 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006"Write somebody" ambiguity
I'd always assumed that the "to"-less AmE "write someone" was a fairly neat and economical way of doing things (after all we don't "call to someone" or "text to someone", so why "write to someone"?), but I've just come across a case where it's ambiguously garden-pathy: We should be writing all those blogs in that list persistently and relentlessly, demanding that they address the problem -- <http://cannonfire.blogspot.com> Since the person who wrote that is a blogger himself -- he writes blog entries -- I first read that the wrong way. Is this just a rare (hi, Daniel!) instance that crops up every once in a blue moon or do AmE users of "to"-less "write" come across it fairly regularly?  SignatureRoss Howard T. H. Entity wrote: > I'd always assumed that the "to"-less AmE "write someone" was a fairly > neat and economical way of doing things (after all we don't "call to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > a blue moon or do AmE users of "to"-less "write" come across it fairly > regularly? In German this would not occur, because the dative case 'ihm' indicates 'to-ness'. One can say 'mir' on the soccer field and everyone understands that you want the ball to be passed to you. In English, unfortunately, it's not so simple. "To write to" is standard and I would never omit the 'to', just to be sure. > In German this would not occur, because the dative case 'ihm' indicates > 'to-ness'. One can say 'mir' on the soccer field and everyone > understands that you want the ball to be passed to you. > > In English, unfortunately, it's not so simple. "To write to" is > standard and I would never omit the 'to', just to be sure. This had been discussed before and quite recently. Don't forget that although we do not say "I'll write you", if the direct object is added as in "I'll write you a letter", it is in fact quite normal. SignatureRob Bannister >> In German this would not occur, because the dative case 'ihm' >> indicates 'to-ness'. One can say 'mir' on the soccer field and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > although we do not say "I'll write you", if the direct object is added > as in "I'll write you a letter", it is in fact quite normal. What do you mean "we", Aussie guy? In AmE "I'll write you" is quite unremarkable. From M-W Online: Main Entry: write [...] transitive verb [...] 4 : to communicate with in writing <we'll write you when we get there> [...] SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >>> In German this would not occur, because the dative case 'ihm' >>> indicates 'to-ness'. One can say 'mir' on the soccer field and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > In AmE "I'll write you" is quite unremarkable. Sorry. For some reason, I always think UC is British, and his apparent dislike of "write" without "to" does suggest that. SignatureRob Bannister >Is this just a rare (hi, Daniel!) instance that crops up every once in >a blue moon or do AmE users of "to"-less "write" come across it fairly >regularly? The ambiguity theoretically exists in every sentence that uses the indirect object in this way. (I don't believe there is any such thing as "'to'-less 'write'", any more than there is a "'to'-less 'give'" or a "'to'-less 'show'". It's just an ordinary indirect object, that's all.) Somehow we manage to muddle through; predicates of the form <verb> <noun-phrase> <noun-phrase> are not particularly uncommon. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness > I'd always assumed that the "to"-less AmE "write someone" was a fairly > neat and economical way of doing things (after all we don't "call to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > a blue moon or do AmE users of "to"-less "write" come across it fairly > regularly? I can't think of any object but "blogs" that would cause this problem. (Maybe "programs"?) Certainly the writer should have said "write to all those blogs" or "write all those bloggers", but the ambiguity would be easy for a writer to miss. SignatureJerry Friedman jerry_friedman@yahoo.com filted: >> I'd always assumed that the "to"-less AmE "write someone" was a fairly >> neat and economical way of doing things (after all we don't "call to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >all those blogs" or "write all those bloggers", but the ambiguity would >be easy for a writer to miss. You're right; there's no other object where this ambiguity arises...I shall have to write the newspapers about it....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. >Is this just a rare (hi, Daniel!) instance that crops up every once in >a blue moon or do AmE users of "to"-less "write" come across it fairly >regularly? Why did you say "(hi, Daniel!)"? daniel mcgrath SignatureDaniel Gerard McGrath, a/k/a "Govende": for e-mail replace "invalid" with "com" Developmentally disabled; has Autism (Pervasive Developmental Disorder), Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, & periodic bouts of depression. [This signature is under construction.] It may be helpful to remember that a preposition in English serves the purpose of informing the direction, location or postion of the object in relation to the subject. Thus, if the verb is acting on that which comes directly after it, then no preposition is required. Example: Tom hit Bill. Bill is being acted upon. The work following the verb is what the verb is doing. To whom or to where the verb is doing it must be stated with the preoposition to. In your exmaple the author means that he is, or should be (as he says) writng blogs. He is authoring, composing the blogs. If that is not what he meant to say, then his English is just plain "bad." > I'd always assumed that the "to"-less AmE "write someone" was a fairly > neat and economical way of doing things (after all we don't "call to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > Ross Howard saiah@saiah.net <saiah@saiah.net> had it: > It may be helpful to remember that a preposition in English serves the > purpose of informing the direction, location or postion of the object [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > authoring, composing the blogs. If that is not what he meant to say, > then his English is just plain "bad." But you didn't address THE's question. Put simply, why is it standard in many native English speakers' language to say: I will text him. I will phone him. but never: I will write him. SignatureDavid ===== > But you didn't address THE's question. Put simply, why is it > standard in many native English speakers' language to say: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I will write him. Maybe in BrE+ letter-writing never got to an appropriate stage of informality. SignatureBuckwheat Soba > saiah@saiah.net <saiah@saiah.net> had it: >> It may be helpful to remember that a preposition in English serves the >> purpose of informing the direction, location or postion of the object [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> authoring, composing the blogs. If that is not what he meant to say, >> then his English is just plain "bad." > But you didn't address THE's question. Put simply, why is it > standard in many native English speakers' language to say: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I will write him. The verb "to write" has an object, and an indirect object. The direct object is the text being written, the indirect object the person it is addressed to. There are many things which could be the direct object (an email, a letter, a memo etc), and it can be used without an indirect object. There is too strong a sense that there must be a direct object for the indirect object to fill that space. "I will write to him" has the impllict direct object "a letter". Compare with the verb "to give" which must also have a direct and indirect object. Note that, just as "I will give him a surprise" is fine, so is "I will write him a letter". So "I will write him" is ok with "him" servinhg as the indirect object when followed by the direct object. The verb "to text" can be used in this way, as in "I will text him this message" or "I will text this message to him" (imagine saying this while showing a message on the screen). But this usage is so rare that in gneral the recepient of the message becomes the direct object. I can't think of any case where the verb "to phone" has an explicit direct object so the recepient of the phone call becomes the indirect object. Matthew Huntbach Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> had it: > > But you didn't address THE's question. Put simply, why is it > > standard in many native English speakers' language to say: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > which must also have a direct and indirect object. Note that, just as > "I will give him a surprise" is fine, so is "I will write him a letter". > So "I will write him" is ok with "him" servinhg as the indirect object > when followed by the direct object. It's certainly possible to accept that it's OK, but you and I would not say it and we think it sounds odd. SignatureDavid ===== It is helpful and interesting to try to codify English grammar into neat little compartments with rules that are hard and fast and always work. The basic trutth of this language is that is does not work that way. The grammar s we use are Latin grammars and they doe not fit this language well. We also lack the hard, true, always doen this way rules of nost other language families. Remmebr that Latin and its family is Italic and are inflectional languages usign an inflectional grammar. English is a syntactical language, thus position of the words, both content and functional words, not only influences, but directs meaning and how and why we say things the way we do. The way we structure sentences has evolved over a couple of thousand years and grammar is an after-the-fact way of trying to make sense of and understand the language. It is not the other way around - grammar did not create the language and it is not how we learn or create language still. Sometimes (actually often) there will be exceptions to a rule, if you can indeed nail down a rule. I find it helpful to look for patterns - multiple ways of doing a thing, rather than a single rule. In this case: I will text him. I will write him. I will show him. I will tell him. But. . . I will speak to him. I will talk to him. I will walk with him. In both groups the direct object is implied and the syntax is S-V-O. The reason the two groups differe in respect to use of a preposition before the objective personal pronoun in the functional postion of indirect object, is the verb. Some verbs require it and some verbs do not, and this is a point which, in order to speak this language correctly, must simply be memorized. Also note: this pattern must be memorized for verbs followed by indirect object personal pronouns. You must recognize a different pattern when the vern is followed by a noun (requires an article) as the direct object. Example: I should write the blog. I will write the blog. In this case the noun is preceded by an article. If the preopositin to is inserted "I will write to the blog," the meanign is changed. In this case the better choice, if this is your intent, would be, "I will address the blog," or "I will write to the blogger." I good case in point is that students must be taught to say: "I will tell him" "I will speak to him." "I will talk to him." "I will say to him." There is no rule of grammar to follow in this other than that it is the verb that controls which way to do it. > saiah@saiah.net <saiah@saiah.net> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I will write him. saiah@saiah.net <saiah@saiah.net> had it: > It is helpful and interesting to try to codify English grammar into > neat little compartments with rules that are hard and fast and always [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of nost other language families. Remmebr that Latin and its family is > Italic and are inflectional languages usign an inflectional grammar. Right. If you say so. SignatureDavid ===== |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.