linking verbs + adverbials

[hela]

Dear teachers,

Is it right to say that :

1) all linking verbs are never modified by an adverbial of manner,
2) only the verb "to be" can be modified by an adverbial of location,
3) all linking verbs can take an adverbial of time (and maybe others ?).

Many thanks,
Hela

[Tdol]

I always hesitate to say never, but I'd go along with those. However, someone may come up with exceptions.

[hela]

Dear teachers,

In the following sentences:

1) I am well. (well = adverbial of manner / be = intensive)
2) I am fine. (fine = adjective = subj compl / be = intensive)
3) The meeting is at 2pm. (at 2pm = adverbial of time even though we can consider "2pm" an Op / be = intensive)
4) The meeting is tomorrow. (tomorrow = adverbial of time / be = intensive)

So should we say that all intensive verbs can never (?) be followed by an adverbial without a subject complement except the verb "to be" which can take any of them?

Kind regards,
Hela

PS: How do you analyze this:

[1] I bought this car cheap.
[2] I bought this car cheaply.

Are they both adverbials?

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by hela

Is it right to say that :

1) all linking verbs are never modified by an adverbial of manner,
2) only the verb "to be" can be modified by an adverbial of location,
3) all linking verbs can take an adverbial of time (and maybe others ?)

Well, where's your data, Hela? For example,

An adverb of manner tells us how or in what manner the action is done. Can linking verbs such as seem, appear, grow, etc. be modified in that way?

An adverb of location tells us where the action takes place. Can verbs such as walk, drive, sit, etc. be modified that way?

An adverb of time tells us when the action takes place. Can verbs such as BE, seem, appear, etc. be modified that way?

[Casiopea]

1) I am well. (well = adverbial of manner)
=> "well" functions as a predicate in that context. It doesn't mean, in a satisfactory way; i.e., She did well on the exam. It describes a state. It means, in good health.

2) I am fine. (fine = adjective = subj compl)
=> "fine" describes a state.

3) The meeting is at 2pm. (at 2pm = adverbial of time even though we can consider "2pm" an Op)
=> "at 2 p.m." is an prepositional phrase in form; The preposition "at" heads the phrase and "2 p.m." functions as its object; it's an Op, yes. But the entire phrase functions as an adverb.

4) The meeting is tomorrow. (tomorrow = adverbial of time)

Originally Posted by Hela

So should we say that all intensive verbs can never (?) be followed by an adverbial without a subject complement except the verb "to be" which can take any of them?

I don't understand the statment. First, are all "intensive" verbs BE? Examples 1) through 4) provide "am" and "is", only. Second, given the structure SUBJECT + BE + X, "X" is either a subject complement of an adverbial of time or location.

How do you analyze this:

[1] I bought this car cheap.
[2] I bought this car cheaply.

Here are my guesses for [1]:

[a] I bought this car (for a) cheap (price). adverb, not manner; cause (?)
[b] I bought this car; it is cheap. adjective, modifying "car"

Note that, [a] cheap is also a variation of cheaply.

[hela]

Dear Casiopea,

I don't know why this thread was sent to me again in my mail box but I take the opportunity to ask you again if it's true that intensive verbs (except the verb "to be") can't be followed by any type of adverbial.

All the best,
Hela