Search results for 'tag:Indirect objects tag:Noun phrases' matching tags 'Indirect objects' and 'Noun phrases'

Re: grammar learning

Grammar Geek — Wed, 14 May 2008 23:40:37 GMT

Raen, at times like this I realize just how poorly I chose my nickname here.

What goes from one person to the other is the DIRECT object. The $50.

The person who receives the direct object is the INDIRECT object. The clerk.

I sent a letter to my sister. The letter is the DO, and my sister is the IO.

"exactly how that was done" is, I think a noun phrase serving as the object. Exactly what was done is what I'd like to know. See how it serves as the subject when you turn it around? It's a noun phrase.

I'm sorry, but someone else is going to have to address your second question. I've never seen the value in learning this stuff. I tell my 11 year old that, but then tell her she has to do her homework anyway.

Re: In the following sentence ''He'' is subject, ''is'' is a...

CalifJim — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 02:22:28 GMT

Categories or Parts of Speech

he - pronoun
he - noun phrase (NP)*
is - verb
a - article
nice - adjective
person - noun
a nice person - noun phrase (NP)*
is a nice person - verb phrase (VP)*

*These designations come from a system of analysis called 'transformational grammar'.

Functions

he - subject
is - copula
a - determiner
nice - modifier
person - complement
a nice person - complement
is a nice person - predicate

At the highest level of functional analysis, each sentence has simply a subject and a predicate; the predicate is everything in the sentence except the subject.

The same part of speech (category), particularly nouns, can be used with different functions. For example a noun can act as a subject, a subject complement, a direct object, an indirect object, an object complement, the object of a preposition, or a modifier. In grammatical analysis the different kinds of terminology shown above are often mixed. The same component in a sentence may have several different names. Also, the same term may be used both as a category and as a function. The word verb, for example, is often used both to mean a part of speech and as the name of its function in the sentence. There are often many different terms that apply to the same word or group of words. The terms selected depend on the type of analysis which is being done.

CJ

Re: Direct Objects, Indirect Objects, Obliques, Dative Movement

Doll — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:38:05 GMT

Could you give the book to Mike for me?"           the book = direct object,yes Mike = indirect object,yes me = oblique object I haven't heard of it before.
Correct?

in "Mike gave the book to me"                               the book = direct object, me = indirect object, right? Yes.

however, in
"Mike pointed to my tooth"                                   is "my tooth" indirect object or oblique?   It is direct object I think.

in "Mike entered the house"                                  "the house" is direct object, but in Yes.
"We have entered upon a new phase in history"   "a new phase in history" is what? Oblique? I would say it is predicator complement.
and in "Mike talked about me"                               is "me" oblique?sorry I don't know I would just say it is indirect object.

"I sent money to her."                                            "money" = direct object, "her" = indirect object, right? Yes.But

"I went to her."                                                      "her" is NOT indirect object, nor any other type of object, is it?Hmm I would say it is direct object.

So is the Indirect Object always and only the noun phrase that "receives" the direct object of the clause, that is to say, is it the case that without a Direct Object the clause CANNOT have an Indirect Object either?Yes I was taught so but I am sure there are exceptions.

Someone on this forum said Dative Movement is the operation of moving the indirect object in front the direct object with deletion of 'to'. However, if my above assumptions are true, this would not be the whole truth, for:
in
"I caught a fish for the cat,"                                    "a fish" is Direct Object and "the cat" is Oblique, and in
"I caught the cat a fish"                                           the very same sentence seems to have undergone dative movement, and
                                                                             another such pair is

"They built a house for Harry" and
"They built Harry a house"

so this would suggest that Dative Movement can be used, with ditransitive verbs, not only to do away with 'to' and move the Indirect Object in front of the Direct Object, but also to delete 'for' and move the Oblique in front of the Direct Object. Do y'all agree? Sorry, I will not be able to do any comment on dative object.

Direct Objects, Indirect Objects, Obliques, Dative Movement

Ocelot — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:01:13 GMT

Can a clause have three different objects?

"Could you give the book to Mike for me?"           the book = direct object, Mike = indirect object, me = oblique object
Correct?

in "Mike gave the book to me"                               the book = direct object, me = indirect object, right?

however, in
"Mike pointed to my tooth"                                   is "my tooth" indirect object or oblique?

in "Mike entered the house"                                  "the house" is direct object, but in
"We have entered upon a new phase in history"   "a new phase in history" is what? Oblique?
and in "Mike talked about me"                               is "me" oblique?

