Search results for 'tag:Direct objects tag:Pronouns' matching tags 'Direct objects' and 'Pronouns'

Re: Trouble finding subject and objects in this sentence

Huevos — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:41:18 GMT

Mister Micawber
what about 'on',

Mister Micawber
or rest on is a phrasal verb with what as direct object

I'm not sure. I don't see it as a strictly phrasal verb as the meaning is not idiomatic. He rests on the bed. He rests in bed. He rests at home. The choice of preposition doesn't seem to change the meaning of "rest". Also I'm not sure about "what" as an object. It's function here is interrogative pronoun, right? Does that make it an object (prepositional object)?

Re: Questions on the word but

Avangi — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:05:08 GMT

wholegrain
1) Can "but" be used instead of that when an idea of doubt, fear or distaste?

2) Can "but" mean that...not, therefore "There never is a tax law presented but someone will oppose it" means "There never is a tax law that someone will not oppose"?

Hi, wholegrain.
I think it's a gross oversimplification to say that "but" is substituted for "that" in your example. "That" is just a relative pronoun, while "but" in your example (IMHO) is a conjunction connecting two independent clauses. (I may be all wet!)

I never saw a tax law which/that someone didn't oppose. To me, this is a relative clause, or dependent clause (surely not indepent) where "that" serves as direct object of the verb "to oppose." (In your example, "to oppose" has its own direct object, "it.")

In you example, "someone will oppose it" is an independent clause, so I'd take "but" as a conjunction. I cant think of another common conjunction or conjunctive phrase which can replace it in this example. The sentence would probably have to be rewritten, as you have done.

Perhaps you realize this: << that.....not, therefore >> , but what you say is a little hard for me to follow. (Does question 1. apply to the example in question 2., or is there no example for question 1. ?)

- A.

Basic ESL Grammar

angel_tristan0409 — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:58:19 GMT

A word is a âpart of speechâ only when it is used in a sentence. The function the word serves in a sentence is what makes it whatever part of speech it is.

For example, the word ârunâ can be used as more than one part of speech:â¨
Sammy hit a home run. (run is a noun, direct object of hit)â¨
You mustnât run near the swimming pool. (run is a verb, part of the verb phrase must (not) run)

Here is a simple overview of the English parts of speech and what they do. Each part of speech is linked to an DWT article that tells more about it.

NOUN - Nouns are naming words. We canât talk about anything until we have given it a name.

PRONOUN - A pronoun is a word that stands for a noun.

VERBS - The verb is the motor that runs the sentence. A verb enables us to say something about a noun.

ADJECTIVE - An adjective is a word that describes a noun.

ADVERB - An adverb adds meaning to a verb, an adjective, or another adverb.

PREPOSITION - a preposition is a word that comes in front of a noun or a pronoun and shows a connection be

Re: Him killed I!

Huevos — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:32:13 GMT

Anonymous
Is that correct? it seems wrong

It's not wrong. Normally in English sentences are ordered "Subject (S), Verb (V), Indirect Object (IO), Direct Object (DO)" but can run OSV, and, where pronouns are used in substitution of either the subject or object (e.g. your sentence) there are no word order constraints so OVS is possible. That said, such a construction is pretty unusual and almost certainly would be limited to use in literature for effect.

Re: sentence analysis

Anonymous — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:44:18 GMT

I disagree.
My and his are possesive adjectives. They modify nouns (friend and girlfriend) A possesive pronoun can replace a noun. My cannot replace any nouns.
Additonally, "with my best friend and his rather unusual girlfriend" is a prepositional phrase led by the preposition with.
It is an adverbial prepositional phrase.
A subjective complement follows a linking verb.
An objective complement "complements" a direct object.
You have no DO in this sentence. You only have objects of the prepostion with: friend , girlfriend

Re: suggest

Avangi — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:51:39 GMT

I suggest taking a nap.

You can only get the pronoun in (indirect object) by making it the subject of a relative clause. I suggest [that] you take a nap. Then the whole clause is the direct object of "suggest."

I guess you could also use the "to me" form for the indirect object. The doctor suggested surgery to me. What would you suggest to me?

Probably people use your example because they think it should be parallel to "What do you want me to do?"

Re: the middle voice option

Dawnstorm — Tue, 27 May 2008 08:09:34 GMT

Hi,

I'm really enjoying this. You're making me think.

I'm going to take your points out of sequence. I think I'm still replying to your post; if I misrepresent what you're saying, please correct me.

First, the summary of what I'm going to say: A lot depends on theory, and how you frame your terms. To me, ergativity in English is primarily a side topic to voice, and the only "marked" voice in English is the passive. All others rely on semantics and indirect evidence (such as your very detailled and useful post about the transitivity system in English). BUT: how do you frame the evidence there is systematically? In syntax? Make it part of the lexicon? In other words, what exactly is it that the term "ergative" adds to a combination of transitivity and lexical tagging? I'm still thinking about your suggestion to speak of "ergative structures" rather than "ergative verbs". This is an interesting approach, de-emphasising the lexicon in that respect; but I'm trying to ignore it for this post, mostly because I'm not done thinking it through.

Second, I think I've used the term "semantic" very loosely in my other post. There's reference, and then there's cognitive framing. (Or content and point of view.) The cognitive framing is harder to get at and interpret, mostly because these things aren't always immediately visible. We're talking about "ergative structures" in English, or the "middle voice", because we've noticed these constructions in other languages (Basque for ergativity; Ancient Greek for Middle voice; etc.). That is we have to strip away the structure and get down to the point-of-view meaning that the structures imply. And then we have to go back to English and look for expressions of said point-of-view meaning in this language. (Something similar is going on when linguists are probing "shall/will" along the lines of futurity/modality, within the discussion whether English has a future tense or not. The consensus is it doesn't, but the discussion - assuming "will/shall" as tense-modals - has been productive, if not conclusive.) But the thing is this: if you're bringing concepts to a language from outside (which is usual in comparative linguistics) you need an anchor; conventional structural methods - such as your "what syntactic operations yield well-formed usage?" approach - have their limitations. So do semantic (referential or framing). This makes ergativity/unaccusativity hard to think about, before you choose your approach.

Examples follow:

This is about the sentence, "He died a cruel death."

MrPedantic
The object here is a cognate object (it is implied in the verb itself) and thus belongs to a slightly different model. (I would say that it only exists to provide an adverbial opportunity: "he died a cruel death" = "he died in a cruel way".)

I agree that, framing-wise, the object functions much like an adverbial. But it's an "object" in syntax, which has implications that are incompatible with adverbials. Most relevant, here, "die" is now prone to passivisation.

"A cruel death was died," does sound odd (I'll get to it in a minute), but I wouldn't bat an eyelid at "Many deaths were died that night." Interestingly, it's hard to put this into the active voice, mostly because no subject seems appropriate. (?"The Soldiers died many deaths that night."; ?"The army died many deaths that night."...). To me, all the examples I can think of (plural nouns, collective nouns...) don't express the passive meaning. The closest I come is "Many people died that night." Anything else I can think of is of questionable grammaticality.

However, "A cruel death was died," although it sounds odd, doesn't sound ungrammatical in the least (at least not to me). It's also not a semantic problem; I understand the sentence perfectly well, both reference- and framingwise.

The reason, I think, this sounds odd is a pragmatic one. I think this one sounds odd because it's hard to find a context for this utterance that justifies the passive, which is a "marked construction". You generally expect "marked" constructions to be there for a reason. I suspect in the right context the above sentence would be perfectly fine. (It's a matter of Grice's conversational maxims, the maxim of manner, in particular.)

This is where the "frame-semantics" of syntactic constructions become complicated, I think. How do language structures tie in with cognitive structures (e.g. To what extent do we buy the Sapir-Worf hypothesis?)

So, from this I go to self-observation:

MrPedantic
and precisely because of that distinction, I would call "break" here ergative (ex. 5) , and "die" unaccusative (ex. 2).

See, I had the hardest time even to grasp what that meant, not now in this thread, but when I first discovered the distinction. That's because, learning English, I didn't train to see the difference. It wasn't necessary, as ergativity/unaccusativity isn't expressed through syntactic structures, but only indirectly through what operations are possible on the verb; this I pretty much took care off either through lexical list-tagging, or through collocation. If there is a hidden logic to it that I applied in learning, it never became conscious. (It's quite possible that I had a practical knowledge, but no discoursive one of this subject; but why, then, is it so hard to grasp?)

If we go back to the list and sift through the operations there, we'll find that "die" behaves different from "break" in the way we specified. But here's the catch: to apply that structural method, we have to assume that "break" in 5.a = "break" in 5.b = "break" in 5.c etc.; i.e. that "break" is the same lexical item in all these instances. That's because syntax has a hard time to differentiate between "signifier" and "signified", or "sign" and "concept".

Notice, for example, how your 5.a is already the transitive, while systematically it should be the intransitive agentive: 5.a *He broke. (i.e. "He caused/performed the action of breaking." as opposed to "He underwent the process of breaking," which is 5.b, now, and would be 5.c)

So I'd amend this, to:

5a. *He broke.

5b. He broke the plate

5c. The plate broke.

5d. The plate was broken.

5e. The broken plate

5f. The plate broke easily

And the comparison with "die" would be two-fold:

1. = sign; 2. = concept

5.1a He died.

5.2a He killed.

5.1b *He died the man.

5.2b He killed the man

5.1c The man died.

5.2c *The man killed.

5.1d *The man was died.

5.2d The man was killed.

5.1e *The died man [cf. The dead man.]

5.2e The killed man.

5.1f The man died easily. (<-- What's the difference to 5.1a? Should I add an * before it, as this is out of place, here?)

5.2f *The man killed easily. (<-- Is this not available, because 5.1f is available?)

5.1a, 5.1c, and 5.1f seem to be much the same. And this is the problem I have systematising a structural comparison. One possibility, I see is to re-cast 5a as reflexive 1. *He died himself./2. He killed himself. I might try to justify this through dying being a process you undergo, thus if you add an agentive/causative to core meaning (which is not in slot a, but in slot c) the verb becomes by necessity reflexive ("He caused himself to die.")

