Attn Grammar Lovers -help!

[carkeysimp]

So one of the things that I love about being a Montessori Educator is that it allows me to go back and revisit subjects that I thought had no application to me as a student- like spelling, handwriting and grammar. Those of you who have known me for a long time may feel free to fall off your chairs laughing now

Comments

You remember the Hif'il !?!

[carkeysimp]

until you mentioned it didn't remeber the Hif'il!

I can see "makes run" being a phasal verb -- would us then bit the D.O?

[greta_k]

". . . would us then bit the D.O?"

Yes, "us" would be a direct object because it is the word or phrase receiving the action. The action is the verb "to make," because the subject ("Sarah") is enacting the verb ("makes") on the direct object ("us").

Perhaps "saw" is a predicate verb. According to dictionary.com:

A predicate verb has the following three characteristics:

1. A predicate verb has a subject. A subject is usually a noun or a pronoun, but a clause can be a subject.
In this case, "us" could be the subject, because it answers "Who is running?"

2. A predicate verb has voice (active or passive; see Passive Sentences).
"Run" is an active verb.

3. A predicate verb has tense (past or present; see Tenses) or a modal (see Modal Auxiliaries).
"Run" is in the present tense.

Goodness, I haven't thought about this stuff in years! (Grandmother was an English teacher - grammer was drilled into us early and often as children).

[carkeysimp]

thanks!

[sparkofcreation]

I'd ask in linguaphiles if I were you, but I tend to agree with Joe that it's a phrasal verb with "run" as the main/stem/primary verb (there's probably yet another word for it) and "make" as the auxiliary verb.

Based entirely on my hunch that the Spanish translation of "Sarah makes him run" would be "Sara le obliga a correr" and not "Sara lo obliga a comer" I'm guessing "us" is an indirect object here, but I'm not 100% sure.

However, technically in "Sarah makes stew for us," there is no indirect object and "for us" is a prepositional phrase (preposition = for, object of preposition = us). Your example would work with "Sarah makes us stew" or "Sarah makes us cookies" (to avoid confusion with the verb "to stew.")

[sparkofcreation]

Oh but I do tend to over-use "le" (which is common among Spaniards, guess where I picked it up) so possibly "lo obliga..." would be correct, which would mean it's the direct object.

hmmm

[carkeysimp]

Yeah, I forgot those pesky prep. phases-- do they act as adverbial modifiers? e.g. I went shopping ON FRIDAY (adverbial modifier of time)

Re: hmmm

[sparkofcreation]

God, Sarah, the last time I studied English grammar in detail was in 7th grade. In other words, No Idea. Sorry.

What grade do you teach, again?

[stardustshine]

You know, I am tempted to say that "run" is the direct object in that sentence and that 'us' modifies run. "To make" is a transitive verb, it has to have a DO to make sense. So, I would say "us" in this case is actually either the indirect object or some type of other type of modifier to "run" because it answers the question of who is running, and not the question of what you are making them do.

[stardustshine]

This theory is actually kind of supported by your other example, since in "Sarah makes stew for us," the stew is the direct object and the prepositional phrase "for us" modifies...um...wold it be makes or stew that it modifies? I'm going to say stew, but it could go either way, since the stew is for us and you are also making it for us - so I guess it would depend on the context of the sentence. Either you are making it for them, as in you making it instead of them making it, in which case "for us" would modify make, or you are making stew to give to them, in which case "for us" would modify stew.

I haven't done this in years - I miss it!! And I'm so glad you're teaching it, as well. Grammar instruction has really gone down the (internet) tubes.

[carkeysimp]

Thanks :)