Confusing syntax in sentences with indirect object complements Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Direct Object vs Indirect Object in “I taught my cat”Indirect vs direct objectDirect object before indirect objectWhat is the equivalent in English of the French sentence part “complément de phrase”?Question about indirect object?“He who” as an indirect objectIs this an indirect object?Using “With” as Part of Indirect Object or Prepositional PhraseWhich one is the direct object and indirect object?Indirect object pronoun before direct object
Can the van der Waals coefficients be negative in the van der Waals equation for real gases?
Compiling and throwing simple dynamic exceptions at runtime for JVM
Trying to enter the Fox's den
What documents does someone with a long-term visa need to travel to another Schengen country?
Why is ArcGIS Pro not symbolizing my entire range of values?
A German immigrant ancestor has a "Registration Affidavit of Alien Enemy" on file. What does that mean exactly?
Would I be safe to drive a 23 year old truck for 7 hours / 450 miles?
Magento 2 Editing phtml files in Production Mode
Putting Ant-Man on house arrest
Can 'non' with gerundive mean both lack of obligation and negative obligation?
Network questions
Has a Nobel Peace laureate ever been accused of war crimes?
How do I deal with an erroneously large refund?
Who can become a wight?
Why doesn't the university give past final exams' answers?
Are bags of holding fireproof?
Unix AIX passing variable and arguments to expect and spawn
What kind of capacitor is this in the image?
Why isn't everyone flabbergasted about Bran's "gift"?
Married in secret, can marital status in passport be changed at a later date?
2 sample t test for sample sizes - 30,000 and 150,000
“Since the train was delayed for more than an hour, passengers were given a full refund.” – Why is there no article before “passengers”?
Can gravitational waves pass through a black hole?
Why do people think Winterfell crypts is the safest place for women, children & old people?
Confusing syntax in sentences with indirect object complements
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Direct Object vs Indirect Object in “I taught my cat”Indirect vs direct objectDirect object before indirect objectWhat is the equivalent in English of the French sentence part “complément de phrase”?Question about indirect object?“He who” as an indirect objectIs this an indirect object?Using “With” as Part of Indirect Object or Prepositional PhraseWhich one is the direct object and indirect object?Indirect object pronoun before direct object
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
Some verbs produce unambiguous syntax when used with an indirect object.
I brought a toy to Katy. --> I brought Katy a toy.
I bought flowers for my wife. --> I bought my wife flowers.
Neither of these sentence complements can be interpreted as a single noun phrase or object complement.
But if we use a pronoun instead of a proper noun we sometimes produce ambiguous syntax.
I brought a toy to her. --> I brought her a toy.
I bought flowers for her. --> I bought her flowers.
The first sentence is not ambiguous because her a toy is not a sensible phrase, but her flowers is easily interpreted as a noun phrase (poss dt + n) that functions as the single direct object of the verb. Two possible interpretations with very different meanings.
Furthermore, BBC Learn English lists keep as a verb that can be used with OCi/OCd syntax but I can't seem to find a sentence that isn't ambiguous.
- I kept the money for you. --> I kept you the money.
- I keep the keys for the manager. --> *I keep the manager the keys.
- I keep secrets for her. --> I keep her secrets.
- I keep secrets for Jill --> *I keep Jill secrets.
Sentences 2 & 4 produce nonsense, and sentence 3 produces ambiguous syntax, where the OCi and OCd merge into a single noun phrase. Sentence 1 seems to work but it feels very awkward to me. But all of these sentences follow the rule of having a beneficiary or recipient of the action using to or for adverbial complement in the standard form.
So what's going on here? Does keep belong on this list or not?
grammar indirect-objects
asked Jul 26 '18 at 9:50
Ubu EnglishUbu English
1379
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 4 hours ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
|
show 3 more comments
Some verbs produce unambiguous syntax when used with an indirect object.
I brought a toy to Katy. --> I brought Katy a toy.
I bought flowers for my wife. --> I bought my wife flowers.
Neither of these sentence complements can be interpreted as a single noun phrase or object complement.
But if we use a pronoun instead of a proper noun we sometimes produce ambiguous syntax.
I brought a toy to her. --> I brought her a toy.
I bought flowers for her. --> I bought her flowers.
The first sentence is not ambiguous because her a toy is not a sensible phrase, but her flowers is easily interpreted as a noun phrase (poss dt + n) that functions as the single direct object of the verb. Two possible interpretations with very different meanings.
Furthermore, BBC Learn English lists keep as a verb that can be used with OCi/OCd syntax but I can't seem to find a sentence that isn't ambiguous.
- I kept the money for you. --> I kept you the money.
- I keep the keys for the manager. --> *I keep the manager the keys.
- I keep secrets for her. --> I keep her secrets.
- I keep secrets for Jill --> *I keep Jill secrets.
Sentences 2 & 4 produce nonsense, and sentence 3 produces ambiguous syntax, where the OCi and OCd merge into a single noun phrase. Sentence 1 seems to work but it feels very awkward to me. But all of these sentences follow the rule of having a beneficiary or recipient of the action using to or for adverbial complement in the standard form.
So what's going on here? Does keep belong on this list or not?
grammar indirect-objects
asked Jul 26 '18 at 9:50
Ubu EnglishUbu English
1379
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 4 hours ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
1
This could be an interesting question. However, I do not think it is a matter of ambiguous syntax. It is sentences rather than the syntax that can be ambiguous - ie have more than one possible meaning. 2 and 4 are ambiguous because their syntax could be construed differently. This is so because, as it happens, for the feminine possessive adjective, there is no difference between the objective and possessive forms (‘her’/‘her’).
– Tuffy
Jul 26 '18 at 11:52
1
"I kept you the money" also seems ungrammatical to me.
– user184130
Jul 26 '18 at 12:33
1
@JamesRandom No, surely not. Might you not ask a friend to keep you a seat at the football match? or to keep you some of that nice pie for when you get home?
– Tuffy
Jul 26 '18 at 12:42
@Tuffy Yes but no but ... I am struggling to work out why "kept you the money" sounds wrong to me while "kept you a seat" sounds OK. And even "kept you some money" might be OK ... Maybe my language intuition has just failed me on this one.
– user184130
Jul 26 '18 at 12:45
I kept the money for you. --> *I kept you the money. [You are correct; it's nonsense.] I keep the keys for the manager. --> *I keep the manager the keys. [Nonsense.] I keep secrets for her. --> I keep her secrets. [OK.] I keep secrets for Jill --> *I keep Jill secrets. [Should be "I keep Jill's secrets."]
– Mark Hubbard
Jul 26 '18 at 13:55
|
show 3 more comments
Some verbs produce unambiguous syntax when used with an indirect object.
I brought a toy to Katy. --> I brought Katy a toy.
I bought flowers for my wife. --> I bought my wife flowers.
Neither of these sentence complements can be interpreted as a single noun phrase or object complement.
But if we use a pronoun instead of a proper noun we sometimes produce ambiguous syntax.
I brought a toy to her. --> I brought her a toy.
I bought flowers for her. --> I bought her flowers.
The first sentence is not ambiguous because her a toy is not a sensible phrase, but her flowers is easily interpreted as a noun phrase (poss dt + n) that functions as the single direct object of the verb. Two possible interpretations with very different meanings.
Furthermore, BBC Learn English lists keep as a verb that can be used with OCi/OCd syntax but I can't seem to find a sentence that isn't ambiguous.
- I kept the money for you. --> I kept you the money.
- I keep the keys for the manager. --> *I keep the manager the keys.
- I keep secrets for her. --> I keep her secrets.
- I keep secrets for Jill --> *I keep Jill secrets.
Sentences 2 & 4 produce nonsense, and sentence 3 produces ambiguous syntax, where the OCi and OCd merge into a single noun phrase. Sentence 1 seems to work but it feels very awkward to me. But all of these sentences follow the rule of having a beneficiary or recipient of the action using to or for adverbial complement in the standard form.
So what's going on here? Does keep belong on this list or not?
grammar indirect-objects
asked Jul 26 '18 at 9:50
Ubu EnglishUbu English
1379
Some verbs produce unambiguous syntax when used with an indirect object.
I brought a toy to Katy. --> I brought Katy a toy.
I bought flowers for my wife. --> I bought my wife flowers.
Neither of these sentence complements can be interpreted as a single noun phrase or object complement.
But if we use a pronoun instead of a proper noun we sometimes produce ambiguous syntax.
I brought a toy to her. --> I brought her a toy.
I bought flowers for her. --> I bought her flowers.
The first sentence is not ambiguous because her a toy is not a sensible phrase, but her flowers is easily interpreted as a noun phrase (poss dt + n) that functions as the single direct object of the verb. Two possible interpretations with very different meanings.
Furthermore, BBC Learn English lists keep as a verb that can be used with OCi/OCd syntax but I can't seem to find a sentence that isn't ambiguous.
- I kept the money for you. --> I kept you the money.
- I keep the keys for the manager. --> *I keep the manager the keys.
- I keep secrets for her. --> I keep her secrets.
- I keep secrets for Jill --> *I keep Jill secrets.
Sentences 2 & 4 produce nonsense, and sentence 3 produces ambiguous syntax, where the OCi and OCd merge into a single noun phrase. Sentence 1 seems to work but it feels very awkward to me. But all of these sentences follow the rule of having a beneficiary or recipient of the action using to or for adverbial complement in the standard form.
So what's going on here? Does keep belong on this list or not?
grammar indirect-objects
grammar indirect-objects
asked Jul 26 '18 at 9:50
Ubu EnglishUbu English
1379
asked Jul 26 '18 at 9:50
Ubu EnglishUbu English
1379
asked Jul 26 '18 at 9:50
Ubu EnglishUbu English
1379
asked Jul 26 '18 at 9:50
Ubu EnglishUbu English
1379
asked Jul 26 '18 at 9:50
Ubu EnglishUbu English
1379
1379
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 4 hours ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 4 hours ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
1
This could be an interesting question. However, I do not think it is a matter of ambiguous syntax. It is sentences rather than the syntax that can be ambiguous - ie have more than one possible meaning. 2 and 4 are ambiguous because their syntax could be construed differently. This is so because, as it happens, for the feminine possessive adjective, there is no difference between the objective and possessive forms (‘her’/‘her’).
– Tuffy
Jul 26 '18 at 11:52
1
"I kept you the money" also seems ungrammatical to me.
– user184130
Jul 26 '18 at 12:33
1
@JamesRandom No, surely not. Might you not ask a friend to keep you a seat at the football match? or to keep you some of that nice pie for when you get home?
– Tuffy
Jul 26 '18 at 12:42
@Tuffy Yes but no but ... I am struggling to work out why "kept you the money" sounds wrong to me while "kept you a seat" sounds OK. And even "kept you some money" might be OK ... Maybe my language intuition has just failed me on this one.
– user184130
Jul 26 '18 at 12:45
I kept the money for you. --> *I kept you the money. [You are correct; it's nonsense.] I keep the keys for the manager. --> *I keep the manager the keys. [Nonsense.] I keep secrets for her. --> I keep her secrets. [OK.] I keep secrets for Jill --> *I keep Jill secrets. [Should be "I keep Jill's secrets."]
– Mark Hubbard
Jul 26 '18 at 13:55
|
show 3 more comments
1
This could be an interesting question. However, I do not think it is a matter of ambiguous syntax. It is sentences rather than the syntax that can be ambiguous - ie have more than one possible meaning. 2 and 4 are ambiguous because their syntax could be construed differently. This is so because, as it happens, for the feminine possessive adjective, there is no difference between the objective and possessive forms (‘her’/‘her’).
– Tuffy
Jul 26 '18 at 11:52
1
"I kept you the money" also seems ungrammatical to me.
– user184130
Jul 26 '18 at 12:33
1
@JamesRandom No, surely not. Might you not ask a friend to keep you a seat at the football match? or to keep you some of that nice pie for when you get home?
