle said:


> 'Complex object', like 'complex subject', is a new term to me. I suspect neither term is very helpful in dealing with English expressions such as 'told him to come here' or the topic phrase 'the fires ... ordered to be kept burning'. Each of these clearly expresses a purpose and is equivalent to a clause, and therefore has a corresponding relation to the sentence (adverbial, not objective). Some grammarians declare that such phrases actually are clauses. In my eyes they are neither clauses nor objects but infinitive phrases of purpose.


This problem, as I have already mentioned, is quite complicated. I agree that these two expressions you cite are not examples of "complex object", although as regards structure they bear too obvious a resemblance to those I invented in #50.
In my experience, grammarians try to avoid this problem by simply stating that "complex object" in modern languages can be used only with several verbs; the range of verbs in Latin used for that construction being much broader. The same situation, I believe, is the case with nom. cum inf.


----------



## PaulQ

I may be muddying waters but I see no difference in

The captain ordered a beer
The captain ordered them to stop drinking
The captain ordered the cargo to be discharged
The captain ordered X - where X is anything that makes some sense.

All in red font are noun phrases acting as objects -> they are not 'complex' at all.

The introduction of Russian and Latin terms does nothing to understand a Germanic language.

He gave her the cake
He gave the cake to her
He baked her a cake
He baked a cake for her

[to/for] her indirect object: a vestige of the meaning of the dative. As per Chomsky at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dative_shift#Chomsky_1955

He sent him to London = He sent him in the direction of London <- prepositional
He sent him to get a towel = He sent him to get a towel <- adverbial


----------



## intolerandus

PaulQ said:


> The captain ordered them to stop drinking
> The captain ordered the cargo to be discharged


In the first sentence there are two separate objects: "them" (whom ... ?) and "to stop drinking" (what ... to do?).
In the second there is only one object and it's complex object in its own person, "complex" meaning compound. It is complex object because it contains a noun in the accusative (being the logical subject of the phrase "the cargo to be discharged") and the infinitive (being the predicate of that phrase).


----------



## bennymix

I don't find this persuasive, though I do see a difference in the constructions.   The alleged rationale for 'complex',   'noun in accusative' and 'infinitive as predicate' applies equally to the first sentence.


> 1)The captain ordered them to stop drinking
> 2) The captain ordered the cargo to be discharged


I would put it thus (re writing).  

1#) The captain ordered that 'they stop drinking'
                              2#) The captain ordered that 'the cargo be discharged.'

The 'object' in both cases is a clause;   The clause is grammatically a direct object.  The difference is that the first contains an active agent, the second does not.   The second, like all passives, leaves the agent to be specified:   2* The captain ordered that the cargo be discharged by the harbormaster.

The difference is that in the original form, as far as I know, English grammarians say 
that , in the case of 1) 'them' is a direct object.   It is easy to see why, since the captain tells *them* to do something.   In the case of 2), original, 'cargo',  is embedded and it's neither direct or indirect object.






intolerandus said:


> In the first sentence there are two separate objects: "them" (whom ... ?) and "to stop drinking" (what ... to do?).
> In the second there is only one object and it's complex object in its own person, "complex" meaning compound. It is complex object because it contains a noun in the accusative (being the logical subject of the phrase "the cargo to be discharged") and the infinitive (being the predicate of that phrase).


----------



## PaulQ

No "them stop drinking" should be considered as the object - it is what the captain ordered. If you want to break down that object further, that's fine, but, here unnecessary.

As I said, and as wandle said, I don't think it is helpful at all to bring in the terms 'complex' or 'compound' when all we are doing is looking at the object upon which the verb acts directly or indirectly, be it a word, a phrase or a clause.

PS, (i) It dos not matter "whom" (ii) to drink can be transitive or intransitive.


----------



## intolerandus

bennymix said:


> The 'object' in both cases is a clause;   The clause is grammatically a direct object.  The difference is that the first contain an active agent, the second does not.   The second, like all passives, leaves the agent to be specified:   2* The captain ordered that the cargo be discharged by the harbormaster.


Those two sentences were not perhaps the best choice, but you still cannot drop "the cargo" in the second example. I think the _voice_-issue is irrelevant.


----------



## bennymix

Paul, it would be good if you clarified to whom you're saying 'no.'   I believe my analysis is much the same as yours, and the post was offered in basic agreement.

Paul said in part, post #63:



> No "them stop drinking" should be considered as the object - it is what  the captain ordered. If you want to break down that object further,  that's fine, but, here unnecessary.


----------



## bennymix

I don't understand your post.   My re writes of 2), both versions 2# and 2*, contain 'cargo' (it is not 'dropped,' as you apparently say);  the word is the subject of the clause.



intolerandus said:


> Those two sentences were not perhaps the best choice, but you still cannot drop "the cargo" in the second example. I think the _voice_-issue is irrelevant.


----------



## intolerandus

bennymix said:


> I don't understand your post.   My re writes of 2), both versions 2# and 2*, contain 'cargo' (it is not 'dropped,' as you apparently say);  the word is the subject of the clause.


I meant you can't rewrite the second sentence without the "cargo", while we can rewrite the first without "them". 
Both "them" and "to stop drinking" are - syntactically - objects, whether you like it or not.

Let us recall that construction in question is a pattern existing in several languages and if you don't like the term I promise I won't use it again, OK?


----------



## bennymix

Recall that I proposed two re-writes which capture the essence of your sentences:



> 1#) The captain ordered that 'they stop drinking'
> 2#) The captain ordered that 'the cargo be discharged.'



It's quite patent that 'cargo' can't be deleted from the second;  neither can 'they' be deleted from the first.

I don't have any objection to saying that some grammatical 'objects' are 'complex.'   As I proposed, it's simply another way of saying that a direct object may be a clause.   Each clause has a subject and predicate.

The difference of 1) and 2), I'd argue is simply that the *subject* of the clause is active (an agent) in sentence 1).

The further difference, perhaps in English and Russian, is that in case 1), we are willing to say that the agent {'them'} is a direct object of the main verb.   This is not the case in 2) and it resembles the example of the OP.  'cargo' like 'fire' is not an object of the main verb {rather the whole clause --'complex object'--is.}.





intolerandus said:


> I meant you can't rewrite the second sentence without the "cargo", while we can rewrite the first without "them".
> Both "them" and "to stop drinking" are - syntactically - objects, whether you like it or not.
> 
> Let us recall that construction in question is a pattern existing in several languages and if you don't like the term I promise I won't use it again, OK?


----------



## PaulQ

bennymix said:


> Paul, it would be good if you clarified to whom you're saying 'no.'   I believe my analysis is much the same as yours, and the post was offered in basic agreement.


My apologies, my reply was to intolerandus. (There was a delay between my starting and posting.)


----------



## intolerandus

bennymix said:


> neither can 'they' be deleted from the first


I didn't realise that. Well, we should have chosen less ambiguous examples. Unfortunately, I don't have time now, I will be able to return to our discussion only the day after tomorrow.
Rewriting those sentences as that-clauses doesn't prove anything, you can as well rewrite (for example) any participial construction as subordinate clause with a pronoun.


----------



## intolerandus

PaulQ said:


> As I said, and as wandle said, I don't think it is helpful at all to bring in the terms 'complex' or 'compound' when all we are doing is looking at the object upon which the verb acts directly or indirectly, be it a word, a phrase or a clause.


Well, if, as wandle said, acc. cum inf. (complex object) is a type of an indirect object, let it be an indirect object. That's not quite the point.


----------



## bennymix

I do see the term 'complex object' in some English grammars and sites.

At Google books,
_
English Insights_ by Danny V Ace and Dimitry Subbotin.

They say the 'complex object' is a clause in the  'object' {DO} position {subject and predicate} with the stipulation that  the verb be an infinitive (bare).

Their examples:  





> I saw the boy raise his hand
> I heard him describe his new bedroom suite.



==============
Second source:

http://www.englishlanguageguide.com/grammar/object.asp



> *Complex Objects*
> Like subjects, objects can be complex, consisting of the simple object and all the words which modify it.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> I finally bought the dress I had tried on at least thirty times.
> * Simple object  - dress
> * Complex object - the dress I had tried on at least thirty times



I note that the latter definition is not exactly in agreement with the former.


----------



## wandle

bennymix said:


> I note that the latter definition is not exactly in agreement with the former.


Not only do they not agree, but they are clearly different.

(a) In the latter case, an adjectival expression is attached to the noun 'dress', qualifying the object more precisely.

(b) In the former case, a verbal idea is added, which cannot be regarded as qualifying or defining the noun 'boy'.
If anything, the relation is the other way round, since if we try to rewrite the expression, we cannot put it as 'I saw the boy raising his hand', but rather 'I saw the boy's raising (of) his hand'.

