John,

Thanks.  Let us know what your high school students have to say.

Herb

From: Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:20:38 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Dropping the h In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C75639792EMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C75639792EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SXQgd291bGQgYmUgd29ydGggbG9va2luZyB1cCDigJxoZXJi4oCdIGluIHRoZSBEaWN0aW9uYXJ5 IG9mIEFtZXJpY2FuIFJlZ2lvbmFsIEVuZ2xpc2guICBZb3VyIGxpYnJhcnkgbWF5IGhhdmUgaXQu ICBFdmVuIG91ciBzbWFsbCB0b3duIGxpYnJhcnkgZG9lcywgd2hpY2ggaW1wcmVzc2VkIG1lLiAg REFSRSB3b3VsZCBnaXZlIHRoZSBkaXN0cmlidXRpb24gb2YgcHJvbnVuY2lhdGlvbnMuDQoNCkhl cmINCg0KRnJvbTogQXNzZW1ibHkgZm9yIHRoZSBUZWFjaGluZyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXIg W21haWx0bzpBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFVdIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBQYXVsIEUuIERv bmlnZXINClNlbnQ6IFR1ZXNkYXksIEF1Z3VzdCAzMCwgMjAxMSAxMDoyMCBBTQ0KVG86IEFURUdA TElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVQ0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IERyb3BwaW5nIHRoZSBoDQoNCkZvciB0 aGUgcmVjb3JkLCBJIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBwcm9ub3VuY2luZyB0aGUgL2gvIGluICdoZXJiJyBhbGwg bXkgbGlmZSAtICdlcmInIHNvdW5kcyBzbyBvZGQgdG8gbXkgd2VpcmQgZWFycy4gIEknbSBub3Qg QnJpdGlzaCwgYnV0IEkgZG8gYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGUgQnJpdHMgZG8gcHJvbm91bmNlIHRoZSAvaC8u ICBJJ20gYSBuYXRpdmUgTmV3IFlvcmtlciAoTi5ZLiBDaXR5KSwgYnV0IEkgZG9uJ3Qga25vdyB0 aGF0IG15IHByb251bmNpYXRpb24gaXMgdHlwaWNhbGx5IE5ldyBZb3JrLWlzaC4gQW55Ym9keSBr bm93IGFib3V0IHRoaXM/IEFsc28sIGlzIHRoaXMgcmVhbGx5IGEgZ3JhbW1hciBxdWVzdGlvbj8g RXZlbiBpZiBpdCBpc24ndCwgaXQncyBpbnRlcmVzdGluZy4NCg0KUGF1bA0KDQoiSWYgdGhpcyB3 ZXJlIHBsYXknZCB1cG9uIGEgc3RhZ2Ugbm93LCBJIGNvdWxkIGNvbmRlbW4gaXQgYXMgYW4gaW1w cm9iYWJsZSBmaWN0aW9uIiAoX1R3ZWxmdGggTmlnaHRfIDMuNC4xMjctMTI4KS4NCg0KDQpfX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KRnJvbTogQ2Fyb2wgTW9ycmlzb24gPGNhcm9s bHlubmU0MUBZQUhPTy5DT00+DQpUbzogQVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVDQpTZW50OiBU dWUsIEF1Z3VzdCAzMCwgMjAxMSA5OjI1OjE2IEFNDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogRHJvcHBpbmcgdGhl IGgNClRoYW5rLCB5b3UgSGVyYiEgVGhpcyBpcyB2ZXJ5IGluZm9ybWF0aXZlLiBJIHdhcyB0aGlu a2luZyB0aGF0IHlvdSBwcm9iYWJseSBwcm9ub3VuY2UgdGhlIC9oLyBpbiAiSGVyYiIgYnV0IGl0 IGlzIG5vdCBwcm91bm91bmNlZCBpbiAiaGVyYnMiIGFzIGluICJoZXJicyBhbmQgc3BpY2VzLiIN CkJlc3QtDQpDYXJvbA0KDQotLS0gT24gTW9uLCA4LzI5LzExLCBTVEFITEtFLCBIRVJCRVJUIEYg PGhzdGFobGtlQEJTVS5FRFU8bWFpbHRvOmhzdGFobGtlQEJTVS5FRFU+PiB3cm90ZToNCg0KRnJv bTogU1RBSExLRSwgSEVSQkVSVCBGIDxoc3RhaGxrZUBCU1UuRURVPG1haWx0bzpoc3RhaGxrZUBC U1UuRURVPj4NClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBEcm9wcGluZyB0aGUgaA0KVG86IEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYu TVVPSElPLkVEVTxtYWlsdG86QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVPg0KRGF0ZTogTW9uZGF5 LCBBdWd1c3QgMjksIDIwMTEsIDExOjQ1IFBNDQoNCkhlcmXigJlzIGEgc2hvcnQgdHJlYXRtZW50 IG9mIGluaXRpYWwgPGg+IGluIEVuZ2xpc2guICBJ4oCZbSB0YWtpbmcgYSBoaXN0b3JpY2FsIGFw cHJvYWNoIHRvIHRoZSBwcm9ibGVtIGluIHBhcnQgb3V0IG9mIGluY2xpbmF0aW9u4oCUSSBkbyBo aXN0b3JpY2FsIGxpbmd1aXN0aWNzLCBidXQgSSBhbHNvIHRoaW5rIHVuZGVyc3RhbmRpbmcgd2h5 IG9ydGhvZ3JhcGhpYyBpbml0aWFsIDxoPiBiZWhhdmVzIGEgbGl0dGxlIG9kZGx5IGluIEVuZ2xp c2ggcmVxdWlyZXMgdW5kZXJzdGFuZGluZyBpdHMgaGlzdG9yeS4gIEluIHRoaXMgZGlzY3Vzc2lv biwgSeKAmW0gdXNpbmcgdGhlIGxpbmd1aXN0aWMgY29udmVudGlvbnMgb2YgLy8gdG8gaWRlbnRp Znkgc291bmRzIGFuZCA8PiB0byBpZGVudGlmeSBsZXR0ZXJzLg0KDQoNCg0KL2gvIGRlbGV0aW9u IGlzIGEgYml0IG1lc3N5LiAgT25lIG9mIHRoZSBmdW5kYW1lbnRhbCBkaXNjb3ZlcmllcyBhbmQg cHJpbmNpcGxlcyBvZiBoaXN0b3JpY2FsIGxpbmd1aXN0aWNzIGlzIHRoYXQgc291bmQgY2hhbmdl IGlzIHJlZ3VsYXIuICBJZiBhIHNvdW5kIGNoYW5nZXMsIGl0IGNoYW5nZXMgYWxsIGFjcm9zcyB0 aGUgbGFuZ3VhZ2UsIG5vdCBqdXN0IGluIHNvbWUgd29yZHMuICBGb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwgRW5nbGlz aCAvdC8gaGFzIGRlbGV0ZWQgY29uc2lzdGVudGx5IGJldHdlZW4gYSBmcmljYXRpdmUgKC90aCwg Ziwgcy8pIGFuZCAvbC8gb3IgL24vLCBhcyBpbiDigJxsaXN0ZW4s4oCdIOKAnHdoaXN0bGUs4oCd IOKAnHdyZXN0bGUs4oCdIOKAnG9mdGVuLOKAnSBldGMuICBIb3dldmVyLCBzb2NpYWwgYW5kIG90 aGVyIGV4dGVybmFsIHByZXNzdXJlcyBjYW4gaW50ZXJmZXJlIHdpdGggdGhpcyByZWd1bGFyaXR5 LCBhbmQgdGhhdOKAmXMgd2hhdOKAmXMgaGFwcGVuZWQgd2l0aCBFbmdsaXNoIGluaXRpYWwgL2gv LiAgT2xkIEVuZ2xpc2ggaGFkIGluaXRpYWwgL2gvIGluIHdvcmRzIGxpa2Ug4oCcaG9yc2Us4oCd IOKAnGhlYXJ0LOKAnSDigJxoYW5kLOKAnSDigJxob3VuZCzigJ0gYW5kIG1hbnkgb3RoZXJzIGFu ZCBkaWQgbm90IGRyb3AgaXQuICAvaC8gZHJvcHBpbmcgZGlkbuKAmXQgYmVnaW4gdGlsbCB3ZWxs IGFmdGVyIHRoZSBOb3JtYW4gaW52YXNpb24gYW5kIHdhcyBpbmZsdWVuY2VkIGJ5IEZyZW5jaCBz cGVsbGluZy4gIEVuZ2xpc2ggYm9ycm93ZWQgbG90cyBvZiBGcmVuY2ggd29yZHMgc3BlbGxlZCB3 aXRoIGluaXRpYWwgPGg+LCBhIHNvdW5kIHRoYXQgd2FzIG5vdCwgYW5kIGlzIG5vdCB0b2RheSwg cHJvbm91bmNlZCBpbiBGcmVuY2guICBJbiBmYWN0LCB0aG9zZSBpbml0aWFsIDxoPiBoYWQgbmV2 ZXIgYmVlbiBwcm9ub3VuY2VkLCBub3QgZXZlbiB3aGVuIHRoZXkgb3JpZ2luYXRlZCBpbiBMYXRp biwgYXMgbW9zdCBvZiB0aGVtIGRpZC4gIFNvIHRoZSB3b3JkcyB3ZXJlIGJvcnJvd2VkIHdpdGhv dXQgdGhlIGluaXRpYWwgL2gvIHNvdW5kIGJ1dCB3ZXJlIHNwZWxsZWQgd2l0aCB0aGUgbGV0dGVy IDxoPi4NCg0KDQoNCkFzIGxpdGVyYWN5IHNwcmVhZCwgRW5nbGlzaCBzcGVha2VycyB3aG8gZGlk IG5vdCBzcGVhayBGcmVuY2ggY29uZnJvbnRlZCBpbml0aWFsIDxoPiB0aGF0IHdlcmUgcHJvbm91 bmNlZCBhbmQgaW5pdGlhbCA8aD4gdGhhdCB3ZXJlIG5vdC4gIFdlIHN0aWxsIGhhdmUgdGhpcyBp biB3b3JkcyBsaWtlIOKAnGhvbm9yLOKAnSDigJxob25lc3Qs4oCdIGFuZCDigJxob3VyLOKAnSBh bGwgRnJlbmNoIGxvYW5zIHRoYXQgaGF2ZSByZW1haW5lZCAvaC8tbGVzcywgdW5saWtlIOKAnGhv dGVs4oCdIGFuZCDigJxob3NwaXRhbCzigJ0gRnJlbmNoIGxvYW5zIHRoYXQgaGF2ZSBnYWluZWQg YW4gaW5pdGlhbCAvaC8uICBUaGUgaW5pdGlhbCA8aD4gdGhhdCBhcmUgbm93IHByb25vdW5jZWQg aW4gbG9hbiB3b3JkcyBhcmUgZXhhbXBsZXMgb2Ygd2hhdOKAmXMgY2FsbGVkIOKAnHNwZWxsaW5n IHByb251bmNpYXRpb24s4oCdIHRoZSBzYW1lIGZvcmNlIHRoYXQgbGVhZHMgcGVvcGxlIHRvIHBy b25vdW5jZSB0aGUgPHQ+IGluIOKAnG9mdGVu4oCdIG9yIHRoZSA8bD4gaW4g4oCcYWxtb25kLuKA nSAgU3BlbGxpbmcgcHJvbnVuY2lhdGlvbiBhcHBsaWVzIGhhcGhhemFyZGx5LiAgSXTigJlzIG5v dCBhIGZvcm0gb2YgcmVndWxhciBzb3VuZCBjaGFuZ2UuICBSYXRoZXIsIGl0IGEga2luZCBvZiBo eXBlci1jb3JyZWN0aW9uLiAgSW4gbWFueSBjYXNlcywgdGhlIGluaXRpYWwgL2gvIGhhcyBjb21l IHRvIGJlIGFjY2VwdGVkIGFzIHN0YW5kYXJkLCBhcyBpbiDigJxoaXN0b3J54oCdOyBpbiBvdGhl cnMgaXQgaGFzIG5vdC4NCg0KDQoNClRoZSBkaWZmZXJlbmNlIGJldHdlZW4g4oCcYW4gaGlzdG9y aWMgZXZlbnQs4oCdIHdpdGhvdXQgdGhlIC9oLywgYW5kIOKAnGEgaGlzdG9yeSBvZiBFbmdsaXNo LOKAnSB3aXRoIHRoZSAvaC8sIHNob3dzIGhvdyB0aGUgL2gvLWxlc3MgcHJvbnVuY2lhdGlvbiBv ZiB0aGUgbG9hbndvcmQgd291bGQgbGVhZCB0byB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIHRoZSBpbmRlZmluaXRlIOKA nGFu4oCdIGFuZCB0aGUgZGVmaW5pdGUgL0RpLywgd2hpY2ggc291bmRzIGxpa2Ug4oCcdGhlZS7i gJ0gIFdoYXQgaGFzIGhhcHBlbmVkIHdpdGggc29tZSB3b3JkcywgbGlrZSDigJxoaXN0b3J5LOKA nSBpcyB0aGF0IHRoZXkgaGF2ZSBzb3VuZGVkIHRoZSBpbml0aWFsIDxoPiB0aHJvdWdoIHNwZWxs aW5nIHByb251bmNpYXRpb24sIGFuZCB0aGlzIGNoYW5nZSB0aGVuIGFuYWxvZ2l6ZXMgdG8gdGhl IGFkamVjdGl2ZSBmb3JtIHNvIHRoYXQgaXQgdG9vIGlzIGNvbnNvbmFudC1pbml0aWFsIGFuZCB0 YWtlcyB0aGUgaW5kZWZpbml0ZSDigJxhLuKAnQ0KDQoNCg0KL2gvLWluc2VydGlvbiwgaW4gdGhv c2UgZGlhbGVjdHMgb2YgQnJFIEVuZ2xpc2ggdGhhdCBoYXZlIGl0LCBhbmQgdGhpcyBjb3ZlcnMg bW9zdCBvZiBFbmdsYW5kLCBpcyBhIGZvcm0gb2YgaHlwZXJjb3JyZWN0aW9uLiAgVGhlIHNwZWFr ZXIga25vd3MgdGhhdCBpbiBCQkMgRW5nbGlzaCwgZm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIHNvbWUgPGg+IGFyZSBw cm9ub3VuY2VkIGFuZCBzb21lIGFyZSBub3QsIGJ1dCB0aGUgc3BlYWtlciBkb2VzbuKAmXQga25v dyB3aGljaCBhcmUgd2hpY2gsIGFuZCBzbyBoZSBvciBzaGUgd2lsbCB0ZW5kIHRvIG9taXQgL2gv IHVubGVzcyB0aGUgd29yZCBpcyBlbXBoYXNpemVkLCBpbiB3aGljaCBjYXNlIGFuIC9oLyBnZXRz IGluc2VydGVkIHdoZXRoZXIgaXTigJlzIHRoZXJlIGluIEJCQyBFbmdsaXNoIG9yIG5vdC4gIExp a2Ugb3RoZXIgZXhhbXBsZXMgb2YgaHlwZXJjb3JyZWN0aW9uLCB0aGlzIGlzIG5vdCBhIHJ1bGUt Z292ZXJuZWQsIHJlZ3VsYXIgcGhvbm9sb2dpY2FsIHBhdHRlcm4uICBJdCB2YXJpZXMgd2l0aCBz cGVha2VycyBhbmQgb2NjYXNpb25zLg0KDQoNCg0KSGVyYg0KDQoNCg0KRnJvbTogQXNzZW1ibHkg Zm9yIHRoZSBUZWFjaGluZyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXIgW21haWx0bzpBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJW Lk1VT0hJTy5FRFVdIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBTY290dCBDYXRsZWRnZQ0KU2VudDogTW9uZGF5LCBB dWd1c3QgMjksIDIwMTEgMTI6MjAgUE0NClRvOiBBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFUNClN1 YmplY3Q6IERyb3BwaW5nIHRoZSBoDQoNCg0KDQpNeSBNUyBXb3JkIGRpZCBub3QgbGlrZSBtb3N0 IG9mIHRoZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIGFuZCBsZWZ0IG9ubHkgYSBmZXcgc2VudGVuY2VzIGxlZ2libGUu DQoNCkZvciB0aGlzIHJlYXNvbiBJIG1heSBiZSByZXBlYXRpbmcgd2hhdCBvdGhlcnMgaGF2ZSBz YWlkOyBpZiBzbyAsIG15IGFwb2xvZ3kuDQoNCg0KDQpJIGtlZXAgdGhlIOKAmGjigJkgaW4g4oCc dGhlIGhpc3RvcmljYWzigJ0gYW5kIGRyb3AgaXQgaW4g4oCcYW4gaGlzdG9yaWNhbC7igJ0gIEkg c2F5IOKAnGEgaGlzdG9yeS7igJ0gIFdoeSBkbw0KDQpJIG5vdCBzYXkg4oCcYW4gaGlzdG9yeS7i gJ0gIFRoZSB2ZXJ5IHByZXNlbmNlIG9mIOKAmGFu4oCZIHRlbGxzIG1lIHRoYXQgdGhlIOKAmGji gJkgaW4gaGlzdG9yaWNhbCBpcw0KDQpzaWxlbnTigJRidXQgd2h5PyAgSSBjYW5ub3QgdGhpbmsg b2YgYW5vdGhlciBwaHJhc2UgY29tcGFyYWJsZSB0byDigJxhbiBoaXN0b3JpY2Fs4oCdDQoNCiBl eGNlcHQg4oCYYW4gaHlzdGVyaWNhbC7igJ0NCg0KQ2FuIHlvdT8NCg0KDQoNCk5vcm1hbiBTY290 dCBDYXRsZWRnZSwgUGhEL1NURA0KDQpQcm9mZXNzb3IgRW1lcml0dXMNCg0KaGlzdG9yeSAmIGxh bmd1YWdlcw0KDQoNCg0KVG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFz ZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6IGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9o aW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbCBhbmQgc2VsZWN0ICJKb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoZSBs aXN0Ig0KVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8NClRvIGpvaW4g b3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIg aW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0 bWwgYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCINClZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIg c2l0ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvDQoNClRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VS ViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiBodHRwOi8v bGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwgYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBv ciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCINCg0KVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVn Lm9yZy8NClRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQg dGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9h cmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwgYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCINCg0K VmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8NCg= --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C75639792EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+PGhlYWQ+PG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUgY29udGVu dD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij48bWV0YSBuYW1lPUdlbmVyYXRvciBjb250ZW50 PSJNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCAxNCAoZmlsdGVyZWQgbWVkaXVtKSI+PCEtLVtpZiAhbXNvXT48c3R5 bGU+dlw6KiB7YmVoYXZpb3I6dXJsKCNkZWZhdWx0I1ZNTCk7fQ0Kb1w6KiB7YmVoYXZpb3I6dXJs KCNkZWZhdWx0I1ZNTCk7fQ0Kd1w6KiB7YmVoYXZpb3I6dXJsKCNkZWZhdWx0I1ZNTCk7fQ0KLnNo YXBlIHtiZWhhdmlvcjp1cmwoI2RlZmF1bHQjVk1MKTt9DQo8L3N0eWxlPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPjxz dHlsZT48IS0tDQovKiBGb250IERlZmluaXRpb25zICovDQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OkNhbGlicmk7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxNSA1IDIgMiAyIDQgMyAyIDQ7fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFj ZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseTpUYWhvbWE7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxMSA2IDQgMyA1IDQgNCAyIDQ7 fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQm9va21hbiBPbGQgU3R5bGUiOw0KCXBhbm9z ZS0xOjIgNSA2IDQgNSA1IDUgMiAyIDQ7fQ0KLyogU3R5bGUgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCnAuTXNv Tm9ybWFsLCBsaS5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGRpdi5Nc29Ob3JtYWwNCgl7bWFyZ2luOjBpbjsNCgltYXJn aW4tYm90dG9tOi4wMDAxcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGlt ZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIiwic2VyaWYiO30NCmE6bGluaywgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmsNCgl7bXNv LXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOmJsdWU7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVy bGluZTt9DQphOnZpc2l0ZWQsIHNwYW4uTXNvSHlwZXJsaW5rRm9sbG93ZWQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxl LXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOnB1cnBsZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5l O30NCnANCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCW1zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRv Ow0KCW1hcmdpbi1yaWdodDowaW47DQoJbXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG87DQoJbWFy Z2luLWxlZnQ6MGluOw0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRpbWVzIE5l dyBSb21hbiIsInNlcmlmIjt9DQpwLk1zb0FjZXRhdGUsIGxpLk1zb0FjZXRhdGUsIGRpdi5Nc29B Y2V0YXRlDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgltc28tc3R5bGUtbGluazoiQmFsbG9v biBUZXh0IENoYXIiOw0KCW1hcmdpbjowaW47DQoJbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTouMDAwMXB0Ow0KCWZv bnQtc2l6ZTo4LjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7fQ0KcC55 aXYyMDY1OTg3Njg4bXNvbm9ybWFsLCBsaS55aXYyMDY1OTg3Njg4bXNvbm9ybWFsLCBkaXYueWl2 MjA2NTk4NzY4OG1zb25vcm1hbA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtbmFtZTp5aXYyMDY1OTg3Njg4bXNvbm9y bWFsOw0KCW1zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1yaWdodDowaW47DQoJbXNv LW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG87DQoJbWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6MGluOw0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZTox Mi4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiIsInNlcmlmIjt9DQpwLnlpdjIw NjU5ODc2ODhtc29jaHBkZWZhdWx0LCBsaS55aXYyMDY1OTg3Njg4bXNvY2hwZGVmYXVsdCwgZGl2 LnlpdjIwNjU5ODc2ODhtc29jaHBkZWZhdWx0DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1uYW1lOnlpdjIwNjU5ODc2 ODhtc29jaHBkZWZhdWx0Ow0KCW1zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1yaWdo dDowaW47DQoJbXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG87DQoJbWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6MGluOw0K CWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiIsInNlcmlm Ijt9DQpzcGFuLnlpdjIwNjU5ODc2ODhtc29oeXBlcmxpbmsNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLW5hbWU6eWl2 MjA2NTk4NzY4OG1zb2h5cGVybGluazt9DQpzcGFuLnlpdjIwNjU5ODc2ODhtc29oeXBlcmxpbmtm b2xsb3dlZA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtbmFtZTp5aXYyMDY1OTg3Njg4bXNvaHlwZXJsaW5rZm9sbG93 ZWQ7fQ0Kc3Bhbi55aXYyMDY1OTg3Njg4ZW1haWxzdHlsZTE3DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1uYW1lOnlp djIwNjU5ODc2ODhlbWFpbHN0eWxlMTc7fQ0Kc3Bhbi55aXYyMDY1OTg3Njg4ZW1haWxzdHlsZTE5 DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1uYW1lOnlpdjIwNjU5ODc2ODhlbWFpbHN0eWxlMTk7fQ0KcC55aXYyMDY1 OTg3Njg4bXNvbm9ybWFsMSwgbGkueWl2MjA2NTk4NzY4OG1zb25vcm1hbDEsIGRpdi55aXYyMDY1 OTg3Njg4bXNvbm9ybWFsMQ0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtbmFtZTp5aXYyMDY1OTg3Njg4bXNvbm9ybWFs MTsNCgltYXJnaW46MGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTEu MHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO30NCnNwYW4ueWl2MjA2NTk4 NzY4OG1zb2h5cGVybGluazENCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLW5hbWU6eWl2MjA2NTk4NzY4OG1zb2h5cGVy bGluazE7DQoJY29sb3I6Ymx1ZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCnNwYW4u eWl2MjA2NTk4NzY4OG1zb2h5cGVybGlua2ZvbGxvd2VkMQ0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtbmFtZTp5aXYy MDY1OTg3Njg4bXNvaHlwZXJsaW5rZm9sbG93ZWQxOw0KCWNvbG9yOnB1cnBsZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRl Y29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCnNwYW4ueWl2MjA2NTk4NzY4OGVtYWlsc3R5bGUxNzENCgl7 bXNvLXN0eWxlLW5hbWU6eWl2MjA2NTk4NzY4OGVtYWlsc3R5bGUxNzE7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQoJY29sb3I6d2luZG93dGV4dDt9DQpzcGFuLnlpdjIwNjU5 ODc2ODhlbWFpbHN0eWxlMTkxDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1uYW1lOnlpdjIwNjU5ODc2ODhlbWFpbHN0 eWxlMTkxOw0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KCWNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5 N0Q7fQ0KcC55aXYyMDY1OTg3Njg4bXNvY2hwZGVmYXVsdDEsIGxpLnlpdjIwNjU5ODc2ODhtc29j aHBkZWZhdWx0MSwgZGl2LnlpdjIwNjU5ODc2ODhtc29jaHBkZWZhdWx0MQ0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUt bmFtZTp5aXYyMDY1OTg3Njg4bXNvY2hwZGVmYXVsdDE7DQoJbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1 dG87DQoJbWFyZ2luLXJpZ2h0OjBpbjsNCgltc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0bzsNCglt YXJnaW4tbGVmdDowaW47DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGltZXMg TmV3IFJvbWFuIiwic2VyaWYiO30NCnNwYW4uQmFsbG9vblRleHRDaGFyDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1u YW1lOiJCYWxsb29uIFRleHQgQ2hhciI7DQoJbXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCW1zby1z dHlsZS1saW5rOiJCYWxsb29uIFRleHQiOw0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNl cmlmIjt9DQpzcGFuLkVtYWlsU3R5bGUzMg0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpwZXJzb25hbC1yZXBs eTsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KCWNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0Q7 fQ0KLk1zb0NocERlZmF1bHQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6ZXhwb3J0LW9ubHk7DQoJZm9udC1z aXplOjEwLjBwdDt9DQpAcGFnZSBXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7c2l6ZTo4LjVpbiAxMS4waW47DQoJ bWFyZ2luOjEuMGluIDEuMGluIDEuMGluIDEuMGluO30NCmRpdi5Xb3JkU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7cGFn ZTpXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjE7fQ0KLS0+PC9zdHlsZT48IS0tW2lmIGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4NCjxv OnNoYXBlZGVmYXVsdHMgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIHNwaWRtYXg9IjEwMjYiIC8+DQo8L3htbD48IVtl bmRpZl0tLT48IS0tW2lmIGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4NCjxvOnNoYXBlbGF5b3V0IHY6ZXh0PSJl ZGl0Ij4NCjxvOmlkbWFwIHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0IiBkYXRhPSIxIiAvPg0KPC9vOnNoYXBlbGF5b3V0 PjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPjwvaGVhZD48Ym9keSBsYW5nPUVOLVVTIGxpbms9Ymx1ZSB2bGlu az1wdXJwbGU+PGRpdiBjbGFzcz1Xb3JkU2VjdGlvbjE+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFu IHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJp ZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+SXQgd291bGQgYmUgd29ydGggbG9va2luZyB1cCDigJxoZXJi4oCd IGluIHRoZSBEaWN0aW9uYXJ5IG9mIEFtZXJpY2FuIFJlZ2lvbmFsIEVuZ2xpc2guwqAgWW91ciBs aWJyYXJ5IG1heSBoYXZlIGl0LsKgIEV2ZW4gb3VyIHNtYWxsIHRvd24gbGlicmFyeSBkb2VzLCB3 aGljaCBpbXByZXNzZWQgbWUuwqAgREFSRSB3b3VsZCBnaXZlIHRoZSBkaXN0cmlidXRpb24gb2Yg cHJvbnVuY2lhdGlvbnMuPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48 c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMt c2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFz cz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNh bGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz5IZXJiPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+ PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250 LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7 PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48ZGl2PjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9J2JvcmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRlci10b3A6 c29saWQgI0I1QzRERiAxLjBwdDtwYWRkaW5nOjMuMHB0IDBpbiAwaW4gMGluJz48cCBjbGFzcz1N c29Ob3JtYWw+PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRh aG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz5Gcm9tOjwvc3Bhbj48L2I+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6 ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz4gQXNzZW1ibHkgZm9y IHRoZSBUZWFjaGluZyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXIgW21haWx0bzpBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1V T0hJTy5FRFVdIDxiPk9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiA8L2I+UGF1bCBFLiBEb25pZ2VyPGJyPjxiPlNlbnQ6 PC9iPiBUdWVzZGF5LCBBdWd1c3QgMzAsIDIwMTEgMTA6MjAgQU08YnI+PGI+VG86PC9iPiBBVEVH QExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFU8YnI+PGI+U3ViamVjdDo8L2I+IFJlOiBEcm9wcGluZyB0aGUg aDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48L2Rpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PG86 cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+PGRpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHls ZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkJvb2ttYW4gT2xkIFN0eWxlIiwic2VyaWYiJz5Gb3IgdGhlIHJlY29y ZCwgSSBoYXZlIGJlZW4gcHJvbm91bmNpbmcgdGhlIC9oLyBpbiAnaGVyYicgYWxsIG15IGxpZmUg LSAnZXJiJyBzb3VuZHMgc28gb2RkIHRvIG15IHdlaXJkIGVhcnMuJm5ic3A7IEknbSBub3QgQnJp dGlzaCwgYnV0IEkgZG8gYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGUgQnJpdHMgZG8gcHJvbm91bmNlIHRoZSAvaC8uICZu YnNwO0knbSBhIG5hdGl2ZSBOZXcgWW9ya2VyIChOLlkuIENpdHkpLCBidXQgSSBkb24ndCBrbm93 IHRoYXQgbXkgcHJvbnVuY2lhdGlvbiBpcyB0eXBpY2FsbHkgTmV3IFlvcmstaXNoLiBBbnlib2R5 IGtub3cgYWJvdXQgdGhpcz8gQWxzbywgaXMgdGhpcyByZWFsbHkgYSBncmFtbWFyIHF1ZXN0aW9u PyBFdmVuIGlmIGl0IGlzbid0LCBpdCdzIGludGVyZXN0aW5nLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwv cD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 IkJvb2ttYW4gT2xkIFN0eWxlIiwic2VyaWYiJz4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+ PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJC b29rbWFuIE9sZCBTdHlsZSIsInNlcmlmIic+UGF1bDxicj4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bh bj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAu MHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+JnF1b3Q7SWYgdGhpcyB3ZXJl IHBsYXknZCB1cG9uIGEgc3RhZ2Ugbm93LCBJIGNvdWxkIGNvbmRlbW4gaXQgYXMgYW4gaW1wcm9i YWJsZSBmaWN0aW9uJnF1b3Q7IChfVHdlbGZ0aCBOaWdodF8gMy40LjEyNy0xMjgpLjwvc3Bhbj48 c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkJvb2ttYW4gT2xkIFN0eWxlIiwic2VyaWYiJz4gPG86 cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdm b250LWZhbWlseToiQm9va21hbiBPbGQgU3R5bGUiLCJzZXJpZiInPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+ PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9u dC1mYW1pbHk6IkJvb2ttYW4gT2xkIFN0eWxlIiwic2VyaWYiJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwv c3Bhbj48L3A+PGRpdj48ZGl2IGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBhbGlnbj1jZW50ZXIgc3R5bGU9J3Rl eHQtYWxpZ246Y2VudGVyJz48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWls eToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPjxociBzaXplPTEgd2lkdGg9IjEwMCUiIGFsaWduPWNl bnRlcj48L3NwYW4+PC9kaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtYXJnaW4tYm90dG9t OjEyLjBwdCc+PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRh aG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz5Gcm9tOjwvc3Bhbj48L2I+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6 ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz4gQ2Fyb2wgTW9ycmlz b24gJmx0O2Nhcm9sbHlubmU0MUBZQUhPTy5DT00mZ3Q7PGJyPjxiPlRvOjwvYj4gQVRFR0BMSVNU U0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVPGJyPjxiPlNlbnQ6PC9iPiBUdWUsIEF1Z3VzdCAzMCwgMjAxMSA5OjI1 OjE2IEFNPGJyPjxiPlN1YmplY3Q6PC9iPiBSZTogRHJvcHBpbmcgdGhlIGg8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48 L286cD48L3A+PHRhYmxlIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbFRhYmxlIGJvcmRlcj0wIGNlbGxzcGFjaW5n PTAgY2VsbHBhZGRpbmc9MD48dHI+PHRkIHZhbGlnbj10b3Agc3R5bGU9J3BhZGRpbmc6MGluIDBp biAwaW4gMGluJz48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD5UaGFuaywgeW91IEhlcmIhIFRoaXMg aXMgdmVyeSBpbmZvcm1hdGl2ZS4gSSB3YXMgdGhpbmtpbmcgdGhhdCB5b3UgcHJvYmFibHkgcHJv bm91bmNlIHRoZSAvaC8gaW4gJnF1b3Q7SGVyYiZxdW90OyBidXQgaXQgaXMgbm90IHByb3Vub3Vu Y2VkIGluICZxdW90O2hlcmJzJnF1b3Q7IGFzIGluICZxdW90O2hlcmJzIGFuZCBzcGljZXMuJnF1 b3Q7PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+QmVzdC08bzpw PjwvbzpwPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD5DYXJvbCZuYnNwOzxicj48 YnI+LS0tIE9uIDxiPk1vbiwgOC8yOS8xMSwgU1RBSExLRSwgSEVSQkVSVCBGIDxpPiZsdDs8YSBo cmVmPSJtYWlsdG86aHN0YWhsa2VAQlNVLkVEVSI+aHN0YWhsa2VAQlNVLkVEVTwvYT4mZ3Q7PC9p PjwvYj4gd3JvdGU6PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGJsb2NrcXVvdGUgc3R5bGU9J2JvcmRl cjpub25lO2JvcmRlci1sZWZ0OnNvbGlkICMxMDEwRkYgMS41cHQ7cGFkZGluZzowaW4gMGluIDBp biA0LjBwdDttYXJnaW4tbGVmdDozLjc1cHQ7bWFyZ2luLXRvcDo1LjBwdDttYXJnaW4tYm90dG9t OjUuMHB0Jz48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206MTIuMHB0Jz48 YnI+RnJvbTogU1RBSExLRSwgSEVSQkVSVCBGICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86aHN0YWhsa2VA QlNVLkVEVSI+aHN0YWhsa2VAQlNVLkVEVTwvYT4mZ3Q7PGJyPlN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBEcm9wcGlu ZyB0aGUgaDxicj5UbzogPGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVSI+ QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVPC9hPjxicj5EYXRlOiBNb25kYXksIEF1Z3VzdCAyOSwg MjAxMSwgMTE6NDUgUE08bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48ZGl2IGlkPXlpdjIwNjU5ODc2ODg+PGRpdj48 cCBjbGFzcz15aXYyMDY1OTg3Njg4bXNvbm9ybWFsPkhlcmXigJlzIGEgc2hvcnQgdHJlYXRtZW50 IG9mIGluaXRpYWwgJmx0O2gmZ3Q7IGluIEVuZ2xpc2guJm5ic3A7IEnigJltIHRha2luZyBhIGhp c3RvcmljYWwgYXBwcm9hY2ggdG8gdGhlIHByb2JsZW0gaW4gcGFydCBvdXQgb2YgaW5jbGluYXRp b27igJRJIGRvIGhpc3RvcmljYWwgbGluZ3Vpc3RpY3MsIGJ1dCBJIGFsc28gdGhpbmsgdW5kZXJz dGFuZGluZyB3aHkgb3J0aG9ncmFwaGljIGluaXRpYWwgJmx0O2gmZ3Q7IGJlaGF2ZXMgYSBsaXR0 bGUgb2RkbHkgaW4gRW5nbGlzaCByZXF1aXJlcyB1bmRlcnN0YW5kaW5nIGl0cyBoaXN0b3J5LiZu YnNwOyBJbiB0aGlzIGRpc2N1c3Npb24sIEnigJltIHVzaW5nIHRoZSBsaW5ndWlzdGljIGNvbnZl bnRpb25zIG9mIC8vIHRvIGlkZW50aWZ5IHNvdW5kcyBhbmQgJmx0OyZndDsgdG8gaWRlbnRpZnkg bGV0dGVycy4mbmJzcDsgPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PC9kaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9eWl2MjA2NTk4NzY4 OG1zb25vcm1hbD4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48cCBjbGFzcz15aXYyMDY1OTg3 Njg4bXNvbm9ybWFsPi9oLyBkZWxldGlvbiBpcyBhIGJpdCBtZXNzeS4mbmJzcDsgT25lIG9mIHRo ZSBmdW5kYW1lbnRhbCBkaXNjb3ZlcmllcyBhbmQgcHJpbmNpcGxlcyBvZiBoaXN0b3JpY2FsIGxp bmd1aXN0aWNzIGlzIHRoYXQgc291bmQgY2hhbmdlIGlzIHJlZ3VsYXIuJm5ic3A7IElmIGEgc291 bmQgY2hhbmdlcywgaXQgY2hhbmdlcyBhbGwgYWNyb3NzIHRoZSBsYW5ndWFnZSwgbm90IGp1c3Qg aW4gc29tZSB3b3Jkcy4mbmJzcDsgRm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIEVuZ2xpc2ggL3QvIGhhcyBkZWxldGVk IGNvbnNpc3RlbnRseSBiZXR3ZWVuIGEgZnJpY2F0aXZlICgvdGgsIGYsIHMvKSBhbmQgL2wvIG9y IC9uLywgYXMgaW4g4oCcbGlzdGVuLOKAnSDigJx3aGlzdGxlLOKAnSDigJx3cmVzdGxlLOKAnSDi gJxvZnRlbizigJ0gZXRjLiZuYnNwOyBIb3dldmVyLCBzb2NpYWwgYW5kIG90aGVyIGV4dGVybmFs IHByZXNzdXJlcyBjYW4gaW50ZXJmZXJlIHdpdGggdGhpcyByZWd1bGFyaXR5LCBhbmQgdGhhdOKA mXMgd2hhdOKAmXMgaGFwcGVuZWQgd2l0aCBFbmdsaXNoIGluaXRpYWwgL2gvLiZuYnNwOyBPbGQg RW5nbGlzaCBoYWQgaW5pdGlhbCAvaC8gaW4gd29yZHMgbGlrZSDigJxob3JzZSzigJ0g4oCcaGVh cnQs4oCdIOKAnGhhbmQs4oCdIOKAnGhvdW5kLOKAnSBhbmQgbWFueSBvdGhlcnMgYW5kIGRpZCBu b3QgZHJvcCBpdC4mbmJzcDsgL2gvIGRyb3BwaW5nIGRpZG7igJl0IGJlZ2luIHRpbGwgd2VsbCBh ZnRlciB0aGUgTm9ybWFuIGludmFzaW9uIGFuZCB3YXMgaW5mbHVlbmNlZCBieSBGcmVuY2ggc3Bl bGxpbmcuJm5ic3A7IEVuZ2xpc2ggYm9ycm93ZWQgbG90cyBvZiBGcmVuY2ggd29yZHMgc3BlbGxl ZCB3aXRoIGluaXRpYWwgJmx0O2gmZ3Q7LCBhIHNvdW5kIHRoYXQgd2FzIG5vdCwgYW5kIGlzIG5v dCB0b2RheSwgcHJvbm91bmNlZCBpbiBGcmVuY2guJm5ic3A7IEluIGZhY3QsIHRob3NlIGluaXRp YWwgJmx0O2gmZ3Q7IGhhZCBuZXZlciBiZWVuIHByb25vdW5jZWQsIG5vdCBldmVuIHdoZW4gdGhl eSBvcmlnaW5hdGVkIGluIExhdGluLCBhcyBtb3N0IG9mIHRoZW0gZGlkLiZuYnNwOyBTbyB0aGUg d29yZHMgd2VyZSBib3Jyb3dlZCB3aXRob3V0IHRoZSBpbml0aWFsIC9oLyBzb3VuZCBidXQgd2Vy ZSBzcGVsbGVkIHdpdGggdGhlIGxldHRlciAmbHQ7aCZndDsuJm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IDxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPXlpdjIwNjU5ODc2ODhtc29ub3JtYWw+Jm5ic3A7IDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+ PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPXlpdjIwNjU5ODc2ODhtc29ub3JtYWw+QXMgbGl0ZXJhY3kgc3ByZWFkLCBF bmdsaXNoIHNwZWFrZXJzIHdobyBkaWQgbm90IHNwZWFrIEZyZW5jaCBjb25mcm9udGVkIGluaXRp YWwgJmx0O2gmZ3Q7IHRoYXQgd2VyZSBwcm9ub3VuY2VkIGFuZCBpbml0aWFsICZsdDtoJmd0OyB0 aGF0IHdlcmUgbm90LiZuYnNwOyBXZSBzdGlsbCBoYXZlIHRoaXMgaW4gd29yZHMgbGlrZSDigJxo b25vcizigJ0g4oCcaG9uZXN0LOKAnSBhbmQg4oCcaG91cizigJ0gYWxsIEZyZW5jaCBsb2FucyB0 aGF0IGhhdmUgcmVtYWluZWQgL2gvLWxlc3MsIHVubGlrZSDigJxob3RlbOKAnSBhbmQg4oCcaG9z cGl0YWws4oCdIEZyZW5jaCBsb2FucyB0aGF0IGhhdmUgZ2FpbmVkIGFuIGluaXRpYWwgL2gvLiZu YnNwOyBUaGUgaW5pdGlhbCAmbHQ7aCZndDsgdGhhdCBhcmUgbm93IHByb25vdW5jZWQgaW4gbG9h biB3b3JkcyBhcmUgZXhhbXBsZXMgb2Ygd2hhdOKAmXMgY2FsbGVkIOKAnHNwZWxsaW5nIHByb251 bmNpYXRpb24s4oCdIHRoZSBzYW1lIGZvcmNlIHRoYXQgbGVhZHMgcGVvcGxlIHRvIHByb25vdW5j ZSB0aGUgJmx0O3QmZ3Q7IGluIOKAnG9mdGVu4oCdIG9yIHRoZSAmbHQ7bCZndDsgaW4g4oCcYWxt b25kLuKAnSZuYnNwOyBTcGVsbGluZyBwcm9udW5jaWF0aW9uIGFwcGxpZXMgaGFwaGF6YXJkbHku Jm5ic3A7IEl04oCZcyBub3QgYSBmb3JtIG9mIHJlZ3VsYXIgc291bmQgY2hhbmdlLiZuYnNwOyBS YXRoZXIsIGl0IGEga2luZCBvZiBoeXBlci1jb3JyZWN0aW9uLiZuYnNwOyBJbiBtYW55IGNhc2Vz LCB0aGUgaW5pdGlhbCAvaC8gaGFzIGNvbWUgdG8gYmUgYWNjZXB0ZWQgYXMgc3RhbmRhcmQsIGFz IGluIOKAnGhpc3RvcnnigJ07IGluIG90aGVycyBpdCBoYXMgbm90LiA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48 cCBjbGFzcz15aXYyMDY1OTg3Njg4bXNvbm9ybWFsPiZuYnNwOyA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48cCBj bGFzcz15aXYyMDY1OTg3Njg4bXNvbm9ybWFsPlRoZSBkaWZmZXJlbmNlIGJldHdlZW4g4oCcYW4g aGlzdG9yaWMgZXZlbnQs4oCdIHdpdGhvdXQgdGhlIC9oLywgYW5kIOKAnGEgaGlzdG9yeSBvZiBF bmdsaXNoLOKAnSB3aXRoIHRoZSAvaC8sIHNob3dzIGhvdyB0aGUgL2gvLWxlc3MgcHJvbnVuY2lh dGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgbG9hbndvcmQgd291bGQgbGVhZCB0byB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIHRoZSBpbmRlZmlu aXRlIOKAnGFu4oCdIGFuZCB0aGUgZGVmaW5pdGUgL0RpLywgd2hpY2ggc291bmRzIGxpa2Ug4oCc dGhlZS7igJ0mbmJzcDsgV2hhdCBoYXMgaGFwcGVuZWQgd2l0aCBzb21lIHdvcmRzLCBsaWtlIOKA nGhpc3Rvcnks4oCdIGlzIHRoYXQgdGhleSBoYXZlIHNvdW5kZWQgdGhlIGluaXRpYWwgJmx0O2gm Z3Q7IHRocm91Z2ggc3BlbGxpbmcgcHJvbnVuY2lhdGlvbiwgYW5kIHRoaXMgY2hhbmdlIHRoZW4g YW5hbG9naXplcyB0byB0aGUgYWRqZWN0aXZlIGZvcm0gc28gdGhhdCBpdCB0b28gaXMgY29uc29u YW50LWluaXRpYWwgYW5kIHRha2VzIHRoZSBpbmRlZmluaXRlIOKAnGEu4oCdJm5ic3A7IDxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPXlpdjIwNjU5ODc2ODhtc29ub3JtYWw+Jm5ic3A7IDxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPXlpdjIwNjU5ODc2ODhtc29ub3JtYWw+L2gvLWluc2VydGlvbiwgaW4g dGhvc2UgZGlhbGVjdHMgb2YgQnJFIEVuZ2xpc2ggdGhhdCBoYXZlIGl0LCBhbmQgdGhpcyBjb3Zl cnMgbW9zdCBvZiBFbmdsYW5kLCBpcyBhIGZvcm0gb2YgaHlwZXJjb3JyZWN0aW9uLiZuYnNwOyBU aGUgc3BlYWtlciBrbm93cyB0aGF0IGluIEJCQyBFbmdsaXNoLCBmb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwgc29tZSAm bHQ7aCZndDsgYXJlIHByb25vdW5jZWQgYW5kIHNvbWUgYXJlIG5vdCwgYnV0IHRoZSBzcGVha2Vy IGRvZXNu4oCZdCBrbm93IHdoaWNoIGFyZSB3aGljaCwgYW5kIHNvIGhlIG9yIHNoZSB3aWxsIHRl bmQgdG8gb21pdCAvaC8gdW5sZXNzIHRoZSB3b3JkIGlzIGVtcGhhc2l6ZWQsIGluIHdoaWNoIGNh c2UgYW4gL2gvIGdldHMgaW5zZXJ0ZWQgd2hldGhlciBpdOKAmXMgdGhlcmUgaW4gQkJDIEVuZ2xp c2ggb3Igbm90LiZuYnNwOyBMaWtlIG90aGVyIGV4YW1wbGVzIG9mIGh5cGVyY29ycmVjdGlvbiwg dGhpcyBpcyBub3QgYSBydWxlLWdvdmVybmVkLCByZWd1bGFyIHBob25vbG9naWNhbCBwYXR0ZXJu LiZuYnNwOyBJdCB2YXJpZXMgd2l0aCBzcGVha2VycyBhbmQgb2NjYXNpb25zLiZuYnNwOyA8bzpw PjwvbzpwPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz15aXYyMDY1OTg3Njg4bXNvbm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdj b2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz4mbmJzcDs8L3NwYW4+IDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPXlpdjIw NjU5ODc2ODhtc29ub3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPkhlcmI8L3NwYW4+ IDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPXlpdjIwNjU5ODc2ODhtc29ub3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5 bGU9J2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPiZuYnNwOzwvc3Bhbj4gPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PGRpdj48ZGl2 IHN0eWxlPSdib3JkZXI6bm9uZTtib3JkZXItdG9wOnNvbGlkICNCNUM0REYgMS4wcHQ7cGFkZGlu ZzozLjBwdCAwaW4gMGluIDBpbic+PHAgY2xhc3M9eWl2MjA2NTk4NzY4OG1zb25vcm1hbD48Yj48 c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNl cmlmIic+RnJvbTo8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz4gQXNzZW1ibHkgZm9yIHRoZSBUZWFjaGluZyBv ZiBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXIgW21haWx0bzpBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFVdIDxiPk9u IEJlaGFsZiBPZiA8L2I+U2NvdHQgQ2F0bGVkZ2U8YnI+PGI+U2VudDo8L2I+IE1vbmRheSwgQXVn dXN0IDI5LCAyMDExIDEyOjIwIFBNPGJyPjxiPlRvOjwvYj4gQVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8u RURVPGJyPjxiPlN1YmplY3Q6PC9iPiBEcm9wcGluZyB0aGUgaDwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwv cD48L2Rpdj48L2Rpdj48cCBjbGFzcz15aXYyMDY1OTg3Njg4bXNvbm9ybWFsPiZuYnNwOyA8bzpw PjwvbzpwPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz15aXYyMDY1OTg3Njg4bXNvbm9ybWFsPk15IE1TIFdvcmQgZGlk IG5vdCBsaWtlIG1vc3Qgb2YgdGhlIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gYW5kIGxlZnQgb25seSBhIGZldyBzZW50 ZW5jZXMgbGVnaWJsZS4gPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9eWl2MjA2NTk4NzY4OG1zb25v cm1hbD5Gb3IgdGhpcyByZWFzb24gSSBtYXkgYmUgcmVwZWF0aW5nIHdoYXQgb3RoZXJzIGhhdmUg c2FpZDsgaWYgc28gLCBteSBhcG9sb2d5LiA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz15aXYyMDY1 OTg3Njg4bXNvbm9ybWFsPiZuYnNwOyA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz15aXYyMDY1OTg3 Njg4bXNvbm9ybWFsPkkga2VlcCB0aGUg4oCYaOKAmSBpbiDigJx0aGUgaGlzdG9yaWNhbOKAnSBh bmQgZHJvcCBpdCBpbiDigJxhbiBoaXN0b3JpY2FsLuKAnSZuYnNwOyBJIHNheSDigJxhIGhpc3Rv cnku4oCdJm5ic3A7IFdoeSBkbyA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz15aXYyMDY1OTg3Njg4 bXNvbm9ybWFsPkkgbm90IHNheSDigJxhbiBoaXN0b3J5LuKAnSZuYnNwOyBUaGUgdmVyeSBwcmVz ZW5jZSBvZiDigJhhbuKAmSB0ZWxscyBtZSB0aGF0IHRoZSDigJho4oCZIGluIGhpc3RvcmljYWwg aXMgPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9eWl2MjA2NTk4NzY4OG1zb25vcm1hbD5zaWxlbnTi gJRidXQgd2h5PyZuYnNwOyBJIGNhbm5vdCB0aGluayBvZiBhbm90aGVyIHBocmFzZSBjb21wYXJh YmxlIHRvIOKAnGFuIGhpc3RvcmljYWzigJ0mbmJzcDsgPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9 eWl2MjA2NTk4NzY4OG1zb25vcm1hbD4mbmJzcDtleGNlcHQg4oCYYW4gaHlzdGVyaWNhbC7igJ0m bmJzcDsgPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9eWl2MjA2NTk4NzY4OG1zb25vcm1hbD5DYW4g eW91PyA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz15aXYyMDY1OTg3Njg4bXNvbm9ybWFsPiZuYnNw OyA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz15aXYyMDY1OTg3Njg4bXNvbm9ybWFsPk5vcm1hbiBT Y290dCBDYXRsZWRnZSwgUGhEL1NURCA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz15aXYyMDY1OTg3 Njg4bXNvbm9ybWFsPlByb2Zlc3NvciBFbWVyaXR1cyA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz15 aXYyMDY1OTg3Njg4bXNvbm9ybWFsPmhpc3RvcnkgJmFtcDsgbGFuZ3VhZ2VzIDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+ PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPXlpdjIwNjU5ODc2ODhtc29ub3JtYWw+Jm5ic3A7IDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9w PjxwIGNsYXNzPXlpdjIwNjU5ODc2ODhtc29ub3JtYWw+VG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJ U1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6IDxh IGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbCIgdGFy Z2V0PSJfYmxhbmsiPmh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRt bDwvYT4gYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAmcXVvdDtKb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0JnF1b3Q7IDxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPlZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBh dCA8YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+aHR0cDovL2F0ZWcu b3JnLzwvYT48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+VG8gam9pbiBv ciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYiBp bnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6IDxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVz L2F0ZWcuaHRtbCI+aHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1s PC9hPiBhbmQgc2VsZWN0ICZxdW90O0pvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QmcXVvdDsgPG86cD48 L286cD48L3A+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+VmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0 IDxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8iPmh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy88L2E+IDxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjwvYmxvY2txdW90ZT48L3RkPjwvdHI+PC90YWJsZT48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29O b3JtYWw+VG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0 aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6IDxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9o aW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbCI+aHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJj aGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sPC9hPiBhbmQgc2VsZWN0ICZxdW90O0pvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxp c3QmcXVvdDsgPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PHA+VmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IDxhIGhy ZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8iPmh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy88L2E+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+ PC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPlRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhp cyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0 OiA8YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwi Pmh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbDwvYT4gYW5kIHNl bGVjdCAmcXVvdDtKb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0JnF1b3Q7IDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxw PlZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCA8YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvIj5odHRw Oi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvPC9hPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjwvYm9keT48L2h0bWw+ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C75639792EMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:33:54 -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: dropping the h In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Marshal, "Humble" is another of those French loan words that came into English, in this case in the 13th c., without the /h/. Some dialects kept it that way and some added the /h/. It's pretty irregular. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Myers, Marshall Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 1:46 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: dropping the h ATEG Members: In the part of Kentucky I was reared there were speakers who did not pronounce the h in humble. I wonder why that is? The speakers were native to the area, but who generally were not in the mainstream of other speakers in the area. Marshall -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of R. Michael Medley (ck) Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 12:28 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: dropping the h I appreciated Herb's historical tour of h-words in English. It did seem, however, a round-about way of answering Scott's question. I get Herb's point that the pronunciation of h or not is tied to individual speakers and speech contexts. I feel comfortable with that answer. However, Scott's speech seems to be showing a regular pattern. He pronounces the h when the initial syllable of the word is stressed (as in a history book), but he elides it when the initial syllable is unstressed (as in an historical or an hysterical). Did I miss something in the previous discussion that makes this answer seem too simple? Another interesting h-word not mentioned so far is "herb." My daughter-in-law, who grew up in the south of England and has retained a strong British accent, pronounces that word with the h, as we would pronounce Herb Stahlke's name. Do many Americans use h-sound when talking about "herbs and spices"? R. Michael Medley, Ph.D. Professor of English Eastern Mennonite University To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 31 Aug 2011 08:33:30 -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: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob, I'm perplexed by the reply. I don't recall saying anything about your work or Jim's work in the post. I don't recall addressing "developmental writing" directly. My apologies if I have somehow insulted you without trying to. I have no idea where your anger is coming from, but I can sense that it is real. I would like to think that the ATEG list is a place where differing views can be presented collegially. I would certainly look with interest at your direct response to John's question. Craig On 8/30/2011 1:07 PM, Robert Yates wrote: > Really? > >>>> Craig Hancock<[log in to unmask]> 08/30/11 10:56 AM>>> > Much of twentieth century linguistics has done exactly that, dealing with grammar as separate from > the lexicon and from pragmatics and from cognition. Of course, if you > study grammar as an isolated formal system, it will be difficult to > apply that to--for example--writing. You need to devise a whole other > set of "rules" before that knowledge can be put to use. > > Thanks Craig for once again writing in this public forum that the work Jim Kenkel and I have done over the last decade has absolutely nothing to say about developmental writing. > > For an example of what Craig dismisses, you might want to read: > > Kenkel, J.& Yates, R. (2009). The interlanguage grammar of information in L1 and L2 developmental writing. Written Communication, 26/4, 392-416. > > Someday you might actually read that work, Craig, and explain how that paper is seriously flawed and your perspective is more insightful. > > Let me make the following challenge so you can stop writing the above: Let's propose a presentation at a conference and you can tell me to my face why my work has nothing to say about the teaching of writing to developmental writers. > > In the meantime, I'm more than willing to tell you why Systemic Functional Linguistics can't explain (at least the papers I know) why developmental writers do what they do. > > Of course, it could be we are interested in two different things: you want to describe developmental writing as how it deviates from some standard while Jim and I have been interested in understanding what the underlying principles are that result in such deviations. > > In the meantime, your last post is incredibly offensive to the work Jim Kenkel and I have done. and you know this because i have written this before. Please educate yourself and stop it or tell me how our work is useless and you assumptions are to be preferred. > > Bob Yates > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 31 Aug 2011 08:06:16 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Craig, Although you have claimed to have read some of the work Jim and I have done, the passage I quoted in your post was a dismissal of the fundamental assumptions we make about language for our analysis of writing, and especially developmental writing. The assumption of formal linguistics, which you dismiss, makes an important distinction about our knowledge of language. That is the distinction between competence (what is possible in the language) and performance (what language users actually do). If you are interested in competence, consideration of the formal properties of the language is important. Another crucial assumption of formal linguistics is that meaning of an utterance cannot be strictly related to linguistic form. Let me give an example. The underlying meaning (the technical term is implicature) in the following string "I wish I could stay up later" is completely different because of the context. Little boy in his bed at 9 PM: "I wish I could stay up later." An old man in his bed at 9 PM: "I wish I could stay up later." This is predicted by separation of competence and performance and by the notion that there FORMAL properties of grammar that have nothing to do with meaning and meaning cannot necessarily be related to a choice of grammatical form. If these assumptions of language are correct, then we as language teachers have to figure out the implications for how we understand what we read, why we make the choices we do when we write, and how our writing develops. Of course, it may be difficult to do (the work Jim and I have done tries to apply those assumptions to developmental writing), but if those assumptions about language are correct, then we as teachers of writing and grammar should try to make those connections. To dismiss what may be correct about the nature of language because it is difficult to apply to our concerns about how language is used will not advance the field at all. Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri >>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 08/31/11 7:45 AM >>> Bob, I'm perplexed by the reply. I don't recall saying anything about your work or Jim's work in the post. I don't recall addressing "developmental writing" directly. My apologies if I have somehow insulted you without trying to. I have no idea where your anger is coming from, but I can sense that it is real. I would like to think that the ATEG list is a place where differing views can be presented collegially. I would certainly look with interest at your direct response to John's question. Craig On 8/30/2011 1:07 PM, Robert Yates wrote: > Really? > >>>> Craig Hancock<[log in to unmask]> 08/30/11 10:56 AM>>> > Much of twentieth century linguistics has done exactly that, dealing with grammar as separate from > the lexicon and from pragmatics and from cognition. Of course, if you > study grammar as an isolated formal system, it will be difficult to > apply that to--for example--writing. You need to devise a whole other > set of "rules" before that knowledge can be put to use. > > Thanks Craig for once again writing in this public forum that the work Jim Kenkel and I have done over the last decade has absolutely nothing to say about developmental writing. > > For an example of what Craig dismisses, you might want to read: > > Kenkel, J.& Yates, R. (2009). The interlanguage grammar of information in L1 and L2 developmental writing. Written Communication, 26/4, 392-416. > > Someday you might actually read that work, Craig, and explain how that paper is seriously flawed and your perspective is more insightful. > > Let me make the following challenge so you can stop writing the above: Let's propose a presentation at a conference and you can tell me to my face why my work has nothing to say about the teaching of writing to developmental writers. > > In the meantime, I'm more than willing to tell you why Systemic Functional Linguistics can't explain (at least the papers I know) why developmental writers do what they do. > > Of course, it could be we are interested in two different things: you want to describe developmental writing as how it deviates from some standard while Jim and I have been interested in understanding what the underlying principles are that result in such deviations. > > In the meantime, your last post is incredibly offensive to the work Jim Kenkel and I have done. and you know this because i have written this before. Please educate yourself and stop it or tell me how our work is useless and you assumptions are to be preferred. > > Bob Yates > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 31 Aug 2011 16:06:34 +0300 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: M C Johnstone <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Kenkel and Yates (2009), "we explore the commonalities of L1 and L2 writers on the specific level of linguistic choices needed to order information within and across sentence boundaries. We propose that many of the kinds of constructions in L1 and L2 writing most difficult to categorize, labeled as errors, are in structures that are, from the writers’ perspective, principled attempts to meet their obligation of managing information." Craig, > > "dealing with grammar as separate from > > the lexicon and from pragmatics and from cognition... as an isolated formal system, it will be difficult to > > apply that to--for example--writing." Bob has invited us to read article as it pertains directly to this discussion, which sounds like it could be productive to me, if we can get steer it into deeper water. I'll read the article. Mark On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:33 -0400, "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Bob, > I'm perplexed by the reply. I don't recall saying anything about > your work or Jim's work in the post. I don't recall addressing > "developmental writing" directly. > My apologies if I have somehow insulted you without trying to. I > have no idea where your anger is coming from, but I can sense that it is > real. > I would like to think that the ATEG list is a place where differing > views can be presented collegially. I would certainly look with interest > at your direct response to John's question. > > Craig > > > On 8/30/2011 1:07 PM, Robert Yates wrote: > > Really? > > > >>>> Craig Hancock<[log in to unmask]> 08/30/11 10:56 AM>>> > > Much of twentieth century linguistics has done exactly that, dealing with grammar as separate from > > the lexicon and from pragmatics and from cognition. Of course, if you > > study grammar as an isolated formal system, it will be difficult to > > apply that to--for example--writing. You need to devise a whole other > > set of "rules" before that knowledge can be put to use. > > > > Thanks Craig for once again writing in this public forum that the work Jim Kenkel and I have done over the last decade has absolutely nothing to say about developmental writing. > > > > For an example of what Craig dismisses, you might want to read: > > > > Kenkel, J.& Yates, R. (2009). The interlanguage grammar of information in L1 and L2 developmental writing. Written Communication, 26/4, 392-416. > > > > Someday you might actually read that work, Craig, and explain how that paper is seriously flawed and your perspective is more insightful. > > > > Let me make the following challenge so you can stop writing the above: Let's propose a presentation at a conference and you can tell me to my face why my work has nothing to say about the teaching of writing to developmental writers. > > > > In the meantime, I'm more than willing to tell you why Systemic Functional Linguistics can't explain (at least the papers I know) why developmental writers do what they do. > > > > Of course, it could be we are interested in two different things: you want to describe developmental writing as how it deviates from some standard while Jim and I have been interested in understanding what the underlying principles are that result in such deviations. > > > > In the meantime, your last post is incredibly offensive to the work Jim Kenkel and I have done. and you know this because i have written this before. Please educate yourself and stop it or tell me how our work is useless and you assumptions are to be preferred. > > > > Bob Yates > > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: > > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > > and select "Join or leave the list" > > > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > -- [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/ ========================================================================Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:12:23 -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: The Domain of Grammar In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob, I don't remember dismissing formal approaches. I was trying to make descriptive commentary about them. I was hoping to promote the idea of a big tent, under which different perspectives could be offered. I have read your work and Jim's. It is written very much out of the assumptions you describe. You can certainly describe the language as a formal system, apart from cognition and discourse, but that means that attention to discourse requires another kind of attention. That is the point I was trying to make, and one that I don't think you disagree with. Functional approaches don't see this as separate. You and I have discussed the competence and performance distinction in the past, and we have also discussed different ways of dealing with the obvious fact that meaning is sometimes very hard to predict outside of context. I think it would be accurate to say that you and I don't share the same assumptions, but functionalists have never said (in all my reading) that meaning can be fully predicted by form. I think you give me more credit than I deserve for influencing opinion. You have never said anything to promote my book or praise the articles I have written, but I am not at all surprised by that. We should both be able to present views to the list and let them stand on their own merits. Craig On 8/31/2011 9:06 AM, Robert Yates wrote: > Craig, > > Although you have claimed to have read some of the work Jim and I have done, the passage I quoted in your post was a dismissal of the fundamental assumptions we make about language for our analysis of writing, and especially developmental writing. > > The assumption of formal linguistics, which you dismiss, makes an important distinction about our knowledge of language. That is the distinction between competence (what is possible in the language) and performance (what language users actually do). > > If you are interested in competence, consideration of the formal properties of the language is important. > > Another crucial assumption of formal linguistics is that meaning of an utterance cannot be strictly related to linguistic form. Let me give an example. > > The underlying meaning (the technical term is implicature) in the following string "I wish I could stay up later" is completely different because of the context. > > Little boy in his bed at 9 PM: "I wish I could stay up later." > > An old man in his bed at 9 PM: "I wish I could stay up later." > > This is predicted by separation of competence and performance and by the notion that there FORMAL properties of grammar that have nothing to do with meaning and meaning cannot necessarily be related to a choice of grammatical form. > > If these assumptions of language are correct, then we as language teachers have to figure out the implications for how we understand what we read, why we make the choices we do when we write, and how our writing develops. > > Of course, it may be difficult to do (the work Jim and I have done tries to apply those assumptions to developmental writing), but if those assumptions about language are correct, then we as teachers of writing and grammar should try to make those connections. > > To dismiss what may be correct about the nature of language because it is difficult to apply to our concerns about how language is used will not advance the field at all. > > Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri > >>>> Craig Hancock<[log in to unmask]> 08/31/11 7:45 AM>>> > Bob, > I'm perplexed by the reply. I don't recall saying anything about > your work or Jim's work in the post. I don't recall addressing > "developmental writing" directly. > My apologies if I have somehow insulted you without trying to. I > have no idea where your anger is coming from, but I can sense that it is > real. > I would like to think that the ATEG list is a place where differing > views can be presented collegially. I would certainly look with interest > at your direct response to John's question. > > Craig > > > On 8/30/2011 1:07 PM, Robert Yates wrote: >> Really? >> >>>>> Craig Hancock<[log in to unmask]> 08/30/11 10:56 AM>>> >> Much of twentieth century linguistics has done exactly that, dealing with grammar as separate from >> the lexicon and from pragmatics and from cognition. Of course, if you >> study grammar as an isolated formal system, it will be difficult to >> apply that to--for example--writing. You need to devise a whole other >> set of "rules" before that knowledge can be put to use. >> >> Thanks Craig for once again writing in this public forum that the work Jim Kenkel and I have done over the last decade has absolutely nothing to say about developmental writing. >> >> For an example of what Craig dismisses, you might want to read: >> >> Kenkel, J.& Yates, R. (2009). The interlanguage grammar of information in L1 and L2 developmental writing. Written Communication, 26/4, 392-416. >> >> Someday you might actually read that work, Craig, and explain how that paper is seriously flawed and your perspective is more insightful. >> >> Let me make the following challenge so you can stop writing the above: Let's propose a presentation at a conference and you can tell me to my face why my work has nothing to say about the teaching of writing to developmental writers. >> >> In the meantime, I'm more than willing to tell you why Systemic Functional Linguistics can't explain (at least the papers I know) why developmental writers do what they do. >> >> Of course, it could be we are interested in two different things: you want to describe developmental writing as how it deviates from some standard while Jim and I have been interested in understanding what the underlying principles are that result in such deviations. >> >> In the meantime, your last post is incredibly offensive to the work Jim Kenkel and I have done. and you know this because i have written this before. Please educate yourself and stop it or tell me how our work is useless and you assumptions are to be preferred. >> >> Bob Yates >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 31 Aug 2011 19:52:00 +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: The Domain of Grammar In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 John, Maybe a terminological split would be handy here. On the one hand, there's "the material about language we want to teach." On the other, there's "grammar." Because linguists have used the word "grammar" for so long in rather specific ways, linguists won't tend to think of phonology as grammar (although there certainly are positions that don't view the distinction as ironclad). As Craig has pointed out, a lot of the public is accustomed to thinking of "grammar" as "the stuff we're supposed to say in a different way, because the way we say it is Wrong" Neither the public nor (most) linguists would typically think of including a unit on deceptive advertising language in the category of "grammar," but I certainly think that kind of thing should be in all English curricula, and I suspect most, if not all, people on this list would agree. What would be the effect if, instead of "grammar," we think of the area as simply "language analysis"? Those linguists who firmly believe that "grammar" should refer only to morphosyntax, conceptualized as a separate component, probably won't object to "language analysis" being defined much more broadly, and certainly neither would functionalists; in effect, no one's staked out a claim on "language analysis." [1] Yes, it's vague -- and there would be a danger of someone thinking that talking about literary metaphors for ten minutes constitutes a language analysis unit -- but it's certainly as delimited as "social studies" or some of the other mainstays of public education. I used to like the label "language structure awareness" for this, but I've come to think that that doesn't sufficiently foreground analytic reasoning. --- Bill Spruiell [1] Note -- please! -- that I'm not saying here that restricting "grammar" to morphosyntax is either a good or bad position, nor (more particularly) am I suggesting that that position is Bob's. It *is* the position of a number of linguists, but both they and linguists that firmly disagree with them (like me) would largely agree that a wide range of language phenomena should be discussed in English classrooms. To a certain extent, it's the terminology that's the hang-up, and that's partly because the terms have become rallying flags in position wars. I'd be happy to call the entire area something totally new, like Theeb or Floortst, if I thought people would go along with it. In fact, letting a classroom full of students decide what new term *they* want to call it would be a great opening activity for a unit on it. On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:00 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: Picking up on a point made by Paul, I want to ask the question, "What is the domain of grammar? What does grammar encompass? What does it NOT encompass? What aspects of grammar should/should not be incorporated into the language arts curriculum?" (I am referring to only the grammar of English.) If we talk about language sounds (phonetics) and how we use them (phonology), are we talking about grammar? Do we need to concern ourselves in the classroom with breaking language down into it's basic units of meaning (morphology) to examine the construction of words? Are the rules for forming phrases, clauses, and sentences (syntax) the Sovereign of Grammar and how far do we take the teaching of these "rules"? Do we go beyond this level? Do we consider larger units of language (discourse) and its aspects of cohesion, coherence, clarity, information structuring? What about all of the context that informs our understanding of language (pragmatics) -- is that grammar? Do we even consider including stress, rhythm, and intonation (prosody) even if they have a huge impact on meaning? What supports the teaching of grammar? Is it valuable/worth while to look at the history that informs/shapes the grammar (historical linguistics)? Is a unit on animal communication worthwhile in order to emphasize what makes human language/grammar so special? Where do we even start with all of the social/cultural implications of grammar (dialectology/sociolinguistics/anthropology/sociology)? Would we be doing a major disservice by failing to team up with our neighboring science teachers to discuss the cognitive/neural basis of grammar (cognitive/neurolinguistics) -- what we know about grammar and the brain/cognition is fascinating, but is it a part of grammar to English teachers? We must teach literature as well, but do we bring grammar along to analyze these canonized writings? (stylistics/text analysis) It's a big question, I know, and certainly one addressed before, but the composition of this list has changed quite a bit, and I think that it is a discussion worth revisiting for the benefit of all members. Of course, reality precludes us from using an ideal definition of grammar in many cases, but I'm more interested in what that ideal would look like to begin with. I know this also brings into question the relationship between the English/Language Arts teacher and the linguist (or the role of those with a foot in both camps), but I'd like to believe that we all agree by now that no harm comes from a sharing, amicable relationship at a minimum. I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks! John To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:37:33 -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: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016e6498202a610cc04abd3efde Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Asking about the domain of grammar is worthwhile, but it's a question without a definitive answer. Everyone from the ivory-tower linguist to the average schlub on the street would agree that it includes the study of nouns and verbs, but as we move away from that core, the boundaries become a matter for private stipulative definition. This is akin to a discussion I just had about "the Great American Songbook." Everyone agrees that it includes the work of the Gerschwins, Kern, Arlen, Mercer, and the other Tin Pan Alley greats. But the edges are fuzzy. Is there a beginning and an end? Can we include Stephen Foster? How about Billy Joel? Again, many strong opinions but no definitive answers. Apart from the core we agree on, everyone is free to stipulate their own definition. As we've seen, a discussion of grammar's domain can be quite theoretical (and astonishingly intemperate!). It can also be conducted on a purely practical level. In a high school "grammar" class, should we introduce questions of punctuation? How about phonology? I just retired after many years teaching a "college-level advanced grammar course" that was focused almost exclusively on syntax. I am now a volunteer teaching an "intermediate ESL grammar class" that includes not only syntax but also pronunciation, pragmatics, semantics, punctuation, vocabulary, language etiquette, cultural differences, job-interview skills, and even (last week) hurricane preparation. On the most practical level the domain of grammar is determined by what the students in front of us would most benefit from knowing. I am interested in hearing more about theory. I'd also like to hear what school teachers and college faculty include in their own "grammar" courses. Dick On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > John, > > Maybe a terminological split would be handy here. On the one hand, there's > "the material about language we want to teach." On the other, there's > "grammar." Because linguists have used the word "grammar" for so long in > rather specific ways, linguists won't tend to think of phonology as grammar > (although there certainly are positions that don't view the distinction as > ironclad). As Craig has pointed out, a lot of the public is accustomed to > thinking of "grammar" as "the stuff we're supposed to say in a different > way, because the way we say it is Wrong" Neither the public nor (most) > linguists would typically think of including a unit on deceptive advertising > language in the category of "grammar," but I certainly think that kind of > thing should be in all English curricula, and I suspect most, if not all, > people on this list would agree. > > What would be the effect if, instead of "grammar," we think of the area as > simply "language analysis"? Those linguists who firmly believe that > "grammar" should refer only to morphosyntax, conceptualized as a separate > component, probably won't object to "language analysis" being defined much > more broadly, and certainly neither would functionalists; in effect, no > one's staked out a claim on "language analysis." [1] Yes, it's vague -- and > there would be a danger of someone thinking that talking about literary > metaphors for ten minutes constitutes a language analysis unit -- but it's > certainly as delimited as "social studies" or some of the other mainstays of > public education. > > I used to like the label "language structure awareness" for this, but I've > come to think that that doesn't sufficiently foreground analytic reasoning. > > --- Bill Spruiell > > [1] Note -- please! -- that I'm not saying here that restricting "grammar" > to morphosyntax is either a good or bad position, nor (more particularly) am > I suggesting that that position is Bob's. It *is* the position of a number > of linguists, but both they and linguists that firmly disagree with them > (like me) would largely agree that a wide range of language phenomena should > be discussed in English classrooms. To a certain extent, it's the > terminology that's the hang-up, and that's partly because the terms have > become rallying flags in position wars. I'd be happy to call the entire area > something totally new, like Theeb or Floortst, if I thought people would go > along with it. In fact, letting a classroom full of students decide what new > term *they* want to call it would be a great opening activity for a unit on > it. > > > On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:00 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: > > Picking up on a point made by Paul, I want to ask the question, "What is > the domain of grammar? What does grammar encompass? What does it NOT > encompass? What aspects of grammar should/should not be incorporated into > the language arts curriculum?" (I am referring to only the grammar of > English.) > > If we talk about language sounds (phonetics) and how we use them > (phonology), are we talking about grammar? Do we need to concern ourselves > in the classroom with breaking language down into it's basic units of > meaning (morphology) to examine the construction of words? Are the rules for > forming phrases, clauses, and sentences (syntax) the Sovereign of Grammar > and how far do we take the teaching of these "rules"? Do we go beyond this > level? Do we consider larger units of language (discourse) and its aspects > of cohesion, coherence, clarity, information structuring? What about all of > the context that informs our understanding of language (pragmatics) -- is > that grammar? Do we even consider including stress, rhythm, and intonation > (prosody) even if they have a huge impact on meaning? > > What supports the teaching of grammar? Is it valuable/worth while to look > at the history that informs/shapes the grammar (historical linguistics)? Is > a unit on animal communication worthwhile in order to emphasize what makes > human language/grammar so special? Where do we even start with all of the > social/cultural implications of grammar > (dialectology/sociolinguistics/anthropology/sociology)? Would we be doing a > major disservice by failing to team up with our neighboring science teachers > to discuss the cognitive/neural basis of grammar > (cognitive/neurolinguistics) -- what we know about grammar and the > brain/cognition is fascinating, but is it a part of grammar to English > teachers? > > We must teach literature as well, but do we bring grammar along to analyze > these canonized writings? (stylistics/text analysis) > > It's a big question, I know, and certainly one addressed before, but the > composition of this list has changed quite a bit, and I think that it is a > discussion worth revisiting for the benefit of all members. Of course, > reality precludes us from using an ideal definition of grammar in many > cases, but I'm more interested in what that ideal would look like to begin > with. > > I know this also brings into question the relationship between the > English/Language Arts teacher and the linguist (or the role of those with a > foot in both camps), but I'd like to believe that we all agree by now that > no harm comes from a sharing, amicable relationship at a minimum. > > I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks! > > John > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6498202a610cc04abd3efde Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Asking about the domain of grammar is worthwhile, but it's a question without a definitive answer. Everyone from the ivory-tower linguist to the average schlub on the street would agree that it includes the study of nouns and verbs, but as we move away from that core, the boundaries become a matter for private stipulative definition.

This is akin to a discussion I just had about "the Great American Songbook." Everyone agrees that it includes the work of the Gerschwins, Kern, Arlen, Mercer, and the other Tin Pan Alley greats. But the edges are fuzzy. Is there a beginning and an end? Can we include Stephen Foster? How about Billy Joel? Again, many strong opinions but no definitive answers. Apart from the core we agree on, everyone is free to stipulate their own definition.

As we've seen, a discussion of grammar's domain can be quite theoretical (and astonishingly intemperate!). It can also be conducted on a purely practical level. In a high school "grammar" class, should we introduce questions of punctuation? How about phonology? I just retired after many years teaching a "college-level advanced grammar course" that was focused almost exclusively on syntax. I am now a volunteer teaching an "intermediate ESL grammar class" that includes not only syntax but also pronunciation, pragmatics, semantics, punctuation, vocabulary, language etiquette, cultural differences, job-interview skills, and even (last week) hurricane preparation. On the most practical level the domain of grammar is determined by what the students in front of us would most benefit from knowing.

I am interested in hearing more about theory. I'd also like to hear what school teachers and college faculty include in their own "grammar" courses.

Dick

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

John,

Maybe a terminological split would be handy here. On the one hand, there's "the material about language we want to teach." On the other, there's "grammar." Because linguists have used the word "grammar" for so long in rather specific ways, linguists won't tend to think of phonology as grammar (although there certainly are positions that don't view the distinction as ironclad). As Craig has pointed out, a lot of the public is accustomed to thinking of "grammar" as "the stuff we're supposed to say in a different way, because the way we say it is Wrong" Neither the public nor (most) linguists would typically think of including a unit on deceptive advertising language in the category of "grammar," but I certainly think that kind of thing should be in all English curricula, and I suspect most, if not all,  people on this list would agree.

What would be the effect if, instead of "grammar," we think of the area as simply "language analysis"? Those linguists who firmly believe that "grammar" should refer only to morphosyntax, conceptualized as a separate component, probably won't object to "language analysis" being defined much more broadly, and certainly neither would functionalists; in effect, no one's staked out a claim on "language analysis." [1] Yes, it's vague -- and there would be a danger of someone thinking that talking about literary metaphors for ten minutes constitutes a language analysis unit -- but it's certainly as delimited as "social studies" or some of the other mainstays of public education.

I used to like the label "language structure awareness" for this, but I've come to think that that doesn't sufficiently foreground analytic reasoning.

--- Bill Spruiell

[1] Note -- please! -- that I'm not saying here that restricting "grammar" to morphosyntax is either a good or bad position, nor (more particularly) am I suggesting that that position is Bob's. It *is* the position of a number of linguists, but both they and linguists that firmly disagree with them (like me) would largely agree that a wide range of language phenomena should be discussed in English classrooms. To a certain extent, it's the terminology that's the hang-up, and that's partly because the terms have become rallying flags in position wars. I'd be happy to call the entire area something totally new, like Theeb or Floortst, if I thought people would go along with it. In fact, letting a classroom full of students decide what new term *they* want to call it would be a great opening activity for a unit on it.


On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:00 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

Picking up on a point made by Paul, I want to ask the question, "What is the domain of grammar? What does grammar encompass? What does it NOT encompass? What aspects of grammar should/should not be incorporated into the language arts curriculum?" (I am referring to only the grammar of English.)

If we talk about language sounds (phonetics) and how we use them (phonology), are we talking about grammar? Do we need to concern ourselves in the classroom with breaking language down into it's basic units of meaning (morphology) to examine the construction of words? Are the rules for forming phrases, clauses, and sentences (syntax) the Sovereign of Grammar and how far do we take the teaching of these "rules"? Do we go beyond this level? Do we consider larger units of language (discourse) and its aspects of cohesion, coherence, clarity, information structuring? What about all of the context that informs our understanding of language (pragmatics) -- is that grammar? Do we even consider including stress, rhythm, and intonation (prosody) even if they have a huge impact on meaning?

What supports the teaching of grammar? Is it valuable/worth while to look at the history that informs/shapes the grammar (historical linguistics)? Is a unit on animal communication worthwhile in order to emphasize what makes human language/grammar so special? Where do we even start with all of the social/cultural implications of grammar (dialectology/sociolinguistics/anthropology/sociology)? Would we be doing a major disservice by failing to team up with our neighboring science teachers to discuss the cognitive/neural basis of grammar (cognitive/neurolinguistics) -- what we know about grammar and the brain/cognition is fascinating, but is it a part of grammar to English teachers?

We must teach literature as well, but do we bring grammar along to analyze these canonized writings? (stylistics/text analysis)

It's a big question, I know, and certainly one addressed before, but the composition of this list has changed quite a bit, and I think that it is a discussion worth revisiting for the benefit of all members. Of course, reality precludes us from using an ideal definition of grammar in many cases, but I'm more interested in what that ideal would look like to begin with.

I know this also brings into question the relationship between the English/Language Arts teacher and the linguist (or the role of those with a foot in both camps), but I'd like to believe that we all agree by now that no harm comes from a sharing, amicable relationship at a minimum.

I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks!

