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
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/