Is “make” a linking verb in “make sure”?

[emka]

Thanks.
Indeed, some of these threads read (!) like higher-order structural linguistics, to which I might devote more time when I have it. Right now I am satisfied to know that these two terms are red herrings or just serve the purpose of intellectual l’art pour l’art. If they mean the same or two very similar things, and as long as I recognise these structures and use them correctly, this much should do.
But I learned something from this thread anyway (or regardless of Trollis the Pollys, or because of him/her).

Have we made sure that the thread starter, dawnngcm, also got something out of it?

[5jj]

A good question. If you are still there, dawningcm, did the first two responses answer your question?

[5jj]

But I learned something from this thread anyway (or either regardless of Trollis the Pollys, or because of him/her).
More natural sounding to me would be either "I learned something regardless of/despite X" or "I learned something either despite X or because of him/her/them."

Linguistics is a fascinating study. The trouble is that if we use too much jargon in this forum, it doesn't help most learners. It also makes it easy for trolls to sneak in and blind us with pseudo-science.

[polis]

Parser:

She will make a good wife.

The book agrees with you that "wife" canNOT be

an object because a sentence like that cannot be changed to the passive.

Polys:

I have a pen. -- no passive (A pen was had by me. )
still
a pen = object

Middle verbs defy your critetion

Five Jedy knights:

Not really

A few stative monotransitive verbs (middle verbs), the most common of which is have,
normally do not allow a passive transformation

Quirk et al. (1985)

What do you mean, Obi Wan, by "not really"? Can you explain that to me?

-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------

blind us with pseudo-science.

I think you feel frustrated, Jedy knight.


Klaudia Haase: Middle Constructions in English
Marianne Hundt: English Mediopassive Constructions - A cognitive, corpus-based study of their origin, spread, and current status


Pseudo-scientific linguistic books written by pseudo-linguists , just to name two of the plenty more out there.

Troll? Whenever this word comes from you, I have to rethink the definition.

[polis]

But I learned something from this thread anyway ... because of him.

You are most welcome anytime. No, you do not need to thank me, just as you do not need to offend me.
Trollis? You probably have young friends who you can call such names. I am not by any chance one of them. Understand?
As long as my real motives at UE are to try to help learners to the best of my knowledge, and I am happily ready to devote my free time to do that free of charge, I do not think the tone of some of you guys is appropriate. I do not expect any favors in return, but I do not expect any insult either.

Five, your omnipresence at UE is really annoying at times. From what you do here I get the impression you bend over backwards to become the king of the castle. You want to form an opinion about everything and you want to have the final word in everything. More than 10K posts you put in in less than one year. Noble thing to be so helpful, but I think you would be more easily tolerable if you spent less than all your life on forums chatting with strangers about the language. Get a life (while you still can).

[emka]

I do not think the tone of some of you guys is appropriate. I do not expect any favors in return, but I do not expect any insult either.

I think it is your tone that's inappropriate. The pot calling the kettle black comes to mind, to stick with the main purpose of this forum (here: an English idiom).

But I won't continue to discuss behaviour or attitudes. There are more interesting and useful things to read and write about on this forum.

[dawnngcm]

First of all, I want to thank everyone efforts for trying to solve my problem. I read and think your points carefully. I still have some questions and would like to ask,

(1)

(i) One book gives this sentence: He + is + certain (that he cannot fail).
.......
(b) Thus, I agree with Pollys that "make" in your sentences is not a linking verb.

In that case, “is” is a “verb-to-be” and the “verb-to-be” also acts as a linking verb. If “is” is replaced by “make”. It seems they both act as similar purposes. Then, why the conclusion of this example - “make” is not a linking verb. Or I misunderstood what you meant!?

(2)

sure = object complement (adj.)

and

sure = adjectival complement to the following that clause

It seems “sure” is in different complements. I think I’m bit loss in here.

(3)
I’m not familiar with phrasal verb and idiom. (I think they are different things although they sometimes are very similar.) But could the words of phrasal verb and/or idiom separate away and they still are the same meaning of that phrasal verb and idiom? I’m not sure about this point.

Here’s an example that comes from the same book – Harry Potter.

‘….’ said Harry, bending his knees slightly, just to make absolutely sure Myrtle couldn’t see anything but his head, ‘…’

I think I should understand the three points above first, otherwise I won’t understand the rest of them.

[5jj]

The simplest way is to regard make certain as a verbal idiom that has a number of related meanings, probably the most common of which is 'ensure'. If you want to be a little more technical, 'sure' is the adjectival complement of 'make', and the following 'that' clause is the object of the verbal idiom 'make sure', but I think that this is one of those cases where labelling does not help us much.

The term 'phrasal' verb is also not helpful here. It is generally used of a verb + preposition or adverb, though the word 'particle' is sometimes used of the preposition/adverb. Unfortunately, there is little agreement among grammarians as to the naming of these 'multi-word verbs' or even as to whether certain verbs should be classified as phrasal verbs.

In that 'certain' is an adjective, few grammarians would class 'make certain' as a phrasal verb.

[TheParser]

[QUOTE=dawnngcm;810694]



In this case, “is” is a “verb-to-be” and the “verb-to-be” also acts as a linking verb. If “is” is replaced by “make”. It seems they both act as similar purposes. Then, why the conclusion of this example - “make” is not a linking verb.


NOT A TEACHER


Great question.

I guess we learners must simply do what Teacher Fivejedjon suggested:

treat "make sure/certain" as a verbal idiom. That's what Professor Quirk

does, and, as you know, many teachers throughout the world consider his

book as their guide.

P.S. Furthermore, there is a difference between "The hotel is sure that

you will enjoy your visit" and "The hotel will make sure that you enjoy your visit."

What do you think?

[dawnngcm]

In other words, the general grammatical rules may not applicable to the verbal idioms like ‘make sure’. And their usage and how they put in the sentence vary according to different sentence structures.

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

P.S.
I am wondering: Are ordinary dictionaries enough to include most common idioms and their usage examples? Or it needs to buy a dictionary of collocations like ‘Oxford Dictionary of Collocations’? Teachers, could I have your advice? Many thanks in advance!

NOT A TEACHER[/B]

P.S. Furthermore, there is a difference between "The hotel is sure that

you will enjoy your visit" and "The hotel will make sure that you enjoy your visit."

What do you think?

Yes, I guess degree of certainty of ‘The hotel is sure that you will enjoy your visit.’ greater than ‘The hotel will make sure that you enjoy your visit.’ Am I right?