Are commands complete sentences?
This question seems to indirectly ask the question, but the upvoted answer says "the actual sentence is...". So my question is this: Are commands considered to be grammatically sound, complete sentences in the English language?
Some examples:
Go.
Add a note.
Do work.
sentence imperative
edited 20 mins ago
Laurel
31.6k660112
asked Aug 27 '13 at 19:47
xdumainexdumaine
76231224
add a comment |
This question seems to indirectly ask the question, but the upvoted answer says "the actual sentence is...". So my question is this: Are commands considered to be grammatically sound, complete sentences in the English language?
Some examples:
Go.
Add a note.
Do work.
sentence imperative
edited 20 mins ago
Laurel
31.6k660112
asked Aug 27 '13 at 19:47
xdumainexdumaine
76231224
Why the downvote? Is something not clear or acceptable about my question?
– xdumaine
Aug 27 '13 at 19:50
3
Provided they're grammatical imperatives, yes, they're complete sentences. Imperatives and Interrogatives are different kinds of sentences, but not incomplete. They have their own grammar, is all.
– John Lawler
Aug 27 '13 at 20:17
1
There are innumerable “grammatically sound” utterances that are perfectly fine to stand on their own even without having a verb. Like what? Like this. What are you doing? Eating. Those are just fine. You seem to have a funny idea of what a “complete” sentence needs to be. But even under the strictest and least useful of interpretations, those are all perfect sound.
– tchrist♦
Aug 27 '13 at 22:09
3
No matter what the definition of a sentence is, there simply is no rule that we must be speaking in sentences to begin with. Look no further than this post of yours. Look at that "Some examples:". It's two words, and it ends in a semicolon. That certainly doesn't fit anybody's definition of a sentence. And yet you spake, and it was English, and it was grammatical. I can call it a sentence, I can call it a fragment, I can call it Susan if it makes me happy. What's the point? There is no point.
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 27 '13 at 23:15
add a comment |
This question seems to indirectly ask the question, but the upvoted answer says "the actual sentence is...". So my question is this: Are commands considered to be grammatically sound, complete sentences in the English language?
Some examples:
Go.
Add a note.
Do work.
sentence imperative
edited 20 mins ago
Laurel
31.6k660112
asked Aug 27 '13 at 19:47
xdumainexdumaine
76231224
This question seems to indirectly ask the question, but the upvoted answer says "the actual sentence is...". So my question is this: Are commands considered to be grammatically sound, complete sentences in the English language?
Some examples:
Go.
Add a note.
Do work.
sentence imperative
sentence imperative
edited 20 mins ago
Laurel
31.6k660112
asked Aug 27 '13 at 19:47
xdumainexdumaine
76231224
edited 20 mins ago
Laurel
31.6k660112
asked Aug 27 '13 at 19:47
xdumainexdumaine
76231224
edited 20 mins ago
Laurel
31.6k660112
edited 20 mins ago
Laurel
31.6k660112
edited 20 mins ago
Laurel
31.6k660112
31.6k660112
asked Aug 27 '13 at 19:47
xdumainexdumaine
76231224
asked Aug 27 '13 at 19:47
xdumainexdumaine
76231224
asked Aug 27 '13 at 19:47
xdumainexdumaine
76231224
76231224
Why the downvote? Is something not clear or acceptable about my question?
– xdumaine
Aug 27 '13 at 19:50
3
Provided they're grammatical imperatives, yes, they're complete sentences. Imperatives and Interrogatives are different kinds of sentences, but not incomplete. They have their own grammar, is all.
– John Lawler
Aug 27 '13 at 20:17
1
There are innumerable “grammatically sound” utterances that are perfectly fine to stand on their own even without having a verb. Like what? Like this. What are you doing? Eating. Those are just fine. You seem to have a funny idea of what a “complete” sentence needs to be. But even under the strictest and least useful of interpretations, those are all perfect sound.
– tchrist♦
Aug 27 '13 at 22:09
3
No matter what the definition of a sentence is, there simply is no rule that we must be speaking in sentences to begin with. Look no further than this post of yours. Look at that "Some examples:". It's two words, and it ends in a semicolon. That certainly doesn't fit anybody's definition of a sentence. And yet you spake, and it was English, and it was grammatical. I can call it a sentence, I can call it a fragment, I can call it Susan if it makes me happy. What's the point? There is no point.
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 27 '13 at 23:15
add a comment |
Why the downvote? Is something not clear or acceptable about my question?
– xdumaine
Aug 27 '13 at 19:50
3
Provided they're grammatical imperatives, yes, they're complete sentences. Imperatives and Interrogatives are different kinds of sentences, but not incomplete. They have their own grammar, is all.
– John Lawler
Aug 27 '13 at 20:17
1
There are innumerable “grammatically sound” utterances that are perfectly fine to stand on their own even without having a verb. Like what? Like this. What are you doing? Eating. Those are just fine. You seem to have a funny idea of what a “complete” sentence needs to be. But even under the strictest and least useful of interpretations, those are all perfect sound.
– tchrist♦
Aug 27 '13 at 22:09
3
No matter what the definition of a sentence is, there simply is no rule that we must be speaking in sentences to begin with. Look no further than this post of yours. Look at that "Some examples:". It's two words, and it ends in a semicolon. That certainly doesn't fit anybody's definition of a sentence. And yet you spake, and it was English, and it was grammatical. I can call it a sentence, I can call it a fragment, I can call it Susan if it makes me happy. What's the point? There is no point.
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 27 '13 at 23:15
Why the downvote? Is something not clear or acceptable about my question?
– xdumaine
Aug 27 '13 at 19:50
Why the downvote? Is something not clear or acceptable about my question?
– xdumaine
Aug 27 '13 at 19:50
3
3
Provided they're grammatical imperatives, yes, they're complete sentences. Imperatives and Interrogatives are different kinds of sentences, but not incomplete. They have their own grammar, is all.
– John Lawler
Aug 27 '13 at 20:17
Provided they're grammatical imperatives, yes, they're complete sentences. Imperatives and Interrogatives are different kinds of sentences, but not incomplete. They have their own grammar, is all.
– John Lawler
Aug 27 '13 at 20:17
1
1
There are innumerable “grammatically sound” utterances that are perfectly fine to stand on their own even without having a verb. Like what? Like this. What are you doing? Eating. Those are just fine. You seem to have a funny idea of what a “complete” sentence needs to be. But even under the strictest and least useful of interpretations, those are all perfect sound.
– tchrist♦
Aug 27 '13 at 22:09
There are innumerable “grammatically sound” utterances that are perfectly fine to stand on their own even without having a verb. Like what? Like this. What are you doing? Eating. Those are just fine. You seem to have a funny idea of what a “complete” sentence needs to be. But even under the strictest and least useful of interpretations, those are all perfect sound.
– tchrist♦
Aug 27 '13 at 22:09
3
3
No matter what the definition of a sentence is, there simply is no rule that we must be speaking in sentences to begin with. Look no further than this post of yours. Look at that "Some examples:". It's two words, and it ends in a semicolon. That certainly doesn't fit anybody's definition of a sentence. And yet you spake, and it was English, and it was grammatical. I can call it a sentence, I can call it a fragment, I can call it Susan if it makes me happy. What's the point? There is no point.
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 27 '13 at 23:15
No matter what the definition of a sentence is, there simply is no rule that we must be speaking in sentences to begin with. Look no further than this post of yours. Look at that "Some examples:". It's two words, and it ends in a semicolon. That certainly doesn't fit anybody's definition of a sentence. And yet you spake, and it was English, and it was grammatical. I can call it a sentence, I can call it a fragment, I can call it Susan if it makes me happy. What's the point? There is no point.
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 27 '13 at 23:15
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
The upvoted answer there actually says:
The subject (you) and helping verb (can) are implied
So yes, the above would be complete sentences. See also this question, in particular the upvoted and accepted answer for shortest complete sentence:
Go
People can nitpick about conversational colloquialisms and academic prose but most uses of a command will be understood as complete.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
answered Aug 27 '13 at 19:52
AmoryAmory
1,20811119
3
The subject you can be demonstrated; the auxiliary can is somebody's imagination. There's no modal in an imperative. If you want more deleted material, try the performative order. Any imperative utteranceVerb Phrase! is equivalent to the performative utterance (I order you to)Verb Phrase, so the you is just part of the story.
– John Lawler
Aug 27 '13 at 20:14
@JohnLawler Agreed that the modal can is somebody’s imagination here. It’s pretty hard to get an imperative modal, given their defectiveness in such arenas.
– tchrist♦
Aug 27 '13 at 22:03
Nope. Though you can impose an obligation that can be expressed by a modal with a felicitous order. I.e, if the boss tells you Show up Sunday, then you must show up Sunday. But the imperative is not a modal itself.
– John Lawler
Aug 27 '13 at 22:36
"Me." is an equally short complete sentence when used in response to a question like "Who is it?"
– Dale M
Aug 27 '13 at 23:58
add a comment |
Linguists, who try to make rules that work across all languages, certainly consider commands to be complete sentences. The implied subject isn't a problem. Languages like Spanish omit the subject even for non-commands when it can be deduced from the verb or from the context, and those are still considered complete sentences. Japanese omits the subject even though the verb gives you no clue about it, but those are also considered complete sentences.
Generally, to establish a sentence as incomplete, you would offer a revision that made it complete. "Want to go with?" vs. "Want to go with me?" But how would one "complete" a sentence like "Go home now."
answered Aug 30 '13 at 21:50
Greg HullenderGreg Hullender
1,368512
add a comment |
Imperatives are grammatically correct...as for the complete sentence part of the question, I will say no. I did see John Lawler's comment
Provided they're grammatical imperatives, yes, they're complete sentences. Imperatives and Interrogatives are different kinds of sentences, but not incomplete. They have their own grammar, is all.
but I was taught in elementary school that a classical complete sentence contains a subject, verb, and object. If that is also how the OP defines complete sentence, and I say if because it is a definition open to interpretation (think of a complete breakfast), then imperatives do not qualify.
A phrase ending in a period, question mark, or exclamation mark makes it a sentence, potentially a sentence fragment, but not necessarily a complete sentence.
answered Aug 30 '13 at 21:04
icyicy
22814
2
Must contain an object? Say what?! Every heard of intransitive verbs? Or passives, for that matter?
– tchrist♦
Aug 30 '13 at 21:37
1
It surprises me how unperceptive you grammar nazis are. Show me where I wrote the word must. tchrist, you completely ignored the theme of the answer, but this is not the first time, so I'll just have to spell it out for you and all other trolls who fly through here with cursory examinations and negative attitudes. I gave anunofficialdefinition of S+V+O; others may define a complete sentence as having one main independent clause. In the case of intransitives there's usually an implied object or implied prep. phrase (prep. + object of prep.).We arrived.(at the station)
– icy
Sep 3 '13 at 16:14
This is the definition I was taught as a child as well, and my teachers harped on it through high school as well. This question and its other answers make me very upset about that.
– JAMalcolmson
Oct 12 '16 at 3:08
I can see the argument for considering a complete sentence to consist of a subject and predicate. But a sentence can certainly be complete without having any object. You don't use the word "must," but you imply that a complete sentence must have an object by presenting this definition and then stating that "imperatives do not qualify" under it.
– sumelic
Oct 12 '16 at 3:11
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f124250%2fare-commands-complete-sentences%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The upvoted answer there actually says:
The subject (you) and helping verb (can) are implied
So yes, the above would be complete sentences. See also this question, in particular the upvoted and accepted answer for shortest complete sentence:
Go
People can nitpick about conversational colloquialisms and academic prose but most uses of a command will be understood as complete.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
answered Aug 27 '13 at 19:52
AmoryAmory
1,20811119
3
The subject you can be demonstrated; the auxiliary can is somebody's imagination. There's no modal in an imperative. If you want more deleted material, try the performative order. Any imperative utteranceVerb Phrase! is equivalent to the performative utterance (I order you to)Verb Phrase, so the you is just part of the story.
– John Lawler
Aug 27 '13 at 20:14
@JohnLawler Agreed that the modal can is somebody’s imagination here. It’s pretty hard to get an imperative modal, given their defectiveness in such arenas.
– tchrist♦
Aug 27 '13 at 22:03
Nope. Though you can impose an obligation that can be expressed by a modal with a felicitous order. I.e, if the boss tells you Show up Sunday, then you must show up Sunday. But the imperative is not a modal itself.
– John Lawler
Aug 27 '13 at 22:36
"Me." is an equally short complete sentence when used in response to a question like "Who is it?"
– Dale M
Aug 27 '13 at 23:58
add a comment |
The upvoted answer there actually says:
The subject (you) and helping verb (can) are implied
So yes, the above would be complete sentences. See also this question, in particular the upvoted and accepted answer for shortest complete sentence:
Go
People can nitpick about conversational colloquialisms and academic prose but most uses of a command will be understood as complete.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
answered Aug 27 '13 at 19:52
AmoryAmory
1,20811119
3
The subject you can be demonstrated; the auxiliary can is somebody's imagination. There's no modal in an imperative. If you want more deleted material, try the performative order. Any imperative utteranceVerb Phrase! is equivalent to the performative utterance (I order you to)Verb Phrase, so the you is just part of the story.
– John Lawler
Aug 27 '13 at 20:14
@JohnLawler Agreed that the modal can is somebody’s imagination here. It’s pretty hard to get an imperative modal, given their defectiveness in such arenas.
– tchrist♦
Aug 27 '13 at 22:03
Nope. Though you can impose an obligation that can be expressed by a modal with a felicitous order. I.e, if the boss tells you Show up Sunday, then you must show up Sunday. But the imperative is not a modal itself.
– John Lawler
Aug 27 '13 at 22:36
"Me." is an equally short complete sentence when used in response to a question like "Who is it?"
– Dale M
Aug 27 '13 at 23:58
add a comment |
The upvoted answer there actually says:
The subject (you) and helping verb (can) are implied
So yes, the above would be complete sentences. See also this question, in particular the upvoted and accepted answer for shortest complete sentence:
Go
People can nitpick about conversational colloquialisms and academic prose but most uses of a command will be understood as complete.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
answered Aug 27 '13 at 19:52
AmoryAmory
1,20811119
The upvoted answer there actually says:
The subject (you) and helping verb (can) are implied
So yes, the above would be complete sentences. See also this question, in particular the upvoted and accepted answer for shortest complete sentence:
Go
People can nitpick about conversational colloquialisms and academic prose but most uses of a command will be understood as complete.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
answered Aug 27 '13 at 19:52
AmoryAmory
1,20811119
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
1
answered Aug 27 '13 at 19:52
AmoryAmory
1,20811119
answered Aug 27 '13 at 19:52
AmoryAmory
1,20811119
answered Aug 27 '13 at 19:52
AmoryAmory
1,20811119
1,20811119
3
The subject you can be demonstrated; the auxiliary can is somebody's imagination. There's no modal in an imperative. If you want more deleted material, try the performative order. Any imperative utteranceVerb Phrase! is equivalent to the performative utterance (I order you to)Verb Phrase, so the you is just part of the story.
– John Lawler
Aug 27 '13 at 20:14
@JohnLawler Agreed that the modal can is somebody’s imagination here. It’s pretty hard to get an imperative modal, given their defectiveness in such arenas.
– tchrist♦
Aug 27 '13 at 22:03
Nope. Though you can impose an obligation that can be expressed by a modal with a felicitous order. I.e, if the boss tells you Show up Sunday, then you must show up Sunday. But the imperative is not a modal itself.
– John Lawler
Aug 27 '13 at 22:36
"Me." is an equally short complete sentence when used in response to a question like "Who is it?"
– Dale M
Aug 27 '13 at 23:58
add a comment |
3
The subject you can be demonstrated; the auxiliary can is somebody's imagination. There's no modal in an imperative. If you want more deleted material, try the performative order. Any imperative utteranceVerb Phrase! is equivalent to the performative utterance (I order you to)Verb Phrase, so the you is just part of the story.
– John Lawler
Aug 27 '13 at 20:14
@JohnLawler Agreed that the modal can is somebody’s imagination here. It’s pretty hard to get an imperative modal, given their defectiveness in such arenas.
– tchrist♦
Aug 27 '13 at 22:03
Nope. Though you can impose an obligation that can be expressed by a modal with a felicitous order. I.e, if the boss tells you Show up Sunday, then you must show up Sunday. But the imperative is not a modal itself.
– John Lawler
Aug 27 '13 at 22:36
"Me." is an equally short complete sentence when used in response to a question like "Who is it?"
– Dale M
Aug 27 '13 at 23:58
3
3
The subject you can be demonstrated; the auxiliary can is somebody's imagination. There's no modal in an imperative. If you want more deleted material, try the performative order. Any imperative utterance
Verb Phrase! is equivalent to the performative utterance (I order you to) Verb Phrase, so the you is just part of the story.– John Lawler
Aug 27 '13 at 20:14
The subject you can be demonstrated; the auxiliary can is somebody's imagination. There's no modal in an imperative. If you want more deleted material, try the performative order. Any imperative utterance
Verb Phrase! is equivalent to the performative utterance (I order you to) Verb Phrase, so the you is just part of the story.– John Lawler
Aug 27 '13 at 20:14
@JohnLawler Agreed that the modal can is somebody’s imagination here. It’s pretty hard to get an imperative modal, given their defectiveness in such arenas.
– tchrist♦
Aug 27 '13 at 22:03
@JohnLawler Agreed that the modal can is somebody’s imagination here. It’s pretty hard to get an imperative modal, given their defectiveness in such arenas.
– tchrist♦
Aug 27 '13 at 22:03
Nope. Though you can impose an obligation that can be expressed by a modal with a felicitous order. I.e, if the boss tells you Show up Sunday, then you must show up Sunday. But the imperative is not a modal itself.
– John Lawler
Aug 27 '13 at 22:36
Nope. Though you can impose an obligation that can be expressed by a modal with a felicitous order. I.e, if the boss tells you Show up Sunday, then you must show up Sunday. But the imperative is not a modal itself.
– John Lawler
Aug 27 '13 at 22:36
"Me." is an equally short complete sentence when used in response to a question like "Who is it?"
– Dale M
Aug 27 '13 at 23:58
"Me." is an equally short complete sentence when used in response to a question like "Who is it?"
– Dale M
Aug 27 '13 at 23:58
add a comment |
Linguists, who try to make rules that work across all languages, certainly consider commands to be complete sentences. The implied subject isn't a problem. Languages like Spanish omit the subject even for non-commands when it can be deduced from the verb or from the context, and those are still considered complete sentences. Japanese omits the subject even though the verb gives you no clue about it, but those are also considered complete sentences.
Generally, to establish a sentence as incomplete, you would offer a revision that made it complete. "Want to go with?" vs. "Want to go with me?" But how would one "complete" a sentence like "Go home now."
answered Aug 30 '13 at 21:50
Greg HullenderGreg Hullender
1,368512
add a comment |
Linguists, who try to make rules that work across all languages, certainly consider commands to be complete sentences. The implied subject isn't a problem. Languages like Spanish omit the subject even for non-commands when it can be deduced from the verb or from the context, and those are still considered complete sentences. Japanese omits the subject even though the verb gives you no clue about it, but those are also considered complete sentences.
Generally, to establish a sentence as incomplete, you would offer a revision that made it complete. "Want to go with?" vs. "Want to go with me?" But how would one "complete" a sentence like "Go home now."
answered Aug 30 '13 at 21:50
Greg HullenderGreg Hullender
1,368512
add a comment |
Linguists, who try to make rules that work across all languages, certainly consider commands to be complete sentences. The implied subject isn't a problem. Languages like Spanish omit the subject even for non-commands when it can be deduced from the verb or from the context, and those are still considered complete sentences. Japanese omits the subject even though the verb gives you no clue about it, but those are also considered complete sentences.
Generally, to establish a sentence as incomplete, you would offer a revision that made it complete. "Want to go with?" vs. "Want to go with me?" But how would one "complete" a sentence like "Go home now."
answered Aug 30 '13 at 21:50
Greg HullenderGreg Hullender
1,368512
Linguists, who try to make rules that work across all languages, certainly consider commands to be complete sentences. The implied subject isn't a problem. Languages like Spanish omit the subject even for non-commands when it can be deduced from the verb or from the context, and those are still considered complete sentences. Japanese omits the subject even though the verb gives you no clue about it, but those are also considered complete sentences.
Generally, to establish a sentence as incomplete, you would offer a revision that made it complete. "Want to go with?" vs. "Want to go with me?" But how would one "complete" a sentence like "Go home now."
answered Aug 30 '13 at 21:50
Greg HullenderGreg Hullender
1,368512
answered Aug 30 '13 at 21:50
Greg HullenderGreg Hullender
1,368512
answered Aug 30 '13 at 21:50
Greg HullenderGreg Hullender
1,368512
answered Aug 30 '13 at 21:50
Greg HullenderGreg Hullender
1,368512
1,368512
add a comment |
add a comment |
Imperatives are grammatically correct...as for the complete sentence part of the question, I will say no. I did see John Lawler's comment
Provided they're grammatical imperatives, yes, they're complete sentences. Imperatives and Interrogatives are different kinds of sentences, but not incomplete. They have their own grammar, is all.
but I was taught in elementary school that a classical complete sentence contains a subject, verb, and object. If that is also how the OP defines complete sentence, and I say if because it is a definition open to interpretation (think of a complete breakfast), then imperatives do not qualify.
A phrase ending in a period, question mark, or exclamation mark makes it a sentence, potentially a sentence fragment, but not necessarily a complete sentence.
answered Aug 30 '13 at 21:04
icyicy
22814
2
Must contain an object? Say what?! Every heard of intransitive verbs? Or passives, for that matter?
– tchrist♦
Aug 30 '13 at 21:37
1
It surprises me how unperceptive you grammar nazis are. Show me where I wrote the word must. tchrist, you completely ignored the theme of the answer, but this is not the first time, so I'll just have to spell it out for you and all other trolls who fly through here with cursory examinations and negative attitudes. I gave anunofficialdefinition of S+V+O; others may define a complete sentence as having one main independent clause. In the case of intransitives there's usually an implied object or implied prep. phrase (prep. + object of prep.).We arrived.(at the station)
– icy
Sep 3 '13 at 16:14
This is the definition I was taught as a child as well, and my teachers harped on it through high school as well. This question and its other answers make me very upset about that.
– JAMalcolmson
Oct 12 '16 at 3:08
I can see the argument for considering a complete sentence to consist of a subject and predicate. But a sentence can certainly be complete without having any object. You don't use the word "must," but you imply that a complete sentence must have an object by presenting this definition and then stating that "imperatives do not qualify" under it.
– sumelic
Oct 12 '16 at 3:11
add a comment |
Imperatives are grammatically correct...as for the complete sentence part of the question, I will say no. I did see John Lawler's comment
Provided they're grammatical imperatives, yes, they're complete sentences. Imperatives and Interrogatives are different kinds of sentences, but not incomplete. They have their own grammar, is all.
but I was taught in elementary school that a classical complete sentence contains a subject, verb, and object. If that is also how the OP defines complete sentence, and I say if because it is a definition open to interpretation (think of a complete breakfast), then imperatives do not qualify.
A phrase ending in a period, question mark, or exclamation mark makes it a sentence, potentially a sentence fragment, but not necessarily a complete sentence.
answered Aug 30 '13 at 21:04
icyicy
22814
2
Must contain an object? Say what?! Every heard of intransitive verbs? Or passives, for that matter?
– tchrist♦
Aug 30 '13 at 21:37
1
It surprises me how unperceptive you grammar nazis are. Show me where I wrote the word must. tchrist, you completely ignored the theme of the answer, but this is not the first time, so I'll just have to spell it out for you and all other trolls who fly through here with cursory examinations and negative attitudes. I gave anunofficialdefinition of S+V+O; others may define a complete sentence as having one main independent clause. In the case of intransitives there's usually an implied object or implied prep. phrase (prep. + object of prep.).We arrived.(at the station)
– icy
Sep 3 '13 at 16:14
This is the definition I was taught as a child as well, and my teachers harped on it through high school as well. This question and its other answers make me very upset about that.
– JAMalcolmson
Oct 12 '16 at 3:08
I can see the argument for considering a complete sentence to consist of a subject and predicate. But a sentence can certainly be complete without having any object. You don't use the word "must," but you imply that a complete sentence must have an object by presenting this definition and then stating that "imperatives do not qualify" under it.
– sumelic
Oct 12 '16 at 3:11
add a comment |
Imperatives are grammatically correct...as for the complete sentence part of the question, I will say no. I did see John Lawler's comment
Provided they're grammatical imperatives, yes, they're complete sentences. Imperatives and Interrogatives are different kinds of sentences, but not incomplete. They have their own grammar, is all.
but I was taught in elementary school that a classical complete sentence contains a subject, verb, and object. If that is also how the OP defines complete sentence, and I say if because it is a definition open to interpretation (think of a complete breakfast), then imperatives do not qualify.
A phrase ending in a period, question mark, or exclamation mark makes it a sentence, potentially a sentence fragment, but not necessarily a complete sentence.
answered Aug 30 '13 at 21:04
icyicy
22814
Imperatives are grammatically correct...as for the complete sentence part of the question, I will say no. I did see John Lawler's comment
Provided they're grammatical imperatives, yes, they're complete sentences. Imperatives and Interrogatives are different kinds of sentences, but not incomplete. They have their own grammar, is all.
but I was taught in elementary school that a classical complete sentence contains a subject, verb, and object. If that is also how the OP defines complete sentence, and I say if because it is a definition open to interpretation (think of a complete breakfast), then imperatives do not qualify.
A phrase ending in a period, question mark, or exclamation mark makes it a sentence, potentially a sentence fragment, but not necessarily a complete sentence.
answered Aug 30 '13 at 21:04
icyicy
22814
answered Aug 30 '13 at 21:04
icyicy
22814
answered Aug 30 '13 at 21:04
icyicy
22814
answered Aug 30 '13 at 21:04
icyicy
22814
22814
2
Must contain an object? Say what?! Every heard of intransitive verbs? Or passives, for that matter?
– tchrist♦
Aug 30 '13 at 21:37
1
It surprises me how unperceptive you grammar nazis are. Show me where I wrote the word must. tchrist, you completely ignored the theme of the answer, but this is not the first time, so I'll just have to spell it out for you and all other trolls who fly through here with cursory examinations and negative attitudes. I gave anunofficialdefinition of S+V+O; others may define a complete sentence as having one main independent clause. In the case of intransitives there's usually an implied object or implied prep. phrase (prep. + object of prep.).We arrived.(at the station)
– icy
Sep 3 '13 at 16:14
This is the definition I was taught as a child as well, and my teachers harped on it through high school as well. This question and its other answers make me very upset about that.
– JAMalcolmson
Oct 12 '16 at 3:08
I can see the argument for considering a complete sentence to consist of a subject and predicate. But a sentence can certainly be complete without having any object. You don't use the word "must," but you imply that a complete sentence must have an object by presenting this definition and then stating that "imperatives do not qualify" under it.
– sumelic
Oct 12 '16 at 3:11
add a comment |
2
Must contain an object? Say what?! Every heard of intransitive verbs? Or passives, for that matter?
– tchrist♦
Aug 30 '13 at 21:37
1
It surprises me how unperceptive you grammar nazis are. Show me where I wrote the word must. tchrist, you completely ignored the theme of the answer, but this is not the first time, so I'll just have to spell it out for you and all other trolls who fly through here with cursory examinations and negative attitudes. I gave anunofficialdefinition of S+V+O; others may define a complete sentence as having one main independent clause. In the case of intransitives there's usually an implied object or implied prep. phrase (prep. + object of prep.).We arrived.(at the station)
– icy
Sep 3 '13 at 16:14
This is the definition I was taught as a child as well, and my teachers harped on it through high school as well. This question and its other answers make me very upset about that.
– JAMalcolmson
Oct 12 '16 at 3:08
I can see the argument for considering a complete sentence to consist of a subject and predicate. But a sentence can certainly be complete without having any object. You don't use the word "must," but you imply that a complete sentence must have an object by presenting this definition and then stating that "imperatives do not qualify" under it.
– sumelic
Oct 12 '16 at 3:11
2
2
Must contain an object? Say what?! Every heard of intransitive verbs? Or passives, for that matter?
– tchrist♦
Aug 30 '13 at 21:37
Must contain an object? Say what?! Every heard of intransitive verbs? Or passives, for that matter?
– tchrist♦
Aug 30 '13 at 21:37
1
1
It surprises me how unperceptive you grammar nazis are. Show me where I wrote the word must. tchrist, you completely ignored the theme of the answer, but this is not the first time, so I'll just have to spell it out for you and all other trolls who fly through here with cursory examinations and negative attitudes. I gave an
unofficial definition of S+V+O; others may define a complete sentence as having one main independent clause. In the case of intransitives there's usually an implied object or implied prep. phrase (prep. + object of prep.). We arrived. (at the station)– icy
Sep 3 '13 at 16:14
It surprises me how unperceptive you grammar nazis are. Show me where I wrote the word must. tchrist, you completely ignored the theme of the answer, but this is not the first time, so I'll just have to spell it out for you and all other trolls who fly through here with cursory examinations and negative attitudes. I gave an
unofficial definition of S+V+O; others may define a complete sentence as having one main independent clause. In the case of intransitives there's usually an implied object or implied prep. phrase (prep. + object of prep.). We arrived. (at the station)– icy
Sep 3 '13 at 16:14
This is the definition I was taught as a child as well, and my teachers harped on it through high school as well. This question and its other answers make me very upset about that.
– JAMalcolmson
Oct 12 '16 at 3:08
This is the definition I was taught as a child as well, and my teachers harped on it through high school as well. This question and its other answers make me very upset about that.
– JAMalcolmson
Oct 12 '16 at 3:08
I can see the argument for considering a complete sentence to consist of a subject and predicate. But a sentence can certainly be complete without having any object. You don't use the word "must," but you imply that a complete sentence must have an object by presenting this definition and then stating that "imperatives do not qualify" under it.
– sumelic
Oct 12 '16 at 3:11
I can see the argument for considering a complete sentence to consist of a subject and predicate. But a sentence can certainly be complete without having any object. You don't use the word "must," but you imply that a complete sentence must have an object by presenting this definition and then stating that "imperatives do not qualify" under it.
– sumelic
Oct 12 '16 at 3:11
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f124250%2fare-commands-complete-sentences%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Why the downvote? Is something not clear or acceptable about my question?
– xdumaine
Aug 27 '13 at 19:50
3
Provided they're grammatical imperatives, yes, they're complete sentences. Imperatives and Interrogatives are different kinds of sentences, but not incomplete. They have their own grammar, is all.
– John Lawler
Aug 27 '13 at 20:17
1
There are innumerable “grammatically sound” utterances that are perfectly fine to stand on their own even without having a verb. Like what? Like this. What are you doing? Eating. Those are just fine. You seem to have a funny idea of what a “complete” sentence needs to be. But even under the strictest and least useful of interpretations, those are all perfect sound.
– tchrist♦
Aug 27 '13 at 22:09
3
No matter what the definition of a sentence is, there simply is no rule that we must be speaking in sentences to begin with. Look no further than this post of yours. Look at that "Some examples:". It's two words, and it ends in a semicolon. That certainly doesn't fit anybody's definition of a sentence. And yet you spake, and it was English, and it was grammatical. I can call it a sentence, I can call it a fragment, I can call it Susan if it makes me happy. What's the point? There is no point.
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 27 '13 at 23:15