In order to have a direct object, a sentence must include an action verb that directly affects and is followed by a noun or pronoun that receives the action of the verb. This noun or pronoun is the direct object of the sentence.
The subject-verb-direct object sentence pattern is a type of sentence structure where the subject performs the action of the verb on the direct object. For example, in the sentence "She (subject) read (verb) the book (direct object)," the subject "she" is performing the action of reading on the direct object "the book."
Yes. In fact, a sentence must have a direct object in order to have an indirect object. (Note, however, that some consider the subject of a sentence in the passive voice to be an "implicit" indirect object, because it the sentence is changed to the active voice, the subject in the passive voice will often become an indirect object in the active voice.)
No, only certain verbs. For instance, "I live in France" does not have any direct objects because the verb "live" can't take any. "Get"', on the other hand, is a transitive verb = it can (and in English it MUST) take a direct object, that's why we use a "dummy" IT in the sentence: "Do you get IT?".
No. For a sentence to contain a direct object, the verb must be transitive (a type of action verb). "Was" is a linking verb, and "furious" is the subject complement. Subject complements and direct objects are not the same thing.
A direct object follows a transitive verb.
A transitive verb takes a direct object.
A direct object must be a noun or pronoun.
There is no direct object in that sentence. Felt is being used as a linking verb, not an action verb. The verb must be an action to take a direct object.
"Man" is the indirect object.A sentence must have a direct object to contain an indirect object. The direct object is who or whatreceives the action of the verb. Sheila (subject) gave (verb) what? Sweater is the direct object. The indirect object is who or what receives the direct object. Who received the sweater? Man.
On its own teaching is just a word . It must be put in a sentence before it becomes an object or subject.
The subject-verb-direct object sentence pattern is a type of sentence structure where the subject performs the action of the verb on the direct object. For example, in the sentence "She (subject) read (verb) the book (direct object)," the subject "she" is performing the action of reading on the direct object "the book."
Yes. In fact, a sentence must have a direct object in order to have an indirect object. (Note, however, that some consider the subject of a sentence in the passive voice to be an "implicit" indirect object, because it the sentence is changed to the active voice, the subject in the passive voice will often become an indirect object in the active voice.)
object
No, only certain verbs. For instance, "I live in France" does not have any direct objects because the verb "live" can't take any. "Get"', on the other hand, is a transitive verb = it can (and in English it MUST) take a direct object, that's why we use a "dummy" IT in the sentence: "Do you get IT?".
Directly without intermediate, direct and established and the object of Association,and Indirect when associated with a given object, must be associated with a medium, without intermediate medium will not produce association.
no an indirect obj must come between the subject and direct objFrom Kenwg:Actually, the direct object usually comes between the subject and the indirect object.Consider: "He gave the ball to us"He = subjectgave = verbthe ball = direct objectto = prepositionus = indirect object pronoun.Of course, you could say "He gave us the ball", in which case the positions of the direct and indirect objects are indeed reversed - "us", the indirect object, is between the subject and the direct object. But it is not correct to say the either "must" come in one position or the other.In Kenwg's first example, "to us" is a prepositional phrase, and "us" is a prepositional object rather than an indirect object.To the original questioner, I'm not sure. The best I can come up with off the top of my head is something like "John showed Dick[IO] Dick[DO].", where John might be holding a mirror up; but that has both objects being the same fellow. I don't believe an indirect object can actually be a direct object—not without being specified separately.See also Russell's paradox.The indirect object always goes before the direct object. The order shows which is the direct or indirect.The indirect object can be changed into a phrase beginning to or for .
Directly without intermediate, direct and established and the object of Association,and Indirect when associated with a given object, must be associated with a medium, without intermediate medium will not produce association.