Craig,

Somehow, I find myself familiar with your comments, both analytical and historical (although I'm not sure why the S&W edition that features a forward by White's stepson Roger Angell wasn't more successful - this edition seems to have faded from the summit of the publishing pantheon).

But I digress. As is the case with other posts about this issue, you concentrate on the shortcomings of S&W based on your elevated position as a professional grammarian. What I'm trying to do is to call our collective attention to the fact that the great unwashed - specifically our students, their parents (the folks who pay our modest salaries and pensions), and those who presumably were our students but feel they haven't learned much - light on this book like bees to honey.

The reason why this is so, I claim, is that the GU (great unwashed) are desperate for somebody to tell them the proper way to speak and write standard English, and instead we deliver our contextualized, academic, conditional talk about grammar and syntax and tell the GU that there could be a "few" sections that might be useful. My observation is that the GU don't care. And that is one reason why, I think, we find ourselves marginalized. We focus on the ills we suffer at the hands of NCTE but don't notice that there is a huge audience out there who agrees with us that grammar should be taught, and yet we do nothing to appeal to these people. Instead, they turn to S&W, Grammar Girl, and other sites that offer even less insight than S&W

Geoff Layton

> Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:45:52 -0400
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: StTo join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:03:24 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C756399B6EMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C756399B6EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Geoff, You're taking us back to the 18th c. when the GU was even more so and was trying more desperately to make it, which meant adopting the manners and language of the upper classes they were aspiring to join. This created a huge market for self-improvement books, social etiquette, dress, food, and especially grammar. There was a huge market for such book and no like of aspiring advice writers and publishers. We see the modern counterpart coming out occasionally now (Eats, Shoots, and Leaves, etc.), and S&W fits into that category. You're right that there's a serious demand out there that we aren't meeting, and as long as we surrender the field to the grammatical equivalent of S'mores, we won't meet it. It will take a special talent and sensitivity to write a popular book on writing that offers relevant and accurate prescriptive advice while telling the truth about language. Pinker has succeeded at the latter, but he's not addressing the audience we're talking about. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 7:24 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well Craig, Somehow, I find myself familiar with your comments, both analytical and historical (although I'm not sure why the S&W edition that features a forward by White's stepson Roger Angell wasn't more successful - this edition seems to have faded from the summit of the publishing pantheon). But I digress. As is the case with other posts about this issue, you concentrate on the shortcomings of S&W based on your elevated position as a professional grammarian. What I'm trying to do is to call our collective attention to the fact that the great unwashed - specifically our students, their parents (the folks who pay our modest salaries and pensions), and those who presumably were our students but feel they haven't learned much - light on this book like bees to honey. The reason why this is so, I claim, is that the GU (great unwashed) are desperate for somebody to tell them the proper way to speak and write standard English, and instead we deliver our contextualized, academic, conditional talk about grammar and syntax and tell the GU that there could be a "few" sections that might be useful. My observation is that the GU don't care. And that is one reason why, I think, we find ourselves marginalized. We focus on the ills we suffer at the hands of NCTE but don't notice that there is a huge audience out there who agrees with us that grammar should be taught, and yet we do nothing to appeal to these people. Instead, they turn to S&W, Grammar Girl, and other sites that offer even less insight than S&W Geoff Layton > Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:45:52 -0400 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: StTo join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C756399B6EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Geoff,

You’re taking us back to the 18^th c. when the GU was even more so and was trying more desperately to make it, which meant adopting the manners and language of the upper classes they were aspiring to join. This created a huge market for self-improvement books, social etiquette, dress, food, and especially grammar. There was a huge market for such book and no like of aspiring advice writers and publishers. We see the modern counterpart coming out occasionally now (Eats, Shoots, and Leaves, etc.), and S&W fits into that category. You’re right that there’s a serious demand out there that we aren’t meeting, and as long as we surrender the field to the grammatical equivalent of S’mores, we won’t meet it. It will take a special talent and sensitivity to write a popular book on writing that offers relevant and accurate prescriptive advice while telling the truth about language. Pinker has succeeded at the latter, but he’s not addressing the audience we’re talking about.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 7:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C756399B6EMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:13:59 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_b1629135-057d-4fe9-ad81-453798ee53a1_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_b1629135-057d-4fe9-ad81-453798ee53a1_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Herb - I don't think I'm the one taking us back to the 18th century (wasn't Strunk the 19th by the way?) - I'm just responding to what amounted to an encomium to S&W published by Careers.com - essentially saying, "Follow S&W and you will be hired." I'm not saying that S&W is deserving of such (low?) praise - only that the book is still revered, and we need to recognize that fact and deal with it rather than trying to claim that a) it isn't revered and more particularly b) it shouldn't be. I think it's being praised for reasons other than why we're dismissive - in other words, we and the GU are not talking about the same thing when "grammar" is the issue (see Craig's post about usage and syntax). Geoff Layton Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:03:24 -0400 From: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well To: [log in to unmask] Geoff, You�re taking us back to the 18th c. when the GU was even more so and was trying more desperately to make it, which meant adopting the manners and language of the upper classes they were aspiring to join. This created a huge market for self-improvement books, social etiquette, dress, food, and especially grammar. There was a huge market for such book and no like of aspiring advice writers and publishers. We see the modern counterpart coming out occasionally now (Eats, Shoots, and Leaves, etc.), and S&W fits into that category. You�re right that there�s a serious demand out there that we aren�t meeting, and as long as we surrender the field to the grammatical equivalent of S�mores, we won�t meet it. It will take a special talent and sensitivity to write a popular book on writing that offers relevant and accurate prescriptive advice while telling the truth about language. Pinker has succeeded at the latter, but he�s not addressing the audience we�re talking about. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 7:24 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well Craig, Somehow, I find myself familiar with your comments, both analytical and historical (although I'm not sure why the S&W edition that features a forward by White's stepson Roger Angell wasn't more successful - this edition seems to have faded from the summit of the publishing pantheon). But I digress. As is the case with other posts about this issue, you concentrate on the shortcomings of S&W based on your elevated position as a professional grammarian. What I'm trying to do is to call our collective attention to the fact that the great unwashed - specifically our students, their parents (the folks who pay our modest salaries and pensions), and those who presumably were our students but feel they haven't learned much - light on this book like bees to honey. The reason why this is so, I claim, is that the GU (great unwashed) are desperate for somebody to tell them the proper way to speak and write standard English, and instead we deliver our contextualized, academic, conditional talk about grammar and syntax and tell the GU that there could be a "few" sections that might be useful. My observation is that the GU don't care. And that is one reason why, I think, we find ourselves marginalized. We focus on the ills we suffer at the hands of NCTE but don't notice that there is a huge audience out there who agrees with us that grammar should be taught, and yet we do nothing to appeal to these people. Instead, they turn to S&W, Grammar Girl, and other sites that offer even less insight than S&W Geoff Layton > Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:45:52 -0400 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: StTo join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_b1629135-057d-4fe9-ad81-453798ee53a1_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Herb -

I don't think I'm the one taking us back to the 18th century (wasn't Strunk the 19th by the way?) - I'm just responding to what amounted to an encomium to S&W published by Careers.com - essentially saying, "Follow S&W and you will be hired." I'm not saying that S&W is deserving of such (low?) praise - only that the book is still revered, and we need to recognize that fact and deal with it rather than trying to claim that a) it isn't revered and more particularly b) it shouldn't be. I think it's being praised for reasons other than why we're dismissive - in other words, we and the GU are not talking about the same thing when "grammar" is the issue (see Craig's post about usage and syntax).

Geoff Layton

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:03:24 -0400
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well
To: [log in to unmask]

Geoff,

You�re taking us back to the 18^th c. when the GU was even more so and was trying more desperately to make it, which meant adopting the manners and language of the upper classes they were aspiring to join. This created a huge market for self-improvement books, social etiquette, dress, food, and especially grammar. There was a huge market for such book and no like of aspiring advice writers and publishers. We see the modern counterpart coming out occasionally now (Eats, Shoots, and Leaves, etc.), and S&W fits into that category. You�re right that there�s a serious demand out there that we aren�t meeting, and as long as we surrender the field to the grammatical equivalent of S�mores, we won�t meet it. It will take a special talent and sensitivity to write a popular book on writing that offers relevant and accurate prescriptive advice while telling the truth about language. Pinker has succeeded at the latter, but he�s not addressing the audience we�re talking about.

Herb

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_b1629135-057d-4fe9-ad81-453798ee53a1_-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:14:09 -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: Strunk&White - Alive and Well In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C756399B8EMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C756399B8EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Geoff, I agree with your take on S&W and on its appeal to an uninformed audience. That's where I see the parallel to the 18th c. and the rise of the merchant class. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 10:14 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well Herb - I don't think I'm the one taking us back to the 18th century (wasn't Strunk the 19th by the way?) - I'm just responding to what amounted to an encomium to S&W published by Careers.com - essentially saying, "Follow S&W and you will be hired." I'm not saying that S&W is deserving of such (low?) praise - only that the book is still revered, and we need to recognize that fact and deal with it rather than trying to claim that a) it isn't revered and more particularly b) it shouldn't be. I think it's being praised for reasons other than why we're dismissive - in other words, we and the GU are not talking about the same thing when "grammar" is the issue (see Craig's post about usage and syntax). Geoff Layton ________________________________ Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:03:24 -0400 From: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well To: [log in to unmask] Geoff, You're taking us back to the 18th c. when the GU was even more so and was trying more desperately to make it, which meant adopting the manners and language of the upper classes they were aspiring to join. This created a huge market for self-improvement books, social etiquette, dress, food, and especially grammar. There was a huge market for such book and no like of aspiring advice writers and publishers. We see the modern counterpart coming out occasionally now (Eats, Shoots, and Leaves, etc.), and S&W fits into that category. You're right that there's a serious demand out there that we aren't meeting, and as long as we surrender the field to the grammatical equivalent of S'mores, we won't meet it. It will take a special talent and sensitivity to write a popular book on writing that offers relevant and accurate prescriptive advice while telling the truth about language. Pinker has succeeded at the latter, but he's not addressing the audience we're talking about. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 7:24 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well Craig, Somehow, I find myself familiar with your comments, both analytical and historical (although I'm not sure why the S&W edition that features a forward by White's stepson Roger Angell wasn't more successful - this edition seems to have faded from the summit of the publishing pantheon). But I digress. As is the case with other posts about this issue, you concentrate on the shortcomings of S&W based on your elevated position as a professional grammarian. What I'm trying to do is to call our collective attention to the fact that the great unwashed - specifically our students, their parents (the folks who pay our modest salaries and pensions), and those who presumably were our students but feel they haven't learned much - light on this book like bees to honey. The reason why this is so, I claim, is that the GU (great unwashed) are desperate for somebody to tell them the proper way to speak and write standard English, and instead we deliver our contextualized, academic, conditional talk about grammar and syntax and tell the GU that there could be a "few" sections that might be useful. My observation is that the GU don't care. And that is one reason why, I think, we find ourselves marginalized. We focus on the ills we suffer at the hands of NCTE but don't notice that there is a huge audience out there who agrees with us that grammar should be taught, and yet we do nothing to appeal to these people. Instead, they turn to S&W, Grammar Girl, and other sites that offer even less insight than S&W Geoff Layton > Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:45:52 -0400 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: StTo join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C756399B8EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Geoff,

I agree with your take on S&W and on its appeal to an uninformed audience. That’s where I see the parallel to the 18^th c. and the rise of the merchant class.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 10:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:03:24 -0400
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well
To: [log in to unmask]

Geoff,

Herb

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

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C756399B8EMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:04:58 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220ED188B7UAEXCH07univa_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220ED188B7UAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Herb (and Geoff), I had the book recommended to me-and still see it recommended-by people who see it as a great alternative to the usual handbook. I'm much more inclined to look for advice on writing from S&W than I would from Pullum, and that may be the point Geoff is trying to make. It's too easy to criticize from the sidelines. Strunk is early 20th century-he was White's teacher. White is one of the premier stylists of the language. I am actually a fan of Strunk and White, but I also like to hear what my favorite writers say about writing, what my favorite musicians or songwriters say about their craft, and so on. You can and should take it with a grain of salt. It's advice, even when couched in a prescriptive way. Approached in that way, there are gems of hard earned wisdom. "Revise and rewrite." "Be clear." "Do not overstate." "Use definite, specific, concrete language." They remind us to use commas between elements in a series and put similar ideas in similar form and place things that need emphasis at the end. That's advice most writers can benefit from. I think Pullum pretty much misses the point. You can read the entire Huddleston and Pullum student grammar and not get any good advice about writing. The fact that Strunk and White occasionally presents a dated misunderstanding about the nature of language is hardly a basis for denouncing the whole enterprise. What Strunk and White tries to do-and occasionally with some success-is describe the nature of an effective text. You won't find that in Huddleston and Pullum because they try to describe grammar in purely formal terms, only occasionally straying into usage. The strength of S&W is that it gives clear advice, some of it by one of our best writers. On the other hand, it's not a grammar text. It never tries to explain how language works in any kind of comprehensive way. It's easy to find places where it gives misleading advice, their views on the passive being one of those. Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 11:14 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well Geoff, I agree with your take on S&W and on its appeal to an uninformed audience. That's where I see the parallel to the 18th c. and the rise of the merchant class. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 10:14 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well Herb - I don't think I'm the one taking us back to the 18th century (wasn't Strunk the 19th by the way?) - I'm just responding to what amounted to an encomium to S&W published by Careers.com - essentially saying, "Follow S&W and you will be hired." I'm not saying that S&W is deserving of such (low?) praise - only that the book is still revered, and we need to recognize that fact and deal with it rather than trying to claim that a) it isn't revered and more particularly b) it shouldn't be. I think it's being praised for reasons other than why we're dismissive - in other words, we and the GU are not talking about the same thing when "grammar" is the issue (see Craig's post about usage and syntax). Geoff Layton ________________________________ Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:03:24 -0400 From: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well To: [log in to unmask] Geoff, You're taking us back to the 18th c. when the GU was even more so and was trying more desperately to make it, which meant adopting the manners and language of the upper classes they were aspiring to join. This created a huge market for self-improvement books, social etiquette, dress, food, and especially grammar. There was a huge market for such book and no like of aspiring advice writers and publishers. We see the modern counterpart coming out occasionally now (Eats, Shoots, and Leaves, etc.), and S&W fits into that category. You're right that there's a serious demand out there that we aren't meeting, and as long as we surrender the field to the grammatical equivalent of S'mores, we won't meet it. It will take a special talent and sensitivity to write a popular book on writing that offers relevant and accurate prescriptive advice while telling the truth about language. Pinker has succeeded at the latter, but he's not addressing the audience we're talking about. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 7:24 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well Craig, Somehow, I find myself familiar with your comments, both analytical and historical (although I'm not sure why the S&W edition that features a forward by White's stepson Roger Angell wasn't more successful - this edition seems to have faded from the summit of the publishing pantheon). But I digress. As is the case with other posts about this issue, you concentrate on the shortcomings of S&W based on your elevated position as a professional grammarian. What I'm trying to do is to call our collective attention to the fact that the great unwashed - specifically our students, their parents (the folks who pay our modest salaries and pensions), and those who presumably were our students but feel they haven't learned much - light on this book like bees to honey. The reason why this is so, I claim, is that the GU (great unwashed) are desperate for somebody to tell them the proper way to speak and write standard English, and instead we deliver our contextualized, academic, conditional talk about grammar and syntax and tell the GU that there could be a "few" sections that might be useful. My observation is that the GU don't care. And that is one reason why, I think, we find ourselves marginalized. We focus on the ills we suffer at the hands of NCTE but don't notice that there is a huge audience out there who agrees with us that grammar should be taught, and yet we do nothing to appeal to these people. Instead, they turn to S&W, Grammar Girl, and other sites that offer even less insight than S&W Geoff Layton > Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:45:52 -0400 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: StTo join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220ED188B7UAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Herb (and Geoff),

I had the book recommended to me—and still see it recommended—by people who see it as a great alternative to the usual handbook. I’m much more inclined to look for advice on writing from S&W than I would from Pullum, and that may be the point Geoff is trying to make. It’s too easy to criticize from the sidelines.

Strunk is early 20^th century—he was White’s teacher. White is one of the premier stylists of the language.

I am actually a fan of Strunk and White, but I also like to hear what my favorite writers say about writing, what my favorite musicians or songwriters say about their craft, and so on. You can and should take it with a grain of salt. It’s advice, even when couched in a prescriptive way. Approached in that way, there are gems of hard earned wisdom. “Revise and rewrite.” “Be clear.” “Do not overstate.” “Use definite, specific, concrete language.” They remind us to use commas between elements in a series and put similar ideas in similar form and place things that need emphasis at the end. That’s advice most writers can benefit from.

I think Pullum pretty much misses the point. You can read the entire Huddleston and Pullum student grammar and not get any good advice about writing. The fact that Strunk and White occasionally presents a dated misunderstanding about the nature of language is hardly a basis for denouncing the whole enterprise.

What Strunk and White tries to do—and occasionally with some success—is describe the nature of an effective text. You won’t find that in Huddleston and Pullum because they try to describe grammar in purely formal terms, only occasionally straying into usage. The strength of S&W is that it gives clear advice, some of it by one of our best writers.

On the other hand, it’s not a grammar text. It never tries to explain how language works in any kind of comprehensive way. It’s easy to find places where it gives misleading advice, their views on the passive being one of those.

Craig

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 11:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well

Geoff,

I agree with your take on S&W and on its appeal to an uninformed audience. That’s where I see the parallel to the 18^th c. and the rise of the merchant class.

Herb

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:03:24 -0400
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well
To: [log in to unmask]

Geoff,

Herb

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

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

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

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220ED188B7UAEXCH07univa_-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:05:08 +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: "Myers, Marshall" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E6446B90F8DEEC4FB965A2BCC9E704CC18A13CBDfsmail3facultys_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_E6446B90F8DEEC4FB965A2BCC9E704CC18A13CBDfsmail3facultys_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Srunk and White Ask a reading specialist what he/she thinks of WHY JOHNNY CAN'T READ, and you'll get the same reaction about ELEMENTS OF STYLE from compositionists. Both appear to be a short, clear statements of principles of how to solve problems in their given areas. Both are grossly simplistic, ignoring all kinds of research that says that both problems are much more complex than either book makes them out to be. By the way, STRUNK AND WHITE discuss the terrible thing the passive voice is ( something I don't agree with at all) Near that section the text does use a passive voice construction. Marshall From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hancock, Craig G Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 9:05 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well Herb (and Geoff), I had the book recommended to me-and still see it recommended-by people who see it as a great alternative to the usual handbook. I'm much more inclined to look for advice on writing from S&W than I would from Pullum, and that may be the point Geoff is trying to make. It's too easy to criticize from the sidelines. Strunk is early 20th century-he was White's teacher. White is one of the premier stylists of the language. I am actually a fan of Strunk and White, but I also like to hear what my favorite writers say about writing, what my favorite musicians or songwriters say about their craft, and so on. You can and should take it with a grain of salt. It's advice, even when couched in a prescriptive way. Approached in that way, there are gems of hard earned wisdom. "Revise and rewrite." "Be clear." "Do not overstate." "Use definite, specific, concrete language." They remind us to use commas between elements in a series and put similar ideas in similar form and place things that need emphasis at the end. That's advice most writers can benefit from. I think Pullum pretty much misses the point. You can read the entire Huddleston and Pullum student grammar and not get any good advice about writing. The fact that Strunk and White occasionally presents a dated misunderstanding about the nature of language is hardly a basis for denouncing the whole enterprise. What Strunk and White tries to do-and occasionally with some success-is describe the nature of an effective text. You won't find that in Huddleston and Pullum because they try to describe grammar in purely formal terms, only occasionally straying into usage. The strength of S&W is that it gives clear advice, some of it by one of our best writers. On the other hand, it's not a grammar text. It never tries to explain how language works in any kind of comprehensive way. It's easy to find places where it gives misleading advice, their views on the passive being one of those. Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 11:14 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well Geoff, I agree with your take on S&W and on its appeal to an uninformed audience. That's where I see the parallel to the 18th c. and the rise of the merchant class. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 10:14 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well Herb - I don't think I'm the one taking us back to the 18th century (wasn't Strunk the 19th by the way?) - I'm just responding to what amounted to an encomium to S&W published by Careers.com - essentially saying, "Follow S&W and you will be hired." I'm not saying that S&W is deserving of such (low?) praise - only that the book is still revered, and we need to recognize that fact and deal with it rather than trying to claim that a) it isn't revered and more particularly b) it shouldn't be. I think it's being praised for reasons other than why we're dismissive - in other words, we and the GU are not talking about the same thing when "grammar" is the issue (see Craig's post about usage and syntax). Geoff Layton ________________________________ Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:03:24 -0400 From: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well To: [log in to unmask] Geoff, You're taking us back to the 18th c. when the GU was even more so and was trying more desperately to make it, which meant adopting the manners and language of the upper classes they were aspiring to join. This created a huge market for self-improvement books, social etiquette, dress, food, and especially grammar. There was a huge market for such book and no like of aspiring advice writers and publishers. We see the modern counterpart coming out occasionally now (Eats, Shoots, and Leaves, etc.), and S&W fits into that category. You're right that there's a serious demand out there that we aren't meeting, and as long as we surrender the field to the grammatical equivalent of S'mores, we won't meet it. It will take a special talent and sensitivity to write a popular book on writing that offers relevant and accurate prescriptive advice while telling the truth about language. Pinker has succeeded at the latter, but he's not addressing the audience we're talking about. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 7:24 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well Craig, Somehow, I find myself familiar with your comments, both analytical and historical (although I'm not sure why the S&W edition that features a forward by White's stepson Roger Angell wasn't more successful - this edition seems to have faded from the summit of the publishing pantheon). But I digress. As is the case with other posts about this issue, you concentrate on the shortcomings of S&W based on your elevated position as a professional grammarian. What I'm trying to do is to call our collective attention to the fact that the great unwashed - specifically our students, their parents (the folks who pay our modest salaries and pensions), and those who presumably were our students but feel they haven't learned much - light on this book like bees to honey. The reason why this is so, I claim, is that the GU (great unwashed) are desperate for somebody to tell them the proper way to speak and write standard English, and instead we deliver our contextualized, academic, conditional talk about grammar and syntax and tell the GU that there could be a "few" sections that might be useful. My observation is that the GU don't care. And that is one reason why, I think, we find ourselves marginalized. We focus on the ills we suffer at the hands of NCTE but don't notice that there is a huge audience out there who agrees with us that grammar should be taught, and yet we do nothing to appeal to these people. Instead, they turn to S&W, Grammar Girl, and other sites that offer even less insight than S&W Geoff Layton > Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:45:52 -0400 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: StTo join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_E6446B90F8DEEC4FB965A2BCC9E704CC18A13CBDfsmail3facultys_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Srunk and White

Ask a reading specialist what he/she thinks of WHY JOHNNY CAN’T READ, and you’ll get the same reaction about ELEMENTS OF STYLE from compositionists. Both appear to be a short, clear statements of principles of how to solve problems in their given areas. Both are grossly simplistic, ignoring all kinds of research that says that both problems are much more complex than either book makes them out to be.

By the way, STRUNK AND WHITE discuss the terrible thing the passive voice is ( something I don’t agree with at all) Near that section the text does use a passive voice construction.

Marshall

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hancock, Craig G
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 9:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well

Herb (and Geoff),

Strunk is early 20^th century—he was White’s teacher. White is one of the premier stylists of the language.

Craig

Geoff,

I agree with your take on S&W and on its appeal to an uninformed audience. That’s where I see the parallel to the 18^th c. and the rise of the merchant class.

Herb

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:03:24 -0400
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well
To: [log in to unmask]

Geoff,

Herb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_E6446B90F8DEEC4FB965A2BCC9E704CC18A13CBDfsmail3facultys_-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:00:43 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220ED18B80UAEXCH07univa_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220ED18B80UAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Marshall, Nice point. I would also add that part of the problem comes from treating a practitioner's advice as if it were a scholarly study. It's a little like comparing the work of a plant biologist to a book about creating beautiful gardens written by an award winning gardener. The same is true to some extent about teaching books. We all need to ground our teaching in tested practices, but the truth is that we also need to make decisions every day on the basis of what the situation seems to call for, and we will pretty much always be imperfect at it. The scholar can pull back and take a disinterested position and ridicule the teacher for his/her mistakes, but it is very different territory. I have learned a huge amount from books like Murray's "A Writer Teaches Writing" or Marie Ponsot's "Beat Not the Poor Desk" or Mike Rose's "Lives on the Boundary," but I am also aware of the shortcomings in those texts, written as they were by people like myself trying to be good teachers day after day after day in a very complex and uncertain world. Pullum is a scholar and White was a practitioner. Linguistics has not done a very good job of describing the nature of an effective text. White was not trying to be a linguist; he was trying to pass on his wisdom about the choices we make as writers. It's not the final word and should not be treated as such. Students should try out his advice and see if it works. If not, then try something else. He tells us to sympathize with the reader, but try to be ourselves. That's great advice from anyone, but even more powerful when we know it comes from the writer of "Once More to the Lake" and "Charlotte's Web." Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Myers, Marshall Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 11:05 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well Srunk and White Ask a reading specialist what he/she thinks of WHY JOHNNY CAN'T READ, and you'll get the same reaction about ELEMENTS OF STYLE from compositionists. Both appear to be a short, clear statements of principles of how to solve problems in their given areas. Both are grossly simplistic, ignoring all kinds of research that says that both problems are much more complex than either book makes them out to be. By the way, STRUNK AND WHITE discuss the terrible thing the passive voice is ( something I don't agree with at all) Near that section the text does use a passive voice construction. Marshall From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hancock, Craig G Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 9:05 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well Herb (and Geoff), I had the book recommended to me-and still see it recommended-by people who see it as a great alternative to the usual handbook. I'm much more inclined to look for advice on writing from S&W than I would from Pullum, and that may be the point Geoff is trying to make. It's too easy to criticize from the sidelines. Strunk is early 20th century-he was White's teacher. White is one of the premier stylists of the language. I am actually a fan of Strunk and White, but I also like to hear what my favorite writers say about writing, what my favorite musicians or songwriters say about their craft, and so on. You can and should take it with a grain of salt. It's advice, even when couched in a prescriptive way. Approached in that way, there are gems of hard earned wisdom. "Revise and rewrite." "Be clear." "Do not overstate." "Use definite, specific, concrete language." They remind us to use commas between elements in a series and put similar ideas in similar form and place things that need emphasis at the end. That's advice most writers can benefit from. I think Pullum pretty much misses the point. You can read the entire Huddleston and Pullum student grammar and not get any good advice about writing. The fact that Strunk and White occasionally presents a dated misunderstanding about the nature of language is hardly a basis for denouncing the whole enterprise. What Strunk and White tries to do-and occasionally with some success-is describe the nature of an effective text. You won't find that in Huddleston and Pullum because they try to describe grammar in purely formal terms, only occasionally straying into usage. The strength of S&W is that it gives clear advice, some of it by one of our best writers. On the other hand, it's not a grammar text. It never tries to explain how language works in any kind of comprehensive way. It's easy to find places where it gives misleading advice, their views on the passive being one of those. Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 11:14 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well Geoff, I agree with your take on S&W and on its appeal to an uninformed audience. That's where I see the parallel to the 18th c. and the rise of the merchant class. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 10:14 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well Herb - I don't think I'm the one taking us back to the 18th century (wasn't Strunk the 19th by the way?) - I'm just responding to what amounted to an encomium to S&W published by Careers.com - essentially saying, "Follow S&W and you will be hired." I'm not saying that S&W is deserving of such (low?) praise - only that the book is still revered, and we need to recognize that fact and deal with it rather than trying to claim that a) it isn't revered and more particularly b) it shouldn't be. I think it's being praised for reasons other than why we're dismissive - in other words, we and the GU are not talking about the same thing when "grammar" is the issue (see Craig's post about usage and syntax). Geoff Layton ________________________________ Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:03:24 -0400 From: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well To: [log in to unmask] Geoff, You're taking us back to the 18th c. when the GU was even more so and was trying more desperately to make it, which meant adopting the manners and language of the upper classes they were aspiring to join. This created a huge market for self-improvement books, social etiquette, dress, food, and especially grammar. There was a huge market for such book and no like of aspiring advice writers and publishers. We see the modern counterpart coming out occasionally now (Eats, Shoots, and Leaves, etc.), and S&W fits into that category. You're right that there's a serious demand out there that we aren't meeting, and as long as we surrender the field to the grammatical equivalent of S'mores, we won't meet it. It will take a special talent and sensitivity to write a popular book on writing that offers relevant and accurate prescriptive advice while telling the truth about language. Pinker has succeeded at the latter, but he's not addressing the audience we're talking about. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 7:24 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well Craig, Somehow, I find myself familiar with your comments, both analytical and historical (although I'm not sure why the S&W edition that features a forward by White's stepson Roger Angell wasn't more successful - this edition seems to have faded from the summit of the publishing pantheon). But I digress. As is the case with other posts about this issue, you concentrate on the shortcomings of S&W based on your elevated position as a professional grammarian. What I'm trying to do is to call our collective attention to the fact that the great unwashed - specifically our students, their parents (the folks who pay our modest salaries and pensions), and those who presumably were our students but feel they haven't learned much - light on this book like bees to honey. The reason why this is so, I claim, is that the GU (great unwashed) are desperate for somebody to tell them the proper way to speak and write standard English, and instead we deliver our contextualized, academic, conditional talk about grammar and syntax and tell the GU that there could be a "few" sections that might be useful. My observation is that the GU don't care. And that is one reason why, I think, we find ourselves marginalized. We focus on the ills we suffer at the hands of NCTE but don't notice that there is a huge audience out there who agrees with us that grammar should be taught, and yet we do nothing to appeal to these people. Instead, they turn to S&W, Grammar Girl, and other sites that offer even less insight than S&W Geoff Layton > Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:45:52 -0400 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: StTo join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220ED18B80UAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Marshall,

Nice point. I would also add that part of the problem comes from treating a practitioner’s advice as if it were a scholarly study. It’s a little like comparing the work of a plant biologist to a book about creating beautiful gardens written by an award winning gardener.

The same is true to some extent about teaching books. We all need to ground our teaching in tested practices, but the truth is that we also need to make decisions every day on the basis of what the situation seems to call for, and we will pretty much always be imperfect at it. The scholar can pull back and take a disinterested position and ridicule the teacher for his/her mistakes, but it is very different territory. I have learned a huge amount from books like Murray’s “A Writer Teaches Writing” or Marie Ponsot’s “Beat Not the Poor Desk” or Mike Rose’s “Lives on the Boundary,” but I am also aware of the shortcomings in those texts, written as they were by people like myself trying to be good teachers day after day after day in a very complex and uncertain world.

Pullum is a scholar and White was a practitioner.

Linguistics has not done a very good job of describing the nature of an effective text. White was not trying to be a linguist; he was trying to pass on his wisdom about the choices we make as writers. It’s not the final word and should not be treated as such. Students should try out his advice and see if it works. If not, then try something else.

He tells us to sympathize with the reader, but try to be ourselves. That’s great advice from anyone, but even more powerful when we know it comes from the writer of “Once More to the Lake” and “Charlotte’s Web.”

Craig

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Myers, Marshall
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 11:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well

Srunk and White

By the way, STRUNK AND WHITE discuss the terrible thing the passive voice is ( something I don’t agree with at all) Near that section the text does use a passive voice construction.

Marshall

Herb (and Geoff),

Strunk is early 20^th century—he was White’s teacher. White is one of the premier stylists of the language.

Craig

Geoff,

I agree with your take on S&W and on its appeal to an uninformed audience. That’s where I see the parallel to the 18^th c. and the rise of the merchant class.

Herb

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:03:24 -0400
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Strunk&White - Alive and Well
To: [log in to unmask]

Geoff,

Herb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220ED18B80UAEXCH07univa_-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:19:28 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Coloquialisms/Slang/Dialect MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-886410428-1315855168=:87598" --0-886410428-1315855168=:87598 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear ATEG Members: Can someone explain and give examples of what a colloquialism is and how that differs from "slang" or "dialect" in speech and communication? One of my composition students wrote in her response paragraph regarding the various roles she is required to play the following: "As long as I communicate with my mother respectfully and refrain from the use of any colloquialisms, she’s fine." Thank you. Carol To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-886410428-1315855168=:87598 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear ATEG Members:

Can someone explain and give examples of what a colloquialism is and how that differs from "slang" or "dialect" in speech and communication? One of my composition students wrote in her response paragraph regarding the various roles she is required to play the following: "As long as I communicate with my mother respectfully and refrain from the use of any colloquialisms, she’s fine."

Thank you.

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-886410428-1315855168=:87598-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:38:01 +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: Coloquialisms/Slang/Dialect In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Carol -- Dialects usually let you pin down a person's region of origin, ethnicity, or socioeconomic class. Slang lets you identify what social group they're identifying with, is frequently tied to age group, and can be very "volatile" over time. Colloquialisms, I think, are more generally defined on the basis of their "not sounding like the kind of thing you use in formal written English" and so can include a lot of different types of expressions. For example, the "really" of "It was really impressive" strikes me as colloquial, but it's definitely not slang, and it's in probably the majority of AmE dialects. The use of "sick" to mean "impressively good," on the other hand, is slang, while modal-stacking ("might should" ) is a dialectal feature. But someone could refer to "sick" or "might should" as sounding colloquial, in a general sense. I suspect that in traditional essay-marking, "coll." has frequently meant "sounds too informal, but is something I'd use in daily speech" while "dial." and "slang" have meant "sounds too informal, and is something other people say in daily speech." --- Bill Spruiell On Sep 12, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Carol Morrison wrote: Dear ATEG Members: Can someone explain and give examples of what a colloquialism is and how that differs from "slang" or "dialect" in speech and communication? One of my composition students wrote in her response paragraph regarding the various roles she is required to play the following: "As long as I communicate with my mother respectfully and refrain from the use of any colloquialisms, she�s fine." Thank you. Carol To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:42:23 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Looking for full-time developmental education faculty Comments: To: [log in to unmask] In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_6179576e-4712-4556-8642-b2f992598b2e_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_6179576e-4712-4556-8642-b2f992598b2e_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Kimberly - I'm going to post your job opening on ATEG (Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar), another list I belong to that I think you'd find an excellent source of both candidates and discussion of issues that affect your students. Geoff Layton > Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:57:30 -0500 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Looking for full-time developmental education faculty > To: [log in to unmask] > > Hello. > > My college is looking to hire. Here's the job description. > > > Truman College, Chicago: Communications [English] Department. Full-time, > tenure-track writing instructor with specialty in developmental and/or > ESL instruction (three positions). Highly competitive salary and > excellent benefits. Anticipated start date: January 2012. Minimum > qualifications: M.A. in rhetoric and composition, English, linguistics > or TESOL, or M.F.A. in creative writing; two years of teaching > experience, preferably at the community college level; theory of and > practice in writing process, critical thinking and study strategies, > developmental writing and reading, and/or ESL. Preference will be given > to candidates with experience in portfolio assessment and in > instructional technology. Deadline: October 15, 2011. Submit letter of > application, CV, statement of teaching philosophy, and references to > Catherine Gillespie, Chair, Communications Department, Harry S. Truman > College, 1145 W. Wilson Ave., Chicago, IL 60640. Applications may also > be e-mailed to [log in to unmask] (include applicant�s name in subject > line). Truman College is an equal opportunity employer, and we welcome > applications from minorities. > > thanks > > Kimberly Steffen > Instructor, Communications Dept. > Harry S Truman College > City Colleges of Chicago > 1145 W. Wilson Ave. > Chicago, IL 60640 > > [log in to unmask] > (773)989-3878 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_6179576e-4712-4556-8642-b2f992598b2e_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, Kimberly -

I'm going to post your job opening on ATEG (Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar), another list I belong to that I think you'd find an excellent source of both candidates and discussion of issues that affect your students.

Geoff Layton

> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:57:30 -0500
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Looking for full-time developmental education faculty
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Hello.
>
> My college is looking to hire. Here's the job description.
>
>
> Truman College, Chicago: Communications [English] Department. Full-time,
> tenure-track writing instructor with specialty in developmental and/or
> ESL instruction (three positions). Highly competitive salary and
> excellent benefits. Anticipated start date: January 2012. Minimum
> qualifications: M.A. in rhetoric and composition, English, linguistics
> or TESOL, or M.F.A. in creative writing; two years of teaching
> experience, preferably at the community college level; theory of and
> practice in writing process, critical thinking and study strategies,
> developmental writing and reading, and/or ESL. Preference will be given
> to candidates with experience in portfolio assessment and in
> instructional technology. Deadline: October 15, 2011. Submit letter of
> application, CV, statement of teaching philosophy, and references to
> Catherine Gillespie, Chair, Communications Department, Harry S. Truman
> College, 1145 W. Wilson Ave., Chicago, IL 60640. Applications may also
> be e-mailed to [log in to unmask] (include applicant�s name in subject
> line). Truman College is an equal opportunity employer, and we welcome
> applications from minorities.
>
> thanks
>
> Kimberly Steffen
> Instructor, Communications Dept.
> Harry S Truman College
> City Colleges of Chicago
> 1145 W. Wilson Ave.
> Chicago, IL 60640
>
> [log in to unmask]
> (773)989-3878

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_6179576e-4712-4556-8642-b2f992598b2e_-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:02:10 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]> Subject: New Language Blog Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_c627aca8-228a-4009-8e07-cec638b6d08b_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_c627aca8-228a-4009-8e07-cec638b6d08b_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ya'll might be interested in a relatively new blog "Lingua Franca" at The Chronicle of Higher Education. Posts include "What the meaning of 'is' is"; "In the Time of the Declarative Sentence" (by none other than the aforementioned - in another thread - Pullum); "Antoine Dodson Saves My Class" (an article about a graduate level class in Reed-Kellog diagramming); and one of my personal favorites on that horrid new word "relatable." Good reads all. http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/ Geoff Layton To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_c627aca8-228a-4009-8e07-cec638b6d08b_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ya'll might be interested in a relatively new blog "Lingua Franca" at The Chronicle of Higher Education. Posts include "What the meaning of 'is' is"; "In the Time of the Declarative Sentence" (by none other than the aforementioned - in another thread - Pullum); "Antoine Dodson Saves My Class" (an article about a graduate level class in Reed-Kellog diagramming); and one of my personal favorites on that horrid new word "relatable." Good reads all.

http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/

Geoff Layton

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_c627aca8-228a-4009-8e07-cec638b6d08b_-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:11:07 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]> Subject: More stuff Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_136503ab-8b39-4887-a1db-604d88294c9f_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_136503ab-8b39-4887-a1db-604d88294c9f_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable When you're sick, somehow arcane web sites start popping up. Here's one from "The Look" from The Today Show about a new line of shirts from Old Navy (yes, I'm that sick). http://thelook.today.com/_news/2011/08/23/7449796-old-navy-ts-get-a-in-team-spirit-but-f-in-grammar Actually, here's a link with a better view of the errant shirts from our friends at Olde England's Daily Mailhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2029204/Old-Navys-apostrophe-catastrophe-new-college-T-shirts.html Geoff Layton To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_136503ab-8b39-4887-a1db-604d88294c9f_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

When you're sick, somehow arcane web sites start popping up.

Here's one from "The Look" from The Today Show about a new line of shirts from Old Navy (yes, I'm that sick).
http://thelook.today.com/_news/2011/08/23/7449796-old-navy-ts-get-a-in-team-spirit-but-f-in-grammar

Actually, here's a link with a better view of the errant shirts from our friends at Olde England's Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2029204/Old-Navys-apostrophe-catastrophe-new-college-T-shirts.html

Geoff Layton

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_136503ab-8b39-4887-a1db-604d88294c9f_-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:30:49 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Colloquialisms/Slang/Dialect In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1035212022-1315866649=:96153" --0-1035212022-1315866649=:96153 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thank you, Bill! I looked up a few definitions of "colloquialism," but your explanation was much better. Carol --- On Mon, 9/12/11, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Coloquialisms/Slang/Dialect To: [log in to unmask] Date: Monday, September 12, 2011, 5:38 PM Carol -- Dialects usually let you pin down a person's region of origin, ethnicity, or socioeconomic class. Slang lets you identify what social group they're identifying with, is frequently tied to age group, and can be very "volatile" over time. Colloquialisms, I think, are more generally defined on the basis of their "not sounding like the kind of thing you use in formal written English" and so can include a lot of different types of expressions. For example, the "really" of "It was really impressive" strikes me as colloquial, but it's definitely not slang, and it's in probably the majority of AmE dialects. The use of "sick" to mean "impressively good," on the other hand, is slang, while modal-stacking ("might should" ) is a dialectal feature. But someone could refer to "sick" or "might should" as sounding colloquial, in a general sense. I suspect that in traditional essay-marking, "coll." has frequently meant "sounds too informal, but is something I'd use in daily speech" while "dial." and "slang" have meant "sounds too informal, and is something other people say in daily speech." --- Bill Spruiell On Sep 12, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Carol Morrison wrote: Dear ATEG Members: Can someone explain and give examples of what a colloquialism is and how that differs from "slang" or "dialect" in speech and communication? One of my composition students wrote in her response paragraph regarding the various roles she is required to play the following: "As long as I communicate with my mother respectfully and refrain from the use of any colloquialisms, she’s fine." Thank you. Carol To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1035212022-1315866649=:96153 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thank you, Bill! I looked up a few definitions of "colloquialism," but your explanation was much better.

Carol

--- On Mon, 9/12/11, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Coloquialisms/Slang/Dialect
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Monday, September 12, 2011, 5:38 PM

Carol --

Dialects usually let you pin down a person's region of origin, ethnicity, or socioeconomic class. Slang lets you identify what social group they're identifying with, is frequently tied to age group, and can be very "volatile" over time. Colloquialisms, I think, are more generally defined on the basis of their "not sounding like the kind of thing you use in formal written English" and so can include a lot of different types of expressions.

For example, the "really" of "It was really impressive" strikes me as colloquial, but it's definitely not slang, and it's in probably the majority of AmE dialects. The use of "sick" to mean "impressively good," on the other hand, is slang, while modal-stacking ("might should" ) is a dialectal feature. But someone could refer to "sick" or "might should" as sounding colloquial, in a general sense.

I suspect that in traditional essay-marking, "coll." has frequently meant "sounds too informal, but is something I'd use in daily speech" while "dial." and "slang" have meant "sounds too informal, and is something other people say in daily speech."

--- Bill Spruiell

On Sep 12, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Carol Morrison wrote:

Dear ATEG Members:

Can someone explain and give examples of what a colloquialism is and how that differs from "slang" or "dialect" in speech and communication? One of my composition students wrote in her response paragraph regarding the various roles she is required to play the following: "As long as I communicate with my mother respectfully and refrain from the use of any colloquialisms, she’s fine."

Thank you.

Carol

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

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-1035212022-1315866649=:96153-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:19:01 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "T. J. Ray" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Definite Article Question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_SW_43464011_1315869541_mpa=" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_SW_43464011_1315869541_mpaContent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Someone asked why we supply "the" before some business names and not before others. In this town we have restaurants with names such as Snack Shack, Boure, Downtown Grill, McDonald's. Why would someone need to say "I'm going to eat at Boure" as opposed to "I'm dining at the Snack Shack"? To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_SW_43464011_1315869541_mpaContent-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Someone asked why we supply "the" before some business names and not before

others. In this town we have restaurants with names such as Snack Shack, Boure,

Downtown Grill, McDonald's. Why would someone need to say "I'm going to eat at

Boure" as opposed to "I'm dining at the Snack Shack"?

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_SW_43464011_1315869541_mpa=-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:38:46 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Definite Article Question In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016e659f62a96d7fa04acc709e4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Or what about Interstates? We say The 5 and The 15 but 75, 85, and 95. Jane On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:19 PM, T. J. Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Someone asked why we supply "the" before some business names and not before > > others. In this town we have restaurants with names such as Snack Shack, > Boure, > Downtown Grill, McDonald's. Why would someone need to say "I'm going to > eat at > Boure" as opposed to "I'm dining at the Snack Shack"? > > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e659f62a96d7fa04acc709e4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Or what about Interstates?� We say The 5 and The 15 but 75, 85, and 95.

Jane

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:19 PM, T. J. Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Someone asked why we supply "the" before some business names and not before
others. �In this town we have restaurants with names such as Snack Shack, Boure,

Downtown Grill, McDonald's. �Why would someone need to say "I'm going to eat at

Boure" as opposed to "I'm dining at the Snack Shack"?

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e659f62a96d7fa04acc709e4-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:18:41 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Definite Article Question In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Motorola-A-Mail-NMvkmpgEqAcNX7tb" --Motorola-A-Mail-NMvkmpgEqAcNX7tb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 T3IgaW5zdHJ1bWVudHM6IFdoeSBkb2VzIEphbWllIHBsYXkgZ3VpdGFyIGJ1dCBQYWNvIHBsYXlz IHRoZSBmbHV0ZT8KClNlbnQgdmlhIERyb2lkWDIgb24gVmVyaXpvbiBXaXJlbGVzc+KEogoKLS0t LS1PcmlnaW5hbCBtZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0KRnJvbTogSmFuZSBTYXJhbCA8amFuZS5zYXJhbEBHTUFJ TC5DT00+ClRvOiBBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFUKU2VudDogTW9uLCBTZXAgMTIsIDIw MTEgMjM6NDA6NTkgR01UKzAwOjAwClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBEZWZpbml0ZSBBcnRpY2xlIFF1ZXN0 aW9uCgpPciB3aGF0IGFib3V0IEludGVyc3RhdGVzPyAgV2Ugc2F5IFRoZSA1IGFuZCBUaGUgMTUg YnV0IDc1LCA4NSwgYW5kIDk1LgpKYW5lCgpPbiBNb24sIFNlcCAxMiwgMjAxMSBhdCA3OjE5IFBN LCBULiBKLiBSYXkgPHRqcmF5QG9sZW1pc3MuZWR1PiB3cm90ZToKCj4gU29tZW9uZSBhc2tlZCB3 aHkgd2Ugc3VwcGx5ICJ0aGUiIGJlZm9yZSBzb21lIGJ1c2luZXNzIG5hbWVzIGFuZCBub3QgYmVm b3JlCj4KPiBvdGhlcnMuICBJbiB0aGlzIHRvd24gd2UgaGF2ZSByZXN0YXVyYW50cyB3aXRoIG5h bWVzIHN1Y2ggYXMgU25hY2sgU2hhY2ssCj4gQm91cmUsCj4gRG93bnRvd24gR3JpbGwsIE1jRG9u YWxkJ3MuICBXaHkgd291bGQgc29tZW9uZSBuZWVkIHRvIHNheSAiSSdtIGdvaW5nIHRvCj4gZWF0 IGF0Cj4gQm91cmUiIGFzIG9wcG9zZWQgdG8gIkknbSBkaW5pbmcgYXQgdGhlIFNuYWNrIFNoYWNr Ij8KPgo+Cj4KPiBUbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZp c2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZQo+IGF0OiBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlv LmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwgYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvcgo+IGxlYXZlIHRoZSBs aXN0Igo+Cj4gVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8KPgoKVG8g am9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdz IHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6CiAgICAgaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2 ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sCmFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiCgpWaXNpdCBB VEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL2F0ZWcub3JnLwo --Motorola-A-Mail-NMvkmpgEqAcNX7tb Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWw+PGhlYWQ+PHN0eWxlIHR5cGU9InRleHQvY3NzIj5ib2R5IHt3b3JkLXdyYXA6IGJyZWFr LXdvcmQ7IGJhY2tncm91bmQtY29sb3I6I2ZmZmZmZjt9PC9zdHlsZT48L2hlYWQ+PGJvZHk+PGRp diBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IHNhbnMtc2VyaWY7IGZvbnQtc2l6ZTogMTZweCI+T3IgaW5z dHJ1bWVudHM6IFdoeSBkb2VzIEphbWllIHBsYXkgZ3VpdGFyIGJ1dCBQYWNvIHBsYXlzIHRoZSBm bHV0ZT88YnI+PGJyPjxmb250IGNvbG9yPSIjMzMzMzMzIj48aT48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1z aXplOiAxNHB4Ij48Zm9udCBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5TZW50IHZpYSBEcm9pZFgyIG9uIFZl cml6b24gV2lyZWxlc3MmIzg0ODI7PC9mb250Pjwvc3Bhbj48L2k+PC9mb250PjwvZGl2Pjxicj48 YnI+LS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBtZXNzYWdlLS0tLS08YnI+PGJsb2NrcXVvdGUgc3R5bGU9IjsgYm9y ZGVyLWxlZnQ6IDJweCBzb2xpZCByZ2IoMTYsIDE2LCAyNTUpOyBtYXJnaW4tbGVmdDogNXB4OyBw YWRkaW5nLWxlZnQ6IDVweDsiPjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiBzYW5zLXNlcmlmOyBm b250LXNpemU6IDE0cHgiPjxiPkZyb206IDwvYj5KYW5lIFNhcmFsICZsdDtqYW5lLnNhcmFsQEdN QUlMLkNPTSZndDs8Yj48YnI+VG86IDwvYj5BVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFU8Yj48YnI+ U2VudDogPC9iPk1vbiwgU2VwIDEyLCAyMDExIDIzOjQwOjU5IEdNVCswMDowMDxiPjxicj5TdWJq ZWN0OiA8L2I+UmU6IERlZmluaXRlIEFydGljbGUgUXVlc3Rpb248YnI+PGJyPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+ PGRpdj5PciB3aGF0IGFib3V0IEludGVyc3RhdGVzP8KgIFdlIHNheSBUaGUgNSBhbmQgVGhlIDE1 IGJ1dCA3NSwgODUsIGFuZCA5NS48L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+SmFuZTxicj48YnI+PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2 IGNsYXNzPSJnbWFpbF9xdW90ZSI+T24gTW9uLCBTZXAgMTIsIDIwMTEgYXQgNzoxOSBQTSwgVC4g Si4gUmF5IDxzcGFuIGRpcj0ibHRyIj4mbHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOnRqcmF5QG9sZW1pc3Mu ZWR1Ij50anJheUBvbGVtaXNzLmVkdTwvYT4mZ3Q7PC9zcGFuPiB3cm90ZTo8YnI+DQo8YmxvY2tx dW90ZSBjbGFzcz0iZ21haWxfcXVvdGUiIHN0eWxlPSJQQURESU5HLUxFRlQ6IDFleDsgTUFSR0lO OiAwcHggMHB4IDBweCAwLjhleDsgQk9SREVSLUxFRlQ6ICNjY2MgMXB4IHNvbGlkIj4NCjxkaXY+ U29tZW9uZSBhc2tlZCB3aHkgd2Ugc3VwcGx5ICZxdW90O3RoZSZxdW90OyBiZWZvcmUgc29tZSBi dXNpbmVzcyBuYW1lcyBhbmQgbm90IGJlZm9yZSANCjxkaXY+b3RoZXJzLiDCoEluIHRoaXMgdG93 biB3ZSBoYXZlIHJlc3RhdXJhbnRzIHdpdGggbmFtZXMgc3VjaCBhcyBTbmFjayBTaGFjaywgQm91 cmUsPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2PkRvd250b3duIEdyaWxsLCBNY0RvbmFsZCYjMzk7cy4gwqBXaHkgd291 bGQgc29tZW9uZSBuZWVkIHRvIHNheSAmcXVvdDtJJiMzOTttIGdvaW5nIHRvIGVhdCBhdDwvZGl2 Pg0KPGRpdj5Cb3VyZSZxdW90OyBhcyBvcHBvc2VkIHRvICZxdW90O0kmIzM5O20gZGluaW5nIGF0 IHRoZSBTbmFjayBTaGFjayZxdW90Oz88L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+PGJyPjxicj4NCjxkaXY+PC9kaXY+ PGJyPjwvZGl2PjwvZGl2PlRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVh c2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QmIzM5O3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZSBhdDogPGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cDov L2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+ aHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sPC9hPiBhbmQgc2Vs ZWN0ICZxdW90O0pvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QmcXVvdDsgDQo8cD5WaXNpdCBBVEVHJiMz OTtzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IDxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8iIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5r Ij5odHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvPC9hPiA8L3A+PC9ibG9ja3F1b3RlPjwvZGl2Pjxicj4NClRvIGpv aW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3 ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0Og0KICAgICBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZl cy9hdGVnLmh0bWwNCmFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQo8cD4NClZp c2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvDQo8L2Rpdj48L2Jsb2NrcXVv dGU+PC9ib2R5PjwvaHRtbD4NCg= --Motorola-A-Mail-NMvkmpgEqAcNX7tb-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:03:34 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Definite Article Question In-Reply-To: <5f7414c8-a672-4a07-9adf-f54d98afb4d7@blur> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016e6d645597d778304acc83689 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Why do Americans go to the hospital, but the British go to hospital? Why do we go to kindergarten, high school, and college, but not (unless you're British) university? Why do we get cancer, a headache, the flu? On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 8:18 PM, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Or instruments: Why does Jamie play guitar but Paco plays the flute? > > *Sent via DroidX2 on Verizon Wireless�* > > > -----Original message----- > > *From: *Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]>* > To: *[log in to unmask]* > Sent: *Mon, Sep 12, 2011 23:40:59 GMT+00:00* > Subject: *Re: Definite Article Question > > Or what about Interstates? We say The 5 and The 15 but 75, 85, and 95. > Jane > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:19 PM, T. J. Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Someone asked why we supply "the" before some business names and not >> before >> others. In this town we have restaurants with names such as Snack Shack, >> Boure, >> Downtown Grill, McDonald's. Why would someone need to say "I'm going to >> eat at >> Boure" as opposed to "I'm dining at the Snack Shack"? >> >> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface >> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or >> leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6d645597d778304acc83689 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Why do Americans go to the hospital, but the British go to hospital? Why do we go to kindergarten, high school, and college, but not (unless you're British) university?

Why do we get cancer, a headache, the flu?

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 8:18 PM, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Or instruments: Why does Jamie play guitar but Paco plays the flute?

Sent via DroidX2 on Verizon Wireless�

-----Original message-----

From: Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, Sep 12, 2011 23:40:59 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: Definite Article Question

Or what about Interstates?� We say The 5 and The 15 but 75, 85, and 95.

Jane

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:19 PM, T. J. Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Someone asked why we supply "the" before some business names and not before
others. �In this town we have restaurants with names such as Snack Shack, Boure,

Downtown Grill, McDonald's. �Why would someone need to say "I'm going to eat at

Boure" as opposed to "I'm dining at the Snack Shack"?

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6d645597d778304acc83689-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:44:01 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Definite Article Question In-Reply-To: <5f7414c8-a672-4a07-9adf-f54d98afb4d7@blur> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-244440495-1315878241=:85574" --0-244440495-1315878241=:85574 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I can play the guitar (classical, natch), and Paco can play flute. Is there even a rule for this flexibility? Paul "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128). ________________________________ From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Mon, September 12, 2011 8:18:41 PM Subject: Re: Definite Article Question Or instruments: Why does Jamie play guitar but Paco plays the flute? Sent via DroidX2 on Verizon Wireless™ -----Original message----- From: Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Sent: Mon, Sep 12, 2011 23:40:59 GMT+00:00 >Subject: Re: Definite Article Question > > >Or what about Interstates? We say The 5 and The 15 but 75, 85, and 95. >Jane > > >On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:19 PM, T. J. Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >Someone asked why we supply "the" before some business names and not before >>others. In this town we have restaurants with names such as Snack Shack, >Boure, >>Downtown Grill, McDonald's. Why would someone need to say "I'm going to eat at >>Boure" as opposed to "I'm dining at the Snack Shack"? >> >> >> >>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: >>http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the >>list" >> >>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: >http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the >list" > >Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-244440495-1315878241=:85574 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I can play the guitar (classical, natch), and Paco can play flute. Is there even a rule for this flexibility?

Paul

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

From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, September 12, 2011 8:18:41 PM
Subject: Re: Definite Article Question

Or instruments: Why does Jamie play guitar but Paco plays the flute?

Sent via DroidX2 on Verizon Wireless™

-----Original message-----

From: Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, Sep 12, 2011 23:40:59 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: Definite Article Question

Or what about Interstates? We say The 5 and The 15 but 75, 85, and 95.

Jane

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:19 PM, T. J. Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Someone asked why we supply "the" before some business names and not before
others. In this town we have restaurants with names such as Snack Shack, Boure,

Downtown Grill, McDonald's. Why would someone need to say "I'm going to eat at

Boure" as opposed to "I'm dining at the Snack Shack"?

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-244440495-1315878241=:85574-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:01:33 -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: "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Colloquialisms/Slang/Dialect In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220ED1906CUAEXCH07univa_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220ED1906CUAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 ICAgIEkgdGhpbmsgYmVpbmcgY29sbG9xdWlhbCBkb2VzbuKAmXQgaW4gYW5kIG9mIGl0c2VsZiBt YWtlIHNvbWV0aGluZyB3cm9uZywgYnV0IGEgY29sbG9xdWlhbGlzbSBpcyBvZnRlbiBhIHZlcnkg c2V0IGV4cHJlc3Npb24sIHNvIGl0IHJ1bnMgdGhlIHJpc2sgYWxzbyBvZiBzZWVtaW5nIHN0YWxl LiDigJxTaGXigJlzIHNpdHRpbmcgcHJldHR5LuKAnSDigJxIZeKAmXMgYSBudXQgY2FzZS7igJ0g 4oCcVGhhdCBwaXNzZXMgbWUgb2ZmLuKAnSBBbGwgdGhvc2Ugc3RyaWtlIG1lIGFzIHRoaW5ncyBJ IHdvdWxkIHNheSBxdWl0ZSByZWFkaWx5IGFuZCBlYXNpbHksIGJ1dCBtaWdodCB0aGluayB0d2lj ZSBhYm91dCBpbiB3cml0aW5nLg0KICAgVGhleSBkbyBoYXZlIHRoZSBlZmZlY3Qgb2Ygc2VlbWlu ZyByZWxheGVkIGFuZCBjb2xvcmZ1bCBhbmQgc3BvbnRhbmVvdXMgYW5kIGRvd24tdG8tZWFydGgu IE1heWJlIOKAnGRvd24tdG8tZWFydGjigJ0gd2FzIGNvbGxvcXVpYWwgYXQgb25lIHRpbWUuDQog ICBEbyB5b3Ugd2FudCB0byBzZWVtIGxpa2UgTWFyayBUd2FpbiBvciB3b3VsZCB5b3UgcHJlZmVy IFdpbGxpYW0gQnVja2xleT8gVHdhaW4gaXMgY29sbG9xdWlhbDsgQnVja2xleSBwYWluc3Rha2lu Z2x5IGF2b2lkcyBpdC4NCg0KQ3JhaWcNCg0KDQpGcm9tOiBBc3NlbWJseSBmb3IgdGhlIFRlYWNo aW5nIG9mIEVuZ2xpc2ggR3JhbW1hciBbbWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVV0g T24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIENhcm9sIE1vcnJpc29uDQpTZW50OiBNb25kYXksIFNlcHRlbWJlciAxMiwg MjAxMSA2OjMxIFBNDQpUbzogQVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTog Q29sbG9xdWlhbGlzbXMvU2xhbmcvRGlhbGVjdA0KDQpUaGFuayB5b3UsIEJpbGwhIEkgbG9va2Vk IHVwIGEgZmV3IGRlZmluaXRpb25zIG9mICJjb2xsb3F1aWFsaXNtLCIgYnV0IHlvdXIgZXhwbGFu YXRpb24gd2FzIG11Y2ggYmV0dGVyLg0KDQpDYXJvbA0KDQotLS0gT24gTW9uLCA5LzEyLzExLCBT cHJ1aWVsbCwgV2lsbGlhbSBDIDxzcHJ1aTF3Y0BDTUlDSC5FRFU8bWFpbHRvOnNwcnVpMXdjQENN SUNILkVEVT4+IHdyb3RlOg0KDQpGcm9tOiBTcHJ1aWVsbCwgV2lsbGlhbSBDIDxzcHJ1aTF3Y0BD TUlDSC5FRFU8bWFpbHRvOnNwcnVpMXdjQENNSUNILkVEVT4+DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogQ29sb3F1 aWFsaXNtcy9TbGFuZy9EaWFsZWN0DQpUbzogQVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVPG1haWx0 bzpBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFU+DQpEYXRlOiBNb25kYXksIFNlcHRlbWJlciAxMiwg MjAxMSwgNTozOCBQTQ0KQ2Fyb2wgLS0NCg0KRGlhbGVjdHMgdXN1YWxseSBsZXQgeW91IHBpbiBk b3duIGEgcGVyc29uJ3MgcmVnaW9uIG9mIG9yaWdpbiwgZXRobmljaXR5LCBvciBzb2Npb2Vjb25v bWljIGNsYXNzLiBTbGFuZyBsZXRzIHlvdSBpZGVudGlmeSB3aGF0IHNvY2lhbCBncm91cCB0aGV5 J3JlIGlkZW50aWZ5aW5nIHdpdGgsIGlzIGZyZXF1ZW50bHkgdGllZCB0byBhZ2UgZ3JvdXAsIGFu ZCBjYW4gYmUgdmVyeSAidm9sYXRpbGUiIG92ZXIgdGltZS4gQ29sbG9xdWlhbGlzbXMsIEkgdGhp bmssIGFyZSBtb3JlIGdlbmVyYWxseSBkZWZpbmVkIG9uIHRoZSBiYXNpcyBvZiB0aGVpciAibm90 IHNvdW5kaW5nIGxpa2UgdGhlIGtpbmQgb2YgdGhpbmcgeW91IHVzZSBpbiBmb3JtYWwgd3JpdHRl biBFbmdsaXNoIiBhbmQgc28gY2FuIGluY2x1ZGUgYSBsb3Qgb2YgZGlmZmVyZW50IHR5cGVzIG9m IGV4cHJlc3Npb25zLg0KDQpGb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwgdGhlICJyZWFsbHkiIG9mICJJdCB3YXMgcmVh bGx5IGltcHJlc3NpdmUiIHN0cmlrZXMgbWUgYXMgY29sbG9xdWlhbCwgYnV0IGl0J3MgZGVmaW5p dGVseSBub3Qgc2xhbmcsIGFuZCBpdCdzIGluIHByb2JhYmx5IHRoZSBtYWpvcml0eSBvZiBBbUUg ZGlhbGVjdHMuIFRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgInNpY2siIHRvIG1lYW4gImltcHJlc3NpdmVseSBnb29kLCIg b24gdGhlIG90aGVyIGhhbmQsIGlzIHNsYW5nLCB3aGlsZSBtb2RhbC1zdGFja2luZyAoIm1pZ2h0 IHNob3VsZCIgKSBpcyBhIGRpYWxlY3RhbCBmZWF0dXJlLiBCdXQgc29tZW9uZSBjb3VsZCByZWZl ciB0byAic2ljayIgb3IgIm1pZ2h0IHNob3VsZCIgYXMgc291bmRpbmcgY29sbG9xdWlhbCwgaW4g YSBnZW5lcmFsIHNlbnNlLg0KDQpJIHN1c3BlY3QgdGhhdCBpbiB0cmFkaXRpb25hbCBlc3NheS1t YXJraW5nLCAiY29sbC4iIGhhcyBmcmVxdWVudGx5IG1lYW50ICJzb3VuZHMgdG9vIGluZm9ybWFs LCBidXQgaXMgc29tZXRoaW5nIEknZCB1c2UgaW4gZGFpbHkgc3BlZWNoIiB3aGlsZSAiZGlhbC4i IGFuZCAic2xhbmciIGhhdmUgbWVhbnQgInNvdW5kcyB0b28gaW5mb3JtYWwsIGFuZCBpcyBzb21l dGhpbmcgb3RoZXIgcGVvcGxlIHNheSBpbiBkYWlseSBzcGVlY2guIg0KDQotLS0gQmlsbCBTcHJ1 aWVsbA0KDQpPbiBTZXAgMTIsIDIwMTEsIGF0IDM6MTkgUE0sIENhcm9sIE1vcnJpc29uIHdyb3Rl Og0KDQpEZWFyIEFURUcgTWVtYmVyczoNCg0KQ2FuIHNvbWVvbmUgZXhwbGFpbiBhbmQgZ2l2ZSBl eGFtcGxlcyBvZiB3aGF0IGEgY29sbG9xdWlhbGlzbSBpcyBhbmQgaG93IHRoYXQgZGlmZmVycyBm cm9tICJzbGFuZyIgb3IgImRpYWxlY3QiIGluIHNwZWVjaCBhbmQgY29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbj8gT25l IG9mIG15IGNvbXBvc2l0aW9uIHN0dWRlbnRzIHdyb3RlIGluIGhlciByZXNwb25zZSBwYXJhZ3Jh cGggcmVnYXJkaW5nIHRoZSB2YXJpb3VzIHJvbGVzIHNoZSBpcyByZXF1aXJlZCB0byBwbGF5IHRo ZSBmb2xsb3dpbmc6ICJBcyBsb25nIGFzIEkgY29tbXVuaWNhdGUgd2l0aCBteSBtb3RoZXIgcmVz cGVjdGZ1bGx5IGFuZCByZWZyYWluIGZyb20gdGhlIHVzZSBvZiBhbnkgY29sbG9xdWlhbGlzbXMs IHNoZeKAmXMgZmluZS4iDQoNClRoYW5rIHlvdS4NCg0KQ2Fyb2wNCg0KDQpUbyBqb2luIG9yIGxl YXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViIGludGVy ZmFjZSBhdDogaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sIGFu ZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQoNClZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0 ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvDQoNClRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBs aXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0Og0KICAgICBodHRw Oi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwNCmFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpv aW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQoNClZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8v YXRlZy5vcmcvDQoNClRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2Ug dmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlv LmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwgYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlz dCINCg0KVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8NCg= --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220ED1906CUAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+PGhlYWQ+PG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUgY29udGVu dD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij48bWV0YSBuYW1lPUdlbmVyYXRvciBjb250ZW50 PSJNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCAxNCAoZmlsdGVyZWQgbWVkaXVtKSI+PHN0eWxlPjwhLS0NCi8qIEZv bnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglw YW5vc2UtMToyIDE1IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OlRhaG9tYTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDExIDYgNCAzIDUgNCA0IDIgNDt9DQovKiBTdHlsZSBEZWZp bml0aW9ucyAqLw0KcC5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGxpLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgZGl2Lk1zb05vcm1hbA0KCXtt YXJnaW46MGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0K CWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLCJzZXJpZiI7fQ0KYTpsaW5rLCBzcGFuLk1z b0h5cGVybGluaw0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6Ymx1ZTsNCgl0ZXh0 LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCmE6dmlzaXRlZCwgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmtGb2xs b3dlZA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6cHVycGxlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVj b3JhdGlvbjp1bmRlcmxpbmU7fQ0KcA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJbXNvLW1h cmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87DQoJbWFyZ2luLXJpZ2h0OjBpbjsNCgltc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRv bS1hbHQ6YXV0bzsNCgltYXJnaW4tbGVmdDowaW47DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250 LWZhbWlseToiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIiwic2VyaWYiO30NCnNwYW4uRW1haWxTdHlsZTE4DQoJ e21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOnBlcnNvbmFsLXJlcGx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwi c2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQoJY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RDt9DQouTXNvQ2hwRGVmYXVsdA0KCXttc28tc3R5 bGUtdHlwZTpleHBvcnQtb25seTsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYi O30NCkBwYWdlIFdvcmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtzaXplOjguNWluIDExLjBpbjsNCgltYXJnaW46MS4w aW4gMS4waW4gMS4waW4gMS4waW47fQ0KZGl2LldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtwYWdlOldvcmRTZWN0 aW9uMTt9DQotLT48L3N0eWxlPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVkZWZh dWx0cyB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIgc3BpZG1heD0iMTAyNiIgLz4NCjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPjwh LS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiPg0KPG86 aWRtYXAgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIGRhdGE9IjEiIC8+DQo8L286c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQ+PC94bWw+PCFb ZW5kaWZdLS0+PC9oZWFkPjxib2R5IGxhbmc9RU4tVVMgbGluaz1ibHVlIHZsaW5rPXB1cnBsZT48 ZGl2IGNsYXNzPVdvcmRTZWN0aW9uMT48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2Zv bnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjoj MUY0OTdEJz7CoMKgwqAgSSB0aGluayBiZWluZyBjb2xsb3F1aWFsIGRvZXNu4oCZdCBpbiBhbmQg b2YgaXRzZWxmIG1ha2Ugc29tZXRoaW5nIHdyb25nLCBidXQgYSBjb2xsb3F1aWFsaXNtIGlzIG9m dGVuIGEgdmVyeSBzZXQgZXhwcmVzc2lvbiwgc28gaXQgcnVucyB0aGUgcmlzayBhbHNvIG9mIHNl ZW1pbmcgc3RhbGUuIOKAnFNoZeKAmXMgc2l0dGluZyBwcmV0dHku4oCdIOKAnEhl4oCZcyBhIG51 dCBjYXNlLuKAnSDigJxUaGF0IHBpc3NlcyBtZSBvZmYu4oCdIEFsbCB0aG9zZSBzdHJpa2UgbWUg YXMgdGhpbmdzIEkgd291bGQgc2F5IHF1aXRlIHJlYWRpbHkgYW5kIGVhc2lseSwgYnV0IG1pZ2h0 IHRoaW5rIHR3aWNlIGFib3V0IGluIHdyaXRpbmcuIDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBj bGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz7CoMKgwqBUaGV5IGRvIGhhdmUg dGhlIGVmZmVjdCBvZiBzZWVtaW5nIHJlbGF4ZWQgYW5kIGNvbG9yZnVsIGFuZCBzcG9udGFuZW91 cyBhbmQgZG93bi10by1lYXJ0aC4gTWF5YmUg4oCcZG93bi10by1lYXJ0aOKAnSB3YXMgY29sbG9x dWlhbCBhdCBvbmUgdGltZS48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFs PjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fu cy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+wqDCoCBEbyB5b3Ugd2FudCB0byBzZWVtIGxpa2UgTWFy ayBUd2FpbiBvciB3b3VsZCB5b3UgcHJlZmVyIFdpbGxpYW0gQnVja2xleT8gVHdhaW4gaXMgY29s bG9xdWlhbDsgQnVja2xleSBwYWluc3Rha2luZ2x5IGF2b2lkcyBpdC4gPG86cD48L286cD48L3Nw YW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtm b250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPjxvOnA+Jm5i c3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQt c2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjojMUY0 OTdEJz5DcmFpZzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4g c3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlm Ijtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz7CoMKgwqAgPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1z b05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJy aSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwv cD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9u dC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz5Gcm9tOjwvc3Bhbj48L2I+PHNwYW4gc3R5 bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz4g QXNzZW1ibHkgZm9yIHRoZSBUZWFjaGluZyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXIgW21haWx0bzpBVEVH QExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFVdIDxiPk9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiA8L2I+Q2Fyb2wgTW9ycmlzb248 YnI+PGI+U2VudDo8L2I+IE1vbmRheSwgU2VwdGVtYmVyIDEyLCAyMDExIDY6MzEgUE08YnI+PGI+ VG86PC9iPiBBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFU8YnI+PGI+U3ViamVjdDo8L2I+IFJlOiBD b2xsb3F1aWFsaXNtcy9TbGFuZy9EaWFsZWN0PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNz PU1zb05vcm1hbD48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD48dGFibGUgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsVGFi bGUgYm9yZGVyPTAgY2VsbHNwYWNpbmc9MCBjZWxscGFkZGluZz0wPjx0cj48dGQgdmFsaWduPXRv cCBzdHlsZT0ncGFkZGluZzowaW4gMGluIDBpbiAwaW4nPjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFs PlRoYW5rIHlvdSwgQmlsbCEgSSBsb29rZWQgdXAgYSBmZXcgZGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgb2YgJnF1b3Q7 Y29sbG9xdWlhbGlzbSwmcXVvdDsgYnV0IHlvdXIgZXhwbGFuYXRpb24gd2FzIG11Y2ggYmV0dGVy LjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPkNhcm9sPGJyPjxicj4tLS0g T24gPGI+TW9uLCA5LzEyLzExLCBTcHJ1aWVsbCwgV2lsbGlhbSBDIDxpPiZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJt YWlsdG86c3BydWkxd2NAQ01JQ0guRURVIj5zcHJ1aTF3Y0BDTUlDSC5FRFU8L2E+Jmd0OzwvaT48 L2I+IHdyb3RlOjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxibG9ja3F1b3RlIHN0eWxlPSdib3JkZXI6 bm9uZTtib3JkZXItbGVmdDpzb2xpZCAjMTAxMEZGIDEuNXB0O3BhZGRpbmc6MGluIDBpbiAwaW4g NC4wcHQ7bWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6My43NXB0O21hcmdpbi10b3A6NS4wcHQ7bWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTo1 LjBwdCc+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOjEyLjBwdCc+PGJy PkZyb206IFNwcnVpZWxsLCBXaWxsaWFtIEMgJmx0OzxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpzcHJ1aTF3Y0BD TUlDSC5FRFUiPnNwcnVpMXdjQENNSUNILkVEVTwvYT4mZ3Q7PGJyPlN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBDb2xv cXVpYWxpc21zL1NsYW5nL0RpYWxlY3Q8YnI+VG86IDxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpBVEVHQExJU1RT RVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFUiPkFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVTwvYT48YnI+RGF0ZTogTW9u ZGF5LCBTZXB0ZW1iZXIgMTIsIDIwMTEsIDU6MzggUE08bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48ZGl2PjxwIGNs YXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD5DYXJvbCAtLTxicj48YnI+RGlhbGVjdHMgdXN1YWxseSBsZXQgeW91IHBp biBkb3duIGEgcGVyc29uJ3MgcmVnaW9uIG9mIG9yaWdpbiwgZXRobmljaXR5LCBvciBzb2Npb2Vj b25vbWljIGNsYXNzLiBTbGFuZyBsZXRzIHlvdSBpZGVudGlmeSB3aGF0IHNvY2lhbCBncm91cCB0 aGV5J3JlIGlkZW50aWZ5aW5nIHdpdGgsIGlzIGZyZXF1ZW50bHkgdGllZCB0byBhZ2UgZ3JvdXAs IGFuZCBjYW4gYmUgdmVyeSAmcXVvdDt2b2xhdGlsZSZxdW90OyBvdmVyIHRpbWUuIENvbGxvcXVp YWxpc21zLCBJIHRoaW5rLCBhcmUgbW9yZSBnZW5lcmFsbHkgZGVmaW5lZCBvbiB0aGUgYmFzaXMg b2YgdGhlaXIgJnF1b3Q7bm90IHNvdW5kaW5nIGxpa2UgdGhlIGtpbmQgb2YgdGhpbmcgeW91IHVz ZSBpbiBmb3JtYWwgd3JpdHRlbiBFbmdsaXNoJnF1b3Q7IGFuZCBzbyBjYW4gaW5jbHVkZSBhIGxv dCBvZiBkaWZmZXJlbnQgdHlwZXMgb2YgZXhwcmVzc2lvbnMuPGJyPjxicj5Gb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwg dGhlICZxdW90O3JlYWxseSZxdW90OyBvZiAmcXVvdDtJdCB3YXMgcmVhbGx5IGltcHJlc3NpdmUm cXVvdDsgc3RyaWtlcyBtZSBhcyBjb2xsb3F1aWFsLCBidXQgaXQncyBkZWZpbml0ZWx5IG5vdCBz bGFuZywgYW5kIGl0J3MgaW4gcHJvYmFibHkgdGhlIG1ham9yaXR5IG9mIEFtRSBkaWFsZWN0cy4g VGhlIHVzZSBvZiAmcXVvdDtzaWNrJnF1b3Q7IHRvIG1lYW4gJnF1b3Q7aW1wcmVzc2l2ZWx5IGdv b2QsJnF1b3Q7IG9uIHRoZSBvdGhlciBoYW5kLCBpcyBzbGFuZywgd2hpbGUgbW9kYWwtc3RhY2tp bmcgKCZxdW90O21pZ2h0IHNob3VsZCZxdW90OyApIGlzIGEgZGlhbGVjdGFsIGZlYXR1cmUuIEJ1 dCBzb21lb25lIGNvdWxkIHJlZmVyIHRvICZxdW90O3NpY2smcXVvdDsgb3IgJnF1b3Q7bWlnaHQg c2hvdWxkJnF1b3Q7IGFzIHNvdW5kaW5nIGNvbGxvcXVpYWwsIGluIGEgZ2VuZXJhbCBzZW5zZS48 YnI+PGJyPkkgc3VzcGVjdCB0aGF0IGluIHRyYWRpdGlvbmFsIGVzc2F5LW1hcmtpbmcsICZxdW90 O2NvbGwuJnF1b3Q7IGhhcyBmcmVxdWVudGx5IG1lYW50ICZxdW90O3NvdW5kcyB0b28gaW5mb3Jt YWwsIGJ1dCBpcyBzb21ldGhpbmcgSSdkIHVzZSBpbiBkYWlseSBzcGVlY2gmcXVvdDsgd2hpbGUg JnF1b3Q7ZGlhbC4mcXVvdDsgYW5kICZxdW90O3NsYW5nJnF1b3Q7IGhhdmUgbWVhbnQgJnF1b3Q7 c291bmRzIHRvbyBpbmZvcm1hbCwgYW5kIGlzIHNvbWV0aGluZyBvdGhlciBwZW9wbGUgc2F5IGlu IGRhaWx5IHNwZWVjaC4mcXVvdDs8YnI+PGJyPi0tLSBCaWxsIFNwcnVpZWxsPGJyPjxicj5PbiBT ZXAgMTIsIDIwMTEsIGF0IDM6MTkgUE0sIENhcm9sIE1vcnJpc29uIHdyb3RlOjxicj48YnI+RGVh ciBBVEVHIE1lbWJlcnM6PGJyPjxicj5DYW4gc29tZW9uZSBleHBsYWluIGFuZCBnaXZlIGV4YW1w bGVzIG9mIHdoYXQgYSBjb2xsb3F1aWFsaXNtIGlzIGFuZCBob3cgdGhhdCBkaWZmZXJzIGZyb20g JnF1b3Q7c2xhbmcmcXVvdDsgb3IgJnF1b3Q7ZGlhbGVjdCZxdW90OyBpbiBzcGVlY2ggYW5kIGNv bW11bmljYXRpb24/IE9uZSBvZiBteSBjb21wb3NpdGlvbiBzdHVkZW50cyB3cm90ZSBpbiBoZXIg cmVzcG9uc2UgcGFyYWdyYXBoIHJlZ2FyZGluZyB0aGUgdmFyaW91cyByb2xlcyBzaGUgaXMgcmVx dWlyZWQgdG8gcGxheSB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nOiAmcXVvdDtBcyBsb25nIGFzIEkgY29tbXVuaWNh dGUgd2l0aCBteSBtb3RoZXIgcmVzcGVjdGZ1bGx5IGFuZCByZWZyYWluIGZyb20gdGhlIHVzZSBv ZiBhbnkgY29sbG9xdWlhbGlzbXMsIHNoZeKAmXMgZmluZS4mcXVvdDs8YnI+PGJyPlRoYW5rIHlv dS48YnI+PGJyPkNhcm9sPGJyPjxicj48YnI+VG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJW IGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6IDxhIGhyZWY9 Imh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbCIgdGFyZ2V0PSJf YmxhbmsiPmh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbDwvYT4g YW5kIHNlbGVjdCAmcXVvdDtKb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0JnF1b3Q7PGJyPjxicj5WaXNp dCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgPGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL2F0ZWcub3JnLyIgdGFyZ2V0PSJf YmxhbmsiPmh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy88L2E+PGJyPjxicj5UbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMg TElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZSBhdDo8 YnI+Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOzxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9o aW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbCIgdGFyZ2V0PSJfYmxhbmsiPmh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vy di5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbDwvYT48YnI+YW5kIHNlbGVjdCAmcXVvdDtK b2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0JnF1b3Q7PGJyPjxicj5WaXNpdCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUg YXQgPGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL2F0ZWcub3JnLyIgdGFyZ2V0PSJfYmxhbmsiPmh0dHA6Ly9hdGVn Lm9yZy88L2E+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PC9kaXY+PC9ibG9ja3F1b3RlPjwvdGQ+PC90cj48L3Rh YmxlPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250 LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz5UbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElT VFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZSBhdDogPGEg aHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sIj5odHRw Oi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWw8L2E+IGFuZCBzZWxlY3Qg JnF1b3Q7Sm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCZxdW90OyA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+ PHA+VmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IDxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8iPmh0 dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy88L2E+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PC9kaXY+PC9ib2R5PjwvaHRtbD4 --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220ED1906CUAEXCH07univa_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 06:20:06 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Colloquialisms/Slang/Dialect In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-900601041-1788554593-1315920006=:4614" ---900601041-1788554593-1315920006=:4614 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig and others: Do you think students should avoid colloquialisms in their writing? I haven't instructed them to do so at this point, but I am wondering if "academic writing" should be free of colloquialisms and/or slang. As new words continue to enter the lexicon, it is sometimes difficult to make the distinction. Also, I don't want students to lose their identity in writing. This is a Freshman Comp. I class at the community college level. Best- Carol --- On Tue, 9/13/11, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Colloquialisms/Slang/Dialect To: [log in to unmask] Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 9:01 AM     I think being colloquial doesn’t in and of itself make something wrong, but a colloquialism is often a very set expression, so it runs the risk also of seeming stale. “She’s sitting pretty.” “He’s a nut case.” “That pisses me off.” All those strike me as things I would say quite readily and easily, but might think twice about in writing.    They do have the effect of seeming relaxed and colorful and spontaneous and down-to-earth. Maybe “down-to-earth” was colloquial at one time.    Do you want to seem like Mark Twain or would you prefer William Buckley? Twain is colloquial; Buckley painstakingly avoids it. Craig     From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 6:31 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Colloquialisms/Slang/Dialect Thank you, Bill! I looked up a few definitions of "colloquialism," but your explanation was much better. Carol --- On Mon, 9/12/11, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Coloquialisms/Slang/Dialect To: [log in to unmask] Date: Monday, September 12, 2011, 5:38 PM Carol -- Dialects usually let you pin down a person's region of origin, ethnicity, or socioeconomic class. Slang lets you identify what social group they're identifying with, is frequently tied to age group, and can be very "volatile" over time. Colloquialisms, I think, are more generally defined on the basis of their "not sounding like the kind of thing you use in formal written English" and so can include a lot of different types of expressions. For example, the "really" of "It was really impressive" strikes me as colloquial, but it's definitely not slang, and it's in probably the majority of AmE dialects. The use of "sick" to mean "impressively good," on the other hand, is slang, while modal-stacking ("might should" ) is a dialectal feature. But someone could refer to "sick" or "might should" as sounding colloquial, in a general sense. I suspect that in traditional essay-marking, "coll." has frequently meant "sounds too informal, but is something I'd use in daily speech" while "dial." and "slang" have meant "sounds too informal, and is something other people say in daily speech." --- Bill Spruiell On Sep 12, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Carol Morrison wrote: Dear ATEG Members: Can someone explain and give examples of what a colloquialism is and how that differs from "slang" or "dialect" in speech and communication? One of my composition students wrote in her response paragraph regarding the various roles she is required to play the following: "As long as I communicate with my mother respectfully and refrain from the use of any colloquialisms, she’s fine." Thank you. Carol To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:    http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ---900601041-1788554593-1315920006=:4614 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Craig and others: Do you think students should avoid colloquialisms in their writing? I haven't instructed them to do so at this point, but I am wondering if "academic writing" should be free of colloquialisms and/or slang. As new words continue to enter the lexicon, it is sometimes difficult to make the distinction. Also, I don't want students to lose their identity in writing. This is a Freshman Comp. I class at the community college level.

Best-

Carol

--- On Tue, 9/13/11, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Colloquialisms/Slang/Dialect
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 9:01 AM

    I think being colloquial doesn’t in and of itself make something wrong, but a colloquialism is often a very set expression, so it runs the risk also of seeming stale. “She’s sitting pretty.” “He’s a nut case.” “That pisses me off.” All those strike me as things I would say quite readily and easily, but might think twice about in writing.

   They do have the effect of seeming relaxed and colorful and spontaneous and down-to-earth. Maybe “down-to-earth” was colloquial at one time.

   Do you want to seem like Mark Twain or would you prefer William Buckley? Twain is colloquial; Buckley painstakingly avoids it.

Craig


From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 6:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Colloquialisms/Slang/Dialect

Thank you, Bill! I looked up a few definitions of "colloquialism," but your explanation was much better.

Carol

--- On Mon, 9/12/11, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Coloquialisms/Slang/Dialect
To: [log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Date: Monday, September 12, 2011, 5:38 PM

Carol --

Dialects usually let you pin down a person's region of origin, ethnicity, or socioeconomic class. Slang lets you identify what social group they're identifying with, is frequently tied to age group, and can be very "volatile" over time. Colloquialisms, I think, are more generally defined on the basis of their "not sounding like the kind of thing you use in formal written English" and so can include a lot of different types of expressions.

For example, the "really" of "It was really impressive" strikes me as colloquial, but it's definitely not slang, and it's in probably the majority of AmE dialects. The use of "sick" to mean "impressively good," on the other hand, is slang, while modal-stacking ("might should" ) is a dialectal feature. But someone could refer to "sick" or "might should" as sounding colloquial, in a general sense.

I suspect that in traditional essay-marking, "coll." has frequently meant "sounds too informal, but is something I'd use in daily speech" while "dial." and "slang" have meant "sounds too informal, and is something other people say in daily speech."

--- Bill Spruiell

On Sep 12, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Carol Morrison wrote:

Dear ATEG Members:

Can someone explain and give examples of what a colloquialism is and how that differs from "slang" or "dialect" in speech and communication? One of my composition students wrote in her response paragraph regarding the various roles she is required to play the following: "As long as I communicate with my mother respectfully and refrain from the use of any colloquialisms, she’s fine."

Thank you.

Carol

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

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

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ---900601041-1788554593-1315920006=:4614-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 08:55:38 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Sims, Lynn D." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Definite Article Question In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A47FFD332FC0EB428262B1BEABF33521017C5B234F9DAPBREXCHaps_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_A47FFD332FC0EB428262B1BEABF33521017C5B234F9DAPBREXCHaps_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 4oCYVGhl4oCZIFdhbGwgU3RyZWV0IEpvdXJuYWwgaGFkIGFuIGludGVyZXN0aW5nIGFydGljbGUg b24gdGhpcyB2ZXJ5IHRvcGljIHllc3RlcmRheS4gIEx5bm4NCg0KaHR0cDovL29ubGluZS53c2ou Y29tL2FydGljbGUvU0IxMDAwMTQyNDA1MzExMTkwMzg5NTkwNDU3NjU0NjkxMDUyNTMyNzAyNC5o dG1sP0tFWVdPUkRTPWFuK2FydGljbGUrb2YrZmFpdGgrZm9yK21hcmtldGVycw0KDQpGcm9tOiBB c3NlbWJseSBmb3IgdGhlIFRlYWNoaW5nIG9mIEVuZ2xpc2ggR3JhbW1hciBbbWFpbHRvOkFURUdA TElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVV0gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIFQuIEouIFJheQ0KU2VudDogTW9uZGF5 LCBTZXB0ZW1iZXIgMTIsIDIwMTEgNjoxOSBQTQ0KVG86IEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVE VQ0KU3ViamVjdDogRGVmaW5pdGUgQXJ0aWNsZSBRdWVzdGlvbg0KDQpTb21lb25lIGFza2VkIHdo eSB3ZSBzdXBwbHkgInRoZSIgYmVmb3JlIHNvbWUgYnVzaW5lc3MgbmFtZXMgYW5kIG5vdCBiZWZv cmUNCm90aGVycy4gIEluIHRoaXMgdG93biB3ZSBoYXZlIHJlc3RhdXJhbnRzIHdpdGggbmFtZXMg c3VjaCBhcyBTbmFjayBTaGFjaywgQm91cmUsDQpEb3dudG93biBHcmlsbCwgTWNEb25hbGQncy4g IFdoeSB3b3VsZCBzb21lb25lIG5lZWQgdG8gc2F5ICJJJ20gZ29pbmcgdG8gZWF0IGF0DQpCb3Vy ZSIgYXMgb3Bwb3NlZCB0byAiSSdtIGRpbmluZyBhdCB0aGUgU25hY2sgU2hhY2siPw0KDQoNClRv IGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3Qn cyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9h dGVnLmh0bWwgYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCINCg0KVmlzaXQgQVRF RydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8NCg= --_000_A47FFD332FC0EB428262B1BEABF33521017C5B234F9DAPBREXCHaps_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+PGhlYWQ+PG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUgY29udGVu dD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij48bWV0YSBuYW1lPUdlbmVyYXRvciBjb250ZW50 PSJNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCAxMiAoZmlsdGVyZWQgbWVkaXVtKSI+PHN0eWxlPjwhLS0NCi8qIEZv bnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglw YW5vc2UtMToyIDE1IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OlRhaG9tYTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDExIDYgNCAzIDUgNCA0IDIgNDt9DQovKiBTdHlsZSBEZWZp bml0aW9ucyAqLw0KcC5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGxpLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgZGl2Lk1zb05vcm1hbA0KCXtt YXJnaW46MGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0K CWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLCJzZXJpZiI7fQ0KYTpsaW5rLCBzcGFuLk1z b0h5cGVybGluaw0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6Ymx1ZTsNCgl0ZXh0 LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCmE6dmlzaXRlZCwgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmtGb2xs b3dlZA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6cHVycGxlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVj b3JhdGlvbjp1bmRlcmxpbmU7fQ0KcA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJbXNvLW1h cmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87DQoJbWFyZ2luLXJpZ2h0OjBpbjsNCgltc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRv bS1hbHQ6YXV0bzsNCgltYXJnaW4tbGVmdDowaW47DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250 LWZhbWlseToiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIiwic2VyaWYiO30NCnAuc3dtZXNzYWdlLCBsaS5zd21l c3NhZ2UsIGRpdi5zd21lc3NhZ2UNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLW5hbWU6c3dfbWVzc2FnZTsNCgltc28t bWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzsNCgltYXJnaW4tcmlnaHQ6MGluOw0KCW1zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90 dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjBpbjsNCgliYWNrZ3JvdW5kOndoaXRlOw0KCWZv bnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO30NCnNw YW4uRW1haWxTdHlsZTE5DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOnBlcnNvbmFsLXJlcGx5Ow0KCWZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQoJY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RDt9DQouTXNvQ2hw RGVmYXVsdA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpleHBvcnQtb25seTsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0 O30NCkBwYWdlIFdvcmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtzaXplOjguNWluIDExLjBpbjsNCgltYXJnaW46MS4w aW4gMS4waW4gMS4waW4gMS4waW47fQ0KZGl2LldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtwYWdlOldvcmRTZWN0 aW9uMTt9DQotLT48L3N0eWxlPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVkZWZh dWx0cyB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIgc3BpZG1heD0iMTAyNiIgLz4NCjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPjwh LS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiPg0KPG86 aWRtYXAgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIGRhdGE9IjEiIC8+DQo8L286c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQ+PC94bWw+PCFb ZW5kaWZdLS0+PC9oZWFkPjxib2R5IGJnY29sb3I9d2hpdGUgbGFuZz1FTi1VUyBsaW5rPWJsdWUg dmxpbms9cHVycGxlPjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9V29yZFNlY3Rpb24xPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48 c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMt c2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPuKAmFRoZeKAmSBXYWxsIFN0cmVldCBKb3VybmFsIGhhZCBh biBpbnRlcmVzdGluZyBhcnRpY2xlIG9uIHRoaXMgdmVyeSB0b3BpYyB5ZXN0ZXJkYXkuwqAgTHlu bjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2Zv bnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjoj MUY0OTdEJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxz cGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1z ZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+aHR0cDovL29ubGluZS53c2ouY29tL2FydGljbGUvU0IxMDAw MTQyNDA1MzExMTkwMzg5NTkwNDU3NjU0NjkxMDUyNTMyNzAyNC5odG1sP0tFWVdPUkRTPWFuK2Fy dGljbGUrb2YrZmFpdGgrZm9yK21hcmtldGVyczxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFz cz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNh bGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bh bj48L3A+PGRpdj48ZGl2IHN0eWxlPSdib3JkZXI6bm9uZTtib3JkZXItdG9wOnNvbGlkICNCNUM0 REYgMS4wcHQ7cGFkZGluZzozLjBwdCAwaW4gMGluIDBpbic+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxi PjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5z LXNlcmlmIic+RnJvbTo8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2Zv bnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+IEFzc2VtYmx5IGZvciB0aGUgVGVhY2hp bmcgb2YgRW5nbGlzaCBHcmFtbWFyIFttYWlsdG86QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVXSA8 Yj5PbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgPC9iPlQuIEouIFJheTxicj48Yj5TZW50OjwvYj4gTW9uZGF5LCBTZXB0 ZW1iZXIgMTIsIDIwMTEgNjoxOSBQTTxicj48Yj5Ubzo8L2I+IEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElP LkVEVTxicj48Yj5TdWJqZWN0OjwvYj4gRGVmaW5pdGUgQXJ0aWNsZSBRdWVzdGlvbjxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48L2Rpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8 L286cD48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGFo b21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPlNvbWVvbmUgYXNrZWQgd2h5IHdlIHN1cHBseSAmcXVvdDt0aGUm cXVvdDsgYmVmb3JlIHNvbWUgYnVzaW5lc3MgbmFtZXMgYW5kIG5vdCBiZWZvcmU8bzpwPjwvbzpw Pjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+b3RoZXJzLiAmbmJzcDtJbiB0aGlzIHRvd24gd2Ug aGF2ZSByZXN0YXVyYW50cyB3aXRoIG5hbWVzIHN1Y2ggYXMgU25hY2sgU2hhY2ssIEJvdXJlLDxv OnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBz dHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz5Eb3dudG93biBHcmlsbCwg TWNEb25hbGQncy4gJm5ic3A7V2h5IHdvdWxkIHNvbWVvbmUgbmVlZCB0byBzYXkgJnF1b3Q7SSdt IGdvaW5nIHRvIGVhdCBhdDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNz PU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYi Jz5Cb3VyZSZxdW90OyBhcyBvcHBvc2VkIHRvICZxdW90O0knbSBkaW5pbmcgYXQgdGhlIFNuYWNr IFNoYWNrJnF1b3Q7PzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1z b05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbToxMi4wcHQnPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LWZh bWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48 cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5z LXNlcmlmIic+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05v cm1hbD5UbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRo ZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZSBhdDogaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJj aGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sIGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgJnF1b3Q7Sm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCZx dW90OyA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48cD5WaXNpdCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL2F0 ZWcub3JnLyA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48L2JvZHk+PC9odG1sPg= --_000_A47FFD332FC0EB428262B1BEABF33521017C5B234F9DAPBREXCHaps_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:19:10 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Definite Article Question In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EDDCD4CUAEXCH07univa_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EDDCD4CUAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 UGF1bCwNCiAgICBZb3UgY2FuIHNpdCBvbiBhIGd1aXRhciwgYnV0IGl04oCZcyBoYXJkIHRvIHNp dCBvbiDigJxndWl0YXIu4oCdICDigJxHdWl0YXLigJ0gY2FuIGJlIGNvbnN0cnVlZCBhcyBhIHBo eXNpY2FsICBpbnN0cnVtZW50IG9yIGFzIHNvbWV0aGluZyBtdWNoIG1vcmUgYWJzdHJhY3QuDQog ICAgSSBjYW4gb3duIGEgY2xhc3NpY2FsIGd1aXRhciAoSSBkbykgYnV0IHBsYXkgYSBkaWZmZXJl bnQga2luZCBvZiDigJxndWl0YXLigJ0gKGJsdWVzPykgd2hlbiBJIHBpY2sgaXQgdXAuIOKAnFdo YXQga2luZCBvZiBndWl0YXIgZG8geW91IHBsYXk/4oCdIGNhbiBiZSBhbiBhbWJpZ3VvdXMgcXVl c3Rpb24uDQogICAg4oCcSSBib3VnaHQgdGhlIGd1aXRhciBsYXN0IGZhbGwuIEkgbGVhcm5lZCBn dWl0YXIgd2hlbiBJIHdhcyB5b3VuZy7igJ0NCiAgIEkgZG9u4oCZdCBrbm93IGlmIGl0IG1ha2Vz IHNlbnNlIHRvIHJlZHVjZSBhbGwgdGhpcyB0byBydWxlcy4gU29tZSBvZiB3aGF0IHdlIG1lYW4g aXMgaGFyZCB0byBleHBsYWluIGV2ZW4gd2hlbiB3ZSBmZWVsIHdlIGtub3cgaXQuIFNvbWUgb2Yg aXQgKFdoeSDigJx0aGUgQnJvbnjigJ0/KSBtaWdodCBiZSBoaXN0b3JpY2FsIGFjY2lkZW50Lg0K DQpDcmFpZw0KDQpGcm9tOiBBc3NlbWJseSBmb3IgdGhlIFRlYWNoaW5nIG9mIEVuZ2xpc2ggR3Jh bW1hciBbbWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVV0gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIFBhdWwg RS4gRG9uaWdlcg0KU2VudDogTW9uZGF5LCBTZXB0ZW1iZXIgMTIsIDIwMTEgOTo0NCBQTQ0KVG86 IEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVQ0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IERlZmluaXRlIEFydGljbGUg UXVlc3Rpb24NCg0KSSBjYW4gcGxheSB0aGUgZ3VpdGFyIChjbGFzc2ljYWwsIG5hdGNoKSwgYW5k IFBhY28gY2FuIHBsYXkgZmx1dGUuIElzIHRoZXJlIGV2ZW4gYSBydWxlIGZvciB0aGlzIGZsZXhp YmlsaXR5Pw0KDQpQYXVsDQoNCiJJZiB0aGlzIHdlcmUgcGxheSdkIHVwb24gYSBzdGFnZSBub3cs IEkgY291bGQgY29uZGVtbiBpdCBhcyBhbiBpbXByb2JhYmxlIGZpY3Rpb24iIChfVHdlbGZ0aCBO aWdodF8gMy40LjEyNy0xMjgpLg0KDQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f DQpGcm9tOiAiYW1hcmVAYmVsbHNvdXRoLm5ldDxtYWlsdG86YW1hcmVAYmVsbHNvdXRoLm5ldD4i IDxhbWFyZUBCRUxMU09VVEguTkVUPG1haWx0bzphbWFyZUBCRUxMU09VVEguTkVUPj4NClRvOiBB VEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFU8bWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVT4N ClNlbnQ6IE1vbiwgU2VwdGVtYmVyIDEyLCAyMDExIDg6MTg6NDEgUE0NClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBE ZWZpbml0ZSBBcnRpY2xlIFF1ZXN0aW9uDQpPciBpbnN0cnVtZW50czogV2h5IGRvZXMgSmFtaWUg cGxheSBndWl0YXIgYnV0IFBhY28gcGxheXMgdGhlIGZsdXRlPw0KDQpTZW50IHZpYSBEcm9pZFgy IG9uIFZlcml6b24gV2lyZWxlc3PihKINCg0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIG1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0K RnJvbTogSmFuZSBTYXJhbCA8amFuZS5zYXJhbEBHTUFJTC5DT008bWFpbHRvOmphbmUuc2FyYWxA R01BSUwuQ09NPj4NClRvOiBBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFU8bWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElT VFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVT4NClNlbnQ6IE1vbiwgU2VwIDEyLCAyMDExIDIzOjQwOjU5IEdNVCsw MDowMA0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IERlZmluaXRlIEFydGljbGUgUXVlc3Rpb24NCk9yIHdoYXQgYWJv dXQgSW50ZXJzdGF0ZXM/ICBXZSBzYXkgVGhlIDUgYW5kIFRoZSAxNSBidXQgNzUsIDg1LCBhbmQg OTUuDQpKYW5lDQpPbiBNb24sIFNlcCAxMiwgMjAxMSBhdCA3OjE5IFBNLCBULiBKLiBSYXkgPHRq cmF5QG9sZW1pc3MuZWR1PG1haWx0bzp0anJheUBvbGVtaXNzLmVkdT4+IHdyb3RlOg0KU29tZW9u ZSBhc2tlZCB3aHkgd2Ugc3VwcGx5ICJ0aGUiIGJlZm9yZSBzb21lIGJ1c2luZXNzIG5hbWVzIGFu ZCBub3QgYmVmb3JlDQpvdGhlcnMuICBJbiB0aGlzIHRvd24gd2UgaGF2ZSByZXN0YXVyYW50cyB3 aXRoIG5hbWVzIHN1Y2ggYXMgU25hY2sgU2hhY2ssIEJvdXJlLA0KRG93bnRvd24gR3JpbGwsIE1j RG9uYWxkJ3MuICBXaHkgd291bGQgc29tZW9uZSBuZWVkIHRvIHNheSAiSSdtIGdvaW5nIHRvIGVh dCBhdA0KQm91cmUiIGFzIG9wcG9zZWQgdG8gIkknbSBkaW5pbmcgYXQgdGhlIFNuYWNrIFNoYWNr Ij8NCg0KDQpUbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0 IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZSBhdDogaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUv YXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sIGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQoN ClZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvDQoNClRvIGpvaW4gb3Ig bGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50 ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwg YW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCINCg0KVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBz aXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8NClRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBs aXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiBodHRwOi8vbGlz dHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwgYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvciBs ZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCINCg0KVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9y Zy8NCg= --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EDDCD4CUAEXCH07univa_ 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 bnQtc2l6ZTo4LjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7fQ0Kc3Bh bi5CYWxsb29uVGV4dENoYXINCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLW5hbWU6IkJhbGxvb24gVGV4dCBDaGFyIjsN Cgltc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJbXNvLXN0eWxlLWxpbms6IkJhbGxvb24gVGV4dCI7 DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO30NCnNwYW4uRW1haWxTdHlsZTIw DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOnBlcnNvbmFsLXJlcGx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJp Iiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQoJY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RDt9DQouTXNvQ2hwRGVmYXVsdA0KCXttc28t c3R5bGUtdHlwZTpleHBvcnQtb25seTsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O30NCkBwYWdlIFdvcmRT ZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtzaXplOjguNWluIDExLjBpbjsNCgltYXJnaW46MS4waW4gMS4waW4gMS4waW4g MS4waW47fQ0KZGl2LldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtwYWdlOldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMTt9DQotLT48L3N0 eWxlPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVkZWZhdWx0cyB2OmV4dD0iZWRp dCIgc3BpZG1heD0iMTAyNiIgLz4NCjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5 XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiPg0KPG86aWRtYXAgdjpleHQ9ImVk aXQiIGRhdGE9IjEiIC8+DQo8L286c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQ+PC94bWw+PCFbZW5kaWZdLS0+PC9oZWFk Pjxib2R5IGxhbmc9RU4tVVMgbGluaz1ibHVlIHZsaW5rPXB1cnBsZT48ZGl2IGNsYXNzPVdvcmRT ZWN0aW9uMT48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7 Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz5QYXVsLDxv OnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQt c2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjojMUY0 OTdEJz7CoMKgwqAgWW91IGNhbiBzaXQgb24gYSBndWl0YXIsIGJ1dCBpdOKAmXMgaGFyZCB0byBz aXQgb24g4oCcZ3VpdGFyLuKAncKgIOKAnEd1aXRhcuKAnSBjYW4gYmUgY29uc3RydWVkIGFzIGEg cGh5c2ljYWwgwqBpbnN0cnVtZW50IG9yIGFzIHNvbWV0aGluZyBtdWNoIG1vcmUgYWJzdHJhY3Qu IDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2Zv bnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjoj MUY0OTdEJz7CoMKgwqDCoEkgY2FuIG93biBhIGNsYXNzaWNhbCBndWl0YXIgKEkgZG8pIGJ1dCBw bGF5IGEgZGlmZmVyZW50IGtpbmQgb2Yg4oCcZ3VpdGFy4oCdIChibHVlcz8pIHdoZW4gSSBwaWNr IGl0IHVwLiDigJxXaGF0IGtpbmQgb2YgZ3VpdGFyIGRvIHlvdSBwbGF5P+KAnSBjYW4gYmUgYW4g YW1iaWd1b3VzIHF1ZXN0aW9uLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3Jt YWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJz YW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz7CoMKgwqAg4oCcSSBib3VnaHQgdGhlIGd1aXRhciBs YXN0IGZhbGwuIEkgbGVhcm5lZCBndWl0YXIgd2hlbiBJIHdhcyB5b3VuZy7igJ0gPG86cD48L286 cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEx LjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPsKg wqDCoEkgZG9u4oCZdCBrbm93IGlmIGl0IG1ha2VzIHNlbnNlIHRvIHJlZHVjZSBhbGwgdGhpcyB0 byBydWxlcy4gU29tZSBvZiB3aGF0IHdlIG1lYW4gaXMgaGFyZCB0byBleHBsYWluIGV2ZW4gd2hl biB3ZSBmZWVsIHdlIGtub3cgaXQuIFNvbWUgb2YgaXQgKFdoeSDigJx0aGUgQnJvbnjigJ0/KSBt aWdodCBiZSBoaXN0b3JpY2FsIGFjY2lkZW50LiA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PHAgY2xh c3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJD YWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3Nw YW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtm b250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPkNyYWlnPG86 cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1z aXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5 N0QnPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48ZGl2PjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9J2JvcmRlcjpu b25lO2JvcmRlci10b3A6c29saWQgI0I1QzRERiAxLjBwdDtwYWRkaW5nOjMuMHB0IDBpbiAwaW4g MGluJz48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7 Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz5Gcm9tOjwvc3Bhbj48L2I+PHNwYW4g c3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYi Jz4gQXNzZW1ibHkgZm9yIHRoZSBUZWFjaGluZyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXIgW21haWx0bzpB VEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFVdIDxiPk9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiA8L2I+UGF1bCBFLiBEb25p Z2VyPGJyPjxiPlNlbnQ6PC9iPiBNb25kYXksIFNlcHRlbWJlciAxMiwgMjAxMSA5OjQ0IFBNPGJy PjxiPlRvOjwvYj4gQVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVPGJyPjxiPlN1YmplY3Q6PC9iPiBS ZTogRGVmaW5pdGUgQXJ0aWNsZSBRdWVzdGlvbjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48 L2Rpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+PGRpdj48ZGl2Pjxw IGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkJvb2ttYW4gT2xkIFN0 eWxlIiwic2VyaWYiJz5JIGNhbiBwbGF5IHRoZSBndWl0YXIgKGNsYXNzaWNhbCwgbmF0Y2gpLCBh bmQgUGFjbyBjYW4gcGxheSBmbHV0ZS4gSXMgdGhlcmUgZXZlbiBhIHJ1bGUgZm9yIHRoaXMgZmxl eGliaWxpdHk/PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9y bWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LWZhbWlseToiQm9va21hbiBPbGQgU3R5bGUiLCJzZXJpZiIn PiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1h bD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkJvb2ttYW4gT2xkIFN0eWxlIiwic2VyaWYiJz5Q YXVsPGJyPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3Jt YWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNh bnMtc2VyaWYiJz4mcXVvdDtJZiB0aGlzIHdlcmUgcGxheSdkIHVwb24gYSBzdGFnZSBub3csIEkg Y291bGQgY29uZGVtbiBpdCBhcyBhbiBpbXByb2JhYmxlIGZpY3Rpb24mcXVvdDsgKF9Ud2VsZnRo IE5pZ2h0XyAzLjQuMTI3LTEyOCkuPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LWZhbWlseToiQm9v a21hbiBPbGQgU3R5bGUiLCJzZXJpZiInPiA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PGRpdj48cCBj bGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJCb29rbWFuIE9sZCBTdHls ZSIsInNlcmlmIic+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xh c3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LWZhbWlseToiQm9va21hbiBPbGQgU3R5bGUi LCJzZXJpZiInPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48ZGl2PjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9TXNv Tm9ybWFsIGFsaWduPWNlbnRlciBzdHlsZT0ndGV4dC1hbGlnbjpjZW50ZXInPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxl PSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+PGhy IHNpemU9MSB3aWR0aD0iMTAwJSIgYWxpZ249Y2VudGVyPjwvc3Bhbj48L2Rpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1N c29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206MTIuMHB0Jz48Yj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9u dC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPkZyb206PC9z cGFuPjwvYj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGFob21h Iiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPiAmcXVvdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86YW1hcmVAYmVsbHNvdXRoLm5l dCI+YW1hcmVAYmVsbHNvdXRoLm5ldDwvYT4mcXVvdDsgJmx0OzxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzphbWFy ZUBCRUxMU09VVEguTkVUIj5hbWFyZUBCRUxMU09VVEguTkVUPC9hPiZndDs8YnI+PGI+VG86PC9i PiA8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVIj5BVEVHQExJU1RTRVJW Lk1VT0hJTy5FRFU8L2E+PGJyPjxiPlNlbnQ6PC9iPiBNb24sIFNlcHRlbWJlciAxMiwgMjAxMSA4 OjE4OjQxIFBNPGJyPjxiPlN1YmplY3Q6PC9iPiBSZTogRGVmaW5pdGUgQXJ0aWNsZSBRdWVzdGlv bjwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHls ZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPk9yIGluc3RydW1lbnRzOiBXaHkg ZG9lcyBKYW1pZSBwbGF5IGd1aXRhciBidXQgUGFjbyBwbGF5cyB0aGUgZmx1dGU/PGJyPjxicj48 L3NwYW4+PGk+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFs Iiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzMzMzMzMyc+U2VudCB2aWEgRHJvaWRYMiBvbiBWZXJpem9u IFdpcmVsZXNz4oSiPC9zcGFuPjwvaT48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwi c2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3Jt YWw+PGJyPjxicj4tLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIG1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxkaXY+ PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOjEyLjBwdCc+PGI+PHNwYW4g c3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiIn PkZyb206IDwvc3Bhbj48L2I+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1p bHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPkphbmUgU2FyYWwgJmx0OzxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpq YW5lLnNhcmFsQEdNQUlMLkNPTSI+amFuZS5zYXJhbEBHTUFJTC5DT008L2E+Jmd0OzxiPjxicj5U bzogPC9iPjxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFUiPkFURUdATElT VFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVTwvYT48Yj48YnI+U2VudDogPC9iPk1vbiwgU2VwIDEyLCAyMDExIDIz OjQwOjU5IEdNVCswMDowMDxiPjxicj5TdWJqZWN0OiA8L2I+UmU6IERlZmluaXRlIEFydGljbGUg UXVlc3Rpb248bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1z b05vcm1hbD5PciB3aGF0IGFib3V0IEludGVyc3RhdGVzPyZuYnNwOyBXZSBzYXkgVGhlIDUgYW5k IFRoZSAxNSBidXQgNzUsIDg1LCBhbmQgOTUuPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBj bGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206MTIuMHB0Jz5KYW5lPG86cD48L286 cD48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+T24gTW9uLCBTZXAgMTIsIDIwMTEg YXQgNzoxOSBQTSwgVC4gSi4gUmF5ICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86dGpyYXlAb2xlbWlzcy5l ZHUiIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj50anJheUBvbGVtaXNzLmVkdTwvYT4mZ3Q7IHdyb3RlOjxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPlNvbWVvbmUgYXNrZWQgd2h5IHdlIHN1 cHBseSAmcXVvdDt0aGUmcXVvdDsgYmVmb3JlIHNvbWUgYnVzaW5lc3MgbmFtZXMgYW5kIG5vdCBi ZWZvcmUgPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+b3RoZXJzLiAmbmJz cDtJbiB0aGlzIHRvd24gd2UgaGF2ZSByZXN0YXVyYW50cyB3aXRoIG5hbWVzIHN1Y2ggYXMgU25h Y2sgU2hhY2ssIEJvdXJlLDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9y bWFsPkRvd250b3duIEdyaWxsLCBNY0RvbmFsZCdzLiAmbmJzcDtXaHkgd291bGQgc29tZW9uZSBu ZWVkIHRvIHNheSAmcXVvdDtJJ20gZ29pbmcgdG8gZWF0IGF0PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PC9kaXY+ PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+Qm91cmUmcXVvdDsgYXMgb3Bwb3NlZCB0byAmcXVvdDtJ J20gZGluaW5nIGF0IHRoZSBTbmFjayBTaGFjayZxdW90Oz88bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48 ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbToxMi4wcHQnPjxvOnA+ Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD48 L2Rpdj48L2Rpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+VG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RT RVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6IDxhIGhy ZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbCIgdGFyZ2V0 PSJfYmxhbmsiPmh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbDwv YT4gYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAmcXVvdDtKb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0JnF1b3Q7IDxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9wPjxwPlZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCA8YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5v cmcvIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+aHR0cDovL2F0ZWcub3JnLzwvYT4gPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+ PC9kaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxicj5UbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNF UlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZSBhdDogPGEgaHJl Zj0iaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sIj5odHRwOi8v bGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWw8L2E+IGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgJnF1 b3Q7Sm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCZxdW90OyA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48cD5WaXNpdCBB VEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgPGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL2F0ZWcub3JnLyI+aHR0cDovL2F0ZWcu b3JnLzwvYT4gPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9 TXNvTm9ybWFsPlRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2Ugdmlz aXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiA8YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYu bXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwiPmh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1 L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbDwvYT4gYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAmcXVvdDtKb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRo ZSBsaXN0JnF1b3Q7IDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxwPlZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCA8 YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvIj5odHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvPC9hPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+ PC9wPjwvZGl2PjwvYm9keT48L2h0bWw+ --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EDDCD4CUAEXCH07univa_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:24:16 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Colloquialisms/Slang/Dialect In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EDDCF65UAEXCH07univa_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EDDCF65UAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Q2Fyb2wsDQogICAgVGhlc2UgYXJlIHNvbWUgb2YgdGhlIG1vc3QgcHJvZm91bmQgcXVlc3Rpb25z IG9mIHdyaXRpbmcgcGVkYWdvZ3ksIGFuZCBJIGhlc2l0YXRlIHRvIG9mZmVyIGFueXRoaW5nIGxp a2UgYSBoYXJkIGFuZCBmYXN0IGFuc3dlci4gSSB3cmVzdGxlIHdpdGggaXQgZXZlcnkgZGF5Lg0K ICAgIE9uZSBvZiBteSBtYW50cmFzIGlzIGFuZCBoYXMgYmVlbiB0aGF0IOKAnG5vIG9uZSBjYW4g d3JpdGUgaW4gc29tZW9uZSBlbHNl4oCZcyBsYW5ndWFnZS7igJ0gV2hhdCBlbHNlIGRvZXMgdGhl IHN0dWRlbnQgaGF2ZSB0byB3b3JrIHdpdGggYnV0IHRoZSBsYW5ndWFnZSB0aGV5IGJyaW5nIHRv IHRoZSBjbGFzcz8gVGhleSBoYXZlIHRvIHRydXN0IHRoYXQsIGF0IGxlYXN0IGFzIGEgc3RhcnRp bmcgcG9pbnQuIEl0IHdpbGwgZ3JvdywgdGhvdWdoLiBJdCBoYXMgdG8gZ3Jvdy4gSG93IGRvIHdl IGludGVydmVuZSBpbiB3YXlzIHRoYXQgd2lsbCBoZWxwIHRoYXQgaGFwcGVuPw0KICAgIFdoYXQg ZG9lcyDigJxpZGVudGl0eeKAnSByZWFsbHkgbWVhbj8gSXTigJlzIG5vdCBqdXN0IGluIHRoZSBz dXJmYWNlIGZlYXR1cmVzIG9mIHRoZSBsYW5ndWFnZSB0aGV5IGJyaW5nLCBidXQgaW4gZXZlcnl0 aGluZyB0aGV5IGhhdmUgbGl2ZWQgdGhyb3VnaCwgZXZlcnl0aGluZyB0aGV5IGhhdmUgY29tZSB0 byBiZWxpZXZlIGFuZCB2YWx1ZS4gIFN0dWRlbnRzIGhhdmUgcmFyZWx5IGJlZW4gZ2l2ZW4gcGVy bWlzc2lvbiB0byBiZSBjb25mdXNlZCwgYnV0IGNvbmZ1c2lvbiBtaWdodCBiZSB0aGUgbW9zdCBo b25lc3Qgc3RhbmNlIHRvIHRha2UsIGFzIGl0IGlzIGZvciBzb21lIG9mIG91ciBiZXN0IHdyaXRl cnMuIFdlIGhhdmUgdG8gYmUgZ29vZCBsaXN0ZW5lcnMgYW5kIGFzayB0aGUgcmlnaHQga2luZHMg b2YgcXVlc3Rpb25zIChpbnN0ZWFkIG9mIG9mZmVyaW5nIG91ciBvd24gYW5zd2VycyB0b28gcmFw aWRseSBvciBxdWlja2x5LikNCiAgICBTdHVkZW50cyBoYXZlIGEgcmlnaHQgdG8gYmUgdGhlbXNl bHZlcywgYnV0IHRob3NlIHNlbHZlcyBhcmUgdmVyeSBtdWNoIGluIGZsdXguIFRoZXkgZG9u4oCZ dCBoYXZlIGV4cGVyaWVuY2Ugd2l0aCB0aGUgcmVmbGVjdGl2ZSBwcmFjdGljZSBvZiB3cml0aW5n LCBvZiBsb29raW5nIGJhY2sgYXQgdGhlaXIgb3duIHdvcmRzIGFuZCB0cnlpbmcgdG8gZmluZCBh IGNsZWFyZXIgb3IgbW9yZSB0aG91Z2h0ZnVsIG9yIG1vcmUgY29oZXJlbnQgd2F5IG9mIHNheWlu ZyBpdC4gVGhlIGFjdGl2aXR5IG9mIGxvb2tpbmcgZm9yIHRoZSByaWdodCB3b3JkIG9yIHRoZSBy aWdodCBwaHJhc2luZyBpcyBhbmQgb3VnaHQgdG8gYmUgYm91bmQgdXAgd2l0aGluIHRoZSB1bmZv bGRpbmcgcHVycG9zZXMgb2YgdGhlIHRleHQuIFJldmlzaW5nIGlzIG5vdCBjb3JyZWN0aW5nLg0K ICAgIFRvIHdyaXRlIHdlbGwgaW4gYW4gYWNhZGVtaWMgYW5kIHB1YmxpYyB3b3JsZCByZXF1aXJl cyB0YWtpbmcgeW91ciBwbGFjZSByZXNwZWN0ZnVsbHkgaW4gdGhlIG9uZ29pbmcgY29udmVyc2F0 aW9uLiBJdOKAmXMgdmVyeSBoYXJkIHRvIGRvLg0KICAgIEJlaW5nIG1vcmUgb3IgbGVzcyBjb2xs b3F1aWFsIG1heSBub3QgYmUgYSBvbmUgc2l6ZSBmaXRzIGFsbCBwcmVzY3JpcHRpb24uIElmIHlv dSBhc2tlZCBEYXZlIEJhcnJ5IG5vdCB0byBiZSBjb2xsb3F1aWFsLCB5b3Ugd291bGQgbG9zZSBE YXZlIEJhcnJ5LiBPbiB0aGUgb3RoZXIgaGFuZCwgYSBjb2xsb3F1aWFsIEdlb3JnZSBXaWxsIGp1 c3Qgd291bGRu4oCZdCBiZSBHZW9yZ2UgV2lsbC4gTXkgb3duIHBlcnNvbmFsaXR5IGlzIGluZm9y bWFsLCBidXQgSSBoYXZlIGxlYXJuZWQgdG8gaGVscCBwZW9wbGUgd2l0aCBkaWZmZXJlbnQgc3R5 bGVzLg0KICAgIFRoZSBzaG9ydCBhZHZpY2UgbWlnaHQgYmUgdG8gYXNrIHN0dWRlbnRzIHRvIGJl IGNvbGxvcXVpYWwgaW4gc29tZSBhc3NpZ25tZW50cy4g4oCcUGVyaGFwcyB0aGUgcHJvcGVyIG1l YXN1cmUgb2YgYSB3cml0ZXLigJlzIHRhbGVudCBpcyBoaXMgc2tpbGwgaW4gcmVuZGVyaW5nIGV2 ZXJ5ZGF5IHNwZWVjaOKAlHdoZW4gaXQgaXMgYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUgdG8gaGlzIHN0b3J54oCUYXMg d2VsbCBhcyBoaXMgYWJpbGl0eSB0byB0YXAsIHRvIGV4cGxvaXQsICB0aGUgYmVhdXR5LCBwb2V0 cnkgYW5kIHdpc2RvbSBpdCBjb250YWluc+KAnSAoUGF1bGUgTWFyc2hhbGwpLg0KICAgIFVsdGlt YXRlbHksIGJlYXV0eSwgcG9ldHJ5LCBhbmQgd2lzZG9tIGFyZSB3b3J0aHkgZ29hbHMuIFdyaXRp bmcgZm9ybWFsbHkgaXMsIGF0IGJlc3QsIGEgbWVhbnMgdG8gYW4gZW5kLg0KDQpDcmFpZw0KRnJv bTogQXNzZW1ibHkgZm9yIHRoZSBUZWFjaGluZyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXIgW21haWx0bzpB VEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFVdIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBDYXJvbCBNb3JyaXNvbg0KU2Vu dDogVHVlc2RheSwgU2VwdGVtYmVyIDEzLCAyMDExIDk6MjAgQU0NClRvOiBBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJW Lk1VT0hJTy5FRFUNClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBDb2xsb3F1aWFsaXNtcy9TbGFuZy9EaWFsZWN0DQoN CkNyYWlnIGFuZCBvdGhlcnM6IERvIHlvdSB0aGluayBzdHVkZW50cyBzaG91bGQgYXZvaWQgY29s bG9xdWlhbGlzbXMgaW4gdGhlaXIgd3JpdGluZz8gSSBoYXZlbid0IGluc3RydWN0ZWQgdGhlbSB0 byBkbyBzbyBhdCB0aGlzIHBvaW50LCBidXQgSSBhbSB3b25kZXJpbmcgaWYgImFjYWRlbWljIHdy aXRpbmciIHNob3VsZCBiZSBmcmVlIG9mIGNvbGxvcXVpYWxpc21zIGFuZC9vciBzbGFuZy4gQXMg bmV3IHdvcmRzIGNvbnRpbnVlIHRvIGVudGVyIHRoZSBsZXhpY29uLCBpdCBpcyBzb21ldGltZXMg ZGlmZmljdWx0IHRvIG1ha2UgdGhlIGRpc3RpbmN0aW9uLiBBbHNvLCBJIGRvbid0IHdhbnQgc3R1 ZGVudHMgdG8gbG9zZSB0aGVpciBpZGVudGl0eSBpbiB3cml0aW5nLiBUaGlzIGlzIGEgRnJlc2ht YW4gQ29tcC4gSSBjbGFzcyBhdCB0aGUgY29tbXVuaXR5IGNvbGxlZ2UgbGV2ZWwuDQoNCkJlc3Qt DQoNCkNhcm9sDQoNCg0KDQotLS0gT24gVHVlLCA5LzEzLzExLCBIYW5jb2NrLCBDcmFpZyBHIDxj aGFuY29ja0BBTEJBTlkuRURVPG1haWx0bzpjaGFuY29ja0BBTEJBTlkuRURVPj4gd3JvdGU6DQoN CkZyb206IEhhbmNvY2ssIENyYWlnIEcgPGNoYW5jb2NrQEFMQkFOWS5FRFU8bWFpbHRvOmNoYW5j b2NrQEFMQkFOWS5FRFU+Pg0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IENvbGxvcXVpYWxpc21zL1NsYW5nL0RpYWxl Y3QNClRvOiBBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFU8bWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVP SElPLkVEVT4NCkRhdGU6IFR1ZXNkYXksIFNlcHRlbWJlciAxMywgMjAxMSwgOTowMSBBTQ0KDQog ICAgSSB0aGluayBiZWluZyBjb2xsb3F1aWFsIGRvZXNu4oCZdCBpbiBhbmQgb2YgaXRzZWxmIG1h a2Ugc29tZXRoaW5nIHdyb25nLCBidXQgYSBjb2xsb3F1aWFsaXNtIGlzIG9mdGVuIGEgdmVyeSBz ZXQgZXhwcmVzc2lvbiwgc28gaXQgcnVucyB0aGUgcmlzayBhbHNvIG9mIHNlZW1pbmcgc3RhbGUu IOKAnFNoZeKAmXMgc2l0dGluZyBwcmV0dHku4oCdIOKAnEhl4oCZcyBhIG51dCBjYXNlLuKAnSDi gJxUaGF0IHBpc3NlcyBtZSBvZmYu4oCdIEFsbCB0aG9zZSBzdHJpa2UgbWUgYXMgdGhpbmdzIEkg d291bGQgc2F5IHF1aXRlIHJlYWRpbHkgYW5kIGVhc2lseSwgYnV0IG1pZ2h0IHRoaW5rIHR3aWNl IGFib3V0IGluIHdyaXRpbmcuDQoNCiAgIFRoZXkgZG8gaGF2ZSB0aGUgZWZmZWN0IG9mIHNlZW1p bmcgcmVsYXhlZCBhbmQgY29sb3JmdWwgYW5kIHNwb250YW5lb3VzIGFuZCBkb3duLXRvLWVhcnRo LiBNYXliZSDigJxkb3duLXRvLWVhcnRo4oCdIHdhcyBjb2xsb3F1aWFsIGF0IG9uZSB0aW1lLg0K DQogICBEbyB5b3Ugd2FudCB0byBzZWVtIGxpa2UgTWFyayBUd2FpbiBvciB3b3VsZCB5b3UgcHJl ZmVyIFdpbGxpYW0gQnVja2xleT8gVHdhaW4gaXMgY29sbG9xdWlhbDsgQnVja2xleSBwYWluc3Rh a2luZ2x5IGF2b2lkcyBpdC4NCg0KDQoNCkNyYWlnDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KRnJvbTogQXNzZW1ibHkg Zm9yIHRoZSBUZWFjaGluZyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXIgW21haWx0bzpBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJW Lk1VT0hJTy5FRFVdPG1haWx0bzpbbWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVV0+IE9u IEJlaGFsZiBPZiBDYXJvbCBNb3JyaXNvbg0KU2VudDogTW9uZGF5LCBTZXB0ZW1iZXIgMTIsIDIw MTEgNjozMSBQTQ0KVG86IEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVTxtYWlsdG86QVRFR0BMSVNU U0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVPg0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IENvbGxvcXVpYWxpc21zL1NsYW5nL0RpYWxl Y3QNCg0KDQoNClRoYW5rIHlvdSwgQmlsbCEgSSBsb29rZWQgdXAgYSBmZXcgZGVmaW5pdGlvbnMg b2YgImNvbGxvcXVpYWxpc20sIiBidXQgeW91ciBleHBsYW5hdGlvbiB3YXMgbXVjaCBiZXR0ZXIu DQoNCg0KDQpDYXJvbA0KDQotLS0gT24gTW9uLCA5LzEyLzExLCBTcHJ1aWVsbCwgV2lsbGlhbSBD IDxzcHJ1aTF3Y0BDTUlDSC5FRFU8aHR0cDovL3VzLm1jMTEyMS5tYWlsLnlhaG9vLmNvbS9tYy9j b21wb3NlP3RvPXNwcnVpMXdjQENNSUNILkVEVT4+IHdyb3RlOg0KDQpGcm9tOiBTcHJ1aWVsbCwg V2lsbGlhbSBDIDxzcHJ1aTF3Y0BDTUlDSC5FRFU8aHR0cDovL3VzLm1jMTEyMS5tYWlsLnlhaG9v LmNvbS9tYy9jb21wb3NlP3RvPXNwcnVpMXdjQENNSUNILkVEVT4+DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogQ29s b3F1aWFsaXNtcy9TbGFuZy9EaWFsZWN0DQpUbzogQVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVPGh0 dHA6Ly91cy5tYzExMjEubWFpbC55YWhvby5jb20vbWMvY29tcG9zZT90bz1BVEVHQExJU1RTRVJW Lk1VT0hJTy5FRFU+DQpEYXRlOiBNb25kYXksIFNlcHRlbWJlciAxMiwgMjAxMSwgNTozOCBQTQ0K DQpDYXJvbCAtLQ0KDQpEaWFsZWN0cyB1c3VhbGx5IGxldCB5b3UgcGluIGRvd24gYSBwZXJzb24n cyByZWdpb24gb2Ygb3JpZ2luLCBldGhuaWNpdHksIG9yIHNvY2lvZWNvbm9taWMgY2xhc3MuIFNs YW5nIGxldHMgeW91IGlkZW50aWZ5IHdoYXQgc29jaWFsIGdyb3VwIHRoZXkncmUgaWRlbnRpZnlp bmcgd2l0aCwgaXMgZnJlcXVlbnRseSB0aWVkIHRvIGFnZSBncm91cCwgYW5kIGNhbiBiZSB2ZXJ5 ICJ2b2xhdGlsZSIgb3ZlciB0aW1lLiBDb2xsb3F1aWFsaXNtcywgSSB0aGluaywgYXJlIG1vcmUg Z2VuZXJhbGx5IGRlZmluZWQgb24gdGhlIGJhc2lzIG9mIHRoZWlyICJub3Qgc291bmRpbmcgbGlr ZSB0aGUga2luZCBvZiB0aGluZyB5b3UgdXNlIGluIGZvcm1hbCB3cml0dGVuIEVuZ2xpc2giIGFu ZCBzbyBjYW4gaW5jbHVkZSBhIGxvdCBvZiBkaWZmZXJlbnQgdHlwZXMgb2YgZXhwcmVzc2lvbnMu DQoNCkZvciBleGFtcGxlLCB0aGUgInJlYWxseSIgb2YgIkl0IHdhcyByZWFsbHkgaW1wcmVzc2l2 ZSIgc3RyaWtlcyBtZSBhcyBjb2xsb3F1aWFsLCBidXQgaXQncyBkZWZpbml0ZWx5IG5vdCBzbGFu ZywgYW5kIGl0J3MgaW4gcHJvYmFibHkgdGhlIG1ham9yaXR5IG9mIEFtRSBkaWFsZWN0cy4gVGhl IHVzZSBvZiAic2ljayIgdG8gbWVhbiAiaW1wcmVzc2l2ZWx5IGdvb2QsIiBvbiB0aGUgb3RoZXIg aGFuZCwgaXMgc2xhbmcsIHdoaWxlIG1vZGFsLXN0YWNraW5nICgibWlnaHQgc2hvdWxkIiApIGlz IGEgZGlhbGVjdGFsIGZlYXR1cmUuIEJ1dCBzb21lb25lIGNvdWxkIHJlZmVyIHRvICJzaWNrIiBv ciAibWlnaHQgc2hvdWxkIiBhcyBzb3VuZGluZyBjb2xsb3F1aWFsLCBpbiBhIGdlbmVyYWwgc2Vu c2UuDQoNCkkgc3VzcGVjdCB0aGF0IGluIHRyYWRpdGlvbmFsIGVzc2F5LW1hcmtpbmcsICJjb2xs LiIgaGFzIGZyZXF1ZW50bHkgbWVhbnQgInNvdW5kcyB0b28gaW5mb3JtYWwsIGJ1dCBpcyBzb21l dGhpbmcgSSdkIHVzZSBpbiBkYWlseSBzcGVlY2giIHdoaWxlICJkaWFsLiIgYW5kICJzbGFuZyIg aGF2ZSBtZWFudCAic291bmRzIHRvbyBpbmZvcm1hbCwgYW5kIGlzIHNvbWV0aGluZyBvdGhlciBw ZW9wbGUgc2F5IGluIGRhaWx5IHNwZWVjaC4iDQoNCi0tLSBCaWxsIFNwcnVpZWxsDQoNCk9uIFNl cCAxMiwgMjAxMSwgYXQgMzoxOSBQTSwgQ2Fyb2wgTW9ycmlzb24gd3JvdGU6DQoNCkRlYXIgQVRF RyBNZW1iZXJzOg0KDQpDYW4gc29tZW9uZSBleHBsYWluIGFuZCBnaXZlIGV4YW1wbGVzIG9mIHdo YXQgYSBjb2xsb3F1aWFsaXNtIGlzIGFuZCBob3cgdGhhdCBkaWZmZXJzIGZyb20gInNsYW5nIiBv ciAiZGlhbGVjdCIgaW4gc3BlZWNoIGFuZCBjb21tdW5pY2F0aW9uPyBPbmUgb2YgbXkgY29tcG9z aXRpb24gc3R1ZGVudHMgd3JvdGUgaW4gaGVyIHJlc3BvbnNlIHBhcmFncmFwaCByZWdhcmRpbmcg dGhlIHZhcmlvdXMgcm9sZXMgc2hlIGlzIHJlcXVpcmVkIHRvIHBsYXkgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZzog IkFzIGxvbmcgYXMgSSBjb21tdW5pY2F0ZSB3aXRoIG15IG1vdGhlciByZXNwZWN0ZnVsbHkgYW5k IHJlZnJhaW4gZnJvbSB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIGFueSBjb2xsb3F1aWFsaXNtcywgc2hl4oCZcyBmaW5l LiINCg0KVGhhbmsgeW91Lg0KDQpDYXJvbA0KDQoNClRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNU U0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiBodHRw Oi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwgYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9p biBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCINCg0KVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9h dGVnLm9yZy8NCg0KVG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2 aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6DQogICAgIGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5t dW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbA0KYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0 aGUgbGlzdCINCg0KVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8NCg0K DQpUbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRoZSBs aXN0J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZSBhdDogaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2 ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sIGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQpWaXNpdCBB VEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL2F0ZWcub3JnLw0KDQpUbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRo aXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZSBh dDogaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sIGFuZCBzZWxl Y3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQoNClZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCBo dHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvDQo --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EDDCF65UAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+PGhlYWQ+PG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUgY29udGVu dD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij48bWV0YSBuYW1lPUdlbmVyYXRvciBjb250ZW50 PSJNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCAxNCAoZmlsdGVyZWQgbWVkaXVtKSI+PHN0eWxlPjwhLS0NCi8qIEZv bnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglw YW5vc2UtMToyIDE1IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OlRhaG9tYTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDExIDYgNCAzIDUgNCA0IDIgNDt9DQovKiBTdHlsZSBEZWZp bml0aW9ucyAqLw0KcC5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGxpLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgZGl2Lk1zb05vcm1hbA0KCXtt YXJnaW46MGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0K CWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLCJzZXJpZiI7fQ0KYTpsaW5rLCBzcGFuLk1z b0h5cGVybGluaw0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6Ymx1ZTsNCgl0ZXh0 LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCmE6dmlzaXRlZCwgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmtGb2xs b3dlZA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6cHVycGxlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVj b3JhdGlvbjp1bmRlcmxpbmU7fQ0KcA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJbXNvLW1h cmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87DQoJbWFyZ2luLXJpZ2h0OjBpbjsNCgltc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRv bS1hbHQ6YXV0bzsNCgltYXJnaW4tbGVmdDowaW47DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250 LWZhbWlseToiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIiwic2VyaWYiO30NCnAueWl2MTQ0MjM1NjYyM21zb25v cm1hbCwgbGkueWl2MTQ0MjM1NjYyM21zb25vcm1hbCwgZGl2LnlpdjE0NDIzNTY2MjNtc29ub3Jt YWwNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLW5hbWU6eWl2MTQ0MjM1NjYyM21zb25vcm1hbDsNCgltc28tbWFyZ2lu LXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzsNCgltYXJnaW4tcmlnaHQ6MGluOw0KCW1zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFs dDphdXRvOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjBpbjsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLCJzZXJpZiI7fQ0KcC55aXYxNDQyMzU2NjIzbXNvY2hwZGVm YXVsdCwgbGkueWl2MTQ0MjM1NjYyM21zb2NocGRlZmF1bHQsIGRpdi55aXYxNDQyMzU2NjIzbXNv Y2hwZGVmYXVsdA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtbmFtZTp5aXYxNDQyMzU2NjIzbXNvY2hwZGVmYXVsdDsN Cgltc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzsNCgltYXJnaW4tcmlnaHQ6MGluOw0KCW1zby1tYXJn aW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjBpbjsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0 Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLCJzZXJpZiI7fQ0Kc3Bhbi55aXYxNDQy MzU2NjIzbXNvaHlwZXJsaW5rDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1uYW1lOnlpdjE0NDIzNTY2MjNtc29oeXBl cmxpbms7fQ0Kc3Bhbi55aXYxNDQyMzU2NjIzbXNvaHlwZXJsaW5rZm9sbG93ZWQNCgl7bXNvLXN0 eWxlLW5hbWU6eWl2MTQ0MjM1NjYyM21zb2h5cGVybGlua2ZvbGxvd2VkO30NCnNwYW4ueWl2MTQ0 MjM1NjYyM2VtYWlsc3R5bGUxOA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtbmFtZTp5aXYxNDQyMzU2NjIzZW1haWxz dHlsZTE4O30NCnAueWl2MTQ0MjM1NjYyM21zb25vcm1hbDEsIGxpLnlpdjE0NDIzNTY2MjNtc29u b3JtYWwxLCBkaXYueWl2MTQ0MjM1NjYyM21zb25vcm1hbDENCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLW5hbWU6eWl2 MTQ0MjM1NjYyM21zb25vcm1hbDE7DQoJbWFyZ2luOjBpbjsNCgltYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOi4wMDAx cHQ7DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIiwi c2VyaWYiO30NCnNwYW4ueWl2MTQ0MjM1NjYyM21zb2h5cGVybGluazENCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLW5h bWU6eWl2MTQ0MjM1NjYyM21zb2h5cGVybGluazE7DQoJY29sb3I6Ymx1ZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29y YXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCnNwYW4ueWl2MTQ0MjM1NjYyM21zb2h5cGVybGlua2ZvbGxvd2Vk MQ0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtbmFtZTp5aXYxNDQyMzU2NjIzbXNvaHlwZXJsaW5rZm9sbG93ZWQxOw0K CWNvbG9yOnB1cnBsZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCnNwYW4ueWl2MTQ0 MjM1NjYyM2VtYWlsc3R5bGUxODENCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLW5hbWU6eWl2MTQ0MjM1NjYyM2VtYWls c3R5bGUxODE7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQoJY29sb3I6IzFG NDk3RDt9DQpwLnlpdjE0NDIzNTY2MjNtc29jaHBkZWZhdWx0MSwgbGkueWl2MTQ0MjM1NjYyM21z b2NocGRlZmF1bHQxLCBkaXYueWl2MTQ0MjM1NjYyM21zb2NocGRlZmF1bHQxDQoJe21zby1zdHls ZS1uYW1lOnlpdjE0NDIzNTY2MjNtc29jaHBkZWZhdWx0MTsNCgltc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6 YXV0bzsNCgltYXJnaW4tcmlnaHQ6MGluOw0KCW1zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvOw0K CW1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjBpbjsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlh bCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO30NCnNwYW4uRW1haWxTdHlsZTI4DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOnBl cnNvbmFsLXJlcGx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQoJY29s b3I6IzFGNDk3RDt9DQouTXNvQ2hwRGVmYXVsdA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpleHBvcnQtb25s eTsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO30NCkBwYWdlIFdvcmRTZWN0 aW9uMQ0KCXtzaXplOjguNWluIDExLjBpbjsNCgltYXJnaW46MS4waW4gMS4waW4gMS4waW4gMS4w aW47fQ0KZGl2LldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtwYWdlOldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMTt9DQotLT48L3N0eWxl PjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVkZWZhdWx0cyB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIg c3BpZG1heD0iMTAyNiIgLz4NCjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48 eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiPg0KPG86aWRtYXAgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQi IGRhdGE9IjEiIC8+DQo8L286c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQ+PC94bWw+PCFbZW5kaWZdLS0+PC9oZWFkPjxi b2R5IGxhbmc9RU4tVVMgbGluaz1ibHVlIHZsaW5rPXB1cnBsZT48ZGl2IGNsYXNzPVdvcmRTZWN0 aW9uMT48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9u dC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz5DYXJvbCw8bzpw PjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNp emU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3 RCc+wqDCoMKgIFRoZXNlIGFyZSBzb21lIG9mIHRoZSBtb3N0IHByb2ZvdW5kIHF1ZXN0aW9ucyBv ZiB3cml0aW5nIHBlZGFnb2d5LCBhbmQgSSBoZXNpdGF0ZSB0byBvZmZlciBhbnl0aGluZyBsaWtl IGEgaGFyZCBhbmQgZmFzdCBhbnN3ZXIuIEkgd3Jlc3RsZSB3aXRoIGl0IGV2ZXJ5IGRheS4gPG86 cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1z aXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5 N0QnPsKgwqDCoMKgT25lIG9mIG15IG1hbnRyYXMgaXMgYW5kIGhhcyBiZWVuIHRoYXQg4oCcbm8g b25lIGNhbiB3cml0ZSBpbiBzb21lb25lIGVsc2XigJlzIGxhbmd1YWdlLuKAnSBXaGF0IGVsc2Ug ZG9lcyB0aGUgc3R1ZGVudCBoYXZlIHRvIHdvcmsgd2l0aCBidXQgdGhlIGxhbmd1YWdlIHRoZXkg YnJpbmcgdG8gdGhlIGNsYXNzPyBUaGV5IGhhdmUgdG8gdHJ1c3QgdGhhdCwgYXQgbGVhc3QgYXMg YSBzdGFydGluZyBwb2ludC4gSXQgd2lsbCBncm93LCB0aG91Z2guIEl0IGhhcyB0byBncm93LiBI b3cgZG8gd2UgaW50ZXJ2ZW5lIGluIHdheXMgdGhhdCB3aWxsIGhlbHAgdGhhdCBoYXBwZW4/PG86 cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1z aXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5 N0QnPsKgwqDCoCBXaGF0IGRvZXMg4oCcaWRlbnRpdHnigJ0gcmVhbGx5IG1lYW4/IEl04oCZcyBu b3QganVzdCBpbiB0aGUgc3VyZmFjZSBmZWF0dXJlcyBvZiB0aGUgbGFuZ3VhZ2UgdGhleSBicmlu ZywgYnV0IGluIGV2ZXJ5dGhpbmcgdGhleSBoYXZlIGxpdmVkIHRocm91Z2gsIGV2ZXJ5dGhpbmcg dGhleSBoYXZlIGNvbWUgdG8gYmVsaWV2ZSBhbmQgdmFsdWUuwqAgU3R1ZGVudHMgaGF2ZSByYXJl bHkgYmVlbiBnaXZlbiBwZXJtaXNzaW9uIHRvIGJlIGNvbmZ1c2VkLCBidXQgY29uZnVzaW9uIG1p Z2h0IGJlIHRoZSBtb3N0IGhvbmVzdCBzdGFuY2UgdG8gdGFrZSwgYXMgaXQgaXMgZm9yIHNvbWUg b2Ygb3VyIGJlc3Qgd3JpdGVycy4gV2UgaGF2ZSB0byBiZSBnb29kIGxpc3RlbmVycyBhbmQgYXNr IHRoZSByaWdodCBraW5kcyBvZiBxdWVzdGlvbnMgKGluc3RlYWQgb2Ygb2ZmZXJpbmcgb3VyIG93 biBhbnN3ZXJzIHRvbyByYXBpZGx5IG9yIHF1aWNrbHkuKTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48 cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1p bHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz7CoMKgwqAgU3R1ZGVudHMg aGF2ZSBhIHJpZ2h0IHRvIGJlIHRoZW1zZWx2ZXMsIGJ1dCB0aG9zZSBzZWx2ZXMgYXJlIHZlcnkg bXVjaCBpbiBmbHV4LiBUaGV5IGRvbuKAmXQgaGF2ZSBleHBlcmllbmNlIHdpdGggdGhlIHJlZmxl Y3RpdmUgcHJhY3RpY2Ugb2Ygd3JpdGluZywgb2YgbG9va2luZyBiYWNrIGF0IHRoZWlyIG93biB3 b3JkcyBhbmQgdHJ5aW5nIHRvIGZpbmQgYSBjbGVhcmVyIG9yIG1vcmUgdGhvdWdodGZ1bCBvciBt b3JlIGNvaGVyZW50IHdheSBvZiBzYXlpbmcgaXQuIFRoZSBhY3Rpdml0eSBvZiBsb29raW5nIGZv ciB0aGUgcmlnaHQgd29yZCBvciB0aGUgcmlnaHQgcGhyYXNpbmcgaXMgYW5kIG91Z2h0IHRvIGJl IGJvdW5kIHVwIHdpdGhpbiB0aGUgdW5mb2xkaW5nIHB1cnBvc2VzIG9mIHRoZSB0ZXh0LiBSZXZp c2luZyBpcyBub3QgY29ycmVjdGluZy4gPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1z b05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJy aSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPsKgwqDCoMKgVG8gd3JpdGUgd2VsbCBpbiBh biBhY2FkZW1pYyBhbmQgcHVibGljIHdvcmxkIHJlcXVpcmVzIHRha2luZyB5b3VyIHBsYWNlIHJl c3BlY3RmdWxseSBpbiB0aGUgb25nb2luZyBjb252ZXJzYXRpb24uIEl04oCZcyB2ZXJ5IGhhcmQg dG8gZG8uPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHls ZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2Nv bG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPsKgwqDCoCBCZWluZyBtb3JlIG9yIGxlc3MgY29sbG9xdWlhbCBtYXkgbm90 IGJlIGEgb25lIHNpemUgZml0cyBhbGwgcHJlc2NyaXB0aW9uLiBJZiB5b3UgYXNrZWQgRGF2ZSBC YXJyeSBub3QgdG8gYmUgY29sbG9xdWlhbCwgeW91IHdvdWxkIGxvc2UgRGF2ZSBCYXJyeS4gT24g dGhlIG90aGVyIGhhbmQsIGEgY29sbG9xdWlhbCBHZW9yZ2UgV2lsbCBqdXN0IHdvdWxkbuKAmXQg YmUgR2VvcmdlIFdpbGwuIE15IG93biBwZXJzb25hbGl0eSBpcyBpbmZvcm1hbCwgYnV0IEkgaGF2 ZSBsZWFybmVkIHRvIGhlbHAgcGVvcGxlIHdpdGggZGlmZmVyZW50IHN0eWxlcy4gPG86cD48L286 cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEx LjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPsKg wqDCoMKgVGhlIHNob3J0IGFkdmljZSBtaWdodCBiZSB0byBhc2sgc3R1ZGVudHMgdG8gYmUgY29s bG9xdWlhbCBpbiBzb21lIGFzc2lnbm1lbnRzLiDigJxQZXJoYXBzIHRoZSBwcm9wZXIgbWVhc3Vy ZSBvZiBhIHdyaXRlcuKAmXMgdGFsZW50IGlzIGhpcyBza2lsbCBpbiByZW5kZXJpbmcgZXZlcnlk YXkgc3BlZWNo4oCUd2hlbiBpdCBpcyBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZSB0byBoaXMgc3RvcnnigJRhcyB3ZWxs IGFzIGhpcyBhYmlsaXR5IHRvIHRhcCwgdG8gZXhwbG9pdCwgwqB0aGUgYmVhdXR5LCBwb2V0cnkg YW5kIHdpc2RvbSBpdCBjb250YWluc+KAnSAoUGF1bGUgTWFyc2hhbGwpLiA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwv c3Bhbj48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0 O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+wqDCoMKg wqBVbHRpbWF0ZWx5LCBiZWF1dHksIHBvZXRyeSwgYW5kIHdpc2RvbSBhcmUgd29ydGh5IGdvYWxz LiBXcml0aW5nIGZvcm1hbGx5IGlzLCBhdCBiZXN0LCBhIG1lYW5zIHRvIGFuIGVuZC48bzpwPjwv bzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6 MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+ PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHls ZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2Nv bG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPkNyYWlnPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1h bD48Yj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGFob21hIiwi c2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPkZyb206PC9zcGFuPjwvYj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBw dDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPiBBc3NlbWJseSBmb3IgdGhlIFRl YWNoaW5nIG9mIEVuZ2xpc2ggR3JhbW1hciBbbWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVE VV0gPGI+T24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIDwvYj5DYXJvbCBNb3JyaXNvbjxicj48Yj5TZW50OjwvYj4gVHVl c2RheSwgU2VwdGVtYmVyIDEzLCAyMDExIDk6MjAgQU08YnI+PGI+VG86PC9iPiBBVEVHQExJU1RT RVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFU8YnI+PGI+U3ViamVjdDo8L2I+IFJlOiBDb2xsb3F1aWFsaXNtcy9TbGFu Zy9EaWFsZWN0PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48bzpwPiZu YnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD48dGFibGUgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsVGFibGUgYm9yZGVyPTAgY2VsbHNw YWNpbmc9MCBjZWxscGFkZGluZz0wPjx0cj48dGQgdmFsaWduPXRvcCBzdHlsZT0ncGFkZGluZzow aW4gMGluIDBpbiAwaW4nPjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPkNyYWlnIGFuZCBvdGhlcnM6 IERvIHlvdSB0aGluayBzdHVkZW50cyBzaG91bGQgYXZvaWQgY29sbG9xdWlhbGlzbXMgaW4gdGhl aXIgd3JpdGluZz8gSSBoYXZlbid0IGluc3RydWN0ZWQgdGhlbSB0byBkbyBzbyBhdCB0aGlzIHBv aW50LCBidXQgSSBhbSB3b25kZXJpbmcgaWYgJnF1b3Q7YWNhZGVtaWMgd3JpdGluZyZxdW90OyBz aG91bGQgYmUgZnJlZSBvZiBjb2xsb3F1aWFsaXNtcyBhbmQvb3Igc2xhbmcuIEFzIG5ldyB3b3Jk cyBjb250aW51ZSB0byBlbnRlciB0aGUgbGV4aWNvbiwgaXQgaXMgc29tZXRpbWVzIGRpZmZpY3Vs dCB0byBtYWtlIHRoZSBkaXN0aW5jdGlvbi4gQWxzbywgSSBkb24ndCB3YW50IHN0dWRlbnRzIHRv IGxvc2UgdGhlaXIgaWRlbnRpdHkgaW4gd3JpdGluZy4gVGhpcyBpcyBhIEZyZXNobWFuIENvbXAu IEkgY2xhc3MgYXQgdGhlJm5ic3A7Y29tbXVuaXR5IGNvbGxlZ2UgbGV2ZWwuPG86cD48L286cD48 L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PC9k aXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+QmVzdC08bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2 PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNs YXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD5DYXJvbCZuYnNwOzxicj48YnI+PGJyPjxicj4tLS0gT24gPGI+VHVlLCA5 LzEzLzExLCBIYW5jb2NrLCBDcmFpZyBHIDxpPiZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86Y2hhbmNvY2tA QUxCQU5ZLkVEVSI+Y2hhbmNvY2tAQUxCQU5ZLkVEVTwvYT4mZ3Q7PC9pPjwvYj4gd3JvdGU6PG86 cD48L286cD48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGJsb2NrcXVvdGUgc3R5bGU9J2JvcmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRlci1s ZWZ0OnNvbGlkICMxMDEwRkYgMS41cHQ7cGFkZGluZzowaW4gMGluIDBpbiA0LjBwdDttYXJnaW4t bGVmdDozLjc1cHQ7bWFyZ2luLXRvcDo1LjBwdDttYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOjUuMHB0Jz48cCBjbGFz cz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206MTIuMHB0Jz48YnI+RnJvbTogSGFuY29j aywgQ3JhaWcgRyAmbHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOmNoYW5jb2NrQEFMQkFOWS5FRFUiPmNoYW5j b2NrQEFMQkFOWS5FRFU8L2E+Jmd0Ozxicj5TdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogQ29sbG9xdWlhbGlzbXMvU2xh bmcvRGlhbGVjdDxicj5UbzogPGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVE VSI+QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVPC9hPjxicj5EYXRlOiBUdWVzZGF5LCBTZXB0ZW1i ZXIgMTMsIDIwMTEsIDk6MDEgQU08bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48ZGl2IGlkPXlpdjE0NDIzNTY2MjM+ PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz15aXYxNDQyMzU2NjIzbXNvbm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNp emU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0Qn PiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyBJIHRoaW5rIGJlaW5nIGNvbGxvcXVpYWwgZG9lc27igJl0IGlu IGFuZCBvZiBpdHNlbGYgbWFrZSBzb21ldGhpbmcgd3JvbmcsIGJ1dCBhIGNvbGxvcXVpYWxpc20g aXMgb2Z0ZW4gYSB2ZXJ5IHNldCBleHByZXNzaW9uLCBzbyBpdCBydW5zIHRoZSByaXNrIGFsc28g b2Ygc2VlbWluZyBzdGFsZS4g4oCcU2hl4oCZcyBzaXR0aW5nIHByZXR0eS7igJ0g4oCcSGXigJlz IGEgbnV0IGNhc2Uu4oCdIOKAnFRoYXQgcGlzc2VzIG1lIG9mZi7igJ0gQWxsIHRob3NlIHN0cmlr ZSBtZSBhcyB0aGluZ3MgSSB3b3VsZCBzYXkgcXVpdGUgcmVhZGlseSBhbmQgZWFzaWx5LCBidXQg bWlnaHQgdGhpbmsgdHdpY2UgYWJvdXQgaW4gd3JpdGluZy4gPC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9w PjwvZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPXlpdjE0NDIzNTY2MjNtc29ub3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQt c2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3 RCc+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7VGhleSBkbyBoYXZlIHRoZSBlZmZlY3Qgb2Ygc2VlbWluZyBy ZWxheGVkIGFuZCBjb2xvcmZ1bCBhbmQgc3BvbnRhbmVvdXMgYW5kIGRvd24tdG8tZWFydGguIE1h eWJlIOKAnGRvd24tdG8tZWFydGjigJ0gd2FzIGNvbGxvcXVpYWwgYXQgb25lIHRpbWUuPC9zcGFu PjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPXlpdjE0NDIzNTY2MjNtc29ub3JtYWw+PHNw YW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJp ZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IERvIHlvdSB3YW50IHRvIHNlZW0gbGlrZSBN YXJrIFR3YWluIG9yIHdvdWxkIHlvdSBwcmVmZXIgV2lsbGlhbSBCdWNrbGV5PyBUd2FpbiBpcyBj b2xsb3F1aWFsOyBCdWNrbGV5IHBhaW5zdGFraW5nbHkgYXZvaWRzIGl0LiA8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48 L286cD48L3A+PC9ibG9ja3F1b3RlPjxwIGNsYXNzPXlpdjE0NDIzNTY2MjNtc29ub3JtYWw+PHNw YW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJp ZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+Jm5ic3A7PC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPXlp djE0NDIzNTY2MjNtc29ub3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1m YW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+Q3JhaWc8L3NwYW4+PG86 cD48L286cD48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9eWl2MTQ0MjM1NjYyM21zb25vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0n Zm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjoj MUY0OTdEJz4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgPC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNz PXlpdjE0NDIzNTY2MjNtc29ub3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9u dC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+Jm5ic3A7PC9zcGFu PjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPXlpdjE0NDIzNTY2MjNtc29ub3JtYWw+PGI+PHNwYW4g c3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiIn PkZyb206PC9zcGFuPjwvYj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWls eToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+IEFzc2VtYmx5IGZvciB0aGUgVGVhY2hpbmcgb2YgRW5n bGlzaCBHcmFtbWFyIDxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpbbWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElP LkVEVV0iPlttYWlsdG86QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVXTwvYT4gPGI+T24gQmVoYWxm IE9mIDwvYj5DYXJvbCBNb3JyaXNvbjxicj48Yj5TZW50OjwvYj4gTW9uZGF5LCBTZXB0ZW1iZXIg MTIsIDIwMTEgNjozMSBQTTxicj48Yj5Ubzo8L2I+IDxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpBVEVHQExJU1RT RVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFUiPkFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVTwvYT48YnI+PGI+U3ViamVj dDo8L2I+IFJlOiBDb2xsb3F1aWFsaXNtcy9TbGFuZy9EaWFsZWN0PC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+ PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPXlpdjE0NDIzNTY2MjNtc29ub3JtYWw+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+ PHRhYmxlIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbFRhYmxlIGJvcmRlcj0wIGNlbGxzcGFjaW5nPTAgY2VsbHBh ZGRpbmc9MD48dHI+PHRkIHZhbGlnbj10b3Agc3R5bGU9J3BhZGRpbmc6MGluIDBpbiAwaW4gMGlu Jz48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPXlpdjE0NDIzNTY2MjNtc29ub3JtYWw+VGhhbmsgeW91LCBCaWxsISBJ IGxvb2tlZCB1cCBhIGZldyBkZWZpbml0aW9ucyBvZiAmcXVvdDtjb2xsb3F1aWFsaXNtLCZxdW90 OyBidXQgeW91ciBleHBsYW5hdGlvbiB3YXMgbXVjaCBiZXR0ZXIuPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PC9k aXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz15aXYxNDQyMzU2NjIzbXNvbm9ybWFsPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+ PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9eWl2MTQ0MjM1NjYyM21zb25vcm1hbD5DYXJvbDxicj48 YnI+LS0tIE9uIDxiPk1vbiwgOS8xMi8xMSwgU3BydWllbGwsIFdpbGxpYW0gQyA8aT4mbHQ7PGEg aHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL3VzLm1jMTEyMS5tYWlsLnlhaG9vLmNvbS9tYy9jb21wb3NlP3RvPXNwcnVp MXdjQENNSUNILkVEVSIgdGFyZ2V0PSJfYmxhbmsiPnNwcnVpMXdjQENNSUNILkVEVTwvYT4mZ3Q7 PC9pPjwvYj4gd3JvdGU6PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGJsb2NrcXVvdGUgc3R5bGU9J2Jv cmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRlci1sZWZ0OnNvbGlkICMxMDEwRkYgMS41cHQ7cGFkZGluZzowaW4gMGlu IDBpbiA0LjBwdDttYXJnaW4tbGVmdDozLjc1cHQ7bWFyZ2luLXRvcDo1LjBwdDttYXJnaW4tYm90 dG9tOjUuMHB0Jz48cCBjbGFzcz15aXYxNDQyMzU2NjIzbXNvbm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtYXJnaW4t Ym90dG9tOjEyLjBwdCc+PGJyPkZyb206IFNwcnVpZWxsLCBXaWxsaWFtIEMgJmx0OzxhIGhyZWY9 Imh0dHA6Ly91cy5tYzExMjEubWFpbC55YWhvby5jb20vbWMvY29tcG9zZT90bz1zcHJ1aTF3Y0BD TUlDSC5FRFUiIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5zcHJ1aTF3Y0BDTUlDSC5FRFU8L2E+Jmd0Ozxicj5T dWJqZWN0OiBSZTogQ29sb3F1aWFsaXNtcy9TbGFuZy9EaWFsZWN0PGJyPlRvOiA8YSBocmVmPSJo dHRwOi8vdXMubWMxMTIxLm1haWwueWFob28uY29tL21jL2NvbXBvc2U/dG89QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VS Vi5NVU9ISU8uRURVIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVPC9h Pjxicj5EYXRlOiBNb25kYXksIFNlcHRlbWJlciAxMiwgMjAxMSwgNTozOCBQTTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+ PC9wPjwvYmxvY2txdW90ZT48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPXlpdjE0NDIzNTY2MjNtc29ub3JtYWw+Q2Fy b2wgLS08YnI+PGJyPkRpYWxlY3RzIHVzdWFsbHkgbGV0IHlvdSBwaW4gZG93biBhIHBlcnNvbidz IHJlZ2lvbiBvZiBvcmlnaW4sIGV0aG5pY2l0eSwgb3Igc29jaW9lY29ub21pYyBjbGFzcy4gU2xh bmcgbGV0cyB5b3UgaWRlbnRpZnkgd2hhdCBzb2NpYWwgZ3JvdXAgdGhleSdyZSBpZGVudGlmeWlu ZyB3aXRoLCBpcyBmcmVxdWVudGx5IHRpZWQgdG8gYWdlIGdyb3VwLCBhbmQgY2FuIGJlIHZlcnkg JnF1b3Q7dm9sYXRpbGUmcXVvdDsgb3ZlciB0aW1lLiBDb2xsb3F1aWFsaXNtcywgSSB0aGluaywg YXJlIG1vcmUgZ2VuZXJhbGx5IGRlZmluZWQgb24gdGhlIGJhc2lzIG9mIHRoZWlyICZxdW90O25v dCBzb3VuZGluZyBsaWtlIHRoZSBraW5kIG9mIHRoaW5nIHlvdSB1c2UgaW4gZm9ybWFsIHdyaXR0 ZW4gRW5nbGlzaCZxdW90OyBhbmQgc28gY2FuIGluY2x1ZGUgYSBsb3Qgb2YgZGlmZmVyZW50IHR5 cGVzIG9mIGV4cHJlc3Npb25zLjxicj48YnI+Rm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIHRoZSAmcXVvdDtyZWFsbHkm cXVvdDsgb2YgJnF1b3Q7SXQgd2FzIHJlYWxseSBpbXByZXNzaXZlJnF1b3Q7IHN0cmlrZXMgbWUg YXMgY29sbG9xdWlhbCwgYnV0IGl0J3MgZGVmaW5pdGVseSBub3Qgc2xhbmcsIGFuZCBpdCdzIGlu IHByb2JhYmx5IHRoZSBtYWpvcml0eSBvZiBBbUUgZGlhbGVjdHMuIFRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgJnF1b3Q7 c2ljayZxdW90OyB0byBtZWFuICZxdW90O2ltcHJlc3NpdmVseSBnb29kLCZxdW90OyBvbiB0aGUg b3RoZXIgaGFuZCwgaXMgc2xhbmcsIHdoaWxlIG1vZGFsLXN0YWNraW5nICgmcXVvdDttaWdodCBz aG91bGQmcXVvdDsgKSBpcyBhIGRpYWxlY3RhbCBmZWF0dXJlLiBCdXQgc29tZW9uZSBjb3VsZCBy ZWZlciB0byAmcXVvdDtzaWNrJnF1b3Q7IG9yICZxdW90O21pZ2h0IHNob3VsZCZxdW90OyBhcyBz b3VuZGluZyBjb2xsb3F1aWFsLCBpbiBhIGdlbmVyYWwgc2Vuc2UuPGJyPjxicj5JIHN1c3BlY3Qg dGhhdCBpbiB0cmFkaXRpb25hbCBlc3NheS1tYXJraW5nLCAmcXVvdDtjb2xsLiZxdW90OyBoYXMg ZnJlcXVlbnRseSBtZWFudCAmcXVvdDtzb3VuZHMgdG9vIGluZm9ybWFsLCBidXQgaXMgc29tZXRo aW5nIEknZCB1c2UgaW4gZGFpbHkgc3BlZWNoJnF1b3Q7IHdoaWxlICZxdW90O2RpYWwuJnF1b3Q7 IGFuZCAmcXVvdDtzbGFuZyZxdW90OyBoYXZlIG1lYW50ICZxdW90O3NvdW5kcyB0b28gaW5mb3Jt YWwsIGFuZCBpcyBzb21ldGhpbmcgb3RoZXIgcGVvcGxlIHNheSBpbiBkYWlseSBzcGVlY2guJnF1 b3Q7PGJyPjxicj4tLS0gQmlsbCBTcHJ1aWVsbDxicj48YnI+T24gU2VwIDEyLCAyMDExLCBhdCAz OjE5IFBNLCBDYXJvbCBNb3JyaXNvbiB3cm90ZTo8YnI+PGJyPkRlYXIgQVRFRyBNZW1iZXJzOjxi cj48YnI+Q2FuIHNvbWVvbmUgZXhwbGFpbiBhbmQgZ2l2ZSBleGFtcGxlcyBvZiB3aGF0IGEgY29s bG9xdWlhbGlzbSBpcyBhbmQgaG93IHRoYXQgZGlmZmVycyBmcm9tICZxdW90O3NsYW5nJnF1b3Q7 IG9yICZxdW90O2RpYWxlY3QmcXVvdDsgaW4gc3BlZWNoIGFuZCBjb21tdW5pY2F0aW9uPyBPbmUg b2YgbXkgY29tcG9zaXRpb24gc3R1ZGVudHMgd3JvdGUgaW4gaGVyIHJlc3BvbnNlIHBhcmFncmFw aCByZWdhcmRpbmcgdGhlIHZhcmlvdXMgcm9sZXMgc2hlIGlzIHJlcXVpcmVkIHRvIHBsYXkgdGhl IGZvbGxvd2luZzogJnF1b3Q7QXMgbG9uZyBhcyBJIGNvbW11bmljYXRlIHdpdGggbXkgbW90aGVy IHJlc3BlY3RmdWxseSBhbmQgcmVmcmFpbiBmcm9tIHRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgYW55IGNvbGxvcXVpYWxp c21zLCBzaGXigJlzIGZpbmUuJnF1b3Q7PGJyPjxicj5UaGFuayB5b3UuPGJyPjxicj5DYXJvbDxi cj48YnI+PGJyPlRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2Ugdmlz aXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiA8YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYu bXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwiIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5odHRwOi8vbGlz dHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWw8L2E+IGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgJnF1b3Q7 Sm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCZxdW90Ozxicj48YnI+VmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRl IGF0IDxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8iIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5odHRwOi8vYXRl Zy5vcmcvPC9hPjxicj48YnI+VG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBs ZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6PGJyPiZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsm bmJzcDsmbmJzcDs8YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9h dGVnLmh0bWwiIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5odHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNo aXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWw8L2E+PGJyPmFuZCBzZWxlY3QgJnF1b3Q7Sm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUg bGlzdCZxdW90Ozxicj48YnI+VmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IDxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6 Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8iIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5odHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvPC9hPjxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjwvdGQ+PC90cj48L3RhYmxlPjxwIGNsYXNzPXlpdjE0NDIzNTY2MjNtc29u b3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwi c2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPlRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2Ug dmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiA8YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNl cnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwiIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5odHRwOi8v bGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWw8L2E+IGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgJnF1 b3Q7Sm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCZxdW90OyA8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PGRp dj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+VmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IDxhIGhyZWY9Imh0 dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8iIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5odHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvPC9hPjxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjwvdGQ+PC90cj48L3RhYmxlPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3Bh biBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2Vy aWYiJz5UbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRo ZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZSBhdDogPGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hp by5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sIj5odHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNo aXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWw8L2E+IGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgJnF1b3Q7Sm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlz dCZxdW90OyA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PHA+VmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0 IDxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8iPmh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy88L2E+PG86cD48L286 cD48L3A+PC9kaXY+PC9ib2R5PjwvaHRtbD4 --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EDDCF65UAEXCH07univa_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:45:18 +0000 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Colloquialisms/Slang/Dialect In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Carol and Craig, I think asking students *not* to use colloquialisms can have very different effects depending on the student's level of exposure to formal written English (I'm not disagreeing at all with Craig's position here; I'm just wanting to bring in an additional factor). Students' notions of what counts as a colloquialism (and our notions too) require, at base, a recognition that something occurs quite frequently in speech but doesn't show up in print, at least in more formal writing. But that presupposes that the person making the decision has a large array of experiences with written texts to draw inferences from. I'm not saying people are consciously looking at text and thinking, "hmmm... haven't seen 'bogus' yet; put it on the possible colloquialism list," but rather that we develop expectations about text from dealing with text, and those expectations render a given usage more or less surprising. If I encounter "bogus" in a formal research article, it triggers a bit of surprise, and it's probably the recognition of that -- the "I hit a speed bump" feeling -- that makes me think it's colloquial. And those expectations can be genre-specific. A number of my students in the past have had little experience with sustained reading of longer, more-formal nonfiction texts. They don't, therefore, have a good sense of what would count as a colloquialism. They can easily recognize situation-inappropriate word choices in other environments, of course, but that doesn't let them eye a phrase in an essay and decide whether it's likely to be colloquial or not. Telling those students to avoid colloquialisms, or asking them to gauge the effect of a deliberate use of colloquialism, is asking them to do something they don't have the knowledge/experience base for yet. You can, of course, go over a few example colloquialisms to raise awareness of what you're talking about, but getting a dynamic, flexible sense of what counts as a colloquialism just....takes a ton of reading, and a major sub-ton of that should be nonfiction. Otherwise, they're likely to scan formal writing for expressions they do find surprising and then salt those in in an attempt to be formal (which is why we can end up with "in which" as the faux-formal equivalent of "that"). -- Bill Spruiell On Sep 13, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Hancock, Craig G wrote: Carol, These are some of the most profound questions of writing pedagogy, and I hesitate to offer anything like a hard and fast answer. I wrestle with it every day. One of my mantras is and has been that �no one can write in someone else�s language.� What else does the student have to work with but the language they bring to the class? They have to trust that, at least as a starting point. It will grow, though. It has to grow. How do we intervene in ways that will help that happen? What does �identity� really mean? It�s not just in the surface features of the language they bring, but in everything they have lived through, everything they have come to believe and value. Students have rarely been given permission to be confused, but confusion might be the most honest stance to take, as it is for some of our best writers. We have to be good listeners and ask the right kinds of questions (instead of offering our own answers too rapidly or quickly.) Students have a right to be themselves, but those selves are very much in flux. They don�t have experience with the reflective practice of writing, of looking back at their own words and trying to find a clearer or more thoughtful or more coherent way of saying it. The activity of looking for the right word or the right phrasing is and ought to be bound up within the unfolding purposes of the text. Revising is not correcting. To write well in an academic and public world requires taking your place respectfully in the ongoing conversation. It�s very hard to do. Being more or less colloquial may not be a one size fits all prescription. If you asked Dave Barry not to be colloquial, you would lose Dave Barry. On the other hand, a colloquial George Will just wouldn�t be George Will. My own personality is informal, but I have learned to help people with different styles. The short advice might be to ask students to be colloquial in some assignments. �Perhaps the proper measure of a writer�s talent is his skill in rendering everyday speech�when it is appropriate to his story�as well as his ability to tap, to exploit, the beauty, poetry and wisdom it contains� (Paule Marshall). Ultimately, beauty, poetry, and wisdom are worthy goals. Writing formally is, at best, a means to an end. Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:20 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Colloquialisms/Slang/Dialect Craig and others: Do you think students should avoid colloquialisms in their writing? I haven't instructed them to do so at this point, but I am wondering if "academic writing" should be free of colloquialisms and/or slang. As new words continue to enter the lexicon, it is sometimes difficult to make the distinction. Also, I don't want students to lose their identity in writing. This is a Freshman Comp. I class at the community college level. Best- Carol --- On Tue, 9/13/11, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Colloquialisms/Slang/Dialect To: [log in to unmask] Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 9:01 AM I think being colloquial doesn�t in and of itself make something wrong, but a colloquialism is often a very set expression, so it runs the risk also of seeming stale. �She�s sitting pretty.� �He�s a nut case.� �That pisses me off.� All those strike me as things I would say quite readily and easily, but might think twice about in writing. They do have the effect of seeming relaxed and colorful and spontaneous and down-to-earth. Maybe �down-to-earth� was colloquial at one time. Do you want to seem like Mark Twain or would you prefer William Buckley? Twain is colloquial; Buckley painstakingly avoids it. Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 6:31 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Colloquialisms/Slang/Dialect Thank you, Bill! I looked up a few definitions of "colloquialism," but your explanation was much better. Carol --- On Mon, 9/12/11, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask][log in to unmask]>> wrote: From: Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask][log in to unmask]>> Subject: Re: Coloquialisms/Slang/Dialect To: [log in to unmask][log in to unmask]> Date: Monday, September 12, 2011, 5:38 PM Carol -- Dialects usually let you pin down a person's region of origin, ethnicity, or socioeconomic class. Slang lets you identify what social group they're identifying with, is frequently tied to age group, and can be very "volatile" over time. Colloquialisms, I think, are more generally defined on the basis of their "not sounding like the kind of thing you use in formal written English" and so can include a lot of different types of expressions. For example, the "really" of "It was really impressive" strikes me as colloquial, but it's definitely not slang, and it's in probably the majority of AmE dialects. The use of "sick" to mean "impressively good," on the other hand, is slang, while modal-stacking ("might should" ) is a dialectal feature. But someone could refer to "sick" or "might should" as sounding colloquial, in a general sense. I suspect that in traditional essay-marking, "coll." has frequently meant "sounds too informal, but is something I'd use in daily speech" while "dial." and "slang" have meant "sounds too informal, and is something other people say in daily speech." --- Bill Spruiell On Sep 12, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Carol Morrison wrote: Dear ATEG Members: Can someone explain and give examples of what a colloquialism is and how that differs from "slang" or "dialect" in speech and communication? One of my composition students wrote in her response paragraph regarding the various roles she is required to play the following: "As long as I communicate with my mother respectfully and refrain from the use of any colloquialisms, she�s fine." Thank you. Carol To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:13:06 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Colloquialisms/Slang/Dialect In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-939216917-1315955586=:14808" --0-939216917-1315955586=:14808 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thank you so much Bill and Craig for your comprehensive responses. I hadn't given this much thought until my student mentioned her own restraint from using colloquialisms so as not to displease her mother. I also noticed in her practice paragraph that she appeared to be doing some Thesaurus writing, as many of her word choices seemed a bit off. All of my COMP I students will be submitting their first essays this week and it will be interesting to me to see their styles of expression, which I'm sure will range from too informal to overly formal, hopefully most of them striking a middle ground that is comfortable for them. We discussed briefly the terms "diction" and "tone" and how their writing should not be as informal as their interactions on Facebook and email with friends, texting, etc. but not as stilted and elevated as some academic prose. I also mentioned the importance of writing for an audience, myself and the other students being their audience. They have the essays from professional writers in their text to write responses to and to use as models for academic discourse. The assignment is to write a response paper to one of the essays they have read, based on the prompts I have given them. Thank you again for your insights! Carol Best- Carol --- On Tue, 9/13/11, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Colloquialisms/Slang/Dialect To: [log in to unmask] Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 1:45 PM Carol and Craig, I think asking students *not* to use colloquialisms can have very different effects depending on the student's level of exposure to formal written English (I'm not disagreeing at all with Craig's position here; I'm just wanting to bring in an additional factor). Students' notions of what counts as a colloquialism (and our notions too) require, at base, a recognition that something occurs quite frequently in speech but doesn't show up in print, at least in more formal writing. But that presupposes that the person making the decision has a large array of experiences with written texts to draw inferences from. I'm not saying people are consciously looking at text and thinking, "hmmm... haven't seen 'bogus' yet; put it on the possible colloquialism list," but rather that we develop expectations about text from dealing with text, and those expectations render a given usage more or less surprising. If I encounter "bogus" in a formal research article, it triggers a bit of surprise, and it's probably the recognition of that -- the "I hit a speed bump" feeling -- that makes me think it's colloquial. And those expectations can be genre-specific. A number of my students in the past have had little experience with sustained reading of longer, more-formal nonfiction texts. They don't, therefore, have a good sense of what would count as a colloquialism. They can easily recognize situation-inappropriate word choices in other environments, of course, but that doesn't let them eye a phrase in an essay and decide whether it's likely to be colloquial or not. Telling those students to avoid colloquialisms, or asking them to gauge the effect of a deliberate use of colloquialism, is asking them to do something they don't have the knowledge/experience base for yet. You can, of course, go over a few example colloquialisms to raise awareness of what you're talking about, but getting a dynamic, flexible sense of what counts as a colloquialism just....takes a ton of reading, and a major sub-ton of that should be nonfiction. Otherwise, they're likely to scan formal writing for expressions they do find surprising and then salt those in in an attempt to be formal (which is why we can end up with "in which" as the faux-formal equivalent of "that"). -- Bill Spruiell On Sep 13, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Hancock, Craig G wrote: Carol, These are some of the most profound questions of writing pedagogy, and I hesitate to offer anything like a hard and fast answer. I wrestle with it every day. One of my mantras is and has been that “no one can write in someone else’s language.” What else does the student have to work with but the language they bring to the class? They have to trust that, at least as a starting point. It will grow, though. It has to grow. How do we intervene in ways that will help that happen? What does “identity” really mean? It’s not just in the surface features of the language they bring, but in everything they have lived through, everything they have come to believe and value. Students have rarely been given permission to be confused, but confusion might be the most honest stance to take, as it is for some of our best writers. We have to be good listeners and ask the right kinds of questions (instead of offering our own answers too rapidly or quickly.) Students have a right to be themselves, but those selves are very much in flux. They don’t have experience with the reflective practice of writing, of looking back at their own words and trying to find a clearer or more thoughtful or more coherent way of saying it. The activity of looking for the right word or the right phrasing is and ought to be bound up within the unfolding purposes of the text. Revising is not correcting. To write well in an academic and public world requires taking your place respectfully in the ongoing conversation. It’s very hard to do. Being more or less colloquial may not be a one size fits all prescription. If you asked Dave Barry not to be colloquial, you would lose Dave Barry. On the other hand, a colloquial George Will just wouldn’t be George Will. My own personality is informal, but I have learned to help people with different styles. The short advice might be to ask students to be colloquial in some assignments. “Perhaps the proper measure of a writer’s talent is his skill in rendering everyday speech—when it is appropriate to his story—as well as his ability to tap, to exploit, the beauty, poetry and wisdom it contains” (Paule Marshall). Ultimately, beauty, poetry, and wisdom are worthy goals. Writing formally is, at best, a means to an end. Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:20 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Colloquialisms/Slang/Dialect Craig and others: Do you think students should avoid colloquialisms in their writing? I haven't instructed them to do so at this point, but I am wondering if "academic writing" should be free of colloquialisms and/or slang. As new words continue to enter the lexicon, it is sometimes difficult to make the distinction. Also, I don't want students to lose their identity in writing. This is a Freshman Comp. I class at the community college level. Best- Carol --- On Tue, 9/13/11, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Colloquialisms/Slang/Dialect To: [log in to unmask] Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 9:01 AM I think being colloquial doesn’t in and of itself make something wrong, but a colloquialism is often a very set expression, so it runs the risk also of seeming stale. “She’s sitting pretty.” “He’s a nut case.” “That pisses me off.” All those strike me as things I would say quite readily and easily, but might think twice about in writing.    They do have the effect of seeming relaxed and colorful and spontaneous and down-to-earth. Maybe “down-to-earth” was colloquial at one time.    Do you want to seem like Mark Twain or would you prefer William Buckley? Twain is colloquial; Buckley painstakingly avoids it. Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 6:31 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Colloquialisms/Slang/Dialect Thank you, Bill! I looked up a few definitions of "colloquialism," but your explanation was much better. Carol --- On Mon, 9/12/11, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask][log in to unmask]>> wrote: From: Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask][log in to unmask]>> Subject: Re: Coloquialisms/Slang/Dialect To: [log in to unmask][log in to unmask]> Date: Monday, September 12, 2011, 5:38 PM Carol -- Dialects usually let you pin down a person's region of origin, ethnicity, or socioeconomic class. Slang lets you identify what social group they're identifying with, is frequently tied to age group, and can be very "volatile" over time. Colloquialisms, I think, are more generally defined on the basis of their "not sounding like the kind of thing you use in formal written English" and so can include a lot of different types of expressions. For example, the "really" of "It was really impressive" strikes me as colloquial, but it's definitely not slang, and it's in probably the majority of AmE dialects. The use of "sick" to mean "impressively good," on the other hand, is slang, while modal-stacking ("might should" ) is a dialectal feature. But someone could refer to "sick" or "might should" as sounding colloquial, in a general sense. I suspect that in traditional essay-marking, "coll." has frequently meant "sounds too informal, but is something I'd use in daily speech" while "dial." and "slang" have meant "sounds too informal, and is something other people say in daily speech." --- Bill Spruiell On Sep 12, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Carol Morrison wrote: Dear ATEG Members: Can someone explain and give examples of what a colloquialism is and how that differs from "slang" or "dialect" in speech and communication? One of my composition students wrote in her response paragraph regarding the various roles she is required to play the following: "As long as I communicate with my mother respectfully and refrain from the use of any colloquialisms, she’s fine." Thank you. Carol To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:    http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:    http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-939216917-1315955586=:14808 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thank you so much Bill and Craig for your comprehensive responses. I hadn't given this much thought until my student mentioned her own restraint from using colloquialisms so as not to displease her mother. I also noticed in her practice paragraph that she appeared to be doing some Thesaurus writing, as many of her word choices seemed a bit off. All of my COMP I students will be submitting their first essays this week and it will be interesting to me to see their styles of expression, which I'm sure will range from too informal to overly formal, hopefully most of them striking a middle ground that is comfortable for them. We discussed briefly the terms "diction" and "tone" and how their writing should not be as informal as their interactions on Facebook and email with friends, texting, etc. but not as stilted and elevated as some academic prose. I also mentioned the importance of writing for an audience, myself and the other students being their audience. They have the essays from professional writers in their text to write responses to and to use as models for academic discourse. The assignment is to write a response paper to one of the essays they have read, based on the prompts I have given them.

Thank you again for your insights!

Carol

Best-

Carol

--- On Tue, 9/13/11, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Colloquialisms/Slang/Dialect
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 1:45 PM

Carol and Craig,

I think asking students *not* to use colloquialisms can have very different effects depending on the student's level of exposure to formal written English (I'm not disagreeing at all with Craig's position here; I'm just wanting to bring in an additional factor). Students' notions of what counts as a colloquialism (and our notions too) require, at base, a recognition that something occurs quite frequently in speech but doesn't show up in print, at least in more formal writing. But that presupposes that the person making the decision has a large array of experiences with written texts to draw inferences from. I'm not saying people are consciously looking at text and thinking, "hmmm... haven't seen 'bogus' yet; put it on the possible colloquialism list," but rather that we develop expectations about text from dealing with text, and those expectations render a given usage more or less surprising. If I encounter "bogus" in a formal research article, it triggers a bit of surprise, and it's probably the recognition of that -- the "I hit a speed bump" feeling -- that makes me think it's colloquial. And those expectations can be genre-specific.

A number of my students in the past have had little experience with sustained reading of longer, more-formal nonfiction texts. They don't, therefore, have a good sense of what would count as a colloquialism. They can easily recognize situation-inappropriate word choices in other environments, of course, but that doesn't let them eye a phrase in an essay and decide whether it's likely to be colloquial or not. Telling those students to avoid colloquialisms, or asking them to gauge the effect of a deliberate use of colloquialism, is asking them to do something they don't have the knowledge/experience base for yet. You can, of course, go over a few example colloquialisms to raise awareness of what you're talking about, but getting a dynamic, flexible sense of what counts as a colloquialism just....takes a ton of reading, and a major sub-ton of that should be nonfiction. Otherwise, they're likely to scan formal writing for expressions they do find surprising and then salt those in in an attempt to be formal (which is why we can end up with "in which" as the faux-formal equivalent of "that").

-- Bill Spruiell

On Sep 13, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Hancock, Craig G wrote:

Carol,
These are some of the most profound questions of writing pedagogy, and I hesitate to offer anything like a hard and fast answer. I wrestle with it every day.
One of my mantras is and has been that “no one can write in someone else’s language.” What else does the student have to work with but the language they bring to the class? They have to trust that, at least as a starting point. It will grow, though. It has to grow. How do we intervene in ways that will help that happen?
What does “identity” really mean? It’s not just in the surface features of the language they bring, but in everything they have lived through, everything they have come to believe and value. Students have rarely been given permission to be confused, but confusion might be the most honest stance to take, as it is for some of our best writers. We have to be good listeners and ask the right kinds of questions (instead of offering our own answers too rapidly or quickly.)
Students have a right to be themselves, but those selves are very much in flux. They don’t have experience with the reflective practice of writing, of looking back at their own words and trying to find a clearer or more thoughtful or more coherent way of saying it. The activity of looking for the right word or the right phrasing is and ought to be bound up within the unfolding purposes of the text. Revising is not correcting.
To write well in an academic and public world requires taking your place respectfully in the ongoing conversation. It’s very hard to do.
Being more or less colloquial may not be a one size fits all prescription. If you asked Dave Barry not to be colloquial, you would lose Dave Barry. On the other hand, a colloquial George Will just wouldn’t be George Will. My own personality is informal, but I have learned to help people with different styles.
The short advice might be to ask students to be colloquial in some assignments. “Perhaps the proper measure of a writer’s talent is his skill in rendering everyday speech—when it is appropriate to his story—as well as his ability to tap, to exploit, the beauty, poetry and wisdom it contains” (Paule Marshall).
Ultimately, beauty, poetry, and wisdom are worthy goals. Writing formally is, at best, a means to an end.

Craig
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Colloquialisms/Slang/Dialect

Craig and others: Do you think students should avoid colloquialisms in their writing? I haven't instructed them to do so at this point, but I am wondering if "academic writing" should be free of colloquialisms and/or slang. As new words continue to enter the lexicon, it is sometimes difficult to make the distinction. Also, I don't want students to lose their identity in writing. This is a Freshman Comp. I class at the community college level.

Best-

Carol

--- On Tue, 9/13/11, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

From: Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: Colloquialisms/Slang/Dialect
To: [log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 9:01 AM

I think being colloquial doesn’t in and of itself make something wrong, but a colloquialism is often a very set expression, so it runs the risk also of seeming stale. “She’s sitting pretty.” “He’s a nut case.” “That pisses me off.” All those strike me as things I would say quite readily and easily, but might think twice about in writing.

   They do have the effect of seeming relaxed and colorful and spontaneous and down-to-earth. Maybe “down-to-earth” was colloquial at one time.

   Do you want to seem like Mark Twain or would you prefer William Buckley? Twain is colloquial; Buckley painstakingly avoids it.

Craig

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]]<mailto:[mailto:[log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]]> On Behalf Of Carol Morrison
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 6:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Colloquialisms/Slang/Dialect

Thank you, Bill! I looked up a few definitions of "colloquialism," but your explanation was much better.

Carol

--- On Mon, 9/12/11, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target=_blank>http:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

From: Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target=_blank>http:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: Coloquialisms/Slang/Dialect
To: [log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target=_blank>http:[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, September 12, 2011, 5:38 PM

Carol --

Dialects usually let you pin down a person's region of origin, ethnicity, or socioeconomic class. Slang lets you identify what social group they're identifying with, is frequently tied to age group, and can be very "volatile" over time. Colloquialisms, I think, are more generally defined on the basis of their "not sounding like the kind of thing you use in formal written English" and so can include a lot of different types of expressions.

For example, the "really" of "It was really impressive" strikes me as colloquial, but it's definitely not slang, and it's in probably the majority of AmE dialects. The use of "sick" to mean "impressively good," on the other hand, is slang, while modal-stacking ("might should" ) is a dialectal feature. But someone could refer to "sick" or "might should" as sounding colloquial, in a general sense.

I suspect that in traditional essay-marking, "coll." has frequently meant "sounds too informal, but is something I'd use in daily speech" while "dial." and "slang" have meant "sounds too informal, and is something other people say in daily speech."

--- Bill Spruiell

On Sep 12, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Carol Morrison wrote:

Dear ATEG Members:

Can someone explain and give examples of what a colloquialism is and how that differs from "slang" or "dialect" in speech and communication? One of my composition students wrote in her response paragraph regarding the various roles she is required to play the following: "As long as I communicate with my mother respectfully and refrain from the use of any colloquialisms, she’s fine."

Thank you.

Carol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-939216917-1315955586=:14808-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:13:49 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: ATEG Digest - 2 Sep 2011 to 3 Sep 2011 (#2011-167) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There are some persons that I find beneath my comment and I merely ignore them as too stupid to waste my time and effort on them. There are others with whom I disagree, often vehemently; however, I respect then as scholars with a differing point of view. Disallowing the anuses can only increase the level of intelligent debate among the rest of us. I shall never convert a rabid Chomskyite nor he me. What we MAY achieve is agreement on some points that we hold in common and that our disagreement does not lower our professional regard for one another. I have colleagues with whom we share little in common but a respect for the intellectual integrity and beliefs of the other. -------------------------------------------------- From: "ATEG automatic digest system" <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 9:00 PM To: <[log in to unmask]> Subject: ATEG Digest - 2 Sep 2011 to 3 Sep 2011 (#2011-167) > There are 3 messages totalling 1032 lines in this issue. > > Topics of the day: > > 1. Recent "ad hominem" postings > 2. The Domain of Grammar (2) > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 06:01:25 -0400 > From: John Crow <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Recent "ad hominem" postings > > --bcaec5015e5d9a2d8b04ac068f6c > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Geoff, > > I, for one, would certainly be in favor of it. Note how the quality of > posts and numbers of participants have increased since a certain person > was > barred. I think a civility rule with exclusion as an option would be a > step > in the right direction. > > John > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Geoffrey Layton > <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> John and Amy - >> >> Given Eduard's recent outburst ("Only an ignorant, provincial American >> can >> make such totally absurd and nonsensical claims"), might now be a good >> time >> to hop in with a "rules and regs" for list postings, perhaps even an >> ominous >> warning of exclusion from the list applied to those who can't maintain >> civility? >> >> Geoff Layton >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or >> leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > --bcaec5015e5d9a2d8b04ac068f6c > Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Geoff,

I, for one, would certainly be in favor of it.� Note how > th> e quality of posts and numbers of participants have increased since a > certa> in person was barred.� I think a civility rule with exclusion as an > optio> n would be a step in the right direction.
>
John

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 4:45 PM, > > Geoffrey Layton < href="mailto:[log in to unmask]> om">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

class="gma> il_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc > solid;padding-lef> t:1ex;"> > > > > >
> > > > >
John and Amy -
�
Given Eduard's recent > outburs> t ("Only an ignorant, provincial American can make such totally > absurd> and nonsensical claims"), might now be a good time to hop in with a > &> quot;rules and regs" for list postings, perhaps even an ominous > warnin> g of exclusion from the list applied to those who can't maintain > civili> ty?
>
Geoff Layton
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interf> ace at: > target="_b> lank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" >
> Visit ATEG's web site at target="_blank">>http://ateg.org/ >

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

> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > --bcaec5015e5d9a2d8b04ac068f6c-- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 15:12:44 -0400 > From: MARTHA KOLLN <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar > > --=-yTWOBZYDM3TkM25t4qNq > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Dear fellow ATEGers, > I too always started my grammar classes with the "you are experts" message > to > the native speakers in the class. "In this class you won't be learning > grammar; > you'll be learning about grammar; you will learn to talk about grammar; > you > will learn in a conscious way what you know subconsciously as native > speakers." > Let me add one other point to the discussion: I have never heard the > argument > from the anti-grammar folk that teaching grammar is unnecessary for the > reason > that their students are already experts. The argument I've always heard > is the > Constance Weaver/George Hillocks position that class time spent on grammar > is > time taken away from teaching writing. And both of them argue that time > spent > learning about grammar in any systematic way is time wasted. > Those are the fightin' words on which ATEG was founded all those years > ago. > Martha > > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 05:34 PM, "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: >> > Bob, >> It's good to find this level of agreement. My own sense is that the >> chess >>analogy is not as useful as, say, a tools analogy. We don't get things >>done >>through chess, but we do through language. So, in a sense, we haven't >>really >>acquired a circular saw if we don't know how to use it to cut angles or to >>mitre or to cut to a limited depth, all things my son is so much more >>adept at >>than I am. >> But it's good to have a strong sense of agreement that the domain of >> grammar >>should include putting grammar to work It's not just about the forms. >> >>Craig >>________________________________________ >>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>[[log in to unmask]] >>On Behalf Of Robert Yates [[log in to unmask]] >>Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 1:47 PM >>To: [log in to unmask] >>Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar >> >>The issue now is about our conception of language. Craig is, of course, >>right. >> >>> "Hancock, Craig G" > >> Some of us seem far more articulate than others, even in non- school, >>non-prescriptive contexts. Some of us simply seem more adept at using >>language >>in all its manifestations. >> >>However, is being an adept language user really the same kind of knowledge >>as >>knowing what the possible forms of the language are? >> >>If you include that functional side to it, I don't think the assumptions >>hold. >>It's a more defensible position if you are looking primarily at forms. >>Native >>speakers speak grammatically if we decide that grammaticality is >>determined by >>what native speakers say. Again, it seems circular to me. >> Eduard's point, even if a bit overly strident, is that many people use >> this >>reasoning as a basis for dismissing grammar from the curriculum. If our >>students are already "expert," then there is no value to direct study. >> This is quite different from saying that students' knowledge of >> language >>should be respected. >> From a usage based perspective, what grammar we carry was learned, >> but has >>now become automatic. It's there, but not something we normally notice. >> >> Being adept at using the language is not about our knowledge of what is >>possible, but being able to use that in an effective way. >> >>It is not circular to say that I know the rules of chess, but I am not a >>very >>good chess player. However, knowing the rules and knowing how to win is >>different kind of knowledge. And, it is exactly the same for knowing what >>is >>possible in our language and how to use that knowledge effectively. >> >>We all agree that we want our students to be effective language users and >>that >>is why we participate here. There are those who claim that competence is >>enough. Of course, such claims are wrong. >> >>Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri >> >>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface >>at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>and select "Join or leave the list" >> >>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface >>at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>and select "Join or leave the list" >> >>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> >> > > Martha Kolln > > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > --=-yTWOBZYDM3TkM25t4qNq > Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 > >

Dear fellow ATEGers,

I too always started my > grammar classes with the "you are experts" message to the native speakers > in > the class. "In this class you won't be learning grammar; you'll be > learning about grammar; you will learn to talk about grammar; you > will > learn in a conscious way what you know subconsciously as native > speakers."

Let me add one other point to the > discussion: I have never heard the argument from the anti-grammar > folk > that teaching grammar is unnecessary for the reason that their students > are > already experts. The argument I've always heard is the Constance > Weaver/George Hillocks position that class time spent on grammar is time > taken > away from teaching writing. And both of them argue that time spent > learning about grammar in any systematic way is time > wasted.

Those are the fightin' words on which > ATEG was > founded all those years ago.

Martha >

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 > 05:34 > PM, "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> > wrote:

id="quoted_response" style="padding-left: 3px; padding-right: 0px; > margin-left: > 3px; margin-right: 0px; border-left: 1px solid #000;"> >

> Bob,
>     It's good to find this level of agreement. My own sense is that the 
> chess
> analogy is not as useful as, say, a tools analogy. We don't get things 
> done
> through chess, but we do through language. So, in a sense, we haven't 
> really
> acquired a circular saw if we don't know how to use it to cut angles or to
> mitre or to cut to a limited depth, all things my son is so much more 
> adept at
> than I am.
>   But it's good to have a strong sense of agreement that the domain of 
> grammar
> should include putting grammar to work It's not just about the forms.
>
> Craig
> ________________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar 
> [[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Robert Yates [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 1:47 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar
>
> The issue now is about our conception of language.  Craig is, of course, 
> right.
>
> > "Hancock, Craig G"  >
>    Some of us seem far more articulate than others, even in non- school,
> non-prescriptive contexts. Some of us simply seem more adept at using 
> language
> in all its manifestations.
>
> However, is being an adept language user really the same kind of knowledge 
> as
> knowing what the possible forms of the language are?
>
> If you include that functional side to it, I don't think the assumptions 
> hold.
> It's a more defensible position if you are looking primarily at forms. 
> Native
> speakers speak grammatically if we decide that grammaticality is 
> determined by
> what native speakers say.  Again, it seems circular to me.
>   Eduard's point, even if a bit overly strident, is that many people use 
> this
> reasoning as a basis for dismissing grammar from the curriculum. If our
> students are already "expert," then there is no value to direct study.
>   This is quite different from saying that students' knowledge of language
> should be respected.
>   From a usage based perspective, what  grammar we carry  was learned, but 
> has
> now become automatic. It's there, but not something we normally notice.
>
> Being adept at using the language is not about our knowledge of what is
> possible, but being able to use that in an effective way.
>
> It is not circular to say that I know the rules of chess, but I am not a 
> very
> good chess player.  However, knowing the rules and knowing how to win is
> different kind of knowledge.  And, it is exactly the same for knowing what 
> is
> possible in our language and how to use that knowledge effectively.
>
> We all agree that we want our students to be effective language users and 
> that
> is why we participate here.  There are those who claim that competence is
> enough.  Of course, such claims are wrong.
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 
> at:
>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 
> at:
>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
>

Martha Kolln

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

> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > --=-yTWOBZYDM3TkM25t4qNq-- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 18:24:18 -0400 > From: John Crow <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar > > --20cf3079b6ee54335f04ac10f0ae > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Eduard, > > Nice to see that I have made your list of ignorant, provincial Americans. > > John > > > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Eduard Hanganu > <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> John, >> >> >> >> "All native speakers are grammar experts by definition since they handle >> the grammar of their home or street dialect effortlessly, with absolute >> precision and speed."? >> >> >> >> Absolute nonsense!!! If you make such a claim then you have NEVER >> listened >> to and read text from "native speakers" of English, and you have never >> struggled to help college students write in English. Who can claim that >> he >> can use English "with ABSOLUTE PRECISION AND SPEED?" You? My experience >> with >> college students is that almost all L2 students show better "competence" >> and >> "performance" than their classmates who are "native speakers." Why are 40 >> million Americans illiterate if their knowledge of the English language >> is >> "native" and "instinctive"? >> >> >> >> My L1 language is Romanian, but I dare you to prove that your >> "competence" >> and "performance" in English is better than mine, although English is my >> L2. The idea that "all native speakers are grammar experts" is so old and >> void of evidence that my grandfather abandoned it a long time ago - when >> he >> had to spend hour upon hour learning the declensions of ALL PARTS OF >> SPEECH, >> and the CONJUGATION of the verbs in Romanian. >> >> >> >> Only an ignorant, provincial American can make such totally absurd and >> nonsensical claims. >> >> >> >> Eduard >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From: *"John Crow" <[log in to unmask]> >> >> *To: *[log in to unmask] >> *Sent: *Friday, September 2, 2011 6:34:08 AM >> >> *Subject: *Re: The Domain of Grammar >> >> Eduard, >> >> I don't think Sherry was referring to UG at all in her statement. >> Instead >> I think she was referring to the fact that all native speakers are >> grammar >> experts by definition since they handle the grammar of their home or >> street >> dialect effortlessly, with absolute precision and speed. Most of this >> knowledge is beyond awareness, of course. But they could neither speak >> nor >> understand other English speakers with such ease if they weren't absolute >> masters of English grammar at some level. I find it refreshing to hear >> someone acknowledge this fact and take it into account when teaching. >> >> John >> >> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Eduard Hanganu >> <[log in to unmask]>wrote: >> >>> "We start with the concept that everyone is a grammar expert" >>> >>> This is the absolute nonsense perpertrated by Chomsky's unproven >>> theories >>> of native UG (Universal Grammar)- that the native-born speakers are born >>> with a grammar textbook in their heads - and that has completely run >>> into >>> the ground the English language education in the United States. Dumb and >>> provincial American "experts" still believe it. Try to tell this story >>> to >>> students who learn German, French, Romanian, or Russian (to refer only >>> to >>> some European languages) - when they know that in order to have a good >>> command of their language they need to spend thousands of yours LEARNING >>> to >>> decline and conjugate in their languages. >>> >>> Eduard >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Sharon Saylors" <[log in to unmask]> >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2011 9:45:48 PM >>> Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar >>> >>> My community college grammar course for English majors and future >>> secondary teachers has Martha Kolln's book Understanding English Grammar >>> as its cornerstone, but also includes a service learning component. My >>> students tutor developmental students for 10 hours of our class time. We >>> start with the concept that everyone is a grammar expert and then move >>> from form and structure classes to diagramming,slotting, rhetorical >>> grammar, and finally end with grammar games. The teachers learn more >>> than the students and solidify their interest in teaching. I also >>> include grammar in my freshman composition courses. >>> Sherry Saylors >>> >>> >>> [log in to unmask] 08/31/11 10:49 PM >>> >>> 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/ >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface >>> at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >>> ****************************************************** >>> DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any file(s) transmitted with it, is >>> intended >>> for the exclusive use by the person(s) mentioned above as recipient(s). >>> This e-mail may contain confidential information and/or information >>> protected by intellectual property rights or other rights. If you are >>> not >>> the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any >>> dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the >>> contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and >>> may be >>> unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the >>> sender and delete the original and any copies of this e-mail and any >>> printouts immediately from your system and destroy all copies of it. >>> >>> OVPTS 12-07-09 >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface >>> at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >>> interface >>> at: >>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>> and select "Join or leave the list" >>> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >>> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or >> leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or >> leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > --20cf3079b6ee54335f04ac10f0ae > Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Eduard,

Nice to see that I have made your list of ignorant, > provinci> al Americans.

John�

On > > Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Eduard Hanganu < ="mailto:[log in to unmask]" > target="_blank">[log in to unmask]> om> wrote:
> >

="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, > 0);">
>John,
> >
�
>
"All native speakers are grammar experts by definition since they > h> andle the grammar of their home or street dialect effortlessly, with > absolu> te precision and speed."?
>
�
>
Absolute nonsense!!! If you make such a claim then you have�NEVER > list> ened to and read text from "native speakers" of English, and you > > have never struggled to help college students write in English. Who can > cla> im that he can use�English "with�ABSOLUTE PRECISION AND > SPEED?&quo> t; You? My experience with college students�is that almost all L2 > student> s�show�better "competence"�and "performance" > than> �their classmates who are "native speakers." Why are 40 > million> Americans illiterate if their knowledge of the English language is > "n> ative" and "instinctive"?
> > >
�
>
My L1 language is Romanian,��but I dare you to prove that > your�&qu> ot;competence" and "performance"�in English is better > than> mine, although English is my L2.�The idea that "all native > speakers> are grammar experts" is so old and void of evidence that my > grandfath> er abandoned it a long time ago - when he had to spend hour upon hour > learn> ing the declensions of ALL PARTS OF SPEECH, and the CONJUGATION of the > verb> s in Romanian.
> > >
�
>
Only an ignorant, provincial American can make such totally absurd and > n> onsensical claims.
>
�
>
Eduard
>
�
>
�
>
>
>
>
From: "John Crow" < href="mailto:[log in to unmask]> COM" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]>

To: > href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" > target="_blank">[log in to unmask]> UOHIO.EDU
> >
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2011 6:34:08 > AM
>
Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar

Eduard,

I >>don&> #39;t think Sherry was referring to UG at all in her statement.� Instead > > I think she was referring to the fact that all native speakers are grammar > > experts by definition since they handle the grammar of their home or > street> dialect effortlessly, with absolute precision and speed.� Most of this > k> nowledge is beyond awareness, of course.� But they could neither speak > no> r understand other English speakers with such ease if they weren't > abso> lute masters of English grammar at some level.� I find it refreshing to > h> ear someone acknowledge this fact and take it into account when > teaching. r> > >
John

>
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at > 7:19> AM, Eduard Hanganu < href="mailto:echanganu@insig> htbb.com" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]> > wrote: r> > >
class="gmail_quote">
>
"We start with the concept that everyone is a grammar > > expert"
> >
This is the absolute nonsense perpertrated by Chomsky's unproven > th> eories of native UG (Universal Grammar)- that the native-born speakers are > > born with a grammar textbook in their heads - and that has completely run > i> nto the ground the English language education in the United States. Dumb > an> d provincial American "experts" still believe it. Try to tell > thi> s story to �students who learn German, French, Romanian, or Russian (to > r> efer only to some European languages) - when they know that in order to > hav> e a good command of their language they need to spend thousands of yours > LE> ARNING to decline and conjugate in their languages.
> >
Eduard

----- Original Message -----
From: > "Sharo> n Saylors" < target="_blank">> [log in to unmask]>
To: href="mailto:[log in to unmask]> " target="_blank">[log in to unmask]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2011 9:45:48 PM
Subject: Re: The Domain of > > Grammar

My community college grammar course for English majors and > f> uture
secondary teachers has Martha Kolln's book Understanding > Engli> sh Grammar
> > as its cornerstone, but also includes a service learning component. > My
s> tudents tutor developmental students for 10 hours of our class time. > We
> start with the concept that everyone is a grammar expert and then move
> > from form and structure classes to diagramming,slotting, > rhetorical
gram> mar, and finally end with grammar games. The teachers learn more
than > th> e students and solidify their interest in teaching. I also
include > gramm> ar in my freshman composition courses.
> > � � � � � � � � � � � � �Sherry > Saylors

&g> t;>> target="_blank">caro> [log in to unmask] 08/31/11 10:49 PM >>>
I am about to > emba> rk on a journey of teaching two Comp I classes and one
> > developmental writing course at the community college level. > Both
classe> s have "grammar" as a component of the curriculum. The > basic
w> riting 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 > entitie> s that
fall under the language umbrella: reading, writing, oral and > writ> ten
communication, comprehension and understanding. It is my goal not > to>
> > present grammar as a separate entity or set of rules, but as a > natural
p> art of everyday communication. I particularly like this passage > written
> by Dick Veit:

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

Friday > i> n class we will be doing a basic grammar review for my Comp I
classes, > j> ust to gauge their familiarity with some basic grammar
> > terminology: subject, verb, noun, sentence, tense, adjective, > adverb,
ph> rase, clause. How will this help their writing? How will it help > them
be> come more adept at using language? I am interested in finding out what
> > will help my students the most with their writing and > daily
communicatin> g and tailoring some classes that can integrate many things
that fall > un> der the whole language umbrella to learn grammar.

Carol > Morrison
> >

--- On Wed, 8/31/11, Dick Veit < href="mailto:dickveit@GMAIL> .COM" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: > > Dick Veit < target="_blank">dickv> [log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: The Domain of Grammar
To: href="mailto:[log in to unmask]> UOHIO.EDU" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]
Date: > Wednesda> y, August 31, 2011, 5:37 PM

Asking about the domain of grammar > i> s worthwhile, but it's a question
> > without a definitive answer. Everyone from the ivory-tower linguist > to
t> he average schlub on the street would agree that it includes the > study
o> f 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." > E> veryone 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
Foste> r? How about Billy Joel? Again, many strong opinions but no
definitive > a> nswers. Apart from the core we agree on, everyone is free to
stipulate > t> heir own definition.
> >
As we've seen, a discussion of grammar's domain can be quite > th> eoretical
(and astonishingly intemperate!). It can also be conducted on > > a purely
practical level. In a high school "grammar" class, > sh> ould we introduce
> > questions of punctuation? How about phonology? I just retired after > many
>years teaching a "college-level advanced grammar course" that >>wa> s
focused almost exclusively on syntax. I am now a volunteer teaching > an>
> > "intermediate ESL grammar class" that includes not only syntax > bu> t also
pronunciation, pragmatics, semantics, punctuation, vocabulary, > la> nguage
etiquette, cultural differences, job-interview skills, and even > (> last
> > week) hurricane preparation. On the most practical level the domain > of
g> rammar is determined by what the students in front of us would > most
bene> fit from knowing.

I am interested in hearing more about theory. > I> 9;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 > P> M, Spruiell, William C
< target> ="_blank">[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
John,

Maybe a terminological split would be handy here. On the > o> ne 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 > phonolog> y
as grammar (although there certainly are positions that don't > view> the
distinction as ironclad). As Craig has pointed out, a lot of the > pu> blic
> > 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 > Wron> g" 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 > o> f the area
as simply "language analysis"? Those linguists who > > firmly believe that
"grammar" should refer only to > morphosynta> x, conceptualized as a
> > separate component, probably won't object to "language > analysis&qu> ot; being
defined much more broadly, and certainly neither would > functio> nalists;
in effect, no one's staked out a claim on "language > an> alysis." [1] Yes,
> > it's vague -- and there would be a danger of someone thinking > that
t> alking about literary metaphors for ten minutes constitutes a > language
a> nalysis 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 > co> me 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 > g> ood or bad position, nor (more
particularly) am I suggesting that that > p> osition is Bob's. It *is* the
> > position of a number of linguists, but both they and linguists > that
firm> ly disagree with them (like me) would largely agree that a wide
range > of> language phenomena should be discussed in English classrooms.
To a > cert> ain 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&> #39;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 > A> ug 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 > domai> n of grammar? What does grammar encompass? What does it NOT
> > encompass? What aspects of grammar should/should not be > incorporated
int> o the language arts curriculum?" (I am referring to only the > grammar r>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
ourselv> es in the classroom with breaking language down into it's > basic
unit> s of meaning (morphology) to examine the construction of words? Are
> > the rules for forming phrases, clauses, and sentences (syntax) > the
Sover> eign 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
co> nsider 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
(dialecto> logy/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
(cogni> tive/neurolinguistics) -- what we know about grammar and > the
brain/cogni> tion 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
a> nalyze 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, r>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 > b> y
now that no harm comes from a sharing, amicable relationship at > a
m> inimum.

I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks!

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

To > join> or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface > > at:
> > � � target=> "_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select > &q> uot;Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at hre> f="http://ateg.org/" target="_blank">http://ateg.org/
> >
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > in> terface at:
� � href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.> html" > target="_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html r>and select "Join or leave the list"
> >
Visit ATEG's web site at target="_bl> ank">http://ateg.org/

*******************************> ***********************
DISCLAIMER: �This e-mail and any file(s) > trans> mitted with it, is intended for the exclusive use by the person(s) > mentione> d above as recipient(s). �This e-mail may contain confidential > informatio> n and/or information protected by intellectual property rights or other > rig> hts. �If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are > hereb> y notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken > i> n relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly > pr> ohibited and may be unlawful. �If you have received this e-mail in > error,> please notify the sender and delete the original and any copies of this > e-> mail and any printouts immediately from your system and destroy all copies > > of it.
> >
OVPTS 12-07-09

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, > p> lease visit the list's web interface at:
� � href="http://l> istserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html" > target="_blank">http://listserv.mu> ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> > and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web > s> ite at target="_blank">http://ateg.org/<> br>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's > web> interface at:
> > � � target=> "_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select > &q> uot;Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at hre> f="http://ateg.org/" target="_blank">http://ateg.org/
> >

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, > plea> se visit the list's web interface at: href="http://listserv.muohio> .edu/archives/ateg.html" > target="_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archi> ves/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" >
Visit ATEG's web site at target="_bla> nk">http://ateg.org/
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interf> ace at: > target="_b> lank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" >
> Visit ATEG's web site at target="_blank">>http://ateg.org/

> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" >
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > --20cf3079b6ee54335f04ac10f0ae-- > > ------------------------------ > > End of ATEG Digest - 2 Sep 2011 to 3 Sep 2011 (#2011-167) > ********************************************************* > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:22:54 -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: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> Subject: 'Bad' English MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01CC7709.E9E37230" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01CC7709.E9E37230 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10) nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become accepted as "normal English grammar." One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors. What do you think? (1) I recommend you to take the job. (2) He demanded that the agitators were arrested. (3) This is just between you and I. (4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic. (5) This paper was written by Susie and myself. (6) Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m. (7) If he'd've played, we would have won. (8) He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws. (9) Having said that, there is no feasible alternative. Scott Catledge To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01CC7709.E9E37230 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10) nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become

accepted as "normal English grammar." One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely

to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors. What do you think?

(1) I recommend you to take the job.

(2) He demanded that the agitators were arrested.

(3) This is just between you and I.

(4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.

(5) This paper was written by Susie and myself.

(6) Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m.

(7) If he'd've played, we would have won.

(8) He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws.

(9) Having said that, there is no feasible alternative.

Scott Catledge
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01CC7709.E9E37230-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:33:46 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Erin Karl <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1803016061-372189945-1316478826=:43235" These sentences actually remi --1803016061-372189945-1316478826=:43235 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable #3 and #5 in particular give me fits! These sentences actually remind me of a story in my family about an old woman in Nashville, Ark., in the 1920s.� My grandmother passed this to mom.� Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too? Old woman:� "If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I couldn'tna et nuthin'.� But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I woulda went anyhow." Erin Karl Anaytical Grammar >________________________________ >From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:22 PM >Subject: 'Bad' English > > >Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10)�nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become >accepted as "normal English grammar."� One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely >to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors.� What do you think? >� >(1)� I recommend you to take the job. >(2)� He demanded that the agitators were arrested. >(3)� This is just between you and I. >(4)� Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic. >(5)� This paper was written by Susie and myself. >(6)� Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m. >(7)� If he'd've played, we would have won. >(8)�He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws. >(9)� Having said that, there is no feasible alternative. >� >Scott Catledge To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" >Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --1803016061-372189945-1316478826=:43235 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
#3 and #5 in particular give me fits!

These sentences actually remind me of a story in my family about an old woman in Nashville, Ark., in the 1920s. My grandmother passed this to mom. Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too?

Old woman: "If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I woulda went anyhow."

Erin Karl
Anaytical Grammar

From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:22 PM
Subject: 'Bad' English

Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10) nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become

accepted as "normal English grammar." One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely

to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors. What do you think?

(1) I recommend you to take the job.

(2) He demanded that the agitators were arrested.

(3) This is just between you and I.

(4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.

(5) This paper was written by Susie and myself.

(6) Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m.

(7) If he'd've played, we would have won.

(8) He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws.

(9) Having said that, there is no feasible alternative.

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --1803016061-372189945-1316478826=:43235-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 19:52:16 -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: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_7fcee8eb-2a21-4f32-ba6d-1c5350666c0c_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_7fcee8eb-2a21-4f32-ba6d-1c5350666c0c_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable For all practical purposes, the word "whom" no longer exists in English. This question relates closely to Carol Morrison's previous post about the use of spoken/colloquial/slang. Here's the way I see it - for hundreds of years, English has been eliding tense indicators, case endings, and other paraphernalia that "normal" people shed along the way in the development of the language. So although all of these "bother me" to some extent, they are all becoming more and more accepted as "standard." Another example is the way Ebonics eliminates the "s" in third person present singular verb conjugation. This makes a lot of sense to me - why is 3rd person singular the only odd ball - why not "He run"? Geoff Layton Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:22:54 -0400 From: [log in to unmask] Subject: 'Bad' English To: [log in to unmask] Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10) nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become accepted as "normal English grammar." One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors. What do you think? (1) I recommend you to take the job. (2) He demanded that the agitators were arrested. (3) This is just between you and I. (4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic. (5) This paper was written by Susie and myself. (6) Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m. (7) If he'd've played, we would have won. (8) He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws. (9) Having said that, there is no feasible alternative. Scott Catledge To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_7fcee8eb-2a21-4f32-ba6d-1c5350666c0c_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
For all practical purposes, the word "whom" no longer exists in English. This question relates closely to Carol Morrison's previous post about the use of spoken/colloquial/slang. Here's the way I see it - for hundreds of years, English has been eliding tense indicators, case endings, and other paraphernalia that "normal" people shed along the way in the development of the language. So although all of these "bother me" to some extent, they are all becoming more and more accepted as "standard." Another example is the way Ebonics eliminates the "s" in third person present singular verb conjugation. This makes a lot of sense to me - why is 3rd person singular the only odd ball - why not "He run"?

Geoff Layton

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:22:54 -0400
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 'Bad' English
To: [log in to unmask]

Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10) nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become

accepted as "normal English grammar." One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely

to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors. What do you think?

(1) I recommend you to take the job.

(2) He demanded that the agitators were arrested.

(3) This is just between you and I.

(4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.

(5) This paper was written by Susie and myself.

(6) Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m.

(7) If he'd've played, we would have won.

(8) He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws.

(9) Having said that, there is no feasible alternative.

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_7fcee8eb-2a21-4f32-ba6d-1c5350666c0c_-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:12:27 -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: Interjections MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="563393889-2095328784-1316481147=:86497" --563393889-2095328784-1316481147=:86497 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Somewhat related to but not quite in the same vein of Scott's "Bad English" thread, is the questionable use of interjections in academic writing. Is it safe to tell students that interjections are typically not found in academic or formal writing? I have a student who had a continuous string of interjections in his response paper he wrote to one of the essays in the text on marriage. "Yikes!"� "Not this guy!" "Wow!" were some of the responses he would write following a summary of what the author stated. He also began many of his sentences with "Yes, I agree that..." or�"No thanks,..." How can I explain that this is not an appropriate style for a college essay? On the informal to formal scale I explained in class,�this is what I would consider too informal. Do you agree? � Thanks. � Carol To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --563393889-2095328784-1316481147=:86497 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Somewhat related to but not quite in the same vein of Scott's "Bad English" thread, is the questionable use of interjections in academic writing. Is it safe to tell students that interjections are typically not found in academic or formal writing? I have a student who had a continuous string of interjections in his response paper he wrote to one of the essays in the text on marriage. "Yikes!" "Not this guy!" "Wow!" were some of the responses he would write following a summary of what the author stated. He also began many of his sentences with "Yes, I agree that..." or "No thanks,..." How can I explain that this is not an appropriate style for a college essay? On the informal to formal scale I explained in class, this is what I would consider too informal. Do you agree?

Thanks.

Carol
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --563393889-2095328784-1316481147=:86497-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:35:42 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1460388173-1297092869-1316482542=:22893" --1460388173-1297092869-1316482542=:22893 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree that all of these sentences are problematic and�I would correct them in a piece of student writing. The fact that many of them are common errors, does not signify to me that they should be accepted as normal. They may be "normal" but they are still incorrect in my eyes. I've noticed the phrases "Having said that"�and "That being said" to be all the rage�lately...not sure why. Carol --- On Mon, 9/19/11, Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> Subject: 'Bad' English To: [log in to unmask] Date: Monday, September 19, 2011, 8:22 PM Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10)�nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become accepted as "normal English grammar."� One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors.� What do you think? � (1)� I recommend you to take the job. (2)� He demanded that the agitators were arrested. (3)� This is just between you and I. (4)� Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic. (5)� This paper was written by Susie and myself. (6)� Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m. (7)� If he'd've played, we would have won. (8)� He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws. (9)� Having said that, there is no feasible alternative. � Scott CatledgeTo join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --1460388173-1297092869-1316482542=:22893 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I agree that all of these sentences are problematic and I would correct them in a piece of student writing. The fact that many of them are common errors, does not signify to me that they should be accepted as normal. They may be "normal" but they are still incorrect in my eyes. I've noticed the phrases "Having said that" and "That being said" to be all the rage lately...not sure why.

Carol

--- On Mon, 9/19/11, Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: 'Bad' English
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Monday, September 19, 2011, 8:22 PM

Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10) nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become

accepted as "normal English grammar." One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely

to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors. What do you think?

(1) I recommend you to take the job.

(2) He demanded that the agitators were arrested.

(3) This is just between you and I.

(4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.

(5) This paper was written by Susie and myself.

(6) Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m.

(7) If he'd've played, we would have won.

(8) He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws.

(9) Having said that, there is no feasible alternative.

Scott Catledge
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --1460388173-1297092869-1316482542=:22893-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:43:02 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-1379440650-1448922959-1316482982=:55685" ---1379440650-1448922959-1316482982=:55685 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Please excuse me for placing a comma between a subject and verb in two of my previous posts. That is very very bad English. Bad! Carol --- On Mon, 9/19/11, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English To: [log in to unmask] Date: Monday, September 19, 2011, 9:35 PM I agree that all of these sentences are problematic and�I would correct them in a piece of student writing. The fact that many of them are common errors, does not signify to me that they should be accepted as normal. They may be "normal" but they are still incorrect in my eyes. I've noticed the phrases "Having said that"�and "That being said" to be all the rage�lately...not sure why. Carol --- On Mon, 9/19/11, Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> Subject: 'Bad' English To: [log in to unmask] Date: Monday, September 19, 2011, 8:22 PM Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10)�nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become accepted as "normal English grammar."� One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors.� What do you think? � (1)� I recommend you to take the job. (2)� He demanded that the agitators were arrested. (3)� This is just between you and I. (4)� Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic. (5)� This paper was written by Susie and myself. (6)� Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m. (7)� If he'd've played, we would have won. (8)� He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws. (9)� Having said that, there is no feasible alternative. � Scott CatledgeTo join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ---1379440650-1448922959-1316482982=:55685 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Please excuse me for placing a comma between a subject and verb in two of my previous posts. That is very very bad English. Bad!

Carol

--- On Mon, 9/19/11, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: 'Bad' English
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Monday, September 19, 2011, 9:35 PM

I agree that all of these sentences are problematic and I would correct them in a piece of student writing. The fact that many of them are common errors, does not signify to me that they should be accepted as normal. They may be "normal" but they are still incorrect in my eyes. I've noticed the phrases "Having said that" and "That being said" to be all the rage lately...not sure why.

Carol

--- On Mon, 9/19/11, Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: 'Bad' English
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Monday, September 19, 2011, 8:22 PM

Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10) nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become

accepted as "normal English grammar." One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely

to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors. What do you think?

(1) I recommend you to take the job.

(2) He demanded that the agitators were arrested.

(3) This is just between you and I.

(4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.

(5) This paper was written by Susie and myself.

(6) Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m.

(7) If he'd've played, we would have won.

(8) He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws.

(9) Having said that, there is no feasible alternative.

Scott Catledge
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ---1379440650-1448922959-1316482982=:55685-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 21:57:44 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016e644d09421b41104ad55c945 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Scott, I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal" in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in a conversation. In #3, "between you and I" bugs the hell out of me, but I wouldn't want to bet against its becoming accepted even in writing in a few generations. Sentences #1, 2, and 6 are unfamiliar to me. I assume they are from a regional dialect I have not encountered. Dick On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > ** > Trask in his *Why do Languages Change* includes (p. 10) nine sentences > that he considered would be or shortly become > accepted as "normal English grammar." One of the sentences (number seven) > is strictly conversational and unlikely > to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have > egregious errors. What do you think? > > (1) I recommend you to take the job. > (2) He demanded that the agitators were arrested. > (3) This is just between you and I. > (4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic. > (5) This paper was written by Susie and myself. > (6) Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m. > (7) If he'd've played, we would have won. > (8) He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws. > (9) Having said that, there is no feasible alternative. > > Scott Catledge > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e644d09421b41104ad55c945 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Scott,

I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal" in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in a conversation. In #3, "between you and I" bugs the hell out of me, but I wouldn't want to bet against its becoming accepted even in writing in a few generations.

Sentences #1, 2, and 6 are unfamiliar to me. I assume they are from a regional dialect I have not encountered.

Dick

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10)�nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become

accepted as "normal English grammar."� One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely

to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors.� What do you think?

�

(1)� I recommend you to take the job.

(2)� He demanded that the agitators were arrested.

(3)� This is just between you and I.

(4)� Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.

(5)� This paper was written by Susie and myself.

(6)� Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m.

(7)� If he'd've played, we would have won.

(8)� He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws.

(9)� Having said that, there is no feasible alternative.

�

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e644d09421b41104ad55c945-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:16:56 -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: Parsing requested MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016e6d7e8c187581c04ad5e6f77 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In a post yesterday, I used the verb phrase "bugs the hell out of me." Can we try to parse that? Is "the hell" a direct object? An adverbial? Or is it just an unanalyzable idiom--after all, it doesn't analyze semantically. Dick To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6d7e8c187581c04ad5e6f77 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 In a post yesterday, I used the verb phrase "bugs the hell out of me." Can we try to parse that? Is "the hell" a direct object? An adverbial? Or is it just an unanalyzable idiom--after all, it doesn't analyze semantically.

Dick
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6d7e8c187581c04ad5e6f77-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:56:42 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Parsing requested In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EF56F63UAEXCH07univa_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EF56F63UAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dick, I think it would be very much parallel to "beat the crap out of me." My first inclination is to see it as complex transitive. "I sent that man from my door." "I drove that problem out of my mind." The second complement is adverbial. The direct object (affected participant) ends up in another place as a result of the action of the verb. If I remember right, though, more traditional grammars don't recognize the larger category of adverbial compliment in complex transitive sentences. It seems so obvious to me. *"Out of me, this bugs the hell." *"This bugs the hell." These sorts of tests aren't foolproof, but they do seem to confirm that "out of me" is complement, not just modifier. It's a required element in the construction. Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 8:17 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Parsing requested In a post yesterday, I used the verb phrase "bugs the hell out of me." Can we try to parse that? Is "the hell" a direct object? An adverbial? Or is it just an unanalyzable idiom--after all, it doesn't analyze semantically. Dick To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EF56F63UAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dick,
    I think it would be very much parallel to “beat the crap out of me.” My first inclination is to see it as complex transitive. “I sent that man from my door.” “I drove that problem out of my mind.” The second complement is adverbial. The direct object (affected participant) ends up in another place as a result of the action of the verb. If I remember right, though, more traditional grammars don’t recognize the larger category of adverbial compliment in complex transitive sentences. It seems so obvious to me.
    *“Out of me, this bugs the hell.” *“This bugs the hell.” These sorts of tests aren’t foolproof, but they do seem to confirm that “out of me” is complement, not just modifier. It’s a required element in the construction.

Craig

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 8:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Parsing requested

In a post yesterday, I used the verb phrase "bugs the hell out of me." Can we try to parse that? Is "the hell" a direct object? An adverbial? Or is it just an unanalyzable idiom--after all, it doesn't analyze semantically.

Dick
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EF56F63UAEXCH07univa_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:04:30 +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: Jane Mairs <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English In-Reply-To: [log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6E822C0B6D7765478B5C96D1CFF3E7457F1F38EXCHANGEmwcomoffi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_6E822C0B6D7765478B5C96D1CFF3E7457F1F38EXCHANGEmwcomoffi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would give exactly the same answer as Dick, below. I'm a New Yorker, if that's helpful. Jane From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:58 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: 'Bad' English Scott, I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal" in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in a conversation. In #3, "between you and I" bugs the hell out of me, but I wouldn't want to bet against its becoming accepted even in writing in a few generations. Sentences #1, 2, and 6 are unfamiliar to me. I assume they are from a regional dialect I have not encountered. Dick On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10) nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become accepted as "normal English grammar." One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors. What do you think? (1) I recommend you to take the job. (2) He demanded that the agitators were arrested. (3) This is just between you and I. (4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic. (5) This paper was written by Susie and myself. (6) Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m. (7) If he'd've played, we would have won. (8) He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws. (9) Having said that, there is no feasible alternative. Scott Catledge To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_6E822C0B6D7765478B5C96D1CFF3E7457F1F38EXCHANGEmwcomoffi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would give exactly the same answer as Dick, below.

I’m a New Yorker, if that’s helpful.

Jane

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 'Bad' English

Scott,

I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal" in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in a conversation. In #3, "between you and I" bugs the hell out of me, but I wouldn't want to bet against its becoming accepted even in writing in a few generations.

Sentences #1, 2, and 6 are unfamiliar to me. I assume they are from a regional dialect I have not encountered.

Dick

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10) nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become

accepted as "normal English grammar." One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely

to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors. What do you think?

(1) I recommend you to take the job.

(2) He demanded that the agitators were arrested.

(3) This is just between you and I.

(4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.

(5) This paper was written by Susie and myself.

(6) Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m.

(7) If he'd've played, we would have won.

(8) He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws.

(9) Having said that, there is no feasible alternative.

Scott Catledge

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

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

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_6E822C0B6D7765478B5C96D1CFF3E7457F1F38EXCHANGEmwcomoffi_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:31:19 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Parsing requested [Development of phrasal verb?] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary cf303638dbb5ce9a04ad5f7af7 --20cf303638dbb5ce9a04ad5f7af7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable That seems about right to me. As an idiom, it "feels" like the units are starting to "grammaticalize" (sp?), with "bugs out of me" beginning a slow creep toward phrasal verb status, but maybe that's just me. Isn't that how phrasal verbs form? An adverbial complement goes through the grammaticalization process and becomes a verbal particle? I don't know -- just a guess. I vaguely remember something about a process that was akin to: complement -> clitic -> particle. Or maybe the order is wrong. John On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Dick,**** > > I think it would be very much parallel to �beat the crap out of me.� My > first inclination is to see it as complex transitive. �I sent that man from > my door.� �I drove that problem out of my mind.� The second complement is > adverbial. The direct object (affected participant) ends up in another place > as a result of the action of the verb. If I remember right, though, more > traditional grammars don�t recognize the larger category of adverbial > compliment in complex transitive sentences. It seems so obvious to me.**** > > *�Out of me, this bugs the hell.� *�This bugs the hell.� These sorts > of tests aren�t foolproof, but they do seem to confirm that �out of me� is > complement, not just modifier. It�s a required element in the construction. > **** > > ** ** > > Craig**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Dick Veit > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2011 8:17 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Parsing requested**** > > ** ** > > In a post yesterday, I used the verb phrase "bugs the hell out of me." Can > we try to parse that? Is "the hell" a direct object? An adverbial? Or is it > just an unanalyzable idiom--after all, it doesn't analyze semantically. > > Dick > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" **** > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ **** > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --20cf303638dbb5ce9a04ad5f7af7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable That seems about right to me. As an idiom, it "feels" like the units are starting to "grammaticalize" (sp?), with "bugs out of me" beginning a slow creep toward phrasal verb status, but maybe that's just me. Isn't that how phrasal verbs form? An adverbial complement goes through the grammaticalization process and becomes a verbal particle? I don't know -- just a guess. I vaguely remember something about a process that was akin to: complement -> clitic�� -> particle. Or maybe the order is wrong.

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dick,
�� I think it would be very much parallel to �beat the crap out of me.� My first inclination is to see it as complex transitive. �I sent that man from my door.� �I drove that problem out of my mind.� �The second complement is adverbial. The direct object (affected participant) ends up in another place as a result of the action of the verb. �If I remember right, though, more traditional grammars don�t recognize the larger category of adverbial compliment in complex transitive sentences. It seems so obvious to me.

�� *�Out of me, this bugs the hell.� �*�This bugs the hell.� These sorts of tests aren�t foolproof, but they do seem to confirm that �out of me� is complement, not just modifier. �It�s a required element in the construction.

�
Craig
�

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 8:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Parsing requested

�
In a post yesterday, I used the verb phrase "bugs the hell out of me." Can we try to parse that? Is "the hell" a direct object? An adverbial? Or is it just an unanalyzable idiom--after all, it doesn't analyze semantically.

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --20cf303638dbb5ce9a04ad5f7af7-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:42:37 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English In-Reply-To: [log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary�e6ba2124011f3ded04ad5fa39d --90e6ba2124011f3ded04ad5fa39d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I was thinking the same as Dick. Most of these items would not strike me as odd in conversation. Many of them make sense and the only reason to avoid them is to conform with some verbal etiquette, which isn't a very convincing reason for most adults and definitely an ineffectual motivator for young people. As usual, I'm not suggesting that standard language varieties don't have their uses, but some of the finer points of linguistic "good behavior" just don't have a leg to stand on. For example, I find "mothers-in-law" to be irritatingly cumbersome. In spoken language, it actually slows my mental processing -- I have to slow down and purposefully choose the prescriptively correct form. Can't we just accept that "mother-in-law" has become a unit and treat it as such? Would anyone really get confused at "mother-in-laws" in context? However, I agree that Trask probably didn't have formal written English in mind when giving the cited examples. John On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Scott, > > I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal written > English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal" in the > sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in a > conversation. In #3, "between you and I" bugs the hell out of me, but I > wouldn't want to bet against its becoming accepted even in writing in a few > generations. > > Sentences #1, 2, and 6 are unfamiliar to me. I assume they are from a > regional dialect I have not encountered. > > Dick > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> ** >> Trask in his *Why do Languages Change* includes (p. 10) nine sentences >> that he considered would be or shortly become >> accepted as "normal English grammar." One of the sentences (number seven) >> is strictly conversational and unlikely >> to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have >> egregious errors. What do you think? >> >> (1) I recommend you to take the job. >> (2) He demanded that the agitators were arrested. >> (3) This is just between you and I. >> (4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic. >> (5) This paper was written by Susie and myself. >> (6) Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m. >> (7) If he'd've played, we would have won. >> (8) He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws. >> (9) Having said that, there is no feasible alternative. >> >> Scott Catledge >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface >> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or >> leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --90e6ba2124011f3ded04ad5fa39d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I was thinking the same as Dick. Most of these items would not strike me as odd in conversation. Many of them make sense and the only reason to avoid them is to conform with some verbal etiquette, which isn't a very convincing reason for most adults and definitely an ineffectual motivator for young people. As usual, I'm not suggesting that standard language varieties don't have their uses, but some of the finer points of linguistic "good behavior" just don't have a leg to stand on.

For example, I find "mothers-in-law" to be irritatingly cumbersome. In spoken language, it actually slows my mental processing -- I have to slow down and purposefully choose the prescriptively correct form. Can't we just accept that "mother-in-law" has become a unit and treat it as such? Would anyone really get confused at "mother-in-laws" in context?

However, I agree that Trask probably didn't have formal written English in mind when giving the cited examples.

John

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Scott,

I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal" in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in a conversation. In #3, "between you and I" bugs the hell out of me, but I wouldn't want to bet against its becoming accepted even in writing in a few generations.

Sentences #1, 2, and 6 are unfamiliar to me. I assume they are from a regional dialect I have not encountered.

Dick

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10)�nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become

accepted as "normal English grammar."� One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely

to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors.� What do you think?

�

(1)� I recommend you to take the job.

(2)� He demanded that the agitators were arrested.

(3)� This is just between you and I.

(4)� Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.

(5)� This paper was written by Susie and myself.

(6)� Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m.

(7)� If he'd've played, we would have won.

(8)� He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws.

(9)� Having said that, there is no feasible alternative.

�

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --90e6ba2124011f3ded04ad5fa39d-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:47:46 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Interjections In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary�aec5299ff59dcbbf04ad5fb570 --bcaec5299ff59dcbbf04ad5fb570 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Absolutely, Carol. This is an issue of formality or linguistic register. Interjections carry more weight when with friends; I think it is Deborah Tannen who says that interjections have a primarily social function, expressing more of a shared, group feeling/affirmation. When used in isolation, especially in formal writing, it comes off as assumptive and self-centered. Why assume that the reader will be able to partake in the emotive force of the interjection? More importantly, why assume that the reader agrees with you? Without that agreement, interjections are useless in my opinion; other forms are necessary to make a point accessible to all readers. John On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Somewhat related to but not quite in the same vein of Scott's "Bad English" > thread, is the questionable use of interjections in academic writing. Is it > safe to tell students that interjections are typically not found in academic > or formal writing? I have a student who had a continuous string of > interjections in his response paper he wrote to one of the essays in the > text on marriage. "Yikes!" "Not this guy!" "Wow!" were some of the > responses he would write following a summary of what the author stated. He > also began many of his sentences with "Yes, I agree that..." or "No > thanks,..." How can I explain that this is not an appropriate style for a > college essay? On the informal to formal scale I explained in class, this is > what I would consider too informal. Do you agree? > > Thanks. > > Carol > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --bcaec5299ff59dcbbf04ad5fb570 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Absolutely, Carol. This is an issue of formality or linguistic register. Interjections carry more weight when with friends; I think it is Deborah Tannen who says that interjections have a primarily social function, expressing more of a shared, group feeling/affirmation. When used in isolation, especially in formal writing, it comes off as assumptive and self-centered. Why assume that the reader will be able to partake in the emotive force of the interjection? More importantly, why assume that the reader agrees with you? Without that agreement, interjections are useless in my opinion; other forms are necessary to make a point accessible to all readers.

John

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Somewhat related to but not quite in the same vein of Scott's "Bad English" thread, is the questionable use of interjections in academic writing. Is it safe to tell students that interjections are typically not found in academic or formal writing? I have a student who had a continuous string of interjections in his response paper he wrote to one of the essays in the text on marriage. "Yikes!"� "Not this guy!" "Wow!" were some of the responses he would write following a summary of what the author stated. He also began many of his sentences with "Yes, I agree that..." or�"No thanks,..." How can I explain that this is not an appropriate style for a college essay? On the informal to formal scale I explained in class,�this is what I would consider too informal. Do you agree?

�

Thanks.

�

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --bcaec5299ff59dcbbf04ad5fb570-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:39:29 -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: Patricia A Moody <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Interjections In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6687129E254A8C45A26F60D3FE424B84A54866D1DDSUEX07MBX04ad_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_6687129E254A8C45A26F60D3FE424B84A54866D1DDSUEX07MBX04ad_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Can you please send those pics you took of me at MOMA either to me or to [log in to unmask]? Thank you!!! See you tomorrow... me Patricia A. Moody English Department Syracuse University 426 H.L. 315-443-9486 fax: 315-443-3660 [log in to unmask] From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:12 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Interjections Somewhat related to but not quite in the same vein of Scott's "Bad English" thread, is the questionable use of interjections in academic writing. Is it safe to tell students that interjections are typically not found in academic or formal writing? I have a student who had a continuous string of interjections in his response paper he wrote to one of the essays in the text on marriage. "Yikes!" "Not this guy!" "Wow!" were some of the responses he would write following a summary of what the author stated. He also began many of his sentences with "Yes, I agree that..." or "No thanks,..." How can I explain that this is not an appropriate style for a college essay? On the informal to formal scale I explained in class, this is what I would consider too informal. Do you agree? Thanks. Carol To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_6687129E254A8C45A26F60D3FE424B84A54866D1DDSUEX07MBX04ad_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Can you please send those pics you took of me at MOMA either to me or to [log in to unmask]? Thank you!!!

See you tomorrow…

me

Patricia A. Moody
English Department
Syracuse University
426 H.L.
315-443-9486
fax: 315-443-3660
[log in to unmask]

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Interjections

Somewhat related to but not quite in the same vein of Scott's "Bad English" thread, is the questionable use of interjections in academic writing. Is it safe to tell students that interjections are typically not found in academic or formal writing? I have a student who had a continuous string of interjections in his response paper he wrote to one of the essays in the text on marriage. "Yikes!" "Not this guy!" "Wow!" were some of the responses he would write following a summary of what the author stated. He also began many of his sentences with "Yes, I agree that..." or "No thanks,..." How can I explain that this is not an appropriate style for a college essay? On the informal to formal scale I explained in class, this is what I would consider too informal. Do you agree?

Thanks.

Carol
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_6687129E254A8C45A26F60D3FE424B84A54866D1DDSUEX07MBX04ad_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:43:15 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Patricia A Moody <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Interjections In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6687129E254A8C45A26F60D3FE424B84A54866D1DFSUEX07MBX04ad_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_6687129E254A8C45A26F60D3FE424B84A54866D1DFSUEX07MBX04ad_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Please ignore this misdirected message!! Patricia A. Moody English Department Syracuse University 426 H.L. 315-443-9486 fax: 315-443-3660 [log in to unmask] From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Patricia A Moody Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:39 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Interjections Can you please send those pics you took of me at MOMA either to me or to [log in to unmask]? Thank you!!! See you tomorrow... me Patricia A. Moody English Department Syracuse University 426 H.L. 315-443-9486 fax: 315-443-3660 [log in to unmask] From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:12 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Interjections Somewhat related to but not quite in the same vein of Scott's "Bad English" thread, is the questionable use of interjections in academic writing. Is it safe to tell students that interjections are typically not found in academic or formal writing? I have a student who had a continuous string of interjections in his response paper he wrote to one of the essays in the text on marriage. "Yikes!" "Not this guy!" "Wow!" were some of the responses he would write following a summary of what the author stated. He also began many of his sentences with "Yes, I agree that..." or "No thanks,..." How can I explain that this is not an appropriate style for a college essay? On the informal to formal scale I explained in class, this is what I would consider too informal. Do you agree? Thanks. Carol To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_6687129E254A8C45A26F60D3FE424B84A54866D1DFSUEX07MBX04ad_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Please ignore this misdirected message!!

Patricia A. Moody
English Department
Syracuse University
426 H.L.
315-443-9486
fax: 315-443-3660
[log in to unmask]

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Patricia A Moody
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Interjections

Can you please send those pics you took of me at MOMA either to me or to [log in to unmask]? Thank you!!!

See you tomorrow…

me

Patricia A. Moody
English Department
Syracuse University
426 H.L.
315-443-9486
fax: 315-443-3660
[log in to unmask]

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Interjections

Somewhat related to but not quite in the same vein of Scott's "Bad English" thread, is the questionable use of interjections in academic writing. Is it safe to tell students that interjections are typically not found in academic or formal writing? I have a student who had a continuous string of interjections in his response paper he wrote to one of the essays in the text on marriage. "Yikes!" "Not this guy!" "Wow!" were some of the responses he would write following a summary of what the author stated. He also began many of his sentences with "Yes, I agree that..." or "No thanks,..." How can I explain that this is not an appropriate style for a college essay? On the informal to formal scale I explained in class, this is what I would consider too informal. Do you agree?

Thanks.

Carol
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_6687129E254A8C45A26F60D3FE424B84A54866D1DFSUEX07MBX04ad_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:57:04 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "R. Michael Medley (ck)" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point. Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal" in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in a conversation." And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object construction like this I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl: "Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too? Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I woulda went anyhow.'" I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional or social variety of language that they speak? 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/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:36:40 -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: "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Interjections In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EF572CAUAEXCH07univa_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EF572CAUAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John, In a rough kind of sense, I agree with you, but one pattern we can find in the work of successful writers is a generous metadiscourse, comments within the text about the text as a text. In that sense, "I agree" is more useful than "gee" or "wow." A good writer is often manifestly present within a text, though perhaps in a way different from the way that happens in speech. "They Say/I Say" offers academic "templates" for it. If we tell students that a formal text is bereft of human perspective, we are swinging the pendulum too far the other way. It reminds me of the days when we couldn't write "I," but had to write "one," as in "One gets up around six in the morning and likes to read the paper over one's Cheerios." There is a huge disjunct between the formal stance and the uniqueness of the detail. One result is that we edit out experience and produce disembodied thoughts. I also wonder to what extent we should preemptively establish what makes an effective text. Do our students have anything to add to that conversation? Do they ever get a chance to write to each other or do we simply assume it's all written for a teacher? I like the idea that we don't want to sound self-important. (But what could be more self-important than much overly formal writing? Our students are often encouraged to present themselves as experts when they are anything but.) We also don't want to assume agreement without having done the work of creating it. I'm not convinced that editing out interjections will get us there. Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:48 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Interjections Absolutely, Carol. This is an issue of formality or linguistic register. Interjections carry more weight when with friends; I think it is Deborah Tannen who says that interjections have a primarily social function, expressing more of a shared, group feeling/affirmation. When used in isolation, especially in formal writing, it comes off as assumptive and self-centered. Why assume that the reader will be able to partake in the emotive force of the interjection? More importantly, why assume that the reader agrees with you? Without that agreement, interjections are useless in my opinion; other forms are necessary to make a point accessible to all readers. John On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Somewhat related to but not quite in the same vein of Scott's "Bad English" thread, is the questionable use of interjections in academic writing. Is it safe to tell students that interjections are typically not found in academic or formal writing? I have a student who had a continuous string of interjections in his response paper he wrote to one of the essays in the text on marriage. "Yikes!" "Not this guy!" "Wow!" were some of the responses he would write following a summary of what the author stated. He also began many of his sentences with "Yes, I agree that..." or "No thanks,..." How can I explain that this is not an appropriate style for a college essay? On the informal to formal scale I explained in class, this is what I would consider too informal. Do you agree? Thanks. Carol To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EF572CAUAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
John,
    In a rough kind of sense, I agree with you, but one pattern we can find in the work of successful writers is a generous metadiscourse, comments within the text about the text as a text. In that sense, “I agree” is more useful than “gee” or “wow.” A good writer is often manifestly present within a text, though perhaps in a way different from the way that happens in speech. “They Say/I Say” offers academic “templates” for it.
   If we tell students that a formal text is bereft of human perspective, we are swinging the pendulum too far the other way. It reminds me of the days when we couldn’t write “I,” but had to write “one,” as in “One gets up around six in the morning and likes to read the paper over one’s Cheerios.” There is a huge disjunct between the formal stance and the uniqueness of the detail. One result is that we edit out experience and produce disembodied thoughts.
    I also wonder to what extent we should preemptively establish what makes an effective text. Do our students have anything to add to that conversation? Do they ever get a chance to write to each other or do we simply assume it’s all written for a teacher?
   I like the idea that we don’t want to sound self-important. (But what could be more self-important than much overly formal writing? Our students are often encouraged to present themselves as experts when they are anything but.) We also don’t want to assume agreement without having done the work of creating it. I’m not convinced that editing out interjections will get us there.

Craig
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Interjections

Absolutely, Carol. This is an issue of formality or linguistic register. Interjections carry more weight when with friends; I think it is Deborah Tannen who says that interjections have a primarily social function, expressing more of a shared, group feeling/affirmation. When used in isolation, especially in formal writing, it comes off as assumptive and self-centered. Why assume that the reader will be able to partake in the emotive force of the interjection? More importantly, why assume that the reader agrees with you? Without that agreement, interjections are useless in my opinion; other forms are necessary to make a point accessible to all readers.

John
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Somewhat related to but not quite in the same vein of Scott's "Bad English" thread, is the questionable use of interjections in academic writing. Is it safe to tell students that interjections are typically not found in academic or formal writing? I have a student who had a continuous string of interjections in his response paper he wrote to one of the essays in the text on marriage. "Yikes!" "Not this guy!" "Wow!" were some of the responses he would write following a summary of what the author stated. He also began many of his sentences with "Yes, I agree that..." or "No thanks,..." How can I explain that this is not an appropriate style for a college essay? On the informal to formal scale I explained in class, this is what I would consider too informal. Do you agree?

Thanks.

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EF572CAUAEXCH07univa_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:45:22 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary�e6ba6e83d4b128b004ad623004 --90e6ba6e83d4b128b004ad623004 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened. This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's *Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts* (1970): "Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain." I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance. I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this *is * a place where I think the conversation will focus on *why* a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.) John On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point. > > Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal > written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal" > in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in > a conversation." > > And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have > even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the > appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object > construction like this > > I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl: > "Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too? > > Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I > couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I > woulda went anyhow.'" > > I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It > is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is > not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly > acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own > language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in > which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't > accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like > these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too > long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for > being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still > think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional > or social variety of language that they speak? > > 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/ --90e6ba6e83d4b128b004ad623004 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened.

This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970):

"Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain."

I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance.

I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.)

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point.

Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal

written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal"
in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in
a conversation."

And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have
even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. �I think the
appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object
construction like this

I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl:
"Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too?

Old woman: �'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I
couldn'tna et nuthin'. �But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I
woulda went anyhow.'"

I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. �It
is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is
not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly
acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own
language. �They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in
which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. �What I don't
accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like
these. �English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too
long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for
being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still
think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional
or social variety of language that they speak?

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/ --90e6ba6e83d4b128b004ad623004-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:00:08 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Interjections In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary cf307cff04c2feab04ad627d64 --20cf307cff04c2feab04ad627d64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig, I definitely agree that removing interjections from student writing will solve no problems. It's merely one small piece. Composition instruction is NOT my specialty (it is, in fact, the area in which I feel most lacking as an educator), but I focus a great deal on creating agreement (or at least a compelling point) in student writing. For that reason, interjections are almost always ineffectual because they seem to skip ahead to a "we all agree" position. I like what you have to say about the tendency to edit out human experience, and I agree that it is far too tempting to take a concept like "cut the interjections" to an extreme. I used to be guilty of this, and I found that, more than once, I was stifling some fantastic narrative writers whose ethos really sprang from their life experiences. So, I suppose my approach is focused strictly on "don't take a shortcut -- actually get me to wherever it is you're taking me." If a writer can integrate interjections in an effective manner that actually contributes to their purpose, then that is certainly a viable usage. I wish we had more time in the secondary classroom to write for a variety of audiences. I feel cramped in that regard. John On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > John,**** > > In a rough kind of sense, I agree with you, but one pattern we can find > in the work of successful writers is a generous metadiscourse, comments > within the text about the text as a text. In that sense, �I agree� is more > useful than �gee� or �wow.� A good writer is often manifestly present > within a text, though perhaps in a way different from the way that happens > in speech. �They Say/I Say� offers academic �templates� for it. **** > > If we tell students that a formal text is bereft of human perspective, > we are swinging the pendulum too far the other way. It reminds me of the > days when we couldn�t write �I,� but had to write �one,� as in �One gets up > around six in the morning and likes to read the paper over one�s Cheerios.� > There is a huge disjunct between the formal stance and the uniqueness of > the detail. One result is that we edit out experience and produce > disembodied thoughts. **** > > I also wonder to what extent we should preemptively establish what > makes an effective text. Do our students have anything to add to that > conversation? Do they ever get a chance to write to each other or do we > simply assume it�s all written for a teacher?**** > > I like the idea that we don�t want to sound self-important. (But what > could be more self-important than much overly formal writing? Our students > are often encouraged to present themselves as experts when they are anything > but.) We also don�t want to assume agreement without having done the work > of creating it. I�m not convinced that editing out interjections will get us > there. **** > > ** ** > > Craig**** > > *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *John Dews-Alexander > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:48 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: Interjections**** > > ** ** > > Absolutely, Carol. This is an issue of formality or linguistic register. > Interjections carry more weight when with friends; I think it is Deborah > Tannen who says that interjections have a primarily social function, > expressing more of a shared, group feeling/affirmation. When used in > isolation, especially in formal writing, it comes off as assumptive and > self-centered. Why assume that the reader will be able to partake in the > emotive force of the interjection? More importantly, why assume that the > reader agrees with you? Without that agreement, interjections are useless in > my opinion; other forms are necessary to make a point accessible to all > readers. > > John**** > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> > wrote:**** > > Somewhat related to but not quite in the same vein of Scott's "Bad English" > thread, is the questionable use of interjections in academic writing. Is it > safe to tell students that interjections are typically not found in academic > or formal writing? I have a student who had a continuous string of > interjections in his response paper he wrote to one of the essays in the > text on marriage. "Yikes!" "Not this guy!" "Wow!" were some of the > responses he would write following a summary of what the author stated. He > also began many of his sentences with "Yes, I agree that..." or "No > thanks,..." How can I explain that this is not an appropriate style for a > college essay? On the informal to formal scale I explained in class, this is > what I would consider too informal. Do you agree?**** > > **** > > Thanks.**** > > **** > > Carol**** > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" **** > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/**** > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" **** > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ **** > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --20cf307cff04c2feab04ad627d64 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig, I definitely agree that removing interjections from student writing will solve no problems. It's merely one small piece. Composition instruction is NOT my specialty (it is, in fact, the area in which I feel most lacking as an educator), but I focus a great deal on creating agreement (or at least a compelling point) in student writing. For that reason, interjections are almost always ineffectual because they seem to skip ahead to a "we all agree" position.

I like what you have to say about the tendency to edit out human experience, and I agree that it is far too tempting to take a concept like "cut the interjections" to an extreme. I used to be guilty of this, and I found that, more than once, I was stifling some fantastic narrative writers whose ethos really sprang from their life experiences. So, I suppose my approach is focused strictly on "don't take a shortcut -- actually get me to wherever it is you're taking me." If a writer can integrate interjections in an effective manner that actually contributes to their purpose, then that is certainly a viable usage.

I wish we had more time in the secondary classroom to write for a variety of audiences. I feel cramped in that regard.

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

John,

�� In a rough kind of sense, I agree with you, but one pattern we can find in the work of successful writers is a generous metadiscourse, comments within the text about the text as a text.� In that sense, �I agree� is more useful than �gee� or �wow.� �A good writer is often manifestly present within a text, though perhaps in a way different from the way that happens in speech. �They Say/I Say� offers academic �templates� for it. �

��If we tell students that a formal text is bereft of human perspective, we are swinging the pendulum too far the other way. It reminds me of the days when we couldn�t write �I,� but had to write �one,� as in �One gets up around six in the� morning and likes to read the paper over one�s Cheerios.� �There is a huge disjunct between the formal stance and the uniqueness of the detail. �One result is that we edit out experience and produce disembodied thoughts.

��I also wonder to what extent we should preemptively establish what makes an effective text. Do our students have anything to add to that conversation? �Do they ever get a chance to write to each other or do we simply assume it�s all written for a teacher?

�� I like the idea that we don�t want to sound self-important. (But what could be more self-important than much overly formal writing? Our students are often encouraged to present themselves as experts when they are anything but.) �We also don�t want to assume agreement without having done the work of creating it. I�m not convinced that editing out interjections will get us there.

�
Craig
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Interjections
�
Absolutely, Carol. This is an issue of formality or linguistic register. Interjections carry more weight when with friends; I think it is Deborah Tannen who says that interjections have a primarily social function, expressing more of a shared, group feeling/affirmation. When used in isolation, especially in formal writing, it comes off as assumptive and self-centered. Why assume that the reader will be able to partake in the emotive force of the interjection? More importantly, why assume that the reader agrees with you? Without that agreement, interjections are useless in my opinion; other forms are necessary to make a point accessible to all readers.

John
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Somewhat related to but not quite in the same vein of Scott's "Bad English" thread, is the questionable use of interjections in academic writing. Is it safe to tell students that interjections are typically not found in academic or formal writing? I have a student who had a continuous string of interjections in his response paper he wrote to one of the essays in the text on marriage. "Yikes!"� "Not this guy!" "Wow!" were some of the responses he would write following a summary of what the author stated. He also began many of his sentences with "Yes, I agree that..." or�"No thanks,..." How can I explain that this is not an appropriate style for a college essay? On the informal to formal scale I explained in class,�this is what I would consider too informal. Do you agree?

�
Thanks.
�
Carol

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

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

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --20cf307cff04c2feab04ad627d64-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:25:49 -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: "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Interjections In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EF57369UAEXCH07univa_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EF57369UAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John, It surprises me, given all that we now know about teaching writing, that writing "for a variety of audiences" is not a routine part of the secondary English classroom. Even when I'm teaching literature, especially as Gen Ed course, I like to let students write about the "excellence" of a story or poem or play. They get to choose the text and determine what makes it excellent and simply need to be reflective and articulate, helping a reader see the text through that lens. They are, in effect, developing their own aesthetic. I have tough questions to ask as they work their way through it, but it at least gives the student a chance to own the ideas in their text and to share those ideas with each other. I try to live by the rule that the student owns the text. It's hard to square that with outside directed corrections. Of course, we also need to help students live in a world of harsh judgment. Like everyone else, I'm struggling to be helpful. Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:00 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Interjections Craig, I definitely agree that removing interjections from student writing will solve no problems. It's merely one small piece. Composition instruction is NOT my specialty (it is, in fact, the area in which I feel most lacking as an educator), but I focus a great deal on creating agreement (or at least a compelling point) in student writing. For that reason, interjections are almost always ineffectual because they seem to skip ahead to a "we all agree" position. I like what you have to say about the tendency to edit out human experience, and I agree that it is far too tempting to take a concept like "cut the interjections" to an extreme. I used to be guilty of this, and I found that, more than once, I was stifling some fantastic narrative writers whose ethos really sprang from their life experiences. So, I suppose my approach is focused strictly on "don't take a shortcut -- actually get me to wherever it is you're taking me." If a writer can integrate interjections in an effective manner that actually contributes to their purpose, then that is certainly a viable usage. I wish we had more time in the secondary classroom to write for a variety of audiences. I feel cramped in that regard. John On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> wrote: John, In a rough kind of sense, I agree with you, but one pattern we can find in the work of successful writers is a generous metadiscourse, comments within the text about the text as a text. In that sense, "I agree" is more useful than "gee" or "wow." A good writer is often manifestly present within a text, though perhaps in a way different from the way that happens in speech. "They Say/I Say" offers academic "templates" for it. If we tell students that a formal text is bereft of human perspective, we are swinging the pendulum too far the other way. It reminds me of the days when we couldn't write "I," but had to write "one," as in "One gets up around six in the morning and likes to read the paper over one's Cheerios." There is a huge disjunct between the formal stance and the uniqueness of the detail. One result is that we edit out experience and produce disembodied thoughts. I also wonder to what extent we should preemptively establish what makes an effective text. Do our students have anything to add to that conversation? Do they ever get a chance to write to each other or do we simply assume it's all written for a teacher? I like the idea that we don't want to sound self-important. (But what could be more self-important than much overly formal writing? Our students are often encouraged to present themselves as experts when they are anything but.) We also don't want to assume agreement without having done the work of creating it. I'm not convinced that editing out interjections will get us there. Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:48 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Interjections Absolutely, Carol. This is an issue of formality or linguistic register. Interjections carry more weight when with friends; I think it is Deborah Tannen who says that interjections have a primarily social function, expressing more of a shared, group feeling/affirmation. When used in isolation, especially in formal writing, it comes off as assumptive and self-centered. Why assume that the reader will be able to partake in the emotive force of the interjection? More importantly, why assume that the reader agrees with you? Without that agreement, interjections are useless in my opinion; other forms are necessary to make a point accessible to all readers. John On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Somewhat related to but not quite in the same vein of Scott's "Bad English" thread, is the questionable use of interjections in academic writing. Is it safe to tell students that interjections are typically not found in academic or formal writing? I have a student who had a continuous string of interjections in his response paper he wrote to one of the essays in the text on marriage. "Yikes!" "Not this guy!" "Wow!" were some of the responses he would write following a summary of what the author stated. He also began many of his sentences with "Yes, I agree that..." or "No thanks,..." How can I explain that this is not an appropriate style for a college essay? On the informal to formal scale I explained in class, this is what I would consider too informal. Do you agree? Thanks. Carol To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EF57369UAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
John,
    It surprises me, given all that we now know about teaching writing, that writing ”for a variety of audiences” is not a routine part of the secondary English classroom.
   Even when I’m teaching literature, especially as Gen Ed course, I like to let students write about the “excellence” of a story or poem or play. They get to choose the text and determine what makes it excellent and simply need to be reflective and articulate, helping a reader see the text through that lens. They are, in effect, developing their own aesthetic. I have tough questions to ask as they work their way through it, but it at least gives the student a chance to own the ideas in their text and to share those ideas with each other.
   I try to live by the rule that the student owns the text. It’s hard to square that with outside directed corrections.
   Of course, we also need to help students live in a world of harsh judgment. Like everyone else, I’m struggling to be helpful.

Craig
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Interjections

Craig, I definitely agree that removing interjections from student writing will solve no problems. It's merely one small piece. Composition instruction is NOT my specialty (it is, in fact, the area in which I feel most lacking as an educator), but I focus a great deal on creating agreement (or at least a compelling point) in student writing. For that reason, interjections are almost always ineffectual because they seem to skip ahead to a "we all agree" position.

I like what you have to say about the tendency to edit out human experience, and I agree that it is far too tempting to take a concept like "cut the interjections" to an extreme. I used to be guilty of this, and I found that, more than once, I was stifling some fantastic narrative writers whose ethos really sprang from their life experiences. So, I suppose my approach is focused strictly on "don't take a shortcut -- actually get me to wherever it is you're taking me." If a writer can integrate interjections in an effective manner that actually contributes to their purpose, then that is certainly a viable usage.

I wish we had more time in the secondary classroom to write for a variety of audiences. I feel cramped in that regard.

John
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
John,
    In a rough kind of sense, I agree with you, but one pattern we can find in the work of successful writers is a generous metadiscourse, comments within the text about the text as a text. In that sense, “I agree” is more useful than “gee” or “wow.” A good writer is often manifestly present within a text, though perhaps in a way different from the way that happens in speech. “They Say/I Say” offers academic “templates” for it.
   If we tell students that a formal text is bereft of human perspective, we are swinging the pendulum too far the other way. It reminds me of the days when we couldn’t write “I,” but had to write “one,” as in “One gets up around six in the morning and likes to read the paper over one’s Cheerios.” There is a huge disjunct between the formal stance and the uniqueness of the detail. One result is that we edit out experience and produce disembodied thoughts.
    I also wonder to what extent we should preemptively establish what makes an effective text. Do our students have anything to add to that conversation? Do they ever get a chance to write to each other or do we simply assume it’s all written for a teacher?
   I like the idea that we don’t want to sound self-important. (But what could be more self-important than much overly formal writing? Our students are often encouraged to present themselves as experts when they are anything but.) We also don’t want to assume agreement without having done the work of creating it. I’m not convinced that editing out interjections will get us there.

Craig
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Interjections

Absolutely, Carol. This is an issue of formality or linguistic register. Interjections carry more weight when with friends; I think it is Deborah Tannen who says that interjections have a primarily social function, expressing more of a shared, group feeling/affirmation. When used in isolation, especially in formal writing, it comes off as assumptive and self-centered. Why assume that the reader will be able to partake in the emotive force of the interjection? More importantly, why assume that the reader agrees with you? Without that agreement, interjections are useless in my opinion; other forms are necessary to make a point accessible to all readers.

John
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Somewhat related to but not quite in the same vein of Scott's "Bad English" thread, is the questionable use of interjections in academic writing. Is it safe to tell students that interjections are typically not found in academic or formal writing? I have a student who had a continuous string of interjections in his response paper he wrote to one of the essays in the text on marriage. "Yikes!" "Not this guy!" "Wow!" were some of the responses he would write following a summary of what the author stated. He also began many of his sentences with "Yes, I agree that..." or "No thanks,..." How can I explain that this is not an appropriate style for a college essay? On the informal to formal scale I explained in class, this is what I would consider too informal. Do you agree?

Thanks.

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EF57369UAEXCH07univa_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:44:42 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "R. Michael Medley (ck)" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I apologize for leaving one of my sentences incomplete. Here is my complete thought: And although I don't like #3 either [(3) This is just between you and I.], it is extremely common, and I have even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object construction like this is interesting because almost no speaker ever uses the nominative form in objects that are not compound. This phenomenon seems to signal something to us about the nature of compound NPs. I think Pinker in The Language Instinct has something to say about this construction, but I can't find the reference. 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/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:20:52 -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: Stephen King <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_SbbUWLFNOV6ojrRnSac6qg)" --Boundary_(ID_SbbUWLFNOV6ojrRnSac6qg) Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom. The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used. On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: > Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened. > > This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970): > > "Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain." > > I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance. > > I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.) > > John > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point. > > Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal > written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal" > in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in > a conversation." > > And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have > even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the > appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object > construction like this > > I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl: > "Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too? > > Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I > couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I > woulda went anyhow.'" > > I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It > is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is > not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly > acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own > language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in > which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't > accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like > these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too > long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for > being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still > think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional > or social variety of language that they speak? > > 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/ --Boundary_(ID_SbbUWLFNOV6ojrRnSac6qg) Content-type: text/html; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom.

The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used.
On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened.

This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970):

"Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain."

I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance.

I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.)

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point.

Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal

written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal"
in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in
a conversation."

And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have
even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the
appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object
construction like this

I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl:
"Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too?

Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I
couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I
woulda went anyhow.'"

I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It
is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is
not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly
acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own
language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in
which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't
accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like
these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too
long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for
being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still
think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional
or social variety of language that they speak?

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/ --Boundary_(ID_SbbUWLFNOV6ojrRnSac6qg)-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:39:14 +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: "Myers, Marshall" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E6446B90F8DEEC4FB965A2BCC9E704CC18A145CEfsmail3facultys_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_E6446B90F8DEEC4FB965A2BCC9E704CC18A145CEfsmail3facultys_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Stephen, As a compositionist-linguist, I think you're right on target with what you say. Usually grammar peeves have some other motivation besides worrying about "correct English." One interesting explanation is that many "grammar peeves" were those from the underclasses who saw using "correct English" as way to gain acceptance from those above them. Marshall From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen King Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 5:21 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: 'Bad' English I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom. The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used. On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened. This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970): "Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain." I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance. I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.) John On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point. Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal" in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in a conversation." And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object construction like this I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl: "Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too? Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I woulda went anyhow.'" I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional or social variety of language that they speak? 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/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_E6446B90F8DEEC4FB965A2BCC9E704CC18A145CEfsmail3facultys_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Stephen,

As a compositionist-linguist, I think you’re right on target with what you say. Usually grammar peeves have some other motivation besides worrying about “correct English.” One interesting explanation is that many “grammar peeves” were those from the underclasses who saw using “correct English” as way to gain acceptance from those above them.

Marshall

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen King
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 5:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 'Bad' English

I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom.

The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used.

On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened.

This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970):

"Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain."

I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance.

I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.)

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point.

Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal

written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal"
in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in
a conversation."

And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have
even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the
appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object
construction like this

I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl:
"Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too?

Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I
couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I
woulda went anyhow.'"

I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It
is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is
not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly
acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own
language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in
which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't
accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like
these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too
long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for
being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still
think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional
or social variety of language that they speak?

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/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_E6446B90F8DEEC4FB965A2BCC9E704CC18A145CEfsmail3facultys_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:56:06 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Layton <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CE45FF9CFC6D30_63C_D0D08_webmail-d042.sysops.aol.com" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CE45FF9CFC6D30_63C_D0D08_webmail-d042.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'm reluctant to place my ignorance on public display :) , but ... What is "incorrect" about #4? (4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic. Thanks, Brad Layton -----Original Message----- From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> To: ATEG <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Mon, Sep 19, 2011 7:26 pm Subject: 'Bad' English Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10) nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become accepted as "normal English grammar." One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors. What do you think? (1) I recommend you to take the job. (2) He demanded that the agitators were arrested. (3) This is just between you and I. (4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic. (5) This paper was written by Susie and myself. (6) Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m. (7) If he'd've played, we would have won. (8) He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws. (9) Having said that, there is no feasible alternative. Scott Catledge To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.htmland select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ----------MB_8CE45FF9CFC6D30_63C_D0D08_webmail-d042.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
I'm reluctant to place my ignorance on public display :) , but ...

What is "incorrect" about #4?

(4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.

Thanks,
Brad Layton

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]>
To: ATEG <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Mon, Sep 19, 2011 7:26 pm
Subject: 'Bad' English

Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10) nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become

accepted as "normal English grammar." One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely

to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors. What do you think?

(1) I recommend you to take the job.

(2) He demanded that the agitators were arrested.

(3) This is just between you and I.

(4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.

(5) This paper was written by Susie and myself.

(6) Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m.

(7) If he'd've played, we would have won.

(8) He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws.

(9) Having said that, there is no feasible alternative.

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ----------MB_8CE45FF9CFC6D30_63C_D0D08_webmail-d042.sysops.aol.com-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:42:29 +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: "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 So as long as we are talking about 'correctness,' what do you folks think the psychology of comma splices? My sense is that even students who have a reasonable exposure to the written word just perceive them as 'correct.' Students who would never (or at least rarely) write a sentence fragment or run-on sentence will write comma splices. What's up with that? Janet -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of R. Michael Medley (ck) Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:45 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: 'Bad' English I apologize for leaving one of my sentences incomplete. Here is my complete thought: And although I don't like #3 either [(3) This is just between you and I.], it is extremely common, and I have even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object construction like this is interesting because almost no speaker ever uses the nominative form in objects that are not compound. This phenomenon seems to signal something to us about the nature of compound NPs. I think Pinker in The Language Instinct has something to say about this construction, but I can't find the reference. 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/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:06:49 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --000e0cd5729a72215404ad685b32 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Brad, you're not alone. I wondered about #4 as well. Maybe there is an objection to using "had to"? But what is the other option in the past tense since there is no past for "must" in modern English? I suppose "were were forced to" but that gives a much more passive meaning. Perhaps the author objects to fronting the adverb phrase? John On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Brad Layton <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I'm reluctant to place my ignorance on public display :) , but ... > > What is "incorrect" about #4? > > (4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic. > > Thanks, > Brad Layton > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> > To: ATEG <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Mon, Sep 19, 2011 7:26 pm > Subject: 'Bad' English > > Trask in his *Why do Languages Change* includes (p. 10) nine sentences > that he considered would be or shortly become > accepted as "normal English grammar." One of the sentences (number seven) > is strictly conversational and unlikely > to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have > egregious errors. What do you think? > > (1) I recommend you to take the job. > (2) He demanded that the agitators were arrested. > (3) This is just between you and I. > (4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic. > (5) This paper was written by Susie and myself. > (6) Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m. > (7) If he'd've played, we would have won. > (8) He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws. > (9) Having said that, there is no feasible alternative. > > Scott Catledge > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select > "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --000e0cd5729a72215404ad685b32 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Brad, you're not alone. I wondered about #4 as well. Maybe there is an objection to using "had to"? But what is the other option in the past tense since there is no past for "must" in modern English? I suppose "were were forced to" but that gives a much more passive meaning. Perhaps the author objects to fronting the adverb phrase?

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Brad Layton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I'm reluctant to place my ignorance on public display :) , but ...

What is "incorrect" about #4?

(4)� Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.

Thanks,
Brad Layton

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]>
To: ATEG <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Mon, Sep 19, 2011 7:26 pm
Subject: 'Bad' English

Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10)�nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become

accepted as "normal English grammar."� One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely

to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors.� What do you think?

�

(1)� I recommend you to take the job.

(2)� He demanded that the agitators were arrested.

(3)� This is just between you and I.

(4)� Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.

(5)� This paper was written by Susie and myself.

(6)� Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m.

(7)� If he'd've played, we would have won.

(8)� He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws.

(9)� Having said that, there is no feasible alternative.

�

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --000e0cd5729a72215404ad685b32-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:25:41 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_0784686f-0678-452e-8ad0-4f66ac7659cc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_0784686f-0678-452e-8ad0-4f66ac7659cc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here's the first web site that came up when I googled "due to vs. because" http://web.ku.edu/~edit/because.html Here's what they had to say. I know what I'd say if I were a student - "Who gives a sh*&*^!"Different due to because of . . . The word pairs �because of� and �due to� are not interchangeable. The reason they are not is that they �grew up� differently in the language. �Because of� grew up as an adverb; �due to� grew up as an adjective. Remember that adjectives modify only nouns or pronouns, whereas adverbs usually modify verbs. (The fact that adverbs occasionally modify other adverbs or even adjectives and entire phrases is not relevant to this particular discussion.) To be more precise, with their attendant words, �due to� and �because of� operate as adjectival and adverbial prepositional phrases. To understand how the functions of �due to� and �because of� vary, look at these sentences. 1. His defeat was due to the lottery issue. 2. He was defeated because of the lottery issue. In sentence #1, his is a possessive pronoun that modifies the noun defeat. The verb �was� is a linking verb. So, to create a sentence, we need a subject complement after the verb �was.� The adjectival prepositional phrase �due to the lottery issue� is that complement, linked to the subject by �was.� Thus, it modifies the noun defeat. But in sentence #2, the pronoun "he" has become the sentence's subject. The verb is now �was defeated.� As reconstructed, �He was defeated� could in fact be a complete sentence. And �due to� has nothing to modify. It's an adjective, remember? It can't very well modify the pronoun �he,� can it? Neither can it refer to �was defeated� because adjectives don't modify verbs. Sentence 2, therefore, should read: �He was defeated because of the lottery issue.� Now the �why� of the verb �was defeated� is explained, properly, by an adverbial prepositional phrase, �because of.� In informal speech, we probably can get by with such improper usage as �His defeat was because of the lottery issue,� and �He was defeated due to the lottery issue.� But we shouldn't accept that kind of sloppiness in writing. We don't want to look stupid among those in the audience who know better. If we show them we don't care about the language, how can we expect them to believe us when we tell them that we care about the facts? OK, how well do you know it? A little practice makes perfect. Click here, if you're game. Geoff Layton Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:06:49 -0500 From: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: 'Bad' English To: [log in to unmask] Brad, you're not alone. I wondered about #4 as well. Maybe there is an objection to using "had to"? But what is the other option in the past tense since there is no past for "must" in modern English? I suppose "were were forced to" but that gives a much more passive meaning. Perhaps the author objects to fronting the adverb phrase? John On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Brad Layton <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I'm reluctant to place my ignorance on public display :) , but ... What is "incorrect" about #4? (4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic. Thanks, Brad Layton -----Original Message----- From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> To: ATEG <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Mon, Sep 19, 2011 7:26 pm Subject: 'Bad' English Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10) nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become accepted as "normal English grammar." One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors. What do you think? (1) I recommend you to take the job. (2) He demanded that the agitators were arrested. (3) This is just between you and I. (4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic. (5) This paper was written by Susie and myself. (6) Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m. (7) If he'd've played, we would have won. (8) He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws. (9) Having said that, there is no feasible alternative. Scott Catledge To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_0784686f-0678-452e-8ad0-4f66ac7659cc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Here's the first web site that came up when I googled "due to vs. because"

http://web.ku.edu/~edit/because.html

Here's what they had to say. I know what I'd say if I were a student - "Who gives a sh*&*^!"
Different ~~due to~~ because of . . .
The word pairs �because of� and �due to� are not interchangeable. The reason they are not is that they �grew up� differently in the language.
�Because of� grew up as an adverb; �due to� grew up as an adjective. Remember that adjectives modify only nouns or pronouns, whereas adverbs usually modify verbs. (The fact that adverbs occasionally modify other adverbs or even adjectives and entire phrases is not relevant to this particular discussion.)
To be more precise, with their attendant words, �due to� and �because of� operate as adjectival and adverbial prepositional phrases. To understand how the functions of �due to� and �because of� vary, look at these sentences.

1. His defeat was due to the lottery issue.

2. He was defeated because of the lottery issue.

In sentence #1, his is a possessive pronoun that modifies the noun defeat. The verb �was� is a linking verb. So, to create a sentence, we need a subject complement after the verb �was.� The adjectival prepositional phrase �due to the lottery issue� is that complement, linked to the subject by �was.� Thus, it modifies the noun defeat.
But in sentence #2, the pronoun "he" has become the sentence's subject. The verb is now �was defeated.� As reconstructed, �He was defeated� could in fact be a complete sentence. And �due to� has nothing to modify. It's an adjective, remember? It can't very well modify the pronoun �he,� can it?
Neither can it refer to �was defeated� because adjectives don't modify verbs. Sentence 2, therefore, should read: �He was defeated because of the lottery issue.� Now the �why� of the verb �was defeated� is explained, properly, by an adverbial prepositional phrase, �because of.�
In informal speech, we probably can get by with such improper usage as �His defeat was because of the lottery issue,� and �He was defeated due to the lottery issue.� But we shouldn't accept that kind of sloppiness in writing. We don't want to look stupid among those in the audience who know better. If we show them we don't care about the language, how can we expect them to believe us when we tell them that we care about the facts?

OK, how well do you know it? A little practice makes perfect. Click here, if you're game.

Geoff Layton

Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:06:49 -0500
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 'Bad' English
To: [log in to unmask]

Brad, you're not alone. I wondered about #4 as well. Maybe there is an objection to using "had to"? But what is the other option in the past tense since there is no past for "must" in modern English? I suppose "were were forced to" but that gives a much more passive meaning. Perhaps the author objects to fronting the adverb phrase?

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Brad Layton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I'm reluctant to place my ignorance on public display :) , but ...

What is "incorrect" about #4?

(4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.

Thanks,
Brad Layton

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]>
To: ATEG <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Mon, Sep 19, 2011 7:26 pm
Subject: 'Bad' English

Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10) nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become

accepted as "normal English grammar." One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely

to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors. What do you think?

(1) I recommend you to take the job.

(2) He demanded that the agitators were arrested.

(3) This is just between you and I.

(4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.

(5) This paper was written by Susie and myself.

(6) Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m.

(7) If he'd've played, we would have won.

(8) He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws.

(9) Having said that, there is no feasible alternative.

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

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_0784686f-0678-452e-8ad0-4f66ac7659cc_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:30:00 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_9d28068f-a84c-4571-922a-3be95f4458d1_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_9d28068f-a84c-4571-922a-3be95f4458d1_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I need to give a shout out to my peeps for my last post: The materials in Professor Malcolm Gibson's Wonderful World of Editing, aka Making Words Work, are copyrighted. Students, teachers and professionals are free to access and use its resources. Teachers are free (and encouraged) to use the materials for classroom (instructional) use with proper credit (though Prof. Gibson would like to know just so he has an idea of who's using it and how.) For all others, other than personal use, permission must be received from Malcolm Gibson, 2052 Dole, William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications, 1000 Sunnyside Ave., University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045. Phone: (785) 864-7667. E-mail: [log in to unmask] Credits: Artwork and photos found in this course guide are either personal photographs, free access art from the Web or art from PrintMaster Premier (c) 1998 Mindscape, Inc. In addition to this page, PrintMaster Premier artwork can be found in the following pages: General Knowledge Guidelines, Grading, Photo Captions, Prof's Pet Peeves, Sports, Study Tips, Unbelievable, But True and stories linked through that page, No Link, and Zilch. Comments and suggestions are welcomed. Updated Sept. 9, 2011. Geoff Layton Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:06:49 -0500 From: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: 'Bad' English To: [log in to unmask] Brad, you're not alone. I wondered about #4 as well. Maybe there is an objection to using "had to"? But what is the other option in the past tense since there is no past for "must" in modern English? I suppose "were were forced to" but that gives a much more passive meaning. Perhaps the author objects to fronting the adverb phrase? John On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Brad Layton <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I'm reluctant to place my ignorance on public display :) , but ... What is "incorrect" about #4? (4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic. Thanks, Brad Layton -----Original Message----- From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> To: ATEG <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Mon, Sep 19, 2011 7:26 pm Subject: 'Bad' English Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10) nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become accepted as "normal English grammar." One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors. What do you think? (1) I recommend you to take the job. (2) He demanded that the agitators were arrested. (3) This is just between you and I. (4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic. (5) This paper was written by Susie and myself. (6) Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m. (7) If he'd've played, we would have won. (8) He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws. (9) Having said that, there is no feasible alternative. Scott Catledge To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_9d28068f-a84c-4571-922a-3be95f4458d1_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I need to give a shout out to my peeps for my last post:

The materials in Professor Malcolm Gibson's Wonderful World of Editing, aka Making Words Work, are copyrighted. Students, teachers and professionals are free to access and use its resources. Teachers are free (and encouraged) to use the materials for classroom (instructional) use with proper credit (though Prof. Gibson would like to know just so he has an idea of who's using it and how.) For all others, other than personal use, permission must be received from Malcolm Gibson, 2052 Dole, William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications, 1000 Sunnyside Ave., University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045. Phone: (785) 864-7667. E-mail: [log in to unmask]. Credits: Artwork and photos found in this course guide are either personal photographs, free access art from the Web or art from PrintMaster Premier (c) 1998 Mindscape, Inc. In addition to this page, PrintMaster Premier artwork can be found in the following pages: General Knowledge Guidelines, Grading, Photo Captions, Prof's Pet Peeves, Sports, Study Tips, Unbelievable, But True and stories linked through that page, No Link, and Zilch. Comments and suggestions are welcomed. Updated Sept. 9, 2011.

Geoff Layton

Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:06:49 -0500
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 'Bad' English
To: [log in to unmask]

Brad, you're not alone. I wondered about #4 as well. Maybe there is an objection to using "had to"? But what is the other option in the past tense since there is no past for "must" in modern English? I suppose "were were forced to" but that gives a much more passive meaning. Perhaps the author objects to fronting the adverb phrase?

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Brad Layton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I'm reluctant to place my ignorance on public display :) , but ...

What is "incorrect" about #4?

(4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.

Thanks,
Brad Layton

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]>
To: ATEG <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Mon, Sep 19, 2011 7:26 pm
Subject: 'Bad' English

Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10) nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become

accepted as "normal English grammar." One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely

to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors. What do you think?

(1) I recommend you to take the job.

(2) He demanded that the agitators were arrested.

(3) This is just between you and I.

(4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.

(5) This paper was written by Susie and myself.

(6) Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m.

(7) If he'd've played, we would have won.

(8) He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws.

(9) Having said that, there is no feasible alternative.

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

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_9d28068f-a84c-4571-922a-3be95f4458d1_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:32:24 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --00151747c10420c33404ad68b835 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 My understanding is that "due" is an adjective and thus is used with a "to be" verb, as in "The cancellation was due to the rain." To use the main clause as is, you need an adverbial form: "Because of the rain, we had to cancel the picnic." This distinction is rarely made any more, it appears to me. Jane Saral On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:06 PM, John Dews-Alexander < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Brad, you're not alone. I wondered about #4 as well. Maybe there is an > objection to using "had to"? But what is the other option in the past tense > since there is no past for "must" in modern English? I suppose "were were > forced to" but that gives a much more passive meaning. Perhaps the author > objects to fronting the adverb phrase? > > John > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Brad Layton <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I'm reluctant to place my ignorance on public display :) , but ... >> >> What is "incorrect" about #4? >> >> (4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic. >> >> Thanks, >> Brad Layton >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> >> To: ATEG <[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: Mon, Sep 19, 2011 7:26 pm >> Subject: 'Bad' English >> >> Trask in his *Why do Languages Change* includes (p. 10) nine sentences >> that he considered would be or shortly become >> accepted as "normal English grammar." One of the sentences (number seven) >> is strictly conversational and unlikely >> to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have >> egregious errors. What do you think? >> >> (1) I recommend you to take the job. >> (2) He demanded that the agitators were arrested. >> (3) This is just between you and I. >> (4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic. >> (5) This paper was written by Susie and myself. >> (6) Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m. >> (7) If he'd've played, we would have won. >> (8) He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws. >> (9) Having said that, there is no feasible alternative. >> >> Scott Catledge >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface >> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or >> leave the list" >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select >> "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --00151747c10420c33404ad68b835 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My understanding is that "due" is an adjective and thus is used with a "to be" verb, as in "The cancellation was due to the rain."

�

To use the main clause as is, you need an adverbial form:� "Because of the rain, we had to cancel the picnic."

�

This distinction is rarely made any more, it appears to me.

�

Jane Saral

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:06 PM, John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Brad, you're not alone. I wondered about #4 as well. Maybe there is an objection to using "had to"? But what is the other option in the past tense since there is no past for "must" in modern English? I suppose "were were forced to" but that gives a much more passive meaning. Perhaps the author objects to fronting the adverb phrase?

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Brad Layton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I'm reluctant to place my ignorance on public display :) , but ...

What is "incorrect" about #4?

(4)� Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.

Thanks,
Brad Layton

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]>
To: ATEG <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Mon, Sep 19, 2011 7:26 pm
Subject: 'Bad' English

Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10)�nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become

accepted as "normal English grammar."� One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely

to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors.� What do you think?

�

(1)� I recommend you to take the job.

(2)� He demanded that the agitators were arrested.

(3)� This is just between you and I.

(4)� Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.

(5)� This paper was written by Susie and myself.

(6)� Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m.

(7)� If he'd've played, we would have won.

(8)� He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws.

(9)� Having said that, there is no feasible alternative.

�

Scott Catledge

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

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --00151747c10420c33404ad68b835-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:34:43 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --00151773e34036912904ad68bf1d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Wow, my thoughts exactly, Geoff! I think "due to" is an acceptable idiomatic adverb and has been for some time. John On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Here's the first web site that came up when I googled "due to vs. because" > > http://web.ku.edu/~edit/because.html > > Here's what they had to say. I know what I'd say if I were a student - "Who > gives a sh*&*^!" > > Different due to because of . . . > > The word pairs �because of� and �due to� are not interchangeable. The > reason they are not is that they �grew up� differently in the language. > �Because of� grew up as an adverb; �due to� grew up as an adjective. > Remember that adjectives modify only nouns or pronouns, whereas adverbs > usually modify verbs. (The fact that adverbs occasionally modify other > adverbs or even adjectives and entire phrases is not relevant to this > particular discussion.) > To be more precise, with their attendant words, �due to� and �because of� > operate as adjectival and adverbial prepositional phrases. To understand how > the functions of �due to� and �because of� vary, look at these sentences.* > ***** > > *1.* *His defeat was* *due to** the lottery issue.***** > > *2. He was defeated **because of** the lottery issue.***** > > In sentence #1, his is a possessive pronoun that modifies the noun defeat. > The verb �was� is a linking verb. So, to create a sentence, we need a > subject complement after the verb �was.� The adjectival prepositional phrase > �due to the lottery issue� is that complement, linked to the subject by > �was.� Thus, it modifies the noun defeat. > But in sentence #2, the pronoun "he" has become the sentence's subject. The > verb is now �was defeated.� As reconstructed, �He was defeated� could in > fact be a complete sentence. And �due to� has nothing to modify. It's an > adjective, remember? It can't very well modify the pronoun �he,� can it? > Neither can it refer to �was defeated� because adjectives don't modify > verbs. Sentence 2, therefore, should read: �He was defeated because of the > lottery issue.� Now the �why� of the verb �was defeated� is explained, > properly, by an adverbial prepositional phrase, �because of.� > In informal speech, we probably can get by with such improper usage as �His > defeat was because of the lottery issue,� and �He was defeated due to the > lottery issue.� But we shouldn't accept that kind of sloppiness in writing. > We don't want to look stupid among those in the audience who know better. If > we show them we don't care about the language, how can we expect them to > believe us when we tell them that we care about the facts? **** > > *OK*, how well do you know it? A little practice makes perfect. Click > here, if you're game.**** > > > Geoff Layton > > ------------------------------ > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:06:49 -0500 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: 'Bad' English > To: [log in to unmask] > > > Brad, you're not alone. I wondered about #4 as well. Maybe there is an > objection to using "had to"? But what is the other option in the past tense > since there is no past for "must" in modern English? I suppose "were were > forced to" but that gives a much more passive meaning. Perhaps the author > objects to fronting the adverb phrase? > > John > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Brad Layton <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > I'm reluctant to place my ignorance on public display :) , but ... > > What is "incorrect" about #4? > > (4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic. > > Thanks, > Brad Layton > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> > To: ATEG <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Mon, Sep 19, 2011 7:26 pm > Subject: 'Bad' English > > Trask in his *Why do Languages Change* includes (p. 10) nine sentences > that he considered would be or shortly become > accepted as "normal English grammar." One of the sentences (number seven) > is strictly conversational and unlikely > to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have > egregious errors. What do you think? > > (1) I recommend you to take the job. > (2) He demanded that the agitators were arrested. > (3) This is just between you and I. > (4) Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic. > (5) This paper was written by Susie and myself. > (6) Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m. > (7) If he'd've played, we would have won. > (8) He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws. > (9) Having said that, there is no feasible alternative. > > Scott Catledge > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select > "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --00151773e34036912904ad68bf1d Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Wow, my thoughts exactly, Geoff! I think "due to" is an acceptable idiomatic adverb and has been for some time.

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Here's the first web site that came up when I googled "due to vs. because"
�
http://web.ku.edu/~edit/because.html
�
Here's what they had to say. I know what I'd say if I were a student - "Who gives a sh*&*^!"

Different ~~due to~~ because of . . .

The word pairs �because of� and �due to� are not interchangeable. The reason they are not is that they �grew up� differently in the language.
�Because of� grew up as an adverb; �due to� grew up as an adjective. Remember that adjectives modify only nouns or pronouns, whereas adverbs usually modify verbs. (The fact that adverbs occasionally modify other adverbs or even adjectives and entire phrases is not relevant to this particular discussion.)
To be more precise, with their attendant words, �due to� and �because of� operate as adjectival and adverbial prepositional phrases. To understand how the functions of �due to� and �because of� vary, look at these sentences.

1. His defeat was due to the lottery issue.

2. He was defeated because of the lottery issue.

In sentence #1, his is a possessive pronoun that modifies the noun defeat. The verb �was� is a linking verb. So, to create a sentence, we need a subject complement after the verb �was.� The adjectival prepositional phrase �due to the lottery issue� is that complement, linked to the subject by �was.� Thus, it modifies the noun defeat.
But in sentence #2, the pronoun "he" has become the sentence's subject. The verb is now �was defeated.� As reconstructed, �He was defeated� could in fact be a complete sentence. And �due to� has nothing to modify. It's an adjective, remember? It can't very well modify the pronoun �he,� can it?
Neither can it refer to �was defeated� because adjectives don't modify verbs. Sentence 2, therefore, should read: �He was defeated because of the lottery issue.� Now the �why� of the verb �was defeated� is explained, properly, by an adverbial prepositional phrase, �because of.�
In informal speech, we probably can get by with such improper usage as �His defeat was because of the lottery issue,� and �He was defeated due to the lottery issue.� But we shouldn't accept that kind of sloppiness in writing. We don't want to look stupid among those in the audience who know better. If we show them we don't care about the language, how can we expect them to believe us when we tell them that we care about the facts?

OK, how well do you know it? A little practice makes perfect. Click here, if you're game.

Geoff Layton
�
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:06:49 -0500
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 'Bad' English
To: [log in to unmask]

Brad, you're not alone. I wondered about #4 as well. Maybe there is an objection to using "had to"? But what is the other option in the past tense since there is no past for "must" in modern English? I suppose "were were forced to" but that gives a much more passive meaning. Perhaps the author objects to fronting the adverb phrase?

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Brad Layton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I'm reluctant to place my ignorance on public display :) , but ...

What is "incorrect" about #4?

(4)� Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.

Thanks,
Brad Layton

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]>
To: ATEG <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Mon, Sep 19, 2011 7:26 pm
Subject: 'Bad' English

Trask in his Why do Languages Change includes (p. 10)�nine sentences that he considered would be or shortly become

accepted as "normal English grammar."� One of the sentences (number seven) is strictly conversational and unlikely

to be encountered in normal writing: I consider the other eight to have egregious errors.� What do you think?

�

(1)� I recommend you to take the job.

(2)� He demanded that the agitators were arrested.

(3)� This is just between you and I.

(4)� Due to the rain, we had to cancel the picnic.

(5)� This paper was written by Susie and myself.

(6)� Please come between eight a.m. to six p.m.

(7)� If he'd've played, we would have won.

(8)� He makes tedious jokes about mother-in-laws.

(9)� Having said that, there is no feasible alternative.

�

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

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

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --00151773e34036912904ad68bf1d-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 07:20:11 -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: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_603228_309587933.1316604011073" ------=_Part_603228_309587933.1316604011073 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few." So, now Standard/Formal English is "not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]." What is then, the purpose of teaching it in public schoools or in college? Why bother? Why not let the students speak and write in their own "variety"? Why waste so much money to pay English teachers and English instructors to teach students this "not intrinsically better or worse than any other" Standard/Formal English variety? Why not hire people from the street to teach students in the public school and college their own "variety" of English? It does not matter, anyway, if those who teach English in public schools or college have been trained to teach "correct" or "prescriptive" English! Who cares about this Formal/Standard English and who needs it? From the content of the messages and comments posted in this forum it might seem appropriate to rename group who call themselves the "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" to "The Anti-Grammar Assembly/Forum." It is no wonder that this "Assembly" has had very little or no impact on the English Language education in the United States. If those who are supposed to uphold Standard/Formal English teaching speak against it and discourage its teaching as often as they have the opportunity to do so, then what should we expect from those who are convinced that teaching grammar could "harm" or "damage" the students? Sad, very sad! Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:20:52 PM Subject: Re: 'Bad' English I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom. The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used. On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened. This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970): "Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain." I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance. I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.) John On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) < [log in to unmask] > wrote: I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point. Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal" in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in a conversation." And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object construction like this I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl: "Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too? Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I woulda went anyhow.'" I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional or social variety of language that they speak? 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/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_Part_603228_309587933.1316604011073 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few."

So, now Standard/Formal English is "not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]." What is then, the purpose of teaching it in public schoools or in college? Why bother? Why not let the students speak and write in their own "variety"? Why waste so much money to pay English teachers and English instructors to teach students this "not intrinsically better or worse than any other" Standard/Formal English variety? Why not hire people from the street to teach students in the public school and college their own "variety" of English? It does not matter, anyway, if those who teach English in public schools or college have been trained to teach "correct" or "prescriptive" English! Who cares about this Formal/Standard English and who needs it?

From the content of the messages and comments posted in this forum it might seem appropriate to rename group who call themselves the "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" to "The Anti-Grammar Assembly/Forum." It is no wonder that this "Assembly" has had very little or no impact on the English Language education in the United States. If those who are supposed to uphold Standard/Formal English teaching speak against it and discourage its teaching as often as they have the opportunity to do so, then what should we expect from those who are convinced that teaching grammar could "harm" or "damage" the students?

Sad, very sad!

Eduard

From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:20:52 PM
Subject: Re: 'Bad' English

I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom.

The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used.

On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened.

This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970):

"Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain."

I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance.

I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.)

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point.

Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal

written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal"
in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in
a conversation."

And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have
even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the
appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object
construction like this

I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl:
"Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too?

Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I
couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I
woulda went anyhow.'"

I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It
is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is
not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly
acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own
language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in
which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't
accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like
these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too
long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for
being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still
think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional
or social variety of language that they speak?

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/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_Part_603228_309587933.1316604011073-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 07:07:21 -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: "Dixon, Jack" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0F79F16D80ACAF4697CCB4902BACE2ED2F37E246A2LSCSMAILCLSCS_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0F79F16D80ACAF4697CCB4902BACE2ED2F37E246A2LSCSMAILCLSCS_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Eduard, The answers to some of your questions are in Steve King�s response. His statement about the intrinsic equality of dialects does not negate the need for formal instruction in language and grammar. He writes, �Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it [formal English] is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire.� Formal English is the status marker, the prestige dialect in our society. People can argue whether it should be or not all they want, but is this not reason enough for formal instruction? Other reasons for teaching formal English exist, too: for instance, its impact on reading comprehension of all sorts of texts is evident. Rereading Steve K�s response and your reaction, I would like to ask: Can you not imagine any circumstances when using a less formal register might be preferred for clearer communication? Finally, I don�t think that Steve K is implying that anyone off the street could come in to teach any variety of English. After all, we English teachers do not have to teach students their home language; they already know it and operate in it. We might encourage them to reflect on how it works, especially in contrasting it with formal English. Isn�t one purpose of schooling to teach elements students cannot just pick up on their own as we help them develop their critical thinking strategies? In doing so, teachers also work with depths students are not likely to reach on their own. Yes, formal English is an important part of the language/grammar curriculum. I do not believe that Steve K�s ideas are the reason grammar/language instruction has reached its present state. It has been headed in this direction for over 100 years, with a few slight turns along the way. Jack ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:20 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" "Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few." So, now Standard/Formal English is "not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]." What is then, the purpose of teaching it in public schoools or in college? Why bother? Why not let the students speak and write in their own "variety"? Why waste so much money to pay English teachers and English instructors to teach students this "not intrinsically better or worse than any other" Standard/Formal English variety? Why not hire people from the street to teach students in the public school and college their own "variety" of English? It does not matter, anyway, if those who teach English in public schools or college have been trained to teach "correct" or "prescriptive" English! Who cares about this Formal/Standard English and who needs it? From the content of the messages and comments posted in this forum it might seem appropriate to rename group who call themselves the "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" to "The Anti-Grammar Assembly/Forum." It is no wonder that this "Assembly" has had very little or no impact on the English Language education in the United States. If those who are supposed to uphold Standard/Formal English teaching speak against it and discourage its teaching as often as they have the opportunity to do so, then what should we expect from those who are convinced that teaching grammar could "harm" or "damage" the students? Sad, very sad! Eduard ________________________________ From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:20:52 PM Subject: Re: 'Bad' English I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom. The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used. On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened. This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970): "Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain." I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance. I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.) John On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point. Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal" in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in a conversation." And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object construction like this I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl: "Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too? Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I woulda went anyhow.'" I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional or social variety of language that they speak? 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/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_0F79F16D80ACAF4697CCB4902BACE2ED2F37E246A2LSCSMAILCLSCS_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Eduard,

The answers to some of your questions are in Steve King�s response. His statement about the intrinsic equality of dialects does not negate the need for formal instruction in language and grammar. He writes, �Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it [formal English] is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire.� Formal English is the status marker, the prestige dialect in our society. People can argue whether it should be or not all they want, but is this not reason enough for formal instruction? Other reasons for teaching formal English exist, too: for instance, its impact on reading comprehension of all sorts of texts is evident.

Rereading Steve K�s response and your reaction, I would like to ask: Can you not imagine any circumstances when using a less formal register might be preferred for clearer communication?

Finally, I don�t think that Steve K is implying that anyone off the street could come in to teach any variety of English. After all, we English teachers do not have to teach students their home language; they already know it and operate in it. We might encourage them to reflect on how it works, especially in contrasting it with formal English. Isn�t one purpose of schooling to teach elements students cannot just pick up on their own as we help them develop their critical thinking strategies? In doing so, teachers also work with depths students are not likely to reach on their own.

Yes, formal English is an important part of the language/grammar curriculum. I do not believe that Steve K�s ideas are the reason grammar/language instruction has reached its present state. It has been headed in this direction for over 100 years, with a few slight turns along the way.

Jack

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

"Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few."

So, now Standard/Formal English is "not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]." What is then, the purpose of teaching it in public schoools or in college? Why bother? Why not let the students speak and write in their own "variety"? Why waste so much money to pay English teachers and English instructors to teach students this "not intrinsically better or worse than any other" Standard/Formal English variety? Why not hire people from the street to teach students in the public school and college their own "variety" of English? It does not matter, anyway, if those who teach English in public schools or college have been trained to teach "correct" or "prescriptive" English! Who cares about this Formal/Standard English and who needs it?

From the content of the messages and comments posted in this forum it might seem appropriate to rename group who call themselves the "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" to "The Anti-Grammar Assembly/Forum." It is no wonder that this "Assembly" has had very little or no impact on the English Language education in the United States. If those who are supposed to uphold Standard/Formal English teaching speak against it and discourage its teaching as often as they have the opportunity to do so, then what should we expect from those who are convinced that teaching grammar could "harm" or "damage" the students?

Sad, very sad!

Eduard

From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:20:52 PM
Subject: Re: 'Bad' English

I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom.

The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used.

On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened.

This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970):

"Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain."

I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance.

I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.)

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point.

Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal

written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal"
in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in
a conversation."

And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have
even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the
appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object
construction like this

I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl:
"Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too?

Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I
couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I
woulda went anyhow.'"

I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It
is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is
not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly
acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own
language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in
which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't
accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like
these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too
long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for
being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still
think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional
or social variety of language that they speak?

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/

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_0F79F16D80ACAF4697CCB4902BACE2ED2F37E246A2LSCSMAILCLSCS_-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:05:51 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Rhetorical Grammar: was Bad English Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EF57728UAEXCH07univa_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EF57728UAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I find myself nodding approval to what Stephen is saying-including the observation that formal English is somewhat limited in its contexts, though we are better off for having access to it when the context calls for it. I wonder, though, about a definition for "rhetorical." As it's used here, it seems focused on "language variety in response to context," which is appropriate to the thread. That certainly seems part of it. But it seems to me, as a writer especially, that when I'm looking for the right word or the best wording in a sentence or sequence of sentences, whether something is "formal" or "correct" seems rather tangential to the larger purposes I would think of as rhetorical. Is it convincing? Interesting? Clear? Coherent? In an above sentence, for example, I replaced "combination of words" with "wording." Both are OK and both, it seems to me, are equally acceptable in this register, but I felt, rightly or wrongly, that "wording" was a more accessible expression of my intentions. I chose to leave single adjectives as sentences, clearly breaking a prescriptive rule, but not by accident. I guess I'm also wondering how we get away from the notion that grammar is all about etiquette and not about meaning or effectiveness. I'm about to walk into a classroom where we'll talk about Tim O'Brien's "The Things they Carried" and I'll ask this class to think about the kinds of language O'Brien is using to tell what he describes in another context as "a true war story." If none of the language he uses is "wrong" (inappropriate to its context), as my classes have decided in the past, has that used up grammar as a topic? Can and should our rhetorical grammar move past that observation? Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen King Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 5:21 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: 'Bad' English I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom. The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used. On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened. This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970): "Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain." I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance. I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.) John On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point. Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal" in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in a conversation." And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object construction like this I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl: "Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too? Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I woulda went anyhow.'" I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional or social variety of language that they speak? 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/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EF57728UAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    I find myself nodding approval to what Stephen is saying—including the observation that formal English is somewhat limited in its contexts, though we are better off for having access to it when the context calls for it.
    I wonder, though, about a definition for “rhetorical.” As it’s used here, it seems focused on “language variety in response to context,” which is appropriate to the thread. That certainly seems part of it. But it seems to me, as a writer especially, that when I’m looking for the right word or the best wording in a sentence or sequence of sentences, whether something is “formal” or “correct” seems rather tangential to the larger purposes I would think of as rhetorical. Is it convincing? Interesting? Clear? Coherent?
   In an above sentence, for example, I replaced “combination of words” with “wording.” Both are OK and both, it seems to me, are equally acceptable in this register, but I felt, rightly or wrongly, that “wording” was a more accessible expression of my intentions. I chose to leave single adjectives as sentences, clearly breaking a prescriptive rule, but not by accident.
   I guess I’m also wondering how we get away from the notion that grammar is all about etiquette and not about meaning or effectiveness.
   I’m about to walk into a classroom where we’ll talk about Tim O’Brien’s “The Things they Carried” and I’ll ask this class to think about the kinds of language O’Brien is using to tell what he describes in another context as “a true war story.”
   If none of the language he uses is “wrong” (inappropriate to its context), as my classes have decided in the past, has that used up grammar as a topic? Can and should our rhetorical grammar move past that observation?

Craig

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen King
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 5:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 'Bad' English

I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom.

The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used.
On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened.

This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970):

"Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain."

I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance.

I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.)

John
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point.

Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal
written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal"
in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in
a conversation."
And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have
even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the
appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object
construction like this

I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl:
"Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too?

Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I
couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I
woulda went anyhow.'"

I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It
is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is
not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly
acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own
language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in
which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't
accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like
these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too
long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for
being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still
think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional
or social variety of language that they speak?

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/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EF57728UAEXCH07univa_-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:00:24 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: 'Bad' English In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Janet, My observation has been that these students use comma splices when the two clauses are roughly saying the same thing, as in "My father was a generous man, he would give even when he couldn't afford to." The semi-colon often fits nicely in those slots. The good news about that is that you can praise the sentences (much of the time) and offer the semi-colon. You don't have to pounce on it as error. One reason for this failure in recognition is that they have been told that "A sentence is a group of words that expresses a complete thought," but not that two independent clauses linked by just a comma constitute a comma splice. To be taught the latter necessitates actual attention to language: not only to what a clause is, but to what constitutes syntactic independence. The "complete thought" formulation is an attempt to circumvent the need for a deeper look. It has consequences. Craig -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Castilleja, Janet Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 7:42 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: 'Bad' English So as long as we are talking about 'correctness,' what do you folks think the psychology of comma splices? My sense is that even students who have a reasonable exposure to the written word just perceive them as 'correct.' Students who would never (or at least rarely) write a sentence fragment or run-on sentence will write comma splices. What's up with that? Janet -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of R. Michael Medley (ck) Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:45 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: 'Bad' English I apologize for leaving one of my sentences incomplete. Here is my complete thought: And although I don't like #3 either [(3) This is just between you and I.], it is extremely common, and I have even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object construction like this is interesting because almost no speaker ever uses the nominative form in objects that are not compound. This phenomenon seems to signal something to us about the nature of compound NPs. I think Pinker in The Language Instinct has something to say about this construction, but I can't find the reference. 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, 21 Sep 2011 10:24:51 -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 "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1460388173-1799803934-1316625891=:12428" --1460388173-1799803934-1316625891=:12428 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Eduard: I agree with you in many respects.�I see a not too distant future where people will simply grunt, moan, or pound rocks together to communicate and it will no longer be fashionable to use words. There will be large gaps on the page where punctuation marks once existed, so readers can leave it to their own devices to decide which mark works best for them.�The beauty of the English language will only be found in great volumes of antiquity, left to crumble in the attics of old English teachers and literature enthusiasts. It is very sad to me as well. Carol --- On Wed, 9/21/11, Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" To: [log in to unmask] Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2011, 7:20 AM #yiv235974863 p {margin:0;} "Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few." � So, now Standard/Formal English is "not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]." What is then, the purpose of teaching it in public schoools or in college? Why bother? Why not let the students speak and write in their own "variety"? Why waste so much money to pay English teachers and English instructors to teach students this "not intrinsically better or worse than any other" Standard/Formal English variety? Why not hire people from the street to teach students in the public school and college�their own "variety" of English? It does not matter, anyway, if those who teach English in public schools or college have been trained to teach "correct" or "prescriptive" English! Who cares about this Formal/Standard English and who needs it? � From the content of the messages and comments posted in this forum it might seem appropriate to rename�group who�call themselves the "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" to "The Anti-Grammar Assembly/Forum." It is no wonder that this "Assembly" has had very little or no impact on the English Language education in the United States. If those who are supposed to uphold Standard/Formal English teaching speak against it and discourage its teaching as often as they have the opportunity to do so, then what should we expect from those who are convinced that teaching grammar could "harm" or "damage" the students? � Sad, very sad! � Eduard From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:20:52 PM Subject: Re: 'Bad' English I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well �in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom.� The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used.� On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened. This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970): "Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain." I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance. I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.) John On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point. Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal" in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in a conversation." And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. �I think the appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object construction like this I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl: "Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too? Old woman: �'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I couldn'tna et nuthin'. �But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I woulda went anyhow.'" I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. �It is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own language. �They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. �What I don't accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like these. �English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional or social variety of language that they speak? 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/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --1460388173-1799803934-1316625891=:12428 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Eduard: I agree with you in many respects. I see a not too distant future where people will simply grunt, moan, or pound rocks together to communicate and it will no longer be fashionable to use words. There will be large gaps on the page where punctuation marks once existed, so readers can leave it to their own devices to decide which mark works best for them. The beauty of the English language will only be found in great volumes of antiquity, left to crumble in the attics of old English teachers and literature enthusiasts. It is very sad to me as well.

Carol

--- On Wed, 9/21/11, Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2011, 7:20 AM

"Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few."

So, now Standard/Formal English is "not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]." What is then, the purpose of teaching it in public schoools or in college? Why bother? Why not let the students speak and write in their own "variety"? Why waste so much money to pay English teachers and English instructors to teach students this "not intrinsically better or worse than any other" Standard/Formal English variety? Why not hire people from the street to teach students in the public school and college their own "variety" of English? It does not matter, anyway, if those who teach English in public schools or college have been trained to teach "correct" or "prescriptive" English! Who cares about this Formal/Standard English and who needs it?

From the content of the messages and comments posted in this forum it might seem appropriate to rename group who call themselves the "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" to "The Anti-Grammar Assembly/Forum." It is no wonder that this "Assembly" has had very little or no impact on the English Language education in the United States. If those who are supposed to uphold Standard/Formal English teaching speak against it and discourage its teaching as often as they have the opportunity to do so, then what should we expect from those who are convinced that teaching grammar could "harm" or "damage" the students?

Sad, very sad!

Eduard

From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:20:52 PM
Subject: Re: 'Bad' English

I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom.

The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used.

On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened.

This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970):

"Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain."

I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance.

I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.)

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point.

Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal

written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal"
in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in
a conversation."

And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have
even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the
appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object
construction like this

I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl:
"Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too?

Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I
couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I
woulda went anyhow.'"

I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It
is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is
not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly
acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own
language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in
which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't
accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like
these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too
long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for
being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still
think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional
or social variety of language that they speak?

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/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --1460388173-1799803934-1316625891=:12428-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:54:24 +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 "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_131662766474770" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --_----------=_131662766474770 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:54:24 -0400 X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface Eduard, I understand "not intrinsically better or worse" as a refusal to make a value jugement on this or that variety of English, although Steven King knows best what it means. If this is the case, I expect many would be compelled to agree with him: there is no language variety that is all around better than another. Some are better at some things than others, but since language emerges from human needs, differences should balance out. This does not negate the fact that if one wants to become accepted into certain communities, they should speak the language of those communities. This includes higher education, which is merely a gate keeper of sorts, denying access to resouces to these or those categories of people, and granting access to others. Of course, no one could deny the usefullness of having a common language, but there are limits to standardization that all reasonable people recognize. We need to distinguish between what is useful in terms of communication and what is useful in terms of shibboleth. Say /shebolet/ and you are one of us: say /sebolet/ and you lie eviscerated on the river bank. Mark On Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:20 AM, "Eduard Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: "Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few." So, now Standard/Formal English is "not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]." What is then, the purpose of teaching it in public schoools or in college? Why bother? Why not let the students speak and write in their own "variety"? Why waste so much money to pay English teachers and English instructors to teach students this "not intrinsically better or worse than any other" Standard/Formal English variety? Why not hire people from the street to teach students in the public school and college their own "variety" of English? It does not matter, anyway, if those who teach English in public schools or college have been trained to teach "correct" or "prescriptive" English! Who cares about this Formal/Standard English and who needs it? From the content of the messages and comments posted in this forum it might seem appropriate to rename group who call themselves the "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" to "The Anti-Grammar Assembly/Forum." It is no wonder that this "Assembly" has had very little or no impact on the English Language education in the United States. If those who are supposed to uphold Standard/Formal English teaching speak against it and discourage its teaching as often as they have the opportunity to do so, then what should we expect from those who are convinced that teaching grammar could "harm" or "damage" the students? Sad, very sad! Eduard ____________________________________________________________ From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:20:52 PM Subject: Re: 'Bad' English I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom. The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used. On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened. This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970): "Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain." I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance. I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.) John On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[1][log in to unmask]> wrote: I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point. Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal" in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in a conversation." And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object construction like this I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl: "Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too? Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I woulda went anyhow.'" I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional or social variety of language that they speak? 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: [2]http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at [3]http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: [4]http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at [5]http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ References 1. mailto:[log in to unmask] 2. http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html 3. http://ateg.org/ 4. http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html 5. 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/ --_----------=_131662766474770 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:54:24 -0400 X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
Eduard,

I understand "not intrinsically better or worse" as a refusal to make a value jugement on this or that variety of English, although Steven King knows best what it means.

If this is the case, I expect many would be compelled to agree with him: there is no language variety that is all around better than another. Some are better at some things than others, but since language emerges from human needs, differences should balance out.

This does not negate the fact that if one wants to become accepted into certain communities, they should speak the language of those communities. This includes higher education, which is merely a gate keeper of sorts, denying access to resouces to these or those categories of people, and granting access to others.

Of course, no one could deny the usefullness of having a common language, but there are limits to standardization that all reasonable people recognize. We need to distinguish between what is useful in terms of communication and what is useful in terms of shibboleth. Say /shebolet/ and you are one of us: say /sebolet/ and you lie eviscerated on the river bank.

Mark

On Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:20 AM, "Eduard Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

"Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few."

So, now Standard/Formal English is "not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]." What is then, the purpose of teaching it in public schoools or in college? Why bother? Why not let the students speak and write in their own "variety"? Why waste so much money to pay English teachers and English instructors to teach students this "not intrinsically better or worse than any other" Standard/Formal English variety? Why not hire people from the street to teach students in the public school and college their own "variety" of English? It does not matter, anyway, if those who teach English in public schools or college have been trained to teach "correct" or "prescriptive" English! Who cares about this Formal/Standard English and who needs it?

From the content of the messages and comments posted in this forum it might seem appropriate to rename group who call themselves the "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" to "The Anti-Grammar Assembly/Forum." It is no wonder that this "Assembly" has had very little or no impact on the English Language education in the United States. If those who are supposed to uphold Standard/Formal English teaching speak against it and discourage its teaching as often as they have the opportunity to do so, then what should we expect from those who are convinced that teaching grammar could "harm" or "damage" the students?

Sad, very sad!

Eduard

From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:20:52 PM
Subject: Re: 'Bad' English

I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom.

The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used.

On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened.

This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970):

"Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain."

I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance.

I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.)

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point.

Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal

written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal"
in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in
a conversation."

And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have
even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the
appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object
construction like this

I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl:
"Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too?

Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I
couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I
woulda went anyhow.'"

I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It
is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is
not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly
acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own
language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in
which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't
accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like
these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too
long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for
being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still
think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional
or social variety of language that they speak?

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/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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/ --_----------=_131662766474770-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:36:23 -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: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_619399_316432265.1316633783891" ------=_Part_619399_316432265.1316633783891 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jack, I am linguist, and I should understand the value of language varieties in different linguistic contexts. The notion, though, that the formal/standard variety of the English language "is not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]" is a claim that needs to be supported with evidence. It is not true that users of different varieties can express themselves in the same way and at the same level. I lived in New York City for thirteen years, and I met people who spoke the "street variety" of the English language. Their average lexicon was about 500 words - survival English. Would it be true that the speakers of such English language "variety" had the same ability to express themselves as a Harvard English Language professor would express himself or herself in his or her "variety"? It is hard for me to understand what this "Bad English" thread and other such threads are about. Are they a call to illiteracy? Are the public school teachers and college instructors who post messages similar to the one to which I replied working to persuade the members of this forum and their students that language education is not important ? I though that this was a forum that promoted English language literacy, but maybe I was wrong. Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Dixon" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:07:21 AM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard, The answers to some of your questions are in Steve King’s response. His statement about the intrinsic equality of dialects does not negate the need for formal instruction in language and grammar. He writes, “ Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it [formal English] is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire.” Formal English is the status marker, the prestige dialect in our society. People can argue whether it should be or not all they want, but is this not reason enough for formal instruction? Other reasons for teaching formal English exist, too: for instance, its impact on reading comprehension of all sorts of texts is evident. Rereading Steve K’s response and your reaction, I would like to ask: Can you not imagine any circumstances when using a less formal register might be preferred for clearer communication? Finally, I don’t think that Steve K is implying that anyone off the street could come in to teach any variety of English. After all, we English teachers do not have to teach students their home language; they already know it and operate in it. We might encourage them to reflect on how it works, especially in contrasting it with formal English. Isn’t one purpose of schooling to teach elements students cannot just pick up on their own as we help them develop their critical thinking strategies? In doing so, teachers also work with depths students are not likely to reach on their own. Yes, formal English is an important part of the language/grammar curriculum. I do not believe that Steve K’s ideas are the reason grammar/language instruction has reached its present state. It has been headed in this direction for over 100 years, with a few slight turns along the way. Jack From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:20 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" "Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few." So, now Standard/Formal English is "not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]." What is then, the purpose of teaching it in public schoools or in college? Why bother? Why not let the students speak and write in their own "variety"? Why waste so much money to pay English teachers and English instructors to teach students this "not intrinsically better or worse than any other" Standard/Formal English variety? Why not hire people from the street to teach students in the public school and college their own "variety" of English? It does not matter, anyway, if those who teach English in public schools or college have been trained to teach "correct" or "prescriptive" English! Who cares about this Formal/Standard English and who needs it? From the content of the messages and comments posted in this forum it might seem appropriate to rename group who call themselves the "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" to "The Anti-Grammar Assembly/Forum." It is no wonder that this "Assembly" has had very little or no impact on the English Language education in the United States. If those who are supposed to uphold Standard/Formal English teaching speak against it and discourage its teaching as often as they have the opportunity to do so, then what should we expect from those who are convinced that teaching grammar could "harm" or "damage" the students? Sad, very sad! Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:20:52 PM Subject: Re: 'Bad' English I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom. The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used. On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened. This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970): "Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain." I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance. I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.) John On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) < [log in to unmask] > wrote: I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point. Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal" in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in a conversation." And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object construction like this I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl: "Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too? Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I woulda went anyhow.'" I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional or social variety of language that they speak? 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/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_Part_619399_316432265.1316633783891 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jack,

I am linguist, and I should understand the value of language varieties in different linguistic contexts. The notion, though, that the formal/standard variety of the English language "is not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]" is a claim that needs to be supported with evidence. It is not true that users of different varieties can express themselves in the same way and at the same level. I lived in New York City for thirteen years, and I met people who spoke the "street variety" of the English language. Their average lexicon was about 500 words - survival English. Would it be true that the speakers of such English language "variety" had the same ability to express themselves as a Harvard English Language professor would express himself or herself in his or her "variety"?

It is hard for me to understand what this "Bad English" thread and other such threads are about. Are they a call to illiteracy? Are the public school teachers and college instructors who post messages similar to the one to which I replied working to persuade the members of this forum and their students that language education is not important? I though that this was a forum that promoted English language literacy, but maybe I was wrong.

Eduard

From: "Jack Dixon" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:07:21 AM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

Eduard,

The answers to some of your questions are in Steve King’s response. His statement about the intrinsic equality of dialects does not negate the need for formal instruction in language and grammar. He writes, “Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it [formal English] is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire.” Formal English is the status marker, the prestige dialect in our society. People can argue whether it should be or not all they want, but is this not reason enough for formal instruction? Other reasons for teaching formal English exist, too: for instance, its impact on reading comprehension of all sorts of texts is evident.

Rereading Steve K’s response and your reaction, I would like to ask: Can you not imagine any circumstances when using a less formal register might be preferred for clearer communication?

Finally, I don’t think that Steve K is implying that anyone off the street could come in to teach any variety of English. After all, we English teachers do not have to teach students their home language; they already know it and operate in it. We might encourage them to reflect on how it works, especially in contrasting it with formal English. Isn’t one purpose of schooling to teach elements students cannot just pick up on their own as we help them develop their critical thinking strategies? In doing so, teachers also work with depths students are not likely to reach on their own.

Yes, formal English is an important part of the language/grammar curriculum. I do not believe that Steve K’s ideas are the reason grammar/language instruction has reached its present state. It has been headed in this direction for over 100 years, with a few slight turns along the way.

Jack

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

"Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few."

So, now Standard/Formal English is "not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]." What is then, the purpose of teaching it in public schoools or in college? Why bother? Why not let the students speak and write in their own "variety"? Why waste so much money to pay English teachers and English instructors to teach students this "not intrinsically better or worse than any other" Standard/Formal English variety? Why not hire people from the street to teach students in the public school and college their own "variety" of English? It does not matter, anyway, if those who teach English in public schools or college have been trained to teach "correct" or "prescriptive" English! Who cares about this Formal/Standard English and who needs it?

From the content of the messages and comments posted in this forum it might seem appropriate to rename group who call themselves the "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" to "The Anti-Grammar Assembly/Forum." It is no wonder that this "Assembly" has had very little or no impact on the English Language education in the United States. If those who are supposed to uphold Standard/Formal English teaching speak against it and discourage its teaching as often as they have the opportunity to do so, then what should we expect from those who are convinced that teaching grammar could "harm" or "damage" the students?

Sad, very sad!

Eduard

From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:20:52 PM
Subject: Re: 'Bad' English

I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom.

The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used.

On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened.

This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970):

"Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain."

I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance.

I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.)

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point.

Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal

written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal"
in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in
a conversation."

And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have
even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the
appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object
construction like this

I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl:
"Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too?

Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I
couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I
woulda went anyhow.'"

I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It
is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is
not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly
acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own
language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in
which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't
accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like
these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too
long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for
being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still
think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional
or social variety of language that they speak?

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/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_Part_619399_316432265.1316633783891-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:40:44 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_619491_1114729702.1316634044734" ------=_Part_619491_1114729702.1316634044734 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Carol, Even worse, from the posts I read I have a feeling that those who will lead this nation back into the Ape Age will be its English language educators and especially some people who post in this "Assembly" forum. English language educators removed grammar from public schools, and probably the very same people will lead the United States back into the Illiteracy Age. Eduasrd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol Morrison" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 12:24:51 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard: I agree with you in many respects. I see a not too distant future where people will simply grunt, moan, or pound rocks together to communicate and it will no longer be fashionable to use words. There will be large gaps on the page where punctuation marks once existed, so readers can leave it to their own devices to decide which mark works best for them. The beauty of the English language will only be found in great volumes of antiquity, left to crumble in the attics of old English teachers and literature enthusiasts. It is very sad to me as well. Carol --- On Wed, 9/21/11, Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" To: [log in to unmask] Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2011, 7:20 AM "Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few." So, now Standard/Formal English is "not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]." What is then, the purpose of teaching it in public schoools or in college? Why bother? Why not let the students speak and write in their own "variety"? Why waste so much money to pay English teachers and English instructors to teach students this "not intrinsically better or worse than any other" Standard/Formal English variety? Why not hire people from the street to teach students in the public school and college their own "variety" of English? It does not matter, anyway, if those who teach English in public schools or college have been trained to teach "correct" or "prescriptive" English! Who cares about this Formal/Standard English and who needs it? From the content of the messages and comments posted in this forum it might seem appropriate to rename group who call themselves the "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" to "The Anti-Grammar Assembly/Forum." It is no wonder that this "Assembly" has had very little or no impact on the English Language education in the United States. If those who are supposed to uphold Standard/Formal English teaching speak against it and discourage its teaching as often as they have the opportunity to do so, then what should we expect from those who are convinced that teaching grammar could "harm" or "damage" the students? Sad, very sad! Eduard From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:20:52 PM Subject: Re: 'Bad' English I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom. The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used. On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened. This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970): "Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain." I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance. I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.) John On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) < [log in to unmask] > wrote: I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point. Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal" in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in a conversation." And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object construction like this I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl: "Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too? Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I woulda went anyhow.'" I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional or social variety of language that they speak? 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/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_Part_619491_1114729702.1316634044734 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Carol,

Even worse, from the posts I read I have a feeling that those who will lead this nation back into the Ape Age will be its English language educators and especially some people who post in this "Assembly" forum. English language educators removed grammar from public schools, and probably the very same people will lead the United States back into the Illiteracy Age.

Eduasrd

From: "Carol Morrison" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 12:24:51 PM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

Eduard: I agree with you in many respects. I see a not too distant future where people will simply grunt, moan, or pound rocks together to communicate and it will no longer be fashionable to use words. There will be large gaps on the page where punctuation marks once existed, so readers can leave it to their own devices to decide which mark works best for them. The beauty of the English language will only be found in great volumes of antiquity, left to crumble in the attics of old English teachers and literature enthusiasts. It is very sad to me as well.

Carol

--- On Wed, 9/21/11, Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2011, 7:20 AM

"Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few."

So, now Standard/Formal English is "not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]." What is then, the purpose of teaching it in public schoools or in college? Why bother? Why not let the students speak and write in their own "variety"? Why waste so much money to pay English teachers and English instructors to teach students this "not intrinsically better or worse than any other" Standard/Formal English variety? Why not hire people from the street to teach students in the public school and college their own "variety" of English? It does not matter, anyway, if those who teach English in public schools or college have been trained to teach "correct" or "prescriptive" English! Who cares about this Formal/Standard English and who needs it?

From the content of the messages and comments posted in this forum it might seem appropriate to rename group who call themselves the "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" to "The Anti-Grammar Assembly/Forum." It is no wonder that this "Assembly" has had very little or no impact on the English Language education in the United States. If those who are supposed to uphold Standard/Formal English teaching speak against it and discourage its teaching as often as they have the opportunity to do so, then what should we expect from those who are convinced that teaching grammar could "harm" or "damage" the students?

Sad, very sad!

Eduard

From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:20:52 PM
Subject: Re: 'Bad' English

I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom.

The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used.

On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened.

This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970):

"Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain."

I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance.

I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.)

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank>[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point.

Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal

written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal"
in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in
a conversation."

And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have
even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the
appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object
construction like this

I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl:
"Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too?

Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I
couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I
woulda went anyhow.'"

I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It
is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is
not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly
acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own
language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in
which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't
accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like
these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too
long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for
being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still
think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional
or social variety of language that they speak?

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/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_Part_619491_1114729702.1316634044734-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:26:23 +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 "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 As a linguist with an emotional predilection toward being peeved by things, I've found it useful to have a set of facts I can remind myself of when I'm grading and start to get twitchy at my students' departures from standard written English; for example: * "ice cream* started out as "iced cream," and the shift to the current version doubtless struck some as a clear sign of illiteracy. * the passive progressive ("was being built") was condemned as barbarous in the better magazines of the early nineteenth century. * "You are" as a singular? Come now, you professors; are you idiots? (condensing George Fox). * What's with this third-person plural "they"? It's bad enough that there are Danes all over the place; do you have to use Norse-ish pronouns? Just about every single sentence a modern literate writer produces would be perceived as deeply, deeply stupid by members of past generations. Shakespeare's compatriots would sneer at Dickens; Chaucer's chums would castigate Shakespeare; several of Bede's fellow monks would no doubt sternly reprimand Chaucer, and Hengist would probably insult the monks immediately before robbing them (he'd rob them in any event, but that would be on more general principles, and the monks could at least count on being unambiguously in the accusative case). Meanwhile, speakers of Proto-Indo-European would be looking down their noses at all the Germanic speakers for messing up almost all of their consonants. Refusing to differentiate between our subjective emotional reactions to language varieties and their objective characteristics is, in the end, more "anti-grammar" than anything else we could do. It positions us firmly alongside travelers who are outraged that Europeans use the wrong voltage in their electrical outlets, and gardeners who are convinced that Daylight Savings Time has wilted their tomato plants. Denying the context-based utility of conventions, likewise, puts us in the position of the traveler who keeps plugging the 120-V toaster into the 230-V outlet and wondering why it blew up yet again, or the gardener who is baffled about why the store is closed before sunset. Bill Spruiell On Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:20 AM, "Eduard Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: "Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few." So, now Standard/Formal English is "not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]." What is then, the purpose of teaching it in public schoools or in college? Why bother? Why not let the students speak and write in their own "variety"? Why waste so much money to pay English teachers and English instructors to teach students this "not intrinsically better or worse than any other" Standard/Formal English variety? Why not hire people from the street to teach students in the public school and college their own "variety" of English? It does not matter, anyway, if those who teach English in public schools or college have been trained to teach "correct" or "prescriptive" English! Who cares about this Formal/Standard English and who needs it? From the content of the messages and comments posted in this forum it might seem appropriate to rename group who call themselves the "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" to "The Anti-Grammar Assembly/Forum." It is no wonder that this "Assembly" has had very little or no impact on the English Language education in the United States. If those who are supposed to uphold Standard/Formal English teaching speak against it and discourage its teaching as often as they have the opportunity to do so, then what should we expect from those who are convinced that teaching grammar could "harm" or "damage" the students? Sad, very sad! Eduard ________________________________ From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:20:52 PM Subject: Re: 'Bad' English I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom. The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used. On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened. This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970): "Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain." I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance. I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.) John On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point. Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal" in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in a conversation." And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object construction like this I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl: "Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too? Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I woulda went anyhow.'" I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional or social variety of language that they speak? 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/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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, 21 Sep 2011 23:39:54 +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 "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_131663759410342" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --_----------=_131663759410342 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:39:54 -0400 X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface Eduard, Thanks for your anecdotal argument against what you call "street English." Perhaps we could all spend a little time listening to some slam poetry, or worse still, rap music, for a sense of what can and can not be expressed in these "base" dialects. We could even count the words to test your theory that "street English" has a total vocabulary of 500 words. (I expect, however, that there are that many taboo words alone.) Nevertheless, you appear to be comparing apples and oranges when you invite us to a debate between Vladimir Nabakov and Tupac. Perhaps a better argument could be built around the gradual disappearance of RP in the United Kingdom throughout the 80s and 90s and the re-assertion of the authority British regional dialects, some of which are too annoying to heard abroad. I believe that RP served its purpose of providing the lower classes with a point of entry into "polite society," and when that point of entry was no longer required, it disappeared. This had nothing at all to do with communicative effectiveness, or what it is possible to say in this dialect or that, and everything to do with race and class, with privilege and its opposite. Mark On Wednesday, September 21, 2011 3:36 PM, "Eduard Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Jack, I am linguist, and I should understand the value of language varieties in different linguistic contexts. The notion, though, that the formal/standard variety of the English language "is not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]" is a claim that needs to be supported with evidence. It is not true that users of different varieties can express themselves in the same way and at the same level. I lived in New York City for thirteen years, and I met people who spoke the "street variety" of the English language. Their average lexicon was about 500 words - survival English. Would it be true that the speakers of such English language "variety" had the same ability to express themselves as a Harvard English Language professor would express himself or herself in his or her "variety"? It is hard for me to understand what this "Bad English" thread and other such threads are about. Are they a call to illiteracy? Are the public school teachers and college instructors who post messages similar to the one to which I replied working to persuade the members of this forum and their students that language education is not important? I though that this was a forum that promoted English language literacy, but maybe I was wrong. Eduard ____________________________________________________________ From: "Jack Dixon" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:07:21 AM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard, The answers to some of your questions are in Steve King’s response. His statement about the intrinsic equality of dialects does not negate the need for formal instruction in language and grammar. He writes, “Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it [formal English] is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire.” Formal English is the status marker, the prestige dialect in our society. People can argue whether it should be or not all they want, but is this not reason enough for formal instruction? Other reasons for teaching formal English exist, too: for instance, its impact on reading comprehension of all sorts of texts is evident. Rereading Steve K’s response and your reaction, I would like to ask: Can you not imagine any circumstances when using a less formal register might be preferred for clearer communication? Finally, I don’t think that Steve K is implying that anyone off the street could come in to teach any variety of English. After all, we English teachers do not have to teach students their home language; they already know it and operate in it. We might encourage them to reflect on how it works, especially in contrasting it with formal English. Isn’t one purpose of schooling to teach elements students cannot just pick up on their own as we help them develop their critical thinking strategies? In doing so, teachers also work with depths students are not likely to reach on their own. Yes, formal English is an important part of the language/grammar curriculum. I do not believe that Steve K’s ideas are the reason grammar/language instruction has reached its present state. It has been headed in this direction for over 100 years, with a few slight turns along the way. Jack ____________________________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:20 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" "Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few." So, now Standard/Formal English is "not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]." What is then, the purpose of teaching it in public schoools or in college? Why bother? Why not let the students speak and write in their own "variety"? Why waste so much money to pay English teachers and English instructors to teach students this "not intrinsically better or worse than any other" Standard/Formal English variety? Why not hire people from the street to teach students in the public school and college their own "variety" of English? It does not matter, anyway, if those who teach English in public schools or college have been trained to teach "correct" or "prescriptive" English! Who cares about this Formal/Standard English and who needs it? From the content of the messages and comments posted in this forum it might seem appropriate to rename group who call themselves the "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" to "The Anti-Grammar Assembly/Forum." It is no wonder that this "Assembly" has had very little or no impact on the English Language education in the United States. If those who are supposed to uphold Standard/Formal English teaching speak against it and discourage its teaching as often as they have the opportunity to do so, then what should we expect from those who are convinced that teaching grammar could "harm" or "damage" the students? Sad, very sad! Eduard ____________________________________________________________ From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:20:52 PM Subject: Re: 'Bad' English I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom. The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used. On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened. This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970): "Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain." I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance. I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.) John On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[1][log in to unmask]> wrote: I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point. Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal" in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in a conversation." And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object construction like this I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl: "Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too? Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I woulda went anyhow.'" I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional or social variety of language that they speak? 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: [2]http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at [3]http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: [4]http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at [5]http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ References 1. mailto:[log in to unmask] 2. http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html 3. http://ateg.org/ 4. http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html 5. 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/ --_----------=_131663759410342 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:39:54 -0400 X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
Eduard,

Thanks for your anecdotal argument against what you call "street English." Perhaps we could all spend a little time listening to some slam poetry, or worse still, rap music, for a sense of what can and can not be expressed in these "base" dialects. We could even count the words to test your theory that "street English" has a total vocabulary of 500 words. (I expect, however, that there are that many taboo words alone.)

Nevertheless, you appear to be comparing apples and oranges when you invite us to a debate between Vladimir Nabakov and Tupac. Perhaps a better argument could be built around the gradual disappearance of RP in the United Kingdom throughout the 80s and 90s and the re-assertion of the authority British regional dialects, some of which are too annoying to heard abroad.

I believe that RP served its purpose of providing the lower classes with a point of entry into "polite society," and when that point of entry was no longer required, it disappeared. This had nothing at all to do with communicative effectiveness, or what it is possible to say in this dialect or that, and everything to do with race and class, with privilege and its opposite.

Mark

On Wednesday, September 21, 2011 3:36 PM, "Eduard Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Jack,

I am linguist, and I should understand the value of language varieties in different linguistic contexts. The notion, though, that the formal/standard variety of the English language "is not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]" is a claim that needs to be supported with evidence. It is not true that users of different varieties can express themselves in the same way and at the same level. I lived in New York City for thirteen years, and I met people who spoke the "street variety" of the English language. Their average lexicon was about 500 words - survival English. Would it be true that the speakers of such English language "variety" had the same ability to express themselves as a Harvard English Language professor would express himself or herself in his or her "variety"?

It is hard for me to understand what this "Bad English" thread and other such threads are about. Are they a call to illiteracy? Are the public school teachers and college instructors who post messages similar to the one to which I replied working to persuade the members of this forum and their students that language education is not important? I though that this was a forum that promoted English language literacy, but maybe I was wrong.

Eduard

From: "Jack Dixon" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:07:21 AM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

Eduard,

The answers to some of your questions are in Steve King’s response. His statement about the intrinsic equality of dialects does not negate the need for formal instruction in language and grammar. He writes, “Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it [formal English] is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire.” Formal English is the status marker, the prestige dialect in our society. People can argue whether it should be or not all they want, but is this not reason enough for formal instruction? Other reasons for teaching formal English exist, too: for instance, its impact on reading comprehension of all sorts of texts is evident.

Rereading Steve K’s response and your reaction, I would like to ask: Can you not imagine any circumstances when using a less formal register might be preferred for clearer communication?

Finally, I don’t think that Steve K is implying that anyone off the street could come in to teach any variety of English. After all, we English teachers do not have to teach students their home language; they already know it and operate in it. We might encourage them to reflect on how it works, especially in contrasting it with formal English. Isn’t one purpose of schooling to teach elements students cannot just pick up on their own as we help them develop their critical thinking strategies? In doing so, teachers also work with depths students are not likely to reach on their own.

Yes, formal English is an important part of the language/grammar curriculum. I do not believe that Steve K’s ideas are the reason grammar/language instruction has reached its present state. It has been headed in this direction for over 100 years, with a few slight turns along the way.

Jack

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

"Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few."

So, now Standard/Formal English is "not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]." What is then, the purpose of teaching it in public schoools or in college? Why bother? Why not let the students speak and write in their own "variety"? Why waste so much money to pay English teachers and English instructors to teach students this "not intrinsically better or worse than any other" Standard/Formal English variety? Why not hire people from the street to teach students in the public school and college their own "variety" of English? It does not matter, anyway, if those who teach English in public schools or college have been trained to teach "correct" or "prescriptive" English! Who cares about this Formal/Standard English and who needs it?

From the content of the messages and comments posted in this forum it might seem appropriate to rename group who call themselves the "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" to "The Anti-Grammar Assembly/Forum." It is no wonder that this "Assembly" has had very little or no impact on the English Language education in the United States. If those who are supposed to uphold Standard/Formal English teaching speak against it and discourage its teaching as often as they have the opportunity to do so, then what should we expect from those who are convinced that teaching grammar could "harm" or "damage" the students?

Sad, very sad!

Eduard

From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:20:52 PM
Subject: Re: 'Bad' English

I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom.

The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used.

On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened.

This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970):

"Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain."

I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance.

I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.)

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point.

Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal

written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal"
in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in
a conversation."

And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have
even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the
appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object
construction like this

I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl:
"Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too?

Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I
couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I
woulda went anyhow.'"

I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It
is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is
not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly
acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own
language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in
which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't
accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like
these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too
long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for
being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still
think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional
or social variety of language that they speak?

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/

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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/ --_----------=_131663759410342-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:01:47 -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: "Peter H. Fries" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: sessions at the upcoming NCTE convention in Chicago. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary�e6ba1efecc5cf10a04ad79e231 --90e6ba1efecc5cf10a04ad79e231 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable For those of you who are planning to attend the annual NCTE convention in Chicago November 17 - 22, the North American Systemic Functional Linguistics Association co-sponsored session will feature Mary Schleppegrell, Jason Moore and Ebony Thomas presenting a session titled *Using systemic functional linguistics to focus on language and meaning in teachers' professional development*.* * *The session is * *Session G.15: 9:30 � 10:45 AM, Saturday, 11/19/2011, in the Chicago Hilton Conference Room 4A, fourth floor.* An extended abstract for the session is below. I also noticed some other names on the NCTE program that may be familiar to members of this list. Perhaps those of you who are presenting there might like to provide additional information on your presentations there. Peter Fries >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Each of the three presenters will describe a professional development (PD) context in which teachers are developing an understanding of SFL approaches to literacy. The first reports on PD with elementary grade teachers that makes links between reading and writing. The second describes a project that uses SFL constructs to support bilingual students� development of disciplinary literacy in secondary English Language Arts. The third* *describes a university course for preservice and inservice teachers that focuses on language. The session will begin with a brief introduction from Peter Fries. Then each presenter will speak for 15 minutes, followed by five minutes of discussion. After the three presentations, we will have ten minutes for general discussion. FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR IN THE ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM Mary Schleppegrell will report on a project currently underway to introduce elementary grade teachers to a functional linguistics metalanguage that supports talk about text. The goal is to help teachers support English Language Learners� reading and writing development, enabling children to read for deeper meaning as well as to construct the text types that are valued in early literacy contexts. Artifacts from the project will illustrate how attention to an author's language choices, focused on particular areas of meaning informed by SFL, enables discussion about character development, plot elements, and the themes of a story. In addition, student texts written with careful scaffolding of overall structure and relevant language features will be used to illustrate how children's language development is supported by this approach. FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR IN THE SECONDARY CLASSROOM Jason Moore will report on a project that is developing SFL approaches in the secondary English Language Arts classroom. Students at the secondary level, in particular, need support making form-meaning connections, where they face more challenging, discipline-specific literacy tasks. Records of practice will be presented to illustrate how a class of 9th grade students used SFL-based metalanguage to make sense of a text, and some major affordances and challenges of using SFL to plan and implement instruction will be reported and discussed. In addition, the presenter will share insights gained from the feedback of a classroom teacher unfamiliar with SFL who observed and reflected on this instruction. Finally, the presenter will draw some implications from this work for preparing other English teachers to use SFL as a pedagogical resource. FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR IN THE TEACHER EDUCATION CLASSROOM Ebony Elizabeth Thomas will report on ongoing curriculum re-development in a required course for elementary language arts and secondary English education students at an urban university. The purpose of the course is to provide preservice and inservice teachers with knowledge about grammar and usage that is relevant to their English language arts classrooms. Students in the course selected nonfiction texts appropriate for their level of specialization and learned to conduct functional grammar analyses on those texts. Using SFL constructs such as *text types* (genres), *participants and processes*, and *interpersonal resources*, students then created language-focused units of instruction. This work will be contextualized through artifacts created by the instructor, and the ways students took up this kind of learning about language will be illustrated. -- Peter H. Fries Box 310 Mount Pleasant MI 48804 Phone: 989-644-3384 Cell: 989-400-3764 Email: [log in to unmask] Web page: > [among 'emeritus faculty'] To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --90e6ba1efecc5cf10a04ad79e231 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
For those of you who are planning to attend the annual NCTE convention in Chicago November 17 - 22, the North American Systemic Functional Linguistics Association co-sponsored session will feature Mary Schleppegrell, Jason Moore and Ebony Thomas presenting a session titled Using systemic functional linguistics to focus on language and meaning in teachers' professional development.

The session is

Session G.15: 9:30 – 10:45 AM, Saturday, 11/19/2011, in the Chicago Hilton Conference Room 4A, fourth floor.

An extended abstract for the session is below.

I also noticed some other names on the NCTE program that may be familiar to members of this list. Perhaps those of you who are presenting there might like to provide additional information on your presentations there.

Peter Fries

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Each of the three presenters will describe a professional development (PD) context in which teachers are developing an understanding of SFL approaches to literacy. The first reports on PD with elementary grade teachers that makes links between reading and writing. The second describes a project that uses SFL constructs to support bilingual students’ development of disciplinary literacy in secondary English Language Arts. The third describes a university course for preservice and inservice teachers that focuses on language. The session will begin with a brief introduction from Peter Fries. Then each presenter will speak for 15 minutes, followed by five minutes of discussion. After the three presentations, we will have ten minutes for general discussion.

FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR IN THE ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM

Mary Schleppegrell will report on a project currently underway to introduce elementary grade teachers to a functional linguistics metalanguage that supports talk about text. The goal is to help teachers support English Language Learners’ reading and writing development, enabling children to read for deeper meaning as well as to construct the text types that are valued in early literacy contexts. Artifacts from the project will illustrate how attention to an author's language choices, focused on particular areas of meaning informed by SFL, enables discussion about character development, plot elements, and the themes of a story. In addition, student texts written with careful scaffolding of overall structure and relevant language features will be used to illustrate how children's language development is supported by this approach.

FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR IN THE SECONDARY CLASSROOM

Jason Moore will report on a project that is developing SFL approaches in the secondary English Language Arts classroom. Students at the secondary level, in particular, need support making form-meaning connections, where they face more challenging, discipline-specific literacy tasks. Records of practice will be presented to illustrate how a class of 9^th grade students used SFL-based metalanguage to make sense of a text, and some major affordances and challenges of using SFL to plan and implement instruction will be reported and discussed. In addition, the presenter will share insights gained from the feedback of a classroom teacher unfamiliar with SFL who observed and reflected on this instruction. Finally, the presenter will draw some implications from this work for preparing other English teachers to use SFL as a pedagogical resource.

FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR IN THE TEACHER EDUCATION CLASSROOM

Ebony Elizabeth Thomas will report on ongoing curriculum re-development in a required course for elementary language arts and secondary English education students at an urban university. The purpose of the course is to provide preservice and inservice teachers with knowledge about grammar and usage that is relevant to their English language arts classrooms. Students in the course selected nonfiction texts appropriate for their level of specialization and learned to conduct functional grammar analyses on those texts. Using SFL constructs such as text types (genres), participants and processes, and interpersonal resources, students then created language-focused units of instruction. This work will be contextualized through artifacts created by the instructor, and the ways students took up this kind of learning about language will be illustrated.

--
Peter H. Fries

Box 310
Mount Pleasant MI 48804

Phone: 989-644-3384
Cell: 989-400-3764

Email: [log in to unmask]

Web page: <http://cmich.edu/chsbs/x23516.xml> [among 'emeritus faculty']


To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --90e6ba1efecc5cf10a04ad79e231-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:03:01 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Linda Comerford <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02E5_01CC7880.52A39120" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_02E5_01CC7880.52A39120 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Carol and Eduard, The subject of this thread has really hit home with me. Although I used to teach English at the middle school and college level, I've spent the last 20+ years as a trainer. I started my business intending to teach writing skills only; however, my clients then requested written grammar workshops as well. That worked for me, and I've been offering them to a wide variety of corporate and government clients ever since. What didn't work so well for me was a request to then offer oral grammar. Oh my, I pictured myself as the equivalent of a teacher I refer to as Ms. Bonebreaker strapping a red pen to my pointer finger, snarling, "Speak!" to the first participant. As I heard an error, I would stab my red-penned finger at them and humiliate them for it. Nothing about that concept worked for me. My clients persisted, so I reluctantly put Speak Smart: Oral Grammar together. To my surprise, it worked, and I've been offering it to satisfied clients for over 10 years. A key component is the two short audio tapings each participant does for class and instructor feedback. What quickly emerged from those was a need to broaden the course content beyond just grammar to also include pronunciation. My classes practice what we call "lip aerobics" to enunciate clearly, especially over the phone since I often work at call centers. To their surprise, participants enjoy speaking, receiving feedback for themselves, and learning from the feedback others receive. One of my biggest concerns when I started this program was how to critique the participants' speaking without sounding judgmental or embarrassing them. That hasn't happened thanks to a wonderful term I heard years ago called "Cash English." I tell them Cash English includes the style of grammar and pronunciation companies expect from their employees. Speaking different dialects or ways other than Cash English is great; it's just not what companies prefer in the business world to bring in the cash that pays their salaries. Without exception, they relate well to that perspective. A typical question I receive during class is, "Why didn't anyone ever teach us the value of using correct oral grammar and pronunciation in school?" I never even thought about it until my client pushed me to create a workshop in what they consider to be a vital subject area. Your curriculum is probably so crowded you can't even begin to figure out how to incorporate anything else, but it's something to think about. To me, the more practical English can be, the better for the students and the more fun for me. I'm hoping those of you who love grammar as I do will be hearted to see that corporations and government agencies value it as well. We're all in this together! Linda Linda Comerford 317.786.6404 [log in to unmask] www.comerfordconsulting.com _____ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 3:36 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Jack, I am linguist, and I should understand the value of language varieties in different linguistic contexts. The notion, though, that the formal/standard variety of the English language "is not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]" is a claim that needs to be supported with evidence. It is not true that users of different varieties can express themselves in the same way and at the same level. I lived in New York City for thirteen years, and I met people who spoke the "street variety" of the English language. Their average lexicon was about 500 words - survival English. Would it be true that the speakers of such English language "variety" had the same ability to express themselves as a Harvard English Language professor would express himself or herself in his or her "variety"? It is hard for me to understand what this "Bad English" thread and other such threads are about. Are they a call to illiteracy? Are the public school teachers and college instructors who post messages similar to the one to which I replied working to persuade the members of this forum and their students that language education is not important? I though that this was a forum that promoted English language literacy, but maybe I was wrong. Eduard _____ From: "Jack Dixon" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:07:21 AM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard, The answers to some of your questions are in Steve King's response. His statement about the intrinsic equality of dialects does not negate the need for formal instruction in language and grammar. He writes, "Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it [formal English] is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire." Formal English is the status marker, the prestige dialect in our society. People can argue whether it should be or not all they want, but is this not reason enough for formal instruction? Other reasons for teaching formal English exist, too: for instance, its impact on reading comprehension of all sorts of texts is evident. Rereading Steve K's response and your reaction, I would like to ask: Can you not imagine any circumstances when using a less formal register might be preferred for clearer communication? Finally, I don't think that Steve K is implying that anyone off the street could come in to teach any variety of English. After all, we English teachers do not have to teach students their home language; they already know it and operate in it. We might encourage them to reflect on how it works, especially in contrasting it with formal English. Isn't one purpose of schooling to teach elements students cannot just pick up on their own as we help them develop their critical thinking strategies? In doing so, teachers also work with depths students are not likely to reach on their own. Yes, formal English is an important part of the language/grammar curriculum. I do not believe that Steve K's ideas are the reason grammar/language instruction has reached its present state. It has been headed in this direction for over 100 years, with a few slight turns along the way. Jack _____ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:20 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" "Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few." So, now Standard/Formal English is "not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]." What is then, the purpose of teaching it in public schoools or in college? Why bother? Why not let the students speak and write in their own "variety"? Why waste so much money to pay English teachers and English instructors to teach students this "not intrinsically better or worse than any other" Standard/Formal English variety? Why not hire people from the street to teach students in the public school and college their own "variety" of English? It does not matter, anyway, if those who teach English in public schools or college have been trained to teach "correct" or "prescriptive" English! Who cares about this Formal/Standard English and who needs it? >From the content of the messages and comments posted in this forum it might seem appropriate to rename group who call themselves the "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" to "The Anti-Grammar Assembly/Forum." It is no wonder that this "Assembly" has had very little or no impact on the English Language education in the United States. If those who are supposed to uphold Standard/Formal English teaching speak against it and discourage its teaching as often as they have the opportunity to do so, then what should we expect from those who are convinced that teaching grammar could "harm" or "damage" the students? Sad, very sad! Eduard _____ From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:20:52 PM Subject: Re: 'Bad' English I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom. The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used. On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened. This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970): "Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain." I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance. I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.) John On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point. Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal" in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in a conversation." And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object construction like this I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl: "Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too? Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I woulda went anyhow.'" I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional or social variety of language that they speak? 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/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_NextPart_000_02E5_01CC7880.52A39120 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Carol and Eduard,

The subject of this thread has really hit home with me. Although I used to teach English at the middle school and college level, I've spent the last 20+ years as a trainer. I started my business intending to teach writing skills only; however, my clients then requested written grammar workshops as well. That worked for me, and I've been offering them to a wide variety of corporate and government clients ever since.

What didn't work so well for me was a request to then offer oral grammar. Oh my, I pictured myself as the equivalent of a teacher I refer to as Ms. Bonebreaker strapping a red pen to my pointer finger, snarling, "Speak!" to the first participant. As I heard an error, I would stab my red-penned finger at them and humiliate them for it. Nothing about that concept worked for me. My clients persisted, so I reluctantly put Speak Smart: Oral Grammar together. To my surprise, it worked, and I've been offering it to satisfied clients for over 10 years.

A key component is the two short audio tapings each participant does for class and instructor feedback. What quickly emerged from those was a need to broaden the course content beyond just grammar to also include pronunciation. My classes practice what we call "lip aerobics" to enunciate clearly, especially over the phone since I often work at call centers. To their surprise, participants enjoy speaking, receiving feedback for themselves, and learning from the feedback others receive.

One of my biggest concerns when I started this program was how to critique the participants' speaking without sounding judgmental or embarrassing them. That hasn't happened thanks to a wonderful term I heard years ago called "Cash English." I tell them Cash English includes the style of grammar and pronunciation companies expect from their employees. Speaking different dialects or ways other than Cash English is great; it's just not what companies prefer in the business world to bring in the cash that pays their salaries. Without exception, they relate well to that perspective.

A typical question I receive during class is, "Why didn't anyone ever teach us the value of using correct oral grammar and pronunciation in school?" I never even thought about it until my client pushed me to create a workshop in what they consider to be a vital subject area. Your curriculum is probably so crowded you can't even begin to figure out how to incorporate anything else, but it's something to think about. To me, the more practical English can be, the better for the students and the more fun for me.

I'm hoping those of you who love grammar as I do will be hearted to see that corporations and government agencies value it as well. We're all in this together!

Linda

Linda Comerford
317.786.6404
[log in to unmask]
www.comerfordconsulting.com

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 3:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

Jack,

I am linguist, and I should understand the value of language varieties in different linguistic contexts. The notion, though, that the formal/standard variety of the English language "is not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]" is a claim that needs to be supported with evidence. It is not true that users of different varieties can express themselves in the same way and at the same level. I lived in New York City for thirteen years, and I met people who spoke the "street variety" of the English language. Their average lexicon was about 500 words - survival English. Would it be true that the speakers of such English language "variety" had the same ability to express themselves as a Harvard English Language professor would express himself or herself in his or her "variety"?

It is hard for me to understand what this "Bad English" thread and other such threads are about. Are they a call to illiteracy? Are the public school teachers and college instructors who post messages similar to the one to which I replied working to persuade the members of this forum and their students that language education is not important? I though that this was a forum that promoted English language literacy, but maybe I was wrong.

Eduard

From: "Jack Dixon" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:07:21 AM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

Eduard,

The answers to some of your questions are in Steve King’s response. His statement about the intrinsic equality of dialects does not negate the need for formal instruction in language and grammar. He writes, “Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it [formal English] is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire.” Formal English is the status marker, the prestige dialect in our society. People can argue whether it should be or not all they want, but is this not reason enough for formal instruction? Other reasons for teaching formal English exist, too: for instance, its impact on reading comprehension of all sorts of texts is evident.

Rereading Steve K’s response and your reaction, I would like to ask: Can you not imagine any circumstances when using a less formal register might be preferred for clearer communication?

Finally, I don’t think that Steve K is implying that anyone off the street could come in to teach any variety of English. After all, we English teachers do not have to teach students their home language; they already know it and operate in it. We might encourage them to reflect on how it works, especially in contrasting it with formal English. Isn’t one purpose of schooling to teach elements students cannot just pick up on their own as we help them develop their critical thinking strategies? In doing so, teachers also work with depths students are not likely to reach on their own.

Yes, formal English is an important part of the language/grammar curriculum. I do not believe that Steve K’s ideas are the reason grammar/language instruction has reached its present state. It has been headed in this direction for over 100 years, with a few slight turns along the way.

Jack

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

"Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few."

So, now Standard/Formal English is "not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]." What is then, the purpose of teaching it in public schoools or in college? Why bother? Why not let the students speak and write in their own "variety"? Why waste so much money to pay English teachers and English instructors to teach students this "not intrinsically better or worse than any other" Standard/Formal English variety? Why not hire people from the street to teach students in the public school and college their own "variety" of English? It does not matter, anyway, if those who teach English in public schools or college have been trained to teach "correct" or "prescriptive" English! Who cares about this Formal/Standard English and who needs it?

From the content of the messages and comments posted in this forum it might seem appropriate to rename group who call themselves the "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" to "The Anti-Grammar Assembly/Forum." It is no wonder that this "Assembly" has had very little or no impact on the English Language education in the United States. If those who are supposed to uphold Standard/Formal English teaching speak against it and discourage its teaching as often as they have the opportunity to do so, then what should we expect from those who are convinced that teaching grammar could "harm" or "damage" the students?

Sad, very sad!

Eduard

From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:20:52 PM
Subject: Re: 'Bad' English

I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom.

The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used.

On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened.

This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970):

"Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain."

I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance.

I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.)

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point.

Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal

written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal"
in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in
a conversation."

And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have
even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the
appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object
construction like this

I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl:
"Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too?

Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I
couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I
woulda went anyhow.'"

I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It
is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is
not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly
acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own
language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in
which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't
accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like
these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too
long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for
being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still
think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional
or social variety of language that they speak?

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/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_NextPart_000_02E5_01CC7880.52A39120-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 18:00:46 -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: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <444097CD23344E169A5437903CFE2A27@user70e60b8094> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_623482_277281741.1316642446866" ------=_Part_623482_277281741.1316642446866 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Linda, You said it all. Companies need employees who can speak and write GOOD ENGLISH. One of my friends who works in an insurance company complains constantly that his coworkers have a difficult time even writing a simple letter, and that he has to spend numerous hours fixing their documents written in broken English. It is pathetic that on this forum we have lost all sense of right and wrong and we are calling illiterate English "varieties" of the English language. Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Comerford" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 4:03:01 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Carol and Eduard, The subject of this thread has really hit home with me. Although I used to teach English at the middle school and college level, I've spent the last 20+ years as a trainer. I started my business intending to teach writing skills only; however, my clients then requested written grammar workshops as well. That worked for me, and I've been offering them to a wide variety of corporate and government clients ever since. What didn't work so well for me was a request to then offer oral grammar. Oh my, I pictured myself as the equivalent of a teacher I refer to as Ms. Bonebreaker strapping a red pen to my pointer finger, snarling, "Speak!" to the first participant. As I heard an error, I would stab my red-penned finger at them and humiliate them for it. Nothing about that concept worked for me. My clients persisted, so I reluctantly put Speak Smart: Oral Grammar together. To my surprise, it worked, and I've been offering it to satisfied clients for over 10 years. A key component is the two short audio tapings each participant does for class and instructor feedback. What quickly emerged from those was a need to broaden the course content beyond just grammar to also include pronunciation. My classes practice what we call "lip aerobics" to enunciate clearly, especially over the phone since I often work at call centers. To their surprise, participants enjoy speaking, receiving feedback for themselves, and learning from the feedback others receive. One of my biggest concerns when I started this program was how to critique the participants' speaking without sounding judgmental or embarrassing them. That hasn't happened thanks to a wonderful term I heard years ago called "Cash English." I tell them Cash English includes the style of grammar and pronunciation companies expect from their employees. Speaking different dialects or ways other than Cash English is great; it's just not what companies prefer in the business world to bring in the cash that pays their salaries. Without exception, they relate well to that perspective. A typical question I receive during class is, "Why didn't anyone ever teach us the value of using correct oral grammar and pronunciation in school?" I never even thought about it until my client pushed me to create a workshop in what they consider to be a vital subject area. Your curriculum is probably so crowded you can't even begin to figure out how to incorporate anything else, but it's something to think about. To me, the more practical English can be, the better for the students and the more fun for me. I'm hoping those of you who love grammar as I do will be hearted to see that corporations and government agencies value it as well. We're all in this together! Linda Linda Comerford 317.786.6404 [log in to unmask] www.comerfordconsulting.com From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 3:36 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Jack, I am linguist, and I should understand the value of language varieties in different linguistic contexts. The notion, though, that the formal/standard variety of the English language "is not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]" is a claim that needs to be supported with evidence. It is not true that users of different varieties can express themselves in the same way and at the same level. I lived in New York City for thirteen years, and I met people who spoke the "street variety" of the English language. Their average lexicon was about 500 words - survival English. Would it be true that the speakers of such English language "variety" had the same ability to express themselves as a Harvard English Language professor would express himself or herself in his or her "variety"? It is hard for me to understand what this "Bad English" thread and other such threads are about. Are they a call to illiteracy? Are the public school teachers and college instructors who post messages similar to the one to which I replied working to persuade the members of this forum and their students that language education is not important? I though that this was a forum that promoted English language literacy, but maybe I was wrong. Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Dixon" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:07:21 AM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard, The answers to some of your questions are in Steve King’s response. His statement about the intrinsic equality of dialects does not negate the need for formal instruction in language and grammar. He writes, “ Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it [formal English] is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire.” Formal English is the status marker, the prestige dialect in our society. People can argue whether it should be or not all they want, but is this not reason enough for formal instruction? Other reasons for teaching formal English exist, too: for instance, its impact on reading comprehension of all sorts of texts is evident. Rereading Steve K’s response and your reaction, I would like to ask: Can you not imagine any circumstances when using a less formal register might be preferred for clearer communication? Finally, I don’t think that Steve K is implying that anyone off the street could come in to teach any variety of English. After all, we English teachers do not have to teach students their home language; they already know it and operate in it. We might encourage them to reflect on how it works, especially in contrasting it with formal English. Isn’t one purpose of schooling to teach elements students cannot just pick up on their own as we help them develop their critical thinking strategies? In doing so, teachers also work with depths students are not likely to reach on their own. Yes, formal English is an important part of the language/grammar curriculum. I do not believe that Steve K’s ideas are the reason grammar/language instruction has reached its present state. It has been headed in this direction for over 100 years, with a few slight turns along the way. Jack From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:20 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" "Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few." So, now Standard/Formal English is "not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]." What is then, the purpose of teaching it in public schoools or in college? Why bother? Why not let the students speak and write in their own "variety"? Why waste so much money to pay English teachers and English instructors to teach students this "not intrinsically better or worse than any other" Standard/Formal English variety? Why not hire people from the street to teach students in the public school and college their own "variety" of English? It does not matter, anyway, if those who teach English in public schools or college have been trained to teach "correct" or "prescriptive" English! Who cares about this Formal/Standard English and who needs it? From the content of the messages and comments posted in this forum it might seem appropriate to rename group who call themselves the "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" to "The Anti-Grammar Assembly/Forum." It is no wonder that this "Assembly" has had very little or no impact on the English Language education in the United States. If those who are supposed to uphold Standard/Formal English teaching speak against it and discourage its teaching as often as they have the opportunity to do so, then what should we expect from those who are convinced that teaching grammar could "harm" or "damage" the students? Sad, very sad! Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:20:52 PM Subject: Re: 'Bad' English I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom. The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used. On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened. This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970): "Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain." I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance. I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.) John On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) < [log in to unmask] > wrote: I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point. Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal" in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in a conversation." And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object construction like this I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl: "Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too? Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I woulda went anyhow.'" I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional or social variety of language that they speak? 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/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_Part_623482_277281741.1316642446866 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Linda,

You said it all. Companies need employees who can speak and write GOOD ENGLISH. One of my friends who works in an insurance company complains constantly that his coworkers have a difficult time even writing a simple letter, and that he has to spend numerous hours fixing their documents written in broken English. It is pathetic that on this forum we have lost all sense of right and wrong and we are calling illiterate English "varieties" of the English language.

Eduard

From: "Linda Comerford" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 4:03:01 PM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

Carol and Eduard,

The subject of this thread has really hit home with me. Although I used to teach English at the middle school and college level, I've spent the last 20+ years as a trainer. I started my business intending to teach writing skills only; however, my clients then requested written grammar workshops as well. That worked for me, and I've been offering them to a wide variety of corporate and government clients ever since.

What didn't work so well for me was a request to then offer oral grammar. Oh my, I pictured myself as the equivalent of a teacher I refer to as Ms. Bonebreaker strapping a red pen to my pointer finger, snarling, "Speak!" to the first participant. As I heard an error, I would stab my red-penned finger at them and humiliate them for it. Nothing about that concept worked for me. My clients persisted, so I reluctantly put Speak Smart: Oral Grammar together. To my surprise, it worked, and I've been offering it to satisfied clients for over 10 years.

A key component is the two short audio tapings each participant does for class and instructor feedback. What quickly emerged from those was a need to broaden the course content beyond just grammar to also include pronunciation. My classes practice what we call "lip aerobics" to enunciate clearly, especially over the phone since I often work at call centers. To their surprise, participants enjoy speaking, receiving feedback for themselves, and learning from the feedback others receive.

One of my biggest concerns when I started this program was how to critique the participants' speaking without sounding judgmental or embarrassing them. That hasn't happened thanks to a wonderful term I heard years ago called "Cash English." I tell them Cash English includes the style of grammar and pronunciation companies expect from their employees. Speaking different dialects or ways other than Cash English is great; it's just not what companies prefer in the business world to bring in the cash that pays their salaries. Without exception, they relate well to that perspective.

A typical question I receive during class is, "Why didn't anyone ever teach us the value of using correct oral grammar and pronunciation in school?" I never even thought about it until my client pushed me to create a workshop in what they consider to be a vital subject area. Your curriculum is probably so crowded you can't even begin to figure out how to incorporate anything else, but it's something to think about. To me, the more practical English can be, the better for the students and the more fun for me.

I'm hoping those of you who love grammar as I do will be hearted to see that corporations and government agencies value it as well. We're all in this together!

Linda

Linda Comerford
317.786.6404
[log in to unmask]
www.comerfordconsulting.com

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 3:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

Jack,

I am linguist, and I should understand the value of language varieties in different linguistic contexts. The notion, though, that the formal/standard variety of the English language "is not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]" is a claim that needs to be supported with evidence. It is not true that users of different varieties can express themselves in the same way and at the same level. I lived in New York City for thirteen years, and I met people who spoke the "street variety" of the English language. Their average lexicon was about 500 words - survival English. Would it be true that the speakers of such English language "variety" had the same ability to express themselves as a Harvard English Language professor would express himself or herself in his or her "variety"?

It is hard for me to understand what this "Bad English" thread and other such threads are about. Are they a call to illiteracy? Are the public school teachers and college instructors who post messages similar to the one to which I replied working to persuade the members of this forum and their students that language education is not important? I though that this was a forum that promoted English language literacy, but maybe I was wrong.

Eduard

From: "Jack Dixon" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:07:21 AM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

Eduard,

The answers to some of your questions are in Steve King’s response. His statement about the intrinsic equality of dialects does not negate the need for formal instruction in language and grammar. He writes, “Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it [formal English] is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire.” Formal English is the status marker, the prestige dialect in our society. People can argue whether it should be or not all they want, but is this not reason enough for formal instruction? Other reasons for teaching formal English exist, too: for instance, its impact on reading comprehension of all sorts of texts is evident.

Rereading Steve K’s response and your reaction, I would like to ask: Can you not imagine any circumstances when using a less formal register might be preferred for clearer communication?

Finally, I don’t think that Steve K is implying that anyone off the street could come in to teach any variety of English. After all, we English teachers do not have to teach students their home language; they already know it and operate in it. We might encourage them to reflect on how it works, especially in contrasting it with formal English. Isn’t one purpose of schooling to teach elements students cannot just pick up on their own as we help them develop their critical thinking strategies? In doing so, teachers also work with depths students are not likely to reach on their own.

Yes, formal English is an important part of the language/grammar curriculum. I do not believe that Steve K’s ideas are the reason grammar/language instruction has reached its present state. It has been headed in this direction for over 100 years, with a few slight turns along the way.

Jack

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

"Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few."

So, now Standard/Formal English is "not intrinsically better or worse than any other [English Language varieties]." What is then, the purpose of teaching it in public schoools or in college? Why bother? Why not let the students speak and write in their own "variety"? Why waste so much money to pay English teachers and English instructors to teach students this "not intrinsically better or worse than any other" Standard/Formal English variety? Why not hire people from the street to teach students in the public school and college their own "variety" of English? It does not matter, anyway, if those who teach English in public schools or college have been trained to teach "correct" or "prescriptive" English! Who cares about this Formal/Standard English and who needs it?

From the content of the messages and comments posted in this forum it might seem appropriate to rename group who call themselves the "Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar" to "The Anti-Grammar Assembly/Forum." It is no wonder that this "Assembly" has had very little or no impact on the English Language education in the United States. If those who are supposed to uphold Standard/Formal English teaching speak against it and discourage its teaching as often as they have the opportunity to do so, then what should we expect from those who are convinced that teaching grammar could "harm" or "damage" the students?

Sad, very sad!

Eduard

From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:20:52 PM
Subject: Re: 'Bad' English

I find it useful to use rhetorical principles to judge the appropriateness of any given language variety; that is, is the variety appropriate given the audience, venue, message and speaker intentions? in the writing classroom, this allows me to discuss Formal Written English as one variety among many others, a variety not intrinsically better or worse than any other, although actually less useful than many since the situations that require it are relatively few. Of course, if one hopes to succeed in college and do well in a number of professions, it is a dialect one should have in one's linguistic repertoire. Thus, I have a way of explaining its importance without devaluing the several varieties of spoken English I encounter in the community college classroom.

The short form: language use is bad or good depending on the rhetorical situation in which it's used.

On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:45 AM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

Yes. I know that many people who have "grammar pet peeves" are well-meaning (I'm a descriptivism at heart but even I have some of these language peeves) and would balk at the thought that they are being offensive rather than nurturing. However, we all forget from time to time that language and identity are inextricably tangled; insult the way I talk might as well be insult me. We, as language education professionals, can talk about language standards objectively and even clinically; however, the average person might even hear "standard" as carying negative implications. We just need to take care; our words might be soft and fuzzy but still might be hard and sharp to someone on the other end whose identity is threatened.

This is a passage from Carl Lefevre's Linguistics, English, and the Language Arts (1970):

"Sooner or later most of us do learn to speak several variants of English by adapting to the varied persons and situations we encounter in life, and according to changing motivations, self-images, and goals. But a prestige dialect, treated prescriptively (that is, snobbishly or sadistically), is 'superior' to every other ('inferior') dialect: that is the point of a prestige dialect. This constraint applies to the non-standard dialect spoken by many a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant child in suburbia just as it does to the speech of the slum child deep in the inner-city ghetto; the difference is one of degree. As a segregating device, shibboleth is very ancient, and as hateful as Cain."

I believe there is a fine line between teaching a standard in the classroom and propagating what Levefre calls "shibboleth" in the classroom. Grammar pet peeves, things that drive us "batty," might ultimately be considered judgments on one's intellect, upbringing, and so forth -- one's identity. Often though we just cringe because these peeves are dissonant to our ear. We're not being meanies; we're just hoping that others have a shared experience and can relate to our sense of dissonance.

I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't talk about grammar pet peeves on this list for fear of being considered a judgmental elitist. But this is a place where I think the conversation will focus on why a pet peeve exists, how the variant formed, how it functions differently from the standard, what contributes to its usage, etc. So statements that seem like linguistic prejudice, one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice even in professional circles, can be dangerous on this list and even more so in the classroom. (Erin, I hope you won't feel singled out -- your anecdote was really just a springboard for the larger point.)

John

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I think the Dick Veit has made a valid assessment of Trask's main point.

Veit: "I doubt Trask is limiting "normal English grammar" to formal

written English. I would say that #4,5, 7, 8, and 9 are already "normal"
in the sense that they would not strike most speakers as odd when heard in
a conversation."

And although I don't like #3 either, it is extremely common, and I have
even heard it in formal academic (oral) presentations. I think the
appearance of the nominative form of pronouns in a compound object
construction like this

I take special exception to the example presented by Erin Karl:
"Maybe Trask thinks this might be accepted someday, too?

Old woman: 'If I knowed I coulda rid, I woulda went, but had I went, I
couldn'tna et nuthin'. But if I'd knowed you'da wanted me to came, I
woulda went anyhow.'"

I accept this language because I accept the humanity of the speaker. It
is not the way I speak--but why does everyone have to speak as I do? It is
not the language of formal written English prose, but it is perfectly
acceptable language for this woman. People are entitled to their own
language. They are the owners of their mother tongue--the language in
which they were nurtured, in which they live and breathe. What I don't
accept is the practice of insinuating ridicule by giving examples like
these. English teachers have practiced this form of bullying for too
long. When we have ceased finding it acceptable to make fun of people for
being Jewish or Black or Latino or LGBT, or anything else, why do we still
think it's acceptable to ridicule (or humiliate) people for the regional
or social variety of language that they speak?

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/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_Part_623482_277281741.1316642446866-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 18:18:07 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016e6d7e8c15c474304ad7af3ac Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about. I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too. When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end. Dick To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6d7e8c15c474304ad7af3ac Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about.

I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too.

When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end.

Dick

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6d7e8c15c474304ad7af3ac-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:36:25 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Stephen King <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_EMteXmkGJ9lp2tvrQzvnRA)" --Boundary_(ID_EMteXmkGJ9lp2tvrQzvnRA) Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Bravo! On Sep 21, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Dick Veit wrote: > The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about. > > I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too. > > When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end. > > Dick > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Boundary_(ID_EMteXmkGJ9lp2tvrQzvnRA) Content-type: text/html; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Bravo!
On Sep 21, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Dick Veit wrote:

The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about.

I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too.

When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end.

Dick

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Boundary_(ID_EMteXmkGJ9lp2tvrQzvnRA)-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 18:51:34 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_624840_658274737.1316645494150" ------=_Part_624840_658274737.1316645494150 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, Maybe the difference in perspective between the two of us is that you consider different "grammars" that govern different "varieties" of the English language, while I recognize only ONE GRAMMAR, the Standard English Grammar. Of course we all speak our own idiolects, and use various registers depending on the linguistic context, but if those idiolects and registers do not follow the rules of the Standard English Grammar I cannot call those "varieties" or "registers" good English, but to the degree to which they differ from the Standard English I call them "illiterate English." Anecdotally, someone mentioned to me that "Ebonics" as a "language variety" does not differ much from the broken English that some poor, illiterate people speak in the Appalachians. What is the common denominator between these two "varieties" of the English language? Illiteracy. Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dick Veit" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:18:07 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about. I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too. When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end. Dick To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_Part_624840_658274737.1316645494150 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Well,

Maybe the difference in perspective between the two of us is that you consider different "grammars" that govern different "varieties" of the English language, while I recognize only ONE GRAMMAR, the Standard English Grammar. Of course we all speak our own idiolects, and use various registers depending on the linguistic context, but if those idiolects and registers do not follow the rules of the Standard English Grammar I cannot call those "varieties" or "registers" good English, but to the degree to which they differ from the Standard English I call them "illiterate English." Anecdotally, someone mentioned to me that "Ebonics" as a "language variety" does not differ much from the broken English that some poor, illiterate people speak in the Appalachians. What is the common denominator between these two "varieties" of the English language? Illiteracy.

Eduard

From: "Dick Veit" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:18:07 PM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about.

I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too.

When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end.

Dick

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_Part_624840_658274737.1316645494150-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 18:52:22 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_624865_1841133308.1316645542413" ------=_Part_624865_1841133308.1316645542413 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bravo! Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:36:25 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Bravo! On Sep 21, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Dick Veit wrote: The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about. I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too. When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end. Dick To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_Part_624865_1841133308.1316645542413 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bravo!

Eduard

From: "Stephen King" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:36:25 PM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

Bravo!

On Sep 21, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Dick Veit wrote:

The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about.

I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too.

When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end.

Dick

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_Part_624865_1841133308.1316645542413-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:24:13 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Stephen King <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Comments: To: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_pPOKOlswzKT064nO4wirtg)" --Boundary_(ID_pPOKOlswzKT064nO4wirtg) Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Actually, my post WAS an effort to bring the world to an end and thus avoid all the essays I'll have to mark and grade next week . . . . On Sep 21, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Dick Veit wrote: > The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about. > > I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too. > > When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end. > > Dick > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Boundary_(ID_pPOKOlswzKT064nO4wirtg) Content-type: text/html; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Actually, my post WAS an effort to bring the world to an end and thus avoid all the essays I'll have to mark and grade next week . . . .
On Sep 21, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Dick Veit wrote:

The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about.

I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too.

When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end.

Dick

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Boundary_(ID_pPOKOlswzKT064nO4wirtg)-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 07:52:27 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: sessions at the upcoming NCTE convention in Chicago. In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary�aec5299ff56489d804ad872b5c --bcaec5299ff56489d804ad872b5c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This sounds great! Thanks for sharing, Peter! If any of the presenters want to make handouts available to ATEG pre- or post-conference (either via listserv or website), they are free to do so (they should contact me via email). I hope those attending the conference will take advantage of the opportunity to learn more about this approach to language in the classroom. John On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Peter H. Fries <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > For those of you who are planning to attend the annual NCTE convention in > Chicago November 17 - 22, the North American Systemic Functional Linguistics > Association co-sponsored session will feature Mary Schleppegrell, Jason > Moore and Ebony Thomas presenting a session titled *Using systemic > functional linguistics to focus on language and meaning in teachers' > professional development*.* * > > *The session is * > > *Session G.15: 9:30 � 10:45 AM, Saturday, 11/19/2011, in the Chicago > Hilton Conference Room 4A, fourth floor.* > > An extended abstract for the session is below. > > > I also noticed some other names on the NCTE program that may be familiar to > members of this list. Perhaps those of you who are presenting there might > like to provide additional information on your presentations there. > > > Peter Fries > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Each of the three presenters will describe a professional development (PD) > context in which teachers are developing an understanding of SFL approaches > to literacy. The first reports on PD with elementary grade teachers that > makes links between reading and writing. The second describes a project > that uses SFL constructs to support bilingual students� development of > disciplinary literacy in secondary English Language Arts. The third* *describes > a university course for preservice and inservice teachers that focuses on > language. The session will begin with a brief introduction from Peter Fries. > Then each presenter will speak for 15 minutes, followed by five minutes of > discussion. After the three presentations, we will have ten minutes for > general discussion. > > > > FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR IN THE ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM > > Mary Schleppegrell will report on a project currently underway to introduce > elementary grade teachers to a functional linguistics metalanguage that > supports talk about text. The goal is to help teachers support English > Language Learners� reading and writing development, enabling children to > read for deeper meaning as well as to construct the text types that are > valued in early literacy contexts. Artifacts from the project will > illustrate how attention to an author's language choices, focused on > particular areas of meaning informed by SFL, enables discussion about > character development, plot elements, and the themes of a story. In > addition, student texts written with careful scaffolding of overall > structure and relevant language features will be used to illustrate how > children's language development is supported by this approach. > > > > FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR IN THE SECONDARY CLASSROOM > > Jason Moore will report on a project that is developing SFL approaches in > the secondary English Language Arts classroom. Students at the secondary > level, in particular, need support making form-meaning connections, where > they face more challenging, discipline-specific literacy tasks. Records of > practice will be presented to illustrate how a class of 9th grade students > used SFL-based metalanguage to make sense of a text, and some major > affordances and challenges of using SFL to plan and implement instruction > will be reported and discussed. In addition, the presenter will share > insights gained from the feedback of a classroom teacher unfamiliar with SFL > who observed and reflected on this instruction. Finally, the presenter will > draw some implications from this work for preparing other English teachers > to use SFL as a pedagogical resource. > > > > FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR IN THE TEACHER EDUCATION CLASSROOM > > Ebony Elizabeth Thomas will report on ongoing curriculum re-development in > a required course for elementary language arts and secondary English > education students at an urban university. The purpose of the course is to > provide preservice and inservice teachers with knowledge about grammar and > usage that is relevant to their English language arts classrooms. Students > in the course selected nonfiction texts appropriate for their level of > specialization and learned to conduct functional grammar analyses on those > texts. Using SFL constructs such as *text types* (genres), *participants > and processes*, and *interpersonal resources*, students then created > language-focused units of instruction. This work will be contextualized > through artifacts created by the instructor, and the ways students took up > this kind of learning about language will be illustrated. > > > > > > > -- > Peter H. Fries > > Box 310 > Mount Pleasant MI 48804 > > Phone: 989-644-3384 > Cell: 989-400-3764 > > Email: [log in to unmask] > > Web page: > > [among 'emeritus faculty'] > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --bcaec5299ff56489d804ad872b5c Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This sounds great! Thanks for sharing, Peter! If any of the presenters want to make handouts available to ATEG pre- or post-conference (either via listserv or website), they are free to do so (they should contact me via email). I hope those attending the conference will take advantage of the opportunity to learn more about this approach to language in the classroom.

John

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Peter H. Fries <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

�For those of you who are planning to attend the annual NCTE convention in Chicago November 17 - 22, the North American Systemic Functional Linguistics Association co-sponsored session will feature Mary Schleppegrell, Jason Moore and Ebony Thomas presenting a session titled Using systemic functional linguistics to focus on language and meaning in teachers' professional development.

The session is

Session G.15:� 9:30 � 10:45 AM, Saturday, 11/19/2011, in the Chicago Hilton Conference Room 4A, fourth floor.

An extended abstract for the session is below.

I also noticed some other names on the NCTE program that may be familiar to members of this list. Perhaps those of you who are presenting there might like to provide additional information on your presentations there.

Peter Fries

�

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>�

�

Each of the three presenters will describe a professional development (PD) context in which teachers are developing an understanding of SFL approaches to literacy. The first reports on PD with elementary grade teachers that makes links between reading and writing. The second describes a project that uses SFL constructs to support bilingual students� development of disciplinary literacy in secondary English Language Arts. The third describes a university course for preservice and inservice teachers that focuses on language. The session will begin with a brief introduction from Peter Fries. Then each presenter will speak for 15 minutes, followed by five minutes of discussion. After the three presentations, we will have ten minutes for general discussion.

�

FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR IN THE ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM

Mary Schleppegrell will report on a project currently underway to introduce elementary grade teachers to a functional linguistics metalanguage that supports talk about text. The goal is to help teachers support English Language Learners� reading and writing development, enabling children to read for deeper meaning as well as to construct the text types that are valued in early literacy contexts. Artifacts from the project will illustrate how attention to an author's language choices, focused on particular areas of meaning informed by SFL, enables discussion about character development, plot elements, and the themes of a story. In addition, student texts written with careful scaffolding of overall structure and relevant language features will be used to illustrate how children's language development is supported by this approach.

�

FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR IN THE SECONDARY CLASSROOM

Jason Moore will report on a project that is developing SFL approaches in the secondary English Language Arts classroom. Students at the secondary level, in particular, need support making form-meaning connections, where they face more challenging, discipline-specific literacy tasks. Records of practice will be presented to illustrate how a class of 9^th grade students used SFL-based metalanguage to make sense of a text, and some major affordances and challenges of using SFL to plan and implement instruction will be reported and discussed. In addition, the presenter will share insights gained from the feedback of a classroom teacher unfamiliar with SFL who observed and reflected on this instruction. Finally, the presenter will draw some implications from this work for preparing other English teachers to use SFL as a pedagogical resource.

�

FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR IN THE TEACHER EDUCATION CLASSROOM

Ebony Elizabeth Thomas will report on ongoing curriculum re-development in a required course for elementary language arts and secondary English education students at an urban university. The purpose of the course is to provide preservice and inservice teachers with knowledge about grammar and usage that is relevant to their English language arts classrooms. Students in the course selected nonfiction texts appropriate for their level of specialization and learned to conduct functional grammar analyses on those texts. Using SFL constructs such as text types (genres), participants and processes, and interpersonal resources, students then created language-focused units of instruction. This work will be contextualized through artifacts created by the instructor, and the ways students took up this kind of learning about language will be illustrated.

�

�

--
Peter H. Fries

Box 310
Mount Pleasant MI 48804

Phone:� 989-644-3384
Cell:� � � 989-400-3764

Email:� [log in to unmask]
� � � � � �
Web page:� <http://cmich.edu/chsbs/x23516.xml>� [among 'emeritus faculty']
� � � � ��

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --bcaec5299ff56489d804ad872b5c-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 08:00:12 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Using the ATEG Listserv in the Classroom MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary�e6ba6e83d41ccfac04ad874779 --90e6ba6e83d41ccfac04ad874779 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 If you are a teacher at any level who is using the ATEG Listserv in the classroom and require all students to join the list, please let me know OFF-LIST. I like to have a point of contact for these groups for a variety of reasons. I think there is great opportunity for cross-institutional collaboration as well. Regards, John Alexander ATEG To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --90e6ba6e83d41ccfac04ad874779 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If you are a teacher at any level who is using the ATEG Listserv in the classroom and require all students to join the list, please let me know OFF-LIST.

I like to have a point of contact for these groups for a variety of reasons. I think there is great opportunity for cross-institutional collaboration as well.

Regards,

John Alexander
ATEG

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --90e6ba6e83d41ccfac04ad874779-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 10:11:01 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Bad English and parsing ATEG Digest - 19 Sep 2011 to 20 Sep 2011 (#2011-178) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Bugs the hell out of me" is easily diagrammed "Reed-Kellog" showing hell as the DO and "out of me" as a prepositional phrase modifying hell. If any readers attempted to diagram the sentence beginning "Due to," they would quickly see that "had to" is not the error that Trask was indicating. I do find it inexcusable that participants in an elist for English grammar would try to obfuscate the issue by waving the ethno-racial flag in defense of incorrect grammar. It has been long accepted that foreigners can and often do excel in their speech and writing. Note that one of the most respected English grammarians was Jespersen and that GB Shaw wrote "Her English is so perfect, which clearly indicates that she is foreign. For foreign people are instructed in the English language while the English people are'n." I just returned from an international congress in Barcelona. The presentations in English by non-English participants were equal to or surpassed those by English speakers in most cases. Almost every participant was a professor in some field or another--only three, to my knowledge, held professorships in onomastics--the subject of the congress. Scott To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:03:15 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: sessions at the upcoming NCTE convention in Chicago. In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EFD1AFAUAEXCH07univa_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EFD1AFAUAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 UGV0ZXIsDQogICAgSSB3aXNoIEkgd2FzIGdvaW5nIHRvIHRoZSBjb25mZXJlbmNlIG9yIGxvY2Fs IGVub3VnaCB0byBkcm9wIGluLiBJdCBzb3VuZHMgbGlrZSBhIHdvbmRlcmZ1bCBzZXNzaW9uLiBJ IHdvdWxkIGJlIHZlcnkgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCBpbiB0aGUgcGFwZXJzIGlmIGFueSBhcmUgYXZhaWxh YmxlLiAgVGhhbmtzIGZvciB0aGUgaGVhZHMtdXAuDQoNCkNyYWlnDQoNCkZyb206IEFzc2VtYmx5 IGZvciB0aGUgVGVhY2hpbmcgb2YgRW5nbGlzaCBHcmFtbWFyIFttYWlsdG86QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VS Vi5NVU9ISU8uRURVXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgUGV0ZXIgSC4gRnJpZXMNClNlbnQ6IFdlZG5lc2Rh eSwgU2VwdGVtYmVyIDIxLCAyMDExIDU6MDIgUE0NClRvOiBBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5F RFUNClN1YmplY3Q6IHNlc3Npb25zIGF0IHRoZSB1cGNvbWluZyBOQ1RFIGNvbnZlbnRpb24gaW4g Q2hpY2Fnby4NCg0KIEZvciB0aG9zZSBvZiB5b3Ugd2hvIGFyZSBwbGFubmluZyB0byBhdHRlbmQg dGhlIGFubnVhbCBOQ1RFIGNvbnZlbnRpb24gaW4gQ2hpY2FnbyBOb3ZlbWJlciAxNyAtIDIyLCB0 aGUgTm9ydGggQW1lcmljYW4gU3lzdGVtaWMgRnVuY3Rpb25hbCBMaW5ndWlzdGljcyBBc3NvY2lh dGlvbiBjby1zcG9uc29yZWQgc2Vzc2lvbiB3aWxsIGZlYXR1cmUgTWFyeSBTY2hsZXBwZWdyZWxs LCBKYXNvbiBNb29yZSBhbmQgRWJvbnkgVGhvbWFzIHByZXNlbnRpbmcgYSBzZXNzaW9uIHRpdGxl ZCBVc2luZyBzeXN0ZW1pYyBmdW5jdGlvbmFsIGxpbmd1aXN0aWNzIHRvIGZvY3VzIG9uIGxhbmd1 YWdlIGFuZCBtZWFuaW5nIGluIHRlYWNoZXJzJyBwcm9mZXNzaW9uYWwgZGV2ZWxvcG1lbnQuDQpU aGUgc2Vzc2lvbiBpcw0KU2Vzc2lvbiBHLjE1OiAgOTozMCDigJMgMTA6NDUgQU0sIFNhdHVyZGF5 LCAxMS8xOS8yMDExLCBpbiB0aGUgQ2hpY2FnbyBIaWx0b24gQ29uZmVyZW5jZSBSb29tIDRBLCBm b3VydGggZmxvb3IuDQpBbiBleHRlbmRlZCBhYnN0cmFjdCBmb3IgdGhlIHNlc3Npb24gaXMgYmVs b3cuDQoNCkkgYWxzbyBub3RpY2VkIHNvbWUgb3RoZXIgbmFtZXMgb24gdGhlIE5DVEUgcHJvZ3Jh bSB0aGF0IG1heSBiZSBmYW1pbGlhciB0byBtZW1iZXJzIG9mIHRoaXMgbGlzdC4gUGVyaGFwcyB0 aG9zZSBvZiB5b3Ugd2hvIGFyZSBwcmVzZW50aW5nIHRoZXJlIG1pZ2h0IGxpa2UgdG8gcHJvdmlk ZSBhZGRpdGlvbmFsIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIG9uIHlvdXIgcHJlc2VudGF0aW9ucyB0aGVyZS4NCg0K UGV0ZXIgRnJpZXMNCg0KPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4N Cg0KRWFjaCBvZiB0aGUgdGhyZWUgcHJlc2VudGVycyB3aWxsIGRlc2NyaWJlIGEgcHJvZmVzc2lv bmFsIGRldmVsb3BtZW50IChQRCkgY29udGV4dCBpbiB3aGljaCB0ZWFjaGVycyBhcmUgZGV2ZWxv cGluZyBhbiB1bmRlcnN0YW5kaW5nIG9mIFNGTCBhcHByb2FjaGVzIHRvIGxpdGVyYWN5LiBUaGUg Zmlyc3QgcmVwb3J0cyBvbiBQRCB3aXRoIGVsZW1lbnRhcnkgZ3JhZGUgdGVhY2hlcnMgdGhhdCBt YWtlcyBsaW5rcyBiZXR3ZWVuIHJlYWRpbmcgYW5kIHdyaXRpbmcuIFRoZSBzZWNvbmQgZGVzY3Jp YmVzIGEgcHJvamVjdCB0aGF0IHVzZXMgU0ZMIGNvbnN0cnVjdHMgdG8gc3VwcG9ydCBiaWxpbmd1 YWwgc3R1ZGVudHPigJkgZGV2ZWxvcG1lbnQgb2YgZGlzY2lwbGluYXJ5IGxpdGVyYWN5IGluIHNl Y29uZGFyeSBFbmdsaXNoIExhbmd1YWdlIEFydHMuIFRoZSB0aGlyZCBkZXNjcmliZXMgYSB1bml2 ZXJzaXR5IGNvdXJzZSBmb3IgcHJlc2VydmljZSBhbmQgaW5zZXJ2aWNlIHRlYWNoZXJzIHRoYXQg Zm9jdXNlcyBvbiBsYW5ndWFnZS4gVGhlIHNlc3Npb24gd2lsbCBiZWdpbiB3aXRoIGEgYnJpZWYg aW50cm9kdWN0aW9uIGZyb20gUGV0ZXIgRnJpZXMuIFRoZW4gZWFjaCBwcmVzZW50ZXIgd2lsbCBz cGVhayBmb3IgMTUgbWludXRlcywgZm9sbG93ZWQgYnkgZml2ZSBtaW51dGVzIG9mIGRpc2N1c3Np b24uIEFmdGVyIHRoZSB0aHJlZSBwcmVzZW50YXRpb25zLCB3ZSB3aWxsIGhhdmUgdGVuIG1pbnV0 ZXMgZm9yIGdlbmVyYWwgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbi4NCg0KRlVOQ1RJT05BTCBHUkFNTUFSIElOIFRIRSBF TEVNRU5UQVJZIENMQVNTUk9PTQ0KTWFyeSBTY2hsZXBwZWdyZWxsIHdpbGwgcmVwb3J0IG9uIGEg cHJvamVjdCBjdXJyZW50bHkgdW5kZXJ3YXkgdG8gaW50cm9kdWNlIGVsZW1lbnRhcnkgZ3JhZGUg dGVhY2hlcnMgdG8gYSBmdW5jdGlvbmFsIGxpbmd1aXN0aWNzIG1ldGFsYW5ndWFnZSB0aGF0IHN1 cHBvcnRzIHRhbGsgYWJvdXQgdGV4dC4gVGhlIGdvYWwgaXMgdG8gaGVscCB0ZWFjaGVycyBzdXBw b3J0IEVuZ2xpc2ggTGFuZ3VhZ2UgTGVhcm5lcnPigJkgcmVhZGluZyBhbmQgd3JpdGluZyBkZXZl bG9wbWVudCwgZW5hYmxpbmcgY2hpbGRyZW4gdG8gcmVhZCBmb3IgZGVlcGVyIG1lYW5pbmcgYXMg d2VsbCBhcyB0byBjb25zdHJ1Y3QgdGhlIHRleHQgdHlwZXMgdGhhdCBhcmUgdmFsdWVkIGluIGVh cmx5IGxpdGVyYWN5IGNvbnRleHRzLiBBcnRpZmFjdHMgZnJvbSB0aGUgcHJvamVjdCB3aWxsIGls bHVzdHJhdGUgaG93IGF0dGVudGlvbiB0byBhbiBhdXRob3IncyBsYW5ndWFnZSBjaG9pY2VzLCBm b2N1c2VkIG9uIHBhcnRpY3VsYXIgYXJlYXMgb2YgbWVhbmluZyBpbmZvcm1lZCBieSBTRkwsIGVu YWJsZXMgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBhYm91dCBjaGFyYWN0ZXIgZGV2ZWxvcG1lbnQsIHBsb3QgZWxlbWVu dHMsIGFuZCB0aGUgdGhlbWVzIG9mIGEgc3RvcnkuIEluIGFkZGl0aW9uLCBzdHVkZW50IHRleHRz IHdyaXR0ZW4gd2l0aCBjYXJlZnVsIHNjYWZmb2xkaW5nIG9mIG92ZXJhbGwgc3RydWN0dXJlIGFu ZCByZWxldmFudCBsYW5ndWFnZSBmZWF0dXJlcyB3aWxsIGJlIHVzZWQgdG8gaWxsdXN0cmF0ZSBo b3cgY2hpbGRyZW4ncyBsYW5ndWFnZSBkZXZlbG9wbWVudCBpcyBzdXBwb3J0ZWQgYnkgdGhpcyBh cHByb2FjaC4NCkZVTkNUSU9OQUwgR1JBTU1BUiBJTiBUSEUgU0VDT05EQVJZIENMQVNTUk9PTQ0K SmFzb24gTW9vcmUgd2lsbCByZXBvcnQgb24gYSBwcm9qZWN0IHRoYXQgaXMgZGV2ZWxvcGluZyBT RkwgYXBwcm9hY2hlcyBpbiB0aGUgc2Vjb25kYXJ5IEVuZ2xpc2ggTGFuZ3VhZ2UgQXJ0cyBjbGFz c3Jvb20uIFN0dWRlbnRzIGF0IHRoZSBzZWNvbmRhcnkgbGV2ZWwsIGluIHBhcnRpY3VsYXIsIG5l ZWQgc3VwcG9ydCBtYWtpbmcgZm9ybS1tZWFuaW5nIGNvbm5lY3Rpb25zLCB3aGVyZSB0aGV5IGZh Y2UgbW9yZSBjaGFsbGVuZ2luZywgZGlzY2lwbGluZS1zcGVjaWZpYyBsaXRlcmFjeSB0YXNrcy4g UmVjb3JkcyBvZiBwcmFjdGljZSB3aWxsIGJlIHByZXNlbnRlZCB0byBpbGx1c3RyYXRlIGhvdyBh IGNsYXNzIG9mIDl0aCBncmFkZSBzdHVkZW50cyB1c2VkIFNGTC1iYXNlZCBtZXRhbGFuZ3VhZ2Ug dG8gbWFrZSBzZW5zZSBvZiBhIHRleHQsIGFuZCBzb21lIG1ham9yIGFmZm9yZGFuY2VzIGFuZCBj aGFsbGVuZ2VzIG9mIHVzaW5nIFNGTCB0byBwbGFuIGFuZCBpbXBsZW1lbnQgaW5zdHJ1Y3Rpb24g d2lsbCBiZSByZXBvcnRlZCBhbmQgZGlzY3Vzc2VkLiBJbiBhZGRpdGlvbiwgdGhlIHByZXNlbnRl ciB3aWxsIHNoYXJlIGluc2lnaHRzIGdhaW5lZCBmcm9tIHRoZSBmZWVkYmFjayBvZiBhIGNsYXNz cm9vbSB0ZWFjaGVyIHVuZmFtaWxpYXIgd2l0aCBTRkwgd2hvIG9ic2VydmVkIGFuZCByZWZsZWN0 ZWQgb24gdGhpcyBpbnN0cnVjdGlvbi4gRmluYWxseSwgdGhlIHByZXNlbnRlciB3aWxsIGRyYXcg c29tZSBpbXBsaWNhdGlvbnMgZnJvbSB0aGlzIHdvcmsgZm9yIHByZXBhcmluZyBvdGhlciBFbmds aXNoIHRlYWNoZXJzIHRvIHVzZSBTRkwgYXMgYSBwZWRhZ29naWNhbCByZXNvdXJjZS4NCg0KRlVO Q1RJT05BTCBHUkFNTUFSIElOIFRIRSBURUFDSEVSIEVEVUNBVElPTiBDTEFTU1JPT00NCkVib255 IEVsaXphYmV0aCBUaG9tYXMgd2lsbCByZXBvcnQgb24gb25nb2luZyBjdXJyaWN1bHVtIHJlLWRl dmVsb3BtZW50IGluIGEgcmVxdWlyZWQgY291cnNlIGZvciBlbGVtZW50YXJ5IGxhbmd1YWdlIGFy dHMgYW5kIHNlY29uZGFyeSBFbmdsaXNoIGVkdWNhdGlvbiBzdHVkZW50cyBhdCBhbiB1cmJhbiB1 bml2ZXJzaXR5LiBUaGUgcHVycG9zZSBvZiB0aGUgY291cnNlIGlzIHRvIHByb3ZpZGUgcHJlc2Vy dmljZSBhbmQgaW5zZXJ2aWNlIHRlYWNoZXJzIHdpdGgga25vd2xlZGdlIGFib3V0IGdyYW1tYXIg YW5kIHVzYWdlIHRoYXQgaXMgcmVsZXZhbnQgdG8gdGhlaXIgRW5nbGlzaCBsYW5ndWFnZSBhcnRz IGNsYXNzcm9vbXMuIFN0dWRlbnRzIGluIHRoZSBjb3Vyc2Ugc2VsZWN0ZWQgbm9uZmljdGlvbiB0 ZXh0cyBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZSBmb3IgdGhlaXIgbGV2ZWwgb2Ygc3BlY2lhbGl6YXRpb24gYW5kIGxl YXJuZWQgdG8gY29uZHVjdCBmdW5jdGlvbmFsIGdyYW1tYXIgYW5hbHlzZXMgb24gdGhvc2UgdGV4 dHMuIFVzaW5nIFNGTCBjb25zdHJ1Y3RzIHN1Y2ggYXMgdGV4dCB0eXBlcyAoZ2VucmVzKSwgcGFy dGljaXBhbnRzIGFuZCBwcm9jZXNzZXMsIGFuZCBpbnRlcnBlcnNvbmFsIHJlc291cmNlcywgc3R1 ZGVudHMgdGhlbiBjcmVhdGVkIGxhbmd1YWdlLWZvY3VzZWQgdW5pdHMgb2YgaW5zdHJ1Y3Rpb24u IFRoaXMgd29yayB3aWxsIGJlIGNvbnRleHR1YWxpemVkIHRocm91Z2ggYXJ0aWZhY3RzIGNyZWF0 ZWQgYnkgdGhlIGluc3RydWN0b3IsIGFuZCB0aGUgd2F5cyBzdHVkZW50cyB0b29rIHVwIHRoaXMg a2luZCBvZiBsZWFybmluZyBhYm91dCBsYW5ndWFnZSB3aWxsIGJlIGlsbHVzdHJhdGVkLg0KDQoN Cg0KDQotLQ0KUGV0ZXIgSC4gRnJpZXMNCg0KQm94IDMxMA0KTW91bnQgUGxlYXNhbnQgTUkgNDg4 MDQNCg0KUGhvbmU6ICA5ODktNjQ0LTMzODQNCkNlbGw6ICAgICAgOTg5LTQwMC0zNzY0DQoNCkVt YWlsOiAgZnJpZXMxcGhAZ21haWwuY29tPG1haWx0bzpmcmllczFwaEBnbWFpbC5jb20+DQoNCldl YiBwYWdlOiAgPGh0dHA6Ly9jbWljaC5lZHUvY2hzYnMveDIzNTE2LnhtbDxodHRwOi8vY21pY2gu ZWR1L2Noc2JzL3gyMzUxNi54bWw+PiAgW2Ftb25nICdlbWVyaXR1cyBmYWN1bHR5J10NCg0KDQpU byBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0 J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZSBhdDogaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMv YXRlZy5odG1sIGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQoNClZpc2l0IEFU RUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvDQo --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EFD1AFAUAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+PGhlYWQ+PG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUgY29udGVu dD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij48bWV0YSBuYW1lPUdlbmVyYXRvciBjb250ZW50 PSJNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCAxNCAoZmlsdGVyZWQgbWVkaXVtKSI+PHN0eWxlPjwhLS0NCi8qIEZv bnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FtYnJpYTsNCglw YW5vc2UtMToyIDQgNSAzIDUgNCA2IDMgMiA0O30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDE1IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJ e2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OlRhaG9tYTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDExIDYgNCAzIDUgNCA0IDIgNDt9DQpA Zm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OlRpbWVzOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMiA2IDMgNSA0IDUg MiAzIDQ7fQ0KLyogU3R5bGUgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCnAuTXNvTm9ybWFsLCBsaS5Nc29Ob3Jt YWwsIGRpdi5Nc29Ob3JtYWwNCgl7bWFyZ2luLXRvcDo0LjBwdDsNCgltYXJnaW4tcmlnaHQ6MGlu Ow0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206MGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjBpbjsNCgltYXJnaW4tYm90dG9t Oi4wMDAxcHQ7DQoJbXNvLWxpbmUtaGVpZ2h0LWFsdDoxLjFwdDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTQuMHB0 Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyIsInNlcmlmIjsNCgltc28tZmFyZWFzdC1sYW5ndWFnZTpK QTt9DQphOmxpbmssIHNwYW4uTXNvSHlwZXJsaW5rDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsN Cgljb2xvcjpibHVlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjp1bmRlcmxpbmU7fQ0KYTp2aXNpdGVkLCBz cGFuLk1zb0h5cGVybGlua0ZvbGxvd2VkDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgljb2xv cjpwdXJwbGU7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQpwDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1w cmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgltc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzsNCgltYXJnaW4tcmlnaHQ6MGlu Ow0KCW1zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjBpbjsNCglmb250 LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLCJzZXJpZiI7fQ0K c3Bhbi5FbWFpbFN0eWxlMTgNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6cGVyc29uYWwtcmVwbHk7DQoJZm9u dC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsNCgljb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEO30NCi5Nc29D aHBEZWZhdWx0DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOmV4cG9ydC1vbmx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJD YWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7fQ0KQHBhZ2UgV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3NpemU6OC41aW4g MTEuMGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbjoxLjBpbiAxLjBpbiAxLjBpbiAxLjBpbjt9DQpkaXYuV29yZFNlY3Rp b24xDQoJe3BhZ2U6V29yZFNlY3Rpb24xO30NCi0tPjwvc3R5bGU+PCEtLVtpZiBndGUgbXNvIDld Pjx4bWw+DQo8bzpzaGFwZWRlZmF1bHRzIHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0IiBzcGlkbWF4PSIxMDI2IiAvPg0K PC94bWw+PCFbZW5kaWZdLS0+PCEtLVtpZiBndGUgbXNvIDldPjx4bWw+DQo8bzpzaGFwZWxheW91 dCB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCI+DQo8bzppZG1hcCB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIgZGF0YT0iMSIgLz4NCjwvbzpz aGFwZWxheW91dD48L3htbD48IVtlbmRpZl0tLT48L2hlYWQ+PGJvZHkgbGFuZz1FTi1VUyBsaW5r PWJsdWUgdmxpbms9cHVycGxlPjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9V29yZFNlY3Rpb24xPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05v cm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIs InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPlBldGVyLDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48 cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1p bHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz7CoMKgwqAgSSB3aXNoIEkg d2FzIGdvaW5nIHRvIHRoZSBjb25mZXJlbmNlIG9yIGxvY2FsIGVub3VnaCB0byBkcm9wIGluLiBJ dCBzb3VuZHMgbGlrZSBhIHdvbmRlcmZ1bCBzZXNzaW9uLiBJIHdvdWxkIGJlIHZlcnkgaW50ZXJl c3RlZCBpbiB0aGUgcGFwZXJzIGlmIGFueSBhcmUgYXZhaWxhYmxlLiDCoFRoYW5rcyBmb3IgdGhl IGhlYWRzLXVwLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4g c3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlm Ijtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNv Tm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJp Iiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+Q3JhaWc8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+ PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286 cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbWFyZ2luLXRvcDowaW47bGlu ZS1oZWlnaHQ6bm9ybWFsJz48Yj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZh bWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7bXNvLWZhcmVhc3QtbGFuZ3VhZ2U6RU4tVVMnPkZy b206PC9zcGFuPjwvYj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToi VGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7bXNvLWZhcmVhc3QtbGFuZ3VhZ2U6RU4tVVMnPiBBc3NlbWJs eSBmb3IgdGhlIFRlYWNoaW5nIG9mIEVuZ2xpc2ggR3JhbW1hciBbbWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElTVFNF UlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVV0gPGI+T24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIDwvYj5QZXRlciBILiBGcmllczxicj48Yj5T ZW50OjwvYj4gV2VkbmVzZGF5LCBTZXB0ZW1iZXIgMjEsIDIwMTEgNTowMiBQTTxicj48Yj5Ubzo8 L2I+IEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVTxicj48Yj5TdWJqZWN0OjwvYj4gc2Vzc2lvbnMg YXQgdGhlIHVwY29taW5nIE5DVEUgY29udmVudGlvbiBpbiBDaGljYWdvLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9z cGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9 TXNvTm9ybWFsPiZuYnNwO0ZvciB0aG9zZSBvZiB5b3Ugd2hvIGFyZSBwbGFubmluZyB0byBhdHRl bmQgdGhlIGFubnVhbCBOQ1RFIGNvbnZlbnRpb24gaW4gQ2hpY2FnbyBOb3ZlbWJlciAxNyAtIDIy LCB0aGUgTm9ydGggQW1lcmljYW4gU3lzdGVtaWMgRnVuY3Rpb25hbCBMaW5ndWlzdGljcyBBc3Nv Y2lhdGlvbiBjby1zcG9uc29yZWQgc2Vzc2lvbiB3aWxsIGZlYXR1cmUgTWFyeSBTY2hsZXBwZWdy ZWxsLCBKYXNvbiBNb29yZSBhbmQgRWJvbnkgVGhvbWFzIHByZXNlbnRpbmcgYSBzZXNzaW9uIHRp dGxlZCA8aT48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLWZhcmVhc3QtbGFuZ3VhZ2U6RU4tVVMnPlVzaW5nIHN5 c3RlbWljIGZ1bmN0aW9uYWwgbGluZ3Vpc3RpY3MgdG8gZm9jdXMgb24gbGFuZ3VhZ2UgYW5kIG1l YW5pbmcgaW4gdGVhY2hlcnMnIHByb2Zlc3Npb25hbCBkZXZlbG9wbWVudDwvc3Bhbj48L2k+PHNw YW4gc3R5bGU9J21zby1mYXJlYXN0LWxhbmd1YWdlOkVOLVVTJz4uPGI+IDwvYj48L3NwYW4+PG86 cD48L286cD48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdtc28tZmFyZWFz dC1sYW5ndWFnZTpFTi1VUyc+VGhlIHNlc3Npb24gaXMgPC9zcGFuPjwvYj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwv cD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J21zby1mYXJlYXN0LWxhbmd1YWdl OkVOLVVTJz5TZXNzaW9uIEcuMTU6wqAgOTozMCDigJMgMTA6NDUgQU0sIFNhdHVyZGF5LCAxMS8x OS8yMDExLCBpbiB0aGUgQ2hpY2FnbyBIaWx0b24gQ29uZmVyZW5jZSBSb29tIDRBLCBmb3VydGgg Zmxvb3IuPC9zcGFuPjwvYj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+QW4gZXh0 ZW5kZWQgYWJzdHJhY3QgZm9yIHRoZSBzZXNzaW9uIGlzIGJlbG93LjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxw IGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+ SSBhbHNvIG5vdGljZWQgc29tZSBvdGhlciBuYW1lcyBvbiB0aGUgTkNURSBwcm9ncmFtIHRoYXQg bWF5IGJlIGZhbWlsaWFyIHRvIG1lbWJlcnMgb2YgdGhpcyBsaXN0LiBQZXJoYXBzIHRob3NlIG9m IHlvdSB3aG8gYXJlIHByZXNlbnRpbmcgdGhlcmUgbWlnaHQgbGlrZSB0byBwcm92aWRlIGFkZGl0 aW9uYWwgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gb24geW91ciBwcmVzZW50YXRpb25zIHRoZXJlLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+ PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29O b3JtYWw+UGV0ZXIgRnJpZXM8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+Jm5ic3A7 PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSd0ZXh0LWF1dG9zcGFjZTpu b25lJz48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbWJyaWEiLCJzZXJpZiInPiZndDsmZ3Q7 Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsm Z3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZn dDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7PC9zcGFuPjxv OnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0ndGV4dC1hdXRvc3BhY2U6bm9u ZSc+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYW1icmlhIiwic2VyaWYiJz4mbmJzcDs8L3Nw YW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSd0ZXh0LWF1dG9zcGFj ZTpub25lJz48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbWJyaWEiLCJzZXJpZiInPkVhY2gg b2YgdGhlIHRocmVlIHByZXNlbnRlcnMgd2lsbCBkZXNjcmliZSBhIHByb2Zlc3Npb25hbCBkZXZl bG9wbWVudCAoUEQpIGNvbnRleHQgaW4gd2hpY2ggdGVhY2hlcnMgYXJlIGRldmVsb3BpbmcgYW4g dW5kZXJzdGFuZGluZyBvZiBTRkwgYXBwcm9hY2hlcyB0byBsaXRlcmFjeS4gVGhlIGZpcnN0IHJl cG9ydHMgb24gUEQgd2l0aCBlbGVtZW50YXJ5IGdyYWRlIHRlYWNoZXJzIHRoYXQgbWFrZXMgbGlu a3MgYmV0d2VlbiByZWFkaW5nIGFuZCB3cml0aW5nLiBUaGUgc2Vjb25kIDwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBz dHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbWJyaWEiLCJzZXJpZiInPmRlc2NyaWJlcyBhIHByb2plY3Qg dGhhdCB1c2VzIFNGTCBjb25zdHJ1Y3RzIHRvIHN1cHBvcnQgYmlsaW5ndWFsIHN0dWRlbnRz4oCZ IGRldmVsb3BtZW50IG9mIGRpc2NpcGxpbmFyeSBsaXRlcmFjeSBpbiBzZWNvbmRhcnkgRW5nbGlz aCBMYW5ndWFnZSBBcnRzLiA8L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYW1icmlh Iiwic2VyaWYiJz5UaGUgdGhpcmQ8aT4gPC9pPmRlc2NyaWJlcyBhIHVuaXZlcnNpdHkgY291cnNl IGZvciBwcmVzZXJ2aWNlIGFuZCBpbnNlcnZpY2UgdGVhY2hlcnMgdGhhdCBmb2N1c2VzIG9uIGxh bmd1YWdlLiBUaGUgc2Vzc2lvbiB3aWxsIGJlZ2luIHdpdGggYSBicmllZiBpbnRyb2R1Y3Rpb24g ZnJvbSBQZXRlciBGcmllcy4gVGhlbiBlYWNoIHByZXNlbnRlciB3aWxsIHNwZWFrIGZvciAxNSBt aW51dGVzLCBmb2xsb3dlZCBieSBmaXZlIG1pbnV0ZXMgb2YgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbi4gQWZ0ZXIgdGhl IHRocmVlIHByZXNlbnRhdGlvbnMsIHdlIHdpbGwgaGF2ZSB0ZW4gbWludXRlcyBmb3IgZ2VuZXJh bCBkaXNjdXNzaW9uLjwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5 bGU9J3RleHQtYXV0b3NwYWNlOm5vbmUnPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FtYnJp YSIsInNlcmlmIic+Jm5ic3A7PC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1h bCBzdHlsZT0ndGV4dC1hdXRvc3BhY2U6bm9uZSc+RlVOQ1RJT05BTCBHUkFNTUFSIElOIFRIRSBF TEVNRU5UQVJZIENMQVNTUk9PTTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHls ZT0ndGV4dC1hdXRvc3BhY2U6bm9uZSc+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYW1icmlh Iiwic2VyaWYiJz5NYXJ5IFNjaGxlcHBlZ3JlbGwgd2lsbCByZXBvcnQgb24gYSBwcm9qZWN0IGN1 cnJlbnRseSB1bmRlcndheSB0byBpbnRyb2R1Y2UgZWxlbWVudGFyeSBncmFkZSB0ZWFjaGVycyB0 byBhIGZ1bmN0aW9uYWwgbGluZ3Vpc3RpY3MgbWV0YWxhbmd1YWdlIHRoYXQgc3VwcG9ydHMgdGFs ayBhYm91dCB0ZXh0LiBUaGUgZ29hbCBpcyB0byBoZWxwIHRlYWNoZXJzIDwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBz dHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbWJyaWEiLCJzZXJpZiInPnN1cHBvcnQgRW5nbGlzaCBMYW5n dWFnZSBMZWFybmVyc+KAmSByZWFkaW5nIGFuZCB3cml0aW5nIGRldmVsb3BtZW50LCBlbmFibGlu ZyBjaGlsZHJlbiB0byByZWFkIGZvciBkZWVwZXIgbWVhbmluZyBhcyB3ZWxsIGFzIHRvIGNvbnN0 cnVjdCB0aGUgdGV4dCB0eXBlcyB0aGF0IGFyZSB2YWx1ZWQgaW4gZWFybHkgbGl0ZXJhY3kgY29u dGV4dHMuIEFydGlmYWN0cyBmcm9tIHRoZSBwcm9qZWN0IHdpbGwgaWxsdXN0cmF0ZSBob3cgYXR0 ZW50aW9uIHRvIGFuIGF1dGhvcidzIGxhbmd1YWdlIGNob2ljZXMsIGZvY3VzZWQgb24gcGFydGlj dWxhciBhcmVhcyBvZiBtZWFuaW5nIGluZm9ybWVkIGJ5IFNGTCwgZW5hYmxlcyBkaXNjdXNzaW9u IGFib3V0IGNoYXJhY3RlciBkZXZlbG9wbWVudCwgcGxvdCBlbGVtZW50cywgYW5kIHRoZSB0aGVt ZXMgb2YgYSBzdG9yeS4gSW4gYWRkaXRpb24sIHN0dWRlbnQgdGV4dHMgd3JpdHRlbiB3aXRoIGNh cmVmdWwgc2NhZmZvbGRpbmcgb2Ygb3ZlcmFsbCBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUgYW5kIHJlbGV2YW50IGxhbmd1 YWdlIGZlYXR1cmVzIHdpbGwgYmUgdXNlZCB0byBpbGx1c3RyYXRlIGhvdyBjaGlsZHJlbidzIGxh bmd1YWdlIGRldmVsb3BtZW50IGlzIHN1cHBvcnRlZCBieSB0aGlzIGFwcHJvYWNoLjwvc3Bhbj48 bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J3RleHQtYXV0b3NwYWNlOm5v bmUnPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FtYnJpYSIsInNlcmlmIic+IDwvc3Bhbj48 bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J3RleHQtYXV0b3NwYWNlOm5v bmUnPkZVTkNUSU9OQUwgR1JBTU1BUiBJTiBUSEUgU0VDT05EQVJZIENMQVNTUk9PTTxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbWJy aWEiLCJzZXJpZiInPkphc29uIE1vb3JlIHdpbGwgcmVwb3J0IG9uIGEgcHJvamVjdCB0aGF0IGlz IGRldmVsb3BpbmcgU0ZMIGFwcHJvYWNoZXMgaW4gdGhlIHNlY29uZGFyeSBFbmdsaXNoIExhbmd1 YWdlIEFydHMgY2xhc3Nyb29tLiBTdHVkZW50cyBhdCB0aGUgc2Vjb25kYXJ5IGxldmVsLCBpbiBw YXJ0aWN1bGFyLCBuZWVkIHN1cHBvcnQgbWFraW5nIGZvcm0tbWVhbmluZyBjb25uZWN0aW9ucywg d2hlcmUgdGhleSBmYWNlIG1vcmUgY2hhbGxlbmdpbmcsIGRpc2NpcGxpbmUtc3BlY2lmaWMgbGl0 ZXJhY3kgdGFza3MuIFJlY29yZHMgb2YgcHJhY3RpY2Ugd2lsbCBiZSBwcmVzZW50ZWQgdG8gaWxs dXN0cmF0ZSBob3cgYSBjbGFzcyBvZiA5PHN1cD50aDwvc3VwPiBncmFkZSBzdHVkZW50cyB1c2Vk IFNGTC1iYXNlZCBtZXRhbGFuZ3VhZ2UgdG8gbWFrZSBzZW5zZSBvZiBhIHRleHQsIGFuZCBzb21l IG1ham9yIGFmZm9yZGFuY2VzIGFuZCBjaGFsbGVuZ2VzIG9mIHVzaW5nIFNGTCB0byBwbGFuIGFu ZCBpbXBsZW1lbnQgaW5zdHJ1Y3Rpb24gd2lsbCBiZSByZXBvcnRlZCBhbmQgZGlzY3Vzc2VkLiBJ biBhZGRpdGlvbiwgdGhlIHByZXNlbnRlciB3aWxsIHNoYXJlIGluc2lnaHRzIGdhaW5lZCBmcm9t IHRoZSBmZWVkYmFjayBvZiBhIGNsYXNzcm9vbSB0ZWFjaGVyIHVuZmFtaWxpYXIgd2l0aCBTRkwg d2hvIG9ic2VydmVkIGFuZCByZWZsZWN0ZWQgb24gdGhpcyBpbnN0cnVjdGlvbi4gRmluYWxseSwg dGhlIHByZXNlbnRlciB3aWxsIGRyYXcgc29tZSBpbXBsaWNhdGlvbnMgZnJvbSB0aGlzIHdvcmsg Zm9yIHByZXBhcmluZyBvdGhlciBFbmdsaXNoIHRlYWNoZXJzIHRvIHVzZSBTRkwgYXMgYSBwZWRh Z29naWNhbCByZXNvdXJjZS4gPC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1h bD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbWJyaWEiLCJzZXJpZiInPiZuYnNwOzwvc3Bh bj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J3RleHQtYXV0b3NwYWNl Om5vbmUnPkZVTkNUSU9OQUwgR1JBTU1BUiBJTiBUSEUgVEVBQ0hFUiBFRFVDQVRJT04gQ0xBU1NS T09NPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LWZh bWlseToiQ2FtYnJpYSIsInNlcmlmIic+RWJvbnkgRWxpemFiZXRoIFRob21hcyB3aWxsIHJlcG9y dCBvbiBvbmdvaW5nIGN1cnJpY3VsdW0gcmUtZGV2ZWxvcG1lbnQgaW4gYSByZXF1aXJlZCBjb3Vy c2UgZm9yIGVsZW1lbnRhcnkgbGFuZ3VhZ2UgYXJ0cyBhbmQgc2Vjb25kYXJ5IEVuZ2xpc2ggZWR1 Y2F0aW9uIHN0dWRlbnRzIGF0IGFuIHVyYmFuIHVuaXZlcnNpdHkuIFRoZSBwdXJwb3NlIG9mIHRo ZSBjb3Vyc2UgaXMgdG8gcHJvdmlkZSBwcmVzZXJ2aWNlIGFuZCBpbnNlcnZpY2UgdGVhY2hlcnMg d2l0aCBrbm93bGVkZ2UgYWJvdXQ8L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYW1i cmlhIiwic2VyaWYiJz4gZ3JhbW1hciBhbmQgdXNhZ2UgdGhhdCBpcyByZWxldmFudCB0byB0aGVp ciBFbmdsaXNoIGxhbmd1YWdlIGFydHMgY2xhc3Nyb29tcy48L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2Zv bnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbWJyaWEiLCJzZXJpZiInPiA8L3NwYW4+PHNw YW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYW1icmlhIiwic2VyaWYiJz5TdHVkZW50cyBpbiB0aGUg Y291cnNlIHNlbGVjdGVkIG5vbmZpY3Rpb24gdGV4dHMgYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUgZm9yIHRoZWlyIGxl dmVsIG9mIHNwZWNpYWxpemF0aW9uIGFuZCBsZWFybmVkIHRvIGNvbmR1Y3QgZnVuY3Rpb25hbCBn cmFtbWFyIGFuYWx5c2VzIG9uIHRob3NlIHRleHRzLiBVc2luZyBTRkwgY29uc3RydWN0cyBzdWNo IGFzIDxpPnRleHQgdHlwZXM8L2k+IChnZW5yZXMpLCA8aT5wYXJ0aWNpcGFudHMgYW5kIHByb2Nl c3NlczwvaT4sIGFuZCA8aT5pbnRlcnBlcnNvbmFsIHJlc291cmNlczwvaT4sIHN0dWRlbnRzIHRo ZW4gY3JlYXRlZCBsYW5ndWFnZS1mb2N1c2VkIHVuaXRzIG9mIGluc3RydWN0aW9uLiBUaGlzIHdv cmsgd2lsbCBiZSBjb250ZXh0dWFsaXplZCB0aHJvdWdoIGFydGlmYWN0cyBjcmVhdGVkIGJ5IHRo ZSBpbnN0cnVjdG9yLCBhbmQgdGhlIHdheXMgc3R1ZGVudHMgdG9vayB1cCB0aGlzIGtpbmQgb2Yg bGVhcm5pbmcgYWJvdXQgbGFuZ3VhZ2Ugd2lsbCBiZSBpbGx1c3RyYXRlZC4gPC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNh bWJyaWEiLCJzZXJpZiInPiZuYnNwOzwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29O b3JtYWw+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtYXJn aW4tdG9wOjBpbjtsaW5lLWhlaWdodDpub3JtYWwnPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTIu MHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLCJzZXJpZiI7bXNvLWZhcmVhc3QtbGFu Z3VhZ2U6RU4tVVMnPjxiciBjbGVhcj1hbGw+PGJyPi0tIDxicj5QZXRlciBILiBGcmllczxicj48 YnI+Qm94IDMxMCA8YnI+TW91bnQgUGxlYXNhbnQgTUkgNDg4MDQ8YnI+PGJyPlBob25lOiZuYnNw OyA5ODktNjQ0LTMzODQ8YnI+Q2VsbDombmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyA5ODktNDAwLTM3NjQg PGJyPjxicj5FbWFpbDombmJzcDsgPGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOmZyaWVzMXBoQGdtYWlsLmNvbSIg dGFyZ2V0PSJfYmxhbmsiPmZyaWVzMXBoQGdtYWlsLmNvbTwvYT48YnI+Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAm bmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgPGJyPldlYiBwYWdlOiZuYnNwOyA8YSBocmVmPSJo dHRwOi8vY21pY2guZWR1L2Noc2JzL3gyMzUxNi54bWwiIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj4mbHQ7aHR0 cDovL2NtaWNoLmVkdS9jaHNicy94MjM1MTYueG1sPC9hPiZndDsmbmJzcDsgPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFu IHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLCJz ZXJpZiI7bXNvLWZhcmVhc3QtbGFuZ3VhZ2U6RU4tVVMnPlthbW9uZyAnZW1lcml0dXMgZmFjdWx0 eSddPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1l cyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLCJzZXJpZiI7bXNvLWZhcmVhc3QtbGFuZ3VhZ2U6RU4tVVMnPiA8YnI+Jm5i c3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyA8YnI+PGJyPlRvIGpvaW4gb3Ig bGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50 ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiA8YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9h dGVnLmh0bWwiPmh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbDwv YT4gYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAmcXVvdDtKb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0JnF1b3Q7IDxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cD5WaXNpdCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgPGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cDov L2F0ZWcub3JnLyI+aHR0cDovL2F0ZWcub3JnLzwvYT4gPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PC9kaXY+PC9i b2R5PjwvaHRtbD4 --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EFD1AFAUAEXCH07univa_-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:24:06 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Bad English and parsing ATEG Digest - 19 Sep 2011 to 20 Sep 2011 (#2011-178) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Scott, If "out of me" modifies "hell," then I would expect that "hell out of me" could become the subject in a passive version. "Hell out of me is bugged by it." That doesn't work. You have to say "Hell is bugged out of me by it," which is awkward, for sure, especially with the sentence ending pronoun, but seems closer to the sense of the original. In traditional grammar, I think the term "object complement" is used for these kinds of structures ("drove me crazy"), but traditional grammar, if my memory is correct, doesn't recognize adverbials in that slot. Other grammars do. "She drove me up the wall." I see "up the wall" as adverbial complement (not a modifier). I think "out of me" fits that pattern as well. Craig -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Catledge Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:11 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Bad English and parsing ATEG Digest - 19 Sep 2011 to 20 Sep 2011 (#2011-178) "Bugs the hell out of me" is easily diagrammed "Reed-Kellog" showing hell as the DO and "out of me" as a prepositional phrase modifying hell. If any readers attempted to diagram the sentence beginning "Due to," they would quickly see that "had to" is not the error that Trask was indicating. I do find it inexcusable that participants in an elist for English grammar would try to obfuscate the issue by waving the ethno-racial flag in defense of incorrect grammar. It has been long accepted that foreigners can and often do excel in their speech and writing. Note that one of the most respected English grammarians was Jespersen and that GB Shaw wrote "Her English is so perfect, which clearly indicates that she is foreign. For foreign people are instructed in the English language while the English people are'n." I just returned from an international congress in Barcelona. The presentations in English by non-English participants were equal to or surpassed those by English speakers in most cases. Almost every participant was a professor in some field or another--only three, to my knowledge, held professorships in onomastics--the subject of the congress. Scott To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 22:16:51 +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: Bad English and parsing ATEG Digest - 19 Sep 2011 to 20 Sep 2011 (#2011-178) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:11 AM, "Scott Catledge" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > GB Shaw wrote > "Her English is so perfect, which clearly indicates that she is foreign. > For foreign peopleare instructed in the English language while the English people are'n." I know an Egyptian comedy filmed in the 70s, a story of an African king visiting Egypt. Unlike the Egyptians, the King's ministers speak impeccable Arabic and so are, as Shaw said, obviously foreigners. The phenomenon of hyper-correct foreigners appears to be widely observed. Mark -- [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: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:18:12 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EFD210FUAEXCH07univa_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EFD210FUAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 RWR1YXJkLA0KICAgIFRoZXNlIGxlYXZlcyBtZSB3aXRoIHNvbWUgcXVlc3Rpb25zLiAxKSBBcmUg eW91IE9OTFkgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCBpbiB3aGF0IG1ha2VzIHNvbWV0aGluZyBTdGFuZGFyZCwgb3Ig ZG9lcyB5b3VyIGludGVyZXN0IGluIGdyYW1tYXIgZ28gYmV5b25kIHRoYXQ/IEluIG90aGVyIHdv cmRzLCBvbmNlIHNvbWV0aGluZyBpcyBkZXRlcm1pbmVkIGFzIFN0YW5kYXJkIEVuZ2xpc2gsIGFy ZSB0aGVyZSBvdGhlciB0aGluZ3Mgd2UgY2FuIG9ic2VydmUgYWJvdXQgaXRzIGdyYW1tYXIgdGhh dCBhcmUgdXNlZnVsIGFuZCBiZW5lZmljaWFsPyBJcyBvdXIgb25seSBjb25jZXJuIG1ha2luZyBz dXJlIGxhbmd1YWdlIGNvbmZvcm1zIHRvIG5vcm1zIG9yIHNob3VsZCB3ZSBhbHNvIHRoaW5rIGFi b3V0IHdheXMgaW4gd2hpY2ggZ3JhbW1hciBjb250cmlidXRlcyB0byByaGV0b3JpY2FsIGVmZmVj dCBvciB0byBtZWFuaW5nPyAyKSBBcmUgeW91IGF0IGFsbCB0cm91YmxlZCBieSB0aGUgZmFjdCB0 aGF0IG1hbnkgb2YgdGhlIHJ1bGVzIG9mIHByZXNjcmlwdGl2ZSBncmFtbWFyIHNlZW0gcmF0aGVy IGFyYml0cmFyeT8gT25lIGV4YW1wbGUgIG1pZ2h0IGJlIHRoZSDigJxkdWUgdG/igJ0gdmVyc3Vz IOKAnGJlY2F1c2Ugb2bigJ0gZGlzdGluY3Rpb24gaW4gYSByZWNlbnQgcG9zdCAgdGhhdCBtYW55 IG9mIHVzIGZlbHQgd2FzIG9uIHNoYWt5IGdyb3VuZC4gSG93IGRvIHdlIGRldGVybWluZSB3aGV0 aGVyIHNvbWV0aGluZyBpcyBzdGFuZGFyZCBvciBub3Q/IDMpIERvZXMgdGhhdCBtZWFuIHRoYXQg bGl0ZXJhcnkgdGV4dHMgdGhhdCB1c2UgZGlhbGVjdCBpbiBvbmUgd2F5IG9yIGFub3RoZXIgc2hv dWxkIGJlIGV4cHVuZ2VkIGZyb20gdGhlIGNhbm9uPyBJ4oCZbSB0aGlua2luZyBvZiBib29rcyBs aWtlIOKAnEh1Y2tsZWJlcnJ5IEZpbm7igJ0gb3Ig4oCcVGhlIGNvbG9yIFB1cnBsZeKAnSwgbXVj aCBvZiB0aGUgcG9ldHJ5IG9mIFJvYmVydCBCdXJucyBhbmQgTGFuZ3N0b24gSHVnaGVzLCB0aGUg cGxheXMgb2YgQXVndXN0IFdpbHNvbiAoc28gbWFueSBvZiBvdXIgcGxheXMsIGZvciB0aGF0IG1h dHRlciksIGFuZCBzbyBvbj8gIEhvdyBkbyB3ZSBkZWFsIHdpdGggdGhlIGZhY3QgdGhhdCBhIGdy ZWF0IGRlYWwgb2YgaGlnaGx5IHZhbHVlZCBsaXRlcmF0dXJlIGlzIGJ1aWx0IG9uIGNyZWF0aXZl IHVzZSBvZiB0aGUgdmVybmFjdWxhcj8NCiAgICBUaGUgZmluYWwgcXVlc3Rpb24sIEkgZ3Vlc3Ms IG1pZ2h0IGJlIGhvdyB3ZSBzdGltdWxhdGUgd2lkZXNwcmVhZCBhY3F1aXNpdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUg c3RhbmRhcmQuIElzIGRpc3BhcmFnaW5nIGRpYWxlY3QgYSBuZWNlc3Nhcnkgc3RlcCBpbiB0aGF0 IGRpcmVjdGlvbj8gSSBkb27igJl0IHRoaW5rIG1hbnkgb2Ygd291bGQgZGlzYWdyZWUgdGhhdCBr bm93aW5nIFN0YW5kYXJkIEVuZ2xpc2ggaXMgYSBjZW50cmFsIGdvYWwuIEhvdyBkbyB3ZSBhY2Nv bW1vZGF0ZSBvdGhlciBnb2FscyBhcyB3ZWxsLCBpbmNsdWRpbmcgZW5jb3VyYWdpbmcgZmx1ZW5j eT8NCg0KICBDcmFpZw0KDQpGcm9tOiBBc3NlbWJseSBmb3IgdGhlIFRlYWNoaW5nIG9mIEVuZ2xp c2ggR3JhbW1hciBbbWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVV0gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9m IEVkdWFyZCBIYW5nYW51DQpTZW50OiBXZWRuZXNkYXksIFNlcHRlbWJlciAyMSwgMjAxMSA2OjUy IFBNDQpUbzogQVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogVGhlICJBbnRp LUdyYW1tYXIgRm9ydW0iDQoNCg0KV2VsbCwNCg0KDQoNCk1heWJlIHRoZSBkaWZmZXJlbmNlIGlu IHBlcnNwZWN0aXZlIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlIHR3byBvZiB1cyBpcyB0aGF0IHlvdSBjb25zaWRlciBk aWZmZXJlbnQgImdyYW1tYXJzIiB0aGF0IGdvdmVybiBkaWZmZXJlbnQgInZhcmlldGllcyIgb2Yg dGhlIEVuZ2xpc2ggbGFuZ3VhZ2UsIHdoaWxlIEkgcmVjb2duaXplIG9ubHkgT05FIEdSQU1NQVIs IHRoZSBTdGFuZGFyZCBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXIuIE9mIGNvdXJzZSB3ZSBhbGwgc3BlYWsgb3Vy IG93biBpZGlvbGVjdHMsIGFuZCB1c2UgdmFyaW91cyByZWdpc3RlcnMgZGVwZW5kaW5nIG9uIHRo ZSBsaW5ndWlzdGljIGNvbnRleHQsIGJ1dCBpZiB0aG9zZSBpZGlvbGVjdHMgYW5kIHJlZ2lzdGVy cyBkbyBub3QgZm9sbG93IHRoZSBydWxlcyBvZiB0aGUgU3RhbmRhcmQgRW5nbGlzaCBHcmFtbWFy IEkgY2Fubm90IGNhbGwgdGhvc2UgInZhcmlldGllcyIgb3IgInJlZ2lzdGVycyIgZ29vZCBFbmds aXNoLCBidXQgdG8gdGhlIGRlZ3JlZSB0byB3aGljaCB0aGV5IGRpZmZlciBmcm9tIHRoZSBTdGFu ZGFyZCBFbmdsaXNoIEkgY2FsbCB0aGVtICJpbGxpdGVyYXRlIEVuZ2xpc2guIiBBbmVjZG90YWxs eSwgc29tZW9uZSBtZW50aW9uZWQgdG8gbWUgdGhhdCAiRWJvbmljcyIgYXMgYSAibGFuZ3VhZ2Ug dmFyaWV0eSIgZG9lcyBub3QgZGlmZmVyIG11Y2ggZnJvbSB0aGUgYnJva2VuIEVuZ2xpc2ggdGhh dCBzb21lIHBvb3IsIGlsbGl0ZXJhdGUgcGVvcGxlIHNwZWFrIGluIHRoZSBBcHBhbGFjaGlhbnMu IFdoYXQgaXMgdGhlIGNvbW1vbiBkZW5vbWluYXRvciBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoZXNlIHR3byAidmFyaWV0 aWVzIiBvZiB0aGUgRW5nbGlzaCBsYW5ndWFnZT8gSWxsaXRlcmFjeS4NCg0KDQoNCkVkdWFyZA0K DQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KDQpGcm9tOiAiRGljayBWZWl0IiA8 ZGlja3ZlaXRAR01BSUwuQ09NPG1haWx0bzpkaWNrdmVpdEBHTUFJTC5DT00+Pg0KVG86IEFURUdA TElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVTxtYWlsdG86QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVPg0KU2Vu dDogV2VkbmVzZGF5LCBTZXB0ZW1iZXIgMjEsIDIwMTEgNToxODowNyBQTQ0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6 IFRoZSAiQW50aS1HcmFtbWFyIEZvcnVtIg0KDQpUaGUgYXNzdW1wdGlvbiBpbiBzZXZlcmFsIHBv c3RzIHRoYXQgdGhlcmUgY2FuIG9ubHkgYmUgb25lIHZhcmlldHkgb2YgRW5nbGlzaCBmb3IgZXZl cnkgb2NjYXNpb24gZmxhYmJlcmdhc3RzIG1lLiBBcmVuJ3Qgd2UgYWxsIG1hc3RlcnMgb2YgbWFu eSByZWdpc3RlcnM/IEluIGFuIGVhcmxpZXIgcG9zdCBJIHdyb3RlIHRoYXQgb25lIGxhbmd1YWdl IHBocmFzZSAiYnVncyB0aGUgaGVsbCBvdXQgb2YgbWUuIiBJIGRlZW1lZCB0aGF0IGluZm9ybWFs IGV4cHJlc3Npb24gdG8gYmUgYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUgaW4gdGhpcyBmb3J1bSwganVzdCBhcyBJIHdv dWxkIGNvbnNpZGVyIGl0IGluYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUgaW4gbWFueSBvdGhlcnMuIEkga25vdyB0aGUg ZGlmZmVyZW5jZS4gWW91IGRvIHRvby4gWW91ciBsYW5ndWFnZSBpbiB3cml0aW5nIGpvdXJuYWwg cGFwZXJzIGlzIGlkZW50aWZpYWJseSBkaWZmZXJlbnQgZnJvbSB5b3VyIGxhbmd1YWdlIGluIGFu IGVtYWlsIHRvIGNvbGxlYWd1ZXMgYW5kIGRpZmZlcmVudCBmcm9tIHlvdXIgc3BlZWNoIGluIGNv bnZlcnNpbmcgd2l0aCBmcmllbmRzIHdoaWxlIHdhdGNoaW5nIGEgZm9vdGJhbGwgZ2FtZSBvciBp biB0YWxraW5nIG9uIHRoZSBwaG9uZSB3aXRoIHlvdXIgaW5zdXJhbmNlIGFnZW50LiBZb3UgaGF2 ZSBubyB0cm91YmxlIG1ha2luZyB0aGUgYWRqdXN0bWVudHMuIFRoYXQgaXMgd2hhdCBiZWluZyBh IHNvcGhpc3RpY2F0ZWQgdXNlciBvZiBsYW5ndWFnZSBpcyBhbGwgYWJvdXQuDQoNCkkgdGF1Z2h0 IHdyaXRpbmcgZm9yIGZvcnR5IHllYXJzLCBhbmQgbXkgZ29hbCB3YXMgYWx3YXlzIGZvciBzdHVk ZW50cyB0byBtYXN0ZXIgdGhlIHByaW5jaXBsZXMgb2YgZm9ybWFsIHdyaXR0ZW4gRW5nbGlzaC4g VGhlcmUgYXJlIGFjY2VwdGVkIGNvbnZlbnRpb25zIHRoYXQgZWR1Y2F0ZWQgcGVvcGxlIG5lZWQg dG8gbGVhcm4uIEFub3RoZXIgZ29hbCB3YXMgZm9yIHRoZW0gdG8gdW5kZXJzdGFuZCBkaWZmZXJl bnQgcmVnaXN0ZXJzIGFuZCB0byBrbm93IHdoaWNoIGlzIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIHRvIHVzZSBpbiBk aWZmZXJlbnQgc2l0dWF0aW9ucy4gQW5kIHllcywgc3R1ZGVudHMgY2FuIG1hc3RlciB0aGF0IHRv by4NCg0KV2hlbiBzb21lb25lIGluIHRoaXMgZm9ydW0gb2JzZXJ2ZXMgdGhhdCBhbiBpbmZvcm1h bCBleHByZXNzaW9uIGlzIGdyYW1tYXRpY2FsIGluIGEgY2VydGFpbiByZWdpc3RlciBvciBkaWFs ZWN0LCB0aGV5IGFyZSBzaW1wbHkgZGVzY3JpYmluZyB3aGF0IHRoZXkgb2JzZXJ2ZSBhbmQgbm90 IG1ha2luZyBhIG1vcmFsIGp1ZGdtZW50LiBTdWNoIGFuIG9ic2VydmF0cmlvbiBkb2Vzbid0IG1l YW4gdGhhdCAoMSkgdGhleSBkbyBub3QgYmVsaWV2ZSBpbiB0ZWFjaGluZyBmb3JtYWwgd3JpdHRl biBFbmdsaXNoLCAoMikgdGhleSBmYXZvciB0ZWFjaGluZyBzdHVkZW50cyB0byB3cml0ZSBFYm9u aWNzLCBvciAoMykgdGhlIHdvcmxkIGlzIGNvbWluZyB0byBhbiBlbmQuDQoNCkRpY2sNCg0KVG8g am9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdz IHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6IGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0 ZWcuaHRtbCBhbmQgc2VsZWN0ICJKb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0Ig0KDQpWaXNpdCBBVEVH J3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL2F0ZWcub3JnLw0KVG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJ U1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6IGh0 dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbCBhbmQgc2VsZWN0ICJK b2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0Ig0KDQpWaXNpdCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDov L2F0ZWcub3JnLw0K --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EFD210FUAEXCH07univa_ 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 fQ0KLyogU3R5bGUgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCnAuTXNvTm9ybWFsLCBsaS5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGRp di5Nc29Ob3JtYWwNCgl7bWFyZ2luOjBpbjsNCgltYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOi4wMDAxcHQ7DQoJZm9u dC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIiwic2VyaWYiO30N CmE6bGluaywgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmsNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNv bG9yOmJsdWU7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQphOnZpc2l0ZWQsIHNwYW4u TXNvSHlwZXJsaW5rRm9sbG93ZWQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOnB1 cnBsZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCnANCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9y aXR5Ojk5Ow0KCW1hcmdpbjowaW47DQoJbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTouMDAwMXB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtc2l6 ZToxMi4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiIsInNlcmlmIjt9DQpwLk1z b0FjZXRhdGUsIGxpLk1zb0FjZXRhdGUsIGRpdi5Nc29BY2V0YXRlDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlv cml0eTo5OTsNCgltc28tc3R5bGUtbGluazoiQmFsbG9vbiBUZXh0IENoYXIiOw0KCW1hcmdpbjow aW47DQoJbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTouMDAwMXB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZTo4LjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZh bWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7fQ0Kc3Bhbi5CYWxsb29uVGV4dENoYXINCgl7bXNv LXN0eWxlLW5hbWU6IkJhbGxvb24gVGV4dCBDaGFyIjsNCgltc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7 DQoJbXNvLXN0eWxlLWxpbms6IkJhbGxvb24gVGV4dCI7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIs InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO30NCnNwYW4uRW1haWxTdHlsZTIwDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOnBlcnNv bmFsLXJlcGx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQoJY29sb3I6 IzFGNDk3RDt9DQouTXNvQ2hwRGVmYXVsdA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpleHBvcnQtb25seTsN Cglmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O30NCkBwYWdlIFdvcmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtzaXplOjguNWluIDEx LjBpbjsNCgltYXJnaW46MS4waW4gMS4waW4gMS4waW4gMS4waW47fQ0KZGl2LldvcmRTZWN0aW9u MQ0KCXtwYWdlOldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMTt9DQotLT48L3N0eWxlPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48 eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVkZWZhdWx0cyB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIgc3BpZG1heD0iMTAyNiIgLz4NCjwv eG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQg djpleHQ9ImVkaXQiPg0KPG86aWRtYXAgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIGRhdGE9IjEiIC8+DQo8L286c2hh cGVsYXlvdXQ+PC94bWw+PCFbZW5kaWZdLS0+PC9oZWFkPjxib2R5IGxhbmc9RU4tVVMgbGluaz1i bHVlIHZsaW5rPXB1cnBsZT48ZGl2IGNsYXNzPVdvcmRTZWN0aW9uMT48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3Jt YWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJz YW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz5FZHVhcmQsPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxw IGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWls eToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPsKgwqDCoCBUaGVzZSBsZWF2 ZXMgbWUgd2l0aCBzb21lIHF1ZXN0aW9ucy4gMSkgQXJlIHlvdSBPTkxZIGludGVyZXN0ZWQgaW4g d2hhdCBtYWtlcyBzb21ldGhpbmcgU3RhbmRhcmQsIG9yIGRvZXMgeW91ciBpbnRlcmVzdCBpbiBn cmFtbWFyIGdvIGJleW9uZCB0aGF0PyBJbiBvdGhlciB3b3Jkcywgb25jZSBzb21ldGhpbmcgaXMg ZGV0ZXJtaW5lZCBhcyBTdGFuZGFyZCBFbmdsaXNoLCBhcmUgdGhlcmUgb3RoZXIgdGhpbmdzIHdl IGNhbiBvYnNlcnZlIGFib3V0IGl0cyBncmFtbWFyIHRoYXQgYXJlIHVzZWZ1bCBhbmQgYmVuZWZp Y2lhbD8gSXMgb3VyIG9ubHkgY29uY2VybiBtYWtpbmcgc3VyZSBsYW5ndWFnZSBjb25mb3JtcyB0 byBub3JtcyBvciBzaG91bGQgd2UgYWxzbyB0aGluayBhYm91dCB3YXlzIGluIHdoaWNoIGdyYW1t YXIgY29udHJpYnV0ZXMgdG8gcmhldG9yaWNhbCBlZmZlY3Qgb3IgdG8gbWVhbmluZz8gMikgQXJl IHlvdSBhdCBhbGwgdHJvdWJsZWQgYnkgdGhlIGZhY3QgdGhhdCBtYW55IG9mIHRoZSBydWxlcyBv ZiBwcmVzY3JpcHRpdmUgZ3JhbW1hciBzZWVtIHJhdGhlciBhcmJpdHJhcnk/IE9uZSBleGFtcGxl wqAgbWlnaHQgYmUgdGhlIOKAnGR1ZSB0b+KAnSB2ZXJzdXMg4oCcYmVjYXVzZSBvZuKAnSBkaXN0 aW5jdGlvbiBpbiBhIHJlY2VudCBwb3N0IMKgdGhhdCBtYW55IG9mIHVzIGZlbHQgd2FzIG9uIHNo YWt5IGdyb3VuZC4gSG93IGRvIHdlIGRldGVybWluZSB3aGV0aGVyIHNvbWV0aGluZyBpcyBzdGFu ZGFyZCBvciBub3Q/IDMpIERvZXMgdGhhdCBtZWFuIHRoYXQgbGl0ZXJhcnkgdGV4dHMgdGhhdCB1 c2UgZGlhbGVjdCBpbiBvbmUgd2F5IG9yIGFub3RoZXIgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGV4cHVuZ2VkIGZyb20g dGhlIGNhbm9uPyBJ4oCZbSB0aGlua2luZyBvZiBib29rcyBsaWtlIOKAnEh1Y2tsZWJlcnJ5IEZp bm7igJ0gb3Ig4oCcVGhlIGNvbG9yIFB1cnBsZeKAnSwgbXVjaCBvZiB0aGUgcG9ldHJ5IG9mIFJv YmVydCBCdXJucyBhbmQgTGFuZ3N0b24gSHVnaGVzLCB0aGUgcGxheXMgb2YgQXVndXN0IFdpbHNv biAoc28gbWFueSBvZiBvdXIgcGxheXMsIGZvciB0aGF0IG1hdHRlciksIGFuZCBzbyBvbj/CoCBI b3cgZG8gd2UgZGVhbCB3aXRoIHRoZSBmYWN0IHRoYXQgYSBncmVhdCBkZWFsIG9mIGhpZ2hseSB2 YWx1ZWQgbGl0ZXJhdHVyZSBpcyBidWlsdCBvbiBjcmVhdGl2ZSB1c2Ugb2YgdGhlIHZlcm5hY3Vs YXI/IDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9 J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xv cjojMUY0OTdEJz7CoMKgwqDCoFRoZSBmaW5hbCBxdWVzdGlvbiwgSSBndWVzcywgbWlnaHQgYmUg aG93IHdlIHN0aW11bGF0ZSB3aWRlc3ByZWFkIGFjcXVpc2l0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBzdGFuZGFyZC4g SXMgZGlzcGFyYWdpbmcgZGlhbGVjdCBhIG5lY2Vzc2FyeSBzdGVwIGluIHRoYXQgZGlyZWN0aW9u PyBJIGRvbuKAmXQgdGhpbmsgbWFueSBvZiB3b3VsZCBkaXNhZ3JlZSB0aGF0IGtub3dpbmcgU3Rh bmRhcmQgRW5nbGlzaCBpcyBhIGNlbnRyYWwgZ29hbC4gSG93IGRvIHdlIGFjY29tbW9kYXRlIG90 aGVyIGdvYWxzIGFzIHdlbGwsIGluY2x1ZGluZyBlbmNvdXJhZ2luZyBmbHVlbmN5PyA8bzpwPjwv bzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6 MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+ wqDCoDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9 J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xv cjojMUY0OTdEJz7CoMKgQ3JhaWfCoCA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNv Tm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJp Iiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9w PjxkaXY+PGRpdiBzdHlsZT0nYm9yZGVyOm5vbmU7Ym9yZGVyLXRvcDpzb2xpZCAjQjVDNERGIDEu MHB0O3BhZGRpbmc6My4wcHQgMGluIDBpbiAwaW4nPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48Yj48c3Bh biBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJp ZiInPkZyb206PC9zcGFuPjwvYj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZh bWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPiBBc3NlbWJseSBmb3IgdGhlIFRlYWNoaW5nIG9m IEVuZ2xpc2ggR3JhbW1hciBbbWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVV0gPGI+T24g QmVoYWxmIE9mIDwvYj5FZHVhcmQgSGFuZ2FudTxicj48Yj5TZW50OjwvYj4gV2VkbmVzZGF5LCBT ZXB0ZW1iZXIgMjEsIDIwMTEgNjo1MiBQTTxicj48Yj5Ubzo8L2I+IEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVP SElPLkVEVTxicj48Yj5TdWJqZWN0OjwvYj4gUmU6IFRoZSAmcXVvdDtBbnRpLUdyYW1tYXIgRm9y dW0mcXVvdDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9y bWFsPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxkaXY+PHA+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9yOmJsYWNr Jz5XZWxsLDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nY29sb3I6YmxhY2sn PiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nY29sb3I6YmxhY2sn Pk1heWJlIHRoZSBkaWZmZXJlbmNlIGluIHBlcnNwZWN0aXZlIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlIHR3byBvZiB1 cyBpcyB0aGF0IHlvdSBjb25zaWRlciBkaWZmZXJlbnQgJnF1b3Q7Z3JhbW1hcnMmcXVvdDsgdGhh dCBnb3Zlcm4gZGlmZmVyZW50ICZxdW90O3ZhcmlldGllcyZxdW90OyBvZiB0aGUgRW5nbGlzaCBs YW5ndWFnZSwgd2hpbGUgSSByZWNvZ25pemUgb25seSBPTkUgR1JBTU1BUiwgdGhlIFN0YW5kYXJk IEVuZ2xpc2ggR3JhbW1hci4gT2YgY291cnNlIHdlIGFsbCBzcGVhayBvdXIgb3duIGlkaW9sZWN0 cywgYW5kIHVzZSB2YXJpb3VzIHJlZ2lzdGVycyBkZXBlbmRpbmcgb24gdGhlIGxpbmd1aXN0aWMg Y29udGV4dCwgYnV0IGlmIHRob3NlIGlkaW9sZWN0cyBhbmQgcmVnaXN0ZXJzIGRvIG5vdCBmb2xs b3cgdGhlIHJ1bGVzIG9mIHRoZSBTdGFuZGFyZCBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXIgSSBjYW5ub3QgY2Fs bCB0aG9zZSAmcXVvdDt2YXJpZXRpZXMmcXVvdDsgb3IgJnF1b3Q7cmVnaXN0ZXJzJnF1b3Q7IGdv b2QgRW5nbGlzaCwgYnV0IHRvIHRoZSBkZWdyZWUgdG8gd2hpY2ggdGhleSBkaWZmZXIgZnJvbSB0 aGUgU3RhbmRhcmQgRW5nbGlzaCBJIGNhbGwgdGhlbSAmcXVvdDtpbGxpdGVyYXRlIEVuZ2xpc2gu JnF1b3Q7IEFuZWNkb3RhbGx5LCBzb21lb25lIG1lbnRpb25lZCB0byBtZSB0aGF0ICZxdW90O0Vi b25pY3MmcXVvdDsgYXMgYSAmcXVvdDtsYW5ndWFnZSB2YXJpZXR5JnF1b3Q7IGRvZXMgbm90IGRp ZmZlciBtdWNoIGZyb20gdGhlIGJyb2tlbiBFbmdsaXNoIHRoYXQgc29tZSBwb29yLCBpbGxpdGVy YXRlIHBlb3BsZSBzcGVhayBpbiB0aGUgQXBwYWxhY2hpYW5zLiBXaGF0IGlzIHRoZSBjb21tb24g ZGVub21pbmF0b3IgYmV0d2VlbiB0aGVzZSB0d28gJnF1b3Q7dmFyaWV0aWVzJnF1b3Q7IG9mIHRo ZSBFbmdsaXNoIGxhbmd1YWdlPyBJbGxpdGVyYWN5LjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cD48 c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nY29sb3I6YmxhY2snPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cD48 c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nY29sb3I6YmxhY2snPkVkdWFyZCA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PGRp diBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgYWxpZ249Y2VudGVyIHN0eWxlPSd0ZXh0LWFsaWduOmNlbnRlcic+ PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz48aHIgc2l6ZT0yIHdpZHRoPSIxMDAlIiBhbGlnbj1j ZW50ZXIgaWQ9endjaHI+PC9zcGFuPjwvZGl2PjxwPjxiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpibGFj ayc+RnJvbTogPC9zcGFuPjwvYj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nY29sb3I6YmxhY2snPiZxdW90O0RpY2sg VmVpdCZxdW90OyAmbHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOmRpY2t2ZWl0QEdNQUlMLkNPTSI+ZGlja3Zl aXRAR01BSUwuQ09NPC9hPiZndDs8YnI+PGI+VG86IDwvYj48YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86QVRFR0BM SVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVIj5BVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFU8L2E+PGJyPjxiPlNl bnQ6IDwvYj5XZWRuZXNkYXksIFNlcHRlbWJlciAyMSwgMjAxMSA1OjE4OjA3IFBNPGJyPjxiPlN1 YmplY3Q6IDwvYj5SZTogVGhlICZxdW90O0FudGktR3JhbW1hciBGb3J1bSZxdW90Ozxicj48YnI+ VGhlIGFzc3VtcHRpb24gaW4gc2V2ZXJhbCBwb3N0cyB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIGNhbiBvbmx5IGJlIG9u ZSB2YXJpZXR5IG9mIEVuZ2xpc2ggZm9yIGV2ZXJ5IG9jY2FzaW9uIGZsYWJiZXJnYXN0cyBtZS4g QXJlbid0IHdlIGFsbCBtYXN0ZXJzIG9mIG1hbnkgcmVnaXN0ZXJzPyBJbiBhbiBlYXJsaWVyIHBv c3QgSSB3cm90ZSB0aGF0IG9uZSBsYW5ndWFnZSBwaHJhc2UgJnF1b3Q7YnVncyB0aGUgaGVsbCBv dXQgb2YgbWUuJnF1b3Q7IEkgZGVlbWVkIHRoYXQgaW5mb3JtYWwgZXhwcmVzc2lvbiB0byBiZSBh cHByb3ByaWF0ZSBpbiB0aGlzIGZvcnVtLCBqdXN0IGFzIEkgd291bGQgY29uc2lkZXIgaXQgaW5h cHByb3ByaWF0ZSBpbiBtYW55IG90aGVycy4gSSBrbm93IHRoZSBkaWZmZXJlbmNlLiBZb3UgZG8g dG9vLiBZb3VyIGxhbmd1YWdlIGluIHdyaXRpbmcgam91cm5hbCBwYXBlcnMgaXMgaWRlbnRpZmlh Ymx5IGRpZmZlcmVudCBmcm9tIHlvdXIgbGFuZ3VhZ2UgaW4gYW4gZW1haWwgdG8gY29sbGVhZ3Vl cyBhbmQgZGlmZmVyZW50IGZyb20geW91ciBzcGVlY2ggaW4gY29udmVyc2luZyB3aXRoIGZyaWVu ZHMgd2hpbGUgd2F0Y2hpbmcgYSBmb290YmFsbCBnYW1lIG9yIGluIHRhbGtpbmcgb24gdGhlIHBo b25lIHdpdGggeW91ciBpbnN1cmFuY2UgYWdlbnQuIFlvdSBoYXZlIG5vIHRyb3VibGUgbWFraW5n IHRoZSBhZGp1c3RtZW50cy4gVGhhdCBpcyB3aGF0IGJlaW5nIGEgc29waGlzdGljYXRlZCB1c2Vy IG9mIGxhbmd1YWdlIGlzIGFsbCBhYm91dC48YnI+PGJyPkkgdGF1Z2h0IHdyaXRpbmcgZm9yIGZv cnR5IHllYXJzLCBhbmQgbXkgZ29hbCB3YXMgYWx3YXlzIGZvciBzdHVkZW50cyB0byBtYXN0ZXIg dGhlIHByaW5jaXBsZXMgb2YgZm9ybWFsIHdyaXR0ZW4gRW5nbGlzaC4gVGhlcmUgYXJlIGFjY2Vw dGVkIGNvbnZlbnRpb25zIHRoYXQgZWR1Y2F0ZWQgcGVvcGxlIG5lZWQgdG8gbGVhcm4uIEFub3Ro ZXIgZ29hbCB3YXMgZm9yIHRoZW0gdG8gdW5kZXJzdGFuZCBkaWZmZXJlbnQgcmVnaXN0ZXJzIGFu ZCB0byBrbm93IHdoaWNoIGlzIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIHRvIHVzZSBpbiBkaWZmZXJlbnQgc2l0dWF0 aW9ucy4gQW5kIHllcywgc3R1ZGVudHMgY2FuIG1hc3RlciB0aGF0IHRvby48YnI+PGJyPldoZW4g c29tZW9uZSBpbiB0aGlzIGZvcnVtIG9ic2VydmVzIHRoYXQgYW4gaW5mb3JtYWwgZXhwcmVzc2lv biBpcyBncmFtbWF0aWNhbCBpbiBhIGNlcnRhaW4gcmVnaXN0ZXIgb3IgZGlhbGVjdCwgdGhleSBh cmUgc2ltcGx5IGRlc2NyaWJpbmcgd2hhdCB0aGV5IG9ic2VydmUgYW5kIG5vdCBtYWtpbmcgYSBt b3JhbCBqdWRnbWVudC4gU3VjaCBhbiBvYnNlcnZhdHJpb24gZG9lc24ndCBtZWFuIHRoYXQgKDEp IHRoZXkgZG8gbm90IGJlbGlldmUgaW4gdGVhY2hpbmcgZm9ybWFsIHdyaXR0ZW4gRW5nbGlzaCwg KDIpIHRoZXkgZmF2b3IgdGVhY2hpbmcgc3R1ZGVudHMgdG8gd3JpdGUgRWJvbmljcywgb3IgKDMp IHRoZSB3b3JsZCBpcyBjb21pbmcgdG8gYW4gZW5kLjxicj48YnI+RGljazxicj48YnI+VG8gam9p biBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdl YiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6IDxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hp dmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbCI+aHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5o dG1sPC9hPiBhbmQgc2VsZWN0ICZxdW90O0pvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QmcXVvdDsgPG86 cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+VmlzaXQgQVRF RydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IDxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8iPmh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9y Zy88L2E+IDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+VG8g am9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdz IHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6IDxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2Fy Y2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbCI+aHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRl Zy5odG1sPC9hPiBhbmQgc2VsZWN0ICZxdW90O0pvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QmcXVvdDsg PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PHA+VmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IDxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6 Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8iPmh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy88L2E+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PC9kaXY+PC9i b2R5PjwvaHRtbD4 --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220EFD210FUAEXCH07univa_-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:25:03 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_678910_978068380.1316809503129" ------=_Part_678910_978068380.1316809503129 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig, I am a LINGUIST, not a GRAMMARIAN. I am not a grammar school teacher or a high school teacher. In my undergraduate and graduate studies I have studied phonetics and phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics, etc. From my perspective, the concept of "grammar" as discussed on this forum seems to be limited, narrow, and incomplete, and the distinction between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" in language is nonsensical. Someone said, "We describe in order to prescribe." Most examples of "prescriptive" English are so pathetic that they make me weep, and those who insist on the distinction don't seem to understand the ultimate purpose of language - communication. The whole purpose of English language education is to "prescribe" how people should speak and write in order to produce a consesus language . The alternative would be for each one of us or for groups of people of various sizes in this country to coin words that have a meaning only for individuals or for grouns , and to build an unlimited number of individual or group grammars. If we followed this course of action we would soon loose the ability to communicate between individuals and groups. We would witness a modern Tower of Babel. Why is the American education paying every year English language teachers and other educators? In order to "prescribe" behavior in language, arts, and science. This is called "socialization," and without socialization creatures born to humans are will not become human. Instead of speaking about "grammar" I would rather speak about language structure and its communicative, rhetorical purpose. If we cannot communicate in language, the production of sounds, words, and strings of words is irational and useless. It is necessary for humans, in order to communicate through language, to "prescribe" what words and strings of words mean so that they could all use those words and word strings to mean the same thing. We don't live in Alice's wonderland, and we are rabbbits, ascribing personal and arbitrary meanings to words if we want to communicate because if we did so we would loose very rapidly the ability to communicate with each other and one another. Language use has a DIRECT and SPECIFIC purpose: TO COMMUNICATE. If we forget its purpose, then we are lost. Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig G Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:18:12 AM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard,     These leaves me with some questions. 1) Are you ONLY interested in what makes something Standard, or does your interest in grammar go beyond that? In other words, once something is determined as Standard English, are there other things we can observe about its grammar that are useful and beneficial? Is our only concern making sure language conforms to norms or should we also think about ways in which grammar contributes to rhetorical effect or to meaning? 2) Are you at all troubled by the fact that many of the rules of prescriptive grammar seem rather arbitrary? One example might be the “due to” versus “because of” distinction in a recent post that many of us felt was on shaky ground. How do we determine whether something is standard or not? 3) Does that mean that literary texts that use dialect in one way or another should be expunged from the canon? I’m thinking of books like “Huckleberry Finn” or “The color Purple”, much of the poetry of Robert Burns and Langston Hughes, the plays of August Wilson (so many of our plays, for that matter), and so on? How do we deal with the fact that a great deal of highly valued literature is built on creative use of the vernacular?     The final question, I guess, might be how we stimulate widespread acquisition of the standard. Is disparaging dialect a necessary step in that direction? I don’t think many of would disagree that knowing Standard English is a central goal. How do we accommodate other goals as well, including encouraging fluency?      Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:52 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Well, Maybe the difference in perspective between the two of us is that you consider different "grammars" that govern different "varieties" of the English language, while I recognize only ONE GRAMMAR, the Standard English Grammar. Of course we all speak our own idiolects, and use various registers depending on the linguistic context, but if those idiolects and registers do not follow the rules of the Standard English Grammar I cannot call those "varieties" or "registers" good English, but to the degree to which they differ from the Standard English I call them "illiterate English." Anecdotally, someone mentioned to me that "Ebonics" as a "language variety" does not differ much from the broken English that some poor, illiterate people speak in the Appalachians. What is the common denominator between these two "varieties" of the English language? Illiteracy. Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dick Veit" < [log in to unmask] > To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:18:07 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about. I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too. When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end. Dick To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_Part_678910_978068380.1316809503129 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Craig,

I am a LINGUIST, not a GRAMMARIAN. I am not a grammar school teacher or a high school teacher. In my undergraduate and graduate studies I have studied phonetics and phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics, etc. From my perspective, the concept of "grammar" as discussed on this forum seems to be limited, narrow, and incomplete, and the distinction between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" in language is nonsensical. Someone said, "We describe in order to prescribe." Most examples of "prescriptive" English are so pathetic that they make me weep, and those who insist on the distinction don't seem to understand the ultimate purpose of language - communication.

The whole purpose of English language education is to "prescribe" how people should speak and write in order to produce a consesus language. The alternative would be for each one of us or for groups of people of various sizes in this country to coin words that have a meaning only for individuals or for grouns, and to build an unlimited number of individual or group grammars. If we followed this course of action we would soon loose the ability to communicate between individuals and groups. We would witness a modern Tower of Babel.

Why is the American education paying every year English language teachers and other educators? In order to "prescribe" behavior in language, arts, and science. This is called "socialization," and without socialization creatures born to humans are will not become human.

Instead of speaking about "grammar" I would rather speak about language structure and its communicative, rhetorical purpose. If we cannot communicate in language, the production of sounds, words, and strings of words is irational and useless. It is necessary for humans, in order to communicate through language, to "prescribe" what words and strings of words mean so that they could all use those words and word strings to mean the same thing. We don't live in Alice's wonderland, and we are rabbbits, ascribing personal and arbitrary meanings to words if we want to communicate because if we did so we would loose very rapidly the ability to communicate with each other and one another.

Language use has a DIRECT and SPECIFIC purpose: TO COMMUNICATE. If we forget its purpose, then we are lost.

Eduard

From: "Craig G Hancock" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:18:12 AM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

Eduard,

    These leaves me with some questions. 1) Are you ONLY interested in what makes something Standard, or does your interest in grammar go beyond that? In other words, once something is determined as Standard English, are there other things we can observe about its grammar that are useful and beneficial? Is our only concern making sure language conforms to norms or should we also think about ways in which grammar contributes to rhetorical effect or to meaning? 2) Are you at all troubled by the fact that many of the rules of prescriptive grammar seem rather arbitrary? One example might be the “due to” versus “because of” distinction in a recent post that many of us felt was on shaky ground. How do we determine whether something is standard or not? 3) Does that mean that literary texts that use dialect in one way or another should be expunged from the canon? I’m thinking of books like “Huckleberry Finn” or “The color Purple”, much of the poetry of Robert Burns and Langston Hughes, the plays of August Wilson (so many of our plays, for that matter), and so on? How do we deal with the fact that a great deal of highly valued literature is built on creative use of the vernacular?

    The final question, I guess, might be how we stimulate widespread acquisition of the standard. Is disparaging dialect a necessary step in that direction? I don’t think many of would disagree that knowing Standard English is a central goal. How do we accommodate other goals as well, including encouraging fluency?



  Craig

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

Well,

Maybe the difference in perspective between the two of us is that you consider different "grammars" that govern different "varieties" of the English language, while I recognize only ONE GRAMMAR, the Standard English Grammar. Of course we all speak our own idiolects, and use various registers depending on the linguistic context, but if those idiolects and registers do not follow the rules of the Standard English Grammar I cannot call those "varieties" or "registers" good English, but to the degree to which they differ from the Standard English I call them "illiterate English." Anecdotally, someone mentioned to me that "Ebonics" as a "language variety" does not differ much from the broken English that some poor, illiterate people speak in the Appalachians. What is the common denominator between these two "varieties" of the English language? Illiteracy.

Eduard

From: "Dick Veit" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:18:07 PM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about.

I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too.

When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end.

Dick

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_Part_678910_978068380.1316809503129-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:42:48 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary�e6ba6e83d4568c1604ada1dbe8 --90e6ba6e83d4568c1604ada1dbe8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Eduard, If you had to estimate a percentage of linguists worldwide who share the views you describe in your recent emails, what would that percentage be? I am not attempting to be coy at all. I am seriously interested. I ask because everything I've ever learned about linguistics and language arts education conflicts with about 75% of what you say. I'm not faulting or attacking your point of view. Have I just read the wrong books and had the wrong professors? Or would you consider your views "non-mainstream"? Who are the linguists I should read to get more information on the type of linguistics you describe? John On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Craig, > > > > I am a LINGUIST, not a GRAMMARIAN. I am not a grammar school teacher or a > high school teacher. In my undergraduate and graduate studies I have studied > phonetics and phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics, pragmatics, > discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics, etc. From my > perspective, the concept of "grammar" as discussed on this forum seems to be > limited, narrow, and incomplete, and the distinction between "descriptive" > and "prescriptive" in language is nonsensical. Someone said, "We describe in > order to prescribe." Most examples of "prescriptive" English are so pathetic > that they make me weep, and those who insist on the distinction don't seem > to understand the ultimate purpose of language - communication. > > > > The whole purpose of English language education is to "prescribe" how > people should speak and write in order to produce a consesus language. The > alternative would be for each one of us or for groups of people of various > sizes in this country to coin words that have a meaning only for individuals > or for grouns, and to build an unlimited number of individual or group > grammars. If we followed this course of action we would soon loose the > ability to communicate between individuals and groups. We would witness a > modern Tower of Babel. > > > > Why is the American education paying every year English language teachers > and other educators? In order to "prescribe" behavior in language, arts, and > science. This is called "socialization," and without socialization creatures > born to humans are will not become human. > > > > Instead of speaking about "grammar" I would rather speak about language > structure and its communicative, rhetorical purpose. If we cannot > communicate in language, the production of sounds, words, and strings of > words is irational and useless. It is necessary for humans, in order to > communicate through language, to "prescribe" what words and strings of words > mean so that they could all use those words and word strings to mean the > same thing. We don't live in Alice's wonderland, and we are rabbbits, > ascribing personal and arbitrary meanings to words if we want to communicate > because if we did so we would loose very rapidly the ability to communicate > with each other and one another. > > > > Language use has a DIRECT and SPECIFIC purpose: TO COMMUNICATE. If we > forget its purpose, then we are lost. > > > > Eduard > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Craig G Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> > > *To: *[log in to unmask] > *Sent: *Friday, September 23, 2011 11:18:12 AM > > *Subject: *Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" > > Eduard, > > These leaves me with some questions. 1) Are you ONLY interested in what > makes something Standard, or does your interest in grammar go beyond that? > In other words, once something is determined as Standard English, are there > other things we can observe about its grammar that are useful and > beneficial? Is our only concern making sure language conforms to norms or > should we also think about ways in which grammar contributes to rhetorical > effect or to meaning? 2) Are you at all troubled by the fact that many of > the rules of prescriptive grammar seem rather arbitrary? One example might > be the �due to� versus �because of� distinction in a recent post that many > of us felt was on shaky ground. How do we determine whether something is > standard or not? 3) Does that mean that literary texts that use dialect in > one way or another should be expunged from the canon? I�m thinking of books > like �Huckleberry Finn� or �The color Purple�, much of the poetry of Robert > Burns and Langston Hughes, the plays of August Wilson (so many of our plays, > for that matter), and so on? How do we deal with the fact that a great deal > of highly valued literature is built on creative use of the vernacular? > > The final question, I guess, might be how we stimulate widespread > acquisition of the standard. Is disparaging dialect a necessary step in that > direction? I don�t think many of would disagree that knowing Standard > English is a central goal. How do we accommodate other goals as well, > including encouraging fluency? > > > > Craig > > > > *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Eduard Hanganu > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:52 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" > > > > Well, > > > > Maybe the difference in perspective between the two of us is that you > consider different "grammars" that govern different "varieties" of the > English language, while I recognize only ONE GRAMMAR, the Standard English > Grammar. Of course we all speak our own idiolects, and use various registers > depending on the linguistic context, but if those idiolects and registers do > not follow the rules of the Standard English Grammar I cannot call those > "varieties" or "registers" good English, but to the degree to which they > differ from the Standard English I call them "illiterate English." > Anecdotally, someone mentioned to me that "Ebonics" as a "language variety" > does not differ much from the broken English that some poor, illiterate > people speak in the Appalachians. What is the common denominator between > these two "varieties" of the English language? Illiteracy. > > > > Eduard > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Dick Veit" <[log in to unmask]> > *To: *[log in to unmask] > *Sent: *Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:18:07 PM > *Subject: *Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" > > The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of > English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many > registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the > hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this > forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the > difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is > identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and > different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a > football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have > no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user > of language is all about. > > I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to > master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted > conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to > understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in > different situations. And yes, students can master that too. > > When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is > grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing > what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion > doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written > English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world > is coming to an end. > > Dick > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --90e6ba6e83d4568c1604ada1dbe8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Eduard,

If you had to estimate a percentage of linguists worldwide who share the views you describe in your recent emails, what would that percentage be? I am not attempting to be coy at all. I am seriously interested. I ask because everything I've ever learned about linguistics and language arts education conflicts with about 75% of what you say. I'm not faulting or attacking your point of view. Have I just read the wrong books and had the wrong professors? Or would you consider your views "non-mainstream"? Who are the linguists I should read to get more information on the type of linguistics you describe?

John

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Craig,

�

I am a LINGUIST, not a GRAMMARIAN. I am not a grammar school teacher or a high school teacher.�In my undergraduate and graduate studies I�have studied phonetics and phonology, morphology and syntax,�semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics, etc. From my perspective, the�concept of "grammar" as discussed on this forum seems to be limited, narrow, and incomplete, and the distinction between "descriptive" and�"prescriptive" in language is nonsensical. Someone said, "We describe in order to prescribe."�Most examples of "prescriptive" English are so pathetic that they make me weep, and those who insist on the distinction don't seem to understand the ultimate purpose of language - communication.

�

The whole purpose of English language education is to "prescribe" how people should speak and write in order to produce a consesus language. The alternative would be for each one of us or for groups of people of various sizes in this country�to�coin words that have a meaning only for individuals or for grouns, and to build an unlimited number of�individual or�group grammars. If we followed this course of action�we would soon loose the ability to communicate between individuals and groups.�We would witness a modern Tower of Babel.

�

Why is the American education paying every year English language teachers and other educators? In order to "prescribe" behavior in language, arts, and science. This is called "socialization," and without socialization creatures born to humans are will not become human.

�

Instead of speaking about "grammar" I�would rather speak about language structure and its�communicative, rhetorical purpose. If we cannot communicate in language, the production of sounds, words,�and strings of words is�irational and useless. It is necessary for humans, in order to communicate through language, to "prescribe" what words and strings of words mean so that�they could all use those words and word strings to mean the same thing. We don't live in Alice's wonderland, and we are rabbbits, ascribing personal and arbitrary meanings to words if we want to communicate because if we did so we would loose very rapidly the ability to communicate with each other and one another.

�

Language use has a DIRECT and SPECIFIC purpose: TO COMMUNICATE.�If we forget its purpose, then we are lost.

�

Eduard

�

From: "Craig G Hancock" <[log in to unmask]>

To: [log in to unmask]

Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:18:12 AM

Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

Eduard,

�� These leaves me with some questions. 1) Are you ONLY interested in what makes something Standard, or does your interest in grammar go beyond that? In other words, once something is determined as Standard English, are there other things we can observe about its grammar that are useful and beneficial? Is our only concern making sure language conforms to norms or should we also think about ways in which grammar contributes to rhetorical effect or to meaning? 2) Are you at all troubled by the fact that many of the rules of prescriptive grammar seem rather arbitrary? One example� might be the �due to� versus �because of� distinction in a recent post �that many of us felt was on shaky ground. How do we determine whether something is standard or not? 3) Does that mean that literary texts that use dialect in one way or another should be expunged from the canon? I�m thinking of books like �Huckleberry Finn� or �The color Purple�, much of the poetry of Robert Burns and Langston Hughes, the plays of August Wilson (so many of our plays, for that matter), and so on?� How do we deal with the fact that a great deal of highly valued literature is built on creative use of the vernacular?

��The final question, I guess, might be how we stimulate widespread acquisition of the standard. Is disparaging dialect a necessary step in that direction? I don�t think many of would disagree that knowing Standard English is a central goal. How do we accommodate other goals as well, including encouraging fluency?

��

��Craig�

�

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

�

Well,

�

Maybe the difference in perspective between the two of us is that you consider different "grammars" that govern different "varieties" of the English language, while I recognize only ONE GRAMMAR, the Standard English Grammar. Of course we all speak our own idiolects, and use various registers depending on the linguistic context, but if those idiolects and registers do not follow the rules of the Standard English Grammar I cannot call those "varieties" or "registers" good English, but to the degree to which they differ from the Standard English I call them "illiterate English." Anecdotally, someone mentioned to me that "Ebonics" as a "language variety" does not differ much from the broken English that some poor, illiterate people speak in the Appalachians. What is the common denominator between these two "varieties" of the English language? Illiteracy.

�

Eduard

From: "Dick Veit" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:18:07 PM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about.

I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too.

When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end.

Dick

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

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

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --90e6ba6e83d4568c1604ada1dbe8-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 22:16:35 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Call for vocab MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --001517448a0682c53404ada68664 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On a lighter note, (for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id. For instance: splendor/splendid candor/candid rancor/rancid stupor/stupid Thanks! Jane Saral To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --001517448a0682c53404ada68664 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On a lighter note,�(for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id.

�

For instance:

�

splendor/splendid

candor/candid

rancor/rancid

stupor/stupid

�

Thanks!

�

Jane Saral
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --001517448a0682c53404ada68664-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 04:24:58 +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: Call for vocab In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Jane -- I can only think of two more off the top of my head, but I suspect the list will provide lots more (and this is fun!): Torpor / torpid Pallor / pallid The attempt to think of more has now left me with the awful forms "gelor" and "insipor"; analogy is not always a good thing... --- Bill Spruiell On Sep 23, 2011, at 10:18 PM, "Jane Saral" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: On a lighter note, (for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id. For instance: splendor/splendid candor/candid rancor/rancid stupor/stupid Thanks! Jane Saral To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 00:08:41 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Carole Hurlbut <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Call for vocab In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit horror/horrid sapor/sapid languor/languid tepor/tepid tumor/tumid valor/valid fervor/fervid squalor/squalid vapor/vapid mucor/mucid turgor/turgid rigor/rigid -----Original Message----- From: Spruiell, William C Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:24 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Call for vocab Jane -- I can only think of two more off the top of my head, but I suspect the list will provide lots more (and this is fun!): Torpor / torpid Pallor / pallid The attempt to think of more has now left me with the awful forms "gelor" and "insipor"; analogy is not always a good thing... --- Bill Spruiell On Sep 23, 2011, at 10:18 PM, "Jane Saral" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: On a lighter note, (for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id. For instance: splendor/splendid candor/candid rancor/rancid stupor/stupid Thanks! Jane Saral To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:43:55 +0100 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Edmond Wright <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Call for vocab In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit One can have recourse to a reverse dictionary in cases like this (Oxford University Press do one, but a rhyming dictionary would be some help). Of course they don't match up pairs for one where they exist, but one can check. Edmond Dr. Edmond Wright 3 Boathouse Court Trafalgar Road Cambridge CB4 1DU England Email: [log in to unmask] Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/ Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256 > On a lighter note, (for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit > words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id. > > For instance: > > splendor/splendid > candor/candid > rancor/rancid > stupor/stupid > > Thanks! > > Jane Saral > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:26:10 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: [log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_689557_662760607.1316870770600" ------=_Part_689557_662760607.1316870770600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John, If you are not speaking and writing a "prescriptive" English, then we are not communicating because I don't know what your words mean and I don't know what grammar rules you use to organize them. Your words may mean something else based on your personal definitions in your own idiolect. You need to define for me the sense or dictionary meaning in your own dictionary. What do you mean by "estimate"? How about "percentage"? How about "linguists," etc. You also need to give me a detailed account of the rules you used to organize your words in phrases, sentences, and discourse. You need to teach me the sociolingustic conventions that define your language communication. You need to teach me YOUR LANGUAGE. Most if not all speakers of the English language speak a language "prescribed" to them when they became socialized in English. When you were an innocent victim of your parents, they forced on you the English lexicon and the grammar they used. You had no choice. You could not use your own word definitions, or organize language in your own way. You were forced to acquire/learn their own definitions and their own language organization, which actually was not their own but was forced on them by their parents - the society in which they lived. There is a mythical, false, and anecd ot al distinction between "prescriptive" and "descriptive" that is circulated as a doctrine in language circles based on the profound lack of understanding that the very people who use the distinction speak and write in an English that has been prescribed to them by the society in which they live. The few examples of "prescriptive" English that are so often mentioned and circulated as proof that "we linguists don't prescribe but describe English" are false examples of "description." Those who use them have forgotten that they are using a language prescribed to them, and that what they are describing now is actually a prescripted language. They are thinking and working in an illogical, irational, vicious circle. As for your thought that "what you learned about linguistics and language arts education conflicts with about 75% of what I say," well, too bad. I don't know who were your instructors, and what books you read during your education, but most English language educators still live by the myths prescribed to them by their educators. Myths they have never questions. Such as that the myth promoted for decades by the great Chomsky that language does not necessarily have meaning, and that we can separate language from meaning without a sweat. The great Einstein taught that no object in the univers can exceed the light speed. Now researchers find out that this is not true. Apparently, some particles - neutrinos - travel at a speed that exceed the light speed, and all Einstein's relativitity theory appears to need a reevaluation. So it is in language education. We have been fed some myths, and some of us don't want to think, but want to live by those myths in spite of all evidence that points to the contrary. Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Dews-Alexander" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 3:42:48 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard, If you had to estimate a percentage of linguists worldwide who share the views you describe in your recent emails, what would that percentage be? I am not attempting to be coy at all. I am seriously interested. I ask because everything I've ever learned about linguistics and language arts education conflicts with about 75% of what you say. I'm not faulting or attacking your point of view. Have I just read the wrong books and had the wrong professors? Or would you consider your views "non-mainstream"? Who are the linguists I should read to get more information on the type of linguistics you describe? John On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Eduard Hanganu < [log in to unmask] > wrote: Craig, I am a LINGUIST, not a GRAMMARIAN. I am not a grammar school teacher or a high school teacher. In my undergraduate and graduate studies I have studied phonetics and phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics, etc. From my perspective, the concept of "grammar" as discussed on this forum seems to be limited, narrow, and incomplete, and the distinction between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" in language is nonsensical. Someone said, "We describe in order to prescribe." Most examples of "prescriptive" English are so pathetic that they make me weep, and those who insist on the distinction don't seem to understand the ultimate purpose of language - communication. The whole purpose of English language education is to "prescribe" how people should speak and write in order to produce a consesus language. The alternative would be for each one of us or for groups of people of various sizes in this country to coin words that have a meaning only for individuals or for grouns, and to build an unlimited number of individual or group grammars. If we followed this course of action we would soon loose the ability to communicate between individuals and groups. We would witness a modern Tower of Babel. Why is the American education paying every year English language teachers and other educators? In order to "prescribe" behavior in language, arts, and science. This is called "socialization," and without socialization creatures born to humans are will not become human. Instead of speaking about "grammar" I would rather speak about language structure and its communicative, rhetorical purpose. If we cannot communicate in language, the production of sounds, words, and strings of words is irational and useless. It is necessary for humans, in order to communicate through language, to "prescribe" what words and strings of words mean so that they could all use those words and word strings to mean the same thing. We don't live in Alice's wonderland, and we are rabbbits, ascribing personal and arbitrary meanings to words if we want to communicate because if we did so we would loose very rapidly the ability to communicate with each other and one another. Language use has a DIRECT and SPECIFIC purpose: TO COMMUNICATE. If we forget its purpose, then we are lost. Eduard From: "Craig G Hancock" < [log in to unmask] > To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:18:12 AM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard,     These leaves me with some questions. 1) Are you ONLY interested in what makes something Standard, or does your interest in grammar go beyond that? In other words, once something is determined as Standard English, are there other things we can observe about its grammar that are useful and beneficial? Is our only concern making sure language conforms to norms or should we also think about ways in which grammar contributes to rhetorical effect or to meaning? 2) Are you at all troubled by the fact that many of the rules of prescriptive grammar seem rather arbitrary? One example might be the “due to” versus “because of” distinction in a recent post that many of us felt was on shaky ground. How do we determine whether something is standard or not? 3) Does that mean that literary texts that use dialect in one way or another should be expunged from the canon? I’m thinking of books like “Huckleberry Finn” or “The color Purple”, much of the poetry of Robert Burns and Langston Hughes, the plays of August Wilson (so many of our plays, for that matter), and so on? How do we deal with the fact that a great deal of highly valued literature is built on creative use of the vernacular?     The final question, I guess, might be how we stimulate widespread acquisition of the standard. Is disparaging dialect a necessary step in that direction? I don’t think many of would disagree that knowing Standard English is a central goal. How do we accommodate other goals as well, including encouraging fluency?      Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto: [log in to unmask] ] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:52 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Well, Maybe the difference in perspective between the two of us is that you consider different "grammars" that govern different "varieties" of the English language, while I recognize only ONE GRAMMAR, the Standard English Grammar. Of course we all speak our own idiolects, and use various registers depending on the linguistic context, but if those idiolects and registers do not follow the rules of the Standard English Grammar I cannot call those "varieties" or "registers" good English, but to the degree to which they differ from the Standard English I call them "illiterate English." Anecdotally, someone mentioned to me that "Ebonics" as a "language variety" does not differ much from the broken English that some poor, illiterate people speak in the Appalachians. What is the common denominator between these two "varieties" of the English language? Illiteracy. Eduard From: "Dick Veit" < [log in to unmask] > To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:18:07 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about. I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too. When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end. Dick To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_Part_689557_662760607.1316870770600 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
John,

If you are not speaking and writing a "prescriptive" English, then we are not communicating because I don't know what your words mean and I don't know what grammar rules you use to organize them. Your words may mean something else based on your personal definitions in your own idiolect. You need to define for me the sense or dictionary meaning in your own dictionary. What do you mean by "estimate"? How about "percentage"? How about "linguists," etc. You also need to give me a detailed account of the rules you used to organize your words in phrases, sentences, and discourse. You need to teach me the sociolingustic conventions that define your language communication. You need to teach me YOUR LANGUAGE.

Most if not all speakers of the English language speak a language "prescribed" to them when they became socialized in English. When you were an innocent victim of your parents, they forced on you the English lexicon and the grammar they used. You had no choice. You could not use your own word definitions, or organize language in your own way. You were forced to acquire/learn their own definitions and their own language organization, which actually was not their own but was forced on them by their parents - the society in which they lived.

There is a mythical, false, and anecdotal distinction between "prescriptive" and "descriptive" that is circulated as a doctrine in language circles based on the profound lack of understanding that the very people who use the distinction speak and write in an English that has been prescribed to them by the society in which they live. The few examples of "prescriptive" English that are so often mentioned and circulated as proof that "we linguists don't prescribe but describe English" are false examples of "description." Those who use them have forgotten that they are using a language prescribed to them, and that what they are describing now is actually a prescripted language. They are thinking and working in an illogical, irational, vicious circle.

As for your thought that "what you learned about linguistics and language arts education conflicts with about 75% of what I say," well, too bad. I don't know who were your instructors, and what books you read during your education, but most English language educators still live by the myths prescribed to them by their educators. Myths they have never questions. Such as that the myth promoted for decades by the great Chomsky that language does not necessarily have meaning, and that we can separate language from meaning without a sweat.

The great Einstein taught that no object in the univers can exceed the light speed. Now researchers find out that this is not true. Apparently, some particles - neutrinos - travel at a speed that exceed the light speed, and all Einstein's relativitity theory appears to need a reevaluation. So it is in language education. We have been fed some myths, and some of us don't want to think, but want to live by those myths in spite of all evidence that points to the contrary.

Eduard

From: "John Dews-Alexander" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 3:42:48 PM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

Eduard,

If you had to estimate a percentage of linguists worldwide who share the views you describe in your recent emails, what would that percentage be? I am not attempting to be coy at all. I am seriously interested. I ask because everything I've ever learned about linguistics and language arts education conflicts with about 75% of what you say. I'm not faulting or attacking your point of view. Have I just read the wrong books and had the wrong professors? Or would you consider your views "non-mainstream"? Who are the linguists I should read to get more information on the type of linguistics you describe?

John

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Craig,

I am a LINGUIST, not a GRAMMARIAN. I am not a grammar school teacher or a high school teacher. In my undergraduate and graduate studies I have studied phonetics and phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics, etc. From my perspective, the concept of "grammar" as discussed on this forum seems to be limited, narrow, and incomplete, and the distinction between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" in language is nonsensical. Someone said, "We describe in order to prescribe." Most examples of "prescriptive" English are so pathetic that they make me weep, and those who insist on the distinction don't seem to understand the ultimate purpose of language - communication.

The whole purpose of English language education is to "prescribe" how people should speak and write in order to produce a consesus language. The alternative would be for each one of us or for groups of people of various sizes in this country to coin words that have a meaning only for individuals or for grouns, and to build an unlimited number of individual or group grammars. If we followed this course of action we would soon loose the ability to communicate between individuals and groups. We would witness a modern Tower of Babel.

Why is the American education paying every year English language teachers and other educators? In order to "prescribe" behavior in language, arts, and science. This is called "socialization," and without socialization creatures born to humans are will not become human.

Instead of speaking about "grammar" I would rather speak about language structure and its communicative, rhetorical purpose. If we cannot communicate in language, the production of sounds, words, and strings of words is irational and useless. It is necessary for humans, in order to communicate through language, to "prescribe" what words and strings of words mean so that they could all use those words and word strings to mean the same thing. We don't live in Alice's wonderland, and we are rabbbits, ascribing personal and arbitrary meanings to words if we want to communicate because if we did so we would loose very rapidly the ability to communicate with each other and one another.

Language use has a DIRECT and SPECIFIC purpose: TO COMMUNICATE. If we forget its purpose, then we are lost.

Eduard

From: "Craig G Hancock" <[log in to unmask]>

To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:18:12 AM

Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

Eduard,

    These leaves me with some questions. 1) Are you ONLY interested in what makes something Standard, or does your interest in grammar go beyond that? In other words, once something is determined as Standard English, are there other things we can observe about its grammar that are useful and beneficial? Is our only concern making sure language conforms to norms or should we also think about ways in which grammar contributes to rhetorical effect or to meaning? 2) Are you at all troubled by the fact that many of the rules of prescriptive grammar seem rather arbitrary? One example might be the “due to” versus “because of” distinction in a recent post that many of us felt was on shaky ground. How do we determine whether something is standard or not? 3) Does that mean that literary texts that use dialect in one way or another should be expunged from the canon? I’m thinking of books like “Huckleberry Finn” or “The color Purple”, much of the poetry of Robert Burns and Langston Hughes, the plays of August Wilson (so many of our plays, for that matter), and so on? How do we deal with the fact that a great deal of highly valued literature is built on creative use of the vernacular?

    The final question, I guess, might be how we stimulate widespread acquisition of the standard. Is disparaging dialect a necessary step in that direction? I don’t think many of would disagree that knowing Standard English is a central goal. How do we accommodate other goals as well, including encouraging fluency?



  Craig

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

Well,

Maybe the difference in perspective between the two of us is that you consider different "grammars" that govern different "varieties" of the English language, while I recognize only ONE GRAMMAR, the Standard English Grammar. Of course we all speak our own idiolects, and use various registers depending on the linguistic context, but if those idiolects and registers do not follow the rules of the Standard English Grammar I cannot call those "varieties" or "registers" good English, but to the degree to which they differ from the Standard English I call them "illiterate English." Anecdotally, someone mentioned to me that "Ebonics" as a "language variety" does not differ much from the broken English that some poor, illiterate people speak in the Appalachians. What is the common denominator between these two "varieties" of the English language? Illiteracy.

Eduard

From: "Dick Veit" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:18:07 PM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about.

I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too.

When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end.

Dick

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

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

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

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_Part_689557_662760607.1316870770600-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:21:45 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Call for vocab In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016e6d970fa4d48ba04adb0a574 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On an even lighter note: humor/humid ...although these two really are cognates, deriving from words meaning "damp." On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On a lighter note, (for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit > words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id.... > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6d970fa4d48ba04adb0a574 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On an even lighter note:

humor/humid

...although these two really are cognates, deriving from words meaning "damp."

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

On a lighter note,�(for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id....
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6d970fa4d48ba04adb0a574-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:08:06 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Linda Comerford <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Call for vocab In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0073_01CC7ABB.008C9CF0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0073_01CC7ABB.008C9CF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Humor" relates to "damp"? Interesting! Does anyone know how? A perspiring nervous standup comedian comes to mind.... Linda Comerford 317.786.6404 [log in to unmask] www.comerfordconsulting.com _____ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 10:22 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Call for vocab On an even lighter note: humor/humid ...although these two really are cognates, deriving from words meaning "damp." On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote: On a lighter note, (for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id.... To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_NextPart_000_0073_01CC7ABB.008C9CF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"Humor" relates to "damp"? Interesting! Does anyone know how?  A perspiring nervous standup comedian comes to mind....

Linda Comerford
317.786.6404
[log in to unmask]
www.comerfordconsulting.com

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 10:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Call for vocab

On an even lighter note:

humor/humid

...although these two really are cognates, deriving from words meaning "damp."

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

On a lighter note, (for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id....
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_NextPart_000_0073_01CC7ABB.008C9CF0-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:15:58 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Suarez, Julia" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Call for vocab MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Jane Saral Sent: Fri 9/23/2011 10:16 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Call for vocab On a lighter note, (for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id. For instance: splendor/splendid candor/candid rancor/rancid stupor/stupid Thanks! Jane Saral To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ Jane, Sorry for the incomplete message-- I'm sure quite a few words will fit this pattern. Please share the list. Julie To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:22:06 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Suarez, Julia" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Call for vocab MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Linda, Probably from the idea of the bodily humors--those mysterious essences that were once thought to dictate our personalities,--phlegm, choler, bile, both black and yellow. . .all quite moist--humid. Julie -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Linda Comerford Sent: Sat 9/24/2011 1:08 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Call for vocab "Humor" relates to "damp"? Interesting! Does anyone know how? A perspiring nervous standup comedian comes to mind.... Linda Comerford 317.786.6404 [log in to unmask] www.comerfordconsulting.com _____ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 10:22 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Call for vocab On an even lighter note: humor/humid ...although these two really are cognates, deriving from words meaning "damp." On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote: On a lighter note, (for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id.... To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:49:29 -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: Linda Comerford <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Call for vocab In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Oh, yes, that makes sense, Julie. Thank you for the quick explanation. Words are so fascinating! Linda Comerford 317.786.6404 [log in to unmask] www.comerfordconsulting.com -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Suarez, Julia Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 2:22 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Call for vocab Hi, Linda, Probably from the idea of the bodily humors--those mysterious essences that were once thought to dictate our personalities,--phlegm, choler, bile, both black and yellow. . .all quite moist--humid. Julie -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Linda Comerford Sent: Sat 9/24/2011 1:08 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Call for vocab "Humor" relates to "damp"? Interesting! Does anyone know how? A perspiring nervous standup comedian comes to mind.... Linda Comerford 317.786.6404 [log in to unmask] www.comerfordconsulting.com _____ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 10:22 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Call for vocab On an even lighter note: humor/humid ...although these two really are cognates, deriving from words meaning "damp." On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote: On a lighter note, (for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id.... To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 20:17:11 +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 "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Eduard, You are, I think, making an argument that starts with a quite valid observation -- that communication requires a basis that the communicants can assume is shared -- but I'd like to argue that you then overstretch it. Here are three problems with it: (1) You seem to be assuming that a Standard ensures comprehension and that dialect variation condemns it. The effect of "sharedness" on comprehension is probably more like an S-curve. *No* two people completely share conventions, of course, but as some of the conventions start differing, there is a drop-off in mutual intelligibility. The "top" of the curve is fairly flat, although the slope increases rapidly past a certain point. But that point doesn't correspond to the "Standard" vs. "non-Standard" distinction. Two people speaking Standard English (pretending, for the moment, it's well-defined) may understand each other less than two people speaking different dialects, depending on the situation. An example: I was trying to read a current article on Minimalism last week; I'm sure it was in Standard English, but I didn't understand much of it; I think I understood more of "Trainspotting," even without the subtitles. A factor that has nothing to do with "+/- Standard" may affect comprehension far more than does whether the speaker is using Standard subject-verb agreement. (2) You seem to be assuming that everyone on the other side of the fence from you thinks that the prescriptive/descriptive divide is absolute. The existence of a now-sizable body of research on the social malleability of grammaticality judgments indicates that a lot of linguists are quite aware of the fuzziness of this kind of boundary, and I've seen arguments that language can't be analyzed well in the absence of a recognition as a mechanism of social regulation (I'll try to dig out the article ref on that). As in most social-research fields, we make distinctions because they're useful, then blur them because pretending that they hold as absolutes is simply wrong. (3) You're assuming that most English language educators agree with Chomsky about the relation of language to meaning. This, in turn, assumes that most English language educators know what Chomsky's theories actually are. Most of the time, discussions of Chomsky in education don't support the validity of that assumption. I'm saying this as someone who strongly disagrees with most of Chomsky's linguistic theories. I'd love to pile on with the Chomsky-dissing, but only about things that really are his fault (like his conflation of modeling with explanation). Bill Spruiell On Sep 24, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Eduard Hanganu wrote: John, If you are not speaking and writing a "prescriptive" English, then we are not communicating because I don't know what your words mean and I don't know what grammar rules you use to organize them. Your words may mean something else based on your personal definitions in your own idiolect. You need to define for me the sense or dictionary meaning in your own dictionary. What do you mean by "estimate"? How about "percentage"? How about "linguists," etc. You also need to give me a detailed account of the rules you used to organize your words in phrases, sentences, and discourse. You need to teach me the sociolingustic conventions that define your language communication. You need to teach me YOUR LANGUAGE. Most if not all speakers of the English language speak a language "prescribed" to them when they became socialized in English. When you were an innocent victim of your parents, they forced on you the English lexicon and the grammar they used. You had no choice. You could not use your own word definitions, or organize language in your own way. You were forced to acquire/learn their own definitions and their own language organization, which actually was not their own but was forced on them by their parents - the society in which they lived. There is a mythical, false, and anecdotal distinction between "prescriptive" and "descriptive" that is circulated as a doctrine in language circles based on the profound lack of understanding that the very people who use the distinction speak and write in an English that has been prescribed to them by the society in which they live. The few examples of "prescriptive" English that are so often mentioned and circulated as proof that "we linguists don't prescribe but describe English" are false examples of "description." Those who use them have forgotten that they are using a language prescribed to them, and that what they are describing now is actually a prescripted language. They are thinking and working in an illogical, irational, vicious circle. As for your thought that "what you learned about linguistics and language arts education conflicts with about 75% of what I say," well, too bad. I don't know who were your instructors, and what books you read during your education, but most English language educators still live by the myths prescribed to them by their educators. Myths they have never questions. Such as that the myth promoted for decades by the great Chomsky that language does not necessarily have meaning, and that we can separate language from meaning without a sweat. The great Einstein taught that no object in the univers can exceed the light speed. Now researchers find out that this is not true. Apparently, some particles - neutrinos - travel at a speed that exceed the light speed, and all Einstein's relativitity theory appears to need a reevaluation. So it is in language education. We have been fed some myths, and some of us don't want to think, but want to live by those myths in spite of all evidence that points to the contrary. Eduard ________________________________ From: "John Dews-Alexander" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 3:42:48 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard, If you had to estimate a percentage of linguists worldwide who share the views you describe in your recent emails, what would that percentage be? I am not attempting to be coy at all. I am seriously interested. I ask because everything I've ever learned about linguistics and language arts education conflicts with about 75% of what you say. I'm not faulting or attacking your point of view. Have I just read the wrong books and had the wrong professors? Or would you consider your views "non-mainstream"? Who are the linguists I should read to get more information on the type of linguistics you describe? John On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Craig, I am a LINGUIST, not a GRAMMARIAN. I am not a grammar school teacher or a high school teacher. In my undergraduate and graduate studies I have studied phonetics and phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics, etc. From my perspective, the concept of "grammar" as discussed on this forum seems to be limited, narrow, and incomplete, and the distinction between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" in language is nonsensical. Someone said, "We describe in order to prescribe." Most examples of "prescriptive" English are so pathetic that they make me weep, and those who insist on the distinction don't seem to understand the ultimate purpose of language - communication. The whole purpose of English language education is to "prescribe" how people should speak and write in order to produce a consesus language. The alternative would be for each one of us or for groups of people of various sizes in this country to coin words that have a meaning only for individuals or for grouns, and to build an unlimited number of individual or group grammars. If we followed this course of action we would soon loose the ability to communicate between individuals and groups. We would witness a modern Tower of Babel. Why is the American education paying every year English language teachers and other educators? In order to "prescribe" behavior in language, arts, and science. This is called "socialization," and without socialization creatures born to humans are will not become human. Instead of speaking about "grammar" I would rather speak about language structure and its communicative, rhetorical purpose. If we cannot communicate in language, the production of sounds, words, and strings of words is irational and useless. It is necessary for humans, in order to communicate through language, to "prescribe" what words and strings of words mean so that they could all use those words and word strings to mean the same thing. We don't live in Alice's wonderland, and we are rabbbits, ascribing personal and arbitrary meanings to words if we want to communicate because if we did so we would loose very rapidly the ability to communicate with each other and one another. Language use has a DIRECT and SPECIFIC purpose: TO COMMUNICATE. If we forget its purpose, then we are lost. Eduard ________________________________ From: "Craig G Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:18:12 AM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard, These leaves me with some questions. 1) Are you ONLY interested in what makes something Standard, or does your interest in grammar go beyond that? In other words, once something is determined as Standard English, are there other things we can observe about its grammar that are useful and beneficial? Is our only concern making sure language conforms to norms or should we also think about ways in which grammar contributes to rhetorical effect or to meaning? 2) Are you at all troubled by the fact that many of the rules of prescriptive grammar seem rather arbitrary? One example might be the �due to� versus �because of� distinction in a recent post that many of us felt was on shaky ground. How do we determine whether something is standard or not? 3) Does that mean that literary texts that use dialect in one way or another should be expunged from the canon? I�m thinking of books like �Huckleberry Finn� or �The color Purple�, much of the poetry of Robert Burns and Langston Hughes, the plays of August Wilson (so many of our plays, for that matter), and so on? How do we deal with the fact that a great deal of highly valued literature is built on creative use of the vernacular? The final question, I guess, might be how we stimulate widespread acquisition of the standard. Is disparaging dialect a necessary step in that direction? I don�t think many of would disagree that knowing Standard English is a central goal. How do we accommodate other goals as well, including encouraging fluency? Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:52 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Well, Maybe the difference in perspective between the two of us is that you consider different "grammars" that govern different "varieties" of the English language, while I recognize only ONE GRAMMAR, the Standard English Grammar. Of course we all speak our own idiolects, and use various registers depending on the linguistic context, but if those idiolects and registers do not follow the rules of the Standard English Grammar I cannot call those "varieties" or "registers" good English, but to the degree to which they differ from the Standard English I call them "illiterate English." Anecdotally, someone mentioned to me that "Ebonics" as a "language variety" does not differ much from the broken English that some poor, illiterate people speak in the Appalachians. What is the common denominator between these two "varieties" of the English language? Illiteracy. Eduard ________________________________ From: "Dick Veit" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:18:07 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about. I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too. When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end. Dick To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 15:57:59 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Carole Hurlbut <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Call for vocab In-Reply-To: <8374B9E931394E48AE1F7D119FF3C7ED@user70e60b8094> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_24E4_01CC7AD2.BBB45420" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_24E4_01CC7AD2.BBB45420 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable World English Dictionary humid (ˈhjuːmɪd) — adj moist; damp: a humid day [C16: from Latin ūmidus, from ūmēre to be wet; seehumectant, humour ] Would this be the connection? If the comedian were bad, would the person be all wet? I know that my sense of humor is rather dry, though. From: Linda Comerford Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 12:08 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Call for vocab "Humor" relates to "damp"? Interesting! Does anyone know how? A perspiring nervous standup comedian comes to mind.... Linda Comerford 317.786.6404 [log in to unmask] www.comerfordconsulting.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 10:22 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Call for vocab On an even lighter note: humor/humid ...although these two really are cognates, deriving from words meaning "damp." On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote: On a lighter note, (for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id.... To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_NextPart_000_24E4_01CC7AD2.BBB45420 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

World English Dictionary

humid  (ˈhjuːmɪd)

— adj

moist; damp: a humid day

[C16: from Latin ūmidus,  from ūmēre  to be wet; seehumectant, humour ]

Would this be the connection? If the comedian were bad, would the person be all wet? I know that my sense of humor is rather dry, though.

From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Linda Comerford

Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 12:08 PM

To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: Call for vocab

"Humor" relates to "damp"? Interesting! Does anyone know how? A perspiring nervous standup comedian comes to mind....

Linda Comerford
317.786.6404
[log in to unmask]
www.comerfordconsulting.com

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 10:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Call for vocab

On an even lighter note:

humor/humid

...although these two really are cognates, deriving from words meaning "damp."

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

On a lighter note, (for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id....
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_NextPart_000_24E4_01CC7AD2.BBB45420-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 17:17:03 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]> Subject: HELP!!! - dealing with 9th grade grammar Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_78080395-6cfb-4169-b6a9-c59cf5f0d725_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_78080395-6cfb-4169-b6a9-c59cf5f0d725_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The son of a friend of mine has just started the 9th grade, and the teacher/school/district has what seems to be a �grammar until Christmas� policy � definitions, drills, fill in the blanks, hunting for the eight parts of speech � everything that makes grammar a nightmare, particularly for kids who aren�t very good with language, and he�s certainly at the top (bottom?) of that list � the very definition of a language-impaired teenage boy. Naturally, he�s flunking (big time!). This is everything that grammar should not be. I told her I had friends in high places who might be able to give some advice. I frankly don�t know what to tell her other than to get tutor. Help, I need somebody, Help, not just anybody, Help, you know I need someone, Help! Geoff Layton To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_78080395-6cfb-4169-b6a9-c59cf5f0d725_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The son of a friend of mine has just started the 9th grade, and the teacher/school/district has what seems to be a �grammar until Christmas� policy � definitions, drills, fill in the blanks, hunting for the eight parts of speech � everything that makes grammar a nightmare, particularly for kids who aren�t very good with language, and he�s certainly at the top (bottom?) of that list � the very definition of a language-impaired teenage boy. Naturally, he�s flunking (big time!). This is everything that grammar should not be. I told her I had friends in high places who might be able to give some advice. I frankly don�t know what to tell her other than to get tutor.

Help, I need somebody,

Help, not just anybody,

Help, you know I need someone,

Help!

Geoff Layton

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_78080395-6cfb-4169-b6a9-c59cf5f0d725_-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:00:48 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Suarez, Julia" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Call for vocab MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Just a hunch, but we may be on the right track! Yes, words are intriguing! Julie -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Linda Comerford Sent: Sat 9/24/2011 2:49 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Call for vocab Oh, yes, that makes sense, Julie. Thank you for the quick explanation. Words are so fascinating! Linda Comerford 317.786.6404 [log in to unmask] www.comerfordconsulting.com -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Suarez, Julia Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 2:22 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Call for vocab Hi, Linda, Probably from the idea of the bodily humors--those mysterious essences that were once thought to dictate our personalities,--phlegm, choler, bile, both black and yellow. . .all quite moist--humid. Julie -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Linda Comerford Sent: Sat 9/24/2011 1:08 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Call for vocab "Humor" relates to "damp"? Interesting! Does anyone know how? A perspiring nervous standup comedian comes to mind.... Linda Comerford 317.786.6404 [log in to unmask] www.comerfordconsulting.com _____ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 10:22 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Call for vocab On an even lighter note: humor/humid ...although these two really are cognates, deriving from words meaning "damp." On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote: On a lighter note, (for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id.... To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 17:44:01 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Call for vocab In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-633767119-1316911441=:56298" --0-633767119-1316911441=:56298 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes, the humors were all bodily fluids - hence, they were (are?) all wet (no humorous pun intended).� Since these humors�also dicate mood, and humor in the modern sense�is a kind of mood, I don't think the leap is so very difficult.� Paul �"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128). ________________________________ From: "Suarez, Julia" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Sat, September 24, 2011 2:22:06 PM Subject: Re: Call for vocab Hi, Linda, � Probably from the idea of the bodily humors--those mysterious essences that were once thought to dictate our personalities,--phlegm, choler, bile, both black and yellow. . .all quite moist--humid. � Julie -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Linda Comerford Sent: Sat 9/24/2011 1:08 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Call for vocab "Humor" relates to "damp"?� Interesting!� Does anyone know how?� A perspiring nervous standup comedian comes to mind.... Linda Comerford 317.786.6404 [log in to unmask] www.comerfordconsulting.com � _____� From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 10:22 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Call for vocab On an even lighter note: humor/humid ...although these two really are cognates, deriving from words meaning "damp." On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote: On a lighter note, (for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id.... To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: � � http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: � � http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-633767119-1316911441=:56298 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes, the humors were all bodily fluids - hence, they were (are?) all wet (no humorous pun intended). Since these humors also dicate mood, and humor in the modern sense is a kind of mood, I don't think the leap is so very difficult.

Paul

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

From: "Suarez, Julia" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sat, September 24, 2011 2:22:06 PM
Subject: Re: Call for vocab

Hi, Linda,

Probably from the idea of the bodily humors--those mysterious essences that were once thought to dictate our personalities,--phlegm, choler, bile, both black and yellow. . .all quite moist--humid.

Julie

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Linda Comerford
Sent: Sat 9/24/2011 1:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Call for vocab

"Humor" relates to "damp"? Interesting! Does anyone know how? A
perspiring nervous standup comedian comes to mind....

Linda Comerford
317.786.6404
[log in to unmask]
www.comerfordconsulting.com <http://www.comerfordconsulting.com/>

_____

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 10:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Call for vocab

On an even lighter note:

humor/humid

...although these two really are cognates, deriving from words meaning
"damp."

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

On a lighter note, (for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit
words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id....

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

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

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0-633767119-1316911441=:56298-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:55:07 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill, As you well know, our statements are never complete because we cannot state everything about something in a statement, and because we often lack a common background. We can express only partial truth about an issue. We would need a continuous,progressive dialogue to clarify statements and points in order to see if our perspectives differ or not. So far, you have made some assumptions about what you call my assumptions, but how can you be sure that what I stated in my short comments is a summary of my perspective on the issue discussed? You cannot. I believe that you have understood me for the most part because of the brevity of my statements and lack of continuous, progressive dialogue in which we would confirm or disprove each other's understanding on the issue in question. Yes, you have read me correctly when you "assumed" that I believe that communication requires a common communicative basis - lexicon, grammar, socio-cultural and political context, etc. I do not think that some dialect variation prevents communication, but I believe that too much dialectal variation could lead to - as you know - the collapse of communication because of the birth of new languages. I also believe that in most societies a command of the power and prestige dialect matters the most for all practical purposes. Have you read "Language and Social Context" edited by Per Paolo Giglioli? Somewhere in the book,if I am not mistaken, someone states that a dialect without a state is just that, while a dialect with a state is a language. As for the "prescriptive vs. descriptive" dichotomy, well, we know that all language is prescripted during socialization, and that the contrast between the above notions could be useful only in a theoretical/didactic context. What choices did you have when you learned your English in the early childhood? None! If you were born in a poor and illiterate black family you would speak illiterate black English, or "Ebonics" (to use the politically correct term). If you were born in a poor illiterate Appalachian family you would speak the same illiterate English. We speak the language of the humans who socialized us, and it takes a lot to change that language to something else. I mentioned Chomsky only to make the point that history repeats. Forty years ago most linguists were worshipping Chomsky and his language theories until other people came and showed that he was wrong. Most language theories are proven wrong after some time although in the beginning linguists believe that those theories are the ultimate answer to the fundamental questions about language. To accept any theory without ever questioning it is anti-scientific and shows gullability, which is not the attitude of a scientist and researcher. Of course, again, you can pick of my statements because no matter how hard I try to make my statements complete I will never succeed to do so. I am sure that I have already left something out in this mesage, too. Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: "William C Spruiell" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 3:17:11 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard, You are, I think, making an argument that starts with a quite valid observation -- that communication requires a basis that the communicants can assume is shared -- but I'd like to argue that you then overstretch it. Here are three problems with it: (1) You seem to be assuming that a Standard ensures comprehension and that dialect variation condemns it. The effect of "sharedness" on comprehension is probably more like an S-curve. *No* two people completely share conventions, of course, but as some of the conventions start differing, there is a drop-off in mutual intelligibility. The "top" of the curve is fairly flat, although the slope increases rapidly past a certain point. But that point doesn't correspond to the "Standard" vs. "non-Standard" distinction. Two people speaking Standard English (pretending, for the moment, it's well-defined) may understand each other less than two people speaking different dialects, depending on the situation. An example: I was trying to read a current article on Minimalism last week; I'm sure it was in Standard English, but I didn't understand much of it; I think I understood more of "Trainspotting," even without the subtitles. A factor that has nothing to do with "+/- Standard" may affect comprehension far more than does whether the speaker is using Standard subject-verb agreement. (2) You seem to be assuming that everyone on the other side of the fence from you thinks that the prescriptive/descriptive divide is absolute. The existence of a now-sizable body of research on the social malleability of grammaticality judgments indicates that a lot of linguists are quite aware of the fuzziness of this kind of boundary, and I've seen arguments that language can't be analyzed well in the absence of a recognition as a mechanism of social regulation (I'll try to dig out the article ref on that). As in most social-research fields, we make distinctions because they're useful, then blur them because pretending that they hold as absolutes is simply wrong. (3) You're assuming that most English language educators agree with Chomsky about the relation of language to meaning. This, in turn, assumes that most English language educators know what Chomsky's theories actually are. Most of the time, discussions of Chomsky in education don't support the validity of that assumption. I'm saying this as someone who strongly disagrees with most of Chomsky's linguistic theories. I'd love to pile on with the Chomsky-dissing, but only about things that really are his fault (like his conflation of modeling with explanation). Bill Spruiell On Sep 24, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Eduard Hanganu wrote: John, If you are not speaking and writing a "prescriptive" English, then we are not communicating because I don't know what your words mean and I don't know what grammar rules you use to organize them. Your words may mean something else based on your personal definitions in your own idiolect. You need to define for me the sense or dictionary meaning in your own dictionary. What do you mean by "estimate"? How about "percentage"? How about "linguists," etc. You also need to give me a detailed account of the rules you used to organize your words in phrases, sentences, and discourse. You need to teach me the sociolingustic conventions that define your language communication. You need to teach me YOUR LANGUAGE. Most if not all speakers of the English language speak a language "prescribed" to them when they became socialized in English. When you were an innocent victim of your parents, they forced on you the English lexicon and the grammar they used. You had no choice. You could not use your own word definitions, or organize language in your own way. You were forced to acquire/learn their own definitions and their own language organization, which actually was not their own but was forced on them by their parents - the society in which they lived. There is a mythical, false, and anecdotal distinction between "prescriptive" and "descriptive" that is circulated as a doctrine in language circles based on the profound lack of understanding that the very people who use the distinction speak and write in an English that has been prescribed to them by the society in which they live. The few examples of "prescriptive" English that are so often mentioned and circulated as proof that "we linguists don't prescribe but describe English" are false examples of "description." Those who use them have forgotten that they are using a language prescribed to them, and that what they are describing now is actually a prescripted language. They are thinking and working in an illogical, irational, vicious circle. As for your thought that "what you learned about linguistics and language arts education conflicts with about 75% of what I say," well, too bad. I don't know who were your instructors, and what books you read during your education, but most English language educators still live by the myths prescribed to them by their educators. Myths they have never questions. Such as that the myth promoted for decades by the great Chomsky that language does not necessarily have meaning, and that we can separate language from meaning without a sweat. The great Einstein taught that no object in the univers can exceed the light speed. Now researchers find out that this is not true. Apparently, some particles - neutrinos - travel at a speed that exceed the light speed, and all Einstein's relativitity theory appears to need a reevaluation. So it is in language education. We have been fed some myths, and some of us don't want to think, but want to live by those myths in spite of all evidence that points to the contrary. Eduard ________________________________ From: "John Dews-Alexander" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 3:42:48 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard, If you had to estimate a percentage of linguists worldwide who share the views you describe in your recent emails, what would that percentage be? I am not attempting to be coy at all. I am seriously interested. I ask because everything I've ever learned about linguistics and language arts education conflicts with about 75% of what you say. I'm not faulting or attacking your point of view. Have I just read the wrong books and had the wrong professors? Or would you consider your views "non-mainstream"? Who are the linguists I should read to get more information on the type of linguistics you describe? John On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Craig, I am a LINGUIST, not a GRAMMARIAN. I am not a grammar school teacher or a high school teacher. In my undergraduate and graduate studies I have studied phonetics and phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics, etc. From my perspective, the concept of "grammar" as discussed on this forum seems to be limited, narrow, and incomplete, and the distinction between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" in language is nonsensical. Someone said, "We describe in order to prescribe." Most examples of "prescriptive" English are so pathetic that they make me weep, and those who insist on the distinction don't seem to understand the ultimate purpose of language - communication. The whole purpose of English language education is to "prescribe" how people should speak and write in order to produce a consesus language. The alternative would be for each one of us or for groups of people of various sizes in this country to coin words that have a meaning only for individuals or for grouns, and to build an unlimited number of individual or group grammars. If we followed this course of action we would soon loose the ability to communicate between individuals and groups. We would witness a modern Tower of Babel. Why is the American education paying every year English language teachers and other educators? In order to "prescribe" behavior in language, arts, and science. This is called "socialization," and without socialization creatures born to humans are will not become human. Instead of speaking about "grammar" I would rather speak about language structure and its communicative, rhetorical purpose. If we cannot communicate in language, the production of sounds, words, and strings of words is irational and useless. It is necessary for humans, in order to communicate through language, to "prescribe" what words and strings of words mean so that they could all use those words and word strings to mean the same thing. We don't live in Alice's wonderland, and we are rabbbits, ascribing personal and arbitrary meanings to words if we want to communicate because if we did so we would loose very rapidly the ability to communicate with each other and one another. Language use has a DIRECT and SPECIFIC purpose: TO COMMUNICATE. If we forget its purpose, then we are lost. Eduard ________________________________ From: "Craig G Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:18:12 AM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard, These leaves me with some questions. 1) Are you ONLY interested in what makes something Standard, or does your interest in grammar go beyond that? In other words, once something is determined as Standard English, are there other things we can observe about its grammar that are useful and beneficial? Is our only concern making sure language conforms to norms or should we also think about ways in which grammar contributes to rhetorical effect or to meaning? 2) Are you at all troubled by the fact that many of the rules of prescriptive grammar seem rather arbitrary? One example might be the “due to” versus “because of” distinction in a recent post that many of us felt was on shaky ground. How do we determine whether something is standard or not? 3) Does that mean that literary texts that use dialect in one way or another should be expunged from the canon? I’m thinking of books like “Huckleberry Finn” or “The color Purple”, much of the poetry of Robert Burns and Langston Hughes, the plays of August Wilson (so many of our plays, for that matter), and so on? How do we deal with the fact that a great deal of highly valued literature is built on creative use of the vernacular? The final question, I guess, might be how we stimulate widespread acquisition of the standard. Is disparaging dialect a necessary step in that direction? I don’t think many of would disagree that knowing Standard English is a central goal. How do we accommodate other goals as well, including encouraging fluency? Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:52 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Well, Maybe the difference in perspective between the two of us is that you consider different "grammars" that govern different "varieties" of the English language, while I recognize only ONE GRAMMAR, the Standard English Grammar. Of course we all speak our own idiolects, and use various registers depending on the linguistic context, but if those idiolects and registers do not follow the rules of the Standard English Grammar I cannot call those "varieties" or "registers" good English, but to the degree to which they differ from the Standard English I call them "illiterate English." Anecdotally, someone mentioned to me that "Ebonics" as a "language variety" does not differ much from the broken English that some poor, illiterate people speak in the Appalachians. What is the common denominator between these two "varieties" of the English language? Illiteracy. Eduard ________________________________ From: "Dick Veit" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:18:07 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about. I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too. When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end. Dick To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 09:49:08 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Call for vocab In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016e659f74a736f7604adc44e7d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In Florida, if your neighborhood is infested with gators, does that mean you live in a gatid community? Dick On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On a lighter note, (for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit > words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id. > > For instance: > > splendor/splendid > candor/candid > rancor/rancid > stupor/stupid > > Thanks! > > Jane Saral > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e659f74a736f7604adc44e7d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In Florida, if your neighborhood is infested with gators, does that mean you live in a gatid community?

Dick

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

On a lighter note,�(for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id.

�

For instance:

�

splendor/splendid

candor/candid

rancor/rancid

stupor/stupid

�

Thanks!

