Sorry, guys.   Word classes is just odd.  Parts of Speech is the term and will remain so.  You're just not dealing with a full deck here.  Quirk and Greenbaum alone could conserve the term for a few centuries.  You add to that Jespersen, Saussure and on and on and the argument is over.  ATEG will be ignored or at best, patronized or thought of as upstarts, but nothing will come of it.  

Phil Bralich

-----Original Message-----
>From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Jul 27, 2006 10:14 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Grammar Terms Definitions
>
>Phil,
>   I don't think for a moment that using "word classes" would imply
>anything about 2,000 plus years of scholarship. I doubt that anyone
>would find it remarkable at all. It's a set of classifications for
>words.
>   I think you're all alone on this argument. I appreciate your passion,
>but I think the consensus is on the other side.
>   If a publisher balks on an issue like this, then they are a foolish
>publisher.
>
>Craig
>    >
>
>
>It simply does not restrict the definition to utterances.  It never has;
>> it never will.  Your saying so does not change the 2000 years of
>> experience of using it for oral and written speech.  If anyone felt that
>> they would either have written a separate set for the "parts of writing"
>> or changed the name themselves.  No one will agree with you on this.  All
>> writing comes from speech.  Part of speech is just fine.  There is nothing
>> wrong with "Word class"; it is simply not required.  Any improvement it
>> offers is minimal, though mostly there is none.  Changing it would give
>> the impression that for 2000+ years scholars were too foolish to notice
>> that the term couldn't be used for writing.  They would have if there were
>> a problem.  It is nothing other than narcissism that could make anyone
>> think you should replace a 2000 year old term with the new one on such
>> skewed logic.
>>
>> If you were to convince the ATEG group to use word class instead of part
>> of speech you are likely to damage the effectiveness of the effort.
>> Certainly, publishers would not stop using the term "parts of speech".
>>
>> Phil Bralich
>>
>>>
>>>I would appreciate if you explained why viewing *parts of speech* as
>>>innacurate (because it restricts the definition to utterances)and
>>>considering the term *word classes* (because this is just what
>>>grammars do - classsify words into morphological classes) would be
>>>consideredd *poor thinking.* What evidence supports your position?
>>>
>>>Eduard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Phil Bralich wrote...
>>>
>>>>Highly doubtful.  Parts of Speech as the term for the categories of
>>>isoated=
>>>> words is just not a problem.   Viewing it as inaccurate is just
>>>poor think=
>>>>ing and will be viewed as such by others.  If you write the
>>>arguments given=
>>>> early you will only mark the group as one that is dominated by poor
>>>thinki=
>>>>ng.  You will not affect a change. =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/