Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41
  1. #21
    mxreader is offline Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can the verb 'to be' take an object?

    Why is it not a complement in your view?

  2. #22
    Kondorosi is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    966
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can the verb 'to be' take an object?

    Quote Originally Posted by mxreader View Post
    Why is it not a complement in your view?
    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.

    1. They elected him president. SVOC
    2. They elected him president. SVO (president = he (by election))

    C is needed because without it the sentence would not convey the basic idea. 1. ≠ 2.

    We flew to Stockholm. SV
    We flew. SV

    'to Stockholm' does not contribute to the core idea of the sentence. It only adds extra information.
    Last edited by Kondorosi; 17-Jan-2010 at 09:49.

  3. #23
    Kondorosi is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    966
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can the verb 'to be' take an object?

    We flew to Stockholm ≠ We are/were/will be in Stockholm (by flying).
    'to Stockholm' is not C completing S. It is an optional adjunct modifying V.

    We flew to Stockholm = We flew, by the way, to Stockholm.

    The elected him president. = SVOC; he = president (by election); C completes O.

  4. #24
    mxreader is offline Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can the verb 'to be' take an object?

    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:
    Originally Posted by Kondorosi
    Predicate adjuncts are never optional. They are obligatorily present in copular SVC's as a C.

    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?


  5. #25
    Kondorosi is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    966
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can the verb 'to be' take an object?

    Quote Originally Posted by mxreader View Post
    Sorry Kondorosi, it's getting late for me but the arguments you presented does not seem to hold water.
    Probably the two clauses above correlate logically.
    I would use 'so' in place of 'but'.

    Quote Originally Posted by mxreader View Post
    The word "obligation" is close to "necessary" and this is different to "optional"
    We agree and your point being?

    Quote Originally Posted by mxreader View Post
    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
    Yes, and I was superficial when I asserted that. Thanks for pointing out an example of inconsistency in my terminology, but it has no bearing on our discussion at hand. This does not change the fact that it is blindingly and blatantly obvious that 'He flew to Lund' is a SV and so is 'He worked in Lund'.

    Quote Originally Posted by mxreader View Post
    This already confuses C and A and could be the source of our differences.

    My position is that A is an optional element.
    In SV, SVO, SVA, SVC, SVOC, SVOO, SVOA, all letters denote obligatory elements. They never denote optional elements, elements that are not obligatorily present to complete the meaning of the sentence!

    Quote Originally Posted by mxreader View Post
    In CopV, the C in the basic clause is always headed by an adjective.
    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?
    Ben, listen to me, please.
    Complements get their names from the fact that they complete something. What do they complete? In SVC, they complete S, and in SVOC, they complete O. C's do not occur in other valency patterns.

    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. Futhermore, A is not obligatory. This system of written symbols we are using employs letters that only denote obligatory elements but never optional elements. If the adverb is optional, we don't assign a letter to it. It is as simple as that.


    Quote Originally Posted by mxreader View Post
    Are we talking about the same things?

    I doubt it. We seem to march to different drummers. I am marching to my interpretation of quirkian grammar.

    Quote Originally Posted by mxreader View Post
    the arguments you presented does not seem to hold water.
    Now please show me the inconsistencies in my argument provided in this post.
    Last edited by Kondorosi; 17-Jan-2010 at 13:09.

  6. #26
    indonesia's Avatar
    indonesia is offline Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • Indonesia
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    111
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can the verb 'to be' take an object?

    Seems water tight from here mate.

    Thanks for the time and effort you have all spent explaining my question.

  7. #27
    Kondorosi is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    966
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can the verb 'to be' take an object?

    Quote Originally Posted by indonesia View Post
    Seems water tight from here mate.


    Quote Originally Posted by mxreader View Post
    the arguments you presented does not seem to hold water.

  8. #28
    mxreader is offline Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can the verb 'to be' take an object?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kondorosi View Post
    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.
    First of all, I can honestly say that I am happy for you guys if I had played a small part in getting you to solidify your understanding of E grammar. Albeit, as devil's advocate. I like your smilies Kondorosi

    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. 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kondorosi View Post
    In CopV, the C in the basic clause is always headed by an adjective.
    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?
    Yes, and PP too... sorry, I don't know what led me to write that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kondorosi View Post
    SVA means V = CopV. 'flew' is not a CopV; it is an I(ntransitive verb). I's can only occur in SV.
    This alerted me to a further distinction which needed to be declared, that V in your annotation can mean different kinds of Verbs. I think P (predicator) is more accurate. I distinguish 3 kinds of P

  9. #29
    mxreader is offline Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can the verb 'to be' take an object?

    Quote Originally Posted by indonesia View Post
    Seems water tight from here mate.

    Thanks for the time and effort you have all spent explaining my question.
    I am glad you got something out of it. I think we all enjoyed the exercise.

  10. #30
    Kondorosi is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    966
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can the verb 'to be' take an object?

    Quote Originally Posted by mxreader View Post
    I like your smilies Kondorosi
    The first thing we can agree on in this thread.
    Ben, do not write so many things! Who will read them all?

    Quote Originally Posted by mxreader View Post
    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).
    Agreed. So far we are one.

    Quote Originally Posted by mxreader View Post
    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.
    You are dead right. Unfortunatelly, however, you are missing my point. I think you do not read my comments with thorough care.

    Compare these carefully and probably you will realize what I meant by "the essence of the intended meaning":

    1. They elected me president.
    2. We flew to Chicago.

    In 1., 'president' is the complement, and as such, it completes the meaning of the object 'me'. 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.

    2. [We] [flew] [to Chicago] = S + V + adverb. Complements are never adverbs. By definition, they are either a noun or an adjective.
    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.
    Complements complete either the subject (in SVC) or the direct object (in SVOC). This is the definition of complement. 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.
    Last edited by Kondorosi; 18-Jan-2010 at 09:05.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. difference between complement and object
    By Grace-Ellen in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 14-Jun-2008, 09:02
  2. Transitive vs. Intransitive Verb Question
    By erika in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-Oct-2004, 18:18
  3. noun phrases
    By sting in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 26-Aug-2004, 22:52
  4. Subject of a verb
    By Anonymous in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 14-Oct-2003, 08:10

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •