Can the verb "wonder" simply take an object?
In this question, the questioner states
I wonder the origin of the word.
Can wonder take a simple object like that? Or should it be wonder about or wonder at or something similar (or something else)?
Wonder can certainly be used in other constructions:
- I wonder if that’s right.
- I wonder whether we’re dreaming of butterflies or a butterfly dreaming we’re awake.
- I wonder about that whole Mayan thing.
But all of those are not just a simple object. Even
I just wonder.
...generally indicates wondering at something or about something, which might not be specified.
ODO specifies wonder as a verb with no object, but the quoted use is quite deliberate.
Should we simply take this as a poetic use?
Solution 1:
No, it cannot. The only instances the Oxford English Dictionary gives of the transitive use of wonder are obsolete.
Solution 2:
In “I wonder the origin of the word”, origin appears to be the direct object of the verb, with wonder being used transitively.
OED has examples of this use, which is equivalent to the modern wonder at:
†3. a. trans. To regard with wonder; to marvel at: often implying profound admiration (cf. wonder n. 7c). Obs.
1593 B. Barnes Parthenophil & Parthenophe 18 : If she be silent euery man in place With silence wonders her.
1821 C. Lamb My First Play in Elia 1st Ser., : I knew nothing, understood nothing, discriminated nothing. I felt all, loved all, wondered all.
However the modern wonder about does not appear to have its equivalent in an obsolete transitive form:
†3. a. trans. To regard with wonder; to marvel at: often implying profound admiration (cf. wonder n. 7c). Obs.
3. b. impers. pass. it is to be wondered = it is to be wondered at (1d). Now rare or Obs.
†4. To affect or strike with wonder; to cause to marvel, amaze, astound. (See also 1f) Obs.
Even defintion 1b is listed as intransitive:
1. b. with clause expressing the motive or object of wonder.
1846 W. Greener Sci. Gunnery (new ed.) 133 : We wonder the parties did not take a patent for the discovery.
This is quite close to the original form, but again is wonder at, not wonder about. The meaning wonder about is listed as “usually with clause” rather than transitive with an object:
2. Usually with clause: To ask oneself in wonderment; to feel some doubt or curiosity (how, whether, why, etc.); to be desirous to know or learn.
a1616 Shakespeare Winter's Tale (1623) iii. iii. 69 What haue we heere? Mercy on's, a Barne?... A boy, or a Childe I wonder?
That citation appears to use a child as the grammatical object of wonder in the meaning wonder about. But the definition is still intransitive.
OED does have a note
I wonder is often placed after a question which expresses the object of curiosity or doubt; e.g. ‘How can that be, I wonder?’ = I wonder how that can be. Also I wonder!, colloq. exclamation expressing doubt, incredulity, or reserve of judgement.
So it appears that wonder can take an object (albeit in an obsolete use) if the meaning is wonder at but not if the meaning is wonder about.
Solution 3:
It's allowed but uncommon these days (it was more common once). I wouldn't be surprised if some regional forms had it heavily, but I would advise avoiding it as unidiomatic yourself.
Interestingly, it's more common in the negative, where it means that something was expected: "I don't wonder he had a heart attack, he lived on fried food and smoked forty a day". Here "I don't wonder that..." would still be more common, but the first form I give wouldn't be unheard of.
Solution 4:
"To wonder" is an intransitive verb, which means it cannot be followed by a direct object. It must be followed by an indirect object.
An example:
*I wonder the moon.
The moon is used as a direct object, but the sentence does not make sense.
I wonder at the moon.
The moon is preceded by the preposition at, so it becomes an indirect object and the sentence is grammatical.
In addition, if a clause follows I wonder, the verb remains intransitive, as a clause is not a direct object. Example:
I wonder whether he will arrive today.