"I sent money to her."                                            "money" = direct object, "her" = indirect object, right? But

"I went to her."                                                      "her" is NOT indirect object, nor any other type of object, is it?

So is the Indirect Object always and only the noun phrase that "receives" the direct object of the clause, that is to say, is it the case that without a Direct Object the clause CANNOT have an Indirect Object either?

Someone on this forum said Dative Movement is the operation of moving the indirect object in front the direct object with deletion of 'to'. However, if my above assumptions are true, this would not be the whole truth, for:
in
"I caught a fish for the cat,"                                    "a fish" is Direct Object and "the cat" is Oblique, and in
"I caught the cat a fish"                                           the very same sentence seems to have undergone dative movement, and
                                                                             another such pair is

"They built a house for Harry" and
"They built Harry a house"

so this would suggest that Dative Movement can be used, with ditransitive verbs, not only to do away with 'to' and move the Indirect Object in front of the Direct Object, but also to delete 'for' and move the Oblique in front of the Direct Object. Do y'all agree?

Re: EH.. I dont get these => inside post...

Mister Micawber — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:13:07 GMT

Short Course:

1-- A Predicate Nominative is a noun phrase on the predicate (right) side of a linking verb: I am a handsome fellow.
2-- A Direct Object receives the action of a verb: I bought a sandwich. An Indirect Object receives the benefit of the action of the verb: I bought my girlfriend a sandwich.
3-- Objects of prepostions are the nouns that are usually to the right of the preposition and indicate the origin of the prepositional action or position: The sandwich is on the table.

Googling any of your terms will get you many pages of detailed examples and explanation, so I shan't spend more time here on it.

Re: in giving the wider movement a sense of cohesion

Mister Micawber — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 02:16:05 GMT

Is 'giving' a noun? -- Not precisely; it is the nonfinite clause which is a noun object of the preposition in.

Is 'the wider movement' a noun phrase? -- Yes

Is 'a sense of cohesion' a noun phrase? -- Yes

Does 'giving' modify 'the wider movement' which in turn modifies 'a sense of cohesion'? -- No. the wider movement is the indirect object of giving; a sense of cohesion is the direct object.

That's my take on the structure.

Re: labelling

Mister Micawber — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:14:04 GMT

Briefly (and reasonably accurately), the direct object receives the action of the verb, while the indirect object receives the benefit of the action:

I bought my wife a new can opener.

I -- Subject
bought -- Verb
my wife -- Indirect object: I didn't buy my wife, I bought a can opener, but she receives the benefit of my purchase.
a new can opener -- Direct object: this is directly what was purchased.

The new coach seems determined and competent

The new coach -- Subject (a noun phrase containing the definite article the and the adjective new)
seems -- (Linking) Verb
determined, competent -- Predicate adjectives
and -- Coordinating Conjunction for the compound predicate, determined and competent.

Re: grammatical exercises

Pastsimple — Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:32:26 GMT

Inchoateknowledge wrote:

Directions say Identify the noun clause and tell how it is used: subject, predicate nominative, direct object, indirect object or object of a perposition.

Shouldn't it say noun phrase? Just guessing...

Re: The meaning of 'Gonna'

Anonymous — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 07:43:18 GMT

What is the word sucks in "Homework sucks"? Is it a verb or an adjective? If it is a verb, what does homework suck?

This brings up an excellent point, and a wonderful opportunity to discover the beautiful syntactic structure of the English language. The question at hand is "Does an English verb need to have an object?" Consider the simple construction, "I eat" (Subject-ActionVerb). It is a coherent English thought; there is no need to express what is eaten. Just because an English sentence contains an action verb does not mean an object of that action must occur. The neat thing is, though, that it can occur and the thought is just as coherent. "I eat pizza" (Subject-ActionVerb-Object) is an equally logical thought.

Action verbs that have an object of their action are said to be transitive, while those that do not are said to be intransitive. Objects can receive the action of their verb either directly or indirectly. An object which is indirectly acted upon only occurs when there is one which is directly acted upon as well. Objects which receive their verb's action directly are said to be direct, whereas those which receive it indirectly are said to be indirect. In the sentence "I baked them pizza," pizza is a direct object, and them is an indirect object.

We have observed three fundamental patterns of the English language:
                        Subject-IntransitiveVerb                                              (S-InV)                I eat.
                        Subject-TransitiveVerb-DirectObject                          (S-TrV-DO)         I eat pizza.
                        Subject-TransitiveVerb-IndirectObject-DirectObject (S-TrV-IO-DO)    I bake them pizza.

As it turns out, the entire English language follows only about six different fundamental patterns, depending on how you count them. Essentially, there are only three more. I find this fascinating, so here I have written a short exposition on the topic. I intend to learn as much from those who view this forum as they can learn from me, so please read, enjoy (hopefully), and critique it.

        An Inquiry into the Syntactical Structure of the English Language

Fundamental Parts of Speech
There exist various schemes that depict the fundamental parts of speech in the English language. The underlying assumption of them all is that every English word can be classified into a fairly small number of categories. According to a word's inherent qualities these are somewhat nebulous, but according to how the word is used in a sentence they our definitive. The scheme I adopt here models English words in seven divisions: nouns* (N), verbs (V), adjectives** (Adj), adverbs (Adv), prepositions (Prep), conjunctions (Conj), and interjections (Interj). No attempt will be put forth to define these whether operationally or inherently. That being beyond the scope of this work
*Nouns in this work refers to both nouns and pronouns. Though they constitute two distinct categories they are used virtually interchangeably distinguishable only by the inherent qualities they possess. (A point in which syntax is largely uninterested.)
**This class contains what other schemes might divide into the categories of articles, determiners, qualifiers, modifying nouns, etc.
A Steal Framework
Again the various models of English syntax would number the fundamental patterns differently. I have adopted a scheme of six. The patterns are concerned only with two parts of speech: verbs and nouns. They form a sort of a metal framework upon which the rest of the fundamental part bestow their graces connecting and decorating it into a beautiful masterpiece. I model English nouns as possessing eight unique functions (subject (S), direct object (DO), indirect object (IO), objective complement (OC), subjective complement (SC), object of the preposition (OP), noun of direct address (DA), and appositive (App)) and English verbs as possessing four unique functions (action verb*, linking verb (LV), state of being verb (Be), helping verb** (Aux)). Only the first five of the noun functions and the first three of the verb functions are used in constructing the patterns. The rest are added on later for decoration.
*As it has been aforementioned actions verbs are either transitive verbs (TrV), possessing objects, or intransitive verbs (InV), not possessing objects.
**Helping verbs also known as auxiliary verbs or simply auxiliaries serve solely to aid the one main verb of a syntactic pattern in expressing such complexities as tense, mood, or voice. Unlike other languages, English verb ending are unable to accomplish this consisting of only four principle parts with little variation or no variation for person or number. Rarely will you find a verb written more than four ways.

The Fundamental Syntactic Patterns
Some schemes include adjective and adverb elements. I do not, however, because I do not consider them the pegs on which other elements can hang. They are merely filler. I have put alternate examples in boldface type for where some find grounds for other patterns.

                                            1. S-Be*                    I am. or I am here.
                                            2. S-LV-SC*,*              I am Daniel. or I am good.
                                            3. S-InV                         I eat.
                                            4. S-TrV-DO*                I eat pizza.
                                            5. S-TrV-IO-DO*        I bake them pizza.
                                            6. S-TrV-DO-OC*,*    I consider pizza food. or I find pizza tasty.
* "I am here," or, "I am of the tribe of Benjamin," are examples of an adverb element on the S-Be pattern. Under some schemes this would be a new pattern, S-be-Adv. The adverb element, often referred to as the adverbial modifies the verb indicating where or when.
*The subjective complement is the completer of the subject. If it is an adjective it is called the predicate adjective (PA). If it is a noun it is called the predicate nominative or noun (PN). As a noun it is said to rename the subject (Daniel). As a adjective it is said to modify the subject (good). Under some schemes these two cases form distinct patterns (S-LV-PN and S-LV-PA).
*Depending on whether or not the definition of linking verb is broadened to include the state of being verbs, a separate pattern (S-be-SC) is often employed which in turn is typically divided into the two distinct patterns (S-be-PA and S-be-PN).
*Both direct and indirect objects are considered to be predicate complements (PC). So the distinction between them is sometimes lost and these patterns can be depicted S-TrV-PC, S-TrV-PC-PC, and S-TrV-PC-OC with the former two occasionally fusing into one pattern (S-TrV-PC).
*Sometimes a distinction is made between an objective complement that functions as a noun (pizza), objective noun (ON), and one that functions as a adjective (tasty), objective adjective (OA). Thus two distinct patterns are formed (S-TrV-DO-ON and S-TrV-DO-OA).

Whether or not it is wise to exclude the patterns S-Be-Adv, S-LV-PA, and S-TrV-OA, I do not know, but since I maintain that the fundamental syntactic units are composed of certain nouns and verbs I will. For now the other parts of speech and remaining nouns and verbs are for filling out the framework.

The Decorations and Connections
The remaining verbs, helping/auxiliary verbs (Aux), come before the verbs in the patterns and give them tense. Of the remaining nouns, nouns of direct address (DA) are when you address the person you are talking two by name, appositives come right after one of the nouns in the fundamental patterns and serve to rename them, and objects of the preposition are the words the prepositions (Prep) are relating to the rest of the sentence. Prepositions (Prep) then relate nouns to the rest of the sentence. Conjunction (Conj) join elements whether they be fundamental patterns, subject, or verbs. Interjections (Interj) do just that. Butt in breaking the flow of everything. Adjectives (Adj) modify nouns, and adverbs (Adv) modify verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs.

These nine links and flesh may simply be one word or, as four of them (OP, App, Adj, and Adv) often are, be expanded into multiword units composed themselves of smaller units which in turn are linked to other units. Thus you have the massive interlocking structure of the English language.

What are these large units with in units though? They are either clauses or phrases.

Clauses
Clause contain both a subject and a verb but cannot stand alone as a complete thought. They are one of the fundamental units fleshed out. They come in three varieties those that will function as an adverb (Adv), those that will function as a adjective (Adj), and those that will function as a noun (not just OP and App, but the fundamental makeup of the patterns S, DO, IO, OC, and PN/SC).

Phrases:*
Phrases certain either a subject or a verb, but not both. The prepositional phrase--the unit Prep-OP (sometimes fleshed out with other elements)--functions as either an Adj, Adv, or a N. There are three phrase which are one of the six or nine depending on how you look at it fundamental patterns with the S severed from them. The gerund phrase is the one in which the main verb must be in the second principle part** and functions as a N. The participle phrase is the one in which the main verb must be in the second or fourth principle part** and functions as an Adj. The infinitive phrase is the one in which the verb must be in the infinitive (nearly synonymous with the first principle part** and functions as an Adj, Adv, or a N. A fifth and unusual type of phrase functions as a modifier (Adj or Adv) of the entire sentence, and is composed of a noun followed by a participial phrase.
*Sometimes the classifications of phrases are broadened to include a noun phrase, verb phrase, adjective phrase, adverb phrase, and appositive phrase. However, I will abstain from such a measure because noun phrases are just simply any of the five above which can function as a N, appositive phrases are just simply any of the five above which can function as an appositive (a N), adjective phrases are just any of the five above which can function as Adj, adverb phrases are just simply any of the five above which can function as Adv, and verb phrases are just the verb of the six fundamental patterns with its auxiliaries.
**Sometimes English verbs are depicted as having three principle parts, (1) present, (2) past, and (3) past participle, presumably because the present participle of all English verbs is the present + -ing. However, the scheme used here is that which depicts four principle parts, (1) present, (2) present participle, (3) past, (4) past participle, which can be derived from the infinitive [to . . .] by asking the four questions (1) Today, [I/we, you, he/she/it/they] . . .Currently, [I/we, you, he/she/it/they] [to be] . . . , (3) Yesterday, [I/we, you, he/she/it/they] . . . , (4) Previously, [I/we, you, he/she/it/they] [to have] . . . of the infinitive.

Re: woman alive

Teo — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:10:09 GMT

Miriam wrote:

1. "Mary made Tom a hero."

2. "Mary made Tom a cake."

Both sentences are, structurally, exactly alike. In both we have a verb that can take an object complement, and in both the direct object (Tom) is followed by a noun phrase. The only difference between both, again from the structural perspective, is that the noun in the first sentence is "hero" and the noun in the second is "cake". What is interesting is that, despite the striking similarities, only the first sentence actually has an object complement. In the second sentence, "a cake" is indirect object.

Miriam

In sentence #2, "a cake" is a direct object. The indirect object is "Tom."