I spent most of my day filling out an application for a leadership position with Classical Conversations. Since I teach grammar and writing in the program, I was feeling a great deal of pressure to make sure I varied my sentence openers and avoided any "banned" words.
8. Quietness.
9. 10 year old birthday parties, and all the make-up, dresses and laughter that comes with them.
10. 11. Being told by my neice that my facial expressions remind her of her dad, my brother.
12. Spring break.
13. Clean sheets.
14. Bed time.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Naming the moments He has given me and giving thanks:
Here goes my attempt at actually numbering and counting what I am thankful for.
1. Delighted squeals from my 7 year old at realizing this is the first day of her birthday month.
2. 70 degrees and sunshine.
3. Hearing a sigh and Laura say, "Poor, Toad" every time she reads any of the "Frog and Toad" books.
2. 70 degrees and sunshine.
3. Hearing a sigh and Laura say, "Poor, Toad" every time she reads any of the "Frog and Toad" books.
4. Seniors at the Senior Center: women tap dancing and men shooting pool. Papaw Sims would have liked it there.
5. Big sister and little sister dancing together.
6. Library books
7. Plush grass on soccer field.
5. Big sister and little sister dancing together.
6. Library books
7. Plush grass on soccer field.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
When "Just because," is not a satisfactory answer.
Why can't a prepostional phrase be a subject complement? A question I have been trying to answer for months.
This is from A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, which is an abridged version of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. I am paraphrasing as the language is quite technical.
Prepositional phrases cannot be subject complements (a predicate adjective or predicate nominative). It does not matter if they are adjectival or adverbial. A complement must be licensed by the verb, meaning the complement can only occur with a certain type of verb that allows it. For a subject complement, this type of verb is a linking verb.
Here are some examples:
She is pretty. You cannot substitute a transitive or intransitive verb here: She ran pretty (Vi), She enjoyed (Vt) pretty. Neither work here. Pretty is a complement in this sentence, because you must have a linking verb in order for the sentence to be grammatical.
The book is about birds. You can substitute an intransitive: The book teaches about birds.
Jesus was about His Father's business. Jesus was learning about His Father's business.
She is from Nebraska. She comes from Nebraska. She walks from Nebraska.
She is in the woods. She sits in the woods. She walks in the woods.
She is in a hurry. She came in a hurry. She left in a hurry.
A word or phrase is only a subject complement if it requires a linking verb. If you can substitute any other type of verb, it loses its status as a complement.
This is from A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, which is an abridged version of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. I am paraphrasing as the language is quite technical.
Prepositional phrases cannot be subject complements (a predicate adjective or predicate nominative). It does not matter if they are adjectival or adverbial. A complement must be licensed by the verb, meaning the complement can only occur with a certain type of verb that allows it. For a subject complement, this type of verb is a linking verb.
Here are some examples:
She is pretty. You cannot substitute a transitive or intransitive verb here: She ran pretty (Vi), She enjoyed (Vt) pretty. Neither work here. Pretty is a complement in this sentence, because you must have a linking verb in order for the sentence to be grammatical.
The book is about birds. You can substitute an intransitive: The book teaches about birds.
Jesus was about His Father's business. Jesus was learning about His Father's business.
She is from Nebraska. She comes from Nebraska. She walks from Nebraska.
She is in the woods. She sits in the woods. She walks in the woods.
She is in a hurry. She came in a hurry. She left in a hurry.
A word or phrase is only a subject complement if it requires a linking verb. If you can substitute any other type of verb, it loses its status as a complement.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Can weigh be a linking verb?
Here's the sentence: The roast weighs four pounds.
Is the word weigh a linking verb?
First, let's consider the other option:
Weighs is an intransitive verb and four pounds is an adverb telling how much to roast weighs.
When a verb is modified by an adverb, it describes the action being done by the subject. Since the roast is not doing any action, four pounds cannot be adverbial. If there were action here, then the verb would be transitive and not intransitive since it is followed by a noun. That is, four pounds would become the direct object. If this is confusing, consider this sentence: The butcher weighs the roast. Here, weighs is a transitive verb and roast is the direct object.
So, yes, in this sentence, weighs is best classified as a linking verb. Four pounds is an attribute of the roast. It is a four pound roast.
Is the word weigh a linking verb?
First, let's consider the other option:
Weighs is an intransitive verb and four pounds is an adverb telling how much to roast weighs.
When a verb is modified by an adverb, it describes the action being done by the subject. Since the roast is not doing any action, four pounds cannot be adverbial. If there were action here, then the verb would be transitive and not intransitive since it is followed by a noun. That is, four pounds would become the direct object. If this is confusing, consider this sentence: The butcher weighs the roast. Here, weighs is a transitive verb and roast is the direct object.
So, yes, in this sentence, weighs is best classified as a linking verb. Four pounds is an attribute of the roast. It is a four pound roast.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Relative Clauses
She looked as if she needed a rest.
I have an English grammar book that cites as if she needed a rest as an example of a relative adverb clause. Here is the explanation:
As if she needed a rest tells how she looked.
What's wrong with that?
Looked is a linking verb. To use a linking verb is to rename or describe the subject, adjectives describe nouns, therefore as if she needed a rest cannot be adverbial. If you are going to allow it to be adverbial, then in a sentence like I felt sick, sick is adverbial, because it tells how I felt.
Wait a minute, I was taught that to test for a linking verb, you can replace the verb with "to be" or "=" and if the meaning does not change, then it is a linking verb.
She = as if she needed a rest
That really doesn't work here.
The reason it does not work is because even though the clause is adjectival, it is not functioning as a predicate adjective (it is not a subject complement). If you want to know why, go here: http://livefullyawake.blogspot.com/2011/11/when-just-because-is-not-satisfactory.html
I will not name the text because overall, it is a reliable source and I do not wish to discredit it. But this demonstrates how engrained it is for us to classify words by what they tell us rather than by what they modify.
But, couldn't as if she needed a rest be adverbial in this sentence?
Only if she looked with her eyes.
I have an English grammar book that cites as if she needed a rest as an example of a relative adverb clause. Here is the explanation:
As if she needed a rest tells how she looked.
What's wrong with that?
Looked is a linking verb. To use a linking verb is to rename or describe the subject, adjectives describe nouns, therefore as if she needed a rest cannot be adverbial. If you are going to allow it to be adverbial, then in a sentence like I felt sick, sick is adverbial, because it tells how I felt.
Wait a minute, I was taught that to test for a linking verb, you can replace the verb with "to be" or "=" and if the meaning does not change, then it is a linking verb.
She = as if she needed a rest
That really doesn't work here.
The reason it does not work is because even though the clause is adjectival, it is not functioning as a predicate adjective (it is not a subject complement). If you want to know why, go here: http://livefullyawake.blogspot.com/2011/11/when-just-because-is-not-satisfactory.html
I will not name the text because overall, it is a reliable source and I do not wish to discredit it. But this demonstrates how engrained it is for us to classify words by what they tell us rather than by what they modify.
But, couldn't as if she needed a rest be adverbial in this sentence?
Only if she looked with her eyes.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
An Ah-Ha Moment
Here is the sentence:
I hid the gift in the closet.
When I was diagramming this sentence, I was baffled when I put "in the closet" under "hid" because it could be misinterpreted as: I hid in the closet. Therefore, I thought "in the closet" modified gifts instead. But I was wrong. I am documenting my thought process for the sake of fellow students of English grammar:
Here is what I considered:
There is an understood infinitive: I hid the gift (to be) in the closet.
There is an understood relative pronoun: I hid the gift (that is) in the closet.
My ah-ha moment came when I realized that "in the closet" could only mean "I hid in the closet" if "hid" was intransitive. Since it is a transitive verb, if the PP is understood as adverbial, it describes the action that is being done to the object.
For those of you scratching your head, here is the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs:
A transitive verb transfers the action of the verb from the subject to an object.
An intransitive verb does not transfer action from the subject to an object.
I hid -- intransitive, no direct object, an adverb would modify action done by the subject.
I hid the gift -- transitive, gift is the direct object, an adverb would modify action being done by the subject to the object.
Because the verb in the sentence is transitive, then "in the closet" does not tell where I hid, but where I did the hiding. I was in the closet when I hid the gift. That is, it describes not where I hid but where I hid the gift. That is not to say that "in the closet" could not modify gift, but you would need put it into a relative clause for the sake of clarity: I hid the gift that is in the closet.
So, what about this sentence:
I painted the chair in the corner.
Where I normally take a descriptive approach to grammar, I am going to be prescriptive here. If you want to be concise, you must write: I painted the chair that is in the corner.
I hid the gift in the closet.
