Be specific AND there is no indirect object

In English grammar, in the following sentence, the dog is the indirect object because it is the recipient of the action upon the object, food:

The girl served food to the dog.

As far as Brainhat is concerned, there is no such thing as an indirect object. Rather, the indirect object is part of an adverbial prepositional phrase. The clause "to the dog" describes how food was served, just as an non-prepositional adverb might have played the same role in the same place, ala:

The girl served food quickly.

It is also possible for an adjective to appear in the same location, as in:

The girl served the food with the poison.

In this case, we are talking about food with poison in it. Whole semesters have been wasted arguing over how to interpret this next sentence:

The man saw the boy with the telescope.

Is "with the telescope" an adverb describing how the man saw the boy, or is it an attribute of the boy? I almost don't care, except that without semantic info or a little trained AI watching over the spot, there is a chance to incorrectly interpret an adverb as an attribute (or adjective), or vice versa.

Be specific

In Brainhat, you may get away with being non-specific about the distinction, but I wish you would do the following. If the telescope helped the man see the boy then say:

The man saw the boy with the telescope.

But if the boy was in possession of the telescope, please say:

The man saw the boy that was with the telescope.

Brainhat is a programming environment, but it can never be NP-complete as the tokens (language) and grammar are ambiguous before any screw-ups from me. But, your aim will help. Please avoid ambiguity wherever you find it.