>   Phil continues to speak about a grammar curriculum as if it already
>exists, citing works like The Elements of Style, a book I like very
>much but hardly think of as a comprehensive grammar. Certainly, E.B.
>White never thought about it that way. The Chicago Manual of Style is a
>very difficult book for anyone not well grounded in grammar already.
>

You misunderstand me.  What to be taught already exists in the books I sited and many, many mnore places.  That is, there is a world of professionals out there with a significant and sophisticated knowledge of grammar making decisions all the time.  Therefore, if we are too exotic or youthfully exhuberant our efforts will not be widely accepted.  Some of the proposals on this list in the past have had the texture of being too exotic and youthfully exhubterant, hence my comments.  

I am sure there are also many places where the curriculum does exist, as in Indiana as mentioned earlier.  There are also past curricula that would could probably dig up.  The only thing that does not exist that concerns us is the curricula and scope and sequence recommendations by ATEG.  We could probably save a lot of time by going through Indiana's curriculum.   But we will be wasting time by being excessively experimental or youthful.  

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/