Celia blows them out or Celia blows out them?
I need a reality check from some English speakers. I am commenting on some submissions from the
40 Answers
Yes, that does help! and proves, too, that the Quentin was right not to just trust his ears. I still would not phrase the sentence that way, myself. But I will no longer think it wrong, just different - and that actually started from the first introduction of the order by others here whose native language is English, even though from a different place. Thank you for taking the trouble to find the reference, too.
Eddy said:
Janice said:
I clicked over to your profile, Eddie, to see where "over here" is. I just wanted to be sure, because in the middle of the US (I grew up in Kansas, am now provisorily in Austin, Texas), on the East Coast (having lived in New York a number of years and now making my home in Florida), in Missouri, Natasha's current home and as we read, in James Santiago's San Francisco, CA, on the West Coast - most people who grow up speaking US English would find that word order and leaving out the helping "to" pretty jarring.Well, this must be one of those differences. Our keyboards are different, too, after all. It's pretty wonderful that we understand each other anyway.By the way, Quentin opened the conversation. I wonder if he, too, would find the order and missing "to" for the indirect "them" strange?
Eddy said:
James Santiago said:
I can't think of any rule, though, that would apply. However, it seems to have something to do with the use of a pronoun.Yes, this is correct. When the noun is used, it can go before or after the preposition, but when a pronoun is used, it must split the verb and preposition. My son (now 7) had some trouble with this, and I actually had to do some research to find out what was going on. I found no rule explaining WHY this happens, but it is a very consistent rule.Ex.:Take out the trash. OKTake the trash out. OKTake out it. NOTake it out. OKFurthermore, even when there is no preposition, we have to include a "to" in a sentence with a pronoun.Ex.:I showed them the picture. OKI showed the picture to them. OKI showed them it. NOI showed it to them. OKThis seems to be just one of the many quirks of English. "I showed them it" is perfectly logical, and SHOULD sound fine, but it doesn't. We just don't say it that way.
"I showed them it" not only sounds perfectly correct but is used quite frequently over here.
Don't know if this helps but it seems to concur that it can be used.I showed them it
>
I had commentted on this lesson many times. With first few comments I had no problems stating that in English we say blow them out; not blow out them. As I commented more and more though, doubt crept into my mind. I didn't want to just go with a because my ears aren't perfect. Now that I have seen a RULE confirming what I thought, the matter is settled for me. The doubt has been removed.
As far as the use of "to", it wasn't relevant to me. I didn't author the original sentences so whether there was a better way to express the idea was moot.
Janice said:
By the way, Quentin opened the conversation. I wonder if he, too, would find the order and missing "to" for the indirect "them" strange'/div>
>
Janice said:
I clicked over to your profile, Eddie, to see where "over here" is. I just wanted to be sure, because in the middle of the US (I grew up in Kansas, am now provisorily in Austin, Texas), on the East Coast (having lived in New York a number of years and now making my home in Florida), in Missouri, Natasha's current home and as we read, in James Santiago's San Francisco, CA, on the West Coast - most people who grow up speaking US English would find that word order and leaving out the helping "to" pretty jarring.Well, this must be one of those differences. Our keyboards are different, too, after all. It's pretty wonderful that we understand each other anyway.By the way, Quentin opened the conversation. I wonder if he, too, would find the order and missing "to" for the indirect "them" strange?
Eddy said:
James Santiago said:
I can't think of any rule, though, that would apply. However, it seems to have something to do with the use of a pronoun.Yes, this is correct. When the noun is used, it can go before or after the preposition, but when a pronoun is used, it must split the verb and preposition. My son (now 7) had some trouble with this, and I actually had to do some research to find out what was going on. I found no rule explaining WHY this happens, but it is a very consistent rule.Ex.:Take out the trash. OKTake the trash out. OKTake out it. NOTake it out. OKFurthermore, even when there is no preposition, we have to include a "to" in a sentence with a pronoun.Ex.:I showed them the picture. OKI showed the picture to them. OKI showed them it. NOI showed it to them. OKThis seems to be just one of the many quirks of English. "I showed them it" is perfectly logical, and SHOULD sound fine, but it doesn't. We just don't say it that way.
"I showed them it" not only sounds perfectly correct but is used quite frequently over here.
Don't know if this helps but it seems to concur that it can be used.
I showed them it
I clicked over to your profile, Eddie, to see where "over here" is. I just wanted to be sure, because in the middle of the US (I grew up in Kansas, am now provisorily in Austin, Texas), on the East Coast (having lived in New York a number of years and now making my home in Florida), in Missouri, Natasha's current home and as we read, in James Santiago's San Francisco, CA, on the West Coast - most people who grow up speaking US English would find that word order and leaving out the helping "to" pretty jarring.
