The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

'No further details are given medical students about..'[Ditransitive verbs(verbs with two objects)] Options
A cooperator
Posted: Monday, April 8, 2019 7:09:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,641
Neurons: 13,816
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Hi Everyone!
I read many verbs, among which is 'give' can be followed by two objects, an 'indirect object' and 'direct object'. These usually refer to a person(indirect object) and a thing (direct object). Two structures are possible.
A. verb + indirect object + direct object
She gave her sister the car.
B. verb + direct object + preposition + indirect object
She gave the car to her sister.

Both of these structures can be made passive.

A. indirect object becomes the subject of passive verb.
Her sister was given a car.

B. direct object becomes the subject of passive verb.
The car was given to her sister.

However, I've today seen that the indirect object 'medical students' isn't being proceeded by the preposition 'to' although it is like the structure B. I think the active form of that passive form would be either:
A: Someone gives medical students no further details about......
Or:
B: Someone gives no further details to medical students about.....

The cadaver assigned to Nielsen's team was 99-year-old woman who had died of natural causes. Her name was Rose Marie Bentley, but the students didn't know that then.To honor and respect the privacy of those who offer their bodies to science, no further details are given medical students about the person who had once inhabited the body lying on the silvery slab before them.





Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 5:47:03 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,641
Neurons: 13,816
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Could anyone please take some of their previous time out to reply to my post?

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, April 11, 2019 8:40:42 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 33,004
Neurons: 205,402
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Three forms of passive and both forms of active are correct, but "someone . . . no . . ." becomes "no-one" in the active.

No further details are given medical students about . . .
No further details are given to medical students about . . .
Medical students are given no further details about . . .
No-one gives medical students further details about . . .
No-one gives further details to medical students about . . .


The first is not so common as the others.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
A cooperator
Posted: Friday, April 12, 2019 7:12:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,641
Neurons: 13,816
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Three forms of passive and both forms of active are correct, but "someone . . . no . . ." becomes "no-one" in the active.

No further details are given medical students about . . .
No further details are given to medical students about . . .
Medical students are given no further details about . . .
No-one gives medical students further details about . . .
No-one gives further details to medical students about . . .


The first is not so common as the others.


Drag0nspeaker,
But, as stated before, Michael Swan never ever mentioned to the first version of the passive form.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Friday, April 12, 2019 7:14:42 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 33,004
Neurons: 205,402
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Well, fine.
Maybe I know a form that he doesn't.

Why are you saying I'm lying?


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
A cooperator
Posted: Friday, April 12, 2019 7:38:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,641
Neurons: 13,816
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Well, fine.
Maybe I know a form that he doesn't.

Why are you saying I'm lying?


Not at all, I even didn't bring that idea to mind.
Of course, you may know a form that he doesn't. And that's been quite enlightening for me, thanks.

But, because he gave only two structures, along with two examples, and he accounted for using them, I think the 3rd version 'structure' is weak/unnatural to be used.
If 3rd structure could be used naturally, then would that be applied for all other verbs having two objects. Or this is just for 'to give'?


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Friday, April 12, 2019 8:04:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 33,004
Neurons: 205,402
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
No, the other structure isn't weak or unnatural.
It's just that Swan didn't mention it. Maybe he forgot.

Someone sent an e-mail to her.
Someone sent her an e-mail.
An e-mail was sent her.
An e-mail was sent to her.
She was sent an e-mail.

Someone showed the room to her.
Someone showed her the room.
The room was shown her.
The room was shown to her.
She was shown the room.

She told her daughter everything.
She told everything to her daughter.
Everything was told to her daughter.
Everything was told her daughter.
Her daughter was told everything.

The king granted him a pardon.
The king granted a pardon to him.
He was granted a pardon.
A pardon was granted him.
A pardon was granted to him.
For "grant" the versions using 'to' are much less likely than the others.

Of course you have to take note of what the sentence MEANS - some sentences can be totally illogical, many can be ambiguous, especially passives. One would not use a form which gave an ambiguous meaning.

There is more data at this site.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
A cooperator
Posted: Friday, April 12, 2019 8:22:26 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,641
Neurons: 13,816
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
No, the other structure isn't weak or unnatural.
It's just that Swan didn't mention it. Maybe he forgot.

I thought Michael Swan's grammar book (Practical English Usage) is so advanced that I was thinking I'd need two decades to complete and understand it.
But, you're now telling me that Swan forgot that structure, which means his book may lack some other advanced points.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Saturday, April 13, 2019 3:42:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 33,004
Neurons: 205,402
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
I'm afraid so. Swan is not perfect.
There have been other points with which I disagree.
He writes advanced linguistic theory - this does not always agree with real English grammar.

As things are (the way you currently make sentences and examples) you do not need advanced linguistic theory or even advanced English grammar.
You need to study the basics of English, from the viewpoint of writing so that your sentences communicate a meaning.

Throw away your advanced linguistics books and buy a "Teach Yourself English" book - or go to one of the many online courses.
After that you could go to intermediate grammar, then maybe to advanced grammar. However, unless you intend to make a career of English (becoming a linguist or something) advanced grammar is totally unnecessary.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
BobShilling
Posted: Saturday, April 13, 2019 5:00:02 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,390
Neurons: 7,436
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
I'm afraid so. Swan is not perfect.
There have been other points with which I disagree.
He writes advanced l
inguistic theory - this does not always agree with real English grammar.


I'm afraid I have to disagree. In the fifty years since I started teaching EFL, I haven't come across a more practical guide to real English than Swan's Practical English Usage. There is little grammatical terminology and almost no theory.

As I have written elsewhere:

Swan is intelligent and knowledgeable, and writes clearly. He does not invent 'rules' that later turn out to have dozens of exceptions; he simply explains clearly what you can and cannot say in modern English. While he is clearly a descriptivist rather than a prescriptivist, he does point out what is not acceptable in standard English, and he has a sounder knowledge of AmE than many BrE writers.

I have loved English grammar for many years, and my personal library contains most grammars published since 1586 for BrE, with a fair few from 1785 onwards for AmE. Swan, however was usually the book I turned to first when I was teaching if I wanted a clear, concise, simple and accurate explanation. Since I have been answering questions on forums, I have sometimes been thanked for my answers. When I have, it is sometimes because I have quoted directly from Swan, and often because I have been influenced by him.

It is possible (though unlikely) that my theoretical knowledge of grammar is as great as Swan's. My ability to explain and illustrate points of grammar is definitely far inferior to his. If I had to recommend one reference book to beginning teachers, it would be Practical English Usage. I have recommended it to many experienced teachers, and they have passed on my recommendation to their junior colleagues, and to students.
A cooperator
Posted: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 10:01:27 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,641
Neurons: 13,816
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Hi,

Some of the examples below were written and taught to me by Audiendus in a thread entitled 'I owe him money' - 'He is owed money' [Ditransitive verbs (verbs with two objects)]

First, could anyone please confirm that these sentences below are grammatically correct?

A. verb + indirect object + direct object:
Active =============================> Passive: [indirect object becomes the subject of passive verb.]
1- No-one gives medical students further details about..... => either "Medical students are given no further details about . . ." Or "No further details are given medical students about . ." [not so common]

2- I owe him money. => He is owed money [by me].

3- He is the person that/who(m) I owe money. => He is the person that/who is owed money [by me].

4- The creditor is a person that/who(m) a person owes a debt/money.=> The creditor is a person that/who is owed a debt/money.

5- The word you use for someone that/who(m) someone owes money is the creditor=> The word you use for someone that/who is owed money is the creditor.

6- The organization trains the blind guide dogs. => The blind are trained guide dogs by the organization.

7- It is the job that/which someone originally hired him/her. => It is the job that/which was originally hired [by someone].

8- A trainee is an official employee of the firm that/who(m) someone is training the job he/she was originally hired for. => A trainee is an official employee of the firm that/who is being trained [by someone] the job he/she was originally hired for.

B. verb + direct object + preposition + indirect object:[an alternative]
Active =============================> Passive:[direct object becomes the subject of passive verb.]
1- No-one gives further details to medical students about . . .=> "No further details are given to medical students about . . ."

2- I owe money to him.=> Money is owed to him [by me]

3- He is the person to whom I owe money. => He is the person to whom money is owed [by me].
- He is the person that/who I owe money to. => He is the person that/who money is owed to [by me].

4- The creditor is a person to whom a person owes a debt/money.=> The creditor is a person to whom a debt/money is owed [by a person].
- The creditor is a person that/who a person owes a debt/money to.=> The creditor is a person that/who a debt/money is owed to [by a person].

5- The word you use for someone to whom someone owes money is the creditor.=> The word you use for someone to whom money is owed is the creditor [by someone].
- The word you use for someone that/who someone owes money to is the creditor.=> The word you use for someone that/who money is owed to is the creditor[by someone].

6- The organization trains guide dogs for the blind.=> Guide dogs are trained for the blind by the organization.

7- It is the job that/which someone originally hired him/her for. => It is the job that/which he/she was originally hired for [by someone].

8- A trainee is an official employee of the firm to whom someone is training the job he/she was originally hired for.=> A trainee is an official employee of the firm to whom the job he/she was originally hired for is being trained[by someone].
- A trainee is an official employee of the firm that/who someone is training to the job he/she was originally hired for.=> A trainee is an official employee of the firm that/who the job he/she was originally hired for is being training to [by someone].


