>
>Perhaps I left a step out of the argument.  I agree with many on this
>list that we need a new grammar curriculum.  You and I differ on that.

You are really missing the whole discussion here.  Scope and sequence are a part of any field's curriculum design.  Certification or the offering of degrees is the result of a curriculum having been taught.  The development of a final test for certification naturally must be based on the curriculum that is offered by the school offers the curriculum.  However, the issues that arise in the splitting of a fields body of knowledge into a series for scope and sequence are very different from the issues that arise in trying to test that field's body of knowledge all-of-a-peice as a certifcation exam.  The issues are sufficiently different that not only do they suggest two different committees to develop them, they more or less compell us to create two committees.  This is what you keep missing here.  



>I'm not being intentionally dense when I say that I don't understand
>what you mean by "... the entirety of traditional grammar is
>inescapable."  Both "entirety" and "inescapable" are a little unclear to
>me.  

Take a look at my review of Mark Honegger's _Grammar for Writing_ in the last ATEG Journal.  I made a similar discussion and pointed this out with more examples when I explained why I believed his book was very complete and that he had, in spite of protests to the contrary, provided the entirety of traditional grammar.  


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/