I permitted him to use my car./I forbade him to enter my building./I ordered him not to play the terrible song.
Why does the grammar see these to-infinitives as object complements when the verbs can take the structure, v+o?
5
-
"v+o" is not a structure; I have no idea what you mean, unless you're just saying that these infinitive clauses are object complements of the verbs permit, forbid, and order, in which case you're correct. Infinitive clauses can be transitive or intransitive. The transitive ones (like the clauses with use, enter, play) have a direct object. It's a matter of one transitive clause having another transitive clause as its object. Not difficult, and very very common. Unless this isn't what you mean, either.– John LawlerMar 11, 2020 at 23:22
-
No, no, I meant 'permit', 'forbid',and 'order' can take an object in other sentences. So I thought 'why doesn't the grammar see these to-infinitive phrases as objects?' I may have triggered a misunderstanding at 'v+o'. I'm sorry.– Kim Hui-jeongMar 11, 2020 at 23:56
-
Well, yes, there certainly was a misunderstanding. In fact, the grammar does see these infinitive clauses as direct objects of those verbs (all social contract communication verbs, btw). It never occurred to me that you might not think so. This is what happens when bad grammar is used to teach good students; they get confused. The real question is whether him (which is clearly the subject of each infinitive) is also the indirect object of the main verbs, and if so, whether it represents a separate act of communication (Equi) or originated as subject only (Raising).– John LawlerMar 12, 2020 at 14:45
-
If you're game for more on Equi and Raising, here it is.– John LawlerMar 12, 2020 at 14:47
-
1Wow, thank you so much.– Kim Hui-jeongMar 13, 2020 at 4:08
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
In comments John Lawler wrote:
"v+o" is not a structure; I have no idea what you mean, unless you're just saying that these infinitive clauses are object complements of the verbs permit, forbid, and order, in which case you're correct. Infinitive clauses can be transitive or intransitive. The transitive ones (like the clauses with use, enter, play) have a direct object. It's a matter of one transitive clause having another transitive clause as its object. Not difficult, and very very common. Unless this isn't what you mean, either.
Well, yes, there certainly was a misunderstanding. In fact, the grammar does see these infinitive clauses as direct objects of those verbs (all social contract communication verbs, btw). It never occurred to me that you might not think so. This is what happens when bad grammar is used to teach good students; they get confused. The real question is whether him (which is clearly the subject of each infinitive) is also the indirect object of the main verbs, and if so, whether it represents a separate act of communication (Equi) or originated as subject only (Raising).
If you're game for more on Equi and Raising, here it is.