indirect vs without direct object

[Frank Antonson]

I saw that a thread had been closed on this subject.

It need not be reopened on my account, but a sample sentence was "I talked to him".

That sentence seems to me to clearly have a prepositional phrase in it. The sentence " I told him." might serve as a better example. What I told him would be the direct object, but I am not sure that it is necessary for the sentence to be complete. "him" would clearly be the indirect object. I think that this would be an example of an indirect object without a direct object -- unless you insist that the direct object is understood.

[Hedwig]

[QUOTE=Frank Antonson;784526]I saw that a thread had been closed on this subject.

It need not be reopened on my account, but a sample sentence was "I talked to him".

That sentence seems to me to clearly have a prepositional phrase in it. The sentence " I told him." might serve as a better example. What I told him would be the direct object, but I am not sure that it is necessary for the sentence to be complete. "him" would clearly be the indirect object. I think that this would be an example of an indirect object without a direct object -- unless you insist that the direct object is understood.[/QUOTE]

I don't see that there's a contradiction. Even if the DO is tacit, the sentence clearly has no DO. I told him is one sentence and I told him that is another sentence. One has a DO and the other doesn't.
I'm beginning not to understand what's being discussed.

[Frank Antonson]

By "DO" do you mean "to"?

The measure for me in English of an indirect object is "can 'to' or 'for' be inserted."?

I talked TO him. vs I told him. In Latin and German the situation would be clarified by the use of the dative case.

[Hedwig]

No, by DO I meant Direct Object.
Latin and German are too much for an ignoramus like me.

[Frank Antonson]

Okay. Now I understand what you meant.

[Afit]

I saw that a thread had been closed on this subject.

It need not be reopened on my account, but a sample sentence was "I talked to him".

That sentence seems to me to clearly have a prepositional phrase in it. The sentence " I told him." might serve as a better example. What I told him would be the direct object, but I am not sure that it is necessary for the sentence to be complete. "him" would clearly be the indirect object. I think that this would be an example of an indirect object without a direct object -- unless you insist that the direct object is understood.

I told him.

I = S
told = V
to whom? him = IO

The understood DO is wiped out of the sentence but it is still there.

I told him = SVOO

There is no SVO with O as an indirect object.

I talked to him.
I talked.

--> to him = optional --> SV (and not SVA); to him = prep. object

[Hedwig]

I told him.

I = S
told = V
to whom? him = IO

The understood DO is wiped out of the sentence but it is still there.

I told him = SVOO

There is no SVO with O as an indirect object.

I talked to him.
I talked.

--> to him = optional --> SV (and not SVA); to him = prep. object

Hmm... I think it all comes down to points of view.
I've got money. But it's in the bank. I haven't got it with me. It isn't here.
Same with the D.O.

In the sentence 'I talked' you will argue that something has been said, etc. I understand that. The O is understood, tacit, whatever, but it isn't in the sentence. This particular sentence has no object. The rest is a matter of speculation.

In my humble opinion.

[Afit]

These are the clause patterns in the Quirkian denotational system:

1. SV
2. SVO
3. SVA
4. SVOA
5. SVC
6. SVOC
7. SVOO

I told him. Which of the above is this sentence? SVO? An O in SVO is a monotransitive verb. Monotransitive verbs take a direct object, as opposed to an indirect object, as one of their argument, the other being the subject.

My argument may come across as somewhat airy-fairy, but I really do not see another way to fit this sentence in the Qirkian taxonomic system for clauses.

[Hedwig]

These are the clause patterns in the Quirkian denotational system:

1. SV
2. SVO
3. SVA
4. SVOA
5. SVC
6. SVOC
7. SVOO

I told him. Which of the above is this sentence? SVO? Correct. An O in SVO is a monotransitive verb. An O is not a verb. Monotransitive verbs take a direct object, as opposed to an indirect object, as one of their argument, the other being the subject. Does the O in SVO stand for DO exclusively? Can't SVO mean either S+V+DO or S+V+IO?

My argument may come across as somewhat airy-fairy, but I really do not see another way to fit this sentence in the Qirkian taxonomic system for clauses.

My comments and queries in blue above.

[Afit]

An O is not a verb.

I meant a V.

Does the O in SVO stand for DO exclusively?

Yes.