Vsevolod
Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2016
- Member Type
- Interested in Language
- Native Language
- Russian
- Home Country
- Russian Federation
- Current Location
- Russian Federation
Good morning, everyone!
I have a problem identifying certain structures of the sentence; sometimes it is hard to tell whether I'm dealing with an argument or adjunct.
Adjunct is said to be optional;, that is, its omision will not change the meaning of the predicate. At the same time, the argument of the sentence is a mandatory syntactic unit that completes the meaning of the predicate.
My question is what does the "meaning of the predicate" designates?
Does it simply mean, that with the complement being ommited the predicate becomes ambiguous? Please, consider my reasoning below:
Put the cheese [STRIKE]back on the table[/STRIKE]. --> Should I put it on the table, in a purse or put it on as a hat and wear it to work?
Here, "back" appears to "complete" the meaning of the verb "put", whereas "on the table" can be omitted, because it doesn' affect the predicate in any way, and therefore can be thought of as structurally dispensable.
More examples:
Thank you very much in advance
Seva
I have a problem identifying certain structures of the sentence; sometimes it is hard to tell whether I'm dealing with an argument or adjunct.
Adjunct is said to be optional;, that is, its omision will not change the meaning of the predicate. At the same time, the argument of the sentence is a mandatory syntactic unit that completes the meaning of the predicate.
My question is what does the "meaning of the predicate" designates?
Does it simply mean, that with the complement being ommited the predicate becomes ambiguous? Please, consider my reasoning below:
Put the cheese [STRIKE]back on the table[/STRIKE]. --> Should I put it on the table, in a purse or put it on as a hat and wear it to work?
Here, "back" appears to "complete" the meaning of the verb "put", whereas "on the table" can be omitted, because it doesn' affect the predicate in any way, and therefore can be thought of as structurally dispensable.
More examples:
- he stood there in silence --> "there" complements (and completes) the meaning of the verb, whereas "in silence" is dispensable;
- I'm running --> meaningless outside the context (running a marathon, running a business, running away from problems, or running out of whiskey?);
- I'm running in the hallway of the Bristol University --> "in the hallway" - complement; "of the Bristol University" - adjunct;
- The bag is under the table/round - "under the table" and "round" determine the state of the bag (i.e. whether its location or shape is in the focus)".
Thank you very much in advance
Seva
Last edited: