I don't understand why this sentence is grammatically plausible.

English grammar questions, answered by Alan

Moderator: Alan

Locked
User avatar
ghostbug
Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2019 3:21 pm
Status: Learner of English

I don't understand why this sentence is grammatically plausible.

Post by ghostbug » Sun Nov 03, 2019 3:57 pm

The problematic sentence at least for me is here:
Frankenstein became a monster because he took the life that was given him and used it for his own purpose.

I think of that underlined words as noun phrase combined with relative clause which contains passive form of a verb 'gave'. what makes me feel confused is this; if the verb "give" is used to make a passive style verb and its direct object (the life) is used as a subject of the sentence, why does the still remaining the indirect object "him" not have its preposition "to"? I'm pretty sure that this phrase would be no problematic in this way:
Frankenstein became a monster because he took the life that was given to him and used it for his own purpose.

are they both right? or was I wrong for this? Please give me advice about this.

User avatar
Alan
Teacher/Moderator
Teacher/Moderator
Posts: 13058
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 7:56 pm
Status: Teacher of English

Re: I don't understand why this sentence is grammatically plausible.

Post by Alan » Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:52 am

Essentialy, you are right: standard usage requires 'to'.

Dialectally/informally, however, it is often omitted in this type of construction.

Locked