7 added 1 character in body
source | link

Other complements of the verb, including Adjective Phrases or Preposition Phrases functioning as predicative complements, will come after the direct object.

Other complements of the verb, including Adjective Phrases or Preposition Phrases functioning as predicative complements will come after the direct object.

Other complements of the verb, including Adjective Phrases or Preposition Phrases functioning as predicative complements, will come after the direct object.

6 added 2 characters in body
source | link

Aficionados of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddleston & Pullum, 2002) may wonder why I've used the term non-restrictive relative clause as opposed to supplementary relative clause. Well, the reason is that I disagree with such writers that non-restrictive relative clauses are supplementary or non-integrated. One of the very important pieces of evidence for them not being supplementary, is that absolutely any syntactic constituency test, such as extraposition from noun-phrase movement, or indeed object postposing - as demonstrated in the Original Poster's example - will show the Noun Phrase including the non-restrictive relative clause to be a single constituent. With regards to object postposing, what this means is that we can move the relative clause to the end of the sentence along with the noun. This, theoretically, should not be possible unless the noun and clause together were a single constituent. In addition to this, it is also clear that non-restrictive clauses count in terms of contributing to the weight of the Noun Phrase and making any subject postposing acceptable. True supplements or parantheticalsparentheticals, on the other hand, do not. I argue, therefore, that although restrictive clauses are not always restrictive, non-restrictive clauses are never supplementary - in the grammatical sense of the word.]

Aficionados of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddleston & Pullum, 2002) may wonder why I've used the term non-restrictive relative clause as opposed to supplementary relative clause. Well, the reason is that I disagree with such writers that non-restrictive relative clauses are supplementary or non-integrated. One of the very important pieces of evidence for them not being supplementary, is that absolutely any syntactic constituency test, such as extraposition from noun-phrase movement, or indeed object postposing - as demonstrated in the Original Poster's example - will show the Noun Phrase including the non-restrictive relative clause to be a single constituent. With regards to object postposing, what this means is that we can move the relative clause to the end of the sentence along with the noun. This, theoretically, should not be possible unless the noun and clause together were a single constituent. In addition to this, it is also clear that non-restrictive clauses count in terms of contributing to the weight of the Noun Phrase and making any subject postposing acceptable. True supplements or parantheticals, on the other hand, do not. I argue, therefore, that although restrictive clauses are not always restrictive, non-restrictive clauses are never supplementary - in the grammatical sense of the word.]

Aficionados of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddleston & Pullum, 2002) may wonder why I've used the term non-restrictive relative clause as opposed to supplementary relative clause. Well, the reason is that I disagree with such writers that non-restrictive relative clauses are supplementary or non-integrated. One of the very important pieces of evidence for them not being supplementary, is that absolutely any syntactic constituency test, such as extraposition from noun-phrase movement, or indeed object postposing - as demonstrated in the Original Poster's example - will show the Noun Phrase including the non-restrictive relative clause to be a single constituent. With regards to object postposing, what this means is that we can move the relative clause to the end of the sentence along with the noun. This, theoretically, should not be possible unless the noun and clause together were a single constituent. In addition to this, it is also clear that non-restrictive clauses count in terms of contributing to the weight of the Noun Phrase and making any subject postposing acceptable. True supplements or parentheticals, on the other hand, do not. I argue, therefore, that although restrictive clauses are not always restrictive, non-restrictive clauses are never supplementary - in the grammatical sense of the word.]

5 deleted 4 characters in body
source | link

Aficionados of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddleston & Pullum, 2002) may wonder why I've used the term non-restrictive relative clause as opposed to supplementary relative clause. Well, the reason is that I disagree with such writers that non-restrictive relative clauses are supplementary or non-integrated. One of the very important pieces of evidence for them not being supplementary, is that absolutely any syntactic constituency test, such as extraposition from noun-phrase movement, or indeed object postposing - as demonstrated in the Original Poster's example - will show the Noun Phrase including the non-restrictive relative clause to be a single constituent. With regards to object postposing, what this means is that we can move the relative clause to the end of the sentence along with the noun. This, theoretically, should not be possible unless the noun and clause together were a single constituent. WhileIn addition to this, it is also clear that non-restrictive clauses maycount in terms of contributing to the weight of the Noun Phrase and making any subject postposing acceptable. True supplements or parantheticals, on the other hand, do not. I argue, therefore, that although restrictive clauses are not always be definingrestrictive, theynon-restrictive clauses are never, in my opinion, supplementary - in the grammatical sense of the word.]

Aficionados of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddleston & Pullum, 2002) may wonder why I've used the term non-restrictive relative clause as opposed to supplementary relative clause. Well, the reason is that I disagree with such writers that non-restrictive relative clauses are supplementary or non-integrated. One of the very important pieces of evidence for them not being supplementary, is that absolutely any syntactic constituency test, such as extraposition from noun-phrase movement, or indeed object postposing - as demonstrated in the Original Poster's example - will show the Noun Phrase including the non-restrictive relative clause to be a single constituent. With regards to object postposing, what this means is that we can move the relative clause to the end of the sentence along with the noun. This, theoretically, should not be possible unless the noun and clause together were a single constituent. While non-restrictive clauses may not always be defining, they are never, in my opinion, supplementary in the grammatical sense of the word.]

Aficionados of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddleston & Pullum, 2002) may wonder why I've used the term non-restrictive relative clause as opposed to supplementary relative clause. Well, the reason is that I disagree with such writers that non-restrictive relative clauses are supplementary or non-integrated. One of the very important pieces of evidence for them not being supplementary, is that absolutely any syntactic constituency test, such as extraposition from noun-phrase movement, or indeed object postposing - as demonstrated in the Original Poster's example - will show the Noun Phrase including the non-restrictive relative clause to be a single constituent. With regards to object postposing, what this means is that we can move the relative clause to the end of the sentence along with the noun. This, theoretically, should not be possible unless the noun and clause together were a single constituent. In addition to this, it is also clear that non-restrictive clauses count in terms of contributing to the weight of the Noun Phrase and making any subject postposing acceptable. True supplements or parantheticals, on the other hand, do not. I argue, therefore, that although restrictive clauses are not always restrictive, non-restrictive clauses are never supplementary - in the grammatical sense of the word.]

4 deleted 4 characters in body
source | link
3 added 1140 characters in body
source | link
2 added 50 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link