I would say that the past perfect (had + past participle) serves to contrast
two past actions: an earlier and a later (often when the earlier of the two
impacted the later).
If I recall my diachronic linguistics, I believe that the Germanic languages
are believed to have borrowed the past perfect formation from Proto-Romance
and/or Latin. I seem to recall reading that that Proto-Romance is thought
to have had the past perfect before the Germanic languages.
Scott Catledge
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 12:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 17 Feb 2011 to 18 Feb 2011 (#2011-44)
There are 8 messages totalling 1820 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. "thats" for "whose" (3)
2. insanity (2)
3. Craig's screwdriver
4. Perfect Form (was Re: insanity) (2)
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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 04:52:49 +0000
From: John Chorazy <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "thats" for "whose"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_VP7EK7TvK+1YzFBCGBw10w)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
Hi=2E=2E=2E just a random thought =96 I=27ve neither heard nor read anyo=
ne using this construction ever before (possessive that=27s)=2E Not that=
that means so much in itself=2C but I=27m curious about your responses =
to Kathleen=27s question concerning the form being a regionalism=2E
=
John
=
=
=
Here=27s a further comment by Larry Horn on ADS-L
=3E =
=3E It=27s actually pretty understandable if you grant the confusion bet=
ween the interrogative =22whose=22 and the relative =22whose=22=2E After=
all=2C the standard English pattern is pretty weird=3A
=3E Whose leg is broken=3F
=3E Ken=27s
=3E *The dining table=27s vs=2E the man/table whose leg is broken
=3E =
=3E So now for some it=27s
=3E =
=3E the man whose leg is broken (or perhaps =22who=27s leg=22)
=3E the table that=27s leg is broken
=3E =
=3E The difference between the interrogative and relative uses of =
=3E =22whose=22 is certainly curious=2E
=3E =
=3E Herb
=3E =
=3E From=3A Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar =
=3E =5Bmailto=3AATEG=40LISTSERV=2EMUOHIO=2EEDU=5D On Behalf Of Kathleen =
Ward
=3E Sent=3A Thursday=2C February 17=2C 2011 1=3A38 PM
=3E To=3A ATEG=40LISTSERV=2EMUOHIO=2EEDU
=3E Subject=3A Re=3A =22thats=22 for =22whose=22
=3E =
=3E Is there any indication that possessive =22that=27s=22 is a =
=3E regionalism=3F This conversation has made me realize that do =
=3E this quite naturally in casual conversation=3B in fact=2C I caught =
=3E myself saying the equivalent of
=3E =
=3E =
=3E This isn=27t the room that=27s wall needs painting=2E
=3E =
=3E this morning=2E (Topic changed to protect the guilty=2E)
=3E =
=3E My native dialect is a pretty recessive one (Boston) and I often =
=3E notice odd differences=2E
=3E =
=3E Kathleen Ward
=3E =
=3E =
=3E =
=3E =
=3E =
=3E To join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please visit the list=27s web=
=
=3E interface at=3A http=3A//listserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtm=
l and =
=3E select =22Join or leave the list=22
=3E =
=3E Visit ATEG=27s web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/
=3E =
=3E To join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please visit the list=27s web=
=
=3E interface at=3A
=3E http=3A//listserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml
=3E and select =22Join or leave the list=22
=3E =
=3E Visit ATEG=27s web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/
=3E =
John Chorazy
English III Academy=2C Honors=2C and Academic=2E
Adviser=2C Panther Press School Newspaper=2E
Pequannock Township High School
Pompton Plains=2CNJ
973=2E616=2E6000
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/
--Boundary_(ID_VP7EK7TvK+1YzFBCGBw10w)
Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline
=3CDIV=3EHi=2E=2E=2E just a random thought =96=26nbsp=3BI=27ve neither h=
eard nor read anyone using this construction ever before (possessive tha=
t=27s)=2E Not that that means so much in itself=2C but I=27m curious abo=
ut your responses to Kathleen=27s=26nbsp=3Bquestion concerning the form =
being a regionalism=2E=3CBR=3E=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EJohn=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26nbsp=3B=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3EHere=27s a further comment by Larry Horn on ADS-L=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B It=27s actually pretty understandable if you grant the=
confusion between the interrogative =22whose=22 and the relative =22who=
se=22=2E After all=2C the standard English pattern is pretty weird=3A=3C=
BR=3E=3C/DIV=3E
=3CDIV=3E=26gt=3B Whose leg is broken=3F=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Ken=27s=3CBR=3E=
=26gt=3B *The dining table=27s=26nbsp=3Bvs=2E the man/table whose leg is=
broken=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B So now for some it=27s=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B the man whose leg is broken (or perhaps =22who=27=
s leg=22)=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B the table that=27s leg is broken=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B The difference between the interrogative and relative =
uses of =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =22whose=22 is certainly curious=2E=3CBR=3E=26g=
t=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Herb=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B From=3A Asse=
mbly for the Teaching of English Grammar =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =5Bmailto=3AAT=
EG=40LISTSERV=2EMUOHIO=2EEDU=5D On Behalf Of Kathleen Ward=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
Sent=3A Thursday=2C February 17=2C 2011 1=3A38 PM=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B To=3A=
ATEG=40LISTSERV=2EMUOHIO=2EEDU=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Subject=3A Re=3A =22that=
s=22 for =22whose=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Is there any indic=
ation that possessive =22that=27s=22 is a =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B regionalism=3F=
This conversation has made me realize that do =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B this qui=
te naturally in casual conversation=3B in fact=2C I caught =3CBR=3E=26gt=
=3B myself saying the equivalent of=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B This isn=27t the room that=27s wall needs painting=2E=3CBR=
=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B this morning=2E (Topic changed to protect t=
he guilty=2E)=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B My native dialect is a pr=
etty recessive one (Boston) and I often =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B notice odd diff=
erences=2E=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Kathleen Ward=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B=
=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B To join or leave this LISTSERV list=2C please visit the li=
st=27s web =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B interface at=3A http=3A//listserv=2Emuohio=2E=
edu/archives/ateg=2Ehtml and =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B select =22Join or leave th=
e list=22=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s web site at ht=
tp=3A//ateg=2Eorg/=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B To join or leave thi=
s LISTSERV list=2C please visit the list=27s web =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B interf=
ace at=3A=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B http=3A//listserv=2Emuohio=2Eedu/archives/ateg=
=2Ehtml=3CBR=3E=26gt=3B and select =22Join or leave the list=22=3CBR=3E=26=
gt=3B =3CBR=3E=26gt=3B Visit ATEG=27s web site at http=3A//ateg=2Eorg/=3C=
BR=3E=26gt=3B =3C/DIV=3E=3CBR=3E=3CBR=3EJohn Chorazy
=3Cbr=3EEnglish III Academy=2C Honors=2C and Academic=2E
=3Cbr=3EAdviser=2C Panther Press School Newspaper=2E
=3Cbr=3E
=3Cbr=3E
=3Cbr=3EPequannock Township High School
=3Cbr=3EPompton Plains=2CNJ
=3Cbr=3E973=2E616=2E6000
=3Cbr=3E
=3Cbr=3E=3C/BR=3E=3C/BR=3E
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Boundary_(ID_VP7EK7TvK+1YzFBCGBw10w)--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 08:47:26 -0500
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: insanity
Karl,
Nice points. That means a sentence like "I have broken windows in
my house" would be fundamentally ambiguous. I hadn't thought of that.
Nice amendment.
As a functionalist, I would tend to look at this diachronically. If
we have forms around, it seems reasonable to expect that they would
change their range of use, just as words do. Just as the same word can
have different meanings, a form can evolve different functions.
Herb could probably correct me on this one, but I think perfect
aspect evolved from a causative construction in old English, something
like "We have the windows broken," somewhat analogous to "they made us
laugh," where the change in state verb comes after the direct object.
Word order shifted, and then the form generalized out later to include
intransitive verbs: "We have broken the windows." "We have laughed."
I like your formulation of it, and we could propose this as an EBB
(everyone but Brad) position. "It is useful to separate function and
form because forms often carry out more than one function. They often
mean different things in different contexts."
Craig
On 2/17/2011 10:29 PM, Karl Hagen wrote:
> Craig,
>
> I agree with both you and Dick, and I also think this highlights the
> need to keep the form/function distinction clearly in mind when
> discussing such things.
>
> Mixing the two up (something traditional grammar does with great
> frequency) almost always leads to confusion, particularly because when
> you don't distinguish the two, it fosters the notion that there is
> precisely one meaning for each form. So, for example, you get the idea
> that the past tense always refers to past time. Or, conversely, that
> past time must always be expressed in the past tense.
>
> BTW, one minor quibble, I would want the definition of the perfect as
> a form to include a mention that "have" must be an auxiliary, since it
> is possible to construct sentences where a main-verb "have" is
> followed by a past participle with another function (e.g., a noun
> modifier), making the sequence has/have/had + past participle merely a
> fortuitous collocation.
>
> Karl
>
> On 2/17/2011 7:02 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>> Dick,
>> You have espoused a position (if I followed it right) that I would
>> fundamentally agree with: that the past perfect is recognizable first
>> and foremost as a form--had plus past participle. And that whether it
>> is being used appropriately or inappropriately, effectively or
>> ineffectively, it remains past perfect, just as a screw driver remains
>> a screw driver even when you use it to poke someone in the eye.
>> Questions about effective use can be thought of as separate from that.
>>
>> Craig>
>>
>>
>> Craig,
>>>
>>> I agree completely, and I look forward to every one of Herb's posts.
>>> But
>>> people do continue to respond to Brad. If doing the same thing again
>>> and
>>> again and expecting a different result is insanity, I wonder who is
>>> crazier,
>>> those who keep taking Brad's bait or those (like you and me) who keep
>>> trying
>>> to get others to *stop *taking his bait.
>>>
>>> Dick
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Craig Hancock<[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dick,
>>>> The idea for this most recent conversation is to come up with
>>>> a view
>>>> of
>>>> the past perfect that pleases the rest of us. Whether it pleases
>>>> Brad is
>>>> not
>>>> important. It is insanity to expect a conversation with Brad to
>>>> accomplish
>>>> anything new, so our goal should be to discuss it with each other.
>>>> I am
>>>> looking forward to reading what Herb comes up with. I expect Brad to
>>>> react
>>>> angrily to that, but his response is irrelevant.
>>>> I may be wrong, but I think reacting to Brad has kept us from a
>>>> productive discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Craig
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/16/2011 3:51 PM, Dick Veit wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If we would all try just a little harder, explain the past perfect
>>>> just
>>>> a
>>>> little more clearly, try just one or two or fifty more times to get
>>>> you-know-who to engage in productive dialogue, surely then he will see
>>>> reason and all will be well and we can turn to other topics. We won't
>>>> know
>>>> if we don't try many, many, many more times, will we?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Dick
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Geoffrey Layton
>>>> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Geoff Layton
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 08:45:46 -0500
>>>>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: insanity
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different
>>>>> results.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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/
>>
>
> 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/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 08:56:02 -0500
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "thats" for "whose"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010808010407020603080504
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Herb,
Nice point. The interrogative "whose" is always personal, the
relative can be either. It might be interesting to do a corpus study and
see the percentage of animate/inanimate uses for relative "whose."
I thought about the following:
"Anyone who has dirty hands."
"Anyone *which has dirty hands."
"Anyone whose hands are dirty."
This would seem to imply that "whose" can be genitive of "who." Of
course, you can rearrange the argument to prove that it is also genitive
of "which" and "that." You almost have to do a two step process and say
that "that" changes to "which" before it changes to "whose " to preserve
a "that" limitation. That seems awkward to me.
The clock that has broken hands.
The clock which has broken hands.
The clock whose hands are broken.
Craig
On 2/17/2011 11:08 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>
> Here's a further comment by Larry Horn on ADS-L
>
> It's actually pretty understandable if you grant
> the confusion between the interrogative "whose"
> and the relative "whose". After all, the
> standard English pattern is pretty weird:
>
> Whose leg is broken?
> Ken's
> *The dining table's
> vs.
> the man/table whose leg is broken
>
> So now for some it's
>
> the man whose leg is broken (or perhaps "who's leg")
> the table that's leg is broken
>
> The difference between the interrogative and relative uses of "whose"
> is certainly curious.
>
> Herb
>
> *From:*Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Kathleen Ward
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 17, 2011 1:38 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: "thats" for "whose"
>
> Is there any indication that possessive "that's" is a regionalism?
> This conversation has made me realize that do this quite naturally in
> casual conversation; in fact, I caught myself saying the equivalent of
>
>
> This isn't the room that's wall needs painting.
>
> this morning. (Topic changed to protect the guilty.)
>
> My native dialect is a pretty recessive one (Boston) and I often
> notice odd differences.
>
> Kathleen Ward
>
>
>
>
> 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/
--------------010808010407020603080504
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Herb,<br>
Nice point. The interrogative "whose" is always
personal, the
relative can be either. It might be interesting to do a corpus study
and see the percentage of animate/inanimate uses for relative
"whose."<br>
I thought about the following:<br>
"Anyone who has dirty hands."<br>
"Anyone *which has dirty hands."<br>
"Anyone whose hands are dirty."<br>
This would seem to imply that "whose" can be genitive of "who." Of
course, you can rearrange the argument to prove that it is also
genitive of "which" and "that." You almost have to do a two step
process and say that "that" changes to "which" before it changes to
"whose " to preserve a "that" limitation. That seems awkward to me.<br>
The clock that has broken hands.<br>
The clock which has broken hands.<br>
The clock whose hands are broken.<br>
<br>
Craig<br>
<br>
On 2/17/2011 11:08 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Here’s a further comment by Larry Horn on
ADS-L<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It's actually pretty understandable if you
grant<br>
the confusion between the interrogative "whose"<br>
and the relative "whose". After all, the<br>
standard English pattern is pretty weird:<br>
<br>
Whose leg is broken?<br>
Ken's<br>
*The dining table's<br>
vs.<br>
the man/table whose leg is broken<br>
<br>
So now for some it's<br>
<br>
the man whose leg is broken (or perhaps "who's leg")<br>
the table that's leg is broken<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";">The difference
between the interrogative and relative uses of
“whose” is
certainly curious.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";">Herb<span
style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";"> Assembly for
the Teaching of English Grammar
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">mailto:[log in to unmask]</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kathleen
Ward<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 17, 2011 1:38 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: "thats" for "whose"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">Is there any
indication that possessive "that's" is a regionalism? This
conversation has made me realize that do this quite
naturally
in casual conversation; in fact, I caught myself saying the
equivalent of<br>
<br>
<br>
This isn't the room that's wall needs painting.<br>
<br>
this morning. (Topic changed to protect the guilty.)<br>
<br>
My native dialect is a pretty recessive one (Boston) and I
often notice odd differences.<br>
<br>
Kathleen Ward<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please
visit the list's web interface at: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muohio.
edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
and select "Join or leave the list" <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Visit ATEG's web site at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muohio.
edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--------------010808010407020603080504--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:49:20 -0800
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Craig's screwdriver
--0-2000106881-1298044160=:61831
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
A screw driver remains=A0a screw driver.=A0If a verb functions as a past te=
nse verb, =0Ait remains a past tense verb, regardless what is put in front =
of it. You cannot =0Amake a past tense verb into a past perfect verb by put=
ting 'had' in front of it. =0AIf it doesn't function as a past perfect verb=
, it is not a past perfect verb, =0Ahowever much it looks like one. "Call m=
e a taxi. OK, you're a taxi." I can't =0Amake you into a taxi by calling yo=
u one and you can't make past tense verb into =0Aa past perfect=A0verb by p=
utting 'had' in front of it. If it doesn't function as =0Aone, it's not one=
.=0A=0ACome in, Flo. (Get it? Ebb and Flo?)=0A=0A=0A_______________________=
_________=0AFrom: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>=0ATo: [log in to unmask]
OHIO.EDU=0ASent: Thu, February 17, 2011 10:02:47 PM=0ASubject: Re: insanity=
=0A=0ADick,=0A=A0 =A0 You have espoused a position (if I followed it right)=
that I would=0Afundamentally agree with: that the past perfect is recogniz=
able first=0Aand foremost as a form--had plus past participle. And that whe=
ther it=0Ais being used appropriately or inappropriately, effectively or=0A=
ineffectively, it remains past perfect, just as a screw driver remains=0Aa =
screw driver even when you use it to poke someone in the eye.=0AQuestions a=
bout effective use can be thought of as separate from that.=0A=0ACraig >=0A=
=0A=0ACraig,=0A>=0A> I agree completely, and I look forward to every one of=
Herb's posts. But=0A> people do continue to respond to Brad. If doing the =
same thing again and=0A> again and expecting a different result is insanity=
, I wonder who is=0A> crazier,=0A> those who keep taking Brad's bait or tho=
se (like you and me) who keep=0A> trying=0A> to get others to *stop *taking=
his bait.=0A>=0A> Dick=0A>=0A>=0A> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Craig=
Hancock <[log in to unmask]>=0A> wrote:=0A>=0A>>=A0 Dick,=0A>>=A0 =A0 The =
idea for this most recent conversation is to come up with a view=0A>> of=0A=
>> the past perfect that pleases the rest of us. Whether it pleases Brad is=
=0A>> not=0A>> important.=A0 It is insanity to expect a conversation with B=
rad to=0A>> accomplish=0A>> anything new, so our goal should be to discuss =
it with each other. I am=0A>> looking forward to reading what Herb comes up=
with. I expect Brad to=0A>> react=0A>> angrily to that, but his response i=
s irrelevant.=0A>>=A0 =A0 I may be wrong, but I think reacting to Brad has =
kept us from a=0A>> productive discussion.=0A>>=0A>> Craig=0A>>=0A>>=0A>> O=
n 2/16/2011 3:51 PM, Dick Veit wrote:=0A>>=0A>> If we would all try just a =
little harder, explain the past perfect just=0A>> a=0A>> little more clearl=
y, try just one or two or fifty more times to get=0A>> you-know-who to enga=
ge in productive dialogue, surely then he will see=0A>> reason and all will=
be well and we can turn to other topics. We won't=0A>> know=0A>> if we don=
't try many, many, many more times, will we?=0A>>=0A>> Cheers,=0A>> Dick=0A=
>>=0A>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Geoffrey Layton=0A>> <writergwl@h=
otmail.com>wrote:=0A>>=0A>>>=A0 :)=0A>>>=0A>>> Geoff Layton=0A>>>=0A>>>=0A>=
>>=0A>>> ------------------------------=0A>>> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 08:45:=
46 -0500=0A>>> From: [log in to unmask]>>> Subject: insanity=0A>>> To:=
[log in to unmask]>>>=0A>>>=0A>>> Insanity: doing the same thing =
over and over and expecting different=0A>>> results.=0A>>>=0A>>=0A=0A=0A =
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/
--0-2000106881-1298044160=:61831
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head><style type=3D"text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></he=
ad><body><div style=3D"font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:1=
4pt"><DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10=
pt">=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: =
10pt">=0A<DIV>A screw driver remains a screw driver. If a verb fu=
nctions as a past tense verb, it remains a past tense verb, regardless what=
is put in front of it. You cannot make a past tense verb into a past perfe=
ct verb by putting 'had' in front of it. If it doesn't function as a past p=
erfect verb, it is not a past perfect verb, however much it looks like one.=
"Call me a taxi. OK, you're a taxi." I can't make you into a taxi by calli=
ng you one and you can't make past tense verb into a past perfect verb=
by putting 'had' in front of it. If it doesn't function as one, it's not o=
ne.</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>Come in, Flo. (Get it? Ebb and Flo?)</=
DIV><BR>=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SI=
ZE: 10pt"><FONT size=3D2 face=3DTahoma>=0A<HR SIZE=3D1>=0A<B><SPAN style=3D=
"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]&g=
t;<BR><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> [log in to unmask]
HIO.EDU<BR><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Thu, Febru=
ary 17, 2011 10:02:47 PM<BR><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</=
SPAN></B> Re: insanity<BR></FONT><BR>Dick,<BR> You have espous=
ed a position (if I followed it right) that I would<BR>fundamentally agree =
with: that the past perfect is recognizable first<BR>and foremost as a form=
--had plus past participle. And that whether it<BR>is being used appropriat=
ely or inappropriately, effectively or<BR>ineffectively, it remains past pe=
rfect, just as a screw driver remains<BR>a screw driver even when you use i=
t to poke someone in the eye.<BR>Questions about effective use can be thoug=
ht of as separate from that.<BR><BR>Craig ><BR><BR><BR>Craig,<BR>><BR=
>> I agree completely, and I look forward to every one
of Herb's posts. But<BR>> people do continue to respond to Brad. If doi=
ng the same thing again and<BR>> again and expecting a different result =
is insanity, I wonder who is<BR>> crazier,<BR>> those who keep taking=
Brad's bait or those (like you and me) who keep<BR>> trying<BR>> to =
get others to *stop *taking his bait.<BR>><BR>> Dick<BR>><BR>><=
BR>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Craig Hancock <<A href=3D"mail=
to:[log in to unmask]" rel=3Dnofollow target=3D_blank ymailto=3D"mailto:han=
[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>><BR>> wrote:<BR>><BR>>&=
gt; Dick,<BR>>> The idea for this most recent conv=
ersation is to come up with a view<BR>>> of<BR>>> the past perf=
ect that pleases the rest of us. Whether it pleases Brad is<BR>>> not=
<BR>>> important. It is insanity to expect a conversation with =
Brad to<BR>>> accomplish<BR>>> anything new, so our goal should
be to discuss it with each other. I am<BR>>> looking forward to read=
ing what Herb comes up with. I expect Brad to<BR>>> react<BR>>>=
angrily to that, but his response is irrelevant.<BR>>> =
I may be wrong, but I think reacting to Brad has kept us from a<BR>>>=
productive discussion.<BR>>><BR>>> Craig<BR>>><BR>>&g=
t;<BR>>> On 2/16/2011 3:51 PM, Dick Veit wrote:<BR>>><BR>>&g=
t; If we would all try just a little harder, explain the past perfect just<=
BR>>> a<BR>>> little more clearly, try just one or two or fifty=
more times to get<BR>>> you-know-who to engage in productive dialogu=
e, surely then he will see<BR>>> reason and all will be well and we c=
an turn to other topics. We won't<BR>>> know<BR>>> if we don't =
try many, many, many more times, will we?<BR>>><BR>>> Cheers,<B=
R>>> Dick<BR>>><BR>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at
10:24 AM, Geoffrey Layton<BR>>> <<A href=3D"mailto:writergwl@hotm=
ail.com" rel=3Dnofollow target=3D_blank ymailto=3D"mailto:writergwl@hotmail=
.com">[log in to unmask]</A>>wrote:<BR>>><BR>>>> =
:)<BR>>>><BR>>>> Geoff Layton<BR>>>><BR>>>=
;><BR>>>><BR>>>> ------------------------------<BR>>=
;>> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 08:45:46 -0500<BR>>>> From: <A hr=
ef=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]" rel=3Dnofollow target=3D_blank ymailto=
=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A><BR>>>> S=
ubject: insanity<BR>>>> To: <A href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]
.EDU" rel=3Dnofollow target=3D_blank ymailto=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]
.EDU">[log in to unmask]</A><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>&=
gt;> Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting differen=
t<BR>>>> results.<BR>>>><BR>>></DIV></DIV></DIV></d=
iv><br>=0A=0A </body></html>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-2000106881-1298044160=:61831--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:45:26 -0600
From: "T. J. Ray" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: insanity
Karl,
You and Craig are quite accurate in pointing out a possibe ambiguity
that attends what appear to be perfect
verb structures. After many decades of teaching OE, I'm having
trouble getting your point there and trying
to fit it backward into OE.
