What is the proper grammar for my example sentence?

[timmeister37]

A 'transitive' verb is relational.

From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transitive

A transitive verb is a verb that requires a direct object, which is a noun, pronoun, or noun phrase that follows the verb and completes the sentence's meaning by indicating the person or thing that receives the action of the verb. The direct object typically answers the question what? or whom?:​

$\cdots$​

A transitive verb can also have an indirect object, which is a noun, pronoun, or noun phrase that comes before a direct object and indicates the person or thing that receives what is being given or done. Many common verbs can be used with both direct and indirect objects.​

​

​

Lets say we have sentence with a transitive verb with a predicate pronoun that is an indirect object. How does the knowledge that the predicate pronoun is an INDIRECT OBJECT help determine whether the predicate pronoun should be in the objective case or the subjective case?

 

[sysprog]

In the sentence, "The assignment was given to her and I", isn't "to her and I" a prepositional phrase? So isn't "The assignment was given to her and I" correct grammar? You said that the pronoun in a prepositional phrase is supposed to be in the objective case, which is the word "her".

No, it's 'to her and me' -- you presumably know that it's never 'the assignment was given to I' -- please look up active voice versus passive voice $\cdots$

 

[sysprog]

Lets say we have sentence with a transitive verb with a predicate pronoun that is an indirect object. How does the knowledge that the predicate pronoun is an INDIRECT OBJECT help determine whether the predicate pronoun should be in the objective case or the subjective case?

Why is that a question?

 

[kuruman]

Another pronoun that people have a hard time with is "whom," the objective case of "who." People mistakenly think they are being formal if they say, "Whom was at the reception?"

Yes and also, "Whom was the reception honoring?" is correct for that reason as opposed to "Who was the reception honoring?" The distinction might be too subtle to people who have not formally studied grammar and syntax in primary education.

 

[timmeister37]

Yes. My example in post #21 was intended to answer your question, but I guess I wasn't explicit.Here "was" in the second sentence is a linking verb, tying "it" and "she" together. Note that nowadays this is considered to be a more formal type of construction.

Another pronoun that people have a hard time with is "whom," the objective case of "who." People mistakenly think they are being formal if they say, "Whom was at the reception?"

I agree with you that the rule i wrote about using linking verbs in post #27 is correct, but i have this feeling that my rule in post #27 does not explain everything one needs to know to use proper pronoun case in all situations. But i don't know EXACTLY where the deficiency lies. I think that MAYBE the problem is that post #27 is correct, but one would need to know some other rule to determine if a linking verb is linking the subject and the predicate pronoun as opposed to the linking verb linking the subject with something in the predicate OTHER than the predicate pronoun. About ten years ago, I researched this in enormous depth and had an excellent understanding of what case of pronouns to use. I am very intrigued with PF member Sysprog's posting the definitions of direct objects and indirect objects because i remember that transitive verbs and indirect objects were directly relevant to my reasoning in choosing what case of pronouns to use back then. But i don't remember exactly how.

 

[timmeister37]

Why is that a question?

Because my understanding of this is incomplete

 

[timmeister37]

Why is that a question?

I am just a guy with only a high school education in English grammar.

Edit: As far a FORMAL education in English grammar goes, i have only a high school education in English grammar.

I self-educated myself on proper pronoun case usage ten years ago, but i have forgotten a lot of that knowledge.

‐-----------

Perhaps you are substantially higher in IQ than I am. Perhaps you can make connections so effortlessly while i cannot make the connections effortlessly, so that things that are intuitively obvious to you and just go without saying to you have to be explicitly spelled out to me.

 

[sysprog]

Because my understanding of this is incomplete

ok, a simple example -- she and I (we) went to the store -- the cashier gave her and me (us), our change after the purchase $\cdots$

 

[Mark44]

Yes and also, "Whom was the reception honoring?" is correct for that reason as opposed to "Who was the reception honoring?" The distinction might be too subtle to people who have not formally studied grammar and syntax in primary education.

Indeed. Back when I was in the 7th and 8th grades, the English classes were actually devoted to English grammar. We spent a lot of time diagramming sentences, which helped us understand the various parts of a sentence. In high school I took two years of Russian, and its complexity of cases for nouns, pronouns, and adjectives really reinforced my understanding of how pronouns worked in English.
As I understand things, Middle English still retained the various inflections in nouns and pronouns, but much of that fell by the wayside with the transition to English since then. Our modern pronouns are pretty much the only vestiges of inflections that remain, and as such, a large fraction of English speakers, including a good many English teachers at the K-12 level, don't really have a solid grip on them.

