# The match is <next week> [predicative?]



## Sun14

Hello, my friends,

I was wondering whether we consider next week as the predicative in the sentence:

"The match is next week."

My question: If next week is the predicative, does it modify the subject? What's the relationship between it and the subject?


----------



## Glasguensis

I don't think you're using "predicative" correctly. Nor would we generally describe the relationship between "next week" and "match" as "modifying". What is your actual question/confusion, without using grammar terms?


----------



## entangledbank

No, I'd say it's an adjunct (adverbial) of time, but 'is' can't be used without some sort of completion. It's in the same role as in 'There is a match next week', where it doesn't look like a predicative complement.


----------



## PaulQ

The problem is that "is" = takes place. If you substitute that verb, then the adverbial quality is shown. "The match takes place next week."


----------



## Sun14

entangledbank said:


> No, I'd say it's an adjunct (adverbial) of time, but 'is' can't be used without some sort of completion. It's in the same role as in 'There is a match next week', where it doesn't look like a predicative complement.



I think so, but if we think that way it means the match is can be used as a sentence because the adverbial can be taken out when we parse the main body of the sentence but it is hard to make people believe _the match is_ is a full sentence.


----------



## Sun14

PaulQ said:


> The problem is that "is" = takes place. If you substitute that verb, then the adverbial quality is shown. "The match takes place next week."



Do you mean is here is an action word rather than link-verb?


----------



## entangledbank

There is a distinct rule that disallows 'is' without anything following. The problem is, I don't know what to call what follows, if something does and it's not a predicative complement. Anyway, the rule disallows simple 'is' in sentences like these, where there is nothing needed as any kind of complement/adjunct:

A problem is.
There is a problem.

Santa Claus is.
Santa Claus exists.

So I think your sentence is one of these, plus a time adjunct. So also:

A problem is just now.
There is a problem just now.


----------



## Sun14

entangledbank said:


> There is a distinct rule that disallows 'is' without anything following. The problem is, I don't know what to call what follows, if something does and it's not a predicative complement. Anyway, the rule disallows simple 'is' sentences like these, where there is nothing needed as any kind of complement/adjunct:
> 
> A problem is.
> There is a problem.
> 
> Santa Claus is.
> Santa Claus exists.
> 
> So I think your sentence is one of these, plus a time adjunct. So also:
> 
> A problem is just now.
> There is a problem just now.



Got it. Thank you very much.


----------



## Keith Bradford

entangledbank said:


> There is a distinct rule that disallows 'is' without anything following. ...



Really?  I think some philosophers or theologians would disagree.  How about "What is, is describable"?  Or simply "God is"?

But in any case, _next week_ is an adverbial phrase of time, qualifying _is_.  (Or, if you prefer, an adjectival phrase of time qualifying _the match_.  Isn't ambiguity fun! )


----------



## PaulQ

Keith Bradford said:


> "God is"


I have always found that totally incomprehensible. I suspect a poor translation somewhere down the line.


----------



## dojibear

entangledbank said:


> There is a distinct rule that disallows 'is' without anything following.





Keith Bradford said:


> Really? I think some philosophers or theologians would disagree. How about "What is, is describable"? Or simply "God is"?



Keith, these are uses of "is" to mean "exists". That usage is correct, but in everyday speech we use "there is/are" to mean "exists".


----------



## dojibear

Sun14 said:


> The match is next week.



Answer 1: Looking in the WR dictionary page for "be", I find this definition (#3 in first list, #2 in second list):

2. (intransitive) to take place; occur: "The wedding was last week"

That seems to match your sentence (if we allow "is" to mean "will be"). The match will occur, and "next week" modifies "occur".

Answer 2: If someone read your sentence to me and said "what words are omitted?" (ellipsis) I would immediately reply "scheduled for". I think "The match is next week" is a shortened version of the longer sentence "The match is *scheduled for* next week". That is the meaning of both the full sentence and the shortened sentence. To mean "the match will occur next week" you'd say the match "will be" next week, not "is".

When deciding "what is the grammar and parts of speech" in a sentence, I prefer to expand any ellipsis (add the omitted but implied words) and analyze that full, complete sentence. In the longer version, "is" is a copula connecting subject "match" and predicate adjective "scheduled", while "next week", a noun, is the object of the preposition "for". The sentence uses the present tense of "is" because we are saying "it is on the schedule now".

Some people disagree with that approach, and say you must analyze the sentence exactly as written.


