John,

You might check Mark Lester's text Grammar in the Classroom.  He has an excellent treatment of the different sorts of phrasal verbs.

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, 4 Mar 2009 21:22:55 -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: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: "convinces us that..."? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I finally got a library copy of Beth Levin's book (English Verb Classes and Alternations) and she classifies "convince" as a verb of psychological state, amuse type. "The members of this sub-class of the psych-verbs describe the bringing about of a change in the psychological or emotional state. They are transitive verbs whose object is the experiencer of the emotion and whose subject is the cause of the change in psychological state." It looks like a very rich and interesting book, the kind of text you might want to have around for reference. I'm already sad that it has a due date.> Craig, > > I do believe that you have shown that convince has a causative element and > that it does not exclude the resultive element. The first is like: “He > convinced us that we should vote for BO.” The second is like “He > caused us to believe that BO is the best candidate.” This would clearly > make the third example redundant: “He caused us to believe that we > should believe that BO is the best candidate.” At this point my faith > is renewed that disciplined paraphrase will bring out the meanings, while > possibly degrading stylistic niceties. > > Bruce > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock > Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 10:11 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: "convinces us that..."? > > Bruce, et. al., > I have been wrestling in my mind with the thought that "convince" may > be somewhat causative, even in a sentence like the Poe sentence. > > "He convinced us to vote for Barack Obama." Definitely causative. > "He convinced us that Barack Obama is the best candidate." not so sure. > "He convinced us to believe that Barack obama is the best candidate." > Seems causative. The meaning seems the same, though it is mildly > redundant. Does that mean the causative meaning is always there, that the > clause is perhaps more a result clause than just the content of a > message? > "He told us that Barack Obama is the best candidate" seems to differ > largely by being causatively neutral. > > At about this point, I remind myself that our categories are very rough > and that we don't want to distort the nature of language by forcing > everything into a category even when it doesn't seem to fit. > > Craig > > Bruce Despain wrote: > I guess I’m on to reply to Scott too. Consider my reply and apology to > John; it may help. > > He showed us the tree. subject, verb, indirect object, direct object > He showed us that the tree was dead. subject, verb, indirect object, > clause as direct object > > I think these verbs are related but different semantically. The first > implies the presence of a tree, whereas the second can be confined to > mental space. The indirect object allows a passive: “We were shown that > the tree was dead.” I’ll just point out parallels in “He showed the > tree to us” viz. “He showed it to us that the tree was dead.” These > have the prepositional phrase as in some of the next examples. The > borderline existence of passives is perhaps pivotal ?“We were shown the > tree to” viz. ?“We were shown it to, that the tree was dead.” > > He proved that the tree was dead. subject, verb, clause as direct object > He proved to us that the tree was dead. subject, verb, prepositional > phrase, clause as direct object > > This is “indirect object” only semantically. The phrase confines the > mental activity to certain people. We might think there no passive for > it: *”We were proved that the tree was dead.” However: ?”We were > proved it to, that the tree was dead.” This seems to make it arguable > that the p.p. hides a prepositional object. > > He demonstrated that the tree was dead. subject, verb, clause as direct > object > He demonstrated to us that the tree was dead. subject, verb, > prepositional phrase, clause as direct object > > as with proved. ??”We were demonstrated it to, that the tree was > dead.” > > He convinced the children to study grammar. subject, verb, direct object, > infinitive phrase as a result clause > > The children will study grammar. Result clauses are usually adverbial > adjuncts. > > He convinced us of the truth. subject, verb, direct object, prepositional > phrase > > The truth is object of the preposition. This does not seem to be a > phrasal verb, since the object of the preposition cannot be made subject > of a passive form of the verb. But this may be due to the fact that the > verb already has one direct object. I take the prepositional phrase as > adverbial to convince telling the extent. > > He convinced us that the tree was dead. subject, verb, direct object, > clause as adverb of extent (object of omitted preposition of) > > I think the last two sentences are fully parallel in structure > (analogous). > > Bruce > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 8:37 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: "convinces us that..."? > > List, > The following sentences seem similar, but the verbs aren't > interchangeable. Do you agree with my analyses? Any suggestions? > > Sub, verb, indirect object, direct object > Sub, verb, indirect object, clausal > direct object > Sub, berb, clausal direct object > Sub, verb, indirect object in > prepositional phrase, clausal direct object > Sub, verb, clausal direct object > Subject, verb, indirect > object in prepositional phrase, clausal direct object > subject, verb, direct object, > infinitive phrase (How would you describe the function of the > infinitive?) > subject, verb, direct object, prepositional > phrase? attached to phrasal verb?, What is the function of truth>? > subject, verb, ?,? Is this > analogous to the sentence? > Scott Woods > > > --- On Tue, 3/3/09, John Dews-Alexander > <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: John Dews-Alexander > <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: "convinces us that..."? > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 3:13 PM > I had never considered phrasal verbs taking an object in the way that > prepositional phrases do until Bruce's e-mail. > > Bruce, I hope this isn't too general of a request, but could you elaborate > on your second paragraph? I feel like I've almost grasped the concept > you're trying to relay, but I'm missing something. Are you saying that the > indirect object function is not present in this sentence, that it has been > omitted? (And, perhaps, that it would be present if the sentence had the > structure, "Someone/something convinces someone of something for/on behalf > of someone"?) Could you provide an example of what you mean by, "[T]he > dative....appears with the prepositional object of this same sort"? > > I think some of my confusion if stemming from some German interference. In > German, "to convince someone of something" would be "jemanden (von etwas) > uberzeugen" (with umlaut on the "u"). The "someone" ("jemanden") is in the > accusative/direct object case, and the "of something" is in the > dative/indirect object case. My understanding of your analysis has the "of > something" as the object of a preposition/phrasal verb but not necessarily > functioning as the indirect object. Have I muddled your intended meaning? > > John > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bruce Despain > <[log in to unmask][log in to unmask]>> > wrote: > Patty and Scott, > > I think Patty is on the right track. The noun clause is the object of the > prepositional verb “convince of” whereas “us” is in the role of > direct object. Something convinces someone of something. The preposition > is regularly omitted when its object is a (factive noun) clause. > > What is interesting is that the dative (or benefactive) appears with the > prepositional object of this same sort. However, the person to whom or > for whom the particular action of the verb is performed cannot be > expressed with a factive noun clause, so the confusion does not occur > with the loss of the preposition. The preposition is regularly omitted > when its object is a pronoun and/or it is placed before the object of the > verb. This, of course, is the so-called indirect object, and its surface > structure is very similar to the former case of an omitted preposition. > > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask][log in to unmask]>] > On Behalf Of Patricia Lafayllve > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 7:56 AM > > To: > [log in to unmask][log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: "convinces us that..."? > > A return question… > > If we take the original sentence down a bit, we have us>. My eyes read as the direct object, which would then make a…explanation> the clause that answers the question “What” (as in, > what does the language convince us). So…why would we take as the > indirect object? > > -patty > > ________________________________ > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask][log in to unmask]>] > On Behalf Of Scott Woods > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:40 AM > To: > [log in to unmask][log in to unmask]> > Subject: "convinces us that..."? > > > List, > > I have a few questions about the following sentence: > > explanation will not suffice, however neatly it fits the external facts. > > > > > > Would you take as the indirect object? Would you take the > clause after it as the direct object? Is this analogous to monkey>? Does always take a noun clause object when it takes an > direct object? In , is now the direct object, that > is, we were the convinced ones, or is there still an implied clausal > direct object leaving as an indirect object? > > > > 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/ > > > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended > recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any > unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you > are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email > and destroy all copies of the original message. > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > 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, 4 Mar 2009 18:48:28 -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: Cynthia Baird <[log in to unmask]> Subject: incorrect future perfect? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-52683511-1236221308=:97173" --0-52683511-1236221308=:97173 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Would anyone care to comment on this sentence?  It came up in a literacy textbook I have to use, and a student had real difficulty with accepting this as a logical sentence.  I gave him my explanation about why I thought the sentence was problematic, but I would like to hear from some of you to know if I was right or wrong in my assessment of the sentence.   The sentence read as follows:   We will have finished the project tomorrow.   I know the sentence contains a future perfect, and I risk Brad's comments, but so be it. 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/ --0-52683511-1236221308=:97173 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Would anyone care to comment on this sentence?  It came up in a literacy textbook I have to use, and a student had real difficulty with accepting this as a logical sentence.  I gave him my explanation about why I thought the sentence was problematic, but I would like to hear from some of you to know if I was right or wrong in my assessment of the sentence.   The sentence read as follows:   We will have finished the project tomorrow.   I know the sentence contains a future perfect, and I risk Brad's comments, but so be it.

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/ --0-52683511-1236221308=:97173-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:23:21 +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: incorrect future perfect? 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 Cynthia Baird wrote: > Would anyone care to comment on this sentence? It came up in a literacy textbook I have to use, and a student had real difficulty with accepting this as a logical sentence. I gave him my explanation about why I thought the sentence was problematic, but I would like to hear from some of you to know if I was right or wrong in my assessment of the sentence. > > The sentence read as follows: > > We will have finished the project tomorrow. > Most speakers would be happy with "I will finish the project tomorrow". To say, "I will have finished it tomorrow" must mean that by tomorrow its finishing will have been yesterday, and since today is tomorrow's yesterday and our project is not finished, this must mean that our project is finished now, and we know that this is not true. I would say that your student is suffering from an excessive pedantry. Tomorrow is a long time, and in some parts of the world it never actually comes. Mark > > I know the sentence contains a future perfect, and I risk Brad's comments, but so be it. > > > > > 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, 5 Mar 2009 04:36:54 -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: incorrect future perfect? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1568193453-1236256614=:57400" --0-1568193453-1236256614=:57400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cynthia,   A context:  Speaker A: I will bring in my submission to the project tomorrow morning. Speaker B: We will have finished the project tomorrow.  Your submission would be too late.  Bring it in by 4 o'clock this afternoon if you want it to be included. This seems to work well.  The future perfect seems useful and correct here. Scott Woods --- On Wed, 3/4/09, Cynthia Baird <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Cynthia Baird <[log in to unmask]> Subject: incorrect future perfect? To: [log in to unmask] Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 7:48 PM Would anyone care to comment on this sentence?  It came up in a literacy textbook I have to use, and a student had real difficulty with accepting this as a logical sentence.  I gave him my explanation about why I thought the sentence was problematic, but I would like to hear from some of you to know if I was right or wrong in my assessment of the sentence.   The sentence read as follows:   We will have finished the project tomorrow.   I know the sentence contains a future perfect, and I risk Brad's comments, but so be it. 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/ --0-1568193453-1236256614=:57400 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Cynthia,   A context:  Speaker A: I will bring in my submission to the project tomorrow morning. Speaker B: We will have finished the project tomorrow.  Your submission would be too late.  Bring it in by 4 o'clock this afternoon if you want it to be included. This seems to work well.  The future perfect seems useful and correct here. Scott Woods --- On Wed, 3/4/09, Cynthia Baird <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Cynthia Baird <[log in to unmask]> Subject: incorrect future perfect? To: [log in to unmask] Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 7:48 PM Would anyone care to comment on this sentence?  It came up in a literacy textbook I have to use, and a student had real difficulty with accepting this as a logical sentence.  I gave him my explanation about why I thought the sentence was problematic, but I would like to hear from some of you to know if I was right or wrong in my assessment of the sentence.   The sentence read as follows:   We will have finished the project tomorrow.   I know the sentence contains a future perfect, and I risk Brad's comments, but so be it. 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/ --0-1568193453-1236256614=:57400-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 06:37:43 -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: incorrect future perfect? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-2131345631-1236263863=:5480" --0-2131345631-1236263863=:5480 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable IMAHO, the student is right to be troubled. The sentence should read:   ( a ) We will finish the project tomorrow, or ( b ) We will have finished the project by tomorrow, or  ( c ) By tomorrow, we will have finished the project.   Past perfect: By the time something happened, something else had already happened.   Future perfect: By the time something happens, something else will have already happened.   Totally risk-free, non e cosi?   .brad.05mar09. --- On Wed, 3/4/09, Cynthia Baird <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Would anyone care to comment on this sentence?  It came up in a literacy textbook I have to use, and a student had real difficulty with accepting this as a logical sentence.  I gave him my explanation about why I thought the sentence was problematic, but I would like to hear from some of you to know if I was right or wrong in my assessment of the sentence.   The sentence read as follows:   We will have finished the project tomorrow.   I know the sentence contains a future perfect, and I risk Brad's comments, but so be it. 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/ --0-2131345631-1236263863=:5480 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

IMAHO, the student is right to be troubled. The sentence should read:   ( a ) We will finish the project tomorrow, or ( b ) We will have finished the project by tomorrow, or  ( c ) By tomorrow, we will have finished the project.   Past perfect: By the time something happened, something else had already happened.   Future perfect: By the time something happens, something else will have already happened.   Totally risk-free, non e cosi?   .brad.05mar09. --- On Wed, 3/4/09, Cynthia Baird <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Would anyone care to comment on this sentence?  It came up in a literacy textbook I have to use, and a student had real difficulty with accepting this as a logical sentence.  I gave him my explanation about why I thought the sentence was problematic, but I would like to hear from some of you to know if I was right or wrong in my assessment of the sentence.   The sentence read as follows:   We will have finished the project tomorrow.   I know the sentence contains a future perfect, and I risk Brad's comments, but so be it.

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/ --0-2131345631-1236263863=:5480-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 12:12:34 -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: Scott <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Future perfect and another passive +object; was ATEG Digest - 3 Mar 2009 to 4 Mar 2009 (#2009-50) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "We will have finished the project tomorrow." At a time in the future and action will have been completed. Where's the beef? My ESOL students had no problem with future perfects--then again, all were college graduates. My non-college graduate ESOL students spoke a fluent but very basic English and I concentrated on their obvious errors in writing. I once remarked that they were illiterate in two languages: Los Angeles schools do not require even a basic command of written English to graduate and they were not allowed to take Spanish because they spoke Spanish in the home--making them illiterate in Spanish. My pebble in the pond: I was taught in my advanced grammar class in 1960 that "I was baked a cake" was perfectly grammatical and all in the class had heard or used similar phrases. When we went to diagram the sentence we found "cake" to be the subject and "I" to be the indirect object. The professor explained that "I" was a retained indirect object in the nominative position and I used that explanation for that sentence and for "He was fried three eggs"--a contribution from a student. Does modern English grammar still support that explanation. All grammar teachers who rejected the concept had to fall back on the supposition that the sentences were ungrammaticalbacause they insisted that 'I' and 'He' had to be subjects and they had never heard of retained indirect objects in the nominative position; ergo, such things did not exist. Scott Catledge 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, 5 Mar 2009 13:00:14 -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: "convinces us that..."? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Q3JhaWcsDQoNCkl0J3MgYSBib29rIEkndmUgaGFkIGluIG15IGxpYnJhcnkgZm9yIHNvbWUgdGlt ZSBhbmQgdXNlIHF1aXRlIGEgYml0LiAgQSByZW1hcmthYmxlIHBpZWNlIG9mIHJlc2VhcmNoLg0K DQpIZXJiDQoNCi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQpGcm9tOiBBc3NlbWJseSBmb3Ig dGhlIFRlYWNoaW5nIG9mIEVuZ2xpc2ggR3JhbW1hciBbbWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVP SElPLkVEVV0gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIENyYWlnIEhhbmNvY2sNClNlbnQ6IDIwMDktMDMtMDQgMjE6 MjMNClRvOiBBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFUNClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiAiY29udmluY2Vz IHVzIHRoYXQuLi4iPw0KDQogICBJIGZpbmFsbHkgZ290IGEgbGlicmFyeSBjb3B5IG9mIEJldGgg TGV2aW4ncyBib29rIChFbmdsaXNoIFZlcmIgQ2xhc3Nlcw0KYW5kIEFsdGVybmF0aW9ucykgYW5k IHNoZSBjbGFzc2lmaWVzICJjb252aW5jZSIgYXMgYSB2ZXJiIG9mDQpwc3ljaG9sb2dpY2FsIHN0 YXRlLCBhbXVzZSB0eXBlLiAiVGhlIG1lbWJlcnMgb2YgdGhpcyBzdWItY2xhc3Mgb2YgdGhlDQpw c3ljaC12ZXJicyBkZXNjcmliZSB0aGUgYnJpbmdpbmcgYWJvdXQgb2YgYSBjaGFuZ2UgaW4gdGhl DQpwc3ljaG9sb2dpY2FsIG9yIGVtb3Rpb25hbCBzdGF0ZS4gVGhleSBhcmUgdHJhbnNpdGl2ZSB2 ZXJicyB3aG9zZQ0Kb2JqZWN0IGlzIHRoZSBleHBlcmllbmNlciBvZiB0aGUgZW1vdGlvbiBhbmQg d2hvc2Ugc3ViamVjdCBpcyB0aGUgY2F1c2UNCm9mIHRoZSBjaGFuZ2UgaW4gcHN5Y2hvbG9naWNh bCBzdGF0ZS4iDQoNCiAgIEl0IGxvb2tzIGxpa2UgYSB2ZXJ5IHJpY2ggYW5kIGludGVyZXN0aW5n IGJvb2ssIHRoZSBraW5kIG9mIHRleHQgeW91DQptaWdodCB3YW50IHRvIGhhdmUgYXJvdW5kIGZv ciByZWZlcmVuY2UuIEknbSBhbHJlYWR5IHNhZCB0aGF0IGl0IGhhcyBhDQpkdWUgZGF0ZS4+DQoN CkNyYWlnLA0KPg0KPiBJIGRvIGJlbGlldmUgdGhhdCB5b3UgaGF2ZSBzaG93biB0aGF0IGNvbnZp bmNlIGhhcyBhIGNhdXNhdGl2ZSBlbGVtZW50IGFuZA0KPiB0aGF0IGl0IGRvZXMgbm90IGV4Y2x1 ZGUgdGhlIHJlc3VsdGl2ZSBlbGVtZW50LiAgVGhlIGZpcnN0IGlzIGxpa2U6IMOi4oKsxZNIZQ0K PiBjb252aW5jZWQgdXMgdGhhdCB3ZSBzaG91bGQgdm90ZSBmb3IgQk8uw6LigqzCnSBUaGUgc2Vj b25kIGlzIGxpa2Ugw6LigqzFk0hlDQo+IGNhdXNlZCB1cyB0byBiZWxpZXZlIHRoYXQgQk8gaXMg dGhlIGJlc3QgY2FuZGlkYXRlLsOi4oKswp0gVGhpcyB3b3VsZCBjbGVhcmx5DQo+IG1ha2UgdGhl IHRoaXJkIGV4YW1wbGUgcmVkdW5kYW50OiDDouKCrMWTSGUgY2F1c2VkIHVzIHRvIGJlbGlldmUg dGhhdCB3ZQ0KPiBzaG91bGQgYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGF0IEJPIGlzIHRoZSBiZXN0IGNhbmRpZGF0ZS7D ouKCrMKdICBBdCB0aGlzIHBvaW50IG15IGZhaXRoDQo+IGlzIHJlbmV3ZWQgdGhhdCBkaXNjaXBs aW5lZCBwYXJhcGhyYXNlIHdpbGwgYnJpbmcgb3V0IHRoZSBtZWFuaW5ncywgd2hpbGUNCj4gcG9z c2libHkgZGVncmFkaW5nIHN0eWxpc3RpYyBuaWNldGllcy4NCj4NCj4gQnJ1Y2UNCj4NCj4gRnJv bTogQXNzZW1ibHkgZm9yIHRoZSBUZWFjaGluZyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXINCj4gW21haWx0 bzpBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFVdIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBDcmFpZyBIYW5jb2NrDQo+ IFNlbnQ6IFdlZG5lc2RheSwgTWFyY2ggMDQsIDIwMDkgMTA6MTEgQU0NCj4gVG86IEFURUdATElT VFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVQ0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogImNvbnZpbmNlcyB1cyB0aGF0Li4uIj8N Cj4NCj4gQnJ1Y2UsIGV0LiBhbC4sDQo+ICAgIEkgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIHdyZXN0bGluZyBpbiBteSBt aW5kIHdpdGggdGhlIHRob3VnaHQgdGhhdCAiY29udmluY2UiIG1heQ0KPiBiZSBzb21ld2hhdCBj YXVzYXRpdmUsIGV2ZW4gaW4gYSBzZW50ZW5jZSBsaWtlIHRoZSBQb2Ugc2VudGVuY2UuDQo+DQo+ ICJIZSBjb252aW5jZWQgdXMgdG8gdm90ZSBmb3IgQmFyYWNrIE9iYW1hLiIgRGVmaW5pdGVseSBj YXVzYXRpdmUuDQo+ICJIZSBjb252aW5jZWQgdXMgdGhhdCBCYXJhY2sgT2JhbWEgaXMgdGhlIGJl c3QgY2FuZGlkYXRlLiIgbm90IHNvIHN1cmUuDQo+ICJIZSBjb252aW5jZWQgdXMgdG8gYmVsaWV2 ZSB0aGF0IEJhcmFjayBvYmFtYSBpcyB0aGUgYmVzdCBjYW5kaWRhdGUuIg0KPiBTZWVtcyBjYXVz YXRpdmUuIFRoZSBtZWFuaW5nIHNlZW1zIHRoZSBzYW1lLCB0aG91Z2ggaXQgaXMgbWlsZGx5DQo+ IHJlZHVuZGFudC4gRG9lcyB0aGF0IG1lYW4gdGhlIGNhdXNhdGl2ZSBtZWFuaW5nIGlzIGFsd2F5 cyB0aGVyZSwgdGhhdCB0aGUNCj4gY2xhdXNlIGlzIHBlcmhhcHMgbW9yZSBhIHJlc3VsdCBjbGF1 c2UgdGhhbiBqdXN0IHRoZSBjb250ZW50IG9mIGENCj4gbWVzc2FnZT8NCj4gICAgIkhlIHRvbGQg dXMgdGhhdCBCYXJhY2sgT2JhbWEgaXMgdGhlIGJlc3QgY2FuZGlkYXRlIiBzZWVtcyB0byBkaWZm ZXINCj4gbGFyZ2VseSBieSBiZWluZyBjYXVzYXRpdmVseSBuZXV0cmFsLg0KPg0KPiBBdCBhYm91 dCB0aGlzIHBvaW50LCBJIHJlbWluZCBteXNlbGYgdGhhdCBvdXIgY2F0ZWdvcmllcyBhcmUgdmVy eSByb3VnaA0KPiBhbmQgdGhhdCB3ZSBkb24ndCB3YW50IHRvIGRpc3RvcnQgdGhlIG5hdHVyZSBv ZiBsYW5ndWFnZSBieSBmb3JjaW5nDQo+IGV2ZXJ5dGhpbmcgaW50byBhIGNhdGVnb3J5IGV2ZW4g d2hlbiBpdCBkb2Vzbid0IHNlZW0gdG8gZml0Lg0KPg0KPiBDcmFpZw0KPg0KPiBCcnVjZSBEZXNw YWluIHdyb3RlOg0KPiBJIGd1ZXNzIEnDouKCrOKEom0gb24gdG8gcmVwbHkgdG8gU2NvdHQgdG9v LiAgQ29uc2lkZXIgbXkgcmVwbHkgYW5kIGFwb2xvZ3kgdG8NCj4gSm9objsgaXQgbWF5IGhlbHAu DQo+DQo+IEhlIHNob3dlZCB1cyB0aGUgdHJlZS4gIHN1YmplY3QsIHZlcmIsIGluZGlyZWN0IG9i amVjdCwgZGlyZWN0IG9iamVjdA0KPiBIZSBzaG93ZWQgdXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgdHJlZSB3YXMgZGVh ZC4gIHN1YmplY3QsIHZlcmIsIGluZGlyZWN0IG9iamVjdCwNCj4gY2xhdXNlIGFzIGRpcmVjdCBv YmplY3QNCj4NCj4gSSB0aGluayB0aGVzZSB2ZXJicyBhcmUgcmVsYXRlZCBidXQgZGlmZmVyZW50 IHNlbWFudGljYWxseS4gIFRoZSBmaXJzdA0KPiBpbXBsaWVzIHRoZSBwcmVzZW5jZSBvZiBhIHRy ZWUsIHdoZXJlYXMgdGhlIHNlY29uZCBjYW4gYmUgY29uZmluZWQgdG8NCj4gbWVudGFsIHNwYWNl LiAgVGhlIGluZGlyZWN0IG9iamVjdCBhbGxvd3MgYSBwYXNzaXZlOiDDouKCrMWTV2Ugd2VyZSBz aG93biB0aGF0DQo+IHRoZSB0cmVlIHdhcyBkZWFkLsOi4oKswp0gIEnDouKCrOKEomxsIGp1c3Qg cG9pbnQgb3V0IHBhcmFsbGVscyBpbiDDouKCrMWTSGUgc2hvd2VkIHRoZQ0KPiB0cmVlIHRvIHVz w6LigqzCnSB2aXouIMOi4oKsxZNIZSBzaG93ZWQgaXQgdG8gdXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgdHJlZSB3YXMg ZGVhZC7DouKCrMKdICBUaGVzZQ0KPiBoYXZlIHRoZSBwcmVwb3NpdGlvbmFsIHBocmFzZSBhcyBp biBzb21lIG9mIHRoZSBuZXh0IGV4YW1wbGVzLiAgVGhlDQo+IGJvcmRlcmxpbmUgZXhpc3RlbmNl IG9mIHBhc3NpdmVzIGlzIHBlcmhhcHMgcGl2b3RhbCA/w6LigqzFk1dlIHdlcmUgc2hvd24gdGhl DQo+IHRyZWUgdG/DouKCrMKdIHZpei4gP8Oi4oKsxZNXZSB3ZXJlIHNob3duIGl0IHRvLCB0aGF0 IHRoZSB0cmVlIHdhcyBkZWFkLsOi4oKswp0NCj4NCj4gSGUgcHJvdmVkIHRoYXQgdGhlIHRyZWUg d2FzIGRlYWQuICBzdWJqZWN0LCB2ZXJiLCBjbGF1c2UgYXMgZGlyZWN0IG9iamVjdA0KPiBIZSBw cm92ZWQgdG8gdXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgdHJlZSB3YXMgZGVhZC4gICBzdWJqZWN0LCB2ZXJiLCBwcmVw b3NpdGlvbmFsDQo+IHBocmFzZSwgY2xhdXNlIGFzIGRpcmVjdCBvYmplY3QNCj4NCj4gVGhpcyBp cyDDouKCrMWTaW5kaXJlY3Qgb2JqZWN0w6LigqzCnSBvbmx5IHNlbWFudGljYWxseS4gICBUaGUg cGhyYXNlIGNvbmZpbmVzIHRoZQ0KPiBtZW50YWwgYWN0aXZpdHkgdG8gY2VydGFpbiBwZW9wbGUu ICBXZSBtaWdodCB0aGluayB0aGVyZSBubyBwYXNzaXZlIGZvcg0KPiBpdDogKsOi4oKswp1XZSB3 ZXJlIHByb3ZlZCB0aGF0IHRoZSB0cmVlIHdhcyBkZWFkLsOi4oKswp0gIEhvd2V2ZXI6ID/DouKC rMKdV2Ugd2VyZQ0KPiBwcm92ZWQgaXQgdG8sIHRoYXQgdGhlIHRyZWUgd2FzIGRlYWQuw6LigqzC nSAgVGhpcyBzZWVtcyB0byBtYWtlIGl0IGFyZ3VhYmxlDQo+IHRoYXQgdGhlIHAucC4gaGlkZXMg YSBwcmVwb3NpdGlvbmFsIG9iamVjdC4NCj4NCj4gSGUgZGVtb25zdHJhdGVkIHRoYXQgdGhlIHRy ZWUgd2FzIGRlYWQuICBzdWJqZWN0LCB2ZXJiLCBjbGF1c2UgYXMgZGlyZWN0DQo+IG9iamVjdA0K PiBIZSBkZW1vbnN0cmF0ZWQgdG8gdXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgdHJlZSB3YXMgZGVhZC4gIHN1YmplY3Qs IHZlcmIsDQo+IHByZXBvc2l0aW9uYWwgcGhyYXNlLCBjbGF1c2UgYXMgZGlyZWN0IG9iamVjdA0K Pg0KPiBhcyB3aXRoIHByb3ZlZC4gID8/w6LigqzCnVdlIHdlcmUgZGVtb25zdHJhdGVkIGl0IHRv LCB0aGF0IHRoZSB0cmVlIHdhcw0KPiBkZWFkLsOi4oKswp0NCj4NCj4gSGUgY29udmluY2VkIHRo ZSBjaGlsZHJlbiB0byBzdHVkeSBncmFtbWFyLiAgc3ViamVjdCwgdmVyYiwgZGlyZWN0IG9iamVj dCwNCj4gaW5maW5pdGl2ZSBwaHJhc2UgYXMgYSByZXN1bHQgY2xhdXNlDQo+DQo+IFRoZSBjaGls ZHJlbiB3aWxsIHN0dWR5IGdyYW1tYXIuICBSZXN1bHQgY2xhdXNlcyBhcmUgdXN1YWxseSBhZHZl cmJpYWwNCj4gYWRqdW5jdHMuDQo+DQo+IEhlIGNvbnZpbmNlZCB1cyBvZiB0aGUgdHJ1dGguICBz dWJqZWN0LCB2ZXJiLCBkaXJlY3Qgb2JqZWN0LCBwcmVwb3NpdGlvbmFsDQo+IHBocmFzZQ0KPg0K PiBUaGUgdHJ1dGggaXMgb2JqZWN0IG9mIHRoZSBwcmVwb3NpdGlvbi4gIFRoaXMgZG9lcyBub3Qg c2VlbSB0byBiZSBhDQo+IHBocmFzYWwgdmVyYiwgc2luY2UgdGhlIG9iamVjdCBvZiB0aGUgcHJl cG9zaXRpb24gY2Fubm90IGJlIG1hZGUgc3ViamVjdA0KPiBvZiBhIHBhc3NpdmUgZm9ybSBvZiB0 aGUgdmVyYi4gIEJ1dCB0aGlzIG1heSBiZSBkdWUgdG8gdGhlIGZhY3QgdGhhdCB0aGUNCj4gdmVy YiBhbHJlYWR5IGhhcyBvbmUgZGlyZWN0IG9iamVjdC4gIEkgdGFrZSB0aGUgcHJlcG9zaXRpb25h bCBwaHJhc2UgYXMNCj4gYWR2ZXJiaWFsIHRvIGNvbnZpbmNlIHRlbGxpbmcgdGhlIGV4dGVudC4N Cj4NCj4gSGUgY29udmluY2VkIHVzIHRoYXQgdGhlIHRyZWUgd2FzIGRlYWQuICBzdWJqZWN0LCB2 ZXJiLCBkaXJlY3Qgb2JqZWN0LA0KPiBjbGF1c2UgYXMgYWR2ZXJiIG9mIGV4dGVudCAob2JqZWN0 IG9mIG9taXR0ZWQgcHJlcG9zaXRpb24gb2YpDQo+DQo+IEkgdGhpbmsgdGhlIGxhc3QgdHdvIHNl bnRlbmNlcyBhcmUgZnVsbHkgcGFyYWxsZWwgaW4gc3RydWN0dXJlDQo+IChhbmFsb2dvdXMpLg0K Pg0KPiBCcnVjZQ0KPg0KPiBGcm9tOiBBc3NlbWJseSBmb3IgdGhlIFRlYWNoaW5nIG9mIEVuZ2xp c2ggR3JhbW1hcg0KPiBbbWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVV0gT24gQmVoYWxm IE9mIFNjb3R0IFdvb2RzDQo+IFNlbnQ6IFR1ZXNkYXksIE1hcmNoIDAzLCAyMDA5IDg6MzcgUE0N Cj4gVG86IEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVTxtYWlsdG86QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9I SU8uRURVPg0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogImNvbnZpbmNlcyB1cyB0aGF0Li4uIj8NCj4NCj4gTGlz dCwNCj4gVGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBzZW50ZW5jZXMgc2VlbSBzaW1pbGFyLCBidXQgdGhlIHZlcmJz IGFyZW4ndA0KPiBpbnRlcmNoYW5nZWFibGUuICBEbyB5b3UgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCBteSBhbmFseXNl cz8gIEFueSBzdWdnZXN0aW9ucz8NCj4NCj4gPEhlIHNob3dlZCB1cyB0aGUgdHJlZT4gIFN1Yiwg dmVyYiwgaW5kaXJlY3Qgb2JqZWN0LCBkaXJlY3Qgb2JqZWN0DQo+IDxIZSBzaG93ZWQgdXMgdGhh dCB0aGUgdHJlZSB3YXMgZGVhZD4gU3ViLCB2ZXJiLCBpbmRpcmVjdCBvYmplY3QsIGNsYXVzYWwN Cj4gZGlyZWN0IG9iamVjdA0KPiA8SGUgcHJvdmVkIHRoYXQgdGhlIHRyZWUgd2FzIGRlYWQ+IFN1 YiwgYmVyYiwgY2xhdXNhbCBkaXJlY3Qgb2JqZWN0DQo+IDxIZSBwcm92ZWQgdG8gdXMgdGhhdCB0 aGUgdHJlZSB3YXMgZGVhZD4gU3ViLCB2ZXJiLCBpbmRpcmVjdCBvYmplY3QgaW4NCj4gcHJlcG9z aXRpb25hbCBwaHJhc2UsIGNsYXVzYWwgZGlyZWN0IG9iamVjdA0KPiA8SGUgZGVtb25zdHJhdGVk IHRoYXQgdGhlIHRyZWUgd2FzIGRlYWQ+IFN1YiwgdmVyYiwgY2xhdXNhbCBkaXJlY3Qgb2JqZWN0 DQo+IDxIZSBkZW1vbnN0cmF0ZWQgdG8gdXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgdHJlZSB3YXMgZGVhZD4gU3ViamVj dCwgdmVyYiwgaW5kaXJlY3QNCj4gb2JqZWN0IGluIHByZXBvc2l0aW9uYWwgcGhyYXNlLCBjbGF1 c2FsIGRpcmVjdCBvYmplY3QNCj4gPEhlIGNvbnZpbmNlZCB0aGUgY2hpbGRyZW4gdG8gc3R1ZHkg Z3JhbW1hcj4gc3ViamVjdCwgdmVyYiwgZGlyZWN0IG9iamVjdCwNCj4gaW5maW5pdGl2ZSBwaHJh c2UgKEhvdyB3b3VsZCB5b3UgZGVzY3JpYmUgdGhlIGZ1bmN0aW9uIG9mIHRoZQ0KPiBpbmZpbml0 aXZlPykNCj4gPEhlIGNvbnZpbmNlZCB1cyBvZiB0aGUgdHJ1dGg+IHN1YmplY3QsIHZlcmIsIGRp cmVjdCBvYmplY3QsIHByZXBvc2l0aW9uYWwNCj4gcGhyYXNlPyA8b2Y+IGF0dGFjaGVkIHRvIHBo cmFzYWwgdmVyYj8sIFdoYXQgaXMgdGhlIGZ1bmN0aW9uIG9mIDx0aGUNCj4gdHJ1dGg+Pw0KPiA8 SGUgY29udmluY2VkIHVzIHRoYXQgdGhlIHRyZWUgd2FzIGRlYWQ+IHN1YmplY3QsIHZlcmIsID8s PyBJcyB0aGlzDQo+IGFuYWxvZ291cyB0byB0aGUgPG9mIHRoZSB0cnV0aD4gc2VudGVuY2U/DQo+ IFNjb3R0IFdvb2RzDQo+DQo+DQo+IC0tLSBPbiBUdWUsIDMvMy8wOSwgSm9obiBEZXdzLUFsZXhh bmRlcg0KPiA8amVkLmFsZXhhbmRlckBHTUFJTC5DT00+PG1haWx0bzpqZWQuYWxleGFuZGVyQEdN QUlMLkNPTT4gd3JvdGU6DQo+DQo+IEZyb206IEpvaG4gRGV3cy1BbGV4YW5kZXINCj4gPGplZC5h bGV4YW5kZXJAR01BSUwuQ09NPjxtYWlsdG86amVkLmFsZXhhbmRlckBHTUFJTC5DT00+DQo+IFN1 YmplY3Q6IFJlOiAiY29udmluY2VzIHVzIHRoYXQuLi4iPw0KPiBUbzogQVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5N VU9ISU8uRURVPG1haWx0bzpBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFU+DQo+IERhdGU6IFR1ZXNk YXksIE1hcmNoIDMsIDIwMDksIDM6MTMgUE0NCj4gSSBoYWQgbmV2ZXIgY29uc2lkZXJlZCBwaHJh c2FsIHZlcmJzIHRha2luZyBhbiBvYmplY3QgaW4gdGhlIHdheSB0aGF0DQo+IHByZXBvc2l0aW9u YWwgcGhyYXNlcyBkbyB1bnRpbCBCcnVjZSdzIGUtbWFpbC4NCj4NCj4gQnJ1Y2UsIEkgaG9wZSB0 aGlzIGlzbid0IHRvbyBnZW5lcmFsIG9mIGEgcmVxdWVzdCwgYnV0IGNvdWxkIHlvdSBlbGFib3Jh dGUNCj4gb24geW91ciBzZWNvbmQgcGFyYWdyYXBoPyBJIGZlZWwgbGlrZSBJJ3ZlIGFsbW9zdCBn cmFzcGVkIHRoZSBjb25jZXB0DQo+IHlvdSdyZSB0cnlpbmcgdG8gcmVsYXksIGJ1dCBJJ20gbWlz c2luZyBzb21ldGhpbmcuIEFyZSB5b3Ugc2F5aW5nIHRoYXQgdGhlDQo+IGluZGlyZWN0IG9iamVj dCBmdW5jdGlvbiBpcyBub3QgcHJlc2VudCBpbiB0aGlzIHNlbnRlbmNlLCB0aGF0IGl0IGhhcyBi ZWVuDQo+IG9taXR0ZWQ/IChBbmQsIHBlcmhhcHMsIHRoYXQgaXQgd291bGQgYmUgcHJlc2VudCBp ZiB0aGUgc2VudGVuY2UgaGFkIHRoZQ0KPiBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUsICJTb21lb25lL3NvbWV0aGluZyBj b252aW5jZXMgc29tZW9uZSBvZiBzb21ldGhpbmcgZm9yL29uIGJlaGFsZg0KPiBvZiBzb21lb25l Ij8pIENvdWxkIHlvdSBwcm92aWRlIGFuIGV4YW1wbGUgb2Ygd2hhdCB5b3UgbWVhbiBieSwgIltU XWhlDQo+IGRhdGl2ZS4uLi5hcHBlYXJzIHdpdGggdGhlIHByZXBvc2l0aW9uYWwgb2JqZWN0IG9m IHRoaXMgc2FtZSBzb3J0Ij8NCj4NCj4gSSB0aGluayBzb21lIG9mIG15IGNvbmZ1c2lvbiBpZiBz dGVtbWluZyBmcm9tIHNvbWUgR2VybWFuIGludGVyZmVyZW5jZS4gSW4NCj4gR2VybWFuLCAidG8g Y29udmluY2Ugc29tZW9uZSBvZiBzb21ldGhpbmciIHdvdWxkIGJlICJqZW1hbmRlbiAodm9uIGV0 d2FzKQ0KPiB1YmVyemV1Z2VuIiAod2l0aCB1bWxhdXQgb24gdGhlICJ1IikuIFRoZSAic29tZW9u ZSIgKCJqZW1hbmRlbiIpIGlzIGluIHRoZQ0KPiBhY2N1c2F0aXZlL2RpcmVjdCBvYmplY3QgY2Fz ZSwgYW5kIHRoZSAib2Ygc29tZXRoaW5nIiBpcyBpbiB0aGUNCj4gZGF0aXZlL2luZGlyZWN0IG9i amVjdCBjYXNlLiBNeSB1bmRlcnN0YW5kaW5nIG9mIHlvdXIgYW5hbHlzaXMgaGFzIHRoZSAib2YN Cj4gc29tZXRoaW5nIiBhcyB0aGUgb2JqZWN0IG9mIGEgcHJlcG9zaXRpb24vcGhyYXNhbCB2ZXJi IGJ1dCBub3QgbmVjZXNzYXJpbHkNCj4gZnVuY3Rpb25pbmcgYXMgdGhlIGluZGlyZWN0IG9iamVj dC4gSGF2ZSBJIG11ZGRsZWQgeW91ciBpbnRlbmRlZCBtZWFuaW5nPw0KPg0KPiBKb2huDQo+IE9u IFR1ZSwgTWFyIDMsIDIwMDkgYXQgMTA6MTIgQU0sIEJydWNlIERlc3BhaW4NCj4gPERlc3BhaW5C REBmYW1pbHlzZWFyY2gub3JnPGh0dHA6Ly91cy5tYzMubWFpbC55YWhvby5jb20vbWMvY29tcG9z ZT90bz1EZXNwYWluQkRAZmFtaWx5c2VhcmNoLm9yZz4+DQo+IHdyb3RlOg0KPiBQYXR0eSBhbmQg U2NvdHQsDQo+DQo+IEkgdGhpbmsgUGF0dHkgaXMgb24gdGhlIHJpZ2h0IHRyYWNrLiAgVGhlIG5v dW4gY2xhdXNlIGlzIHRoZSBvYmplY3Qgb2YgdGhlDQo+IHByZXBvc2l0aW9uYWwgdmVyYiDDouKC rMWTY29udmluY2Ugb2bDouKCrMKdIHdoZXJlYXMgw6LigqzFk3Vzw6LigqzCnSBpcyBpbiB0aGUg cm9sZSBvZg0KPiBkaXJlY3Qgb2JqZWN0LiAgU29tZXRoaW5nIGNvbnZpbmNlcyBzb21lb25lIG9m IHNvbWV0aGluZy4gIFRoZSBwcmVwb3NpdGlvbg0KPiBpcyByZWd1bGFybHkgb21pdHRlZCB3aGVu IGl0cyBvYmplY3QgaXMgYSAoZmFjdGl2ZSBub3VuKSBjbGF1c2UuDQo+DQo+IFdoYXQgaXMgaW50 ZXJlc3RpbmcgaXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgZGF0aXZlIChvciBiZW5lZmFjdGl2ZSkgYXBwZWFycyB3aXRo IHRoZQ0KPiBwcmVwb3NpdGlvbmFsIG9iamVjdCBvZiB0aGlzIHNhbWUgc29ydC4gIEhvd2V2ZXIs IHRoZSBwZXJzb24gdG8gd2hvbSBvcg0KPiBmb3Igd2hvbSB0aGUgcGFydGljdWxhciBhY3Rpb24g b2YgdGhlIHZlcmIgaXMgcGVyZm9ybWVkIGNhbm5vdCBiZQ0KPiBleHByZXNzZWQgd2l0aCBhICBm YWN0aXZlIG5vdW4gY2xhdXNlLCBzbyB0aGUgY29uZnVzaW9uIGRvZXMgbm90IG9jY3VyDQo+IHdp dGggdGhlIGxvc3Mgb2YgdGhlIHByZXBvc2l0aW9uLiAgVGhlIHByZXBvc2l0aW9uIGlzIHJlZ3Vs YXJseSBvbWl0dGVkDQo+IHdoZW4gaXRzIG9iamVjdCBpcyBhIHByb25vdW4gYW5kL29yIGl0IGlz IHBsYWNlZCBiZWZvcmUgdGhlIG9iamVjdCBvZiB0aGUNCj4gdmVyYi4gIFRoaXMsIG9mIGNvdXJz ZSwgaXMgdGhlIHNvLWNhbGxlZCBpbmRpcmVjdCBvYmplY3QsIGFuZCBpdHMgc3VyZmFjZQ0KPiBz dHJ1Y3R1cmUgaXMgdmVyeSBzaW1pbGFyIHRvIHRoZSBmb3JtZXIgY2FzZSBvZiBhbiBvbWl0dGVk IHByZXBvc2l0aW9uLg0KPg0KPg0KPiBGcm9tOiBBc3NlbWJseSBmb3IgdGhlIFRlYWNoaW5nIG9m IEVuZ2xpc2ggR3JhbW1hcg0KPiBbbWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVTxodHRw Oi8vdXMubWMzLm1haWwueWFob28uY29tL21jL2NvbXBvc2U/dG89QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9I SU8uRURVPl0NCj4gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIFBhdHJpY2lhIExhZmF5bGx2ZQ0KPiBTZW50OiBUdWVz ZGF5LCBNYXJjaCAwMywgMjAwOSA3OjU2IEFNDQo+DQo+IFRvOg0KPiBBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1V T0hJTy5FRFU8aHR0cDovL3VzLm1jMy5tYWlsLnlhaG9vLmNvbS9tYy9jb21wb3NlP3RvPUFURUdA TElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVT4NCj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6ICJjb252aW5jZXMgdXMgdGhhdC4u LiI/DQo+DQo+IEEgcmV0dXJuIHF1ZXN0aW9uw6LigqzCpg0KPg0KPiBJZiB3ZSB0YWtlIHRoZSBv cmlnaW5hbCBzZW50ZW5jZSBkb3duIGEgYml0LCB3ZSBoYXZlIDxsYW5ndWFnZSBjb252aW5jZXMN Cj4gdXM+LiAgTXkgZXllcyByZWFkIDx1cz4gYXMgdGhlIGRpcmVjdCBvYmplY3QsIHdoaWNoIHdv dWxkIHRoZW4gbWFrZSA8dGhhdA0KPiBhw6LigqzCpmV4cGxhbmF0aW9uPiB0aGUgY2xhdXNlIHRo YXQgYW5zd2VycyB0aGUgcXVlc3Rpb24gw6LigqzFk1doYXTDouKCrMKdIChhcyBpbiwNCj4gd2hh dCBkb2VzIHRoZSBsYW5ndWFnZSBjb252aW5jZSB1cykuICBTb8Oi4oKswqZ3aHkgd291bGQgd2Ug dGFrZSA8dXM+IGFzIHRoZQ0KPiBpbmRpcmVjdCBvYmplY3Q/DQo+DQo+IC1wYXR0eQ0KPg0KPiBf X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPiBGcm9tOiBBc3NlbWJseSBmb3IgdGhl IFRlYWNoaW5nIG9mIEVuZ2xpc2ggR3JhbW1hcg0KPiBbbWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVP SElPLkVEVTxodHRwOi8vdXMubWMzLm1haWwueWFob28uY29tL21jL2NvbXBvc2U/dG89QVRFR0BM SVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVPl0NCj4gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIFNjb3R0IFdvb2RzDQo+IFNlbnQ6 IFR1ZXNkYXksIE1hcmNoIDAzLCAyMDA5IDk6NDAgQU0NCj4gVG86DQo+IEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYu TVVPSElPLkVEVTxodHRwOi8vdXMubWMzLm1haWwueWFob28uY29tL21jL2NvbXBvc2U/dG89QVRF R0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVPg0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiAiY29udmluY2VzIHVzIHRoYXQuLi4i Pw0KPg0KPg0KPiBMaXN0LA0KPg0KPiBJIGhhdmUgYSBmZXcgcXVlc3Rpb25zIGFib3V0IHRoZSBm b2xsb3dpbmcgc2VudGVuY2U6DQo+DQo+IDxQb2UncyBsYW5ndWFnZSwgaG93ZXZlciwgZ3JhZHVh bGx5IGNvbnZpbmNlcyB1cyB0aGF0IGEgcHVyZWx5IHJhdGlvbmFsDQo+IGV4cGxhbmF0aW9uIHdp bGwgbm90IHN1ZmZpY2UsIGhvd2V2ZXIgbmVhdGx5IGl0IGZpdHMgdGhlIGV4dGVybmFsIGZhY3Rz Lg0KPiA+DQo+DQo+DQo+DQo+IFdvdWxkIHlvdSB0YWtlIDx1cz4gYXMgdGhlIGluZGlyZWN0IG9i amVjdD8gV291bGQgeW91IHRha2UgdGhlIDx0aGF0Pg0KPiBjbGF1c2UgYWZ0ZXIgaXQgYXMgdGhl IGRpcmVjdCBvYmplY3Q/IElzIHRoaXMgYW5hbG9nb3VzIHRvIDxIZSBzaG93ZWQgdXMgYQ0KPiBt b25rZXk+PyBEb2VzIDxjb252aW5jZT4gYWx3YXlzIHRha2UgYSBub3VuIGNsYXVzZSBvYmplY3Qg d2hlbiBpdCB0YWtlcyBhbg0KPiBkaXJlY3Qgb2JqZWN0PyBJbiA8SGUgY29udmluY2VkIHVzPiwg aXMgPHVzPiBub3cgdGhlIGRpcmVjdCBvYmplY3QsIHRoYXQNCj4gaXMsIHdlIHdlcmUgdGhlIGNv bnZpbmNlZCBvbmVzLCBvciBpcyB0aGVyZSBzdGlsbCBhbiBpbXBsaWVkIGNsYXVzYWwNCj4gZGly ZWN0IG9iamVjdCBsZWF2aW5nIDx1cz4gYXMgYW4gaW5kaXJlY3Qgb2JqZWN0Pw0KPg0KPg0KPg0K PiBUaGFua3MsDQo+DQo+IFNjb3R0IFdvb2RzDQo+DQo+DQo+IFRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhp cyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlDQo+ IGF0OiBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwgYW5kIHNl bGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvcg0KPiBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCINCj4gVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRl IGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8NCj4gVG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxp c3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UNCj4gYXQ6IGh0dHA6Ly9s aXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbCBhbmQgc2VsZWN0ICJKb2luIG9y DQo+IGxlYXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0Ig0KPiBWaXNpdCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL2F0 ZWcub3JnLw0KPg0KPg0KPiBOT1RJQ0U6IFRoaXMgZW1haWwgbWVzc2FnZSBpcyBmb3IgdGhlIHNv bGUgdXNlIG9mIHRoZSBpbnRlbmRlZA0KPiByZWNpcGllbnQocykgYW5kIG1heSBjb250YWluIGNv bmZpZGVudGlhbCBhbmQgcHJpdmlsZWdlZCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbi4gQW55DQo+IHVuYXV0aG9yaXpl ZCByZXZpZXcsIHVzZSwgZGlzY2xvc3VyZSBvciBkaXN0cmlidXRpb24gaXMgcHJvaGliaXRlZC4g SWYgeW91DQo+IGFyZSBub3QgdGhlIGludGVuZGVkIHJlY2lwaWVudCwgcGxlYXNlIGNvbnRhY3Qg dGhlIHNlbmRlciBieSByZXBseSBlbWFpbA0KPiBhbmQgZGVzdHJveSBhbGwgY29waWVzIG9mIHRo ZSBvcmlnaW5hbCBtZXNzYWdlLg0KPiBUbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlz dCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZQ0KPiBhdDogaHR0cDovL2xp c3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sIGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IN Cj4gbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQo+IFZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vYXRl Zy5vcmcvDQo+DQo+IFRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2Ug dmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlDQo+IGF0OiBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVv aGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwgYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvcg0KPiBsZWF2ZSB0 aGUgbGlzdCINCj4gVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8NCj4N Cj4NCj4gVG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0 aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UNCj4gYXQ6IGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1 L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbCBhbmQgc2VsZWN0ICJKb2luIG9yDQo+IGxlYXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0 Ig0KPg0KPiBWaXNpdCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL2F0ZWcub3JnLw0KPg0KPiBU byBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0 J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZQ0KPiBhdDogaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2 ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sIGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3INCj4gbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQo+DQo+ IFZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvDQo+DQoNClRvIGpvaW4g b3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIg aW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0Og0KICAgICBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9h dGVnLmh0bWwNCmFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQoNClZpc2l0IEFU RUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvDQoNCg=========================================================================Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 13:07:39 -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: incorrect future perfect? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128B91C315EMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128B91C315EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The various uses of perfect aspect typically require a context to be interpreted, or even to be judged correct or not. Part of the reason for the context-dependence of perfect aspect is that it tends to be used in background rather than foreground portions of a discourse, so in narrative it won't typically move the plot forward and in exposition or argument it won't be used to state major steps in the logic. I'd have to see your sample sentence in a context to see whether it works or not. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the structure as it stands. Rather, it requires further information to be fully interpretable. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cynthia Baird Sent: 2009-03-04 21:48 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: incorrect future perfect? Would anyone care to comment on this sentence? It came up in a literacy textbook I have to use, and a student had real difficulty with accepting this as a logical sentence. I gave him my explanation about why I thought the sentence was problematic, but I would like to hear from some of you to know if I was right or wrong in my assessment of the sentence. The sentence read as follows: We will have finished the project tomorrow. I know the sentence contains a future perfect, and I risk Brad's comments, but so be it. 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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128B91C315EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The various uses of perfect aspect typically require a context to be interpreted, or even to be judged correct or not.  Part of the reason for the context-dependence of perfect aspect is that it tends to be used in background rather than foreground portions of a discourse, so in narrative it won’t typically move the plot forward and in exposition or argument it won’t be used to state major steps in the logic. 

 

I’d have to see your sample sentence in a context to see whether it works or not.  There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with the structure as it stands.  Rather, it requires further information to be fully interpretable.

 

Herb

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cynthia Baird
Sent: 2009-03-04 21:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: incorrect future perfect?

 

Would anyone care to comment on this sentence?  It came up in a literacy textbook I have to use, and a student had real difficulty with accepting this as a logical sentence.  I gave him my explanation about why I thought the sentence was problematic, but I would like to hear from some of you to know if I was right or wrong in my assessment of the sentence.   The sentence read as follows:   We will have finished the project tomorrow.   I know the sentence contains a future perfect, and I risk Brad's comments, but so be it.

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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128B91C315EMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 13:09:20 -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: incorrect future perfect? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128B91C316EMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128B91C316EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Scott, Nicely done. You provided the context I just talked about. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods Sent: 2009-03-05 07:37 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: incorrect future perfect? Cynthia, A context: Speaker A: I will bring in my submission to the project tomorrow morning. Speaker B: We will have finished the project tomorrow. Your submission would be too late. Bring it in by 4 o'clock this afternoon if you want it to be included. This seems to work well. The future perfect seems useful and correct here. Scott Woods --- On Wed, 3/4/09, Cynthia Baird <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Cynthia Baird <[log in to unmask]> Subject: incorrect future perfect? To: [log in to unmask] Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 7:48 PM Would anyone care to comment on this sentence? It came up in a literacy textbook I have to use, and a student had real difficulty with accepting this as a logical sentence. I gave him my explanation about why I thought the sentence was problematic, but I would like to hear from some of you to know if I was right or wrong in my assessment of the sentence. The sentence read as follows: We will have finished the project tomorrow. I know the sentence contains a future perfect, and I risk Brad's comments, but so be it. 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/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128B91C316EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Scott,

 

Nicely done.  You provided the context I just talked about.

 

Herb

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
Sent: 2009-03-05 07:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: incorrect future perfect?

 

Cynthia,   A context:  Speaker A: I will bring in my submission to the project tomorrow morning. Speaker B: We will have finished the project tomorrow.  Your submission would be too late.  Bring it in by 4 o'clock this afternoon if you want it to be included. This seems to work well.  The future perfect seems useful and correct here. Scott Woods --- On Wed, 3/4/09, Cynthia Baird <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Cynthia Baird <[log in to unmask]> Subject: incorrect future perfect? To: [log in to unmask] Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 7:48 PM Would anyone care to comment on this sentence?  It came up in a literacy textbook I have to use, and a student had real difficulty with accepting this as a logical sentence.  I gave him my explanation about why I thought the sentence was problematic, but I would like to hear from some of you to know if I was right or wrong in my assessment of the sentence.   The sentence read as follows:   We will have finished the project tomorrow.   I know the sentence contains a future perfect, and I risk Brad's comments, but so be it. 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/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128B91C316EMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 13:16:51 -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: Future perfect and another passive +object; was ATEG Digest - 3 Mar 2009 to 4 Mar 2009 (#2009-50) In-Reply-To: <00b701c99db5$93bf50c0$6501a8c0@leordinateur> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 One of the ongoing areas of uncertainty in English grammar, one that has been particularly clear in early transformational-generative discussions, is the extent to which indirect objects of active voice sentences can become subjects of corresponding passive voice sentences. The consensus among TG grammarians back in the late sixties and early seventies was that some speakers allow them and some don't. I find both of Scott's sentences well-formed, but I suspect other, very well informed grammarians on the list will not. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Sent: 2009-03-05 12:13 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Future perfect and another passive +object; was ATEG Digest - 3 Mar 2009 to 4 Mar 2009 (#2009-50) "We will have finished the project tomorrow." At a time in the future and action will have been completed. Where's the beef? My ESOL students had no problem with future perfects--then again, all were college graduates. My non-college graduate ESOL students spoke a fluent but very basic English and I concentrated on their obvious errors in writing. I once remarked that they were illiterate in two languages: Los Angeles schools do not require even a basic command of written English to graduate and they were not allowed to take Spanish because they spoke Spanish in the home--making them illiterate in Spanish. My pebble in the pond: I was taught in my advanced grammar class in 1960 that "I was baked a cake" was perfectly grammatical and all in the class had heard or used similar phrases. When we went to diagram the sentence we found "cake" to be the subject and "I" to be the indirect object. The professor explained that "I" was a retained indirect object in the nominative position and I used that explanation for that sentence and for "He was fried three eggs"--a contribution from a student. Does modern English grammar still support that explanation. All grammar teachers who rejected the concept had to fall back on the supposition that the sentences were ungrammaticalbacause they insisted that 'I' and 'He' had to be subjects and they had never heard of retained indirect objects in the nominative position; ergo, such things did not exist. Scott Catledge 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, 5 Mar 2009 13:47:46 -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: Future perfect and another passive +object; was ATEG Digest - 3 Mar 2009 to 4 Mar 2009 (#2009-50) In-Reply-To: A<[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've been running examples through my head, and I *think* that -- at least in my case -- the possibility of having the Recipient as Subject of a passive is related to the specific verb used. "I was given a cake" sets off no alarms at all; "I was baked a cake" bothers me. I suspect it has to do with the frequency with which the verb is accompanied by a Recipient argument in normal usage. It's almost impossible to use "give" without one, but "bake" seldom has one. I don't think it's a matter of some verbs being "underlyingly 100% ditransitive," since "I was tossed a hot potato" works fine for me, and 'toss' doesn't seem to require a Recipient nearly as often as 'give'. I'm using "recipient," by the way, partly to dodge the whole "Is it an IO if it's in a prepositional phrase?" debate. Sincerely, Bill Spruiell -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 1:17 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Future perfect and another passive +object; was ATEG Digest - 3 Mar 2009 to 4 Mar 2009 (#2009-50) One of the ongoing areas of uncertainty in English grammar, one that has been particularly clear in early transformational-generative discussions, is the extent to which indirect objects of active voice sentences can become subjects of corresponding passive voice sentences. The consensus among TG grammarians back in the late sixties and early seventies was that some speakers allow them and some don't. I find both of Scott's sentences well-formed, but I suspect other, very well informed grammarians on the list will not. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Sent: 2009-03-05 12:13 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Future perfect and another passive +object; was ATEG Digest - 3 Mar 2009 to 4 Mar 2009 (#2009-50) "We will have finished the project tomorrow." At a time in the future and action will have been completed. Where's the beef? My ESOL students had no problem with future perfects--then again, all were college graduates. My non-college graduate ESOL students spoke a fluent but very basic English and I concentrated on their obvious errors in writing. I once remarked that they were illiterate in two languages: Los Angeles schools do not require even a basic command of written English to graduate and they were not allowed to take Spanish because they spoke Spanish in the home--making them illiterate in Spanish. My pebble in the pond: I was taught in my advanced grammar class in 1960 that "I was baked a cake" was perfectly grammatical and all in the class had heard or used similar phrases. When we went to diagram the sentence we found "cake" to be the subject and "I" to be the indirect object. The professor explained that "I" was a retained indirect object in the nominative position and I used that explanation for that sentence and for "He was fried three eggs"--a contribution from a student. Does modern English grammar still support that explanation. All grammar teachers who rejected the concept had to fall back on the supposition that the sentences were ungrammaticalbacause they insisted that 'I' and 'He' had to be subjects and they had never heard of retained indirect objects in the nominative position; ergo, such things did not exist. Scott Catledge 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, 5 Mar 2009 12:59:41 -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: another passive +object MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --00151750db304c432d046463c5af Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The sentences register as grammatical and well-formed for me. I can easily imagine myself saying something like, "I was baked a cake for my birthday!" Using the construction like that, I can leave the agent (the baker) a mystery. While this could also be accomplished with, "A cake was baked for me for my birthday," I think I'd be much more likely to use the first construction. In terms of teaching, I prefer to keep labels (love them or hate them) grounded more in morphosyntax rather than semantics. Subjects, for example, can have so many semantic relationships with the predicate that just defining it as the "doer" (or semantic agent) is very limiting and troublesome. The semantic description often used for "subject" just doesn't work in Scott's example! One of the reasons I love structural criteria for sentence functions is for cases just like this. What is the subject of "I was baked a cake"? Convert the sentence to a yes or no question and whatever comes in second position is the subject: "Was I baked a cake?" If I change the number of the suspected subject in the original sentence, will it affect the verb? "We were baked a cake." Yep. So, this is how I'd tackle this with my students. We'd see that, structurally, "I" is functioning as the subject of the sentence. Semantically, "I" is the recipient, a role usually seen in the indirect object, and Scott's way of thinking of it as a "retained indirect object" is a nice way to discuss that relationship. While my approach to grammar is not a generative approach, it is in these kinds of situations that I can value generative contributions! Sentences certainly have patterns, and when we play around with these patterns we sometimes get some strange things! On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:16 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > One of the ongoing areas of uncertainty in English grammar, one that has > been particularly clear in early transformational-generative discussions, is > the extent to which indirect objects of active voice sentences can become > subjects of corresponding passive voice sentences. The consensus among TG > grammarians back in the late sixties and early seventies was that some > speakers allow them and some don't. I find both of Scott's sentences > well-formed, but I suspect other, very well informed grammarians on the list > will not. > > Herb > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott > Sent: 2009-03-05 12:13 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Future perfect and another passive +object; was ATEG Digest - > 3 Mar 2009 to 4 Mar 2009 (#2009-50) > > "We will have finished the project tomorrow." > At a time in the future and action will have been completed. > Where's the beef? My ESOL students had no problem with future > perfects--then again, all were college graduates. My non-college graduate > ESOL students spoke a fluent but very basic English and I concentrated on > their obvious errors in writing. I once remarked that they were illiterate > in two languages: Los Angeles schools do not require even a basic command > of > written English to graduate and they were not allowed to take Spanish > because they spoke Spanish in the home--making them illiterate in Spanish. > > My pebble in the pond: > > I was taught in my advanced grammar class in 1960 that "I was baked a cake" > was perfectly grammatical and all in the class had heard or used similar > phrases. When we went to diagram the sentence we found "cake" to be the > subject and "I" to be the indirect object. The professor explained that > "I" was a retained indirect object in the nominative position and I used > that explanation for that sentence and for "He was fried three eggs"--a > contribution from a student. > > Does modern English grammar still support that explanation. All grammar > teachers who rejected the concept had to fall back on the supposition that > the sentences were ungrammaticalbacause they insisted that 'I' and 'He' had > to be subjects and they had never heard of retained indirect objects in the > nominative position; ergo, such things did not exist. > > Scott Catledge > > 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/ --00151750db304c432d046463c5af Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The sentences register as grammatical and well-formed for me. I can easily imagine myself saying something like, "I was baked a cake for my birthday!" Using the construction like that, I can leave the agent (the baker) a mystery. While this could also be accomplished with, "A cake was baked for me for my birthday," I think I'd be much more likely to use the first construction.

 

In terms of teaching, I prefer to keep labels (love them or hate them) grounded more in morphosyntax rather than semantics. Subjects, for example, can have so many semantic relationships with the predicate that just defining it as the "doer" (or semantic agent) is very limiting and troublesome. The semantic description often used for "subject" just doesn't work in Scott's example! One of the reasons I love structural criteria for sentence functions is for cases just like this.

 

What is the subject of "I was baked a cake"?

 

Convert the sentence to a yes or no question and whatever comes in second position is the subject:

 

"Was I baked a cake?"

 

If I change the number of the suspected subject in the original sentence, will it affect the verb?

 

"We were baked a cake."

 

Yep. So, this is how I'd tackle this with my students. We'd see that, structurally, "I" is functioning as the subject of the sentence. Semantically, "I" is the recipient, a role usually seen in the indirect object, and Scott's way of thinking of it as a "retained indirect object" is a nice way to discuss that relationship. While my approach to grammar is not a generative approach, it is in these kinds of situations that I can value generative contributions! Sentences certainly have patterns, and when we play around with these patterns we sometimes get some strange things!

 

 

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:16 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

One of the ongoing areas of uncertainty in English grammar, one that has been particularly clear in early transformational-generative discussions, is the extent to which indirect objects of active voice sentences can become subjects of corresponding passive voice sentences.  The consensus among TG grammarians back in the late sixties and early seventies was that some speakers allow them and some don't.  I find both of Scott's sentences well-formed, but I suspect other, very well informed grammarians on the list will not.

Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: 2009-03-05 12:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Future perfect and another passive +object; was ATEG Digest - 3 Mar 2009 to 4 Mar 2009 (#2009-50)

"We will have finished the project tomorrow."
At a time in the future and action will have been completed.
Where's the beef?  My ESOL students had no problem with future
perfects--then again, all were college graduates.  My non-college graduate
ESOL students spoke a fluent but very basic English and I concentrated on
their obvious errors in writing.  I once remarked that they were illiterate
in two languages: Los Angeles schools do not require even a basic command of
written English to graduate and they were not allowed to take Spanish
because they spoke Spanish in the home--making them illiterate in Spanish.

My pebble in the pond:

I was taught in my advanced grammar class in 1960 that "I was baked a cake"
was perfectly grammatical and all in the class had heard or used similar
phrases.  When we went to diagram the sentence we found "cake" to be the
subject and "I" to be the indirect object.  The professor explained that
"I" was a retained indirect object in the nominative position and I used
that explanation for that sentence and for "He was fried three eggs"--a
contribution from a student.

Does modern English grammar still support that explanation.  All grammar
teachers who rejected the concept had to fall back on the supposition that
the sentences were ungrammaticalbacause they insisted that 'I' and 'He' had
to be subjects and they had never heard of retained indirect objects in the
nominative position; ergo, such things did not exist.

Scott Catledge

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/ --00151750db304c432d046463c5af-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 12:32:08 -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: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: "convinces us that..."? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Herb,
    I am interested in her discussion of the connection between meaning and syntax. My sense is she sees a strong connection, but is tactful enough not to call it a settled question. Her more recent book is now higher on my wish list, which is always bigger than my book budget. She clearly saw this '93 book as a preliminary mapping. You can see ways in which "convince" is like the verbs in this category, but also unlike most of them in taking the "that" clause complement. It's interesting that the subject can be an agent (Poe convinced us with his language) or an instrument ("Poe's language convinced us"), which seems a widespread pattern in the group (annoyed, bothered, confused, amused, and so on.)
 

Craig
  


STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

Craig,

It's a book I've had in my library for some time and use quite a bit.  A remarkable piece of research.

Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
========================================================================Date:         Sun, 8 Mar 2009 12:44:59 -0700
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:      On the road to Nashville
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1185809081-1236541499=:42093"

--0-1185809081-1236541499=:42093
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



When Cynthia got to Nashville, she had been driving for 8 hours. (past perfect)
 
When Cynthia gets to Nashville, she will have been driving for 8 hours. (future perfect)
 
Whee. Here she is in Nashville. She's been on the road for 8 hours. (present perfect)
 
Cynthia has lived in Nashville for 10 years . (present perfect)
 
Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10 years . (simple past)
 
Note that the past perfect is not the past of the present perfect. If she now lives in Toronto, we say "she lived", we do not say, "she had lived".
 
Is it possible to conjure context that compels, "she had lived"? Yes, of course. If you have enough shoe polish, you can make a polar bear into a brown bear, but as it stands, if she now lives in Toronto we say, "Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10 years".


      

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/
--0-1185809081-1236541499=:42093
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



When Cynthia got to Nashville, she had been driving for 8 hours. (past perfect)
 
When Cynthia gets to Nashville, she will have been driving for 8 hours. (future perfect)
 
Whee. Here she is in Nashville. She's been on the road for 8 hours. (present perfect)
 
Cynthia has lived in Nashville for 10 years <and still does>. (present perfect)
 
Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10 years <but now lives in Toronto>. (simple past)
 
Note that the past perfect is not the past of the present perfect. If she now lives in Toronto, we say "she lived", we do not say, "she had lived".
 
Is it possible to conjure context that compels, "she had lived"? Yes, of course. If you have enough shoe polish, you can make a polar bear into a brown bear, but as it stands, if she now lives in Toronto we say, "Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10 years".



      
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/
--0-1185809081-1236541499=:42093--
========================================================================Date:         Sun, 8 Mar 2009 13:42:44 -0700
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: On the road to Nashville
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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========================================================================Date:         Sun, 8 Mar 2009 20:25:29 -0700
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:         Cynthia Baird <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: incorrect future perfect?
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-606721232-1236569129=:56590"

--0-606721232-1236569129=:56590
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

You don't understand. There was no context.  There was no further information, which is why this sentence was problematic to me. There was no paragraph, no narrative, no other action.   I understand the need for context and other actions.  This was an isolated sentence in a textbook. The exercise was designed to teach the use of the helping verb "have."  I think the textbook could have chosen a better example.
 

--- On Thu, 3/5/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: incorrect future perfect?
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, March 5, 2009, 11:07 AM








The various uses of perfect aspect typically require a context to be interpreted, or even to be judged correct or not.  Part of the reason for the context-dependence of perfect aspect is that it tends to be used in background rather than foreground portions of a discourse, so in narrative it won’t typically move the plot forward and in exposition or argument it won’t be used to state major steps in the logic.  
 
I’d have to see your sample sentence in a context to see whether it works or not.  There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with the structure as it stands.  Rather, it requires further information to be fully interpretable.
 
Herb
 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cynthia Baird
Sent: 2009-03-04 21:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: incorrect future perfect?
 





Would anyone care to comment on this sentence?  It came up in a literacy textbook I have to use, and a student had real difficulty with accepting this as a logical sentence.  I gave him my explanation about why I thought the sentence was problematic, but I would like to hear from some of you to know if I was right or wrong in my assessment of the sentence.

 

The sentence read as follows:

 

We will have finished the project tomorrow.

 

I know the sentence contains a future perfect, and I risk Brad's comments, but so be it.

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/
--0-606721232-1236569129=:56590
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

You don't understand. There was no context.  There was no further information, which is why this sentence was problematic to me. There was no paragraph, no narrative, no other action.   I understand the need for context and other actions.  This was an isolated sentence in a textbook. The exercise was designed to teach the use of the helping verb "have."  I think the textbook could have chosen a better example.
 

--- On Thu, 3/5/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: incorrect future perfect?
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, March 5, 2009, 11:07 AM






The various uses of perfect aspect typically require a context to be interpreted, or even to be judged correct or not.  Part of the reason for the context-dependence of perfect aspect is that it tends to be used in background rather than foreground portions of a discourse, so in narrative it won’t typically move the plot forward and in exposition or argument it won’t be used to state major steps in the logic.  
 
I’d have to see your sample sentence in a context to see whether it works or not.  There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with the structure as it stands.  Rather, it requires further information to be fully interpretable.
 
Herb
 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cynthia Baird
Sent: 2009-03-04 21:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: incorrect future perfect?
 





Would anyone care to comment on this sentence?  It came up in a literacy textbook I have to use, and a student had real difficulty with accepting this as a logical sentence.  I gave him my explanation about why I thought the sentence was problematic, but I would like to hear from some of you to know if I was right or wrong in my assessment of the sentence.

 

The sentence read as follows:

 

We will have finished the project tomorrow.

 

I know the sentence contains a future perfect, and I risk Brad's comments, but so be it.

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/
--0-606721232-1236569129=:56590--
========================================================================Date:         Mon, 9 Mar 2009 00:06:14 -0400
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: incorrect future perfect?
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

I didn't write that as clearly as I could have.  

Your student's difficulty with the sentence may have been precisely that, that there was no context.  I've run into this in doing linguistic field work, where part of what you do is test native speaker judgment as to whether a sentence is grammatical or not.  I learned that I could not simply pull a sentence from a context, present it to a native speaker in isolation, and count on a consistent response.  The same sentence in context would usually be accepted by native speakers.  

Sentences with expressed aspectual auxiliaries tend to be harder to interpret clearly without context than sentences with no aspectuals, and that's because we typically use them not to present new information but to provide background, whereas we use simple tenses to move plot forward, to give steps in a process, or to state theses in an argument.  

I understand that textbooks have to sometimes present sentences without context, but for good language learning they should also show how particular structures are used in discourse.  Grammar is not just about sentences.

So the fault with the future perfect sentence lay with the textbook writers, not providing sufficient background for interpreting the structure they were presenting.

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 Cynthia Baird [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: March 8, 2009 11:25 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: incorrect future perfect?

You don't understand. There was no context.  There was no further information, which is why this sentence was problematic to me. There was no paragraph, no narrative, no other action.   I understand the need for context and other actions.  This was an isolated sentence in a textbook. The exercise was designed to teach the use of the helping verb "have."  I think the textbook could have chosen a better example.


--- On Thu, 3/5/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: incorrect future perfect?
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, March 5, 2009, 11:07 AM

The various uses of perfect aspect typically require a context to be interpreted, or even to be judged correct or not.  Part of the reason for the context-dependence of perfect aspect is that it tends to be used in background rather than foreground portions of a discourse, so in narrative it won’t typically move the plot forward and in exposition or argument it won’t be used to state major steps in the logic.

I’d have to see your sample sentence in a context to see whether it works or not.  There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with the structure as it stands.  Rather, it requires further information to be fully interpretable.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cynthia Baird
Sent: 2009-03-04 21:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: incorrect future perfect?

Would anyone care to comment on this sentence?  It came up in a literacy textbook I have to use, and a student had real difficulty with accepting this as a logical sentence.  I gave him my explanation about why I thought the sentence was problematic, but I would like to hear from some of you to know if I was right or wrong in my assessment of the sentence.

The sentence read as follows:

We will have finished the project tomorrow.

I know the sentence contains a future perfect, and I risk Brad's comments, but so be it.


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:         Mon, 9 Mar 2009 05:53:43 -0400
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 <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: ATEG Digest - 6 Mar 2009 to 8 Mar 2009 (#2009-53)
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Cynthia had lived in Nashville for ten years before she moved to Toronto.

Scott Catledge


-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 12:09 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 6 Mar 2009 to 8 Mar 2009 (#2009-53)

There are 3 messages totalling 329 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. On the road to Nashville (2)
  2. incorrect future perfect?

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, 8 Mar 2009 12:44:59 -0700
From:    Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: On the road to Nashville

--0-1185809081-1236541499=:42093
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



When Cynthia got to Nashville, she had been driving for 8 hours. (past perfect)
 
When Cynthia gets to Nashville, she will have been driving for 8 hours. (future perfect)
 
Whee. Here she is in Nashville. She's been on the road for 8 hours. (present perfect)
 
Cynthia has lived in Nashville for 10 years . (present perfect)
 
Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10 years . (simple past)
 
Note that the past perfect is not the past of the present perfect. If she now lives in Toronto, we say "she lived", we do not say, "she had lived".
 
Is it possible to conjure context that compels, "she had lived"? Yes, of course. If you have enough shoe polish, you can make a polar bear into a brown bear, but as it stands, if she now lives in Toronto we say, "Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10 years".


      

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/
--0-1185809081-1236541499=:42093
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



When Cynthia got to Nashville, she had been driving for 8 hours. (past perfect)
 
When Cynthia gets to Nashville, she will have been driving for 8 hours. (future perfect)
 
Whee. Here she is in Nashville. She's been on the road for 8 hours. (present perfect)
 
Cynthia has lived in Nashville for 10 years <and still does>. (present perfect)
 
Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10 years <but now lives in Toronto>. (simple past)
 
Note that the past perfect is not the past of the present perfect. If she now lives in Toronto, we say "she lived", we do not say, "she had lived".
 
Is it possible to conjure context that compels, "she had lived"? Yes, of course. If you have enough shoe polish, you can make a polar bear into a brown bear, but as it stands, if she now lives in Toronto we say, "Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10 years".



      
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/
--0-1185809081-1236541499=:42093--

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 8 Mar 2009 13:42:44 -0700
From:    "Wollin, Edith" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: On the road to Nashville
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------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 8 Mar 2009 20:25:29 -0700
From:    Cynthia Baird <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: incorrect future perfect?

--0-606721232-1236569129=:56590
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

You don't understand. There was no context.  There was no further information, which is why this sentence was problematic to me. There was no paragraph, no narrative, no other action.   I understand the need for context and other actions.  This was an isolated sentence in a textbook. The exercise was designed to teach the use of the helping verb "have."  I think the textbook could have chosen a better example.
 

--- On Thu, 3/5/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: incorrect future perfect?
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, March 5, 2009, 11:07 AM








The various uses of perfect aspect typically require a context to be interpreted, or even to be judged correct or not.  Part of the reason for the context-dependence of perfect aspect is that it tends to be used in background rather than foreground portions of a discourse, so in narrative it won’t typically move the plot forward and in exposition or argument it won’t be used to state major steps in the logic.  
 
I’d have to see your sample sentence in a context to see whether it works or not.  There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with the structure as it stands.  Rather, it requires further information to be fully interpretable.
 
Herb
 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cynthia Baird
Sent: 2009-03-04 21:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: incorrect future perfect?
 





Would anyone care to comment on this sentence?  It came up in a literacy textbook I have to use, and a student had real difficulty with accepting this as a logical sentence.  I gave him my explanation about why I thought the sentence was problematic, but I would like to hear from some of you to know if I was right or wrong in my assessment of the sentence.

 

The sentence read as follows:

 

We will have finished the project tomorrow.

 

I know the sentence contains a future perfect, and I risk Brad's comments, but so be it.

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/
--0-606721232-1236569129=:56590
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

You don't understand. There was no context.  There was no further information, which is why this sentence was problematic to me. There was no paragraph, no narrative, no other action.   I understand the need for context and other actions.  This was an isolated sentence in a textbook. The exercise was designed to teach the use of the helping verb "have."  I think the textbook could have chosen a better example.
 

--- On Thu, 3/5/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: incorrect future perfect?
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, March 5, 2009, 11:07 AM






The various uses of perfect aspect typically require a context to be interpreted, or even to be judged correct or not.  Part of the reason for the context-dependence of perfect aspect is that it tends to be used in background rather than foreground portions of a discourse, so in narrative it won’t typically move the plot forward and in exposition or argument it won’t be used to state major steps in the logic.  
 
I’d have to see your sample sentence in a context to see whether it works or not.  There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with the structure as it stands.  Rather, it requires further information to be fully interpretable.
 
Herb
 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cynthia Baird
Sent: 2009-03-04 21:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: incorrect future perfect?
 





Would anyone care to comment on this sentence?  It came up in a literacy textbook I have to use, and a student had real difficulty with accepting this as a logical sentence.  I gave him my explanation about why I thought the sentence was problematic, but I would like to hear from some of you to know if I was right or wrong in my assessment of the sentence.

 

The sentence read as follows:

 

We will have finished the project tomorrow.

 

I know the sentence contains a future perfect, and I risk Brad's comments, but so be it.

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/
--0-606721232-1236569129=:56590--

------------------------------

End of ATEG Digest - 6 Mar 2009 to 8 Mar 2009 (#2009-53)
********************************************************

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:         Mon, 9 Mar 2009 08:06:04 -0400
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: On the road to Nashville
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Direct discourse:
Cindy says, "I have lived in Nashville for ten years."

Indirect discourse:
Cindy said that she had lived in Nashville for ten years.

Under conditions of sequence of tenses, past perfect can be the past of present perfect.

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 Wollin, Edith [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: March 8, 2009 4:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: On the road to Nashville

Cynthia had lived in Nashville for ten years before she moved to Toronto.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Brad Johnston
        Sent: Sun 3/8/2009 12:44 PM
        To: [log in to unmask]
        Cc:
        Subject: On the road to Nashville


When Cynthia got to Nashville, she had been driving for 8 hours. (past perfect)

When Cynthia gets to Nashville, she will have been driving for 8 hours. (future perfect)

Whee. Here she is in Nashville. She's been on the road for 8 hours. (present perfect)

Cynthia has lived in Nashville for 10 years . (present perfect)

Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10 years . (simple past)

Note that the past perfect is not the past of the present perfect. If she now lives in Toronto, we say "she lived", we do not say, "she had lived".

Is it possible to conjure context that compels, "she had lived"? Yes, of course. If you have enough shoe polish, you can make a polar bear into a brown bear, but as it stands, if she now lives in Toronto we say, "Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10 years".

        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:         Mon, 9 Mar 2009 07:08:56 -0700
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: On the road to Nashville
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1246600361-1236607736=:4169"

--0-1246600361-1236607736=:4169
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Cindy says, "I have lived in Nashville for ten years .

Reporter reports: Cindy said that she had lived in Nashville for ten years.

Cindy says, "I lived in Nashville for ten years" .

Reporter reports: Cindy said that she had lived in Nashville for ten years.
 
Under your rules, in reporting direct discourse, we cannot know whether Cindy lives in Nashville or Toronto. 
 
This illustrates the problem I have with your rule about sequence of tenses. If Cindy still lives in Nashville, the reporter should have reported that "Cindy says she has lived in Nashville for 10 years".
 
Your way, the reporter reports: "Yesterday, the president said he supported the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but it is not known whether he still holds, or can be presumed to hold, that same view today".
 
IMAHO, "sequence of tenses" is a nice rule that doesn't work. The reporter should report what he heard: Yesterday, the president said he supports the withdrawal. That's what actually happened yesterday, the rule notwithstanding.

~~~~~~~~

--- On Mon, 3/9/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
Direct discourse: Cindy says, "I have lived in Nashville for ten years."

Indirect discourse: Cindy said that she had lived in Nashville for ten years.

~~~~~~~~

From: Wollin, Edith [[log in to unmask]]
 
Cynthia had lived in Nashville for ten years before she moved to Toronto.
 
~~~~~~~~

Original Message
 
When Cynthia got to Nashville, she had been driving for 8 hours. (past perfect)

When Cynthia gets to Nashville, she will have been driving for 8 hours. (future perfect)

Whee. Here she is in Nashville. She's been on the road for 8 hours. (present perfect)

Cynthia has lived in Nashville for 10 years . (present perfect)

Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10 years . (simple past)

Note that the past perfect is not the past of the present perfect. If she now lives in Toronto, we say "she lived", we do not say, "she had lived".

Is it possible to conjure context that compels, "she had lived"? Yes, of course. If you have enough shoe polish, you can make a polar bear into a brown bear, but as it stands, if she now lives in Toronto we say, "Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10 years".




      

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/
--0-1246600361-1236607736=:4169
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Cindy says, "I have lived in Nashville for ten years <and still does>.

Reporter reports: Cindy said that she had lived in Nashville for ten years.

Cindy says, "I lived in Nashville for ten years" <but now lives in Toronto>.

Reporter reports: Cindy said that she had lived in Nashville for ten years.
 
Under your rules, in reporting direct discourse, we cannot know whether Cindy lives in Nashville or Toronto. 
 
This illustrates the problem I have with your rule about sequence of tenses. If Cindy still lives in Nashville, the reporter should have reported that "Cindy says she has lived in Nashville for 10 years".
 
Your way, the reporter reports: "Yesterday, the president said he supported the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but it is not known whether he still holds, or can be presumed to hold, that same view today".
 
IMAHO, "sequence of tenses" is a nice rule that doesn't work. The reporter should report what he heard: Yesterday, the president said he supports the withdrawal. That's what actually happened yesterday, the rule notwithstanding.

~~~~~~~~

--- On Mon, 3/9/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
Direct discourse: Cindy says, "I have lived in Nashville for ten years."

Indirect discourse: Cindy said that she had lived in Nashville for ten years.

~~~~~~~~

From: Wollin, Edith [[log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]]
 
Cynthia had lived in Nashville for ten years before she moved to Toronto.
 
~~~~~~~~

Original Message
 
When Cynthia got to Nashville, she had been driving for 8 hours. (past perfect)

When Cynthia gets to Nashville, she will have been driving for 8 hours. (future perfect)

Whee. Here she is in Nashville. She's been on the road for 8 hours. (present perfect)

Cynthia has lived in Nashville for 10 years <and still does>. (present perfect)

Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10 years <but now lives in Toronto>. (simple past)

Note that the past perfect is not the past of the present perfect. If she now lives in Toronto, we say "she lived", we do not say, "she had lived".

Is it possible to conjure context that compels, "she had lived"? Yes, of course. If you have enough shoe polish, you can make a polar bear into a brown bear, but as it stands, if she now lives in Toronto we say, "Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10 years".




      
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/
--0-1246600361-1236607736=:4169--
========================================================================Date:         Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:26:12 -0400
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: On the road to Nashville
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128B91C322EMAILBACKEND0_"
MIME-Version: 1.0

--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128B91C322EMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Read up on sequence of tenses.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston
Sent: 2009-03-09 10:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: On the road to Nashville

Cindy says, "I have lived in Nashville for ten years .

Reporter reports: Cindy said that she had lived in Nashville for ten years.
Cindy says, "I lived in Nashville for ten years" .

Reporter reports: Cindy said that she had lived in Nashville for ten years.

Under your rules, in reporting direct discourse, we cannot know whether Cindy lives in Nashville or Toronto.

This illustrates the problem I have with your rule about sequence of tenses. If Cindy still lives in Nashville, the reporter should have reported that "Cindy says she has lived in Nashville for 10 years".

Your way, the reporter reports: "Yesterday, the president said he supported the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but it is not known whether he still holds, or can be presumed to hold, that same view today".

IMAHO, "sequence of tenses" is a nice rule that doesn't work. The reporter should report what he heard: Yesterday, the president said he supports the withdrawal. That's what actually happened yesterday, the rule notwithstanding.
~~~~~~~~
--- On Mon, 3/9/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Direct discourse: Cindy says, "I have lived in Nashville for ten years."

Indirect discourse: Cindy said that she had lived in Nashville for ten years.

~~~~~~~~
From: Wollin, Edith [[log in to unmask][log in to unmask]>]

Cynthia had lived in Nashville for ten years before she moved to Toronto.

~~~~~~~~
Original Message

When Cynthia got to Nashville, she had been driving for 8 hours. (past perfect)

When Cynthia gets to Nashville, she will have been driving for 8 hours. (future perfect)

Whee. Here she is in Nashville. She's been on the road for 8 hours. (present perfect)

Cynthia has lived in Nashville for 10 years . (present perfect)

Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10 years . (simple past)

Note that the past perfect is not the past of the present perfect. If she now lives in Toronto, we say "she lived", we do not say, "she had lived".

Is it possible to conjure context that compels, "she had lived"? Yes, of course. If you have enough shoe polish, you can make a polar bear into a brown bear, but as it stands, if she now lives in Toronto we say, "Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10 years".


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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128B91C322EMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable














Read up on sequence of tenses.

 

Herb

 



From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad
Johnston

Sent: 2009-03-09 10:09

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: On the road to Nashville



 


 

  

  

  
Cindy says, "I have lived in Nashville for ten years
  <and still does>.
  
  

  


  Reporter reports: Cindy said that she had lived in Nashville for ten years.
  
  

  
Cindy says, "I lived in Nashville for ten
  years" <but now lives in Toronto>.

  

  Reporter reports: Cindy said that she had lived in Nashville for ten years.
  
  

  
 
  
  

  
Under your rules, in reporting direct discourse, we cannot
  know whether Cindy lives in Nashville or Toronto. 
  
  

  
 
  
  

  
This illustrates the problem I have with your rule about
  sequence of tenses. If Cindy still lives in Nashville, the reporter should
  have reported that "Cindy says she has lived in Nashville for 10
  years".
  
  

  
 
  
  

  
Your way, the reporter reports: "Yesterday, the
  president said he supported the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but it is not
  known whether he still holds, or can be presumed to hold, that same view
  today".
  
  

  
 
  
  

  
IMAHO, "sequence of tenses" is a nice rule
  that doesn't work. The reporter should report what he heard: Yesterday,
  the president said he supports the withdrawal. That's what actually happened
  yesterday, the rule notwithstanding.
  
  

  
~~~~~~~~
  
  

  
--- On Mon, 3/9/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
  wrote:
  
  

  
 
  
  

  
Direct discourse: Cindy says, "I have lived in
  Nashville for ten years."

  

  Indirect discourse: Cindy said that she had lived in Nashville for ten years.

  

  ~~~~~~~~
  
  

  
From: Wollin, Edith [[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]]
  
  

  
 
  
  

  
Cynthia had lived in Nashville for ten years before she
  moved to Toronto.
  
  

  
 
  
  

  
~~~~~~~~
  
  

  
Original Message
  
  

  
 
  
  

  
When Cynthia got to
  Nashville, she had been driving for 8 hours. (past perfect)

  

  When Cynthia gets to Nashville, she will have been driving for 8 hours.
  (future perfect)

  

  Whee. Here she is in Nashville. She's been on the road for 8 hours. (present
  perfect)

  

  Cynthia has lived in Nashville for 10 years <and still does>. (present
  perfect)

  

  Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10 years <but now lives in Toronto>.
  (simple past)

  

  Note that the past perfect is not the past of the present perfect. If she now
  lives in Toronto, we say "she lived", we do not say, "she had
  lived".

  

  Is it possible to conjure context that compels, "she had lived"?
  Yes, of course. If you have enough shoe polish, you can make a polar bear
  into a brown bear, but as it stands, if she now lives in Toronto we say,
  "Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10 years".
  
  
 




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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128B91C322EMAILBACKEND0_--
========================================================================Date:         Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:40:46 -0700
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: On the road to Nashville
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1889486672-1236627646=:75203"

--0-1889486672-1236627646=:75203
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have "read up on" sequence of tenses. What I have not read is your reply to what was said to you below, i.e., it can be demonstrated that the sequence-of-tenses rule doesn't work. It can be demonstrated, as below, that it misleads.
 
~~~~~~~~

--- On Mon, 3/9/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Read up on sequence of tenses.
 

On Behalf Of Brad Johnston
 






Cindy says, "I have lived in Nashville for ten years .


Reporter reports: Cindy said that she had lived in Nashville for ten years.
 

Cindy says, "I lived in Nashville for ten years" .

Reporter reports: Cindy said that she had lived in Nashville for ten years.

 

Under your rules, in reporting direct discourse, we cannot know whether Cindy lives in Nashville or Toronto. 

 

This illustrates the problem I have with your rule about sequence of tenses. If Cindy still lives in Nashville, the reporter should have reported that "Cindy says she has lived in Nashville for 10 years".

 

Your way, the reporter reports: "Yesterday, the president said he supported the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but it is not known whether he still holds, or can be presumed to hold, that same view today".

 

IMAHO, "sequence of tenses" is a nice rule that doesn't work. The reporter should report what he heard: Yesterday, the president said he supports the withdrawal. That's what actually happened yesterday, the rule notwithstanding.
 

~~~~~~~~
 

--- On Mon, 3/9/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 

Direct discourse: Cindy says, "I have lived in Nashville for ten years."

Indirect discourse: Cindy said that she had lived in Nashville for ten years.

~~~~~~~~
 

From: Wollin, Edith [[log in to unmask]]

 

Cynthia had lived in Nashville for ten years before she moved to Toronto.

 

~~~~~~~~
 

Original Message

 

When Cynthia got to Nashville, she had been driving for 8 hours. (past perfect)

When Cynthia gets to Nashville, she will have been driving for 8 hours. (future perfect)

Whee. Here she is in Nashville. She's been on the road for 8 hours. (present perfect)

Cynthia has lived in Nashville for 10 years . (present perfect)

Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10 years . (simple past)

Note that the past perfect is not the past of the present perfect. If she now lives in Toronto, we say "she lived", we do not say, "she had lived".

Is it possible to conjure context that compels, "she had lived"? Yes, of course. If you have enough shoe polish, you can make a polar bear into a brown bear, but as it stands, if she now lives in Toronto we say, "Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10 years".


      

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/
--0-1889486672-1236627646=:75203
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have "read up on" sequence of tenses. What I have not read is your reply to what was said to you below, i.e., it can be demonstrated that the sequence-of-tenses rule doesn't work. It can be demonstrated, as below, that it misleads.
 
~~~~~~~~

--- On Mon, 3/9/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Read up on sequence of tenses.
 

On Behalf Of Brad Johnston
 






Cindy says, "I have lived in Nashville for ten years <and still does>.


Reporter reports: Cindy said that she had lived in Nashville for ten years.
 

Cindy says, "I lived in Nashville for ten years" <but now lives in Toronto>.

Reporter reports: Cindy said that she had lived in Nashville for ten years.

 

Under your rules, in reporting direct discourse, we cannot know whether Cindy lives in Nashville or Toronto. 

 

This illustrates the problem I have with your rule about sequence of tenses. If Cindy still lives in Nashville, the reporter should have reported that "Cindy says she has lived in Nashville for 10 years".

 

Your way, the reporter reports: "Yesterday, the president said he supported the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but it is not known whether he still holds, or can be presumed to hold, that same view today".

 

IMAHO, "sequence of tenses" is a nice rule that doesn't work. The reporter should report what he heard: Yesterday, the president said he supports the withdrawal. That's what actually happened yesterday, the rule notwithstanding.
 

~~~~~~~~
 

--- On Mon, 3/9/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 

Direct discourse: Cindy says, "I have lived in Nashville for ten years."

Indirect discourse: Cindy said that she had lived in Nashville for ten years.

~~~~~~~~
 

From: Wollin, Edith [[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow>[log in to unmask]]

 

Cynthia had lived in Nashville for ten years before she moved to Toronto.

 

~~~~~~~~
 

Original Message

 

When Cynthia got to Nashville, she had been driving for 8 hours. (past perfect)

When Cynthia gets to Nashville, she will have been driving for 8 hours. (future perfect)

Whee. Here she is in Nashville. She's been on the road for 8 hours. (present perfect)

Cynthia has lived in Nashville for 10 years <and still does>. (present perfect)

Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10 years <but now lives in Toronto>. (simple past)

Note that the past perfect is not the past of the present perfect. If she now lives in Toronto, we say "she lived", we do not say, "she had lived".

Is it possible to conjure context that compels, "she had lived"? Yes, of course. If you have enough shoe polish, you can make a polar bear into a brown bear, but as it stands, if she now lives in Toronto we say, "Cynthia lived in Nashville for 10
 years".





      
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/
--0-1889486672-1236627646=:75203--
========================================================================Date:         Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:56:02 -0700
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:      Pickles: People DO .. (one cartoon)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1995787843-1236862562=:83009"

--0-1995787843-1236862562=:83009
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

People DO put 'had' in front of past tense verbs.

Pickles
By Brian Crane





 

 
 
.
 


      

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/
--0-1995787843-1236862562=:83009
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

People DO put 'had' in front of past tense verbs.

Pickles
By Brian Crane


 
.
 



      
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/
--0-1995787843-1236862562=:83009--
========================================================================Date:         Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:38:06 -0400
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: Pickles: People DO .. (one cartoon)
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128B91C32BEMAILBACKEND0_"
MIME-Version: 1.0

--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128B91C32BEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Your statement and your rejection of the use of had in the first frame are based on a number of assumptions, most of which you've never specified clearly.  I'll try to reconstruct your argument to the extent I can, recognizing that these are extrapolations from judgments you've made rather than analysis of arguments, which you haven't provided.

Assumption 1:  The tense of certain clauses is past.
Assumption 2:  Given assumption 1, the form of the verb must be preterit.  (I use that more specific term in preference to "past" to avoid confusion with the related term "past participle."  Preterit is used widely in historical grammars of English.)
Assumption 3:  Given assumptions 1 and 2, the writer/speaker has incorrectly placed "had" before a preterit verb form.

Here are some problems with this reasoning, whether it's your reasoning or a straw man I've created, and I'm willing to consider the latter possibility if you will detail the reasoning and methodology behind Assumption 1.  Tense is a function of the discourse, not just of the clause.  In many cases the tense of the clause is conditioned by factors beyond the clause or sentence.  What replicable method do you follow in determining that a particular clause is past and so should have a simple preterit verb?  I know you're not particularly interested in future tense, but notice that above I used a future ("I'll try...") to express an event that had already occurred before I began drafting this posting.

Assumption 2, if you do, in fact, hold assumption 2, and you haven't told us this, would bar, for example, the use of historical present, where a present tense is interpreted as past, as in "Shakespeare tells us not to limit mercy."  Merchant of Venice is about 400 years old.

Assumption 3 runs into problems with strong verbs, where preterit and past participle are distinct, but it's also based squarely on two assumptions that have themselves not been justified and for which no methodology has been provided.

Why should any grammarian, or anyone else for that matter, believe your judgments in the total absence of evidence and replicable methodology?

Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston
Sent: 2009-03-12 08:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Pickles: People DO .. (one cartoon)

People DO put 'had' in front of past tense verbs.
Pickles
By Brian Crane




[http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/feature/09/03/12/wppic090312.gif]
.



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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128B91C32BEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable















Your statement and your rejection of the use of had in the first
frame are based on a number of assumptions, most of which you’ve never
specified clearly.  I’ll try to reconstruct your argument to the
extent I can, recognizing that these are extrapolations from judgments you’ve
made rather than analysis of arguments, which you haven’t provided.

 

Assumption 1:  The tense of certain clauses is past.

Assumption 2:  Given assumption 1, the form of the verb
must be preterit.  (I use that more specific term in preference to “past”
to avoid confusion with the related term “past participle.” 
Preterit is used widely in historical grammars of English.)

Assumption 3:  Given assumptions 1 and 2, the
writer/speaker has incorrectly placed “had” before a preterit verb
form.

 

Here are some problems with this reasoning, whether it’s
your reasoning or a straw man I’ve created, and I’m willing to
consider the latter possibility if you will detail the reasoning and
methodology behind Assumption 1.  Tense is a function of the discourse,
not just of the clause.  In many cases the tense of the clause is
conditioned by factors beyond the clause or sentence.  What replicable
method do you follow in determining that a particular clause is past and so
should have a simple preterit verb?  I know you’re not particularly
interested in future tense, but notice that above I used a future (“I’ll
try…”) to express an event that had already occurred before I began
drafting this posting.

 

Assumption 2, if you do, in fact, hold assumption 2, and you
haven’t told us this, would bar, for example, the use of historical
present, where a present tense is interpreted as past, as in ”Shakespeare
tells us not to limit mercy.”  Merchant of Venice is about 400 years
old.  

 

Assumption 3 runs into problems with strong verbs, where
preterit and past participle are distinct, but it’s also based squarely
on two assumptions that have themselves not been justified and for which no
methodology has been provided.

 

Why should any grammarian, or anyone else for that matter,
believe your judgments in the total absence of evidence and replicable
methodology?

 

Herb



From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad
Johnston

Sent: 2009-03-12 08:56

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Pickles: People DO .. (one cartoon)



 


 

  

  

  
People DO put 'had' in front of past tense verbs.
  
  

  
Pickles
  

  
By Brian Crane
  
  
  

  
  
  

  

  
  

  
.
  
  

  
 
  
  
 




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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128B91C32BEMAILBACKEND0_--
========================================================================Date:         Fri, 13 Mar 2009 06:04:06 -0700
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:      People DO .. (two cartoons)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1897473909-1236949446=:42811"

--0-1897473909-1236949446=:42811
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable






.
1.) In one or two words that would be understood by students in grades 8 to 12, 
what is the tense of the verb 'put' in the left-hand frame?
 
Brad's answer: Past tense.
 
One-line comment: "I put on your big red hat" works.
 
Herb's answer:
 
One-line comment:  
  
2.) In light of your answer, should the word to the left of 'put' be where it is? Please select one: yes or no.
 
Brad's answer: No
 
Herb's answer: 
 

 
 
.brad.13mar09.   

--- On Thu, 3/12/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 

Your statement and your rejection of the use of had in the first frame are based on a number of assumptions, most of which you’ve never specified clearly.  I’ll try to reconstruct your argument to the extent I can, recognizing that these are extrapolations from judgments you’ve made rather than analysis of arguments, which you haven’t provided.
  
Assumption 1:  The tense of certain clauses is past. 
 
Assumption 2:  Given assumption 1, the form of the verb must be preterit.  (I use that more specific term in preference to “past” to avoid confusion with the related term “past participle.”  Preterit is used widely in historical grammars of English.) 
 
Assumption 3:  Given assumptions 1 and 2, the writer/speaker has incorrectly placed “had” before a preterit verb form. 
  
Here are some problems with this reasoning, whether it’s your reasoning or a straw man I’ve created, and I’m willing to consider the latter possibility if you will detail the reasoning and methodology behind Assumption 1.  Tense is a function of the discourse, not just of the clause.  In many cases the tense of the clause is conditioned by factors beyond the clause or sentence.  What replicable method do you follow in determining that a particular clause is past and so should have a simple preterit verb?  I know you’re not particularly interested in future tense, but notice that above I used a future (“I’ll try…”) to express an event that had already occurred before I began drafting this posting. 
  
Assumption 2, if you do, in fact, hold assumption 2, and you haven’t told us this, would bar, for example, the use of historical present, where a present tense is interpreted as past, as in ”Shakespeare tells us not to limit mercy.”  Merchant of Venice is about 400 years old.  
  
Assumption 3 runs into problems with strong verbs, where preterit and past participle are distinct, but it’s also based squarely on two assumptions that have themselves not been justified and for which no methodology has been provided. 
  
Why should any grammarian, or anyone else for that matter, believe your judgments in the total absence of evidence and replicable methodology? 
  
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/
--0-1897473909-1236949446=:42811
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable






.
1.) In one or two words that would be understood by students in grades 8 to 12, 
what is the tense of the verb 'put' in the left-hand frame?
 
Brad's answer: Past tense.
 
One-line comment: "I put on your big red hat" works.
 
Herb's answer:
 
One-line comment:  
  
2.) In light of your answer, should the word to the left of 'put' be where it is? Please select one: yes or no.
 
Brad's answer: No
 
Herb's answer: 
 

 
 
.brad.13mar09.   

--- On Thu, 3/12/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 

Your statement and your rejection of the use of had in the first frame are based on a number of assumptions, most of which you’ve never specified clearly.  I’ll try to reconstruct your argument to the extent I can, recognizing that these are extrapolations from judgments you’ve made rather than analysis of arguments, which you haven’t provided.
  
Assumption 1:  The tense of certain clauses is past. 
 
Assumption 2:  Given assumption 1, the form of the verb must be preterit.  (I use that more specific term in preference to “past” to avoid confusion with the related term “past participle.”  Preterit is used widely in historical grammars of English.) 
 
Assumption 3:  Given assumptions 1 and 2, the writer/speaker has incorrectly placed “had” before a preterit verb form. 
  
Here are some problems with this reasoning, whether it’s your reasoning or a straw man I’ve created, and I’m willing to consider the latter possibility if you will detail the reasoning and methodology behind Assumption 1.  Tense is a function of the discourse, not just of the clause.  In many cases the tense of the clause is conditioned by factors beyond the clause or sentence.  What replicable method do you follow in determining that a particular clause is past and so should have a simple preterit verb?  I know you’re not particularly interested in future tense, but notice that above I used a future (“I’ll try…”) to express an event that had already occurred before I began drafting this posting. 
  
Assumption 2, if you do, in fact, hold assumption 2, and you haven’t told us this, would bar, for example, the use of historical present, where a present tense is interpreted as past, as in ”Shakespeare tells us not to limit mercy.”  Merchant of Venice is about 400 years old.  
  
Assumption 3 runs into problems with strong verbs, where preterit and past participle are distinct, but it’s also based squarely on two assumptions that have themselves not been justified and for which no methodology has been provided. 
  
Why should any grammarian, or anyone else for that matter, believe your judgments in the total absence of evidence and replicable methodology? 
  
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/
--0-1897473909-1236949446=:42811--
========================================================================Date:         Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:27:51 -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:         DD Farms <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Well I'll be verbed.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="=====================_883453328==.ALT"

--=====================_883453328==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

DD: Interesting article re verb usage from Psychology;

ScienceDaily (Mar. 13, 2009) ­ If you want to 
perform at your peak, you should carefully 
consider how you discuss your past actions. In a 
new study in Psychological Science, psychologists 
William Hart of the University of Florida and 
Dolores Albarraca n from the University of 
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign reveal that the way 
a statement is phrased (and specifically, how the 
verbs are used), affects our memory of an event 
being described and may also influence our behavior.

In these experiments, a group of volunteers were 
interrupted prior to finishing a word game and 
were then asked to describe their behavior using 
the imperfective (e.g., I was solving word 
puzzles) or perfective (e.g., I solved word 
puzzles) aspect. The volunteers then completed a 
memory test (for the word game) or a word game 
which was similar to the first one they had worked on.

It turns out, the volunteers who had described 
their behavior using the imperfective aspect were 
able to recall more specific details of their 
experience compared to volunteers who had 
described their behavior in the perfective 
aspect. The volunteers writing in the 
imperfective aspect also performed better on the 
second word game and were more willing to 
complete the task than did volunteers who used 
the perfective to describe their experience.

The authors surmise that when we think about our 
past behavior in the imperfective (e.g. what we 
were doing), we tend to imagine that behavior as 
ongoing (and not completed yet). This enables us 
to easily think about what went into that 
behavior and may help us improve performance on similar tasks in the future.

The authors note that these findings may be 
relevant to behavioral therapy. They suggest that 
"decreasing the frequency of unhealthy behaviors 
might be facilitated by discussing these 
behaviors in terms of what I did. In contrast, 
increasing the frequency of healthy behaviors 
might be facilitated by discussing these 
behaviors in terms of what I was doing."

----------
Journal reference:
    * . What I Was Doing Versus What I Did. Psychological Science, (in press)
Adapted from materials provided by 
Association 
for Psychological Science.

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/

--=====================_883453328==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



DD: Interesting article re verb usage from Psychology;


ScienceDaily (Mar. 13, 2009) ­ If you want to perform at your peak, you
should carefully consider how you discuss your past actions. In a new
study in Psychological Science, psychologists William Hart of the
University of Florida and Dolores Albarraca n from the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign reveal that the way a statement is phrased
(and specifically, how the verbs are used), affects our memory of an
event being described and may also influence our behavior.


In these experiments, a group of volunteers were interrupted prior to
finishing a word game and were then asked to describe their behavior
using the imperfective (e.g., I was solving word puzzles) or perfective
(e.g., I solved word puzzles) aspect. The volunteers then completed a
memory test (for the word game) or a word game which was similar to the
first one they had worked on.


It turns out, the volunteers who had described their behavior using the
imperfective aspect were able to recall more specific details of their
experience compared to volunteers who had described their behavior in the
perfective aspect. The volunteers writing in the imperfective aspect also
performed better on the second word game and were more willing to
complete the task than did volunteers who used the perfective to describe
their experience.


The authors surmise that when we think about our past behavior in the
imperfective (e.g. what we were doing), we tend to imagine that behavior
as ongoing (and not completed yet). This enables us to easily think about
what went into that behavior and may help us improve performance on
similar tasks in the future.


The authors note that these findings may be relevant to behavioral
therapy. They suggest that "decreasing the frequency of unhealthy
behaviors might be facilitated by discussing these behaviors in terms of
what I did. In contrast, increasing the frequency of healthy behaviors
might be facilitated by discussing these behaviors in terms of what I was
doing."


Journal reference:

. What I Was Doing Versus What I Did. Psychological
Science, (in press)
Adapted from materials provided by
Association
 for Psychological
Science.



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/

--=====================_883453328==.ALT--
========================================================================Date:         Sat, 14 Mar 2009 05:46:01 -0700
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:      People DO ...
Comments: To: Copy Editor <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-507748719-1237034761=:23216"

--0-507748719-1237034761=:23216
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


People DO put 'had' in front of past tense verbs:
 
"Bank of America, meanwhile, said it had made money during the first two months of the year."
 
"There, flashing at the top of the list, Eisen found exactly what he had expected: another note from one of President Obama's senior advisers."
 
In an effort to put 'had' in front of a past tense verb, people DO sometimes force the irregular past participle:
 
"Some of Bernard Madoff's victims came to Lower Manhattan on Thursday to catch a glimpse of the man who had taken away their life savings, robbing them of their kids' college funds and of their pride."
 
People DO use 'had been' where 'was' or 'were' belong:
 
"Benedict said his decision to welcome back to the church the ultraconservative Society of St. Pius X, to which the excommunicated bishop belongs, had been mishandled and 'not clearly and adequately explained".
 
The items above are from The Washington Post of Friday March 13, 2009.


      

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/
--0-507748719-1237034761=:23216
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


People DO put 'had' in front of past tense verbs:
 
"Bank of America, meanwhile, said it had made money during the first two months of the year."
 
"There, flashing at the top of the list, Eisen found exactly what he had expected: another note from one of President Obama's senior advisers."
 
In an effort to put 'had' in front of a past tense verb, people DO sometimes force the irregular past participle:
 
"Some of Bernard Madoff's victims came to Lower Manhattan on Thursday to catch a glimpse of the man who had taken away their life savings, robbing them of their kids' college funds and of their pride."
 
People DO use 'had been' where 'was' or 'were' belong:
 
"Benedict said his decision to welcome back to the church the ultraconservative Society of St. Pius X, to which the excommunicated bishop belongs, had been mishandled and 'not clearly and adequately explained".
 
The items above are from The Washington Post of Friday March 13, 2009.





      
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/
--0-507748719-1237034761=:23216--
========================================================================Date:         Sat, 14 Mar 2009 09:13:45 -0400
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 <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Washingtin Post article
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C9A485.2DD79AC0"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C9A485.2DD79AC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 
 Report Cites Safety Issues at Md. Hospital for Clergy 
(By Michelle Boorstein, The Washington Post)

 

How many of you ignorami in AREG were ignorant of Maryland's having a
hospital just for clergy?

 

N. Scott Catledge

Professor Emeritus

 


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_000_0006_01C9A485.2DD79AC0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

















Report Cites Safety Issues at Md.
Hospital for Clergy 

(By
Michelle Boorstein, The Washington
Post)

 

How many of you ignorami in AREG were ignorant of Maryland’s having
a hospital just for clergy?

 

N. Scott Catledge

Professor Emeritus

 






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_000_0006_01C9A485.2DD79AC0--
========================================================================Date:         Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:11:44 -0400
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: Washingtin Post article
In-Reply-To:  A<000501c9a4a6$b4e93ac0$6501a8c0@leordinateur>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9A4E1.1E46E0C5"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9A4E1.1E46E0C5
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It probably has an additional ward to deal with various medical
complications resulting from sects and violence.

 

--- Bill Spruiell

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 9:14 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Washingtin Post article

 

Report Cites Safety Issues at Md. Hospital for Clergy
  
(By Michelle Boorstein, The Washington Post)

 

How many of you ignorami in AREG were ignorant of Maryland's having a
hospital just for clergy?

 

N. Scott Catledge

Professor Emeritus

 

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_01C9A4E1.1E46E0C5
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable














It probably has an additional ward to deal with various medical
complications resulting from sects and violence.

 

--- Bill Spruiell

 





From: Assembly for the Teaching of English
Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott

Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 9:14 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Washingtin Post article





 

Report Cites Safety
Issues at Md. Hospital for Clergy 

(By Michelle
Boorstein, The Washington Post)

 

How
many of you ignorami in AREG were ignorant of Maryland’s having a hospital just
for clergy?

 

N. Scott Catledge

Professor Emeritus

 

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_01C9A4E1.1E46E0C5--
========================================================================Date:         Sat, 14 Mar 2009 19:14:35 -0400
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: Washingtin Post article
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E140927EMAILBACKEND0_"
MIME-Version: 1.0

--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E140927EMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

No, Bill.  That's the mental hospital in Oconomowoc, WI, exclusively for Lutheran clergy.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C
Sent: 2009-03-14 16:12
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Washingtin Post article

It probably has an additional ward to deal with various medical complications resulting from sects and violence.

--- Bill Spruiell

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 9:14 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Washingtin Post article

Report Cites Safety Issues at Md. Hospital for Clergy
(By Michelle Boorstein, The Washington Post)

How many of you ignorami in AREG were ignorant of Maryland's having a hospital just for clergy?

N. Scott Catledge
Professor Emeritus

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/

--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E140927EMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable














No, Bill.  That’s the mental hospital in Oconomowoc, WI,
exclusively for Lutheran clergy.

 

Herb

 





From: Assembly for the Teaching of English
Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William
C

Sent: 2009-03-14 16:12

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: Washingtin Post article





 

It probably has an additional ward to deal with various medical
complications resulting from sects and violence.

 

--- Bill Spruiell

 





From: Assembly for the Teaching of English
Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott

Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 9:14 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Washingtin Post article





 

Report Cites Safety
Issues at Md. Hospital for Clergy 

(By Michelle
Boorstein, The Washington Post)

 

How
many of you ignorami in AREG were ignorant of Maryland’s having a hospital just
for clergy?

 

N. Scott Catledge

Professor Emeritus

 

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/

--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E140927EMAILBACKEND0_--
========================================================================Date:         Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:09:05 -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:         Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Chicago Slang
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="_57ee0023-4868-4906-9eb4-4bc8997e9c7e_"
MIME-Version: 1.0

--_57ee0023-4868-4906-9eb4-4bc8997e9c7e_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


 




Just in case youse ever comes over by dere to Chicagah:
 
1. Grachki (grach'-key): Chicagoese for "garage key" as in, "Yo, Theresa, waja do wit da grachki? How my supposta cut da grass if I don't git intada grach?"

2. Sammich: Chicagoese for sandwich. When made with sausage, it's a sassage sammich; when made with shredded beef, it's an Italian Beef sammich, a local delicacy consisting of piles of spicy meat in a perilously soggy bun.

3. Da: This article is a key part of Chicago speech, as in "Da Bears" or "Da Mare" -- the latter denoting Richard M. Daley, or Richie, as he's often called.

4. Jewels: Not family heirlooms or a tender body reg ion, but a popular name for one of the region's dominant grocery store chains. "I'm goin' to da Jewels to pick up some sassage."

5. Field's: Marshall Field, a prominent Chicago department store (unfortunately, it's a thing of the past.) Also Carson Pirie Scott, another major department store chain, is simply called " Carson's."

6. Tree: The number between two and four. "We were lucky dat we only got tree inches of snow da udder night."

7. Over by dere: Translates to "over by there," a way of emphasizing a site presumed familiar to the listener. As in, "I got the sassage at da Jewels down on Kedzie, over by dere."

8. Kaminski Park : The mispronounced name of the ballpark where the Chicago White Sox (da Sox) play baseball. Comiskey Park was renamed U.S. Cellular Field (da Cell).

9. Frunchroom: As in, "Get outta da frunchroom wit dose muddy shoes."  It's not the "parlor." It's not the "living room." In the land of the bungalow, it's the "frunchroom," a named derived, linguists believe, from "front room."

10. Use : Not the verb, but the plural pronoun 'you!' "Where use goin'?"

11. Downtown: Anywhere near The Lake, south of The Zoo (Lincoln Park Zoo) and north of Soldier Field.

12. The Lake : Lake Michigan . (What other lake is there?) It's often used by local weathermen, "cooler by The Lake."

14. Braht: Short for Bratwurst. "Gimme a braht wit kraut."

15. Goes: Past or present tense of the verb "say." For example, "Den he goes, 'I like dis place'!"

16. Guys: Used when addressing two or more people, regardless of each individual's gender.  

17. Pop: A soft drink. Don't say "soda" in this town. "Do ya wanna canna pop?"

18. Sliders: Nickname for hamburgers from White Castle , a popular Midwestern burger chain. "Dose sliders I had last night gave me da runs."

19. The Taste: The Taste of Chicago Festival, a huge extravaganza in Grant Park featuring samples of Chicagoland cuisine which takes place each year around the Fourth of July holiday.

20. "Jeetyet?": Translates to, "Did you  eat yet?"  

21. Winter and Construction: Punch line to the joke, "What are the two seasons in Chicago?"

22. Cuppa Too-Tree: is Chicagoese for "a couple, two, three" which really means "a few." For example, "Hey Mike, dere any beerz left in da cooler over by dere?" "Yeh, a cuppa too-tree."

23. 588-2300: Everyone in Chicago knows this commercial jingle and the carpet company yo u'll get if you call that number -- Empire!

24. Junk Dror: You will usually find the 'junk drawer' in the kitchen filled to the brim with miscellaneous, but very important, junk.

25. Southern Illinois : Anything south of I-80. This is where Smothers' is from....

26. Expressways: The Interstates in the immediate Chicagoland area are usually known just by their 'name' and not their Interstate number: the Dan Ryan ("da Ryan"), the Stevenson, the Kennedy (da "Kennedy"), the Eisenhower (da "Ike"), and the Edens (just "Edens" but Da Edens" is
acceptable).

27. Gym Shoes: The rest of the country may refer to them as sneakers or running shoes but Chicagoans wil l always call them gym shoes!

Geoff Layton


_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ Contacts: Organize your contact list. 
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/marcusatmicrosoft.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!503D1D86EBB2B53C!2285.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_UGC_Contacts_032009
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/

--_57ee0023-4868-4906-9eb4-4bc8997e9c7e_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable






 




Just in case youse ever comes over by dere to Chicagah:
 
1. Grachki (grach'-key): Chicagoese for "garage key" as in, "Yo, Theresa, waja do wit da grachki? How my supposta cut da grass if I don't git intada grach?"

2. Sammich: Chicagoese for sandwich. When made with sausage, it's a sassage sammich; when made with shredded beef, it's an Italian Beef sammich, a local delicacy consisting of piles of spicy meat in a perilously soggy bun.

3. Da: This article is a key part of Chicago speech, as in "Da Bears" or "Da Mare" -- the latter denoting Richard M. Daley, or Richie, as he's often called.

4. Jewels: Not family heirlooms or a tender body reg ion, but a popular name for one of the region's dominant grocery store chains. "I'm goin' to da Jewels to pick up some sassage."

5. Field's: Marshall Field, a prominent Chicago department store (unfortunately, it's a thing of the past.) Also Carson Pirie Scott, another major department store chain, is simply called " Carson's."

6. Tree: The number between two and four. "We were lucky dat we only got tree inches of snow da udder night."

7. Over by dere: Translates to "over by there," a way of emphasizing a site presumed familiar to the listener. As in, "I got the sassage at da Jewels down on Kedzie, over by dere."

8. Kaminski Park : The mispronounced name of the ballpark where the Chicago White Sox (da Sox) play baseball. Comiskey Park was renamed U.S. Cellular Field (da Cell).

9. Frunchroom: As in, "Get outta da frunchroom wit dose muddy shoes."  It's not the "parlor." It's not the "living room." In the land of the bungalow, it's the "frunchroom," a named derived, linguists believe, from "front room."

10. Use : Not the verb, but the plural pronoun 'you!' "Where use goin'?"

11. Downtown: Anywhere near The Lake, south of The Zoo (Lincoln Park Zoo) and north of Soldier Field.

12. The Lake : Lake Michigan . (What other lake is there?) It's often used by local weathermen, "cooler by The Lake."

14. Braht: Short for Bratwurst. "Gimme a braht wit kraut."

15. Goes: Past or present tense of the verb "say." For example, "Den he goes, 'I like dis place'!"

16. Guys: Used when addressing two or more people, regardless of each individual's gender.  

17. Pop: A soft drink. Don't say "soda" in this town. "Do ya wanna canna pop?"

18. Sliders: Nickname for hamburgers from White Castle , a popular Midwestern burger chain. "Dose sliders I had last night gave me da runs."

19. The Taste: The Taste of Chicago Festival, a huge extravaganza in Grant Park featuring samples of Chicagoland cuisine which takes place each year around the Fourth of July holiday.

20. "Jeetyet?": Translates to, "Did you  eat yet?"  

21. Winter and Construction: Punch line to the joke, "What are the two seasons in Chicago?"

22. Cuppa Too-Tree: is Chicagoese for "a couple, two, three" which really means "a few." For example, "Hey Mike, dere any beerz left in da cooler over by dere?" "Yeh, a cuppa too-tree."

23. 588-2300: Everyone in Chicago knows this commercial jingle and the carpet company yo u'll get if you call that number -- Empire!

24. Junk Dror: You will usually find the 'junk drawer' in the kitchen filled to the brim with miscellaneous, but very important, junk.

25. Southern Illinois : Anything south of I-80. This is where Smothers' is from....

26. Expressways: The Interstates in the immediate Chicagoland area are usually known just by their 'name' and not their Interstate number: the Dan Ryan ("da Ryan"), the Stevenson, the Kennedy (da "Kennedy"), the Eisenhower (da "Ike"), and the Edens (just "Edens" but Da Edens" is
acceptable).

27. Gym Shoes: The rest of the country may refer to them as sneakers or running shoes but Chicagoans wil l always call them gym shoes!


Geoff Layton


Windows Live™ Contacts: Organize your contact list.  Check it out.
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/

--_57ee0023-4868-4906-9eb4-4bc8997e9c7e_--
========================================================================Date:         Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:15:56 -0700
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:      learning grammar
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-620760945-1237295756=:99533"

--0-620760945-1237295756=:99533
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable







Inbound message: These are pervasive patterns in English that children learn very early in life, well before they start school, and they rarely make mistakes with them.
 
This is, as nearly as anyone knows, not what happens. Children have to be taught that there is a verb form that is useful because it allows us to show that by the time one past event occurred, another past event had already occurred. "When the Queen arrived, they ate. When the Queen arrived, they had eaten".
 
They ate either after she arrived or before she arrived, depending on the verb form. This is the only example in the New York Times Style Book. 'The Queen' example was also sent to me by an English professor in England who opined that "it's the only way it can be done".
 
.brad.17mar09. 
   


      

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/
--0-620760945-1237295756=:99533
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable







Inbound message: These are pervasive patterns in English that children learn very early in life, well before they start school, and they rarely make mistakes with them.
 
This is, as nearly as anyone knows, not what happens. Children have to be taught that there is a verb form that is useful because it allows us to show that by the time one past event occurred, another past event had already occurred. "When the Queen arrived, they ate. When the Queen arrived, they had eaten".
 
They ate either after she arrived or before she arrived, depending on the verb form. This is the only example in the New York Times Style Book. 'The Queen' example was also sent to me by an English professor in England who opined that "it's the only way it can be done".
 
.brad.17mar09. 
   



      
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/
--0-620760945-1237295756=:99533--
========================================================================Date:         Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:01:14 -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:         Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: learning grammar
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="_000_C62F596A20AB834B86375CE75059D13724F5522E7FMBX01ldschurc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0

--_000_C62F596A20AB834B86375CE75059D13724F5522E7FMBX01ldschurc_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I'm not sure that children need to know about "verbs" and "forms" per se, to avoid mistakes with them.  The pattern they learn has to do with associating the words with the meanings.  Brad seems to be saying the verbs are "ate" and "had eaten."  Those are the teacher's terms and not the child's.  In fact, arguably the verbs are "ate" (past or preterit form of "eat") and "had" (past or preterit form of the verb "have").  "Had eaten" is a verb phrase consisting of the verb "had" (past or preterit form) and "eaten" (a participle form of "eat").  This last form is really an adjective form derived from the verb "eat."  If we didn't have certain teachers messing with the children's minds, they might understand these concepts better.  But it don't think it has anything to do with them making "mistakes," maybe just with explaining to certain of their teachers what they are doing with the language.

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: learning grammar

Inbound message: These are pervasive patterns in English that children learn very early in life, well before they start school, and they rarely make mistakes with them.

This is, as nearly as anyone knows, not what happens. Children have to be taught that there is a verb form that is useful because it allows us to show that by the time one past event occurred, another past event had already occurred. "When the Queen arrived, they ate. When the Queen arrived, they had eaten".

They ate either after she arrived or before she arrived, depending on the verb form. This is the only example in the New York Times Style Book. 'The Queen' example was also sent to me by an English professor in England who opined that "it's the only way it can be done".

.brad.17mar09.



To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/


 NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.



To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

--_000_C62F596A20AB834B86375CE75059D13724F5522E7FMBX01ldschurc_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable














I’m not sure that children need to know about “verbs”
and “forms” per se, to avoid mistakes with them.  The pattern they
learn has to do with associating the words with the meanings.  Brad seems
to be saying the verbs are “ate” and “had eaten.” 
Those are the teacher’s terms and not the child’s.  In fact, arguably
the verbs are “ate” (past or preterit form of “eat”)
and “had” (past or preterit form of the verb “have”). 
“Had eaten” is a verb phrase consisting of the verb “had”
(past or preterit form) and “eaten” (a participle form of “eat”). 
This last form is really an adjective form derived from the verb “eat.” 
If we didn’t have certain teachers messing with the children’s
minds, they might understand these concepts better.  But it don’t think
it has anything to do with them making “mistakes,” maybe just with explaining
to certain of their teachers what they are doing with the language.  

 



From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad
Johnston

Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:16 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: learning grammar



 


 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
Inbound
  message: These are pervasive patterns in English that children learn
  very early in life, well before they start school, and they rarely make
  mistakes with them.
  
  
 
  
  
This is,
  as nearly as anyone knows, not what happens. Children have to be taught
  that there is a verb form that is useful because it allows us to show that by
  the time one past event occurred, another past event had
  already occurred. "When the Queen arrived, they ate. When the
  Queen arrived, they had eaten".
  
  
 
  
  
They
  ate either after she arrived or before she arrived,
  depending on the verb form. This is the only example in the New York Times
  Style Book. 'The Queen' example was also sent to me by an
  English professor in England who opined that "it's the only way it
  can be done".
  
  
 
  
  
.brad.17mar09. 
  
   
  
 




To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave
the list" 

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/







 NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.




To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

--_000_C62F596A20AB834B86375CE75059D13724F5522E7FMBX01ldschurc_--
========================================================================Date:         Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:52:44 -0400
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: learning grammar
In-Reply-To:  A<[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9A753.161EA45E"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9A753.161EA45E
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Brad,

 

To chime in here, I think you may be confusing "X means Y" with "In
*standard* English, use Z to mean Y instead, and use it for Y always." 

 

As a child, I had no difficulty whatsoever in figuring out that
expressions such as "we done et before she showed up," "We ate before
she showed up," and "We had eaten before she arrived" meant that the
first event had completed before the second began. What I was taught in
school was not how to use the second version - instead, it was not to
use the first version, at least in writing, and to prefer the second
over the third (again, in writing).  It is the artificialness of these
restrictions that turn them into "teacher points," and this is one of
those areas where editorial practice is probably more flexible than what
K-12 usage guides would have one believe.  We can wear white shoes after
Labor Day, dang it (well, I wear hiking boots, but still....I could wear
white shoes if I wanted to).  

 

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English

Central Michigan University 

 

 

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:01 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: learning grammar

 

I'm not sure that children need to know about "verbs" and "forms" per
se, to avoid mistakes with them.  The pattern they learn has to do with
associating the words with the meanings.  Brad seems to be saying the
verbs are "ate" and "had eaten."  Those are the teacher's terms and not
the child's.  In fact, arguably the verbs are "ate" (past or preterit
form of "eat") and "had" (past or preterit form of the verb "have").
"Had eaten" is a verb phrase consisting of the verb "had" (past or
preterit form) and "eaten" (a participle form of "eat").  This last form
is really an adjective form derived from the verb "eat."  If we didn't
have certain teachers messing with the children's minds, they might
understand these concepts better.  But it don't think it has anything to
do with them making "mistakes," maybe just with explaining to certain of
their teachers what they are doing with the language.  

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: learning grammar

 

Inbound message: These are pervasive patterns in English that children
learn very early in life, well before they start school, and they rarely
make mistakes with them.

 

This is, as nearly as anyone knows, not what happens. Children have to
be taught that there is a verb form that is useful because it allows us
to show that by the time one past event occurred, another past event had
already occurred. "When the Queen arrived, they ate. When the Queen
arrived, they had eaten".

 

They ate either after she arrived or before she arrived, depending on
the verb form. This is the only example in the New York Times Style
Book. 'The Queen' example was also sent to me by an English professor in
England who opined that "it's the only way it can be done".

 

.brad.17mar09. 

   


To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
"Join or leave the list" 

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/



NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
"Join or leave the list" 

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ 


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_01C9A753.161EA45E
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable














Brad,

 

To chime in here, I think you may be confusing “X means Y”
with “In *standard* English, use Z to mean Y instead, and use it
for Y always.” 

 

As a child, I had no difficulty whatsoever in figuring out that expressions
such as “we done et before she showed up,” “We ate before she
showed up,” and “We had eaten before she arrived” meant
that the first event had completed before the second began. What I was taught
in school was not how to use the second version – instead, it was not
to use the first version, at least in writing, and to prefer the second over
the third (again, in writing).  It is the artificialness of these
restrictions that turn them into “teacher points,” and this is one
of those areas where editorial practice is probably more flexible than what
K-12 usage guides would have one believe.  We can wear white shoes
after Labor Day, dang it (well, I wear hiking boots, but still….I could
wear white shoes if I wanted to).  

 

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English

Central Michigan University 

 

 

 





From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce
Despain

Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:01 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: learning grammar





 

I’m not sure that children need to know about
“verbs” and “forms” per se, to avoid mistakes with
them.  The pattern they learn has to do with associating the words with
the meanings.  Brad seems to be saying the verbs are “ate” and
“had eaten.”  Those are the teacher’s terms and not the
child’s.  In fact, arguably the verbs are “ate” (past or
preterit form of “eat”) and “had” (past or preterit
form of the verb “have”).  “Had eaten” is a verb
phrase consisting of the verb “had” (past or preterit form) and
“eaten” (a participle form of “eat”).  This last
form is really an adjective form derived from the verb “eat.” 
If we didn’t have certain teachers messing with the children’s
minds, they might understand these concepts better.  But it don’t
think it has anything to do with them making “mistakes,” maybe just
with explaining to certain of their teachers what they are doing with the
language.  

 



From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad
Johnston

Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:16 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: learning grammar



 


 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
Inbound
  message: These are pervasive patterns in English that children learn
  very early in life, well before they start school, and they rarely make
  mistakes with them.
  
  
 
  
  
This is,
  as nearly as anyone knows, not what happens. Children have to be taught
  that there is a verb form that is useful because it allows us to show that by
  the time one past event occurred, another past event had
  already occurred. "When the Queen arrived, they ate. When the
  Queen arrived, they had eaten".
  
  
 
  
  
They
  ate either after she arrived or before she arrived,
  depending on the verb form. This is the only example in the New York Times
  Style Book. 'The Queen' example was also sent to me by an English professor
  in England who opined that "it's the only way it can be done".
  
  
 
  
  
.brad.17mar09. 
  
   
  
 




To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave
the list" 

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/







NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of
the original message.



To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
"Join or leave the list" 

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ 






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_01C9A753.161EA45E--
========================================================================Date:         Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:52:40 -0700
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:      Sonnet grammar analysis help
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-539262680-1237402360=:39656"

--0-539262680-1237402360=:39656
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

List, 
Please let me know if you think I'm basically correct with my analysis or where I might be more correct or clear.
 
Adverb clause in italics
Independent clauses in bold
participial phrases in < > with participle underlined
noun clauses in [ ]
adjective or relative clauses in {  }
When in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes
I all alone beweep my outcast state,
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
And look upon myself, and curse my fate,
,
, ,
,
;
Yet ,
Haply I think on thee,—and then my state,
Like to the lark at break of day , sings hymns at heaven’s gate;
     For thy sweet love remember’d such wealth brings
     {That then I scorn to change my state with kings}. 
 
Does this seem right?  Any comments?
 
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/
--0-539262680-1237402360=:39656
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

List, 
Please let me know if you think I'm basically correct with my analysis or where I might be more correct or clear.
 
Adverb clause in italics
Independent clauses in bold
participial phrases in < > with participle underlined
noun clauses in [ ]
adjective or relative clauses in {  }
When in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes
I all alone beweep my outcast state,
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
And look upon myself, and curse my fate,
<Wishing me like to one more rich in hope>,
<Featur’d like him>, <like him with friends possess’d>,
<Desiring this man’s art, and that man’s scope>,
<With [what I most enjoy] contented least>;
Yet <in these thoughts myself almost despising>,
Haply I think on thee,—and then my state,
Like to the lark at break of day <arising
From sullen earth>, sings hymns at heaven’s gate;
     For thy sweet love remember’d such wealth brings
     {That then I scorn to change my state with kings}. 
 
Does this seem right?  Any comments?
 
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/
--0-539262680-1237402360=:39656--
========================================================================Date:         Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:03:57 -0400
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: Sonnet grammar analysis help
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14093BEMAILBACKEND0_"
MIME-Version: 1.0

--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14093BEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14093BEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14093BEMAILBACKEND0_--
========================================================================Date:         Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:24:49 -0700
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 - "Â ". Rest of header
              flushed.
From:         "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-141526766-1237418689=:11088"

--0-141526766-1237418689=:11088
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Herb & Scott,
 
I've always held that the main clause of this one sentence sonnet, as Herb suggests (if I'm reading you rightly), appears in the third quatrian: "(Haply) I think on thee." It's the implied "then" statement that follows the when statement that opens the sonnet ("When in disgrace ......., [then] I think on thee.").  This, it seems to me, is the main point of the entire sonnet and is explained more fully by the final couplet.  By the way, I'm not at all convinced by the punctuation, which in Shakespeare is often open to question anyway, especially the comma after line #9, which I think is still a continuation of the previous thought, not an introduction to the main clause that follows it.  What do you think?

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




________________________________
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:03:57 PM
Subject: Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help


Scott,
 
I think I’d treat “Yet…thee” as a main clause as well, not as adverbial.  Yet acts as a coordinating conjunction and so also gets used sentence-initially to set up a contrast with a preceding thought.  There’s a single complex adverbial clause comprising the first two quatrains.  The third quatrain begins with the main clause of that sentence and is itself a coordinate clause with “and.” The third quatrain is set off by a semi-colon because of the preceding serial commas.  The closing couplet is also set off with a semi-colon, perhaps because of the initial “for” and the close logical link between it and three quatrains.  A sonnet in one sentence.  Not many poets have pulled this off so well.
 
Of course, the semicolons are the interpretation of an editor, unidentified.  In the 1609 facsimile (http://ia311343.us.archive.org/3/items/shakespearessonn00shakrich/shakespearessonn00shakrich.pdf), all lines but the last end in commas, although the punctuation at the end of the first quatrain is ambiguous.  I can’t make out on the screen whether it was meant to be a comma or a period, but I suspect the former.
 
Herb
 
From:Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
Sent: 2009-03-18 14:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Sonnet grammar analysis help
 
List, 
Please let me know if you think I'm basically correct with my analysis or where I might be more correct or clear.
 
Adverb clause in italics
Independent clauses in bold
participial phrases in < > with participle underlined
noun clauses in [ ]
adjective or relative clauses in {  }
When in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes
I all alone beweep my outcast state,
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
And look upon myself, and curse my fate,
,
, ,
,
;
Yet ,
Haply I think on thee,—and then my state,
Like to the lark at break of day , sings hymns at heaven’s gate;
     For thy sweet love remember’d such wealth brings
     {That then I scorn to change my state with kings}. 
 
Does this seem right?  Any comments?
 
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/
--0-141526766-1237418689=:11088
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Herb & Scott,
 
I've always held that the main clause of this one sentence sonnet, as Herb suggests (if I'm reading you rightly), appears in the third quatrian: "(Haply) I think on thee." It's the implied "then" statement that follows the when statement that opens the sonnet ("When in disgrace ......., [then] I think on thee.").  This, it seems to me, is the main point of the entire sonnet and is explained more fully by the final couplet.  By the way, I'm not at all convinced by the punctuation, which in Shakespeare is often open to question anyway, especially the comma after line #9, which I think is still a continuation of the previous thought, not an introduction to the main clause that follows it.  What do you think?
 
Paul
 
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).






From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:03:57 PM
Subject: Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help





Scott,
 
I think I’d treat “Yet…thee” as a main clause as well, not as adverbial.  Yet acts as a coordinating conjunction and so also gets used sentence-initially to set up a contrast with a preceding thought.  There’s a single complex adverbial clause comprising the first two quatrains.  The third quatrain begins with the main clause of that sentence and is itself a coordinate clause with “and.” The third quatrain is set off by a semi-colon because of the preceding serial commas.  The closing couplet is also set off with a semi-colon, perhaps because of the initial “for” and the close logical link between it and three quatrains.  A sonnet in one sentence.  Not many poets have pulled this off so well.
 
Of course, the semicolons are the interpretation of an editor, unidentified.  In the 1609 facsimile (http://ia311343.us.archive.org/3/items/shakespearessonn00shakrich/shakespearessonn00shakrich.pdf), all lines but the last end in commas, although the punctuation at the end of the first quatrain is ambiguous.  I can’t make out on the screen whether it was meant to be a comma or a period, but I suspect the former.
 
Herb
 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
Sent: 2009-03-18 14:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Sonnet grammar analysis help
 





List, 

Please let me know if you think I'm basically correct with my analysis or where I might be more correct or clear.

 

Adverb clause in italics

Independent clauses in bold

participial phrases in < > with participle underlined

noun clauses in [ ]

adjective or relative clauses in {  }
When in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes
I all alone beweep my outcast state,
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
And look upon myself, and curse my fate,
<Wishing me like to one more rich in hope>,
<Featur’d like him>, <like him with friends possess’d>,
<Desiring this man’s art, and that man’s scope>,
<With [what I most enjoy] contented least>;
Yet <in these thoughts myself almost despising>,
Haply I think on thee,—and then my state,
Like to the lark at break of day
 <arising
From sullen earth>, sings hymns at heaven’s gate;
     For thy sweet love remember’d such wealth brings
     {That then I scorn to change my state with kings}. 
 
Does this seem right?  Any comments?
 
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/
--0-141526766-1237418689=:11088--
========================================================================Date:         Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:13:48 -0400
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:         Edgar Schuster <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-10--731092396
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)

--Apple-Mail-10--731092396
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=WINDOWS-1252;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Wouldn't the semicolons be even more "open to question"?  I don't mean  
to suggest that they are "wrong," but they were a relatively new mark  
in Shakespeare's time, I believe.
Does anyone know who is responsible for the punctuation of the sonnets  
that we possess?

Ed S

On Mar 18, 2009, at 7:24 PM, Paul E. Doniger wrote:

> Herb & Scott,
>
> I've always held that the main clause of this one sentence sonnet,  
> as Herb suggests (if I'm reading you rightly), appears in the third  
> quatrian: "(Haply) I think on thee." It's the implied "then"  
> statement that follows the when statement that opens the sonnet  
> ("When in disgrace ......., [then] I think on thee.").  This, it  
> seems to me, is the main point of the entire sonnet and is explained  
> more fully by the final couplet.  By the way, I'm not at all  
> convinced by the punctuation, which in Shakespeare is often open to  
> question anyway, especially the comma after line #9, which I think  
> is still a continuation of the previous thought, not an introduction  
> to the main clause that follows it.  What do you think?
>
> Paul
>
> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an  
> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>
>
> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:03:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help
>
> Scott,
>
> I think I’d treat “Yet…thee” as a main clause as well, not as  
> adverbial.  Yet acts as a coordinating conjunction and so also gets  
> used sentence-initially to set up a contrast with a preceding  
> thought.  There’s a single complex adverbial clause comprising the  
> first two quatrains.  The third quatrain begins with the main clause  
> of that sentence and is itself a coordinate clause with “and.” The  
> third quatrain is set off by a semi-colon because of the preceding  
> serial commas..  The closing couplet is also set off with a semi- 
> colon, perhaps because of the initial “for” and the close logical  
> link between it and three quatrains.  A sonnet in one sentence.  Not  
> many poets have pulled this off so well.
>
> Of course, the semicolons are the interpretation of an editor,  
> unidentified.  In the 1609 facsimile (http://ia311343.us.archive.org/3/items/shakespearessonn00shakrich/shakespearessonn00shakrich.pdf 
> ), all lines but the last end in commas, although the punctuation at  
> the end of the first quatrain is ambiguous.  I can’t make out on the  
> screen whether it was meant to be a comma or a period, but I suspect  
> the former.
>
> Herb
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask] 
> ] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
> Sent: 2009-03-18 14:53
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Sonnet grammar analysis help
>
> List,
> Please let me know if you think I'm basically correct with my  
> analysis or where I might be more correct or clear.
>
> Adverb clause in italics
> Independent clauses in bold
> participial phrases in < > with participle underlined
> noun clauses in [ ]
> adjective or relative clauses in {  }
> When in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes
> I all alone beweep my outcast state,
> And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
> And look upon myself, and curse my fate,
> ,
> , ,
> ,
> ;
> Yet ,
> Haply I think on thee,—and then my state,
> Like to the lark at break of day  From sullen earth>, sings hymns at heaven’s gate;
>      For thy sweet love remember’d such wealth brings
>      {That then I scorn to change my state with kings}.
>
> Does this seem right?  Any comments?
>
> 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/
>

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--731092396
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=WINDOWS-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Wouldn't the semicolons be even more "open to question"?  I don't mean to suggest that they are "wrong," but they were a relatively new mark in Shakespeare's time, I believe.
Does anyone know who is responsible for the punctuation of the sonnets that we possess?

Ed S

On Mar 18, 2009, at 7:24 PM, Paul E. Doniger wrote:

Herb & Scott,
 
I've always held that the main clause of this one sentence sonnet, as Herb suggests (if I'm reading you rightly), appears in the third quatrian: "(Haply) I think on thee." It's the implied "then" statement that follows the when statement that opens the sonnet ("When in disgrace ......., [then] I think on thee.").  This, it seems to me, is the main point of the entire sonnet and is explained more fully by the final couplet.  By the way, I'm not at all convinced by the punctuation, which in Shakespeare is often open to question anyway, especially the comma after line #9, which I think is still a continuation of the previous thought, not an introduction to the main clause that follows it.  What do you think?
 
Paul
 
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).


From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:03:57 PM
Subject: Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help

Scott,
 
I think I’d treat “Yet…thee” as a main clause as well, not as adverbial.  Yet acts as a coordinating conjunction and so also gets used sentence-initially to set up a contrast with a preceding thought.  There’s a single complex adverbial clause comprising the first two quatrains.  The third quatrain begins with the main clause of that sentence and is itself a coordinate clause with “and.” The third quatrain is set off by a semi-colon because of the preceding serial commas..  The closing couplet is also set off with a semi-colon, perhaps because of the initial “for” and the close logical link between it and three quatrains.  A sonnet in one sentence.  Not many poets have pulled this off so well.
 
Of course, the semicolons are the interpretation of an editor, unidentified.  In the 1609 facsimile (http://ia311343.us.archive.org/3/items/shakespearessonn00shakrich/shakespearessonn00shakrich.pdf), all lines but the last end in commas, although the punctuation at the end of the first quatrain is ambiguous.  I can’t make out on the screen whether it was meant to be a comma or a period, but I suspect the former.
 
Herb
 
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
Sent: 2009-03-18 14:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Sonnet grammar analysis help
 
List,
Please let me know if you think I'm basically correct with my analysis or where I might be more correct or clear.
 
Adverb clause in italics
Independent clauses in bold
participial phrases in < > with participle underlined
noun clauses in [ ]
adjective or relative clauses in {  }
When in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes
I all alone beweep my outcast state,
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
And look upon myself, and curse my fate,
<Wishing me like to one more rich in hope>,
<Featur’d like him>, <like him with friends possess’d>,
<Desiring this man’s art, and that man’s scope>,
<With [what I most enjoy] contented least>;
Yet <in these thoughts myself almost despising>,
Haply I think on thee,—and then my state,
Like to the lark at break of day <arising
From sullen earth>, sings hymns at heaven’s gate;
     For thy sweet love remember’d such wealth brings
     {That then I scorn to change my state with kings}. 
 
Does this seem right?  Any comments?
 
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/

=
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--731092396--
========================================================================Date:         Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:23:36 -0400
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: Sonnet grammar analysis help
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14093DEMAILBACKEND0_"
MIME-Version: 1.0

--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14093DEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ed and Paul,

I don't know who edited the edition Scott is using, but you are clearly right that the semi-colons are open to question.  I think a modern editor was trying to encode sentence structure into a sonnet that would cause problems for students.  Doing so is always risky since building in structure is also building in meaning.  I think the editor got it right, but I'd feel more comfortable with Shakespeare's punctuation, at least as we have it in the 1609 edition.  The sonnets should be read aloud, and a first reading is inevitably rough.  It takes a few tries and some thought to read it in a way that makes good sense and hangs together well, even if it isn't necessarily the sense Shakespeare's contemporaries would have made of it.

I agree, Paul, that the "then" is the hinge on which the sonnet turns.

Any time I've sat down with a Shakespeare sonnet, I've found working out the meaning and how he achieves his very remarkable effects a very satisfying effort.  And sometimes it is a bit of work.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster
Sent: 2009-03-18 20:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help

Wouldn't the semicolons be even more "open to question"?  I don't mean to suggest that they are "wrong," but they were a relatively new mark in Shakespeare's time, I believe.
Does anyone know who is responsible for the punctuation of the sonnets that we possess?

Ed S

On Mar 18, 2009, at 7:24 PM, Paul E. Doniger wrote:


Herb & Scott,

I've always held that the main clause of this one sentence sonnet, as Herb suggests (if I'm reading you rightly), appears in the third quatrian: "(Haply) I think on thee." It's the implied "then" statement that follows the when statement that opens the sonnet ("When in disgrace ......., [then] I think on thee.").  This, it seems to me, is the main point of the entire sonnet and is explained more fully by the final couplet.  By the way, I'm not at all convinced by the punctuation, which in Shakespeare is often open to question anyway, especially the comma after line #9, which I think is still a continuation of the previous thought, not an introduction to the main clause that follows it.  What do you think?

Paul

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


________________________________
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:03:57 PM
Subject: Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help
Scott,

I think I'd treat "Yet...thee" as a main clause as well, not as adverbial.  Yet acts as a coordinating conjunction and so also gets used sentence-initially to set up a contrast with a preceding thought.  There's a single complex adverbial clause comprising the first two quatrains.  The third quatrain begins with the main clause of that sentence and is itself a coordinate clause with "and." The third quatrain is set off by a semi-colon because of the preceding serial commas..  The closing couplet is also set off with a semi-colon, perhaps because of the initial "for" and the close logical link between it and three quatrains.  A sonnet in one sentence.  Not many poets have pulled this off so well.

Of course, the semicolons are the interpretation of an editor, unidentified.  In the 1609 facsimile (http://ia311343.us.archive.org/3/items/shakespearessonn00shakrich/shakespearessonn00shakrich.pdf), all lines but the last end in commas, although the punctuation at the end of the first quatrain is ambiguous.  I can't make out on the screen whether it was meant to be a comma or a period, but I suspect the former.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
Sent: 2009-03-18 14:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Sonnet grammar analysis help

List,
Please let me know if you think I'm basically correct with my analysis or where I might be more correct or clear.

Adverb clause in italics
Independent clauses in bold
participial phrases in < > with participle underlined
noun clauses in [ ]
adjective or relative clauses in {  }
When in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes
I all alone beweep my outcast state,
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
And look upon myself, and curse my fate,
,
, ,
,
;
Yet ,
Haply I think on thee,-and then my state,
Like to the lark at break of day , sings hymns at heaven's gate;
     For thy sweet love remember'd such wealth brings
     {That then I scorn to change my state with kings}.

Does this seem right?  Any comments?

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/

= 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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14093DEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable















Ed and Paul,

 

I don’t know who edited the edition Scott is using, but
you are clearly right that the semi-colons are open to question.  I think
a modern editor was trying to encode sentence structure into a sonnet that
would cause problems for students.  Doing so is always risky since
building in structure is also building in meaning.  I think the editor got
it right, but I’d feel more comfortable with Shakespeare’s punctuation,
at least as we have it in the 1609 edition.  The sonnets should be read
aloud, and a first reading is inevitably rough.  It takes a few tries and
some thought to read it in a way that makes good sense and hangs together well,
even if it isn’t necessarily the sense Shakespeare’s contemporaries
would have made of it.

 

I agree, Paul, that the “then” is the hinge on which
the sonnet turns.

 

Any time I’ve sat down with a Shakespeare sonnet, I’ve
found working out the meaning and how he achieves his very remarkable effects a
very satisfying effort.  And sometimes it is a bit of work.

 

Herb

 





From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edgar
Schuster

Sent: 2009-03-18 20:14

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help





 



Wouldn't the semicolons be even more "open to
question"?  I don't mean to suggest that they are "wrong,"
but they were a relatively new mark in Shakespeare's time, I believe.





Does anyone know who is responsible for the punctuation of
the sonnets that we possess?





 





Ed S



 





On Mar 18, 2009, at 7:24 PM, Paul E. Doniger wrote:















Herb & Scott,





 





I've always held that the main clause of this one sentence sonnet,
as Herb suggests (if I'm reading you rightly), appears in the third quatrian:
"(Haply) I think on thee." It's the implied "then"
statement that follows the when statement that opens the sonnet ("When in
disgrace ......., [then] I think on thee.").  This, it seems to
me, is the main point of the entire sonnet and is explained more
fully by the final couplet.  By the way, I'm not at all convinced by
the punctuation, which in Shakespeare is often open to question anyway,
especially the comma after line #9, which I think is still a
continuation of the previous thought, not an introduction to the main
clause that follows it.  What do you think?





 





Paul





 



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



 





 









From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>

To: [log in to unmask]

Sent: Wednesday, March 18,
2009 4:03:57 PM

Subject: Re: Sonnet
grammar analysis help





Scott,



 



I think I’d treat “Yet…thee” as a main
clause as well, not as adverbial.  Yet acts as a coordinating conjunction
and so also gets used sentence-initially to set up a contrast with a preceding
thought.  There’s a single complex adverbial clause comprising the
first two quatrains.  The third quatrain begins with the main clause of
that sentence and is itself a coordinate clause with “and.” The
third quatrain is set off by a semi-colon because of the preceding serial
commas..  The closing couplet is also set off with a semi-colon, perhaps
because of the initial “for” and the close logical link between it
and three quatrains.  A sonnet in one sentence.  Not many poets have
pulled this off so well.



 



Of course, the semicolons are the interpretation of an editor, unidentified. 
In the 1609 facsimile (http://ia311343.us.archive.org/3/items/shakespearessonn00shakrich/shakespearessonn00shakrich.pdf),
all lines but the last end in commas, although the punctuation at the end of
the first quatrain is ambiguous.  I can’t make out on the screen
whether it was meant to be a comma or a period, but I suspect the former.



 



Herb



 





From: Assembly
for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods

Sent: 2009-03-18 14:53

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Sonnet grammar
analysis help





 


 

  

  

  

  
List,
  
  
  

  

  
Please let me know if you think I'm basically correct with
  my analysis or where I might be more correct or clear.
  
  
  

  
 
  
  

  

  
Adverb clause in italics
  
  
  

  

  
Independent clauses in bold
  
  
  

  

  
participial phrases in < > with participle underlined
  
  
  

  

  
noun clauses in [ ]
  
  
  

  

  
adjective or relative clauses in {  }
  
  
  

  
When in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes

  I all alone beweep my outcast state,

  And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,

  And look upon myself, and curse my fate,

  <Wishing me
  like to one more rich in hope>,

  <Featur’d like
  him>, <like him with friends possess’d>,

  <Desiring this
  man’s art, and that man’s scope>,

  <With [what I most enjoy] contented least>;

  Yet <in these thoughts myself almost despising>,

  Haply I think on thee,—and then my state,

  Like to the lark at break of day <arising

  From sullen earth>, sings hymns at heaven’s gate;

       For
  thy sweet love remember’d such wealth brings

       {That then I scorn to change my state with
  kings}. 
  
  

  
 
  
  

  
Does this seem right?  Any comments?
  
  
 
  

  
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/





 

= 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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14093DEMAILBACKEND0_--
========================================================================Date:         Thu, 19 Mar 2009 03:16:43 -0700
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: Sonnet grammar analysis help
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-205472272-1237457803=:83360"

--0-205472272-1237457803=:83360
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It looks like the punctuation in Scott's copy of the sonnet matches the _Riverside Shakespeare_, which is a good edition, but even in a good edition, punctuation of Elizabethan textx is open to many questions. This is especially true of not only semi-colons, but also of commas. It seems clear that most of the punctuation of the various quartos & folios is the work of their editors rather than the author, whose actual intent must always be interpreted.
 
It's curious that this came up just as my students are finishing up their study of Jane Austen's _Pride & Prejudice_. We had a discussion the other day about Austen's use of commas, especially how they often seem so very different from from the basic comma rules of today and how confusing it sometimes is to the students.
 
And yes, navigating through W.S.'s meanings is very satisfying -- and doing so as an actor is not so very different for me as doing so as an English teacher. I'd love to go back four hundred years and listen to Shakespeare's actors rehearsing his texts.
 
Paul
 "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).


________________________________
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 8:23:36 PM
Subject: Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help


Ed and Paul,
 
I don’t know who edited the edition Scott is using, but you are clearly right that the semi-colons are open to question.  I think a modern editor was trying to encode sentence structure into a sonnet that would cause problems for students.  Doing so is always risky since building in structure is also building in meaning.  I think the editor got it right, but I’d feel more comfortable with Shakespeare’s punctuation, at least as we have it in the 1609 edition.  The sonnets should be read aloud, and a first reading is inevitably rough.  It takes a few tries and some thought to read it in a way that makes good sense and hangs together well, even if it isn’t necessarily the sense Shakespeare’s contemporaries would have made of it.
 
I agree, Paul, that the “then” is the hinge on which the sonnet turns.
 
Any time I’ve sat down with a Shakespeare sonnet, I’ve found working out the meaning and how he achieves his very remarkable effects a very satisfying effort.  And sometimes it is a bit of work.
 
Herb
 
From:Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster
Sent: 2009-03-18 20:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help
 
Wouldn't the semicolons be even more "open to question"?  I don't mean to suggest that they are "wrong," but they were a relatively new mark in Shakespeare's time, I believe.
Does anyone know who is responsible for the punctuation of the sonnets that we possess?
 
Ed S
 
On Mar 18, 2009, at 7:24 PM, Paul E. Doniger wrote:


Herb & Scott,
 
I've always held that the main clause of this one sentence sonnet, as Herb suggests (if I'm reading you rightly), appears in the third quatrian: "(Haply) I think on thee." It's the implied "then" statement that follows the when statement that opens the sonnet ("When in disgrace ......., [then] I think on thee.").  This, it seems to me, is the main point of the entire sonnet and is explained more fully by the final couplet.  By the way, I'm not at all convinced by the punctuation, which in Shakespeare is often open to question anyway, especially the comma after line #9, which I think is still a continuation of the previous thought, not an introduction to the main clause that follows it.  What do you think?
 
Paul
 
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
 
 

________________________________

From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:03:57 PM
Subject: Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help
Scott,
 
I think I’d treat “Yet…thee” as a main clause as well, not as adverbial.  Yet acts as a coordinating conjunction and so also gets used sentence-initially to set up a contrast with a preceding thought.  There’s a single complex adverbial clause comprising the first two quatrains.  The third quatrain begins with the main clause of that sentence and is itself a coordinate clause with “and.” The third quatrain is set off by a semi-colon because of the preceding serial commas..  The closing couplet is also set off with a semi-colon, perhaps because of the initial “for” and the close logical link between it and three quatrains.  A sonnet in one sentence.  Not many poets have pulled this off so well.
 
Of course, the semicolons are the interpretation of an editor, unidentified.  In the 1609 facsimile (http://ia311343.us.archive.org/3/items/shakespearessonn00shakrich/shakespearessonn00shakrich.pdf), all lines but the last end in commas, although the punctuation at the end of the first quatrain is ambiguous.  I can’t make out on the screen whether it was meant to be a comma or a period, but I suspect the former.
 
Herb
 
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
Sent: 2009-03-18 14:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Sonnet grammar analysis help
 
List,
Please let me know if you think I'm basically correct with my analysis or where I might be more correct or clear.
 
Adverb clause in italics
Independent clauses in bold
participial phrases in < > with participle underlined
noun clauses in [ ]
adjective or relative clauses in {  }
When in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes
I all alone beweep my outcast state,
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
And look upon myself, and curse my fate,
,
, ,
,
;
Yet ,
Haply I think on thee,—and then my state,
Like to the lark at break of day , sings hymns at heaven’s gate;
     For thy sweet love remember’d such wealth brings
     {That then I scorn to change my state with kings}. 
 
Does this seem right?  Any comments?
 
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/
 
= 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/
--0-205472272-1237457803=:83360
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


It looks like the punctuation in Scott's copy of the sonnet matches the _Riverside Shakespeare_, which is a good edition, but even in a good edition, punctuation of Elizabethan textx is open to many questions. This is especially true of not only semi-colons, but also of commas. It seems clear that most of the punctuation of the various quartos & folios is the work of their editors rather than the author, whose actual intent must always be interpreted.
 
It's curious that this came up just as my students are finishing up their study of Jane Austen's _Pride & Prejudice_. We had a discussion the other day about Austen's use of commas, especially how they often seem so very different from from the basic comma rules of today and how confusing it sometimes is to the students.
 
And yes, navigating through W.S.'s meanings is very satisfying -- and doing so as an actor is not so very different for me as doing so as an English teacher. I'd love to go back four hundred years and listen to Shakespeare's actors rehearsing his texts.
 
Paul
 
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).




From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 8:23:36 PM
Subject: Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help





Ed and Paul,
 
I don’t know who edited the edition Scott is using, but you are clearly right that the semi-colons are open to question.  I think a modern editor was trying to encode sentence structure into a sonnet that would cause problems for students.  Doing so is always risky since building in structure is also building in meaning.  I think the editor got it right, but I’d feel more comfortable with Shakespeare’s punctuation, at least as we have it in the 1609 edition.  The sonnets should be read aloud, and a first reading is inevitably rough.  It takes a few tries and some thought to read it in a way that makes good sense and hangs together well, even if it isn’t necessarily the sense Shakespeare’s contemporaries would have made of it.
 
I agree, Paul, that the “then” is the hinge on which the sonnet turns.
 
Any time I’ve sat down with a Shakespeare sonnet, I’ve found working out the meaning and how he achieves his very remarkable effects a very satisfying effort.  And sometimes it is a bit of work.
 
Herb
 


From:
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
========================================================================Date:         Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:55:18 +0000
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:         Edmond Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

>The last line of the sonnet is an adverbial clause of Result:   the word 'so'
can be understood before the 'that'.

Edmond


Dr. Edmond Wright
3 Boathouse Court
Trafalgar Road
Cambridge
CB4 1DU
England

Email: [log in to unmask]
Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/
Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256





List, 
> Please let me know if you think I'm basically correct with my analysis or
> where I might be more correct or clear.
>  
> Adverb clause in italics
> Independent clauses in bold
> participial phrases in < > with participle underlined
> noun clauses in [ ]
> adjective or relative clauses in {  }
> When in disgrace with fortune and menąs eyes
> I all alone beweep my outcast state,
> And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
> And look upon myself, and curse my fate,
> ,
> , ,
> ,
> ;
> Yet ,
> Haply I think on thee,‹and then my state,
> Like to the lark at break of day  From sullen earth>, sings hymns at heavenąs gate;
>      For thy sweet love rememberąd such wealth brings
>      {That then I scorn to change my state with kings}. 
>  
> Does this seem right?  Any comments?
>  
> 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/
========================================================================Date:         Thu, 19 Mar 2009 05:42:28 -0700
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:      Demotic English (one graphic)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-410909941-1237466548=:1744"

--0-410909941-1237466548=:1744
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

.
 


 


      

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/
--0-410909941-1237466548=:1744
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

.
 


 





      
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/
--0-410909941-1237466548=:1744--
========================================================================Date:         Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:18:15 -0400
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: Sonnet grammar analysis help
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Actually, with "such" in the previous line "so" is not necessary.

Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edmond Wright
Sent: 2009-03-19 07:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help

>The last line of the sonnet is an adverbial clause of Result:   the word 'so'
can be understood before the 'that'.

Edmond


Dr. Edmond Wright
3 Boathouse Court
Trafalgar Road
Cambridge
CB4 1DU
England

Email: [log in to unmask]
Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/
Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256





List, 
> Please let me know if you think I'm basically correct with my analysis or
> where I might be more correct or clear.
>  
> Adverb clause in italics
> Independent clauses in bold
> participial phrases in < > with participle underlined
> noun clauses in [ ]
> adjective or relative clauses in {  }
> When in disgrace with fortune and menąs eyes
> I all alone beweep my outcast state,
> And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
> And look upon myself, and curse my fate,
> ,
> , ,
> ,
> ;
> Yet ,
> Haply I think on thee, Like to the lark at break of day  From sullen earth>, sings hymns at heavenąs gate;
>      For thy sweet love rememberąd such wealth brings
>      {That then I scorn to change my state with kings}. 
>  
> Does this seem right?  Any comments?
>  
> 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/

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, 19 Mar 2009 09:23:08 -0400
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: Sonnet grammar analysis help
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14093FEMAILBACKEND0_"
MIME-Version: 1.0

--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14093FEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14093FEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14093FEMAILBACKEND0_--
========================================================================Date:         Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:42:24 -0700
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: Sonnet grammar analysis help
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-640246330-1237470144=:50868"

--0-640246330-1237470144=:50868
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Unless you're reading it in German, you need to factor in the translator's punctuation preferences.
 
I have traversed some byways trying to determine the translator's effect on the grammar of an original, with little definitive to report. In general, it can be said that once an author or a translator is in print, the whys and wherefores are difficult to elicit.

--- On Thu, 3/19/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I’ve been reading Reinhold Niebuhr’s Moral Man and Immoral Society, published in 1932, and I’ve been surprised by his use of commas.  He uses them before restrictive relative clauses, between subjects and verbs, before or after long constructions.  If one reads some of his sentences aloud, they work well, and at least some of the odd commas seem to mark pauses.  What surprised me was that by the 1930s comma use had fairly well stabilized, and here’s a major writer who does what he wants with them.
 
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/
--0-640246330-1237470144=:50868
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Unless you're reading it in German, you need to factor in the translator's punctuation preferences.
 
I have traversed some byways trying to determine the translator's effect on the grammar of an original, with little definitive to report. In general, it can be said that once an author or a translator is in print, the whys and wherefores are difficult to elicit.

--- On Thu, 3/19/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I’ve been reading Reinhold Niebuhr’s Moral Man and Immoral Society, published in 1932, and I’ve been surprised by his use of commas.  He uses them before restrictive relative clauses, between subjects and verbs, before or after long constructions.  If one reads some of his sentences aloud, they work well, and at least some of the odd commas seem to mark pauses.  What surprised me was that by the 1930s comma use had fairly well stabilized, and here’s a major writer who does what he wants with them.
 
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/
--0-640246330-1237470144=:50868--
========================================================================Date:         Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:34:58 -0400
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: Sonnet grammar analysis help
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E140957EMAILBACKEND0_"
MIME-Version: 1.0

--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E140957EMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E140957EMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E140957EMAILBACKEND0_--
========================================================================Date:         Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:14:30 -0400
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: Sonnet grammar analysis help
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14095CEMAILBACKEND0_"
MIME-Version: 1.0

--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14095CEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14095CEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14095CEMAILBACKEND0_--
========================================================================Date:         Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:20:23 -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:         "Katz, Seth" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Herb--
 
Was Niebuhr emulating British comma use, which tends to be more liberal (that is, they use more of them in more places) than American usage? In his prose from about the same time, T.S. Eliot tends to use commas more heavily than I would expect, but I have not yet gone back to look to see if he uses them with restrictive relative clauses. I do know that he uses commas much more frequently in his prose than in his poetry. I know this from a small comparison of syntactic structures in his prose and poetry that I did in grad school too many years ago.
 
Seth
 
Dr. Seth Katz 
Assistant Professor
Department of English
Bradley University
 

________________________________

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
Sent: Thu 3/19/2009 1:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help



I should have clarified that Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-19710) was an American theologian who grew up in Wright City, MO, and was educated at Elmhurst College, Eden Theological Seminary, and Yale University.  He spent most of his career teaching at Union Theological Seminary in New York.  While he was a polyglot, most of his writing was in English.  He was one of the great thinkers of the 20th c.

 

Herb

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston
Sent: 2009-03-19 09:42
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help

 

Unless you're reading it in German, you need to factor in the translator's punctuation preferences.

 

I have traversed some byways trying to determine the translator's effect on the grammar of an original, with little definitive to report. In general, it can be said that once an author or a translator is in print, the whys and wherefores are difficult to elicit.

--- On Thu, 3/19/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I've been reading Reinhold Niebuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society, published in 1932, and I've been surprised by his use of commas.  He uses them before restrictive relative clauses, between subjects and verbs, before or after long constructions.  If one reads some of his sentences aloud, they work well, and at least some of the odd commas seem to mark pauses.  What surprised me was that by the 1930s comma use had fairly well stabilized, and here's a major writer who does what he wants with them.

 

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:         Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:49:35 -0700
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: Sonnet grammar analysis help
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-650823873-1237513775=:56808"

--0-650823873-1237513775=:56808
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



--- On Thu, 3/19/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


From: STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 11:34 AM








And why would I not read Niebuhr in the original language?  I have a friend and colleague who likes to read Agatha Christie in Polish, but she’s weird in more ways than that.
 
Herb
 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston
Sent: 2009-03-19 09:42
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help
 





Unless you're reading it in German, you need to factor in the translator's punctuation preferences.

 

I have traversed some byways trying to determine the translator's effect on the grammar of an original, with little definitive to report. In general, it can be said that once an author or a translator is in print, the whys and wherefores are difficult to elicit.

--- On Thu, 3/19/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I’ve been reading Reinhold Niebuhr’s Moral Man and Immoral Society, published in 1932, and I’ve been surprised by his use of commas.  He uses them before restrictive relative clauses, between subjects and verbs, before or after long constructions.  If one reads some of his sentences aloud, they work well, and at least some of the odd commas seem to mark pauses.  What surprised me was that by the 1930s comma use had fairly well stabilized, and here’s a major writer who does what he wants with them.
 
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/
--0-650823873-1237513775=:56808
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



--- On Thu, 3/19/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


From: STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 11:34 AM






And why would I not read Niebuhr in the original language?  I have a friend and colleague who likes to read Agatha Christie in Polish, but she’s weird in more ways than that.
 
Herb
 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston
Sent: 2009-03-19 09:42
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sonnet grammar analysis help
 





Unless you're reading it in German, you need to factor in the translator's punctuation preferences.

 

I have traversed some byways trying to determine the translator's effect on the grammar of an original, with little definitive to report. In general, it can be said that once an author or a translator is in print, the whys and wherefores are difficult to elicit.

--- On Thu, 3/19/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I’ve been reading Reinhold Niebuhr’s Moral Man and Immoral Society, published in 1932, and I’ve been surprised by his use of commas.  He uses them before restrictive relative clauses, between subjects and verbs, before or after long constructions.  If one reads some of his sentences aloud, they work well, and at least some of the odd commas seem to mark pauses.  What surprised me was that by the 1930s comma use had fairly well stabilized, and here’s a major writer who does what he wants with them.
 
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/
--0-650823873-1237513775=:56808--
========================================================================Date:         Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:34:10 -0400
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:         "Hoffman, Melvin" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Chicagoese
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

In a recent posting, Geoff Layton made some comments on Chicago-English pronunciations to which I would like to add some notes as a native (formerly nonstandard) speaker of Euro-American English. I believe Euro-American and non-standard to be social parameters of the speech reported upon by Layton, unless subsequently contradicted by him.

 

Just in case youse ever comes over by dere to Chicagah: 

 

1. Grachki (grach'-key): Chicagoese for "garage key" as in, "Yo, Theresa, waja do wit da grachki? How my supposta cut da grass if I don't git intada grach?"

 

Although the / k / of "key" does devoice the / j / of "garage," there is transitory voicing on the latter.

 

2. Sammich: Chicagoese for sandwich. When made with sausage, it's a sassage sammich; when made with shredded beef, it's an Italian Beef sammich, a local delicacy consisting of piles of spicy meat in a perilously soggy bun.

 

The pronunciation is accurate for most, not all, speakers, but it occur in Northeastern urban areas as well.

 

3. Da: This article is a key part of Chicago speech, as in "Da Bears" or "Da Mare" -- the latter denoting Richard M. Daley, or Richie, as he's often called.

 

Commentary on this will appear in my note A below.

 

4. Jewels: Not family heirlooms or a tender body region, but a popular name for one of the region's dominant grocery store chains. "I'm goin' to da Jewels to pick up some sassage."

 

5. Field's: Marshall Field, a prominent Chicago department store (unfortunately, it's a thing of the past.) Also Carson Pirie Scott, another major department store chain, is simply called " Carson's."

 

Comments 4 and 5 are accurate as is.

 

6. Tree: The number between two and four. "We were lucky dat we only got tree inches of snow da udder night."

 

Commentary on this will appear in my notes A & C below.

 

7. Over by dere: Translates to "over by there," a way of emphasizing a site presumed familiar to the listener. As in, "I got the sassage at da Jewels down on Kedzie, over by dere."

 

The "dere" will be commented on in note A. The "over by" itself is a well known substratum influence from German and Yiddish, and it occurs in other expressions such as "Can I come over by you." "We're all going over by Sam's, tonight" 

 

8. Kaminski Park : The mispronounced name of the ballpark where the Chicago White Sox (da Sox) play baseball. Comiskey Park was renamed U.S. Cellular Field (da Cell).

 

I have not heard this, or noticed this, myself, but I have no reason to doubt its existence.

 

9. Frunchroom: As in, "Get outta da frunchroom wit dose muddy shoes."  It's not the "parlor." It's not the "living room." In the land of the bungalow, it's the "frunchroom," a named derived, linguists believe, from "front room."

 

Commentary on this "ch" will appear in note B below. Yes, it is from "Front Room," because the latter is what standard native speakers in Chicago also call what others call the "parlor" or "living room."

 

10. Use : Not the verb, but the plural pronoun 'you!' "Where use goin'?"

 

This occurs in Chicago, but in other places throughout the United States. In Chicago, at least, it may be used as a singular as well as plural formal. "Hello, Ma'am/Sir, how may I help youse?' Locals, when spelling for captions, humorous purposes etc., spell it "youse" as Mr. Layton did in his first line, possibly on analogy with "these" and "those." It apparently functions as a nonstandard, formal 2nd person with a range much like standard, formal French "Vous."

 

11. Downtown: Anywhere near The Lake, south of The Zoo (Lincoln Park Zoo) and north of Soldier Field.

 

12. The Lake : Lake Michigan . (What other lake is there?) It's often used by local weathermen, "cooler by The Lake."

 

14. Braht: Short for Bratwurst. "Gimme a braht wit kraut."

 

Comments 11, 12 and 14 are accurate as is. Comment 13 was missing from the email that I received.

 

15. Goes: Past or present tense of the verb "say." For example, "Den he goes, 'I like dis place'!"

 

Yes, this occurs in Chicago, but elsewhere as well. It is always used to cite someone's oral conversation much the way "says" is used by other speakers. Some, not all, speakers will use this form with a first person singular. "He goes, "... ," and I goes, "...."

 

16. Guys: Used when addressing two or more people, regardless of each individual's gender.  

 

I hear this throughout the United States among adolescents, particularly among female adolescents.

 

17. Pop: A soft drink. Don't say "soda" in this town. "Do ya wanna canna pop?"

 

18. Sliders: Nickname for hamburgers from White Castle , a popular Midwestern burger chain. "Dose sliders I had last night gave me da runs."

 

19. The Taste: The Taste of Chicago Festival, a huge extravaganza in Grant Park featuring samples of Chicagoland cuisine which takes place each year around the Fourth of July holiday.

 

20. "Jeetyet?": Translates to, "Did you  eat yet?"  

 

Comments 18 & 19 are accurate, but you can find "pop" for "soft drink" and the collapsed "Did you eat yet?" in many upstate New York cities.

 

21. Winter and Construction: Punch line to the joke, "What are the two seasons in Chicago?"

 

This is as common in Buffalo as in Chicago. I wonder if even more snow belt cities use it.

 

22. Cuppa Too-Tree: is Chicagoese for "a couple, two, three" which really means "a few." For example, "Hey Mike, dere any beerz left in da cooler over by dere?" "Yeh, a cuppa too-tree."

 

I have not heard, or noticed, this; however, I have no reason to doubt its existence.

 

23. 588-2300: Everyone in Chicago knows this commercial jingle and the carpet company you'll get if you call that number -- Empire!

 

This is probably after my time. I moved from Chicago to Buffalo a number of years ago.

 

24. Junk Dror: You will usually find the 'junk drawer' in the kitchen filled to the brim with miscellaneous, but very important, junk.

 

Accurate. The "dror" along with "mare" from comment # 3 will appear in my note C below.

 

25. Southern Illinois : Anything south of I-80. This is where Smothers' is from....

 

I never actually thought about it, or noticed it, but that sure sounds right.

 

26. Expressways: The Interstates in the immediate Chicagoland area are usually known just by their 'name' and not their Interstate number: the Dan Ryan ("da Ryan"), the Stevenson, the Kennedy (da "Kennedy"), the Eisenhower (da "Ike"), and the Edens (just "Edens" but Da Edens" is acceptable).

 

Absolutely, on target, and that is the way all the traffic reporters on local television and radio refer to them.

 

27. Gym Shoes: The rest of the country may refer to them as sneakers or running shoes but Chicagoans will always call them gym shoes!

 

Yes, and I have not heard this use outside of the Chicago area--so far. Moreover, some speakers use the term as a generic for all athletic footwear.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Note A. This note addresses

 

                        "da"s in comments                     1, 3, 4, 6; 18 & 26;

                        "dat"  in comment                       6;

                        "dere" in comments                 7 & 2;

                        "dis" & "den" in comment            15;

 

                        "tree" in comment                       3.

                        "wit" in comment                       14.

 

The apparent use of /t/ for /???/ and /d/ for /đ/ is stage dialect for non-standard Euro-American and other speakers in urban areas from Chicago, North of US 90, down US 87 Southeastward to NYC. Some speakers do exactly this; others distinguish a dental [[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: Sonnet grammar analysis help
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E140967EMAILBACKEND0_"
MIME-Version: 1.0

--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E140967EMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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=
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E140967EMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E140967EMAILBACKEND0_--
========================================================================Date:         Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:13:41 -0400
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: Chicagoese
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

I'll snip this down to the parts I want to address.

1. Grachki (grach'-key): Chicagoese for "garage key" as in, "Yo, Theresa, waja do wit da grachki? How my supposta cut da grass if I don't git intada grach?"

Although the / k / of "key" does devoice the / j / of "garage," there is transitory voicing on the latter.

Herb:  One of the most widely taught myths of English phonology is that we have a contrast between voiced and voiceless in stops and fricatives (collapsing stops and affricates for convenience).  There are, however, a fair number of careful phonetic studies, including one I published in Word in 2003, that demonstrate that the contrast is really not one of voicing but one of consonant strength.  Fortis (strong) stops are aspirated initially in stressed syllables and may be glottalized in final position.  Fortis stops and fricatives also have longer duration than lenis consonants.  Lenis (weak) stops and fricatives are voiced between voiced segments including vowels, liquids (/r/ and /l/), and nasals.  Adjacent to a voiceless glottal state, which includes utterance initial and final positions, lenes are voiceless or may, as Melvin points out, show transitional voicing, voiced next to the voiced sound and voiceless next to the voiceless.  The consonants we're talking about are the class called obstruents, and English has no distinctively voiced obstruents, only conditioned voicing.  In fact, the voicing contrast is entirely redundant in English.

8. Kaminski Park : The mispronounced name of the ballpark where the Chicago White Sox (da Sox) play baseball. Comiskey Park was renamed U.S. Cellular Field (da Cell).

I have not heard this, or noticed this, myself, but I have no reason to doubt its existence.

Herb:  This nasal spreading happens because the syllable-initial nasal nasalizes the vowel, and a timing phenomenon can lead to an epenthetic nasal before the /s/.  It can happen even before an nasalized syllable, as in the fairly common pronunciation "ompen" for "open."

9. Frunchroom: As in, "Get outta da frunchroom wit dose muddy shoes."  It's not the "parlor." It's not the "living room." In the land of the bungalow, it's the "frunchroom," a named derived, linguists believe, from "front room."
 
Commentary on this "ch" will appear in note B below. Yes, it is from "Front Room," because the latter is what standard native speakers in Chicago also call what others call the "parlor" or "living room."
Note B:  /tr/ and /dr/ clusters before stressed, upper vowels /iy/ and /uw/ are heavily palatalized among many speakers, particularly males. In fact, there are male speakers who heavily palatalize /str/ under the same conditions, but I don't think the latter occurs in Chicago only.

Herb:  Palatalization actually fluctuates with retroflexion as the assimilatory mechanism.  You can also hear "structure" or "strong" with mid and low vowels respectively, at least in my Inland Northern speech, with a "hushed" /s/.  What happens is that the /s/ and /t/ anticipate the retroflexion of the /r/ and are pronounced with the tongue tip curled up slightly.  This gesture causes a different phonetic effect from palatalization.  You may be able to detect this if you contrast "shred" with "shed."  If you have a retroflexed /s/ in "shred," you'll hear a lower pitched oral turbulence caused by the fricative than with the palate-alveolar /S/ in "shed."  The palatal articulation pretty much fills up the oral cavity with the tongue and results in a very high pitched F2 resonance, the formant that most clearly reflects oral cavity size.  Retroflexion, because of the curled tongue, has a large oral cavity causing a lower pitched resonance.

17. Pop: A soft drink. Don't say "soda" in this town. "Do ya wanna canna pop?"

Herb:  Check the Dictionary of American Regional English (DARE) for extensive geographical treatment of terms for carbonated soft drinks. 
 
20. "Jeetyet?": Translates to, "Did you  eat yet?"  

you can find "pop" for "soft drink" and the collapsed "Did you eat yet?" in many upstate New York cities.

Herb:  Actually it's even more wide spread than that.  English speakers regularly palatalize /d/ before /y/, as in "did you" or "eat yet."
 
26. Expressways: The Interstates in the immediate Chicagoland area are usually known just by their 'name' and not their Interstate number: the Dan Ryan ("da Ryan"), the Stevenson, the Kennedy (da "Kennedy"), the Eisenhower (da "Ike"), and the Edens (just "Edens" but Da Edens" is acceptable).

Absolutely, on target, and that is the way all the traffic reporters on local television and radio refer to them.

Herb:  For years and years, no self-respecting Chicago Democrat called it the Eisenhower.  It's the Congress. 
 
Note C. This note addresses

                        "mare"in comment                                            3
                        "dror" in comment                                             24

Chicagoese indeed uses a single syllable where many others use two:

"drawer"            /drohr/
"mayor"             /mehr/
"prayer"             /prehr/

Herb:  Those varieties of English that have two syllables in words like these generally get the second by making the /r/ syllabic.  Final /r/ has the effect of laxing the preceding vowel, /ei/ to /E/, for example, so if the final /r/ is not syllabic but is rather that syllable coda, the vowel will lax.  I think the trigger is whether or not the /r/ is syllabic.

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:         Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:33:13 +0000
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:         Edmond Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Chicagoese
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

>  A word about 'pop' from across the Atlantic.  It is a very common informal
term everywhere in Britain for fizzy soft drinks generally, particularly among
the young.  Evidence for this can be seen in the name for the new type of
alcoholic drink meant to appeal to teenagers:  an 'alcopop'.

It derives from the noise made when the bottle of carbonated drink is opened
-- a nice example of onomatopoeia combined with a metonymic effect (the
noise found with the drink).

Edmond


Dr. Edmond Wright
3 Boathouse Court
Trafalgar Road
Cambridge
CB4 1DU
England

Email: [log in to unmask]
Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/
Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256


> 
> 

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, 20 Mar 2009 09:00:27 -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:         John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Chicagoese
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--00151750e184c5e11604658d56e6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>>20. "Jeetyet?": Translates to, "Did you  eat yet?"

>>you can find "pop" for "soft drink" and the collapsed "Did you eat yet?"
in many upstate New York cities.

>>>Herb:  Actually it's even more wide spread than that.  English speakers
regularly palatalize /d/ before /y/, as in "did you" or "eat yet."

John: I can vouch for "Jeetyet? (and it's common response, "Naw, dju?") as
being alive and well in much of the South including much of Alabama and
Georgia. I suppose that's to be expected though if it is a natural
palatization.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:13 AM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> I'll snip this down to the parts I want to address.
>
> 1. Grachki (grach'-key): Chicagoese for "garage key" as in, "Yo, Theresa,
> waja do wit da grachki? How my supposta cut da grass if I don't git intada
> grach?"
>
> Although the / k / of "key" does devoice the / j / of "garage," there is
> transitory voicing on the latter.
>
> Herb:  One of the most widely taught myths of English phonology is that we
> have a contrast between voiced and voiceless in stops and fricatives
> (collapsing stops and affricates for convenience).  There are, however, a
> fair number of careful phonetic studies, including one I published in Word
> in 2003, that demonstrate that the contrast is really not one of voicing but
> one of consonant strength.  Fortis (strong) stops are aspirated initially in
> stressed syllables and may be glottalized in final position.  Fortis stops
> and fricatives also have longer duration than lenis consonants.  Lenis
> (weak) stops and fricatives are voiced between voiced segments including
> vowels, liquids (/r/ and /l/), and nasals.  Adjacent to a voiceless glottal
> state, which includes utterance initial and final positions, lenes are
> voiceless or may, as Melvin points out, show transitional voicing, voiced
> next to the voiced sound and voiceless next to the voiceless.  The
> consonants we're talking about are the class called obstruents, and English
> has no distinctively voiced obstruents, only conditioned voicing.  In fact,
> the voicing contrast is entirely redundant in English.
>
> 8. Kaminski Park : The mispronounced name of the ballpark where the Chicago
> White Sox (da Sox) play baseball. Comiskey Park was renamed U.S. Cellular
> Field (da Cell).
>
> I have not heard this, or noticed this, myself, but I have no reason to
> doubt its existence.
>
> Herb:  This nasal spreading happens because the syllable-initial nasal
> nasalizes the vowel, and a timing phenomenon can lead to an epenthetic nasal
> before the /s/.  It can happen even before an nasalized syllable, as in the
> fairly common pronunciation "ompen" for "open."
>
> 9. Frunchroom: As in, "Get outta da frunchroom wit dose muddy shoes."  It's
> not the "parlor." It's not the "living room." In the land of the bungalow,
> it's the "frunchroom," a named derived, linguists believe, from "front
> room."
>
> Commentary on this "ch" will appear in note B below. Yes, it is from "Front
> Room," because the latter is what standard native speakers in Chicago also
> call what others call the "parlor" or "living room."
> Note B:  /tr/ and /dr/ clusters before stressed, upper vowels /iy/ and /uw/
> are heavily palatalized among many speakers, particularly males. In fact,
> there are male speakers who heavily palatalize /str/ under the same
> conditions, but I don't think the latter occurs in Chicago only.
>
> Herb:  Palatalization actually fluctuates with retroflexion as the
> assimilatory mechanism.  You can also hear "structure" or "strong" with mid
> and low vowels respectively, at least in my Inland Northern speech, with a
> "hushed" /s/.  What happens is that the /s/ and /t/ anticipate the
> retroflexion of the /r/ and are pronounced with the tongue tip curled up
> slightly.  This gesture causes a different phonetic effect from
> palatalization.  You may be able to detect this if you contrast "shred" with
> "shed."  If you have a retroflexed /s/ in "shred," you'll hear a lower
> pitched oral turbulence caused by the fricative than with the
> palate-alveolar /S/ in "shed."  The palatal articulation pretty much fills
> up the oral cavity with the tongue and results in a very high pitched F2
> resonance, the formant that most clearly reflects oral cavity size.
>  Retroflexion, because of the curled tongue, has a large oral cavity causing
> a lower pitched resonance.
>
> 17. Pop: A soft drink. Don't say "soda" in this town. "Do ya wanna canna
> pop?"
>
> Herb:  Check the Dictionary of American Regional English (DARE) for
> extensive geographical treatment of terms for carbonated soft drinks.
>
> 20. "Jeetyet?": Translates to, "Did you  eat yet?"
>
> you can find "pop" for "soft drink" and the collapsed "Did you eat yet?" in
> many upstate New York cities.
>
> Herb:  Actually it's even more wide spread than that.  English speakers
> regularly palatalize /d/ before /y/, as in "did you" or "eat yet."
>
> 26. Expressways: The Interstates in the immediate Chicagoland area are
> usually known just by their 'name' and not their Interstate number: the Dan
> Ryan ("da Ryan"), the Stevenson, the Kennedy (da "Kennedy"), the Eisenhower
> (da "Ike"), and the Edens (just "Edens" but Da Edens" is acceptable).
>
> Absolutely, on target, and that is the way all the traffic reporters on
> local television and radio refer to them.
>
> Herb:  For years and years, no self-respecting Chicago Democrat called it
> the Eisenhower.  It's the Congress.
>
> Note C. This note addresses
>
>                        "mare"in comment
>        3
>                        "dror" in comment
>           24
>
> Chicagoese indeed uses a single syllable where many others use two:
>
> "drawer"            /drohr/
> "mayor"             /mehr/
> "prayer"             /prehr/
>
> Herb:  Those varieties of English that have two syllables in words like
> these generally get the second by making the /r/ syllabic.  Final /r/ has
> the effect of laxing the preceding vowel, /ei/ to /E/, for example, so if
> the final /r/ is not syllabic but is rather that syllable coda, the vowel
> will lax.  I think the trigger is whether or not the /r/ is syllabic.
>
> 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/

--00151750e184c5e11604658d56e6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>>20. "Jeetyet?": Translates to, "Did you  eat yet?"
>>you can find "pop" for "soft drink" and the collapsed "Did you eat yet?" in many upstate New York cities.
>>>Herb:  Actually it's even more wide spread than that.  English speakers regularly palatalize /d/ before /y/, as in "did you" or "eat yet."

John: I can vouch for "Jeetyet? (and it's common response, "Naw, dju?") as being alive and well in much of the South including much of Alabama and Georgia. I suppose that's to be expected though if it is a natural palatization.

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:13 AM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I'll snip this down to the parts I want to address.

1. Grachki (grach'-key): Chicagoese for "garage key" as in, "Yo, Theresa, waja do wit da grachki? How my supposta cut da grass if I don't git intada grach?"


Although the / k / of "key" does devoice the / j / of "garage," there is transitory voicing on the latter.

Herb:  One of the most widely taught myths of English phonology is that we have a contrast between voiced and voiceless in stops and fricatives (collapsing stops and affricates for convenience).  There are, however, a fair number of careful phonetic studies, including one I published in Word in 2003, that demonstrate that the contrast is really not one of voicing but one of consonant strength.  Fortis (strong) stops are aspirated initially in stressed syllables and may be glottalized in final position.  Fortis stops and fricatives also have longer duration than lenis consonants.  Lenis (weak) stops and fricatives are voiced between voiced segments including vowels, liquids (/r/ and /l/), and nasals.  Adjacent to a voiceless glottal state, which includes utterance initial and final positions, lenes are voiceless or may, as Melvin points out, show transitional voicing, voiced next to the voiced sound and voiceless next to the voiceless.  The consonants we're talking about are the class called obstruents, and English has no distinctively voiced obstruents, only conditioned voicing.  In fact, the voicing contrast is entirely redundant in English.


8. Kaminski Park : The mispronounced name of the ballpark where the Chicago White Sox (da Sox) play baseball. Comiskey Park was renamed U.S. Cellular Field (da Cell).

I have not heard this, or noticed this, myself, but I have no reason to doubt its existence.


Herb:  This nasal spreading happens because the syllable-initial nasal nasalizes the vowel, and a timing phenomenon can lead to an epenthetic nasal before the /s/.  It can happen even before an nasalized syllable, as in the fairly common pronunciation "ompen" for "open."


9. Frunchroom: As in, "Get outta da frunchroom wit dose muddy shoes."  It's not the "parlor." It's not the "living room." In the land of the bungalow, it's the "frunchroom," a named derived, linguists believe, from "front room."


Commentary on this "ch" will appear in note B below. Yes, it is from "Front Room," because the latter is what standard native speakers in Chicago also call what others call the "parlor" or "living room."

Note B:  /tr/ and /dr/ clusters before stressed, upper vowels /iy/ and /uw/ are heavily palatalized among many speakers, particularly males. In fact, there are male speakers who heavily palatalize /str/ under the same conditions, but I don't think the latter occurs in Chicago only.


Herb:  Palatalization actually fluctuates with retroflexion as the assimilatory mechanism.  You can also hear "structure" or "strong" with mid and low vowels respectively, at least in my Inland Northern speech, with a "hushed" /s/.  What happens is that the /s/ and /t/ anticipate the retroflexion of the /r/ and are pronounced with the tongue tip curled up slightly.  This gesture causes a different phonetic effect from palatalization.  You may be able to detect this if you contrast "shred" with "shed."  If you have a retroflexed /s/ in "shred," you'll hear a lower pitched oral turbulence caused by the fricative than with the palate-alveolar /S/ in "shed."  The palatal articulation pretty much fills up the oral cavity with the tongue and results in a very high pitched F2 resonance, the formant that most clearly reflects oral cavity size.  Retroflexion, because of the curled tongue, has a large oral cavity causing a lower pitched resonance.


17. Pop: A soft drink. Don't say "soda" in this town. "Do ya wanna canna pop?"

Herb:  Check the Dictionary of American Regional English (DARE) for extensive geographical treatment of terms for carbonated soft drinks.


20. "Jeetyet?": Translates to, "Did you  eat yet?"

you can find "pop" for "soft drink" and the collapsed "Did you eat yet?" in many upstate New York cities.


Herb:  Actually it's even more wide spread than that.  English speakers regularly palatalize /d/ before /y/, as in "did you" or "eat yet."

26. Expressways: The Interstates in the immediate Chicagoland area are usually known just by their 'name' and not their Interstate number: the Dan Ryan ("da Ryan"), the Stevenson, the Kennedy (da "Kennedy"), the Eisenhower (da "Ike"), and the Edens (just "Edens" but Da Edens" is acceptable).


Absolutely, on target, and that is the way all the traffic reporters on local television and radio refer to them.

Herb:  For years and years, no self-respecting Chicago Democrat called it the Eisenhower.  It's the Congress.


Note C. This note addresses

                       "mare"in comment                                            3
                       "dror" in comment                                             24


Chicagoese indeed uses a single syllable where many others use two:

"drawer"            /drohr/
"mayor"             /mehr/
"prayer"             /prehr/

Herb:  Those varieties of English that have two syllables in words like these generally get the second by making the /r/ syllabic.  Final /r/ has the effect of laxing the preceding vowel, /ei/ to /E/, for example, so if the final /r/ is not syllabic but is rather that syllable coda, the vowel will lax.  I think the trigger is whether or not the /r/ is syllabic.


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/

--00151750e184c5e11604658d56e6--
========================================================================Date:         Sat, 21 Mar 2009 07:03:55 -0700
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:      Chicagoese
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-359774603-1237644235=:57318"

--0-359774603-1237644235=:57318
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Too bad he/she didn't spell it Linkin'.

Frank & Ernest
By Thaves



 Saturday March 21, 2009 Friday March 20, 2009 Thursday March 19, 2009 Wednesday March 18, 2009 Tuesday March 17, 2009 Monday March 16, 2009 Sunday March 15, 2009 Saturday March 14, 2009 Friday March 13, 2009 Thursday March 12, 2009 Wednesday March 11, 2009 Tuesday March 10, 2009 Monday March 9, 2009 Sunday March 8, 2009 







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/
      
--0-359774603-1237644235=:57318
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Too bad he/she didn't spell it Linkin'.

Frank & Ernest
By Thaves




 Saturday March 21, 2009 Friday March 20, 2009 Thursday March 19, 2009 Wednesday March 18, 2009 Tuesday March 17, 2009 Monday March 16, 2009 Sunday March 15, 2009 Saturday March 14, 2009 Friday March 13, 2009 Thursday March 12, 2009 Wednesday March 11, 2009 Tuesday March 10, 2009 Monday March 9, 2009 Sunday March 8, 2009 








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/
      
--0-359774603-1237644235=:57318--
========================================================================Date:         Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:53:37 -0700
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:      I and me questions
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9ABD7.E94562AC"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9ABD7.E94562AC
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Here are some questions for the group from a colleague. I think they
fall in the recent-history-of-the-language category:

) Was there a specific period in the last 30-40 years where "people"
began
to notice a proliferation of "me" used in the subject - especially
compound
subjects ("John and me will be late") and began an "education campaign"
to
correct it?  If so, how did the "word" get out (newspaper articles, word
of
mouth, increased emphasis in K-12/college) that people needed to be more
conscious/clean up this part of their grammar?

B) Is there any opinion or evidence that a sudden realization of the
improper use of "me" instead of "I" in compound subjects led (via
overcorrection or other means) to the seemingly recent proliferation of
the
use of "I" in a compound (or even singular) form in the indirect
object/subject of the preposition? Eg: "The chocolate cake was a
surprise
for my sister and me."

C) Any concrete examples of this overcorrection making its way into
mainstream media (Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Larry King, Oprah, etc.)?


My own take on this is I started hearing "between you and I" from even
highly educated people in the 80s. I attributed it to hypercorrection
mixed with a lack of grammar instruction that would have cued people to
know when to use the objective and when the subjective. It's been in
this decade that I've heard the I moving to the indirect object and to
the objective of prep and subject of infinitive places when it is a
compound and even sometimes when it is not a compound.

Edith Wollin

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_01C9ABD7.E94562AC
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable











Here are some questions for the group from a colleague. I think they fall in the recent-history-of-the-language category:

) Was there a specific period in the last 30-40 years where "people" began

to notice a proliferation of "me" used in the subject - especially compound

subjects ("John and me will be late") and began an "education campaign" to

correct it?  If so, how did the "word" get out (newspaper articles, word of

mouth, increased emphasis in K-12/college) that people needed to be more

conscious/clean up this part of their grammar?

B) Is there any opinion or evidence that a sudden realization of the

improper use of "me" instead of "I" in compound subjects led (via

overcorrection or other means) to the seemingly recent proliferation of the

use of "I" in a compound (or even singular) form in the indirect

object/subject of the preposition? Eg: "The chocolate cake was a surprise

for my sister and me."

C) Any concrete examples of this overcorrection making its way into

mainstream media (Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Larry King, Oprah, etc.)?



My own take on this is I started hearing “between you and I” from even highly educated people in the 80s. I attributed it to hypercorrection mixed with a lack of grammar instruction that would have cued people to know when to use the objective and when the subjective. It’s been in this decade that I’ve heard the I moving to the indirect object and to the objective of prep and subject of infinitive places when it is a compound and even sometimes when it is not a compound.



Edith Wollin



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_01C9ABD7.E94562AC--
========================================================================Date:         Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:12:22 -0400
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: I and me questions
In-Reply-To:  A<[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9ABDA.880D75B4"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9ABDA.880D75B4
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Edith,

 

There are attested examples of object forms in compound subjects going
back a very, very long time, so it's certainly not a new phenomenon.
Parallel to the system that distinguishes subject and object on the
basis of their grammatical function, there's always been a tendency to
use a fast strategy of using "I" at the beginning of a clause, and "me"
everywhere else (or even "me" anywhere the pronoun isn't standing alone
immediately before the verb). I'm not sure if "between you and I" is
increasing in frequency - I suspect it is, but I know I heard it a fair
amount in my youth -  but it's another longstanding hypercorrection. Of
course, students who don't know what subjects, objects, and prepositions
are (I mean "consciously know about" here) lack the means to figure out
it's a hypercorrection, and the shift away from explicit grammar
instruction has increased the number of students in that category. 

 

What I have noticed as being relatively recent is the proliferation of
"myself" forms in the same contexts, perhaps as a midpoint in the
"correction-hypercorrection" scale (recognizing that "I/me" s a
potential problem and using a third option to try to dodge it). 

 

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English

Central Michigan University

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wollin, Edith
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 12:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: I and me questions

 

Here are some questions for the group from a colleague. I think they
fall in the recent-history-of-the-language category:

) Was there a specific period in the last 30-40 years where "people"
began

to notice a proliferation of "me" used in the subject - especially
compound

subjects ("John and me will be late") and began an "education campaign"
to

correct it?  If so, how did the "word" get out (newspaper articles, word
of

mouth, increased emphasis in K-12/college) that people needed to be more

conscious/clean up this part of their grammar?

B) Is there any opinion or evidence that a sudden realization of the

improper use of "me" instead of "I" in compound subjects led (via

overcorrection or other means) to the seemingly recent proliferation of
the

use of "I" in a compound (or even singular) form in the indirect

object/subject of the preposition? Eg: "The chocolate cake was a
surprise

for my sister and me."

C) Any concrete examples of this overcorrection making its way into

mainstream media (Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Larry King, Oprah, etc.)?

My own take on this is I started hearing "between you and I" from even
highly educated people in the 80s. I attributed it to hypercorrection
mixed with a lack of grammar instruction that would have cued people to
know when to use the objective and when the subjective. It's been in
this decade that I've heard the I moving to the indirect object and to
the objective of prep and subject of infinitive places when it is a
compound and even sometimes when it is not a compound.

Edith Wollin

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_01C9ABDA.880D75B4
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable















Edith,

 

There are attested examples of object forms in compound subjects
going back a very, very long time, so it’s certainly not a new
phenomenon. Parallel to the system that distinguishes subject and object on the
basis of their grammatical function, there’s always been a tendency to
use a fast strategy of using “I” at the beginning of a clause, and “me”
everywhere else (or even “me” anywhere the pronoun isn’t
standing alone immediately before the verb). I’m not sure if “between
you and I” is increasing in frequency – I suspect it is, but I know
I heard it a fair amount in my youth –  but it’s another longstanding
hypercorrection. Of course, students who don’t know what subjects,
objects, and prepositions are (I mean “consciously know about”
here) lack the means to figure out it’s a hypercorrection, and the shift
away from explicit grammar instruction has increased the number of students in
that category. 

 

What I have noticed as being relatively recent is the
proliferation of “myself” forms in the same contexts, perhaps as a
midpoint in the “correction-hypercorrection” scale (recognizing
that “I/me” s a potential problem and using a third option to try
to dodge it). 

 

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English

Central Michigan University

 





From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wollin,
Edith

Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 12:54 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: I and me questions





 

Here are some questions for
the group from a colleague. I think they fall in the
recent-history-of-the-language category:

) Was there a specific
period in the last 30-40 years where "people" began

to notice a proliferation
of "me" used in the subject - especially compound

subjects ("John and me
will be late") and began an "education campaign" to

correct it?  If so,
how did the "word" get out (newspaper articles, word of

mouth, increased emphasis
in K-12/college) that people needed to be more

conscious/clean up this
part of their grammar?

B) Is there any opinion or
evidence that a sudden realization of the

improper use of
"me" instead of "I" in compound subjects led (via

overcorrection or other
means) to the seemingly recent proliferation of the

use of "I" in a
compound (or even singular) form in the indirect

object/subject of the
preposition? Eg: "The chocolate cake was a surprise

for my sister and me."

C) Any concrete examples of
this overcorrection making its way into

mainstream media (Dan
Rather, Tom Brokaw, Larry King, Oprah, etc.)?

My own take on this is I
started hearing “between
you and I” from even highly educated people in the 80s. I attributed it
to hypercorrection mixed with a lack of grammar instruction that would have
cued people to know when to use the objective
and when the subjective.
It’s been in this decade
that I’ve heard the I moving to the indirect object and to the objective
of prep and subject of infinitive places when it is a compound and even
sometimes when it is not a compound.

Edith Wollin

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_01C9ABDA.880D75B4--
========================================================================Date:         Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:59:31 -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 Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Phrasal Verb Overview
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--00151750e4d8b551dc0465d20ebc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Greetings, ATEGers!

Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark
Lester's (1990) *Grammar in the Classroom*. I'm not sure why I haven't
discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to
anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your classroom,
you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a reference text.
I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and uncluttered. Has anyone
actually used this as a classroom text for teachers-in-training? If so, I'd
be interested to hear about your experiences.

I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal
verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic students
but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive facts. I thought
I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal verbs that Lester
includes.


   - Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and Germanic
   languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions (functional
   words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the preposition to the
   beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages adding them to the end.
   (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro" (swollow) in Latin)
   - When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the beginning
   of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more quickly and easily
   recognized as a new word; people forget that it used to be a phrasal
   verb/verb +preposition combination because, orthographically, it is written
   without a space. However, English tends to leave the space when the
   preposition is added to the end of the verb stem. (example, "give up")
   - While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a tensed
   verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a phrasal
   verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has become
   attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester continues to call
   it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all). Lester points out a fun
   test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the unit with a single word
   (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the meaning? In this case, "I
   give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points out the irony in the fact
   that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal verb in Latin!)
   - Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference between a
   phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For example,

          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun phrase
object)
          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial
prepositional phrase)

          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal verbs
the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.

   - Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look down
   on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
   - Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from traditional
   school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin literally means "to
   place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions couldn't be connected
   to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes phrasal verbs were treated as
   idioms.
   - Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable and
   inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions that can
   be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example, "I gave up the
   game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up"). Inseparable phrasal verbs
   have prepositions that cannot be moved (example, "I depend on the income" vs
   *"I depend the income on" or *"I depend it on").
   - As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a separable
   transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the preposition is
   obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never *"I gave up it."
   (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with some clunky
   construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this sense, it is actually
   *ungrammatical* to NOT end a sentence with a preposition.

Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!

Regards,

John Alexander
Austin, Texas

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/

--00151750e4d8b551dc0465d20ebc
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings, ATEGers!
 
Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your experiences.

 
I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal verbs that Lester includes.

 

Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions (functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro" (swollow) in Latin)

When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because, orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb stem. (example, "give up")

While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all). Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal verb in Latin!)

Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For example,
          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun phrase object)
          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial prepositional phrase)
   
          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.

Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.

Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example, "I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up"). Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved (example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I depend it on").

As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never *"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a preposition.

Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!
 
Regards,
 
John Alexander
Austin, Texas
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/

--00151750e4d8b551dc0465d20ebc--
========================================================================Date:         Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:14:17 -0400
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: Phrasal Verb Overview
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14096EEMAILBACKEND0_"
MIME-Version: 1.0

--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14096EEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

John,

I'm glad you found Lester's book useful.  I've used it as a reference often, but, with some regret, I've never used it as a text, maybe because by the time that edition came out I'd stopped using textbooks in my grammar classes and started using The Oxford English Grammar with lots of handouts.

I will add just one comment to your excellent summary.  I learned the object pronoun wrinkle a long time ago as you have described it in your last bullet.  It was sometime later that I realized that that word order is an artifact of discourse pragmatics.  If the DO is a pronoun, it's generally old information and therefore unstressed and reduced.  The result is that it can't carry the tonic accent of the sentence, and so the particle, which you note is generally stressed is placed finally to bear that accent.  It's a nice instance of discourse function influencing sentence-level syntax.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: 2009-03-23 20:00
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview

Greetings, ATEGers!

Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your experiences.

I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal verbs that Lester includes.


 *   Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions (functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro" (swollow) in Latin)
 *   When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because, orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb stem. (example, "give up")
 *   While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all). Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal verb in Latin!)
 *   Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For example,
          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun phrase object)
          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial prepositional phrase)

          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.

 *   Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
 *   Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
 *   Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example, "I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up"). Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved (example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I depend it on").
 *   As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never *"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a preposition.
Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!

Regards,

John Alexander
Austin, Texas
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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14096EEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable














John,

 

I’m glad you found Lester’s book useful.  I’ve used it as a
reference often, but, with some regret, I’ve never used it as a text, maybe
because by the time that edition came out I’d stopped using textbooks in my
grammar classes and started using The Oxford English Grammar with lots of
handouts.

 

I will add just one comment to your excellent summary.  I
learned the object pronoun wrinkle a long time ago as you have described it in
your last bullet.  It was sometime later that I realized that that word order
is an artifact of discourse pragmatics.  If the DO is a pronoun, it’s generally
old information and therefore unstressed and reduced.  The result is that it
can’t carry the tonic accent of the sentence, and so the particle, which you
note is generally stressed is placed finally to bear that accent.  It’s a nice
instance of discourse function influencing sentence-level syntax.

 

Herb

 



From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John
Dews-Alexander

Sent: 2009-03-23 20:00

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview



 



Greetings, ATEGers!





 





Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to
me: Mark Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I
haven't discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it
to anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your classroom,
you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a reference
text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and uncluttered.
Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for teachers-in-training? If
so, I'd be interested to hear about your experiences.





 





I went to the text specifically to find some more
information on phrasal verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for
non-linguistic students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore
descriptive facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about
phrasal verbs that Lester includes.





 




 
Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of
     Latin and Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding
     prepositions (functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to
     add the preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic
     languages adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from
     "de-" (down) and "voro" (swollow) in Latin)
 
When English forms a new word by adding a
     preposition to the beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass"
     "offset"), it is more quickly and easily recognized as a new
     word; people forget that it used to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition
     combination because, orthographically, it is written without a space.
     However, English tends to leave the space when the preposition is added to
     the end of the verb stem. (example, "give up")
 
While a sentence like "I give up" may
     look like a pronoun, a tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in
     fact a pronoun and a phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the
     preposition that has become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle,"
     but Lester continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at
     all). Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace
     the unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and
     retain the meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I
     surrender." (Lester points out the irony in the fact that
     "surrender" was once itself a phrasal verb in Latin!)
 
Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark
     the difference between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even
     more. For example,




          John
turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun phrase object)





          John
turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial prepositional phrase)





   





          Say
the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal verbs the preposition
is stressed while it is not in the PP.




 
Phrasal verbs can have more than one
     preposition/particle: look down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
 
Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped
     from traditional school grammars because the word "preposition"
     in Latin literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned
     that prepositions couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after
     them. Sometimes phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
 
Structural linguists have noted the difference
     between separable and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs
     have prepositions that can be moved to a position after the object noun
     phrase (example, "I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game
     up" or "I gave it up"). Inseparable phrasal verbs have
     prepositions that cannot be moved (example, "I depend on the
     income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I depend it
     on").
 
As you can see from the above examples, when the
     object of a separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement
     of the preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it
     up" and never *"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I
     heard this avoided with some clunky construction like, "Up it is that
     I gave it.") In this sense, it is actually ungrammatical to
     NOT end a sentence with a preposition.




Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!





 





Regards,





 





John Alexander





Austin, Texas



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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14096EEMAILBACKEND0_--
========================================================================Date:         Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:00:39 -0400
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  03/23/2009 and will not return until
03/30/2009.

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:         Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:19:36 -0400
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:         "Ciervo, Frank" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      query on the use of the word got
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9AC83.2D75A483"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AC83.2D75A483
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Isn't this a good example of very poor usage? Unless my memory is very
bad, it would have been cause for points off in my freshmen composition
class. A sad commentary on the state of news writing in 2009

 

But Farley noted that bill sponsor Assemblyman Peter Abbate Jr.,
D-Brooklyn, hasn't yet gotten a Democrat to introduce the bill in the
Senate. The Democrats won control of the Senate this year.

 

-------------------------------------------------------

Note: Replying to a Listserv posting. 

When responding to a meeting notice or transmitting an individual
request for information, please e-mail me directly at [log in to unmask]
  and not all recipients. Thank you.

---------------------------------
Frank J. Ciervo
Director of Bar Services
518.487-5540 (phone)
518.487-5699 (fax)
[log in to unmask]

 


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_01C9AC83.2D75A483
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable














Isn’t this a good example
of very poor usage? Unless my memory is very bad, it would have been cause for
points off in my freshmen composition class. A sad commentary on the state of
news writing in 2009

 

But Farley noted that bill
sponsor Assemblyman Peter Abbate Jr., D-Brooklyn, hasn’t yet gotten a Democrat to introduce the bill in
the Senate. The Democrats won control of the Senate this year.

 

-------------------------------------------------------

Note:
Replying to a Listserv
posting. 

When responding to a meeting notice or transmitting an
individual request for information, please e-mail me directly at [log in to unmask] and not all
recipients. Thank you.

---------------------------------

Frank J. Ciervo

Director of Bar Services

518.487-5540 (phone)

518.487-5699 (fax)

[log in to unmask]

 






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_01C9AC83.2D75A483--
========================================================================Date:         Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:58:27 -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:         Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Phrasal Verb Overview
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="_000_C62F596A20AB834B86375CE75059D13724F56D632FMBX01ldschurc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0

--_000_C62F596A20AB834B86375CE75059D13724F56D632FMBX01ldschurc_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

John,
I think another point about phrasal verbs in their separable and inseparable forms has to do with the reason the preposition is called a particle.  There are a few adverbs, like "back", that do not have a prepositional use, but are found in separable phrasal verbs.  Also, many of the prepositions seem to have a very distinctive meaning when used as part of a phrasal verb.  To "give up" is certainly a different meaning (aspectual) than to "walk up the street" (locative).  The reason they are called particles, I think, is to help us keep this distinction in mind.
Bruce


From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 9:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Phrasal Verb Overview

John,

I'm glad you found Lester's book useful.  I've used it as a reference often, but, with some regret, I've never used it as a text, maybe because by the time that edition came out I'd stopped using textbooks in my grammar classes and started using The Oxford English Grammar with lots of handouts.

I will add just one comment to your excellent summary.  I learned the object pronoun wrinkle a long time ago as you have described it in your last bullet.  It was sometime later that I realized that that word order is an artifact of discourse pragmatics.  If the DO is a pronoun, it's generally old information and therefore unstressed and reduced.  The result is that it can't carry the tonic accent of the sentence, and so the particle, which you note is generally stressed is placed finally to bear that accent.  It's a nice instance of discourse function influencing sentence-level syntax.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: 2009-03-23 20:00
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview

Greetings, ATEGers!

Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your experiences.

I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal verbs that Lester includes.


 *   Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions (functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro" (swollow) in Latin)
 *   When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because, orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb stem. (example, "give up")
 *   While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all). Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal verb in Latin!)
 *   Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For example,
          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun phrase object)
          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial prepositional phrase)

          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.

 *   Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
 *   Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
 *   Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example, "I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up"). Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved (example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I depend it on").
 *   As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never *"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a preposition.
Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!

Regards,

John Alexander
Austin, Texas
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/


 NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.



To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

--_000_C62F596A20AB834B86375CE75059D13724F56D632FMBX01ldschurc_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable














John,  

I think another point about phrasal verbs in their separable and
inseparable forms has to do with the reason the preposition is called a particle. 
There are a few adverbs, like “back”, that do not have a prepositional
use, but are found in separable phrasal verbs.  Also, many of the
prepositions seem to have a very distinctive meaning when used as part of a
phrasal verb.  To “give up” is certainly a different meaning (aspectual)
than to “walk up the street” (locative).  The reason they are
called particles, I think, is to help us keep this distinction in mind.  

Bruce

 

 





From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE,
HERBERT F

Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 9:14 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: Phrasal Verb Overview





 

John,

 

I’m glad you found Lester’s book useful. 
I’ve used it as a reference often, but, with some regret, I’ve
never used it as a text, maybe because by the time that edition came out
I’d stopped using textbooks in my grammar classes and started using The
Oxford English Grammar with lots of handouts.

 

I will add just one comment to your excellent summary.  I
learned the object pronoun wrinkle a long time ago as you have described it in
your last bullet.  It was sometime later that I realized that that word
order is an artifact of discourse pragmatics.  If the DO is a pronoun,
it’s generally old information and therefore unstressed and
reduced.  The result is that it can’t carry the tonic accent of the
sentence, and so the particle, which you note is generally stressed is placed
finally to bear that accent.  It’s a nice instance of discourse
function influencing sentence-level syntax.

 

Herb

 



From: Assembly for the Teaching
of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John
Dews-Alexander

Sent: 2009-03-23 20:00

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview



 



Greetings, ATEGers!





 





Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to
me: Mark Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I
haven't discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it
to anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your classroom,
you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a reference
text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and uncluttered.
Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for teachers-in-training? If
so, I'd be interested to hear about your experiences.





 





I went to the text specifically to find some more
information on phrasal verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for
non-linguistic students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore
descriptive facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about
phrasal verbs that Lester includes.





 




 
Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of
     Latin and Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding
     prepositions (functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to
     add the preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic
     languages adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from
     "de-" (down) and "voro" (swollow) in Latin)
 
When English forms a new word by adding a
     preposition to the beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass"
     "offset"), it is more quickly and easily recognized as a new
     word; people forget that it used to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition
     combination because, orthographically, it is written without a space.
     However, English tends to leave the space when the preposition is added to
     the end of the verb stem. (example, "give up")
 
While a sentence like "I give up" may
     look like a pronoun, a tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in
     fact a pronoun and a phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition
     that has become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle,"
     but Lester continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at
     all). Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace
     the unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and
     retain the meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I
     surrender." (Lester points out the irony in the fact that
     "surrender" was once itself a phrasal verb in Latin!)
 
Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark
     the difference between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even
     more. For example,




          John
turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun phrase object)





          John
turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial prepositional phrase)





   





          Say
the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal verbs the preposition
is stressed while it is not in the PP.




 
Phrasal verbs can have more than one
     preposition/particle: look down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
 
Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped
     from traditional school grammars because the word "preposition"
     in Latin literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned
     that prepositions couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after
     them. Sometimes phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
 
Structural linguists have noted the difference
     between separable and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs
     have prepositions that can be moved to a position after the object noun
     phrase (example, "I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game
     up" or "I gave it up"). Inseparable phrasal verbs have
     prepositions that cannot be moved (example, "I depend on the
     income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I depend it
     on").
 
As you can see from the above examples, when the object
     of a separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the
     preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up"
     and never *"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard
     this avoided with some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I
     gave it.") In this sense, it is actually ungrammatical to
     NOT end a sentence with a preposition.




Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!





 





Regards,





 





John Alexander





Austin, Texas



To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
"Join or leave the list" 

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
"Join or leave the list" 

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ 







 NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.




To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

--_000_C62F596A20AB834B86375CE75059D13724F56D632FMBX01ldschurc_--
========================================================================Date:         Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:58:28 -0400
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:         "Veit, Richard" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Phrasal Verb Overview
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

John,

In your penultimate bullet below, "depend on" does feel like an "inseparable phrasal verb," but there is one bit of evidence that "on" is a true preposition:

 *
I depend on coffee.
 *
Coffee is a drug on which I depend.

Compare that with a true phrasal verb:

 *   I gave up coffee.
 *   *Coffee is a drug up which I gave.

A similar example of a seeming but debatable phrasal verb is "call on" as in "Willy calls on a dozen accounts each day." There are real "inseparable phrasal verbs" such as "come by" ("McDuck came by his wealth honestly"), but I wonder whether "depend on" and "call on" are among them.



I have another question for ATEGers. A phrasal verb typically consists of a verb-word and a preposition-word. But what about those two-word predicates such as "look forward" and "put forth" where the second word is neither a preposition-word nor separable from the verb-word? Do we call them "phrasal verbs" as well?



Dick Veit



________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview

Greetings, ATEGers!

Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your experiences.

I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal verbs that Lester includes.


 *   Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions (functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro" (swollow) in Latin)
 *   When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because, orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb stem. (example, "give up")
 *   While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all). Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal verb in Latin!)
 *   Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For example,

          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun phrase object)
          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial prepositional phrase)

          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.

 *   Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
 *   Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
 *   Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example, "I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up"). Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved (example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I depend it on").
 *   As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never *"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a preposition.

Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!

Regards,

John Alexander
Austin, Texas
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, 24 Mar 2009 12:52:57 -0400
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:      Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview)
In-Reply-To:  A<[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9ACA0.FCC44ACC"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9ACA0.FCC44ACC
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

John,

 

I've used Lester's book a number of times in a course here for future
English teachers. Overall, I'd say there's one major problem with it,
but otherwise it's extremely good. The problem is that he doesn't make a
clear form/function distinction. I'm not sure why he doesn't - it could
be that he's trying to stick to the K-12 school grammar tradition, which
is understandable, but the lack of that distinction is one of the things
that constantly causes problems for anyone trying to teach the material
("You said only nouns could be plural, but in 'accounts receivable,' the
adjective is"). 

 

The book is so good in other respects that I've continued to use it,
using handouts to deal with the form/function distinction. But, of
course, then the students get annoyed because I'm disagreeing with the
textbook, and I get annoyed with them because the last thing future
teachers should do is view a textbook (or their instructor's comments!)
as Holy Writ.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Spruiell

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview

 

Greetings, ATEGers!

 

Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark
Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't
discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to
anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your
classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a
reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and
uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for
teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your
experiences.

 

I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal
verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic
students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive
facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal
verbs that Lester includes.

 

*	Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and
Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions
(functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the
preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages
adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro"
(swollow) in Latin)
*	When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the
beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more
quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used
to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because,
orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends
to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb
stem. (example, "give up")
*	While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a
tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a
phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has
become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester
continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all).
Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the
unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the
meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points
out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal
verb in Latin!)
*	Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference
between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For
example,

          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun
phrase object)

          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial
prepositional phrase)

   

          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal
verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.

*	Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look
down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
*	Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from
traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin
literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions
couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes
phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
*	Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable
and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions
that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example,
"I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up").
Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved
(example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I
depend it on").
*	As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a
separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the
preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never
*"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with
some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this
sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a
preposition.

Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!

 

Regards,

 

John Alexander

Austin, Texas

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_01C9ACA0.FCC44ACC
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable














John,

 

I’ve used Lester’s book a number of times in a
course here for future English teachers. Overall, I’d say there’s
one major problem with it, but otherwise it’s extremely good. The problem
is that he doesn’t make a clear form/function distinction. I’m not
sure why he doesn’t – it could be that he’s trying to
stick to the K-12 school grammar tradition, which is understandable, but the
lack of that distinction is one of the things that constantly causes problems
for anyone trying to teach the material (“You said only nouns could be
plural, but in ‘accounts receivable,’ the adjective is”). 

 

The book is so good in other respects that I’ve continued
to use it, using handouts to deal with the form/function distinction. But, of
course, then the students get annoyed because I’m disagreeing with the
textbook, and I get annoyed with them because the last thing future teachers
should do is view a textbook (or their instructor’s comments!) as Holy
Writ.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Spruiell

 



From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John
Dews-Alexander

Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:00 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview



 



Greetings, ATEGers!





 





Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to
me: Mark Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I
haven't discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it
to anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your classroom,
you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a reference
text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and uncluttered.
Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for teachers-in-training? If
so, I'd be interested to hear about your experiences.





 





I went to the text specifically to find some more
information on phrasal verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for
non-linguistic students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore
descriptive facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about
phrasal verbs that Lester includes.





 




 
Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of
     Latin and Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding
     prepositions (functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add
     the preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages
     adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-"
     (down) and "voro" (swollow) in Latin)
 
When English forms a new word by adding a
     preposition to the beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass"
     "offset"), it is more quickly and easily recognized as a new
     word; people forget that it used to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition
     combination because, orthographically, it is written without a space.
     However, English tends to leave the space when the preposition is added to
     the end of the verb stem. (example, "give up")
 
While a sentence like "I give up" may
     look like a pronoun, a tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in
     fact a pronoun and a phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the
     preposition that has become attached to a verb in such a way a
     "particle," but Lester continues to call it a preposition, which
     doesn't bother me at all). Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs
     -- can you replace the unit with a single word (almost always of
     Latin origin) and retain the meaning? In this case, "I give up"
     becomes "I surrender." (Lester points out the irony in the fact
     that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal verb in Latin!)
 
Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark
     the difference between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even
     more. For example,




          John
turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun phrase object)





          John
turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial prepositional phrase)





   





          Say
the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal verbs the preposition
is stressed while it is not in the PP.




 
Phrasal verbs can have more than one
     preposition/particle: look down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
 
Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped
     from traditional school grammars because the word "preposition"
     in Latin literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned
     that prepositions couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after
     them. Sometimes phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
 
Structural linguists have noted the difference
     between separable and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs
     have prepositions that can be moved to a position after the object noun
     phrase (example, "I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game
     up" or "I gave it up"). Inseparable phrasal verbs have
     prepositions that cannot be moved (example, "I depend on the
     income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I depend it
     on").
 
As you can see from the above examples, when the
     object of a separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement
     of the preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it
     up" and never *"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I
     heard this avoided with some clunky construction like, "Up it is that
     I gave it.") In this sense, it is actually ungrammatical to
     NOT end a sentence with a preposition.




Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!





 





Regards,





 





John Alexander





Austin, Texas



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_01C9ACA0.FCC44ACC--
========================================================================Date:         Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:25:00 -0400
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: Phrasal Verb Overview
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

One of the tests for a transitive phrasal verb is whether it can be made passive.  

Seattle depends heavily on coffee for its economic survival.
Coffee is heavily depended on by Seattle for its economic survival.

Of course, this is not the only test, and the fact that there are a number of different types of phrasal verb indicates that, as with other categories, phrasal verb is also a fuzzy category, just as verbs themselves are, ranging from invariant modals like "must" to full agentive transitive verbs like "hit."

Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Veit, Richard
Sent: 2009-03-24 10:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Phrasal Verb Overview

John,

In your penultimate bullet below, "depend on" does feel like an "inseparable phrasal verb," but there is one bit of evidence that "on" is a true preposition:

 *
I depend on coffee.
 *
Coffee is a drug on which I depend.

Compare that with a true phrasal verb:

 *   I gave up coffee.
 *   *Coffee is a drug up which I gave.

A similar example of a seeming but debatable phrasal verb is "call on" as in "Willy calls on a dozen accounts each day." There are real "inseparable phrasal verbs" such as "come by" ("McDuck came by his wealth honestly"), but I wonder whether "depend on" and "call on" are among them.



I have another question for ATEGers. A phrasal verb typically consists of a verb-word and a preposition-word. But what about those two-word predicates such as "look forward" and "put forth" where the second word is neither a preposition-word nor separable from the verb-word? Do we call them "phrasal verbs" as well?



Dick Veit



________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview

Greetings, ATEGers!

Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your experiences.

I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal verbs that Lester includes.


 *   Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions (functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro" (swollow) in Latin)
 *   When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because, orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb stem. (example, "give up")
 *   While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all). Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal verb in Latin!)
 *   Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For example,

          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun phrase object)
          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial prepositional phrase)

          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.

 *   Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
 *   Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
 *   Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example, "I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up"). Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved (example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I depend it on").
 *   As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never *"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a preposition.

Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!

Regards,

John Alexander
Austin, Texas
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, 24 Mar 2009 12:38:56 -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:         Larry Beason <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview)
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'm a little biased because I've co-authored a grammar handbook with Mark Lester, but I've used his Grammar in the Classroom for many years and found it effective as well.  I can tell you that indeed he wrote it so that it would match pretty well with traditional grammar instruction, though he also adds various twists on it.

One problem deals with a few production errors in terms of typos, esp in the answer key.  Not all the corrections he made were actually put into the book, even in a printing that came out a couple of years ago.

Larry Beason

Larry Beason
Associate Professor & Composition Director
Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
Univ. of South Alabama
Mobile AL 36688
(251) 460-7861

>>> "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> 03/24/09 11:52 AM >>>
John,

 

I've used Lester's book a number of times in a course here for future
English teachers. Overall, I'd say there's one major problem with it,
but otherwise it's extremely good. The problem is that he doesn't make a
clear form/function distinction. I'm not sure why he doesn't - it could
be that he's trying to stick to the K-12 school grammar tradition, which
is understandable, but the lack of that distinction is one of the things
that constantly causes problems for anyone trying to teach the material
("You said only nouns could be plural, but in 'accounts receivable,' the
adjective is"). 

 

The book is so good in other respects that I've continued to use it,
using handouts to deal with the form/function distinction. But, of
course, then the students get annoyed because I'm disagreeing with the
textbook, and I get annoyed with them because the last thing future
teachers should do is view a textbook (or their instructor's comments!)
as Holy Writ.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Spruiell

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview

 

Greetings, ATEGers!

 

Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark
Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't
discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to
anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your
classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a
reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and
uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for
teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your
experiences.

 

I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal
verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic
students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive
facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal
verbs that Lester includes.

 

*	Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and
Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions
(functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the
preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages
adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro"
(swollow) in Latin)
*	When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the
beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more
quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used
to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because,
orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends
to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb
stem. (example, "give up")
*	While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a
tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a
phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has
become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester
continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all).
Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the
unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the
meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points
out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal
verb in Latin!)
*	Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference
between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For
example,

          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun
phrase object)

          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial
prepositional phrase)

   

          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal
verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.

*	Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look
down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
*	Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from
traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin
literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions
couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes
phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
*	Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable
and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions
that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example,
"I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up").
Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved
(example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I
depend it on").
*	As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a
separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the
preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never
*"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with
some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this
sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a
preposition.

Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!

 

Regards,

 

John Alexander

Austin, Texas

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, 24 Mar 2009 14:55:36 -0400
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: Phrasal Verb Overview
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've been pondering "depend on" since John's message.  Although I teach my students that many of these distinctions range along a spectrum, the process of figuring out a specific example is useful.  And fun. :)

In addition to the tests that Dick and Herb mention, there's also the "can it be replaced by a single verb" test, and I couldn't think of a single verb that would replace "depend on."  "rely on" also needs the "on."

Another "test" is to check a dictionary.  I've noticed that the dictionaries at dictionary.com often disagree on phrasal verbs--with the dictionaries I've heard of (e.g., American Heritage) listing phrasal entries rarely and a dictionary I hadn't heard of ("WordNet" from Princeton) listing many different verb + prepositional combinations as "phrasal verb" entries.  (example: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/depend%20on?qsrc=2888 )  Class discussions can get very lively when dictionaries disagree.  

Beth

P.S. my unfamiliarity with WordNet surely says more about me than about WordNet itself or dictionary.com



>>> "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> 3/24/2009 1:25 PM >>>
One of the tests for a transitive phrasal verb is whether it can be made passive.  

Seattle depends heavily on coffee for its economic survival.
Coffee is heavily depended on by Seattle for its economic survival.

Of course, this is not the only test, and the fact that there are a number of different types of phrasal verb indicates that, as with other categories, phrasal verb is also a fuzzy category, just as verbs themselves are, ranging from invariant modals like "must" to full agentive transitive verbs like "hit."

Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Veit, Richard
Sent: 2009-03-24 10:58
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: Phrasal Verb Overview

John,

In your penultimate bullet below, "depend on" does feel like an "inseparable phrasal verb," but there is one bit of evidence that "on" is a true preposition:

 *
I depend on coffee.
 *
Coffee is a drug on which I depend.

Compare that with a true phrasal verb:

 *   I gave up coffee.
 *   *Coffee is a drug up which I gave.

A similar example of a seeming but debatable phrasal verb is "call on" as in "Willy calls on a dozen accounts each day." There are real "inseparable phrasal verbs" such as "come by" ("McDuck came by his wealth honestly"), but I wonder whether "depend on" and "call on" are among them.



I have another question for ATEGers. A phrasal verb typically consists of a verb-word and a preposition-word. But what about those two-word predicates such as "look forward" and "put forth" where the second word is neither a preposition-word nor separable from the verb-word? Do we call them "phrasal verbs" as well?



Dick Veit



________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander [[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview

Greetings, ATEGers!

Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your experiences.

I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal verbs that Lester includes.


 *   Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions (functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro" (swollow) in Latin)
 *   When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because, orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb stem. (example, "give up")
 *   While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all). Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal verb in Latin!)
 *   Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For example,

          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun phrase object)
          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial prepositional phrase)

          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.

 *   Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
 *   Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
 *   Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example, "I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up"). Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved (example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I depend it on").
 *   As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never *"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a preposition.

Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!

Regards,

John Alexander
Austin, Texas
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, 24 Mar 2009 15:24:52 -0400
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: Phrasal Verb Overview
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Usually dictionaries for non-native speakers will provide more detail on phrasal verbs than dictionaries for native speakers.  The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English and the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of English are both valuable references and contain a lot of grammatical information that English learners need but native English speakers simply assume.

Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Beth Young
Sent: 2009-03-24 14:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Phrasal Verb Overview

I've been pondering "depend on" since John's message.  Although I teach my students that many of these distinctions range along a spectrum, the process of figuring out a specific example is useful.  And fun. :)

In addition to the tests that Dick and Herb mention, there's also the "can it be replaced by a single verb" test, and I couldn't think of a single verb that would replace "depend on."  "rely on" also needs the "on."

Another "test" is to check a dictionary.  I've noticed that the dictionaries at dictionary.com often disagree on phrasal verbs--with the dictionaries I've heard of (e.g., American Heritage) listing phrasal entries rarely and a dictionary I hadn't heard of ("WordNet" from Princeton) listing many different verb + prepositional combinations as "phrasal verb" entries.  (example: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/depend%20on?qsrc=2888 )  Class discussions can get very lively when dictionaries disagree.  

Beth

P.S. my unfamiliarity with WordNet surely says more about me than about WordNet itself or dictionary.com



>>> "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> 3/24/2009 1:25 PM >>>
One of the tests for a transitive phrasal verb is whether it can be made passive.  

Seattle depends heavily on coffee for its economic survival.
Coffee is heavily depended on by Seattle for its economic survival.

Of course, this is not the only test, and the fact that there are a number of different types of phrasal verb indicates that, as with other categories, phrasal verb is also a fuzzy category, just as verbs themselves are, ranging from invariant modals like "must" to full agentive transitive verbs like "hit."

Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Veit, Richard
Sent: 2009-03-24 10:58
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: Phrasal Verb Overview

John,

In your penultimate bullet below, "depend on" does feel like an "inseparable phrasal verb," but there is one bit of evidence that "on" is a true preposition:

 *
I depend on coffee.
 *
Coffee is a drug on which I depend.

Compare that with a true phrasal verb:

 *   I gave up coffee.
 *   *Coffee is a drug up which I gave.

A similar example of a seeming but debatable phrasal verb is "call on" as in "Willy calls on a dozen accounts each day." There are real "inseparable phrasal verbs" such as "come by" ("McDuck came by his wealth honestly"), but I wonder whether "depend on" and "call on" are among them.



I have another question for ATEGers. A phrasal verb typically consists of a verb-word and a preposition-word. But what about those two-word predicates such as "look forward" and "put forth" where the second word is neither a preposition-word nor separable from the verb-word? Do we call them "phrasal verbs" as well?



