Johanna, Craig, Edith and all,
I will try to hold my tongue on this one. I think Johanna hit the nail on the
head with "text-level reasons." I think this was pretty much my motivation for
interpreting the opening phrases as adverbial adjuncts. I am not sure of the
theoretical implications of the analysis, but I suppose, as is the case with
questions of "movement," the framework often motivates the analysis and
terminology. Without a discourse level in my framework I am unable to do
otherwise. This sentence-level position of adverbs is where parenthetical
material goes; clearly at the discourse level. I suppose this level is the
origin of a lot of sentence fragments as well; material that many grammarians
choose to ignore.
Bruce
>>> "Bruce Despain" <[log in to unmask]> 07/28/06 1:26 PM >>>
I'd like to politely disagree with Bruce about the "downed" and
"gleaming" sentences. The phrases are adjectival. I think your
adverbial feeling is coming from the discourse function of the initial
placement: as an orienting phrase, it has an "adverbial" feel. Someone
spoke of "movement". I believe we should resist "movement" talk.
Initial placement of a phrase is one sentence order among many that
are available for coding information. It may be picayuney, but I far
prefer saying "the speaker chose to place the phrase at the beginning
for text-level reasons" rather than "the speaker chose to move the
phrase to the beginning for text-level reasons". Martha's? paraphrases
with "while" are very nice illustrations of the difference between
intro adverbials and intro adjectivals. What did you think of my
discourse explanation?
Johanna
On Jul 28, 2006, at 7:04 AM, Bruce Despain wrote:
Craig,
Not that I'm looking for the last word on this, but you asked for it.
I must admit that some of my ideas are not fleshed out enough to leave
my own teaching environment, but my effort with foreign students is to
point out the meanings associated with different structures. I must
also admit that the "function" in functional grammar is still a little
vague to me. My examples were meant to distinguish grammatical
function from rhetorical function (I hope I've used these terms
correctly).
1. "Downed in the storm, the oak tree lies on the lawn like a broken
warrior." My perception of this sentence is that the author wants to
give a reason for the oak tree lying on the lawn or possibly a
concomitant (or causative) state. To be explicit the author might have
said, "Because the oak tree has been downed in t! he storm, it lies on
the lawn like a broken warrior." or better, "The oak tree has been
downed in the storm and now lies on the lawn like a broken warrior." I
simply wanted to point out that the participial phrase serves this
adverbial function. I also go with the traditional view, that the
participle modifies the noun phrase in the grammatical function of a
non-restrictive adjective.
2. I apologize for using the technical term "dangling" to refer to the
absence of a clear reference for "gleaming in the sun." Maybe even
"clear" is used here a little loosely. "Gleaming in the bright sun,
the new car was parked on the street in front of our big window." Here
the bright sunlight associates with the big window and seems to be
implying that we are on the inside, out of the sun, looking out at it
and this gleaming off the new car has b! rought our attention to it. The
only sense in which the participle "dangles" is that this implied
relationship to the author is not clear. I must admit to not
being clear -- not using the term in quotes. The concomitant
circumstance of gleaming in the bright sun is kind of disconnected from
the sentence, "The new car, gleaming in the bright sun, was parked on
the street in front of our big window." Here at least the author's
intent seems cl! early to be nothing more than to give some additional
description of the car. When the phrase comes first in a sentence
like, "Gleaming in the sun, the new car was obvious to every
passer-by," at least its adverbial nature, the reason the author put
it up front (in an adverbial position), is easier to see.
Bruce
>>> "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> 07/28/06 6:28 AM >>>
Bruce,
My interest is actually a more pedestrian one; what do I tell
students
in an introductory grammar class about where to draw the lines? The
next edition of my book (if it gets that far) will force a
re-examination. I decided to go with more traditional view, that the
structure modifies its implied subject, regardless of where it's moved.
But I'm not overjoyed with that.
Johanna, of course, brings up the interesting function of what
systemic
functional grammar calls a "marked theme", and that gives us a way to
discuss why the movement would take place, as a discourse function.
It's just hard for me to agree that a past participle headed structure
would be adjectival and a present participle one would be adverbial in
the same (sentence opening) position! , and so on. I'm looking for a
neat, clean way to consistently describe these. "Downed in the storm,
the oak tree lies on the ! lawn like a broken warrior." Would that be
adverbial as well? In the interest of consistency, I think it would
have to be, but you don't seem ready to say that.
"Dangling" is a technical term in traditional grammar, meaning a
participial phrase (their term) that doesn't have a noun phrase (my
term) or has a misleading noun phrase to modify.
"Shouting watch out, the bear was coming toward us." The examples are
usually comical.
My own sentence seemd awkward to you, but it wasn't "dangling' in the
usual way the word is used.
As we say quite often, we need consistency and clarity and
usefulness,
and I don't see that yet in the way you are drawing the lines. I would
love to have an alternative approach to consider.
Craig>
Craig,
>
> There are lots of "gleaming" sentences, so it's not clear to me which
one
> (of
> mine) you thought was awkward. When I ! said "awkward" I was
thinking of:
> "Gleaming in the bright sun, the new car was parked on the street in
front
> of
> our big window."
> I meant the word "dangling" to refer to its function, which is not
clear
> (to
> me). Maybe in a larger context.
>
> About your sentence:
> "Carrying packages, limping noticeably from the earlier injury, he
worked
> his
> way carefully up the stairs."
> These phrases seem to be telling us about the manner of his moving up
the
> stairs; hence, adverbial.
>
> About John McPhee's sentence; it uses the partic! iple (in my mind) to
place
> the
> looking at a certain place and time. In your alternate version the
use
> seems to
> also allow a purpose interpretation. The restrictive sentence is
clearly
> classifying the people who saw the grizzly. I'm not saying that the
basic
> adjectival structure changes.! Certainly they are all adjective
forms of
> the
> verb. As such they are modifying the noun phrases. But it is also
clear
> (to
> me) that they are descriptive elaborations that are functioning as
> sentence
> adverbs -- adverbial adjuncts. The fact that the subject is not
expressed
> in a
> clause is what forces its analysis as an adjective.
>
> I agree that these grammatical c! oncepts are advanced. It's a lot
like the
> use
> of a participle in a verb phrase. The author's original intent may
have
> been to
> describe the car when he said:
> "The new car was parked in the driveway."
> Then someone comes along and says this form is really in passive
voice.
> She
> adds another adverbial phrase telling the agent and voila:
> "The new car was parked in the driveway by its proud owner."
> Yet both interpretations are possible. ! ; (1: location of car; 2:
endpoint
> of an
> activity) That was my only point. It's like looking at a Neckar
cube.
> If you
> stare at the "far" corner, it flips to become the near one. Then, if
you
> just
> lighten or make the hidden lines into dashes,! you will be able to
bring
> out one
> interpretation making it dominate over the other.
>
> Bruce
>
>>>> "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> 07/27/06 10:56 AM >>>
>
>> Bruce,
> Opening the sentence with a participial word group is actually very
> common. I'm not sure why my gleaming sentence seems awkward. It's
> certainly not dangling, since the new car is doing the gleaming.
>
> "Carrying packages, limping noticeably from the earlier injury, he
worked
> his way carefully up the stairs."
>
> Here's an example from John McPhee: "Coming dow! n a long, deep,
green pool,
> we looked toward the riffle at the lower end and saw an approaching
> grizzly."
> Here's my alternate version:
> "The two men in the lead canoe, coming down a long, deep, green pool,
> looked toward the riffle at the lower end and saw an approaching
grizzly."
>
> Restrictive version: Anyone coming down the long, deep pool saw the
> grizzly.
>
> To me, it's easiest to say that these nonrestrictive structures are
> movable than it is to say the the funtion shifts, especially for
begining
> students. I also think we should be consistent with present and past
> participle. I'm not sure why a sentence opening past participle clause
> would be adjectival, but a present participle structure in the same
> position would be adverbial. The main difference is in passive versus
> progressive in the verb.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> Craig,
>>
>> The illusion remains. I have no trouble with your analysis, but the
>> position
>> still changes the function.
>>
>> "The new car, which was gleaming in the bright sun, was parked on the
>> street in
>> front of our big window."
>>
>> This is a non-restrictive relative clause -- clearly descriptive.
>>
>> "The new car, gleaming in the bright sun, was parked on the street in
>> front of
>> our big window."
>>
>>
>> No change.
>>
>> "Gleaming in the bright sun, the new car was parked on the street in
>> front
>> of
>> our big window."
>>
>> Thi! s seems awkward to me. I'm not sure what it is saying. Perhaps
this
>> gleaming bit is what brought the car to our attention, so that is why
>> the
>> phrase
>&g! t; starts the sentence. The context that motivates this position
is not
>> easy
>> for
>> me to see. Maybe the partially dangling phrase is closer to what is
>> meant:
>>
>> "Gleaming in the bright sun, I could see the new car parked on the
>> street
>> in
>> front of our big window."
>>
>> Some very good authors like to dangle modifiers like this. But it is
>> now
>> clearly adverbial, giving the cause, even though it has a
>> non-restrictive
>> descriptive relationship to the new car.
>>
>> Your other sentence makes the participle phrase identify the trees,
>> telling us
>> which ones (clearly adjectival):
>>
>> "Trees downed in the storm will be removed by the town."
>>
>> But then when you put the phrase in front, it modifies an already
>> identified
>> tree in that non-restrictive sense:
>>
>> "Downed in the storm, the old oak tree lies like a broken warrior on
the
>> lawn."
>>
>>
>> This was my only point, that the adjunct position is primarily
>> adverbial.
>> The
>> phrase seems to be giving us the reason that the tree is in a supine
>> position
>> (lying on the lawn).
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>>>>> "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> 07/27/06 6:16 AM >>>
>>
>> Bruce,
>> I think traditional grammar tended toward the adjectival because of
>> the
>> "dangling modifier" usage problem, perhaps also becasue they seem so
>> often like reduced relative clauses. "The new car, which was
gleaming in
>> the bright sun, was parked on the street in front of our big window."
! >> "The new car, gleaming in the bright sun, was parked..." If you
grant
>> that as adjectival, then shouldn't it stay adjectival even if it
moves?
>> "gleaming in the bright sun, the new car..."
>> I find it easiest in an introductory grammar class to pretty much
>> take
>> adverbial out of the mix, but that certainly oversimplifies.>
>> Because of restrictive modification, I think any description would
>> have
>> to include adjectival as a function category. "Trees downed in the
>> storm will be removed by the town." That's a past participal head,
but
>> it seems clearly adjectival to me. "Downed in the storm, the old oak
>> tree lies like a broken warrior on the lawn." By extension, even
though
>> it's movable, wouldn't that be adjectival as well?
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> Craig,
>>>
>! >> I have come to think about adjectival phrases as serving either
to
>>> identify or
>>> classify the noun they modify. My ha! bit also is to place that
>>> troublesome
>>> adverbial that moves about so in the terminology of Jesperson in the
>>> class
>>> of
>>> adjuncts. These adverbial adjuncts can take the form of adverbial
>>> clauses. My
>>> habit also is to see adjectival phrases in the adjunct position as
>>> primarily
>>> adverbial. They do not identify the noun modify, nor do they
classify.
>>> They
>>> simply describe, much like an apositive. Perhaps making them
adjuncts
>>> simultaneously of the sentence and of the noun phrase would satisfy
>>> both
>>> camps.
>>> Maybe its like one of those optical illusions: you stare at it long
>>&g! t; enough
>>> and
>>> it switches from one analysis/interpretation to the other.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>>>>> "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> 07/26/06 2:13 PM >>>
>>>
>>> Martha,
>>> I have always had a problem with drawing the line between
adverbial
>>> and
>>> adjectival with these structures.
>>> I stood by the bar and drank my beer. While standing by the bar,
I
>>> drank my beer. Standing by the bar, I drank my beer. What makes this
>>> more adverbial than another example, say "Whistling a sad, old
tune, I
>>> walked through the darkest moments of my day?" Are you saying the
>>> writer signa! ls this by leaving off the comma? How about "I walked
>>> whistling a sad, old tune through the darkest moments of my day?"
>>> It seems almost any participial phrase/clause will seem
adverbial if
>>> we
>>> look at it long enough, the exception being a restrictive modifier
>>> immediately following the noun phrase it modifies. "People whistling
>>> tunes often get through trouble." Something like that. "People
standing
>>> by the bar were drinking beer."
>>> "Selling real estate, I made my fortune." Does that change it?
>>> >
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>
>>>>Content-Type: text/html;
>>>>> charset=us-ascii
>>>>>Content-Transfer-Enco! ding: 7bit
>>>>>Content-Description: HTML
>>>>>
>>>> Hi Maureen,
>>>>
>>>> I would agree with Bruce that in (1) and (3) the -ing phrases
(called
>>>> clauses by most linguists) are manner adverbials. In other words,
>>>> they are participles (or, in my lingo, participial phrases)
>>>> functioning adverbially.
>>>>
>>>> In traditional grammar, as you know, the word participle--in
addition
>>>> to its use as the name of the -ing or -en form (present participle,
>>>> past participle)--is used to designate those forms used
adjectivally.
>>>> But clearly, those forms can also function adverbially. Here are
>>>> some other examples:
>>>>
>>>> I made my fortune selling real estate.
>>>> I drank my beer standing at the bar.
>>>> The kids came running out of the house.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that in order to lim! it the term participle to its
>>>> adjectival function, the traditional grammarian would claim that
>>>> these -ings are actually "gerunds"--the objects of understood
>>>> prepositions. As objects, then, they would be considered verbs
>>>> functioning as nouns. (That, to me, is one of many examples of
>>>> insisting on Latin's vocabulary, on making do, whether or not it
>>>> applies accurately to English.)
>>>>
>>>&g! t; The term "participle" is one of those problem terms that Ed Vavra
>>>> talks about. And he's right. I would like to see us all agree
that
>>>> the word "participle" is the name of a form--perhaps two forms:
>>>> present participle and past participle (the latter of which, by the
>>>> way, I tell my students to think of as "passive" rather than
"past").
>>>&g! t; Then when we discuss the word's function, we use terms like
>>>> "adverbial" or "adjectival" or "nominal."
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly, that's what we do with the other "verbal"--the
>>>> infinitive. We have no separate term (akin to gerund) for the
>>>> infinitive's functions. We simply say, the infinitive is "taking
the
>>>> place of " ! a noun or adjective or adverb--thus, nominal or
>>>> adjectival or adverbial. So I'm proposing, if and when we come up
>>>> with agreed-upon terminology, that we treat "participle" in the
>>>> same way. In other words, if we want to keep the traditional
>>>> category "verbal," it would have only two members, participle &
>>>> infinitive. But, in fact, we probably don't want to keep it. We
>>>> simply recognize that the verb forms, participle and infinitive,
have
>>>> three functions when they are not main verbs. (Just as we
recognize
>>>> the fact that nouns, too, can function as adjectivals and
adverbials.)
>>>>
>>>> Back to Maureen's second example:
>>>>
>>>> I have trouble dancing in the dark.
>>>>
>>>> Quirk et al. have some similar examples:
>>>>
>>>> Here's what they say: "The -ing clause [again, I prefer "phrase"
for
>>>> non-finite verbs rather than "clause"]
>>>> functions as appositive postmodification in examples like
>>>>
>>>> I'm looking for a job driving cars.
>>>> We can offer you a career counselling delinquents.
>>>> &n! bsp; There is plenty of work shoveling snow."
>>>>
>>>> To call the -ing constructions appositives is to say that driving
>>>> cars is the job, counselling is the care! er, and shoveling snow is
the
>>>> work--just as Maureen's dancing is the trouble.
>>>>
>>>> To call "dancing in the dark" a complement, as Bruce does, is
perhaps
>>>> even more accurate because, clearly, the "trouble" is not complete
>>>> without it. And while restrictive appositives are perhaps
necesaary
>>>> for clarity of meaning, they are usually not necessary for
>>>> grammaticality, as in this case. I define a complement as a
>>>> requirement for grammaticality (a completer), while an appositive
is
>>>> optional.
>>>>
>>>> Martha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Maureen,
>>>>>
>>>>>My vote is for explanation B, but I am uncomfortable talking about
>>>>>"understood" prepositions. Certainly we interpret the gerund in
>>>>>these situations as we would prepositional phrases, but we don't
>>>>>need to have the prepostions there to get that understanding.
>>>>>Nouns, which gerunds are, often serve in the function of adverbs,
>>>>>like "home" as a locative and "Wednesday" as a temporal adverbial.
>>>>>True, sometimes it helps to point out that they are like
>>>>>prepostional phrases! : "at home" and "on Wednesday." The fact that
>>>>>the gerund has an understood subj! ect ("I") has to do with its
verbal
>>>>>derivation.
>>>>>
>>>>>One of the strengths of a transformational approach in descriptive
>>>>>linguistics is that the gerund's relationship to the subject can
>>>>>be explicated. The gerund is describing a state in (1), an
activity
>>>>>in (2) and (3).
>>>>>
>>>>>I was smiling::I spent the morning in this state.
>>>>>I might dance in the dark::I have trouble with this.
>>>>>I built a shed::I spent the weekend in this activity.
>>>>>
>>>>>In (1) and (3) the constructions are manner adverbial, whereas in
>>>>>(2) the construction is a complement to the phrasal verb (idiom)
"to
>>>>>have trouble with." That the gerund is likely a complement can be
>>>>>seen in the const! ruction: "The trouble with dancing in the dark
is
>>>>>that I can't see my feet."
>>>>>
>>>>>I hope this helps.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bruce
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Maureen Kunz" <[log in to unmask]> 07/25/06 5:00 PM >>>
>>>>>
>>>>>To ATEG folks-
>>>>> I have joined this listserve at the suggestion of NCTE in
>>>>>order to seek advice about the following grammar issue. As a brash
>>>>>newcomer, I will dive right in. I beg the indulgence of veterans
>>>>>for any lapses of local culture or etiquette.
>>>>>
>>>>>Here are 3 model sentences:
>>>>>#1. I spent the morning smiling.
>>>>>#2. I have trouble dancing in the dark.
>>>>>#3. I spent the weekend building a shed.
>>>>>
>>>>> What are those "ing" words? They're not gerunds used as
>>>>>direct objects; "morning," "trouble," and "weekend" seem to be the
>>>>>direct objects.
>>>>>-Possible explanation A: Participles that are oddly placed?
>>>>>(smiling I, dancing I, building I)
>>>>>-Possible explanation B: Are they gerunds in understood
>>>>>prepositional phrases that serve as adverbs to modify the verb?
>>>>> I spent the morning [in] smiling
>>>>> I have trouble [with] dancing in the dark.
>>>>> I spent the weekend [in] building a shed.
>>>>>
>>>>>-Possible explanation C: Some sort of obscure direct object?
>>>>>(Doesn't really fit the definition or word order - IO before DO).
>>>>>-Possible explanation D; A Latinate structure. For example,
>>>>>ablative absolute in ! Latin becomes a nominative absolute in
English.
>>>>>Although the Latin specifications for an ablative absolute seem to
>>>>>fit, the English versions provided on the web don't fit the model.
>>>>>
>>>>> With sincere thanks for any light you can shine on this
mystery,
>>>>> Maureen
>>>>>
>>>>>To join or leave this LISTSER! V 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/
>>>>>
>>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the
>>>>> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
>>>>> privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
>>>>> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
>>>>> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
>>>>> and des! troy all copies of the original message.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>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 sele! ct "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/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>>>
>>>
>>> NOTICE: This email message is for !&! nbsp; the sole use of the
>>> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
>>> privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
>>> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
>>> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
>>> and destroy all copies of the original message.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>>>
>>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>>
>>
>> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the
>> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
>> privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
>> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
>> intended recipient, please contact the se! nder by reply email
>> and destroy all copies of the original message.
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>>
>> 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/
>>
>
&g! t; 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/
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
>
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the
> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
> privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
> and destr! oy all copies of the original message.
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> 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"
>
> Visi! t 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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
and destroy all copies of the original message.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
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/
Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
and destroy all copies of the original message.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
and destroy all copies of the original message.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/