Talk:Complement (linguistics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Objects as complements[edit]

Are objects complements? There needs to be a discussion here as to whether or not they are. --74.93.119.9 14:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In the syntax books I've seen, objects are one out of many types of complement (in X-bar theory, they are sisters of the head, while the specifier (eg. subject, determiner) is a sister of X'). --Kiwibird (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC) zcbxcbkckajsa scsjc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.167.62.193 (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

In X-bar theory[edit]

Don't complements show up in some versions of X-bar theory? -- Beland 19:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A complement is just the sister of a head, so given that all versions of X' theory have heads, I'd say they all have complements too.
Objects are generally assumed to be sisters of V (i.e. complements of V). However, these days people often assume that objects start out as complements of V and later move to a higher specifier position. Cadr 03:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Linguistics vs. Grammar[edit]

This is referred to as the "Complement (linguistics)" rather than "Complement (grammar)" page. I'm curious as to the reason. The first words of the first sentence identify this as a grammar issue, and the rest of the article focuses on how it interacts with subjects and objects, the pages for which are "Subject (grammar)" and "Object (grammar)" instead of "Subject (linguistics)" and "Object (linguistics)." An alternative might be to have "Complement (linguistics)" reroute to the "Predicative complements" section. Thoughts? Robigus (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Prepositional phrases[edit]

In the sentence "Libraries preserve the wisdom of the world," does "of the world" count as the complement, because "libraries preserve the wisdom" seems to not make sense? 71.142.143.183 (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

Zuckermann, Ghil'ad (2006) and other writing on "Israeli" language are both controversial and considered more of a parlor oddity than an academic work when it's claims and examples are scrutinized by his peers. This entry could use a better quality citations. OrenBochman (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Carnie 2013[edit]

There appears to be a concerted effort going on to add information from Carnie 2013 to Wikipedia articles on syntax and grammar. I suspect that students of a syntax course are doing this. This in itself may not be so bad, but I fear that these students are not yet knowledgeable enough to be adding good information. If someone knows what is going on in this regard, please respond here. I may begin a more aggressive strategy to remove any information that is either not backed by citations or that cites only Carney 2013. --Tjo3ya (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)