"talk to"

Status
Not open for further replies.

donnach

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I talked to him.

I've searched and searched and I just cannot find an answer to this question. So, I will ask it here, and I'm sure I'll get my answer.

What is "talk to"? A prepositional verb, a phrasal verb, a collocation?

Or, is "talk" simply a transitive verb in this case, and "to him" a prepositional phrase that forms the direct (indirect?) object.

Thanks for your help.
 

Hedwig

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Spanish
Home Country
Argentina
Current Location
Argentina
Talk is intransitive (in this case) and to him is the IO.
 

Hedwig

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Spanish
Home Country
Argentina
Current Location
Argentina

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Informally, I agree with Hedwig. Pedantically, I disagree,

I agree that talk is an intransitive verb,and to a preposition, but consider him a prepositional object.

Compare with:

1. I gave him a book.
2. I gave a book to him.


1. I (subject) gave (verb [transitive]) him (indirect object) a book (direct object).
2. I
( subject) gave (verb [transitive]) a book to (preposition) him (prepositional object).

Clearly, him in #1 and to him in #2, stand for the same person receiving the book, but the words are used in a different way grammatically.
 

Hedwig

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Spanish
Home Country
Argentina
Current Location
Argentina
Informally, I agree with Hedwig. Pedantically, I disagree,

I agree that talk is an intransitive verb,and to a preposition, but consider him a prepositional object.

Compare with:

1. I gave him a book.
2. I gave a book to him.

1. I (subject) gave (verb [transitive]) him (indirect object) a book (direct object).
2. I ( subject) gave (verb [transitive]) a book to (preposition) him (prepositional object).

Clearly, him in #1 and to him in #2, stand for the same person receiving the book, but the words are used in a different way grammatically.

I haven't done this sort of thing in donkeys years but, if I remember correctly, your analysis doesn't actually differ from the one I submitted; but it goes a step further (and is not pedantic). You see, the way I was taught to do this at school would be:

to him: IO (prepositional phrase) in which to is the preposition and him the object to the preposition.

How does this sound?
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
... if I remember correctly, your analysis doesn't actually differ from the one I submitted; but it goes a step further (and is not pedantic). You see, the way I was taught to do this at school would be:

to him: IO (prepositional phrase) in which to is the preposition and him the object to the preposition.

How does this sound?
Fine.

I don't normally take part in discussions on labelling, because my basic thought is "What does it matter what we call it, so long as we understand how it functions?" That is why I said that I agreed with you informally, and suggested that my disagreement was pedantic.

I think I made my initial comment mainly because I, personally, wasn't too happy with with to him in "I talked to him" as an indirect object. For me, an indirect object is in some way the receiver of something, I do not think that if I am talking to someone they are, strictly speaking, receiving anything, any more than when an American talks with someone.

Had the initial question been about "I gave him a book", I don't think I would have said anything if you had called to him the indirect object.

I apologise if I have muddied the waters here.
 

Hedwig

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Spanish
Home Country
Argentina
Current Location
Argentina
Fine.

I don't normally take part in discussions on labelling, because my basic thought is "What does it matter what we call it, so long as we understand how it functions?" Applause! That is why I said that I agreed with you informally, and suggested that my disagreement was pedantic.

I think I made my initial comment mainly because I, personally, wasn't too happy with with to him in "I talked to him" as an indirect object. For me, an indirect object is in some way the receiver of something, I do not think that if I am talking to someone they are, strictly speaking, receiving anything, any more than when an American talks with someone. Makes perfect sense to me.

Had the initial question been about "I gave him a book", I don't think I would have said anything if you had called to him the indirect object.

I apologise if I have muddied the waters here.

And perhasp we're discussing the sex of angels, aren't we? ;-)
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic

donnach

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I tried to post this question in the diagramming sentences forum, but it got moved back here. Labeling helps me for some reason. Not sure if it's just the way my mind works, or if it's that I don't yet have a deep enough understanding of the underlying structure of English (even though I'm a native speaker).

What is the D.O.? There is none.


Sorry, but I'm wondering if you can have a sentence with an I.O. without a D.O.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Sorry, but I'm wondering if you can have a sentence with an I.O. without a D.O.
I wrote him yesterday.

As a speaker of BrE, I'd say "I wrote to him yesterday", but Americans frequently say this without the preposition.
 

donnach

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Got it.

Thank you.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
This article shows that the direct object can be expressed or unexpressed.

Talk:Object (grammar) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the example "I wrote to him yesterday", the direct object, a letter / an email, has been omitted.
Can you be sure of that?

I phoned/called/rang/emailed/texted/SMSed/wrote him.

In the first six of those, in this context, there can be no direct object.

WRITE can be used with a direct object in a very similar construction, but this does not necessarily mean that if we do not express an object there must be an unexpressed one.
 

mara_ce

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Spanish
Home Country
Argentina
Current Location
Argentina
I said “it has been omitted” for a better understanding of the sentence without the direct object, since donnach started a new thread with the same question.

I wrote him a letter yesterday.
I wrote a letter to him yesterday.
I wrote to him yesterday.
I wrote him yesterday.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
I said “it has been omitted” for a better understanding of the sentence without the direct object, since donnach started a new thread with the same question.

I wrote him a letter yesterday.
I wrote a letter to him yesterday.
I wrote to him yesterday.
I wrote him yesterday.
I am suggesting that perhaps it has not been omitted in your fourth example. It was perhaps never there.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
My post #11, underlining added:
I wrote him yesterday.

As a speaker of BrE, I'd say "I wrote to him yesterday", but Americans frequently say this without the preposition.
Throughout this thread I have implicitly accepted that the underlined word is an indirect object. I think I have been wrong.

In "I (tele)phoned him", the verb is transitive; 'him' is the direct object. The COD says, "telephone [...] v. 1 tr. speak to (a person) by telephone."

For 'write', the COD says, "v. [...] 10. tr. US or colloq. write and send a letter to (a person) (wrote him last week).
 

mara_ce

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Spanish
Home Country
Argentina
Current Location
Argentina
I´ve found these examples in my grammar notes. Unfortunately I cannot tell exactly the source, since a lecturer did the research.
Quirk et al is mentioned very frequently though.

"Cases in which the IO must necessarily be introduced by "to":
1) ...
2) ...
3) With the verb to "say":

I have something to say to you.
He said nothing to me about it.

Very often, when the DO is omitted, the IO is also introduced by "to":

I have written to him.
Talk to him.

However, in colloquial style, "to" is often omitted in these cases:

It was given me the day of my birthday.
Have you written him?"
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
"Cases in which the IO must necessarily be introduced by "to": [...]
3.) With the verb to "say":

I have something to say to you......He said nothing to me about it.

Very often, when the DO is omitted, the IO is also introduced by "to":

I have written to him......Talk to him.

However, in colloquial style, "to" is often omitted in these cases:

It was given me the day of my birthday.......Have you written him?"
I am with Huddleston and Pullum (page248). They feel that the traditional idea of 'to Sue' in "I sent a copy to Sue' as an indirect object is 'based solely on the the fact that the semantic role ( recipient or beneficiary) is the same in [I" sent a copy to Sue"] as in ["I sent Sue a copy".] But Sue also has that role in the passives Sue was sent a copy and *Sue was ordered a copy, yet no one would want to say that it is an indirect object here; it is clearly subject.'

They conclude that a prepositional phrase headed by to is not an indirect object.

Neither H & P nor Quirk et al have anything specific to say about "wrote him".

[FONT=&quot]Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language[/FONT]
 

donnach

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I phoned/called/rang/emailed/texted/SMSed/wrote him.

In the first six of those, in this context, there can be no direct object.


I don't understand why "him" isn't the d.o. for "I phoned/called/rang/emailed/texted/wrote him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top