Can you say "indulge the bloodlust on others"?

[Rhaight9]

Hi guys, I know the context is really crippy , it's from "Arrow" ( season 4 episode 3) -
Basically the context is that a girl was brought back from the dead using a pit with such abilities, and then the girl has a bloodlust for hurting people. and her father is telling her the only way to keep the bloodlust at bay is by killing every once in a while; “the only way to indulge the bloodlust on others". This is his quote. But does it make sense Grammarly? I mean shouldn't he have said “Indulge IN the bloodlust of others”?

 

[emsr2d2]

Hi. guys,

I know The following context is really crippy creepy; it's from "Arrow" (season 4, episode 3).

Basically, the context is that a girl was brought back from the dead using a pit with such abilities, and then the girl has gets a bloodlust. for hurting people. and Her father is telling her the only way to keep the bloodlust at bay is by killing every once in a while, saying “The only way to indulge the bloodlust on others".

This is his quote no full stop here but does it make sense Grammarly grammatically? I mean Shouldn't he have said “Indulge IN the bloodlust of others”?

Note my corrections above. Neither of the suggested sentences work. Her father would say something like "You'll have to indulge your bloodlust occasionally. It's the only way!"

 

[Tarheel]

That advice is like telling an alcoholic to drink every once in a while.

 

[jutfrank]

No, in isn't right.

When verb 'indulge' is used transitively (with a direct object), the direct object is the thing that is satisfied. In this case, the thing that is satisfied is the bloodlust.

When the verb 'indulge' is used intransitively, followed by 'in', the noun phrase after 'in' is a pleasurable activity.

Bloodlust is not an activity but an urge that must be satisfied, so it must function as the direct object.

 

[Rhaight9]

That advice is like telling an alcoholic to drink every once in a while.

sorry?

 

[Rhaight9]

Note my corrections above. Neither of the suggested sentences work. Her father would say something like "You'll have to indulge your bloodlust occasionally. It's the only way!"

I apologize. if you say a possessive noun like "father" - for instance "her father" -should the "her" be capitalized?

 

[Rhaight9]

No, in isn't right.

When verb 'indulge' is used transitively (with a direct object), the direct object is the thing that is satisfied. In this case, the thing that is satisfied is the bloodlust.

When the verb 'indulge' is used intransitively, followed by 'in', the noun phrase after 'in' is a pleasurable activity.

Bloodlust is not an activity but an urge that must be satisfied, so it must function as the direct object.

I figured that wasn't right. Strangely, a native (the actor) repeats that mistake twice, and it hasn't added up for me (a non-native)

 

[Tarheel]

sorry?

I don't understand that.

Her father says that the only way to keep the bloodlust at bay is to give into it. That's like telling an alcoholic to go ahead and give in to his/her craving for alcohol. It makes no sense. (That might be a little off-topic.)

By the way, you can't blame the actor if the lines were written badly. That's the writer's fault.

 

[Skrej]

The idea is that you keep the bloodlust in check by occasionally allowing it to surface, presumably at a time and manner of your choosing. Trying to keep it completely repressed will result in it running rampant.

Think of it as steam valve - you let off a bit of pressure in a controlled manner to prevent the tank from exploding.

I'm vaguely familiar with the show. I wouldn't be surprised if she perhaps kills criminals or bad people as the release mechanism. That would feed the bloodlust but still protect innocents.

It seems like the kind of ethical issue for an anti-hero that show would have.

 

[Rhaight9]

I don't understand that.

Her father says that the only way to keep the bloodlust at bay is to give into it. That's like telling an alcoholic to go ahead and give in to his/her craving for alcohol. It makes no sense. (That might be a little off-topic.)

By the way, you can't blame the actor of the lines were written badly. That's the writer's fault.

I see. I probably didn't provide enough context. The bloodlust is for hurting others, and by killing others apparently it retracts for a while.

And you're right about the writer. But it's not the first time I came across a poorly formed sentence from a native on a show. And it's just strange that me, a non native could notice something's wrong with them.

 

[Tarheel]

I see. I probably didn't provide enough context. The bloodlust is for hurting others, and by killing others apparently it retracts for a while.

No, you provided enough context. That theory is totally wrong. If I have an appetite for something, giving in to it is not going to reduce it. The opposite is true.

 

[Tarheel]

And you're right about the writer. But it's not the first time I came across a poorly formed sentence from a native on a show. And it's just strange that me, a non native could notice something's wrong with them.

Forget the idea that native speakers do not make mistakes. Do native speakers of your first language not make mistakes?

 

[probus]

@Rhaight9 please don't use "native" when you mean "native speaker". Their meanings are quite different and we can't afford to lose just plain native. For example, Joe Blow is a native of Seattle but now he lives in New York.

 

[Rhaight9]

No, you provided enough context. That theory is totally wrong. If I have an appetite for something, giving in to it is not going to reduce it. The opposite is true.

Yeah, that's fictional show's logic.

 

[Rhaight9]

Forget the idea that native speakers do not make mistakes. Do native speakers of your first language not make mistakes?

Yes, but Usually not syntax. English is my second language and thus I can't pinpoint the misuse of words in English, but I can "detect" them. In my first language- I can.

 

[Tarheel]

The average native speaker wouldn't be able to define "syntax". In fact, they would probably confuse it with "sin tax".

 

[Rhaight9]

The average native speaker wouldn't be able to define "syntax". In fact, they would probably confuse it with "sin tax".

Hahah good joke. but I think neuroscience and linguists studies do suggest that native English speakers have much better understanding of English.

 

[Tarheel]

Hahah good joke. but I think neuroscience and linguists studies do suggest that native English speakers have much better understanding of English.

You are confusing knowledge of grammar terms with understanding the language.

 

[jutfrank]

But it's not the first time I came across a poorly formed sentence from a native on a show. And it's just strange that me, a non native could notice something's wrong with them.

The way you've written your post #1 makes it seem as though what was said was "... the only way to indulge the bloodlust on others ...", and that you believe that that was incorrect, since it doesn't use in. Your later posts seem to be saying the reverse. Which way round is it?

 

[Rhaight9]

The way you've written your post #1 makes it seem as though what was said was "... the only way to indulge the bloodlust on others ...", and that you believe that that was incorrect, since it doesn't use in. Your later posts seem to be saying the reverse. Which way round is it?

By my "later posts seem to be saying the reverse", what are you referring to?