diagram sentence

[Humble]

I can't help feeling disappointed, Casiopea.
You seem to ignore my reasons against using the term adjective when denoting a function. I'd like to see some comment and arguments on them.
*
A determiner is a word that determines or limits the noun that follows .(A.S.Hornby)
Doesn't the possessive pronoun do it? Do you insist possessive pronouns are not determiners?
*
From your explanation it looks as if a determiner were an absolute synonym for an article.
The same pretty kettle of fish. I don't understand why different categories - parts of speech and parts of the sentence - are mixed.
Do you ever use the terms attribute, adverbial modifier?
*
Let's take, for instance,
the glamorous princess - glamorous is an adjective, it functions as an attribute.
the enchanted princess - enchanted is a participle, it functions as an attribute.
Or will you say enchanted is an adjective?
*
Let's take another example.
The poor do not live in that district.
If I were asked to parse it, I'd say
Poor is an adjective, but it does not perform its usual function of an attribute, it's a subject.
Using your terminology, we could say poor is an adjective, but it is not an adjective, it is a subject. Ridiculous.

I do realize, though, that the converts it into a sort of a noun, still it is an adjective, a substantivized one.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by Humble

I'd like to see some comment and arguments on them.

Then start a new thread on that topic.

[Humble]

Why should I?
My posts are not off the subject, are they? They are connected with your messages.
The discussion is not over. I have asked you a few questions, Casiopea. Need I really repeat them ? Leaving them in suspense amounts to an insult.

[Dawnstorm]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Terminology is at play, Humble. Again, you need to know what diagramming involves. In linguistics my is a possessive pronoun in form and an adjective in function. As for the, it's called "a determiner" by linguists as well as by teachers who were taught linguistics; it's called "an article" by others. Both terms are used. It's semantics, that's all.

All the best.

Does anyone remember the 80ies band "The The"? This is pretty much the only usage I can think of where a "the" does not function as a determiner. Whether it's still an article, is part of terminology, but nobody would call the second "the" a determiner, I think.

The (det) The (noun [more precisely: nominalised article; noun derived from an article])

***

On the original sentence:

1. "was" is both a linking verb and the main verb (try present perfect "has (aux) been (v)" to check).

2. "my favourite contestant on the show" is not an object, but a subject complement. You can switch around subject and complement and have a sentence with the same meaning (but different emphasis): "My favourite contestant on the show was the performer that sang the love song." (You can't do that with objects ( "I ate the cake." but *"The cake ate I." -- First, this changes the meaning and second the "I" is in wrong case [it should be "me"]).

[Jack in Tokyo]

The original request was for 'diagramming'.
All of the replies so far have been in text form. I guess you can't draw a diagram on this site! For diagrams I suggest you take a look at "Understanding English Grammar" by Kolln & Funk - an American publication. Although I am English I think that this is a wonderful book which describes English grammar from a traditional and functional perspective. The diagrams in this book are easy to follow and very helpful.
I think many of the disagreements in this thread are because of the different interpretations of grammar - traditional, functional and even hints of Systemic Functional Linguistics.
Humbly,
John Curran

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by Humble

Need I really repeat them? Leaving them in suspense amounts to an insult.

Humble, take a deep breath. There's no conspiracy here. Your statement "We cannot say Mr.P now is working as Mr.N , we can only say Mr.P is working as manager now" has not gone unnoticed, nor has it fallen on deaf ears. The truth of the matter is, I don't know it means. My not addressing your point was to your benefit: I wanted you to save face. You see, it's more than apparent to me that your understaning of the issue is not yet fully developed.

Humble, diagramming a sentence involves an understanding of form (what a word looks like – its category) and function (what a word does in a sentence). Take Dawnstorm’s example “The The”. I'll provide the context: The The in The book is well read is a determiner in form (note, some call it an article) and a noun in function. More clearly, The looks like a determiner (that’s its form) but it acts as a noun (that’s its function). A word can wear two hats, sort to speak.

Now, your attempt at diagramming egirl's sentence did not offer an explanation on constituent form or function.

Originally Posted by Humble

favorite contestant on the show – compound predicative
On the phrase level
favourite, on the show - attributes

Favorite contestant on the show might be, to adopt your terminology, a ‘compound predicate’ but what exactly does that mean? What are the constituents within that phrase and how do they function on their own and as a whole? (By the way, the syntactic unit there is my favorite contestant on the show. You omitted the head of the phrase, which tells me you don't fully understand what's involved in diagramming a sentence.) Moreover, labeling favorite and on the show as ‘attributes’ does not show an understanding of how those words function in the sentence. First, what does the label ‘attribute’ tell us about a word’s form or function? You need to explain that more clearly. (It isn’t clear at all as evidenced by the response you received from fiona on your use of terminology.) What exactly are favorite and on the show attributes of, that is, what do they modify?

As it stands, your explanation fails to address the inner-workings of the sentence structure, and obviously so, because you are not all that familiar at this point with what diagramming a sentence means and involves. My advice to you is do the research - find out more about what diagramming involves - and start a new thread on that topic. This is not your thread. It belongs to someone else. Labeling and the terminology involved is one thing, an understanding of non-linear structuring is quite another. Your responses don't seem to evidence that kind of understanding, which is why your questions are related to a whole 'nother topic, to use a colloquial phrase.

In short, do take the time to explain your answer and do not edit your posts, as you have done, after a day has gone by, leaving the responses to it out of sync and the posters without opportunity to address the changes you made mid-way through the thread. That's just bad form. Please, start a new post in the thead. That's how discussions work. Failure on your part to follow the rules of this forum makes moderating somewhat of a chore for me. Speaking of which, if you have a problem with a given poster's reply, be it mine or someone else's, please discuss the issue; do not discuss the author or flame the author. As you might not know, flaming is not only the voice of a bruised ego, it also has its consequences here. Start a new thread.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by Jack in Tokyo

I think many of the disagreements in this thread are because of the different interpretations of grammar - traditional, functional and even hints of Systemic Functional Linguistics.

Welcome, John. You are, of course, correct. It'd be helpful if one of our previous posters would start a new thread called How To Diagram Sentences, so that we could discuss the different ways.

[fiona bramble]

Originally Posted by Jack in Tokyo

The original request was for 'diagramming'.
All of the replies so far have been in text form. I guess you can't draw a diagram on this site! For diagrams I suggest you take a look at "Understanding English Grammar" by Kolln & Funk - an American publication. Although I am English I think that this is a wonderful book which describes English grammar from a traditional and functional perspective. The diagrams in this book are easy to follow and very helpful.
I think many of the disagreements in this thread are because of the different interpretations of grammar - traditional, functional and even hints of Systemic Functional Linguistics.
Humbly,
John Curran

Hi John,
I am not familiar with the text to which you refer, nor you...but you seem like a sound voice!

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Take Dawnstorm’s example “The The”. I'll provide the context: The The in The book is well read is a determiner in form (note, some call it an article) and The is a noun in function. More clearly, The looks like a determiner (that’s its form) but it acts as a noun (that’s its function). A word can wear two hats, sort to speak.

That's really not all that clear. I'll modify it:

In this phrase, The "The" the second word is a determiner in form (note, some call it an article) and it's a noun in function. "The" looks like a determiner (that's its form) but it acts as a noun (that's its function). A word can wear two hats, sort to speak.

All the best.