– Tuffy
Jul 26 '18 at 12:42
@Tuffy Yes but no but ... I am struggling to work out why "kept you the money" sounds wrong to me while "kept you a seat" sounds OK. And even "kept you some money" might be OK ... Maybe my language intuition has just failed me on this one.
– user184130
Jul 26 '18 at 12:45
I kept the money for you. --> *I kept you the money. [You are correct; it's nonsense.] I keep the keys for the manager. --> *I keep the manager the keys. [Nonsense.] I keep secrets for her. --> I keep her secrets. [OK.] I keep secrets for Jill --> *I keep Jill secrets. [Should be "I keep Jill's secrets."]
– Mark Hubbard
Jul 26 '18 at 13:55
1
1
This could be an interesting question. However, I do not think it is a matter of ambiguous syntax. It is sentences rather than the syntax that can be ambiguous - ie have more than one possible meaning. 2 and 4 are ambiguous because their syntax could be construed differently. This is so because, as it happens, for the feminine possessive adjective, there is no difference between the objective and possessive forms (‘her’/‘her’).
– Tuffy
Jul 26 '18 at 11:52
This could be an interesting question. However, I do not think it is a matter of ambiguous syntax. It is sentences rather than the syntax that can be ambiguous - ie have more than one possible meaning. 2 and 4 are ambiguous because their syntax could be construed differently. This is so because, as it happens, for the feminine possessive adjective, there is no difference between the objective and possessive forms (‘her’/‘her’).
– Tuffy
Jul 26 '18 at 11:52
1
1
"I kept you the money" also seems ungrammatical to me.
– user184130
Jul 26 '18 at 12:33
"I kept you the money" also seems ungrammatical to me.
– user184130
Jul 26 '18 at 12:33
1
1
@JamesRandom No, surely not. Might you not ask a friend to keep you a seat at the football match? or to keep you some of that nice pie for when you get home?
– Tuffy
Jul 26 '18 at 12:42
@JamesRandom No, surely not. Might you not ask a friend to keep you a seat at the football match? or to keep you some of that nice pie for when you get home?
– Tuffy
Jul 26 '18 at 12:42
@Tuffy Yes but no but ... I am struggling to work out why "kept you the money" sounds wrong to me while "kept you a seat" sounds OK. And even "kept you some money" might be OK ... Maybe my language intuition has just failed me on this one.
– user184130
Jul 26 '18 at 12:45
@Tuffy Yes but no but ... I am struggling to work out why "kept you the money" sounds wrong to me while "kept you a seat" sounds OK. And even "kept you some money" might be OK ... Maybe my language intuition has just failed me on this one.
– user184130
Jul 26 '18 at 12:45
I kept the money for you. --> *I kept you the money. [You are correct; it's nonsense.] I keep the keys for the manager. --> *I keep the manager the keys. [Nonsense.] I keep secrets for her. --> I keep her secrets. [OK.] I keep secrets for Jill --> *I keep Jill secrets. [Should be "I keep Jill's secrets."]
– Mark Hubbard
Jul 26 '18 at 13:55
I kept the money for you. --> *I kept you the money. [You are correct; it's nonsense.] I keep the keys for the manager. --> *I keep the manager the keys. [Nonsense.] I keep secrets for her. --> I keep her secrets. [OK.] I keep secrets for Jill --> *I keep Jill secrets. [Should be "I keep Jill's secrets."]
– Mark Hubbard
Jul 26 '18 at 13:55
|
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
It belongs in the list in the sense that it's a "double object verb", but not in the sense that it doesn't fit the article's "V + N (indirect object) + N (direct object)" convention.
I think "V + N (indirect object) + N (direct object)" is a simplification of a third, unmentioned rule: "V + , + Prepositional phrase (indirect object) + , + N (direct object)". However, this simplification doesn't work for the verb "to keep" in formal English hence the confusion.
To demonstrate, reconsider your examples with these rules using the format (1) → (2) → (3):
- V + N (direct object) + Prepositional phrase (indirect object)
- V + , + Prepositional phrase (indirect object) + , + N (direct object)
- V + N (indirect object) + N (direct object)
I brought a toy to Katy. → I brought, to Katy, a toy. → I bought Katy a toy.
I bought flowers for my wife. → I bought, for my wife, flowers. → I bought my wife flowers.
I brought a toy to her. → I brought, to her, a toy. → I brought her a toy.
I bought flowers for her. → I bought, for her, flowers. → I bought her flowers.
I kept the money for you. → I kept, for you, the money. → I kept you the money. (colloquial)
I keep the keys for the manager. → I keep, for the manager, the keys.
I keep secrets for her. → I keep, for her, secrets.
I keep secrets for Jill → I keep, for Jill, secrets.
Secondly, your example "I keep her secrets." doesn't fit format (3); in this case, the direct object has changed from "secrets" to "her secrets", and there is no indirect object. As a consequence, there's no ambiguity.
Another example might be helpful:
I keep a secret for her. ≠ I keep her a secret.
In this case, misapplying rule (3) dramatically changes the direct object from "a secret" to "her" and, therefore, completely changes the meaning of the sentence.
answered Jul 26 '18 at 11:41
Patrick DarkPatrick Dark
1012
1
PPs cannot be indirect objects.
– BillJ
Jul 26 '18 at 12:03
@BillJ I don't understand how your comment applies to my answer. Please be more specific.
– Patrick Dark
Jul 26 '18 at 12:26
Thanks Patrick for trying to answer this. I disagree however. Your approach is a lot like that found on the BBC site I referenced. The problem I have with this is that in the standard form the objects of the prepositional phrases are not objects of the verb. The phrases functions are adverbial and indicate the manner of the of the action. Even in the OCi/OCd form the former objects of these prepositions are still performing an adverbial function. It makes no sense to me to call them objects, aside from that it's a well understood convention.
– Ubu English
Jul 26 '18 at 19:11
1
@PatrickDark: This person has some interesting things to say about this issue, and I think his arguments support you ideas to some extent. guinlist.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/…
– Ubu English
Jul 27 '18 at 5:23
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f457468%2fconfusing-syntax-in-sentences-with-indirect-object-complements%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It belongs in the list in the sense that it's a "double object verb", but not in the sense that it doesn't fit the article's "V + N (indirect object) + N (direct object)" convention.
I think "V + N (indirect object) + N (direct object)" is a simplification of a third, unmentioned rule: "V + , + Prepositional phrase (indirect object) + , + N (direct object)". However, this simplification doesn't work for the verb "to keep" in formal English hence the confusion.
To demonstrate, reconsider your examples with these rules using the format (1) → (2) → (3):
- V + N (direct object) + Prepositional phrase (indirect object)
- V + , + Prepositional phrase (indirect object) + , + N (direct object)
- V + N (indirect object) + N (direct object)
I brought a toy to Katy. → I brought, to Katy, a toy. → I bought Katy a toy.
I bought flowers for my wife. → I bought, for my wife, flowers. → I bought my wife flowers.
I brought a toy to her. → I brought, to her, a toy. → I brought her a toy.
I bought flowers for her. → I bought, for her, flowers. → I bought her flowers.
I kept the money for you. → I kept, for you, the money. → I kept you the money. (colloquial)
I keep the keys for the manager. → I keep, for the manager, the keys.
I keep secrets for her. → I keep, for her, secrets.
I keep secrets for Jill → I keep, for Jill, secrets.
Secondly, your example "I keep her secrets." doesn't fit format (3); in this case, the direct object has changed from "secrets" to "her secrets", and there is no indirect object. As a consequence, there's no ambiguity.
Another example might be helpful:
I keep a secret for her. ≠ I keep her a secret.
In this case, misapplying rule (3) dramatically changes the direct object from "a secret" to "her" and, therefore, completely changes the meaning of the sentence.
answered Jul 26 '18 at 11:41
Patrick DarkPatrick Dark
1012
1
PPs cannot be indirect objects.
– BillJ
Jul 26 '18 at 12:03
@BillJ I don't understand how your comment applies to my answer. Please be more specific.
