Herb, Bruce, Bill, et al.,
   For some reason, when I hit "reply" and respond to posts (something I 
have done many times before), they are not finding their way out to the 
list. Is anyone else having this problem? This is my fourth attempt to 
post on this subject, this time posting directly. If the others show up, 
I apologize for the overlap and repetition.
 
   I have a number of problems with the article, distant from tagmemics. 
The primary problem is the assumption that grammar is about correctness, 
that this part of it, at least, should be held for final "correction" 
and have nothing to do with actual writing. This is pretty much a 
consensus position in composition, but this article does nothing at all 
to even call that into question.
   If you dismiss the idea that a sentence is a complete thought, do you 
also dismiss the idea that it has some relevance to thought? To me, this 
involves a recognition that sentences have to work in harmony with other 
sentences, that they contribute to an unfolding discourse. You might be 
able to measure grammaticality or "correctness" with isolated sentences, 
but you miss a chance to discuss effectiveness if you cut the sentence 
off from its discourse context, from its contribution to the developing 
meaning of a text.
   The author also creates a category (X word) when an already available 
category (finite auxiliary) already exists. The attempt is to help 
students avoid error, but why not deepen their understanding of language 
in the process? Is finite more difficult than X group?
   Anyone with a deep understanding of language knows why this "trick" 
is useful. An independent clause requires a finite verb phrase, and 
finite verb phrases are integral to making statements and asking 
questions. Why not teach that directly instead of tiptoeing around it?
   The "word left over" rule is an attempt to deal with the fact that 
subordinate clauses also often have finite verb phrases. The assumption 
here, though, is that subordination is not an important enough (or 
useful enough) concept to teach. Once again, I question the choice.
   What happens with sentences like "Chestnuts roasting over an open 
fire" or "Everyone ought to vote"? I think they would slip through the 
cracks.
   Once again we have an article claiming that understanding grammar is 
not at all useful, offering "tricks" to avoid error, claiming that their 
tricks are better than the old ones. I would take issue with the basic 
premises.

Craig

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/