She convinced him that he was wrong.

In this sentence, would we describe 'that he was wrong' as a direct object and 'him' as an indirect object? I would think that convinced acts upon 'him'; however, that would make the 'that- clause' a complement of the verb 'convinced'. If this is the case, is this an example of an omitted preposition (see the example below)?

She convinced him [about] that he was wrong.

We often see cases of omitted prepositions with gerunds (see below), so I believe this is a possible explanation.

They rowed the boat [by] using all of their strength.

Keep in mind that this is according to traditional grammar. Modern grammar probably has a different stance, but I am not educated enough to know it.

  • 1
    "They rowed the boat by using all of their strength." does not mean the same thing as "They rowed the boat using all of their strength." The first means that thy had to use all their strength to row, it was required. The 2nd means that they did use all their strength. It may not haved been needed, but they used it. Oct 21 '21 at 22:26
  • I appear to be mistaken, then. Forums I have read pointed to examples such as that one being explainable as containing omitted prepositions. What role does 'using all of their strength' fill if that is not the case? Is it a participle phrase or gerund (according to traditional grammar), and is it a catenative complement of 'rowed'?
    – MJ Ada
    Oct 22 '21 at 16:12
  • There's no omitted preposition. "Him" is direct object (a sub-type of complement) of convinced" but there is no indirect object. The that clause is the second complement of "convinced".
    – BillJ
    Oct 31 '21 at 18:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .