> for a sentence to have an indirect object, does it have to have a direct
> Can you always tell it is an indirect object because the sentence makes
> sense if you take out the direct object?
I don't think so.
> Can a prepositional phrase serve as the direct object?
> Correct me where i am wrong in the following.
> "I am sailing the boat" Boat is direct object. sentence trans= Scapham
would not take scapham
as a direct object. You would say Navigo in scapha
> "I am sailing the boat to the island." Boat is direct object, island
> indirect (and dative). sentence trans. Scapham insulae navigo.
"Island" is not an indirect object. It is the object of the preposition "to".
>"i am sailing to the island." No direct object, prep phrase "to the island"
> serves as direct object, island is object of prep "to", island is accusative
> and the prep "to" is included. sentence translation: Ad insulam navigo.
"Island" is not a direct object here. It is the object of the preposition "to".
There is no direct object in this