tj
On Friday 02/18/2011 at 7:52 am, Craig Hancock wrote:
> Karl,
> Nice points. That means a sentence like "I have broken
> windows in my house" would be fundamentally ambiguous. I hadn't
> thought of that. Nice amendment.
> As a functionalist, I would tend to look at this
> diachronically. If we have forms around, it seems reasonable to expect
> that they would change their range of use, just as words do. Just as
> the same word can have different meanings, a form can evolve different
> functions.
> Herb could probably correct me on this one, but I think
> perfect aspect evolved from a causative construction in old English,
> something like "We have the windows broken," somewhat analogous to
> "they made us laugh," where the change in state verb comes after the
> direct object. Word order shifted, and then the form generalized out
> later to include intransitive verbs: "We have broken the windows." "We
> have laughed."
> I like your formulation of it, and we could propose this as an
> EBB (everyone but Brad) position. "It is useful to separate function
> and form because forms often carry out more than one function. They
> often mean different things in different contexts."
>
> Craig
>
> On 2/17/2011 10:29 PM, Karl Hagen wrote:
>>
>> Craig,
>>
>> I agree with both you and Dick, and I also think this highlights the
>> need to keep the form/function distinction clearly in mind when
>> discussing such things.
>>
>> Mixing the two up (something traditional grammar does with great
>> frequency) almost always leads to confusion, particularly because when
>> you don't distinguish the two, it fosters the notion that there is
>> precisely one meaning for each form. So, for example, you get the idea
>> that the past tense always refers to past time. Or, conversely, that
>> past time must always be expressed in the past tense.
>>
>> BTW, one minor quibble, I would want the definition of the perfect as
>> a form to include a mention that "have" must be an auxiliary, since it
>> is possible to construct sentences where a main-verb "have" is
>> followed by a past participle with another function (e.g., a noun
>> modifier), making the sequence has/have/had + past participle merely a
>> fortuitous collocation.
>>
>> Karl
>>
>> On 2/17/2011 7:02 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>
>>> Dick,
>>> You have espoused a position (if I followed it right) that
>>> I would
>>> fundamentally agree with: that the past perfect is recognizable first
>>> and foremost as a form--had plus past participle. And that whether it
>>> is being used appropriately or inappropriately, effectively or
>>> ineffectively, it remains past perfect, just as a screw driver remains
>>> a screw driver even when you use it to poke someone in the eye.
>>> Questions about effective use can be thought of as separate from that.
>>>
>>> Craig>
>>>
>>>
>>> Craig,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree completely, and I look forward to every one of Herb's posts.
>>>> But
>>>> people do continue to respond to Brad. If doing the same thing again
>>>> and
>>>> again and expecting a different result is insanity, I wonder who is
>>>> crazier,
>>>> those who keep taking Brad's bait or those (like you and me) who keep
>>>> trying
>>>> to get others to *stop *taking his bait.
>>>>
>>>> Dick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Craig Hancock<[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dick,
>>>>> The idea for this most recent conversation is to come up
>>>>> with a view
>>>>> of
>>>>> the past perfect that pleases the rest of us. Whether it pleases Brad
>>>>> is
>>>>> not
>>>>> important. It is insanity to expect a conversation with Brad to
>>>>> accomplish
>>>>> anything new, so our goal should be to discuss it with each other. I
>>>>> am
>>>>> looking forward to reading what Herb comes up with. I expect Brad to
>>>>> react
>>>>> angrily to that, but his response is irrelevant.
>>>>> I may be wrong, but I think reacting to Brad has kept us from
>>>>> a
>>>>> productive discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/16/2011 3:51 PM, Dick Veit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If we would all try just a little harder, explain the past perfect
>>>>> just
>>>>> a
>>>>> little more clearly, try just one or two or fifty more times to get
>>>>> you-know-who to engage in productive dialogue, surely then he will see
>>>>> reason and all will be well and we can turn to other topics. We won't
>>>>> know
>>>>> if we don't try many, many, many more times, will we?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Dick
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Geoffrey Layton
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Geoff Layton
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 08:45:46 -0500
>>>>>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Subject: insanity
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different
>>>>>> results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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/
>>>
>>
>> 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/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:22:23 -0500
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "thats" for "whose"
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5F0E0DCEEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't think it's a regionalism. I've heard it pretty widely in non-stand=
ard varieties. I suspect the resumptive pronoun is more likely regional th=
ough. I've heard it from speakers of regional British dialects as well as =
Southern American speakers. However, it's such a natural way out of a synt=
actic and referential dilemma, that I suspect most of us fall into it now a=
nd then.
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]
OHIO.EDU] On Behalf Of John Chorazy
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 11:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "thats" for "whose"
Hi... just a random thought - I've neither heard nor read anyone using this=
construction ever before (possessive that's). Not that that means so much =
in itself, but I'm curious about your responses to Kathleen's question conc=
erning the form being a regionalism.
John
Here's a further comment by Larry Horn on ADS-L
>
> It's actually pretty understandable if you grant the confusion between th=
e interrogative "whose" and the relative "whose". After all, the standard E=
nglish pattern is pretty weird:
> Whose leg is broken?
> Ken's
> *The dining table's vs. the man/table whose leg is broken
>
> So now for some it's
>
> the man whose leg is broken (or perhaps "who's leg")
> the table that's leg is broken
>
> The difference between the interrogative and relative uses of
> "whose" is certainly curious.
>
> Herb
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<mailto:[mailto:[log in to unmask]
]> On Behalf Of Kathleen Ward
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 1:38 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: "thats" for "whose"
>
> Is there any indication that possessive "that's" is a
> regionalism? This conversation has made me realize that do
> this quite naturally in casual conversation; in fact, I caught
> myself saying the equivalent of
>
>
> This isn't the room that's wall needs painting.
>
> this morning. (Topic changed to protect the guilty.)
>
> My native dialect is a pretty recessive one (Boston) and I often
> notice odd differences.
>
> Kathleen Ward
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
John Chorazy
English III Academy, Honors, and Academic.
Adviser, Panther Press School Newspaper.
Pequannock Township High School
Pompton Plains,NJ
973.616.6000
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/
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5F0E0DCEEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=
=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"><meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Micros=
oft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vli=
nk=3Dpurple><div class=3DWordSection1><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'f=
ont-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I donR=
17;t think it’s a regionalism. I’ve heard it pretty widel=
y in non-standard varieties. I suspect the resumptive pronoun is more=
likely regional though. I’ve heard it from speakers of regiona=
l British dialects as well as Southern American speakers. However, it=
’s such a natural way out of a syntactic and referential dilemma, tha=
t I suspect most of us fall into it now and then.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p c=
lass=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","san=
s-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><s=
pan style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F4=
97D'>Herb<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-siz=
e:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p=
></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-fa=
mily:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt=
;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Assembly for the Teaching of English G=
rammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Chorazy<b=
r><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 17, 2011 11:53 PM<br><b>To:</b> ATEG@LIST=
SERV.MUOHIO.EDU<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: "thats" for "whose&qu=
ot;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal>Hi... just a random thought – I've neither hea=
rd nor read anyone using this construction ever before (possessive that's).=
Not that that means so much in itself, but I'm curious about your response=
s to Kathleen's question concerning the form being a regionalism.<o:p>=
</o:p></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><=
p class=3DMsoNormal>John<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal>&nbs=
p;<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div=
><div><p class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNo=
rmal>Here's a further comment by Larry Horn on ADS-L<br>> <br>> It's =
actually pretty understandable if you grant the confusion between the inter=
rogative "whose" and the relative "whose". After all, t=
he standard English pattern is pretty weird:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p cl=
ass=3DMsoNormal>> Whose leg is broken?<br>> Ken's<br>> *The dining=
table's vs. the man/table whose leg is broken<br>> <br>> So now=
for some it's<br>> <br>> the man whose leg is broken (or perhaps &qu=
ot;who's leg")<br>> the table that's leg is broken<br>> <br>>=
The difference between the interrogative and relative uses of <br>> &qu=
ot;whose" is certainly curious.<br>> <br>> Herb<br>> <br>>=
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <br>> <a href=3D"mai=
lto:[mailto:[log in to unmask]]">[mailto:[log in to unmask]]</a=
> On Behalf Of Kathleen Ward<br>> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 1:38=
PM<br>> To: <a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
UOHIO.EDU</a><br>> Subject: Re: "thats" for "whose"<=
br>> <br>> Is there any indication that possessive "that's"=
is a <br>> regionalism? This conversation has made me realize that do <=
br>> this quite naturally in casual conversation; in fact, I caught <br>=
> myself saying the equivalent of<br>> <br>> <br>> This isn't t=
he room that's wall needs painting.<br>> <br>> this morning. (Topic c=
hanged to protect the guilty.)<br>> <br>> My native dialect is a pret=
ty recessive one (Boston) and I often <br>> notice odd differences.<br>&=
gt; <br>> Kathleen Ward<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>=
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web <br>&=
gt; interface at: <a href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html"=
>http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a> and <br>> select &quo=
t;Join or leave the list"<br>> <br>> Visit ATEG's web site at <a=
href=3D"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a><br>> <br>> To join or=
leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web <br>> interface a=
t:<br>> <a href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http:/=
/listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a><br>> and select "Join o=
r leave the list"<br>> <br>> Visit ATEG's web site at <a href=3D=
"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a><br>> <o:p></o:p></p></div><p cla=
ss=3DMsoNormal><br><br>John Chorazy <br>English III Academy, Honors, and Ac=
ademic. <br>Adviser, Panther Press School Newspaper. <br><br><br>Pequannock=
Township High School <br>Pompton Plains,NJ <br>973.616.6000 <br><br>To joi=
n or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: <a=
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muo=
hio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a> and select "Join or leave the list"=
; <o:p></o:p></p><p>Visit ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/">h=
ttp://ateg.org/</a> <o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>=
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5F0E0DCEEMAILBACKEND0_--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:13:40 -0800
From: Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Perfect Form (was Re: insanity)
TJ,
I wouldn't directly disagree with Craig's general point about functions
evolving, but I would want to emphasize that form and function tend to
co-evolve, in a sort of push-me/pull-you way.
Bringing up the OE perfect raises a whole host of difficulties, not
least of which is that's there's disagreement about how fully
grammaticalized HAVE + the past participle is in OE, but I think it can
illustrate evolving function. We just can't get too sticky about dates.
I'm inclined to think that OE had a fully grammaticalized perfect with
habban (have) + a past participle, but it really doesn't matter if you
argue, as some do, that it only became grammaticalized in Middle English.
OE shows a persistence of other ways of expressing perfective aspect in
addition to the ancestral form of the present-day perfect.
For example, Aelfric uses the simple past + an adverb to illustrate the
pluperfect in his grammar: "ic lufode gefyrn" (I loved formerly). But he
also uses the paraphrastic form in his sermons.
