Are the 5 basic sentence patterns sacred?

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by infinikyte

So if it's just written SVOC, we wouldn't know whether the C complements S or O. Thus there are actually two forms: SVO(OC) and SVO(SC), right? However, by your explanation, isn't this sentence more like a reduction from "It struck me as it is an excellent plan"? So it's actually a subordinate clause type.

No, "as" is a preposition in that sentence and is used in the normal fashion.

[RonBee]

From the site:

• "Once you have learned to recognize and use the two major sentence patterns, you can forget about adhering to them strickly."
  http://iws.ccccd.edu/cobb/sentences.html

:wink:

Despite some loose spelling, it is well-worth reading, especially for beginning writers.

:D

[Tdol]

I'd just say that nothing is sacred in language.

[Casiopea]

I'll get to your questions in just a moment. First, though, I'd like to provide a bit on the function and distribution of complements.

There are two kinds of subject complements: adjective complements and noun complements.

Adjective complements, also called predicate adjectives, describe the subject, like this:

Mount Fiji is beautiful.
The window is broken.
The sky is blue.

Noun complements, also called predicate nominatives, rename the subject , like this:

She is a doctor. Note, 'a doctor' is a noun phrase.
John is my brother. Note, 'my brother is a noun phrase.
They are writers.

Subject complements follow linking verbs, whereas object complements follow objects. Subjects and objects tend to be nouns. That's why the words that modify subjects and nouns, or rather complete them, tend to be either nouns or adjectives. Other forms such as prepositional phrases and adverbs can in fact modify subjects and objects, but their function is that of a noun or adjective.

There are two kinds of object complements: adjective complements and noun complements. They follow the object. They describe or rename the object.

SVOC Adjective complement
Jackson got the reporters (O) excited (C).

('excited', a past participle, describes 'the reporters', the object, and so its functions is that of an object complement.)

SVOC Noun complement
They elected her (O) President (C).

('President', a noun, renames 'her', the object, and so its function is that of an object complement.)


SVOC can be paraphrased by a SVC structure, like this:

SVOC: They (S) elected (V) her (O) President (C).
SVC: She (S) is President (C).

Complements agree in number (singular/plural) with the words they complete (modify), like this:

They made her (O) a doctor (C).
==> Both 'her' and 'a doctor' are singular in number.

They made them (O) doctors (C).
==> Both 'them' and 'doctors' are plural in number.

:D

[Casiopea]

I've come across another dichotomy of verbs: complete (needing no complements to complete the verb) and incomplete (needing complements to complete the verb).

Transitive verbs need to transfer their meaning through an object. They are incomplete. Intransitive verbs do not need to transfer their meaning to an object. They are complete within themselves.

Here, a verb is emphasized in the relationship with complements. I feel that for the SVC and SVOC cases, this relationship seems to weaken the link between S and C(in SVC) and O and C(in SVOC). So I've never used this concept to explain to my students. What do you think?

Notice the wording given in the definition for '(in)complete'. The definition refers specifically to verbs, not to subjects and objects. That is, the word completed is made in reference to (in)transitive verbs, not to complements, object and subjects.

Yup, complements take virtually any form. I thought a PP can't be a C.

Well, it is somewhat confusing to think of a word as having a form as well as a function. It's that duality, I believe, that confuses students, both native speakers and non-native speakers.

Darn me! I was concentrating too much on "put something in somewhere" that I didn't notice it's a simple O=OC relationship! Only that, why can't I say "in her pockets" functions as an adverb to modify "put"?

'She put her hands in her pockets'
'in her pockets'
Form: Prepositional phrase
Function: Adverb of location? Let's test it:
Describes where the action took place. (Huh?) (Not OK)
Function: Object complement.
Describes where the object is located. (Yup)

The verb 'put' has the following structural form: V+NP+PP.

Compare:

'swam' intransitive: SV+Adjunct
We swam in the lake.'in the lake'
Form: prep phrase
Function: adverb
Describes where the action took place. (OK)

*An adjunct is a non-complement. It's added information.

That means, we can also say "She introduced her brother me" , since S+V+IO+DO and S+V+DO+PP+IO are interchangeable? Like "I bought her a present." = "I bought a present for her."

There are different types of ditransitives (i.e. double object verbs). Verbs like 'bought' undergo dative shift. When we switch the DO and IO we have to add 'for' or 'to'. Ditransitives like the verb 'introduce' however don't follow that pattern:

1. She introduced me (DO) to her brother (IO).
2. She introduced her brother (DO) to me (IO).

In the case of 'introduce' the DO and the IO cannot be switched, only the nouns can be switched, which results in a different meaning:

1. I was introduced first, he was introduced second.
2. He was introduced first, I was introduced second.

I couldn't find an entry for exhausted as an adverb in the dictionary. Is it the case that an adjective functions as a adverb?? If that's the case, your explanation is all clear to me.

The word 'exhausted' has an inflectional -ed suffix. Words are not listed in the dictionary with inflections. Take off the -ed and you'll find the word 'exhaust'. If we add -ed to it we get a past participle in form. In our example sentence:

She left the room exhausted.

'exhuasted' describes her state of being. How she left. (Adverb)
'exhausted' is an adverb.
'exhuasted functions as an adverb.
Sentence Pattern: SVO+Adv

*Sorry. Did I say SVOC originally? Sorry.

Compare:

She left the room a mess.
'a mess' describes the state of 'the room'.
'the room is a mess'
'a mess' functions to describe the object 'the room'.
Sentence Pattern: SVOC

So if it's just written SVOC, we wouldn't know whether the C complements S or O. Thus there are actually two forms: SVO(OC) and SVO(SC), right?

Here's the difference. C of SVOC modifies Objects, whereas C of SVC modifies Subjects. The former has an Object, the latter does not. The Cs are different. C of SVOC can never modify S. Having said that, I see I've erred. Allow me to correct the structural analysis:

The plan struck me as excellent. (SVO) not (SVOC)

The plan (S) struck (V) me (O) as excellent. (SVO+Adjunct)

The excellence of the plan (S) struck (V) me (O). (SVO)

:D

[MikeNewYork]

Excellent posts. Very thorough and well presented. :D

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Question: What sentence pattern is "I sold him my car brand-new."
Answer: SVOO. I =S, sold =V, him =O (indirect object, i.e. to him), my car =O (direct object), brand-new = Adjective, modifying 'car'. (SVOO).

Note, Non-standard usage, meaning "I sold him my car: brand new, (it was)." For non-native speakers, here's a rule of thumb. Fit the sentence into one of the basic 5 patterns, anything left over is a modification. To find out what role the modification plays, ask yourself the 5Ws: who, what, when, where, how. For example, What kind of car? A brand-new car. Adjective.
:D

"Brand new" is an adjective, without doubt. The question seems to be why is the adjective placed after the noun modified?

I think that we can look at it as a shortened adjective phrase with both the heading preposition "in" and (say) the noun "condition" abandoned, leaving only the modifier "brand new" from the adjective phrase "in a brand-new condition". As an adjective phrase, it's position is not abnormal, in "I sold him my car in a brand new condition". So, SVC? :wink:

[Tdol]

Is 'brand' an adverb as it modifies 'new'?

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by jwschang

I think that we can look at it as a shortened adjective phrase with both the heading preposition "in" and (say) the noun "condition" abandoned, leaving only the modifier "brand new" from the adjective phrase "in a brand-new condition". As an adjective phrase, it's position is not abnormal, in "I sold him my car in a brand new condition". So, SVC? :wink:

That's an interesting analysis.

It'd be SVC is V were a linking verb et al, like this:

My car is brand new. (SVC)

Let's look at an SVOC structure:

They named (V) the baby(O) George (C). (SVOC)

'named' takes an object and that object requires a complement. In fact, if we switch the order of the object and the complement the result is ungrammatical:

*They named (V) George (C) the baby (O).

In short, with SVOC structures the O and the C cannot be switched. On the other hand, with SVOO structures the DO and the IO can be switched:

I sold (V) him (IO) the car (DO) brand new. (SVOO+Adjunct)

I sold (V) it (DO) to him (IO) brand new. (SVOO+Adjunct)

Note, 'brand new' is added information; information not required by the verb to express its basic meaning. The same holds true for 'in a brand new condition', as well as other information that's not stated inside the verb's subcategorization frame:

sold [something, to someone]; [someone, something]

:D

[RonBee]

V =verb
S = subject
O = object
C = complement
DO = direct object
IO = indirect object

Do I have all those right, grammar mavens?

:wink: