Phil,
   I don't think for a moment that using "word classes" would imply
anything about 2,000 plus years of scholarship. I doubt that anyone
would find it remarkable at all. It's a set of classifications for
words.
   I think you're all alone on this argument. I appreciate your passion,
but I think the consensus is on the other side.
   If a publisher balks on an issue like this, then they are a foolish
publisher.

Craig
    >


It simply does not restrict the definition to utterances.  It never has;
> it never will.  Your saying so does not change the 2000 years of
> experience of using it for oral and written speech.  If anyone felt that
> they would either have written a separate set for the "parts of writing"
> or changed the name themselves.  No one will agree with you on this.  All
> writing comes from speech.  Part of speech is just fine.  There is nothing
> wrong with "Word class"; it is simply not required.  Any improvement it
> offers is minimal, though mostly there is none.  Changing it would give
> the impression that for 2000+ years scholars were too foolish to notice
> that the term couldn't be used for writing.  They would have if there were
> a problem.  It is nothing other than narcissism that could make anyone
> think you should replace a 2000 year old term with the new one on such
> skewed logic.
>
> If you were to convince the ATEG group to use word class instead of part
> of speech you are likely to damage the effectiveness of the effort.
> Certainly, publishers would not stop using the term "parts of speech".
>
> Phil Bralich
>
>>
>>I would appreciate if you explained why viewing *parts of speech* as
>>innacurate (because it restricts the definition to utterances)and
>>considering the term *word classes* (because this is just what
>>grammars do - classsify words into morphological classes) would be
>>consideredd *poor thinking.* What evidence supports your position?
>>
>>Eduard
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Phil Bralich wrote...
>>
>>>Highly doubtful.  Parts of Speech as the term for the categories of
>>isoated=
>>> words is just not a problem.   Viewing it as inaccurate is just
>>poor think=
>>>ing and will be viewed as such by others.  If you write the
>>arguments given=
>>> early you will only mark the group as one that is dominated by poor
>>thinki=
>>>ng.  You will not affect a change. =20
>>>
>>>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/