Glad to help out, and honored.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Christine Gray
Sent: Mon 9/11/2006 7:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Conjunctive Adverbs
Herb, thank you for your detailed response. I printed out your message and
used part of it in my grammar course this evening.
Christine
_____
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:29 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Conjunctive Adverbs
Christine,
It goes back ultimately to an early 1st c. BCE Greek grammarian named
Dionysus of Thrax. He synthesized the major ideas of his time on Greek
grammar and was the first to classify Greek words into eight categories, not
exactly our eight, but close. His work was highly influential among Latin
grammarians, and in the 4th c. CE the Latin grammarian Donatus wrote what
became the standard Latin grammar for much of the Middle Ages. He adapted
Dionysus' eight categories to Latin, giving the set the Latin label, partes
orationis "parts of speech". The word "partes" is actually a nominative
plural. The singular is "pars", so "pars orationis" is "part of speech",
and it's from this that we get the English verb "to parse", that is, to
analyze a sentence into its components. When English grammarians began
seriously writing English grammars, in the 15th c. but coming to a high
point in the 18th, they adopted the Latin model. In some cases, they took
the Latin model a bit too far, resulting in rules like not ending sentences
with prepositions or, the 1860s, not splitting infinitives. However, one
can't be too hard on them for their decision. Latin was perhaps the best
analyzed language they had to work from, so they quite naturally transferred
that knowledge to the description of English, a scientifically and
intellectually sound decision. It has taken a couple of centuries of
thought for us to move significantly beyond that model, partly because the
Latin model is so entrenched in schools and in our intellectual traditions,
but also because it was a pretty good model to start with.
You'll find an excellent and thorough discussion of this history in David
Mulroy's The War against Grammar, must reading for anyone teaching English.
Herb
_____
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Christine Gray
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 8:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Conjunctive Adverbs
Herb,
I agree-adverbs do seem to be a grab bag.
And where did we get this eight-parts-of-speech notion?
Christine
_____
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 8:18 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Conjunctive Adverbs
Adverb is, and has always been, a grab bag. If it doesn't work as a noun,
adjective, verb, etc. call it an adverb and be done with it, and then don't
be too careful in defining what an adverb is. Part of the problem here is
the, usually unconsidered, decision to limit ourselves to eight parts of
speech or to accept traditional definitions. But the deeper problem lies in
the notion category itself, the idea that a word is one part of speech or
another and that those categories are discrete. The fact is that the
categories have fuzzy edges, or, better, the categories represent
prototypical sets of morphological, syntactic, semantic, and functional
characteristics that define a small class of words, and words that share
some of these characteristics are then assigned to the class as well. Since
a lot of students, and a lot of teachers, won't ask the difficult questions
about received wisdom, the names and the misconceptions persist. Klammer is
right in distinguishing "always" etc. from adverbs. I'm not sure calling
them qualifiers is a step forward though, since it simply establishes
another category and labels it with a term that already has a meaning, if a
questionable one, in traditional grammar ("adjectives qualify, adverbs
modify").
Herb
_____
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Christine Gray
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Conjunctive Adverbs
Peter,
Thomas Klammer would disagree with you. and after using his book for years,
I now too disagree with you about these words as adverbs.
In his book Analyzing English Grammar, Klammer labels "always," "sometimes,"
"never," etc. qualifiers, I think.
I believe he points out that one of the tests of an adverb is whether "one"
can put very or another intensifier in front of it. He uses frame sentences
as a way to identify a word as/check whether a word actually is a noun,
verb, adjective, or adverb.
I really really like his book. Get a copy from your Longman rep.
Christine
_____
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Adams
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 7:25 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Conjunctive Adverbs
In a message dated 9/10/06 5:55:25 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
Peter, I know what you mean about conjunctive adverbs. They are "mobile,"
as are adverbs.
However, conjunctive adverbs cannot be intensified, which is, I think, a
property adverbs have: very suddenly, for example. Nor are conjunctive
adverbs able to modify verbs.
Good points, Christine, but consider the following. Some adverbs also
cannot be intensified: always, sometimes, now, today, never. I don't think
anyone would argue these are not adverbs.
Also, take a look at these:
Christine likes adverbs, but Herb, nevertheless, prefers conjunctions.
Ed believes in innate knowledge, and Phil, therefore, agrees with him.
In these two, it seems clear that the so-called conjunctive adverb is not
joining the two clauses; the coordinating conjunctions are serving that
purpose. So would we still call them conjunctions in sentences like these?
Or how about in a simple declarative sentence.
Roger Federer won the US Open, for example, in four sets.
Why would we want to consider for example to be a conjunction in a sentence
like this. Or would we?
Peter Adams
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/ 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/
|
