Afit
Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Member Type
- English Teacher
- Native Language
- Dutch
- Home Country
- Europe
- Current Location
- Europe
from Quirk et al.The indirect object can generally be omitted without affecting the
semantic relations between the other elements:
David saved me a seat.
= David saved [STRIKE]me[/STRIKE] a seat.
≠ David saved me [STRIKE]a seat[/STRIKE].
Hence, if there is only one object present, it is generally the direct object.
But
with a few verbs that are normally ditransitive, the indirect object may be
retained while the direct object is omitted (either one of the O's may be omitted). In that case the only object present
is the indirect object:
Bob is teaching the older children some lesson.
= Bob is teaching the older children [STRIKE]some lesson[/STRIKE].
= Bob is teaching [STRIKE]the older children[/STRIKE] some lesson.
What I infer from this excerpt is that in "I told him", where the verb is "told", which is normally ditransitive, the usage of "told" does not belong to instances of "normally", so "told" can't be ditransitive in this sentence, but then it can't be anything else than monotransitive either.
:-?:up:Verbs used in monotransitive function require a direct object,
Quirk et al., 16.25
EDIT*: I found this: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"
*We do not, as some do, apply the term 'indirect object' to the corresponding prepositional
phrases (eg: "for me" in "Pour a drink for me."), though we use the term 'prepositional object' for the
complement in such phrases (cf16.56, 16.60). Some apply (Quirk et al. do not) the term 'direct object' to an indirect
object if it is the only object (eg: you in "I'll show you" or "his children" in "He's teaching his children").
Others again apply the term 'object' exclusively to the first (or only) object.
-----------
1. Bob is teaching the older children [STRIKE]some lesson[/STRIKE].
2. Bob is teaching the older children.
Can #2 be the ellipted version of #1? We do not know. It depends on the linguistic situation. Ellipsis means omission. We usually omit things using our own judgment, say, for instance, we establish that some part of the sentence is not necessary for coherence, not relevant, not important, not conducive to meaning. When we pass judgment, we are familiar with what we pass judgment on. Do we know what Bob is teaching the students? Maybe, and maybe not. Is ellipsis at work? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.
So far I have been trying to clutch to my theory that the Od is invisibly present. Now I have managed to defeat my argument. :up:
3. I told him.
4. I told him that/this/etc.
Can #3 be the truncated form of #4? We do not say #3 without "what has been said" being understood by both parties in the conversation, so #3 must have undergone some sort of ellipsis. :up:
Now I am punch-drunk. :drinking:
I am happy you joined the conversation, Curt, I appreciate your excerpts, and I thank you very much for sharing them. :up:Does that help?
Last edited: