Here are two sentences where the direct object and indirect object is obvious for each, but then when I change the sentences to have the same meaning, questions come up:
He gave me a shirt.
I understand that:
- "shirt" is the direct object. (ie, the thing given)
- "me" is the indirect object (or more precisely, the dative object). (ie, the recipient)
He bought me a shirt.
Similarly, "me" is the indirect object, and "shirt" is the direct object.
It's curious when I try to change the forms of the above:
He gave me a shirt.
He gave a shirt to me.
Question #1: is "to me" still considered to be an indirect object?
He bought me a shirt.
He bought a shirt for me.
? He bought a shirt to me.
Question #2: Why does "He bought a shirt for me" seem ambiguous?
(that is, it could mean "He bought me a shirt" (ie, I'm the recipient of that shirt, and that shirt is now my own property), or it could mean "I needed that shirt but I was too busy to buy it, so he bought that shirt on my behalf".)
Does the preposition "for" often create ambigugous meanings?
Question #3: Why is "He bought a shirt to me" incorrect, but "He gave a shirt to me" correct?
I wish there was a simple rule about taking the dative object ("me" in this case) out of its usual position, and that you were allowed to put it at the end ("... to me").
Is English usually more regular, or this inconsistency common? Is there a hidden reason that explains this inconsistency?