Thanks for watching my video. You might find those other links that I put in the description of interest -- especially the one about publications on R-K.
What you have said sounds okay to me, I just don't think it is "Reed-Kellogg". I have never heard of a "ditransitive" verb. Perhaps that is another way to deal with an objective complement. How would you diagram "The group elected me president."? That would be a classic example of an objective complement. By extension, "I was elected president". "I was chosen to be president". "Me" as an indirect object did not occur to me because it would be awkward to put "to" or "for" in front of it. If the sentence were "Tom told me that he is able to do it" or "I was told that he is able to", it would be a different case.
In any case, yes, I would put "that" on a shelf atop a dotted line coming up from the base line right after the subject-predicate divider in the noun clause.
I guess the issue is only what to call "that" and whether the noun clause is a direct object or an objective complement.
Again, thanks for watching my video. I am sorry that it took so long to get the word out.
Well, in my opinion, we need to look at Reed-Kellogg for what it is and what is is not. It deals almost exclusively with parts of speech in a sentence and graphically represents how the individual parts interact with each other. "Ditransitive verb" is not a part of speech (verb is). A ditransitive verb is one which takes two objects, direct and indirect. Dictionaries list verbs as transitive and intransitive. A verb must be transitive to be ditransitive, but not all transitive verbs can be ditransitive.
John threw the ball (transitive). :tick:
John threw Joe the ball (ditransitive). :tick:
John ate a pie (transitive). :tick:
John ate Joe a pie. :cross:
In "The group elected me president", one could call "president" an objective complement, but I would usually call it a "resultative adjective". A resultative adjective occurs postpositively to the noun/pronoun it modifies. It describes the change in the noun/pronoun created by the action of the verb.
Examples: John cooked the steaks
rare. (The action of the verb changed "steaks".)
Mr. Jones painted his fence
white. (The action of the verb changed "fence".)
The group elected me
president. (The action of the verb changed "me".)
Yes, I know that in some structures, indirect objects are not easy to pick out.
Consider the very simple sentence: See Spot run. I would analyze that as subject (implied imperative "you") - verb (see) - Spot (indirect object) - direct object (bare infinitive "run"). Not everyone would analyze the sentence that way. Some support the theory that infinitives and participles can be the verbs in non-finite clauses and would make Spot the subject of that non-finite clause. I don't like that theory. A big problem is that if Spot were changed to "him", then an objective case pronoun would now be the subject of the clause. That crashes too many rules for me.
Part of the problem in discussing structural grammar is the terminology. One person's conjunction is another person's function word. One person's objective complement is another person's resultative adjective. This is one reason that I choose to use the recognized parts of speech as a guide to my terminology. Otherwise we end up having a discussion about language in two different languages, with two different sets of vocabulary. One of the reasons that I like Reed-Kellogg is it forces us to think in terms of parts of speech and how they interact in the standard sentence: Subject - verb - object(s) + modifiers.