1

The textbook "The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language", page 79:

(1a) He quickly spent the money given him by his uncle.
[verb ("given") + indirect object ("him")]

my variant:
(1b) He quickly spent the money given to him by his uncle. — I think this is correct.

I thought only (1b) was correct, but according to the textbook , (1a) is also correct.

my examples:

(2a) The flowers ordered Mary were a good addition to the main gift. — Is this correct?
(2b) The flowers ordered for Mary were a good addition to the main gift. — I think this is correct.

(3a) The story was told me by the Queen herself. — Is this correct?
(3b) The story was told to me by the Queen herself. — I think this is correct.

If (1a) is correct, then (2a) and (3a) must be also correct, right?
If not, then why not?

Improve this question
2
  • "I ordered Mary flowers" is only marginally grammatical for many speakers; it is formed by analogy with the verb bought: I bought Mary flowers. I bought some flowers for (i.e. to give to) Mary.
    – TimR
    Commented Dec 5 at 14:53
  • *The song sung the baby put it to sleep.
    – TimR
    Commented Dec 5 at 15:02

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

Such omission of to before an indirect object in a passive-voice clause is much more common in British English than in American English, where it is almost never encountered.

An active-voice sentence like I gave John the book would almost never have a to before John, and The book I gave John would also go to-less, even in American English. But The book given John is by Hemingway sounds very British—for us Americans it would be the book given to John.

And it does depend on which verb is involved. I don’t think even the Brits would say *The story told John is a lie.

In any event, your 2a doesn’t cut it at all. The object of the preposition for is not also the indirect object of the verb ordered.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .