1

Liam is very ill. (English Syntax and Argumentation, Bas Aarts)

Traditional Grammar says ‘very ill’ as a subject complement.
And the book says ‘very ill’ as a complement for verb be.

Do I have to accept the remark as ‘Liam is’ can’t complete a sentence,
so the verb needs a complement. Or the complement modifies the verb?

Listenever
  • 3,454
  • 7
  • 34
  • 70
  • 6
    Neither. The phrase is very ill is a verb phrase. Ill is a predicate adjective, modified by the emphatic adverb very. The logic (ignoring very) is ILL (LIAM), showing the predicate adjective. The term complement adds nothing to the discussion and should be dispensed with, since it doesn't have a useful definition. – John Lawler Mar 19 '13 at 04:06

2 Answers2

4

I believe the term "subject complement" has gone out of favor. These days, ill would be referred to as a predicate adjective, for more about which see Predicate Adjective explanation in layman's terms.

Regardless of whether "subject complement" or "predicate adjective" is the term you use, however, neither ever modifies the verb. The predicate is the subject of the sentence, and that's perhaps why the term "predicate adjective" has come to be used. Ill is an adjective describing Liam, the subject (predicate) of the sentence. Very is an adverb describing ill.

Incidentally, I believe you can have a sentence which reads simply "Liam is." For example:

John: Who is it that is very ill? Jane: Liam is.

Cheers!

jbeldock
  • 1,083
0

John Lawler responds, in a comment:

Neither. The phrase is very ill is a verb phrase. Ill is a predicate adjective, modified by the emphatic adverb very. The logic (ignoring very) is

ILL (LIAM)              ,

showing the predicate adjective.

The term 'complement' adds nothing to the discussion and should be dispensed with, since it doesn't have a useful definition.                                                                        – John Lawler

Edwin Ashworth
  • 83,272
  • Of course it has a use. Many in fact. Consider: *Brenda was ill and so was Bob ill versus Brenda was ill and so was Bob and then Brenda through up in the toilet and Bob did so in the kitchen_. That's all about complements versus modifiers. And it's well-known. What a weird , weird thing to say. @Edwin Ashworth, normally best to reserve such wikis for useful comments that deserve to be upvoted! – Araucaria - Him Jul 23 '23 at 18:14
  • The point is that the word 'complement' is ill-defined, used variously by various different linguists over time. I've lost my references here, but I think it was Fowler who gave three conflicting definitions in use even before CGEL set one in what some would see as friable stone. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 24 '23 at 15:44
  • The term "subject" is ill defined! It doesn't mean it's not useful or important. The Fowlers are nobodies when it comes to grammar. They wrote style guides! This comment is an off the cuff whinge. Anyhow, the term complement is not at all ill-defined or wishy washy. It's a central part of most modern grammars. And, as mentioned if complement is ill-defined so is subject and so is object. And it's certainly not difficult and not trivial to identify complements and distinguish them from modifiers/adjunts. This was a silly comment. It should stay in the comment box! – Araucaria - Him Jul 24 '23 at 15:54
  • I suggest you read about the conflicts appearing even in Quirk et al in this article by Nordquist. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 24 '23 at 16:48
  • I suggest you read it properly. There is no conflict appearing in Quirk et al. In fact there is no conflict at all despite the fact that Nordquist's "article" [btw, I'd punt a decent amount of money that Nordquist had no hand in it at al] is not an article, but a meagre introduction with three juxtaposed long quotes, which in any case aren't contradictory. And "he" got the Quirk all wrong by selectively quoting. No-one thinks or thought that Q et al's understanding of 'complement' was ever restricted to clause level complements. CONT – Araucaria - Him Jul 24 '23 at 23:18
  • And one of the "sources" is a third rate EFL book. But most of all, absolutely none of the authors quoted could be deemed to judge the queried part of the OP's clause not a complement, and none of them would deem that judgement arbitrary or unimportant. This is a sorry and ridiculous comment to try to turn into a post. – Araucaria - Him Jul 24 '23 at 23:21
  • Berry doesn't look like a lightweight, and Swan certainly isn't. I promoted this answer for the express purpose of highlighting the way some hijack existing terms and demand one of several meanings. I've nothing against the use of a term in a stipulative way provided the stipulating process involved is clearly mentioned. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 25 '23 at 13:34
  • @What do you find confusing or contradictory between the Swan and the Quirk et al, for example? There's nothing that Swan says that any other grammarian would disagree with. There's nothing confusing there at all. There's no meaningful difference in terminology drawn out between the different examples. Kindly elaborate. (I'm going to get my popcorn) – Araucaria - Him Jul 25 '23 at 17:23
  • Using traditional terminology, subject and object complements are pretty closely related, but prepositional complements are a long way apart. // Note that the semantics-based definition Swan gives as one variant ( Words and expressions which 'complete' the meaning of a verb, noun, or adjective are also called 'complements.') doesn't necessitate a mandatory addition. The reflexive pronoun is not mandatory in 'He shaved himself' etc. CaGEL even use the term 'intransitive preposition' which makes a syntactically mandatory prepositional complement a contradiction. @J Lawler uses 'complement' – Edwin Ashworth Jul 26 '23 at 11:28
  • only in the compound 'complement clause', as far as I remember (I've been trying to find the actual post here), because of the conflicting definitions (with resulting confusion) (for those not captive to a single work on grammar) grammarians use and have used, and listed by Fowler and by Swan. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 26 '23 at 11:28
  • Berry does indeed seem like a lightweight. They seem incapable of grasping that 'complement' is being used in a single coherent way in Q et al. And this is the same way as in Swan (who was elaborating when he said 'wider sense' - is in this includes the phenomena he has just been discussing). It should not surprise you that 'subject complements' and 'object complements' and 'prepositional complements' are all complements. The clue is in the second word! There's no disagreement and no confusion and no contradictory terminology. Crystal was not discussing these types of issues at all. – Araucaria - Him Jul 26 '23 at 14:11
  • This was a silly comment but is a much sillier convertion to a non-answer. – Araucaria - Him Jul 26 '23 at 14:12
  • Even though I don't know what a convertion is. – Araucaria - Him Jul 27 '23 at 22:53