(c) However, each of those is different from the expressions first presented in this thread as 'complex objects', namely '(ordered) him to come here' or the implicit topic phrase '(ordered) fires to be kept burning', or '(ordered) the cargo to be loaded'.

(d) Those again are different from the accusative and infinitive construction of the Latin type, which is indeed used in English, such as 'we hold these truths to be self-evident'. This type is exclusively a propositional expression of the kind discussed by Buridan and Nuchelmans.

Of those four types, (a) is clearly a valid example of an object expression. Types (b) and (d) can also both be seen as object expressions.

However, in type (c), which is what this thread is about, there is certainly an object ('him', 'fires', 'cargo') but the rest of the phrase expresses _the intention of whoever is the subject_ of the verb 'ordered': it is not a part or attribute or qualification of the object at all (compare post 56: 'adverbial, not objective'). Therefore this is not an example of a complex object, whatever way that is defined.


----------



## wandle

intolerandus said:


> Well, if, as wandle said, acc. cum inf. (complex object) is a type of an indirect object, let it be an indirect object.


I do not say that. I do say that type (d), the English acc. and inf. of the same kind as Latin, can be seen as the direct object of the verb, because it is a proposition which can be alternatively represented in a noun-clause ('I know him to be wealthy' is equivalent to 'I know that he is wealthy').


intolerandus said:


> "complex object" in modern languages can be used only with several verbs; the range of verbs in Latin used for that construction being much broader.


That point is valid when speaking of type (d), namely propositional expressions (asserting that something is the case).
This leads me to think that the definition of a complex object given by Nuchelmans, quoted in post 49, is the correct one.

If so, I would reiterate my view that it is not a particular grammatical construction at all, but a concept which can be represented by a number of different constructions (see post 52), each of these being a separate equivalent of type (d).


----------



## bennymix

Thanks, Wandle.   Things are getting clearer.


----------



## intolerandus

wandle said:


> (d) Those again are different from the accusative and infinitive construction of the Latin type, which is indeed used in English, such as 'we hold these truths to be self-evident'. This type is exclusively a propositional expression of the kind discussed by Buridan and Nuchelmans.





wandle said:


> I do say that type (d), the English acc. and inf. of the same kind as Latin, can be seen as the direct object of the verb, because it is a proposition which can be alternatively represented in a noun-clause ('I know him to be wealthy' is equivalent to 'I know that he is wealthy').


I'm sorry, I don't understand your "types".


wandle said:


> (b) In the former case, a verbal idea is added, which cannot be regarded as qualifying or defining the noun 'boy'.
> If anything, the relation is the other way round, since if we try to rewrite the expression, we cannot put it as 'I saw the boy raising his hand', but rather 'I saw the boy's raising (of) his hand'.


Do you agree that the sentence _I saw the boy raise his hand_ is an example of English acc. cum inf. or not? 





wandle said:


> If so, I would reiterate my view that it is not a particular grammatical construction at all, but a concept which can be represented by a number of different constructions (see post 52), each of these being a separate equivalent of type (d).


I'm OK with that, except that I don't understand what you mean by "(d)".


----------



## wandle

Type (a) is an object expression where for example a noun has an adjectival expression attached, which could be a relative clause or a participial phrase.
Type (b) uses the infinitive to express an action performed, really or notionally, by the object of a verb of perception.
Type (c) uses the infinitive to express an action intended by the subject to be performed by the object.
Type (d) uses the accusative and infinitive construction of the Latin type to express a proposition, namely, that something is the case: it is, unlike any of the other types, an indirect statement.


----------



## intolerandus

I understood the explanations, I didn't understand which four sentences they are referred to.


----------



## wandle

Type (a): _I found the answer which had eluded my best efforts for so long_.
Type (b): _I heard the bomb go off_.
Type (c): _I told the man to leave_.
Type (d): _I know him to be an expert_.


intolerandus said:


> Do you agree that the sentence _I saw the boy raise his hand_ is an example of English acc. cum inf. or not?


It involves both an accusative and an infinitive, but it is not an accusative and infinitive construction of the Latin type.

In other words, it is not equivalent to 'I saw that the boy raised his  hand'. It is really equivalent to 'I saw the boy's raising (of) his  hand'.
It expresses my visual perception of his action: it does not express the  proposition that the boy raised his hand (that is a fact, a state of  affairs, not an object of visual perception).

