Pesky Prepositions Question

Walk

Tish Davidson said:

The comment on a different thread about "different from" and "different than" (I loathe different than) made me wonder about something. One night I said, "I am going to take the dog a walk."

This sounds perfectly normal to me, having heard it all my life from parents who grew up in a strongly Pennsylvania Dutch region where a variant of German is often spoken and the structure of English sentences is often influenced by German grammar. My daughter's boyfriend, a native Californian, thought "take the dog a walk" was peculiar, which, on reflection, I suppose it is.

So my question: Is there a grammar rule to explain why is okay to say, "I am going to give the dog a walk," but not "I am going to take the dog a walk."? Why does "take" need to a preposition - on a walk, for a walk, while give does not?

Click to expand...

I know "I am going to give the dog a walk" is okay in most circles, but I dislike it, and it sounds even worse to my ear. But the reason it doesn't need a preposition is that, at least off the top of my head, I can't think of a preposition that works here because of the usage. The structure drives me bonkers.

"Take the dog a walk" sounds like the same usage. You can't take the dog a walk. This would mean picking up a walk, taking it to the dog, and handing it to the dog. You can, however, take the dog FOR a walk. The preposition is everything.

"I'm going to walk the dog," is, I think, the best variation.

"Give the dog a walk" isn't okay in any circles I know of. You give a dog a bone or a bath. As J.R. says, you take a dog for a walk or you walk a dog.

I think this is a matter of idiom, not grammar.

This is a question of dialect (or idiom, I'm never absolutely certain which is which, especially as one definition of 'idiom' is 'regional speech or dialect'!).

My father's side of the family is Welsh (and pretty much all of them except him still live there) and my husband is Scottish. I therefore often (though less often these days as I have assimilated a fair bit of it) come up against grammatical oddities and words whose meanings are completely hidden to me. I love this, even though sometimes it can cause problems, because sometimes the my relatives don't realise that what they are saying is 'strange' and they can become offended by requests to repeat or 'translate'.

Please don't stop using dialect just because someone tells you it's 'wrong'. However, in your writing, you do need to think about it, depending on what your aims are. For example, in an instructional or educational non-fiction book dialect should be avoided, whereas dialect could be very important in a novel. I think one of the problems with using dialect in a novel is the chance that many readers won't understand. However, if you didn't use dialect for certain characters would it come across wrong? Some authors have got round this by including a glossary/dictionary at the back of the book. Personally, I love this technique/feature, because I am a linguist and learning new words or ways of saying something (whether in another language or in a dialect) gives me great pleasure. I can imagine, though, that there are other people for whom it would be very annoying.

Jamesaritchie said:

I know "I am going to give the dog a walk" is okay in most circles, but I dislike it, and it sounds even worse to my ear. But the reason it doesn't need a preposition is that, at least off the top of my head, I can't think of a preposition that works here because of the usage. The structure drives me bonkers.

"Take the dog a walk" sounds like the same usage. You can't take the dog a walk. This would mean picking up a walk, taking it to the dog, and handing it to the dog. You can, however, take the dog FOR a walk. The preposition is everything.

"I'm going to walk the dog," is, I think, the best variation.

Click to expand...

I agree with James. Prepositions, however, sometimes get a bad rap. Changing trends in usage is making some prepositional uses confusing. Nonetheless, it comes down to confusion. Prepositions tend to eliminate confusion that may pop its head up without the preposition.

I hate prepositions. I really don't see their purposes, except to confuse. Just open a dictionary and flip to "C":

come to
come by
come through
come over
come with
come across
come forth
come from
come about
come along
come around
come at
come back
come between
come down
come in
come off
come on
come out
come up
come upon
come with
come again
come down to
come down with
come out with
come to terms
come to grips with
come true
come up with
come up against...

Enough to make your head spin, especially for a non-native speaker.

Oh well, come what may.

Tish Davidson said:

So my question: Is there a grammar rule to explain why is okay to say, "I am going to give the dog a walk," but not "I am going to take the dog a walk."? Why does "take" need to a preposition - on a walk, for a walk, while give does not?

Click to expand...

The reason is that 'to take' is a transitive verb -- that is, one that has a subject and an object, whereas 'give' is a ditransitive verb, which has a subject and two objects.

The structure of English is such that with a ditransitive verb, we can use the sentence with no preposition (in which the recipient of the action is listed first - give me the book) or with a preposition (in which case the object acted upon is listed first - give the book to me).

But to take takes only one object -- the dog. The preposition introduces the reason why you are taking the dog. Does that make sense?

For further clarification on transitive and intransitive verbs, go here:

http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/trnsintr.html

Why does maestro hate prepositions? The often clarify where confusion could reign supreme! Of course, as with anything, moderation is the key.

jules said:

The reason is that 'to take' is a transitive verb -- that is, one that has a subject and an object, whereas 'give' is a ditransitive verb, which has a subject and two objects....to take takes only one object -- the dog.

Click to expand...

"Take" can have two objects, too: "I'll take the dog a bowl of water." But "take" means something different there than in "I'll take the dog for a walk."

reph said:

"Take" can have two objects, too: "I'll take the dog a bowl of water." But "take" means something different there than in "I'll take the dog for a walk."

Click to expand...

That's the point. Prepositions can act as clarifiers!

gogoshire said:

For further clarification on transitive and intransitive verbs, go here:

http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/trnsintr.html

Click to expand...

That site appears to completely ignore ditransitive verbs. I can't find a single example sentence that has more than one object in it.

reph said:

"Take" can have two objects, too: "I'll take the dog a bowl of water." But "take" means something different there than in "I'll take the dog for a walk."

Click to expand...

True. By analogy, in this case "take the dog a walk" would mean you have a walk*, and you're going to move it to wherever the dog is...

*: That is, of course, a fly with no wings.

"take" is not one word, but many words that are all spelled the same. i maintain, as i always have, that "take" meaning seize or pick up is different from "take ... to", meaning bronging an object to someone.


english is filled with these little gems, my personal favorite being "draw".

everyone, try, off the top of your head, to list all the meanings of draw. then check a dictionary.

fallenangelwriter said:

"take" is not one word, but many words that are all spelled the same.

Click to expand...

I do understand what you're saying here, but I'm going to take your statement literally for a minute.

All the meanings of Take listed here, more than thirty, are all for the same word. It's a word that was borrowed into Old English from Old Norse--and both languages use take as a helping verb, as well as intransitive, transitive, and phrasal verbs. All of the current meanings for take go back to at least the tenth century.

All the meanings of "draw" have obvious connections with pulling or dragging except "a contest ending in a tie" (American Heritage Dict.). Can somebody explain that one?

Related: a draught (draft) animal pulls something. A military draft pulls recruits into the armed forces. A drafty room has air pulled from one side to the other.

Someone who draws well can also called a draughtsman.

Os.