[Grammar] high value accorded [to] it

[suprunp]

Since, in accordance with their intellectual habit, men have forgotten the original purpose of so-called just and fair actions, and especially because children have for millennia been trained to admire and imitate such actions, it has gradually come to appear that a just action is an unegoistic one: but it is on this appearance that the high value accorded it depends; and this high value is [...] increasing [...]
(Friedrich Nietzsche, "Human, All Too Human", translated by R.J. Hollingdale, "On the History of the Moral Sensations", # 92)

I understand this sentence (the part of it related to the part in bold) as follows:
"The high value that is ascribed to it (a just action) depends on the appearance that a just action is an unegoistic one."

My dictionaries give these examples of the usage of the verb "accord":
[trans.] give or grant someone (power, status, or recognition)

the powers accorded to the head of state
The treatment accorded to a United Nations official was little short of insulting.
The warmth of welcome accorded to my book [...]
Giving the word imitation the very wide meaning accorded to it [...]

What I can't understand (taking into account the information my dictionaries provide) is why "to" is missing here: the high value accorded [to] it.

Thanks.

 

[suprunp]

It seems that I have found the answer to my own question in Practical English Usage, third edition, entry # 415.

"In structure B (e.g. The car was given to her sister) prepositions are sometimes dropped before indirect object pronouns.
This watch was given (to) me by my father."

May I ask you why prepositions are sometimes dropped in this case?

Thanks.

 

[5jj]

]That's just the way it is, I'm afraid.
I gave my sister a watch. :tick:
I gave to my sister a watch. unlikely
I gave a watch to my sister. :tick:
I gave a watch my sister. X

The watch was given to me by my father. :tick:
The watch was given me my my father. :tick:

 

[Raymott]

It seems that I have found the answer to my own question in Practical English Usage, third edition, entry # 415.

"In structure B (e.g. The car was given to her sister) prepositions are sometimes dropped before indirect object pronouns.
This watch was given (to) me by my father."

May I ask you why prepositions are sometimes dropped in this case?

Thanks.

Some verb require 'to' and some don't.
'Say to me', "Speak to me', but 'Tell me', 'Call me'.
'To' is sometimes dropped by some people (eg. Americans) in "Write to me" -> "Write me" and some other verbs. I would never write "Write me"or "given me" because that isn't normal in AusE.
Language changes, and some people have decided that some verbs that used to require 'to', now don't (or vice versa).
Is that the sort of explanation you want? I can't say why this happens.

 

[suprunp]

I think I'll just take as a matter of course that that's just the way it is .

It seems that I will never write "given me" or "accorded it" as well, because of so much trouble given to me by this small omission of "to" today. :lol: