David has hit the nail squarely on the head (read NAIL as direct object
...)! There's nothing more disheartening to the novice than to have two,
three, four, or more new bits of jargon to learn when each one refers to the
same phenomenon!

Who was it who said, "Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do?"

Paul E. Doniger
The Gilbert School

----- Original Message -----
From: David D Mulroy <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 8:56 AM
Subject: Names versus Descriptions


> I would like to raise an issue brought to mind by the discussion of
> whether one should call FALLEN, for example, a perfect participle, a past
> participle, or a passive participle.  It seemed to me that the discussion
> elided the difference between a name and a complete description.  I doubt
> that any system of nomenclature is ever accurate in the sense for which
> traditional grammatical terminology is sometimes criticized on this list
> for not being.  In baseball, a "pitcher" also fields, covers first base,
> and bats (in the National League).  Obviously, it would "more correct" to
> call shortstops "left second basemen."  When you study Latin, you have to
> memorize R, RIS or RE, TUR, MUR, MINI, NTUR as the personal passive
> endings.  This is an extremely valuable piece of information for a young
> Latinist.  It turns out that these endings are also used with "deponent"
> verbs, which are active in meaning, but no classicist has ever suggested
> that R, RIS or RE etc. should be called anything other than "passive"
> endings.
>         Any grammatical term can be deconstructed.  Why call TREE a direct
> object of a "transitive" verb in a sentence like I SEE THE TREE.  In fact,
> you are not doing anything to the tree.  Light waves emanating from
> it are impinging on your eyes.   Or to take an even more obvious example,
> how can we say that the verb in I ENDURED SLINGS AND ARROWS is in the
> ACTIVE voice?  What about I SLEPT ALL DAY?  Why call the infinitive "THE
> infinitive" when a participle is just as non-finite as it is?
>         Nevertheless, from my perspective as a college teacher outside of
> English, I think it would be extremely valuable to students to have a
> grasp of traditional terminology with all of its alleged imperfections.
> When you teach a foreign language, it is helpful to know that in English,
> AM, IS, and ARE are called the "present tense" forms of the "infinitive"
> BE, that HAS/HAVE BEEN is the "present perfect tense" etc.  In discussing
> writing, the topic of the passive voice often arises.  It would be helpful
> for students to understand that you were referring to compound verbs
> constructed of forms of BE plus a "past participle."  When a student looks
> up (say) IMPUGN in a dictionary and sees "V. TR." after it, it would
> helpful if he understood what that meant.
>         What I am urging is that it would make sense for English teachers
> at all levels to adhere to traditional terminology as found in
> dictionaries.  It seems to me that a problem in language arts education is
> terminological anarchy that leaves students confused without any
> compensatory gains.
>         Thanks for your time!  I'm looking forward meeting some of you in
> Minneapolis.  (I'm not nearly so argumentative in person.)
>
> David Mulroy
> Classics, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
>