Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In languages which mark grammatical case, it is common to differentiate the objects of a ditransitive verb using, for example, the accusative case for the direct object, and the dative case for the indirect object (but this morphological alignment is not unique; see below). In languages without morphological case (such as English for the most ...
In linguistics, an object is any of several types of arguments. [1] In subject-prominent, nominative-accusative languages such as English, a transitive verb typically distinguishes between its subject and any of its objects, which can include but are not limited to direct objects, [2] indirect objects, [3] and arguments of adpositions (prepositions or postpositions); the latter are more ...
For instance in some languages direct-object = dative-object and indirect object = accusative-object while in other languages this is not the case. Does anybody know this differecnces? -- 84.132.95.92 19:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Actually you have it backwards, the indirect object belongs to the dative case, the direct object to the accusative.
The direct object the book is acted upon by the subject, and the indirect object Susan receives the direct object or otherwise benefits from the action. Traditional grammars often begin with these rather vague notions of the grammatical functions.
The Celtic languages (at least the modern Insular Celtic languages) distinguish two types of relative clause: direct relative clauses and indirect relative clauses. A direct relative clause is used where the relativized element is the subject or the direct object of its clause (e.g. "the man who saw me", "the man whom I saw"), while an indirect ...
In this oblique dative sentence [John sent a letter to Mary], the verb, [sent], and its indirect object, [to Mary], make up a constituent that excludes the direct object [a letter]. The OD form therefore involves an underlying verb phrase (VP) whose subject is [a letter] and whose object is [(to) Mary].
The indirect speech sentence is then ambiguous since it can be a result of two different direct speech sentences. For example: I can get it for free. OR I could get it for free. He said that he could get it for free. (ambiguity) However, in many Slavic languages, there is no change of tense in indirect speech and so there is no ambiguity.
In non-DOM languages, by contrast, direct objects are uniformly marked in a single way. For instance, Quechua marks all direct objects with the direct-object ending -ta. A common basis for differentially marking direct objects is the notion of "prominence," which reflects two properties that can be understood along decreasing scales: [3]