Search results for 'tag:Indirect objects tag:Adjuncts' matching tags 'Indirect objects' and 'Adjuncts'

Re: Is it a subject relative?

miriam — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 05:02:36 GMT

Hello.

Relative clauses can only be (from a syntactic point of view) either post-modifiers of nouns/pronouns, or sentence modifiers. They are never objects; they don't modify verbs.

What can be subjects or objects, WITHIN the relative clauses themselves, are the relative pronouns used (who, that, which, etc.).

You provided the following examples: "The girl laughed at the boy who is bigger than her" and "The boy hit the girl who slept".

Both sentences could use some changes, but I will concentrate on what you're asking only.

In the first sentence, "who is bigger than her" is a restrictive relative clause acting as post-modifier of the noun "boy". The relative pronoun "who" is the subject of the relative clause.

Your second sentence is another example of the relative pronoun as subject of the relative clause. The clause is "who slept", with "who" as its subject.

Here are a couple of examples of relative clauses in which the relative pronoun acts as object:

1. "Where is the flower-pot (that I gave you last month)?" [that = direct object] (the subject of the clause is "I")

2. "The books (that are on the table) are Paul's." [that = subject (the books)]

3. "You don't know the man (to whom my sister sold her car)." [to whom = indirect object] (the subject of the clause is "my sister")

There are also cases in which the relative pronoun is preceded by a preposition but you're not in the presence of an indirect object. In such cases, what you'll have is an adjunct (or adverbial), as in the following sentence:

4. "Chemistry is a subject which I've always had problems with." [here, "with which" is neither subject nor object, but an adjunct/adverbial]

You can remove "which" (though not the preposition) from sentence #4, and the sentence will still make sense: "Chemistry is a subject I've always had problems with".

One good way of telling whether the relative pronoun is acting as object (direct or indirect) or subject in the relative clause is trying to remove the pronoun in question from the clause. If you do, and the sentence still makes sense, that will most probably mean that the relative pronoun is the object of the clause (watch out for adjuncts, though). If you can't remove the pronoun, that will mean it's the subject (of the relative clause). Have a look at my examples and give this a try. You won't have a correct sentence in #2 if you remove the relative proboun, but you can certainly remove it in the other three examples. You'll have to make a minor change in sentence #3, though.

See if you can do it and what you come up with.

I hope this helps.

Miriam.

Re: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CORE ARGUMENTS AND INTERNAL ARGUMENTS

CalifJim — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:00:58 GMT

core arguments = required arguments

    external argument = subject
    internal argument can be: direct object, indirect object, prep phrase
      (internal arguments = complements)

oblique arguments = optional arguments
(oblique arguments = adjuncts)
___________

Examples:

Mary gave John the letter yesterday.

core arguments:
external: Mary
internal: indirect object: John
                direct object:    the letter

oblique argument: yesterday.
_________

Susan put the soup in the bowl with a spoon.

core arguments:
   external: Susan
   internal: direct object: the soup
                 prep phrase: locative: in the bowl

oblique argument: with a spoon.

CJ

Re: sentence analysis 9/12/06

Inchoateknowledge — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:42:25 GMT

Hela wrote:

Thanks to all of you. and have a nice week.

Hello

Once more

1) A day will come when you no longer remember my face.

when you will no longer remember my face = temporal adjunct -- describes the action, not the noun (day), not an adjectival clause (not relative clause)

A relative clause cannot describe a verb (come), only nouns.

compare

I remember the day when we played in the garden.

when = relative adverb

when we played in the garden = adjectival clause = relative clause, describes the noun, day.

-----------------------------------------------

Tell me when you will arrive

when = adverb and modifies arrive (verb)

when you will arrive = temporal adjunct clause, also the object of tell

me = indirect object.

syntactic analysis

Anonymous — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:35:44 GMT

Which is the correct answer regarding the syntactic analysis of the following sentence:

Nothing could prevent him from climbing that dangerous peak.

1 Subject, Predicate, Direct Object, Prepositional Object, Direct Object

2 Subject, Predicate, Indirect Object, Prepositional Object, Direct Object

3 Subject, Predicate, Indirect Object, Prepositional Object Clause, Direct Object

4 Subject, Predicate, Direct Object, Prepositional Object Clause

and

Which is the correct answer regarding the syntactic analysis of the following sentence:

The reports were believed false.

1 Subject, Predicate, Predicative Adjunct (Subject Complement)

2 Subject, Copula BE, Predicative-AP, Adverbial of Manner

3 Subject, Predicate, Adverbial of Manner

4 Subject, Predicate, Attribute

and

Choose the only predicate out of the following list that can only take one NP argument: be tall, believe, be afraid, persuade

1 be tall

2 believe

3 be afraid

4 persuade

I think is believe here but i am not so sure.

Re: indirect object or adverbial ?

miriam — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 02:38:08 GMT

Hello, Hela.

Your analysis of the first sentence (I gave my sister a cat for her birthday) is correct. I'd be happy with calling the prepositional phrase "for her birthday" an adjunct (adverbial) of time, though some more accurate label may exist.

It's true that R. Quirk does not consider the sentence pattern SVOdOi. He'd call "to my sister" in your sentence #2 an adverbial. I am no grammarian, but I disagree. If "my sister" is the I.O. in the first sentence, why can't it still be I.O. in the second? There has been only a change of position of that noun phrase, but that does not involve a change in the meaning of the sentence. The indirect object needs to be introduced by a preposition (usually "to" or "for") when it is places after the D.O. To me, "to my sister" in sentence #2 is exactly the same I.O. as "my sister" in sentence #1.

The verb "give" in your second sentence is not complex transitive. Complex transitive verbs take both a direct object and an object complement, which is not the case here. If we follow Quirk and say that "my sister" is an adjunt (adverbial), then "give" is a monotransitive verb. If we say that "my sister" is the I.O. of give, then the verb is ditransitive: it takes two objects.

Your example #3 could be analysed in the same way, I think. "Of" is not the usual preposition that will introduce an I.O., so you can say that "of the Supreme Court Justice is an adjunct (adverbial). However, that structure might also be considered the I.O. of the sentence. You have two possible passive counterparts for your sentence: "The Supreme Court Justice was asked a question" and "A question was asked of the Supreme Court Justice!.

That said now, I think you can make your choice (I.O. or adverbial) and either should be ok, since both can be accounted for.

As a side note here, I'll mention that Quirk also poses a dilemma when it comes to analysing certain verbs such as "look at". He says that, in a sentence like "I'm looking at you", you can consider the preposition part of the verb, in which case "you" would be D.O. But, he says, you can also consider "at you" as a prepositional phrase, in which case it would be an adjunct (adverbial) modifying the verb "look".

Miriam

P.S. If "of the Supreme Court Justice" were an adverbial, as you say, I'm not sure what type it would be, but you can have adverbials of almost anything (yes, this is a bit of an overgeneralisation!). Perhaps one of target or goal if such things actually exist?

Re: Adverbial objectives

paco2004 — Sun, 05 Jun 2005 09:32:17 GMT

Hello Roro

OED says about the etymology of "cost" as follows.

a. OF. coster, couster (mod. coÃ»ter) = Pr. and Sp. costar, Pg. custar, It. costare:âL. constÃ´re to stand together, stand firm, abide, be settled or fixed, stand at a price, cost, f. con- together + stÃ´re to stand.
The construction of this verb is idiomatic, and for its analysis it is necessary to go back to Latin. Hoc constitit mihi tribus assibus was literally âthis stood (to) me in three assesâ. The dative of the person has in Eng. become an indirect object, to being never expressed; the Lat. locative (ablative or genitive) of the amount or price became a simple object in French, and remains an adverbial object in English, in being never expressed. Hence a natural tendency to view the noun expressing the price as a simple object, and the verb as transitive. That it is yet really intransitive is shown by the fact that it has no passive either with the price or the indirect object as subject; âthis cost me nothingâ cannot be changed into ânothing was cost me by this,â or âI was cost nothing by thisâ. The adverbial adjunct may also be expressed by an adverb as much, little, more, less, dear(ly (cf. L. carius constat): even here the tendency is to look upon much, little, etc. as adjs. used substantively.

As for the relation between and , I have never bought a prostitute in my life and so I don't know anything about it. I'm sorry.

paco