[Grammar] adverb - Billy has asked sometimes for my advice.

[HeartShape]

Hi,

Is the following sentence syntactically correct? If not, why not?

1. Billy has asked sometimes for my advice.

 

[jutfrank]

The frequency adverb sometimes is not in its most natural position, which is between the auxiliary and main verbs.

Billy has sometimes asked for my advice.

 

[SoothingDave]

It would work at the end, too. "...asked for my advice sometimes."

 

[HeartShape]

Hi,

Thanks everyone. I know about the adverb position after the auxiliary, ending, and beginning.

I was trying to see if anyone can spot a fault when I moved the adverb between verb and preposition. Nobody is able to fault the adverb, and neither can I.

Moving on...

When I read the following I was a little apprehensive:

The most important point is that such adverbs could not occur immediately
after the main verb except where the main verb is be (and therefore an operator):
* She believed never/probably his story.
(Cf: She was never/probably a taxpayer.)

A Comprenhesive Grammar of the English Language - Randolph Quirk et al.

 

[Phaedrus]

When I read the following I was a little apprehensive:

[. . .]

* She believed never/probably his story.

[. . .]

A Comprenhesive Grammar of the English Language - Randolph Quirk et al.

So, you could not, for example, say:

*[strike]Billy has asked sometimes me for my advice.[/strike]

Incidentally, when you give a citation, it is important to give a page number, especially when the book you're referring to is sixteen hundred pages long.

 

[HeartShape]

So, you could not, for example, say:

*[strike]Billy has asked sometimes me for my advice.[/strike]

Incidentally, when you give a citation, it is important to give a page number, especially when the book you're referring to is sixteen hundred pages long.

Page 126.

How did you conclude *Billy has asked sometimes me for my advice." is wrong?

The sentence "She believed never/probably his story" has a direct object but "Billy has asked sometimes me for my advice" have no direct object. "Me" is an indirect object and "for" is a preposition. The two sentences are different.

 

[emsr2d2]

I don't have a copy of the book you mentioned but I would be very surprised if it said that "She believed never his story" or "She believed probably his story" are correct. They are just as wrong as "Billy [has] asked sometimes me for my advice".

 

[HeartShape]

I don't have a copy of the book you mentioned but I would be very surprised if it said that "She believed never his story" or "She believed probably his story" are correct. They are just as wrong as "Billy [has] asked sometimes me for my advice".

You are missing the point.

1. She believed never his story = SV + adv + DO = incorrect

I accept that. However, the following sentence:

2. Billy has asked sometimes me for my advice = SV + adv + IO + prep

Sentence two have no direct object in comparison to sentence one.

To make it sound better we could replace sometimes with politely:

3. Billy has asked politely (me) for my advice.

How does that sound now?

The interpretation from Randolph Quirk I believe is wrong. Something is missing here and I haven't been able to find it yet.

4. SV + adv + prep = acceptable = Billy has asked politely for my advice. If preposition is acceptable then so should be an indirect object.

 

[Phaedrus]

I don't have a copy of the book you mentioned but I would be very surprised if it said that "She believed never his story" or "She believed probably his story" are correct.

It doesn't. It gives the following an ungrammaticality asterisk: "*She believed never/probably his story." (Quirk et al., 1985, Section 3.27, p. 126)

 

[Phaedrus]

The sentence "She believed never/probably his story" has a direct object but "Billy has asked sometimes me for my advice" [strike]have[/strike] has no direct object. "Me" is an indirect object and "for" is a preposition. The two sentences are different.

"Me" is the direct object of "has asked" in the sentence "Billy has asked me for my advice."

You can even passivize it: "I have been asked for my advice."

Therefore an adverb is placed between the verb and the direct object in the example I gave.

Now, "asked for" is a prepositional verb in "Billy has asked for my advice," which passivizes to "My advice has been asked for."

There, "my advice" is the direct object. But "me" is not present. It's a different type of sentence. You can't say: *[strike]My advice has been asked me for.[/strike]

Don't confuse "me" in a sentence like that with "me" in a sentence like "Billy has asked me a question," in which "me" is an indirect object.

 

[HeartShape]

It doesn't. It gives the following an ungrammaticality asterisk: "*She believed never/probably his story." (Quirk et al., 1985, Section 3.27, p. 126)

Although the example above is correct, the example of that syntax is completely different to: Billy has asked sometimes me for my advice. It doesn't apply.

 

[Phaedrus]

Although the example above is correct, the example of that syntax is completely different to: Billy has asked sometimes me for my advice. It doesn't apply.

I gave that example to help you to understand your confusion in thinking that "me" is an indirect object in "Billy has asked me for my advice." Do you see that there are differences between the sentences "Billy has asked for my advice," "Billy has asked me for my advice," and "Billy has asked me a question"? Only in the third example is "me" an indirect object. In the second sentence, "me" is the direct object. In the first sentence, "me" is not even there. "For" is part of the verb. "My advice" is the direct object of "asked for." The example passivizes, but not with "me" inserted. We can have "He asked for my advice" and "My advice was asked for," but not *"[strike]My advice was asked me for[/strike]." "Me" belongs to the other structure, in which it, not "my advice," is the direct object.

 

[Phaedrus]

Although the example above is correct . . .

No. The example *She believed never/probably his story is INCORRECT.

Whenever you find an asterisk preceding an example in that book, it means that those august grammarians judge the sentence to be UNGRAMMATICAL.

 

[jutfrank]

Don't put adverbs between verbs and their objects. It doesn't matter whether the objects are direct or indirect.

You sometimes ask us questions.

*You ask sometimes questions.
*You ask sometimes us questions.
*You ask us sometimes questions.

 

[Phaedrus]

There is only one object of the verb in "Billy has asked me for my advice." There are two objects of the verb in "Billy has asked me a question."

 

[Phaedrus]

Nothing is transforming into anything. That the same word string exists in two sentences does not imply that it has the same structure in each.

 

[Phaedrus]

An indirect object is the first of two objects complementing a verb. Where there are not two objects of a verb, there is not an indirect object of the verb.

 

[jutfrank]

So, could you please explain why 'me' is a direct object in "Billy has asked me for my advice," and an indirect object in "Billy has asked me a question"?

I can't see the problem here. The verb ask can have two different kinds of objects: ask something and ask somebody. When both are used, the latter type is said to be 'indirect'.

What sense can it make to say that in Go and ask Sue, the object Sue is indirect? She is clearly the receiver of the asking—the one being asked.

 

[Phaedrus]

That appears to me to be an assertion rather than an explanation.

So does that.

Would you like to unveil your agenda, Piscean, or shall we keep dancing around your hidden gripe?

I am open to being convinced that "me" is an indirect object in "Billy asked me for my advice." It had occurred to me that you might take this very position.

Is it that, when you translate the sentence into German, "me" is in the dative case? Or do you want to argue that the semantic role of "me" is a constant?

Or is your position more avant-garde? Perhaps you want to say that a prepositional phrase can be a direct object! If so, I don't think I can join you.

I accept Quirk et al.'s view that "me" is an indirect object in a sentence like "Billy asked me to tie my shoes" or "Billy asked me whether it was snowing."

Without reviewing Quirk et al.'s position, I understand the direct object in those sentences to be in each case the clause (finite or nonfinite) following "me."

I have not, that I know of, ever encountered the view that a sentence in English can have an indirect object without a direct object.

At the same time, I shall concede that, in a sentence like "He asked me," the object "me" does feel rather like the "me" in "He asked me a question."

Perhaps in "He asked me" the direct object may be said to be elided.

 

[jutfrank]

Or do you want to argue that the semantic role of "me" is a constant?

It seems to me that this is where the disagreement lies.

In my mind, the verb in ask something and ask somebody has different senses, even though in each case the argument is a patient.

ask something = articulate a question
ask somebody = interrogate somebody

Again, I can't see a problem with this view. It also seems reasonable that the former here is primary and the latter secondary (since you can't interrogate somebody without articulating a question) so when both are used in combination, the patient of the primary sense is seen as a 'direct' object and that of the secondary sense as 'indirect'.