Even in a little thing

One difference between UK English and US English (or at any rate some forms of it) is the appearance (or not) of the preposition in the phrase "He wrote (to) me."

From a UK perspective, the 'to' seems necessary because 'me' is the indirect object: it's the letter/email/text that gets written, not 'me'. 'To' is a semantic marker indicating the direct object's existence, even it is not explicitly mentioned.

Where the direct object *is* mentioned, the 'to' gets omitted in UK English as well: thus, "He wrote me a letter", not "He wrote to me a letter."

In US English, presumably, the fact that 'me' is the indirect object is seen as sufficiently obvious not to need the scaffolding of a preposition. Occasions where the 'me' in "He wrote me" would be a direct object are pretty rare, after all. Perhaps a character in a Pirandello play might say it about the author?

This got me wondering about other verbs. With "feed", for example, the Brits follow the American pattern: "I fed the child her tea" gets shortened to "I fed the child", not "I fed to the child." But *is* 'child' the indirect object in that sentence? It *feels* as if it's the direct object. But then, it's certainly operating differently from a sentence such as "I fed the child to the dragon." Perhaps it's simply habituation that makes "I fed the child" sound as natural to me as "He wrote me" sounds to an American?

On the other hand, with "give" the indirect object *has* to be mentioned, if only in pronoun form, in both the UK and the US, but the preposition becomes an optional extra. "I gave the book to her" can become "I gave her the book" or "I gave it (to) her". However, "I gave her" (with the book implied) doesn't work.

That's when I got out of the shower, so the story of language must do without an ending - but then, I'm trying to save water.