Parsing

Question

Hi,Is my parsing correct?John S. told the court he hadn't seen the suspect at that time.John S. - a subject;told - a verb;the court - an indirect object;he hadn't seen the suspect at that time - a direct object.Thank you.

Cool Breeze · Accepted Answer

That's exactly how I would parse the sentence. Of course you could parse the subordinate clause as well:
he - subject
etc.

CB

Anonymous · Answer

Thank you, CB, for your useful reply.

BillJ · Answer

No, I'm afraid not. You're correct about subject and verb, but wrong about the rest. The verb "told" has two complements:

1. The court is direct object (not indirect object).

2. He hadn't seen the suspect... is the second complement of "told" - we call it a clausal complement, or content clause to be precise. It is not a direct object.

BillJ

Cool Breeze · Answer

It depends on where Anonymous lives. There are countries where a clause is often considered a direct object and terms such as "a clausal complement" are never used. In Scandinavia, for instance, the court is definitely an indirect object in the sentence. We have no way of knowing the nationality of Anonymous and the grammatical terms he and his teachers use.

He can choose whichever reply he he considers the more useful one.

CB

BillJ · Answer

I don't agree. It's not about different countries parsing sentences different ways, so the nationality of the OP is irrelevant. This is about the way many usage manuals and grammar books are far behind current thinking. Many of those publications are still sitting on shelves all over the world, and treated as gospel by their readers.

Trad grammar treats content clauses like "he hadn't seen the suspect" as noun clauses and assumes they have the same functions as nouns (NPs). But content clauses aren't nouns - they don't behave like nouns or NPs - and this is now widely accepted by professional grammarians/linguists worldwide. The evidence (I posted a summary of it on this site a while ago) is overwhelming, but of course, when did evidence ever matter to purveyors of 18th-century grammar in 21st-century websites and books? And I might add that closed minds don't help either.

In a nutshell, that's why we don't call clauses like that in the OP's example direct objects.

If you can you come up with a sound rationale, with adequate evidence, to support your belief that content clauses are objects I'd be happy to read it.

BillJ

Cool Breeze · Answer

BillJIf you can you come up with a sound rationale, with adequate evidence, to support your belief that content clauses are objects I'd be happy to read it.

I need not do that as I know that most grammarians in Scandinavia think so and you can of course think differently. There are other countries than just England and the USA. Teachers here and in many other countries teach languages using their terminology. Of course I don't know whether the original poster is Scandinavian or even a student. He might be. It would be very stupid of him to parse a sentence in a way his teachers would consider wrong.

That's why I said let him choose. As his first attempt at parsing the sentence was correct from the Scandinavian point of view, he may offer it to his teacher. The fact that you and some other grammarians think it wrong is naturally irrelevant. He doesn't want to give his teacher an answer that he knows will be regarded as incorrect.

CB

Anonymous · Answer

Sorry, BillJ, but I'm with CB on that and I'm not going to be lost in a maze of sophisticated and murky terminology. For me the direct object is what the John S. told and to whom. I totally agree with CB and equally reject your explanation.

BillJ · Answer

AnonymousSorry, BillJ, but I'm with CB on that and I'm not going to be lost in a maze of sophisticated and murky terminology. For me the direct object is what the John S. told and to whom. I totally agree with CB and equally reject your explanation

Fine, it's your dime. But why did you ask in the first place if you were determined not to consider a different (and widely accepted) approach?

Just remember, the analysis I gave you is standard throughout the world of informed grammar. If you choose to be locked into a time capsule of ancient parsing, that's your choice.

It's just a shame that closed minds, not to mention a downright stubborn refusal to look facts clearly in the face, results in students such as yourself going away with the wrong answer. As I said, there is virtually nowhere in the world of modern grammar where content clauses are not accepted as complements.

Good luck with your studies (and don't forget to read the books - the modern ones that is!).

BillJ

JohnParis · Answer

Wow - what a good discussion !
The purpose of the forum has been well served - once again.
I would just like to add that much of what has been said depends upon how you view a living language such as English.
In my opinion, change is an integral part of (if not the key to) life, and language should change to remain a relevant part of it. Our media facilitates this.
As I grow older, I realize that digging-in my heels makes me feel less in touch with reality and more inclined to repeat my mistakes.

Parsing

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions