Talk:Object (grammar)

message: 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)
thread_title:  object involved in the action 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Direct Object and Indirect Object 

message: 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?) 63.173.156.211 07:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Under a traditional analysis, "They advised him to open a shop" indeed entails "him" as an indirect object and "to open a shop" as a direct object. If that seems incorrect, it's not because of the analysis; it's because of the inadequacy inherent in the underlying taxonomies regarding indirect object and direct object. I myself shun the terms. Instead, I use transitive object. In your example, both "him" and "to open a shop" qualify as transitive objects while "to open a shop" further qualifies (in a nominal sense) as a transitive object complement. (NOTE: All nominal words or phrases can function as a subject or as a predicate object, so your example can be rendered as, "To open a shop is what they advised him." Yet, semantically speaking, however, opening a shop is more likely what they advised him. Accordingly, "They advised him against opening a shop" entails "him" as a transitive object and "against opening a shop" is a transitive object complement that constitutes an adverbial prepositional phrase.) You heard it here first. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indirect object 

message: Should this article be merged with Oblique case? FilipeS 01:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merge with Oblique case?

message: 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? -- 84.132.95.92 19:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of objects is different in different languages 

message: What is the the difference between a direct object and a patient, if any?  Leevclarke (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Direct object versus patient

message: "Bobby kicked me the ball" is a valid English sentence?
-- Joe Hepperle  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.219.96 (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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
It is a grammatically correct English sentence, although it is awkward and would more likely be expressed as Joe mentioned above.Davidcinftl (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  What constitutes “grammatically correct”?? Many people treat grammar as descriptive, not prescriptive - it’s the study of how words come together to form meaning, not the control of the language by a set of rule-keepers and arbiters of taste. There is no body setting a standard for English, as there would be for French, so while encyclopædically you can report that many speakers/ grammarians have expressed an opinion on “correctness”, it’s original research to say that something is “right” or “wrong”. "Bobby kicked me the ball" is cognate with other similar constructions (Bobby gave me the ball; Bobby threw me the ball), each of which conveys clearly what went on, and which therefore have validity. Jock123 (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valid English? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Humor and indirect objects 

message: If I write "I go.".
Is it neccessary to use objective to complete the sentence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.113.3 (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I go. 

message: 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.
Davidcinftl (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct object (Expressed or unexpressed) 

message: Found in many Russian textbooks about English - not explained here.
But I knew you were trouble when you walked in... So shame on me, now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.147.253 (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complex object 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Promoted 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Grammar problems in summary 

message: In Object_(grammar)#Verb_classes there is below intransitive:
: Object deletion 	We have already eaten.
This is, in fact, in my version of grammar, transitive because it can carry an object.  Note that this is different from the ergative case (where the meaning of the verb changes, and nobody would disagree with that sank in "The freighter sank." is intransitive).  Now, I do realise that according the the Wikipedia definition a transitive verb requires an object.  However, I have always learnt that a transitive verb is called thus if and only if it can have an object.  I think the latter is a typical convention in many germanic languages, but I am not sure.  How is this with English grammar?  The reason I ask is because I find it much more natural to call "to eat" transitive, even when it doesn't carry an object.  I'd say grammar and semantics are better aligned that way. Hulten (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tons of verbs are canonically ditransitive (or bitransitive, or whatever else the mad linguists want to call them) but their contextual usage is either intransitive (e.g. "We have already eaten") or transitive (e.g. "We have already eaten dinner"). Your "object deletion" verbiage sounds rather quaint.  You might want to check out Null complement anaphora. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  transitivity and optional objects 

message: It would be preferable if, in the table where examples for the types are given, for the sake of clarity, the sentences were more similar.  Consider:
Type           	Description                             	Example
Direct object  	Entity acted upon                       	Sam fed the squirrels.
Indirect object	Entity indirectly affected by the action	Sam fed the squirrels to hungry bears.
50.32.116.224 (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistent Type Examples 

message: I brought the initial portions of this article into line with greater linguistic rigour, removing much of the prescriptive and English-centric traditional grammar, replacing it with more scientific examples.
If anyone can help with fixing this page, please feel free to let me know and/or improve it yourself.
Jamutaq (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A vast improvement! Yet, given the inadequacies inherent in the traditional taxonomies involved, I'm loath to point them out in the article itself without being censored for original research. For me, the fact that traditional grammar hasn't hit upon the term, stative object (e.g. "You're my pal") as a category within a class of stative complements (e.g. "This tastes funny" as a stative adjective and "I'm here" as a stative adverb) reflects either linguistic apathy, intransigence, near-sightedness, or some combination of the above. For now, we're stuck with subject complement, which was a well-intentioned term when it was coined in 1923 but whose taxonomical usage has outlived its linguistic adequacy. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguistic Rigour 

message: First, the second and third sentences contradict each other. The former one implies that nominative-accusative languages only express oblique relations by means of adpositions and not by cases, which is clearly wrong (looks like a rest from a definition that is intended to work only for English). Then the next s sentence contradicts it by mentioning the existence of cases and relational nouns as an afterthought - that should have been integrated in the previous sentence, so that all forms of oblique arguments regardless of expression are comprised. I would have done that, but even this seems insufficient, since it still remains unclear to me why formal expressions such as adpositions, cases and relational nouns need to be mentioned at all - they don't work as a way of distinguishing an oblique argument from an object, since a direct and an indirect object, can also be expressed by designated cases (indeed, they typically are, in languages with a case system) or by adpositions (in Spanish, Hebrew, etc.). At the same time, once we've moved past the formal expressions, it remains unclear what distinguishes the objects from the oblique arguments - the only explanation is that the former are among 'the core grammatical roles' and the latter aren't, but that is basically a tautology, since core roles would just be defined as subject, direct and indirect object.--95.42.19.211 (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the definition currently in the lede 

message: By traditional standards, "failure" is a subject complement, not a stative object. Since "to communicate" complements "failure," does that make it a subject complement complement? Y'all see me shaking my head at this article's antiquated premises? I'm not blaming anyone here; I just LOL at the naïve set of grammatical taxons we've inherited. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[Cool Hand Luke|What we have here is a failure to communicate."]] - The Captain 

message: As a follow-up to my cryptic post from immediately above, this article's Syntactic category section refers to a "for-clause." There's no such thing. In the example given, "We were waiting for him to explain, the for  is a preposition that comprises a prepositional phrase. I was tempted to change the example to "We were waiting, for he was late thereby creating a clause rather than a phrase. However, so doing would render for as a conjunction according to traditional analysis. I refuse to interpolate that traditional analysis into the article because it's antiquated and just plain wrong by modern standards regardless of those who are inured to the FANBOYS mnemonic. In today's linguistics, for is always a preposition and never a conjunction such that "We were waiting, for he (SUBJ) was (VB) late (ADJ)" entails "he was late" as the object of the "for" preposition. Re. "What we have here is a failure to communicate", I pity any contributor who tries to address this article's boatload of linguistic anomalies. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Object_(grammar)#Syntactic_category|Syntactic category]]: "for-clause"