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

'Are you calling me a liar' (Verbs with two objects) Options
A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 7:56:21 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Hi everyone!
While looking through verbs with two objects, I didn't find "call" was listed although it has two objects. Where the marked ones with blue colour are direct objects, which answer the question: what? And the indirect objects are marked with red colour, which answer the question: to whom/ who/ which (I call the things that is given, sent, bought, etc the direct object; the person who gets it is the indirect object. (Thus, I think w can omit the indirect object).
Give:
I gave you a letter.
Cost:
The repair cost me a lot.

Call:
Are you calling me a liar?
Grammarians call comma an Oxford comma in some structures.


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 8:13:25 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 41,302
Neurons: 365,017
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
This time your question doesn't make much sense, Acoop.


In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
Fyfardens
Posted: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 8:18:48 AM
Rank: Member

Joined: 12/16/2017
Posts: 333
Neurons: 4,637
In 'Are you calling me a liar?'. there is no indirect object. 'Me' is the direct object and 'a liar' the object complement.

I really don't think you want to spend time on this It will not improve your ability to communicate in English at all.

I speak British English (standard southern, slightly dated).
A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 8:20:53 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Jyrkkä Jätkä wrote:
This time your question doesn't make much sense, Acoop.


Thanks a lot,
My intended meaning is: I can use "call" with two objects as in my examples above.
I can omit indirect objects, and a clause can still convey a meaning.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
thar
Posted: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 8:28:58 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 16,835
Neurons: 67,644
Think about what this means. Is it the same thing?

Indirect object:
You gave me a letter.
You gave a letter to me.

But
You called me a liar.
Can you say
You called a liar to me
?

No.
That is wrong.
It is not the same thing. It is not an indirect object.

You called me a liar.
You called me John.

It is something different.


You are seeing something you don't understand, and you are investigating. That would be good if you had the tools to investigate with.
But you don't. Your basic English is not good enough to see that these are not the same thing. You are making mistakes, confusing yourself, and wasting your time.

Find your level, and work at that level, in an organised way.

By constantly wasting your time on complex topics you are not spending your time usefully.
You will spend ages on this, and still not be able to apply it properly.
But, if you work progressively, at the right level, then when you come to this topic it will make sense and you will learn it quickly and be able to apply it.




A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 8:38:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Fyfardens wrote:
In 'Are you calling me a liar?'. there is no indirect object. 'Me' is the direct object and 'a liar' the object complement.


What are you calling?
I am calling a liar. (Direct object)
To who are you calling a liar?
I am calling you.. (indirect)

I gave you a letter.
What did you give?
I gave a letter. (Direct object)
To who did you give a letter?
I gave you.. (Indirect object)




Quote:
I really don't think you want to spend time on this It will not improve your ability to communicate in English at all.

Would you be so kind as to tell me what would be worth studying to improve my communication?
Note: by asking such questions, I completely understood the use of the structure "so + adjective + as to + infinitive".

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 9:01:35 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
thar wrote:
Think about what this means. Is it the same thing?

Indirect object:
You gave me a letter.
You gave a letter to me.

But
You called me a liar.
Can you say
You called a liar to me
?

No.
That is wrong.
It is not the same thing. It is not an indirect object.

You called me a liar.
You called me John.

It is something different.


Thanks a lot,
I am really thinking of them as:
You called me a liar.
You called a liar to me.
You called me John.
You called John to me.

The same as
You gave me the letter.
You gave the letter to me.






Quote:
Find your level, and work at that level, in an organised way.

By constantly wasting your time on complex topics you are not spending your time usefully.
You will spend ages on this, and still not be able to apply it properly.
But, if you work progressively, at the right level, then when you come to this topic it will make sense and you will learn it quickly and be able to apply it.


You're quite right. But, what should I have done? I am all ears.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 9:17:43 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 4,720
Neurons: 848,814
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A co-operator wrote:
What are you calling?
I am calling a liar. (Direct object)
To who are you calling a liar?
I am calling you.. (indirect)

No - as thar has pointed out, this is wrong. "To who(m) are you calling a liar" does not make sense. The correct analysis is:

I am calling you. (Direct object)
What am I calling you? I am calling you what?
I am calling you a liar. (Object complement)

Similarly:

Grammarians call a comma an Oxford comma in some structures.

"A comma" is the direct, not the indirect, object. "To a comma" would not make sense.
"An Oxford comma" is the object complement.
Fyfardens
Posted: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 9:21:57 AM
Rank: Member

Joined: 12/16/2017
Posts: 333
Neurons: 4,637
A cooperator wrote:

I am really thinking of them as:
You called me a liar.
You called a liar to me.
You called me John.
You called John to me.

The same as
You gave me the letter.
You gave the letter to me.


NO. The ones in red are wrong.

I can see this thread going round in circles like so many others of yours, so I'm leaving while I still have shred of sanity left..








I speak British English (standard southern, slightly dated).
Audiendus
Posted: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 10:17:58 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 4,720
Neurons: 848,814
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
Note the difference between the following:

He called me a cab. [= he called a cab to/for me] "Me" is indirect object; "a cab" is direct object.

He called me a liar. [he did not call a liar to/for me] "Me" is direct object; "a liar" is object complement.

Where a sentence has both an object and an object complement, they refer to the same person or thing, e.g:

They elected him president.
I consider her an expert.
He made England his home.
They renamed Madras "Chennai".
The enemy left the city a complete wreck.
I will make that saying my motto.
She thought it a remarkable coincidence.
We call some of Shakespeare's plays tragedies, and others comedies.

A direct object and an indirect object do not refer to the same thing, e.g:

He gave me a book.
They lent me their machine.
She left me plenty of money.
I gave the children some toys.
You gave the car a wash.
Save us some of your cake.
They awarded the winner a magnificent prize.
Make the guests some drinks.
They showed us all the servants.
A cooperator
Posted: Thursday, January 25, 2018 8:26:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
Note the difference between the following:

He called me a cab. [= he called a cab to/for me] "Me" is indirect object; "a cab" is direct object.

He called me a liar. [he did not call a liar to/for me] "Me" is direct object; "a liar" is object complement.

Where a sentence has both an object and an object complement, they refer to the same person or thing, e.g:


Well done, Audiendus, as always, thanks a lot,

AFAIK, that we can omit the indirect object if the direct and indirect object don't refer to the same person, thing.
I gave you a letter.
He called me a cab.
However, I don't know if that can happen in this "He called me a lair".


I cut myself shaving this morning. ['myself' is the direct object; the participle phrase "shaving this morning" is object complement.](Where an object and an object complement refer to the same person or thing, and where the subject and object are the same person 'I' and 'myself')

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Thursday, January 25, 2018 9:23:50 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 4,720
Neurons: 848,814
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
AFAIK, that we can omit the indirect object if the direct and indirect object don't refer to the same person, thing.
I gave you a letter.

This is grammatically OK, as you are keeping the direct object ("a letter"). But it is rather uninformative - we would usually want to know who you gave the letter to.

A cooperator wrote:
He called me a cab.

Yes, this is often said.

A cooperator wrote:
However, I don't know if that can happen in this "He called me a liar".

No, you cannot omit the direct object.

A cooperator wrote:
I cut myself shaving this morning. ['myself' is the direct object; the participle phrase "shaving this morning" is object complement.](Where an object and an object complement refer to the same person or thing, and where the subject and object are the same person 'I' and 'myself')

I would call "shaving" a subject complement. The sentence is equivalent to "I cut myself when (I was) shaving this morning", or "When (I was) shaving this morning, I cut myself", or (less naturally) "Shaving this morning, I cut myself".

Compare this with "I saw myself sleeping in the video". Here, it is as if "I" and "myself" are two different people; "myself" refers to the image of myself. It was the image that was sleeping; so here I would call "sleeping" an object complement.

This point does not matter very much in English. In some languages, however, adjectives (including participles) change their endings according to their 'case' (i.e. whether they are the subject, direct object, indirect object etc), so it would be important to distinguish between a subject complement and an object complement.
A cooperator
Posted: Thursday, January 25, 2018 10:42:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
AFAIK, that we can omit the indirect object if the direct and indirect object don't refer to the same person, thing.
I gave you a letter.

This is grammatically OK, as you are keeping the direct object ("a letter"). But it is rather uninformative - we would usually want to know who you gave the letter to.

A cooperator wrote:
He called me a cab.

Yes, this is often said.

Thanks a lot,
But, why can we say it in the latter, but we cannot in the earlier, that is in the latter is informative, but in the earlier is rather uninformative?

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Thursday, January 25, 2018 10:54:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:

A cooperator wrote:
I cut myself shaving this morning. ['myself' is the direct object; the participle phrase "shaving this morning" is object complement.](Where an object and an object complement refer to the same person or thing, and where the subject and object are the same person 'I' and 'myself')

I would call "shaving" a subject complement. The sentence is equivalent to "I cut myself when (I was) shaving this morning", or "When (I was) shaving this morning, I cut myself", or (less naturally) "Shaving this morning, I cut myself".

Compare this with "I saw myself sleeping in the video". Here, it is as if "I" and "myself" are two different people; "myself" refers to the image of myself. It was the image that was sleeping; so here I would call "sleeping" an object complement.

This point does not matter very much in English. In some languages, however, adjectives (including participles) change their endings according to their 'case' (i.e. whether they are the subject, direct object, indirect object etc), so it would be important to distinguish between a subject complement and an object complement.


Audiendus,
I think these examples are in the same construction.
I sometimes spend time reading stories.
I think the participle phrase 'reading stories' is a subject complement. "I sometimes spend time when I am reading stories. Or you think 'reading stories' is an object complement.

2)In the studies, the babies spend more time looking at the attractive faces than the unattractive ones.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Thursday, January 25, 2018 11:16:28 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 4,720
Neurons: 848,814
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
But, why can we say it in the latter, but we cannot in the earlier, that is in the latter is informative, but in the earlier is rather uninformative?

The meaning of "He called a cab" is clear - it normally means (to a native speaker): "he called a cab to the place where he was".

But "I gave a letter", on its own, sounds incomplete - who did I give it to? Even if the answer is clear in the context, it is not something a native speaker would be likely to say; it just sounds odd.
Audiendus
Posted: Thursday, January 25, 2018 11:28:51 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 4,720
Neurons: 848,814
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
I think these examples are in the same construction.
I sometimes spend time reading stories.
I think the participle phrase 'reading stories' is a subject complement.

In the studies, the babies spend more time looking at the attractive faces than the unattractive ones.


Yes, that is correct.
A cooperator
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 12:35:29 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,784
Neurons: 10,062
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
I think these examples are in the same construction.
I sometimes spend time reading stories.
I think the participle phrase 'reading stories' is a subject complement.

In the studies, the babies spend more time looking at the attractive faces than the unattractive ones.


Yes, that is correct.


Thanks a lot, Audiendus,
In both, I can think of them as:
I sometimes spend time when I am reading stories.
In the studies, the babies spend more time when they are looking at the.......'





Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
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. Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.