Grammar Gurus...two quick questions

[Alice]

Grammar is definitely not my strong suit. We had two things come up today where I disagreed with the text.  I know a lot of people here are grammar gurus so wanted to see what others thought....

 

1) Would you put a comma in this sentence before the word “and�

 

The ice melts as the sun shines and water collects in pools on top of the iceberg.

 

 

2) Would you call “boys†in this sentence an indirect object? 

 

The teacher gave the books to the boys. 

 

 

3) Related to #2 would you say that an indirect object always needs a direct object or can you have an indirect object with no DO? 

 

 

Thanks!

[LinRTX]

The first sentence is a compound sentence; it has two subjects and two verbs (ice melts -- water collects). The sentence could be broken into two sentences without the and, Therefore, you need a comma before the and.

 

In the second sentence boys in the object of the preposition. A sentence cannot have an indirect object without a direct object.

 

The sentence could be re-written with 'boys' as an indirect object:

 

The teacher gave the boys the books.

 

Hope this helps.

Linda

[Alice]

The first sentence is a compound sentence; it has two subjects and two verbs (ice melts -- water collects). The sentence could be broken into two sentences without the and, Therefore, you need a comma before the and.

 

In the second sentence boys in the object of the preposition. A sentence cannot have an indirect object without a direct object.

 

The sentence could be re-written with 'boys' as an indirect object:

 

The teacher gave the boys the books.

 

Hope this helps.

Linda

 

Thanks. 

 

For the first sentence, the text said what you did. I read the sentence as “as the sun shines and water collects†being one prepositional phrase instead of as a compound sentence with two subjects and two verbs.

 

The ice melts as the sun shines and water collects in pools on top of the iceberg.

 

For the second sentence, I agree. This was in a Latin book where she was teaching the Dative case as being for indirect objects and answering the question “to who or what†or “for who or whatâ€. She then says that in the sentence: The teacher gives the book to the boys that “boys†is the indirect object. I don’t know enough about Latin but I’m guessing that this explanation makes sense when choosing which case to use, and because Latin phrasing is often different than English anyway. But I’ll have to research that more. She also made the comment about having some indirect objects without direct objects. 

 

Anyone else have insight? 

[Matryoshka]

 

For the second sentence, I agree. This was in a Latin book where she was teaching the Dative case as being for indirect objects and answering the question “to who or what†or “for who or whatâ€. She then says that in the sentence: The teacher gives the book to the boys that “boys†is the indirect object. I don’t know enough about Latin but I’m guessing that this explanation makes sense when choosing which case to use, and because Latin phrasing is often different than English anyway. But I’ll have to research that more. She also made the comment about having some indirect objects without direct objects. 

 

 

Grammar rules are not always applicable across languages, so what's "true" in English may not be in Latin and vice versa.  In languages with separate direct and indirect object cases, you most certainly can have indirect objects without direct objects.  In English, we say that because there's no observable difference between direct/indirect object pronouns.  They're all the same.

 

So in English, you can say:

 

She paid him.

She paid him five dollars. 

 

Is "him" direct in one and indirect in the other?  In Spanish (and I'm guessing in Latin), the direct object is "understood", similar to "understood you" as a subject in a direct command in English - "him" would be indirect in either sentence.  In many other languages, this would be obvious because there are separate indirect/direct pronouns.  In English there's just one object pronoun for direct, indirect, and prepositional.  In some languages the object of a preposition's case changes based on whether the relationship of the object to the main sentence is direct or indirect.  Here we say that the object of a preposition cannot be direct or indirect - it's a moot point to argue in English, as again, there's no difference - easier just to take them out of the equation.

 

I think most people in English would label "him" in the previous sentences direct in the former and indirect in the latter.  I personally think this is mistaken, but I speak multiple languages and that explanation seems "off" to me.  I'd argue for the "understood" argument.  What gets paid is still money.  The person is to whom it is paid (indirect), not what is paid (direct), in either sentence.

[Alice]

Grammar rules are not always applicable across languages, so what's "true" in English may not be in Latin and vice versa.  In languages with separate direct and indirect object cases, you most certainly can have indirect objects without direct objects.  In English, we say that because there's no observable difference between direct/indirect object pronouns.  They're all the same.

 

So in English, you can say:

 

She paid him.

She paid him five dollars. 

 

Is "him" direct in one and indirect in the other?  In Spanish (and I'm guessing in Latin), the direct object is "understood", similar to "understood you" as a subject in a direct command in English - "him" would be indirect in either sentence.  In many other languages, this would be obvious because there are separate indirect/direct pronouns.  In English there's just one object pronoun for direct, indirect, and prepositional.  In some languages the object of a preposition's case changes based on whether the relationship of the object to the main sentence is direct or indirect.  Here we say that the object of a preposition cannot be direct or indirect - it's a moot point to argue in English, as again, there's no difference - easier just to take them out of the equation.

 

I think most people in English would label "him" in the previous sentences direct in the former and indirect in the latter.  I personally think this is mistaken, but I speak multiple languages and that explanation seems "off" to me.  I'd argue for the "understood" argument.  What gets paid is still money.  The person is to whom it is paid (indirect), not what is paid (direct), in either sentence.

 

Thanks! That’s really interesting. The problem I think is the way the curriculum explained “the ruleâ€.It didn’t differentiate between Latin and English, which was confusing for my son (and me) who had learned something very different in his English grammar curriculum. 

[Bocky]

Maybe it would help to think about the phrase to the boys in terms of its function in the sentence. In Latin, there is often not a one-to-one correspondence between the English words and the Latin words you use to translate the idea into good Latin. The prepositional phrase "to the boys" is functioning in the sentence "The teacher gave the books to the boys" as an indirect object, secondarily receiving the action of the verb. We can express this in English either as "the Teacher gave the boys the books" or as "the teacher gave the books to the boys". In Latin you can only express that relationship using the dative case. There is no prepositional phrase in Latin that expresses the relationship of indirectly receiving the action of the verb.

HTH!