Return to Answer

To explain better the remark about "canonical" clauses: Huddleston & Pullum are saying that for the most part you don't speak of an "indirect object" unless the sentence has two non-subject arguments. That's because English is not very permissive about omitting arguments. If a verb sense requires certain arguments, they normally cannot be omitted entirely. But suppose you have a verb which is normally ditransitive, and it has a sense requiring only one argument, marked like an indirect object (a prepositional phrase)? In that case the sense would normally be classified as extended intransitive rather than ditransitive. (e.g., get in The cat got under the table). So you are kind of blocked from finding such examples.

For reference, I've quoted relevant parts of Huddleston & Pullum's (2002) treatment (Chapter 4, §§4, 4.3) below. You can get the student edition of the book more cheaply.

For reference, I've quoted relevant parts of Huddleston & Pullum's (2002) treatment (Chapter 4, §§4, 4.3) below. You can get the student edition of the book more cheaply (the passage suggests that the answer to the OP's clause is yes, but only in a "noncanonical" clause).

Languages have hundreds or thousands of constructions, each with particular grammatical properties. The constructions have partially overlapping meaning properties. This permits nuance of expression. Coincidence in meaning should not be taken to imply coincidence in grammatical structure.

Languages have hundreds or thousands of constructions, each with particular grammatical properties. The constructions have partially overlapping meaning properties. This permits nuance of expression. Generally you will have to recognize a grammatical structure separate from the meaning. Coincidence in meaning should not be taken to imply coincidence in grammatical structure.