Bruce, Bill,
     I second the thanks for a great article. I admit that the neuroscience isn't my strength, but I am glad that this approach to language is not simply a philosophical one, but one that is gathering interest (and valididty) from neuroscience and psychology. Tomasello and others have looked directly at childhood language acquisition in an attempt to see these "usage based" patterns at work and the model seems to hold. There are huge implications for teaching which haven't been fully explored yet. It certainly weakens the argument that students don't need to be taught grammar because they have it as birthright.
   Construction grammar tends to direct attention to the enormous number of local constructions, which are certainly in between what is usually thought of as vocabulary or syntax if those are thought of as separate modules. Adele Goldberg's work is largely an argument for even the most general grammatical patterns as generalizations from use.  The presence of these lower level (more local) schema make that argument much easier to make. There is, from that perspective, a lexico-grammar, not a separate lexicon and separate grammar.
    The math in the corpus grammars does seem to be largely statistical. Biber et. al. look for what they call the co-occurrence of grammatical features and have re-examined the notion of genre from that perspective. The understanding would be that the language is shaped by what it is called on to accomplish, that it is what it is because of what it does. If you try to study it as an isolated formal system, you will miss all these insights.
    I had a long-standing conversation with a friend in artificial intelligence who died tragically young (actually lived longer than expected with cystic fibrosis.) I miss those talks. My position still is that computers will never "understand" human language because human language is deeply tied to human experience. They will never know what it is like to "drink the milk of human kindness" in part because they have never had mothers and never suckled at a mother's breast. Language doesn't just represent a world, but facilitates human interaction (and is what it is in part to allow that to happen.) The only thing a computer can do is construct or reconstruct form on the basis of prior human programming. I have never met a computer that can understand what I am saying in any kind of complex way. If I write something brilliant or something stupid, they will record the form of it letter by letter, word for word, but they have no way of telling the difference.
    Grammar checks recognize the passive on the basis of its formal realization, but they haven't figured out a way to measure its usefulness within a discourse context.

