Search results for 'tag:Prepositions tag:Adjuncts' matching tags 'Prepositions' and 'Adjuncts'

Re: preposition after "lash out"

CalifJim — Thu, 08 May 2008 22:21:20 GMT

Well, yes. on can be used in those cases, but then on can also be used for a variety of other adjuncts.

She lashes out on Mondays.

And so can many other prepositions, including at with an adjunct.

She lashes out in anger.

She lashes out for many reasons.

She lashes out with glee.

She lashes out at noon.

That's not the same as the usage with the complement of lash out at (+ person). But I think you already knew that.

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: "Request for" versus "request" - rules of usage?

Goodman — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:04:44 GMT

Anonymous wrote:
Hi guys, just a point I'd like to clarify which was brought up at a seminar I attended regarding the drafting of legal documents.

From my understanding, I've always thought that when a "request" (used as a verb) is made for an object, the sentence should be in the form "request + for + object", i.e., "request" must be followed by the preposition "for".

Take for example:

(1) "He requested for a form."
=> Where "form" = object
OR
(2) "He requested for a speedy resolution of the matter."
=> "speedy resolution of the matter" = object
OR
(3) "He requested for an extension of the deadline."
=> "extension of the deadline" = object
=> Conversely, you could take "extension" as the object and "of the deadline" as a modifier/adjunct. Likewise for example (2)

It is only in the case of sub-clauses that the preposition "for" is omitted, such as:

(4) "He requested that immediate action be taken"
==> "that immediate action be taken" = subordinate clause, where the verb in the main clause is "requested".

The problem is at the seminar I attended, I was told that the following sentence is WRONG: "He requested for an adjournment".

According to the lecturer, "for" should be omitted, such that the correct sentence should read: "He requested an adjournment".

Now it's pretty clear to me that "an adjournment" is a noun acting as the object in this clause, so why do we drop the "for"? Did the lecturer make a mistake? Or have I been completely off-track all along? In this case, "He requested an adjournment" actually sounds fine to me, but not when I apply this same rule to the example (2) or (3) above:

"He requested a speedy resolution of the matter." ==> Sounds odd.
"He requested an extension of the deadline". ==> Sounds odd.

I've been repeating example (1) over and over again so I can't even tell which version (with or without the "for") sounds more correct anymore!

Help anyone?

Hi Anon,

My understanding with the word ârequestâ is this. When we used [request] as a verb, itâs most likely in a subjunctive condition, i.e. âThe HR manager over the phone requested that I submit a formal application for employment before the actual interviewâ.

John requested that everyone in the office come to his birthday party.

When [request] is used as a noun, the verb [made] is used along with it. Example:

John told me that he had made several requests to transfer out of his office in LA but received no answers.

Several requests [for ] / [to have] a new vending machine have been made by the employees but so far no response from the management.

BTW, [request for], depending on the context, it's possibly correct. Google result: 2,100,000,000 for request

"Request for" versus "request" - rules of usage?

Anonymous — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:33:21 GMT

Hi guys, just a point I'd like to clarify which was brought up at a seminar I attended regarding the drafting of legal documents.

From my understanding, I've always thought that when a "request" (used as a verb) is made for an object, the sentence should be in the form "request + for + object", i.e., "request" must be followed by the preposition "for".

Take for example:

(1) "He requested for a form."
=> Where "form" = object
OR
(2) "He requested for a speedy resolution of the matter."
=> "speedy resolution of the matter" = object
OR
(3) "He requested for an extension of the deadline."
=> "extension of the deadline" = object
=> Conversely, you could take "extension" as the object and "of the deadline" as a modifier/adjunct. Likewise for example (2)

It is only in the case of sub-clauses that the preposition "for" is omitted, such as:

(4) "He requested that immediate action be taken"
==> "that immediate action be taken" = subordinate clause, where the verb in the main clause is "requested".

The problem is at the seminar I attended, I was told that the following sentence is WRONG: "He requested for an adjournment".

According to the lecturer, "for" should be omitted, such that the correct sentence should read: "He requested an adjournment".

Now it's pretty clear to me that "an adjournment" is a noun acting as the object in this clause, so why do we drop the "for"? Did the lecturer make a mistake? Or have I been completely off-track all along? In this case, "He requested an adjournment" actually sounds fine to me, but not when I apply this same rule to the example (2) or (3) above:

"He requested a speedy resolution of the matter." ==> Sounds odd.
"He requested an extension of the deadline". ==> Sounds odd.

I've been repeating example (1) over and over again so I can't even tell which version (with or without the "for") sounds more correct anymore!

Help anyone?

participle phrase

Inchoateknowledge — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:35:14 GMT

Eating a hearty breakfast, we prepared for our long journey.

Why is the underlined part of the sentence a participle phrase?

'eating' is a non-finite verb, not a gerund, but the whole phrase may be considered as a verbal noun (gerund phrase), not a verbal adjective (participle phrase).

