[Grammar] object complement

[atabitaraf]

Can we consider 'object complements' as adverbs?
1. I painted the door blue.
2. We elected John president.
Thanks,
ata

 

[Rover_KE]

No.

You can consider blue to be an adjective and president to be a noun.

Rover

 

[atabitaraf]

No.

You can consider blue to be an adjective and president to be a noun.

Rover

You know we have only four different structure for making sentences in English: 1. the structure of intransitive verbs, 2. transitive, 3. double transitive, and 4. linking verbs (or equation verbs)
So, would you please tell me in which category these sentences are grouped?
1. I painted the door blue.
2. We elected Ali president.
Thanks,

 

[atabitaraf]

Only my suggestion is that they could be two clauses in one sentence:
1. I painted the door that is blue. (the first sentence is for a transitive verb and the second one for a linking verb)
2. We elected Ali who is president. (the first sentence is for a transitive verb and the second one for a linking verb)

Am I right or you may categorize them on some other ways?

 

[TheParser]

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


May I most respectfully disagree with your categorization?

(1) "I painted the door that was blue" would mean (IMHO) that you painted the door that was already blue.

(2) "We elected Ali who is president" would mean (IMHO) that we elected Ali (who is already president) to another position as well.

*****

I believe that some books try to explain the objective complement by saying that in many cases you can mentally add "to be":

I painted the door (to be) blue.

We elected Ali (to be) president. / We elected Ali as president of our club.

 

[atabitaraf]

May I most respectfully disagree with your categorization?
.

Thank you! But that was based on my reference. How do you categorize?

 

[TheParser]

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

I am not sure what you mean by "categorize."

The best that I can do is to pass along some information from one expert:

He gives these examples:

1. I think Barnwell a sick man. (object is "Barnwell" and complement is "a sick man.")
2. I think [that] Barnwell is a sick man. ("Barnwell is a sick man" is a subordinate clause.)

"[T]he first sentence differs chiefly in the omission of the linking verb is."

*****

This expert explains:

I consider him a liar. (The substantive [noun] as objective complement occurs commonly after such verbs as think, call, find, make, consider, choose, believe.)
I consider him to be a iiar. (Often the infinitive to be is inserted between the object and its complement)
I consider that he is a liar. (clause)

*****

This expert says that some grammarians prefer to use the term "infinitive clause" for this sentence: I consider him to be a liar.

"The object of consider is the clause him to be a liar, in which him is the subject of the infinitive and liar complement of the infinitive."


**********

All credit goes to Professor Paul Roberts in his Understanding Grammar (New York, Evanston, and London: Harper & Row Publishers, 1954), pp. 268 -270.


P.S. Please keep asking until you get the answer that satisfies you. Many people read these questions, and there may be someone who can give you exactly what you are looking for. Good luck!

 

[Raymott]

Thank you! But that was based on my reference. How do you categorize?

What makes you think we categorise sentences? If you want to do so, you can choose whatever criteria like. Your method seems to be based on the relation between the verb and an object, if any - which is quite a legitimate criterion, among the almost infinite number of criteria one could use to categorise sentences. Your system should include all possible sentences though.

Here are some other criteria:
- Active or passive
- Order of elements, eg. Subject - Verb - Object; SOV; VOS; VSO, OSV, OVS, not all of which English uses.
- Indicative, imperative or subjunctive.
- Sentences with 'cat' in them vs. sentences without.
... lots more

Reading in a grammar book that "English sentences can be categorised into 4 types" doesn't mean that we actually do that, or even that many people have heard of that author's system of categorisation.

PS: What was your reference? That might help to clarify.

 

[atabitaraf]

One of our grammar professors said this categorization to us. As I am out of reference access now I couldn't refer to the reference exactly but I remember his favorite was 'Modern English' (pardon me because of the inaccuracy) and the rules are as follows:
Based on the main verb used in the sentence we have four different types:

1. Intransitive: Mary left. (noun phrase + verb phrase)
2. Transitive: The cat ate the rat. (noun phrase + verb phrase + noun phrase)
3. Double transitive: Mary sent a letter to John (noun phrase + verb phrase + noun phrase + preposition>>noun phrase)

In this structure if you change the places of the direct and indirect objects the preposition ‘to’ is omitted.
....4. Linking verbs: John is tall. John resembles his father. (noun phrase + linking verb + complement (adjective or noun phrase))

 

[Raymott]

One of our grammar professors said this categorization to us. As I am out of reference access now I couldn't refer to the reference exactly but I remember his favorite was 'Modern English' (pardon me because of the inaccuracy) and the rules are as follows:
Based on the main verb used in the sentence we have four different types:

1. Intransitive: Mary left. (noun phrase + verb phrase)
2. Transitive: The cat ate the rat. (noun phrase + verb phrase + noun phrase)
3. Double transitive: Mary sent a letter to John (noun phrase + verb phrase + noun phrase + preposition>>noun phrase)

In this structure if you change the places of the direct and indirect objects the preposition ‘to’ is omitted.

1. 4. Linking verbs: John is tall. John resembles his father. (noun phrase + linking verb + complement (adjective or noun phrase))

"So, would you please tell me in which category these sentences are grouped?
1. I (subj) painted (verb) the door (dir obj) blue. (complement)
2. We (subj) elected (verb) Ali​

(dir obj)​

president. (complement) "
​

Alright, if you want to use that classification system, both of the above are 3. Transitive with only a direct object.
If you're concerned that they have an object complement, you could modify your system to include 3a. Without an object complement, and 3b. With an object complement. So your sentences are 3b.

​

 

[atabitaraf]

I think I could believe in what Parser says: object complements are well understood by adding 'to be' before them.
1. I painted the door blue: I painted the door (to be) blue.
2. We elected Ali president: We elected Ali (to be the) president.
Since one of the uses of the infinitive (with to) is to describe the reason of doing something; that could be a modifier here and functions like adverbs.
So I think the sentences are both 2: transitive (with only one object)
'to be blue' and 'to be the president' are both modifiers and not the essential constituents for making the structures.