Herb,
 
Thanks for your interesting (as always) analysis. As a young linguist "raised" on the voiced/voiceless distinction, I've been struggling lately with the fortis/lenis distinction. Can you suggest an introductory source that I can use to brush up on this? Also, do you even consider voicing when describing a sound in isolation or do you just consider it a feature of spoken language that occurs due to influence from neighboring sounds? For example, if you were describing a phoneme in the abstract, would you classify it by place of articulation, manner of articulation, and fortis/lenis (is this strength? or sonority?).
 
Thanks for any info you can provide!
 
John Alexander

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:11 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Several thoughts on nooze/noose.

1.  I've noticed this pronunciation in a colleague of mine from Connecticut.  In her case it's particularly evident with the -ese suffix designating languages, like Chinese and Japanese.  It's more widespread than that but still unusual enough to be noticed.

2.  There is a widely believed and perpetuated view of English consonant phonetics that is simply wrong.  This is the notion that the English obstruents /ptkCfTsS/ are voiceless and /bdgjvDzZ/ are voiceless, and this is the fundamental difference between the two sets.  In fact, it has been demonstrated both phonetically and phonologically, in numerous studies, that the former are fortis, having a strong articulation, and the latter lenis, having a weaker articulation.  The lenis obstruents will voice when between voiced sounds, like vowels, nasals, and liquids, but elsewhere they are voiceless.

3.  The difference between "sieze" and "cease" is twofold:  "sieze" has a longer vowel, and the final consonants are lenis and fortis respectively.

What's happening in the nooze/noose case may not be that the consonant is devoicing, since it's already voiceless in both cases but rather that the vowel has shortened before a lenis /z/ so that that important clue to a final lenis is lost and we perceive the final lenis as a fortis /s/.  It may even become an /s/, although in my colleague's speech I don't think it does.

There is also a morphological phenomenon involved that Bill astutely points out his analysis, suggesting, as he does, that the etymologically suffixal -s of "news" ceases to be a suffix and is reanalyzed as part of the root.  However, I have a paper coming out in Word next year, written with a couple of grad students, arguing that the -s on "news," "dependence," "linguistics," and "spokesman," arose in the late 16th c. or early 17th from several different sources that came together as a new suffix creating nominalized forms mostly from adjectives but also from other classes.  That new suffix -s behaves phonologically just like all the other suffixes -s in English (at least four of them).  This reanalysis of the final -s of "news" doesn't really bear on Bill's interesting suggestion that the word gets reanalyzed in some varieties of modern English, but the fact that other speakers do this with other suffixes as well suggests that there may be a sound change taking place in English neutralizing the consonant strength (fortis/lenis) contrast before or within some suffixes.  This deserves further study.

Herb

Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN  47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [ Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:44:12 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: New English grammar Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Is anyone familiar with The Teachers Grammar of English: a Coursebook and Reference Guide, by Ron Cowan, from Cambridge University Press? I just got an announcement for it, and it looks promising. A couple of chapters are available for download at http://www.cambridge.org/us/esl/email/Teachers_Grammar.html. Herb 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: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:00:55 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Teresa Lintner <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: New English grammar In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Herb, I was one of the editors who worked on The Teacher's Grammar of English. It was a very intense project, and I learned a lot from the author. I would be very happy to hear feedback, positive or negative, about it from anyone on this list. I generally only lurk and take notes on what I have learned(!), but this project consumed my life for about a year and a half, so I'm quite interested in its "life" now that it's out there in the real world. Terre Teresa Lintner Senior Development Editor Cambridge University Press 32 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10013-2473 Telephone: 212 337-5070 Fax: 212 645-5960 Email: [log in to unmask] "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask] To > [log in to unmask] Sent by: Assembly cc for the Teaching of English Subject Grammar New English grammar <[log in to unmask] OHIO.EDU> 11/19/2008 01:44 PM Please respond to Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask] OHIO.EDU> Is anyone familiar with The Teachers Grammar of English: a Coursebook and Reference Guide, by Ron Cowan, from Cambridge University Press? I just got an announcement for it, and it looks promising. A couple of chapters are available for download at http://www.cambridge.org/us/esl/email/Teachers_Grammar.html. Herb 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: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:18:25 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Norman Mailer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1526111724-1227140305=:62622" --0-1526111724-1227140305=:62622 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Marshall,   I have wrecked my brain but have not yet thought of a valid reason why 'had' should appear other than in the three circumstances mentioned. Have you a suggestion?   .brad.20nov08.   ~~~~~~~~~~~ On Tue, 11/18/08, Myers, Marshall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:   Brad,   How are they in “error”?   Marshall   ~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar On Behalf Of Brad Johnston Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Norman Mailer   Of 300+ ATEGians, some few will be interested to know that in the first 21 pages of "The Executioner's Song", for which Norman Mailer won a Pulitzer in 1980, the word 'had' appears 98 times, of which 44 are used correctly as the past tense of the verb "to have", or in the past perfect, or in the subjunctive. The rest (54) are in error.   (Don't holler at me. Count 'em for yourself :)   .brad.18nov08 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/ --0-1526111724-1227140305=:62622 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Marshall,
 
I have wrecked my brain but have not yet thought of a valid reason why 'had' should appear other than in the three circumstances mentioned. Have you a suggestion?
 
.brad.20nov08.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~

On Tue, 11/18/08, Myers, Marshall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 

Brad,

 

How are they in “error”?

 

Marshall

 

~~~~~~~~~~~

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar

On Behalf Of Brad Johnston
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Norman Mailer

 

Of 300+ ATEGians, some few will be interested to know that in the first 21 pages of "The Executioner's Song", for which Norman Mailer won a Pulitzer in 1980, the word 'had' appears 98 times, of which 44 are used correctly as the past tense of the verb "to have", or in the past perfect, or in the subjunctive. The rest (54) are in error.

 

(Don't holler at me. Count 'em for yourself :)

 

.brad.18nov08


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/ --0-1526111724-1227140305=:62622-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:38:09 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: New English grammar In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Terre, I was planning to order a copy. Although I'm retired now, I'm still interested in the problems of preparing language arts and composition teachers to work intelligently and creatively with grammar. Herb Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of English Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 [log in to unmask] ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Teresa Lintner [[log in to unmask]] Sent: November 19, 2008 6:00 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: New English grammar Herb, I was one of the editors who worked on The Teacher's Grammar of English. It was a very intense project, and I learned a lot from the author. I would be very happy to hear feedback, positive or negative, about it from anyone on this list. I generally only lurk and take notes on what I have learned(!), but this project consumed my life for about a year and a half, so I'm quite interested in its "life" now that it's out there in the real world. Terre Teresa Lintner Senior Development Editor Cambridge University Press 32 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10013-2473 Telephone: 212 337-5070 Fax: 212 645-5960 Email: [log in to unmask] "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask] To > [log in to unmask] Sent by: Assembly cc for the Teaching of English Subject Grammar New English grammar <[log in to unmask] OHIO.EDU> 11/19/2008 01:44 PM Please respond to Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask] OHIO.EDU> Is anyone familiar with The Teachers Grammar of English: a Coursebook and Reference Guide, by Ron Cowan, from Cambridge University Press? I just got an announcement for it, and it looks promising. A couple of chapters are available for download at http://www.cambridge.org/us/esl/email/Teachers_Grammar.html. Herb 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: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:18:19 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: New English grammar In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Sorry, all. That was meant to go just to Terre. Herb Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of English Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 [log in to unmask] ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F [[log in to unmask]] Sent: November 19, 2008 9:38 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: New English grammar Terre, I was planning to order a copy. Although I'm retired now, I'm still interested in the problems of preparing language arts and composition teachers to work intelligently and creatively with grammar. Herb Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of English Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 [log in to unmask] ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Teresa Lintner [[log in to unmask]] Sent: November 19, 2008 6:00 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: New English grammar Herb, I was one of the editors who worked on The Teacher's Grammar of English. It was a very intense project, and I learned a lot from the author. I would be very happy to hear feedback, positive or negative, about it from anyone on this list. I generally only lurk and take notes on what I have learned(!), but this project consumed my life for about a year and a half, so I'm quite interested in its "life" now that it's out there in the real world. Terre Teresa Lintner Senior Development Editor Cambridge University Press 32 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10013-2473 Telephone: 212 337-5070 Fax: 212 645-5960 Email: [log in to unmask] "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask] To > [log in to unmask] Sent by: Assembly cc for the Teaching of English Subject Grammar New English grammar <[log in to unmask] OHIO.EDU> 11/19/2008 01:44 PM Please respond to Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask] OHIO.EDU> Is anyone familiar with The Teachers Grammar of English: a Coursebook and Reference Guide, by Ron Cowan, from Cambridge University Press? I just got an announcement for it, and it looks promising. A couple of chapters are available for download at http://www.cambridge.org/us/esl/email/Teachers_Grammar.html. Herb 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, 21 Nov 2008 04:31:25 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: New English grammar In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_74061_18877846.1227263485261" ------=_Part_74061_18877846.1227263485261 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Teresa, I look forward to taking a look at this textbook! Looks very exciting! Herb, thanks for bringing it to our attention! If anyone in ATEG has a chance to take a look at it before I do (and the chances are highly likely) I'd love to hear some reviews! Regards, John Alexander Austin, Texas On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Teresa Lintner <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Herb, > > I was one of the editors who worked on The Teacher's Grammar of English. It > was a very intense project, and I learned a lot from the author. I would be > very happy to hear feedback, positive or negative, about it from anyone on > this list. I generally only lurk and take notes on what I have learned(!), > but this project consumed my life for about a year and a half, so I'm quite > interested in its "life" now that it's out there in the real world. > > Terre > > Teresa Lintner > Senior Development Editor > Cambridge University Press > 32 Avenue of the Americas > New York, New York 10013-2473 > Telephone: 212 337-5070 > Fax: 212 645-5960 > Email: [log in to unmask] > > > > "STAHLKE, HERBERT > F" > <[log in to unmask] To > > [log in to unmask] > Sent by: Assembly cc > for the Teaching > of English Subject > Grammar New English grammar > <[log in to unmask] > OHIO.EDU > > > > 11/19/2008 01:44 > PM > > > Please respond to > Assembly for the > Teaching of > English Grammar > <[log in to unmask] > OHIO.EDU > > > > > > > > Is anyone familiar with The Teachers Grammar of English: a Coursebook and > Reference Guide, by Ron Cowan, from Cambridge University Press? I just got > an announcement for it, and it looks promising. A couple of chapters are > available for download at > http://www.cambridge.org/us/esl/email/Teachers_Grammar.html. > > Herb > 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/ ------=_Part_74061_18877846.1227263485261 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline

Teresa, I look forward to taking a look at this textbook! Looks very exciting!
 
Herb, thanks for bringing it to our attention! If anyone in ATEG has a chance to take a look at it before I do (and the chances are highly likely) I'd love to hear some reviews!
 
Regards,
 
John Alexander
Austin, Texas

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Teresa Lintner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Herb,

I was one of the editors who worked on The Teacher's Grammar of English. It
was a very intense project, and I learned a lot from the author. I would be
very happy to hear feedback, positive or negative, about it  from anyone on
this list. I generally only lurk and take notes on what I have learned(!),
but this project consumed my life for about a year and a half, so I'm quite
interested in its "life" now that it's out there in the real world.

Terre

Teresa Lintner
Senior Development Editor
Cambridge University Press
32 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10013-2473
Telephone: 212 337-5070
Fax: 212 645-5960
Email: [log in to unmask]



            "STAHLKE, HERBERT
            F"
            <[log in to unmask]                                          To
            >                         [log in to unmask]
            Sent by: Assembly                                          cc
            for the Teaching
            of English                                            Subject
            Grammar                   New English grammar
            <[log in to unmask]
            OHIO.EDU>


            11/19/2008 01:44
            PM


            Please respond to
            Assembly for the
               Teaching of
             English Grammar
            <[log in to unmask]
                OHIO.EDU>






Is anyone familiar with The Teachers Grammar of English: a Coursebook and
Reference Guide, by Ron Cowan, from Cambridge University Press?  I just got
an announcement for it, and it looks promising.  A couple of chapters are
available for download at
http://www.cambridge.org/us/esl/email/Teachers_Grammar.html.

Herb
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/ ------=_Part_74061_18877846.1227263485261-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:59:09 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Teresa Lintner <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: New English grammar In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Hi John, I'm happy to hear from you or anyone on this list about The Teacher's Grammar of English. I have great respect for all of you and would value your comments. If you would like more information about the book, please contact me offlist. Terre Teresa Lintner Senior Development Editor Cambridge University Press 32 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10013-2473 Telephone: 212 337-5070 Fax: 212 645-5960 Email: [log in to unmask] John Dews-Alexander [log in to unmask] Sent by: Assembly cc for the Teaching of English Subject Grammar Re: New English grammar <[log in to unmask] OHIO.EDU> 11/21/2008 05:31 AM Please respond to Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask] OHIO.EDU> Teresa, I look forward to taking a look at this textbook! Looks very exciting! Herb, thanks for bringing it to our attention! If anyone in ATEG has a chance to take a look at it before I do (and the chances are highly likely) I'd love to hear some reviews! Regards, John Alexander Austin, Texas On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Teresa Lintner <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Herb, I was one of the editors who worked on The Teacher's Grammar of English. It was a very intense project, and I learned a lot from the author. I would be very happy to hear feedback, positive or negative, about it from anyone on this list. I generally only lurk and take notes on what I have learned (!), but this project consumed my life for about a year and a half, so I'm quite interested in its "life" now that it's out there in the real world. Terre Teresa Lintner Senior Development Editor Cambridge University Press 32 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10013-2473 Telephone: 212 337-5070 Fax: 212 645-5960 Email: [log in to unmask] "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask] To > [log in to unmask] Sent by: Assembly cc for the Teaching of English Subject Grammar New English grammar <[log in to unmask] OHIO.EDU:> 11/19/2008 01:44 PM Please respond to Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask] OHIO.EDU:> Is anyone familiar with The Teachers Grammar of English: a Coursebook and Reference Guide, by Ron Cowan, from Cambridge University Press? I just got an announcement for it, and it looks promising. A couple of chapters are available for download at http://www.cambridge.org/us/esl/email/Teachers_Grammar.html. Herb 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: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 11:22:04 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Why can't us? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-2140841295-1227468124=:91407" --0-2140841295-1227468124=:91407 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "A caller from Delaware chimed in to share his joy for the Fightins. He may have created the next great catchphrase, saying, 'Boston did it. The White Sox did it. Why can't us? Why can't us?"   From the Washington Post sports section.   We like "why can't we?" but what about "Why not us?", which is sometimes heard? 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/ --0-2140841295-1227468124=:91407 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
"A caller from Delaware chimed in to share his joy for the Fightins. He may have created the next great catchphrase, saying, 'Boston did it. The White Sox did it. Why can't us? Why can't us?"
 
From the Washington Post sports section.
 
We like "why can't we?" but what about "Why not us?", which is sometimes heard?

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/ --0-2140841295-1227468124=:91407-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:03:03 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Why can't us? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-6-55280035 --Apple-Mail-6-55280035 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Yeah, the slighted past tense rules are bummed: "You follow case rules. Why not we? Why not we?" On Nov 23, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Brad Johnston wrote: > "A caller from Delaware chimed in to share his joy for the > Fightins. He may have created the next great catchphrase, saying, > 'Boston did it. The White Sox did it. Why can't us? Why can't us?" > > From the Washington Post sports section. > > We like "why can't we?" but what about "Why not us?", which is > sometimes heard? > > 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/ --Apple-Mail-6-55280035 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

Yeah, the slighted past tense rules are bummed:  "You follow case rules.  Why not we?  Why not we?"


On Nov 23, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Brad Johnston wrote:

"A caller from Delaware chimed in to share his joy for the Fightins. He may have created the next great catchphrase, saying, 'Boston did it. The White Sox did it. Why can't us? Why can't us?"
 
From the Washington Post sports section.
 
We like "why can't we?" but what about "Why not us?", which is sometimes heard?

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/ --Apple-Mail-6-55280035-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:18:53 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Beth Young <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Why can't us? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I put "why can't us" in the same category as "we was robbed." I wish I knew of a good way to explain to students when / how a grammatical mistake becomes rhetorically effective. Language Log talked a bit about "why can't us" here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=746 Beth >>> Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> 11/23/2008 2:22 PM >>> "A caller from Delaware chimed in to share his joy for the Fightins. He may have created the next great catchphrase, saying, 'Boston did it. The White Sox did it. Why can't us? Why can't us?" From the Washington Post sports section. We like "why can't we?" but what about "Why not us?", which is sometimes heard? 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: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:43:02 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Why can't us? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would put it in the same category too, but I think I can explain why it works. "We was robbed" sounds like a group of little guys being outwitted by smarter, slicker thinkers who know the rules and loopholes and can use it against the ignorant who only know they have been cheated but can't express a sound argument to prove why their loss is unfair. I think the phrase "Why can't us?" expresses the underdog spirit of a come-from-behind, just-folks, pseudo-Palin mentality. We have been so down-trodden, ain't it our turn now, gosh darn it? On Nov 23, 2008, at 2:18 PM, Beth Young wrote: > I put "why can't us" in the same category as "we was robbed." I > wish I knew of a good way to explain to students when / how a > grammatical mistake becomes rhetorically effective. > > Language Log talked a bit about "why can't us" here: http:// > languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?pt6 > > Beth > >>>> Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> 11/23/2008 2:22 PM >>> > "A caller from Delaware chimed in to share his joy for the > Fightins. He may have created the next great catchphrase, saying, > 'Boston did it. The White Sox did it. Why can't us? Why can't us?" > > From the Washington Post sports section. > > We like "why can't we?" but what about "Why not us?", which is > sometimes heard? > > > > > 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: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:10:24 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Beth Young <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Why can't us? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I like this explanation. It also explains why "ain't" can be so effective--it has an emphatic "I'm one with the people" vibe. thanks, Beth >>> Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> 11/23/2008 3:43 PM >>> I would put it in the same category too, but I think I can explain why it works. "We was robbed" sounds like a group of little guys being outwitted by smarter, slicker thinkers who know the rules and loopholes and can use it against the ignorant who only know they have been cheated but can't express a sound argument to prove why their loss is unfair. I think the phrase "Why can't us?" expresses the underdog spirit of a come-from-behind, just-folks, pseudo-Palin mentality. We have been so down-trodden, ain't it our turn now, gosh darn it? On Nov 23, 2008, at 2:18 PM, Beth Young wrote: > I put "why can't us" in the same category as "we was robbed." I > wish I knew of a good way to explain to students when / how a > grammatical mistake becomes rhetorically effective. > > Language Log talked a bit about "why can't us" here: http:// > languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=746 > > Beth > >>>> Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> 11/23/2008 2:22 PM >>> > "A caller from Delaware chimed in to share his joy for the > Fightins. He may have created the next great catchphrase, saying, > 'Boston did it. The White Sox did it. Why can't us? Why can't us?" > > From the Washington Post sports section. > > We like "why can't we?" but what about "Why not us?", which is > sometimes heard? > > > > > 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: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:41:00 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: What price glory? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1599265872-1227490860=:13947" --0-1599265872-1227490860=:13947 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I sat next to a lass at Glory Days this evening, watching the Redskins squeak out a 20-17 win.   The young lady is in her second year teaching 5th grade, including English. I asked her if the past perfect is taught to 5th graders. Her reply: What's the past perfect?   The young man next to her has taught 3rd grade at the same school for five years. He chimed in with, What's the past perfect?   54% of incoming college freshmen need remedial English.   .brad.sun.23nov08. 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/ --0-1599265872-1227490860=:13947 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
I sat next to a lass at Glory Days this evening, watching the Redskins squeak out a 20-17 win.
 
The young lady is in her second year teaching 5th grade, including English. I asked her if the past perfect is taught to 5th graders. Her reply: What's the past perfect?
 
The young man next to her has taught 3rd grade at the same school for five years. He chimed in with, What's the past perfect?
 
54% of incoming college freshmen need remedial English.
 
.brad.sun.23nov08.

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/ --0-1599265872-1227490860=:13947-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 05:45:54 +0300 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: MC Johnstone <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: What price glory? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brad Johnston wrote: > He chimed in with, What's the past perfect? > > That sounds like your worst nightmare, Brad. I've been reading a biography of John Boyd, written by Robert Coram, a journalist for the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Coram religiously avoids the past perfect, joyously piling simple past upon simple past, and may the reader beware. 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: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:23:32 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Why can't us? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 I'd like to suggest something more mundane. "Why can't us," which I hadn't heard before but am not surprised at, joins the list of many uses of objective pronouns where a very formal grammar would insist on the subjective pronoun. H.L. Mencken discussed this with characteristic insight in The American Language. Here are some other cases: (A knock at the door.) Who's there? Me/It's me/I am/It is I. (The last is said, as far as I know, only by Jesus speaking Elizabethan English and my high school senior English teacher's daughter when I phoned and asked for her so I could ask her out.) Me and Billy are going fishing Billy and me are going fishing. Me, too. Us two'll go with you. She ran as fast as/faster than me. and, as cited, Why not us. Notice the one place it doesn't show up is as sole subject of a sentence, as in "I'm going fishing." What I think is going on is that the pragmatics of case selection is causing the grammar of case selection to change. While some of the examples above are pretty old in English, it is nonetheless the case that government of case in pronouns is becoming less a matter of what we call "grammatical case" and more a matter of pragmatic function. If the pronoun shows up in a place that is not simply topic, as is the case with all of the examples I've given, the objective form is used. Even in the coordinate subjects, the length of the subject, the fact that it's not just a single pronoun, means that it contains some new information. It's not just topic. So how does this shift in usage come about? Objective pronouns, in the traditional grammatical sense, occur as direct objects and as objects of prepositions, which means they will often be late or even final in a sentence. Sentence-final position is typical the place for new information, which is why we tend to find the tonic accent for the sentence on the last stressed syllable. "Give it to me" places some newness or at least emphasis on "me" that "Gimme it" doesn't. As case marking has gradually disappeared in English, over the course of Middle English, the role of function, focus vs. topic, has led to the use of the objective, or focus, pronoun in places where there is some new information, relegating the subjective pronoun to those cases where it is purely topic. Herb Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of English Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 [log in to unmask] ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Beth Young [[log in to unmask]] Sent: November 23, 2008 7:10 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Why can't us? I like this explanation. It also explains why "ain't" can be so effective--it has an emphatic "I'm one with the people" vibe. thanks, Beth >>> Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> 11/23/2008 3:43 PM >>> I would put it in the same category too, but I think I can explain why it works. "We was robbed" sounds like a group of little guys being outwitted by smarter, slicker thinkers who know the rules and loopholes and can use it against the ignorant who only know they have been cheated but can't express a sound argument to prove why their loss is unfair. I think the phrase "Why can't us?" expresses the underdog spirit of a come-from-behind, just-folks, pseudo-Palin mentality. We have been so down-trodden, ain't it our turn now, gosh darn it? On Nov 23, 2008, at 2:18 PM, Beth Young wrote: > I put "why can't us" in the same category as "we was robbed." I > wish I knew of a good way to explain to students when / how a > grammatical mistake becomes rhetorically effective. > > Language Log talked a bit about "why can't us" here: http:// > languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=746 > > Beth > >>>> Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> 11/23/2008 2:22 PM >>> > "A caller from Delaware chimed in to share his joy for the > Fightins. He may have created the next great catchphrase, saying, > 'Boston did it. The White Sox did it. Why can't us? Why can't us?" > > From the Washington Post sports section. > > We like "why can't we?" but what about "Why not us?", which is > sometimes heard? > > > > > 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: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:24:08 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: What price glory? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 John Boyd as in Boyd Upchurch, the Alabama Baptist stock car racer English professor science fiction writer? His Rakehells of Heaven is one of the funniest scifi novels I've ever read. Imagine, if you will, a planet whose inhabitants have the political structure of a loose confederation of underground universities. I'll have to look for Coram's book, past perfect or not. Herb Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of English Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 [log in to unmask] ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of MC Johnstone [[log in to unmask]] Sent: November 23, 2008 9:45 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: What price glory? Brad Johnston wrote: > He chimed in with, What's the past perfect? > > That sounds like your worst nightmare, Brad. I've been reading a biography of John Boyd, written by Robert Coram, a journalist for the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Coram religiously avoids the past perfect, joyously piling simple past upon simple past, and may the reader beware. 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: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 06:31:39 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: the most articulate American In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-186299707-1227623499=:67292" --0-186299707-1227623499=:67292 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:   Brad,   Who is this naturalized German who came to the USA at age 13 and is now "the best speaker and writer of our language?" I'm trying to figure that one out, but I can't.   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Brad replied:   My Mom taught me to not say, "I can't", but to say, "I haven't yet".   You'll get it but if you don't, I won't let you dangle too long.   .brad.11feb08.   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Wow! Last February I said I wouldn't let you dangle but dangle you did.   I'm sorry.   Henry Kissinger.   I invite you to show me grammatical errors in his writing ... or speeches, if any are of record. Google is going to kill me, I suppose. No fair ganging up, gang :)   .brad.25nov08. 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/ --0-186299707-1227623499=:67292 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
"Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
Brad,
 
Who is this naturalized German who came to the USA at age 13 and is now "the best speaker and writer of our language?" I'm trying to figure that one out, but I can't.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brad replied:
 
My Mom taught me to not say, "I can't", but to say, "I haven't yet".
 
You'll get it but if you don't, I won't let you dangle too long.
 
.brad.11feb08.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wow! Last February I said I wouldn't let you dangle but dangle you did.
 
I'm sorry.
 
Henry Kissinger.
 
I invite you to show me grammatical errors in his writing ... or speeches, if any are of record. Google is going to kill me, I suppose. No fair ganging up, gang :)
 
.brad.25nov08.

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/ --0-186299707-1227623499=:67292-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:14:57 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: the most articulate American MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-43349154-1227633297=:85366" --0-43349154-1227633297=:85366 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Brad, 1. I wasn't dangling -- in fact, I almost forgot that I ever asked the question (I've been occupied with other matters). 2. Henry Kissinger is a talented person, but I don't agree that he is "the best speaker and writer of our language," nor is he "The most articulate American." Good use of grammar is not the only criterion of articulate speech or writing; in fact, it may not be the most important, either. 3. I don't believe that it is possible (nor even desirable) to identify one person as "the most" or "the best" anything; as my rhetoric professors might have said: "Sweeping generalizations are never true!" Sorry to be contrary, but thanks just the same for the belated response, and may all of you lovely fellow grammar lovers have a lovely, restful Thanksgiving.   Redundantly yours,   Paul D.   P.S. For those of you who might be interested in why I have been so long silent on the list, you might want to check out the (lovely?) website I designed for my school theatre program: www.pomperaug.com/organizations/theatre -- it's kept me busy, and it's a doozy!  ________________________________ From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 9:31:39 AM Subject: the most articulate American "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:   Brad,   Who is this naturalized German who came to the USA at age 13 and is now "the best speaker and writer of our language?" I'm trying to figure that one out, but I can't.   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Brad replied:   My Mom taught me to not say, "I can't", but to say, "I haven't yet".   You'll get it but if you don't, I won't let you dangle too long.   .brad.11feb08.   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Wow! Last February I said I wouldn't let you dangle but dangle you did.   I'm sorry.   Henry Kissinger.   I invite you to show me grammatical errors in his writing ... or speeches, if any are of record. Google is going to kill me, I suppose. No fair ganging up, gang :)   .brad.25nov08. 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/ --0-43349154-1227633297=:85366 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Brad,
  1. I wasn't dangling -- in fact, I almost forgot that I ever asked the question (I've been occupied with other matters).
  2. Henry Kissinger is a talented person, but I don't agree that he is "the best speaker and writer of our language," nor is he "The most articulate American." Good use of grammar is not the only criterion of articulate speech or writing; in fact, it may not be the most important, either.
  3. I don't believe that it is possible (nor even desirable) to identify one person as "the most" or "the best" anything; as my rhetoric professors might have said: "Sweeping generalizations are never true!"

Sorry to be contrary, but thanks just the same for the belated response, and may all of you lovely fellow grammar lovers have a lovely, restful Thanksgiving.

 

Redundantly yours,

 

Paul D.

 

P.S. For those of you who might be interested in why I have been so long silent on the list, you might want to check out the (lovely?) website I designed for my school theatre program: www.pomperaug.com/organizations/theatre -- it's kept me busy, and it's a doozy! 


From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 9:31:39 AM
Subject: the most articulate American

"Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
Brad,
 
Who is this naturalized German who came to the USA at age 13 and is now "the best speaker and writer of our language?" I'm trying to figure that one out, but I can't.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brad replied:
 
My Mom taught me to not say, "I can't", but to say, "I haven't yet".
 
You'll get it but if you don't, I won't let you dangle too long.
 
.brad.11feb08.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wow! Last February I said I wouldn't let you dangle but dangle you did.
 
I'm sorry.
 
Henry Kissinger.
 
I invite you to show me grammatical errors in his writing ... or speeches, if any are of record. Google is going to kill me, I suppose. No fair ganging up, gang :)
 
.brad.25nov08.

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/ --0-43349154-1227633297=:85366-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:01:12 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: the most articulate American In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-112915429-1227639672=:77953" --0-112915429-1227639672=:77953 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Paul,   I agree with everything you say.   Before I can recall Henry's crown, I should ask you for the name of someone who does it better, using your criteria.   Brad. --- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Brad,   Henry Kissinger is a talented person, but I don't agree that he is "the best speaker and writer of our language," nor is he "The most articulate American." Good use of grammar is not the only criterion of articulate speech or writing; in fact, it may not be the most important, either.   I don't believe that it is possible (nor even desirable) to identify one person as "the most" or "the best" anything; as my rhetoric professors might have said: "Sweeping generalizations are never true!"   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/ --0-112915429-1227639672=:77953 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Paul,
 
I agree with everything you say.
 
Before I can recall Henry's crown, I should ask you for the name of someone who does it better, using your criteria.
 
Brad.

--- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Brad,

 

Henry Kissinger is a talented person, but I don't agree that he is "the best speaker and writer of our language," nor is he "The most articulate American." Good use of grammar is not the only criterion of articulate speech or writing; in fact, it may not be the most important, either.

 

I don't believe that it is possible (nor even desirable) to identify one person as "the most" or "the best" anything; as my rhetoric professors might have said: "Sweeping generalizations are never true!"

 

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/ --0-112915429-1227639672=:77953-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:51:49 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: the most articulate American MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-306657659-1227649909=:19544" If you agreed with everything I said, then you wouldn't ask such --0-306657659-1227649909=:19544 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Brad, If you agreed with everything I said, then you wouldn't ask such a question. I see no value in debating about who is or who isn't a better user of the English language than Henry Kissinger. I'd rather just dwell joyfully in good language when I come across it and not make comparisons. Paul ________________________________ From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 2:01:12 PM Subject: Re: the most articulate American Paul, I agree with everything you say. Before I can recall Henry's crown, I should ask you for the name of someone who does it better, using your criteria. Brad. --- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Brad,   Henry Kissinger is a talented person, but I don't agree that he is "the best speaker and writer of our language," nor is he "The most articulate American." Good use of grammar is not the only criterion of articulate speech or writing; in fact, it may not be the most important, either.   I don't believe that it is possible (nor even desirable) to identify one person as "the most" or "the best" anything; as my rhetoric professors might have said: "Sweeping generalizations are never true!" 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/ --0-306657659-1227649909=:19544 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Brad,
 
If you agreed with everything I said, then you wouldn't ask such a question. I see no value in debating about who is or who isn't a better user of the English language than Henry Kissinger. I'd rather just dwell joyfully in good language when I come across it and not make comparisons.

Paul

From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 2:01:12 PM
Subject: Re: the most articulate American

Paul,
 
I agree with everything you say.
 
Before I can recall Henry's crown, I should ask you for the name of someone who does it better, using your criteria.
 
Brad.

--- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Brad,

 

Henry Kissinger is a talented person, but I don't agree that he is "the best speaker and writer of our language," nor is he "The most articulate American." Good use of grammar is not the only criterion of articulate speech or writing; in fact, it may not be the most important, either.

 

I don't believe that it is possible (nor even desirable) to identify one person as "the most" or "the best" anything; as my rhetoric professors might have said: "Sweeping generalizations are never true!"

 

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/ --0-306657659-1227649909=:19544-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:45:46 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: the most articulate American In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1964809312-1227656746=:68341" --0-1964809312-1227656746=:68341 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Whadaya talking about? There are Best and Worst lists published every day. Netflix sends you a DVD movie and asks you to grade it one to five: hated it, didn't like it, liked it, liked it a lot, loved it. Then their computer tells you what it thinks you'll grade a movie you haven't seen yet.   Every speech I ever gave I had a critic sitting in the back - a speech professor if I could find one.   You don't like my choice, tell us what yours is.   Don't you pay attention to what people write and how they write it? If you do, you must think some are better than others. Henry's going to be tough to beat but go ahead and try it. Take a shot.   Anyone else want to take a shot and let Paul hunker down? It's not Hemingway and it's not George Bush and it's not Mary Higgins Clark. Who is it? Who's really got a handle on our language?   C'mon, gang. Who's really good at it?   --- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:   If you agreed with everything I said, then you wouldn't ask such a question. I see no value in debating who is or who isn't a better user of the English language than Henry Kissinger. I'd rather just dwell joyfully in good language when I come across it and not make comparisons.   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/ --0-1964809312-1227656746=:68341 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Whadaya talking about? There are Best and Worst lists published every day. Netflix sends you a DVD movie and asks you to grade it one to five: hated it, didn't like it, liked it, liked it a lot, loved it. Then their computer tells you what it thinks you'll grade a movie you haven't seen yet.
 
Every speech I ever gave I had a critic sitting in the back - a speech professor if I could find one.
 
You don't like my choice, tell us what yours is.
 
Don't you pay attention to what people write and how they write it? If you do, you must think some are better than others. Henry's going to be tough to beat but go ahead and try it. Take a shot.
 
Anyone else want to take a shot and let Paul hunker down? It's not Hemingway and it's not George Bush and it's not Mary Higgins Clark. Who is it? Who's really got a handle on our language?
 
C'mon, gang. Who's really good at it?
 
--- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
If you agreed with everything I said, then you wouldn't ask such a question. I see no value in debating who is or who isn't a better user of the English language than Henry Kissinger. I'd rather just dwell joyfully in good language when I come across it and not make comparisons.
 

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/ --0-1964809312-1227656746=:68341-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:18:27 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: the most articulate American In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1682131013-1227658707=:67006" --0-1682131013-1227658707=:67006 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The most articulate American? Let's see...in terms of speaking clearly, distinctly, and coherently in addition to displaying mastery over the English language, I'd include the following on my list:   1. Sylvester Stallone 2. Brad Pitt 3. Anna Nicole Smith 4. John McCain 5. Sarah Palin   The last two are clearly mavericks, both as politicians and public speakers. Oh, I almost forgot...Joe the Plumber. He's very articulate as well. CLM --- On Tue, 11/25/08, Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: the most articulate American To: [log in to unmask] Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2008, 6:45 PM Whadaya talking about? There are Best and Worst lists published every day. Netflix sends you a DVD movie and asks you to grade it one to five: hated it, didn't like it, liked it, liked it a lot, loved it. Then their computer tells you what it thinks you'll grade a movie you haven't seen yet.   Every speech I ever gave I had a critic sitting in the back - a speech professor if I could find one.   You don't like my choice, tell us what yours is.   Don't you pay attention to what people write and how they write it? If you do, you must think some are better than others. Henry's going to be tough to beat but go ahead and try it. Take a shot.   Anyone else want to take a shot and let Paul hunker down? It's not Hemingway and it's not George Bush and it's not Mary Higgins Clark. Who is it? Who's really got a handle on our language?   C'mon, gang. Who's really good at it?   --- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:   If you agreed with everything I said, then you wouldn't ask such a question. I see no value in debating who is or who isn't a better user of the English language than Henry Kissinger. I'd rather just dwell joyfully in good language when I come across it and not make comparisons.   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/ --0-1682131013-1227658707=:67006 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
The most articulate American? Let's see...in terms of speaking clearly, distinctly, and coherently in addition to displaying mastery over the English language, I'd include the following on my list:
 
1. Sylvester Stallone
2. Brad Pitt
3. Anna Nicole Smith
4. John McCain
5. Sarah Palin
 
The last two are clearly mavericks, both as politicians and public speakers. Oh, I almost forgot...Joe the Plumber. He's very articulate as well.
CLM
--- On Tue, 11/25/08, Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: the most articulate American
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2008, 6:45 PM

Whadaya talking about? There are Best and Worst lists published every day. Netflix sends you a DVD movie and asks you to grade it one to five: hated it, didn't like it, liked it, liked it a lot, loved it. Then their computer tells you what it thinks you'll grade a movie you haven't seen yet.
 
Every speech I ever gave I had a critic sitting in the back - a speech professor if I could find one.
 
You don't like my choice, tell us what yours is.
 
Don't you pay attention to what people write and how they write it? If you do, you must think some are better than others. Henry's going to be tough to beat but go ahead and try it. Take a shot.
 
Anyone else want to take a shot and let Paul hunker down? It's not Hemingway and it's not George Bush and it's not Mary Higgins Clark. Who is it? Who's really got a handle on our language?
 
C'mon, gang. Who's really good at it?
 
--- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
If you agreed with everything I said, then you wouldn't ask such a question. I see no value in debating who is or who isn't a better user of the English language than Henry Kissinger. I'd rather just dwell joyfully in good language when I come across it and not make comparisons.
 

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/ --0-1682131013-1227658707=:67006-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:20:15 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: the most articulate American In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-9-243512117 --Apple-Mail-9-243512117 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Barack Obama. But you weren't really listening to Paul. When he said he didn't want to play best and worst list games, you said you agreed with him. Clearly, you do not agree with him. I don't particularly think Obama is a great orator (because politicians are full of b.s.), but since I'd rather listen to him than Henry and since he's kinda in the news right now, he's my choice for greatest political living orator. As far as verbal skills--and not speeches--go, I think Steven Colbert is very clever. But he's playing the role of a sophist. I also like Mark Twain and George Orwell and H.L. Mencken. On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Brad Johnston wrote: > Whadaya talking about? There are Best and Worst lists published > every day. Netflix sends you a DVD movie and asks you to grade it > one to five: hated it, didn't like it, liked it, liked it a lot, > loved it. Then their computer tells you what it thinks you'll grade > a movie you haven't seen yet. > > Every speech I ever gave I had a critic sitting in the back - a > speech professor if I could find one. > > You don't like my choice, tell us what yours is. > > Don't you pay attention to what people write and how they write it? > If you do, you must think some are better than others. Henry's > going to be tough to beat but go ahead and try it. Take a shot. > > Anyone else want to take a shot and let Paul hunker down? It's not > Hemingway and it's not George Bush and it's not Mary Higgins Clark. > Who is it? Who's really got a handle on our language? > > C'mon, gang. Who's really good at it? > > --- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > If you agreed with everything I said, then you wouldn't ask such a > question. I see no value in debating who is or who isn't a better > user of the English language than Henry Kissinger. I'd rather just > dwell joyfully in good language when I come across it and not make > comparisons. > > > 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/ --Apple-Mail-9-243512117 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Barack Obama.  


But you weren't really listening to Paul.  When he said he didn't want to play best and worst list games, you said you agreed with him.  Clearly, you do not agree with him.  I don't particularly think Obama is a great orator (because politicians are full of b.s.), but since I'd rather listen to him than Henry and since he's kinda in the news right now, he's my choice for greatest political living orator.  As far as verbal skills--and not speeches--go, I think Steven Colbert is very clever.  But he's playing the role of a sophist.  I also like Mark Twain and George Orwell and H.L. Mencken.


On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Brad Johnston wrote:

Whadaya talking about? There are Best and Worst lists published every day. Netflix sends you a DVD movie and asks you to grade it one to five: hated it, didn't like it, liked it, liked it a lot, loved it. Then their computer tells you what it thinks you'll grade a movie you haven't seen yet.
 
Every speech I ever gave I had a critic sitting in the back - a speech professor if I could find one.
 
You don't like my choice, tell us what yours is.
 
Don't you pay attention to what people write and how they write it? If you do, you must think some are better than others. Henry's going to be tough to beat but go ahead and try it. Take a shot.
 
Anyone else want to take a shot and let Paul hunker down? It's not Hemingway and it's not George Bush and it's not Mary Higgins Clark. Who is it? Who's really got a handle on our language?
 
C'mon, gang. Who's really good at it?
 
--- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
If you agreed with everything I said, then you wouldn't ask such a question. I see no value in debating who is or who isn't a better user of the English language than Henry Kissinger. I'd rather just dwell joyfully in good language when I come across it and not make comparisons.
 

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/ --Apple-Mail-9-243512117-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:48:59 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Atchley, Clinton" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: the most articulate American MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It depends, of course, on your definition of "great" and "articulate," but for his ability to work an audience, it has to be Bill Clinton. Clinton Atchley, Ph.D. Associate Professor of English Director, Master of Liberal Arts Program Box 7652 Henderson State University Arkadelphia, AR 71999 Phone: 870.230.5276 Email: [log in to unmask] URL: http://www.hsu.edu/atchlec ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van Druten Sent: Tue 11/25/2008 6:20 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: the most articulate American Barack Obama. But you weren't really listening to Paul. When he said he didn't want to play best and worst list games, you said you agreed with him. Clearly, you do not agree with him. I don't particularly think Obama is a great orator (because politicians are full of b.s.), but since I'd rather listen to him than Henry and since he's kinda in the news right now, he's my choice for greatest political living orator. As far as verbal skills--and not speeches--go, I think Steven Colbert is very clever. But he's playing the role of a sophist. I also like Mark Twain and George Orwell and H.L. Mencken. On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Brad Johnston wrote: Whadaya talking about? There are Best and Worst lists published every day. Netflix sends you a DVD movie and asks you to grade it one to five: hated it, didn't like it, liked it, liked it a lot, loved it. Then their computer tells you what it thinks you'll grade a movie you haven't seen yet. Every speech I ever gave I had a critic sitting in the back - a speech professor if I could find one. You don't like my choice, tell us what yours is. Don't you pay attention to what people write and how they write it? If you do, you must think some are better than others. Henry's going to be tough to beat but go ahead and try it. Take a shot. Anyone else want to take a shot and let Paul hunker down? It's not Hemingway and it's not George Bush and it's not Mary Higgins Clark. Who is it? Who's really got a handle on our language? C'mon, gang. Who's really good at it? --- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote: If you agreed with everything I said, then you wouldn't ask such a question. I see no value in debating who is or who isn't a better user of the English language than Henry Kissinger. I'd rather just dwell joyfully in good language when I come across it and not make comparisons. 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: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:35:46 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: the most articulate American In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1148183221-1227670546=:40398" --0-1148183221-1227670546=:40398 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable GOOD shot!   Depends on what the definition of "is" is, n.t.s.   Has he ever written anything we can get hold of? that he wrote himself?   --- On Tue, 11/25/08, Atchley, Clinton <[log in to unmask]> wrote: It depends, of course, on your definition of "great" and "articulate," but for his ability to work an audience, it has to be Bill Clinton. Clinton Atchley, Ph.D. Associate Professor of English Director, Master of Liberal Arts Program Box 7652 Henderson State University Arkadelphia, AR 71999 Phone: 870.230.5276 Email: [log in to unmask] URL: http://www.hsu.edu/atchlec ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van Druten Sent: Tue 11/25/2008 6:20 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: the most articulate American Barack Obama. But you weren't really listening to Paul. When he said he didn't want to play best and worst list games, you said you agreed with him. Clearly, you do not agree with him. I don't particularly think Obama is a great orator (because politicians are full of b.s.), but since I'd rather listen to him than Henry and since he's kinda in the news right now, he's my choice for greatest political living orator. As far as verbal skills--and not speeches--go, I think Steven Colbert is very clever. But he's playing the role of a sophist. I also like Mark Twain and George Orwell and H.L. Mencken. On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Brad Johnston wrote: Whadaya talking about? There are Best and Worst lists published every day. Netflix sends you a DVD movie and asks you to grade it one to five: hated it, didn't like it, liked it, liked it a lot, loved it. Then their computer tells you what it thinks you'll grade a movie you haven't seen yet. Every speech I ever gave I had a critic sitting in the back - a speech professor if I could find one. You don't like my choice, tell us what yours is. Don't you pay attention to what people write and how they write it? If you do, you must think some are better than others. Henry's going to be tough to beat but go ahead and try it. Take a shot. Anyone else want to take a shot and let Paul hunker down? It's not Hemingway and it's not George Bush and it's not Mary Higgins Clark. Who is it? Who's really got a handle on our language? C'mon, gang. Who's really good at it? --- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote: If you agreed with everything I said, then you wouldn't ask such a question. I see no value in debating who is or who isn't a better user of the English language than Henry Kissinger. I'd rather just dwell joyfully in good language when I come across it and not make comparisons. 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/ --0-1148183221-1227670546=:40398 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
GOOD shot!
 
Depends on what the definition of "is" is, n.t.s.
 
Has he ever written anything we can get hold of? that he wrote himself?
 

--- On Tue, 11/25/08, Atchley, Clinton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
It depends, of course, on your definition of "great" and
"articulate," but for his ability to work an audience, it has to be
Bill Clinton.
 
Clinton Atchley, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of English
Director, Master of Liberal Arts Program
Box 7652
Henderson State University
Arkadelphia, AR  71999
Phone:  870.230.5276
Email:  [log in to unmask] 
URL:  http://www.hsu.edu/atchlec 

________________________________

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van
Druten
Sent: Tue 11/25/2008 6:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: the most articulate American


Barack Obama.   

But you weren't really listening to Paul.  When he said he didn't want
to play best and worst list games, you said you agreed with him.  Clearly, you
do not agree with him.  I don't particularly think Obama is a great orator
(because politicians are full of b.s.), but since I'd rather listen to him
than Henry and since he's kinda in the news right now, he's my choice
for greatest political living orator.  As far as verbal skills--and not
speeches--go, I think Steven Colbert is very clever.  But he's playing the
role of a sophist.  I also like Mark Twain and George Orwell and H.L. Mencken.


On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Brad Johnston wrote:


Whadaya talking about? There are Best and Worst lists published every day.
Netflix sends you a DVD movie and asks you to grade it one to five: hated it,
didn't like it, liked it, liked it a lot, loved it. Then their computer
tells you what it thinks you'll grade a movie you haven't seen yet.
 
Every speech I ever gave I had a critic sitting in the back - a speech
professor if I could find one.
 
You don't like my choice, tell us what yours is.
 
Don't you pay attention to what people write and how they write it? If you
do, you must think some are better than others. Henry's going to be tough to
beat but go ahead and try it. Take a shot.
 
Anyone else want to take a shot and let Paul hunker down? It's not
Hemingway and it's not George Bush and it's not Mary Higgins Clark. Who
is it? Who's really got a handle on our language?
 
C'mon, gang. Who's really good at it?
 
--- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
If you agreed with everything I said, then you wouldn't ask such a
question. I see no value in debating who is or who isn't a better user of
the English language than Henry Kissinger. I'd rather just dwell joyfully in
good language when I come across it and not make comparisons.

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/ --0-1148183221-1227670546=:40398-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:35:56 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: the most articulate American In-Reply-To: A<[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The great thing about best/worst lists is that they allow one to take whatever one's personal opinions are and repackage them as something vaguely resembling objectivity. Therefore, I shall now settle the issue once and for all by proposing a simple criterion: A speaker is not qualified to be considered a contender for "best speaker" unless s/he can spontaneously utter a contextually appropriate, and non-self-referential, sentence containing the words 'defenestrate,' 'capybara,' 'promontory' and 'snood'. There you have it. I have no examples of any utterance meeting the criterion, and hence there is no best speaker. Sincerely, Bill Spruiell -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Atchley, Clinton Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 8:49 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: the most articulate American It depends, of course, on your definition of "great" and "articulate," but for his ability to work an audience, it has to be Bill Clinton. Clinton Atchley, Ph.D. Associate Professor of English Director, Master of Liberal Arts Program Box 7652 Henderson State University Arkadelphia, AR 71999 Phone: 870.230.5276 Email: [log in to unmask] URL: http://www.hsu.edu/atchlec ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van Druten Sent: Tue 11/25/2008 6:20 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: the most articulate American Barack Obama. But you weren't really listening to Paul. When he said he didn't want to play best and worst list games, you said you agreed with him. Clearly, you do not agree with him. I don't particularly think Obama is a great orator (because politicians are full of b.s.), but since I'd rather listen to him than Henry and since he's kinda in the news right now, he's my choice for greatest political living orator. As far as verbal skills--and not speeches--go, I think Steven Colbert is very clever. But he's playing the role of a sophist. I also like Mark Twain and George Orwell and H.L. Mencken. On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Brad Johnston wrote: Whadaya talking about? There are Best and Worst lists published every day. Netflix sends you a DVD movie and asks you to grade it one to five: hated it, didn't like it, liked it, liked it a lot, loved it. Then their computer tells you what it thinks you'll grade a movie you haven't seen yet. Every speech I ever gave I had a critic sitting in the back - a speech professor if I could find one. You don't like my choice, tell us what yours is. Don't you pay attention to what people write and how they write it? If you do, you must think some are better than others. Henry's going to be tough to beat but go ahead and try it. Take a shot. Anyone else want to take a shot and let Paul hunker down? It's not Hemingway and it's not George Bush and it's not Mary Higgins Clark. Who is it? Who's really got a handle on our language? C'mon, gang. Who's really good at it? --- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote: If you agreed with everything I said, then you wouldn't ask such a question. I see no value in debating who is or who isn't a better user of the English language than Henry Kissinger. I'd rather just dwell joyfully in good language when I come across it and not make comparisons. 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: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:00:27 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Teresa Lintner <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Teresa Lintner is out of the office. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII I will be out of the office starting 11/25/2008 and will not return until 12/02/2008. I will be checking my email periodically. 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: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:12:06 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Experimental design help MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-2144361772-1227733926=:203" --0-2144361772-1227733926=:203 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear List:   I want to test a technique involving grammar for its effectiveness in improving reading comprehension.  Please let me know what you think of my design and if you have any suggestions for related research.   I want to test the whether breaking prose into grammatical chunks and arranging those chunks on the page to show their relationships improves reading comprehension.  The basic idea is that if students can see the pattern of phrases and clauses in sentences, then they will better understand the passage.    Using brief passages with multiple choice questions, each student will read some passages in normal prose and others in what I call "graphic syntax," text with the phrase and clause structure made clearer.  Half the students will do one set, the odd numbers, say, in normal text and the evens in graphic syntax; the other half will do the evens in normal text and the odds in graphic syntax.  Thus, every passage and question will have a control group, but the students themselves don't have to be controlled.  I will compare the error rate on each set to see if there is any large difference.    The group would be 112 seventh graders whose median reading percentile is 91 and median language arts percentile is 95.   I did this experiment last year and found a slight difference in favor of the experimental condition, but I let students take as much time as they needed and refer back to the text.  This time, I will have them read the passage under timed conditions, then turn the page and answer the questions under timed conditions.  This should more closely mimic the real conditions of normal reading, where one does not go back to the text to find information to specific questions.  Time pressure highlights the difference between solid performance and superior performance.   A related experiment would include a control group which does not know much about formal grammar and a group which does, that is, which has studied and can name and create the phrases and clauses into which the text is divided.  This condition would test the utility of teaching students to name and create phrases and clauses as an aide to reading comprehension.   Any suggestions for changes, clarification, sources?   Thanks, Scott Woods 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/ --0-2144361772-1227733926=:203 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Dear List:
 
I want to test a technique involving grammar for its effectiveness in improving reading comprehension.  Please let me know what you think of my design and if you have any suggestions for related research.
 
I want to test the whether breaking prose into grammatical chunks and arranging those chunks on the page to show their relationships improves reading comprehension.  The basic idea is that if students can see the pattern of phrases and clauses in sentences, then they will better understand the passage. 
 
Using brief passages with multiple choice questions, each student will read some passages in normal prose and others in what I call "graphic syntax," text with the phrase and clause structure made clearer.  Half the students will do one set, the odd numbers, say, in normal text and the evens in graphic syntax; the other half will do the evens in normal text and the odds in graphic syntax.  Thus, every passage and question will have a control group, but the students themselves don't have to be controlled.  I will compare the error rate on each set to see if there is any large difference. 
 
The group would be 112 seventh graders whose median reading percentile is 91 and median language arts percentile is 95.
 
I did this experiment last year and found a slight difference in favor of the experimental condition, but I let students take as much time as they needed and refer back to the text.  This time, I will have them read the passage under timed conditions, then turn the page and answer the questions under timed conditions.  This should more closely mimic the real conditions of normal reading, where one does not go back to the text to find information to specific questions.  Time pressure highlights the difference between solid performance and superior performance.
 
A related experiment would include a control group which does not know much about formal grammar and a group which does, that is, which has studied and can name and create the phrases and clauses into which the text is divided.  This condition would test the utility of teaching students to name and create phrases and clauses as an aide to reading comprehension.
 
Any suggestions for changes, clarification, sources?
 
Thanks,
Scott Woods

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/ --0-2144361772-1227733926=:203-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:22:42 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Wollin, Edith" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Experimental design help MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9500D.1DE344F0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9500D.1DE344F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Scott, What I can tell you is that Michael Kischner and I have had many many students tell us that after doing our grammar class, which includes diagramming and sentence combining with a focus on syntax, students report that they are much better readers than they were before. This would seem to support your idea. But it isn't real research! Edith Wollin From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 1:12 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Experimental design help Dear List: I want to test a technique involving grammar for its effectiveness in improving reading comprehension. Please let me know what you think of my design and if you have any suggestions for related research. I want to test the whether breaking prose into grammatical chunks and arranging those chunks on the page to show their relationships improves reading comprehension. The basic idea is that if students can see the pattern of phrases and clauses in sentences, then they will better understand the passage. Using brief passages with multiple choice questions, each student will read some passages in normal prose and others in what I call "graphic syntax," text with the phrase and clause structure made clearer. Half the students will do one set, the odd numbers, say, in normal text and the evens in graphic syntax; the other half will do the evens in normal text and the odds in graphic syntax. Thus, every passage and question will have a control group, but the students themselves don't have to be controlled. I will compare the error rate on each set to see if there is any large difference. The group would be 112 seventh graders whose median reading percentile is 91 and median language arts percentile is 95. I did this experiment last year and found a slight difference in favor of the experimental condition, but I let students take as much time as they needed and refer back to the text. This time, I will have them read the passage under timed conditions, then turn the page and answer the questions under timed conditions. This should more closely mimic the real conditions of normal reading, where one does not go back to the text to find information to specific questions. Time pressure highlights the difference between solid performance and superior performance. A related experiment would include a control group which does not know much about formal grammar and a group which does, that is, which has studied and can name and create the phrases and clauses into which the text is divided. This condition would test the utility of teaching students to name and create phrases and clauses as an aide to reading comprehension. Any suggestions for changes, clarification, sources? Thanks, Scott Woods 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/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9500D.1DE344F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Scott, What I can tell you is that Michael Kischner and I have had many many students tell us that after doing our grammar class, which includes diagramming and sentence combining with a focus on syntax,  students report that they are much better readers than they were before. This would seem to support your idea. But it isn’t real research!

Edith Wollin

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 1:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Experimental design help

 

Dear List:

 

I want to test a technique involving grammar for its effectiveness in improving reading comprehension.  Please let me know what you think of my design and if you have any suggestions for related research.

 

I want to test the whether breaking prose into grammatical chunks and arranging those chunks on the page to show their relationships improves reading comprehension.  The basic idea is that if students can see the pattern of phrases and clauses in sentences, then they will better understand the passage. 

 

Using brief passages with multiple choice questions, each student will read some passages in normal prose and others in what I call "graphic syntax," text with the phrase and clause structure made clearer.  Half the students will do one set, the odd numbers, say, in normal text and the evens in graphic syntax; the other half will do the evens in normal text and the odds in graphic syntax.  Thus, every passage and question will have a control group, but the students themselves don't have to be controlled.  I will compare the error rate on each set to see if there is any large difference. 

 

The group would be 112 seventh graders whose median reading percentile is 91 and median language arts percentile is 95.

 

I did this experiment last year and found a slight difference in favor of the experimental condition, but I let students take as much time as they needed and refer back to the text.  This time, I will have them read the passage under timed conditions, then turn the page and answer the questions under timed conditions.  This should more closely mimic the real conditions of normal reading, where one does not go back to the text to find information to specific questions.  Time pressure highlights the difference between solid performance and superior performance.

 

A related experiment would include a control group which does not know much about formal grammar and a group which does, that is, which has studied and can name and create the phrases and clauses into which the text is divided.  This condition would test the utility of teaching students to name and create phrases and clauses as an aide to reading comprehension.

 

Any suggestions for changes, clarification, sources?

 

Thanks,
Scott Woods


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/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9500D.1DE344F0-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:10:06 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Obama: the most articulate American? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-9942147-1227744606=:19243" --0-9942147-1227744606=:19243 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable And you weren't listening to Paul and Brad. Paul wrote, Brad replied that he agrees with what Paul wrote, and then Paul added as below.   But that's no never mind. Consider this. In "The Audacity of Hope", Barack Obama wrote about Michelle, "Two visions of herself were at war with each other -- the desire to be the woman her mother (had been) was, solid, dependable, making a home and always there for her kids; and the desire to excel in her profession, to make her mark on the world and realize all those plans she (had) had on the very first day (that) we met." (From Today's Washington Post.)   (On February 14 last, I wrote to the listserv: "In the first twenty-one pages of "The Audacity of Hope", by Barack Obama, c.2006, the word "had" appears 68 times. Of the total, 16 are used correctly as the past tense of the verb "to have" (11), or in the past perfect (2), or in the subjunctive (2). Of the 52 in error, 5 use "had been"' instead of "was" or "were", 13 insert the word 'had' in front of the wrong form of an irregular verb, and 34 insert the word "had" in front of a past tense verb.)   As for his speaking articulateness, a dozen people have said to me that Obama is a good teleprompter reader, even a great teleprompter reader. Next time he gives a speech on TV, watch his head and eyes go from side to side, like a music teacher's metronome, seldom or never looking straight ahead. I have conceded to the dozen that they have a point. Let's keep a sharp lookout.   Henry Kissinger has a heavy German accent, having come to this country when he was 13 years old, 7 years past the presumed limit for learning another language without keeping the accent of those at the family dinner table. He's hard to listen to but read a transcript of what he says.   .brad.26nov08.   ~~~~~~~~~~~  --- On Tue, 11/25/08, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote:   Barack Obama.   But you weren't really listening to Paul.  When he said he didn't want to play best and worst list games, you said you agreed with him.  Clearly, you do not agree with him.  I don't particularly think Obama is a great orator (because politicians are full of b.s.), but since I'd rather listen to him than Henry and since he's kinda in the news right now, he's my choice for greatest political living orator.  As far as verbal skills--and not speeches--go, I think Steven Colbert is very clever.  But he's playing the role of a sophist.  I also like Mark Twain and George Orwell and H.L. Mencken.   ~~~~~~~~~~~  On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Brad Johnston wrote: Whadaya talking about? There are Best and Worst lists published every day. Netflix sends you a DVD movie and asks you to grade it one to five: hated it, didn't like it, liked it, liked it a lot, loved it. Then their computer tells you what it thinks you'll grade a movie you haven't seen yet.   Every speech I ever gave I had a critic sitting in the back - a speech professor if I could find one.   You don't like my choice, tell us what yours is.   Don't you pay attention to what people write and how they write it? If you do, you must think some are better than others. Henry's going to be tough to beat but go ahead and try it. Take a shot.   Anyone else want to take a shot and let Paul hunker down? It's not Hemingway and it's not George Bush and it's not Mary Higgins Clark. Who is it? Who's really got a handle on our language?   C'mon, gang. Who's really good at it?   ~~~~~~~~~~~    --- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:   If you agreed with everything I said, then you wouldn't ask such a question. I see no value in debating who is or who isn't a better user of the English language than Henry Kissinger. I'd rather just dwell joyfully in good language when I come across it and not make comparisons. 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/ --0-9942147-1227744606=:19243 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
And you weren't listening to Paul and Brad. Paul wrote, Brad replied that he agrees with what Paul wrote, and then Paul added as below.
 
But that's no never mind. Consider this. In "The Audacity of Hope", Barack Obama wrote about Michelle, "Two visions of herself were at war with each other -- the desire to be the woman her mother (had been) was, solid, dependable, making a home and always there for her kids; and the desire to excel in her profession, to make her mark on the world and realize all those plans she (had) had on the very first day (that) we met." (From Today's Washington Post.)
 
(On February 14 last, I wrote to the listserv: "In the first twenty-one pages of "The Audacity of Hope", by Barack Obama, c.2006, the word "had" appears 68 times. Of the total, 16 are used correctly as the past tense of the verb "to have" (11), or in the past perfect (2), or in the subjunctive (2). Of the 52 in error, 5 use "had been"' instead of "was" or "were", 13 insert the word 'had' in front of the wrong form of an irregular verb, and 34 insert the word "had" in front of a past tense verb.)
 
As for his speaking articulateness, a dozen people have said to me that Obama is a good teleprompter reader, even a great teleprompter reader. Next time he gives a speech on TV, watch his head and eyes go from side to side, like a music teacher's metronome, seldom or never looking straight ahead. I have conceded to the dozen that they have a point. Let's keep a sharp lookout.
 
Henry Kissinger has a heavy German accent, having come to this country when he was 13 years old, 7 years past the presumed limit for learning another language without keeping the accent of those at the family dinner table. He's hard to listen to but read a transcript of what he says.
 
.brad.26nov08.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~ 

--- On Tue, 11/25/08, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
Barack Obama.  

But you weren't really listening to Paul.  When he said he didn't want to play best and worst list games, you said you agreed with him.  Clearly, you do not agree with him.  I don't particularly think Obama is a great orator (because politicians are full of b.s.), but since I'd rather listen to him than Henry and since he's kinda in the news right now, he's my choice for greatest political living orator.  As far as verbal skills--and not speeches--go, I think Steven Colbert is very clever.  But he's playing the role of a sophist.  I also like Mark Twain and George Orwell and H.L. Mencken.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~ 

On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Brad Johnston wrote:

Whadaya talking about? There are Best and Worst lists published every day. Netflix sends you a DVD movie and asks you to grade it one to five: hated it, didn't like it, liked it, liked it a lot, loved it. Then their computer tells you what it thinks you'll grade a movie you haven't seen yet.
 
Every speech I ever gave I had a critic sitting in the back - a speech professor if I could find one.
 
You don't like my choice, tell us what yours is.
 
Don't you pay attention to what people write and how they write it? If you do, you must think some are better than others. Henry's going to be tough to beat but go ahead and try it. Take a shot.
 
Anyone else want to take a shot and let Paul hunker down? It's not Hemingway and it's not George Bush and it's not Mary Higgins Clark. Who is it? Who's really got a handle on our language?
 
C'mon, gang. Who's really good at it?
 
~~~~~~~~~~~ 
 
--- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
If you agreed with everything I said, then you wouldn't ask such a question. I see no value in debating who is or who isn't a better user of the English language than Henry Kissinger. I'd rather just dwell joyfully in good language when I come across it and not make comparisons.


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/ --0-9942147-1227744606=:19243-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:55:08 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: DD Farms <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Experimental design help In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 03:12 PM 11/26/2008, Scott Woods wrote: >I want to test a technique involving grammar for its effectiveness >in improving reading comprehension. Please let me know what you >think of my design and if you have any suggestions for related research. . . . DD: You called? From out of the wood work comes there now a Psychometrician (Retired.) It sounds like a sound design, as presented. However {Ever notice how there is always a caveat?} you are dealing with a rather high end sample.* High IQ and all that. Do the study. Slap it into a Chi Square contingency test and see. Make sure the groups are selected truly randomly. Report the results. I personally think you are doing true science here. A lot rarer than you would think. The null hypothesis is there will not be a significant difference. Fifty fifty. I'd go for the more risky a priori prediction that there will be one in favor of the graphic syntax. That way I get to use a one tail test and that allows significance at a lower level. It is risky, though, because if it turns around and bites YOU on the tail and the normal text group comes out ahead, the experimenter is required to perform a ritual self immolation. We rarely do, though. Just lie and report we did no a priori post hoc corrections. Keep me posted. Fascinating to see a well designed experiment before it is done. Usually the psychometrician just gets a bunch of results and is asked to make sense out of it. {Usually by an attractive graduate student. Blonde preferred.} I suspect that timing will indeed change the results, but that a correlation between speed v extended time will show a high r. Suggestion for future reading - anything by Ohmer Milton. I remain, your faithful friend and joyous companion in original research. * Ware the regression toward the mean. 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: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:02:28 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: DD Farms <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Woods' Test, was Re: Experimental design help In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask] .EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 03:22 PM 11/26/2008, Wollin, Edith wrote: >Scott, What I can tell you is that Michael Kischner and I have had >many many students tell us that after doing our grammar class, which >includes diagramming and sentence combining with a focus on >syntax, students report that they are much better readers than they >were before. This would seem to support your idea. But it isn't real research! >Edith Wollin DD: At a State University I taught, "Theory of Science." Speaking ex Cathedra; Of course it is real research. Just call it a phenomenological study and there you are. One of the crucial steps in the scientific process. 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: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:21:16 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: DD Farms <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Woods' Test; was; Re: Experimental design help In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask] .EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 03:22 PM 11/26/2008, Wollin, Edith wrote: . . .Michael Kischner and I have had many many students tell us that after doing our grammar class, which includes diagramming and sentence combining with a focus on syntax, students report that they are much better readers than they were before. . . . DD: Buy and read Edith Wollin and Michael Kischner's "Writers' Choices, Grammar to Improve Style." ISBN 015506374X. I just got my copy and it is fascinating, valuable, entertaining, and as soon as I go off the Internet, it is back to plunge in again. Well done, Mam, and thank you, tugging my forelock. Well more like knuckling my forehead, as male pattern baldness has struck. DD 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: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:27:20 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: the most articulate American In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-10-333937834 --Apple-Mail-10-333937834 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Wait a sec, are you saying you know for a fact that Henry K. wrote all his own speeches? What is your source? On Nov 25, 2008, at 9:35 PM, Brad Johnston wrote: > GOOD shot! > > Depends on what the definition of "is" is, n.t.s. > > Has he ever written anything we can get hold of? that he wrote > himself? > > > --- On Tue, 11/25/08, Atchley, Clinton <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > It depends, of course, on your definition of "great" and > "articulate," but for his ability to work an audience, it has to be > Bill Clinton. > > Clinton Atchley, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of English > Director, Master of Liberal Arts Program > Box 7652 > Henderson State University > Arkadelphia, AR 71999 > Phone: 870.230.5276 > Email: [log in to unmask] > URL: http://www.hsu.edu/atchlec > > ________________________________ > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of > Susan van > Druten > Sent: Tue 11/25/2008 6:20 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: the most articulate American > > > Barack Obama. > > But you weren't really listening to Paul. When he said he didn't want > to play best and worst list games, you said you agreed with him. > Clearly, you > do not agree with him. I don't particularly think Obama is a great > orator > (because politicians are full of b.s.), but since I'd rather listen > to him > than Henry and since he's kinda in the news right now, he's my choice > for greatest political living orator. As far as verbal skills--and > not > speeches--go, I think Steven Colbert is very clever. But he's > playing the > role of a sophist. I also like Mark Twain and George Orwell and > H.L. Mencken. > > > On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Brad Johnston wrote: > > > Whadaya talking about? There are Best and Worst lists published > every day. > Netflix sends you a DVD movie and asks you to grade it one to five: > hated it, > didn't like it, liked it, liked it a lot, loved it. Then their > computer > tells you what it thinks you'll grade a movie you haven't seen yet. > > Every speech I ever gave I had a critic sitting in the back - a speech > professor if I could find one. > > You don't like my choice, tell us what yours is. > > Don't you pay attention to what people write and how they write it? > If you > do, you must think some are better than others. Henry's going to be > tough to > beat but go ahead and try it. Take a shot. > > Anyone else want to take a shot and let Paul hunker down? It's not > Hemingway and it's not George Bush and it's not Mary Higgins Clark. > Who > is it? Who's really got a handle on our language? > > C'mon, gang. Who's really good at it? > > --- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > If you agreed with everything I said, then you wouldn't ask such a > question. I see no value in debating who is or who isn't a better > user of > the English language than Henry Kissinger. I'd rather just dwell > joyfully in > good language when I come across it and not make comparisons. > > > > 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/ --Apple-Mail-10-333937834 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Wait a sec, are you saying you know for a fact that Henry K. wrote all his own speeches?  What is your source?




On Nov 25, 2008, at 9:35 PM, Brad Johnston wrote:

GOOD shot!
 
Depends on what the definition of "is" is, n.t.s.
 
Has he ever written anything we can get hold of? that he wrote himself?
 

--- On Tue, 11/25/08, Atchley, Clinton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
It depends, of course, on your definition of "great" and
"articulate," but for his ability to work an audience, it has to be
Bill Clinton.
 
Clinton Atchley, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of English
Director, Master of Liberal Arts Program
Box 7652
Henderson State University
Arkadelphia, AR  71999
Phone:  870.230.5276
Email:  [log in to unmask] 
URL:  http://www.hsu.edu/atchlec 

________________________________

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van
Druten
Sent: Tue 11/25/2008 6:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: the most articulate American


Barack Obama.   

But you weren't really listening to Paul.  When he said he didn't want
to play best and worst list games, you said you agreed with him.  Clearly, you
do not agree with him.  I don't particularly think Obama is a great orator
(because politicians are full of b.s.), but since I'd rather listen to him
than Henry and since he's kinda in the news right now, he's my choice
for greatest political living orator.  As far as verbal skills--and not
speeches--go, I think Steven Colbert is very clever.  But he's playing the
role of a sophist.  I also like Mark Twain and George Orwell and H.L. Mencken.


On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Brad Johnston wrote:


Whadaya talking about? There are Best and Worst lists published every day.
Netflix sends you a DVD movie and asks you to grade it one to five: hated it,
didn't like it, liked it, liked it a lot, loved it. Then their computer
tells you what it thinks you'll grade a movie you haven't seen yet.
 
Every speech I ever gave I had a critic sitting in the back - a speech
professor if I could find one.
 
You don't like my choice, tell us what yours is.
 
Don't you pay attention to what people write and how they write it? If you
do, you must think some are better than others. Henry's going to be tough to
beat but go ahead and try it. Take a shot.
 
Anyone else want to take a shot and let Paul hunker down? It's not
Hemingway and it's not George Bush and it's not Mary Higgins Clark. Who
is it? Who's really got a handle on our language?
 
C'mon, gang. Who's really good at it?
 
--- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
If you agreed with everything I said, then you wouldn't ask such a
question. I see no value in debating who is or who isn't a better user of
the English language than Henry Kissinger. I'd rather just dwell joyfully in
good language when I come across it and not make comparisons.

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/ --Apple-Mail-10-333937834-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:49:39 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Obama: the most articulate American? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-11-335276479 --Apple-Mail-11-335276479 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed You want a "nevermind" 'cause you are at fault. So I understand why you'd like a pass on that. I'll let it go because we have bigger disagreements. Most political speakers have speech writers--so I discount their use of language and go for their delivery and charisma 'cause you can't trust that they wrote their own words. Some political speakers have oral flaws. Henry's got a huge one and you want to wave it away. Not so fast. If he can work on his grammar, what the hell is keeping him from working on his dialect. Meryl Streep can do it. Why is Kissinger finding it so difficult? Perhaps learning how to pronounce a word in an accurate American dialect might be the same as knowing how to please Brad Johnston with the correct past tense form? On Nov 26, 2008, at 6:10 PM, Brad Johnston wrote: > And you weren't listening to Paul and Brad. Paul wrote, Brad > replied that he agrees with what Paul wrote, and then Paul added as > below. > > But that's no never mind. Consider this. In "The Audacity of Hope", > Barack Obama wrote about Michelle, "Two visions of herself were at > war with each other -- the desire to be the woman her mother (had > been) was, solid, dependable, making a home and always there for > her kids; and the desire to excel in her profession, to make her > mark on the world and realize all those plans she (had) had on the > very first day (that) we met." (From Today's Washington Post.) > > (On February 14 last, I wrote to the listserv: "In the first twenty- > one pages of "The Audacity of Hope", by Barack Obama, c.2006, the > word "had" appears 68 times. Of the total, 16 are used correctly as > the past tense of the verb "to have" (11), or in the past perfect > (2), or in the subjunctive (2). Of the 52 in error, 5 use "had > been"' instead of "was" or "were", 13 insert the word 'had' in > front of the wrong form of an irregular verb, and 34 insert the > word "had" in front of a past tense verb.) > > As for his speaking articulateness, a dozen people have said to me > that Obama is a good teleprompter reader, even a great teleprompter > reader. Next time he gives a speech on TV, watch his head and eyes > go from side to side, like a music teacher's metronome, seldom or > never looking straight ahead. I have conceded to the dozen that > they have a point. Let's keep a sharp lookout. > > Henry Kissinger has a heavy German accent, having come to this > country when he was 13 years old, 7 years past the presumed limit > for learning another language without keeping the accent of those > at the family dinner table. He's hard to listen to but read a > transcript of what he says. > > .brad.26nov08. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~ > > --- On Tue, 11/25/08, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Barack Obama. > > But you weren't really listening to Paul. When he said he didn't > want to play best and worst list games, you said you agreed with > him. Clearly, you do not agree with him. I don't particularly > think Obama is a great orator (because politicians are full of > b.s.), but since I'd rather listen to him than Henry and since he's > kinda in the news right now, he's my choice for greatest political > living orator. As far as verbal skills--and not speeches--go, I > think Steven Colbert is very clever. But he's playing the role of > a sophist. I also like Mark Twain and George Orwell and H.L. Mencken. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~ > > On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Brad Johnston wrote: > >> Whadaya talking about? There are Best and Worst lists published >> every day. Netflix sends you a DVD movie and asks you to grade it >> one to five: hated it, didn't like it, liked it, liked it a lot, >> loved it. Then their computer tells you what it thinks you'll >> grade a movie you haven't seen yet. >> >> Every speech I ever gave I had a critic sitting in the back - a >> speech professor if I could find one. >> >> You don't like my choice, tell us what yours is. >> >> Don't you pay attention to what people write and how they write >> it? If you do, you must think some are better than others. Henry's >> going to be tough to beat but go ahead and try it. Take a shot. >> >> Anyone else want to take a shot and let Paul hunker down? It's not >> Hemingway and it's not George Bush and it's not Mary Higgins >> Clark. Who is it? Who's really got a handle on our language? >> >> C'mon, gang. Who's really good at it? >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> --- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> If you agreed with everything I said, then you wouldn't ask such a >> question. I see no value in debating who is or who isn't a better >> user of the English language than Henry Kissinger. I'd rather just >> dwell joyfully in good language when I come across it and not make >> comparisons. >> > > 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/ --Apple-Mail-11-335276479 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

You want a "nevermind" 'cause you are at fault.  So I understand why you'd like a pass on that.  I'll let it go because we have bigger disagreements.  

Most political speakers have speech writers--so I discount their use of language and go for their delivery and charisma 'cause you can't trust that they wrote their own words.  

Some political speakers have oral flaws.  Henry's got a huge one and you want to wave it away.  Not so fast.  If he can work on his grammar, what the hell is keeping him from working on his dialect.  Meryl Streep can do it.  Why is Kissinger finding it so difficult?  

Perhaps learning how to pronounce a word in an accurate American dialect might be the same as knowing how to please Brad Johnston with the correct past tense form?



On Nov 26, 2008, at 6:10 PM, Brad Johnston wrote:

And you weren't listening to Paul and Brad. Paul wrote, Brad replied that he agrees with what Paul wrote, and then Paul added as below.
 
But that's no never mind. Consider this. In "The Audacity of Hope", Barack Obama wrote about Michelle, "Two visions of herself were at war with each other -- the desire to be the woman her mother (had been) was, solid, dependable, making a home and always there for her kids; and the desire to excel in her profession, to make her mark on the world and realize all those plans she (had) had on the very first day (that) we met." (From Today's Washington Post.)
 
(On February 14 last, I wrote to the listserv: "In the first twenty-one pages of "The Audacity of Hope", by Barack Obama, c.2006, the word "had" appears 68 times. Of the total, 16 are used correctly as the past tense of the verb "to have" (11), or in the past perfect (2), or in the subjunctive (2). Of the 52 in error, 5 use "had been"' instead of "was" or "were", 13 insert the word 'had' in front of the wrong form of an irregular verb, and 34 insert the word "had" in front of a past tense verb.)
 
As for his speaking articulateness, a dozen people have said to me that Obama is a good teleprompter reader, even a great teleprompter reader. Next time he gives a speech on TV, watch his head and eyes go from side to side, like a music teacher's metronome, seldom or never looking straight ahead. I have conceded to the dozen that they have a point. Let's keep a sharp lookout.
 
Henry Kissinger has a heavy German accent, having come to this country when he was 13 years old, 7 years past the presumed limit for learning another language without keeping the accent of those at the family dinner table. He's hard to listen to but read a transcript of what he says.
 
.brad.26nov08.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~ 

--- On Tue, 11/25/08, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
Barack Obama.  

But you weren't really listening to Paul.  When he said he didn't want to play best and worst list games, you said you agreed with him.  Clearly, you do not agree with him.  I don't particularly think Obama is a great orator (because politicians are full of b.s.), but since I'd rather listen to him than Henry and since he's kinda in the news right now, he's my choice for greatest political living orator.  As far as verbal skills--and not speeches--go, I think Steven Colbert is very clever.  But he's playing the role of a sophist.  I also like Mark Twain and George Orwell and H.L. Mencken.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~ 

On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Brad Johnston wrote:

Whadaya talking about? There are Best and Worst lists published every day. Netflix sends you a DVD movie and asks you to grade it one to five: hated it, didn't like it, liked it, liked it a lot, loved it. Then their computer tells you what it thinks you'll grade a movie you haven't seen yet.
 
Every speech I ever gave I had a critic sitting in the back - a speech professor if I could find one.
 
You don't like my choice, tell us what yours is.
 
Don't you pay attention to what people write and how they write it? If you do, you must think some are better than others. Henry's going to be tough to beat but go ahead and try it. Take a shot.
 
Anyone else want to take a shot and let Paul hunker down? It's not Hemingway and it's not George Bush and it's not Mary Higgins Clark. Who is it? Who's really got a handle on our language?
 
C'mon, gang. Who's really good at it?
 
~~~~~~~~~~~ 
 
--- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
If you agreed with everything I said, then you wouldn't ask such a question. I see no value in debating who is or who isn't a better user of the English language than Henry Kissinger. I'd rather just dwell joyfully in good language when I come across it and not make comparisons.


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/ --Apple-Mail-11-335276479-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:38:31 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Obama: the most articulate American? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1495555973-1227757111=:99571" Please stop claiming that you agree with me when obviously, you --0-1495555973-1227757111=:99571 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Brad, Please stop claiming that you agree with me when obviously, you don't! For the record, I'd rather listen to Obama speak than Kissinger. On the other hand, I'd rather listen to Kissinger than Dubbya or Sarah Palin!! On the more than other hand, I'd rather listen to Laurence Olivier than any of these others -- especially if he's speaking words by Shakespeare. If you need someone who's still alive, then Maggie Smith or Alan Rickman might get my vote for my "druthers," but know that when I speak of my preferences (which appear to be decidedly British, I suppose), I am NOTclaiming anyone is best or even better than the others. Finally, what has any of this discussion got to do with teaching grammar? Let those be my last words on this thread. Paul ________________________________ From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 7:10:06 PM Subject: Obama: the most articulate American? And you weren't listening to Paul and Brad. Paul wrote, Brad replied that he agrees with what Paul wrote, and then Paul added as below. But that's no never mind. Consider this. In "The Audacity of Hope", Barack Obama wrote about Michelle, "Two visions of herself were at war with each other -- the desire to be the woman her mother (had been) was, solid, dependable, making a home and always there for her kids; and the desire to excel in her profession, to make her mark on the world and realize all those plans she (had) had on the very first day (that) we met." (From Today's Washington Post.) (On February 14 last, I wrote to the listserv: "In the first twenty-one pages of "The Audacity of Hope", by Barack Obama, c.2006, the word "had" appears 68 times. Of the total, 16 are used correctly as the past tense of the verb "to have" (11), or in the past perfect (2), or in the subjunctive (2). Of the 52 in error, 5 use "had been"' instead of "was" or "were", 13 insert the word 'had' in front of the wrong form of an irregular verb, and 34 insert the word "had" in front of a past tense verb.) As for his speaking articulateness, a dozen people have said to me that Obama is a good teleprompter reader, even a great teleprompter reader. Next time he gives a speech on TV, watch his head and eyes go from side to side, like a music teacher's metronome, seldom or never looking straight ahead. I have conceded to the dozen that they have a point. Let's keep a sharp lookout. Henry Kissinger has a heavy German accent, having come to this country when he was 13 years old, 7 years past the presumed limit for learning another language without keeping the accent of those at the family dinner table. He's hard to listen to but read a transcript of what he says. .brad.26nov08. ~~~~~~~~~~~  --- On Tue, 11/25/08, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Barack Obama.   But you weren't really listening to Paul.  When he said he didn't want to play best and worst list games, you said you agreed with him.  Clearly, you do not agree with him.  I don't particularly think Obama is a great orator (because politicians are full of b.s.), but since I'd rather listen to him than Henry and since he's kinda in the news right now, he's my choice for greatest political living orator.  As far as verbal skills--and not speeches--go, I think Steven Colbert is very clever.  But he's playing the role of a sophist.  I also like Mark Twain and George Orwell and H.L. Mencken. ~~~~~~~~~~~  On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Brad Johnston wrote: Whadaya talking about? There are Best and Worst lists published every day. Netflix sends you a DVD movie and asks you to grade it one to five: hated it, didn't like it, liked it, liked it a lot, loved it. Then their computer tells you what it thinks you'll grade a movie you haven't seen yet.   Every speech I ever gave I had a critic sitting in the back - a speech professor if I could find one.   You don't like my choice, tell us what yours is.   Don't you pay attention to what people write and how they write it? If you do, you must think some are better than others. Henry's going to be tough to beat but go ahead and try it. Take a shot.   Anyone else want to take a shot and let Paul hunker down? It's not Hemingway and it's not George Bush and it's not Mary Higgins Clark. Who is it? Who's really got a handle on our language?   C'mon, gang. Who's really good at it?   ~~~~~~~~~~~    --- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:   If you agreed with everything I said, then you wouldn't ask such a question. I see no value in debating who is or who isn't a better user of the English language than Henry Kissinger. I'd rather just dwell joyfully in good language when I come across it and not make comparisons. 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/ --0-1495555973-1227757111=:99571 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Brad,
 
Please stop claiming that you agree with me when obviously, you don't!
 
For the record, I'd rather listen to Obama speak than Kissinger. On the other hand, I'd rather listen to Kissinger than Dubbya or Sarah Palin!! On the more than other hand, I'd rather listen to Laurence Olivier than any of these others -- especially if he's speaking words by Shakespeare. If you need someone who's still alive, then Maggie Smith or Alan Rickman might get my vote for my "druthers," but know that when I speak of my preferences (which appear to be decidedly British, I suppose), I am NOTclaiming anyone is best or even better than the others.
 
Finally, what has any of this discussion got to do with teaching grammar? Let those be my last words on this thread.
 
Paul

From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 7:10:06 PM
Subject: Obama: the most articulate American?

And you weren't listening to Paul and Brad. Paul wrote, Brad replied that he agrees with what Paul wrote, and then Paul added as below.
 
But that's no never mind. Consider this. In "The Audacity of Hope", Barack Obama wrote about Michelle, "Two visions of herself were at war with each other -- the desire to be the woman her mother (had been) was, solid, dependable, making a home and always there for her kids; and the desire to excel in her profession, to make her mark on the world and realize all those plans she (had) had on the very first day (that) we met." (From Today's Washington Post.)
 
(On February 14 last, I wrote to the listserv: "In the first twenty-one pages of "The Audacity of Hope", by Barack Obama, c.2006, the word "had" appears 68 times. Of the total, 16 are used correctly as the past tense of the verb "to have" (11), or in the past perfect (2), or in the subjunctive (2). Of the 52 in error, 5 use "had been"' instead of "was" or "were", 13 insert the word 'had' in front of the wrong form of an irregular verb, and 34 insert the word "had" in front of a past tense verb.)
 
As for his speaking articulateness, a dozen people have said to me that Obama is a good teleprompter reader, even a great teleprompter reader. Next time he gives a speech on TV, watch his head and eyes go from side to side, like a music teacher's metronome, seldom or never looking straight ahead. I have conceded to the dozen that they have a point. Let's keep a sharp lookout.
 
Henry Kissinger has a heavy German accent, having come to this country when he was 13 years old, 7 years past the presumed limit for learning another language without keeping the accent of those at the family dinner table. He's hard to listen to but read a transcript of what he says.
 
.brad.26nov08.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~ 

--- On Tue, 11/25/08, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
Barack Obama.  

But you weren't really listening to Paul.  When he said he didn't want to play best and worst list games, you said you agreed with him.  Clearly, you do not agree with him.  I don't particularly think Obama is a great orator (because politicians are full of b.s.), but since I'd rather listen to him than Henry and since he's kinda in the news right now, he's my choice for greatest political living orator.  As far as verbal skills--and not speeches--go, I think Steven Colbert is very clever.  But he's playing the role of a sophist.  I also like Mark Twain and George Orwell and H.L. Mencken.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~ 

On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Brad Johnston wrote:

Whadaya talking about? There are Best and Worst lists published every day. Netflix sends you a DVD movie and asks you to grade it one to five: hated it, didn't like it, liked it, liked it a lot, loved it. Then their computer tells you what it thinks you'll grade a movie you haven't seen yet.
 
Every speech I ever gave I had a critic sitting in the back - a speech professor if I could find one.
 
You don't like my choice, tell us what yours is.
 
Don't you pay attention to what people write and how they write it? If you do, you must think some are better than others. Henry's going to be tough to beat but go ahead and try it. Take a shot.
 
Anyone else want to take a shot and let Paul hunker down? It's not Hemingway and it's not George Bush and it's not Mary Higgins Clark. Who is it? Who's really got a handle on our language?
 
C'mon, gang. Who's really good at it?
 
~~~~~~~~~~~ 
 
--- On Tue, 11/25/08, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
If you agreed with everything I said, then you wouldn't ask such a question. I see no value in debating who is or who isn't a better user of the English language than Henry Kissinger. I'd rather just dwell joyfully in good language when I come across it and not make comparisons.


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/ --0-1495555973-1227757111=:99571-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 08:03:32 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Obama: the most articulate American? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1321929343-1227801812=:21162" --0-1321929343-1227801812=:21162 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This just in.   ~~~~   Yes, Obama is a good teleprompter reader. He also uses one in the middle, when it's there. As for his speech-writing, there's this from a recent NY Times:       "Mr. Jon Favreau, 27, has had a hand in practically every speech that Mr. Obama has delivered in the last four years. While many believe that Mr. Obama writes his own speeches longhand on a legal pad, a better historical account will show that he offers input and Mr. Favreau actually writes them."   In fact, Jon Favreau is to Obama what Ted Sorensen was to JFK.   ~~~~   Get that turkey in the oven.   .brad.27nov08.  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/ --0-1321929343-1227801812=:21162 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
This just in.
 
~~~~
 
Yes, Obama is a good teleprompter reader. He also uses one in the middle, when it's there. As for his speech-writing, there's this from a recent NY Times:

      "Mr. Jon Favreau, 27, has had a hand in practically every speech that Mr. Obama has delivered in the last four years. While many believe that Mr. Obama writes his own speeches longhand on a legal pad, a better historical account will show that he offers input and Mr. Favreau actually writes them."
 
In fact, Jon Favreau is to Obama what Ted Sorensen was to JFK.
 
~~~~
 
Get that turkey in the oven.
 
.brad.27nov08. 

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/ --0-1321929343-1227801812=:21162-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:50:40 +0300 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: MC Johnstone <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Experimental design help In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Scott, High IQ and all that... I have done a similar exercise with functionally emerging-literate Arab students reading English and am willing to try it again, in the interests of science. I don't have IQ scores for them but I can provide recent TOEFL data. Perhaps that can be calibrated to something or other... Mark > At 03:12 PM 11/26/2008, Scott Woods wrote: >> I want to test a technique involving grammar for its effectiveness in >> improving reading comprehension. Please let me know what you think >> of my design and if you have any suggestions for related research. . . . > > DD: You called? From out of the wood work comes there now a > Psychometrician (Retired.) It sounds like a sound design, as > presented. However {Ever notice how there is always a caveat?} you are > dealing with a rather high end sample.* High IQ and all that. Do the > study. Slap it into a Chi Square contingency test and see. Make sure > the groups are selected truly randomly. Report the results. I > personally think you are doing true science here. A lot rarer than you > would think. The null hypothesis is there will not be a significant > difference. Fifty fifty. I'd go for the more risky a priori prediction > that there will be one in favor of the graphic syntax. That way I get > to use a one tail test and that allows significance at a lower level. > It is risky, though, because if it turns around and bites YOU on the > tail and the normal text group comes out ahead, the experimenter is > required to perform a ritual self immolation. We rarely do, though. > Just lie and report we did no a priori post hoc corrections. Keep me > posted. Fascinating to see a well designed experiment before it is > done. Usually the psychometrician just gets a bunch of results and is > asked to make sense out of it. {Usually by an attractive graduate > student. Blonde preferred.} I suspect that timing will indeed change > the results, but that a correlation between speed v extended time will > show a high r. Suggestion for future reading - anything by Ohmer > Milton. I remain, your faithful friend and joyous companion in > original research. > > * Ware the regression toward the mean. > > 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, 28 Nov 2008 11:55:37 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "O'Sullivan, Brian P" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Obama: the most articulate American? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There's a different account of Obama's speechwriting process at http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837368,00.html : "Obama takes an unusually hands-on approach to his speech writing, more so than most politicians. His best writing time comes late at night when he's all alone, scribbling on yellow legal pads. He then logs these thoughts into his laptop, editing as he goes along....These late-night sessions produced long, meandering texts that were then circulated to a close group of advisers, including Axelrod and Obama's speechwriter Jon Favreau-a 27-year-old wunderkind wordsmith." The difference between the two accounts may be mostly semantic. The NY Times article says Obama "offers input and Mr. Favreau actually writes [the speeches]"--but where is the line between offering an input and writing a rough or partial draft? It would be an interesting question for students to think about--since so many students are still used to the idea of writing as a solitary enterprise--and the Obama example might be useful for sparking discussion. Brian ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Brad Johnston Sent: Thu 11/27/2008 11:03 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Obama: the most articulate American? This just in. ~~~~ Yes, Obama is a good teleprompter reader. He also uses one in the middle, when it's there. As for his speech-writing, there's this from a recent NY Times: "Mr. Jon Favreau, 27, has had a hand in practically every speech that Mr. Obama has delivered in the last four years. While many believe that Mr. Obama writes his own speeches longhand on a legal pad, a better historical account will show that he offers input and Mr. Favreau actually writes them." In fact, Jon Favreau is to Obama what Ted Sorensen was to JFK. ~~~~ Get that turkey in the oven. .brad.27nov08. 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, 28 Nov 2008 16:07:45 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Exhibit #90+ - Schatz Grammar Rules MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1228069395-1227917265=:27123" --0-1228069395-1227917265=:27123 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Grammar Rules, by Mary S. Schatz, c.2002 by Garlic Press.   page 171 - Skill Check - Choose the best sentence in each group.   Her pick. Wrapped in an old shawl, the elderly man carried a smelly fish he (had) caught in the river.   page 172 - Skill Check - Choose the correct word.   I washed my hair after I (finished/had finished) my homework.   Her pick. I washed my hair after I (had) finished my homework.   page 172 - Correct the errors.   There was a dead whale that had washed up on the beach that caused a nuisance in a small Oregon town.   Her correction: A dead whale that (had) washed up on the beach caused  a nuisance in a small Oregon town.   'caught', 'finished', and 'washed' are all past tense verbs, as those words are used in the above sentences. The word 'had' does not belong in front of past tense verbs.   This is Exhibit #90+ to my assertion that there is at least one past perfect error on any grammar website or in any grammar text you can name.   .brad.28nov08.   P.S. Under Misplaced Modifiers she lists, "We need someone to care for Bessie, our cow, who does not smoke or drink".  Isn't that epic? 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/ --0-1228069395-1227917265=:27123 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Grammar Rules, by Mary S. Schatz, c.2002 by Garlic Press.
 
page 171 - Skill Check - Choose the best sentence in each group.
 
