Skip to main content

syntactic analysis - Direct and indirect object with "give" and "buy"


I have been studying Longman's English grammar book, and something is really confusing me:




  • We can put it and them after the verb: Give it to me. Buy them for me. Do it for me.




  • With e.g. give and buy, we can say: Give me it. Buy me them. (But not *Do me it.)




  • We say: Give it to John. Buy them for John. (Not *Give John it - *Buy John them.)




Why can't I say Buy John it or Give John them?


There is another post related to it that talks about the same topic: Direct and Indirect Objects with the verbs: Give, Buy, and Bring. However, the most voted answer was, indeed, useful for me, but didn't get everything clear.


What's the main rule for inverting the position and dropping the preposition?


As far as I managed to understand, if the direct object is it or them and the indirect object is a pronoun, the normal construction's placement is necessary, i.e.: Subject + Verb + Direct object + To/For + Indirect object


Is this right?




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more