Bill, Martha,
   I don't think we have a problem with a word group being a noun phrase
and complement, or adjective phrase and complement. To me, it's easy to
think of an adverb phrase or prepositional phrase complementing the
verb in the same way.
   The same structures show up in complex transitive clauses: "We put the
book on the table." "We placed the tools in the shed". "We scheduled
the lecture after lunch". And so on. It seems to me that these are
definitely complements as well. They are licensed by the verb, and in
most instances they seem necessary to the meaning.
   It's the lecture that's "after lunch", not the scheduling. In that
sense, "after lunch" acts like other object complements.
   Of course, it matters that we draw lines clearly and consistently, not
that we always do it the same way.

Craig

 Martha,
>
> That clears things up for me -- I knew I was misreading you, but
> couldn't figure out in which wrong direction I'd gone.
>
> There's a classic grammatical "fork in the road" with these
> constructions, it seems -- if adverbials can't be complements, then [S
> BE ADV] can't involve a subject complement, and thus its [BE] can't be
> linking. That's both internally consistent and consistent with
> traditional grammatical treatments, but I keep wondering how much damage
> it would do to consider status as an adverbial as not ruling out status
> as a complement. If I've understood some of the other posters correctly,
> "adverbial complement" is not automatically an oxymoron. Accepting the
> idea of adverbial complements does necessitate making a strong
> distinction between "adverbial," in general, and "adjuncts" in
> particular, since then only some adverbials would be adjuncts.
>
> Bill Spruiell
>
> Dept. of English
>
> Central Michigan University
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Martha Kolln
> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 5:40 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: What to do with 'put' [PPs following linking verbs]
>
> Bill and Craig,
>
> My use of the word "intransitive" was misleading--because I certainly
> don't consider "be" a member of the intransitive family.  As I
> mentioned, I separate "be" from the other verb classes(linking,
> intransitive, and transitive)--and give it three different sentence
> patterns in my scheme of ten patterns: one is "be" with the ADV of
> time or place; one with the Adjectival as subject complement; and one
> with the nominal as subject complement.  (I also have two patterns
> for linking verbs determined by the form of the subject complement
> and two for the object complement patterns.)   I have no problem in
> thinking of the ADV, whether prepositional phrase or simple adverb,
> as a complement in the "completer" sense of the word.  I do consider
> it adverbial, however, and diagram it in that way (as you know, the
> R&K diagrams, which I use, distinguish a subject complement from an
> adverbial).  So I do want to differentiate the adverbial from the
> subject complement--and thus give be + ADV a pattern of its own.
>
> When verbs are classified as linking, transitive, or intransitive
> (and, as Herb includes, intransitive + locative), the linking
> category includes "be." In that scheme, NP + be + ADV is considered
> linking.  It really gets left out because "linking" assumes the
> presence of a subject complement, and I don't think the ADV
> qualifies.   When I called it the "intransitive be," I simply meant
> that, like intransitive verbs, it has no direct object or subject
> complement.
>
>    Martha
>
>
>>Hi folks --
>>
>>I'm adding a few notes below (in my unfortunately-common "I can't
>>organize these, so here's a numbered list" format), but first, I'd like
>>to thank everyone for the feedback -- it's enormously useful. Figuring
>>out a good pedagogic "balancing point" on the amount of detail is not
> an
>>easy thing.
>>
>>(1)	The complement/adjunct distinction is obviously of primary
>>importance,	as Bob and Karl both point out. The reason I bring in
>>clause patterns	is that the course, as it's currently designed,
>>is partly devoted to	familiarizing students with common grammar
>>terminology, so I need some
>>	way of getting to "direct object," "indirect object," and
>>"subject
>>	complement." In terms of usage rules, though, only "subject
>>	complement vs. any kind of object" is relevant, since that
>>affects
>>	pronoun choice in formal writing. Were I focusing on
>>copy-editing
>>	only, I'd probably just skip direct vs. indirect objects
>>altogether.	Were I doing an introduction to English syntax, I'd
>>focus more on	the range of variation and then skip specific labels
>>(since there	would	be too many types). In other words, some of my
>>decisions here	have to be motivated directly by the master syllabus for
>>the course.
>>
>>(2)	Based on Miller's notion of "The magic number seven, plus or
>>minus	two," Herb's list of types seems to hit the sweet spot dead on.
>>
>>(3)	Martha -- I'm not sure how to interpret your phrase about "the
>>'be'	version of intransitive verbs." It's certainly the case that it
>>acts
>>	like an auxiliary rather than the main verb (e.g., you just move
>>it
>>	to make a y/n question rather than having to add a DO form ("Was
>>the
>>	meeting at 5:00? Did the meeting seem boring?"). It's in a frame
>>	(for want of a better word) that canonical linking verbs usually
>>go
>>	in, though. I typically call these "subject complement
>>constructions,"
>>	which might let me dodge the issue entirely -- but only if the
>>	time/place PP can be called a subject complement.
>>
>>(4)	One of my students earlier, trying (I think) to refer to
>>intransitive	verbs, asked if one of the class examples included an
>>"intransigent	verb." Is there a term for a misapprehension whose
>>result is better
>>	than the original? Can one have a beneprop?
>>
>>And again, thanks for the feedback! -- Bill Spruiell
>>
>>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/
>
> 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/
>
> 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/
>

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/