There are certain verbs that license standard NP objects, others that take content-clause ("noun clause") complements (e.g., "that she might drip on her new dress") but not objects (e.g., 'wonder'), and still others that allow both object and content-clause complements. 

If all verbs that license x also licensed y, then it would make sense that y be analyzed as a subset of x, but where there is only partial overlap, I think it best to keep the categories separate. In other words, I don't think it's useful to call content-clause complements in VPs objects.

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language give other reasons to distinguish between them including that other elements cannot typically intrude between a verb and a direct object, but they can between a verb and a content clause complement. See chapter 11, section 8.3.

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/