Hi folks --

I'm adding a few notes below (in my unfortunately-common "I can't
organize these, so here's a numbered list" format), but first, I'd like
to thank everyone for the feedback -- it's enormously useful. Figuring
out a good pedagogic "balancing point" on the amount of detail is not an
easy thing. 

(1)	The complement/adjunct distinction is obviously of primary
importance, 	as Bob and Karl both point out. The reason I bring in
clause patterns 	is that the course, as it's currently designed,
is partly devoted to 	familiarizing students with common grammar
terminology, so I need some
	way of getting to "direct object," "indirect object," and
"subject
	complement." In terms of usage rules, though, only "subject 
	complement vs. any kind of object" is relevant, since that
affects
	pronoun choice in formal writing. Were I focusing on
copy-editing 
	only, I'd probably just skip direct vs. indirect objects
altogether. 	Were I doing an introduction to English syntax, I'd
focus more on 	the range of variation and then skip specific labels
(since there 	would	be too many types). In other words, some of my
decisions here 	have to be motivated directly by the master syllabus for
the course.

(2)	Based on Miller's notion of "The magic number seven, plus or
minus 	two," Herb's list of types seems to hit the sweet spot dead on. 

(3)	Martha -- I'm not sure how to interpret your phrase about "the
'be' 	version of intransitive verbs." It's certainly the case that it
acts
	like an auxiliary rather than the main verb (e.g., you just move
it 
	to make a y/n question rather than having to add a DO form ("Was
the
	meeting at 5:00? Did the meeting seem boring?"). It's in a frame
	(for want of a better word) that canonical linking verbs usually
go
	in, though. I typically call these "subject complement
constructions,"
	which might let me dodge the issue entirely -- but only if the 
	time/place PP can be called a subject complement. 

(4)	One of my students earlier, trying (I think) to refer to
intransitive 	verbs, asked if one of the class examples included an
"intransigent 	verb." Is there a term for a misapprehension whose
result is better
	than the original? Can one have a beneprop?

And again, thanks for the feedback! -- Bill Spruiell

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/