It seems the verb ‘explain’ doesn’t take indirect objects. We say, “I’ll explain everything to you.” but not I’ll explain you everything." On the other hand either “I’ll tell you everything” or I’ll tell everything to you" are both fine Englsih.
Any ideas why this is the case? Are there other such verbs that take direct objects but not indirect objects, and if so what do they have in common?
This property of verbs is called “valency” and is a measure of how many arguments the verb can take. It’s closely related to transitivity. A bivalent verb has a subject and direct object, a trivalent (or bitransitive) verb can also take an indirect object.
There are many examples of verbs which are not trivalent - for example while you can say “he threw me the frisbee” and “he offered me the frisbee”, you can’t say “he pushed me the frisbee” or “he lowered me the frisbee”. In these latter cases you need a preposition to make the sentence grammatical.
It’s also related to dative shift, a phenonmenon that is quite rare as far as I know.
Basically, in English some verbs allow two valid constructions : one with a prepostional phrase (1) or one with a double object (2).
(1) I’ll tell everything to you.
(2) I’ll tell you everything.
It doesn’t work with all verbs. The distribution seems to be related to their origin. Broadly speaking, Germanic verbs allow it whereas Romance ones don’t.
Is that a typo for “prepositional”, or is this a linguistic term I’m unfamiliar with? (Google seems to think the former, but I don’t want to assume.)
It’s a typo, thanks.
Come to think of it, what I wrote above may not be the full explanation. After all, to lower is a verb of Germanic origin.
Could it be related to the semantics of the verb also?
The dative shift seems to work with verbs that are semantically trivalent, i.e. that by definition require someone who “transfers” something to someone/something, such as to give and to throw.
But with to lower the primary meaning seems to include only two elements, not three. Someone lowers something. The trivalent construction (someone lowers something to someone) seems secondary. This may be why it doesn’t work here.
“He lowered me the ladder” sounds perfectly grammatical, to my native-speaker ears, and “he pushed me the box” sounds fine, too. This might vary by dialect.
In my SoCal dialect those sound like utterly ungrammatical hillbilly-speak.
So yeah, dialects. No personal criticism implied.
There are prepostional phrases and postpretional phrases.
Prepostional: I wanted to punch him in the face and so I gave him a bloody nose.
Postpretional: He got punched in the face because I wanted to hit him.
Prepretional: I wanted to punch him in the face but he thought of it first.
Postpostional: I gave him a bloody nose and then he knocked me out.
I bet you $5 you can’t find a verb that takes three objects.
One of them is a subordinate clause.
Didn’t you just use one: you (indirect), $5 (direct), “[that] you can’t …” (subordinate clause).
Of course; that was the whole point. I can’t think of another example (well wager but that is a synonym). But you could pass over the whole sentence and not realize it.
I can’t think of a verb with three objects either, but I can think of sentences with two direct objects: “They elected him President.” - both “him” and “President” are direct objects (and “they” is the subject, of course). I suppose it might be possible to squeeze in an indirect object into that sentence somehow.
I don’t think “President” is a direct object there.
I think it’s called an object complement? It seems like the same grammatical structure as
“She named her baby Jack”
Isn’t one of those "you"s redundant? The sentence can be written as “I bet $5 that you can’t find a verb that takes three objects.”
I’m sure that you might find your construction in spoken English, of course, but I don’t know whether a redundancy counts when asking the number of objects.
And couldn’t you slide in as many subordinate clauses that you can think of?
“I bet you $5 for the next five minutes only that standing on one foot you can’t find a verb that takes three objects.”
I’m not sure that particular case works, but the principle stands.
I can’t explain why it makes me strangely happy to see that nobody in this thread has yet used the words transitive or intransitive.
The you is not redundant since they could, in principle be two different people. Try, “I bet you $5 that Harpo Marx could not find a verb with three complements.”
As for your deeply embedded clauses, they only modify the main object clause and the whole functions as one clause. Clauses can be embedded to indefinite depth, but each one only modifies only the clause it is embedded in. “This is the horse that ate the cow that ate the pig that ate the dog that ate the cat that ate the rat that ate the mouse that ate the roach that ate the beatle…”
It’s not redundant, because I could bet her $5 that you can’t find a verb.
I feel like @Hari_Seldon’s example does have three objects, because of the unique semantics of “bet”. You bet [with] a person [indirect], you bet a stake [direct], and you bet a proposition [direct]. And fwiw the grammar seems to tolerate any combination of these 3 possible objects being included or omitted.
I bet.
I bet him.
I bet $5.
I bet that it would happen.
I bet him $5.
I bet him that it would happen.
I bet $5 that it would happen.
I bet him $5 that it would happen.
[ETA: ninjaed]
How about “I bet you $5 to your favorite charity that I can top that”? Though I think that “to your favorite charity” might be a modifier of “$5”, not directly attached to “bet”.
I bet $5 you and Hari got me.