dative of disadvantage (on him, to the detriment of him, against him)

N

Nino83

Senior Member
Italian
Hello everybody.
I'd like to ask you if the construction "on somebody" to express the person who receives the disadvantage of the action, is general, i.e if we can use this construction when the action is made to the detriment or against a subject.
Is it admissible in these sentences?

They destroyed his car on him.
They tipped over his beer on him.
They dug up the whole garden on her.
They killed his father on him.
Mary burned a steak on him.

Thank you
 
    • It isn't clear to me how you want "on him" to work in your sentences.

    Are they all meant to be used in a reproachful tone? - "We used to barbecue steaks together, but then she went vegetarian on me :("
     
    velisarius said:
    It isn't clear to me how you want "on him" to work in your sentences.
    Click to expand...
    Like when something broke and he suffered because of it or when an action disturbs or affects adversely somebody.
    In those link the sentences were "my hair dryer broke down on me" and "Don't die on me".
    In another thread, Mi si è rotta, a North American English speaker said me that this construction works with some verbs, like die: my phone died or my phone died on me yesterday…my radio, my hairdryer, the battery died on me. crash: My computer crashed on me again!
    The Merriam-Webster says Definition of ON (under 9c) "used as a function word to indicate the object with respect to some misfortune or disadvantageous event <the crops died on them>".
     
    Last edited:
    Thanks for clarification. I thought that was what you were getting at, but some of your sentences are ambiguous.


    They destroyed his car on him. - With context it would probably have the meaning you want.

    The other sentences aren't really successful. It's easier to make these sentences with first person "I", where you are expressing regret and a degree of resentment: "I asked him to plant some roses, but he dug up the whole garden on me." It sort of works, but I don't think it's ideal.

    You need to avoid it where it could be taken literally, as with the beer example, and the steak :eek:.

    By the way, I don't think we have a "dative" case in English.
     
    velisarius said:
    The other sentences aren't really successful. It's easier to make these sentences with first person "I", where you are expressing regret and a degree of resentment: "I asked him to plant some roses, but he dug up the whole garden on me." It sort of works, but I don't think it's ideal.
    Click to expand...
    Thank you, velisarius. So there is no possible translation for the Romance, German, Czech dative of disadvantage in English.
    velisarius said:
    You need to avoid it where it could be taken literally, as with the beer example, and the steak :eek:.
    Click to expand...
    Ahah, ok. Does it seem that she baked a steak on his head? :D
     
    The examples you quote in your post #4 are all good, if that is what you mean by "dative of disadvantage".
    My memories of German are too remote to be of much help in comparing usages. In Italian I think it's done differently than in English. We just say "They killed his father"; I don't think there's a way to exactly translate the Italian equivalent. Have you tried the translation forum on this?

    Edit: to show appropriate dismay, we might say (informally) "They went and killed my father!" I don't think there's one standard way of going about this in English. "They went and destroyed my car, and it was only parked illegally for five minutes." "She went and burned my steak."
     
    Last edited:
    velisarius said:
    We just say "They killed his father"; I don't think there's a way to exactly translate the Italian equivalent. Have you tried the translation forum on this?
    Click to expand...
    In German (like in Romance languages) it's possible, using the dative case. In English you use the "dative" (oblique) case for the dative of advantage, "she made him a cake (for him), "he found her a job" (for her) and so on, but you don't have a similar construction for the dative of disadvantage, like in the examples above (for example "to him the car broke down").
    In English there is the construction "on somebody" but it seems its application is far more restricted. It works only with the verb "to die", "to break down", "to crash" but not with the verb "to kill".
    Thank you for your answer.
     
    Last edited:
    In English "on me" works with lots of verbs. Margaret Thatcher famously said to Ronald Reagan [Edit: sorry, it was to George Bush, of course]: "Don't go wobbly on me, George." The meaning may be slightly different from what you have in mind - it's used mostly to reproach someone (as in the examples you quoted). "My hairdryer broke down on me" - the speaker sounds disappointed. "Don't break down on me" - said to your car - sounds pleading. The nuance changes, according to context.
     
