>> ZG·Lingua >  >> Theoretical Linguistics >> Syntax

Can a sentence have an indirect object without having direct object?

No, a sentence cannot have an indirect object without a direct object.

Here's why:

* Indirect objects always receive something from the direct object. They answer the question "to whom?" or "for whom?" about the action of the verb.

* Direct objects are the recipients of the action. They answer the question "what?" or "whom?" about the action of the verb.

Example:

* "I gave the book to John."

* Direct object: "book" (what was given)

* Indirect object: "John" (to whom the book was given)

Without a direct object, there's nothing to be given, received, or affected by the action, making the concept of an indirect object meaningless.

However, there are situations where a sentence *appears* to have an indirect object without a direct object, but it's actually a prepositional phrase:

* "I sent a message to John."

* *"To John"* is a prepositional phrase acting as an adverbial phrase modifying the verb "sent." It tells us where or to whom the message was sent.

Let me know if you'd like more examples!

Copyright © www.zgghmh.com ZG·Lingua All rights reserved.