Objects?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Dara - 28 Dec 2003 03:03 GMT

Pls. help clarify direct and indirect objects. According to grammar book it
define as following: 1. A direct objects is a noun, pronoun, or group of
words acting as a noun that receives the action of a transitive verb. 2. An
indirect objects is a noun, pronoun, or group of words acting as a noun that
tells to whom or for whom the action expressed by a transitive verb was
done.

thanks
Dara

Reply to this Message

frank green - 29 Dec 2003 15:33 GMT

> Pls. help clarify direct and indirect objects. According to grammar book it
> define as following: 1. A direct objects is a noun, pronoun, or group of
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> thanks
> Dara

Examples:
Tom hit the ball.
Tom hit the ball to me.
Tom hit the ball for me.
Tom hit the ball to me for Joe. (Strained but possible.)

Reply to this Message

Cece - 30 Dec 2003 21:07 GMT

> > Pls. help clarify direct and indirect objects. According to grammar book
> it
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Tom hit the ball for me.
> Tom hit the ball to me for Joe. (Strained but possible.)

In the examples above, "ball" is the direct object. "Me" and "Joe"
are objects of prepositions, not indirect objects.

Other examples:
Tom gave a book to me. --"book" is direct object; "me" is object of
prepostion.
Tom gave me a book. --"book" is direct object; "me" is indirect
object.

Cece

Reply to this Message

Mark Wallace - 31 Dec 2003 23:14 GMT

> > > Pls. help clarify direct and indirect objects. According to grammar book
> > it
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> In the examples above, "ball" is the direct object. "Me" and "Joe"
> are objects of prepositions, not indirect objects.

Don't do that.
They are indirect objects, even if the school of thought you learned from
preferred to call 'indirect objects' 'objects of prepositions'.
The object of a preposition, in all the examples you cite, above, is also
called the indirect object of the verb, in different schools. It's only
certain (and rather silly) schools of thought that give more importance to
prepositions than verbs.

> Other examples:
> Tom gave a book to me. --"book" is direct object; "me" is object of
> prepostion.
> Tom gave me a book. --"book" is direct object; "me" is indirect
> object.

How about "Tom gave to me a book", which is a more accurate (and
grammatically super-duper) transition?

The preposition is comparatively worthless; what counts is how the nomonals
interact with the verb.

--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/
-----------------------------------------------------

Reply to this Message

The Grammer Genious - 01 Jan 2004 04:28 GMT

>>"frank green" <frankgrn@comcast.net> wrote in message

>>>Examples:
>>>Tom hit the ball.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> They are indirect objects, even if the school of thought you learned from
> preferred to call 'indirect objects' 'objects of prepositions'. <...>

You're right. I think the reason people want to make a
distinction between bare pronoun indirect objects and those after
prepositions is that they are confusing English grammar with that
of languages that have grammatical case (which English doesn't
have); specifically, the dative case.

Think how sensible and straightforward English classes would have
been if the teachers hadn't been laboring under the silly
misapprehension that the peculiar grammar of one teensy little
language (Latin) somehow applied to all the world's other
thousands of languages.

\\P. Schultz

Reply to this Message

Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004

Objects?