A/The direct object is… (article usage in definitions)

[Alexey86]

Hello! I sometimes find myself puzzled by article usage in grammar term definitions. Let's take "Direct object."
Here are three definitions of the term:

a) https://linguapress.com/grammar/list-of-terms.htm

"The direct object is the entity (person, thing, process) that is directly concerned by the action expressed through the verb, or is the entity that explains the action or process. It is the complement of a transitive verb. It can be a pronoun, a noun, a noun phrase, or more than one of these."

b) https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-direct-object-1690459

"In English grammar, a direct object is a noun, noun phrase, or pronoun that identifies what or who receives the action of a transitive verb in a clause or sentence."

c) https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/direct-object

"A direct object is a noun or pronoun that receives the action of the sentence."


My questions are:

1) (a) uses “the direct object”, whereas (b) and (c) use “a direct object”? Are these variants interchangeable in definitions?

2) (b) says, “...in a clause or sentence”, whereas (c) says, “...of the sentence.” What is the reason for “the”?

3) Is it possible to rewrite (a) this way: “A direct object is an entity (person, thing, process) that is directly concerned by an action expressed through a verb, or is an entity that explains an action or process. It is a complement of a transitive verb. It can be a pronoun, a noun, a noun phrase, or more than one of these”?

I see the possibility of using "a" because I'm not talking about any specific/aforementioned direct object, entity, verb or action, but about things that are just elements of certain classes or sets of objects. Not to mention, a sentence can have more than one verb, and a verb can have more than one direct object.

 

[jutfrank]

1) No. Those definitions that use the do so because of the uniqueness rule—there can be only one direct object (or only one compound) in a clause. Sentence (c) is therefore incorrect because it mixes an indefinite with a definite article.

2) Sentence (c) should say ... of a sentence in accordance with A direct object.

3) Yes, except that the article before action should be definite, because a verb can express only one action.

I see the possibility of using "a" because I'm not talking about any specific/aforementioned direct object, entity, verb or action, but about things that are just elements of certain classes or sets of objects.

Right, except for, as I say, the action expressed by a verb.

a verb can have more than one direct object.

Are you thinking of compound DOs? I'd suggest thinking of an entire compound noun phrase as a single DO. In any case, we normally think of transitive verbs as having only one DO.

 

[Alexey86]

1) No. Those definitions that use the do so because of the uniqueness rule—there can be only one direct object (or only one compound) in a clause.

Do you mean the author implies that his/her definition should be applied only within the scope of a S-V-O clause? If so, why does (s)he go beyond the scope and continue with "It is the complement of a transitive verb"? (S)he mentioned the verb in the previous sentence.

Right, except for, as I say, the action expressed by a verb.

I thought about that but wasn't sure. Maybe "It is a complement of a transitive verb" should be "the complement of" too?

Are you thinking of compound DOs? I'd suggest thinking of an entire compound noun phrase as a single DO.

What do you think about "She accepted his offer but not mine"? How many direct objects are there in the sentence?

 

[jutfrank]

Do you mean the author implies that his/her definition should be applied only within the scope of a S-V-O clause?

Yes.

If so, why does (s)he go beyond the scope and continue with "It is the complement of a transitive verb"? (S)he mentioned the verb in the previous sentence.

The passage makes a transition there to a more general reference. I see what you mean, though—the pronoun It is in reference to A direct object, not The direct object. In other words, the expanded sentence would be: A direct object is the complement of a transitive verb.

So you're very astute to pick that inconsistency up. I doubt the writer of that passage would have anticipated such close scrutiny of his text.

I thought about that but wasn't sure. Maybe "It is a complement of a transitive verb" should be "the complement of" too?

But it does say the complement, which is correct since a transitive verb has only one complement.

What do you think about "She accepted his offer but not mine"? How many direct objects are there in the sentence?

Good question but please start a new thread to ask about this. It's hard enough to focus on the thread topic as it is.

 

[Alexey86]

So you're very astute to pick that inconsistency up. I doubt the writer of that passage would have anticipated such close scrutiny of his text

When I read English texts, I especially focus on article usage because it's the most difficult part for me. If you only knew what a pain in the neck it is when I come across examples like (a) or (c) and start wrapping my mind around them, "Is this a mistake, or does it make any sense in this context? What is implied? What am I missing?"

But it does say the complement, which is correct since a transitive verb has only one complement.

I meant my rewording. I tried to replace all "the" with "a" in the definition, but as I see it now, I can't do that in two phrases: "the action of a verb" and " the complement of a transitive verb" for the reasons you mentioned above.

Good question but please start a new thread to ask about this. It's hard enough to focus on the thread topic as it is.

OK.

 

[jutfrank]

When I read English texts, I especially focus on article usage because it's the most difficult part for me. If you only knew what a pain in the neck it is when I come across examples like (a) or (c) and start wrapping my mind around them, "Is this a mistake, or does it make any sense in this context? What is implied? What am I missing?"

Yes, I appreciate how hard it must be. I must say though that I think that you have a very good understanding of the article system, in principle at least. It is a very difficult thing to wrap one's head around.