Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
If the three arguments of a typical ditransitive verb are labeled D (for Donor; the subject of a verb like "to give" in English), T (for Theme; normally the direct object of ditransitive verb in English) and R (for Recipient, normally the indirect object in English), these can be aligned with the Agent and Patient of monotransitive verbs and ...
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.
Even though an intransitive verb may not take a direct object, it often may take an appropriate indirect object: I laughed at him. What are considered to be intransitive verbs can also take cognate objects , where the object is considered integral to the action, for example She slept a troubled sleep .
direct or indirect object of verb: I saw her; I gave her the book. Bengali | Chuvash: Objective/Oblique (2) direct or indirect object of verb or object of preposition; a catch-all case for any situation except nominative or genitive: I saw her; I gave her the book; with her. English | Swedish | Danish | Norwegian | Bulgarian: Oblique case
A complement of a verbum dicendi can be direct or indirect speech. Direct speech is a single unit of linguistic object that is '"mentioned" rather than used.' [1] In contrast, indirect speech is a proposition whose parts make semantic and syntactic contribution to the whole sentence just like parts of the matrix clause (i.e. the main clause/sentence, as opposed to an embedded clause).
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.