Just a few thoughts from the discussion so far......

Could it be that all these examples of a prepositional phrase expressing the concept of who 'receives' the action of the verb are in fact better defined as.... .....prepositional phrases and nothing more?

Could it be that some people claim that only when such phrases can be moved into the subject - indirect object - direct object structure by REMOVING the preposition can they correctly be referred to as 'indirect objects'?

And could it be that it is just a fact that this is only actually possible with preposition phrases that begin with 'to/for'?

Equally, could it just be that others claim that the concept of an indirect object is wider and includes anything that 'receives' the action of the verb, even if it can't be expressed as above?

Finally, a challenge for anyone interested....Can anyone come up with a sentence with a prepositional phrase which doesn't use 'to/for' that can be expressed in the subject - indirect object - direct object structure?

For example, my original sentence can't be expressed like that.

<em>The government imposed a fine </em><em>on </em><em>the company.</em>

Thanks again.

To SU KI

Thanks for your additional comment.

Yes, I agree with you entirely. As with most of these esoteric grammar questions, the answer generally ends up being what people '<em>mean</em>' when they use the term (in this case - 'indirect object") and the over-application of a 'rule'. And so my answer (as often is the case) will be....' Well, some people would view it as....but others would say...."

:-)

Just to comment on your point:

<em>"The man gave the book to the girl" --> "The girl was given the book"</em>

<em>"The man presented the girl with the book" --> "The girl was presented with the book" </em>

<em>I don't really see how useful it would be to draw a distinction between those two active sentences, simply because there's no 'to' or 'for' in the second one. How can 'the girl' be the indirect object in the first active sentence but not in the second? Surely she's the indirect object in both?</em>

There is no distinction to be made in these examples. There is indeed no difference here as 'to the girl' has only been moved in the second active sentence to the indirect object position and the 'to' is understood. You could equally say : "The man presented the book to the girl"//"The man presented the girl with the book". ('the book' is the object of the preposition 'with' here , of course - not 'the girl').

This question only came up because the student wished to know why the sentence could not be expressed as a passive using the 'indirect object' in the same way such sentences can usually be expressed.

Thanks again.

Robert

To ABDULLAH:

Thanks for your comment.

Yes, of course, I agree entirely from a practical point of view. I'm just curious from an academic point of view. Just being a bit geeky I guess :-).

This question only came up because the student wished to know why the sentence could not be expressed as a passive using the 'indirect object' in the same way such sentences can usually be expressed.

Thanks again.

Robert

To LAYNE:

Thanks for your message.

I agree with you entirely. This is in fact how we expressed it in the class. However, this requires the use of 'have' rather than 'be' and so strictly this is the 'causative' and not the passive.

Thanks again.

Robert

To Su Ki:

Thank you for your comment.

Initially I also felt that it must be an indirect object. I have no problem with the usage of course, just the terminology.

For many grammarians the definition of an indirect object is : a prepositional phrase in which the preposition <em>to </em>or <em>for </em>is not stated but understood. Therefore, the importance of the preposition 'on' is essential to my question.

To clarify - in the sentence given, 'the company' is the object of the preposition (as indeed 'to the girl' is just a prepositional phrase with 'the girl' being the object of the preposition'to').

The simple sentence can be rewritten with an indirect object: 'I gave the girl a book'. Here, the indirect object is clear - the girl.

I don't think this is possible with any other prepositional phrases, such as 'on...'.as in my original example sentence.

Finally, to illustrate your last point, could you give me an example of an active sentence with an indirect object that cannot be turned into the passive?

Thanks again

Robert

To Kankan:

Thank you for your comment. Generally, you are correct. However, in this sentence the verb 'impose (on)' is a transitive verb. It takes the direct object ' a fine'.

Thanks

Robert