I have a question about one of the inconsistencies of the Reed-
Kellogg system of diagramming sentences.  I am wondering if anyone
can offer a plausible explanation for this particular flaw in the
system (and I am aware that there are many other flaws):
 
(a) Passive sentences are diagrammed according to their surface form,
even though a text like Kolln's, for example, classifies the
sentences according to the pattern of their 'underlying active
versions.'
 
(b) Sentences having undergone 'question' or 'there' transformations,
however, are diagrammed according to their 'underlying versions,' and not
their surface forms.
 
I suppose that part of the problem may be that the Reed-Kellogg system
was developed before the idea of transformations overtook linguistics
and we began looking at active & passive sentences as related at a
deeper syntactic level.   But then that raises the question of why
the Reed-Kellogg system shows a relation between the the question and
statement forms of a sentence, implying a syntactic relation at a
level beneath the surface forms.
 
Having done a little sketching of an alternative diagram for
passives, I find it difficult to find a satisfactory alternative
using a Reed-Kellogg format.     Is such an major inconsistency good reason
for abandoning the system altogether?  Are there any good reasons for
using the system at all?
 
 
 
 
 
 
**********************************************************************
R. Michael Medley       VPH 211                Ph: (712) 737-7047
Assistant Professor     Northwestern College
Department of English   Orange City, IA  51041
**********************************************************************