Direct and indirect objects

Question

HiCould someone explain please what is the the grammatical difference between these two sentences :I gave the man the ballI gave the ball to the manCheers

New Hope · Accepted Answer

As a general rule, you give something (ball) to somebody (man) or you give somebody (man) something (ball).

Canadian45 · Answer

Anonymous......Could someone explain please what ~~is the~~ the grammatical difference between these two sentences is.
I gave the man the ball. indirect object, then direct object
I gave the ball to the man. direct object, then indirect object

Fivejedjon · Answer

canadian45I gave the ball to the man. direct object, then indirect object

Some would say that 'the man' in that sentence is the object of the preposition 'to', not an indirect object.

CalifJim · Answer

Anonymouswhat is the the grammatical difference

Grammatical difference?

After the verb there's an indirect object and then a direct object in the first one, and in the second one the indirect object is moved to the end after the preposition 'to', leaving the direct object immediately after the verb.

You didn't see that? It's a typical alternation in English. Verb Y X / Verb X to Y.

CJ

Canadian45 · Answer

fivejedjoncanadian45I gave the ball to the man. direct object, then indirect object.
Some would say that 'the man' in that sentence is the object of the preposition 'to', not an indirect object.

I think that is questionable. Just because "the man" follows the preposition doesn't mean it can't still be an indirect object of the verb.

CalifJim · Answer

canadian45 fivejedjoncanadian45I gave the ball to the man. direct object, then indirect object.Some would say that 'the man' in that sentence is the object of the preposition 'to', not an indirect object.I think that is questionable. Just because "the man" follows the preposition doesn't mean it can't still be an indirect object of the verb.

Huddleston grants that traditional grammars apply the term 'indirect object' in both configurations — as a NP complement of the verb and as a PP complement of 'to' — but argues that "such an analysis reflects the identity of the associated semantic role, ('recipient', let us call it), but is not ... justifiable from a syntactic point of view." [Emphasis mine.]

He argues further that if Liz is the indirect object in both 1 and 2 below, as it only can be on semantic grounds, then Liz is also the indirect object in 3. (Semantically, she is the recipient in all three sentences.) If we are unwilling to say it's the indirect object in 3 on syntactic grounds, then we should be equally unwilling to say it's the indirect object in 2 on the same grounds.

1 Ed gave Liz the key.
2 Ed gave the key to Liz.
3 Liz was given the key by Ed.

He seems to think (reasonably, I'd say) that you can't do an analysis that's partly semantic and partly syntactic, and if you choose a semantic approach, you end up calling the subject of 3 an indirect object, which is not a good idea.

That said, my feathers aren't the least bit ruffled if people want to call the complement of 'to' in those cases an indirect object.

CJ

(Rodney Huddleston, Introduction to the Grammar of English, Cambridge University Press, 1984.)

Direct and indirect objects

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions