Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: to point to

If X points to Y then Y is pointed to by X.
Moreover, if X points to Y for a good reason, then Y is pointed to by 
for a good reason.
If X points to Y for a good reason in that situation, then Y is pointed 
to by for in that situation.
No, just joking. I only want to know why one must say "pointed to by" 
and not simply "pointed by".
Kiuhnm

 
What's the base expression? "To point" or "to point to"?
Is X forming Y into a point (pointing it), or indicating it (pointing to it)?
If the former, by whom or what is Y being pointed?
If the latter, by whom or what is Y being pointed to?
<it's an awkward-as-all-getout construction>
Do you get my point?
Or am I being as cryptic as you?
<must add smiley here>   :-)
-- 
Joey DoWop Dee
Remember: It is To Laugh.
Il mio gatto
http://tinyurl.com/2a5u8b

 wrote in message
news:466976a5$0$4786$4faf...@reader4.news.tin.it...

You can point, you can point at someone, you can point out someone, but you
can't point someone or something. Evidence can point to guilt, but evidence
can't point guilt. You can appoint or disappoint someone, though.  :>)
Joe from Massachusetts

 Or am I being as cryptic as you?
No, still TMI, Joey :-)))
Kiuhnm

 can't point someone or something.
Yes, you can! You can point something. That's why we have two 
prepositions in the passive form. Why don't you say "given to by" but 
simply "given by"?
Kiuhnm


You're right. You can point something, and you can even point someone, in a
few cases, but the meanings may be different.
I can point him (indirect object) the way, and I can point him out, and I
can point my finger at him, but I can't just point him (direct object). I
can point West (in a Westerly direction), but I can't point West (Mr. West,
that is), unless I point West West, or maybe East or up or away or in the
right direction.
I can say the book was given by someone, but I can't say the book was given
to by someone. I can say the book was given to him or given him (indirect
object) or given him for me by someone.
Joe from Massachusetts

 right direction.
Ok, but what about "He is pointed to by ..." and "He is pointed by ..."?
Are they both correct? If not, "to" seems a bit redundant.
Kiuhnm

 wrote in message
news:4669b3d6$0$17950$4faf...@reader1.news.tin.it...

For the first, I wouldn't use the passive.
Oxford doesn't like the passive here either, but in mathematics and
programming, when speaking of arrays and tables, etc., the passive is used
quite extensively, but it's not exactly a finger doing the pointing.
« Point
[-]
verb
SHOW WITH FINGER
1 [no passive] ~ (at / to / towards sb/sth) to stretch out your finger or
sth held in your hand towards sb/sth in order to show sb where a person or
thing is:....»
http://www.oup.com/oald-bin/web_getald7index1a.pl
(You have to enter "point").
As for the second, could you use it in a complete sentence?
Joe from Massachusetts


My Irish father would "point" a pencil with a knife, but I sharpen a pencil
with a battery-operated pencil sharpener.  :>)
Joe from Massachusetts

 As for the second, could you use it in a complete sentence?
No, I don't want to sound Irish!!!
Kiuhnm

 wrote in message 
news:nzhai.24097$gM1....@newsfe21.lga...

Going off at a bit of a tangent , the odd thing (for non-native speakers 
hoping for logical explanations) is the construction 'He was given the book 
by his grandmother' , in which the indirect object ('the book was given 
*him* by...) becomes the subject in the passive form . You're far more 
likely to hear 'He was given it for Christmas' than 'It was given him for 
Christmas.'  The same thing happens with verbs such as 'tell' and 'ask' .
Mike 

 Christmas.' 
Au contraire: I would be more likely to say "It was given *to* him for 
Christmas" than "He was given it..."
This could be an example of US v UK usage, though.
.
"He was given a book for Christmas" is another matter, and very usual.


 and 'ask' .
That's very ambiguous.
For instance, what does it mean "The sea was given him"?
Kiuhnm



Yours is a sentence that makes no sense but that means someone gave him the 
sea. In your example, the unspoken-but-implied "to" is all-important.
"The sea was given to him."
In Mike's example, (He was given the book) it seems the missing "to" doesn't 
fit in anywhere (you can't say, or even imply, "to he" was given the book.)
I don't know the answer to this, but my instinct (only) tells me it has 
something to do with structure in Old English, where pronouns were declined 
more rigorously that now. 
I can imagine (but not attest to) a sentence such as
   Him was given the book. (but in OE words, of course,
   and "him" being a dative pronoun meaning '"to him.")
The phrase "him was given" gradually became "he was" under the (false?) 
assumption that "Him" should be the subject and therefore should be "He," 
whereas the subject is actually "the book."
This is my just-now-devised (but not totally improbable) theory, and I'm 
willing to be proved (or "proven", take your pick) wrong. Or mistaken.


