Object or objective complement?

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

Babai said:

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

Click to expand...

NOT A TEACHER


(1) I understand that there are two theories:

First theory


I = subject.

know = verb.

him = direct object.

to be honest. = objective complement (describes "him").

Second theory

I = subject

know = verb

him to be honest = infinitive phrase as object of "know." ("Him" is the subject of the

infinitive "to be." In other words: I know that he is honest.)

(2) Personally, I prefer the second theory.

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?"

5jj said:

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?"

Click to expand...

Perhaps not for native-language speakers, but I believe it does matter for speakers of other than English languages.

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.

Barb_D said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, as an English teacher, it has been my experience that it helps serious students to be able to categorize certain elements of English grammar, and I would add that (1) as a student of the Spanish language, it has and does help me with the language and (2) I don't find that grammar tests are "useless".

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.

Barb_D said:

But for anyone to think they can't learn to speak and write excellent English without knowing the labels for things is a fallacy.

Click to expand...

That is SO true.

Barb_D said:

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.

Click to expand...

As stated in Webster's, "Opinion implies a conclusion thought out, but open to dispute".

billmcd said:

As stated in Webster's, "Opinion implies a conclusion thought out, but open to dispute".

Click to expand...

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.

I believe (and I have no hard evidence to support my belief :-() That 99% of people who acquired other languages throughout human history, until a century or so ago, did so without the benefit of labels, rules or ... teaching.

Babai said:

1.I know him to be honest.

Click to expand...

5jj said: Both of the theories TheParser mentions have their merits.

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt it.

I know something. I know that he is honest. It is not him that I am well-acquainted with. It is the fact that he is honest that I am familiar with. Difference!

I know [him to be honest]. Honest is a subject complement in the square-bracketed subordinate clause.

But for anyone to think they can't learn to speak and write excellent English without knowing the labels for things is a fallacy.

Click to expand...

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?

Ilki said:

Most people who take up the cudgels against labelling can't label.

Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

Barb_D said:

I don't want to start an argument,

Click to expand...

I like sentences that start this way. I do not want to do X, still I do X. ;-)

5jj said:

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

Click to expand...

No. That is only an impression. I have to love you and leave you now.