----------



## Sun14

dojibear said:


> Answer 1: Looking in the WR dictionary page for "be", I find this definition (#3 in first list, #2 in second list):
> 
> 2. (intransitive) to take place; occur: "The wedding was last week"
> 
> That seems to match your sentence (if we allow "is" to mean "will be"). The match will occur, and "next week" modifies "occur".
> 
> Answer 2: If someone read your sentence to me and said "what words are omitted?" (ellipsis) I would immediately reply "scheduled for". I think "The match is next week" is a shortened version of the longer sentence "The match is *scheduled for* next week". That is the meaning of both the full sentence and the shortened sentence. To mean "the match will occur next week" you'd say the match "will be" next week, not "is".
> 
> When deciding "what is the grammar and parts of speech" in a sentence, I prefer to expand any ellipsis (add the omitted but implied words) and analyze that full, complete sentence. In the longer version, "is" is a copula connecting subject "match" and predicate adjective "scheduled", while "next week", a noun, is the object of the preposition "for". The sentence uses the present tense of "is" because we are saying "it is on the schedule now".
> 
> Some people disagree with that approach, and say you must analyze the sentence exactly as written. I think either method is valid, since "parts of speech" are artificial definitions within a grammar (an artificial set of rules) written to describe a language. To me it does not make sense to say only one set of artificial rules is "correct".



In ANSWER 1, Do you mean when be means take place, it is an action verb？


----------



## Glasguensis

Sun14, please be aware that there are many different grammar theories in English, and when you use grammar labels we do not necessarily know which definition you have in mind. Predicate, for example, has two completely different meanings. What do you mean by "action verb"?


----------



## Sun14

Glasguensis said:


> Sun14, please be aware that there are many different grammar theories in English, and when you use grammar labels we do not necessarily know which definition you have in mind. Predicate, for example, has two completely different meanings. What do you mean by "action verb"?



Actually I don't know the exact name of that term. Let me explain, I mean such kind of work is different from copular connecting verb and used in this sentence structure: subject +?verb+object or subject +?verb.


----------



## entangledbank

I was having a nice quiet drink in front of a pub fire late last night and suddenly had the awful realization that what I had posted here was rubbish. If you can't end a sentence with 'is', you can't end a sentence with 'is' and a time adjunct, as I'd already demonstrated:

A problem is.
A problem is just now.
The match is.
The match is next week.

So I don't know how to explain it.


----------



## Glasguensis

Sun14 said:


> Actually I don't know the exact name of that term. Let me explain, I mean such kind of work is different from copular connecting verb and used in this sentence structure: subject +?verb+object or subject +?verb.


"Is" here is fairly clearly a linking verb, not an action verb. I'm not sure what that changes.


----------



## Sun14

Glasguensis said:


> "Is" here is fairly clearly a linking verb, not an action verb. I'm not sure what that changes.



Then "next week" in the OP have to be the predicative.


----------



## Sun14

entangledbank said:


> I was having a nice quiet drink in front of a pub fire late last night and suddenly had the awful realization that what I had posted here was rubbish. If you can't end a sentence with 'is', you can't end a sentence with 'is' and a time adjunct, as I'd already demonstrated:
> 
> A problem is.
> A problem is just now.
> The match is.
> The match is next week.
> 
> So I don't know how to explain it.



Got it. Thank you very much.


----------



## velisarius

PaulQ said:


> The problem is that "is" = takes place. If you substitute that verb, then the adverbial quality is shown. "The match takes place next week."



This seems like a sensible explanation. "Is" isn't really "is" in the OP sentence. It stands for "occurs/will occur", so I don't see why we should think of it as a copular.


----------



## dojibear

Saying "is" isn't a copula here is one explanation. I like the other one better:

Since "scheduled for" is implied (ellipsis), we can say "is" is a copula linking:
- subject: the match
- adjective predicate: (scheduled for) next week

1. The match *is *next week.  (The match is scheduled for next week)

Consider this normal conversation:

2A: When *is *your match with Bellingham?
2B: That match isn't scheduled yet.


----------



## Sun14

velisarius said:


> This seems like a sensible explanation. "Is" isn't really "is" in the OP sentence. It stands for "occurs/will occur", so I don't see why we should think of it as a copular.



If "is" here  is not a copular, what term do you use to describe it?


