1) "Went" is an intransitive verb there, not a copular verb. I would not call the adverb obligatory.
2) You skipped the relative clause.
Student or Learner
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 (?)
I don't think we have adverbs of accompaniment in English as you do in Arabic. I would call that an adverbial of manner.
***** NOT A TEACHER *****
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.")
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.
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.
***** 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.
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