:shock: Why is it not a complement in your view?
Sorry Kondorosi, it's getting late for me but the arguments you presented does not seem to hold water.
The word "obligation" is close to "necessary" and this is different to "optional"
Remember what you wrote:
Predicate adjuncts are never optional. They are obligatorily present in copular SVC's as a C.
Accoring to Quirk, adjuncts can be classified thus:
- predication (obligatory (= "necessary") and optional)
- optional sentence adjuncts
This already confuses C and A and could be the source of our differences.
My position is that A is an optional element.
In CopV, the C in the basic clause is always headed by an adjective.
Are we talking about the same things?
;-)
the arguments you presented does not seem to hold water.
Seems water tight from here mate.
the arguments you presented does not seem to hold water.
This is how I see it:
Complements are obligatory elements and they complete the meaning of a subject or object that they relate to. Without them, a SV(O)C sentence would not make sense, or would not convey the essence of the intended meaning (incomplete meaning). 'to Stockholm' does not complete anything: without it, the sentence is already complete. 'to Stockholm' gives extra info.
.......
'to Stockholm' does not contribute to the core idea of the sentence. It only adds extra information.
......
Please explain to me how 'to Stockholm' in 'I flew to Stockholm,' completes the meaning of the subject? It does not, that is how. The prepositional phrase is not related to the subject, but to the verb. SVC? No way! SVA? Since 'to Stockholm' does not assign an attribute of location to the subject but modifies 'flew', we don't have an SVA here.
Or a noun (You are Ben; Ben = (proper) noun). That is why your sentences can't be SVC's. Are you blowing holes in your own argument? Am I needed here?In CopV, the C in the basic clause is always headed by an adjective.
SVA means V = CopV. 'flew' is not a CopV; it is an I(ntransitive verb). I's can only occur in SV.
Seems water tight from here mate.
Thanks for the time and effort you have all spent explaining my question. :up:
I like your smilies Kondorosi :lol:
Now to the above statement, I differ in the conclusion because Cs can and do complete the predicate in this copular verb by specifying an attribute of the subject (it can also do so to specify its identity).
Strangely, it seem to be acceptable to use expressions like "convey the essence of the intended meaning" with SVO's but in the treatment of "We flew to Stockholm", "We flew" is said to do so when in effect it does not. For example I ask: Peter, where did you fly to? and he replies "We flew". Well, I can argue that it is not the intended meaning.
"We flew to Stockholm", "We flew" is said to do so when in effect it does not. For example I ask: Peter, where did you fly to? and he replies "We flew". Well, I can argue that it is not the intended meaning. Sure there are occasions when you can say it, and it is sufficient to convey the essence of the intended meaning, but it is not true in all contexts. I simply do not agree that "We flew" and "We flew to Stockholm" convey the same essence of meaning because "to Stockholm" completes an attribute of the subject "we" in its destination. Semantically, it is not complete without it.
In 1., 'president' is the complement, and as such, it completes the meaning of the object 'me'. agreed The essence of the meaning of this sentence is that I am/was the president, and the fact that I have/had become a president through voting is of secondary importance. Therefore, the direct object complementation is needed to preserve to core meaning. OK but because the explanation introduces a fragmentation of the sentence into two sentences (and two different types of sentences), "they voted" and "I am president" I fail to see what you are trying to get at.
2. [We] [flew] [to Chicago] = S + V + adverb. (not an adverb) Complements are never adverbs. agreed By definition, they are either a noun or an adjective. agreed
Complements, by definition of 'complement', occur either in copulative structures or with complex-transitive verbs. 'flew' is neither of them and it is blatantly obvious even for beginners. indeed, it is a copula verb and not a copula nor a verb
Complements complete either the subject (in SVC) or the direct object (in SVOC). agreed This is the definition of complement. well, I have to include copula verb in that This is black and white, and you can't argue against it for the very same reason as you can't argue against that fact that your name is Ben and my name is Peter. 'to Chicago' can't associate an attribute of location to 'We'. Rather, it modifies 'flew'. How we flew .. that is extra info. ;-)
:up:In the sentence "My name is Peter" we have a copula, and this is the OP's question. We are agreed on this. SVO can take a C, we are agreed on this also. I think even with "flew" we are somewhat agreed,
I call the element following it C_loc (required) and you call it A (optional).
Is 'Those' a complement? Is those an obligatory complement in the sentence? No. Of course not. It is a modifier.
We flew to Stockholm. -- Is 'to Stockholm' a complement? No, it is a modifier. Modifiers are not obligatory elements of a simple sentence.
:cheers:
it is I who am right. ;-)
Nice, but I don't think you can compare "those" with "to Stockholm" on account of position and semantics.
I flew to Stockholm.
When you say "I flew" meaning is only half at best, man cannot fly for instance
1. We are flying at a height of 9 000 metres. -- Where are you doing the flying? Better: How high are you flying?
2. We are flying to Stockholm. -- What is your destination?
Neither type of adverb seems obligatory. In #1, 'to Stockholm' is missing; in #2 'at a height of 9 000 metres' is missing