English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

So Jim is the indirect object in the sentence "Sally gave Jim a sandwich." But is Jim still the indirect object if the sentence is "Sally took the sandwich from Jim"? And if the sentence were to become "Sally took the sandwich from Jim for herself" would Sally now be both the subject and the indirect object?


Additional (silly) question: did I format the quotations correctly in my second and third sentences or should I have not omitted the periods at the end of the quotations?

share|improve this question
You can say Sally took Jim a sandwich, in which case Jim is the indirect object of took, but it means Sally took a sandwich to Jim. There is no indirect object in Sally took a sandwich from Jim. – Peter Shor Apr 19 '15 at 12:39
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Let me start off by saying I am not an English grammar professional, so I may not always speak about things using the most rigorous expert terminology. But I am trained in a number of languages (Latin, Ancient Greek, Spanish, French, Italian, German), and I have a very good grasp of grammar, even if I sometimes have my own idiosyncratic way of explaining things.

All of that having been said, here's my real answer:

In your examples (after the first one), Jim is the object of a preposition, as noted in another answer. Same for "herself" (again, as noted in another answer).

The new bit of information I want to add (what makes my answer an answer and not a comment), is this:

You have a direct object (DO) and an indirect object (IO) with verbs of giving, showing, and telling. The DO is the thing the subject gives, shows, or tells. The IO is the person (or perhaps thing) to whom (or perhaps to which) the subject gives, shows, or tells the DO.

Jim gives the book to Sally.

Sally shows the picture to Jim.

Jim and Sally give a bone to the dog.

If you follow that basic principle, it's usually pretty clear when you have a IO and when you have something else, like the object of a preposition.

I should just add that, in English, you can make this seem a bit more obscure by omitting the preposition "to" as follows:

Jim gives Sally the book.

Sally shows Jim the picture.

Jim and Sally give the dog a bone.

If you see a sentence like this and you are confused, ask yourself, "Can I change this to a construction using 'to' and have it make the same sense?"

For example, can I change "Jim gives Sally the book" to "Jim gives the book to Sally" and have it make the same sense?

If so, then you've still got an construction with a DO and an IO. Again, you will see this construction with verbs of giving, showing, and telling.

Does that make sense? Does any aspect of this answer require clarification?

share|improve this answer
Additional things to think about: "I gave him a headache" is more usual than "I gave a headache to him" (the two constructions aren't just an arbitrary equivalent transformation of one another); and your list of 'giving/showing/telling' is a little bit arbitrary. In French and Spanish, for example, the same construction as 'giving/showing/telling' could also be used for 'taking away'. So an argument on essentially semantic grounds may not make terribly much sense. – Neil Coffey Nov 4 '13 at 20:29

The answer depends on how you analyze it. In the analysis presented in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL), an object typically has the form of a noun phrase. Jim in your first sentence is a noun phrase, and it can be an object. From Jim in your second sentence cannot be an object; it is instead a complement with the form of a preposition phrase.

Before I answer your other question, I have to make an important but subtle point: syntactic constituents such as objects are made of words, not people. Jim (the person) is not an object, because he's not a noun phrase. The word Jim can be a noun phrase, though, so unlike Jim himself, the word referring to him can be an object.

For this reason, Sally cannot be both the subject and object in your third sentence. Even if you choose to call herself an object, it still isn't the same word as Sally. Of course, both Sally and herself refer to the same thing: Sally the person.

share|improve this answer

The answer to your general question is that yes, it is still an indirect object in privative verbs; that is, one that deprives someone of something.

For example:

The bouncer denied him entry because he wasn’t wearing a coat and tie.

There entry is the direct object of deny and him is its indirect object.

The indirect object is the interested party, in some grammars called the dative of interest in these sorts of constructions. Because the indirect object is the object affected by the action, it is usually a person or other animate agent of some sort, including personifications.

If you look only at sentences without any prepositional phrases, just noun phrases in both direct- and indirect-object slots of bitransitive verbs, it will avoid certain digressions about whether that still counts as an indirect object.

When you ask someone a question or elect someone pope, that someone is still the indirect object but you cannot rewrite those into prepositional equivalent. Other verbs that can take indirect objects but which are not amenable to rewrites include allow, bet, charge, cost, find, save, spare, tax, tip, and wish. It depends entirely on the verb, though, and general rules are hard to come by here. Furthermore, in older writings or in certain living dialects, you can find indirect objects being used with verbs that other living speakers would not use in that way.

share|improve this answer

Jim is still the indirect object. Sometimes, the construction S-TV-IO-DO is not used when using such may sound unnatural. In your second and third example, the prepositional phrases containing the indirect object is positioned as such because it sounded natural.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.