– Patrick Dark
Jul 26 '18 at 12:26
Thanks Patrick for trying to answer this. I disagree however. Your approach is a lot like that found on the BBC site I referenced. The problem I have with this is that in the standard form the objects of the prepositional phrases are not objects of the verb. The phrases functions are adverbial and indicate the manner of the of the action. Even in the OCi/OCd form the former objects of these prepositions are still performing an adverbial function. It makes no sense to me to call them objects, aside from that it's a well understood convention.
– Ubu English
Jul 26 '18 at 19:11
1
@PatrickDark: This person has some interesting things to say about this issue, and I think his arguments support you ideas to some extent. guinlist.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/…
– Ubu English
Jul 27 '18 at 5:23
add a comment |
It belongs in the list in the sense that it's a "double object verb", but not in the sense that it doesn't fit the article's "V + N (indirect object) + N (direct object)" convention.
I think "V + N (indirect object) + N (direct object)" is a simplification of a third, unmentioned rule: "V + , + Prepositional phrase (indirect object) + , + N (direct object)". However, this simplification doesn't work for the verb "to keep" in formal English hence the confusion.
To demonstrate, reconsider your examples with these rules using the format (1) → (2) → (3):
- V + N (direct object) + Prepositional phrase (indirect object)
- V + , + Prepositional phrase (indirect object) + , + N (direct object)
- V + N (indirect object) + N (direct object)
I brought a toy to Katy. → I brought, to Katy, a toy. → I bought Katy a toy.
I bought flowers for my wife. → I bought, for my wife, flowers. → I bought my wife flowers.
I brought a toy to her. → I brought, to her, a toy. → I brought her a toy.
I bought flowers for her. → I bought, for her, flowers. → I bought her flowers.
I kept the money for you. → I kept, for you, the money. → I kept you the money. (colloquial)
I keep the keys for the manager. → I keep, for the manager, the keys.
I keep secrets for her. → I keep, for her, secrets.
I keep secrets for Jill → I keep, for Jill, secrets.
Secondly, your example "I keep her secrets." doesn't fit format (3); in this case, the direct object has changed from "secrets" to "her secrets", and there is no indirect object. As a consequence, there's no ambiguity.
Another example might be helpful:
I keep a secret for her. ≠ I keep her a secret.
In this case, misapplying rule (3) dramatically changes the direct object from "a secret" to "her" and, therefore, completely changes the meaning of the sentence.
answered Jul 26 '18 at 11:41
Patrick DarkPatrick Dark
1012
1
PPs cannot be indirect objects.
– BillJ
Jul 26 '18 at 12:03
@BillJ I don't understand how your comment applies to my answer. Please be more specific.
– Patrick Dark
Jul 26 '18 at 12:26
Thanks Patrick for trying to answer this. I disagree however. Your approach is a lot like that found on the BBC site I referenced. The problem I have with this is that in the standard form the objects of the prepositional phrases are not objects of the verb. The phrases functions are adverbial and indicate the manner of the of the action. Even in the OCi/OCd form the former objects of these prepositions are still performing an adverbial function. It makes no sense to me to call them objects, aside from that it's a well understood convention.
– Ubu English
Jul 26 '18 at 19:11
1
@PatrickDark: This person has some interesting things to say about this issue, and I think his arguments support you ideas to some extent. guinlist.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/…
– Ubu English
Jul 27 '18 at 5:23
add a comment |
It belongs in the list in the sense that it's a "double object verb", but not in the sense that it doesn't fit the article's "V + N (indirect object) + N (direct object)" convention.
I think "V + N (indirect object) + N (direct object)" is a simplification of a third, unmentioned rule: "V + , + Prepositional phrase (indirect object) + , + N (direct object)". However, this simplification doesn't work for the verb "to keep" in formal English hence the confusion.
To demonstrate, reconsider your examples with these rules using the format (1) → (2) → (3):
- V + N (direct object) + Prepositional phrase (indirect object)
- V + , + Prepositional phrase (indirect object) + , + N (direct object)
- V + N (indirect object) + N (direct object)
I brought a toy to Katy. → I brought, to Katy, a toy. → I bought Katy a toy.
