Direct Objects, Indirect Objects, Obliques, Dative Movement

0 Can a clause have three different objects?02br
02br
00"Could you give the book to Mike for me?" the book = direct object, Mike = indirect object, me = oblique object02br
00Correct?02br
02br
00in "Mike gave the book to me" the book = direct object, me = indirect object, right?02br
02br
00however, in02br
00"Mike pointed to my tooth" is "my tooth" indirect object or oblique? 02br
02br
00in "Mike entered the house" "the house" is direct object, but in02br
00"We have entered upon a new phase in history" "a new phase in history" is what? Oblique?02br
00and in "Mike talked about me" is "me" oblique?02br
02br
00"I sent money to her." "money" = direct object, "her" = indirect object, right? But02br
02br
00"I went to her." "her" is NOT indirect object, nor any other type of object, is it?02br
02br
00So is the Indirect Object always and only the noun phrase that "receives" the direct object of the clause, that is to say, is it the case that without a Direct Object the clause CANNOT have an Indirect Object either?02br
02br
00Someone on this forum said Dative Movement is the operation of moving the indirect object in front the direct object with deletion of 'to'. However, if my above assumptions are true, this would not be the whole truth, for:02br
00in02br
00"I caught a fish for the cat," "a fish" is Direct Object and "the cat" is Oblique, and in02br
00"I caught the cat a fish" the very same sentence seems to have undergone dative movement, and 02br
00 another such pair is02br
02br
00"They built a house for Harry" and02br
00"They built Harry a house"02br
02br
00so this would suggest that Dative Movement can be used, with ditransitive verbs, not only to do away with 'to' and move the Indirect Object in front of the Direct Object, but also to delete 'for' and move the Oblique in front of the Direct Object. Do y'all agree?0-