3

Are the to infinitives, gerunds and bare infinitives objects? I see that everyone says different things. For example: I agreed to give him the money Some people will say that here "to give" is a catenative complement to "agree". Other people will say that "to give him the money" is a to-infinitive phrase that acts as the object of the sentence. I have previously asked a similar question in the ELL forums but I think this is the place for such a question.

I want to see what you people think about this.

BoSsYyY
  • 131
  • 1
  • 2
    The distinction between "object" and "complement" is sometimes made by defining "object" as an NP argument to a verb, while "complement" is a purely syntactic notion that can apply to any complement of any head. In this sense, verbal complements are not objects as they are not NPs (or, semantically seen, do not satisfy a semantic role that is usually realized by elements that constitute NPs). – Natalie Clarius Oct 13 '17 at 19:25
  • 'Agree' is intransitive: *"I agree that." Also note that it isn't too hard to include marked infinitives and participles as NP heads. – amI Oct 13 '17 at 22:08
  • It is clearly a catenative construction. "Agree" is a catenative verb and the subordinate infinitival clause "to give him the money" is its catenative complement. Non-finite clauses can function as objects, but only under highly restricted conditions, e.g. "This made working with them an unpleasant experience" where the non-finite clause is object and predicand for the predicative complement "an unpleasant experience". Incidentally, objects are a type of complement, more precisely core complements. And note that in your example, the complement is not "to give" but "to give him the money". – BillJ Oct 14 '17 at 07:17

0 Answers0