mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
adjectives and intransitive verbs Options
Audiendus
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 8:03:00 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 7,781
Neurons: 1,432,109
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
ghu,

I see what you mean. I agree with you about the adjective/verb distinction.

My point was that it is not normal to put the past participle of an intransitive verb immediately after a noun.
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 8:07:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
ghu wrote:

"Adjectival complement"? Don't know such term. It is only "complement of the adjective".
predicative adjective could be said to have a predicative complement.No, why to say like that?


Because that is what the words mean in English.
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 9:14:10 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
ghu wrote:
leonAzul wrote:


As I understand it, another way to say what Audiendus is getting at here is that the meaning of a past participle as an adjective is always derived from its sense in passive voice and not of active perfection in English. I frequently ...

It looks like you don't understand me at all. I mean exactly what Audiendus said.


Which is exactly what I said, as well.

No fight, no blame. Think

ghu
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 9:53:57 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
leonAzul wrote:
ghu wrote:

"Adjectival complement"? Don't know such term. It is only "complement of the adjective".
predicative adjective could be said to have a predicative complement.No, why to say like that?


Because that is what the words mean in English.

Could you give me the example of such meaning of the adjectival complement? What do you mean under the "adjectival complement"? I'm sure you mean the adjective of the predicate. The adjectives, nouns and adverbs could be the parts of the predicate, so, they are called the predicative adjectives, nouns, adverbs. If they have the complements these complements are called the compliments of them. How could the whole predicative complement be the complement of one of its parts.(what you claim) I can't immagine that "the predicative adjective" have "a predicative complement".
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:00:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
ghu wrote:

No, you don't understand it. I say all the phrase "red with shame" is the complement of the "he". But because it stands after the verb and is contained in predicative of the predicate, it is called predicative complement of the subject.(subject could have just the other complement (complement of the subject, not subjectival complement)
"Adjectival complement"? Don't know such term. It is only "complement of the adjective".
predicative adjective could be said to have a predicative complement.No, why to say like that?
You say about just "adjective". No matter where it is. No need to say like that. There is no predicative complement of the adjective. It has no sense. There is complement of the adjective. "with shame" is the complement of the adjective "red". No need to use the word the "predicative" here. But "red with shame" is the predicative complement of the subject.
The boy red with shame ran out on the street. "red with shame", the "adjective phrase" is "the complement" of the "boy".
Also, it is the part of the noun phrase "The boy red with shame", also, it is the "adjectival (in this case adjective) phrase", determing the main noun in the noun phrase"The boy red with shame".


If I haven't made it clear before, then let me try again.

You keep using the word "complement." I do not think it means what you think it means.

A complement is that which completes something. Full. Stop. It has no other meaning in the English language.

In the adjectival phrase "red with shame," the word "red" is an adjective and the prepositional phrase "with shame" functions as an adverb which modifies "red" and completes the adjectival phrase. Therefore, "with shame" can be described as an adjectival complement.

Because this sentence involves a linking verb, the meaning of the predicate complement is implied to be the same as if it were the subject complement.

I cannot say it any more simply or directly without making these statements false, and I would rather share the truth with you.

Audiendus
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:37:59 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 7,781
Neurons: 1,432,109
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
leonAzul wrote:
In the adjectival phrase "red with shame," the word "red" is an adjective and the prepositional phrase "with shame" functions as an adverb which modifies "red" and completes the adjectival phrase. Therefore, "with shame" can be described as an adjectival complement.

I think ghu is getting confused over the term "adjectival complement". He is erroneously taking this to mean "complement which is an adjective". (It is of course adverbial, as you said.) That is why he prefers the term "complement of the adjective".
ghu
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:53:23 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
I imagine the dictionaries say that words like 'painted' and 'collapsing' are adjectives because that is the function they perform in some sentences.

I know that the the ing and ed words sometimes in some sentenses perform this function...But this function is in the force only when the are before the nouns? Always? Or sometimes it is possible they don't have this function before the nouns and have it after?
Drag0nspeaker wrote:

A participle would normally come after the auxiliary verb, when it is used as a part-verb (the whole verb is the two words together - "have painted", "got stuck" etc).

But "got stuck" is not the verb, is the predicate,where got is the link-verb and "stuck" is the predicative part of it.
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
If you see a participle directly after a noun, it is 99% certain that it is part of a reduced relative clause.[/color]

Part of the ellipsis? But what about 1%? It could be the adjective too? I don't mean the casess where the verb in the simple past=the participles.
Drag0nspeaker wrote:

"We saw the bridge collapsed because of the tsunami" = "We saw the bridge, which had collapsed in the tsunami." - the whole "collapsed because of the tsunami" clause acts as the adjective. (the action of the sentence is "to see" but the action of the descriptive clause is "to collapse").[/color]


I agree with it. But why do other say that the active participles are not being put after the nouns? Eh?
Drag0nspeaker wrote:

"We saw the bridge destroyed by the tsunami." = "We saw the bridge which was being destroyed by the tsunami." (the action of the sentence is "to see" but the action of the descriptive clause is "to destroy").
But there is another thought here:
"We saw the bridge, destroyed by the tsunami." = "We saw the bridge, which had been destroyed by the tsunami."

But what about the other thought else,"We saw the bridge (which was) destroyed in (during) the tsunami."
In this case, "destroyed" is the adjective? We don't use "by" for action. Could the participle form be the adjective after the noun without "by"?

Drag0nspeaker wrote:

When used before a noun, 'grown' means "fully mature" or "adult". "A grown man" = "an adult man, not a youth."
"He was the man grown in the difficult conditions of a desert." = "He was the man who had grown in the difficult conditions of a desert."

So, we can use active participles after the nouns, anyway? Or we can use the active participles like that only if they can't have the transitive meaning? For example,
"It was the man taken this bag.(It was the man who had taken this bag.)" ("take" is the transitive verb here, so it couldn't describe the man, who took something.) Seeds taken in the beginning of the spring turned into the beautiful flowers.(In this case we can't use the "taken" for descibing the seeds, because "taken" is still in the passive voice.
(in the sense of someone took them from somewhere.)But I meant the other, the intransitive meaning of the verb "take". The seeds had taken.

Drag0nspeaker wrote:


Personally, I would look at it the other way - that "get" was being used as the main verb (meaning 'became') and "stuck" was being used as the intransitive participle, simply as an adjective. There are some verbs that I could look at as either passive or intransitive - jammed, stuck are the only two I can think of, but I feel there are others.

You consider that "become" always acts as the main verb? Not the link-verb? I always thought is the link-verb too.
You claim that all intransitive participles could be used after "become", and "get", when "get" is the main verb?
But how could one know whether "get" is the main verb and you can use the intransitive verb after, or "get" is the link-verb and you can use only the transitive participles after it?
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:24:31 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Audiendus wrote:
leonAzul wrote:
In the adjectival phrase "red with shame," the word "red" is an adjective and the prepositional phrase "with shame" functions as an adverb which modifies "red" and completes the adjectival phrase. Therefore, "with shame" can be described as an adjectival complement.

I think ghu is getting confused over the term "adjectival complement". He is erroneously taking this to mean "complement which is an adjective". (It is of course adverbial, as you said.) That is why he prefers the term "complement of the adjective".


I see what you mean, now.

To be even more insufferably pedantic, "adjectival complement" means "complement of the adjectival phrase."

As I mentioned above, it is uncommon, but correct, to use the term "complement" in reference to a phrase. It much more commonly refers to a part of a clause.

Yet as much as I tried to avoid it, if we are going to introduce a word into the conversation, we might as well use it correctly.

My intention here is to show how people can express the same thing with different writing styles. They can come to the same conclusions by approaching the same question from different directions.
Think
ghu
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:34:51 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
Audiendus wrote:
leonAzul wrote:
In the adjectival phrase "red with shame," the word "red" is an adjective and the prepositional phrase "with shame" functions as an adverb which modifies "red" and completes the adjectival phrase. Therefore, "with shame" can be described as an adjectival complement.

I think ghu is getting confused over the term "adjectival complement". He is erroneously taking this to mean "complement which is an adjective". (It is of course adverbial, as you said.) That is why he prefers the term "complement of the adjective".

No, i think Leon confused me by his understanding the complement. He (not the the gramma) called the ending of the whole phrase the commplement of this phrase. It is not so.
Please,look what the gramma means under the term "complement". It is something that complete the previous part that stands BEFORE the complement. Complements could have the adverbial, adjectival meanings.
A predicate complement=the object of the verb, in the case when the verb is the transitive. Shortly, a complement= an object. Object is a complement of the transitive verb, not the complement of the whole predicate.
"got red from the shame"
"red from the shame" is a complement of the link "got", not the whole "got red from the shame"
"from the shame" is the complement of the adjective "red", not of the whole adjective phrase "red from the shame".
He got red from the shame.
"red from the shame" is a complement of "he". Because it put after the verb"got" it calles "the predicative complement of the "he".
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:36:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
ghu wrote:
Audiendus wrote:
leonAzul wrote:
In the adjectival phrase "red with shame," the word "red" is an adjective and the prepositional phrase "with shame" functions as an adverb which modifies "red" and completes the adjectival phrase. Therefore, "with shame" can be described as an adjectival complement.

I think ghu is getting confused over the term "adjectival complement". He is erroneously taking this to mean "complement which is an adjective". (It is of course adverbial, as you said.) That is why he prefers the term "complement of the adjective".

No, i think Leon confused me by his understanding the complement. He (not the the gramma) called the ending of the whole phrase the commplement of this phrase. It is not so.


Yes it is. Þ

leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:42:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
ghu wrote:

"red from the shame" is a complement of the link "got", not the whole "got red from the shame"


No, you are wrong.

It is called the "predicate complement" because it completes the predicate of the sentence, and not a "verbal complement."

leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:47:09 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
ghu wrote:

"from the shame" is the complement of the adjective "red", not of the whole adjective phrase "red from the shame".
He got red from the shame.

No, you are wrong.

The word "red" is atomically an adjective and needs nothing to complete it. The adjectival phrase has the adjective "red" as its "foundation," so to speak, and the adverbial prepositional phrase "from shame" that completes the adjectival phrase.

leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:51:33 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
ghu wrote:

"red from the shame" is a complement of "he". Because it put after the verb"got" it calles "the predicative complement of the "he".


No, you are wrong.

The word "He" stands alone as the only element of the subject of this sentence and there is no subjective complement.

Only adjectives can be described as "attributive" or "predicative," depending on whether they modify a noun directly, or as part of a predicate complement of a copula.

ghu
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:14:54 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
leonAzul wrote:
ghu wrote:

"red from the shame" is a complement of "he". Because it put after the verb"got" it calles "the predicative complement of the "he".


No, you are wrong.

The word "He" stands alone as the only element of the subject of this sentence and there is no subjective complement.

Only adjectives can be described as "attributive" or "predicative," depending on whether they modify a noun directly, or as part of a predicate complement of a copula.


I'm right. Because "red from the shame" is the adjective phrase. And it is the predicative. And it modifies the noun (not directly). I wonder why you say the same and say I'm wrong? So,strange,however.
ghu
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:28:27 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
Leon, I can give you a lots of links, where it is said the same as I mean.
complement
Adjective complements, subject complements, verb complements.
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:37:03 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
ghu wrote:

I'm right. Because "red from the shame" is the adjective phrase.

So far, so good.

ghu wrote:

And it is the predicative.

Wrong, There ain't no such animacule.

ghu wrote:

And it modifies the noun (not directly).

Which is why the adjective phrase is described as predicative. The word "predicative" has no meaning otherwise. Zilch. Nada, Bupkis. À rien. Gar nichts.

ghu wrote:

I wonder why you say the same and say I'm wrong?

Because despite our best efforts to help you, you continue to bang on about some mythical "predicative complement," Brick wall and you keep referring to a predicate complement as the complement of a subject. Sick

This is out of frustration on my part for missing you, and not intended as anger at you in any way, just to be clear, OK?

"But if you're gonna mess with the chicken, don't forget about the lickin'" Whistle

(That's just a silly joke. All it means is that when you start something, you should be prepared to finish it.)

ghu
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:39:57 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
leonAzul wrote:
ghu wrote:

I'm right. Because "red from the shame" is the adjective phrase.

So far, so good.



You have forgotten to write down the other part of my post here.
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:41:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
ghu wrote:
Leon, I can give you a lots of links, where it is said the same as I mean.
complement
Adjective complements, subject complements, verb complements.


You have misunderstood. This article describes the complement exactly the same as I have described it, but obviously less clearly and directly. Think


leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:44:00 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
ghu wrote:
leonAzul wrote:
ghu wrote:

I'm right. Because "red from the shame" is the adjective phrase.

So far, so good.



You have forgotten to write down the other part of my post here.


You edited your post while I was replying.

Just the same, I have addressed what you added elsewhere.
ghu
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:46:00 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
leonAzul wrote:

and you keep referring to a predicate complement as the complement of a subject. Sick



I do it only in the case when the predicate is the link-verb + predicative part. I don't say the predicate complement is the predicative complement of the subject in all other cases? Are you sure that you understand me? I'm not/
ghu
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:48:35 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
leonAzul wrote:


Just the same, I have addressed what you added elsewhere.

But you didn't understand what I meant.
ghu
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:50:33 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
leonAzul wrote:


This is out of frustration on my part for missing you, and not intended as anger at you in any way, just to be clear, OK?

"But if you're gonna mess with the chicken, don't forget about the lickin'" Whistle

(That's just a silly joke. All it means is that when you start something, you should be prepared to finish it.)


Can't get any of your these sayings.
ghu
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:56:19 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
leonAzul wrote:


You have misunderstood. This article describes the complement exactly the same as I have described it, but obviously less clearly and directly. Think



Really? No word about your "adjectival complement"(the whole adjectival phrase).
Why you try to make me silly, instead of admitting that you were mistaken. I have noticed that you never admitted that you could sometimes be mistaken.
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:58:26 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
ghu wrote:
leonAzul wrote:

and you keep referring to a predicate complement as the complement of a subject. Sick



I do it only in the case when the predicate is the link-verb + predicative part. I don't say the predicate complement is the predicative complement of the subject in all other cases? Are you sure that you understand me? I'm not/


I would understand you better if you took the hint and used only standard terms in the standard way when discussing English grammar.

This reminds of something Thad Jones would often say about music: "There are no wrong notes, only the wrong time."

Somewhere, sometime, somehow, the concept of a "predicative complement" could very well be meaningful, so I won't tell you that it is wrong per se, but I will observe that for most native speakers of English it is about as useful as a chicken head or teats on a bull. Whistle

leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 1:04:46 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
ghu wrote:
leonAzul wrote:


You have misunderstood. This article describes the complement exactly the same as I have described it, but obviously less clearly and directly. Think



Really? No word about your "adjectival complement"(the whole adjectival phrase).
Why you try to make me silly, instead of admitting that you were mistaken.

Why do you continue to argue with native speakers of the English language over the meaning of the word "complement" when the very articles you cite support the meaning which I and others have shared with you?

ghu wrote:

I have noticed that you never admitted that you could sometimes be mistaken.

Patent goat blather.

I frequently make mistakes and correct them at every opportunity.
ghu
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 1:08:54 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
ghu
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 1:24:08 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
you are mistaken,leon, again,if you really think that i can't get the meaning of "complement".
it could mean the ending of something whole, and the additional part to the other part in order to end the thought.
you try to look at this only from the one single side. be more liberal.
ghu
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 1:45:24 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
leonAzul wrote:
but I will observe that for most native speakers of English it is about as useful as a chicken head or teats on a bull. Whistle


But the same one could say about any other gramma term. I think the gramma is not wide spread among most native speakers of English or other language.
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 2:54:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
ghu wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complement_%28linguistics%29


Note well that the rubric is "Linguistics" and not "Grammar."

Quote:
Although widespread in school grammar, this use of terminology is not employed by many modern theories of syntax. The expressions in bold are viewed as part of the clause predicate, which means they are not complements of the subject or object, but rather they are properties that are predicated of the subject or object.
(my bolding)

I haven't gone to the trouble of checking the sources, so I will simply concede that some people have extended the concept of complement to include elements of a sentence linked by a copula. You will forgive me if I find it odd. I have been speaking the language for over half a century, studied it to the graduate level of university, and this is the first I have heard of it.

Note also the collocation "predicative complement" never occurs. However, "predicative adjective," "predicative nominal," "subject complement," and "object complement" occur several times. This should give you some guidance in how the word is used. "Complement" is more typically used in reference to a part of a clause, not a part of speech.


Audiendus
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 4:56:36 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 7,781
Neurons: 1,432,109
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
ghu wrote:
leonAzul wrote:

You have misunderstood. This article describes the complement exactly the same as I have described it, but obviously less clearly and directly. Think

Really? No word about your "adjectival complement"(the whole adjectival phrase).

But leonAzul was not using the term "adjectival complement" to mean "the whole adjectival phrase". He was using it to mean the (adverbial) complement of the adjective. As I said in my previous post, I think you were confused by this.
Audiendus
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 5:01:52 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 7,781
Neurons: 1,432,109
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
ghu wrote:
Leon, I can give you a lots of links, where it is said the same as I mean.
complement
Adjective complements, subject complements, verb complements.

The section headed "Other Complements" in your link contains one obvious mistake! Can you spot it?
ghu
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 5:34:30 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
leonAzul wrote:


Note also the collocation "predicative complement" never occurs. However, "predicative adjective," "predicative nominal," "subject complement," and "object complement" occur several times. This should give you some guidance in how the word is used. "Complement" is more typically used in reference to a part of a clause, not a part of speech.



The term "predicative complement" I saw in the net not so long ago. I'm not running for the terms, really. I'm even a little tired of them. The terminology must help to avoid long explanations of what I mean, what I want to know. If we are not in agreement of it, we are not going to understand each other.
The predicative part is the part of the predicate.
Predicate=verb+predicative part,
If the adjective is in this part this is the predicative adjective. If the noun (or the noun phrase) is in this part this is the predicative nominal. If this is the adjectival or the adverbial phrase then it is the predicative adverbial (adjective) phrase.
The subject/object complement is the complement of the subject/object, yes? The subject complement is put after the link verb,the object complement after the object. The predicate complement is put after the verb (finite, or the copula). When the verb is the transitive one the predicate complement is the same as the object of the verb. If the verb is the link-verb (copula)then the predicate complement is the subject complement. This is the case when the predicate complement was called by some gramma the predicative complement of the subject.

ghu
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 5:45:21 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
Audiendus wrote:

But leonAzul was not using the term "adjectival complement" to mean "the whole adjectival phrase". He was using it to mean the (adverbial) complement of the adjective. As I said in my previous post, I think you were confused by this.

If it is so, then it is the "adjective complement" ( the adverbial complement of the adjective), what I meant.
I think using the grammar terminology must help, not confuse.
"adjectival complement" means the complement that is used as the adjective, not the complement of the adjective.
"red from the shame" is the predicate adjectival complement.
"from the shame" is the adverbial complement of the predicative adjective. Everything has the explaining without confusing.
;;;;;;;;
Leon said
"In the adjectival phrase "red with shame," the word "red" is an adjective and the prepositional phrase "with shame" functions as an adverb which modifies "red" I agree
and completes the adjectival phrase. Note, Leon said it. He meant the whole adjectival(adjective)phrase, not one adjective "red"
Therefore, "with shame" can be described as an adjectival complement." He means the complement of the whole adjectival phrase.
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2012 9:42:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,236
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
ghu wrote:
Audiendus wrote:

But leonAzul was not using the term "adjectival complement" to mean "the whole adjectival phrase". He was using it to mean the (adverbial) complement of the adjective. As I said in my previous post, I think you were confused by this.

If it is so, then it is the "adjective complement" ( the adverbial complement of the adjective), what I meant.
I think using the grammar terminology must help, not confuse.
"adjectival complement" means the complement that is used as the adjective, not the complement of the adjective.
"red from the shame" is the predicate adjectival complement.
"from the shame" is the adverbial complement of the predicative adjective. Everything has the explaining without confusing.


I see now, there is a slight difference in terminology. Just as I prefer "nominal phrase" over "noun phrase," I also prefer "adjectival phrase" over "adjective phrase" etc. I didn't stop to explain that because I thought it would be clear from context. It looks like I thought wrong. Anxious

The other thing is that it is unusual to label a complement by its part of speech. The whole point of the concept is to be able to refer to these words in a sentence abstractly, in order to consider patterns that arise independently from meaning. Of course, the goal is to get back to the meaning, but part of the path to there is considering the patterns themselves, at least from the linguistic point of view.

Saying that the "predicate adjectival complement" refers to the part of the predicate complement that is used as the adjective is like saying that the predicate verbal complement refers to the part of the predicate complement that is used as the verb. It doesn't quite add up. Think

There is already the concept of a predicate adjective, why would we need another word to describe that same function in a sentence? There is already the concept of a predicative adjective, why do we need to muddy the waters with the idea of a subject complement that isn't even in the subject of the sentence, but rather is already called a predicate complement because it is a part of the predicate? The meaning and function of a copula is to predicate an equivalency between the subject and the predicate complement, why do we need to say anything more about it?

I'm not blaming you, ghu, but this indiscriminate mixing of linguistics and grammar, semantics and syntax, is driving many of us to distraction and making the dog's breakfast of any good faith attempt to discuss the language as it is spoken and written.

ghu
Posted: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 5:58:14 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/20/2012
Posts: 2,127
Neurons: 6,232
leonAzul wrote:


I see now, there is a slight difference in terminology. Just as I prefer "nominal phrase" over "noun phrase," I also prefer "adjectival phrase" over "adjective phrase" etc. I didn't stop to explain that because I thought it would be clear from context. It looks like I thought wrong. Anxious



But when you called "the noun phrase" "nominal phrase" or "adjective phrase" "adjectival phrase" it was clear what you meant. No questions at all. (the adjectival phrase and the nominal phrase are more wide terms than "the adjective phrase" and "the noun phrase")And it didn't look like you were wrong.
But the terminology you use is not always wide spread in grammar. I can't find the definition of the "predicate comlement" also. "Subject complement" is the complement of the subject, but "the predicate complement"?Eh?
I don't blame you too.
Do you know what the complement of the verb is?
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.