[Grammar] That-clause is an adverb clause or a complement?

'We write to inform you that certain changes have been made to the scheme'.
'We write to tell you that certain changes have been made to the scheme'.
'We write to tell you something'.

Perhaps that goes to show that the clause functions as a noun.

I think you can say 'We write to tell something to you' too. Have you seen double object verb before? I think that is why I said what I said on my posts.

Where is the double object? I see an object and a prepositional phrase.

http://www.grammarbank.com/double-object-verbs.html this is where I saw double object verb and when you say 'We write to tell you something', I think you have 2 objects, something and you.

I disagree with calling the object of the preposition "to" an indirect object. But I realize that there are those who believe that.

Why do you disagree?

Because I think it is wrong.

MikeNewYork said:

I disagree with calling the object of the preposition "to" an indirect object. But I realize that there are those who believe that.

Click to expand...

This is one of them: http://grammar-monster.com/glossary/indirect_object.htm

Doesn't bother me. Many people say many things.

Osbri said:

When you say 'We write to tell you something', I think you have 2 objects, something and you.

Click to expand...

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

I just thought that you would like the comments of one scholar.

1. He says that "all" grammarians call "me" an indirect object in "He gave me five dollars."

2. He adds, however, that there is some doubt [my emphasis] about sentences such as:

He asked me the way.
He taught me Greek.

The scholar tells us that many "would say that [those sentences] have two direct [my emphasis] objects."

Of course, I cannot explain fully his thoughts in a short forum post, so I'll leave you with this statement of his:

"One's analysis depends upon the definition of indirect object that one accepts."




Complete credit: Paul Roberts, Understanding Grammar (1954), pages 264 - 268.

In his two examples, there are indirect and direct objects. I am not sure what qualifies as a scholar in your view.

MikeNewYork said:

I disagree with calling the object of the preposition "to" an indirect object. But I realize that there are those who believe that.

Click to expand...

When someone says "We write to tell you something", what do you think 'you' is?

It is the indirect object of the infinitive "to tell".

Thanks everyone. I learned a bit more about direct object and indirect object, which is the topic I don’t know much.

I wonder if the ‘that’ is not a ‘that-clause’. Maybe it is just a phrase. Is the sentence is a complete sentence? (If you don’t mind I asked one more question in this thread:roll:!)

We, XXTrustee Company Limited, the trustee of the Scheme (The "Trustee or"we"), write to inform you that certain changes to the Scheme inresponse to the regulatory changes relating to: (a) payment of benefits on....,and (b) payment of benefits by..., from mandatory provident fund schemes, asintroduced by the....Ordinance 2015 (the "Amendment Ordinance").

I think 'to inform someone that' must be followed by a clause rather than a phrase, so the above text is not a complete sentence.

Is this a real sentence somebody is going to use? Because if it is the part where they tell him what they need to tell him seems to be missing.

MikeNewYork said:

It is the indirect object of the infinitive "to tell".

Click to expand...

And when someone says "We write to tell something to you", did they change the meaning/picture?

The difference is not about meaning; it is about structure.

One structure has the indirect object before the direct object and the other structure has the indrect object in a prepositional phrase and we were talking about what clause is the "that-clause" and I said I think you can say "We write to inform 'that certain changes have been made to the scheme' to you or for you" to see if it is a noun clause or not. Did you understand what I said? or Did I say something wrong?

What you said that was wrong is that an indirect object can be in a prepositional phrase. If you think that it can, we will have to agree to disagree. This is not the first time I have heard that theory.