|
|
Subject or object?Sometimes, in order to correctly translate a sentence into French, it helps to know whether something is the subject or object of the verb. (Parts of a sentence can of course be something other than the subject or object of the verb, but we'll concentrate on the difference between these two here.) Some cases where the distinction is important include:
1. Informal definitionInformally, it's usual to say that:
These informal descriptions work fairly well in many simple cases, such as:
the postman bit the dog
the criminal burnt the evidence which evidence did the criminal burn?  Suggest a change / proposez une modificationWith a bit of thinking, these criteria can even work in simple cases such as the last, where the subject and object appear "the other way round" in the sentence. However, they're less good in some other cases, such as:
I never predicted his actions
the house burnt to the ground the temperature is affected by the people in the room Suggest a change / proposez une modificationFor various specific reasons, these are all examples of sentences in which it seems more difficult to "visualise the action" of the sentence in terms of a clear "doer" and "recipient" of the action, and when forced to do so, we may well get things "the wrong way round"2. For these and various other sentences, it helps to have a more formal definition of subject and object, or at least a few more hints for distinguishing between them. 2. More formal definitionA more formal definition is to say that:
For example, in the sentences:
the house was burning to the ground
the houses were burning to the ground Suggest a change / proposez une modificationthe choice of verb (was vs were) depends on the house(s), so we say that the house(s) is the subject. Notice how we changed from burnt to was/were burning so that we could tell the difference. The notion of the object becoming the subject in the passive is straightforward in cases such as the postman was bitten by the dog. It's a little bit more complex with certain verbs such as burn, where what appears as the subject actually remains the subject in the passive (as in "the house was burnt to the ground"). To get round cases such as this, we introduce the arbitrary criterion that the object is not the subject3. 3. Tips for distinguishing between subject and objectGiven the above, here are some tips for distinguishing between subject and object: If you change from singular to plural, does the verb change?For this test, you need to transform the verb to use either a continuous form or a simple present tense (i.e. a form that changes depending on singular/plural). Then: If changing a phrase from For example, in the sentence: we might expect "the people" to be the object or "people affected by" the action of the heat. To test this, we use our singular/plural change. First, we check that we're using either a continuous (is/are ...ing) form or a simple present. In this case, we have a simple present so we're OK. Then, we change temperature from singular to plural (to make the sentence sound a bit better, we also omit the): But in this case, changing temperature to temperatures doesn't change the verb ("affect" is still OK). So the temperature isn't the subject. Next we try changing the people to a singular: In this case, changing people to person also means we have to change the verb from affect to affects for the sentence to be grammatical. So the people (or the person) is the subject4. I, he, she, we, they are usually subjectsWhen they stand on their own, these pronouns are always subjects. So:
There are a couple of main problems with this test:
In a relative clause, can you omit that/who etc?In a relative clause (basically a "sentence inside a sentence" that describes "the thing/person you're talking about"), then if that, who, which etc cannot be omitted, then it is generally the subject. For example:
1(a) This is the patient that was cured yesterday.
(b) 2(a) This is the patient that Mary cured yesterday. (b) This is the patient Mary cured yesterday. Suggest a change / proposez une modificationIn 1(a), the word that can't be omitted (compare 1(b)). So that (and, depending on your analysis, the patient) is the subject if the sentence. On the other hand, in 2(a), we can omit that, indicating that it is not the subject5. Notice that this test doesn't work in non-restrictive relatives, in other words, where the relative clause is preceded by a pause (and often a comma in writing), because in such cases, then either the relative pronoun (who, which etc) or that is usually required whether subject or object. 1. A slightly different definition of object is to say that
the object is the element, other than the subject, that the
verb "selects" or "requires". For example, in the sentence On Mondays, Daniel eats chips on the sofa,
a wide variety of sentences could have the phrases on Mondays or on the sofa,
but chips in some sense "depends on" the verb eats (for example, it fulfils
criteria required by that verb, notably needing to represent something "edible").
With either of the definitions presented here, it's not so clear which of the underlined phrases we would
class as "objects" and which not in the following examples:
Daniel put the jug on the table;
Mary gave Jane the book;
Douglas bet John five pounds on the horse.
|
