Bruce,

Many thanks for this thorough explanation! I had my "aha!" moment finally. I
enjoy discussing phrasal verbs with my students, and I can't wait to explore
the idea of different types of particles. I'm going to head over to the
library today and see if I can find more information about phrasal verbs and
their particles.

Regards,

John

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

>  John
>
>
>
> I am sorry that sometimes I do become very terse and sometimes it is due to
> muddled thinking.  Let me explain the import of my thinking a little more.
> I apologize to all for too often using the list to think out loud.  I can’t
> blame most people who simply ignore my ramblings.
>
>
>
> The German may well be a source of confusion, since they use the dative
> case as the object of the preposition *von,* where we have a “genitive”
> using the preposition *of*, but an objective case.   The semantics and the
> syntax in its morphological manifestation are at odds.   I have used the
> same terms for both phenomena.   When I said “benefactive,”  I was referring
> to the semantics of a prepositional phrase in *for*, which is often called
> a “dative,” and when I said “dative,” I simply meant what is usually called
> the indirect object when expressed without a preposition.
>
>
>
> The fact that we express a number of relations in English without the aid
> of prepositions can lead to confusion.  My attempt has been to sort out the
> phrasal verbs into two basic kinds.  One kind has an adverb (particle) that
> complements it fully, as in “I handed my gun over.”  This “over” is similar
> to the German “über” in “überzeugen” but in English such particles are
> always separable.  The second kind of phrasal verb has an adverbial phrase
> in the form of a prepositional phrase as its complement.  (There are also
> combinations, etc.)  This preposition is also attached like a particle to
> the verb, so that when the verb is not intransitive, the object of the
> preposition may be the subject of its passive form.  Compare: “The teacher
> went over the papers carefully,” vs. “The papers were gone over carefully by
> the teacher.”  This example is particularly confusing when we see that “I
> handed over my gun,” may be likewise compared with “My gun was handed over
> by me.”  The only way to separate the two uses of over may well be to show
> that “I handed it over” works, but *“The teacher went them over” does not.
>  The adverb particle is thus different from the prepositional particle.
>
>
>
> That said, the idea was that the omission of the preposition can make
> direct objects of a verb look identical to the prepositional object of a
> verb.  This was the case with the of-phrase used to complement *convince*.
> When the* of *
>
> Is missing the object looks like a direct object.  This idea was carried
> over to other verbs with a prepositional particle that may be seen to omit
> it in certain cases (perhaps?).  The so-called indirect object may be seen
> to participate in allowing its verb to make it the subject of a passive
> form: “I gave him $2” vs. “He was given $2.”  What if we acknowledge that
> this is equivalent to “I gave $2 to him.”  Is this not a prepositional
> object of *give?*. This would suggest that their full passive would be “He
> was given $2 to,” which, however,  wants to omit its preposition.  The
> regular omission of the preposition could be explained as by force of the
> existence of an indirect object construction that does not use it.  (I seem
> to have just knocked over a straw man.)
>
>
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *John Dews-Alexander
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2009 3:13 PM
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: "convinces us that..."?
>
>
>
> I had never considered phrasal verbs taking an object in the way that
> prepositional phrases do until Bruce's e-mail.
>
>
>
> Bruce, I hope this isn't too general of a request, but could you elaborate
> on your second paragraph? I feel like I've almost grasped the concept you're
> trying to relay, but I'm missing something. Are you saying that the indirect
> object function is not present in this sentence, that it has been omitted?
> (And, perhaps, that it would be present if the sentence had the structure,
> "Someone/something convinces someone of something for/on behalf of
> someone"?) Could you provide an example of what you mean by, "[T]he
> dative....appears with the prepositional object of this same sort"?
>
>
>
> I think some of my confusion if stemming from some German interference. In
> German, "to convince someone of something" would be "jemanden (von etwas)
> uberzeugen" (with umlaut on the "u"). The "someone" ("jemanden") is in the
> accusative/direct object case, and the "of something" is in the
> dative/indirect object case. My understanding of your analysis has the "of
> something" as the object of a preposition/phrasal verb but not necessarily
> functioning as the indirect object. Have I muddled your intended meaning?
>
>
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> Patty and Scott,
>
>
>
> I think Patty is on the right track.  The noun clause is the object of the
> prepositional verb “convince of” whereas “us” is in the role of direct
> object.  Something convinces someone of something.  The preposition is
> regularly omitted when its object is a (factive noun) clause.
>
>
>
> What is interesting is that the dative (or benefactive) appears with the
> prepositional object of this same sort.  However, the person to whom or for
> whom the particular action of the verb is performed cannot be expressed with
> a  factive noun clause, so the confusion does not occur with the loss of the
> preposition.  The preposition is regularly omitted when its object is a
> pronoun and/or it is placed before the object of the verb.  This, of course,
> is the so-called indirect object, and its surface structure is very similar
> to the former case of an omitted preposition.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Patricia Lafayllve
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2009 7:56 AM
>
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>
> *Subject:* Re: "convinces us that..."?
>
>
>
> A return question…
>
>
>
> If we take the original sentence down a bit, we have <language convinces
> us>.  My eyes read <us> as the direct object, which would then make <that
> a…explanation> the clause that answers the question “What” (as in, what does
> the language convince us).  So…why would we take <us> as the indirect
> object?
>
>
>
> -patty
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Scott Woods
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:40 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* "convinces us that..."?
>
>
>
> List,
>
> I have a few questions about the following sentence:
>
> <Poe's language, however, gradually convinces us that a purely rational
> explanation will not suffice, however neatly it fits the external facts. >
>
>
>
> Would you take <us> as the indirect object? Would you take the <that>
> clause after it as the direct object? Is this analogous to <He showed us a
> monkey>? Does <convince> always take a noun clause object when it takes an
> direct object? In <He convinced us>, is <us> now the direct object, that is,
> we were the convinced ones, or is there still an implied clausal direct
> object leaving <us> as an indirect object?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott Woods
>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
>
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
> and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
> copies of the original message.
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>  To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
> "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/