I'm getting in on this late, and I may be muddying the water inappropriately, but is not "manifest" an adjective in these sentences?
The meaning was made manifest.
The meaning was made apparent.
The meaning was made obvious.
All of these sentences have essentially the same meaning and structure. So how does "manifest" become a DO in such a sentence?
Not arguing--just wondering.
Tim
Tim Hadley
Research Assistant, The Graduate School
Ph.D. candidate, Technical Communication and Rhetoric
Texas Tech University
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Martha Kolln
Sent: Wed 9/21/2005 4:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Adverb clauses with "that"
Herb,
As I said in my first post, when that original direct object becomes the subject, the original direct object becomes the subject complement. As far as I know, the term "retained object" is traditionally reserved for the direct object in a passive ditransitive sentence, where the original indirect object serves as the subject and that direct object is still there. It probably should be labeled "retained direct object."
John gave Mary a birthday present.
Mary was given a birthday present. (Retained object)
And in the other passive version of this sentence, I guess I would call Mary a retained indirect object:
A birthday present was given Mary.
Whereas in the "manifest" sentence, the object complement is shifted to the subject complement slot. Here's another example, one with a noun phrase as object complement:
We elected Bush president.
Bush was elected president.
Martha
Now I'm confused. Is "manifest" the retained object or is it the complement of the retained object?
Herb
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of WANDA VANGOOR
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 1:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Adverb clauses with "that"
I agree with Edith Wollin--it's necessary to recognize--and respect--the passive. To me, "manifest" is a "retained object."
Wanda Van Goor
Professor
English Department
Prince George's Community College
301 Largo Road
Largo, MD 20774-2199
M3064--Telephone 301-322-0603
301-322-0549
Email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> [log in to unmask] 09/21/05 11:01 AM >>>
I agree with Herb's analysis until he gets to the last half of the last
sentence. As I look at the sentence, manifest is not the complement of
the subject, but the retained object complement of the sentence,
retained from its active voice form. The insights of TG grammar are
really helpful, I think, in understanding the surface structure of
passive transformations. As I think about what this sentence means, it
seems to me that the language part of the brain is understanding this
sentence in that passive transformational way and not seeing it as some
new surface structure. To understand it as Herb suggests, we would have
to assume another English sentence pattern in which we had a subject, a
passive verb, and subject complement, making it basically the same as a
subject linking verb subject complement pattern. I don't think that is
how the sentence works. I think that makes the same mistake as was made
in calling "He went to the store" and "He was hit by the car." the same
pattern of subject verb. Clearly, the relation between the subject and
verb is quite different in those two sentences and they should not be
seen as the same pattern. I think the same logic applies to "The word of
the Lord was made manifest" and "The word was manifest."
Edith Wollin
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
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/
|