You also find habben + an inflected past participle, suggesting that in
those instances, at least, the participle was still felt to be an adjective.
As some point, then, a form that was originally habban as the main verb
+ a participle inflected as an adjective came to be reanalyzed as an
auxiliary verb + an uninflected past participle. This form also took on
functions that formerly had been expressed (sic) in other ways.
Karl
On 2/18/2011 9:45 AM, T. J. Ray wrote:
> Karl,
> You and Craig are quite accurate in pointing out a possibe ambiguity
> that attends what appear to be perfect
> verb structures. After many decades of teaching OE, I'm having trouble
> getting your point there and trying
> to fit it backward into OE.
>
> tj
>
>
>
> On Friday 02/18/2011 at 7:52 am, Craig Hancock wrote:
>> Karl,
>> Nice points. That means a sentence like "I have broken windows in my
>> house" would be fundamentally ambiguous. I hadn't thought of that.
>> Nice amendment.
>> As a functionalist, I would tend to look at this diachronically. If we
>> have forms around, it seems reasonable to expect that they would
>> change their range of use, just as words do. Just as the same word can
>> have different meanings, a form can evolve different functions.
>> Herb could probably correct me on this one, but I think perfect aspect
>> evolved from a causative construction in old English, something like
>> "We have the windows broken," somewhat analogous to "they made us
>> laugh," where the change in state verb comes after the direct object.
>> Word order shifted, and then the form generalized out later to include
>> intransitive verbs: "We have broken the windows." "We have laughed."
>> I like your formulation of it, and we could propose this as an EBB
>> (everyone but Brad) position. "It is useful to separate function and
>> form because forms often carry out more than one function. They often
>> mean different things in different contexts."
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On 2/17/2011 10:29 PM, Karl Hagen wrote:
>>>
>>> Craig,
>>>
>>> I agree with both you and Dick, and I also think this highlights the
>>> need to keep the form/function distinction clearly in mind when
>>> discussing such things.
>>>
>>> Mixing the two up (something traditional grammar does with great
>>> frequency) almost always leads to confusion, particularly because
>>> when you don't distinguish the two, it fosters the notion that there
>>> is precisely one meaning for each form. So, for example, you get the
>>> idea that the past tense always refers to past time. Or, conversely,
>>> that past time must always be expressed in the past tense.
>>>
>>> BTW, one minor quibble, I would want the definition of the perfect as
>>> a form to include a mention that "have" must be an auxiliary, since
>>> it is possible to construct sentences where a main-verb "have" is
>>> followed by a past participle with another function (e.g., a noun
>>> modifier), making the sequence has/have/had + past participle merely
>>> a fortuitous collocation.
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>> On 2/17/2011 7:02 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dick,
>>>> You have espoused a position (if I followed it right) that I would
>>>> fundamentally agree with: that the past perfect is recognizable first
>>>> and foremost as a form--had plus past participle. And that whether it
>>>> is being used appropriately or inappropriately, effectively or
>>>> ineffectively, it remains past perfect, just as a screw driver remains
>>>> a screw driver even when you use it to poke someone in the eye.
>>>> Questions about effective use can be thought of as separate from that.
>>>>
>>>> Craig>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Craig,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree completely, and I look forward to every one of Herb's
>>>>> posts. But
>>>>> people do continue to respond to Brad. If doing the same thing
>>>>> again and
>>>>> again and expecting a different result is insanity, I wonder who is
>>>>> crazier,
>>>>> those who keep taking Brad's bait or those (like you and me) who keep
>>>>> trying
>>>>> to get others to *stop *taking his bait.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dick
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Craig Hancock<[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dick,
>>>>>> The idea for this most recent conversation is to come up with a view
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the past perfect that pleases the rest of us. Whether it pleases
>>>>>> Brad is
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> important. It is insanity to expect a conversation with Brad to
>>>>>> accomplish
>>>>>> anything new, so our goal should be to discuss it with each other.
>>>>>> I am
>>>>>> looking forward to reading what Herb comes up with. I expect Brad to
>>>>>> react
>>>>>> angrily to that, but his response is irrelevant.
>>>>>> I may be wrong, but I think reacting to Brad has kept us from a
>>>>>> productive discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/16/2011 3:51 PM, Dick Veit wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we would all try just a little harder, explain the past perfect
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> little more clearly, try just one or two or fifty more times to get
>>>>>> you-know-who to engage in productive dialogue, surely then he will
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> reason and all will be well and we can turn to other topics. We won't
>>>>>> know
>>>>>> if we don't try many, many, many more times, will we?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Dick
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Geoffrey Layton
>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Geoff Layton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 08:45:46 -0500
>>>>>>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> Subject: insanity
>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different
>>>>>>> results.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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/
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 22:09:17 -0500
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Perfect Form (was Re: insanity)
Karl,
I had the great pleasure of an Old English class and Beowulf seminar
(we translated the text) in a graduate program in the 70's, but that's
all pretty stale, so I follow these arguments from secondhand. The key
evidence, as I take it, is that past perfect didn't grammaticalize for
intransitive verbs right away. I say this, though, without direct
exposure to the empirical evidence.
Here's an interesting take from Talmy Givon: "In human language there
is always more than one structural means of affecting the same
communicative function." Within context, I think he means we sometimes
see it cross language, but it is often true in a single language as
well. We still have a number of ways to express perfect aspect, or the
sense of a process having been or being completed in relation to a
point in time. In that sense, perfect aspect in the verb phrase works
in harmony (sometimes redundantly) with these other processes. It
might be lexicalized (a verb like "finished" or "completed") or
expressed through time oriented subordination ("before" or "after").
You can't tell someone about something or report something until after
it occurs. And there are, as with your OE example, adverbial options.
This is, I think, relevant to our past perfect discussion because past
perfect is often one of several options and is therefor itself on
ocassion an optional element.