Well, this must be one of those differences. Our keyboards are different, too, after all. It's pretty wonderful that we understand each other anyway.
By the way, Quentin opened the conversation. I wonder if he, too, would find the order and missing "to" for the indirect "them" strange?
Eddy said:
James Santiago said:
I can't think of any rule, though, that would apply. However, it seems to have something to do with the use of a pronoun.Yes, this is correct. When the noun is used, it can go before or after the preposition, but when a pronoun is used, it must split the verb and preposition. My son (now 7) had some trouble with this, and I actually had to do some research to find out what was going on. I found no rule explaining WHY this happens, but it is a very consistent rule.Ex.:Take out the trash. OKTake the trash out. OKTake out it. NOTake it out. OKFurthermore, even when there is no preposition, we have to include a "to" in a sentence with a pronoun.Ex.:I showed them the picture. OKI showed the picture to them. OKI showed them it. NOI showed it to them. OKThis seems to be just one of the many quirks of English. "I showed them it" is perfectly logical, and SHOULD sound fine, but it doesn't. We just don't say it that way.
"I showed them it" not only sounds perfectly correct but is used quite frequently over here.
>
James Santiago said:
I can't think of any rule, though, that would apply. However, it seems to have something to do with the use of a pronoun.Yes, this is correct. When the noun is used, it can go before or after the preposition, but when a pronoun is used, it must split the verb and preposition. My son (now 7) had some trouble with this, and I actually had to do some research to find out what was going on. I found no rule explaining WHY this happens, but it is a very consistent rule.Ex.:Take out the trash. OKTake the trash out. OKTake out it. NOTake it out. OKFurthermore, even when there is no preposition, we have to include a "to" in a sentence with a pronoun.Ex.:I showed them the picture. OKI showed the picture to them. OKI showed them it. NOI showed it to them. OKThis seems to be just one of the many quirks of English. "I showed them it" is perfectly logical, and SHOULD sound fine, but it doesn't. We just don't say it that way.
"I showed them it" not only sounds perfectly correct but is used quite frequently over here.
P.S. talk English sounds perfectly fine to me, even though the rest of the "variants" posted in this thread are jarring. I guess we are all products of what we've heard all our lives . . .
Yea, it is a rule! 
I guess they don't exactly teach it in high school, because we all (native speakers) follow it instinctively.
Quentin said:
Natasha, I thought you might like to read rule 7 on this site concering pronouns in verbal phrases.
http://www.englishpage.com/prepositions/phrasaldictionary.html
Natasha said:
out in this sentence is an adverb.My opinion: Celia blows out them is wrong in the sense that no native speaker would ever say it. If you do say it, you're sure to be corrected.I can't think of any rule, though, that would apply. However, it seems to have something to do with the use of a pronoun.Take out the trash. -- OK. (Take the trash out is OK, too.)I already took out it. -- NO, sounds wrong. Should be: I already took it out.
>
Just a note on the history of the rule regarding sentences not ending in prepositions. Prescriptive rules like this and the not splitting an infinitive rule have their origins in what could possibly be described as an absurd attempt to superimpose Latin grammar on the English language.
During the 18th centuary it was felt that the study and mastery of Latin was the pinacle of scholastic excellence. Although this was clearly a noble pursuit somehow certain rules of Latin grammar started being forced upon English. In Latin (as in Spanish I am sure everybody is aware) the infinitive cannot be split because it is one word. This rule obviously makes sense in Latin but doesn't really make sense in English. Also, in Latin (as in Spanish again) you cannot end a sentence with a preposition. Again, the rule makes perfect sense in Latin but as it sounds fine to end many sentences in English with a preposition we must ask ourselves if it is a rule worth abiding by (oops).
That's a fun quote from Churchill, I agree!
Regarding "out" being a preposition, it may be a preposition, but it is not necessarily one. Certainly it should be listed as one in any list of prepositions. But it can be a verb, too, as well as an adverb. I continue to "feel" that its role here is as an adverb, (even though I understand that it is also the "particle" part of a phrasal verb. I just learned that today from Robert Austin.) After all, it is modifying the root verb, isn't it? And reaching way, way back to school English class, I definitely remember that the role of adverbs is to modify, change verbs.
I think "out" can even be an adjective sometimes, but am harder pressed to think of an example. Maybe there is one here: out
Heidita said:
hmmmmout is listed as a preposition here.i got carried away with this preposition thing. In any case as you also mention turn them in, the rule applies.It should be turn in them which sounds strange so say the least.I found this funny piece on this:You may have learned that ending a sentence with a preposition is a serious breach of grammatical etiquette. It doesn't take a grammarian to spot a sentence-ending preposition, so this is an easy rule to get caught up on (!). Although it is often easy to remedy the offending preposition, sometimes it isn't, and repair efforts sometimes result in a clumsy sentence. "Indicate the book you are quoting from" is not greatly improved with "Indicate from which book you are quoting."Based on shaky historical precedent, the rule itself is a latecomer to the rules of writing. Those who dislike the rule are fond of recalling Churchill's rejoinder: "That is nonsense up with which I shall not put." We should also remember the child's complaint: "What did you bring that book that I don't like to be read to
>
Natasha,
I thought you might like to read rule 7 on this site concering pronouns in verbal phrases.
http://www.englishpage.com/prepositions/phrasaldictionary.html
Natasha said:
out in this sentence is an adverb.My opinion: Celia blows out them is wrong in the sense that no native speaker would ever say it. If you do say it, you're sure to be corrected.I can't think of any rule, though, that would apply. However, it seems to have something to do with the use of a pronoun.Take out the trash. -- OK. (Take the trash out is OK, too.)I already took out it. -- NO, sounds wrong. Should be: I already took it out.
>
I wrote a letter for her.
I wrote her a letter'?
I would immediately understand the latter to mean that I wrote a letter to her. And of course therein lies one of the problems of English! Your sentence could very well mean "I wrote her a letter"....whoops, there we go again, -- I mean: "I wrote a letter for her". It's a wonder we understand one another at all sometimes, isn't it? And in fact, we often do not.
Robert Austin said:
This issue deals with verbs with 2 objects. If you say "I showed the book to them" "the book" is the direct object while "them" is the indirect object. The indirect object is the person or thing to whom or for whom the action is being done. The order of the direct and indirect objects can be reversed but the "to" or "for" has to be deleted. thus we say "I showed them the book". Whether you replace "the book" with the pronoun "it" has no affect on this change.If someone believes "I showed them it" sounds incorrect then we shall have to agree to disagree, like I said, to me it sounds fine.Some other examples of verbs with two objects are:I wrote a letter for her.I wrote her a letter.I gave a pen to John.I gave John a pen.
>
However, I would be interested to know if "talking" English sounds as offensive to you as it does to her.
Yes, I'm afraid it does. I've spent considerable time around many different Brits, but I don't recall any of them saying this. I'm sure I would have noticed. Of course, there is no real logic to such things; they are mere convention. It sounds good to you because you are used to it, and it sounds bad to me because I am not.
The truth is that in both cases what is the point of having two words (speak/talk and lend/borrow) if we only use one of them to express both meanings'
Although many such synonyms in English have different backgrounds (one Latin and the other Germanic), talk comes from Middle English talken, and speak from Middle English speken, from Old English sprecan, specan (note the similarity to German), so I'm not sure why we have two words that mean the same thing here.
But I completely agree with you about lend/borrow. That's just wrong! But then, those Swedes up in Minnesota have their own way of speaking/talking.
"Take the mick" means "make fun of" (obviously in British english). One of my friends who uses "borrow me a pen" is from Minnisota (I hope that is spelled correctly). I personally consider her to be intelligent and educated (she is currently studying linguistics at a university, ironically) but like I said, to me, using "borrow" as "lend" just sounds plain incorrect. However, I would be interested to know if "talking" English sounds as offensive to you as it does to her.
The truth is that in both cases what is the point of having two words (speak/talk and lend/borrow) if we only use one of them to express both meanings'
"They didn't believe the girl had given me her telephone number so I showed them it before they started to take the mick out of me."
I agree that such things are not unheard of, because when we speak, we don't always get everything exactly right. Our brains sometimes get ahead of our tongues. And, of course, it is completely understandable, and no one would snicker upon hearing it. However, I maintain that it will be considered incorrect by most native English speakers with an interest in their language (I'm trying to cover my bases here, because Americans' reputation for lack of English education is not wholly undeserved, so there is a fairly large segment of the population that wouldn't even understand what we are talking about here).
Now, then. What the heck does "take the mick out of me" mean? 
In contrast they frequently use "borrow" in place of "lend" as in "he borrowed me a pen". That, to me, sounds totally incorrect but they insist that in the United States it is perfectly acceptable.
You have my assurance that that is completely unacceptable in the US. We have not, so far, sunken to that point. Anyone who said that would be considered uneducated by the vast majority of Americans. (Of course, it is possible that there is some place in the US where this is part of the dialect, and if that is so, I mean no offense, but my above statement stands.)
