2

Is it possible to omit 'to' from the following sentence?

This letter was sent to him yesterday.

I mean,

This letter was sent him yesterday.

Is it ok without 'to' ? If grammatically possible, please answer with the specific reasons.

KillingTime
  • 6,206
Michelle S
  • 21
  • Prepositions? We don't need no stinking *prepositions!* I must admit I'm a bit surprised to see a fellow Brit express misgivings about imperative prepositionless *Give me it!* I thought it was only the inverted form *Give it me!* that might not find favour (my father was from Lancashire, and I'm pretty sure my tolerance for that version stems from him). – FumbleFingers Jul 19 '21 at 16:09

3 Answers3

2

Syntactically, OP's text is fine with or without to, but I certainly find this NGram usage chart interesting...

enter image description here

I'm fairly sure that as a general principle, the prevalence (and semantic significance) of prepositions in English has been increasing over the centuries. The specific verb in our sights here is to send, but it's worth noting this...

If a language has only one ditransitive trivalent verb (on the basis of any feature of formal transitivity), then that verb is ‘give’ Kittilä, (2006: 604)

(Exactly the same usage shift is seen with was given me by, now largely supplanted by was given to me by.)

FumbleFingers
  • 140,184
  • 45
  • 294
  • 517
  • Shouldn't you be looking at this Ngram instead? https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=was+sent+me+by%2Cwas+sent+to+me+by&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cwas%20sent%20me%20by%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwas%20sent%20to%20me%20by%3B%2Cc0 – listeneva Jul 19 '21 at 16:44
  • I think strictly speaking we should both be looking at this NGram! I'm no expert at using maths with NGrams, but I'm fairly sure that chart is telling us that although both forms of *was sent [to] me by* have declined over time, the version *with* the preposition hasn't declined anywhere near as much. And it's the *ratio* that counts. – FumbleFingers Jul 19 '21 at 16:50
  • 1
    Your new Ngram is much better. But please note that the ratio has been relatively stable for the last sixty years, which I think is what really counts, because we're talking about what's acceptable in today's English. Also note that the ratio has been actually creeping up for the last 30 years (since 1990). Go figure! Now, regardless of the Ngram analysis so far, I don't understand your first line "Syntactically, OP's text is fine with or without to". I think "This letter was sent him yesterday" is non-standard at best. – listeneva Jul 19 '21 at 23:55
  • @listeneva: "non-standard" (and "non-idiomatic") aren't the same as "syntactically invalid". Maybe the definition of "grammatical / syntactically valid" can change over centuries, but not really over just decades. I'd guess a fairly high proportion of written instances of *which was sent you*, for example, are actually from "official" sources. Maybe you don't like the usage - but it's still out there, and not likely to disappear completely any time soon! – FumbleFingers Jul 20 '21 at 16:57
1

This letter was sent him yesterday.

This is the passive. The passive form does not take an indirect object; it takes adverbial prepositional phrases as complements.

In full, this would be

This letter was sent (i)by me (ii) to him (iii)yesterday.

In “I sent him this letter yesterday”, the active form does take

(i) two objects, (a direct and an indirect) or

(ii) an object and an adverbial prepositional phrase as a complement: I sent this letter to him yesterday”.

(This is known as the "dative shift" - the theory being that in the example sentence in the active, "him" is in the dative grammatical case and implies to [or for] him.)

Having said that, “This letter was sent him yesterday” can be heard from some native speakers, but I would not expect it to appear in business or formal written or spoken English.

Greybeard
  • 41,737
  • 1
    Non-native speakers may not know that they can, and often should, promote the indirect object to subject position rather than the direct object: He was sent the letter yesterday. – tchrist Jul 18 '21 at 23:13
  • BE does this in some cases where it would not be in AE. As an American, seeing it in writing in those cases is a giveaway that the writer is most likely not American. – DjinTonic Jul 19 '21 at 12:41
  • @DjinTonic If you could find a print example of them doing this in BrE, that would be illuminating. – tchrist Jul 19 '21 at 14:03
  • 1954, Works Issued by the Hakluyt Society [British based] - Page 190 "Next day I took him a sagoate of some pieces that we brought from India for him. Among other things there were a painting of the Nativity sent him by the Archbishop Primate D. Fr. Cristovao, who is in glory, a beautiful reliquary sent him by the Father Assistant..." AE would definitely be "sent to him" in both cases. – DjinTonic Jul 19 '21 at 15:01
  • The Comic History of Rome - Page 277 Gilbert Abbott Beckett ~ 1850: "... the fawn, was sent him by the gods, as a mark of favour." Adelaide and Theodore: by Stephanie-Felicite De Genlis - Page 102 Gillian Dow · 2016 "However, he protested he had not touched the Prince's book, and that which he had been reading was sent him by a relation," The Whispering Roots - Page 74, Cecil Day Lewis · 1970 "Q. And more money was sent him?" – Greybeard Jul 19 '21 at 15:10
1

It is grammatically possible but semantically preposterous, except in some dialects.†

To see this more clearly, let’s look your ditransitive verb sentence in the active and passive voices. For illustration purposes, I’m changing him to Kim and adding the agent Pat to your passive voice version:

Here it is with the direct object following the verb and the second object in a to-prepositional phrase:

Passive: This letter was sent to Kim [by Pat].

Active: Pat sent this letter to Kim.

All good. Now let’s look at this with an indirect object in front of the direct object:

Passive: Kim was sent this letter [by Pat].

Active: Pat sent Kim this letter.

All good. Now let’s omit to, as in your second example:

Passive: ? This letter was sent Kim [by Pat].

Active: ?Pat sent this letter Kim.

Not so good. Here we have the absurd situation of the letter receiving a package — which contains Kim — from Pat.

† See:
Give it me!: Pronominal ditransitives in English dialects
Ditransitive clauses in English with special reference to Lancashire dialect

Further reading:
Lies Your Grammar Teacher Told You: Indirect Objects

 

Tinfoil Hat
  • 17,008
  • Even in those exceptional dialects, shouldn't the theme this letter be a personal pronoun such as it in order for the OP's sentence not to be "semantically preposterous"? I mean, it was sent him yesterday might not be "semantically preposterous" in those dialects, but isn't this letter was sent him yesterday still "semantically preposterous" even in those dialects? – listeneva Jul 20 '21 at 02:20
  • I don't know exactly what they're doing inside those dialects, but I do know that give it me and give the letter me are equally preposterous outside of them. – Tinfoil Hat Jul 20 '21 at 02:29
  • But I thought you read both the papers you cited. – listeneva Jul 20 '21 at 02:37
  • @listeneva: Yes, I did read them — and cited them to show supporting evidence that dropping the to-preposition is dialectical. What they do inside their own dialect is not my business and not pertinent to the matter at hand. – Tinfoil Hat Jul 20 '21 at 02:50
  • According to those papers, however, dropping the to-preposition is possible only when the theme is a personal pronoun, even in those exceptional dialects. But in the OP's sentence, the theme this letter is not a personal pronoun, which means that the OP's sentence is not possible even in those exceptional dialects unless it is to be "semantically preposterous". – listeneva Jul 20 '21 at 03:05
  • @listeneva: She gave a book the man is acceptable in certain dialects referred to in the paper. – Tinfoil Hat Jul 20 '21 at 03:09
  • That's not the gist of the paper. It's simply citing Hughes & Trudgill, which adds a condition for that construction to work: "if man is contrastively stressed". Since the OP's sentence is a passive construction where the theme is in the subject position, I don't think it's possible to contrastively stress this letter to make it work for the dialect. – listeneva Jul 20 '21 at 03:23
  • I still don't understand your point. The OP asked if This letter was sent him yesterday is OK. No it is not — not in any standard forms of English. – Tinfoil Hat Jul 20 '21 at 03:39
  • I agree with that point. All I'm questioning is the "except in some dialects" part of your answer, especially the cited references do not seem to allow the OP's sentence even in the exceptional dialects. – listeneva Jul 20 '21 at 03:46