Dick Veit



________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander [[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview

Greetings, ATEGers!

Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your experiences.

I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal verbs that Lester includes.


 *   Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions (functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro" (swollow) in Latin)
 *   When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because, orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb stem. (example, "give up")
 *   While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all). Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal verb in Latin!)
 *   Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For example,

          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun phrase object)
          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial prepositional phrase)

          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.

 *   Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
 *   Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
 *   Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example, "I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up"). Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved (example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I depend it on").
 *   As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never *"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a preposition.

Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!

Regards,

John Alexander
Austin, Texas
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:         Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:30:25 -0400
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: Phrasal Verb Overview
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 guess I would call any multi-word verb a phrasal verb, whether it used adverb-like words or preposition-like words.  Is there another, better descriptor for them?  "Phrasal verb" confuses my students sometimes because it is similar to "verb phrase" (i.e., created by T + m + (be + -ing) + (have + -en) + MV).  

Beth

>>> "Veit, Richard" <[log in to unmask]> 3/24/2009 10:58 AM >>>
I have another question for ATEGers. A phrasal verb typically consists of a verb-word and a preposition-word. But what about those two-word predicates such as "look forward" and "put forth" where the second word is neither a preposition-word nor separable from the verb-word? Do we call them "phrasal verbs" as well?

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, 24 Mar 2009 12:48:47 -0700
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: Phrasal Verb Overview
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Some ESL texts call them two word verbs, three word verbs, etc.
Edith Wollin

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Beth Young
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 12:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Phrasal Verb Overview

I guess I would call any multi-word verb a phrasal verb, whether it used
adverb-like words or preposition-like words.  Is there another, better
descriptor for them?  "Phrasal verb" confuses my students sometimes
because it is similar to "verb phrase" (i.e., created by T + m + (be +
-ing) + (have + -en) + MV).  

Beth

>>> "Veit, Richard" <[log in to unmask]> 3/24/2009 10:58 AM >>>
I have another question for ATEGers. A phrasal verb typically consists
of a verb-word and a preposition-word. But what about those two-word
predicates such as "look forward" and "put forth" where the second word
is neither a preposition-word nor separable from the verb-word? Do we
call them "phrasal verbs" as well?

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, 24 Mar 2009 13:53:02 -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:         Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Phrasal Verb Overview
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

I think the varying amount of grammatical information that dictionaries include tells a lot about the state of grammar education.  The fact that there is so much syntax, such as phrasal verbs, that is new to so many, seems to be telling us that the grammatical system of English has neglected this area for far too long.  I think the notion that certain strings of verbs are "tenses" is another evidence that the state of grammatical studies is retarded; it shows us the extent to which we have depended so long on traditional treatments.  I would maintain that all too much has been and continues to be left to the native English speaker to assume.  Herb mentioned lately the voiced/voiceless contrast that even some phoneticians often use for labels that are probably more accurately designated by different terms of articulation: lenis/fortis. There will always be a lag between the academic community and the educators of the children and the lack of single coherent theory to guide the presentation of grammatical principles does not help.  The awareness and study of the phrasal verb cannot be help in this process.  I think it will lead to a better understanding of how syntax, which is so central to the study of English grammar, needs to be approached.  The analogy of the spectrum does not seem to do justice to the structures involved.  I believe we need to be open to the possibility that several different constructions are being described, some overlapping in sharing certain parts and serving similar functions.  Their relationship to other constructions, such as passive voice, cannot but be like a prism that may well help to lay out their syntactic distinctions.

Bruce

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 1:25 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Phrasal Verb Overview

Usually dictionaries for non-native speakers will provide more detail on phrasal verbs than dictionaries for native speakers.  The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English and the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of English are both valuable references and contain a lot of grammatical information that English learners need but native English speakers simply assume.

Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Beth Young
Sent: 2009-03-24 14:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Phrasal Verb Overview

I've been pondering "depend on" since John's message.  Although I teach my students that many of these distinctions range along a spectrum, the process of figuring out a specific example is useful.  And fun. :)

In addition to the tests that Dick and Herb mention, there's also the "can it be replaced by a single verb" test, and I couldn't think of a single verb that would replace "depend on."  "rely on" also needs the "on."

Another "test" is to check a dictionary.  I've noticed that the dictionaries at dictionary.com often disagree on phrasal verbs--with the dictionaries I've heard of (e.g., American Heritage) listing phrasal entries rarely and a dictionary I hadn't heard of ("WordNet" from Princeton) listing many different verb + prepositional combinations as "phrasal verb" entries.  (example: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/depend%20on?qsrc=2888 )  Class discussions can get very lively when dictionaries disagree.  

Beth

P.S. my unfamiliarity with WordNet surely says more about me than about WordNet itself or dictionary.com



>>> "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> 3/24/2009 1:25 PM >>>
One of the tests for a transitive phrasal verb is whether it can be made passive.  

Seattle depends heavily on coffee for its economic survival.
Coffee is heavily depended on by Seattle for its economic survival.

Of course, this is not the only test, and the fact that there are a number of different types of phrasal verb indicates that, as with other categories, phrasal verb is also a fuzzy category, just as verbs themselves are, ranging from invariant modals like "must" to full agentive transitive verbs like "hit."

Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Veit, Richard
Sent: 2009-03-24 10:58
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: Phrasal Verb Overview

John,

In your penultimate bullet below, "depend on" does feel like an "inseparable phrasal verb," but there is one bit of evidence that "on" is a true preposition:

 *
I depend on coffee.
 *
Coffee is a drug on which I depend.

Compare that with a true phrasal verb:

 *   I gave up coffee.
 *   *Coffee is a drug up which I gave.

A similar example of a seeming but debatable phrasal verb is "call on" as in "Willy calls on a dozen accounts each day." There are real "inseparable phrasal verbs" such as "come by" ("McDuck came by his wealth honestly"), but I wonder whether "depend on" and "call on" are among them.



I have another question for ATEGers. A phrasal verb typically consists of a verb-word and a preposition-word. But what about those two-word predicates such as "look forward" and "put forth" where the second word is neither a preposition-word nor separable from the verb-word? Do we call them "phrasal verbs" as well?



Dick Veit



________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander [[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview

Greetings, ATEGers!

Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your experiences.

I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal verbs that Lester includes.


 *   Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions (functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro" (swollow) in Latin)
 *   When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because, orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb stem. (example, "give up")
 *   While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all). Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal verb in Latin!)
 *   Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For example,

          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun phrase object)
          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial prepositional phrase)

          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.

 *   Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
 *   Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
 *   Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example, "I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up"). Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved (example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I depend it on").
 *   As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never *"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a preposition.

Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!

Regards,

John Alexander
Austin, Texas
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/


 NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
========================================================================Date:         Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:56:56 -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:         Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Phrasal Verb Overview
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

My personal preference is adverbial particle and prepositional particle.  These terms are probably due to our grounding in traditional grammar and its parts of speech.  The term "determiner" has been split out of the traditional "limiting adjective."  Particle seems to do the same sort of thing, but applies to several classes.  

Bruce

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Beth Young
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 1:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Phrasal Verb Overview

I guess I would call any multi-word verb a phrasal verb, whether it used adverb-like words or preposition-like words.  Is there another, better descriptor for them?  "Phrasal verb" confuses my students sometimes because it is similar to "verb phrase" (i.e., created by T + m + (be + -ing) + (have + -en) + MV).  

Beth

>>> "Veit, Richard" <[log in to unmask]> 3/24/2009 10:58 AM >>>
I have another question for ATEGers. A phrasal verb typically consists of a verb-word and a preposition-word. But what about those two-word predicates such as "look forward" and "put forth" where the second word is neither a preposition-word nor separable from the verb-word? Do we call them "phrasal verbs" as well?

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/


 NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
========================================================================Date:         Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:05:06 -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:         Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Phrasal Verb Overview
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

One thing that didn't get into Lester's overview is the fact that the three-word verbs comprise one with both an adverbial particle and a prepositional particle in that order.  
There are none in the reverse order, so it is like the compounding of suffixes: they are attached in a certain order.  

Bruce

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wollin, Edith
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 1:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Phrasal Verb Overview

Some ESL texts call them two word verbs, three word verbs, etc.
Edith Wollin

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Beth Young
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 12:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Phrasal Verb Overview

I guess I would call any multi-word verb a phrasal verb, whether it used
adverb-like words or preposition-like words.  Is there another, better
descriptor for them?  "Phrasal verb" confuses my students sometimes
because it is similar to "verb phrase" (i.e., created by T + m + (be +
-ing) + (have + -en) + MV).  

Beth

>>> "Veit, Richard" <[log in to unmask]> 3/24/2009 10:58 AM >>>
I have another question for ATEGers. A phrasal verb typically consists
of a verb-word and a preposition-word. But what about those two-word
predicates such as "look forward" and "put forth" where the second word
is neither a preposition-word nor separable from the verb-word? Do we
call them "phrasal verbs" as well?

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/


 NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
========================================================================Date:         Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:11:58 -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 Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Phrasal Verb Overview
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--000e0cd6ae8cc787110465e2fec6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I've always had a fondness for particle as well, but it likely amounts to
not much more than personal bias. I've always learned about particles in
languages other than English, it seemed to make sense to me to carry that
term over to phrasal verbs. One reason I like calling them particles is
because it puts more emphasis on their connection to the verb (they are
particles of the verb, extending or altering the meaning) rather than would
they would have been if they had stood alone. Now that I realize that there
are traditional adverbs that have attached to verbs as well, using a more
generic term like particle is reinforced for me.

Many have pointed out in this thread how radically meaning (and I'll add,
cognition) is involved when the mind interprets the particle as part of the
verb instead of as its own unit. I find that very valuable because I
am attempting to integrate more focus on meaning and cognition into my
grammar teaching.

John

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Bruce Despain
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> My personal preference is adverbial particle and prepositional particle.
>  These terms are probably due to our grounding in traditional grammar and
> its parts of speech.  The term "determiner" has been split out of the
> traditional "limiting adjective."  Particle seems to do the same sort of
> thing, but applies to several classes.
>
> Bruce
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Beth Young
> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 1:30 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
>  Subject: Re: Phrasal Verb Overview
>
> I guess I would call any multi-word verb a phrasal verb, whether it used
> adverb-like words or preposition-like words.  Is there another, better
> descriptor for them?  "Phrasal verb" confuses my students sometimes because
> it is similar to "verb phrase" (i.e., created by T + m + (be + -ing) + (have
> + -en) + MV).
>
> Beth
>
> >>> "Veit, Richard" <[log in to unmask]> 3/24/2009 10:58 AM >>>
> I have another question for ATEGers. A phrasal verb typically consists of a
> verb-word and a preposition-word. But what about those two-word predicates
> such as "look forward" and "put forth" where the second word is neither a
> preposition-word nor separable from the verb-word? Do we call them "phrasal
> verbs" as well?
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
>  NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
> are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and
> destroy all copies of the original message.
>
>  To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

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/

--000e0cd6ae8cc787110465e2fec6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I've always had a fondness for particle as well, but it likely amounts to not much more than personal bias. I've always learned about particles in languages other than English, it seemed to make sense to me to carry that term over to phrasal verbs. One reason I like calling them particles is because it puts more emphasis on their connection to the verb (they are particles of the verb, extending or altering the meaning) rather than would they would have been if they had stood alone. Now that I realize that there are traditional adverbs that have attached to verbs as well, using a more generic term like particle is reinforced for me.

 
Many have pointed out in this thread how radically meaning (and I'll add, cognition) is involved when the mind interprets the particle as part of the verb instead of as its own unit. I find that very valuable because I am attempting to integrate more focus on meaning and cognition into my grammar teaching. 

 
John


On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

My personal preference is adverbial particle and prepositional particle.  These terms are probably due to our grounding in traditional grammar and its parts of speech.  The term "determiner" has been split out of the traditional "limiting adjective."  Particle seems to do the same sort of thing, but applies to several classes.


Bruce


-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Beth Young
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 1:30 PM

To: [log in to unmask]



Subject: Re: Phrasal Verb Overview

I guess I would call any multi-word verb a phrasal verb, whether it used adverb-like words or preposition-like words.  Is there another, better descriptor for them?  "Phrasal verb" confuses my students sometimes because it is similar to "verb phrase" (i.e., created by T + m + (be + -ing) + (have + -en) + MV).


Beth

>>> "Veit, Richard" <[log in to unmask]> 3/24/2009 10:58 AM >>>
I have another question for ATEGers. A phrasal verb typically consists of a verb-word and a preposition-word. But what about those two-word predicates such as "look forward" and "put forth" where the second word is neither a preposition-word nor separable from the verb-word? Do we call them "phrasal verbs" as well?


To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
    http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"


Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/



 NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.





To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
    http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/


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/

--000e0cd6ae8cc787110465e2fec6--
========================================================================Date:         Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:39:51 -0400
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: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview)
In-Reply-To:  A<[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Larry,

I've turned the typos in the answer key into a benefit, in a sense. I
tell the students that I expect them to do the exercises and check their
answers in the back. I then tell them that there are some typos, and
therefore that if they don't ask me questions, I *know* they're not
doing the exercises. 

There's a general issue raised by some of this, though: what changes to
the traditional K-12 framework would most of us view as *mandatory*?
There's enormous variation in positions on grammar, and each of us would
have a different "wanna" list, but I think there's total, or vanishingly
close to total, consensus among linguists that the following are
necessary for a grammar to function as a good description of English:

(1)	It has to deal with relations among word *groups*, rather than
primarily with single words.

(2)	It has to discuss the functions that these groups serve in
sentences ("function" here in a basic sense, as for 	example "modify
a nominal," "modify a verb group," "act as a nominal," etc. -- something
we'd all probably agree 	on).

(3)	It has to make a form/function distinction -- or alternatively,
state that every word in the language exists in 	multiple lexical
classes (that last option is the logical consequence of denying a
form/function distinction). 

(4)	It has to acknowledge that the number of lexical classes depends
on what you count, and that whatever you do with 	English, eight
is by no means a magic number.


Lester does all but #3, and he strongly points at #3 in several places,
but doesn't fully go there. I'm sympathetic, especially since he does
such a good job on all the other points, but at the same time it's hard
not to see the omission as facilitating the bad habits of
textbook-publishers in this field. 

Lester's description is still far, better than the general description
I've found in most of the K-12 texts I've looked at (adjusting for
complexity; a college text will always go into more detail, but I'm
referring to the general architecture of the description here). The
students benefit from his description, and it has direct applications to
what they know they'll do in the classroom. I've also used Martha
Kolln's text, which does 1-4 along with a lot of other things on my
"wanna" list, but it isn't aimed at English Ed. majors.

I keep being astounded at the mismatch between what we know about
language and what shows up in K-12 texts. Obviously, there would be
simplifications at lower grade levels, but for a high school or college
text to ignore points like 1-4 is roughly equivalent to what would
happen if a physics text used "the aether" and "phlogiston" to explain
heat transfer, or if an anthropology book stated that there used to be
hominids with single giant feet who lived in the desert and used their
feet for shade during the daytime, but they died out. Grammar textbooks,
and grammar sections in writing textbooks,  are a very weird category.

Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Beason
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 1:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview)

I'm a little biased because I've co-authored a grammar handbook with
Mark Lester, but I've used his Grammar in the Classroom for many years
and found it effective as well.  I can tell you that indeed he wrote it
so that it would match pretty well with traditional grammar instruction,
though he also adds various twists on it.

One problem deals with a few production errors in terms of typos, esp in
the answer key.  Not all the corrections he made were actually put into
the book, even in a printing that came out a couple of years ago.

Larry Beason

Larry Beason
Associate Professor & Composition Director
Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
Univ. of South Alabama
Mobile AL 36688
(251) 460-7861

>>> "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> 03/24/09 11:52 AM >>>
John,

 

I've used Lester's book a number of times in a course here for future
English teachers. Overall, I'd say there's one major problem with it,
but otherwise it's extremely good. The problem is that he doesn't make a
clear form/function distinction. I'm not sure why he doesn't - it could
be that he's trying to stick to the K-12 school grammar tradition, which
is understandable, but the lack of that distinction is one of the things
that constantly causes problems for anyone trying to teach the material
("You said only nouns could be plural, but in 'accounts receivable,' the
adjective is"). 

 

The book is so good in other respects that I've continued to use it,
using handouts to deal with the form/function distinction. But, of
course, then the students get annoyed because I'm disagreeing with the
textbook, and I get annoyed with them because the last thing future
teachers should do is view a textbook (or their instructor's comments!)
as Holy Writ.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Spruiell

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview

 

Greetings, ATEGers!

 

Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark
Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't
discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to
anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your
classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a
reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and
uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for
teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your
experiences.

 

I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal
verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic
students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive
facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal
verbs that Lester includes.

 

*	Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and
Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions
(functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the
preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages
adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro"
(swollow) in Latin)
*	When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the
beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more
quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used
to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because,
orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends
to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb
stem. (example, "give up")
*	While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a
tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a
phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has
become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester
continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all).
Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the
unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the
meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points
out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal
verb in Latin!)
*	Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference
between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For
example,

          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun
phrase object)

          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial
prepositional phrase)

   

          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal
verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.

*	Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look
down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
*	Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from
traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin
literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions
couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes
phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
*	Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable
and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions
that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example,
"I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up").
Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved
(example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I
depend it on").
*	As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a
separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the
preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never
*"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with
some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this
sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a
preposition.

Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!

 

Regards,

 

John Alexander

Austin, Texas

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, 24 Mar 2009 13:54:55 -0700
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:         "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview)
In-Reply-To:  A<[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I looked for his book as possible text since I don't like the book I am
using, but I couldn't find it.  Who publishes it?

Thanks

Janet

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Beason
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview)

I'm a little biased because I've co-authored a grammar handbook with
Mark Lester, but I've used his Grammar in the Classroom for many years
and found it effective as well.  I can tell you that indeed he wrote it
so that it would match pretty well with traditional grammar instruction,
though he also adds various twists on it.

One problem deals with a few production errors in terms of typos, esp in
the answer key.  Not all the corrections he made were actually put into
the book, even in a printing that came out a couple of years ago.

Larry Beason

Larry Beason
Associate Professor & Composition Director
Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
Univ. of South Alabama
Mobile AL 36688
(251) 460-7861

>>> "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> 03/24/09 11:52 AM >>>
John,

 

I've used Lester's book a number of times in a course here for future
English teachers. Overall, I'd say there's one major problem with it,
but otherwise it's extremely good. The problem is that he doesn't make a
clear form/function distinction. I'm not sure why he doesn't - it could
be that he's trying to stick to the K-12 school grammar tradition, which
is understandable, but the lack of that distinction is one of the things
that constantly causes problems for anyone trying to teach the material
("You said only nouns could be plural, but in 'accounts receivable,' the
adjective is"). 

 

The book is so good in other respects that I've continued to use it,
using handouts to deal with the form/function distinction. But, of
course, then the students get annoyed because I'm disagreeing with the
textbook, and I get annoyed with them because the last thing future
teachers should do is view a textbook (or their instructor's comments!)
as Holy Writ.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Spruiell

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview

 

Greetings, ATEGers!

 

Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark
Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't
discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to
anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your
classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a
reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and
uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for
teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your
experiences.

 

I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal
verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic
students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive
facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal
verbs that Lester includes.

 

*	Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and
Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions
(functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the
preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages
adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro"
(swollow) in Latin)
*	When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the
beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more
quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used
to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because,
orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends
to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb
stem. (example, "give up")
*	While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a
tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a
phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has
become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester
continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all).
Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the
unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the
meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points
out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal
verb in Latin!)
*	Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference
between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For
example,

          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun
phrase object)

          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial
prepositional phrase)

   

          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal
verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.

*	Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look
down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
*	Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from
traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin
literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions
couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes
phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
*	Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable
and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions
that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example,
"I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up").
Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved
(example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I
depend it on").
*	As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a
separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the
preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never
*"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with
some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this
sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a
preposition.

Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!

 

Regards,

 

John Alexander

Austin, Texas

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, 24 Mar 2009 16:10:37 -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:         Larry Beason <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview)
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

The publisher is Allyn and Bacon.

Larry Beason
Associate Professor & Composition Director
Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
Univ. of South Alabama
Mobile AL 36688
(251) 460-7861

>>> "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]> 03/24/09 3:54 PM >>>
I looked for his book as possible text since I don't like the book I am
using, but I couldn't find it.  Who publishes it?

Thanks

Janet

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Beason
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview)

I'm a little biased because I've co-authored a grammar handbook with
Mark Lester, but I've used his Grammar in the Classroom for many years
and found it effective as well.  I can tell you that indeed he wrote it
so that it would match pretty well with traditional grammar instruction,
though he also adds various twists on it.

One problem deals with a few production errors in terms of typos, esp in
the answer key.  Not all the corrections he made were actually put into
the book, even in a printing that came out a couple of years ago.

Larry Beason

Larry Beason
Associate Professor & Composition Director
Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
Univ. of South Alabama
Mobile AL 36688
(251) 460-7861

>>> "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> 03/24/09 11:52 AM >>>
John,

 

I've used Lester's book a number of times in a course here for future
English teachers. Overall, I'd say there's one major problem with it,
but otherwise it's extremely good. The problem is that he doesn't make a
clear form/function distinction. I'm not sure why he doesn't - it could
be that he's trying to stick to the K-12 school grammar tradition, which
is understandable, but the lack of that distinction is one of the things
that constantly causes problems for anyone trying to teach the material
("You said only nouns could be plural, but in 'accounts receivable,' the
adjective is"). 

 

The book is so good in other respects that I've continued to use it,
using handouts to deal with the form/function distinction. But, of
course, then the students get annoyed because I'm disagreeing with the
textbook, and I get annoyed with them because the last thing future
teachers should do is view a textbook (or their instructor's comments!)
as Holy Writ.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Spruiell

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview

 

Greetings, ATEGers!

 

Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark
Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't
discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to
anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your
classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a
reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and
uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for
teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your
experiences.

 

I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal
verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic
students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive
facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal
verbs that Lester includes.

 

*	Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and
Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions
(functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the
preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages
adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro"
(swollow) in Latin)
*	When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the
beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more
quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used
to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because,
orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends
to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb
stem. (example, "give up")
*	While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a
tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a
phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has
become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester
continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all).
Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the
unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the
meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points
out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal
verb in Latin!)
*	Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference
between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For
example,

          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun
phrase object)

          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial
prepositional phrase)

   

          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal
verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.

*	Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look
down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
*	Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from
traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin
literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions
couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes
phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
*	Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable
and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions
that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example,
"I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up").
Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved
(example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I
depend it on").
*	As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a
separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the
preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never
*"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with
some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this
sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a
preposition.

Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!

 

Regards,

 

John Alexander

Austin, Texas

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:         Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:37:15 -0700
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:         "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview)
In-Reply-To:  A<[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks!

Janet

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Beason
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 2:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview)

The publisher is Allyn and Bacon.

Larry Beason
Associate Professor & Composition Director
Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
Univ. of South Alabama
Mobile AL 36688
(251) 460-7861

>>> "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]> 03/24/09 3:54 PM >>>
I looked for his book as possible text since I don't like the book I am
using, but I couldn't find it.  Who publishes it?

Thanks

Janet

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Beason
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview)

I'm a little biased because I've co-authored a grammar handbook with
Mark Lester, but I've used his Grammar in the Classroom for many years
and found it effective as well.  I can tell you that indeed he wrote it
so that it would match pretty well with traditional grammar instruction,
though he also adds various twists on it.

One problem deals with a few production errors in terms of typos, esp in
the answer key.  Not all the corrections he made were actually put into
the book, even in a printing that came out a couple of years ago.

Larry Beason

Larry Beason
Associate Professor & Composition Director
Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
Univ. of South Alabama
Mobile AL 36688
(251) 460-7861

>>> "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> 03/24/09 11:52 AM >>>
John,

 

I've used Lester's book a number of times in a course here for future
English teachers. Overall, I'd say there's one major problem with it,
but otherwise it's extremely good. The problem is that he doesn't make a
clear form/function distinction. I'm not sure why he doesn't - it could
be that he's trying to stick to the K-12 school grammar tradition, which
is understandable, but the lack of that distinction is one of the things
that constantly causes problems for anyone trying to teach the material
("You said only nouns could be plural, but in 'accounts receivable,' the
adjective is"). 

 

The book is so good in other respects that I've continued to use it,
using handouts to deal with the form/function distinction. But, of
course, then the students get annoyed because I'm disagreeing with the
textbook, and I get annoyed with them because the last thing future
teachers should do is view a textbook (or their instructor's comments!)
as Holy Writ.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Spruiell

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview

 

Greetings, ATEGers!

 

Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark
Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't
discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to
anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your
classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a
reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and
uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for
teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your
experiences.

 

I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal
verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic
students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive
facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal
verbs that Lester includes.

 

*	Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and
Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions
(functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the
preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages
adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro"
(swollow) in Latin)
*	When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the
beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more
quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used
to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because,
orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends
to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb
stem. (example, "give up")
*	While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a
tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a
phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has
become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester
continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all).
Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the
unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the
meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points
out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal
verb in Latin!)
*	Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference
between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For
example,

          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun
phrase object)

          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial
prepositional phrase)

   

          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal
verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.

*	Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look
down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
*	Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from
traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin
literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions
couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes
phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
*	Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable
and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions
that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example,
"I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up").
Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved
(example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I
depend it on").
*	As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a
separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the
preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never
*"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with
some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this
sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a
preposition.

Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!

 

Regards,

 

John Alexander

Austin, Texas

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
"Join or leave the list" 

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ 


To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html 
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html 
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html 
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
========================================================================Date:         Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:42:41 -0700
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:         "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: query on the use of the word got
In-Reply-To:  A<[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9ACC9.756798AB"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9ACC9.756798AB
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am unclear on why you think this is ungrammatical.  It seems
acceptable to me. What is bothering you about it?  I know a lot of
people complain when 'got' is used as an auxiliary:  'My dog got killed
by the car.'  This usage seems to be so much a part of the language that
I doubt anything can be done about it.  I tell my students that 'got' is
the illegitimate child of the helping verb family.

 

Janet

 

________________________________

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ciervo, Frank
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 6:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: query on the use of the word got

 

Isn't this a good example of very poor usage? Unless my memory is very
bad, it would have been cause for points off in my freshmen composition
class. A sad commentary on the state of news writing in 2009

 

But Farley noted that bill sponsor Assemblyman Peter Abbate Jr.,
D-Brooklyn, hasn't yet gotten a Democrat to introduce the bill in the
Senate. The Democrats won control of the Senate this year.

 

-------------------------------------------------------

Note: Replying to a Listserv posting. 

When responding to a meeting notice or transmitting an individual
request for information, please e-mail me directly at [log in to unmask]
  and not all recipients. Thank you.

---------------------------------
Frank J. Ciervo
Director of Bar Services
518.487-5540 (phone)
518.487-5699 (fax)
[log in to unmask]

 

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_01C9ACC9.756798AB
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
















I am unclear on why you think this is ungrammatical. 
It seems acceptable to me. What is bothering you about it?  I know a lot of people
complain when ‘got’ is used as an auxiliary:  ‘My dog got
killed by the car.’  This usage seems to be so much a part of the
language that I doubt anything can be done about it.  I tell my students that ‘got’
is the illegitimate child of the helping verb family.

 

Janet

 









From: Assembly for
 the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Ciervo, Frank

Sent: Tuesday, March 24,
2009 6:20 AM

To:
[log in to unmask]

Subject: query on the use of the
word got



 

Isn’t this a good
example of very poor usage? Unless my memory is very bad,
it would have been cause for points off in my freshmen composition class. A sad
commentary on the state of news writing in 2009

 

But Farley noted that bill
sponsor Assemblyman Peter Abbate Jr.,
D-Brooklyn, hasn’t yet gotten a Democrat to
introduce the bill in the Senate. The Democrats won control of the Senate this
year.

 

-------------------------------------------------------

Note:
Replying to a Listserv
posting. 

When responding to a meeting notice or transmitting an
individual request for information,
please e-mail me directly at [log in to unmask] and not all
recipients. Thank you.

---------------------------------

Frank J. Ciervo

Director of Bar Services

518.487-5540 (phone)

518.487-5699 (fax)

[log in to unmask]

 






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_01C9ACC9.756798AB--
========================================================================Date:         Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:05:54 -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:         Lorraine Wallace <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: I and me questions
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

What I'm really frustrated by -- and am hearing more and more -- is the use of reflexive pronouns in the subject or object position:  

e.g.  My brother and myself traveled to China last summer.
        The package was delivered to him and myself.

Ugh!  Anyone else bothered?  Again, I think it's a matter of "hypercorrection."

Lorraine



>>> "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> 3/23/2009 11:12 AM >>>
Edith,

 

There are attested examples of object forms in compound subjects going
back a very, very long time, so it's certainly not a new phenomenon.
Parallel to the system that distinguishes subject and object on the
basis of their grammatical function, there's always been a tendency to
use a fast strategy of using "I" at the beginning of a clause, and "me"
everywhere else (or even "me" anywhere the pronoun isn't standing alone
immediately before the verb). I'm not sure if "between you and I" is
increasing in frequency - I suspect it is, but I know I heard it a fair
amount in my youth -  but it's another longstanding hypercorrection. Of
course, students who don't know what subjects, objects, and prepositions
are (I mean "consciously know about" here) lack the means to figure out
it's a hypercorrection, and the shift away from explicit grammar
instruction has increased the number of students in that category. 

 

What I have noticed as being relatively recent is the proliferation of
"myself" forms in the same contexts, perhaps as a midpoint in the
"correction-hypercorrection" scale (recognizing that "I/me" s a
potential problem and using a third option to try to dodge it). 

 

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English

Central Michigan University

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wollin, Edith
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 12:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: I and me questions

 

Here are some questions for the group from a colleague. I think they
fall in the recent-history-of-the-language category:

) Was there a specific period in the last 30-40 years where "people"
began

to notice a proliferation of "me" used in the subject - especially
compound

subjects ("John and me will be late") and began an "education campaign"
to

correct it?  If so, how did the "word" get out (newspaper articles, word
of

mouth, increased emphasis in K-12/college) that people needed to be more

conscious/clean up this part of their grammar?

B) Is there any opinion or evidence that a sudden realization of the

improper use of "me" instead of "I" in compound subjects led (via

overcorrection or other means) to the seemingly recent proliferation of
the

use of "I" in a compound (or even singular) form in the indirect

object/subject of the preposition? Eg: "The chocolate cake was a
surprise

for my sister and me."

C) Any concrete examples of this overcorrection making its way into

mainstream media (Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Larry King, Oprah, etc.)?

My own take on this is I started hearing "between you and I" from even
highly educated people in the 80s. I attributed it to hypercorrection
mixed with a lack of grammar instruction that would have cued people to
know when to use the objective and when the subjective. It's been in
this decade that I've heard the I moving to the indirect object and to
the objective of prep and subject of infinitive places when it is a
compound and even sometimes when it is not a compound.

Edith Wollin

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, 24 Mar 2009 17:14:43 -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:         Amanda Dill <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: query on the use of the word got
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--000e0cd47c6ece76410465e4b529
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

According to Bryan Gardner's *Dictionary of Modern American Usage*, the past
participle 'gotten' predominates in AmE, whereas 'got' is used in BrE.
Amanda Dill
Co-Vice President, Literati
East Central University Ada, OK


On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Ciervo, Frank <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  Isn’t this a good example of very poor usage? Unless my memory is very
> bad, it would have been cause for points off in my freshmen composition
> class. A sad commentary on the state of news writing in 2009
>
>
>
> But Farley noted that bill sponsor Assemblyman Peter Abbate Jr., D-Brooklyn
> *, hasn’t yet gotten* a Democrat to introduce the bill in the Senate. The
> Democrats won control of the Senate this year.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Note*:* Replying to a* *Listserv posting.
>
> *When responding to a meeting notice or transmitting an individual request
> for information, please e-mail me directly at [log in to unmask]** and not
> all recipients.* *Thank you.*
>
> ---------------------------------
> Frank J. Ciervo
> Director of Bar Services
> 518.487-5540 (phone)
> 518.487-5699 (fax)
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>  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/

--000e0cd47c6ece76410465e4b529
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

According to Bryan Gardner's Dictionary of Modern American Usage, the past participle 'gotten' predominates in AmE, whereas 'got' is used in BrE. 
Amanda Dill
Co-Vice President, Literati

East Central University Ada, OK


On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Ciervo, Frank <[log in to unmask]> wrote:














Isn’t this a good example
of very poor usage? Unless my memory is very bad, it would have been cause for
points off in my freshmen composition class. A sad commentary on the state of
news writing in 2009

 

But Farley noted that bill
sponsor Assemblyman Peter Abbate Jr., D-Brooklyn, hasn’t yet gotten a Democrat to introduce the bill in
the Senate. The Democrats won control of the Senate this year.

 

-------------------------------------------------------

Note:
Replying to a Listserv
posting. 

When responding to a meeting notice or transmitting an
individual request for information, please e-mail me directly at [log in to unmask] and not all
recipients. Thank you.

---------------------------------

Frank J. Ciervo

Director of Bar Services

518.487-5540 (phone)

518.487-5699 (fax)

[log in to unmask]

 






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/

--000e0cd47c6ece76410465e4b529--
========================================================================Date:         Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:16:50 -0700
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: query on the use of the word got
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1164230405-1237936610=:51312"

--0-1164230405-1237936610=:51312
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

--- On Tue, 3/24/09, Castilleja, Janet <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
 I tell my students that �got’ is the illegitimate child of the helping verb family.
 
You go on to explain that they should not use it when writing Standard English, don't you?
 
You tell 'em, "My dog was killed by the car", when they write about it, don't you? Sure you do. There IS something that can be done about it. 'Tain't hopelus uh'tall, even in Chicago.
 
 
From: Castilleja, Janet <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: query on the use of the word got
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 5:42 PM









I am unclear on why you think this is ungrammatical.  It seems acceptable to me. What is bothering you about it?  I know a lot of people complain when �got’ is used as an auxiliary:  �My dog got killed by the car.’  This usage seems to be so much a part of the language that I doubt anything can be done about it.  I tell my students that �got’ is the illegitimate child of the helping verb family.
 
Janet
 




From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ciervo , Frank
Sent: Tuesday , March 24 , 2009 6:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: query on the use of the word got
 
Isn’t this a good example of very poor usage? Unless my memory is very bad , it would have been cause for points off in my freshmen composition class. A sad commentary on the state of news writing in 2009
 
But Farley noted that bill sponsor Assemblyman Peter Abbate Jr. , D-Brooklyn, hasn’t yet gotten a Democrat to introduce the bill in the Senate. The Democrats won control of the Senate this year.
 


      

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/
--0-1164230405-1237936610=:51312
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

--- On Tue, 3/24/09, Castilleja, Janet <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
 I tell my students that �got’ is the illegitimate child of the helping verb family.
 
You go on to explain that they should not use it when writing Standard English, don't you?
 
You tell 'em, "My dog was killed by the car", when they write about it, don't you? Sure you do. There IS something that can be done about it. 'Tain't hopelus uh'tall, even in Chicago.
 
 
From: Castilleja, Janet <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: query on the use of the word got
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 5:42 PM







I am unclear on why you think this is ungrammatical.  It seems acceptable to me. What is bothering you about it?  I know a lot of people complain when â€�got’ is used as an auxiliary:  â€�My dog got killed by the car.’  This usage seems to be so much a part of the language that I doubt anything can be done about it.  I tell my students that â€�got’ is the illegitimate child of the helping verb family.
 
Janet
 




From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ciervo , Frank
Sent: Tuesday , March 24 , 2009 6:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: query on the use of the word got
 
Isn’t this a good example of very poor usage? Unless my memory is very bad , it would have been cause for points off in my freshmen composition class. A sad commentary on the state of news writing in 2009
 
But Farley noted that bill sponsor Assemblyman Peter Abbate Jr. , D-Brooklyn, hasn’t yet gotten a Democrat to introduce the bill in the Senate. The Democrats won control of the Senate this year.
 



      
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/
--0-1164230405-1237936610=:51312--
========================================================================Date:         Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:36:38 -0400
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: query on the use of the word got
In-Reply-To:  A<[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9ACD9.6103ECF8"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9ACD9.6103ECF8
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------_=_NextPart_001_01C9ACD9.6103ECF8
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------_=_NextPart_001_01C9ACD9.6103ECF8--
========================================================================Date:         Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:40:50 -0400
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: I and me questions
In-Reply-To:  A<[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It's also bureaucratese, of course. The same people will tell you that a
computer program utilizes functionalities instead of using functions. I
can take that for about ten minutes before I snap and ask them if
they've eatulated their lunchifications yet. We're seeing a convergence
of motivations we'd rather people not have. 


Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lorraine Wallace
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 6:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: I and me questions

What I'm really frustrated by -- and am hearing more and more -- is the
use of reflexive pronouns in the subject or object position:  

e.g.  My brother and myself traveled to China last summer.
        The package was delivered to him and myself.

Ugh!  Anyone else bothered?  Again, I think it's a matter of
"hypercorrection."

Lorraine



>>> "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> 3/23/2009 11:12 AM >>>
Edith,

 

There are attested examples of object forms in compound subjects going
back a very, very long time, so it's certainly not a new phenomenon.
Parallel to the system that distinguishes subject and object on the
basis of their grammatical function, there's always been a tendency to
use a fast strategy of using "I" at the beginning of a clause, and "me"
everywhere else (or even "me" anywhere the pronoun isn't standing alone
immediately before the verb). I'm not sure if "between you and I" is
increasing in frequency - I suspect it is, but I know I heard it a fair
amount in my youth -  but it's another longstanding hypercorrection. Of
course, students who don't know what subjects, objects, and prepositions
are (I mean "consciously know about" here) lack the means to figure out
it's a hypercorrection, and the shift away from explicit grammar
instruction has increased the number of students in that category. 

 

What I have noticed as being relatively recent is the proliferation of
"myself" forms in the same contexts, perhaps as a midpoint in the
"correction-hypercorrection" scale (recognizing that "I/me" s a
potential problem and using a third option to try to dodge it). 

 

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English

Central Michigan University

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wollin, Edith
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 12:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: I and me questions

 

Here are some questions for the group from a colleague. I think they
fall in the recent-history-of-the-language category:

) Was there a specific period in the last 30-40 years where "people"
began

to notice a proliferation of "me" used in the subject - especially
compound

subjects ("John and me will be late") and began an "education campaign"
to

correct it?  If so, how did the "word" get out (newspaper articles, word
of

mouth, increased emphasis in K-12/college) that people needed to be more

conscious/clean up this part of their grammar?

B) Is there any opinion or evidence that a sudden realization of the

improper use of "me" instead of "I" in compound subjects led (via

overcorrection or other means) to the seemingly recent proliferation of
the

use of "I" in a compound (or even singular) form in the indirect

object/subject of the preposition? Eg: "The chocolate cake was a
surprise

for my sister and me."

C) Any concrete examples of this overcorrection making its way into

mainstream media (Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Larry King, Oprah, etc.)?

My own take on this is I started hearing "between you and I" from even
highly educated people in the 80s. I attributed it to hypercorrection
mixed with a lack of grammar instruction that would have cued people to
know when to use the objective and when the subjective. It's been in
this decade that I've heard the I moving to the indirect object and to
the objective of prep and subject of infinitive places when it is a
compound and even sometimes when it is not a compound.

Edith Wollin

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, 24 Mar 2009 17:17:49 -0700
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:         "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: query on the use of the word got
In-Reply-To:  A<[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9ACDF.21852F8B"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9ACDF.21852F8B
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I tell them English teachers don't approve of it.  I'm not sure that
makes it wrong, exactly.

 

Janet

 

________________________________

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 4:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: query on the use of the word got

 

--- On Tue, 3/24/09, Castilleja, Janet <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

 

I tell my students that 'got' is the illegitimate child of the helping
verb family.

 

You go on to explain that they should not use it when writing Standard
English, don't you?

 

You tell 'em, "My dog was killed by the car", when they write about it,
don't you? Sure you do. There IS something that can be done about it.
'Tain't hopelus uh'tall, even in Chicago.

 

 

From: Castilleja, Janet <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: query on the use of the word got
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 5:42 PM

	I am unclear on why you think this is ungrammatical.  It seems
acceptable to me. What is bothering you about it?  I know a lot of
people complain when 'got' is used as an auxiliary:  'My dog got killed
by the car.'  This usage seems to be so much a part of the language that
I doubt anything can be done about it.  I tell my students that 'got' is
the illegitimate child of the helping verb family.

	 

	Janet

 

________________________________

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ciervo , Frank
Sent: Tuesday , March 24 , 2009 6:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: query on the use of the word got

 

Isn't this a good example of very poor usage? Unless my memory is very
bad , it would have been cause for points off in my freshmen composition
class. A sad commentary on the state of news writing in 2009

 

But Farley noted that bill sponsor Assemblyman Peter Abbate Jr. ,
D-Brooklyn, hasn't yet gotten a Democrat to introduce the bill in the
Senate. The Democrats won control of the Senate this year.

 


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_01C9ACDF.21852F8B
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


















I tell them English teachers don’t approve
of it.  I’m not sure that makes it wrong,
exactly.

 

Janet

 







From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Brad Johnston

Sent: Tuesday, March 24,
2009 4:17 PM

To:
[log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: query on the use of
the word got

 


 

  

  

  
--- On Tue, 3/24/09,
  Castilleja,
   Janet <[log in to unmask]>
  wrote:
  
  

  
 
  
  

  
I tell my students that ‘got’ is the
  illegitimate child of the helping verb family.
  
  
 
  

  
You go on to explain that they should
  not use it when writing Standard English,
  don't you?
  
  

  
 
  
  

  
You tell 'em,
  "My dog was killed by the car", when
  they write about it, don't you?
  Sure you do. There IS something that can be done about it. 'Tain't hopelus
  uh'tall, even in Chicago.
  
  

  
 
  
  

  
 
  
  

  
From:
  Castilleja,
   Janet <[log in to unmask]>

  Subject: Re: query on the use of the word got

To: [log in to unmask]

  Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2009,
  5:42 PM
  
  

  

  

  
I am unclear on why you think this is ungrammatical.  It
  seems acceptable to me. What is bothering you about it?  I know a lot of
  people complain when ‘got’ is used as an auxiliary:  ‘My dog got killed
  by the car.’  This usage seems to be so much a part of the language that
  I doubt anything can be done about it.  I tell my students that ‘got’ is
  the illegitimate child of the helping verb family.
  
  
 
  
  
Janet
  
  
 
  

  

  

  
  
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
  [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
  Of Ciervo , Frank

  Sent: Tuesday , March 24 ,
  2009 6:20 AM

To:
  [log in to unmask]

  Subject: query on the use of the
  word got
  
  
 
  
Isn’t this a good example of very
  poor usage? Unless my memory is very bad ,
  it would have been cause for points off in my freshmen composition class. A
  sad commentary on the state of news writing in 2009
  
 
  
But Farley noted that bill sponsor
  Assemblyman Peter Abbate Jr. ,
  D-Brooklyn, hasn’t yet gotten a Democrat to
  introduce the bill in the Senate. The Democrats won control of the Senate
  this year.
  
 
  
 




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_01C9ACDF.21852F8B--
========================================================================Date:         Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:37:01 -0400
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 <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Between you and I; RE: ATEG Digest - 21 Mar 2009 to 23 Mar 2009
              (#2009-64)
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Admittedly I am from an older generation than many on list; however,
I did not hear "between you and I" from students above 7th grade--much
less from "highly educated people."  Then again, most of my contacts
lately are either from the Deep South or are very interested in language(s).

My sixth-grade English teacher was not a structural linguistic--she went to
college in the 30s--however, she led us into understanding phrasal verbs
and distinguishing prepositions from particles by the mobility of the
particle.

I must confess that I had a professor in 1960 with a PhD in Creative Writing
who did not know that 'bases' was the plural of 'basis' and I reckon a PhD
is considered "highly educated"; however, he was not from the Deep South.

Scott Catledge



-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 12:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 21 Mar 2009 to 23 Mar 2009 (#2009-64)

There are 4 messages totalling 1312 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. I and me questions (2)
  2. Phrasal Verb Overview (2)

My own take on this is I started hearing "between you and I" from even
highly educated people in the 80s. I attributed it to hypercorrection
mixed with a lack of grammar instruction that would have cued people to
know when to use the objective and when the subjective. It's been in
this decade that I've heard the I moving to the indirect object and to
the objective of prep and subject of infinitive places when it is a
compound and even sometimes when it is not a compound.

Edith Wollin

   - Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable and
   inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions that
can
   be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example, "I gave up
the
   game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up"). Inseparable phrasal
verbs
   have prepositions that cannot be moved (example, "I depend on the income"
vs
   *"I depend the income on" or *"I depend it on").
   - As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a separable
   transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the preposition is
   obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never *"I gave up
it."
   (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with some clunky
   construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this sense, it is
actually
   *ungrammatical* to NOT end a sentence with a preposition.

Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!

Regards,

John Alexander
Austin, Texas

**********************************************************

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, 24 Mar 2009 22:13:37 -0400
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: Between you and I; RE: ATEG Digest - 21 Mar 2009 to 23 Mar
              2009 (#2009-64)
In-Reply-To:  <010701c9ace1$d1f36c60$6501a8c0@leordinateur>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

The three are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Herb, from pretty far north.

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: 2009-03-24 20:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Between you and I; RE: ATEG Digest - 21 Mar 2009 to 23 Mar 2009 (#2009-64)

Admittedly I am from an older generation than many on list; however,
I did not hear "between you and I" from students above 7th grade--much
less from "highly educated people."  Then again, most of my contacts
lately are either from the Deep South or are very interested in language(s).

My sixth-grade English teacher was not a structural linguistic--she went to
college in the 30s--however, she led us into understanding phrasal verbs
and distinguishing prepositions from particles by the mobility of the
particle.

I must confess that I had a professor in 1960 with a PhD in Creative Writing
who did not know that 'bases' was the plural of 'basis' and I reckon a PhD
is considered "highly educated"; however, he was not from the Deep South.

Scott Catledge



-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 12:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 21 Mar 2009 to 23 Mar 2009 (#2009-64)

There are 4 messages totalling 1312 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. I and me questions (2)
  2. Phrasal Verb Overview (2)

My own take on this is I started hearing "between you and I" from even
highly educated people in the 80s. I attributed it to hypercorrection
mixed with a lack of grammar instruction that would have cued people to
know when to use the objective and when the subjective. It's been in
this decade that I've heard the I moving to the indirect object and to
the objective of prep and subject of infinitive places when it is a
compound and even sometimes when it is not a compound.

Edith Wollin

   - Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable and
   inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions that
can
   be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example, "I gave up
the
   game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up"). Inseparable phrasal
verbs
   have prepositions that cannot be moved (example, "I depend on the income"
vs
   *"I depend the income on" or *"I depend it on").
   - As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a separable
   transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the preposition is
   obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never *"I gave up
it."
   (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with some clunky
   construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this sense, it is
actually
   *ungrammatical* to NOT end a sentence with a preposition.

Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!

Regards,

John Alexander
Austin, Texas

**********************************************************

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, 25 Mar 2009 15:44:50 -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:         Gerald Walton <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Phrasal Verb Overview
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask] .org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="=====================_252593781==.ALT"

--=====================_252593781==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Pence and Emery call them "verb + adverb" and "verb + preposition" 
combinations, making a clear distinction between adverbs and 
prepositions used thus:
"Sometimes an adverb such as up, down, in, out, is so closely welded 
to a preceding verb that a following substantive is really the object 
of the verb plus the adverb rather than of the verb alone." Says can 
easily be switched to passive voice. Uses examples "He put down the 
rebellion in short order," "I  have closed out my business," and 
"They have put off the play." Position of down can be shifted; 
position of out may be shifted, etc.

They then say essentially the same thing about "verb + preposition 
combinations." preposition "is almost a suffix of the verb." "...some 
intransitive verbs become transitive when such a preposition is 
closely welded to them...." Gives these examples;
They laughed at me
I cannot put up with your conduct any longer

Gerald

At 02:56 PM 3/24/2009, Bruce Despain wrote:
>My personal preference is adverbial particle and prepositional 
>particle. These terms are probably due to our grounding in 
>traditional grammar and its parts of speech. The term "determiner" 
>has been split out of the traditional "limiting adjective." Particle 
>seems to do the same sort of thing, but applies to several classes.
>
>Bruce
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar 
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Beth Young
>Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 1:30 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Phrasal Verb Overview
>
>I guess I would call any multi-word verb a phrasal verb, whether it 
>used adverb-like words or preposition-like words. Is there another, 
>better descriptor for them? "Phrasal verb" confuses my students 
>sometimes because it is similar to "verb phrase" (i.e., created by T 
>+ m + (be + -ing) + (have + -en) + MV).
>
>Beth
>
> >>> "Veit, Richard" <[log in to unmask]> 3/24/2009 10:58 AM >>>
>I have another question for ATEGers. A phrasal verb typically 
>consists of a verb-word and a preposition-word. But what about those 
>two-word predicates such as "look forward" and "put forth" where the 
>second word is neither a preposition-word nor separable from the 
>verb-word? Do we call them "phrasal verbs" as well?
>
>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>and select "Join or leave the list"
>
>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
>  NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended 
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged 
> information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or 
> distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, 
> please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of 
> the original message.
>
>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>and select "Join or leave the list"
>
>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

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/

--=====================_252593781==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"



Pence and Emery call them "verb + adverb" and "verb +
preposition" combinations, making a clear distinction between
adverbs and prepositions used thus:

"Sometimes an adverb such as up, down, in, out, is so closely
welded to a preceding verb that a following substantive is really the
object of the verb plus the adverb rather than of the verb alone."
Says can easily be switched to passive voice. Uses examples "He put
down the rebellion in short order," "I  have closed out my
business," and "They have put off the play." Position of
down can be shifted; position of out may be shifted, etc.


They then say essentially the same thing about "verb + preposition
combinations." preposition "is almost a suffix of the
verb." "...some intransitive verbs become transitive when such
a preposition is closely welded to them...." Gives these
examples;

They laughed at me

I cannot put up with your conduct any longer


Gerald


At 02:56 PM 3/24/2009, Bruce Despain wrote:

My personal preference is
adverbial particle and prepositional particle.  These terms are probably
due to our grounding in traditional grammar and its parts of speech.  The
term "determiner" has been split out of the traditional
"limiting adjective."  Particle seems to do the same sort of
thing, but applies to several classes.  


Bruce


-----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:         Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:16:26 -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 Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Phrasal Verb Overview
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--000e0cd6ae24e77df70465fa86da
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Wow, Herb, thanks for pointing that out. In class we actually did kind of
dead end ourselves with that exact issue (why is this ungrammatical?). I
didn't have an answer although I thought it must be governed by some other
level of language. I hadn't considered discourse/prosodic constraints yet. I
can't wait to get back to class with an answer!

John

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:14 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

>  John,
>
>
>
> I’m glad you found Lester’s book useful.  I’ve used it as a reference
> often, but, with some regret, I’ve never used it as a text, maybe because by
> the time that edition came out I’d stopped using textbooks in my grammar
> classes and started using The Oxford English Grammar with lots of handouts.
>
>
>
> I will add just one comment to your excellent summary.  I learned the
> object pronoun wrinkle a long time ago as you have described it in your last
> bullet.  It was sometime later that I realized that that word order is an
> artifact of discourse pragmatics.  If the DO is a pronoun, it’s generally
> old information and therefore unstressed and reduced.  The result is that it
> can’t carry the tonic accent of the sentence, and so the particle, which you
> note is generally stressed is placed finally to bear that accent.  It’s a
> nice instance of discourse function influencing sentence-level syntax.
>
>
>
> Herb
>
>
>
> *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *John Dews-Alexander
> *Sent:* 2009-03-23 20:00
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Phrasal Verb Overview
>
>
>
> Greetings, ATEGers!
>
>
>
> Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark
> Lester's (1990) *Grammar in the Classroom*. I'm not sure why I haven't
> discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to
> anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your classroom,
> you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a reference text.
> I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and uncluttered. Has anyone
> actually used this as a classroom text for teachers-in-training? If so, I'd
> be interested to hear about your experiences.
>
>
>
> I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal
> verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic students
> but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive facts. I thought
> I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal verbs that Lester
> includes.
>
>
>
>    - Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and Germanic
>    languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions (functional
>    words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the preposition to the
>    beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages adding them to the end.
>    (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro" (swollow) in Latin)
>    - When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the
>    beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more quickly
>    and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used to be a
>    phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because, orthographically, it is
>    written without a space. However, English tends to leave the space when the
>    preposition is added to the end of the verb stem. (example, "give up")
>    - While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a tensed
>    verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a phrasal
>    verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has become
>    attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester continues to call
>    it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all). Lester points out a fun
>    test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the unit with a single word
>    (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the meaning? In this case, "I
>    give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points out the irony in the fact
>    that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal verb in Latin!)
>    - Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference between
>    a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For example,
>
>            John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun
> phrase object)
>
>           John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial
> prepositional phrase)
>
>
>
>           Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal
> verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.
>
>    - Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look down
>    on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
>    - Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from traditional
>    school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin literally means "to
>    place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions couldn't be connected
>    to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes phrasal verbs were treated as
>    idioms.
>    - Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable and
>    inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions that can
>    be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example, "I gave up the
>    game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up"). Inseparable phrasal verbs
>    have prepositions that cannot be moved (example, "I depend on the income" vs
>    *"I depend the income on" or *"I depend it on").
>    - As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a
>    separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the
>    preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never *"I
>    gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with some
>    clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this sense, it is
>    actually *ungrammatical* to NOT end a sentence with a preposition.
>
>  Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> John Alexander
>
> Austin, Texas
>
> 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/

--000e0cd6ae24e77df70465fa86da
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Wow, Herb, thanks for pointing that out. In class we actually did kind of dead end ourselves with that exact issue (why is this ungrammatical?). I didn't have an answer although I thought it must be governed by some other level of language. I hadn't considered discourse/prosodic constraints yet. I can't wait to get back to class with an answer!

 
John


On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:14 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:




John,
 
I’m glad you found Lester’s book useful.  I’ve used it as a reference often, but, with some regret, I’ve never used it as a text, maybe because by the time that edition came out I’d stopped using textbooks in my grammar classes and started using The Oxford English Grammar with lots of handouts.

 
I will add just one comment to your excellent summary.  I learned the object pronoun wrinkle a long time ago as you have described it in your last bullet.  It was sometime later that I realized that that word order is an artifact of discourse pragmatics.  If the DO is a pronoun, it’s generally old information and therefore unstressed and reduced.  The result is that it can’t carry the tonic accent of the sentence, and so the particle, which you note is generally stressed is placed finally to bear that accent.  It’s a nice instance of discourse function influencing sentence-level syntax.

 
Herb
 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander

Sent: 2009-03-23 20:00
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview



 

Greetings, ATEGers!

 

Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your experiences.


 

I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal verbs that Lester includes.


 

Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions (functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro" (swollow) in Latin)

When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because, orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb stem. (example, "give up")

While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all). Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal verb in Latin!)

Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For example,

          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun phrase object)

          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial prepositional phrase)

   

          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.

Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.

Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example, "I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up"). Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved (example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I depend it on").

As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never *"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a preposition.


Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!

 

Regards,

 

John Alexander

Austin, Texas
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/

--000e0cd6ae24e77df70465fa86da--
========================================================================Date:         Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:22:34 -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 Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Phrasal Verb Overview
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--000e0cd403327284d00465fb73af
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Richard, thanks for pointing this out. I lifted it straight from Lester's
text without giving it enough thought.

I agree with you that it does seem easy to think of "depend on coffee" as a
separable phrasal verb when you put it that way, but I think it must be in
the gray area, perhaps transitioning from one category to another because I
find the evidence to point to it as an inseparable phrasal verb unless I'm
approaching this incorrectly.

I think that what your example is pointing out (which is likely your main
point) is that there are even more granular subsets of phrasal verbs within
the larger categories of "separable" and "inseparable." Your example seems
to support that "depend on" is a phrasal verb because even in your
transformation of the sentence "coffee" remains the object of the verb and
not a modifier. However, while Lester calls it "inseparable," your
construction shows that it can be separated.

a. I depend on coffee.
b. *I depend coffee on. (Lester's text seems to use this as evidence that
the phrasal verb is inseparable.)
c. Coffee is a drug I depend on. (a version of your construction that keeps
the phrasal verb intact)
d. Coffee is a drug on which I depend. (your construction that separates the
phrasal verb)
e. I depend on it.
f. *I depend it on. (since no obligatory movement, evidence for phrasal verb
as inseparable)

The same pattern is seen with a phrasal verb like "vote on":

a. The committee voted on the motion.
b. *The committee voted the motion on.
c. The motion is an initiative the committee voted on.
d. The motion is an initiative on which the committee voted.
e. The committee voted on it.
f. *The committee voted it on.

Both of these phrasal verbs are described by non-native dictionaries that I
have as inseparable phrasal verbs (I suspect so that learners of English
won't make ungrammatical statements such as "b" and "f" in both examples
above.)

Then there's the example you give of "give up," which you call inseparable
but that I find to be truly separable:

a. I gave up coffee
b. I gave coffee up.
c. Coffee is a drug I gave up.
d. (?)(*)Coffee is a drug up which I gave.
e. *I gave up it.
f. I gave it up. (pronoun movement is obligatory which supports separable
phrasal verb).

So, we have an interesting pattern. Phrasal verbs that are typically
considered inseparable can separate in a specific construction. Is this just
because of prescriptive rules against ending a sentence with a
"preposition" that forced us to into another structure?

Or perhaps there's more to it since a traditionally separable phrasal verb
cannot be easily separated in the same structure. Isn't this odd and the
opposite of what we'd expect? Maybe there's another discourse constraint
happening here that I can't quite see.

My guess right now is that there are sub-classes of phrasal verbs that may
be able to account for this pattern; in any case, the sub-class distinctions
are likely ones I'd avoid in my classroom at everything but the most
advanced levels.

John

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Veit, Richard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> John,
>
> In your penultimate bullet below, "depend on" does feel like an
> "inseparable phrasal verb," but there is one bit of evidence that "on" is a
> true preposition:
>
>  *
> I depend on coffee.
>  *
> Coffee is a drug on which I depend.
>
> Compare that with a true phrasal verb:
>
>  *   I gave up coffee.
>  *   *Coffee is a drug up which I gave.
>
> A similar example of a seeming but debatable phrasal verb is "call on" as
> in "Willy calls on a dozen accounts each day." There are real "inseparable
> phrasal verbs" such as "come by" ("McDuck came by his wealth honestly"), but
> I wonder whether "depend on" and "call on" are among them.
>
>
>
> I have another question for ATEGers. A phrasal verb typically consists of a
> verb-word and a preposition-word. But what about those two-word predicates
> such as "look forward" and "put forth" where the second word is neither a
> preposition-word nor separable from the verb-word? Do we call them "phrasal
> verbs" as well?
>
>
>
> Dick Veit
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander [
> [log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:59 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview
>
> Greetings, ATEGers!
>
> Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark
> Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't
> discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to
> anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your classroom,
> you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a reference text.
> I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and uncluttered. Has anyone
> actually used this as a classroom text for teachers-in-training? If so, I'd
> be interested to hear about your experiences.
>
> I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal
> verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic students
> but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive facts. I thought
> I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal verbs that Lester
> includes.
>
>
>  *   Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and Germanic
> languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions (functional
> words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the preposition to the
> beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages adding them to the end.
> (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro" (swollow) in Latin)
>  *   When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the beginning
> of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more quickly and easily
> recognized as a new word; people forget that it used to be a phrasal
> verb/verb +preposition combination because, orthographically, it is written
> without a space. However, English tends to leave the space when the
> preposition is added to the end of the verb stem. (example, "give up")
>  *   While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a tensed
> verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a phrasal
> verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has become
> attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester continues to call
> it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all). Lester points out a fun
> test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the unit with a single word
> (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the meaning? In this case, "I
> give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points out the irony in the fact
> that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal verb in Latin!)
>  *   Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference between
> a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For example,
>
>          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun phrase
> object)
>          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial
> prepositional phrase)
>
>          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal verbs
> the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.
>
>  *   Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look down
> on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
>  *   Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from traditional
> school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin literally means "to
> place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions couldn't be connected
> to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes phrasal verbs were treated as
> idioms.
>  *   Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable and
> inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions that can
> be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example, "I gave up the
> game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up"). Inseparable phrasal verbs
> have prepositions that cannot be moved (example, "I depend on the income" vs
> *"I depend the income on" or *"I depend it on").
>  *   As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a separable
> transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the preposition is
> obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never *"I gave up it."
> (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with some clunky
> construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this sense, it is actually
> ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a preposition.
>
> Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!
>
> Regards,
>
> John Alexander
> Austin, Texas
>  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/

--000e0cd403327284d00465fb73af
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Richard, thanks for pointing this out. I lifted it straight from Lester's text without giving it enough thought.
 
I agree with you that it does seem easy to think of "depend on coffee" as a separable phrasal verb when you put it that way, but I think it must be in the gray area, perhaps transitioning from one category to another because I find the evidence to point to it as an inseparable phrasal verb unless I'm approaching this incorrectly.

 
I think that what your example is pointing out (which is likely your main point) is that there are even more granular subsets of phrasal verbs within the larger categories of "separable" and "inseparable." Your example seems to support that "depend on" is a phrasal verb because even in your transformation of the sentence "coffee" remains the object of the verb and not a modifier. However, while Lester calls it "inseparable," your construction shows that it can be separated. 

 
a. I depend on coffee.
b. *I depend coffee on. (Lester's text seems to use this as evidence that the phrasal verb is inseparable.)
c. Coffee is a drug I depend on. (a version of your construction that keeps the phrasal verb intact)
d. Coffee is a drug on which I depend. (your construction that separates the phrasal verb)
e. I depend on it.
f. *I depend it on. (since no obligatory movement, evidence for phrasal verb as inseparable)
 
The same pattern is seen with a phrasal verb like "vote on":
 
a. The committee voted on the motion.
b. *The committee voted the motion on.
c. The motion is an initiative the committee voted on.
d. The motion is an initiative on which the committee voted.
e. The committee voted on it.
f. *The committee voted it on.
 
Both of these phrasal verbs are described by non-native dictionaries that I have as inseparable phrasal verbs (I suspect so that learners of English won't make ungrammatical statements such as "b" and "f" in both examples above.)

 
Then there's the example you give of "give up," which you call inseparable but that I find to be truly separable:
 
a. I gave up coffee
b. I gave coffee up.
c. Coffee is a drug I gave up.
d. (?)(*)Coffee is a drug up which I gave.
e. *I gave up it. 
f. I gave it up. (pronoun movement is obligatory which supports separable phrasal verb).
 
So, we have an interesting pattern. Phrasal verbs that are typically considered inseparable can separate in a specific construction. Is this just because of prescriptive rules against ending a sentence with a "preposition" that forced us to into another structure?

 
Or perhaps there's more to it since a traditionally separable phrasal verb cannot be easily separated in the same structure. Isn't this odd and the opposite of what we'd expect? Maybe there's another discourse constraint happening here that I can't quite see.

 
My guess right now is that there are sub-classes of phrasal verbs that may be able to account for this pattern; in any case, the sub-class distinctions are likely ones I'd avoid in my classroom at everything but the most advanced levels.

 
John


On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Veit, Richard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

John,

In your penultimate bullet below, "depend on" does feel like an "inseparable phrasal verb," but there is one bit of evidence that "on" is a true preposition:


 *
I depend on coffee.
 *
Coffee is a drug on which I depend.

Compare that with a true phrasal verb:

 *   I gave up coffee.
 *   *Coffee is a drug up which I gave.

A similar example of a seeming but debatable phrasal verb is "call on" as in "Willy calls on a dozen accounts each day." There are real "inseparable phrasal verbs" such as "come by" ("McDuck came by his wealth honestly"), but I wonder whether "depend on" and "call on" are among them.




I have another question for ATEGers. A phrasal verb typically consists of a verb-word and a preposition-word. But what about those two-word predicates such as "look forward" and "put forth" where the second word is neither a preposition-word nor separable from the verb-word? Do we call them "phrasal verbs" as well?




Dick Veit



________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander [[log in to unmask]]

Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:59 PM

To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview




Greetings, ATEGers!

Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your experiences.


I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal verbs that Lester includes.



 *   Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions (functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro" (swollow) in Latin)

 *   When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because, orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb stem. (example, "give up")

 *   While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all). Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal verb in Latin!)

 *   Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For example,

         John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun phrase object)

         John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial prepositional phrase)

         Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.


 *   Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
 *   Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.

 *   Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example, "I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up"). Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved (example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I depend it on").

 *   As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never *"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a preposition.


Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!

Regards,

John Alexander
Austin, Texas



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/

--000e0cd403327284d00465fb73af--
========================================================================Date:         Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:05:46 -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 Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: query on the use of the word got
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--000e0cd47c6ef2cb280465fc0d1c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Like others who have chimed in on this construction, I find it somewhat
informal and more likely to crop up in colloquial speech. I think it's a
perfectly fine sentence with a perfectly well-constructed verb string. "Get"
is a Germanic verb, and you'd probably be more comfortable with a
Latin-related verb since those tend to be more formal and eloquent (thank
you Norman conquest), but, again, that is really a matter of style and not
usage per se.

I would note that "get" seems to be a bit more "neutral" semantically (and
in news writing objectivity is key or so I'm told) than some alternative
like "obtained," "persuaded," "convinced," etc. Perhaps the news writer was
trying to avoid coloring the sentence at all with a different verb (although
a restructuring may have served better).

John Alexander

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Ciervo, Frank <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  Isn’t this a good example of very poor usage? Unless my memory is very
> bad, it would have been cause for points off in my freshmen composition
> class. A sad commentary on the state of news writing in 2009
>
>
>
> But Farley noted that bill sponsor Assemblyman Peter Abbate Jr., D-Brooklyn
> *, hasn’t yet gotten* a Democrat to introduce the bill in the Senate. The
> Democrats won control of the Senate this year.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Note*:* Replying to a* *Listserv posting.
>
> *When responding to a meeting notice or transmitting an individual request
> for information, please e-mail me directly at [log in to unmask]** and not
> all recipients.* *Thank you.*
>
> ---------------------------------
> Frank J. Ciervo
> Director of Bar Services
> 518.487-5540 (phone)
> 518.487-5699 (fax)
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> 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/

--000e0cd47c6ef2cb280465fc0d1c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Like others who have chimed in on this construction, I find it somewhat informal and more likely to crop up in colloquial speech. I think it's a perfectly fine sentence with a perfectly well-constructed verb string. "Get" is a Germanic verb, and you'd probably be more comfortable with a Latin-related verb since those tend to be more formal and eloquent (thank you Norman conquest), but, again, that is really a matter of style and not usage per se.

 
I would note that "get" seems to be a bit more "neutral" semantically (and in news writing objectivity is key or so I'm told) than some alternative like "obtained," "persuaded," "convinced," etc. Perhaps the news writer was trying to avoid coloring the sentence at all with a different verb (although a restructuring may have served better).

 
John Alexander


On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Ciervo, Frank <[log in to unmask]> wrote:




Isn’t this a good example of very poor usage? Unless my memory is very bad, it would have been cause for points off in my freshmen composition class. A sad commentary on the state of news writing in 2009

 
But Farley noted that bill sponsor Assemblyman Peter Abbate Jr., D-Brooklyn, hasn’t yet gotten a Democrat to introduce the bill in the Senate. The Democrats won control of the Senate this year.

 
-------------------------------------------------------
Note: Replying to a Listserv posting. 

When responding to a meeting notice or transmitting an individual request for information, please e-mail me directly at [log in to unmask] and not all recipients. Thank you.

---------------------------------
Frank J. Ciervo

Director of Bar Services
518.487-5540 (phone)
518.487-5699 (fax)
[log in to unmask]

 
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/

--000e0cd47c6ef2cb280465fc0d1c--
========================================================================Date:         Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:28:48 -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 Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: I and me questions
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--00151750e1844859e90465fc6008
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

James Cochrane wrote a short book/handbook called *Between You and I: A
Little Book of Bad English* and claimed that the subject/object pronoun
swapping started in the 70s due to hypercorrection. However, I don't think
that is true. I have seen many examples of this going very far back to the
beginning of Modern English. I've heard that Shakespeare used both "between
you and I" and "between you and me" and that this may have been common
during this time period.

There have been great discussions on this list about why this confusion
occurs as English grows less dependent on case marking for meaning. Herb
offered an explanation once that took into account discourse/information
structuring pressures, but I'm not having any luck finding it in the ATEG
listserv archives.

John Alexander

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Wollin, Edith <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

>  Here are some questions for the group from a colleague. I think they fall
> in the recent-history-of-the-language category:
>
> ) Was there a specific period in the last 30-40 years where "people" began
>
> to notice a proliferation of "me" used in the subject - especially compound
>
> subjects ("John and me will be late") and began an "education campaign" to
>
> correct it?  If so, how did the "word" get out (newspaper articles, word of
>
> mouth, increased emphasis in K-12/college) that people needed to be more
>
> conscious/clean up this part of their grammar?
>
> B) Is there any opinion or evidence that a sudden realization of the
>
> improper use of "me" instead of "I" in compound subjects led (via
>
> overcorrection or other means) to the seemingly recent proliferation of the
>
> use of "I" in a compound (or even singular) form in the indirect
>
> object/subject of the preposition? Eg: "The chocolate cake was a surprise
>
> for my sister and me."
>
> C) Any concrete examples of this overcorrection making its way into
>
> mainstream media (Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Larry King, Oprah, etc.)?
>
> My own take on this is I started hearing “between you and I” from even
> highly educated people in the 80s. I attributed it to hypercorrection mixed
> with a lack of grammar instruction that would have cued people to know
> when to use the objective and when the subjective. It’s been in this
> decade that I’ve heard the I moving to the indirect object and to the
> objective of prep and subject of infinitive places when it is a compound and
> even sometimes when it is not a compound.
>
> Edith Wollin
> 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/

--00151750e1844859e90465fc6008
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

James Cochrane wrote a short book/handbook called Between You and I: A Little Book of Bad English and claimed that the subject/object pronoun swapping started in the 70s due to hypercorrection. However, I don't think that is true. I have seen many examples of this going very far back to the beginning of Modern English. I've heard that Shakespeare used both "between you and I" and "between you and me" and that this may have been common during this time period. 

 
There have been great discussions on this list about why this confusion occurs as English grows less dependent on case marking for meaning. Herb offered an explanation once that took into account discourse/information structuring pressures, but I'm not having any luck finding it in the ATEG listserv archives.

 
John Alexander


On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Wollin, Edith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:



Here are some questions for the group from a colleague. I think they fall in the recent-history-of-the-language category:

) Was there a specific period in the last 30-40 years where "people" began
to notice a proliferation of "me" used in the subject - especially compound
subjects ("John and me will be late") and began an "education campaign" to
correct it?  If so, how did the "word" get out (newspaper articles, word of
mouth, increased emphasis in K-12/college) that people needed to be more
conscious/clean up this part of their grammar?
B) Is there any opinion or evidence that a sudden realization of the
improper use of "me" instead of "I" in compound subjects led (via
overcorrection or other means) to the seemingly recent proliferation of the
use of "I" in a compound (or even singular) form in the indirect
object/subject of the preposition? Eg: "The chocolate cake was a surprise
for my sister and me."
C) Any concrete examples of this overcorrection making its way into
mainstream media (Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Larry King, Oprah, etc.)?

My own take on this is I started hearing “between you and I” from even highly educated people in the 80s. I attributed it to hypercorrection mixed with a lack of grammar instruction that would have cued people to know when to use the objective and when the subjective. It’s been in this decade that I’ve heard the I moving to the indirect object and to the objective of prep and subject of infinitive places when it is a compound and even sometimes when it is not a compound.


Edith Wollin
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/

--00151750e1844859e90465fc6008--
========================================================================Date:         Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:36:58 -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 Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview)
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--000e0cd47b267924420465fc7dee
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Bill,

Thanks! As I read through the whole text, I notice exactly the lack of form
and function explanation that you point out. I've always considered that
crucial for any grammar course I teach since it changed the way I look at
grammar. Lester says this on page 3 of his text:

"A word of caution: part of speech resides in the way that a word is used;
it is not inherent in the word itself. For example, the names of concrete,
everyday objects such as *table, chair,*  and *book* would seem to be
inherently nouns, but in the following sentences they are used as verbs.
   The committee tabled the motion.
   Mr. Smith chaired the meeting.
   A travel agent booked the ticket for me.
Consequently, we must be careful to discuss a word's part of speech in terms
of the context in which it is used. Beware of talking about the part of
speech of a word used in isolation."

That allows him to allude to the form/function distinction throughout
without discussing at length how we can examine morphological form and
prototypical word categories as distinct from syntactic and discourse
function. Sly on his part and perhaps not a bad approach for his audience,
but I'd probably supplement the text with some of Martha Kolln's work just
to enhance that perspective.

John Alexander

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

>  John,
>
>
>
> I’ve used Lester’s book a number of times in a course here for future
> English teachers. Overall, I’d say there’s one major problem with it, but
> otherwise it’s extremely good. The problem is that he doesn’t make a clear
> form/function distinction. I’m not sure *why* he doesn’t – it could be
> that he’s trying to stick to the K-12 school grammar tradition, which is
> understandable, but the lack of that distinction is one of the things that
> constantly causes problems for anyone trying to teach the material (“You
> said only nouns could be plural, but in ‘accounts receivable,’ the adjective
> is”).
>
>
>
> The book is so good in other respects that I’ve continued to use it, using
> handouts to deal with the form/function distinction. But, of course, then
> the students get annoyed because I’m disagreeing with the textbook, and I
> get annoyed with them because the last thing future teachers should do is
> view a textbook (or their instructor’s comments!) as Holy Writ.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Bill Spruiell
>
>
>
> *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *John Dews-Alexander
> *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2009 8:00 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Phrasal Verb Overview
>
>
>
> Greetings, ATEGers!
>
>
>
> Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark
> Lester's (1990) *Grammar in the Classroom*. I'm not sure why I haven't
> discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to
> anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your classroom,
> you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a reference text.
> I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and uncluttered. Has anyone
> actually used this as a classroom text for teachers-in-training? If so, I'd
> be interested to hear about your experiences.
>
>
>
> I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal
> verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic students
> but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive facts. I thought
> I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal verbs that Lester
> includes.
>
>
>
>    - Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and Germanic
>    languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions (functional
>    words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the preposition to the
>    beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages adding them to the end.
>    (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro" (swollow) in Latin)
>    - When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the
>    beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more quickly
>    and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used to be a
>    phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because, orthographically, it is
>    written without a space. However, English tends to leave the space when the
>    preposition is added to the end of the verb stem. (example, "give up")
>    - While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a tensed
>    verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a phrasal
>    verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has become
>    attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester continues to call
>    it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all). Lester points out a fun
>    test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the unit with a single word
>    (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the meaning? In this case, "I
>    give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points out the irony in the fact
>    that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal verb in Latin!)
>    - Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference between
>    a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For example,
>
>            John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun
> phrase object)
>
>           John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial
> prepositional phrase)
>
>
>
>           Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal
> verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.
>
>    - Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look down
>    on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
>    - Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from traditional
>    school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin literally means "to
>    place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions couldn't be connected
>    to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes phrasal verbs were treated as
>    idioms.
>    - Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable and
>    inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions that can
>    be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example, "I gave up the
>    game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up"). Inseparable phrasal verbs
>    have prepositions that cannot be moved (example, "I depend on the income" vs
>    *"I depend the income on" or *"I depend it on").
>    - As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a
>    separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the
>    preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never *"I
>    gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with some
>    clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this sense, it is
>    actually *ungrammatical* to NOT end a sentence with a preposition.
>
>  Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> John Alexander
>
> Austin, Texas
>
> 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/

--000e0cd47b267924420465fc7dee
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Bill,
 
Thanks! As I read through the whole text, I notice exactly the lack of form and function explanation that you point out. I've always considered that crucial for any grammar course I teach since it changed the way I look at grammar. Lester says this on page 3 of his text:

 
"A word of caution: part of speech resides in the way that a word is used; it is not inherent in the word itself. For example, the names of concrete, everyday objects such as table, chair,  and book would seem to be inherently nouns, but in the following sentences they are used as verbs.

   The committee tabled the motion.
   Mr. Smith chaired the meeting.
   A travel agent booked the ticket for me.
Consequently, we must be careful to discuss a word's part of speech in terms of the context in which it is used. Beware of talking about the part of speech of a word used in isolation."
 
That allows him to allude to the form/function distinction throughout without discussing at length how we can examine morphological form and prototypical word categories as distinct from syntactic and discourse function. Sly on his part and perhaps not a bad approach for his audience, but I'd probably supplement the text with some of Martha Kolln's work just to enhance that perspective.

 
John Alexander


On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:




John,
 
I’ve used Lester’s book a number of times in a course here for future English teachers. Overall, I’d say there’s one major problem with it, but otherwise it’s extremely good. The problem is that he doesn’t make a clear form/function distinction. I’m not sure why he doesn’t – it could be that he’s trying to stick to the K-12 school grammar tradition, which is understandable, but the lack of that distinction is one of the things that constantly causes problems for anyone trying to teach the material (“You said only nouns could be plural, but in ‘accounts receivable,’ the adjective is”). 

 
The book is so good in other respects that I’ve continued to use it, using handouts to deal with the form/function distinction. But, of course, then the students get annoyed because I’m disagreeing with the textbook, and I get annoyed with them because the last thing future teachers should do is view a textbook (or their instructor’s comments!) as Holy Writ.

 
Sincerely,
 
Bill Spruiell
 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander

Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview
 

Greetings, ATEGers!

 

Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your experiences.


 

I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal verbs that Lester includes.


 

Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions (functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro" (swollow) in Latin)

When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because, orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb stem. (example, "give up")

While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all). Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal verb in Latin!)

Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For example,

          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun phrase object)

          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial prepositional phrase)

   

          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.

Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.

Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example, "I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up"). Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved (example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I depend it on").

As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never *"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a preposition.


Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!

 

Regards,

 

John Alexander

Austin, Texas
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/

--000e0cd47b267924420465fc7dee--
========================================================================Date:         Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:42:07 -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 Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview)
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--000e0cd303bcec39f60465fc8f4e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The copy I have of *Grammar in the Classroom* (1990) by Mark Lester is
published by Macmillan Publishing Company, a Simon & Schuster Company.
However, it seems to be out of print.

It appears that he has a newer text called *Grammar and Usage in the
Classroom* (2000) that is published by Longman. Perhaps this is the same
text but revised and updated (and here I am gabbing on about an out of print
text all this time, tsk tsk).

Larry, I don't see a Lester grammar text published by Allyn and Bacon. Am I
missing one? If so, I'd love to look at it!

John Alexander

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Larry Beason <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The publisher is Allyn and Bacon.
>
> Larry Beason
> Associate Professor & Composition Director
> Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
> Univ. of South Alabama
> Mobile AL 36688
> (251) 460-7861
>
> >>> "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]> 03/24/09 3:54 PM >>>
>  I looked for his book as possible text since I don't like the book I am
> using, but I couldn't find it.  Who publishes it?
>
> Thanks
>
> Janet
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Beason
> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:39 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview)
>
> I'm a little biased because I've co-authored a grammar handbook with
> Mark Lester, but I've used his Grammar in the Classroom for many years
> and found it effective as well.  I can tell you that indeed he wrote it
> so that it would match pretty well with traditional grammar instruction,
> though he also adds various twists on it.
>
> One problem deals with a few production errors in terms of typos, esp in
> the answer key.  Not all the corrections he made were actually put into
> the book, even in a printing that came out a couple of years ago.
>
> Larry Beason
>
> Larry Beason
> Associate Professor & Composition Director
> Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
> Univ. of South Alabama
> Mobile AL 36688
> (251) 460-7861
>
> >>> "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> 03/24/09 11:52 AM >>>
> John,
>
>
>
> I've used Lester's book a number of times in a course here for future
> English teachers. Overall, I'd say there's one major problem with it,
> but otherwise it's extremely good. The problem is that he doesn't make a
> clear form/function distinction. I'm not sure why he doesn't - it could
> be that he's trying to stick to the K-12 school grammar tradition, which
> is understandable, but the lack of that distinction is one of the things
> that constantly causes problems for anyone trying to teach the material
> ("You said only nouns could be plural, but in 'accounts receivable,' the
> adjective is").
>
>
>
> The book is so good in other respects that I've continued to use it,
> using handouts to deal with the form/function distinction. But, of
> course, then the students get annoyed because I'm disagreeing with the
> textbook, and I get annoyed with them because the last thing future
> teachers should do is view a textbook (or their instructor's comments!)
> as Holy Writ.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Bill Spruiell
>
>
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:00 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview
>
>
>
> Greetings, ATEGers!
>
>
>
> Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark
> Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't
> discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to
> anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your
> classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a
> reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and
> uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for
> teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your
> experiences.
>
>
>
> I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal
> verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic
> students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive
> facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal
> verbs that Lester includes.
>
>
>
> *       Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and
> Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions
> (functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the
> preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages
> adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro"
> (swollow) in Latin)
> *       When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the
> beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more
> quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used
> to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because,
> orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends
> to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb
> stem. (example, "give up")
> *       While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a
> tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a
> phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has
> become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester
> continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all).
> Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the
> unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the
> meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points
> out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal
> verb in Latin!)
> *       Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference
> between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For
> example,
>
>          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun
> phrase object)
>
>          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial
> prepositional phrase)
>
>
>
>          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal
> verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.
>
> *       Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look
> down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
> *       Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from
> traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin
> literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions
> couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes
> phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
> *       Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable
> and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions
> that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example,
> "I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up").
> Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved
> (example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I
> depend it on").
> *       As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a
> separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the
> preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never
> *"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with
> some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this
> sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a
> preposition.
>
> Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> John Alexander
>
> Austin, Texas
>
> 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/

--000e0cd303bcec39f60465fc8f4e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The copy I have of Grammar in the Classroom (1990) by Mark Lester is published by Macmillan Publishing Company, a Simon & Schuster Company. However, it seems to be out of print. 
 
It appears that he has a newer text called Grammar and Usage in the Classroom (2000) that is published by Longman. Perhaps this is the same text but revised and updated (and here I am gabbing on about an out of print text all this time, tsk tsk).

 
Larry, I don't see a Lester grammar text published by Allyn and Bacon. Am I missing one? If so, I'd love to look at it!
 
John Alexander


On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Larry Beason <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

The publisher is Allyn and Bacon.


Larry Beason
Associate Professor & Composition Director
Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
Univ. of South Alabama
Mobile AL 36688
(251) 460-7861

>>> "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]> 03/24/09 3:54 PM >>>




I looked for his book as possible text since I don't like the book I am
using, but I couldn't find it.  Who publishes it?

Thanks

Janet

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar

[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Beason
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview)

I'm a little biased because I've co-authored a grammar handbook with
Mark Lester, but I've used his Grammar in the Classroom for many years

and found it effective as well.  I can tell you that indeed he wrote it
so that it would match pretty well with traditional grammar instruction,
though he also adds various twists on it.

One problem deals with a few production errors in terms of typos, esp in

the answer key.  Not all the corrections he made were actually put into
the book, even in a printing that came out a couple of years ago.

Larry Beason

Larry Beason
Associate Professor & Composition Director

Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
Univ. of South Alabama
Mobile AL 36688
(251) 460-7861

>>> "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> 03/24/09 11:52 AM >>>

John,



I've used Lester's book a number of times in a course here for future
English teachers. Overall, I'd say there's one major problem with it,
but otherwise it's extremely good. The problem is that he doesn't make a

clear form/function distinction. I'm not sure why he doesn't - it could
be that he's trying to stick to the K-12 school grammar tradition, which
is understandable, but the lack of that distinction is one of the things

that constantly causes problems for anyone trying to teach the material
("You said only nouns could be plural, but in 'accounts receivable,' the
adjective is").



The book is so good in other respects that I've continued to use it,

using handouts to deal with the form/function distinction. But, of
course, then the students get annoyed because I'm disagreeing with the
textbook, and I get annoyed with them because the last thing future
teachers should do is view a textbook (or their instructor's comments!)

as Holy Writ.



Sincerely,



Bill Spruiell



From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander

Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview



Greetings, ATEGers!



Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark

Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't
discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to
anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your

classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a
reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and
uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for
teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your

experiences.



I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal
verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic
students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive

facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal
verbs that Lester includes.



*       Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and
Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions

(functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the
preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages
adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro"

(swollow) in Latin)
*       When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the
beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more
quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used

to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because,
orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends
to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb
stem. (example, "give up")

*       While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a
tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a
phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has

become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester
continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all).
Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the

unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the
meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points
out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal

verb in Latin!)
*       Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference
between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For
example,

         John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun

phrase object)

         John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial
prepositional phrase)



         Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal
verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.


*       Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look
down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
*       Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from
traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin

literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions
couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes
phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
*       Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable

and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions
that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example,
"I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up").

Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved
(example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I
depend it on").
*       As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a

separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the
preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never
*"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with

some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this
sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a
preposition.

Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!




Regards,



John Alexander

Austin, Texas

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/

--000e0cd303bcec39f60465fc8f4e--
========================================================================Date:         Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:51:16 -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:         Larry Beason <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview)
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

These publishers keep buying each other and changing names, but I'm pretty certain that the Allyn and Bacon printing I have is now the same as the Longman, which I think bought out Allyn & Bacon.

Larry

Larry Beason
Associate Professor & Composition Director
Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
Univ. of South Alabama
Mobile AL 36688
(251) 460-7861
>>> John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> 03/25/09 9:47 PM >>>
The copy I have of *Grammar in the Classroom* (1990) by Mark Lester is
published by Macmillan Publishing Company, a Simon & Schuster Company.
However, it seems to be out of print.

It appears that he has a newer text called *Grammar and Usage in the
Classroom* (2000) that is published by Longman. Perhaps this is the same
text but revised and updated (and here I am gabbing on about an out of print
text all this time, tsk tsk).

Larry, I don't see a Lester grammar text published by Allyn and Bacon. Am I
missing one? If so, I'd love to look at it!

John Alexander

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Larry Beason <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The publisher is Allyn and Bacon.
>
> Larry Beason
> Associate Professor & Composition Director
> Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
> Univ. of South Alabama
> Mobile AL 36688
> (251) 460-7861
>
> >>> "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]> 03/24/09 3:54 PM >>>
>  I looked for his book as possible text since I don't like the book I am
> using, but I couldn't find it.  Who publishes it?
>
> Thanks
>
> Janet
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Beason
> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:39 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview)
>
> I'm a little biased because I've co-authored a grammar handbook with
> Mark Lester, but I've used his Grammar in the Classroom for many years
> and found it effective as well.  I can tell you that indeed he wrote it
> so that it would match pretty well with traditional grammar instruction,
> though he also adds various twists on it.
>
> One problem deals with a few production errors in terms of typos, esp in
> the answer key.  Not all the corrections he made were actually put into
> the book, even in a printing that came out a couple of years ago.
>
> Larry Beason
>
> Larry Beason
> Associate Professor & Composition Director
> Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
> Univ. of South Alabama
> Mobile AL 36688
> (251) 460-7861
>
> >>> "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> 03/24/09 11:52 AM >>>
> John,
>
>
>
> I've used Lester's book a number of times in a course here for future
> English teachers. Overall, I'd say there's one major problem with it,
> but otherwise it's extremely good. The problem is that he doesn't make a
> clear form/function distinction. I'm not sure why he doesn't - it could
> be that he's trying to stick to the K-12 school grammar tradition, which
> is understandable, but the lack of that distinction is one of the things
> that constantly causes problems for anyone trying to teach the material
> ("You said only nouns could be plural, but in 'accounts receivable,' the
> adjective is").
>
>
>
> The book is so good in other respects that I've continued to use it,
> using handouts to deal with the form/function distinction. But, of
> course, then the students get annoyed because I'm disagreeing with the
> textbook, and I get annoyed with them because the last thing future
> teachers should do is view a textbook (or their instructor's comments!)
> as Holy Writ.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Bill Spruiell
>
>
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:00 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview
>
>
>
> Greetings, ATEGers!
>
>
>
> Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark
> Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't
> discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to
> anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your
> classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a
> reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and
> uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for
> teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your
> experiences.
>
>
>
> I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal
> verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic
> students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive
> facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal
> verbs that Lester includes.
>
>
>
> *       Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and
> Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions
> (functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the
> preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages
> adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro"
> (swollow) in Latin)
> *       When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the
> beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more
> quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used
> to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because,
> orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends
> to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb
> stem. (example, "give up")
> *       While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a
> tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a
> phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has
> become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester
> continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all).
> Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the
> unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the
> meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points
> out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal
> verb in Latin!)
> *       Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference
> between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For
> example,
>
>          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun
> phrase object)
>
>          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial
> prepositional phrase)
>
>
>
>          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal
> verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.
>
> *       Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look
> down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
> *       Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from
> traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin
> literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions
> couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes
> phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
> *       Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable
> and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions
> that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example,
> "I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up").
> Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved
> (example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I
> depend it on").
> *       As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a
> separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the
> preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never
> *"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with
> some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this
> sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a
> preposition.
>
> Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> John Alexander
>
> Austin, Texas
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
> "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
========================================================================Date:         Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:18:56 -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:         John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview)
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary
--0015174becfc9076e50465fd13eb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thanks, Larry. Looks like you're right. There have been lots of merges, and
somewhere along the way Allyn and Bacon became a part of Merrill and
eventually Longman.

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Larry Beason <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> These publishers keep buying each other and changing names, but I'm pretty
> certain that the Allyn and Bacon printing I have is now the same as the
> Longman, which I think bought out Allyn & Bacon.
>
> Larry
>
> Larry Beason
> Associate Professor & Composition Director
> Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
> Univ. of South Alabama
> Mobile AL 36688
> (251) 460-7861
> >>> John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> 03/25/09 9:47 PM >>>
>  The copy I have of *Grammar in the Classroom* (1990) by Mark Lester is
> published by Macmillan Publishing Company, a Simon & Schuster Company.
> However, it seems to be out of print.
>
> It appears that he has a newer text called *Grammar and Usage in the
> Classroom* (2000) that is published by Longman. Perhaps this is the same
> text but revised and updated (and here I am gabbing on about an out of
> print
> text all this time, tsk tsk).
>
> Larry, I don't see a Lester grammar text published by Allyn and Bacon. Am I
> missing one? If so, I'd love to look at it!
>
> John Alexander
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Larry Beason <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > The publisher is Allyn and Bacon.
> >
> > Larry Beason
> > Associate Professor & Composition Director
> > Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
> > Univ. of South Alabama
> > Mobile AL 36688
> > (251) 460-7861
> >
> > >>> "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]> 03/24/09 3:54 PM >>>
> >  I looked for his book as possible text since I don't like the book I am
> > using, but I couldn't find it.  Who publishes it?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Janet
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Beason
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:39 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview)
> >
> > I'm a little biased because I've co-authored a grammar handbook with
> > Mark Lester, but I've used his Grammar in the Classroom for many years
> > and found it effective as well.  I can tell you that indeed he wrote it
> > so that it would match pretty well with traditional grammar instruction,
> > though he also adds various twists on it.
> >
> > One problem deals with a few production errors in terms of typos, esp in
> > the answer key.  Not all the corrections he made were actually put into
> > the book, even in a printing that came out a couple of years ago.
> >
> > Larry Beason
> >
> > Larry Beason
> > Associate Professor & Composition Director
> > Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
> > Univ. of South Alabama
> > Mobile AL 36688
> > (251) 460-7861
> >
> > >>> "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> 03/24/09 11:52 AM >>>
> > John,
> >
> >
> >
> > I've used Lester's book a number of times in a course here for future
> > English teachers. Overall, I'd say there's one major problem with it,
> > but otherwise it's extremely good. The problem is that he doesn't make a
> > clear form/function distinction. I'm not sure why he doesn't - it could
> > be that he's trying to stick to the K-12 school grammar tradition, which
> > is understandable, but the lack of that distinction is one of the things
> > that constantly causes problems for anyone trying to teach the material
> > ("You said only nouns could be plural, but in 'accounts receivable,' the
> > adjective is").
> >
> >
> >
> > The book is so good in other respects that I've continued to use it,
> > using handouts to deal with the form/function distinction. But, of
> > course, then the students get annoyed because I'm disagreeing with the
> > textbook, and I get annoyed with them because the last thing future
> > teachers should do is view a textbook (or their instructor's comments!)
> > as Holy Writ.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> >
> >
> > Bill Spruiell
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
> > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:00 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview
> >
> >
> >
> > Greetings, ATEGers!
> >
> >
> >
> > Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark
> > Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't
> > discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to
> > anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your
> > classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a
> > reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and
> > uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for
> > teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your
> > experiences.
> >
> >
> >
> > I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal
> > verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic
> > students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive
> > facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal
> > verbs that Lester includes.
> >
> >
> >
> > *       Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and
> > Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions
> > (functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the
> > preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages
> > adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro"
> > (swollow) in Latin)
> > *       When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the
> > beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more
> > quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used
> > to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because,
> > orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends
> > to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb
> > stem. (example, "give up")
> > *       While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a
> > tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a
> > phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has
> > become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester
> > continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all).
> > Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the
> > unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the
> > meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points
> > out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal
> > verb in Latin!)
> > *       Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference
> > between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For
> > example,
> >
> >          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun
> > phrase object)
> >
> >          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial
> > prepositional phrase)
> >
> >
> >
> >          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal
> > verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.
> >
> > *       Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look
> > down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
> > *       Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from
> > traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin
> > literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions
> > couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes
> > phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
> > *       Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable
> > and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions
> > that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example,
> > "I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up").
> > Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved
> > (example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I
> > depend it on").
> > *       As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a
> > separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the
> > preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never
> > *"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with
> > some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this
> > sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a
> > preposition.
> >
> > Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > John Alexander
> >
> > Austin, Texas
> >
> > 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/

--0015174becfc9076e50465fd13eb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks, Larry. Looks like you're right. There have been lots of merges, and somewhere along the way Allyn and Bacon became a part of Merrill and eventually Longman.


On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Larry Beason <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

These publishers keep buying each other and changing names, but I'm pretty certain that the Allyn and Bacon printing I have is now the same as the Longman, which I think bought out Allyn & Bacon.


Larry


Larry Beason
Associate Professor & Composition Director
Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
Univ. of South Alabama
Mobile AL 36688
(251) 460-7861
>>> John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> 03/25/09 9:47 PM >>>




The copy I have of *Grammar in the Classroom* (1990) by Mark Lester is
published by Macmillan Publishing Company, a Simon & Schuster Company.
However, it seems to be out of print.

It appears that he has a newer text called *Grammar and Usage in the

Classroom* (2000) that is published by Longman. Perhaps this is the same
text but revised and updated (and here I am gabbing on about an out of print
text all this time, tsk tsk).

Larry, I don't see a Lester grammar text published by Allyn and Bacon. Am I

missing one? If so, I'd love to look at it!

John Alexander

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Larry Beason <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The publisher is Allyn and Bacon.

>
> Larry Beason
> Associate Professor & Composition Director
> Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
> Univ. of South Alabama
> Mobile AL 36688
> (251) 460-7861
>
> >>> "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]> 03/24/09 3:54 PM >>>

>  I looked for his book as possible text since I don't like the book I am
> using, but I couldn't find it.  Who publishes it?
>
> Thanks
>
> Janet
>
> -----Original Message-----

> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Beason
> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:39 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]

> Subject: Re: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview)
>
> I'm a little biased because I've co-authored a grammar handbook with
> Mark Lester, but I've used his Grammar in the Classroom for many years

> and found it effective as well.  I can tell you that indeed he wrote it
> so that it would match pretty well with traditional grammar instruction,
> though he also adds various twists on it.
>
> One problem deals with a few production errors in terms of typos, esp in

> the answer key.  Not all the corrections he made were actually put into
> the book, even in a printing that came out a couple of years ago.
>
> Larry Beason
>
> Larry Beason
> Associate Professor & Composition Director

> Dept. of English, 240 HUMB
> Univ. of South Alabama
> Mobile AL 36688
> (251) 460-7861
>
> >>> "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> 03/24/09 11:52 AM >>>

> John,
>
>
>
> I've used Lester's book a number of times in a course here for future
> English teachers. Overall, I'd say there's one major problem with it,
> but otherwise it's extremely good. The problem is that he doesn't make a

> clear form/function distinction. I'm not sure why he doesn't - it could
> be that he's trying to stick to the K-12 school grammar tradition, which
> is understandable, but the lack of that distinction is one of the things

> that constantly causes problems for anyone trying to teach the material
> ("You said only nouns could be plural, but in 'accounts receivable,' the
> adjective is").
>
>
>

> The book is so good in other respects that I've continued to use it,
> using handouts to deal with the form/function distinction. But, of
> course, then the students get annoyed because I'm disagreeing with the

> textbook, and I get annoyed with them because the last thing future
> teachers should do is view a textbook (or their instructor's comments!)
> as Holy Writ.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,

>
>
>
> Bill Spruiell
>
>
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander

> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:00 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Phrasal Verb Overview
>
>
>
> Greetings, ATEGers!
>

>
>
> Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark
> Lester's (1990) Grammar in the Classroom. I'm not sure why I haven't
> discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to

> anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your
> classroom, you and/or your  students might enjoy knowing about it as a
> reference text. I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and

> uncluttered. Has anyone actually used this as a classroom text for
> teachers-in-training? If so, I'd be interested to hear about your
> experiences.
>
>
>
> I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal

> verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic
> students but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive
> facts. I thought I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal

> verbs that Lester includes.
>
>
>
> *       Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and
> Germanic languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions
> (functional words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the

> preposition to the beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages
> adding them to the end. (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro"
> (swollow) in Latin)
> *       When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the

> beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more
> quickly and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used
> to be a phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because,

> orthographically, it is written without a space. However, English tends
> to leave the space when the preposition is added to the end of the verb
> stem. (example, "give up")
> *       While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a

> tensed verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a
> phrasal verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has
> become attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester

> continues to call it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all).
> Lester points out a fun test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the
> unit with a single word (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the

> meaning? In this case, "I give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points
> out the irony in the fact that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal
> verb in Latin!)
> *       Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference

> between a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For
> example,
>
>          John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun
> phrase object)
>
>          John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial

> prepositional phrase)
>
>
>
>          Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal
> verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP.
>
> *       Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look

> down on, talk back to, walk out on, etc.
> *       Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from
> traditional school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin
> literally means "to place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions

> couldn't be connected to  verbs if they came after them. Sometimes
> phrasal verbs were treated as idioms.
> *       Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable
> and inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions

> that can be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example,
> "I gave up the game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up").
> Inseparable phrasal verbs have prepositions that cannot be moved

> (example, "I depend on the income" vs *"I depend the income on" or *"I
> depend it on").
> *       As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a
> separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the

> preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never
> *"I gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with
> some clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this

> sense, it is actually ungrammatical to NOT end a sentence with a
> preposition.
>
> Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did!
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>

>
> John Alexander
>
> Austin, Texas
>
> 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/

--0015174becfc9076e50465fd13eb--
========================================================================Date:         Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:02:54 -0700
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: I and me questions
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-822226325-1238058174=:94520"

--0-822226325-1238058174=:94520
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In Act 3, scene 2 of _The Merchant of Venice_, Shakespeare does write "between you and I," but he only uses it once (written in a letter from Antonio; Bassanio reads it aloud): "Sweet Bassanio, my ships have all miscarried, my creditors grow cruel, my estate is very low, my bond to the Jew is forfeit; and since in paying it, it is impossible I should live, all debts are cleared between you and I, if I might but see you at my death."  I find no instance of "between you and me" nor any other use of "between you and I" in Shakespeare. 
 
I do think the idea that this is a new usage (starting in the 1970s) is not accurate. Aside from this one instance, I suspect there are many that are older than the 1900s. Also, I believe that the use of 'me' in the subject slot is centuries old (I seem to remember seeing it in some of Austen's character's dialogue for example).
 
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: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:28:48 PM
Subject: Re: I and me questions


James Cochrane wrote a short book/handbook called Between You and I: A Little Book of Bad English and claimed that the subject/object pronoun swapping started in the 70s due to hypercorrection. However, I don't think that is true. I have seen many examples of this going very far back to the beginning of Modern English. I've heard that Shakespeare used both "between you and I" and "between you and me" and that this may have been common during this time period. 

There have been great discussions on this list about why this confusion occurs as English grows less dependent on case marking for meaning. Herb offered an explanation once that took into account discourse/information structuring pressures, but I'm not having any luck finding it in the ATEG listserv archives.

John Alexander


On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Wollin, Edith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Here are some questions for the group from a colleague.I think they fall in the recent-history-of-the-language category:
) Was there a specific period in the last 30-40 years where "people" began
to notice a proliferation of "me" used in the subject - especially compound
subjects ("John and me will be late") and began an "education campaign" to
correct it?  If so, how did the "word" get out (newspaper articles, word of
mouth, increased emphasis in K-12/college) that people needed to be more
conscious/clean up this part of their grammar?
B) Is there any opinion or evidence that a sudden realization of the
improper use of "me" instead of "I" in compound subjects led (via
overcorrection or other means) to the seemingly recent proliferation of the
use of "I" in a compound (or even singular) form in the indirect
object/subject of the preposition? Eg: "The chocolate cake was a surprise
for my sister and me."
C) Any concrete examples of this overcorrection making its way into
mainstream media (Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Larry King, Oprah, etc.)?
My own take on this is I started hearing“between you and I”from even highly educated people in the 80s. I attributed it to hypercorrection mixed with a lack of grammar instruction that would have cued people to know when to use theobjectiveand when thesubjective.It’s been in this decade that I’ve heard the I moving to the indirect object and to the objective of prep and subject of infinitive places when it is a compound and even sometimes when it is not a compound.
Edith WollinTo 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/
--0-822226325-1238058174=:94520
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


In Act 3, scene 2 of _The Merchant of Venice_, Shakespeare does write "between you and I," but he only uses it once (written in a letter from Antonio; Bassanio reads it aloud): "Sweet Bassanio, my ships have all miscarried, my creditors grow cruel, my estate is very low, my bond to the Jew is forfeit; and since in paying it, it is impossible I should live, all debts are cleared between you and I, if I might but see you at my death."  I find no instance of "between you and me" nor any other use of "between you and I" in Shakespeare. 
 
I do think the idea that this is a new usage (starting in the 1970s) is not accurate. Aside from this one instance, I suspect there are many that are older than the 1900s. Also, I believe that the use of 'me' in the subject slot is centuries old (I seem to remember seeing it in some of Austen's character's dialogue for example).
 
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: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:28:48 PM
Subject: Re: I and me questions


James Cochrane wrote a short book/handbook called Between You and I: A Little Book of Bad English and claimed that the subject/object pronoun swapping started in the 70s due to hypercorrection. However, I don't think that is true. I have seen many examples of this going very far back to the beginning of Modern English. I've heard that Shakespeare used both "between you and I" and "between you and me" and that this may have been common during this time period. 
 
There have been great discussions on this list about why this confusion occurs as English grows less dependent on case marking for meaning. Herb offered an explanation once that took into account discourse/information structuring pressures, but I'm not having any luck finding it in the ATEG listserv archives.
 
John Alexander


On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Wollin, Edith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:



Here are some questions for the group from a colleague. I think they fall in the recent-history-of-the-language category:
) Was there a specific period in the last 30-40 years where "people" began
to notice a proliferation of "me" used in the subject - especially compound
subjects ("John and me will be late") and began an "education campaign" to
correct it?  If so, how did the "word" get out (newspaper articles, word of
mouth, increased emphasis in K-12/college) that people needed to be more
conscious/clean up this part of their grammar?
B) Is there any opinion or evidence that a sudden realization of the
improper use of "me" instead of "I" in compound subjects led (via
overcorrection or other means) to the seemingly recent proliferation of the
use of "I" in a compound (or even singular) form in the indirect
object/subject of the preposition? Eg: "The chocolate cake was a surprise
for my sister and me."
C) Any concrete examples of this overcorrection making its way into
mainstream media (Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Larry King, Oprah, etc.)?

My own take on this is I started hearing “between you and I” from even highly educated people in the 80s. I attributed it to hypercorrection mixed with a lack of grammar instruction that would have cued people to know when to use the objective and when the subjective. It’s been in this decade that
 I’ve heard the I moving to the indirect object and to the objective of prep and subject of infinitive places when it is a compound and even sometimes when it is not a compound.

Edith Wollin
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/
--0-822226325-1238058174=:94520--
========================================================================Date:         Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:58:03 -0400
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 <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Phrasal verbs and between you and I
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0083_01C9ADF9.5AB14A00"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0083_01C9ADF9.5AB14A00
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I was on a committee reviewing the bylaws of an organization.  I missed a
meeting

and received the final ballot for voting on changes.  Noticing a new change,
I asked

how that change had gotten on the ballot.  The obvious response was, "The 

committee voted it on."

 

In dealing with "between you and I", I use the double object of the
preposition and

always put 'between' in with the other prepositions.  Because I always start
a 

course with an introductory lecture outlining, I use double objects of a
preposition 

to show how easy the class will be.  Frequently, some student will ask, "you
mean

you can't say "between you and I"?  The other students laugh and I respond
that 

one may say 'between you and I' or 'Me and John is going to town.'  No one
forces

you to use correct English when you talk.  You may be evaluated by your
speech if

you apply for a job above manual labor in many cases.  Your writing will
almost

certainly be evaluated when applying for college or even clerical positions.


 

The level of literacy has dropped so low that fewer applicants are excluded
by poor

English today and even literate reviewers tend to drop their standards when
reviewing

an application from a non-native English speaker.

 

In looking at the number or errors that I make in typing on line, I wonder
whether even 

lists as fascinating, entertaining, and helpful as ATEG are not contributing
to the

problem: I an one of the many who have difficulty in catching errors on
screen-and

the grammar checks are ridiculous-they have even declined in quality since
the 

early WordStar products.

 

Scott Catledge, PhD/STD

Professor Emeritus

history & languages

 


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_000_0083_01C9ADF9.5AB14A00
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
















I was on a committee reviewing the
bylaws of an organization.  I missed a meeting

and received the final ballot for
voting on changes.  Noticing a new change, I asked

how that change had gotten on the
ballot.  The obvious response was, “The 

committee voted it on.”

 

In dealing with “between you
and I”, I use the double object of the preposition and

always put ‘between’ in
with the other prepositions.  Because I always start a 

course with an introductory lecture
outlining, I use double objects of a preposition 

to show how easy the class will be.  Frequently, some student will ask, “you mean

you can’t say “between
you and I”?  The other students laugh and I respond that 

one may say ‘between you and I’
or ‘Me and John is going to town.’  No one forces

you to use correct English when you
talk.  You may be evaluated by your speech if

you apply for a job above manual
labor in many cases.  Your writing will
almost

certainly be evaluated when applying
for college or even clerical positions.  

 

The level of literacy has dropped so
low that fewer applicants are excluded by poor

English today and even literate
reviewers tend to drop their standards when reviewing

an application from a non-native English
speaker.

 

In looking at the number or errors
that I make in typing on line, I wonder whether even 

lists as fascinating, entertaining,
and helpful as ATEG are not contributing to the

problem: I an one of the many who
have difficulty in catching errors on screen—and

the grammar checks are ridiculous—they
have even declined in quality since the 

early WordStar products.

 

Scott Catledge, PhD/STD

Professor Emeritus

history & languages

 






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_000_0083_01C9ADF9.5AB14A00--
========================================================================Date:         Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:21:28 -0400
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:      Link to informal study on typos
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9AE37.4EF85548"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AE37.4EF85548
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

Dear All:

 

I ran across this, and thought it might be of interest to the list,
although I think it should be approached with a bit of caution - the
authors got their data from an online survey of readers of the blog they
maintain, so there's an issue with the representativeness of the subject
pool (and no peer-review, etc.). Still, it made a good discussion point
in my grammar class, even after I led in by mentioning the limits on it.


 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2009/03/casual_fridays_whats_wors
e_--.php#more

 

 

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English

Central Michigan University


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_01C9AE37.4EF85548
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable














 

Dear All:

 

I ran across this, and thought it might be of interest to
the list, although I think it should be approached with a bit of caution –
the authors got their data from an online survey of readers of the blog they
maintain, so there’s an issue with the representativeness of the subject
pool (and no peer-review, etc.). Still, it made a good discussion point in my
grammar class, even after I led in by mentioning the limits on it. 

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2009/03/casual_fridays_whats_worse_--.php#more

 

 

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English

Central Michigan University






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_01C9AE37.4EF85548--
========================================================================Date:         Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:36:13 -0400
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: Phrasal verbs and between you and I
In-Reply-To:  <008201c9ae1a$e1c2ea00$6501a8c0@leordinateur>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14098BEMAILBACKEND0_"
MIME-Version: 1.0

--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14098BEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In dealing with matters like these, we're dealing with the same sorts of matters of taste and judgment that characterize dress and table manners.  These are not questions of right or wrong but of the sort of impression one wants to make on a particular audience.  Scott's clearly right that "between you and I" does not make the kind of impression one might wish to make in a very formal context.  However, it's become so common that it would probably overlooked in speech, certainly moreso than in writing.

"The committee voted it on" is a marvelous sentence.  You can vote someone on (to) a committee or off it, so elliptically you can vote someone on or off, which is different from "voting on someone/something," where the meaning can only be that someone/something is the issue at stake in the vote.  In this latter sense, "vote on" is an inseparable phrasal verb and such sentences can be made passive.  "Vote off" feels different.  We can "vote someone off" and we can "vote off a whole lot of people at once," so "vote off" looks separable, except that the latter example is a case of heavy NP shift, which makes it a discourse phenomenon similar to the obligatory placement of the particle after an object pronoun.  Maybe it is possible to say, about a vote to elect a committee to carry out the garbage that "we'll vote on all the people who missed today's meeting," where "on" gets stressed and we clearly have heavy NP shift.

So is "vote someone on (to the committee)" an obligatorily separated phrasal verb which can have a postposed object only if the object is a heavy NP?  I'm not sure that this is a different syntactic phenomenon from Particle Shift.

But back to "between you and I."  There's been a tendency in English going back centuries for the object pronouns to become discourse focus pronouns and for subject pronouns to be treated as topic pronouns.  Since subjects are usually topics, the subject set will typically appear in subject position, but only if the pronoun is the complete subject.  As soon as we add another pronoun or noun, as in "you and I," there is a strong tendency to say "you and me" or, more likely "me and you."  We get the same use of object pronouns in cases like the following:

Predicate Nominative:  Who's there?  It's me.
Subject + number:  Us two are going to the movies.
Left dislocation:  Me, I wouldn't do it that way.
Coordinate subject:  Me and Bill are going to the movies.
Single word sentence:  Who's there?  Me.

While hypercorrection is a common and reasonable explanation for "between you and I," I don't find it fully convincing.  Because 1st and 2nd person are always topical in a conversation, "I" in "between you and I" reflects that status and so would sound right to a lot of speakers, not just as a hypercorrection but as a grammatical form that makes consistent sense.

That said, prescriptive rules are no respecters of language change.  Prescriptively we'll have almost as strong a sanction on "between you and I" as we have on "ain't."  There's probably no point in fighting either the prescriptive tendency or common usage in a case like this.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: 2009-03-26 09:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Phrasal verbs and between you and I

I was on a committee reviewing the bylaws of an organization.  I missed a meeting
and received the final ballot for voting on changes.  Noticing a new change, I asked
how that change had gotten on the ballot.  The obvious response was, "The
committee voted it on."

In dealing with "between you and I", I use the double object of the preposition and
always put 'between' in with the other prepositions.  Because I always start a
course with an introductory lecture outlining, I use double objects of a preposition
to show how easy the class will be.  Frequently, some student will ask, "you mean
you can't say "between you and I"?  The other students laugh and I respond that
one may say 'between you and I' or 'Me and John is going to town.'  No one forces
you to use correct English when you talk.  You may be evaluated by your speech if
you apply for a job above manual labor in many cases.  Your writing will almost
certainly be evaluated when applying for college or even clerical positions.

The level of literacy has dropped so low that fewer applicants are excluded by poor
English today and even literate reviewers tend to drop their standards when reviewing
an application from a non-native English speaker.

In looking at the number or errors that I make in typing on line, I wonder whether even
lists as fascinating, entertaining, and helpful as ATEG are not contributing to the
problem: I an one of the many who have difficulty in catching errors on screen-and
the grammar checks are ridiculous-they have even declined in quality since the
early WordStar products.

Scott Catledge, PhD/STD
Professor Emeritus
history & languages

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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14098BEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable














In dealing with matters like these, we’re dealing with the
same sorts of matters of taste and judgment that characterize dress and table
manners.  These are not questions of right or wrong but of the sort of
impression one wants to make on a particular audience.  Scott’s clearly
right that “between you and I” does not make the kind of impression
one might wish to make in a very formal context.  However, it’s
become so common that it would probably overlooked in speech, certainly moreso
than in writing.

 

“The committee voted it on” is a marvelous sentence. 
You can vote someone on (to) a committee or off it, so elliptically you can
vote someone on or off, which is different from “voting on someone/something,”
where the meaning can only be that someone/something is the issue at stake in
the vote.  In this latter sense, “vote on” is an inseparable
phrasal verb and such sentences can be made passive.  “Vote off”
feels different.  We can “vote someone off” and we can “vote
off a whole lot of people at once,” so “vote off” looks
separable, except that the latter example is a case of heavy NP shift, which makes
it a discourse phenomenon similar to the obligatory placement of the particle
after an object pronoun.  Maybe it is possible to say, about a vote to
elect a committee to carry out the garbage that “we’ll vote on all
the people who missed today’s meeting,” where “on” gets
stressed and we clearly have heavy NP shift.  

 

So is “vote someone on (to the committee)” an
obligatorily separated phrasal verb which can have a postposed object only if
the object is a heavy NP?  I’m not sure that this is a different
syntactic phenomenon from Particle Shift.

 

But back to “between you and I.”  There’s
been a tendency in English going back centuries for the object pronouns to
become discourse focus pronouns and for subject pronouns to be treated as topic
pronouns.  Since subjects are usually topics, the subject set will
typically appear in subject position, but only if the pronoun is the complete
subject.  As soon as we add another pronoun or noun, as in “you and
I,” there is a strong tendency to say “you and me” or, more
likely “me and you.”  We get the same use of object pronouns
in cases like the following:

 

Predicate Nominative:  Who’s there?  It’s
me.

Subject + number:  Us two are going to the movies.

Left dislocation:  Me, I wouldn’t do it that way.

Coordinate subject:  Me and Bill are going to the movies.

Single word sentence:  Who’s there?  Me.

 

While hypercorrection is a common and reasonable explanation for
“between you and I,” I don’t find it fully convincing. 
Because 1st and 2nd person are always topical in a
conversation, “I” in “between you and I” reflects that
status and so would sound right to a lot of speakers, not just as a
hypercorrection but as a grammatical form that makes consistent sense.

 

That said, prescriptive rules are no respecters of language
change.  Prescriptively we’ll have almost as strong a sanction on “between
you and I” as we have on “ain’t.”  There’s
probably no point in fighting either the prescriptive tendency or common usage
in a case like this.

 

Herb

 





From: Assembly for the Teaching of English
Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott

Sent: 2009-03-26 09:58

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Phrasal verbs and between you and I





 

I was on a committee reviewing the bylaws of an
organization.  I missed a meeting

and received the final ballot for voting on changes. 
Noticing a new change, I asked

how that change had gotten on the ballot.  The obvious
response was, “The 

committee voted it on.”

 

In dealing with “between you and I”, I use the
double object of the preposition and

always put ‘between’ in with the other
prepositions.  Because I always start a 

course with an introductory lecture outlining, I use double
objects of a preposition 

to show how easy the class will be.  Frequently, some
student will ask, “you mean

you can’t say “between you and I”? 
The other students laugh and I respond that 

one may say ‘between you and I’ or ‘Me and
John is going to town.’  No one forces

you to use correct English when you talk.  You may be
evaluated by your speech if

you apply for a job above manual labor in many cases. 
Your writing will almost

certainly be evaluated when applying for college or even
clerical positions.  

 

The level of literacy has dropped so low that fewer
applicants are excluded by poor

English today and even literate reviewers tend to drop their
standards when reviewing

an application from a non-native English speaker.

 

In looking at the number or errors that I make in typing on
line, I wonder whether even 

lists as fascinating, entertaining, and helpful as ATEG are
not contributing to the

problem: I an one of the many who have difficulty in catching
errors on screen—and

the grammar checks are ridiculous—they have even
declined in quality since the 

early WordStar products.

 

Scott Catledge, PhD/STD

Professor Emeritus

history & languages

 

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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D543128E14098BEMAILBACKEND0_--
========================================================================Date:         Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:38:57 -0700
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:      between you and I
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1302027074-1238089137=:80997"

--0-1302027074-1238089137=:80997
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

--- On Thu, 3/26/09, Scott <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
I was on a committee reviewing the bylaws of an organization.  I missed a meeting
and received the final ballot for voting on changes.  Noticing a new change, I asked
how that change (had gotten) got on the ballot.  The obvious response was, “The 
committee voted it on.”
 
I think what happens is that people get used to putting 'had' in front of past tense verbs (that much is clear) and then when they try to put 'had' in front of say 'came', they realize that 'had came' is not right so they settle for 'had come'. There is no way to divine exactly what goes on in their heads but this seems to be the best explanation of how the likes of 'had gotten' come to pass.
 
Another way to say it is that when people try to put 'had' in front of an irregular verb, they inadvertently force the irregular past participle.
 
.brad.26mar09. 


      

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/
--0-1302027074-1238089137=:80997
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

--- On Thu, 3/26/09, Scott <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
I was on a committee reviewing the bylaws of an organization.  I missed a meeting
and received the final ballot for voting on changes.  Noticing a new change, I asked
how that change (had gotten) got on the ballot.  The obvious response was, “The 
committee voted it on.”
 
I think what happens is that people get used to putting 'had' in front of past tense verbs (that much is clear) and then when they try to put 'had' in front of say 'came', they realize that 'had came' is not right so they settle for 'had come'. There is no way to divine exactly what goes on in their heads but this seems to be the best explanation of how the likes of 'had gotten' come to pass.
 
Another way to say it is that when people try to put 'had' in front of an irregular verb, they inadvertently force the irregular past participle.
 
.brad.26mar09. 



      
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/
--0-1302027074-1238089137=:80997--
========================================================================Date:         Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:11:57 -0400
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: Link to informal study on typos
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="_000_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED44944415725D0B68FSEMAILfacult_"
MIME-Version: 1.0

--_000_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED44944415725D0B68FSEMAILfacult_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Bill,

Hey, thanks!

I'm teaching the resume in my technical writing class right now.

Students should find this interesting.

Marshall

________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 1:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Link to informal study on typos


Dear All:

I ran across this, and thought it might be of interest to the list, although I think it should be approached with a bit of caution - the authors got their data from an online survey of readers of the blog they maintain, so there's an issue with the representativeness of the subject pool (and no peer-review, etc.). Still, it made a good discussion point in my grammar class, even after I led in by mentioning the limits on it.


http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2009/03/casual_fridays_whats_worse_--.php#more


Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
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_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED44944415725D0B68FSEMAILfacult_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



















Bill,

 

Hey, thanks!

 

I’m teaching the resume in my technical
writing class right now.

 

Students should find this interesting.

 

Marshall

 









From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Spruiell, William C

Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009
1:21 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Link to informal study on
typos



 

 

Dear
All:

 

I
ran across this, and thought it might be of interest to the list, although I
think it should be approached with a bit of caution – the authors got their
data from an online survey of readers of the blog they maintain, so there’s an
issue with the representativeness of the subject pool (and no peer-review,
etc.). Still, it made a good discussion point in my grammar class, even after I
led in by mentioning the limits on it. 

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2009/03/casual_fridays_whats_worse_--.php#more

 

 

Bill
Spruiell

Dept.
of English

Central
 Michigan University






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_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED44944415725D0B68FSEMAILfacult_--
========================================================================Date:         Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:00:37 -0700
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:         "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: between you and I
In-Reply-To:  A<[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9AE55.EA1A7DEB"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AE55.EA1A7DEB
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Well, I know I'm going to be remarkably sorry about this.

 

The use of 'had' or 'have' as auxiliaries always forces the past
participle.  That's how English works.  "got" and 'gotten' are simply
alternate forms of the past participle of 'get.'  It's just easier to
tell that 'gotten' is the past participle because it is irregular, so it
doesn't look like the preterite. The fact that the preterite and the
past participle look identical in regular English verbs doesn't mean
they are the same.  This becomes clear when using verbs with irregular
past participles.  While we're on the subject, past participles aren't
past, just as present participles aren't present.  They have no time;
they are nonfinite.  The fact that they are badly named causes no end of
confusion.

 

Janet

________________________________

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: between you and I

 

--- On Thu, 3/26/09, Scott <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 

I was on a committee reviewing the bylaws of an organization.  I missed
a meeting

and received the final ballot for voting on changes.  Noticing a new
change, I asked

how that change (had gotten) got on the ballot.  The obvious response
was, "The 

committee voted it on."

 

I think what happens is that people get used to putting 'had' in front
of past tense verbs (that much is clear) and then when they try to put
'had' in front of say 'came', they realize that 'had came' is not right
so they settle for 'had come'. There is no way to divine exactly what
goes on in their heads but this seems to be the best explanation of how
the likes of 'had gotten' come to pass.

 

Another way to say it is that when people try to put 'had' in front of
an irregular verb, they inadvertently force the irregular past
participle.

 

.brad.26mar09. 


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_01C9AE55.EA1A7DEB
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
















Well,
I know I’m going to be remarkably sorry about this.

 

The use of ‘had’ or ‘have’ as auxiliaries always forces the past participle.  That’s
how English works.  “got” and ‘gotten’ are simply alternate forms of the past
participle of ‘get.’  It’s just easier to tell that ‘gotten’ is the past
participle because it is irregular,
so it doesn’t look like the preterite. The fact that the preterite and the past
participle look identical in regular English verbs doesn’t mean they are the
same.  This becomes clear when using verbs with irregular past participles. 
While we’re on the subject, past participles
aren’t past, just as present
participles aren’t present.  They have no time; they are nonfinite.  The fact
that they are badly named causes no end of confusion.

 

Janet







From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Brad Johnston

Sent: Thursday, March 26,
2009 10:39 AM

To:
[log in to unmask]

Subject: between you and I

 


 

  

  

  
--- On Thu, 3/26/09,
  Scott <[log in to unmask]>
  wrote:
  
  

  
 
  
  

  
I was on a committee reviewing the bylaws of an
  organization.  I missed a meeting
  
  
and
  received the final ballot for voting on changes.  Noticing a new change, I asked
  
how that
  change (had gotten) got on
  the ballot.  The obvious response was,
  “The 
  
committee
  voted it on.”
  
 
  
I think what happens
  is that people get used to putting 'had' in front of past tense verbs (that
  much is clear) and then when they try to put 'had' in front of say 'came', they realize that 'had came' is not right so
  they settle for 'had come'. There is no way to divine exactly what goes on in
  their heads but this seems to be the best explanation of how the likes
  of 'had gotten' come to pass.
  
 
  
Another way to say it is that when people try to put
  'had' in front of an irregular verb,
  they inadvertently force the irregular past participle.
  
 
  
.brad.26mar09. 
  
 




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_01C9AE55.EA1A7DEB--
========================================================================Date:         Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:31:42 -0400
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 <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      got and gotten; was  RE: ATEG Digest - 25 Mar 2009 to 26 Mar 2009
              (#2009-67)
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Just as an aside, I find hilarious to read a sample of dialog in which
the writer attempt to use 'got' or 'gotten' and falls flat; e.g., I've got 
to go = I must go; I've gotten to go = I had the opportunity to go and I
went.  Almost always, the writer uses 'gotten' where only 'got' would fit.
Note that 'I got to go' in a past scenario carries the same meaning of
'I've gotten to go.'  Colloquially, one may hear 'Well, I got to go' in 
the sense of 'I've got to go.' 

Scott Catledge
Professor Emeritus

Well, I know I'm going to be remarkably sorry about this.

The use of 'had' or 'have' as auxiliaries always forces the past
participle.  That's how English works.  "got" and 'gotten' are simply
alternate forms of the past participle of 'get.'  It's just easier to
tell that 'gotten' is the past participle because it is irregular, so it
doesn't look like the preterite. The fact that the preterite and the
past participle look identical in regular English verbs doesn't mean
they are the same.  This becomes clear when using verbs with irregular
past participles.  While we're on the subject, past participles aren't
past, just as present participles aren't present.  They have no time;
they are nonfinite.  The fact that they are badly named causes no end of
confusion.

 

Janet

********************************

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, 27 Mar 2009 10:34:55 -0400
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]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
              boundary="_000_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED44944415725D0CC0FSEMAILfacult_"
MIME-Version: 1.0

--_000_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED44944415725D0CC0FSEMAILfacult_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

ATEG Members,

I am the book review editor for our journal.

I have not received our journal for over two years.

Obviously, that causes a problem, because I have no idea what book reviews have run and which haven't.

Is there somebody out there who is receiving the journal who would be kind enough to send me xeroxed copies of the last two years? Even part of that time is OK.

Thanks. This will be a big help.

Best wishes,

Dr. Marshall Myers
Department of English
Eastern Kentucky University
Richmond, KY 40475

[log in to unmask]

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_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED44944415725D0CC0FSEMAILfacult_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable





















ATEG Members,

 

I am the book review editor for our journal.

 

I have not received our journal for over two years.

 

Obviously, that causes a problem, because I have no idea
what book reviews have run and which haven’t.

 

Is there somebody out there who is receiving the journal who
would be kind enough to send me xeroxed copies of the last two years? Even part
of that time is OK.

 

Thanks. This will be a big help.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dr. Marshall Myers

Department of English

Eastern Kentucky
 University

Richmond, KY 40475

 

[log in to unmask]






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_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED44944415725D0CC0FSEMAILfacult_--
========================================================================Date:         Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:45:03 -0400
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:         Wesley K Davis <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Myers, Marshall wrote:


>ATEG Members,
>
>I am the book review editor for our journal.
>
>I have not received our journal for over two years.
>
>Obviously, that causes a problem, because I have no idea what book 
reviews have run and which haven't.
>
>Is there somebody out there who is receiving the journal who would be 
kind enough to send me xeroxed copies of the last two years? Even part 
of that time is OK.
>
>Thanks. This will be a big help.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Dr. Marshall Myers
>Department of English
>Eastern Kentucky University
>Richmond, KY 40475
>
>[log in to unmask]
>
>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/
>
Marshall,

I have not received an issue of the ATEG Journal since Fall 2007, and I 
even renewed my membership and subscription for two more years in June 
of 2008. Editor Tim Hadley said he would send me the back issues, but I 
have not received anything yet.

Wes Davis
Humanities
Dalton State College
650 College Drive
Dalton, Georgia 30720
(706) 272-4444

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, 27 Mar 2009 16:57:48 -0400
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]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Wes,

Thanks for responding. I have heard the same story from another person.

My question now is, Has the journal been published in the last two years?

Marshall

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wesley K Davis
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 2:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 

Myers, Marshall wrote:


>ATEG Members,
>
>I am the book review editor for our journal.
>
>I have not received our journal for over two years.
>
>Obviously, that causes a problem, because I have no idea what book 
reviews have run and which haven't.
>
>Is there somebody out there who is receiving the journal who would be 
kind enough to send me xeroxed copies of the last two years? Even part 
of that time is OK.
>
>Thanks. This will be a big help.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Dr. Marshall Myers
>Department of English
>Eastern Kentucky University
>Richmond, KY 40475
>
>[log in to unmask]
>
>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/
>
Marshall,

I have not received an issue of the ATEG Journal since Fall 2007, and I 
even renewed my membership and subscription for two more years in June 
of 2008. Editor Tim Hadley said he would send me the back issues, but I 
have not received anything yet.

Wes Davis
Humanities
Dalton State College
650 College Drive
Dalton, Georgia 30720
(706) 272-4444

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, 28 Mar 2009 21:08:03 -0400
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 <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: ATEG Digest - 26 Mar 2009 to 27 Mar 2009 (#2009-68)
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Why sorry?  You said nothing with which that anyone could disagree--
professional naysayers excluded as well as those who are ignorant of
past and preterite.  I was merely musing on the hilarious attempts of
non-natives of the Deep South to imitate that regional dialect in 
writing.  All those who believe that participles have tense need a
basic review of grammar.

Scott Catledge
Professor Emeritus


-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 12:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 26 Mar 2009 to 27 Mar 2009 (#2009-68)

There are 4 messages totalling 414 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. got and gotten; was  RE: ATEG Digest - 25 Mar 2009 to 26 Mar 2009
     (#2009-67)
  2.  (3)

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, 27 Mar 2009 10:31:42 -0400
From:    Scott <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: got and gotten; was  RE: ATEG Digest - 25 Mar 2009 to 26 Mar 2009
(#2009-67)

Just as an aside, I find hilarious to read a sample of dialog in which
the writer attempt to use 'got' or 'gotten' and falls flat; e.g., I've got 
to go = I must go; I've gotten to go = I had the opportunity to go and I
went.  Almost always, the writer uses 'gotten' where only 'got' would fit.
Note that 'I got to go' in a past scenario carries the same meaning of
'I've gotten to go.'  Colloquially, one may hear 'Well, I got to go' in 
the sense of 'I've got to go.' 

Scott Catledge
Professor Emeritus

Well, I know I'm going to be remarkably sorry about this.

The use of 'had' or 'have' as auxiliaries always forces the past
participle.  That's how English works.  "got" and 'gotten' are simply
alternate forms of the past participle of 'get.'  It's just easier to
tell that 'gotten' is the past participle because it is irregular, so it
doesn't look like the preterite. The fact that the preterite and the
past participle look identical in regular English verbs doesn't mean
they are the same.  This becomes clear when using verbs with irregular
past participles.  While we're on the subject, past participles aren't
past, just as present participles aren't present.  They have no time;
they are nonfinite.  The fact that they are badly named causes no end of
confusion.

 

Janet

********************************

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, 27 Mar 2009 10:34:55 -0400
From:    "Myers, Marshall" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: 

--_000_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED44944415725D0CC0FSEMAILfacult_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

ATEG Members,

I am the book review editor for our journal.

I have not received our journal for over two years.

Obviously, that causes a problem, because I have no idea what book reviews have run and which haven't.

Is there somebody out there who is receiving the journal who would be kind enough to send me xeroxed copies of the last two years? Even part of that time is OK.

Thanks. This will be a big help.

Best wishes,

Dr. Marshall Myers
Department of English
Eastern Kentucky University
Richmond, KY 40475

[log in to unmask]

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_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED44944415725D0CC0FSEMAILfacult_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable





















ATEG Members,

 

I am the book review editor for our journal.

 

I have not received our journal for over two years.

 

Obviously, that causes a problem, because I have no idea
what book reviews have run and which haven’t.

 

Is there somebody out there who is receiving the journal who
would be kind enough to send me xeroxed copies of the last two years? Even part
of that time is OK.

 

Thanks. This will be a big help.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dr. Marshall Myers

Department of English

Eastern Kentucky
 University

Richmond, KY 40475

 

[log in to unmask]






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_56E53A2D9BAB0B4C886C50D4ED44944415725D0CC0FSEMAILfacult_--

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:45:03 -0400
From:    Wesley K Davis <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: 

Myers, Marshall wrote:


>ATEG Members,
>
>I am the book review editor for our journal.
>
>I have not received our journal for over two years.
>
>Obviously, that causes a problem, because I have no idea what book 
reviews have run and which haven't.
>
>Is there somebody out there who is receiving the journal who would be 
kind enough to send me xeroxed copies of the last two years? Even part 
of that time is OK.
>
>Thanks. This will be a big help.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Dr. Marshall Myers
>Department of English
>Eastern Kentucky University
>Richmond, KY 40475
>
>[log in to unmask]
>
>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/
>
Marshall,

I have not received an issue of the ATEG Journal since Fall 2007, and I 
even renewed my membership and subscription for two more years in June 
of 2008. Editor Tim Hadley said he would send me the back issues, but I 
have not received anything yet.

Wes Davis
Humanities
Dalton State College
650 College Drive
Dalton, Georgia 30720
(706) 272-4444

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, 27 Mar 2009 16:57:48 -0400
From:    "Myers, Marshall" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: 

Wes,

Thanks for responding. I have heard the same story from another person.

My question now is, Has the journal been published in the last two years?

Marshall

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wesley K Davis
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 2:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 

Myers, Marshall wrote:


>ATEG Members,
>
>I am the book review editor for our journal.
>
>I have not received our journal for over two years.
>
>Obviously, that causes a problem, because I have no idea what book 
reviews have run and which haven't.
>
>Is there somebody out there who is receiving the journal who would be 
kind enough to send me xeroxed copies of the last two years? Even part 
of that time is OK.
>
>Thanks. This will be a big help.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Dr. Marshall Myers
>Department of English
>Eastern Kentucky University
>Richmond, KY 40475
>
>[log in to unmask]
>
>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/
>
Marshall,

I have not received an issue of the ATEG Journal since Fall 2007, and I 
even renewed my membership and subscription for two more years in June 
of 2008. Editor Tim Hadley said he would send me the back issues, but I 
have not received anything yet.

Wes Davis
Humanities
Dalton State College
650 College Drive
Dalton, Georgia 30720
(706) 272-4444

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

------------------------------

End of ATEG Digest - 26 Mar 2009 to 27 Mar 2009 (#2009-68)
**********************************************************

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:         Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:28:55 -0400
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:         Wesley K Davis <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Myers, Marshall wrote:


>Wes,
>
>Thanks for responding. I have heard the same story from another person.
>
>My question now is, Has the journal been published in the last two 
years?
>
>Marshall
>
Marshall,

Thanks for your reply. I have no idea whether there have been any 
issues of the ATEG Journal in the last two years. Editor Tim Hadley 
told me several weeks ago that he would send me back issues, but I have 
not received anything yet. 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar 
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wesley K Davis
>Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 2:45 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: 
>
>Myers, Marshall wrote:
>
>
>>ATEG Members,
>>
>>I am the book review editor for our journal.
>>
>>I have not received our journal for over two years.
>>
>>Obviously, that causes a problem, because I have no idea what book 
>reviews have run and which haven't.
>>
>>Is there somebody out there who is receiving the journal who would be 
>kind enough to send me xeroxed copies of the last two years? Even part 
>of that time is OK.
>>
>>Thanks. This will be a big help.
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>
>>Dr. Marshall Myers
>>Department of English
>>Eastern Kentucky University
>>Richmond, KY 40475
>>
>>[log in to unmask]
>>
>>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/
>>
>Marshall,
>
>I have not received an issue of the ATEG Journal since Fall 2007, and I 
>even renewed my membership and subscription for two more years in June 
>of 2008. Editor Tim Hadley said he would send me the back issues, but I 
>have not received anything yet.
>
>Wes Davis
>Humanities
>Dalton State College
>650 College Drive
>Dalton, Georgia 30720
>(706) 272-4444
>
>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, 31 Mar 2009 05:32:15 -0700
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:      {spam?}  Fais mes Devoirs
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-229793857-1238502735=:89305"

--0-229793857-1238502735=:89305
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, 3/31/09, Americans In France <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
Do my Homework
 
It was short-lived but it did sure make the news. Fais mes Devoirs (Do my Homework) was a planned site that would, well, do students homework for them - for a price. The day it was planned to launch, it didn’t, and a message was posted on the home page explaining that second thoughts were had and that the site wouldn’t start. That “new technologies should serve to make us better and not just help us”, was part of the message announcing the closure. Here is an article in English about Fais mes Devoirs. It was written before the closure.


      

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/
--0-229793857-1238502735=:89305
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, 3/31/09, Americans In France <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
Do my Homework
 
It was short-lived but it did sure make the news. Fais mes Devoirs (Do my Homework) was a planned site that would, well, do students homework for them - for a price. The day it was planned to launch, it didn’t, and a message was posted on the home page explaining that second thoughts were had and that the site wouldn’t start. That “new technologies should serve to make us better and not just help us”, was part of the message announcing the closure. Here is an article in English about Fais mes Devoirs. It was written before the closure.



      
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/
--0-229793857-1238502735=:89305--
========================================================================Date:         Tue, 31 Mar 2009 06:40:13 -0700
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:      {spam?}  Do My Homework
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-548435220-1238506813=:89785"

--0-548435220-1238506813=:89785
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



The computer decided there was something fishy about Fais mes Devoirs, so the computer sent it to you as ... 
{spam?} Fais mes Devoirs
I'm impressed. Nice catch, Yahoo or Miami of Ohio or whomever. For those who might have been deterred, here it is again with an English subject line.
 
On Tue, 3/31/09, Americans In France <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 
Do my Homework
 
It was short-lived but it did sure make the news. Fais mes Devoirs (Do my Homework) was a planned site that would, well, do students homework for them - for a price. The day it was planned to launch, it didn’t, and a message was posted on the home page explaining that second thoughts were had and that the site wouldn’t start. That “new technologies should serve to make us better and not just help us”, was part of the message announcing the closure. Here is an article in English about Fais mes Devoirs. It was written before the closure.


      

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/
--0-548435220-1238506813=:89785
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



The computer decided there was something fishy about Fais mes Devoirs, so the computer sent it to you as ... 
{spam?} Fais mes Devoirs
I'm impressed. Nice catch, Yahoo or Miami of Ohio or whomever. For those who might have been deterred, here it is again with an English subject line.
 
On Tue, 3/31/09, Americans In France <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


 
Do my Homework
 
It was short-lived but it did sure make the news. Fais mes Devoirs (Do my Homework) was a planned site that would, well, do students homework for them - for a price. The day it was planned to launch, it didn’t, and a message was posted on the home page explaining that second thoughts were had and that the site wouldn’t start. That “new technologies should serve to make us better and not just help us”, was part of the message announcing the closure. Here is an article in English about Fais mes Devoirs. It was written before the
 closure.



 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/
     
--0-548435220-1238506813=:89785--