Can someone help me with a basic grammar question?

[Colleen]

Well, here I am again, stumped by the material I'm supposed to be teaching my 8 year old. Homeschooling always serves as a reminder that in 18 years of schooling I still missed some fundamentals.

We use Rod & Staff Grammar 3 and consult Harvey's frequently, too. Last week he learned in R&S that "a noun or pronoun that receives the action of a verb is called a direct object...(to) tell if a sentence has a direct object, say the simple subject and simple predicate together, and them ask whom or what. The noun or pronoun that answers the question is the direct object. If there is no noun or pronoun to answer the question, the sentence does not have a direct object."

Well, that all sounded very straight-forward and but I realized as we worked through some sentences that it wasn't enough information. For example:

1) The quetzal is a beatiful bird.
2) Gorillas and chimpanzees are apes.
3) Pennies and dimes are money.

My son thought each sentence had a direct object (bird, apes, money) and I couldn't explain to him why this wasn't the case. Earlier in R&S, it's taught that some verbs don't denote action and eight forms of the verb "be" are listed. I think these are referred to in Harvey's as copulative verbs, although I confess I've not heard that term before. Perhaps I learned it as "linking" verb.

So, okay, where am I going with this...Oh, yes. Would it be correct to teach my son that copulative/linking/"be" verbs are not followed by direct objects? I realize I'm missing a lot - and that this question doesn't directly pertain to Classical Writing - but have hopes of some wise soul here throwing me a life line!

Thanks much,
Colleen

[Tracy Gustilo]

Yes, Colleen, you're on the right track!

You need to be able to categorize ALL verbs as one of three types:

1) Linking or copulative verbs, usually a form of "to be". (They can be verbs like "feels" or "looks" as well.) These verbs "link" the subject to another word (a "complement") that either renames or describes it. Abe is president. Abe is tall. You may have heard of "subject complements" before as "predicate nominatives" (the noun kind) or "predicate adjectives" (the adjective kind).

2) Transitive verbs. These show action and transfer that action from the subject over onto an "object", the "direct object" to be precise. John bounced the ball.

3) Intransitive verbs. These usually show action, but there is no object onto which that action is transferred. The subject just does it. John walked. Do note that some verbs can be used as *either* transitive or intransitive with slightly different meanings: John walked the dog. (Here, "walked" is transitive and "dog" is the DO.) "To be" verbs can be used as intransitive verbs as well when they show existence, very frequently existence in a place (i.e. location). I am. I am in the garden. Intransitive action verbs also frequently add a prepositional phrase: I walked into the house.

So here are the three most common patterns sentences can take:

S-LV-SC (subject-linking verb-subject complement)
S-TV-DO (subject-transitive verb-direct object)
S-IV(-PP) (subject-intransitive verb-optional prepositional phrase)

There are really only two other types of main clauses, and they are both much rarer: S-TV-IO-DO (indirect objects: I sent him a letter.) and S-V-DO-OC ("object" or "objective" complements: They elected him president.).

So, Colleen, the trick is to decide what kind of verb/sentence you are dealing with. Then go looking for that object or complement if there is one.

HTH. Feel free to keep asking if you are still confused about something.

Tracy

[Ruth]

before marking a noun as a direct object, we asked the question is __________ the same as __________. For example, in your third sentence, you would ask is money the same as pennies and dimes? If the answer is yes, you have a predicate nominative and not a direct object. That may help a little.

[Colleen]

Ummmm.....okay. I like Ruth's approach; simplicity works for me! But I need to understand the "why" behind all this and it's all still very hazy. Understand, my friends, that while I consider myself a very capable writer, I was taught virtually no grammar at my less-than-stellar public schools. So bear with me, please, and correct me if I'm wrong:

1) Copulative verbs and linking verbs are one and the same. They aren't followed by direct objects - is that *always* the case, by the way? They connect the subject to a complementary word, thus the term "subject complements". Nope, I've never heard of that. And guess what else? I've never known the meaning of the term predicate nominative/adjective. To be honest, I've never cared. Which brings up the point, if I express myself well both verbally and via the printed word, what good does it do me to understand predicate nominatives? Ah, but I digress...! Since I do want my boys to understand this, I suppose I shouldn't grumble at having learn it myself.

2) Transitive verbs show action (always?) which is transferred on to an object (the "direct object"). Intransitive verbs *may* show action, but the action is not transferred on to an object. Some verbs may be both transitive and intransitive, e.g. "bounced". "John bounced the ball" (transitive) versus "The ball bounced" (intransitive).


So, in the sentence, "The quetzal is a beautiful bird", the simple subject is "quetzal" and the complete predicate is "is a beautiful bird". The copulative/linking verb "is" links the subject "quetzal" to a word that renames it, "bird", thus "bird" is the predicate nominative/subject complement.

Whew! I think I can understand that much. I must say, though, that Rod & Staff did a rather poor job of introducing this material. Without any textbook or teacher guidance, no wonder my son had trouble with this!

~ Colleen

[Tracy Gustilo]

By George, I think she's got it! ;D

Tracy

[Lene Mahler Jaqua]

Yes, Colleen, linking or copulative verbs NEVER take a direct object. They are a direct description or a likening to the subject... you could "almost" put an equal sign instead of the verb... The "acid" test we learned from Jensen grammar is that if the verb can be replaced by "seem" or "seems" or "seemed" and still make almost the same sense, then i t's a linking verb.

I recommend Harvey's grammar, which has a great section on verbs. I learned so much new stuff on verbs when I took my first child through it.

Lene

[Colleen]

I appreciate everyone's help here! I'm not quite grasping Jensen's acid test, Lene. Replacing the linking verb "are" with "seem" in these sentences doesn't make much sense: "Pennies and dimes (seem) money" or "Gorillas and chimpanzees (seem) apes". Perhaps I'm missing something.

Also, I confess I didn't find the Harvey's section on copulative verbs very helpful. Matters are clearing up for me now, though, be it ever so slowly. I'm still rather miffed that Rod & Staff doesn't speak to this issue. Linking verbs are introduced; direct objects are introduced; but no mention is made of their relationship (or lack thereof). Seems strange...

Cheers,
Colleen

[Lene]

IN some ways, Colleen, it will just be a matter of what you're doing, bumbling along picking up snippets here and there where they are helpful, discarding advice that doesn't help you, like my acid test. We are all grasping for straws in that proper classical education. It has been out of vogue for a while now and we're not likely to find the resources available to readily resurrect it, we have to dig. -- I can assure you this, though, since you mentioned some doubt earlier as to the value and importance of grammar. So far as I see classical education, it is ALL about words, sentences, and expression. Grammar is of paramount importance, precisely because words mean something. Part of what we have lost in the generations which have slowly discarded grammar, syntax and invention, is that ability to express with words what we mean, to understand what others mean, and to unearth what was said in previous centuries and make proper sense of it. Our post modern relativistic times do not require much precision in speech, nor any attention to detail. A classical education is trying to resurrect some of that verbal eloquence and truth.



With the acid test "seems' think of *seems* as "is like"... it may "seem" silly to you, but if it makes some sense or approximates the original meaning, it is a linking verb, if it is complete nonsense, you know it's not.

1) The quetzal *seems* a beatiful bird.
2) Gorillas and chimpanzees *seem* apes.
3) Pennies and dimes *seem * money.

In contrast, the sentence: "I want breakfast"... insertion of "seem" does not reflect the original:

"I seem breakfast" clearly changes the sentence and assumes that I have attained the status of prey rather than predator. *I* am not equal to breakfast.... clearly breakfast is a direct object, and therefore the sentence has a transitive verb and not a linking verb.


As for linking verbs and copulative verbs, my only point was that they show a "near" equation between the subject noun and the predicate, be it a noun or an adjective.

John seems tired. John feels tired. John looks tired. John is tired. John was tired. John will be tired. John appears tired.... All the verbs in those sentences are in a sense "equating"/linking John with the predicate adjective, tired. -- In all cases if you were writing it in Latin, which is the easiest way to distinguish linking and transitive verbs, both the subject noun and also the predicate would be in the nominative case, since the predicate noun our adjective is descriptive o f the subject noun and must agree with it in gender, number, and case.

In contrast, in the sentence,

"John wants sleep"

"wants" is a transitive verb which requires a direct object. You cannot simply say "John wants..." and leave it hanging. It begs the question of "what" John wants. What John wants is in no way descriptive of him, it is a direct object, which in Latin would be in accusative, and would not in any way have to reflect the gender, number, or case of the subject, John.

I must run and clean my house; I have a showing at 10 am.

Lene

[Martha]

Colleen,

Perhaps Mary Daly's "acid test" will help. She words things a bit differently than Jensen's. You will have to keep in mind the distinction between what Harvey's calls *true* linking verbs and what Daly calls *verbs of feeling, seeming and becoming*. True copula are forms of the verb "to be". Abeka suggests that you memorize them. There are verbs which can either be used to show action or function as linking verbs depending on how you use them in a sentence. Here is what Mary Daly says, followed by one of her examples. I added the material which appears in the brackets as a reminder to me.

"The [questionable] linking verb can always be replaced by a [true] verb of being. This will weaken the sentence, but will not entirely change its meaning or make it absurd."

Her example: "The rose smells sweet."

The subject rose is not performing any action--something is being affirmed of the rose, but the rose is not thinking or doing or ceasing to do anything. If you substitute "is", the sentences will still make sense. It has changed somewhat but it is not absurd; "The rose is sweet." From the standpoint of composition and matters of style, the original is probably better, but both are functionally the same--some quality is being affirmed of the rose. In neither case is the rose performing any physical or mental action.

FWIW, what helps me when I come across any grammatical term that is confusing, I sit down with all my resources and make a list from each. When that is done I compare and then combine the list, making a point to note areas where more than one term is used for a single concept. I think things over for a few days, and then use a marker to put the resulting summary on a 5x8 index card to use as a quick reference during lessons. I try to learn all the "multiple" terminologies, but I teach only one term per concept at first, and add the others by saying things like this is a predicate nominative; some people call it a predicate noun.

Martha