On the pattern of N-AV-n-N (subject, action verb, direct object). The pattern is N-AV-n-N (direct object, indirect object, direct object). The “to his parents” is the indirect object. The to is always implied to come after an indirect object, and sometimes omitted. He showed his father his kindness, so the

sentence can be re-worded to omit it.

What are the best ways of teaching an English language learner?

Why is your original sentence empty without indirect object?

• Jesus shows love to his parents.

In this case kindness should be the direct object, and his parents should be the object of the preposition to — it is not an indirect object there.

In this sentence:

• “He showed his parents kindness. Is that an understatement?

Now his parents is indeed an indirect object.

From an indirect object, this also

• has an indirect object. He took me to a conference.

But this did not:

• He showed it to me.

Should I worry for any damages, this is just a legal opinion.

Setting aside scheme differences, that is, acknowledging that any scheme is sufficient that allows the sentence pattern to be well-represented for the purposes of a given analysis, one complete explication of the pattern is this:

1. Subject + Verb + Indirect Object + Direct Object ( S-V-IO-DO )
   An indirect object tells for whom or to whom. Is indirect object before direct object? Why are pronouns often used as indirect objects (besides their relative meanings)?

(From English Mistakes Welcome.) The

pattern that applies to the example in the question is F-S-US (the second pattern mentioned in the quote, where the indirect object is presented as a prepositional phrase). What would a hypothetical example have been when He

showed his parent kindness?

In that case, the pattern would be S-V-IO-DO. In that case, the pattern would be. or… (Grpf- )

If you’re looking for sentence patterns can you count no one terminology or no one name. Both sentence patterning scheme and the terminology used, may be more or less suited to a purpose than another scheme or terminology. Does the example sentence contain a pronoun, verb, prepositional phrase containing a pronoun and noun?

What was none of the schemes in the first place that makes (corrected) the scheme more or less correct? The scheme and the terminology must only be judged by its usefulness.

When I learn English mistakes we welcome, each time I analyze my own writing. Why? How

  does he pndn n rns t seems to be not  

seen to be related to an alternative phrasing of the same thought. I’ve stacked the deck against my contrived scheme by using the always-suspect parts of speech rather than syntactical relationship as the terminological and schematic basis of the sentence pattern, yet for a simple analysis of the proportions and placements of nouns, pronouns, prepositions and verbs in the sentences in the writing analyzed my contrived scheme may be the better tool, simply (just as the first scheme does not expose the presence of a preposition).

How do I find out why I don’t have good examples of question answers on Quora? Why is what was omitted from the original question? Which, or several other, sentence patterning schemes or terminological bases, might prove to be better tools for the purposes of a given analysis?

Is there any evidence that ELL existed at the time the question was asked? Why doesn’t anyone in my group use the email that provided the answer, which has been closed for a short time. Why did you argue that a prepositional phrase can function as and be called an indirect object for the purpose of patterning the sentence?