Reed-Kellogg seems SO much easier!
Look at this:
By a stranger was kissed Chelsea.
You may well ask with some justification: Is "By a stranger" not part of the VP? It should not be, some may say, because it precedes the passive auxiliary. The question rightfully arises: What happened that "by a stranger" is part of the VP no more? How can we account for that? Or is there some inconsistency in TG? No, there is not.
The rearranged sentence is the result of two constituent movements:
1. NP (Chelsea = subject) extraposition
2. PP (by a stranger = adjunct) topicalisation
Corum,
I don't know what you put on the Kipling thread, but it is blocked here in school. I'll have to look at it when I get home.
Frank
I've had a look at it, was impressed, and replied.
Okay.. so the auxiliary verb is a helper verb, but it only goes under VP when it is a linking verb?
I am not sure about this, but I think "linking verb" and "helping verb" are American terms and may not work so well in the lexicon of tree diagramming. Within the realm of Reed-Kellogg they are simple, clear, and easily understood terms. I think the British would talk about "auxiliary" and "copulative" here.
Linking verbs are not helping verbs. They do not help (other) verbs.
In TG,
He is happy is parsed thus:
He = NP
is happy = VP
happy = adjunct
I agree that linking verbs are not helping verbs. Though, it can get confusing in a sentence like "I will have been being a UsingEnglish.com user for a year's time in another month" since forms of the verb "to be" can be either helping verbs or linking verbs. Future perfect tense, progressive form. Add to that the passive voice and it can really get crazy.