[I'm catching up on my ATEG reading, so apologies in advance if I
reinvent the wheel. Or if I belabor the obvious, but that's my forte.]

It strikes me that the division is really one between the kind of
grammar we think of K-12 teachers "doing" (whether they do or not), vs.
the kind of grammar that linguists consider themselves working on.
Rather than "linguistic grammar," perhaps "linguists' grammars" would
work.

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English
Central Michigan University

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard C. Hanganu
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 3:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Linguistic Grammar?

Dear Paul:

The problem is with the lack of a consensus on terminology, and this 
problem will never go away. Nevertheless, we cannot define something 
through a pleonasm, which is failed logic. 

Eduard 




On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Paul E. Doniger wrote...

>If the term is so confusing, then how should we distinguish between 
a grammar based on the work of linguists and a more traditional 
grammar? How, for example, would we distinguish between a grammar 
that refers to say, predicate adjective/predicate nominative and one 
that refers to subject complements? Traditional grammarians talk 
about articles while lingusits talk about determiners. Why can't we 
coin the term Lingusitic Grammar to distinguish the different 
approach?
>   
>  Paul D.
>
>"Eduard C. Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>  Dear Phil:
>
>In "A Student's Dictionary of Language and Linguistics," Trask 
(1997) 
>defines *grammar* as "that part of the structure of a language which 
>includes sentence structure(syntax) and word structure (morphology)" 
>(p. 29). As linguists well know, *morphology and *syntax* are an 
>integral and part of the science of language, which is 
*linguistics.* 
>
>The term *linguistic grammar* is not a linguistic expression.It is a 
>pleonasm, a redundant expression, which confuses those who are not 
>familiar with linguistics and its subfields. 
>
>Regards,
>
>Eduard 
>
>
>
>
>
>On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Phil Bralich wrote...
>
>>I have been in grammar/syntax for over 25 years, but it is only on 
>this list that I have heard of "Linguistic Grammar." Are there 
>formal descriptions and discussion of it available in journals and 
>books? Are there recognized authors on the subject? Also, does 
>anyone know where I might get a copy of Tim Hadley's dissertation? 
>>
>>Phil Bralich
>
>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web 
interface at:
>http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>and select "Join or leave the list"
>
>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>  
>
>
>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web 
interface at:
>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>and select "Join or leave the list"
>
>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/