Types of adverbials with "with"

[hela]

Dear teachers,

Can sentence elements starting with the prepositional phrase "with..." be analysed in different ways?
Please correct my analysis.

1) This chap went on a free luxury holiday without his wife.
= Subject, Intransitive/Intensive Verb (?), Adverbial of place, Adverbial of Accompaniment.

Is the verb "went" considered as an intransitive or a copular verb here?
Is the adverbial of place obligatory?

2) All the people that were left behind became infected with the virus.
a) Subject, Copular Verb, Subject Complement (infected + with the virus)
b) Subject Copular Verb, Subject Complement, Adverbial of means/intrument (?)

Best regards

 

[MikeNewYork]

1) "Went" is an intransitive verb there, not a copular verb. I would not call the adverb obligatory.

2) You skipped the relative clause.

 

[Raymott]

I don't think we have adverbs of accompaniment in English as you do in Arabic. I would call that an adverbial of manner.

 

[TheParser]

1) This chap went on a free luxury holiday without his wife.
Adverbial of Accompaniment.

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

Helo, Hela:

I have checked my books, and it appears that "without his wife" in your sentence can, indeed, be parsed as an adverbial of attendant/accompanying circumstances.

Here are some citations that may interest you.

1. "His relatives, with much satisfaction, saw him leave the village."

a. That book says that "[A]n adverbial element may indicate accompanying circumstances: that is, certain actions or circumstances that occur at the same time as the action represented by the verb."

Source: Walter Kay Smart, English Review Grammar (1940), page 219.

2. "Louise came to the party with Alex."

a. That book calls that an adverbial of accompaniment.

Source: Bruce L. Liles, A Basic Grammar of Modern English (1979), page 26.

3. "I went to town with John."

a. That book tells us that we can often state such a sentence with two clauses.

i. It suggests this version: "John went to town, and I accompanied him."

Source: Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, The Grammar Book / An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course (1983), page 260.

(As you know, the rules applying to "with" in such sentences also apply to "without.")

 

[MikeNewYork]

Does anybody else here think that classifying adverbs into types is rather useless? I am usually happy when a learner recognizes an adverb. I don't think a specific type adds anything, not to mention that there will disagreements about the types.

 

[hela]

Happy new year to all of you.

Dear The Parser,

What is your opinion about the second sentence ?
Is it possible to include the relative clause in the subject or should it be analysed separately ?

Thank you very much for your help.

 

[TheParser]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


Happy 2016 to you, too, Hela. May you have a healthy and prosperous year!

Thank you so much for your first post. I learned so much while researching the answer.

I shall pass on your latest question because I do not have the confidence to answer. As you know, we non-teachers are allowed to post answers only if we are reasonably confident (in my case, I always try to find authorities to back up my comments).

I am sure that some other members will soon answer you.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Parsing can be done at several levels. I don't consider the relative clause to be part of the subject. It functions as a modifier of the subject.

 

[hela]

Good morning

So should "that were left behind" be analysed as an adjectival clause composed of:
that = subject
were left = intensive verb
behind = obligatory adverbial related to the subject ?

Have a good day

 

[MikeNewYork]

What is an intensive verb?

 

[hela]

a copular verb.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Never heard that term.

[This was a response to post #10.]

 

[TheParser]

Is it possible to include the relative clause in the subject or should it be analysed separately ?

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


Hello, Hela:

I have found some information that should interest you.

"Little birds that nest in the north in the summertime fly south when the cold winds begin to blow."

Here is what one of my books says:

1. A sentence has two parts: the complete subject and the complete predicate.
2. The complete subject is "Little birds that nest in the north in the summertime."
3. The complete predicate is "fly south when the cold winds begin to blow."
4. The simple [this book uses the word "essential"] subject is "birds."
5. The simple [essential] predicate is "fly."

(Only my comments: As you can see, the "skeleton" of the sentence is simply "Birds fly." Of course, we usually do not talk like that. We add extra words to add some "flesh" to the "skeleton.")

!00% credit for this information goes to R.W. Pence and D.W. Emery in A Grammar of Present-Day English (1947), pages 11 - 12.

 

[hela]

Thanks, The Parser

Now, is my analysis of the relative clause correct?
And what kind of adverbial "with the virus" could be? An instrument adjunct? :-?

 

[hela]

so "were left" is a monotransitive verb ?

 

[PaulMatthews]

Parsing can be done at several levels. I don't consider the relative clause to be part of the subject. It functions as a modifier of the subject.

Erm, that's wrong. In the case of integrated (defining or restrictive) relatives, the relative clause combines with its antecedent to form a larger noun phrase which may be subject, object etc:

The film that you asked for has arrived.

In that example, the underlined relative clause modifies film and combines with it to form the noun phrase The film that you asked for which is the subject of the sentence.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I think that is nonsense.

 

[MikeNewYork]

The film has arrived. The other words describe it.

 

[jutfrank]

I don't see how with the virus is a separable prepositional phrase/adverbial.

 

[PaulMatthews]

I don't see how with the virus is a separable prepositional phrase/adverbial.

All the people that were left behind became infected with the virus.

Your intuition is correct. The PP "with the virus" is not an adjunct (adverbial), but a complement of the adjective "infected", cf. "riddled with corruption", "familiar with the rules", "angry with you", "hopeless with money" - all with- PP complements of adjectives.