|WikiProject Linguistics||(Rated C-class)|
- 1 object involved in the action
- 2 Direct Object and Indirect Object
- 3 Indirect object
- 4 Merge with Oblique case?
- 5 Use of objects is different in different languages
- 6 Direct object versus patient
- 7 Valid English?
- 8 New Article For Each
- 9 Humor and indirect objects
- 10 I go.
- 11 Direct object (Expressed or unexpressed)
- 12 Complex object
- 13 Promoted
- 14 Grammar problems in summary
object involved in the action
I find the language "'ball' is the object involved in the action" imprecise and vague since the word object could refer both to a direct object or to any noun that is a thing. If the subject of the sentence, for example, were a "thing" (not a person) it too could be called an object. Since the subject also is involved with the action, the present wording might fit the subject too. Mere "involvement with the action" is not the distinguishing criterion for an object then, since the the subject too could be said to be "involved" with the action. The critical distinction, I believe (since direct objects only occur in active sentences) is that the subject is the agent/doer/performer of the action and the object receives the action of the verb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlloyd57 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Direct Object and Indirect Object
Shouldnt Direct Object and Indirect Object have their own separate pages? - Weston
- Well, I've just merged Indirect object into this page as it was a single line dicdef. If there is enough to write about I guess they could have their own pages. - FrancisTyers 11:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
In the example, "They advised him to open a shop" it states that 'him' is an indirect object. I understand how this could be the case; but since there's no direct object, it seems incorrect. For example, would it still be considered a direct object if the phrase was simply, "They advise him"? I see that phrase as having 'him' as a direct object. The confusion is that the object of the verb has several possible meanings. (What is being adivised, or who.) I can't think of a case where 'advise' has a direct and an indirect object. (I'm assuming prepositional phrases don't count as objects; is that incorrect?) 18.104.22.168 07:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, wasn't logged in when I posted that. ^ Paxfeline 07:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
See my post below "Direct object (expressed or unexpressed)" below. This sentence is a good example of what I was describing. Here there is an infinitive phrase "to open a shop", being used as a direct object (what they advised). "Him" is the indirect object because they advised it to him. Davidcinftl (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Merge with Oblique case?
- I'm not sure, but if so, the merge should be of Oblique case into this article, not the other way around. —RuakhTALK 04:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Use of objects is different in different languages
At this moment every language-version of Wikipedia describes only the use of objects in its own language. But the use in every language should be described and differentiated in every language. I think it could be the best to start this in the english version of Wikipedia. Thus all other languages can translate from there. For instance in some languages direct-object = dative-object and indirect object = accusative-object while in other languages this is not the case. Does anybody know this differecnces? -- 22.214.171.124 19:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually you have it backwards, the indirect object belongs to the dative case, the direct object to the accusative. Objects (direct, indirect, and prepositional) all belong to what would be called a universal grammar. By that I mean elements that exist in all languages. All languages have nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs etc. although they may be expressed in different ways. For example, Finnish has no prepositions, but there is a way to express prepositions (using an elaborate case system), because that is a necessity for all languages: all languages must have a way to express where objects are located in relation to one another, which is what prepositions express.
So in spite of the fact that languages may accomplish the same universal elements, they may do it in a number of different ways. That doesn't change the core functionality of those elements. I think the article does point to the universal core explanation of these objects, and even gives examples of how they are expressed in different languages, though this could be expanded some.Davidcinftl (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Direct object versus patient
"Bobby kicked me the ball" is a valid English sentence?
- Removed original research ("Bobby kicked me the ball"). If there exists a verifiable, Reliable Source citation that supports the claim that "Bobby kicked me the ball" is a valid English sentence, feel free to revert. Otherwise, Bobby kicked the ball to me.
-- Joe Hepperle
Just because something is grammatically correct does not mean it is true, that it makes sense, or would even be commonly spoken, it just follows a predefined grammatical pattern. "Dogs eat airplanes on Tuesday." is grammatically correct, even though it is absurd. Davidcinftl (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
New Article For Each
These seem to only be tidbits of each type of object. I think that we should create a separate article for each, or at least expand a LOT on these currently available.
Humor and indirect objects
It would seem worthwhile to have a paragraph discussing the ambiguity of indirect objects and their use in humor - for instance, the classic wish to "make me a banana split", or the Hot Shots! doctor's request to "give me 15 cc's of morphine immediately". It seems as if an indirect object replaces some implied preposition, but not always the same one... Wnt (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
No, "to go" is an intransitive verb, unable to have a direct object. The only objects that would work with "to go" are prepositional objects:
"I go to the store." "I go with Janice." "I go in a good mood."
Direct object (Expressed or unexpressed)
I would like to propose an edit to the section where the article states that to have an indirect object, there must be a direct object. That is true, but there are situations where that direct object is not expressed in the sentence. Consider the following sentence:
"I told him something."
Obviously, "I" is the subject, "told" is the verb, "something" is the direct object (what is begin told), "him" is the indirect object (to whom something is being told). But in the context of a conversational exchange, the "something" could be dropped entirely...
Question: "How did he know where the party was?" Response: "I told him."
Here it is understood that the information I told, was the location of the party. "Him" is not the direct object because it is being used no differently than in the sentence "I told him something".
Consider also that the direct object in a sentence containing an indirect object could also be a clause:
"I told him where the party was"
Again the structure of this sentence is no different from the preceding sentences, except a piece of specific information, where the party was, replaces "something".
As far as I can tell, the only situations where this takes place is with verbs of communication: to tell, to ask, to report, to mention, etc.
Found in many Russian textbooks about English - not explained here.
I am fairly well-educated and know what this word means - or apparently, I know what it means 99.99999999999999% of the times I have heard or read it. The .00000000000001% is when I read the following sentence in this article: "An object can be turned into a syntactic subject using passive voice, if the language in question has such a construction. In dative languages, the direct object is promoted, while in dechticaetiative languages the primary object is promoted." Since the meanings of "promoted" that I am familiar with from everyday discourse make no sense in this context, I infer that this is jargon. I am sure it makes perfect sense to linguists but I suspect I am not the only WP reader who is confused by this sentence. Can someone either reqrite it without relying on jargon, or explain what linguists mean when they use the word "promote" in this way? Thanks. 13:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Grammar problems in summary
There is a sentence in the summary that begins with "And then the very actual good main verb in the sentence ...". There are several problems here: 1. I am uncertain what the author was trying to say otherwise I would have corrected this myself. 2. You can't start a sentence with "and". This sentence is not directly related to the preceeding sentence. The preceeding sentence describes a complete thought. The conjunction seems irrelevant and pointless. 3. The string of adjectives "very actual good main" doesn't describe any real subset of verbs that could appear in a sentence. "Very" and "good" are needlessly subjective/opinionative. "Actual" is irrelevant as there could not be an inactual verb in a sentence. "Main" could be useful but the author does not describe how a main verb is distinguished from any lesser verb. 4. The author implies that a particuar verb in a sentence always defines whether their can be objects and if so, how many. However, the following sentence contradicts the first by saying that English and other languages don't follow that rule.
Will someone please look at the inline link that is referneced Valency (linguistics) and try to restate what the author was swinging at? Shouldn't an encyclopedia article on grammar be gramatically correct? Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
How to find indirect object? First a direct object is a word describing a thing which actually receives the action. It is a thing or which may be performed.
1. Tom used his bicycle. bicycle= Direct object( D.O.)