Can you diagram this sentence?

Iz we doin ur homework 4 u?

Then y r u askin?

…she asked, skeptically.

Absolutely not, though I don’t mind your asking. It’s been decades since I had any homework to do. I make my living on language and am usually the one consulted. Yet every once in a while I happen to notice a simple, common, perfectly idiomatic English construction (like this) that poses a real challenge to my analytic abilities. I can break the question down into little logical pieces, but I’d rather see if some other grammar fiend can nail it.

Oh gailcalled, come out, come out, wherever you are.

Don’t worry, Jeruba. There are several people here that love and are great at this kind of thing. I’m sure one of them will be along soon!

scratches head.

It’s a terrible sentence; awkward and clumsy.

Rewrite; “I spent almost three hours to complete my work.” Those “its” and that clause “to get it all done” are really untidy, although, as you say, idiomatically correct.

Use your free time to do something that is more fun. That’s what I’m about to to.

do?

/tease gail

That’s because I am in my tutu, answering the questions about music to dance tu.
(And hanging out here instead of getting on with the day.)

Tou-ché.

diducwhatididthar?

Yes, I can diagram it. Why should I?

Hmm, I seem to have unwittingly ticked some folks off with my first question as a newcomer, although I don’t exactly know why or what I did. Please pardon me if I have inadvertently stepped into some invisible mine field.

This is not a homework question and it’s not a request for help with editing. It’s an academic question. Scholarly papers in linguistics (just to cite an example) often take a rather bizarre but perfectly grammatical and idiomatic sentence that would never occur in real life and analyze it to death because it exemplifies or challenges some principle or process. I’m no better than an amateur at linguistics, although I have read 2 or 3 textbooks from cover to cover, and I am not up on current grammatical theory, but as a worker with words I remain fascinated by instances of simple, plain English that do not readily lend themselves to analysis (and this is my idea of fun; I don’t judge other people’s). I constructed this sentence to illustrate a structure that was not transparent to me.

Does “took” have two direct objects, or what is the relationship of each of those elements to the main verb? If “me” is an indirect object, how so?

The infinitive is a verbal, but is it functioning adverbially or adjectivally? Same question for the past participle.

As I say, I am usually the one consulted professionally, and so I had to swallow my pride a bit even to ask. If you’re not interested, that’s fine—most people won’t be, as I know very well. If you know the answer but prefer not to share it, that is up to you, of course. I’m just not sure why you’d want to tease me with that.

“It took me three hours’ work to get it all done.”

Does “took” have two direct objects, or what is the relationship of each of those elements to the main verb? If “me” is an indirect object, how so?

Good question. Seems to me that “me” is not a direct object, even though it looks like one since it comes right after the verb. You can remove “me” and get the same meaning, so “me” there is like an adverb phrase (terminology?) such as “for/of me”. “Work” is the direct object of took; “it took work” is the core subject-verb-object phrase. “Three hours’” is an adjectival phrase with a funny possessive form.

The infinitive is a verbal, but is it functioning adverbially or adjectivally? Same question for the past participle.

If those are my choices, I’d label it adverbial since it adds information about the verb, but I think it’s just an infinitive phrase (making up terms as I go along) because it’s really just a phrase after “to” that could come before or after and is only related in meaning, not directly to or from any specific words in the main verb phrase. It could be any infinitive or side phrase that might make sense – it’s just a side comment with no specific grammatical tie. For example, “It took me three hours work because of the limping emu.”

By past participle you mean “done”? I think it’s only circumstantially related to the main verb phrase, not grammatically except that the whole phrase requires it to be a sentence. The past participle form is used as an adjective modifying the second “it”.

Thank you very much, Zaku, for taking a shot at this. You’re pretty brave, and I am grateful for your interest.

I think part of the answer is going to be that the real subject is not “it” but “to get it all done,” with “done” as a participial adjective and “it” as an expletive. I don’t think a pronoun can possibly be an adverb, but I also don’t think you can have two direct objects, so I would like to see that explained. I’d put a nickel on indirect object, even though I don’t see it, but I don’t think I’d risk more than that.

That possessive is ok. It’s like “I’ll meet you in three days’ time” or “I’m requesting a month’s leave.” It was the work of three hours. That’s not the mysterious part, even if the construction has become less common than it once was.

Ah, I didn’t notice what you point out, that “to get it all done” is actually what the first “it” refers to, which is the idiomatic pattern/construction here: It (verb) (object) to/that (write out what it referred to). E.g.: “It was nice to feel welcomed.”

It still looks to me however, that grammatically, the first “it” is the real grammatical subject, even if “to get it all done” is needed to get the meaning. Because again, the core that can stand alone without the rest is “it took work”. “Took work to get it all done” is clearly missing the subject of “took”, though “To get it all done took work” is complete. From that, I think I see the purpose of the construction – when you want to emphasize the part that it took work, you can put “it” in the subject spot and then mention what the “it” was about later (or not and assume your listener knows what you mean from context).

One of the things I love about Fluther is that I get a chance to see what other people find fascinating. I have never diagrammed a sentence for fun like this and I have only a passing knowledge of grammatical terms. I do not know much at all about accounting or astrophysics either but I’m very glad other people do. Nice work Jeruba & Zaku. My eyes glazed over at the subject-verb-object phrase, but it’s a thrill to watch you take this on. Reminds me of someone I met who wrote his PhD thesis on the letter “A”.

Thanks, @Ort. I am still hoping that someone will answer my question about the two direct objects (or not). Possibly I have by now established that im not lukin 4 homwurk helpz. I have other questions like this, but to tell you the truth I was a little discouraged by the reception of this one.

The letter A is well worth a thesis. I would be fascinated to see it.

Dear Jeruba, I don’t see why you’re so adamant about there not being ever two direct objects in a clause. Why don’t you check Jespersen on this? You’ll see he thought there were some such in English, including ‘teach somebody something’. The same in German, by the way.
Anat