http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=tag%3aDirect+ObjectsSearch results for 'tag:Direct Objects' matching tag 'Direct Objects'en-USXMOD (Build: 3607.32596)http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhoOrWhoWithInfinitive/lpbzh/post.htm#993114Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:01:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:993114avangiGreetings, my friend. I looked at this a few hours ago and gave up on it. I'm glad you tackled it. I'm too old to fight about using subjective case for objects. But my instincts let me down on what modifies what. (I know CJ thinks worring about modifiers is counterproductive.) I know where to go. (same sentence - no case conflict) I'm as comfortable saying that "where" is what I know and "to go" answers the question; as I am to say that "to go" is what I know and "where" modifies it. "To go" isn't a transitive verb. Why does it have to have an object anyway? Why is "where" such a great direct object? Best wishes, - A. Edit. I feel the same way...http://www.englishforums.com/English/TakingShould/lnjjm/post.htm#985395Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:32:02 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:985395avangiBoth meanings of "taking" are transitive. (They both take direct objects.) My dictionary lists 34 separate meanings for the transitive verb "to take." Take your pick. Your #1 means to transport or carry or cause someone or something to accompany you somewhere. Your #2 means to acquire something from someone. In this case the wise man is not taking some posession away from the dog, but applying the example of the incident to similar life situations. I don't find much similarity between them. In #3, "should" means it would be to your benefit to do it. It's not really an obligation or an expectation.http://www.englishforums.com/English/JohnBoughtBookMaryJohnBoughtMary-Book/lkhjz/post.htm#970771Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:29:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:970771gleb_chebrikoffHello, Liveinsea, as the other contributors have pointed out, the difference in meaning is non-existent, at least this can be resumed after a substitution test: John bought Mary a book/John bought a book for Mary, but hasn't presented it to her yet. However, there are indeed grounds for a certain extent of ambiguity considering the fact that for can mean either in place of sb or to the benefit of sb , but the situational context will serve as a rock-ribbed practical indication of which meaning to accept. Leaving aside these matters, let me comment on the structural issues. The verb bought is monotransitive (taking only a direct object) in John bought for Mary , but ditransitive (with two objects) in John bought . Semantically,...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PassiveVoice/lgrvm/post.htm#948569Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:58:36 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:948569califjimPrevious climbers had cut steps in the ice. R: The ice the climbers got had cut steps . Steps ... ... ... by previous climbers. We use this room only on special occasions. R: On special occasions we used this room. This room ... ... ... They Are carrying heavy suitcases . R: Heav y suitcases are being car ri ed by them. (You did this one almost perfectly.) Someone will serve refreshments . R: refreshments had been served. (Keep will : Refreshments will be served .) You've got the right idea in the last two. You put the direct object (underlined) of the active sentence as the subject (at the beginning) of the passive sentence. But note that your placement of words is not correct in the first two. You didn't find the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/IndirectDirectObjects/lzlbq/post.htm#946583Mon, 19 Oct 2009 01:42:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:946583anonymousThese open spaces add variety to a city. "Variety" would be the direct object, because it is what is being added. The indirect object would be "city," because it is to what/whom "variety" is being added to. I hope that makes sense for you and explains the difference between direct and indirect objects is. If that doesn't help, I'll post the dictionary definitions of "direct object" and "indirect object." According to the dictionary, a direct object is, "a word or phrase denoting the goal or the result of the action of a verb." An indirect object is, "a grammatical object representing the secondary goal of the action of its verb (as her in ' I gave her...http://www.englishforums.com/English/IndirectDirectObjects/lzlbq/post.htm#946571Mon, 19 Oct 2009 01:21:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:946571califjimBecause add is not a verb of giving, showing, or communicating, the inanimate object of to so often seen with it is not generally considered an indirect object. variety is indeed the direct object, but to a city is an ordinary prepositional phrase that does not rise to the level of being an indirect object. I rode the train to Los Angeles is another example where the to -phrase does not count as an indirect object. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/IndirectDirectObjects/lzlbq/post.htmSun, 18 Oct 2009 23:44:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:946508anonymousNeed help with Direct & Indirect objects (if any in the sentence below): These open spaces add variety to a city. Is the Direct object Variety & the Indirect object City? Thanks for your help.http://www.englishforums.com/English/VerbTerms/lcmgl/post.htmWed, 07 Oct 2009 15:15:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:932138anonymousplease could you give me the answer to this question. A verb than can take objects, an indirect and direct object. For examplke the verb givein the sentence in 'He gave Samater (indirect object) the present (Direct object). What is its name please?http://www.englishforums.com/English/Grammar/lccdd/post.htmMon, 05 Oct 2009 16:40:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:929189anonymousi have to label the simple subjects, verb or verb phrases, direct objects, indirect objects, and predicate nouns. Then I have to bracket any prepositional phrases and label the objects of the prepositions. Here is the sentence: Susie and I attended the conference and then went to the mall for lunch and shopping.http://www.englishforums.com/English/MeddleVAlwaysIntransitive/kgrmn/post.htm#864993Sun, 16 Aug 2009 20:09:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:864993fandorinHi. Why isn't "meddling" here followed by "with"? Yes, it is intransitive. It also can be followed by "in". Intransitive verbs cannot take direct objects. They can take it only after prepositions. So your dictionary is all fine and dandy.http://www.englishforums.com/English/IQuestionsAboutPassivazation/kvgdk/post.htmTue, 11 Aug 2009 04:59:53 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:856657duciplineHello, I've got some questions about passivazation and the use of indirect object. Firstly, I met a sentence, Good care was taken of the children by Mary , which was indicated as acceptable in grammaticality. Its corresponding active voice sentence was Mary took good care of the children. I thought the passivization above is incorrect and the correct passive counterpart should be The Children were taken good care of by Mary . Which one is correct and why? Secondly, I wonder if I gave her it is acceptable sentence. Specifically, I'd like to learn about uses of indirect and direct objects when both are pronouns and indirect precedes direct, such as Give me it, I gave him it and so on. If someone helps...http://www.englishforums.com/English/InfinitivesIndirectObjects/wzzwc/post.htm#854503Sun, 09 Aug 2009 19:27:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:854503anonymousHello, We don't split verb phrases like "must have been sleeping" because the whole phrase is acting together as the verb. (But, in this example, you could choose to see "sleeping" as a gerund acting as the predicate noun and "must have been" as a linking verb phrase- you can choose.) But in a two-verb sequence where one verb is an infinitive, I'm not sure if it can (or ought to) be split into two units (i.e. two clause elements) for analysis purposes. For example, the sequence 'to stop using' with its infinitive and a participle - is this always seen as a single unit, or can it be two: 'to stop' + 'using'. You refer to these as "two-verb sequences," but...http://www.englishforums.com/English/InfinitivesIndirectObjects/wzzwc/post.htm#853107Sat, 08 Aug 2009 19:35:29 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:853107anonymousHi Elizabeth Re: 'He asked her to dance'. That was a great reply to something that I too was unsure about. If I understand you correctly, that example is analysed as: 'He - asked - ' i.e. S-V- , where O is an infinitive phrase (or nonfinite subordinate clause) analysed as 'her - to dance' i.e. S-V. But there is another type of infinitive construction that concerns me. Although finite verb clause elements can often be quite long: 'must have been sleeping', 'shouldn't have been running' etc., clearly we would not attempt split such sequences - they're single verb units and that's that. But in a two-verb sequence where one verb is an infinitive, I'm not sure if it...http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheObjectsVerbTellDetailsDetails-Of/jqqpm/post.htmMon, 27 Jul 2009 03:10:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:835188hssDid you tell Megan the details of the Information Day? If not, I will tell her. 1) Should you add "the details" to the rear of the last sentence if you want to make it natural? --- "If not, I will tell her the details." 'Tell' normally takes the direct and indirect objects, and I wonder if in this case you need the direct object. My gut feeling and experience tells me --- and I would normally just say so --- you don't need it here. 2) Could we drop 'the' off of 'the details'? I feel there is a difference here; just 'detail of ...' would make you feel the details 'you' might have given were not all the details you need for the Day. Thanks in advance...http://www.englishforums.com/English/DifferenceSubjunctiveCatenative-Verbs/2/jjlqr/Post.htm#799484Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:58:19 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:799484sunsail"There are only a few verbs where the indirect object can follow the verb. Suggest is not one of these verb" Thanks a lot :) This is what I wanted to know.the logic itself :) This explains why I cannot use this.how can I find the list of these verbs? in grammar how is this called? is there special section in grammar? "I suggest him to stay" In this perspective can I generalize like this ? indirect objects follow verbs in catenative verbs structure I told him to stay I want him to read I said to her to sing I ask her to write the verbs are used which cannot be followed by indirect objects but can be followed by direct objects in subjunctive verbs structure. I suggest he stay here I recommend he stay here I propose...http://www.englishforums.com/English/DifferenceSubjunctiveCatenative-Verbs/jjlqr/post.htm#799399Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:54:59 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:799399sunsailHello why is this wrong? can you explain? I suggested him the Holiday Inn. It's wrong,. here is an example,so I can use "suggest" with "him,her,it" indirect pronouns cannot I ? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suggest to propose (a person or thing) as suitable or possible for some purpose: We suggested him for president" over this example I suggested the Holiday Inn to him OK. I suggested him the Holiday Inn. It's wrong,. I suggest it to him.? ( I forgot this) I gave him the book.( I stress him, the person) I gave the book to him.(I stress the book) I gave it to him. To make stress in the sentence I can change the places of indirect object with direct objects,right? can you explain why you said...http://www.englishforums.com/English/TreeDiagram/jgcxh/post.htm#783341Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:27:47 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:783341califjimso in sentence #5 the iO is "him" and the dO is "money" Yes. "documents" is the object complement? I would call it the object (or complement) of the preposition "for". is that why the structure is layed out that way, because of the function of the NP's and PP's? ... does that dictate the structure by itself, does a sentence tree diagram look the same if all of the functions are in the same order? I'm not quite sure of that. It would be better to ask someone else about this. I'm a little unclear about how the function of an NP or PP enters into the decision about placement in the diagram. the dO is "the tree" what is "front yard" and "our house"?...http://www.englishforums.com/English/IdentifyingNominativeObjective-Pronouns/jcvrx/post.htmWed, 03 Jun 2009 01:10:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:762685anonymousI am a middle school student studying for a test on identifying nominative, predicate nominatives, indirect objects, and direct objects. I am completely confused. I have no clue how to identify these within a sentance, nor how to use the right one. Please help.http://www.englishforums.com/English/TwoObjects/wnmhc/post.htm#736625Mon, 18 May 2009 22:03:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:736625mister micawber. The crisis is the direct object of blame and the banks is the object of "on" Yes, of course; I presumed you were speaking of verb objects. .http://www.englishforums.com/English/TwoObjects/wnmhc/post.htm#736622Mon, 18 May 2009 21:58:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:736622anonymousI've asked wider and it appears there are actually two objects in the thread post. The crisis is the direct object of blame and the banks is the object of "on".http://www.englishforums.com/English/ForComplianceWith/wwqrj/post.htm#712133Sat, 02 May 2009 23:45:04 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:712133alpheccastarsHere is an analysis of this sentence: Much (pronoun, subject of the sentence) of the credit (prepositional phrase. credit is a noun, object of the preposition) for compliance (prepositional phrase) with affirmative action (prepositional phrase) belongs to (main verb - phrasal) conservative Republican president Richard Nixon. (direct object) Prepositional phrases need a noun for their object. There are 3 prepositional phrases, each with its own object. Prepostional phrases do not have subjects, only objects.http://www.englishforums.com/English/GrrTheseInfinitivePhrases/wgzdw/post.htm#699154Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:54:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:699154alpheccastars"I want her to go" "I forced him to cook" In all these sentences, "her to go" and "him to cook" are infinitive phrases acting as direct object. The pronouns are the subject of the infinitive. Gerunds and infinitives can have subjects, objects and modifiers! That's why they are called verbals. Here is an example with a gerund. I objected to her (subject of gerund) smoking (gerund) cigars (direct object) in my office (adverbial prep. phrase) . "I made him happy" "He makes me feel happy" In an older form of English, "make" was followed by the infinitive. For example, He makes me to lie down in green pastures. (King James Bible) The present day speech is...http://www.englishforums.com/English/GrrTheseInfinitivePhrases/wgzdw/post.htmSun, 19 Apr 2009 18:26:11 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:699150blackblitzI don't understand