perlmeditation
muba
<p><b>Disclaimer:</b> IANAL. <i>I am not a <strike>lawyer</strike> linguist</i>.</p>
<p>The syntax of (for example) <c>$cgi = new CGI;</c> is called [http://perldoc.perl.org/perlobj.html#Indirect-Object-Syntax|indirect object syntax], which is also said to be in the [http://modernperlbooks.com/mt/2009/08/the-problems-with-indirect-object-notation.html|dative case]. Are these actually the correct designations?</p>
<readmore>
<p>Let me elaborate on that question. The way I understand grammar, it should be <i>direct object</i> (or accusative) instead:</p>
<c>
$ball = new Ball:Soccer; # Creates a soccer ball.
kick $ball; # Ball::Soccer defines sub kick {...}
# I.E. this reads $ball->kick;
</c>
<p>We can easily defend that in this example, <c>$ball</c> is not a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_%28grammar%29|subject] ("it performs the action expressed by the verb"). Rather it could be argued that it is a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28grammar%29#Types_of_objects|direct object] ("Entity acted upon", I.E. the action is to kick, the thing which is kicked is the ball). Also:</p>
<blockquote><p>One rule of thumb for English, however, is that an indirect object is not present unless a direct object is also present</p>
<p><i>— [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28grammar%29#Types_of_objects|Wikipedia: Object (grammar) - Types of objects]</i></p></blockquote>
<p>For a dative case to be present, we'd need something like</p>
<c>
$ball = new Ball::Soccer;
$john = new Person;
give $john $ball;
</c>
<p>And even here, <c>$ball</c> would still be the direct object, or accusative (the object which is being given) and <c>$john</c> would be the indirect object, or dative (the object to which (or rather whom) the ball is being given).</p>