Re: THEORY: 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.







Paul

Reply