----------



## Sun14

dojibear said:


> Saying "is" isn't a copula here is one explanation. I like the other one better:
> 
> Since "scheduled for" is implied (ellipsis), we can say "is" is a copula linking:
> - subject: the match
> - adjective predicate: (scheduled for) next week
> 
> 1. The match *is *next week.  (The match is scheduled for next week)
> 
> Consider this normal conversation:
> 
> 2A: When *is *your match with Bellingham?
> 2B: That match isn't scheduled yet.



Got it. Thank you very much.


----------



## Sun14

I notice that the same usage exist in this sentence too: I am here to help you. Is that the same usage(ellipsis)?


----------



## Glasguensis

That is not the same usage.


----------



## Sun14

Glasguensis said:


> That is not the same usage.



I thought it was the same and I beg to ask a similar question. I hope it won't make the question more complicated. It seems that here is not the predicative too because it hard to say   “here” describe or “qualify” I？


----------



## Glasguensis

It is in fact predicative.


----------



## Sun14

Glasguensis said:


> It is in fact predicative.



Thank you. I find no difference between it and the sentence in OP regarding the relationship between the subject and the noun after the verb. Would you tell me the relationship between I and here.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Sorry, Sun, I don't understand why you're fixated over this question.  I see it as simply:

*I* = subject
*Am* = verb
*Here *= adverb of place explaining where I am.


----------



## taked4700

In general, "predicative" means something that you see in the subject only.  In other word, "predicative" is internal information while "adjunctive" means external information. 

That apple is delicious.:"delicious" is predicative because you can say that apple itself is delicious by looking at it or judging by looking at it.

That apple is in the refrigerator.:"in the refrigerator" is adjunctive because you cannot say "in the refrigerator"  only by looking at the apple.


----------



## Sun14

Keith Bradford said:


> Sorry, Sun, I don't understand why you're fixated over this question.  I see it as simply:
> 
> *I* = subject
> *Am* = verb
> *Here *= adverb of place explaining where I am.



Is this the same occasion as M_y birthday is next week_?


----------



## PaulQ

Dojibear's answer at #12 is helpful.


----------



## siares

- If 'next week' is adverbial of time modifying the verb 'be', shouldn't '_A match is often_' be correct (occurs often)?
- There is no ellipsis in _The full moon is next week_.

The match is next week / I am here.
*The match / I* = subject
*is / Am* = verb
*next week / Here *= adverb of time qualifying the verb 'be'? / adverb of place giving information about 'I'?.

Like you, Sun, I also don't see the difference between the two.
I am inclined to think they are both 'predicative', and an adverb of time modifies a noun, as in here (a bit of patience required...)
ready for your test 'tomorrow' [adjective or adverb?]



taked4700 said:


> In general, "predicative" means something that you see in the subject only. In other word, "predicative" is internal information while "adjunctive" means external information.


Very interesting! What theory does this come from? Does it only go for adjectives?
I am guessing, this info is external and the sentences would not be predicative? (within that theory):
_The assertion is wrong.
A knife is useful.
He is late._


----------



## Sun14

PaulQ said:


> Dojibear's answer at #12 is helpful.



Got it. Do you mean they are parsed in the same way like Answer 1 and Answer 2?


----------



## PaulQ

No - #3. An adverbial adjunct of time. - in basic terms it is a prepositional phrase acting adverbially.


----------



## taked4700

siares said:


> Very interesting! What theory does this come from? Does it only go for adjectives?
> I am guessing, this info is external and the sentences would not be predicative? (within that theory):
> _The assertion is wrong.
> A knife is useful.
> He is late._



I believe that what I said is a kind of common sense or the intuition.

It can be applied for verbs in general;go, throw, eat...

The knack is to see the thing using a window in which you see the object only, not seeing things around the object.  Imagine that you see things with a window in your mind.  That window limits your sight by covering the periphery, things around the object.  

Tom kicked the ball. : You would be able to see in the window that Tom kicks/kicked the ball.  So, the part of "kicks/kicked the ball" is internal information.

The assertion is wrong.: How can you say this?  I think you would evaluate the assertion in your mind using some standards that you've got in daily life for the years you have lead.  In other word, you see the assertion in the window that exists in your mind ,and through which you would see "The assertion is wrong."

The window is a frame of reference that you use when thinking.


----------



## Sun14

PaulQ said:


> No - #3. An adverbial adjunct of time. - in basic terms it is a prepositional phrase acting adverbially.



I see, but you said in #4 that when it is replaced as take place then the adverbial quality is shown. I mean if the adverbial phrase should come after a complete sentence but neither I am or the match is a complete sentence.


----------



## Sun14

siares said:


> - If 'next week' is adverbial of time modifying the verb 'be', shouldn't '_A match is often_' be correct (occurs often)?
> - There is no ellipsis in _The full moon is next week_.
> 
> The match is next week / I am here.
> *The match / I* = subject
> *is / Am* = verb
> *next week / Here *= adverb of time qualifying the verb 'be'? / adverb of place giving information about 'I'?.
> 
> Like you, Sun, I also don't see the difference between the two.
> I am inclined to think they are both 'predicative', and an adverb of time modifies a noun, as in here (a bit of patience required...)
> ready for your test 'tomorrow' [adjective or adverb?]
> 
> 
> Very interesting! What theory does this come from? Does it only go for adjectives?
> I am guessing, this info is external and the sentences would not be predicative? (within that theory):
> _The assertion is wrong.
> A knife is useful.
> He is late._



Let's wait for the native speaker to add more.


----------



## PaulQ

siares said:


> '_A match is often_'


The thing is that "A match takes place often" is OK. This idea of the verb *to be* taking an adverb depends on the sense in which "to be" is used. "Tigers are often" can be made to work in a certain context. 

I doubt you have any difficulty with "I have been often" where been  = visited.


----------



## Sun14

PaulQ said:


> No - #3. An adverbial adjunct of time. - in basic terms it is a prepositional phrase acting adverbially.



I mean if the adverbial phrase should come after a complete sentence but neither I am or the match is a complete sentence. So I can't understand what you mean. Would you explain a bit?


----------



## Keith Bradford

But _I am_ *is* a complete sentence.

"Are you going to town?  I am."
"Yes, I am too."


----------



## Sun14

Keith Bradford said:


> But _I am_ *is* a complete sentence.
> 
> "Are you going to town?  I am."
> "Yes, I am too."



Is "am" a copular?


----------



## Glasguensis

Sun14 said:


> Is "am" a copular?


What is the purpose of your question? If you are trying to clarify grammar terms, then as I said you would be better advised to use a grammar guide, since it should use consistent terms when discussing different topics, whereas forum users probably won't. If it's because there's something you don't understand about "I am", then please say what it is you don't understand, if possible without referring to grammatical terms.


----------



## entangledbank

'I am' and 'the match is' are not complete sentences in the required sense. They can not be used independently. They are used in answer to a previous sentence that provides their completion:

A: What is being held next week?
B: The match is. (= The match is being held next week.)


----------



## Keith Bradford

Sun14 said:


> Is "am" a copular?


I've no idea at all.  What is a copular?

(Note: I've been using this language for nearly 70 years and have a postraduate degree in languages, and I truly don't know what "copular" means.)


----------



## Sun14

Keith Bradford said:


> I've no idea at all.  What is a copular?
> 
> (Note: I've been using this language for nearly 70 years and have a postraduate degree in languages, and I truly don't know what "copular" means.)



It is a linking-verb:

Copula (linguistics) - Wikipedia


----------



## Sun14

Glasguensis said:


> What is the purpose of your question? If you are trying to clarify grammar terms, then as I said you would be better advised to use a grammar guide, since it should use consistent terms when discussing different topics, whereas forum users probably won't. If it's because there's something you don't understand about "I am", then please say what it is you don't understand, if possible without referring to grammatical terms.



Just as I said, the adverbial phrase should come after a complete sentence but neither I am or the match is a complete sentence. In the sentence I am here, here is an adverbial but I am is not a complete sentence and if am is the linking-verb then I am is not a complete sentence. They are quite contradicted.


----------



## Sun14

entangledbank said:


> 'I am' and 'the match is' are not complete sentences in the required sense. They can not be used independently. They are used in answer to a previous sentence that provides their completion:
> 
> A: What is being held next week?
> B: The match is. (= The match is being held next week.)



Is "I am" the complete sentence in "I am here"?


----------



## Glasguensis

There are many ways of using "to be", most of which use it as a linking verb. But it is possible to use it in other ways. 
"I am" - not a linking verb
"I am here" - a linking verb

Coming back to the original sentence, in "the match is next week", you should probably treat "to be" as a special case - the grammar rules that you are quoting don't always work.


