0

I know things like the double-accusative exist in English, like "I call sodas cokes." Then things can get more complex with words like "bet," where you can have "I bet you 5 dollars the coin is heads."

Are there any English verbs that have more direct objects than "bet"? If there's some nuance I'm missing with my question, please let me know.

25
  • 3
    “Accusative” is a case name, but English has no cases whatsoever, so “accusatives” is a wrong term. Those things are objects, just as you have it in the question body, but “direct” is also dubious. What's true is that in your examples they're not governed by prepositions. The thing you're to specify is the presence/absence of a preposition before the objects you'd like to focus on, but not their “case” (non-existent in English), not how much direct / indirect the objects are (category irrelevant in English).
    – Yellow Sky
    Sep 20 at 2:35
  • 1
    I mean, by the form of an English noun you cannot tell if it's a direct or an indirect object, that distinction is purely logical, so if the name of the addressee is considered the indirect object, then in "I bet you 5 dollars the coin is heads" you is an indirect object, not a direct one. There seems to be no verbs that allow more than 3 prepositionless objects, the ones that allow 3 are tritransitive: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valency_(linguistics) Your question is very English-specific, it's best to ask it at the English language & Usage SE.
    – Yellow Sky
    Sep 20 at 4:18
  • 3
    The point is that it is incorrect (or at least misleading) to say that English has no cases whatsoever, when it clearly does, albeit limited to genitive vs plain case nouns, and a few pronouns that have distinct nominative vs accusative cases. I is nominative case, while me is accusative case. My, his, our, etc. are genitive case pronouns, and the reflexive pronouns can be said to have plain case.
    – BillJ
    Sep 20 at 10:08
  • 1
    In Present-day English my is an inflected form, a genitive form, just as your, our etc. are. What else could they be? The textbook I linked to is not one intended for schoolchildren, but is written primarily for undergraduates, and is based on the authors' larger work, CGEL. Its primary author, Rodney Huddleston, is recognised as the world’s greatest expert on the grammar of English language so his works are pretty authoritive!
    – BillJ
    Sep 20 at 13:00
  • 1
    @YellowSky and finally, 6. If " 's " isn't an inflectional suffix by your understanding, what do you consider it to be? That has me very curiöus. Also as a side note, as I have mentioned before, this is a matter of opinion, what you decide to call whatever English is doïng. Neither sides of this debate can truly be right or wrong. I could argue that bagels are just savoury doughnuts, and still have a (somewhat) valid argument. It all depends on how broadly (or narrowly) you choose to define things. Sep 20 at 19:50