Interesting developments in English syntax

[hwhatting]

Late to the party, but I guess Richard's question was meant to be "is ditransitive just a fancy way of saying a verb can have a direct and an indirect object, or is there a difference"?

[zompist]

Late to the party, but I guess Richard's question was meant to be "is ditransitive just a fancy way of saying a verb can have a direct and an indirect object, or is there a difference"?

Well, that doesn't help much with (say) verbs of naming. Unlike verbs of giving, you can't tease a prepositional phrase out of one of the objects:

He gave John a yacht.
> He gave a yacht to John.

They named the boy John,
> *They named the boy to John.
> *They named John to the boy.

[Travis B.]

Late to the party, but I guess Richard's question was meant to be "is ditransitive just a fancy way of saying a verb can have a direct and an indirect object, or is there a difference"?

Being ditransitive is distinct from taking a direct object and a prepositional object in English. Strictly speaking, they are not interchangeable in the general case, even though there are many verbs for which a prepositional object can be promoted to an indirect object of a ditransitive verb and vice versa.

[Richard W]

Late to the party, but I guess Richard's question was meant to be "is ditransitive just a fancy way of saying a verb can have a direct and an indirect object, or is there a difference"?

Well, that doesn't help much with (say) verbs of naming. Unlike verbs of giving, you can't tease a prepositional phrase out of one of the objects:

<snip>

They named the boy John,
> *They named the boy to John.
> *They named John to the boy.

It's a bit strained, but one can have They named the boy as John. I thought these verbs were essentially factitive, and that they had their own sentence structure. I had always taken the prototypical ditransitive English verb to be to teach, where both the subject taught and the person taught are direct objects, though when both objects are present the person may become a prepositional indirect object. For teach to have a prepositional indirect object is somewhat marked, though not unheard of. (To me, it suggests a more distant relationship between the teacher and the taught.) By contrast, giving to charity and giving charity are different.

[zompist]

It's a bit strained, but one can have They named the boy as John.

Doesn't work for me.

I had always taken the prototypical ditransitive English verb to be to teach, where both the subject taught and the person taught are direct objects, though when both objects are present the person may become a prepositional indirect object.

These seem parallel to "give":

Mr. White taught Jesse chemistry.
Mr. White taught chemistry to Jesse.

You might be interested in this page on double accusatives in Latin. I would have expected some of these to use the dative!

[Richard W]

I had always taken the prototypical ditransitive English verb to be to teach, where both the subject taught and the person taught are direct objects, though when both objects are present the person may become a prepositional indirect object.

These seem parallel to "give":

Mr. White taught Jesse chemistry.
Mr. White taught chemistry to Jesse.

You might be interested in this page on double accusatives in Latin. I would have expected some of these to use the dative!

But Mr White taught Jesse is not.

[zompist]

I had always taken the prototypical ditransitive English verb to be to teach, where both the subject taught and the person taught are direct objects, though when both objects are present the person may become a prepositional indirect object.

These seem parallel to "give":

Mr. White taught Jesse chemistry.
Mr. White taught chemistry to Jesse.

You might be interested in this page on double accusatives in Latin. I would have expected some of these to use the dative!

But Mr White taught Jesse is not.

True! Maybe more like verbs of reporting then:

She told Mary the story.
She told the story to Mary.
She told Mary.

[alice]

As a related aside, in some varieties of English "give it me" means the same as "give it to me" or "give me it". It appears that in the absence of a preposition the animacy of the argument dictates its role.

As an unrelated aside to the first aside, in the absence of a linguistic context what would an inanimate argument be to the "average person"?

[Richard W]

As a related aside, in some varieties of English "give it me" means the same as "give it to me" or "give me it". It appears that in the absence of a preposition the animacy of the argument dictates its role.

As an unrelated aside to the first aside, in the absence of a linguistic context what would an inanimate argument be to the "average person"?

I think there are several things at play here. Firstly, give it me may be interpreted as a mishearing of give it to me. Secondly, as an attempt to make sense of a weird statement, a hearer may assume that the word 'to' has some how gone missing, so it may be assumed when interpreting the sentence. So, if interpreting the arguments of the verb to present, one doesn't need to include social rank in the animacy hierarchy. Thirdly, there is the anchor of give it here, where there is no word order issue,

[Travis B.]

As a related aside, in some varieties of English "give it me" means the same as "give it to me" or "give me it". It appears that in the absence of a preposition the animacy of the argument dictates its role.

As an unrelated aside to the first aside, in the absence of a linguistic context what would an inanimate argument be to the "average person"?

I think there are several things at play here. Firstly, give it me may be interpreted as a mishearing of give it to me. Secondly, as an attempt to make sense of a weird statement, a hearer may assume that the word 'to' has some how gone missing, so it may be assumed when interpreting the sentence. So, if interpreting the arguments of the verb to present, one doesn't need to include social rank in the animacy hierarchy. Thirdly, there is the anchor of give it here, where there is no word order issue,

Give it me is positively ungrammatical to me myself.

[Raphael]

Give it me is positively ungrammatical to me myself.

It sounds a bit like a literal translation of a German expression (Gib's mir!)

[Travis B.]

Give it me is positively ungrammatical to me myself.

