# EN: I'll buy you two



## WDS

What are the two grammar rules allowing or disallowing these two implied prepositions?

1.  "I will buy you 2 tickets"  (i.e. I will buy them FOR you from someone else -- "FOR" is implied)  

2.  "I will buy you 2 tickets"  (i.e. I will buy them FROM you for myself or for someone else -- "FROM" is implied)

Thanks


----------



## herma jesty

WDS said:


> What are the two grammar rules allowing or disallowing these two implied prepositions?
> 
> 1.  "I will buy you 2 tickets"  (i.e. I will buy them FOR you from someone else -- "FOR" is implied)
> 
> 2.  "I will buy you 2 tickets"  (i.e. I will buy them FROM you for myself or for someone else -- "FROM" is implied)
> 
> Thanks


 
Interesting question - I've never thought of that! Meaning 1. is correct. "I will buy you something" always implies "I will buy something for you."


----------



## WDS

I'm wondering whether meaning 1 is "always" implied, because I found some precedents of meaning 2, i.e. the buyer saying to the seller, "I'll buy you two (items) for x $ ... ".

That's why I'm looking for the specific grammar rule which prohibits meaning 2, if that's the case.


----------



## jann

Welcome, WDS! 

As far as I am concerned, meaning #2 is incorrect.  While I will not go so far as to say that it is "impossible" or that it is "never" used, it is certainly _extremely_ uncommon.  If it is used at all, it would be colloquial/dialectical and it would require a very specific context (such as your buyer/seller story) to prevent ambiguity and misunderstandings.

Is it possible that you misheard the buyer?  He could easily have said "I'll buy you*r* two items for $xx."

Is it possible that the buyer wasn't a native speaker, or that he was influenced by the French structure?


----------



## WDS

I realize it's uncommon and rather colloquial, hence this posting.

While some of the precedents I found may originate from foreign speakers, at least one seems to be from a colloquial native speaker of US English.

That's why I was wondering about the applicable grammar rule.  

What is the grammar rule which authorizes the implied preposition "FOR" in the phrase "buy you", and which prohibits the implied preposition "FROM" in that same phrase?


----------



## herma jesty

It might be a dialect... I can picture it being used in the way you describe very colloquially in a market.

I wonder whether it's still an abbreviation of "I'll buy for you"... but in the sense that the stall holder is trying to persuade the customer to buy something, and the customer is agreeing "For you, I'll buy...", as if it's a favour to the stall holder.


----------



## jann

WDS said:


> That's why I was wondering about the applicable grammar rule.
> 
> What is the grammar rule which authorizes the implied preposition "FOR" in the phrase "buy you", and which prohibits the implied preposition "FROM" in that same phrase?


I don't think it makes sense to look for a grammatical rule to govern/justify a colloquial or dialectical usage.   One of the characteristics of colloquial/dialectical speech is that it is often grammatically "incorrect" compared to a more standard or widely-accepted version of the language.


----------



## WDS

herma jesty:  

I agree with you that this must be the actual meaning of the phrase, and I thank you for the insight.

jann:  

It always makes sense to look for grammar rules, as opposed to uninformed opinion, especially when faced with grammatically ambiguous precedents.

Your last answer, labeling me as someone "not making sense", to which you added a grimacing emoticon, was an ad hominem fallacy and was unhelpful, especially coming from a moderator.

My next step will be to drive to the nearest university library, and consult Longman's English Grammar.


----------



## wildan1

WDS said:
			
		

> My next step will be to drive to the nearest university library, and consult Longman's English Grammar.


I wouldn't waste the gas/petrol to go to a library in this case, WDS.

_Je vous achète deux billets_ can be ambiguous in French
_I will buy you two tickets_ has only one possible meaning in English--your #1 above.

I doubt that any English grammar for native speakers would offer a rule, since there is no ambiguity to a native speaker about the meaning of the English sentence.


----------



## Nicomon

> _Je vous achète deux billets_ can be ambiguous in French


 True.  Which brings this question... which I hope isn't "off topic".  

Si la phrase à traduire était : _Pouvez-vous me faire un prix, si je vous en achète deux_?

Ai-je raison de penser qu'on devrait laisser tomber le second « _vous_ », et dire simplement : "_Can you make me a special price if I_ _buy two_?"  

Il me semble que l'ajout de "_from you_" à la fin serait curieux.


----------



## wildan1

_...from you_ (or in colloquial AE, _...off you_) is completely optional here. Its possible use might be to distinguish _you_ from some other seller.


----------



## Nicomon

Thank you wildan.  I never thought of "_off you_", which I remember hearing.


----------



## Keith Bradford

wildan1 said:


> _...from you_ (or in colloquial AE, _...off you_) ...


 
In colloquial BE too.


----------



## Woodville

Hello WDS,

I think the crucial grammatical point here is that the verb appears to have two direct objects (viz. "you" and "two tickets").  When this happens in English, the first object is always the *beneficiary* of the action.  This is extremely common in English, and perfectly regular:

I'll buy you two tickets = I will buy two tickets *for you*
I will give her a present = I will give a present *to her*
I will make him a sandwich = I will make a sandwich *for him*
He read the children a story = He read a story *to the children*
She knitted the man a sweater = She knitted a sweater *for the man*


----------



## CapnPrep

Welcome to WRF, Woodville.


Woodville said:


> I think the crucial grammatical point here is that the verb appears to have two direct objects (viz. "you" and "two tickets").  When this happens in English, the first object is always the *beneficiary* of the action.


Unfortunately, this is not always true. There are a few verbs with two unmarked objects where the first object is not the beneficiary: _cost_, _bet_, _fine_. These all involve (potentially) taking something away from someone. And while the implied preposition is _from_, these verbs don't actually allow an alternative construction with _from_ (_It cost *me* a fortune_ vs. _*It cost a fortune *from me*_).

There is at least one verb that allows both interpretations, depending on the subject: _We *took them* some supplies_ vs. _The job* took them* three weeks_.



WDS said:


> What are the two grammar rules allowing or disallowing these two implied prepositions?


The rule is that an object introduced by _to_/_for_ can sometimes be turned into a dative object, but an object introduced by _from_ cannot.

Or whatever it says in Longman's English Grammar.


----------

