>Again, I agree that the ATEG forum would be the right place to work 
>on a revision and standardization of the grammar metalanguage. I can 
>assume that this is what Ed Vavra would also like to see happen, but 
>how can we make it happen?
>


Another letter on this tread suggests the terminology discussion be part of the Scope and Sequence project which seems a little fishy to me.  A separate committee would undoubtedly be better and more focussed.  Certainly the problem of terminology comes up when you look at the scope of the problem, but I don't see how it fits in the Scope and Sequence committee.  They are already charged with significant enough responsibility.  A separate team doing the research and writing would be required.  And of course for any ATEG committee, principles should first be worked out before making proposals.  

All of this needs to be of publishable quality to have the necessary effect.   

Phil Bralich


>
>On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Phil Bralich wrote...
>
>>>I agree with the statement you make in your article that there is=20
>>>great confusion concerning words used to define grammatical terms. 
>I=20
>>>have recently reviewed 18 (eighteen) grammar books of different 
>sizes=20
>>>and origins, including Quirk=92s =93Comprehensive Grammar of the 
>English=
>>=20
>>>Language,=93 and each one of the uses a different set of terms to=20
>>>describe the grammar system of the English language. 
>Standardization=20
>>>of  grammar terminology would eliminate a lot of confusion and 
>would=20
>>>make different grammar books more accessible to teachers and 
>students.
>>
>>ATEG would be a good group to do this. =20
>>
>>>I do not have any trouble with the term *gerund* probably because 
>I=20
>>>learned this term when I was in grammar (junior high) school, but 
>I=20
>>>agree that the term is redundant. As you know, it comes from 
>Latin=20
>>>(gerundium), and can be easily abandoned as the term *participle* 
>can=20
>>>be used to describe both the verbal and the nominal functions of 
>the=20
>>>[-ing] form.=20
>>
>>The only reason I bring it up is because is so often confounding.  
>If the r=
>>edundant and unnecessary nature of the term is pointed out, it 
>clears stude=
>>nts heads.  A "Ban the Gerund" movement might be eye catching and 
>helpful t=
>>o put together a list of standardized terminology.  How about 
>the "Ban the =
>>Gerund" ATEG Working Group for the Standardization of Grammar 
>Terminology. =
>> =20
>>
>>>Someone asked a question about *parts of speech,* a term which 
>seems=20
>>>rather counterintuitive for grammar (as grammar deals mainly with=20
>>>written language), and I found out that some grammar book authors 
>use=20
>>>the term *word classes* to describe the same thing. I believe 
>that=20
>>>WORD CLASSES is much better than PARTS OF SPEECH to describe the=20
>>>different categories into which we can prototypically categorize 
>the=20
>>>lexicon of every language.
>>
>>Parts of Speech if fine for me.  It recognizes the more primary 
>aspect of l=
>>anguage as Speech.  The ability to analyze all Speech (not just 
>writing) is=
>> what grammar offers. =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/