What sentence construction would this fall under?
So we know that there are five canonical sentence constructions: subject/verb, subject/verb/direct object, subject/verb/indirect object/direct object, subject/verb/subject-complement, subject/verb/direct object/object-complement. Right?
In modern grammar, content clauses ("noun clauses" in traditional grammar) are typically complements, sometimes subjects, but never objects. So then what construction would a sentence like this one fall under: "This proves that the district did not have a fair say in the bill."
If "that the district did not have a fair say in the bill" is merely an internal complement to the verb, then... subject/verb? I feel like that's not satisfactory. What are some thoughts? Also, huge thanks in advance. You guys are the best.
Top answer
An object can be a noun or noun phrase. A noun phrase does not have a verb in the main constituent. He likes tea .
- An object can be a noun or noun phrase.
- A noun phrase does not have a verb in the main constituent.
- He likes tea .
- (object) He likes hot jasmine tea .
- (object) He likes hot jasmine tea served with crumpets at 4 pm.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
An object can be a noun or noun phrase. A noun phrase does not have a verb in the main constituent.
He likes tea. (object)
He likes hot jasmine tea. (object)
He likes hot jasmine tea served with crumpets at 4 pm. (object)
He likes having high tea at 4 pm. (complement, non-finite clause)
0This proves [that the district did not [have a fair say in the bill]].
The five canonical clause structures are all main clauses, basic in structure. They reflect two dimensions of contrast: whether there are objects (and if so, how many) and whether there are predicative complements. But they don't reflect the dimension of subordination.
Your example cont
0
Related Questions