Talk:Adjunct (grammar)

The reasoning at the end is a little weak. Personally, I've always found the idea of an adjunct a little artificial since in many languages the idea of what is "nuclear" is unclear, and essentially any part of a sentence is "dropable." Establishing what is essential and what is additional description is largely a matter of discourse. Even the two example sentences provided at the end are open for discussion. John drank a beer in the park. While it might seem logical to argue that "a beer" is not an adjuct since it is the direct object, "a beer" simply limits the interpretation of "drank." John drank, what and where he drank does not fundamentally change that. John is in the park. Again, it might seem logical to argue that "in the park" is a compliment to a copulative construction. However, "to be" is not a pure copula. The fundamental core of this sentence is "John is" as in "John exists." So, "in the park" is certainly dropable in the sense that removing it creates a meaningful, well-formed sentence. "In the park" merely limits the current location of John's existence. 2009-08-05T00:06:01 by 174.17.244.68


 * I agree with you that the traditional grammar's idea of an adjunct is nonsense like most of the scholastic philosophy that the traditional grammar was built upon is. Both are pre-scientific at least, if not nonsensical., because they are based on artifical and pre-scientific concepts of subject that can exist above both the time and the space, i.e. upon concept of god defined by timeless and spaceless predicats only, and idea of a sentence that can consist of only subject with a predicat is what makes the concepts of time and space non-essential. However, as modern science shows and can prove, this is not true because subjects and objects can only exist in time and space, even more - relativistic theory suggests that objects that have mass are themselves space-time distortions. In other words - it is not the subject (and object) and predicat which are essential and adjunct droppable, but it is the concept of time and space which is essential and the objects and subjects are non-essential characteristics of the concepts of time and space. DancingPhilosopher 22:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the truth in binary form, "dropable" vs "undropable"? Or is the truth scalar: how droppable? (AltheaCase (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC))

Examples for Measure in "Semantic Function"
Are the first two examples in the Measure category really adjuncts? They modify adjectives and are part of adjective phrases functioning as the complement of an SVC sentence. In other words, they're not adverbials.


 * The notion that adjuncts only modify verbs is too narrow. Adjuncts appear in most any phrasal category (S, VP, NP, AP, AdvP). To verify may statement, check a dictionary of linguistics (e.g. Crystal 1997) or a syntax textbook (e.g. Carnie 2013). --Tjo3ya (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In 'A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language' (Quirk, Greenbaum et al (1985)) the term is used to refer to a sub-class of adverbials, but clearly other linguists use the term in a wider sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquetry28 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * For me, the term adverbial is narrower than the term "adjunct". One could claim, namely, that an adverbial must modify a verb because it is an ad-verb-ial, which would mean that one could also acknowledge ad-noun-inals (i.e. adnominals), ad-adjectiv-als, ad-adverb-ials, etc. The adjunct, however, is the umbrella notion; it encompasses all of these ad-word-ials. Since the article is about adjuncts, and not about adverbials, there is no problem. --Tjo3ya (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Real word?
One of the semantic functions is listed as 'modicative'. Where did this term come from? Who uses it? It's not in either Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary or the OED, and a Google Books search comes up with practically nothing. If this is just some editor's way of trying to sound more academic, it should be replaced by 'modifying'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquetry28 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * When I reworked this article more than a year ago, the term modicative was already present in the article. I agree that while I can mostly understand what is meant, the term is not commonly used. Perhaps modificative (in the sense of 'modify') is what the original editor who added the term meant. --Tjo3ya (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 'modificative' is a good suggestion as it's recognized (both as an adj. and n.) by the OED, although labeled "rare", and most of the quotes are linguistics-related. Still, it's interesting that we can recognize what 'modicative' means-- clearly our native knowledge of English morphology reasons backwards  from 'modificative', on the analogy of syncopated forms like symbology from symbolology and pacifist from pacificist.


 * Modicative is not an English word. Everyone is welcome to co-operate here, but the most basic requirement should always be: write in English, please :) Brain (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you heard of generative suffixes? Does Merriam list all the -er words in English?  Is there a generative rule that verbs in -ate can take the suffive -ive (deleting the e in ate). "Modifying" implies effectiveness, while -ive does not imply effectiveness but tendency. (AltheaCase (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC))

"Bob ate the pizza and the hamburger" deserves an asterisk?
It doesn't seem ungrammatical, or unlikely to occur in real life, to me.

72.68.72.137 (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Bob is glutton. So what? The sentence is perfectly grammatical. --Tjo3ya (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In other languages
In French and Italian, the corresponding terms are respectively complement and complemento Brain (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Predicates vs. adjuncts - citation needed
"The PPs in these sentences are NOT adjuncts, nor are they arguments. The preposition in each case is, rather, part of the main predicate. The matrix predicate in the first sentence is is under; this predicate takes the two arguments It and the bush. Similarly, the matrix predicate in the second sentence is is at; this predicate takes the two arguments The party and seven o'clock." Where the heck does that idea come from? 82.24.65.28 (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

bich
bich is you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.52.10 (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Please Clarify Ambigous statement
Article says, "A more detailed definition of the adjunct emphasizes its attribute as a modifying form, word, or phrase that depends on another form, word, or phrase, being an element of clause structure with adverbial function." What do you mean to say? 1) Is "being an element . . . " essential? Thus to be an adjunct, requires that the supposed adjunct depend upon an entity which must be an element of . . . ? Or did you mean to say that "Because an adjunct is an element of a clause structure with adverbial function, a more detailed definition emphasizes . . . "? Should you have omitted the comma after "phrase" as the following participle phrase is an essential modifier? (AltheaCase (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC))

Why do you use the terminology you do, instead of other terminology?
Article says,
 * Take the sentence John helped Bill in Central Park on Sunday as an example:
 * John is the subject argument.
 * helped is the predicate.
 * Bill is the object argument.
 * in Central Park is the first adjunct.
 * on Sunday is the second adjunct.

Why don't you say:
 * John is the subject.
 * helped is the simple predicate.
 * helped Bill in Central Park on Sunday is the complete predicate,
 * Bill is the direct object.
 * in Central Park is the first adverbial phrase modifying helped,
 * on Sunday is the second advertial phrase modifying helped?

(AltheaCase (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC))