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

Re: Grammatical Cases and the English Language

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:33:34 GMT

None of these names for cases applies much to Modern English; we have neither an accusative nor a dative case and many linguists might argue we do not even have a true genitive (just a "clitic s").

Nouns have an all-purpose "base case" and a possessive form.

My dog is big/I see a dog. (base)

My dog's bed is in the corner. (possessive)

Some pronouns have a "subject case" (a true nominative) and an "object/instrumental case" which indicates the direct/indirect object or is required after prepositions.

He likes that dog. (subject)

The boy sees him. (object - direct object)

The boy gives him the book. (object - indirect object)

JJM

The boy gives the book to him. (instrumental - indirect object).

Grammatical Cases and the English Language

Crux_online — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:08:50 GMT

Good day, all!

Read through....the question is at the end.

English cases, though no longer taught as such, are still somewhat present and remnants of the cases in Old English. During the time between say, 1300 and the present, we lost most of the inflections that were present before 1300, but some of the words -- particularly the possessive pronouns -- retained their inflections.

The four cases of Old English are:

Nominative
Genative
Accusative
Dative/Instrumental

The Nominative case gets its name from the idea that it is the 'naming' case. It identifies the subject of the sentence by name.

The Genative case gets its name by pointing out the 'genesis' of the noun. "Brother of mine", "Goblet of silver". Generally, anywhere 'of' is used, the object of the preposition will be in the Genative case.

Now Accusative and Dative leave me baffled. How did they get their names?

Accusative seems to bring to mind one accusing another. Even in Russian, ÐÐ¸Ð½Ð¸ÑÐµÐ»ÑÐ½ÑÐ¹ (vi-NI-tyl-ni) is the name of the Accusative case and the root verb of that is ÐÐ¸Ð½Ð¸ÑÑ (vi-NIT), to blame, accuse. But how does that apply to the case of a noun in the general role of Direct Object? Or is the premise of Accusative case being equivalent to the Direct Object faulty altogether?

Dative conjures in me the idea of dates. In linguistics, the Dative case is generally used to indicate the Indirect Object. The question becomes, "how/where does the concept of date intersect with the idea of Indirect Object?

Now naturally there are prepositions that require a specific case. In English all prepositions require the Accusative case (the Dative case seems all but lost in Modern English). In German hilfen, to help, requires the Dative, whereas sehen, to see, requires an Accusative object. Whereas this makes perfect sense, there are other that make no sense. This is not the thread for that discussion.

My question, after all that, is this:

Where did the different grammatical cases get there names?

Thanks!

Re: whomever or whoever?

miriam — Mon, 29 Aug 2005 07:15:06 GMT

Hello again, MrP (IF I may I call you MrP).

I think I understand now what you meant in the post I found confusing.

You said:

â...which implies that the subject of the <whosever/whose-ever> clause in the example is the same as the subject of the main clause. However, the subject of the <whomever> clause in the 'CJ' example is not the subject of the main clause; so there's no reason to take the subject of a <whosever> clause as the subject of the clause that follows.

In other words, if we can take an extrapolation from <whomever CJ teaches> as the subject of a following clause, we can equally take an extrapolation from <whosever car this is/whosever idea this is> as the subject of a following clause.â

Here, the problem -to call it something- is that âwhomeverâ and âwhoseverâ are different parts of speech. âWhomeverâ is an objective pronoun, whereas âwhoseverâ is a possessive.

âWhomeverâ alone cannot possibly be the subject of anything: it is not the subject of the noun clause âwhomever CJ teachesâ, and it is not the subject of the whole sentence either. This is because âwhomeverâ, being objective, cannot act as subject. What you say about CJ being the subject of the clause is right, you could rephrase it as âCJ teaches whomeverâ; it is CJ that performs the action expressed by the verb. If you consider the whole sentence, however, the subject is no longer CJ, but the entire clause âwhomever CJ teachesâ. It is a periphrastic construction that can be replaced by a noun or a pronoun (as long as the pronoun âwhere a difference between objective and subjective forms exists- is used in its subjective form.

So, in the âwhomeverâ sentence you are talking about any person CJ may teach. In the âwhoseverâ sentence, you are talking about the car because âwhoseverâ is a possessive and, as such, acts as a modifier. We cannot say âJohnâs car is being servicedâ and think that John is being serviced. And âJohnâsâ here acts, in a way, like âwhoseverâ. Better put, perhaps, it is closer to the meaning and function of âwhoseverâ than to the meaning and function of âwhomeverâ.

That said, now, I insist I am not that stubborn. I know I am right about the use of âwhoâ, âwhomâ, âwhoeverâ and âwhomeverâ, but I will not claim to know the ultimate rules about the use of âwhoseverâ in this case in particular, mostly because it seems to be used idiomatically in sentences like âWhosever the car is is responsible for the accidentâ. If we were to analyse this sentence using the same parameters used in the analysis of the âwhomeverâ one, then the âwhoseverâ sentence would mean something along the lines of *âI donât care who that car belongs to, but he/she/they (?) are responsible for the accidentâ. The asterisk here means ungrammaticallity, though the sentence may be, as said before, idiomatic and, as such, accepted. A construction like âWhosever that car is (=no matter who the car belongs to), it shouldnât have been parked hereâ would make much more sense, in terms of grammar, and in my opinion.

Now, in your sentences about giving a book to someone, the âwhoeverâ and âwhomeverâ clauses are not relative clauses, that is why they do not have (or need) what is called an âantecedentâ. Both are noun clauses, and both are indirect objects in your sentences. Both clauses could be replaced by âhim/her/themâ, and perhaps even by âmeâ and âusâ (depending on the context). In the first sentence, âwhoeverâ is the subject of the clause that contains it; in the second sentence, âwhomeverâ is the object of the clause it is in. Both sentences are correct, but of course you already know that!

I'm less comfortable with this usage:

3. Whomever CJ teaches learns good English.

where, if grammatical, the <who(m)ever> must contain what you might call its post-cedent. (Similarly with the <whosever> examples.)

In your third sentence, the clause used is the same -or similar- to the one used in your second sentence. The only difference is that in sentence #3 this noun clause acts as subject, not as object. That may account for its being in initial position in the sentence. I still fail to understand why you feel uncomfortable with it.

We can express the subject differently, for example by means of a âwhoeverâ clause: âWhoever learns from CJ will learn good Englishâ. We may very well be talking about the same people in the two sentences (your #3 and my own sentence here). Your sentence #3 is not ungrammatical, and âwhomeverâ does not need what you call a post-cedent. Again, these are not relative clauses; they are not adjectival but nominal. I would say it makes all the difference.

It seems this will be another very long post, but I would like to make one more comment; this time about the post in which you mention Byronâs translation of Menander (whom I have never read).

âWhom the gods love dies youngâ seems fine to me if we take âwhomâ to mean either âwhomeverâ or one person in particular that has been mentioned before. âWhom the gods loveâ is then the subject of the sentence. In other words, it is the subject of âdiesâ, meaning probably that anyone the gods love will die.

I agree with CalifJimâs post.

I am not going to say I hope my post will help anyone this time because there is a mess of pronouns in my head now! And I still have to type a response to Pacoâs post.

Miriam

Re: Sentence analyze

hela — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:30:50 GMT

Hello everyone,

I like to do sentence analyses, so if you could sometimes send us some exercises on the matter they will be very welcome.

A/ Here is MY analysis:

1) She is so pretty a girl.

a) parts of speech:

she = nominative personal pronoun
is = fintie verb
so = adverb of intensity
pretty = predicative adjective
a = indefinite article
girl = noun

b) function:

she = subject (NP)
is = copular verb (VP)
so pretty a girl = subject-complement (?) (NP?)

2) He is too bright a student to study with me.

a) parts of speech:

he = nominative personal pronoun
is = finite verb
too = adverb of intensity
bright = predicative adjective
a = indefinite article
student = noun
to study = non-finite verb
with = preposition
me = accusative personal pronoun

b) function:

he = subject
is = copular verb
too bright a student = subject-complement (NP?)
to study with me = adverbial of purpose ??? (PP ?)

3) How smart a student he is.

a) parts of speech:

how = adverb ??
smart = attributive adjective
a = ind. art.
student = noun
he = nominative pers. pron.
is = verb

b) function:

How smart a student = subject-complement ? (NP ?)
he = subject ?
is = copula

4) In spite of his hangover, he got up at seven.

a) parts of speech:

in spite of = subordinating conjunction
his = possessive adjective
hangover = noun
he = nominative pers. pron.
got = finite verb
up = proposition
at = preposition
seven = numeral / cardinal number ?

b) function:

he = subject (NP)
got up = intransitive verb (VP)
at seven = adverbial of time (PP)
in spite of his hangover = ??

B/ What do you think of the following ?

5) She bought herself five pounds of chocolate for her birthday.

a) parts of speech:

she = subject / nominative personal pronoun
bought = ditransitive verb
herself = reflexive pronoun
five = determinative adjective / cardinal number ?
pounds = noun
of = preposition
chocolate = noun
for = preposition
her = possessive adjective
birthday = noun

b)sentence pattern:

She = subject
Bought = verb
Herself = indirect object
Five pounds of chocolate = direct object
For her birthday = adverbial of time OR adverbial of purpose ?

Thank you very much in advance for your correction.
All the best,
Hela

Re: WHERE WERE DIFFERANCE :?

aileen — Wed, 02 Jun 2004 18:02:50 GMT

Iâm not a teacher, and oh my goodness, now I know why English teachers are worth their salt. I just canât explain this in a simple way! I thought this question would be easy to answer but itâs not easy at all. Just because a word is commonly used and short doesnât guarantee that itâs easy to explain. Iâm so sorry that I couldnât answer this in a short space! Please ask again if you need a teacherâs explanation. Youâll notice that Iâve pasted information from the dictionary. I did try to choose the simplest definitions.

ANSWER
Them is a pronoun. It is the objective case of they.
1. Used as the direct object of a verb: We saw them at the conference.
2. Used as the indirect object of a verb: We gave them a round of applause.
3. Used as the object of a preposition: This letter is addressed to them.
4. Informal. Used as a predicate nominative: It's them.

There is an adjective and the possessive form of they. There is used as a modifier before a noun: their accomplishments; their home town.

There is an adverb.
1. At or in that place: sit over there.
2. To, into, or toward that place: wouldn't go there again.
3. At that stage, moment, or point: Stop there before you make any more mistakes.
4. In that matter: I can't agree with him there.

Off is an adverb.
1. From a place or position: drove off.
2.
A. At a certain distance in space or time: a mile off; a week off.
B. From a given course or route; aside: swerved off into a ditch.
C. Into a state of unconsciousness: I must have dozed off.
3.
A. So as to be no longer on, attached, or connected: shaved off his mustache.
B. So as to be divided: marked off the playing field by yards.
4. So as to be no longer continuing, operating, or functioning: switched off the radio.
5. So as to be completely removed, finished, or eliminated: kill off the mice.
6. So as to be smaller, fewer, or less: Sales dropped off.
7. So as to be away from work or duty: They took a day off.
8. Offstage.

Of is often a preposition. Apparently, of can be used in other ways too. Iâve pasted some information from the dictionary here.
1. Derived or coming from; originating at or from: customs of the South.
2. Caused by; resulting from: a death of tuberculosis.
3. Away from; at a distance from: a mile east of here.
4. So as to be separated or relieved from: robbed of one's dignity; cured of distemper.
5. From the total or group comprising: give of one's time; two of my friends; most of the cases.
6. Composed or made from: a dress of silk.
7. Associated with or adhering to: people of your religion.
8. Belonging or connected to: the rungs of a ladder.
9.
A. Possessing; having: a person of honor.
B. On one's part: very nice of you.
10. Containing or carrying: a basket of groceries.
11. Specified as; named or called: a depth of ten feet; the Garden of Eden.
12. Centering on; directed toward: a love of horses.
13. Produced by; issuing from: products of the vine.
14. Characterized or identified by: a year of famine.
15.
A. With reference to; about: think highly of her proposals; will speak of it later.
B. In respect to: slow of speech.
16. Set aside for; taken up by: a day of rest.
17. Before; until: five minutes of two.
18. During or on a specified time: of recent years.
19. By: beloved of the family.
20. Used to indicate an appositive: that idiot of a driver.
21. Archaic. On: âA plague of all cowards, I sayâ (Shakespeare).

Where is an adverb. It is used commonly in four ways.
1. At or in what place: Where is the telephone?
2. In what situation or position: Where would we be without your help?
3. From what place or source: Where did you get this idea?
4. To what place; toward what end: Where is this argument leading?

Were is a verb. The verb were is related to the verb âbeâ. For example

We were late for the bus
They are OK now but they were in a lot of trouble before

Re: Parts of a sentence I hope you appreciate our offering...

Guest — Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:45:52 GMT

I thought that
offering was a gerund
our was the possessive modifying that gerund
position was the direct obect of appreciate
the second you was an indirect object of appreciate.

My new question is
Is hope the main verb of the sentence with I being the subject
and what about the first you

I think this is a hard one.