Hi,
I think the situation is that you are being taught grammar using terms that I was not taught. Ways of analysing sentences change and evolve, so I do not mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with the way that you have been taught. It's just different, to me.
It seems to me that it's just a matter of being clear about the definitions of the terms you are using.
I suddenly recognised the postman. --- the postman is direct object. I agree. Also the complement?
They say that the president commited suicide--- that the president committed suicide is direct object. Yes. I'd add that it's a noun clause that acts as the object. It also seems to me it's the complement.Can you also call it the complement?
Your proposal seems a good solution.---- a good solution is subject attribute. You're probably right. How do you define the term 'subject attribute'?
Her theory is that they aren't brought by chance.---- that they aren't brought by chance is subject attribute. Same comment. It's also a noun clause, of course.
He has two houses-- two houses is predicator complement. Well, 'has two houses' is the predicate. It's what is said about the subject 'he'. And 'two houses' is the complement that is added to the verb 'has' to make the predicate. So I guess I agree with you, if that's your definition of 'predicator complement'. I guess that, in this case, you can also say that it's the object?
That suit doesn't fit me--- me is predicator compliment. Again, I guess so. Again pink ones are my answers.In fact, when there is a noun clause starting with that I don't know what to call it. See the first example.
Best wishes, Clive