[Grammar] My parents wanted me to do my homework

[nininaz]

How can we distinguish between indirect object and direct object by asking what/who ?!
because we can say by asking following questions:

( What did my parents want?) to do my homework ->direct object
(Whom did my parents want?) me --> direct object
(To/for whom did my parents want to do my homework?) --> me --> indirect object
(wanted what?) to do my homework -> direct object
Who (or what) received it?me -> indirect object
I am really confused on distinguishing them

 

[MikeNewYork]

In your sentence, "me" is the indirect object; "to do my homework" is the direct object.

 

[nininaz]

In your sentence, "me" is the indirect object; "to do my homework" is the direct object.

Thanks for your reply.
Could you please check the following link ?
https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/threads/213526-My-parents-wanted-me-to-do-my-homework

So I get REALLY confused !!

 

[MikeNewYork]

This area can be very confusing.

 

[nininaz]

This area can be very confusing.

So , "me" acts as 'indirect object' and 'subject of infinitive?"?!

 

[TheParser]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


Hello, Nininaz:

As MikeNewYork said, this is a very confusing construction.

I have found some information that may interest you.

*****

1. I have found a somewhat similar sentence: "The dean requested me to report at once." (Compare: "My parents requested me to do my homework.")

a. This book prefers to parse the sentence this way:

i. The dean requested me to report at once.

a. The infinitive clause [phrase] is the object of "requested," and "me" is the subject of "to report."

(i) Compare: "The dean requested that I report at once." [My note, not the author's.]

2. CAUTION: Sometimes this explanation will NOT do.

a. The same book gives this sentence: "We promised her to come."

i. The book says that "her" is the indirect object, and "to come" is the direct object. [My note only: When you think about it, it is obvious that "her" canNOT be the subject of "to come." She is NOT promising to come. "We" are promising.]

3. Finally, another of my favorite books gives this sentence: "He asked me to go."

a. The scholar says that there are two "reasonable" analyses:

i. He asked me to go. ["me to go" is the direct object of "asked."]
ii. He asked me to go . ["me" is the indirect object of "asked," and "to go" is the direct object of "asked."

b. The author makes us feel good by adding: "It doesn't really matter much which analysis we choose." [My note: But remember: in 2a there is only one explanation. In other words, it often depends on the VERB as to whether or not you have a choice of analyses.]




James



Sources: Pence and Emery, A Grammar of Present-Day English (1963).
Paul Roberts, Understanding Grammar (1954).

 

[tzfujimino]

Hello.

The 'Subject + Verb + X(Indirect Object) + Y(Direct Object)' construction can usually be transformed into 'Subject + Verb + Y + preposition + X'. For example:

1. My father gave me the book.
My father gave the book to me.

2. My mother bought me the book.
My mother bought the book for me.

3. Can I ask you a favor?
Can I ask a favor of you?

4. He promised his grandchildren the money.
He promised the money to his grandchildren.

However, in the case of the verb 'want', the constructions I've shown above is impossible:

I want you the money.:cross:
I want the money for/to you.:cross:

They don't work. Thus, 'My parents want me to do my homework' is not the 'S + V + IO + DO' - it's 'S + V + O + C', in my opinion:

My parents: Subject
want: Verb
me: Object
to do my homework: Object Complement

This is how I'd explain the matter to my students.
(I'm not a grammarian. I might be wrong, but I believe in this analysis.)

 

[nininaz]

I want you the money.:cross:
I want the money for/to you.:cross:

They don't work. Thus, 'My parents want me to do my homework' is not the 'S + V + IO + DO' - it's 'S + V + O + C', in my opinion:

My parents: Subject
want: Verb
me: Object
to do my homework: Object Complement

This is how I'd explain the matter to my students.
(I'm not a grammarian. I might be wrong, but I believe in this analysis.)

Hello,
Thanks for your reply, But you meant the 'me' isn't indirect object ?! and it serves as direct object ?!

According to the definition of object complement:
An object complement is an noun, pronoun, or adjective which follows a direct object and renames it or tells what the direct object has become
source:http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000020.htm

And there is one way for distinguishing object complement as below:
for the object complement we put the direct object equal with "to be " so if that make sense the noun or pronoun will serve as as object complement.
examples:
She made us happy.
us:direct object

US to be Happy -> yes ==> is it object complement
The coach called Harload annoying => Harload to be annoying -> it is object complement
so:
Me to be to do my homework => No ; and to do my homework is infinitive phrases not noun or pronoun or adjective to rename "Me"
I might be wrong too !
I GET CONFUSED AGAIN

 

[tzfujimino]

Hello.

I'm not opposed to that definition you've given.
As for your first question, yes, that's what I meant.
I think I can understand what you mean by 'one way for distinguishing object complement'. Well, my way is to see if there is a 'subject-predicate relationship' between 'O' and 'X' in 'S + V + O + X'. If there is one, 'X' is an object complement. For example:

1. She made us happy. [We were/became happy.]
2. They call me TZ. [I am TZ.]
3. My parents want me to do my homework. [I do my homework.]

So, each of these examples above has a 'subject-predicate relationship' between 'O' and 'X'. Thus, 'X' ('happy', 'TZ' and 'to do my homework') is an object complement.

I hope you'll understand what I mean.

 

[TheParser]

This is how I'd explain the matter to my students.
(I'm not a grammarian. I might be wrong, but I believe in this analysis.)

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


1. Apparently, the two authors of one of my favorite books agree with you.

a. They say that "him" and "me" in these sentences are the direct object, and the infinitive phrase is simply the objective complement.

i. The shock caused him to lose his balance.
ii. I believe him to be honest.
iii. [You] do not make me laugh. [infinitive without "to"]

Source: Homer C. House and Susan Emolyn Harman, Descriptive English Grammar (1931, 1950).


*****

2. Furthermore, two scholars agree that after verbs such as "get," "want," and "like," one cannot use the "that" sentence:

Correct: John wanted Mary to play the piano.
Incorrect: John wanted that Mary should play the piano.


Source: Randolph Quirk and Sidney Greenbaum, A Concise Grammar of Contemporary English (1973).

*****
3. Finally, another scholar says that "I want that he should go away" (instead of "I want him to go away") "sounds strange or even unidiomatic."

Source: Paul Roberts, Understanding Grammar (1954).


Therefore, there are at least three analyses:

My parents want ME TO DO IT. ("me to do it" is the direct object.)
My parents want ME to do it. ("me" is the INdirect object; "to do it" is the direct object.)
My parents want me TO DO IT. ("me" is the direct object; "to do it" is the objective complement.)


James


P.S. Now you see why grammar is taught in VERY few American schools.

 

[MikeNewYork]

In my opinion, an indirect object cannot be the subject of anything. It is in the objective case. In traditional grammar, infinitives cannot have a subject because they are not verbs. There are other theories, but they have too many problems to gain my acceptance.