4 Comments
User's avatar
Peter Conrad's avatar

Isn't the object the recipient of action?

Expand full comment
Peter Conrad's avatar

Not necessarily. If I say I lounged by the pool, I'm not doing anything to the pool, nor is there much action. But the subject (I) is certainly doing something, and as you read through the sentence there's a relationship between the subject and the pool, where you start at the subject and end up at the object. It's kind of a lovely term if you think of it that way, because it solves the problem of what to call something that isn't necessarily being acted on (in which case it might be called the subject!) while making it clear that action is happening that involves the object in some way.

Expand full comment
Felicity's avatar

Hmm. The preposition has function- isn’t the object in its entirety a phrase, in this case describing location of the action?

Expand full comment
Peter Conrad's avatar

Yes, in this case the indirect object is a phrase "by the pool," using a preposition to describe where the action happened. But the pool isn't the recipient of any action, and in fact "lounged" is intransitive. If I say "I cleaned my carburetor by the pool," then the pool still isn't the recipient of any action; the carburetor is.

An object can consist of more than one phrase, too: "I lounged by the pool that the hotel manager had fallen into the day before." There's still nothing happening to the pool in that sentence (it already happened). And it's still lovely that an "object" is something that springs up before the eyes.

Expand full comment