I have noticed that on this message board, and it seems to be an increasingly common phenomenon, that people use the verb recommend without an accompanying “to”, as recommend me a whatsit.
Now, I have never seen this usage before, and it strikes me as very odd, as otherwise literate and grammatically minded people seem to be, well, using it. Or perhaps they’re not, and it just seems like that to me. But anyway, did I miss a memo? If I have, could somebody please recommend me a good place to read up on this new style of self expression and to sign up for the newsletter containing updates on style?
I guess since “recommend” is a transitive verb, and all other common transitive verbs can take both a direct object (accusative case) and an indirect object (dative case), your cited usage of “recommend” is just a natural generalization of the ubiquitous sentence construction $SUBJECT VERB {INDIRECT OBJECT} ${DIRECT OBJECT}. The English tendency to use the same pronouns for more than one case leads to the introduction of clarifying prepositions (e.g., “to” as an indicator of dative case) which would be superfluous if English had different pronouns for each case. Eventually the clarifying prepositions are deemed superfluous anyway, when a sentence construction becomes common enough to be intelligible to most native speakers. Then the excess verbiage gets dropped, as in the example you’ve given with “recommend”.
If I may take a whack at this without using the technical terms:
Recommend a book (1) is okay
Recommend a book to me (2) is okay
Recommend me a book (3) is a corruption of #2. You are correct, this isn’t really kosher, and I agree, it makes my teeth hurt.
I’m not entirely clear if #3 is used on these boards ironically or unironically – it seems sometimes as though OPs know it’s wrong, but use it in an in-joke sort of way.
I agree. I hate it, it is one of my biggest pet peeves. I like the way Twickster explained it. But amore ac studio has made me rethink my argument, which would have been: Some verbs just need the word ‘to’. For instance, we don’t say: Drive me a bank.
However, we do say: Bring me a beer.
Now I have to rethink the issue regarding transitive verbs.
Circumstantially, I have never seen this in any printed source. Like twickster and Khadaji, it doesn’t scan for me. I think if we looked it up in style manuals, it would certainly be contraindicated.
Also, HeyHomie, in the first two examples you gave, the omitted prepostition isn’t to but rather for. That is:
Peel me a grape. == Peel a grape for me.
Buy me a soda. == Buy a soda for me.
I was thinking about this last night, and I think maybe this came from “Give me a recommendation.” (Or “give a recommendation to me.”) And the verb give in English frequently drops the to, so it’s only a triple jump away from… well, you know what you get.
Bring to me a beer.
As I see it, it’s crucial if you’re the one being object or not. In the first case, *you * are driven. In the second case, it is the *beer * that is bought. With the example of recommend, you are recommended to say, a book, or a movie. Recommendations are guidances, and it is you that is guided to the wherever you want to go, not the your destination that is guided to you.
But there are certainly some sentences in English for which the “double-object” construction (#2 above) doesn’t work. For example,
The groom carried the bride to the bedroom.
*The groom carried the bedroom the bride.
For me, “recommend” is one of these verbs, but since my (paltry) linguistics training is in the natural-language direction, I’ll certainly concede that opinions can & will differ between native speakers. Here’s a linguist’s perspective on the subject (warning: jargon ahead.)
I would say that “recommend me a book,” etc., is not good as modern diction–it is not standard style–but I would not say that it is absolutely gramattically wrong without doing additional research.
One thing I have learned from reading 18th century literature (essentially modern English, but with many small differences in diction, etc.), is that much that we take to be common sense now was not always so (double negatives, etc.).
pulykamell, I stated the reason that I think it is ungrammatical. That is, I have never seen it outside of the Internet.
Also, I am sorry to say that I cannot agree with your nos. 1 and 2 being interchanged willynilly. Flagrantly ripping examples out of the appendix of the paper that MikeS so kindly provided (relinked here) because I’m too lazy this afternoon to come up with examples on my own: (*'s indicate ungrammatical sentences)
i) a. David suggested the trip to Ruth
b. * David suggested Ruth the trip
ii) a. Bob reported the accident to the police
b. * Bob reported the police the accident
iii) a. Anne created a costume for Sarah
b. * Anne created Sarah a costume
iv) a. Tom captured the prize for Canada
b. * Tom captured Canada the prize
v) a. Dick opened the box for Jenny
b. * Dick opened Jenny the box
vi) a. Carol answered the phone for Sammy
b. * Carol answered Sammy the phone
I think that these examples show that your rule isn’t true in full generality.
Yeah, yeah, yeah…I actually did notice it’s not always interchangeable. However, my experience is that it’s fairly common usage outside the internet. Perhaps it’s just used alot in my peer group – I don’t know. Also, your example number three, “Anne created Sarah a costume,” sounds perfectly grammatical to my ears. “He made me a pie,” “He created me a pie,” etc, all sound fine to my ears.
Actually, I would. Listen, I’m not kidding you guys when I say it sounds perfectly normal and grammatical to my ears. I’ve never even considered the structure being ungrammatical. It could just be my neighborhood or the people I hang out with, but nobody I’ve talked to here thinks this structure is odd.