John

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6498202a610cc04abd3efde-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:49:45 -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: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-571803000-1314845385=:85608" --0-571803000-1314845385=:85608 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am about to embark on a journey of teaching two Comp I classes and one developmental writing course at the community college level. Both classes have "grammar" as a component of the curriculum. The basic writing course has one textbook that includes reading, writing, and grammar. The Comp I classes have separate grammar handbooks and reading texts. I would like to think that "grammar" connects many entities that fall under the language umbrella: reading, writing, oral and written communication, comprehension and understanding. It is my goal not to present grammar as a separate entity or set of rules, but as a natural part of everyday communication. I particularly like this passage written by Dick Veit:   "I am now a volunteer teaching an 'intermediate ESL grammar class' that includes not only syntax but also pronunciation, pragmatics, semantics, punctuation, vocabulary, language etiquette, cultural differences, job-interview skills, and even (last week) hurricane preparation. On the most practical level the domain of grammar is determined by what the students in front of us would most benefit from knowing."   Friday in class we will be doing a basic grammar review for my Comp I classes, just to gauge their familiarity with some basic grammar terminology: subject, verb, noun, sentence, tense, adjective, adverb, phrase, clause. How will this help their writing? How will it help them become more adept at using language? I am interested in finding out what will help my students the most with their writing and daily communicating and tailoring some classes that can integrate many things that fall under the whole language umbrella to learn grammar.   Carol Morrison  --- On Wed, 8/31/11, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar To: [log in to unmask] Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2011, 5:37 PM Asking about the domain of grammar is worthwhile, but it's a question without a definitive answer. Everyone from the ivory-tower linguist to the average schlub on the street would agree that it includes the study of nouns and verbs, but as we move away from that core, the boundaries become a matter for private stipulative definition. This is akin to a discussion I just had about "the Great American Songbook." Everyone agrees that it includes the work of the Gerschwins, Kern, Arlen, Mercer, and the other Tin Pan Alley greats. But the edges are fuzzy. Is there a beginning and an end? Can we include Stephen Foster? How about Billy Joel? Again, many strong opinions but no definitive answers. Apart from the core we agree on, everyone is free to stipulate their own definition. As we've seen, a discussion of grammar's domain can be quite theoretical (and astonishingly intemperate!). It can also be conducted on a purely practical level. In a high school "grammar" class, should we introduce questions of punctuation? How about phonology? I just retired after many years teaching a "college-level advanced grammar course" that was focused almost exclusively on syntax. I am now a volunteer teaching an "intermediate ESL grammar class" that includes not only syntax but also pronunciation, pragmatics, semantics, punctuation, vocabulary, language etiquette, cultural differences, job-interview skills, and even (last week) hurricane preparation. On the most practical level the domain of grammar is determined by what the students in front of us would most benefit from knowing. I am interested in hearing more about theory. I'd also like to hear what school teachers and college faculty include in their own "grammar" courses. Dick On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> wrote: John, Maybe a terminological split would be handy here. On the one hand, there's "the material about language we want to teach." On the other, there's "grammar." Because linguists have used the word "grammar" for so long in rather specific ways, linguists won't tend to think of phonology as grammar (although there certainly are positions that don't view the distinction as ironclad). As Craig has pointed out, a lot of the public is accustomed to thinking of "grammar" as "the stuff we're supposed to say in a different way, because the way we say it is Wrong" Neither the public nor (most) linguists would typically think of including a unit on deceptive advertising language in the category of "grammar," but I certainly think that kind of thing should be in all English curricula, and I suspect most, if not all,  people on this list would agree. What would be the effect if, instead of "grammar," we think of the area as simply "language analysis"? Those linguists who firmly believe that "grammar" should refer only to morphosyntax, conceptualized as a separate component, probably won't object to "language analysis" being defined much more broadly, and certainly neither would functionalists; in effect, no one's staked out a claim on "language analysis." [1] Yes, it's vague -- and there would be a danger of someone thinking that talking about literary metaphors for ten minutes constitutes a language analysis unit -- but it's certainly as delimited as "social studies" or some of the other mainstays of public education. I used to like the label "language structure awareness" for this, but I've come to think that that doesn't sufficiently foreground analytic reasoning. --- Bill Spruiell [1] Note -- please! -- that I'm not saying here that restricting "grammar" to morphosyntax is either a good or bad position, nor (more particularly) am I suggesting that that position is Bob's. It *is* the position of a number of linguists, but both they and linguists that firmly disagree with them (like me) would largely agree that a wide range of language phenomena should be discussed in English classrooms. To a certain extent, it's the terminology that's the hang-up, and that's partly because the terms have become rallying flags in position wars. I'd be happy to call the entire area something totally new, like Theeb or Floortst, if I thought people would go along with it. In fact, letting a classroom full of students decide what new term *they* want to call it would be a great opening activity for a unit on it. On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:00 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: Picking up on a point made by Paul, I want to ask the question, "What is the domain of grammar? What does grammar encompass? What does it NOT encompass? What aspects of grammar should/should not be incorporated into the language arts curriculum?" (I am referring to only the grammar of English.) If we talk about language sounds (phonetics) and how we use them (phonology), are we talking about grammar? Do we need to concern ourselves in the classroom with breaking language down into it's basic units of meaning (morphology) to examine the construction of words? Are the rules for forming phrases, clauses, and sentences (syntax) the Sovereign of Grammar and how far do we take the teaching of these "rules"? Do we go beyond this level? Do we consider larger units of language (discourse) and its aspects of cohesion, coherence, clarity, information structuring? What about all of the context that informs our understanding of language (pragmatics) -- is that grammar? Do we even consider including stress, rhythm, and intonation (prosody) even if they have a huge impact on meaning? What supports the teaching of grammar? Is it valuable/worth while to look at the history that informs/shapes the grammar (historical linguistics)? Is a unit on animal communication worthwhile in order to emphasize what makes human language/grammar so special? Where do we even start with all of the social/cultural implications of grammar (dialectology/sociolinguistics/anthropology/sociology)? Would we be doing a major disservice by failing to team up with our neighboring science teachers to discuss the cognitive/neural basis of grammar (cognitive/neurolinguistics) -- what we know about grammar and the brain/cognition is fascinating, but is it a part of grammar to English teachers? We must teach literature as well, but do we bring grammar along to analyze these canonized writings? (stylistics/text analysis) It's a big question, I know, and certainly one addressed before, but the composition of this list has changed quite a bit, and I think that it is a discussion worth revisiting for the benefit of all members. Of course, reality precludes us from using an ideal definition of grammar in many cases, but I'm more interested in what that ideal would look like to begin with. I know this also brings into question the relationship between the English/Language Arts teacher and the linguist (or the role of those with a foot in both camps), but I'd like to believe that we all agree by now that no harm comes from a sharing, amicable relationship at a minimum. I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks! John To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-571803000-1314845385=:85608 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am about to embark on a journey of teaching two Comp I classes and one developmental writing course at the community college level. Both classes have "grammar" as a component of the curriculum. The basic writing course has one textbook that includes reading, writing, and grammar. The Comp I classes have separate grammar handbooks and reading texts. I would like to think that "grammar" connects many entities that fall under the language umbrella: reading, writing, oral and written communication, comprehension and understanding. It is my goal not to present grammar as a separate entity or set of rules, but as a natural part of everyday communication. I particularly like this passage written by Dick Veit:

"I am now a volunteer teaching an 'intermediate ESL grammar class' that includes not only syntax but also pronunciation, pragmatics, semantics, punctuation, vocabulary, language etiquette, cultural differences, job-interview skills, and even (last week) hurricane preparation. On the most practical level the domain of grammar is determined by what the students in front of us would most benefit from knowing."

Friday in class we will be doing a basic grammar review for my Comp I classes, just to gauge their familiarity with some basic grammar terminology: subject, verb, noun, sentence, tense, adjective, adverb, phrase, clause. How will this help their writing? How will it help them become more adept at using language? I am interested in finding out what will help my students the most with their writing and daily communicating and tailoring some classes that can integrate many things that fall under the whole language umbrella to learn grammar.

Carol Morrison 


--- On Wed, 8/31/11, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2011, 5:37 PM

Asking about the domain of grammar is worthwhile, but it's a question without a definitive answer. Everyone from the ivory-tower linguist to the average schlub on the street would agree that it includes the study of nouns and verbs, but as we move away from that core, the boundaries become a matter for private stipulative definition.

This is akin to a discussion I just had about "the Great American Songbook." Everyone agrees that it includes the work of the Gerschwins, Kern, Arlen, Mercer, and the other Tin Pan Alley greats. But the edges are fuzzy. Is there a beginning and an end? Can we include Stephen Foster? How about Billy Joel? Again, many strong opinions but no definitive answers. Apart from the core we agree on, everyone is free to stipulate their own definition.

As we've seen, a discussion of grammar's domain can be quite theoretical (and astonishingly intemperate!). It can also be conducted on a purely practical level. In a high school "grammar" class, should we introduce questions of punctuation? How about phonology? I just retired after many years teaching a "college-level advanced grammar course" that was focused almost exclusively on syntax. I am now a volunteer teaching an "intermediate ESL grammar class" that includes not only syntax but also pronunciation, pragmatics, semantics, punctuation, vocabulary, language etiquette, cultural differences, job-interview skills, and even (last week) hurricane preparation. On the most practical level the domain of grammar is determined by what the students in front of us would most benefit from knowing.

I am interested in hearing more about theory. I'd also like to hear what school teachers and college faculty include in their own "grammar" courses.

Dick

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

John,

Maybe a terminological split would be handy here. On the one hand, there's "the material about language we want to teach." On the other, there's "grammar." Because linguists have used the word "grammar" for so long in rather specific ways, linguists won't tend to think of phonology as grammar (although there certainly are positions that don't view the distinction as ironclad). As Craig has pointed out, a lot of the public is accustomed to thinking of "grammar" as "the stuff we're supposed to say in a different way, because the way we say it is Wrong" Neither the public nor (most) linguists would typically think of including a unit on deceptive advertising language in the category of "grammar," but I certainly think that kind of thing should be in all English curricula, and I suspect most, if not all,  people on this list would agree.

What would be the effect if, instead of "grammar," we think of the area as simply "language analysis"? Those linguists who firmly believe that "grammar" should refer only to morphosyntax, conceptualized as a separate component, probably won't object to "language analysis" being defined much more broadly, and certainly neither would functionalists; in effect, no one's staked out a claim on "language analysis." [1] Yes, it's vague -- and there would be a danger of someone thinking that talking about literary metaphors for ten minutes constitutes a language analysis unit -- but it's certainly as delimited as "social studies" or some of the other mainstays of public education.

I used to like the label "language structure awareness" for this, but I've come to think that that doesn't sufficiently foreground analytic reasoning.

--- Bill Spruiell

[1] Note -- please! -- that I'm not saying here that restricting "grammar" to morphosyntax is either a good or bad position, nor (more particularly) am I suggesting that that position is Bob's. It *is* the position of a number of linguists, but both they and linguists that firmly disagree with them (like me) would largely agree that a wide range of language phenomena should be discussed in English classrooms. To a certain extent, it's the terminology that's the hang-up, and that's partly because the terms have become rallying flags in position wars. I'd be happy to call the entire area something totally new, like Theeb or Floortst, if I thought people would go along with it. In fact, letting a classroom full of students decide what new term *they* want to call it would be a great opening activity for a unit on it.


On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:00 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

Picking up on a point made by Paul, I want to ask the question, "What is the domain of grammar? What does grammar encompass? What does it NOT encompass? What aspects of grammar should/should not be incorporated into the language arts curriculum?" (I am referring to only the grammar of English.)

If we talk about language sounds (phonetics) and how we use them (phonology), are we talking about grammar? Do we need to concern ourselves in the classroom with breaking language down into it's basic units of meaning (morphology) to examine the construction of words? Are the rules for forming phrases, clauses, and sentences (syntax) the Sovereign of Grammar and how far do we take the teaching of these "rules"? Do we go beyond this level? Do we consider larger units of language (discourse) and its aspects of cohesion, coherence, clarity, information structuring? What about all of the context that informs our understanding of language (pragmatics) -- is that grammar? Do we even consider including stress, rhythm, and intonation (prosody) even if they have a huge impact on meaning?

What supports the teaching of grammar? Is it valuable/worth while to look at the history that informs/shapes the grammar (historical linguistics)? Is a unit on animal communication worthwhile in order to emphasize what makes human language/grammar so special? Where do we even start with all of the social/cultural implications of grammar (dialectology/sociolinguistics/anthropology/sociology)? Would we be doing a major disservice by failing to team up with our neighboring science teachers to discuss the cognitive/neural basis of grammar (cognitive/neurolinguistics) -- what we know about grammar and the brain/cognition is fascinating, but is it a part of grammar to English teachers?

We must teach literature as well, but do we bring grammar along to analyze these canonized writings? (stylistics/text analysis)

It's a big question, I know, and certainly one addressed before, but the composition of this list has changed quite a bit, and I think that it is a discussion worth revisiting for the benefit of all members. Of course, reality precludes us from using an ideal definition of grammar in many cases, but I'm more interested in what that ideal would look like to begin with.

I know this also brings into question the relationship between the English/Language Arts teacher and the linguist (or the role of those with a foot in both camps), but I'd like to believe that we all agree by now that no harm comes from a sharing, amicable relationship at a minimum.

I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks!

John

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-571803000-1314845385=:85608--