Forum: General Forum
Start a New Topic 
  
Author
Comment
Object complement, appositive or direct/indirect object

My general question is: How to tell the difference between an object complement, appositive and a direct or indirect object?

Sample sentence:
God will provide himself a lamb.

Whom or what will God provide? A lamb.
For whom will God provide a lamb? Himself.
It seems that the reflexive pronoun in this sentence is the indirect object and a lamb is the direct object.

However, if we put "to be" between the direct object "himself" and the object complement "a lamb" we have God will provide himself [to be] a lamb.

Seems to be both are possible, but they will have two different meanings!

1) God will provide [for] himself a lamb. Indirect Object and Direct Object.
2) God will provide himself [to be] a lamb. Direct object and Object complement.

Hmm! Am I missing something? How to decide?

Which bring me to my second question:

Who gave himself a ransom for all.

Is this the same problem? Is "a ransom" the direct object or the Object complement?


P.S. Hope I'm not trying your patience, but I'm in a heat debate and trying figure out the grammar part of the debate!

Re: Object complement, appositive or direct/indirect object

I thought I had explained the difference between indirect objects and objective complements.

Here's a summary of the differences between the two kinds of object and objective complements:

Direct and indirect objects:

A direct object is the person or thing that is acted upon by the verb, whereas an indirect object is typically associated with the semantic role of recipient or beneficiary of the direct object. For example, in Ed gave Liz a gift, "Liz" is indirect object because she is the recipient of the direct object, "a gift". Note that if a sentence contains only one object, it is direct object. It is not normally possible for an indirect object to occur alone. Also note that nouns occurring in preposition phrases are objects of the preposition, not the verb, and hence are not indirect objects. For example, in Kim gave the box to Ed, "Ed" is object of the preposition "to, not indirect object of "gave".

Object complements:

By contrast, an object complement denotes some property of the direct object. For example, in We painted the house green, the adjective "green" describes the colour of the object, "the house". Similarly, in They appointed him chairman, the noun "chairman" describes the role/position of the object, "him".



PaulM

Re: Object complement, appositive or direct/indirect object

Paul, you are brilliant and have been a great help to me. Thanks!

I was racking my brain to find a sentence that best represented my dilemma (Object complement or indirect object) and all I could come up with was a verse from the Bible.

Would you break down the sentence grammatically for me, or allow me and correct me where I'm wrong?

God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering.

God - subject
will provide - verb
himself - indirect object - beneficiary/recipient of the direct object.
a lamb - direct object - thing acted upon by the verb, viz. God will provide what? - a lamb
for - preposition
a burnt offering - object of the preposition


Or am I completely off and the proper break down is:
God - subject
will provide - verb
himself - direct object (strange to me)
a lamb - object complement (property of the direct object - God [is] a lamb
for - preposition
a burnt offering - object of the preposition

Re: Object complement, appositive or direct/indirect object

The simple answer is that I’m not entirely sure how to analyse the sentence.

The problem with analysing passages from the Bible is that there can be a number of different interpretations, no less so with the passage you cited.

One translation sees it as "God himself will provide a lamb for a burnt offering", in which case there is only one object -- the direct object "a lamb". On this account, the reflexive pronoun "himself" is being used emphatically, i.e. it is an optional element.

On the other hand, some translations take it more literally, in which case "himself" is indirect object and "a lamb" is direct object.

To help you decide which translation is the more plausible, you may find these websites helpful:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/22-8-compare.html

https://www.timefortruth.co.uk/content/pages/documents/1351788556.pdf



PaulM

Re: Object complement, appositive or direct/indirect object

And with that you HAVE answered my question! One sentence can indeed be interpreted correctly in various manners - it could be emphatic, object complement or direct/indirect object depending upon the interpretation. You do allow the possibility of an object complement, where "himself" would be the direct object and "a lamb" would rename (or be a property of) the direct object, do you not?

Interestingly enough, I'm in discussion with Mr. Kinney (your second link) about this very subject!

Let me try to rephrase my original question. Can a sentence correctly have two or more structures (S-V-Io-Do, S-V-Do-OC, etc.) depending upon interpretation?

John will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering.

Seems like this sentence cannot have an Object complement and must either be emphatic or indirect object/direct object. John is not a lamb.

John himself will provide a lamb.
John will provide [for] himself a lamb.
John is NOT a lamb. Object complement is not possible.

However, as you noted by putting God (Bible) into the discussion we now have three possibilities (if I understood your reply correctly).

God himself will provide a lamb.
God will provide [for] himself a lamb.
God is the lamb. Object complement.

If I have misunderstood something please correct me, otherwise, I'm extremely grateful for your time and patience. You have been a GREAT help!!! Thank you!

Re: Object complement, appositive or direct/indirect object

In other words does the grammar force the interpretation or does the interpretation reveal the grammar?

Re: Object complement, appositive or direct/indirect object

God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering.

Without changing the word order - the grammar structure is?
S-V-IO-DO-Prep-object of Prep.

or

S-V-DO-OC-Prep-Object of Prep.

OC - Object complement.