Search results for 'tag:Direct objects tag:Difference between' matching tags 'Direct objects' and 'Difference between'

TRANSITIVE AND INTRANSITIVE VERBS

phoebinku — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 11:51:02 GMT

Hello,
What's the best way to explain the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs when you're the person doing the explaining. I know what the differences are, but try as I might every time I set pen to paper -- all I need is a paragraph or two -- I end up going to my local pub instead.
Here's what I've got in a nut shell:
transitive take a direct object:
intransitive take an indirect object/prepositional phrase
Most verbs are ambitransitive.
Some are strictly one or the other.
Am I confused?
P.

Re: wife/girlfriend...advance/further

Dawnstorm — Thu, 29 May 2008 16:45:56 GMT

Grammar Geek
I think Nona's example about talking about your mother when she was a child and still referring to her as your mother is a good analogy.

First,. let me say that I agree usage-wise Nona and you. I also think that the mother-example is a good one - but it's not a perfect one.

It's a good one, because it demonstrates the difference between the time of action and the time of speaking. Noun references are routinely rooted in the present, even in past tense senteces, and the mother-example demonstrates that.

But there is a cognitive difference in "married his wife", as there is a semantic relationship between the verb "marry" and the noun "wife", in so far as the act of marrying results in wife-status. So it's quite possible that individual speakers (native speakers, even) have an intuitive correctness condition that doesn't allow the word "wife" as the object of the verb "marry", quite independent of tense. To summarise, I think part of the argument is lexical: what sort of words can the verb "marry" select as direct objects?

The thing is, disliking "wife" as the direct object of "marry" is reasonable. It's somewhat similar to "The Queen knighted the knight." (but without the etymological close relation that adds to the oddness). Or, "The army conscripted the soldier." Or "The jury pronounced the prisoner guilty."

It's an interesting discussion, really. Since "married his wife" doesn't sound odd to me at all (I'm not a native speaker), and since native speakers agree, I wonder why the tense relation between verb and noun-naming can override nosensical direct-object relation. (I do think it's a disjunction between the time-levels that's at issue here; the noun-reference is firmly in the present - referring to a specific person.)

Re: tell to someone

Mr-Taciturn — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:11:41 GMT

MrPedantic wrote:

Hello MrT

1. Tolkien used to make up his own stories to tell to his children.

2. Tolkien used to make up his own stories to tell his children.

Both are fine.

You can "tell someone stories" or "tell stories to someone". If the indirect object (here, "someone") follows the verb, it's not usual to use a preposition with "someone"; but if the direct object (or rather, cognate object, in this example) follows the verb, you do need a preposition with "someone".

Similarly, you can say "stories to tell someone" or "stories to tell to someone". I don't find much difference between the two versions; except that perhaps the version with "to" has a greater directional sense (i.e. the "to" emphasises the story-telling relationship).

All the best,

MrP

Thanks Mr Pedantic ,but

What do you think of Mr Incha's explanation? It sounds good to me.

Re: tell to someone

MrPedantic — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:01:51 GMT

Hello MrT

1. Tolkien used to make up his own stories to tell to his children.

2. Tolkien used to make up his own stories to tell his children.

Both are fine.

You can "tell someone stories" or "tell stories to someone". If the indirect object (here, "someone") follows the verb, it's not usual to use a preposition with "someone"; but if the direct object (or rather, cognate object, in this example) follows the verb, you do need a preposition with "someone".

Similarly, you can say "stories to tell someone" or "stories to tell to someone". I don't find much difference between the two versions; except that perhaps the version with "to" has a greater directional sense (i.e. the "to" emphasises the story-telling relationship).

