0
Rishonly Posted 20 years ago
Grammar
Ditransitive Verb (Sentence formation)
I was reading about ditransitive verbs , and the online guide gave following rules and examples:
First rule: When the indirect object receives the direct object, you change the ditransitive sentence structure from 'S + V + IO + DO' to 'S + V + DO + to + IO'.
(E-x)
(1) 'He will write her a letter professing his love' is changed as 'He will write a letter professing his love to her.'
Second rule:When the indirect object has the action of the verb done for them, you change the ditransitive sentence structure from 'S+V+IO+DO' to 'S+V+DO+for+IO'.
(E-x)
(2) 'Jarod cooked Milia a fantastic gourmet dinner.' is changed as 'Jarod cooked a fantastic gourmet dinner for Milia.'
My questions:
(a) Even in the first sentence, the indirect object 'her' has the action (write) of the verb done for her. So , why can't we say 'He will write a letter professing his love for her'.
(b) In the second sentence, the indirect object 'Milia' receives the 'direct object'. So, why can't we say 'Jarod cooked a fantastic gourmet dinner to Milia'.
Although the sentences (a) and (b) seem grammatically tongue-tied , it seems to me that both rules can be applied to both sentences. I guess I am missing a core point here. Please clarify.
First rule: When the indirect object receives the direct object, you change the ditransitive sentence structure from 'S + V + IO + DO' to 'S + V + DO + to + IO'.
(E-x)
(1) 'He will write her a letter professing his love' is changed as 'He will write a letter professing his love to her.'
Second rule:When the indirect object has the action of the verb done for them, you change the ditransitive sentence structure from 'S+V+IO+DO' to 'S+V+DO+for+IO'.
(E-x)
(2) 'Jarod cooked Milia a fantastic gourmet dinner.' is changed as 'Jarod cooked a fantastic gourmet dinner for Milia.'
My questions:
(a) Even in the first sentence, the indirect object 'her' has the action (write) of the verb done for her. So , why can't we say 'He will write a letter professing his love for her'.
(b) In the second sentence, the indirect object 'Milia' receives the 'direct object'. So, why can't we say 'Jarod cooked a fantastic gourmet dinner to Milia'.
Although the sentences (a) and (b) seem grammatically tongue-tied , it seems to me that both rules can be applied to both sentences. I guess I am missing a core point here. Please clarify.
Top answer
are you sure it's 'his love to her'? i think it should be 'his love for her'
- are you sure it's 'his love to her'?
- i think it should be 'his love for her'
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
30 Answers
0
are you sure it's 'his love to her'? i think it should be 'his love for her'
00
0
rishonly,
These are not the best examples, nor the best conceptualization, for this topic in grammar. It would be better, in my opinion, to learn each verb separately or in groups. Some take the double object construction only [1]. Some take the prepositional construction only [2]. Some take both the double object construction and the prepositional construction [3]. For those
These are not the best examples, nor the best conceptualization, for this topic in grammar. It would be better, in my opinion, to learn each verb separately or in groups. Some take the double object construction only [1]. Some take the prepositional construction only [2]. Some take both the double object construction and the prepositional construction [3]. For those
00
Thanks for your explanation, CJ. I took the examples from grammarstation.com. So, the verbs really decide the right prepositions--for/to, not these two rules. Right? Would you mind giving a couple of examples based on these two rules. I have a tough time in distinguishing or visualizing the difference between first rule from second rule.
00
Yes, the verb determines whether "for" or "to" is the preposition.
The point I was trying to make was that the rules don't work!
The rules attempt to make it a matter of formulas for changing double object constructions into prepositional constructions. The problem is that some verbs take only the double object constructions, so they cannot be changed into prepositional constr
The point I was trying to make was that the rules don't work!
The rules attempt to make it a matter of formulas for changing double object constructions into prepositional constructions. The problem is that some verbs take only the double object constructions, so they cannot be changed into prepositional constr
00
0
Hi Jim, your explanations are just fantastic. I'll study them all carefully.
So how would you analyse this sentence:
'He will write her a letter professing his love.'
he = subject / will write = ditransitive verb /
her = indirect object / a letter = direct object /
professing her love = ?? adverbial of purpose ??
See you,
H
So how would you analyse this sentence:
'He will write her a letter professing his love.'
he = subject / will write = ditransitive verb /
her = indirect object / a letter = direct object /
professing her love = ?? adverbial of purpose ??
See you,
H
00
Hela,
Your analysis is quite acceptable.
A second possibility is that "professing his love" is an adjectival construction modifying "letter", but I like your idea better.
Jim
Your analysis is quite acceptable.
A second possibility is that "professing his love" is an adjectival construction modifying "letter", but I like your idea better.
Jim
00
Dear Jim,
When you say that "professing his love is an adjectival construction modifying letter" aren't you giving the form rather than the function of the sentence element ?
Have a nice day,
Hela
When you say that "professing his love is an adjectival construction modifying letter" aren't you giving the form rather than the function of the sentence element ?
Have a nice day,
Hela
00
Hela,
Form rather than function? I confess I have no idea! I suspect you are right.
Jim
Form rather than function? I confess I have no idea! I suspect you are right.
Jim
0
Related Questions