When I call the buzzer outside my girlfriend's flat, she sometimes says *"I'll open you the door". I correct this to "I'll open the door for you".

I've never heard a native speaker say it the first way, which is why I think it's wrong. But I can't explain why.

There is a pattern in lots of English phrases that would suggest both are correct. A few common examples:

  1. Give the keys to me before you goGive me the keys before you go

  2. I'll buy a coffee for you at the cafeI'll buy you a coffee at the cafe

  3. We sent a text to Martin on his birthdayWe sent Martin a text on his birthday

The left-hand side is more formal, and the right-hand side is more common in everyday speech.

What do you call this pattern?

What makes the 'open-the-door' sentence an exception?

  • 11
    Come to that, how come it's always "cry me a river", not "cry a river for me"? Commented Nov 7, 2012 at 22:07
  • 6
    First thought: It's a bit mean, calling someone a door. Though I guess it could be considered foreplay?
    – AnnanFay
    Commented Nov 8, 2012 at 0:37
  • 10
    @Annan "You make a better door than a window!" my gran would say if you blocked her view of the TV. Commented Nov 8, 2012 at 0:49
  • 6
    Is English not your girlfriend's native language by any chance? Some European languages prefer this form over the other, for instance in French you usually say "I'll open you the door" ("Je t'ouvrirai/vais t'ouvrir la porte") this might explain it. Being natively french, I sometimes do similar subtle mistakes.
    – Thomas
    Commented Nov 8, 2012 at 1:44
  • 3
    Is it actually idiomatic to say "call the buzzer"? Wouldn't you rather "sound the buzzer" or something like that? Commented Nov 8, 2012 at 9:56

4 Answers 4


The answer to the presenting question is:

  • *I'll open you the door.

is ungrammatical because you won't wind up owning the door by virtue of my opening it.

Ordinary bitransitive verbs of transfer (tell, throw, bring, hand, pass, send, etc.), where the direct object (the trajector, semantically) is transferred from the subject (the source) to the indirect object (the goal), normally are subject to the Dative Alternation:

  • I'll tell/throw/bring/hand/pass/send the answer to him.
  • I'll tell/throw/bring/hand/pass/send him the answer.

Besides these, however, there's also a Benefactive construction, which uses for instead of to, and identifies someone for whose benefit something is done. This can be added to any sentence, 3-place bitransitive, 2-place transitive, or 1-place intransitive. Here we discuss only the transitives:

  • I'll open the door for you. (Note -- you don't wind up with the door)
  • I'll dig a clam for you. (Note -- you do wind up with the clam)
  • I'll fix the car for you. (Note -- you don't wind up with the car)
  • I'll fix a meal for you. (Note -- you do wind up with the meal)

In precisely those situations where the Benefactive object of for ends up possessing the direct object, the sentences can undergo Dative; in those cases where they don't, they can't.

  • *I'll open you the door.
  • I'll dig you a clam.
  • *I'll fix you the car.
  • I'll fix you a meal.

The last two sentences show that this extension of Dative to Benefactive is not governed by the verb used (fix in both cases), but by the intended meaning of the clause, including idioms, presuppositions, and metaphors.

  • 5
    Yes, one of those. Commented Nov 8, 2012 at 0:09
  • 3
    or the other ;-)
    – mcalex
    Commented Nov 8, 2012 at 0:44
  • 13
    Well, as I think my answer shows, there's a huge difference between the average UK and US levels of flexibility about what "benefactive" objects can validly accept what "benefits" without strings or prepositions. So far as I'm concerned, OP's girlfriend has "given" him (vicarious) control of the entrydoor, so it's fine by me. I don't even really have much of a problem with "Johnny! Open me the door for Aunt Ethel!" Commented Nov 8, 2012 at 1:41
  • 13
    Interesting: I'll fix the car for you, you don't end up with the car, I'll fix a car for you, you do end up with a car.
    – gerrit
    Commented Nov 8, 2012 at 15:10
  • 4
    Sir Walter Scott wrote in 1839: “No, madam; well you said the God you serve will open you a path for deliverance.” And apparently there is 2010 poetry collection called Let Me Open You a Swan. Still, it seems easier to open you a beer than a stage act.
    – tchrist
    Commented Nov 9, 2012 at 4:07

Open is a transitive verb, not ditransitive, so it only takes one object, e.g. door.

I will open the door - one object (door)

* I will open you the door - two objects (you, door)

The second sentence seems weird because open doesn't take two objects.

A ditransitive verb takes two objects. For example, give can be ditransitive:

I gave you the money - two objects (you, money)

  • 1
    That's the word! Most verbs aren't ditransitive. I'll delete my answer in favour of yours. But I'm not sure that's the whole story. Assuming we don't classify to cash as a ditransitive verb, how come we're happier with "Can you cash me a cheque?" than we are with "Can you open me the door?". Commented Nov 7, 2012 at 21:14
  • 2
    @F Perhaps that sentence indicates that to cash is ditransitive.
    – Andrew Leach
    Commented Nov 7, 2012 at 21:25
  • 2
    @FumbleFingers: I don't think I find "Can you cash me a check?" any more grammatical than *"Can you open me the door?" (Although Google Ngrams seems to disagree with this.) Commented Nov 7, 2012 at 21:37
  • 2
    @Peter Shor: How odd! Using a technique I picked up from you some time ago, I just checked Google Books results for "cash a check for me" (954), "cash me a check" (82). The equivalents for UK spelling "cheque" are 305 and 242, which I think suggests we're nowhere near as averse as Americans to the idea of promoting any old verb to "ditransitive" status. Commented Nov 7, 2012 at 21:56
  • 6
    open doesn't take two objects. Sounds so much like programming! Commented Nov 9, 2012 at 10:34

Open you the door isn't the exception at all. Most verbs capable of having both a direct and an indirect object don't readily accept the possibility of just specifying both objects without using any prepositions (but if/when you can do that, you always have to put the "indirect object" first).

There's a significant US/UK divide here, as illustrated by these Google Books results...

American usage: cash a check for me" (954), cash me a check (82).

British usage: cash a cheque for me (242), cash me a cheque (305).

As a Brit, I don't have any real problem with OP's exact usage and context, though I'm aware some people would find it anywhere between "slightly odd" and "totally ungrammatical". Taking it a bit further though, probably almost everyone would say that...

"Look who's in the driveway, Johnny! Go and open Auntie Ethel the door!"

...is "totally unacceptable".

EDIT: I don't really disagree with John Lawler's observation that the "ditransitive, prepositionless" dative alternation construction largely turns on whether the beneficiary ends up possessing the direct object. But it's not a hard-and-fast rule - particularly, I feel, in BrE.

As this source says, the above intended reception constraint [beneficiary ends up possessing object] comes with a certain amount of inherent fuzziness. And to illustrate that fuzziness, it gives actual "acceptability" figures for a few "marginal" constructions...

a: Could you iron me these shirts? [76%]
b: Could you wash me the dishes? [54%]
c: Could you clean me the windows? [47%]
d. Could you open me the door? [25%]

My own feeling is that this form is becoming more common (those figures were collected almost 40 years ago), and that it's more likely when the beneficiary is a pronoun (particularly, me). I'd be prepared to bet that if the above survey were repeated today, b above would score higher than 54%, but "Could you wash Mum the dishes?" would score significantly less.


As you noticed, many verbs can take an indirect object, and can also express the indirect object with to or for. But there is no rule that anything expressed with to or for must be convertible to an indirect object, and therefore "open the door" is not an exception to the rule.

There are plenty of examples of verbs that work this way:

Break a leg for me != Break me a leg.

I bought balloons for the party != I bought the party balloons.

They brought the discrepancy to the director's attention != They brought the director's attention the discrepancy.

There's nothing special about open that prevents it from taking an indirect object; if anything, the "special" verbs are the ones that do take the indirect object.

  • 5
    Your second example sounds weird because it's a garden-path sentence: party balloon is a type of balloon. But both I bought drinks for my friend and I bought my friend drinks sound fine to me. Commented Nov 7, 2012 at 21:35
  • 1
    It also depends on whether you parse "party" as "group of people" or "festive event".
    – MSalters
    Commented Nov 8, 2012 at 15:47
  • Even though someone can actually be responsible for a discrepancy (and ipso facto be in possession of said discrepancy, thus validating the benefactive construction in theory), "They brought the director's attention the discrepancy" just sounds really odd and is certainly something I could never imagine myself (a native speaker) nor any of my native English-speaking friends saying.
    – user25349
    Commented Mar 20, 2013 at 3:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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