Obedience he had secured, and honor had been granted him...

My question is why is it 'granted him' and not 'granted to him?'

  • The short version is that it's a construction similar to I gave him my horse. I gave my horse to him is also correct and means the same thing, but the other format isn't necessarily wrong either. – lly Aug 13 '18 at 18:43
  • Have you wondered why there is inversion in the first part: "Obedience he had secured," not "He had secured obedience?" – Kris Aug 14 '18 at 11:20
  • Yes and although grant works either way, don't you think the example comes from at least 500 years ago and possibly 1,000? That makes it barely comparable to modern English – Robbie Goodwin Aug 30 '18 at 13:40

Both are acceptable. Consider "I grant him my estate" and "I grant my estate to him". Either sentence is fine. The former has two direct objects and the latter has one direct object and one indirect object. You're doing something similar to the first example, but in a passive voice.

| improve this answer | |
  • Of course, but the question is why. This doesn't answer the question. – Kris Aug 14 '18 at 11:18
  • It’s a double accusative construction. That’s part of English grammar. – Talmage Aug 14 '18 at 12:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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