It sounds a bit like a literal translation of a German expression (Gib's mir!)

I thought of just that myself.

[Man in Space]

I would suggest setting up this.

I’ve not really thought about it before, but for me “setting up this” sounds wrong—I would say “setting this up”, or “setting up Anubis”/“setting Anubis up”.

[keenir]

I had always taken the prototypical ditransitive English verb to be to teach, where both the subject taught and the person taught are direct objects, though when both objects are present the person may become a prepositional indirect object.

These seem parallel to "give":

Mr. White taught Jesse chemistry.
Mr. White taught chemistry to Jesse.

You might be interested in this page on double accusatives in Latin. I would have expected some of these to use the dative!

But Mr White taught Jesse is not.

I'd understand it if I heard Mr White taught Jesse the chemistry if i heard it...i think i did hear that sort of a sentence, but can't swear as to where or when, sorry.

[keenir]

I would suggest setting up this.

I’ve not really thought about it before, but for me “setting up this” sounds wrong—I would say “setting this up”, or “setting up Anubis”/“setting Anubis up”.

in terms of the latter, I would be expecting something to follow...ie, setting up Anubis as governor, respectively, and setting Anubis up to fail.

in terms of the former, I'd be thinking it'd needs to end with a place...ie, setting up this room/theater/playground.
...or "setting up this couple"

[Travis B.]

I would suggest setting up this.

I’ve not really thought about it before, but for me “setting up this” sounds wrong—I would say “setting this up”, or “setting up Anubis”/“setting Anubis up”.

in terms of the latter, I would be expecting something to follow...ie, setting up Anubis as governor, respectively, and setting Anubis up to fail.

in terms of the former, I'd be thinking it'd needs to end with a place...ie, setting up this room/theater/playground.
...or "setting up this couple"

"I would suggest setting up this" and "I would suggest setting up Anubis" in isolation are perfectly cromulent to me... I have no intuitive sense that these could be 'wrong'.

[Travis B.]

Actually, it feels wrong for me to say ?"I would suggest setting this up" or ?"I would suggest setting Anubis up".

[keenir]

hmm, interesting distinction; took me a few reads to notice the difference.

Actually, it feels wrong for me to say ?"I would suggest setting this up" or ?"I would suggest setting Anubis up".

if you're setting Anubis up, it makes me feel like the context (or the sentence's ending which i didn't hear) was either about taking a fall (or the blame) or on a date.

if you're setting this up, it feels like the context is talking about a computer program or a birthday party.

[Travis B.]

hmm, interesting distinction; took me a few reads to notice the difference.

Actually, it feels wrong for me to say ?"I would suggest setting this up" or ?"I would suggest setting Anubis up".

if you're setting Anubis up, it makes me feel like the context (or the sentence's ending which i didn't hear) was either about taking a fall (or the blame) or on a date.

if you're setting this up, it feels like the context is talking about a computer program or a birthday party.

It seems to me that the position of particles associated with verbs in English (akin to separable-prefix verbs in German) is lexicalized, and in the English I am familiar with set up with the meaning of preparing something has up come directly after the verb.

Now that I think of it, set up where up comes finally is also valid, but has a completely different meaning, and is not valid for computer programs like Anubis, i.e. making someone take a fall (as you mentioned). "I would suggest setting Anubis up" to me is only grammatical if Anubis is something like a person (or an Egyptian god) which one is trying to make take a fall.

(If up is followed by with followed by a person, then it becomes preparing an event, e.g. a date, between two people.)

[keenir]

hmm, interesting distinction; took me a few reads to notice the difference.

Actually, it feels wrong for me to say ?"I would suggest setting this up" or ?"I would suggest setting Anubis up".

if you're setting Anubis up, it makes me feel like the context (or the sentence's ending which i didn't hear) was either about taking a fall (or the blame) or on a date.

if you're setting this up, it feels like the context is talking about a computer program or a birthday party.

It seems to me that the position of particles associated with verbs in English (akin to separable-prefix verbs in German) is lexicalized, and in the English I am familiar with set up with the meaning of preparing something has up come directly after the verb.

so I can be sure I'm visualizing this correctly...you're saying set X up, wherein X is the verb - is that correct?

if I got that right, then...set bake up? to my ear, set up baking sounds more correct. (or, even better still, set up baking tins for the cooking)

maybe its only certain verbs that fit between set and up.

Now that I think of it, set up where up comes finally is also valid, but has a completely different meaning, and is not valid for computer programs like Anubis, i.e. making someone take a fall (as you mentioned).

Hmm...well, for computer programs, maybe I need to set up Anubis on my computer is for me as understandable as I need to set Anubis up on my computer. In both instances, Anubis would be a program or a collection of programs I need to install and run. (can replace 'anubis' with 'windows' in both of them)

"I would suggest setting Anubis up" to me is only grammatical if Anubis is something like a person (or an Egyptian god) which one is trying to make take a fall.

(If up is followed by with followed by a person, then it becomes preparing an event, e.g. a date, between two people.)

*nods*
though then (I was) set up with Raat sounds like it needs to be an answer to a question.
{and before anyone asks, Raat was Anubis' daughter - the goddess of fresh water}