    Last edited:
    velisarius said:
    "My hairdryer broke down on me" - the speaker sounds disappointed. "Don't break down on me" - said to your car - sounds pleading. The nuance changes, according to context.
    Click to expand...
    Ok, but if we speak about a third person, do these sentences work?
    "His computer crashed on him", "Bush went wobbly on her", "her hairdryer broke down on her".

    From what you said
    velisarius said:
    It's easier to make these sentences with first person "I", where you are expressing regret and a degree of resentment: "I asked him to plant some roses, but he dug up the whole garden on me." It sort of works, but I don't think it's ideal.
    Click to expand...
    it seems that this construction doesn't work when speaking of other people.
     
    Sorry to have given the wrong impression.

    It's fine to use them when speaking of other people. I think that when I search for examples, I tend to use the first person because it's easier to grasp the exact nuance if I'm imagining myself in the position of the person saying the sentence - if you see what I mean. I think I personally am more likely to use something like this when I'm trying to express my own feelings. It's rather colloquial.
     
    Ok, thank you velisarius.
    What I've understood is that this construction is not as common as it is in Romance languages or German, so it's better to translate it with some periphrasis or not translating it at all! :)
     
    The construction only appears to work with an intransitive verb (and probably mostly with me).

    "Adjunct of disadvantage"
    "I was looking after the neighbours' dog for the week-end, and it died on me."​

    This example comes from the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.

    Also there is no dative case in English. It is misleading to use such an expression instead of an oblique noun phrase or the recipient of an action.
    ​
     
    I disagree, e2.

    It's more easily used when the speaker wants to show an emotional reaction, but you can feel emotions on other people's behalf.

    My grand-daughter had a pet goldfish, but she forgot to feed it and it died on her. She cried for two days. Sad.
     
    e2efour said:
    Also there is no dative case in English.
    Click to expand...
    Yes, I know there is no morphological dative case in English, but grammatically it's still there, me thinks. :)
    velisarius said:
    My grand-daughter had a pet goldfish, but she forgot to feed it and it died on her. She cried for two days. Sad.
    Click to expand...
    Looking at your example, it seems you don't agree on the fact that it works mostly with the personal pronoun "me", but what do you think about the first part of the sentence. It works only when verbs are used intransitively?
    For example, "they broke his car on him" is ambiguous while "his car broke down on him" is not, isn't it?
     
    I don't regard They broke his car on him as English in any meaningful sense.

    It's only my impression that it is mostly used with the first person.
    But My dog died on me last week seems more plausible to me than His dog died on him last week.
     
    "They broke his car on him" sounds too literal - they broke it on his head.
    "They broke his car for him" - ambiguous, but logic dictates that they broke his car and he wasn't happy about it. It might not be a good use of this expression - it would need some context. Context would probably make it correct for either meaning. It's unlikely that he asked them to do him a favour and break his car though.
     
    e2efour said:
    I don't regard They broke his car on him as English in any meaningful sense.
    Click to expand...
    For semantic reasons, but if I'm not wrong you can break a bottle on somebody, for example.
    velisarius said:
    "They broke his car for him" - ambiguous, but logic dictates that they broke his car and he wasn't happy about it. It might not be a good use of this expression - it would need some context. Context would probably make it correct for either meaning. It's unlikely that he asked them to do him a favour and break his car though.
    Click to expand...
    Exactly. This is what I meant when I said that English language has a "dative" construction for the "benefactive case" (she made a cake for him > she made him a cake) but not for the "malefactive case" .
    The sentence "Mary burned John a steak" (I don't know if the verb "to burn" can take double objects) or "Mary burned a steak for John" could only mean that John asked Mary to burn some steak because he likes burnt steaks, in English, if I'm not wrong.
    In Romance languages, German and Czech (and it seems also in Indo-Ayran languages and Old Norse), a sentence like "Mary burned John a steak" means that John doesn't like burnt steaks and that Mary made an error, she didn't bake steaks in the right way.
     
    Last edited:
    You might come across a "malefactive" case I suppose:

    (Parent threatening child)
    If you don't do as you're told I'm going to box your ears/smack your bottom for you.
     
    A footnote of interest from CGEL to the example I gave above in #14 ("I was looking after the neighbours' dog for the week-end, and it died on me"):

    "One special use of on is to indicate that the referent of its complement is adversely affected by the event expressed in the clause: in this example, I'm going to have to give bad news to the neighbours (and might even be thought to be responsible)."

    This is what CGEL has to say about the so-called dative case:
    "It is common for languages to express this meaning by a dative case rather than a prepositional construction; this is the basis for the terms 'ethic dative' and 'dative of disadvantage' that are used for such expressions. We do not apply these terms to English in accordance with our policy of distinguishing between case and function: English has no dative case."

    I would be interested, nino83, to learn where you have seen the use of malefactive in a grammar book (not a work on linguistics). The word is not listed in the OED (as of 2000), although it gives benefactive.
     
    Last edited:
    e2efour said:
    I would be interested, nino83, to learn where you have seen the use of malefactive in a grammar book (not a work on linguistics). The word is not listed in the OED (as of 2000), although it gives benefactive.
    Click to expand...
    Only in works on linguistics. I used words like "benefactive/malefactive case", "dative of interest" or "dative of advantage/disadvantage" because it was the quickest way to name a very specific function. Without using these words I probably had to write something longer.
    velisarius said:
    If you don't do as you're told I'm going to box your ears/smack your bottom for you.
    Click to expand...
    But without context, how do you perceive "Do you know what Mary did yesterday? She burned a steak for John!"?
     
    Nino83 said:
    [...]
    But without context, how do you perceive "Do you know what Mary did yesterday? She burned a steak for John!"?
    Click to expand...

    The only way I could read that is "She burned a steak for John (as a special request, because he loves burned food).
    But:
    Mary managed to burn John's steak for him. (ironic)
     
    It seems to me that this construction is normally used when the verb does not have a direct object, as in the examples given above:
    "Don't go wobbly on me, George."
    "I was looking after the neighbours' dog for the week-end, and it died on me."
    "His computer crashed on him."

    It is less likely to be used when there is a direct object:
    "She burned the steak on him" doesn't sound right.
     
    Hildy1 said:
    It seems to me that this construction is normally used when the verb does not have a direct object, as in the examples given above:
    "Don't go wobbly on me, George."
    "I was looking after the neighbours' dog for the week-end, and it died on me."
    "His computer crashed on him."

    It is less likely to be used when there is a direct object:
    "She burned the steak on him" doesn't sound right.
    Click to expand...

    e2efour noted something similar in post #14:
    The construction only appears to work with an intransitive verb (and probably mostly with me).

    "Adjunct of disadvantage"
    "I was looking after the neighbours' dog for the week-end, and it died on me."
    Click to expand...

    That does seem to be a decisive factor. It would explain why "They destroyed his car on him" sounds "off".

    With "for" you may find examples:
    "They destroyed his car for him." I can imagine that being said as an ironic statement.
    Here's an example I found online : "They ruined my Kinzie for me"
    They ruined my Kinzie for me! - Saints Row IV Message Board for Xbox 360 - GameFAQs
     
    Hildy1 said:
    It seems to me that this construction is normally used when the verb does not have a direct object,
    Click to expand...
    e2efour noted the same in #14. The reason is that "on" is seen as a preposition, thus what follows is part of a prepositional phrase rather than an object.

    Nino83 seems to be arguing that "on me" is the same as "to me" or "for me": these latter meanings are included in the dative pronoun: He baked her a cake/She gave him the dog. (See above also). Nino's point is interesting as the "on + pronoun" does have a history of being what is the dative:

    Act II Sc.II THE TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA

    VALENTINE. Leave off discourse of disability;
    Sweet lady, entertain him for your servant.
    PROTEUS. My duty will I boast of, nothing else.
    SILVIA. And duty never yet did want his meed.
    Servant, you are welcome to a worthless mistress.
    PROTEUS. I'll die on him that says so but yourself.
    SILVIA. That you are welcome?
    PROTEUS. That you are worthless.

    Although this meaning (for) seems to have been lost (other than in religious contexts "Have mercy on me." -> in which on = towards; in/[against] [my] favour), it arose again (see Google Ngrams - die on me,die on you,die on him) in the late 19th century in the way that "His car died on him." is used.
     
    Last edited:
    Thank you all.
    So, for some verbs like "to ruin", "to box someone's hear" or "to smack someone's bottom", the preposition "for" can mean "to the detriment of/against" ("I'll box your hear for you", "I'll smack your bottom for you", "they ruined something for me", but it doesn't work with "she burned a steak for him"), while, if I understood, the preposition "on" works only with intransitive verbs and it is more likely with the personal pronoun "me".
    In the other cases, we can omit the Romance or German pronoun (when it means "to the detriment of/against).
     
    At the top you are looking at sentences that mean: enemy A does X for the purpose of hurting B. And you want to use "on B" to express that whole clause.

    "on" doesn't do that in English. neither does "for". The closest I can think of is "to do" clauses:
    "they destroyed his car to get even with him"
    "they destroyed his car to teach him a lesson"
    "they destroyed his car to scare him away"

    You can throw a ball "to" someone or drop a water balloon "on" someone: dative but more direct.


    The following phrases are a different pattern, with no enemy A:

    "my phone died on me"
    "her pet died on her"
    "his car broke down on him".

    All these say "B relied on B's X, but B's X failed". The "on him" is redundant but allowed since the thing that failed is B's
     
    dojibear said:
    All these say "B relied on B's X, but B's X failed". The "on him" is redundant but allowed since the thing that failed is B's
    Click to expand...
    I don't think that "the thing that failed is B's" is so. it is simply that in some sentence the final pronoun "George, don't go wobbly on me." reflects the subject of a [potential] failure - i.e. that subject's [potential] burden.
     
    Nino, if I may sum up, after the fine explanations of Paul, Velisarius, and others.
    'on' can express disadvantage (so called 'dative', actually prepositional), but none of the OP examples work for this, for varying reasons. The most obvious one is you have "they" beginning the sentences.

    Your post #4 quoted some good material, but you did not implement it correctly:

    a North American English speaker said me that this construction works with some verbs, like die: my phone died or my phone died on me yesterday…my radio, my hairdryer, the battery died on me. crash: My computer crashed on me again!

    The Merriam-Webster says Definition of ON (under 9c) "used as a function word to indicate the object with respect to some misfortune or disadvantageous event <the crops died on them>".

    ----
    Note that this is a *common* informal expression that can be used with a great many verbs--general purpose ones**, as well as those involving a problem or negative consequence.

    The start is generally impersonal.
    A. Then the store was robbed on me, again.:tick: (I think; not certain)

    It's awkward to have another agent: B. The men robbed the store on me, again. :confused:
    (B. is like some of Nino's examples in the OP.)
    ===

    **Velisarius' fine example with Thatcher: Picture Thatcher saying, after,

    C: "George almost went wobbly on me" [general purpose 'go', past tense].

    Note that C. works whereas B. did not. It's (roughly) because George's change of state is not causally acting on her.
     
    Last edited:
    The quote from the CGEL I gave in #14 referring to an "adjunct of disadvantage" applies to only subset of the preposition on. Anything else is just a prepositional phrase.

    I also suggested, like Hildy1, that only intransitive verbs are involved. But this is not a sensible suggestion since a verb followed by a preposition is by definition intransitive.:) PaulQ pointed this out in #26. ***

    If you google adjunct of disadvantage, someone uses this term (see The Greenbelt: They did what to us?).
    They quote from Sapolsky's A Primate's Memoir (an excellent book, by the way), in which he wrote about baboons heading off to "the great Impenetrable Thicket", where they "couldn't be followed". Describing this, Sapolsky writes "they thicketed us". It is claimed that the meaning of this can only be understood without context by changing this phrase to "they thicketed on us".

    *** But see #33-35 below.
     
    Last edited:
    Here is another example of the three quoted in the book mentioned in #33 (which, by the way, is part of a series based on German linguistics, where the term dative can legitimately be used):

    "and the fire went out on him" (of a man marooned on an island).
    The other example seems dubious ("So he took to the fields again any way ... and then the night time fall on 'im").

    The book mentions two other examples of what it calls the dativus incommodi:
    "The plants would die on her." and
    "The little boy disappeared on her."

    It should be noted, however, that these are taken from Hibernian English dialect.
    We have only had one example quoted (from this book) of a transitive verb + object + on + pronoun.

    I agree, however, that he quit his job on me sounds plausible.
    The example above of "the fire went out on me" seems similar to "she shut the door on me" (with a transitive verb).
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top