Can a clause have three different objects?
"Could you give the book to Mike for me?" the book = direct object, Mike = indirect object, me = oblique object
Correct?
in "Mike gave the book to me" the book = direct object, me = indirect object, right?
however, in
"Mike pointed to my tooth" is "my tooth" indirect object or oblique?
in "Mike entered the house" "the house" is direct object, but in
"We have entered upon a new phase in history" "a new phase in history" is what? Oblique?
and in "Mike talked about me" is "me" oblique?
"I sent money to her." "money" = direct object, "her" = indirect object, right? But
"I went to her." "her" is NOT indirect object, nor any other type of object, is it?
So is the Indirect Object always and only the noun phrase that "receives" the direct object of the clause, that is to say, is it the case that without a Direct Object the clause CANNOT have an Indirect Object either?
Someone on this forum said Dative Movement is the operation of moving the indirect object in front the direct object with deletion of 'to'. However, if my above assumptions are true, this would not be the whole truth, for:
in
"I caught a fish for the cat," "a fish" is Direct Object and "the cat" is Oblique, and in
"I caught the cat a fish" the very same sentence seems to have undergone dative movement, and
another such pair is
"They built a house for Harry" and
"They built Harry a house"
so this would suggest that Dative Movement can be used, with ditransitive verbs, not only to do away with 'to' and move the Indirect Object in front of the Direct Object, but also to delete 'for' and move the Oblique in front of the Direct Object. Do y'all agree?