On 2010-09-03, at 2:14 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar wrote:

> Does it make sense that a prepositional phrase can be used nominally?

I suppose it's all a question of terminology, but I don't think it makes sense to say that anything can be used nominally except a noun (or NP, or something in between). For one thing, usually the distribution of things that are said to be functioning nominally is not the same as an the distribution of a noun. A few weeks ago, I pointed out that 'to' infinitives, which are typically said to function nominally, occur in places that no noun can occur (e.g., I hope to improve). This strikes me as strange.

When people say something is functioning/used nominally, usually what they mean is that it's used as a subject or as an object. So why bother throwing the 'nominally' level in there and simply say "function as a subject/object"?

>  If it makes sense to substitute "that," "this," "it," or some other pronoun for the prepositional phrase, could it make sense to call a prepositional phrase a direct object?

I don't think it ever does, no. But again, it's really just terminology. I would say that PPs function as various types of complements (including predicate complements).

>  For instance: in <he told his friends of the peculiar weather>, does it make sense to call "friends" the indirect object and "of the peculiar weather" the direct object?

No, I think 'his friends' is the direct object of 'told' and that 'of the peculiar weather' is a complement of 'told'.

>  In <he told his friends the truth> would "friends" be the indirect object and "truth" the direct object?

Yes.

>  In <he told his friends> is "friends" a direct object, or an indirect object with an implied direct object?

A direct object.

> In <he told the truth> is there an implied indirect object, those who were told?

I don't see a purpose for positing one.

> In <he told the truth to his friends> is "truth" the direct object and "friends" the indirect object in a prepositional phrase?

I think this just complicates things. 'the truth' is the direct object of 'told' and 'to his friends' is a complement to 'told'.

> In <he told his friends about the truth> is "friends" the indirect object and "about the truth" the direct object?

Again I would say 'his friends' is the direct object of 'told' and 'about the truth' is a complement to 'told'.

> In <he told his friends that the truth can be found> is "that the truth can be found" a clausal direct object?  

'his friends' is the direct object of 'told' and 'that the truth can be found' is a complement to 'told'.

The particular type of complement is not the same in all of the above, but I believe all can be usefully called complements.

Best,
Brett

-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/