We can say: '_I saw the boy raise his hand. I understood him to mean that he knew the answer'_.

In this case, 'I understood him to mean' is an example of a Latin-type  acc. and inf. It is equivalent to 'I understood that he meant'.
Whenever English uses this construction, it is the infinitive with 'to' that is used.


----------



## intolerandus

wandle said:


> It involves both an accusative and an infinitive, but it is not an accusative and infinitive construction of the Latin type.
> 
> In other words, it is not equivalent to 'I saw that the boy raised his  hand'. It is really equivalent to 'I saw the boy's raising (of) his  hand'.
> It expresses my visual perception of his action: it does not express the  proposition that the boy raised his hand (that is a fact, a state of  affairs, not an object of visual perception).
> 
> We can say: '_I saw the boy raise his hand. I understood him to mean that he knew the answer'_.
> 
> In this case, 'I understood him to mean' is an example of a Latin-type  acc. and inf. It is equivalent to 'I understood that he meant'.


Thank you very much.


wandle said:


> Whenever English uses this construction, it is the infinitive with 'to' that is used.


Interestingly enough, Russian grammar books always note that the bare infinitive in this type of a construction is used because of the "verbs of perception".


----------



## wandle

Is that 'Russian books on English grammar'?


----------



## intolerandus

wandle said:


> Type (a): _I found the answer which had eluded my best efforts for so long_.
> Type (b): _I heard the bomb go off_.
> Type (c): _I told the man to leave_.
> Type (d): _I know him to be an expert_.


Everything is in its place now. These types are food for reflection indeed. I usually re-read your posts in the reverse order and this case is no exception. Thanks for spelling this out for me.


wandle said:


> Is that 'Russian books on English grammar'?


Yes, of course.


----------



## wandle

intolerandus said:


> Yes, of course.


Could it be, then, that they are applying Russian categories to English usage?


----------



## intolerandus

No, that's out of question. Russian does not have such thing as acc./nom. and inf., although there are all kinds of subordinate clauses (which include that-clauses, quite identical to those in English and Latin).


----------



## wandle

I am still wondering what is understood by the term 'complex object' on the part of the Russian grammarians who, I gather, apply it to English.


----------



## intolerandus

I can give you a list of what is considered to be "complex object" from one good old Russian book on English:
_He wanted me to come on Sunday.
I saw him enter the room.
I consider him to be right.
We expected them to arrive.
I rely on you to do it in time._
You can look at additional examples here or here.

I'd say, (b) and (d) from your list of examples would be considered as CO:
_Type (a): I found the answer which had eluded my best efforts for so long.
 Type (b): I heard the bomb go off.
 Type (c): I told the man to leave.
 Type (d): I know him to be an expert._


----------



## wandle

Very interesting. Are such examples always rendered in Russian by use of a subordinate clause?


----------



## intolerandus

Not exactly. The verbatim translation of (a) and (c) will be the examples of good Russian. As for (b) and (d), you can translate them in several ways, but you can't reproduce the exact construction used in English.


----------



## wandle

I see. And is the term 'complex object' applied to other languages besides English?


----------



## intolerandus

I encountered somewhat cautious claims that _the similar construction exists in other languages_, something like that. 
Je vois ma mère venir; Ich sehe ihn schwimmen.


----------



## wandle

Here is the definition of 'complex object' given by the source *bennymix* referred to.

_English Insights: The first full-structured English grammar guide_
 By Danny V. Ace, Dmitry Subbotin


> The combination of a noun in the common case or a pronoun in the objective case and an infinitive used after the predicate forms a complex object. The relation between the noun (pronoun) and the infinitive is that of subject and predicate.


Two points strike me about the authors and the title. One of them appears to be Russian and they make the large claim of having produced 'the first full-structured English grammar guide'. I wonder if that means they are the first to produce in English a fully Russian guide to English grammar.

They give a number of examples which in fact bring together three of the types I distinguished in post 77.



_I saw the boy raise his hand._Type (b): perception of action_I heard him call my name._Type (b): perception of action_I want you to know that it doesn't matter._Type (c) intention of the subject_I heard him describe his new bedroom suite._Type (b): perception of action_He makes his children go to bed early._Type (c) intention of the subject_I saw him whitewash the fence._Type (b): perception of action_He wanted me to help him choose a new computer._Type (c) intention of the subject (twice)_I consider Bill to be Jack of all trades._Type (d) indirect statement_I expected him to paint the walls green._Type (c) intention of the subject

This seems to confirm my impression that this use of the term 'complex object' is simply lumping together three distinct constructions which look the same but are in fact different.


----------



## intolerandus

wandle said:


> I wonder if that means they are the first to produce in English a fully Russian guide to English grammar.



Does the book have an ISBN? It seems to be a self-made pdf file, rather than a book.


----------



## wandle

It is on Google books, but without further publication details. This introductory note does not seem very promising:


> To the Student
> 
> Mastering English starts from experiencing grammar. Unfortunately, there are few resources which provide full-structured grammar guide. Besides, not only in English.


Their website is evidently for Russian learners of English.


----------



## intolerandus

My guess is that they apparently felt so extreme an aversion to the excessively hyped CGEL that they resolved to write a better grammar themselves.


wandle said:


> Their website is evidently for Russian learners of English.


 It's just a community on the "VK" social network basis.
  Incidentally, I've managed to get the book, and it mostly represents a compilation from the open sources.


----------



## bennymix

An etic view of English grammar from foreign scholars, is, of course, welcome and intriguing.   But I think the first priority, where such exists, is to go to emic accounts.   

I do note that the Russian sources, in translation (of the English examples) seem to have less flexibility and use relative pronouns in their more restricted-in-form renderings.

This last remark is occasioned by the exchange, above:

Intolerandus:


> Do you agree that the sentence _I saw the boy raise his hand_ is an example of English acc. cum inf. or not?



Wandle:  





> It involves both an accusative and an infinitive, but it is not an accusative and infinitive construction of the Latin type.
> 
> In other words, it is not equivalent to 'I saw that the boy raised his   hand'. It is really equivalent to 'I saw the boy's raising (of) his   hand'.



I don't think most languages, including Russian, slice the salami this thin.  I don't doubt there is simple perception and propositional-related perception, but it takes some argument that the ordinary language forms of English make this clear.

A:  I saw the boy raise his hand.
B: May I take it that you intend and are asserting the proposition 'the boy raised his hand'?
or would you rather say, more precisely, that you merely saw 'the boy's raising of his hand'?
A:  Well, I hadn't thought of it, BUT, if you'd asked me, "Are you asserting the proposition, the boy raised his hand'? I think I would have said, 'yes.'
B:  But you weren't, exactly, at the time, were you?

==
I think more complicated assertions may make such issues clear.
A* (a teacher). I saw it clearly; the boy hadn't done his homework.


----------



## intolerandus

bennymix said:


> An etic view of English grammar from foreign scholars, is, of course, welcome and intriguing.


   In soviet times, there were published a number of very good books on the grammatic theory of the English language and on translation of difficult texts, written by highly competent scholars. The above "book" is compiled by individuals who in my view hardly know anything themselves. They might possess the ability to speak fluently (I rather doubt it, though), but they clearly don't realise what the English grammar really is. It will just suffice to mention a nonsensical fad of categorising an infinitive as a type of mood, sadly spread these days to the extent that one can come across such an attribution even on the English sites.


bennymix said:


> I don't think most languages, including Russian, slice the salami this thin.  I don't doubt there is simple perception and propositional-related perception, but it takes some argument that the ordinary language forms of English make this clear.


I was always wondering what this has to do with the infinitive/participle issue. If I say: _I saw the boy raising his hand_, will it mean that I saw the whole process of his raising his hand? And will the infinitive mean that I just took a look at him after he had raised his hand?


----------



## bennymix

I take your word for the whole picture, but I do know that one Russian scholar and translator of Pushkin (and himself) was a supreme master of English.  Nabokov.

But what do you think of my second point, above (why 'kak' turns up, where 'that' does not?) do you 'buy' the distinction that Wandle made, that I am querying?




intolerandus said:


> In soviet times, there were published a number of very good books on the grammatic theory of the English language and on translation of difficult texts, written by highly competent scholars. The above "book" is compiled by individuals who in my view hardly know anything themselves. They might possess the ability to speak fluently (I rather doubt it, though), but they clearly don't realise what the English grammar really is. It will just suffice to mention a nonsensical fad of categorising an infinitive as a type of mood, sadly spread these days to the extent that one can come across such an attribution even on the English sites.


----------



## intolerandus

bennymix said:


> Nabokov.