All the best,

MrP

Re: Difference between till & until

Marius Hancu — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:02:53 GMT

There's some differentiation between the two here, they seem to be considered synonyms only for the meaning 2:

---------
till

Function:preposition

1 chiefly Scotland a : to a place of arrival : through to : as far as <till an end> b : to or toward a limit or goal <changed till a dragon> c : TO -- used to introduce an indirect object or complement of various adjectives and nouns <gie it till him> <aye kind till his ain> d : AT, BY, FOR, OF, CONCERNING

2 : throughout the interval extending to : during the whole time from the starting point up to : up or down to a specified time : UNTIL -- used with an implication of termination or change at the time mentioned <till his return> <till after four o'clock> <till next week> <to live till ninety>

3 : at any time before or before the arrival, appearance, or beginning of -- used after a negative expression with an implication that the action or condition began or is to begin at the specified time <a refund which I did not get till ten years later>

4 -- used as a function word indicating position before the clock hour <five minutes till three>

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com
----------

help with Direct objects

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:31:53 GMT

I ran for a mile this morning.

Is for a mile the Direct object or an adjunct in the sentence?

I ran a block this morning.

Is a block the Direct Object?

what is the difference between this sentences

Re: The Seven Deadly Sins of Grammar

Drewauerbach — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:50:46 GMT

I think the majority of disagreement to my post so far has been on the actual points. The points are well known and well established. What's more, and I am hesitant to say this as doing so appeals to authority, mathematical geniuses who currently are contructing a mathematical paragon for the paragraph have pointed out many of these nuances.

To be frank, I expected debate over whether the usage of these sins should pervade in colloquial expressions despite their OBVIOUS grammatically flaws. I didn't expect that people would actually attack the content. The issue here is not the content.

Here is another grammatical sin I'd like to share:

8) Agree and Disagree
      In a sentence involving these words, the basic construction involves a subject (the person who is agreeing or disagreeing), a preposition, and a direct object. My qualm is with the preposition and the direct object:
      A. WRONG: I agree with her.   RIGHT: I agree to what she is arguing.
      The preposition, with, and the direct object, her, are both incorrect in the WRONG sentence. Let's focus on the preposition first. Strictly speaking, you do not "agree with," you "disagree to." This fact is well established, although I never knew why (anyone care to explain?).   Now for the direct object. 99% of the time when someone says, "I disagree with/to you," (s)he really means, "I disagree to what you are saying." Clearly, there is a difference between the direct objects in these two cases. Although the direct objects are both nouns, in the first case the noun is a person, and the second it is a thing. We should appreciate this fundamental distinction. In speech, I find saying "I disagree to what you're saying." to be a euphonious and grammatically correct sentence.

Re: direct object indirect object

Philip — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:53:31 GMT

Anonymous
what is the difference between a direct and an indirect object?

Easiest way for me to explain: direct object receives the action of the verb [I sold the cake]; indirect object receives the direct object [I sold my mother the cake]...

Get's a little tricky with "commnication verbs": "She told us a story". The story is the direct object; we 'sorta' received the story, so 'us' is the indirect object.

Try finding some sentences in which both have been labeled, and see if the above helps at all.

direct object indirect object

Anonymous — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:03:23 GMT

what is the difference between a direct and an indirect object?

V + I.O + D.O

Big A Deal — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:34:48 GMT

I have a english grammar book on verbs usage.

I got a question when I read about S+V+I.O+D.O

In that book, S+V+I.O+D.O is regarded as meaning that the subject have virtually an impact on the direct object,

So I just can't say " I threw him a baseball ,but he did'nt got it."

The first sentence "I threw him a baseball" contrasts with the second "he did'nt got it "

because the first means "I threw a ball to him and he got the ball."

It should be changed "I threw a baseball to him ,but he didn't got it"

but as far as i know , we can use it to express 'old information' and 'new information'

======

A : What did you give him?

B : I gave him (a pretty doll) new information.

A: Who did you give the doll that I bought for you?

B: I gave the doll to (my girl friend, Jina.)new information.

======

and I studied that there is not difference between S V I.O D.O and S V D.O to I.O in meaning.

Which one is correct?