When I was diagramming this sentence, I was baffled when I put "in the closet" under "hid" because it could be misinterpreted as: I hid in the closet. Therefore, I thought "in the closet" modified gifts instead. But I was wrong. I am documenting my thought process for the sake of fellow students of English grammar:
Here is what I considered:
There is an understood infinitive: I hid the gift (to be) in the closet.
There is an understood relative pronoun: I hid the gift (that is) in the closet.
My ah-ha moment came when I realized that "in the closet" could only mean "I hid in the closet" if "hid" was intransitive. Since it is a transitive verb, if the PP is understood as adverbial, it describes the action that is being done to the object.
For those of you scratching your head, here is the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs:
A transitive verb transfers the action of the verb from the subject to an object.
An intransitive verb does not transfer action from the subject to an object.
I hid -- intransitive, no direct object, an adverb would modify action done by the subject.
I hid the gift -- transitive, gift is the direct object, an adverb would modify action being done by the subject to the object.
Because the verb in the sentence is transitive, then "in the closet" does not tell where I hid, but where I did the hiding. I was in the closet when I hid the gift. That is, it describes not where I hid but where I hid the gift. That is not to say that "in the closet" could not modify gift, but you would need put it into a relative clause for the sake of clarity: I hid the gift that is in the closet.
So, what about this sentence:
I painted the chair in the corner.
Where I normally take a descriptive approach to grammar, I am going to be prescriptive here. If you want to be concise, you must write: I painted the chair that is in the corner.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
The End Is Here
"The end is here."
In the sentence“here is the end” one could argue that “here” is an expletive, not the subject, (like “there is the end”—you would diagram it with "there" above “the end | is”). The focus, when “be” is followed by an adverb, like now, here or soon is the existence of the end, much like I am using it here: It is inevitable that the end will be, it’s just a matter of when it will be. Here, I will concede that "is" could be an intransitive verb modified by an adverb.
However, this is not the same focus in a sentence like: The girl is in the kitchen. The question being answered is not whether or not she exists.
Here is what I woke up thinking about:
I painted the chair in the corner – If “in the corner” is adverbial, then it means that I sat in the corner and painted the chair. If it is adjectival, then it means that I painted the chair that is in the corner.
In the relative clause – that is in the corner – there is no question in my mind about what “in the corner” modifies, it is telling which chair by telling where the chair is. If you diagrammed it, you would make a dotted line from “that” to “chair”. If you replaced the pronoun with its antecedent, you would have: The chair is in the corner. (I have a math brain—it would be nice if I could plug in numbers to prove my point).
Like math, in grammar, it does not matter if you have 2 apples or 2 oranges it's still 2. Semantics do not determine grammatical function—meaning it is not fair to say “She is in the kitchen” really means “she is doing something in the kitchen” therefore “in the kitchen” is adverbial.
Think about common mistakes people make with linking verbs: I felt badly about the situation. They want to use the adverbial form of “bad” because it tells how they felt. (I am thinking of the time Donald Trump scathed Cyndi Lauper on national television for saying “I feel bad”. He argued that it should be “badly” and he is highly educated.)
{I am leaving the rest of my post here because I am blogging to document my learning process. But since I do not want to lead anyone astray with my former ignorance, here is a link to more accurate information: http://livefullyawake.blogspot.com/2011/11/when-just-because-is-not-satisfactory.html}
Why do we ask “How are you?” but have to answer with “what are you?”
Why would we let words that describe how I feel, look or seem be adjectives, but not words that tell where or when something IS? And why when there is a choice, why do we choose an adjective every time? Or if there is an adjectival equivalent, we can substitute it?
South Dakota and Montana are beside each other – They are adjacent or adjacently?
New York is in the north – New York is northern.
could just as easily read...
"Here is the end."
One of the criteria of a predicate noun is that you can replace the subject with the predicate noun and it still makes sense. But, what are the other criteria? Here cannot take an article, like most nouns, so there is one strike against it already. In the sentence“here is the end” one could argue that “here” is an expletive, not the subject, (like “there is the end”—you would diagram it with "there" above “the end | is”). The focus, when “be” is followed by an adverb, like now, here or soon is the existence of the end, much like I am using it here: It is inevitable that the end will be, it’s just a matter of when it will be. Here, I will concede that "is" could be an intransitive verb modified by an adverb.
However, this is not the same focus in a sentence like: The girl is in the kitchen. The question being answered is not whether or not she exists.
Here is what I woke up thinking about:
I painted the chair in the corner – If “in the corner” is adverbial, then it means that I sat in the corner and painted the chair. If it is adjectival, then it means that I painted the chair that is in the corner.
In the relative clause – that is in the corner – there is no question in my mind about what “in the corner” modifies, it is telling which chair by telling where the chair is. If you diagrammed it, you would make a dotted line from “that” to “chair”. If you replaced the pronoun with its antecedent, you would have: The chair is in the corner. (I have a math brain—it would be nice if I could plug in numbers to prove my point).
Like math, in grammar, it does not matter if you have 2 apples or 2 oranges it's still 2. Semantics do not determine grammatical function—meaning it is not fair to say “She is in the kitchen” really means “she is doing something in the kitchen” therefore “in the kitchen” is adverbial.
Think about common mistakes people make with linking verbs: I felt badly about the situation. They want to use the adverbial form of “bad” because it tells how they felt. (I am thinking of the time Donald Trump scathed Cyndi Lauper on national television for saying “I feel bad”. He argued that it should be “badly” and he is highly educated.)
{I am leaving the rest of my post here because I am blogging to document my learning process. But since I do not want to lead anyone astray with my former ignorance, here is a link to more accurate information: http://livefullyawake.blogspot.com/2011/11/when-just-because-is-not-satisfactory.html}
Why do we ask “How are you?” but have to answer with “what are you?”
Why would we let words that describe how I feel, look or seem be adjectives, but not words that tell where or when something IS? And why when there is a choice, why do we choose an adjective every time? Or if there is an adjectival equivalent, we can substitute it?
South Dakota and Montana are beside each other – They are adjacent or adjacently?
New York is in the north – New York is northern.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Makes You Think
I considered creating a new blog to feed my obsession with English grammar, but I realized that to think about these things deeply is to live fully away, so I will just post it here and put a grammar tag on it.
Before you read this post in entirety, consider how you would classify this sentence: The performance and the party are at the same time.
How would you classify "at the same time?"
I have been obsessed with whether or not a prepositional phrase of time or place is adjectival or adverbial when following "to be". Consider this:
If you were going to substitute a word for “at the same time” would you use simultaneous (an adjective) or simultaneously (an adverb)?
If "at the same time" can describe the compound subject in this sentence, is it a big leap from this to classifying "Tuesday" as adjectival in this sentence: The performance is Tuesday.
The options we have for the verb here are 1. it is a linking verb or 2. it is an intransitive verb.
If Tuesday is adverbial, then the verb cannot be a linking verb.
If "is" is not linking "performance" to "Tuesday", then what is it doing in this sentence? To say, "The performance is", is just to say "there is a performance". The purpose of this sentence is to say something more about the performance.
I anticipate that many will reply that what the sentence really means is: The performance and the party will happen at the same time. Here, "at the same time" modifies will happen, making it an adverb. But, this is not a semantic question, but a grammatical one. And who talks like that anyway?
I am not married to this idea that all prepositional phrases following "be" are adjectival, but we have a serious courtship going on.
I could be missing something obvious which I have done before, so I appreciate your thoughts.
Before you read this post in entirety, consider how you would classify this sentence: The performance and the party are at the same time.
How would you classify "at the same time?"
I have been obsessed with whether or not a prepositional phrase of time or place is adjectival or adverbial when following "to be". Consider this:
If you were going to substitute a word for “at the same time” would you use simultaneous (an adjective) or simultaneously (an adverb)?
If "at the same time" can describe the compound subject in this sentence, is it a big leap from this to classifying "Tuesday" as adjectival in this sentence: The performance is Tuesday.
The options we have for the verb here are 1. it is a linking verb or 2. it is an intransitive verb.
If Tuesday is adverbial, then the verb cannot be a linking verb.
If "is" is not linking "performance" to "Tuesday", then what is it doing in this sentence? To say, "The performance is", is just to say "there is a performance". The purpose of this sentence is to say something more about the performance.
I anticipate that many will reply that what the sentence really means is: The performance and the party will happen at the same time. Here, "at the same time" modifies will happen, making it an adverb. But, this is not a semantic question, but a grammatical one. And who talks like that anyway?
I am not married to this idea that all prepositional phrases following "be" are adjectival, but we have a serious courtship going on.
