paco2004  +  154845 Thu, 03 Nov 05 07:13 PM Hello V As you see I am neither a professional linguist nor an English teacher. I am a mere English learner from Japan. I'm learning grammar things just as a tool to make my acquisition of English easy. So I don't care much about which theory is right and which theory is wrong.  What I am concerned about is which theory is convenient for me to learn English. So I really don't mind it if you dig your heels on. If you think your theory is best fit to your way of learning English, the theory must be best to you. I feel, however, our disagreement comes partly from difference in understanding the verb "be". I understand "be" has two basic senses: 'equal' (a copular verb) and 'exist'/'dwell' (a usual activity verb). I don't take "The boys are in the room" as "The boys equal in the room". I take it rather as "The boys exist in the room". So to me, "in the room" seems a dispensable constituent, i.e., an adverbial. Back to the original question about "John tends to get hungry", I can't agree to the opinion that "to get hungry" is a direct object of "tend". I understand "tend X" the way that it can be paraphrased as "naturally have an inclination to become X or move to X". In another words, "tend" is always an intransitive verb and a kind of linking verb. So in my understanding, it is impossible to take "to get hungry" as a direct object. I rather understand it as "John often naturally becomes [(a person) to get hungry]" or "John often naturally become a person who gets hungry". As for your last comment that my theory can apply only to the framework of subjective complements, I agree to it. I have a feeling that some of the so-said complements (=C) in sentences in the pattern of SVOC [S=subject, V=verb, O=object] work in a way almost similar to adverbial. For example, the "black" in "I drank the coffee black" is an adjective but it is dispensable to make the sentence meaningful and the meaning is like "in the state of being sugarless". So this "black" is not a complement but rather an adverbial according to my theory. Have a nice day paco paco2004 Joined on Wed, Nov 17 2004 Senior Member 4,095 In Japan today even dogs are learning how to bow-wow in English. Verbs, Grammar, Direct Objects, Learning English, Learn English

	paco2004  +  155028 Fri, 04 Nov 05 05:44 AM I think MrM and I gave a clear answer: "It is not the direct object, but the complement".   paco paco2004 Verbs, Direct Objects

	paco2004  +  155200 Fri, 04 Nov 05 06:03 PM Hello Anon Who are you? Are you V? Anyway I don't think 'an infinitival complement' is a good term. Correctly speaking, "to get hungry" is 'an infinitival clause' and it is used here as 'a verb complement'. paco   paco2004 Verbs, Clauses

	Pigfoot  +  155368 Sat, 05 Nov 05 09:10 AM I agree with what was said before by another writer, that all verb complements are either nouns or adjectives.  If you agree, then is this infinitival clause adjectival or nominal?   Further, I am not sure of your definition of clause.  Could you give a definition? Pigfoot Joined on Fri, Nov 4 2005 New Member 07 Nouns, Verbs, Clauses

	paco2004  +  155474 Sat, 05 Nov 05 06:24 PM Hello Pigfoot 'A clause' is any part of speech that retains a form similar to a sentence. In traditional grammar, only "finite clauses" are regarded as clauses. But may grammarians nowadays classify '-ing' constructs and infinitives as "infinite clauses". "A finite clause" means that the form of the verbal used in the clause changes depending the single/plural of the subject and the tense. Infinitives and '-ing' don't change in the form whatever the tense and the subject's number may be. So they are called "infinite clauses". (EX) He worked so hard [that he saved much money]. A finite clause, because 'saved' is a finite verbal. (EX) He worked so hard [to save much money]. An infinite clause, because 'save' is an infinite verbal. (EX) [Working so hard], he saved much money. An infinite clause, because 'working' is an infinite verbal.            paco paco2004 Verbs, Tenses, Grammar, Clauses, Plurals

	Pigfoot  +  155607 Sun, 06 Nov 05 07:32 AM Thanks.  So, verbal phrases are now considered clauses. What about the other question I asked?  Is the clause complement of "tends" adjectival or nominal?  Or, are verb complements no longer only adjectival or nominal? Pigf Pigfoot Verbs, Clauses

	paco2004  +  155619 Sun, 06 Nov 05 09:04 AM "Tend" is an intransitive verb. It can be followed also by a <to a noun> phrase. An Example is "His lectures tend to dullness (=His lectures tend to be dull)". If the infinitive were nominal, you would have to say "His lectures tend to to be dull". paco  paco2004 Nouns, Verbs