- For Teachers
Let me walk with you part of the way.
Is the blue part an objective complement or an adverbial to the entire sentence?
***** NOT A TEACHER *****
Good morning, Xianyu.
(1) I think (think) that "part of the way" is a noun phrase being used in an adverbial manner.
(2) The books call this a so-called "adverbial objective."
(3) Here is a similar example in one of my books: I have often walked that way.
(a) The explanation is that "that way" is functioning as an adverb modifying the verb (Have walked).
(4) I think my book would interpret your sentence as: (You) let me walk with you (to the extent of) part of the way. ("part of the way" is said to modify "walk.")
(5) Some more examples from my book:
(a) He ruled (many years).
(b) They worked (all day).
Have a nice day!
Credit: Descriptive English Grammar (House and Harman) -- an "old" but wonderful book for ordinary people who want to understand grammar in plain English.
I am not sure in "Let me walk with you part of the way," "part of the way" has a definite adverbial status.
walk the way; walk the distance; walk 10 miles
Which question could elicit the string of words?
Walk how far?
Does the passive work?
Part of the way was walked.
Hello, corum and Theparser. I'm really grateful for your replies.
I did a search in the internet and I found out some definitions about 'object complement'.
Here it is: An object complement is an noun, pronoun, or adjective which follows a direct object and renames it or tells what the direct object has become. It is most often used with verbs of creating or nominating such as make, name, elect, paint, call, etc.
e.g. He painted the door red. (i.e The door has become red.)
Everybody calls me Xianyu. (i.e. me (I'm) Xianyu.)
So according to this grammar rule, 'part of the way' is not definately an object complement, because it is not impossible for YOU to become 'part of the way'.
However, I'm still confused about whether infinitive can be an object complement?
I quoted these following from my English dictionary:
> "I'd like you to meet"
> "I want him to know"
> "my mother didn't want me to go out"
> "do you wish me to ring you back?"
> "he wanted us to go together"
Are these infinitives object complements? If not, what on earth they should be?
Looking forward to everybody's reply. Thanks again.
All sentences you enlisted are equal in terms of structure. Why? Let us put under scrutiny the first sentence. After our investigation, we will see that all the tests I put to the constituent holds true for the bolded strings of words in the other sentences.
1. Semantic test.
I'd like you to meet.
What does this sentence mean? Is it you who I would like? Not really, no! It is the fulfillment of the proposition, that I am eagerly awaiting. Wait a minute. This sentence is short of an argument.
I'd like you to meet (X).
This sentence needs an object after 'meet'..
2. Substitution by a proform:
I would like you to meet me.
I would like it.
[You] I would like [to meet me].
[You to meet me] I would like.
4. Coordination test:
I would like [you to meet me] and [him to meet her].
5. Right Node Raising:
I would like _ today and _ also tomorrow, you to meet me.
6. Idiom Chunk
I would like [the fat to be in the fire].
I would like [you to meet me].
Conclusion: [you to meet me] is a constituent, a proposition, a tenseless (non-finite) subordinate clause, a direct object.
Good morning, Xianyu.
(1) You have asked a really great question.
(2) I will keep the exciting news for last!!!
(3) First, let's look at one of your sentences: I want him to know.
(a) As an ordinary native speaker, I accept the usual interpretation:
(i) I want + him to know. "Him to know" is called by some books a so-called infinitive phrase. Object of "want."
(4) Here's the exciting news that I just noticed in my favorite grammar book (for ordinary people): Descriptive English Grammar by Professors House and Harman (it's "old": 1950).
(a) You are 100% correct: an infinitive can, indeed, be considered an objective complement.
(b) The professors were discussing in particular why some infinitives don't use to- .
(i) Then they said something which you had already noticed (but I was too stupid to have ever noticed):
When the infinitive is used as an OBJECTIVE COMPLEMENT after certain verbs, the "to" is usually omitted:
I saw him LEAVE. (He left)(Words in parentheses are mine -- NOT the authors'. The three sentences ARE theirs.)
I heard her SING. (She sang)
She made me LAUGH. (I laughed)
(4) I will leave it up to the experts to answer your question more fully. Thanks for the question. In trying to answer, it was I who learned more about my native language.
I looked up 'meet' in my dictionary to find the characteristic of 'meet'. My dictionary was happy to tell me that 'meet' is not only a vt. but a vi. as well. When it is a vi., it doesn't have to be followed by an object.
So I don't think that 'I'd like you to meet' was wrong.
As far as I could see, 'I'd like you to meet'='I'd like you to attend a conference.'
MEET [intransitive]: to come together in the same place in order to discuss something:
e.g. The committee meets once a month.
The two groups will meet next week to discuss the project.
No more experts are interested in my thread, but it doesn't matter. with you, corum and an grammarian of sixty years old (I mean your favorite grammar book), that's enough. LOL... only joking. I hope other experts won't take offence at what I said.
Ok, let's go back to our discussion.
I remember my teacher ever saying that to deduce 'object complement' depends on the relationship between a 'direct object' and a word or a phrase which follows the 'direct object'. If the relationship between a 'direct object' and its follower can be turned into subject-predicate sentence pattern, we can come to the conclusion that they are 'object complement' relationship.
e.g. My mother didn't want me to go out.(I will (want to） go out) Who want to go out? It's me, not my mother who didn't allow me to. So 'to go out' is definately belong to 'object complement'. The other sentences I enlisted also hold true for the rules.
If we take ME out from this sentence, it will become 'my mother didn't want to go out'.
My mother + didn't want + to go out (SVO). It's not 'object complement'.
Is my paraphrase correct?
Thank you for your keeping the exciting news!!!
Last edited by 羡鱼-Xianyu; 11-Apr-2010 at 10:28.
***** NOT A TEACHER *****
Good morning, Xianyu,
(1) Hopefully, others will contribute their thoughts.
(2) I found this in a "younger" book (1954) titled Understanding Grammar by Professor Paul Roberts, Cornell University.
(3) He analyzes this sentence: We thought him to be a fool.
(a) "him" = subject of "to be"
(b) "fool" = complement of "to be"
(c) "him to be a fool" = object of thought.
*** OR ***
(a) "him" = direct object of "thought"
(b)"to be a fool" = objective complement.
(4) The professor writes that since an object and objective complement form a UNIT, it might be more "realistic" to consider an infinitive phrase as a direct object.
Have a nice day!