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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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

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 ‘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-- ========================================================================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 IA0KDQpUaGlzIGxvb2tzIGxpa2UgYSBnb29kIGV4YW1wbGUgb2Ygd2h5IHdlIG5lZWQgdG8gY2Fy ZWZ1bGx5IGRpc3Rpbmd1aXNoIOKAnGNvbGxvcXVpYWzigJ0gZnJvbSDigJx1bmdyYW1tYXRpY2Fs LuKAnSBJIGFkdmlzZSBzdHVkZW50cyB0byBzd2l0Y2ggdG8gdGhlIGNhbm9uaWNhbCBwYXNzaXZl IGluIGZvcm1hbCB3cml0aW5nLCBidXQgSSB2aWV3IHRoYXQgYXMgc3R5bGlzdGljIGFkdmljZSwg bm90IGFzIGEgZ3JhbW1hdGljYWwgaW5qdW5jdGlvbi4NCg0KIA0KDQpBcyBhIHNpZGUgbm90ZSBv biB5b3VyIGFuYWxvZ3k6IEdpdmVuIHRoZSBmcmVxdWVuY3kgd2l0aCB3aGljaCBoZWxwaW5nIHZl cmJzIHBhaXIgdXAgd2l0aCBtYWluIHZlcmJzLCBJIHdvdWxkIGV4cGVjdCBhIHZlcnksIHZlcnkg bGFyZ2Ugc2V0IG9mIGlsbGVnaXRpbWF0ZSBvZmZzcHJpbmcuIEl04oCZcyBvbmUgb2YgdGhlIG1h bnkgZ3JleSBhcmVhcyBpbiBncmFtbWFyLCBhbmQgcGVyaGFwcyB3ZSBzaG91bGQgYWRqdXN0IHRv IG1vZGVybml0eSBhbmQgbGVnYWxpemUgZ3JleSBtYXJyaWFnZSBpbiB0aGlzIGNhc2UuDQoNCiAN Cg0KU2luY2VyZWx5LA0KDQogDQoNCkJpbGwgU3BydWllbGwNCg0KIA0KDQpGcm9tOiBBc3NlbWJs eSBmb3IgdGhlIFRlYWNoaW5nIG9mIEVuZ2xpc2ggR3JhbW1hciBbbWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElTVFNF UlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVV0gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIEJyYWQgSm9obnN0b24NClNlbnQ6IFR1ZXNkYXks IE1hcmNoIDI0LCAyMDA5IDc6MTcgUE0NClRvOiBBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFUNClN1 YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBxdWVyeSBvbiB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIHRoZSB3b3JkIGdvdA0KDQogDQoNCi0tLSBP biBUdWUsIDMvMjQvMDksIENhc3RpbGxlamEsIEphbmV0IDxDYXN0aWxsZWphX2pASEVSSVRBR0Uu RURVPiB3cm90ZToNCg0KIA0KDQpJIHRlbGwgbXkgc3R1ZGVudHMgdGhhdCDigJhnb3TigJkgaXMg dGhlIGlsbGVnaXRpbWF0ZSBjaGlsZCBvZiB0aGUgaGVscGluZyB2ZXJiIGZhbWlseS4NCg0KIA0K DQpZb3UgZ28gb24gdG8gZXhwbGFpbiB0aGF0IHRoZXkgc2hvdWxkIG5vdCB1c2UgaXQgd2hlbiB3 cml0aW5nIFN0YW5kYXJkIEVuZ2xpc2gsIGRvbid0IHlvdT8NCg0KIA0KDQpZb3UgdGVsbCAnZW0s ICJNeSBkb2cgd2FzIGtpbGxlZCBieSB0aGUgY2FyIiwgd2hlbiB0aGV5IHdyaXRlIGFib3V0IGl0 LCBkb24ndCB5b3U/IFN1cmUgeW91IGRvLiBUaGVyZSBJUyBzb21ldGhpbmcgdGhhdCBjYW4gYmUg ZG9uZSBhYm91dCBpdC4gJ1RhaW4ndCBob3BlbHVzIHVoJ3RhbGwsIGV2ZW4gaW4gQ2hpY2Fnby4N Cg0KIA0KDQogDQoNCkZyb206IENhc3RpbGxlamEsIEphbmV0IDxDYXN0aWxsZWphX2pASEVSSVRB R0UuRURVPg0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IHF1ZXJ5IG9uIHRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgdGhlIHdvcmQgZ290DQpU bzogQVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVDQpEYXRlOiBUdWVzZGF5LCBNYXJjaCAyNCwgMjAw OSwgNTo0MiBQTQ0KDQoJSSBhbSB1bmNsZWFyIG9uIHdoeSB5b3UgdGhpbmsgdGhpcyBpcyB1bmdy YW1tYXRpY2FsLiAgSXQgc2VlbXMgYWNjZXB0YWJsZSB0byBtZS4gV2hhdCBpcyBib3RoZXJpbmcg eW91IGFib3V0IGl0PyAgSSBrbm93IGEgbG90IG9mIHBlb3BsZSBjb21wbGFpbiB3aGVuIOKAmGdv dOKAmSBpcyB1c2VkIGFzIGFuIGF1eGlsaWFyeTogIOKAmE15IGRvZyBnb3Qga2lsbGVkIGJ5IHRo ZSBjYXIu4oCZICBUaGlzIHVzYWdlIHNlZW1zIHRvIGJlIHNvIG11Y2ggYSBwYXJ0IG9mIHRoZSBs YW5ndWFnZSB0aGF0IEkgZG91YnQgYW55dGhpbmcgY2FuIGJlIGRvbmUgYWJvdXQgaXQuICBJIHRl bGwgbXkgc3R1ZGVudHMgdGhhdCDigJhnb3TigJkgaXMgdGhlIGlsbGVnaXRpbWF0ZSBjaGlsZCBv ZiB0aGUgaGVscGluZyB2ZXJiIGZhbWlseS4NCg0KCSANCg0KCUphbmV0DQoNCiANCg0KX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCg0KRnJvbTogQXNzZW1ibHkgZm9yIHRoZSBUZWFj aGluZyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXIgW21haWx0bzpBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFVd IE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBDaWVydm8gLCBGcmFuaw0KU2VudDogVHVlc2RheSAsIE1hcmNoIDI0ICwg MjAwOSA2OjIwIEFNDQpUbzogQVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBxdWVy eSBvbiB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIHRoZSB3b3JkIGdvdA0KDQogDQoNCklzbuKAmXQgdGhpcyBhIGdvb2Qg ZXhhbXBsZSBvZiB2ZXJ5IHBvb3IgdXNhZ2U/IFVubGVzcyBteSBtZW1vcnkgaXMgdmVyeSBiYWQg LCBpdCB3b3VsZCBoYXZlIGJlZW4gY2F1c2UgZm9yIHBvaW50cyBvZmYgaW4gbXkgZnJlc2htZW4g Y29tcG9zaXRpb24gY2xhc3MuIEEgc2FkIGNvbW1lbnRhcnkgb24gdGhlIHN0YXRlIG9mIG5ld3Mg d3JpdGluZyBpbiAyMDA5DQoNCiANCg0KQnV0IEZhcmxleSBub3RlZCB0aGF0IGJpbGwgc3BvbnNv ciBBc3NlbWJseW1hbiBQZXRlciBBYmJhdGUgSnIuICwgRC1Ccm9va2x5biwgaGFzbuKAmXQgeWV0 IGdvdHRlbiBhIERlbW9jcmF0IHRvIGludHJvZHVjZSB0aGUgYmlsbCBpbiB0aGUgU2VuYXRlLiBU aGUgRGVtb2NyYXRzIHdvbiBjb250cm9sIG9mIHRoZSBTZW5hdGUgdGhpcyB5ZWFyLg0KDQogDQoN Cg0KVG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUg bGlzdCdzIHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6IGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hp dmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbCBhbmQgc2VsZWN0ICJKb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0IiANCg0KVmlz aXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8NCg0K ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9ACD9.6103ECF8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6eD0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9z b2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6ZXhjZWwiIHhtbG5zOnA9InVybjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206 b2ZmaWNlOnBvd2VycG9pbnQiIHhtbG5zOmE9InVybjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2Zm aWNlOmFjY2VzcyIgeG1sbnM6ZHQ9InV1aWQ6QzJGNDEwMTAtNjVCMy0xMWQxLUEyOUYtMDBBQTAw QzE0ODgyIiB4bWxuczpzPSJ1dWlkOkJEQzZFM0YwLTZEQTMtMTFkMS1BMkEzLTAwQUEwMEMxNDg4 MiIgeG1sbnM6cnM9InVybjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206cm93c2V0IiB4bWxuczp6PSIj Um93c2V0U2NoZW1hIiB4bWxuczpiPSJ1cm46c2NoZW1hcy1taWNyb3NvZnQtY29tOm9mZmljZTpw dWJsaXNoZXIiIHhtbG5zOnNzPSJ1cm46c2NoZW1hcy1taWNyb3NvZnQtY29tOm9mZmljZTpzcHJl YWRzaGVldCIgeG1sbnM6Yz0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6Y29tcG9u ZW50OnNwcmVhZHNoZWV0IiB4bWxuczpvYT0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZp Y2U6YWN0aXZhdGlvbiIgeG1sbnM6aHRtbD0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcvVFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0 MCIgeG1sbnM6cT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMueG1sc29hcC5vcmcvc29hcC9lbnZlbG9wZS8iIHht bG5zOkQ9IkRBVjoiIHhtbG5zOngyPSJodHRwOi8vc2NoZW1hcy5taWNyb3NvZnQuY29tL29mZmlj ZS9leGNlbC8yMDAzL3htbCIgeG1sbnM6b2lzPSJodHRwOi8vc2NoZW1hcy5taWNyb3NvZnQuY29t L3NoYXJlcG9pbnQvc29hcC9vaXMvIiB4bWxuczpkaXI9Imh0dHA6Ly9zY2hlbWFzLm1pY3Jvc29m dC5jb20vc2hhcmVwb2ludC9zb2FwL2RpcmVjdG9yeS8iIHhtbG5zOmRzPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3Lncz Lm9yZy8yMDAwLzA5L3htbGRzaWcjIiB4bWxuczpkc3A9Imh0dHA6Ly9zY2hlbWFzLm1pY3Jvc29m dC5jb20vc2hhcmVwb2ludC9kc3AiIHhtbG5zOnVkYz0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWljcm9zb2Z0 LmNvbS9kYXRhL3VkYyIgeG1sbnM6eHNkPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAxL1hNTFNjaGVt YSIgeG1sbnM6c3ViPSJodHRwOi8vc2NoZW1hcy5taWNyb3NvZnQuY29tL3NoYXJlcG9pbnQvc29h cC8yMDAyLzEvYWxlcnRzLyIgeG1sbnM6ZWM9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cudzMub3JnLzIwMDEvMDQveG1s ZW5jIyIgeG1sbnM6c3A9Imh0dHA6Ly9zY2hlbWFzLm1pY3Jvc29mdC5jb20vc2hhcmVwb2ludC8i IHhtbG5zOnNwcz0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWljcm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9zaGFyZXBvaW50L3NvYXAv IiB4bWxuczp4c2k9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cudzMub3JnLzIwMDEvWE1MU2NoZW1hLWluc3RhbmNlIiB4 bWxuczp1ZGN4Zj0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWljcm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9kYXRhL3VkYy94bWxmaWxl IiB4bWxuczp3Zj0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWljcm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9zaGFyZXBvaW50L3NvYXAv d29ya2Zsb3cvIiB4bWxuczptdmVyPSJodHRwOi8vc2NoZW1hcy5vcGVueG1sZm9ybWF0cy5vcmcv bWFya3VwLWNvbXBhdGliaWxpdHkvMjAwNiIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWljcm9z b2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxuczptcmVscz0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMu b3BlbnhtbGZvcm1hdHMub3JnL3BhY2thZ2UvMjAwNi9yZWxhdGlvbnNoaXBzIiB4bWxuczpleDEy dD0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWljcm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9leGNoYW5nZS9zZXJ2aWNlcy8yMDA2L3R5 cGVzIiB4bWxuczpleDEybT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWljcm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9leGNoYW5nZS9z ZXJ2aWNlcy8yMDA2L21lc3NhZ2VzIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcvVFIvUkVDLWh0 bWw0MCI+DQoNCjxoZWFkPg0KPG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUgY29udGVudD0i dGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9R2VuZXJhdG9yIGNvbnRlbnQ9 Ik1pY3Jvc29mdCBXb3JkIDEyIChmaWx0ZXJlZCBtZWRpdW0pIj4NCjwhLS1baWYgIW1zb10+DQo8 c3R5bGU+DQp2XDoqIHtiZWhhdmlvcjp1cmwoI2RlZmF1bHQjVk1MKTt9DQpvXDoqIHtiZWhhdmlv cjp1cmwoI2RlZmF1bHQjVk1MKTt9DQp3XDoqIHtiZWhhdmlvcjp1cmwoI2RlZmF1bHQjVk1MKTt9 DQouc2hhcGUge2JlaGF2aW9yOnVybCgjZGVmYXVsdCNWTUwpO30NCjwvc3R5bGU+DQo8IVtlbmRp Zl0tLT4NCjxzdHlsZT4NCjwhLS0NCiAvKiBGb250IERlZmluaXRpb25zICovDQogQGZvbnQtZmFj ZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FtYnJpYSBNYXRoIjsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDQgNSAzIDUgNCA2 IDMgMiA0O30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToy IDE1IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OlRhaG9tYTsN CglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDExIDYgNCAzIDUgNCA0IDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OlZlcmRhbmE7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxMSA2IDQgMyA1IDQgNCAyIDQ7fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFj ZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseToiVHJlYnVjaGV0IE1TIjsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDExIDYgMyAyIDIg MiAyIDIgNDt9DQogLyogU3R5bGUgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCiBwLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgbGkuTXNv Tm9ybWFsLCBkaXYuTXNvTm9ybWFsDQoJe21hcmdpbjowaW47DQoJbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTouMDAw MXB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiIs InNlcmlmIjt9DQpwDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgltc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1h bHQ6YXV0bzsNCgltYXJnaW4tcmlnaHQ6MGluOw0KCW1zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRv Ow0KCW1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjBpbjsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJU aW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLCJzZXJpZiI7fQ0Kc3Bhbi5lbWFpbHN0eWxlMTcNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxl LW5hbWU6ZW1haWxzdHlsZTE3O30NCnNwYW4uZW1haWxzdHlsZTE5DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1uYW1l OmVtYWlsc3R5bGUxOTt9DQpzcGFuLmVtYWlsc3R5bGUxNzENCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLW5hbWU6ZW1h aWxzdHlsZTE3MTsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiVmVyZGFuYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KCWNvbG9y OndpbmRvd3RleHQ7DQoJZm9udC13ZWlnaHQ6bm9ybWFsOw0KCWZvbnQtc3R5bGU6bm9ybWFsOw0K CXRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjpub25lIG5vbmU7fQ0Kc3Bhbi5lbWFpbHN0eWxlMTkxDQoJe21zby1z dHlsZS1uYW1lOmVtYWlsc3R5bGUxOTE7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJp ZiI7DQoJY29sb3I6bmF2eTt9DQpzcGFuLkVtYWlsU3R5bGUyMg0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpw ZXJzb25hbC1yZXBseTsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KCWNv bG9yOiMxRjQ5N0Q7fQ0KLk1zb0NocERlZmF1bHQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6ZXhwb3J0LW9u bHk7fQ0KQHBhZ2UgU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7c2l6ZTo4LjVpbiAxMS4waW47DQoJbWFyZ2luOjEuMGlu IDEuMGluIDEuMGluIDEuMGluO30NCmRpdi5TZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtwYWdlOlNlY3Rpb24xO30NCi0t Pg0KPC9zdHlsZT4NCjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KIDxvOnNoYXBlZGVmYXVsdHMg djpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIHNwaWRtYXg9IjEwMjYiIC8+DQo8L3htbD48IVtlbmRpZl0tLT48IS0tW2lm IGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4NCiA8bzpzaGFwZWxheW91dCB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCI+DQogIDxvOmlk bWFwIHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0IiBkYXRhPSIxIiAvPg0KIDwvbzpzaGFwZWxheW91dD48L3htbD48IVtl bmRpZl0tLT4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCg0KPGJvZHkgbGFuZz1FTi1VUyBsaW5rPSIjMDAwMDAwIiB2bGlu az0iIzAwMDAwMCI+DQoNCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9U2VjdGlvbjE+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1h bD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNh bnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0K DQo8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1m YW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsNCmNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPlRoaXMgbG9va3Mg bGlrZSBhIGdvb2QgZXhhbXBsZSBvZiB3aHkgd2UgbmVlZCB0byBjYXJlZnVsbHkNCmRpc3Rpbmd1 aXNoIOKAnGNvbGxvcXVpYWzigJ0gZnJvbSDigJx1bmdyYW1tYXRpY2FsLuKAnSBJIGFkdmlzZSBz dHVkZW50cyB0byBzd2l0Y2ggdG8NCnRoZSBjYW5vbmljYWwgcGFzc2l2ZSBpbiBmb3JtYWwgd3Jp dGluZywgYnV0IEkgdmlldyB0aGF0IGFzIHN0eWxpc3RpYyBhZHZpY2UsDQpub3QgYXMgYSBncmFt bWF0aWNhbCBpbmp1bmN0aW9uLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNv Tm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJp Iiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQpjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48 L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtm b250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+QXMgYSBz aWRlIG5vdGUgb24geW91ciBhbmFsb2d5OiBHaXZlbiB0aGUgZnJlcXVlbmN5IHdpdGggd2hpY2gN CmhlbHBpbmcgdmVyYnMgcGFpciB1cCB3aXRoIG1haW4gdmVyYnMsIEkgd291bGQgZXhwZWN0IGEg dmVyeSwgdmVyeSBsYXJnZSBzZXQgb2YNCmlsbGVnaXRpbWF0ZSBvZmZzcHJpbmcuIEl04oCZcyBv bmUgb2YgdGhlIG1hbnkgZ3JleSBhcmVhcyBpbiBncmFtbWFyLCBhbmQgcGVyaGFwcw0Kd2Ugc2hv dWxkIGFkanVzdCB0byBtb2Rlcm5pdHkgYW5kIGxlZ2FsaXplIGdyZXkgbWFycmlhZ2UgaW4gdGhp cyBjYXNlLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFu IHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJp ZiI7DQpjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNs YXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToi Q2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+U2luY2VyZWx5LDxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNp emU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQpjb2xvcjojMUY0 OTdEJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48 c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMt c2VyaWYiOw0KY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+QmlsbCBTcHJ1aWVsbDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwv cD4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2Zv bnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQpjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz48bzpwPiZu YnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQoNCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9J2JvcmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRlci10 b3A6c29saWQgI0I1QzRERiAxLjBwdDtwYWRkaW5nOjMuMHB0IDBpbiAwaW4gMGluJz4NCg0KPHAg Y2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+RnJvbTo8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxzcGFuDQpzdHlsZT0n Zm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPiBBc3Nl bWJseSBmb3IgdGhlDQpUZWFjaGluZyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXIgW21haWx0bzpBVEVHQExJ U1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFVdIDxiPk9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiA8L2I+QnJhZA0KSm9obnN0b248YnI+ DQo8Yj5TZW50OjwvYj4gVHVlc2RheSwgTWFyY2ggMjQsIDIwMDkgNzoxNyBQTTxicj4NCjxiPlRv OjwvYj4gQVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVPGJyPg0KPGI+U3ViamVjdDo8L2I+IFJlOiBx dWVyeSBvbiB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIHRoZSB3b3JkIGdvdDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCg0K PC9kaXY+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCg0KPHRh YmxlIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbFRhYmxlIGJvcmRlcj0wIGNlbGxzcGFjaW5nPTAgY2VsbHBhZGRp bmc9MD4NCiA8dHI+DQogIDx0ZCB2YWxpZ249dG9wIHN0eWxlPSdwYWRkaW5nOjBpbiAwaW4gMGlu IDBpbic+DQogIDxkaXY+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD4tLS0gT24gPGI+VHVlLCAzLzI0 LzA5LCBDYXN0aWxsZWphLCBKYW5ldCA8aT4mbHQ7Q2FzdGlsbGVqYV9qQEhFUklUQUdFLkVEVSZn dDs8L2k+PC9iPg0KICB3cm90ZTo8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgPC9kaXY+DQogIDxkaXY+DQog IDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgPC9kaXY+DQogIDxk aXY+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nY29sb3I6bmF2eSc+SSB0ZWxs IG15IHN0dWRlbnRzIHRoYXQg4oCYZ2904oCZIGlzDQogIHRoZSBpbGxlZ2l0aW1hdGUgY2hpbGQg b2YgdGhlIGhlbHBpbmcgdmVyYiBmYW1pbHkuPC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8L2Rp dj4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bztt c28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byc+PHNwYW4NCiAgc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4w cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6bmF2eSc+Jm5ic3A7PC9z cGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8ZGl2Pg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+WW91IGdv IG9uIHRvIGV4cGxhaW4mbmJzcDt0aGF0IHRoZXkgc2hvdWxkIG5vdCZuYnNwO3VzZSBpdA0KICB3 aGVuIHdyaXRpbmcgU3RhbmRhcmQgRW5nbGlzaCwgZG9uJ3QgeW91PzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0K ICA8L2Rpdj4NCiAgPGRpdj4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+ PC9wPg0KICA8L2Rpdj4NCiAgPGRpdj4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPllvdSB0ZWxsICdl bSwgJnF1b3Q7TXkgZG9nIHdhcyBraWxsZWQgYnkgdGhlDQogIGNhciZxdW90OywmbmJzcDt3aGVu IHRoZXkgd3JpdGUgYWJvdXQgaXQsIGRvbid0IHlvdT8gU3VyZSB5b3UgZG8uIFRoZXJlIElTDQog IHNvbWV0aGluZyB0aGF0IGNhbiBiZSBkb25lIGFib3V0IGl0LiAnVGFpbid0IGhvcGVsdXMgdWgn dGFsbCwgZXZlbiBpbg0KICBDaGljYWdvLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8L2Rpdj4NCiAgPGRp dj4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8L2Rpdj4N CiAgPGRpdj4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8 L2Rpdj4NCiAgPGRpdj4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtYXJnaW4tYm90dG9t OjEyLjBwdCc+RnJvbTogQ2FzdGlsbGVqYSwgSmFuZXQNCiAgJmx0O0Nhc3RpbGxlamFfakBIRVJJ VEFHRS5FRFUmZ3Q7PGJyPg0KICBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogcXVlcnkgb24gdGhlIHVzZSBvZiB0aGUg d29yZCBnb3Q8YnI+DQogIFRvOiBBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFU8YnI+DQogIERhdGU6 IFR1ZXNkYXksIE1hcmNoIDI0LCAyMDA5LCA1OjQyIFBNPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDwvZGl2 Pg0KICA8YmxvY2txdW90ZSBzdHlsZT0nYm9yZGVyOm5vbmU7Ym9yZGVyLWxlZnQ6c29saWQgIzEw MTBGRiAxLjVwdDtwYWRkaW5nOjBpbiAwaW4gMGluIDQuMHB0Ow0KICBtYXJnaW4tbGVmdDozLjc1 cHQ7bWFyZ2luLXRvcDo1LjBwdDttYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOjUuMHB0Jz4NCiAgPGRpdiBpZD15aXY1 Mjg2MTUxOTg+DQogIDxkaXY+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdp bi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG8nPjxzcGFuDQogIHN0eWxl PSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9y Om5hdnknPkkgYW0NCiAgdW5jbGVhciBvbiB3aHkgeW91IHRoaW5rIHRoaXMgaXMgdW5ncmFtbWF0 aWNhbC4mbmJzcDsgSXQgc2VlbXMgYWNjZXB0YWJsZSB0bw0KICBtZS4gV2hhdCBpcyBib3RoZXJp bmcgeW91IGFib3V0IGl0PyZuYnNwOyBJIGtub3cgYSBsb3Qgb2YgcGVvcGxlIGNvbXBsYWluDQog IHdoZW4g4oCYZ2904oCZIGlzIHVzZWQgYXMgYW4gYXV4aWxpYXJ5OiZuYnNwOyDigJhNeSBkb2cg Z290IGtpbGxlZCBieSB0aGUNCiAgY2FyLuKAmSZuYnNwOyBUaGlzIHVzYWdlIHNlZW1zIHRvIGJl IHNvIG11Y2ggYSBwYXJ0IG9mIHRoZSBsYW5ndWFnZSB0aGF0IEkNCiAgZG91YnQgYW55dGhpbmcg Y2FuIGJlIGRvbmUgYWJvdXQgaXQuJm5ic3A7IEkgdGVsbCBteSBzdHVkZW50cyB0aGF0IOKAmGdv dOKAmSBpcw0KICB0aGUgaWxsZWdpdGltYXRlIGNoaWxkIG9mIHRoZSBoZWxwaW5nIHZlcmIgZmFt aWx5Ljwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgPC9kaXY+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1h bCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1 dG8nPjxzcGFuDQogIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIs InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOm5hdnknPiZuYnNwOzwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAg PC9kaXY+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1 dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG8nPjxzcGFuDQogIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6 MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOm5hdnknPkphbmV0 PC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8L2Jsb2NrcXVvdGU+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05v cm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0 OmF1dG8nPjxzcGFuDQogIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlh bCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOm5hdnknPiZuYnNwOzwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4N CiAgPGRpdj4NCiAgPGRpdiBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgYWxpZ249Y2VudGVyIHN0eWxlPSd0ZXh0 LWFsaWduOmNlbnRlcic+DQogIDxociBzaXplPTIgd2lkdGg9IjEwMCUiIGFsaWduPWNlbnRlcj4N CiAgPC9kaXY+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0 OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG8nPjxiPjxzcGFuDQogIHN0eWxlPSdmb250 LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+RnJvbTo8L3Nw YW4+PC9iPjxzcGFuDQogIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhv bWEiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+IEFzc2VtYmx5IGZvciB0aGUNCiAgVGVhY2hpbmcgb2YgRW5nbGlz aCBHcmFtbWFyIFttYWlsdG86QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVXSA8Yj5PbiBCZWhhbGYg T2YNCiAgPC9iPkNpZXJ2byAsIEZyYW5rPGJyPg0KICA8Yj5TZW50OjwvYj4gVHVlc2RheSAsIE1h cmNoIDI0ICwgMjAwOSA2OjIwIEFNPGJyPg0KICA8Yj5Ubzo8L2I+IEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVP SElPLkVEVTxicj4NCiAgPGI+U3ViamVjdDo8L2I+IHF1ZXJ5IG9uIHRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgdGhlIHdv cmQgZ290PC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8L2Rpdj4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9y bWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6 YXV0byc+PHNwYW4NCiAgc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxNC4wcHQ7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2snPiZuYnNw Ozwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtc28t bWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byc+PHNwYW4NCiAg c3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRyZWJ1Y2hldCBNUyIsInNhbnMt c2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz5Jc27igJl0DQogIHRoaXMgYSBnb29kIGV4YW1wbGUgb2YgdmVy eSBwb29yIHVzYWdlPyBVbmxlc3MgbXkgbWVtb3J5IGlzIHZlcnkgYmFkICwgaXQNCiAgd291bGQg aGF2ZSBiZWVuIGNhdXNlIGZvciBwb2ludHMgb2ZmIGluIG15IGZyZXNobWVuIGNvbXBvc2l0aW9u IGNsYXNzLiBBIHNhZA0KICBjb21tZW50YXJ5IG9uIHRoZSBzdGF0ZSBvZiBuZXdzIHdyaXRpbmcg aW4gMjAwOTwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxl PSdtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byc+PHNw YW4NCiAgc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRyZWJ1Y2hldCBNUyIs InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz4mbmJzcDs8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQog IDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1h cmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG8nPjxzcGFuDQogIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2Zv bnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUcmVidWNoZXQgTVMiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+QnV0DQog IEZhcmxleSBub3RlZCB0aGF0IGJpbGwgc3BvbnNvciBBc3NlbWJseW1hbiBQZXRlciBBYmJhdGUg SnIuICwgRC1Ccm9va2x5bjxiPiwNCiAgaGFzbuKAmXQgeWV0IGdvdHRlbjwvYj4gYSBEZW1vY3Jh dCB0byBpbnRyb2R1Y2UgdGhlIGJpbGwgaW4gdGhlIFNlbmF0ZS4gVGhlDQogIERlbW9jcmF0cyB3 b24gY29udHJvbCBvZiB0aGUgU2VuYXRlIHRoaXMgeWVhci48L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+ DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNv LW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG8nPjxzcGFuDQogIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LWZhbWlseToiVmVy ZGFuYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz4mbmJzcDs8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDwvdGQ+ DQogPC90cj4NCjwvdGFibGU+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9u dC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz48YnI+DQpU byBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0 J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZSBhdDoNCmh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVz L2F0ZWcuaHRtbCBhbmQgc2VsZWN0ICZxdW90O0pvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUNCnRoZSBsaXN0JnF1b3Q7 IDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCg0KPHA+VmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0 dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy88bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCg0KPC9kaXY+DQoNCjwvYm9keT4NCg0KPC9o dG1sPg0K ------_=_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

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 1^st and 2^nd 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--