A catenative verb and a direct object

JumanahDo" to go" and " to have" function as a catenative verb or as a direct object?

Direct objects are noun phrases. "to go there tomorrow" and "to have this done tomorrow" are not noun phrases. I would call them simply complements of the verb "need". (You may have an old textbook that says these are direct objects, but few people analyze sentences that w

The article at http://www.brighthubeducation.com/esl-lesson-plans/56360-catenative-verbs-linking-verbs-in-english/ says "The verb that follows a catenative functions as either a verb phrase complement or a direct object", apparently based on whether the verb is normally intransitive

Dear all:

CalifJimDirect objects are noun phrases.

Prototypically, yes. At least Pullum & Huddlestone see it that way. Who are we to challenge the authorities?

However, In Quirk grammar it is perfectly okay to have to-clauses functioning as direct objects, and a lot of Quirk's ideas still enjoy wide currency, not to say anything about Mr. George

Andriy LapinIn Quirk grammar it is perfectly okay to have to-clauses functioning as direct objects

But I saw a book a website that explains direct objects and catenative verbs.
For example,
I prefer to watch basketball.
It says that " to go" is a direct object although it has a to-infinitive form.

JumanahBut I saw a book a website that explains direct objects and catenative verbs.For example, I prefer to watch basketball.It says that " to go" is a direct object although it has a to-infinitive form.

If you wish to follow the methodology in that book, you are certainly free to do so. However, that raises the question of why you posted the question at all

JumanahBut I saw a book a website that explains direct objects and catenative verbs.For example, I prefer to watch basketball.It says that " to go" is a direct object although it has a to-infinitive form.

Some people use that terminology. Other people think it is not so appropriate. One problem with it (in my view) is that direct objects are expected to be nou

CalifJimWe have to keep in mind the difference between being an X and functioning as (if it were) an X (while not being an X).

We've talked about that several years ago, CJ. Let's make it a bit more straightforward: certain grammarians (Quirk included) are of the opinion that to-infinitive clauses can function as direct objects. You say that "direct obj

Andriy LapinYou say that "direct objects are noun phrases" ... your intended meaning?

... by which I mean that all direct objects are noun phrases, but not that all noun phrases are direct objects, for goodness' sake!

Dear Jumanah:

JumanahI saw a book a website

So did I on many occasions, but it's always better to mention its title and authors. Some of them are outdated, and some are completely wrong by any standard. It's important to use only proven sources.

JumanahIt says that " to go" is a direct object although it has a to-infinitive form.