infinitives!? "I want her to go" "I forced him to cook" In all these sentences, "her to go" and "him to cook" are infinitive phrases acting as direct object. But then someone told me "him/her" are direct objects, and the infinitives are object complements. HUH? However, I still don't understand this one. "I made him happy" "He makes me feel happy" In the first example, "happy" is the object complement. And "feel happy" in the second example is also an object complement? I don't get it!http://www.englishforums.com/English/InfinitivesIndirectObjects/wzzwc/post.htm#698816Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:02:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:698816grammarrevolutionHello Cypress, You are right. The infinitive phrases <i>her to dance</i> and <i>them to go</i> are direct objects.  The pronouns <i>her</i> and <i>them</i> are acting as the subjects of the infinitive phrases. It seems kind of funny for them to have subjects because they are nouns, but, they are kind of special nouns. Because they have some "verb-ness" from the verbs <i>dance</i> and <i>go</i>, infinitives can take subjects. The subject of an infinitive is always in the objective case. (Hence, <i>her</i> and <i>them</i> instead of <i>she</i> and <i>they</i>.) I hope that all made sense!  Elizabethhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/InfinitivesIndirectObjects/wzzwc/post.htm#698766Sat, 18 Apr 2009 08:26:35 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:698766anonymousI followed all this, but here is a construction I have had trouble with: He asked her to dance.   We permitted them to go. What are the HER and THEM? What are TO DANCE and TO GO? I almost decided that the whole "her to dance" and "them to go" were direct objects.  But please someone chime in! Thanks, Cypresshttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ReallyComplicatedGrammarS/wgdwl/post.htmFri, 17 Apr 2009 20:47:29 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:698660blackblitz1. What exactly is an adverb of place? I know that it describes where the action takes place. "I was swimming at the pool" At the pool = adverb place But then someone told me that it can modify any direction of the verb. "I stole the clothes from the store" From the stole = sounds like the direction/place of stealing, BUTTT... it also can modify "the clothes" And what about this sentence, "I received a gift from him" and "I banned him from the school" 2. With stative verbs, I can't think of any adverbs of place. "I want the book there" vs. "I want the book to be there" In the first example, "there" modifies the book and in the second "to be...http://www.englishforums.com/English/StativeVerbsAdverbsQuestions/wgdzl/post.htmFri, 17 Apr 2009 16:26:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:698609blackblitz1. What exactly is an adverb of place? I know that it describes where the action takes place. "I was swimming at the pool" At the pool = adverb place But then someone told me that it can modify any direction of the verb. "I stole the clothes from the store" From the stole = sounds like the direction/place of stealing, BUTTT... it also can modify "the clothes" And what about this sentence, "I received a gift from him" and "I banned him from the school" 2. With stative verbs, I can't think of any adverbs of place. "I want the book there" vs. "I want the book to be there" In the first example, "there" modifies the book and in the second "to be...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ToFeelCuriosityDoubtWonderingAbout-Future/wznjb/post.htm#696651Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:52:36 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:696651tanitHi, As far as I know transitive verbs are the ones that take a direct object, without any preposition, and answer the question "What?". Some examples of direct objects: I am reading a book. She asked me . He told me . He denied . In your " wondering about the future ," the object ( the future ) is preceded by " about " -- in other words, " wonder " is followed by a prepositional object, hence I think it's intransitive. Just my 2 cents.http://www.englishforums.com/English/InfinitivesIndirectObjects/wzzwc/post.htm#694341Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:39:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:694341alpheccastarsHi BlackBlitz: Here is the way I see it. First, change the sentence by using a real adjective to replace the infinitive phrase. Then you can see if the infinitive serves as an adjective. For example: "You have time to do your homework" Let's find an adjective that modifies "time". "You have free time." "You have some time." The adjectives also answer the questions about time - what kind of time? How much time? The infinitive phrase serves to answer the same questions, so it is an adj. Next, look at the verb. "have". The infinitve phrase does not really modify "have". "You lack the strength to resist". This one is a bit harder, but an alternate is: "You lack...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ParallelStructure/wzrrw/post.htm#692750Tue, 31 Mar 2009 05:50:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:692750avangiOthers may have better advice, but I treat it as a process of trial and error. I usually begin by picking out the main verb, because that gives me the best sense of what's happening in the sentence. Try to decide if it's a transitive verb or not. You have to understand what sort of action the verb describes. The verb is "to vent." It's transitive, so it takes a direct object. In this particular case the object is compound. "To vent" means to release something, or to allow something to blow off. That something would be the object. What is the something they're releasing? Their bad feelings, specifically, fears, frustrations, and anger. If instead of three objects there were only one, anger , the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/DifferenceBetweenInfivitivesObject-Purpose/wdkdp/post.htm#685886Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:00:16 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:685886avangiHi, drivera, Thanks for joining us. Welcome to English Forums. I'd suggest asking yourself whether your problem lies more with your understanding of infinitives or with your understanding of subjects and objects. The subject is the actor, or who/what the sentence/clause is all about. (Infinitives and present participles (gerunds) work about the same when functioning as subjects and objects) : Subject of the sentence: Skateboarding is fun. To skateboard is fun. Overcoming this obstacle took all his energy. To overcome this obstacle took all his energy. Direct object of the verb: I hate taking advantage of you like this. I hate to take advantage of you like this. I shall attempt building a house. I shall attempt to build a...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ProblemIndirectObjects/wdvvq/post.htm#685361Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:15:17 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:685361eddie88Argh, I cannot find the page, which provides this information. Somewhere on the hyperlink below, it discusses indirect objects. On the page I have directed you to, there is information on direct objects, including information about it not being able to be in the form of a preposition phrase. If you have a search around this site, you may discover a discussion on indirect objects. Here is the link: http://www.dailygrammar.com/106to110.shtml Edhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WouldHaveLikedToV/wbvqq/post.htm#674535Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:20:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:674535avangiYou can only take this for what it's worth. If one were a student of history or philosophy, and had had the opportunity to be present on that fateful occasion, and to witness the proceedings, It would have been nice to V. I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall. I'll grant you the tenses make little sense, because from any point in time, you mean you'd like to know what he said, not what he is saying. I would have liked to know whether or not the other driver was / had been drunk. It's now too late for it to be of any use or significance. But at some important point in time following the accident, a time at which the information might still have been useful, I would have liked to know. Re, "I would have...http://www.englishforums.com/English/HeHeardSheilaComingBackSentence-Analysis/wrklv/post.htm#671302Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:50:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:671302califjimI hope I made things clearer. Yes. I understand. Sheila coming back or Sheila come back are both non-finite subordinate clauses, and they are, as we established before, direct objects of the main clause. Being direct objects, they are nominal clauses, because only a nominal clause can occur as a direct object. Direct objects are of course always nominal. I would not call either of them postmodifiers. These clauses contain Sheila as the subject, so the clause as a whole cannot modify Sheila , that is, a clause cannot modify its own subject. Further, neither coming back nor come back modify anything. They are simply the predicates of the clauses that have Sheila as their subjects. The grammar of see, hear, and similar verbs of perception...http://www.englishforums.com/English/FunctionsOfTheInfinitive/hqqqc/post.htm#669088Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:29:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:669088avangiHi Olgaa, "Except to succeed" can't modify itself. "to succeed" is an infinitive. It functions as object of the preposition "except," which means it functions as a noun. ("Except" means about the same as "besides" here, but both these words have other uses.) Since infinitives are "verbals" (derived from verbs; forms of verbs) they can take adverbial modifiers and objects. "In the class" is a prepositional phrase which acts adverbially, as the modifier of the infinitive, "to succeed." That's the only "adverbial modifier" in the sentence. (Remember that adverbs may also modify adjectives.) I suppose you could say that objects of the verb...http://www.englishforums.com/English/IndirectOrDirectObject/wrrqx/post.htm#668479Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:53:22 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:668479eddie88O.k. thanks. So it is an indirect object then. I copied and pasted what I read on indirect objects: An indirect object is really a prepositional phrase in which the preposition to or for is not stated but understood. It tells to whom or for whom something is done. The indirect object always comes between the verb and the direct object. But I have also read that it usually goes between...http://www.englishforums.com/English/DitransitiveMonotransitive-Verb/2/bmhkr/Post.htm#661620Tue, 03 Feb 2009 10:11:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:661620anonymousIf a verb is followed by a direct object only it is monotransitive if it is followed by two objects, direct and indirect, or an object and a complement it is called ditransitivehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhichOrToWhich/hnwdm/post.htm#651336Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:19:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:651336avangiI think "which" is correct because there's no object of "give" in the sentence. Hi Terry, There's a guy whom I give my old suits. Whether or not we need the "to" is a separate argument from the business about objects. As Philip said, the object of "to give" is "things." (In this sentence, it's "suits.") I gave him a pencil. I gave a pencil to him. The direct object is "pencil;" the indirect object is "him." He is the guy whom I gave the pencil. Now "whom" is the indirect object. "Pencil" is still the direct object. - A.http://www.englishforums.com/English/DirectObjects/hmxkr/post.htm#648549Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:29:16 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:648549avangiMy brother lives in India . The verb "to live" is intransitive and does not take an object. "I sleep in my bed ." These are prepositional phrases acting adverbially, modifying the verb and telling where. The verb "to be" does not take an object. We sometimes say it takes a "complement," or it's completed by a noun or an adjective, or their equivalents. The sentence, "My family is happy" complements the verb "to be" with a "predicate adjective," "happy." "My dream is winning The Lotto." "Winning" sounds like an object, but it's really a sort of noun, or another name for "my dream." In this case, "winning"...http://www.englishforums.com/English/DirectObjects/hmxkr/post.htmMon, 19 Jan 2009 06:54:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:647819anonymousHi I know that direct objects follow the verb and answer the question what or who ? But I'm unclear firstly about whether they can also answer the question where? E.g. My brother lives in India. Is "in India" the object? Also, is "very happy" an object in "My family is very happy"? If it is the complement rather than the object, what is the difference between the two terms?http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrepositionalPrepositionalIndirect-Objects/hmngj/post.htm#647545Mon, 19 Jan 2009 00:36:19 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:647545alpheccastarsHi GG: I think the problem is the personal pronoun "it", the use of articles and confusion of cases. Articles (or qualifiers) are not used with pronouns. I think that the article or qualifier is required for the direct object, but not for the indirect object. Give the dog a bone. OK Give the dog some food. OK Give it a bone. OK Give him the bone. OK Here's a bone. Give it to the dog. Give the bone to it. OK Give the dog an / the it. ????http://www.englishforums.com/English/DirectObjectIndirectObject/2/cqmwk/Post.htm#647271Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:40:51 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:647271anonymousTransitive verbs generally take two objects -- a direct object and an indirect object. For example, John gave Jeff his pen. Both Jeff and his pen are objects of the verb 'gave'. If one asks the question John gave What or Whom? We get the answer: What -- a pen, Whom -- Jeff. The answer to what gives us the direct object and the answer to Whom gives us the indirect object.http://www.englishforums.com/English/DirectAndIndirectObjects/hmjnp/post.htm#646483Sun, 18 Jan 2009 00:57:02 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:646483cliveHi, Sorry, your understanding of this is not good, but we can help you. You need to begin by looking at much simpler examples. What is the subject, verb and direct object in this sentence? Mary bought a gift. What is the subject, verb, direct object and indirect object in this sentence? Mary gave the gift to Tom. Best wishes, Clivehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/CanSomeoneCheckAnswersFollowing/hkwlj/post.htm#636287Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:47:05 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:636287grammar geekHi Craig. There's only one subject, but there is a direct object and an indirect object, as well as an adverb in that sentence. Do you want to try again? Hint: It coudl also have been written "The woman quickly gives a drink to the man" if that helps you figure out the direct and indirect objects.http://www.englishforums.com/English/VerbsEitherIntransitive-Transitive/hwjvp/post.htm#626755Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:02:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:626755avangiIf you're really having problems deciding if a verb is being used transitively or intransitively, I'd suggest putting the passive voice on the back burner for awhile. Although passive voice has an important relationship with transitive action, it complicates the picture immensely. I'd recommend that you concentrate on spotting the direct objects as a way of distinguishing between transitive and intransitive. Stick with simple present and past tense, active voice, until you're confident about picking out the direct objects. If the subject isn't doing something to something, and if you're in active voice, the verb is probably intransitive.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PleaseQuickQuestionVerbs/hhrzg/post.htm#619376Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:37:35 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:619376califjimLiving there is frustrating. living there - subject - gerund -noun plus adverb is - linking verb frustrating - subject complement / predicate adjective / present participle frustrating is adjectival because you can add "very" -- an adverb of degree that can be used to modify adjectives. Living there is very frustrating. If frustrating were part of a verb phrase, you'd need an object. Living there is frustrating . Here's another: This problem has been frustrating the manager for days. Here the word frustrating expresses actively doing something to the object, not just describing how it is to live there (not just describing what the problem is like, in the second example). You can't have, for example, *Living...http://www.englishforums.com/English/HelpWithThisClausePlease/2/hzzhd/Post.htm#611181Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:13:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:611181miriam1. Yes, the difference between a complex noun phrase and a simple one is that the complex noun phrase will contain at least one dependent clause. 2. That's one of the ways of identifying noun clauses. It isn't always east, though, as you have just implied. Sometimes, "form" alone won't be enough and you will have to pay attention to "function" or to "meaning", or even to all three of them. Be careful, because noun clauses, just like other types of clauses, may be finite or non-finite, meaning they may or may not have a conjugated verb. If a noun clause is non-finite, it may not have a subject and a predicate, and it will certainly not have a conjugated verb. In "I don't want to be a cook...http://www.englishforums.com/English/HelpSentenceAnalysisPlease/hzghh/post.htm#611160Mon, 15 Dec 2008 05:15:05 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:611160miriamWhat you call your "attempt" is almost perfect, Eddie. You're good at grammar! One minor correction I'd made would be the category acting as subject: it is a clause, not a phrase. It has a verb (even if not a finite form) and it has modifiers for that verb, as it the whole construction were a predicate. There is one mistake that is a bit more serious: the verb to be is a linking or copulative verb, so it doesn't take objects. What would be an object if we had a transitive verb, will be a "predicative" also "subject complement" or "subjective complement") when we have a linking verb. That's what " the prosecutor's criteria in deciding how they try these young adults"...http://www.englishforums.com/English/TwoQuickClauseQuestions/hzzgx/post.htmSun, 14 Dec 2008 07:38:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:610773eddie88When they told me that I won the contest, I was very happy. Two quick questions about this sentence above: When they told me=adverbial clause that I won the contest= Noun clause I was very happy=main clause Question 1- That I won the contest is the direct object/complement clause/noun clause. Can a noun clause be either/both the direct and indirect objects of a verb? In this sentence, the indirect object is me, so can it ever be included, as a part of the noun clause? In this example, it seems obvious that it wouldn't. Question 2- After the words when they told me that I, the word had can be placed; in this example, has it just been omitted? Can it be placed there and mean the same thing? What is the rule for when one can omit...http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheAnalysisAnalyticalLanguages/bkdzc/post.htm#598853Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:56:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:598853anonymousI do not. Perhaps due to the bias I have as a native English speaker, I believe concepts that rely on the establishment of the relationships between people and objects, objects and other objects, and people and time are most easily understood universally through one or (as is often the case in German-English dialogue) more than one preposition, rather than through affixes. In the large, meanings are understood better when the item that distinguishes its meaning is largest, as usually prepositions constitute larger morphemic units than do affixes, which essentially seek to accomplish the same goal: establishing relationships between people, things, and time (among many other aspects of grammar). Take, for example, German. In German,...