I could be missing something obvious which I have done before, so I appreciate your thoughts.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
The Process
Feel free to read this, but know that I have changed my mind, or shall I say grown in my learning, and here is an updated explanation: http://livefullyawake.blogspot.com/2011/11/when-just-because-is-not-satisfactory.html
This thought process consumed me for 4 days. Please read this entirely before you judge. This is describing a learning process, so what I think about this question in the first paragragh is not the same as what I think about it in the last paragraph.
The question:
I am in debate about how many sentence patterns we have in the English language. I am to teach Essentials of the English Language (EEL) in the Classical Conversations program next year.
Here are the 7 that EEL teaches:
S-Vi (intransitive verb)
S-Vt (transitive verb)-DO
S-Vl (linking verb)-PN (subject complement)
S-Vl (linking verb)-PA
S-Vt-IO-DO
S-Vt-DO-OCN (object complement noun)
S-Vt-DO-OCA (OC adjective)
This is lacking the 3 "be" patterns (that I learned in college), 2 of which can be compensated for with the S-LV-PA or PN patterns.
The third is the S-V(be)-ADV (of place or time)
My question is this: Can you eliminate the S-V(be)-ADV (of time or place) pattern and put these sentences in the S-Vi pattern?
If so, then how? For example, what sentence pattern does a sentence like: The girl is outside fit into?
What is the purpose of sentence patterns?
I am starting with the premise that the reason we study grammar is to learn how to communicate by learning how a language is used or how it should be used. If you were teaching a non-native speaker of English how to speak our language, what would be the purpose of teaching sentence patterns?
I would think that the sentence patterns were not for purposes of diagramming but for learning patterns of necessary elements to make a sentence grammatically correct and convey intent or meaning (in order to learn to communicate). That is, that you could take anything that was not in the pattern away and still have a sentence that is grammatically correct. To me, the statement "Tom is" or "The performance is" does not pass the "does it make complete sense" test. Does it make sense, well yes, I suppose. But that is not our question. The question is, "Does it make COMPLETE sense?" Even changing the verb "is" to "exists" or "is" to "happens" doesn't really make complete sense regards to how we us language to communicate.
What pattern does this sentence fit into?
Since there is not a direct object, predicate noun or predicate adjective, S-Vi seems to be the only option.
"Outside" is an adverb and there is no linking verb pattern it will fit into.
What I know about the verb "be": it is sometimes called a linking verb and sometimes a "state of being" verb. It is not an action verb and cannot be a transitive verb.
Why I do not think this sentence fits well in the S-Vi pattern:
Most sources define intransive verbs as action verbs; though some say any verb can be classified as transtive or intransitive.
The sentence seems incomplete without the adverb. "The girl is" is not a normal speech pattern and seems to be incomplete. In order for a sentence to be grammatical, it has to make "complete sense". In my mind, this is a stretch.
I think I'm on to something!
After a dictionary study of the word "be", this is what I came up with.
"Tom is outside" really means:
"Tom occupies a place outside"
(which is a S-Vt-DO pattern) but more importantly, if you understand that the word "be" can mean "to occupy a place" it lends the verb action (intransitive verbs are action verbs)
"The performance is Monday" really means:
"The performance will take place on Monday"
I found an answer:
Here's the source: http://www.polysyllabic.com/?q=navigating/verbphrase/summary
There are 5 sentence patterns according to verb type (or subtype).
1.Intransitive: subject + VI
2.Linking: subject + VL + subject complement (EEL makes 2 from this)
{EEL lists the following subtypes as transitive}
3.Transitive: subject + VT + direct object
4.Ditransitive: subject + VD + indirect object + direct object
5.Complex Transitive: subject + VC + direct object + object complement (EEL makes 2 from this)
To analyze sentences fluidly, you need to learn these verb patterns thoroughly. You should be able to look at the constituents after a verb and say to yourself, "this pattern means that this verb is of type __". Note that if you consult a major reference grammar such as A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language or The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (am i insane because I want these resources?), you will find more subtypes of verbs. These other patterns, however, are minor variations on the basic ones we have presented. If you understand these five, the subtler variations will be relatively easy to understand.
Just as words can fall into several different parts of speech, verb can employ several different patterns. For this reason, you can't just assume that a particular verb will always fall into one subtype. You must look at the sentence in which that verb appears.
Reading this makes me think that the sentence patterns are not in place to model speech patterns, but to classify sentences by verb type. Since adverbs do not affect the type of verb, they are never include in the patterns. If this is true, my premise about the purpose of sentence patterns was flawed.
Apparently, this is a S-Vi pattern.
{insert days passing}
I think I've changed my mind.
I asked a trusted friend an mentor, Mead Vest, about this sentence upon beginning my journey. She, too, began searching for answers. She consulted Grammar Girl and GG gave her a concise answer: if a word follows "is" it is a predicate adjective.
At first, I was thinking that there is no way that "outside" could be an adjective. In the sentence, "The girl is outside," outside is clearly describing where and not which.
My mind opens and understanding comes in
My mind opens to the possibility that these "adverbs" could be a subject complements (yes, adjectives) because they seem to be more closely related to the subject than the verb. And, they can be moved to an adjective postion.
Take the following examples:
The performance is Monday -- The Monday performance (check)
The girl is upstairs -- The upstairs girl (maybe)
Though "upstairs girl" sounds awkward, what if it were "upstairs room" or "upstairs closet"? It is a matter of grammar and not semantics.
Who would have thought that grammar could be philosophical?
When you change "he is silly" to "he acts silly", it changes silly from an adjective to an adverb. I'm not sure you can modify a "be" verb, it is just too closely related to the subject that is "being". If you change it to the progressive tense, "He is being silly," It could be argued that silly is modifying how he is being, an adverb function.
Take the sentence, "I feel sick." Here "sick" is telling how I feel, which is normally an adverb function. But, since it follows a linking verb, we classify it as an adjective. It is really not describing "feel" but how "I feel."
When we are modifying "be" we are modifying more than just a verb, we are modifying someone's "state of being" (which is a noun).
The sentence in question: The girl is upstairs.
Upstairs is modifying not where "is" is taking place but describing the girl's "state of being" at this point in time.
I will label upstairs as an adjective and put it in the S-Vl-PA pattern.
This thought process consumed me for 4 days. Please read this entirely before you judge. This is describing a learning process, so what I think about this question in the first paragragh is not the same as what I think about it in the last paragraph.
The question:
I am in debate about how many sentence patterns we have in the English language. I am to teach Essentials of the English Language (EEL) in the Classical Conversations program next year.
Here are the 7 that EEL teaches:
S-Vi (intransitive verb)
S-Vt (transitive verb)-DO
S-Vl (linking verb)-PN (subject complement)
S-Vl (linking verb)-PA
S-Vt-IO-DO
S-Vt-DO-OCN (object complement noun)
S-Vt-DO-OCA (OC adjective)
This is lacking the 3 "be" patterns (that I learned in college), 2 of which can be compensated for with the S-LV-PA or PN patterns.
The third is the S-V(be)-ADV (of place or time)
My question is this: Can you eliminate the S-V(be)-ADV (of time or place) pattern and put these sentences in the S-Vi pattern?
If so, then how? For example, what sentence pattern does a sentence like: The girl is outside fit into?
What is the purpose of sentence patterns?
I am starting with the premise that the reason we study grammar is to learn how to communicate by learning how a language is used or how it should be used. If you were teaching a non-native speaker of English how to speak our language, what would be the purpose of teaching sentence patterns?
I would think that the sentence patterns were not for purposes of diagramming but for learning patterns of necessary elements to make a sentence grammatically correct and convey intent or meaning (in order to learn to communicate). That is, that you could take anything that was not in the pattern away and still have a sentence that is grammatically correct. To me, the statement "Tom is" or "The performance is" does not pass the "does it make complete sense" test. Does it make sense, well yes, I suppose. But that is not our question. The question is, "Does it make COMPLETE sense?" Even changing the verb "is" to "exists" or "is" to "happens" doesn't really make complete sense regards to how we us language to communicate.
What pattern does this sentence fit into?
Since there is not a direct object, predicate noun or predicate adjective, S-Vi seems to be the only option.
"Outside" is an adverb and there is no linking verb pattern it will fit into.
What I know about the verb "be": it is sometimes called a linking verb and sometimes a "state of being" verb. It is not an action verb and cannot be a transitive verb.
Why I do not think this sentence fits well in the S-Vi pattern:
Most sources define intransive verbs as action verbs; though some say any verb can be classified as transtive or intransitive.
The sentence seems incomplete without the adverb. "The girl is" is not a normal speech pattern and seems to be incomplete. In order for a sentence to be grammatical, it has to make "complete sense". In my mind, this is a stretch.
I think I'm on to something!
After a dictionary study of the word "be", this is what I came up with.
"Tom is outside" really means:
"Tom occupies a place outside"
(which is a S-Vt-DO pattern) but more importantly, if you understand that the word "be" can mean "to occupy a place" it lends the verb action (intransitive verbs are action verbs)
"The performance is Monday" really means:
"The performance will take place on Monday"
I found an answer:
Here's the source: http://www.polysyllabic.com/?q=navigating/verbphrase/summary
There are 5 sentence patterns according to verb type (or subtype).
1.Intransitive: subject + VI
2.Linking: subject + VL + subject complement (EEL makes 2 from this)
{EEL lists the following subtypes as transitive}
3.Transitive: subject + VT + direct object
4.Ditransitive: subject + VD + indirect object + direct object
5.Complex Transitive: subject + VC + direct object + object complement (EEL makes 2 from this)
To analyze sentences fluidly, you need to learn these verb patterns thoroughly. You should be able to look at the constituents after a verb and say to yourself, "this pattern means that this verb is of type __". Note that if you consult a major reference grammar such as A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language or The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (am i insane because I want these resources?), you will find more subtypes of verbs. These other patterns, however, are minor variations on the basic ones we have presented. If you understand these five, the subtler variations will be relatively easy to understand.
Just as words can fall into several different parts of speech, verb can employ several different patterns. For this reason, you can't just assume that a particular verb will always fall into one subtype. You must look at the sentence in which that verb appears.
Reading this makes me think that the sentence patterns are not in place to model speech patterns, but to classify sentences by verb type. Since adverbs do not affect the type of verb, they are never include in the patterns. If this is true, my premise about the purpose of sentence patterns was flawed.
Apparently, this is a S-Vi pattern.
{insert days passing}
I think I've changed my mind.
I asked a trusted friend an mentor, Mead Vest, about this sentence upon beginning my journey. She, too, began searching for answers. She consulted Grammar Girl and GG gave her a concise answer: if a word follows "is" it is a predicate adjective.
At first, I was thinking that there is no way that "outside" could be an adjective. In the sentence, "The girl is outside," outside is clearly describing where and not which.
My mind opens and understanding comes in
My mind opens to the possibility that these "adverbs" could be a subject complements (yes, adjectives) because they seem to be more closely related to the subject than the verb. And, they can be moved to an adjective postion.
Take the following examples:
The performance is Monday -- The Monday performance (check)
The girl is upstairs -- The upstairs girl (maybe)
Though "upstairs girl" sounds awkward, what if it were "upstairs room" or "upstairs closet"? It is a matter of grammar and not semantics.
Who would have thought that grammar could be philosophical?
When you change "he is silly" to "he acts silly", it changes silly from an adjective to an adverb. I'm not sure you can modify a "be" verb, it is just too closely related to the subject that is "being". If you change it to the progressive tense, "He is being silly," It could be argued that silly is modifying how he is being, an adverb function.
Take the sentence, "I feel sick." Here "sick" is telling how I feel, which is normally an adverb function. But, since it follows a linking verb, we classify it as an adjective. It is really not describing "feel" but how "I feel."
When we are modifying "be" we are modifying more than just a verb, we are modifying someone's "state of being" (which is a noun).
The sentence in question: The girl is upstairs.
Upstairs is modifying not where "is" is taking place but describing the girl's "state of being" at this point in time.
I will label upstairs as an adjective and put it in the S-Vl-PA pattern.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Project Waterfall
After playing in a field of mushrooms....
of course she blamed it on her sister and the neighbor, Kaci.
Mike is working on a water feature for our backyard get away.
I guess I'll see him in a few weeks.He has stayed out way after dark the past 2 nights.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Smiling Hard
I love it when something delights my children so much that it makes them smile this hard...
I have never seen a child more fond of babies than my Michael Anne.
Late walks with the fam
It is always difficult to get a candid shot of the husband, always looking for a laugh.
See, he cracks himself up.
Late walks with the fam
Saturday, May 14, 2011
A Typical Saturday
After a late night and an early soccer game,
Laundry was just too much...
At least she got it all folded before she fell asleep
Friday, May 13, 2011
The Dare
I just ordered Ann Voskamp's book One Thousand Gifts. I read the first chapter online am eagerly checking my mail box each day in anticipation of reading the rest. It is she who has inspired me to start this blog by challenging me to live fully awake. So I've taken her dare to count the blessing God has given and continues to give me.
Children
Husband
Children
Mom and Dad
Brother and Fam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)