Adjective as an object?

bredav · Post by **bredav** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:56 pm

Dogs are mammals.

Eggs are white.

These two sentences seem to have the same structure, except that 'mammals' is an noun and 'white' is an adjective. In the second example, the word 'white' looks peculiarly like the object of the sentence.

Can anybody tell me what's going on here?

sbourque · Post by **sbourque** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:43 am

In the first sentence, "are" links two nouns. In the second, it links a noun with an adjective. You can't call "white" an object because there is no action expressed.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:59 am

What about "I'm white" (said of a chess game during a break)? Would that be an adjective, or reduced noun? Not that it matters much to me!

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:03 am

Bredav: look up 'copula' and 'complement'.

wangfang_tian · Post by **wangfang_tian** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:08 am

Dogs are mammels.
In this sentence, the word "mammels" is a noun.
Eggs are white.
In this sentence, the word "white" is an adjective which describes the character of an object. It is different from "I am white." ( when playing chess) . "White" in this sentence is a noun which shows you are one of the players.
Though both of the sentences have the same structure, they use different predicative words according to different expressions.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:06 am

WFT, the point I was trying to imply if not make to Bredav was simply that it shouldn't be surprising that adjectives and nouns can follow the copula as complements (i.e. don't take my "analysis" of my sentence too seriously). I'm still not sure why he'd want to call 'white' in his egg sentence an object, though! (Confused SVO with SVC?)

ouyang · Post by **ouyang** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:12 am

Subject Complements are not limited to being linked by the copula verb.
The eggs are white.
They look fresh.
They smell delicious.
They will taste great.
They are getting cold.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:15 pm

Yup, grammars often recognize a group of copula-like verbs, especially those other verbs relating to the senses.

ouyang · Post by **ouyang** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:29 pm

Yes, you are right fluffy. But I was thinking of the common phrase "the copula verb in English", which implies one verb. Also, in terms of sentence patterns, a distinction can be made between 'to be' and other copulas, and that's why I refer to them as linking verbs.

We must use an auxiliary to ask a question with a linking verb.
Is it green? vs. Does is look green?

Speaking of sentence patterns, should the verbs 'to paint' and 'to consider' be classified as copulas when used in the passive voice?

S-V-O
I painted the eggs.

S-V-C
The eggs are painted green.
The eggs look green.
The eggs are green.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:30 pm

ouyang wrote:Speaking of sentence patterns, should the verbs 'to paint' and 'to consider' be classified as copulas when used in the passive voice?

S-V-O
I painted the eggs.

S-V-C
The eggs are painted green.

Granted, the 'painted' there is less likely to strike non-linguists as (being part of a) passive, and could be omitted (in the "present" statement) or "passed over" with little resulting difference in meaning. But calling it a "copula" (and divorcing it from its passive verb phrase) then leaves us with the problem of what to now call the stranded BE (which isn't technically a copula in passives) - surely we can't have "double/fused copulas" in "quasi-passive" (or should that be "WTF!") sentences. And how might this all fit in with e.g. schemes that seem to treat past participles as adjectives (in the absence of -by agent phrases), such as Willis (of COBUILD fame) presents? Then there is the issue of downplaying the greater and quasi-reported mental processes (that had been) involved in coming to 'consider sthg e.g. dangerous' (versus simply '(painting sthg) green' for "all to simply see").

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:58 pm

"The eggs are painted green" is only a passive if I can ask "Every day?".

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:13 pm

I agree that it is a somewhat strange example, JTT, but who are we to say that eggs aren't ever painted green (for ornamental purposes) in their truckloads?

If you can swallow all that, you might then give us yer grammatical analysis, and be sicker than Pool Knewman in Call Hand Puke ("The most scathing portrait of things linguistic since Harris' The Linguistics Wars" - The New Criterion).

ouyang · Post by **ouyang** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:34 pm

The eggs were painted green by the Easter Bunny.
Einstein was considered a slow student by his first grade teacher.

The use of past participles as predicate adjectives is a topic that I've never seen explained well, but you don't have to complicate the question by going there. Most people would agree that two sentences above are passive. Are the words "green" and "student" subject complements? If so, and if you base your sentence patterns on transitivity, then would you say they follow the same pattern as a copular sentence?

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:05 am

Certainly my crude understanding is the same as yours: that the copula and be-like verbs take an adjective as complement and the rough-and-ready test is that you can revert to the "be" with only the loss of detail*:

It smells good (It is good, nasally*)

And that "true" present passives have an active equivalent:

"The class is cancelled" is only a passive if in that context "The teacher/Somebody cancels the class" can be used.

According to that the non-passive be +participle+adjective does seem copular-ish:

My bedroom is painted yellow (My bedroom is yellow, as a result of paint*)

My jeans are dyed green (My trousers are green, it's not mould*)

"Consider" may be a tangent/red-herring because I wonder if there isn't a bit of elision of "to be" :

I'm thought handsome, considered intelligent and believed alive.

But then the true present simple passive has a copular-ish quality in the case of "painted/coloured/dyed"

Every day at nine the eggs are painted green again
Every day at nine the eggs are green again (by means of paint*)

What about "Every day at nine the eggs are made green again"?

Similar things exist, some on the edges of "correct":

The children are spoilt rotten

The street is blocked solid

I shot him dead

It's a sort of "adjective as result" ?

ouyang · Post by **ouyang** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:25 pm

My opinion is that these are not copular sentences. I think the concept of transitive passive clauses http://www.dailygrammar.com/121to125.shtml is important here. Copular sentences are intransitive. I'd like to say that they are intransitive complete, but the convention is to classify them as intransitive linking http://www.dailygrammar.com/116to120.shtml. I would prefer the classifications to be intransitive complete vs. intransitive incomplete.

Anyway, it is a common view to classify passive sentences as intransitive, and I think that leads to confusion. These sentences are variations of clauses that would never be considered copular.

The bunny painted the eggs green.
The teacher considered him a slow student.

I think the agent - action - patient relationship must always be considered in this type of analysis. A copular sentence does not have a patient. Passive sentences do.

Teacher Discussion Forums

Adjective as an object?

Adjective as an object?

my advice