I could use a little help on the distinction between IDO and DO . The examples I am looking at are :
1) They invited Susan
2) They invited Susan to play on the team
3) I see Susan
4) I see Susan playing on the team
As I understand it, sentences 1) and 2) have Susan as the IDO and the team is the DO whilst sentences 3 and 4 both have no IDO. I am a little confused here and wondering if the source of my confusion is due to the nature of the verb "invite" vs. the nature of the verb "see "
If so, are there other verbs like "invite" which seem to force the need for an IDO ?
For extra credit, what is the IDO and the DO for :
5) I see (that) Susan was invited to play on the team.
Thank you very much for any help in clarification.
Another perspective.
(i)
Direct object and
indirect objects are grammatical categories, which are represented by "noun phrases." A noun phrase is a phrase headed by a noun. In 2., "the team" is indeed a noun phrase, but it is actually syntactically linked to the preposition "on," forming the prepositional phrase
on the team. A prepositional phrase is a phrase headed by a preposition. Since an "object" is a noun phrase, and given that
on the team is a prepositional phrase, "on the team" can't be an object (even though the prepositional phrase has a noun phrase in it).
(ii) The grammatical category of "noun phrase" can also be represented by other things, such as names, pronouns, and clauses. Why? Because all of these things can appear in the "slot" reserved for an "noun phrase object." For example, in the structure subject + see + ___, I can fill the ___ slot with a name (
I see Susan), a pronoun (
I see her), or a clause (
I see what the point is; I see how things are). Thus, a clause is not a phrase, but a clause can function as a phrase. And that's what happens in 5)
I see that Susan was invited to play on the team. You have a clause (introduced by "that") which occupies the slot where a noun phrase usually goes.
(iii) The term
indirect object is used when there are two objects, so we can distinguish the "direct" object from the "indirect object." If there is only one object, there is no need to use the labels "direct" and "indirect," and so some people simply say "object." If there is an
indirect object, it'll appear between the verb and the direct object:
I wrote her a letter. This sentence has a variant:
She wrote a letter to her. Is "to her" an indirect object? It depends on who you ask. Some see it as an indirect object, the equivalent of "her" in
I wrote her a letter. But others don't call "to her" an indirect object because this is, technically speaking, a prepositional phrase and not a noun phrase.
(iv) People talk of
transitive verbs and
intransitive verbs, but "transitivity" is a property of clauses, not verbs. This may sound like academic nitpicking, but it bears on the question you are asking: the parsing of
They invited Susan to play on the team. If you see a verb, you have a clause. So, if we have two verbs (
invited,
to play), we have to clauses. Let's put the clauses in brackets, leaving out "Susan" for the moment:
[They invited] [to play on the team]
Where do we put "Susan," in the "invited" clause or in the "to play" clause? Well, "Susan" goes in both clauses. "Susan" is the person invited (thus, the "object"), and "Susan" is the one who plays (thus, the "subject" of "to play"). Technically speaking, the subject of infinitive is marked with "for," and the infinitive itself is marked with "to," as in
For Susan to play on the team would be unusual. So, in its full form, we have:
[They invited Susan] [for Susan to play on the team]
But, of course, we don't say that; it's too cumbersome. What happens is that, when there are two elements that are co-referential (such as two "Susans" which refer to the same person), the second element is deleted, along with the word "for" that normally introduces it. And that's how we get [They invited Susan
] [to play on the team], stated now without brackets:
The invited Susan to play on the team
And so "to play on the team" is not an "object," neither direct or indirect. It's what's left of an infinitive clause that has lost its subject ("for Susan"). And since "to play" originates in a separate clause, the infinitive can be omitted altogether, if in context it's understood that
They invited Susan means an invitation for Susan to play on the team.
(v) I said earlier that "transitivity" is a property of clauses, not verbs. Why? Because "transitivity" entails several factors (such as
participants, agent, volition, etc.) which are expressed by the clause at large rather than by verb itself. But this is an academic point. In everyday language, and in grammar for a general audience, it is verbs which are commonly described as transitive or intransitive.
(vi) The terms "direct object" and "indirect object" are used in reference to noun phrases (or things that function like noun phrases). The idea is that they are used to complete the meaning of the "transitive verb." But you can use other things, not just noun phrases, to complete the meaning of a verb. For example, we can use adverbs (
I ate frequently) and prepositional phrases (
I eat in the tub). Since "objects" is too restrictive in what it covers (only "noun phrases), some analysis don't use the term "object" and prefer instead the "argument," and an "argument" applies to anything that's used to convey the meaning of a verb/clause. But I suppose this is also an academic point.
I'm gonna hop over to the Spanish-English grammar section. In the sentence "they invited Susan", I need to substitute the indirect object pronoun for Susan, but in the sentence " I see Susan" I'm pretty sure I substitute the direct object pronoun. Assuming this is true, it may be that I just have to memorize certain verbs that act oddly to an English speaking person. ( I think maybe German has similar words, maybe ? "to call" comes to mind)
English is by default a S-V language, meaning that the "subject" precedes the verb. That's not the case in Spanish, where the "subject" can and often comes
after the verb. That's why Spanish marks the "object" with a preposition, to clearly distinguish it from the "subject." And there's an added layer of complexity in Spanish, because the Spanish equivalent of
They invited Susan to play on the team uses an optional and redundant pronoun that's co-referential with "Susan." But that's Spanish, and best left for the Spanish-Grammar section.
They invited Cinderella the ball.
