|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
BelM's thread about how you tell where you're from got me to wondering. We normally divide verbs into transitive and intransitive verbs, but the transitive verbs really come in two different types: those that take merely a direct object and those that take both a direct and an indirect object. Is there a grammatical term that distinguishes between those two types?
Edit:
Dr. Bill suggested I give an example of the two types of transitive verbs: I can read a book, but I can't just give a book, I have to give someone a book. Even in my opening sentence in the edit there was an understood y'all between give and an example.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
I don't have the answer to your question, Faldage, but what about the use of the verb give in this ex.?
Q: What did you donate to the charity auction?
A: I gave a book.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Q: What did you donate to the charity auction?
A: I gave a book.
I gave a book (to the charity).
You could, for example, just bust out and say "I gave a book to the charity," but if you just said "I gave a book" people would be wondering to what or whom you gave it. In your example the "charity" is understood from the context.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
I was thinking maybe BelM's first language is French, in which language there may not be the same distinction between "tell" and "say" as there is in English.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
if you just said "I gave a book" people would be wondering to what or whom you gave it. Wa-ah...you never let me have any fun!  Hey! Faldage, if I can't give a book, can I give a damn? there may not be the same distinction between "tell" and "say" [yobbity-yobbity]...ah! One eez transitive, the other eez not. I wish my French weren't so rusty; bel, where are you?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1 |
They're usually called ditransitive verbs. Or verbs with a valency of three.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditransitive_verb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
Wow. Nice work, Fil! I've never heard the term, nor have I heard valence ascribed to verbs before. Thanks!!!!!
And welcome to the madhouse.
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
Welcome, film, and thanks for that pointer. It seems useful stuff mostly, but I take exception to the one-line summary:
> Most of these rules are arbitrary and are learnt only with experience by native speakers.
What a pile of manure this description is - something is either a rule or it's arbitrary. This imho is the ultimate absurdity of the prescriptivist pretence. This sentence actually suggests these things:
1. Native speakers are privileged by some sort of magic ear
2. This allows them to discern required differences in speech patterns despite the apparent random qualities observed in practice
3. This superior performance allows their speech to fit the rules
Balls. Surely what is actually going on is that the accretion of patterns of usage is indeed pretty arbitrary in its variations, and it's only custom that privileges the apparent euphony of one form over another. To attempt to draw a 'rule' given the observable discrepencies is simply perverse. The most that can usefully be said is that certain forms tend to be mostly found doing this job (with notable exceptions) whilst the alternate form is mostly found doing a slightly different job (again, with some notable exceptions). In other words, you can describe what is, but you cannot usefully ascribe the resultant language as the product of some rule.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 724
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 724 |
Hi. I am learning grammar, and I have a question. I am sorry if this creates a cross thread.
One can diagram a sentence, or map a sentence as a phrase tree structure. Are they both different ways of parsing a sentence, or are they both used for different purposes? When would one diagram a sentence, and when would one draw the phrase tree structure of the sentence?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Thanks, film. Just what I was looking for. Stick around, please do.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,602
Members9,187
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
157
guests, and
3
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