----------



## Sun14

Glasguensis said:


> There are many ways of using "to be", most of which use it as a linking verb. But it is possible to use it in other ways.
> "I am" - not a linking verb
> "I am here" - a linking verb
> 
> Coming back to the original sentence, in "the match is next week", you should probably treat "to be" as a special case - the grammar rules that you are quoting don't always work.



May I know if am is not a linking verb in I am, what verb is it?


----------



## Glenfarclas

Sun14 said:


> It is a linking-verb:
> 
> Copula (linguistics) - Wikipedia



No, you said "a copular." 

Anyway, I agree with all the posts above that this is a pointless exercise.


----------



## Sun14

Glenfarclas said:


> No, you said "a copular."
> 
> Anyway, I agree with all the posts above that this is a pointless exercise.



Isn't a copular a linking verb?


----------



## velisarius

I was careless in my post #20 . I referred to "a copular". I think the correct terms are "copular verb" or "copula", and they both mean "linking verb".


----------



## Sun14

velisarius said:


> I was careless in my post #20 . I referred to "a copular". I think the correct terms are "copular verb" or "copula", and they both mean "linking verb".



Got it. Thank you very much.


----------



## Sun14

The question seems not solved.

1) The match is next week.

2) My birthday is on May 2nd.

3) I am here.

There has to be something follow "copula" and here the copular is "is" but if "is" is "copula" here, what do we call the underlined part in 1), 2)and 3).


----------



## Glenfarclas

Sun14 said:


> what do we call the underlined part in 1), 2)and 3).



"The rest of the sentence."


----------



## JulianStuart

Glenfarclas said:


> "The rest of the sentence."


----------



## DerFrosch

Sun14 said:


> There has to be something follow "copula" and here the *copula *is "is" but if "is" is "copula" here, what do we call the underlined part in 1), 2)and 3).


There are probably as many answers to that question as there are grammarians, but my suggestion would be *adverbial complement*.

This link could be of interest to you.


----------



## Sun14

DerFrosch said:


> There are probably as many answers to that question as there are grammarians, but my suggestion would be *adverbial complement*.
> 
> This link could be of interest to you.





Glenfarclas said:


> "The rest of the sentence."



I am terribly sorry that I have to find the right term in order the parse the sentence and explain it to my students.


----------



## entangledbank

Rather than fixate on names, let's look at how the verb _*be*_ can be used. I can think of the following major kinds of use (and the names I attach to them are merely for convenience):

(1) Auxiliary. [followed by some kind of phrase headed by a _verb_]
(1a) Passive auxiliary: The window was broken by the stone. [*be* + past-participial verb phrase]
(1b) Progressive auxiliary: The water is boiling. [*be* + gerund-participial verb phrase]
(1a) Modal auxiliary: The prisoner is to be freed. [*be* + _to_-infinitival verb phrase]

(2) Copula. [followed by some other kind of phrase]
(2a) Equative: Theresa May is the Prime Minister. [nominal predicate; and can be reversed: The Prime Minister is Theresa May]
(2b) Inclusive: Theresa May is a Conservative. The ring is an heirloom. [nominal predicate, indicating membership of a class]
(2c) Adjectival: The ring is valuable / made of gold / my mother's. [adjective, including adjectival participle, or other descriptive]
(2d) Prepositional: The ring is on the table.

I've added 'membership of a class' to (2b) to distinguish it from (2a), as both have noun phrases as predicates. All of (2b), (2c), and (2d) sort of indicate membership of a class: the class of things made of gold, or things on the table. They are distinguished effectively by the part of speech of their head (noun, adjective, preposition).

It is a peculiarity of some noun phrases referring to time that they can be used 'adverbially': Next week we're going on holiday. Contrast: Next week is a holiday, where it's just an ordinary subject. It can also be an ordinary object of verb or preposition, or it can be an adjunct/adverbial: I booked next week (off); I'm looking forward to next week; I scheduled it for next week; I'll do it next week.

It looks to me like 'The match is next week' is of the form of (2b), a noun phrase complement of the copula, but with the adverbial interpretation. We can also get this in other positions. Consider this: Next week is the Olympics. This isn't a statement of equation _or_ membership, it's an adverbial use too. I think the subject is 'the Olympics'. It's like 'Here is my desk', which is 'My desk is here' with fronting and inversion.

But I am not at all sure, still.


----------



## Glasguensis

Sun14 said:


> I am terribly sorry that I have to find the right term in order the parse the sentence and explain it to my students.


Buy a grammar book. Do not rely on things patched together from forums and online guides. There are many different grammar guides which split sentences differently and if you don't use one single source you will end up with methods which don't match.


----------



## Sun14

entangledbank said:


> Rather than fixate on names, let's look at how the verb _*be*_ can be used. I can think of the following major kinds of use (and the names I attach to them are merely for convenience):
> 
> (1) Auxiliary. [followed by some kind of phrase headed by a _verb_]
> (1a) Passive auxiliary: The window was broken by the stone. [*be* + past-participial verb phrase]
> (1b) Progressive auxiliary: The water is boiling. [*be* + gerund-participial verb phrase]
> (1a) Modal auxiliary: The prisoner is to be freed. [*be* + _to_-infinitival verb phrase]
> 
> (2) Copula. [followed by some other kind of phrase]
> (2a) Equative: Theresa May is the Prime Minister. [nominal predicate; and can be reversed: The Prime Minister is Theresa May]
> (2b) Inclusive: Theresa May is a Conservative. The ring is an heirloom. [nominal predicate, indicating membership of a class]
> (2c) Adjectival: The ring is valuable / made of gold / my mother's. [adjective, including adjectival participle, or other descriptive]
> (2d) Prepositional: The ring is on the table.
> 
> I've added 'membership of a class' to (2b) to distinguish it from (2a), as both have noun phrases as predicates. All of (2b), (2c), and (2d) sort of indicate membership of a class: the class of things made of gold, or things on the table. They are distinguished effectively by the part of speech of their head (noun, adjective, preposition).
> 
> It is a peculiarity of some noun phrases referring to time that they can be used 'adverbially': Next week we're going on holiday. Contrast: Next week is a holiday, where it's just an ordinary subject. It can also be an ordinary object of verb or preposition, or it can be an adjunct/adverbial: I booked next week (off); I'm looking forward to next week; I scheduled it for next week; I'll do it next week.
> 
> It looks to me like 'The match is next week' is of the form of (2b), a noun phrase complement of the copula, but with the adverbial interpretation. We can also get this in other positions. Consider this: Next week is the Olympics. This isn't a statement of equation _or_ membership, it's an adverbial use too. I think the subject is 'the Olympics'. It's like 'Here is my desk', which is 'My desk is here' with fronting and inversion.
> 
> But I am not at all sure, still.



I think so. The three in #55 might be the subject complement but used as an adverbial.


----------



## Sun14

Glasguensis said:


> Buy a grammar book. Do not rely on things patched together from forums and online guides. There are many different grammar guides which split sentences differently and if you don't use one single source you will end up with methods which don't match.



I think I can't trust on a single book so I ask here.


----------



## entangledbank

'On May 22nd' is straightforwardly the same as 'on the table', 'under the bed', but refers to time rather than place. The _CGEL_ (_Cambridge Grammar_) classifies 'here' as a preposition, so we don't have to explain how adverbs can also be in this position (despite the misleading resemblance between 'adverb' and 'adverbial'). The interesting one is still 'next week', which seems to be (a) complement not adjunct (with respect to 'is'), but (b) in adverbial not predicative-complement function (with respect to 'the match'). I don't have any clear terminology or classification to handle that.


----------



## Sun14

entangledbank said:


> 'On May 22nd' is straightforwardly the same as 'on the table', 'under the bed', but refers to time rather than place. The _CGEL_ (_Cambridge Grammar_) classifies 'here' as a preposition, so we don't have to explain how adverbs can also be in this position (despite the misleading resemblance between 'adverb' and 'adverbial'). The interesting one is still 'next week', which seems to be (a) complement not adjunct (with respect to 'is'), but (b) in adverbial not predicative-complement function (with respect to 'the match'). I don't have any clear terminology or classification to handle that.



I don't understand this usage actually:

(2d) Prepositional: The ring is on the table.


----------



## Glasguensis

Sun14 said:


> I think I can't trust on a single book so I ask here.


But there are many different and incompatible ways to parse sentences. If you ask different questions here you risk getting answers which are incompatible with each other. For the purpose of parsing sentences with your students it is much better to use one single source.


----------



## Sun14

Glasguensis said:


> But there are many different and incompatible ways to parse sentences. If you ask different questions here you risk getting answers which are incompatible with each other. For the purpose of parsing sentences with your students it is much better to use one single source.



Got it. Thank you very much.


----------

