I have a english grammar book on verbs usage.

I got a question when I read about S+V+I.O+D.O

In that book, S+V+I.O+D.O is regarded as meaning that the subject have virtually an impact on the direct object,

So I just can't say " I threw him a baseball ,but he did'nt got it."

The first sentence "I threw him a baseball" contrasts with the second "he did'nt got it "

because the first means "I threw a ball to him and he got the ball."

It should be changed "I threw a baseball to him ,but he didn't got it"

but as far as i know , we can use it to express 'old information' and 'new information'

A : What did you give him?

B : I gave him (a pretty doll) new information.

A: Who did you give the doll that I bought for you?

B: I gave the doll to (my girl friend, Jina.)new information.

and I studied that there is not difference between S V I.O D.O and S V D.O to I.O in meaning.

Which one is correct?
1 2
Yes, to the main part of your question.

I threw him a baseball, but he didn't catch it. [note the change to the second part of our sentence]

is the same as

I threw a baseball to him, but he didn't catch it

I gave my sister a book = I gave a book to my sister.

But you cannot always reverse them and have the result still be idiomatic.

I hit my thumb with the hammer doesn't work as I hit with the hammer my thumb.

I swept the dirt under the rug doesn't work as I swept under the rub the dirt.

Perhaps someone can explain when the reversing rule works okay, and when it does not. It seems if you actually transfer something from one person to the other (throw a ball, give a book, mail a letter, etc.), then it works. So the indirect object must be a recipient, not something you use (like a hammer or the rug).
I was concerning about your misunderstanding my question.

I guess while I was editing my article, you wrote a reply.

I wish you would read my article again.

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Okay, yes, you substantially changed the question while I posted my reply.

As stand-alone statement, I gave Jina the doll and I gave the doll to Jina are interchangeable.

But your idea of old information then new information does make the sentence read more naturally, especially in responding to a question. That's an interesting observation that I have never made before.
I as well as you, even though I am orginally from korea, don't exactlly know about the korean grammar.

then, Don't you mind saying, " I threw him a baseball ,but he avoid the ball."?
Ah, I have a better understanding of your first question now. I'm sorry it's taken so long to get to this point.

In that particular sentence, if you say "I threw him a baseball," it does imply that he caught it. I'm not sure why. If you say "I threw the ball to him," it does leave the possibility that he didn't catch it. So if you want to say that it was not caught, you probably SHOULD say "I threw the ball to him."

As a grammar fix, if you say "I threw" (past tense), you most often will say "he avoided" (also past tense). I think the better word choice is "missed" (rather than "avoided" - which carries a sense of deliberately getting out of the way).

Also, a lot of Asians seem to do this, but the space goes after the comma, not before. ...ball, but ...

Again, sorry for not picking up on your meaning earlier. Your instincts are correct.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Which one is correct?
I'm inclined to say that the second book is correct. There is no difference in meaning between the structure S V O to I and S V I O (for those verbs that allow both constructions). Even in the case cited by the first book, I can easily imagine a counterexample in the form of a description of a play in (American) football:

Mattson threw Johnson a pass, but Johnson failed to catch it.

I don't see anything anomalous here. I grant that there may be some speakers who would prefer this to be expressed as threw a pass to Johnson, but I don't think that this preference originates out of any recognition that the meaning of the two forms is fundamentally different, either in terms of whether the S V I O form blocks a reading in which the action fails, or in any other terms.

If there are verbs which have this property, I assume that they are very rare, and the difference must be very subtle. I am not entirely convinced that throw is one of them.

Mattson threw Johnson a pass, but Johnson failed to catch it.

In this sentence quoted from your post, Couldn't you see any artificial things or reverse?

I guess that the first sentence imply Johnson did catch it, but the listenner would got reverse by listening to "but johnson failed to catch it"

that probably makes sports games more interesting.

Is my guess incorrect?

because of the lacks of native feeling in english , I always guess Emotion: sad
My point is that the sentence means the same thing as

Mattson threw a pass to Johnson, but Johnson failed to catch it.

The point is that

Mattson threw Johnson a pass.

does not require us to infer that Johnson caught the pass, in my opinion.

It certainly does not require us to make that inference in the same way that

I just arrived home.

requires us to infer that I am now home, and requires us to treat as nonsense

I just arrived home, but I am not home now.

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Show more