To: The Forum’s members
As ever often, confounded by the statement “I arrived home late” I have still been. And as predicate adjunct was explained, there are questions surfacing and rippling the quiet of my comprehension. It has been clearly said “home” is a predicate adjunct and is a complement that says something about the subject. “I arrived home late.” If, indeed, it is as explained,in whatever way does the word “home” describe the subject? Does it in any way characterize the subject?
There are two (2) examples given to facilitate our comprehension re the point of discourse “home,” viz:
1. “We drink our coffee black.”
2. “We painted the wall blue.”
Clearly, in these two (2) examples given, “black and blue” are adjectives and modify some words in the two (2) sentences. On the other hand, “I arrived home late,” is not, as far as my own thought is concerned, the same sentence pattern as those examples given. There lies now the problem because how can we now specifically classify the word “home” as part of speech. If it be a complement, what kind of complement it is? If we comply with the examples given above and assume the sentence “I arrive home late” is the same pattern as the examples, I will say that “late” is the complementary adjectival modifier and “home” is the action-receiving sentence component. I start to toy and entertain that idea. However, will it not result to absurdity?
I think this is the stage where I would like you all to participate by giving your additional inputs to the Discussion Board, and I believe things shall be easier then. Simply dig-in and hand-in whatever insights about the subject you may have. Don’t hold back since you all are part of this constructive discussion.
Now, let’s discuss the “optional complement.” The (two) 2 words are irreconcilable. How can a word that completes be optional? Anything that completes something is not optional, but, rather, it is basic and essential. Just like the pillars of a house, they complete the house; therefore, essential… I know this is not Forum’s members’ concoction, but someone else’s… This is a clear issue of misnomer.
We must be critical of authors feeding us their ideas because, sometimes, their egocentricity is well-entrenched in their works. As a result, their works become highly doubtful and self-centered. We must judge their works and filter them. As always, we make the final analysis if we eat and digest them, or otherwise…