Direct Objects

Question

I am almost positive about this but can a prepositional phrase act as a direct object?

Also, can a prepositional phrase act as an indirect object?

For example:

We waited for him for two hours.

'for him" Indirect Object

'for two hours' Direct object

Correct?

Meteorquake · Accepted Answer

That's fine.

We waited for him for two hours for a surprise

d

CalifJim · Answer

Anonymouscan a prepositional phrase act as a direct object?

No. You need a noun phrase for any kind of object.

CJ

Grammarfreak · Answer

Hi CJ,
Just out of curiosity, if you don't mind, how would you approach this sentence as far as the discussed topic is concerned ?

We waited 10 years for this day! Question: Is "10 years" considered an adverbial or a noun ? What about "for this day" ? I see it as a prep. phrase. Do you agree?
If I change the structure a little and say:
I waited for her to finish homework. How is it different?

Thanks,

Meteorquake · Answer

I should have looked at your question again after responding!
I was just commenting on your phrase being fine - for grammatical terminology, go by what CJ and others may say.
d

CalifJim · Answer

grammarfreakWe waited 10 years for this day! Question: Is "10 years" considered an adverbial or a noun ?

I would consider it both. A noun can be an adverbial (though it doesn't happen very often). "year" fits into the word category "noun", and "10 years" is just a variant of that noun. On the other hand, in the given sentence "10 years" answers "how long?", which is an adverbial function. It's a matter of separating what a word "is" from what a word "does".

grammarfreakWhat about "for this day" ? I see it as a prep. phrase. Do you agree?

Yes, it's a prepositional phrase.

grammarfreakI waited for her to finish homework. How is it different?

In one case you waited for 'this day' (a point in time specified directly); in the other case you waited for 'her to finish' (a point in time specified indirectly by mentioning the whole action). I see for her to finish her homework as an infinitival clause. It's the infinitival way of saying she finished her homework, which is the event you were waiting for. English grammar doesn't allow a 'normal' clause there. Since it's wrong to say I waited for that she finished her homework, we use an infinitival clause instead.

for often introduces this kind of clause: It is important for Chris to be on time.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

This is an interesting question, because native English speakers, knowing the language by instinct, don't think about things like this. One's first reaction would be that an object, direct or indirect, is a noun, so a prepositional phrase, which is not usually considered to be a noun, could not be an object of a verb. However, consider the following:

He gave me the book. ("Gave" is transitive, "the book" is its direct object, and "me" is the indirect object. However, "me" is really "to me," and that looks much like a prep. phrase.)

He gave the book to me. (The is the same as above, and "to me" looks like a prep. phrase.)

He kept the book for me. (In this type of sentence, "me" is considered the indirect obj. of the trans. verb, and "for me" looks much like a prep. phrase.)

In the sentence, "We waited for him for two hrs.", the verb "waited" is intransitive, so the idea of an obj., direct or indirect, does not come up here.

Anonymous · Answer

In the sentence, "We waited 10 yrs. for this day.", again, the verb "waited" is intransitive, and so the idea of an obj., direct or indirect, is not applicable here.

Note that almost all verbs in English can be trans. or intrans., but in the sentence, "We waited 10 yrs. for this day.", "waited" is an intrans. verb. "Wait" apparently can be trans., for example, in the sentence: "We waited the required period and then left." (The difference here is that "waited" "performs and action on" "period," and thus is trans., while in "We waited 10 yrs." "waited" "does not perform and action on" 10 yrs. and so is intrans.) Here "period" is apparently the dir. obj. of the trans. verb "waited." In the sentence, "We waited the required period for the train.", "period" is apparently the dir. obj. and "train" is apparently the indir. obj.

Grammarfreak · Answer

Thank you CJ for the reply. I am glad your explanation seemed to validate my understanding. I wasn't so concerned about the original question on object and indirect object. However, in the sentence " I waited for him for two hours ", I personally prefer to write it as " I waited two hours for him " just so we can remove the extra "for" to make the sentence flow more smoothly. But that's just my interpretation
That being said, with this version, would you agree " two hours for him " is a noun phrase which performs as an adverbial phrase modifying " I waited ...."

Thanks,

CalifJim · Answer

grammarfreakwould you agree " two hours for him " is a noun phrase which performs as an adverbial phrase modifying " I waited ...."

No, they don't combine like that. (I) [ waited for him ] is one unit, and (I) [ waited two hours ] is another, but [ two hours for him ] doesn't go together as a unit. So two hours (a noun phrase) modifies waited, and for him (a prepositional phrase) modifies waited, but the two modifying phrases do their modifying separately. for him doesn't modify or go with two hours to make a separate meaning unit, if that's what you might be thinking.

grammarfreak I personally prefer to write it as " I waited two hours for him " just so we can remove the extra "for" to make the sentence flow more smoothly.

Yes, that's perfectly fine. I don't see any problems with that interpretation.

CJ

Grammarfreak · Answer

Thanks CJ, Got it!

Direct Objects

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions