D.O x I.O and my Assumption

Question

It's difficult to understand this subject,but my assumption is: direct object suffer the action ,indirect object is where the action goes,the direction. For example: I gave her the bread - the bread was given to her, the bread suffered the action of being given, and was given to her,its where the action goes.That's how I understand. So,in this sentence: I told her to buy milk.-to buy milk was told(suffered the action) her( direction);therefore, -to buy milk-D.O/her-I.O. That's how I understand this whole thing,Am I right? if not ,give me the right answer and tell me  why my assumption din't work in the sentence.

Persian Learner · Accepted Answer

Direct object receives the action of the verb, and the indirect object receives the direct object.

e.g. I gave him the book.

The action of giving is performed on 'the book' and 'him' receives the book.

-----------------

hi123I told her to buy milk.

For such constructions, in modern grammar, we don't use the term 'direct/indirect' object, but complement.

'to buy milk' is the complement of 'told'.

But:

I told her the truth.

Here 'the truth' functions as the direct object.

CalifJim · Answer

Nothing of any great importance hinges on your ability to label parts of sentences, but if you're going to do this kind of analysis, you should keep in mind that there is more than one way of doing the labeling.

In "I told her to buy milk" I can't see any other analysis of "her" except 'indirect object'. This might be an acceptable analysis in traditional grammar, but in some methodologies, "direct object" takes priority, i.e., you can't have an indirect object unless the sentence also has a direct object, so it's labeled "direct object".

In short there is often no "right answer" for these questions — at least not in my opinion.

CJ

D.O x I.O and my Assumption

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions