Re: THEORY: more questions

> Date:    Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:52:04 -0500
> From:    Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...>
> Subject: Re: More questions
>
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:32:13 +0000, Tim May
> <butsuri@...> wrote:
>
>
>>> Paul Bennett wrote at 2003-11-25 15:52:21 (-0500)
>>
>>>> > It's my understanding that the recipient/benefactive noun takes the
>>>> > Oblique case in (almost?) all cases like this, leading me to wonder
>>>> > whether "the book" is a greater candidate for direct-object-hood
>>>> > than "me".
>>>> >
>>>> > Paul
>>
>>>
>>> Well, yes.  "Me" is the indirect object.  I'm not sure I see your
>>> point.
>>>
>
>
> My point, apparently, was that for the entire course of the day (more or
> less), I have had a number of misapprehensions about the terms "direct
> object" and "indirect object". I don't know why. I think that dealing with
> PO/SO language ideas (as I have been between now and the last time I needed
> to know the DO/IO difference) has thrown me into a minor state of
> confusion.
>
> I was confusing PO with IO and SO with DO, or the other way around.
>
> There was also something about the distinction between Dative and Oblique
> in English (none, AFAIK) that may have clouded my mind.
>
> I've been somewhat lax today, it seems. My only excuse is that I'm out of
> practice.
Hello,
I can understand DO/O as meaning Direct and Indirect objects, but what
does PO/SO stand for?
Thanks,
~Trinsic

Replies