Verbs can be categorized in many ways, e.g., according to what types of arguments they cooccur with. In terms of valency patterns, we have these classes:
1. intransitive verbs: SV, no obligatory element,
2. transitive verbs,
a. monotransitive: one object
b. ditransitive: two objects
c. complex-transitive: one object + objective complement or one object + obligatory adverbial
3. copula verbs
I told him.
There is one object here, the presence of which is obligatory. I told. :cross:
One object means monotransitive to me even at the best of times. :up:
Definition of monotransitive verb:
Yes, well, according to those definitions in the sentences we're discussing (to) him would be a DO, which is tosh.
Or the DO is understood and the sentence is of the SVOO variety, as you proposed. Which I still don't buy. I stand by my previous assertions.
So, let's agree to disagree.
Do I say "I told him" without enough conviction that my interlocutor shares my understanding of what has been told? Is this abbreviation of construction, I told him
that," not in keeping with speakers' maxim of "Reduce as much as possible"?
As long as "that" does not contribute anything to the meaning, and we both know that normally it does not (What has been told is normally in the shared knowledge of the speaker and the hearer.), yes.Quote:
For you, him is the same thing as him + that?
Get it? and Do you get it?
Where is the operator in "Get it?" Where is the subject? :-o Whatever happened to the subject-operator inversion? All are gone to a holiday destination for two weeks? I feel comfortable with regarding "I told him" as the truncated form of "I told him something/that/etc.". I can't help thinking that a situational ellipsis is at work and the sentence is a SVOO.
I rest my case. :cheers: :up:
You said it yourself. :-D
There is an ellipsis.
...the DO is not there. That particular sentence has no DO.
I rest my case, too. :angel:
No, it is there. It is just that you can't see it. :cheers:Quote:
the DO is not there.
In section 10.7 (page 727) of A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language it says, "...with a few verbs that are normally ditransitive, the indirect object may be retained while the direct object is omitted. In that case the only object present is the indirect object:
Bob is teaching the older children.
You can pay me instead"
Does that help?
Since writing the above I have looked at The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language and found in section 4.3 (page 251):"In canonical clauses containing just one object, that object is always a direct object, even if it corresponds semantically to the indirect object of a ditransitive clause" and it quotes: "She teaches the first-year students".
So you pays your money and you takes your choice.