Directions to indirect objects for expatriates

JUNE CASAGRANDE

Dear citizen Newport-Mesa: Congratulations on your recent secession

from the United States of America.

I’m glad it was a bloodless revolt. As an American citizen, let me

be the first to say we look forward to peaceful relations, free

trade, mutual prosperity and a thriving student-exchange program.

Dear residents Newport-Mesa: Somewhere there’s a very frustrated

editor. She or he -- hmmm, let’s say, she -- asked me to have a word

with you about your citizenship.

You see, she’s tired of poring over letters to the editor,

changing the word “citizens” to “residents.” Don’t tell your

secessionist friends, but they’re still Americans, like it or not.

And this editor will continue to change their “citizens” to

“residents” until Republic of Newport Beach troops storm her office

to stop her.

Once more for the record: Though the definition of “citizen”

leaves some room for flexibility, common use dictates that

citizenship refers to a country. For example, you’re a resident of

Costa Mesa, a resident of California and also a documented citizen of

the United States of America.

So if you’ve been receiving and paying tax bills from the Republic

of Newport Beach, I’m afraid you’ve been scammed. I know that’s

disturbing news, but it’s nowhere near as upsetting as the news I got

this week.

It turns out that I, after writing a column about grammar for

about two years, just learned that I never really understood what an

indirect object is.

I know what a direct object is. In the sentence, “I ate the pie,”

it’s the pie. “I” is the subject, “ate” is the verb and “the pie” is

the object of the action.

This is, of course, the difference between transitive and

intransitive verbs. Transitive verbs require a direct object.

Intransitive verbs do not. And many verbs, including “to eat,” have

both transitive and intransitive forms. “Will you eat some pie? No

thanks, I already ate.”

Direct objects are easy. Indirect objects, on the other hand,

aren’t exactly what I thought. I had always believed they required

prepositions. “I sang to him.” In this, “him” isn’t a direct object

because I didn’t sing him. I sang a song. But I sang it to him;

therefore “him” is the indirect object.

Then I bought a grammar book -- not a stylebook like the ones I

usually use: the Chicago Manual of Style, the Associated Press

Stylebook, the Elements of Style and so on.

No, I went and bought me a weighty and pricey copy of the “Oxford

English Grammar,” which tells me the following about direct and

indirect objects.

“Some transitive verbs can have two objects, an indirect object as

well as a direct object.”

An Oxford example: “I’m sending you an official letter of

complaint.” So which one is the direct and which is the indirect

object? If you think the one that comes right after the verb is the

direct object, it’s a logical guess but wrong nonetheless.

The direct object of the sending, that is, the thing being sent,

is the official letter of complaint. The indirect object is the

person it’s being sent to, “you.”

The “to” is implied in Oxford’s example, just as the prepositions

are implied in these other examples.

“Give me it tomorrow.” In this one, “it” is the direct object

because it’s the thing being given. “Me” is the indirect object.

“We tell each other everything.” That, of course, means that we

tell everything to each other. Therefore “everything” is the direct

object of “tell” and “each other” is the indirect object.

“What I would suggest is that we make you an appointment.” We make

the appointment. And we make it “for,” there’s our dropped

preposition, you.

So what, then, is an “object of a preposition” and is it often the

same thing as an indirect object? Well, I haven’t gotten to that part

of the book yet. But I’d love to hear your thoughts in the meantime.

And that applies to you foreign citizens too.

* JUNE CASAGRANDE is a freelance writer. She can be reached at

[email protected].