complement vs. adjunct/modifier

< Previous | Next >

JungKim

Senior Member
Korean
In the following noun phrase, is the prepositional phrase from Lloyds complement or adjunct/modifier?
even all the preposterous salary from Lloyds that Bill gets
The Cambridge Grammar of The English Language (by Huddleston and Pullum) marks the PP as complement in the following tree diagram, but I'm not sure why.

CGEL Tree 11 v4.jpg
 
  • entangledbank

    Senior Member
    English - South-East England
    It's not in Pullum's list of mistakes they found, but I've found other mistakes that aren't on that list, and this looks like one of them. I can't see any reason to treat an ordinary phrase headed by 'from' as a complement. 'Salary' isn't related to a verb; it's not like 'Kim's payment to Sam' where the two actants are complements of the underlying verb.
     

    JungKim

    Senior Member
    Korean
    I see that you’ve also asked this rather technical question on another forum and it’s been answered there (complement vs adjunct/modifier).
    No, there're no answers on the other forum yet. Only comments.

    It's not in Pullum's list of mistakes they found, but I've found other mistakes that aren't on that list, and this looks like one of them. I can't see any reason to treat an ordinary phrase headed by 'from' as a complement. 'Salary' isn't related to a verb; it's not like 'Kim's payment to Sam' where the two actants are complements of the underlying verb.
    I've got it. Thanks. And as for the tree, if the PP from Lloyds were complement, the noun salary should first combine with the PP to form a nominal salary from Lloyds before combining with the adjective preposterous, right? That is, if the PP were complement, the tree diagram as is would be wrong, right?
     
    Last edited:
    < Previous | Next >
    Top