Search results for 'tag:Indirect objects tag:Spelling' matching tags 'Indirect objects' and 'Spelling'

Re: Why is this?

Grammar Geek — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 02:41:08 GMT

1. Should not have the "to." Send me the present. But, it would be Send the present to me. Show her the letter. Show the letter to her. It all depends on where the indirect object goes in the sentence. My French is rusty, but isn't it the same? Donne lui le cadaeu or donne le cadeau a lui? (Sorry for my horrible spelling. It's been over 20 years since my last French class and when you say it out loud, spelling doesn't count.")

2. This doesn't work. You have to give it to someone. If the person you're giving it to comes before "the present," then there is no "to." Give Jean the present. If it is after, then it has a to. Give the present to Jean.

Re: Someone and me

anon1 — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:36:12 GMT

People do say "Peter and me went home."

With all due respect, that sentence would be flagged as being incorrect. Children will often say that sentence as they continue to wrestle with the language. But most educated adults don't use that form.

As you probably know, it should be written as "Peter and I went home."

Both Peter and I act as subjects in the sentence. "Me" is used as an object, often as an indirect object.

Peter and Mary gave me a present. See how "me" acts as an indirect object? The direct object is "present."

You should have a quick review of Predicates, Objects, complements.

Why should one insist that this is wrong when there are many other examples in the language of double word class membership when it comes to prepositions/conjunctions.

I think we addressed the "wrong" with the object and subject argument. English is a language full of exceptions and idiosyncracies. That doesn't necessarily mean you can go and add your own.

If you were to use the form "Peter and me went home" a lot, then you would receive a lot of corrections from people.

Spelling in English is even worse.

Ghoti could be "fish"
gh - enouGH - f sound
o - wOmen - i sound
ti - informaTIon - sh sound

Frustrating isn't it?

Re: The accusitive case

Mike A. — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:16:28 GMT

The first thing to note is the spelling: the correct spelling is a-c-c-u-s-a-t-i-v-e. Another thing to note is that the term often employed to identify the "case" of words like "him", "her" and "whom" is Objective, rather than Accusative (which is misleading in a simplified grammar like English's.)

Unlike German, English doesn't really have a well-developed Dative or Accusative case. We used to have those cases at an earlier stage of the language's development, but now those cases are only vestigial. Our "allgemein" Objective case, where it exists at all, performs both Dative and Accusative functions. What gives you the difference in meaning is generally word order.

For example, in the sentence "I gave him a spoon" -- which in German would be something like "Ich gab ihm einen Loeffel" -- "him" is a word in the Objective case, but it is clearly performing a dative function here. If you want to, you can decide that "him" is in the Dative case, but in English grammar it doesn't make much sense to think of a Dative case. We know that "him" is the indirect object of the verb -- i.e., performs a dative function -- because it *precedes* what is obviously the direct object, "spoon". Note that "spoon", the direct object, is unmarked by case ending, unlike the German.

On the other hand, in a sentence like "I saw him yesterday" -- which in German would be "Ich sah ihn gestern" -- it's the same word "him", in the same Objective case, but since there is no possible role for "him" in this sentence other than the direct object, you know that it has to be the direct object.

In American English, the normal practice would be for indirect objects to precede the direct objects: "I gave him a spoon." In British English -- or so I believe -- sometimes the practice is the opposite: the British might say "I gave it him" -- where "it" (the direct object) comes first.

Hope this helps.

Mike