To whom/whom

Do you feel [the] descriptions are right?

I agree with all of the statements. IO incorporation is the reason "I gave my son it" is acceptable but rare, and the reason "Who(m) did you give the book?" is deemed ungrammatical in the following context:

Statement: I gave my son the book. ("my son the book" is the verb's object)
Question: *Whom did you give the book? ("Whom" is a preposition's object)

First, both the statement and the question are correct (iff, that is, "to" is implied in the question), but together, as a set, the question is incorrect. It doesn't represent the statement.

The question was formed by separating the verb's object into two categories, and then changing one of those categories into a prepositional phrase. Now, within a sentence, every word can have only one function, but in our examples, "my son" functions as the object of the verb as well as the object of a preposition. Which is it? It can have only one function.

Now, if we remove IO incorporation, like this,

EX: I gave the book to my son.

then there are four possible permutations:

1: To whom did you give the book? (traditional grammar)
2: Whom did you give the book to? (modern variation)
3: Who did you give the book to? (modern variation)
4: Whom did you give the book (to)? (implied "to", contextual)

Here's the formation process:

Statement:
I gave the book to my son.

Question formation:
1. I gave the book to whom? (replace the noun phrase with a pronoun)
2. To whom did I give the book? (move the prepositional phrase)
3. Whom did I give the book to? (move the noun phrase)

Statement:
I gave my son the book.

Question formation:
1. I gave whom the book? (replace the noun phrase with a pronoun)
2. -------------------------------------- (no prepositional phrase to move)
3. *Whom did I give the book? (move the noun phrase)

In 1., "whom" replaces an incorporated noun phrase. That phrase does not sit on its own. It's part of the verb's object, but in 3. it's taken out of that dependent structure and re-interpreted as an independent unit. That is the problem.

In short, your text is making the following observation: an IO incorporated phrase is not treated as an independent unit.

I gave my son the book. ("my son the book" is the verb's object)

It looks like two objects to me.

it's taken out of that dependent structure and re-interpreted as an independent unit.

Is IO + DO the only structure* to which this rule applies? That is, where else in the language does one appeal to the principle of "taking something out of a dependent structure and reinterpreting it as an independent unit [creates something ungrammatical]"?

*if, indeed, the IO + DO structure is the one you are focusing on. If not, please explain what the "dependent structure" is that you are talking about.

"I gave it to him" is more common, though some grammarians say "I gave him it" is also acceptable.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

JT: "I gave it to him" is more common because it is the normal neutral.

"I gave him it" is a structure that is much more emphatic.

A: Give me my pen, please.

B: No.

A: Give me my pen, please.

B: Un-un, I need it.

A: Give me it!

When we want to demand something quickly or express anger, we are more likely to use the DO's in the final position.

Gimme it quick! OR Gimme 'em quick!

Hello Casi

Thank you for the reply. What I still cannot get is what 'incorporation' exactly means. My interpretation was the 'incorporation' would result in combing X (=him) and Y (=the book) as equal components like two atoms are combined to make a molecule. But it seems not what you are conceptualizing by 'incorporation'. I feel now what you denote by [X(Y)]=[him (the book)] is semantically very similar (maybe not the same) to [X's Y]=[his the book]. However, according to the concept of yours, syntactically Y can move independently from X but that kind of independence is not allowed to X. It means the ditransitive verb construction is quite different from the causative verb construction. Some grammarians are suggesting the similarity of the two constructions: 'give X Y' is almost as same as 'cause X get Y'. But, I guess, you can change 'She caused him the book' into a wh-question sentence 'Who(m) did she cause get the book?' This kind of change, however, is not allowed to the ditransitive verb construction. It is a really interesting linguistic phenomenon. I am wondering why no grammarian has taken this as his/her study subject. Anyway I would like to say again:thank you for the long lasting and very useful discussion.

paco