Is it possible for a sentence to have two direct objects, as in:
We call him Bob.
It seems that him and Bob represent the same thing, with some kind of implied equivalence. Here’s another similar example, but not with direct objects:
Who are you, Robin Hood?
It seems that who and Robin Hood are again equivalent. So, my questions are: What is this type of thing called? And how is this phenomenon explained linguistically?
It’s not equivalence: the denotation is that “Bob” is a name for “him”. Try changing the order: “We call Bob ‘him’.” Clearly “Bob” in the first sentence and “him” in the second sentence are different names, so they aren’t equivalent.
Well, it’s not an equivalence as much as it’s a naming. We take that guy, him, and we apply the label Bob to that guy, and so we now now that if we ever in the future refer to “Bob,” we know it’s that guy who we pointed out earlier. Similarly, if we didn’t like Bob, we might decide to just call Bob “him” to express our disdain. That’s what I meant by equivalence. I understand that that was vague.
This case is the reason for pronouns. Different ways to refer to the same thing, so you don’t have to say ‘We call Bob Bob’. They allow the ambiguous form to precede the specific noun in this case, or simplify grammer afterwards.
No, in “We call him Bob”, “Bob” cannot be the antecedent of “him”. Try this fuller example:
We have two people in the workshop. The one who has been working longer here is Robert Smith, and we call him Bob. The other is Bob Jones, and because he came later, we can’t call him Bob too, so we call him Curly, from his wavy hair.
I’m confused, who is him?
I think “Bob” here is actually an indirect object of some kind.
Who is what’s called a relative pronoun. In this sentence it’s used as an interrogative pronoun.
Captain Chaos
Sorry, I meant him is whom?
Btw, I think “him” is actually an indirect object and “Bob” is a… whatchamacallit… complement?
Can “call” in that meaning even have a direct object?
Yea, one of those thingies.
Clearly, someone needs to diagram the OP’s sentence for us.
Definitely an indirect object and direct object. It’s more apparent if you look at a sentence like “We gave him the name Bob” - the name is clearly the direct object (what was given) and “him” is the indirect object (to whom the direct object was given).
:dubious:Did you read the link I posted? In the OP’s example, “him” is the direct object, and “Bob” is the objective complement. That’s not up for debate. In the example you use, you do correctly say that"name" is the direct object, and “him” is the direct object–but “Bob” is still the objective complement.
Ah. Thank you so much. I’ve oftened wondered about that. A mildly annoying bit of ignorance now fought.
Does this term work for my second example, though? I think who is the subject of that sentence, so would Robin Hood be a subjective complement? Or is it just the answer to a rhetorical question? And thus, as such, pretty much grammatically separate from the question itself.
I think the second example is called “ellipsis,” in which some of the words are inferred. Thus: “Who are you, [are you] Robin?” Also note that in the first clause, “you” is the subject, and “who” is a predicate nominative, not a direct object.
Yes. I was wrong about what word the subject is. Calling the Robin Hood an ellipsis makes some sense, but it doesn’t seem to fit totally correctly. It seems like Robin Hood is an answer to the question, and so of a different structure than the bit it’s latched onto. On the other hand, the question as asked still demands a response, so maybe it is an ellipsis, in the end.