Can the verb 'to be' take an object?

[mxreader]

:shock: Why is it not a complement in your view?

 

[Kondorosi]

:shock: Why is it not a complement in your view?

This is how I see it:
Complements are obligatory elements and they complete the meaning of a subject or object that they relate to. Without them, a SV(O)C sentence would not make sense, or would not convey the essence of the intended meaning (incomplete meaning). 'to Stockholm' does not complete anything: without it, the sentence is already complete. 'to Stockholm' gives extra info.

1. They elected him president. :tick: SVOC
2. They elected him [STRIKE]president[/STRIKE]. :tick: SVO (president = he (by election))

C is needed because without it the sentence would not convey the basic idea. 1. ≠ 2.

We flew to Stockholm. :tick: SV
We flew. :tick: SV

'to Stockholm' does not contribute to the core idea of the sentence. It only adds extra information.

 

[Kondorosi]

We flew to Stockholm ≠ We are/were/will be in Stockholm (by flying).
'to Stockholm' is not C completing S. It is an optional adjunct modifying V.

We flew to Stockholm = We flew, by the way, to Stockholm.

The elected him president. = SVOC; he = president (by election); C completes O.

 

[mxreader]

Sorry Kondorosi, it's getting late for me but the arguments you presented does not seem to hold water.

The word "obligation" is close to "necessary" and this is different to "optional"

Remember what you wrote:
Originally Posted by Kondorosi
Predicate adjuncts are never optional. They are obligatorily present in copular SVC's as a C.

This already confuses C and A and could be the source of our differences.

My position is that A is an optional element.
In CopV, the C in the basic clause is always headed by an adjective.

Are we talking about the same things?

;-)

 

[Kondorosi]

Sorry Kondorosi, it's getting late for me but the arguments you presented does not seem to hold water.

Probably the two clauses above correlate logically. ;-)
I would use 'so' in place of 'but'.

The word "obligation" is close to "necessary" and this is different to "optional"

We agree and your point being?

Remember what you wrote:
Predicate adjuncts are never optional. They are obligatorily present in copular SVC's as a C.

Accoring to Quirk, adjuncts can be classified thus:

- predication (obligatory (= "necessary") and optional)
- optional sentence adjuncts

Yes, and I was superficial when I asserted that. Thanks for pointing out an example of inconsistency in my terminology, but it has no bearing on our discussion at hand. This does not change the fact that it is blindingly and blatantly obvious that 'He flew to Lund' is a SV and so is 'He worked in Lund'.

This already confuses C and A and could be the source of our differences.

My position is that A is an optional element.

In SV, SVO, SVA, SVC, SVOC, SVOO, SVOA, all letters denote obligatory elements. They never denote optional elements, elements that are not obligatorily present to complete the meaning of the sentence!

In CopV, the C in the basic clause is always headed by an adjective.

Or a noun (You are Ben; Ben = (proper) noun). That is why your sentences can't be SVC's. Are you blowing holes in your own argument? Am I needed here? ;-)
Ben, listen to me, please.
Complements get their names from the fact that they complete something. What do they complete? In SVC, they complete S, and in SVOC, they complete O. C's do not occur in other valency patterns.

Please explain to me how 'to Stockholm' in 'I flew to Stockholm,' completes the meaning of the subject? It does not, that is how. The prepositional phrase is not related to the subject, but to the verb. SVC? No way! SVA? Since 'to Stockholm' does not assign an attribute of location to the subject but modifies 'flew', we don't have an SVA here. Futhermore, A is not obligatory. This system of written symbols we are using employs letters that only denote obligatory elements but never optional elements. If the adverb is optional, we don't assign a letter to it. It is as simple as that.

Are we talking about the same things?

;-)

I doubt it. We seem to march to different drummers. I am marching to my interpretation of quirkian grammar.

the arguments you presented does not seem to hold water.

Now please show me the inconsistencies in my argument provided in this post.

 

[indonesia]

Seems water tight from here mate.

Thanks for the time and effort you have all spent explaining my question. :up:

 

[Kondorosi]

Seems water tight from here mate.

the arguments you presented does not seem to hold water.

 

[mxreader]

This is how I see it:
Complements are obligatory elements and they complete the meaning of a subject or object that they relate to. Without them, a SV(O)C sentence would not make sense, or would not convey the essence of the intended meaning (incomplete meaning). 'to Stockholm' does not complete anything: without it, the sentence is already complete. 'to Stockholm' gives extra info.
.......
'to Stockholm' does not contribute to the core idea of the sentence. It only adds extra information.
......

Please explain to me how 'to Stockholm' in 'I flew to Stockholm,' completes the meaning of the subject? It does not, that is how. The prepositional phrase is not related to the subject, but to the verb. SVC? No way! SVA? Since 'to Stockholm' does not assign an attribute of location to the subject but modifies 'flew', we don't have an SVA here.

First of all, I can honestly say that I am happy for you guys if I had played a small part in getting you to solidify your understanding of E grammar. Albeit, as devil's advocate. I like your smilies Kondorosi :lol:

Now to the above statement, I differ in the conclusion because Cs can and do complete the predicate in this copular verb by specifying an attribute of the subject (it can also do so to specify its identity).

Strangely, it seem to be acceptable to use expressions like "convey the essence of the intended meaning" with SVO's but in the treatment of "We flew to Stockholm", "We flew" is said to do so when in effect it does not. For example I ask: Peter, where did you fly to? and he replies "We flew". Well, I can argue that it is not the intended meaning. Sure there are occasions when you can say it, and it is sufficient to convey the essence of the intended meaning, but it is not true in all contexts. I simply do not agree that "We flew" and "We flew to Stockholm" convey the same essence of meaning because "to Stockholm" completes an attribute of the subject "we" in its destination. Semantically, it is not complete without it.

In CopV, the C in the basic clause is always headed by an adjective.

Or a noun (You are Ben; Ben = (proper) noun). That is why your sentences can't be SVC's. Are you blowing holes in your own argument? Am I needed here?

:shock: Yes, and PP too... sorry, I don't know what led me to write that.

SVA means V = CopV. 'flew' is not a CopV; it is an I(ntransitive verb). I's can only occur in SV.

This alerted me to a further distinction which needed to be declared, that V in your annotation can mean different kinds of Verbs. I think P (predicator) is more accurate. I distinguish 3 kinds of P

 

[mxreader]

Seems water tight from here mate.

Thanks for the time and effort you have all spent explaining my question. :up:

I am glad you got something out of it. I think we all enjoyed the exercise.

 

[Kondorosi]

I like your smilies Kondorosi :lol:

The first thing we can agree on in this thread. :lol:
Ben, do not write so many things! Who will read them all? ;-)

Now to the above statement, I differ in the conclusion because Cs can and do complete the predicate in this copular verb by specifying an attribute of the subject (it can also do so to specify its identity).

Agreed. So far we are one.

Strangely, it seem to be acceptable to use expressions like "convey the essence of the intended meaning" with SVO's but in the treatment of "We flew to Stockholm", "We flew" is said to do so when in effect it does not. For example I ask: Peter, where did you fly to? and he replies "We flew". Well, I can argue that it is not the intended meaning.

You are dead right. Unfortunatelly, however, you are missing my point. I think you do not read my comments with thorough care. :-(

Compare these carefully and probably you will realize what I meant by "the essence of the intended meaning":

1. They elected me president.
2. We flew to Chicago.

In 1., 'president' is the complement, and as such, it completes the meaning of the object 'me'. The essence of the meaning of this sentence is that I am/was the president, and the fact that I have/had become a president through voting is of secondary importance. Therefore, the direct object complementation is needed to preserve to core meaning.

2. [We] [flew] [to Chicago] = S + V + adverb. Complements are never adverbs. By definition, they are either a noun or an adjective.
Complements, by definition of 'complement', occur either in copulative structures or with complex-transitive verbs. 'flew' is neither of them and it is blatantly obvious even for beginners.
Complements complete either the subject (in SVC) or the direct object (in SVOC). This is the definition of complement. This is black and white, and you can't argue against it for the very same reason as you can't argue against that fact that your name is Ben and my name is Peter. 'to Chicago' can't associate an attribute of location to 'We'. Rather, it modifies 'flew'. How we flew .. that is extra info. ;-)

 

[Kondorosi]

"We flew to Stockholm", "We flew" is said to do so when in effect it does not. For example I ask: Peter, where did you fly to? and he replies "We flew". Well, I can argue that it is not the intended meaning. Sure there are occasions when you can say it, and it is sufficient to convey the essence of the intended meaning, but it is not true in all contexts. I simply do not agree that "We flew" and "We flew to Stockholm" convey the same essence of meaning because "to Stockholm" completes an attribute of the subject "we" in its destination. Semantically, it is not complete without it.

Where did you fly to?
I flew to Stockholm.

The focus is different in the two sentences. Of course it is not sufficient to reply to 'Where did you fly to?' with 'I flew,' because the question is directed at the destination.

Those football fans cause trouble. :tick:
[STRIKE]Those[/STRIKE] Football fans cause trouble :tick:

Which football fans cause trouble? :tick:
Football fans cause trouble. :cross:
Those football fans cause trouble. :tick:

Is 'Those' a complement? Is those an obligatory complement in the sentence? No. Of course not. It is a modifier.

We flew to Stockholm. -- Is 'to Stockholm' a complement? No, it is a modifier. Modifiers are not obligatory elements of a simple sentence.

:cheers:

 

[mxreader]

In 1., 'president' is the complement, and as such, it completes the meaning of the object 'me'. agreed The essence of the meaning of this sentence is that I am/was the president, and the fact that I have/had become a president through voting is of secondary importance. Therefore, the direct object complementation is needed to preserve to core meaning. OK but because the explanation introduces a fragmentation of the sentence into two sentences (and two different types of sentences), "they voted" and "I am president" I fail to see what you are trying to get at.

2. [We] [flew] [to Chicago] = S + V + adverb. (not an adverb) Complements are never adverbs. agreed By definition, they are either a noun or an adjective. agreed
Complements, by definition of 'complement', occur either in copulative structures or with complex-transitive verbs. 'flew' is neither of them and it is blatantly obvious even for beginners. indeed, it is a copula verb and not a copula nor a verb
Complements complete either the subject (in SVC) or the direct object (in SVOC). agreed This is the definition of complement. well, I have to include copula verb in that This is black and white, and you can't argue against it for the very same reason as you can't argue against that fact that your name is Ben and my name is Peter. 'to Chicago' can't associate an attribute of location to 'We'. Rather, it modifies 'flew'. How we flew .. that is extra info. ;-)

In the sentence "My name is Peter" we have a copula, and this is the OP's question. We are agreed on this. SVO can take a C, we are agreed on this also. I think even with "flew" we are somewhat agreed, I call the element following it C_loc (required) and you call it A (optional).

 

[Kondorosi]

In the sentence "My name is Peter" we have a copula, and this is the OP's question. We are agreed on this. SVO can take a C, we are agreed on this also. I think even with "flew" we are somewhat agreed,

:up:

I call the element following it C_loc (required) and you call it A (optional).

See my previous post and you will see why it is I who am right. ;-)

https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/linguistics/113316-can-verb-take-object-4.html#post555748

 

[mxreader]

Is 'Those' a complement? Is those an obligatory complement in the sentence? No. Of course not. It is a modifier.

We flew to Stockholm. -- Is 'to Stockholm' a complement? No, it is a modifier. Modifiers are not obligatory elements of a simple sentence.

:cheers:

Nice, but I don't think you can compare "those" with "to Stockholm" on account of position and semantics.

 

[mxreader]

it is I who am right. ;-)

Hmm, a new case name must be invented.

 

[Kondorosi]

Nice, but I don't think you can compare "those" with "to Stockholm" on account of position and semantics.

I can. Only that I will not find the parallelism. ;-):lol: Do I have to compare them in those respects. Why?

 

[mxreader]

I flew to Stockholm.

OK maybe I should try another way. In a sentence, the verb predicts something/somewhere. The verb flew predicts a somewhere. When you say "I flew" meaning is only half at best, man cannot fly for instance. Hence the argument is that a necessary element in the predicate is expected from the verb.

 

[Kondorosi]

When you say "I flew" meaning is only half at best, man cannot fly for instance

In "The woolens wash," who washes?


Ben, show me a sentence, where the prepositional phrase is an optional predicate adjunct.

 

[Kondorosi]

1. We are flying at a height of 9 000 metres. -- Where are you doing the flying?
2. We are flying to Stockholm. -- What is your destination?

Neither type of adverb seems obligatory. In #1, 'to Stockholm' is missing; in #2 'at a height of 9 000 metres' is missing

 

[mxreader]

1. We are flying at a height of 9 000 metres. -- Where are you doing the flying? Better: How high are you flying?
2. We are flying to Stockholm. -- What is your destination?

Neither type of adverb seems obligatory. In #1, 'to Stockholm' is missing; in #2 'at a height of 9 000 metres' is missing

That is because they are not adverbs.