3 ms·

> even though we have directional indicators like "x1 sells x2 to x3". indicators that are not always used or needed: "she sold it him".

by gioele 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago
> indicators that are not always used or needed: "she sold it him". I've never seen that kind of construction used except by very young children or non-native English speakers coming from languages where the role of the prepositions would instead be served by inflecting the noun or pronoun. I don't think its an example of a case where those things aren't required in English, insofar as "required" means anything in a natural language.
- delluminatus 12y ago
  Sure you have. Here's an easier example: "I told him that." instead of "I told that to him."
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Sure you have. I'd rather you not try to speak for my experience, since clearly you have no basis for doing so. In any case, you are wrong, possibly because you are confusing two different constructions for the same construction. > Here's an easier example: "I told him that." instead of "I told that to him." That's not the same construction as "She sold it him" in place of "She sold it to him"; its a different construction in which changes to word order conveys the same relationship that is conveyed by prepositions in the form with preopositions. The same construction would be "I told that him". There's a difference between being able to simply drop the prepositions and with there being an alternative mechanism of using word order to replace the prepositions.
    - thaumasiotes 12y ago
      You're just moving the goalposts here. Look upthread and you'll see yourself saying that we're talking about examples "where those things [directional indicators like the preposition to] aren't required in English". You've already picked up two comments pointing out that gioele made an obvious mistake when referencing a rule we're all familiar with. Since the only claim was that directional prepositions "are not always used or needed" even when they're permitted, the details of how you might avoid using them are completely irrelevant -- it's sufficient that it's possible to omit them.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Look upthread and you'll see yourself saying that we're talking about examples "where those things [directional indicators like the preposition to] aren't required in English". And you'll see in the same post that I quoted that that I criticized not the concept that the indicators were not required, but the particular example given as being a poor example as it was not an example of a construction that was idiomatic English in current use by native speakers. "I don't think its an example of a case where those things aren't required in English" in reference to a particular construction is not a claim that there are not other constructions which would be a valid example.
- thaumasiotes 12y ago
  "She sold it him" is extremely archaic speech, but in general you're quite wrong -- consider "She sold him a car". "Dative"[1] constructions in English have a fairly regular alternation with order-reversed double accusatives: "I bought a dress for my daughter" / "I bought my daughter a dress" "You should download Drawn for me" / "You should download me Drawn" (example lifted from my little sister, who produced the second of these -- this is evidence of a living rule allowing the alternation) "My father gave this to me" / "My father gave me this" By this rule, it would be correct to say *"she sold him it", which is not actually correct. But the problem there is that the pronoun "it" is too weak to occupy that position in the sentence, not that prepositions are required in constructions like those. [1] Dative constructions are so called because they correspond to uses of the dative ("giving") case in languages with a dative case. English has no dative case, but a number of English grammatical constructions have been named after it.
- gioele 12y ago
  > I've never seen that kind of construction used except by very young children or non-native English speakers «then the herdsman filled him the bowl out of which he was wont himself to drink, and he gave it him brimming with wine» From "The Odyssey of Homer; translated by S.H. Butcher and A. Lang." available at http://www.bartleby.com/22/14.html http://www.bartleby.com/22/14.html
delluminatus 12y ago
I think a better example is "she sold him it", which we interpret as "she sold it to him" (instead of your example, which means "she sold him to it", which is weird). e.g. She sold me the game. He told me the story. Etc.

> even though we have directional indicators like "x1 sells x2 to x3". indicators that are not always used or needed: "she sold it him".

by gioele 12y ago

> even though we have directional indicators like "x1 sells x2 to x3". indicators that are not always used or needed: "she sold it him".

dragonwriter 12y ago

> indicators that are not always used or needed: "she sold it him". I've never seen that kind of construction used except by very young children or non-native English speakers coming from languages where the role of the prepositions would instead be served by inflecting the noun or pronoun. I don't think its an example of a case where those things aren't required in English, insofar as "required" means anything in a natural language.

delluminatus 12y ago
Sure you have. Here's an easier example: "I told him that." instead of "I told that to him."
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Sure you have. I'd rather you not try to speak for my experience, since clearly you have no basis for doing so. In any case, you are wrong, possibly because you are confusing two different constructions for the same construction. > Here's an easier example: "I told him that." instead of "I told that to him." That's not the same construction as "She sold it him" in place of "She sold it to him"; its a different construction in which changes to word order conveys the same relationship that is conveyed by prepositions in the form with preopositions. The same construction would be "I told that him". There's a difference between being able to simply drop the prepositions and with there being an alternative mechanism of using word order to replace the prepositions.
  - thaumasiotes 12y ago
    You're just moving the goalposts here. Look upthread and you'll see yourself saying that we're talking about examples "where those things [directional indicators like the preposition to] aren't required in English". You've already picked up two comments pointing out that gioele made an obvious mistake when referencing a rule we're all familiar with. Since the only claim was that directional prepositions "are not always used or needed" even when they're permitted, the details of how you might avoid using them are completely irrelevant -- it's sufficient that it's possible to omit them.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Look upthread and you'll see yourself saying that we're talking about examples "where those things [directional indicators like the preposition to] aren't required in English". And you'll see in the same post that I quoted that that I criticized not the concept that the indicators were not required, but the particular example given as being a poor example as it was not an example of a construction that was idiomatic English in current use by native speakers. "I don't think its an example of a case where those things aren't required in English" in reference to a particular construction is not a claim that there are not other constructions which would be a valid example.
thaumasiotes 12y ago
"She sold it him" is extremely archaic speech, but in general you're quite wrong -- consider "She sold him a car". "Dative"[1] constructions in English have a fairly regular alternation with order-reversed double accusatives: "I bought a dress for my daughter" / "I bought my daughter a dress" "You should download Drawn for me" / "You should download me Drawn" (example lifted from my little sister, who produced the second of these -- this is evidence of a living rule allowing the alternation) "My father gave this to me" / "My father gave me this" By this rule, it would be correct to say *"she sold him it", which is not actually correct. But the problem there is that the pronoun "it" is too weak to occupy that position in the sentence, not that prepositions are required in constructions like those. [1] Dative constructions are so called because they correspond to uses of the dative ("giving") case in languages with a dative case. English has no dative case, but a number of English grammatical constructions have been named after it.
gioele 12y ago
> I've never seen that kind of construction used except by very young children or non-native English speakers «then the herdsman filled him the bowl out of which he was wont himself to drink, and he gave it him brimming with wine» From "The Odyssey of Homer; translated by S.H. Butcher and A. Lang." available at http://www.bartleby.com/22/14.html http://www.bartleby.com/22/14.html

delluminatus 12y ago

I think a better example is "she sold him it", which we interpret as "she sold it to him" (instead of your example, which means "she sold him to it", which is weird). e.g. She sold me the game. He told me the story. Etc.