"talk to"

[donnach]

Nevermind, in the time I wrote that there was something posted that answered that question.

 

[donnach]

But now this confuses me:

I am with Huddleston and Pullum (page248). They feel that the traditional idea of 'to Sue' in "I sent a copy to Sue' as an indirect object is 'based solely on the the fact that the semantic role ( recipient or beneficiary) is the same in [I" sent a copy to Sue"] as in ["I sent Sue a copy".] But Sue also has that role in the passives Sue was sent a copy and *Sue was ordered a copy, yet no one would want to say that it is an indirect object here; it is clearly subject.'

They conclude that a prepositional phrase headed by to is not an indirect object.

Not an indirect object? Not ever?

 

[5jj]

Not[/COLOR] an indirect object? Not ever?

Not analysing it in that way.

 

[BobK]

My brain hurts. If someone says 'I'll phone you' I don't have an existential crisis, fretting about what sort of object I am. ;-)

b

 

[Hedwig]

My brain hurts. If someone says 'I'll phone you' I don't have an existential crisis, fretting about what sort of object I am. ;-)

b

Ditto! :lol:

 

[donnach]

Wow, that makes me feel not so good about asking the question.

 

[Hedwig]

Go ahead and ask. We'll do our best to manage our existential crises.

 

[Afit]

I talked to him.

I've searched and searched and I just cannot find an answer to this question. So, I will ask it here, and I'm sure I'll get my answer.

What is "talk to"? A prepositional verb, a phrasal verb, a collocation?

Or, is "talk" simply a transitive verb in this case, and "to him" a prepositional phrase that forms the direct (indirect?) object.

Thanks for your help.

"talked to" is not a prepositional verb. It is a free combination of verb plus prepo.

 

[donnach]

I'm sure I'll continue to ask. I do get sort of oddly preoccupied by some of the questions I post, which is why I post them.