Don't forget to find out what proposals and principles already exist in the literature.  Everything will be ingored otherwise.  You want these things to actually happen so you want publishers to be on board and willing to adapt such proposals.  

Phil Bralich

-----Original Message-----
>From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Jul 26, 2006 12:27 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Grammar Terms Definitions
>
>   Terminology will be part of our Scope and Sequence project, and Herb
>Stahlke has volunteered to coordinate it. (I think he volunteered to be
>part of it, but I granted him the promotion.) Herb's idea is that we
>need to agree on principles first and then come up with terms that meet
>those criteria. So if anyone wanted to draft principles out, they could
>send them to Herb or float them out to the group.
>   Just to make things complicated, there are times when the -ing form of
>the verb seems to act more like the head of a noun phrase. "Spanish
>cooking always satisfies me." I would have no problem limiting the use
>of a gerund to that role. In most cases, it maintains its verb like
>status, even when the word group it heads is in a noun phrase role. 
>"Cooking rice too long makes it dry." "Cooking" acts like a transitive
>verb, but heads a word group that functions as subject.
>   It's not that we have two names for the same thing (gerund and
>something else) but two ways of looking at the reality of what we see
>when we look at real language, with one being more accurate than the
>other. The traditional way distorts or clouds our understanding.
>   The principle has to include accuracy of description, not just ease of
>terminology.
>   All things being equal, I'm in favor of using the familiar terms simply
>because they have the virtue of familiarity. We should have good
>reasons for amending them.
>
>Craig
>
>>
>
>Phil,
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Eduard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/

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/