indirect objects without direct ones

[mellow-yellow]

According to Wikipedia's Grammatical Object page,

There must be a direct object for an indirect object to be placed in a sentence." In "They sent him a postcard", him is a (non-prepositional) indirect object of the verb sent (which uses a double-object construction). It typically corresponds to the dative case.

However, Wikipedia's transitivity page contradicts this with

Even though an intransitive verb may not take a direct object, it often may take an appropriate indirect object: I laughed at him.

Which is accurate?

 

[Loob]

I think that you pays your money and you takes your choice.

Reacting on a personal level to your quotes...
I don't think "him" in "I laughed at him" is an indirect object.

 

[Beryl from Northallerton]

The first quote looks like it pertains to transitive verbs, and the second to intransitive ones. It's conceivable (to me at least) that different rules might apply in either case - so maybe it's not as inconsistent as it seems.

For my money, I do think "him" in "I laughed at him" is an indirect object. (oh well...)

 

[Thomas Tompion]

In other words, one might hold that when an indirect object appears without a direct object in a sentence, one is dealing with a phrasal verb?

I a bit dubious about that. What about I walked to London?

I can't agree with Wiki's grammatical object page, yet.

 

[e2efour]

I find it difficult to think of me in "Listen to me" as an indirect object.

 

[mellow-yellow]

In other words, one might hold that when an indirect object appears without a direct object in a sentence, one is dealing with a phrasal verb?

Good question. See below.

What about I walked to London?

Subject + verb + adverbial prepositional phrase (reference)

The first quote looks like it pertains to transitive verbs, and the second to intransitive ones.

Yes, I agree, and because the Wikipedia Grammatical Object page continues

An indirect object is the recipient of the direct object

perhaps "I laughed at him" is a phrasal verb as suggested here

Phrasal Verbs: laugh at To treat lightly; scoff at: a daredevil who laughed at danger.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/laugh+at

thus making "at him" a prepositional phrase acting as a direct object, because you could rewrite the sentence as

I deride/ridicule/mock him.



Thoughts?

 

[Forero]

I would say him is an indirect object in all three of the following sentences:

I told him he'd best not say that.
I told him so.
Yes, I told him.

In the third, there is no direct object. Are we saying the indirect object has to have been placed in the sentence before the direct object was omitted?

 

[mellow-yellow]

I told him he'd best not say that.

DO: that
IO: him

I told him so.

DO: so
IO: him

Yes, I told him.

DO: so, that, as much [unspecified but implied]
IO: him
This sentence is colloquial and, grammatically speaking, probably incorrect.

 

[owlman5]

This sentence is colloquial and, grammatically speaking, probably incorrect.

Ellipsis explains a lot of things, Mellow-Yellow. I wouldn't trust anybody who told me that "I told him" was incorrect. Speech would be awfully tedious if we always had to mention or repeat things that our listeners already understood.

 

[mellow-yellow]

I wouldn't trust anybody who told me that "I told him" was incorrect.

This is not a value judgment. Your sentence is fine, and is, in fact, a very common grammatically nonstandard (tell is transitive verb; see also generative grammar) colloquialism. Let's continue this in another thread, if you like, because it's a fascinating topic (e.g. Nonseparable phrasal verbs used as separable: He ran a tree into instead of He ran into a tree or language spelled langauge).

But, back to my question, is at him an indirect object?

 

[Forero]

This is not a value judgment. Your sentence is fine, and is, in fact, a very common grammatically nonstandard (tell is transitive verb; see also generative grammar) colloquialism. Let's continue this in another thread, if you like, because it's a fascinating topic (e.g. Nonseparable phrasal verbs used as separable: He ran a tree into instead of He ran into a tree or language spelled langauge).

But, back to my question, is at him an indirect object?

I seriously doubt Chomsky would have called this usage nonstandard.

At him is a prepositional phrase. In contains an object, but that is the object of the preposition itself, not a direct or indirect object of a verb.

The question, I think, is what exactly constitutes an indirect object, as opposed to a direct object.

 

[mellow-yellow]

Again,

An indirect object is the recipient of the direct object.

If that is true, where is the direct object in "I laughed at him?" Put another way, is at him really a prepositional phrase? Or is it a particle + direct object?

 

[Forero]

Again,



If that is true, where is the direct object in "I laughed at him?" Put another way, is at him really a prepositional phrase? Or is it a particle + direct object?

From the online Merriam Webster's definition of the preposition at:

...
2—used as a function word to indicate the goal of an indicated or implied action or motion <aim at the target> <creditors are at him again>
[...]
5—used as a function word to indicate the means, cause, or manner <sold at auction> <laughed at my joke> <act at your own discretion>
[...]

I can see both of these meanings in "I laughed at him." The same source gives the following for intransitive laugh:

1a : to show emotion (as mirth, joy, or scorn) with a chuckle or explosive vocal sound b : to find amusement or pleasure in something <laughed at his own clumsiness> c : to become amused or derisive <a very skeptical public laughed at our early efforts — Graenum Berger>
[...]

I think this describes the possible meanings of the sentence in question perfectly.

 

[mellow-yellow]

I can see both of these meanings in "I laughed at him."

Agreed, but "laugh at" may be, as the Cambridge dictionary claims, a phrasal verb:

laugh at sb/sth phrasal verb
to show that you think someone or something is stupid. I can't go into work looking like this - everyone will laugh at me.

In that case, we're back to verb + particle + direct object(?) , suggesting that the Wikipedia's Grammatical Object page is correct after all.

Another possibility is that at him is a (prepositional) adverb, similar to "I laughed heartily," but that's a different meaning of laugh.

Ultimate Phrasal Verbs mentions transitive phrasal verbs:

Transitive nonseparable phrasal verbs (verbs that require an object)... Hank's been CHEATING on his wife for years.

so maybe laugh is intransitive but laugh at is transitive.

 

[Intoarut]

I'm bringing back this thread... What about "He lied to me"?

If LIE is an intransitive verb, what is TO ME? Not a direct object. Neither an indirect one... Could it be considered an adjunct? I mean, we could do away with it, simply say HE LIED, and the sentence would be grammatically correct...

 

[owlman5]

If LIE is an intransitive verb, what is TO ME?

I don't think that the label is helpful, but I regard me as the object of the preposition to. It also sounds reasonable to call it an adjunct.

I mean, we could do away with it, simply say HE LIED, and the sentence would be grammatically correct...

This is certainly true. To me merely adds a little information about the person whom he lied to.

 

[Intoarut]

I don't think that the label is helpful, but I regard me as the object of the preposition to. It also sounds reasonable to call it an adjunct.


This is certainly true. To me merely adds a little information about the person whom he lied to.

Thank you!!