# grammar question on PSAT **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 15, 2003, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-on-psat/175468 "2003-05-15T16:21:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-on-psat/175468/21 "2003-05-16T17:24:26Z")
And here’s a cite that illustrates _my_ point: [http://www.sta.cathedral.org/lowerschool/form1/Eng1JAVwww/Grammar/Diagramming/DiagE/diagSolE11.html](http://www.sta.cathedral.org/lowerschool/form1/Eng1JAVwww/Grammar/Diagramming/DiagE/diagSolE11.html) ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-on-psat/175468/22 "2003-05-16T17:24:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Earl Snake-Hips Tucker \* > \*\*Sorry, but “to enable” is a transitive verb, requiring a direct object. The example you gave was intransitive. > > Wanna try again. \*\* Well, to replow this ground, I already wrote that > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by brianmelendez \* > **The pronoun _her_, whose case is objective and not possessive, is the direct object of the verb _enables_.** Yes, _enable_ is transitive, and its direct object is _her_. My citation was illustrating the point that an infinitive phrase can serve as an adverb, which is true for both transitive and intransitive verbs. This particular infinitive phrase is an adverbial phrase modifying the transitive verb _enable_. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-on-psat/175468/23 "2003-05-16T17:28:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Earl Snake-Hips Tucker \* > \*\*The point being that “her to create. . .” is the entire infinitive phrase with “her” as the subject, not “her” as a direct object of “enables” and “to create” as an adverbial infinitive phrase. \*\* The infinitive phrase is “to create . . . ,” not “her to create . . . .” The pronoun _her_ serves as the infinitive’s subject, but is not itself within the infinitive phrase: > [@](#): > > Infinitive phrases (InfP) are composed of an infinitive verb (the base form of the verb preceded by to) and any optional objects or modificational material for that verb, e.g., adverbs and prepositional phrases. The infinitive phrase has three functions: noun, adjective, adverb. ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-on-psat/175468/24 "2003-05-16T17:31:15Z")
Then either you didn’t see or understand the example I cited. Won’t argue with you anymore. . . But I’m right. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-on-psat/175468/25 "2003-05-16T17:57:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Earl Snake-Hips Tucker \* > \*\*Then either you didn’t see or understand the example I cited. Won’t argue with you anymore. . . > > But I’m right. \*\* I saw the example, understood it, and disagree with it for the reasons that I have already explained. The authority that you are citing is the website of a seventh-grade English class. I’m sure that the teacher couldn’t have possibly made a mistake. :rolleyes: I mean, that would be as unlikely as a mistake on the PSAT, right? Or even worse, a correctly worded sentence on the PSAT getting graded as if it were mistaken because some teachers were teaching what **DanielWithrow** called (in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=184310)) “an old and frowned-upon construction” . . . ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-on-psat/175468/26 "2003-05-16T18:11:37Z")
I’m with **Earl** here. Sorry, **Brian**. Here’s why. “Enables” is a transitive verb, requiring a direct object. It doesn’t require an indirect object; otherwise, the sentence, “The SDMB enables a lot of pointless grammar-debating” would be incorrect. Nor, for the same reason, does it require an adverb or adverbial phrase (actually, no verb requires an adverb). If “her” is the direct object of “enables,” then the sentence, “Toni Morrison’s genius enables her,” would make some kind of sense. Clearly, it doesn’t. The direct object of “enables” is whatever is enabled. And clearly, what is enabled is “her to create…” The entire infinitive phrase acts as the direct object of “enables” in this sentence. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-on-psat/175468/27 "2003-05-16T18:35:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DanielWithrow \* > \*\*I’m with **Earl** here. Sorry, **Brian**. > > Here’s why. > > “Enables” is a transitive verb, requiring a direct object. It doesn’t require an indirect object; otherwise, the sentence, “The SDMB enables a lot of pointless grammar-debating” would be incorrect. Nor, for the same reason, does it require an adverb or adverbial phrase (actually, no verb requires an adverb). > > If “her” is the direct object of “enables,” then the sentence, “Toni Morrison’s genius enables her,” would make some kind of sense. > > Clearly, it doesn’t. > > The direct object of “enables” is whatever is enabled. And clearly, what is enabled is “her to create…” > > The entire infinitive phrase acts as the direct object of “enables” in this sentence.\*\* **DanielWithrow** , thanks for the response. I am willing to be persuaded, but I’m not there yet, so let me push back a little on the issue that I am (correctly or incorrectly) getting stuck on. I agree that _enable_ is transitive and needs neither an indirect object nor an adverb. But it _can_ be modified by an adverb (or, in this example, an adverbial phrase): \ The direct object in this example is the pronoun _her_. The phrase _in ways that you and I cannot imitate_ is an adverbial phrase modifying the verb. I have been viewing the infinitive phrase in the OP’s example (the one from the test) as equivalent to that adverbial phrase. One issue that I have with recognizing the whole infinitive phrase as the direct object is that I don’t view the pronoun _her_ as part of the infinitive phrase. If it were, then I could concede your and **Earl Snake-Hips Tucker** ’s point. (Unfortunately, I’m sitting in my hotel room at a business conference, without access to the references that would help me agree or disagree more effectively with that point!) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-on-psat/175468/28 "2003-05-16T18:46:45Z")
Yeah, I’ve been trying to figure out where “her” figures into things, too. [Here’s the best I’ve been able to come up with](http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/gerund_chart.htm#TopofPage): it’s a required agent? Huh? > [@](#): > > Verbs That Take Gerund and Infinitive Completers > > Infinitives > **No agent** \* He can afford to call them. > _With optional agent for the action_\* You wanted me to call them. OR You wanted to call them. > **With required agent** \* for the action She reminded us to call them. > > \*By agent, we mean the person or thing that might or might not be required to complete the action: > We asked Joe to call home. (Joe is the agent.) > Giorgio began to gamble on weekends. (No agent) > … > > Enable: > **Infinitive** > Required agent for action > > _The money enabled him to buy a new car_ (Sorry about the formatting; I added some in to make it a little clearer). Looking at this, it seems that the infinitive phrase **must** be a direct object. In comparable sentences that don’t require an agent, e.g., “Toni Morrison can afford to have me killed,” it’s clear that “to have me killed” is the object of “afford,” yes? The only relevant difference between “afford” and “enable” is that the latter takes an agent. So what’s an agent? From [another page in the same site](http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/subjects.htm), we get: > [@](#): > > For purposes of sentence analysis, the do-er or the initiator of action in a sentence is referred to as the agent of the sentence. Hmm. Not much help. Anyone have any ideas on this? I’ll keep looking, meanwhile. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-on-psat/175468/29 "2003-05-16T19:16:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DanielWithrow \* > **Yeah, I’ve been trying to figure out where “her” figures into things, too.** The analysis would be much simpler for an equivalent indirect construction: \, as opposed to \ or \. For the first example, \, it is clear that the direct object is the noun clause _that you do it_. The other two examples are more complicated because _do_ has taken on a more noun-like character: the infinitive _to do_ in the second example, and the gerund _doing_ in the third. (I suppose that you could also read _doing_ in the third example as a participle, which would change the meaning and the analysis, but I am using it as a gerund so that the three examples contain equivalent constructions.) The constructions in the second and third examples are more than phrases, because they contain a subject and a verbal. But they are less than clauses, because the verb has no person or number and the construction therefore does not achieve a complete predicate. And to further complicate matters, the “subject” of the infinitive in the second example goes into the _objective_ case. For the second example, \, I have a harder time imagining that the infinitive phrase _to do it_ is really an adverb modifying _prefer_ than I did with the analogous phrase in the OP. Saying that the phrase includes the infinitive’s subject (despite it being in the objective case) makes the analysis easier, because then the phrase can be the direct object. But doesn’t including the subject make it more than a phrase? I look forward to a little research when I get back into the office on Monday. Meanwhile, I look forward to hearing from anyone else who wants to noodle this conundrum! ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-on-psat/175468/30 "2003-05-16T19:26:28Z")