    and "him" being a dative pronoun meaning '"to him.")
That's not at all improbable. After all, "to whom" is gradually 
disappearing in favour of "to who".
Kiuhnm

 first case. Then and only then we can't tell the two cases apart any more.
Yes, the two pronoun cases are identical.
I see that, because "me/you/him/her/us/them" can be both direct and indirect 
object, it's troublesome, but doesn't the same situation exist in Italian? To 
a native speaker it seems the meaning is obvious from the context.
Maybe it's useful to consider as 'red flags*' such constructions as "was 
given", "was told", "was asked", etc., where there are likely to be direct 
and indirect objects, one or more of which may be ambiguous indirect object 
pronouns.
   *Warnings.
I was given a wonderful set of Caruso CDs for my birthday.
# [(to)Me] was given a wonderful set...
(I could say, poetically: I was given to listening to them all day long.)
I was told the most interesting story today.
# [(to)Me] was told the most interesting...
I was told I could register here.
# [(to)Me] was told [that] I could...
I was told she isn't coming with us.
# [(to)Me] was told she wasn't coming...
I was asked too many questions.
# [(to)Me] was asked too many...
(Funny: here the verb would appear to have altered too, having been 
originally in the plural: To me *were* asked too many questions....)
#Although you can say "To XXX was given a book" and "To XXX was told the tale 
of ..." they sound very stilted, almost biblical.
"To XXX was asked" isn't useful because the verb "to ask" no longer takes an 
indirect object, as it once did. I hate to say this, but you're more likely 
to hear "Of XXX was asked a very difficult favor." Also not usual.
Highly speculative, here, but it's giving me some insights into my study of 
OE and the development into Middle English and Modern.


 wrote in message
news:466a7485$0$4795$4faf...@reader4.news.tin.it...

It means the sea was given to him (by the Creator?). The sentence is
grammatically correct. There is no ambiguity. It can have only this one
meaning, but whether or not it is logical is another story.
Joe from Massachusetts

 meaning, but whether or not it is logical is another story.
Why not the converse, i.e. he was given to the sea?
You said that "X was given to Y" has two possible interpretations.
Kiuhnm

 OE and the development into Middle English and Modern.
I'm having enough trouble with Modern English already.
Kiuhnm

 wrote in message
news:466add36$0$36446$4faf...@reader5.news.tin.it...

I don't recall seeing "X was given to Y" in this thread, so I don't think I
said it could have two different interpretations. I am assuming both X and Y
are nouns or pronouns.
As to why "The sea was given him" should mean that "the sea was given to
him", and not that "he was given to the sea", mere lack of the preposition
"to" doesn't open the door for the accusative.
"The house was given him" doesn't mean he was sacrificed to the house.
"The Soul was given Man" means the soul was given to man.
But:
"Man was given Woman" means Woman was given to Man. :>)
Joe from Massachusetts

 "Man was given Woman" means Woman was given to Man. :>)
Then the rule is ... ?
Kiuhnm

 It would be interesting to find some *really* old grammar. 
I have several "old grammars" (they're new, really: there were none in the 
12th century that I know of) but since you're focusing on English as she is 
spoken today I won't cite them for you.
All this talk about OE isn't too OT, I hope: clearly OE has a strong 
influence on ME (and YOU for that matter :-) and ModE, and why some 
expressions, verb conjugations, pronouns and structures seem odd or 
counterintuitive.
<Phew! I think I herniated myself on that one.>


On Jun 9, 2007, Kiuhnm wrote:

Go, Joe; I'm curious too. 


 <Phew! I think I herniated myself on that one.>
As you can see, I've given a good snip to our discussion with this post.
I agree with everything you said so there no need for a 
counterpoint-reply :-)
Kiuhnm

 I agree with everything you said so there no need for a 
there *is* no need...
Kiuhnm


Curiosity killed the cat. (It's a long fall from that balcony, so watch out,
Ketzel).   :>)
Rules are created by grammarians from observation, so there must be a
rule tucked away in some obscure grammar to cover these cases.
My observation is that there is really no ambiguity regarding the case of
pronouns following verbs in the passive voice such as "given". Pronouns
which for some at first glance could be either dative or accusative instead
are consistently dative. This construction is especially common in Biblical
references.
However, the opposite is true when it comes to nouns following a passive
verb
such as "given". In the vast majority of cases, the noun is not an indirect
object,
but in Biblical (or pseudo-Biblical) and archaic quotes, indirect object
nouns
do sometimes follow verbs. From the context this artifice is evident.
Patients were given placebos.
Prisoners were permitted visitors.
Slaves were granted rights.
Adam was given Eve.
Man was given woman.
The sea was given the sailor.
The sailor was given the sea.
Students were given teachers.
Teachers were given students.
Winners were given plaques.
Survivors were given reparations.
Indirect object following verb, meaning evident from context:
Woman was given Man.
Wine was given Man.
The world was given Adam.
The soul was given Man.
The Law was given Moses.
The passive is very common in the Bible, because the Jews used it as a
circumlocution to avoid mentioning the name of God. Even today Jews often
write "G*d" for the same reason.
Joe from Massachusetts

> Go, Joe; I'm curious too.

Ok, I owe you a buck. You did it.
And Ketzl thanks you for your concern.


 ME = Medieval English? :-)
Middle English
Spoken roughly between 1066 and late 1400s.
(but also a pun on "me")
(sorry. I can't help myself. I'm incorrigible when it comes to puns and 
such.)
In actuality, Old English is more medieval than Middle English.
Anyway, for me it helps to understand the modern language and I'm thinking it 
may help others (somewhat) too.
*A JoeDee word, coined from "to snip"=> fake noun "snippage."
The suffixe "-age" is becoming more widespread, although often in a jocular 
or semi-jocular manner.


 or semi-jocular manner.
Stop => stoppage, so I suppose snippage is a good candidate for snip.
Kiuhnm

 I noticed it. I'm not dumb ;-)
((Oh I know *you* got it. My comment was for the benefit ot the less astute
readers -- that is, if there *are* any other readers at all.))


 > are consistently dative.
[-]
As Mike previously pointed out, "it" is an exception in these constructions,
so maybe "pronouns" here should be changed to "personal pronouns". "It was
given him for Christmas" is probably less common than "He was given it for
Christmas", as Mike said.
Joe from Massachusetts