Give it me! Write me! [duplicate]

The oblique pronouns me, him, her, us and them can be both direct and indirect objects. In ‘Write me’, me functions as an indirect object in exactly the same way it does in ‘Tell me’.

In US English, the prepositions for indirect object can be omitted in certain cases. For example

He hit the ball to me

can be transformed to

He hit me the ball

In general, the preposition can be omitted when the indirect object is placed immediately following the verb and before the direct object.

This works for indirect objects that are nouns, proper nouns and pronouns.

The director threw the crew a party.

I sent John the rent check.

We cast them a line.

Not every structure that looks like an indirect object works this way.

The new citizen cast a vote for the Mayor

cannot be restructured to

The new citizen cast the Mayor a vote.

The phrase for the Mayor is really an adjectival phrase that modifies the noun vote rather than a true indirect object of the verb cast.

Confining analysis solely to cases where there is a noun group following the verb (though, as seen here, that-clauses are considered to realise direct objects by some) I've seen treatments that class all N2s in N1-V-N2 constructions as direct objects, even crazy examples such as It weighs a ton; He laughed his head off. I've also seen treatments regarding all forms resembling ditransitives as true ditransitive constructions (She led them a merry dance).

Allerton, in The Handbook of English Linguistics_eds Aarts and McMahon claims that post-verb noun groups such as appear in

The piano resembled a pianola.

The piano weighed a ton.

The piano had a stool.

The piano seemed an antique.

should not be considered objects but are 'best regarded as belonging to a slightly different category'.

Peter de Swart argues against a clear-cut division between transitivity and intransitivity.

In this publication, he goes on to discuss transitivity as a gradience phenomenon, citing Hopper and Thompson. He says that semantics / the concepts of the subject-matter, and syntax, are inextricably linked, in English as in other languages. The only real conclusion I've been able to extract is that if one tries to use the simplistic analytical model I was taught as 'fact' at school, one is going to encounter severe problems trying to explain some common English usages.

Matthias Meyer further argues:

Around 2006 I started thinking about developing a new model of English verb complementation. The reason for this was a growing dissatisfaction with current non-transformational models such as those presented in the Comprehensive grammar of the English language (Quirk et al. 1995) or the Cambridge grammar of the English language (Huddleston & Pullum 2005). It seemed counter-intuitive to me, for instance, to class predicates such as lack courage, weigh 15 kilos, resemble one's aunt, have a sense of humour and other non-passivisable structures as being transitive and as involving an object. I found it improper to lump them together with classic transitive structures such as write a story, shoot the enemy, buy some sugar – whose complements are easily passivisable.

What I deduce overall is that various grammarians consider the simple S-V-DO and S-V-IO-DO models inadequate to explain all such cases. Barrie classes '[John wrote] me' as S-V-IO, which isn't traditionally standard, but makes sense. Though I've seen this construction analysed as using a 'syntactic DO' (not a 'semantic DO'). OP uses a S-V-DO-IO ordering for "[John gave] it me".

Also, categories other than DOs and IOs are said to exist / be needed [perhaps with 'tell'?].