Can you say "indulge the bloodlust on others"?

[jutfrank]

I'm referring to post #7, here:

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)

And post #10, here:

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.

Both of those comments seem to suggest that you think that the scriptwriter made some kind of error. That's not the case, as I told you in post #4.

 

[Rhaight9]

I'm referring to post #7, here:


And post #10, here:


Both of those comments seem to suggest that you think that the scriptwriter made some kind of error. That's not the case, as I told you in post #4.

I Didn't realized that your previous comment meant that the original line was correct. I apologize, can you tell me a bit of how your explanation meant that the verb indulge can be used in the way the line was phrased?

 

[jutfrank]

Ah, okay, yes, you completely misunderstood my explanation. I'll try to put it more simply.

Some verbs accept direct objects. These are called 'transitive' verbs. The verb 'indulge' is one such verb.

to indulge something

The 'something' is the direct object of the verb. In our example, it's bloodlust. When the verb 'indulge' is used in this way, the direct object signifies something that is satisfied. Since bloodlust is something that is satisfied, it's correct to use it as a direct object.

All of this is to say that putting the word 'in' between 'indulge' and 'bloodlust' is wrong.

 

[Rhaight9]

Ah, okay, yes, you completely misunderstood my explanation. I'll try to put it more simply.

Some verbs accept direct objects. These are called 'transitive' verbs. The verb 'indulge' is one such verb.

to indulge something

The 'something' is the direct object of the verb. In our example, it's bloodlust. When the verb 'indulge' is used in this way, the direct object signifies something that is satisfied. Since bloodlust is something that is satisfied, it's correct to use it as a direct object.

All of this is to say that putting the word 'in' between 'indulge' and 'bloodlust' is wrong.

I see. In This case shouldn't there be "On" between indulge and bloodlust?

 

[emsr2d2]

I see. In this case, shouldn't there be "on" be used between "indulge" and "bloodlust"?

No. Nothing is needed between those two words. The only thing that could be used between them (in a different sentence) is a possessive pronoun. For example, "I spent the evening indulging my bloodlust" or "The only way he'll feel better is if he indulges his bloodlust".

 

[jutfrank]

I see. In This case shouldn't there be "On" between indulge and bloodlust?

No. In my posts #4 and #23, I've tried to be clear that there should be no preposition between those words since bloodlust is the direct object of the verb indulge.

I notice that in your post #1, you've suggested using of instead of on. I think you're probably misunderstanding the whole structure and meaning of the sentence fragment. Look:

the only way indulge bloodlust on others

The blue part is the verb phrase (verb + object) and the red preposition phrase expresses the recipient. In this context, the recipient is the people who are killed.

 

[Rhaight9]

No. In my posts #4 and #23, I've tried to be clear that there should be no preposition between those words since bloodlust is the direct object of the verb indulge.

I notice that in your post #1, you've suggested using of instead of on. I think you're probably misunderstanding the whole structure and meaning of the sentence fragment. Look:

the only way indulge bloodlust on others

The blue part is the verb phrase (verb + object) and the red preposition phrase expresses the recipient. In this context, the recipient is the people who are killed.

I've mentioned "in" before "bloodlust" and "of" following it (before "others")
The original line was "the only way to indulge the bloodlust on others"

 

[jutfrank]

I've mentioned "in" before "bloodlust" and "of" following it (before "others")
The original line was "the only way to indulge the bloodlust on others"

Yes, I know. You said that back in post #1. That's exactly the point I'm making.

 

[kttlt]

So, I googled it and found a transcription of the episode you're referring to. The actual quote is this:

"And the only way to cope is to indulge the blood lust on others." (https://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewtopic.php?t=23239)

It doesn't really change anything in regard to your original question but still may help to clarify things.

 

[Rhaight9]

So, I googled it and found a transcription of the episode you're referring to. The actual quote is this:

"And the only way to cope is to indulge the blood lust on others." (https://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewtopic.php?t=23239)

It doesn't really change anything in regard to your original question but still may help to clarify things.

Right. I apologize, but the syntax of the quote still doesn't add up for me for some reason.

 

[Rhaight9]

Yes, I know. You said that back in post #1. That's exactly the point I'm making.

so because "others" is the direct object of "indulge"- there's no need for any preposition between them such as of or on? If there were, would that render the sentence not correct or merely redundant?

 

[jutfrank]

so because "others" is the direct object of "indulge"-

No, it isn't. The direct object is the bloodlust.

there's no need for any preposition between them such as of or on? If there were, would that render the sentence not correct or merely redundant?

No. The correct preposition is on. There's nothing wrong with that part.

You don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying. I don't know if I can say it any more clearly.

 

[Rhaight9]

No, it isn't. The direct object is the bloodlust.



No. The correct preposition is on. There's nothing wrong with that part.

You don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying. I don't know if I can say it any more clearly.

Sorry):-". A direct object is the person or thing that directly receives the action or effect of the verb. It answers the question "what" or "whom." An indirect object answers the question "for what," "of what," "to what," "for whom," "of whom," or "to whom" and accompanies a direct object." (Britannica dictionary).

I hope you can understand why I thought "others" was the direct object.

 

[jutfrank]

Okay, yes, I see.

But you understand now that the bloodlust is the direct object of the verb indulge, right? This is a key point.

(I said in a couple of places above that the direct object was bloodlust. That was an oversight—the object is the bloodlust.)

 

[Rhaight9]

Okay, yes, I see.

But you understand now that the bloodlust is the direct object of the verb indulge, right? This is a key point.

(I said in a couple of places above that the direct object was bloodlust. That was an oversight—the object is the bloodlust.)

In this case, correct me If I'm wrong but the indirect object is "others"? my logic is that since using Indulge without a preposition in between entails that the following word is the direct object but also that there's an Indirect object in the sentence?
Please forgive me for my ignorance before I'd began being exposed to English at a rather late age.

 

[jutfrank]

In this case, correct me If I'm wrong but the indirect object is "others"? my logic is that since using Indulge without a preposition in between entails that the following word is the direct object but also that there's an Indirect object in the sentence?

There is no indirect object of indulge, just a direct one. Not many verbs take indirect objects, relatively speaking.

The word others is the complement of the preposition on.