WOOPS I goofed. After thanking others for their
carefulness.


>But the subject is not a noun in adverbial guise:
>
>                I leaned it against the wall

        Try this example instead: It is Thursday.

heh...


Judy


>Does it sound sensible to you, making use of Plato's insight, that
>there are two 'parts of speech' - participants and processes; the
>participants may be "onema" OR complements, while the processes are rhema
>                                ?
>
>I hope the discussion continues.
>
>Judy
>
>
>At 06:54 AM 3/10/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>John is here.
>>John is in the kitchen.
>>John is in for it.
>>
>>When is the exam?
>>The exam is Thursday.
>>The exam is next week.
>>
>>Complement? Adverb? Adverbial?
>>
>>I'm afraid I can't see much of a problem here.
>>
>>A.
>>
>>First a definition:
>>
>>'Complement' is a general term denoting that there is more than just the
>>verb (or rather the verbal part) in a sentence. Everything that MUST be
>>added to create a sentence is a complement. With 'shine' only one
>>complement is necessary, namely the subject, with 'put' three complements
>>are necessary (subject, object, adverbial of direction).
>>
>>There are several types of complements - S,O,A, subject complement, object
>>complement. Which of these are necessary depends on the individual verb.
>>See discussion on valences some time ago.
>>
>>'Be' is a verb that needs two complements, a subject and a subject
>>complement or an adverbial.
>>
>>Subject complements:
>>                    SC
>>His clothes were / wet /.
>>You are /teachers/.
>>The point is /that nobody was aware of what was going on/.
>>This is /what happened.
>>
>>Adverbials (see the above sentences).
>>
>>There is a great number of adverbial types: apart from the obvious ones
>>like place, direction, time, etc. there are many others, most of which have
>>no traditional name.
>>
>>The adverbial slot in a sentence with 'be' is mostly an adverbial of place,
>>but adverbials of time are not rare (see sentences above). Whether the
>>meaning of 'be' is a little different with place or time adverbials is of
>>no avail, because this is regularly the case when the valence changes. A
>>good example is 'take' - as any dictionary will illustrate.
>>
>>Apart from place and time adverbials after 'be', there are also others, e.g.
>>             A
>>They are/to be married in June/.
>>He's been /to see his uncle/.
>>
>>This is one of the (traditionally) nameless adverbial types.
>>
>>B.
>>
>>Some problems that have been discussed arise only because 'adverb' and
>>'adverbial' are often used as synonyms, which, of course, they aren't.
>>
>>'Adverb' denotes a word class, like 'noun', 'adjective'. 'Adverbial' refers
>>to a function in the sentence, like 'subject', 'object'. (In the same way
>>'verb' and 'verbal part' must be distinguished, or 'noun' and 'subject'...).
>>
>>The function of ADVERBIAL can be performed by all sorts of structures:
>>adverbs of course(here),but also adverb groups (quite nicely), noun
>>(Thursday), noun group (every morning), prepositional phrase (on the roof),
>>wh-sentence (where no man has ever been), subclause structure (because he
>>wasn't home), to-inf sentence (to make her happy), etc.
>>
>>On the other hand, ADVERBS can perform a great number of functions, not
>>just adverbial, e.g. they can be attributes in adjective groups (very
>>fast), they can be disjuncts (fortunately, the man turned up), conjuncts
>>(however, this was quite different), and many more.
>>
>>Neither the term 'adverb' nor the term 'adverbial' should be seen as a
>>wastepaper basket term, as some will have it, where you put what you can't
>>explain. If things can't be explained, it just means that we don't know
>>enough yet, either as individuals or as linguists. In the latter case more
>>research is needed, that's all.
>>
>>By the way, in the scope and sequence discussion it was said that teachers
>>cannot be expected to understand linguistic models when they are a little
>>more adequate than the usual school grammar. Teachers are not that dumb,
>>good heavens, we are all teachers, one way or another. The problem is that
>>most teachers have never learned anything else. They were taught school
>>grammar in school (instead of learning to look at language itself), then
>>the same at college, and then by the textbooks they use as teachers. By the
>>time they have taught for a few years, they have internalized the
>>traditional rules and have learned to negate their brains' protests against
>>illogical terminology and rules, and after that it is very difficult to
>>open their eyes and make them look 'naively' at language itself and at the
>>models they use. And so they teach school grammar again, and the cycle
>>starts anew.
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Burkhard Leuschner -  Paedagogische Hochschule Schwaebisch Gmuend, Germany
>>E-mail: [log in to unmask]    [h]     Fax: +49 7383 2212
>>HTTP://WWW.PH-GMUEND.DE/PHG/PHONLINE/Englisch/index.htm
>>
>


Judith Diamondstone  (732) 932-7496  Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183

Eternity is in love with the productions of time - Wm Blake