Timeline for Non-finite clause complementation of complex transitive verbs
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 23, 2022 at 18:13 | history | edited | John Lawler | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 9 characters in body
|
| Aug 30, 2021 at 15:22 | history | edited | John Lawler | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 24 characters in body
|
| Sep 6, 2019 at 14:34 | comment | added | John Lawler | In this case, yes. Not necessarily with every verb. | |
| Sep 6, 2019 at 11:50 | comment | added | AJK432 | @JohnLawler I think I understand. So, object complements, in your definition, are the full object clauses, "him running to the store," not just the complements that describe the object? | |
| Sep 5, 2019 at 19:06 | comment | added | John Lawler | So, to answer the actual question "object clause" means "clause that is the object". And whole clauses can be objects, like that-clauses. | |
| Sep 5, 2019 at 19:05 | comment | added | John Lawler | In general, English clauses have subjects. They may have objects, if they're transitive. Like the subject you of imperatives, the subject of an untensed subordinate clause (like an infinitive, gerund, or participle clause) is often missing, either indefinite, like It's time (for someone) to fix supper, or identical to another noun, like I enjoy (me/my) having beer with supper. Subject noun phrases of infinitives can appear after for, and of gerunds can be either possessive or objective in form; or they can be deleted, under specific conditions. | |
| Sep 5, 2019 at 18:10 | comment | added | AJK432 | @JohnLawler Im sorry to comment on something so old, but I have a question: I thought object complements always gain their definition by the fact that they describe the direct object, not that they are the direct object. For example, "I saw him running to the store." "Running to the store" is the object complement. However, your link documents seem to allude to the fact that "object complements" can best be described as complements that are objects. Is that true, and if so, do you consider the whole clause "him running to the store" as the object complement? | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 17:03 | comment | added | haha | Great as always! | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 7, 2016 at 14:41 | history | edited | John Lawler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Nov 27, 2014 at 1:05 | history | edited | John Lawler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jul 23, 2014 at 22:20 | history | edited | John Lawler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 63 characters in body
|
| Jan 4, 2014 at 16:07 | comment | added | John Lawler | Thanks. I fixed the "Equi/Raising" link. It's 17 pages long, and consists of a number of handouts on the topics from various classes, with diagrams, and two sets of syntax lab problems, with answers. | |
| Jan 4, 2014 at 16:05 | history | edited | John Lawler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Jan 4, 2014 at 15:56 | history | edited | John Lawler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 52 characters in body
|
| May 20, 2013 at 18:32 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | Very clear and thorough. | |
| May 19, 2013 at 17:55 | history | edited | John Lawler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| May 19, 2013 at 17:17 | history | answered | John Lawler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |