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

Provide Options
D00M
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2018 7:04:04 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/24/2017
Posts: 1,607
Neurons: 7,645
Hello respected teachers,

As in earlier English history, women in the romantic period were provided only limited schooling.

Should it not be "provided with"?




The custom of speaking is the original and only just standard of any language. Joseph Priestly- Rudiments of EG, 1761.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2018 12:17:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 30,685
Neurons: 182,345
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Hello D00M.

I think you will hear both "were provided only limited schooling" and "were provided with only limited schooling".

The verb 'provide' can be used in several different ways - as a 'ditransitive', two types of transitive verb and at least one type of intransitive (possibly other ways).

The two transitive uses would be these:

Society provided only limited schooling for women. ("schooling" [or "only limited schooling" as a phrase] is the object)
Society provided women with only limited schooling. ("women" is the direct object)

The ditransitive use would be:
Society provided women only limited schooling. ("women" and "schooling" are the direct objects)

However, when you make those passive, you have even more choices of wording.

Both "Women were provided only limited schooling" and "Women were provided with only limited schooling" would be acceptable .

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
D00M
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2018 1:02:53 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/24/2017
Posts: 1,607
Neurons: 7,645
Thank you very much, DS.

Society provided women only limited schooling.

Isn't "only limited schooling" an indirect object?

The custom of speaking is the original and only just standard of any language. Joseph Priestly- Rudiments of EG, 1761.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2018 1:24:22 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 30,685
Neurons: 182,345
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
D00M wrote:
Society provided women only limited schooling.
Isn't "only limited schooling" an indirect object?

No - as the indirect object is "the recipient or beneficiary of the action of a verb and its direct object". "Schooling" does not receive any action. The 'thing' (group of people in this case) which is the recipient is the word 'women' - but that is positioned at the main direct object. That's why I said they are both used as direct objects - especially in the passive.

Women were provided only limited schooling.
The thing provided is schooling (even if it was limited) so that is the direct object. 'Women' is the passive subject - which becomes the direct object when you transform the sentence.

So - two direct objects.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
D00M
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2018 2:03:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/24/2017
Posts: 1,607
Neurons: 7,645
Thank you, DS.

But I'm not sure I've understood the following part correctly:

"but that is positioned at the main direct object".

How would you label the following objects:

He gave (me) (a book).



The custom of speaking is the original and only just standard of any language. Joseph Priestly- Rudiments of EG, 1761.
BobShilling
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2018 3:08:05 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 545
Neurons: 3,706
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
D00M wrote:
How would you label the following objects:

He gave (me) (a book).

'A book' is the direct object; 'me' is the indirect object.
thar
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2018 3:16:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 18,203
Neurons: 73,928
It is not the word, it is the meaning, so

He gave me the book
= he gave the book to me

He gave me to a slave-trader
=He gave the slave-trader me
(these have the same meaning but different emphasis)

direct
indirect

It is just a particular structure that you can take an indirect object, remove the 'to' and put it after the verb and before the direct object. But the meaning of what has happened is not changed.
BobShilling
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2018 4:11:27 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 545
Neurons: 3,706
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
D00M wrote:
Society provided women only limited schooling.
Isn't "only limited schooling" an indirect object?

No - as the indirect object is "the recipient or beneficiary of the action of a verb and its direct object". "Schooling" does not receive any action. The 'thing' (group of people in this case) which is the recipient is the word 'women' - but that is positioned at the main direct object. That's why I said they are both used as direct objects - especially in the passive.


I am not sure that that sentence is grammatically acceptable in BrE. However, if it is, 'women' is in the traditional position of the indirect object. In that the women in the NP the women are "the recipients or beneficiaries of the action of a verb and its direct object", then that NP cannot be a direct object; it must be an indirect object.

In 'Society provided women with only limited schooling, although it has the same meaning, 'women' is still the indirect object, but 'limited schooling' is now the prepositional object of 'with'. There is no direct object in that sentence.

That's my opinion. Among those who disagree are Huddleston and Pullum (2002.312,314), who suggest that 'women would be "syntactically a direct object even though it corresponds semantically to the indirect object [in other sentences]".

Quirk et al (1985) appear to contradict themselves. They label (p 1158) 'provide with' a Type II prepositional verb: a prepositional verb with a direct object. However, they later (p. 1210) say that 'provide Jack scampi', which they class as a type D1 verb: one with a noun phrase as indirect object and another noun phrase as direct object; and 'provide Jack with scampi' as a type D2B verb: with an indirect object and a direct object. Incidentally, they label 'provide Jack scampi' as <AmE>.

I gave up on grammarians at that point and went to the internet, looking at various articles and ploughing through threads in several forums. There was no agreement. Some people agree with Drag0, some with me, and some have other ideas. If we teachers and grammarians can't agree on this, then I would suggest that DOOM not worry about this.
D00M
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2018 4:11:47 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/24/2017
Posts: 1,607
Neurons: 7,645
Thank you.
But I don't understand when two direct objects occur in a sentence.

DS said in the following sentence we have two direct objects:

Society provided (women) (only limited schooling).

Aren't wome the receiver of "limited schooling" in the above?

Of course, DS also said that it is more obvious in the passive voice.

But I still don't see how it works.

Edit: I wrote this post before I saw Bob's take.



The custom of speaking is the original and only just standard of any language. Joseph Priestly- Rudiments of EG, 1761.
D00M
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2018 4:20:23 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/24/2017
Posts: 1,607
Neurons: 7,645
Thank you very much for the thorough explanation, Bob. I always enjoy the way you give reference to grammar books.

The custom of speaking is the original and only just standard of any language. Joseph Priestly- Rudiments of EG, 1761.
BobShilling
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2018 5:37:41 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 545
Neurons: 3,706
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
One important thing to remember about books on grammar is that they give only the opinions of the people who write them. When they are written after years of research by internationally respected linguists with a string of peer-reviewed articles under their belt, they are worth serious consideration. However, if you read of lot of academic journals, you will find that are are very many points of grammar, terminology being just one example, on which there is little agreement. My last post gave some examples of this. I (and some authoritative grammarians) disagree with Drago; others disagree with the views of both. None of us can prove that we are right. Learners need to accept explanations that make things clearer for them.

In any case, as I said in another forum recently, unless learners are studying linguistics/grammar, I suggest they don't worry about the precise definition of terminology . If their objective is to communicate effectively in English, worrying about the various definitions of labels can be unnecessarily confusing.


Grammarians have tedious fun discussing these terms. This is generally not helpful to most learners.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Friday, October 12, 2018 5:08:09 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 30,685
Neurons: 182,345
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Well, I'm amazed that Huddleston and Pullum agree with me!

My 'logic' depended on something thar said here.

When you have a sentence like "He gave me the book", (which has an indirect object and a direct object) you can switch it round by adding 'to'. "He gave the book to me."

This doesn't work with 'provide' as the verb.
You can't say "He provided the book to me."

In the passive, you can have "I was provided with the book by him." - this uses 'I' as the subject - which would be the direct object in an active sentence. 'The book' is also an object, but it is not the recipient of the action, so can't really be an indirect object . . . I think Think

Anyway, as Bob says, it is not really helpful to over-analyse each individual word sometimes.



Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
BobShilling
Posted: Friday, October 12, 2018 12:46:02 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 545
Neurons: 3,706
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Well, I'm amazed that Huddleston and Pullum agree with me!

They were having a ba day.


Whistle
D00M
Posted: Friday, October 12, 2018 3:57:11 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/24/2017
Posts: 1,607
Neurons: 7,645
BobShilling wrote:
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Well, I'm amazed that Huddleston and Pullum agree with me!

They were having a ba day.


Whistle




The custom of speaking is the original and only just standard of any language. Joseph Priestly- Rudiments of EG, 1761.
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 © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.