Brett,

I agree that much of this query, indeed much of grammar, is a matter of terminology. In the matter of form versus function, I find the "nominal" category valuable. I can distinguish between something that is a "noun" or "noun phrase" in form and something that is "nominal" in function. Of course, my method of teaching form and function is based on working with high school students and a goofy analogy. It's long and a bit silly so I'll spare all of the details (I'll try to write it up eventually for interested teachers), but it revolves around a costume party to which all of the prototypical parts of speech are invited. It's a bit of a comedy of errors and they're all switching costumes from time to time. Sometimes a verb phrase ends up with a nominal costume on, which means it can masquerade its way into different functions. Knowing "nominal" as a general term for all of the prototypical noun functions makes the analogy easier for me.

I am interested in your analysis of "I hope to improve." If I read your post correctly, you agree that "to improve" is an infinitive phrase functioning as the direct object of the finite verb "hope". You don't want to call it "nominal" though because it couldn't be replaced by a noun? What about a pronoun such as "I hope it"? Pronouns are very "nounish" aren't they?

It seems to me to be more a matter of what the verb chooses and that there is a distinct class of verbs that force a PP or an infinitive to be the object. Some verbs allow an "actor" + infinitive (I use "actor" as the "subject" of the infinitive). Some do not. Some don't care.

I invite you to sit. (actor required)
He neglected to pay. (no actor allowed)
I expected to win. OR I expected him to win. (actor or no actor allowed)

Verbs affect sentence patterns in a number of ways and choose what follows quite regularly. I'm not sure I'm ready to allow that to sway what I consider prototypically nominal in function.

John

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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/

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/