Hi Matt,

Indeed, I think you’re right, and the rules are forever changing! Thanks very much, I will try and keep it up!

Phil

On the point about what structures are capable of being a noun phrase complement, we certainly are in a gray area. I concur with your analysis. The phrase “of his rival” does seem to be more like a complement than a modifier.

I 100% agree: “(And even then we might question, at what point does a strict grammatical definition become satisfied, if it does not provide contextual understanding!) Though this gets into one of these more philosophical areas of language, where we question the nature of the definitions themselves!”

The rules of grammar are, in one part, a good but imperfect effort at describing how a language is used and, in a second part, a way of regularizing how people use the language. If “we” could write the usage rules in a way that perfectly describes actual usage, those rules probably would be way too complicated for practical use.

Please keep doing what you do. It’s awesome!

Hi Matt,

Thanks for the comment. Yes, I’d follow your thinking for that phrase myself, that as it restates the concept of the idea I would say that is a noun clause.

Yes, that’s an interesting point about prepositional phrases – in general, I suppose I would see them as performing an adjective function to add information to the noun, rather than working as a noun complement; as your example shows, it is not essential information. I can’t think of an example off the top of my head where a prepositional phrase would add essential information in this way, at least not grammatically. However, contextually we might consider that the prepositional phrase is necessary otherwise we might not understand what the sentence is referring to – without any additional information or context, “The Mayor’s criticism” wouldn’t present a complete idea, while “criticism of his rival” does give us a full understanding of our subject matter, if not the specifics of the criticism. So, I suppose in this sense the definitions might bend depending on if we’re using the concept of a noun complement in a strictly grammatical sense or to help up establish whether or not the sentence makes contextual sense. (And even then we might question, at what point does a strict grammatical definition become satisfied, if it does not provide contextual understanding!) Though this gets into one of these more philosophical areas of language, where we question the nature of the definitions themselves!

I hope this covers some of what you’re asking, at least – I confess it may be something that requires a little more thought!

Phil

I enjoyed your book titled, “Word Order.” Thank you for writing it.

In a case such as,

Barry explained his idea that the water filter was being tampered with,

would you regard the that-clause as being a noun clause or an adjective clause? Usually, when I see a that-clause following a noun phrase, I assume it to be an adjective clause. But, in this case, it seems more like a noun clause. I say that because the noun complement seems to be in the nature of a nominal that defines the abstract concept to which the noun phrase refers. The discussion, above, about the subtle distinction between a noun complement and an appositive further supports that notion.

When I reason about noun phrase complements in that fashion, I then wonder whether a prepositional phrase truly can function as a noun phrase complement. Might the prepositional phrase examples, above, be more in the nature of noun phrase modifiers acting adjectivally? Consider, “The Mayor’s criticism of his rival was unfounded.” There, the prepositional phrase is not telling us much about what the criticism was, but merely who the subject of the criticism was. I’m not sure.

Sincerely,

Matt Rips

Hi Sana,

That was my point: “to be a singer” is essentially the same as “I am a girl” in a modal form; “I am a singer” -> “I want to be a singer.”. To be accurate, in this sentence the complete verb phrase “to be a singer” is the object of the verb, “want”, representing a desire, but the phrase “a singer” is still a subject complement.

Phil

But this is different

I wanted to be singer.

As we know intransitive can’t take object even if they come in the form of infinitive. Bht in the above example” to be” has object

Hi Sana,

Good question; the simple answer is that a stative verb *can* take an object if it’s something defines the subject. In this case, it is not an object that the state is being applied to as an action, it is using the job role to complete the condition, to be. Consider the following:

I am happy.
I am a dancer.

These both define “I”, though one is an adjective and the other a noun. I hope this helps!

Phil

Hi, apologies for the slow response! This is a prepositional phrase, so it is not an object (which would be connected to the verb), but rather describes the position of something, adding information to the noun.

Hi

My cat’s favorite place is next to my desk
*next to my desk* is it a subject complement or a direct object

And thank you