Sorry for volume.
Example of anticipatory object owe | meaning of owe in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English | LDOCE:
(0) You owe it to him to reply to the invitation.
I think it means something like:
You are obliged to reply to his invitation.
Before I considered, anticipatory objects could appear only with complex transitives (I find it difficult to be here). But in (0) we have the indirect object "to him" (or someone will call it oblique object or preposition + indirect object).
As I'd have thought earlier, (0) was ungrammatical, because if we convert (0) to its initial form before the extraposition - You owe to reply to the invitation to him - we get "owe to inf.", which is not correct since "owe" is transitive and must have an object. Therefore (0) was supposed to be ungrammatical!
By this logic we can have only the next variant:
(1) You owe it to him replying to the invitation.
Because "replying to the invitation" is suitable as object to "owe" in "You owe replying to the invitation to him" as odd as it could sound.
a) What do you think of my issue vision?
b) Can we say (1) and (2) and if we can, then why do we need (0)?
Thanks in advance!
Example of anticipatory object owe | meaning of owe in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English | LDOCE:
(0) You owe it to him to reply to the invitation.
I think it means something like:
You are obliged to reply to his invitation.
Before I considered, anticipatory objects could appear only with complex transitives (I find it difficult to be here). But in (0) we have the indirect object "to him" (or someone will call it oblique object or preposition + indirect object).
As I'd have thought earlier, (0) was ungrammatical, because if we convert (0) to its initial form before the extraposition - You owe to reply to the invitation to him - we get "owe to inf.", which is not correct since "owe" is transitive and must have an object. Therefore (0) was supposed to be ungrammatical!
By this logic we can have only the next variant:
(1) You owe it to him replying to the invitation.
Because "replying to the invitation" is suitable as object to "owe" in "You owe replying to the invitation to him" as odd as it could sound.
a) What do you think of my issue vision?
b) Can we say (1) and (2) and if we can, then why do we need (0)?
(1) You owe it to him replying to the invitation.
(2) You owe him replying to the invitation.
c) With what else ditransitives can I use the extraposition(2) You owe him replying to the invitation.
(list of ditransitives: http://www.aprendeinglesenleganes.com/resources/DITRANSITIVE VERBS (LIST) .pdf )?
d) For example, is it correct to say:(3) The embassy denied it to him to get the visa. ( = The embassy denied him getting the visa)
Thanks in advance!
Last edited: