Subject + Verb + Object + Modifier/Complement?

< Previous | Next >

yessongs

New Member
English
Here is another grammatical question on which I need your inputs ...

Example1: Godzilla turned the town into a complete ruin.

Question:
A simple question.
Which Sentence Pattern does Example1 qualify for?

Subject + Verb + Object + modifier/qualifier (3rd sentence pattern)
or
Subject + Verb + Object + Complement (5th sentence pattern)


The bottom-line question is whether (into a complete ruin) is a modifier/qualifier OR a complement.

I feel it is 5th, since there is an equal relationship between "the town & a complete ruin" (town = ruin).

Another reason for which is that a sentence of 3rd pattern must stand alone without modifier/qualifier.
In example1, however, if we delete "into a complete ruin", the sentence "Godzilla turned the town." will not make any sense at all.

I hope I am making myself understood ...

Thanks in advance for your inputs.
 
Last edited:
  • xxAxx

    Senior Member
    English
    I would guess it would be "SVO + modifier/qualifier" because it qualifies into what Godzilla turned the town. I imagine if it was "SVOC" it would give more detail about the town. E.g. Godzilla destroyed Tokyo, which is much too humid in summer.
     

    cuchuflete

    Senior Member
    EEUU-inglés
    Example1: Godzilla turned the town into a complete ruin.

    Question:
    A simple question.
    Which Sentence Pattern does Example1 qualify for?

    Subject + Verb + Object + modifier/qualifier (3rd sentence pattern)
    or
    Subject + Verb + Object + Complement (5th sentence pattern)


    I hope I am making myself understood ...
    Why are Sentence and Pattern capitalized? What on earth are "3rd sentence pattern" and "5th sentence pattern"?

    If these are terms used in texts for teaching English to non-natives, they need to be explained. They are not in common use in AE (American English).
     

    KenInPDX

    Senior Member
    US English
    I think it is Subject + Verb + Object + Object Complement. An object complement describes the object of the sentence rather than the subject.

    However, it's not clear to me what the difference between a complement and a modifier/qualifier is - they seem like more or less the same thing to me. Can you give us an example of the difference?
     

    yessongs

    New Member
    English
    I would guess it would be "SVO + modifier/qualifier" because it qualifies into what Godzilla turned the town. I imagine if it was "SVOC" it would give more detail about the town. E.g. Godzilla destroyed Tokyo, which is much too humid in summer.
    Nice to see you here again, xxAxx.

    Hmm, you are in support of the 3rd pattern "SVO + modifier/qualifier", huh?
    You know what? That is what I thought at first for the same reason you indicated. But I still feel that "into a complete ruin" could be the Complement.

    Now I am not sure about anything ...

    Thanks again.
     

    Loob

    Senior Member
    English UK
    This blog suggests that the idea that there are 5 sentence patterns in English labelled 1st, 2nd etc is the brainchild of Japanese grammarians.

    It lists the 5 patterns: here's the part covering the 3rd and 5th (C = Complement):
    3rd Sentence Pattern S + Vt(Verb Transitive) + O(Object)
    We eat fish.
    4th Sentence Pattern S + Vt + O + O
    Father bought his son a car.
    5th Sentence Pattern S + Vt + C + C
    I consider him a fool.
    [...]
    They aren't quite the same as yessongs' categorisations, but close enough...

    Yessongs, if you're being asked to classify the sentence in this way (do you, perhaps, teach Japanese students?) then I think it would be easiest to start with the idea that the verb is turned into, not turn. In other word, think of the sentence as being equivalent to "Godzilla made the town a complete ruin".

    That points, in the terms of the Japanese system, to its being a '5th sentence pattern'.
     

    yessongs

    New Member
    English
    Why are Sentence and Pattern capitalized? What on earth are "3rd sentence pattern" and "5th sentence pattern"?

    If these are terms used in texts for teaching English to non-natives, they need to be explained. They are not in common use in AE (American English).
    Thanks.
    Here it goes:

    Subject + Verb (1st sentence pattern)
    Subject + Verb + Complement (2nd sentence pattern)
    Subject + Verb + Object (3rd sentence pattern)
    Subject + Verb + Object + Object (4th sentence pattern)
    Subject + Verb + Object + Complement (5th sentence pattern)

    This is how ESL(English as Second Language) classes are taught all over the world, including industrially advanced countries such as Japan and South Korea where "structure" in anything matters the most. I am sure this is how they teach Japanese or Hangul languages to English-speaking students as well.

    I do voluntarily teach ESL in my spare time and that must be why I unconciously capitalized "sentence pattern".  The term is so common in my thoughts and I apologize if that confused you.

    You are right the term " 1st - 5th sentence patterns" may not be commonly used in AE. On the other hand, however, I do expect for those who are willing to answer this question to understand by heart this is exactly how English is taught in the world of ESL and to know exactly what these terms are. My understanding is, for respondents here English is not just a vehicle of communication but a linguistic subject.

    If "sentence patterns such as SVOC" are not commonly known or understood among and by respondents here, this English forum is obviously not for me. If this is what you are suggesting by your comment, I should close up my account and look for one where I can freely ask questions about "SVOC 5th sentence pattern" without spelling them out each time I ask.

    I am new to this particular forum therefore I do not know. You tell me please.

    yessongs
     

    KenInPDX

    Senior Member
    US English
    I'm relatively new to the forum, but I don't think this is considered a forum for specialists in linguistics or ESL. Anybody who wants to can participate. I have seen a lot of participants say things that I thought were wildly incorrect. I would describe what you could expect from the majority of participants is that they are at least college-educated, have some level of interest in language above and beyond the that of the average working stiff, but are not necessarily professional linguists and wouldn't necessarily know what the "SVOC 5th sentence pattern" is without having it explained. I would expect that most people here would either get it quickly if you explained it or would be able to google it and figure it out.

    Sounds like you want a forum for specialists in teaching ESL. I have an M.S. in Computer Science with a concentration in Natural Language Processing and have read a lot of Computational Linguistics literature. I didn't know what an SVOC 5th sentence pattern was off the top of my head, but then I wouldn't expect you to understand the different distance measures that could be used in applying vector space methods to quantify semantic relatedness off the top of your head either.
     

    yessongs

    New Member
    English
    I think it is Subject + Verb + Object + Object Complement. An object complement describes the object of the sentence rather than the subject.

    However, it's not clear to me what the difference between a complement and a modifier/qualifier is - they seem like more or less the same thing to me. Can you give us an example of the difference?

    Thanks for your reply.

    You got the point nailed.
    What is the difference between a modifier/qualifier and complement?

    >Subject + Verb + Object pattern is oftenly followed by modifier/qualifier. For instance:

    Example1: I saw Santa Claus on the day of Christmas.
    ... where
    I = Subject
    saw = Verb
    Santa Claus = Object
    on the day of Christmas = Modifier that more explains the preceeding VERB as in "when did I see him > on the day of Christmas".

    >Subject + Verb + Object + Complement
    For instance:
    Example2: I call that rule non-sense.
    ... where
    I = Subject
    call = Verb
    that rule = Object
    non-sense = Complement that more explains the preceeding OBJECT as in "calling that rule what? > non-sense".

    >So to make a long explanation short:
    A modifier/qualifier is a an adverbial clause that modifies the Verb in that sentence, while Complement explains state of the Object.

    Indeed difficult stuff.

    Your next comment:
    >>I'm relatively new to the forum, but I don't think this is considered a forum for specialists in linguistics or ESL.
    >I hear you. I have an M.B.A. and am an IT consultant by trade with MCP and other IT certifications. I was not too familiar with the concept of sentence patterns as well. But now I breathe them. I am asking for correct answers on these hardcore grammatical questions so I can be as precise as possible when I explain these terms to those who originally asked me.

    Do not get me wrong, I have NO intension whatsoever to look down upon anyone who does not know these terms. It is natural, because these are very specific terms which you would not need to know at all. Besides, those who are not familiar with these terms must know about things I do not know.

    Anyway your point is well taken. You are absolutely right. As I wrote above for you and realized that people here should get it quickly if I beliefly explained it first.

    I will see how it goes.


    Thanks for your input and comment.
     

    JamesM

    Senior Member
    Here's what puzzles me, yessongs. Although this is a fairly clear explanation it is sprinkled with errors in English:

    "the day of Christmas" - unidiomatic - "Christmas day"
    "non-sense" - no hyphenation
    "intension" - misspelled

    I am thrown by your demand for precision in complex rules but your inattention to common spelling and idiomatic errors.

    This site is best used as an adjunct to the WordReference dictionary. It is its primary focus. The goal is to expand on the definition of words and phrases by discussing the actual everyday use of particular words and phrases as they are used in various flavors of English throughout the world.

    You will get feedback here from native speakers and English learners who have an interest in the use of English. If you are looking for specific grammatical classification, I recommend you seek out one of the many fine English grammar forums on the internet.
     

    KenInPDX

    Senior Member
    US English
    Yessongs,

    Your explanation of the difference between a modifier and a complement made perfect sense to me. Now that I know the difference, in

    Godzilla turned the town into a complete ruin

    I think it is clear that a complete ruin is a complement, since it modifies the object, which is the town.

    As I think someone mentioned earlier, turn into is a weird phrasal verb whose components get split up in this case.

    Another way to look at this is to turn the sentence into a passive form:

    The town was turned into a complete ruin by Godzilla.

    Here, the components of the phrasal verb "turn into" stay together, so it is easy to see that Godzilla is the agent of the action, the town is the object of the action, and a complete ruin is what the town was turned into - so therefore, it is a complement.

    Regarding the use of the forum, it is more oriented toward word and phrase definitions, but grammar questions do come up frequently. You might wish to contact one of the moderators to find out whether they consider your questions appropriate. Since they didn't delete your post I assume it passes muster, but it couldn't hurt to seek some guidance here.
     

    Ynez

    Senior Member
    Spanish
    From dictionary.com.

    Modifier:

    2.Grammar. a.a word, phrase, or sentence element that limits or qualifies the sense of another word, phrase, or element in the same construction. b.the immediate constituent of an endocentric construction that is not the head.

    Object complement:

    –noun Grammar.
    a word or a group of words used in the predicate following a factitive verb and referring to its direct object, as treasurer in We appointed him treasurer, white in They painted the house white, or an interesting speaker in They thought him an interesting speaker.


    I vote for Object Complement.
     

    Ynez

    Senior Member
    Spanish
    More information in:

    http://cc.ysu.edu/~tacopela/Writing/TransVerbs3-Pattern5.htm

    which is in:

    http://cc.ysu.edu/~tacopela/Writing/Grammar.htm



    Pattern 5

    Sentence Pattern 5

    Finally we come to the pattern that does for the direct object what Pattern 2 did for the subject: It equates or relates the direct object with something else, which follows it:

    Customers consider these sleds inexpensive.
    Customers consider these sleds a bargain.

    The element after the direct object is called an objective complement, and it may be either a noun or an adjective (or a noun phrase or adjective phrase): either "a bargain" or "inexpensive."
     

    Loob

    Senior Member
    English UK
    Interesting, Ynez. I see your site uses "sentence pattern 1-5" in the same way as yessongs was using "3rd/5th sentence pattern".

    Perhaps if I'd googled ""sentence pattern 3" instead of "3rd sentence" I wouldn't have been misled by my findings into (post 6) describing this approach as a Japanese system...

    ---------
    Actually, no, I've just tried that: I'd have been bemused by the contradictory results:D
     

    ewie

    Senior Member
    English English
    This is how ESL(English as Second Language) classes are taught all over the world

    [...]

    this is exactly how English is taught in the world of ESL
    I used to teach ESL and today was the first time I've come across this terminology/method/whatever.
     

    cuchuflete

    Senior Member
    EEUU-inglés
    Further to JamesM's astute observations, I shudder a little at some of this.
    You got the point nailed.
    What is the difference between a modifier/qualifier and complement?

    > [A, The ] Subject + Verb + Object pattern is oftenly (Egads!) followed by [ a ] modifier/qualifier. For instance:

    Example1: I saw Santa Claus on the day of Christmas.
    ... where
    I = Subject
    saw = Verb
    Santa Claus = Object
    on the day of Christmas = Modifier that more explains the preceeding VERB as in "when did I see him > on the day of Christmas".

    >Subject + Verb + Object + Complement
    For instance:
    Example2: I call that rule non-sense.
    ... where
    I = Subject
    call = Verb
    that rule = Object
    non-sense = Complement that more explains the preceeding OBJECT as in "calling that rule what? > non-sense".

    >So to make a long explanation short:
    A modifier/qualifier is a an adverbial clause [ on the day of Christmas is not a clause, rather it is an adverbial phrase. ] that modifies the Verb in that sentence, while [ a or the ] Complement (Why is complement capitalized? It is certainly not a proper noun here.) explains state of the Object. (Why is object capitalized? It is certainly not a proper noun here.)

    Indeed difficult stuff. (For lack of a verb, this is not an English sentence.)

    Your next comment:
    >>I'm relatively new to the forum, but I don't think this is considered a forum for specialists in linguistics or ESL.
    >I hear you. I have an M.B.A. and am an IT consultant by trade with MCP and other IT certifications. I was not too familiar with the concept of sentence patterns as well. But now I breathe them. I am asking for correct answers on these hardcore grammatical questions so I can be as precise as possible when I explain these terms to those who originally asked me.

    Do not get me wrong, I have NO intension whatsoever to look down upon anyone who does not know these terms. It is natural, because these are very specific terms which you would not need to know at all. Besides, those who are not familiar with these terms must know about things I do not know.

    Anyway your point is well taken. You are absolutely right. As I wrote above for you and realized that people here should get it quickly if I beliefly (?) explained it first.

    I will see how it goes.


    Thanks for your input and comment.
     

    ewie

    Senior Member
    English English
    on the day of Christmas = Modifier that more explains the preceeding VERB as in "when did I see him > on the day of Christmas".

    >Subject + Verb + Object + Complement
    For instance:
    Example2: I call that rule non-sense.
    ... where
    I = Subject
    call = Verb
    that rule = Object
    non-sense = Complement that more explains the preceeding OBJECT
    Shuddery yawn.
     

    Ynez

    Senior Member
    Spanish
    They aren't quite the same as yessongs' categorisations, but close enough...
    This is the worst problem with sentence analysis: it changes with trends or depending on the grammarian's whim.

    I think the best yessongs could do is contacting one of his examiners and ask him for a good book to study, or checking the bibliography used for that particular exam he'll do.

    This type of grammar is not really taught all over the world, but it's good if teachers have some idea.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top