# Explain to me / explain me



## Chava

Hi all

I know the correct way is *explain to me*, however I don't know if there is any rule about this.

Can you please provide me more information about this kind of verbs? Or some verbs with which I have to do the same.

Thank you


----------



## boreen

Talk (hablar) would be another.  And "listen" (escuchar).  You would say "talk to me", and "listen to me" (not "talk me" and "listen me").  I'm sorry I don't know the grammar rule.  Other verbs don't need the word "to" before the indirect object.  For example, the word, "tell".  You can just say "tell me" - not "tell to me".  Maybe someone knows the grammar rule.  I think it just depends on the word.


----------



## micafe

It depends on the verb. 

"Explain" requires "to" when used as intransitive. 

*"Explain the lesson to me"*

*Explain* - verb
*t**he lesson* - direct objet
*to* - preposition required
*me* - indirect object.


----------



## Chava

Thank you both, but is there any grammar rule?


----------



## Spug

Hello,



Chava said:


> ...but is there any grammar rule?



Unfortunately, no. You simply have to learn which verbs take which prepositions.

Un saludo...


----------



## mhp

micafe said:


> "Explain" requires "to" when used as intransitive.
> 
> *"Explain the lesson to me"*



I don't know of any rules either. But I like to point out that "explain" in this sentence is not intransitive. The direct object is "the lesson." Every time I see/hear "explain me," (esplain me) I'm reminded of Ricky Ricardo.


----------



## micafe

It is intransitive in the example that Chava gave. *Explain to me*. *"me"* is the indirect object.


----------



## elianecanspeak

Here is a partial list of verbs of communication:

*Requiring "to"* (someone)---e.g. "She complained *to* her doctor about the long wait."
Boast to
Brag to 
Complain to 
Confess to
Confide to
Convey to 
Declare to, 
Explain to
Listen to 
Mention to
Read to (sometimes used without “to”): *Read me* his list/ *Read* his list *to me*
Reply to
Relate to
Remark to
Repeat to
Report to
Reveal to
Say to 
State to 
Suggest to
Write to (sometimes used without “to”) *Write her* a short letter / *Write *a short letter *to her*


*Verb Used Without “to*” before (someone) ----e.g. "He answered *[ Ø ]* his father without looking at him."
Admonish
Advise  
Alert 
Answer 
Ask 
Ask 
Caution 
Counsel 
Fax
Hear 
Instruct
Phone
Tell
Warn


----------



## mhp

micafe said:


> It is intransitive in the example that Chava gave. *Explain to me*. *"me"* is the indirect object.



Oh! sorry. I misunderstood.


----------



## micafe

mhp said:


> Oh! sorry. I misunderstood.



No problem, dear mhp



elianecanspeak said:


> Here is a partial list:



This is a very useful list, elianecanspeak.


----------



## SevenDays

micafe said:


> It is intransitive in the example that Chava gave. *Explain to me*. *"me"* is the indirect object.


 
Hello

Intransitive verbs don't have _objects_, direct or indirect; they have _complements_. The prepositional phrase _to me_ (where "me" is the object of the preposition "to") is a complement that modifies (completes the meaning of) the intransitive verb _explain._ 

_Explain the lesson to me_
Traditional grammar says "the lesson" is the direct object of the transitive verb "explain" (explain _what_? Answer: "the lesson"), and "to me" the indirect object (explain _to whom_? Answer: "to me"). Linguists say that analysis makes *semantically*: The indirect object refers to someone _indirectly_ affected by the action of the verb. *Syntactically*, however, there is no indirect object; the prepositional phrase "_to me_" functions as a _complement _to, and completes the meaning of, the _direct object_. Moreover, "_to me_" doesn't meet certain criteria necessary for an "object" (for example, an object follows immediately after the transitive verb); if it isn't an _object_, then it can't be an _indirect object_.

Cheers


----------



## jucami

I don't know any rule, but I do notice an inconsistent pattern in elianecanspeak's list.  Many of the verbs that require "to" take direct objects (they are transitive): "confess _your sins_ to the priest," "repeat _that statement_ to your mother," "suggest _a change_ to the committee," etc. - and many of the verbs that do _not_ require "to" do _not_ take direct objects (they are intransitive).  You can see exceptions, of course, but maybe it can help guide you when you are uncertain about using "to."


----------



## SevenDays

Chava said:


> Hi all
> 
> I know the correct way is *explain to me*, however I don't know if there is any rule about this.
> 
> Can you please provide me more information about this kind of verbs? Or some verbs with which I have to do the same.
> 
> Thank you


 
First, a _semantic_ explanation:

I don't think there is a rule that requires the use of "_to_" in "_explain to me_." "To" is a preposition that suggests direction, movement. In (a) _explain to me_, the direction/movement of the explanation is towards me (in my direction): _Explain _*to me*_ how Brazil could have lost to Holland_ means the same as _Explain _*in my direction*_ how Brazil could have lost to Holland. _(Of course, you wouldn't say _in my direction_; that's just to illustrate the function of "to.") _Explain_* to him*_ how Brazil could have lost to Holland_ means the explanation should be in _*his direction*_.

In (b)_ explain me_, there is no preposition "to" indicating the direction of the explanation. Now, what we are saying is that "me" is the source of the explanation. This is a valid construction because if we can say " _How will you explain _*him*_ to your mother? _then we can say _how will you explain _*me*_ to your mother?_ We are simply replacing one pronoun (him) for another (me).

If what you mean to say is (a), meaning direction, then use "to:" _explain to me. _Othwerwise, you are saying (b): that "me" is what should be explained.

_Syntactically_, many verbs take indirect objects (or complements, to make linguists happy) preceded by "to:" _bring, give, send, tell, throw, read, toss, write, pass, pay_, etc. (I can't think of more at the moment). Some of these are like _explain_ in that their meaning changes with or without "to:"
_Write to me ~ Write to me as soon as you get to Mars._
_Write me ~ Don't write me off! I can do the job._

_Read to me ~ Would you please read to me?_
_Read me ~ My girlfriend knows me too well; she reads me like a book._


I hope I haven't confused you....
Cheers


----------



## elianecanspeak

One of the problems with English is that it is an amalgamation of a number of languages: Old English with the influence of other Germanic languages,Norman French , Latin from the scholars and priests, a few Scandinavian survivals, slang from Irish Gaelic, etc.

My supposition is that when verbs arrived from various languages they were often accompanied by the prepositions used with them in the original languages, or adopted without the need for the directional preposition because it was built into the meaning of the original verb in the original language.

If this were the case, we would be looking at rules for the original language of each of the verbs.

I began looking up verbs other languages, but since I have only modern dictionaries with me I could not do adequate research.

15 of the verbs that took "to" as a directional preposition were from Latin languages(MF OF L), 3 were Germanic (listen, read, write) and 2 uncertain (brag, boast)

When I looked at the etymology of the verbs that had the "built-in 'to' " half on my list were Romance in origin (admonish MF, advise MF OF, alert It (allertare), caution L, counsel ME OF, instruct ME L). Germanic etymologies were: (Answer ME OE ON W, N Grmc, Ask ME OE OHG, Hear ME OE, *Tell ME OE OHG, Warn ME OE OHG).  I omitted fax and phone as modern verbs, and did not include call (ME ON OHG), since it could be call me on the phone without "to"or used as "call *to* me".


----------



## elianecanspeak

SevenDays said:


> I don't think there is a rule that requires the use of "_to_" in "_explain to me_."



What Chava was specifically requesting was a way to make the distinction between when the preposition "to" is required within the the structure below and and when it is not required because its meaning is built into the verb:

[specific verb of communication]  --[ to / Ø ]  --  [person]

Within this template the "to" is either required or not required.


"Write me off" and "read me like a book" do not fit his paradigm 
(although they are certainly interesting in terms of the literal use)


----------



## Chava

Thank you all


----------



## nhahn

The most common problem I see with the verb "explain" and native Spanish speakers is their tendency to say "explain me..." . Yes, you could just say "explain to me..." but it still sounds a little strange and unnecessary, to me at least.


----------



## elianecanspeak

nhahn said:


> The most common problem I see with the verb "explain" and native Spanish speakers is their tendency to say "explain me..." . Yes, you could just say "explain to me..." but it still sounds a little strange and unnecessary, to me at least.



I agree -- in English we seem to say "tell me why/how . . ." much more commonly than "explain to me why/how" . . ."


----------



## slovac

Could I ask wheter I can't tell: *Explain me it. 

Explain me it = Explain it to me ?

*Thank you


----------



## micafe

Your question is not very clear but if what you want to ask is if "explain me it" is correct, the answer is *no, it is not*.


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

Oddly enough, however, at least in colloquial English, you can say "Explain me this" (typically followed by question).
Explain me this. How is it that .... ?​
Perhaps it's not grammatically correct, but I doubt any native speaker would question its use in covnersation.


----------



## loureed4

1-Could you give *me *that pencil please?.
2-Could you give that pencil* to me*?.

3-Could you explain *me *the difference?
4-Could you expalin the difference* to me*?

Is therefore, the third sentece wrong ?


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

Sentence 3 would not be natural. Whether it is grammatically correct, I don't know. But even if it is correct, you will sound like a foreigner if you use it. "Could you explain to me the difference?" would be correct and natural.


----------



## loureed4

1-Could you give *me *that pencil please?.
2-Could you give that pencil* to me*?.

3-Could you explain *me *the difference?
4-Could you expalin the difference* to me*?


Edition, second thoughts:

However, the first sentence is right: "Could you give *me *that newspaper over there, please?"


----------



## levmac

Give is an unusual verb - you can say both "give me" and "give to me". It does *not* function the same as explain. I tell friends to try to connect EXPLAIN and SAY.

*The normal thing is not to use the indirect object:*

He said that he was scared.

He explained that he was scared.

*If you do put an indirect object, you must use "to"
*
He said to me that he was scared.

He explained to me that he was scared. 

I agree with Ricardo though, there are a few expressions where we say "explain me ...." - "explain me this", "explain me something" - although these might be colloquial or incorrect.


----------



## loureed4

Nicely explained!!. Thanks levmac.


----------

