indirect vs without direct object

Status
Not open for further replies.

Frank Antonson

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
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

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Spanish
Home Country
Argentina
Current Location
Argentina
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

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
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

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Spanish
Home Country
Argentina
Current Location
Argentina
No, by DO I meant Direct Object.
Latin and German are too much for an ignoramus like me. ;-)
 

Frank Antonson

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Okay. Now I understand what you meant.
 

Afit

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Dutch
Home Country
Europe
Current Location
Europe
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. :tick:

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. :tick:
I talked. :tick:

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

:up:
 

Hedwig

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Spanish
Home Country
Argentina
Current Location
Argentina
I told him. :tick:

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. :tick:
I talked. :tick:

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

:up:

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

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Dutch
Home Country
Europe
Current Location
Europe
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

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Spanish
Home Country
Argentina
Current Location
Argentina
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.
 

Hedwig

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Spanish
Home Country
Argentina
Current Location
Argentina

Afit

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Dutch
Home Country
Europe
Current Location
Europe
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:

A monotransitive verb is a verb that takes two arguments: a subject and a single direct object. For example, the verbs buy, bite, break, and eat are monotransitive in English.
You see, direct object it is. But "him" is not the participant which undergoes the provision of information, right? Which verb class does "told" conform to then, IYO? Subject, verb, indirect object: What is this? How can I fit "told" into the valency mold?
 
Last edited:

Hedwig

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Spanish
Home Country
Argentina
Current Location
Argentina
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.
 

Afit

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Dutch
Home Country
Europe
Current Location
Europe
I told him is one sentence and I told him that is another sentence

What difference can you detect other than the number of letters in each sentence?
 

Afit

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Dutch
Home Country
Europe
Current Location
Europe
Situational ellipsis?
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 [STRIKE]that[/STRIKE]," not in keeping with speakers' maxim of "Reduce as much as possible"?
 

Hedwig

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Spanish
Home Country
Argentina
Current Location
Argentina
What difference can you detect other than the number of letters in each sentence?

For you, him is the same thing as him + that?
 

Afit

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Dutch
Home Country
Europe
Current Location
Europe
For you, him is the same thing as him + that?
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.

Get it? and Do you get it?
Difference?

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:
 

Hedwig

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Spanish
Home Country
Argentina
Current Location
Argentina
You said it yourself. :-D

There is an ellipsis.

Soooo...
...the DO is not there. That particular sentence has no DO.

I rest my case, too. :angel:
 

Afit

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Dutch
Home Country
Europe
Current Location
Europe
the DO is not there.
No, it is there. It is just that you can't see it. :cheers:
 

Curt Jugg

Junior Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
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.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top