It reminds me of something

[Kondorosi]

Let us put this sentence under a microscope. The verb 'reminds', it is a mental verb, right? 'me' looks like the direct object. In grammar books you can read the direct object is the thing that receives the action named by the verb. What does 'me' receive here? 'Remind' is a mental process. You do the reminding at the instigation of 'it'. 'me' receives the instigation? It affects me. Maybe this sentence helps us see the analogy. Okay. Now we have another constituent in the sentence: 'of something'. What is that? We have in this sentence a subject (it = doer) that instigates my mental process that I do and that affects me.

It reminds me of something. How is something involved in this whole kit and caboodle? What does it do or what does it get? I do the reminding and the output of my reminding is the something.

Conclusions:

It = S; instigator
reminds = V; this is what 'me' does (causative structure?)
me = doer of reminding
of something = prepositional indirect object; something receives my cognitive process that has been instigated by 'It'.

Do you think I am right? It is tricky, isn't it?

 

[Abstract Idea]

Let us put this sentence under a microscope. The verb 'reminds', it is a mental verb, right? 'me' looks like the direct object. In grammar books you can read the direct object is the thing that receives the action named by the verb. What does 'me' receive here? 'Remind' is a mental process. You do the reminding at the instigation of 'it'. 'me' receives the instigation? It affects me. Maybe this sentence helps us see the analogy. Okay. Now we have another constituent in the sentence: 'of something'. What is that? We have in this sentence a subject (it = doer) that instigates my mental process that I do and that affects me.

It reminds me of something. How is something involved in this whole kit and caboodle? What does it do or what does it get? I do the reminding and the output of my reminding is the something.

Conclusions:

It = S; instigator
reminds = V; this is what 'me' does (causative structure?)
me = doer of reminding
of something = prepositional indirect object; something receives my cognitive process that has been instigated by 'It'.

Do you think I am right? It is tricky, isn't it?

OK, I'll bite.
You know I haven't already reached your level of language analysis Kondorosi, but let us give it a try.
For me this sentence really looks simple:
It -> subject (usually it refers to a fact implicit in the conversation: "This fact reminds me ...", "This theme/subject reminds me ...", "Something reminds me ...", "This beautiful equation reminds me ..."
reminds -> transitiv verb
of something -> prepositional indirect object
something -> object of the preposition "of"

I confess I will read your post above some more times, but I can't see any problem in the sentence. I can't talk about diagramming sentences, I still do not know that technique -- the only book I read about grammar (English gramar for dummies) said we could live without it.

Not a native speaker

 

[Abstract Idea]

What does 'me' receive here? 'Remind' is a mental process.

"Me" receives the "action" of the verb "remind." Put it in the passive and it becomes clearer: I am reminded (by sucha and such thing).

 

[Kondorosi]

OK, I'll bite.
You know I haven't already reached your level of language analysis Kondorosi, but let us give it a try.

I am not sure about that. Anyway, I am the one who does not look a gift horse in the mouth.

I can't talk about diagramming sentences, I still do not know that technique

You can learn the tricks in just a couple of hours. The lion's share of diagramming is to realize the mechanics of grammar. It is just a simple language that has not got more than 30 'words'. You communicate more quickly by them because your eyes can process info more quickly than your tongue can lash and my ear can hear.

How would you convince an eager student that we have an indirect object in the sentence?

 

[Kondorosi]

Something occured to me: What if I paraphrase the sentence?

It forced me to think of him.

forced to think = remind
I can see better the Od now. How could I aptly lure the Oi out of its shell?
I need to think further. Meanwhile I am off to get a bite to eat.

 

[Abstract Idea]

Something occured to me: What if I paraphrase the sentence?

It forced me to think of him.

forced to think = remind
I can see better the Od now. How could I aptly lure the Oi out of its shell?
I need to think further. Meanwhile I am off to get a bite to eat.

You are forcing me to enter the wild without convenient weapons. Let us see:

It --> that same subject of the former sentence.
forced --> again a transitive verb
me --> direct object
to think of him --> prepositional indirect object

It forced who? "Me" that is the direct object
to what ? "to think of me" thats the (prepositional) indirect object

I know some people do not consider prepositonal objects as indirect objects, but that is not important here.

The original sentence was "It reminds me of something." The indirect object 'something' can be anything:
It reminds me of thinking about him.
It reminds me of the fact that everybody should study English grammar.

 

[Kondorosi]

It forced me to think of him

it = S
forced = V
me = Od
to think of him = objective complement

It did not really force me. It forced me to think of him. The Oc completes the meaning of the receiver of the forcing. How interesting, you substitute 'remind' for 'force to think' (a word combination that is not cohesive syntactically) and the Oc disappears.

I think the indirect object in the rephrased original sentence has been glaring us in the face from the beginning.

It forced me to think of him.

'me' is to 'force' as 'cake' is to 'bake'. 'him' in 'of him' is to 'force' as 'her' in 'Baked a cake for her' is to 'bake'. Indirect object.

The thinking is given to 'something'. 'me' receives the causative action named by 'remind'. What do you think?

Obrigada. :up:

 

[mara_ce]

If I had to analyse this sentence, I'd say that 'me' is the indirect object and 'of something' the direct one.

 

[Kondorosi]

I'd say that 'me' is the indirect object and 'of something' the direct one.

Why?

 

[Kondorosi]

'I baked a cake for her. -- 'her' receives the direct object
It reminds me of something. -- 'something' does not receive me

I am starting to think that the prepositional object complements 'me'. There is no indirect object. The sentence is a SVOC.

 

[Abstract Idea]

I am starting to think that the prepositional object complements 'me'. There is no indirect object. The sentence is a SVOC.