I bought flowers for my wife. → I bought, for my wife, flowers. → I bought my wife flowers.
I brought a toy to her. → I brought, to her, a toy. → I brought her a toy.
I bought flowers for her. → I bought, for her, flowers. → I bought her flowers.
I kept the money for you. → I kept, for you, the money. → I kept you the money. (colloquial)
I keep the keys for the manager. → I keep, for the manager, the keys.
I keep secrets for her. → I keep, for her, secrets.
I keep secrets for Jill → I keep, for Jill, secrets.
Secondly, your example "I keep her secrets." doesn't fit format (3); in this case, the direct object has changed from "secrets" to "her secrets", and there is no indirect object. As a consequence, there's no ambiguity.
Another example might be helpful:
I keep a secret for her. ≠ I keep her a secret.
In this case, misapplying rule (3) dramatically changes the direct object from "a secret" to "her" and, therefore, completely changes the meaning of the sentence.
answered Jul 26 '18 at 11:41
Patrick DarkPatrick Dark
1012
It belongs in the list in the sense that it's a "double object verb", but not in the sense that it doesn't fit the article's "V + N (indirect object) + N (direct object)" convention.
I think "V + N (indirect object) + N (direct object)" is a simplification of a third, unmentioned rule: "V + , + Prepositional phrase (indirect object) + , + N (direct object)". However, this simplification doesn't work for the verb "to keep" in formal English hence the confusion.
To demonstrate, reconsider your examples with these rules using the format (1) → (2) → (3):
- V + N (direct object) + Prepositional phrase (indirect object)
- V + , + Prepositional phrase (indirect object) + , + N (direct object)
- V + N (indirect object) + N (direct object)
I brought a toy to Katy. → I brought, to Katy, a toy. → I bought Katy a toy.
I bought flowers for my wife. → I bought, for my wife, flowers. → I bought my wife flowers.
I brought a toy to her. → I brought, to her, a toy. → I brought her a toy.
I bought flowers for her. → I bought, for her, flowers. → I bought her flowers.
I kept the money for you. → I kept, for you, the money. → I kept you the money. (colloquial)
I keep the keys for the manager. → I keep, for the manager, the keys.
I keep secrets for her. → I keep, for her, secrets.
I keep secrets for Jill → I keep, for Jill, secrets.
Secondly, your example "I keep her secrets." doesn't fit format (3); in this case, the direct object has changed from "secrets" to "her secrets", and there is no indirect object. As a consequence, there's no ambiguity.
Another example might be helpful:
I keep a secret for her. ≠ I keep her a secret.
In this case, misapplying rule (3) dramatically changes the direct object from "a secret" to "her" and, therefore, completely changes the meaning of the sentence.
answered Jul 26 '18 at 11:41
Patrick DarkPatrick Dark
1012
answered Jul 26 '18 at 11:41
Patrick DarkPatrick Dark
1012
answered Jul 26 '18 at 11:41
Patrick DarkPatrick Dark
1012
answered Jul 26 '18 at 11:41
Patrick DarkPatrick Dark
1012
1012
1
PPs cannot be indirect objects.
– BillJ
Jul 26 '18 at 12:03
@BillJ I don't understand how your comment applies to my answer. Please be more specific.
– Patrick Dark
Jul 26 '18 at 12:26
Thanks Patrick for trying to answer this. I disagree however. Your approach is a lot like that found on the BBC site I referenced. The problem I have with this is that in the standard form the objects of the prepositional phrases are not objects of the verb. The phrases functions are adverbial and indicate the manner of the of the action. Even in the OCi/OCd form the former objects of these prepositions are still performing an adverbial function. It makes no sense to me to call them objects, aside from that it's a well understood convention.
– Ubu English
Jul 26 '18 at 19:11
1
@PatrickDark: This person has some interesting things to say about this issue, and I think his arguments support you ideas to some extent. guinlist.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/…
– Ubu English
Jul 27 '18 at 5:23
add a comment |
1
PPs cannot be indirect objects.
