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

Re: Appositive, direct object, indirect, predicate nominative, object of prepos

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:45:52 GMT

"Scurvy, a vitamin C deficiency, makes people weak and sore."

Scurvy is the subject, because it is the thing which "makes people weak and sore."
People is the direct object, because it is what scurvy is affecting, direct objects usually follow verbs.
Weak and sore are objective complements, because they modify the direct object, people.

"Scurvy was the leading cause of death among sailors in the early eighteen century."

Cause is the predicate nominative, because it stands for the subject, scurvy.
Sailors is the object of a preposition, because it follows the preposition among, and acts as the subject of the prepositional phrase.

"In 1753, James Lind, a Scottish naval surgeon, showed that citrus could cure scurvy."

Surgeon is an appositive for James Lind, because it describes him further, but is not essential to the sentence.

"When the British navy gave sailors fresh citrus juice, scurvy disappeared from their ships."

Navy is the subject, because it is the thing which gave.
Sailors is an indirect object, because they are the people to whom the juice was given.
Juice is the direct object, because it is the thing which was given.

"Today, scurvy is rare; it is usually seen only in very old or very young patients whose diets are deficient in vitamin C."

Vitamin C is an object of a preposition because it is the subject of the prepositional phrase, "in vitamin C."

When trying to diagram a sentence I think it becomes easier when you take out the unnecessary words. For example change "scurvy was the leading cause of death among sailors in the early eighteen century," to "scurvy was the cause of death among sailors in century." The latter is less senseful, but makes it easier to diagram the sentence's nouns. Of course that method wouldn't work as well when you're asked to diagram words other than nouns.
I hope this made some sense, and helped!
-Nathan

Re: Appositive, direct object, indirect, predicate nominative, object of prepos

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:09:28 GMT

Re: The manual you gave was/is very useful.

Marius Hancu — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:41:34 GMT

>By the way, I always thought that you could leave out the subject, 'me' in this case, if you wanted it to be informal.

>The manual you gave was/is very useful.

That's not a subject, it's an indirect object, you gave (TO) ME. You can't leave it out in any situation and for any verb. Find the real subject.

The rest I said and will not repeat.

Re: Grammar: a large meteor hitting the moon

CalifJim — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:35:44 GMT

a large meteor hitting the moon is a noun clause. It's the subject of the sentence. hitting is the "head" of the clause. The hitting is what would cause the melting.

The clause itself has a subject (a large meteor), a verb (hitting), and a direct object (the moon).

It's a 'non-finite' clause -- a 'gerundive' clause.

Re: unexpected visitor

Avangi — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 21:58:25 GMT

New2grammar
Here are some references:
http://books.google.com.my/books?hl=en&q=%22I%20opened%20a%20crack%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp
Avangi
I don't think in the US we'd say "I opened a crack" in this context.

This was quite an experience for me. I learned that a usage which is unnatural to me is perfectly natural to others. Thank you.

The famous educator Alfred North Whitehead claimed your education is only useful after you've thrown away your books and notes. Although I never quite agreed, I fancy that's where I'm now at (to borrow from the vernacular). It's a bit painful to re-teach my brain. And yet I realize this is what you guys go through many times every day. My hat's off to you.

"I opened a crack [of/in the door/window]." This is very hard for me to swallow.

To me, to open a crack in something is to create a fracture where one is not supposed to be - like what the stupid bulldozer operator did to the foundation wall of my house. "Crack" is the direct object of the verb "to open." It's like "to create a crack."

While riding in the car, someone may say, "Please crack your window." I learned to accept this only after hearing it many times. "Window" is the direct object of the verb "to crack."

"I went to the door and opened a crack." What is the direct object of "opened"? Is it "crack," or is it [door] understood??? Or is it the same structure as , "I went to the door and screamed a little"??

What I'm really comfortable with is, "I opened the door a crack." "Door" is the direct object of "to open," and "a crack" is adverbial.

I guess this should have been a separate thread.

Best wishes, - A.

Re: direct object indirect object

Anonymous — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 01:49:27 GMT

give me an example of a sentence that has a pattern of subject-verb-direct object-indirect object.

Re: Is this ok?

26TMNTJG2PG — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:58:15 GMT

A. I'm wondering if you made a reservation that will require me to arrive earlier.
B. I'm wondering if you made a reservation requiring that I arrive earlier.
C. Both are correct (but you may need to argue that both use the Present Indefinite).

To avoid that, you can rewrite the sentences as:
A. I'm wondering if you have made a reservation that will require me to arrive earlier.
B. I'm wondering if you have made a reservation requiring that I arrive earlier.

Also, is this correct?
A. "me' is the ~~direc~~t indirect object of "will require," and "to arrive earlier" is an object complement (and also the direct
object of "will require").
B. "requiring" acts a a subjunctive which requires the use of I "arrive," and no direct object should be used (actually
an object is required or not will depend on whether the verb [finite or non-finite] is used transitively or intransitively).

Re: Passives (Like & Love) "-"- Subject & Object

Mister Micawber — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:02:07 GMT

.
John likes pizza.
Pizza is liked by John.

There is no object in the second sentence. The subject of the passive sentence (pizza) is the object of its active equivalent. By John is an adverb. John is the agent in both sentences.

Of course, some passive sentences can have objects:

John gave Mary a pizza.-- John is subject and agent, pizza is direct object, Mary is indirect object.
Mary was given pizza by John.-- Mary is subject, pizza is object, by John is adverb and agent.

Re: "Taste of this"

CalifJim — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:14:24 GMT

Welcome to English Forums!

[Taste / Smell] of this is a regionalism. He may have been brought up in or near the Carolinas, for example. If he has heard it and said it that way all his life, of course he will insist that it is right. And within regions where it is used, it will also seem right to everyone else!

The more usual phrase used throughout the U.S. drops the of, treating taste and smell as transitive verbs that take direct objects.

Re: I am GOOD/ I am WELL

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:37:02 GMT

I find an easy way to tell whether to use "good" or "well" is to substitute a different adjective into the sentence. Â For instance, Â "I am hungry" works. Â "Hungry" is an adjectival complement to "I." Â However, "I am hungrily" sounds absurd. Â After substituting, it becomes clear that we want to use the adjective: Â "I am good."Â

On the other hand, when asked "How are you doing?" it's another story. Â If we say "I'm doing good," then "good" appears to be the direct object of "doing." Â "I'm doing well" would be correct. Â "Well" is the adverb, modifying "doing."