Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[ShoHiro]

Hello!

I'm interested in secondary predicates.
In the following sentences, which is the noun that a secondary predicate modifies? Or can the noun be changed by context? Or ambiguous?

(1) The policeman punched John drunk.

Which is drunk, the policeman or John? Similarly, how about the following sentences?

(2) John hit Tom naked.
(3) John met the mayor naked.
(4) Mary praised the professor drunk.
(5) Eathan photographed John happy.

Sincerely,
ShoHiro

[lotus]

Hi ShoHiro,

The words in italics are adjectives.

If they were meant to modify the subject, the sentences should be:

1) The drunk policeman punched John.
2) Naked John hit Tom.
3) Naked John met the mayor.
4) Drunk Mary praised the professor.
5) Happy Ethan photographed John.

If they were meant to modify the object, the sentences should be:

1) The policeman punched drunk John.
2) John hit naked Tom.
3) John met the naked mayor.
4) Mary praised the drunk professor.
5) Ethan photographed happy John.

The words in italics in your sentences are positioned in a place where an appositive would be. An appositive is a word or group of words that identifies or renames the noun or pronoun that it follows. The oppositive is a noun and not an adjective as in your examples. That is why they sound strange. You could replace the adjective with appositive noun phrases to repair the sentences.

1) The policeman punched John, a drunken pedestrian.
2) John hit Tom, the naked man.
3) John met the mayor, a naked official.
4) Mary praised the professor, a drunken lush.
5) Ethan photographed John, a happy subject.

Another common construct is to use adverbs (or adverbial phrases) in the place of the words in italics. But, the adverbs can only modify the verb.

1) The policeman punched John hard.
2) John hit Tom with fervor.
3) John met the mayor early.
4) Mary praised the professor profusely.
5) Ethan photographed John beautifully.

Sometimes we can't force an expression into a construct. It is better to pick an appropriate or natural construction for the expression.


--lotus

[ShoHiro]

Hello, lotus!

Thank you very much for answering my question. I understand you. But you can use adjectives as secondary predicates, can't you? For example, They killed the animals and ate the meat raw. In this sentence, raw is an adjective but can be occured in the sentence end.

The examples I provided in the first question sound strange, because they are out of context. Is that right? If so, what kind of context can be given to get the correct meaning? Would you tell me the appropriate context?

I will provide the examples using secondary predicates which seem to be natural.

(1) Don't go to bed angry.
(2) They married young.
(3) They returned the book unread.

Sincerely,
ShoHiro

[lotus]

Hi Shohiro,

These sentences are more natural. The last words are adjectives acting as adverbs (adverbials).

The contruction is: (SUBJECT + VERB + OBJECT + ADVERBIAL)

They ate the meat raw. (how did they eat the meat?)
(You) don't go to bed angry. (how should you not go to bed?)
They married (v. int.) young. (when did they marry?)
They returned the book unread. (how was the book returned?)


--lotus

[ShoHiro]

Hello, lotus!

Thank you very much again! I found that secondary predicates sound adverbial for native English speakers.

Putting aside whether secondary predicates are adverbs or not, I would like to know how the following sentences are interpreted.

(1) John drove his car drunk.
(2) the hired chauffeur often found himself having to drive Finchie home dead drunk from a night of wild passion. (BNC)

In (1), of course, drunk is John, while in (2) drunk is Finchie.

How about the following sentence?

(3) John drove Mary home drunk.

In (3), which is drunk? Ambiguos?

Best regards,
ShoHiro

[lotus]

Hi ShoHiro,

It's a little ambigous; but most native speakers will know that it was John who was driving drunk.

To avoid ambiguity, try:

John drove Mary home while he was drunk.


Again, you should choose the construct that best expresses what you're trying to say.


--lotus

[ShoHiro]

Hello, lotus!

Thank you very much again and again. Secondary predicates are used when the sentences with them are unambiguous. Is that right?

I understand the importance to avoid ambiguity but I would like to know one more. This is the last question.

You can say as follows:
(1) Tom went home very tired.

In (1), very tired is Tom. How about the following sentences?
(2) Tom drove his car very tired.
(3) Tom drove Mary home very tired.
(4) Tom kicked the bear very tired.

The sentences (2)-(4) are grammatical? And in (3) and (4) which is very tired? Tom or Mary (in (3))? Tom or the bear (in (4))?

Although these questions are nonsense, I am very interested with the interpretation of the sentences with secondary predicates.

Sincerely,
ShoHiro

[lotus]

Hi ShoHiro,

Modifier placement is very important in avoiding ambiguity. You must re-write sentences 2, 3 and 4 to clarify who was tired.

2) Tom was very tired when he drove (home).

3) Tom was very tired when he drove Mary home.

4) Tom was very tired when he kicked the bear.

Here is a link on modifier placement (misplaced modifiers, dangling modifiers and squinting modifiers).
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/modifiers.htm


--lotus

[ShoHiro]

Hello, lotus,

Thank you very much many times. I know the way to avoid the ambiguites. What I would like to know is how the sentences I provided are interpreted in the sentences with secondary predicates.

Sincerely,
ShoHiro