Craig


On 12/14/2010 6:11 PM, Bruce Despain wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> Thank you for pointing us to that great article! I think we can see
> at once the simplicity and multiplicity of devices required to
> characterize the elements that go into learning a language. The
> conclusion from Bever, Sanz, and Townsend (1998) is quite quotable:
> ‘‘The relation between pattern frequencies, semantics and syntax
> remains the central problem of language processing. Almost any set
> of simplifying assumptions about how to study that integration and
> how it works is likely to be incomplete or wrong. The damn thing is
> probably much more complex than our models will allow.’’ The
> progress that has been made in building and implementing neural nets
> in this regard has be very promising. Their use to model learning
> is obvious, but their use in modelling knowledge is less obvious,
> where memory structures come strongly into play.
>
>
>
> Bruce
>
>
> --- [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> To:
> [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: science Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010
> 17:11:48 -0500
>
> Bruce and Craig, et al.:
>
>
>
> The following article might be relevant to the discussion (and it
> has mickel sciencinesse). --- Bill Spruiell
>
>
>
> http://ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/fulltext/hoen/Dominey_2006_DomHoenInui_JOCN_2006.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Bruce Despain
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:41 PM *To:*
> [log in to unmask] *Subject:* Re: science
>
>
>
> Craig,
>
>
>
> You may be right about such linguists taking issue with modelling
> techniques. I believe their position has to do with their goal of
> modelling the cognitive faculty. They might have a problem with
> constructing a mind out of a computer. Compare the construction and
> performance of some of the early computers with those operated
> today. We would say that the early designers took many "shortcuts."
> The differences are in complexity, basically the layering and
> interfacing of the various modules. The formal constructs needed for
> any model can be simulated by the mind, and I believe on any
> computer, provided it is designed with enough sophistication.
>
>
>
> My efforts at formal languages and models have driven me to believe
> that any field may be described with a certain set of basic tools --
> just as the basic elements of a computer (bits) have been used to
> model numbers and information of many kinds. Whether language is
> autonomous or not is irrelevant to its formal modelling. In my
> thinking the way a word is spelled (in English) is different from
> the way it is pronounced. This tells me that there are definitely
> two conceptual modules, otherwise, I believe, the systematic
> conventions of spelling would be much more in line with the
> systematic conventions of pronunciation. Yet, it is no accident that
> IPA uses letters to represent sounds.
>
>
>
> I do not mean to diminish the cognitive approach to language. These
> linguists are ambitious. They have decided to back up and try again
> without two separate modules of syntax and semantics. The
> systematic conventions of word and morpheme arrangement correspond
> indeed to many of the systematic conventions of the conceptual
> patterns in the mind. For example, I have found that the modelling
> work by computer scientists in Europe on semantic nets parallels the
> syntactic structures of European languages, even though their
> primitive elements are quite different. I would predict that
> cognitive linguists will make similar models so long as they are
> working on the more historically related cultural complexes. I do
> not believe, however, that the differences between these two fields
> to be modelled are so harmonic that treating them as one could be
> advantageous. It has been a number of years for computers to adapt
> to human cognitive activities. However, this did not result in
> redoing the basic design elements and tools. It is hard for me to
> accept the arguments of cognitive linguists that redoing syntax as a
> version of semantics will increase understanding. I do not believe
> that syntax, as it is understood by most linguists specializing in
> it, will use semantic networks. The goal is noble, but to conquer
> most such challenges the more fruitful strategy in the past has
> always been to divide the problem space. My position is that the
> same results may well come from applying a more analytic approach to
> both syntax and semantics.
>
>
>
>
> By the way, would you be in a position to enumerate any of the
> principles or laws that have been discovered, formulated,
> hypothesized, or refuted by corpus linguistics? Perhaps, one is
> that grammar can only be measured in terms of probabilities and
> tendencies. These are the kinds of measurements usually taken on
> human cognitive abilities. It is interesting that people who have
> lost part of their linguistic abilities, seem to have lost them in
> certain characteristic chunks.
>
>
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> --- [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> From: Craig Hancock Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:42:50 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: 'Tis the season MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-318306803-1292445770=:41651" --0-318306803-1292445770=:41651 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ken Follett wrote: "The eldest sister, Ethel, had now left home, and the other three had died. There had been an older brother, too, who had shared Billy's bed before Gramper came. Wesley had been his name, and he had been killed underground by a runaway dram."   ~~~~~   Someone came down the chimney last night. His name had been Santa.   .merrychristmas.brad.15dec10. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-318306803-1292445770=:41651 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ken Follett wrote: "The eldest sister, Ethel, had now left home, and the other three had died. There had been an older brother, too, who had shared Billy's bed before Gramper came. Wesley had been his name, and he had been killed underground by a runaway dram."
 
~~~~~
 
Someone came down the chimney last night. His name had been Santa.
 
.merrychristmas.brad.15dec10.

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-318306803-1292445770=:41651-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:20:44 +0000 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Chorazy <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Noun clauses In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_qw62GvbGApA2XvV/Muc5MA)" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_qw62GvbGApA2XvV/Muc5MA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have some thoughts on. The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious." "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all day, the dog ran around and barked." And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a competition differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists." Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronoun? Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it has a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" as the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front. Thank you very much! Sincerely, John John Chorazy English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High School Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Boundary_(ID_qw62GvbGApA2XvV/Muc5MA) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline

Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have some thoughts on.

The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious."

"That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all day, the dog ran around and barked."

And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a competition differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists."

Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronoun?

Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it has a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" as the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front.

Thank you very much!

Sincerely,

John

 

 



John Chorazy
English III Academy, Honors, and Academic
Pequannock Township High School

Nulla dies sine linea.

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Boundary_(ID_qw62GvbGApA2XvV/Muc5MA)-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:13:08 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Kathleen Ward <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0022152d60cd5989da04979f1fd1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Okay, I'll try this set. To take the last first, the "Should you" is a conditional clause, with inversion of the modal auxiliary and the subject pronoun. Most modern conditional clauses begin with "if" and exhibit no inversion, but this inversion is also possible. Expressed subjects are required in conditional clauses, though not, as your students know, in imperative clauses. In the "That the healthcare system needs fixing" sentence, the noun clause is functioning as the subject of the sentence, and "that" is always required when this sort of clause is in subject position. "That" is not required when the noun clause is functioning as the complement of the verb, for example: "I contend the health care system needs fixing." In the "the cat that slept all day" example, "that slept all day" is a restrictive relative clause modifying "cat"; "the cat that slept all day" is a noun phrase functioning as the object of a preposition, "unlike." Whether "that"is a relative pronoun is the subject of some contention, but it certainly is functioning in the position that a relative pronoun would be. Note that you can substitute "which" in this clause (the cat which slept all day), although many people dislike it. The last one (Lynn Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a competition) is a little different, and, as far as I can tell, is usually -- and badly -- lumped in with restrictive relative clauses while being rather different from them. Sometimes these clauses are called content clauses, or noun complement clauses, or even more clumsily, appositive clauses, and they have some interesting properties. First, they occur only after a certain class of nouns: theory, fact, contention, idea, etc. Second, rather than "modifying" those nouns, they completely spell out the meaning of the noun. In your example, "evolution is a process rather than a competition" IS the theory; it's not just a little more information ABOUT the theory. Third, you can never substitute "which" for the "that" in these clauses. "Lynn Margulis' theory which evolution is a process rather than a competition" is just not possible for a native speaker of English. Fourth, these clauses are "complete": That is, if you take off the "that," you have a complete sentence. "Evolution is a process rather than a competition" is a complete sentence on its own. The "that" has no function within the clause. Contrast this with what happens when you remove the "that" from the restrictive relative clause you used: "slept all day" is not, by itself, a sentence. Kathleen Ward On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:20 AM, John Chorazy <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about clauses > and have collected some questions that the list might have some thoughts on. > > The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That the > healthcare system needs fixing is obvious." > > "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all day, the > dog ran around and barked." > > And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn > Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a competition > differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists." > > Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronoun? > > Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should you > have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it has a big > brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" as the subject > and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front. > > Thank you very much! > > Sincerely, > > John > > > > > > > John Chorazy > English III Academy, Honors, and Academic > Pequannock Township High School > > Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit > the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.htmland select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0022152d60cd5989da04979f1fd1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Okay, I'll try this set.

To take the last first, the "Should you" is a conditional clause, with inversion of the modal auxiliary and the subject pronoun. Most modern conditional clauses begin with "if" and exhibit no inversion, but this inversion  is also possible.  Expressed subjects are required in conditional clauses, though not, as your students know, in imperative clauses.

In the "That the healthcare system needs fixing" sentence, the noun clause is functioning as the subject of the sentence, and "that" is always required when this sort of clause is in subject position.  "That" is not required when the noun clause is functioning as the complement of the verb, for example: "I contend the health care system needs fixing."

In the "the cat that slept all day" example, "that slept all day" is a restrictive relative clause modifying "cat";  "the cat that slept all day" is a noun phrase functioning as the object of a preposition, "unlike."  Whether "that"is a relative pronoun is the subject of some contention, but it certainly is functioning in the position that a relative pronoun would be.  Note that you can substitute "which" in this clause (the cat which slept all day), although many people dislike it.

The last one (Lynn Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a competition) is a little different, and, as far as I can tell, is usually -- and badly -- lumped in with restrictive relative clauses while being rather different from them.  Sometimes these clauses are called content clauses, or noun complement clauses, or even more clumsily, appositive clauses, and they have some interesting properties.

First, they occur only after a certain class of nouns:  theory, fact, contention, idea, etc. 

Second, rather than "modifying" those nouns, they completely spell out the meaning of the noun.  In your example, "evolution is a process rather than a competition" IS the theory; it's not just a little more information ABOUT the theory.

Third, you can never substitute "which" for the "that" in these clauses. "Lynn  Margulis' theory which evolution is a process rather than a competition" is just not possible for a native speaker of English. 

Fourth, these clauses are "complete":  That is, if you take off the "that," you have a complete sentence. "Evolution is a process rather than a competition" is a complete sentence on its own.  The "that" has no function within the clause.  Contrast this with what happens when you remove the "that" from the restrictive relative clause you used:  "slept all day" is not, by itself, a sentence.

Kathleen Ward



On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:20 AM, John Chorazy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have some thoughts on.

The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious."

"That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all day, the dog ran around and barked."

And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a competition differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists."

Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronoun?

Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it has a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" as the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front.

Thank you very much!

Sincerely,

John

 

 



John Chorazy
English III Academy, Honors, and Academic
Pequannock Township High School

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

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


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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0022152d60cd5989da04979f1fd1-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:13:54 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"

John, 
 
I'll be happy to try my hand at your question. 
 
The first example is where the (factive) nominal clause is serving as the subject of the sentence.  A common paraphrase is: "It is obvious that the healthcare system needs fixing."  I believe this order is used to save the content for end position.  Traditionally the nominal clause in this position is called an explanitory clause, because it explains what "it" is all about.  
 
The second example is the adjectival clause.  The "that" is traditionally considered a relative pronoun because it relates to the cat, which is not part of the clause.  From the Latin point of view this pronoun is serving as the subject of the clause referring to the sleeping cat.  There has been some discussion on this listserve last year concerning the possiblity of analyzing the "that" as a filler related to the "that" of the nominal clause, which serves no more function than to signal the beginning of the clause.  Both functions do not seem far from the deictic function of the demonstrative "that."
 
The third example is what might be considered a combination of the two above functions of "that."  The nominial clause in this position is serving as what is called an appositive.  The appositive is a nominal construction that serves as an adjectival modifier, here to the noun "theory."  Hence, the reason I suggested that it is a combination of the two functions.  Here again we see its factive denotation, now serving as an explanitory clause. 
 
The last sentence quoted is indeed structured as an imperative.  The unusual part of the construction is that it is provided with an adverbial adjunct of condition.  This particular conditional clause has been worded using the auxiliary "should," which is the modern version of what was formerly called a subjunctive mode or mood.  Its use here is to signal a hypothetical situation.  Adverbial clauses may normally be paraphrased as separate sentences: "You may have some trouble identifying the house.  In this case ..."
 
I hope this will help.
 
Bruce Despain
Retired linguist

--- [log in to unmask] wrote:

From: John Chorazy <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Noun clauses
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:20:44 +0000

Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have some thoughts on.
The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious."
"That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all day, the dog ran around and barked."
And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a competition differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists."
Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronoun?
Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it has a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" as the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front.
Thank you very much!
Sincerely,
John
 
 


John Chorazy
English III Academy, Honors, and Academic
Pequannock Township High School

Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 17 Dec 2010 13:45:39 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE881ACEMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE881ACEMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John, We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of "that" in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all of it, but here's the position I've taken, which is also the position of Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles and Huddleston & Pullum in their rather more recent Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. There are two function words "that" in English. One is the distal demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the other is the subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you have provided. When "that" is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a subordinator, not a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns are the wh- words. This analysis implies that there is a gap in the relative clause corresponding to the head noun, so in "The pitches that Casey missed..." the gap is in direct object position where "pitches" would be if the relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the subject that is zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid processing problems that arise when a second finite verb occurs in a sentence without any overt marking that it is in a subordinate clause, so in "The ball that got past Casey was a strike" the dropping of "that" would leave "The ball got past Casey was a strike" which some speakers will use but writers will avoid. The fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not evidence that it's a relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or asyndetic relative clauses. There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in all of its non-demonstrative uses. * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that." Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed. * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would expect it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those Casey missed...." * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh- relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...." * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike pronouns. There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in Huddleston & Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of this analysis by Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21 (1985), 149-179 titled "Relative that - a centennial dispute. It's a fascinating, thoughtful, and incisive critique. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Noun clauses Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have some thoughts on. The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious." "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all day, the dog ran around and barked." And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a competition differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists." Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronoun? Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it has a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" as the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front. Thank you very much! Sincerely, John John Chorazy English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High School Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE881ACEMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

John,

 

We’ve had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of “that” in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all of it, but here’s the position I’ve taken, which is also the position of Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles and Huddleston & Pullum in their rather more recent Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. 

 

There are two function words “that” in English.  One is the distal demonstrative “that” with its plural “these,” and the other is the subordinator “that” as found in the clauses you have provided.  When “that” is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a subordinator, not a relative pronoun.  The relative pronouns are the wh- words.  This analysis implies that there is a gap in the relative clause corresponding to the head noun, so in “The pitches that Casey missed…” the gap is in direct object position where “pitches” would be if the relative clause were a main clause instead.  If it’s the subject that is zero, most speakers require “that” to avoid processing problems that arise when a second finite verb occurs in a sentence without any overt marking that it is in a subordinate clause, so in “The ball that got past Casey was a strike” the dropping of “that” would leave “The ball got past Casey was a strike” which some speakers will use but writers will avoid.   The fact that “that” is required there for clarity is not evidence that it’s a relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or asyndetic relative clauses.  

 

There are several reasons for calling “that” a subordinator in all of its non-demonstrative uses. 

 

·         It’s always unstressed, as is the subordinator “that.”  Pronominal and determiner “that” are rarely unstressed.

·         If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would expect it to have a plural “those” in “*The pitches those Casey missed….”

·         There is no possessive form, although there is for wh- relatives, so we can’t say “*The ball that’s casing came off….”

·         It is deletable, like the subordinator “that” and unlike pronouns.

 

There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in Huddleston & Pullum.  There is also a very thorough critique of this analysis by Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21 (1985), 149-179 titled “Relative that – a centennial dispute.  It’s a fascinating, thoughtful, and incisive critique.

 

Herb

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Noun clauses

 

Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have some thoughts on.

The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious."

"That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all day, the dog ran around and barked."

And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a competition differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists."

Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronoun?

Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it has a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" as the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front.

Thank you very much!

Sincerely,

John

 

 



John Chorazy
English III Academy, Honors, and Academic
Pequannock Township High School

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE881ACEMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:03:41 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Katz, Seth" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey, Herb-- Thanks for recapitulating the argument for that being just a subordinator and not a pronoun. You always make me think. A lot. A nice break from grading. Unless I am misunderstanding you, I would note an exception to a claim you make. You say · It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike pronouns. But the wh-pronouns are deletable in adjective clauses, when the pronoun fills the direct object role in the dependent clause, as in The woman whom you met this morning is an old friend of mine. The woman _____ you met this morning is an old friend of mine. Am I missing something in what you said? Happy end-of-semester-- Seth Dr. Seth Katz Assistant Professor Department of English Bradley University Faculty Advisor Bradley University Hillel ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Stahlke, Herbert F.W. Sent: Fri 12/17/2010 12:45 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Noun clauses John, We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of "that" in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all of it, but here's the position I've taken, which is also the position of Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles and Huddleston & Pullum in their rather more recent Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. There are two function words "that" in English. One is the distal demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the other is the subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you have provided. When "that" is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a subordinator, not a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns are the wh- words. This analysis implies that there is a gap in the relative clause corresponding to the head noun, so in "The pitches that Casey missed..." the gap is in direct object position where "pitches" would be if the relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the subject that is zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid processing problems that arise when a second finite verb occurs in a sentence without any overt marking that it is in a subordinate clause, so in "The ball that got past Casey was a strike" the dropping of "that" would leave "The ball got past Casey was a strike" which some speakers will use but writers will avoid. The fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not evidence that it's a relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or asyndetic relative clauses. There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in all of its non-demonstrative uses. · It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that." Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed. · If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would expect it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those Casey missed...." · There is no possessive form, although there is for wh- relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...." · It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike pronouns. There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in Huddleston & Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of this analysis by Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21 (1985), 149-179 titled "Relative that - a centennial dispute. It's a fascinating, thoughtful, and incisive critique. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Noun clauses Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have some thoughts on. The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious." "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all day, the dog ran around and barked." And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a competition differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists." Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronoun? Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it has a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" as the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front. Thank you very much! Sincerely, John John Chorazy English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High School Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 17 Dec 2010 15:52:51 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Seth, That's one of the arguments I didn't go into. There is a hierarchy of grammatical relations that governs all sorts of movement and deletion processes across languages, called the Keenan-Comrie Accessibility Hierarchy. Here's an example from the Wikipedia article on the KCAH, which is worth reading: Subject That's the man [who ran away]. The girl [who came late] is my sister. Direct object That's the man [I saw yesterday]. The girl [Kate saw] is my sister. Indirect object That's the man [to whom I gave the letter]. The girl [whom I wrote a letter to] is my sister. Oblique That's the man [I was talking about]. The girl [whom I sat next to] is my sister. Genitive That's the man [whose sister I know]. The girl [whose father died] told me she was sad. Obj of Comp That's the man [I am taller than]. The girl [who Kate is smarter than] is my sister. Notice that "that" can occur in prepositional phrases only if the preposition is stranded. "...to that I was talking" is not possible. Also, the genitive, as I pointed out earlier, does not allow "that." These are precisely the positions in which asyndetic relatives are also ungrammatical. There is an extension of this in colloquial speech and in non-standard dialects where the gap in the relative clause is filled by a resumptive pronoun. These occur in genitive and comparatives especially, although they'll also occur in more complex constructions. An example would be "?I'd like you to meet the poet that we read a lot of her work last year." We certainly would not allow that in formal writing, but it's not at all unusual in speech. The comparative marker "than" acts a lot like a preposition in English, and so if we combine it with prepositional phrases, which in this version are collapsed with indirect objects, then what we see is that asyndetic relatives are blocked only at the lowest level of the hierarchy, Genitives. The fact that "that" can't be dropped if the gap is in subject position is a separate phenomenon that is related to language processing needs. Otherwise that-deletion in noun clauses and in relatives is pretty much the same rule. That-relatives and zero-relatives then fall together into one subclass of relative clauses that behave differently from wh-relatives. This distinction between that- and wh-relatives reflects the history of the language. Historically, English had only the that-type and asyndetic relatives, although the subordinator was "tha" rather than "that." This is a reflection of the strongly paratactic structure of Old English: not a lot of subordination but lots of main clauses in sequence, sometimes conjoined by "and." Old English did not have wh-relatives until the Late Old English period when they developed probably from indefinite relatives under the influence of Latin, which the scribes of the time knew well. In Latin, relative clauses had to be formed with relative pronouns fully inflected for gender, number, and case. After the Norman Conquest, when the tradition of Alfred the Great's English scriptoria was suppressed, wh-relatives also disappeared and didn't reappear until the late 13th c. when, once again, Latin influenced writers borrowed the structure from Latin. Wh-relatives even today are more strongly a feature of educated standard English than of non-standard dialects, which use that- and zero- relatives much more. In fact, wh-relatives are still so much a function of formal education and of Standard English that when non-standard speakers attempt to use the wh-pronouns to initiate clauses they frequently use them in unusual ways, as in sentences like "We were going to have a picnic Saturday, which it rained." Such wh-coordination is not at all uncommon in spoken non-standard dialects. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:04 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Noun clauses Hey, Herb-- Thanks for recapitulating the argument for that being just a subordinator and not a pronoun. You always make me think. A lot. A nice break from grading. Unless I am misunderstanding you, I would note an exception to a claim you make. You say * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike pronouns. But the wh-pronouns are deletable in adjective clauses, when the pronoun fills the direct object role in the dependent clause, as in The woman whom you met this morning is an old friend of mine. The woman _____ you met this morning is an old friend of mine. Am I missing something in what you said? Happy end-of-semester-- Seth Dr. Seth Katz Assistant Professor Department of English Bradley University Faculty Advisor Bradley University Hillel ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Stahlke, Herbert F.W. Sent: Fri 12/17/2010 12:45 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Noun clauses John, We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of "that" in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all of it, but here's the position I've taken, which is also the position of Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles and Huddleston & Pullum in their rather more recent Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. There are two function words "that" in English. One is the distal demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the other is the subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you have provided. When "that" is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a subordinator, not a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns are the wh- words. This analysis implies that there is a gap in the relative clause corresponding to the head noun, so in "The pitches that Casey missed..." the gap is in direct object position where "pitches" would be if the relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the subject that is zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid processing problems that arise when a second finite verb occurs in a sentence without any overt marking that it is in a subordinate clause, so in "The ball that got past Casey was a strike" the dropping of "that" would leave "The ball got past Casey was a strike" which some speakers will use but writers will avoid. The fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not evidence that it's a relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or asyndetic relative clauses. There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in all of its non-demonstrative uses. * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that." Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed. * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would expect it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those Casey missed...." * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh- relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...." * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike pronouns. There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in Huddleston & Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of this analysis by Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21 (1985), 149-179 titled "Relative that - a centennial dispute. It's a fascinating, thoughtful, and incisive critique. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Noun clauses Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have some thoughts on. The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious." "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all day, the dog ran around and barked." And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a competition differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists." Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronoun? Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it has a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" as the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front. Thank you very much! Sincerely, John John Chorazy English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High School Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 17 Dec 2010 21:18:41 +0000 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Chorazy <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_tOJ3q0i76jKXRbvZUQXzRA)" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_tOJ3q0i76jKXRbvZUQXzRA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-disposition: inline I appreciate the wealth of information and must consider how to approach these nuances with high school students who really haven't had rigorous, lucid discussions about grammatical functions. Believe it or not, this will assist our approach to answering SAT problems, some of which I'll be posting soon for your collective perusal. College Board creates model sentences that pose typical errors – subject/verb agreement, misplaced modifiers, etc. – but on occasion the models are actually complex structures that many students can't find their way around to the correct answer. My approach to test prep isn't about the tricks of test taking, but rather the real understanding of why/how and the like when it comes to identifying sentence errors and sentence improvement questions. Like the SAT or not, it does give us good opportunities to talk about language. Thanks again... John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." Date: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:50 pm Subject: Re: Noun clauses To: [log in to unmask] > John, > > We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status > of "that" in clauses like these. There has not been complete > agreement on all of it, but here's the position I've taken, > which is also the position of Otto Jespersen in his A Modern > English Grammar on Historical Principles and Huddleston & Pullum > in their rather more recent Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. > > There are two function words "that" in English. One is the > distal demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the > other is the subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you > have provided. When "that" is used to introduce a relative > clause, it is simply a subordinator, not a relative pronoun. > The relative pronouns are the wh- words. This analysis implies > that there is a gap in the relative clause corresponding to the > head noun, so in "The pitches that Casey missed..." the gap is > in direct object position where "pitches" would be if the > relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the subject > that is zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid processing > problems that arise when a second finite verb occurs in a > sentence without any overt marking that it is in a subordinate > clause, so in "The ball that got past Casey was a strike" the > dropping of "that" would leave "The ball got past Casey was a > strike" which some speakers will use but writers will avoid. > The fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not > evidence that it's a relative pronoun but simply a restriction > on bare or asyndetic relative clauses. > > There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in > all of its non-demonstrative uses. > > > * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that." > Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed. > > * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we > would expect it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those > Casey missed...." > > * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh- > relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...." > > * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and > unlike pronouns. > > > There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in > Huddleston & Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of > this analysis by Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics > 21 (1985), 149-179 titled "Relative that - a centennial dispute. > It's a fascinating, thoughtful, and incisive critique. > > Herb > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Noun clauses > > > Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) > about clauses and have collected some questions that the list > might have some thoughts on. > > The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): > "That the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious." > > "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept > all day, the dog ran around and barked." > > And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": > "Lynn Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a > competition differs dramatically from the theories of most > biologists." > Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative > pronoun? > Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? > "Should you have any trouble identifying the house, just > remember that it has a big brass knocker on the door." Students > see the implied "you" as the subject and its verb remember, but > not what's going on up front. > > Thank you very much! > > Sincerely, > > John > > > > > > > John Chorazy > English III Academy, Honors, and Academic > Pequannock Township High School > > Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, > please visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join > or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > John Chorazy English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High School Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Boundary_(ID_tOJ3q0i76jKXRbvZUQXzRA) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-disposition: inline

I appreciate the wealth of information and must consider how to approach these nuances with high school students who really haven't had rigorous, lucid discussions about grammatical functions. Believe it or not, this will assist our approach to answering SAT problems, some of which I'll be posting soon for your collective perusal. College Board creates model sentences that pose typical errors – subject/verb agreement, misplaced modifiers, etc. – but on occasion the models are actually complex structures that many students can't find their way around to the correct answer. My approach to test prep isn't about the tricks of test taking, but rather the real understanding of why/how and the like when it comes to identifying sentence errors and sentence improvement questions. Like the SAT or not, it does give us good opportunities to talk about language.
 
Thanks again...
 
John
 


----- Original Message -----
From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:50 pm
Subject: Re: Noun clauses
To: [log in to unmask]

> John,
>
> We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status
> of "that" in clauses like these. There has not been complete
> agreement on all of it, but here's the position I've taken,
> which is also the position of Otto Jespersen in his A Modern
> English Grammar on Historical Principles and Huddleston & Pullum 
> in their rather more recent Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.
>
> There are two function words "that" in English. One is the
> distal demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the
> other is the subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you
> have provided. When "that" is used to introduce a relative
> clause, it is simply a subordinator, not a relative pronoun.
> The relative pronouns are the wh- words. This analysis implies
> that there is a gap in the relative clause corresponding to the
> head noun, so in "The pitches that Casey missed..." the gap is
> in direct object position where "pitches" would be if the
> relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the subject
> that is zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid processing
> problems that arise when a second finite verb occurs in a
> sentence without any overt marking that it is in a subordinate
> clause, so in "The ball that got past Casey was a strike" the
> dropping of "that" would leave "The ball got past Casey was a
> strike" which some speakers will use but writers will avoid.
> The fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not
> evidence that it's a relative pronoun but simply a restriction
> on bare or asyndetic relative clauses.
>
> There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in
> all of its non-demonstrative uses.
>
>
> * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that."
> Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed.
>
> * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we
> would expect it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those
> Casey missed...."
>
> * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh-
> relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...."
>
> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and
> unlike pronouns.
>
>
> There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in
> Huddleston & Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of
> this analysis by Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics
> 21 (1985), 149-179 titled "Relative that - a centennial dispute.
> It's a fascinating, thoughtful, and incisive critique.
>
> Herb
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy
> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Noun clauses
>
>
> Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade)
> about clauses and have collected some questions that the list
> might have some thoughts on.
>
> The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject):
> "That the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious."
>
> "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept
> all day, the dog ran around and barked."
>
> And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that":
> "Lynn Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a
> competition differs dramatically from the theories of most
> biologists."
> Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative
> pronoun?
> Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following?
> "Should you have any trouble identifying the house, just
> remember that it has a big brass knocker on the door." Students
> see the implied "you" as the subject and its verb remember, but
> not what's going on up front.
>
> Thank you very much!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Chorazy
> English III Academy, Honors, and Academic
> Pequannock Township High School
>
> Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list,
> please visit the list's web interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join
> or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>


John Chorazy
English III Academy, Honors, and Academic
Pequannock Township High School

Nulla dies sine linea.

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Boundary_(ID_tOJ3q0i76jKXRbvZUQXzRA)-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 10:37:53 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Herb, You and I have been over this one before and I don't want to just repeat that. But I do have a question. When "that" is required in the subject slot of a relative clause (As in "Anything that touches you touches me") is "that" simply holding down a slot (for sentence processing ease)or is it actually acting as subject in that relative clause? My current sense of this is that it's more a matter of drawing classification lines than it is of disputing how this stuff works. The dynamics of a relative clause are different from the dynamics of a content clause BECAUSE DELETION OF A SENTENCE ELEMENT DOESN'T OCCUR IN CONTENT CLAUSES. In a content clause, "that" remains fully outside the clause (in a way that the "wh" pronouns do not.) For that reason, we can say "His wish that she would be at peace was granted" includes a clause ("that she would be at peace") that is more like a content clause than a relative. We can also use "that" along with "wh" pronouns in a content clause. "I believe that what she said was right." In a relative clause, we have much more the feeling that we are choosing between them, as we do with "that" and "which". Some books recommend "that" for restrictive, "which" for non-restrictive. You have nothing parallel to that choice in content clauses. So "that" has some overlap with the "wh" pronouns in relative clauses that it doesn't have in content clauses. I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I think coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I bought from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be distorting the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual number, the "in" seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken dialect. Craig Seth, > > That's one of the arguments I didn't go into. There is a hierarchy of > grammatical relations that governs all sorts of movement and deletion > processes across languages, called the Keenan-Comrie Accessibility > Hierarchy. Here's an example from the Wikipedia article on the KCAH, > which is worth reading: > > Subject That's the man [who ran away]. The girl [who came late] is my > sister. > Direct object That's the man [I saw yesterday]. The girl [Kate saw] is > my sister. > Indirect object That's the man [to whom I gave the letter]. The girl > [whom I wrote a letter to] is my sister. > Oblique That's the man [I was talking about]. The girl [whom I sat next > to] is my sister. > Genitive That's the man [whose sister I know]. The girl [whose father > died] told me she was sad. > Obj of Comp That's the man [I am taller than]. The girl [who Kate is > smarter than] is my sister. > > Notice that "that" can occur in prepositional phrases only if the > preposition is stranded. "...to that I was talking" is not possible. > Also, the genitive, as I pointed out earlier, does not allow "that." > These are precisely the positions in which asyndetic relatives are also > ungrammatical. There is an extension of this in colloquial speech and in > non-standard dialects where the gap in the relative clause is filled by a > resumptive pronoun. These occur in genitive and comparatives especially, > although they'll also occur in more complex constructions. An example > would be "?I'd like you to meet the poet that we read a lot of her work > last year." We certainly would not allow that in formal writing, but it's > not at all unusual in speech. > > The comparative marker "than" acts a lot like a preposition in English, > and so if we combine it with prepositional phrases, which in this version > are collapsed with indirect objects, then what we see is that asyndetic > relatives are blocked only at the lowest level of the hierarchy, > Genitives. The fact that "that" can't be dropped if the gap is in subject > position is a separate phenomenon that is related to language processing > needs. Otherwise that-deletion in noun clauses and in relatives is pretty > much the same rule. That-relatives and zero-relatives then fall together > into one subclass of relative clauses that behave differently from > wh-relatives. > > This distinction between that- and wh-relatives reflects the history of > the language. Historically, English had only the that-type and asyndetic > relatives, although the subordinator was "tha" rather than "that." This > is a reflection of the strongly paratactic structure of Old English: not > a lot of subordination but lots of main clauses in sequence, sometimes > conjoined by "and." Old English did not have wh-relatives until the Late > Old English period when they developed probably from indefinite relatives > under the influence of Latin, which the scribes of the time knew well. In > Latin, relative clauses had to be formed with relative pronouns fully > inflected for gender, number, and case. After the Norman Conquest, when > the tradition of Alfred the Great's English scriptoria was suppressed, > wh-relatives also disappeared and didn't reappear until the late 13th c. > when, once again, Latin influenced writers borrowed the structure from > Latin. Wh-relatives even today are more strongly a feature of educated > standard English than of non-standard dialects, which use that- and zero- > relatives much more. In fact, wh-relatives are still so much a function > of formal education and of Standard English that when non-standard > speakers attempt to use the wh-pronouns to initiate clauses they > frequently use them in unusual ways, as in sentences like "We were going > to have a picnic Saturday, which it rained." Such wh-coordination is not > at all uncommon in spoken non-standard dialects. > > Herb > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:04 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Noun clauses > > Hey, Herb-- > > Thanks for recapitulating the argument for that being just a subordinator > and not a pronoun. You always make me think. A lot. A nice break from > grading. > > Unless I am misunderstanding you, I would note an exception to a claim you > make. You say > > > * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike > pronouns. > > > But the wh-pronouns are deletable in adjective clauses, when the pronoun > fills the direct object role in the dependent clause, as in > > The woman whom you met this morning is an old friend of mine. > The woman _____ you met this morning is an old friend of mine. > > Am I missing something in what you said? > > Happy end-of-semester-- > Seth > > Dr. Seth Katz > Assistant Professor > Department of English > Bradley University > > Faculty Advisor > Bradley University Hillel > > ________________________________ > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Stahlke, > Herbert F.W. > Sent: Fri 12/17/2010 12:45 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Noun clauses > > > > John, > > > > We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of "that" > in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all of it, > but here's the position I've taken, which is also the position of Otto > Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles and > Huddleston & Pullum in their rather more recent Cambridge Grammar of the > English Language. > > > > There are two function words "that" in English. One is the distal > demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the other is the > subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you have provided. When > "that" is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a > subordinator, not a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns are the wh- > words. This analysis implies that there is a gap in the relative clause > corresponding to the head noun, so in "The pitches that Casey missed..." > the gap is in direct object position where "pitches" would be if the > relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the subject that is > zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid processing problems that arise > when a second finite verb occurs in a sentence without any overt marking > that it is in a subordinate clause, so in "The ball that got past Casey > was a strike" the dropping of "that" would leave "The ball got past Casey > was a strike" which some speakers will use but writers will avoid. The > fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not evidence that it's a > relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or asyndetic relative > clauses. > > > > There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in all of its > non-demonstrative uses. > > > > * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that." > Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed. > > * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would expect > it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those Casey missed...." > > * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh- > relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...." > > * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike > pronouns. > > > > There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in Huddleston & > Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of this analysis by Johan > van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21 (1985), 149-179 titled > "Relative that - a centennial dispute. It's a fascinating, thoughtful, > and incisive critique. > > > > Herb > > > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Noun clauses > > > > Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about clauses > and have collected some questions that the list might have some thoughts > on. > > The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That the > healthcare system needs fixing is obvious." > > "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all day, > the dog ran around and barked." > > And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn > Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a competition > differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists." > > Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronoun? > > Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should you > have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it has a big > brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" as the subject > and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front. > > Thank you very much! > > Sincerely, > > John > > > > > > > > John Chorazy > English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High School > > Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit > the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 18 Dec 2010 22:13:11 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Craig, A question was raised off-list about whether "that" is taking on some pronoun function in the genitive in non-standard varieties. This appears to be the case. I like your examples showing that rel-that and conj-that behave alike, but I think the spelling identity of the subordinator and the demonstrative leads speakers to identify them with each other, even if their history and their syntax and morphology argue otherwise. In a non-standard construction like "Did you see a book that's cover was torn?" "that's" is clearly pronominal. I think "that's" arises by analogy to the genitive pronouns yours/his/hers/its/ours/theirs even though those can't be used as determiners. (And, by the way, I think the spelling should be "thats," without the apostrophe, like the other genitive pronouns. Microsoft Word keeps putting in the apostrophe for some reason.) Analogical change is by its very nature irregular, and so that fact that genitive "thats" is developing in non-standard usage tells us nothing about what's happening categorially to "that" in other relative constructions. Remember Sturtevant's Paradox: Sound change is regular and produces irregularity; analogical change is irregular and produces regularity. On morphosyntactic grounds, I maintain the arguments that relative "that" is not a pronoun. We can gain insight into how the grammar of "that" is changing only by extrapolating from examples of usage. We can't do much with people's naïve feeling and hunches about grammar, and I know you're not suggesting that. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:38 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Noun clauses Herb, You and I have been over this one before and I don't want to just repeat that. But I do have a question. When "that" is required in the subject slot of a relative clause (As in "Anything that touches you touches me") is "that" simply holding down a slot (for sentence processing ease)or is it actually acting as subject in that relative clause? My current sense of this is that it's more a matter of drawing classification lines than it is of disputing how this stuff works. The dynamics of a relative clause are different from the dynamics of a content clause BECAUSE DELETION OF A SENTENCE ELEMENT DOESN'T OCCUR IN CONTENT CLAUSES. In a content clause, "that" remains fully outside the clause (in a way that the "wh" pronouns do not.) For that reason, we can say "His wish that she would be at peace was granted" includes a clause ("that she would be at peace") that is more like a content clause than a relative. We can also use "that" along with "wh" pronouns in a content clause. "I believe that what she said was right." In a relative clause, we have much more the feeling that we are choosing between them, as we do with "that" and "which". Some books recommend "that" for restrictive, "which" for non-restrictive. You have nothing parallel to that choice in content clauses. So "that" has some overlap with the "wh" pronouns in relative clauses that it doesn't have in content clauses. I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I think coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I bought from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be distorting the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual number, the "in" seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken dialect. Craig Seth, > > That's one of the arguments I didn't go into. There is a hierarchy of > grammatical relations that governs all sorts of movement and deletion > processes across languages, called the Keenan-Comrie Accessibility > Hierarchy. Here's an example from the Wikipedia article on the KCAH, > which is worth reading: > > Subject That's the man [who ran away]. The girl [who came late] is my > sister. > Direct object That's the man [I saw yesterday]. The girl [Kate saw] is > my sister. > Indirect object That's the man [to whom I gave the letter]. The girl > [whom I wrote a letter to] is my sister. > Oblique That's the man [I was talking about]. The girl [whom I sat next > to] is my sister. > Genitive That's the man [whose sister I know]. The girl [whose father > died] told me she was sad. > Obj of Comp That's the man [I am taller than]. The girl [who Kate is > smarter than] is my sister. > > Notice that "that" can occur in prepositional phrases only if the > preposition is stranded. "...to that I was talking" is not possible. > Also, the genitive, as I pointed out earlier, does not allow "that." > These are precisely the positions in which asyndetic relatives are > also ungrammatical. There is an extension of this in colloquial > speech and in non-standard dialects where the gap in the relative > clause is filled by a resumptive pronoun. These occur in genitive and > comparatives especially, although they'll also occur in more complex > constructions. An example would be "?I'd like you to meet the poet > that we read a lot of her work last year." We certainly would not > allow that in formal writing, but it's not at all unusual in speech. > > The comparative marker "than" acts a lot like a preposition in > English, and so if we combine it with prepositional phrases, which in > this version are collapsed with indirect objects, then what we see is > that asyndetic relatives are blocked only at the lowest level of the > hierarchy, Genitives. The fact that "that" can't be dropped if the > gap is in subject position is a separate phenomenon that is related to > language processing needs. Otherwise that-deletion in noun clauses > and in relatives is pretty much the same rule. That-relatives and > zero-relatives then fall together into one subclass of relative > clauses that behave differently from wh-relatives. > > This distinction between that- and wh-relatives reflects the history > of the language. Historically, English had only the that-type and asyndetic > relatives, although the subordinator was "tha" rather than "that." This > is a reflection of the strongly paratactic structure of Old English: > not a lot of subordination but lots of main clauses in sequence, > sometimes conjoined by "and." Old English did not have wh-relatives > until the Late Old English period when they developed probably from > indefinite relatives under the influence of Latin, which the scribes > of the time knew well. In Latin, relative clauses had to be formed > with relative pronouns fully inflected for gender, number, and case. > After the Norman Conquest, when the tradition of Alfred the Great's > English scriptoria was suppressed, wh-relatives also disappeared and didn't reappear until the late 13th c. > when, once again, Latin influenced writers borrowed the structure from > Latin. Wh-relatives even today are more strongly a feature of > educated standard English than of non-standard dialects, which use > that- and zero- relatives much more. In fact, wh-relatives are still > so much a function of formal education and of Standard English that > when non-standard speakers attempt to use the wh-pronouns to initiate > clauses they frequently use them in unusual ways, as in sentences like > "We were going to have a picnic Saturday, which it rained." Such > wh-coordination is not at all uncommon in spoken non-standard dialects. > > Herb > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:04 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Noun clauses > > Hey, Herb-- > > Thanks for recapitulating the argument for that being just a > subordinator and not a pronoun. You always make me think. A lot. A > nice break from grading. > > Unless I am misunderstanding you, I would note an exception to a claim > you make. You say > > > * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike > pronouns. > > > But the wh-pronouns are deletable in adjective clauses, when the > pronoun fills the direct object role in the dependent clause, as in > > The woman whom you met this morning is an old friend of mine. > The woman _____ you met this morning is an old friend of mine. > > Am I missing something in what you said? > > Happy end-of-semester-- > Seth > > Dr. Seth Katz > Assistant Professor > Department of English > Bradley University > > Faculty Advisor > Bradley University Hillel > > ________________________________ > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of > Stahlke, Herbert F.W. > Sent: Fri 12/17/2010 12:45 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Noun clauses > > > > John, > > > > We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of "that" > in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all of > it, but here's the position I've taken, which is also the position of > Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on Historical > Principles and Huddleston & Pullum in their rather more recent > Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. > > > > There are two function words "that" in English. One is the distal > demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the other is the > subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you have provided. When > "that" is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a > subordinator, not a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns are the > wh- words. This analysis implies that there is a gap in the relative > clause corresponding to the head noun, so in "The pitches that Casey missed..." > the gap is in direct object position where "pitches" would be if the > relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the subject that > is zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid processing problems > that arise when a second finite verb occurs in a sentence without any > overt marking that it is in a subordinate clause, so in "The ball that > got past Casey was a strike" the dropping of "that" would leave "The ball got past Casey > was a strike" which some speakers will use but writers will avoid. The > fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not evidence that > it's a relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or asyndetic > relative clauses. > > > > There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in all of > its non-demonstrative uses. > > > > * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that." > Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed. > > * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would expect > it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those Casey missed...." > > * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh- > relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...." > > * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike > pronouns. > > > > There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in Huddleston & > Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of this analysis by > Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21 (1985), 149-179 > titled "Relative that - a centennial dispute. It's a fascinating, > thoughtful, and incisive critique. > > > > Herb > > > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Noun clauses > > > > Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about > clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have > some thoughts on. > > The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That > the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious." > > "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all > day, the dog ran around and barked." > > And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn > Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a competition > differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists." > > Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronoun? > > Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should > you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it has > a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" as > the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front. > > Thank you very much! > > Sincerely, > > John > > > > > > > > John Chorazy > English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High > School > > Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please > visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 18 Dec 2010 21:55:08 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Katz, Seth" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey, Herb-- You say, "In a non-standard construction like "Did you see a book that's cover was torn?" "that's" is clearly pronominal. I think "that's" arises by analogy to the genitive pronouns yours/his/hers/its/ours/theirs even though those can't be used as determiners." Why not by analogy with "whose," which appears as a possessive determiner in the same slot? Or am I missing something? Seth Dr. Seth Katz Assistant Professor Department of English Bradley University Faculty Advisor Bradley University Hillel ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of STAHLKE, HERBERT F Sent: Sat 12/18/2010 9:13 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Noun clauses Craig, A question was raised off-list about whether "that" is taking on some pronoun function in the genitive in non-standard varieties. This appears to be the case. I like your examples showing that rel-that and conj-that behave alike, but I think the spelling identity of the subordinator and the demonstrative leads speakers to identify them with each other, even if their history and their syntax and morphology argue otherwise. In a non-standard construction like "Did you see a book that's cover was torn?" "that's" is clearly pronominal. I think "that's" arises by analogy to the genitive pronouns yours/his/hers/its/ours/theirs even though those can't be used as determiners. (And, by the way, I think the spelling should be "thats," without the apostrophe, like the other genitive pronouns. Microsoft Word keeps putting in the apostrophe for some reason.) Analogical change is by its very nature irregular, and so that fact that genitive "thats" is developing in non-standard usage tells us nothing about what's happening categorially to "that" in other relative constructions. Remember Sturtevant's Paradox: Sound change is regular and produces irregularity; analogical change is irregular and produces regularity. On morphosyntactic grounds, I maintain the arguments that relative "that" is not a pronoun. We can gain insight into how the grammar of "that" is changing only by extrapolating from examples of usage. We can't do much with people's naïve feeling and hunches about grammar, and I know you're not suggesting that. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:38 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Noun clauses Herb, You and I have been over this one before and I don't want to just repeat that. But I do have a question. When "that" is required in the subject slot of a relative clause (As in "Anything that touches you touches me") is "that" simply holding down a slot (for sentence processing ease)or is it actually acting as subject in that relative clause? My current sense of this is that it's more a matter of drawing classification lines than it is of disputing how this stuff works. The dynamics of a relative clause are different from the dynamics of a content clause BECAUSE DELETION OF A SENTENCE ELEMENT DOESN'T OCCUR IN CONTENT CLAUSES. In a content clause, "that" remains fully outside the clause (in a way that the "wh" pronouns do not.) For that reason, we can say "His wish that she would be at peace was granted" includes a clause ("that she would be at peace") that is more like a content clause than a relative. We can also use "that" along with "wh" pronouns in a content clause. "I believe that what she said was right." In a relative clause, we have much more the feeling that we are choosing between them, as we do with "that" and "which". Some books recommend "that" for restrictive, "which" for non-restrictive. You have nothing parallel to that choice in content clauses. So "that" has some overlap with the "wh" pronouns in relative clauses that it doesn't have in content clauses. I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I think coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I bought from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be distorting the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual number, the "in" seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken dialect. Craig Seth, > > That's one of the arguments I didn't go into. There is a hierarchy of > grammatical relations that governs all sorts of movement and deletion > processes across languages, called the Keenan-Comrie Accessibility > Hierarchy. Here's an example from the Wikipedia article on the KCAH, > which is worth reading: > > Subject That's the man [who ran away]. The girl [who came late] is my > sister. > Direct object That's the man [I saw yesterday]. The girl [Kate saw] is > my sister. > Indirect object That's the man [to whom I gave the letter]. The girl > [whom I wrote a letter to] is my sister. > Oblique That's the man [I was talking about]. The girl [whom I sat next > to] is my sister. > Genitive That's the man [whose sister I know]. The girl [whose father > died] told me she was sad. > Obj of Comp That's the man [I am taller than]. The girl [who Kate is > smarter than] is my sister. > > Notice that "that" can occur in prepositional phrases only if the > preposition is stranded. "...to that I was talking" is not possible. > Also, the genitive, as I pointed out earlier, does not allow "that." > These are precisely the positions in which asyndetic relatives are > also ungrammatical. There is an extension of this in colloquial > speech and in non-standard dialects where the gap in the relative > clause is filled by a resumptive pronoun. These occur in genitive and > comparatives especially, although they'll also occur in more complex > constructions. An example would be "?I'd like you to meet the poet > that we read a lot of her work last year." We certainly would not > allow that in formal writing, but it's not at all unusual in speech. > > The comparative marker "than" acts a lot like a preposition in > English, and so if we combine it with prepositional phrases, which in > this version are collapsed with indirect objects, then what we see is > that asyndetic relatives are blocked only at the lowest level of the > hierarchy, Genitives. The fact that "that" can't be dropped if the > gap is in subject position is a separate phenomenon that is related to > language processing needs. Otherwise that-deletion in noun clauses > and in relatives is pretty much the same rule. That-relatives and > zero-relatives then fall together into one subclass of relative > clauses that behave differently from wh-relatives. > > This distinction between that- and wh-relatives reflects the history > of the language. Historically, English had only the that-type and asyndetic > relatives, although the subordinator was "tha" rather than "that." This > is a reflection of the strongly paratactic structure of Old English: > not a lot of subordination but lots of main clauses in sequence, > sometimes conjoined by "and." Old English did not have wh-relatives > until the Late Old English period when they developed probably from > indefinite relatives under the influence of Latin, which the scribes > of the time knew well. In Latin, relative clauses had to be formed > with relative pronouns fully inflected for gender, number, and case. > After the Norman Conquest, when the tradition of Alfred the Great's > English scriptoria was suppressed, wh-relatives also disappeared and didn't reappear until the late 13th c. > when, once again, Latin influenced writers borrowed the structure from > Latin. Wh-relatives even today are more strongly a feature of > educated standard English than of non-standard dialects, which use > that- and zero- relatives much more. In fact, wh-relatives are still > so much a function of formal education and of Standard English that > when non-standard speakers attempt to use the wh-pronouns to initiate > clauses they frequently use them in unusual ways, as in sentences like > "We were going to have a picnic Saturday, which it rained." Such > wh-coordination is not at all uncommon in spoken non-standard dialects. > > Herb > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:04 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Noun clauses > > Hey, Herb-- > > Thanks for recapitulating the argument for that being just a > subordinator and not a pronoun. You always make me think. A lot. A > nice break from grading. > > Unless I am misunderstanding you, I would note an exception to a claim > you make. You say > > > * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike > pronouns. > > > But the wh-pronouns are deletable in adjective clauses, when the > pronoun fills the direct object role in the dependent clause, as in > > The woman whom you met this morning is an old friend of mine. > The woman _____ you met this morning is an old friend of mine. > > Am I missing something in what you said? > > Happy end-of-semester-- > Seth > > Dr. Seth Katz > Assistant Professor > Department of English > Bradley University > > Faculty Advisor > Bradley University Hillel > > ________________________________ > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of > Stahlke, Herbert F.W. > Sent: Fri 12/17/2010 12:45 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Noun clauses > > > > John, > > > > We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of "that" > in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all of > it, but here's the position I've taken, which is also the position of > Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on Historical > Principles and Huddleston & Pullum in their rather more recent > Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. > > > > There are two function words "that" in English. One is the distal > demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the other is the > subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you have provided. When > "that" is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a > subordinator, not a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns are the > wh- words. This analysis implies that there is a gap in the relative > clause corresponding to the head noun, so in "The pitches that Casey missed..." > the gap is in direct object position where "pitches" would be if the > relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the subject that > is zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid processing problems > that arise when a second finite verb occurs in a sentence without any > overt marking that it is in a subordinate clause, so in "The ball that > got past Casey was a strike" the dropping of "that" would leave "The ball got past Casey > was a strike" which some speakers will use but writers will avoid. The > fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not evidence that > it's a relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or asyndetic > relative clauses. > > > > There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in all of > its non-demonstrative uses. > > > > * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that." > Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed. > > * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would expect > it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those Casey missed...." > > * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh- > relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...." > > * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike > pronouns. > > > > There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in Huddleston & > Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of this analysis by > Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21 (1985), 149-179 > titled "Relative that - a centennial dispute. It's a fascinating, > thoughtful, and incisive critique. > > > > Herb > > > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Noun clauses > > > > Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about > clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have > some thoughts on. > > The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That > the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious." > > "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all > day, the dog ran around and barked." > > And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn > Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a competition > differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists." > > Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronoun? > > Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should > you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it has > a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" as > the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front. > > Thank you very much! > > Sincerely, > > John > > > > > > > > John Chorazy > English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High > School > > Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please > visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 18 Dec 2010 23:48:41 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Seth, Good point. I should have included "whose" in my list of genitive pronouns. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:55 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Noun clauses Hey, Herb-- You say, "In a non-standard construction like "Did you see a book that's cover was torn?" "that's" is clearly pronominal. I think "that's" arises by analogy to the genitive pronouns yours/his/hers/its/ours/theirs even though those can't be used as determiners." Why not by analogy with "whose," which appears as a possessive determiner in the same slot? Or am I missing something? Seth Dr. Seth Katz Assistant Professor Department of English Bradley University Faculty Advisor Bradley University Hillel ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of STAHLKE, HERBERT F Sent: Sat 12/18/2010 9:13 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Noun clauses Craig, A question was raised off-list about whether "that" is taking on some pronoun function in the genitive in non-standard varieties. This appears to be the case. I like your examples showing that rel-that and conj-that behave alike, but I think the spelling identity of the subordinator and the demonstrative leads speakers to identify them with each other, even if their history and their syntax and morphology argue otherwise. In a non-standard construction like "Did you see a book that's cover was torn?" "that's" is clearly pronominal. I think "that's" arises by analogy to the genitive pronouns yours/his/hers/its/ours/theirs even though those can't be used as determiners. (And, by the way, I think the spelling should be "thats," without the apostrophe, like the other genitive pronouns. Microsoft Word keeps putting in the apostrophe for some reason.) Analogical change is by its very nature irregular, and so that fact that genitive "thats" is developing in non-standard usage tells us nothing about what's happening categorially to "that" in other relative constructions. Remember Sturtevant's Paradox: Sound change is regular and produces irregularity; analogical change is irregular and produces regularity. On morphosyntactic grounds, I maintain the arguments that relative "that" is not a pronoun. We can gain insight into how the grammar of "that" is changing only by extrapolating from examples of usage. We can't do much with people's naïve feeling and hunches about grammar, and I know you're not suggesting that. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:38 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Noun clauses Herb, You and I have been over this one before and I don't want to just repeat that. But I do have a question. When "that" is required in the subject slot of a relative clause (As in "Anything that touches you touches me") is "that" simply holding down a slot (for sentence processing ease)or is it actually acting as subject in that relative clause? My current sense of this is that it's more a matter of drawing classification lines than it is of disputing how this stuff works. The dynamics of a relative clause are different from the dynamics of a content clause BECAUSE DELETION OF A SENTENCE ELEMENT DOESN'T OCCUR IN CONTENT CLAUSES. In a content clause, "that" remains fully outside the clause (in a way that the "wh" pronouns do not.) For that reason, we can say "His wish that she would be at peace was granted" includes a clause ("that she would be at peace") that is more like a content clause than a relative. We can also use "that" along with "wh" pronouns in a content clause. "I believe that what she said was right." In a relative clause, we have much more the feeling that we are choosing between them, as we do with "that" and "which". Some books recommend "that" for restrictive, "which" for non-restrictive. You have nothing parallel to that choice in content clauses. So "that" has some overlap with the "wh" pronouns in relative clauses that it doesn't have in content clauses. I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I think coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I bought from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be distorting the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual number, the "in" seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken dialect. Craig Seth, > > That's one of the arguments I didn't go into. There is a hierarchy of > grammatical relations that governs all sorts of movement and deletion > processes across languages, called the Keenan-Comrie Accessibility > Hierarchy. Here's an example from the Wikipedia article on the KCAH, > which is worth reading: > > Subject That's the man [who ran away]. The girl [who came late] is my > sister. > Direct object That's the man [I saw yesterday]. The girl [Kate saw] is > my sister. > Indirect object That's the man [to whom I gave the letter]. The girl > [whom I wrote a letter to] is my sister. > Oblique That's the man [I was talking about]. The girl [whom I sat next > to] is my sister. > Genitive That's the man [whose sister I know]. The girl [whose father > died] told me she was sad. > Obj of Comp That's the man [I am taller than]. The girl [who Kate is > smarter than] is my sister. > > Notice that "that" can occur in prepositional phrases only if the > preposition is stranded. "...to that I was talking" is not possible. > Also, the genitive, as I pointed out earlier, does not allow "that." > These are precisely the positions in which asyndetic relatives are > also ungrammatical. There is an extension of this in colloquial > speech and in non-standard dialects where the gap in the relative > clause is filled by a resumptive pronoun. These occur in genitive and > comparatives especially, although they'll also occur in more complex > constructions. An example would be "?I'd like you to meet the poet > that we read a lot of her work last year." We certainly would not > allow that in formal writing, but it's not at all unusual in speech. > > The comparative marker "than" acts a lot like a preposition in > English, and so if we combine it with prepositional phrases, which in > this version are collapsed with indirect objects, then what we see is > that asyndetic relatives are blocked only at the lowest level of the > hierarchy, Genitives. The fact that "that" can't be dropped if the > gap is in subject position is a separate phenomenon that is related to > language processing needs. Otherwise that-deletion in noun clauses > and in relatives is pretty much the same rule. That-relatives and > zero-relatives then fall together into one subclass of relative > clauses that behave differently from wh-relatives. > > This distinction between that- and wh-relatives reflects the history > of the language. Historically, English had only the that-type and asyndetic > relatives, although the subordinator was "tha" rather than "that." This > is a reflection of the strongly paratactic structure of Old English: > not a lot of subordination but lots of main clauses in sequence, > sometimes conjoined by "and." Old English did not have wh-relatives > until the Late Old English period when they developed probably from > indefinite relatives under the influence of Latin, which the scribes > of the time knew well. In Latin, relative clauses had to be formed > with relative pronouns fully inflected for gender, number, and case. > After the Norman Conquest, when the tradition of Alfred the Great's > English scriptoria was suppressed, wh-relatives also disappeared and didn't reappear until the late 13th c. > when, once again, Latin influenced writers borrowed the structure from > Latin. Wh-relatives even today are more strongly a feature of > educated standard English than of non-standard dialects, which use > that- and zero- relatives much more. In fact, wh-relatives are still > so much a function of formal education and of Standard English that > when non-standard speakers attempt to use the wh-pronouns to initiate > clauses they frequently use them in unusual ways, as in sentences like > "We were going to have a picnic Saturday, which it rained." Such > wh-coordination is not at all uncommon in spoken non-standard dialects. > > Herb > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:04 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Noun clauses > > Hey, Herb-- > > Thanks for recapitulating the argument for that being just a > subordinator and not a pronoun. You always make me think. A lot. A > nice break from grading. > > Unless I am misunderstanding you, I would note an exception to a claim > you make. You say > > > * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike > pronouns. > > > But the wh-pronouns are deletable in adjective clauses, when the > pronoun fills the direct object role in the dependent clause, as in > > The woman whom you met this morning is an old friend of mine. > The woman _____ you met this morning is an old friend of mine. > > Am I missing something in what you said? > > Happy end-of-semester-- > Seth > > Dr. Seth Katz > Assistant Professor > Department of English > Bradley University > > Faculty Advisor > Bradley University Hillel > > ________________________________ > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of > Stahlke, Herbert F.W. > Sent: Fri 12/17/2010 12:45 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Noun clauses > > > > John, > > > > We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of "that" > in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all of > it, but here's the position I've taken, which is also the position of > Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on Historical > Principles and Huddleston & Pullum in their rather more recent > Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. > > > > There are two function words "that" in English. One is the distal > demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the other is the > subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you have provided. When > "that" is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a > subordinator, not a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns are the > wh- words. This analysis implies that there is a gap in the relative > clause corresponding to the head noun, so in "The pitches that Casey missed..." > the gap is in direct object position where "pitches" would be if the > relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the subject that > is zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid processing problems > that arise when a second finite verb occurs in a sentence without any > overt marking that it is in a subordinate clause, so in "The ball that > got past Casey was a strike" the dropping of "that" would leave "The ball got past Casey > was a strike" which some speakers will use but writers will avoid. The > fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not evidence that > it's a relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or asyndetic > relative clauses. > > > > There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in all of > its non-demonstrative uses. > > > > * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that." > Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed. > > * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would expect > it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those Casey missed...." > > * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh- > relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...." > > * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike > pronouns. > > > > There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in Huddleston & > Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of this analysis by > Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21 (1985), 149-179 > titled "Relative that - a centennial dispute. It's a fascinating, > thoughtful, and incisive critique. > > > > Herb > > > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Noun clauses > > > > Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about > clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have > some thoughts on. > > The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That > the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious." > > "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all > day, the dog ran around and barked." > > And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn > Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a competition > differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists." > > Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronoun? > > Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should > you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it has > a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" as > the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front. > > Thank you very much! > > Sincerely, > > John > > > > > > > > John Chorazy > English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High > School > > Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please > visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 05:00:42 +0000 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Chorazy <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_Rm9xCNkty/qm0z6geKL2QQ)" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_Rm9xCNkty/qm0z6geKL2QQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline Craig - I've seen this usage in student writing quite a lot recently and I can't figure it out. Your example is really close to those I've read (I'll see if I can post a few from papers). And that I'm in New Jersey and you mentioned New York is striking. However, I haven't heard anyone speak this way, I've just found it in written form. John > I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I think coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I bought from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be distorting the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual number, the "in" seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken dialect. > Craig John Chorazy English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High School Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Boundary_(ID_Rm9xCNkty/qm0z6geKL2QQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline

Craig - I've seen this usage in student writing quite a lot recently and I can't figure it out. Your example is really close to those I've read (I'll see if I can post a few from papers). And that I'm in New Jersey and you mentioned New York is striking. However, I haven't heard anyone speak this way, I've just found it in written form.
 
John
 
 
> I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I think
coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I bought
from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be distorting
the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual number, the "in" seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken dialect.

> Craig


John Chorazy
English III Academy, Honors, and Academic
Pequannock Township High School

Nulla dies sine linea.

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Boundary_(ID_Rm9xCNkty/qm0z6geKL2QQ)-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 10:21:40 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Herb, I might be content with saying that relative "that" acts in ways that are very unique and that make it hard to classify. The important work is in describing how it acts. In content clauses, it is always outside the clause, but in relative clauses, it sometimes has a place holding function. The category we place it in depends on how we draw the lines for the category. Craig On 12/18/2010 10:13 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: > Craig, > > A question was raised off-list about whether "that" is taking on some pronoun function in the genitive in non-standard varieties. This appears to be the case. I like your examples showing that rel-that and conj-that behave alike, but I think the spelling identity of the subordinator and the demonstrative leads speakers to identify them with each other, even if their history and their syntax and morphology argue otherwise. In a non-standard construction like "Did you see a book that's cover was torn?" "that's" is clearly pronominal. I think "that's" arises by analogy to the genitive pronouns yours/his/hers/its/ours/theirs even though those can't be used as determiners. (And, by the way, I think the spelling should be "thats," without the apostrophe, like the other genitive pronouns. Microsoft Word keeps putting in the apostrophe for some reason.) Analogical change is by its very nature irregular, and so that fact that genitive "thats" is developing in non-standard usage tells us nothing about what's happening categorially to "that" in other relative constructions. Remember Sturtevant's Paradox: Sound change is regular and produces irregularity; analogical change is irregular and produces regularity. > > On morphosyntactic grounds, I maintain the arguments that relative "that" is not a pronoun. We can gain insight into how the grammar of "that" is changing only by extrapolating from examples of usage. We can't do much with people's naïve feeling and hunches about grammar, and I know you're not suggesting that. > > Herb > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock > Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:38 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Noun clauses > > Herb, > You and I have been over this one before and I don't want to just repeat that. But I do have a question. When "that" is required in the subject slot of a relative clause (As in "Anything that touches you touches me") is "that" simply holding down a slot (for sentence processing ease)or is it actually acting as subject in that relative clause? > My current sense of this is that it's more a matter of drawing classification lines than it is of disputing how this stuff works. The dynamics of a relative clause are different from the dynamics of a content clause BECAUSE DELETION OF A SENTENCE ELEMENT DOESN'T OCCUR IN CONTENT CLAUSES. In a content clause, "that" remains fully outside the clause (in a way that the "wh" pronouns do not.) For that reason, we can say "His wish that she would be at peace was granted" includes a clause ("that she would be at peace") that is more like a content clause than a relative. We can also use "that" along with "wh" pronouns in a content clause. "I believe that what she said was right." In a relative clause, we have much more the feeling that we are choosing between them, as we do with "that" and "which". Some books recommend "that" for restrictive, "which" for non-restrictive. You have nothing parallel to that choice in content clauses. > So "that" has some overlap with the "wh" pronouns in relative clauses that it doesn't have in content clauses. > I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I think coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I bought from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be distorting the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual number, the "in" > seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken dialect. > > Craig > Seth, >> That's one of the arguments I didn't go into. There is a hierarchy of >> grammatical relations that governs all sorts of movement and deletion >> processes across languages, called the Keenan-Comrie Accessibility >> Hierarchy. Here's an example from the Wikipedia article on the KCAH, >> which is worth reading: >> >> Subject That's the man [who ran away]. The girl [who came late] is my >> sister. >> Direct object That's the man [I saw yesterday]. The girl [Kate saw] is >> my sister. >> Indirect object That's the man [to whom I gave the letter]. The girl >> [whom I wrote a letter to] is my sister. >> Oblique That's the man [I was talking about]. The girl [whom I sat next >> to] is my sister. >> Genitive That's the man [whose sister I know]. The girl [whose father >> died] told me she was sad. >> Obj of Comp That's the man [I am taller than]. The girl [who Kate is >> smarter than] is my sister. >> >> Notice that "that" can occur in prepositional phrases only if the >> preposition is stranded. "...to that I was talking" is not possible. >> Also, the genitive, as I pointed out earlier, does not allow "that." >> These are precisely the positions in which asyndetic relatives are >> also ungrammatical. There is an extension of this in colloquial >> speech and in non-standard dialects where the gap in the relative >> clause is filled by a resumptive pronoun. These occur in genitive and >> comparatives especially, although they'll also occur in more complex >> constructions. An example would be "?I'd like you to meet the poet >> that we read a lot of her work last year." We certainly would not >> allow that in formal writing, but it's not at all unusual in speech. >> >> The comparative marker "than" acts a lot like a preposition in >> English, and so if we combine it with prepositional phrases, which in >> this version are collapsed with indirect objects, then what we see is >> that asyndetic relatives are blocked only at the lowest level of the >> hierarchy, Genitives. The fact that "that" can't be dropped if the >> gap is in subject position is a separate phenomenon that is related to >> language processing needs. Otherwise that-deletion in noun clauses >> and in relatives is pretty much the same rule. That-relatives and >> zero-relatives then fall together into one subclass of relative >> clauses that behave differently from wh-relatives. >> >> This distinction between that- and wh-relatives reflects the history >> of the language. Historically, English had only the that-type and asyndetic >> relatives, although the subordinator was "tha" rather than "that." This >> is a reflection of the strongly paratactic structure of Old English: >> not a lot of subordination but lots of main clauses in sequence, >> sometimes conjoined by "and." Old English did not have wh-relatives >> until the Late Old English period when they developed probably from >> indefinite relatives under the influence of Latin, which the scribes >> of the time knew well. In Latin, relative clauses had to be formed >> with relative pronouns fully inflected for gender, number, and case. >> After the Norman Conquest, when the tradition of Alfred the Great's >> English scriptoria was suppressed, wh-relatives also disappeared and didn't reappear until the late 13th c. >> when, once again, Latin influenced writers borrowed the structure from >> Latin. Wh-relatives even today are more strongly a feature of >> educated standard English than of non-standard dialects, which use >> that- and zero- relatives much more. In fact, wh-relatives are still >> so much a function of formal education and of Standard English that >> when non-standard speakers attempt to use the wh-pronouns to initiate >> clauses they frequently use them in unusual ways, as in sentences like >> "We were going to have a picnic Saturday, which it rained." Such >> wh-coordination is not at all uncommon in spoken non-standard dialects. >> >> Herb >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth >> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:04 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >> >> Hey, Herb-- >> >> Thanks for recapitulating the argument for that being just a >> subordinator and not a pronoun. You always make me think. A lot. A >> nice break from grading. >> >> Unless I am misunderstanding you, I would note an exception to a claim >> you make. You say >> >> >> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike >> pronouns. >> >> >> But the wh-pronouns are deletable in adjective clauses, when the >> pronoun fills the direct object role in the dependent clause, as in >> >> The woman whom you met this morning is an old friend of mine. >> The woman _____ you met this morning is an old friend of mine. >> >> Am I missing something in what you said? >> >> Happy end-of-semester-- >> Seth >> >> Dr. Seth Katz >> Assistant Professor >> Department of English >> Bradley University >> >> Faculty Advisor >> Bradley University Hillel >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Stahlke, Herbert F.W. >> Sent: Fri 12/17/2010 12:45 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >> >> >> >> John, >> >> >> >> We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of "that" >> in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all of >> it, but here's the position I've taken, which is also the position of >> Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on Historical >> Principles and Huddleston& Pullum in their rather more recent >> Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. >> >> >> >> There are two function words "that" in English. One is the distal >> demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the other is the >> subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you have provided. When >> "that" is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a >> subordinator, not a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns are the >> wh- words. This analysis implies that there is a gap in the relative >> clause corresponding to the head noun, so in "The pitches that Casey missed..." >> the gap is in direct object position where "pitches" would be if the >> relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the subject that >> is zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid processing problems >> that arise when a second finite verb occurs in a sentence without any >> overt marking that it is in a subordinate clause, so in "The ball that >> got past Casey was a strike" the dropping of "that" would leave "The ball got past Casey >> was a strike" which some speakers will use but writers will avoid. The >> fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not evidence that >> it's a relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or asyndetic >> relative clauses. >> >> >> >> There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in all of >> its non-demonstrative uses. >> >> >> >> * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that." >> Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed. >> >> * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would expect >> it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those Casey missed...." >> >> * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh- >> relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...." >> >> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike >> pronouns. >> >> >> >> There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in Huddleston& >> Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of this analysis by >> Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21 (1985), 149-179 >> titled "Relative that - a centennial dispute. It's a fascinating, >> thoughtful, and incisive critique. >> >> >> >> Herb >> >> >> >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy >> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Noun clauses >> >> >> >> Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about >> clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have >> some thoughts on. >> >> The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That >> the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious." >> >> "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all >> day, the dog ran around and barked." >> >> And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn >> Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a competition >> differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists." >> >> Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronoun? >> >> Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should >> you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it has >> a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" as >> the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front. >> >> Thank you very much! >> >> Sincerely, >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> John Chorazy >> English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High >> School >> >> Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please >> visit the list's web interface at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or >> leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 20 Dec 2010 10:25:50 -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: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John, I don't think I have heard it in spoken form, which makes me wonder where it's coming from and why it has appeared so suddenly. Perhaps it's an attempt at formality, students aiming at "in which" but overextending its use? I'm perplexed. I have given back papers, so I don't have a ready example. Craig On 12/19/2010 12:00 AM, John Chorazy wrote: > Craig - I've seen this usage in student writing quite a lot recently > and I can't figure it out. Your example is really close to those I've > read (I'll see if I can post a few from papers). And that I'm in New > Jersey and you mentioned New York is striking. However, I haven't > heard anyone speak this way, I've just found it in written form. > John > > I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I think > coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I bought > from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be distorting > the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual number, the "in" > seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken > dialect. > > > Craig > > > John Chorazy > English III Academy, Honors, and Academic > Pequannock Township High School > > Nulla dies sine linea. > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select > "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 20 Dec 2010 08:49:49 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Barron's Master the Basics MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1763630343-1292863789=:82189" --0-1763630343-1292863789=:82189 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As is often the case, this will work better if you are set for html, color and graphics, by whatever name.   Barron's Master the Basics - English                                     by Jean Yates, Northern Virginia Community College.   #9.3 Present Perfect Tense   This section starts with an inadequate definition but gives pretty good examples until ...   (f) to indicate that an action happened a very short time ago, use just or finally.   Pattern:  have + just     + past participle               have + finally + past participle   Did they arrive yet?   Yes they did. They just arrived. What happened?               The president just left.                                                      Our team just won the tournament.                                                      We finally finished.   #9.4  Past Perfect Progressive Tense has similar problems.    What had you been doing before you started to work? I had been studying for five years.   Nonsense. What did you do before you started to work? I studied for five years.      Where had she been living before she bought this house? She had been living in an apartment for a long time.   Nonsense. Where did she live before she bought this house? She lived in an apartment for a long time.   Challenge. It is written that there is no such thing as a correct (i.e., reasonable) past perfect progressive. I challenge you to find one. I have only ever seen one that seemed to make sense but I cannot now find it. I challenge any and all to put one forth, or even make one up. I'll bet you can't do it.   Let's agree, ya wanna, that if no one can either find or create a reasonable example of the "past perfect progressive", we'll (a) not teach it and (b) do our best to get it eliminated from grammar texts.*   .brad.20dec10.    *Note 'texts'. Online grammar sites are hopeless. They're so screwed up they will likely never be unscrewed. They are an embarrassment to the English Language. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1763630343-1292863789=:82189 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

As is often the case, this will work better if you are set for html, color and graphics, by whatever name.
 
Barron's Master the Basics - English
                                    by Jean Yates, Northern Virginia Community College.
 
#9.3 Present Perfect Tense
 
This section starts with an inadequate definition but gives pretty good examples until ...
 
(f) to indicate that an action happened a very short time ago, use just or finally.
 
Pattern:  have + just     + past participle
              have + finally + past participle
 
<Have> Did they arrive<d> yet?   Yes they <have> did. They <have> just arrived.
What <has> happened?               The president <has> just left.
                                                     Our team <has> just won the tournament.
                                                     We <have> finally finished.
 
#9.4  Past Perfect Progressive Tense has similar problems. 
 
What had you been doing before you started to work? I had been studying for five years.
 
Nonsense. What did you do before you started to work? I studied for five years.   
 
Where had she been living before she bought this house? She had been living in an apartment for a long time.
 
Nonsense. Where did she live before she bought this house? She lived in an apartment for a long time.
 
Challenge. It is written that there is no such thing as a correct (i.e., reasonable) past perfect progressive. I challenge you to find one. I have only ever seen one that seemed to make sense but I cannot now find it. I challenge any and all to put one forth, or even make one up. I'll bet you can't do it.
 
Let's agree, ya wanna, that if no one can either find or create a reasonable example of the "past perfect progressive", we'll (a) not teach it and (b) do our best to get it eliminated from grammar texts.*
 
.brad.20dec10. 
 
* Note 'texts'. Online grammar sites are hopeless. They're so screwed up they will likely never be unscrewed. They are an embarrassment to the English Language.

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1763630343-1292863789=:82189-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:05:19 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Craig and John, I've heard it spoken as well, sometimes from undergrads but more often from people in the community who are trying to speak formally. I think it fits in with other non-standard uses of wh-relatives reflecting their marginal status outside of Standard English. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 10:26 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Noun clauses John, I don't think I have heard it in spoken form, which makes me wonder where it's coming from and why it has appeared so suddenly. Perhaps it's an attempt at formality, students aiming at "in which" but overextending its use? I'm perplexed. I have given back papers, so I don't have a ready example. Craig On 12/19/2010 12:00 AM, John Chorazy wrote: > Craig - I've seen this usage in student writing quite a lot recently > and I can't figure it out. Your example is really close to those I've > read (I'll see if I can post a few from papers). And that I'm in New > Jersey and you mentioned New York is striking. However, I haven't > heard anyone speak this way, I've just found it in written form. > John > > I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I > > think > coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I bought > from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be distorting > the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual number, the "in" > seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken > dialect. > > > Craig > > > John Chorazy > English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High > School > > Nulla dies sine linea. > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select > "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 20 Dec 2010 13:10:33 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Craig, My problem with saying that it sometimes has a place holding function is that it's an impressionistic statement. If we ask what it's doing in a particular clause we can't provide any sort of evidence for a solution different form subordinator. A statement like yours follows from certain assumptions, but the assumptions themselves, for example, that "that" is a relative pronoun, are difficult to support. Historical change gives us some help but must be interpreted very cautiously, which is why I'm not willing to say that pronominal status has not developed beyond the non-standard genitive use. Besides a general feeling about it, how can you argue that relative "that" is performing a function in the relative clause, an argument that can't be handled as well or better by deletion under identity? Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 10:22 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Noun clauses Herb, I might be content with saying that relative "that" acts in ways that are very unique and that make it hard to classify. The important work is in describing how it acts. In content clauses, it is always outside the clause, but in relative clauses, it sometimes has a place holding function. The category we place it in depends on how we draw the lines for the category. Craig On 12/18/2010 10:13 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: > Craig, > > A question was raised off-list about whether "that" is taking on some pronoun function in the genitive in non-standard varieties. This appears to be the case. I like your examples showing that rel-that and conj-that behave alike, but I think the spelling identity of the subordinator and the demonstrative leads speakers to identify them with each other, even if their history and their syntax and morphology argue otherwise. In a non-standard construction like "Did you see a book that's cover was torn?" "that's" is clearly pronominal. I think "that's" arises by analogy to the genitive pronouns yours/his/hers/its/ours/theirs even though those can't be used as determiners. (And, by the way, I think the spelling should be "thats," without the apostrophe, like the other genitive pronouns. Microsoft Word keeps putting in the apostrophe for some reason.) Analogical change is by its very nature irregular, and so that fact that genitive "thats" is developing in non-standard usage tells us nothing about what's happening categorially to "that" in other relative constructions. Remember Sturtevant's Paradox: Sound change is regular and produces irregularity; analogical change is irregular and produces regularity. > > On morphosyntactic grounds, I maintain the arguments that relative "that" is not a pronoun. We can gain insight into how the grammar of "that" is changing only by extrapolating from examples of usage. We can't do much with people's naïve feeling and hunches about grammar, and I know you're not suggesting that. > > Herb > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock > Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:38 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Noun clauses > > Herb, > You and I have been over this one before and I don't want to just repeat that. But I do have a question. When "that" is required in the subject slot of a relative clause (As in "Anything that touches you touches me") is "that" simply holding down a slot (for sentence processing ease)or is it actually acting as subject in that relative clause? > My current sense of this is that it's more a matter of drawing classification lines than it is of disputing how this stuff works. The dynamics of a relative clause are different from the dynamics of a content clause BECAUSE DELETION OF A SENTENCE ELEMENT DOESN'T OCCUR IN CONTENT CLAUSES. In a content clause, "that" remains fully outside the clause (in a way that the "wh" pronouns do not.) For that reason, we can say "His wish that she would be at peace was granted" includes a clause ("that she would be at peace") that is more like a content clause than a relative. We can also use "that" along with "wh" pronouns in a content clause. "I believe that what she said was right." In a relative clause, we have much more the feeling that we are choosing between them, as we do with "that" and "which". Some books recommend "that" for restrictive, "which" for non-restrictive. You have nothing parallel to that choice in content clauses. > So "that" has some overlap with the "wh" pronouns in relative clauses that it doesn't have in content clauses. > I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I think coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I bought from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be distorting the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual number, the "in" > seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken dialect. > > Craig > Seth, >> That's one of the arguments I didn't go into. There is a hierarchy >> of grammatical relations that governs all sorts of movement and >> deletion processes across languages, called the Keenan-Comrie >> Accessibility Hierarchy. Here's an example from the Wikipedia >> article on the KCAH, which is worth reading: >> >> Subject That's the man [who ran away]. The girl [who came late] is my >> sister. >> Direct object That's the man [I saw yesterday]. The girl [Kate saw] is >> my sister. >> Indirect object That's the man [to whom I gave the letter]. The girl >> [whom I wrote a letter to] is my sister. >> Oblique That's the man [I was talking about]. The girl [whom I sat next >> to] is my sister. >> Genitive That's the man [whose sister I know]. The girl [whose father >> died] told me she was sad. >> Obj of Comp That's the man [I am taller than]. The girl [who Kate is >> smarter than] is my sister. >> >> Notice that "that" can occur in prepositional phrases only if the >> preposition is stranded. "...to that I was talking" is not possible. >> Also, the genitive, as I pointed out earlier, does not allow "that." >> These are precisely the positions in which asyndetic relatives are >> also ungrammatical. There is an extension of this in colloquial >> speech and in non-standard dialects where the gap in the relative >> clause is filled by a resumptive pronoun. These occur in genitive >> and comparatives especially, although they'll also occur in more >> complex constructions. An example would be "?I'd like you to meet >> the poet that we read a lot of her work last year." We certainly >> would not allow that in formal writing, but it's not at all unusual in speech. >> >> The comparative marker "than" acts a lot like a preposition in >> English, and so if we combine it with prepositional phrases, which in >> this version are collapsed with indirect objects, then what we see is >> that asyndetic relatives are blocked only at the lowest level of the >> hierarchy, Genitives. The fact that "that" can't be dropped if the >> gap is in subject position is a separate phenomenon that is related >> to language processing needs. Otherwise that-deletion in noun >> clauses and in relatives is pretty much the same rule. >> That-relatives and zero-relatives then fall together into one >> subclass of relative clauses that behave differently from wh-relatives. >> >> This distinction between that- and wh-relatives reflects the history >> of the language. Historically, English had only the that-type and asyndetic >> relatives, although the subordinator was "tha" rather than "that." This >> is a reflection of the strongly paratactic structure of Old English: >> not a lot of subordination but lots of main clauses in sequence, >> sometimes conjoined by "and." Old English did not have wh-relatives >> until the Late Old English period when they developed probably from >> indefinite relatives under the influence of Latin, which the scribes >> of the time knew well. In Latin, relative clauses had to be formed >> with relative pronouns fully inflected for gender, number, and case. >> After the Norman Conquest, when the tradition of Alfred the Great's >> English scriptoria was suppressed, wh-relatives also disappeared and didn't reappear until the late 13th c. >> when, once again, Latin influenced writers borrowed the structure >> from Latin. Wh-relatives even today are more strongly a feature of >> educated standard English than of non-standard dialects, which use >> that- and zero- relatives much more. In fact, wh-relatives are still >> so much a function of formal education and of Standard English that >> when non-standard speakers attempt to use the wh-pronouns to initiate >> clauses they frequently use them in unusual ways, as in sentences >> like "We were going to have a picnic Saturday, which it rained." >> Such wh-coordination is not at all uncommon in spoken non-standard dialects. >> >> Herb >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth >> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:04 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >> >> Hey, Herb-- >> >> Thanks for recapitulating the argument for that being just a >> subordinator and not a pronoun. You always make me think. A lot. A >> nice break from grading. >> >> Unless I am misunderstanding you, I would note an exception to a >> claim you make. You say >> >> >> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike >> pronouns. >> >> >> But the wh-pronouns are deletable in adjective clauses, when the >> pronoun fills the direct object role in the dependent clause, as in >> >> The woman whom you met this morning is an old friend of mine. >> The woman _____ you met this morning is an old friend of mine. >> >> Am I missing something in what you said? >> >> Happy end-of-semester-- >> Seth >> >> Dr. Seth Katz >> Assistant Professor >> Department of English >> Bradley University >> >> Faculty Advisor >> Bradley University Hillel >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Stahlke, Herbert F.W. >> Sent: Fri 12/17/2010 12:45 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >> >> >> >> John, >> >> >> >> We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of "that" >> in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all >> of it, but here's the position I've taken, which is also the position >> of Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on Historical >> Principles and Huddleston& Pullum in their rather more recent >> Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. >> >> >> >> There are two function words "that" in English. One is the distal >> demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the other is the >> subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you have provided. When >> "that" is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a >> subordinator, not a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns are the >> wh- words. This analysis implies that there is a gap in the relative >> clause corresponding to the head noun, so in "The pitches that Casey missed..." >> the gap is in direct object position where "pitches" would be if the >> relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the subject that >> is zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid processing problems >> that arise when a second finite verb occurs in a sentence without any >> overt marking that it is in a subordinate clause, so in "The ball >> that got past Casey was a strike" the dropping of "that" would leave "The ball got past Casey >> was a strike" which some speakers will use but writers will avoid. The >> fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not evidence that >> it's a relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or asyndetic >> relative clauses. >> >> >> >> There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in all of >> its non-demonstrative uses. >> >> >> >> * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that." >> Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed. >> >> * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would expect >> it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those Casey missed...." >> >> * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh- >> relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...." >> >> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike >> pronouns. >> >> >> >> There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in Huddleston& >> Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of this analysis by >> Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21 (1985), 149-179 >> titled "Relative that - a centennial dispute. It's a fascinating, >> thoughtful, and incisive critique. >> >> >> >> Herb >> >> >> >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy >> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Noun clauses >> >> >> >> Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about >> clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have >> some thoughts on. >> >> The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That >> the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious." >> >> "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all >> day, the dog ran around and barked." >> >> And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn >> Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a >> competition differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists." >> >> Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronoun? >> >> Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should >> you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it has >> a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" as >> the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front. >> >> Thank you very much! >> >> Sincerely, >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> John Chorazy >> English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High >> School >> >> Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please >> visit the list's web interface at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or >> leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 20 Dec 2010 17:54:22 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Herb, It has always been my understanding that finite subordinate clauses require an explicit subject. That may be one reason why the relative can't be dropped if it's in subject role. Example: "Anyone who touches you touches me." "Anyone [whom] you touch touches me." Deletion is possible in the second example, but not the first. Example: "Anything that touches you touches me." "Anything [that]you touch touches me." Deletion is possible in the second, but not the first. There is nothing parallel to that with content clauses since the "that" remains fully outside the clause and is never used to stand in (or place hold)for a missing subject. Relative clauses and content clauses have formal (not just functional) differences. Craig > Craig, > > My problem with saying that it sometimes has a place holding function is > that it's an impressionistic statement. If we ask what it's doing in a > particular clause we can't provide any sort of evidence for a solution > different form subordinator. A statement like yours follows from certain > assumptions, but the assumptions themselves, for example, that "that" is a > relative pronoun, are difficult to support. Historical change gives us > some help but must be interpreted very cautiously, which is why I'm not > willing to say that pronominal status has not developed beyond the > non-standard genitive use. > > Besides a general feeling about it, how can you argue that relative > "that" is performing a function in the relative clause, an argument that > can't be handled as well or better by deletion under identity? > > Herb > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 10:22 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Noun clauses > > Herb, > I might be content with saying that relative "that" acts in ways that > are very unique and that make it hard to classify. The important work > is in describing how it acts. In content clauses, it is always outside > the clause, but in relative clauses, it sometimes has a place holding > function. The category we place it in depends on how we draw the lines > for the category. > > Craig > > On 12/18/2010 10:13 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: >> Craig, >> >> A question was raised off-list about whether "that" is taking on some >> pronoun function in the genitive in non-standard varieties. This >> appears to be the case. I like your examples showing that rel-that and >> conj-that behave alike, but I think the spelling identity of the >> subordinator and the demonstrative leads speakers to identify them with >> each other, even if their history and their syntax and morphology argue >> otherwise. In a non-standard construction like "Did you see a book >> that's cover was torn?" "that's" is clearly pronominal. I think >> "that's" arises by analogy to the genitive pronouns >> yours/his/hers/its/ours/theirs even though those can't be used as >> determiners. (And, by the way, I think the spelling should be "thats," >> without the apostrophe, like the other genitive pronouns. Microsoft >> Word keeps putting in the apostrophe for some reason.) Analogical >> change is by its very nature irregular, and so that fact that genitive >> "thats" is developing in non-standard usage tells us nothing about >> what's happening categorially to "that" in other relative constructions. >> Remember Sturtevant's Paradox: Sound change is regular and produces >> irregularity; analogical change is irregular and produces regularity. >> >> On morphosyntactic grounds, I maintain the arguments that relative >> "that" is not a pronoun. We can gain insight into how the grammar of >> "that" is changing only by extrapolating from examples of usage. We >> can't do much with people's naïve feeling and hunches about grammar, and >> I know you're not suggesting that. >> >> Herb >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock >> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:38 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >> >> Herb, >> You and I have been over this one before and I don't want to just >> repeat that. But I do have a question. When "that" is required in >> the subject slot of a relative clause (As in "Anything that touches >> you touches me") is "that" simply holding down a slot (for sentence >> processing ease)or is it actually acting as subject in that >> relative clause? >> My current sense of this is that it's more a matter of drawing >> classification lines than it is of disputing how this stuff works. >> The dynamics of a relative clause are different from the dynamics of >> a content clause BECAUSE DELETION OF A SENTENCE ELEMENT DOESN'T >> OCCUR IN CONTENT CLAUSES. In a content clause, "that" remains fully >> outside the clause (in a way that the "wh" pronouns do not.) For >> that reason, we can say "His wish that she would be at peace was >> granted" includes a clause ("that she would be at peace") that is >> more like a content clause than a relative. We can also use "that" >> along with "wh" pronouns in a content clause. "I believe that what >> she said was right." In a relative clause, we have much more the >> feeling that we are choosing between them, as we do with "that" and >> "which". Some books recommend "that" for restrictive, "which" for >> non-restrictive. You have nothing parallel to that choice in content >> clauses. >> So "that" has some overlap with the "wh" pronouns in relative >> clauses that it doesn't have in content clauses. >> I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I >> think coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I >> bought from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be >> distorting the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual >> number, the "in" >> seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken >> dialect. >> >> Craig >> Seth, >>> That's one of the arguments I didn't go into. There is a hierarchy >>> of grammatical relations that governs all sorts of movement and >>> deletion processes across languages, called the Keenan-Comrie >>> Accessibility Hierarchy. Here's an example from the Wikipedia >>> article on the KCAH, which is worth reading: >>> >>> Subject That's the man [who ran away]. The girl [who came late] >>> is my >>> sister. >>> Direct object That's the man [I saw yesterday]. The girl >>> [Kate saw] is >>> my sister. >>> Indirect object That's the man [to whom I gave the letter]. >>> The girl >>> [whom I wrote a letter to] is my sister. >>> Oblique That's the man [I was talking about]. The girl [whom I >>> sat next >>> to] is my sister. >>> Genitive That's the man [whose sister I know]. The girl [whose >>> father >>> died] told me she was sad. >>> Obj of Comp That's the man [I am taller than]. The girl [who Kate >>> is >>> smarter than] is my sister. >>> >>> Notice that "that" can occur in prepositional phrases only if the >>> preposition is stranded. "...to that I was talking" is not possible. >>> Also, the genitive, as I pointed out earlier, does not allow "that." >>> These are precisely the positions in which asyndetic relatives are >>> also ungrammatical. There is an extension of this in colloquial >>> speech and in non-standard dialects where the gap in the relative >>> clause is filled by a resumptive pronoun. These occur in genitive >>> and comparatives especially, although they'll also occur in more >>> complex constructions. An example would be "?I'd like you to meet >>> the poet that we read a lot of her work last year." We certainly >>> would not allow that in formal writing, but it's not at all unusual in >>> speech. >>> >>> The comparative marker "than" acts a lot like a preposition in >>> English, and so if we combine it with prepositional phrases, which in >>> this version are collapsed with indirect objects, then what we see is >>> that asyndetic relatives are blocked only at the lowest level of the >>> hierarchy, Genitives. The fact that "that" can't be dropped if the >>> gap is in subject position is a separate phenomenon that is related >>> to language processing needs. Otherwise that-deletion in noun >>> clauses and in relatives is pretty much the same rule. >>> That-relatives and zero-relatives then fall together into one >>> subclass of relative clauses that behave differently from wh-relatives. >>> >>> This distinction between that- and wh-relatives reflects the history >>> of the language. Historically, English had only the that-type and >>> asyndetic >>> relatives, although the subordinator was "tha" rather than "that." >>> This >>> is a reflection of the strongly paratactic structure of Old English: >>> not a lot of subordination but lots of main clauses in sequence, >>> sometimes conjoined by "and." Old English did not have wh-relatives >>> until the Late Old English period when they developed probably from >>> indefinite relatives under the influence of Latin, which the scribes >>> of the time knew well. In Latin, relative clauses had to be formed >>> with relative pronouns fully inflected for gender, number, and case. >>> After the Norman Conquest, when the tradition of Alfred the Great's >>> English scriptoria was suppressed, wh-relatives also disappeared and >>> didn't reappear until the late 13th c. >>> when, once again, Latin influenced writers borrowed the structure >>> from Latin. Wh-relatives even today are more strongly a feature of >>> educated standard English than of non-standard dialects, which use >>> that- and zero- relatives much more. In fact, wh-relatives are still >>> so much a function of formal education and of Standard English that >>> when non-standard speakers attempt to use the wh-pronouns to initiate >>> clauses they frequently use them in unusual ways, as in sentences >>> like "We were going to have a picnic Saturday, which it rained." >>> Such wh-coordination is not at all uncommon in spoken non-standard >>> dialects. >>> >>> Herb >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth >>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:04 PM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >>> >>> Hey, Herb-- >>> >>> Thanks for recapitulating the argument for that being just a >>> subordinator and not a pronoun. You always make me think. A lot. A >>> nice break from grading. >>> >>> Unless I am misunderstanding you, I would note an exception to a >>> claim you make. You say >>> >>> >>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike >>> pronouns. >>> >>> >>> But the wh-pronouns are deletable in adjective clauses, when the >>> pronoun fills the direct object role in the dependent clause, as in >>> >>> The woman whom you met this morning is an old friend of mine. >>> The woman _____ you met this morning is an old friend of mine. >>> >>> Am I missing something in what you said? >>> >>> Happy end-of-semester-- >>> Seth >>> >>> Dr. Seth Katz >>> Assistant Professor >>> Department of English >>> Bradley University >>> >>> Faculty Advisor >>> Bradley University Hillel >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >>> Stahlke, Herbert F.W. >>> Sent: Fri 12/17/2010 12:45 PM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >>> >>> >>> >>> John, >>> >>> >>> >>> We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of >>> "that" >>> in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all >>> of it, but here's the position I've taken, which is also the position >>> of Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on Historical >>> Principles and Huddleston& Pullum in their rather more recent >>> Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. >>> >>> >>> >>> There are two function words "that" in English. One is the distal >>> demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the other is the >>> subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you have provided. When >>> "that" is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a >>> subordinator, not a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns are the >>> wh- words. This analysis implies that there is a gap in the relative >>> clause corresponding to the head noun, so in "The pitches that Casey >>> missed..." >>> the gap is in direct object position where "pitches" would be if the >>> relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the subject that >>> is zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid processing problems >>> that arise when a second finite verb occurs in a sentence without any >>> overt marking that it is in a subordinate clause, so in "The ball >>> that got past Casey was a strike" the dropping of "that" would leave >>> "The ball got past Casey >>> was a strike" which some speakers will use but writers will avoid. >>> The >>> fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not evidence that >>> it's a relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or asyndetic >>> relative clauses. >>> >>> >>> >>> There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in all of >>> its non-demonstrative uses. >>> >>> >>> >>> * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that." >>> Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed. >>> >>> * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would >>> expect >>> it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those Casey missed...." >>> >>> * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh- >>> relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...." >>> >>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike >>> pronouns. >>> >>> >>> >>> There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in Huddleston& >>> Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of this analysis by >>> Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21 (1985), 149-179 >>> titled "Relative that - a centennial dispute. It's a fascinating, >>> thoughtful, and incisive critique. >>> >>> >>> >>> Herb >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy >>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Noun clauses >>> >>> >>> >>> Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about >>> clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have >>> some thoughts on. >>> >>> The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That >>> the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious." >>> >>> "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all >>> day, the dog ran around and barked." >>> >>> And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn >>> Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a >>> competition differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists." >>> >>> Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronoun? >>> >>> Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should >>> you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it has >>> a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" as >>> the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front. >>> >>> Thank you very much! >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> John Chorazy >>> English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High >>> School >>> >>> Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please >>> visit the list's web interface at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface >>> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or >>> leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface >>> at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface >>> at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 20 Dec 2010 19:41:40 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Craig, The pattern you illustrate below is certainly true of Standard English. However, in colloquial speech and in non-ztandard varieties of English "that" is dropped regularly before 0 subjects in relatives. I hear people say things like "Anyone/thing touches you touches me" fairly regularly. This syntactic change is taking place because that's outside the relative clause, just as it's outside the content clause. If it were a pronoun and perceived as a pronoun cognitively, then I would also expect to hear things like "Thatever gambles loses" along with "Whoever gambles loses." But that's one I don't hear. The fact that "that" doesn't delete before a 0 subject relative clause in Formal Standard English reflects the conservatism of that dialect. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 5:54 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Noun clauses Herb, It has always been my understanding that finite subordinate clauses require an explicit subject. That may be one reason why the relative can't be dropped if it's in subject role. Example: "Anyone who touches you touches me." "Anyone [whom] you touch touches me." Deletion is possible in the second example, but not the first. Example: "Anything that touches you touches me." "Anything [that]you touch touches me." Deletion is possible in the second, but not the first. There is nothing parallel to that with content clauses since the "that" remains fully outside the clause and is never used to stand in (or place hold)for a missing subject. Relative clauses and content clauses have formal (not just functional) differences. Craig > Craig, > > My problem with saying that it sometimes has a place holding function > is that it's an impressionistic statement. If we ask what it's doing > in a particular clause we can't provide any sort of evidence for a > solution different form subordinator. A statement like yours follows > from certain assumptions, but the assumptions themselves, for example, > that "that" is a relative pronoun, are difficult to support. > Historical change gives us some help but must be interpreted very > cautiously, which is why I'm not willing to say that pronominal status > has not developed beyond the non-standard genitive use. > > Besides a general feeling about it, how can you argue that relative > "that" is performing a function in the relative clause, an argument > that can't be handled as well or better by deletion under identity? > > Herb > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 10:22 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Noun clauses > > Herb, > I might be content with saying that relative "that" acts in ways > that are very unique and that make it hard to classify. The important > work is in describing how it acts. In content clauses, it is always > outside the clause, but in relative clauses, it sometimes has a place > holding function. The category we place it in depends on how we draw > the lines for the category. > > Craig > > On 12/18/2010 10:13 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: >> Craig, >> >> A question was raised off-list about whether "that" is taking on some >> pronoun function in the genitive in non-standard varieties. This >> appears to be the case. I like your examples showing that rel-that >> and conj-that behave alike, but I think the spelling identity of the >> subordinator and the demonstrative leads speakers to identify them >> with each other, even if their history and their syntax and morphology argue >> otherwise. In a non-standard construction like "Did you see a book >> that's cover was torn?" "that's" is clearly pronominal. I think >> "that's" arises by analogy to the genitive pronouns >> yours/his/hers/its/ours/theirs even though those can't be used as >> determiners. (And, by the way, I think the spelling should be "thats," >> without the apostrophe, like the other genitive pronouns. Microsoft >> Word keeps putting in the apostrophe for some reason.) Analogical >> change is by its very nature irregular, and so that fact that >> genitive "thats" is developing in non-standard usage tells us nothing >> about what's happening categorially to "that" in other relative constructions. >> Remember Sturtevant's Paradox: Sound change is regular and >> produces irregularity; analogical change is irregular and produces regularity. >> >> On morphosyntactic grounds, I maintain the arguments that relative >> "that" is not a pronoun. We can gain insight into how the grammar of >> "that" is changing only by extrapolating from examples of usage. We >> can't do much with people's naïve feeling and hunches about grammar, >> and I know you're not suggesting that. >> >> Herb >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock >> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:38 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >> >> Herb, >> You and I have been over this one before and I don't want to >> just repeat that. But I do have a question. When "that" is required >> in the subject slot of a relative clause (As in "Anything that >> touches you touches me") is "that" simply holding down a slot (for >> sentence processing ease)or is it actually acting as subject in that >> relative clause? >> My current sense of this is that it's more a matter of drawing >> classification lines than it is of disputing how this stuff works. >> The dynamics of a relative clause are different from the dynamics of >> a content clause BECAUSE DELETION OF A SENTENCE ELEMENT DOESN'T OCCUR >> IN CONTENT CLAUSES. In a content clause, "that" remains fully outside >> the clause (in a way that the "wh" pronouns do not.) For that reason, >> we can say "His wish that she would be at peace was granted" includes >> a clause ("that she would be at peace") that is more like a content >> clause than a relative. We can also use "that" >> along with "wh" pronouns in a content clause. "I believe that what >> she said was right." In a relative clause, we have much more the >> feeling that we are choosing between them, as we do with "that" and >> "which". Some books recommend "that" for restrictive, "which" for >> non-restrictive. You have nothing parallel to that choice in content >> clauses. >> So "that" has some overlap with the "wh" pronouns in relative >> clauses that it doesn't have in content clauses. >> I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I >> think coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I >> bought from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be >> distorting the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual >> number, the "in" >> seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken >> dialect. >> >> Craig >> Seth, >>> That's one of the arguments I didn't go into. There is a hierarchy >>> of grammatical relations that governs all sorts of movement and >>> deletion processes across languages, called the Keenan-Comrie >>> Accessibility Hierarchy. Here's an example from the Wikipedia >>> article on the KCAH, which is worth reading: >>> >>> Subject That's the man [who ran away]. The girl [who came late] >>> is my >>> sister. >>> Direct object That's the man [I saw yesterday]. The girl >>> [Kate saw] is >>> my sister. >>> Indirect object That's the man [to whom I gave the letter]. >>> The girl >>> [whom I wrote a letter to] is my sister. >>> Oblique That's the man [I was talking about]. The girl [whom I >>> sat next >>> to] is my sister. >>> Genitive That's the man [whose sister I know]. The girl [whose >>> father >>> died] told me she was sad. >>> Obj of Comp That's the man [I am taller than]. The girl [who Kate >>> is >>> smarter than] is my sister. >>> >>> Notice that "that" can occur in prepositional phrases only if the >>> preposition is stranded. "...to that I was talking" is not possible. >>> Also, the genitive, as I pointed out earlier, does not allow "that." >>> These are precisely the positions in which asyndetic relatives are >>> also ungrammatical. There is an extension of this in colloquial >>> speech and in non-standard dialects where the gap in the relative >>> clause is filled by a resumptive pronoun. These occur in genitive >>> and comparatives especially, although they'll also occur in more >>> complex constructions. An example would be "?I'd like you to meet >>> the poet that we read a lot of her work last year." We certainly >>> would not allow that in formal writing, but it's not at all unusual >>> in speech. >>> >>> The comparative marker "than" acts a lot like a preposition in >>> English, and so if we combine it with prepositional phrases, which >>> in this version are collapsed with indirect objects, then what we >>> see is that asyndetic relatives are blocked only at the lowest level >>> of the hierarchy, Genitives. The fact that "that" can't be dropped >>> if the gap is in subject position is a separate phenomenon that is >>> related to language processing needs. Otherwise that-deletion in >>> noun clauses and in relatives is pretty much the same rule. >>> That-relatives and zero-relatives then fall together into one >>> subclass of relative clauses that behave differently from wh-relatives. >>> >>> This distinction between that- and wh-relatives reflects the history >>> of the language. Historically, English had only the that-type and >>> asyndetic relatives, although the subordinator was "tha" rather than >>> "that." >>> This >>> is a reflection of the strongly paratactic structure of Old English: >>> not a lot of subordination but lots of main clauses in sequence, >>> sometimes conjoined by "and." Old English did not have wh-relatives >>> until the Late Old English period when they developed probably from >>> indefinite relatives under the influence of Latin, which the scribes >>> of the time knew well. In Latin, relative clauses had to be formed >>> with relative pronouns fully inflected for gender, number, and case. >>> After the Norman Conquest, when the tradition of Alfred the Great's >>> English scriptoria was suppressed, wh-relatives also disappeared and >>> didn't reappear until the late 13th c. >>> when, once again, Latin influenced writers borrowed the structure >>> from Latin. Wh-relatives even today are more strongly a feature of >>> educated standard English than of non-standard dialects, which use >>> that- and zero- relatives much more. In fact, wh-relatives are >>> still so much a function of formal education and of Standard English >>> that when non-standard speakers attempt to use the wh-pronouns to >>> initiate clauses they frequently use them in unusual ways, as in >>> sentences like "We were going to have a picnic Saturday, which it rained." >>> Such wh-coordination is not at all uncommon in spoken non-standard >>> dialects. >>> >>> Herb >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth >>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:04 PM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >>> >>> Hey, Herb-- >>> >>> Thanks for recapitulating the argument for that being just a >>> subordinator and not a pronoun. You always make me think. A lot. A >>> nice break from grading. >>> >>> Unless I am misunderstanding you, I would note an exception to a >>> claim you make. You say >>> >>> >>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike >>> pronouns. >>> >>> >>> But the wh-pronouns are deletable in adjective clauses, when the >>> pronoun fills the direct object role in the dependent clause, as in >>> >>> The woman whom you met this morning is an old friend of mine. >>> The woman _____ you met this morning is an old friend of mine. >>> >>> Am I missing something in what you said? >>> >>> Happy end-of-semester-- >>> Seth >>> >>> Dr. Seth Katz >>> Assistant Professor >>> Department of English >>> Bradley University >>> >>> Faculty Advisor >>> Bradley University Hillel >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >>> Stahlke, Herbert F.W. >>> Sent: Fri 12/17/2010 12:45 PM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >>> >>> >>> >>> John, >>> >>> >>> >>> We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of >>> "that" >>> in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all >>> of it, but here's the position I've taken, which is also the >>> position of Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on >>> Historical Principles and Huddleston& Pullum in their rather more >>> recent Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. >>> >>> >>> >>> There are two function words "that" in English. One is the distal >>> demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the other is the >>> subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you have provided. When >>> "that" is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a >>> subordinator, not a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns are the >>> wh- words. This analysis implies that there is a gap in the >>> relative clause corresponding to the head noun, so in "The pitches >>> that Casey missed..." >>> the gap is in direct object position where "pitches" would be if the >>> relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the subject >>> that is zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid processing >>> problems that arise when a second finite verb occurs in a sentence >>> without any overt marking that it is in a subordinate clause, so in >>> "The ball that got past Casey was a strike" the dropping of "that" >>> would leave "The ball got past Casey was a strike" which some >>> speakers will use but writers will avoid. >>> The >>> fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not evidence that >>> it's a relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or >>> asyndetic relative clauses. >>> >>> >>> >>> There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in all >>> of its non-demonstrative uses. >>> >>> >>> >>> * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that." >>> Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed. >>> >>> * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would >>> expect >>> it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those Casey missed...." >>> >>> * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh- >>> relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...." >>> >>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike >>> pronouns. >>> >>> >>> >>> There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in >>> Huddleston& Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of this >>> analysis by Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21 >>> (1985), 149-179 titled "Relative that - a centennial dispute. It's >>> a fascinating, thoughtful, and incisive critique. >>> >>> >>> >>> Herb >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy >>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Noun clauses >>> >>> >>> >>> Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about >>> clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have >>> some thoughts on. >>> >>> The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That >>> the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious." >>> >>> "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all >>> day, the dog ran around and barked." >>> >>> And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn >>> Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a >>> competition differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists." >>> >>> Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronoun? >>> >>> Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should >>> you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it >>> has a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" >>> as the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front. >>> >>> Thank you very much! >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> John Chorazy >>> English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High >>> School >>> >>> Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please >>> visit the list's web interface at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface >>> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join >>> or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface >>> at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface >>> at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 20 Dec 2010 20:25:42 -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: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016e6de03bed723040497e18392 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Herb, Here's some additional data about "that" in relative clauses to supplement what you presented in an earlier post. In the examples, Ø represents no spoken word (e.g., "the book Ø we read" = the book we read), and * represents an ungrammatical term (e.g., "the author *to that we wrote"). *Restrictive relative clause* Subject: the author who/that/*Ø wrote the book... the book which/that/*Ø inspired us... Direct object: the author whom/that/Ø we admired... the book which/that/Ø the author wrote... Object of preposition: the author whom/that/Ø we wrote to... the author to whom/*to that/*to Ø we wrote... the book from which/*from that/*from Ø we read... Possessive: the author whose/?that's/*Ø book we admired... the book whose/*which's/*that's/*Ø cover we admired... *Nonrestrictive relative clause* Tolstoy, who/*that/*Ø wrote *War and Peace*, ... *War and Peace*, which/*that/*Ø Tolstoy wrote, ... Tolstoy, whom/*that/*Ø we read about, ... Tolstoy, about whom/*about that/*about Ø we read, ... *War and Peace*, whose/*which's/*that's/*Ø plot we summarized, ... Some observations: 1. In restrictive clauses, "that" occurs in the same positions as "who," "whom," and "which" for subject, direct object, and object of a clause-final preposition. 2. "That" occurs in the same positions as Ø except for subject of a restrictive clause. 3. Unlike "who" or "which," "that" cannot directly follow a preposition. 4. Unlike "who" but like "which," "that" does not have a possessive form ("whose" but not "which's" or "that's"). This fact might not be significant, since "whose" seems to be the universal possessive relative pronoun, representing both animate and inanimate noun phrases (unlike "who/m," which represents only animate phrases). 5. Unlike "who," "whom," and "which," "that" does not occur in nonrestrictive clauses. The data is decidedly mixed, and you are wise to state, "I'm not willing to say that pronominal status [of "that"] has not developed beyond the non-standard genitive use [that's]." You and others presented several arguments, historical and otherwise, for the anti-pronoun position. The chief argument for the pro-pronoun position is intuitive. For at least some people, "the author who wrote the book" and "the author that wrote the book" seem indistinguishable, with the "who" and "that" seeming* *to represent "the author" in the relative clause. On the other hand, if "that" is a relative pronoun, why can't we say "the author to that we wrote"? For me the jury is still out, and I hope to read further contributions. Dick On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:10 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Craig, > > My problem with saying that it sometimes has a place holding function is > that it's an impressionistic statement. If we ask what it's doing in a > particular clause we can't provide any sort of evidence for a solution > different form subordinator. A statement like yours follows from certain > assumptions, but the assumptions themselves, for example, that "that" is a > relative pronoun, are difficult to support. Historical change gives us some > help but must be interpreted very cautiously, which is why I'm not willing > to say that pronominal status has not developed beyond the non-standard > genitive use. > > Besides a general feeling about it, how can you argue that relative "that" > is performing a function in the relative clause, an argument that can't be > handled as well or better by deletion under identity? > > Herb > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6de03bed723040497e18392 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Herb,

Here's some additional data about "that" in relative clauses to supplement what you presented in an earlier post. In the examples, Ø represents no spoken word (e.g., "the book Ø we read" = the book we read), and * represents an ungrammatical term (e.g., "the author *to that we wrote").

Restrictive relative clause

Subject:
the author who/that/*Ø wrote the book...
the book which/that/*Ø inspired us...
Direct object:
the author whom/that/Ø we admired...
the book which/that/Ø the author wrote...
Object of preposition:
the author whom/that/Ø we wrote to...
the author to whom/*to that/*to Ø we wrote...
the book from which/*from that/*from Ø we read...
Possessive:
the author whose/?that's/*Ø book we admired...
the book whose/*which's/*that's/*Ø cover we admired...
Nonrestrictive relative clause
Tolstoy, who/*that/*Ø wrote War and Peace, ...
War and Peace, which/*that/*Ø Tolstoy wrote, ...
Tolstoy, whom/*that/*Ø we read about, ...
Tolstoy, about whom/*about that/*about Ø we read, ...
War and Peace, whose/*which's/*that's/*Ø plot we summarized, ...

Some observations:
  1. In restrictive clauses, "that" occurs in the same positions as "who," "whom," and "which" for subject, direct object, and object of a clause-final preposition.
  2. "That" occurs in the same positions as Ø except for subject of a restrictive clause.
  3. Unlike "who" or "which," "that" cannot directly follow a preposition.
  4. Unlike "who" but like "which," "that" does not have a possessive form ("whose" but not "which's" or "that's"). This fact might not be significant, since "whose" seems to be the universal possessive relative pronoun, representing both animate and inanimate noun phrases (unlike "who/m," which represents only animate phrases).
  5. Unlike "who," "whom," and "which," "that" does not occur in nonrestrictive clauses.
The data is decidedly mixed, and you are wise to state, "I'm not willing to say that pronominal status [of "that"] has not developed beyond the non-standard genitive use [that's]." You and others presented several arguments, historical and otherwise, for the anti-pronoun position. The chief argument for the pro-pronoun position is intuitive. For at least some people, "the author who wrote the book" and "the author that wrote the book" seem indistinguishable, with the "who" and "that" seeming to represent "the author" in the relative clause. On the other hand, if "that" is a relative pronoun, why can't we say "the author to that we wrote"? For me the jury is still out, and I hope to read further contributions.

Dick

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:10 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Craig,

My problem with saying that it sometimes has a place holding function is that it's an impressionistic statement.  If we ask what it's doing in a particular clause we can't provide any sort of evidence for a solution different form subordinator.  A statement like yours follows from certain assumptions, but the assumptions themselves, for example, that "that" is a relative pronoun, are difficult to support.  Historical change gives us some help but must be interpreted very cautiously, which is why I'm not willing to say that pronominal status has not developed beyond the non-standard genitive use.

Besides a general feeling about it, how can  you argue that relative "that" is performing a function in the relative clause, an argument that can't be handled as well or better by deletion under identity?

Herb

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6de03bed723040497e18392-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 20:51:28 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Herb, By the same logic, "Anyone touches you touches me" would be proof that "who" is not a pronoun. I think deleting "who" is equally likely (at least to my ear test), though, as you say, nonstandard. We also have "that" as pronoun in content clauses in ways that could seem parallel to the relatives. "I believe that is true." That, in this sentence, is clearly pronoun subject. We can add a subordinator. "I believe that that is true." It can also be contracted, something that doesn't happen with a subordinator. "I believe that's true." Relative version: "I believe anything that is true." "I believe anything that's true." "A belief that's true..." I don't mean by this to diminish the argument that "that" is more limited than you would expect from a pronoun. Again, I think it may be slipping between categories, acting a little differently in relatives than it does as subordinator in content clauses. Again, I think noticing how it acts is more useful than wedging it into a category, especially if it will be unique in whatever category you place it in. It's either a unique pronoun or a unique subordinator. Craig> Craig, > > The pattern you illustrate below is certainly true of Standard English. > However, in colloquial speech and in non-ztandard varieties of English > "that" is dropped regularly before 0 subjects in relatives. I hear people > say things like "Anyone/thing touches you touches me" fairly regularly. > This syntactic change is taking place because that's outside the relative > clause, just as it's outside the content clause. If it were a pronoun and > perceived as a pronoun cognitively, then I would also expect to hear > things like "Thatever gambles loses" along with "Whoever gambles loses." > But that's one I don't hear. The fact that "that" doesn't delete before > a 0 subject relative clause in Formal Standard English reflects the > conservatism of that dialect. > > Herb > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 5:54 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Noun clauses > > Herb, > It has always been my understanding that finite subordinate clauses > require an explicit subject. That may be one reason why the relative > can't be dropped if it's in subject role. > Example: "Anyone who touches you touches me." > "Anyone [whom] you touch touches me." > Deletion is possible in the second example, but not the first. > > Example: "Anything that touches you touches me." > "Anything [that]you touch touches me." > Deletion is possible in the second, but not the first. > > There is nothing parallel to that with content clauses since the > "that" remains fully outside the clause and is never used to stand in > (or place hold)for a missing subject. Relative clauses and content > clauses have formal (not just functional) differences. > > Craig > > >> Craig, >> >> My problem with saying that it sometimes has a place holding function >> is that it's an impressionistic statement. If we ask what it's doing >> in a particular clause we can't provide any sort of evidence for a >> solution different form subordinator. A statement like yours follows >> from certain assumptions, but the assumptions themselves, for example, >> that "that" is a relative pronoun, are difficult to support. >> Historical change gives us some help but must be interpreted very >> cautiously, which is why I'm not willing to say that pronominal status >> has not developed beyond the non-standard genitive use. >> >> Besides a general feeling about it, how can you argue that relative >> "that" is performing a function in the relative clause, an argument >> that can't be handled as well or better by deletion under identity? >> >> Herb >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock >> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 10:22 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >> >> Herb, >> I might be content with saying that relative "that" acts in ways >> that are very unique and that make it hard to classify. The important >> work is in describing how it acts. In content clauses, it is always >> outside the clause, but in relative clauses, it sometimes has a place >> holding function. The category we place it in depends on how we draw >> the lines for the category. >> >> Craig >> >> On 12/18/2010 10:13 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: >>> Craig, >>> >>> A question was raised off-list about whether "that" is taking on some >>> pronoun function in the genitive in non-standard varieties. This >>> appears to be the case. I like your examples showing that rel-that >>> and conj-that behave alike, but I think the spelling identity of the >>> subordinator and the demonstrative leads speakers to identify them >>> with each other, even if their history and their syntax and morphology >>> argue >>> otherwise. In a non-standard construction like "Did you see a book >>> that's cover was torn?" "that's" is clearly pronominal. I think >>> "that's" arises by analogy to the genitive pronouns >>> yours/his/hers/its/ours/theirs even though those can't be used as >>> determiners. (And, by the way, I think the spelling should be "thats," >>> without the apostrophe, like the other genitive pronouns. Microsoft >>> Word keeps putting in the apostrophe for some reason.) Analogical >>> change is by its very nature irregular, and so that fact that >>> genitive "thats" is developing in non-standard usage tells us nothing >>> about what's happening categorially to "that" in other relative >>> constructions. >>> Remember Sturtevant's Paradox: Sound change is regular and >>> produces irregularity; analogical change is irregular and produces >>> regularity. >>> >>> On morphosyntactic grounds, I maintain the arguments that relative >>> "that" is not a pronoun. We can gain insight into how the grammar of >>> "that" is changing only by extrapolating from examples of usage. We >>> can't do much with people's naïve feeling and hunches about grammar, >>> and I know you're not suggesting that. >>> >>> Herb >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock >>> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:38 AM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >>> >>> Herb, >>> You and I have been over this one before and I don't want to >>> just repeat that. But I do have a question. When "that" is required >>> in the subject slot of a relative clause (As in "Anything that >>> touches you touches me") is "that" simply holding down a slot (for >>> sentence processing ease)or is it actually acting as subject in that >>> relative clause? >>> My current sense of this is that it's more a matter of drawing >>> classification lines than it is of disputing how this stuff works. >>> The dynamics of a relative clause are different from the dynamics of >>> a content clause BECAUSE DELETION OF A SENTENCE ELEMENT DOESN'T OCCUR >>> IN CONTENT CLAUSES. In a content clause, "that" remains fully outside >>> the clause (in a way that the "wh" pronouns do not.) For that reason, >>> we can say "His wish that she would be at peace was granted" includes >>> a clause ("that she would be at peace") that is more like a content >>> clause than a relative. We can also use "that" >>> along with "wh" pronouns in a content clause. "I believe that what >>> she said was right." In a relative clause, we have much more the >>> feeling that we are choosing between them, as we do with "that" and >>> "which". Some books recommend "that" for restrictive, "which" for >>> non-restrictive. You have nothing parallel to that choice in content >>> clauses. >>> So "that" has some overlap with the "wh" pronouns in relative >>> clauses that it doesn't have in content clauses. >>> I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I >>> think coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I >>> bought from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be >>> distorting the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual >>> number, the "in" >>> seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken >>> dialect. >>> >>> Craig >>> Seth, >>>> That's one of the arguments I didn't go into. There is a hierarchy >>>> of grammatical relations that governs all sorts of movement and >>>> deletion processes across languages, called the Keenan-Comrie >>>> Accessibility Hierarchy. Here's an example from the Wikipedia >>>> article on the KCAH, which is worth reading: >>>> >>>> Subject That's the man [who ran away]. The girl [who came late] >>>> is my >>>> sister. >>>> Direct object That's the man [I saw yesterday]. The girl >>>> [Kate saw] is >>>> my sister. >>>> Indirect object That's the man [to whom I gave the letter]. >>>> The girl >>>> [whom I wrote a letter to] is my sister. >>>> Oblique That's the man [I was talking about]. The girl [whom I >>>> sat next >>>> to] is my sister. >>>> Genitive That's the man [whose sister I know]. The girl [whose >>>> father >>>> died] told me she was sad. >>>> Obj of Comp That's the man [I am taller than]. The girl [who >>>> Kate >>>> is >>>> smarter than] is my sister. >>>> >>>> Notice that "that" can occur in prepositional phrases only if the >>>> preposition is stranded. "...to that I was talking" is not possible. >>>> Also, the genitive, as I pointed out earlier, does not allow "that." >>>> These are precisely the positions in which asyndetic relatives are >>>> also ungrammatical. There is an extension of this in colloquial >>>> speech and in non-standard dialects where the gap in the relative >>>> clause is filled by a resumptive pronoun. These occur in genitive >>>> and comparatives especially, although they'll also occur in more >>>> complex constructions. An example would be "?I'd like you to meet >>>> the poet that we read a lot of her work last year." We certainly >>>> would not allow that in formal writing, but it's not at all unusual >>>> in speech. >>>> >>>> The comparative marker "than" acts a lot like a preposition in >>>> English, and so if we combine it with prepositional phrases, which >>>> in this version are collapsed with indirect objects, then what we >>>> see is that asyndetic relatives are blocked only at the lowest level >>>> of the hierarchy, Genitives. The fact that "that" can't be dropped >>>> if the gap is in subject position is a separate phenomenon that is >>>> related to language processing needs. Otherwise that-deletion in >>>> noun clauses and in relatives is pretty much the same rule. >>>> That-relatives and zero-relatives then fall together into one >>>> subclass of relative clauses that behave differently from >>>> wh-relatives. >>>> >>>> This distinction between that- and wh-relatives reflects the history >>>> of the language. Historically, English had only the that-type and >>>> asyndetic relatives, although the subordinator was "tha" rather than >>>> "that." >>>> This >>>> is a reflection of the strongly paratactic structure of Old English: >>>> not a lot of subordination but lots of main clauses in sequence, >>>> sometimes conjoined by "and." Old English did not have wh-relatives >>>> until the Late Old English period when they developed probably from >>>> indefinite relatives under the influence of Latin, which the scribes >>>> of the time knew well. In Latin, relative clauses had to be formed >>>> with relative pronouns fully inflected for gender, number, and case. >>>> After the Norman Conquest, when the tradition of Alfred the Great's >>>> English scriptoria was suppressed, wh-relatives also disappeared and >>>> didn't reappear until the late 13th c. >>>> when, once again, Latin influenced writers borrowed the structure >>>> from Latin. Wh-relatives even today are more strongly a feature of >>>> educated standard English than of non-standard dialects, which use >>>> that- and zero- relatives much more. In fact, wh-relatives are >>>> still so much a function of formal education and of Standard English >>>> that when non-standard speakers attempt to use the wh-pronouns to >>>> initiate clauses they frequently use them in unusual ways, as in >>>> sentences like "We were going to have a picnic Saturday, which it >>>> rained." >>>> Such wh-coordination is not at all uncommon in spoken non-standard >>>> dialects. >>>> >>>> Herb >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth >>>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:04 PM >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >>>> >>>> Hey, Herb-- >>>> >>>> Thanks for recapitulating the argument for that being just a >>>> subordinator and not a pronoun. You always make me think. A lot. A >>>> nice break from grading. >>>> >>>> Unless I am misunderstanding you, I would note an exception to a >>>> claim you make. You say >>>> >>>> >>>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike >>>> pronouns. >>>> >>>> >>>> But the wh-pronouns are deletable in adjective clauses, when the >>>> pronoun fills the direct object role in the dependent clause, as in >>>> >>>> The woman whom you met this morning is an old friend of mine. >>>> The woman _____ you met this morning is an old friend of mine. >>>> >>>> Am I missing something in what you said? >>>> >>>> Happy end-of-semester-- >>>> Seth >>>> >>>> Dr. Seth Katz >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Department of English >>>> Bradley University >>>> >>>> Faculty Advisor >>>> Bradley University Hillel >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >>>> Stahlke, Herbert F.W. >>>> Sent: Fri 12/17/2010 12:45 PM >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> John, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of >>>> "that" >>>> in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all >>>> of it, but here's the position I've taken, which is also the >>>> position of Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on >>>> Historical Principles and Huddleston& Pullum in their rather more >>>> recent Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There are two function words "that" in English. One is the distal >>>> demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the other is the >>>> subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you have provided. When >>>> "that" is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a >>>> subordinator, not a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns are the >>>> wh- words. This analysis implies that there is a gap in the >>>> relative clause corresponding to the head noun, so in "The pitches >>>> that Casey missed..." >>>> the gap is in direct object position where "pitches" would be if the >>>> relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the subject >>>> that is zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid processing >>>> problems that arise when a second finite verb occurs in a sentence >>>> without any overt marking that it is in a subordinate clause, so in >>>> "The ball that got past Casey was a strike" the dropping of "that" >>>> would leave "The ball got past Casey was a strike" which some >>>> speakers will use but writers will avoid. >>>> The >>>> fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not evidence that >>>> it's a relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or >>>> asyndetic relative clauses. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in all >>>> of its non-demonstrative uses. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that." >>>> Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed. >>>> >>>> * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would >>>> expect >>>> it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those Casey missed...." >>>> >>>> * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh- >>>> relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...." >>>> >>>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike >>>> pronouns. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in >>>> Huddleston& Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of this >>>> analysis by Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21 >>>> (1985), 149-179 titled "Relative that - a centennial dispute. It's >>>> a fascinating, thoughtful, and incisive critique. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Herb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy >>>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> Subject: Noun clauses >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about >>>> clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have >>>> some thoughts on. >>>> >>>> The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That >>>> the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious." >>>> >>>> "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all >>>> day, the dog ran around and barked." >>>> >>>> And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn >>>> Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a >>>> competition differs dramatically from the theories of most >>>> biologists." >>>> >>>> Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative >>>> pronoun? >>>> >>>> Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should >>>> you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it >>>> has a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" >>>> as the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up >>>> front. >>>> >>>> Thank you very much! >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> John Chorazy >>>> English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High >>>> School >>>> >>>> Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please >>>> visit the list's web interface at: >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>> >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>> interface >>>> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join >>>> or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>> interface >>>> at: >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>> >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>> interface >>>> at: >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >>> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 20 Dec 2010 21:02:04 -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: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016367fa6a2e8a54a0497e2053c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Herb, Oddly enough, I found this on a site about grooming Maltese dogs: "Then take his two front paws in one hand. Raise your hand carefully until his underside is "get-at-able" then very carefully perform thatever i[t] is you intend to do." Dick On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:41 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Craig, > > The pattern you illustrate below is certainly true of Standard English. > However, in colloquial speech and in non-ztandard varieties of English > "that" is dropped regularly before 0 subjects in relatives. I hear people > say things like "Anyone/thing touches you touches me" fairly regularly. > This syntactic change is taking place because that's outside the relative > clause, just as it's outside the content clause. If it were a pronoun and > perceived as a pronoun cognitively, then I would also expect to hear > things like "Thatever gambles loses" along with "Whoever gambles loses." > But that's one I don't hear. The fact that "that" doesn't delete before a > 0 subject relative clause in Formal Standard English reflects the > conservatism of that dialect. > > Herb > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016367fa6a2e8a54a0497e2053c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Herb,

Oddly enough, I found this on a site about grooming Maltese dogs: "Then take his two front paws in one hand. Raise your hand carefully until his underside is "get-at-able" then very carefully perform thatever i[t] is you intend to do."

Dick

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:41 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Craig,

The pattern you illustrate below is certainly true of Standard English.  However, in colloquial speech and in non-ztandard varieties of English "that" is dropped regularly before 0 subjects in relatives.  I hear people say things like "Anyone/thing touches you touches me" fairly regularly.  This syntactic change is taking place because that's outside the relative clause, just as it's outside the content clause.  If it were a pronoun and perceived as a pronoun cognitively, then I would also expect to hear things like "Thatever gambles loses" along with "Whoever gambles loses."  But that's one I don't hear.   The fact that "that" doesn't delete before a 0 subject relative clause in Formal Standard English reflects the conservatism of that dialect.

Herb

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016367fa6a2e8a54a0497e2053c-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 21:21:03 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE881DAEMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE881DAEMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dick, Evidence that the surest way to find an example of something in the wild is to say that it doesn't occur! As you undoubtedly noticed, "thatever" gets 17,600 raw googits, many of which are spacing problems that end up linking subordinator "that" with adverb "ever" as in "the strangest thing that ever happened." But if you eliminate those, there is still a significant proportion of hits that use "thatever" as an indefinite relative pronoun. So it does occur and, while not common, isn't at all rare enough to be passed off as a blip in the data. I take this as another way in which relative "that" is behaving pronominally. Like genitive "that's," we have morphosyntactic evidence of the change, not just impressionistic judgment. I just googled "thats" and got over a hundred million hits. I went through the first hundred, and there was not a single instance of "thats" as a genitive relative pronoun, although I know I've heard it used that way. Google being what it is, my "thats" search turned up a lot of instances with the apostrophe as well. I don't know quite what to make of this result. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 9:02 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Noun clauses Herb, Oddly enough, I found this on a site about grooming Maltese dogs: "Then take his two front paws in one hand. Raise your hand carefully until his underside is "get-at-able" then very carefully perform thatever i[t] is you intend to do." Dick On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:41 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Craig, The pattern you illustrate below is certainly true of Standard English. However, in colloquial speech and in non-ztandard varieties of English "that" is dropped regularly before 0 subjects in relatives. I hear people say things like "Anyone/thing touches you touches me" fairly regularly. This syntactic change is taking place because that's outside the relative clause, just as it's outside the content clause. If it were a pronoun and perceived as a pronoun cognitively, then I would also expect to hear things like "Thatever gambles loses" along with "Whoever gambles loses." But that's one I don't hear. The fact that "that" doesn't delete before a 0 subject relative clause in Formal Standard English reflects the conservatism of that dialect. Herb To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE881DAEMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dick,

 

Evidence that the surest way to find an example of something in the wild is to say that it doesn’t occur!

 

As you undoubtedly noticed, “thatever” gets 17,600 raw googits, many of which are spacing problems that end up linking subordinator “that” with adverb “ever” as in “the strangest thing that ever happened.”  But if you eliminate those, there is still a significant proportion of hits that use “thatever” as an indefinite relative pronoun.  So it does occur and, while not common, isn’t at all rare enough to be passed off as a blip in the data.  

 

I take this as another way in which relative “that” is behaving pronominally.  Like genitive “that’s,” we have morphosyntactic evidence of the change, not just impressionistic judgment.

 

I just googled “thats” and got over a hundred million hits.  I went through the first hundred, and there was not a single instance of “thats” as a genitive relative pronoun, although I know I’ve heard it used that way.  Google being what it is, my “thats” search turned up a lot of instances with the apostrophe as well.  I don’t know quite what to make of this result.

 

Herb

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 9:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Noun clauses

 

Herb,

Oddly enough, I found this on a site about grooming Maltese dogs: "Then take his two front paws in one hand. Raise your hand carefully until his underside is "get-at-able" then very carefully perform thatever i[t] is you intend to do."

Dick

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:41 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Craig,

The pattern you illustrate below is certainly true of Standard English.  However, in colloquial speech and in non-ztandard varieties of English "that" is dropped regularly before 0 subjects in relatives.  I hear people say things like "Anyone/thing touches you touches me" fairly regularly.  This syntactic change is taking place because that's outside the relative clause, just as it's outside the content clause.  If it were a pronoun and perceived as a pronoun cognitively, then I would also expect to hear things like "Thatever gambles loses" along with "Whoever gambles loses."  But that's one I don't hear.   The fact that "that" doesn't delete before a 0 subject relative clause in Formal Standard English reflects the conservatism of that dialect.


Herb


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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE881DAEMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 23:23:07 -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: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE881DCEMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE881DCEMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dick, I appreciate the clarity of your arguments and of your presentation of data. I don't know how to evaluate claims that are based on impression, however well-informed the impression is. There is no question that interesting things are happening in the grammar of "that." I suspect that the strong impression that Craig and others on the list have that relative "that" is distinct from subordinator "that" and is pronominal is at least congruent with the changes that are taking place, the occurrence of genitive "thats" and of "thatever." This raises questions of how historical change works in language, especially analogical change, which is consistent in its irregularity. We get the innovative past tense "dove" from "dive" by analogy to "drive/drove," but we don't get "diven" by analogy to "driven." These two changes in the grammar of "that" don't indicate that relative "that" is becoming a pronoun but simply that in two morphologically distinct uses it has taken on pronominal function. Without morphosyntactic evidence I'm not comfortable calling relative "that" a pronoun. It's part of one of two relative clause structures in English. "That" relatives are an innovation in late Old English, but they develop from the OE paratactic relative, where the status of the clause as relative could frequently only be established pragmatically. Wh-relatives, as I noted earlier, are a separate system borrowed from Latin. The traditional school grammar treatment of relative "that" as a pronoun is simply a bad analysis based on the orthographic identity of subordinator "that" and demonstrative "that," one that has a long history but no validity, as Jespersen showed three quarters of a century ago. These two relative clause systems persist in Modern Standard English, and the wh-relative remains a result of overt learning, hence the continuing confusion over matters like the gender of relative "that." And, interestingly, wh-relatives are not a systematic feature for a lot of non-standard speakers of English. They are a feature of educated English, passed on through education. I know as a linguist I'm supposed to examine contemporary data to determine how the language works now, but I'm also a historical linguist, and my colleagues have occasionally chided me for using historical evidence to understand how the language is today. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 8:26 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Noun clauses Herb, Here's some additional data about "that" in relative clauses to supplement what you presented in an earlier post. In the examples, Ø represents no spoken word (e.g., "the book Ø we read" = the book we read), and * represents an ungrammatical term (e.g., "the author *to that we wrote"). Restrictive relative clause Subject: the author who/that/*Ø wrote the book... the book which/that/*Ø inspired us... Direct object: the author whom/that/Ø we admired... the book which/that/Ø the author wrote... Object of preposition: the author whom/that/Ø we wrote to... the author to whom/*to that/*to Ø we wrote... the book from which/*from that/*from Ø we read... Possessive: the author whose/?that's/*Ø book we admired... the book whose/*which's/*that's/*Ø cover we admired... Nonrestrictive relative clause Tolstoy, who/*that/*Ø wrote War and Peace, ... War and Peace, which/*that/*Ø Tolstoy wrote, ... Tolstoy, whom/*that/*Ø we read about, ... Tolstoy, about whom/*about that/*about Ø we read, ... War and Peace, whose/*which's/*that's/*Ø plot we summarized, ... Some observations: 1. In restrictive clauses, "that" occurs in the same positions as "who," "whom," and "which" for subject, direct object, and object of a clause-final preposition. 2. "That" occurs in the same positions as Ø except for subject of a restrictive clause. 3. Unlike "who" or "which," "that" cannot directly follow a preposition. 4. Unlike "who" but like "which," "that" does not have a possessive form ("whose" but not "which's" or "that's"). This fact might not be significant, since "whose" seems to be the universal possessive relative pronoun, representing both animate and inanimate noun phrases (unlike "who/m," which represents only animate phrases). 5. Unlike "who," "whom," and "which," "that" does not occur in nonrestrictive clauses. The data is decidedly mixed, and you are wise to state, "I'm not willing to say that pronominal status [of "that"] has not developed beyond the non-standard genitive use [that's]." You and others presented several arguments, historical and otherwise, for the anti-pronoun position. The chief argument for the pro-pronoun position is intuitive. For at least some people, "the author who wrote the book" and "the author that wrote the book" seem indistinguishable, with the "who" and "that" seeming to represent "the author" in the relative clause. On the other hand, if "that" is a relative pronoun, why can't we say "the author to that we wrote"? For me the jury is still out, and I hope to read further contributions. Dick On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:10 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Craig, My problem with saying that it sometimes has a place holding function is that it's an impressionistic statement. If we ask what it's doing in a particular clause we can't provide any sort of evidence for a solution different form subordinator. A statement like yours follows from certain assumptions, but the assumptions themselves, for example, that "that" is a relative pronoun, are difficult to support. Historical change gives us some help but must be interpreted very cautiously, which is why I'm not willing to say that pronominal status has not developed beyond the non-standard genitive use. Besides a general feeling about it, how can you argue that relative "that" is performing a function in the relative clause, an argument that can't be handled as well or better by deletion under identity? Herb To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE881DCEMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dick,

 

I appreciate the clarity of your arguments and of your presentation of data.  I don’t know how to evaluate claims that are based on impression, however well-informed the impression is. 

 

There is no question that interesting things are happening in the grammar of “that.”  I suspect that the strong impression that Craig and others on the list have that relative “that” is distinct from subordinator “that” and is pronominal is at least congruent with the changes that are taking place, the occurrence of genitive “thats” and of “thatever.” 

 

This raises questions of how historical change works in language, especially analogical change, which is consistent in its irregularity.  We get the innovative past tense “dove” from “dive” by analogy to “drive/drove,” but we don’t get “diven” by analogy to “driven.”  These two changes in the grammar of “that” don’t indicate that relative “that” is becoming a pronoun but simply that in two morphologically distinct uses it has taken on pronominal function.   Without morphosyntactic evidence I’m not comfortable calling relative “that” a pronoun.  It’s part of one of two relative clause structures in English.  “That” relatives are an innovation in late Old English, but they develop from the OE paratactic relative, where the status of the clause as relative could frequently only be established pragmatically.  Wh-relatives, as I noted earlier, are a separate system borrowed from Latin.  The traditional school grammar treatment of relative “that” as a pronoun is simply a bad analysis based on the orthographic identity of subordinator “that” and demonstrative “that,” one that has a long history but no validity, as Jespersen showed three quarters of a century ago.

 

These two relative clause systems persist in Modern Standard English, and the wh-relative remains a result of overt learning, hence the continuing confusion over matters like the gender of relative “that.”  And, interestingly, wh-relatives are not a systematic feature for a lot of non-standard speakers of English.   They are a feature of educated English, passed on through education.

 

I know as a linguist I’m supposed to examine contemporary data to determine how the language works now, but I’m also a historical linguist, and my colleagues have occasionally chided me for using historical evidence to understand how the language is today. 

 

Herb

 

 

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 8:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Noun clauses

 

Herb,

Here's some additional data about "that" in relative clauses to supplement what you presented in an earlier post. In the examples, Ø represents no spoken word (e.g., "the book Ø we read" = the book we read), and * represents an ungrammatical term (e.g., "the author *to that we wrote").

Restrictive relative clause

Subject:

the author who/that/*Ø wrote the book...

the book which/that/*Ø inspired us...

Direct object:

the author whom/that/Ø we admired...
the book which/that/Ø the author wrote...

Object of preposition:

the author whom/that/Ø we wrote to...
the author to whom/*to that/*to Ø we wrote...
the book from which/*from that/*from Ø we read...

Possessive:

the author whose/?that's/*Ø book we admired...
the book whose/*which's/*that's/*Ø cover we admired...

Nonrestrictive relative clause

Tolstoy, who/*that/*Ø wrote War and Peace, ...
War and Peace, which/*that/*Ø Tolstoy wrote, ...
Tolstoy, whom/*that/*Ø we read about, ...
Tolstoy, about whom/*about that/*about Ø we read, ...
War and Peace, whose/*which's/*that's/*Ø plot we summarized, ...

Some observations:

  1. In restrictive clauses, "that" occurs in the same positions as "who," "whom," and "which" for subject, direct object, and object of a clause-final preposition.
  2. "That" occurs in the same positions as Ø except for subject of a restrictive clause.
  3. Unlike "who" or "which," "that" cannot directly follow a preposition.
  4. Unlike "who" but like "which," "that" does not have a possessive form ("whose" but not "which's" or "that's"). This fact might not be significant, since "whose" seems to be the universal possessive relative pronoun, representing both animate and inanimate noun phrases (unlike "who/m," which represents only animate phrases).
  5. Unlike "who," "whom," and "which," "that" does not occur in nonrestrictive clauses.

The data is decidedly mixed, and you are wise to state, "I'm not willing to say that pronominal status [of "that"] has not developed beyond the non-standard genitive use [that's]." You and others presented several arguments, historical and otherwise, for the anti-pronoun position. The chief argument for the pro-pronoun position is intuitive. For at least some people, "the author who wrote the book" and "the author that wrote the book" seem indistinguishable, with the "who" and "that" seeming to represent "the author" in the relative clause. On the other hand, if "that" is a relative pronoun, why can't we say "the author to that we wrote"? For me the jury is still out, and I hope to read further contributions.

Dick

 

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:10 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Craig,

My problem with saying that it sometimes has a place holding function is that it's an impressionistic statement.  If we ask what it's doing in a particular clause we can't provide any sort of evidence for a solution different form subordinator.  A statement like yours follows from certain assumptions, but the assumptions themselves, for example, that "that" is a relative pronoun, are difficult to support.  Historical change gives us some help but must be interpreted very cautiously, which is why I'm not willing to say that pronominal status has not developed beyond the non-standard genitive use.

Besides a general feeling about it, how can  you argue that relative "that" is performing a function in the relative clause, an argument that can't be handled as well or better by deletion under identity?


Herb


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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE881DCEMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 23:27:30 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Craig, You'd be right about extending the argument to "who" if it weren't for the case that wh-relatives are a separate system borrowed from Latin. Wh-relatives and "that"/asyndetic relatives are two separate systems historically, grammatically, and socially. I just wrote about some of this to Dick so I won't repeat it here. I'm comfortable with "thats" and "thatever" as pronominal now that I've looked at some evidence. But I can't extend that analysis to bare relative "that" because there is simply no evidence. To make a cognitive argument we still have to have evidence, and I suspect that could be done, but I haven't seen it done yet. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 8:51 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Noun clauses Herb, By the same logic, "Anyone touches you touches me" would be proof that "who" is not a pronoun. I think deleting "who" is equally likely (at least to my ear test), though, as you say, nonstandard. We also have "that" as pronoun in content clauses in ways that could seem parallel to the relatives. "I believe that is true." That, in this sentence, is clearly pronoun subject. We can add a subordinator. "I believe that that is true." It can also be contracted, something that doesn't happen with a subordinator. "I believe that's true." Relative version: "I believe anything that is true." "I believe anything that's true." "A belief that's true..." I don't mean by this to diminish the argument that "that" is more limited than you would expect from a pronoun. Again, I think it may be slipping between categories, acting a little differently in relatives than it does as subordinator in content clauses. Again, I think noticing how it acts is more useful than wedging it into a category, especially if it will be unique in whatever category you place it in. It's either a unique pronoun or a unique subordinator. Craig> Craig, > > The pattern you illustrate below is certainly true of Standard English. > However, in colloquial speech and in non-ztandard varieties of English > "that" is dropped regularly before 0 subjects in relatives. I hear > people say things like "Anyone/thing touches you touches me" fairly regularly. > This syntactic change is taking place because that's outside the > relative clause, just as it's outside the content clause. If it were > a pronoun and perceived as a pronoun cognitively, then I would also > expect to hear things like "Thatever gambles loses" along with "Whoever gambles loses." > But that's one I don't hear. The fact that "that" doesn't delete before > a 0 subject relative clause in Formal Standard English reflects the > conservatism of that dialect. > > Herb > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 5:54 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Noun clauses > > Herb, > It has always been my understanding that finite subordinate > clauses require an explicit subject. That may be one reason why the > relative can't be dropped if it's in subject role. > Example: "Anyone who touches you touches me." > "Anyone [whom] you touch touches me." > Deletion is possible in the second example, but not the first. > > Example: "Anything that touches you touches me." > "Anything [that]you touch touches me." > Deletion is possible in the second, but not the first. > > There is nothing parallel to that with content clauses since the > "that" remains fully outside the clause and is never used to stand in > (or place hold)for a missing subject. Relative clauses and content > clauses have formal (not just functional) differences. > > Craig > > >> Craig, >> >> My problem with saying that it sometimes has a place holding function >> is that it's an impressionistic statement. If we ask what it's doing >> in a particular clause we can't provide any sort of evidence for a >> solution different form subordinator. A statement like yours follows >> from certain assumptions, but the assumptions themselves, for >> example, that "that" is a relative pronoun, are difficult to support. >> Historical change gives us some help but must be interpreted very >> cautiously, which is why I'm not willing to say that pronominal >> status has not developed beyond the non-standard genitive use. >> >> Besides a general feeling about it, how can you argue that relative >> "that" is performing a function in the relative clause, an argument >> that can't be handled as well or better by deletion under identity? >> >> Herb >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock >> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 10:22 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >> >> Herb, >> I might be content with saying that relative "that" acts in ways >> that are very unique and that make it hard to classify. The important >> work is in describing how it acts. In content clauses, it is always >> outside the clause, but in relative clauses, it sometimes has a place >> holding function. The category we place it in depends on how we draw >> the lines for the category. >> >> Craig >> >> On 12/18/2010 10:13 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: >>> Craig, >>> >>> A question was raised off-list about whether "that" is taking on >>> some pronoun function in the genitive in non-standard varieties. >>> This appears to be the case. I like your examples showing that >>> rel-that and conj-that behave alike, but I think the spelling >>> identity of the subordinator and the demonstrative leads speakers to >>> identify them with each other, even if their history and their >>> syntax and morphology argue >>> otherwise. In a non-standard construction like "Did you see a book >>> that's cover was torn?" "that's" is clearly pronominal. I think >>> "that's" arises by analogy to the genitive pronouns >>> yours/his/hers/its/ours/theirs even though those can't be used as >>> determiners. (And, by the way, I think the spelling should be "thats," >>> without the apostrophe, like the other genitive pronouns. Microsoft >>> Word keeps putting in the apostrophe for some reason.) Analogical >>> change is by its very nature irregular, and so that fact that >>> genitive "thats" is developing in non-standard usage tells us >>> nothing about what's happening categorially to "that" in other >>> relative constructions. >>> Remember Sturtevant's Paradox: Sound change is regular and >>> produces irregularity; analogical change is irregular and produces >>> regularity. >>> >>> On morphosyntactic grounds, I maintain the arguments that relative >>> "that" is not a pronoun. We can gain insight into how the grammar >>> of "that" is changing only by extrapolating from examples of usage. >>> We can't do much with people's naïve feeling and hunches about >>> grammar, and I know you're not suggesting that. >>> >>> Herb >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock >>> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:38 AM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >>> >>> Herb, >>> You and I have been over this one before and I don't want to >>> just repeat that. But I do have a question. When "that" is required >>> in the subject slot of a relative clause (As in "Anything that >>> touches you touches me") is "that" simply holding down a slot (for >>> sentence processing ease)or is it actually acting as subject in that >>> relative clause? >>> My current sense of this is that it's more a matter of drawing >>> classification lines than it is of disputing how this stuff works. >>> The dynamics of a relative clause are different from the dynamics of >>> a content clause BECAUSE DELETION OF A SENTENCE ELEMENT DOESN'T >>> OCCUR IN CONTENT CLAUSES. In a content clause, "that" remains fully >>> outside the clause (in a way that the "wh" pronouns do not.) For >>> that reason, we can say "His wish that she would be at peace was >>> granted" includes a clause ("that she would be at peace") that is >>> more like a content clause than a relative. We can also use "that" >>> along with "wh" pronouns in a content clause. "I believe that what >>> she said was right." In a relative clause, we have much more the >>> feeling that we are choosing between them, as we do with "that" and >>> "which". Some books recommend "that" for restrictive, "which" for >>> non-restrictive. You have nothing parallel to that choice in content >>> clauses. >>> So "that" has some overlap with the "wh" pronouns in relative >>> clauses that it doesn't have in content clauses. >>> I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, >>> I think coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which >>> I bought from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be >>> distorting the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual >>> number, the "in" >>> seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a >>> spoken dialect. >>> >>> Craig >>> Seth, >>>> That's one of the arguments I didn't go into. There is a hierarchy >>>> of grammatical relations that governs all sorts of movement and >>>> deletion processes across languages, called the Keenan-Comrie >>>> Accessibility Hierarchy. Here's an example from the Wikipedia >>>> article on the KCAH, which is worth reading: >>>> >>>> Subject That's the man [who ran away]. The girl [who came late] >>>> is my >>>> sister. >>>> Direct object That's the man [I saw yesterday]. The girl >>>> [Kate saw] is >>>> my sister. >>>> Indirect object That's the man [to whom I gave the letter]. >>>> The girl >>>> [whom I wrote a letter to] is my sister. >>>> Oblique That's the man [I was talking about]. The girl [whom I >>>> sat next >>>> to] is my sister. >>>> Genitive That's the man [whose sister I know]. The girl [whose >>>> father >>>> died] told me she was sad. >>>> Obj of Comp That's the man [I am taller than]. The girl [who >>>> Kate >>>> is >>>> smarter than] is my sister. >>>> >>>> Notice that "that" can occur in prepositional phrases only if the >>>> preposition is stranded. "...to that I was talking" is not possible. >>>> Also, the genitive, as I pointed out earlier, does not allow "that." >>>> These are precisely the positions in which asyndetic relatives are >>>> also ungrammatical. There is an extension of this in colloquial >>>> speech and in non-standard dialects where the gap in the relative >>>> clause is filled by a resumptive pronoun. These occur in genitive >>>> and comparatives especially, although they'll also occur in more >>>> complex constructions. An example would be "?I'd like you to meet >>>> the poet that we read a lot of her work last year." We certainly >>>> would not allow that in formal writing, but it's not at all unusual >>>> in speech. >>>> >>>> The comparative marker "than" acts a lot like a preposition in >>>> English, and so if we combine it with prepositional phrases, which >>>> in this version are collapsed with indirect objects, then what we >>>> see is that asyndetic relatives are blocked only at the lowest >>>> level of the hierarchy, Genitives. The fact that "that" can't be >>>> dropped if the gap is in subject position is a separate phenomenon >>>> that is related to language processing needs. Otherwise >>>> that-deletion in noun clauses and in relatives is pretty much the same rule. >>>> That-relatives and zero-relatives then fall together into one >>>> subclass of relative clauses that behave differently from >>>> wh-relatives. >>>> >>>> This distinction between that- and wh-relatives reflects the >>>> history of the language. Historically, English had only the >>>> that-type and asyndetic relatives, although the subordinator was >>>> "tha" rather than "that." >>>> This >>>> is a reflection of the strongly paratactic structure of Old English: >>>> not a lot of subordination but lots of main clauses in sequence, >>>> sometimes conjoined by "and." Old English did not have >>>> wh-relatives until the Late Old English period when they developed >>>> probably from indefinite relatives under the influence of Latin, >>>> which the scribes of the time knew well. In Latin, relative >>>> clauses had to be formed with relative pronouns fully inflected for gender, number, and case. >>>> After the Norman Conquest, when the tradition of Alfred the Great's >>>> English scriptoria was suppressed, wh-relatives also disappeared >>>> and didn't reappear until the late 13th c. >>>> when, once again, Latin influenced writers borrowed the structure >>>> from Latin. Wh-relatives even today are more strongly a feature of >>>> educated standard English than of non-standard dialects, which use >>>> that- and zero- relatives much more. In fact, wh-relatives are >>>> still so much a function of formal education and of Standard >>>> English that when non-standard speakers attempt to use the >>>> wh-pronouns to initiate clauses they frequently use them in unusual >>>> ways, as in sentences like "We were going to have a picnic >>>> Saturday, which it rained." >>>> Such wh-coordination is not at all uncommon in spoken non-standard >>>> dialects. >>>> >>>> Herb >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth >>>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:04 PM >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >>>> >>>> Hey, Herb-- >>>> >>>> Thanks for recapitulating the argument for that being just a >>>> subordinator and not a pronoun. You always make me think. A lot. A >>>> nice break from grading. >>>> >>>> Unless I am misunderstanding you, I would note an exception to a >>>> claim you make. You say >>>> >>>> >>>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike >>>> pronouns. >>>> >>>> >>>> But the wh-pronouns are deletable in adjective clauses, when the >>>> pronoun fills the direct object role in the dependent clause, as in >>>> >>>> The woman whom you met this morning is an old friend of mine. >>>> The woman _____ you met this morning is an old friend of mine. >>>> >>>> Am I missing something in what you said? >>>> >>>> Happy end-of-semester-- >>>> Seth >>>> >>>> Dr. Seth Katz >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Department of English >>>> Bradley University >>>> >>>> Faculty Advisor >>>> Bradley University Hillel >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >>>> Stahlke, Herbert F.W. >>>> Sent: Fri 12/17/2010 12:45 PM >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> John, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of >>>> "that" >>>> in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all >>>> of it, but here's the position I've taken, which is also the >>>> position of Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on >>>> Historical Principles and Huddleston& Pullum in their rather more >>>> recent Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There are two function words "that" in English. One is the distal >>>> demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the other is the >>>> subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you have provided. >>>> When "that" is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a >>>> subordinator, not a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns are >>>> the >>>> wh- words. This analysis implies that there is a gap in the >>>> relative clause corresponding to the head noun, so in "The pitches >>>> that Casey missed..." >>>> the gap is in direct object position where "pitches" would be if >>>> the relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the >>>> subject that is zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid >>>> processing problems that arise when a second finite verb occurs in >>>> a sentence without any overt marking that it is in a subordinate >>>> clause, so in "The ball that got past Casey was a strike" the dropping of "that" >>>> would leave "The ball got past Casey was a strike" which some >>>> speakers will use but writers will avoid. >>>> The >>>> fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not evidence that >>>> it's a relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or >>>> asyndetic relative clauses. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in all >>>> of its non-demonstrative uses. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that." >>>> Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed. >>>> >>>> * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would >>>> expect >>>> it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those Casey missed...." >>>> >>>> * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh- >>>> relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...." >>>> >>>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike >>>> pronouns. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in >>>> Huddleston& Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of this >>>> analysis by Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21 >>>> (1985), 149-179 titled "Relative that - a centennial dispute. It's >>>> a fascinating, thoughtful, and incisive critique. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Herb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy >>>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> Subject: Noun clauses >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about >>>> clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have >>>> some thoughts on. >>>> >>>> The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That >>>> the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious." >>>> >>>> "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all >>>> day, the dog ran around and barked." >>>> >>>> And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": >>>> "Lynn Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a >>>> competition differs dramatically from the theories of most >>>> biologists." >>>> >>>> Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative >>>> pronoun? >>>> >>>> Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? >>>> "Should you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember >>>> that it has a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" >>>> as the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up >>>> front. >>>> >>>> Thank you very much! >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> John Chorazy >>>> English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High >>>> School >>>> >>>> Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please >>>> visit the list's web interface at: >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>> >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>> interface >>>> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join >>>> or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>> interface >>>> at: >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>> >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>> interface >>>> at: >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >>> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 20 Dec 2010 20:27:54 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Barron's Master the Basics MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"

It is easy to make up such examples, Brad, but since you speak a different English, one that does not allow it, the attempt would be fruitless.  Forming the auxiliary phrase in English had been being regularized over the centuries when Chomsky, who was a student in 1957, described the construction with a nifty statement on his way to developing the generative-transformational model.  Another student of that period, however, saw how futile the whole endeavor was and chose rather to deny the existence of any such construction in anyone's brain.  He felt that shifting the point of view into the past should be minimized by corrective actions, so that the shift that we had inherited from the learned Latin scholars and had gotten well used to in formal writing must even now be counted as illogical, indirect, or completely unnecessar y.

--- [log in to unmask] wrote:

From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Barron's Master the Basics
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:49:49 -0800

As is often the case, this will work better if you are set for html, color and graphics, by whatever name.
 
Barron's Master the Basics - English
                                    by Jean Yates, Northern Virginia Community College.
 
#9.3 Present Perfect Tense
 
This section starts with an inadequate definition but gives pretty good examples until ...
 
(f) to indicate that an action happened a very short time ago, use just or finally.
 
Pattern:  have + just     + past participle
              have + finally + past participle
 
<Have> Did they arrive<d> yet?   Yes they <have> did. They <have> just arrived.
What <has> happened?               The president <has> just left.
                                                     Our team <has> just won the tournament.
                                                     We <have> finally finished.
 
#9.4  Past Perfect Progressive Tense has similar problems. 
 
What had you been doing before you started to work? I had been studying for five years.
 
Nonsense. What did you do before you started to work? I studied for five years.   
 
Where had she been living before she bought this house? She had been living in an apartment for a long time.
 
Nonsense. Where did she live before she bought this house? She lived in an apartment for a long time.
 
Challenge. It is written that there is no such thing as a correct (i.e., reasonable) past perfect progressive. I challenge you to find one. I have only ever seen one that seemed to make sense but I cannot now find it. I challenge any and all to put one forth, or even make one up. I'll bet you can't do it.
 
Let's agree, ya wanna, that if no one can either find or create a reasonable example of the "past perfect progressive", we'll (a) not teach it and (b) do our best to get it eliminated from grammar texts.*
 
.brad.20dec10. 
 
* Note 'texts'. Online grammar sites are hopeless. They're so screwed up they will likely never be unscrewed. They are an embarrassment to the English Language.

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 20 Dec 2010 21:06:59 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Q3JhaWcgKCYgSGVyYiksIA0KDQpUaGVzZSBleGFtcGxlcyBzZWVtIGEgbGl0dGxlIG1lc3NlZCB1 cCB0byBtZSwgYXMgdGhlcmUgc2VlbXMgdG8gYmUgYW5vdGhlciBwb3NzaWJpbGl0eS4gIFlvdSBm b2xrcyBoYXZlIHRyaWVkIHRvIGJlIGZvcm1hbCBhYm91dCB0aGUgZGlzdGluY3Rpb24gYmV0d2Vl biBwZXJzb25zIGFuZCB0aGluZ3MuICBCdXQgaXQgc2VlbXMgdG8gbWUgdGhhdCB0aGUgcmVhbCBk aXN0aW5jdGlvbiByZWxldmFudCB0byB0aGUgZGVsZXRpb24gaGFzIHRvIGRvIHdpdGggdGhlIGlk ZW50aWZ5aW5nIGZ1bmN0aW9uIG9mICJ0aGF0LiIgIFRoaXMgaXMgb3Bwb3NlZCB0byB0aGUgZGVz Y3JpcHRpdmUgZnVuY3Rpb24gb2YgIndobyIgIndob20iIGV0Yy4gIExleGljYWwgZ2FwcyBzZWVt IHRvIGhhdmUgYWxsb3dlZCB0aGVzZSB0d28gZGltZW5zaW9ucyAocGVyc29uIHZzLiB0aGluZyBh bmQgaW5kZW50aXR5IHZzLiBkZXNjcmlwdGlvbikgdG8gY3Jvc3Mgb3Zlci4gIEkgdGhpbmsgaXRz IGEgbG90IGxpa2UgdGhlIHRyYW5zaXRpdmUgdnMuIGludHJhbnNpdGl2ZSBvZiAic2V0L3NpdCwi ICJsYXksbGllIiBnZXR0aW5nIG1peGVkIHVwIHdpdGggYW4gYW5pbWF0ZSB2cy4gaW5hbmltYXRl IGRpc3RpbmN0aW9uIChvciBodW1hbiB2cy4gbm9uLWh1bWFuLCBkZXBlbmRpbmcgb24gdGhlIHBy ZXNzdXJlIG9mIG90aGVyIGZvcm1zKS4gDQogDQogICAgRXhhbXBsZTogIkFueW9uZSB3aG8gdG91 Y2hlcyB5b3UgdG91Y2hlcyBtZS4iICBUaGlzIGlzIGRlc2NyaXB0aXZlIG9mIHRoZSBpbmRlZmlu aXRlIHBlcnNvbiwgc3RpbGwgaW5kZWZpbml0ZS4gDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgIkFueW9uZSB0aGF0 IHRvdWNoZXMgeW91IHRvdWNoZXMgbWUuIiAgVGhpcyBpcyBtZWFudCB0byBtb3JlIGZ1bGx5IGlk ZW50aWZ5IHRoZSBpbmRlZmluaXRlIHBlcnNvbi4gTm93IGl0IHNlZW1zIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIHRv IHJlZmVyIHRoZSBwZXJzb24gYXMgInRoYXQgcGVyc29uLiIgIFRoZSBzYW1lIHRoaW5nIGlzIGRp c3Rpbmd1aXNoYWJsZSBpbiBvYmplY3QgcG9zaXRpb246DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgIkFueW9uZSB3 aG9tIHlvdSB0b3VjaCB0b3VjaGVzIG1lLiIgIA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICJBbnlvbmUgdGhhdCB5 b3UgdG91Y2ggdG91Y2hlcyBtZS4iDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgIkFueW9uZSB5b3UgdG91Y2ggdG91 Y2hlcyBtZS4iICBOb3cgdGhlcmUgaXMgbGl0dGxlIGRvdWJ0IHRoYXQgdGhlIHBlcnNvbiBoYXMg YmVlbiBpZGVudGlmaWVkLiAgDQogICAgRGVsZXRpb24gaXMgcG9zc2libGUgaW4gdGhlIHNlY29u ZCBleGFtcGxlLCBidXQgbm90IHRoZSBmaXJzdCwgYmVjYXVzZSBpdCBpcyAidGhhdCwiIHRoZSBp ZGVudGlmaWVyIHRoYXQgaXMgYmVpbmcgZGVsZXRlZC4gIFdoZW4gdGhlIGluZGVmaW5pdGUgcHJv bm91biBpcyBjaGFuZ2VkIHRvICJhbnl0aGluZywiIHRoZSAid2hvIiBvcHRpb24gY2Fubm90IGdl dCBpbiB0aGUgd2F5LiAgQnV0IHRoZW4sIHdoZW4gdGhlICJ3aGljaCIgb3B0aW9uIGlzIHRha2Vu LCB3ZSBhcmUgZGVhbGluZyB3aXRoIGEgZGVzY3JpcHRpb24gdGhhdCBkb2VzIG5vdCBzZXJ2ZSBh cyBhbiBpZGVudGlmaWVyLiAgV2UgcmVmZXIgdG8gdGhlc2Ugb2JqZWN0cyBhcyAic3VjaCBhIHBl cnNvbiIgb3IgInN1Y2ggYSB0aGluZy4iICBUaGUgZGVtb25zdHJhdGl2ZSAidGhhdCIgaXMgbm8g bG9uZ2VyIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlLiAgDQoNClRoZSByZXN0cmljdGl2ZSBuYXR1cmUgb2YgdGhlIGFk amVjdGl2ZSBjbGF1c2UgaW4gInRoYXQiIGZvbGxvd3MgZnJvbSBpdHMgaWRlbnRpZnlpbmcgZnVu Y3Rpb24uICBUaGUgbm9uLXJlc3RyaWN0aXZlIHBvc3NpYmlsaXRpZXMgd2l0aCAid2hvLCB3aGlj aCIgZm9sbG93IGZyb20gdGhlaXIgZXNzZW50aWFsIGRlc2NyaXB0aXZlIGZ1bmN0aW9uLiAgV2hl biB0aGUgbGF0dGVyIGNvbm5lY3RpdmVzIGFyZSB1c2VkIHJlc3RyaWN0aXZlbHksIHRoZWlyIGRl c2NyaXB0aXZlIGZ1bmN0aW9uIGlzIGFwdCB0byBnZXQgb3Zlcmxvb2tlZCB3aGVuIGRlY2lzaW9u cyBhcmUgbWFkZSBhYm91dCB3aGV0aGVyIHRoZSBpZGVudGlmeWluZyAidGhhdCIgbWlnaHQgYmUg bW9yZSBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZS4NCg0KQnJ1Y2UNCg0KLS0tIGhhbmNvY2tAQUxCQU5ZLkVEVSB3cm90 ZToNCg0KRnJvbTogQ3JhaWcgSGFuY29jayA8aGFuY29ja0BBTEJBTlkuRURVPg0KVG86IEFURUdA TElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVQ0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IE5vdW4gY2xhdXNlcw0KRGF0ZTogICAg ICAgICBNb24sIDIwIERlYyAyMDEwIDE3OjU0OjIyIC0wNTAwDQoNCkhlcmIsDQogICAgSXQgaGFz IGFsd2F5cyBiZWVuIG15IHVuZGVyc3RhbmRpbmcgdGhhdCBmaW5pdGUgc3Vib3JkaW5hdGUgY2xh dXNlcw0KcmVxdWlyZSBhbiBleHBsaWNpdCBzdWJqZWN0LiBUaGF0IG1heSBiZSBvbmUgcmVhc29u IHdoeSB0aGUgcmVsYXRpdmUNCmNhbid0IGJlIGRyb3BwZWQgaWYgaXQncyBpbiBzdWJqZWN0IHJv bGUuDQogICAgRXhhbXBsZTogIkFueW9uZSB3aG8gdG91Y2hlcyB5b3UgdG91Y2hlcyBtZS4iDQog ICAgICAgICAgICAgIkFueW9uZSBbd2hvbV0geW91IHRvdWNoIHRvdWNoZXMgbWUuIg0KICAgIERl bGV0aW9uIGlzIHBvc3NpYmxlIGluIHRoZSBzZWNvbmQgZXhhbXBsZSwgYnV0IG5vdCB0aGUgZmly c3QuDQoNCiAgICBFeGFtcGxlOiAiQW55dGhpbmcgdGhhdCB0b3VjaGVzIHlvdSB0b3VjaGVzIG1l LiINCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAiQW55dGhpbmcgW3RoYXRdeW91IHRvdWNoIHRvdWNoZXMgbWUuIg0K ICAgIERlbGV0aW9uIGlzIHBvc3NpYmxlIGluIHRoZSBzZWNvbmQsIGJ1dCBub3QgdGhlIGZpcnN0 Lg0KDQogICAgVGhlcmUgaXMgbm90aGluZyBwYXJhbGxlbCB0byB0aGF0IHdpdGggY29udGVudCBj bGF1c2VzIHNpbmNlIHRoZQ0KInRoYXQiIHJlbWFpbnMgZnVsbHkgb3V0c2lkZSB0aGUgY2xhdXNl IGFuZCBpcyBuZXZlciB1c2VkIHRvIHN0YW5kIGluDQoob3IgcGxhY2UgaG9sZClmb3IgYSBtaXNz aW5nIHN1YmplY3QuIFJlbGF0aXZlIGNsYXVzZXMgYW5kIGNvbnRlbnQNCmNsYXVzZXMgaGF2ZSBm b3JtYWwgKG5vdCBqdXN0IGZ1bmN0aW9uYWwpIGRpZmZlcmVuY2VzLg0KDQpDcmFpZw0KDQoNCj4g Q3JhaWcsDQo+DQo+IE15IHByb2JsZW0gd2l0aCBzYXlpbmcgdGhhdCBpdCBzb21ldGltZXMgaGFz IGEgcGxhY2UgaG9sZGluZyBmdW5jdGlvbiBpcw0KPiB0aGF0IGl0J3MgYW4gaW1wcmVzc2lvbmlz dGljIHN0YXRlbWVudC4gIElmIHdlIGFzayB3aGF0IGl0J3MgZG9pbmcgaW4gYQ0KPiBwYXJ0aWN1 bGFyIGNsYXVzZSB3ZSBjYW4ndCBwcm92aWRlIGFueSBzb3J0IG9mIGV2aWRlbmNlIGZvciBhIHNv bHV0aW9uDQo+IGRpZmZlcmVudCBmb3JtIHN1Ym9yZGluYXRvci4gIEEgc3RhdGVtZW50IGxpa2Ug eW91cnMgZm9sbG93cyBmcm9tIGNlcnRhaW4NCj4gYXNzdW1wdGlvbnMsIGJ1dCB0aGUgYXNzdW1w dGlvbnMgdGhlbXNlbHZlcywgZm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIHRoYXQgInRoYXQiIGlzIGENCj4gcmVsYXRp dmUgcHJvbm91biwgYXJlIGRpZmZpY3VsdCB0byBzdXBwb3J0LiAgSGlzdG9yaWNhbCBjaGFuZ2Ug Z2l2ZXMgdXMNCj4gc29tZSBoZWxwIGJ1dCBtdXN0IGJlIGludGVycHJldGVkIHZlcnkgY2F1dGlv dXNseSwgd2hpY2ggaXMgd2h5IEknbSBub3QNCj4gd2lsbGluZyB0byBzYXkgdGhhdCBwcm9ub21p bmFsIHN0YXR1cyBoYXMgbm90IGRldmVsb3BlZCBiZXlvbmQgdGhlDQo+IG5vbi1zdGFuZGFyZCBn ZW5pdGl2ZSB1c2UuDQo+DQo+IEJlc2lkZXMgYSBnZW5lcmFsIGZlZWxpbmcgYWJvdXQgaXQsIGhv dyBjYW4gIHlvdSBhcmd1ZSB0aGF0IHJlbGF0aXZlDQo+ICJ0aGF0IiBpcyBwZXJmb3JtaW5nIGEg ZnVuY3Rpb24gaW4gdGhlIHJlbGF0aXZlIGNsYXVzZSwgYW4gYXJndW1lbnQgdGhhdA0KPiBjYW4n dCBiZSBoYW5kbGVkIGFzIHdlbGwgb3IgYmV0dGVyIGJ5IGRlbGV0aW9uIHVuZGVyIGlkZW50aXR5 Pw0KPg0KPiBIZXJiDQo+DQo+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+IEZyb206IEFz c2VtYmx5IGZvciB0aGUgVGVhY2hpbmcgb2YgRW5nbGlzaCBHcmFtbWFyDQo+IFttYWlsdG86QVRF R0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgQ3JhaWcgSGFuY29jaw0KPiBTZW50 OiBNb25kYXksIERlY2VtYmVyIDIwLCAyMDEwIDEwOjIyIEFNDQo+IFRvOiBBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJW Lk1VT0hJTy5FRFUNCj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IE5vdW4gY2xhdXNlcw0KPg0KPiBIZXJiLA0KPiAg ICAgSSBtaWdodCBiZSBjb250ZW50IHdpdGggc2F5aW5nIHRoYXQgcmVsYXRpdmUgInRoYXQiIGFj dHMgaW4gd2F5cyB0aGF0DQo+IGFyZSB2ZXJ5IHVuaXF1ZSBhbmQgdGhhdCBtYWtlIGl0IGhhcmQg dG8gY2xhc3NpZnkuIFRoZSBpbXBvcnRhbnQgd29yaw0KPiBpcyBpbiBkZXNjcmliaW5nIGhvdyBp dCBhY3RzLiBJbiBjb250ZW50IGNsYXVzZXMsIGl0IGlzIGFsd2F5cyBvdXRzaWRlDQo+IHRoZSBj bGF1c2UsIGJ1dCBpbiByZWxhdGl2ZSBjbGF1c2VzLCBpdCBzb21ldGltZXMgaGFzIGEgcGxhY2Ug aG9sZGluZw0KPiBmdW5jdGlvbi4gVGhlIGNhdGVnb3J5IHdlIHBsYWNlIGl0IGluIGRlcGVuZHMg b24gaG93IHdlIGRyYXcgdGhlIGxpbmVzDQo+IGZvciB0aGUgY2F0ZWdvcnkuDQo+DQo+IENyYWln DQo+DQo+IE9uIDEyLzE4LzIwMTAgMTA6MTMgUE0sIFNUQUhMS0UsIEhFUkJFUlQgRiB3cm90ZToN Cj4+IENyYWlnLA0KPj4NCj4+IEEgcXVlc3Rpb24gd2FzIHJhaXNlZCBvZmYtbGlzdCBhYm91dCB3 aGV0aGVyICJ0aGF0IiBpcyB0YWtpbmcgb24gc29tZQ0KPj4gcHJvbm91biBmdW5jdGlvbiBpbiB0 aGUgZ2VuaXRpdmUgaW4gbm9uLXN0YW5kYXJkIHZhcmlldGllcy4gIFRoaXMNCj4+IGFwcGVhcnMg dG8gYmUgdGhlIGNhc2UuICBJIGxpa2UgeW91ciBleGFtcGxlcyBzaG93aW5nIHRoYXQgcmVsLXRo YXQgYW5kDQo+PiBjb25qLXRoYXQgYmVoYXZlIGFsaWtlLCBidXQgSSB0aGluayB0aGUgc3BlbGxp bmcgaWRlbnRpdHkgb2YgdGhlDQo+PiBzdWJvcmRpbmF0b3IgYW5kIHRoZSBkZW1vbnN0cmF0aXZl IGxlYWRzIHNwZWFrZXJzIHRvIGlkZW50aWZ5IHRoZW0gd2l0aA0KPj4gZWFjaCBvdGhlciwgZXZl biBpZiB0aGVpciBoaXN0b3J5IGFuZCB0aGVpciBzeW50YXggYW5kIG1vcnBob2xvZ3kgYXJndWUN Cj4+IG90aGVyd2lzZS4gICBJbiBhIG5vbi1zdGFuZGFyZCBjb25zdHJ1Y3Rpb24gbGlrZSAiRGlk IHlvdSBzZWUgYSBib29rDQo+PiB0aGF0J3MgY292ZXIgd2FzIHRvcm4/IiAidGhhdCdzIiBpcyBj bGVhcmx5IHByb25vbWluYWwuICBJIHRoaW5rDQo+PiAidGhhdCdzIiBhcmlzZXMgYnkgYW5hbG9n eSB0byB0aGUgZ2VuaXRpdmUgcHJvbm91bnMNCj4+IHlvdXJzL2hpcy9oZXJzL2l0cy9vdXJzL3Ro ZWlycyBldmVuIHRob3VnaCB0aG9zZSBjYW4ndCBiZSB1c2VkIGFzDQo+PiBkZXRlcm1pbmVycy4g IChBbmQsIGJ5IHRoZSB3YXksIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhlIHNwZWxsaW5nIHNob3VsZCBiZSAidGhhdHMs Ig0KPj4gd2l0aG91dCB0aGUgYXBvc3Ryb3BoZSwgbGlrZSB0aGUgb3RoZXIgZ2VuaXRpdmUgcHJv bm91bnMuICBNaWNyb3NvZnQNCj4+IFdvcmQga2VlcHMgcHV0dGluZyBpbiB0aGUgYXBvc3Ryb3Bo ZSBmb3Igc29tZSByZWFzb24uKSAgQW5hbG9naWNhbA0KPj4gY2hhbmdlIGlzIGJ5IGl0cyB2ZXJ5 IG5hdHVyZSBpcnJlZ3VsYXIsIGFuZCBzbyB0aGF0IGZhY3QgdGhhdCBnZW5pdGl2ZQ0KPj4gInRo YXRzIiBpcyBkZXZlbG9waW5nIGluIG5vbi1zdGFuZGFyZCB1c2FnZSB0ZWxscyB1cyBub3RoaW5n IGFib3V0DQo+PiB3aGF0J3MgaGFwcGVuaW5nIGNhdGVnb3JpYWxseSB0byAidGhhdCIgaW4gb3Ro ZXIgcmVsYXRpdmUgY29uc3RydWN0aW9ucy4NCj4+ICAgUmVtZW1iZXIgU3R1cnRldmFudCdzIFBh cmFkb3g6ICBTb3VuZCBjaGFuZ2UgaXMgcmVndWxhciBhbmQgcHJvZHVjZXMNCj4+IGlycmVndWxh cml0eTsgYW5hbG9naWNhbCBjaGFuZ2UgaXMgaXJyZWd1bGFyIGFuZCBwcm9kdWNlcyByZWd1bGFy aXR5Lg0KPj4NCj4+IE9uIG1vcnBob3N5bnRhY3RpYyBncm91bmRzLCBJIG1haW50YWluIHRoZSBh cmd1bWVudHMgdGhhdCByZWxhdGl2ZQ0KPj4gInRoYXQiIGlzIG5vdCBhIHByb25vdW4uICBXZSBj YW4gZ2FpbiBpbnNpZ2h0IGludG8gaG93IHRoZSBncmFtbWFyIG9mDQo+PiAidGhhdCIgaXMgY2hh bmdpbmcgb25seSBieSBleHRyYXBvbGF0aW5nIGZyb20gZXhhbXBsZXMgb2YgdXNhZ2UuICBXZQ0K Pj4gY2FuJ3QgZG8gbXVjaCB3aXRoIHBlb3BsZSdzIG5hw692ZSBmZWVsaW5nIGFuZCBodW5jaGVz IGFib3V0IGdyYW1tYXIsIGFuZA0KPj4gSSBrbm93IHlvdSdyZSBub3Qgc3VnZ2VzdGluZyB0aGF0 Lg0KPj4NCj4+IEhlcmINCj4+DQo+PiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPj4gRnJv bTogQXNzZW1ibHkgZm9yIHRoZSBUZWFjaGluZyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXINCj4+IFttYWls dG86QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgQ3JhaWcgSGFuY29jaw0K Pj4gU2VudDogU2F0dXJkYXksIERlY2VtYmVyIDE4LCAyMDEwIDEwOjM4IEFNDQo+PiBUbzogQVRF R0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVDQo+PiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogTm91biBjbGF1c2VzDQo+Pg0K Pj4gSGVyYiwNCj4+ICAgICAgWW91IGFuZCBJIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBvdmVyIHRoaXMgb25lIGJlZm9y ZSBhbmQgSSBkb24ndCB3YW50IHRvIGp1c3QNCj4+IHJlcGVhdCB0aGF0LiBCdXQgSSBkbyBoYXZl IGEgcXVlc3Rpb24uIFdoZW4gInRoYXQiIGlzIHJlcXVpcmVkIGluDQo+PiB0aGUgc3ViamVjdCBz bG90IG9mIGEgcmVsYXRpdmUgY2xhdXNlIChBcyBpbiAiQW55dGhpbmcgdGhhdCB0b3VjaGVzDQo+ PiB5b3UgdG91Y2hlcyBtZSIpIGlzICJ0aGF0IiBzaW1wbHkgaG9sZGluZyBkb3duIGEgc2xvdCAo Zm9yIHNlbnRlbmNlDQo+PiBwcm9jZXNzaW5nIGVhc2Upb3IgaXMgaXQgYWN0dWFsbHkgYWN0aW5n IGFzIHN1YmplY3QgaW4gdGhhdA0KPj4gcmVsYXRpdmUgY2xhdXNlPw0KPj4gICAgIE15IGN1cnJl bnQgc2Vuc2Ugb2YgdGhpcyBpcyB0aGF0IGl0J3MgbW9yZSBhIG1hdHRlciBvZiBkcmF3aW5nDQo+ PiBjbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiBsaW5lcyB0aGFuIGl0IGlzIG9mIGRpc3B1dGluZyBob3cgdGhpcyBz dHVmZiB3b3Jrcy4NCj4+IFRoZSBkeW5hbWljcyBvZiBhIHJlbGF0aXZlIGNsYXVzZSBhcmUgZGlm ZmVyZW50IGZyb20gdGhlIGR5bmFtaWNzIG9mDQo+PiBhIGNvbnRlbnQgY2xhdXNlIEJFQ0FVU0Ug REVMRVRJT04gT0YgQSBTRU5URU5DRSBFTEVNRU5UIERPRVNOJ1QNCj4+IE9DQ1VSIElOIENPTlRF TlQgQ0xBVVNFUy4gSW4gYSBjb250ZW50IGNsYXVzZSwgInRoYXQiIHJlbWFpbnMgZnVsbHkNCj4+ IG91dHNpZGUgdGhlIGNsYXVzZSAoaW4gYSB3YXkgdGhhdCB0aGUgIndoIiBwcm9ub3VucyBkbyBu b3QuKSBGb3INCj4+IHRoYXQgcmVhc29uLCB3ZSBjYW4gc2F5ICJIaXMgd2lzaCB0aGF0IHNoZSB3 b3VsZCBiZSBhdCBwZWFjZSB3YXMNCj4+IGdyYW50ZWQiIGluY2x1ZGVzIGEgY2xhdXNlICgidGhh dCBzaGUgd291bGQgYmUgYXQgcGVhY2UiKSB0aGF0IGlzDQo+PiBtb3JlIGxpa2UgYSBjb250ZW50 IGNsYXVzZSB0aGFuIGEgcmVsYXRpdmUuIFdlIGNhbiBhbHNvIHVzZSAidGhhdCINCj4+IGFsb25n IHdpdGggIndoIiBwcm9ub3VucyBpbiBhIGNvbnRlbnQgY2xhdXNlLiAiSSBiZWxpZXZlIHRoYXQg d2hhdA0KPj4gc2hlIHNhaWQgd2FzIHJpZ2h0LiIgSW4gYSByZWxhdGl2ZSBjbGF1c2UsIHdlIGhh dmUgbXVjaCBtb3JlIHRoZQ0KPj4gZmVlbGluZyB0aGF0IHdlIGFyZSBjaG9vc2luZyBiZXR3ZWVu IHRoZW0sIGFzIHdlIGRvIHdpdGggInRoYXQiIGFuZA0KPj4gIndoaWNoIi4gU29tZSBib29rcyBy ZWNvbW1lbmQgInRoYXQiIGZvciByZXN0cmljdGl2ZSwgIndoaWNoIiBmb3INCj4+IG5vbi1yZXN0 cmljdGl2ZS4gWW91IGhhdmUgbm90aGluZyBwYXJhbGxlbCB0byB0aGF0IGNob2ljZSBpbiBjb250 ZW50DQo+PiBjbGF1c2VzLg0KPj4gICAgIFNvICJ0aGF0IiBoYXMgc29tZSBvdmVybGFwIHdpdGgg dGhlICJ3aCIgcHJvbm91bnMgaW4gcmVsYXRpdmUNCj4+IGNsYXVzZXMgdGhhdCBpdCBkb2Vzbid0 IGhhdmUgaW4gY29udGVudCBjbGF1c2VzLg0KPj4gICAgIEkgaGF2ZSBzZWVuIGEgc3VkZGVuIGlu Y3JlYXNlIGluIGFuIGF3a3dhcmQgImluIHdoaWNoIiBwYXR0ZXJuLCBJDQo+PiB0aGluayBjb21p bmcgb3V0IG9mIE5ldyBZb3JrIENpdHkuICJXZSB3ZXJlIGRyaXZpbmcgYSBjYXIgaW4gd2hpY2gg SQ0KPj4gYm91Z2h0IGZyb20gbXkgYnJvdGhlci4iIFRoYXQncyBub3QgYW4gYWN0dWFsIGV4YW1w bGUsIHNvIEkgbWF5IGJlDQo+PiBkaXN0b3J0aW5nIHRoZSBjb250ZXh0LCBidXQgaW4gdGhlIGNh c2VzIEkndmUgc2VlbiwgYW4gdW51c3VhbA0KPj4gbnVtYmVyLCB0aGUgImluIg0KPj4gc2VlbXMg bm90IGF0IGFsbCBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZS4gSXQgZG9lcyBzZWVtIHRvIGNvbWUgbW9yZSBmcm9tIGEg c3Bva2VuDQo+PiBkaWFsZWN0Lg0KPj4NCj4+IENyYWlnDQo+PiBTZXRoLA0KPj4+IFRoYXQncyBv bmUgb2YgdGhlIGFyZ3VtZW50cyBJIGRpZG4ndCBnbyBpbnRvLiAgVGhlcmUgaXMgYSBoaWVyYXJj aHkNCj4+PiBvZiBncmFtbWF0aWNhbCByZWxhdGlvbnMgdGhhdCBnb3Zlcm5zIGFsbCBzb3J0cyBv ZiBtb3ZlbWVudCBhbmQNCj4+PiBkZWxldGlvbiBwcm9jZXNzZXMgYWNyb3NzIGxhbmd1YWdlcywg Y2FsbGVkIHRoZSBLZWVuYW4tQ29tcmllDQo+Pj4gQWNjZXNzaWJpbGl0eSBIaWVyYXJjaHkuICBI ZXJlJ3MgYW4gZXhhbXBsZSBmcm9tIHRoZSBXaWtpcGVkaWENCj4+PiBhcnRpY2xlIG9uIHRoZSBL Q0FILCB3aGljaCBpcyB3b3J0aCByZWFkaW5nOg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gU3ViamVjdCAgICAgIFRoYXQn cyB0aGUgbWFuIFt3aG8gcmFuIGF3YXldLiAgVGhlIGdpcmwgW3dobyBjYW1lIGxhdGVdDQo+Pj4g aXMgbXkNCj4+PiBzaXN0ZXIuDQo+Pj4gRGlyZWN0IG9iamVjdCAgICAgICAgVGhhdCdzIHRoZSBt YW4gW0kgc2F3IHllc3RlcmRheV0uICAgICAgIFRoZSBnaXJsDQo+Pj4gW0thdGUgc2F3XSBpcw0K Pj4+IG15IHNpc3Rlci4NCj4+PiBJbmRpcmVjdCBvYmplY3QgICAgICBUaGF0J3MgdGhlIG1hbiBb dG8gd2hvbSBJIGdhdmUgdGhlIGxldHRlcl0uDQo+Pj4gVGhlIGdpcmwNCj4+PiBbd2hvbSBJIHdy b3RlIGEgbGV0dGVyIHRvXSBpcyBteSBzaXN0ZXIuDQo+Pj4gT2JsaXF1ZSAgICAgIFRoYXQncyB0 aGUgbWFuIFtJIHdhcyB0YWxraW5nIGFib3V0XS4gICBUaGUgZ2lybCBbd2hvbSBJDQo+Pj4gc2F0 IG5leHQNCj4+PiB0b10gaXMgbXkgc2lzdGVyLg0KPj4+IEdlbml0aXZlICAgICBUaGF0J3MgdGhl IG1hbiBbd2hvc2Ugc2lzdGVyIEkga25vd10uICAgVGhlIGdpcmwgW3dob3NlDQo+Pj4gZmF0aGVy DQo+Pj4gZGllZF0gdG9sZCBtZSBzaGUgd2FzIHNhZC4NCj4+PiBPYmogb2YgQ29tcCAgVGhhdCdz IHRoZSBtYW4gW0kgYW0gdGFsbGVyIHRoYW5dLiAgICAgIFRoZSBnaXJsIFt3aG8gS2F0ZQ0KPj4+ IGlzDQo+Pj4gc21hcnRlciB0aGFuXSBpcyBteSBzaXN0ZXIuDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBOb3RpY2UgdGhh dCAidGhhdCIgY2FuIG9jY3VyIGluIHByZXBvc2l0aW9uYWwgcGhyYXNlcyBvbmx5IGlmIHRoZQ0K Pj4+IHByZXBvc2l0aW9uIGlzIHN0cmFuZGVkLiAgIi4uLnRvIHRoYXQgSSB3YXMgdGFsa2luZyIg aXMgbm90IHBvc3NpYmxlLg0KPj4+IEFsc28sIHRoZSBnZW5pdGl2ZSwgYXMgSSBwb2ludGVkIG91 dCBlYXJsaWVyLCBkb2VzIG5vdCBhbGxvdyAidGhhdC4iDQo+Pj4gVGhlc2UgYXJlIHByZWNpc2Vs eSB0aGUgcG9zaXRpb25zIGluIHdoaWNoIGFzeW5kZXRpYyByZWxhdGl2ZXMgYXJlDQo+Pj4gYWxz byB1bmdyYW1tYXRpY2FsLiAgVGhlcmUgaXMgYW4gZXh0ZW5zaW9uIG9mIHRoaXMgaW4gY29sbG9x dWlhbA0KPj4+IHNwZWVjaCBhbmQgaW4gbm9uLXN0YW5kYXJkIGRpYWxlY3RzIHdoZXJlIHRoZSBn YXAgaW4gdGhlIHJlbGF0aXZlDQo+Pj4gY2xhdXNlIGlzIGZpbGxlZCBieSBhIHJlc3VtcHRpdmUg cHJvbm91bi4gIFRoZXNlIG9jY3VyIGluIGdlbml0aXZlDQo+Pj4gYW5kIGNvbXBhcmF0aXZlcyBl c3BlY2lhbGx5LCBhbHRob3VnaCB0aGV5J2xsIGFsc28gb2NjdXIgaW4gbW9yZQ0KPj4+IGNvbXBs ZXggY29uc3RydWN0aW9ucy4gIEFuIGV4YW1wbGUgd291bGQgYmUgIj9JJ2QgbGlrZSB5b3UgdG8g bWVldA0KPj4+IHRoZSBwb2V0IHRoYXQgd2UgcmVhZCBhIGxvdCBvZiBoZXIgd29yayBsYXN0IHll YXIuIiAgV2UgY2VydGFpbmx5DQo+Pj4gd291bGQgbm90IGFsbG93IHRoYXQgaW4gZm9ybWFsIHdy aXRpbmcsIGJ1dCBpdCdzIG5vdCBhdCBhbGwgdW51c3VhbCBpbg0KPj4+IHNwZWVjaC4NCj4+Pg0K Pj4+IFRoZSBjb21wYXJhdGl2ZSBtYXJrZXIgInRoYW4iIGFjdHMgYSBsb3QgbGlrZSBhIHByZXBv c2l0aW9uIGluDQo+Pj4gRW5nbGlzaCwgYW5kIHNvIGlmIHdlIGNvbWJpbmUgaXQgd2l0aCBwcmVw b3NpdGlvbmFsIHBocmFzZXMsIHdoaWNoIGluDQo+Pj4gdGhpcyB2ZXJzaW9uIGFyZSBjb2xsYXBz ZWQgd2l0aCBpbmRpcmVjdCBvYmplY3RzLCB0aGVuIHdoYXQgd2Ugc2VlIGlzDQo+Pj4gdGhhdCBh c3luZGV0aWMgcmVsYXRpdmVzIGFyZSBibG9ja2VkIG9ubHkgYXQgdGhlIGxvd2VzdCBsZXZlbCBv ZiB0aGUNCj4+PiBoaWVyYXJjaHksIEdlbml0aXZlcy4gIFRoZSBmYWN0IHRoYXQgInRoYXQiIGNh bid0IGJlIGRyb3BwZWQgaWYgdGhlDQo+Pj4gZ2FwIGlzIGluIHN1YmplY3QgcG9zaXRpb24gaXMg YSBzZXBhcmF0ZSBwaGVub21lbm9uIHRoYXQgaXMgcmVsYXRlZA0KPj4+IHRvIGxhbmd1YWdlIHBy b2Nlc3NpbmcgbmVlZHMuICBPdGhlcndpc2UgdGhhdC1kZWxldGlvbiBpbiBub3VuDQo+Pj4gY2xh dXNlcyBhbmQgaW4gcmVsYXRpdmVzIGlzIHByZXR0eSBtdWNoIHRoZSBzYW1lIHJ1bGUuDQo+Pj4g VGhhdC1yZWxhdGl2ZXMgYW5kIHplcm8tcmVsYXRpdmVzIHRoZW4gZmFsbCB0b2dldGhlciBpbnRv IG9uZQ0KPj4+IHN1YmNsYXNzIG9mIHJlbGF0aXZlIGNsYXVzZXMgdGhhdCBiZWhhdmUgZGlmZmVy ZW50bHkgZnJvbSB3aC1yZWxhdGl2ZXMuDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBUaGlzIGRpc3RpbmN0aW9uIGJldHdl ZW4gdGhhdC0gYW5kIHdoLXJlbGF0aXZlcyByZWZsZWN0cyB0aGUgaGlzdG9yeQ0KPj4+IG9mIHRo ZSBsYW5ndWFnZS4gIEhpc3RvcmljYWxseSwgRW5nbGlzaCBoYWQgb25seSB0aGUgdGhhdC10eXBl IGFuZA0KPj4+IGFzeW5kZXRpYw0KPj4+IHJlbGF0aXZlcywgYWx0aG91Z2ggdGhlIHN1Ym9yZGlu YXRvciB3YXMgInRoYSIgcmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gInRoYXQuIg0KPj4+IFRoaXMNCj4+PiBpcyBhIHJl ZmxlY3Rpb24gb2YgdGhlIHN0cm9uZ2x5IHBhcmF0YWN0aWMgc3RydWN0dXJlIG9mIE9sZCBFbmds aXNoOg0KPj4+IG5vdCBhIGxvdCBvZiBzdWJvcmRpbmF0aW9uIGJ1dCBsb3RzIG9mIG1haW4gY2xh dXNlcyBpbiBzZXF1ZW5jZSwNCj4+PiBzb21ldGltZXMgY29uam9pbmVkIGJ5ICJhbmQuIiAgT2xk IEVuZ2xpc2ggZGlkIG5vdCBoYXZlIHdoLXJlbGF0aXZlcw0KPj4+IHVudGlsIHRoZSBMYXRlIE9s ZCBFbmdsaXNoIHBlcmlvZCB3aGVuIHRoZXkgZGV2ZWxvcGVkIHByb2JhYmx5IGZyb20NCj4+PiBp bmRlZmluaXRlIHJlbGF0aXZlcyB1bmRlciB0aGUgaW5mbHVlbmNlIG9mIExhdGluLCB3aGljaCB0 aGUgc2NyaWJlcw0KPj4+IG9mIHRoZSB0aW1lIGtuZXcgd2VsbC4gIEluIExhdGluLCByZWxhdGl2 ZSBjbGF1c2VzIGhhZCB0byBiZSBmb3JtZWQNCj4+PiB3aXRoIHJlbGF0aXZlIHByb25vdW5zIGZ1 bGx5IGluZmxlY3RlZCBmb3IgZ2VuZGVyLCBudW1iZXIsIGFuZCBjYXNlLg0KPj4+IEFmdGVyIHRo ZSBOb3JtYW4gQ29ucXVlc3QsIHdoZW4gdGhlIHRyYWRpdGlvbiBvZiBBbGZyZWQgdGhlIEdyZWF0 J3MNCj4+PiBFbmdsaXNoIHNjcmlwdG9yaWEgd2FzIHN1cHByZXNzZWQsIHdoLXJlbGF0aXZlcyBh bHNvIGRpc2FwcGVhcmVkIGFuZA0KPj4+IGRpZG4ndCByZWFwcGVhciB1bnRpbCB0aGUgbGF0ZSAx M3RoIGMuDQo+Pj4gd2hlbiwgb25jZSBhZ2FpbiwgTGF0aW4gaW5mbHVlbmNlZCB3cml0ZXJzIGJv cnJvd2VkIHRoZSBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUNCj4+PiBmcm9tIExhdGluLiAgV2gtcmVsYXRpdmVzIGV2ZW4g dG9kYXkgYXJlIG1vcmUgc3Ryb25nbHkgYSBmZWF0dXJlIG9mDQo+Pj4gZWR1Y2F0ZWQgc3RhbmRh cmQgRW5nbGlzaCB0aGFuIG9mIG5vbi1zdGFuZGFyZCBkaWFsZWN0cywgd2hpY2ggdXNlDQo+Pj4g dGhhdC0gYW5kIHplcm8tIHJlbGF0aXZlcyBtdWNoIG1vcmUuICBJbiBmYWN0LCB3aC1yZWxhdGl2 ZXMgYXJlIHN0aWxsDQo+Pj4gc28gbXVjaCBhIGZ1bmN0aW9uIG9mIGZvcm1hbCBlZHVjYXRpb24g YW5kIG9mIFN0YW5kYXJkIEVuZ2xpc2ggdGhhdA0KPj4+IHdoZW4gbm9uLXN0YW5kYXJkIHNwZWFr ZXJzIGF0dGVtcHQgdG8gdXNlIHRoZSB3aC1wcm9ub3VucyB0byBpbml0aWF0ZQ0KPj4+IGNsYXVz ZXMgdGhleSBmcmVxdWVudGx5IHVzZSB0aGVtIGluIHVudXN1YWwgd2F5cywgYXMgaW4gc2VudGVu Y2VzDQo+Pj4gbGlrZSAiV2Ugd2VyZSBnb2luZyB0byBoYXZlIGEgcGljbmljIFNhdHVyZGF5LCB3 aGljaCBpdCByYWluZWQuIg0KPj4+IFN1Y2ggd2gtY29vcmRpbmF0aW9uIGlzIG5vdCBhdCBhbGwg dW5jb21tb24gaW4gc3Bva2VuIG5vbi1zdGFuZGFyZA0KPj4+IGRpYWxlY3RzLg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4g SGVyYg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4+PiBGcm9tOiBBc3Nl bWJseSBmb3IgdGhlIFRlYWNoaW5nIG9mIEVuZ2xpc2ggR3JhbW1hcg0KPj4+IFttYWlsdG86QVRF R0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgS2F0eiwgU2V0aA0KPj4+IFNlbnQ6 IEZyaWRheSwgRGVjZW1iZXIgMTcsIDIwMTAgMzowNCBQTQ0KPj4+IFRvOiBBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJW Lk1VT0hJTy5FRFUNCj4+PiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogTm91biBjbGF1c2VzDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBIZXks IEhlcmItLQ0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gVGhhbmtzIGZvciByZWNhcGl0dWxhdGluZyB0aGUgYXJndW1lbnQg Zm9yIHRoYXQgYmVpbmcganVzdCBhDQo+Pj4gc3Vib3JkaW5hdG9yIGFuZCBub3QgYSBwcm9ub3Vu LiBZb3UgYWx3YXlzIG1ha2UgbWUgdGhpbmsuIEEgbG90LiBBDQo+Pj4gbmljZSBicmVhayBmcm9t IGdyYWRpbmcuDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBVbmxlc3MgSSBhbSBtaXN1bmRlcnN0YW5kaW5nIHlvdSwgSSB3 b3VsZCBub3RlIGFuIGV4Y2VwdGlvbiB0byBhDQo+Pj4gY2xhaW0geW91IG1ha2UuICBZb3Ugc2F5 DQo+Pj4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+ICogICAgICAgICBJdCBpcyBkZWxldGFibGUsIGxpa2UgdGhlIHN1Ym9y ZGluYXRvciAidGhhdCIgYW5kIHVubGlrZQ0KPj4+IHByb25vdW5zLg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBC dXQgdGhlIHdoLXByb25vdW5zIGFyZSBkZWxldGFibGUgaW4gYWRqZWN0aXZlIGNsYXVzZXMsIHdo ZW4gdGhlDQo+Pj4gcHJvbm91biBmaWxscyB0aGUgZGlyZWN0IG9iamVjdCByb2xlIGluIHRoZSBk ZXBlbmRlbnQgY2xhdXNlLCBhcyBpbg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gVGhlIHdvbWFuIHdob20geW91IG1ldCB0 aGlzIG1vcm5pbmcgaXMgYW4gb2xkIGZyaWVuZCBvZiBtaW5lLg0KPj4+IFRoZSB3b21hbiBfX19f XyB5b3UgbWV0IHRoaXMgbW9ybmluZyBpcyBhbiBvbGQgZnJpZW5kIG9mIG1pbmUuDQo+Pj4NCj4+ PiBBbSBJIG1pc3Npbmcgc29tZXRoaW5nIGluIHdoYXQgeW91IHNhaWQ/DQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBIYXBw eSBlbmQtb2Ytc2VtZXN0ZXItLQ0KPj4+IFNldGgNCj4+Pg0KPj4+IERyLiBTZXRoIEthdHoNCj4+ PiBBc3Npc3RhbnQgUHJvZmVzc29yDQo+Pj4gRGVwYXJ0bWVudCBvZiBFbmdsaXNoDQo+Pj4gQnJh ZGxleSBVbml2ZXJzaXR5DQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBGYWN1bHR5IEFkdmlzb3INCj4+PiBCcmFkbGV5IFVu aXZlcnNpdHkgSGlsbGVsDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f Xw0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gRnJvbTogQXNzZW1ibHkgZm9yIHRoZSBUZWFjaGluZyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoIEdy YW1tYXIgb24gYmVoYWxmIG9mDQo+Pj4gU3RhaGxrZSwgSGVyYmVydCBGLlcuDQo+Pj4gU2VudDog RnJpIDEyLzE3LzIwMTAgMTI6NDUgUE0NCj4+PiBUbzogQVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURV DQo+Pj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IE5vdW4gY2xhdXNlcw0KPj4+DQo+Pj4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+IEpvaG4s DQo+Pj4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gV2UndmUgaGFkIHNvbWUgZXh0ZW5zaXZlIGRpc2N1c3Npb24g aW4gcGFzdCB5ZWFycyBvbiB0aGUgc3RhdHVzIG9mDQo+Pj4gInRoYXQiDQo+Pj4gaW4gY2xhdXNl cyBsaWtlIHRoZXNlLiBUaGVyZSBoYXMgbm90IGJlZW4gY29tcGxldGUgYWdyZWVtZW50IG9uIGFs bA0KPj4+IG9mIGl0LCBidXQgaGVyZSdzIHRoZSBwb3NpdGlvbiBJJ3ZlIHRha2VuLCB3aGljaCBp cyBhbHNvIHRoZSBwb3NpdGlvbg0KPj4+IG9mIE90dG8gSmVzcGVyc2VuIGluIGhpcyBBIE1vZGVy biBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXIgb24gSGlzdG9yaWNhbA0KPj4+IFByaW5jaXBsZXMgYW5kIEh1ZGRs ZXN0b24mICBQdWxsdW0gaW4gdGhlaXIgcmF0aGVyIG1vcmUgcmVjZW50DQo+Pj4gQ2FtYnJpZGdl IEdyYW1tYXIgb2YgdGhlIEVuZ2xpc2ggTGFuZ3VhZ2UuDQo+Pj4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gVGhl cmUgYXJlIHR3byBmdW5jdGlvbiB3b3JkcyAidGhhdCIgaW4gRW5nbGlzaC4gIE9uZSBpcyB0aGUg ZGlzdGFsDQo+Pj4gZGVtb25zdHJhdGl2ZSAidGhhdCIgd2l0aCBpdHMgcGx1cmFsICJ0aGVzZSwi IGFuZCB0aGUgb3RoZXIgaXMgdGhlDQo+Pj4gc3Vib3JkaW5hdG9yICJ0aGF0IiBhcyBmb3VuZCBp biB0aGUgY2xhdXNlcyB5b3UgaGF2ZSBwcm92aWRlZC4gIFdoZW4NCj4+PiAidGhhdCIgaXMgdXNl ZCB0byBpbnRyb2R1Y2UgYSByZWxhdGl2ZSBjbGF1c2UsIGl0IGlzIHNpbXBseSBhDQo+Pj4gc3Vi b3JkaW5hdG9yLCBub3QgYSByZWxhdGl2ZSBwcm9ub3VuLiAgVGhlIHJlbGF0aXZlIHByb25vdW5z IGFyZSB0aGUNCj4+PiB3aC0gd29yZHMuICBUaGlzIGFuYWx5c2lzIGltcGxpZXMgdGhhdCB0aGVy ZSBpcyBhIGdhcCBpbiB0aGUgcmVsYXRpdmUNCj4+PiBjbGF1c2UgY29ycmVzcG9uZGluZyB0byB0 aGUgaGVhZCBub3VuLCBzbyBpbiAiVGhlIHBpdGNoZXMgdGhhdCBDYXNleQ0KPj4+IG1pc3NlZC4u LiINCj4+PiB0aGUgZ2FwIGlzIGluIGRpcmVjdCBvYmplY3QgcG9zaXRpb24gd2hlcmUgInBpdGNo ZXMiIHdvdWxkIGJlIGlmIHRoZQ0KPj4+IHJlbGF0aXZlIGNsYXVzZSB3ZXJlIGEgbWFpbiBjbGF1 c2UgaW5zdGVhZC4gIElmIGl0J3MgdGhlIHN1YmplY3QgdGhhdA0KPj4+IGlzIHplcm8sIG1vc3Qg c3BlYWtlcnMgcmVxdWlyZSAidGhhdCIgdG8gYXZvaWQgcHJvY2Vzc2luZyBwcm9ibGVtcw0KPj4+ IHRoYXQgYXJpc2Ugd2hlbiBhIHNlY29uZCBmaW5pdGUgdmVyYiBvY2N1cnMgaW4gYSBzZW50ZW5j ZSB3aXRob3V0IGFueQ0KPj4+IG92ZXJ0IG1hcmtpbmcgdGhhdCBpdCBpcyBpbiBhIHN1Ym9yZGlu YXRlIGNsYXVzZSwgc28gaW4gIlRoZSBiYWxsDQo+Pj4gdGhhdCBnb3QgcGFzdCBDYXNleSB3YXMg YSBzdHJpa2UiIHRoZSBkcm9wcGluZyBvZiAidGhhdCIgd291bGQgbGVhdmUNCj4+PiAiVGhlIGJh bGwgZ290IHBhc3QgQ2FzZXkNCj4+PiB3YXMgYSBzdHJpa2UiIHdoaWNoIHNvbWUgc3BlYWtlcnMg d2lsbCB1c2UgYnV0IHdyaXRlcnMgd2lsbCBhdm9pZC4NCj4+PiBUaGUNCj4+PiBmYWN0IHRoYXQg InRoYXQiIGlzIHJlcXVpcmVkIHRoZXJlIGZvciBjbGFyaXR5IGlzIG5vdCBldmlkZW5jZSB0aGF0 DQo+Pj4gaXQncyBhIHJlbGF0aXZlIHByb25vdW4gYnV0IHNpbXBseSBhIHJlc3RyaWN0aW9uIG9u IGJhcmUgb3IgYXN5bmRldGljDQo+Pj4gcmVsYXRpdmUgY2xhdXNlcy4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4N Cj4+PiBUaGVyZSBhcmUgc2V2ZXJhbCByZWFzb25zIGZvciBjYWxsaW5nICJ0aGF0IiBhIHN1Ym9y ZGluYXRvciBpbiBhbGwgb2YNCj4+PiBpdHMgbm9uLWRlbW9uc3RyYXRpdmUgdXNlcy4NCj4+Pg0K Pj4+DQo+Pj4NCj4+PiAqICAgICAgICAgSXQncyBhbHdheXMgdW5zdHJlc3NlZCwgYXMgaXMgdGhl IHN1Ym9yZGluYXRvciAidGhhdC4iDQo+Pj4gUHJvbm9taW5hbCBhbmQgZGV0ZXJtaW5lciAidGhh dCIgYXJlIHJhcmVseSB1bnN0cmVzc2VkLg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gKiAgICAgICAgIElmIGl0IHdlcmUg YSBwcm9ub3VuIGluIHJlbGF0aXZlIGNsYXVzZXMsIHRoZW4gd2Ugd291bGQNCj4+PiBleHBlY3QN Cj4+PiBpdCB0byBoYXZlIGEgcGx1cmFsICJ0aG9zZSIgaW4gIipUaGUgcGl0Y2hlcyB0aG9zZSBD YXNleSBtaXNzZWQuLi4uIg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gKiAgICAgICAgIFRoZXJlIGlzIG5vIHBvc3Nlc3Np dmUgZm9ybSwgYWx0aG91Z2ggdGhlcmUgaXMgZm9yIHdoLQ0KPj4+IHJlbGF0aXZlcywgc28gd2Ug Y2FuJ3Qgc2F5ICIqVGhlIGJhbGwgdGhhdCdzIGNhc2luZyBjYW1lIG9mZi4uLi4iDQo+Pj4NCj4+ PiAqICAgICAgICAgSXQgaXMgZGVsZXRhYmxlLCBsaWtlIHRoZSBzdWJvcmRpbmF0b3IgInRoYXQi IGFuZCB1bmxpa2UNCj4+PiBwcm9ub3Vucy4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBUaGVyZSBhcmUg bW9yZSBhcmd1bWVudCwgYW5kIEkgcmVjb21tZW5kIHRoZSB0cmVhdG1lbnQgaW4gSHVkZGxlc3Rv biYNCj4+PiBQdWxsdW0uICBUaGVyZSBpcyBhbHNvIGEgdmVyeSB0aG9yb3VnaCBjcml0aXF1ZSBv ZiB0aGlzIGFuYWx5c2lzIGJ5DQo+Pj4gSm9oYW4gdmFuIGRlciBBdXdlcmEgaW4gSm91cm5hbCBv ZiBMaW5ndWlzdGljcyAyMSAoMTk4NSksIDE0OS0xNzkNCj4+PiB0aXRsZWQgIlJlbGF0aXZlIHRo YXQgLSBhIGNlbnRlbm5pYWwgZGlzcHV0ZS4gIEl0J3MgYSBmYXNjaW5hdGluZywNCj4+PiB0aG91 Z2h0ZnVsLCBhbmQgaW5jaXNpdmUgY3JpdGlxdWUuDQo+Pj4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gSGVyYg0K Pj4+DQo+Pj4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+IEZyb206IEFzc2VtYmx5IGZvciB0aGUgVGVhY2hpbmcgb2YgRW5n bGlzaCBHcmFtbWFyDQo+Pj4gW21haWx0bzpBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFVdIE9uIEJl aGFsZiBPZiBKb2huIENob3JhenkNCj4+PiBTZW50OiBGcmlkYXksIERlY2VtYmVyIDE3LCAyMDEw IDEyOjIxIFBNDQo+Pj4gVG86IEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVQ0KPj4+IFN1YmplY3Q6 IE5vdW4gY2xhdXNlcw0KPj4+DQo+Pj4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+IEhlbGxvIHRvIGFsbC4uLiBJJ3ZlIGJl ZW4gdGFsa2luZyB3aXRoIHN0dWRlbnRzICgxMXRoIGdyYWRlKSBhYm91dA0KPj4+IGNsYXVzZXMg YW5kIGhhdmUgY29sbGVjdGVkIHNvbWUgcXVlc3Rpb25zIHRoYXQgdGhlIGxpc3QgbWlnaHQgaGF2 ZQ0KPj4+IHNvbWUgdGhvdWdodHMgb24uDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBUaGUgdXNlIG9mICJ0aGF0IiBhcyB0 aGUgaGVhZCBvZiBhIG5vdW4gY2xhdXNlIChhbmQgc3ViamVjdCk6ICJUaGF0DQo+Pj4gdGhlIGhl YWx0aGNhcmUgc3lzdGVtIG5lZWRzIGZpeGluZyBpcyBvYnZpb3VzLiINCj4+Pg0KPj4+ICJUaGF0 IiB1c2VkIGluIGFuIGFkamVjdGl2ZSBwaHJhc2U6ICJVbmxpa2UgdGhlIGNhdCB0aGF0IHNsZXB0 IGFsbA0KPj4+IGRheSwgdGhlIGRvZyByYW4gYXJvdW5kIGFuZCBiYXJrZWQuIg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4g QW5kIGlmIHdlIGNhbiBnZXQgc29tZSBpbnNpZ2h0IHRvIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgdXNlIG9mICJ0 aGF0IjogIkx5bm4NCj4+PiBNYXJndWxpcycgdGhlb3J5IHRoYXQgZXZvbHV0aW9uIGlzIGEgcHJv Y2VzcyByYXRoZXIgdGhhbiBhDQo+Pj4gY29tcGV0aXRpb24gZGlmZmVycyBkcmFtYXRpY2FsbHkg ZnJvbSB0aGUgdGhlb3JpZXMgb2YgbW9zdCBiaW9sb2dpc3RzLiINCj4+Pg0KPj4+IEFyZSB0aGUg bGFzdCB0d28gc2ltcGx5IHJlc3RyaWN0aXZlIGNsYXVzZXMgdXNpbmcgdGhlIHJlbGF0aXZlIHBy b25vdW4/DQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBBbHNvIChhIGJpdCBkaWZmZXJlbnQpIC0gYW55b25lIGNhcmUgdG8g cGFyc2UgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZz8gIlNob3VsZA0KPj4+IHlvdSBoYXZlIGFueSB0cm91YmxlIGlk ZW50aWZ5aW5nIHRoZSBob3VzZSwganVzdCByZW1lbWJlciB0aGF0IGl0IGhhcw0KPj4+IGEgYmln IGJyYXNzIGtub2NrZXIgb24gdGhlIGRvb3IuIiBTdHVkZW50cyBzZWUgdGhlIGltcGxpZWQgInlv dSIgYXMNCj4+PiB0aGUgc3ViamVjdCBhbmQgaXRzIHZlcmIgcmVtZW1iZXIsIGJ1dCBub3Qgd2hh dCdzIGdvaW5nIG9uIHVwIGZyb250Lg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gVGhhbmsgeW91IHZlcnkgbXVjaCENCj4+ Pg0KPj4+IFNpbmNlcmVseSwNCj4+Pg0KPj4+IEpvaG4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+ DQo+Pj4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+IEpvaG4gQ2hvcmF6eQ0KPj4+IEVuZ2xpc2ggSUlJIEFjYWRlbXksIEhv bm9ycywgYW5kIEFjYWRlbWljIFBlcXVhbm5vY2sgVG93bnNoaXAgSGlnaA0KPj4+IFNjaG9vbA0K Pj4+DQo+Pj4gTnVsbGEgZGllcyBzaW5lIGxpbmVhLiBUbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElT VFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlDQo+Pj4gdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0 Og0KPj4+IGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbA0KPj4+ IGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBWaXNpdCBBVEVH J3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL2F0ZWcub3JnLw0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gVG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2 ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYg0KPj4+IGlu dGVyZmFjZQ0KPj4+IGF0OiBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVn Lmh0bWwgYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvcg0KPj4+IGxlYXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0Ig0KPj4+DQo+Pj4g VmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8NCj4+Pg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4g VG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlz dCdzIHdlYg0KPj4+IGludGVyZmFjZQ0KPj4+IGF0Og0KPj4+ICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vy di5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbA0KPj4+IGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3Ig bGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBWaXNpdCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDov L2F0ZWcub3JnLw0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gVG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3Qs IHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYg0KPj4+IGludGVyZmFjZQ0KPj4+IGF0Og0KPj4+ ICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbA0KPj4+ IGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBWaXNpdCBBVEVH J3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL2F0ZWcub3JnLw0KPj4+DQo+PiBUbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZl IHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViDQo+PiBpbnRl cmZhY2UgYXQ6DQo+PiAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9h dGVnLmh0bWwNCj4+IGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQo+Pg0KPj4g VmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8NCj4+DQo+PiBUbyBqb2lu IG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2Vi DQo+PiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6DQo+PiAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9h cmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwNCj4+IGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3Qi DQo+Pg0KPj4gVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8NCj4+DQo+ Pg0KPg0KPiBUbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0 IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZQ0KPiBhdDoNCj4gICAgICBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYu bXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwNCj4gYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvciBsZWF2 ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCINCj4NCj4gVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9y Zy8NCj4NCj4gVG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNp dCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UNCj4gYXQ6DQo+ICAgICAgaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2 Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sDQo+IGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVh dmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQo+DQo+IFZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5v cmcvDQo+DQoNClRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2Ugdmlz aXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0Og0KICAgICBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVv aGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwNCmFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhl IGxpc3QiDQoNClZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvDQoNCg0K ========================================================================Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 01:00:43 -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: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 QnJ1Y2UsDQoNCllvdSBtYWtlIGVzc2VudGlhbGx5IHRoZSBwb2ludCBhYm91dCByZWxhdGl2ZSBj bGF1c2VzIHRoYXQgRHdpZ2h0IEJvbGluZ2VyIG1hZGUgaW4gaGlzIHR5cGljYWxseSBtYXJ2ZWxv dXMgbGl0dGxlIGJvb2sgVGhhdCdzIFRoYXQgKE1vdXRvbiAxOTcyKSAgYWJvdXQgdGhlIHByZXNl bmNlIGFuZCBhYnNlbmNlIG9mIHRoZSBzdWJvcmRpbmF0b3IgInRoYXQiIGF0IHRoZSBiZWdpbm5p bmcgb2YgY29udGVudCBjbGF1c2VzLiAgSXQncyBiZWVuIGEgd2hpbGUsIGFib3V0IDM1IHllYXJz LCBzaW5jZSBJIHJlYWQgdGhlIGJvb2ssIGFuZCBteSBjb3B5IGlzIGxvbmcgZ29uZSwgYnV0IGl0 4oCZcyBhIHZlcnkgY2FyZWZ1bCBhbmQgaW5jaXNpdmUgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBvZiB0aGUgZGlmZmVy ZW5jZXMgYmV0d2VlbiBjb250ZW50IGNsYXVzZXMgd2l0aCAidGhhdCIgYW5kIHdpdGhvdXQgInRo YXQuIg0KDQpIZXJiDQoNCi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQpGcm9tOiBBc3NlbWJs eSBmb3IgdGhlIFRlYWNoaW5nIG9mIEVuZ2xpc2ggR3JhbW1hciBbbWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElTVFNF UlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVV0gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIEJydWNlIERlc3BhaW4NClNlbnQ6IFR1ZXNkYXks IERlY2VtYmVyIDIxLCAyMDEwIDEyOjA3IEFNDQpUbzogQVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURV DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogTm91biBjbGF1c2VzDQoNCkNyYWlnICgmIEhlcmIpLA0KDQpUaGVzZSBl eGFtcGxlcyBzZWVtIGEgbGl0dGxlIG1lc3NlZCB1cCB0byBtZSwgYXMgdGhlcmUgc2VlbXMgdG8g YmUgYW5vdGhlciBwb3NzaWJpbGl0eS4gIFlvdSBmb2xrcyBoYXZlIHRyaWVkIHRvIGJlIGZvcm1h bCBhYm91dCB0aGUgZGlzdGluY3Rpb24gYmV0d2VlbiBwZXJzb25zIGFuZCB0aGluZ3MuICBCdXQg aXQgc2VlbXMgdG8gbWUgdGhhdCB0aGUgcmVhbCBkaXN0aW5jdGlvbiByZWxldmFudCB0byB0aGUg ZGVsZXRpb24gaGFzIHRvIGRvIHdpdGggdGhlIGlkZW50aWZ5aW5nIGZ1bmN0aW9uIG9mICJ0aGF0 LiIgIFRoaXMgaXMgb3Bwb3NlZCB0byB0aGUgZGVzY3JpcHRpdmUgZnVuY3Rpb24gb2YgIndobyIg Indob20iIGV0Yy4gIExleGljYWwgZ2FwcyBzZWVtIHRvIGhhdmUgYWxsb3dlZCB0aGVzZSB0d28g ZGltZW5zaW9ucyAocGVyc29uIHZzLiB0aGluZyBhbmQgaW5kZW50aXR5IHZzLiBkZXNjcmlwdGlv bikgdG8gY3Jvc3Mgb3Zlci4gIEkgdGhpbmsgaXRzIGEgbG90IGxpa2UgdGhlIHRyYW5zaXRpdmUg dnMuIGludHJhbnNpdGl2ZSBvZiAic2V0L3NpdCwiICJsYXksbGllIiBnZXR0aW5nIG1peGVkIHVw IHdpdGggYW4gYW5pbWF0ZSB2cy4gaW5hbmltYXRlIGRpc3RpbmN0aW9uIChvciBodW1hbiB2cy4g bm9uLWh1bWFuLCBkZXBlbmRpbmcgb24gdGhlIHByZXNzdXJlIG9mIG90aGVyIGZvcm1zKS4NCg0K ICAgIEV4YW1wbGU6ICJBbnlvbmUgd2hvIHRvdWNoZXMgeW91IHRvdWNoZXMgbWUuIiAgVGhpcyBp cyBkZXNjcmlwdGl2ZSBvZiB0aGUgaW5kZWZpbml0ZSBwZXJzb24sIHN0aWxsIGluZGVmaW5pdGUu DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgIkFueW9uZSB0aGF0IHRvdWNoZXMgeW91IHRvdWNoZXMgbWUuIiAgVGhp cyBpcyBtZWFudCB0byBtb3JlIGZ1bGx5IGlkZW50aWZ5IHRoZSBpbmRlZmluaXRlIHBlcnNvbi4g Tm93IGl0IHNlZW1zIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIHRvIHJlZmVyIHRoZSBwZXJzb24gYXMgInRoYXQgcGVy c29uLiIgIFRoZSBzYW1lIHRoaW5nIGlzIGRpc3Rpbmd1aXNoYWJsZSBpbiBvYmplY3QgcG9zaXRp b246DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgIkFueW9uZSB3aG9tIHlvdSB0b3VjaCB0b3VjaGVzIG1lLiINCiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAiQW55b25lIHRoYXQgeW91IHRvdWNoIHRvdWNoZXMgbWUuIg0KICAgICAgICAg ICAgICJBbnlvbmUgeW91IHRvdWNoIHRvdWNoZXMgbWUuIiAgTm93IHRoZXJlIGlzIGxpdHRsZSBk b3VidCB0aGF0IHRoZSBwZXJzb24gaGFzIGJlZW4gaWRlbnRpZmllZC4NCiAgICBEZWxldGlvbiBp cyBwb3NzaWJsZSBpbiB0aGUgc2Vjb25kIGV4YW1wbGUsIGJ1dCBub3QgdGhlIGZpcnN0LCBiZWNh dXNlIGl0IGlzICJ0aGF0LCIgdGhlIGlkZW50aWZpZXIgdGhhdCBpcyBiZWluZyBkZWxldGVkLiAg V2hlbiB0aGUgaW5kZWZpbml0ZSBwcm9ub3VuIGlzIGNoYW5nZWQgdG8gImFueXRoaW5nLCIgdGhl ICJ3aG8iIG9wdGlvbiBjYW5ub3QgZ2V0IGluIHRoZSB3YXkuICBCdXQgdGhlbiwgd2hlbiB0aGUg IndoaWNoIiBvcHRpb24gaXMgdGFrZW4sIHdlIGFyZSBkZWFsaW5nIHdpdGggYSBkZXNjcmlwdGlv biB0aGF0IGRvZXMgbm90IHNlcnZlIGFzIGFuIGlkZW50aWZpZXIuICBXZSByZWZlciB0byB0aGVz ZSBvYmplY3RzIGFzICJzdWNoIGEgcGVyc29uIiBvciAic3VjaCBhIHRoaW5nLiIgIFRoZSBkZW1v bnN0cmF0aXZlICJ0aGF0IiBpcyBubyBsb25nZXIgYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUuDQoNClRoZSByZXN0cmlj dGl2ZSBuYXR1cmUgb2YgdGhlIGFkamVjdGl2ZSBjbGF1c2UgaW4gInRoYXQiIGZvbGxvd3MgZnJv bSBpdHMgaWRlbnRpZnlpbmcgZnVuY3Rpb24uICBUaGUgbm9uLXJlc3RyaWN0aXZlIHBvc3NpYmls aXRpZXMgd2l0aCAid2hvLCB3aGljaCIgZm9sbG93IGZyb20gdGhlaXIgZXNzZW50aWFsIGRlc2Ny aXB0aXZlIGZ1bmN0aW9uLiAgV2hlbiB0aGUgbGF0dGVyIGNvbm5lY3RpdmVzIGFyZSB1c2VkIHJl c3RyaWN0aXZlbHksIHRoZWlyIGRlc2NyaXB0aXZlIGZ1bmN0aW9uIGlzIGFwdCB0byBnZXQgb3Zl cmxvb2tlZCB3aGVuIGRlY2lzaW9ucyBhcmUgbWFkZSBhYm91dCB3aGV0aGVyIHRoZSBpZGVudGlm eWluZyAidGhhdCIgbWlnaHQgYmUgbW9yZSBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZS4NCg0KQnJ1Y2UNCg0KLS0tIGhh bmNvY2tAQUxCQU5ZLkVEVSB3cm90ZToNCg0KRnJvbTogQ3JhaWcgSGFuY29jayA8aGFuY29ja0BB TEJBTlkuRURVPg0KVG86IEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVQ0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IE5v dW4gY2xhdXNlcw0KRGF0ZTogICAgICAgICBNb24sIDIwIERlYyAyMDEwIDE3OjU0OjIyIC0wNTAw DQoNCkhlcmIsDQogICAgSXQgaGFzIGFsd2F5cyBiZWVuIG15IHVuZGVyc3RhbmRpbmcgdGhhdCBm aW5pdGUgc3Vib3JkaW5hdGUgY2xhdXNlcyByZXF1aXJlIGFuIGV4cGxpY2l0IHN1YmplY3QuIFRo YXQgbWF5IGJlIG9uZSByZWFzb24gd2h5IHRoZSByZWxhdGl2ZSBjYW4ndCBiZSBkcm9wcGVkIGlm IGl0J3MgaW4gc3ViamVjdCByb2xlLg0KICAgIEV4YW1wbGU6ICJBbnlvbmUgd2hvIHRvdWNoZXMg eW91IHRvdWNoZXMgbWUuIg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICJBbnlvbmUgW3dob21dIHlvdSB0b3VjaCB0 b3VjaGVzIG1lLiINCiAgICBEZWxldGlvbiBpcyBwb3NzaWJsZSBpbiB0aGUgc2Vjb25kIGV4YW1w bGUsIGJ1dCBub3QgdGhlIGZpcnN0Lg0KDQogICAgRXhhbXBsZTogIkFueXRoaW5nIHRoYXQgdG91 Y2hlcyB5b3UgdG91Y2hlcyBtZS4iDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgIkFueXRoaW5nIFt0aGF0XXlvdSB0 b3VjaCB0b3VjaGVzIG1lLiINCiAgICBEZWxldGlvbiBpcyBwb3NzaWJsZSBpbiB0aGUgc2Vjb25k LCBidXQgbm90IHRoZSBmaXJzdC4NCg0KICAgIFRoZXJlIGlzIG5vdGhpbmcgcGFyYWxsZWwgdG8g dGhhdCB3aXRoIGNvbnRlbnQgY2xhdXNlcyBzaW5jZSB0aGUgInRoYXQiIHJlbWFpbnMgZnVsbHkg b3V0c2lkZSB0aGUgY2xhdXNlIGFuZCBpcyBuZXZlciB1c2VkIHRvIHN0YW5kIGluIChvciBwbGFj ZSBob2xkKWZvciBhIG1pc3Npbmcgc3ViamVjdC4gUmVsYXRpdmUgY2xhdXNlcyBhbmQgY29udGVu dCBjbGF1c2VzIGhhdmUgZm9ybWFsIChub3QganVzdCBmdW5jdGlvbmFsKSBkaWZmZXJlbmNlcy4N Cg0KQ3JhaWcNCg0KDQo+IENyYWlnLA0KPg0KPiBNeSBwcm9ibGVtIHdpdGggc2F5aW5nIHRoYXQg aXQgc29tZXRpbWVzIGhhcyBhIHBsYWNlIGhvbGRpbmcgZnVuY3Rpb24NCj4gaXMgdGhhdCBpdCdz IGFuIGltcHJlc3Npb25pc3RpYyBzdGF0ZW1lbnQuICBJZiB3ZSBhc2sgd2hhdCBpdCdzIGRvaW5n DQo+IGluIGEgcGFydGljdWxhciBjbGF1c2Ugd2UgY2FuJ3QgcHJvdmlkZSBhbnkgc29ydCBvZiBl dmlkZW5jZSBmb3IgYQ0KPiBzb2x1dGlvbiBkaWZmZXJlbnQgZm9ybSBzdWJvcmRpbmF0b3IuICBB IHN0YXRlbWVudCBsaWtlIHlvdXJzIGZvbGxvd3MNCj4gZnJvbSBjZXJ0YWluIGFzc3VtcHRpb25z LCBidXQgdGhlIGFzc3VtcHRpb25zIHRoZW1zZWx2ZXMsIGZvciBleGFtcGxlLA0KPiB0aGF0ICJ0 aGF0IiBpcyBhIHJlbGF0aXZlIHByb25vdW4sIGFyZSBkaWZmaWN1bHQgdG8gc3VwcG9ydC4NCj4g SGlzdG9yaWNhbCBjaGFuZ2UgZ2l2ZXMgdXMgc29tZSBoZWxwIGJ1dCBtdXN0IGJlIGludGVycHJl dGVkIHZlcnkNCj4gY2F1dGlvdXNseSwgd2hpY2ggaXMgd2h5IEknbSBub3Qgd2lsbGluZyB0byBz YXkgdGhhdCBwcm9ub21pbmFsIHN0YXR1cw0KPiBoYXMgbm90IGRldmVsb3BlZCBiZXlvbmQgdGhl IG5vbi1zdGFuZGFyZCBnZW5pdGl2ZSB1c2UuDQo+DQo+IEJlc2lkZXMgYSBnZW5lcmFsIGZlZWxp bmcgYWJvdXQgaXQsIGhvdyBjYW4gIHlvdSBhcmd1ZSB0aGF0IHJlbGF0aXZlDQo+ICJ0aGF0IiBp cyBwZXJmb3JtaW5nIGEgZnVuY3Rpb24gaW4gdGhlIHJlbGF0aXZlIGNsYXVzZSwgYW4gYXJndW1l bnQNCj4gdGhhdCBjYW4ndCBiZSBoYW5kbGVkIGFzIHdlbGwgb3IgYmV0dGVyIGJ5IGRlbGV0aW9u IHVuZGVyIGlkZW50aXR5Pw0KPg0KPiBIZXJiDQo+DQo+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0t LS0tDQo+IEZyb206IEFzc2VtYmx5IGZvciB0aGUgVGVhY2hpbmcgb2YgRW5nbGlzaCBHcmFtbWFy DQo+IFttYWlsdG86QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgQ3JhaWcg SGFuY29jaw0KPiBTZW50OiBNb25kYXksIERlY2VtYmVyIDIwLCAyMDEwIDEwOjIyIEFNDQo+IFRv OiBBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFUNCj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IE5vdW4gY2xhdXNlcw0K Pg0KPiBIZXJiLA0KPiAgICAgSSBtaWdodCBiZSBjb250ZW50IHdpdGggc2F5aW5nIHRoYXQgcmVs YXRpdmUgInRoYXQiIGFjdHMgaW4gd2F5cw0KPiB0aGF0IGFyZSB2ZXJ5IHVuaXF1ZSBhbmQgdGhh dCBtYWtlIGl0IGhhcmQgdG8gY2xhc3NpZnkuIFRoZSBpbXBvcnRhbnQNCj4gd29yayBpcyBpbiBk ZXNjcmliaW5nIGhvdyBpdCBhY3RzLiBJbiBjb250ZW50IGNsYXVzZXMsIGl0IGlzIGFsd2F5cw0K PiBvdXRzaWRlIHRoZSBjbGF1c2UsIGJ1dCBpbiByZWxhdGl2ZSBjbGF1c2VzLCBpdCBzb21ldGlt ZXMgaGFzIGEgcGxhY2UNCj4gaG9sZGluZyBmdW5jdGlvbi4gVGhlIGNhdGVnb3J5IHdlIHBsYWNl IGl0IGluIGRlcGVuZHMgb24gaG93IHdlIGRyYXcNCj4gdGhlIGxpbmVzIGZvciB0aGUgY2F0ZWdv cnkuDQo+DQo+IENyYWlnDQo+DQo+IE9uIDEyLzE4LzIwMTAgMTA6MTMgUE0sIFNUQUhMS0UsIEhF UkJFUlQgRiB3cm90ZToNCj4+IENyYWlnLA0KPj4NCj4+IEEgcXVlc3Rpb24gd2FzIHJhaXNlZCBv ZmYtbGlzdCBhYm91dCB3aGV0aGVyICJ0aGF0IiBpcyB0YWtpbmcgb24gc29tZQ0KPj4gcHJvbm91 biBmdW5jdGlvbiBpbiB0aGUgZ2VuaXRpdmUgaW4gbm9uLXN0YW5kYXJkIHZhcmlldGllcy4gIFRo aXMNCj4+IGFwcGVhcnMgdG8gYmUgdGhlIGNhc2UuICBJIGxpa2UgeW91ciBleGFtcGxlcyBzaG93 aW5nIHRoYXQgcmVsLXRoYXQNCj4+IGFuZCBjb25qLXRoYXQgYmVoYXZlIGFsaWtlLCBidXQgSSB0 aGluayB0aGUgc3BlbGxpbmcgaWRlbnRpdHkgb2YgdGhlDQo+PiBzdWJvcmRpbmF0b3IgYW5kIHRo ZSBkZW1vbnN0cmF0aXZlIGxlYWRzIHNwZWFrZXJzIHRvIGlkZW50aWZ5IHRoZW0NCj4+IHdpdGgg ZWFjaCBvdGhlciwgZXZlbiBpZiB0aGVpciBoaXN0b3J5IGFuZCB0aGVpciBzeW50YXggYW5kIG1v cnBob2xvZ3kgYXJndWUNCj4+IG90aGVyd2lzZS4gICBJbiBhIG5vbi1zdGFuZGFyZCBjb25zdHJ1 Y3Rpb24gbGlrZSAiRGlkIHlvdSBzZWUgYSBib29rDQo+PiB0aGF0J3MgY292ZXIgd2FzIHRvcm4/ IiAidGhhdCdzIiBpcyBjbGVhcmx5IHByb25vbWluYWwuICBJIHRoaW5rDQo+PiAidGhhdCdzIiBh cmlzZXMgYnkgYW5hbG9neSB0byB0aGUgZ2VuaXRpdmUgcHJvbm91bnMNCj4+IHlvdXJzL2hpcy9o ZXJzL2l0cy9vdXJzL3RoZWlycyBldmVuIHRob3VnaCB0aG9zZSBjYW4ndCBiZSB1c2VkIGFzDQo+ PiBkZXRlcm1pbmVycy4gIChBbmQsIGJ5IHRoZSB3YXksIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhlIHNwZWxsaW5nIHNo b3VsZCBiZSAidGhhdHMsIg0KPj4gd2l0aG91dCB0aGUgYXBvc3Ryb3BoZSwgbGlrZSB0aGUgb3Ro ZXIgZ2VuaXRpdmUgcHJvbm91bnMuICBNaWNyb3NvZnQNCj4+IFdvcmQga2VlcHMgcHV0dGluZyBp biB0aGUgYXBvc3Ryb3BoZSBmb3Igc29tZSByZWFzb24uKSAgQW5hbG9naWNhbA0KPj4gY2hhbmdl IGlzIGJ5IGl0cyB2ZXJ5IG5hdHVyZSBpcnJlZ3VsYXIsIGFuZCBzbyB0aGF0IGZhY3QgdGhhdA0K Pj4gZ2VuaXRpdmUgInRoYXRzIiBpcyBkZXZlbG9waW5nIGluIG5vbi1zdGFuZGFyZCB1c2FnZSB0 ZWxscyB1cyBub3RoaW5nDQo+PiBhYm91dCB3aGF0J3MgaGFwcGVuaW5nIGNhdGVnb3JpYWxseSB0 byAidGhhdCIgaW4gb3RoZXIgcmVsYXRpdmUgY29uc3RydWN0aW9ucy4NCj4+ICAgUmVtZW1iZXIg U3R1cnRldmFudCdzIFBhcmFkb3g6ICBTb3VuZCBjaGFuZ2UgaXMgcmVndWxhciBhbmQNCj4+IHBy b2R1Y2VzIGlycmVndWxhcml0eTsgYW5hbG9naWNhbCBjaGFuZ2UgaXMgaXJyZWd1bGFyIGFuZCBw cm9kdWNlcyByZWd1bGFyaXR5Lg0KPj4NCj4+IE9uIG1vcnBob3N5bnRhY3RpYyBncm91bmRzLCBJ IG1haW50YWluIHRoZSBhcmd1bWVudHMgdGhhdCByZWxhdGl2ZQ0KPj4gInRoYXQiIGlzIG5vdCBh IHByb25vdW4uICBXZSBjYW4gZ2FpbiBpbnNpZ2h0IGludG8gaG93IHRoZSBncmFtbWFyIG9mDQo+ PiAidGhhdCIgaXMgY2hhbmdpbmcgb25seSBieSBleHRyYXBvbGF0aW5nIGZyb20gZXhhbXBsZXMg b2YgdXNhZ2UuICBXZQ0KPj4gY2FuJ3QgZG8gbXVjaCB3aXRoIHBlb3BsZSdzIG5hw692ZSBmZWVs aW5nIGFuZCBodW5jaGVzIGFib3V0IGdyYW1tYXIsDQo+PiBhbmQgSSBrbm93IHlvdSdyZSBub3Qg c3VnZ2VzdGluZyB0aGF0Lg0KPj4NCj4+IEhlcmINCj4+DQo+PiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3Nh Z2UtLS0tLQ0KPj4gRnJvbTogQXNzZW1ibHkgZm9yIHRoZSBUZWFjaGluZyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoIEdy YW1tYXINCj4+IFttYWlsdG86QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2Yg Q3JhaWcgSGFuY29jaw0KPj4gU2VudDogU2F0dXJkYXksIERlY2VtYmVyIDE4LCAyMDEwIDEwOjM4 IEFNDQo+PiBUbzogQVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVDQo+PiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogTm91 biBjbGF1c2VzDQo+Pg0KPj4gSGVyYiwNCj4+ICAgICAgWW91IGFuZCBJIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBvdmVy IHRoaXMgb25lIGJlZm9yZSBhbmQgSSBkb24ndCB3YW50IHRvDQo+PiBqdXN0IHJlcGVhdCB0aGF0 LiBCdXQgSSBkbyBoYXZlIGEgcXVlc3Rpb24uIFdoZW4gInRoYXQiIGlzIHJlcXVpcmVkDQo+PiBp biB0aGUgc3ViamVjdCBzbG90IG9mIGEgcmVsYXRpdmUgY2xhdXNlIChBcyBpbiAiQW55dGhpbmcg dGhhdA0KPj4gdG91Y2hlcyB5b3UgdG91Y2hlcyBtZSIpIGlzICJ0aGF0IiBzaW1wbHkgaG9sZGlu ZyBkb3duIGEgc2xvdCAoZm9yDQo+PiBzZW50ZW5jZSBwcm9jZXNzaW5nIGVhc2Upb3IgaXMgaXQg YWN0dWFsbHkgYWN0aW5nIGFzIHN1YmplY3QgaW4gdGhhdA0KPj4gcmVsYXRpdmUgY2xhdXNlPw0K Pj4gICAgIE15IGN1cnJlbnQgc2Vuc2Ugb2YgdGhpcyBpcyB0aGF0IGl0J3MgbW9yZSBhIG1hdHRl ciBvZiBkcmF3aW5nDQo+PiBjbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiBsaW5lcyB0aGFuIGl0IGlzIG9mIGRpc3B1 dGluZyBob3cgdGhpcyBzdHVmZiB3b3Jrcy4NCj4+IFRoZSBkeW5hbWljcyBvZiBhIHJlbGF0aXZl IGNsYXVzZSBhcmUgZGlmZmVyZW50IGZyb20gdGhlIGR5bmFtaWNzIG9mDQo+PiBhIGNvbnRlbnQg Y2xhdXNlIEJFQ0FVU0UgREVMRVRJT04gT0YgQSBTRU5URU5DRSBFTEVNRU5UIERPRVNOJ1QgT0ND VVINCj4+IElOIENPTlRFTlQgQ0xBVVNFUy4gSW4gYSBjb250ZW50IGNsYXVzZSwgInRoYXQiIHJl bWFpbnMgZnVsbHkgb3V0c2lkZQ0KPj4gdGhlIGNsYXVzZSAoaW4gYSB3YXkgdGhhdCB0aGUgIndo IiBwcm9ub3VucyBkbyBub3QuKSBGb3IgdGhhdCByZWFzb24sDQo+PiB3ZSBjYW4gc2F5ICJIaXMg d2lzaCB0aGF0IHNoZSB3b3VsZCBiZSBhdCBwZWFjZSB3YXMgZ3JhbnRlZCIgaW5jbHVkZXMNCj4+ IGEgY2xhdXNlICgidGhhdCBzaGUgd291bGQgYmUgYXQgcGVhY2UiKSB0aGF0IGlzIG1vcmUgbGlr ZSBhIGNvbnRlbnQNCj4+IGNsYXVzZSB0aGFuIGEgcmVsYXRpdmUuIFdlIGNhbiBhbHNvIHVzZSAi dGhhdCINCj4+IGFsb25nIHdpdGggIndoIiBwcm9ub3VucyBpbiBhIGNvbnRlbnQgY2xhdXNlLiAi SSBiZWxpZXZlIHRoYXQgd2hhdA0KPj4gc2hlIHNhaWQgd2FzIHJpZ2h0LiIgSW4gYSByZWxhdGl2 ZSBjbGF1c2UsIHdlIGhhdmUgbXVjaCBtb3JlIHRoZQ0KPj4gZmVlbGluZyB0aGF0IHdlIGFyZSBj aG9vc2luZyBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoZW0sIGFzIHdlIGRvIHdpdGggInRoYXQiIGFuZA0KPj4gIndoaWNo Ii4gU29tZSBib29rcyByZWNvbW1lbmQgInRoYXQiIGZvciByZXN0cmljdGl2ZSwgIndoaWNoIiBm b3INCj4+IG5vbi1yZXN0cmljdGl2ZS4gWW91IGhhdmUgbm90aGluZyBwYXJhbGxlbCB0byB0aGF0 IGNob2ljZSBpbiBjb250ZW50DQo+PiBjbGF1c2VzLg0KPj4gICAgIFNvICJ0aGF0IiBoYXMgc29t ZSBvdmVybGFwIHdpdGggdGhlICJ3aCIgcHJvbm91bnMgaW4gcmVsYXRpdmUNCj4+IGNsYXVzZXMg dGhhdCBpdCBkb2Vzbid0IGhhdmUgaW4gY29udGVudCBjbGF1c2VzLg0KPj4gICAgIEkgaGF2ZSBz ZWVuIGEgc3VkZGVuIGluY3JlYXNlIGluIGFuIGF3a3dhcmQgImluIHdoaWNoIiBwYXR0ZXJuLCBJ DQo+PiB0aGluayBjb21pbmcgb3V0IG9mIE5ldyBZb3JrIENpdHkuICJXZSB3ZXJlIGRyaXZpbmcg YSBjYXIgaW4gd2hpY2ggSQ0KPj4gYm91Z2h0IGZyb20gbXkgYnJvdGhlci4iIFRoYXQncyBub3Qg YW4gYWN0dWFsIGV4YW1wbGUsIHNvIEkgbWF5IGJlDQo+PiBkaXN0b3J0aW5nIHRoZSBjb250ZXh0 LCBidXQgaW4gdGhlIGNhc2VzIEkndmUgc2VlbiwgYW4gdW51c3VhbA0KPj4gbnVtYmVyLCB0aGUg ImluIg0KPj4gc2VlbXMgbm90IGF0IGFsbCBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZS4gSXQgZG9lcyBzZWVtIHRvIGNv bWUgbW9yZSBmcm9tIGEgc3Bva2VuDQo+PiBkaWFsZWN0Lg0KPj4NCj4+IENyYWlnDQo+PiBTZXRo LA0KPj4+IFRoYXQncyBvbmUgb2YgdGhlIGFyZ3VtZW50cyBJIGRpZG4ndCBnbyBpbnRvLiAgVGhl cmUgaXMgYSBoaWVyYXJjaHkNCj4+PiBvZiBncmFtbWF0aWNhbCByZWxhdGlvbnMgdGhhdCBnb3Zl cm5zIGFsbCBzb3J0cyBvZiBtb3ZlbWVudCBhbmQNCj4+PiBkZWxldGlvbiBwcm9jZXNzZXMgYWNy b3NzIGxhbmd1YWdlcywgY2FsbGVkIHRoZSBLZWVuYW4tQ29tcmllDQo+Pj4gQWNjZXNzaWJpbGl0 eSBIaWVyYXJjaHkuICBIZXJlJ3MgYW4gZXhhbXBsZSBmcm9tIHRoZSBXaWtpcGVkaWENCj4+PiBh cnRpY2xlIG9uIHRoZSBLQ0FILCB3aGljaCBpcyB3b3J0aCByZWFkaW5nOg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gU3Vi amVjdCAgICAgIFRoYXQncyB0aGUgbWFuIFt3aG8gcmFuIGF3YXldLiAgVGhlIGdpcmwgW3dobyBj YW1lIGxhdGVdDQo+Pj4gaXMgbXkNCj4+PiBzaXN0ZXIuDQo+Pj4gRGlyZWN0IG9iamVjdCAgICAg ICAgVGhhdCdzIHRoZSBtYW4gW0kgc2F3IHllc3RlcmRheV0uICAgICAgIFRoZSBnaXJsDQo+Pj4g W0thdGUgc2F3XSBpcw0KPj4+IG15IHNpc3Rlci4NCj4+PiBJbmRpcmVjdCBvYmplY3QgICAgICBU aGF0J3MgdGhlIG1hbiBbdG8gd2hvbSBJIGdhdmUgdGhlIGxldHRlcl0uDQo+Pj4gVGhlIGdpcmwN Cj4+PiBbd2hvbSBJIHdyb3RlIGEgbGV0dGVyIHRvXSBpcyBteSBzaXN0ZXIuDQo+Pj4gT2JsaXF1 ZSAgICAgIFRoYXQncyB0aGUgbWFuIFtJIHdhcyB0YWxraW5nIGFib3V0XS4gICBUaGUgZ2lybCBb d2hvbSBJDQo+Pj4gc2F0IG5leHQNCj4+PiB0b10gaXMgbXkgc2lzdGVyLg0KPj4+IEdlbml0aXZl ICAgICBUaGF0J3MgdGhlIG1hbiBbd2hvc2Ugc2lzdGVyIEkga25vd10uICAgVGhlIGdpcmwgW3do b3NlDQo+Pj4gZmF0aGVyDQo+Pj4gZGllZF0gdG9sZCBtZSBzaGUgd2FzIHNhZC4NCj4+PiBPYmog b2YgQ29tcCAgVGhhdCdzIHRoZSBtYW4gW0kgYW0gdGFsbGVyIHRoYW5dLiAgICAgIFRoZSBnaXJs IFt3aG8gS2F0ZQ0KPj4+IGlzDQo+Pj4gc21hcnRlciB0aGFuXSBpcyBteSBzaXN0ZXIuDQo+Pj4N Cj4+PiBOb3RpY2UgdGhhdCAidGhhdCIgY2FuIG9jY3VyIGluIHByZXBvc2l0aW9uYWwgcGhyYXNl cyBvbmx5IGlmIHRoZQ0KPj4+IHByZXBvc2l0aW9uIGlzIHN0cmFuZGVkLiAgIi4uLnRvIHRoYXQg SSB3YXMgdGFsa2luZyIgaXMgbm90IHBvc3NpYmxlLg0KPj4+IEFsc28sIHRoZSBnZW5pdGl2ZSwg YXMgSSBwb2ludGVkIG91dCBlYXJsaWVyLCBkb2VzIG5vdCBhbGxvdyAidGhhdC4iDQo+Pj4gVGhl c2UgYXJlIHByZWNpc2VseSB0aGUgcG9zaXRpb25zIGluIHdoaWNoIGFzeW5kZXRpYyByZWxhdGl2 ZXMgYXJlDQo+Pj4gYWxzbyB1bmdyYW1tYXRpY2FsLiAgVGhlcmUgaXMgYW4gZXh0ZW5zaW9uIG9m IHRoaXMgaW4gY29sbG9xdWlhbA0KPj4+IHNwZWVjaCBhbmQgaW4gbm9uLXN0YW5kYXJkIGRpYWxl Y3RzIHdoZXJlIHRoZSBnYXAgaW4gdGhlIHJlbGF0aXZlDQo+Pj4gY2xhdXNlIGlzIGZpbGxlZCBi eSBhIHJlc3VtcHRpdmUgcHJvbm91bi4gIFRoZXNlIG9jY3VyIGluIGdlbml0aXZlDQo+Pj4gYW5k IGNvbXBhcmF0aXZlcyBlc3BlY2lhbGx5LCBhbHRob3VnaCB0aGV5J2xsIGFsc28gb2NjdXIgaW4g bW9yZQ0KPj4+IGNvbXBsZXggY29uc3RydWN0aW9ucy4gIEFuIGV4YW1wbGUgd291bGQgYmUgIj9J J2QgbGlrZSB5b3UgdG8gbWVldA0KPj4+IHRoZSBwb2V0IHRoYXQgd2UgcmVhZCBhIGxvdCBvZiBo ZXIgd29yayBsYXN0IHllYXIuIiAgV2UgY2VydGFpbmx5DQo+Pj4gd291bGQgbm90IGFsbG93IHRo YXQgaW4gZm9ybWFsIHdyaXRpbmcsIGJ1dCBpdCdzIG5vdCBhdCBhbGwgdW51c3VhbA0KPj4+IGlu IHNwZWVjaC4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+IFRoZSBjb21wYXJhdGl2ZSBtYXJrZXIgInRoYW4iIGFjdHMgYSBs b3QgbGlrZSBhIHByZXBvc2l0aW9uIGluDQo+Pj4gRW5nbGlzaCwgYW5kIHNvIGlmIHdlIGNvbWJp bmUgaXQgd2l0aCBwcmVwb3NpdGlvbmFsIHBocmFzZXMsIHdoaWNoDQo+Pj4gaW4gdGhpcyB2ZXJz aW9uIGFyZSBjb2xsYXBzZWQgd2l0aCBpbmRpcmVjdCBvYmplY3RzLCB0aGVuIHdoYXQgd2UNCj4+ PiBzZWUgaXMgdGhhdCBhc3luZGV0aWMgcmVsYXRpdmVzIGFyZSBibG9ja2VkIG9ubHkgYXQgdGhl IGxvd2VzdCBsZXZlbA0KPj4+IG9mIHRoZSBoaWVyYXJjaHksIEdlbml0aXZlcy4gIFRoZSBmYWN0 IHRoYXQgInRoYXQiIGNhbid0IGJlIGRyb3BwZWQNCj4+PiBpZiB0aGUgZ2FwIGlzIGluIHN1Ympl Y3QgcG9zaXRpb24gaXMgYSBzZXBhcmF0ZSBwaGVub21lbm9uIHRoYXQgaXMNCj4+PiByZWxhdGVk IHRvIGxhbmd1YWdlIHByb2Nlc3NpbmcgbmVlZHMuICBPdGhlcndpc2UgdGhhdC1kZWxldGlvbiBp bg0KPj4+IG5vdW4gY2xhdXNlcyBhbmQgaW4gcmVsYXRpdmVzIGlzIHByZXR0eSBtdWNoIHRoZSBz YW1lIHJ1bGUuDQo+Pj4gVGhhdC1yZWxhdGl2ZXMgYW5kIHplcm8tcmVsYXRpdmVzIHRoZW4gZmFs bCB0b2dldGhlciBpbnRvIG9uZQ0KPj4+IHN1YmNsYXNzIG9mIHJlbGF0aXZlIGNsYXVzZXMgdGhh dCBiZWhhdmUgZGlmZmVyZW50bHkgZnJvbSB3aC1yZWxhdGl2ZXMuDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBUaGlzIGRp c3RpbmN0aW9uIGJldHdlZW4gdGhhdC0gYW5kIHdoLXJlbGF0aXZlcyByZWZsZWN0cyB0aGUgaGlz dG9yeQ0KPj4+IG9mIHRoZSBsYW5ndWFnZS4gIEhpc3RvcmljYWxseSwgRW5nbGlzaCBoYWQgb25s eSB0aGUgdGhhdC10eXBlIGFuZA0KPj4+IGFzeW5kZXRpYyByZWxhdGl2ZXMsIGFsdGhvdWdoIHRo ZSBzdWJvcmRpbmF0b3Igd2FzICJ0aGEiIHJhdGhlciB0aGFuDQo+Pj4gInRoYXQuIg0KPj4+IFRo aXMNCj4+PiBpcyBhIHJlZmxlY3Rpb24gb2YgdGhlIHN0cm9uZ2x5IHBhcmF0YWN0aWMgc3RydWN0 dXJlIG9mIE9sZCBFbmdsaXNoOg0KPj4+IG5vdCBhIGxvdCBvZiBzdWJvcmRpbmF0aW9uIGJ1dCBs b3RzIG9mIG1haW4gY2xhdXNlcyBpbiBzZXF1ZW5jZSwNCj4+PiBzb21ldGltZXMgY29uam9pbmVk IGJ5ICJhbmQuIiAgT2xkIEVuZ2xpc2ggZGlkIG5vdCBoYXZlIHdoLXJlbGF0aXZlcw0KPj4+IHVu dGlsIHRoZSBMYXRlIE9sZCBFbmdsaXNoIHBlcmlvZCB3aGVuIHRoZXkgZGV2ZWxvcGVkIHByb2Jh Ymx5IGZyb20NCj4+PiBpbmRlZmluaXRlIHJlbGF0aXZlcyB1bmRlciB0aGUgaW5mbHVlbmNlIG9m IExhdGluLCB3aGljaCB0aGUgc2NyaWJlcw0KPj4+IG9mIHRoZSB0aW1lIGtuZXcgd2VsbC4gIElu IExhdGluLCByZWxhdGl2ZSBjbGF1c2VzIGhhZCB0byBiZSBmb3JtZWQNCj4+PiB3aXRoIHJlbGF0 aXZlIHByb25vdW5zIGZ1bGx5IGluZmxlY3RlZCBmb3IgZ2VuZGVyLCBudW1iZXIsIGFuZCBjYXNl Lg0KPj4+IEFmdGVyIHRoZSBOb3JtYW4gQ29ucXVlc3QsIHdoZW4gdGhlIHRyYWRpdGlvbiBvZiBB bGZyZWQgdGhlIEdyZWF0J3MNCj4+PiBFbmdsaXNoIHNjcmlwdG9yaWEgd2FzIHN1cHByZXNzZWQs IHdoLXJlbGF0aXZlcyBhbHNvIGRpc2FwcGVhcmVkIGFuZA0KPj4+IGRpZG4ndCByZWFwcGVhciB1 bnRpbCB0aGUgbGF0ZSAxM3RoIGMuDQo+Pj4gd2hlbiwgb25jZSBhZ2FpbiwgTGF0aW4gaW5mbHVl bmNlZCB3cml0ZXJzIGJvcnJvd2VkIHRoZSBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUNCj4+PiBmcm9tIExhdGluLiAgV2gt cmVsYXRpdmVzIGV2ZW4gdG9kYXkgYXJlIG1vcmUgc3Ryb25nbHkgYSBmZWF0dXJlIG9mDQo+Pj4g ZWR1Y2F0ZWQgc3RhbmRhcmQgRW5nbGlzaCB0aGFuIG9mIG5vbi1zdGFuZGFyZCBkaWFsZWN0cywg d2hpY2ggdXNlDQo+Pj4gdGhhdC0gYW5kIHplcm8tIHJlbGF0aXZlcyBtdWNoIG1vcmUuICBJbiBm YWN0LCB3aC1yZWxhdGl2ZXMgYXJlDQo+Pj4gc3RpbGwgc28gbXVjaCBhIGZ1bmN0aW9uIG9mIGZv cm1hbCBlZHVjYXRpb24gYW5kIG9mIFN0YW5kYXJkIEVuZ2xpc2gNCj4+PiB0aGF0IHdoZW4gbm9u LXN0YW5kYXJkIHNwZWFrZXJzIGF0dGVtcHQgdG8gdXNlIHRoZSB3aC1wcm9ub3VucyB0bw0KPj4+ IGluaXRpYXRlIGNsYXVzZXMgdGhleSBmcmVxdWVudGx5IHVzZSB0aGVtIGluIHVudXN1YWwgd2F5 cywgYXMgaW4NCj4+PiBzZW50ZW5jZXMgbGlrZSAiV2Ugd2VyZSBnb2luZyB0byBoYXZlIGEgcGlj bmljIFNhdHVyZGF5LCB3aGljaCBpdCByYWluZWQuIg0KPj4+IFN1Y2ggd2gtY29vcmRpbmF0aW9u IGlzIG5vdCBhdCBhbGwgdW5jb21tb24gaW4gc3Bva2VuIG5vbi1zdGFuZGFyZA0KPj4+IGRpYWxl Y3RzLg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gSGVyYg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0N Cj4+PiBGcm9tOiBBc3NlbWJseSBmb3IgdGhlIFRlYWNoaW5nIG9mIEVuZ2xpc2ggR3JhbW1hcg0K Pj4+IFttYWlsdG86QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgS2F0eiwg U2V0aA0KPj4+IFNlbnQ6IEZyaWRheSwgRGVjZW1iZXIgMTcsIDIwMTAgMzowNCBQTQ0KPj4+IFRv OiBBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFUNCj4+PiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogTm91biBjbGF1c2Vz DQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBIZXksIEhlcmItLQ0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gVGhhbmtzIGZvciByZWNhcGl0dWxhdGlu ZyB0aGUgYXJndW1lbnQgZm9yIHRoYXQgYmVpbmcganVzdCBhDQo+Pj4gc3Vib3JkaW5hdG9yIGFu ZCBub3QgYSBwcm9ub3VuLiBZb3UgYWx3YXlzIG1ha2UgbWUgdGhpbmsuIEEgbG90LiBBDQo+Pj4g bmljZSBicmVhayBmcm9tIGdyYWRpbmcuDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBVbmxlc3MgSSBhbSBtaXN1bmRlcnN0 YW5kaW5nIHlvdSwgSSB3b3VsZCBub3RlIGFuIGV4Y2VwdGlvbiB0byBhDQo+Pj4gY2xhaW0geW91 IG1ha2UuICBZb3Ugc2F5DQo+Pj4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+ICogICAgICAgICBJdCBpcyBkZWxldGFibGUs IGxpa2UgdGhlIHN1Ym9yZGluYXRvciAidGhhdCIgYW5kIHVubGlrZQ0KPj4+IHByb25vdW5zLg0K Pj4+DQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBCdXQgdGhlIHdoLXByb25vdW5zIGFyZSBkZWxldGFibGUgaW4gYWRqZWN0 aXZlIGNsYXVzZXMsIHdoZW4gdGhlDQo+Pj4gcHJvbm91biBmaWxscyB0aGUgZGlyZWN0IG9iamVj dCByb2xlIGluIHRoZSBkZXBlbmRlbnQgY2xhdXNlLCBhcyBpbg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gVGhlIHdvbWFu IHdob20geW91IG1ldCB0aGlzIG1vcm5pbmcgaXMgYW4gb2xkIGZyaWVuZCBvZiBtaW5lLg0KPj4+ IFRoZSB3b21hbiBfX19fXyB5b3UgbWV0IHRoaXMgbW9ybmluZyBpcyBhbiBvbGQgZnJpZW5kIG9m IG1pbmUuDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBBbSBJIG1pc3Npbmcgc29tZXRoaW5nIGluIHdoYXQgeW91IHNhaWQ/ DQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBIYXBweSBlbmQtb2Ytc2VtZXN0ZXItLQ0KPj4+IFNldGgNCj4+Pg0KPj4+IERy LiBTZXRoIEthdHoNCj4+PiBBc3Npc3RhbnQgUHJvZmVzc29yDQo+Pj4gRGVwYXJ0bWVudCBvZiBF bmdsaXNoDQo+Pj4gQnJhZGxleSBVbml2ZXJzaXR5DQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBGYWN1bHR5IEFkdmlzb3IN Cj4+PiBCcmFkbGV5IFVuaXZlcnNpdHkgSGlsbGVsDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gRnJvbTogQXNzZW1ibHkgZm9yIHRoZSBUZWFjaGlu ZyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXIgb24gYmVoYWxmIG9mDQo+Pj4gU3RhaGxrZSwgSGVyYmVydCBG LlcuDQo+Pj4gU2VudDogRnJpIDEyLzE3LzIwMTAgMTI6NDUgUE0NCj4+PiBUbzogQVRFR0BMSVNU U0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVDQo+Pj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IE5vdW4gY2xhdXNlcw0KPj4+DQo+Pj4N Cj4+Pg0KPj4+IEpvaG4sDQo+Pj4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gV2UndmUgaGFkIHNvbWUgZXh0ZW5z aXZlIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gaW4gcGFzdCB5ZWFycyBvbiB0aGUgc3RhdHVzIG9mDQo+Pj4gInRoYXQi DQo+Pj4gaW4gY2xhdXNlcyBsaWtlIHRoZXNlLiBUaGVyZSBoYXMgbm90IGJlZW4gY29tcGxldGUg YWdyZWVtZW50IG9uIGFsbA0KPj4+IG9mIGl0LCBidXQgaGVyZSdzIHRoZSBwb3NpdGlvbiBJJ3Zl IHRha2VuLCB3aGljaCBpcyBhbHNvIHRoZQ0KPj4+IHBvc2l0aW9uIG9mIE90dG8gSmVzcGVyc2Vu IGluIGhpcyBBIE1vZGVybiBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXIgb24NCj4+PiBIaXN0b3JpY2FsIFByaW5j aXBsZXMgYW5kIEh1ZGRsZXN0b24mICBQdWxsdW0gaW4gdGhlaXIgcmF0aGVyIG1vcmUNCj4+PiBy ZWNlbnQgQ2FtYnJpZGdlIEdyYW1tYXIgb2YgdGhlIEVuZ2xpc2ggTGFuZ3VhZ2UuDQo+Pj4NCj4+ Pg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gVGhlcmUgYXJlIHR3byBmdW5jdGlvbiB3b3JkcyAidGhhdCIgaW4gRW5nbGlz aC4gIE9uZSBpcyB0aGUgZGlzdGFsDQo+Pj4gZGVtb25zdHJhdGl2ZSAidGhhdCIgd2l0aCBpdHMg cGx1cmFsICJ0aGVzZSwiIGFuZCB0aGUgb3RoZXIgaXMgdGhlDQo+Pj4gc3Vib3JkaW5hdG9yICJ0 aGF0IiBhcyBmb3VuZCBpbiB0aGUgY2xhdXNlcyB5b3UgaGF2ZSBwcm92aWRlZC4gIFdoZW4NCj4+ PiAidGhhdCIgaXMgdXNlZCB0byBpbnRyb2R1Y2UgYSByZWxhdGl2ZSBjbGF1c2UsIGl0IGlzIHNp bXBseSBhDQo+Pj4gc3Vib3JkaW5hdG9yLCBub3QgYSByZWxhdGl2ZSBwcm9ub3VuLiAgVGhlIHJl bGF0aXZlIHByb25vdW5zIGFyZSB0aGUNCj4+PiB3aC0gd29yZHMuICBUaGlzIGFuYWx5c2lzIGlt cGxpZXMgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBpcyBhIGdhcCBpbiB0aGUNCj4+PiByZWxhdGl2ZSBjbGF1c2UgY29y cmVzcG9uZGluZyB0byB0aGUgaGVhZCBub3VuLCBzbyBpbiAiVGhlIHBpdGNoZXMNCj4+PiB0aGF0 IENhc2V5IG1pc3NlZC4uLiINCj4+PiB0aGUgZ2FwIGlzIGluIGRpcmVjdCBvYmplY3QgcG9zaXRp b24gd2hlcmUgInBpdGNoZXMiIHdvdWxkIGJlIGlmIHRoZQ0KPj4+IHJlbGF0aXZlIGNsYXVzZSB3 ZXJlIGEgbWFpbiBjbGF1c2UgaW5zdGVhZC4gIElmIGl0J3MgdGhlIHN1YmplY3QNCj4+PiB0aGF0 IGlzIHplcm8sIG1vc3Qgc3BlYWtlcnMgcmVxdWlyZSAidGhhdCIgdG8gYXZvaWQgcHJvY2Vzc2lu Zw0KPj4+IHByb2JsZW1zIHRoYXQgYXJpc2Ugd2hlbiBhIHNlY29uZCBmaW5pdGUgdmVyYiBvY2N1 cnMgaW4gYSBzZW50ZW5jZQ0KPj4+IHdpdGhvdXQgYW55IG92ZXJ0IG1hcmtpbmcgdGhhdCBpdCBp cyBpbiBhIHN1Ym9yZGluYXRlIGNsYXVzZSwgc28gaW4NCj4+PiAiVGhlIGJhbGwgdGhhdCBnb3Qg cGFzdCBDYXNleSB3YXMgYSBzdHJpa2UiIHRoZSBkcm9wcGluZyBvZiAidGhhdCINCj4+PiB3b3Vs ZCBsZWF2ZSAiVGhlIGJhbGwgZ290IHBhc3QgQ2FzZXkgd2FzIGEgc3RyaWtlIiB3aGljaCBzb21l DQo+Pj4gc3BlYWtlcnMgd2lsbCB1c2UgYnV0IHdyaXRlcnMgd2lsbCBhdm9pZC4NCj4+PiBUaGUN Cj4+PiBmYWN0IHRoYXQgInRoYXQiIGlzIHJlcXVpcmVkIHRoZXJlIGZvciBjbGFyaXR5IGlzIG5v dCBldmlkZW5jZSB0aGF0DQo+Pj4gaXQncyBhIHJlbGF0aXZlIHByb25vdW4gYnV0IHNpbXBseSBh IHJlc3RyaWN0aW9uIG9uIGJhcmUgb3INCj4+PiBhc3luZGV0aWMgcmVsYXRpdmUgY2xhdXNlcy4N Cj4+Pg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBUaGVyZSBhcmUgc2V2ZXJhbCByZWFzb25zIGZvciBjYWxsaW5n ICJ0aGF0IiBhIHN1Ym9yZGluYXRvciBpbiBhbGwNCj4+PiBvZiBpdHMgbm9uLWRlbW9uc3RyYXRp dmUgdXNlcy4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4NCj4+PiAqICAgICAgICAgSXQncyBhbHdheXMgdW5zdHJl c3NlZCwgYXMgaXMgdGhlIHN1Ym9yZGluYXRvciAidGhhdC4iDQo+Pj4gUHJvbm9taW5hbCBhbmQg ZGV0ZXJtaW5lciAidGhhdCIgYXJlIHJhcmVseSB1bnN0cmVzc2VkLg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gKiAgICAg ICAgIElmIGl0IHdlcmUgYSBwcm9ub3VuIGluIHJlbGF0aXZlIGNsYXVzZXMsIHRoZW4gd2Ugd291 bGQNCj4+PiBleHBlY3QNCj4+PiBpdCB0byBoYXZlIGEgcGx1cmFsICJ0aG9zZSIgaW4gIipUaGUg cGl0Y2hlcyB0aG9zZSBDYXNleSBtaXNzZWQuLi4uIg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gKiAgICAgICAgIFRoZXJl IGlzIG5vIHBvc3Nlc3NpdmUgZm9ybSwgYWx0aG91Z2ggdGhlcmUgaXMgZm9yIHdoLQ0KPj4+IHJl bGF0aXZlcywgc28gd2UgY2FuJ3Qgc2F5ICIqVGhlIGJhbGwgdGhhdCdzIGNhc2luZyBjYW1lIG9m Zi4uLi4iDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiAqICAgICAgICAgSXQgaXMgZGVsZXRhYmxlLCBsaWtlIHRoZSBzdWJv cmRpbmF0b3IgInRoYXQiIGFuZCB1bmxpa2UNCj4+PiBwcm9ub3Vucy4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4N Cj4+PiBUaGVyZSBhcmUgbW9yZSBhcmd1bWVudCwgYW5kIEkgcmVjb21tZW5kIHRoZSB0cmVhdG1l bnQgaW4NCj4+PiBIdWRkbGVzdG9uJiBQdWxsdW0uICBUaGVyZSBpcyBhbHNvIGEgdmVyeSB0aG9y b3VnaCBjcml0aXF1ZSBvZiB0aGlzDQo+Pj4gYW5hbHlzaXMgYnkgSm9oYW4gdmFuIGRlciBBdXdl cmEgaW4gSm91cm5hbCBvZiBMaW5ndWlzdGljcyAyMQ0KPj4+ICgxOTg1KSwgMTQ5LTE3OSB0aXRs ZWQgIlJlbGF0aXZlIHRoYXQgLSBhIGNlbnRlbm5pYWwgZGlzcHV0ZS4gIEl0J3MNCj4+PiBhIGZh c2NpbmF0aW5nLCB0aG91Z2h0ZnVsLCBhbmQgaW5jaXNpdmUgY3JpdGlxdWUuDQo+Pj4NCj4+Pg0K Pj4+DQo+Pj4gSGVyYg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+IEZyb206IEFzc2VtYmx5IGZvciB0aGUg VGVhY2hpbmcgb2YgRW5nbGlzaCBHcmFtbWFyDQo+Pj4gW21haWx0bzpBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1V T0hJTy5FRFVdIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBKb2huIENob3JhenkNCj4+PiBTZW50OiBGcmlkYXksIERl Y2VtYmVyIDE3LCAyMDEwIDEyOjIxIFBNDQo+Pj4gVG86IEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVE VQ0KPj4+IFN1YmplY3Q6IE5vdW4gY2xhdXNlcw0KPj4+DQo+Pj4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+IEhlbGxvIHRv IGFsbC4uLiBJJ3ZlIGJlZW4gdGFsa2luZyB3aXRoIHN0dWRlbnRzICgxMXRoIGdyYWRlKSBhYm91 dA0KPj4+IGNsYXVzZXMgYW5kIGhhdmUgY29sbGVjdGVkIHNvbWUgcXVlc3Rpb25zIHRoYXQgdGhl IGxpc3QgbWlnaHQgaGF2ZQ0KPj4+IHNvbWUgdGhvdWdodHMgb24uDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBUaGUgdXNl IG9mICJ0aGF0IiBhcyB0aGUgaGVhZCBvZiBhIG5vdW4gY2xhdXNlIChhbmQgc3ViamVjdCk6ICJU aGF0DQo+Pj4gdGhlIGhlYWx0aGNhcmUgc3lzdGVtIG5lZWRzIGZpeGluZyBpcyBvYnZpb3VzLiIN Cj4+Pg0KPj4+ICJUaGF0IiB1c2VkIGluIGFuIGFkamVjdGl2ZSBwaHJhc2U6ICJVbmxpa2UgdGhl IGNhdCB0aGF0IHNsZXB0IGFsbA0KPj4+IGRheSwgdGhlIGRvZyByYW4gYXJvdW5kIGFuZCBiYXJr ZWQuIg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gQW5kIGlmIHdlIGNhbiBnZXQgc29tZSBpbnNpZ2h0IHRvIHRoZSBmb2xs b3dpbmcgdXNlIG9mICJ0aGF0IjogIkx5bm4NCj4+PiBNYXJndWxpcycgdGhlb3J5IHRoYXQgZXZv bHV0aW9uIGlzIGEgcHJvY2VzcyByYXRoZXIgdGhhbiBhDQo+Pj4gY29tcGV0aXRpb24gZGlmZmVy cyBkcmFtYXRpY2FsbHkgZnJvbSB0aGUgdGhlb3JpZXMgb2YgbW9zdCBiaW9sb2dpc3RzLiINCj4+ Pg0KPj4+IEFyZSB0aGUgbGFzdCB0d28gc2ltcGx5IHJlc3RyaWN0aXZlIGNsYXVzZXMgdXNpbmcg dGhlIHJlbGF0aXZlIHByb25vdW4/DQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBBbHNvIChhIGJpdCBkaWZmZXJlbnQpIC0g YW55b25lIGNhcmUgdG8gcGFyc2UgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZz8gIlNob3VsZA0KPj4+IHlvdSBoYXZl IGFueSB0cm91YmxlIGlkZW50aWZ5aW5nIHRoZSBob3VzZSwganVzdCByZW1lbWJlciB0aGF0IGl0 DQo+Pj4gaGFzIGEgYmlnIGJyYXNzIGtub2NrZXIgb24gdGhlIGRvb3IuIiBTdHVkZW50cyBzZWUg dGhlIGltcGxpZWQgInlvdSINCj4+PiBhcyB0aGUgc3ViamVjdCBhbmQgaXRzIHZlcmIgcmVtZW1i ZXIsIGJ1dCBub3Qgd2hhdCdzIGdvaW5nIG9uIHVwIGZyb250Lg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gVGhhbmsgeW91 IHZlcnkgbXVjaCENCj4+Pg0KPj4+IFNpbmNlcmVseSwNCj4+Pg0KPj4+IEpvaG4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+ DQo+Pj4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+IEpvaG4gQ2hvcmF6eQ0KPj4+IEVuZ2xpc2gg SUlJIEFjYWRlbXksIEhvbm9ycywgYW5kIEFjYWRlbWljIFBlcXVhbm5vY2sgVG93bnNoaXAgSGln aA0KPj4+IFNjaG9vbA0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gTnVsbGEgZGllcyBzaW5lIGxpbmVhLiBUbyBqb2luIG9y IGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlDQo+Pj4gdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3 ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0Og0KPj4+IGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVz L2F0ZWcuaHRtbA0KPj4+IGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQo+Pj4N Cj4+PiBWaXNpdCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL2F0ZWcub3JnLw0KPj4+DQo+Pj4g VG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlz dCdzIHdlYg0KPj4+IGludGVyZmFjZQ0KPj4+IGF0OiBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVk dS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwgYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbg0KPj4+IG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoZSBs aXN0Ig0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8N Cj4+Pg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gVG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFz ZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYg0KPj4+IGludGVyZmFjZQ0KPj4+IGF0Og0KPj4+ICAgICAg IGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbA0KPj4+IGFuZCBz ZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQo+Pj4NCj4+PiBWaXNpdCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2Vi IHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL2F0ZWcub3JnLw0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gVG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlz IExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYg0KPj4+IGludGVyZmFj ZQ0KPj4+IGF0Og0KPj4+ICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVz L2F0ZWcuaHRtbA0KPj4+IGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQo+Pj4N Cj4+PiBWaXNpdCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL2F0ZWcub3JnLw0KPj4+DQo+PiBU byBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0 J3Mgd2ViDQo+PiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6DQo+PiAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlv LmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwNCj4+IGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhl IGxpc3QiDQo+Pg0KPj4gVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8N Cj4+DQo+PiBUbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0 IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViDQo+PiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6DQo+PiAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNl cnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwNCj4+IGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3Ig bGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQo+Pg0KPj4gVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9h dGVnLm9yZy8NCj4+DQo+Pg0KPg0KPiBUbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlz dCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViDQo+IGludGVyZmFjZQ0KPiBhdDoNCj4gICAg ICBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwNCj4gYW5kIHNl bGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCINCj4NCj4gVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRl IGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8NCj4NCj4gVG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJW IGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYg0KPiBpbnRlcmZhY2UNCj4gYXQ6DQo+ ICAgICAgaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sDQo+IGFu ZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQo+DQo+IFZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIg c2l0ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvDQo+DQoNClRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNU U0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0Og0KICAg ICBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwNCmFuZCBzZWxl Y3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQoNClZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCBo dHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvDQoNCg0K ========================================================================Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 09:45:07 -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: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Noun clauses MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Herb, I make those identifying versus descriptive decisions (restrictive versus nonrestrictive in traditional terms) all the time when writing and editing, so it may be that this has deeply influenced my thinking. Many storms that come up the coast stall off shore.... The storm of December 12, which came up the coast, stalled off shore. Since restrictive versus nonrestrictive seems the main decision, it probably influences my belief that these are otherwise functioning the same. Also, if I believe "that" can't delete when the null element would be in subject position, it seems sensible to believe that "that" is standing in that slot in some sort of way. Are these thought processes irrelevant? The language is very much a written language for many of us. I googled "that's" and came up with a huge number of hits, the great majority of the "that's life" variety. But a sizeable number also occur in relative clauses, maybe the most famous being the New York Times motto: "all the news that's fit to print." "All the news is fit to print" would of course change the meaning drastically, as would "all the news, which is fit to print." Do we have other subordinators that contract with finite verbs? I can't think of any. Maybe we have a round hole and a square hole and are trying to figure out where to put our triangular peg. Craig Bruce, > > You make essentially the point about relative clauses that Dwight Bolinger > made in his typically marvelous little book That's That (Mouton 1972) > about the presence and absence of the subordinator "that" at the beginning > of content clauses. It's been a while, about 35 years, since I read the > book, and my copy is long gone, but it’s a very careful and incisive > discussion of the differences between content clauses with "that" and > without "that." > > Herb > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:07 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Noun clauses > > Craig (& Herb), > > These examples seem a little messed up to me, as there seems to be another > possibility. You folks have tried to be formal about the distinction > between persons and things. But it seems to me that the real distinction > relevant to the deletion has to do with the identifying function of > "that." This is opposed to the descriptive function of "who" "whom" etc. > Lexical gaps seem to have allowed these two dimensions (person vs. thing > and indentity vs. description) to cross over. I think its a lot like the > transitive vs. intransitive of "set/sit," "lay,lie" getting mixed up with > an animate vs. inanimate distinction (or human vs. non-human, depending on > the pressure of other forms). > > Example: "Anyone who touches you touches me." This is descriptive of > the indefinite person, still indefinite. > "Anyone that touches you touches me." This is meant to more > fully identify the indefinite person. Now it seems > appropriate to refer the person as "that person." The same > thing is distinguishable in object position: > "Anyone whom you touch touches me." > "Anyone that you touch touches me." > "Anyone you touch touches me." Now there is little doubt > that the person has been identified. > Deletion is possible in the second example, but not the first, because > it is "that," the identifier that is being deleted. When the > indefinite pronoun is changed to "anything," the "who" option cannot > get in the way. But then, when the "which" option is taken, we are > dealing with a description that does not serve as an identifier. We > refer to these objects as "such a person" or "such a thing." The > demonstrative "that" is no longer appropriate. > > The restrictive nature of the adjective clause in "that" follows from its > identifying function. The non-restrictive possibilities with "who, which" > follow from their essential descriptive function. When the latter > connectives are used restrictively, their descriptive function is apt to > get overlooked when decisions are made about whether the identifying > "that" might be more appropriate. > > Bruce > > --- [log in to unmask] wrote: > > From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Noun clauses > Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:54:22 -0500 > > Herb, > It has always been my understanding that finite subordinate clauses > require an explicit subject. That may be one reason why the relative > can't be dropped if it's in subject role. > Example: "Anyone who touches you touches me." > "Anyone [whom] you touch touches me." > Deletion is possible in the second example, but not the first. > > Example: "Anything that touches you touches me." > "Anything [that]you touch touches me." > Deletion is possible in the second, but not the first. > > There is nothing parallel to that with content clauses since the > "that" remains fully outside the clause and is never used to stand in > (or place hold)for a missing subject. Relative clauses and content > clauses have formal (not just functional) differences. > > Craig > > >> Craig, >> >> My problem with saying that it sometimes has a place holding function >> is that it's an impressionistic statement. If we ask what it's doing >> in a particular clause we can't provide any sort of evidence for a >> solution different form subordinator. A statement like yours follows >> from certain assumptions, but the assumptions themselves, for example, >> that "that" is a relative pronoun, are difficult to support. >> Historical change gives us some help but must be interpreted very >> cautiously, which is why I'm not willing to say that pronominal status >> has not developed beyond the non-standard genitive use. >> >> Besides a general feeling about it, how can you argue that relative >> "that" is performing a function in the relative clause, an argument >> that can't be handled as well or better by deletion under identity? >> >> Herb >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock >> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 10:22 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >> >> Herb, >> I might be content with saying that relative "that" acts in ways >> that are very unique and that make it hard to classify. The important >> work is in describing how it acts. In content clauses, it is always >> outside the clause, but in relative clauses, it sometimes has a place >> holding function. The category we place it in depends on how we draw >> the lines for the category. >> >> Craig >> >> On 12/18/2010 10:13 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: >>> Craig, >>> >>> A question was raised off-list about whether "that" is taking on some >>> pronoun function in the genitive in non-standard varieties. This >>> appears to be the case. I like your examples showing that rel-that >>> and conj-that behave alike, but I think the spelling identity of the >>> subordinator and the demonstrative leads speakers to identify them >>> with each other, even if their history and their syntax and morphology >>> argue >>> otherwise. In a non-standard construction like "Did you see a book >>> that's cover was torn?" "that's" is clearly pronominal. I think >>> "that's" arises by analogy to the genitive pronouns >>> yours/his/hers/its/ours/theirs even though those can't be used as >>> determiners. (And, by the way, I think the spelling should be >>> "thats," >>> without the apostrophe, like the other genitive pronouns. Microsoft >>> Word keeps putting in the apostrophe for some reason.) Analogical >>> change is by its very nature irregular, and so that fact that >>> genitive "thats" is developing in non-standard usage tells us nothing >>> about what's happening categorially to "that" in other relative >>> constructions. >>> Remember Sturtevant's Paradox: Sound change is regular and >>> produces irregularity; analogical change is irregular and produces >>> regularity. >>> >>> On morphosyntactic grounds, I maintain the arguments that relative >>> "that" is not a pronoun. We can gain insight into how the grammar of >>> "that" is changing only by extrapolating from examples of usage. We >>> can't do much with people's naïve feeling and hunches about grammar, >>> and I know you're not suggesting that. >>> >>> Herb >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock >>> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:38 AM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >>> >>> Herb, >>> You and I have been over this one before and I don't want to >>> just repeat that. But I do have a question. When "that" is required >>> in the subject slot of a relative clause (As in "Anything that >>> touches you touches me") is "that" simply holding down a slot (for >>> sentence processing ease)or is it actually acting as subject in that >>> relative clause? >>> My current sense of this is that it's more a matter of drawing >>> classification lines than it is of disputing how this stuff works. >>> The dynamics of a relative clause are different from the dynamics of >>> a content clause BECAUSE DELETION OF A SENTENCE ELEMENT DOESN'T OCCUR >>> IN CONTENT CLAUSES. In a content clause, "that" remains fully outside >>> the clause (in a way that the "wh" pronouns do not.) For that reason, >>> we can say "His wish that she would be at peace was granted" includes >>> a clause ("that she would be at peace") that is more like a content >>> clause than a relative. We can also use "that" >>> along with "wh" pronouns in a content clause. "I believe that what >>> she said was right." In a relative clause, we have much more the >>> feeling that we are choosing between them, as we do with "that" and >>> "which". Some books recommend "that" for restrictive, "which" for >>> non-restrictive. You have nothing parallel to that choice in content >>> clauses. >>> So "that" has some overlap with the "wh" pronouns in relative >>> clauses that it doesn't have in content clauses. >>> I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I >>> think coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I >>> bought from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be >>> distorting the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual >>> number, the "in" >>> seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken >>> dialect. >>> >>> Craig >>> Seth, >>>> That's one of the arguments I didn't go into. There is a hierarchy >>>> of grammatical relations that governs all sorts of movement and >>>> deletion processes across languages, called the Keenan-Comrie >>>> Accessibility Hierarchy. Here's an example from the Wikipedia >>>> article on the KCAH, which is worth reading: >>>> >>>> Subject That's the man [who ran away]. The girl [who came late] >>>> is my >>>> sister. >>>> Direct object That's the man [I saw yesterday]. The girl >>>> [Kate saw] is >>>> my sister. >>>> Indirect object That's the man [to whom I gave the letter]. >>>> The girl >>>> [whom I wrote a letter to] is my sister. >>>> Oblique That's the man [I was talking about]. The girl [whom I >>>> sat next >>>> to] is my sister. >>>> Genitive That's the man [whose sister I know]. The girl [whose >>>> father >>>> died] told me she was sad. >>>> Obj of Comp That's the man [I am taller than]. The girl [who >>>> Kate >>>> is >>>> smarter than] is my sister. >>>> >>>> Notice that "that" can occur in prepositional phrases only if the >>>> preposition is stranded. "...to that I was talking" is not possible. >>>> Also, the genitive, as I pointed out earlier, does not allow "that." >>>> These are precisely the positions in which asyndetic relatives are >>>> also ungrammatical. There is an extension of this in colloquial >>>> speech and in non-standard dialects where the gap in the relative >>>> clause is filled by a resumptive pronoun. These occur in genitive >>>> and comparatives especially, although they'll also occur in more >>>> complex constructions. An example would be "?I'd like you to meet >>>> the poet that we read a lot of her work last year." We certainly >>>> would not allow that in formal writing, but it's not at all unusual >>>> in speech. >>>> >>>> The comparative marker "than" acts a lot like a preposition in >>>> English, and so if we combine it with prepositional phrases, which >>>> in this version are collapsed with indirect objects, then what we >>>> see is that asyndetic relatives are blocked only at the lowest level >>>> of the hierarchy, Genitives. The fact that "that" can't be dropped >>>> if the gap is in subject position is a separate phenomenon that is >>>> related to language processing needs. Otherwise that-deletion in >>>> noun clauses and in relatives is pretty much the same rule. >>>> That-relatives and zero-relatives then fall together into one >>>> subclass of relative clauses that behave differently from >>>> wh-relatives. >>>> >>>> This distinction between that- and wh-relatives reflects the history >>>> of the language. Historically, English had only the that-type and >>>> asyndetic relatives, although the subordinator was "tha" rather than >>>> "that." >>>> This >>>> is a reflection of the strongly paratactic structure of Old English: >>>> not a lot of subordination but lots of main clauses in sequence, >>>> sometimes conjoined by "and." Old English did not have wh-relatives >>>> until the Late Old English period when they developed probably from >>>> indefinite relatives under the influence of Latin, which the scribes >>>> of the time knew well. In Latin, relative clauses had to be formed >>>> with relative pronouns fully inflected for gender, number, and case. >>>> After the Norman Conquest, when the tradition of Alfred the Great's >>>> English scriptoria was suppressed, wh-relatives also disappeared and >>>> didn't reappear until the late 13th c. >>>> when, once again, Latin influenced writers borrowed the structure >>>> from Latin. Wh-relatives even today are more strongly a feature of >>>> educated standard English than of non-standard dialects, which use >>>> that- and zero- relatives much more. In fact, wh-relatives are >>>> still so much a function of formal education and of Standard English >>>> that when non-standard speakers attempt to use the wh-pronouns to >>>> initiate clauses they frequently use them in unusual ways, as in >>>> sentences like "We were going to have a picnic Saturday, which it >>>> rained." >>>> Such wh-coordination is not at all uncommon in spoken non-standard >>>> dialects. >>>> >>>> Herb >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth >>>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:04 PM >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >>>> >>>> Hey, Herb-- >>>> >>>> Thanks for recapitulating the argument for that being just a >>>> subordinator and not a pronoun. You always make me think. A lot. A >>>> nice break from grading. >>>> >>>> Unless I am misunderstanding you, I would note an exception to a >>>> claim you make. You say >>>> >>>> >>>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike >>>> pronouns. >>>> >>>> >>>> But the wh-pronouns are deletable in adjective clauses, when the >>>> pronoun fills the direct object role in the dependent clause, as in >>>> >>>> The woman whom you met this morning is an old friend of mine. >>>> The woman _____ you met this morning is an old friend of mine. >>>> >>>> Am I missing something in what you said? >>>> >>>> Happy end-of-semester-- >>>> Seth >>>> >>>> Dr. Seth Katz >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Department of English >>>> Bradley University >>>> >>>> Faculty Advisor >>>> Bradley University Hillel >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >>>> Stahlke, Herbert F.W. >>>> Sent: Fri 12/17/2010 12:45 PM >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> John, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of >>>> "that" >>>> in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all >>>> of it, but here's the position I've taken, which is also the >>>> position of Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on >>>> Historical Principles and Huddleston& Pullum in their rather more >>>> recent Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There are two function words "that" in English. One is the distal >>>> demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the other is the >>>> subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you have provided. When >>>> "that" is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a >>>> subordinator, not a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns are the >>>> wh- words. This analysis implies that there is a gap in the >>>> relative clause corresponding to the head noun, so in "The pitches >>>> that Casey missed..." >>>> the gap is in direct object position where "pitches" would be if the >>>> relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the subject >>>> that is zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid processing >>>> problems that arise when a second finite verb occurs in a sentence >>>> without any overt marking that it is in a subordinate clause, so in >>>> "The ball that got past Casey was a strike" the dropping of "that" >>>> would leave "The ball got past Casey was a strike" which some >>>> speakers will use but writers will avoid. >>>> The >>>> fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not evidence that >>>> it's a relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or >>>> asyndetic relative clauses. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in all >>>> of its non-demonstrative uses. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that." >>>> Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed. >>>> >>>> * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would >>>> expect >>>> it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those Casey missed...." >>>> >>>> * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh- >>>> relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...." >>>> >>>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike >>>> pronouns. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in >>>> Huddleston& Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of this >>>> analysis by Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21 >>>> (1985), 149-179 titled "Relative that - a centennial dispute. It's >>>> a fascinating, thoughtful, and incisive critique. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Herb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy >>>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> Subject: Noun clauses >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about >>>> clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have >>>> some thoughts on. >>>> >>>> The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That >>>> the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious." >>>> >>>> "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all >>>> day, the dog ran around and barked." >>>> >>>> And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn >>>> Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a >>>> competition differs dramatically from the theories of most >>>> biologists." >>>> >>>> Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative >>>> pronoun? >>>> >>>> Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should >>>> you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it >>>> has a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" >>>> as the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up >>>> front. >>>> >>>> Thank you very much! >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> John Chorazy >>>> English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High >>>> School >>>> >>>> Nulla dies sine linea. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please >>>> visit the list's web interface at: >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>> >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>> interface >>>> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join >>>> or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>> interface >>>> at: >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>> >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>> interface >>>> at: >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >>> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 21 Dec 2010 07:56:30 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Comments: RFC822 error: Invalid RFC822 field - "OK, s=". Rest of header flushed. From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-939207997-1292946990=:16231" --0-939207997-1292946990=:16231 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bruce Despain wrote: It is easy to make up such examples.    OK, show us one.   ~~~~~ Brad had written:)  It is written that there is no such thing as a correct (i.e., reasonable) past perfect progressive. I challenge you to find one. I'll bet you can't do it.   .brad.21dec10. (Winter Solstice) To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-939207997-1292946990=:16231 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Bruce Despain wrote: It is easy to make up such examples. 
 
OK, show us one.
 
~~~~~
 
Brad had written:)  It is written that there is no such thing as a correct (i.e., reasonable) past perfect progressive. I challenge you to find one. I'll bet you can't do it.
 
.brad.21dec10. (Winter Solstice)

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-939207997-1292946990=:16231-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:02:06 -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: RALPH HUTSELL <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01CBA106.E36146F0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01CBA106.E36146F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If I were to believe all the hogwash he dishes out to me about the future, I shall have been being taken for a ride. ----- Original Message ----- From: Brad Johnston To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:56 AM Subject: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge Bruce Despain wrote: It is easy to make up such examples. OK, show us one. ~~~~~ Brad had written:) It is written that there is no such thing as a correct (i.e., reasonable) past perfect progressive. I challenge you to find one. I'll bet you can't do it. .brad.21dec10. (Winter Solstice) To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0004_01CBA106.E36146F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

If I were to believe all the hogwash he dishes out to me about the future, I shall have been being taken for a ride.
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Brad Johnston
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:56 AM
Subject: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge

Bruce Despain wrote: It is easy to make up such examples. 
 
OK, show us one.
 
~~~~~
 
Brad had written:)  It is written that there is no such thing as a correct (i.e., reasonable) past perfect progressive. I challenge you to find one. I'll bet you can't do it.
 
.brad.21dec10. (Winter Solstice)

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0004_01CBA106.E36146F0-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 13:11:43 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Comments: RFC822 error: Invalid RFC822 field - "At first=". Rest of header flushed. From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-2070665470-1292965903=:12375" --0-2070665470-1292965903=:12375 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hutsell? hogwash? to you? future? Qu'est-ce qui se passe?   At first glance, I thought it was Despain dodging but he seemed confident, so I'm sure he'll be along i.d.c. Let's see, Ralph, while you're on the line, can you either find or create a reasonable sentence using the "past perfect progressive"?  I'm trying to either confirm or discount the assertion that there is no such thing. .brad.21dec10. ________________________________ From: RALPH HUTSELL <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tue, December 21, 2010 1:02:06 PM Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge If I were to believe all the hogwash he dishes out to me about the future, I shall have been being taken for a ride. ----- Original Message ----- >From: Brad Johnston >To: [log in to unmask] >Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:56 AM >Subject: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge > > >Bruce Despain wrote: It is easy to make up such examples.  >  >OK, show us one. >  >~~~~~ > >Brad had written:)  It is written that there is no such thing as a correct >(i.e., reasonable) past perfect progressive. I challenge you to find one. I'll >bet you can't do it. >  >.brad.21dec10. (Winter Solstice) > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-2070665470-1292965903=:12375 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hutsell? hogwash? to you? future? Qu'est-ce qui se passe?
 
At first glance, I thought it was Despain dodging but he seemed confident, so I'm sure he'll be along i.d.c.
 
Let's see, Ralph, while you're on the line, can you either find or create a reasonable sentence using the "past perfect progressive"?  I'm trying to either confirm or discount the assertion that there is no such thing.
 
.brad.21dec10.

From: RALPH HUTSELL <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, December 21, 2010 1:02:06 PM
Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge

If I were to believe all the hogwash he dishes out to me about the future, I shall have been being taken for a ride.
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Brad Johnston
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:56 AM
Subject: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge

Bruce Despain wrote: It is easy to make up such examples. 
 
OK, show us one.
 
~~~~~
 
Brad had written:)  It is written that there is no such thing as a correct (i.e., reasonable) past perfect progressive. I challenge you to find one. I'll bet you can't do it.
 
.brad.21dec10. (Winter Solstice)

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-2070665470-1292965903=:12375-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:16:18 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1426827470-1292976978=:66182" --0-1426827470-1292976978=:66182 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From Dickens: David Copperfield, Chapter 37: "I had been thinking about it, day and night, ever since my aunt had astonished me." Reasonable and correct. Paul ________________________________ From: RALPH HUTSELL <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tue, December 21, 2010 1:02:06 PM Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge If I were to believe all the hogwash he dishes out to me about the future, I shall have been being taken for a ride. ----- Original Message ----- >From: Brad Johnston >To: [log in to unmask] >Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:56 AM >Subject: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge > > >Bruce Despain wrote: It is easy to make up such examples.  >  >OK, show us one. >  >~~~~~ > >Brad had written:)  It is written that there is no such thing as a correct >(i.e., reasonable) past perfect progressive. I challenge you to find one. I'll >bet you can't do it. >  >.brad.21dec10. (Winter Solstice) >To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: >http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the >list" > >Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/To join or leave this LISTSERV list, >please visit the list's web interface at: >http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the >list" > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1426827470-1292976978=:66182 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

From Dickens: David Copperfield, Chapter 37: "I had been thinking about it, day and night, ever since my aunt had astonished me."
 
Reasonable and correct.
 
Paul

From: RALPH HUTSELL <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, December 21, 2010 1:02:06 PM
Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge

If I were to believe all the hogwash he dishes out to me about the future, I shall have been being taken for a ride.
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Brad Johnston
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:56 AM
Subject: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge

Bruce Despain wrote: It is easy to make up such examples. 
 
OK, show us one.
 
~~~~~
 
Brad had written:)  It is written that there is no such thing as a correct (i.e., reasonable) past perfect progressive. I challenge you to find one. I'll bet you can't do it.
 
.brad.21dec10. (Winter Solstice)

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

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

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1426827470-1292976978=:66182-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:45:37 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "T. J. Ray" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Mastering the Challenge MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_SW_1286226843_1292982337_mpa=" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_SW_1286226843_1292982337_mpaContent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed John had been chopping firewood before I got there. tjr On Tuesday 12/21/2010 at 10:01 am, Brad Johnston wrote: > > > > Bruce Despain wrote: It is easy to make up such examples. > > OK, show us one. > > ~~~~~ > > Brad had written:) It is written that there is no such thing as a > correct (i.e., reasonable) past perfect progressive. I challenge you > to find one. I'll bet you can't do it. > > .brad.21dec10. (Winter Solstice) > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select > "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_SW_1286226843_1292982337_mpaContent-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John had been chopping firewood before I got there.


tjr


On Tuesday 12/21/2010 at 10:01 am, Brad Johnston wrote:
Bruce Despain wrote: It is easy to make up such examples. 
 
OK, show us one.
 
~~~~~
 
Brad had written:)  It is written that there is no such thing as a correct (i.e., reasonable) past perfect progressive. I challenge you to find one. I'll bet you can't do it.
 
.brad.21dec10. (Winter Solstice)

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

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


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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_SW_1286226843_1292982337_mpa=-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 21:00:14 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Mastering the Challenge MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit If you google "had been drinking" you get millions of hits. Craig > John had been chopping firewood before I got there. > > tjr > > > > On Tuesday 12/21/2010 at 10:01 am, Brad Johnston wrote: >> >> >> >> Bruce Despain wrote: It is easy to make up such examples. >> >> OK, show us one. >> >> ~~~~~ >> >> Brad had written:) It is written that there is no such thing as a >> correct (i.e., reasonable) past perfect progressive. I challenge you >> to find one. I'll bet you can't do it. >> >> .brad.21dec10. (Winter Solstice) >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select >> "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 22 Dec 2010 06:41:35 -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: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_hAWw7r1aizlp1dNOfVOqIw)" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_hAWw7r1aizlp1dNOfVOqIw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline Brad, This is my example: "I HAD BEEN READING [ Past Perfect Tense Progressive Aspect] your rumblings for too long before I DECIDED [ Absolute Simple Past Tense ] that they were not worth my time." This is a proper use of the Progressive Past Perfect Tense (Aspect) and of the (Absolute) Simple Past Tense on the time axis. See Quirk et al. in "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language," and Comrie in "Aspect." Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 15:16 Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge To: [log in to unmask] > Hutsell? hogwash? to you? future? Qu'est-ce qui se passe? > > At first glance, I thought it was Despain dodging but he seemed > confident, so > I'm sure he'll be along i.d.c. > > Let's see, Ralph, while you're on the line, can you either find > or create a > reasonable sentence using the "past perfect progressive"? I'm > trying to either > confirm or discount the assertion that there is no such thing. > > .brad.21dec10. > > > > ________________________________ > From: RALPH HUTSELL <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Sent: Tue, December 21, 2010 1:02:06 PM > Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge > > > If I were to believe all the hogwash he dishes out to me > about the future, I > shall have been being taken for a ride. > ----- Original Message ----- > >From: Brad Johnston > >To: [log in to unmask] > >Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:56 AM > >Subject: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge > > > > > >Bruce Despain wrote: It is easy to make up such examples. > > > >OK, show us one. > > > >~~~~~ > > > >Brad had written:) It is written that there is no such thing > as a correct > >(i.e., reasonable) past perfect progressive. I challenge you to > find one. I'll > >bet you can't do it. > > > >.brad.21dec10. (Winter Solstice) > > > > > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Boundary_(ID_hAWw7r1aizlp1dNOfVOqIw) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-disposition: inline

Brad,
 
This is my example:
 
"I HAD BEEN READING [ Past Perfect Tense Progressive Aspect] your rumblings for too long before I DECIDED  [ Absolute Simple Past Tense ] that they were not worth my time."
 
This is a proper use of the Progressive Past Perfect Tense (Aspect) and of the (Absolute) Simple Past Tense on the time axis. See Quirk et al. in "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language," and Comrie in "Aspect." 
 
 
Eduard

----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 15:16
Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge
To: [log in to unmask]

> Hutsell? hogwash? to you? future? Qu'est-ce qui se passe?
>  
> At first glance, I thought it was Despain dodging but he seemed
> confident, so
> I'm sure he'll be along i.d.c.
>
> Let's see, Ralph, while you're on the line, can you either find
> or create a
> reasonable sentence using the "past perfect progressive"?  I'm
> trying to either
> confirm or discount the assertion that there is no such thing.
>
> .brad.21dec10.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: RALPH HUTSELL <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Tue, December 21, 2010 1:02:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge
>
>
> If I were to believe all the hogwash he dishes out to me
> about the future, I
> shall have been being taken for a ride.
> ----- Original Message -----
> >From: Brad Johnston
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:56 AM
> >Subject: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge
> >
> >
> >Bruce Despain wrote: It is easy to make up such examples. 
> > 
> >OK, show us one.
> > 
> >~~~~~
> >
> >Brad had written:)  It is written that there is no such thing
> as a correct
> >(i.e., reasonable) past perfect progressive. I challenge you to
> find one. I'll
> >bet you can't do it.
> > 
> >.brad.21dec10. (Winter Solstice)
> >
>
>
>      
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Boundary_(ID_hAWw7r1aizlp1dNOfVOqIw)-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 05:35:31 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott Lavitt <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Independent clause or noun phrase MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Happy holidays all. I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: The last grill brush you will ever need. I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts? Thank you, Scott Lavitt To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 09:03:45 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 That would be my take on it. It's contains a relative clause with no subordinator. Because the sentence sounds as if it comes from an ad, it uses the sort of elliptical language common to ads and leaves out, as you point out, "It is" or "This is." Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Lavitt Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 8:36 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Independent clause or noun phrase Happy holidays all. I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: The last grill brush you will ever need. I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts? Thank you, Scott Lavitt To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 09:25:32 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --001485f1dc166c2ab1049814a486 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 "The last grill brush" is a noun phrase, with an implied "it is." The "you will ever need" is a relative clause with a null (unstated) relative pronoun. I'd like to hear more from ATEGers about "ever." Am I wrong that it occurs without a negative only in relative clauses like this? "You won't ever need a grill brush" is fine, but not *"You will ever need a grill brush." Dick On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Scott Lavitt <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Happy holidays all. > > I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek your > collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: > > The last grill brush you will ever need. > > I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and "The > last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems there is an > implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and therefore not an > independent clause. Thoughts? > > Thank you, > > Scott Lavitt > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --001485f1dc166c2ab1049814a486 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "The last grill brush" is a noun phrase, with an implied "it is." The "you will ever need" is a relative clause with a null (unstated) relative pronoun.

I'd like to hear more from ATEGers about "ever." Am I wrong that it occurs without a negative only in relative clauses like this? "You won't ever need a grill brush" is fine, but not *"You will ever need a grill brush."

Dick

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Scott Lavitt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Happy holidays all.

I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?:

The last grill brush you will ever need.

I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts?

Thank you,

Scott Lavitt

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --001485f1dc166c2ab1049814a486-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 13:21:37 -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: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE88205EMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE88205EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is "last" acting like a negative polarity item? Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 9:26 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase "The last grill brush" is a noun phrase, with an implied "it is." The "you will ever need" is a relative clause with a null (unstated) relative pronoun. I'd like to hear more from ATEGers about "ever." Am I wrong that it occurs without a negative only in relative clauses like this? "You won't ever need a grill brush" is fine, but not *"You will ever need a grill brush." Dick On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Scott Lavitt <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Happy holidays all. I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: The last grill brush you will ever need. I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts? Thank you, Scott Lavitt To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE88205EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Is “last” acting like a negative polarity item?

 

Herb

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 9:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase

 

"The last grill brush" is a noun phrase, with an implied "it is." The "you will ever need" is a relative clause with a null (unstated) relative pronoun.

I'd like to hear more from ATEGers about "ever." Am I wrong that it occurs without a negative only in relative clauses like this? "You won't ever need a grill brush" is fine, but not *"You will ever need a grill brush."

Dick

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Scott Lavitt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Happy holidays all.

I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?:

The last grill brush you will ever need.

I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts?

Thank you,

Scott Lavitt

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

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


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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE88205EMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:18:59 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dick, It shows up in some other subordinate constructions, although I *think* they all have an element of negation or irrealis status ("I wonder when he'll ever finish that" / "If he were ever there, he would have known this"); I recall Quirk and Greenbaum having a section on this, but I don't have it handy (coffee shop posting). I'm having trouble thinking of any examples in a main clause that don't sound archaic, but there are candidate expressions "He was ever the optimist/pessimist" and "It was ever thus." I suspect a lot of people would count those as fossilized, though. --- Bill Spruiell -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Dick Veit Sent: Thu 12/23/2010 9:25 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase "The last grill brush" is a noun phrase, with an implied "it is." The "you will ever need" is a relative clause with a null (unstated) relative pronoun. I'd like to hear more from ATEGers about "ever." Am I wrong that it occurs without a negative only in relative clauses like this? "You won't ever need a grill brush" is fine, but not *"You will ever need a grill brush." Dick On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Scott Lavitt <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Happy holidays all. > > I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek your > collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: > > The last grill brush you will ever need. > > I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and "The > last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems there is an > implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and therefore not an > independent clause. Thoughts? > > Thank you, > > Scott Lavitt > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:29:36 -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: "T. J. Ray" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_SW_1952131558_1293143376_mpa=" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_SW_1952131558_1293143376_mpaContent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed How about "ever" in a question? Did he ever think of the answer? tj On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 3:25 pm, "Spruiell, William C" wrote: > Dick, > > It shows up in some other subordinate constructions, although I > *think* they all have an element of negation or irrealis status ("I > wonder when he'll ever finish that" / "If he were ever there, he would > have known this"); I recall Quirk and Greenbaum having a section on > this, but I don't have it handy (coffee shop posting). I'm having > trouble thinking of any examples in a main clause that don't sound > archaic, but there are candidate expressions "He was ever the > optimist/pessimist" and "It was ever thus." I suspect a lot of people > would count those as fossilized, though. > > --- Bill Spruiell > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Dick > Veit > Sent: Thu 12/23/2010 9:25 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase > > "The last grill brush" is a noun phrase, with an implied "it is." The > "you > will ever need" is a relative clause with a null (unstated) relative > pronoun. > > I'd like to hear more from ATEGers about "ever." Am I wrong that it > occurs > without a negative only in relative clauses like this? "You won't ever > need > a grill brush" is fine, but not *"You will ever need a grill brush." > > Dick > > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Scott Lavitt <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> >> Happy holidays all. >> >> I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek >> your >> collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: >> >> The last grill brush you will ever need. >> >> I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and >> "The >> last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems there >> is an >> implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and therefore not an >> independent clause. Thoughts? >> >> Thank you, >> >> Scott Lavitt >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_SW_1952131558_1293143376_mpaContent-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable How about "ever" in a question?  

Did he ever think of the answer?

tj


On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 3:25 pm, "Spruiell, William C" wrote:
Dick,

It shows up in some other subordinate constructions, although I *think* they all have an element of negation or irrealis status ("I wonder when he'll ever finish that" / "If he were ever there, he would have known this"); I recall Quirk and Greenbaum having a section on this, but I don't have it handy (coffee shop posting). I'm having trouble thinking of any examples in a main clause that don't sound archaic, but there are candidate expressions "He was ever the optimist/pessimist" and "It was ever thus." I suspect a lot of people would count those as fossilized, though.

--- Bill Spruiell

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Dick Veit
Sent: Thu 12/23/2010 9:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase

"The last grill brush" is a noun phrase, with an implied "it is." The "you
will ever need" is a relative clause with a null (unstated) relative
pronoun.

I'd like to hear more from ATEGers about "ever." Am I wrong that it occurs
without a negative only in relative clauses like this? "You won't ever need
a grill brush" is fine, but not *"You will ever need a grill brush."

Dick

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Scott Lavitt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Happy holidays all.

I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek your
collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?:

The last grill brush you will ever need.

I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and "The
last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems there is an
implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and therefore not an
independent clause. Thoughts?

Thank you,

Scott Lavitt

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_SW_1952131558_1293143376_mpa=-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:34:29 -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: "T. J. Ray" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_SW_1352010998_1293143669_mpa=" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_SW_1352010998_1293143669_mpaContent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed The last grill brush you will ever need. Is this a sentence at all? To assume an understood "This is" or "It is" won't account for it as they have very different meaning possible references. One almost demands that the brush be in the vicinity for reference. The other might well reference a brush that has yet to be created. I'd take "ever" as a simple adverb with the caveat that it must precede the verb it modifies. Perhaps it also needs something such as "will" in front of it. The understood "that" not stated in the clause is a relative pronoun that serves as the direct object of "will need." Is "last" anything more than a simple adjective? Does it function any differently than, say, "ultimate"? tj On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 7:45 am, Scott Lavitt wrote: > Happy holidays all. > > I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek > your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: > > The last grill brush you will ever need. > > I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and > "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems > there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and > therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts? > > Thank you, > > Scott Lavitt > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_SW_1352010998_1293143669_mpaContent-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The last grill brush you will ever need.


Is this a sentence at all?  To assume an understood "This is" or
"It is" won't account for it as they have very different meaning
possible references.  One almost demands that the brush be
in the vicinity for reference.  The other might well reference a
brush that has yet to be created.

I'd take "ever" as a simple adverb with the caveat that it  must
precede the verb it modifies.  Perhaps it also needs something such
as "will" in front of it.

The understood "that" not stated in the clause is a relative pronoun
that serves as the direct object of "will need."

Is "last" anything more than a simple adjective?  Does it function any
differently than, say, "ultimate"?

tj


On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 7:45 am, Scott Lavitt wrote:
Happy holidays all.

I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?:

The last grill brush you will ever need.

I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts?

Thank you,

Scott Lavitt

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_SW_1352010998_1293143669_mpa=-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:08:08 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I would classify "last" as an ordinal numeral: first, second, third...last. Different grammars differ in where they draw the lines for the determiners, but ordinal numbers are often in that group (sometimes called postdeterminers since they come after the core determiners like "a," "the," "this," "his" and so on). It has an identifying function. The one we are talking about (the one in reference) is the last one. I don't think it has negative polarity, just the sense that in the continuing list of "grill brushes" this is the final one. You can negate it: this is not the last grill brush you will ever need." Maybe "ever" doesn't extend as much as never because "forever" is an option (whereas "fornever" is not). "You will need the grill brush forever." Craig> The last grill brush you will ever need. > > Is this a sentence at all? To assume an understood "This is" or > "It is" won't account for it as they have very different meaning > possible references. One almost demands that the brush be > in the vicinity for reference. The other might well reference a > brush that has yet to be created. > > I'd take "ever" as a simple adverb with the caveat that it must > precede the verb it modifies. Perhaps it also needs something such > as "will" in front of it. > > The understood "that" not stated in the clause is a relative pronoun > that serves as the direct object of "will need." > > Is "last" anything more than a simple adjective? Does it function any > differently than, say, "ultimate"? > > tj > > > > On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 7:45 am, Scott Lavitt wrote: >> Happy holidays all. >> >> I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek >> your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: >> >> The last grill brush you will ever need. >> >> I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and >> "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems >> there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and >> therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts? >> >> Thank you, >> >> Scott Lavitt >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 18:26:22 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Comments: RFC822 error: Invalid RFC822 field - "in=". Rest of header flushed. From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1377937128-1293157582=:99799" --0-1377937128-1293157582=:99799 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Eduard is peevish because I asked him, after a number of pleasant and interesting exchanges, to define the past perfect. He can't do it. He doesn't know what it is. That makes him cross. (If you can do it, Eduard, do it. Don't rant at me. Just do it.)   I then asked him to ask each person in one of his classes to send me a definition, without him explaining what it is. I don't want to read 30 variations on what he tells them. Make it open book. Let them look it up if they want.   He won't do that either, so he sends out a spleen-gram, and he drops Quirk's name as a smoke screen but Quirk won't help him. How's that for a definitive statement? Quirk won't help.   Please prove me wrong, Eduard. Maybe the others will help you. Who has Quirk handy?   .brad.23dec10. ________________________________ From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 7:41:35 AM Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge Brad, This is my example: "I HAD BEEN READING [ Past Perfect Tense Progressive Aspect] your rumblings for too long before I DECIDED  [ Absolute Simple Past Tense ] that they were not worth my time." This is a proper use of the Progressive Past Perfect Tense (Aspect) and of the (Absolute) Simple Past Tense on the time axis. See Quirk et al. in "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language," and Comrie in "Aspect."  Eduard To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1377937128-1293157582=:99799 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Eduard is peevish because I asked him, after a number of pleasant and interesting exchanges, to define the past perfect. He can't do it. He doesn't know what it is. That makes him cross. (If you can do it, Eduard, do it. Don't rant at me. Just do it.)
 
I then asked him to ask each person in one of his classes to send me a definition, without him explaining what it is. I don't want to read 30 variations on what he tells them. Make it open book. Let them look it up if they want.
 
He won't do that either, so he sends out a spleen-gram, and he drops Quirk's name as a smoke screen but Quirk won't help him. How's that for a definitive statement? Quirk won't help.
 
Please prove me wrong, Eduard. Maybe the others will help you. Who has Quirk handy?
 
.brad.23dec10.
 
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 7:41:35 AM
Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge

Brad,
 
This is my example:
 
"I HAD BEEN READING [ Past Perfect Tense Progressive Aspect] your rumblings for too long before I DECIDED  [ Absolute Simple Past Tense ] that they were not worth my time."
 
This is a proper use of the Progressive Past Perfect Tense (Aspect) and of the (Absolute) Simple Past Tense on the time axis. See Quirk et al. in "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language," and Comrie in "Aspect." 
 
 
Eduard


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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1377937128-1293157582=:99799-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:05:20 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PERJViBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6VmVyZGFuYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZjsgZm9udC1zaXplOjEw cHQ7Ij48RElWPlRoZSBjaGFsbGVuZ2Ugd2FzIG9yaWdpbmFsbHkgdG8gcHJvdmlkZSBleGFtcGxl cyBvZiB0aGUgcGFzdCBwZXJmZWN0IHByb2dyZXNzaXZlJm5ic3A7YW5kIGV2ZW4gdG8gbWFrZSBz b21lIHVwLiZuYnNwOyBUaGlzIGhhcyBiZWVuIGRvbmUgYWQgbmF1c2VhbSAoZS5nLiwgaGFkIGJl ZW4gdGhpbmtpbmcpLiBNaW5lIGV2ZW4gYWRkZWQgYSBwYXNzaXZlIHZvaWNlIHRvIGl0IChoYWQg YmVlbiBiZWluZyB1c2VkKS4mbmJzcDsgTm93IHRoZSBjaGFsbGVuZ2UgaXMgdG8gZGVmaW5lIHRo ZSBwYXN0IHBlcmZlY3QgYXNwZWN0LiZuYnNwOyBJdCZuYnNwO2lzIHByb2JhYmx5IG5vdCBwb3Nz aWJsZSZuYnNwO3RvIG1lZXQgdGhpcyBjaGFsbGVuZ2Ugd2l0aG91dCBkZWZpbmluZyBhc3BlY3Qg Zmlyc3QuIEkgYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGF0IHRoZXNlJm5ic3A7YXR0ZW1wdHMmbmJzcDt3b3VsZCBoYXZl IHRvIHRha2Ugc2VtYW50aWNzIGludG8gY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbi4gTWFueSB1c2VzIG9mIHRoZSBw ZXJmZWN0IGFzcGVjdCZuYnNwO21heSBiZSBwYXJhcGhyYXNlZCwgaS5lLiwgcmUtd29yZGVkLCBz byBhcyB0byZuYnNwO2FwcGVhciB3aXRob3V0IGl0LiBUaGUgc3R5bGUgcHJvZHVjZWQgb2Z0ZW4g c2VlbXMmbmJzcDttb3JlIGxpdmVseSBidXQmbmJzcDthbHNvJm5ic3A7c2VlbXMgdG8gcmVxdWly ZSB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIGNlcnRhaW4gdmVyYnMgKHRoYXQgY29udGFpbiBhc3BlY3QpIG9yIGFkZGl0 aW9uYWwgYWR2ZXJicyBvZiB0aW1lIHRvIHNldCB0aGUgdGltZXMgb2YgdGhlIHNpdHVhdGlvbnMg ZGVwaWN0ZWQgcmVsYXRpdmUgdG8gZWFjaCBvdGhlci4gSXMgaXQgcG9zc2libGUgdG8gZmluZCBh IGRlZmluaXRpb24gb2YgYXNwZWN0IHRoYXQgaW5jbHVkZXMgc3VjaCBjb25zdHJ1Y3Rpb25zPyZu YnNwOyZuYnNwO0ZvciBtZSB0aGUgcHJvZ3Jlc3NpdmUgYXNwZWN0Jm5ic3A7bWFrZXMgcmVmZXJl bmNlIHRvIGEgdGltZSBwZXJpb2QsIHdoZXJlYXMgdGhlIHBlcmZlY3QgYXNwZWN0IG1ha2VzIHJl ZmVyZW5jZSB0byB0aW1lIGJlZm9yZSwgd2hpY2ggbWF5IGJlIGEgcG9pbnQgb3IgYSBwZXJpb2Qu Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7VGhlIHZlcmJzIHRoYXQgZ2V0IGFsb25nIHdpdGhvdXQgbWFya2luZyBhc3Bl Y3Qgd291bGQgaW1wbHkgYSBwZXJpb2QgKHByb2dyZXNzaXZlKSBvciBhIHByZXZpb3VzIHRpbWUg KHBlcmZlY3QpLiZuYnNwO0l0IHNlZW1zIHRoYXQgcHJlZGljYXRlcyZuYnNwO3dob3NlIHZlcmIg cGhyYXNlIGNhbiBiZSB0ZW1wb3JhbGx5IGxpbWl0ZWQgb3IgcmVsYXRpdml6ZWQgYnkgYWR2ZXJi cyZuYnNwO3dvdWxkIG5vdCBuZWVkIHRvIGJlIGV4cGxpY2l0bHkgbWFya2VkIG9uIHRoZSBhdXhp bGlhcnkgZm9yIGFzcGVjdC4mbmJzcDsgKEVhY2ggdGltZSBJJm5ic3A7cmVwbGllZCB0byBCcmFk IGJlZm9yZSwgaXQgc2VlbXMgdGhlIG51bWJlciBvZiBzdWJzY3JpYmVycyB0byB0aGUgbGlzdHNl cnZlIGhhZCBiZWVuIGdyb3dpbmcgc21hbGxlciwgYnV0IHRoaXMgdGltZSBpdCB3YXMgdGhlIHNh bWUuJm5ic3A7IEl0IG1heSBiZSB0aGF0IG1vcmUgaW50ZXJlc3RpbmcgbWF0ZXJpYWwgaGFzIGtl cHQmbmJzcDthY3Rpdml0eSB1cC4pPC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPjxCUj4tLS0gYnJhZHZpbmVzMkBZQUhP Ty5DT00gd3JvdGU6PEJSPjxCUj5Gcm9tOiBCcmFkIEpvaG5zdG9uICZsdDticmFkdmluZXMyQFlB SE9PLkNPTSZndDs8QlI+VG86IEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVTxCUj5TdWJqZWN0OiBS ZTogRGVzcGFpbiwgTWFzdGVyaW5nIHRoZSBDaGFsbGVuZ2U8QlI+RGF0ZTogVGh1LCAyMyBEZWMg MjAxMCAxODoyNjoyMiAtMDgwMDxCUj48QlI+PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWIHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULUZBTUlM WTogYXJpYWwsIGhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZjsgRk9OVC1TSVpFOiAxMnB0Ij4NCjxESVY+ PEZPTlQgc2l6ZT0iMiIgZmFjZT0iYXJpYWwsIGhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+RWR1YXJk IGlzIHBlZXZpc2ggYmVjYXVzZSBJIGFza2VkIGhpbSwgYWZ0ZXIgYSBudW1iZXIgb2YgcGxlYXNh bnQgYW5kIGludGVyZXN0aW5nIGV4Y2hhbmdlcywgdG8gZGVmaW5lIHRoZSBwYXN0IHBlcmZlY3Qu IEhlIGNhbid0IGRvIGl0LiBIZSBkb2Vzbid0IGtub3cgd2hhdCBpdCBpcy4gVGhhdCBtYWtlcyBo aW0gY3Jvc3MuIChJZiB5b3UgY2FuIGRvIGl0LCZuYnNwO0VkdWFyZCwmbmJzcDtkbyBpdC4gRG9u J3QgcmFudCBhdCBtZS4gSnVzdCBkbyBpdC4pPC9GT05UPjwvRElWPg0KPERJViBzdHlsZT0iRk9O VC1GQU1JTFk6IGFyaWFsLCBoZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7IEZPTlQtU0laRTogMTJwdCI+ DQo8RElWIHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULUZBTUlMWTogdGltZXMgbmV3IHJvbWFuLCBuZXcgeW9yaywgdGlt ZXMsIHNlcmlmOyBGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEycHQiPg0KPERJViBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVC1GQU1JTFk6IHRp bWVzIG5ldyByb21hbiwgbmV3IHlvcmssIHRpbWVzLCBzZXJpZjsgRk9OVC1TSVpFOiAxOHB0Ij4N CjxESVY+PEZPTlQgc2l6ZT0iMiIgZmFjZT0iYXJpYWwsIGhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+ PC9GT05UPiZuYnNwOzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48Rk9OVCBzaXplPSIyIiBmYWNlPSJhcmlhbCwgaGVs dmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5JIHRoZW4gYXNrZWQgaGltIHRvIGFzayBlYWNoIHBlcnNvbiBp biBvbmUgb2YgaGlzIGNsYXNzZXMmbmJzcDt0byBzZW5kIG1lIGEgZGVmaW5pdGlvbiwgd2l0aG91 dCBoaW0gZXhwbGFpbmluZyB3aGF0IGl0IGlzLiBJIGRvbid0IHdhbnQgdG8gcmVhZCAzMCB2YXJp YXRpb25zIG9uIHdoYXQgaGUgdGVsbHMgdGhlbS4gTWFrZSBpdCBvcGVuIGJvb2suIExldCB0aGVt IGxvb2sgaXQgdXAgaWYgdGhleSB3YW50LjwvRk9OVD48L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PEZPTlQgc2l6ZT0i MiIgZmFjZT0iYXJpYWwsIGhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+PC9GT05UPiZuYnNwOzwvRElW Pg0KPERJVj48Rk9OVCBzaXplPSIyIiBmYWNlPSJhcmlhbCwgaGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlm Ij5IZSB3b24ndCBkbyB0aGF0IGVpdGhlciwgc28gaGUgc2VuZHMgb3V0IGEgc3BsZWVuLWdyYW0s IGFuZCZuYnNwO2hlIGRyb3BzJm5ic3A7UXVpcmsncyBuYW1lIGFzIGEgc21va2Ugc2NyZWVuIGJ1 dCZuYnNwO1F1aXJrIHdvbid0IGhlbHAgaGltLiBIb3cncyB0aGF0IGZvciBhIGRlZmluaXRpdmUg c3RhdGVtZW50PyZuYnNwO1F1aXJrIHdvbid0IGhlbHAuPC9GT05UPjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48Rk9O VCBzaXplPSIyIiBmYWNlPSJhcmlhbCwgaGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj48L0ZPTlQ+Jm5i c3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPjxGT05UIHNpemU9IjIiIGZhY2U9ImFyaWFsLCBoZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNh bnMtc2VyaWYiPlBsZWFzZSBwcm92ZSBtZSB3cm9uZywgRWR1YXJkLiBNYXliZSB0aGUgb3RoZXJz IHdpbGwgaGVscCB5b3UuIFdobyBoYXMgUXVpcmsgaGFuZHk/PC9GT05UPjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48 Rk9OVCBzaXplPSIyIiBmYWNlPSJhcmlhbCwgaGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj48L0ZPTlQ+ Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPjxGT05UIHNpemU9IjIiIGZhY2U9ImFyaWFsLCBoZWx2ZXRpY2Es IHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPi5icmFkLjIzZGVjMTAuPC9GT05UPjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mbmJzcDs8L0RJ Vj4NCjxESVYgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiB0aW1lcyBuZXcgcm9tYW4sIG5ldyB5b3JrLCB0 aW1lcywgc2VyaWY7IEZPTlQtU0laRTogMThwdCI+DQo8RElWIHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULUZBTUlMWTog dGltZXMgbmV3IHJvbWFuLCBuZXcgeW9yaywgdGltZXMsIHNlcmlmOyBGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEycHQi PjxGT05UIHNpemU9IjIiIGZhY2U9IlRhaG9tYSI+DQo8SFIgc2l6ZT0iMSI+DQo8Qj48U1BBTiBz dHlsZT0iRk9OVC1XRUlHSFQ6IGJvbGQiPkZyb206PC9TUEFOPjwvQj4gRWR1YXJkIEhhbmdhbnUg Jmx0O2VjaGFuZ2FudUBJTlNJR0hUQkIuQ09NJmd0OzxCUj48Qj48U1BBTiBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVC1X RUlHSFQ6IGJvbGQiPlRvOjwvU1BBTj48L0I+IEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVTxCUj48 Qj48U1BBTiBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVC1XRUlHSFQ6IGJvbGQiPlNlbnQ6PC9TUEFOPjwvQj4gV2VkLCBE ZWNlbWJlciAyMiwgMjAxMCA3OjQxOjM1IEFNPEJSPjxCPjxTUEFOIHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVdFSUdI VDogYm9sZCI+U3ViamVjdDo8L1NQQU4+PC9CPiBSZTogQnJ1Y2UgRGVzcGFpbiwgTWFzdGVyaW5n IHRoZSBDaGFsbGVuZ2U8QlI+PC9GT05UPjxCUj4NCjxESVY+QnJhZCw8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jm5i c3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPlRoaXMgaXMgbXkgZXhhbXBsZTo8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jm5ic3A7PC9E SVY+DQo8RElWPiJJIEhBRCBCRUVOJm5ic3A7UkVBRElORyZuYnNwO1sgUGFzdCBQZXJmZWN0IFRl bnNlIFByb2dyZXNzaXZlIEFzcGVjdF0geW91ciBydW1ibGluZ3MgZm9yIHRvbyBsb25nIGJlZm9y ZSBJIERFQ0lERUQmbmJzcDsgWyBBYnNvbHV0ZSBTaW1wbGUgUGFzdCBUZW5zZSBdIHRoYXQmbmJz cDt0aGV5IHdlcmUmbmJzcDtub3Qgd29ydGggbXkgdGltZS4iPC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZuYnNwOzwv RElWPg0KPERJVj5UaGlzIGlzIGEgcHJvcGVyIHVzZSBvZiB0aGUgUHJvZ3Jlc3NpdmUgUGFzdCBQ ZXJmZWN0IFRlbnNlIChBc3BlY3QpJm5ic3A7YW5kIG9mIHRoZSAoQWJzb2x1dGUpIFNpbXBsZSBQ YXN0IFRlbnNlIG9uIHRoZSB0aW1lIGF4aXMuJm5ic3A7U2VlIFF1aXJrIGV0IGFsLiBpbiAiQSBD b21wcmVoZW5zaXZlIEdyYW1tYXIgb2YgdGhlIEVuZ2xpc2ggTGFuZ3VhZ2UsIiBhbmQgQ29tcmll IGluICJBc3BlY3QuIiZuYnNwOyA8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZuYnNw OzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj5FZHVhcmQgPEJSPjxCUj48L0RJVj48L0RJVj48L0RJVj48L0RJVj48L0RJ Vj48L0RJVj48L0RJVj48QlI+VG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBs ZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6IGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5t dW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbCBhbmQgc2VsZWN0ICJKb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRo ZSBsaXN0IiANCjxESVY+VmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy88 L0RJVj48L0RJVj4========================================================================Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 03:01:27 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Craig, You're right that "last" is not a negative polarity item. In this example, "ever" is the negative polarity item. Many negative polarity items occur in irrealis contexts as well, as Bruce pointed out, and it's the "will" that provides the irrealis context in the sentence we're talking about. I got the function of "last" wrong. "Last," however, behaves like the superlative it is, arising historically from OE "latost." "Last" and "latest" are a doublet in modern English and "latest" developed in the 15th c. We can say, for example, "She was one of the two last people to see him alive" or, as in the film title, "The Last Man on Earth." These are both places where an number word cannot occur. We can get "the second last man on earth" but not "the last second man on earth." This suggests that "last" is an adjective. Semantically it overlaps with ordinals and also can as an ordinal, just as nouns can function as other lexical categories. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 7:08 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase I would classify "last" as an ordinal numeral: first, second, third...last. Different grammars differ in where they draw the lines for the determiners, but ordinal numbers are often in that group (sometimes called postdeterminers since they come after the core determiners like "a," "the," "this," "his" and so on). It has an identifying function. The one we are talking about (the one in reference) is the last one. I don't think it has negative polarity, just the sense that in the continuing list of "grill brushes" this is the final one. You can negate it: this is not the last grill brush you will ever need." Maybe "ever" doesn't extend as much as never because "forever" is an option (whereas "fornever" is not). "You will need the grill brush forever." Craig> The last grill brush you will ever need. > > Is this a sentence at all? To assume an understood "This is" or "It > is" won't account for it as they have very different meaning possible > references. One almost demands that the brush be in the vicinity for > reference. The other might well reference a brush that has yet to be > created. > > I'd take "ever" as a simple adverb with the caveat that it must > precede the verb it modifies. Perhaps it also needs something such as > "will" in front of it. > > The understood "that" not stated in the clause is a relative pronoun > that serves as the direct object of "will need." > > Is "last" anything more than a simple adjective? Does it function any > differently than, say, "ultimate"? > > tj > > > > On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 7:45 am, Scott Lavitt wrote: >> Happy holidays all. >> >> I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek >> your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: >> >> The last grill brush you will ever need. >> >> I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. >> and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. >> Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, >> and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts? >> >> Thank you, >> >> Scott Lavitt >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 24 Dec 2010 06:49:52 -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: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_c5j8XYFYaUtxF5Jx71XRoA)" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_c5j8XYFYaUtxF5Jx71XRoA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline Brad, I know what the past perfect is, and I understand its value on the time axis. I use it in a couple of languages. I can also define it, but what difference would it make to you? You are not a believer. I am not peevish. I am just tired of your endless repetitions of the same ignorant affirmations on the tenses in English. You need to do a little reading before you can make some relevant conversation. Quirk and Comrie's books are not diversions from the topic. They contain information that might improve your understanding of the English tenses. Happy Holidays! Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010 20:29 Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge To: [log in to unmask] > Eduard is peevish because I asked him, after a number of > pleasant and > interesting exchanges, to define the past perfect. He can't do > it. He doesn't > know what it is. That makes him cross. (If you can do > it, Eduard, do it. Don't > rant at me. Just do it.) > > I then asked him to ask each person in one of his classes to > send me a > definition, without him explaining what it is. I don't want to > read 30 > variations on what he tells them. Make it open book. Let them > look it up if they > want. > > He won't do that either, so he sends out a spleen-gram, and he > drops Quirk's > name as a smoke screen but Quirk won't help him. How's that for > a definitive > statement? Quirk won't help. > > Please prove me wrong, Eduard. Maybe the others will help you. > Who has Quirk > handy? > > .brad.23dec10. > > > ________________________________ > From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 7:41:35 AM > Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge > > > Brad, > > This is my example: > > "I HAD BEEN READING [ Past Perfect Tense Progressive Aspect] > your rumblings for > too long before I DECIDED [ Absolute Simple Past Tense ] > that they were not > worth my time." > > This is a proper use of the Progressive Past Perfect Tense > (Aspect) and of the > (Absolute) Simple Past Tense on the time axis. See Quirk et al. > in "A > Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language," and Comrie in > "Aspect." > > > > Eduard > > > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Boundary_(ID_c5j8XYFYaUtxF5Jx71XRoA) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-disposition: inline

Brad,
 
I know what the past perfect is, and I understand its value on the time axis. I use it in a couple of languages. I can also define it, but what difference would it make to you? You are not a believer.
I am not peevish. I am just tired of your endless repetitions of the same ignorant affirmations on the tenses in English. You need to do a little reading before you can make some relevant conversation. Quirk and Comrie's books are not diversions from the topic. They contain information that might improve your understanding of the English tenses.
 
Happy Holidays!
 
Eduard
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010 20:29
Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge
To: [log in to unmask]

> Eduard is peevish because I asked him, after a number of
> pleasant and
> interesting exchanges, to define the past perfect. He can't do
> it. He doesn't
> know what it is. That makes him cross. (If you can do
> it, Eduard, do it. Don't
> rant at me. Just do it.)
>  
> I then asked him to ask each person in one of his classes to
> send me a
> definition, without him explaining what it is. I don't want to
> read 30
> variations on what he tells them. Make it open book. Let them
> look it up if they
> want.
>  
> He won't do that either, so he sends out a spleen-gram, and he
> drops Quirk's
> name as a smoke screen but Quirk won't help him. How's that for
> a definitive
> statement? Quirk won't help.
>  
> Please prove me wrong, Eduard. Maybe the others will help you.
> Who has Quirk
> handy?
>  
> .brad.23dec10.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 7:41:35 AM
> Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge
>
>
> Brad,
>
> This is my example:
>
> "I HAD BEEN READING [ Past Perfect Tense Progressive Aspect]
> your rumblings for
> too long before I DECIDED  [ Absolute Simple Past Tense ]
> that they were not
> worth my time."
>
> This is a proper use of the Progressive Past Perfect Tense
> (Aspect) and of the
> (Absolute) Simple Past Tense on the time axis. See Quirk et al.
> in "A
> Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language," and Comrie in
> "Aspect." 
>
>
>
> Eduard
>
>
>      
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Boundary_(ID_c5j8XYFYaUtxF5Jx71XRoA)-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 07:07:56 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Comments: RFC822 error: TO field duplicated. Last occurrence was retained. From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge Comments: To: [log in to unmask]: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1101655644-1293203276=:42169" --0-1101655644-1293203276=:42169 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Fri, December 24, 2010 7:49:52 AM Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge >> Brad,   >> I know what the past perfect is,   Fine. Let's see it.   >> and I understand its value on the time axis.   Fine. Let's see it. >> I use it in a couple of languages   You haven't yet demonstrated it in English   >> I can also define it,   Fine. Let's see it. >> but what difference would it make to you?   Lots, Eduard. You think I have nothing better to do than grapple with a defensive grammarian? Hardly.   >> You are not a believer.   I believe in the obvious results of a 10-year inquiry into the nature and extent of the misuse of 'had' in contemporary English.   >> I am not peevish.   Resipsa Loquitur.   >> I am just tired of your endless repetitions of the same ignorant affirmations >>on the tenses in English.   If you're tired, hit the 'delete' button. I'll miss you. You're interesting and good fun until you get peevish.   >> You need to do a little reading before you can make some relevant >conversation.   I have read more than you will ever read on the subject.   >> Quirk and Comrie's books are not diversions from the topic. They contain >>information that might improve your understanding of the English tenses.   Fine. Let's see it ... or direct me to page numbers or sections. I stand by "Quirk won't help you."   >> Happy Holidays!   >> Eduard   "No offense intended"   .brad.24dec10.   ----- Original Message ----- From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010 20:29 Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge To: [log in to unmask] > Eduard is peevish because I asked him, after a number of > pleasant and > interesting exchanges, to define the past perfect. He can't do > it. He doesn't > know what it is. That makes him cross. (If you can do > it, Eduard, do it. Don't > rant at me. Just do it.) >   > I then asked him to ask each person in one of his classes to > send me a > definition, without him explaining what it is. I don't want to > read 30 > variations on what he tells them. Make it open book. Let them > look it up if they > want. >   > He won't do that either, so he sends out a spleen-gram, and he > drops Quirk's > name as a smoke screen but Quirk won't help him. How's that for > a definitive > statement? Quirk won't help. >   > Please prove me wrong, Eduard. Maybe the others will help you. > Who has Quirk > handy? >   > .brad.23dec10. > > > ________________________________ > From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 7:41:35 AM > Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge > > > Brad, > > This is my example: > > "I HAD BEEN READING [ Past Perfect Tense Progressive Aspect] > your rumblings for > too long before I DECIDED  [ Absolute Simple Past Tense ] > that they were not > worth my time." > > This is a proper use of the Progressive Past Perfect Tense > (Aspect) and of the > (Absolute) Simple Past Tense on the time axis. See Quirk et al. > in "A > Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language," and Comrie in > "Aspect."  > > > > Eduard > > >       > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1101655644-1293203276=:42169 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, December 24, 2010 7:49:52 AM
Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge

>> Brad,
 
>> I know what the past perfect is,
 
Fine. Let's see it.
 
>> and I understand its value on the time axis.
 
Fine. Let's see it.
 
>> I use it in a couple of languages
 
You haven't yet demonstrated it in English
 
>> I can also define it,
 
Fine. Let's see it.
 
>> but what difference would it make to you?
 
Lots, Eduard. You think I have nothing better to do than grapple with a defensive grammarian? Hardly.
 
>> You are not a believer.
 
I believe in the obvious results of a 10-year inquiry into the nature and extent of the misuse of 'had' in contemporary English.
 
>> I am not peevish.
 
Resipsa Loquitur.
 
>> I am just tired of your endless repetitions of the same ignorant affirmations on the tenses in English.
 
If you're tired, hit the 'delete' button. I'll miss you. You're interesting and good fun until you get peevish.
 
>> You need to do a little reading before you can make some relevant conversation.
 
I have read more than you will ever read on the subject.
 
>> Quirk and Comrie's books are not diversions from the topic. They contain information that might improve your understanding of the English tenses.
 
Fine. Let's see it ... or direct me to page numbers or sections. I stand by "Quirk won't help you."
 
>> Happy Holidays!
 
>> Eduard
 
"No offense intended"
 
.brad.24dec10.
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010 20:29
Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge
To: [log in to unmask]

> Eduard is peevish because I asked him, after a number of
> pleasant and
> interesting exchanges, to define the past perfect. He can't do
> it. He doesn't
> know what it is. That makes him cross. (If you can do
> it, Eduard, do it. Don't
> rant at me. Just do it.)
>  
> I then asked him to ask each person in one of his classes to
> send me a
> definition, without him explaining what it is. I don't want to
> read 30
> variations on what he tells them. Make it open book. Let them
> look it up if they
> want.
>  
> He won't do that either, so he sends out a spleen-gram, and he
> drops Quirk's
> name as a smoke screen but Quirk won't help him. How's that for
> a definitive
> statement? Quirk won't help.
>  
> Please prove me wrong, Eduard. Maybe the others will help you.
> Who has Quirk
> handy?
>  
> .brad.23dec10.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 7:41:35 AM
> Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge
>
>
> Brad,
>
> This is my example:
>
> "I HAD BEEN READING [ Past Perfect Tense Progressive Aspect]
> your rumblings for
> too long before I DECIDED  [ Absolute Simple Past Tense ]
> that they were not
> worth my time."
>
> This is a proper use of the Progressive Past Perfect Tense
> (Aspect) and of the
> (Absolute) Simple Past Tense on the time axis. See Quirk et al.
> in "A
> Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language," and Comrie in
> "Aspect." 
>
>
>
> Eduard
>
>
>      
>

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1101655644-1293203276=:42169-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:14:36 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Herb, I don't think we would normally say "She was one of the last two people to see him alive." Normal would be "the last two people," which is the usual order for ordinal and cardinal numerals. It is strange to say "the last second man" because there can only be one second man. ("This would differ if you meant something like "second baseman" or "second violinist"; last would be Ok there because they act like a compound noun (a set phrase.) I think there are occasions when "last" would mean something like "latest." The "last report" and "latest report" both leave open the chance of a new report, though there are contexts in which "last" would be a final element. "The last words she spoke," for example, would mean something very different from "the latest words she spoke". "Latest" would tend to translate to "most recent" and last would usually be qualified with a point in time: "before she died" or "before she left for Paris." In the sentence in question, I think "last" is acting like an ordinal numeral. "This is the latest grill brush she will ever need" doesn't mean the same thing. > Craig, > > You're right that "last" is not a negative polarity item. In this > example, "ever" is the negative polarity item. Many negative polarity > items occur in irrealis contexts as well, as Bruce pointed out, and it's > the "will" that provides the irrealis context in the sentence we're > talking about. I got the function of "last" wrong. > > "Last," however, behaves like the superlative it is, arising historically > from OE "latost." "Last" and "latest" are a doublet in modern English and > "latest" developed in the 15th c. We can say, for example, "She was one > of the two last people to see him alive" or, as in the film title, "The > Last Man on Earth." These are both places where an number word cannot > occur. We can get "the second last man on earth" but not "the last second > man on earth." This suggests that "last" is an adjective. Semantically > it overlaps with ordinals and also can as an ordinal, just as nouns can > function as other lexical categories. > > Herb > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 7:08 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase > > I would classify "last" as an ordinal numeral: first, second, > third...last. Different grammars differ in where they draw the lines > for the determiners, but ordinal numbers are often in that group > (sometimes called postdeterminers since they come after the core > determiners like "a," "the," "this," "his" and so on). It has an > identifying function. The one we are talking about (the one in > reference) is the last one. > I don't think it has negative polarity, just the sense that in the > continuing list of "grill brushes" this is the final one. You can > negate it: this is not the last grill brush you will ever need." > Maybe "ever" doesn't extend as much as never because "forever" is an > option (whereas "fornever" is not). "You will need the grill brush > forever." > > Craig> > > > The last grill brush you will ever need. >> >> Is this a sentence at all? To assume an understood "This is" or "It >> is" won't account for it as they have very different meaning possible >> references. One almost demands that the brush be in the vicinity for >> reference. The other might well reference a brush that has yet to be >> created. >> >> I'd take "ever" as a simple adverb with the caveat that it must >> precede the verb it modifies. Perhaps it also needs something such as >> "will" in front of it. >> >> The understood "that" not stated in the clause is a relative pronoun >> that serves as the direct object of "will need." >> >> Is "last" anything more than a simple adjective? Does it function any >> differently than, say, "ultimate"? >> >> tj >> >> >> >> On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 7:45 am, Scott Lavitt wrote: >>> Happy holidays all. >>> >>> I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek >>> your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: >>> >>> The last grill brush you will ever need. >>> >>> I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. >>> and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. >>> Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, >>> and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts? >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Scott Lavitt >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 24 Dec 2010 10:44:00 -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: "T. J. Ray" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_SW_22450620_1293209040_mpa=" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_SW_22450620_1293209040_mpaContent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed It is very unpleasant to access this listerv only to find petulant jibes at other subscribers. As I know very little about how such listservs function, I have no idea how to establish a protocol of politeness and civility. At the end of the day I think that is more important than the sort of exchange below and the smug superiority it displays. tj On Friday 12/24/2010 at 9:13 am, Brad Johnston wrote: > > > > From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Sent: Fri, December 24, 2010 7:49:52 AM > Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge > > >> Brad, > > > > >> I know what the past perfect is, > > Fine. Let's see it. > > >> and I understand its value on the time axis. > > > Fine. Let's see it. > > >> I use it in a couple of languages > > You haven't yet demonstrated it in English > > >> I can also define it, > > > Fine. Let's see it. > > >> but what difference would it make to you? > > Lots, Eduard. You think I have nothing better to do than grapple with > a defensive grammarian? Hardly. > > >> You are not a believer. > > I believe in the obvious results of a 10-year inquiry into the nature > and extent of the misuse of 'had' in contemporary English. > > >> I am not peevish. > > Resipsa Loquitur. > > >> I am just tired of your endless repetitions of the same ignorant > affirmations on the tenses in English. > > If you're tired, hit the 'delete' button. I'll miss you. You're > interesting and good fun until you get peevish. > > >> You need to do a little reading before you can make some relevant > conversation. > > I have read more than you will ever read on the subject. > > >> Quirk and Comrie's books are not diversions from the topic. They > contain information that might improve your understanding of the > English tenses. > > > Fine. Let's see it ... or direct me to page numbers or sections. I > stand by "Quirk won't help you." > > >> Happy Holidays! > > >> Eduard > > "No offense intended" > > .brad.24dec10. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010 20:29 > Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge > To: [log in to unmask] > > > Eduard is peevish because I asked him, after a number of > > pleasant and > > interesting exchanges, to define the past perfect. He can't do > > it. He doesn't > > know what it is. That makes him cross. (If you can do > > it, Eduard, do it. Don't > > rant at me. Just do it.) > > > > I then asked him to ask each person in one of his classes to > > send me a > > definition, without him explaining what it is. I don't want to > > read 30 > > variations on what he tells them. Make it open book. Let them > > look it up if they > > want. > > > > He won't do that either, so he sends out a spleen-gram, and he > > drops Quirk's > > name as a smoke screen but Quirk won't help him. How's that for > > a definitive > > statement? Quirk won't help. > > > > Please prove me wrong, Eduard. Maybe the others will help you. > > Who has Quirk > > handy? > > > > .brad.23dec10. > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 7:41:35 AM > > Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge > > > > > > Brad, > > > > This is my example: > > > > "I HAD BEEN READING [ Past Perfect Tense Progressive Aspect] > > your rumblings for > > too long before I DECIDED [ Absolute Simple Past Tense ] > > that they were not > > worth my time." > > > > This is a proper use of the Progressive Past Perfect Tense > > (Aspect) and of the > > (Absolute) Simple Past Tense on the time axis. See Quirk et al. > > in "A > > Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language," and Comrie in > > "Aspect." > > > > > > > > Eduard > > > > > > > > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select > "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_SW_22450620_1293209040_mpaContent-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It is very unpleasant to access this listerv only to find petulant jibes at other

subscribers.  As I know very little about how such listservs function, I have
no idea how to establish a protocol of politeness and civility.  At the end of
the day I think that is more important than the sort of exchange below and
the smug superiority it displays.

tj


On Friday 12/24/2010 at 9:13 am, Brad Johnston wrote:
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, December 24, 2010 7:49:52 AM
Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge

>> Brad,
 
>> I know what the past perfect is,
 
Fine. Let's see it.
 
>> and I understand its value on the time axis.
 
Fine. Let's see it.
 
>> I use it in a couple of languages
 
You haven't yet demonstrated it in English
 
>> I can also define it,
 
Fine. Let's see it.
 
>> but what difference would it make to you?
 
Lots, Eduard. You think I have nothing better to do than grapple with a defensive grammarian? Hardly.
 
>> You are not a believer.
 
I believe in the obvious results of a 10-year inquiry into the nature and extent of the misuse of 'had' in contemporary English.
 
>> I am not peevish.
 
Resipsa Loquitur.
 
>> I am just tired of your endless repetitions of the same ignorant affirmations on the tenses in English.
 
If you're tired, hit the 'delete' button. I'll miss you. You're interesting and good fun until you get peevish.
 
>> You need to do a little reading before you can make some relevant conversation.
 
I have read more than you will ever read on the subject.
 
>> Quirk and Comrie's books are not diversions from the topic. They contain information that might improve your understanding of the English tenses.
 
Fine. Let's see it ... or direct me to page numbers or sections. I stand by "Quirk won't help you."
 
>> Happy Holidays!
 
>> Eduard
 
"No offense intended"
 
.brad.24dec10.
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010 20:29
Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge
To: [log in to unmask]

> Eduard is peevish because I asked him, after a number of
> pleasant and
> interesting exchanges, to define the past perfect. He can't do
> it. He doesn't
> know what it is. That makes him cross. (If you can do
> it, Eduard, do it. Don't
> rant at me. Just do it.)
>  
> I then asked him to ask each person in one of his classes to
> send me a
> definition, without him explaining what it is. I don't want to
> read 30
> variations on what he tells them. Make it open book. Let them
> look it up if they
> want.
>  
> He won't do that either, so he sends out a spleen-gram, and he
> drops Quirk's
> name as a smoke screen but Quirk won't help him. How's that for
> a definitive
> statement? Quirk won't help.
>  
> Please prove me wrong, Eduard. Maybe the others will help you.
> Who has Quirk
> handy?
>  
> .brad.23dec10.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 7:41:35 AM
> Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge
>
>
> Brad,
>
> This is my example:
>
> "I HAD BEEN READING [ Past Perfect Tense Progressive Aspect]
> your rumblings for
> too long before I DECIDED  [ Absolute Simple Past Tense ]
> that they were not
> worth my time."
>
> This is a proper use of the Progressive Past Perfect Tense
> (Aspect) and of the
> (Absolute) Simple Past Tense on the time axis. See Quirk et al.
> in "A
> Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language," and Comrie in
> "Aspect." 
>
>
>
> Eduard
>
>
>      
>

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

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


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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_SW_22450620_1293209040_mpa=-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 13:07:26 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0015177fd00c727f89049840d15a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 TJ, I share your sentiments. As Bruce mentioned in an earlier post, subscribers to this list leave after each of these exchanges, and the list grows smaller. It is sad, but I'm not sure what can be done about it. It is an open, public list with no moderators or censures, which has been a long-standing preference by the majority of members. I greatly value the freedom of expression on the list and the lack of censorship, but I also am sad each time I see members leave the list immediately after unpleasant or repetitive exchanges. I encourage everyone to use email filters to hide or block unwanted messages of any kind! Happy holidays to all! John Alexander On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 10:44 AM, T. J. Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > It is very unpleasant to access this listerv only to find petulant jibes > at other > subscribers. As I know very little about how such listservs function, I > have > no idea how to establish a protocol of politeness and civility. At the end > of > the day I think that is more important than the sort of exchange below and > the smug superiority it displays. > > tj > > > > On Friday 12/24/2010 at 9:13 am, Brad Johnston wrote: > > *From:* Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Sent:* Fri, December 24, 2010 7:49:52 AM > *Subject:* Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge > > >> Brad, > > >> I know what the past perfect is, > > Fine. Let's see it. > > >> and I understand its value on the time axis. > > Fine. Let's see it. > > >> I use it in a couple of languages > > You haven't yet demonstrated it in English > > >> I can also define it, > > Fine. Let's see it. > > >> but what difference would it make to you? > > Lots, Eduard. You think I have nothing better to do than grapple with > a defensive grammarian? Hardly. > > >> You are not a believer. > > I believe in the obvious results of a 10-year inquiry into the nature and > extent of the misuse of 'had' in contemporary English. > > >> I am not peevish. > > Resipsa Loquitur. > > >> I am just tired of your endless repetitions of the same ignorant > affirmations on the tenses in English. > > If you're tired, hit the 'delete' button. I'll miss you. You're interesting > and good fun until you get peevish. > > >> You need to do a little reading before you can make some relevant > conversation. > > I have read more than you will *ever* read on the subject. > > >> Quirk and Comrie's books are not diversions from the topic. They contain > information that might improve your understanding of the English tenses. > > Fine. Let's see it ... or direct me to page numbers or sections. I stand by > "Quirk won't help you." > > >> Happy Holidays! > > >> Eduard > > "No offense intended" > > .brad.24dec10. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010 20:29 > Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge > To: [log in to unmask] > > > Eduard is peevish because I asked him, after a number of > > pleasant and > > interesting exchanges, to define the past perfect. He can't do > > it. He doesn't > > know what it is. That makes him cross. (If you can do > > it, Eduard, do it. Don't > > rant at me. Just do it.) > > > > I then asked him to ask each person in one of his classes to > > send me a > > definition, without him explaining what it is. I don't want to > > read 30 > > variations on what he tells them. Make it open book. Let them > > look it up if they > > want. > > > > He won't do that either, so he sends out a spleen-gram, and he > > drops Quirk's > > name as a smoke screen but Quirk won't help him. How's that for > > a definitive > > statement? Quirk won't help. > > > > Please prove me wrong, Eduard. Maybe the others will help you. > > Who has Quirk > > handy? > > > > .brad.23dec10. > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 7:41:35 AM > > Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge > > > > > > Brad, > > > > This is my example: > > > > "I HAD BEEN READING [ Past Perfect Tense Progressive Aspect] > > your rumblings for > > too long before I DECIDED [ Absolute Simple Past Tense ] > > that they were not > > worth my time." > > > > This is a proper use of the Progressive Past Perfect Tense > > (Aspect) and of the > > (Absolute) Simple Past Tense on the time axis. See Quirk et al. > > in "A > > Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language," and Comrie in > > "Aspect." > > > > > > > > Eduard > > > > > > > > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0015177fd00c727f89049840d15a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable TJ,

I share your sentiments. As Bruce mentioned in an earlier post, subscribers to this list leave after each of these exchanges, and the list grows smaller. It is sad, but I'm not sure what can be done about it. It is an open, public list with no moderators or censures, which has been a long-standing preference by the majority of members. I greatly value the freedom of expression on the list and the lack of censorship, but I also am sad each time I see members leave the list immediately after unpleasant or repetitive exchanges.

I encourage everyone to use email filters to hide or block unwanted messages of any kind!

Happy holidays to all!

John Alexander

On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 10:44 AM, T. J. Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
It is very unpleasant to access this listerv only to find petulant jibes at other
subscribers.  As I know very little about how such listservs function, I have
no idea how to establish a protocol of politeness and civility.  At the end of
the day I think that is more important than the sort of exchange below and
the smug superiority it displays.

tj



On Friday 12/24/2010 at 9:13 am, Brad Johnston wrote:
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, December 24, 2010 7:49:52 AM
Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge

>> Brad,
 
>> I know what the past perfect is,
 
Fine. Let's see it.
 
>> and I understand its value on the time axis.
 
Fine. Let's see it.
 
>> I use it in a couple of languages
 
You haven't yet demonstrated it in English
 
>> I can also define it,
 
Fine. Let's see it.
 
>> but what difference would it make to you?
 
Lots, Eduard. You think I have nothing better to do than grapple with a defensive grammarian? Hardly.
 
>> You are not a believer.
 
I believe in the obvious results of a 10-year inquiry into the nature and extent of the misuse of 'had' in contemporary English.
 
>> I am not peevish.
 
Resipsa Loquitur.
 
>> I am just tired of your endless repetitions of the same ignorant affirmations on the tenses in English.
 
If you're tired, hit the 'delete' button. I'll miss you. You're interesting and good fun until you get peevish.
 
>> You need to do a little reading before you can make some relevant conversation.
 
I have read more than you will ever read on the subject.
 
>> Quirk and Comrie's books are not diversions from the topic. They contain information that might improve your understanding of the English tenses.
 
Fine. Let's see it ... or direct me to page numbers or sections. I stand by "Quirk won't help you."
 
>> Happy Holidays!
 
>> Eduard
 
"No offense intended"
 
.brad.24dec10.
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010 20:29
Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge
To: [log in to unmask]

> Eduard is peevish because I asked him, after a number of
> pleasant and
> interesting exchanges, to define the past perfect. He can't do
> it. He doesn't
> know what it is. That makes him cross. (If you can do
> it, Eduard, do it. Don't
> rant at me. Just do it.)
>  
> I then asked him to ask each person in one of his classes to
> send me a
> definition, without him explaining what it is. I don't want to
> read 30
> variations on what he tells them. Make it open book. Let them
> look it up if they
> want.
>  
> He won't do that either, so he sends out a spleen-gram, and he
> drops Quirk's
> name as a smoke screen but Quirk won't help him. How's that for
> a definitive
> statement? Quirk won't help.
>  
> Please prove me wrong, Eduard. Maybe the others will help you.
> Who has Quirk
> handy?
>  
> .brad.23dec10.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 7:41:35 AM
> Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge
>
>
> Brad,
>
> This is my example:
>
> "I HAD BEEN READING [ Past Perfect Tense Progressive Aspect]
> your rumblings for
> too long before I DECIDED  [ Absolute Simple Past Tense ]
> that they were not
> worth my time."
>
> This is a proper use of the Progressive Past Perfect Tense
> (Aspect) and of the
> (Absolute) Simple Past Tense on the time axis. See Quirk et al.
> in "A
> Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language," and Comrie in
> "Aspect." 
>
>
>
> Eduard
>
>
>      
>

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

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


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

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


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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0015177fd00c727f89049840d15a-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 16:11:40 -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: Mary Jo Napholz <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CD728F751CF5FD_1390_76555_webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CD728F751CF5FD_1390_76555_webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I have learned to use the delete button often with this list serve. Some discussions are relevant to me and others not. I just check out the tread and if I see the bickering attitude, click on delete. Some want to prove that they are "right," but most of us just wish to be part of the discourse; sometimes as observes, sometimes as contributors. Don't leave the list serve because of a few, start your own thread about what is relevant to you. Delete those conversations that are not. Happy Holidays to all. Mary Jo Napholz -----Original Message----- From: T. J. Ray <[log in to unmask]> To: ATEG <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Fri, Dec 24, 2010 11:44 am Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge It is very unpleasant to access this listerv only to find petulant jibes at other subscribers. As I know very little about how such listservs function, I have no idea how to establish a protocol of politeness and civility. At the end of the day I think that is more important than the sort of exchange below and the smug superiority it displays. tj On Friday 12/24/2010 at 9:13 am, Brad Johnston wrote: From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Fri, December 24, 2010 7:49:52 AM Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge >> Brad, >> I know what the past perfect is, Fine. Let's see it. >> and I understand its value on the time axis. Fine. Let's see it. >> I use it in a couple of languages You haven't yet demonstrated it in English >> I can also define it, Fine. Let's see it. >> but what difference would it make to you? Lots, Eduard. You think I have nothing better to do than grapple with a defensive grammarian? Hardly. >> You are not a believer. I believe in the obvious results of a 10-year inquiry into the nature and extent of the misuse of 'had' in contemporary English. >> I am not peevish. Resipsa Loquitur. >> I am just tired of your endless repetitions of the same ignorant affirmations on the tenses in English. If you're tired, hit the 'delete' button. I'll miss you. You're interesting and good fun until you get peevish. >> You need to do a little reading before you can make some relevant conversation. I have read more than you will ever read on the subject. >> Quirk and Comrie's books are not diversions from the topic. They contain information that might improve your understanding of the English tenses. Fine. Let's see it ... or direct me to page numbers or sections. I stand by "Quirk won't help you." >> Happy Holidays! >> Eduard "No offense intended" .brad.24dec10. ----- Original Message ----- From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010 20:29 Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge To: [log in to unmask] > Eduard is peevish because I asked him, after a number of > pleasant and > interesting exchanges, to define the past perfect. He can't do > it. He doesn't > know what it is. That makes him cross. (If you can do > it, Eduard, do it. Don't > rant at me. Just do it.) > > I then asked him to ask each person in one of his classes to > send me a > definition, without him explaining what it is. I don't want to > read 30 > variations on what he tells them. Make it open book. Let them > look it up if they > want. > > He won't do that either, so he sends out a spleen-gram, and he > drops Quirk's > name as a smoke screen but Quirk won't help him. How's that for > a definitive > statement? Quirk won't help. > > Please prove me wrong, Eduard. Maybe the others will help you. > Who has Quirk > handy? > > .brad.23dec10. > > > ________________________________ > From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 7:41:35 AM > Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge > > > Brad, > > This is my example: > > "I HAD BEEN READING [ Past Perfect Tense Progressive Aspect] > your rumblings for > too long before I DECIDED [ Absolute Simple Past Tense ] > that they were not > worth my time." > > This is a proper use of the Progressive Past Perfect Tense > (Aspect) and of the > (Absolute) Simple Past Tense on the time axis. See Quirk et al. > in "A > Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language," and Comrie in > "Aspect." > > > > Eduard > > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.htmland select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ----------MB_8CD728F751CF5FD_1390_76555_webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" I have learned to use the delete button often with this list serve.  Some discussions are relevant to me and others not.  I just check out the tread and if I see the bickering attitude, click on delete.  Some want to prove that they are "right," but most of us just wish to be part of the discourse; sometimes as observes, sometimes as contributors.  Don't leave the list serve because of a few, start your own thread about what is relevant to you.  Delete those conversations that are not.  Happy Holidays to all.  Mary Jo Napholz





-----Original Message-----
From: T. J. Ray <[log in to unmask]>
To: ATEG <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Fri, Dec 24, 2010 11:44 am
Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge

It is very unpleasant to access this listerv only to find petulant jibes at other
subscribers.  As I know very little about how such listservs function, I have
no idea how to establish a protocol of politeness and civility.  At the end of
the day I think that is more important than the sort of exchange below and
the smug superiority it displays.

tj


On Friday 12/24/2010 at 9:13 am, Brad Johnston wrote:
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, December 24, 2010 7:49:52 AM
Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge

>> Brad,
 
>> I know what the past perfect is,
 
Fine. Let's see it.
 
>> and I understand its value on the time axis.
 
Fine. Let's see it.
 
>> I use it in a couple of languages
 
You haven't yet demonstrated it in English
 
>> I can also define it,
 
Fine. Let's see it.
 
>> but what difference would it make to you?
 
Lots, Eduard. You think I have nothing better to do than grapple with a defensive grammarian? Hardly.
 
>> You are not a believer.
 
I believe in the obvious results of a 10-year inquiry into the nature and extent of the misuse of 'had' in contemporary English.
 
>> I am not peevish.
 
Resipsa Loquitur.
 
>> I am just tired of your endless repetitions of the same ignorant affirmations on the tenses in English.
 
If you're tired, hit the 'delete' button. I'll miss you. You're interesting and good fun until you get peevish.
 
>> You need to do a little reading before you can make some relevant conversation.
 
I have read more than you will ever read on the subject.
 
>> Quirk and Comrie's books are not diversions from the topic. They contain information that might improve your understanding of the English tenses.
 
Fine. Let's see it ... or direct me to page numbers or sections. I stand by "Quirk won't help you."
 
>> Happy Holidays!
 
>> Eduard
 
"No offense intended"
 
.brad.24dec10.
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010 20:29
Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge
To: [log in to unmask]

> Eduard is peevish because I asked him, after a number of
> pleasant and
> interesting exchanges, to define the past perfect. He can't do
> it. He doesn't
> know what it is. That makes him cross. (If you can do
> it, Eduard, do it. Don't
> rant at me. Just do it.)
>  
> I then asked him to ask each person in one of his classes to
> send me a
> definition, without him explaining what it is. I don't want to
> read 30
> variations on what he tells them. Make it open book. Let them
> look it up if they
> want.
>  
> He won't do that either, so he sends out a spleen-gram, and he
> drops Quirk's
> name as a smoke screen but Quirk won't help him. How's that for
> a definitive
> statement? Quirk won't help.
>  
> Please prove me wrong, Eduard. Maybe the others will help you.
> Who has Quirk
> handy?
>  
> .brad.23dec10.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 7:41:35 AM
> Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge
>
>
> Brad,
>
> This is my example:
>
> "I HAD BEEN READING [ Past Perfect Tense Progressive Aspect]
> your rumblings for
> too long before I DECIDED  [ Absolute Simple Past Tense ]
> that they were not
> worth my time."
>
> This is a proper use of the Progressive Past Perfect Tense
> (Aspect) and of the
> (Absolute) Simple Past Tense on the time axis. See Quirk et al.
> in "A
> Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language," and Comrie in
> "Aspect." 
>
>
>
> Eduard
>
>
>      
>

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ----------MB_8CD728F751CF5FD_1390_76555_webmail-d026.sysops.aol.com-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 22:07:32 -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: "T. J. Ray" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_SW_1271590120_1293336452_mpa=" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_SW_1271590120_1293336452_mpaContent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Mary Jo, you're right. One final thought on this current topic and then I'll pose a new question. The problem with instant deletion may very well blip folks who are talking about something other than whatever was originally offending. May I suggest that one might at the very least add a caveat in the original Subject line to indicate a change of topic? Now, to my ignorance: I'd very much like to hear a discussion of what some of us old folks once called nominative absolutes. tj On Saturday 12/25/2010 at 3:16 pm, Mary Jo Napholz wrote: > I have learned to use the delete button often with this list serve. > Some discussions are relevant to me and others not. I just check out > the tread and if I see the bickering attitude, click on delete. Some > want to prove that they are "right," but most of us just wish to be > part of the discourse; sometimes as observes, sometimes as > contributors. Don't leave the list serve because of a few, start your > own thread about what is relevant to you. Delete those conversations > that are not. Happy Holidays to all. Mary Jo Napholz > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: T. J. Ray <[log in to unmask]> > To: ATEG <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Fri, Dec 24, 2010 11:44 am > Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge > > > It is very unpleasant to access this listerv only to find petulant > jibes at other > subscribers. As I know very little about how such listservs function, > I have > no idea how to establish a protocol of politeness and civility. At > the end of > the day I think that is more important than the sort of exchange below > and > the smug superiority it displays. > > tj > > > > On Friday 12/24/2010 at 9:13 am, Brad Johnston wrote: >> >> >> >> From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Sent: Fri, December 24, 2010 7:49:52 AM >> Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge >> >> >> Brad, >> >> >> >> >> I know what the past perfect is, >> >> Fine. Let's see it. >> >> >> and I understand its value on the time axis. >> >> >> Fine. Let's see it. >> >> >> I use it in a couple of languages >> >> You haven't yet demonstrated it in English >> >> >> I can also define it, >> >> >> Fine. Let's see it. >> >> >> but what difference would it make to you? >> >> Lots, Eduard. You think I have nothing better to do than grapple with >> a defensive grammarian? Hardly. >> >> >> You are not a believer. >> >> I believe in the obvious results of a 10-year inquiry into the nature >> and extent of the misuse of 'had' in contemporary English. >> >> >> I am not peevish. >> >> Resipsa Loquitur. >> >> >> I am just tired of your endless repetitions of the same ignorant >> affirmations on the tenses in English. >> >> If you're tired, hit the 'delete' button. I'll miss you. You're >> interesting and good fun until you get peevish. >> >> >> You need to do a little reading before you can make some relevant >> conversation. >> >> I have read more than you will ever read on the subject. >> >> >> Quirk and Comrie's books are not diversions from the topic. They >> contain information that might improve your understanding of the >> English tenses. >> >> >> Fine. Let's see it ... or direct me to page numbers or sections. I >> stand by "Quirk won't help you." >> >> >> Happy Holidays! >> >> >> Eduard >> >> "No offense intended" >> >> .brad.24dec10. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> >> Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010 20:29 >> Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge >> To: [log in to unmask] >> >> > Eduard is peevish because I asked him, after a number of >> > pleasant and >> > interesting exchanges, to define the past perfect. He can't do >> > it. He doesn't >> > know what it is. That makes him cross. (If you can do >> > it, Eduard, do it. Don't >> > rant at me. Just do it.) >> > >> > I then asked him to ask each person in one of his classes to >> > send me a >> > definition, without him explaining what it is. I don't want to >> > read 30 >> > variations on what he tells them. Make it open book. Let them >> > look it up if they >> > want. >> > >> > He won't do that either, so he sends out a spleen-gram, and he >> > drops Quirk's >> > name as a smoke screen but Quirk won't help him. How's that for >> > a definitive >> > statement? Quirk won't help. >> > >> > Please prove me wrong, Eduard. Maybe the others will help you. >> > Who has Quirk >> > handy? >> > >> > .brad.23dec10. >> > >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> >> > To: [log in to unmask] >> > Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 7:41:35 AM >> > Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge >> > >> > >> > Brad, >> > >> > This is my example: >> > >> > "I HAD BEEN READING [ Past Perfect Tense Progressive Aspect] >> > your rumblings for >> > too long before I DECIDED [ Absolute Simple Past Tense ] >> > that they were not >> > worth my time." >> > >> > This is a proper use of the Progressive Past Perfect Tense >> > (Aspect) and of the >> > (Absolute) Simple Past Tense on the time axis. See Quirk et al. >> > in "A >> > Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language," and Comrie in >> > "Aspect." >> > >> > >> > >> > Eduard >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select >> "Join or leave the list" >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.htmland select > "Join or leave the list" > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this > LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_SW_1271590120_1293336452_mpaContent-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mary Jo, you're right.  One final thought on this current topic and then I'll pose

a new question.

The problem with instant deletion may very well blip folks who are talking about
something other than whatever was originally offending.  May I suggest that one
might at the very least add a caveat in the original Subject line to indicate a change
of topic?

Now, to my ignorance:  I'd very much like to hear a discussion of what some of us
old folks once called nominative absolutes.

tj


On Saturday 12/25/2010 at 3:16 pm, Mary Jo Napholz wrote:
I have learned to use the delete button often with this list serve.  Some discussions are relevant to me and others not.  I just check out the tread and if I see the bickering attitude, click on delete.  Some want to prove that they are "right," but most of us just wish to be part of the discourse; sometimes as observes, sometimes as contributors.  Don't leave the list serve because of a few, start your own thread about what is relevant to you.  Delete those conversations that are not.  Happy Holidays to all.  Mary Jo Napholz




-----Original Message-----
From: T. J. Ray <[log in to unmask]>
To: ATEG <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Fri, Dec 24, 2010 11:44 am
Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge

It is very unpleasant to access this listerv only to find petulant jibes at other
subscribers.  As I know very little about how such listservs function, I have
no idea how to establish a protocol of politeness and civility.  At the end of
the day I think that is more important than the sort of exchange below and
the smug superiority it displays.

tj


On Friday 12/24/2010 at 9:13 am, Brad Johnston wrote:
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, December 24, 2010 7:49:52 AM
Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge

>> Brad,
 
>> I know what the past perfect is,
 
Fine. Let's see it.
 
>> and I understand its value on the time axis.
 
Fine. Let's see it.
 
>> I use it in a couple of languages
 
You haven't yet demonstrated it in English
 
>> I can also define it,
 
Fine. Let's see it.
 
>> but what difference would it make to you?
 
Lots, Eduard. You think I have nothing better to do than grapple with a defensive grammarian? Hardly.
 
>> You are not a believer.
 
I believe in the obvious results of a 10-year inquiry into the nature and extent of the misuse of 'had' in contemporary English.
 
>> I am not peevish.
 
Resipsa Loquitur.
 
>> I am just tired of your endless repetitions of the same ignorant affirmations on the tenses in English.
 
If you're tired, hit the 'delete' button. I'll miss you. You're interesting and good fun until you get peevish.
 
>> You need to do a little reading before you can make some relevant conversation.
 
I have read more than you will ever read on the subject.
 
>> Quirk and Comrie's books are not diversions from the topic. They contain information that might improve your understanding of the English tenses.
 
Fine. Let's see it ... or direct me to page numbers or sections. I stand by "Quirk won't help you."
 
>> Happy Holidays!
 
>> Eduard
 
"No offense intended"
 
.brad.24dec10.
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010 20:29
Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge
To: [log in to unmask]

> Eduard is peevish because I asked him, after a number of
> pleasant and
> interesting exchanges, to define the past perfect. He can't do
> it. He doesn't
> know what it is. That makes him cross. (If you can do
> it, Eduard, do it. Don't
> rant at me. Just do it.)
>  
> I then asked him to ask each person in one of his classes to
> send me a
> definition, without him explaining what it is. I don't want to
> read 30
> variations on what he tells them. Make it open book. Let them
> look it up if they
> want.
>  
> He won't do that either, so he sends out a spleen-gram, and he
> drops Quirk's
> name as a smoke screen but Quirk won't help him. How's that for
> a definitive
> statement? Quirk won't help.
>  
> Please prove me wrong, Eduard. Maybe the others will help you.
> Who has Quirk
> handy?
>  
> .brad.23dec10.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask] join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 08:16:13 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE88209EMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE88209EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 VEosDQoNCldlIGhhZCBhIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gb2YgdGhlIG5vbWluYXRpdmUgYWJzb2x1dGUgc29t ZXRpbWUgYmFjayB0aGF0IHlvdSBtYXkgYmUgYWJsZSB0byBmaW5kIGluIHRoZSBhcmNoaXZlLiAg RGVuaXMgQmFyb24gd3JvdGUgc2V2ZXJhbCBwaWVjZXMgb24gdGhlIE5BIG9uIGhpcyBibG9nIFdl YiBvZiBMYW5ndWFnZSB3aGVuIHRoZSBTdXByZW1lIENvdXJ0IHdhcyBjb25zaWRlcmluZyB0aGUg REMgaGFuZGd1biBiYW4uICBUaGUgbW9zdCByZWxldmFudCBvZiB0aGVtIGlzIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9p bGxpbm9pcy5lZHUvZGIvdmlldy8yNS8zNzIxP2NvdW50PTEmYW1wO0FDVElPTj1ESUFMT0csIGJ1 dCB5b3XigJlsbCBmaW5kIHNldmVyYWwgb3RoZXJzIG9uIGhpcyBpbmRleCBpZiB5b3Ugc2VhcmNo IOKAnFNlY29uZCBBbWVuZG1lbnQu4oCdICBUaGUgZml2ZSBqdXN0aWNlcyBvcHBvc2luZyB0aGUg YmFuIGRpc2FncmVlZCB3aXRoIHRoZSBsaW5ndWlzdHMgd2hvIGZpbGVkIGFuIGFtaWN1cyBicmll ZiBvbiB0aGUgbWF0dGVyLg0KDQpIZXJiDQoNCkZyb206IEFzc2VtYmx5IGZvciB0aGUgVGVhY2hp bmcgb2YgRW5nbGlzaCBHcmFtbWFyIFttYWlsdG86QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVXSBP biBCZWhhbGYgT2YgVC4gSi4gUmF5DQpTZW50OiBTYXR1cmRheSwgRGVjZW1iZXIgMjUsIDIwMTAg MTE6MDggUE0NClRvOiBBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFUNClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBEZXNw YWluLCBNYXN0ZXJpbmcgdGhlIENoYWxsZW5nZQ0KDQpNYXJ5IEpvLCB5b3UncmUgcmlnaHQuICBP bmUgZmluYWwgdGhvdWdodCBvbiB0aGlzIGN1cnJlbnQgdG9waWMgYW5kIHRoZW4gSSdsbCBwb3Nl DQphIG5ldyBxdWVzdGlvbi4NCg0KVGhlIHByb2JsZW0gd2l0aCBpbnN0YW50IGRlbGV0aW9uIG1h eSB2ZXJ5IHdlbGwgYmxpcCBmb2xrcyB3aG8gYXJlIHRhbGtpbmcgYWJvdXQNCnNvbWV0aGluZyBv dGhlciB0aGFuIHdoYXRldmVyIHdhcyBvcmlnaW5hbGx5IG9mZmVuZGluZy4gIE1heSBJIHN1Z2dl c3QgdGhhdCBvbmUNCm1pZ2h0IGF0IHRoZSB2ZXJ5IGxlYXN0IGFkZCBhIGNhdmVhdCBpbiB0aGUg b3JpZ2luYWwgU3ViamVjdCBsaW5lIHRvIGluZGljYXRlIGEgY2hhbmdlDQpvZiB0b3BpYz8NCg0K Tm93LCB0byBteSBpZ25vcmFuY2U6ICBJJ2QgdmVyeSBtdWNoIGxpa2UgdG8gaGVhciBhIGRpc2N1 c3Npb24gb2Ygd2hhdCBzb21lIG9mIHVzDQpvbGQgZm9sa3Mgb25jZSBjYWxsZWQgbm9taW5hdGl2 ZSBhYnNvbHV0ZXMuDQoNCnRqDQoNCk9uIFNhdHVyZGF5IDEyLzI1LzIwMTAgYXQgMzoxNiBwbSwg TWFyeSBKbyBOYXBob2x6IHdyb3RlOg0KSSBoYXZlIGxlYXJuZWQgdG8gdXNlIHRoZSBkZWxldGUg YnV0dG9uIG9mdGVuIHdpdGggdGhpcyBsaXN0IHNlcnZlLiAgU29tZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9ucyBhcmUg cmVsZXZhbnQgdG8gbWUgYW5kIG90aGVycyBub3QuICBJIGp1c3QgY2hlY2sgb3V0IHRoZSB0cmVh ZCBhbmQgaWYgSSBzZWUgdGhlIGJpY2tlcmluZyBhdHRpdHVkZSwgY2xpY2sgb24gZGVsZXRlLiAg U29tZSB3YW50IHRvIHByb3ZlIHRoYXQgdGhleSBhcmUgInJpZ2h0LCIgYnV0IG1vc3Qgb2YgdXMg anVzdCB3aXNoIHRvIGJlIHBhcnQgb2YgdGhlIGRpc2NvdXJzZTsgc29tZXRpbWVzIGFzIG9ic2Vy dmVzLCBzb21ldGltZXMgYXMgY29udHJpYnV0b3JzLiAgRG9uJ3QgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3Qgc2Vy dmUgYmVjYXVzZSBvZiBhIGZldywgc3RhcnQgeW91ciBvd24gdGhyZWFkIGFib3V0IHdoYXQgaXMg cmVsZXZhbnQgdG8geW91LiAgRGVsZXRlIHRob3NlIGNvbnZlcnNhdGlvbnMgdGhhdCBhcmUgbm90 LiAgSGFwcHkgSG9saWRheXMgdG8gYWxsLiAgTWFyeSBKbyBOYXBob2x6DQoNCg0KDQoNCi0tLS0t T3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQpGcm9tOiBULiBKLiBSYXkgPHRqcmF5QE9MRU1JU1MuRURV Pg0KVG86IEFURUcgPEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVT4NClNlbnQ6IEZyaSwgRGVjIDI0 LCAyMDEwIDExOjQ0IGFtDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogRGVzcGFpbiwgTWFzdGVyaW5nIHRoZSBDaGFs bGVuZ2UNCkl0IGlzIHZlcnkgdW5wbGVhc2FudCB0byBhY2Nlc3MgdGhpcyBsaXN0ZXJ2IG9ubHkg dG8gZmluZCBwZXR1bGFudCBqaWJlcyBhdCBvdGhlcg0Kc3Vic2NyaWJlcnMuICBBcyBJIGtub3cg dmVyeSBsaXR0bGUgYWJvdXQgaG93IHN1Y2ggbGlzdHNlcnZzIGZ1bmN0aW9uLCBJIGhhdmUNCm5v IGlkZWEgaG93IHRvIGVzdGFibGlzaCBhIHByb3RvY29sIG9mIHBvbGl0ZW5lc3MgYW5kIGNpdmls aXR5LiAgQXQgdGhlIGVuZCBvZg0KdGhlIGRheSBJIHRoaW5rIHRoYXQgaXMgbW9yZSBpbXBvcnRh bnQgdGhhbiB0aGUgc29ydCBvZiBleGNoYW5nZSBiZWxvdyBhbmQNCnRoZSBzbXVnIHN1cGVyaW9y aXR5IGl0IGRpc3BsYXlzLg0KDQp0ag0KDQpPbiBGcmlkYXkgMTIvMjQvMjAxMCBhdCA5OjEzIGFt LCBCcmFkIEpvaG5zdG9uIHdyb3RlOg0KRnJvbTogRWR1YXJkIEhhbmdhbnUgPGVjaGFuZ2FudUBJ TlNJR0hUQkIuQ09NPg0KVG86IEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVQ0KU2VudDogRnJpLCBE ZWNlbWJlciAyNCwgMjAxMCA3OjQ5OjUyIEFNDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogRGVzcGFpbiwgTWFzdGVy aW5nIHRoZSBDaGFsbGVuZ2UNCg0KPj4gQnJhZCwNCg0KPj4gSSBrbm93IHdoYXQgdGhlIHBhc3Qg cGVyZmVjdCBpcywNCg0KRmluZS4gTGV0J3Mgc2VlIGl0Lg0KDQo+PiBhbmQgSSB1bmRlcnN0YW5k IGl0cyB2YWx1ZSBvbiB0aGUgdGltZSBheGlzLg0KDQpGaW5lLiBMZXQncyBzZWUgaXQuDQoNCj4+ IEkgdXNlIGl0IGluIGEgY291cGxlIG9mIGxhbmd1YWdlcw0KDQpZb3UgaGF2ZW4ndCB5ZXQgZGVt b25zdHJhdGVkIGl0IGluIEVuZ2xpc2gNCg0KPj4gSSBjYW4gYWxzbyBkZWZpbmUgaXQsDQoNCkZp bmUuIExldCdzIHNlZSBpdC4NCg0KPj4gYnV0IHdoYXQgZGlmZmVyZW5jZSB3b3VsZCBpdCBtYWtl IHRvIHlvdT8NCg0KTG90cywgRWR1YXJkLiBZb3UgdGhpbmsgSSBoYXZlIG5vdGhpbmcgYmV0dGVy IHRvIGRvIHRoYW4gZ3JhcHBsZSB3aXRoIGEgZGVmZW5zaXZlIGdyYW1tYXJpYW4/IEhhcmRseS4N Cg0KPj4gWW91IGFyZSBub3QgYSBiZWxpZXZlci4NCg0KSSBiZWxpZXZlIGluIHRoZSBvYnZpb3Vz IHJlc3VsdHMgb2YgYSAxMC15ZWFyIGlucXVpcnkgaW50byB0aGUgbmF0dXJlIGFuZCBleHRlbnQg b2YgdGhlIG1pc3VzZSBvZiAnaGFkJyBpbiBjb250ZW1wb3JhcnkgRW5nbGlzaC4NCg0KPj4gSSBh bSBub3QgcGVldmlzaC4NCg0KUmVzaXBzYSBMb3F1aXR1ci4NCg0KPj4gSSBhbSBqdXN0IHRpcmVk IG9mIHlvdXIgZW5kbGVzcyByZXBldGl0aW9ucyBvZiB0aGUgc2FtZSBpZ25vcmFudCBhZmZpcm1h dGlvbnMgb24gdGhlIHRlbnNlcyBpbiBFbmdsaXNoLg0KDQpJZiB5b3UncmUgdGlyZWQsIGhpdCB0 aGUgJ2RlbGV0ZScgYnV0dG9uLiBJJ2xsIG1pc3MgeW91LiBZb3UncmUgaW50ZXJlc3RpbmcgYW5k IGdvb2QgZnVuIHVudGlsIHlvdSBnZXQgcGVldmlzaC4NCg0KPj4gWW91IG5lZWQgdG8gZG8gYSBs aXR0bGUgcmVhZGluZyBiZWZvcmUgeW91IGNhbiBtYWtlIHNvbWUgcmVsZXZhbnQgY29udmVyc2F0 aW9uLg0KDQpJIGhhdmUgcmVhZCBtb3JlIHRoYW4geW91IHdpbGwgZXZlciByZWFkIG9uIHRoZSBz dWJqZWN0Lg0KDQo+PiBRdWlyayBhbmQgQ29tcmllJ3MgYm9va3MgYXJlIG5vdCBkaXZlcnNpb25z IGZyb20gdGhlIHRvcGljLiBUaGV5IGNvbnRhaW4gaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gdGhhdCBtaWdodCBpbXBy b3ZlIHlvdXIgdW5kZXJzdGFuZGluZyBvZiB0aGUgRW5nbGlzaCB0ZW5zZXMuDQoNCkZpbmUuIExl dCdzIHNlZSBpdCAuLi4gb3IgZGlyZWN0IG1lIHRvIHBhZ2UgbnVtYmVycyBvciBzZWN0aW9ucy4g SSBzdGFuZCBieSAiUXVpcmsgd29uJ3QgaGVscCB5b3UuIg0KDQo+PiBIYXBweSBIb2xpZGF5cyEN Cg0KPj4gRWR1YXJkDQoNCiJObyBvZmZlbnNlIGludGVuZGVkIg0KDQouYnJhZC4yNGRlYzEwLg0K DQotLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0tDQpGcm9tOiBCcmFkIEpvaG5zdG9uIDxicmFk dmluZXMyQFlBSE9PLkNPTT4NCkRhdGU6IFRodXJzZGF5LCBEZWNlbWJlciAyMywgMjAxMCAyMDoy OQ0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IERlc3BhaW4sIE1hc3RlcmluZyB0aGUgQ2hhbGxlbmdlDQpUbzogQVRF R0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVDQoNCj4gRWR1YXJkIGlzIHBlZXZpc2ggYmVjYXVzZSBJIGFz a2VkIGhpbSwgYWZ0ZXIgYSBudW1iZXIgb2YNCj4gcGxlYXNhbnQgYW5kDQo+IGludGVyZXN0aW5n IGV4Y2hhbmdlcywgdG8gZGVmaW5lIHRoZSBwYXN0IHBlcmZlY3QuIEhlIGNhbid0IGRvDQo+IGl0 LiBIZSBkb2Vzbid0DQo+IGtub3cgd2hhdCBpdCBpcy4gVGhhdCBtYWtlcyBoaW0gY3Jvc3MuIChJ ZiB5b3UgY2FuIGRvDQo+IGl0LCBFZHVhcmQsIGRvIGl0LiBEb24ndA0KPiByYW50IGF0IG1lLiBK dXN0IGRvIGl0LikNCj4NCj4gSSB0aGVuIGFza2VkIGhpbSB0byBhc2sgZWFjaCBwZXJzb24gaW4g b25lIG9mIGhpcyBjbGFzc2VzIHRvDQo+IHNlbmQgbWUgYQ0KPiBkZWZpbml0aW9uLCB3aXRob3V0 IGhpbSBleHBsYWluaW5nIHdoYXQgaXQgaXMuIEkgZG9uJ3Qgd2FudCB0bw0KPiByZWFkIDMwDQo+ IHZhcmlhdGlvbnMgb24gd2hhdCBoZSB0ZWxscyB0aGVtLiBNYWtlIGl0IG9wZW4gYm9vay4gTGV0 IHRoZW0NCj4gbG9vayBpdCB1cCBpZiB0aGV5DQo+IHdhbnQuDQo+DQo+IEhlIHdvbid0IGRvIHRo YXQgZWl0aGVyLCBzbyBoZSBzZW5kcyBvdXQgYSBzcGxlZW4tZ3JhbSwgYW5kIGhlDQo+IGRyb3Bz IFF1aXJrJ3MNCj4gbmFtZSBhcyBhIHNtb2tlIHNjcmVlbiBidXQgUXVpcmsgd29uJ3QgaGVscCBo aW0uIEhvdydzIHRoYXQgZm9yDQo+IGEgZGVmaW5pdGl2ZQ0KPiBzdGF0ZW1lbnQ/IFF1aXJrIHdv bid0IGhlbHAuDQo+DQo+IFBsZWFzZSBwcm92ZSBtZSB3cm9uZywgRWR1YXJkLiBNYXliZSB0aGUg b3RoZXJzIHdpbGwgaGVscCB5b3UuDQo+IFdobyBoYXMgUXVpcmsNCj4gaGFuZHk/DQo+DQo+IC5i cmFkLjIzZGVjMTAuDQo+DQo+DQo+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+ IEZyb206IEVkdWFyZCBIYW5nYW51IDxlY2hhbmdhbnVASU5TSUdIVEJCLkNPTVRvIGpvaW4gb3Ig bGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50 ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwg YW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCINClZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0 ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvDQo --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE88209EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+PGhlYWQ+PG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUgY29udGVu dD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij48bWV0YSBuYW1lPUdlbmVyYXRvciBjb250ZW50 PSJNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCAxNCAoZmlsdGVyZWQgbWVkaXVtKSI+PHN0eWxlPjwhLS0NCi8qIEZv bnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6SGVsdmV0aWNhOw0K CXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMTEgNiA0IDIgMiAyIDIgMiA0O30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1p bHk6SGVsdmV0aWNhOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMTEgNiA0IDIgMiAyIDIgMiA0O30NCkBmb250LWZh Y2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDE1IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAzIDIg NDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OlRhaG9tYTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDExIDYg NCAzIDUgNCA0IDIgNDt9DQovKiBTdHlsZSBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KcC5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGxp Lk1zb05vcm1hbCwgZGl2Lk1zb05vcm1hbA0KCXttYXJnaW46MGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206 LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9t YW4iLCJzZXJpZiI7fQ0KYTpsaW5rLCBzcGFuLk1zb0h5cGVybGluaw0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJp b3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6Ymx1ZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCmE6 dmlzaXRlZCwgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmtGb2xsb3dlZA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6 OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6cHVycGxlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjp1bmRlcmxpbmU7fQ0KcA0KCXtt c28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87DQoJbWFyZ2lu LXJpZ2h0OjBpbjsNCgltc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0bzsNCgltYXJnaW4tbGVmdDow aW47DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIiwi c2VyaWYiO30NCnAuc3dtZXNzYWdlLCBsaS5zd21lc3NhZ2UsIGRpdi5zd21lc3NhZ2UNCgl7bXNv LXN0eWxlLW5hbWU6c3dfbWVzc2FnZTsNCgltc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzsNCgltYXJn aW4tcmlnaHQ6MGluOw0KCW1zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0 OjBpbjsNCgliYWNrZ3JvdW5kOndoaXRlOw0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1p bHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO30NCnAuc3dtZXNzYWdlMSwgbGkuc3dtZXNzYWdlMSwg ZGl2LnN3bWVzc2FnZTENCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLW5hbWU6c3dfbWVzc2FnZTE7DQoJbWFyZ2luOjBp bjsNCgltYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOi4wMDAxcHQ7DQoJYmFja2dyb3VuZDp3aGl0ZTsNCglmb250LXNp emU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjt9DQpwLnN3bWVz c2FnZTIsIGxpLnN3bWVzc2FnZTIsIGRpdi5zd21lc3NhZ2UyDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1uYW1lOnN3 X21lc3NhZ2UyOw0KCW1hcmdpbjowaW47DQoJbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTouMDAwMXB0Ow0KCWJhY2tn cm91bmQ6d2hpdGU7DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGFob21hIiwi c2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7fQ0Kc3Bhbi5FbWFpbFN0eWxlMjENCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6cGVyc29u YWwtcmVwbHk7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsNCgljb2xvcjoj MUY0OTdEO30NCi5Nc29DaHBEZWZhdWx0DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOmV4cG9ydC1vbmx5Ow0K CWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7fQ0KQHBhZ2UgV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3NpemU6OC41aW4gMTEu MGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbjoxLjBpbiAxLjBpbiAxLjBpbiAxLjBpbjt9DQpkaXYuV29yZFNlY3Rpb24x DQoJe3BhZ2U6V29yZFNlY3Rpb24xO30NCi0tPjwvc3R5bGU+PCEtLVtpZiBndGUgbXNvIDldPjx4 bWw+DQo8bzpzaGFwZWRlZmF1bHRzIHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0IiBzcGlkbWF4PSIxMDI2IiAvPg0KPC94 bWw+PCFbZW5kaWZdLS0+PCEtLVtpZiBndGUgbXNvIDldPjx4bWw+DQo8bzpzaGFwZWxheW91dCB2 OmV4dD0iZWRpdCI+DQo8bzppZG1hcCB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIgZGF0YT0iMSIgLz4NCjwvbzpzaGFw ZWxheW91dD48L3htbD48IVtlbmRpZl0tLT48L2hlYWQ+PGJvZHkgYmdjb2xvcj13aGl0ZSBsYW5n PUVOLVVTIGxpbms9Ymx1ZSB2bGluaz1wdXJwbGU+PGRpdiBjbGFzcz1Xb3JkU2VjdGlvbjE+PHAg Y2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+VEosPG86cD48L286cD48L3Nw YW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtm b250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPjxvOnA+Jm5i c3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQt c2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjojMUY0 OTdEJz5XZSBoYWQgYSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIG9mIHRoZSBub21pbmF0aXZlIGFic29sdXRlIHNvbWV0 aW1lIGJhY2sgdGhhdCB5b3UgbWF5IGJlIGFibGUgdG8gZmluZCBpbiB0aGUgYXJjaGl2ZS7CoCBE ZW5pcyBCYXJvbiB3cm90ZSBzZXZlcmFsIHBpZWNlcyBvbiB0aGUgTkEgb24gaGlzIGJsb2cgV2Vi IG9mIExhbmd1YWdlIHdoZW4gdGhlIFN1cHJlbWUgQ291cnQgd2FzIGNvbnNpZGVyaW5nIHRoZSBE QyBoYW5kZ3VuIGJhbi7CoCBUaGUgbW9zdCByZWxldmFudCBvZiB0aGVtIGlzIGF0IDxhIGhyZWY9 Imh0dHA6Ly9pbGxpbm9pcy5lZHUvZGIvdmlldy8yNS8zNzIxP2NvdW50PTEmYW1wO2FtcDtBQ1RJ T049RElBTE9HIj5odHRwOi8vaWxsaW5vaXMuZWR1L2RiL3ZpZXcvMjUvMzcyMT9jb3VudD0xJmFt cDthbXA7QUNUSU9OPURJQUxPRzwvYT4sIGJ1dCB5b3XigJlsbCBmaW5kIHNldmVyYWwgb3RoZXJz IG9uIGhpcyBpbmRleCBpZiB5b3Ugc2VhcmNoIOKAnFNlY29uZCBBbWVuZG1lbnQu4oCdwqAgVGhl IGZpdmUganVzdGljZXMgb3Bwb3NpbmcgdGhlIGJhbiBkaXNhZ3JlZWQgd2l0aCB0aGUgbGluZ3Vp c3RzIHdobyBmaWxlZCBhbiBhbWljdXMgYnJpZWYgb24gdGhlIG1hdHRlci48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwv c3Bhbj48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0 O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+PG86cD4m bmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9u dC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMx RjQ5N0QnPkhlcmI8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFu IHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJp ZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxkaXY+PGRpdiBz dHlsZT0nYm9yZGVyOm5vbmU7Ym9yZGVyLXRvcDpzb2xpZCAjQjVDNERGIDEuMHB0O3BhZGRpbmc6 My4wcHQgMGluIDBpbiAwaW4nPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48Yj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9u dC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPkZyb206PC9z cGFuPjwvYj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGFob21h Iiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPiBBc3NlbWJseSBmb3IgdGhlIFRlYWNoaW5nIG9mIEVuZ2xpc2ggR3Jh bW1hciBbbWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVV0gPGI+T24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIDwv Yj5ULiBKLiBSYXk8YnI+PGI+U2VudDo8L2I+IFNhdHVyZGF5LCBEZWNlbWJlciAyNSwgMjAxMCAx MTowOCBQTTxicj48Yj5Ubzo8L2I+IEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVTxicj48Yj5TdWJq ZWN0OjwvYj4gUmU6IERlc3BhaW4sIE1hc3RlcmluZyB0aGUgQ2hhbGxlbmdlPG86cD48L286cD48 L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjwvZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpw PjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEi LCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+TWFyeSBKbywgeW91J3JlIHJpZ2h0LiAmbmJzcDtPbmUgZmluYWwgdGhv dWdodCBvbiB0aGlzIGN1cnJlbnQgdG9waWMgYW5kIHRoZW4gSSdsbCBwb3NlPG86cD48L286cD48 L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LWZhbWls eToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPmEgbmV3IHF1ZXN0aW9uLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFu PjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1p bHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9k aXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhv bWEiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+VGhlIHByb2JsZW0gd2l0aCBpbnN0YW50IGRlbGV0aW9uIG1heSB2 ZXJ5IHdlbGwgYmxpcCBmb2xrcyB3aG8gYXJlIHRhbGtpbmcgYWJvdXQ8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bh bj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+c29tZXRoaW5nIG90aGVyIHRoYW4gd2hhdGV2ZXIg d2FzIG9yaWdpbmFsbHkgb2ZmZW5kaW5nLiAmbmJzcDtNYXkgSSBzdWdnZXN0IHRoYXQgb25lPG86 cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0 eWxlPSdmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPm1pZ2h0IGF0IHRoZSB2ZXJ5 IGxlYXN0IGFkZCBhIGNhdmVhdCBpbiB0aGUgb3JpZ2luYWwgU3ViamVjdCBsaW5lIHRvIGluZGlj YXRlIGEgY2hhbmdlPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNv Tm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPm9m IHRvcGljPzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1h bD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz48bzpwPiZu YnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4g c3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+Tm93LCB0byBteSBpZ25v cmFuY2U6ICZuYnNwO0knZCB2ZXJ5IG11Y2ggbGlrZSB0byBoZWFyIGEgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBvZiB3 aGF0IHNvbWUgb2YgdXM8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1N c29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+ b2xkIGZvbGtzIG9uY2UgY2FsbGVkIG5vbWluYXRpdmUgYWJzb2x1dGVzLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9z cGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1m YW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+ PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206MTIuMHB0 Jz48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz50ajxicj48 YnI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0n Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz5PbiBTYXR1cmRheSAxMi8yNS8yMDEw IGF0IDM6MTYgcG0sIE1hcnkgSm8gTmFwaG9seiB3cm90ZTogPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9w PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZh bWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2snPkkgaGF2ZSBsZWFybmVkIHRv IHVzZSB0aGUgZGVsZXRlIGJ1dHRvbiBvZnRlbiB3aXRoIHRoaXMgbGlzdCBzZXJ2ZS4mbmJzcDsg U29tZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9ucyBhcmUgcmVsZXZhbnQgdG8gbWUgYW5kIG90aGVycyBub3QuJm5ic3A7 IEkganVzdCBjaGVjayBvdXQgdGhlIHRyZWFkIGFuZCBpZiBJIHNlZSB0aGUgYmlja2VyaW5nIGF0 dGl0dWRlLCBjbGljayBvbiBkZWxldGUuJm5ic3A7IFNvbWUgd2FudCB0byBwcm92ZSB0aGF0IHRo ZXkgYXJlICZxdW90O3JpZ2h0LCZxdW90OyBidXQgbW9zdCBvZiB1cyBqdXN0IHdpc2ggdG8gYmUg cGFydCBvZiB0aGUgZGlzY291cnNlOyBzb21ldGltZXMgYXMgb2JzZXJ2ZXMsIHNvbWV0aW1lcyBh cyBjb250cmlidXRvcnMuJm5ic3A7IERvbid0IGxlYXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0IHNlcnZlIGJlY2F1c2Ug b2YgYSBmZXcsIHN0YXJ0IHlvdXIgb3duIHRocmVhZCBhYm91dCB3aGF0IGlzIHJlbGV2YW50IHRv IHlvdS4mbmJzcDsgRGVsZXRlIHRob3NlIGNvbnZlcnNhdGlvbnMgdGhhdCBhcmUgbm90LiZuYnNw OyBIYXBweSBIb2xpZGF5cyB0byBhbGwuJm5ic3A7IE1hcnkgSm8gTmFwaG9seiA8bzpwPjwvbzpw Pjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6 ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz48 bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+ PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMt c2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRp dj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1m YW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpw Pjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2Zv bnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOmJs YWNrJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29O b3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206MTIuMHB0Jz48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXpl OjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiSGVsdmV0aWNhIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2sn Pi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tPGJyPkZyb206IFQuIEouIFJheSAmbHQ7dGpyYXlA T0xFTUlTUy5FRFUmZ3Q7PGJyPlRvOiBBVEVHICZsdDtBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFUm Z3Q7PGJyPlNlbnQ6IEZyaSwgRGVjIDI0LCAyMDEwIDExOjQ0IGFtPGJyPlN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBE ZXNwYWluLCBNYXN0ZXJpbmcgdGhlIENoYWxsZW5nZTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48ZGl2 IGlkPSJBT0xNc2dQYXJ0XzFfZDhiMTU2MjctZTE1YS00ZDc2LWEzNWMtOWNiYzljMjViMGFlIj48 cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1p bHk6IkhlbHZldGljYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz5JdCBpcyB2ZXJ5IHVucGxl YXNhbnQgdG8gYWNjZXNzIHRoaXMgbGlzdGVydiBvbmx5IHRvIGZpbmQgcGV0dWxhbnQgamliZXMg YXQgb3RoZXIgPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxz cGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJIZWx2ZXRpY2EiLCJzYW5z LXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+c3Vic2NyaWJlcnMuICZuYnNwO0FzIEkga25vdyB2ZXJ5IGxp dHRsZSBhYm91dCBob3cgc3VjaCBsaXN0c2VydnMgZnVuY3Rpb24sIEkgaGF2ZTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+ PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9u dC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiSGVsdmV0aWNhIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6 YmxhY2snPm5vIGlkZWEgaG93IHRvIGVzdGFibGlzaCBhIHByb3RvY29sIG9mIHBvbGl0ZW5lc3Mg YW5kIGNpdmlsaXR5LiAmbmJzcDtBdCB0aGUgZW5kIG9mPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwv ZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0 O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJIZWx2ZXRpY2EiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+dGhlIGRh eSBJIHRoaW5rIHRoYXQgaXMgbW9yZSBpbXBvcnRhbnQgdGhhbiB0aGUgc29ydCBvZiBleGNoYW5n ZSBiZWxvdyBhbmQ8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29O b3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkhlbHZldGlj YSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz50aGUgc211ZyBzdXBlcmlvcml0eSBpdCBkaXNw bGF5cy48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+ PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkhlbHZldGljYSIsInNh bnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+ PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206MTIuMHB0Jz48c3Bh biBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiSGVsdmV0aWNhIiwic2Fucy1z ZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2snPnRqPGJyPjxicj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PHAgY2xh c3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJI ZWx2ZXRpY2EiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+T24gRnJpZGF5IDEyLzI0LzIwMTAg YXQgOToxMyBhbSwgQnJhZCBKb2huc3RvbiB3cm90ZTogPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxk aXY+PGRpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48Yj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXpl OjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+RnJv bTo8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJB cmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz4gRWR1YXJkIEhhbmdhbnUgJmx0O2VjaGFu Z2FudUBJTlNJR0hUQkIuQ09NJmd0Ozxicj48Yj5Ubzo8L2I+IEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElP LkVEVTxicj48Yj5TZW50OjwvYj4gRnJpLCBEZWNlbWJlciAyNCwgMjAxMCA3OjQ5OjUyIEFNPGJy PjxiPlN1YmplY3Q6PC9iPiBSZTogRGVzcGFpbiwgTWFzdGVyaW5nIHRoZSBDaGFsbGVuZ2U8YnI+ PGJyPiZndDsmZ3Q7IEJyYWQsPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PGRpdj48 ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtjb2xv cjpibGFjayc+Jm5ic3A7PC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+PG86cD48L286 cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdm b250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz4mZ3Q7Jmd0OyBJIGtub3cgd2hhdCB0aGUgcGFz dCBwZXJmZWN0IGlzLDwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nY29sb3I6YmxhY2snPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+ PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nY29s b3I6YmxhY2snPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNz PU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+Rmlu ZS4gTGV0J3Mgc2VlIGl0Ljwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nY29sb3I6YmxhY2snPjxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0n Y29sb3I6YmxhY2snPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNs YXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+ Jmd0OyZndDsgYW5kIEkgdW5kZXJzdGFuZCBpdHMgdmFsdWUgb24gdGhlIHRpbWUgYXhpcy48L3Nw YW4+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+ PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz4mbmJzcDs8 bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48 c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+RmluZS4gTGV0J3Mgc2Vl IGl0LjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48 c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286 cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0 eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz4mZ3Q7Jmd0OyBJIHVzZSBpdCBpbiBh IGNvdXBsZSBvZiBsYW5ndWFnZXMgPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+PG86 cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0 eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+ PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2NvbG9yOmJs YWNrJz5Zb3UgaGF2ZW4ndCB5ZXQgZGVtb25zdHJhdGVkIGl0IGluIEVuZ2xpc2g8L3NwYW4+PHNw YW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48 cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwv bzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9 J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2snPiZndDsmZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7SSBjYW4gYWxzbyBk ZWZpbmUgaXQsPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+PG86cD48L286cD48L3Nw YW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpi bGFjayc+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFz cz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2snPkZp bmUuIExldCdzIHNlZSBpdC48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFz cz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2snPiZu YnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05v cm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+Jmd0OyZndDsg YnV0IHdoYXQgZGlmZmVyZW5jZSB3b3VsZCBpdCBtYWtlIHRvIHlvdT88L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gc3R5 bGU9J2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFz cz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwv c3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQt c2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2snPkxvdHMsIEVkdWFyZC4gWW91IHRoaW5rIEkgaGF2ZSBu b3RoaW5nIGJldHRlciB0byBkbyB0aGFuIGdyYXBwbGUgd2l0aCBhJm5ic3A7ZGVmZW5zaXZlIGdy YW1tYXJpYW4/IEhhcmRseS48L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz48bzpwPjwv bzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9 J2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBj bGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2sn PiZndDsmZ3Q7IFlvdSBhcmUgbm90IGEgYmVsaWV2ZXIuPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdjb2xv cjpibGFjayc+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9y bWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9w PjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAu MHB0O2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz5JIGJlbGlldmUgaW4gdGhlIG9idmlvdXMgcmVzdWx0cyBvZiBhIDEw LXllYXIgaW5xdWlyeSBpbnRvIHRoZSBuYXR1cmUgYW5kIGV4dGVudCBvZiB0aGUgbWlzdXNlIG9m ICdoYWQnIGluIGNvbnRlbXBvcmFyeSBFbmdsaXNoLjwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nY29sb3I6 YmxhY2snPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1h bD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nY29sb3I6YmxhY2snPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48 L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBw dDtjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+Jmd0OyZndDsgSSBhbSBub3QgcGVldmlzaC48L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gc3R5 bGU9J2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFz cz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwv c3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQt c2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2snPlJlc2lwc2EgTG9xdWl0dXIuPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0 eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xh c3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48 L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250 LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz4mZ3Q7Jmd0OyBJIGFtIGp1c3QgdGlyZWQgb2YgeW91 ciBlbmRsZXNzIHJlcGV0aXRpb25zIG9mIHRoZSBzYW1lIGlnbm9yYW50IGFmZmlybWF0aW9ucyBv biB0aGUgdGVuc2VzIGluIEVuZ2xpc2guPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+ PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFu IHN0eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2Pjxk aXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2NvbG9y OmJsYWNrJz5JZiB5b3UncmUgdGlyZWQsIGhpdCB0aGUgJ2RlbGV0ZScgYnV0dG9uLiBJJ2xsIG1p c3MgeW91LiBZb3UncmUgaW50ZXJlc3RpbmcgYW5kIGdvb2QgZnVuIHVudGlsIHlvdSBnZXQgcGVl dmlzaC48L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48 L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9yOmJsYWNr Jz4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3Jt YWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2snPiZndDsmZ3Q7Jm5i c3A7WW91IG5lZWQgdG8gZG8gYSBsaXR0bGUgcmVhZGluZyBiZWZvcmUgeW91IGNhbiBtYWtlIHNv bWUgcmVsZXZhbnQgY29udmVyc2F0aW9uLjwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nY29sb3I6YmxhY2sn PjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3Bh biBzdHlsZT0nY29sb3I6YmxhY2snPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48 ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtjb2xv cjpibGFjayc+SSBoYXZlIHJlYWQgbW9yZSB0aGFuIHlvdSB3aWxsIDx1PmV2ZXI8L3U+IHJlYWQg b24gdGhlIHN1YmplY3QuPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+PG86cD48L286 cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdj b2xvcjpibGFjayc+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xh c3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz4m Z3Q7Jmd0OyBRdWlyayBhbmQgQ29tcmllJ3MgYm9va3MgYXJlIG5vdCBkaXZlcnNpb25zIGZyb20g dGhlIHRvcGljLiBUaGV5IGNvbnRhaW4gaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gdGhhdCBtaWdodCBpbXByb3ZlIHlv dXIgdW5kZXJzdGFuZGluZyBvZiB0aGUgRW5nbGlzaCB0ZW5zZXMuPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxl PSdjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9 TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3Nw YW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2Zv bnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2snPkZpbmUuIExldCdzIHNlZSBpdCAuLi4gb3IgZGly ZWN0IG1lIHRvIHBhZ2UgbnVtYmVycyBvciBzZWN0aW9ucy4gSSBzdGFuZCBieSAmcXVvdDtRdWly ayB3b24ndCBoZWxwIHlvdS4mcXVvdDs8L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz48 bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+ PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2snPiZuYnNwOzwvc3Bhbj48 c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nY29sb3I6YmxhY2snPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2 PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtjb2xvcjpi bGFjayc+Jmd0OyZndDsgSGFwcHkgSG9saWRheXMhPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpi bGFjayc+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFs PjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwv ZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0 O2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz4mZ3Q7Jmd0OyBFZHVhcmQgPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpi bGFjayc+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFs PjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwv ZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0 O2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz4mcXVvdDtObyBvZmZlbnNlIGludGVuZGVkJnF1b3Q7PC9zcGFuPjxzcGFu IHN0eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAg Y2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286 cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdm b250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz4uYnJhZC4yNGRlYzEwLjwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBz dHlsZT0nY29sb3I6YmxhY2snPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNs YXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+ Jm5ic3A7PC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+ PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6 MTAuMHB0O2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz4tLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0tPGJyPkZyb206 IEJyYWQgSm9obnN0b24gJmx0O2JyYWR2aW5lczJAWUFIT08uQ09NJmd0Ozxicj5EYXRlOiBUaHVy c2RheSwgRGVjZW1iZXIgMjMsIDIwMTAgMjA6Mjk8YnI+U3ViamVjdDogUmU6IERlc3BhaW4sIE1h c3RlcmluZyB0aGUgQ2hhbGxlbmdlPGJyPlRvOiBBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFU8YnI+ PGJyPiZndDsgRWR1YXJkIGlzIHBlZXZpc2ggYmVjYXVzZSBJIGFza2VkIGhpbSwgYWZ0ZXIgYSBu dW1iZXIgb2YgPGJyPiZndDsgcGxlYXNhbnQgYW5kIDxicj4mZ3Q7IGludGVyZXN0aW5nIGV4Y2hh bmdlcywgdG8gZGVmaW5lIHRoZSBwYXN0IHBlcmZlY3QuIEhlIGNhbid0IGRvIDxicj4mZ3Q7IGl0 LiBIZSBkb2Vzbid0IDxicj4mZ3Q7IGtub3cgd2hhdCBpdCBpcy4gVGhhdCBtYWtlcyBoaW0gY3Jv c3MuIChJZiB5b3UgY2FuIGRvIDxicj4mZ3Q7IGl0LCZuYnNwO0VkdWFyZCwmbmJzcDtkbyBpdC4g RG9uJ3QgPGJyPiZndDsgcmFudCBhdCBtZS4gSnVzdCBkbyBpdC4pPGJyPiZndDsgJm5ic3A7PGJy PiZndDsgSSB0aGVuIGFza2VkIGhpbSB0byBhc2sgZWFjaCBwZXJzb24gaW4gb25lIG9mIGhpcyBj bGFzc2VzJm5ic3A7dG8gPGJyPiZndDsgc2VuZCBtZSBhIDxicj4mZ3Q7IGRlZmluaXRpb24sIHdp dGhvdXQgaGltIGV4cGxhaW5pbmcgd2hhdCBpdCBpcy4gSSBkb24ndCB3YW50IHRvIDxicj4mZ3Q7 IHJlYWQgMzAgPGJyPiZndDsgdmFyaWF0aW9ucyBvbiB3aGF0IGhlIHRlbGxzIHRoZW0uIE1ha2Ug aXQgb3BlbiBib29rLiBMZXQgdGhlbSA8YnI+Jmd0OyBsb29rIGl0IHVwIGlmIHRoZXkgPGJyPiZn dDsgd2FudC48YnI+Jmd0OyAmbmJzcDs8YnI+Jmd0OyBIZSB3b24ndCBkbyB0aGF0IGVpdGhlciwg c28gaGUgc2VuZHMgb3V0IGEgc3BsZWVuLWdyYW0sIGFuZCZuYnNwO2hlIDxicj4mZ3Q7IGRyb3Bz Jm5ic3A7UXVpcmsncyA8YnI+Jmd0OyBuYW1lIGFzIGEgc21va2Ugc2NyZWVuIGJ1dCZuYnNwO1F1 aXJrIHdvbid0IGhlbHAgaGltLiBIb3cncyB0aGF0IGZvciA8YnI+Jmd0OyBhIGRlZmluaXRpdmUg PGJyPiZndDsgc3RhdGVtZW50PyZuYnNwO1F1aXJrIHdvbid0IGhlbHAuPGJyPiZndDsgJm5ic3A7 PGJyPiZndDsgUGxlYXNlIHByb3ZlIG1lIHdyb25nLCBFZHVhcmQuIE1heWJlIHRoZSBvdGhlcnMg d2lsbCBoZWxwIHlvdS4gPGJyPiZndDsgV2hvIGhhcyBRdWlyayA8YnI+Jmd0OyBoYW5keT88YnI+ Jmd0OyAmbmJzcDs8YnI+Jmd0OyAuYnJhZC4yM2RlYzEwLjxicj4mZ3Q7IDxicj4mZ3Q7IDxicj4m Z3Q7IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fPGJyPiZndDsgRnJvbTogRWR1YXJk IEhhbmdhbnUgJmx0O2VjaGFuZ2FudUBJTlNJR0hUQkIuQ09NVG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlz IExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6 IGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbCBhbmQgc2VsZWN0 ICZxdW90O0pvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QmcXVvdDsgPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9w PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtjb2xvcjpi bGFjayc+VmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy88bzpwPjwvbzpw Pjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+PC9k aXY+PC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+PC9ib2R5PjwvaHRtbD4 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE88209EMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 08:35:47 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1004010431-1293467747=:28864" --0-1004010431-1293467747=:28864 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here's what happens, T.J.  I say to someone -- often an English teacher -- "what is the past perfect?" And they think, (he or she thinks), Hey, I know what the past perfect is. But then at the behest of the Little Voice, they think, I better look it up, just to be sure.   The first definition they find is that it "denotes an action or state completed at of before a past time spoken of" . They think, hmmm. The battle of Hastings had been fought before the Magna Carta was signed? That doesn't work, so maybe I should look elsewhere. (Webster's has agreed, by the way, to reconsider their entry for the present perfect before the 12th Edition goes to press, as well they should; they made a mess of it.) Next they find this one: "It is used to refer to a situation in the past that came before another situation in the past. (Hmmm, same problem.) The past perfect represents either the past of the simple past (well, hardly) or the past of the the present perfect", which we all know isn't true.   Maybe since we got our language from the Latins, we should look there. Let's see. "The pluperfect tense indicates an action that takes place more in the past or prior to another past action." Hey, are these people copying from each other?   Quirk, Greenbaum, et al, don't try to define it, but they give, among other illustrations, "The goalkeeper had injured his leg and couldn't play", and "He had died in 1920, before his son was born".   "The past perfect tense describes an action completed sometime in the past",   "The past perfect tense indicates that one past event preceded another",    "The pluperfect is a compound tense conjugated with avoir and etre and is used to say what had happened", (Isn't this a dandy?) "The past perfect is a perfective tense used to express action completed in the past",   "The past perfect - An event or state started at one point in the past and ended at another point in the past",   "The past perfect is often used to emphasis (sic) that one action, event or condition ended before another past action, event, or condition ended."   "The past perfect tense represents an action as completed at a past time. It may denote that an action occurred at an indefinite or definite time in the past." I better quit before I bore you right out of your chair, T.J. The point is that if you try to look it up, you will find a hodgepodge of meaningless and inconsistent definitions and explanations. You will think, whateverthehell are these people talking about? Someone should sit down and try to figure out what it is and if it isn't anything, let's stop teaching it, or trying to teach it, since no one seems to know what it is. Of all the many people of whom I asked "what is it?", only two have been willing to answer. One said that "the past perfect is had + the past participle", which is rather like saying a ladder is something with a rung or a train is something with wheels (as are lawnmowers and rickshaws). The other more recent try, which you may have seen, we should leave lying with the sleeping dog, to not foment an unnecessary exchange of gunfire. ALL the others, and that includes the most eloquent and talkative on this listserv, cannot do it. I feel certain they would if they could but they can't. They don't know it themselves and when they try to look it up, they get what you see a sample of above. The "definitions" are all over the map and there are hundreds more like them. Let me ask you, T-J, what is the past perfect? If you either (a) rant and snort and call me names, or (b) not reply, you will, as any reasonable person would agree, prove my point. Good hunting. Let me know what you think. I'm very much interested. I've been at this for a long time but a reasonable, coherent conclusion everyone -- including but not limited to novelists, journalists, and grammarians -- can accept still seems far away. Maybe you can help us. .brad.27dec10. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1004010431-1293467747=:28864 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Here's what happens, T.J.  I say to someone -- often an English teacher -- "what is the past perfect?" And they think, (he or she thinks), Hey, I know what the past perfect is. But then at the behest of the Little Voice, they think, I better look it up, just to be sure.
 
The first definition they find is that it "denotes an action or state completed at of before a past time spoken of" <Webster's 11th Edition>. They think, hmmm. The battle of Hastings had been fought before the Magna Carta was signed? That doesn't work, so maybe I should look elsewhere. (Webster's has agreed, by the way, to reconsider their entry for the present perfect before the 12th Edition goes to press, as well they should; they made a mess of it.)

Next they find this one: "It is used to refer to a situation in the past that came before another situation in the past. (Hmmm, same problem.) The past perfect represents either the past of the simple past (well, hardly) or the past of the the present perfect", which we all know isn't true. <English Grammar, Sidney Greenbaum, 1986>
 
Maybe since we got our language from the Latins, we should look there. Let's see. "The pluperfect tense indicates an action that takes place more in the past or prior to another past action." Hey, are these people copying from each other? <Latin for Dummies, Hull, Perkins, et al.>
 
Quirk, Greenbaum, et al, don't try to define it, but they give, among other illustrations, "The goalkeeper had injured his leg and couldn't play", and "He had died in 1920, before his son was born". <A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Longman, 1985>
 
"The past perfect tense describes an action completed sometime in the past", <Columbia Guide to Standard American English, 1993>
 
"The past perfect tense indicates that one past event preceded another", <Handbook of Technical Writing, Alred, Brusaw & Oliu, 2003>
 
"The pluperfect is a compound tense conjugated with avoir and etre and is used to say what had happened", <Teach Yourself French Grammar, Sidwell & Haviland> (Isn't this a dandy?)
 
"The past perfect is a perfective tense used to express action completed in the past", <The Free Dictionary>
 
"The past perfect - An event or state started at one point in the past and ended at another point in the past", <Gareth Jones Website>
 
 
"The past perfect tense represents an action as completed at a past time. It may denote that an action occurred at an indefinite or definite time in the past." <Descriptive English Grammar, Susan Emolyn Harman>
 
I better quit before I bore you right out of your chair, T.J. The point is that if you try to look it up, you will find a hodgepodge of meaningless and inconsistent definitions and explanations. You will think, whateverthehell are these people talking about? Someone should sit down and try to figure out what it is and if it isn't anything, let's stop teaching it, or trying to teach it, since no one seems to know what it is.
 
Of all the many people of whom I asked "what is it?", only two have been willing to answer. One said that "the past perfect is had + the past participle", which is rather like saying a ladder is something with a rung or a train is something with wheels (as are lawnmowers and rickshaws). The other more recent try, which you may have seen, we should leave lying with the sleeping dog, to not foment an unnecessary exchange of gunfire.
 
ALL the others, and that includes the most eloquent and talkative on this listserv, cannot do it. I feel certain they would if they could but they can't. They don't know it themselves and when they try to look it up, they get what you see a sample of above. The "definitions" are all over the map and there are hundreds more like them.
 
Let me ask you, T-J, what is the past perfect?
 
If you either (a) rant and snort and call me names, or (b) not reply, you will, as any reasonable person would agree, prove my point.
 
Good hunting. Let me know what you think. I'm very much interested. I've been at this for a long time but a reasonable, coherent conclusion everyone -- including but not limited to novelists, journalists, and grammarians -- can accept still seems far away. Maybe you can help us.
 
.brad.27dec10.

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1004010431-1293467747=:28864-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:03:58 -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: "Dixon, Jack" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0F79F16D80ACAF4697CCB4902BACE2ED2C999C2A90LSCSMAILCLSCS_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0F79F16D80ACAF4697CCB4902BACE2ED2C999C2A90LSCSMAILCLSCS_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Brad: You may respond to me off the listserv if you want to keep the suspense going -- or on the listserv. I would define the past perfect as the aspect of the past we use to express the first of two actions that occurred at different points in the past. That is, past perfect is used to express the action in the remote past, while the simple past is used to express the action that happened closest to the present. Clearly, I am wrong. All I ask is two things: 1) what is the past perfect? 2) what is the source of your definition/usage if all the other sources are wrong? If you have answered these two questions in the past, I beg your indulgence. If you answer these, I'll file away your response so that I will not have to trouble you again. Jack [log in to unmask] ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 10:35 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect Here's what happens, T.J. I say to someone -- often an English teacher -- "what is the past perfect?" And they think, (he or she thinks), Hey, I know what the past perfect is. But then at the behest of the Little Voice, they think, I better look it up, just to be sure. The first definition they find is that it "denotes an action or state completed at of before a past time spoken of" . They think, hmmm. The battle of Hastings had been fought before the Magna Carta was signed? That doesn't work, so maybe I should look elsewhere. (Webster's has agreed, by the way, to reconsider their entry for the present perfect before the 12th Edition goes to press, as well they should; they made a mess of it.) Next they find this one: "It is used to refer to a situation in the past that came before another situation in the past. (Hmmm, same problem.) The past perfect represents either the past of the simple past (well, hardly) or the past of the the present perfect", which we all know isn't true. Maybe since we got our language from the Latins, we should look there. Let's see. "The pluperfect tense indicates an action that takes place more in the past or prior to another past action." Hey, are these people copying from each other? Quirk, Greenbaum, et al, don't try to define it, but they give, among other illustrations, "The goalkeeper had injured his leg and couldn't play", and "He had died in 1920, before his son was born". "The past perfect tense describes an action completed sometime in the past", "The past perfect tense indicates that one past event preceded another", "The pluperfect is a compound tense conjugated with avoir and etre and is used to say what had happened", (Isn't this a dandy?) "The past perfect is a perfective tense used to express action completed in the past", "The past perfect - An event or state started at one point in the past and ended at another point in the past", "The past perfect is often used to emphasis (sic) that one action, event or condition ended before another past action, event, or condition ended." "The past perfect tense represents an action as completed at a past time. It may denote that an action occurred at an indefinite or definite time in the past." I better quit before I bore you right out of your chair, T.J. The point is that if you try to look it up, you will find a hodgepodge of meaningless and inconsistent definitions and explanations. You will think, whateverthehell are these people talking about? Someone should sit down and try to figure out what it is and if it isn't anything, let's stop teaching it, or trying to teach it, since no one seems to know what it is. Of all the many people of whom I asked "what is it?", only two have been willing to answer. One said that "the past perfect is had + the past participle", which is rather like saying a ladder is something with a rung or a train is something with wheels (as are lawnmowers and rickshaws). The other more recent try, which you may have seen, we should leave lying with the sleeping dog, to not foment an unnecessary exchange of gunfire. ALL the others, and that includes the most eloquent and talkative on this listserv, cannot do it. I feel certain they would if they could but they can't. They don't know it themselves and when they try to look it up, they get what you see a sample of above. The "definitions" are all over the map and there are hundreds more like them. Let me ask you, T-J, what is the past perfect? If you either (a) rant and snort and call me names, or (b) not reply, you will, as any reasonable person would agree, prove my point. Good hunting. Let me know what you think. I'm very much interested. I've been at this for a long time but a reasonable, coherent conclusion everyone -- including but not limited to novelists, journalists, and grammarians -- can accept still seems far away. Maybe you can help us. .brad.27dec10. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0F79F16D80ACAF4697CCB4902BACE2ED2C999C2A90LSCSMAILCLSCS_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Brad:  
 
You may respond to me off the listserv if you want to keep the suspense going -- or on the listserv.  I would define the past perfect as the aspect of the past we use to express the first of two actions that occurred at different points in the past.  That is, past perfect is used to express the action in the remote past, while the simple past is used to express the action that happened closest to the present.  Clearly, I am wrong.
 
All I ask is two things:  1) what is the past perfect?  2) what is the source of your definition/usage if all the other sources are wrong?
 
If you have answered these two questions in the past, I beg your indulgence.  If you answer these, I'll file away your response so that I will not have to trouble you again.
 
Jack
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 10:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect

Here's what happens, T.J.  I say to someone -- often an English teacher -- "what is the past perfect?" And they think, (he or she thinks), Hey, I know what the past perfect is. But then at the behest of the Little Voice, they think, I better look it up, just to be sure.
 
The first definition they find is that it "denotes an action or state completed at of before a past time spoken of" <Webster's 11th Edition>. They think, hmmm. The battle of Hastings had been fought before the Magna Carta was signed? That doesn't work, so maybe I should look elsewhere. (Webster's has agreed, by the way, to reconsider their entry for the present perfect before the 12th Edition goes to press, as well they should; they made a mess of it.)

Next they find this one: "It is used to refer to a situation in the past that came before another situation in the past. (Hmmm, same problem.) The past perfect represents either the past of the simple past (well, hardly) or the past of the the present perfect", which we all know isn't true. <English Grammar, Sidney Greenbaum, 1986>
 
Maybe since we got our language from the Latins, we should look there. Let's see. "The pluperfect tense indicates an action that takes place more in the past or prior to another past action." Hey, are these people copying from each other? <Latin for Dummies, Hull, Perkins, et al.>
 
Quirk, Greenbaum, et al, don't try to define it, but they give, among other illustrations, "The goalkeeper had injured his leg and couldn't play", and "He had died in 1920, before his son was born". <A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Longman, 1985>
 
"The past perfect tense describes an action completed sometime in the past", <Columbia Guide to Standard American English, 1993>
 
"The past perfect tense indicates that one past event preceded another", <Handbook of Technical Writing, Alred, Brusaw & Oliu, 2003>
 
"The pluperfect is a compound tense conjugated with avoir and etre and is used to say what had happened", <Teach Yourself French Grammar, Sidwell & Haviland> (Isn't this a dandy?)
 
"The past perfect is a perfective tense used to express action completed in the past", <The Free Dictionary>
 
"The past perfect - An event or state started at one point in the past and ended at another point in the past", <Gareth Jones Website>
 
"The past perfect is often used to emphasis (sic) that one action, event or condition ended before another past action, event, or condition ended." <University of Ottawa>
 
"The past perfect tense represents an action as completed at a past time. It may denote that an action occurred at an indefinite or definite time in the past." <Descriptive English Grammar, Susan Emolyn Harman>
 
I better quit before I bore you right out of your chair, T.J. The point is that if you try to look it up, you will find a hodgepodge of meaningless and inconsistent definitions and explanations. You will think, whateverthehell are these people talking about? Someone should sit down and try to figure out what it is and if it isn't anything, let's stop teaching it, or trying to teach it, since no one seems to know what it is.
 
Of all the many people of whom I asked "what is it?", only two have been willing to answer. One said that "the past perfect is had + the past participle", which is rather like saying a ladder is something with a rung or a train is something with wheels (as are lawnmowers and rickshaws). The other more recent try, which you may have seen, we should leave lying with the sleeping dog, to not foment an unnecessary exchange of gunfire.
 
ALL the others, and that includes the most eloquent and talkative on this listserv, cannot do it. I feel certain they would if they could but they can't. They don't know it themselves and when they try to look it up, they get what you see a sample of above. The "definitions" are all over the map and there are hundreds more like them.
 
Let me ask you, T-J, what is the past perfect?
 
If you either (a) rant and snort and call me names, or (b) not reply, you will, as any reasonable person would agree, prove my point.
 
Good hunting. Let me know what you think. I'm very much interested. I've been at this for a long time but a reasonable, coherent conclusion everyone -- including but not limited to novelists, journalists, and grammarians -- can accept still seems far away. Maybe you can help us.
 
.brad.27dec10.

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0F79F16D80ACAF4697CCB4902BACE2ED2C999C2A90LSCSMAILCLSCS_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 07:22:38 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-879683357-1293549758=:74239" --0-879683357-1293549758=:74239 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks, Jack. Nice of you to drop by. Are you set for, or can you be set for,html, "color and graphics" by whatever name? .. so that this is bold and this is bold and red and this is underlined andthis is in italics? .brad.28dec10. ________________________________ From: "Dixon, Jack" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 1:03:58 PM Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect Brad:   You may respond to me off the listserv if you want to keep the suspense going -- or on the listserv.  I would define the past perfect as the aspect of the past we use to express the first of two actions that occurred at different points in the past.  That is, past perfect is used to express the action in the remote past, while the simple past is used to express the action that happened closest to the present.  Clearly, I am wrong.   All I ask is two things:  1) what is the past perfect?  2) what is the source of your definition/usage if all the other sources are wrong?   If you have answered these two questions in the past, I beg your indulgence.  If you answer these, I'll file away your response so that I will not have to trouble you again.   Jack [log in to unmask] ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 10:35 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect Here's what happens, T.J.  I say to someone -- often an English teacher -- "what is the past perfect?" And they think, (he or she thinks), Hey, I know what the past perfect is. But then at the behest of the Little Voice, they think, I better look it up, just to be sure.   The first definition they find is that it "denotes an action or state completed at of before a past time spoken of" . They think, hmmm. The battle of Hastings had been fought before the Magna Carta was signed? That doesn't work, so maybe I should look elsewhere. (Webster's has agreed, by the way, to reconsider their entry for the present perfect before the 12th Edition goes to press, as well they should; they made a mess of it.) Next they find this one: "It is used to refer to a situation in the past that came before another situation in the past. (Hmmm, same problem.) The past perfect represents either the past of the simple past (well, hardly) or the past of the the present perfect", which we all know isn't true.   Maybe since we got our language from the Latins, we should look there. Let's see. "The pluperfect tense indicates an action that takes place more in the past or prior to another past action." Hey, are these people copying from each other?   Quirk, Greenbaum, et al, don't try to define it, but they give, among other illustrations, "The goalkeeper had injured his leg and couldn't play", and "He had died in 1920, before his son was born".   "The past perfect tense describes an action completed sometime in the past",   "The past perfect tense indicates that one past event preceded another",    "The pluperfect is a compound tense conjugated with avoir and etre and is used to say what had happened", (Isn't this a dandy?) "The past perfect is a perfective tense used to express action completed in the past",   "The past perfect - An event or state started at one point in the past and ended at another point in the past",   "The past perfect is often used to emphasis (sic) that one action, event or condition ended before another past action, event, or condition ended."   "The past perfect tense represents an action as completed at a past time. It may denote that an action occurred at an indefinite or definite time in the past." I better quit before I bore you right out of your chair, T.J. The point is that if you try to look it up, you will find a hodgepodge of meaningless and inconsistent definitions and explanations. You will think, whateverthehell are these people talking about? Someone should sit down and try to figure out what it is and if it isn't anything, let's stop teaching it, or trying to teach it, since no one seems to know what it is. Of all the many people of whom I asked "what is it?", only two have been willing to answer. One said that "the past perfect is had + the past participle", which is rather like saying a ladder is something with a rung or a train is something with wheels (as are lawnmowers and rickshaws). The other more recent try, which you may have seen, we should leave lying with the sleeping dog, to not foment an unnecessary exchange of gunfire. ALL the others, and that includes the most eloquent and talkative on this listserv, cannot do it. I feel certain they would if they could but they can't. They don't know it themselves and when they try to look it up, they get what you see a sample of above. The "definitions" are all over the map and there are hundreds more like them. Let me ask you, T-J, what is the past perfect? If you either (a) rant and snort and call me names, or (b) not reply, you will, as any reasonable person would agree, prove my point. Good hunting. Let me know what you think. I'm very much interested. I've been at this for a long time but a reasonable, coherent conclusion everyone -- including but not limited to novelists, journalists, and grammarians -- can accept still seems far away. Maybe you can help us. .brad.27dec10. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-879683357-1293549758=:74239 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 
.brad.28dec10.

From: "Dixon, Jack" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 1:03:58 PM
Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect

Brad:  
 
You may respond to me off the listserv if you want to keep the suspense going -- or on the listserv.  I would define the past perfect as the aspect of the past we use to express the first of two actions that occurred at different points in the past.  That is, past perfect is used to express the action in the remote past, while the simple past is used to express the action that happened closest to the present.  Clearly, I am wrong.
 
All I ask is two things:  1) what is the past perfect?  2) what is the source of your definition/usage if all the other sources are wrong?
 
If you have answered these two questions in the past, I beg your indulgence.  If you answer these, I'll file away your response so that I will not have to trouble you again.
 
Jack
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 10:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect

Here's what happens, T.J.  I say to someone -- often an English teacher -- "what is the past perfect?" And they think, (he or she thinks), Hey, I know what the past perfect is. But then at the behest of the Little Voice, they think, I better look it up, just to be sure.
 
The first definition they find is that it "denotes an action or state completed at of before a past time spoken of" <Webster's 11th Edition>. They think, hmmm. The battle of Hastings had been fought before the Magna Carta was signed? That doesn't work, so maybe I should look elsewhere. (Webster's has agreed, by the way, to reconsider their entry for the present perfect before the 12th Edition goes to press, as well they should; they made a mess of it.)

Next they find this one: "It is used to refer to a situation in the past that came before another situation in the past. (Hmmm, same problem.) The past perfect represents either the past of the simple past (well, hardly) or the past of the the present perfect", which we all know isn't true. <English Grammar, Sidney Greenbaum, 1986>
 
Maybe since we got our language from the Latins, we should look there. Let's see. "The pluperfect tense indicates an action that takes place more in the past or prior to another past action." Hey, are these people copying from each other? <Latin for Dummies, Hull, Perkins, et al.>
 
Quirk, Greenbaum, et al, don't try to define it, but they give, among other illustrations, "The goalkeeper had injured his leg and couldn't play", and "He had died in 1920, before his son was born". <A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Longman, 1985>
 
"The past perfect tense describes an action completed sometime in the past", <Columbia Guide to Standard American English, 1993>
 
"The past perfect tense indicates that one past event preceded another", <Handbook of Technical Writing, Alred, Brusaw & Oliu, 2003>
 
"The pluperfect is a compound tense conjugated with avoir and etre and is used to say what had happened", <Teach Yourself French Grammar, Sidwell & Haviland> (Isn't this a dandy?)
 
"The past perfect is a perfective tense used to express action completed in the past", <The Free Dictionary>
 
"The past perfect - An event or state started at one point in the past and ended at another point in the past", <Gareth Jones Website>
 
"The past perfect is often used to emphasis (sic) that one action, event or condition ended before another past action, event, or condition ended." <University of Ottawa>
 
"The past perfect tense represents an action as completed at a past time. It may denote that an action occurred at an indefinite or definite time in the past." <Descriptive English Grammar, Susan Emolyn Harman>
 
I better quit before I bore you right out of your chair, T.J. The point is that if you try to look it up, you will find a hodgepodge of meaningless and inconsistent definitions and explanations. You will think, whateverthehell are these people talking about? Someone should sit down and try to figure out what it is and if it isn't anything, let's stop teaching it, or trying to teach it, since no one seems to know what it is.
 
Of all the many people of whom I asked "what is it?", only two have been willing to answer. One said that "the past perfect is had + the past participle", which is rather like saying a ladder is something with a rung or a train is something with wheels (as are lawnmowers and rickshaws). The other more recent try, which you may have seen, we should leave lying with the sleeping dog, to not foment an unnecessary exchange of gunfire.
 
ALL the others, and that includes the most eloquent and talkative on this listserv, cannot do it. I feel certain they would if they could but they can't. They don't know it themselves and when they try to look it up, they get what you see a sample of above. The "definitions" are all over the map and there are hundreds more like them.
 
Let me ask you, T-J, what is the past perfect?
 
If you either (a) rant and snort and call me names, or (b) not reply, you will, as any reasonable person would agree, prove my point.
 
Good hunting. Let me know what you think. I'm very much interested. I've been at this for a long time but a reasonable, coherent conclusion everyone -- including but not limited to novelists, journalists, and grammarians -- can accept still seems far away. Maybe you can help us.
 
.brad.27dec10.


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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-879683357-1293549758=:74239-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 11:31:36 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Craig, As you're aware from both your functional and your cognitive work, what we would normally say depends entirely on situation. It wouldn't be hard to come up with a suitable context, say, a murder investigation trying to narrow down who saw the victim last. I'm not sure there is a "normal" in sentence structure, at least not in the sense I think you're using the term. As Susan Schmerling put it a long time ago in her dissertation on intonation, "There is no normal sentence intonation." ToBI analyses of English intonation bear that out. "Last," of course, behaves both as an ordinal and as a superlative, not surprising given its origin as a superlative and subsequent grammaticalization and reduction followed by the later development of the doublet "latest." Words carry their history with them and not infrequently upset our analyses because of it. Think of /cleave/clove/cloven/cleft/cleaved and all the specializations there arising from an OE strong verb and an OE weak verb. The two verbs are identical now, but they've left the lexicon littered with their castoffs. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 11:15 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase Herb, I don't think we would normally say "She was one of the last two people to see him alive." Normal would be "the last two people," which is the usual order for ordinal and cardinal numerals. It is strange to say "the last second man" because there can only be one second man. ("This would differ if you meant something like "second baseman" or "second violinist"; last would be Ok there because they act like a compound noun (a set phrase.) I think there are occasions when "last" would mean something like "latest." The "last report" and "latest report" both leave open the chance of a new report, though there are contexts in which "last" would be a final element. "The last words she spoke," for example, would mean something very different from "the latest words she spoke". "Latest" would tend to translate to "most recent" and last would usually be qualified with a point in time: "before she died" or "before she left for Paris." In the sentence in question, I think "last" is acting like an ordinal numeral. "This is the latest grill brush she will ever need" doesn't mean the same thing. > Craig, > > You're right that "last" is not a negative polarity item. In this > example, "ever" is the negative polarity item. Many negative polarity > items occur in irrealis contexts as well, as Bruce pointed out, and > it's the "will" that provides the irrealis context in the sentence > we're talking about. I got the function of "last" wrong. > > "Last," however, behaves like the superlative it is, arising > historically from OE "latost." "Last" and "latest" are a doublet in > modern English and "latest" developed in the 15th c. We can say, for > example, "She was one of the two last people to see him alive" or, as > in the film title, "The Last Man on Earth." These are both places > where an number word cannot occur. We can get "the second last man on > earth" but not "the last second man on earth." This suggests that > "last" is an adjective. Semantically it overlaps with ordinals and > also can as an ordinal, just as nouns can function as other lexical categories. > > Herb > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 7:08 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase > > I would classify "last" as an ordinal numeral: first, second, > third...last. Different grammars differ in where they draw the lines > for the determiners, but ordinal numbers are often in that group > (sometimes called postdeterminers since they come after the core > determiners like "a," "the," "this," "his" and so on). It has an > identifying function. The one we are talking about (the one in > reference) is the last one. > I don't think it has negative polarity, just the sense that in the > continuing list of "grill brushes" this is the final one. You can > negate it: this is not the last grill brush you will ever need." > Maybe "ever" doesn't extend as much as never because "forever" is > an option (whereas "fornever" is not). "You will need the grill brush > forever." > > Craig> > > > The last grill brush you will ever need. >> >> Is this a sentence at all? To assume an understood "This is" or "It >> is" won't account for it as they have very different meaning possible >> references. One almost demands that the brush be in the vicinity for >> reference. The other might well reference a brush that has yet to be >> created. >> >> I'd take "ever" as a simple adverb with the caveat that it must >> precede the verb it modifies. Perhaps it also needs something such >> as "will" in front of it. >> >> The understood "that" not stated in the clause is a relative pronoun >> that serves as the direct object of "will need." >> >> Is "last" anything more than a simple adjective? Does it function >> any differently than, say, "ultimate"? >> >> tj >> >> >> >> On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 7:45 am, Scott Lavitt wrote: >>> Happy holidays all. >>> >>> I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek >>> your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: >>> >>> The last grill brush you will ever need. >>> >>> I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. >>> and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. >>> Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, >>> and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts? >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Scott Lavitt >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 28 Dec 2010 14:33:15 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Dixon, Jack" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0F79F16D80ACAF4697CCB4902BACE2ED2C999C2A91LSCSMAILCLSCS_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0F79F16D80ACAF4697CCB4902BACE2ED2C999C2A91LSCSMAILCLSCS_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes, it is all coming through. ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 9:22 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect Thanks, Jack. Nice of you to drop by. Are you set for, or can you be set for, html, "color and graphics" by whatever name? .. so that this is bold and this is bold and red and this is underlined and this is in italics? .brad.28dec10. ________________________________ From: "Dixon, Jack" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 1:03:58 PM Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect Brad: You may respond to me off the listserv if you want to keep the suspense going -- or on the listserv. I would define the past perfect as the aspect of the past we use to express the first of two actions that occurred at different points in the past. That is, past perfect is used to express the action in the remote past, while the simple past is used to express the action that happened closest to the present. Clearly, I am wrong. All I ask is two things: 1) what is the past perfect? 2) what is the source of your definition/usage if all the other sources are wrong? If you have answered these two questions in the past, I beg your indulgence. If you answer these, I'll file away your response so that I will not have to trouble you again. Jack [log in to unmask] ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 10:35 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect Here's what happens, T.J. I say to someone -- often an English teacher -- "what is the past perfect?" And they think, (he or she thinks), Hey, I know what the past perfect is. But then at the behest of the Little Voice, they think, I better look it up, just to be sure. The first definition they find is that it "denotes an action or state completed at of before a past time spoken of" . They think, hmmm. The battle of Hastings had been fought before the Magna Carta was signed? That doesn't work, so maybe I should look elsewhere. (Webster's has agreed, by the way, to reconsider their entry for the present perfect before the 12th Edition goes to press, as well they should; they made a mess of it.) Next they find this one: "It is used to refer to a situation in the past that came before another situation in the past. (Hmmm, same problem.) The past perfect represents either the past of the simple past (well, hardly) or the past of the the present perfect", which we all know isn't true. Maybe since we got our language from the Latins, we should look there. Let's see. "The pluperfect tense indicates an action that takes place more in the past or prior to another past action." Hey, are these people copying from each other? Quirk, Greenbaum, et al, don't try to define it, but they give, among other illustrations, "The goalkeeper had injured his leg and couldn't play", and "He had died in 1920, before his son was born". "The past perfect tense describes an action completed sometime in the past", "The past perfect tense indicates that one past event preceded another", "The pluperfect is a compound tense conjugated with avoir and etre and is used to say what had happened", (Isn't this a dandy?) "The past perfect is a perfective tense used to express action completed in the past", "The past perfect - An event or state started at one point in the past and ended at another point in the past", "The past perfect is often used to emphasis (sic) that one action, event or condition ended before another past action, event, or condition ended." "The past perfect tense represents an action as completed at a past time. It may denote that an action occurred at an indefinite or definite time in the past." I better quit before I bore you right out of your chair, T.J. The point is that if you try to look it up, you will find a hodgepodge of meaningless and inconsistent definitions and explanations. You will think, whateverthehell are these people talking about? Someone should sit down and try to figure out what it is and if it isn't anything, let's stop teaching it, or trying to teach it, since no one seems to know what it is. Of all the many people of whom I asked "what is it?", only two have been willing to answer. One said that "the past perfect is had + the past participle", which is rather like saying a ladder is something with a rung or a train is something with wheels (as are lawnmowers and rickshaws). The other more recent try, which you may have seen, we should leave lying with the sleeping dog, to not foment an unnecessary exchange of gunfire. ALL the others, and that includes the most eloquent and talkative on this listserv, cannot do it. I feel certain they would if they could but they can't. They don't know it themselves and when they try to look it up, they get what you see a sample of above. The "definitions" are all over the map and there are hundreds more like them. Let me ask you, T-J, what is the past perfect? If you either (a) rant and snort and call me names, or (b) not reply, you will, as any reasonable person would agree, prove my point. Good hunting. Let me know what you think. I'm very much interested. I've been at this for a long time but a reasonable, coherent conclusion everyone -- including but not limited to novelists, journalists, and grammarians -- can accept still seems far away. Maybe you can help us. .brad.27dec10. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0F79F16D80ACAF4697CCB4902BACE2ED2C999C2A91LSCSMAILCLSCS_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes, it is all coming through.
 
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 9:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect

Thanks, Jack. Nice of you to drop by. Are you set for, or can you be set for, html, "color and graphics" by whatever name? .. so that this is bold and this is bold and red and this is underlined and this is in italics?
 
.brad.28dec10.

From: "Dixon, Jack" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 1:03:58 PM
Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect

Brad:  
 
You may respond to me off the listserv if you want to keep the suspense going -- or on the listserv.  I would define the past perfect as the aspect of the past we use to express the first of two actions that occurred at different points in the past.  That is, past perfect is used to express the action in the remote past, while the simple past is used to express the action that happened closest to the present.  Clearly, I am wrong.
 
All I ask is two things:  1) what is the past perfect?  2) what is the source of your definition/usage if all the other sources are wrong?
 
If you have answered these two questions in the past, I beg your indulgence.  If you answer these, I'll file away your response so that I will not have to trouble you again.
 
Jack
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 10:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect

Here's what happens, T.J.  I say to someone -- often an English teacher -- "what is the past perfect?" And they think, (he or she thinks), Hey, I know what the past perfect is. But then at the behest of the Little Voice, they think, I better look it up, just to be sure.
 
The first definition they find is that it "denotes an action or state completed at of before a past time spoken of" <Webster's 11th Edition>. They think, hmmm. The battle of Hastings had been fought before the Magna Carta was signed? That doesn't work, so maybe I should look elsewhere. (Webster's has agreed, by the way, to reconsider their entry for the present perfect before the 12th Edition goes to press, as well they should; they made a mess of it.)

Next they find this one: "It is used to refer to a situation in the past that came before another situation in the past. (Hmmm, same problem.) The past perfect represents either the past of the simple past (well, hardly) or the past of the the present perfect", which we all know isn't true. <English Grammar, Sidney Greenbaum, 1986>
 
Maybe since we got our language from the Latins, we should look there. Let's see. "The pluperfect tense indicates an action that takes place more in the past or prior to another past action." Hey, are these people copying from each other? <Latin for Dummies, Hull, Perkins, et al.>
 
Quirk, Greenbaum, et al, don't try to define it, but they give, among other illustrations, "The goalkeeper had injured his leg and couldn't play", and "He had died in 1920, before his son was born". <A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Longman, 1985>
 
"The past perfect tense describes an action completed sometime in the past", <Columbia Guide to Standard American English, 1993>
 
"The past perfect tense indicates that one past event preceded another", <Handbook of Technical Writing, Alred, Brusaw & Oliu, 2003>
 
"The pluperfect is a compound tense conjugated with avoir and etre and is used to say what had happened", <Teach Yourself French Grammar, Sidwell & Haviland> (Isn't this a dandy?)
 
"The past perfect is a perfective tense used to express action completed in the past", <The Free Dictionary>
 
"The past perfect - An event or state started at one point in the past and ended at another point in the past", <Gareth Jones Website>
 
"The past perfect is often used to emphasis (sic) that one action, event or condition ended before another past action, event, or condition ended." <University of Ottawa>
 
"The past perfect tense represents an action as completed at a past time. It may denote that an action occurred at an indefinite or definite time in the past." <Descriptive English Grammar, Susan Emolyn Harman>
 
I better quit before I bore you right out of your chair, T.J. The point is that if you try to look it up, you will find a hodgepodge of meaningless and inconsistent definitions and explanations. You will think, whateverthehell are these people talking about? Someone should sit down and try to figure out what it is and if it isn't anything, let's stop teaching it, or trying to teach it, since no one seems to know what it is.
 
Of all the many people of whom I asked "what is it?", only two have been willing to answer. One said that "the past perfect is had + the past participle", which is rather like saying a ladder is something with a rung or a train is something with wheels (as are lawnmowers and rickshaws). The other more recent try, which you may have seen, we should leave lying with the sleeping dog, to not foment an unnecessary exchange of gunfire.
 
ALL the others, and that includes the most eloquent and talkative on this listserv, cannot do it. I feel certain they would if they could but they can't. They don't know it themselves and when they try to look it up, they get what you see a sample of above. The "definitions" are all over the map and there are hundreds more like them.
 
Let me ask you, T-J, what is the past perfect?
 
If you either (a) rant and snort and call me names, or (b) not reply, you will, as any reasonable person would agree, prove my point.
 
Good hunting. Let me know what you think. I'm very much interested. I've been at this for a long time but a reasonable, coherent conclusion everyone -- including but not limited to novelists, journalists, and grammarians -- can accept still seems far away. Maybe you can help us.
 
.brad.27dec10.


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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0F79F16D80ACAF4697CCB4902BACE2ED2C999C2A91LSCSMAILCLSCS_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 15:24:05 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-6--415850244 --Apple-Mail-6--415850244 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Jack, The next email from Brad (or any other subsequent email from him) will not answer your two questions. His asking you about your ability to read encoded text is so that he can avoid responding to your questions by inundating you with irrelevant examples. Watch and see. It's practically a science. Happy new year, Susan On Dec 28, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Dixon, Jack wrote: > Yes, it is all coming through. > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 9:22 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect > > Thanks, Jack. Nice of you to drop by. Are you set for, or can you be set for, html, "color and graphics" by whatever name? .. so that this is bold and this is bold and red and this is underlined and this is in italics? > > .brad.28dec10. > > From: "Dixon, Jack" <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 1:03:58 PM > Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect > > Brad: > > You may respond to me off the listserv if you want to keep the suspense going -- or on the listserv. I would define the past perfect as the aspect of the past we use to express the first of two actions that occurred at different points in the past. That is, past perfect is used to express the action in the remote past, while the simple past is used to express the action that happened closest to the present. Clearly, I am wrong. > > All I ask is two things: 1) what is the past perfect? 2) what is the source of your definition/usage if all the other sources are wrong? > > If you have answered these two questions in the past, I beg your indulgence. If you answer these, I'll file away your response so that I will not have to trouble you again. > > Jack > [log in to unmask] > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 10:35 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect > > Here's what happens, T.J. I say to someone -- often an English teacher -- "what is the past perfect?" And they think, (he or she thinks), Hey, I know what the past perfect is. But then at the behest of the Little Voice, they think, I better look it up, just to be sure. > > The first definition they find is that it "denotes an action or state completed at of before a past time spoken of" . They think, hmmm. The battle of Hastings had been fought before the Magna Carta was signed? That doesn't work, so maybe I should look elsewhere. (Webster's has agreed, by the way, to reconsider their entry for the present perfect before the 12th Edition goes to press, as well they should; they made a mess of it.) > > Next they find this one: "It is used to refer to a situation in the past that came before another situation in the past. (Hmmm, same problem.) The past perfect represents either the past of the simple past (well, hardly) or the past of the the present perfect", which we all know isn't true. > > Maybe since we got our language from the Latins, we should look there. Let's see. "The pluperfect tense indicates an action that takes place more in the past or prior to another past action." Hey, are these people copying from each other? > > Quirk, Greenbaum, et al, don't try to define it, but they give, among other illustrations, "The goalkeeper had injured his leg and couldn't play", and "He had died in 1920, before his son was born". > > "The past perfect tense describes an action completed sometime in the past", > > "The past perfect tense indicates that one past event preceded another", > > "The pluperfect is a compound tense conjugated with avoir and etre and is used to say what had happened", (Isn't this a dandy?) > > "The past perfect is a perfective tense used to express action completed in the past", > > "The past perfect - An event or state started at one point in the past and ended at another point in the past", > > "The past perfect is often used to emphasis (sic) that one action, event or condition ended before another past action, event, or condition ended." > > "The past perfect tense represents an action as completed at a past time. It may denote that an action occurred at an indefinite or definite time in the past." > > I better quit before I bore you right out of your chair, T.J. The point is that if you try to look it up, you will find a hodgepodge of meaningless and inconsistent definitions and explanations. You will think, whateverthehell are these people talking about? Someone should sit down and try to figure out what it is and if it isn't anything, let's stop teaching it, or trying to teach it, since no one seems to know what it is. > > Of all the many people of whom I asked "what is it?", only two have been willing to answer. One said that "the past perfect is had + the past participle", which is rather like saying a ladder is something with a rung or a train is something with wheels (as are lawnmowers and rickshaws). The other more recent try, which you may have seen, we should leave lying with the sleeping dog, to not foment an unnecessary exchange of gunfire. > > ALL the others, and that includes the most eloquent and talkative on this listserv, cannot do it. I feel certain they would if they could but they can't. They don't know it themselves and when they try to look it up, they get what you see a sample of above. The "definitions" are all over the map and there are hundreds more like them. > > Let me ask you, T-J, what is the past perfect? > > If you either (a) rant and snort and call me names, or (b) not reply, you will, as any reasonable person would agree, prove my point. > > Good hunting. Let me know what you think. I'm very much interested. I've been at this for a long time but a reasonable, coherent conclusion everyone -- including but not limited to novelists, journalists, and grammarians -- can accept still seems far away. Maybe you can help us. > > .brad.27dec10. > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Apple-Mail-6--415850244 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Hi Jack, 




Susan



On Dec 28, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Dixon, Jack wrote:

Yes, it is all coming through.
 
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 9:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect

Thanks, Jack. Nice of you to drop by. Are you set for, or can you be set for, html, "color and graphics" by whatever name? .. so that this is bold and this is bold and red and this is underlined and this is in italics?
 
.brad.28dec10.

From: "Dixon, Jack" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 1:03:58 PM
Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect

Brad:  
 
You may respond to me off the listserv if you want to keep the suspense going -- or on the listserv.  I would define the past perfect as the aspect of the past we use to express the first of two actions that occurred at different points in the past.  That is, past perfect is used to express the action in the remote past, while the simple past is used to express the action that happened closest to the present.  Clearly, I am wrong.
 
All I ask is two things:  1) what is the past perfect?  2) what is the source of your definition/usage if all the other sources are wrong?
 
If you have answered these two questions in the past, I beg your indulgence.  If you answer these, I'll file away your response so that I will not have to trouble you again.
 
Jack
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 10:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect

Here's what happens, T.J.  I say to someone -- often an English teacher -- "what is the past perfect?" And they think, (he or she thinks), Hey, I know what the past perfect is. But then at the behest of the Little Voice, they think, I better look it up, just to be sure.
 
The first definition they find is that it "denotes an action or state completed at of before a past time spoken of" <Webster's 11th Edition>. They think, hmmm. The battle of Hastings had been fought before the Magna Carta was signed? That doesn't work, so maybe I should look elsewhere. (Webster's has agreed, by the way, to reconsider their entry for the present perfect before the 12th Edition goes to press, as well they should; they made a mess of it.)

Next they find this one: "It is used to refer to a situation in the past that came before another situation in the past. (Hmmm, same problem.) The past perfect represents either the past of the simple past (well, hardly) or the past of the the present perfect", which we all know isn't true. <English Grammar, Sidney Greenbaum, 1986>
 
Maybe since we got our language from the Latins, we should look there. Let's see. "The pluperfect tense indicates an action that takes place more in the past or prior to another past action." Hey, are these people copying from each other? <Latin for Dummies, Hull, Perkins, et al.>
 
Quirk, Greenbaum, et al, don't try to define it, but they give, among other illustrations, "The goalkeeper had injured his leg and couldn't play", and "He had died in 1920, before his son was born". <A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Longman, 1985>
 
"The past perfect tense describes an action completed sometime in the past", <Columbia Guide to Standard American English, 1993>
 
"The past perfect tense indicates that one past event preceded another", <Handbook of Technical Writing, Alred, Brusaw & Oliu, 2003>
 
"The pluperfect is a compound tense conjugated with avoir and etre and is used to say what had happened", <Teach Yourself French Grammar, Sidwell & Haviland> (Isn't this a dandy?)
 
"The past perfect is a perfective tense used to express action completed in the past", <The Free Dictionary>
 
"The past perfect - An event or state started at one point in the past and ended at another point in the past", <Gareth Jones Website>
 
"The past perfect is often used to emphasis (sic) that one action, event or condition ended before another past action, event, or condition ended." <University of Ottawa>
 
"The past perfect tense represents an action as completed at a past time. It may denote that an action occurred at an indefinite or definite time in the past." <Descriptive English Grammar, Susan Emolyn Harman>
 
I better quit before I bore you right out of your chair, T.J. The point is that if you try to look it up, you will find a hodgepodge of meaningless and inconsistent definitions and explanations. You will think, whateverthehell are these people talking about? Someone should sit down and try to figure out what it is and if it isn't anything, let's stop teaching it, or trying to teach it, since no one seems to know what it is.
 
Of all the many people of whom I asked "what is it?", only two have been willing to answer. One said that "the past perfect is had + the past participle", which is rather like saying a ladder is something with a rung or a train is something with wheels (as are lawnmowers and rickshaws). The other more recent try, which you may have seen, we should leave lying with the sleeping dog, to not foment an unnecessary exchange of gunfire.
 
ALL the others, and that includes the most eloquent and talkative on this listserv, cannot do it. I feel certain they would if they could but they can't. They don't know it themselves and when they try to look it up, they get what you see a sample of above. The "definitions" are all over the map and there are hundreds more like them.
 
Let me ask you, T-J, what is the past perfect?
 
If you either (a) rant and snort and call me names, or (b) not reply, you will, as any reasonable person would agree, prove my point.
 
Good hunting. Let me know what you think. I'm very much interested. I've been at this for a long time but a reasonable, coherent conclusion everyone -- including but not limited to novelists, journalists, and grammarians -- can accept still seems far away. Maybe you can help us.
 
.brad.27dec10.


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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Apple-Mail-6--415850244-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 15:50:42 -0800 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-898461873-1293580242=:32501" --0-898461873-1293580242=:32501 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm sorry you're angry, Susan. Please show me any questions you asked (please note past tense) that I did not answer and I will hasten to do so. Did you read, and understand, what I wrote below, beginning, "Here's what happens, T.J."?   Are you set for html? Is this bold and blue?   I already replied to Jack, by the way, at some length. I'm quite sure he won't be cross. I'm sorry you are but I can't fix it without knowing what brought on your outburst. Please show me the questions you asked to which I did not reply.   Not getting answers to questions is par for the course. I'm still waiting for Karl, Eduard, T.J., and now you.   Here's another for you. What is the past perfect, Susan?   .brad.28dec10. ________________________________ From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 4:24:05 PM Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect Hi Jack,  The next email from Brad (or any other subsequent email from him) will not answer your two questions.  His asking you about your ability to read encoded text is so that he can avoid responding to your questions by inundating you with irrelevant examples.   Watch and see.  It's practically a science. Happy new year, Susan On Dec 28, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Dixon, Jack wrote: Yes, it is all coming through. >  > ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston [[log in to unmask]] >Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 9:22 AM >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect > > >Thanks, Jack. Nice of you to drop by. Are you set for, or can you be set >for, html, "color and graphics" by whatever name? .. so that this is >bold and this is bold and red and this is underlined and this is in italics? > >.brad.28dec10. > > > ________________________________ From: "Dixon, Jack" <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 1:03:58 PM >Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect > > >Brad:   > >You may respond to me off the listserv if you want to keep the suspense going -- >or on the listserv.  I would define the past perfect as the aspect of the past >we use to express the first of two actions that occurred at different points in >the past.  That is, past perfect is used to express the action in the remote >past, while the simple past is used to express the action that happened closest >to the present.  Clearly, I am wrong. >  >All I ask is two things:  1) what is the past perfect?  2) what is the source of >your definition/usage if all the other sources are wrong? >  >If you have answered these two questions in the past, I beg your indulgence.  If >you answer these, I'll file away your response so that I will not have to >trouble you again. >  >Jack >[log in to unmask] > ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston [[log in to unmask]] >Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 10:35 AM >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect > > >Here's what happens, T.J.  I say to someone -- often an English teacher -- "what >is the past perfect?" And they think, (he or she thinks), Hey, I know what the >past perfect is. But then at the behest of the Little Voice, they think, I >better look it up, just to be sure. >  >The first definition they find is that it "denotes an action or state completed >at of before a past time spoken of" . They think, hmmm. >The battle of Hastings had been fought before the Magna Carta was signed? That >doesn't work, so maybe I should look elsewhere. (Webster's has agreed, by the >way, to reconsider their entry for the present perfect before the 12th Edition >goes to press, as well they should; they made a mess of it.) > >Next they find this one: "It is used to refer to a situation in the past that >came before another situation in the past. (Hmmm, same problem.) The past >perfect represents either the past of the simple past (well, hardly) or the past >of the the present perfect", which we all know isn't true. Sidney Greenbaum, 1986> >  >Maybe since we got our language from the Latins, we should look there. Let's >see. "The pluperfect tense indicates an action that takes place more in the past >or prior to another past action." Hey, are these people copying from each other? > >  >Quirk, Greenbaum, et al, don't try to define it, but they give, among other >illustrations, "The goalkeeper had injured his leg and couldn't play", and "He >had died in 1920, before his son was born". English Language, Longman, 1985> >  >"The past perfect tense describes an action completed sometime in the past", > >  >"The past perfect tense indicates that one past event preceded >another",  >  >"The pluperfect is a compound tense conjugated with avoir and etre and is used >to say what had happened", >(Isn't this a dandy?) > >"The past perfect is a perfective tense used to express action completed in the >past", >  >"The past perfect - An event or state started at one point in the past and ended >at another point in the past", >  >"The past perfect is often used to emphasis (sic) that one action, event or >condition ended before another past action, event, or condition ended." > >  >"The past perfect tense represents an action as completed at a past time. It may >denote that an action occurred at an indefinite or definite time in the past." > > >I better quit before I bore you right out of your chair, T.J. The point is that >if you try to look it up, you will find a hodgepodge of meaningless and >inconsistent definitions and explanations. You will think, whateverthehell are >these people talking about? Someone should sit down and try to figure out what >it is and if it isn't anything, let's stop teaching it, or trying to teach it, >since no one seems to know what it is. > >Of all the many people of whom I asked "what is it?", only two have been >willing to answer. One said that "the past perfect is had + the past >participle", which is rather like saying a ladder is something with a rung or a >train is something with wheels (as are lawnmowers and rickshaws). The other more >recent try, which you may have seen, we should leave lying with the sleeping >dog, to not foment an unnecessary exchange of gunfire. > >ALL the others, and that includes the most eloquent and talkative on this >listserv, cannot do it. I feel certain they would if they could but they can't. >They don't know it themselves and when they try to look it up, they get what you >see a sample of above. The "definitions" are all over the map and there >are hundreds more like them. > >Let me ask you, T-J, what is the past perfect? > >If you either (a) rant and snort and call me names, or (b) not reply, you will, >as any reasonable person would agree, prove my point. > >Good hunting. Let me know what you think. I'm very much interested. I've been at >this for a long time but a reasonable, coherent conclusion everyone -- including >but not limited to novelists, journalists, and grammarians -- can accept still >seems far away. Maybe you can help us. > >.brad.27dec10. >. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-898461873-1293580242=:32501 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Did you read, and understand, what I wrote below, beginning, "Here's what happens, T.J."?
 
Are you set for html? Is this bold and blue?
 
I already replied to Jack, by the way, at some length. I'm quite sure he won't be cross. I'm sorry you are but I can't fix it without knowing what brought on your outburst. Please show me the questions you asked to which I did not reply.
 
Not getting answers to questions is par for the course. I'm still waiting for Karl, Eduard, T.J., and now you.
 
Here's another for you. What is the past perfect, Susan?
 
.brad.28dec10.

From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 4:24:05 PM
Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect

Hi Jack, 

The next email from Brad (or any other subsequent email from him) will not answer your two questions.  His asking you about your ability to read encoded text is so that he can avoid responding to your questions by inundating you with irrelevant examples.  

Watch and see.  It's practically a science.

Happy new year,
Susan

On Dec 28, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Dixon, Jack wrote:

Yes, it is all coming through.
 
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 9:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect

Thanks, Jack. Nice of you to drop by. Are you set for, or can you be set for, html, "color and graphics" by whatever name? .. so that this is bold and this is bold and red and this is underlined and this is in italics?
 
.brad.28dec10.

From: "Dixon, Jack" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 1:03:58 PM
Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect

Brad:  
 
You may respond to me off the listserv if you want to keep the suspense going -- or on the listserv.  I would define the past perfect as the aspect of the past we use to express the first of two actions that occurred at different points in the past.  That is, past perfect is used to express the action in the remote past, while the simple past is used to express the action that happened closest to the present.  Clearly, I am wrong.
 
All I ask is two things:  1) what is the past perfect?  2) what is the source of your definition/usage if all the other sources are wrong?
 
If you have answered these two questions in the past, I beg your indulgence.  If you answer these, I'll file away your response so that I will not have to trouble you again.
 
Jack
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 10:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect

Here's what happens, T.J.  I say to someone -- often an English teacher -- "what is the past perfect?" And they think, (he or she thinks), Hey, I know what the past perfect is. But then at the behest of the Little Voice, they think, I better look it up, just to be sure.
 
The first definition they find is that it "denotes an action or state completed at of before a past time spoken of" <Webster's 11th Edition>. They think, hmmm. The battle of Hastings had been fought before the Magna Carta was signed? That doesn't work, so maybe I should look elsewhere. (Webster's has agreed, by the way, to reconsider their entry for the present perfect before the 12th Edition goes to press, as well they should; they made a mess of it.)

Next they find this one: "It is used to refer to a situation in the past that came before another situation in the past. (Hmmm, same problem.) The past perfect represents either the past of the simple past (well, hardly) or the past of the the present perfect", which we all know isn't true. <English Grammar, Sidney Greenbaum, 1986>
 
Maybe since we got our language from the Latins, we should look there. Let's see. "The pluperfect tense indicates an action that takes place more in the past or prior to another past action." Hey, are these people copying from each other? <Latin for Dummies, Hull, Perkins, et al.>
 
Quirk, Greenbaum, et al, don't try to define it, but they give, among other illustrations, "The goalkeeper had injured his leg and couldn't play", and "He had died in 1920, before his son was born". <A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Longman, 1985>
 
"The past perfect tense describes an action completed sometime in the past", <Columbia Guide to Standard American English, 1993>
 
"The past perfect tense indicates that one past event preceded another", <Handbook of Technical Writing, Alred, Brusaw & Oliu, 2003>
 
"The pluperfect is a compound tense conjugated with avoir and etre and is used to say what had happened", <Teach Yourself French Grammar, Sidwell & Haviland> (Isn't this a dandy?)
 
"The past perfect is a perfective tense used to express action completed in the past", <The Free Dictionary>
 
"The past perfect - An event or state started at one point in the past and ended at another point in the past", <Gareth Jones Website>
 
"The past perfect is often used to emphasis (sic) that one action, event or condition ended before another past action, event, or condition ended." <University of Ottawa>
 
"The past perfect tense represents an action as completed at a past time. It may denote that an action occurred at an indefinite or definite time in the past." <Descriptive English Grammar, Susan Emolyn Harman>
 
I better quit before I bore you right out of your chair, T.J. The point is that if you try to look it up, you will find a hodgepodge of meaningless and inconsistent definitions and explanations. You will think, whateverthehell are these people talking about? Someone should sit down and try to figure out what it is and if it isn't anything, let's stop teaching it, or trying to teach it, since no one seems to know what it is.
 
Of all the many people of whom I asked "what is it?", only two have been willing to answer. One said that "the past perfect is had + the past participle", which is rather like saying a ladder is something with a rung or a train is something with wheels (as are lawnmowers and rickshaws). The other more recent try, which you may have seen, we should leave lying with the sleeping dog, to not foment an unnecessary exchange of gunfire.
 
ALL the others, and that includes the most eloquent and talkative on this listserv, cannot do it. I feel certain they would if they could but they can't. They don't know it themselves and when they try to look it up, they get what you see a sample of above. The "definitions" are all over the map and there are hundreds more like them.
 
Let me ask you, T-J, what is the past perfect?
 
If you either (a) rant and snort and call me names, or (b) not reply, you will, as any reasonable person would agree, prove my point.
 
Good hunting. Let me know what you think. I'm very much interested. I've been at this for a long time but a reasonable, coherent conclusion everyone -- including but not limited to novelists, journalists, and grammarians -- can accept still seems far away. Maybe you can help us.
 
.brad.27dec10.
.

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-898461873-1293580242=:32501-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 06:27:22 -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: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_MX1Ky0YrCssWp2T2RyOODg)" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_MX1Ky0YrCssWp2T2RyOODg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline Susan, So, now you are an expert psychologist who has the powers to divine how Brad is going to answer to Jack? My, my! Besides, your manners are very bad. If I had to try to divine, too, what kind of character is hiding behind your messages (Which I am not going to do!), I would say that your profile is that of a single and bitter woman over fifty, desperate for attention and willing to do anything to get it. So sad! But, of course, I have no divining powers, so I will not attempt to profile you. You may have just had a bad day and were in a bad mood when you wrote the message to Jack. No offense intended. Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 15:28 Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect To: [log in to unmask] > Hi Jack, > > The next email from Brad (or any other subsequent email from > him) will not answer your two questions. His asking you > about your ability to read encoded text is so that he can avoid > responding to your questions by inundating you with irrelevant > examples. > > Watch and see. It's practically a science. > > Happy new year, > Susan > > > > On Dec 28, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Dixon, Jack wrote: > > > Yes, it is all coming through. > > > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston > [[log in to unmask]]> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 9:22 AM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect > > > > Thanks, Jack. Nice of you to drop by. Are you set for, or can > you be set for, html, "color and graphics" by whatever name? .. > so that this is bold and this is bold and red and this is > underlined and this is in italics? > > > > .brad.28dec10. > > > > From: "Dixon, Jack" <[log in to unmask]> > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 1:03:58 PM > > Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect > > > > Brad: > > > > You may respond to me off the listserv if you want to keep the > suspense going -- or on the listserv. I would define the > past perfect as the aspect of the past we use to express the > first of two actions that occurred at different points in the > past. That is, past perfect is used to express the action > in the remote past, while the simple past is used to express the > action that happened closest to the present. Clearly, I am > wrong.> > > All I ask is two things: 1) what is the past > perfect? 2) what is the source of your definition/usage if > all the other sources are wrong? > > > > If you have answered these two questions in the past, I beg > your indulgence. If you answer these, I'll file away your > response so that I will not have to trouble you again. > > > > Jack > > [log in to unmask] > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston > [[log in to unmask]]> Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 10:35 AM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect > > > > Here's what happens, T.J. I say to someone -- often an > English teacher -- "what is the past perfect?" And they think, > (he or she thinks), Hey, I know what the past perfect is. But > then at the behest of the Little Voice, they think, I better > look it up, just to be sure. > > > > The first definition they find is that it "denotes an action > or state completed at of before a past time spoken of" > . They think, hmmm. The battle of > Hastings had been fought before the Magna Carta was signed? That > doesn't work, so maybe I should look elsewhere. (Webster's has > agreed, by the way, to reconsider their entry for the present > perfect before the 12th Edition goes to press, as well they > should; they made a mess of it.) > > > > Next they find this one: "It is used to refer to a situation > in the past that came before another situation in the past. > (Hmmm, same problem.) The past perfect represents either the > past of the simple past (well, hardly) or the past of the the > present perfect", which we all know isn't true. Grammar, Sidney Greenbaum, 1986> > > > > Maybe since we got our language from the Latins, we should > look there. Let's see. "The pluperfect tense indicates an action > that takes place more in the past or prior to another past > action." Hey, are these people copying from each other? > > > > > Quirk, Greenbaum, et al, don't try to define it, but they > give, among other illustrations, "The goalkeeper had injured his > leg and couldn't play", and "He had died in 1920, before his son > was born". > > > > "The past perfect tense describes an action completed sometime > in the past", > > > > "The past perfect tense indicates that one past event preceded > another", Oliu, 2003> > > > > "The pluperfect is a compound tense conjugated with avoir and > etre and is used to say what had happened", French Grammar, Sidwell & Haviland> (Isn't this a dandy?) > > > > "The past perfect is a perfective tense used to express action > completed in the past", > > > > "The past perfect - An event or state started at one point in > the past and ended at another point in the past", Jones Website> > > > > "The past perfect is often used to emphasis (sic) that one > action, event or condition ended before another past action, > event, or condition ended." > > > > "The past perfect tense represents an action as completed at a > past time. It may denote that an action occurred at an > indefinite or definite time in the past." English Grammar, Susan Emolyn Harman> > > > > I better quit before I bore you right out of your chair, T.J. > The point is that if you try to look it up, you will find a > hodgepodge of meaningless and inconsistent definitions and > explanations. You will think, whateverthehell are these people > talking about? Someone should sit down and try to figure out > what it is and if it isn't anything, let's stop teaching it, or > trying to teach it, since no one seems to know what it is. > > > > Of all the many people of whom I asked "what is it?", only two > have been willing to answer. One said that "the past perfect is > had + the past participle", which is rather like saying a ladder > is something with a rung or a train is something with wheels (as > are lawnmowers and rickshaws). The other more recent try, which > you may have seen, we should leave lying with the sleeping dog, > to not foment an unnecessary exchange of gunfire. > > > > ALL the others, and that includes the most eloquent and > talkative on this listserv, cannot do it. I feel certain they > would if they could but they can't. They don't know it > themselves and when they try to look it up, they get what you > see a sample of above. The "definitions" are all over the map > and there are hundreds more like them. > > > > Let me ask you, T-J, what is the past perfect? > > > > If you either (a) rant and snort and call me names, or (b) not > reply, you will, as any reasonable person would agree, prove my point. > > > > Good hunting. Let me know what you think. I'm very much > interested. I've been at this for a long time but a reasonable, > coherent conclusion everyone -- including but not limited to > novelists, journalists, and grammarians -- can accept still > seems far away. Maybe you can help us. > > > > .brad.27dec10. > > > > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's > web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's > web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Boundary_(ID_MX1Ky0YrCssWp2T2RyOODg) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-disposition: inline

Susan,
 
So, now you are an expert psychologist who has the powers to divine how Brad is going to answer to Jack? My, my! Besides, your manners are very bad. If I had to try to divine, too, what kind of character is hiding behind your messages (Which I am not going to do!), I would say that your profile is that of a single and bitter woman over fifty, desperate for attention and willing to do anything to get it. So sad!
 
But, of course, I have no divining powers, so I will not attempt to profile you. You may have just had a bad day and were in a bad mood when you wrote the message to Jack.
 
No offense intended.
 
Eduard
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 15:28
Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect
To: [log in to unmask]

> Hi Jack,
>
> The next email from Brad (or any other subsequent email from
> him) will not answer your two questions.  His asking you
> about your ability to read encoded text is so that he can avoid
> responding to your questions by inundating you with irrelevant
> examples. 
>
> Watch and see.  It's practically a science.
>
> Happy new year,
> Susan
>
>
>
> On Dec 28, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Dixon, Jack wrote:
>
> > Yes, it is all coming through.
> > 
> > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston
> [[log in to unmask]]> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 9:22 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect
> >
> > Thanks, Jack. Nice of you to drop by. Are you set for, or can
> you be set for, html, "color and graphics" by whatever name? ..
> so that this is bold and this is bold and red and this is
> underlined and this is in italics?
> > 
> > .brad.28dec10.
> >
> > From: "Dixon, Jack" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 1:03:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect
> >
> > Brad: 
> > 
> > You may respond to me off the listserv if you want to keep the
> suspense going -- or on the listserv.  I would define the
> past perfect as the aspect of the past we use to express the
> first of two actions that occurred at different points in the
> past.  That is, past perfect is used to express the action
> in the remote past, while the simple past is used to express the
> action that happened closest to the present.  Clearly, I am
> wrong.> 
> > All I ask is two things:  1) what is the past
> perfect?  2) what is the source of your definition/usage if
> all the other sources are wrong?
> > 
> > If you have answered these two questions in the past, I beg
> your indulgence.  If you answer these, I'll file away your
> response so that I will not have to trouble you again.
> > 
> > Jack
> > [log in to unmask]
> > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston
> [[log in to unmask]]> Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 10:35 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect
> >
> > Here's what happens, T.J.  I say to someone -- often an
> English teacher -- "what is the past perfect?" And they think,
> (he or she thinks), Hey, I know what the past perfect is. But
> then at the behest of the Little Voice, they think, I better
> look it up, just to be sure.
> > 
> > The first definition they find is that it "denotes an action
> or state completed at of before a past time spoken of"
> <Webster's 11th Edition>. They think, hmmm. The battle of
> Hastings had been fought before the Magna Carta was signed? That
> doesn't work, so maybe I should look elsewhere. (Webster's has
> agreed, by the way, to reconsider their entry for the present
> perfect before the 12th Edition goes to press, as well they
> should; they made a mess of it.)
> >
> > Next they find this one: "It is used to refer to a situation
> in the past that came before another situation in the past.
> (Hmmm, same problem.) The past perfect represents either the
> past of the simple past (well, hardly) or the past of the the
> present perfect", which we all know isn't true. <English
> Grammar, Sidney Greenbaum, 1986>
> > 
> > Maybe since we got our language from the Latins, we should
> look there. Let's see. "The pluperfect tense indicates an action
> that takes place more in the past or prior to another past
> action." Hey, are these people copying from each other?
> <Latin for Dummies, Hull, Perkins, et al.>
> > 
> > Quirk, Greenbaum, et al, don't try to define it, but they
> give, among other illustrations, "The goalkeeper had injured his
> leg and couldn't play", and "He had died in 1920, before his son
> was born".
> > 
> > "The past perfect tense describes an action completed sometime
> in the past", <Columbia Guide to Standard American English, 1993>
> > 
> > "The past perfect tense indicates that one past event preceded
> another", <Handbook of Technical Writing, Alred, Brusaw &
> Oliu, 2003>
> > 
> > "The pluperfect is a compound tense conjugated with avoir and
> etre and is used to say what had happened", <Teach Yourself
> French Grammar, Sidwell & Haviland> (Isn't this a dandy?)
> > 
> > "The past perfect is a perfective tense used to express action
> completed in the past", <The Free Dictionary>
> > 
> > "The past perfect - An event or state started at one point in
> the past and ended at another point in the past", <Gareth
> Jones Website>
> > 
> > "The past perfect is often used to emphasis (sic) that one
> action, event or condition ended before another past action,
> event, or condition ended." <University of Ottawa>
> > 
> > "The past perfect tense represents an action as completed at a
> past time. It may denote that an action occurred at an
> indefinite or definite time in the past." <Descriptive
> English Grammar, Susan Emolyn Harman>
> > 
> > I better quit before I bore you right out of your chair, T.J.
> The point is that if you try to look it up, you will find a
> hodgepodge of meaningless and inconsistent definitions and
> explanations. You will think, whateverthehell are these people
> talking about? Someone should sit down and try to figure out
> what it is and if it isn't anything, let's stop teaching it, or
> trying to teach it, since no one seems to know what it is.
> > 
> > Of all the many people of whom I asked "what is it?", only two
> have been willing to answer. One said that "the past perfect is
> had + the past participle", which is rather like saying a ladder
> is something with a rung or a train is something with wheels (as
> are lawnmowers and rickshaws). The other more recent try, which
> you may have seen, we should leave lying with the sleeping dog,
> to not foment an unnecessary exchange of gunfire.
> > 
> > ALL the others, and that includes the most eloquent and
> talkative on this listserv, cannot do it. I feel certain they
> would if they could but they can't. They don't know it
> themselves and when they try to look it up, they get what you
> see a sample of above. The "definitions" are all over the map
> and there are hundreds more like them.
> > 
> > Let me ask you, T-J, what is the past perfect?
> > 
> > If you either (a) rant and snort and call me names, or (b) not
> reply, you will, as any reasonable person would agree, prove my point.
> > 
> > Good hunting. Let me know what you think. I'm very much
> interested. I've been at this for a long time but a reasonable,
> coherent conclusion everyone -- including but not limited to
> novelists, journalists, and grammarians -- can accept still
> seems far away. Maybe you can help us.
> > 
> > .brad.27dec10.
> >
> >
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
> web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
> web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Boundary_(ID_MX1Ky0YrCssWp2T2RyOODg)-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:19:00 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Herb, It looks like I mistyped at the start of my post. I meant to say "I don't think people would normally say "the two last people on earth." The normal (or default) would be "the last two people on earth." That's not to say your point isn't well made. We need to be careful about "normal." And "the two last people on earth is certainly possible," which means it can act as an adjective. On the other hand, frequency is a very important part of meaning, and it does create a great deal of stability in the system. I don't think of these as "rules" so much because, as you say, we have a great deal of flexibility. But I would stand by my analysis of "the last grill brush you will ever need" as using "last" as an ordinal numeral. If it was simply "the latest" grill brush, the whole force of the ad would collapse. They are advertising durability and satisfaction. They want, I think, to imply that you will never need or want another one, however hyperbolic that might be. There may not be a normal in intonation, but there are stable relations between meaning and form. I can intone a statement as a question by a rise in pitch. We can signal a word group as restrictive or non-restrictive through intonation. In general, given is not intonationally stressed, but new information is given tonic prominence. One of my favorite old words is "quick", which once meant "living" if my memory is correct. And "kind," which was once closer to "natural." We do have those remnants: "the quick and the dead"; "in kind." I agree that "last" has some of its history intact. Craig Craig, > > As you're aware from both your functional and your cognitive work, what we > would normally say depends entirely on situation. It wouldn't be hard to > come up with a suitable context, say, a murder investigation trying to > narrow down who saw the victim last. I'm not sure there is a "normal" in > sentence structure, at least not in the sense I think you're using the > term. As Susan Schmerling put it a long time ago in her dissertation on > intonation, "There is no normal sentence intonation." ToBI analyses of > English intonation bear that out. > > "Last," of course, behaves both as an ordinal and as a superlative, not > surprising given its origin as a superlative and subsequent > grammaticalization and reduction followed by the later development of the > doublet "latest." Words carry their history with them and not > infrequently upset our analyses because of it. Think of > /cleave/clove/cloven/cleft/cleaved and all the specializations there > arising from an OE strong verb and an OE weak verb. The two verbs are > identical now, but they've left the lexicon littered with their castoffs. > > Herb > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock > Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 11:15 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase > > Herb, > I don't think we would normally say "She was one of the last two > people to see him alive." Normal would be "the last two people," which > is the usual order for ordinal and cardinal numerals. It is strange to > say "the last second man" because there can only be one second man. > ("This would differ if you meant something like "second baseman" or > "second violinist"; last would be Ok there because they act like a > compound noun (a set phrase.) > I think there are occasions when "last" would mean something like > "latest." The "last report" and "latest report" both leave open the > chance of a new report, though there are contexts in which "last" > would be a final element. "The last words she spoke," for example, would > mean something very different from "the latest words she spoke". > "Latest" would tend to translate to "most recent" and last would usually > be qualified with a point in time: "before she died" or "before she left > for Paris." > In the sentence in question, I think "last" is acting like an ordinal > numeral. "This is the latest grill brush she will ever need" doesn't > mean the same thing. > > > > Craig, >> >> You're right that "last" is not a negative polarity item. In this >> example, "ever" is the negative polarity item. Many negative polarity >> items occur in irrealis contexts as well, as Bruce pointed out, and >> it's the "will" that provides the irrealis context in the sentence >> we're talking about. I got the function of "last" wrong. >> >> "Last," however, behaves like the superlative it is, arising >> historically from OE "latost." "Last" and "latest" are a doublet in >> modern English and "latest" developed in the 15th c. We can say, for >> example, "She was one of the two last people to see him alive" or, as >> in the film title, "The Last Man on Earth." These are both places >> where an number word cannot occur. We can get "the second last man on >> earth" but not "the last second man on earth." This suggests that >> "last" is an adjective. Semantically it overlaps with ordinals and >> also can as an ordinal, just as nouns can function as other lexical >> categories. >> >> Herb >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock >> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 7:08 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase >> >> I would classify "last" as an ordinal numeral: first, second, >> third...last. Different grammars differ in where they draw the lines >> for the determiners, but ordinal numbers are often in that group >> (sometimes called postdeterminers since they come after the core >> determiners like "a," "the," "this," "his" and so on). It has an >> identifying function. The one we are talking about (the one in >> reference) is the last one. >> I don't think it has negative polarity, just the sense that in the >> continuing list of "grill brushes" this is the final one. You can >> negate it: this is not the last grill brush you will ever need." >> Maybe "ever" doesn't extend as much as never because "forever" is >> an option (whereas "fornever" is not). "You will need the grill brush >> forever." >> >> Craig> >> >> >> The last grill brush you will ever need. >>> >>> Is this a sentence at all? To assume an understood "This is" or "It >>> is" won't account for it as they have very different meaning possible >>> references. One almost demands that the brush be in the vicinity for >>> reference. The other might well reference a brush that has yet to be >>> created. >>> >>> I'd take "ever" as a simple adverb with the caveat that it must >>> precede the verb it modifies. Perhaps it also needs something such >>> as "will" in front of it. >>> >>> The understood "that" not stated in the clause is a relative pronoun >>> that serves as the direct object of "will need." >>> >>> Is "last" anything more than a simple adjective? Does it function >>> any differently than, say, "ultimate"? >>> >>> tj >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 7:45 am, Scott Lavitt wrote: >>>> Happy holidays all. >>>> >>>> I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek >>>> your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: >>>> >>>> The last grill brush you will ever need. >>>> >>>> I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. >>>> and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. >>>> Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, >>>> and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts? >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> Scott Lavitt >>>> >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>> interface at: >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface >>> at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 29 Dec 2010 14:04:05 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE8821CEMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE8821CEMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig, I agree that "last" behaves like an ordinal in the ad, an odd sort of ordinal though since, like "first," it's an ordinal that began as a superlative and grammaticalized. "First," of course, is cognate to German Fürst "prince." However, its superlative status is much older than for "last," which is around in Middle English. "First" as a superlative goes all the way back to Proto-Germanic, a couple of millennia older than "last." It did, after all, come first and last last. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 10:19 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase Herb, It looks like I mistyped at the start of my post. I meant to say "I don't think people would normally say "the two last people on earth." The normal (or default) would be "the last two people on earth." That's not to say your point isn't well made. We need to be careful about "normal." And "the two last people on earth is certainly possible," which means it can act as an adjective. On the other hand, frequency is a very important part of meaning, and it does create a great deal of stability in the system. I don't think of these as "rules" so much because, as you say, we have a great deal of flexibility. But I would stand by my analysis of "the last grill brush you will ever need" as using "last" as an ordinal numeral. If it was simply "the latest" grill brush, the whole force of the ad would collapse. They are advertising durability and satisfaction. They want, I think, to imply that you will never need or want another one, however hyperbolic that might be. There may not be a normal in intonation, but there are stable relations between meaning and form. I can intone a statement as a question by a rise in pitch. We can signal a word group as restrictive or non-restrictive through intonation. In general, given is not intonationally stressed, but new information is given tonic prominence. One of my favorite old words is "quick", which once meant "living" if my memory is correct. And "kind," which was once closer to "natural." We do have those remnants: "the quick and the dead"; "in kind." I agree that "last" has some of its history intact. Craig Craig, > > As you're aware from both your functional and your cognitive work, > what we would normally say depends entirely on situation. It wouldn't > be hard to come up with a suitable context, say, a murder > investigation trying to narrow down who saw the victim last. I'm not > sure there is a "normal" in sentence structure, at least not in the > sense I think you're using the term. As Susan Schmerling put it a > long time ago in her dissertation on intonation, "There is no normal > sentence intonation." ToBI analyses of English intonation bear that out. > > "Last," of course, behaves both as an ordinal and as a superlative, > not surprising given its origin as a superlative and subsequent > grammaticalization and reduction followed by the later development of > the doublet "latest." Words carry their history with them and not > infrequently upset our analyses because of it. Think of > /cleave/clove/cloven/cleft/cleaved and all the specializations there > arising from an OE strong verb and an OE weak verb. The two verbs are > identical now, but they've left the lexicon littered with their castoffs. > > Herb > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock > Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 11:15 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase > > Herb, > I don't think we would normally say "She was one of the last two > people to see him alive." Normal would be "the last two people," which > is the usual order for ordinal and cardinal numerals. It is strange to > say "the last second man" because there can only be one second man. > ("This would differ if you meant something like "second baseman" or > "second violinist"; last would be Ok there because they act like a > compound noun (a set phrase.) > I think there are occasions when "last" would mean something like > "latest." The "last report" and "latest report" both leave open the > chance of a new report, though there are contexts in which "last" > would be a final element. "The last words she spoke," for example, > would mean something very different from "the latest words she spoke". > "Latest" would tend to translate to "most recent" and last would > usually be qualified with a point in time: "before she died" or > "before she left for Paris." > In the sentence in question, I think "last" is acting like an > ordinal numeral. "This is the latest grill brush she will ever need" > doesn't mean the same thing. > > > > Craig, >> >> You're right that "last" is not a negative polarity item. In this >> example, "ever" is the negative polarity item. Many negative >> polarity items occur in irrealis contexts as well, as Bruce pointed >> out, and it's the "will" that provides the irrealis context in the >> sentence we're talking about. I got the function of "last" wrong. >> >> "Last," however, behaves like the superlative it is, arising >> historically from OE "latost." "Last" and "latest" are a doublet in >> modern English and "latest" developed in the 15th c. We can say, >> for example, "She was one of the two last people to see him alive" >> or, as in the film title, "The Last Man on Earth." These are both >> places where an number word cannot occur. We can get "the second >> last man on earth" but not "the last second man on earth." This >> suggests that "last" is an adjective. Semantically it overlaps with >> ordinals and also can as an ordinal, just as nouns can function as >> other lexical categories. >> >> Herb >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock >> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 7:08 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase >> >> I would classify "last" as an ordinal numeral: first, second, >> third...last. Different grammars differ in where they draw the lines >> for the determiners, but ordinal numbers are often in that group >> (sometimes called postdeterminers since they come after the core >> determiners like "a," "the," "this," "his" and so on). It has an >> identifying function. The one we are talking about (the one in >> reference) is the last one. >> I don't think it has negative polarity, just the sense that in the >> continuing list of "grill brushes" this is the final one. You can >> negate it: this is not the last grill brush you will ever need." >> Maybe "ever" doesn't extend as much as never because "forever" is >> an option (whereas "fornever" is not). "You will need the grill brush >> forever." >> >> Craig> >> >> >> The last grill brush you will ever need. >>> >>> Is this a sentence at all? To assume an understood "This is" or "It >>> is" won't account for it as they have very different meaning >>> possible references. One almost demands that the brush be in the >>> vicinity for reference. The other might well reference a brush that >>> has yet to be created. >>> >>> I'd take "ever" as a simple adverb with the caveat that it must >>> precede the verb it modifies. Perhaps it also needs something such >>> as "will" in front of it. >>> >>> The understood "that" not stated in the clause is a relative pronoun >>> that serves as the direct object of "will need." >>> >>> Is "last" anything more than a simple adjective? Does it function >>> any differently than, say, "ultimate"? >>> >>> tj >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 7:45 am, Scott Lavitt wrote: >>>> Happy holidays all. >>>> >>>> I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally >>>> seek your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: >>>> >>>> The last grill brush you will ever need. >>>> >>>> I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. >>>> and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. >>>> Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, >>>> and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts? >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> Scott Lavitt >>>> >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>> interface at: >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface >>> at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE8821CEMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Craig,

 

I agree that "last" behaves like an ordinal in the ad, an odd sort of ordinal though since, like "first," it's an ordinal that began as a superlative and grammaticalized.  "First," of course, is cognate to German   Fürst  “prince.”  However, its superlative status is much older than for “last,” which is around in Middle English.  “First” as a superlative goes all the way back to Proto-Germanic, a couple of millennia older than “last.”  It did, after all, come first and last last.

 

Herb

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 10:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase

 

Herb,

    It looks like I mistyped at the start of my post. I meant to say "I don't think people would normally say "the two last people on earth."

The normal (or default) would be "the last two people on earth."

    That's not to say your point isn't well made. We need to be careful about "normal." And "the two last people on earth is certainly possible," which means it can act as an adjective. On the other hand, frequency is a very important part of meaning, and it does create a great deal of stability in the system. I don't think of these as "rules" so much because, as you say, we have a great deal of flexibility. But I would stand by my analysis of "the last grill brush you will ever need" as using "last" as an ordinal numeral. If it was simply "the latest" grill brush, the whole force of the ad would collapse. They are advertising durability and satisfaction. They want, I think, to imply that you will never need or want another one, however hyperbolic that might be.

    There may not be a normal in intonation, but there are stable relations between meaning and form. I can intone a statement as a question by a rise in pitch. We can signal a word group as restrictive or non-restrictive through intonation. In general, given is not intonationally stressed, but new information is given tonic prominence.

    One of my favorite old words is "quick", which once meant "living" if my memory is correct. And "kind," which was once closer to "natural."

We do have those remnants: "the quick and the dead"; "in kind." I agree that "last" has some of its history intact.

 

Craig

Craig,

> 

> As you're aware from both your functional and your cognitive work,

> what we would normally say depends entirely on situation.  It wouldn't

> be hard to come up with a suitable context, say, a murder

> investigation trying to narrow down who saw the victim last.  I'm not

> sure there is a "normal" in sentence structure, at least not in the

> sense I think you're using the term.  As Susan Schmerling put it a

> long time ago in her dissertation on intonation, "There is no normal

> sentence intonation."  ToBI analyses of English intonation bear that out.

> 

> "Last," of course, behaves both as an ordinal and as a superlative,

> not surprising given its origin as a superlative and subsequent

> grammaticalization and reduction followed by the later development of

> the doublet "latest."  Words carry their history with them and not

> infrequently upset our analyses because of it.  Think of

> /cleave/clove/cloven/cleft/cleaved and all the specializations there

> arising from an OE strong verb and an OE weak verb.  The two verbs are

> identical now, but they've left the lexicon littered with their castoffs.

> 

> Herb

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar

> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock

> Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 11:15 AM

> To: [log in to unmask]

> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase

> 

> Herb,

>     I don't think we would normally say "She was one of the last two

> people to see him alive." Normal would be "the last two people," which

> is the usual order for ordinal and cardinal numerals. It is strange to

> say "the last second man" because there can only be one second man.

> ("This would differ if you meant something like "second baseman" or

> "second violinist"; last would be Ok there because they act like a

> compound noun (a set phrase.)

>     I think there are occasions when "last" would mean something like

> "latest." The "last report" and "latest report" both leave open the

> chance of a new report, though there are contexts in which "last"

> would be a final element. "The last words she spoke," for example,

> would mean something very different from "the latest words she spoke".

> "Latest" would tend to translate to "most recent" and last would

> usually be qualified with a point in time: "before she died" or

> "before she left for Paris."

>     In the sentence in question, I think "last" is acting like an

> ordinal numeral. "This is the latest grill brush she will ever need"

> doesn't mean the same thing.

>     >

> 

> Craig,

>> 

>> You're right that "last" is not a negative polarity item.  In this

>> example, "ever" is the negative polarity item.  Many negative

>> polarity items occur in irrealis contexts as well, as Bruce pointed

>> out, and it's the "will" that provides the irrealis context in the

>> sentence we're talking about.  I got the function of "last" wrong.

>> 

>> "Last," however, behaves like the superlative it is, arising

>> historically from OE "latost."  "Last" and "latest" are a doublet in

>> modern English and "latest"  developed in the 15th c.  We can say,

>> for example, "She was one of the two last people to see him alive"

>> or, as in the film title, "The Last Man on Earth."  These are both

>> places where an number word cannot occur.  We can get "the second

>> last man on earth" but not "the last second man on earth."  This

>> suggests that "last" is an adjective.  Semantically it overlaps with

>> ordinals and also can as an ordinal, just as nouns can function as

>> other lexical categories.

>> 

>> Herb

>> 

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar

>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock

>> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 7:08 PM

>> To: [log in to unmask]

>> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase

>> 

>>      I would classify "last" as an ordinal numeral: first, second,

>> third...last. Different grammars differ in where they draw the lines

>> for the determiners, but ordinal numbers are often in that group

>> (sometimes called postdeterminers since they come after the core

>> determiners like "a," "the," "this," "his" and so on). It has an

>> identifying function. The one we are talking about (the one in

>> reference) is the last one.

>>    I don't think it has negative polarity, just the sense that in the

>> continuing list of "grill brushes" this is the final one. You can

>> negate it: this is not the last grill brush you will ever need."

>>    Maybe "ever" doesn't extend as much as never because "forever" is

>> an option (whereas "fornever" is not). "You will need the grill brush

>> forever."

>> 

>> Craig>

>> 

>> 

>> The last grill brush you will ever need.

>>> 

>>> Is this a sentence at all?  To assume an understood "This is" or "It

>>> is" won't account for it as they have very different meaning

>>> possible references.  One almost demands that the brush be in the

>>> vicinity for reference.  The other might well reference a brush that

>>> has yet to be created.

>>> 

>>> I'd take "ever" as a simple adverb with the caveat that it  must

>>> precede the verb it modifies.  Perhaps it also needs something such

>>> as "will" in front of it.

>>> 

>>> The understood "that" not stated in the clause is a relative pronoun

>>> that serves as the direct object of "will need."

>>> 

>>> Is "last" anything more than a simple adjective?  Does it function

>>> any differently than, say, "ultimate"?

>>> 

>>> tj

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 7:45 am, Scott Lavitt   wrote:

>>>> Happy holidays all.

>>>> 

>>>> I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally

>>>> seek your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?:

>>>> 

>>>> The last grill brush you will ever need.

>>>> 

>>>> I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj.

>>>> and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right.

>>>> Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase,

>>>> and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts?

>>>> 

>>>> Thank you,

>>>> 

>>>> Scott Lavitt

>>>> 

>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

>>>> interface at:

>>>>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"

>>>> 

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

>>> 

>>> 

>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

>>> interface

>>> at:

>>>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

>>> and select "Join or leave the list"

>>> 

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

>>> 

>> 

>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

>> interface

>> at:

>>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

>> and select "Join or leave the list"

>> 

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

>> 

>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

>> interface

>> at:

>>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

>> and select "Join or leave the list"

>> 

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

>> 

> 

> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

> interface

> at:

>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

> and select "Join or leave the list"

> 

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

> 

> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

> interface

> at:

>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

> and select "Join or leave the list"

> 

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

> 

 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:

     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

and select "Join or leave the list"

 

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

 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE8821CEMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 14:27:15 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So the first shall be first and the last shall be last. Where did "next" come in? Craig> Craig, > > > > I agree that "last" behaves like an ordinal in the ad, an odd sort of > ordinal though since, like "first," it's an ordinal that began as a > superlative and grammaticalized. "First," of course, is cognate to German > Fürst "prince." However, its superlative status is much older than for > "last," which is around in Middle English. "First" as a superlative goes > all the way back to Proto-Germanic, a couple of millennia older than > "last." It did, after all, come first and last last. > > > > Herb > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock > Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 10:19 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase > > > > Herb, > > It looks like I mistyped at the start of my post. I meant to say "I > don't think people would normally say "the two last people on earth." > > The normal (or default) would be "the last two people on earth." > > That's not to say your point isn't well made. We need to be careful > about "normal." And "the two last people on earth is certainly > possible," which means it can act as an adjective. On the other hand, > frequency is a very important part of meaning, and it does create a > great deal of stability in the system. I don't think of these as > "rules" so much because, as you say, we have a great deal of > flexibility. But I would stand by my analysis of "the last grill brush > you will ever need" as using "last" as an ordinal numeral. If it was > simply "the latest" grill brush, the whole force of the ad would > collapse. They are advertising durability and satisfaction. They want, > I think, to imply that you will never need or want another one, > however hyperbolic that might be. > > There may not be a normal in intonation, but there are stable > relations between meaning and form. I can intone a statement as a > question by a rise in pitch. We can signal a word group as restrictive > or non-restrictive through intonation. In general, given is not > intonationally stressed, but new information is given tonic > prominence. > > One of my favorite old words is "quick", which once meant "living" if > my memory is correct. And "kind," which was once closer to "natural." > > We do have those remnants: "the quick and the dead"; "in kind." I agree > that "last" has some of its history intact. > > > > Craig > > Craig, > >> > >> As you're aware from both your functional and your cognitive work, > >> what we would normally say depends entirely on situation. It wouldn't > >> be hard to come up with a suitable context, say, a murder > >> investigation trying to narrow down who saw the victim last. I'm not > >> sure there is a "normal" in sentence structure, at least not in the > >> sense I think you're using the term. As Susan Schmerling put it a > >> long time ago in her dissertation on intonation, "There is no normal > >> sentence intonation." ToBI analyses of English intonation bear that >> out. > >> > >> "Last," of course, behaves both as an ordinal and as a superlative, > >> not surprising given its origin as a superlative and subsequent > >> grammaticalization and reduction followed by the later development of > >> the doublet "latest." Words carry their history with them and not > >> infrequently upset our analyses because of it. Think of > >> /cleave/clove/cloven/cleft/cleaved and all the specializations there > >> arising from an OE strong verb and an OE weak verb. The two verbs are > >> identical now, but they've left the lexicon littered with their >> castoffs. > >> > >> Herb > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock > >> Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 11:15 AM > >> To: [log in to unmask] > >> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase > >> > >> Herb, > >> I don't think we would normally say "She was one of the last two > >> people to see him alive." Normal would be "the last two people," which > >> is the usual order for ordinal and cardinal numerals. It is strange to > >> say "the last second man" because there can only be one second man. > >> ("This would differ if you meant something like "second baseman" or > >> "second violinist"; last would be Ok there because they act like a > >> compound noun (a set phrase.) > >> I think there are occasions when "last" would mean something like > >> "latest." The "last report" and "latest report" both leave open the > >> chance of a new report, though there are contexts in which "last" > >> would be a final element. "The last words she spoke," for example, > >> would mean something very different from "the latest words she spoke". > >> "Latest" would tend to translate to "most recent" and last would > >> usually be qualified with a point in time: "before she died" or > >> "before she left for Paris." > >> In the sentence in question, I think "last" is acting like an > >> ordinal numeral. "This is the latest grill brush she will ever need" > >> doesn't mean the same thing. > >> > > >> > >> Craig, > >>> > >>> You're right that "last" is not a negative polarity item. In this > >>> example, "ever" is the negative polarity item. Many negative > >>> polarity items occur in irrealis contexts as well, as Bruce pointed > >>> out, and it's the "will" that provides the irrealis context in the > >>> sentence we're talking about. I got the function of "last" wrong. > >>> > >>> "Last," however, behaves like the superlative it is, arising > >>> historically from OE "latost." "Last" and "latest" are a doublet in > >>> modern English and "latest" developed in the 15th c. We can say, > >>> for example, "She was one of the two last people to see him alive" > >>> or, as in the film title, "The Last Man on Earth." These are both > >>> places where an number word cannot occur. We can get "the second > >>> last man on earth" but not "the last second man on earth." This > >>> suggests that "last" is an adjective. Semantically it overlaps with > >>> ordinals and also can as an ordinal, just as nouns can function as > >>> other lexical categories. > >>> > >>> Herb > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock > >>> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 7:08 PM > >>> To: [log in to unmask] > >>> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase > >>> > >>> I would classify "last" as an ordinal numeral: first, second, > >>> third...last. Different grammars differ in where they draw the lines > >>> for the determiners, but ordinal numbers are often in that group > >>> (sometimes called postdeterminers since they come after the core > >>> determiners like "a," "the," "this," "his" and so on). It has an > >>> identifying function. The one we are talking about (the one in > >>> reference) is the last one. > >>> I don't think it has negative polarity, just the sense that in the > >>> continuing list of "grill brushes" this is the final one. You can > >>> negate it: this is not the last grill brush you will ever need." > >>> Maybe "ever" doesn't extend as much as never because "forever" is > >>> an option (whereas "fornever" is not). "You will need the grill brush > >>> forever." > >>> > >>> Craig> > >>> > >>> > >>> The last grill brush you will ever need. > >>>> > >>>> Is this a sentence at all? To assume an understood "This is" or "It > >>>> is" won't account for it as they have very different meaning > >>>> possible references. One almost demands that the brush be in the > >>>> vicinity for reference. The other might well reference a brush that > >>>> has yet to be created. > >>>> > >>>> I'd take "ever" as a simple adverb with the caveat that it must > >>>> precede the verb it modifies. Perhaps it also needs something such > >>>> as "will" in front of it. > >>>> > >>>> The understood "that" not stated in the clause is a relative pronoun > >>>> that serves as the direct object of "will need." > >>>> > >>>> Is "last" anything more than a simple adjective? Does it function > >>>> any differently than, say, "ultimate"? > >>>> > >>>> tj > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 7:45 am, Scott Lavitt wrote: > >>>>> Happy holidays all. > >>>>> > >>>>> I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally > >>>>> seek your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the >>>>> following?: > >>>>> > >>>>> The last grill brush you will ever need. > >>>>> > >>>>> I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. > >>>>> and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. > >>>>> Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, > >>>>> and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you, > >>>>> > >>>>> Scott Lavitt > >>>>> > >>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > >>>>> interface at: > >>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > >>>>> and select "Join or leave the list" > >>>>> > >>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > >>>> interface > >>>> at: > >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" > >>>> > >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > >>>> > >>> > >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > >>> interface > >>> at: > >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > >>> and select "Join or leave the list" > >>> > >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > >>> > >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > >>> interface > >>> at: > >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > >>> and select "Join or leave the list" > >>> > >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > >>> > >> > >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > >> interface > >> at: > >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > >> and select "Join or leave the list" > >> > >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > >> > >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > >> interface > >> at: > >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > >> and select "Join or leave the list" > >> > >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > >> > > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > > and select "Join or leave the list" > > > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 29 Dec 2010 14:41:23 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE8821DEMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE8821DEMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1257" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A wise question, Grasshopper. Modern English "nigh," "near," and "next" represent the reflexes of an Old English positive nçah, comparative near, and superlative nîehst that served as both adjectives and adverbs. They gradually became independent forms and were replaced in Late Middle English by the forms nigh/nigher/nighest and near/nearer/nearest, formed by analogical leveling. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:27 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase So the first shall be first and the last shall be last. Where did "next" come in? Craig> Craig, > > > > I agree that "last" behaves like an ordinal in the ad, an odd sort of > ordinal though since, like "first," it's an ordinal that began as a > superlative and grammaticalized. "First," of course, is cognate to German > Fürst "prince." However, its superlative status is much older than > for "last," which is around in Middle English. "First" as a > superlative goes all the way back to Proto-Germanic, a couple of > millennia older than "last." It did, after all, come first and last last. > > > > Herb > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock > Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 10:19 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase > > > > Herb, > > It looks like I mistyped at the start of my post. I meant to say > "I don't think people would normally say "the two last people on earth." > > The normal (or default) would be "the last two people on earth." > > That's not to say your point isn't well made. We need to be > careful about "normal." And "the two last people on earth is certainly > possible," which means it can act as an adjective. On the other hand, > frequency is a very important part of meaning, and it does create a > great deal of stability in the system. I don't think of these as > "rules" so much because, as you say, we have a great deal of > flexibility. But I would stand by my analysis of "the last grill brush > you will ever need" as using "last" as an ordinal numeral. If it was > simply "the latest" grill brush, the whole force of the ad would > collapse. They are advertising durability and satisfaction. They want, > I think, to imply that you will never need or want another one, > however hyperbolic that might be. > > There may not be a normal in intonation, but there are stable > relations between meaning and form. I can intone a statement as a > question by a rise in pitch. We can signal a word group as restrictive > or non-restrictive through intonation. In general, given is not > intonationally stressed, but new information is given tonic > prominence. > > One of my favorite old words is "quick", which once meant "living" > if my memory is correct. And "kind," which was once closer to "natural." > > We do have those remnants: "the quick and the dead"; "in kind." I > agree that "last" has some of its history intact. > > > > Craig > > Craig, > >> > >> As you're aware from both your functional and your cognitive work, > >> what we would normally say depends entirely on situation. It >> wouldn't > >> be hard to come up with a suitable context, say, a murder > >> investigation trying to narrow down who saw the victim last. I'm not > >> sure there is a "normal" in sentence structure, at least not in the > >> sense I think you're using the term. As Susan Schmerling put it a > >> long time ago in her dissertation on intonation, "There is no normal > >> sentence intonation." ToBI analyses of English intonation bear that >> out. > >> > >> "Last," of course, behaves both as an ordinal and as a superlative, > >> not surprising given its origin as a superlative and subsequent > >> grammaticalization and reduction followed by the later development of > >> the doublet "latest." Words carry their history with them and not > >> infrequently upset our analyses because of it. Think of > >> /cleave/clove/cloven/cleft/cleaved and all the specializations there > >> arising from an OE strong verb and an OE weak verb. The two verbs >> are > >> identical now, but they've left the lexicon littered with their >> castoffs. > >> > >> Herb > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock > >> Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 11:15 AM > >> To: [log in to unmask] > >> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase > >> > >> Herb, > >> I don't think we would normally say "She was one of the last two > >> people to see him alive." Normal would be "the last two people," >> which > >> is the usual order for ordinal and cardinal numerals. It is strange >> to > >> say "the last second man" because there can only be one second man. > >> ("This would differ if you meant something like "second baseman" or > >> "second violinist"; last would be Ok there because they act like a > >> compound noun (a set phrase.) > >> I think there are occasions when "last" would mean something like > >> "latest." The "last report" and "latest report" both leave open the > >> chance of a new report, though there are contexts in which "last" > >> would be a final element. "The last words she spoke," for example, > >> would mean something very different from "the latest words she spoke". > >> "Latest" would tend to translate to "most recent" and last would > >> usually be qualified with a point in time: "before she died" or > >> "before she left for Paris." > >> In the sentence in question, I think "last" is acting like an > >> ordinal numeral. "This is the latest grill brush she will ever need" > >> doesn't mean the same thing. > >> > > >> > >> Craig, > >>> > >>> You're right that "last" is not a negative polarity item. In this > >>> example, "ever" is the negative polarity item. Many negative > >>> polarity items occur in irrealis contexts as well, as Bruce pointed > >>> out, and it's the "will" that provides the irrealis context in the > >>> sentence we're talking about. I got the function of "last" wrong. > >>> > >>> "Last," however, behaves like the superlative it is, arising > >>> historically from OE "latost." "Last" and "latest" are a doublet in > >>> modern English and "latest" developed in the 15th c. We can say, > >>> for example, "She was one of the two last people to see him alive" > >>> or, as in the film title, "The Last Man on Earth." These are both > >>> places where an number word cannot occur. We can get "the second > >>> last man on earth" but not "the last second man on earth." This > >>> suggests that "last" is an adjective. Semantically it overlaps with > >>> ordinals and also can as an ordinal, just as nouns can function as > >>> other lexical categories. > >>> > >>> Herb > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock > >>> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 7:08 PM > >>> To: [log in to unmask] > >>> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase > >>> > >>> I would classify "last" as an ordinal numeral: first, second, > >>> third...last. Different grammars differ in where they draw the lines > >>> for the determiners, but ordinal numbers are often in that group > >>> (sometimes called postdeterminers since they come after the core > >>> determiners like "a," "the," "this," "his" and so on). It has an > >>> identifying function. The one we are talking about (the one in > >>> reference) is the last one. > >>> I don't think it has negative polarity, just the sense that in >>> the > >>> continuing list of "grill brushes" this is the final one. You can > >>> negate it: this is not the last grill brush you will ever need." > >>> Maybe "ever" doesn't extend as much as never because "forever" is > >>> an option (whereas "fornever" is not). "You will need the grill >>> brush > >>> forever." > >>> > >>> Craig> > >>> > >>> > >>> The last grill brush you will ever need. > >>>> > >>>> Is this a sentence at all? To assume an understood "This is" or >>>> "It > >>>> is" won't account for it as they have very different meaning > >>>> possible references. One almost demands that the brush be in the > >>>> vicinity for reference. The other might well reference a brush >>>> that > >>>> has yet to be created. > >>>> > >>>> I'd take "ever" as a simple adverb with the caveat that it must > >>>> precede the verb it modifies. Perhaps it also needs something such > >>>> as "will" in front of it. > >>>> > >>>> The understood "that" not stated in the clause is a relative >>>> pronoun > >>>> that serves as the direct object of "will need." > >>>> > >>>> Is "last" anything more than a simple adjective? Does it function > >>>> any differently than, say, "ultimate"? > >>>> > >>>> tj > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 7:45 am, Scott Lavitt wrote: > >>>>> Happy holidays all. > >>>>> > >>>>> I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally > >>>>> seek your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the >>>>> following?: > >>>>> > >>>>> The last grill brush you will ever need. > >>>>> > >>>>> I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. > >>>>> and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. > >>>>> Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, > >>>>> and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you, > >>>>> > >>>>> Scott Lavitt > >>>>> > >>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > >>>>> interface at: > >>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > >>>>> and select "Join or leave the list" > >>>>> > >>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > >>>> interface > >>>> at: > >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" > >>>> > >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > >>>> > >>> > >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > >>> interface > >>> at: > >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > >>> and select "Join or leave the list" > >>> > >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > >>> > >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > >>> interface > >>> at: > >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > >>> and select "Join or leave the list" > >>> > >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > >>> > >> > >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > >> interface > >> at: > >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > >> and select "Join or leave the list" > >> > >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > >> > >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > >> interface > >> at: > >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > >> and select "Join or leave the list" > >> > >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > >> > > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface > at: > > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > > and select "Join or leave the list" > > > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE8821DEMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1257" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A wise question, Grasshopper.

 

Modern English "nigh," "near," and "next" represent the reflexes of an Old English positive nçah, comparative near, and superlative nîehst that served as both adjectives and adverbs.  They gradually became independent forms and were replaced in Late Middle English by the forms nigh/nigher/nighest and near/nearer/nearest, formed by analogical leveling.

 

Herb

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:27 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase

 

     So the first shall be first and the last shall be last. Where did "next" come in?

 

Craig>

 

Craig,

> 

> 

> 

> I agree that "last" behaves like an ordinal in the ad, an odd sort of

> ordinal though since, like "first," it's an ordinal that began as a

> superlative and grammaticalized.  "First," of course, is cognate to German

>   Fürst  "prince."  However, its superlative status is much older than

> for "last," which is around in Middle English.  "First" as a

> superlative goes all the way back to Proto-Germanic, a couple of

> millennia older than "last."  It did, after all, come first and last last.

> 

> 

> 

> Herb

> 

> 

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar

> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock

> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 10:19 AM

> To: [log in to unmask]

> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase

> 

> 

> 

> Herb,

> 

>     It looks like I mistyped at the start of my post. I meant to say

> "I don't think people would normally say "the two last people on earth."

> 

> The normal (or default) would be "the last two people on earth."

> 

>     That's not to say your point isn't well made. We need to be

> careful about "normal." And "the two last people on earth is certainly

> possible," which means it can act as an adjective. On the other hand,

> frequency is a very important part of meaning, and it does create a

> great deal of stability in the system. I don't think of these as

> "rules" so much because, as you say, we have a great deal of

> flexibility. But I would stand by my analysis of "the last grill brush

> you will ever need" as using "last" as an ordinal numeral. If it was

> simply "the latest" grill brush, the whole force of the ad would

> collapse. They are advertising durability and satisfaction. They want,

> I think, to imply that you will never need or want another one,

> however hyperbolic that might be.

> 

>     There may not be a normal in intonation, but there are stable

> relations between meaning and form. I can intone a statement as a

> question by a rise in pitch. We can signal a word group as restrictive

> or non-restrictive through intonation. In general, given is not

> intonationally stressed, but new information is given tonic

> prominence.

> 

>     One of my favorite old words is "quick", which once meant "living"

> if my memory is correct. And "kind," which was once closer to "natural."

> 

> We do have those remnants: "the quick and the dead"; "in kind." I

> agree that "last" has some of its history intact.

> 

> 

> 

> Craig

> 

> Craig,

> 

>> 

> 

>> As you're aware from both your functional and your cognitive work,

> 

>> what we would normally say depends entirely on situation.  It

>> wouldn't

> 

>> be hard to come up with a suitable context, say, a murder

> 

>> investigation trying to narrow down who saw the victim last.  I'm not

> 

>> sure there is a "normal" in sentence structure, at least not in the

> 

>> sense I think you're using the term.  As Susan Schmerling put it a

> 

>> long time ago in her dissertation on intonation, "There is no normal

> 

>> sentence intonation."  ToBI analyses of English intonation bear that

>> out.

> 

>> 

> 

>> "Last," of course, behaves both as an ordinal and as a superlative,

> 

>> not surprising given its origin as a superlative and subsequent

> 

>> grammaticalization and reduction followed by the later development of

> 

>> the doublet "latest."  Words carry their history with them and not

> 

>> infrequently upset our analyses because of it.  Think of

> 

>> /cleave/clove/cloven/cleft/cleaved and all the specializations there

> 

>> arising from an OE strong verb and an OE weak verb.  The two verbs

>> are

> 

>> identical now, but they've left the lexicon littered with their

>> castoffs.

> 

>> 

> 

>> Herb

> 

>> 

> 

>> -----Original Message-----

> 

>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar

> 

>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock

> 

>> Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 11:15 AM

> 

>> To: [log in to unmask]

> 

>> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase

> 

>> 

> 

>> Herb,

> 

>>     I don't think we would normally say "She was one of the last two

> 

>> people to see him alive." Normal would be "the last two people,"

>> which

> 

>> is the usual order for ordinal and cardinal numerals. It is strange

>> to

> 

>> say "the last second man" because there can only be one second man.

> 

>> ("This would differ if you meant something like "second baseman" or

> 

>> "second violinist"; last would be Ok there because they act like a

> 

>> compound noun (a set phrase.)

> 

>>     I think there are occasions when "last" would mean something like

> 

>> "latest." The "last report" and "latest report" both leave open the

> 

>> chance of a new report, though there are contexts in which "last"

> 

>> would be a final element. "The last words she spoke," for example,

> 

>> would mean something very different from "the latest words she spoke".

> 

>> "Latest" would tend to translate to "most recent" and last would

> 

>> usually be qualified with a point in time: "before she died" or

> 

>> "before she left for Paris."

> 

>>     In the sentence in question, I think "last" is acting like an

> 

>> ordinal numeral. "This is the latest grill brush she will ever need"

> 

>> doesn't mean the same thing.

> 

>>     >

> 

>> 

> 

>> Craig,

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> You're right that "last" is not a negative polarity item.  In this

> 

>>> example, "ever" is the negative polarity item.  Many negative

> 

>>> polarity items occur in irrealis contexts as well, as Bruce pointed

> 

>>> out, and it's the "will" that provides the irrealis context in the

> 

>>> sentence we're talking about.  I got the function of "last" wrong.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> "Last," however, behaves like the superlative it is, arising

> 

>>> historically from OE "latost."  "Last" and "latest" are a doublet in

> 

>>> modern English and "latest"  developed in the 15th c.  We can say,

> 

>>> for example, "She was one of the two last people to see him alive"

> 

>>> or, as in the film title, "The Last Man on Earth."  These are both

> 

>>> places where an number word cannot occur.  We can get "the second

> 

>>> last man on earth" but not "the last second man on earth."  This

> 

>>> suggests that "last" is an adjective.  Semantically it overlaps with

> 

>>> ordinals and also can as an ordinal, just as nouns can function as

> 

>>> other lexical categories.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> Herb

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> -----Original Message-----

> 

>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar

> 

>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock

> 

>>> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 7:08 PM

> 

>>> To: [log in to unmask]

> 

>>> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>      I would classify "last" as an ordinal numeral: first, second,

> 

>>> third...last. Different grammars differ in where they draw the lines

> 

>>> for the determiners, but ordinal numbers are often in that group

> 

>>> (sometimes called postdeterminers since they come after the core

> 

>>> determiners like "a," "the," "this," "his" and so on). It has an

> 

>>> identifying function. The one we are talking about (the one in

> 

>>> reference) is the last one.

> 

>>>    I don't think it has negative polarity, just the sense that in

>>> the

> 

>>> continuing list of "grill brushes" this is the final one. You can

> 

>>> negate it: this is not the last grill brush you will ever need."

> 

>>>    Maybe "ever" doesn't extend as much as never because "forever" is

> 

>>> an option (whereas "fornever" is not). "You will need the grill

>>> brush

> 

>>> forever."

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> Craig>

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> The last grill brush you will ever need.

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>>> Is this a sentence at all?  To assume an understood "This is" or

>>>> "It

> 

>>>> is" won't account for it as they have very different meaning

> 

>>>> possible references.  One almost demands that the brush be in the

> 

>>>> vicinity for reference.  The other might well reference a brush

>>>> that

> 

>>>> has yet to be created.

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>>> I'd take "ever" as a simple adverb with the caveat that it  must

> 

>>>> precede the verb it modifies.  Perhaps it also needs something such

> 

>>>> as "will" in front of it.

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>>> The understood "that" not stated in the clause is a relative

>>>> pronoun

> 

>>>> that serves as the direct object of "will need."

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>>> Is "last" anything more than a simple adjective?  Does it function

> 

>>>> any differently than, say, "ultimate"?

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>>> tj

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>>> On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 7:45 am, Scott Lavitt   wrote:

> 

>>>>> Happy holidays all.

> 

>>>>> 

> 

>>>>> I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally

> 

>>>>> seek your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the

>>>>> following?:

> 

>>>>> 

> 

>>>>> The last grill brush you will ever need.

> 

>>>>> 

> 

>>>>> I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj.

> 

>>>>> and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right.

> 

>>>>> Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase,

> 

>>>>> and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts?

> 

>>>>> 

> 

>>>>> Thank you,

> 

>>>>> 

> 

>>>>> Scott Lavitt

> 

>>>>> 

> 

>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

> 

>>>>> interface at:

> 

>>>>>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

> 

>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"

> 

>>>>> 

> 

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

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

> 

>>>> interface

> 

>>>> at:

> 

>>>>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

> 

>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"

> 

>>>> 

> 

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

> 

>>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

> 

>>> interface

> 

>>> at:

> 

>>>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

> 

>>> and select "Join or leave the list"

> 

>>> 

> 

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

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

> 

>>> interface

> 

>>> at:

> 

>>>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

> 

>>> and select "Join or leave the list"

> 

>>> 

> 

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

> 

>>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

> 

>> interface

> 

>> at:

> 

>>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

> 

>> and select "Join or leave the list"

> 

>> 

> 

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

> 

>> 

> 

>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

> 

>> interface

> 

>> at:

> 

>>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

> 

>> and select "Join or leave the list"

> 

>> 

> 

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

> 

>> 

> 

> 

> 

> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

> interface

> at:

> 

>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

> 

> and select "Join or leave the list"

> 

> 

> 

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

> 

> 

> 

> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

> interface

> at:

>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

> and select "Join or leave the list"

> 

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

> 

 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:

     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

and select "Join or leave the list"

 

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

 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE8821DEMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 13:47:25 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "T. J. Ray" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_SW_1193531759_1293652045_mpa=" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_SW_1193531759_1293652045_mpaContent-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mualmarp01.mcs.muohio.edu id oBTJlTQO018889 Superlative form of OE "neah" from which we derive "nigh." tj On Wednesday 12/29/2010 at 1:32 pm, Craig Hancock wrote: > So the first shall be first and the last shall be last. Where > did > "next" come in? > > Craig> > > Craig, >> >> >> >> >> I agree that "last" behaves like an ordinal in the ad, an odd sort of >> ordinal though since, like "first," it's an ordinal that began as a >> superlative and grammaticalized. "First," of course, is cognate to >> German >> Fürst "prince." However, its superlative status is much older >> than for >> "last," which is around in Middle English. "First" as a superlative >> goes >> all the way back to Proto-Germanic, a couple of millennia older than >> "last." It did, after all, come first and last last. >> >> >> >> Herb >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock >> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 10:19 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase >> >> >> >> Herb, >> >> It looks like I mistyped at the start of my post. I meant to >> say "I >> don't think people would normally say "the two last people on earth." >> >> The normal (or default) would be "the last two people on earth." >> >> That's not to say your point isn't well made. We need to be >> careful >> about "normal." And "the two last people on earth is certainly >> possible," which means it can act as an adjective. On the other hand, >> frequency is a very important part of meaning, and it does create a >> great deal of stability in the system. I don't think of these as >> "rules" so much because, as you say, we have a great deal of >> flexibility. But I would stand by my analysis of "the last grill brush >> you will ever need" as using "last" as an ordinal numeral. If it was >> simply "the latest" grill brush, the whole force of the ad would >> collapse. They are advertising durability and satisfaction. They want, >> I think, to imply that you will never need or want another one, >> however hyperbolic that might be. >> >> There may not be a normal in intonation, but there are stable >> relations between meaning and form. I can intone a statement as a >> question by a rise in pitch. We can signal a word group as restrictive >> or non-restrictive through intonation. In general, given is not >> intonationally stressed, but new information is given tonic >> prominence. >> >> One of my favorite old words is "quick", which once meant >> "living" if >> my memory is correct. And "kind," which was once closer to "natural." >> >> We do have those remnants: "the quick and the dead"; "in kind." I >> agree >> that "last" has some of its history intact. >> >> >> >> Craig >> >> Craig, >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> As you're aware from both your functional and your cognitive work, >> >>> >>> what we would normally say depends entirely on situation. It wouldn't >> >>> >>> be hard to come up with a suitable context, say, a murder >> >>> >>> investigation trying to narrow down who saw the victim last. I'm not >> >>> >>> sure there is a "normal" in sentence structure, at least not in the >> >>> >>> sense I think you're using the term. As Susan Schmerling put it a >> >>> >>> long time ago in her dissertation on intonation, "There is no normal >> >>> >>> sentence intonation." ToBI analyses of English intonation bear that >>> out. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> "Last," of course, behaves both as an ordinal and as a superlative, >> >>> >>> not surprising given its origin as a superlative and subsequent >> >>> >>> grammaticalization and reduction followed by the later development of >> >>> >>> the doublet "latest." Words carry their history with them and not >> >>> >>> infrequently upset our analyses because of it. Think of >> >>> >>> /cleave/clove/cloven/cleft/cleaved and all the specializations there >> >>> >>> arising from an OE strong verb and an OE weak verb. The two verbs are >> >>> >>> identical now, but they've left the lexicon littered with their >>> castoffs. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Herb >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> >>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> >>> >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock >> >>> >>> Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 11:15 AM >> >>> >>> To: [log in to unmask] >> >>> >>> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Herb, >> >>> >>> I don't think we would normally say "She was one of the last >>> two >> >>> >>> people to see him alive." Normal would be "the last two people," which >> >>> >>> is the usual order for ordinal and cardinal numerals. It is strange to >> >>> >>> say "the last second man" because there can only be one second man. >> >>> >>> ("This would differ if you meant something like "second baseman" or >> >>> >>> "second violinist"; last would be Ok there because they act like a >> >>> >>> compound noun (a set phrase.) >> >>> >>> I think there are occasions when "last" would mean something >>> like >> >>> >>> "latest." The "last report" and "latest report" both leave open the >> >>> >>> chance of a new report, though there are contexts in which "last" >> >>> >>> would be a final element. "The last words she spoke," for example, >> >>> >>> would mean something very different from "the latest words she spoke". >> >>> >>> "Latest" would tend to translate to "most recent" and last would >> >>> >>> usually be qualified with a point in time: "before she died" or >> >>> >>> "before she left for Paris." >> >>> >>> In the sentence in question, I think "last" is acting like an >> >>> >>> ordinal numeral. "This is the latest grill brush she will ever need" >> >>> >>> doesn't mean the same thing. >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Craig, >> >>> >>>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>> You're right that "last" is not a negative polarity item. In this >> >>> >>>> >>>> example, "ever" is the negative polarity item. Many negative >> >>> >>>> >>>> polarity items occur in irrealis contexts as well, as Bruce pointed >> >>> >>>> >>>> out, and it's the "will" that provides the irrealis context in the >> >>> >>>> >>>> sentence we're talking about. I got the function of "last" wrong. >> >>> >>>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>> "Last," however, behaves like the superlative it is, arising >> >>> >>>> >>>> historically from OE "latost." "Last" and "latest" are a doublet in >> >>> >>>> >>>> modern English and "latest" developed in the 15th c. We can say, >> >>> >>>> >>>> for example, "She was one of the two last people to see him alive" >> >>> >>>> >>>> or, as in the film title, "The Last Man on Earth." These are both >> >>> >>>> >>>> places where an number word cannot occur. We can get "the second >> >>> >>>> >>>> last man on earth" but not "the last second man on earth." This >> >>> >>>> >>>> suggests that "last" is an adjective. Semantically it overlaps with >> >>> >>>> >>>> ordinals and also can as an ordinal, just as nouns can function as >> >>> >>>> >>>> other lexical categories. >> >>> >>>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>> Herb >> >>> >>>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> >>>> >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> >>> >>>> >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock >> >>> >>>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 7:08 PM >> >>> >>>> >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >> >>> >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase >> >>> >>>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>> I would classify "last" as an ordinal numeral: first, >>>> second, >> >>> >>>> >>>> third...last. Different grammars differ in where they draw the lines >> >>> >>>> >>>> for the determiners, but ordinal numbers are often in that group >> >>> >>>> >>>> (sometimes called postdeterminers since they come after the core >> >>> >>>> >>>> determiners like "a," "the," "this," "his" and so on). It has an >> >>> >>>> >>>> identifying function. The one we are talking about (the one in >> >>> >>>> >>>> reference) is the last one. >> >>> >>>> >>>> I don't think it has negative polarity, just the sense that in >>>> the >> >>> >>>> >>>> continuing list of "grill brushes" this is the final one. You can >> >>> >>>> >>>> negate it: this is not the last grill brush you will ever need." >> >>> >>>> >>>> Maybe "ever" doesn't extend as much as never because "forever" >>>> is >> >>> >>>> >>>> an option (whereas "fornever" is not). "You will need the grill brush >> >>> >>>> >>>> forever." >> >>> >>>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>> Craig> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>> The last grill brush you will ever need. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is this a sentence at all? To assume an understood "This is" or "It >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> is" won't account for it as they have very different meaning >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> possible references. One almost demands that the brush be in the >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> vicinity for reference. The other might well reference a brush that >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> has yet to be created. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'd take "ever" as a simple adverb with the caveat that it must >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> precede the verb it modifies. Perhaps it also needs something such >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> as "will" in front of it. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The understood "that" not stated in the clause is a relative pronoun >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> that serves as the direct object of "will need." >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is "last" anything more than a simple adjective? Does it function >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> any differently than, say, "ultimate"? >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> tj >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 7:45 am, Scott Lavitt wrote: >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Happy holidays all. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> seek your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the >>>>>> following?: >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The last grill brush you will ever need. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts? >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Scott Lavitt >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> interface at: >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> interface >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> at: >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> >>> >>>> >>>> interface >> >>> >>>> >>>> at: >> >>> >>>> >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> >>> >>>> >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >>> >>>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >>> >>>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> >>> >>>> >>>> interface >> >>> >>>> >>>> at: >> >>> >>>> >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> >>> >>>> >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >>> >>>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >>> >>>> >>>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> >>> >>> interface >> >>> >>> at: >> >>> >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> >>> >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> >>> >>> interface >> >>> >>> at: >> >>> >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> >>> >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_SW_1193531759_1293652045_mpaContent-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Superlative form of OE "neah" from which we derive "nigh."


tj


On Wednesday 12/29/2010 at 1:32 pm, Craig Hancock wrote:
      So the first shall be first and the last shall be last. Where did
"next" come in?

Craig>

Craig,



I agree that "last" behaves like an ordinal in the ad, an odd sort of
ordinal though since, like "first," it's an ordinal that began as a
superlative and grammaticalized. "First," of course, is cognate to German
    Fürst "prince." However, its superlative status is much older than for
"last," which is around in Middle English. "First" as a superlative goes
all the way back to Proto-Germanic, a couple of millennia older than
"last." It did, after all, come first and last last.



Herb



-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 10:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase



Herb,

      It looks like I mistyped at the start of my post. I meant to say "I
don't think people would normally say "the two last people on earth."

The normal (or default) would be "the last two people on earth."

      That's not to say your point isn't well made. We need to be careful
about "normal." And "the two last people on earth is certainly
possible," which means it can act as an adjective. On the other hand,
frequency is a very important part of meaning, and it does create a
great deal of stability in the system. I don't think of these as
"rules" so much because, as you say, we have a great deal of
flexibility. But I would stand by my analysis of "the last grill brush
you will ever need" as using "last" as an ordinal numeral. If it was
simply "the latest" grill brush, the whole force of the ad would
collapse. They are advertising durability and satisfaction. They want,
I think, to imply that you will never need or want another one,
however hyperbolic that might be.

      There may not be a normal in intonation, but there are stable
relations between meaning and form. I can intone a statement as a
question by a rise in pitch. We can signal a word group as restrictive
or non-restrictive through intonation. In general, given is not
intonationally stressed, but new information is given tonic
prominence.

      One of my favorite old words is "quick", which once meant "living" if
my memory is correct. And "kind," which was once closer to "natural."

We do have those remnants: "the quick and the dead"; "in kind." I agree
that "last" has some of its history intact.



Craig

Craig,



As you're aware from both your functional and your cognitive work,

what we would normally say depends entirely on situation. It wouldn't

be hard to come up with a suitable context, say, a murder

investigation trying to narrow down who saw the victim last. I'm not

sure there is a "normal" in sentence structure, at least not in the

sense I think you're using the term. As Susan Schmerling put it a

long time ago in her dissertation on intonation, "There is no normal

sentence intonation." ToBI analyses of English intonation bear that
out.



"Last," of course, behaves both as an ordinal and as a superlative,

not surprising given its origin as a superlative and subsequent

grammaticalization and reduction followed by the later development of

the doublet "latest." Words carry their history with them and not

infrequently upset our analyses because of it. Think of

/cleave/clove/cloven/cleft/cleaved and all the specializations there

arising from an OE strong verb and an OE weak verb. The two verbs are

identical now, but they've left the lexicon littered with their
castoffs.



Herb



-----Original Message-----

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar

[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock

Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 11:15 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase



Herb,

      I don't think we would normally say "She was one of the last two

people to see him alive." Normal would be "the last two people," which

is the usual order for ordinal and cardinal numerals. It is strange to

say "the last second man" because there can only be one second man.

("This would differ if you meant something like "second baseman" or

"second violinist"; last would be Ok there because they act like a

compound noun (a set phrase.)

      I think there are occasions when "last" would mean something like

"latest." The "last report" and "latest report" both leave open the

chance of a new report, though there are contexts in which "last"

would be a final element. "The last words she spoke," for example,

would mean something very different from "the latest words she spoke".

"Latest" would tend to translate to "most recent" and last would

usually be qualified with a point in time: "before she died" or

"before she left for Paris."

      In the sentence in question, I think "last" is acting like an

ordinal numeral. "This is the latest grill brush she will ever need"

doesn't mean the same thing.

      >



Craig,



You're right that "last" is not a negative polarity item. In this

example, "ever" is the negative polarity item. Many negative

polarity items occur in irrealis contexts as well, as Bruce pointed

out, and it's the "will" that provides the irrealis context in the

sentence we're talking about. I got the function of "last" wrong.



"Last," however, behaves like the superlative it is, arising

historically from OE "latost." "Last" and "latest" are a doublet in

modern English and "latest" developed in the 15th c. We can say,

for example, "She was one of the two last people to see him alive"

or, as in the film title, "The Last Man on Earth." These are both

places where an number word cannot occur. We can get "the second

last man on earth" but not "the last second man on earth." This

suggests that "last" is an adjective. Semantically it overlaps with

ordinals and also can as an ordinal, just as nouns can function as

other lexical categories.



Herb



-----Original Message-----

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar

[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock

Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 7:08 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase



       I would classify "last" as an ordinal numeral: first, second,

third...last. Different grammars differ in where they draw the lines

for the determiners, but ordinal numbers are often in that group

(sometimes called postdeterminers since they come after the core

determiners like "a," "the," "this," "his" and so on). It has an

identifying function. The one we are talking about (the one in

reference) is the last one.

     I don't think it has negative polarity, just the sense that in the

continuing list of "grill brushes" this is the final one. You can

negate it: this is not the last grill brush you will ever need."

     Maybe "ever" doesn't extend as much as never because "forever" is

an option (whereas "fornever" is not). "You will need the grill brush

forever."



Craig>





The last grill brush you will ever need.



Is this a sentence at all? To assume an understood "This is" or "It

is" won't account for it as they have very different meaning

possible references. One almost demands that the brush be in the

vicinity for reference. The other might well reference a brush that

has yet to be created.



I'd take "ever" as a simple adverb with the caveat that it must

precede the verb it modifies. Perhaps it also needs something such

as "will" in front of it.



The understood "that" not stated in the clause is a relative pronoun

that serves as the direct object of "will need."



Is "last" anything more than a simple adjective? Does it function

any differently than, say, "ultimate"?



tj







On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 7:45 am, Scott Lavitt wrote:

Happy holidays all.



I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally

seek your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the
following?:



The last grill brush you will ever need.



I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj.

and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right.

Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase,

and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts?



Thank you,



Scott Lavitt



To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

interface at:

       http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

and select "Join or leave the list"



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





To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

interface

at:

       http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

and select "Join or leave the list"



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





To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

interface

at:

       http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

and select "Join or leave the list"



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



To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

interface

at:

       http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

and select "Join or leave the list"



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





To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

interface

at:

       http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

and select "Join or leave the list"



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



To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web

interface

at:

       http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

and select "Join or leave the list"



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





To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:

       http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html

and select "Join or leave the list"



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



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

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


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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_SW_1193531759_1293652045_mpa=-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 16:57:11 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable TJ: Sorry for the slow reply here; I avoided work email over the holidays. I'd certainly call the question use a main-clause example; I committed the old grammarian's sin of focusing on declaratives as the center of the linguistic universe. "Did he ever think of the answer" strikes me as raising more doubts about the person's success than does "Did he think of the answer," so I could at least argue the 'ever' is still adding an irrealis note (although that may be simply a result of the duration element 'ever' also adds). --- Bill Spruiell -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of T. J. Ray Sent: Thu 12/23/2010 5:29 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase How about "ever" in a question? Did he ever think of the answer? tj On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 3:25 pm, "Spruiell, William C" wrote: > Dick, > > It shows up in some other subordinate constructions, although I > *think* they all have an element of negation or irrealis status ("I > wonder when he'll ever finish that" / "If he were ever there, he would > have known this"); I recall Quirk and Greenbaum having a section on > this, but I don't have it handy (coffee shop posting). I'm having > trouble thinking of any examples in a main clause that don't sound > archaic, but there are candidate expressions "He was ever the > optimist/pessimist" and "It was ever thus." I suspect a lot of people > would count those as fossilized, though. > > --- Bill Spruiell > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Dick > Veit > Sent: Thu 12/23/2010 9:25 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase > > "The last grill brush" is a noun phrase, with an implied "it is." The > "you > will ever need" is a relative clause with a null (unstated) relative > pronoun. > > I'd like to hear more from ATEGers about "ever." Am I wrong that it > occurs > without a negative only in relative clauses like this? "You won't ever > need > a grill brush" is fine, but not *"You will ever need a grill brush." > > Dick > > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Scott Lavitt <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> >> Happy holidays all. >> >> I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek >> your >> collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: >> >> The last grill brush you will ever need. >> >> I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and >> "The >> last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems there >> is an >> implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and therefore not an >> independent clause. Thoughts? >> >> Thank you, >> >> Scott Lavitt >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:17:42 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: ATEG Digest - 22 Dec 2010 to 23 Dec 2010 (#2010-230) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I could diagram it as a complex sentence with an understood subject and an understood verb (present tense of 'to be'); however, that proposal may be a questionable as "Ouch." That sentence has an understood subject and predicate. -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 12:00 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: ATEG Digest - 22 Dec 2010 to 23 Dec 2010 (#2010-230) There are 9 messages totalling 915 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. Independent clause or noun phrase (8) 2. Despain, Mastering the Challenge To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 05:35:31 -0800 From: Scott Lavitt <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Independent clause or noun phrase Happy holidays all. I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: The last grill brush you will ever need. I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts? Thank you, Scott Lavitt To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 09:03:45 -0500 From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase That would be my take on it. It's contains a relative clause with no subordinator. Because the sentence sounds as if it comes from an ad, it uses the sort of elliptical language common to ads and leaves out, as you point out, "It is" or "This is." Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Lavitt Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 8:36 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Independent clause or noun phrase Happy holidays all. I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: The last grill brush you will ever need. I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts? Thank you, Scott Lavitt To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 09:25:32 -0500 From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase --001485f1dc166c2ab1049814a486 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 "The last grill brush" is a noun phrase, with an implied "it is." The "you will ever need" is a relative clause with a null (unstated) relative pronoun. I'd like to hear more from ATEGers about "ever." Am I wrong that it occurs without a negative only in relative clauses like this? "You won't ever need a grill brush" is fine, but not *"You will ever need a grill brush." Dick On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Scott Lavitt <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Happy holidays all. > > I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek your > collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: > > The last grill brush you will ever need. > > I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and "The > last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems there is an > implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and therefore not an > independent clause. Thoughts? > > Thank you, > > Scott Lavitt > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --001485f1dc166c2ab1049814a486 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "The last grill brush" is a noun phrase, with an implied "it is." The "you will ever need" is a relative clause with a null (unstated) relative pronoun.

I'd like to hear more from ATEGers about "ever." Am I wrong that it occurs without a negative only in relative clauses like this? "You won't ever need a grill brush" is fine, but not *"You will ever need a grill brush."

Dick

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Scott Lavitt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Happy holidays all.

I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?:

The last grill brush you will ever need.

I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts?

Thank you,

Scott Lavitt

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --001485f1dc166c2ab1049814a486-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 13:21:37 -0500 From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE88205EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is "last" acting like a negative polarity item? Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 9:26 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase "The last grill brush" is a noun phrase, with an implied "it is." The "you will ever need" is a relative clause with a null (unstated) relative pronoun. I'd like to hear more from ATEGers about "ever." Am I wrong that it occurs without a negative only in relative clauses like this? "You won't ever need a grill brush" is fine, but not *"You will ever need a grill brush." Dick On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Scott Lavitt <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Happy holidays all. I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: The last grill brush you will ever need. I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts? Thank you, Scott Lavitt To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE88205EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Is “last” acting like a negative polarity item?

 

Herb

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 9:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase

 

"The last grill brush" is a noun phrase, with an implied "it is." The "you will ever need" is a relative clause with a null (unstated) relative pronoun.

I'd like to hear more from ATEGers about "ever." Am I wrong that it occurs without a negative only in relative clauses like this? "You won't ever need a grill brush" is fine, but not *"You will ever need a grill brush."

Dick

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Scott Lavitt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Happy holidays all.

I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?:

The last grill brush you will ever need.

I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts?

Thank you,

Scott Lavitt

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

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


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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE88205EMAILBACKEND0_-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:18:59 -0500 From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase Dick, It shows up in some other subordinate constructions, although I *think* they all have an element of negation or irrealis status ("I wonder when he'll ever finish that" / "If he were ever there, he would have known this"); I recall Quirk and Greenbaum having a section on this, but I don't have it handy (coffee shop posting). I'm having trouble thinking of any examples in a main clause that don't sound archaic, but there are candidate expressions "He was ever the optimist/pessimist" and "It was ever thus." I suspect a lot of people would count those as fossilized, though. --- Bill Spruiell -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Dick Veit Sent: Thu 12/23/2010 9:25 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase "The last grill brush" is a noun phrase, with an implied "it is." The "you will ever need" is a relative clause with a null (unstated) relative pronoun. I'd like to hear more from ATEGers about "ever." Am I wrong that it occurs without a negative only in relative clauses like this? "You won't ever need a grill brush" is fine, but not *"You will ever need a grill brush." Dick On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Scott Lavitt <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Happy holidays all. > > I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek your > collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: > > The last grill brush you will ever need. > > I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and "The > last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems there is an > implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and therefore not an > independent clause. Thoughts? > > Thank you, > > Scott Lavitt > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:29:36 -0600 From: "T. J. Ray" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_SW_1952131558_1293143376_mpaContent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed How about "ever" in a question? Did he ever think of the answer? tj On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 3:25 pm, "Spruiell, William C" wrote: > Dick, > > It shows up in some other subordinate constructions, although I > *think* they all have an element of negation or irrealis status ("I > wonder when he'll ever finish that" / "If he were ever there, he would > have known this"); I recall Quirk and Greenbaum having a section on > this, but I don't have it handy (coffee shop posting). I'm having > trouble thinking of any examples in a main clause that don't sound > archaic, but there are candidate expressions "He was ever the > optimist/pessimist" and "It was ever thus." I suspect a lot of people > would count those as fossilized, though. > > --- Bill Spruiell > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Dick > Veit > Sent: Thu 12/23/2010 9:25 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase > > "The last grill brush" is a noun phrase, with an implied "it is." The > "you > will ever need" is a relative clause with a null (unstated) relative > pronoun. > > I'd like to hear more from ATEGers about "ever." Am I wrong that it > occurs > without a negative only in relative clauses like this? "You won't ever > need > a grill brush" is fine, but not *"You will ever need a grill brush." > > Dick > > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Scott Lavitt <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> >> Happy holidays all. >> >> I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek >> your >> collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: >> >> The last grill brush you will ever need. >> >> I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and >> "The >> last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems there >> is an >> implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and therefore not an >> independent clause. Thoughts? >> >> Thank you, >> >> Scott Lavitt >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_SW_1952131558_1293143376_mpaContent-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable How about "ever" in a question?  

Did he ever think of the answer?

tj


On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 3:25 pm, "Spruiell, William C" wrote:
Dick,

It shows up in some other subordinate constructions, although I *think* they all have an element of negation or irrealis status ("I wonder when he'll ever finish that" / "If he were ever there, he would have known this"); I recall Quirk and Greenbaum having a section on this, but I don't have it handy (coffee shop posting). I'm having trouble thinking of any examples in a main clause that don't sound archaic, but there are candidate expressions "He was ever the optimist/pessimist" and "It was ever thus." I suspect a lot of people would count those as fossilized, though.

--- Bill Spruiell

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Dick Veit
Sent: Thu 12/23/2010 9:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase

"The last grill brush" is a noun phrase, with an implied "it is." The "you
will ever need" is a relative clause with a null (unstated) relative
pronoun.

I'd like to hear more from ATEGers about "ever." Am I wrong that it occurs
without a negative only in relative clauses like this? "You won't ever need
a grill brush" is fine, but not *"You will ever need a grill brush."

Dick

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Scott Lavitt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Happy holidays all.

I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek your
collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?:

The last grill brush you will ever need.

I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and "The
last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems there is an
implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and therefore not an
independent clause. Thoughts?

Thank you,

Scott Lavitt

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_SW_1952131558_1293143376_mpa=-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:34:29 -0600 From: "T. J. Ray" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_SW_1352010998_1293143669_mpaContent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed The last grill brush you will ever need. Is this a sentence at all? To assume an understood "This is" or "It is" won't account for it as they have very different meaning possible references. One almost demands that the brush be in the vicinity for reference. The other might well reference a brush that has yet to be created. I'd take "ever" as a simple adverb with the caveat that it must precede the verb it modifies. Perhaps it also needs something such as "will" in front of it. The understood "that" not stated in the clause is a relative pronoun that serves as the direct object of "will need." Is "last" anything more than a simple adjective? Does it function any differently than, say, "ultimate"? tj On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 7:45 am, Scott Lavitt wrote: > Happy holidays all. > > I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek > your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: > > The last grill brush you will ever need. > > I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and > "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems > there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and > therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts? > > Thank you, > > Scott Lavitt > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_SW_1352010998_1293143669_mpaContent-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The last grill brush you will ever need.


Is this a sentence at all?  To assume an understood "This is" or
"It is" won't account for it as they have very different meaning
possible references.  One almost demands that the brush be
in the vicinity for reference.  The other might well reference a
brush that has yet to be created.

I'd take "ever" as a simple adverb with the caveat that it  must
precede the verb it modifies.  Perhaps it also needs something such
as "will" in front of it.

The understood "that" not stated in the clause is a relative pronoun
that serves as the direct object of "will need."

Is "last" anything more than a simple adjective?  Does it function any
differently than, say, "ultimate"?

tj


On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 7:45 am, Scott Lavitt wrote:
Happy holidays all.

I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?:

The last grill brush you will ever need.

I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts?

Thank you,

Scott Lavitt

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_SW_1352010998_1293143669_mpa=-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:08:08 -0500 From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Independent clause or noun phrase I would classify "last" as an ordinal numeral: first, second, third...last. Different grammars differ in where they draw the lines for the determiners, but ordinal numbers are often in that group (sometimes called postdeterminers since they come after the core determiners like "a," "the," "this," "his" and so on). It has an identifying function. The one we are talking about (the one in reference) is the last one. I don't think it has negative polarity, just the sense that in the continuing list of "grill brushes" this is the final one. You can negate it: this is not the last grill brush you will ever need." Maybe "ever" doesn't extend as much as never because "forever" is an option (whereas "fornever" is not). "You will need the grill brush forever." Craig> The last grill brush you will ever need. > > Is this a sentence at all? To assume an understood "This is" or > "It is" won't account for it as they have very different meaning > possible references. One almost demands that the brush be > in the vicinity for reference. The other might well reference a > brush that has yet to be created. > > I'd take "ever" as a simple adverb with the caveat that it must > precede the verb it modifies. Perhaps it also needs something such > as "will" in front of it. > > The understood "that" not stated in the clause is a relative pronoun > that serves as the direct object of "will need." > > Is "last" anything more than a simple adjective? Does it function any > differently than, say, "ultimate"? > > tj > > > > On Thursday 12/23/2010 at 7:45 am, Scott Lavitt wrote: >> Happy holidays all. >> >> I've been a member of this listserve for years and occasionally seek >> your collective opinion. Question: how does one parse the following?: >> >> The last grill brush you will ever need. >> >> I could see this as an independent clause, with "you" as the subj. and >> "The last grill brush" as the DO, but that doesn't seem right. Seems >> there is an implied "It is," making the above a noun phrase, and >> therefore not an independent clause. Thoughts? >> >> Thank you, >> >> Scott Lavitt >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 18:26:22 -0800 From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge --0-1377937128-1293157582=:99799 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Eduard is peevish because I asked him, after a number of pleasant and interesting exchanges, to define the past perfect. He can't do it. He doesn't know what it is. That makes him cross. (If you can do it, Eduard, do it. Don't rant at me. Just do it.)   I then asked him to ask each person in one of his classes to send me a definition, without him explaining what it is. I don't want to read 30 variations on what he tells them. Make it open book. Let them look it up if they want.   He won't do that either, so he sends out a spleen-gram, and he drops Quirk's name as a smoke screen but Quirk won't help him. How's that for a definitive statement? Quirk won't help.   Please prove me wrong, Eduard. Maybe the others will help you. Who has Quirk handy?   .brad.23dec10. ________________________________ From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 7:41:35 AM Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge Brad, This is my example: "I HAD BEEN READING [ Past Perfect Tense Progressive Aspect] your rumblings for too long before I DECIDED  [ Absolute Simple Past Tense ] that they were not worth my time." This is a proper use of the Progressive Past Perfect Tense (Aspect) and of the (Absolute) Simple Past Tense on the time axis. See Quirk et al. in "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language," and Comrie in "Aspect."  Eduard To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1377937128-1293157582=:99799 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Eduard is peevish because I asked him, after a number of pleasant and interesting exchanges, to define the past perfect. He can't do it. He doesn't know what it is. That makes him cross. (If you can do it, Eduard, do it. Don't rant at me. Just do it.)
 
I then asked him to ask each person in one of his classes to send me a definition, without him explaining what it is. I don't want to read 30 variations on what he tells them. Make it open book. Let them look it up if they want.
 
He won't do that either, so he sends out a spleen-gram, and he drops Quirk's name as a smoke screen but Quirk won't help him. How's that for a definitive statement? Quirk won't help.
 
Please prove me wrong, Eduard. Maybe the others will help you. Who has Quirk handy?
 
.brad.23dec10.
 
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 7:41:35 AM
Subject: Re: Bruce Despain, Mastering the Challenge

Brad,
 
This is my example:
 
"I HAD BEEN READING [ Past Perfect Tense Progressive Aspect] your rumblings for too long before I DECIDED  [ Absolute Simple Past Tense ] that they were not worth my time."
 
This is a proper use of the Progressive Past Perfect Tense (Aspect) and of the (Absolute) Simple Past Tense on the time axis. See Quirk et al. in "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language," and Comrie in "Aspect." 
 
 
Eduard


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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1377937128-1293157582=:99799-- ------------------------------ End of ATEG Digest - 22 Dec 2010 to 23 Dec 2010 (#2010-230) *********************************************************** To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 31 Dec 2010 15:55:41 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Reminder Regarding Discussion List Etiquette MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0015177fd00c37cdef0498bbdeab Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 And the discussion group gets smaller. We lose members after every other exchange it seems these days. Please, everyone, moderate thyself. We often have entire classes of students join our discussion group; these students, ranging from high school students to graduate students, often observe only and deserve better than what they sometimes get from us. I've been contacted by more than one teacher who has expressed disappointment in the amount of unprofessional behavior seen on the list at times. I explain to them the nature of a public, unmoderated list with the hope that they will understand. However, without stating anything as a "rule," let me share some common precepts and expectations that make for successful listserv groups: - All those who use this list are expected to maintain quality levels of professionalism, ethics, decorum and civility regarding postings. *Postings and Etiquette/Netiquette* Postings should exhibit the following: 1. Maturity and tact 2. Audience-appropriate language 3. Cogency when possible Avoid posting that can be reasonably described as any of the following: 1. Libelous 2. Defamatory 3. Obscene 4. Pornographic 5. Threatening 6. Invasive of privacy 7. Abusive 8. Illegal 9. Constitute or encourage a criminal offense 10. Violate the rights of any individual, group or entity 11. Create liability 12. Copyright infringements These seem like no-brainers, right? We currently do not moderate or censor messages nor do we impose consequences for violations. To do so would require interpretation of content, which is subjective. We've tried to stay away from this. Please allow us to continue to do so. I will be working with ATEG's leadership to review policies for blatant offenses such as commercial spam and pornography. I truly hope we don't have to expand the policies to encompass more than that. John Alexander ATEG To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0015177fd00c37cdef0498bbdeab Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable And the discussion group gets smaller. We lose members after every other exchange it seems these days.

Please, everyone, moderate thyself. We often have entire classes of students join our discussion group; these students, ranging from high school students to graduate students, often observe only and deserve better than what they sometimes get from us. I've been contacted by more than one teacher who has expressed disappointment in the amount of unprofessional behavior seen on the list at times. I explain to them the nature of a public, unmoderated list with the hope that they will understand. However, without stating anything as a "rule," let me share some common precepts and expectations that make for successful listserv groups:

  •  All those who use this list are expected to maintain quality levels of professionalism, ethics, decorum and civility regarding postings.

Postings and Etiquette/Netiquette

Postings should exhibit the following:

  1. Maturity and tact
  2. Audience-appropriate language
  3. Cogency when possible
Avoid posting that can be reasonably described as any of the following:
  1. Libelous
  2. Defamatory
  3. Obscene
  4. Pornographic
  5. Threatening
  6. Invasive of privacy
  7. Abusive
  8. Illegal
  9. Constitute or encourage a criminal offense
  10. Violate the rights of any individual, group or entity
  11. Create liability
  12. Copyright infringements
These seem like no-brainers, right? We currently do not moderate or censor messages nor do we impose consequences for violations. To do so would require interpretation of content, which is subjective. We've tried to stay away from this. Please allow us to continue to do so. I will be working with ATEG's leadership to review policies for blatant offenses such as commercial spam and pornography. I truly hope we don't have to expand the policies to encompass more than that.

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0015177fd00c37cdef0498bbdeab-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:25:48 -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: Patricia Lafayllve <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Reminder Regarding Discussion List Etiquette In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01CBA90F.C467C650" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01CBA90F.C467C650 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you, John, for this email. I've been on a number of public, unmoderated lists, and the key difference in behavior among them comes directly from the list members. It works, too - it's just a matter of forming the habit, really. I am certain this list can be one, too. -patty From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 4:56 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Reminder Regarding Discussion List Etiquette And the discussion group gets smaller. We lose members after every other exchange it seems these days. Please, everyone, moderate thyself. We often have entire classes of students join our discussion group; these students, ranging from high school students to graduate students, often observe only and deserve better than what they sometimes get from us. I've been contacted by more than one teacher who has expressed disappointment in the amount of unprofessional behavior seen on the list at times. I explain to them the nature of a public, unmoderated list with the hope that they will understand. However, without stating anything as a "rule," let me share some common precepts and expectations that make for successful listserv groups: * All those who use this list are expected to maintain quality levels of professionalism, ethics, decorum and civility regarding postings. Postings and Etiquette/Netiquette Postings should exhibit the following: 1. Maturity and tact 2. Audience-appropriate language 3. Cogency when possible Avoid posting that can be reasonably described as any of the following: 1. Libelous 2. Defamatory 3. Obscene 4. Pornographic 5. Threatening 6. Invasive of privacy 7. Abusive 8. Illegal 9. Constitute or encourage a criminal offense 10. Violate the rights of any individual, group or entity 11. Create liability 12. Copyright infringements These seem like no-brainers, right? We currently do not moderate or censor messages nor do we impose consequences for violations. To do so would require interpretation of content, which is subjective. We've tried to stay away from this. Please allow us to continue to do so. I will be working with ATEG's leadership to review policies for blatant offenses such as commercial spam and pornography. I truly hope we don't have to expand the policies to encompass more than that. John Alexander ATEG To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0001_01CBA90F.C467C650 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thank you, John, for this email.

 

I’ve been on a number of public, unmoderated lists, and the key difference in behavior among them comes directly from the list members.  It works, too – it’s just a matter of forming the habit, really.  I am certain this list can be one, too.

 

-patty

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 4:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Reminder Regarding Discussion List Etiquette

 

And the discussion group gets smaller. We lose members after every other exchange it seems these days.

Please, everyone, moderate thyself. We often have entire classes of students join our discussion group; these students, ranging from high school students to graduate students, often observe only and deserve better than what they sometimes get from us. I've been contacted by more than one teacher who has expressed disappointment in the amount of unprofessional behavior seen on the list at times. I explain to them the nature of a public, unmoderated list with the hope that they will understand. However, without stating anything as a "rule," let me share some common precepts and expectations that make for successful listserv groups:

  •  All those who use this list are expected to maintain quality levels of professionalism, ethics, decorum and civility regarding postings.

Postings and Etiquette/Netiquette

Postings should exhibit the following:

  1. Maturity and tact
  2. Audience-appropriate language
  3. Cogency when possible

Avoid posting that can be reasonably described as any of the following:

  1. Libelous
  2. Defamatory
  3. Obscene
  4. Pornographic
  5. Threatening
  6. Invasive of privacy
  7. Abusive
  8. Illegal
  9. Constitute or encourage a criminal offense
  10. Violate the rights of any individual, group or entity
  11. Create liability
  12. Copyright infringements

These seem like no-brainers, right? We currently do not moderate or censor messages nor do we impose consequences for violations. To do so would require interpretation of content, which is subjective. We've tried to stay away from this. Please allow us to continue to do so. I will be working with ATEG's leadership to review policies for blatant offenses such as commercial spam and pornography. I truly hope we don't have to expand the policies to encompass more than that.

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0001_01CBA90F.C467C650-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 22:50:04 -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: Jan Kammert <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Reminder Regarding Discussion List Etiquette MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi John (and all!), I have been sitting on a question that I'm not sure has anything to do with grammar, but I know that many people on this list will be able to answer my question. Maybe this new question will lead to an interesting discussion. I teach middle school, and my students have asked me why in writing from the 1700s, something that looks like an f is sometimes used in place of an s. What is that letter called? What is the rule about when that letter was used? How did it come to be used? And why isn't it used now? I have the same questions about the symbol that connects a c to a t in writing from the same time period. Thanks for your information. I'll share with my students when we get back together on Monday. Jan Quoting John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>: And the discussion group gets smaller. We lose members after every other exchange it seems these days. Please, everyone, moderate thyself. We often have entire classes of students join our discussion group; these students, ranging from high school students to graduate students, often observe only and deserve better than what they sometimes get from us. I've been contacted by more than one teacher who has expressed disappointment in the amount of unprofessional behavior seen on the list at times. I explain to them the nature of a public, unmoderated list with the hope that they will understand. However, without stating anything as a "rule," let me share some common precepts and expectations that make for successful listserv groups: *  All those who use this list are expected to maintain quality levels of professionalism, ethics, decorum and civility regarding postings. Postings and Etiquette/Netiquette Postings should exhibit the following: * Maturity and tact * Audience-appropriate language * Cogency when possible Avoid posting that can be reasonably described as any of the following: * Libelous * Defamatory * Obscene * Pornographic * Threatening * Invasive of privacy * Abusive * Illegal * Constitute or encourage a criminal offense * Violate the rights of any individual, group or entity * Create liability * Copyright infringements These seem like no-brainers, right? We currently do not moderate or censor messages nor do we impose consequences for violations. To do so would require interpretation of content, which is subjective. We've tried to stay away from this. Please allow us to continue to do so. I will be working with ATEG's leadership to review policies for blatant offenses such as commercial spam and pornography. I truly hope we don't have to expand the policies to encompass more than that. John Alexander ATEG To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 31 Dec 2010 23:39:09 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Reminder Regarding Discussion List Etiquette In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 SmFuLA0KDQpUaGUgc28tY2FsbGVkICJsb25nIHMiIGlzIHRoZSBmb3JtIG9mIHRoZSBsZXR0ZXIg dGhhdCB3YXMgdXNlZCB1cCBpbnRvIHRoZSAxOXRoIGMuIGluIGluaXRpYWwgYW5kIG1lZGlhbCBw b3NpdGlvbnMuICBUaGUgInNob3J0IiBvciAidGVybWluYWwiIHMsIHRoZSBvbmx5IGxvd2VyIGNh c2UgZm9ybSB3ZSB1c2UgdG9kYXksIHdhcyB1c2VkIG9ubHkgYXQgdGhlIGVuZCBvZiBhIHdvcmQu ICBUaGUgbG9uZyBzIGlzIGVhc2lseSBjb25mdXNlZCB3aXRoIGYsIGVzcGVjaWFsbHkgYnkgbW9k ZXJuIHJlYWRlcnMgd2hvIGFyZW4ndCB1c2VkIHRvIHRoZSBsb25nIHMuICBUaGV5IGRpZmZlciBn ZW5lcmFsbHkgaW4gdGhhdCB0aGUgbG9uZyBzIGxhY2tzIHRoZSBjcm9zcy1iYXIgdGhhdCBmIGhh cy4gIEhvd2V2ZXIsIHNvbWUgZm9udHMgaGFkIGEgaGFsZiBiYXIgZXh0ZW5kaW5nIHRvIHRoZSBs ZWZ0IHJhdGhlciB0aGFuIGEgY3Jvc3MtYmFyLCBhbmQgdGhvc2UgYXJlIGVzcGVjaWFsbHkgZWFz eSB0byBjb25mdXNlLiAgSSByYW4gYW4gT0NSIHByb2dyYW0gb24gYW4gMTh0aCBjLiB0ZXh0IG9u Y2UsIGFuZCBhbGwgb2YgdGhlIGxvbmcgcydzIHdlcmUgaW50ZXJwcmV0ZWQgYXMgZidzLiAgVGhl IHJlc3VsdHMgd2VyZSBzb21ldGltZXMgaGlsYXJpb3VzLiAgQmVjYXVzZSBvZiB0aGUgY29uZnVz aW9uIHdpdGggZiwgdGhlIGxvbmcgcyBjZWFzZWQgdG8gYmUgdXNlZCBieSB0aGUgZWFybHkgMTl0 aCBjLiAgVGhlIHN5bWJvbCBjb25uZWN0aW5nIGMgYW5kIHQgaXMgY2FsbGVkIGEgbGlnYXR1cmUu DQoNCkhlcmINCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IEFzc2VtYmx5IGZv ciB0aGUgVGVhY2hpbmcgb2YgRW5nbGlzaCBHcmFtbWFyIFttYWlsdG86QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5N VU9ISU8uRURVXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgSmFuIEthbW1lcnQNClNlbnQ6IEZyaWRheSwgRGVjZW1i ZXIgMzEsIDIwMTAgMTA6NTAgUE0NClRvOiBBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFUgIA0KU3Vi amVjdDogUmU6IFJlbWluZGVyIFJlZ2FyZGluZyBEaXNjdXNzaW9uIExpc3QgRXRpcXVldHRlDQoN CkhpIEpvaG4gKGFuZCBhbGwhKSwNCkkgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIHNpdHRpbmcgb24gYSBxdWVzdGlvbiB0 aGF0IEknbSBub3Qgc3VyZSBoYXMgYW55dGhpbmcgdG8gZG8gd2l0aCBncmFtbWFyLCBidXQgSSBr bm93IHRoYXQgbWFueSBwZW9wbGUgb24gdGhpcyBsaXN0IHdpbGwgYmUgYWJsZSB0byBhbnN3ZXIg bXkgcXVlc3Rpb24uIA0KDQpNYXliZSB0aGlzIG5ldyBxdWVzdGlvbiB3aWxsIGxlYWQgdG8gYW4g aW50ZXJlc3RpbmcgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbi4gDQoNCkkgdGVhY2ggbWlkZGxlIHNjaG9vbCwgYW5kIG15 IHN0dWRlbnRzIGhhdmUgYXNrZWQgbWUgd2h5IGluIHdyaXRpbmcgZnJvbSB0aGUgMTcwMHMsIHNv bWV0aGluZyB0aGF0IGxvb2tzIGxpa2UgYW4gZiBpcyBzb21ldGltZXMgdXNlZCBpbiBwbGFjZSBv ZiBhbiBzLiAgV2hhdCBpcyB0aGF0IGxldHRlciBjYWxsZWQ/ICBXaGF0IGlzIHRoZSBydWxlIGFi b3V0IHdoZW4gdGhhdCBsZXR0ZXIgd2FzIHVzZWQ/ICBIb3cgZGlkIGl0IGNvbWUgdG8gYmUgdXNl ZD8gIEFuZCB3aHkgaXNuJ3QgaXQgdXNlZCBub3c/DQoNCkkgaGF2ZSB0aGUgc2FtZSBxdWVzdGlv bnMgYWJvdXQgdGhlIHN5bWJvbCB0aGF0IGNvbm5lY3RzIGEgYyB0byBhIHQgaW4gd3JpdGluZyBm cm9tIHRoZSBzYW1lIHRpbWUgcGVyaW9kLiANCg0KVGhhbmtzIGZvciB5b3VyIGluZm9ybWF0aW9u LiAgSSdsbCBzaGFyZSB3aXRoIG15IHN0dWRlbnRzIHdoZW4gd2UgZ2V0IGJhY2sgdG9nZXRoZXIg b24gTW9uZGF5LiANCkphbg0KDQoNClF1b3RpbmcgSm9obiBEZXdzLUFsZXhhbmRlciA8amVkLmFs ZXhhbmRlckBHTUFJTC5DT00+Og0KQW5kIHRoZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIGdyb3VwIGdldHMgc21hbGxl ci4gV2UgbG9zZSBtZW1iZXJzIGFmdGVyIGV2ZXJ5IA0Kb3RoZXIgZXhjaGFuZ2UgaXQgc2VlbXMg dGhlc2UgZGF5cy4gDQoNClBsZWFzZSwgZXZlcnlvbmUsIG1vZGVyYXRlIHRoeXNlbGYuIFdlIG9m dGVuIGhhdmUgZW50aXJlIGNsYXNzZXMgb2YgDQpzdHVkZW50cyBqb2luIG91ciBkaXNjdXNzaW9u IGdyb3VwOyB0aGVzZSBzdHVkZW50cywgcmFuZ2luZyBmcm9tIGhpZ2ggDQpzY2hvb2wgc3R1ZGVu dHMgdG8gZ3JhZHVhdGUgc3R1ZGVudHMsIG9mdGVuIG9ic2VydmUgb25seSBhbmQgZGVzZXJ2ZSAN CmJldHRlciB0aGFuIHdoYXQgdGhleSBzb21ldGltZXMgZ2V0IGZyb20gdXMuIEkndmUgYmVlbiBj b250YWN0ZWQgYnkgDQptb3JlIHRoYW4gb25lIHRlYWNoZXIgd2hvIGhhcyBleHByZXNzZWQgZGlz YXBwb2ludG1lbnQgaW4gdGhlIGFtb3VudCBvZiANCnVucHJvZmVzc2lvbmFsIGJlaGF2aW9yIHNl ZW4gb24gdGhlIGxpc3QgYXQgdGltZXMuIEkgZXhwbGFpbiB0byB0aGVtIA0KdGhlIG5hdHVyZSBv ZiBhIHB1YmxpYywgdW5tb2RlcmF0ZWQgbGlzdCB3aXRoIHRoZSBob3BlIHRoYXQgdGhleSB3aWxs IA0KdW5kZXJzdGFuZC4gSG93ZXZlciwgd2l0aG91dCBzdGF0aW5nIGFueXRoaW5nIGFzIGEgInJ1 bGUsIiBsZXQgbWUgc2hhcmUgDQpzb21lIGNvbW1vbiBwcmVjZXB0cyBhbmQgZXhwZWN0YXRpb25z IHRoYXQgbWFrZSBmb3Igc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bCBsaXN0c2VydiANCmdyb3VwczoNCg0KICAgKiDCoEFs bCB0aG9zZSB3aG8gdXNlIHRoaXMgbGlzdCBhcmUgZXhwZWN0ZWQgdG8gbWFpbnRhaW4gcXVhbGl0 eSANCmxldmVscyBvZiBwcm9mZXNzaW9uYWxpc20sIGV0aGljcywgZGVjb3J1bSBhbmQgY2l2aWxp dHkgcmVnYXJkaW5nIA0KcG9zdGluZ3MuIA0KDQogICBQb3N0aW5ncyBhbmQgRXRpcXVldHRlL05l dGlxdWV0dGUNCg0KICAgUG9zdGluZ3Mgc2hvdWxkIGV4aGliaXQgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZzoNCg0K ICAgKiBNYXR1cml0eSBhbmQgdGFjdA0KICAgKiBBdWRpZW5jZS1hcHByb3ByaWF0ZSBsYW5ndWFn ZQ0KICAgKiBDb2dlbmN5IHdoZW4gcG9zc2libGUNCg0KQXZvaWQgcG9zdGluZyB0aGF0IGNhbiBi ZSByZWFzb25hYmx5IGRlc2NyaWJlZCBhcyBhbnkgb2YgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZzoNCg0KICAgKiBM aWJlbG91cw0KICAgKiBEZWZhbWF0b3J5DQogICAqIE9ic2NlbmUNCiAgICogUG9ybm9ncmFwaGlj DQogICAqIFRocmVhdGVuaW5nDQogICAqIEludmFzaXZlIG9mIHByaXZhY3kNCiAgICogQWJ1c2l2 ZQ0KICAgKiBJbGxlZ2FsDQogICAqIENvbnN0aXR1dGUgb3IgZW5jb3VyYWdlIGEgY3JpbWluYWwg b2ZmZW5zZQ0KICAgKiBWaW9sYXRlIHRoZSByaWdodHMgb2YgYW55IGluZGl2aWR1YWwsIGdyb3Vw IG9yIGVudGl0eQ0KICAgKiBDcmVhdGUgbGlhYmlsaXR5DQogICAqIENvcHlyaWdodCBpbmZyaW5n ZW1lbnRzDQoNClRoZXNlIHNlZW0gbGlrZSBuby1icmFpbmVycywgcmlnaHQ/IFdlIGN1cnJlbnRs eSBkbyBub3QgbW9kZXJhdGUgb3IgDQpjZW5zb3IgbWVzc2FnZXMgbm9yIGRvIHdlIGltcG9zZSBj b25zZXF1ZW5jZXMgZm9yIHZpb2xhdGlvbnMuIFRvIGRvIHNvIA0Kd291bGQgcmVxdWlyZSBpbnRl cnByZXRhdGlvbiBvZiBjb250ZW50LCB3aGljaCBpcyBzdWJqZWN0aXZlLiBXZSd2ZSANCnRyaWVk IHRvIHN0YXkgYXdheSBmcm9tIHRoaXMuIFBsZWFzZSBhbGxvdyB1cyB0byBjb250aW51ZSB0byBk byBzby4gSSANCndpbGwgYmUgd29ya2luZyB3aXRoIEFURUcncyBsZWFkZXJzaGlwIHRvIHJldmll dyBwb2xpY2llcyBmb3IgYmxhdGFudCANCm9mZmVuc2VzIHN1Y2ggYXMgY29tbWVyY2lhbCBzcGFt IGFuZCBwb3Jub2dyYXBoeS4gSSB0cnVseSBob3BlIHdlIGRvbid0IA0KaGF2ZSB0byBleHBhbmQg dGhlIHBvbGljaWVzIHRvIGVuY29tcGFzcyBtb3JlIHRoYW4gdGhhdC4gDQoNCkpvaG4gQWxleGFu ZGVyDQpBVEVHDQpUbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZp c2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViIA0KaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlv LmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwgYW5kIHNlbGVjdCANCiJKb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoZSBs aXN0Ig0KDQogICAgVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8NCg0K VG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlz dCdzIHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6DQogICAgIGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2Fy Y2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbA0KYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCINCg0K VmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8NCg0K