we ought to welcome into our country a person who will fill

[Caesats]

Hi everyone
"If an American employer is offering a job that American citizens are not willing to take, we ought to welcome into our country a person who will fill that job, " he said.
CNN: Bush pushes for immigrant worker plan

I feel the underlined phrase is not correct.It should be＂welcome our country into a person＂，right？

 

[Glasguensis]

No. That would imply that the country was entering the person, when clearly it is the other way round. The original word order is correct.

 

[Caesats]

No. That would imply that the country was entering the person, when clearly it is the other way round. The original word order is correct.

Then what about＂welcome our country into a person＂？

 

[Glasguensis]

Then what about＂welcome our country into a person＂？

That is the same as what you said originally, and it is still wrong.

 

[Caesats]

That is the same as what you said originally, and it is still wrong.

Why is it wrong？normally we put the indirect object between the phrase such as＂take me to your heart＂ instead of ＂take to me your heart＂

 

[Glasguensis]

It is wrong because the direct object is "a person" and the indirect object is "our country". Your order is like "take your heart to me" : You are not simply inverting the order, you are inverting the direct and indirect objects.

 

[sdgraham]

Why is it wrong？normally we put the indirect object between the phrase such as＂take me to your heart＂ instead of ＂take to me your heart＂

As you've been told twice and now three times, you cannot stuff a country into a person.

I strongly suggest you consider the logic of a statement before trying to justify it with what you consider to be grammar rules.

 

[Caesats]

It is wrong because the direct object is "a person" and the indirect object is "our country". Your order is like "take your heart to me" : You are not simply inverting the order, you are inverting the direct and indirect objects.

I think I've got your point, the ＂normal order＂ is＂welcome a person into our country＂ and put ＂a person＂ behind for emphasizing
As for direct object＂take me to your heart＂ or ＂take a book to him＂，I believe the object follwing the verb is the direct object whether it is a person or a thing。
Right？

 

[PaulQ]

I believe the object following the verb is the direct object whether it is a person or a thing。
Right？

Wrong!

I............gave.......the dog...........a bone
Subject...verb...indirect object...direct object

I............gave.......a bone........to the dog.
Subject...verb...direct object...indirect object.


The terms direct object and indirect object do not describe a position in the sentence, but a function within the sentence.

The direct object of a verb is the object that receives the action of the verb
The indirect object is the recipient of the direct object.

 

[Caesats]

Wrong!

I............gave.......the dog...........a bone
Subject...verb...indirect object...direct object

I............gave.......a bone........to the dog.
Subject...verb...direct object...indirect object.

Can you tell me why ＂welcome a person into our country＂can be changed to＂welcome into our country a person＂？
And is it correct to use the similar structure the same way such as ＂take you to my home＂changed to ＂take to my home you＂

 

[Glasguensis]

Can you tell me why ＂welcome a person into our country＂can be changed to＂welcome into our country a person＂？

Because in English it is often possible to modify the order of a sentence, provided that such reordering doesn't cause ambiguity over the function of each part of the sentence. In this example, there is no ambiguity. It is clear in either order that "a person" is the direct object and "our country" is the indirect object. No other grammar/usage problems are created by the reordering, therefore it is permitted.

And is it correct to use the similar structure the same way such as ＂take you to my home＂changed to ＂take to my home you＂

No. In this case the reordering makes it less clear that "you" is the direct object, so it is not permitted.

 

[Caesats]

Because in English it is often possible to modify the order of a sentence, provided that such reordering doesn't cause ambiguity over the function of each part of the sentence. In this example, there is no ambiguity. It is clear in either order that "a person" is the direct object and "our country" is the indirect object. No other grammar/usage problems are created by the reordering, therefore it is permitted.


No. In this case the reordering makes it less clear that "you" is the direct object, so it is not permitted.

Well，so it depends？

 

[Glasguensis]

Well，so it depends？

Yes, as is usually the case in English. That's why we are so insistent on the forum about context and an example sentence.

 

[Caesats]

Thank you all

 

[Wordsmyth]

Can you tell me why ＂welcome a person into our country＂can be changed to＂welcome into our country a person＂？
[...]

In your original example, this is done for a very good reason. The sentence actually reads "... welcome into our country a person who will fill that job". The relative clause, "who will fill that job", modifies "a person" (not "our country").

If you kept the order as "welcome a person into our country" (which would be normal if the sentence ended there), you'd get "welcome a person into our country who will fill that job". That sounds odd, because it doesn't follow the normal practice of putting the relative clause as close as possible to the noun or noun phrase that it modifies.

Alternatively, you might go for "welcome a person who will fill that job into our country" — but that makes it sound as though it's the job that's being 'filled into our country' (whatever that might mean!). Here, "into our country" is too far away from "a person".

So the normal order is "welcome into our country a person who will fill that job". Now the indirect and direct objects immediately follow the verb, and the relative clause immediately follows the thing it modifies.

Ws