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

Re: About the meaning of "where"

Velimir — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:11:58 GMT

I'll try to give some information on this as a non-professional.This is how it looks like in the serbian language,and I suppose,it is very similar in all other slavic languages and also the latin language.

For indicating a location the locative case of a noun is used.If the english language had similar declension of nouns then the nouns following the prepositions "in" and "at" would be in the locative case.The presence of the preceding preposition is obligatory when the noun is in the locative case.

But,if the verb indicates motion,or in plain english,if you are :
going to, flying to, traveling to..

like in the question given in the opening post,then the noun will be in the dative case.This case you can connect with the nouns following the preposition "to" although the preposition is not necessarily present.The word "dative" derives from latin "dare" which means "to give" and the usage is most obvious on the example of that verb:

I gave my girlfriend a flower.

If you translated this in serbian,"girlfriend" would be in the dative case.Indirect object is in the dative case.The direct object ("a flower") is in the accusative case.

"Cases play a major part in determining a noun's syntactic role in the sentence, so word order is not as important in Latin as it is in other languages, such as English. Because of noun cases, words can often be moved around in a sentence without significantly altering its meaning, though the emphasis will have altered" (from a Wikipedia article on the latin language)
Btw,changing nouns,adjectives,pronouns and numbers to different cases is pretty tough area of the language with more cases,and is often lifelong mistery for many natives,and I know that well.Luckily,english is not a case-sensitive language.

Best regards

Re: Identify the functions of verbs in the sentence

Avangi — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:18:26 GMT

Anonymous wrote:

Identify the functions of verbs in the sentence below by labelling them Vt (transitive), Vi (intransitive), Vd (dative), Vf (factitive), Vc (copulative) & Vs (sense)

Q1: He was last seen (vs) being given a large amount of money outside a bank.

Q2: In the late nineteenth century, Chinese secret societies became (vc) obessive about the possession of silver to such an extent that voilence often flared up among them.

Q3: Since the first astronaut landed (vi) on the moon, mankind has explored (vt) the idea of travelling to Mars.

Q4: The crowd was (vc) getting larger and more agitated when, at last, the police happened (vi)

Q5: Since he was (vc) always reliable and systematic, the committee unanimously voted (vf) Mike Treasurer.

I have tried to underline the main verb for each sentence but not sure whether I'm on the right track. Please enlighten.

Many thanks in advance.

Hi Anon, "Please enlighten." Too much light??

I think these terms have been invented by the ESL community and are a little tough for "native speakers" who are not trained ESL teachers. There's some overlap and ambiguity.

Transitive and intransitive are of course basic native English grammar school material. Every verb is one or the other, and often both, but not at the same time.

Q1: [to see] (Vt) - passive voice (vs would be You look funny.) [I may get clobbered on this.]

Q2: [to become] okay (links to predicate adjective obsessive)

Q3: [to land] okay (no object) [to explore] okay (direct object=idea)

Q4: [to get - in the intransitive sense of to become] okay (links to adjectival phrase larger and more agitated) [why not underline both parts as you did in Q1: ?] [to happen] okay

Q5: [to be] okay (links to adjectival phrase [always] reliable and systematic) [to vote] okay (two direct objects)

Regards, - A.

Re: HIGH REGARD

Avangi — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 18:25:48 GMT

Stevenukd wrote:

Dear Teachers,

1. I didn't investigate the thing you stole that car because I have high regard for your boss.

- Is this natural to say?

Thanks very much to Teachers,

Stevenukd.

Hi Stevenukd,

The idea seems natural but it needs some work. Did the second person steal the car or a "thing" from the car?

Perhaps "investigate" isn't the right word, because if you know the person is guilty, what's to investigate? "Report" might be better.

Both "report" and "investigate" are transitive verbs and take a direct object. As it stands, "thing" is the object. What you might report/investigate is the theft, not the thing.

It might be more natural to say, "I didn't report what you stole from the car . . . ." than to say, "I didn't report the thing you stole . . . ."

or - "I didn't report your theft from the/that car because . . . " [the rest is good.]

or - "I didn't report [that] you stole something from the/that car because . . ."

If the car was stolen - "I didn't report your theft of that car . . . "

or - "I didn't report [that] you stole the car . . . . "

or - "I kept quiet about you/your stealing that car . . . "

Best of luck, - A.

Edit. [Sorry, CJ, I didn't see your post.]

Maybe I shouldn't have assumed you knew the person was guilty, but that's what it seemed like.

Re: The use of "yourself" and "myself" instead of "you" and "me".

Philip — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:10:40 GMT

DouglasM6 wrote:

To my way of thinking, the following use of âyourselfâ and âmyselfâ is wrong and sounds really clumsy:

A. This morning I sent a reply to yourself.

A. This morning you sent a reply to myself.

Surely these should be:

B. This morning I sent a reply to you.

B. This morning you sent a reply to me.

My dictionary says something like this (from memory) under its entry for âyourselfâ:

- (a) used as the object of a verb or preposition when this is the same as the subject of the clause and the subject is the person or people being addressed. (b) used by way of emphasis as in, âYou do it yourself.â

The use as in A. seems to have completely swamped the use as in B., so that I no longer hear B. I feel exceedingly uncomfortable with this, almost to the point of finding it annoying. Is this irritation misplaced?

Regards,

Doug

What you remember from your dictionary is basically correct (although some of the first use seems a bit convoluted: simply - subject is same as object or direct object).

Re: General Questions. Please, help!

Anonymous — Thu, 17 May 2007 12:36:46 GMT

Hi, Clive!

Thanks for your attention. I see...My question was:

Bob, someone's name, is the same as the personal pronoun he, when used in the beginning of sentences. Example:

- Bob is a good student (Bob = personal pronoun He) ,

But when it appears after a verb as an indirect object , for example:

- The gift hasn't been given to Bob . So here, Bob is the same as the object pronoun him, and not as the subject pronoun he.

So because of this I thought that the grammar only accepted if we always write:

- The gift hasn't been given to him (and not to Bob). But if I don't misunderstood your explanation, there's any problem if I also write or say: - The gift hasn't been given to Bob, isn't it?

Best regards,

Camille

Re: Writing a sentence with an Indirect Object.

Clive — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:39:16 GMT

Hi,

I need to write a sentence in the following pattern, and I don't see how it's possible.

The pattern is: adjective + direct object + helping verb + subject + verb

No articles allowed?

So, something like 'Great strength did he use'. This kind of odd word order seems very literary or poetical. This doesn't seem like a typical every-day English grammar exercise.

If you can add other parts of speech, you could look at normal questions, eg Which red sweater did she buy?

(As regards your thread title, this is not really an exercise that deals with indirect objects)

Best wishes, Clive

Re: indirect object or adverbial ?

Selfconfident — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 07:58:29 GMT

<BLOCKQUOTE><table width="85%"><tr><td class="txt4"><img src="/Themes/default/images/icon-quote.gif"> <strong>Hela wrote:</strong></td></tr><tr><td class="quoteTable"><table width="100%"><tr><td width="100%" valign="top" class="txt4"><P>Thanks a lot, Miriam. I don't know why I thought that the verbs withing this sentence pattern:</P>
<P>SVOdA = subject / verb / direct object / adverbials were also considered complex-transitive verbs. I am wrong then?</P>
<P>Best regards,</P>
<P>Hela</P></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Miriamï¼are you here?I have the same question.
here are some sentence:
(1)She led me [into the drawing-room].
(2)I saw the movie [on Friday].
(3)He had a gun [with him].
(4)We had some guests [for dinner] last night.
(5)The police protect him [from being attack].
(6)We must get the rock [out of the path].
Is it possible for a Prepositional phrase to be an adverbial and object complements phrase at the same time?

Re: amusing/ amused

CalifJim — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 08:16:42 GMT

something, nothing, much, many, few, and little can all be used in place of nouns, yes. They are pronouns of quantity.

You can't use find it as you have done. find it is not followed by pronouns of quantity like this. In this case find is like discover or see. We see nothing (which is) amusing in the play. You would not say We see it nothing (which is) amusing in the play. That would create a sentence with two different direct objects of see: it and nothing. And that doesn't make any sense!

*We find it little amusing in the play.
*We find it nothing amusing in the play.
____________
In find it, find is more like consider or regard, not like discover or see.

find it is normally followed by an adjective and a that clause.

I find it strange that the play started so late.
Didn't you find it unusual that the lights were off?
Matthew found it remarkable that Janice lied about the money.

These mean:

I find that it is strange that the play started so late.
Didn't you find that it was unusual that the lights were off?
Matthew found that it was remarkable that Janice lied about the money.
______________

find it can also be followed by an adjective and an infinitive.

I find it hard to understand all the rules.
Karen found it easy to do the homework.

These mean:

I find that it is hard to understand all the rules.
Karen found that it was easy to do the homework.

CJ

Re: the kinds of tenses

Anonymous — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 01:27:47 GMT

Believer wrote:
In regard to No.2, I can almost swear that I have heard some English professionals saying that there is an implicit word "to" there and whenever you hear the sentences without it, just remember it is to be included for a sentence to be a correct sentence.

While I recognize that some people will make this claim, I contend that it is counter productive to rely on the implicit existence of the word to.

The indirect object is not native to Indo-European languages. In the simplest scenario of their usage, these nouns had to be marked because word order alone was insufficient to identify the function of such nouns within the clause. With the evolution of English to the use of prepositions, the indirect object marker evolved in two distinct manners. When the direct object follows the verb and the indirect object is last, the earlier usage, the indirect object must be marked with a preposition, and to was selected for this purpose. When the indirect object follows the verb and the direct object is last, the newer usage, word order alone is sufficient to mark the function of the indirect object and no preposition is required.

I consider that it is not useful to get hung up on an arbitrary marker of the indirect object, the preposition to, and to believe that without its presence we must somehow devolve to the recognition that it must be there because it is required under other conditions.

Sentence Analysis

X11 — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 21:29:28 GMT

Hi Everyone.

Is there anyone who is able to analyse a sentence in terms of form and function down to word level?

I'll give you an example of what I mean:

The boys like the girls

like = V:VP

the boys = S:NP --> where 'the' = determiner and 'boys' = Head:Noun

the girls = DO:NP --> where 'the' = determiner and 'girls' = Head:Noun

V = Verb

VP = Verb Phrase

S = Subject

NP = Noun Phrase

DO = Direct Object

I dealing with a very complex one right now, and I'm rather lost with some parts of it, so I hope that someone is familiar with this kind of analysis:-)

Regards Jay