All the guests having arrived, the host started the party.
"All the guests" Is it the subject of "having arrived"? "having arrived" is a participle phrase and an adjectival phrase I think

---------------------------------------------
Being aware of my glaring inadequacy, I tried to work very hard.

"Being aware" I think it is a participle phrase and an adjective. Of genitive is a preposition and "my inadequacy" is is object of the preposition.
"Being aware of my glaring inadequacy" is also a participle phrase, if I am not mistaken.

what is "glaring's" lexical category?
I think "inadequacy" is the object of the possessive pronoun in singular first person, and glaring is the adjectival modifier of the object.
--------------------
Being aware of my inadequacy being glaring, I tried to work hard.
Here, being glaring is the objective complement, is it? Also, It is a participle. Glaring is an disjunct and has a different syntactical role from that one when it precedes inadequacy.
-------------------------------------------------------
Honestly, the recent measures introduced by the the local government in Myseria seems too harsh, with poor people paying taxes almost more than their income.

"honestly" is an adverbial, and it is also a disjunct, expressing the writer's attitude.
"the recent measures" subject
"recent" and "Myseria" set the scene of the action. So they are adjuncts.
"introduced by the the local government" participle phrase and 'introduced' is a participle.
"in Myseria" is it an adjectival complement besides being a prep phrase?
"seems" is a linking verb (copula)
what is "too"?
"with poor people paying taxes almost more than their income" adverbial, prep phrase.
"almost more than their income" objective complement?

Re: help

paco2004 — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:05:27 GMT

adjunct :
1) a word or word group that qualifies or completes the meaning of another word or other words and is not itself a main structural element in its sentence.
2) an adverb or adverbial (as heartily in "Most children eat heartily" or at noon in "We will leave at noon") attached to the verb of a clause esp. to express a relation of time, place, frequency, degree, or manner.

adverb :
a word belonging to one of the major form classes in any of numerous languages, typically serving as a modifier of a verb, an adjective, another adverb, a preposition, a phrase, a clause, or a sentence, expressing some relation of manner or quality, place, time, degree, number, cause, opposition, affirmation, or denial, and in English also serving to connect and to express comment on clause content. chemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />>>

paco

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: "The" without following Preposition Phrase

tommyensr — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 20:10:14 GMT

- For adjunct, i understand it.

- For "the" tiger, it means the tiger that speaker and listener already know it.

- In case of tiger that the speaker has seen it at the first time or by chance, and when speaker and listener don't know it before "a" tiger should be used.

--> right?

(y) Very thank you.

Re: "The" without following Preposition Phrase

RoadRunner — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 19:43:55 GMT

"on the hill" is an adjunct -- it's giving extra information about the location of the tiger. Adjuncts are not obligatory, and therefore can be left out. Your second sentence is perfectly grammatical.

The difference is simply that you do not give the location of the tiger.

The tiger could be the same one, but it may be different.

Re: Prepositional phrases??

miriam — Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:58:46 GMT

Hi again, Lupa.

You don't seem to have any problems with it! You got it right.

You're right that in a), "turn on" is a transitive phrasal verb; the adverbial particle "belongs" to the verb, so to speak.
In b), on the other hand, you have an intransitive verb followed by a prepositional phrase ("on a spit"), which is not a direct object but an adverbial adjunct of place.
What is an object, as you said, is "a spit"; but it isn't a direct object, it is the object of the preposition, also called "oblique object", and it has nothing to do with direct objects in this case (the verb "turn" is intransitive here).

I'm not sure what exactly you're being asked in #2, but let's give it a try.

- "Verb + preposition" can be either a "prepositional verb" (like "look at"), or simply a verb followed by a preposition that we may or may not associate with the verb so easily as we do "at" with "look" ("sit" on a chair, under a table, in an armchair, beside/behind/infront of me, etc).
Prepositional verbs are considered to be always transitive, that is, they take an object. And we cannot split them (we cannot place the object between the verb and the preposition).
"Look at me!" ("me" is the object)
Other prepositional verbs: believe in, look after, cope with.

There are people, however, who will analyse a sentence that contains a prepositional verb in a different way. They will separate the preposition from the verb:
"Look at me!" would be:
look: main verb
at me: prepositional phrase functioning as an adverbial.
As far as I know, though, this is not a very popular analysis.

----------------------------------------
I'm afraid I'm having problems here. I lost my connection 4 times in less than half an hour so it's taking me forever to answer you!
I'll post this now before I get cut off again so that you can have at least a partial answer. If I can stay online, I'll make another post in a short while.

Miriam

Search results for 'tag:Prepositions tag:Adjuncts' matching tags 'Prepositions' and 'Adjuncts'

Re: preposition after "lash out"

Re: Is it a subject relative?

Re: "Request for" versus "request" - rules of usage?

"Request for" versus "request" - rules of usage?

participle phrase

Re: help

Re: indirect object or adverbial ?

Re: &quot;The&quot; without following Preposition Phrase

Re: "The" without following Preposition Phrase

Re: Prepositional phrases??

Re: "The" without following Preposition Phrase