TJ,

I'm confused about your definition of a clause. Are you saying that to
be a clause you must be able to hoist out the string of words and have
it stand alone as a sentence? How do you treat a subordinate clause like
"before he went to the party"? Are you saying that the subordinator
"before" is not part of the subordinate clause? And even if you bite the
structural bullet there, how do you deal with relative clauses (e.g.,
"which he found at the party")? The "core" here clearly cannot stand on
its own unless you rewrite it to become a different kind of clause. And
if stands-on-its-own is not a sufficient definition, why is finiteness
necessary?

I'm completely with you in believing that showing students how to make
sense of language is a primary goal in our teaching, but I don't see the
finite requirement as pedagogically helpful (or theoretically motivated).

I've taught clauses to students from pretty much all grade levels from
8th grade through college, and for the middle and high school students,
I simply use the basic definition that a clause has a subject and a verb
(no requirement for finiteness). The older the students are, the more
likely I am to introduce the idea of a covert subject, starting with the
implied "you" of the imperative and (for college students at least)
moving on to the subjects of infinitives, but I've never found any
pedagogical benefit to stipulating that students look for a finite verb
to label something a clause.

Other than the fact that traditional grammar books often include
finiteness as part of their definition, I'd be curious to know what you
think the advantages to this view are.

Regards,

Karl

On 05/31/11 19:39, T. J. Ray wrote:

Bill,
Please allow me to intersperse some comments in what you kindly sent me.
   Perhaps I should
be open (if clumsy) about the terms I used in grammar classes. A clause
requires a finite verb.
The non-finite verb forms may take all the attributes of finite verbs
but the group of words they
are the core of cannot stand alone as a sentence. Hence, participles
and infinitives may have
subjects, objects, complements, and adverbial modifiers just as finite
verbs may.

The primary difference between the two sample sentences you offer in
your third paragraph is that
the first infinitive does not have a subject because the subject of the
main verb is taken to also be
the subject of the infinitive. In the second example "kids" is the
subject of the infinitive phrase. The
explanation you offer is quite baffling to me. The phrase "a clause at
some level of representation"
buzzed past me.

Your fourth paragraph begs a question. If you give a student the first
example you offer and then
asked who is to eat the vegetables, my bet is that without hesitation he
will point at "I." Ask the
same question of the second example, and the answer will be "kids."

This talk of reduced clauses and small clauses muddies the grammatical
waters. If the core of the
group of words is a finite verb, that cluster is a clause. If it has no
finite verb, it is not a clause. You
may well think me a martinet in trying to apply simplistic terms, but
for more decades than I like to
recall my concern was to given students sufficient tools to figure out
the meaning of a sentence.
That still strikes me as the purposing of teaching grammar to kids as
opposed to graduate students
in linguistics classes.

Please pardon my ranting.

tj


On Monday 05/30/2011 at 11:23 am, "Spruiell, William C" wrote:

TJ:

You wrote,

I am also puzzled by responses that refer to them as clauses. Infinitive
phrases have functioned in this manner since A-S days. What is the
purpose of trying to stretch them into clauses?

The problem is just that they're a lot clausier than the usual phrase,
and the definition of "clause" varies more than one might expect. The
U.S. school grammar tradition focused on finiteness as the essential
ingredient for clausehood, and if you take that as a starting point
these can't be clauses. That definition of clause, as well as the use
of "phrase" for all multi-word units that aren't clauses, is by no
means universal.

Other approaches tend to focus on the fact that infinitives can
include verbs with what look exactly like objects, etc., and that you
can usually infer a subject-y element (being deliberately vague here
b/c the specifics vary per approach). From a teaching standpoint, it's
a lot easier getting students to recognize that a given NP is the
direct object of the verb in the infinitive if they're thinking of the
infinitive as at least being like a predicate.

The "clausy" view starts looking more tempting when you try to deal
with the difference between "I want to eat some vegetables" and "I
want the kids to eat some vegetables." If you think both of those
sentences have a main clause that's just "I want X," then it follows
that you need to talk about the presence or absence of "the kids" in
relation to the infinitive. One of the ways to deal with that is to
say that infinitive really is a clause at some level of representation
-- that it has a full clause structure, but with zero-elements in some
spots. The grammar (with "grammar" here in the sense of a kind of
widget) can then deal with the structure the same basic way it deals
with a normal clause, with maybe some minor changes around the edges.
I *think* this is Bruce's approach (but correct me if I'm wrong, Bruce!).

An alternate approach is to deal with "X wants to Y" and "X wants Z to
Y" as different constructions that hearers recognize and process
according to construction-specific rules. This is what's used by
construction grammars (unsurprisingly).

Either of these approaches can use the label "reduced clause" for
infinitives, gerunds, and participials. The term "small clause"
usually goes with the first approach, and is most common among
linguists working in a set of theories descended from the 1970s-era
version of generative grammar. Systemic-Functional grammar use
"non-finite clause," a term that initially struck me as an oxymoron,
since I learned U.S. terminology first. Traditional school grammars,
of course, sometimes use "verbals."

--- Bill Spruiell





________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[ATTo join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 1 Jun 2011 09:33:06 -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: "T. J. Ray" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: ATEG Digest "reduced clause," "small clause," or "non-finite cause" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_SW_46914192_1306938786_mpa=" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_SW_46914192_1306938786_mpaContent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Scott, You nailed it. Congratulations! tj On Wednesday 06/01/2011 at 8:36 am, [log in to unmask] wrote: > A clause has a subject (expressed or understood) and a finite verb. > Those clauses that express a complete thought may stand alone as a > sentence; > all others are dependent clauses. > A phrase is a group of words that acts as a single part of speech > regardless > of its internal complexity. > "His learning how to sing continuously in a basso profundo style is > remarkable." Everything before "is" is a noun phrase > even though the R-K diagramming is complex. I have never used or > needed to > use the terms "reduced clause," "small clause," or > "non-finite cause" to teach my university or high school students > English > grammar. Even my professors in Advanced English > Grammar, and Advanced English Grammar and Composition saw no need. I > shun > the profuse verbosity of modern English grammars > as adding nothing to the understanding of the students. People use > big > words so the readers/listeners will be impressed and > will not understand what the self-proclaimed expert is talking about. > If > the self-proclaimed expert used simple words that > allowed the members of the audience to understand what is being said > then > they might well realize that the "expert" does not > know what he is talking about. > If this be treason (heresy), then make the most of it > Scott Catledge > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest > system > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:00 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: ATEG Digest - 30 May 2011 to 31 May 2011 (#2011-107) > > There is 1 message totalling 304 lines in this issue. > > Topics of the day: > > 1. Infinitives as clauses (was RE: Adjective or adverb?) > > ******************************* > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_46914192_1306938786_mpaContent-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Scott,

You nailed it.  Congratulations!

tj

On Wednesday 06/01/2011 at 8:36 am, [log in to unmask] wrote:

A clause has a subject (expressed or understood) and a finite verb.
Those clauses that express a complete thought may stand alone as a sentence;
all others are dependent clauses.
A phrase is a group of words that acts as a single part of speech regardless
of its internal complexity.
"His learning how to sing continuously in a basso profundo style is
remarkable." Everything before "is" is a noun phrase
even though the R-K diagramming is complex. I have never used or needed to
use the terms "reduced clause," "small clause," or
"non-finite cause" to teach my university or high school students English
grammar. Even my professors in Advanced English
Grammar, and Advanced English Grammar and Composition saw no need. I shun
the profuse verbosity of modern English grammars
as adding nothing to the understanding of the students. People use big
words so the readers/listeners will be impressed and
will not understand what the self-proclaimed expert is talking about. If
the self-proclaimed expert used simple words that
allowed the members of the audience to understand what is being said then
they might well realize that the "expert" does not
know what he is talking about.
If this be treason (heresy), then make the most of it
Scott Catledge

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 30 May 2011 to 31 May 2011 (#2011-107)

There is 1 message totalling 304 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

   1. Infinitives as clauses (was RE: Adjective or adverb?)

*******************************

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_46914192_1306938786_mpa=-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 08:03:01 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Infinitives as clauses (was RE: Adjective or adverb?) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit TJ, I still don't get why you want to make the finite distinction. In what way do finite verbs in subordinate clauses "sustain" a sentence in a way that a nonfinite verb does not? Neither a subordinate clause nor an infinitive whatever-we-want-to-call-it will "sustain" a complete sentence. I don't think teaching the distinction between finite and nonfinite is problematic. I just think that tying the "clause" label to finite verbs alone is neither accurate nor pedagogically helpful. Karl On 06/01/11 07:31, T. J. Ray wrote: > Karl, > I apologize for my poor choice of words. Yes, subordinate clauses > are clauses, even though they can't stand alone. I was hoping to > define a clause as a group of related words that contain a finite > verb. The nonfinite verb forms (participle, gerund, infinitive) can > not sustain a sentence and thus should be identified in some > other way. > > Most of the grammar books I taught speak of prepositional > phrases and verbal phrases. The slinky little thing called a > nominative absolute might well be considered a special > verbal phrase. > > Your last paragraph poses interesting questions. Top of the > head (i.e., no thinking involved): kids fairly easily learn the > parts of verbs. And I don't think it's difficult to get them to > discern the difference between verb forms that take tense > and those that don't > The boy eats the pie. > The boy ate the pie. > The boy will eat the pie. > (I agree that the third example and others with "helping verbs" > before the key verb need clairification for students, but I don't > think it's difficult to teach them to recognize auxiliary verbs>) > John eaten pie. > John to eat pie. > John eat pie. > John eating pie. > Can a discussion of those seven constructions not lead to a > functional and quite useful definition of finite? > > tj > > Teusday 05/31/2011 at 11:34 pm, Karl Hagen wrote: >> TJ, >> >> I'm confused about your definition of a clause. Are you saying that to >> be a clause you must be able to hoist out the string of words and have >> it stand alone as a sentence? How do you treat a subordinate clause like >> "before he went to the party"? Are you saying that the subordinator >> "before" is not part of the subordinate clause? And even if you bite the >> structural bullet there, how do you deal with relative clauses (e.g., >> "which he found at the party")? The "core" here clearly cannot stand on >> its own unless you rewrite it to become a different kind of clause. And >> if stands-on-its-own is not a sufficient definition, why is finiteness >> necessary? >> >> I'm completely with you in believing that showing students how to make >> sense of language is a primary goal in our teaching, but I don't see the >> finite requirement as pedagogically helpful (or theoretically motivated). >> >> I've taught clauses to students from pretty much all grade levels from >> 8th grade through college, and for the middle and high school students, >> I simply use the basic definition that a clause has a subject and a verb >> (no requirement for finiteness). The older the students are, the more >> likely I am to introduce the idea of a covert subject, starting with the >> implied "you" of the imperative and (for college students at least) >> moving on to the subjects of infinitives, but I've never found any >> pedagogical benefit to stipulating that students look for a finite verb >> to label something a clause. >> >> Other than the fact that traditional grammar books often include >> finiteness as part of their definition, I'd be curious to know what you >> think the advantages to this view are. >> >> Regards, >> >> Karl >> >> On 05/31/11 19:39, T. J. Ray wrote: >>> Bill, >>> Please allow me to intersperse some comments in what you kindly sent me. >>> Perhaps I should >>> be open (if clumsy) about the terms I used in grammar classes. A clause >>> requires a finite verb. >>> The non-finite verb forms may take all the attributes of finite verbs >>> but the group of words they >>> are the core of cannot stand alone as a sentence. Hence, participles >>> and infinitives may have >>> subjects, objects, complements, and adverbial modifiers just as finite >>> verbs may. >>> >>> The primary difference between the two sample sentences you offer in >>> your third paragraph is that >>> the first infinitive does not have a subject because the subject of the >>> main verb is taken to also be >>> the subject of the infinitive. In the second example "kids" is the >>> subject of the infinitive phrase. The >>> explanation you offer is quite baffling to me. The phrase "a clause at >>> some level of representation" >>> buzzed past me. >>> >>> Your fourth paragraph begs a question. If you give a student the first >>> example you offer and then >>> asked who is to eat the vegetables, my bet is that without hesitation he >>> will point at "I." Ask the >>> same question of the second example, and the answer will be "kids." >>> >>> This talk of reduced clauses and small clauses muddies the grammatical >>> waters. If the core of the >>> group of words is a finite verb, that cluster is a clause. If it has no >>> finite verb, it is not a clause. You >>> may well think me a martinet in trying to apply simplistic terms, but >>> for more decades than I like to >>> recall my concern was to given students sufficient tools to figure out >>> the meaning of a sentence. >>> That still strikes me as the purposing of teaching grammar to kids as >>> opposed to graduate students >>> in linguistics classes. >>> >>> Please pardon my ranting. >>> >>> tj >>> >>> >>> On Monday 05/30/2011 at 11:23 am, "Spruiell, William C" wrote: >>>> TJ: >>>> >>>> You wrote, >>>> >>>>> I am also puzzled by responses that refer to them as clauses. >>>>> Infinitive >>>>> phrases have functioned in this manner since A-S days. What is the >>>>> purpose of trying to stretch them into clauses? >>>> >>>> The problem is just that they're a lot clausier than the usual phrase, >>>> and the definition of "clause" varies more than one might expect. The >>>> U.S. school grammar tradition focused on finiteness as the essential >>>> ingredient for clausehood, and if you take that as a starting point >>>> these can't be clauses. That definition of clause, as well as the use >>>> of "phrase" for all multi-word units that aren't clauses, is by no >>>> means universal. >>>> >>>> Other approaches tend to focus on the fact that infinitives can >>>> include verbs with what look exactly like objects, etc., and that you >>>> can usually infer a subject-y element (being deliberately vague here >>>> b/c the specifics vary per approach). From a teaching standpoint, it's >>>> a lot easier getting students to recognize that a given NP is the >>>> direct object of the verb in the infinitive if they're thinking of the >>>> infinitive as at least being like a predicate. >>>> >>>> The "clausy" view starts looking more tempting when you try to deal >>>> with the difference between "I want to eat some vegetables" and "I >>>> want the kids to eat some vegetables." If you think both of those >>>> sentences have a main clause that's just "I want X," then it follows >>>> that you need to talk about the presence or absence of "the kids" in >>>> relation to the infinitive. One of the ways to deal with that is to >>>> say that infinitive really is a clause at some level of representation >>>> -- that it has a full clause structure, but with zero-elements in some >>>> spots. The grammar (with "grammar" here in the sense of a kind of >>>> widget) can then deal with the structure the same basic way it deals >>>> with a normal clause, with maybe some minor changes around the edges. >>>> I *think* this is Bruce's approach (but correct me if I'm wrong, >>>> Bruce!). >>>> >>>> An alternate approach is to deal with "X wants to Y" and "X wants Z to >>>> Y" as different constructions that hearers recognize and process >>>> according to construction-specific rules. This is what's used by >>>> construction grammars (unsurprisingly). >>>> >>>> Either of these approaches can use the label "reduced clause" for >>>> infinitives, gerunds, and participials. The term "small clause" >>>> usually goes with the first approach, and is most common among >>>> linguists working in a set of theories descended from the 1970s-era >>>> version of generative grammar. Systemic-Functional grammar use >>>> "non-finite clause," a term that initially struck me as an oxymoron, >>>> since I learned U.S. terminology first. Traditional school grammars, >>>> of course, sometimes use "verbals." >>>> >>>> --- Bill Spruiell >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>>> [ATTo join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and >>>> select "Join or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 1 Jun 2011 16:05:41 +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: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Infinitives as clauses (was RE: Adjective or adverb?) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 TJ: Below, I'm trying to address the question you said I was begging. On the whole issue of clauses, I was mainly concerned to point out that there are multiple ways the term is defined (emphasizing this for Scott as well). In a classroom, I think we need to acknowledge that infinitives, gerunds, and participials are kinda clausy; past that, the deciding issues are going to be basic consistency and what the students' later curriculum is expecting. I saw the situation as being roughly equivalent to the one in which someone from Texas says "real chili can't have beans in it" and the person from New Mexico looks baffled (or indignant). Regarding "understood as subject": If we use a version with a pronoun after "want," it's clear that it has to be objective ("I want them to eat vegetables"). Trying to say that "them" is the subject of "eat" creates a headache you need to deal with, somehow (with the same going for the objective or genitive "subjecty" element in some gerunds). There are multiple ways to define the term "subject," but objective/genitive marking doesn't go naturally with any of them. Most of the terminological mess here is simply a result of different linguists trying to think of ways out of that bind that don't cause their theories to crash and burn somewhere else. In generative-esque theories, there's usually the equivalent of an alarm bell that goes off if a verb doesn't have the right number of things with it; since the grammar isn't driven by the semantics in these theories, you need some structural device to rule out sentences like "I put" and "I ate a sandwich a weasel" (the alarm bell is rather unhelpfully called a theta-filter, for no very good reason I can figure out other than that it sounds sciency). And there's another alarm that goes off if there's the wrong case-marking on something. So if you're working in one of these theories, you can't just say that "them" is understood as the subject of "eat." You have to give "eat" a "they" to make it happy, even if it's just a "they" that only the "eat" can see. If you imagine that you start with "I want that they eat vegetables" and then some rearrangements occur, you can make it work. My use of "at some level of representation" was a dodge; I don't understand what generativists think the representations *are* really, other than they're not pseudo-sentences that get turned into real ones in actual processing. I don't work in these theories (or like them much), so don't take that as evidence that there's no good definition -- I just don't know what it is. "Abstract formal relation" comes up a lot, but that's a description, not a definition. Sincerely, Bill Spruiell ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of T. J. Ray [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 10:39 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Infinitives as clauses (was RE: Adjective or adverb?) Bill, Please allow me to intersperse some comments in what you kindly sent me. Perhaps I should be open (if clumsy) about the terms I used in grammar classes. A clause requires a finite verb. The non-finite verb forms may take all the attributes of finite verbs but the group of words they are the core of cannot stand alone as a sentence. Hence, participles and infinitives may have subjects, objects, complements, and adverbial modifiers just as finite verbs may. The primary difference between the two sample sentences you offer in your third paragraph is that the first infinitive does not have a subject because the subject of the main verb is taken to also be the subject of the infinitive. In the second example "kids" is the subject of the infinitive phrase. The explanation you offer is quite baffling to me. The phrase "a clause at some level of representation" buzzed past me. Your fourth paragraph begs a question. If you give a student the first example you offer and then asked who is to eat the vegetables, my bet is that without hesitation he will point at "I." Ask the same question of the second example, and the answer will be "kids." This talk of reduced clauses and small clauses muddies the grammatical waters. If the core of the group of words is a finite verb, that cluster is a clause. If it has no finite verb, it is not a clause. You may well think me a martinet in trying to apply simplistic terms, but for more decades than I like to recall my concern was to given students sufficient tools to figure out the meaning of a sentence. That still strikes me as the purposing of teaching grammar to kids as opposed to graduate students in linguistics classes. Please pardon my ranting. tj On Monday 05/30/2011 at 11:23 am, "Spruiell, William C" wrote: TJ: You wrote, I am also puzzled by responses that refer to them as clauses. Infinitive phrases have functioned in this manner since A-S days. What is the purpose of trying to stretch them into clauses? The problem is just that they're a lot clausier than the usual phrase, and the definition of "clause" varies more than one might expect. The U.S. school grammar tradition focused on finiteness as the essential ingredient for clausehood, and if you take that as a starting point these can't be clauses. That definition of clause, as well as the use of "phrase" for all multi-word units that aren't clauses, is by no means universal. Other approaches tend to focus on the fact that infinitives can include verbs with what look exactly like objects, etc., and that you can usually infer a subject-y element (being deliberately vague here b/c the specifics vary per approach). From a teaching standpoint, it's a lot easier getting students to recognize that a given NP is the direct object of the verb in the infinitive if they're thinking of the infinitive as at least being like a predicate. The "clausy" view starts looking more tempting when you try to deal with the difference between "I want to eat some vegetables" and "I want the kids to eat some vegetables." If you think both of those sentences have a main clause that's just "I want X," then it follows that you need to talk about the presence or absence of "the kids" in relation to the infinitive. One of the ways to deal with that is to say that infinitive really is a clause at some level of representation -- that it has a full clause structure, but with zero-elements in some spots. The grammar (with "grammar" here in the sense of a kind of widget) can then deal with the structure the same basic way it deals with a normal clause, with maybe some minor changes around the edges. I *think* this is Bruce's approach (but correct me if I'm wrong, Bruce!). An alternate approach is to deal with "X wants to Y" and "X wants Z to Y" as different constructions that hearers recognize and process according to construction-specific rules. This is what's used by construction grammars (unsurprisingly). Either of these approaches can use the label "reduced clause" for infinitives, gerunds, and participials. The term "small clause" usually goes with the first approach, and is most common among linguists working in a set of theories descended from the 1970s-era version of generative grammar. Systemic-Functional grammar use "non-finite clause," a term that initially struck me as an oxymoron, since I learned U.S. terminology first. Traditional school grammars, of course, sometimes use "verbals." --- Bill Spruiell ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of T. J. Ray [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 9:52 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Adjective or adverb? Stephen, I don't see them as possible adverbials. A reading of both sentences sans the infinitive phrases almost makes them incomplete sentences, at least in terms of full meaning. I am also puzzled by responses that refer to them as clauses. Infinitive phrases have functioned in this manner since A-S days. What is the purpose of trying to stretch them into clauses? tj On Friday 05/27/2011 at 8:01 pm, Stephen King wrote: An embarrassing question: Are the infinitive phrases in the following sentences adjectival or adverbial? A. We were looking for a good reason to sell the house. B. Sparrow needed something to distract the guards. In A, the inf. phrase answers the question "why?", which would seem to make it adverbial. However, it also answers the question "What kind of reason?", which would seem to make it adjectival. I find B similar. Gentle enlightenment is requested. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 1 Jun 2011 12:19:17 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Infinitives as clauses (was RE: Adjective or adverb?) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --000e0cdff822d8c35104a4a8e190 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Karl asks an important question. A "clause" is an abstract concept that has no existence independent of the minds of those who use it. Grammar being a diverse and heterogeneous discipline, different grammarians will stipulate different definitions for "clause." Lacking a consensus, one cannot argue that one's own definition is inherently right and natural; one can only attempt to demonstrate that it is useful and explanatory. Karl is justified in saying, make the case. While we're at it, a definition of "clause" would also have to specify what the clauses are in a sentence like Iago's "Who steals my purse steals trash." This would seem to present a problem for my eighth grade teacher, who, if I remember correctly, claimed that "main clauses" and "subordinate clauses" were mutually exclusive. Is "steals trash" a main clause? Others would define "clause" to have the entire sentence be a clause, which contained within it the clause "Who steals my purse." Equally stipulative is the definition of "phrase." The definition I find most useful (something like "a group of words that we intuit as forming a grammatical unit") would include not just noun phrases, prepositional phrases, and the like, but also clauses and sentences as types of phrases. Dick On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > TJ, > > I still don't get why you want to make the finite distinction. In what > way do finite verbs in subordinate clauses "sustain" a sentence in a way > that a nonfinite verb does not? Neither a subordinate clause nor an > infinitive whatever-we-want-to-call-it will "sustain" a complete sentence. > > I don't think teaching the distinction between finite and nonfinite is > problematic. I just think that tying the "clause" label to finite verbs > alone is neither accurate nor pedagogically helpful. > > Karl > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --000e0cdff822d8c35104a4a8e190 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Karl asks an important question.

A "clause" is an abstract concept that has no existence independent of the minds of those who use it. Grammar being a diverse and heterogeneous discipline, different grammarians will stipulate different definitions for "clause." Lacking a consensus, one cannot argue that one's own definition is inherently right and natural; one can only attempt to demonstrate that it is useful and explanatory. Karl is justified in saying, make the case.

While we're at it, a definition of "clause" would also have to specify what the clauses are in a sentence like Iago's "Who steals my purse steals trash."� This would seem to present a problem for my eighth grade teacher, who, if I remember correctly, claimed that "main clauses" and "subordinate clauses" were mutually exclusive. Is "steals trash" a main clause? Others would define "clause" to have the entire sentence be a clause, which contained within it the clause "Who steals my purse."

Equally stipulative is the definition of "phrase." The definition I find most useful (something like "a group of words that we intuit as forming a grammatical unit") would include not just noun phrases, prepositional phrases, and the like, but also clauses and sentences as types of phrases.

Dick

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

TJ,

I still don't get why you want to make the finite distinction. In what
way do finite verbs in subordinate clauses "sustain" a sentence in a way
that a nonfinite verb does not? Neither a subordinate clause nor an
infinitive whatever-we-want-to-call-it will "sustain" a complete sentence.

I don't think teaching the distinction between finite and nonfinite is
problematic. I just think that tying the "clause" label to finite verbs
alone is neither accurate nor pedagogically helpful.

Karl

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --000e0cdff822d8c35104a4a8e190-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 17:22:50 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Infinitives as clauses (was RE: Adjective or adverb?) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dick, The anecdote you tell about your eight-grade teacher is exactly the analysis that I've noticed both students (and some teachers that I've trained) gravitating towards even without any explicit statement. I believe that at least part of the problem is terminological. Several years back, I stopped using the terms "independent clause" and "dependent clause" in my classes. I observed over and over again that students seemed to treat these terms implicitly as disjoint despite my explicit warnings. Even worse, many students who came to me with a prior, semantic definition of an independent clause as a clause that could stand on its own often got the dependent and independent distinction exactly backwards. Consider, for example, the sentence, "She said that she was my friend." Before giving my explanation of clause types, I would try such sentences out on my classes, and inevitably, some proportion of the class would identify "she was my friend" as an independent clause and "She said that" as the dependent clause. After all, that string of words can stand on its own as a sentence, and what's left over must be the dependent part, right? The morphology of "dependent" and "independent" encourages people to view them as opposites, and therefore non-overlapping. I've found that by talking about them as main and subordinate clauses, it only takes one short lecture for students to get the concept that subordinate clauses are contained within the main clause. The terminology helps reinforce that idea. Regards, Karl On 06/01/11 09:19, Dick Veit wrote: > Karl asks an important question. > > A "clause" is an abstract concept that has no existence independent of > the minds of those who use it. Grammar being a diverse and heterogeneous > discipline, different grammarians will stipulate different definitions > for "clause." Lacking a consensus, one cannot argue that one's own > definition is inherently right and natural; one can only attempt to > demonstrate that it is useful and explanatory. Karl is justified in > saying, make the case. > > While we're at it, a definition of "clause" would also have to specify > what the clauses are in a sentence like Iago's "Who steals my purse > steals trash." This would seem to present a problem for my eighth grade > teacher, who, if I remember correctly, claimed that "main clauses" and > "subordinate clauses" were mutually exclusive. Is "steals trash" a main > clause? Others would define "clause" to have the entire sentence be a > clause, which contained within it the clause "Who steals my purse." > > Equally stipulative is the definition of "phrase." The definition I find > most useful (something like "a group of words that we intuit as forming > a grammatical unit") would include not just noun phrases, prepositional > phrases, and the like, but also clauses and sentences as types of phrases. > > Dick > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask] > > wrote: > > TJ, > > I still don't get why you want to make the finite distinction. In what > way do finite verbs in subordinate clauses "sustain" a sentence in a way > that a nonfinite verb does not? Neither a subordinate clause nor an > infinitive whatever-we-want-to-call-it will "sustain" a complete > sentence. > > I don't think teaching the distinction between finite and nonfinite is > problematic. I just think that tying the "clause" label to finite verbs > alone is neither accurate nor pedagogically helpful. > > Karl > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select > "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 1 Jun 2011 20:23:28 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Infinitives as clauses (was RE: Adjective or adverb?) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I especially like the first part of Dick's statement. It may well be that we are not seeing the language differently, just disagreeing on how we would draw the boundary lines for a classification system. Let's face it, both "clause" and "phrase" are large categories with a number of subcategories included in them. If these are finite subordinate clauses, then they differ from other clauses in describable ways. If they are phrases, then they differ from other phrases in describable ways. They don't fit neatly into either category, and saying that makes the argument less strained. It seems to me the most prototypical of all clauses is a declarative clause, quite capable of being the main clause in a sentence. Interrogative clauses are close behind. Imperatives lack explicit subject, as traditional grammar has always acknowledged. Finite subordinate clauses have explicit subjects and finite verb phrases, but they also have a subordinate role within another (main) clause and they have differences in structure that help accommodate their subordinate status. In that sense, they are like phrases. Nonfinite subordinate clauses (if we want to use that term) lack a finite verb and, more often than not, lack an explicit subject. (Absolutes have explicit subjects. I also think there's an explicit subject in sentences like "I watched my good friend kill himself with drink.") If you want to call them clauses, you need to explain ways in which they differ from other clauses. If you call them phrases, then you should admit that they are like clauses in many ways. (I like Bill's phrasing. They are predicate like.) Both choices are quite sensible if you believe you also have an obligation to explain why they are hard to classify as one or the other. At a certain level, we also should admit that grammar is not a monolithic field and that different approaches have different insights to bring to the communal table. A whale is not a fish, but in some ways it resembles a fish more than it does other mammals. If our interest is in defining things that live wholly in the ocean, then whales are in that category, but then you have to admit that they breathe air and are warm blooded. Is Pluto a planet? Everything depends on whether there's a minimum size and whether that size allows Pluto to be included. At a certain point, these lines will be arbitrary. Disagreement about the size of Pluto or whether whales breathe air would be a more fundamental disagreement. Craig > Karl asks an important question. > > A "clause" is an abstract concept that has no existence independent of the > minds of those who use it. Grammar being a diverse and heterogeneous > discipline, different grammarians will stipulate different definitions for > "clause." Lacking a consensus, one cannot argue that one's own definition > is > inherently right and natural; one can only attempt to demonstrate that it > is > useful and explanatory. Karl is justified in saying, make the case. > > While we're at it, a definition of "clause" would also have to specify > what > the clauses are in a sentence like Iago's "Who steals my purse steals > trash." This would seem to present a problem for my eighth grade teacher, > who, if I remember correctly, claimed that "main clauses" and "subordinate > clauses" were mutually exclusive. Is "steals trash" a main clause? Others > would define "clause" to have the entire sentence be a clause, which > contained within it the clause "Who steals my purse." > > Equally stipulative is the definition of "phrase." The definition I find > most useful (something like "a group of words that we intuit as forming a > grammatical unit") would include not just noun phrases, prepositional > phrases, and the like, but also clauses and sentences as types of phrases. > > Dick > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> TJ, >> >> I still don't get why you want to make the finite distinction. In what >> way do finite verbs in subordinate clauses "sustain" a sentence in a way >> that a nonfinite verb does not? Neither a subordinate clause nor an >> infinitive whatever-we-want-to-call-it will "sustain" a complete >> sentence. >> >> I don't think teaching the distinction between finite and nonfinite is >> problematic. I just think that tying the "clause" label to finite verbs >> alone is neither accurate nor pedagogically helpful. >> >> Karl >> >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 2 Jun 2011 14:01:50 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Crystal Edmonds <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Infinitives as clauses (was RE: Adjective or adverb?) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=__Part0C20AB1E.0__=" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=__Part0C20AB1E.0__Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Karl, Faculty at my institution are debating the textbook that we use to teach developmental English courses. Most texts focus 60% on grammar, providing definite definitions of independent clauses, for example. A common text is used for consistency as students progress. What texts do you or anyone on the listserv recommend that may allow us to assist students in understanding the elements of grammar but more importantly identifying and correcting errors in their own writing and allowing them to take risks in their writing? C. Edmonds, Chair Associate in Arts English and Humanities Robeson Community College PO Box 1420 Lumberton, NC 28359 (910) 272-3700 ext. 3362 (910) 272-3328 (fax) [log in to unmask] RCC 4 R.E.A.L. Reading Engages Active Learning A Quality Enhancement Plan at Robeson Community College >>> On 6/1/2011 at 8:22 PM, in message <[log in to unmask]>, Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Dick, The anecdote you tell about your eight-grade teacher is exactly the analysis that I've noticed both students (and some teachers that I've trained) gravitating towards even without any explicit statement. I believe that at least part of the problem is terminological. Several years back, I stopped using the terms "independent clause" and "dependent clause" in my classes. I observed over and over again that students seemed to treat these terms implicitly as disjoint despite my explicit warnings. Even worse, many students who came to me with a prior, semantic definition of an independent clause as a clause that could stand on its own often got the dependent and independent distinction exactly backwards. Consider, for example, the sentence, "She said that she was my friend." Before giving my explanation of clause types, I would try such sentences out on my classes, and inevitably, some proportion of the class would identify "she was my friend" as an independent clause and "She said that" as the dependent clause. After all, that string of words can stand on its own as a sentence, and what's left over must be the dependent part, right? The morphology of "dependent" and "independent" encourages people to view them as opposites, and therefore non-overlapping. I've found that by talking about them as main and subordinate clauses, it only takes one short lecture for students to get the concept that subordinate clauses are contained within the main clause. The terminology helps reinforce that idea. Regards, Karl On 06/01/11 09:19, Dick Veit wrote: > Karl asks an important question. > > A "clause" is an abstract concept that has no existence independent of > the minds of those who use it. Grammar being a diverse and heterogeneous > discipline, different grammarians will stipulate different definitions > for "clause." Lacking a consensus, one cannot argue that one's own > definition is inherently right and natural; one can only attempt to > demonstrate that it is useful and explanatory. Karl is justified in > saying, make the case. > > While we're at it, a definition of "clause" would also have to specify > what the clauses are in a sentence like Iago's "Who steals my purse > steals trash." This would seem to present a problem for my eighth grade > teacher, who, if I remember correctly, claimed that "main clauses" and > "subordinate clauses" were mutually exclusive. Is "steals trash" a main > clause? Others would define "clause" to have the entire sentence be a > clause, which contained within it the clause "Who steals my purse." > > Equally stipulative is the definition of "phrase." The definition I find > most useful (something like "a group of words that we intuit as forming > a grammatical unit") would include not just noun phrases, prepositional > phrases, and the like, but also clauses and sentences as types of phrases. > > Dick > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask] > > wrote: > > TJ, > > I still don't get why you want to make the finite distinction. In what > way do finite verbs in subordinate clauses "sustain" a sentence in a way > that a nonfinite verb does not? Neither a subordinate clause nor an > infinitive whatever-we-want-to-call-it will "sustain" a complete > sentence. > > I don't think teaching the distinction between finite and nonfinite is > problematic. I just think that tying the "clause" label to finite verbs > alone is neither accurate nor pedagogically helpful. > > Karl > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select > "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official. (NCGS.Ch.132) To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --=__Part0C20AB1E.0__Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: HTML

Karl,

Faculty at my institution are debating the textbook that we use to teach developmental English courses.  Most texts focus 60% on grammar, providing definite definitions of independent clauses, for example. A common text is used for consistency as students progress.  What texts do you or anyone on the listserv recommend that may allow us to assist students in understanding the elements of grammar but more importantly identifying and correcting errors in their own writing and allowing them to take risks in their writing? 