 

[kuruman]

I should also point out that the issue is further obfuscated by incessant misuse of the two pronouns. How many times have we heard (and will continue to hear) utterenaces such as "me and my friends went to a party" or "between you and I"?

 

[sysprog]

Indeed. Back when I was in the 7th and 8th grades, the English classes were actually devoted to English grammar. We spent a lot of time diagramming sentences, which helped us understand the various parts of a sentence. In high school I took two years of Russian, and its complexity of cases for nouns, pronouns, and adjectives really reinforced my understanding of how pronouns worked in English.
As I understand things, Middle English still retained the various inflections in nouns and pronouns, but much of that fell by the wayside with the transition to English since then. Our modern pronouns are pretty much the only vestiges of inflections that remain, and as such, a large fraction of English speakers, including a good many English teachers at the K-12 level, don't really have a solid grip on them.

<styleboy>Hey Sir it's firm grasp of them; not solid grip on them</styleboy> $\cdots$

 

[timmeister37]

ok, a simple example -- she and I (we) went to the store -- the cashier gave her and me (us), our change after the purchase $\cdots$

I know the difference between a direct object and an indirect object. I don't see exactly how this is relevant.

 

[sysprog]

I know the difference between a direct object and an indirect object. I don't see exactly how this is relevant.

In an earlier post you asked whether "The assignment was given to her and I" was correct and I replied that no it wasn't -- when she and I are the objects, we're correctly referred to as her and me . . .

 

[timmeister37]

In an earlier post you asked whether "The assignment was given to her and I" was correct and I replied that no it wasn't -- when she and I are the objects, we're correctly referred to as her and me . . .

In the sentence, "The assignment was given to her and me", is "her and me" the indirect object?

_________________

I don't really see the point of your mentioning indirect objects and direct objects in post #28. Both predicate pronouns that are indirect objects and predicate pronouns that are direct objects are supposed to be in the objective case.

 

[sysprog]

In the sentence, "The assignment was given to her and me", is "her and me" the indirect object?

You and she (referentially called her and me) are passive voice direct objects, because you're doing the recipiency of the assigning; however, as assignees, you're also arguably indirect objects, because you're not only direct recipients of the action; you're also recipients of results of the action -- typically indirect objects are things acted upon by direct objects.

 

[kuruman]

In the sentence, "The assignment was given to her and me", is "her and me" the indirect object?

Yes. This can be seen better in the active voice, "The teacher gave her and me the assignment". The teacher gave what? The assignment = direct object. The teacher gave the assignment to whom? Her and me = indirect objects.

 

[sysprog]

Yes. This can be seen better in the active voice, "The teacher gave her and me the assignment". The teacher gave what? The assignment = direct object. The teacher gave the assignment to whom? Her and me = indirect objects.

@kuruman brings insight and clarity . . .

 

[phinds]

In the sentence "He was walking down the street", i thought that "was" is a linking verb. So you disagree with my assertion that "was" is a linking verb in the sentence "He was walking down the street" ?

I don't think your concept of a "linking" verb is a good one. The following sentences are all grammatically identical except for case/tense. The "was", "is", etc belong intimitely with the walking and should not be looked at as something separate.

He walks down the street.
He is walking down the street.
He was walking down the street.
He walked down the street.
He will be walking down the street.
He would be walking down the street.

All those constructs are the same, extended with "with her" on the end.

He walks down the street with her.

 

[timmeister37]

You and she (referentially called her and me) are passive voice direct objects, because you're doing the recipiency of the assigning; however, as assignees, you're also arguably indirect objects, because you're not only direct recipients of the action; you're also recipients of results of the action -- typically indirect objects are things acted upon by direct objects.

How does determining whether a pronoun is an indirect object or a direct object help you determine whether the pronoun should be in the objective case or the subjective case? I thought both pronouns that are direct objects and pronouns that are indirect objects are both objective case.

 

[timmeister37]

I don't think your concept of a "linking" verb is a good one. The following sentences are all grammatically identical except for case/tense. The "was", "is", etc belong intimitely with the walking and should not be looked at as something separate.

He walks down the street.
He is walking down the street.
He was walking down the street.
He walked down the street.
He will be walking down the street.
He would be walking down the street.

All those constructs are the same, extended with "with her" on the end.

He walks down the street with her.

Phinds, your totally correct. I used a false definition of a linking verb when i created this thread.

I think that i confused a helping verb with a linking verb when i first created this thread.

 

[timmeister37]

You and she (referentially called her and me) are passive voice direct objects, because you're doing the recipiency of the assigning; however, as assignees, you're also arguably indirect objects, because you're not only direct recipients of the action; you're also recipients of results of the action -- typically indirect objects are things acted upon by direct objects.

I am totally confused.

 

[timmeister37]

Yes. This can be seen better in the active voice, "The teacher gave her and me the assignment". The teacher gave what? The assignment = direct object. The teacher gave the assignment to whom? Her and me = indirect objects.

How does determining whether a pronoun is a direct object or an indirect object help one figure out whether the pronoun should be in the objective case or the subjective case? I think both pronouns that are direct objects and pronouns that are indirect objects are both supposed to be in the objective case.

 

[timmeister37]

In the sentence "He was walking down the street", the word "was" is a helping verb, not a linking verb.

Mark44 used the term auxillary verb.
Helping verb= auxillary verb

A linking verb is NOT the same as a helping verb.

 

[timmeister37]

I don't think your concept of a "linking" verb is a good one. The following sentences are all grammatically identical except for case/tense. The "was", "is", etc belong intimitely with the walking and should not be looked at as something separate.

He walks down the street.
He is walking down the street.
He was walking down the street.
He walked down the street.
He will be walking down the street.
He would be walking down the street.

All those constructs are the same, extended with "with her" on the end.

He walks down the street with her.

Phinds, what do you think about the rule i wrote for determining proper pronoun case in post #27?

P.S. is the dog in your avatar photograph your dog?

 

[sysprog]

How does determining whether a pronoun is an indirect object or a direct object help you determine whether the pronoun should be in the objective case or the subjective case? I thought both pronouns that are direct objects and pronouns that are indirect objects are both objective case.

I'm not the one who brought in the direct-indirect object idea -- I just wanted the subject-object distinction -- I think that some people are sometimes overly conscientious against using 'me' in the subjective (incorrectly, as in me and her are going to the store) so that they are apt to over-correctively and consequently incorrectly (as in 'she's going to the store with her and I') use 'I' instead of 'me' when they are referring to themselves in the objective.

 

[timmeister37]

I'm not the one who brought in the direct-indirect object idea

Yes you did. The first mentioning of direct objects and indirect objects on this thread was made by you on post #28.

I just wanted the subject-object distinction -- I think that some people are sometimes overly conscientious against using 'me' in the subjective (incorrectly, as in me and her are going to the store) so that they are apt to over-correctively and consequently incorrectly (as in 'she's going to the store with her and I') use 'I' instead of 'me' when they are referring to themselves in the objective.

 

[sysprog]

I am just a guy with only a high school education in English grammar.

Edit: As far a FORMAL education in English grammar goes, i have only a high school education in English grammar.

I self-educated myself on proper pronoun case usage ten years ago, but i have forgotten a lot of that knowledge.

‐-----------

Perhaps you are substantially higher in IQ than I am. Perhaps you can make connections so effortlessly while i cannot make the connections effortlessly, so that things that are intuitively obvious to you and just go without saying to you have to be explicitly spelled out to me.

Apparently you sometimes feel like I do when I'm playing coffeehouse chess with someone who just sees things that I don't -- it's ok, we'll probably see it later . . .

 

[sysprog]

Yes you did. The first mentioning of direct objects and indirect objects on this thread was made by you on post #28.

ok, that's true, I brought the wikipedia ref that used those terms -- I was trying to emphasize the subject-object distinction . . .

 

[timmeister37]

Apparently you sometimes feel like I do when I'm playing coffeehouse chess with someone who just sees things that I don't -- it's ok, we'll probably see it later . . .

Sysprog, do you agree with the rule i wrote in post #27?

 

[Mark44]

<styleboy>Hey Sir it's firm grasp of them; not solid grip on them</styleboy> ⋯⋯\cdots

One can have a firm grasp or a firm grip on something. Maybe "firm" is the better choice than "solid," but I think you "gripped" my meaning.