But these things are all a bit... tentative. I fear it's more rationalised than rational, if you get my drift.

[Interesting aside: you used the term "anticausative" alongside "ergative" and "unaccusative" for break in your thread. Bears repeating, as it's something I'm also still thinking about; a very interesting concept I haven't come across yet.]

MrPedantic
But I find a semantic difference too: the first presents the sign from the point of view of the reader, and the second, from the point of view of the writer.

Now, that's an interesting observation. I'd argue that the semantic difference is not referential (it refers to the same state of affairs), but it's a framing difference. If we view the sign as a proxy for the agent, we're importing the difference of active vs. voice into a construction that's free of the syntactic properties that normally accompany this framing device in English. "Reads," then, is ergative, while "says is a straightforward accusative verb (one that takes the accusative (which isn't marked in English - except, perhaps, for pronouns, where it's indistinguishable - morphologically - from the dative; the conventional term would be "direct object").

MrPedantic
Also, although the same few verbs tend to recur as examples in these discussions, actual usage is more imaginative.

That's what makes language so fascinating, isn't it? Nice example, there, too.

Re: Suggest

CalifJim — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:26:33 GMT

Avangi
The key is the verb and the context.

Learners often want to put an indirect object on suggest, recommend, and explain, and their near synonyms, all of which are either totally wrong or very awkward.

Here are some examples of the sorts of wrong uses I'm talking about:

Please suggest me what to do.

Sally has explained me the rules.

I didn't feel I could recommend you what to say.

They proposed us that we should wait a little longer.

I wonder if they could illustrate us the principle with a drawing.

One little lecture can't possibly clarify them how to do such a complex procedure.

The salesman offered me to refund my money.

All of them work if the indirect object pronoun is removed.

Re: Question about the phrase "I have things to do"

miriam — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:58:49 GMT

Hello, Twinkletoes.

No, that's not what I'm saying. "things to do" is the direct object of "have", the main verb of the sentence. "To do" would be a clause (a non-finite one) even if "things" weren't there or if it had some other type of complementation/modification. In this case, inside the clause, "things" is the subject and "to do" is the predicate.

"Have" is the main verb of the sentence; "to do" is the main verb in the subordinate clause "things to do".

I don't know if every single grammarian in the world would analyse the sentence in the same way, but I certainly know of some who do. What I posted before appears in grammar books. It doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with it, though. Disagreement is often the basis on which new thories are developed.

Anyway, let me give another example of what I said in my first post here:

"She wanted him to call her."

Here, "him to call her" is another to-infinitive clause (with a subject of its own) acting as direct object of the main verb "wanted". "Him" is the subject of the clause (in non-finite clauses, when they have a subject and if that subject is a pronoun, it will be in its "objective" form), "to call" is the main verb of the clause, and "her" the direct object inside the clause.

I'm sorry if that was confusing.

Miriam

Re: Is it a subject relative?

miriam — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 05:02:36 GMT

Hello.

Relative clauses can only be (from a syntactic point of view) either post-modifiers of nouns/pronouns, or sentence modifiers. They are never objects; they don't modify verbs.

What can be subjects or objects, WITHIN the relative clauses themselves, are the relative pronouns used (who, that, which, etc.).

You provided the following examples: "The girl laughed at the boy who is bigger than her" and "The boy hit the girl who slept".

Both sentences could use some changes, but I will concentrate on what you're asking only.

In the first sentence, "who is bigger than her" is a restrictive relative clause acting as post-modifier of the noun "boy". The relative pronoun "who" is the subject of the relative clause.

Your second sentence is another example of the relative pronoun as subject of the relative clause. The clause is "who slept", with "who" as its subject.

Here are a couple of examples of relative clauses in which the relative pronoun acts as object:

1. "Where is the flower-pot (that I gave you last month)?" [that = direct object] (the subject of the clause is "I")

2. "The books (that are on the table) are Paul's." [that = subject (the books)]

3. "You don't know the man (to whom my sister sold her car)." [to whom = indirect object] (the subject of the clause is "my sister")

There are also cases in which the relative pronoun is preceded by a preposition but you're not in the presence of an indirect object. In such cases, what you'll have is an adjunct (or adverbial), as in the following sentence:

4. "Chemistry is a subject which I've always had problems with." [here, "with which" is neither subject nor object, but an adjunct/adverbial]

You can remove "which" (though not the preposition) from sentence #4, and the sentence will still make sense: "Chemistry is a subject I've always had problems with".

One good way of telling whether the relative pronoun is acting as object (direct or indirect) or subject in the relative clause is trying to remove the pronoun in question from the clause. If you do, and the sentence still makes sense, that will most probably mean that the relative pronoun is the object of the clause (watch out for adjuncts, though). If you can't remove the pronoun, that will mean it's the subject (of the relative clause). Have a look at my examples and give this a try. You won't have a correct sentence in #2 if you remove the relative proboun, but you can certainly remove it in the other three examples. You'll have to make a minor change in sentence #3, though.

See if you can do it and what you come up with.

I hope this helps.

Miriam.