Another doubt

Question

I wrote: "...we'll send them back to you..."
but a student of mine suggested: "we'll send you them back..."
Can I accept this version? I can't exactly explain why, but it sounds strange to me.
many thanks once again
Quaqqui

Maverick88 · Accepted Answer

we'll send them back to you] says that you will send it to the person you are talking (or whateva) to.
we'll send them back] this probably indicates that 'they' will be sent back to the sender

But that's only my opinion and I am far from being a teacher

Paco2004 · Answer

Hello Quaqqui

I too am a mere English learner, but let me try to answer your question.
I'm sure any moderator will come to help me if I made a wrong answer.

Let me modify your two sentences as follows ("back" doesn't matter much in the discussion).
(1) I'll send it to you.
(2) I'll send you it.
The two sentences are grammatically correct and almost same in the meaning.
(1) can be paraphrased as "I'll cause it to move towards you"
(2) can be paraphrased as "I'll cause you to get it".
The difference is (1) emphasizes more on movement of 'it' and (2) more on receiver's getting 'it'.

Actually English speakers seem to prefer (1) to (2), however.
The numbers of google sites using the two sentences are;
(1) I'll send it to you. (all domains) 49800/(edu) 734/(uk) 2210
(2) I'll send you it. (all domains) 2220/(edu) 31/(uk) 330
When hearing (2) most native speakers seem to feel 'it' is peculiarly stressed.
But queerly they feel "I'll send you a letter" is as natural as "I'll send a letter to you".

There seems to be no good theory to explain this phenomenon.
Maybe we English learners have to accept it without reasoning it.

paco

CalifJim · Answer

"We'll send you them back" is not a particularly felicitous construction!

For the most idiomatic patterns, you'll need one of these:

We send the letter to John.
We send John the letter.

We send it to John.
(Not: We send John it.)

We send the letter to him.
We send him the letter.

We send it to him.
(Not: We send him it.)

We send the letter back to John.

We send it back to John.

We send the letter back to him.

We send it back to him.

I think this amounts to saying that when the direct object is pronomialized it must occur before the indirect object, which must then be expressed in a "to"-phrase, and if a phrasal verb (like "send back") is involved, the particle ("back") must occur before the "to"-phrase which introduces the indirect object.

Others: I'll bring it down to him. NOT: I'll bring him it down. NOR I'll bring down it to him. ETC.

Does that sound right?

Another doubt

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions