For searching the Latin expressions page, click here.
To recall the fundamentals, read the Overview.
| Back |
1.1 - SUBJECT AND PREDICATE
PART 2: AROUND THE CORE 2.1 - COMPLEMENTS
2.1b - of time 2.1c - of instrument 2.1d - of decoration 2.1e - of mode 2.1f - of relation 2.1g - of belonging 2.1h - causal 2.1i - of destination (of target) 2.1j - of purpose 2.3 - ACTIVE AND PASSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS PART 3: BUILDING BLOCKS 3.1 - ZOOMING IN3.2 - NOUNS
3.2b - Common versus proper nouns 3.2c - Abstract nouns 3.2d - Gender of nouns 3.2e - Number of nouns
3.3a2 - Possessives 3.3a3 - Numerals 3.3a4 - Locators
3.4b - Possessive pronouns 3.4c - Personal pronouns
3.4c2 - Emphatic self, reflexive construction 3.4e - Pronoun one
- Imperative - Indicative - Subjunctive - Conditional - Participle - Gerund 3.5c - Negative, Interrogative Forms 3.5d - Active and Passive Constructions 3.5e - Verb Practice 3.7 - CONJUNCTIONS 3.8 - MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 3.9 - PUNCTUATION & PAGE BREAK-UP PART 4: THE DISCOURSE 4.1 - Compound Sentences4.2 - Complex Sentences
- Concession Complements 4.2a - The Star-like Complex Sentence - Syntax Rules 4.2b - The Nested Complex Sentence | Back |
back
PART I
It consists of: Predicates may either More in detail: We express our ideas by means of clauses, i.e. statements which make sense. All clauses are built around the core discussed in Part I. Optional elements may be also be found in clauses which are introduced in Part II at #2.1. back
PART II Complements
Let us call "complement" anything which can be removed from a clause without impairing its fundamental meaning. For example, the previous clause:
may be expanded by the addition of any of the following: Which complements are added - and how many of them - depends on the amount of information expected by the listener and the style of exposition. Active vs. passive construction
Another option open to us is whether emphasis should be laid on the subject or on the object. The previous clause may be rephrased as:
In it, the former object ("a great movie") becomes the subject, and the former subject ("my friend") becomes a complement. The form "My friend saw a movie" is called "active" (the subject does something). The form "A movie was seen" is called "passive" (the subject - the movie - is just there, it doesn't do anything, it is watched by external entities like my friend). back
PART III Subject, predicate, complement, active and passive constructions are found in all languages. They are logical notions, i.e. pertain to how human mind works. But how core and optional elements are arranged within a clause varies from language to language(2). The basic notions which help understand how national grammars differ among themselves are: The main divide is between "nouns" and "verbs": The other notions (determiners, adjectives, adverbs, particles):
Focusing on verbs
In Part III we note that each language has its own rules (its grammar) for arranging such combinations and - most of all - for governing a complex feature of verbs: their conjugation (or inflection). A peculiarity of verbs is that they may refer to a time dimension spanning from past to future. Verbs must be flexible enough to indicate the point or interval in time when an event occurs (or - if in negative form - doesn't occur). Harmonisation of verbal tenses is another matter which is settled in different ways by different languages. The changing of verbal shapes is restricted to a minimum in English but is very articulate in German or Spanish. Cases were slowly superseded by particles
A final remark is needed on particles ("of", "in", "on", "after", "due to", "because of" and one thousand more). They connect complements to the clause core. Long ago, particles were less widespread. Ancient languages tended to modify words according to their function; thus the shape of a noun would often signal whether it was a complement (and what kind of complement) or a subject, or an object. In most current languages nouns simply adjust according to gender (feminine, masculine, neuter), number (singular, plural) - not to the function played in the clause. Complements are mostly signalled by adding appropriate particles. Among European languages, German is an exception. While making use of particles, it still retains characteristics of ancient languages, namely the case-based structure.
back
PART IV The last Part deals with how two or more clauses coalesce to form a "complex sentence". All complex sentences need one pivotal ("main") clause - on which all other ("subordinate") clauses hinge. The same pattern found in clauses applies to sentences, with the main being the sentence core and subordinates standing by to complement the main clause.
Back to opening page.
Based on L.G. Alexander, Longman English Grammar, Longman Group UK Ltd., Harlow 1988.
1.1 - SUBJECT AND PREDICATE
The SUBJECT is the focus of any utterance: information is either given or requested about it. The PREDICATE carries the information being given or sought on the subject. Predicates come in two patterns:
FOOTNOTES
The QUALIFIER is what characterises the subject: being old, dizzy or tired, being a doctor, etc.
Details on "Objects" Return Only objects are directly related to subjects. Predicates which require objects are said to be transitive: i.e. a relationship is established by them which seamlessly transits from subject to object. Predicates which make a statement on the subject without necessarily relating it to an object are intransitive. These may still assert a clarifying relationship between the subject and something else (a complement, not an object) and, when they do, we say that such relationship is indirect. In indirect connections, the complement is usually connected via a particle such as "to", "with", "from" .... When objects are needed they become part of the clore. Complements do not belong to the core and may be removed from the clause without impairing its fundamental meaning. In:
the "subject + predicate" core (Mary caught) is connected to the object (a cold) with no particle in between. If "a cold" is removed, the clause no longer stands. In:
"Paul" is not not directly appended to "Mary speaks", the joining being effected through particle "to". The cluster "to Paul" is a complement. If it is removed, what is left ("Mary speaks") carries less information but is still a meaningful statement. Let us elaborate further.
The following exhange is drawn from the Lokanova French forum. It shows to which extent languages are dissimilar. Posté le: 05 Nov 2004 06:17 Flamenco a écrit :
J'ai entendu dire que le thaï était une langue très simple ... Vous en savez quelque chose ?Réponse de Beaumont :
L'avantage du thai c'est que tu peux très vite te débrouiller, donc c'est pour ça que certains disent que c'est facile. ... Comme il n'y a pas de grammaire et pas de conjugaison, la structure des phrases est très simple et on peut très vite tenir une conversation basique. ...
Posté le: 06 Nov 2004 04:22 Rónán a écrit :
S'il y avait pas de grammaire, tout le monde dirait n'importe quoi et personne se comprendrait... Que veux-tu dire par "pas de grammaire" ?Réponse de Beaumont :
La formule était un peu rapide, je voulais dire pas de grammaire à apprendre, dans le sens où les règles régissant la syntaxe et la morphologie sont très simples.
Pour ce qui est de la morphologie, par exemple, les noms et les adjectifs ne changent pas en fonction du genre et du nombre ... . Les verbes ne changent pas non plus en fonction du temps ou de la personne. On ajoute simplement une particule devant le verbe (toujours la même) qui indique le passé ou le futur (et il n'y a pas 36 millions de temps et de modes comme en français). Pour ce qui est de la syntaxe, la construction des phrases est très simple : sujet (et encore, souvent omis quand on peut le déduire du contexte), verbe, complément. Si tu veux dire "hier, je suis allé à la piscine", ça donnera "hier + (je) + passé + aller + piscine". Il n'y a pas besoin de se demander quel temps du passé on va utiliser, comment se conjugue le verbe, comment on indique le lieu, quel déterminant on va utiliser, si piscine est féminin ...
What is meant by "something of substance"? A quick recall of ancient Greek philosophy shall clarify. All which is conceivable rests on an interplay of "substance" and "shape" (or "form"). Let us consider the word "child". Each child is different: some are tall and others less so, their hair comes in any shade within a range, so does the colour of their complexion or eyes; some are healthy and other sickly. However we recognise them all as children. What is common to them we call "substance". The substance of an individual specimen needs a shape compatible with its nature. No substance is conceivable without shape, nor can shapes be thought of unless applied to a substance. Any entity observed in the real world or imagined within our mind blends substance and form (shape). Substance may be understood as the underlying base which supports a given set of shapes — for example those children can take up. Although our example is drawn from the real world (children are part of it), the same reasoning applies to substances which cannot be physically seen nor weighed: to ideas. We may associate the word "tuberculosis" with words such "gruesome", "debilitating" etc. The basis word identifies substance, ancillary words define its shape. In this context shapes don't display physical characters (colour, health, weight ...) but ones which define substance in other ways. Nouns point to substances (child, tuberculosis ...) and adjectives point to shapes (tall, dark-haired, gruesome, ...).
Semantics: the branch of linguistics which focuses on the meaning of speech segments.
|