19

I would really appreciate it if someone could help me understand why the following sentence is grammatically incorrect:

A doll was made me by my sister.

The reason I think this sentence is incorrect is because of the following:

  1. I can’t piece together what this sentence means. I think this sentence means that the person’s sister made the doll into him, which is grammar-wise correct, but context-wise hard to understand.
  2. Doesn’t this sentence need a ‘for’ before ‘me’ in order to sound comprehensible?
James K
  • 217,650
  • 16
  • 258
  • 452
  • Thank you for the comment. The reason I think this sentence is incorrect is because of the following: 1. I can’t piece together what this sentence means. I think this sentence means that the person’s sister made the doll into him, which is grammar-wise correct, but context-wise hard to understand. 2. Doesn’t this sentence need a ‘for’ before ‘me’ in order to sound comprehensible? I apologize for the lengthy reply. –  Sep 27 '22 at 02:48
  • 4
    These days it is an unusual way of expressing it. We would be more likely to say "A doll was made for me by my sister". It means the same as "my sister made me a doll" or "my sister made a doll for me". – Peter Sep 27 '22 at 02:59
  • 15
    @Peter It's not just unusual; it's ungrammatical. It looks to me like one of those impossible passive-voice monstrosities that get hurled at non-native speakers trying to learn English. – tchrist Sep 27 '22 at 03:21
  • As mentioned by @Michael Lorton, I also ran into the same problem in my schooldays. My wannabe Grammar Nazi English teacher mumbled something and I got zilch. The thing is you cannot omit "for" when you are trying to convert a simple sentence into "passive voice" and "indirect object" sentence. To get at the exact rule for that you have to dig deeper. – banuyayi Sep 27 '22 at 06:54
  • 8
    I don't think 'a letter was sent me by the tax people' would cause the horses to bolt, or even shy, in my location. – Michael Harvey Sep 27 '22 at 07:56
  • 11
    Graffiti alleged to have been seen on toilet wall in UK: "I was made a homosexual by my mother". Underneath, in a different hand: "If I sent her the wool, would she make me one?" – Michael Harvey Sep 27 '22 at 08:55
  • 2
    This sounds a bit off to me, but there's as yet no evidence that it's ungrammatical. Certainly there are a lot of fiddly rules about pronoun placement, but I'd expect someone to have documented them in this case if it was widely believed to be ungrammatical. – Stuart F Sep 27 '22 at 08:58
  • 2
    I have seen this construction used, but only in poetry. Poets have a license to kill most grammar rules. – Paul Chernoch Sep 27 '22 at 13:24
  • 2
    While it has interesting and ambiguity-creating semantics, grammatically this is a perfectly valid sentence of the English language, even outside of poetry. Which also means I disagree with the highest-voted answer - you absolutely can do both. Anything else would be boring. Just ask the French with their slightly lingo-fascist institute or banuyayi with their slightly lingo-fascist English teacher. – Sixtyfive Sep 27 '22 at 15:32
  • It would work better if English had a dative case. – Carsten S Sep 27 '22 at 16:21
  • 1
    @MichaelHarvey “A homosexual_” in “I was made _a homosexual by my mother” is a complement, while “me_” in “She made _me a doll” is an indirect object. They are two different things, grammatically speaking. – Константин Ван Sep 27 '22 at 16:29
  • 1
    @КонстантинВан - but it's still funny. – Michael Harvey Sep 27 '22 at 16:30
  • @tchrist. Are you just saying the passive is ungrammatical? She made me a cup of tea is certainly idiomatic - a normal everyday expression. But would I say A cup of tea was made me by the nurse? Perhaps not, but I wouldn't consider it ungrammatical. – WS2 Sep 27 '22 at 19:11
  • 2
    @WS2 Yes, I am. See my answer for why you can be made a cup a tea, but a cup of tea can never be made you. I suppose that it may be hypothetically possible that in dialects that allow She gave it me for what most people say She gave me it for, there might be some relaxation of this restriction, but as I don't speak any of those dialects, I cannot say. – tchrist Sep 27 '22 at 23:01
  • 2
    @MichaelHarvey — Hey! The original graffito (which I read in a book of graffiti, so I cannot vouch for personally) used the active voice. – Michael Lorton Sep 28 '22 at 00:51
  • @MichaelLorton - I hope you're not suggesting I altered it for comic purposes? – Michael Harvey Sep 28 '22 at 06:31
  • @CarstenS English has a dative case, it just looks like the accusative. You can't see or hear it but we know it's there. – RedSonja Sep 28 '22 at 07:23
  • @MichaelLorton - I used plural 'graffiti' because there were two inscriptions by different people. – Michael Harvey Sep 28 '22 at 08:06
  • 2
    @StuartF Collins says it's ungrammatical. – tchrist Sep 28 '22 at 14:42
  • 2
    @WS2 Yes, that's absolutely ungrammatical in my dialect (AmE). Is it allowed in yours? – Azor Ahai -him- Sep 28 '22 at 17:27
  • 2
    @AzorAhai-him- It is certainly not idiomatic in any British dialect of which I am aware. – WS2 Sep 28 '22 at 17:53
  • Don't confuse the causative verb: to make with the passive of the verb make. Two different things. I was made king. My subjects made me king. With all the brouhaha, no one mentioned that. – Lambie Sep 28 '22 at 19:32
  • @Lambie That is an altogether different construction and I'm not sure any confusion with it has been made. – WS2 Sep 28 '22 at 21:27
  • 1
    @КонстантинВан - “I was made a homosexual by my mother” is a complement, whereas "I was made a homosexual by YOUR mother" is an insult. – Dawood ibn Kareem Sep 28 '22 at 22:59
  • 2
    @DawoodibnKareem, uh, is that a joke? …I’m kind of not sure if you’re playing with words or being serious. – Константин Ван Sep 29 '22 at 08:03
  • @КонстантинВан - It's a genre - see here – Michael Harvey Sep 29 '22 at 19:30
  • Chiron: "Thou hast undone our mother." Aaron: "Villain, I have done thy mother." Act IV, Scene II of Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus. – Michael Harvey Sep 29 '22 at 19:31

11 Answers11

46

For some reason, English allows you

  1. to turn a prepositional phrase (“My sister made a doll for me”) into an indirect object (“My sister made me a doll”), called a dative shift, or
  2. to turn an active-voice sentence into a passive-voice one (“A doll was made for me by my sister”)

but you cannot do both.

(Well, you can, but it will sounds clumsy and even confusing to a native speaker.)

Michael Lorton
  • 6,582
  • 17
  • 21
  • 3
    I like this explanation. It is simple. But can you give a reference for "you cannot do both"? I seems to me you can, although the result is clumsy and hard to parse, which is the problem with the OP's sentence. – Wastrel Sep 27 '22 at 16:12
  • @Wastrel — edited the answer to respond to your comment. – Michael Lorton Sep 27 '22 at 16:24
  • 28
    Note that "made me a doll" can be ambiguous if your sister is a witch. – Barmar Sep 27 '22 at 16:31
  • 7
    @Barmar — there was a famous graffiti exchange from 50 years ago, in the restroom of a gay bar: “My mother made me a homosexual”, wrote one person, to which someone else responded, “If I sent her some yarn, would she make one for me too?” – Michael Lorton Sep 27 '22 at 16:34
  • When I see the sentence fragment "made me a/an adjective noun" I usually make a personal connection between "me" and the noun that follows. As an example: "Reading made me a better writer" means the act of reading results in me being a better writer. When I see the fragment "made me" in "was made me by" ... it just feels like a mismatch between how the sentence ends and how I expected it to end. I expect the action taken by the sister to affect the person physically or emotionally, rather than describe something someone did for "me". – Greg Burghardt Sep 27 '22 at 16:58
  • 5
    @GregBurghardt It generally context and the following noun. "made me" can either mean "turned me into" or "made for me". And as the previous two comments demonstrate, in some cases it could be either. – Barmar Sep 27 '22 at 17:05
  • 1
    @GregBurghardt — effectively, it feels like a short garden-path sentence. – Michael Lorton Sep 27 '22 at 17:36
  • @MichaelLorton: yes! That is exactly the right description. – Greg Burghardt Sep 27 '22 at 17:41
  • 1
    I just wrote almost exactly this same answer. I don’t know how I missed that yours was here. The only thing I added was that the prepositional phrase ↔ double object switch has a name, “dative shift”, and its rules are the subject of some debate. – Tim Pederick Sep 27 '22 at 18:04
  • 1
    Related and recommended reading. – tchrist Sep 27 '22 at 19:40
  • 2
    See also: "I was made a doll by my sister" (direct object - my sister turned me into a doll by the use of black magic) – user253751 Sep 27 '22 at 21:15
  • @MichaelLorton probably more well-known is the reference to old Atlas body-building ads in the Rocky Horror Picture Show: "In just seven days, I can make you a man". – mcalex Sep 28 '22 at 05:22
  • For what it’s worth, the closest thing to an exception I could find was from 1864: “I had been jostled and nearly squeezed to death attempting to enter, but large room was made me for retiring.” The unusual construction here might be to avoid two for clauses in a row: today’s standard English would be, “much room was made for me for leaving.” – Davislor Sep 28 '22 at 06:01
  • @user253751 Or rather ‘My sister created me in doll form’. (Though in that case she can’t possibly be your sister.) – user3840170 Sep 29 '22 at 15:07
14

Syntactic restrictions on distransitive passivization:

Why you can be baked a cake yet a cake can never be baked you

Collins Dictionary notes, with formatting emphasis added by me:

If the indirect object is mentioned after the passive verb, the sentence must use “to”.

That's a tiny bit of an oversimplification, but their point is sound. See this post's bottom section for exceptions to this rule, and why they exist.

Under passive inversion of verbs with two objects, only the indirect object can ever be promoted to the subject if you leave the other object “unmarked” the way it had been in the original.

That's because an unmarked object following the passive participle always has to be the original's direct object, never the original's indirect object. So not marking it makes it look like something it never was. That’s why the original with “the doll was made you” is not considered grammatical in most dialects of present-day English.

In order to promote the direct object instead of the indirect object, you “always” have to use dative alternation to change the old indirect object into a mere prepositional phrase under passive inversion of verbs of two objects.

When you have a verb that takes two different objects, then under passive inversion you can only promote the first object (typically the beneficiary, sometimes called the indirect object) to the subject while leaving the second object unchanged.

If instead you promote the second object, then you always have to mark the remaining object. If you leave it unchanged, it doesn't make sense because the unmarked scenario means that it was the original direct object not the original indirect object.

The single-object verbs never cause a problem because you never leave any second object behind when inverting subject and object:

  1. Jane wrote the book. (another normal one-object verb)
  2. ✅ The book was written by Jane. (passive inversion of sentence 1, swapping subject and object)

But the two-object verbs have restrictions that depend on which of their two objects you promote to the subject:

  1. Jane gave Dick the book. (now a two-object verb)
  2. ✅ Dick was given the book by Jane.
    (passive inversion of the double-object sentence 3, promoting the original's indirect object to subject after inversion while leaving the original direct object unmarked in its same syntactic slot)
  3. ❌ The book was given ❌ Dick by Jane.
    (INVALID passive inversion of the double-object sentence 3, because the direct object was promoted to the subject but the indirect object was not suitably marked, and an unmarked noun-phrase in that syntactic position immediately after the participle will always be read as the direct object)
  4. ✅ The book was given ✅ to Dick by Jane.
    (passive inversion of the double-object sentence 3, promoting the direct object to subject and changing the original's indirect object into a prepositional phrase via dative alternation)

The problem with the original is that it promoted the direct object but left the indirect object or beneficiary unmarked, which makes it read wrong, just like in the ungrammatical sentence (5) above. The unmarked object left behind reads as having been the original's direct object. But it wasn't.

The solution is to mark the left-behind ‘beneficiary’ object using a preposition—instead of relying on word order to determine which object is which, a trick that only works when promoting the indirect object, not the direct one.

Are these prepositional passives?

No, this is not a case of a prepositional passive. A prepositional passive promotes the object of the preposition to the subject and strands the original preposition completely.

  1. The mouse ran up the clock.
  2. ✅ The clock was run up by the mouse.

  3. Goldilocks slept in my bed.
  4. ✅ My bed was slept in by Goldilocks.

A prepositional passive does not even require a transitive verb because there is no direct object involved at all here.

The original subject still becomes the object of a by X prepositional phrase, just as with other passives.

Exceptions: Alternate Markings, or None?

Contrary to Collins’s simplification, ditransitive passives do not strictly speaking always require the indirect object to be marked with to. There are two classes of exception to this.

Exception 1: Marking with for

Sometimes these instead use for instead of to, as in the original question. When you make a person a thing, the corresponding dative alternation into a prepositional phrase takes for the beneficiary rather than to.

Exception 2: No marking at all

The verb deny can be ditransitive, and it can also be passivized. When you deny a person a thing in this way, the OED notes that

In the passive either object may be made subject.

They provide this pair of citations with passives showing that both work. The first example promotes the indirect object and the second promotes the direct object:

  • a1616 W. Shakespeare Henry VI, Pt. 2 (1623)
    ɪ. iii. 107 Then let him be denay'd the Regent-ship.

  • 1814 I. D'Israeli Quarrels Auth. II. 277
    All the consolations of Fame were denied him during his life.

So why is there no to preposition needed in the Disraeli quote?

With ditransitive deny, which is a privative verb, the indirect object is not actually the action's “beneficiary” in the strict sense. This might be why these are all possible:

  1. The guard denied him entrance.
    (normal ditransitive use with indirect object and direct object)
  2. ✅ He was denied entrance (by the guard).
    (indirect object promoted to subject, with direct object left unmarked following the passive verb)
  3. ✅ Entrance was denied him (by the guard).
    (direct object promoted to subject, with indirect object left unmarked following the passive verb)

When there’s a beneficiary, though, you “can’t” have the indirect object after the passive verb without marking it with a preposition like to or for. Collins just oversimplifies the details for learners a little, that's all.

Exception 3: No passivization allowed

There are ditransitive verbs that won’t allow you to passivize them with either object. An example of this is when you elect a person to some position, like electing someone king. You can only passivize using the first of the two objects, not the second no matter whether you have to/for or not:

  1. The union elected Jack boss.
  2. ✅ Jack was elected boss by the union.
    (passivize via first object as subject)
  3. ❌ Boss was elected ❌ Jack by the union.
    (ungrammatical to passivize via second object as subject)
  4. ❌ Boss was elected ❌ to Jack by the union.
    (ungrammatical to passivize via second object as subject using to for dative alternation on the first object because it is not an indirect object or beneficiary here)

The reason you can’t passivize the second object is because no dative alternation to transform an indirect object into a prepositional phrase is possible with sentence (14):

  1. ❌ The union elected boss ❌to Jack.
    (failed attempt at dative alternation of sentence 14)
tchrist
  • 8,182
  • 1
  • 36
  • 46
  • 3
    @DavidSiegel It's a basic rule of grammar per Collins Dictionary, which writes: If the indirect object is mentioned after the passive verb, the sentence must use to. – tchrist Sep 28 '22 at 13:09
  • 1
    @tchrist I'd consider "A doll was given me by my sister" grammatical, if awkward. 'Give' is also ditransitive (e.g., "An award was given Mrs. Smith", which is an example that I've seen somewhere, but I can't find the source, and "An award was given Mrs. Smith by the committee" seems OK too). What's the category difference between "give" and "make" that makes on grammatical, but the other not? – Joshua Taylor Sep 28 '22 at 15:51
  • 1
    @JoshuaTaylor Collins Dictionary says your "An award was given Mrs. Smith" is ungrammatical for lack of to before the indirect object. You'll have to ask them why they've said this is a rule, but their perspective accords with my ear. There are unusual non-benefactive cases where dative alternation is impossible, so you can't passivize even using "to" because there is no real indirect object although there are two NPs: ❌ Boss was elected (to) him by the voters. – tchrist Sep 28 '22 at 18:51
  • 2
    made used causatively is not make used non-causatively and passively. So simple, really. Now, the Brits do do things here we might not in AmE, to wit: An award was given Mrs. Smith. All you gotta do is pay attention to the Brit dramas on TV. – Lambie Sep 28 '22 at 19:35
  • @Lambie “Causative” might not the best designation, but absent a beneficiary to license dative alternation, you can’t passivize the other object. Compare: We called him a taxi. ✅ He was called a taxi (by us). ✅ We called a taxi for* him. ✅ A taxi was called for him (by us)* with: We called him a monster. ✅ He was called a monster (by us). ❌ We called a monster ❌ for/to* him. ❌ A monster was called ❌ him (by us).* The failed dative alternation of the “monster” case guarantees you can’t passivize using its first object (which didn’t originally have a dative but two accusatives). – tchrist Sep 29 '22 at 15:57
  • I do not understand your explanation at all., The minimal difference here is the difference between the verb make used causatively and the verb make used transitively. They are two basic grammar structures.... – Lambie Sep 29 '22 at 17:46
  • @tchrist: The sentence "An award was given Mrs. Smith" would be a grammatically correct way of saying that Mrs. Smith was given to an award [conversely, the much more common "Mrs. Smith was given an award" would be equivalent to "An award was given to Mrs. Smith". Omitting the "to" from the latter sentence doesn't make the sentence ungrammatical, but instead yields a grammatically-valid sentence whose meaning would be a bit strange. – supercat Sep 29 '22 at 21:36
  • @Lambie I usually prefer simplification but tchrist's answer is more complete because not all passive structures involve the verb "made", e.g. He gave her a ring ✅ ----> A ring was given her by him ❎ – Mari-Lou A Sep 29 '22 at 21:44
  • @Lambie Causative and transitive are not opponent properties of verbs. No one has been using make causatively, not the asker and not me, so I don't know what you're talking about. So that has nothing to do with this question. You need to chain make to a nonfinite verb for the causative sense, like making people do things. We're only talking about verbs of two NP objects. Making you queen and doing yourself a favor are not causatives, but that is not why queens can't be made you nor favors done yourself. – tchrist Sep 29 '22 at 21:45
  • 1
    I think the point Lambie is making... is that the verb phrase [you/he/she/they] made [me / you / him] etc. … should be reserved for causative constructions. – Mari-Lou A Sep 29 '22 at 21:51
  • @supercat Just because you concoct an exotic contextual frame in which those words can be outlandishly construed to mean something bizarre by no means shows that you've somehow proven the asker wrong. You have not. That's called a rescue reading, and it helps nobody. The point remains that if when passivizing a ditransitive by using its direct object as subject you leave behind an indirect object playing a benefactive thematic role, you must use dative shift to transform the whilom indirect object into a prepositional phrase to remain grammatical. And if you can't, then it isn't. – tchrist Sep 29 '22 at 21:52
  • @Mari-LouA That sure guarantees you’ll never be made an offer you can’t refuse, doesn't it now? :) – tchrist Sep 29 '22 at 21:59
  • @tchrist: The reason "X was given Y" is not a correct way of saying "X was given to Y" is that it means "Y was given to X". The sentence would be wrong if the speaker was trying to say that X was given to Y, but not because there is some rule forbidding the construct. Instead, it would be wrong because the construct means something other than what the speaker was trying to say. – supercat Sep 29 '22 at 22:00
  • @supercat X's and Y's confuse me to no end. I need real words. For example, if you give it a shot, I'm pretty sure it's never ever grammatical to say a shot was given it. :) – tchrist Sep 29 '22 at 22:13
  • @tchrist: Saying "a shot was given it" would be no more nor less correct than saying "it was given to a shot". The problem with the sentence is not a grammatical one, but a semantic one. Saying "Bob was given Ralph" means "Ralph was given to Bob". If Ralph is a hamster, and Bob is someone who wants a pet rodent, that would make sense. If instead Bob was a hamster and Ralph the person, the sentence would likely make less sense unless the intention of the gift was to cheer up a lonely hamster. – supercat Sep 29 '22 at 22:27
  • @supercat What's the to insertion? I didn't do that, and for good reason: because it was given a shot, so sure go ahead and passifize dummy-it, which every grammarian will tell you is ungrammatical in English. But who knows? It might get you something, but here you will be sad to learn that nothing will have been gotten you. I don't know why you keep insisting all these things people can't say can be said by them, but I'm done here. – tchrist Sep 29 '22 at 22:33
  • @tchrist: In the sentence "Bob was given Ralph", the direct object (thing that was given) follows the verb. In the sentence "Ralph was given to Bob", the preposition "to" disqualifies the noun which follows the verb from being a direct object, thus causing that role to be fulfilled by the noun which precedes the verb. Note that the sentences "Ralph was given Bob" and "Bob was given to Ralph" are just as grammatical as the earlier ones, but they have a different meaning. The grammar of the sentences would say which ones describe Bob as the gift and which describe Bob as the recipient,... – supercat Sep 29 '22 at 22:42
  • ...but it would be impossible to know which ones were correct without knowing whether Bob was the gift and Ralph the recipient, or vice versa. – supercat Sep 29 '22 at 22:43
  • @Mari-LouA My point is that the minimal difference between the two is the structural/semantic uses of make. Two completely different structures. The causative construction is not the transitive one.. My sister made me do it. becomes: I was made to do it by my sister*". versus: My sister made me a cake. which becomes: A cake was made for me by sister*. Why does one need anything else?? The to construction makes the difference. – Lambie Sep 30 '22 at 16:09
3

The original sentence in its active form would be:

My sister made me a doll.

Here, the verb "made" has two objects: 1) me and 2) a doll.

Some objects have priority in order over other objects i.e. they must come before some other objects in the sentence. "Me" is one of those objects that has the highest priority of order (in this sentence, not necessarily always).

Typically, objects that could be connected to the verb with the prepositions "for" or "to" have highest priority. But, the only sure way to know is practice.

So, the sentence cannot be:

My sister made a doll me.

This carries over to passive form. The passive form only means that one of its objects becomes its subject. If a high priority object exists in the sentence, it must be the one that becomes the subject.

So, it would be correct to say:

I was made a doll by my sister.

**Note: "I" is the subject form of "me".

But, it would not be correct to say:

A doll was made me by my sister.

It is not correct because it puts the "me" after "a doll" even though "me" which is connected by "for" should have priority.

However, the above sentence could be correct if you mean your sister created you for a doll! Basically, if you put the doll first, the listener might think the doll is the one being made "for".

The Z
  • 201
  • 1
  • 4
  • 1
    Consider the sentences "Bob served some fish", "Bob served the cat", and "Bob served the cat some fish". Now consider the meaning of "The cat was served some fish" and "Some fish were served the cat". Both of the latter two sentences are equally grammatical, but probably not equally semantically appropriate (poor kitty!). I think the problem with "A doll was made me" is actually not grammatical, but rather semantic. – supercat Sep 27 '22 at 23:00
  • 1
    Note that “I was made a doll” could also be read as saying that the speaker was turned into a doll, although usually this would be ruled out by context. – Davislor Sep 28 '22 at 05:56
  • @Davislor That is true for the active form as well. "My sister made me a doll" could also be read like that. The verb 'made' is acting a bit differently in that interpretation. – The Z Sep 28 '22 at 14:05
  • @TheZ The difference is that when you make some first thing some second thing, like making George Washington the first president, the first thing does not receive the second thing, so it is not a benefactive construction, but rather a resultative one: George is not the recipient of the first president. You have not not made the first president for him, as you do when you make him a cake. That's because now George actually receives the cake. You've transferred its ownership. The cake was made for him in the passive. – tchrist Sep 28 '22 at 15:20
1

There are two different issues here: (I) active/passive voice; and (II) prepositions/personal pronouns.

I. Active/Passive Voice:

A doll was made by my sister. (passive voice)

My sister made a doll. (active voice)

In general, active voice is preferred over passive voice. Passive voice tends to be unnecessarily wordy and sometimes confusing. It's hard for anyone to say that the passive voice sounds better in the above example. Another classic example:

The road was crossed by the chicken. (passive)

The chicken crossed the road. (active)

The active voice is more concise and clear, and this is generally the case.

There are a few instances where passive voice might be preferred:

  1. In scientific reports to avoid excessive use of the first person:

The experiment was carried out using.....

  1. When you don't know who performed the action so you can't write in the active voice:

The package was sent yesterday.

Their house was robbed last week.

  1. When the person doing the action is largely unimportant:

He was sworn in yesterday.

II. Prepositions and Personal Pronouns

She made a doll for me.

She made me a doll.

You cannot say:

She made a doll me (incorrect)

You need to use a preposition:

She made a doll for me.

However, when the direct object of a verb is a personal pronoun, and the personal pronoun directly follows the verb, you eliminate the preposition:

She made me a doll.

Another example:

He threw the ball to her.

He threw her the ball.

swmcdonnell
  • 6,850
  • 8
  • 14
  • 1
    You haven't explained why there is a preposition between the verb (made) and the object pronoun (me) in the passive voice but why it's missing in the active voice. But is it always unnecessary/missing? What about "My sister made a doll* for me”? By the same token why not "My sister made for me a doll”? – Mari-Lou A Sep 27 '22 at 21:18
  • 3
    Why is it better to use the active? There's nothing wrong with passive sentences. – curiousdannii Sep 28 '22 at 05:46
  • I revised my answer. – swmcdonnell Sep 28 '22 at 19:40
  • @Mari-LouA: The phraseology "My sister made for me a doll" would be unusual, but could be appropriate in cases where the sentence might otherwise be interpreted as meaning "My sister made me into a doll". – supercat Sep 29 '22 at 21:41
  • @supercat The other reading is nonsensical based upon this evidence. – tchrist Sep 30 '22 at 00:46
  • @tchrist: In a horror story where people were being turned temporarily into dolls, and other characters were aware of this, it would not seen unreasonable that a character might feel a need to be extra clear about what was meant. What's important to note, however, is that it is not grammar which implies that one reading is more plausible than the other. The grammar identifies which readings are possible, and is up to the writer to recognize which reading will be regarded by the reader as most semantically plausible. – supercat Sep 30 '22 at 05:31
1

You must use a preposition for it to make sense. (A doll was made for me, by my sister.) alternatively you could say. (My sister made me a doll.) no preposition required.

Daniel Ward
  • 13
  • 3
0

You Can.

It will even be technically correct. But it will sound wrong, even to experienced speakers, and you are likely to have trouble being understood.

At best, this would be analogous to Yoda-speak.

If I saw this absent context, I would assume it was ether archaic or poor English, with the grammar structure suggesting a Nordic speaker.

fectin
  • 613
  • 4
  • 11
0

In the active voice, the subject is the doer of the action, the first object, if there are two, after the verb is the indirect object (receiver of the action) and the second is the direct object. If there is only one object it is the direct object. My sister made me a doll. My sister made a doll. In the passive voice, the receiver of the action is in the subject position and the doer of the action is identified after the word by. A doll was made for my by my sister. In your case there is only one object after the verb. Normally in the active voice, that would be the direct object. My sister made a doll. But here you want to say that because the direct object is the subject that the first object after the verb is now the indirect object. Sounds OK to many people, but it does seem to be a different set of rules instead of a translation of active voice rules to passive-voice because instead of identifying the only object after the verb as the direct object, you are identifying it as the indirect object.

