Re: Diagramming Shakespeare
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frank Antonson 
I was thinking that our problem was in terminology. For me there are two kinds (maybe three) of subject complements -- namely a predicate adjective and a predicate nominative. I have this from Harman and House.
What sentence were you seeing in your mind's eye (-- isn't that a phrase from Hamlet!)
Linguist Farmer
Hello LF,
In my book, there are two types of subject complements:
- nominal (predicate nominative)
- adjectival (predicate adjective)
A copulative verb may also be complemented by an obligatory adverbial.
Quote:
What sentence were you seeing in your mind's eye (-- isn't that a phrase from Hamlet!)
Yes, Hamlet. When I read your comment on 'Romeo' as being a C, I tried to call to my mind the arrangement of the words in the quotation. It was my mistake to have taken semantics aside. I just commented in haste. Mea culpa.
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/8416/romk.gif
Re: Diagramming Shakespeare
I'll have to think about that "obligatory adverbial". I don't think I have ever heard of that. What book do you use?
It occurred to me that one of the joys of diagramming is that one can escape from ALL of the terms necessary to describe the syntax. Those terms are scary to a normal individual, whereas, the diagrams are kind of cool-looking.
Re: Diagramming Shakespeare
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frank Antonson I'll have to think about that "obligatory adverbial". I don't think I have ever heard of that. What book do you use?
Amazon.com: Hardcover, Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (9780582237254): Douglas Biber, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, Edward Finegan: Books
and
Amazon.com: A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (9780582517349): Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, Jan Svartvik: Books
They are good in pair because they complement each other. Longman is corpus-based; CGEL is overly technical. The former is a bedside reading compared to the latter. CGEL is horror at parts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frank Antonson It occurred to me that one of the joys of diagramming is that one can escape from ALL of the terms necessary to describe the syntax. Those terms are scary to a normal individual, whereas, the diagrams are kind of cool-looking.
Both things are scary. :-D
How would you parse this simple sentence?
Re: Diagramming Shakespeare
By "parse" if you mean name each part, I would say (if I am speaking in terms of phonology) pronoun, verb, adverd.
In terms of syntax I would say subject, simple predicate, adverb modifying the simple predicate.
Is that what you mean?
Those books of yours are intimidating. I think they present the material way more complicated than it has to be for sentence diagramming.
Re: Diagramming Shakespeare
Re: Diagramming Shakespeare
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frank Antonson By "parse" if you mean name each part, I would say (if I am speaking in terms of phonology) pronoun, verb, adverd.
These are parts of speech you named. Word classes. The term parse covers analyzing in terms of parts of speech as well as in terms of clause elements (S, V, ..., etc.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frank Antonson In terms of syntax I would say subject, simple predicate, adverb modifying the simple predicate.
Are word classes not part of syntax, IYO? As far as I know, a predicate equals a sentence minus its subject (am here). Simple means the diagram does not branch after the subject. The adverb here is used to locate the subject in space. It modifies the verb, though.
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/5214/here.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frank Antonson Is that what you mean?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frank Antonson Those books of yours are intimidating. I think they present the material way more complicated than it has to be for sentence diagramming.
Notwithstanding, I love them. Eventually, I should get used to them like dogs to barking.
Re: Diagramming Shakespeare
I think there IS a need for translating terms from across the Atlantic.
First, H&H makes a sharp division between what they call "phonology" -- basically words taken alone, as a dictionary might do, and "syntax" -- the parts of sentences -- which a dictionary could not do since it does not have the sentence.
When people talk about the "subject and the verb" of a sentence, something inside me goes crazy because they are mixing terms and I do not see how their students could end up not being confused.
In H&H terminology the simple predicate is the verb (or verbs) alone (with whatever helping verbs) i.e the predicate minus any modifiers or complements.
A simple predicate can be compound and still be simple.
If you give me an email address, I would very much like to send you the images of my notes on syntax. They are homey and unprofessional-looking, but they are a complete reduction of H&H's syntax section.
Re: Diagramming Shakespeare
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frank Antonson I think there IS a need for translating terms from across the Atlantic.
First, H&H makes a sharp division between what they call "phonology" -- basically words taken alone,
Phonology? In my book, phonology is the systematic use of sound to encode meaning in spoken language. :roll:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frank Antonson When people talk about the "subject and the verb" of a sentence, something inside me goes crazy because they are mixing terms and I do not see how their students could end up not being confused.
In H&H terminology the simple predicate is the verb (or verbs) alone (with whatever helping verbs) i.e the predicate minus any modifiers or complements.
Grammars should be more conventional in their terminology. No wonder people do not know whether they are coming or going.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frank Antonson A simple predicate can be compound and still be simple.
Frank, I have just returned from a big walk in a big forest near my place. We have big snow here. I am curled up in my hearth and home, all snug and warm, my cheeks are glowing, and my eyelids weigh 100lbs. I think I will have to ruminate that compound-still-simple thing and strain my brain unduly for it to sink in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frank Antonson If you give me an email address, I would very much like to send you the images of my notes on syntax. They are homey and unprofessional-looking, but they are a complete reduction of H&H's syntax section.
I will send a PM with my address.
Re: Diagramming Shakespeare
Thanks, I got the PM.
In your ruminations it might help if I say that "simple predicate" is as opposed to the "complete predicate".
LF
Re: Diagramming Shakespeare
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frank Antonson Thanks, I got the PM.
In your ruminations it might help if I say that "simple predicate" is as opposed to the "complete predicate".
LF
Got it, thanks!