Now I am starting to understand what you are thinking.
It would be interesting to hear someone else's opinion.

 

[mara_ce]

Why?

Because remind is a verb of communication. It requires two objects (indirect and direct).
e.g. I reminded him to post the letter.
I = subject
to post the letter = the direct object (the message itself)
him = the indirect object (the receiver of the message)

 

[Abstract Idea]

Because remind is a verb of communication. It requires two objects (indirect and direct).
e.g. I reminded him to post the letter.
I = subject
to post the letter = the direct object (the message itself)
him = the indirect object (the receiver of the message)

This is a simple sentence. Usually the problem is not to find the direct object, that is the point where most people agree.

"I reminded him to post the letter."
First, identify the subject and the verb:
I -> subject
reminded -> verb
Then, ask the verb: "who" or "what". That is, grab it and shout at it: "WHO?" or "WHAT?" In the present case, the verb feels scary and desperately answers: "him"
So, "him" is the direct object.
Now, whether "to post the letter" is an indirect object or something else, I leave to Kondorosi.

 

[mara_ce]

So, "him" is the direct object.
Now, whether "to post the letter" is an indirect object or something else, I leave to Kondorosi.

Sorry, ymnisky, I don't agree with you. I think that you should revise grammar to understand the concepts of direct and indirect object.

 

[mara_ce]

I hope this helps.
Indirect Object Pronouns
https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/ask-teacher/108-direct-indirect-objects.html

 

[Abstract Idea]

Sorry, ymnisky, I don't agree with you. I think that you should revise grammar to understand the concepts of direct and indirect object.

OK mara_ce, thanks for the advice. Actually I think I should begin studying grammar rather than revising it -- I have never really studied it, and it is a tough subject. In fact the only book I have read on grammar up to now is "English Grammar for Dummies," I think the title says everything.

Thanks for the links.

 

[mxreader]

'I baked a cake for her. -- 'her' receives the direct object
It reminds me of something. -- 'something' does not receive me

I am starting to think that the prepositional object complements 'me'. There is no indirect object. The sentence is a SVOC.

Kondorosi,

I take this view also, the activity (reminds) between subject (it) and object (me) is named by the noun complement (of something).

The verb "reminds" certainly appear to be a ditransitive verb here, but if there is an indirect object, it doesn't seem to fit the general characteristic of one:

Oi has an optional prepositional paraphrase using "to" or "for" so from your example:
I baked a cake for her
can be paraphrased to -
I baked her a cake

I sent a cake to her
I sent her a cake

It reminds me of something
It reminds of something to me*
It reminds something me* (if "something" was the Oi candidate)

If there is any recipient/beneficiary (Oi) of the verb, it has to be "me" not "something", "me" is reminded, not "something" is reminded. Further, the position of the Oi is between the verb and the Od. Again, if there is an Oi, it is "me" in this sentence. But as shown, the paraphrase is non-standard. I have to argue that "me" is the only object in this sentence.

 

[Kondorosi]

Because remind is a verb of communication. It requires two objects (indirect and direct).
e.g. I reminded him to post the letter.
I = subject
to post the letter = the direct object (the message itself)
him = the indirect object (the receiver of the message)

True, however, this 'reminded' is different from 'my' 'reminds'. Your 'reminded' does involve communication and is indeed a verb of communication. My 'reminds' is a verb that implies a doer that instigates a mental process that happens in 'me's' brain. That mental process is not volitional: 'me' is forced to think.

I = subject
to post the letter = the direct object (the message itself)
him = the indirect object (the receiver of the message)

This is a classic example of how much (very, very much) semantics affects function. Syntax cannot exist in abstraction from the whole of English grammar. Grammar is like a precious clockwork. Wow, did I say that mawkish thing?

 

[Kondorosi]

Kondorosi,

I take this view also, the activity (reminds) between subject (it) and object (me) is named by the noun complement (of something).

The verb "reminds" certainly appear to be a ditransitive verb here, but if there is an indirect object, it doesn't seem to fit the general characteristic of one:

Oi has an optional prepositional paraphrase using "to" or "for" so from your example:
I baked a cake for her
can be paraphrased to -
I baked her a cake

I sent a cake to her
I sent her a cake

It reminds me of something
It reminds of something to me*
It reminds something me* (if "something" was the Oi candidate)

If there is any recipient/beneficiary (Oi) of the verb, it has to be "me" not "something", "me" is reminded, not "something" is reminded. Further, the position of the Oi is between the verb and the Od. Again, if there is an Oi, it is "me" in this sentence. But as shown, the paraphrase is non-standard. I have to argue that "me" is the only object in this sentence.

Hi mxreader,

Cool! I like tests:

It reminds me of something
It reminds of something to me*

Yeah, 'me' is not an indirect object. Ymnisky aptly explained the direct object.


Who did it remind of? :cross:
Who did it remind? :tick:

I cannot regard 'remind of' as a prepositional verb, as a multi-word unit. I can't see the cohesion between the verb and the particle in the questions above.

Look at these comparisons. I can see some analogy in the two pairs of sentences.

*It reminds me.
They elected him.

It remind me of something.
They elected him president.

'of somehing' complements the direct object, so it should be an objective complement.

It does not really remind me. It reminds ... meofsomething.

 

[mxreader]

Who did it remind of? :cross:
Who did it remind? :tick:

I cannot regard 'remind of' as a prepositional verb, as a multi-word unit. I can't see the cohesion between the verb and the particle in the questions above.

Not sure if you are directing the question to me here. We are looking at the verb in your sentence "reminds". My point was:

Oi has an optional prepositional paraphrase using "to" or "for"

This attribute of the indirect object is not available in the sentence we are analyzing.

So we are agreed?

:-|