Craig
TJ,
>
> I wouldn't directly disagree with Craig's general point about functions
> evolving, but I would want to emphasize that form and function tend to
> co-evolve, in a sort of push-me/pull-you way.
>
> Bringing up the OE perfect raises a whole host of difficulties, not
> least of which is that's there's disagreement about how fully
> grammaticalized HAVE + the past participle is in OE, but I think it can
> illustrate evolving function. We just can't get too sticky about dates.
>
> I'm inclined to think that OE had a fully grammaticalized perfect with
> habban (have) + a past participle, but it really doesn't matter if you
> argue, as some do, that it only became grammaticalized in Middle English.
>
> OE shows a persistence of other ways of expressing perfective aspect in
> addition to the ancestral form of the present-day perfect.
>
> For example, Aelfric uses the simple past + an adverb to illustrate the
> pluperfect in his grammar: "ic lufode gefyrn" (I loved formerly). But he
> also uses the paraphrastic form in his sermons.
>
> You also find habben + an inflected past participle, suggesting that in
> those instances, at least, the participle was still felt to be an
> adjective.
>
> As some point, then, a form that was originally habban as the main verb
> + a participle inflected as an adjective came to be reanalyzed as an
> auxiliary verb + an uninflected past participle. This form also took on
> functions that formerly had been expressed (sic) in other ways.
>
> Karl
>
> On 2/18/2011 9:45 AM, T. J. Ray wrote:
>> Karl,
>> You and Craig are quite accurate in pointing out a possibe ambiguity
>> that attends what appear to be perfect
>> verb structures. After many decades of teaching OE, I'm having trouble
>> getting your point there and trying
>> to fit it backward into OE.
>>
>> tj
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday 02/18/2011 at 7:52 am, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>> Karl,
>>> Nice points. That means a sentence like "I have broken windows in my
>>> house" would be fundamentally ambiguous. I hadn't thought of that.
>>> Nice amendment.
>>> As a functionalist, I would tend to look at this diachronically. If we
>>> have forms around, it seems reasonable to expect that they would
>>> change their range of use, just as words do. Just as the same word can
>>> have different meanings, a form can evolve different functions.
>>> Herb could probably correct me on this one, but I think perfect aspect
>>> evolved from a causative construction in old English, something like
>>> "We have the windows broken," somewhat analogous to "they made us
>>> laugh," where the change in state verb comes after the direct object.
>>> Word order shifted, and then the form generalized out later to include
>>> intransitive verbs: "We have broken the windows." "We have laughed."
>>> I like your formulation of it, and we could propose this as an EBB
>>> (everyone but Brad) position. "It is useful to separate function and
>>> form because forms often carry out more than one function. They often
>>> mean different things in different contexts."
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> On 2/17/2011 10:29 PM, Karl Hagen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Craig,
>>>>
>>>> I agree with both you and Dick, and I also think this highlights the
>>>> need to keep the form/function distinction clearly in mind when
>>>> discussing such things.
>>>>
>>>> Mixing the two up (something traditional grammar does with great
>>>> frequency) almost always leads to confusion, particularly because
>>>> when you don't distinguish the two, it fosters the notion that there
>>>> is precisely one meaning for each form. So, for example, you get the
>>>> idea that the past tense always refers to past time. Or, conversely,
>>>> that past time must always be expressed in the past tense.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, one minor quibble, I would want the definition of the perfect as
>>>> a form to include a mention that "have" must be an auxiliary, since
>>>> it is possible to construct sentences where a main-verb "have" is
>>>> followed by a past participle with another function (e.g., a noun
>>>> modifier), making the sequence has/have/had + past participle merely
>>>> a fortuitous collocation.
>>>>
>>>> Karl
>>>>
>>>> On 2/17/2011 7:02 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dick,
>>>>> You have espoused a position (if I followed it right) that I would
>>>>> fundamentally agree with: that the past perfect is recognizable first
>>>>> and foremost as a form--had plus past participle. And that whether it
>>>>> is being used appropriately or inappropriately, effectively or
>>>>> ineffectively, it remains past perfect, just as a screw driver
>>>>> remains
>>>>> a screw driver even when you use it to poke someone in the eye.
>>>>> Questions about effective use can be thought of as separate from
>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree completely, and I look forward to every one of Herb's
>>>>>> posts. But
>>>>>> people do continue to respond to Brad. If doing the same thing
>>>>>> again and
>>>>>> again and expecting a different result is insanity, I wonder who is
>>>>>> crazier,
>>>>>> those who keep taking Brad's bait or those (like you and me) who
>>>>>> keep
>>>>>> trying
>>>>>> to get others to *stop *taking his bait.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dick
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Craig Hancock<[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dick,
>>>>>>> The idea for this most recent conversation is to come up with a
>>>>>>> view
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the past perfect that pleases the rest of us. Whether it pleases
>>>>>>> Brad is
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> important. It is insanity to expect a conversation with Brad to
>>>>>>> accomplish
>>>>>>> anything new, so our goal should be to discuss it with each other.
>>>>>>> I am
>>>>>>> looking forward to reading what Herb comes up with. I expect Brad
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> react
>>>>>>> angrily to that, but his response is irrelevant.
>>>>>>> I may be wrong, but I think reacting to Brad has kept us from a
>>>>>>> productive discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2011 3:51 PM, Dick Veit wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we would all try just a little harder, explain the past perfect
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> little more clearly, try just one or two or fifty more times to get
>>>>>>> you-know-who to engage in productive dialogue, surely then he will
>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>> reason and all will be well and we can turn to other topics. We
>>>>>>> won't
>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>> if we don't try many, many, many more times, will we?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Dick
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Geoffrey Layton
>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Geoff Layton
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 08:45:46 -0500
>>>>>>>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>> Subject: insanity
>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting
>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>> results.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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/
>
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/
------------------------------
End of ATEG Digest - 17 Feb 2011 to 18 Feb 2011 (#2011-44)
**********************************************************
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/
|
