Ed,

I agree that for pedagogical purposes in K-12 I would treat it as you suggest.  However, in training language arts teachers, who have already learned verb classes, they would also need to know that this instance of "raw" is not like other postposed noun modifiers, that it is not a constituent of the NP "the fish", and that such postposing can't occur in, for example a subject NP or a DO NP with a verb that doesn't allow object complements, as in, "*they raised/pursued/caught the fish raw", at least not in the usual meanings of those verbs.  But I think that's part of your point:  different levels of description for different levels of sophistication, and teachers need to know more than what they actually teach.  It also means that teachers have to understand that some of the things they're teaching their students aren't so but it doesn't matter that they aren't so because by the time the kids learn that they weren't so they understand why.  It's just like teaching high school physics students that force = mass * acceleration, which any undergrad physics major can tell you isn't so.  But the high school student doesn't need to know that yet because she's not yet ready to.  Classical mechanics works in the high school classroom.  The teacher does need to know it, though.

Herb

     In the KISS framework, "raw" is simply a post-positioned adjective.
Post-positioned adjectives are relatively rare compared to clauses,
etc., but the concept is very useful if one wants to explain every word
in any sentence. In effect, the post-positioned adjective is a reduction
of a subordinate clause that has a predicate adjective for a
complement:

They ate the fish *while it was* raw.

In KISS Grammar, the construction is no big deal, and does not require
any of the metalinguistic terminology that I see posted in some of the
other responses to the question.
     For pedagogical purposes, Keep It Simple.
Ed



>>> [log in to unmask] 02/03/04 05:21PM >>>

        How would people parse "They ate the fish raw"?

         "Raw" looks like an object complement to me, but in this
pattern (Kolln's Pattern IX) the verb typically acts to bring about the
connection between direct object and object complement, as in "They
painted the barn red."  Is "They ate the fish raw" a variation?

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/