Harlan Nelson
  • 109
  • 1
0

Although (most of) the other answers are correct that the sentence is ungrammatical, none of them are answering the OP's question of "Why can't you say [it]?"

When the sentence "A doll was made me by my sister." is (attempted to be) parsed, the resulting link grammar diagram could be:

                        +---Js----+
+-Ds-+-Ss-+-Pvf-+--MVp--+  +--Ds--+
|    |    |     |       |  |      |
A doll  was  made [me] by my sister.

This shows that "me" has no grammatical linkage, or has a null grammatical linkage.

The grammatically correct sentence with the least modification to the words and probably least modification to intended the meaning is "A doll was made for me by my sister." which has the diagram:

                +-----MVp----+---Js----+
+-Ds-+-Ss-+-Pvf-+-MVp-+-J-+  |  +--Ds--+
|    |    |     |     |   |  |  |      |
A doll  was  made   for  me by my sister.

I believe the OP might be attempting use "made" as a reflexive verb in a way (Modern) English does not allow.

Grammar Links Used

  • Ds connects determiners to singular nouns.
  • J connects prepositions to their objects.
  • Js connects prepositions to their singular objects.
  • MVp connects prepositions to verbs.
  • Pvf connects forms of "be" to passive participles with a filler.
  • Ss connects singular subject-nouns to finite verbs.
MarkMYoung
  • 182
  • 6
0

To respond in a rather more simple and limited way : The meaning is ambiguous. "A doll was made me by my sister" could either mean :

  • "A doll was made into me by my sister"
  • "A doll was made for me by my sister"

That is, as others have pointed out, because of the mixture of active and passive voices : We don't know if the phrase is supposed to contain "My sister made me a doll" or "My sister made a doll me" because they are both equally plausible from the original sentence.

ice-wind
  • 109
  • 1
  • The assertion that we don't know "which" was meant is false. We certainly *do* know which was meant. Never before has the thing you pretend to not know from the other been written. Language isn't math. We learn from patterning. This other pattern has never, ever been used. There can be no confusion, no ambiguity. The real world proves this. – tchrist Sep 30 '22 at 00:41
-1

The sentence

A doll was made me by my sister.

is awkward, but not ungrammatical. However, it does not mean that my sister made a doll for me. Consider this sentence of the same form:

George was made a general by Congress.

It means that Congress caused George to be a general -- that is, they promoted or appointed him to that rank. More generally, "X was made Y" means some agent, force, or circumstance caused X to be(come) a thing describable as Y.

If we accept the original sentence as correct, then it is spoken from the perspective of someone or something who was once a doll, and whose sister -- perhaps a figurative sister -- caused them to become whatever they are now. That could be metaphorical or whimsical, or in certain contexts it could even be literal. In a context where that didn't make some kind of sense, however, the likely conclusion would be that the sentence was misconstructed.

John Bollinger
  • 284
  • 2
  • 5
  • 1
    It's never been said. – tchrist Sep 30 '22 at 00:45
  • I'm not surprised, @tchrist. It would be a very odd thing to say, and it is awkward to boot -- both already expressed in this answer. Nevertheless, I can imagine literary contexts where it could be used. In any event, that doesn't change what it would mean if it were said, nor does it make such an utterance ungrammatical. – John Bollinger Sep 30 '22 at 03:36
-3

causative make (like the verb let): He made me do it. She made me play the piano.

I was made to play the piano by her. BUT NOT: I was made me play the piano.

make as a transitive verb that can be made passive:

I made the cake. = The cake was made by me. My sister made a doll for me = A doll was made by my sister for me.

That is the simplest answer.

Lambie
  • 44,522
  • 4
  • 33
  • 88
  • I wish downvoters would take it easy. This is completely correct but it is not a super-specialized answer. I don't think learners require very lengthy answers for simple points. – Lambie Sep 29 '22 at 19:33