This is an interesting question, because although it looks as if the two alternative sentences are very similar, they are, in actual fact, completely different constructions. First let's consider:
The discovery has excited scientists.
This has the clause structure:
Subject, Predicator, Object (where predicator is the function carried out by the verb)
1.) He died a broken man.
2.) He died as a broken man.
Both are fine, are grammatical, and are standard English usage.
In your two examples, the expressions "a broken man" are predicative and are functioning as predicative complements (PC).
Here are some related examples:
CGEL, page 261, : He died young.
The "young" in that example has a ...
Adjectives which take infinitival phrases as complement fall into three camps.
Some adjectives determine our interpretation of the subject of the infinitival clause.
Some adjectives determine our interpretation of the object of the infinitival clause.
Some adjectives don't determine our interpretation of either the subject or the object of the infinitival ...
It's grammatical. As per my answer at SAH's question, it's grammaticality is flushed out when one adds what has been (or can be taken to have been) elided, so:
I am who/m God made me to be.
For which I vote for who based on "it sounds better" (the be-all-and-end-all of descriptive linguistics).
I am who God made me (to be)
McCawley doesn't say much about it, as far as I can see, but it appears to be a variety of the complex of serial verb constructions around motion verbs and their inchoatives and causatives, like the various serial verb constructions mentioned in this freshman grammar exam question (#4, restricted to come and go):
Bill went and dug some clams. (go and + V)
Based on my own feeling:
"has scientists excited" sounds more like they have been and still are excited
"has excited scientists" sounds like they were excited and might not be anymore.
Neither are incorrect though.
Your analyses of (1) and (2) are both correct. They do indeed refer to the ‘as X as Y (is)’ construction.
Your analysis on (3), however, is not quite right. ‘Ever’ when used as an intensifier is confined (as far as I can think of) to three specific circumstances:
With comparatives: When used before a comparative adjective, ever intensifies the ...
*I got them all correctly. (ungrammatical)
I got them all correct.
I'm assuming here that the Original Poster means that his answers to the question were correct (sentence (1) would be grammatical if the meaning was entirely different). In order to understand why we need to use correct here, and why correctly is wrong, we need to understand the structure ...
Worth is a member of a class of adjectives known as transitive adjectives: those that require or permit a complement. Such complements are often prepositional phrases (proud of, delighted with, successful at) or infinitives (eager/reluctant/important to do something). A very limited number of adjectives in this class take a noun phrase as a complement:
It formed inside him an ambition to teach his students all the more.
It formed an ambition to teach his students all the more inside him.
He kept in the book bag an apple. (awkward or marked)
He kept an apple in the book bag.
The differing acceptability of these examples is due to a phenomenon known as HEAVY NOUN PHRASE SHIFT. It gives us the ...
*"He is difficult to be pleased" is ungrammatical. The object of the infinitival verb can be made subject ("He is difficult to please [him]"), but the subject cannot ("He is difficult to [him] be pleased").
Why does it work that way? I don't know. The syntactic rule involved is tough-movement, which has a Wikipedia entry, Tough movement.
Raw here is a Predicative Adjunct. It is an adjective and not an adverb because it is describing the noun phrase, garlic. Predicative Adjuncts are very often adjectives. They're almost never adverbs.
Verbs set up slots for different types of phrase. The number of slots depends on the individual verb. All verbs set up a slot for ...
(Assuming that Modifiers and Complements exist ...)
It's a Complement.
Here's some evidence, which will be explained in more detail in the longer answer. Firstly, the noun manager inherently implies that there is something being managed. This expectation is fulfilled by the noun football. This shows the tight semantic relationship we expect ...
The reason is that traditionally, you can't use who in fused relative clauses; that is, you cannot use who when it figures in two clauses, being the subject (object) of one and the subject (object) of another.
Shakespeare used fused relative clauses:
who steals my purse steals trash.
And they seem to be coming back into use in English today:
I can ...
Here is an extract from another post of mine, slightly modified:
1.0 Complements versus Modifiers
OK, so let´s have a look at what Modifiers and Complements actually are. Well, roughly speaking, a Complement is a phrase which fills a special slot set up by another word or phrase in the sentence. So for example, the verb TEACH sets up a ...
No, the that-clause has no grammatical relationship with the largest. It's quite possible there was previously a larger house in the town (that's just been demolished, perhaps).
What the final clause modifies is specifically the word most, but it's complicated by the fact that strictly speaking there's a deleted second instance (the most hospitable and [the ...
It has in it fat, which gives energy.
This is an example of what is called object postposing.
In English, we normally expect to see direct objects occurring directly after the verb:
I have a baboon.
Other complements of the verb, including Adjective Phrases or Preposition Phrases functioning as predicative complements, will come after the direct object....
The rule is that verb in the main clause—try, need—determines what form its complements take.
Need takes marked infinitival complements—that is, clauses headed by a verb in the infinitive marked with to:
I need to work harder.
All I need is to work harder.
Try takes two sorts of complements.
In the sense you probably intend, &...
Adjectives most often take preposition phrases, or clauses as Complements. However, very few of them can take noun phrase Complements. There are, nonetheless, four common adjectives that are traditionally recognised to take noun phrase Complements: like, unlike, worth, and due.
John is very like [his father]
It was unlike [anything I had ever seen]
It's not ...
Leaving out the Toe Suck Fairy, an independently serious Healthy Hyphenation™ problem,
the sentence to be accounted for is
There was a man known as X.
This is a very simple sentence, suitable for beginning stories, displaying two syntactic processes:
inverts the verb and the original subject, and inserts a dummy there as the new ...
I saw them digging a hole.
We prefer it standing over there.
Looking out of the window, Mary saw a car go by.
We peeled the apples while waiting for the water to boil.
There are several different kinds of construction here.
First, (1) and (3) involve sense verbs (saw, looking), which have quite specialized syntax.
Second, preverbal order in (3)...
I think part of your difficulty is that you're trying to make your analysis 'worry' about things that traditional grammar worried about but which aren't really relevant to a modern analysis. Remember that in a modern analysis:
you are not constrained to the traditional assumption that every grammatical feature must be overtly present (in other words, you ...
A verb agrees with its subject, not its complement, not even in copulas.
His injuries that day were the start of his decline.
These ideas are a fresh new way of looking at the problem.
My parents are the only reason I bother to go home for Christmas anymore.
If you are talking about your success rate:
I answered them all correctly.
I got them all correct.
If you are talking about a successful transmission receipt:
I received them all correctly.
I got them all correctly.
It is because of the malleable nature of the meaning of the verb to get that both of these sentences are grammatically correct. ...
If the phrase that is being fronted is a Complement of the verb, then it is often best to use Subject-dependent inversion, and if you don't your sentence may sound ungrammatical.
If the fronted element is an Adjunct instead of a Complement, the inversion is not necessary.
It will generally not give good results if the phrase that has been ...
This song is fun to sing.
This pizza is too hot to eat.
In the first sentence the infinitival clause to sing is a hollow infinitival clause functioning as the Complement of the adjective fun. Notice that the song itself could be depressing but it could be fun to sing. The fact that to sing is a hollow clause here is specifically because of the ...
Leonardo drew many pictures showing birds in flight.
I would definitely consider the participial phrase starting with "showing..." in this sentence to be an adjunct of the object rather than a complement to it.
If "many pictures showing birds in flight" is a constitutent, than "showing birds in flight" cannot be an objective complement because it is ...