Are the 5 basic sentence patterns sacred?

[RonBee]

Originally Posted by landekai

Well, learnt a lot from you guy...Thank you...

You're welcome. :D

(Say: "I've learned a lot from you guys." (I suppose you can use learnt in BE.))

Welcome to our friendly forum!

:D

[RonBee]

Originally Posted by claude

no problem, piggy knuckle, you are welcome. :wink:

Um, what's a piggy knuckle?

:wink:

Originally Posted by RonBee

Um, what's a piggy knuckle?

:wink:

If it's meant as a kind of food, a "pig knuckle" is a traditional delicacy in Taiwan. I believe Germany has it too.

:wink:

[RonBee]

Originally Posted by infinikyte

If it's meant as a kind of food, a "pig knuckle" is a traditional delicacy in Taiwan. I believe Germany has it too.

:wink:

Thanks.
:D

• Tom: My butcher has pig's feet.
  Jerry: He does, does he?
  Tom: Yeah. Other than that, he's perfectly normal.

:wink:

Yeah, Just as infinikyte's explanation, It is a kind of traditional Chinese food, very delicious.

[gabrielaq]

what about the function of the advervial " on the table"? in

I put the pen on the table

Couldn't it be analysed either as an advervial A. of Place or an OC ?

[graphich]

Originally Posted by MikeNewYork

I see no reason to change the 5 basic patterns.

I just came across this thread today. I found it interesting because I've written a grammar that puts a great deal of emphasis on sentence patterns. It's posted at http://www.ColorCodedEnglish.com. Some readers might also find it interesting that a standard reference book for English composition, The Harbrace College Handbook lists six sentence patterns.

After a couple of years analyzing sentences, I also concluded that the five traditional patterns did not account for all English sentence structures. However, my solution was to redefine the five patterns based on verb complements.

I recognize five verb complements: objects, predicate adverbs, predicate nouns, predicate adjectives, and predicate verbals. I actually coined the term "predicate verbal". Most grammars view them as predicates of non-finite clauses and their non-finite clauses as objects. According to transformational generative grammar, the following two sentences have the same pattern.
"She wants him to sing". / "She said he should sing". / S - V - O

The concept of "predicate adverbs", however, is accepted by many linguists and grammarians. These adverbs are complements as opposed to adjuncts. Grammars that recognize the term "predicate adverb" would disagree with the view that the adverbs "upstairs", "in London", "on the table", and "to my friend" are adjuncts in the following sentences.
"He's upstairs" / "She lives in London" / "Put the book on the table" / "I gave the money to my friend".

Distinguishing predicate adverbs from adjuncts, however, can sometimes be quite difficult. It's not a practical concept for basic grammar instruction, but it's useful for analyzing sentence patterns. Predicate adverbs of linking verbs are components of the sixth pattern in the Harbrace Handbook.

I believe that "subject complements" share the same function as predicate adverbs. They all complete the meaning of the verb. The meaning of the subject is merely modified by subject complements. It's a misleading term.

[Tdol]

Originally Posted by graphich

I believe that "subject complements" share the same function as predicate adverbs. They all complete the meaning of the verb. The meaning of the subject is merely modified by subject complements. It's a misleading term.

But if the verb is a copular verb, then is the meaning of the verb really being completed? That strikes me as a bit like the claim that they built the space station to give the shuttle somewhere to go.

[graphich]

If a student says "Our teacher is a Canadian" or "Our teacher is tall" or "Our teacher is on vacation" or "Our teacher is in Hawaii", the meaning of the subject is the same in every sentence. The predicates, however, are significantly different. In Spanish, two different verbs would be needed to say the same things.

Also consider other linking verbs which are used in the same patterns: "appear, seem, remain, became, etc." You can't replace these verbs with "exist". I don't agree that you can really use it to replace "be", e.g. "Our teacher exists on vacation".

When forms of "be" are used in elliptical clauses, their meaning is completed by the preceding context, just like the helping verb "do" is, e.g. "Our teacher is Canadian, and I am too" / "Bob likes spicy food, but I don't."

Some grammars make a distinction between "intransitive complete" verbs (happen, dance, exist) and "intransitive incomplete" verbs (be, seems, become). You can argue that "be" is intransitive complete, but others would argue that this is just a different meaning of "be". Certainly, when "be" is used as an auxiliary, it has a different meaning. Does "It's raining" mean the same thing as "It exists raining"?

[danobeitia1@hotmail.com]

so far I know the patterns SVA and SVOA do exist. in fact there are 7 and more. check A comprehensive english grammar, Eckersley, page 385. if the chunk begins with a preposition it is considered as object of the preposition. e.g. I bought a book to my mother. to my mother is an object of the preposition.