1.I know him to be honest. 2.i want him to go. 3.i saw him go. here ''to be honest'', ''to go'', ''go'' are objective complements?
Thank you
Both of the theories TheParser mentions have their merits. When it comes down to actually producing acceptable utterances, my line is, "If it's acceptable, does it matter what we call it?"
I don't want to start an argument, but why would it matter to them either? Aside from passing a useless grammar test, will knowing what to call it help them write better sentences? Will their grammar be more correct, knowing that it's a complement? I don't think so. Knowing the labels for things doesn't help in communicating.
That is SO true.But for anyone to think they can't learn to speak and write excellent English without knowing the labels for things is a fallacy.
I've told my own children to use the line from Peggy Sue Got Married, if they want, on grammar tests. She turns in a blank algebra test and says (she's gone back in time so she knows this) more or less "None of this will ever be relevant to me in my life again."
I write for a living. I could not make my mortgage if I didn't know how to craft good sentences. I find my ability to label a verb as ditransitive or identify complements utterly irrelevant to my working life.
If it's fun for people, like a puzzle, great. But for anyone to think they can't learn to speak and write excellent English without knowing the labels for things is a fallacy.
Indeed, and nobody can 'prove' Barb's opinion (which is also mine) wrong/right. I can say only that some of my students do appear to find labels useful. They are have usually been through educational systems in which labelling is trained, drilled and tested. Most of my students have managed very happily without detailed labelling.As stated in Webster's, "Opinion implies a conclusion thought out, but open to dispute".
1.I know him to be honest.
I seriously doubt it.5jj said: Both of the theories TheParser mentions have their merits.
True. We should, however, not confuse being able to speak and being able to descibe what we speak in a scholarly manner. Apples and oranges. Most people who take up the cudgels against labelling can't label. Is it a coincidence? :roll: Why do linguists label? Are they show-offs? That is why? Do they want to blind us with their pseudo-science? That is why?But for anyone to think they can't learn to speak and write excellent English without knowing the labels for things is a fallacy.
Do you have any evidence for that claim?Most people who take up the cudgels against labelling can't label.
I don't want to start an argument,
Do you have any evidence for that claim?