Indirect object of passive 'ask'

[António Marques]

I have a question for aue, but since I'm not in aue I'll ask it here.

Background: in a Rex Stout novel, Archie is undercover as 'Alan' a
secretary. At a certain point, his client would have asked him things, but

'Questions he might have asked Archie Goodwin could not properly be asked
Alan Green with the stenographer there.'

Now, 'might have asked Archie' is unremarkable. But 'be asked Alan' doesn't
want to work for me. An 'of' is required.
I think the same would apply to 'tell'.

What do the natives say? Is it the passive? Is it possible under some
circumstances or register or dialect? For me it doesn't even work as a
style device, because it feels outright ungrammatical (and that's something
I've never met in RS's books).

Maybe it's just that I haven't had my coffee yet.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 3 Aug 2021 00:52:12 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
<anton...@sapo.pt> scribeva:

Sounds perfectly OK to this non-native.

In Dutch however, there would be a difference, and we don't ask people
question, we pose them to them.

Ik stel Alan een vraag.
Dit is een vraag die ik Alan nooit zou stellen.
Dit is een vraag die ik aan Alan nooit zou stellen. (Also possible,
less likely.)
But:
Vragen die hij Archie Goodwin zou hebben gesteld, konden niet goed AAN
Alan Green gesteld worden in aanwezigheid van de stenograaf.

Also possible: ... konden Alan Green niet goed gesteld worden.

Word order matters, in Dutch.

Perhaps there is something in German, or Portuguse, here that
interferes for you?

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

[Ross Clark]

I would have used an "of" if I had written that sentence. But I feel the
parallelism with the first clause, where "Archie" has no "of". So it's
not totally wrong.

A few old-school transformational exercises:

(1) I asked a question of Archie.
(2) I asked Archie a question.
(ditto with "might have asked")
(3) The question that I asked (of) Archie...
(4) Questions were asked of Archie.

The simple sentence can occur with or without "of", depending on
constituent order -- Archie looks like an indirect object here.
In the relativized version the "of" is (accordingly?) optional.
Why, then, is it not optional in the passive? Or is it?

With "tell", of course, the preposition would be "to", but I think the
syntax is parallel.

The joke that he told (to) me...
A joke was once told (to) me...

At least some English speakers certainly can omit the "to" in the
passive. It sounds old-fashioned to me, but I've heard it and read it.

[wugi]

Op 3/08/2021 om 14:14 schreef Ross Clark:

I've never seen the "ask of s.o." formulation, is that native?
The passive without preposition looks correct to me.
But is the person asked indeed indirect object, or direct? Since that
person may also be passive subject!
-->
Archie Goodwin might have been asked questions that Alan Green could not
be asked properly.


--

guido wugi

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 3 Aug 2021 15:51:04 +0200: wugi <br...@wugi.be> scribeva:

>> With "tell", of course, the preposition would be "to", but I think the
>> syntax is parallel.
>>
>>     The joke that he told (to) me...
>>     A joke was once told (to) me...
>>
>> At least some English speakers certainly can omit the "to" in the
>> passive. It sounds old-fashioned to me, but I've heard it and read it.
>
>
>I've never seen the "ask of s.o." formulation, is that native?

American, not British, maybe? Or rest of world, not British?

>The passive without preposition looks correct to me.
>But is the person asked indeed indirect object, or direct? Since that
>person may also be passive subject!
>-->
>Archie Goodwin might have been asked questions that Alan Green could not
>be asked properly.

--

Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

[Jeff Barnett]

My take is that if Stout wrote it that way, it is highly likely to be
correct in one of two ways: 1) it matches a competence template for
American English or 2) it is colloquially correct -- Archie's voice is
the usual attribution for the source of narration. There is also a fair
amount of discussion among scholarly readers of Stout about his use of
words and English.

If we have any readers of this forum who work on dictionary data
accumulation I have a question for them: Are some of Stout's writings
part of the standard source material scoured for usage insights? If so
can we know the name of the dictionary publisher?
--
Jeff Barnett

[Christian Weisgerber]

On 2021-08-03, wugi <br...@wugi.be> wrote:

> I've never seen the "ask of s.o." formulation, is that native?

Yes.

> But is the person asked indeed indirect object, or direct? Since that
> person may also be passive subject!

English ditransitive verbs allow either object to be promoted to
subject in the passive:

Alice gave Bob the book.
- The book was given to Bob.
- Bob was given the book.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de

[wugi]

Op 3/08/2021 om 19:30 schreef Christian Weisgerber:

> On 2021-08-03, wugi <br...@wugi.be> wrote:
>
>> I've never seen the "ask of s.o." formulation, is that native?
> Yes.
>
>> But is the person asked indeed indirect object, or direct? Since that
>> person may also be passive subject!
> English ditransitive verbs allow either object to be promoted to
> subject in the passive:
>
> Alice gave Bob the book.
> - The book was given to Bob.
> - Bob was given the book.

Yes, but how does that square with the notions of DO and IO...
"Ditransitive" implies two DO's, like in Latin, petere aliquem aliquid.

But then I'd expect
- The book was given Bob  <-->  Bob was given the book.
With 'to Bob', an IO pops up.

Asking 'of' someone, doesn't look like using a DO either.

The way out will be that English does not know of or distinguish DO and
IO, or does not treat them accordingly/consistently.


--

guido wugi

[DKleinecke]

In my dialect the versions of
ask Alan a question / ask a question of Alan
give Bob the book / give the book to Bob
with propositions are unnatural but acceptable.

I believe no English verbs are obligatorily ditransitive and that most
normally transitive verbs can be used ditransitively. I believe the
extra object is usually a benefactive
Sing me a song!
Tell me a story!

A similar construction is
Make him sit still.
Force him to sit still
where it is clear that "make"/"force" is the verb and "(to)" sit is an
infinitive ("make" being special in using an unmarked infinitive). An
infinitive is usually a noun so these verbs can be looked at as
Make X Y!
Force X Y!
making a different sort of ditransitive verb. A poet might accept
Love make sit still my heart
but not ordinary speech.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le mardi 3 août 2021 à 20:30:06 UTC+2, Christian Weisgerber a écrit :
> On 2021-08-03, wugi <br...@wugi.be> wrote:
>
> > I've never seen the "ask of s.o." formulation, is that native?
> Yes.
> > But is the person asked indeed indirect object, or direct? Since that
> > person may also be passive subject!

> English ditransitive verbs allow either object to be promoted to
> subject in the passive:

That's a tendency also in French, but the construction is not the same:
sa famille lui a offert un livre => his family offered him a book
un livre lui a été offert => regular inherited passive (with être)
il s'est vu offrir un livre => neo-passive with the subject (with se voir)

I don't know when this neo-passive began to exist, my feeling is that it's been gaining ground in the language maybe during the last 30 years. I wonder if it's even described in grammar books.

[Christian Weisgerber]

On 2021-08-04, Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

>> English ditransitive verbs allow either object to be promoted to
>> subject in the passive:
>
> That's a tendency also in French, but the construction is not the same:
> sa famille lui a offert un livre => his family offered him a book
> un livre lui a été offert => regular inherited passive (with être)
> il s'est vu offrir un livre => neo-passive with the subject (with se voir)

German has also developed such a passive where the dative object
(recipient, beneficiary) is promoted to subject. It largely requires
the additional presence of an accusative object. The auxiliary is
one of several verbs with the sense 'to get, to receive', typically
_bekommen_, but also _erhalten_ or _kriegen_; the choice of auxiliary
is mostly a register question and indicates that the construction
isn't fully grammaticalized yet.

Ich sagte der Besatzung die Wahrheit.
I told the crew<DAT> the truth<ACC>

=> Die Besatzung bekam (von mir) die Wahrheit gesagt.
The crew got (by me) the truth told.
'The crew was told the truth (by me).'

The ninth edition of the Duden Grammar, 2016, was rewritten from
scratch by a new generation of grammarians and includes the
"bekommen-Passiv".

(German can already passivize clauses without accusative object,
and the resulting clauses don't have any subject at all:
with dative object: "mir wird geholfen"
with genitive object: "seiner wird gedacht"
intransitive: "heute wird gearbeitet")

[wugi]

Op 4/08/2021 om 22:40 schreef Christian Weisgerber:

> On 2021-08-04, Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>>> English ditransitive verbs allow either object to be promoted to
>>> subject in the passive:
>> That's a tendency also in French, but the construction is not the same:
>> sa famille lui a offert un livre => his family offered him a book
>> un livre lui a été offert => regular inherited passive (with être)
>> il s'est vu offrir un livre => neo-passive with the subject (with se voir)
> German has also developed such a passive where the dative object
> (recipient, beneficiary) is promoted to subject. It largely requires
> the additional presence of an accusative object. The auxiliary is
> one of several verbs with the sense 'to get, to receive', typically
> _bekommen_, but also _erhalten_ or _kriegen_; the choice of auxiliary
> is mostly a register question and indicates that the construction
> isn't fully grammaticalized yet.
>
> Ich sagte der Besatzung die Wahrheit.
> I told the crew<DAT> the truth<ACC>
>
> => Die Besatzung bekam (von mir) die Wahrheit gesagt.
> The crew got (by me) the truth told.
> 'The crew was told the truth (by me).'

Looks a bit like the Italian passive with "venire", but with a regular
direct object (DO) there, not with an IO like here.
In Dutch hardly done and doable, I just wrought a possible example
"De mensen kregen eindelijk de nodige hulp geleverd"
"People got finally provided the necessary help".
But it doesn't 'feel' like an alternative passive.

> The ninth edition of the Duden Grammar, 2016, was rewritten from
> scratch by a new generation of grammarians and includes the
> "bekommen-Passiv".
>
> (German can already passivize clauses without accusative object,
> and the resulting clauses don't have any subject at all:
> with dative object: "mir wird geholfen"
> with genitive object: "seiner wird gedacht"
> intransitive: "heute wird gearbeitet")

Frequent in Dutch, often with the "er" subject replacing particle:
Er wordt me hulp geboden. Mij wordt hulp geboden. ->
Help is being provided to me.
Er wordt van verteld. ->
There's being told of (it).
Er wordt vandaag gewerkt. Vandaag wordt (er) gewerkt. ->
Today they're working; or: Today is to be worked.

With a subject:
Er worden daar veel groenten gegeten. ->
There are many vegetables being eaten there.
... with a new tendency to turn the subject into a DO, in the presence
of "er":
Er wordt daar veel groenten gegeten. ->
There's much eating vegetables there.
Ungrammatical... yet (a DO with a passive).


--

guido wugi

[António Marques]

Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> wrote:
> On 8/2/2021 6:52 PM, António Marques wrote:
>> I have a question for aue, but since I'm not in aue I'll ask it here.
>>
>> Background: in a Rex Stout novel, Archie is undercover as 'Alan' a
>> secretary. At a certain point, his client would have asked him things, but
>>
>> 'Questions he might have asked Archie Goodwin could not properly be asked
>> Alan Green with the stenographer there.'
>>
>> Now, 'might have asked Archie' is unremarkable. But 'be asked Alan' doesn't
>> want to work for me. An 'of' is required.
>> I think the same would apply to 'tell'.
>>
>> What do the natives say? Is it the passive? Is it possible under some
>> circumstances or register or dialect? For me it doesn't even work as a
>> style device, because it feels outright ungrammatical (and that's something
>> I've never met in RS's books).
>>
>> Maybe it's just that I haven't had my coffee yet.
>
> My take is that if Stout wrote it that way, it is highly likely to be
> correct in one of two ways: 1) it matches a competence template for
> American English or 2) it is colloquially correct -- Archie's voice is

> the usual attribution for the source of narration. (...)

This may just be it. While apparently possible, I still don't think it's
unmarked; but being one more example of Archie's facetiousness I can see it
working.

Thanks, all.