– BillJ
Jul 26 '18 at 12:03
@BillJ I don't understand how your comment applies to my answer. Please be more specific.
– Patrick Dark
Jul 26 '18 at 12:26
Thanks Patrick for trying to answer this. I disagree however. Your approach is a lot like that found on the BBC site I referenced. The problem I have with this is that in the standard form the objects of the prepositional phrases are not objects of the verb. The phrases functions are adverbial and indicate the manner of the of the action. Even in the OCi/OCd form the former objects of these prepositions are still performing an adverbial function. It makes no sense to me to call them objects, aside from that it's a well understood convention.
– Ubu English
Jul 26 '18 at 19:11
1
@PatrickDark: This person has some interesting things to say about this issue, and I think his arguments support you ideas to some extent. guinlist.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/…
– Ubu English
Jul 27 '18 at 5:23
1
1
PPs cannot be indirect objects.
– BillJ
Jul 26 '18 at 12:03
PPs cannot be indirect objects.
– BillJ
Jul 26 '18 at 12:03
@BillJ I don't understand how your comment applies to my answer. Please be more specific.
– Patrick Dark
Jul 26 '18 at 12:26
@BillJ I don't understand how your comment applies to my answer. Please be more specific.
– Patrick Dark
Jul 26 '18 at 12:26
Thanks Patrick for trying to answer this. I disagree however. Your approach is a lot like that found on the BBC site I referenced. The problem I have with this is that in the standard form the objects of the prepositional phrases are not objects of the verb. The phrases functions are adverbial and indicate the manner of the of the action. Even in the OCi/OCd form the former objects of these prepositions are still performing an adverbial function. It makes no sense to me to call them objects, aside from that it's a well understood convention.
– Ubu English
Jul 26 '18 at 19:11
Thanks Patrick for trying to answer this. I disagree however. Your approach is a lot like that found on the BBC site I referenced. The problem I have with this is that in the standard form the objects of the prepositional phrases are not objects of the verb. The phrases functions are adverbial and indicate the manner of the of the action. Even in the OCi/OCd form the former objects of these prepositions are still performing an adverbial function. It makes no sense to me to call them objects, aside from that it's a well understood convention.
– Ubu English
Jul 26 '18 at 19:11
1
1
@PatrickDark: This person has some interesting things to say about this issue, and I think his arguments support you ideas to some extent. guinlist.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/…
– Ubu English
Jul 27 '18 at 5:23
@PatrickDark: This person has some interesting things to say about this issue, and I think his arguments support you ideas to some extent. guinlist.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/…
– Ubu English
Jul 27 '18 at 5:23
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f457468%2fconfusing-syntax-in-sentences-with-indirect-object-complements%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
This could be an interesting question. However, I do not think it is a matter of ambiguous syntax. It is sentences rather than the syntax that can be ambiguous - ie have more than one possible meaning. 2 and 4 are ambiguous because their syntax could be construed differently. This is so because, as it happens, for the feminine possessive adjective, there is no difference between the objective and possessive forms (‘her’/‘her’).
– Tuffy
Jul 26 '18 at 11:52
1
"I kept you the money" also seems ungrammatical to me.
– user184130
Jul 26 '18 at 12:33
1
@JamesRandom No, surely not. Might you not ask a friend to keep you a seat at the football match? or to keep you some of that nice pie for when you get home?
– Tuffy
Jul 26 '18 at 12:42
@Tuffy Yes but no but ... I am struggling to work out why "kept you the money" sounds wrong to me while "kept you a seat" sounds OK. And even "kept you some money" might be OK ... Maybe my language intuition has just failed me on this one.
– user184130
Jul 26 '18 at 12:45
I kept the money for you. --> *I kept you the money. [You are correct; it's nonsense.] I keep the keys for the manager. --> *I keep the manager the keys. [Nonsense.] I keep secrets for her. --> I keep her secrets. [OK.] I keep secrets for Jill --> *I keep Jill secrets. [Should be "I keep Jill's secrets."]
– Mark Hubbard
Jul 26 '18 at 13:55