Okay, [here’s an example](http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_verbals.html#infinitives), and I think you’re onto something, **Brian** > [@](#): > > **They asked me to bring some food.** > > _The infinitive phrase functions as the direct object of the verb **asked.** _ > me (actor or “subject” of infinitive phrase) > to bring (infinitive) > some food (direct object of action expressed in infinitive) So it looks as if “her,” in our sample sentence, is the “subject” of the infinitive phrase “to create…” The infinitive phrase is the direct object of “enables.” So it’s starting to look clearer. And then look what they say next: > [@](#): > > Actors: In these last two examples the actor of the infinitive phrase could be roughly characterized as the “subject” of the action or state expressed in the infinitive. It is somewhat misleading to use the word subject, however, since an infinitive phrase is not a full clause with a subject and a finite verb. Also notice that when it is a pronoun, the actor appears in the objective case (me, not I, in the fourth example). Certain verbs, when they take an infinitive direct object, require an actor for the infinitive phrase; others can’t have an actor. Still other verbs can go either way, as the charts below illustrate. Hmm…I’m still not entirely clear on this, maybe because I’ve never heard the term “actors” as a formal grammatical term. And although clearly the actor should be in the objective case (“Toni Morrison’s genius enables **she** to create?” ewww!), I’m not sure why this is true. Logically, it seems to me as if it should be in the subjective case. But this may be all the clarity we’re going to get. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-on-psat/175468/31 "2003-05-16T19:53:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DanielWithrow \* > **And although clearly the actor should be in the objective case (“Toni Morrison’s genius enables she to create?” ewww!), I’m not sure why this is true. Logically, it seems to me as if it should be in the subjective case.** I can’t cite any authority on this point, but I am pretty sure that this construction is an unfortunate Latinism that stuck. An indirect statement in Latin puts the verb into the infinitive mood and its subject into the accusative case: _Malo illum ire._ I prefer him to go. English imitated this illogical construction. But oddly, when English uses an actual indirect construction, such as _I prefer that he go_, the verb still goes into the infinitive mood (not _I prefer that he goes_), but the subject goes into the subjective case. Go figure. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-on-psat/175468/32 "2003-05-16T20:35:30Z")
I wrote to the teacher who runs the website that **Earl Snake-Hips Tucker** cited, and he concurs in **Earl** ’s view, citing _Warriner’s English Grammar and Composition, Third Course_, p. 102. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2003, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-on-psat/175468/33 "2003-05-18T03:52:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by brianmelendez \* > \*\*I look forward to a little research when I get back into the office on Monday. Meanwhile, I look forward to hearing from anyone else who wants to noodle this conundrum! \*\* Home and hitting the books. There is such disagreement over this issue (_not_ the issue in the OP, but the semi-hijack about the direct object of _enables_) evidently because professional grammarians disagree themselves. I found support both for my view, and for **Earl Snake-Hips Tucker** and **DanielWithrow** ’s view. I have come around to the conclusion that, while my view is defensible, the view that **Earl** and **Daniel** were advocating makes more sense even though it relies on a somewhat nontraditional view of what constitutes a clause. The question is, what is the direct object of the verb _enables_ in \? But the question turns, as I suggested, on the function of the pronoun _her_. Either the pronoun is itself the direct object, as I suggested, and the infinitive phrase _to create novels_ is something else; or the direct object is the entire construction _her to create novels_, as **Earl** and **Daniel** suggested. _Harper’s English Grammar_ supports the view that an infinitive phrase can serve as an adverb: > [@](#): > > The infinitive may be used as an adverb is, to express condition, degree (or comparison), manner, reason or purpose, result, as > > **To speak freely I think your work is bad** (condition; that is, on condition that I may speak freely) > **He was too excited to understand** (degree) > **He knows better than to attempt that** (comparison) > **He will strive to please you** (manner) > **They are trying to finish before night** (reason or purpose) > **She has managed to become a good player** (result) John B. Opdycke, _Harper’s English Grammar_ 139 (1965). And _Harper’s_ also supports my view that the infinitive phrase here, even if it includes _her_, cannot function as a clause–which could serve as a direct object–because the verb has no person or number and the construction therefore does not achieve a complete predicate: > [@](#): > > The **subject** of a sentence is that about which something is stated, asked, ordered, or exclaimed by the use of a finite verb. The **predicate** of a sentence is that action, state, or condition which is stated, asked, ordered, or exclaimed by the use of a finite verb. The word **finite** is most important in these definitions for it means limited or restricted or bound by person and number and manner and time. Infinitives and participles are not thus bound; hence, they cannot be used as predicates. Only such verbs as have number, person, tense, and mode may be predicates. _Id._ at 224 (internal cross-reference omitted). So what are the pronoun and the infinitive phrase? _Harper’s_ says that they are the direct object and the “objective complement”: > [@](#): > > The infinitive may be used in most ways in which a noun is used, as > > . . . . > > **She made him (to) accept** (objective complement) _Id._ at 138. And just what is an “objective complement”? Basically a parallel direct object: > [@](#): > > A noun is in the objective case when it means the same thing as the direct object or explains or describes it, as **We made Horace leader** , in which **leader** defines the direct object **Horace**. This is not to be confused with a noun in apposition. Note that **leader** completes, that the sentence without it is absurd– **We made Horace**. The noun in apposition is not necessary for completion, but is added and gratuitous in a construction. In all such expressions– **They elected Roosevelt president** , **They named the boy Harrison** , **They chose Bill captain** –the completing noun– **president** , **Harrison** , **captain** –is called the **objective complement** ; it is also called **factitive object** , **predicate objective** , **appositional object** , **resultant object** , **secondary object**. Such verbs as **appoint** , **call** , **choose** , **constitute** , **elect** , **find** , **make** , **name** , **ordain** , **think** are followed very often by objective complements denoting rank, office, position, name, and the like. Note that the objective complement follows the direct object. _Id._ at 41-42. Well, okay, then. The direct object of the verb _enables_ must be the pronoun _her_, and the infinitive phrase _to create novels_ is either an adverb or an objective complement. But _to create novels_ doesn’t “mean the same thing as the direct object or explain or describe it,” so it must not be an objective complement. Therefore it must be an adverb. Like I said. (Let’s overlook for the moment the fact that the example labeled as an “objective complement” on page 138, \, also doesn’t “mean the same thing as the direct object or explain or describe it.”) But _Harper’s_ hesitantly admits another possibility: > [@](#): > > Note also in this connection [noun clauses as objects] that the infinitive with its subject in the objective case is by some authorities called an infinitive noun clause. In **We expected him to stand highest in the test** , **him** is the subject of the infinitive and **him to stand highest in the test** is the entire “infinitive clause” used as object of **expected**. _Id._ at 230. So _Harper’s_ acknowledges, but evidently disapproves, that “some authorities” take **Earl** and **Daniel** ’s view. The next reference that I checked, _The Oxford English Grammar_, is less squeamish about that view: > [@](#): > > The verb in a non-finite clause may take any of four non-finite forms and the clause may be with or without a subject: > > . . . . > > 1. \*to-\*infinitive clause with subject: > Uh well do you want _me to tell you the truth_ (“that I should tell you the truth”) > > . . . . > > 1. bare infinitive clause with subject: > But what made _him want to go to Disneyworld for the job_ Sidney Greenbaum, _The Oxford English Grammar_ § 6.10 at 329 (1996). Note that Example 5 draws an explicit parallel between the infinitive construction and the equivalent indirect statement, as **Daniel** and I were discussing in the last few posts. The _OEG_ goes on to say that > [@](#): > > Indirect directives are commonly infinitive clauses: > > [13] The Louisiana attorney general and New Orleans district attorney have asked a federal district court _to allow them to revive laws making it a crime to perform abortions, punishable by as much as 10 years in prison_. > [14] A marijuana smuggler is told _to work with AIDS patients_. > [15] As a result, the FDA ordered importers _to detail most of China’s canned-mushroom shipments_ . . . . _Id._, § 6.18 at 359. The _OEG_ evidently abandons the idea that a clause must contain a finite verb. That approach is consistent with the equivalence between the [subject in the objective case + infinitive phrase] construction and the indirect statement. And it makes good sense (setting aside the somewhat absurd retention of the objective case and infinitive mood from Latin)–better sense, IMO, than insisting on the traditional definition that an infinitive cannot (even with a subject) form a clause and resorting to an “objective complement” in order to explain the construction. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-question-on-psat/175468.md?page=1)