 #2 (permalink) Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:45 am Predicate nominative/adjective |
|
|
The sentence "is" not a predicate nominative, but it can contain a predicate nominative: the predicate nominative is only part of a sentence, not the whole sentence.
"Nothing short of x" is a fixed expression; that's why this sentence is very difficult to analyse. To be honest, I shouldn't worry much about these sentences: they present a very difficult challenge even to experienced linguists.
If you were to take away "nothing short of", they would be simple:
1.
- His accusation = subject.
- is = finite verb (copula).
- slander = predicate nominative.
The predicate is "is slander".
2.
- His accusation = subject.
- is = finite verb (copula).
- slanderous = predicate adjective.
The predicate is "is slanderous".
But as they are, I can't give you a definite analysis:
1.
- His accusation = subject.
- is = finite verb (copula).
- nothing short of slander = very hard to analyse; my best guess is that "short of slander" is predicate adjective. Then "nothing" is an adverbial adjunct modifying "short": this is supported by the Oxford English Dictionary. "Of slander" would be attributive adjunct to "short". My God, this sentence is impossible to analyse!
Instead, you could also say that "short of" has become a preposition: this tendency is mentioned in the OED; "short of slander" would be an adverbial adjunct to the finite verb; "slander" object to the preposition; and "nothing" an adverbial adjunct modifying "short of".
As a third option, you could take "nothing" as predicate nominative; then "short of slander" would be attributive adjunct to "nothing".
As a fourth option, you could perhaps say that "to be nothing short of" is a phrasal verb, with "slander" as its object or subject complement - but that seems even more artificial if you ask me; I couldn't say whether the phrasal verb would be a transitive verb or a copula in that case.
2.
- His accusation = subject.
- is = finite verb (copula).
- nothing short of slanderous = same as above, except that it is more logical to take "short of" as a preposition here (my second option), so that "slanderous" is object to the preposition; "nothing" would then be an adverbial adjunct modifying "short of slanderous". |
|
 Cerberus™
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 11 Feb 2009
Posts: 1342
|