 

C. Edmonds, Chair
Associate in Arts
English and Humanities
Robeson Community College
PO Box 1420
Lumberton, NC 28359
(910) 272-3700 ext. 3362
(910) 272-3328 (fax)
[log in to unmask]

RCC 4 R.E.A.L.  Reading Engages Active Learning

A Quality Enhancement Plan at Robeson Community College

>>> On 6/1/2011 at 8:22 PM, in message <[log in to unmask]>, Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dick, The anecdote you tell about your eight-grade teacher is exactly the analysis that I've noticed both students (and some teachers that I've trained) gravitating towards even without any explicit statement. I believe that at least part of the problem is terminological. Several years back, I stopped using the terms "independent clause" and "dependent clause" in my classes. I observed over and over again that students seemed to treat these terms implicitly as disjoint despite my explicit warnings. Even worse, many students who came to me with a prior, semantic definition of an independent clause as a clause that could stand on its own often got the dependent and independent distinction exactly backwards. Consider, for example, the sentence, "She said that she was my friend." Before giving my explanation of clause types, I would try such sentences out on my classes, and inevitably, some proportion of the class would identify "she was my friend" as an independent clause and "She said that" as the dependent clause. After all, that string of words can stand on its own as a sentence, and what's left over must be the dependent part, right? The morphology of "dependent" and "independent" encourages people to view them as opposites, and therefore non-overlapping. I've found that by talking about them as main and subordinate clauses, it only takes one short lecture for students to get the concept that subordinate clauses are contained within the main clause. The terminology helps reinforce that idea. Regards, Karl On 06/01/11 09:19, Dick Veit wrote: > Karl asks an important question. > > A "clause" is an abstract concept that has no existence independent of > the minds of those who use it. Grammar being a diverse and heterogeneous > discipline, different grammarians will stipulate different definitions > for "clause." Lacking a consensus, one cannot argue that one's own > definition is inherently right and natural; one can only attempt to > demonstrate that it is useful and explanatory. Karl is justified in > saying, make the case. > > While we're at it, a definition of "clause" would also have to specify > what the clauses are in a sentence like Iago's "Who steals my purse > steals trash."  This would seem to present a problem for my eighth grade > teacher, who, if I remember correctly, claimed that "main clauses" and > "subordinate clauses" were mutually exclusive. Is "steals trash" a main > clause? Others would define "clause" to have the entire sentence be a > clause, which contained within it the clause "Who steals my purse." > > Equally stipulative is the definition of "phrase." The definition I find > most useful (something like "a group of words that we intuit as forming > a grammatical unit") would include not just noun phrases, prepositional > phrases, and the like, but also clauses and sentences as types of phrases. > > Dick > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > >     TJ, > >     I still don't get why you want to make the finite distinction. In what >     way do finite verbs in subordinate clauses "sustain" a sentence in a way >     that a nonfinite verb does not? Neither a subordinate clause nor an >     infinitive whatever-we-want-to-call-it will "sustain" a complete >     sentence. > >     I don't think teaching the distinction between finite and nonfinite is >     problematic. I just think that tying the "clause" label to finite verbs >     alone is neither accurate nor pedagogically helpful. > >     Karl > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select > "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official. (NCGS.Ch.132)

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --=__Part0C20AB1E.0__=-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 13:16:32 -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: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Textbook Recommendations (was Re: Infinitives as clauses) (was RE: Adjective or adverb?) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary�e6ba6e8d302e988404a4bea43f --90e6ba6e8d302e988404a4bea43f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Since some subscribers to this list may skip over Crystal's email due to the "Subject" line, I'm re-sending with an updated "Subject." I know that many members of the list are happy to share textbook lists privately and/or online. John Alexander On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Crystal Edmonds <[log in to unmask]>wrote: Karl, Faculty at my institution are debating the textbook that we use to teach developmental English courses. Most texts focus 60% on grammar, providing definite definitions of independent clauses, for example. A common text is used for consistency as students progress. What texts do you or anyone on the listserv recommend that may allow us to assist students in understanding the elements of grammar but more importantly identifying and correcting errors in their own writing and allowing them to take risks in their writing? C. Edmonds, Chair Associate in Arts English and Humanities Robeson Community College PO Box 1420 Lumberton, NC 28359 (910) 272-3700 ext. 3362 (910) 272-3328 (fax) [log in to unmask] To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --90e6ba6e8d302e988404a4bea43f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Since some subscribers to this list may skip over Crystal's email due to the "Subject" line, I'm re-sending with an updated "Subject." I know that many members of the list are happy to share textbook lists privately and/or online.

John Alexander


On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Crystal Edmonds <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Karl,

Faculty at my institution are debating the textbook that we use to teach developmental English courses.� Most texts focus 60% on grammar, providing definite definitions of independent clauses, for example.�A common text is used for consistency as students progress.� What�texts do you or anyone on the listserv recommend�that may allow us to�assist students in understanding the elements of grammar but more importantly identifying and correcting�errors in their own writing and allowing them to take risks in their writing?�

�

C. Edmonds, Chair
Associate in Arts
English and Humanities
Robeson Community College
PO Box 1420
Lumberton, NC 28359
(910) 272-3700 ext. 3362
(910) 272-3328 (fax)
[log in to unmask]

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --90e6ba6e8d302e988404a4bea43f-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 22:29:28 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> Subject: verb tense MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary�aec554e06cf168f104a4edc3e9 --bcaec554e06cf168f104a4edc3e9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Friends have just returned from their annual pilgrimage to Ashland, Oregon, and on one flight they saw a sign in the flight attendants' area that said, "Hands shall be washed before serving food or drink." What is this use of "shall" called? Jane Saral To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --bcaec554e06cf168f104a4edc3e9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Friends have just returned from their annual pilgrimage to Ashland, Oregon, and on one flight they saw a sign in the flight attendants' area that said, "Hands shall be washed before serving food or drink."

�

What is this use of "shall" called?

�

Jane Saral

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --bcaec554e06cf168f104a4edc3e9-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 20:09:29 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Kathleen Ward <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: verb tense In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I've always heard it called the deonatic use ofnthe modal -- something that imposes an obligation on the hearer of an utterance. It is a characteristic of modals in English that they have both deonatic and epistemically (degree of certainty) uses. Kathleen M. Ware. University of California, Davis On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Friends have just returned from their annual pilgrimage to Ashland, Oregon, and on one flight they saw a sign in the flight attendants' area that said, "Hands shall be washed before serving food or drink." > > > > What is this use of "shall" called? > > Jane Saral > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 4 Jun 2011 23:13:03 -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: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: verb tense In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary�e6ba6e8d7a2c859b04a4ef35ca --90e6ba6e8d7a2c859b04a4ef35ca Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Here is Random House's basic summary of "shall" usage: The traditional rule of usage guides dates from the 17th century and says that to denote future time shall is used in the first person ( I shall leave. We shall go ) and will in all other persons ( You will be there, won't you? He will drive us to the airport. They will not be at the meeting ). The rule continues that to express determination, will is used in the first person ( We will win the battle ) and shall in the other two persons ( You shall not bully us. They shall not pass ). Whether this rule was ever widely observed is doubtful. Today, will is used overwhelmingly in all three persons and in all types of speech and writing both for the simple future and to express determination. Shall has some use in all persons, chiefly in formal writing or speaking, to express determination: I shall return. We shall overcome. Shall also occurs in the language of laws and directives: All visitors shall observe posted regulations. Most educated native users of American English do not follow the textbook rule in making a choice between shall and will. shall. (n.d.). *Dictionary.com Unabridged*. Retrieved June 04, 2011, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shall John On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Kathleen Ward <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I've always heard it called the deonatic use ofnthe modal -- something > that imposes an obligation on the hearer of an utterance. It is a > characteristic of modals in English that they have both deonatic and > epistemically (degree of certainty) uses. > > Kathleen M. Ware. > > University of California, Davis > > > On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Friends have just returned from their annual pilgrimage to Ashland, > Oregon, and on one flight they saw a sign in the flight attendants' area > that said, "Hands shall be washed before serving food or drink." > > > > > > > > What is this use of "shall" called? > > > > Jane Saral > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: > > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > > and select "Join or leave the list" > > > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --90e6ba6e8d7a2c859b04a4ef35ca Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here is Random House's basic summary of "shall" usage:

The traditional rule of usage guides dates from the 17th century and says that to denote future time shall �is used in the first person ( I shall leave. We shall go ) and will �in all other persons ( You will be there, won't you? He will drive us to the airport. They will not be at the meeting ). The rule continues that to express determination, will �is used in the first person ( We will win the battle ) and shall �in the other two persons ( You shall not bully us. They shall not pass ). Whether this rule was ever widely observed is doubtful. Today, will �is used overwhelmingly in all three persons and in all types of speech and writing both for the simple future and to express determination. Shall �has some use in all persons, chiefly in formal writing or speaking, to express determination: I shall return. We shall overcome. Shall �also occurs in the language of laws and directives: All visitors shall observe posted regulations. �Most educated native users of American English do not follow the textbook rule in making a choice between shall �and will.

shall. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved June 04, 2011, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shall

John

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Kathleen Ward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I've always heard it called the deonatic use ofnthe modal -- something
that imposes an obligation on the hearer of an utterance. �It is a
characteristic of modals in English that they have both deonatic and
epistemically (degree of certainty) uses.

Kathleen M. Ware.

University of California, Davis

On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Friends have just returned from their annual pilgrimage to Ashland, Oregon, and on one flight they saw a sign in the flight attendants' area that said, "Hands shall be washed before serving food or drink."
>
>
>
> What is this use of "shall" called?
>
> Jane Saral
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
> � � �http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --90e6ba6e8d7a2c859b04a4ef35ca-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 16:49:43 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: verb tense MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit John, In this case, I think "shall" denotes obligation rather than determination, maybe as an attempt to soften the order. It's interesting that it's also passive. What I see in many restaurant restrooms is "Employees must wash hands before returning to work." It seems to me this is intended to do the same work (lay down the rule) without appearing to be dictatorial. Craig > Here is Random House's basic summary of "shall" usage: > > The traditional rule of usage guides dates from the 17th century and says > that to denote future time shall is used in the first person ( I shall > leave. We shall go ) and will in all other persons ( You will be there, > won't you? He will drive us to the airport. They will not be at the > meeting ). > The rule continues that to express determination, will is used in the > first > person ( We will win the battle ) and shall in the other two persons ( > You > shall not bully us. They shall not pass ). Whether this rule was ever > widely > observed is doubtful. Today, will is used overwhelmingly in all three > persons and in all types of speech and writing both for the simple future > and to express determination. Shall has some use in all persons, chiefly > in > formal writing or speaking, to express determination: I shall return. We > shall overcome. Shall also occurs in the language of laws and directives: > All visitors shall observe posted regulations. Most educated native users > of American English do not follow the textbook rule in making a choice > between shall and will. > > shall. (n.d.). *Dictionary.com Unabridged*. Retrieved June 04, 2011, from > Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shall > > John > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Kathleen Ward <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I've always heard it called the deonatic use ofnthe modal -- something >> that imposes an obligation on the hearer of an utterance. It is a >> characteristic of modals in English that they have both deonatic and >> epistemically (degree of certainty) uses. >> >> Kathleen M. Ware. >> >> University of California, Davis >> >> >> On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> > Friends have just returned from their annual pilgrimage to Ashland, >> Oregon, and on one flight they saw a sign in the flight attendants' area >> that said, "Hands shall be washed before serving food or drink." >> > >> > >> > >> > What is this use of "shall" called? >> > >> > Jane Saral >> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: >> > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> > and select "Join or leave the list" >> > >> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 5 Jun 2011 16:08:35 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Gregg Heacock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: verb tense In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-19-443117609 --Apple-Mail-19-443117609 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Craig, I agree with you, and, while there is a history of language instruction that has structured our usage, I see a natural arch in our common usage of verbs that moves from intention with the infinitive form through the consideration of action depending on different conditions to the realization of the act as it becomes part of being, history, and a perfected quality. In considering the probability of our intentions coming to fruition, can helps us consider our ability to carry them out, will focuses on the force of our intention, and shall addresses a sense of obligation created by circumstances around us. Could, would, and should focus more on the situations that might have an effect upon what happens. These usages serve our need to allow our imaginations to grapple with our intentions over time in order to help us realize who we want to be in this world. Given the limited number of words we can bring to this task, there will be multiple purposes served by these terms, giving language the strength and flexibility that comes from being ambiguous and connected to different frameworks. But, for teaching grammar as a tool that empowers us to take action, I like seeing shall as turning our attention to outside forces that may affect our choices. Gregg On Jun 5, 2011, at 1:49 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > John, > In this case, I think "shall" denotes obligation rather than > determination, maybe as an attempt to soften the order. It's > interesting that it's also passive. What I see in many restaurant > restrooms is "Employees must wash hands before returning to work." It > seems to me this is intended to do the same work (lay down the rule) > without appearing to be dictatorial. > > Craig > > >> Here is Random House's basic summary of "shall" usage: >> >> The traditional rule of usage guides dates from the 17th century >> and says >> that to denote future time shall is used in the first person ( I >> shall >> leave. We shall go ) and will in all other persons ( You will be >> there, >> won't you? He will drive us to the airport. They will not be at the >> meeting ). >> The rule continues that to express determination, will is used in >> the >> first >> person ( We will win the battle ) and shall in the other two >> persons ( >> You >> shall not bully us. They shall not pass ). Whether this rule was ever >> widely >> observed is doubtful. Today, will is used overwhelmingly in all >> three >> persons and in all types of speech and writing both for the simple >> future >> and to express determination. Shall has some use in all persons, >> chiefly >> in >> formal writing or speaking, to express determination: I shall >> return. We >> shall overcome. Shall also occurs in the language of laws and >> directives: >> All visitors shall observe posted regulations. Most educated >> native users >> of American English do not follow the textbook rule in making a >> choice >> between shall and will. >> >> shall. (n.d.). *Dictionary.com Unabridged*. Retrieved June 04, >> 2011, from >> Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shall >> >> John >> >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Kathleen Ward >> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> I've always heard it called the deonatic use ofnthe modal -- >>> something >>> that imposes an obligation on the hearer of an utterance. It is a >>> characteristic of modals in English that they have both deonatic and >>> epistemically (degree of certainty) uses. >>> >>> Kathleen M. Ware. >>> >>> University of California, Davis >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> Friends have just returned from their annual pilgrimage to Ashland, >>> Oregon, and on one flight they saw a sign in the flight >>> attendants' area >>> that said, "Hands shall be washed before serving food or drink." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What is this use of "shall" called? >>>> >>>> Jane Saral >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface at: >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>> >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface >>> at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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-19-443117609 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Craig,

I agree with you, and, while there is a history of language instruction that has structured our usage, I see a natural arch in our common usage of verbs that moves from intention with the infinitive form through the consideration of action depending on different conditions to the realization of the act as it becomes part of being, history, and a perfected quality.  In considering the probability of our intentions coming to fruition, can helps us consider our ability to carry them out, will focuses on the force of our intention, and shall addresses a sense of obligation created by circumstances around us.  Could, would, and should focus more on the situations that might have an effect upon what happens.  These usages serve our need to allow our imaginations to grapple with our intentions over time in order to help us realize who we want to be in this world.

Given the limited number of words we can bring to this task, there will be multiple purposes served by these terms, giving language the strength and flexibility that comes from being ambiguous and connected to different frameworks.  But, for teaching grammar as a tool that empowers us to take action, I like seeing shall as turning our attention to outside forces that may affect our choices.

Gregg

On Jun 5, 2011, at 1:49 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

John,

    In this case, I think "shall" denotes obligation rather than

determination, maybe as an attempt to soften the order. It's

interesting that it's also passive. What I see in many restaurant

restrooms is "Employees must wash hands before returning to work." It

seems to me this is intended to do the same work (lay down the rule)

without appearing to be dictatorial.

Craig

Here is Random House's basic summary of "shall" usage:

The traditional rule of usage guides dates from the 17th century and says

that to denote future time shall  is used in the first person ( I shall

leave. We shall go ) and will  in all other persons ( You will be there,

won't you? He will drive us to the airport. They will not be at the

meeting ).

The rule continues that to express determination, will  is used in the

first

person ( We will win the battle ) and shall  in the other two persons (

You

shall not bully us. They shall not pass ). Whether this rule was ever

widely

observed is doubtful. Today, will  is used overwhelmingly in all three

persons and in all types of speech and writing both for the simple future

and to express determination. Shall  has some use in all persons, chiefly

in

formal writing or speaking, to express determination: I shall return. We

shall overcome. Shall  also occurs in the language of laws and directives:

All visitors shall observe posted regulations.  Most educated native users

of American English do not follow the textbook rule in making a choice

between shall  and will.

shall. (n.d.). *Dictionary.com Unabridged*. Retrieved June 04, 2011, from

Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shall

John

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Kathleen Ward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I've always heard it called the deonatic use ofnthe modal -- something

that imposes an obligation on the hearer of an utterance.  It is a

characteristic of modals in English that they have both deonatic and

epistemically (degree of certainty) uses.

Kathleen M. Ware.

University of California, Davis

On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Friends have just returned from their annual pilgrimage to Ashland,

Oregon, and on one flight they saw a sign in the flight attendants' area

that said, "Hands shall be washed before serving food or drink."

What is this use of "shall" called?

Jane Saral

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

interface at:

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

and select "Join or leave the list"

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

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

interface

at:

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

and select "Join or leave the list"

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

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

at:

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

and select "Join or leave the list"

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

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

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

and select "Join or leave the list"

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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-19-443117609-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 21:01:16 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: verb tense MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Gregg, I agree certainly that these auxiliaries have evolved over time and now carry a multitude of meanings, depending on context. I also think that flexibility is natural and good and that we shouldn't try to constrain it with strict rules about what they are supposed to mean. All the pure modals were once main verbs, went through stagesw when they could be main verbs and auxiliaries,but now function only as auxiliaries and serve to ground a statement within the judgement of the speaker. The grammaticalization path for "will" seems to have gone from intention to prediction, and I think "shall" includes those two meanings. "I will be there at four" equals intention. "It will rain around four" denotes prediction. It seems to me that "shall" is more likely to mean intention, but I certainly don't think we should insist on that by rule. An earlier contributor talked about deontic and epistemic meanings. "Deontic" has to do with judgement about the social world: obligation, permission, desirability, and the like. "Epistemic" has to do with a more objective "historical" judgement, the relative certainty of something happening or having happened. "Can", for example, can denote ability (I can leap tall buildings with a single bound), possibility (We can win if we get good pitching), and permission (You can be excused). "Should" can denote obligation ("You should pay your taxes") or strong certainty ("She should be there by now"). I think of modality as a metafunction, with the modal auxiliaries at the center of that, but only one way in which we wrap judgement around our statements. This is from Talmy Givon: "The propositional modality associated with a clause may be likened to a shell that encases it but does not tamper with the kernel inside....The modality codes the speaker's attitude toward the proposition" (Syntax, vol. 1, p. 300). I believe we should pay much more attention to this, not only in the grammar we teach, but in response to student writing. Craig Craig, > I agree with you, and, while there is a history of language > instruction that has structured our usage, I see a natural arch in > our common usage of verbs that moves from intention with the > infinitive form through the consideration of action depending on > different conditions to the realization of the act as it becomes part > of being, history, and a perfected quality. In considering the > probability of our intentions coming to fruition, can helps us > consider our ability to carry them out, will focuses on the force of > our intention, and shall addresses a sense of obligation created by > circumstances around us. Could, would, and should focus more on the > situations that might have an effect upon what happens. These usages > serve our need to allow our imaginations to grapple with our > intentions over time in order to help us realize who we want to be in > this world. > Given the limited number of words we can bring to this task, there > will be multiple purposes served by these terms, giving language the > strength and flexibility that comes from being ambiguous and > connected to different frameworks. But, for teaching grammar as a > tool that empowers us to take action, I like seeing shall as turning > our attention to outside forces that may affect our choices. > > Gregg > > > On Jun 5, 2011, at 1:49 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > >> John, >> In this case, I think "shall" denotes obligation rather than >> determination, maybe as an attempt to soften the order. It's >> interesting that it's also passive. What I see in many restaurant >> restrooms is "Employees must wash hands before returning to work." It >> seems to me this is intended to do the same work (lay down the rule) >> without appearing to be dictatorial. >> >> Craig >> >> >>> Here is Random House's basic summary of "shall" usage: >>> >>> The traditional rule of usage guides dates from the 17th century >>> and says >>> that to denote future time shall is used in the first person ( I >>> shall >>> leave. We shall go ) and will in all other persons ( You will be >>> there, >>> won't you? He will drive us to the airport. They will not be at the >>> meeting ). >>> The rule continues that to express determination, will is used in >>> the >>> first >>> person ( We will win the battle ) and shall in the other two >>> persons ( >>> You >>> shall not bully us. They shall not pass ). Whether this rule was ever >>> widely >>> observed is doubtful. Today, will is used overwhelmingly in all >>> three >>> persons and in all types of speech and writing both for the simple >>> future >>> and to express determination. Shall has some use in all persons, >>> chiefly >>> in >>> formal writing or speaking, to express determination: I shall >>> return. We >>> shall overcome. Shall also occurs in the language of laws and >>> directives: >>> All visitors shall observe posted regulations. Most educated >>> native users >>> of American English do not follow the textbook rule in making a >>> choice >>> between shall and will. >>> >>> shall. (n.d.). *Dictionary.com Unabridged*. Retrieved June 04, >>> 2011, from >>> Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shall >>> >>> John >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Kathleen Ward >>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>>> I've always heard it called the deonatic use ofnthe modal -- >>>> something >>>> that imposes an obligation on the hearer of an utterance. It is a >>>> characteristic of modals in English that they have both deonatic and >>>> epistemically (degree of certainty) uses. >>>> >>>> Kathleen M. Ware. >>>> >>>> University of California, Davis >>>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>> Friends have just returned from their annual pilgrimage to Ashland, >>>> Oregon, and on one flight they saw a sign in the flight >>>> attendants' area >>>> that said, "Hands shall be washed before serving food or drink." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What is this use of "shall" called? >>>>> >>>>> Jane Saral >>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>> interface at: >>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>>>> >>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>> interface >>>> at: >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>> >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface >>> at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 6 Jun 2011 02:31:05 +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]> Comments: RFC822 error: Invalid RFC822 field - "=". Rest of header flushed. From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: verb tense In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 I suspect at least some of the motivation for "shall" in this statement is the statement's status as a fulfillment of a legal requirement. "Shall" isn't just (very) formal in American English, it's heavily associated with legal and pseudo-legal genres (like bylaws). Ask someone to imitate legalese, and "shall" will typically show up right alongside "party of the first part" and "make known and publish." I think OSHA requires a sign like that, although I don't think the "shall" part is mandatory (if it's not OSHA, then it's just about every state government in the country). --- Bill Spruiell On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Kathleen Ward <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I've always heard it called the deonatic use ofnthe modal -- something that imposes an obligation on the hearer of an utterance. It is a characteristic of modals in English that they have both deonatic and epistemically (degree of certainty) uses. Kathleen M. Ware. University of California, Davis On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Friends have just returned from their annual pilgrimage to Ashland, Oregon, and on one flight they saw a sign in the flight attendants' area that said, "Hands shall be washed before serving food or drink." > > > > What is this use of "shall" called? > > Jane Saral > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 5 Jun 2011 20:24:01 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Gregg Heacock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: verb tense In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-40-458443146 --Apple-Mail-40-458443146 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Bill & Craig & Kathleen, Bill, I love how terms of obligation are put so politely. And, Craig, thank you for including Kathleen's reference to deonatic use and epistemical use of modals. Anyone stepping into the ATEG pool soon discovers the waters there run very deep, indeed. But I want to get back to some of what was offered by Craig in terms of modals. Craig, you say, "All the pure modals were once main verbs. . ." Do you have any instances of their use in this manner? I have no doubt that you are correct. I also appreciate that you add that now they "serve to ground a statement within the judgement of the speaker." Too often we miss point of view. But this reminds me of something I have barely read, Constructions at Work by Adele E. Goldberg, writing about argument structure constructions. This reminds me of another work I have read from beginning to end, Endangered Minds by Jane M. Healy, in which she writes that forms of language that contain "more complex grammatical devices are called elaborated codes. Those conveying ideas without such complex grammatical structures are called restricted codes and are the ones viewed as more 'primitive.'" She claims that, unless 'literature is carefully taught by a skilled teacher who knows how to make the text come alive and who is able to make the huge time commitment to help students with unfamiliar vocabulary, grammar, and voice, I can tell you what many kids do-- they simply don't read it. Instead, they continue to practice--and to embed in their brains--language that some linguists refer to quite descriptively as 'primitive.'" John R. Searle writes in Making The Social World that language not only moves from identifying real things to identifying imaginary things (and metaphors connected to real things) to conceptualizations (that are approached through metaphor), but it also creates a new reality through laws that show themselves to be real in that they entail punishment and create jobs for those who carry out those punishments--which brings us back to Bill's reference to "shall," where "the party of the first part" shall carry out a certain act or be subject to punishment. Thus, we move beyond the being "primitive" in our use of language. This shows how important grammarians are to educators. And it shows why language seems so intimidating to our students. They sense its power to create the social world that has grown out of the natural world in which language first evolved. Shall the world ever recognize the worth of the grammarian? Time will tell. Meanwhile, I hope to hear more about how these modals became conceptual shells encasing our words with judgment. Gregg On Jun 5, 2011, at 7:31 PM, Spruiell, William C wrote: > > I suspect at least some of the motivation for "shall" in this > statement is the statement's status as a fulfillment of a legal > requirement. "Shall" isn't just (very) formal in American English, > it's heavily associated with legal and pseudo-legal genres (like > bylaws). Ask someone to imitate legalese, and "shall" will > typically show up right alongside "party of the first part" and > "make known and publish." I think OSHA requires a sign like that, > although I don't think the "shall" part is mandatory (if it's not > OSHA, then it's just about every state government in the country). > > > > --- Bill Spruiell > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Kathleen Ward <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > I've always heard it called the deonatic use ofnthe modal -- > something > that imposes an obligation on the hearer of an utterance. It is a > characteristic of modals in English that they have both > deonatic and > epistemically (degree of certainty) uses. > > Kathleen M. Ware. > > University of California, Davis > > > On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: >> Friends have just returned from their annual pilgrimage to >> Ashland, Oregon, and on one flight they saw a sign in the flight >> attendants' area that said, "Hands shall be washed before serving >> food or drink." >> >> >> >> What is this use of "shall" called? >> >> Jane Saral >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's > web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and > select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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-40-458443146 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Bill & Craig & Kathleen,

Bill, I love how terms of obligation are put so politely.  And, Craig, thank you for including Kathleen's reference to deonatic use and epistemical use of modals.  Anyone stepping into the ATEG pool soon discovers the waters there run very deep, indeed.

But I want to get back to some of what was offered by Craig in terms of modals.  Craig, you say, "All the pure modals were once main verbs. . ."  Do you have any instances of their use in this manner?  I have no doubt that you are correct.  

I also appreciate that you add that now they "serve to ground a statement within the judgement of the speaker."  Too often we miss point of view.  But this reminds me of something I have barely read, Constructions at Work by Adele E. Goldberg, writing about argument structure constructions.  This reminds me of another work I have read from beginning to end, Endangered Minds by Jane M. Healy, in which she writes that forms of language that contain "more complex grammatical devices are called elaborated codes.  Those conveying ideas without such complex grammatical structures are called restricted codes and are the ones viewed as more 'primitive.'"  She claims that, unless 'literature is carefully taught by a skilled teacher who knows how to make the text come alive and who is able to make the huge time commitment to help students with unfamiliar vocabulary, grammar, and voice, I can tell you what many kids do--they simply don't read it.  Instead, they continue to practice--and to embed in their brains--language that some linguists refer to quite descriptively as 'primitive.'"

John R. Searle writes in Making The Social World that language not only moves from identifying real things to identifying imaginary things (and metaphors connected to real things) to conceptualizations (that are approached through metaphor), but it also creates a new reality through laws that show themselves to be real in that they entail punishment and create jobs for those who carry out those punishments--which brings us back to Bill's reference to "shall," where "the party of the first part" shall carry out a certain act or be subject to punishment.  Thus, we move beyond the being "primitive" in our use of language.

This shows how important grammarians are to educators.  And it shows why language seems so intimidating to our students.  They sense its power to create the social world that has grown out of the natural world in which language first evolved.

Shall the world ever recognize the worth of the grammarian?  Time will tell.  Meanwhile, I hope to hear more about how these modals became conceptual shells encasing our words with judgment.

Gregg

On Jun 5, 2011, at 7:31 PM, Spruiell, William C wrote:

I suspect at least some of the motivation for "shall" in this statement is the statement's status as a fulfillment of a legal requirement. "Shall" isn't just (very) formal in American English, it's heavily associated with legal and pseudo-legal genres (like bylaws). Ask someone to imitate legalese, and "shall" will typically show up right alongside "party of the first part" and "make known and publish." I think OSHA requires a sign like that, although I don't think the "shall" part is mandatory (if it's not OSHA, then it's just about every state government in the country). 

--- Bill Spruiell

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Kathleen Ward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

    I've always heard it called the deonatic use ofnthe modal -- something

    that imposes an obligation on the hearer of an utterance.  It is a

    characteristic of modals in English that they have both deonatic and

    epistemically (degree of certainty) uses.

    Kathleen M. Ware.

    University of California, Davis

    On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Friends have just returned from their annual pilgrimage to Ashland, Oregon, and on one flight they saw a sign in the flight attendants' area that said, "Hands shall be washed before serving food or drink."

What is this use of "shall" called?

Jane Saral

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

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

and select "Join or leave the list"

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

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

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

    and select "Join or leave the list"

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

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

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

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

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

and select "Join or leave the list"

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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-40-458443146-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 08:25:07 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: verb tense MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Gregg, The spelling I am used to seeing is "deontic" and "epistemic" for any of you who want to do more research. My Old English is very rusty and the books are in Albany, but "shall" derived from a verb meaning something like "be obligated, owe." It actually grammaticalized earlier than "will" (from "willan"? to want? Someone can correct me on that one.) "Cunnan" meant "know". "Magan" meant "have power". For a very good source on grammaticalization, I would recommend Joan Bybee's "Language, Usage, and Cognition" (Cambridge, 2010). These modals invert with the subject to form questions, take a negative directly after, and don't have a third person inflection for present tense. They have also lost their ability to act as the main verb in a sentence. You raise a controversial issue that relates to our belief in whether grammar is innately wired into the brain or is socially semiotic, growing in interaction with other language users over a lifetime. If grammar is wired in, then there isn't (can't be?) a large difference between reading/writing and speaking beyond what it takes to represent language in graphic form and learn the largely arbitrary graphic conventions that arrive with that. If grammar evolves in social interaction, then we might expect a far more complex (or lexically dense) grammar to evolve within written registers, especially within technical fields. I believe the latter is the case, which means we have an obligation to understand those differences and help mentor our students along the path toward competence in those registers. This is difficult these days precisely because knowledge about language has been undervalued for several decades. The great value (and occasional frustration) of ATEG is that participants bring different perspectives to the table. These views are certainly not shared by everyone in the group. Craig > Bill & Craig & Kathleen, > Bill, I love how terms of obligation are put so politely. And, > Craig, thank you for including Kathleen's reference to deonatic use > and epistemical use of modals. Anyone stepping into the ATEG pool > soon discovers the waters there run very deep, indeed. > But I want to get back to some of what was offered by Craig in terms > of modals. Craig, you say, "All the pure modals were once main > verbs. . ." Do you have any instances of their use in this manner? > I have no doubt that you are correct. > I also appreciate that you add that now they "serve to ground a > statement within the judgement of the speaker." Too often we miss > point of view. But this reminds me of something I have barely read, > Constructions at Work by Adele E. Goldberg, writing about argument > structure constructions. This reminds me of another work I have read > from beginning to end, Endangered Minds by Jane M. Healy, in which > she writes that forms of language that contain "more complex > grammatical devices are called elaborated codes. Those conveying > ideas without such complex grammatical structures are called > restricted codes and are the ones viewed as more 'primitive.'" She > claims that, unless 'literature is carefully taught by a skilled > teacher who knows how to make the text come alive and who is able to > make the huge time commitment to help students with unfamiliar > vocabulary, grammar, and voice, I can tell you what many kids do-- > they simply don't read it. Instead, they continue to practice--and > to embed in their brains--language that some linguists refer to quite > descriptively as 'primitive.'" > John R. Searle writes in Making The Social World that language not > only moves from identifying real things to identifying imaginary > things (and metaphors connected to real things) to conceptualizations > (that are approached through metaphor), but it also creates a new > reality through laws that show themselves to be real in that they > entail punishment and create jobs for those who carry out those > punishments--which brings us back to Bill's reference to "shall," > where "the party of the first part" shall carry out a certain act or > be subject to punishment. Thus, we move beyond the being "primitive" > in our use of language. > This shows how important grammarians are to educators. And it shows > why language seems so intimidating to our students. They sense its > power to create the social world that has grown out of the natural > world in which language first evolved. > Shall the world ever recognize the worth of the grammarian? Time > will tell. Meanwhile, I hope to hear more about how these modals > became conceptual shells encasing our words with judgment. > > Gregg > > > On Jun 5, 2011, at 7:31 PM, Spruiell, William C wrote: > >> >> I suspect at least some of the motivation for "shall" in this >> statement is the statement's status as a fulfillment of a legal >> requirement. "Shall" isn't just (very) formal in American English, >> it's heavily associated with legal and pseudo-legal genres (like >> bylaws). Ask someone to imitate legalese, and "shall" will >> typically show up right alongside "party of the first part" and >> "make known and publish." I think OSHA requires a sign like that, >> although I don't think the "shall" part is mandatory (if it's not >> OSHA, then it's just about every state government in the country). >> >> >> >> --- Bill Spruiell >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Kathleen Ward <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> I've always heard it called the deonatic use ofnthe modal -- >> something >> that imposes an obligation on the hearer of an utterance. It is a >> characteristic of modals in English that they have both >> deonatic and >> epistemically (degree of certainty) uses. >> >> Kathleen M. Ware. >> >> University of California, Davis >> >> >> On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >>> Friends have just returned from their annual pilgrimage to >>> Ashland, Oregon, and on one flight they saw a sign in the flight >>> attendants' area that said, "Hands shall be washed before serving >>> food or drink." >>> >>> >>> >>> What is this use of "shall" called? >>> >>> Jane Saral >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's >> web interface at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and >> select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 6 Jun 2011 05:31:23 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Carolyn Hartnett <[log in to unmask]> Subject: This is Sad....... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1652758959-1307363483=:18708" --0-1652758959-1307363483=:18708 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello,How are you doing?I'm sorry for not informing you about my trip to London,England.I had to visit a resort in London,England..Unfortunately i got mugged at GUN POINT by some muggers,all cash,credit card and phone were stolen away.It was a scary experience but glad i still have my lives and passports.I've been to the Embassy but they are not been 100% supportive.Return flight leaves in few hours but having troubles sorting out the hotel bills and the hotel manager won't allow me to leave until i settle the bill. I was wondering if you can loan me some money to get the hotel bills sort out and also get a cab to the airport,I will definitely refund it as soon as i get back.All i need is 1,850pounds but will appreciate whatsoever you can afford to loan me right now.You can have it wired to my name via Western Union..Check:www.westernunion.com/locator to find nearest western union nearby..Here is the details to get it to me: Receiver's Name : Carolyn HartnettLocation : 10b Archway Mall�London, N195RG ,United Kingdom. Here are the details needed for me to pick the money up here. MTCN........................Sender's Name.........Amount sent.............. Email me the transfer details(MTCN#) as soon as you are done with the transfer including the amount sent..Let me know if you are heading out to western union and how soon will you be back. I owe you Alot.Await your response To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1652758959-1307363483=:18708 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,How are you doing?I'm sorry for not informing you about my trip to London,England.I had to visit a resort in London,England..Unfortunately i got mugged at GUN POINT by some muggers,all cash,credit card and phone were stolen away.It was a scary experience but glad i still have my lives and passports.I've been to the Embassy but they are not been 100% supportive.Return flight leaves in few hours but having troubles sorting out the hotel bills and the hotel manager won't allow me to leave until i settle the bill. I was wondering if you can loan me some money to get the hotel bills sort out and also get a cab to the airport,I will definitely refund it as soon as i get back.All i need is 1,850pounds but will appreciate whatsoever you can afford to loan me right now.You can have it wired to my name via Western Union..Check:www.westernunion.com/locator to find nearest western union nearby..Here is the details to get it to me: Receiver's Name : Carolyn Hartnett Location : 10b Archway Mall  London, N195RG ,United Kingdom. Here are the details needed for me to pick the money up here. MTCN........................ Sender's Name......... Amount sent.............. Email me the transfer details(MTCN#) as soon as you are done with the transfer including the amount sent..Let me know if you are heading out to western union and how soon will you be back. I owe you Alot. Await your response

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1652758959-1307363483=:18708-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 07:55:38 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: This is Sad....... In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary�e6ba6e8d7aed516404a50a9f17 --90e6ba6e8d7aed516404a50a9f17 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I hope most aren't fooled by this kind of spam, but just in case, please do not respond to the message below. Carolyn's email account has been compromised, and the spam snuck (sorry, I just won't say "sneaked") past our server's filter. I will adjust accordingly. John Alexander On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Carolyn Hartnett <[log in to unmask] > wrote: > Hello,How are you doing?I'm sorry for not informing you about my trip to > London,England.I had to visit a resort in London,England..Unfortunately i > got mugged at GUN POINT by some muggers,all cash,credit card and phone were > stolen away.It was a scary experience but glad i still have my lives and > passports.I've been to the Embassy but they are not been 100% > supportive.Return flight leaves in few hours but having troubles sorting out > the hotel bills and the hotel manager won't allow me to leave until i settle > the bill. > > I was wondering if you can loan me some money to get the hotel bills sort > out and also get a cab to the airport,I will definitely refund it as soon as > i get back.All i need is 1,850pounds but will appreciate whatsoever you can > afford to loan me right now.You can have it wired to my name via Western > Union..Check:www.westernunion.com/locator to find nearest western union > nearby..Here is the details to get it to me: > > Receiver's Name : Carolyn Hartnett > Location : 10b Archway Mall > London, N195RG ,United Kingdom. > > > Here are the details needed for me to pick the money up here. > > MTCN........................ > Sender's Name......... > Amount sent.............. > > > Email me the transfer details(MTCN#) as soon as you are done with the > transfer including the amount sent..Let me know if you are heading out to > western union and how soon will you be back. > > I owe you Alot. > Await your response > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --90e6ba6e8d7aed516404a50a9f17 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I hope most aren't fooled by this kind of spam, but just in case, please do not respond to the message below. Carolyn's email account has been compromised, and the spam snuck (sorry, I just won't say "sneaked") past our server's filter. I will adjust accordingly.

John Alexander

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Carolyn Hartnett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hello,How are you doing?I'm sorry for not informing you about my trip to London,England.I had to visit a resort in London,England..Unfortunately i got mugged at GUN POINT by some muggers,all cash,credit card and phone were stolen away.It was a scary experience but glad i still have my lives and passports.I've been to the Embassy but they are not been 100% supportive.Return flight leaves in few hours but having troubles sorting out the hotel bills and the hotel manager won't allow me to leave until i settle the bill. I was wondering if you can loan me some money to get the hotel bills sort out and also get a cab to the airport,I will definitely refund it as soon as i get back.All i need is 1,850pounds but will appreciate whatsoever you can afford to loan me right now.You can have it wired to my name via Western Union..Check:www.westernunion.com/locator to find nearest western union nearby..Here is the details to get it to me: Receiver's Name : Carolyn Hartnett Location : 10b Archway Mall� London, N195RG ,United Kingdom. Here are the details needed for me to pick the money up here. MTCN........................ Sender's Name......... Amount sent.............. Email me the transfer details(MTCN#) as soon as you are done with the transfer including the amount sent..Let me know if you are heading out to western union and how soon will you be back. I owe you Alot. Await your response

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --90e6ba6e8d7aed516404a50a9f17-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 06:00:50 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Carolyn Hartnett <[log in to unmask]> Subject: This is Sad....... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1410210586-1307365250=:41273" --0-1410210586-1307365250=:41273 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello,How are you doing?I'm sorry for not informing you about my trip to London,England.I had to visit a resort in London,England..Unfortunately i got mugged at GUN POINT by some muggers,all cash,credit card and phone were stolen away.It was a scary experience but glad i still have my lives and passports.I've been to the Embassy but they are not been 100% supportive.Return flight leaves in few hours but having troubles sorting out the hotel bills and the hotel manager won't allow me to leave until i settle the bill. I was wondering if you can loan me some money to get the hotel bills sort out and also get a cab to the airport,I will definitely refund it as soon as i get back.All i need is 1,850pounds but will appreciate whatsoever you can afford to loan me right now.You can have it wired to my name via Western Union..Check:www.westernunion.com/locator to find nearest western union nearby..Here is the details to get it to me: Receiver's Name : Carolyn HartnettLocation : 10b Archway Mall�London, N195RG ,United Kingdom. Here are the details needed for me to pick the money up here. MTCN........................Sender's Name.........Amount sent.............. Email me the transfer details(MTCN#) as soon as you are done with the transfer including the amount sent..Let me know if you are heading out to western union and how soon will you be back. I owe you Alot.Await your response To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1410210586-1307365250=:41273 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,How are you doing?I'm sorry for not informing you about my trip to London,England.I had to visit a resort in London,England..Unfortunately i got mugged at GUN POINT by some muggers,all cash,credit card and phone were stolen away.It was a scary experience but glad i still have my lives and passports.I've been to the Embassy but they are not been 100% supportive.Return flight leaves in few hours but having troubles sorting out the hotel bills and the hotel manager won't allow me to leave until i settle the bill. I was wondering if you can loan me some money to get the hotel bills sort out and also get a cab to the airport,I will definitely refund it as soon as i get back.All i need is 1,850pounds but will appreciate whatsoever you can afford to loan me right now.You can have it wired to my name via Western Union..Check:www.westernunion.com/locator to find nearest western union nearby..Here is the details to get it to me: Receiver's Name : Carolyn Hartnett Location : 10b Archway Mall  London, N195RG ,United Kingdom. Here are the details needed for me to pick the money up here. MTCN........................ Sender's Name......... Amount sent.............. Email me the transfer details(MTCN#) as soon as you are done with the transfer including the amount sent..Let me know if you are heading out to western union and how soon will you be back. I owe you Alot. Await your response

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1410210586-1307365250=:41273-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 08:51:06 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: This is Sad....... In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary�e6ba6135be4affd904a50b666f --90e6ba6135be4affd904a50b666f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 To all those who might flee the list at the first sign of continued spam--I have temporarily put Carolyn's ability to post on hold until she resolves her account security issue. John Alexander On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:55 AM, John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask] > wrote: > I hope most aren't fooled by this kind of spam, but just in case, please do > not respond to the message below. Carolyn's email account has been > compromised, and the spam snuck (sorry, I just won't say "sneaked") past our > server's filter. I will adjust accordingly. > > John Alexander > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Carolyn Hartnett < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Hello,How are you doing?I'm sorry for not informing you about my trip to >> London,England.I had to visit a resort in London,England..Unfortunately i >> got mugged at GUN POINT by some muggers,all cash,credit card and phone were >> stolen away.It was a scary experience but glad i still have my lives and >> passports.I've been to the Embassy but they are not been 100% >> supportive.Return flight leaves in few hours but having troubles sorting out >> the hotel bills and the hotel manager won't allow me to leave until i settle >> the bill. >> >> I was wondering if you can loan me some money to get the hotel bills sort >> out and also get a cab to the airport,I will definitely refund it as soon as >> i get back.All i need is 1,850pounds but will appreciate whatsoever you can >> afford to loan me right now.You can have it wired to my name via Western >> Union..Check:www.westernunion.com/locator to find nearest western union >> nearby..Here is the details to get it to me: >> >> Receiver's Name : Carolyn Hartnett >> Location : 10b Archway Mall >> London, N195RG ,United Kingdom. >> >> >> Here are the details needed for me to pick the money up here. >> >> MTCN........................ >> Sender's Name......... >> Amount sent.............. >> >> >> Email me the transfer details(MTCN#) as soon as you are done with the >> transfer including the amount sent..Let me know if you are heading out to >> western union and how soon will you be back. >> >> I owe you Alot. >> Await your response >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface >> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or >> leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --90e6ba6135be4affd904a50b666f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To all those who might flee the list at the first sign of continued spam--I have temporarily put Carolyn's ability to post on hold until she resolves her account security issue.

John Alexander

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:55 AM, John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I hope most aren't fooled by this kind of spam, but just in case, please do not respond to the message below. Carolyn's email account has been compromised, and the spam snuck (sorry, I just won't say "sneaked") past our server's filter. I will adjust accordingly.

John Alexander

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Carolyn Hartnett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hello,How are you doing?I'm sorry for not informing you about my trip to London,England.I had to visit a resort in London,England..Unfortunately i got mugged at GUN POINT by some muggers,all cash,credit card and phone were stolen away.It was a scary experience but glad i still have my lives and passports.I've been to the Embassy but they are not been 100% supportive.Return flight leaves in few hours but having troubles sorting out the hotel bills and the hotel manager won't allow me to leave until i settle the bill. I was wondering if you can loan me some money to get the hotel bills sort out and also get a cab to the airport,I will definitely refund it as soon as i get back.All i need is 1,850pounds but will appreciate whatsoever you can afford to loan me right now.You can have it wired to my name via Western Union..Check:www.westernunion.com/locator to find nearest western union nearby..Here is the details to get it to me: Receiver's Name : Carolyn Hartnett Location : 10b Archway Mall� London, N195RG ,United Kingdom. Here are the details needed for me to pick the money up here. MTCN........................ Sender's Name......... Amount sent.............. Email me the transfer details(MTCN#) as soon as you are done with the transfer including the amount sent..Let me know if you are heading out to western union and how soon will you be back. I owe you Alot. Await your response

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --90e6ba6135be4affd904a50b666f-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 10:44:22 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Gregg Heacock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: verb tense In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-41-510064171 --Apple-Mail-41-510064171 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Craig, You have identified another book, Language, Usage, and Cognition, I have opened, read a bit, and put down for awhile to read further on the brain. Because you have brought it into this discussion, I would like to offer Joan Bybee's first paragraph on the nature of language as an introduction to others: "Sand dunes have apparent regularities of shape and structure, yet they also exhibit considerable variation among individual instances, as well as gradience and change over time. If we want to gain understanding of phenomena that are both structured and variable, it is necessary to look beyond the mutable surface forms to the forces that produce the patterns observed. Language is also a phenomenon that exhibits apparent structure and regularity of patterning while at the same time showing considerable variation at all levels: languages differ from one another while still being patently shaped by the same principles; comparable constructions in different languages serve similar functions and are based on similar principles, yet differ from one another in specifiable ways; utterances within a language differ from one another while still exhibiting the same structural patterns; languages change over time, but in fairly regular ways. Thus is follows that a theory of language could reasonably be focused on the dynamic processes that create languages and give them both their structure and their variance." She goes on to say that these domain-general processes "would be those that can be shown to operate in areas of human cognition other than language." The reading I have taken up on the brain adds strength Bybee's conclusion. Images use less energy than words; thus, metaphors, like the sand dunes, are easier for the brain to handle than words resulting from conceptualization. English, being a bastard language, not so entailed to a mother tongue, offers us insights into the processes of the brain that come with their own entailments. The sensory-motor system, reliant on directionality--in and out, here and there, up and down, over, under, and through--provide a metaphoric aspect to our verbs much as prefixes give to the roots of Latin-based words: shut in, shut out, shut up, shut down, drawn in, drawn out, drawn under, drawn through. Each provides a narrative that is strengthen by the schema of the narrative of our own lives. Two books, supposedly unrelated to grammar, that I would recommend are Your Brain at Work by David Rock and Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die by Chip Heath and Dan Heath. Grammar provides students greater access to understanding their brains. So, for those who think our brains are wired for language, they are part right. Our brains are wired for sensory-motor experience, social interaction, and survival. Language is the logical connection, bridging gaps and exploring their mysteries. I appreciate that you and others on this site have explored this terrain much more than I. There is much to learn from all of you. Gregg On Jun 6, 2011, at 5:25 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > Gregg, > The spelling I am used to seeing is "deontic" and "epistemic" > for any > of you who want to do more research. > My Old English is very rusty and the books are in Albany, but > "shall" > derived from a verb meaning something like "be obligated, owe." It > actually grammaticalized earlier than "will" (from "willan"? to want? > Someone can correct me on that one.) "Cunnan" meant "know". "Magan" > meant "have power". For a very good source on grammaticalization, I > would recommend Joan Bybee's "Language, Usage, and Cognition" > (Cambridge, 2010). > These modals invert with the subject to form questions, take a > negative > directly after, and don't have a third person inflection for present > tense. They have also lost their ability to act as the main verb in a > sentence. > You raise a controversial issue that relates to our belief in > whether > grammar is innately wired into the brain or is socially semiotic, > growing in interaction with other language users over a lifetime. If > grammar is wired in, then there isn't (can't be?) a large difference > between reading/writing and speaking beyond what it takes to represent > language in graphic form and learn the largely arbitrary graphic > conventions that arrive with that. If grammar evolves in social > interaction, then we might expect a far more complex (or lexically > dense) grammar to evolve within written registers, especially within > technical fields. I believe the latter is the case, which means we > have an obligation to understand those differences and help mentor our > students along the path toward competence in those registers. This is > difficult these days precisely because knowledge about language has > been undervalued for several decades. > The great value (and occasional frustration) of ATEG is that > participants bring different perspectives to the table. These views > are certainly not shared by everyone in the group. > > Craig >> > > > Bill & Craig & Kathleen, >> Bill, I love how terms of obligation are put so politely. And, >> Craig, thank you for including Kathleen's reference to deonatic use >> and epistemical use of modals. Anyone stepping into the ATEG pool >> soon discovers the waters there run very deep, indeed. >> But I want to get back to some of what was offered by Craig in terms >> of modals. Craig, you say, "All the pure modals were once main >> verbs. . ." Do you have any instances of their use in this manner? >> I have no doubt that you are correct. >> I also appreciate that you add that now they "serve to ground a >> statement within the judgement of the speaker." Too often we miss >> point of view. But this reminds me of something I have barely read, >> Constructions at Work by Adele E. Goldberg, writing about argument >> structure constructions. This reminds me of another work I have read >> from beginning to end, Endangered Minds by Jane M. Healy, in which >> she writes that forms of language that contain "more complex >> grammatical devices are called elaborated codes. Those conveying >> ideas without such complex grammatical structures are called >> restricted codes and are the ones viewed as more 'primitive.'" She >> claims that, unless 'literature is carefully taught by a skilled >> teacher who knows how to make the text come alive and who is able to >> make the huge time commitment to help students with unfamiliar >> vocabulary, grammar, and voice, I can tell you what many kids do-- >> they simply don't read it. Instead, they continue to practice--and >> to embed in their brains--language that some linguists refer to quite >> descriptively as 'primitive.'" >> John R. Searle writes in Making The Social World that language not >> only moves from identifying real things to identifying imaginary >> things (and metaphors connected to real things) to conceptualizations >> (that are approached through metaphor), but it also creates a new >> reality through laws that show themselves to be real in that they >> entail punishment and create jobs for those who carry out those >> punishments--which brings us back to Bill's reference to "shall," >> where "the party of the first part" shall carry out a certain act or >> be subject to punishment. Thus, we move beyond the being "primitive" >> in our use of language. >> This shows how important grammarians are to educators. And it shows >> why language seems so intimidating to our students. They sense its >> power to create the social world that has grown out of the natural >> world in which language first evolved. >> Shall the world ever recognize the worth of the grammarian? Time >> will tell. Meanwhile, I hope to hear more about how these modals >> became conceptual shells encasing our words with judgment. >> >> Gregg >> >> >> On Jun 5, 2011, at 7:31 PM, Spruiell, William C wrote: >> >>> >>> I suspect at least some of the motivation for "shall" in this >>> statement is the statement's status as a fulfillment of a legal >>> requirement. "Shall" isn't just (very) formal in American English, >>> it's heavily associated with legal and pseudo-legal genres (like >>> bylaws). Ask someone to imitate legalese, and "shall" will >>> typically show up right alongside "party of the first part" and >>> "make known and publish." I think OSHA requires a sign like that, >>> although I don't think the "shall" part is mandatory (if it's not >>> OSHA, then it's just about every state government in the country). >>> >>> >>> >>> --- Bill Spruiell >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Kathleen Ward <[log in to unmask]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I've always heard it called the deonatic use ofnthe modal -- >>> something >>> that imposes an obligation on the hearer of an utterance. It >>> is a >>> characteristic of modals in English that they have both >>> deonatic and >>> epistemically (degree of certainty) uses. >>> >>> Kathleen M. Ware. >>> >>> University of California, Davis >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> >>> wrote: >>>> Friends have just returned from their annual pilgrimage to >>>> Ashland, Oregon, and on one flight they saw a sign in the flight >>>> attendants' area that said, "Hands shall be washed before serving >>>> food or drink." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What is this use of "shall" called? >>>> >>>> Jane Saral >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>> interface at: >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>> >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's >>> web interface at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and >>> select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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-41-510064171 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Craig,

You have identified another book, Language, Usage, and Cognition, I have opened, read a bit, and put down for awhile to read further on the brain.  Because you have brought it into this discussion, I would like to offer Joan Bybee's first paragraph on the nature of language as an introduction to others:

"Sand dunes have apparent regularities of shape and structure, yet they also exhibit considerable variation among individual instances, as well as gradience and change over time.  If we want to gain understanding of phenomena that are both structured and variable, it is necessary to look beyond the mutable surface forms to the forces that produce the patterns observed.  Language is also a phenomenon that exhibits apparent structure and regularity of patterning while at the same time showing considerable variation at all levels:  languages differ from one another while still being patently shaped by the same principles; comparable constructions in different languages serve similar functions and are based on similar principles, yet differ from one another in specifiable ways; utterances within a language differ from one another while still exhibiting the same structural patterns; languages change over time, but in fairly regular ways.  Thus is follows that a theory of language could reasonably be focused on the dynamic processes that create languages and give them both their structure and their variance."  She goes on to say that these domain-general processes "would be those that can be shown to operate in areas of human cognition other than language."

The reading I have taken up on the brain adds strength Bybee's conclusion.  Images use less energy than words; thus, metaphors, like the sand dunes, are easier for the brain to handle than words resulting from conceptualization.  English, being a bastard language, not so entailed to a mother tongue, offers us insights into the processes of the brain that come with their own entailments.  The sensory-motor system, reliant on directionality--in and out, here and there, up and down, over, under, and through--provide a metaphoric aspect to our verbs much as prefixes give to the roots of Latin-based words:  shut in, shut out, shut up, shut down, drawn in, drawn out, drawn under, drawn through.  Each provides a narrative that is strengthen by the schema of the narrative of our own lives.  Two books, supposedly unrelated to grammar, that I would recommend are  Your Brain at Work by David Rock and Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die by Chip Heath and Dan Heath.

Grammar provides students greater access to understanding their brains.  So, for those who think our brains are wired for language, they are part right.  Our brains are wired for sensory-motor experience, social interaction, and survival.  Language is the logical connection, bridging gaps and exploring their mysteries.

I appreciate that you and others on this site have explored this terrain much more than I.  There is much to learn from all of you.

Gregg

On Jun 6, 2011, at 5:25 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Gregg,

    The spelling I am used to seeing is "deontic" and "epistemic" for any

of you who want to do more research.

    My Old English is very rusty and the books are in Albany, but "shall"

derived from a verb meaning something like "be obligated, owe." It

actually grammaticalized earlier than "will" (from "willan"? to want?

Someone can correct me on that one.) "Cunnan" meant "know". "Magan"

meant "have power". For a very good source on grammaticalization, I

would recommend Joan Bybee's "Language, Usage, and Cognition"

(Cambridge, 2010).

   These modals invert with the subject to form questions, take a negative

directly after, and don't have a third person inflection for present

tense. They have also lost their ability to act as the main verb in a

sentence.

    You raise a controversial issue that relates to our belief in whether

grammar is innately wired into the brain or is socially semiotic,

growing in interaction with other language users over a lifetime. If

grammar is wired in, then there isn't (can't be?) a large difference

between reading/writing and speaking beyond what it takes to represent

language in graphic form and learn the largely arbitrary graphic

conventions that arrive with that. If grammar evolves in social

interaction, then we might expect a far more complex (or lexically

dense) grammar to evolve within written registers, especially within

technical fields. I believe the latter is the case, which means we

have an obligation to understand those differences and help mentor our

students along the path toward competence in those registers. This is

difficult these days precisely because knowledge about language has

been undervalued for several decades.

    The great value (and occasional frustration) of ATEG is that

participants bring different perspectives to the table. These views

are certainly not shared by everyone in the group.

Craig

 Bill & Craig & Kathleen,

Bill, I love how terms of obligation are put so politely.  And,

Craig, thank you for including Kathleen's reference to deonatic use

and epistemical use of modals.  Anyone stepping into the ATEG pool

soon discovers the waters there run very deep, indeed.

But I want to get back to some of what was offered by Craig in terms

of modals.  Craig, you say, "All the pure modals were once main

verbs. . ."  Do you have any instances of their use in this manner?

I have no doubt that you are correct.

I also appreciate that you add that now they "serve to ground a

statement within the judgement of the speaker."  Too often we miss

point of view.  But this reminds me of something I have barely read,

Constructions at Work by Adele E. Goldberg, writing about argument

structure constructions.  This reminds me of another work I have read

from beginning to end, Endangered Minds by Jane M. Healy, in which

she writes that forms of language that contain "more complex

grammatical devices are called elaborated codes.  Those conveying

ideas without such complex grammatical structures are called

restricted codes and are the ones viewed as more 'primitive.'"  She

claims that, unless 'literature is carefully taught by a skilled

teacher who knows how to make the text come alive and who is able to

make the huge time commitment to help students with unfamiliar

vocabulary, grammar, and voice, I can tell you what many kids do--

they simply don't read it.  Instead, they continue to practice--and

to embed in their brains--language that some linguists refer to quite

descriptively as 'primitive.'"

John R. Searle writes in Making The Social World that language not

only moves from identifying real things to identifying imaginary

things (and metaphors connected to real things) to conceptualizations

(that are approached through metaphor), but it also creates a new

reality through laws that show themselves to be real in that they

entail punishment and create jobs for those who carry out those

punishments--which brings us back to Bill's reference to "shall,"

where "the party of the first part" shall carry out a certain act or

be subject to punishment.  Thus, we move beyond the being "primitive"

in our use of language.

This shows how important grammarians are to educators.  And it shows

why language seems so intimidating to our students.  They sense its

power to create the social world that has grown out of the natural

world in which language first evolved.

Shall the world ever recognize the worth of the grammarian?  Time

will tell.  Meanwhile, I hope to hear more about how these modals

became conceptual shells encasing our words with judgment.

Gregg

On Jun 5, 2011, at 7:31 PM, Spruiell, William C wrote:

I suspect at least some of the motivation for "shall" in this

statement is the statement's status as a fulfillment of a legal

requirement. "Shall" isn't just (very) formal in American English,

it's heavily associated with legal and pseudo-legal genres (like

bylaws). Ask someone to imitate legalese, and "shall" will

typically show up right alongside "party of the first part" and

"make known and publish." I think OSHA requires a sign like that,

although I don't think the "shall" part is mandatory (if it's not

OSHA, then it's just about every state government in the country).

--- Bill Spruiell

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Kathleen Ward <[log in to unmask]>

wrote:

    I've always heard it called the deonatic use ofnthe modal --

something

    that imposes an obligation on the hearer of an utterance.  It is a

    characteristic of modals in English that they have both

deonatic and

    epistemically (degree of certainty) uses.

    Kathleen M. Ware.

    University of California, Davis

    On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]>

wrote:

Friends have just returned from their annual pilgrimage to

Ashland, Oregon, and on one flight they saw a sign in the flight

attendants' area that said, "Hands shall be washed before serving

food or drink."

What is this use of "shall" called?

Jane Saral

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

interface at:

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

and select "Join or leave the list"

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

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

web interface at:

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

    and select "Join or leave the list"

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

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

interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and

select "Join or leave the list"

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

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

interface at:

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

and select "Join or leave the list"

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

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

at:

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

and select "Join or leave the list"

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

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

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

and select "Join or leave the list"

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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-41-510064171-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 18:06:23 -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: "T. J. Ray" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: verb tense MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_SW_1081388520_1307487983_mpa=" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_SW_1081388520_1307487983_mpaContent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Jane, My understanding has always been that "shall" and "will" pattern with the base form of verbs to form the future tense, "shall" taking the first person as its subject while "will" takes the second and third persons as its subject. When, however, a very emphatic or commanding tone is involved, "shall" patterns with the second and third persons and "will" patterns with the first person. On Saturday 06/04/2011 at 9:37 pm, Jane Saral wrote: > > Friends have just returned from their annual pilgrimage to Ashland, > Oregon, and on one flight they saw a sign in the flight attendants' > area that said, "Hands shall be washed before serving food or drink." > > What is this use of "shall" called? > > Jane SaralTo join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's > web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and > select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at > http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_1081388520_1307487983_mpaContent-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jane,

My understanding has always been that "shall" and "will" pattern with the base form of

verbs to form the future tense, "shall" taking the first person as its subject while "will"

takes the second and third persons as its subject.  When, however, a very emphatic or 

commanding tone is involved, "shall" patterns with the second and third persons and "will" patterns with

the first person.

On Saturday 06/04/2011 at 9:37 pm, Jane Saral wrote:

Friends have just returned from their annual pilgrimage to Ashland, Oregon, and on one flight they saw a sign in the flight attendants' area that said, "Hands shall be washed before serving food or drink."

 

What is this use of "shall" called?

 

Jane Saral

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_1081388520_1307487983_mpa=-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 18:09:25 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "T. J. Ray" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: verb tense MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_SW_316069676_1307488165_mpa=" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_SW_316069676_1307488165_mpaContent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Craig, The OE infinitive of "shall" was sculan. Its preterite form was scolde. tj On Monday 06/06/2011 at 7:35 am, Craig Hancock wrote: > Gregg, > The spelling I am used to seeing is "deontic" and "epistemic" > for any > of you who want to do more research. > My Old English is very rusty and the books are in Albany, but > "shall" > derived from a verb meaning something like "be obligated, owe." It > actually grammaticalized earlier than "will" (from "willan"? to want? > Someone can correct me on that one.) "Cunnan" meant "know". "Magan" > meant "have power". For a very good source on grammaticalization, I > would recommend Joan Bybee's "Language, Usage, and Cognition" > (Cambridge, 2010). > These modals invert with the subject to form questions, take a > negative > directly after, and don't have a third person inflection for present > tense. They have also lost their ability to act as the main verb in a > sentence. > You raise a controversial issue that relates to our belief in > whether > grammar is innately wired into the brain or is socially semiotic, > growing in interaction with other language users over a lifetime. If > grammar is wired in, then there isn't (can't be?) a large difference > between reading/writing and speaking beyond what it takes to represent > language in graphic form and learn the largely arbitrary graphic > conventions that arrive with that. If grammar evolves in social > interaction, then we might expect a far more complex (or lexically > dense) grammar to evolve within written registers, especially within > technical fields. I believe the latter is the case, which means we > have an obligation to understand those differences and help mentor our > students along the path toward competence in those registers. This is > difficult these days precisely because knowledge about language has > been undervalued for several decades. > The great value (and occasional frustration) of ATEG is that > participants bring different perspectives to the table. These views > are certainly not shared by everyone in the group. > > Craig > > > > > Bill & Craig & Kathleen, >> >> Bill, I love how terms of obligation are put so politely. And, >> Craig, thank you for including Kathleen's reference to deonatic use >> and epistemical use of modals. Anyone stepping into the ATEG pool >> soon discovers the waters there run very deep, indeed. >> But I want to get back to some of what was offered by Craig in terms >> of modals. Craig, you say, "All the pure modals were once main >> verbs. . ." Do you have any instances of their use in this manner? >> I have no doubt that you are correct. >> I also appreciate that you add that now they "serve to ground a >> statement within the judgement of the speaker." Too often we miss >> point of view. But this reminds me of something I have barely read, >> Constructions at Work by Adele E. Goldberg, writing about argument >> structure constructions. This reminds me of another work I have read >> from beginning to end, Endangered Minds by Jane M. Healy, in which >> she writes that forms of language that contain "more complex >> grammatical devices are called elaborated codes. Those conveying >> ideas without such complex grammatical structures are called >> restricted codes and are the ones viewed as more 'primitive.'" She >> claims that, unless 'literature is carefully taught by a skilled >> teacher who knows how to make the text come alive and who is able to >> make the huge time commitment to help students with unfamiliar >> vocabulary, grammar, and voice, I can tell you what many kids do-- >> they simply don't read it. Instead, they continue to practice--and >> to embed in their brains--language that some linguists refer to quite >> descriptively as 'primitive.'" >> John R. Searle writes in Making The Social World that language not >> only moves from identifying real things to identifying imaginary >> things (and metaphors connected to real things) to conceptualizations >> (that are approached through metaphor), but it also creates a new >> reality through laws that show themselves to be real in that they >> entail punishment and create jobs for those who carry out those >> punishments--which brings us back to Bill's reference to "shall," >> where "the party of the first part" shall carry out a certain act or >> be subject to punishment. Thus, we move beyond the being "primitive" >> in our use of language. >> This shows how important grammarians are to educators. And it shows >> why language seems so intimidating to our students. They sense its >> power to create the social world that has grown out of the natural >> world in which language first evolved. >> Shall the world ever recognize the worth of the grammarian? Time >> will tell. Meanwhile, I hope to hear more about how these modals >> became conceptual shells encasing our words with judgment. >> >> Gregg >> >> >> On Jun 5, 2011, at 7:31 PM, Spruiell, William C wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> I suspect at least some of the motivation for "shall" in this >>> statement is the statement's status as a fulfillment of a legal >>> requirement. "Shall" isn't just (very) formal in American English, >>> it's heavily associated with legal and pseudo-legal genres (like >>> bylaws). Ask someone to imitate legalese, and "shall" will >>> typically show up right alongside "party of the first part" and >>> "make known and publish." I think OSHA requires a sign like that, >>> although I don't think the "shall" part is mandatory (if it's not >>> OSHA, then it's just about every state government in the country). >>> >>> >>> >>> --- Bill Spruiell >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Kathleen Ward <[log in to unmask]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I've always heard it called the deonatic use ofnthe modal -- >>> something >>> that imposes an obligation on the hearer of an utterance. It >>> is a >>> characteristic of modals in English that they have both >>> deonatic and >>> epistemically (degree of certainty) uses. >>> >>> Kathleen M. Ware. >>> >>> University of California, Davis >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Friends have just returned from their annual pilgrimage to >>>> Ashland, Oregon, and on one flight they saw a sign in the flight >>>> attendants' area that said, "Hands shall be washed before serving >>>> food or drink." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What is this use of "shall" called? >>>> >>>> Jane Saral >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>> interface at: >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>> >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's >>> web interface at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and >>> select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_316069676_1307488165_mpaContent-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig,

The OE infinitive of "shall" was sculan.  Its preterite form was

scolde.

tj

On Monday 06/06/2011 at 7:35 am, Craig Hancock wrote:

Gregg,
     The spelling I am used to seeing is "deontic" and "epistemic" for any
of you who want to do more research.
     My Old English is very rusty and the books are in Albany, but "shall"
derived from a verb meaning something like "be obligated, owe." It
actually grammaticalized earlier than "will" (from "willan"? to want?
Someone can correct me on that one.) "Cunnan" meant "know". "Magan"
meant "have power". For a very good source on grammaticalization, I
would recommend Joan Bybee's "Language, Usage, and Cognition"
(Cambridge, 2010).
    These modals invert with the subject to form questions, take a negative
directly after, and don't have a third person inflection for present
tense. They have also lost their ability to act as the main verb in a
sentence.
     You raise a controversial issue that relates to our belief in whether
grammar is innately wired into the brain or is socially semiotic,
growing in interaction with other language users over a lifetime. If
grammar is wired in, then there isn't (can't be?) a large difference
between reading/writing and speaking beyond what it takes to represent
language in graphic form and learn the largely arbitrary graphic
conventions that arrive with that. If grammar evolves in social
interaction, then we might expect a far more complex (or lexically
dense) grammar to evolve within written registers, especially within
technical fields. I believe the latter is the case, which means we
have an obligation to understand those differences and help mentor our
students along the path toward competence in those registers. This is
difficult these days precisely because knowledge about language has
been undervalued for several decades.
     The great value (and occasional frustration) of ATEG is that
participants bring different perspectives to the table. These views
are certainly not shared by everyone in the group.

Craig
      >


Bill & Craig & Kathleen,

Bill, I love how terms of obligation are put so politely. And,
Craig, thank you for including Kathleen's reference to deonatic use
and epistemical use of modals. Anyone stepping into the ATEG pool
soon discovers the waters there run very deep, indeed.
But I want to get back to some of what was offered by Craig in terms
of modals. Craig, you say, "All the pure modals were once main
verbs. . ." Do you have any instances of their use in this manner?
I have no doubt that you are correct.
I also appreciate that you add that now they "serve to ground a
statement within the judgement of the speaker." Too often we miss
point of view. But this reminds me of something I have barely read,
Constructions at Work by Adele E. Goldberg, writing about argument
structure constructions. This reminds me of another work I have read
from beginning to end, Endangered Minds by Jane M. Healy, in which
she writes that forms of language that contain "more complex
grammatical devices are called elaborated codes. Those conveying
ideas without such complex grammatical structures are called
restricted codes and are the ones viewed as more 'primitive.'" She
claims that, unless 'literature is carefully taught by a skilled
teacher who knows how to make the text come alive and who is able to
make the huge time commitment to help students with unfamiliar
vocabulary, grammar, and voice, I can tell you what many kids do--
they simply don't read it. Instead, they continue to practice--and
to embed in their brains--language that some linguists refer to quite
descriptively as 'primitive.'"
John R. Searle writes in Making The Social World that language not
only moves from identifying real things to identifying imaginary
things (and metaphors connected to real things) to conceptualizations
(that are approached through metaphor), but it also creates a new
reality through laws that show themselves to be real in that they
entail punishment and create jobs for those who carry out those
punishments--which brings us back to Bill's reference to "shall,"
where "the party of the first part" shall carry out a certain act or
be subject to punishment. Thus, we move beyond the being "primitive"
in our use of language.
This shows how important grammarians are to educators. And it shows
why language seems so intimidating to our students. They sense its
power to create the social world that has grown out of the natural
world in which language first evolved.
Shall the world ever recognize the worth of the grammarian? Time
will tell. Meanwhile, I hope to hear more about how these modals
became conceptual shells encasing our words with judgment.

Gregg


On Jun 5, 2011, at 7:31 PM, Spruiell, William C wrote:

I suspect at least some of the motivation for "shall" in this
statement is the statement's status as a fulfillment of a legal
requirement. "Shall" isn't just (very) formal in American English,
it's heavily associated with legal and pseudo-legal genres (like
bylaws). Ask someone to imitate legalese, and "shall" will
typically show up right alongside "party of the first part" and
"make known and publish." I think OSHA requires a sign like that,
although I don't think the "shall" part is mandatory (if it's not
OSHA, then it's just about every state government in the country).



--- Bill Spruiell






On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Kathleen Ward <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

      I've always heard it called the deonatic use ofnthe modal --
something
      that imposes an obligation on the hearer of an utterance. It is a
      characteristic of modals in English that they have both
deonatic and
      epistemically (degree of certainty) uses.

      Kathleen M. Ware.

      University of California, Davis


      On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

Friends have just returned from their annual pilgrimage to
Ashland, Oregon, and on one flight they saw a sign in the flight
attendants' area that said, "Hands shall be washed before serving
food or drink."



What is this use of "shall" called?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_316069676_1307488165_mpa=-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 20:24:14 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: verb tense MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit TJ, Thanks. I didn't trust my memory on this one. It's interesting that "shall" and "should" have separated quite a bit in meaning. It's hard for me to think of "will" and "shall" as "future tense" when all of the modals can be used in reference to future time. "I will go." "I shall go." "I may go." "I might go." "I should go." "I must go." I could go." "I can go." "I would go." "I have to go." "I ought to go." "I am going to go." I think all of these would be interpreted as judgements about an event (or possible event) which hasn't happened yet. Again, though, I think classifications are less important than the complex world of language we are attempting to classify. If you look at the way these modal forms work in action, they are typically giving present time judgements about something that hasn't occurred yet. "Will" is more definitive than "may," but they are both present time (time of the telling) predictions. Any study of the language should acknowledge that "shall" and "will" are much like the other modals. Craig> Craig, > The OE infinitive of "shall" was sculan. Its preterite form was > scolde. > > tj > > > > On Monday 06/06/2011 at 7:35 am, Craig Hancock wrote: >> Gregg, >> The spelling I am used to seeing is "deontic" and "epistemic" >> for any >> of you who want to do more research. >> My Old English is very rusty and the books are in Albany, but >> "shall" >> derived from a verb meaning something like "be obligated, owe." It >> actually grammaticalized earlier than "will" (from "willan"? to want? >> Someone can correct me on that one.) "Cunnan" meant "know". "Magan" >> meant "have power". For a very good source on grammaticalization, I >> would recommend Joan Bybee's "Language, Usage, and Cognition" >> (Cambridge, 2010). >> These modals invert with the subject to form questions, take a >> negative >> directly after, and don't have a third person inflection for present >> tense. They have also lost their ability to act as the main verb in a >> sentence. >> You raise a controversial issue that relates to our belief in >> whether >> grammar is innately wired into the brain or is socially semiotic, >> growing in interaction with other language users over a lifetime. If >> grammar is wired in, then there isn't (can't be?) a large difference >> between reading/writing and speaking beyond what it takes to represent >> language in graphic form and learn the largely arbitrary graphic >> conventions that arrive with that. If grammar evolves in social >> interaction, then we might expect a far more complex (or lexically >> dense) grammar to evolve within written registers, especially within >> technical fields. I believe the latter is the case, which means we >> have an obligation to understand those differences and help mentor our >> students along the path toward competence in those registers. This is >> difficult these days precisely because knowledge about language has >> been undervalued for several decades. >> The great value (and occasional frustration) of ATEG is that >> participants bring different perspectives to the table. These views >> are certainly not shared by everyone in the group. >> >> Craig >> > >> >> >> Bill & Craig & Kathleen, >>> >>> Bill, I love how terms of obligation are put so politely. And, >>> Craig, thank you for including Kathleen's reference to deonatic use >>> and epistemical use of modals. Anyone stepping into the ATEG pool >>> soon discovers the waters there run very deep, indeed. >>> But I want to get back to some of what was offered by Craig in terms >>> of modals. Craig, you say, "All the pure modals were once main >>> verbs. . ." Do you have any instances of their use in this manner? >>> I have no doubt that you are correct. >>> I also appreciate that you add that now they "serve to ground a >>> statement within the judgement of the speaker." Too often we miss >>> point of view. But this reminds me of something I have barely read, >>> Constructions at Work by Adele E. Goldberg, writing about argument >>> structure constructions. This reminds me of another work I have read >>> from beginning to end, Endangered Minds by Jane M. Healy, in which >>> she writes that forms of language that contain "more complex >>> grammatical devices are called elaborated codes. Those conveying >>> ideas without such complex grammatical structures are called >>> restricted codes and are the ones viewed as more 'primitive.'" She >>> claims that, unless 'literature is carefully taught by a skilled >>> teacher who knows how to make the text come alive and who is able to >>> make the huge time commitment to help students with unfamiliar >>> vocabulary, grammar, and voice, I can tell you what many kids do-- >>> they simply don't read it. Instead, they continue to practice--and >>> to embed in their brains--language that some linguists refer to quite >>> descriptively as 'primitive.'" >>> John R. Searle writes in Making The Social World that language not >>> only moves from identifying real things to identifying imaginary >>> things (and metaphors connected to real things) to conceptualizations >>> (that are approached through metaphor), but it also creates a new >>> reality through laws that show themselves to be real in that they >>> entail punishment and create jobs for those who carry out those >>> punishments--which brings us back to Bill's reference to "shall," >>> where "the party of the first part" shall carry out a certain act or >>> be subject to punishment. Thus, we move beyond the being "primitive" >>> in our use of language. >>> This shows how important grammarians are to educators. And it shows >>> why language seems so intimidating to our students. They sense its >>> power to create the social world that has grown out of the natural >>> world in which language first evolved. >>> Shall the world ever recognize the worth of the grammarian? Time >>> will tell. Meanwhile, I hope to hear more about how these modals >>> became conceptual shells encasing our words with judgment. >>> >>> Gregg >>> >>> >>> On Jun 5, 2011, at 7:31 PM, Spruiell, William C wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I suspect at least some of the motivation for "shall" in this >>>> statement is the statement's status as a fulfillment of a legal >>>> requirement. "Shall" isn't just (very) formal in American English, >>>> it's heavily associated with legal and pseudo-legal genres (like >>>> bylaws). Ask someone to imitate legalese, and "shall" will >>>> typically show up right alongside "party of the first part" and >>>> "make known and publish." I think OSHA requires a sign like that, >>>> although I don't think the "shall" part is mandatory (if it's not >>>> OSHA, then it's just about every state government in the country). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --- Bill Spruiell >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Kathleen Ward <[log in to unmask]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I've always heard it called the deonatic use ofnthe modal -- >>>> something >>>> that imposes an obligation on the hearer of an utterance. It >>>> is a >>>> characteristic of modals in English that they have both >>>> deonatic and >>>> epistemically (degree of certainty) uses. >>>> >>>> Kathleen M. Ware. >>>> >>>> University of California, Davis >>>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Friends have just returned from their annual pilgrimage to >>>>> Ashland, Oregon, and on one flight they saw a sign in the flight >>>>> attendants' area that said, "Hands shall be washed before serving >>>>> food or drink." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What is this use of "shall" called? >>>>> >>>>> Jane Saral >>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>>> interface at: >>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>>>> >>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's >>>> web interface at: >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and >>>> select "Join or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>>> interface at: >>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>>> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface >>> at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 7 Jun 2011 19:15:50 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Didn't sleep a wink MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1603728829-1307499350=:23236" --0-1603728829-1307499350=:23236 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable She was tired because she didn't sleep�the night before. � He lived�in his car for several months before finally finding an apartment. � You need to find examples that work. � (1) She played well until she was injured. (2) He was�in Berlin for a month before he went to the opera. (3) I spoke�Chinese as a child, but now I wanted to learn German. (4) We didn't know anything�about it until she finally explained everything. (5) The wolf �ate�the grandmother before Little Red Riding-Hood came into the house. . You need to find examples that work. � There is nothing the word 'had' can do for a past tense verb that the verb cannot do for itself. (1) � The past tense of "to be" is 'was' (singular) and 'were' (plural), NOT 'had been'. (2) � Trying to put 'had' in front of an irregular past tense verb forces�the irregular past participle. (3),�(4) & (5). � There is no significance to the italics in (2). I copied the block from your website and can't make�the letters�behave. � Had-for-did in the top�line above is less common than the others but appears from time to time. Hmmm. I guess (4) is also had-for-did. � The problem here is that you need to find examples that make sense using the past perfect and cannot be made to make sense any other way. That's very important for a grammar text. � By the time the police arrived, the robbers had fled. How else can you say it? By the time something happened, something else had already happened. � When�Sally started to high school, her mother had died and her father was in prison. (Dad's inside) � When�Sally started to high school, her mother had died and her father had been�in prison. (Dad's outside) � By the time something happened, something else had already happened. � .brad.07june11. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1603728829-1307499350=:23236 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

She was tired because she <hadn't slept> didn't sleep the night before.

He <had been living> lived in his car for several months before finally finding an apartment.   You need to find examples that work.   (1) She <had played> played well until she was injured. (2) He <had already been> was in Berlin for a month before he went to the opera. (3) I <had already spoken> spoke Chinese as a child, but now I wanted to learn German. (4) We <hadn't known> didn't know anything about it until she finally explained everything. (5) The wolf <had already eaten> ate the grandmother before Little Red Riding-Hood came into the house.

.

You need to find examples that work.

 

There is nothing the word 'had' can do for a past tense verb that the verb cannot do for itself. (1)

 

The past tense of "to be" is 'was' (singular) and 'were' (plural), NOT 'had been'. (2)

 

Trying to put 'had' in front of an irregular past tense verb forces the irregular past participle. (3), (4) & (5).

 

There is no significance to the italics in (2). I copied the block from your website and can't make the letters behave.

 

Had-for-did in the top line above is less common than the others but appears from time to time. Hmmm. I guess (4) is also had-for-did.

 

The problem here is that you need to find examples that make sense using the past perfect and cannot be made to make sense any other way. That's very important for a grammar text.

 

By the time the police arrived, the robbers had fled. How else can you say it? By the time something happened, something else had already happened.

 

When Sally started to high school, her mother had died and her father was in prison. (Dad's inside)

 

When Sally started to high school, her mother had died and her father had been in prison. (Dad's outside)

 

By the time something happened, something else had already happened.

 

.brad.07june11.

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1603728829-1307499350=:23236-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:49:07 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: William Hillaker <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Didn't sleep a wink In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=__Part7458DBC3.0__=" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=__Part7458DBC3.0__Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=__Part7458DBC3.1__=" --=__Part7458DBC3.1__Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-NAIMIME-Disclaimer: 1 X-NAIMIME-Modified: 1 ** Reply Requested When Convenient ** Dear Brad, I studied a couple of other languages, as I suppose most of us have, and in those other languages, the perfect exists in differing forms from English and usually with an emphasis upon the existing state resulting from another condition or event. Through all of the posts for the last couple of years concerning this matter, you established abuses or sloppiness regarding the use of 'have' as a helping verb when other options are available and perhaps the simple past alone is more efficient, but I do not recall whether you expressed a proper use of the perfect. Grace and Peace, Mr. William R. D. Hillaker, M.Div English & Humanities Flint Central High School [log in to unmask] 810.760.4032 >>> Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> 6/7/2011 10:15 PM >>> She was tired because she didn't sleep the night before. He lived in his car for several months before finally finding an apartment. You need to find examples that work. (1) She played well until she was injured. (2) He was in Berlin for a month before he went to the opera. (3) I spoke Chinese as a child, but now I wanted to learn German. (4) We didn't know anything about it until she finally explained everything. (5) The wolf ate the grandmother before Little Red Riding-Hood came into the house. . You need to find examples that work. There is nothing the word 'had' can do for a past tense verb that the verb cannot do for itself. (1) The past tense of "to be" is 'was' (singular) and 'were' (plural), NOT 'had been'. (2) Trying to put 'had' in front of an irregular past tense verb forces the irregular past participle. (3), (4) & (5). There is no significance to the italics in (2). I copied the block from your website and can't make the letters behave. Had-for-did in the top line above is less common than the others but appears from time to time. Hmmm. I guess (4) is also had-for-did. The problem here is that you need to find examples that make sense using the past perfect and cannot be made to make sense any other way. That's very important for a grammar text. By the time the police arrived, the robbers had fled. How else can you say it? By the time something happened, something else had already happened. When Sally started to high school, her mother had died and her father was in prison. (Dad's inside) When Sally started to high school, her mother had died and her father had been in prison. (Dad's outside) By the time something happened, something else had already happened. .brad.07june11. Scanned by GenNET AV in To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ *********************************************************************************************************************************************************** STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail transmission may contain confidential information regarding the Flint Community Schools or students of the Flint Community School system. This e-mail and any attached files are intended only for the use of the person/s or entity to which it is addressed and should be considered confidential. If this e-mail was sent to you in error, please immediately notify the sender via the e-mail address shown and delete this message from your mail system. *********************************************************************************************************************************************************** Scanned by GenNET AV out To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --=__Part7458DBC3.1__Content-Type: text/HTML; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: HTML X-NAIMIME-Disclaimer: 1 X-NAIMIME-Modified: 1 PEhUTUw+PEhFQUQ+CjxTVFlMRSB0eXBlPXRleHQvY3NzPjwhLS0gRElWIHttYXJnaW46MHB4O30g LS0+PC9TVFlMRT4KCjxNRVRBIGNvbnRlbnQ9InRleHQvaHRtbDsgY2hhcnNldD1VVEYtOCIgaHR0 cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGU+CjxNRVRBIG5hbWU9R0VORVJBVE9SIGNvbnRlbnQ9Ik1TSFRN TCA4LjAwLjYwMDEuMTkwNDYiPjwvSEVBRD4KPEJPRFkgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogNHB4IDRweCAx cHg7IEZPTlQ6IDEwcHQgVGFob21hIj4KPERJVj5EZWFyIEJyYWQsPC9ESVY+CjxESVY+Jm5ic3A7 PC9ESVY+CjxESVY+SSBzdHVkaWVkIGEgY291cGxlIG9mIG90aGVyIGxhbmd1YWdlcywgYXMgSSBz dXBwb3NlIG1vc3Qgb2YgdXMgaGF2ZSwgYW5kIGluIHRob3NlIG90aGVyIGxhbmd1YWdlcywgdGhl IHBlcmZlY3QgZXhpc3RzIGluIGRpZmZlcmluZyBmb3JtcyBmcm9tIEVuZ2xpc2ggYW5kIHVzdWFs bHkgd2l0aCBhbiBlbXBoYXNpcyB1cG9uIHRoZSBleGlzdGluZyBzdGF0ZSByZXN1bHRpbmcgZnJv bSBhbm90aGVyIGNvbmRpdGlvbiBvciBldmVudC48L0RJVj4KPERJVj4mbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4KPERJ Vj5UaHJvdWdoIGFsbCBvZiB0aGUgcG9zdHMgZm9yIHRoZSBsYXN0IGNvdXBsZSBvZiB5ZWFycyBj b25jZXJuaW5nIHRoaXMgbWF0dGVyLCB5b3UgZXN0YWJsaXNoZWQgYWJ1c2VzIG9yIHNsb3BwaW5l c3MgcmVnYXJkaW5nIHRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgJ2hhdmUnIGFzIGEgaGVscGluZyB2ZXJiIHdoZW4gb3Ro ZXIgb3B0aW9ucyBhcmUgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGFuZCBwZXJoYXBzIHRoZSBzaW1wbGUgcGFzdCBhbG9u ZSBpcyBtb3JlIGVmZmljaWVudCwgYnV0IEkgZG8gbm90IHJlY2FsbCB3aGV0aGVyIHlvdSBleHBy ZXNzZWQgYSBwcm9wZXIgdXNlIG9mIHRoZSBwZXJmZWN0LjwvRElWPgo8RElWPiZuYnNwOzwvRElW Pgo8RElWPiZuYnNwOzwvRElWPgo8RElWPkdyYWNlIGFuZCBQZWFjZSwgPEJSPjxCUj5Nci4gV2ls bGlhbSBSLiBELiBIaWxsYWtlciwgTS5EaXY8QlI+RW5nbGlzaCAmYW1wOyBIdW1hbml0aWVzPEJS PkZsaW50IENlbnRyYWwgSGlnaCBTY2hvb2w8QlI+d2hpbGxha2VyQGZsaW50c2Nob29scy5vcmc8 QlI+ODEwLjc2MC40MDMyPEJSPjxCUj4mZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsgQnJhZCBKb2huc3RvbiAmbHQ7YnJh ZHZpbmVzMkBZQUhPTy5DT00mZ3Q7IDYvNy8yMDExIDEwOjE1IFBNICZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OzxCUj48 L0RJVj4KPERJViBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVC1GQU1JTFk6IGFyaWFsLCBoZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2Vy aWY7IEZPTlQtU0laRTogMTBwdCI+CjxESVYgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiBhcmlhbCwgaGVs dmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmOyBDT0xPUjogIzAwMDAwMDsgRk9OVC1TSVpFOiAxMHB0Ij4KPERJ Vj4KPFRBQkxFPgo8VEJPRFk+CjxUUj4KPFREPgo8UD48Rk9OVCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0iYXJpYWws IGhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+U2hlIHdhcyB0aXJlZCBiZWNhdXNlIHNoZSAmbHQ7aGFk bid0IHNsZXB0Jmd0OyA8VT5kaWRuJ3Q8L1U+IDxVPnNsZWVwPC9VPiZuYnNwO3RoZSBuaWdodCBi ZWZvcmUuIDwvRk9OVD48L1A+PC9URD4KPFRSPgo8VEQ+CjxQPjxGT05UIHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJh cmlhbCwgaGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj48L0ZPTlQ+Jm5ic3A7PC9QPgo8UD48Rk9OVCBz aXplPTIgZmFjZT0iYXJpYWwsIGhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+SGUgJmx0O2hhZCBiZWVu IGxpdmluZyZndDsgPFU+bGl2ZWQ8L1U+Jm5ic3A7aW4gaGlzIGNhciBmb3Igc2V2ZXJhbCBtb250 aHMgYmVmb3JlIGZpbmFsbHkgZmluZGluZyBhbiBhcGFydG1lbnQuPC9GT05UPjwvUD4KPFA+PEZP TlQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9ImFyaWFsLCBoZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPjwvRk9OVD4mbmJz cDs8L1A+CjxQPjxGT05UIHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJhcmlhbCwgaGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlm Ij5Zb3UgbmVlZCB0byBmaW5kIGV4YW1wbGVzIHRoYXQgd29yay48L0ZPTlQ+PC9QPgo8UD4KPFRB QkxFPgo8VEJPRFk+CjxUUj4KPFREPgo8UD48Rk9OVCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0iYXJpYWwsIGhlbHZl dGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+PC9GT05UPiZuYnNwOzwvUD48L1REPjwvVFI+CjxUUj4KPFREPjxG T05UIHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJhcmlhbCwgaGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj48L0ZPTlQ+PC9U RD4KPFREPjxJPgo8VEFCTEU+CjxUQk9EWT4KPFRSPgo8VEQ+PEZPTlQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9ImFy aWFsLCBoZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPjwvRk9OVD48L1REPgo8VEQ+PEZPTlQgc2l6ZT0y IGZhY2U9ImFyaWFsLCBoZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPigxKSBTaGUgJmx0O2hhZCBwbGF5 ZWQmZ3Q7IDxVPnBsYXllZDwvVT4gd2VsbCB1bnRpbCBzaGUgd2FzIGluanVyZWQuIDwvRk9OVD48 L1REPjwvVFI+PC9UQk9EWT48L1RBQkxFPjxGT05UIHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJhcmlhbCwgaGVsdmV0 aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj4oMikgSGUgJmx0O2hhZCBhbHJlYWR5IGJlZW4mZ3Q7IDxVPndhczwv VT4mbmJzcDtpbiBCZXJsaW4gZm9yIGEgbW9udGggYmVmb3JlIGhlIHdlbnQgdG8gdGhlIG9wZXJh LjwvRk9OVD48L0k+PEZPTlQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9ImFyaWFsLCBoZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2Vy aWYiPiA8L0ZPTlQ+PC9URD48L1RSPgo8VFI+CjxURD48Rk9OVCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0iYXJpYWws IGhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+PC9GT05UPjwvVEQ+CjxURD48Rk9OVCBzaXplPTI+PEZP TlQgZmFjZT0iYXJpYWwsIGhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+KDMpIEkgJmx0O2hhZCBhbHJl YWR5IHNwb2tlbiZndDsgPFU+c3Bva2U8L1U+Jm5ic3A7Q2hpbmVzZSBhcyBhIGNoaWxkLCBidXQg bm93PC9GT05UPiBJIHdhbnRlZCB0byBsZWFybiBHZXJtYW4uIDwvRk9OVD48L1REPjwvVFI+CjxU Uj4KPFREPjxGT05UIHNpemU9Mj48L0ZPTlQ+PC9URD4KPFREPjxGT05UIHNpemU9Mj4oNCkgV2Ug Jmx0O2hhZG4ndCBrbm93biZndDsgPFU+ZGlkbid0PC9VPiA8VT5rbm93PC9VPiBhbnl0aGluZyZu YnNwO2Fib3V0IGl0IHVudGlsIHNoZSBmaW5hbGx5IGV4cGxhaW5lZCBldmVyeXRoaW5nLiA8L0ZP TlQ+PC9URD48L1RSPgo8VFI+CjxURD48Rk9OVCBzaXplPTI+PC9GT05UPjwvVEQ+CjxURD48Rk9O VCBzaXplPTI+KDUpIFRoZSB3b2xmICZsdDtoYWQgYWxyZWFkeSBlYXRlbiZndDsmbmJzcDs8VT5h dGU8L1U+Jm5ic3A7dGhlIGdyYW5kbW90aGVyIGJlZm9yZSBMaXR0bGUgUmVkIFJpZGluZy1Ib29k IGNhbWUgaW50byB0aGUgaG91c2UuIDwvRk9OVD48L1REPjwvVFI+PC9UQk9EWT48L1RBQkxFPjwv UD48L1REPjwvVFI+PC9UQk9EWT48L1RBQkxFPjwvRElWPgo8UD4uPC9QPgo8UD5Zb3UgbmVlZCB0 byBmaW5kIGV4YW1wbGVzIHRoYXQgd29yay48L1A+CjxQPiZuYnNwOzwvUD4KPFA+VGhlcmUgaXMg bm90aGluZyB0aGUgd29yZCAnaGFkJyBjYW4gZG8gZm9yIGEgcGFzdCB0ZW5zZSB2ZXJiIHRoYXQg dGhlIHZlcmIgY2Fubm90IGRvIGZvciBpdHNlbGYuICgxKTwvUD4KPFA+Jm5ic3A7PC9QPgo8UD5U aGUgcGFzdCB0ZW5zZSBvZiAidG8gYmUiIGlzICd3YXMnIChzaW5ndWxhcikgYW5kICd3ZXJlJyAo cGx1cmFsKSwgTk9UICdoYWQgYmVlbicuICgyKTwvUD4KPFA+Jm5ic3A7PC9QPgo8UD5Ucnlpbmcg dG8gcHV0ICdoYWQnIGluIGZyb250IG9mIGFuIGlycmVndWxhciBwYXN0IHRlbnNlIHZlcmIgZm9y Y2VzJm5ic3A7dGhlIGlycmVndWxhciBwYXN0IHBhcnRpY2lwbGUuICgzKSwmbmJzcDsoNCkgJmFt cDsgKDUpLjwvUD4KPFA+Jm5ic3A7PC9QPgo8UD5UaGVyZSBpcyBubyBzaWduaWZpY2FuY2UgdG8g dGhlIGl0YWxpY3MgaW4gKDIpLiBJIGNvcGllZCB0aGUgYmxvY2sgZnJvbSB5b3VyIHdlYnNpdGUg YW5kIGNhbid0IG1ha2UmbmJzcDt0aGUgbGV0dGVycyZuYnNwO2JlaGF2ZS48L1A+CjxQPiZuYnNw OzwvUD4KPFA+SGFkLWZvci1kaWQgaW4gdGhlIHRvcCZuYnNwO2xpbmUgYWJvdmUgaXMgbGVzcyBj b21tb24gdGhhbiB0aGUgb3RoZXJzIGJ1dCBhcHBlYXJzIGZyb20gdGltZSB0byB0aW1lLiBIbW1t LiBJIGd1ZXNzICg0KSBpcyBhbHNvIGhhZC1mb3ItZGlkLjwvUD4KPFA+Jm5ic3A7PC9QPgo8UD5U aGUgcHJvYmxlbSBoZXJlIGlzIHRoYXQgeW91IG5lZWQgdG8gZmluZCBleGFtcGxlcyB0aGF0IG1h a2Ugc2Vuc2UgdXNpbmcgdGhlIHBhc3QgcGVyZmVjdCBhbmQgY2Fubm90IGJlIG1hZGUgdG8gbWFr ZSBzZW5zZSBhbnkgb3RoZXIgd2F5LiBUaGF0J3MgdmVyeSBpbXBvcnRhbnQgZm9yIGEgZ3JhbW1h ciB0ZXh0LjwvUD4KPFA+Jm5ic3A7PC9QPgo8UD5CeSB0aGUgdGltZSB0aGUgcG9saWNlIGFycml2 ZWQsIHRoZSByb2JiZXJzIGhhZCBmbGVkLiBIb3cgZWxzZSBjYW4geW91IHNheSBpdD8gQnkgdGhl IHRpbWUgc29tZXRoaW5nIGhhcHBlbmVkLCBzb21ldGhpbmcgZWxzZSBoYWQgYWxyZWFkeSBoYXBw ZW5lZC48L1A+CjxQPiZuYnNwOzwvUD4KPFA+V2hlbiZuYnNwO1NhbGx5IHN0YXJ0ZWQgdG8gaGln aCBzY2hvb2wsIGhlciBtb3RoZXIgaGFkIGRpZWQgYW5kIGhlciBmYXRoZXIgPFU+d2FzPC9VPiBp biBwcmlzb24uIChEYWQncyA8VT5pbjwvVT5zaWRlKTwvUD4KPFA+Jm5ic3A7PC9QPgo8UD5XaGVu Jm5ic3A7U2FsbHkgc3RhcnRlZCB0byBoaWdoIHNjaG9vbCwgaGVyIG1vdGhlciBoYWQgZGllZCBh bmQgaGVyIGZhdGhlciA8VT5oYWQ8L1U+IDxVPmJlZW48L1U+Jm5ic3A7aW4gcHJpc29uLiAoRGFk J3MgPFU+b3V0PC9VPnNpZGUpPC9QPgo8UD4mbmJzcDs8L1A+CjxQPkJ5IHRoZSB0aW1lIHNvbWV0 aGluZyBoYXBwZW5lZCwgc29tZXRoaW5nIGVsc2UgaGFkIGFscmVhZHkgaGFwcGVuZWQuPC9QPgo8 UD48L1A+CjxQPiZuYnNwOzwvUD4KPFA+LmJyYWQuMDdqdW5lMTEuPC9QPjwvRElWPjwvRElWPgo8 RElWPgo8UD4KPEhSPgpTY2FubmVkIGJ5IEdlbk5FVCBBViBpbiAKPFA+PC9QPjwvRElWPlRvIGpv aW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3 ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVn Lmh0bWwgYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCIgCjxQPlZpc2l0IEFURUcn cyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvPC9QPjxCUj4KCiAgICA8ZGl2PgogICAgICA8 Zm9udCBmYWNlPSJNb25vc3BhY2VkIj4qKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioq KioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioq KioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioq KioqKioqKiAKICAgICAgU1RBVEVNRU5UIE9GIENPTkZJREVOVElBTElUWTogVGhpcyBlLW1haWwg dHJhbnNtaXNzaW9uIG1heSBjb250YWluIAogICAgICBjb25maWRlbnRpYWwgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24g cmVnYXJkaW5nIHRoZSBGbGludCBDb21tdW5pdHkgU2Nob29scyBvciAKICAgICAgc3R1ZGVudHMg b2YgdGhlIEZsaW50IENvbW11bml0eSBTY2hvb2wgc3lzdGVtLiBUaGlzIGUtbWFpbCBhbmQgYW55 IAogICAgICBhdHRhY2hlZCBmaWxlcyBhcmUgaW50ZW5kZWQgb25seSBmb3IgdGhlIHVzZSBvZiB0 aGUgcGVyc29uL3Mgb3IgZW50aXR5IAogICAgICB0byB3aGljaCBpdCBpcyBhZGRyZXNzZWQgYW5k IHNob3VsZCBiZSBjb25zaWRlcmVkIGNvbmZpZGVudGlhbC4gSWYgdGhpcyAKICAgICAgZS1tYWls IHdhcyBzZW50IHRvIHlvdSBpbiBlcnJvciwgcGxlYXNlIGltbWVkaWF0ZWx5IG5vdGlmeSB0aGUg c2VuZGVyIAogICAgICB2aWEgdGhlIGUtbWFpbCBhZGRyZXNzIHNob3duIGFuZCBkZWxldGUgdGhp cyBtZXNzYWdlIGZyb20geW91ciBtYWlsIAogICAgICBzeXN0ZW0uIAoKKioqKioqKioqKioqKioq KioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioq KioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioq KioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKiogCiAgICAgIAo8L2ZvbnQ+ICAgIDwvZGl2PgogIAo8 RElWPjxQPjxIUj4KU2Nhbm5lZCBieSBHZW5ORVQgQVYgb3V0CjwvUD48L0RJVj4KPC9CT0RZPjwv SFRNTD4K --=__Part7458DBC3.1__=-- --=__Part7458DBC3.0__Content-Type: text/plain; name="William Hillaker.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="William Hillaker.vcf" BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:William Hillaker TEL;WORK:(810).760.1400 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:[log in to unmask] N:Hillaker;William TITLE:Teacher END:VCARD To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --=__Part7458DBC3.0__=-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:05:12 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: help with curriculum, 9-12 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have been working with a local urban high school on development of a writing/reading curriculum for a Transitions Program (8th grade to high school) for their most at risk students. As one result of that collaboration, I have been invited to have a role in rewriting their overall English curriculum. My own contribution, I suspect, will focus in on a language awareness component, one focused much more on competence than on error. I would love to be able to point to successful implementation of that in other schools. They are also trying to encourage more writing across the curriculum and have been meeting resistance to that among content faculty, so I would be interested in hearing about successful integration of writing in the content areas at the high school level. Are there high schools out there that have Writing Centers or at least widespread writing support? Any help I can get would be much appreciated. Craig To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 9 Jun 2011 16:37:02 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Comments: RFC822 error: Invalid RFC822 field - ""The pond I had put in about 8 years ago. It w=". Rest of header flushed. From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: putt-putt (one photo) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1197279206-1307662622=:54410" --0-1197279206-1307662622=:54410 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Inbound message. � "The pond I had put in about 8 years ago.�It was a good spot and only took a day to do." � A nice example of what you get if you can't see past-tense verbs and know enough to not put 'had' in front of them. � Making a difference�doesn't happen all that�often but when it does, it makes a difference, and that's reason enough to teach it right, which is not done now. � .brad.09june11. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1197279206-1307662622=:54410 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Inbound message.

 

"The pond I had put in about 8 years ago. It was a good spot and only took a day to do."

 

A nice example of what you get if you can't see past-tense verbs and know enough to not put 'had' in front of them.

 

Making a difference doesn't happen all that often but when it does, it makes a difference, and that's reason enough to teach it right, which is not done now.

 

.brad.09june11.

 

 

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1197279206-1307662622=:54410-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 22:58:42 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Diane Skinner <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: putt-putt (one photo) Comments: To: Diane Skinner <[log in to unmask]> In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-10-813329179 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8J2) --Apple-Mail-10-813329179 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii You belabor the point of the past partciple with so much fervor and righteous indignation, even by presenting this example as one of several that you apparently quantify as accurate in your defense of knowing correct grammar usage. However, your seeming obsessive focus, yet often domineering v on one aspect ur appaAnd spitting infinitives: "to not put 'had' in front of them" is grammatically > acceptable? Peace, Diane On Jun 9, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Inbound message. > > "The pond I had put in about 8 years ago. It was a good spot and only took a day to do." > > A nice example of what you get if you can't see past-tense verbs and know enough to not put 'had' in front of them. > > Making a difference doesn't happen all that often but when it does, it makes a difference, and that's reason enough to teach it right, which is not done now. > > .brad.09june11. > > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Apple-Mail-10-813329179 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

You belabor the point of the past partciple with so much fervor and righteous indignation, even  by presenting this example as one of several that you apparently quantify as accurate in your defense of knowing correct grammar usage. However, your seeming obsessive focus, yet often domineering v on one aspect 

ur appaAnd spitting infinitives: "to not put 'had' in front of them" is grammatically 

acceptable?  

Peace, 

Diane

On Jun 9, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Inbound message.

 

"The pond I had put in about 8 years ago. It was a good spot and only took a day to do."

 

A nice example of what you get if you can't see past-tense verbs and know enough to not put 'had' in front of them.

 

Making a difference doesn't happen all that often but when it does, it makes a difference, and that's reason enough to teach it right, which is not done now.

 

.brad.09june11.

 

 

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Apple-Mail-10-813329179-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 07:20:07 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Comments: RFC822 error: Invalid RFC822 field - "You ignored the point of my message but you raise an=". Rest of header flushed. From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Tut-tut In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-19224174-1307715607=:95121" --0-19224174-1307715607=:95121 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks, Diane. � You ignored the point of my message but you raise another of substantial importance. To split or not to split an infinitive is a convention. There is no difference in meaning between "to boldly go where no one has gone before" and "to go boldly where no one has gone before". On the other hand, the past perfect makes a difference, as can be amply demonstrated. � Since my�'putt-putt' is still an open thread, let's rename your thread, "tut-tut', which is what someone, nay everyone, says when an infinitive is split. � .cheers.brads.fri.10june11. From: Diane Skinner <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 1:58 AM >Subject: Re: putt-putt (one photo) > > >You belabor the point of the past partciple with so much fervor and righteous indignation, even �by presenting this example as one of several that you apparently quantify as accurate in your defense of knowing correct grammar usage. However, your seeming obsessive focus, yet often domineering v on one aspect� >ur appaAnd spitting infinitives: "to not put 'had' in front of them" is grammatically� >acceptable? � > >Peace,� >Diane > >On Jun 9, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > >Inbound message. >>� >>"The pond I had put in about 8 years ago.�It was a good spot and only took a day to do." >>� >>A nice example of what you get if you can't see past-tense verbs and know enough to not put 'had' in front of them. >>� >>Making a difference�doesn't happen all that�often but when it does, it makes a difference, and that's reason enough to teach it right, which is not done now. >>� > >.brad.09june11. >>� >>� To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" >>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" >Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-19224174-1307715607=:95121 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks, Diane.

 

You ignored the point of my message but you raise another of substantial importance. To split or not to split an infinitive is a convention. There is no difference in meaning between "to boldly go where no one has gone before" and "to go boldly where no one has gone before". On the other hand, the past perfect makes a difference, as can be amply demonstrated.

 

Since my 'putt-putt' is still an open thread, let's rename your thread, "tut-tut', which is what someone, nay everyone, says when an infinitive is split.

 

.cheers.brads.fri.10june11.

From: Diane Skinner <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 1:58 AM
Subject: Re: putt-putt (one photo)

You belabor the point of the past partciple with so much fervor and righteous indignation, even  by presenting this example as one of several that you apparently quantify as accurate in your defense of knowing correct grammar usage. However, your seeming obsessive focus, yet often domineering v on one aspect 

ur appaAnd spitting infinitives: "to not put 'had' in front of them" is grammatically 

acceptable?  

Peace, 

Diane

On Jun 9, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Inbound message.

 

"The pond I had put in about 8 years ago. It was a good spot and only took a day to do."

 

A nice example of what you get if you can't see past-tense verbs and know enough to not put 'had' in front of them.

 

Making a difference doesn't happen all that often but when it does, it makes a difference, and that's reason enough to teach it right, which is not done now.

 

.brad.09june11.

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-19224174-1307715607=:95121-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:14:26 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Comments: RFC822 error: Invalid RFC822 field - "It means -- IF you learned to not put 'had' in front of past t=". Rest of header flushed. From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: putt-putt MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-729396375-1307722466=:22836" --0-729396375-1307722466=:22836 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Art, � It means -- IF you learned to not put 'had' in front of past tense verbs (Art, yes? Art, no?) -- that�someone else put in the pond. But if you are like much of the English-speaking world for the last three generations, and your grammar teachers didn't teach you how to do it, you can well take it to mean that HE�did the digging. � THAT is the problem I keep harping on (to hear Diane tell it), because some grammar teachers and almost all linguists do not know what it is (what is it, Diane?). They cannot define it,�they cannot illustrate it, and they cannot use it. � The great Rodney Huddleston, who wrote A Cambridge Grammar of the English Language in only 1,842 pages,� can't tell me what the Past Perfect�is. I asked him several times.�His mighty tome makes it clear that he wasn't taught it and he�hasn't yet thought it through. He writes, on page 115, When Arthur had been a boy at school, he had used to play football. (Yes, I know, Geoffrey Pullum and 13 collaborators helped him.) And that is�why I sometimes let a wisp, just a wisp,�of frustration creep into my emails on the subject. � The pond man has gone on a canoe trip but when he returns, I'll ask him�who put the pond in. � .brad.fri.19june11. To: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> >Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 10:46 AM >Subject: re: putt-putt (one photo) > >Now it's my turn to ask:� "What does it mean?" > >"The pond I had put in ..." > >a) I put the pond in > This a misuse of the past perfect of the verb put?��No, it's not a misuse of the past perfect. It's 'had' in front of a past tense verb.� > >b) Someone put the pond in for me: here the verb phrase would be have something done: i.e., have a pond put in (infinitive) > I had a pond put in (past) > > >Inbound message. >>� >>"The pond I had put in about 8 years ago.�It was a good spot and only took a day to do." >>� >>A nice example of what you get if you can't see past-tense verbs and know enough to not put 'had' in front of them. >>� >>Making a difference�doesn't happen all that�often but when it does, it makes a difference, and that's reason enough to teach it right, which is not done now. >>� >>.brad.09june11 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-729396375-1307722466=:22836 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Art,

 

It means -- IF you learned to not put 'had' in front of past tense verbs (Art, yes? Art, no?) -- that someone else put in the pond.

But if you are like much of the English-speaking world for the last three generations, and your grammar teachers didn't teach you how to do it, you can well take it to mean that HE did the digging.

 

THAT is the problem I keep harping on (to hear Diane tell it), because some grammar teachers and almost all linguists do not know what it is (what is it, Diane?). They cannot define it, they cannot illustrate it, and they cannot use it.

 

The great Rodney Huddleston, who wrote A Cambridge Grammar of the English Language in only 1,842 pages,  can't tell me what the Past Perfect is. I asked him several times. His mighty tome makes it clear that he wasn't taught it and he hasn't yet thought it through. He writes, on page 115, When Arthur had been a boy at school, he had used to play football. (Yes, I know, Geoffrey Pullum and 13 collaborators helped him.)

 

And that is why I sometimes let a wisp, just a wisp, of frustration creep into my emails on the subject.

 

The pond man has gone on a canoe trip but when he returns, I'll ask him who put the pond in.

 

.brad.fri.19june11.

 

To: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 10:46 AM
Subject: re: putt-putt (one photo)

Now it's my turn to ask:  "What does it mean?"

"The pond I had put in ..."

a) I put the pond in > This a misuse of the past perfect of the verb put?  No, it's not a misuse of the past perfect. It's 'had' in front of a past tense verb. 

b) Someone put the pond in for me: here the verb phrase would be have something done: i.e., have a pond put in (infinitive) > I had a pond put in (past)

Inbound message.

 

"The pond I had put in about 8 years ago. It was a good spot and only took a day to do."

 

A nice example of what you get if you can't see past-tense verbs and know enough to not put 'had' in front of them.

 

Making a difference doesn't happen all that often but when it does, it makes a difference, and that's reason enough to teach it right, which is not done now.

 

.brad.09june11

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-729396375-1307722466=:22836-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 07:11:17 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Call for Tweeter! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary�e6ba1eff2c0b386d04a5aaf0d3 --90e6ba1eff2c0b386d04a5aaf0d3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 ATEG Listserv Members, ATEG is branching out into other forms of social media! In addition to the ongoing redesign of our website, we also are building a Facebook "Page" and a Twitter account. Who knows....maybe one day we'll even have a smart phone app! Until our days of iPhone fame arrive though, we're looking for someone to administer the Twitter account. We envision the Twitter account as being the source for up-to-date information regarding all things ATEG. Tweets might include information on the ATEG conference, the ATEG journal, website additions, and other items such as "grammar in the news" stories, textbook announcements, and news about sibling organizations. If you know your way around Twitter and are willing to volunteer, please respond to me privately (remember, the "Reply" command in your email provider will respond to the entire list). I will work closely with the Twitter admin to coordinate the ATEG social media presence. The admin role should not take more than 1-2 hours a week (max). You do not have to be an active participant of the listserv to volunteer. Thanks for your continued participation! John Alexander Austin, Texas To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --90e6ba1eff2c0b386d04a5aaf0d3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ATEG Listserv Members,

ATEG is branching out into other forms of social media! In addition to the ongoing redesign of our website, we also are building a Facebook "Page" and a Twitter account. Who knows....maybe one day we'll even have a smart phone app! Until our days of iPhone fame arrive though, we're looking for someone to administer the Twitter account.

We envision the Twitter account as being the source for up-to-date information regarding all things ATEG. Tweets might include information on the ATEG conference, the ATEG journal, website additions, and other items such as "grammar in the news" stories, textbook announcements, and news about sibling organizations.

If you know your way around Twitter and are willing to volunteer, please respond to me privately (remember, the "Reply" command in your email provider will respond to the entire list). I will work closely with the Twitter admin to coordinate the ATEG social media presence. The admin role should not take more than 1-2 hours a week (max). You do not have to be an active participant of the listserv to volunteer.

Thanks for your continued participation!

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --90e6ba1eff2c0b386d04a5aaf0d3-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 06:28:07 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Split somethings - waking Beetle (one graphic) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1598920074-1308058087=:40827" --0-1598920074-1308058087=:40827 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii . Beetle Bailey by Mort Walker June 14, 2011June 13, 2011June 11, 2011June 10, 2011June 9, 2011June 8, 2011June 7, 2011June 6, 2011June 4, 2011June 3, 2011June 2, 2011June 1, 2011May 31, 2011 Have you ever tried to wake up Beetle? or Have you ever tried to wake Beetle up? Why? To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1598920074-1308058087=:40827 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

.

Beetle Bailey

document.write(byline) by Mort Walker

document.writeln(pulldown)

June 14, 2011June 13, 2011June 11, 2011June 10, 2011June 9, 2011June 8, 2011June 7, 2011June 6, 2011June 4, 2011June 3, 2011June 2, 2011June 1, 2011May 31, 2011

document.writeln(img)

Have you ever tried to wake up Beetle? or Have you ever tried to wake Beetle up?

 

Why?

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1598920074-1308058087=:40827-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 06:39:45 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Living and dying MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-163106452-1308058785=:8163" --0-163106452-1308058785=:8163 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a current novel, Sattenstein has just been murdered and a cop is describing the aftermath. � (1) I didn't know anybody in the precinct where Sattenstein lived and died. � or, � (2)�I didn't know anybody in the precinct where Sattenstein had lived and died. � A student asked and the class bell will ring in four minutes. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-163106452-1308058785=:8163 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a current novel, Sattenstein has just been murdered and a cop is describing the aftermath.

 

(1) I didn't know anybody in the precinct where Sattenstein lived and died.

 

or,

 

(2) I didn't know anybody in the precinct where Sattenstein had lived and died.

 

A student asked and the class bell will ring in four minutes.

 

 

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-163106452-1308058785=:8163-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 06:43:42 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Comments: RFC822 error: Invalid RFC822 field - "(1) But there were other benefits; my wife had admired =". Rest of header flushed. From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Living and dying MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-745500151-1308059022=:79573" --0-745500151-1308059022=:79573 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Same novel. � (1) But there were other benefits; my wife had admired that suit, and so had my girlfriend. � (2) But there were other benefits; my wife�admired that suit, and so did my girlfriend. � You have four minutes. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-745500151-1308059022=:79573 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Same novel.

 

(1) But there were other benefits; my wife had admired that suit, and so had my girlfriend.

 

(2) But there were other benefits; my wife admired that suit, and so did my girlfriend.

 

You have four minutes.

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-745500151-1308059022=:79573-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:45:20 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: didn't use(d) to MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary cf301e31c3cc061804a5ad154e --20cf301e31c3cc061804a5ad154e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Two quotations from recently encountered novels: "There's bad blood now. *Didn't use to* be like that..." (dialog in Alan Furst's *Spies of the Balkans*, p. 102, Kindle edition). "She *didn't used to* smoke around the kids..." (Kate Atkinson, *When Will There Be Good News?*, p. 126, Kindle edition). So which is it, *didn't use to* or *didn't used to*? A few usage guides I consulted prescribe "didn't use to," but others say both are standard. In my own writing, I probably would have used "didn't used to." On the one hand, "used to/didn't use to" would parallel other verbs (laughed/didn't laugh), but, on the other, we're talking about a quasimodal, and with modals we can expect significant variations from other verbs. Pronunciation is no help--both "use to" and "used to" are spoken identically as "useta." Thoughts? To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --20cf301e31c3cc061804a5ad154e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Two quotations from recently encountered novels:

"There's bad blood now. Didn't use to be like that..." (dialog in Alan Furst's Spies of the Balkans, p. 102, Kindle edition).
"She didn't used to smoke around the kids..." (Kate Atkinson, When Will There Be Good News?, p. 126, Kindle edition).

So which is it, didn't use to or didn't used to?

A few usage guides I consulted prescribe "didn't use to," but others say both are standard. In my own writing, I probably would have used "didn't used to."

On the one hand, "used to/didn't use to" would parallel other verbs (laughed/didn't laugh), but, on the other, we're talking about a quasimodal, and with modals we can expect significant variations from other verbs. Pronunciation is no help--both "use to" and "used to" are spoken identically as "useta."

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --20cf301e31c3cc061804a5ad154e-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:26:55 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-2059811548-1308065215=:17337" --0-2059811548-1308065215=:17337 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable For the first, a good rule to follow is that quotes don't count. Whatever was said is whatever was said. � If the second one is not a quote, follow the guidance provided by, She used to smoke, she didn't used to smoke, she never used to smoke.� ("When Arthur had been a boy, he had used to play football", Rodney Huddleston et al in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, page 151.�"Whatever was written is whatever was written"��:) � � From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:45 AM Subject: didn't use(d) to Two quotations from recently encountered novels: > >"There's bad blood now. Didn't use to be like that..." (dialog in Alan Furst's Spies of the Balkans, p. 102, Kindle edition). >"She didn't used to smoke around the kids..." (Kate Atkinson, When Will There Be Good News?, p. 126, Kindle edition). > >So which is it, didn't use to or didn't used to? > >A few usage guides I consulted prescribe "didn't use to," but others say both are standard. In my own writing, I probably would have used "didn't used to." > >On the one hand, "used to/didn't use to" would parallel other verbs (laughed/didn't laugh), but, on the other, we're talking about a quasimodal, and with modals we can expect significant variations from other verbs. Pronunciation is no help--both "use to" and "used to" are spoken identically as "useta." > >Thoughts? >� To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-2059811548-1308065215=:17337 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

For the first, a good rule to follow is that quotes don't count. Whatever was said is whatever was said.

 

If the second one is not a quote, follow the guidance provided by, She used to smoke, she didn't used to smoke, she never used to smoke.  ("When Arthur had been a boy, he had used to play football", Rodney Huddleston et al in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, page 151. "Whatever was written is whatever was written"  :)

 

 

From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:45 AM
Subject: didn't use(d) to

Two quotations from recently encountered novels:

"There's bad blood now. Didn't use to be like that..." (dialog in Alan Furst's Spies of the Balkans, p. 102, Kindle edition).
"She didn't used to smoke around the kids..." (Kate Atkinson, When Will There Be Good News?, p. 126, Kindle edition).

So which is it, didn't use to or didn't used to?

A few usage guides I consulted prescribe "didn't use to," but others say both are standard. In my own writing, I probably would have used "didn't used to."

On the one hand, "used to/didn't use to" would parallel other verbs (laughed/didn't laugh), but, on the other, we're talking about a quasimodal, and with modals we can expect significant variations from other verbs. Pronunciation is no help--both "use to" and "used to" are spoken identically as "useta."

Thoughts?

 

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-2059811548-1308065215=:17337-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:35:52 +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: "Wollin, Edith" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D4D51A8B08C43143AF0FFA39C0FE60730D4444C4VSR105MBSCCDCTC_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_D4D51A8B08C43143AF0FFA39C0FE60730D4444C4VSR105MBSCCDCTC_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have always thought that "didn't used to" was incorrect, so I was surprised to see that some handbooks consider it standard. I think it is the pronunciation that causes the confusion and perhaps change. I have had many students write, "I use to" when it was clearly a past situation and needed " I used to." Edith Wollin From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:45 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: didn't use(d) to Two quotations from recently encountered novels: "There's bad blood now. Didn't use to be like that..." (dialog in Alan Furst's Spies of the Balkans, p. 102, Kindle edition). "She didn't used to smoke around the kids..." (Kate Atkinson, When Will There Be Good News?, p. 126, Kindle edition). So which is it, didn't use to or didn't used to? A few usage guides I consulted prescribe "didn't use to," but others say both are standard. In my own writing, I probably would have used "didn't used to." On the one hand, "used to/didn't use to" would parallel other verbs (laughed/didn't laugh), but, on the other, we're talking about a quasimodal, and with modals we can expect significant variations from other verbs. Pronunciation is no help--both "use to" and "used to" are spoken identically as "useta." Thoughts? To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_D4D51A8B08C43143AF0FFA39C0FE60730D4444C4VSR105MBSCCDCTC_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have always thought that “didn’t used to” was incorrect, so I was surprised to see that some handbooks consider it standard. I think it is the pronunciation that causes the confusion and perhaps change. I have had many students write, “I use to” when it was clearly a past situation and needed “ I used to.”

Edith Wollin

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: didn't use(d) to

 

Two quotations from recently encountered novels:

"There's bad blood now. Didn't use to be like that..." (dialog in Alan Furst's Spies of the Balkans, p. 102, Kindle edition).
"She didn't used to smoke around the kids..." (Kate Atkinson, When Will There Be Good News?, p. 126, Kindle edition).

So which is it, didn't use to or didn't used to?

A few usage guides I consulted prescribe "didn't use to," but others say both are standard. In my own writing, I probably would have used "didn't used to."

On the one hand, "used to/didn't use to" would parallel other verbs (laughed/didn't laugh), but, on the other, we're talking about a quasimodal, and with modals we can expect significant variations from other verbs. Pronunciation is no help--both "use to" and "used to" are spoken identically as "useta."

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_D4D51A8B08C43143AF0FFA39C0FE60730D4444C4VSR105MBSCCDCTC_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:37:24 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C6D554FB7EMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C6D554FB7EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Whether or not there is an approved spelling, this looks like a case of the "ice cream" phenomenon, where a final dental stop (/d/ or /t/) gets deleted before a consonant-initial word. Other examples are skim milk ice tea stuff peppers etc. The two spellings would probably be pronounced the same, without the final /d/. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:45 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: didn't use(d) to Two quotations from recently encountered novels: "There's bad blood now. Didn't use to be like that..." (dialog in Alan Furst's Spies of the Balkans, p. 102, Kindle edition). "She didn't used to smoke around the kids..." (Kate Atkinson, When Will There Be Good News?, p. 126, Kindle edition). So which is it, didn't use to or didn't used to? A few usage guides I consulted prescribe "didn't use to," but others say both are standard. In my own writing, I probably would have used "didn't used to." On the one hand, "used to/didn't use to" would parallel other verbs (laughed/didn't laugh), but, on the other, we're talking about a quasimodal, and with modals we can expect significant variations from other verbs. Pronunciation is no help--both "use to" and "used to" are spoken identically as "useta." Thoughts? To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C6D554FB7EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Whether or not there is an approved spelling, this looks like a case of the “ice cream” phenomenon, where a final dental stop (/d/ or /t/) gets deleted before a consonant-initial word.  Other examples are

 

skim milk

ice tea

stuff peppers

etc.

 

The two spellings would probably be pronounced the same, without the final /d/.

 

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: didn't use(d) to

 

Two quotations from recently encountered novels:

"There's bad blood now. Didn't use to be like that..." (dialog in Alan Furst's Spies of the Balkans, p. 102, Kindle edition).
"She didn't used to smoke around the kids..." (Kate Atkinson, When Will There Be Good News?, p. 126, Kindle edition).

So which is it, didn't use to or didn't used to?

A few usage guides I consulted prescribe "didn't use to," but others say both are standard. In my own writing, I probably would have used "didn't used to."

On the one hand, "used to/didn't use to" would parallel other verbs (laughed/didn't laugh), but, on the other, we're talking about a quasimodal, and with modals we can expect significant variations from other verbs. Pronunciation is no help--both "use to" and "used to" are spoken identically as "useta."

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C6D554FB7EMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:49:01 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dick, I think it's interesting that we can negate "ought to" without adding a finite (he ought'nt to go), to my ear at least, but can't quite do that with "used to". The only present time reference I could think of is a different meaning sense: "That's the hose I use to water the garden." Maybe 'quasi modal' means something like 'part way through the grammaticalization process.' I think I would write "didn't used to", but I can't remember a conscious attention to it. Of course, we also have "That's the hose I didn't use to water the garden." That usage would be clear. Craig> Two quotations from recently encountered novels: > > "There's bad blood now. *Didn't use to* be like that..." (dialog in Alan > Furst's *Spies of the Balkans*, p. 102, Kindle edition). > "She *didn't used to* smoke around the kids..." (Kate Atkinson, *When Will > There Be Good News?*, p. 126, Kindle edition). > > So which is it, *didn't use to* or *didn't used to*? > > A few usage guides I consulted prescribe "didn't use to," but others say > both are standard. In my own writing, I probably would have used "didn't > used to." > > On the one hand, "used to/didn't use to" would parallel other verbs > (laughed/didn't laugh), but, on the other, we're talking about a > quasimodal, > and with modals we can expect significant variations from other verbs. > Pronunciation is no help--both "use to" and "used to" are spoken > identically > as "useta." > > Thoughts? > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 14 Jun 2011 14:02:55 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary�cb4e43d1b9706ef304a5afd82b --e0cb4e43d1b9706ef304a5afd82b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Edith, We all agree that "I use to" is nonstandard inasmuch as, while used by the occasional unsophisticated student, it is rarely if ever seen in reputable publications or written by reputable writers. But "didn't used to" appears all the time--in magazines, novels, newspapers. If it is "incorrect," it is sure getting past a lot of well paid copy-editors. To get a very rough measure of usage, I Googled "didn't used to" (183 million results) and "didn't use to" (121 million results). I cite these numbers *only *to show that both occur a lot. I'm much less interested in the right and wrong than in the why. Herb stated reasons why "used to" can get reduced to "use to," but I wonder how the "d" came to exist at all in "didn't used to." Dick On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Wollin, Edith <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > I have always thought that �didn�t used to� was incorrect, so I was > surprised to see that some handbooks consider it standard. I think it is the > pronunciation that causes the confusion and perhaps change. I have had many > students write, �I use to� when it was clearly a past situation and needed � > I used to.� > > Edith Wollin** > > > > *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Dick Veit > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:45 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* didn't use(d) to > > > > Two quotations from recently encountered novels: > > "There's bad blood now. *Didn't use to* be like that..." (dialog in Alan > Furst's *Spies of the Balkans*, p. 102, Kindle edition). > "She *didn't used to* smoke around the kids..." (Kate Atkinson, *When Will > There Be Good News?*, p. 126, Kindle edition). > > So which is it, *didn't use to* or *didn't used to*? > > A few usage guides I consulted prescribe "didn't use to," but others say > both are standard. In my own writing, I probably would have used "didn't > used to." > > On the one hand, "used to/didn't use to" would parallel other verbs > (laughed/didn't laugh), but, on the other, we're talking about a quasimodal, > and with modals we can expect significant variations from other verbs. > Pronunciation is no help--both "use to" and "used to" are spoken identically > as "useta." > > Thoughts? > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --e0cb4e43d1b9706ef304a5afd82b Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Edith,

We all agree that "I use to" is nonstandard inasmuch as, while used by the occasional unsophisticated student, it is rarely if ever seen in reputable publications or written by reputable writers. But "didn't used to" appears all the time--in magazines, novels, newspapers. If it is "incorrect," it is sure getting past a lot of well paid copy-editors. To get a very rough measure of usage, I Googled "didn't used to" (183 million results) and "didn't use to" (121 million results). I cite these numbers only to show that both occur a lot.

I'm much less interested in the right and wrong than in the why. Herb stated reasons why "used to" can get reduced to "use to," but I wonder how the "d" came to exist at all in "didn't used to."

Dick

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Wollin, Edith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I have always thought that �didn�t used to� was incorrect, so I was surprised to see that some handbooks consider it standard. I think it is the pronunciation that causes the confusion and perhaps change. I have had many students write, �I use to� when it was clearly a past situation and needed � I used to.�

Edith Wollin

�

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: didn't use(d) to

�

Two quotations from recently encountered novels:

"There's bad blood now. Didn't use to be like that..." (dialog in Alan Furst's Spies of the Balkans, p. 102, Kindle edition).
"She didn't used to smoke around the kids..." (Kate Atkinson, When Will There Be Good News?, p. 126, Kindle edition).

So which is it, didn't use to or didn't used to?

A few usage guides I consulted prescribe "didn't use to," but others say both are standard. In my own writing, I probably would have used "didn't used to."

On the one hand, "used to/didn't use to" would parallel other verbs (laughed/didn't laugh), but, on the other, we're talking about a quasimodal, and with modals we can expect significant variations from other verbs. Pronunciation is no help--both "use to" and "used to" are spoken identically as "useta."

Thoughts?

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --e0cb4e43d1b9706ef304a5afd82b-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:16:04 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dick, Perhaps its hypercorrection: writers and editors are so used to the rule that the expression is "used to" and not "use to" that they add the past-tense marker even where there is no logical reason for it. Karl On 06/14/2011 11:02 AM, Dick Veit wrote: > Edith, > > We all agree that "I use to" is nonstandard inasmuch as, while used by > the occasional unsophisticated student, it is rarely if ever seen in > reputable publications or written by reputable writers. But "didn't used > to" appears all the time--in magazines, novels, newspapers. If it is > "incorrect," it is sure getting past a lot of well paid copy-editors. To > get a very rough measure of usage, I Googled "didn't used to" (183 > million results) and "didn't use to" (121 million results). I cite these > numbers /only /to show that both occur a lot. > > I'm much less interested in the right and wrong than in the why. Herb > stated reasons why "used to" can get reduced to "use to," but I wonder > how the "d" came to exist at all in "didn't used to." > > Dick > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Wollin, Edith <[log in to unmask] > > wrote: > > I have always thought that �didn�t used to� was incorrect, so I was > surprised to see that some handbooks consider it standard. I think > it is the pronunciation that causes the confusion and perhaps > change. I have had many students write, �I use to� when it was > clearly a past situation and needed � I used to.� > > Edith Wollin// > > > > *From:*Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask] ] > *On Behalf Of *Dick Veit > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:45 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* didn't use(d) to > > > > Two quotations from recently encountered novels: > > "There's bad blood now. *Didn't use to* be like that..." (dialog in > Alan Furst's /Spies of the Balkans/, p. 102, Kindle edition). > "She *didn't used to* smoke around the kids..." (Kate Atkinson, > /When Will There Be Good News?/, p. 126, Kindle edition). > > So which is it, /didn't use to/ or /didn't used to/? > > A few usage guides I consulted prescribe "didn't use to," but others > say both are standard. In my own writing, I probably would have used > "didn't used to." > > On the one hand, "used to/didn't use to" would parallel other verbs > (laughed/didn't laugh), but, on the other, we're talking about a > quasimodal, and with modals we can expect significant variations > from other verbs. Pronunciation is no help--both "use to" and "used > to" are spoken identically as "useta." > > Thoughts? > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select > "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 14 Jun 2011 18:20:54 +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: "Wollin, Edith" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Thanks, Karl. That is what I meant to imply, but didn't say it clearly enough. Edith -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karl Hagen Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:16 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to Dick, Perhaps its hypercorrection: writers and editors are so used to the rule that the expression is "used to" and not "use to" that they add the past-tense marker even where there is no logical reason for it. Karl On 06/14/2011 11:02 AM, Dick Veit wrote: > Edith, > > We all agree that "I use to" is nonstandard inasmuch as, while used by > the occasional unsophisticated student, it is rarely if ever seen in > reputable publications or written by reputable writers. But "didn't used > to" appears all the time--in magazines, novels, newspapers. If it is > "incorrect," it is sure getting past a lot of well paid copy-editors. To > get a very rough measure of usage, I Googled "didn't used to" (183 > million results) and "didn't use to" (121 million results). I cite these > numbers /only /to show that both occur a lot. > > I'm much less interested in the right and wrong than in the why. Herb > stated reasons why "used to" can get reduced to "use to," but I wonder > how the "d" came to exist at all in "didn't used to." > > Dick > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Wollin, Edith <[log in to unmask] > > wrote: > > I have always thought that "didn't used to" was incorrect, so I was > surprised to see that some handbooks consider it standard. I think > it is the pronunciation that causes the confusion and perhaps > change. I have had many students write, "I use to" when it was > clearly a past situation and needed " I used to." > > Edith Wollin// > > > > *From:*Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask] ] > *On Behalf Of *Dick Veit > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:45 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* didn't use(d) to > > > > Two quotations from recently encountered novels: > > "There's bad blood now. *Didn't use to* be like that..." (dialog in > Alan Furst's /Spies of the Balkans/, p. 102, Kindle edition). > "She *didn't used to* smoke around the kids..." (Kate Atkinson, > /When Will There Be Good News?/, p. 126, Kindle edition). > > So which is it, /didn't use to/ or /didn't used to/? > > A few usage guides I consulted prescribe "didn't use to," but others > say both are standard. In my own writing, I probably would have used > "didn't used to." > > On the one hand, "used to/didn't use to" would parallel other verbs > (laughed/didn't laugh), but, on the other, we're talking about a > quasimodal, and with modals we can expect significant variations > from other verbs. Pronunciation is no help--both "use to" and "used > to" are spoken identically as "useta." > > Thoughts? > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select > "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 14 Jun 2011 14:36:33 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C6D554FBBEMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C6D554FBBEMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dick, I haven't checked this closely, but I suspect the past tense form came first and then negative with "do," resulting in double past marking. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 2:03 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to Edith, We all agree that "I use to" is nonstandard inasmuch as, while used by the occasional unsophisticated student, it is rarely if ever seen in reputable publications or written by reputable writers. But "didn't used to" appears all the time--in magazines, novels, newspapers. If it is "incorrect," it is sure getting past a lot of well paid copy-editors. To get a very rough measure of usage, I Googled "didn't used to" (183 million results) and "didn't use to" (121 million results). I cite these numbers only to show that both occur a lot. I'm much less interested in the right and wrong than in the why. Herb stated reasons why "used to" can get reduced to "use to," but I wonder how the "d" came to exist at all in "didn't used to." Dick On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Wollin, Edith <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I have always thought that "didn't used to" was incorrect, so I was surprised to see that some handbooks consider it standard. I think it is the pronunciation that causes the confusion and perhaps change. I have had many students write, "I use to" when it was clearly a past situation and needed " I used to." Edith Wollin From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:45 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: didn't use(d) to Two quotations from recently encountered novels: "There's bad blood now. Didn't use to be like that..." (dialog in Alan Furst's Spies of the Balkans, p. 102, Kindle edition). "She didn't used to smoke around the kids..." (Kate Atkinson, When Will There Be Good News?, p. 126, Kindle edition). So which is it, didn't use to or didn't used to? A few usage guides I consulted prescribe "didn't use to," but others say both are standard. In my own writing, I probably would have used "didn't used to." On the one hand, "used to/didn't use to" would parallel other verbs (laughed/didn't laugh), but, on the other, we're talking about a quasimodal, and with modals we can expect significant variations from other verbs. Pronunciation is no help--both "use to" and "used to" are spoken identically as "useta." Thoughts? To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C6D554FBBEMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dick,

 

I haven’t checked this closely, but I suspect the past tense form came first and then negative with “do,” resulting in double past marking.

 

Herb

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 2:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to

 

Edith,

We all agree that "I use to" is nonstandard inasmuch as, while used by the occasional unsophisticated student, it is rarely if ever seen in reputable publications or written by reputable writers. But "didn't used to" appears all the time--in magazines, novels, newspapers. If it is "incorrect," it is sure getting past a lot of well paid copy-editors. To get a very rough measure of usage, I Googled "didn't used to" (183 million results) and "didn't use to" (121 million results). I cite these numbers only to show that both occur a lot.

I'm much less interested in the right and wrong than in the why. Herb stated reasons why "used to" can get reduced to "use to," but I wonder how the "d" came to exist at all in "didn't used to."

Dick

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Wollin, Edith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I have always thought that “didn’t used to” was incorrect, so I was surprised to see that some handbooks consider it standard. I think it is the pronunciation that causes the confusion and perhaps change. I have had many students write, “I use to” when it was clearly a past situation and needed “ I used to.”

Edith Wollin

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: didn't use(d) to

 

Two quotations from recently encountered novels:

"There's bad blood now. Didn't use to be like that..." (dialog in Alan Furst's Spies of the Balkans, p. 102, Kindle edition).
"She didn't used to smoke around the kids..." (Kate Atkinson, When Will There Be Good News?, p. 126, Kindle edition).

So which is it, didn't use to or didn't used to?

A few usage guides I consulted prescribe "didn't use to," but others say both are standard. In my own writing, I probably would have used "didn't used to."

On the one hand, "used to/didn't use to" would parallel other verbs (laughed/didn't laugh), but, on the other, we're talking about a quasimodal, and with modals we can expect significant variations from other verbs. Pronunciation is no help--both "use to" and "used to" are spoken identically as "useta."

Thoughts?

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C6D554FBBEMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:45:20 +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: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 I remember being quite put out by "iced cream" when I encountered the example in a historical linguistics class when I was in early graduate school -- I had this comfortable sense of righteous indignation at people who were writing "ice tea," and then the example contextualized the entire thing at the expense of my inner prescriptivist. Darn history and its humility-inducing ways. For what it's worth, the historical COHA corpus has an 18:2 tilt in favor of "didn't use to," with the bulk of "use"-examples being 1890 or earlier and all two "used"-examples being later. But those are very small numbers, and at least one of them is a potentially false hit, so I'm not sure how much that tells us. For modern English, COCA has 2:2, so it's a wash. Google-searching gets you 123:73 (million), keeping in mind that Googling gets you tons of false hits of various sorts (the results only mean much if the factors causing the false hits are relatively equivalent for both of the things you're searching for). My brain wants to treat "used to" as a fully fused form, analogous to "supposed to," and since I think "I wasn't suppose to do that" looks odd, I don't want to write "I didn't use to do that." But the numbers seem to be slightly in favor of the "didn't use to" variant, and that ice cream effect will probably tilt things further. --- Bill Spruiell ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of STAHLKE, HERBERT F [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:37 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to Whether or not there is an approved spelling, this looks like a case of the �ice cream� phenomenon, where a final dental stop (/d/ or /t/) gets deleted before a consonant-initial word. Other examples are skim milk ice tea stuff peppers etc. The two spellings would probably be pronounced the same, without the final /d/. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:45 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: didn't use(d) to Two quotations from recently encountered novels: "There's bad blood now. Didn't use to be like that..." (dialog in Alan Furst's Spies of the Balkans, p. 102, Kindle edition). "She didn't used to smoke around the kids..." (Kate Atkinson, When Will There Be Good News?, p. 126, Kindle edition). So which is it, didn't use to or didn't used to? A few usage guides I consulted prescribe "didn't use to," but others say both are standard. In my own writing, I probably would have used "didn't used to." On the one hand, "used to/didn't use to" would parallel other verbs (laughed/didn't laugh), but, on the other, we're talking about a quasimodal, and with modals we can expect significant variations from other verbs. Pronunciation is no help--both "use to" and "used to" are spoken identically as "useta." Thoughts? To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 14 Jun 2011 13:53:08 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill, But is it fully fused if you want to negate with 'did'? Doesn't that suggest that "supposed to" is NOT completely modalized, since it's still forming negation the in the same way as other main verbs? And I'm sure you know this, but of course with 'was supposed to' the -ed there comes from the past participle, not the plain past tense marker, as with 'used to', so there's no doubling of the tense marking, and your brain's resistance to dropping the -ed there seems logical. Karl On 06/14/2011 11:45 AM, Spruiell, William C wrote: > I remember being quite put out by "iced cream" when I encountered the example in a historical linguistics class when I was in early graduate school -- I had this comfortable sense of righteous indignation at people who were writing "ice tea," and then the example contextualized the entire thing at the expense of my inner prescriptivist. Darn history and its humility-inducing ways. > > For what it's worth, the historical COHA corpus has an 18:2 tilt in favor of "didn't use to," with the bulk of "use"-examples being 1890 or earlier and all two "used"-examples being later. But those are very small numbers, and at least one of them is a potentially false hit, so I'm not sure how much that tells us. For modern English, COCA has 2:2, so it's a wash. Google-searching gets you 123:73 (million), keeping in mind that Googling gets you tons of false hits of various sorts (the results only mean much if the factors causing the false hits are relatively equivalent for both of the things you're searching for). > > My brain wants to treat "used to" as a fully fused form, analogous to "supposed to," and since I think "I wasn't suppose to do that" looks odd, I don't want to write "I didn't use to do that." But the numbers seem to be slightly in favor of the "didn't use to" variant, and that ice cream effect will probably tilt things further. > > --- Bill Spruiell > > > > ________________________________ > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of STAHLKE, HERBERT F [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:37 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to > > Whether or not there is an approved spelling, this looks like a case of the �ice cream� phenomenon, where a final dental stop (/d/ or /t/) gets deleted before a consonant-initial word. Other examples are > > skim milk > ice tea > stuff peppers > etc. > > The two spellings would probably be pronounced the same, without the final /d/. > > Herb > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:45 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: didn't use(d) to > > Two quotations from recently encountered novels: > > "There's bad blood now. Didn't use to be like that..." (dialog in Alan Furst's Spies of the Balkans, p. 102, Kindle edition). > "She didn't used to smoke around the kids..." (Kate Atkinson, When Will There Be Good News?, p. 126, Kindle edition). > > So which is it, didn't use to or didn't used to? > > A few usage guides I consulted prescribe "didn't use to," but others say both are standard. In my own writing, I probably would have used "didn't used to." > > On the one hand, "used to/didn't use to" would parallel other verbs (laughed/didn't laugh), but, on the other, we're talking about a quasimodal, and with modals we can expect significant variations from other verbs. Pronunciation is no help--both "use to" and "used to" are spoken identically as "useta." > > Thoughts? > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 14 Jun 2011 20:51:34 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Karl, If "used to" was a typical past tense, though, you would expect to have a present tense version of it, complete with third person singular (He uses to), and we don't have that. The form of "use" that takes the present ("I use money to buy love) is not fused and has a different meaning. "Used to" is parallel in many ways to "would." It denotes an habitual pattern in the past. I can't think of a present time application. At what point does something become close enough to the other modals to be modalized? How about "hadn't ought to?" On the surface, that would seem double tensed. But "ought to," like "used to," doesn't have a finite alternative. Craig Bill, > > But is it fully fused if you want to negate with 'did'? Doesn't that > suggest that "supposed to" is NOT completely modalized, since it's still > forming negation the in the same way as other main verbs? > > And I'm sure you know this, but of course with 'was supposed to' the -ed > there comes from the past participle, not the plain past tense marker, > as with 'used to', so there's no doubling of the tense marking, and your > brain's resistance to dropping the -ed there seems logical. > > Karl > > On 06/14/2011 11:45 AM, Spruiell, William C wrote: >> I remember being quite put out by "iced cream" when I encountered the >> example in a historical linguistics class when I was in early graduate >> school -- I had this comfortable sense of righteous indignation at >> people who were writing "ice tea," and then the example contextualized >> the entire thing at the expense of my inner prescriptivist. Darn history >> and its humility-inducing ways. >> >> For what it's worth, the historical COHA corpus has an 18:2 tilt in >> favor of "didn't use to," with the bulk of "use"-examples being 1890 or >> earlier and all two "used"-examples being later. But those are very >> small numbers, and at least one of them is a potentially false hit, so >> I'm not sure how much that tells us. For modern English, COCA has 2:2, >> so it's a wash. Google-searching gets you 123:73 (million), keeping in >> mind that Googling gets you tons of false hits of various sorts (the >> results only mean much if the factors causing the false hits are >> relatively equivalent for both of the things you're searching for). >> >> My brain wants to treat "used to" as a fully fused form, analogous to >> "supposed to," and since I think "I wasn't suppose to do that" looks >> odd, I don't want to write "I didn't use to do that." But the numbers >> seem to be slightly in favor of the "didn't use to" variant, and that >> ice cream effect will probably tilt things further. >> >> --- Bill Spruiell >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of STAHLKE, HERBERT F >> [[log in to unmask]] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:37 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to >> >> Whether or not there is an approved spelling, this looks like a case of >> the �ice cream� phenomenon, where a final dental stop (/d/ or /t/) gets >> deleted before a consonant-initial word. Other examples are >> >> skim milk >> ice tea >> stuff peppers >> etc. >> >> The two spellings would probably be pronounced the same, without the >> final /d/. >> >> Herb >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit >> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:45 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: didn't use(d) to >> >> Two quotations from recently encountered novels: >> >> "There's bad blood now. Didn't use to be like that..." (dialog in Alan >> Furst's Spies of the Balkans, p. 102, Kindle edition). >> "She didn't used to smoke around the kids..." (Kate Atkinson, When Will >> There Be Good News?, p. 126, Kindle edition). >> >> So which is it, didn't use to or didn't used to? >> >> A few usage guides I consulted prescribe "didn't use to," but others say >> both are standard. In my own writing, I probably would have used "didn't >> used to." >> >> On the one hand, "used to/didn't use to" would parallel other verbs >> (laughed/didn't laugh), but, on the other, we're talking about a >> quasimodal, and with modals we can expect significant variations from >> other verbs. Pronunciation is no help--both "use to" and "used to" are >> spoken identically as "useta." >> >> Thoughts? >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select >> "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select >> "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 14 Jun 2011 21:26:40 -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: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The problem with the analysis that "used to" is a modal is the fact that it takes do-support. 1) She used to play soccer. 2) She didn't used to play soccer. 3) She used to play soccer, didn't she? 4) She didn't used to play soccer, did she? "would, "ought", "should" etc. never take do-support. Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri >>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 06/14/11 7:55 PM >>> Karl, If "used to" was a typical past tense, though, you would expect to have a present tense version of it, complete with third person singular (He uses to), and we don't have that. The form of "use" that takes the present ("I use money to buy love) is not fused and has a different meaning. "Used to" is parallel in many ways to "would." It denotes an habitual pattern in the past. I can't think of a present time application. At what point does something become close enough to the other modals to be modalized? How about "hadn't ought to?" On the surface, that would seem double tensed. But "ought to," like "used to," doesn't have a finite alternative. Craig Bill, > > But is it fully fused if you want to negate with 'did'? Doesn't that > suggest that "supposed to" is NOT completely modalized, since it's still > forming negation the in the same way as other main verbs? > > And I'm sure you know this, but of course with 'was supposed to' the -ed > there comes from the past participle, not the plain past tense marker, > as with 'used to', so there's no doubling of the tense marking, and your > brain's resistance to dropping the -ed there seems logical. > > Karl > > On 06/14/2011 11:45 AM, Spruiell, William C wrote: >> I remember being quite put out by "iced cream" when I encountered the >> example in a historical linguistics class when I was in early graduate >> school -- I had this comfortable sense of righteous indignation at >> people who were writing "ice tea," and then the example contextualized >> the entire thing at the expense of my inner prescriptivist. Darn history >> and its humility-inducing ways. >> >> For what it's worth, the historical COHA corpus has an 18:2 tilt in >> favor of "didn't use to," with the bulk of "use"-examples being 1890 or >> earlier and all two "used"-examples being later. But those are very >> small numbers, and at least one of them is a potentially false hit, so >> I'm not sure how much that tells us. For modern English, COCA has 2:2, >> so it's a wash. Google-searching gets you 123:73 (million), keeping in >> mind that Googling gets you tons of false hits of various sorts (the >> results only mean much if the factors causing the false hits are >> relatively equivalent for both of the things you're searching for). >> >> My brain wants to treat "used to" as a fully fused form, analogous to >> "supposed to," and since I think "I wasn't suppose to do that" looks >> odd, I don't want to write "I didn't use to do that." But the numbers >> seem to be slightly in favor of the "didn't use to" variant, and that >> ice cream effect will probably tilt things further. >> >> --- Bill Spruiell >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of STAHLKE, HERBERT F >> [[log in to unmask]] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:37 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to >> >> Whether or not there is an approved spelling, this looks like a case of >> the “ice cream” phenomenon, where a final dental stop (/d/ or /t/) gets >> deleted before a consonant-initial word. Other examples are >> >> skim milk >> ice tea >> stuff peppers >> etc. >> >> The two spellings would probably be pronounced the same, without the >> final /d/. >> >> Herb >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit >> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:45 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: didn't use(d) to >> >> Two quotati>> Furst's Spies of the Balkans, p. 102, Kindle edition). >> "She didn't used to smoke around the kids..." (Kate Atkinson, When Will >> There Be Good News?, p. 126, Kindle edition). >> >> So which is it, didn't use to or didn't used to? >> >> A few usage guides I consulted prescribe "didn't use to," but others say >> both are standard. In my own writing, I probably would have used "didn't >> used to." >> >> On the one hand, "used to/didn't use to" would parallel other verbs >> (laughed/didn't laugh), but, on the other, we're talking about a >> quasimodal, and with modals we can expect significant variations from >> other verbs. Pronunciation is no help--both "use to" and "used to" are >> spoken identically as "useta." >> >> Thoughts? >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select >> "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select >> "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 15 Jun 2011 03:21:13 +0000 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Comments: RFC822 error: Invalid RFC822 field - "=". Rest of header flushed. From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Karl, For "supposed," I was assuming -- and now that you've made me think about it, I'm wondering if this is a false assumption -- that speakers don't normally use a representation/processing strategy for the "supposed to" construction that requires tagging the -ed as a suffix. That's what I meant by "fused." The meaning of "supposed" here is so divergent from the meaning of "suppose" as a regular verb that I want to treat them as separate lexical items (and that was the connection with "used to" -- I want to treat that "use(d)" as a different lexical item from the "use" that's paraphrasable as "utilize," at least in terms of what I think goes on in modern speakers' heads). Since you can get non-participles in the "be ____ to" kinda-modal frame (e.g. "be about to," "be able to"), and since you *only* get that particular "supposed" in the -ed form, it's ripe for reanalysis. It's my structuralism showing -- if the form doesn't contrast with one without the -ed, the -ed isn't marking anything (except now, it has become a marker of literacy/education, and can so is potential fodder for hypercorrections). It started as a participle, but it's not in complementary distribution with any non-participle version of the same lexeme. Or to put it another way, I think many, if not most, speakers grow up initially thinking what others on the list have described: there's a word "suppohs," or even "supposta." And then school tells them they have to spell it fancy. They may add a new representation (in the same way that students who have a unit on Greek and Latin prefixes can add additional representations of words they already know), but that's not what they use for normal processing. For "supposed," the fused version gives you results that make everyone happy (unless you don't get the part about the writing the silent -d), so you even if you add a new representation, there's no practical effect. For "used," you hit a fork in the road. Whether negation requires do-support (in the old terminology) has to do with how "modal" the forms have become, but doesn't have to do with fusion in that sense. The alternation between "have to," "has to" and "had to," on the other hand, does; it constantly encourages speakers to break apart the morphemes. If you think of the "used" of "used to" as fused, "didn't use to" looks typo-ish in the same way "am suppose to" looks typo-ish. Apparently, it's become fused enough for enough people that the OED and usage guides don't want to try to legislate it one way or another. My clunky use of "my brain wants to..." was motivated by my recognition that I'm probably in the fused set, and that the fused set is by no means everyone. For "supposed," I think most people are in the fused set. Of course, the fact that I can set up a analysis that doesn't tag the -ed, doesn't mean that's what people do, and the relations between "supposed" and "suppose" aren't as opaque as those between, say, "work" and "wrought" (where I'm really confident about saying modern speakers don't normally treat the latter as a participle, at least not before their linguistics courses). I might should oughta check to see if there's any actual evidence from psycholinguistic studies before I make any more sweeping generalizations... --- Bill Spruiell ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Karl Hagen [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 4:53 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to Bill, But is it fully fused if you want to negate with 'did'? Doesn't that suggest that "supposed to" is NOT completely modalized, since it's still forming negation the in the same way as other main verbs? And I'm sure you know this, but of course with 'was supposed to' the -ed there comes from the past participle, not the plain past tense marker, as with 'used to', so there's no doubling of the tense marking, and your brain's resistance to dropping the -ed there seems logical. Karl On 06/14/2011 11:45 AM, Spruiell, William C wrote: > I remember being quite put out by "iced cream" when I encountered the example in a historical linguistics class when I was in early graduate school -- I had this comfortable sense of righteous indignation at people who were writing "ice tea," and then the example contextualized the entire thing at the expense of my inner prescriptivist. Darn history and its humility-inducing ways. > > For what it's worth, the historical COHA corpus has an 18:2 tilt in favor of "didn't use to," with the bulk of "use"-examples being 1890 or earlier and all two "used"-examples being later. But those are very small numbers, and at least one of them is a potentially false hit, so I'm not sure how much that tells us. For modern English, COCA has 2:2, so it's a wash. Google-searching gets you 123:73 (million), keeping in mind that Googling gets you tons of false hits of various sorts (the results only mean much if the factors causing the false hits are relatively equivalent for both of the things you're searching for). > > My brain wants to treat "used to" as a fully fused form, analogous to "supposed to," and since I think "I wasn't suppose to do that" looks odd, I don't want to write "I didn't use to do that." But the numbers seem to be slightly in favor of the "didn't use to" variant, and that ice cream effect will probably tilt things further. > > --- Bill Spruiell > > > > ________________________________ > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of STAHLKE, HERBERT F [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:37 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to > > Whether or not there is an approved spelling, this looks like a case of the �ice cream� phenomenon, where a final dental stop (/d/ or /t/) gets deleted before a consonant-initial word. Other examples are > > skim milk > ice tea > stuff peppers > etc. > > The two spellings would probably be pronounced the same, without the final /d/. > > Herb > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:45 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: didn't use(d) to > > Two quotations from recently encountered novels: > > "There's bad blood now. Didn't use to be like that..." (dialog in Alan Furst's Spies of the Balkans, p. 102, Kindle edition). > "She didn't used to smoke around the kids..." (Kate Atkinson, When Will There Be Good News?, p. 126, Kindle edition). > > So which is it, didn't use to or didn't used to? > > A few usage guides I consulted prescribe "didn't use to," but others say both are standard. In my own writing, I probably would have used "didn't used to." > > On the one hand, "used to/didn't use to" would parallel other verbs (laughed/didn't laugh), but, on the other, we're talking about a quasimodal, and with modals we can expect significant variations from other verbs. Pronunciation is no help--both "use to" and "used to" are spoken identically as "useta." > > Thoughts? > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 15 Jun 2011 08:20:57 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --000e0cd4037645e04704a5bf2f2c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 True, Bob. "Used to" takes do-support and pure modals don't. "Used to" (useta), along with "have to," "had to," and "ought to" (haveta, hadda, oughtta), are often called "quasimodals" because they have some characteristics of modals but not others. Unlike most other verbs that precede infinitives (want, try, like, need, etc.), they can cannot be used or be analyzed for meaning without the "to." 1. What did you want? We wanted to dance. But: 2. *What did you used? We used to dance. 3. *What do you have? We have to dance. 4. *What did you have? We had to dance. 5. *What do you ought? We ought to dance. Unlike other verbs (need, etc.), in quasimodals the verb and "to" are largely, although not entirely, fused. 6. We need desperately to get work. 7. *We have desperately to get work. The modal "must" does not have a past tense, but the quasimodal "had to" fills that void: 8. These days we must mind our manners. 9. In the past we had to mind our manners. Finally, in my region (southeastern North Carolina) some modals can be used serially ("I might could do that"). That also works here with "used to": 10. I used to could do that, but not any longer. Dick On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > The problem with the analysis that "used to" is a modal is the fact that > it takes do-support. > > 1) She used to play soccer. > 2) She didn't used to play soccer. > > 3) She used to play soccer, didn't she? > 4) She didn't used to play soccer, did she? > > "would, "ought", "should" etc. never take do-support. > > Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --000e0cd4037645e04704a5bf2f2c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable True, Bob. "Used to" takes do-support and pure modals don't. "Used to" (useta), along with "have to," "had to," and "ought to" (haveta, hadda, oughtta), are often called "quasimodals" because they have some characteristics of modals but not others.

Unlike most other verbs that precede infinitives (want, try, like, need, etc.), they can cannot be used or be analyzed for meaning without the "to."

1. What did you want? We wanted to dance.

But:

2. *What did you used? We used to dance.
3. *What do you have? We have to dance.
4. *What did you have? We had to dance.
5. *What do you ought? We ought to dance.

Unlike other verbs (need, etc.), in quasimodals the verb and "to" are largely, although not entirely, fused.

6. We need desperately to get work.
7. *We have desperately to get work.

The modal "must" does not have a past tense, but the quasimodal "had to" fills that void:

8. These days we must mind our manners.
9. In the past we had to mind our manners.

Finally, in my region (southeastern North Carolina) some modals can be used serially ("I might could do that"). That also works here with "used to":

10. I used to could do that, but not any longer.

Dick

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

The problem with the analysis that "used to" is a modal is the fact that
it takes do-support.

1) She used to play soccer.
2) She didn't used to play soccer.

3) She used to play soccer, didn't she?
4) She didn't used to play soccer, did she?

"would, "ought", "should" etc. never take do-support.

Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --000e0cd4037645e04704a5bf2f2c-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:51:00 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: didn't use(d) to In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030908070205080201020301" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030908070205080201020301 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Quasimodal" is a useful category since it denotes similarities and disparities. Grammaticalization as a concept can at least open the possibility that these constructions are on a path toward modal. We can also open up the possibility that grammar patterns exhibit some of the eccentricity (delicacy) we find routine in the lexicon. One key, I think, with "used to" is not just that it doesn't have a present tense alternative for its modal like meanings, but in a strict sense does not have a nonfinite form (in the same way that "have to"and "be able to" have.) "Use to" isn't fused and has a different meaning. The exception, I guess, might be in the negation examples we have been discussing. The argument for "didn't used to" could include the idea that "used to" has modalized sufficiently to have lost its nonfinite form. That usage shifts back and forth might mean it is still in process and has different status for different people. It's an interesting problem. I like the idea that most of us seem opposed to legislating this one way or the other. Craig On 6/15/2011 8:20 AM, Dick Veit wrote: > True, Bob. "Used to" takes do-support and pure modals don't. "Used to" > (useta), along with "have to," "had to," and "ought to" (haveta, > hadda, oughtta), are often called "quasimodals" because they have some > characteristics of modals but not others. > > Unlike most other verbs that precede infinitives (want, try, like, > need, etc.), they can cannot be used or be analyzed for meaning > without the "to." > > 1. What did you want? We wanted to dance. > > But: > > 2. *What did you used? We used to dance. > 3. *What do you have? We have to dance. > 4. *What did you have? We had to dance. > 5. *What do you ought? We ought to dance. > > Unlike other verbs (need, etc.), in quasimodals the verb and "to" are > largely, although not entirely, fused. > > 6. We need desperately to get work. > 7. *We have desperately to get work. > > The modal "must" does not have a past tense, but the quasimodal "had > to" fills that void: > > 8. These days we must mind our manners. > 9. In the past we had to mind our manners. > > Finally, in my region (southeastern North Carolina) some modals can be > used serially ("I might could do that"). That also works here with > "used to": > > 10. I used to could do that, but not any longer. > > Dick > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Robert Yates <[log in to unmask] > > wrote: > > The problem with the analysis that "used to" is a modal is the > fact that > it takes do-support. > > 1) She used to play soccer. > 2) She didn't used to play soccer. > > 3) She used to play soccer, didn't she? > 4) She didn't used to play soccer, did she? > > "would, "ought", "should" etc. never take do-support. > > Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select > "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --------------030908070205080201020301 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit     "Quasimodal" is a useful category since it denotes similarities and disparities. Grammaticalization as a concept can at least open the possibility that these constructions are on a path toward modal. We can also open up the possibility that grammar patterns exhibit some of the eccentricity (delicacy) we find routine in the lexicon.
    One key, I think, with "used to" is not just that it doesn't have a present tense alternative for its modal like meanings, but in a strict sense does not have a nonfinite form (in the same way that "have to"and "be able to" have.) "Use to" isn't fused and has a different meaning. The exception, I guess, might be in the negation examples we have been discussing. The argument for "didn't used to" could include the idea that "used to" has modalized sufficiently to have lost its nonfinite form. That usage shifts back and forth might mean it is still in process and has different status for different people.
    It's an interesting problem. I like the idea that most of us seem opposed to legislating this one way or the other.

Craig

On 6/15/2011 8:20 AM, Dick Veit wrote:

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">True, Bob. "Used to" takes do-support and pure modals don't. "Used to" (useta), along with "have to," "had to," and "ought to" (haveta, hadda, oughtta), are often called "quasimodals" because they have some characteristics of modals but not others.

Unlike most other verbs that precede infinitives (want, try, like, need, etc.), they can cannot be used or be analyzed for meaning without the "to."

1. What did you want? We wanted to dance.

But:

2. *What did you used? We used to dance.
3. *What do you have? We have to dance.
4. *What did you have? We had to dance.
5. *What do you ought? We ought to dance.

Unlike other verbs (need, etc.), in quasimodals the verb and "to" are largely, although not entirely, fused.

6. We need desperately to get work.
7. *We have desperately to get work.

The modal "must" does not have a past tense, but the quasimodal "had to" fills that void:

8. These days we must mind our manners.
9. In the past we had to mind our manners.

Finally, in my region (southeastern North Carolina) some modals can be used serially ("I might could do that"). That also works here with "used to":

10. I used to could do that, but not any longer.

Dick

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

The problem with the analysis that "used to" is a modal is the fact that
it takes do-support.

1) She used to play soccer.
2) She didn't used to play soccer.

3) She used to play soccer, didn't she?
4) She didn't used to play soccer, did she?

"would, "ought", "should" etc. never take do-support.

Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --------------030908070205080201020301-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:45:57 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Objectives for teaching verbs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-2057628287-1308170757=:5831" My department is developing a document to organize our inst --0-2057628287-1308170757=:5831 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear List, My department is developing a document to organize our instruction in grammar in grades 5-12 (through AP English Literature and AP English Language, both of which are required classes) across six schools. I would�appreciate some feedback on the objectives list below which guides the document. What is missing? What would you recommend changing or deleting? What else should we think about?� Thanks, Scott Woods�� Objectives 1. ؠ Students both explain and exemplify the system of regular verb inflections. 2. ؠ Students identify verbs in context based on syntactical and morphological features. 3. ؠ Students consistently apply the spelling conventions for regular verb inflections, especially for common verbs, and correct relevant errors. 4. ؠ Students explain the difference between go and be and the rest of our verbs (demonstrating their understanding of the inflectional system). 5. ؠ Students correctly conjugate all auxiliary verbs, and correct relevant errors. 6. ؠ Students are exposed to the class of strong verbs, and to subclasses of strong verbs. 7. ؠ Students explain and exemplify the difference between regular verbs and strong verbs. 8. ؠ Students use strong verbs accurately, especially common strong verbs, and correct relevant errors. 9. ؠ Students are exposed to classes of irregular verbs grouped by common characteristics. 10. ؠ Students use irregular verbs accurately, especially common irregular verbs, and correct relevant errors. 11. ؠ Students explain, identify, and exemplify verb phrases (as opposed to solitary verbs) 12. ؠ Students distinguish between linking and non-linking verbs. 13. ؠ Students distinguish between transitive and intransitive (linking and non-linking) verbs. 14. ؠ Students identify auxiliary verbs in context. 15. ؠ Students use auxiliary verbs accurately, distinguishing as needed between tenses, and correct relevant errors. 16. ؠ Students identify multi-word verbs in context, distinguishing them from verbs followed by adverbial particles or prepositional phrases. 17. ؠ Students use the progressive construction when appropriate, and correct erroneous usage. 18. ؠ Students identify the progressive construction in context, differentiating progressive aspect verbs from gerunds and adjectival participles. 19. ؠ Students use the perfect construction when appropriate, and correct erroneous usage. 20. ؠ (Identification of perfect constructions in context is secondary.) 21. ؠ Students use the subjunctive mood when appropriate with commanding that-clauses and contrary-to-fact if-clauses, and correct erroneous usage. 22. ؠ (Identification of the subjunctive mood in context is secondary.) 23. ؠ Students accurately use the instantaneous present, the habitual present, the eternal present, and the literary present in writing, and correct errors in usage. 24. ؠ Students identify verbs in their own writing. 25. ؠ Students accurately use lie, lay, sit, set, rise, and raise, and correct usage errors. 26. ؠ Students ensure semantic coherence of verb-subject pairs. 27. ؠ Students accurately use common verb-preposition pairs, and correct errors in usage. 28. ؠ Students take definite measures to improve the accuracy, precision, sophistication, and literary appeal of their verbs. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-2057628287-1308170757=:5831 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear List,

 

My department is developing a document to organize our instruction in grammar in grades 5-12 (through AP English Literature and AP English Language, both of which are required classes) across six schools. I would appreciate some feedback on the objectives list below which guides the document. What is missing? What would you recommend changing or deleting? What else should we think about? 

 

Thanks,

 

Scott Woods  

Objectives

1. �  Students both explain and exemplify the system of regular verb inflections.
2. �  Students identify verbs in context based on syntactical and morphological features.
3. �  Students consistently apply the spelling conventions for regular verb inflections, especially for common verbs, and correct relevant errors.
4. �  Students explain the difference between go and be and the rest of our verbs (demonstrating their understanding of the inflectional system).
5. �  Students correctly conjugate all auxiliary verbs, and correct relevant errors.
6. �  Students are exposed to the class of strong verbs, and to subclasses of strong verbs.
7. �  Students explain and exemplify the difference between regular verbs and strong verbs.
8. �  Students use strong verbs accurately, especially common strong verbs, and correct relevant errors.
9. �  Students are exposed to classes of irregular verbs grouped by common characteristics.
10. �  Students use irregular verbs accurately, especially common irregular verbs, and correct relevant errors.
11. �  Students explain, identify, and exemplify verb phrases (as opposed to solitary verbs)
12. �  Students distinguish between linking and non-linking verbs.
13. �  Students distinguish between transitive and intransitive (linking and non-linking) verbs.
14. �  Students identify auxiliary verbs in context.
15. �  Students use auxiliary verbs accurately, distinguishing as needed between tenses, and correct relevant errors.
16. �  Students identify multi-word verbs in context, distinguishing them from verbs followed by adverbial particles or prepositional phrases.
17. �  Students use the progressive construction when appropriate, and correct erroneous usage.
18. �  Students identify the progressive construction in context, differentiating progressive aspect verbs from gerunds and adjectival participles.
19. �  Students use the perfect construction when appropriate, and correct erroneous usage.
20. �  (Identification of perfect constructions in context is secondary.)
21. �  Students use the subjunctive mood when appropriate with commanding that-clauses and contrary-to-fact if-clauses, and correct erroneous usage.
22. �  (Identification of the subjunctive mood in context is secondary.)
23. �  Students accurately use the instantaneous present, the habitual present, the eternal present, and the literary present in writing, and correct errors in usage.
24. �  Students identify verbs in their own writing.
25. �  Students accurately use lie, lay, sit, set, rise, and raise, and correct usage errors.
26. �  Students ensure semantic coherence of verb-subject pairs.
27. �  Students accurately use common verb-preposition pairs, and correct errors in usage.
28. �  Students take definite measures to improve the accuracy, precision, sophistication, and literary appeal of their verbs.

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-2057628287-1308170757=:5831-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:01:52 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Right and wrong in grammar MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary�cb4e43d1b9cf31d204a5c74ce6 --e0cb4e43d1b9cf31d204a5c74ce6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Craig: I'm with you when you write, "I like the idea that most of us seem opposed to legislating this one way or the other." A better question than whether a grammatical form is right or wrong in some absolute sense is whether it is or isn't English. If a usage is in widespread use among English speakers, it is English. That doesn't mean all English is on the same plane. We (and our students) can and should distinguish between standard and nonstandard English, national and regional, formal and informal, prestigious and non-prestigious English. The main criterion for standard English is whether a usage is widely in use among literate speakers. (Yes, this is an inexact criterion but a real one; grammarians who like exactitude are in the wrong business.) By this criterion, "I used to" is standard while "I use to" is not, but both "I didn't use to" and "I didn't used to" are standard. It is not the job of grammarians to legislate but to observe, describe, and try to understand. Of course stylists are free to legislate within their domain. A publication may, for the sake of consistency, stipulate the use of one among competing English forms. Will we use 8 a.m., 8 am, or 8 AM? Will we use "didn't use to" or "didn't used to"? Will we use "till" or "'til"? Will we treat "data" as singular or plural? Will we allow "who" to represent an object? But no one outside the domain is required to accept these stipulations. As students of language, we believe that actual usage, not the pronouncement of authorities, determines what is English, but the fact that new conventions arise to replace comfortable old ones can make hypocrites of us. To give a personal example, I continue to cringe when I see "Open 'til midnight." I am likely to speak back to the newspaper, "It's not *'til*, it's *till*. *Till *has been a perfectly fine preposition in use since Old English (and even before, coming from Old Norse *til*). It is NOT a contraction of *until*!" But of course my ranting does no good, and, like it or not, I am forced to admit that *'til *is now so widely used that it has now become perfectly standard. History can tell us a lot about our language, but current usage trumps it every time. Dick On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > "Quasimodal" is a useful category since it denotes similarities and > disparities. Grammaticalization as a concept can at least open the > possibility that these constructions are on a path toward modal. We can also > open up the possibility that grammar patterns exhibit some of the > eccentricity (delicacy) we find routine in the lexicon. > One key, I think, with "used to" is not just that it doesn't have a > present tense alternative for its modal like meanings, but in a strict sense > does not have a nonfinite form (in the same way that "have to"and "be able > to" have.) "Use to" isn't fused and has a different meaning. The exception, > I guess, might be in the negation examples we have been discussing. The > argument for "didn't used to" could include the idea that "used to" has > modalized sufficiently to have lost its nonfinite form. That usage shifts > back and forth might mean it is still in process and has different status > for different people. > It's an interesting problem. I like the idea that most of us seem > opposed to legislating this one way or the other. > > Craig > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --e0cb4e43d1b9cf31d204a5c74ce6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig:

I'm with you when you write, "I like the idea that most of us seem opposed to legislating this one way or the other." A better question than whether a grammatical form is right or wrong in some absolute sense is whether it is or isn't English. If a usage is in widespread use among English speakers, it is English. That doesn't mean all English is on the same plane. We (and our students) can and should distinguish between standard and nonstandard English, national and regional, formal and informal, prestigious and non-prestigious English. The main criterion for standard English is whether a usage is widely in use among literate speakers. (Yes, this is an inexact criterion but a real one; grammarians who like exactitude are in the wrong business.) By this criterion, "I used to" is standard while "I use to" is not, but both "I didn't use to" and "I didn't used to" are standard.

It is not the job of grammarians to legislate but to observe, describe, and try to understand. Of course stylists are free to legislate within their domain. A publication may, for the sake of consistency, stipulate the use of one among competing English forms. Will we use 8 a.m., 8 am, or 8 AM? Will we use "didn't use to" or "didn't used to"? Will we use "till" or "'til"? Will we treat "data" as singular or plural? Will we allow "who" to represent an object? But no one outside the domain is required to accept these stipulations.

As students of language, we believe that actual usage, not the pronouncement of authorities, determines what is English, but the fact that new conventions arise to replace comfortable old ones can make hypocrites of us. To give a personal example, I continue to cringe when I see "Open 'til midnight." I am likely to speak back to the newspaper, "It's not 'til, it's till. Till has been a perfectly fine preposition in use since Old English (and even before, coming from Old Norse til). It is NOT a contraction of until!" But of course my ranting does no good, and, like it or not, I am forced to admit that 'til is now so widely used that it has now become perfectly standard. History can tell us a lot about our language, but current usage trumps it every time.

Dick

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

��� "Quasimodal" is a useful category since it denotes similarities and disparities. Grammaticalization as a concept can at least open the possibility that these constructions are on a path toward modal. We can also open up the possibility that grammar patterns exhibit some of the eccentricity (delicacy) we find routine in the lexicon.
��� One key, I think, with "used to" is not just that it doesn't have a present tense alternative for its modal like meanings, but in a strict sense does not have a nonfinite form (in the same way that "have to"and "be able to" have.) "Use to" isn't fused and has a different meaning. The exception, I guess, might be in the negation examples we have been discussing. The argument for "didn't used to" could include the idea that "used to" has modalized sufficiently to have lost its nonfinite form. That usage shifts back and forth might mean it is still in process and has different status for different people.
��� It's an interesting problem. I like the idea that most of us seem opposed to legislating this one way or the other.

Craig

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --e0cb4e43d1b9cf31d204a5c74ce6-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 22:23:35 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Right and wrong in grammar MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dick, I would pretty much agree, though I would add that the tension between grammatical and standard use has had too much of the stage and has crowded out attention to effective and ineffective. I have stopped using "correct" and "incorrect" as much as possible, though I think students need to be aware of a flexible standard, especially at the college level. They will, as literate speakers/writers, be contributors to that standard. Students can benefit from exploring how choices at the sentence level contribute to the construction of an effective text. Reworking surface forms for correctness is minor in that context. Craig > Craig: > > I'm with you when you write, "I like the idea that most of us seem opposed > to legislating this one way or the other." A better question than whether > a > grammatical form is right or wrong in some absolute sense is whether it is > or isn't English. If a usage is in widespread use among English speakers, > it > is English. That doesn't mean all English is on the same plane. We (and > our > students) can and should distinguish between standard and nonstandard > English, national and regional, formal and informal, prestigious and > non-prestigious English. The main criterion for standard English is > whether > a usage is widely in use among literate speakers. (Yes, this is an inexact > criterion but a real one; grammarians who like exactitude are in the wrong > business.) By this criterion, "I used to" is standard while "I use to" is > not, but both "I didn't use to" and "I didn't used to" are standard. > > It is not the job of grammarians to legislate but to observe, describe, > and > try to understand. Of course stylists are free to legislate within their > domain. A publication may, for the sake of consistency, stipulate the use > of > one among competing English forms. Will we use 8 a.m., 8 am, or 8 AM? Will > we use "didn't use to" or "didn't used to"? Will we use "till" or "'til"? > Will we treat "data" as singular or plural? Will we allow "who" to > represent > an object? But no one outside the domain is required to accept these > stipulations. > > As students of language, we believe that actual usage, not the > pronouncement > of authorities, determines what is English, but the fact that new > conventions arise to replace comfortable old ones can make hypocrites of > us. > To give a personal example, I continue to cringe when I see "Open 'til > midnight." I am likely to speak back to the newspaper, "It's not *'til*, > it's *till*. *Till *has been a perfectly fine preposition in use since Old > English (and even before, coming from Old Norse *til*). It is NOT a > contraction of *until*!" But of course my ranting does no good, and, like > it > or not, I am forced to admit that *'til *is now so widely used that it has > now become perfectly standard. History can tell us a lot about our > language, > but current usage trumps it every time. > > Dick > > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> "Quasimodal" is a useful category since it denotes similarities and >> disparities. Grammaticalization as a concept can at least open the >> possibility that these constructions are on a path toward modal. We can >> also >> open up the possibility that grammar patterns exhibit some of the >> eccentricity (delicacy) we find routine in the lexicon. >> One key, I think, with "used to" is not just that it doesn't have a >> present tense alternative for its modal like meanings, but in a strict >> sense >> does not have a nonfinite form (in the same way that "have to"and "be >> able >> to" have.) "Use to" isn't fused and has a different meaning. The >> exception, >> I guess, might be in the negation examples we have been discussing. The >> argument for "didn't used to" could include the idea that "used to" has >> modalized sufficiently to have lost its nonfinite form. That usage >> shifts >> back and forth might mean it is still in process and has different >> status >> for different people. >> It's an interesting problem. I like the idea that most of us seem >> opposed to legislating this one way or the other. >> >> Craig >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 15 Jun 2011 23:39:26 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Objectives for teaching verbs In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C6D554FEAEMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C6D554FEAEMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Scott, I've embedded my comments below. Overall a well thought out set of objectives. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 4:46 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Objectives for teaching verbs Dear List, My department is developing a document to organize our instruction in grammar in grades 5-12 (through AP English Literature and AP English Language, both of which are required classes) across six schools. I would appreciate some feedback on the objectives list below which guides the document. What is missing? What would you recommend changing or deleting? What else should we think about? Thanks, Scott Woods Objectives 1. > Students both explain and exemplify the system of regular verb inflections. 1. > Students identify verbs in context based on syntactical and morphological features. 1. > Students consistently apply the spelling conventions for regular verb inflections, especially for common verbs, and correct relevant errors. 1. > Students explain the difference between go and be and the rest of our verbs (demonstrating their understanding of the inflectional system). 5. > Students correctly conjugate all auxiliary verbs, and correct relevant errors. The term "conjugate" doesn't really work for English. It's certainly applicable to Latin, Greek, Romance languages, and even German to a lesser degree, but it's fundamentally a morphological concept presupposing paradigms. The same can be said, of course, for declension in nouns and adjectives. What is the benefit of introducing this concept in as analytic a language as English? 1. > Students are exposed to the class of strong verbs, and to subclasses of strong verbs. 1. > Students explain and exemplify the difference between regular verbs and strong verbs. Strong vs. regular is not a complementarity in English verbs. If by "strong" you mean "irregular," then you are including some clearly weak verbs, like think/thought, make/made, send/sent, etc. Weak verbs always form their preterite and participle in a final dental. Strong verbs involve stem vowel alternation. Weak verbs have two principle parts, and strong verbs generally have three, the third in -en. Fight/fought is a two-term strong verb because the final -t is not a suffix while in think/thought it is. Why not go either with regular/irregular or with the traditional weak/strong? The former would probably be preferable because regular verbs are all weak but not all weak verbs are regular. Greenbaum's Oxford English Grammar has an excellent presentation of irregular verb classes, as do Huddleston and Pullum. 1. > Students use strong verbs accurately, especially common strong verbs, and correct relevant errors. 1. > Students are exposed to classes of irregular verbs grouped by common characteristics. 1. > Students use irregular verbs accurately, especially common irregular verbs, and correct relevant errors. 1. > Students explain, identify, and exemplify verb phrases (as opposed to solitary verbs) 1. > Students distinguish between linking and non-linking verbs. 1. > Students distinguish between transitive and intransitive (linking and non-linking) verbs. 1. > Students identify auxiliary verbs in context. 1. > Students use auxiliary verbs accurately, distinguishing as needed between tenses, and correct relevant errors. 1. > Students identify multi-word verbs in context, distinguishing them from verbs followed by adverbial particles or prepositional phrases. 1. > Students use the progressive construction when appropriate, and correct erroneous usage. 1. > Students identify the progressive construction in context, differentiating progressive aspect verbs from gerunds and adjectival participles. 1. > Students use the perfect construction when appropriate, and correct erroneous usage. 1. > (Identification of perfect constructions in context is secondary.) 1. > Students use the subjunctive mood when appropriate with commanding that-clauses and contrary-to-fact if-clauses, and correct erroneous usage. 1. > (Identification of the subjunctive mood in context is secondary.) 1. > Students accurately use the instantaneous present, the habitual present, the eternal present, and the literary present in writing, and correct errors in usage. 1. > Students identify verbs in their own writing. 1. > Students accurately use lie, lay, sit, set, rise, and raise, and correct usage errors. 1. > Students ensure semantic coherence of verb-subject pairs. 1. > Students accurately use common verb-preposition pairs, and correct errors in usage. 1. > Students take definite measures to improve the accuracy, precision, sophistication, and literary appeal of their verbs. There is some variation in verb-particle, verb preposition, and verb adverb constructions, and the distinctions between these classes are not always clear. Overall I think this is an excellent set of objectives for verbs for that grade range. What you might consider addressing, although it might be more appropriate under a discourse topic, is the role of tense and aspect in discourse structure, for example, the use of auxiliary verb constructions in narrative discourse to present background and setting information vs. simple tenses to carry the plot forward. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C6D554FEAEMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Scott,

 

I’ve embedded my comments below.� Overall a well thought out set of objectives.

 

Herb

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 4:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Objectives for teaching verbs

 

Dear List,

 

My department is developing a document to organize our instruction in grammar in grades 5-12 (through AP English Literature and AP English Language, both of which are required classes) across six schools. I would appreciate some feedback on the objectives list below which guides the document. What is missing? What would you recommend changing or deleting? What else should we think about? 

 

Thanks,

 

Scott Woods  

Objectives

1. �  Students both explain and exemplify the system of regular verb inflections.

2. �  Students identify verbs in context based on syntactical and morphological features.

3. �  Students consistently apply the spelling conventions for regular verb inflections, especially for common verbs, and correct relevant errors.

4. �  Students explain the difference between go and be and the rest of our verbs (demonstrating their understanding of the inflectional system).

5.      �  Students correctly conjugate all auxiliary verbs, and correct relevant errors.� The term “conjugate” doesn’t really work for English.� It’s certainly applicable to Latin, Greek, Romance languages, and even German to a lesser degree, but it’s fundamentally a morphological concept presupposing paradigms.� The same can be said, of course, for declension in nouns and adjectives.� What is the benefit of introducing this concept in as analytic a language as English?

6. �  Students are exposed to the class of strong verbs, and to subclasses of strong verbs.

7. �  Students explain and exemplify the difference between regular verbs and strong verbs.� Strong vs. regular is not a complementarity in English verbs.� If by “strong” you mean “irregular,” then you are including some clearly weak verbs, like think/thought, make/made, send/sent, etc.� Weak verbs always form their preterite and participle in a final dental.� Strong verbs involve stem vowel alternation.� Weak verbs have two principle parts, and strong verbs generally have three, the third in –en.� Fight/fought is a two-term strong verb because the final –t is not a suffix while in think/thought it is.� Why not go either with regular/irregular or with the traditional weak/strong?� The former would probably be preferable because regular verbs are all weak but not all weak verbs are regular.� Greenbaum’s Oxford English Grammar has an excellent presentation of irregular verb classes, as do Huddleston and Pullum.

8. �  Students use strong verbs accurately, especially common strong verbs, and correct relevant errors.

9. �  Students are exposed to classes of irregular verbs grouped by common characteristics.

10. �  Students use irregular verbs accurately, especially common irregular verbs, and correct relevant errors.

11. �  Students explain, identify, and exemplify verb phrases (as opposed to solitary verbs)

12. �  Students distinguish between linking and non-linking verbs.

13. �  Students distinguish between transitive and intransitive (linking and non-linking) verbs.�

14. �  Students identify auxiliary verbs in context.

15. �  Students use auxiliary verbs accurately, distinguishing as needed between tenses, and correct relevant errors.

16. �  Students identify multi-word verbs in context, distinguishing them from verbs followed by adverbial particles or prepositional phrases.

17. �  Students use the progressive construction when appropriate, and correct erroneous usage.

18. �  Students identify the progressive construction in context, differentiating progressive aspect verbs from gerunds and adjectival participles.

19. �  Students use the perfect construction when appropriate, and correct erroneous usage.

20. �  (Identification of perfect constructions in context is secondary.)

21. �  Students use the subjunctive mood when appropriate with commanding that-clauses and contrary-to-fact if-clauses, and correct erroneous usage.

22. �  (Identification of the subjunctive mood in context is secondary.)

23. �  Students accurately use the instantaneous present, the habitual present, the eternal present, and the literary present in writing, and correct errors in usage.

24. �  Students identify verbs in their own writing.

25. �  Students accurately use lie, lay, sit, set, rise, and raise, and correct usage errors.

26. �  Students ensure semantic coherence of verb-subject pairs.

27. �  Students accurately use common verb-preposition pairs, and correct errors in usage.

28. �  Students take definite measures to improve the accuracy, precision, sophistication, and literary appeal of their verbs.

There is some variation in verb-particle, verb preposition, and verb adverb constructions, and the distinctions between these classes are not always clear.� Overall I think this is an excellent set of objectives for verbs for that grade range.� What you might consider addressing, although it might be more appropriate under a discourse topic, is the role of tense and aspect in discourse structure, for example, the use of auxiliary verb constructions in narrative discourse to present background and setting information vs. simple tenses to carry the plot forward.

 

 

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C6D554FEAEMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:44:43 +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: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Objectives for teaching verbs In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9D907BBC2FA6C54DA266F92BD29DF3F70AE0CF7Fcmail103central_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_9D907BBC2FA6C54DA266F92BD29DF3F70AE0CF7Fcmail103central_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Scott: I'm tossing in a couple of suggestions below. What you have already provides more detail than many standards I've looked at; these are more in the order of "if this were a wish list...." (1) Add an objective that involves students looking at dialect variation, even if it's just comparing some different short texts. That's particularly important when you're talking about irregular verbs, since some of the students will have grown up with different irregular verb forms. And the AP class will definitely need to know some basic information about British/American differences in irregular verbs and in number agreement with group nouns, etc. (2) Use an explicit labeling convention to separate metalinguistic knowledge objectives (as in your #11 and #20) from production objectives (as in your #10 and #19). A lot of standards documents confuse those two categories. Your list is much (much!) clearer than most, but I'm guessing that some of the audience won't make the distinction unless cued. --- Bill Spruiell From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:39 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Objectives for teaching verbs Scott, I've embedded my comments below. Overall a well thought out set of objectives. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 4:46 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Objectives for teaching verbs Dear List, My department is developing a document to organize our instruction in grammar in grades 5-12 (through AP English Literature and AP English Language, both of which are required classes) across six schools. I would appreciate some feedback on the objectives list below which guides the document. What is missing? What would you recommend changing or deleting? What else should we think about? Thanks, Scott Woods Objectives 1. > Students both explain and exemplify the system of regular verb inflections. 1. > Students identify verbs in context based on syntactical and morphological features. 1. > Students consistently apply the spelling conventions for regular verb inflections, especially for common verbs, and correct relevant errors. 1. > Students explain the difference between go and be and the rest of our verbs (demonstrating their understanding of the inflectional system). 5. > Students correctly conjugate all auxiliary verbs, and correct relevant errors. The term "conjugate" doesn't really work for English. It's certainly applicable to Latin, Greek, Romance languages, and even German to a lesser degree, but it's fundamentally a morphological concept presupposing paradigms. The same can be said, of course, for declension in nouns and adjectives. What is the benefit of introducing this concept in as analytic a language as English? 1. > Students are exposed to the class of strong verbs, and to subclasses of strong verbs. 1. > Students explain and exemplify the difference between regular verbs and strong verbs. Strong vs. regular is not a complementarity in English verbs. If by "strong" you mean "irregular," then you are including some clearly weak verbs, like think/thought, make/made, send/sent, etc. Weak verbs always form their preterite and participle in a final dental. Strong verbs involve stem vowel alternation. Weak verbs have two principle parts, and strong verbs generally have three, the third in -en. Fight/fought is a two-term strong verb because the final -t is not a suffix while in think/thought it is. Why not go either with regular/irregular or with the traditional weak/strong? The former would probably be preferable because regular verbs are all weak but not all weak verbs are regular. Greenbaum's Oxford English Grammar has an excellent presentation of irregular verb classes, as do Huddleston and Pullum. 1. > Students use strong verbs accurately, especially common strong verbs, and correct relevant errors. 1. > Students are exposed to classes of irregular verbs grouped by common characteristics. 1. > Students use irregular verbs accurately, especially common irregular verbs, and correct relevant errors. 1. > Students explain, identify, and exemplify verb phrases (as opposed to solitary verbs) 1. > Students distinguish between linking and non-linking verbs. 1. > Students distinguish between transitive and intransitive (linking and non-linking) verbs. 1. > Students identify auxiliary verbs in context. 1. > Students use auxiliary verbs accurately, distinguishing as needed between tenses, and correct relevant errors. 1. > Students identify multi-word verbs in context, distinguishing them from verbs followed by adverbial particles or prepositional phrases. 1. > Students use the progressive construction when appropriate, and correct erroneous usage. 1. > Students identify the progressive construction in context, differentiating progressive aspect verbs from gerunds and adjectival participles. 1. > Students use the perfect construction when appropriate, and correct erroneous usage. 1. > (Identification of perfect constructions in context is secondary.) 1. > Students use the subjunctive mood when appropriate with commanding that-clauses and contrary-to-fact if-clauses, and correct erroneous usage. 1. > (Identification of the subjunctive mood in context is secondary.) 1. > Students accurately use the instantaneous present, the habitual present, the eternal present, and the literary present in writing, and correct errors in usage. 1. > Students identify verbs in their own writing. 1. > Students accurately use lie, lay, sit, set, rise, and raise, and correct usage errors. 1. > Students ensure semantic coherence of verb-subject pairs. 1. > Students accurately use common verb-preposition pairs, and correct errors in usage. 1. > Students take definite measures to improve the accuracy, precision, sophistication, and literary appeal of their verbs. There is some variation in verb-particle, verb preposition, and verb adverb constructions, and the distinctions between these classes are not always clear. Overall I think this is an excellent set of objectives for verbs for that grade range. What you might consider addressing, although it might be more appropriate under a discourse topic, is the role of tense and aspect in discourse structure, for example, the use of auxiliary verb constructions in narrative discourse to present background and setting information vs. simple tenses to carry the plot forward. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_9D907BBC2FA6C54DA266F92BD29DF3F70AE0CF7Fcmail103central_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Scott:

 

I’m tossing in a couple of suggestions below. What you have already provides more detail than many standards I’ve looked at; these are more in the order of “if this were a wish list….”

 

(1) Add an objective that involves students looking at dialect variation, even if it’s just comparing some different short texts. That’s particularly important when you’re talking about irregular verbs, since some of the students will have grown up with different irregular verb forms. And the AP class will definitely need to know some basic information about British/American differences in irregular verbs and in number agreement with group nouns, etc.

 

(2) Use an explicit labeling convention to separate  metalinguistic knowledge objectives (as in your #11 and #20) from production objectives (as in your #10 and #19). A lot of standards documents confuse those two categories. Your list is much (much!) clearer than most, but I’m guessing that some of the audience won’t make the distinction unless cued.

 

 

--- Bill Spruiell

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Objectives for teaching verbs

 

Scott,

 

I’ve embedded my comments below.  Overall a well thought out set of objectives.

 

Herb

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 4:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Objectives for teaching verbs

 

Dear List,

 

My department is developing a document to organize our instruction in grammar in grades 5-12 (through AP English Literature and AP English Language, both of which are required classes) across six schools. I would appreciate some feedback on the objectives list below which guides the document. What is missing? What would you recommend changing or deleting? What else should we think about? 

 

Thanks,

 

Scott Woods  

Objectives

1. �  Students both explain and exemplify the system of regular verb inflections.

2. �  Students identify verbs in context based on syntactical and morphological features.

3. �  Students consistently apply the spelling conventions for regular verb inflections, especially for common verbs, and correct relevant errors.

4. �  Students explain the difference between go and be and the rest of our verbs (demonstrating their understanding of the inflectional system).

5.      �  Students correctly conjugate all auxiliary verbs, and correct relevant errors.  The term “conjugate” doesn’t really work for English.  It’s certainly applicable to Latin, Greek, Romance languages, and even German to a lesser degree, but it’s fundamentally a morphological concept presupposing paradigms.  The same can be said, of course, for declension in nouns and adjectives.  What is the benefit of introducing this concept in as analytic a language as English?

6. �  Students are exposed to the class of strong verbs, and to subclasses of strong verbs.

7. �  Students explain and exemplify the difference between regular verbs and strong verbs.  Strong vs. regular is not a complementarity in English verbs.  If by “strong” you mean “irregular,” then you are including some clearly weak verbs, like think/thought, make/made, send/sent, etc.  Weak verbs always form their preterite and participle in a final dental.  Strong verbs involve stem vowel alternation.  Weak verbs have two principle parts, and strong verbs generally have three, the third in –en.  Fight/fought is a two-term strong verb because the final –t is not a suffix while in think/thought it is.  Why not go either with regular/irregular or with the traditional weak/strong?  The former would probably be preferable because regular verbs are all weak but not all weak verbs are regular.  Greenbaum’s Oxford English Grammar has an excellent presentation of irregular verb classes, as do Huddleston and Pullum.

8. �  Students use strong verbs accurately, especially common strong verbs, and correct relevant errors.

9. �  Students are exposed to classes of irregular verbs grouped by common characteristics.

10. �  Students use irregular verbs accurately, especially common irregular verbs, and correct relevant errors.

11. �  Students explain, identify, and exemplify verb phrases (as opposed to solitary verbs)

12. �  Students distinguish between linking and non-linking verbs.

13. �  Students distinguish between transitive and intransitive (linking and non-linking) verbs. 

14. �  Students identify auxiliary verbs in context.

15. �  Students use auxiliary verbs accurately, distinguishing as needed between tenses, and correct relevant errors.

16. �  Students identify multi-word verbs in context, distinguishing them from verbs followed by adverbial particles or prepositional phrases.

17. �  Students use the progressive construction when appropriate, and correct erroneous usage.

18. �  Students identify the progressive construction in context, differentiating progressive aspect verbs from gerunds and adjectival participles.

19. �  Students use the perfect construction when appropriate, and correct erroneous usage.

20. �  (Identification of perfect constructions in context is secondary.)

21. �  Students use the subjunctive mood when appropriate with commanding that-clauses and contrary-to-fact if-clauses, and correct erroneous usage.

22. �  (Identification of the subjunctive mood in context is secondary.)

23. �  Students accurately use the instantaneous present, the habitual present, the eternal present, and the literary present in writing, and correct errors in usage.

24. �  Students identify verbs in their own writing.

25. �  Students accurately use lie, lay, sit, set, rise, and raise, and correct usage errors.

26. �  Students ensure semantic coherence of verb-subject pairs.

27. �  Students accurately use common verb-preposition pairs, and correct errors in usage.

28. �  Students take definite measures to improve the accuracy, precision, sophistication, and literary appeal of their verbs.

There is some variation in verb-particle, verb preposition, and verb adverb constructions, and the distinctions between these classes are not always clear.  Overall I think this is an excellent set of objectives for verbs for that grade range.  What you might consider addressing, although it might be more appropriate under a discourse topic, is the role of tense and aspect in discourse structure, for example, the use of auxiliary verb constructions in narrative discourse to present background and setting information vs. simple tenses to carry the plot forward.

 

 

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

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

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_9D907BBC2FA6C54DA266F92BD29DF3F70AE0CF7Fcmail103central_-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 09:07:30 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: ATEG Digest - 15 Jun 2011 to 16 Jun 2011 (#2011-119) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I concur with--and really like--all that has been said--both by Bill and Herb--and, even though dialectal variations are important, I concur that British dialects belong in AP classes only. An example of dialectal variation that I find hilarious in dialectal writing is 'got/gotten'; e.g., I've got to go = I must go; I've gotten to go = I've been allowed to go. This alternation is often misused in writing by non-speakers of the dialect. I will confess that I was taught regular vs. irregular verbs. I remember in the fifth grade on my 45-minute walk home (I eschewed school busses at every opportunity) I pondered the regularities that I perceived in so-called irregular verbs and began putting them into their own classification sets--not having had Latin yet I had no real concept of conjugations even I knew the word. Strong and weak are concepts also best left to AP classes. I once had a student who completed the blanks in an assignment with dive/dove/diven. He admitted that he had never heard or read diven but it seemed to him to fit based on drive/drove/driven. I pointed that he could have written dive/dave/diven based on give/gave/given. "That would be stupid" he blurted, "no one talks like that." I said nothing. He then said that he would pay more attention and look up anything that did not sound right. He made no more errors in verb forms. Scott Catledge -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 12:00 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: ATEG Digest - 15 Jun 2011 to 16 Jun 2011 (#2011-119) There is 1 message totalling 886 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. Objectives for teaching verbs To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 16 Jun 2011 19:44:43 +0000 From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Objectives for teaching verbs --_000_9D907BBC2FA6C54DA266F92BD29DF3F70AE0CF7Fcmail103central_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Scott: I'm tossing in a couple of suggestions below. What you have already provides more detail than many standards I've looked at; these are more in the order of "if this were a wish list...." (1) Add an objective that involves students looking at dialect variation, even if it's just comparing some different short texts. That's particularly important when you're talking about irregular verbs, since some of the students will have grown up with different irregular verb forms. And the AP class will definitely need to know some basic information about British/American differences in irregular verbs and in number agreement with group nouns, etc. (2) Use an explicit labeling convention to separate metalinguistic knowledge objectives (as in your #11 and #20) from production objectives (as in your #10 and #19). A lot of standards documents confuse those two categories. Your list is much (much!) clearer than most, but I'm guessing that some of the audience won't make the distinction unless cued. --- Bill Spruiell From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:39 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Objectives for teaching verbs Scott, I've embedded my comments below. Overall a well thought out set of objectives. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 4:46 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Objectives for teaching verbs Dear List, My department is developing a document to organize our instruction in grammar in grades 5-12 (through AP English Literature and AP English Language, both of which are required classes) across six schools. I would appreciate some feedback on the objectives list below which guides the document. What is missing? What would you recommend changing or deleting? What else should we think about? Thanks, Scott Woods Objectives 1. > Students both explain and exemplify the system of regular verb inflections. 1. > Students identify verbs in context based on syntactical and morphological features. 1. > Students consistently apply the spelling conventions for regular verb inflections, especially for common verbs, and correct relevant errors. 1. > Students explain the difference between go and be and the rest of our verbs (demonstrating their understanding of the inflectional system). 5. > Students correctly conjugate all auxiliary verbs, and correct relevant errors. The term "conjugate" doesn't really work for English. It's certainly applicable to Latin, Greek, Romance languages, and even German to a lesser degree, but it's fundamentally a morphological concept presupposing paradigms. The same can be said, of course, for declension in nouns and adjectives. What is the benefit of introducing this concept in as analytic a language as English? 1. > Students are exposed to the class of strong verbs, and to subclasses of strong verbs. 1. > Students explain and exemplify the difference between regular verbs and strong verbs. Strong vs. regular is not a complementarity in English verbs. If by "strong" you mean "irregular," then you are including some clearly weak verbs, like think/thought, make/made, send/sent, etc. Weak verbs always form their preterite and participle in a final dental. Strong verbs involve stem vowel alternation. Weak verbs have two principle parts, and strong verbs generally have three, the third in -en. Fight/fought is a two-term strong verb because the final -t is not a suffix while in think/thought it is. Why not go either with regular/irregular or with the traditional weak/strong? The former would probably be preferable because regular verbs are all weak but not all weak verbs are regular. Greenbaum's Oxford English Grammar has an excellent presentation of irregular verb classes, as do Huddleston and Pullum. 1. > Students use strong verbs accurately, especially common strong verbs, and correct relevant errors. 1. > Students are exposed to classes of irregular verbs grouped by common characteristics. 1. > Students use irregular verbs accurately, especially common irregular verbs, and correct relevant errors. 1. > Students explain, identify, and exemplify verb phrases (as opposed to solitary verbs) 1. > Students distinguish between linking and non-linking verbs. 1. > Students distinguish between transitive and intransitive (linking and non-linking) verbs. 1. > Students identify auxiliary verbs in context. 1. > Students use auxiliary verbs accurately, distinguishing as needed between tenses, and correct relevant errors. 1. > Students identify multi-word verbs in context, distinguishing them from verbs followed by adverbial particles or prepositional phrases. 1. > Students use the progressive construction when appropriate, and correct erroneous usage. 1. > Students identify the progressive construction in context, differentiating progressive aspect verbs from gerunds and adjectival participles. 1. > Students use the perfect construction when appropriate, and correct erroneous usage. 1. > (Identification of perfect constructions in context is secondary.) 1. > Students use the subjunctive mood when appropriate with commanding that-clauses and contrary-to-fact if-clauses, and correct erroneous usage. 1. > (Identification of the subjunctive mood in context is secondary.) 1. > Students accurately use the instantaneous present, the habitual present, the eternal present, and the literary present in writing, and correct errors in usage. 1. > Students identify verbs in their own writing. 1. > Students accurately use lie, lay, sit, set, rise, and raise, and correct usage errors. 1. > Students ensure semantic coherence of verb-subject pairs. 1. > Students accurately use common verb-preposition pairs, and correct errors in usage. 1. > Students take definite measures to improve the accuracy, precision, sophistication, and literary appeal of their verbs. There is some variation in verb-particle, verb preposition, and verb adverb constructions, and the distinctions between these classes are not always clear. Overall I think this is an excellent set of objectives for verbs for that grade range. What you might consider addressing, although it might be more appropriate under a discourse topic, is the role of tense and aspect in discourse structure, for example, the use of auxiliary verb constructions in narrative discourse to present background and setting information vs. simple tenses to carry the plot forward. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_9D907BBC2FA6C54DA266F92BD29DF3F70AE0CF7Fcmail103central_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Scott:

 

I’m tossing in a couple of suggestions below. What you have already provides more detail than many standards I’ve looked at; these are more in the order of “if this were a wish list….”

 

(1) Add an objective that involves students looking at dialect variation, even if it’s just comparing some different short texts. That’s particularly important when you’re talking about irregular verbs, since some of the students will have grown up with different irregular verb forms. And the AP class will definitely need to know some basic information about British/American differences in irregular verbs and in number agreement with group nouns, etc.

 

(2) Use an explicit labeling convention to separate  metalinguistic knowledge objectives (as in your #11 and #20) from production objectives (as in your #10 and #19). A lot of standards documents confuse those two categories. Your list is much (much!) clearer than most, but I’m guessing that some of the audience won’t make the distinction unless cued.

 

 

--- Bill Spruiell

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Objectives for teaching verbs

 

Scott,

 

I’ve embedded my comments below.  Overall a well thought out set of objectives.

 

Herb

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 4:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Objectives for teaching verbs

 

Dear List,

 

My department is developing a document to organize our instruction in grammar in grades 5-12 (through AP English Literature and AP English Language, both of which are required classes) across six schools. I would appreciate some feedback on the objectives list below which guides the document. What is missing? What would you recommend changing or deleting? What else should we think about? 

 

Thanks,

 

Scott Woods  

Objectives

1. �  Students both explain and exemplify the system of regular verb inflections.

2. �  Students identify verbs in context based on syntactical and morphological features.

3. �  Students consistently apply the spelling conventions for regular verb inflections, especially for common verbs, and correct relevant errors.

4. �  Students explain the difference between go and be and the rest of our verbs (demonstrating their understanding of the inflectional system).

5.      �  Students correctly conjugate all auxiliary verbs, and correct relevant errors.  The term “conjugate” doesn’t really work for English.  It’s certainly applicable to Latin, Greek, Romance languages, and even German to a lesser degree, but it’s fundamentally a morphological concept presupposing paradigms.  The same can be said, of course, for declension in nouns and adjectives.  What is the benefit of introducing this concept in as analytic a language as English?

6. �  Students are exposed to the class of strong verbs, and to subclasses of strong verbs.

7. �  Students explain and exemplify the difference between regular verbs and strong verbs.  Strong vs. regular is not a complementarity in English verbs.  If by “strong” you mean “irregular,” then you are including some clearly weak verbs, like think/thought, make/made, send/sent, etc.  Weak verbs always form their preterite and participle in a final dental.  Strong verbs involve stem vowel alternation.  Weak verbs have two principle parts, and strong verbs generally have three, the third in –en.  Fight/fought is a two-term strong verb because the final –t is not a suffix while in think/thought it is.  Why not go either with regular/irregular or with the traditional weak/strong?  The former would probably be preferable because regular verbs are all weak but not all weak verbs are regular.  Greenbaum’s Oxford English Grammar has an excellent presentation of irregular verb classes, as do Huddleston and Pullum.

8. �  Students use strong verbs accurately, especially common strong verbs, and correct relevant errors.

9. �  Students are exposed to classes of irregular verbs grouped by common characteristics.

10. �  Students use irregular verbs accurately, especially common irregular verbs, and correct relevant errors.

11. �  Students explain, identify, and exemplify verb phrases (as opposed to solitary verbs)

12. �  Students distinguish between linking and non-linking verbs.

13. �  Students distinguish between transitive and intransitive (linking and non-linking) verbs. 

14. �  Students identify auxiliary verbs in context.

15. �  Students use auxiliary verbs accurately, distinguishing as needed between tenses, and correct relevant errors.

16. �  Students identify multi-word verbs in context, distinguishing them from verbs followed by adverbial particles or prepositional phrases.

17. �  Students use the progressive construction when appropriate, and correct erroneous usage.

18. �  Students identify the progressive construction in context, differentiating progressive aspect verbs from gerunds and adjectival participles.

19. �  Students use the perfect construction when appropriate, and correct erroneous usage.

20. �  (Identification of perfect constructions in context is secondary.)

21. �  Students use the subjunctive mood when appropriate with commanding that-clauses and contrary-to-fact if-clauses, and correct erroneous usage.

22. �  (Identification of the subjunctive mood in context is secondary.)

23. �  Students accurately use the instantaneous present, the habitual present, the eternal present, and the literary present in writing, and correct errors in usage.

24. �  Students identify verbs in their own writing.

25. �  Students accurately use lie, lay, sit, set, rise, and raise, and correct usage errors.

26. �  Students ensure semantic coherence of verb-subject pairs.

27. �  Students accurately use common verb-preposition pairs, and correct errors in usage.

28. �  Students take definite measures to improve the accuracy, precision, sophistication, and literary appeal of their verbs.

There is some variation in verb-particle, verb preposition, and verb adverb constructions, and the distinctions between these classes are not always clear.  Overall I think this is an excellent set of objectives for verbs for that grade range.  What you might consider addressing, although it might be more appropriate under a discourse topic, is the role of tense and aspect in discourse structure, for example, the use of auxiliary verb constructions in narrative discourse to present background and setting information vs. simple tenses to carry the plot forward.

 

 

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

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

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_9D907BBC2FA6C54DA266F92BD29DF3F70AE0CF7Fcmail103central_-- ------------------------------ End of ATEG Digest - 15 Jun 2011 to 16 Jun 2011 (#2011-119) *********************************************************** To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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 Jun 2011 11:55:21 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: This is the sort of thing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-833294290-1308336921=:18949" --0-833294290-1308336921=:18949 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is the sort of thing that will interest those who are interested in this sort of thing. � Lawrence Block writes, in A Drop of the Hard Stuff, c.2011, � "There was a boy I grew up with in the Bronx", I remembered, "and we lost track of each other completely when my family moved away. And then I ran into him a couple of times years later." � "And he'd taken the other path." � "He had", I said. "He was no great success at it, but that's where his life led him." � When he writes that 'he had taken the other path', rather than 'he took the other path', he tries to put 'had' in front of an irregular past tense verb 'take',�thus forcing the irregular past participle, 'taken'. � Having done that, he forces 'had-for-did' in the next line. � Had he written, 'And he took the other path', the reply would have been, as it should have been, 'He did'. � That's what happened, believe it or not. � .brad.17june11. � (If you're going to argue against this interpretation, you're going to have to put 'had' in front of 'led' in the last line:) To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-833294290-1308336921=:18949 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This is the sort of thing that will interest those who are interested in this sort of thing.

 

Lawrence Block writes, in A Drop of the Hard Stuff, c.2011,

 

"There was a boy I grew up with in the Bronx", I remembered, "and we lost track of each other completely when my family moved away. And then I ran into him a couple of times years later."

 

"And he'd taken the other path."

 

"He had", I said. "He was no great success at it, but that's where his life led him."

 

When he writes that 'he had taken the other path', rather than 'he took the other path', he tries to put 'had' in front of an irregular past tense verb 'take', thus forcing the irregular past participle, 'taken'.

 

Having done that, he forces 'had-for-did' in the next line.

 

Had he written, 'And he took the other path', the reply would have been, as it should have been, 'He did'.

 

That's what happened, believe it or not.

 

.brad.17june11.

 

(If you're going to argue against this interpretation, you're going to have to put 'had' in front of 'led' in the last line :)

 

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-833294290-1308336921=:18949-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:38:00 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Bloodmoney, by David Ignatius Comments: To: David xIgnatius <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1582736739-1308411480=:52763" "It was part of General Malik's --0-1582736739-1308411480=:52763 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bloodmoney, by David Ignatius, c.2011 "It was part of General Malik's aura among his colleagues at General Headquarters in Rawalpindi that he knew how to handle the Americans. This was based partly on the fact that he spent a year at the Army War College in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. And if you knew Kansas, people said, well, then you knew the real America. Malik actually disliked Kansas, and the only part of America that he truly loved was the Rockies, where the thin air and the steep peaks reminded him of his ancestral home in the�mountains of Kashmir. But he knew how to sham, in a way that is an art form for the people of South Asia, and so he pretended for years to have a special fondness for the Americans from the heartland." (page 6) ~~~~~ David, One way to beat it�.. I assume you write on a computer .. is to hit Control-F for 'find', insert 'had' in the box, and then look at all the words after the 'had's and decide if they are past tense verbs. If they are�-- as are the four in the quote above�(spent, disliked, loved, and pretended) -- delete the 'had's. Past tense verbs should not have the word 'had' in front of them. There is nothing the word 'had' can do for a past tense verb that the verb cannot do for itself. When you come upon something like this quote from page 11, you will have a different problem. "She was still in her thirties, still in middle school in the secret world, but one of her discoveries as she had grown�older .. oops, clang. What's this? This is a disguised past-tense verb 'grew', which you tried to put 'had' in front of. But being an irregular past tense verb, it balked, and made you force the irregular past participle, giving you 'had grown' instead of 'grew'. It should read,�"one of her discoveries as she grew older was that most things in life didn't [should read, don't] measure up to their promise." When I come to a legitimate past perfect, I'll be back in touch. I hope�Bloodmoney is as good as Body of Lies. One of my standard illustrations�of the past perfect is your "By the time they reached Amman, the sun had set in the Western hills". (By the time something happened, something else had already happened.) I always give you and Body of Lies credit. .brad.18june11. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1582736739-1308411480=:52763 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Bloodmoney, by David Ignatius, c.2011

 

"It was part of General Malik's aura among his colleagues at General Headquarters in Rawalpindi that he knew how to handle the Americans. This was based partly on the fact that he <had> spent a year at the Army War College in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. And if you knew Kansas, people said, well, then you knew the real America. Malik <had> actually disliked Kansas, and the only part of America that he <had> truly loved was the Rockies, where the thin air and the steep peaks reminded him of his ancestral home in the mountains of Kashmir. But he knew how to sham, in a way that is an art form for the people of South Asia, and so he <had> pretended for years to have a special fondness for the Americans from the heartland." (page 6)

 

~~~~~

 

David,

 

One way to beat it .. I assume you write on a computer .. is to hit Control-F for 'find', insert 'had' in the box, and then look at all the words after the 'had's and decide if they are past tense verbs. If they are -- as are the four in the quote above (spent, disliked, loved, and pretended) -- delete the 'had's. Past tense verbs should not have the word 'had' in front of them. There is nothing the word 'had' can do for a past tense verb that the verb cannot do for itself.

 

When you come upon something like this quote from page 11, you will have a different problem.

 

"She was still in her thirties, still in middle school in the secret world, but one of her discoveries as she had grown older .. oops, clang. What's this? This is a disguised past-tense verb 'grew', which you tried to put 'had' in front of. But being an irregular past tense verb, it balked, and made you force the irregular past participle, giving you 'had grown' instead of 'grew'. It should read, "one of her discoveries as she grew older was that most things in life didn't [should read, don't] measure up to their promise."

 

When I come to a legitimate past perfect, I'll be back in touch. I hope Bloodmoney is as good as Body of Lies.

 

One of my standard illustrations of the past perfect is your "By the time they reached Amman, the sun had set in the Western hills". (By the time something happened, something else had already happened.) I always give you and Body of Lies credit.

 

.brad.18june11.

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1582736739-1308411480=:52763-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 17:32:03 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Martha Galphin <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Bloodmoney, by David Ignatius In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_6f9f6b42-7bdf-4597-835b-ea9ff18c950e_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_6f9f6b42-7bdf-4597-835b-ea9ff18c950e_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Brad I am not sure I understand the following statement: One of my standard illustrations of the past perfect is your "By the time they reached Amman, the sun had set in the Western hills". (By the time something happened, something else had already happened.) I always give you and Body of Lies credit." Are you saying that the past perfect is correct when used in this way: "By the time something happened, something else had already happened." Thanks, Martha Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:38:00 -0700 From: [log in to unmask] Subject: Bloodmoney, by David Ignatius To: [log in to unmask] Bloodmoney, by David Ignatius, c.2011 "It was part of General Malik's aura among his colleagues at General Headquarters in Rawalpindi that he knew how to handle the Americans. This was based partly on the fact that he spent a year at the Army War College in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. And if you knew Kansas, people said, well, then you knew the real America. Malik actually disliked Kansas, and the only part of America that he truly loved was the Rockies, where the thin air and the steep peaks reminded him of his ancestral home in the mountains of Kashmir. But he knew how to sham, in a way that is an art form for the people of South Asia, and so he pretended for years to have a special fondness for the Americans from the heartland." (page 6) ~~~~~ David, One way to beat it .. I assume you write on a computer .. is to hit Control-F for 'find', insert 'had' in the box, and then look at all the words after the 'had's and decide if they are past tense verbs. If they are -- as are the four in the quote above (spent, disliked, loved, and pretended) -- delete the 'had's. Past tense verbs should not have the word 'had' in front of them. There is nothing the word 'had' can do for a past tense verb that the verb cannot do for itself. When you come upon something like this quote from page 11, you will have a different problem. "She was still in her thirties, still in middle school in the secret world, but one of her discoveries as she had grown older .. oops, clang. What's this? This is a disguised past-tense verb 'grew', which you tried to put 'had' in front of. But being an irregular past tense verb, it balked, and made you force the irregular past participle, giving you 'had grown' instead of 'grew'. It should read, "one of her discoveries as she grew older was that most things in life didn't [should read, don't] measure up to their promise." When I come to a legitimate past perfect, I'll be back in touch. I hope Bloodmoney is as good as Body of Lies. One of my standard illustrations of the past perfect is your "By the time they reached Amman, the sun had set in the Western hills". (By the time something happened, something else had already happened.) I always give you and Body of Lies credit. .brad.18june11. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_6f9f6b42-7bdf-4597-835b-ea9ff18c950e_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Brad

I am not sure I understand the following statement: One of my standard illustrations of the past perfect is your "By the time they reached Amman, the sun had set in the Western hills". (By the time something happened, something else had already happened.) I always give you and Body of Lies credit."

Are you saying that the past perfect is correct when used in this way: "By the time something happened, something else had already happened."

Thanks,

Martha

---

Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:38:00 -0700
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Bloodmoney, by David Ignatius
To: [log in to unmask]

Bloodmoney, by David Ignatius, c.2011

 

"It was part of General Malik's aura among his colleagues at General Headquarters in Rawalpindi that he knew how to handle the Americans. This was based partly on the fact that he <had> spent a year at the Army War College in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. And if you knew Kansas, people said, well, then you knew the real America. Malik <had> actually disliked Kansas, and the only part of America that he <had> truly loved was the Rockies, where the thin air and the steep peaks reminded him of his ancestral home in the mountains of Kashmir. But he knew how to sham, in a way that is an art form for the people of South Asia, and so he <had> pretended for years to have a special fondness for the Americans from the heartland." (page 6)

 

~~~~~

 

David,

 

One way to beat it .. I assume you write on a computer .. is to hit Control-F for 'find', insert 'had' in the box, and then look at all the words after the 'had's and decide if they are past tense verbs. If they are -- as are the four in the quote above (spent, disliked, loved, and pretended) -- delete the 'had's. Past tense verbs should not have the word 'had' in front of them. There is nothing the word 'had' can do for a past tense verb that the verb cannot do for itself.

 

When you come upon something like this quote from page 11, you will have a different problem.

 

"She was still in her thirties, still in middle school in the secret world, but one of her discoveries as she had grown older .. oops, clang. What's this? This is a disguised past-tense verb 'grew', which you tried to put 'had' in front of. But being an irregular past tense verb, it balked, and made you force the irregular past participle, giving you 'had grown' instead of 'grew'. It should read, "one of her discoveries as she grew older was that most things in life didn't [should read, don't] measure up to their promise."

 

When I come to a legitimate past perfect, I'll be back in touch. I hope Bloodmoney is as good as Body of Lies.

 

One of my standard illustrations of the past perfect is your "By the time they reached Amman, the sun had set in the Western hills". (By the time something happened, something else had already happened.) I always give you and Body of Lies credit.

 

.brad.18june11.

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_6f9f6b42-7bdf-4597-835b-ea9ff18c950e_-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 07:47:24 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Bloodmoney, continued MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-89970546-1308581244=:38284" --0-89970546-1308581244=:38284 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Are you saying that the past perfect is correct when used in this way: "By the time something happened, something else had already happened." Thanks, Martha. � ~~~~~ � Martha, � The past perfect is correct ONLY when�used in this way. There is no remote past in English; the past is past. The Battle of Hastings was a long time ago but it WAS fought in 1066. 'Had been' won't help the Anglo-Saxons a whit, even now. � And the past perfect is�NOT used to show that one past event occurred before another. 'Yesterday, I went to the store and bought peaches', with nary a 'had' in sight. � In all cases, as can be clearly demonstrated, the past perfect is a specialized device that applies in very specific�situations in which the timing, the sequence, is important. Once�grasped, there is no question as to correctness or incorrectness, despite all the thousands of crazy sounds that come from peoples mouths and pens, among which are putting 'had' in front of past tense verbs and using 'had been' instead of 'was' and 'were', both of which errors are�common. � The past perfect has not been taught�for at least�half a century but it should not die, indeed it�cannot�die, because it has a very specific meaning, a meaning which is there�whether anyone sees it or not. � These sentences came in yesterday, off-list and from France, interestingly enough,�in response to "Bloodmoney". � When Brad got up, his roommate had made coffee. When Brad got up, his roommate made coffee. Before Brad got up, his roommate made coffee. Are these correct? � Indeed they are correct. In the first sentence, the coffee was made before, and in the second, after. By the time something happened, 'Brad got up', something else had already happened, 'his roommate had made coffee'. � Nice of you to stop by, Martha. I hope my reply is complete enough for the moment and gentle enough.�There are thousands of�English teachers in America, so there are lots of teachers�who can learn to teach a�useful device that is in our language, regardless of whether it's recognized. It's still right there where it's always been, waiting to lend a helping hand. � .brad.20june11. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Brad I am not sure I understand the following statement: One of my standard illustrations�of the past perfect is your "By the time they reached Amman, the sun had set in the Western hills". (By the time something happened, something else had already happened.) I always give you and Body of Lies credit." Are you saying that the past perfect is correct when used in this way: "By the time something happened, something else had already happened." Thanks, Martha > >Bloodmoney, by David Ignatius, c.2011 > >"It was part of General Malik's aura among his colleagues at General Headquarters in Rawalpindi that he knew how to handle the Americans. This was based partly on the fact that he spent a year at the Army War College in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. And if you knew Kansas, people said, well, then you knew the real America. Malik actually disliked Kansas, and the only part of America that he truly loved was the Rockies, where the thin air and the steep peaks reminded him of his ancestral home in the�mountains of Kashmir. But he knew how to sham, in a way that is an art form for the people of South Asia, and so he pretended for years to have a special fondness for the Americans from the heartland." (page 6) > >~~~~~ > >David, > >One way to beat it�.. I assume you write on a computer .. is to hit Control-F for 'find', insert 'had' in the box, and then look at all the words after the 'had's and decide if they are past tense verbs. If they are�-- as are the four in the quote above�(spent, disliked, loved, and pretended) -- delete the 'had's. Past tense verbs should not have the word 'had' in front of them. There is nothing the word 'had' can do for a past tense verb that the verb cannot do for itself. > >When you come upon something like this quote from page 11, you will have a different problem. > >"She was still in her thirties, still in middle school in the secret world, but one of her discoveries as she had grown�older .. oops, clang. What's this? This is a disguised past-tense verb 'grew', which you tried to put 'had' in front of. But being an irregular past tense verb, it balked, and made you force the irregular past participle, giving you 'had grown' instead of 'grew'. It should read,�"one of her discoveries as she grew older was that most things in life didn't [should read, don't] measure up to their promise." > >When I come to a legitimate past perfect, I'll be back in touch. I hope�Bloodmoney is as good as Body of Lies. > >One of my standard illustrations�of the past perfect is your "By the time they reached Amman, the sun had set in the Western hills". (By the time something happened, something else had already happened.) I always give you and Body of Lies credit. > >.brad.18june11. > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-89970546-1308581244=:38284 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Are you saying that the past perfect is correct when used in this way: "By the time something happened, something else had already happened." Thanks, Martha.

 

~~~~~

 

Martha,

 

The past perfect is correct ONLY when used in this way. There is no remote past in English; the past is past. The Battle of Hastings was a long time ago but it WAS fought in 1066. 'Had been' won't help the Anglo-Saxons a whit, even now.

 

And the past perfect is NOT used to show that one past event occurred before another. 'Yesterday, I went to the store and bought peaches', with nary a 'had' in sight.

 

In all cases, as can be clearly demonstrated, the past perfect is a specialized device that applies in very specific situations in which the timing, the sequence, is important. Once grasped, there is no question as to correctness or incorrectness, despite all the thousands of crazy sounds that come from peoples mouths and pens, among which are putting 'had' in front of past tense verbs and using 'had been' instead of 'was' and 'were', both of which errors are common.

 

The past perfect has not been taught for at least half a century but it should not die, indeed it cannot die, because it has a very specific meaning, a meaning which is there whether anyone sees it or not.

 

These sentences came in yesterday, off-list and from France, interestingly enough, in response to "Bloodmoney".

 

When Brad got up, his roommate had made coffee.
When Brad got up, his roommate made coffee.
Before Brad got up, his roommate made coffee.
Are these correct?

 

Indeed they are correct. In the first sentence, the coffee was made before, and in the second, after. By the time something happened, 'Brad got up', something else had already happened, 'his roommate had made coffee'.

 

Nice of you to stop by, Martha. I hope my reply is complete enough for the moment and gentle enough. There are thousands of English teachers in America, so there are lots of teachers who can learn to teach a useful device that is in our language, regardless of whether it's recognized. It's still right there where it's always been, waiting to lend a helping hand.

 

.brad.20june11.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Brad

I am not sure I understand the following statement: One of my standard illustrations of the past perfect is your "By the time they reached Amman, the sun had set in the Western hills". (By the time something happened, something else had already happened.) I always give you and Body of Lies credit."

Are you saying that the past perfect is correct when used in this way: "By the time something happened, something else had already happened."

Thanks,

Martha

 

Bloodmoney, by David Ignatius, c.2011

 

"It was part of General Malik's aura among his colleagues at General Headquarters in Rawalpindi that he knew how to handle the Americans. This was based partly on the fact that he <had> spent a year at the Army War College in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. And if you knew Kansas, people said, well, then you knew the real America. Malik <had> actually disliked Kansas, and the only part of America that he <had> truly loved was the Rockies, where the thin air and the steep peaks reminded him of his ancestral home in the mountains of Kashmir. But he knew how to sham, in a way that is an art form for the people of South Asia, and so he <had> pretended for years to have a special fondness for the Americans from the heartland." (page 6)

 

~~~~~

 

David,

 

One way to beat it .. I assume you write on a computer .. is to hit Control-F for 'find', insert 'had' in the box, and then look at all the words after the 'had's and decide if they are past tense verbs. If they are -- as are the four in the quote above (spent, disliked, loved, and pretended) -- delete the 'had's. Past tense verbs should not have the word 'had' in front of them. There is nothing the word 'had' can do for a past tense verb that the verb cannot do for itself.

 

When you come upon something like this quote from page 11, you will have a different problem.

 

"She was still in her thirties, still in middle school in the secret world, but one of her discoveries as she had grown older .. oops, clang. What's this? This is a disguised past-tense verb 'grew', which you tried to put 'had' in front of. But being an irregular past tense verb, it balked, and made you force the irregular past participle, giving you 'had grown' instead of 'grew'. It should read, "one of her discoveries as she grew older was that most things in life didn't [should read, don't] measure up to their promise."

 

When I come to a legitimate past perfect, I'll be back in touch. I hope Bloodmoney is as good as Body of Lies.

 

One of my standard illustrations of the past perfect is your "By the time they reached Amman, the sun had set in the Western hills". (By the time something happened, something else had already happened.) I always give you and Body of Lies credit.

 

.brad.18june11.

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-89970546-1308581244=:38284-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 19:07:27 -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: "T. J. Ray" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Present Participle Suffix MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_SW_1103911738_1309133247_mpa=" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_SW_1103911738_1309133247_mpaContent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed I would appreciate some comments on the evolution of the current English present participle suffix from its Anglo-Saxon roots. Thanks. tj To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_1103911738_1309133247_mpaContent-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would appreciate some comments on the evolution of the current English present

participle suffix from its Anglo-Saxon roots.

Thanks.

tj

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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_1103911738_1309133247_mpa=-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:01:10 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: This is the sort of thing In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1597324896-1309186870=:20967" --0-1597324896-1309186870=:20967 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is the sort of thing that will interest those who are interested in this sort of thing, regarding the had-for-did phenomenon. � David Ellis writes, in Breach of Trust, c.2011, � (Scene:�courtroom where�defense attorney is describing his own cross-examination of�witness Espinoza.) � "Given that Espinoza probably hadn't shared (had-for-did, should read, 'didn't share') this information with the prosecutors, they hadn't had (had-for-did, should read 'didn't have') the chance to prepare him for this line of inquiry." � Once you get on the 'had' highway, it's hard to find the exit ramp.� � .brad.27june11. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1597324896-1309186870=:20967 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This is the sort of thing that will interest those who are interested in this sort of thing, regarding the had-for-did phenomenon.

 

David Ellis writes, in Breach of Trust, c.2011,

 

(Scene: courtroom where defense attorney is describing his own cross-examination of witness Espinoza.)

 

"Given that Espinoza probably hadn't shared (had-for-did, should read, 'didn't share') this information with the prosecutors, they hadn't had (had-for-did, should read 'didn't have') the chance to prepare him for this line of inquiry."

 

Once you get on the 'had' highway, it's hard to find the exit ramp. 

 

.brad.27june11.

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1597324896-1309186870=:20967--