 His father was a crazy Anglophile, so young Vladimir started speaking English long before he was able to utter a word in Russian. I consider him a very poor writer, if you are interested in my opinion. And he's definitely not a scholar. He was eager to become a lecturer at Harvard and it is related that when someone tried to persuade Roman Jakobson to support Nabokov's candidature giving as a reason that "he is a great author", Jakobson replied: "An elephant is a great animal but we don't invite it to head the department of zoology".
I don't dispute his 'supreme mastership' of English, though - it's not for me to decide; but his being an epigone could hardly be debated, in my view. 





bennymix said:


> But what do you think of my second point, above (why 'kak' turns up, where 'that' does not?) do you 'buy' the distinction that Wandle made, that I am querying?


I'm not sure I understand. You can change как into что (=that) if you like. Let's take some specific example then.
 I think wandle's distinction is quite difficult and calls for serious reflection (as a non-native, I see not the one but several intertwined issues here, like that of the infinitive/participle one I mentioned in #96)


bennymix said:


> I think more complicated assertions may make such issues clear.
> A* (a teacher). I saw it clearly; the boy hadn't done his homework.


 That is not the type of a construction we are discussing, though.


----------



## bennymix

Let me apply what I take to be Wandle's distinction to these cases:



> http://lengish.com/grammar/theme-5.html
> 
> X. I heard her say these words. Я слышал, что она сказала эти слова.
> 
> Y.  I saw him come into the house. Я видел, что он вошел в дом.


I believe Wandle holds that X is NOT equivalent to X*: "I heard that she said these words."
Neither is Y equivalent to Y*:  I saw that he came into the house.

In other words, in neither case is what Wandle called situation d) involved.   X and Y are NOT propositional.   (I believe Wandle would say they are situation b). )

Yet it's clear that Russian treats them as so, in the examples.

Wandle, in his portion cited will allow that 'her saying' was involved in X, and 'his coming' was involved in Y [as objects, so to say]:  {I heard [her saying...]}.  But he does NOT allow a proposition to be substituted.

While I see the distinction in the abstract, and in carefully worded examples in 'philosophy of perception' books, I think it's hard to maintain, based on everyday English.

To vary my earlier example based on Wandle's post #91.

A:  I saw the boy raise his hand.
B: Do you believe that the boy raised his hand {=believe the proposition}.
A:  I don't know.   I just said what I saw.
B: Would you say it's a fact that the boy raised his hand?
A:  I don't know.   I just said what I saw.  I saw the boy, him raising; I don't know
if I saw a fact.
B:Would you say it's a fact [the boy raised his hand]?
A:  I don't know;  maybe as you mention it now, and I think about it.
B: Did you have any accompanying thought at the time of saying?
A: I don't recall.   IF you'd asked me at the time, "Do you believe...? I suppose I would have said, 'Yes, I believe that the boy raised his hand.'   But as it happened, the thought never occurred to me.

Note:  In this dialogue, A is a die-hard subscriber to the 'no proposition' view applied to these utterances about perception.


----------



## wandle

It seems to me that the distinction is pretty clear between type (b), perception of action, and type (d), indirect statement.

In type (b), '_I saw the boy raise his hand_' the sentence is about visual perception of an action. You see it physically by use of the eyes.

In type (d), _'I saw in a flash that the theorem was true'_, the sentence is about realisation of a factual idea. It is a different sense of the verb 'saw'. The eyes need not be involved at all.

If we say _'I saw that the boy had raised his hand'_ this again is about understanding a fact, though in this case, it may involve use of the eyes (but not necessarily seeing the boy).

Suppose you are at the scene of a train accident. You see a stretcher carried past bearing a motionless figure, covered with a sheet, whom the medics consider to be dead. However, you are able to alert them to the fact that the person is still alive.

Later, a reporter tells you that that was a boy, who is now being treated in hospital, and then asks 'How could you tell that he was alive?' You might say 'I saw that the boy had raised his hand'. Even though you could not see the boy at all, or even tell that it was a boy, you could see the sheet move in a way which showed he had lifted his hand. 

The sentence _'I saw that the boy had raised his hand'_ expresses your realisation of what had happened.


----------



## intolerandus

bennymix said:


> I believe Wandle holds that X is NOT equivalent to X*: "I heard that she said these words."
> Neither is Y equivalent to Y*:  I saw that he came into the house.


Only after your saying this did I realise that I had not really understood your point (#97). It's very wise, actually. (Do you know Russian?)
Some stylistic purists may insist that the sentences containing как do mean slightly different thing, and there are also two separate things to be noted:
Я слышал, *что* она сказала эти слова ~ 1) I state the fact that she indeed said these words; 2) (it may imply also that) I heard only these words, not the whole conversation
Я слышал, *как* она сказала эти слова ~ 1) now that's an utterance of perception (type "b"); 2) I heard the whole conversation

 So all in all, the problem still seems to me to be rather complicated. I'd like to renew the question I raised a couple of posts earlier: what will change in meaning if we replace an infinitive with a participle (I heard her _say_ these words -> I heard her _saying_ these words)?


----------



## bennymix

I do see the point of your illustrations.  The point is similar to that I made, above.



> A:  I saw the boy raise his hand.
> 
> A* (a teacher). I saw it clearly; the boy hadn't done his homework.



However, do you see anything peculiar about the dialogues in my posts 95 and 99?


----------



## intolerandus

bennymix said:


> However, do you see anything peculiar about the dialogues in my posts 95 and 99?


 I am kind of embarrassed to say so, but I still cannot grasp why it has to be so distinct a difference between _I saw the boy raise his hand_ and _I saw that the boy raised his hand_. If I make a statement, does it really matter if I state a fact or my perception (by senses) of the same fact? In other words, when I make an indirect statement ("d"), it is inevitably based on my previous perception of a fact (= something that is the case) by my senses, is it not?


----------



## Myridon

I saw him come into the house.
Was he wearing his hat?
Yes.

I saw (him walking through the door and knew by this sign) that he came into the house.
Was he wearing his hat?
Yes.

I saw (his shoes by the door and knew by this sign) that he came into the house.
Was he wearing his hat?
I have no idea.  I haven't seen him.


----------



## bennymix

To myridon and Wandle,
There is no question that some uses of 'see' involve inferences from the given in perception.
The question is whether all perception reports contain implicit propositional content.

A:  I see Joe coming into the house.
B:  Are you saying it's a fact that he's coming into the house.
A:  I have no idea as to that fact.
B:  Did you see Joe?
A:  Yes.
B:  So, are you saying it's a fact that you saw Joe?
A:  I have no idea about such a fact.
B:  It was Joe that you saw, yes?
A:  Yes.
B:  It's a fact that you saw Joe, yes?
A:  Yes.
B:  Were you not, then, reporting that fact?
A:  No, I simply said I saw Joe.
B:  Did you believe it was Joe?
A:  I have no idea;  I saw Joe.   Now I say, "I believe it was Joe," but
     at the time, I just don't know about my beliefs.
B:  But you did say,  "I saw Joe."
A:  That was because I saw him.


----------



## wandle

bennymix said:


> The question is whether all perception reports contain implicit propositional content.


That is a philosophical question.

The language point is that the sentence 'I saw that such-and-such had happened' is expressing a proposition of fact. 
A fact is an idea, a concept, not something we can see with the eye.

Therefore this sentence is not literally about vision in the physical sense.


----------



## bennymix

> The language point is that the sentence 'I saw that such-and-such happened' is expressing a proposition of fact.
> A fact is an idea, a concept, not something we can see with the eye.
> 
> Therefore this sentence is not literally about vision in the physical sense.



There is no dispute about cases of 'seeing' clearly used for inferences.

The issue is whether what you call cases b) and d) can, in simple direct everyday reports, be distinguished.   Since in many cases, 'that' can be deleted as a relative pronoun, there are 
often no surface markers to indicate propositional 'seeing.'

Further, for cases of d) I feel you have limited yourself to propositions of what IS the case.
Many verbs that involve proposition involve what's NOT the case, but what is, so to say, expected to be the case.

Returning to the OP example [slightly reworded]:
OP#: The Japanese had ordered the fires to be kept burning.
===
The equates to 

OP-alt: The Japanese had ordered that the fires be kept burning.

In terms of propositions, we may expand,

The Japanese had ordered that the following proposition be made to obtain,  "The fires are kept burning."

As pointed out by various posters, the order does not single out any persons as object; nor is something expected of the fire, e.g. that the fire should do something to maintain itself.

We are NOT dealing with,  P: The Japanese ordered him around like a slave.

Rather it's like,  Q: The Japanese ordered him out of the cell.

=[Q explicated] The Japanese ordered him directly--that he go out of his cell.

In your terms, Wandle, the sentence Q,  beneath its surface, expresses {indicates} a proposition of fact, specifically one which does not obtain, but which is expected to obtain.


----------