Second, on the Internet while googling 'trainee', I came across the sentence in no #8(in each structure). But, it is written as follows:
"A trainee is an official employee of the firm that is being trained to the job he/she was originally hired for." ["that" is the subject referring back to the 'an official employee of the firm', and 'the job' is the direct of 'train'. So, why is the preposition 'to' written there? the preposition 'To' makes 'that' sound like an indirect object.]

Third, in the example #1, there are only two active structures, but three forms of passive structure. So, I don't know if this is also applied for any verbs with two objects, like 'owe', or not. So, if yes, I'd also have three passive forms:
I owe him money. => He is owed money [by me]. "Money is owed him [by me]."
I owe money to him.=> Money is owed to him [by me]

Final, I only followed the same logic as in other examples. So, I don't know if no # 6 and #7, struckthrough, in A. structure, are correct or not?



Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Thursday, October 10, 2019 12:29:34 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,641
Neurons: 13,816
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Then, let me start over one by one:
On the Internet while googling 'trainee', I came across the sentence in no #8(in each structure). But, it is written as follows:
"A trainee is an official employee of the firm that is being trained to the job he/she was originally hired for." ["that" is the subject referring back to the 'an official employee of the firm', and 'the job' is the direct of 'train'. So, why is the preposition 'to' written there? the preposition 'To' makes 'that' sound like an indirect object.]

I don't condone using the preposition like that way in the above example. However, I agree with this:
A. verb + indirect object + direct object:
Active =============================> Passive: [indirect object becomes the subject of passive verb.]
- A trainee is an official employee of the firm that/who(m) someone is training the job he/she was originally hired for. => A trainee is an official employee of the firm that/who is being trained [by someone] the job he/she was originally hired for.

B. verb + direct object + preposition + indirect object:[an alternative]:
Active =============================> Passive:[direct object becomes the subject of passive verb.]
- A trainee is an official employee of the firm to whom someone is training the job he/she was originally hired for.=> A trainee is an official employee of the firm to whom the job he/she was originally hired for is being trained[by someone].
- A trainee is an official employee of the firm that/who someone is training to the job he/she was originally hired for.=> A trainee is an official employee of the firm that/who the job he/she was originally hired for is being training to [by someone].

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
palapaguy
Posted: Thursday, October 10, 2019 1:22:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 1,687
Neurons: 13,434
Location: Calabasas, California, United States
A cooperator
Posted: Thursday, October 10, 2019 1:51:03 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,641
Neurons: 13,816
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus
Posted: Thursday, October 10, 2019 8:38:56 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,845
Neurons: 1,099,118
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
Then, let me start over one by one:
On the Internet while googling 'trainee', I came across the sentence in no #8(in each structure). But, it is written as follows:
"A trainee is an official employee of the firm that is being trained to the job he/she was originally hired for." ["that" is the subject referring back to the 'an official employee of the firm', and 'the job' is the direct of 'train'. No, 'the job' is not the direct object of 'train'. 'Train the job' does not make sense. So, why is the preposition 'to' written there? the preposition 'To' makes 'that' sound like an indirect object.] 'To the job' means 'for the job'. I would use 'for' instead of 'to'.

I don't condone using the preposition like that way in the above example. However, I agree with this:
A. verb + indirect object + direct object: There is no indirect object.
Active =============================> Passive: [indirect direct object becomes the subject of passive verb.]
- A trainee is an official employee of the firm that/who(m) someone is training to/for the job he/she was originally hired for. => A trainee is an official employee of the firm that/who is being trained [by someone] to/for the job he/she was originally hired for.

B. verb + direct object + preposition + indirect object:[an alternative]:
Active =============================> Passive:[direct object becomes the subject of passive verb.]
- A trainee is an official employee of the firm to whom someone is training the job he/she was originally hired for.=> A trainee is an official employee of the firm to whom the job he/she was originally hired for is being trained[by someone]. These are wrong. The person, not the job, is the direct object of 'train'. There is no indirect object – the construction is not 'train someone a job'.
- A trainee is an official employee of the firm that/who someone is training to the job he/she was originally hired for.=> A trainee is an official employee of the firm that/who the job he/she was originally hired for is being training to [by someone]. Again, this is wrong (even if you meant 'trained' instead of 'training'), because one does not 'train a job'; one trains a person.

You may be thinking of the construction 'teach someone a job'. That is different. There, 'job' is the direct object of 'teach', and 'someone' is the indirect object. One teaches someone a job (lesson, etc) but one does not train someone a job. You cannot apply general rules to such words; different words work differently.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.