Re: it is worth it
- From: António Marques <m.ap@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:57:10 +0100
dicaduca wrote:
So I have to deduce that, in the sentence 'it is worth 1 dollar', because '1
dollar' doesn't answer to the questions: whom? what?, but to the question:
how much?, it is an indirect object.
How come???
It answers the question 'what':
- *What* is it worth?
- It's worth *1 dollar*
An 'indirect object' is one which is affected by the action, not being
the action's main object; which is to mean, more or less the dative (the
direct object being the accusative): 'Tell *me* the story'.
In Italian, things are more complicated. First, the study dedicated to such
matters is not called grammar, but is considerd as part of the syntax.
Second, we don't have only monotransitive and ditransitive verbs, but
intransitive ones too, namely verbs that can't accept a direct object.
And english doesn't??
(By
the way, it seems strange to me the name 'ditransitive', composed by a
Greek prefix, di, and a name of Latin origin, transitive. Why not to call it
'bitransitive'?).
Why, the mono- sounds even weirder. Here, we do along just with
'transitive'.
Third, the verb 'to be' constitutes a class apart; this
verb, followed by a name or an adjectif, forms a 'predicato nominale' (nominal
predicate),
And that's why another analysis of the sentence might be
SUBJECT it
VERB is
PREDICATE worth it
on the contrary all the other verbs are named 'predicato
verbale' (verbal predicate). So, indirect objects are classified in two
categories: those answering to the nominal predicate, subdivided in two
subcategories, and those answering to the verbal predicate, named
'complements' and categorised in a dozen of ways. When the direct or
indirect object is constituted by a sentence, the syntax prescribes another
way of classification.
Those complements aren't indirect objects as they aren't objects of the
action at all.
--
am
laurus : rhodophyta : brezhoneg : smalltalk : stargate
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
- References:
- it is worth it
- From: dicaduca
- Re: it is worth it
- From: mb
- Re: it is worth it
- From: Herman Rubin
- Re: it is worth it
- From: dicaduca
- Re: it is worth it
- From: Herman Rubin
- Re: it is worth it
- From: dicaduca
- it is worth it
- Prev by Date: Re: Universal grammar
- Next by Date: Re: Lexical differences between Spanish and Portuguese
- Previous by thread: Re: it is worth it
- Next by thread: Re: it is worth it
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|