Noun that-clause

[Osbri]

In this thread https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/threads/234663-That-clause-is-an-adverb-clause-or-a-complement, I was trying to explain why I thought the that-clause was a noun-clause but I think Mike misinterpret what I said and thought I said that an indirect object can be a prepositional object but I was saying that to know if the that-clause is a noun clause or not, you can put the indirect object after the preposition, 'to' or 'for', and put the direct object before those prepositions and after a main verb or double object verb and it will still have the same meaning. Did I say something wrong? And please don't lock the thread before we all agree.

 

[Tarheel]

What is it that you want us to agree on?

 

[MikeNewYork]

There are times when universal agreement is impossible. This seems to be one of those times.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I was saying that to know if the that-clause is a noun clause or not, you can put the indirect object after the preposition, 'to' or 'for', and put the direct object before those prepositions and after a main verb or double object verb and it will still have the same meaning.

Could you provide examples?

Why did you start a fresh thread for this?

I advised him to do so in reply to his private message.

 

[Osbri]

What is it that you want us to agree on?

You don't have to agree with me or I don't want to force you to agree with me but I want us to understand each other and at least agree on one thing.

There are times when universal agreement is impossible. This seems to be one of those times.

You might be right but I think we have to understand why something is right or wrong and I think that if someone think something is wrong, that thing might be right. You might disagree with someone or something but that person or thing that you disagree with had the right thought or movement.

Could you provide examples?

I told him 'that I am going to stay home'.(Subject + Verb + Indirect Object/Noun + Direct Object/Noun)

I told 'that I am going to stay home' to him. (Subject + Verb + Direct Object/Noun + Preposition(to) + Indirect Object/Noun)

Do they have the same meaning?

 

[MikeNewYork]

The second one is very unnatural. I would say it is incorrect. And I would not call "him" an indirect object or a noun..

 

[Osbri]

I thought it was put a little unnatural too but I think it has the same meaning and if you say I told that to him or I said that to him, It will probably sound a little more natural. Why do you say 'him' is not a noun? and I called 'him' an indirect object because 'him' was the indirect object in the first structure.

 

[Matthew Wai]

'Someone told something to someone else.'
Some consider 'someone else' a prepositional object while some consider it an indirect object.
I think no agreement can be or needs to be reached.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Osbri, "Him" is not a noun because it is a pronoun.

 

[Osbri]

I agree with Mike that that is so unnatural as to be incorrect. It may theoretically carry the same message as I told him that I am going to stay at home, but tell + that-clause + to + noun/pronoun is not possible in English.

What would you think if it said "I said that I'm going to stay home to him" or " I told the secret to him"?

As to the question of the indirect object, I can only echo what Mike has already told you. The two sentences, I gave him the book and I gave the book to him, carry the same meaning. Traditionally, both the underlined words/phrases were labelled as indirect objects, but most modern writers prefer to reserve that label for the first, calling the second a preposition phrase.


I am one of those who find it more logical to call it a preposition phrase. This seems to me 'tidier', in that we then don't have the potential problem of deciding which of the underlined phrases in the sentences below is an indirect object. None of them is.


I gave the book to him
I bought the book for him. (I bought the book to give to him.)
I bought the book for him. ( I bought the book on his behalf.)
I was given the book by him.
.

I called "him" an indirect object because "him" is called an indirect object in the first structure.

Osbri, "Him" is not a noun because it is a pronoun.

It isn't but it does what a noun does.

 

[MikeNewYork]

You should still call it what it is.

 

[Osbri]

I'm just saying that the prepositional structure and the indirect object structure have the same meanings and I think you can use the prepositional structure to see if the that-clause is a noun clause. What do you think?

 

[MikeNewYork]

To what "that clause" do you refer. You seem to want to make this subject complicated and confusing. It is neither.

I threw him the ball.
I threw the ball to him.

Same meaning, very different structures.

 

[Osbri]

I'm not saying they have the same structure but I said that if you change the indirect structure to the prepositional structure, you might see if the that-clause is a noun clause. I'm talking about the clauses that say 'I will show you that...' or 'I told you that...'

 

[MikeNewYork]

Where is the preposition in "I will show you that" or "I told you that"?

 

[Osbri]

I don't think you understand and there are no prepositions in those clauses. I said that to see if a that-clause is a noun clause, I think you might change the indirect structure to the prepositional structure that has the same meaning of the indirect structure.

I will show you 'that I wasn't lying'.

I will show 'that I wasn't lying' to you.

Or

I told you 'that she hasn't came'.

I told 'that she hasn't came' to you.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Why do you call it a prepositional structure if there is no preposition? Your argument is very confusing.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Let's simplify the matter.

I will show you 'that I wasn't lying'.

'Someone will show someone else something.'
So the that-clause is a noun clause.

I told you 'that she hasn't came'.

'Someone told someone else something.'
So the that-clause is a noun clause.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I told you 'that she hasn't [STRIKE]came[/STRIKE] come'.

I told 'that she hasn't [STRIKE]came[/STRIKE] come' to you.

MNY

 

[Osbri]

I was trying to explain it differently but I think Matthew understood and simplified the thought.

Why do you call it a prepositional structure if there is no preposition? Your argument is very confusing.

I will show you 'that I wasn't lying'.(I call this indirect structure)

I will show 'that I wasn't lying' to you.(I call this prepositional structure)

Or

I told you 'that she hasn't came'.(indirect structure)

I told 'that she hasn't came' to you.(prepositional structure)

MNY

I thought 'came' was past tense and 'come' was past participle. Aren't they?