Are these the only adjective and adverb that have a direct object?
The benefit is worth the cost.
I'd rather that you have dinner with us.
These adjectives also work similarly, except they are more of colloquial Wall Street lingo:
That hedge fund is short IBM.
Warren Buffett is long Bank of America.
And note how they are only superficially similar to these constructions, where an adverbial 'that' phrase is in place of the object:
I am sure that…
I am happy that…
I am afraid that…
The distinction is: these adverbial phrases answer the question how? whereas the objects in the 4 top examples answer what?
About the first one, my first instinct is to answer in the affirmative and then start looking for examples among the adjectives that hover around the concept of "sufficient". But I gotta run to church now, so I'll have to think about it first.
About the second example, though, I'm going to opine that in this sentence "rather" is not an adjective or an adverb but a verb. I agree that it appears in other sentences as an adjective, but "I'd rather" means "I prefer".
Of course, you could argue (correctly) that in the original form of this phrase, "rather" is an adverb and "would" is not a helping verb but the verb. Let's expand your example:
"I don't want to you to come this morning; I'd rather that you have dinner with us."
"Rather" looks like a verb here, and modern speakers think of it that way. But you can reorder the words to make the older structure clear:
"I would not that you come this morning; rather I would that you have dinner with us."
And if you argue (still correctly) that in that case "rather" is not a verb but an adverb, as you said in the first place, it follows that "that you have dinner with us" is the object not of "rather" but of "would".
Hmm… While rereading the above it occurs to me that in that sentence, "rather" is not an adverb but a conjunction. It doesn't look like a conjunction because of where it's placed in the sentence. But there are conjunctions that don't appear directly between the two phrases they join, not only in English but in other languages as well. In English, you can say "It's not raining outside; therefore I needn't bring an umbrella"; but you can just as well write "It's not raining outside; I needn't, therefore, bring an umbrella". "Also" can be moved around too.
But then, maybe in a sense all conjunctions are somewhat adverbial.
Ok, now I really gotta run.
Bob Bridges said …Of course, you could argue (correctly) that in the original form of this phrase, "rather" is an adverb and "would" is not a helping verb but the verb.
For 'would' to be a verb all its own is a radical idea indeed, so much so I'd rather not go down that path. But then that will leave the question: what verb, if not 'would', is 'rather' an adverb to, in'would rather that' ?
I would sidestep that question entirely and say that that whole construction is one of a kind, an idiomatic phrase whose components cannot be analyzed into the common 'parts of speech.' (Accordingly my initial post's question concerning 'rather' also becomes nonsensical.)
I notice that while discussions on'would rather do' (whose syntax structure is trivial) are abundant, there are few on 'would rather that,' as though it is somehow avoided. Whatever the reasons, I believe this usage is well established enough to be formal, a fact implicit in this note from the 'Free online Dictionary':
'…In formal style, should is sometimes used: I should rather my daughter attended a public school…'
Robert asked: …what verb, if not ‘would’, is "rather" an adverb to, in "would rather that"?
I wouldn't object if you preferred to read it this way:
"Rather I would have it that you have dinner with us."
Robert quoted: ‘…In formal style, should is sometimes used: I should rather my daughter attended a public school…’
That's a different issue, that is, it stems from a different rule. We've talked in other threads about "will" and "shall"; well, one rule that was observed for a century or two in England—not very much now, I gather—is that "will" is the future-tense indicator for 2nd and 3rd persons, but "shall" is for 1st person: "I shall", "you will", "he will", "we shall", "you will", "they will". (At other times and in other contexts, different rules prevailed.) The same applies to those words' past tenses, of course: "I should", "you would", "he would", "we should", "you would", "they would". But as I said, I don't think there was ever a consensus on that division in the US—certainly not in my lifetime.
By the way, I'm not sure but I think that example you cited (not yours, I realize) is mistaken: It must use the subjunctive, "I should rather my daughter attend a public school". I think. If it was intended to be in the past tense, maybe it's right after all.
Robert asked: I will buy ‘I think therefore I am.’ But this would be an incomplete statement: ‘I think therefore I will,’ because will do what?
The future tense of "am" is not "will" but "will be": cogito, ergo erō. Ok, that was showing off just for the fun of it (and I had to look up erō, anyway); "I think, therefore I will be". But what you're really asking is how a helping verb can stand by itself. And of course it can't; but "will"/"would" wasn't always a helping verb. My argument is that its older status as a real verb (not just a helping verb) survives in such phrases as "I would rather [that] you have dinner with us". You don't have to think of it as a verb in the current language; I just think it helps, when trying to understand such phrases, to remember that it used to be.
Bob Bridges said I wouldn't object if you preferred to read it this way:
"Rather I would have it that you have dinner with us."
That looks like a most simple and plausible parsing, there all along-- 'have' is main verb, 'would' auxiliary to 'have,' 'rather' adverb to same; and 'would rather that' is just the shortened format.
But there wouldn't be much fun if you take the shortest route all the time, no?