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/