Her pick. Wrapped in an old shawl, the elderly man carried a smelly fish he (had) caught in the river.
 
page 172 - Skill Check - Choose the correct word.
 
I washed my hair after I (finished/had finished) my homework.
 
Her pick. I washed my hair after I (had) finished my homework.
 
page 172 - Correct the errors.
 
There was a dead whale that had washed up on the beach that caused a nuisance in a small Oregon town.
 
Her correction: A dead whale that (had) washed up on the beach caused  a nuisance in a small Oregon town.
 
'caught', 'finished', and 'washed' are all past tense verbs, as those words are used in the above sentences. The word 'had' does not belong in front of past tense verbs.
 
This is Exhibit #90+ to my assertion that there is at least one past perfect error on any grammar website or in any grammar text you can name.
 
.brad.28nov08.
 
P.S. Under Misplaced Modifiers she lists, "We need someone to care for Bessie, our cow, who does not smoke or drink".  Isn't that epic?

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/ --0-1228069395-1227917265=:27123-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:39:33 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Experimental design help MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-665945882-1227926373=:21242" --0-665945882-1227926373=:21242 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mark, Would you like me to send you the test?    Mark, DD, et al.,  I don't think my students are as smart as their scores indicate, though they are much smarter than a truly random sample of 7th graders.  There is really quite a range, though very few below the 50th percentile (two, in my group last year of 112, as I recall). I expect that students whose reading percentile scores are lower will present a greater difference between the control and experimental conditions.  This seemed to be the case for the previous test, based on raw scores.  If such a difference is more pronounced in a timed situation, that would seem to validate the experimental condition as improving how well students understand text.   (Anecdotally, the overwhelming majority of my students report that it is extremely helpful).   An additional experiment would test the influence of extensive practice in reading graphic syntax on reading skill.  This experiment would compare the results of a second test with changes in reading skill as measured on a standardized test.  My prediction is that after a year of reading difficult material in graphic syntax, as well as difficult material in normal text, reading scores would go up (this would not be a surprising or revealing result) and the difference between experimental and control performance for lower performers whose performance improved would become similar to that of higher performers in the first test (this would be important). I expect that if good readers are good readers partially because they understand syntactic connections better, and consequently are less aided by graphic syntax, then improving student understanding of syntactic connections by extensive practice with graphic syntax should improve their reading comprehension.  By showing a strong correlation between standardized reading comprehension scores and the difference between scores on graphic and normal text, I should be able to isolate the factor of graphic syntax from all the other excellent things I do in the classroom and show that reading in graphic syntax format can improve reading comprehension.   Does this make sense? Is it sound?  Is there another way to show that reading skill can be improved by this method?    Thanks, Scott Woods   --- On Thu, 11/27/08, MC Johnstone <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: MC Johnstone <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Experimental design help To: [log in to unmask] Date: Thursday, November 27, 2008, 10:50 AM Scott, High IQ and all that... I have done a similar exercise with functionally emerging-literate Arab students reading English and am willing to try it again, in the interests of science. I don't have IQ scores for them but I can provide recent TOEFL data. Perhaps that can be calibrated to something or other... Mark > At 03:12 PM 11/26/2008, Scott Woods wrote: >> I want to test a technique involving grammar for its effectiveness in improving reading comprehension. Please let me know what you think of my design and if you have any suggestions for related research. . . . > > DD: You called? From out of the wood work comes there now a Psychometrician (Retired.) It sounds like a sound design, as presented. However {Ever notice how there is always a caveat?} you are dealing with a rather high end sample.* High IQ and all that. Do the study. Slap it into a Chi Square contingency test and see. Make sure the groups are selected truly randomly. Report the results. I personally think you are doing true science here. A lot rarer than you would think. The null hypothesis is there will not be a significant difference. Fifty fifty. I'd go for the more risky a priori prediction that there will be one in favor of the graphic syntax. That way I get to use a one tail test and that allows significance at a lower level. It is risky, though, because if it turns around and bites YOU on the tail and the normal text group comes out ahead, the experimenter is required to perform a ritual self immolation. We rarely do, though. Just lie and report we did no a priori post hoc corrections. Keep me posted. Fascinating to see a well designed experiment before it is done. Usually the psychometrician just gets a bunch of results and is asked to make sense out of it. {Usually by an attractive graduate student. Blonde preferred.} I suspect that timing will indeed change the results, but that a correlation between speed v extended time will show a high r. Suggestion for future reading - anything by Ohmer Milton. I remain, your faithful friend and joyous companion in original research. > > * Ware the regression toward the mean. > > 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/ --0-665945882-1227926373=:21242 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Mark,
Would you like me to send you the test? 
 
Mark, DD, et al.,
 I don't think my students are as smart as their scores indicate, though they are much smarter than a truly random sample of 7th graders.  There is really quite a range, though very few below the 50th percentile (two, in my group last year of 112, as I recall). I expect that students whose reading percentile scores are lower will present a greater difference between the control and experimental conditions.  This seemed to be the case for the previous test, based on raw scores.  If such a difference is more pronounced in a timed situation, that would seem to validate the experimental condition as improving how well students understand text.   (Anecdotally, the overwhelming majority of my students report that it is extremely helpful).
 
An additional experiment would test the influence of extensive practice in reading graphic syntax on reading skill.  This experiment would compare the results of a second test with changes in reading skill as measured on a standardized test.  My prediction is that after a year of reading difficult material in graphic syntax, as well as difficult material in normal text, reading scores would go up (this would not be a surprising or revealing result) and the difference between experimental and control performance for lower performers whose performance improved would become similar to that of higher performers in the first test (this would be important). I expect that if good readers are good readers partially because they understand syntactic connections better, and consequently are less aided by graphic syntax, then improving student understanding of syntactic connections by extensive practice with graphic syntax should improve their reading comprehension.  By showing a strong correlation between standardized reading comprehension scores and the difference between scores on graphic and normal text, I should be able to isolate the factor of graphic syntax from all the other excellent things I do in the classroom and show that reading in graphic syntax format can improve reading comprehension.
 
Does this make sense? Is it sound?  Is there another way to show that reading skill can be improved by this method? 
 
Thanks,
Scott Woods
 
--- On Thu, 11/27/08, MC Johnstone <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: MC Johnstone <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Experimental design help
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, November 27, 2008, 10:50 AM

Scott,

High IQ and all that... I have done a similar exercise with functionally
emerging-literate Arab students reading English and am willing to try it again,
in the interests of science.

I don't have IQ scores for them but I can provide recent TOEFL data.
Perhaps that can be calibrated to something or other...

Mark


> At 03:12 PM 11/26/2008, Scott Woods wrote:
>> I want to test a technique involving grammar for its effectiveness in
improving reading comprehension.  Please let me know what you think of my design
and if you have any suggestions for related research. . . .
> 
> DD: You called? From out of the wood work comes there now a
Psychometrician (Retired.) It sounds like a sound design, as presented. However
{Ever notice how there is always a caveat?} you are dealing with a rather high
end sample.* High IQ and all that. Do the study. Slap it into a Chi Square
contingency test and see. Make sure the groups are selected truly randomly.
Report the results. I personally think you are doing true science here. A lot
rarer than you would think. The null hypothesis is there will not be a
significant difference. Fifty fifty. I'd go for the more risky a priori
prediction that there will be one in favor of the graphic syntax. That way I get
to use a one tail test and that allows significance at a lower level. It is
risky, though, because if it turns around and bites YOU on the tail and the
normal text group comes out ahead, the experimenter is required to perform a
ritual self immolation. We rarely do, though. Just lie and report we did no a
priori post hoc corrections. Keep me posted. Fascinating to see a well designed
experiment before it is done. Usually the psychometrician just gets a bunch of
results and is asked to make sense out of it. {Usually by an attractive graduate
student. Blonde preferred.} I suspect that timing will indeed change the
results, but that a correlation between speed v extended time will show a high
r. Suggestion for future reading - anything by Ohmer Milton. I remain, your
faithful friend and joyous companion in original research.
> 
> * Ware the regression toward the mean.
> 
> 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/ --0-665945882-1227926373=:21242-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:20:17 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: DD Farms <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Experimental design help In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 08:39 PM 11/28/2008, Scott Woods wrote: . . . > I don't think my students are as smart as their scores indicate, . > . . I expect that students whose reading percentile scores are > lower will present a greater difference between the control and > experimental conditions. DD: Interesting thought. I would expect the higher to profit more. Two tail test, then. Null Hypothesis no difference between the two groups. However the more interesting item is if the two techniques prove different in results, pre experiment and post. > This seemed to be the case for the previous test, based on raw > scores. If such a difference is more pronounced in a timed > situation, that would seem to validate the experimental condition > as improving how well students understand text. (Anecdotally, the > overwhelming majority of my students report that it is extremely helpful). DD: No, it merely indicates the different result from timed test and non timed. Either would indicate the probability of the truth of the hypothesis. If both types of test are statistically significant, BRAG. > >An additional experiment would test the influence of extensive >practice in reading graphic syntax on reading skill. This >experiment would compare the results of a second test with changes >in reading skill as measured on a standardized test. DD: Pre test, post test with both your test and the standardized one, and be sure to have that control group that doesn't get the special graphic syntax training. Great idea. Ignore the ethical problem of not providing the control group with what you feel would help them the most. > My prediction is that after a year of reading difficult material > in graphic syntax, as well as difficult material in normal text, > reading scores would go up (this would not be a surprising or > revealing result) and the difference between experimental and > control performance for lower performers whose performance improved > would become similar to that of higher performers in the first test > (this would be important). I expect that if good readers are good > readers partially because they understand syntactic connections > better, and consequently are less aided by graphic syntax, then > improving student understanding of syntactic connections by > extensive practice with graphic syntax should improve their reading > comprehension. DD: Tricky, but some good testable hypotheses there. You are on a worthy track. >By showing a strong correlation between standardized reading >comprehension scores and the difference between scores on graphic >and normal text, I should be able to isolate the factor of graphic >syntax from all the other excellent things I do in the classroom and >show that reading in graphic syntax format can improve reading comprehension. > Does this make sense? Is it sound? DD: Looks firm to me. Now do it and put it to the empirical test. Does it work? >Is there another way to show that reading skill can be improved by >this method? > DD: Probably, but I like what you propose. However don't use the phrase, "...show that reading skill can be improved by this method." Use, "...test the hypothesis that reading skill can be improved by this method." The words, 'Show' and 'Prove' are trigger words to incite criticism from Scientific Methodologists. Not unlike confusion between 'reliability' and 'validity' do to statisticians. Keep up the good work! 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: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 06:28:15 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Norman Mailer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-2061229144-1227968895=:11065" --0-2061229144-1227968895=:11065 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Marshall.   I wasn't being cheeky with you (as someone suggested off-list). When one sees the word 'had', there are only four possibilities.   It's the past tense of the verb "to have". It's used in the past perfect. It's used in the subjunctive. It's in error.   Mailer uses it in all four ways. The ones in the last category, 54 of 98 in his case, I called "in error".   If there is another possibility, I would certainly like to know what it is.   .brad.29nov08.  ~~~~~~~~~~~ On 11/19/08, Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> wrote:   Marshall,   I have wrecked my brain but have not yet thought of a valid reason why 'had' should appear other than in the three circumstances mentioned. Have you a suggestion?   .brad.20nov08.   ~~~~~~~~~~~ On Tue, 11/18/08, Myers, Marshall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:   Brad,   How are they in “error”?   Marshall   ~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar On Behalf Of Brad Johnston Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Norman Mailer   Of 300+ ATEGians, some few will be interested to know that in the first 21 pages of "The Executioner's Song", for which Norman Mailer won a Pulitzer in 1980, the word 'had' appears 98 times, of which 44 are used correctly as the past tense of the verb "to have", or in the past perfect, or in the subjunctive. The rest (54) are in error. 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/ --0-2061229144-1227968895=:11065 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Marshall.
 
I wasn't being cheeky with you (as someone suggested off-list). When one sees the word 'had', there are only four possibilities.
 
It's the past tense of the verb "to have".
It's used in the past perfect.
It's used in the subjunctive.
It's in error.
 
Mailer uses it in all four ways. The ones in the last category, 54 of 98 in his case, I called "in error".
 
If there is another possibility, I would certainly like to know what it is.
 
.brad.29nov08. 

~~~~~~~~~~~

On 11/19/08, Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
Marshall,
 
I have wrecked my brain but have not yet thought of a valid reason why 'had' should appear other than in the three circumstances mentioned. Have you a suggestion?
 
.brad.20nov08.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~

On Tue, 11/18/08, Myers, Marshall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 

Brad,

 

How are they in “error”?

 

Marshall

 

~~~~~~~~~~~


From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar

On Behalf Of Brad Johnston
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Norman Mailer

 

Of 300+ ATEGians, some few will be interested to know that in the first 21 pages of "The Executioner's Song", for which Norman Mailer won a Pulitzer in 1980, the word 'had' appears 98 times, of which 44 are used correctly as the past tense of the verb "to have", or in the past perfect, or in the subjunctive. The rest (54) are in error.


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/ --0-2061229144-1227968895=:11065-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 12:10:37 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Exhibit #90+ - Schatz Grammar Rules Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I know I should not do this, but when a person claims great knowledge of grammar, it might be time to point out a rather egregious error. Brad, our expert on "correct" English writes: 'caught', 'finished', and 'washed' are all past tense verbs, as those words are used in the above sentences. The word 'had' does not belong in front of past tense verbs. One of the properties of English is that the past tense form and past participle form of many verbs are the same. Let's consider why this must be the case. Clearly wrote and write are not the same form of the verb write in 1 and 2. 1) Brad wrote a post. 2 Brad has written a post. Notice what happens when "not" is inserted. 3) Brad did not write a post. 4) Brad has not written a post. "not" goes in front of the tense verb in both. If there is not a helping verb, in other words, the past tense form is the only tensed verb, then we need a form of do. The past tense form and past participle form of wash, like all regular verbs in English, is the same. 5) Brad washed the dishes. 6) Brad has washed the dishes. Insert not in 5 and 6. 7) Brad did not wash the dishes. 8) Brad has not washed the dishes. Because sentences 7 and 8 pattern the same way as 3 and 4, it seems much easier to assume that wash, like write, has two different forms: a past tense form and a past participle. It just so happens that these two forms for wash, unlike write, are the same. If we don't like that solution, then we have to tell a completely different story for write as opposed to wash. By the way, if you want to tell a completely different story for wash, then what kind of story do you have to tell for put (or cut or hit)? 9) You now put the dishes away. 10) You put the dishes away yesterday. 11) You have put the dishes away. Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri **** For someone so sure about what is correct and incorrect, it more than a little surprising that he cannot keep straight the difference between past tense form of a verb and the past participle form of the verb. >>> Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> 11/28/08 6:07 PM >>> Grammar Rules, by Mary S. Schatz, c.2002 by Garlic Press. page 171 - Skill Check - Choose the best sentence in each group. Her pick. Wrapped in an old shawl, the elderly man carried a smelly fish he (had) caught in the river. page 172 - Skill Check - Choose the correct word. I washed my hair after I (finished/had finished) my homework. Her pick. I washed my hair after I (had) finished my homework. page 172 - Correct the errors. There was a dead whale that had washed up on the beach that caused a nuisance in a small Oregon town. Her correction: A dead whale that (had) washed up on the beach caused a nuisance in a small Oregon town. 'caught', 'finished', and 'washed' are all past tense verbs, as those words are used in the above sentences. The word 'had' does not belong in front of past tense verbs. This is Exhibit #90+ to my assertion that there is at least one past perfect error on any grammar website or in any grammar text you can name. .brad.28nov08. P.S. Under Misplaced Modifiers she lists, "We need someone to care for Bessie, our cow, who does not smoke or drink". Isn't that epic? 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: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:05:25 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Myers, Marshall" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Norman Mailer In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED4494440BF33B08CAFSEMAILfacult_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED4494440BF33B08CAFSEMAILfacult_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Brad, I don't think you understand the nature of the tenses, what they signify in terms of time, and how that time is represented. I'd be happy to work with you on that, if you'll come by my office. Best wishes, Dr. Marshall Myers ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 9:28 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Norman Mailer Marshall. I wasn't being cheeky with you (as someone suggested off-list). When one sees the word 'had', there are only four possibilities. It's the past tense of the verb "to have". It's used in the past perfect. It's used in the subjunctive. It's in error. Mailer uses it in all four ways. The ones in the last category, 54 of 98 in his case, I called "in error". If there is another possibility, I would certainly like to know what it is. .brad.29nov08. ~~~~~~~~~~~ On 11/19/08, Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Marshall, I have wrecked my brain but have not yet thought of a valid reason why 'had' should appear other than in the three circumstances mentioned. Have you a suggestion? .brad.20nov08. ~~~~~~~~~~~ On Tue, 11/18/08, Myers, Marshall <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Brad, How are they in "error"? Marshall ~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar On Behalf Of Brad Johnston Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Norman Mailer Of 300+ ATEGians, some few will be interested to know that in the first 21 pages of "The Executioner's Song", for which Norman Mailer won a Pulitzer in 1980, the word 'had' appears 98 times, of which 44 are used correctly as the past tense of the verb "to have", or in the past perfect, or in the subjunctive. The rest (54) are in error. 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_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED4494440BF33B08CAFSEMAILfacult_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Brad,

 

I don’t think you understand the nature of the tenses, what they signify in terms of time, and how that time is represented.

 

I’d be happy to work with you on that, if you’ll come by my office.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dr. Marshall Myers

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 9:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Norman Mailer

 

Marshall.

 

I wasn't being cheeky with you (as someone suggested off-list). When one sees the word 'had', there are only four possibilities.

 

It's the past tense of the verb "to have".

It's used in the past perfect.

It's used in the subjunctive.

It's in error.

 

Mailer uses it in all four ways. The ones in the last category, 54 of 98 in his case, I called "in error".

 

If there is another possibility, I would certainly like to know what it is.

 

.brad.29nov08. 


~~~~~~~~~~~

On 11/19/08, Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 

Marshall,

 

I have wrecked my brain but have not yet thought of a valid reason why 'had' should appear other than in the three circumstances mentioned. Have you a suggestion?

 

.brad.20nov08.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~

On Tue, 11/18/08, Myers, Marshall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 

Brad,

 

How are they in “error”?

 

Marshall

 

~~~~~~~~~~~

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar

On Behalf Of Brad Johnston
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Norman Mailer

 

Of 300+ ATEGians, some few will be interested to know that in the first 21 pages of "The Executioner's Song", for which Norman Mailer won a Pulitzer in 1980, the word 'had' appears 98 times, of which 44 are used correctly as the past tense of the verb "to have", or in the past perfect, or in the subjunctive. The rest (54) are in error.


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_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED4494440BF33B08CAFSEMAILfacult_-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:01:06 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Exhibit #90+ - Schatz Grammar Rules In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-175991035-1227992466=:85086" --0-175991035-1227992466=:85086 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Bob Yates,   The sentence in question is, I washed my hair after I (finished/had finished) my homework.   You didn't say, which doesn't surprise me, but since I think "finished" is correct and you wouldn't be writing if you agreed, I assume you think the sentence should read, "I washed my hair after I had finished my homework."   I further said, 'Washed' is a past tense verb as that word is used in the sentence. Nota Bene: as that word is used in the sentence.   Let's see what you say about "washed".   The past tense form and past participle form of many verbs are the same. Agreed.   The past tense form and past participle form of wash, like all regular verbs in English, is the same. Agreed. 5) Brad washed the dishes.  6) Brad has washed the dishes. Agreed. Insert 'not' in 5 and 6. 7) Brad did not wash the dishes. 8) Brad has not washed the dishes. Agreed.   It just so happens that these two forms for wash, unlike write, are the same. Agreed.   O.K., Bob, now what? What does this interesting diversion have to do with the Schatz sentence? which is where we started.   Just for fun, ask all the ATEGians whether...   ... the verb in the sentence is past tense, in which case it will read, I washed my hair after I finished my homework, or,   ... the verb in the sentence is past perfect tense, in which case it will read, I washed my hair after I had finished my homework.   (I think you'll agree that the word 'washed' is one or the other by virtue of how it functions, not by what other word she may have put in front of it.)   Ask them to reply to you and not to the list. (After two or three replies, the list dries up.) See how many of the 330 you can get to vote. And let me know.   I'm sorry you're set for 'plain text'. That tends to make a mess of it. But we'll get by.   .brad.29nov08. --- On Sat, 11/29/08, Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I know I should not do this, but when a person claims great knowledge of grammar, it might be time to point out a rather egregious error. Brad, our expert on "correct" English writes: 'caught', 'finished', and 'washed' are all past tense verbs, as those words are used in the above sentences. The word 'had' does not belong in front of past tense verbs. One of the properties of English is that the past tense form and past participle form of many verbs are the same. Let's consider why this must be the case. Clearly wrote and write are not the same form of the verb write in 1 and 2. 1) Brad wrote a post. 2 Brad has written a post. Notice what happens when "not" is inserted. 3) Brad did not write a post. 4) Brad has not written a post. "not" goes in front of the tense verb in both. If there is not a helping verb, in other words, the past tense form is the only tensed verb, then we need a form of do. The past tense form and past participle form of wash, like all regular verbs in English, is the same. 5) Brad washed the dishes. 6) Brad has washed the dishes. Insert not in 5 and 6. 7) Brad did not wash the dishes. 8) Brad has not washed the dishes. Because sentences 7 and 8 pattern the same way as 3 and 4, it seems much easier to assume that wash, like write, has two different forms: a past tense form and a past participle. It just so happens that these two forms for wash, unlike write, are the same. If we don't like that solution, then we have to tell a completely different story for write as opposed to wash. By the way, if you want to tell a completely different story for wash, then what kind of story do you have to tell for put (or cut or hit)? 9) You now put the dishes away. 10) You put the dishes away yesterday. 11) You have put the dishes away. Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri **** For someone so sure about what is correct and incorrect, it more than a little surprising that he cannot keep straight the difference between past tense form of a verb and the past participle form of the verb. Brad Johnston [log in to unmask]> 11/28/08 6:07 PM Grammar Rules, by Mary S. Schatz, c.2002 by Garlic Press. page 171 - Skill Check - Choose the best sentence in each group. Her pick. Wrapped in an old shawl, the elderly man carried a smelly fish he (had) caught in the river. page 172 - Skill Check - Choose the correct word. I washed my hair after I (finished/had finished) my homework. Her pick. I washed my hair after I (had) finished my homework. page 172 - Correct the errors. There was a dead whale that had washed up on the beach that caused a nuisance in a small Oregon town. Her correction: A dead whale that (had) washed up on the beach caused a nuisance in a small Oregon town. 'caught', 'finished', and 'washed' are all past tense verbs, as those words are used in the above sentences. The word 'had' does not belong in front of past tense verbs. This is Exhibit #90+ to my assertion that there is at least one past perfect error on any grammar website or in any grammar text you can name. .brad.28nov08. 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/ --0-175991035-1227992466=:85086 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Dear Bob Yates,
 
The sentence in question is, I washed my hair after I (finished/had finished) my homework.
 
You didn't say, which doesn't surprise me, but since I think "finished" is correct and you wouldn't be writing if you agreed, I assume you think the sentence should read, "I washed my hair after I had finished my homework."
 
I further said, 'Washed' is a past tense verb as that word is used in the sentence. Nota Bene: as that word is used in the sentence.
 
Let's see what you say about "washed".
 
The past tense form and past participle form of many verbs are the same. Agreed.
 
The past tense form and past participle form of wash, like all regular verbs in English, is the same. Agreed.

5) Brad washed the dishes.  6) Brad has washed the dishes. Agreed.

Insert 'not' in 5 and 6.

7) Brad did not wash the dishes. 8) Brad has not washed the dishes. Agreed.
 
It just so happens that these two forms for wash, unlike write, are the same. Agreed.
 
O.K., Bob, now what? What does this interesting diversion have to do with the Schatz sentence? which is where we started.
 
Just for fun, ask all the ATEGians whether...
 
... the verb in the sentence is past tense, in which case it will read, I washed my hair after I finished my homework, or,
 
... the verb in the sentence is past perfect tense, in which case it will read, I washed my hair after I had finished my homework.
 
(I think you'll agree that the word 'washed' is one or the other by virtue of how it functions, not by what other word she may have put in front of it.)
 
Ask them to reply to you and not to the list. (After two or three replies, the list dries up.) See how many of the 330 you can get to vote. And let me know.
 
I'm sorry you're set for 'plain text'. That tends to make a mess of it. But we'll get by.
 
.brad.29nov08.

--- On Sat, 11/29/08, Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I know I should not do this, but when a person claims great knowledge of
grammar, it might be time to point out a rather egregious error.

Brad, our expert on "correct" English writes:

'caught', 'finished', and 'washed' are all past tense
verbs, as those words are used in the above sentences. The word 'had'
does not belong in front of past tense verbs.

One of the properties of English is that the past tense form and past
participle form of many verbs are the same.  Let's consider why this must be
the case.

Clearly wrote and write are not the same form of the verb write in 1 and 2.

1) Brad wrote a post.
2 Brad has written a post.

Notice what happens when "not" is inserted.

3) Brad did not write a post.
4) Brad has not written a post.

"not" goes in front of the tense verb in both.  If there is not a
helping verb, in other words, the past tense form is the only tensed verb, then
we need a form of do.  

The past tense form and past participle form of wash, like all regular verbs in
English, is the same.

5) Brad washed the dishes.  
6) Brad has washed the dishes.

Insert not in 5 and 6.

7) Brad did not wash the dishes.
8) Brad has not washed the dishes.

Because sentences 7 and 8 pattern the same way as 3 and 4, it seems much easier
to assume that wash, like write, has two different forms: a past tense form and
a past participle.  It just so happens that these two forms for wash, unlike
write, are the same.

If we don't like that solution, then we have to tell a completely different
story for write as opposed to wash.

By the way, if you want to tell a completely different story for wash, then
what kind of story do you have to tell for put (or cut or hit)?

9) You now put the dishes away.
10) You put the dishes away yesterday.
11) You have put the dishes away.

Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri


****
For someone so sure about what is correct and incorrect, it more than a little
surprising that he cannot keep straight the difference between  past tense form
of a verb and the past participle form of the verb.


Brad Johnston [log in to unmask]> 11/28/08 6:07 PM

Grammar Rules, by Mary S. Schatz, c.2002 by Garlic Press.
 
page 171 - Skill Check - Choose the best sentence in each group.
 
Her pick. Wrapped in an old shawl, the elderly man carried a smelly fish he
(had) caught in the river.
 
page 172 - Skill Check - Choose the correct word.
 
I washed my hair after I (finished/had finished) my homework.
 
Her pick. I washed my hair after I (had) finished my homework.
 
page 172 - Correct the errors.
 
There was a dead whale that had washed up on the beach that caused a nuisance
in a small Oregon town.
 
Her correction: A dead whale that (had) washed up on the beach caused  a
nuisance in a small Oregon town.
 
'caught', 'finished', and 'washed' are all past tense
verbs, as those words are used in the above sentences. The word 'had'
does not belong in front of past tense verbs.
 
This is Exhibit #90+ to my assertion that there is at least one past perfect
error on any grammar website or in any grammar text you can name.
 
.brad.28nov08.

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/ --0-175991035-1227992466=:85086-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 06:44:33 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Crow <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Correct? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_45628_22177676.1228045473854" ------=_Part_45628_22177676.1228045473854 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline What are the structures appended to the end of the main clause below? They feel like participles, but they have pseudo-subjects. Is it correct to use the objective pronouns in these structures? *I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one of the metal tables overlooking the pool, him sipping his Mountain Dew and me groping for a pen and paper. *I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving! Thanks, John 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/ ------=_Part_45628_22177676.1228045473854 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline What are the structures appended to the end of the main clause below?  They feel like participles, but they have pseudo-subjects.  Is it correct to use the objective pronouns in these structures? 

I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one of the metal tables overlooking the pool, him sipping his Mountain Dew and me groping for a pen and paper.

I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!

Thanks,
John
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/ ------=_Part_45628_22177676.1228045473854-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 09:23:25 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Correct? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit John, I would classify them as "absolutes", which I would define as subject bearing participle clauses. (Traditional grammar calls them phrases.) My own preference would be for "he" and "I" in the subject roles, but these are also commonly introduced by "with", which could be thought of as understood here. "I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one of the metal tables overlooking the pool, with him sipping his Mountain Dew and me groping for pen and paper." Maybe the writer drafted it with "with" and then took it out, leaving the objective pronouns. Hope that helps. Craig > What are the structures appended to the end of the main clause below? > They > feel like participles, but they have pseudo-subjects. Is it correct to > use > the objective pronouns in these structures? > > *I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one of the metal tables > overlooking the pool, him sipping his Mountain Dew and me groping for a > pen > and paper. > > *I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving! > > Thanks, > John > > 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 09:36:44 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Crow <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Correct? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_46127_30984129.1228055804519" ------=_Part_46127_30984129.1228055804519 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline You are dead on as usual. I see now that calling them absolutes is a much more logical analysis. The possibly understood "with" is great! Thanks, Craig. John On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > John, > I would classify them as "absolutes", which I would define as subject > bearing participle clauses. (Traditional grammar calls them phrases.) > My own preference would be for "he" and "I" in the subject roles, but > these are also commonly introduced by "with", which could be thought of > as understood here. "I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one > of the metal tables overlooking the pool, with him sipping his Mountain > Dew and me groping for pen and paper." Maybe the writer drafted it with > "with" and then took it out, leaving the objective pronouns. > Hope that helps. > > Craig > > > > > What are the structures appended to the end of the main clause below? > > They > > feel like participles, but they have pseudo-subjects. Is it correct to > > use > > the objective pronouns in these structures? > > > > *I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one of the metal tables > > overlooking the pool, him sipping his Mountain Dew and me groping for a > > pen > > and paper. > > > > *I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving! > > > > Thanks, > > John > > > > 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/ ------=_Part_46127_30984129.1228055804519 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline You are dead on as usual.  I see now that calling them absolutes is a much more logical analysis.  The possibly understood "with" is great!

Thanks, Craig.
John

On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
John,
  I would classify them as "absolutes", which I would define as subject
bearing participle clauses. (Traditional grammar calls them phrases.)
  My own preference would be for "he" and "I" in the subject roles, but
these are also commonly introduced by "with", which could be thought of
as understood here. "I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one
of the metal tables overlooking the pool, with him sipping his Mountain
Dew and me groping for pen and paper." Maybe the writer drafted it with
"with" and then took it out, leaving the objective pronouns.
  Hope that helps.

Craig
  >


What are the structures appended to the end of the main clause below?
> They
> feel like participles, but they have pseudo-subjects.  Is it correct to
> use
> the objective pronouns in these structures?
>
> *I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one of the metal tables
> overlooking the pool, him sipping his Mountain Dew and me groping for a
> pen
> and paper.
>
> *I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> 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/ ------=_Part_46127_30984129.1228055804519-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:44:54 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Correct? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 I agree that they are nominative absolutes, but I'll follow up on my earlier comment on changes in the function of objective pronouns. This is another instance of what were traditionally object pronouns taking on pragmatic roles and marking focus. Like Craig, I would probably use the subjective forms, but these are among the more acceptable uses of object pronouns in non-object position. Herb Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of English Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 [log in to unmask] ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Crow [[log in to unmask]] Sent: November 30, 2008 9:36 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Correct? You are dead on as usual. I see now that calling them absolutes is a much more logical analysis. The possibly understood "with" is great! Thanks, Craig. John On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote: John, I would classify them as "absolutes", which I would define as subject bearing participle clauses. (Traditional grammar calls them phrases.) My own preference would be for "he" and "I" in the subject roles, but these are also commonly introduced by "with", which could be thought of as understood here. "I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one of the metal tables overlooking the pool, with him sipping his Mountain Dew and me groping for pen and paper." Maybe the writer drafted it with "with" and then took it out, leaving the objective pronouns. Hope that helps. Craig > What are the structures appended to the end of the main clause below? > They > feel like participles, but they have pseudo-subjects. Is it correct to > use > the objective pronouns in these structures? > > *I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one of the metal tables > overlooking the pool, him sipping his Mountain Dew and me groping for a > pen > and paper. > > *I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving! > > Thanks, > John > > 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: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 12:19:09 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: DD Farms <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Correct? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 08:23 AM 11/30/2008, Craig Hancock {N.B. this was not Craig's sentence. He was responding to it.} wrote: >. . . "I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one >of the metal tables overlooking the pool, with him sipping his Mountain >Dew and me groping for pen and paper." . . . DD: Try what seems to me to be more correct; treat the '...ings' as gerunds and stick in the possessive pronouns. "...his sipping . . .my groping . . ." I am not a skilled grammarian, but it also sounds correct to leave out the 'with' and change the pronouns to the nominatives as subjects. ". . . pool, he sipping . . . I groping . . ." 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:37:59 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Atchley, Clinton" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Correct? In-Reply-To: A<[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In traditional grammar you find a similar use of objective case pronouns when they function as subjects of infinitives in a sentence like "Bill wanted him to go home." Here the infinitive "to go" functions as the direct object since what Bill wanted was the action of going to take place. Bill does not want "him"; "him" is the agent of the action of the infinitive. It's quite common actually. "We consider him to be completely honest." "The teacher let us decorate the room." "We left after seeing him break the record." Clinton Atchley, Ph.D. Associate Professor of English Box 7652 1100 Henderson Street Henderson State University Arkadelphia, AR 71999 Phone: 870.230.5276 Email: [log in to unmask] Web: http://www.hsu.edu/atchlec -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 11:45 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Correct? I agree that they are nominative absolutes, but I'll follow up on my earlier comment on changes in the function of objective pronouns. This is another instance of what were traditionally object pronouns taking on pragmatic roles and marking focus. Like Craig, I would probably use the subjective forms, but these are among the more acceptable uses of object pronouns in non-object position. Herb Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of English Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 [log in to unmask] ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Crow [[log in to unmask]] Sent: November 30, 2008 9:36 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Correct? You are dead on as usual. I see now that calling them absolutes is a much more logical analysis. The possibly understood "with" is great! Thanks, Craig. John On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote: John, I would classify them as "absolutes", which I would define as subject bearing participle clauses. (Traditional grammar calls them phrases.) My own preference would be for "he" and "I" in the subject roles, but these are also commonly introduced by "with", which could be thought of as understood here. "I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one of the metal tables overlooking the pool, with him sipping his Mountain Dew and me groping for pen and paper." Maybe the writer drafted it with "with" and then took it out, leaving the objective pronouns. Hope that helps. Craig > What are the structures appended to the end of the main clause below? > They > feel like participles, but they have pseudo-subjects. Is it correct to > use > the objective pronouns in these structures? > > *I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one of the metal tables > overlooking the pool, him sipping his Mountain Dew and me groping for a > pen > and paper. > > *I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving! > > Thanks, > John > > 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: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:38:41 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Richard Wallis <[log in to unmask]> Subject: past-perfect trolling Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_690230a9-6b12-4c22-adb0-927fff099ba3_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_690230a9-6b12-4c22-adb0-927fff099ba3_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Again I'll state one of the definitions of "trolling": FORCING A DISCUSSION TO GO AROUND IN CIRCLES FOR ONE'S OWN AMUSEMENT AND THE IRRITATION OF OTHERS Our wind-up troll is at it again. Every time you respond, you wind him up to keep the circle spinning. I suggest ignoring the wind-up troll, because such Internet denizens rarely stop of their own accord. _________________________________________________________________ Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious email. http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_safety_112008 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/ --_690230a9-6b12-4c22-adb0-927fff099ba3_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



Again I'll state one of the definitions of "trolling":

FORCING A DISCUSSION TO GO AROUND IN CIRCLES FOR ONE'S OWN AMUSEMENT AND THE IRRITATION OF OTHERS
 
Our wind-up troll is at it again. Every time you respond, you wind him up to keep the circle spinning.
 
I suggest ignoring the wind-up troll, because such Internet denizens rarely stop of their own accord.

Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious email. Sign up today. 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/ --_690230a9-6b12-4c22-adb0-927fff099ba3_-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:42:00 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Comments: RFC822 error: Invalid RFC822 field - "Paul E. Doniger "If this were play'd upon a stag=". Rest of header flushed. From: "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: past-perfect trolling MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1316727241-1228074120=:98632" --0-1316727241-1228074120=:98632 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Great advice!   Paul E. Doniger  "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128). ________________________________ From: Richard Wallis <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 2:38:41 PM Subject: past-perfect trolling ________________________________ Again I'll state one of the definitions of "trolling": FORCING A DISCUSSION TO GO AROUND IN CIRCLES FOR ONE'S OWN AMUSEMENT AND THE IRRITATION OF OTHERS   Our wind-up troll is at it again. Every time you respond, you wind him up to keep the circle spinning.   I suggest ignoring the wind-up troll, because such Internet denizens rarely stop of their own accord. ________________________________ Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious email. Sign up today. 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/ --0-1316727241-1228074120=:98632 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Great advice!

 

Paul E. Doniger

 
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).


From: Richard Wallis <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 2:38:41 PM
Subject: past-perfect trolling





Again I'll state one of the definitions of "trolling":

FORCING A DISCUSSION TO GO AROUND IN CIRCLES FOR ONE'S OWN AMUSEMENT AND THE IRRITATION OF OTHERS
 
Our wind-up troll is at it again. Every time you respond, you wind him up to keep the circle spinning.
 
I suggest ignoring the wind-up troll, because such Internet denizens rarely stop of their own accord.

Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious email. Sign up today. 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/ --0-1316727241-1228074120=:98632-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:15:56 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Correct? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1037560375-1228094156=:84175" --0-1037560375-1228094156=:84175 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   What would be the negative implications, pedagogically, analytically, or otherwise, with 7th graders, of treating sentences like "We wanted him to go home" as containing a direct object and an object complement, rather than using the infinitive as the direct object in the same way we might analyze "We elected him president" ?  Also, is it a faulty analysis to think of absolutes as containing an implied "be," the lack of which makes them a clause, and the insertion of which is a test for being an absolute?  That is, are absolutes basically clauses with the "be" dropped?   Scott Woods --- On Sun, 11/30/08, Atchley, Clinton <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Atchley, Clinton <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Correct? To: [log in to unmask] Date: Sunday, November 30, 2008, 11:37 AM In traditional grammar you find a similar use of objective case pronouns when they function as subjects of infinitives in a sentence like "Bill wanted him to go home." Here the infinitive "to go" functions as the direct object since what Bill wanted was the action of going to take place. Bill does not want "him"; "him" is the agent of the action of the infinitive. It's quite common actually. "We consider him to be completely honest." "The teacher let us decorate the room." "We left after seeing him break the record." Clinton Atchley, Ph.D. Associate Professor of English Box 7652 1100 Henderson Street Henderson State University Arkadelphia, AR 71999 Phone: 870.230.5276 Email: [log in to unmask] Web: http://www.hsu.edu/atchlec -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 11:45 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Correct? I agree that they are nominative absolutes, but I'll follow up on my earlier comment on changes in the function of objective pronouns. This is another instance of what were traditionally object pronouns taking on pragmatic roles and marking focus. Like Craig, I would probably use the subjective forms, but these are among the more acceptable uses of object pronouns in non-object position. Herb Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of English Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 [log in to unmask] ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Crow [[log in to unmask]] Sent: November 30, 2008 9:36 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Correct? You are dead on as usual. I see now that calling them absolutes is a much more logical analysis. The possibly understood "with" is great! Thanks, Craig. John On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote: John, I would classify them as "absolutes", which I would define as subject bearing participle clauses. (Traditional grammar calls them phrases.) My own preference would be for "he" and "I" in the subject roles, but these are also commonly introduced by "with", which could be thought of as understood here. "I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one of the metal tables overlooking the pool, with him sipping his Mountain Dew and me groping for pen and paper." Maybe the writer drafted it with "with" and then took it out, leaving the objective pronouns. Hope that helps. Craig > What are the structures appended to the end of the main clause below? > They > feel like participles, but they have pseudo-subjects. Is it correct to > use > the objective pronouns in these structures? > > *I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one of the metal tables > overlooking the pool, him sipping his Mountain Dew and me groping for a > pen > and paper. > > *I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving! > > Thanks, > John > > 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/ --0-1037560375-1228094156=:84175 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
 
What would be the negative implications, pedagogically, analytically, or otherwise, with 7th graders, of treating sentences like "We wanted him to go home" as containing a direct object and an object complement, rather than using the infinitive as the direct object in the same way we might analyze "We elected him president" ?  Also, is it a faulty analysis to think of absolutes as containing an implied "be," the lack of which makes them a clause, and the insertion of which is a test for being an absolute?  That is, are absolutes basically clauses with the "be" dropped?
 
Scott Woods

--- On Sun, 11/30/08, Atchley, Clinton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Atchley, Clinton <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Correct?
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Sunday, November 30, 2008, 11:37 AM

In traditional grammar you find a similar use of objective case pronouns
when they function as subjects of infinitives in a sentence like "Bill
wanted him to go home."  Here the infinitive "to go" functions
as the
direct object since what Bill wanted was the action of going to take
place.  Bill does not want "him"; "him" is the agent of the
action of
the infinitive.  It's quite common actually.  "We consider him to be
completely honest."  "The teacher let us decorate the room." 
"We left
after seeing him break the record."

Clinton Atchley, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of English
Box 7652
1100 Henderson Street
Henderson State University
Arkadelphia, AR  71999
Phone: 870.230.5276
Email: [log in to unmask] 
Web:  http://www.hsu.edu/atchlec 

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 11:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Correct?

I agree that they are nominative absolutes, but I'll follow up on my
earlier comment on changes in the function of objective pronouns.  This
is another instance of what were traditionally object pronouns taking on
pragmatic roles and marking focus.  Like Craig, I would probably use the
subjective forms, but these are among the more acceptable uses of object
pronouns in non-object position.

Herb

Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN  47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Crow [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: November 30, 2008 9:36 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Correct?

You are dead on as usual.  I see now that calling them absolutes is a
much more logical analysis.  The possibly understood "with" is great!

Thanks, Craig.
John

On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Craig Hancock
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
John,
  I would classify them as "absolutes", which I would define as
subject
bearing participle clauses. (Traditional grammar calls them phrases.)
  My own preference would be for "he" and "I" in the
subject roles, but
these are also commonly introduced by "with", which could be thought
of
as understood here. "I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one
of the metal tables overlooking the pool, with him sipping his Mountain
Dew and me groping for pen and paper." Maybe the writer drafted it with
"with" and then took it out, leaving the objective pronouns.
  Hope that helps.

Craig
  >


What are the structures appended to the end of the main clause below?
> They
> feel like participles, but they have pseudo-subjects.  Is it correct
to
> use
> the objective pronouns in these structures?
>
> *I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one of the metal tables
> overlooking the pool, him sipping his Mountain Dew and me groping for
a
> pen
> and paper.
>
> *I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> 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/ --0-1037560375-1228094156=:84175-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:08:06 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: past-perfect trolling In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_d727ea66-a7bf-40a1-bdf2-ba584ac04d01_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_d727ea66-a7bf-40a1-bdf2-ba584ac04d01_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable And let the congregation say, "Amen!"Geoff Layton Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:42:00 -0800From: [log in to unmask]: Re: past-perfect trollingTo: [log in to unmask] Great advice! Paul E. Doniger "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128). From: Richard Wallis <[log in to unmask]>To: [log in to unmask]: Sunday, November 30, 2008 2:38:41 PMSubject: past-perfect trolling Again I'll state one of the definitions of "trolling": FORCING A DISCUSSION TO GO AROUND IN CIRCLES FOR ONE'S OWN AMUSEMENT AND THE IRRITATION OF OTHERS Our wind-up troll is at it again. Every time you respond, you wind him up to keep the circle spinning. I suggest ignoring the wind-up troll, because such Internet denizens rarely stop of their own accord. Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious email. Sign up today. 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/ _________________________________________________________________ Proud to be a PC? Show the world. Download the “I’m a PC” Messenger themepack now. hthttp://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119642558/direct/01/ 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/ --_d727ea66-a7bf-40a1-bdf2-ba584ac04d01_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable And let the congregation say, "Amen!"

Geoff Layton



Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:42:00 -0800
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: past-perfect trolling
To: [log in to unmask]

Great advice!
 
Paul E. Doniger
 
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).


From: Richard Wallis <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 2:38:41 PM
Subject: past-perfect trolling





Again I'll state one of the definitions of "trolling":

FORCING A DISCUSSION TO GO AROUND IN CIRCLES FOR ONE'S OWN AMUSEMENT AND THE IRRITATION OF OTHERS
 
Our wind-up troll is at it again. Every time you respond, you wind him up to keep the circle spinning.
 
I suggest ignoring the wind-up troll, because such Internet denizens rarely stop of their own accord.

Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious email. Sign up today. 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/

Proud to be a PC? Show the world. Download the “I’m a PC” Messenger themepack now. Download now. 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/ --_d727ea66-a7bf-40a1-bdf2-ba584ac04d01_-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:39:03 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Don Stewart <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Correct? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_55024_4311093.1228095543404" ------=_Part_55024_4311093.1228095543404 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline John and Craig, In his essay "In Defense of the Absolute," Francis Christensen mentions that "with" can begin an absolute phrase. He calls it an "empty" word, and elsewhere calls it a "marker" of the absolute. It can be deleted, and you still have the absolute phrase. It is especially useful to alert the reader when it begins the sentence. With the newcomers hopeless and forlorn, and the old team worn out by twenty-five hundred miles of continuous trail, the outlook was anything but bright. [Jack London] Christensen also gives credit to Curme for recognizing that in popular speech, especially in Irish, the construction is sometimes introduced by "and" ("Did you not hear his reverence, and he speaking to you now?" [Synge]) and that in this construction, as elsewhere in popular speech, the nominative is often replaced by the accusative ("It will be a very good match for me, m'm, me being an orphan girl" [Wells]). -- Don Stewart Write for College ______________________ Keeper of the memory and method of Dr. Francis Christensen On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Atchley, Clinton <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > In traditional grammar you find a similar use of objective case pronouns > when they function as subjects of infinitives in a sentence like "Bill > wanted him to go home." Here the infinitive "to go" functions as the > direct object since what Bill wanted was the action of going to take > place. Bill does not want "him"; "him" is the agent of the action of > the infinitive. It's quite common actually. "We consider him to be > completely honest." "The teacher let us decorate the room." "We left > after seeing him break the record." > > Clinton Atchley, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of English > Box 7652 > 1100 Henderson Street > Henderson State University > Arkadelphia, AR 71999 > Phone: 870.230.5276 > Email: [log in to unmask] > Web: http://www.hsu.edu/atchlec > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 11:45 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Correct? > > I agree that they are nominative absolutes, but I'll follow up on my > earlier comment on changes in the function of objective pronouns. This > is another instance of what were traditionally object pronouns taking on > pragmatic roles and marking focus. Like Craig, I would probably use the > subjective forms, but these are among the more acceptable uses of object > pronouns in non-object position. > > Herb > > Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. > Emeritus Professor of English > Ball State University > Muncie, IN 47306 > [log in to unmask] > ________________________________________ > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Crow [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: November 30, 2008 9:36 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Correct? > > You are dead on as usual. I see now that calling them absolutes is a > much more logical analysis. The possibly understood "with" is great! > > Thanks, Craig. > John > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Craig Hancock > <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > John, > I would classify them as "absolutes", which I would define as subject > bearing participle clauses. (Traditional grammar calls them phrases.) > My own preference would be for "he" and "I" in the subject roles, but > these are also commonly introduced by "with", which could be thought of > as understood here. "I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one > of the metal tables overlooking the pool, with him sipping his Mountain > Dew and me groping for pen and paper." Maybe the writer drafted it with > "with" and then took it out, leaving the objective pronouns. > Hope that helps. > > Craig > > > > > What are the structures appended to the end of the main clause below? > > They > > feel like participles, but they have pseudo-subjects. Is it correct > to > > use > > the objective pronouns in these structures? > > > > *I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one of the metal tables > > overlooking the pool, him sipping his Mountain Dew and me groping for > a > > pen > > and paper. > > > > *I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving! > > > > Thanks, > > John > > > > 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/ > -- Don Stewart Write for College ______________________ Keeper of the memory and method of Dr. Francis Christensen 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/ ------=_Part_55024_4311093.1228095543404 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline John and Craig,

In his essay "In Defense of the Absolute," Francis Christensen mentions that "with" can begin an absolute phrase. He calls it an "empty" word, and elsewhere calls it a "marker" of the absolute. It can be deleted, and you still have the absolute phrase. It is especially useful to alert the reader when it begins the sentence.

With the newcomers hopeless and forlorn, and the old team worn out by twenty-five hundred miles of continuous trail, the outlook was anything but bright. [Jack London]


Christensen also gives credit to Curme
for recognizing that in popular speech, especially in Irish, the
construction is sometimes introduced by "and" ("Did you not hear his
reverence, and he speaking to you now?" [Synge]) and that in this
construction, as elsewhere in popular speech, the nominative is
often replaced by the accusative ("It will be a very good match for
me, m'm, me being an orphan girl" [Wells]).

--
Don Stewart
Write for College
______________________
Keeper of the memory and method
of Dr. Francis Christensen

On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Atchley, Clinton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
In traditional grammar you find a similar use of objective case pronouns
when they function as subjects of infinitives in a sentence like "Bill
wanted him to go home."  Here the infinitive "to go" functions as the
direct object since what Bill wanted was the action of going to take
place.  Bill does not want "him"; "him" is the agent of the action of
the infinitive.  It's quite common actually.  "We consider him to be
completely honest."  "The teacher let us decorate the room."  "We left
after seeing him break the record."

Clinton Atchley, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of English
Box 7652
1100 Henderson Street
Henderson State University
Arkadelphia, AR  71999
Phone: 870.230.5276
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web:  http://www.hsu.edu/atchlec

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
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: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:46:02 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Correct? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 If you confine yourself, as most texts as well as the Quirk et al. grammar do, then you'll probably find something like an SVOO pattern and an SVOC pattern. The former is for ditransitives. The latter covers complex transitives, or object complement constructions. Because these models of grammar do not involve derivation, object + infinitive constructions will fall into this pattern as well. So, yes, "we wanted him to go home" and "we elected him president" have the same pattern. As to the treatment of nominative absolutes as containing an implied "be," you're right. Herb Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of English Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 [log in to unmask] ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods [[log in to unmask]] Sent: November 30, 2008 8:15 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Correct? What would be the negative implications, pedagogically, analytically, or otherwise, with 7th graders, of treating sentences like "We wanted him to go home" as containing a direct object and an object complement, rather than using the infinitive as the direct object in the same way we might analyze "We elected him president" ? Also, is it a faulty analysis to think of absolutes as containing an implied "be," the lack of which makes them a clause, and the insertion of which is a test for being an absolute? That is, are absolutes basically clauses with the "be" dropped? Scott Woods --- On Sun, 11/30/08, Atchley, Clinton <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Atchley, Clinton <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Correct? To: [log in to unmask] Date: Sunday, November 30, 2008, 11:37 AM In traditional grammar you find a similar use of objective case pronouns when they function as subjects of infinitives in a sentence like "Bill wanted him to go home." Here the infinitive "to go" functions as the direct object since what Bill wanted was the action of going to take place. Bill does not want "him"; "him" is the agent of the action of the infinitive. It's quite common actually. "We consider him to be completely honest." "The teacher let us decorate the room." "We left after seeing him break the record." Clinton Atchley, Ph.D. Associate Professor of English Box 7652 1100 Henderson Street Henderson State University Arkadelphia, AR 71999 Phone: 870.230.5276 Email: [log in to unmask] Web: http://www.hsu.edu/atchlec -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 11:45 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Correct? I agree that they are nominative absolutes, but I'll follow up on my earlier comment on changes in the function of objective pronouns. This is another instance of what were traditionally object pronouns taking on pragmatic roles and marking focus. Like Craig, I would probably use the subjective forms, but these are among the more acceptable uses of object pronouns in non-object position. Herb Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of English Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 [log in to unmask] ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Crow [[log in to unmask]] Sent: November 30, 2008 9:36 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Correct? You are dead on as usual. I see now that calling them absolutes is a much more logical analysis. The possibly understood "with" is great! Thanks, Craig. John On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote: John, I would classify them as "absolutes", which I would define as subject bearing participle clauses. (Traditional grammar calls them phrases.) My own preference would be for "he" and "I" in the subject roles, but these are also commonly introduced by "with", which could be thought of as understood here. "I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one of the metal tables overlooking the pool, with him sipping his Mountain Dew and me groping for pen and paper." Maybe the writer drafted it with "with" and then took it out, leaving the objective pronouns. Hope that helps. Craig > What are the structures appended to the end of the main clause below? > They > feel like participles, but they have pseudo-subjects. Is it correct to > use > the objective pronouns in these structures? > > *I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one of the metal tables > overlooking the pool, him sipping his Mountain Dew and me groping for a > pen > and paper. > > *I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving! > > Thanks, > John > > 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/