�

Jane Saral
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e659f74a736f7604adc44e7d-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 11:29:41 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Eduard, I have been away from the list, but have now read your replies with some interest. I am not a linguist by training, but am a teacher who is very much invested in helping non-mainstream students become successful in a highly competitive university. It is certainly obvious to me--and to them--that they will not be able to achieve their ambitious goals without being able to read and write at a very high level. They know that Standard English is expected of them and are generally happy to receive help in accomplishing that. I am also someone who believes that our schools have failed to address language to anywhere near the extent that they need to, and I also believe the students who suffer the most from that are the students whose home languages are furthest from the mainstream. I think you are using the term "prescriptive" in an unusual way. If you are saying, essentially, that language is a meaning-making system, and that it is built through interaction with other people, I would agree wholeheartedly that students need to be socialized (and mentored) into productive use of that system. Our schools should also do more to accomplish that. In the name of prescriptivism, though, teachers "correct" language use, often in very superficial ways, and don't generally include a deep understanding of how language works as they are doing so. Your view of prescriptivism seems deeper than theirs. I also think we need to acknowledge that many writers who have fine control of the standard find ways to use non-mainstream language as an additional resource. You can make the case that limiting oneself to a highly prescriptive standard takes away those possibilities. This is not the same, of course, as being trapped into a dialect because of a failure to learn what is often called "the language of widespread communication." If you're saying that the business of education is to socialize students into the mainstream and that we should do so without apology, I agree. As players in that mainstream world, they may very well be representing the non-mainstream perspectives of their community, and they may have important personal reasons for wanting to have membership in that world as well. If you tell a student that family or neighborhood or regional language is "wrong", it can seem like an either/or choice. It doesn't have to be. When given the chance, most students seem to want access to both worlds. they would like to be able to go back and forth. I suspect we may agree with each other in substantial ways. As someone on the front lines of teaching, I can't help thinking about how a straightline insistence on correctness would work out in practice. But you seem to be advocating a deeper understanding of how language works, and I am happy to agree with that. Craig ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 8:55 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Bill, As you well know, our statements are never complete because we cannot state everything about something in a statement, and because we often lack a common background. We can express only partial truth about an issue. We would need a continuous,progressive dialogue to clarify statements and points in order to see if our perspectives differ or not. So far, you have made some assumptions about what you call my assumptions, but how can you be sure that what I stated in my short comments is a summary of my perspective on the issue discussed? You cannot. I believe that you have understood me for the most part because of the brevity of my statements and lack of continuous, progressive dialogue in which we would confirm or disprove each other's understanding on the issue in question. Yes, you have read me correctly when you "assumed" that I believe that communication requires a common communicative basis - lexicon, grammar, socio-cultural and political context, etc. I do not think that some dialect variation prevents communication, but I believe that too much dialectal variation could lead to - as you know - the collapse of communication because of the birth of new languages. I also believe that in most societies a command of the power and prestige dialect matters the most for all practical purposes. Have you read "Language and Social Context" edited by Per Paolo Giglioli? Somewhere in the book,if I am not mistaken, someone states that a dialect without a state is just that, while a dialect with a state is a language. As for the "prescriptive vs. descriptive" dichotomy, well, we know that all language is prescripted during socialization, and that the contrast between the above notions could be useful only in a theoretical/didactic context. What choices did you have when you learned your English in the early childhood? None! If you were born in a poor and illiterate black family you would speak illiterate black English, or "Ebonics" (to use the politically correct term). If you were born in a poor illiterate Appalachian family you would speak the same illiterate English. We speak the language of the humans who socialized us, and it takes a lot to change that language to something else. I mentioned Chomsky only to make the point that history repeats. Forty years ago most linguists were worshipping Chomsky and his language theories until other people came and showed that he was wrong. Most language theories are proven wrong after some time although in the beginning linguists believe that those theories are the ultimate answer to the fundamental questions about language. To accept any theory without ever questioning it is anti-scientific and shows gullability, which is not the attitude of a scientist and researcher. Of course, again, you can pick of my statements because no matter how hard I try to make my statements complete I will never succeed to do so. I am sure that I have already left something out in this mesage, too. Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: "William C Spruiell" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 3:17:11 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard, You are, I think, making an argument that starts with a quite valid observation -- that communication requires a basis that the communicants can assume is shared -- but I'd like to argue that you then overstretch it. Here are three problems with it: (1) You seem to be assuming that a Standard ensures comprehension and that dialect variation condemns it. The effect of "sharedness" on comprehension is probably more like an S-curve. *No* two people completely share conventions, of course, but as some of the conventions start differing, there is a drop-off in mutual intelligibility. The "top" of the curve is fairly flat, although the slope increases rapidly past a certain point. But that point doesn't correspond to the "Standard" vs. "non-Standard" distinction. Two people speaking Standard English (pretending, for the moment, it's well-defined) may understand each other less than two people speaking different dialects, depending on the situation. An example: I was trying to read a current article on Minimalism last week; I'm sure it was in Standard English, but I didn't understand much of it; I think I understood more of "Trainspotting," even without the subtitles. A factor that has nothing to do with "+/- Standard" may affect comprehension far more than does whether the speaker is using Standard subject-verb agreement. (2) You seem to be assuming that everyone on the other side of the fence from you thinks that the prescriptive/descriptive divide is absolute. The existence of a now-sizable body of research on the social malleability of grammaticality judgments indicates that a lot of linguists are quite aware of the fuzziness of this kind of boundary, and I've seen arguments that language can't be analyzed well in the absence of a recognition as a mechanism of social regulation (I'll try to dig out the article ref on that). As in most social-research fields, we make distinctions because they're useful, then blur them because pretending that they hold as absolutes is simply wrong. (3) You're assuming that most English language educators agree with Chomsky about the relation of language to meaning. This, in turn, assumes that most English language educators know what Chomsky's theories actually are. Most of the time, discussions of Chomsky in education don't support the validity of that assumption. I'm saying this as someone who strongly disagrees with most of Chomsky's linguistic theories. I'd love to pile on with the Chomsky-dissing, but only about things that really are his fault (like his conflation of modeling with explanation). Bill Spruiell On Sep 24, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Eduard Hanganu wrote: John, If you are not speaking and writing a "prescriptive" English, then we are not communicating because I don't know what your words mean and I don't know what grammar rules you use to organize them. Your words may mean something else based on your personal definitions in your own idiolect. You need to define for me the sense or dictionary meaning in your own dictionary. What do you mean by "estimate"? How about "percentage"? How about "linguists," etc. You also need to give me a detailed account of the rules you used to organize your words in phrases, sentences, and discourse. You need to teach me the sociolingustic conventions that define your language communication. You need to teach me YOUR LANGUAGE. Most if not all speakers of the English language speak a language "prescribed" to them when they became socialized in English. When you were an innocent victim of your parents, they forced on you the English lexicon and the grammar they used. You had no choice. You could not use your own word definitions, or organize language in your own way. You were forced to acquire/learn their own definitions and their own language organization, which actually was not their own but was forced on them by their parents - the society in which they lived. There is a mythical, false, and anecdotal distinction between "prescriptive" and "descriptive" that is circulated as a doctrine in language circles based on the profound lack of understanding that the very people who use the distinction speak and write in an English that has been prescribed to them by the society in which they live. The few examples of "prescriptive" English that are so often mentioned and circulated as proof that "we linguists don't prescribe but describe English" are false examples of "description." Those who use them have forgotten that they are using a language prescribed to them, and that what they are describing now is actually a prescripted language. They are thinking and working in an illogical, irational, vicious circle. As for your thought that "what you learned about linguistics and language arts education conflicts with about 75% of what I say," well, too bad. I don't know who were your instructors, and what books you read during your education, but most English language educators still live by the myths prescribed to them by their educators. Myths they have never questions. Such as that the myth promoted for decades by the great Chomsky that language does not necessarily have meaning, and that we can separate language from meaning without a sweat. The great Einstein taught that no object in the univers can exceed the light speed. Now researchers find out that this is not true. Apparently, some particles - neutrinos - travel at a speed that exceed the light speed, and all Einstein's relativitity theory appears to need a reevaluation. So it is in language education. We have been fed some myths, and some of us don't want to think, but want to live by those myths in spite of all evidence that points to the contrary. Eduard ________________________________ From: "John Dews-Alexander" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 3:42:48 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard, If you had to estimate a percentage of linguists worldwide who share the views you describe in your recent emails, what would that percentage be? I am not attempting to be coy at all. I am seriously interested. I ask because everything I've ever learned about linguistics and language arts education conflicts with about 75% of what you say. I'm not faulting or attacking your point of view. Have I just read the wrong books and had the wrong professors? Or would you consider your views "non-mainstream"? Who are the linguists I should read to get more information on the type of linguistics you describe? John On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Craig, I am a LINGUIST, not a GRAMMARIAN. I am not a grammar school teacher or a high school teacher. In my undergraduate and graduate studies I have studied phonetics and phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics, etc. From my perspective, the concept of "grammar" as discussed on this forum seems to be limited, narrow, and incomplete, and the distinction between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" in language is nonsensical. Someone said, "We describe in order to prescribe." Most examples of "prescriptive" English are so pathetic that they make me weep, and those who insist on the distinction don't seem to understand the ultimate purpose of language - communication. The whole purpose of English language education is to "prescribe" how people should speak and write in order to produce a consesus language. The alternative would be for each one of us or for groups of people of various sizes in this country to coin words that have a meaning only for individuals or for grouns, and to build an unlimited number of individual or group grammars. If we followed this course of action we would soon loose the ability to communicate between individuals and groups. We would witness a modern Tower of Babel. Why is the American education paying every year English language teachers and other educators? In order to "prescribe" behavior in language, arts, and science. This is called "socialization," and without socialization creatures born to humans are will not become human. Instead of speaking about "grammar" I would rather speak about language structure and its communicative, rhetorical purpose. If we cannot communicate in language, the production of sounds, words, and strings of words is irational and useless. It is necessary for humans, in order to communicate through language, to "prescribe" what words and strings of words mean so that they could all use those words and word strings to mean the same thing. We don't live in Alice's wonderland, and we are rabbbits, ascribing personal and arbitrary meanings to words if we want to communicate because if we did so we would loose very rapidly the ability to communicate with each other and one another. Language use has a DIRECT and SPECIFIC purpose: TO COMMUNICATE. If we forget its purpose, then we are lost. Eduard ________________________________ From: "Craig G Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:18:12 AM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard, These leaves me with some questions. 1) Are you ONLY interested in what makes something Standard, or does your interest in grammar go beyond that? In other words, once something is determined as Standard English, are there other things we can observe about its grammar that are useful and beneficial? Is our only concern making sure language conforms to norms or should we also think about ways in which grammar contributes to rhetorical effect or to meaning? 2) Are you at all troubled by the fact that many of the rules of prescriptive grammar seem rather arbitrary? One example might be the �due to� versus �because of� distinction in a recent post that many of us felt was on shaky ground. How do we determine whether something is standard or not? 3) Does that mean that literary texts that use dialect in one way or another should be expunged from the canon? I�m thinking of books like �Huckleberry Finn� or �The color Purple�, much of the poetry of Robert Burns and Langston Hughes, the plays of August Wilson (so many of our plays, for that matter), and so on? How do we deal with the fact that a great deal of highly valued literature is built on creative use of the vernacular? The final question, I guess, might be how we stimulate widespread acquisition of the standard. Is disparaging dialect a necessary step in that direction? I don�t think many of would disagree that knowing Standard English is a central goal. How do we accommodate other goals as well, including encouraging fluency? Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:52 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Well, Maybe the difference in perspective between the two of us is that you consider different "grammars" that govern different "varieties" of the English language, while I recognize only ONE GRAMMAR, the Standard English Grammar. Of course we all speak our own idiolects, and use various registers depending on the linguistic context, but if those idiolects and registers do not follow the rules of the Standard English Grammar I cannot call those "varieties" or "registers" good English, but to the degree to which they differ from the Standard English I call them "illiterate English." Anecdotally, someone mentioned to me that "Ebonics" as a "language variety" does not differ much from the broken English that some poor, illiterate people speak in the Appalachians. What is the common denominator between these two "varieties" of the English language? Illiteracy. Eduard ________________________________ From: "Dick Veit" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:18:07 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about. I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too. When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end. Dick To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 11:20:40 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "T. J. Ray" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_SW_2093084412_1316967640_mpa=" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_SW_2093084412_1316967640_mpaContent-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mualmarp01.mcs.muohio.edu id p8PGKimN021923 Your second, third, and fourth paragraphs very precisely contradict your first. In the first you seem to be on the offense against descriptive and prescritpive grammars, and then you lay solid foundation for the necessity of those disciplines. I don't see how you can have it both ways. T. J. On Friday 09/23/2011 at 3:31 pm, Eduard Hanganu wrote: > > > Craig, > > I am a LINGUIST, not a GRAMMARIAN. I am not a grammar school teacher > or a high school teacher. In my undergraduate and graduate studies I > have studied phonetics and phonology, morphology and syntax, > semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and > psycholinguistics, etc. From my perspective, the concept of "grammar" > as discussed on this forum seems to be limited, narrow, and > incomplete, and the distinction between "descriptive" and > "prescriptive" in language is nonsensical. Someone said, "We describe > in order to prescribe." Most examples of "prescriptive" English are so > pathetic that they make me weep, and those who insist on the > distinction don't seem to understand the ultimate purpose of language > - communication. > > The whole purpose of English language education is to "prescribe" how > people should speak and write in order to produce a consesus language. > The alternative would be for each one of us or for groups of people of > various sizes in this country to coin words that have a meaning only > for individuals or for grouns, and to build an unlimited number of > individual or group grammars. If we followed this course of action we > would soon loose the ability to communicate between individuals and > groups. We would witness a modern Tower of Babel. > > Why is the American education paying every year English language > teachers and other educators? In order to "prescribe" behavior in > language, arts, and science. This is called "socialization," and > without socialization creatures born to humans are will not become > human. > > Instead of speaking about "grammar" I would rather speak about > language structure and its communicative, rhetorical purpose. If we > cannot communicate in language, the production of sounds, words, and > strings of words is irational and useless. It is necessary for humans, > in order to communicate through language, to "prescribe" what words > and strings of words mean so that they could all use those words and > word strings to mean the same thing. We don't live in Alice's > wonderland, and we are rabbbits, ascribing personal and arbitrary > meanings to words if we want to communicate because if we did so we > would loose very rapidly the ability to communicate with each other > and one another. > > Language use has a DIRECT and SPECIFIC purpose: TO COMMUNICATE. If we > forget its purpose, then we are lost. > > Eduard > > > > From: "Craig G Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:18:12 AM > Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" > > > > Eduard, > These leaves me with some questions. 1) Are you ONLY interested in > what makes something Standard, or does your interest in grammar go > beyond that? In other words, once something is determined as Standard > English, are there other things we can observe about its grammar that > are useful and beneficial? Is our only concern making sure language > conforms to norms or should we also think about ways in which grammar > contributes to rhetorical effect or to meaning? 2) Are you at all > troubled by the fact that many of the rules of prescriptive grammar > seem rather arbitrary? One example might be the “due to” versus > “because of” distinction in a recent post that many of us felt > was on shaky ground. How do we determine whether something is standard > or not? 3) Does that mean that literary texts that use dialect in one > way or another should be expunged from the canon? I’m thinking of > books like “Huckleberry Finn” or “The color Purple”, much of > the poetry of Robert Burns and Langston Hughes, the plays of August > Wilson (so many of our plays, for that matter), and so on? How do we > deal with the fact that a great deal of highly valued literature is > built on creative use of the vernacular? > The final question, I guess, might be how we stimulate widespread > acquisition of the standard. Is disparaging dialect a necessary step > in that direction? I don’t think many of would disagree that knowing > Standard English is a central goal. How do we accommodate other goals > as well, including encouraging fluency? > > Craig > > > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:52 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" > > > Well, > > Maybe the difference in perspective between the two of us is that you > consider different "grammars" that govern different "varieties" of the > English language, while I recognize only ONE GRAMMAR, the Standard > English Grammar. Of course we all speak our own idiolects, and use > various registers depending on the linguistic context, but if those > idiolects and registers do not follow the rules of the Standard > English Grammar I cannot call those "varieties" or "registers" good > English, but to the degree to which they differ from the Standard > English I call them "illiterate English." Anecdotally, someone > mentioned to me that "Ebonics" as a "language variety" does not differ > much from the broken English that some poor, illiterate people speak > in the Appalachians. What is the common denominator between these two > "varieties" of the English language? Illiteracy. > > Eduard > > From: "Dick Veit" <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:18:07 PM > Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" > > The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of > English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of > many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase > "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be > appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate > in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in > writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in > an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing > with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone > with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. > That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about. > > I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students > to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted > conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for > them to understand different registers and to know which is > appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can > master that too. > > When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is > grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply > describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an > observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching > formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write > Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end. > > Dick > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select > "Join or leave the list" > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select > "Join or leave the list" > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select > "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_SW_2093084412_1316967640_mpaContent-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Your second, third, and fourth paragraphs very precisely contradict your first. In the first
you seem to be on the offense against descriptive and prescritpive grammars, and then
you lay solid foundation for the necessity of those disciplines. I don't see how you can
have it both ways.

T. J.

On Friday 09/23/2011 at 3:31 pm, Eduard Hanganu wrote:
Craig,

I am a LINGUIST, not a GRAMMARIAN. I am not a grammar school teacher or a high school teacher. In my undergraduate and graduate studies I have studied phonetics and phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics, etc. From my perspective, the concept of "grammar" as discussed on this forum seems to be limited, narrow, and incomplete, and the distinction between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" in language is nonsensical. Someone said, "We describe in order to prescribe." Most examples of "prescriptive" English are so pathetic that they make me weep, and those who insist on the distinction don't seem to understand the ultimate purpose of language - communication.

The whole purpose of English language education is to "prescribe" how people should speak and write in order to produce a consesus language. The alternative would be for each one of us or for groups of people of various sizes in this country to coin words that have a meaning only for individuals or for grouns, and to build an unlimited number of individual or group grammars. If we followed this course of action we would soon loose the ability to communicate between individuals and groups. We would witness a modern Tower of Babel.

Why is the American education paying every year English language teachers and other educators? In order to "prescribe" behavior in language, arts, and science. This is called "socialization," and without socialization creatures born to humans are will not become human.

Instead of speaking about "grammar" I would rather speak about language structure and its communicative, rhetorical purpose. If we cannot communicate in language, the production of sounds, words, and strings of words is irational and useless. It is necessary for humans, in order to communicate through language, to "prescribe" what words and strings of words mean so that they could all use those words and word strings to mean the same thing. We don't live in Alice's wonderland, and we are rabbbits, ascribing personal and arbitrary meanings to words if we want to communicate because if we did so we would loose very rapidly the ability to communicate with each other and one another.

Language use has a DIRECT and SPECIFIC purpose: TO COMMUNICATE. If we forget its purpose, then we are lost.

Eduard

From: "Craig G Hancock" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:18:12 AM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

Eduard,
    These leaves me with some questions. 1) Are you ONLY interested in what makes something Standard, or does your interest in grammar go beyond that? In other words, once something is determined as Standard English, are there other things we can observe about its grammar that are useful and beneficial? Is our only concern making sure language conforms to norms or should we also think about ways in which grammar contributes to rhetorical effect or to meaning? 2) Are you at all troubled by the fact that many of the rules of prescriptive grammar seem rather arbitrary? One example might be the “due to” versus “because of” distinction in a recent post that many of us felt was on shaky ground. How do we determine whether something is standard or not? 3) Does that mean that literary texts that use dialect in one way or another should be expunged from the canon? I’m thinking of books like “Huckleberry Finn” or “The color Purple”, much of the poetry of Robert Burns and Langston Hughes, the plays of August Wilson (so many of our plays, for that matter), and so on? How do we deal with the fact that a great deal of highly valued literature is built on creative use of the vernacular?
    The final question, I guess, might be how we stimulate widespread acquisition of the standard. Is disparaging dialect a necessary step in that direction? I don’t think many of would disagree that knowing Standard English is a central goal. How do we accommodate other goals as well, including encouraging fluency?

  Craig

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

Well,

Maybe the difference in perspective between the two of us is that you consider different "grammars" that govern different "varieties" of the English language, while I recognize only ONE GRAMMAR, the Standard English Grammar. Of course we all speak our own idiolects, and use various registers depending on the linguistic context, but if those idiolects and registers do not follow the rules of the Standard English Grammar I cannot call those "varieties" or "registers" good English, but to the degree to which they differ from the Standard English I call them "illiterate English." Anecdotally, someone mentioned to me that "Ebonics" as a "language variety" does not differ much from the broken English that some poor, illiterate people speak in the Appalachians. What is the common denominator between these two "varieties" of the English language? Illiteracy.

Eduard
From: "Dick Veit" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:18:07 PM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about.

I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too.

When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end.

Dick

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_SW_2093084412_1316967640_mpa=-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 14:57:38 -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: Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Call for vocab In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --00151747bdba1c697804adc8a0b4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I love it, Dick! Jane On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > In Florida, if your neighborhood is infested with gators, does that mean > you live in a gatid community? > > Dick > > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> On a lighter note, (for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit >> words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id. >> >> For instance: >> >> splendor/splendid >> candor/candid >> rancor/rancid >> stupor/stupid >> >> Thanks! >> >> Jane Saral >> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select > "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --00151747bdba1c697804adc8a0b4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I love it, Dick!

Jane

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

In Florida, if your neighborhood is infested with gators, does that mean you live in a gatid community?

Dick

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

On a lighter note,�(for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id.

�

For instance:

�

splendor/splendid

candor/candid

rancor/rancid

stupor/stupid

�

Thanks!

�

Jane Saral

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --00151747bdba1c697804adc8a0b4-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 19:17:59 +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: Christopher Shull <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Call for vocab In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part9583-boundary-1907996210-695775680" MIME-Version: 1.0 --part9583-boundary-1907996210-695775680 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" T24gdGhhdCBzYW1lIG5vdGUsIGFyZSB2YXBvcnMgdmFwaWQ/DQoNCkNCUw0KU2VudCBvbiB0aGUg U3ByaW50riBOb3cgTmV0d29yayBmcm9tIG15IEJsYWNrQmVycnmuDQoNCi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwg TWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQpGcm9tOiBKYW5lIFNhcmFsIDxqYW5lLnNhcmFsQEdNQUlMLkNPTT4NClNl bmRlcjogQXNzZW1ibHkgZm9yIHRoZSBUZWFjaGluZyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXIgPEFURUdA TElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVT4NCkRhdGU6ICAgICAgICAgU3VuLCAyNSBTZXAgMjAxMSAxNDo1 NzozOCANClRvOiA8QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVPg0KUmVwbHktVG86IEFzc2VtYmx5 IGZvciB0aGUgVGVhY2hpbmcgb2YgRW5nbGlzaCBHcmFtbWFyDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxBVEVH QExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFU+DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogQ2FsbCBmb3Igdm9jYWINCg0KSSBs b3ZlIGl0LCBEaWNrIQ0KSmFuZQ0KDQpPbiBTdW4sIFNlcCAyNSwgMjAxMSBhdCA5OjQ5IEFNLCBE aWNrIFZlaXQgPGRpY2t2ZWl0QGdtYWlsLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQoNCj4gSW4gRmxvcmlkYSwgaWYg eW91ciBuZWlnaGJvcmhvb2QgaXMgaW5mZXN0ZWQgd2l0aCBnYXRvcnMsIGRvZXMgdGhhdCBtZWFu DQo+IHlvdSBsaXZlIGluIGEgZ2F0aWQgY29tbXVuaXR5Pw0KPg0KPiBEaWNrDQo+DQo+DQo+ICBP biBGcmksIFNlcCAyMywgMjAxMSBhdCAxMDoxNiBQTSwgSmFuZSBTYXJhbCA8amFuZS5zYXJhbEBn bWFpbC5jb20+d3JvdGU6DQo+DQo+PiBPbiBhIGxpZ2h0ZXIgbm90ZSwgKGZvciBhbiBTQVQgdm9j YWIgZXhlcmNpc2UpIEkgd29uZGVyIGlmIEkgbWlnaHQgc29saWNpdA0KPj4gd29yZHMgdGhhdCBm aXQgdGhlIHBhdHRlcm4gb2Ygbm91biBlbmRpbmcgaW4gLW9yIGFuZCBhZGplY3RpdmUgaW4gLWlk Lg0KPj4NCj4+IEZvciBpbnN0YW5jZToNCj4+DQo+PiBzcGxlbmRvci9zcGxlbmRpZA0KPj4gY2Fu ZG9yL2NhbmRpZA0KPj4gcmFuY29yL3JhbmNpZA0KPj4gc3R1cG9yL3N0dXBpZA0KPj4NCj4+IFRo YW5rcyENCj4+DQo+PiBKYW5lIFNhcmFsDQo+Pg0KPiAgVG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJ U1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYg0KPiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6 IGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbCBhbmQgc2VsZWN0 DQo+ICJKb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0Ig0KPg0KPiBWaXNpdCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUg YXQgaHR0cDovL2F0ZWcub3JnLw0KPg0KDQpUbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYg bGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZSBhdDoNCiAgICAgaHR0 cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sDQphbmQgc2VsZWN0ICJK b2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0Ig0KDQpWaXNpdCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDov L2F0ZWcub3JnLw0KDQo --part9583-boundary-1907996210-695775680 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" PCFET0NUWVBFIGh0bWwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMCBUcmFuc2l0aW9uYWwv L0VOIj4gPGh0bWw+PGhlYWQ+IDxtZXRhIGNvbnRlbnQ9InRleHQvaHRtbDsgY2hhcnNldD11dGYt OCIgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj0iQ29udGVudC1UeXBlIj4gPC9oZWFkPk9uIHRoYXQgc2FtZSBub3RlLCBh cmUgdmFwb3JzIHZhcGlkPzxici8+PGJyLz5DQlM8cD5TZW50IG9uIHRoZSBTcHJpbnSuIE5vdyBO ZXR3b3JrIGZyb20gbXkgQmxhY2tCZXJyea48L3A+PGhyLz48ZGl2PjxiPkZyb206IDwvYj4gSmFu ZSBTYXJhbCAmbHQ7amFuZS5zYXJhbEBHTUFJTC5DT00mZ3Q7DQo8L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxiPlNlbmRl cjogPC9iPiBBc3NlbWJseSBmb3IgdGhlIFRlYWNoaW5nIG9mIEVuZ2xpc2ggR3JhbW1hciAmbHQ7 QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVJmd0Ow0KPC9kaXY+PGRpdj48Yj5EYXRlOiA8L2I+U3Vu LCAyNSBTZXAgMjAxMSAxNDo1NzozOCAtMDQwMDwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PGI+VG86IDwvYj4mbHQ7QVRF R0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVJmd0OzwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PGI+UmVwbHlUbzogPC9iPiBBc3Nl bWJseSBmb3IgdGhlIFRlYWNoaW5nIG9mIEVuZ2xpc2ggR3JhbW1hcg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAm bHQ7QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVJmd0Ow0KPC9kaXY+PGRpdj48Yj5TdWJqZWN0OiA8 L2I+UmU6IENhbGwgZm9yIHZvY2FiPC9kaXY+PGRpdj48YnIvPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+SSBsb3ZlIGl0 LCBEaWNrITwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj5KYW5lPGJyPjxicj48L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9ImdtYWls X3F1b3RlIj5PbiBTdW4sIFNlcCAyNSwgMjAxMSBhdCA5OjQ5IEFNLCBEaWNrIFZlaXQgPHNwYW4g ZGlyPSJsdHIiPiZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86ZGlja3ZlaXRAZ21haWwuY29tIj5kaWNrdmVp dEBnbWFpbC5jb208L2E+Jmd0Ozwvc3Bhbj4gd3JvdGU6PGJyPg0KPGJsb2NrcXVvdGUgY2xhc3M9 ImdtYWlsX3F1b3RlIiBzdHlsZT0iUEFERElORy1MRUZUOiAxZXg7IE1BUkdJTjogMHB4IDBweCAw cHggMC44ZXg7IEJPUkRFUi1MRUZUOiAjY2NjIDFweCBzb2xpZCI+SW4gRmxvcmlkYSwgaWYgeW91 ciBuZWlnaGJvcmhvb2QgaXMgaW5mZXN0ZWQgd2l0aCBnYXRvcnMsIGRvZXMgdGhhdCBtZWFuIHlv dSBsaXZlIGluIGEgZ2F0aWQgY29tbXVuaXR5Pzxicj4NCg0KPGZvbnQgY29sb3I9IiM4ODg4ODgi Pjxicj5EaWNrPGJyPjxicj48YnI+PC9mb250Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iZ21haWxfcXVvdGUiPg0K PGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iaW0iPk9uIEZyaSwgU2VwIDIzLCAyMDExIGF0IDEwOjE2IFBNLCBKYW5lIFNh cmFsIDxzcGFuIGRpcj0ibHRyIj4mbHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOmphbmUuc2FyYWxAZ21haWwu Y29tIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+amFuZS5zYXJhbEBnbWFpbC5jb208L2E+Jmd0Ozwvc3Bhbj4g d3JvdGU6PGJyPjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXY+PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSJoNSI+DQo8 YmxvY2txdW90ZSBjbGFzcz0iZ21haWxfcXVvdGUiIHN0eWxlPSJQQURESU5HLUxFRlQ6IDFleDsg TUFSR0lOOiAwcHggMHB4IDBweCAwLjhleDsgQk9SREVSLUxFRlQ6ICNjY2MgMXB4IHNvbGlkIj4N CjxkaXY+T24gYSBsaWdodGVyIG5vdGUsoChmb3IgYW4gU0FUIHZvY2FiIGV4ZXJjaXNlKSBJIHdv bmRlciBpZiBJIG1pZ2h0IHNvbGljaXQgd29yZHMgdGhhdCBmaXQgdGhlIHBhdHRlcm4gb2Ygbm91 biBlbmRpbmcgaW4gLW9yIGFuZCBhZGplY3RpdmUgaW4gLWlkLjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj6gPC9kaXY+ DQo8ZGl2PkZvciBpbnN0YW5jZTo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+oDwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj5zcGxlbmRvci9z cGxlbmRpZDwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj5jYW5kb3IvY2FuZGlkPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2PnJhbmNvci9yYW5j aWQ8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+c3R1cG9yL3N0dXBpZDwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj6gPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2PlRo YW5rcyE8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+oDwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj5KYW5lIFNhcmFsPGJyPjwvZGl2PjwvYmxv Y2txdW90ZT48L2Rpdj48L2Rpdj48L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8ZGl2PjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFz cz0iaDUiPlRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQg dGhlIGxpc3QmIzM5O3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZSBhdDogPGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2 Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+aHR0cDovL2xp c3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sPC9hPiBhbmQgc2VsZWN0ICZxdW90 O0pvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QmcXVvdDsgDQo8cD5WaXNpdCBBVEVHJiMzOTtzIHdlYiBz aXRlIGF0IDxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8iIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5odHRwOi8v YXRlZy5vcmcvPC9hPiA8L3A+PC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+PC9ibG9ja3F1b3RlPjwvZGl2Pjxicj4NClRv IGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3Qn cyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0Og0KICAgICBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNo aXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwNCmFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQo8cD4N ClZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvDQoNCjwvaHRtbD4 --part9583-boundary-1907996210-695775680-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:28:58 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig, At the beginning of the semester, I start my composition classes with a short discussion about dialects and explain to the students the difference between their "home" of informal English and the academic or formal English. I also tell them that while their "home" dialect is all right and serves its purpose, in the academic environment we need to speak and write in formal English because the expectations for correctness and precision in language are higher in college. That seems to do it. The students seem to understand the difference between the informal and formal English, and the need to express themselves in it. They also understand that we are not going to "learn grammar" but to seek more clarity and correctness in our writing not for their own [clarity and corectness'sake but because we want to express our thoughts in the best way possible. We continue our discussion with the purpose of rhetoric, "the art of using language in order to impress or influence others." I also help them understand that form and content cannot be separated, and that when we do not express ourselves intelligibly, clearly, and correctly the power of our message diminishes. When the writing process is set in such a context an instructor does not need to teach "grammar" but to help students to become better at expressing themselves both in spoken and written English. Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig G Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 10:29:41 AM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard, I have been away from the list, but have now read your replies with some interest. I am not a linguist by training, but am a teacher who is very much invested in helping non-mainstream students become successful in a highly competitive university. It is certainly obvious to me--and to them--that they will not be able to achieve their ambitious goals without being able to read and write at a very high level. They know that Standard English is expected of them and are generally happy to receive help in accomplishing that. I am also someone who believes that our schools have failed to address language to anywhere near the extent that they need to, and I also believe the students who suffer the most from that are the students whose home languages are furthest from the mainstream. I think you are using the term "prescriptive" in an unusual way. If you are saying, essentially, that language is a meaning-making system, and that it is built through interaction with other people, I would agree wholeheartedly that students need to be socialized (and mentored) into productive use of that system. Our schools should also do more to accomplish that. In the name of prescriptivism, though, teachers "correct" language use, often in very superficial ways, and don't generally include a deep understanding of how language works as they are doing so. Your view of prescriptivism seems deeper than theirs. I also think we need to acknowledge that many writers who have fine control of the standard find ways to use non-mainstream language as an additional resource. You can make the case that limiting oneself to a highly prescriptive standard takes away those possibilities. This is not the same, of course, as being trapped into a dialect because of a failure to learn what is often called "the language of widespread communication." If you're saying that the business of education is to socialize students into the mainstream and that we should do so without apology, I agree. As players in that mainstream world, they may very well be representing the non-mainstream perspectives of their community, and they may have important personal reasons for wanting to have membership in that world as well. If you tell a student that family or neighborhood or regional language is "wrong", it can seem like an either/or choice. It doesn't have to be. When given the chance, most students seem to want access to both worlds. they would like to be able to go back and forth. I suspect we may agree with each other in substantial ways. As someone on the front lines of teaching, I can't help thinking about how a straightline insistence on correctness would work out in practice. But you seem to be advocating a deeper understanding of how language works, and I am happy to agree with that. Craig ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 8:55 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Bill, As you well know, our statements are never complete because we cannot state everything about something in a statement, and because we often lack a common background. We can express only partial truth about an issue. We would need a continuous,progressive dialogue to clarify statements and points in order to see if our perspectives differ or not. So far, you have made some assumptions about what you call my assumptions, but how can you be sure that what I stated in my short comments is a summary of my perspective on the issue discussed? You cannot. I believe that you have understood me for the most part because of the brevity of my statements and lack of continuous, progressive dialogue in which we would confirm or disprove each other's understanding on the issue in question. Yes, you have read me correctly when you "assumed" that I believe that communication requires a common communicative basis - lexicon, grammar, socio-cultural and political context, etc. I do not think that some dialect variation prevents communication, but I believe that too much dialectal variation could lead to - as you know - the collapse of communication because of the birth of new languages. I also believe that in most societies a command of the power and prestige dialect matters the most for all practical purposes. Have you read "Language and Social Context" edited by Per Paolo Giglioli? Somewhere in the book,if I am not mistaken, someone states that a dialect without a state is just that, while a dialect with a state is a language. As for the "prescriptive vs. descriptive" dichotomy, well, we know that all language is prescripted during socialization, and that the contrast between the above notions could be useful only in a theoretical/didactic context. What choices did you have when you learned your English in the early childhood? None! If you were born in a poor and illiterate black family you would speak illiterate black English, or "Ebonics" (to use the politically correct term). If you were born in a poor illiterate Appalachian family you would speak the same illiterate English. We speak the language of the humans who socialized us, and it takes a lot to change that language to something else. I mentioned Chomsky only to make the point that history repeats. Forty years ago most linguists were worshipping Chomsky and his language theories until other people came and showed that he was wrong. Most language theories are proven wrong after some time although in the beginning linguists believe that those theories are the ultimate answer to the fundamental questions about language. To accept any theory without ever questioning it is anti-scientific and shows gullability, which is not the attitude of a scientist and researcher. Of course, again, you can pick of my statements because no matter how hard I try to make my statements complete I will never succeed to do so. I am sure that I have already left something out in this mesage, too. Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: "William C Spruiell" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 3:17:11 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard, You are, I think, making an argument that starts with a quite valid observation -- that communication requires a basis that the communicants can assume is shared -- but I'd like to argue that you then overstretch it. Here are three problems with it: (1) You seem to be assuming that a Standard ensures comprehension and that dialect variation condemns it. The effect of "sharedness" on comprehension is probably more like an S-curve. *No* two people completely share conventions, of course, but as some of the conventions start differing, there is a drop-off in mutual intelligibility. The "top" of the curve is fairly flat, although the slope increases rapidly past a certain point. But that point doesn't correspond to the "Standard" vs. "non-Standard" distinction. Two people speaking Standard English (pretending, for the moment, it's well-defined) may understand each other less than two people speaking different dialects, depending on the situation. An example: I was trying to read a current article on Minimalism last week; I'm sure it was in Standard English, but I didn't understand much of it; I think I understood more of "Trainspotting," even without the subtitles. A factor that has nothing to do with "+/- Standard" may affect comprehension far more than does whether the speaker is using Standard subject-verb agreement. (2) You seem to be assuming that everyone on the other side of the fence from you thinks that the prescriptive/descriptive divide is absolute. The existence of a now-sizable body of research on the social malleability of grammaticality judgments indicates that a lot of linguists are quite aware of the fuzziness of this kind of boundary, and I've seen arguments that language can't be analyzed well in the absence of a recognition as a mechanism of social regulation (I'll try to dig out the article ref on that). As in most social-research fields, we make distinctions because they're useful, then blur them because pretending that they hold as absolutes is simply wrong. (3) You're assuming that most English language educators agree with Chomsky about the relation of language to meaning. This, in turn, assumes that most English language educators know what Chomsky's theories actually are. Most of the time, discussions of Chomsky in education don't support the validity of that assumption. I'm saying this as someone who strongly disagrees with most of Chomsky's linguistic theories. I'd love to pile on with the Chomsky-dissing, but only about things that really are his fault (like his conflation of modeling with explanation). Bill Spruiell On Sep 24, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Eduard Hanganu wrote: John, If you are not speaking and writing a "prescriptive" English, then we are not communicating because I don't know what your words mean and I don't know what grammar rules you use to organize them. Your words may mean something else based on your personal definitions in your own idiolect. You need to define for me the sense or dictionary meaning in your own dictionary. What do you mean by "estimate"? How about "percentage"? How about "linguists," etc. You also need to give me a detailed account of the rules you used to organize your words in phrases, sentences, and discourse. You need to teach me the sociolingustic conventions that define your language communication. You need to teach me YOUR LANGUAGE. Most if not all speakers of the English language speak a language "prescribed" to them when they became socialized in English. When you were an innocent victim of your parents, they forced on you the English lexicon and the grammar they used. You had no choice. You could not use your own word definitions, or organize language in your own way. You were forced to acquire/learn their own definitions and their own language organization, which actually was not their own but was forced on them by their parents - the society in which they lived. There is a mythical, false, and anecdotal distinction between "prescriptive" and "descriptive" that is circulated as a doctrine in language circles based on the profound lack of understanding that the very people who use the distinction speak and write in an English that has been prescribed to them by the society in which they live. The few examples of "prescriptive" English that are so often mentioned and circulated as proof that "we linguists don't prescribe but describe English" are false examples of "description." Those who use them have forgotten that they are using a language prescribed to them, and that what they are describing now is actually a prescripted language. They are thinking and working in an illogical, irational, vicious circle. As for your thought that "what you learned about linguistics and language arts education conflicts with about 75% of what I say," well, too bad. I don't know who were your instructors, and what books you read during your education, but most English language educators still live by the myths prescribed to them by their educators. Myths they have never questions. Such as that the myth promoted for decades by the great Chomsky that language does not necessarily have meaning, and that we can separate language from meaning without a sweat. The great Einstein taught that no object in the univers can exceed the light speed. Now researchers find out that this is not true. Apparently, some particles - neutrinos - travel at a speed that exceed the light speed, and all Einstein's relativitity theory appears to need a reevaluation. So it is in language education. We have been fed some myths, and some of us don't want to think, but want to live by those myths in spite of all evidence that points to the contrary. Eduard ________________________________ From: "John Dews-Alexander" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 3:42:48 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard, If you had to estimate a percentage of linguists worldwide who share the views you describe in your recent emails, what would that percentage be? I am not attempting to be coy at all. I am seriously interested. I ask because everything I've ever learned about linguistics and language arts education conflicts with about 75% of what you say. I'm not faulting or attacking your point of view. Have I just read the wrong books and had the wrong professors? Or would you consider your views "non-mainstream"? Who are the linguists I should read to get more information on the type of linguistics you describe? John On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Craig, I am a LINGUIST, not a GRAMMARIAN. I am not a grammar school teacher or a high school teacher. In my undergraduate and graduate studies I have studied phonetics and phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics, etc. From my perspective, the concept of "grammar" as discussed on this forum seems to be limited, narrow, and incomplete, and the distinction between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" in language is nonsensical. Someone said, "We describe in order to prescribe." Most examples of "prescriptive" English are so pathetic that they make me weep, and those who insist on the distinction don't seem to understand the ultimate purpose of language - communication. The whole purpose of English language education is to "prescribe" how people should speak and write in order to produce a consesus language. The alternative would be for each one of us or for groups of people of various sizes in this country to coin words that have a meaning only for individuals or for grouns, and to build an unlimited number of individual or group grammars. If we followed this course of action we would soon loose the ability to communicate between individuals and groups. We would witness a modern Tower of Babel. Why is the American education paying every year English language teachers and other educators? In order to "prescribe" behavior in language, arts, and science. This is called "socialization," and without socialization creatures born to humans are will not become human. Instead of speaking about "grammar" I would rather speak about language structure and its communicative, rhetorical purpose. If we cannot communicate in language, the production of sounds, words, and strings of words is irational and useless. It is necessary for humans, in order to communicate through language, to "prescribe" what words and strings of words mean so that they could all use those words and word strings to mean the same thing. We don't live in Alice's wonderland, and we are rabbbits, ascribing personal and arbitrary meanings to words if we want to communicate because if we did so we would loose very rapidly the ability to communicate with each other and one another. Language use has a DIRECT and SPECIFIC purpose: TO COMMUNICATE. If we forget its purpose, then we are lost. Eduard ________________________________ From: "Craig G Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:18:12 AM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard, These leaves me with some questions. 1) Are you ONLY interested in what makes something Standard, or does your interest in grammar go beyond that? In other words, once something is determined as Standard English, are there other things we can observe about its grammar that are useful and beneficial? Is our only concern making sure language conforms to norms or should we also think about ways in which grammar contributes to rhetorical effect or to meaning? 2) Are you at all troubled by the fact that many of the rules of prescriptive grammar seem rather arbitrary? One example might be the “due to” versus “because of” distinction in a recent post that many of us felt was on shaky ground. How do we determine whether something is standard or not? 3) Does that mean that literary texts that use dialect in one way or another should be expunged from the canon? I’m thinking of books like “Huckleberry Finn” or “The color Purple”, much of the poetry of Robert Burns and Langston Hughes, the plays of August Wilson (so many of our plays, for that matter), and so on? How do we deal with the fact that a great deal of highly valued literature is built on creative use of the vernacular? The final question, I guess, might be how we stimulate widespread acquisition of the standard. Is disparaging dialect a necessary step in that direction? I don’t think many of would disagree that knowing Standard English is a central goal. How do we accommodate other goals as well, including encouraging fluency? Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:52 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Well, Maybe the difference in perspective between the two of us is that you consider different "grammars" that govern different "varieties" of the English language, while I recognize only ONE GRAMMAR, the Standard English Grammar. Of course we all speak our own idiolects, and use various registers depending on the linguistic context, but if those idiolects and registers do not follow the rules of the Standard English Grammar I cannot call those "varieties" or "registers" good English, but to the degree to which they differ from the Standard English I call them "illiterate English." Anecdotally, someone mentioned to me that "Ebonics" as a "language variety" does not differ much from the broken English that some poor, illiterate people speak in the Appalachians. What is the common denominator between these two "varieties" of the English language? Illiteracy. Eduard ________________________________ From: "Dick Veit" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:18:07 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about. I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too. When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end. Dick To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 18:13:28 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_713456_1623665403.1316988808526" ------=_Part_713456_1623665403.1316988808526 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable T.J., My post requires an explanation. I wanted to show that the contrast between "descriptivism" and "prescriptivism" is only apparent. According to Trask in his "A Student's Dictionary of Language and Linguistics," "descriptivism - The approach to language description in which the observed facts of the usage of native speakers are described as they are found to exist. Almost ALL SERIOUS LINGUISTIC WORK IS DESCRIPTIVIST [emphasis mine]. (p. 67) while, "prescriptivism - The approach to language which attaches priority to determining and teaching "correct" or "proper" usage and to identifying and eliminating "incorrect" usage. A degree of prescriptivism is usually heldd to be necessary in education, but MOST LINGUISTS REJECT PRESCRIPTIVISM AS A BASIS FOR SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION OF LANGUAGE [emphasis mine] and espouse descriptivism." (p.175) What I wanted to show is that, in fact, what "descriptivists" describe as "the observed facts of the usage of native speakers...as they are found to exist " are the facts of a language that was "prescribed" to the "native speakers" during their socialization process . No "native speakers" are born "language-ready." They all acquire/learn the language prescribed to them by those humans who socialize them, and so, again, what "descriptivists" describe is a prescribed language. Ultimately, what matters is that all "native speakers," including the "descriptivists" speak and write a language "prescribed" to them before birth and all through adulthood and old age. To claim freedom from "prescriptivism" would be like claiming freedom from air - because prescriptivism is the "language air" we all breathe. Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: "T. J. Ray" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 11:20:40 AM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Your second, third, and fourth paragraphs very precisely contradict your first. In the first you seem to be on the offense against descriptive and prescritpive grammars, and then you lay solid foundation for the necessity of those disciplines. I don't see how you can have it both ways. T. J. On Friday 09/23/2011 at 3:31 pm, Eduard Hanganu wrote: Craig, I am a LINGUIST, not a GRAMMARIAN. I am not a grammar school teacher or a high school teacher. In my undergraduate and graduate studies I have studied phonetics and phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics, etc. From my perspective, the concept of "grammar" as discussed on this forum seems to be limited, narrow, and incomplete, and the distinction between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" in language is nonsensical. Someone said, "We describe in order to prescribe." Most examples of "prescriptive" English are so pathetic that they make me weep, and those who insist on the distinction don't seem to understand the ultimate purpose of language - communication. The whole purpose of English language education is to "prescribe" how people should speak and write in order to produce a consesus language. The alternative would be for each one of us or for groups of people of various sizes in this country to coin words that have a meaning only for individuals or for grouns, and to build an unlimited number of individual or group grammars. If we followed this course of action we would soon loose the ability to communicate between individuals and groups. We would witness a modern Tower of Babel. Why is the American education paying every year English language teachers and other educators? In order to "prescribe" behavior in language, arts, and science. This is called "socialization," and without socialization creatures born to humans are will not become human. Instead of speaking about "grammar" I would rather speak about language structure and its communicative, rhetorical purpose. If we cannot communicate in language, the production of sounds, words, and strings of words is irational and useless. It is necessary for humans, in order to communicate through language, to "prescribe" what words and strings of words mean so that they could all use those words and word strings to mean the same thing. We don't live in Alice's wonderland, and we are rabbbits, ascribing personal and arbitrary meanings to words if we want to communicate because if we did so we would loose very rapidly the ability to communicate with each other and one another. Language use has a DIRECT and SPECIFIC purpose: TO COMMUNICATE. If we forget its purpose, then we are lost. Eduard From: "Craig G Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:18:12 AM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard,     These leaves me with some questions. 1) Are you ONLY interested in what makes something Standard, or does your interest in grammar go beyond that? In other words, once something is determined as Standard English, are there other things we can observe about its grammar that are useful and beneficial? Is our only concern making sure language conforms to norms or should we also think about ways in which grammar contributes to rhetorical effect or to meaning? 2) Are you at all troubled by the fact that many of the rules of prescriptive grammar seem rather arbitrary? One example might be the “due to” versus “because of” distinction in a recent post that many of us felt was on shaky ground. How do we determine whether something is standard or not? 3) Does that mean that literary texts that use dialect in one way or another should be expunged from the canon? I’m thinking of books like “Huckleberry Finn” or “The color Purple”, much of the poetry of Robert Burns and Langston Hughes, the plays of August Wilson (so many of our plays, for that matter), and so on? How do we deal with the fact that a great deal of highly valued literature is built on creative use of the vernacular?     The final question, I guess, might be how we stimulate widespread acquisition of the standard. Is disparaging dialect a necessary step in that direction? I don’t think many of would disagree that knowing Standard English is a central goal. How do we accommodate other goals as well, including encouraging fluency?      Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:52 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Well, Maybe the difference in perspective between the two of us is that you consider different "grammars" that govern different "varieties" of the English language, while I recognize only ONE GRAMMAR, the Standard English Grammar. Of course we all speak our own idiolects, and use various registers depending on the linguistic context, but if those idiolects and registers do not follow the rules of the Standard English Grammar I cannot call those "varieties" or "registers" good English, but to the degree to which they differ from the Standard English I call them "illiterate English." Anecdotally, someone mentioned to me that "Ebonics" as a "language variety" does not differ much from the broken English that some poor, illiterate people speak in the Appalachians. What is the common denominator between these two "varieties" of the English language? Illiteracy. Eduard From: "Dick Veit" < [log in to unmask] > To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:18:07 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about. I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too. When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end. Dick To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_Part_713456_1623665403.1316988808526 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
T.J.,

My post requires an explanation. I wanted to show that the contrast between "descriptivism" and "prescriptivism" is only apparent. According to Trask in his "A Student's Dictionary of Language and Linguistics,"

"descriptivism - The approach to language description in which the observed facts of the usage of native speakers are described as they are found to exist. Almost ALL SERIOUS LINGUISTIC WORK IS DESCRIPTIVIST [emphasis mine]. (p. 67)

while,

"prescriptivism - The approach to language which attaches priority to determining and teaching "correct" or "proper" usage and to identifying and eliminating "incorrect" usage. A degree of prescriptivism is usually heldd to be necessary in education, but MOST LINGUISTS REJECT PRESCRIPTIVISM AS A BASIS FOR SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION OF LANGUAGE [emphasis mine] and espouse descriptivism." (p.175)

What I wanted to show is that, in fact, what "descriptivists" describe as "the observed facts of the usage of native speakers...as they are found to exist" are the facts of a language that was "prescribed" to the "native speakers" during their socialization process. No "native speakers" are born "language-ready." They all acquire/learn the language prescribed to them by those humans who socialize them, and so, again, what "descriptivists" describe is a prescribed language.

Ultimately, what matters is that all "native speakers," including the "descriptivists" speak and write a language "prescribed" to them before birth and all through adulthood and old age. To claim freedom from "prescriptivism" would be like claiming freedom from air - because prescriptivism is the "language air" we all breathe.

Eduard

From: "T. J. Ray" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 11:20:40 AM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

Your second, third, and fourth paragraphs very precisely contradict your first. In the first
you seem to be on the offense against descriptive and prescritpive grammars, and then
you lay solid foundation for the necessity of those disciplines. I don't see how you can
have it both ways.

T. J.

On Friday 09/23/2011 at 3:31 pm, Eduard Hanganu wrote:

Craig,

I am a LINGUIST, not a GRAMMARIAN. I am not a grammar school teacher or a high school teacher. In my undergraduate and graduate studies I have studied phonetics and phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics, etc. From my perspective, the concept of "grammar" as discussed on this forum seems to be limited, narrow, and incomplete, and the distinction between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" in language is nonsensical. Someone said, "We describe in order to prescribe." Most examples of "prescriptive" English are so pathetic that they make me weep, and those who insist on the distinction don't seem to understand the ultimate purpose of language - communication.

The whole purpose of English language education is to "prescribe" how people should speak and write in order to produce a consesus language. The alternative would be for each one of us or for groups of people of various sizes in this country to coin words that have a meaning only for individuals or for grouns, and to build an unlimited number of individual or group grammars. If we followed this course of action we would soon loose the ability to communicate between individuals and groups. We would witness a modern Tower of Babel.

Why is the American education paying every year English language teachers and other educators? In order to "prescribe" behavior in language, arts, and science. This is called "socialization," and without socialization creatures born to humans are will not become human.

Instead of speaking about "grammar" I would rather speak about language structure and its communicative, rhetorical purpose. If we cannot communicate in language, the production of sounds, words, and strings of words is irational and useless. It is necessary for humans, in order to communicate through language, to "prescribe" what words and strings of words mean so that they could all use those words and word strings to mean the same thing. We don't live in Alice's wonderland, and we are rabbbits, ascribing personal and arbitrary meanings to words if we want to communicate because if we did so we would loose very rapidly the ability to communicate with each other and one another.

Language use has a DIRECT and SPECIFIC purpose: TO COMMUNICATE. If we forget its purpose, then we are lost.

Eduard

From: "Craig G Hancock" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:18:12 AM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

Eduard,

    These leaves me with some questions. 1) Are you ONLY interested in what makes something Standard, or does your interest in grammar go beyond that? In other words, once something is determined as Standard English, are there other things we can observe about its grammar that are useful and beneficial? Is our only concern making sure language conforms to norms or should we also think about ways in which grammar contributes to rhetorical effect or to meaning? 2) Are you at all troubled by the fact that many of the rules of prescriptive grammar seem rather arbitrary? One example might be the “due to” versus “because of” distinction in a recent post that many of us felt was on shaky ground. How do we determine whether something is standard or not? 3) Does that mean that literary texts that use dialect in one way or another should be expunged from the canon? I’m thinking of books like “Huckleberry Finn” or “The color Purple”, much of the poetry of Robert Burns and Langston Hughes, the plays of August Wilson (so many of our plays, for that matter), and so on? How do we deal with the fact that a great deal of highly valued literature is built on creative use of the vernacular?

    The final question, I guess, might be how we stimulate widespread acquisition of the standard. Is disparaging dialect a necessary step in that direction? I don’t think many of would disagree that knowing Standard English is a central goal. How do we accommodate other goals as well, including encouraging fluency?



  Craig

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

Well,

Maybe the difference in perspective between the two of us is that you consider different "grammars" that govern different "varieties" of the English language, while I recognize only ONE GRAMMAR, the Standard English Grammar. Of course we all speak our own idiolects, and use various registers depending on the linguistic context, but if those idiolects and registers do not follow the rules of the Standard English Grammar I cannot call those "varieties" or "registers" good English, but to the degree to which they differ from the Standard English I call them "illiterate English." Anecdotally, someone mentioned to me that "Ebonics" as a "language variety" does not differ much from the broken English that some poor, illiterate people speak in the Appalachians. What is the common denominator between these two "varieties" of the English language? Illiteracy.

Eduard

From: "Dick Veit" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:18:07 PM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about.

I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too.

When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end.

Dick

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

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

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_Part_713456_1623665403.1316988808526-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 18:42:08 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Linda Comerford <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Call for vocab In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0055_01CC7BB2.D504ABB0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0055_01CC7BB2.D504ABB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What a clever group! :-) Linda Comerford 317.786.6404 [log in to unmask] www.comerfordconsulting.com _____ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jane Saral Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 2:58 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Call for vocab I love it, Dick! Jane On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote: In Florida, if your neighborhood is infested with gators, does that mean you live in a gatid community? Dick On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote: On a lighter note, (for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id. For instance: splendor/splendid candor/candid rancor/rancid stupor/stupid Thanks! Jane Saral To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_NextPart_000_0055_01CC7BB2.D504ABB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What a clever group! :-)

Linda Comerford
317.786.6404
[log in to unmask]
www.comerfordconsulting.com

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jane Saral
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 2:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Call for vocab

I love it, Dick!

Jane

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

In Florida, if your neighborhood is infested with gators, does that mean you live in a gatid community?

Dick

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

On a lighter note, (for an SAT vocab exercise) I wonder if I might solicit words that fit the pattern of noun ending in -or and adjective in -id.

For instance:

splendor/splendid

candor/candid

rancor/rancid

stupor/stupid

Thanks!

Jane Saral

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------=_NextPart_000_0055_01CC7BB2.D504ABB0-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:50:03 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_bcdd85dd-c157-463e-81f7-f6f37ba53716_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_bcdd85dd-c157-463e-81f7-f6f37ba53716_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To claim freedom from "prescriptivism" would be like claiming freedom from air - because prescriptivism is the "language air" we all breathe. Well, actually it wouldn't be like claiming freedom from air for prescriptivism is not the "language air" we all breathe, as language is constantly changing. For example, "whom" has almost entirely disappeared from the language. And the proper response to "Is that you, Marge?" has never been "It is I." And if academics can invent new words in almost every article you see these days in the journals, why can't we accept the incredibly inventive African-American intransitive verb "to conversate"? If you are referring to the strict S-V-O construction required of English grammar, there are numerous examples of how even that structure can (and should) be broken in standard English usage. And to reference a prior thread that talked about whether slang, colloquialisms, and other deviations from from standard written English should be permitted in term papers, in his book "Clueless in Academe," Gerald Graff notes the easy colloquialisms of today's academic writing with the tedious, passive and overly formal language that eminated from the academy not very long ago. Geoff Layton From: "T. J. Ray" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 11:20:40 AM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" ecxsw_messagePecxsw_messagefamily:Tahomaserif;background:white Your second, third, and fourth paragraphs very precisely contradict your first. In the first you seem to be on the offense against descriptive and prescritpive grammars, and then you lay solid foundation for the necessity of those disciplines. I don't see how you can have it both ways. T. J. On Friday 09/23/2011 at 3:31 pm, Eduard Hanganu wrote: ecxsw_messagep Craig, I am a LINGUIST, not a GRAMMARIAN. I am not a grammar school teacher or a high school teacher. In my undergraduate and graduate studies I have studied phonetics and phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics, etc. From my perspective, the concept of "grammar" as discussed on this forum seems to be limited, narrow, and incomplete, and the distinction between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" in language is nonsensical. Someone said, "We describe in order to prescribe." Most examples of "prescriptive" English are so pathetic that they make me weep, and those who insist on the distinction don't seem to understand the ultimate purpose of language - communication. The whole purpose of English language education is to "prescribe" how people should speak and write in order to produce a consesus language. The alternative would be for each one of us or for groups of people of various sizes in this country to coin words that have a meaning only for individuals or for grouns, and to build an unlimited number of individual or group grammars. If we followed this course of action we would soon loose the ability to communicate between individuals and groups. We would witness a modern Tower of Babel. Why is the American education paying every year English language teachers and other educators? In order to "prescribe" behavior in language, arts, and science. This is called "socialization," and without socialization creatures born to humans are will not become human. Instead of speaking about "grammar" I would rather speak about language structure and its communicative, rhetorical purpose. If we cannot communicate in language, the production of sounds, words, and strings of words is irational and useless. It is necessary for humans, in order to communicate through language, to "prescribe" what words and strings of words mean so that they could all use those words and word strings to mean the same thing. We don't live in Alice's wonderland, and we are rabbbits, ascribing personal and arbitrary meanings to words if we want to communicate because if we did so we would loose very rapidly the ability to communicate with each other and one another. Language use has a DIRECT and SPECIFIC purpose: TO COMMUNICATE. If we forget its purpose, then we are lost. Eduard From: "Craig G Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:18:12 AM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" ecxfamily:Tahomaecxsw_messagepecxsw_messageli.ecxMsoNormalbottom:.0001pt;fontecxsw_messagea:linkcolor:blue;text-decoration:underlineecxsw_messagecolor:purple;text-decoration:underlinebottom:.0001pt;fontecxsw_messagepecxsw_messageli.ecxMsoAcetatebottom:.0001pt;fontsize:8.0pt;fontsize:10.0pt Eduard, These leaves me with some questions. 1) Are you ONLY interested in what makes something Standard, or does your interest in grammar go beyond that? In other words, once something is determined as Standard English, are there other things we can observe about its grammar that are useful and beneficial? Is our only concern making sure language conforms to norms or should we also think about ways in which grammar contributes to rhetorical effect or to meaning? 2) Are you at all troubled by the fact that many of the rules of prescriptive grammar seem rather arbitrary? One example might be the �due to� versus �because of� distinction in a recent post that many of us felt was on shaky ground. How do we determine whether something is standard or not? 3) Does that mean that literary texts that use dialect in one way or another should be expunged from the canon? I�m thinking of books like �Huckleberry Finn� or �The color Purple�, much of the poetry of Robert Burns and Langston Hughes, the plays of August Wilson (so many of our plays, for that matter), and so on? How do we deal with the fact that a great deal of highly valued literature is built on creative use of the vernacular? The final question, I guess, might be how we stimulate widespread acquisition of the standard. Is disparaging dialect a necessary step in that direction? I don�t think many of would disagree that knowing Standard English is a central goal. How do we accommodate other goals as well, including encouraging fluency? Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:52 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Well, Maybe the difference in perspective between the two of us is that you consider different "grammars" that govern different "varieties" of the English language, while I recognize only ONE GRAMMAR, the Standard English Grammar. Of course we all speak our own idiolects, and use various registers depending on the linguistic context, but if those idiolects and registers do not follow the rules of the Standard English Grammar I cannot call those "varieties" or "registers" good English, but to the degree to which they differ from the Standard English I call them "illiterate English." Anecdotally, someone mentioned to me that "Ebonics" as a "language variety" does not differ much from the broken English that some poor, illiterate people speak in the Appalachians. What is the common denominator between these two "varieties" of the English language? Illiteracy. Eduard From: "Dick Veit" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:18:07 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about. I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too. When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end. Dick To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_bcdd85dd-c157-463e-81f7-f6f37ba53716_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

To claim freedom from "prescriptivism" would be like claiming freedom from air - because prescriptivism is the "language air" we all breathe.

Well, actually it wouldn't be like claiming freedom from air for prescriptivism is not the "language air" we all breathe, as language is constantly changing. For example, "whom" has almost entirely disappeared from the language. And the proper response to "Is that you, Marge?" has never been "It is I." And if academics can invent new words in almost every article you see these days in the journals, why can't we accept the incredibly inventive African-American intransitive verb "to conversate"? If you are referring to the strict S-V-O construction required of English grammar, there are numerous examples of how even that structure can (and should) be broken in standard English usage. And to reference a prior thread that talked about whether slang, colloquialisms, and other deviations from from standard written English should be permitted in term papers, in his book "Clueless in Academe," Gerald Graff notes the easy colloquialisms of today's academic writing with the tedious, passive and overly formal language that eminated from the academy not very long ago.

Geoff Layton

From: "T. J. Ray" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 11:20:40 AM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

ecxsw_messagePecxsw_messagefamily:Tahomaserif;background:white Your second, third, and fourth paragraphs very precisely contradict your first. In the first
you seem to be on the offense against descriptive and prescritpive grammars, and then
you lay solid foundation for the necessity of those disciplines. I don't see how you can
have it both ways.

T. J.

On Friday 09/23/2011 at 3:31 pm, Eduard Hanganu wrote:
ecxsw_messagep

Craig,

I am a LINGUIST, not a GRAMMARIAN. I am not a grammar school teacher or a high school teacher. In my undergraduate and graduate studies I have studied phonetics and phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics, etc. From my perspective, the concept of "grammar" as discussed on this forum seems to be limited, narrow, and incomplete, and the distinction between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" in language is nonsensical. Someone said, "We describe in order to prescribe." Most examples of "prescriptive" English are so pathetic that they make me weep, and those who insist on the distinction don't seem to understand the ultimate purpose of language - communication.

The whole purpose of English language education is to "prescribe" how people should speak and write in order to produce a consesus language. The alternative would be for each one of us or for groups of people of various sizes in this country to coin words that have a meaning only for individuals or for grouns, and to build an unlimited number of individual or group grammars. If we followed this course of action we would soon loose the ability to communicate between individuals and groups. We would witness a modern Tower of Babel.

Why is the American education paying every year English language teachers and other educators? In order to "prescribe" behavior in language, arts, and science. This is called "socialization," and without socialization creatures born to humans are will not become human.

Instead of speaking about "grammar" I would rather speak about language structure and its communicative, rhetorical purpose. If we cannot communicate in language, the production of sounds, words, and strings of words is irational and useless. It is necessary for humans, in order to communicate through language, to "prescribe" what words and strings of words mean so that they could all use those words and word strings to mean the same thing. We don't live in Alice's wonderland, and we are rabbbits, ascribing personal and arbitrary meanings to words if we want to communicate because if we did so we would loose very rapidly the ability to communicate with each other and one another.

Language use has a DIRECT and SPECIFIC purpose: TO COMMUNICATE. If we forget its purpose, then we are lost.

Eduard

From: "Craig G Hancock" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:18:12 AM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

ecxfamily:Tahomaecxsw_messagepecxsw_messageli.ecxMsoNormalbottom:.0001pt;fontecxsw_messagea:linkcolor:blue;text-decoration:underlineecxsw_messagecolor:purple;text-decoration:underlinebottom:.0001pt;fontecxsw_messagepecxsw_messageli.ecxMsoAcetatebottom:.0001pt;fontsize:8.0pt;fontsize:10.0pt

Eduard,

    These leaves me with some questions. 1) Are you ONLY interested in what makes something Standard, or does your interest in grammar go beyond that? In other words, once something is determined as Standard English, are there other things we can observe about its grammar that are useful and beneficial? Is our only concern making sure language conforms to norms or should we also think about ways in which grammar contributes to rhetorical effect or to meaning? 2) Are you at all troubled by the fact that many of the rules of prescriptive grammar seem rather arbitrary? One example might be the �due to� versus �because of� distinction in a recent post that many of us felt was on shaky ground. How do we determine whether something is standard or not? 3) Does that mean that literary texts that use dialect in one way or another should be expunged from the canon? I�m thinking of books like �Huckleberry Finn� or �The color Purple�, much of the poetry of Robert Burns and Langston Hughes, the plays of August Wilson (so many of our plays, for that matter), and so on? How do we deal with the fact that a great deal of highly valued literature is built on creative use of the vernacular?

    The final question, I guess, might be how we stimulate widespread acquisition of the standard. Is disparaging dialect a necessary step in that direction? I don�t think many of would disagree that knowing Standard English is a central goal. How do we accommodate other goals as well, including encouraging fluency?



  Craig

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

Well,

Maybe the difference in perspective between the two of us is that you consider different "grammars" that govern different "varieties" of the English language, while I recognize only ONE GRAMMAR, the Standard English Grammar. Of course we all speak our own idiolects, and use various registers depending on the linguistic context, but if those idiolects and registers do not follow the rules of the Standard English Grammar I cannot call those "varieties" or "registers" good English, but to the degree to which they differ from the Standard English I call them "illiterate English." Anecdotally, someone mentioned to me that "Ebonics" as a "language variety" does not differ much from the broken English that some poor, illiterate people speak in the Appalachians. What is the common denominator between these two "varieties" of the English language? Illiteracy.

Eduard

From: "Dick Veit" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:18:07 PM
Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum"

The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about.

I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too.

When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end.

Dick

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

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_bcdd85dd-c157-463e-81f7-f6f37ba53716_-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 21:30:24 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Eduard, One problem would be determining what is "correct" without recourse to some sort of authority. Do you require a text for that purpose? It also seems to me that one can write correctly without writing well, just as one can write well without writing correctly, especially if correctness is narrowly defined. I'm also confused by your statement that you don't need to teach "grammar." If rhetoric is using language to influence others, doesn't grammar enter into that? If form and meaning are interconnected, isn't it useful to call attention to the meanings associated with different formal choices? Wouldn't that be grammar in a fundamental sense? Shouldn't students be encouraged to become just as knowledgeable as we are as they mature? It's actually fairly common for teachers to correct their students without teaching much grammar. My own sense is that at least some knowledge about language is useful even for that narrow a purpose. Does correctness include punctuation? Craig ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 3:28 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Craig, At the beginning of the semester, I start my composition classes with a short discussion about dialects and explain to the students the difference between their "home" of informal English and the academic or formal English. I also tell them that while their "home" dialect is all right and serves its purpose, in the academic environment we need to speak and write in formal English because the expectations for correctness and precision in language are higher in college. That seems to do it. The students seem to understand the difference between the informal and formal English, and the need to express themselves in it. They also understand that we are not going to "learn grammar" but to seek more clarity and correctness in our writing not for their own [clarity and corectness'sake but because we want to express our thoughts in the best way possible. We continue our discussion with the purpose of rhetoric, "the art of using language in order to impress or influence others." I also help them understand that form and content cannot be separated, and that when we do not express ourselves intelligibly, clearly, and correctly the power of our message diminishes. When the writing process is set in such a context an instructor does not need to teach "grammar" but to help students to become better at expressing themselves both in spoken and written English. Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig G Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 10:29:41 AM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard, I have been away from the list, but have now read your replies with some interest. I am not a linguist by training, but am a teacher who is very much invested in helping non-mainstream students become successful in a highly competitive university. It is certainly obvious to me--and to them--that they will not be able to achieve their ambitious goals without being able to read and write at a very high level. They know that Standard English is expected of them and are generally happy to receive help in accomplishing that. I am also someone who believes that our schools have failed to address language to anywhere near the extent that they need to, and I also believe the students who suffer the most from that are the students whose home languages are furthest from the mainstream. I think you are using the term "prescriptive" in an unusual way. If you are saying, essentially, that language is a meaning-making system, and that it is built through interaction with other people, I would agree wholeheartedly that students need to be socialized (and mentored) into productive use of that system. Our schools should also do more to accomplish that. In the name of prescriptivism, though, teachers "correct" language use, often in very superficial ways, and don't generally include a deep understanding of how language works as they are doing so. Your view of prescriptivism seems deeper than theirs. I also think we need to acknowledge that many writers who have fine control of the standard find ways to use non-mainstream language as an additional resource. You can make the case that limiting oneself to a highly prescriptive standard takes away those possibilities. This is not the same, of course, as being trapped into a dialect because of a failure to learn what is often called "the language of widespread communication." If you're saying that the business of education is to socialize students into the mainstream and that we should do so without apology, I agree. As players in that mainstream world, they may very well be representing the non-mainstream perspectives of their community, and they may have important personal reasons for wanting to have membership in that world as well. If you tell a student that family or neighborhood or regional language is "wrong", it can seem like an either/or choice. It doesn't have to be. When given the chance, most students seem to want access to both worlds. they would like to be able to go back and forth. I suspect we may agree with each other in substantial ways. As someone on the front lines of teaching, I can't help thinking about how a straightline insistence on correctness would work out in practice. But you seem to be advocating a deeper understanding of how language works, and I am happy to agree with that. Craig ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 8:55 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Bill, As you well know, our statements are never complete because we cannot state everything about something in a statement, and because we often lack a common background. We can express only partial truth about an issue. We would need a continuous,progressive dialogue to clarify statements and points in order to see if our perspectives differ or not. So far, you have made some assumptions about what you call my assumptions, but how can you be sure that what I stated in my short comments is a summary of my perspective on the issue discussed? You cannot. I believe that you have understood me for the most part because of the brevity of my statements and lack of continuous, progressive dialogue in which we would confirm or disprove each other's understanding on the issue in question. Yes, you have read me correctly when you "assumed" that I believe that communication requires a common communicative basis - lexicon, grammar, socio-cultural and political context, etc. I do not think that some dialect variation prevents communication, but I believe that too much dialectal variation could lead to - as you know - the collapse of communication because of the birth of new languages. I also believe that in most societies a command of the power and prestige dialect matters the most for all practical purposes. Have you read "Language and Social Context" edited by Per Paolo Giglioli? Somewhere in the book,if I am not mistaken, someone states that a dialect without a state is just that, while a dialect with a state is a language. As for the "prescriptive vs. descriptive" dichotomy, well, we know that all language is prescripted during socialization, and that the contrast between the above notions could be useful only in a theoretical/didactic context. What choices did you have when you learned your English in the early childhood? None! If you were born in a poor and illiterate black family you would speak illiterate black English, or "Ebonics" (to use the politically correct term). If you were born in a poor illiterate Appalachian family you would speak the same illiterate English. We speak the language of the humans who socialized us, and it takes a lot to change that language to something else. I mentioned Chomsky only to make the point that history repeats. Forty years ago most linguists were worshipping Chomsky and his language theories until other people came and showed that he was wrong. Most language theories are proven wrong after some time although in the beginning linguists believe that those theories are the ultimate answer to the fundamental questions about language. To accept any theory without ever questioning it is anti-scientific and shows gullability, which is not the attitude of a scientist and researcher. Of course, again, you can pick of my statements because no matter how hard I try to make my statements complete I will never succeed to do so. I am sure that I have already left something out in this mesage, too. Eduard ----- Original Message ----- From: "William C Spruiell" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 3:17:11 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard, You are, I think, making an argument that starts with a quite valid observation -- that communication requires a basis that the communicants can assume is shared -- but I'd like to argue that you then overstretch it. Here are three problems with it: (1) You seem to be assuming that a Standard ensures comprehension and that dialect variation condemns it. The effect of "sharedness" on comprehension is probably more like an S-curve. *No* two people completely share conventions, of course, but as some of the conventions start differing, there is a drop-off in mutual intelligibility. The "top" of the curve is fairly flat, although the slope increases rapidly past a certain point. But that point doesn't correspond to the "Standard" vs. "non-Standard" distinction. Two people speaking Standard English (pretending, for the moment, it's well-defined) may understand each other less than two people speaking different dialects, depending on the situation. An example: I was trying to read a current article on Minimalism last week; I'm sure it was in Standard English, but I didn't understand much of it; I think I understood more of "Trainspotting," even without the subtitles. A factor that has nothing to do with "+/- Standard" may affect comprehension far more than does whether the speaker is using Standard subject-verb agreement. (2) You seem to be assuming that everyone on the other side of the fence from you thinks that the prescriptive/descriptive divide is absolute. The existence of a now-sizable body of research on the social malleability of grammaticality judgments indicates that a lot of linguists are quite aware of the fuzziness of this kind of boundary, and I've seen arguments that language can't be analyzed well in the absence of a recognition as a mechanism of social regulation (I'll try to dig out the article ref on that). As in most social-research fields, we make distinctions because they're useful, then blur them because pretending that they hold as absolutes is simply wrong. (3) You're assuming that most English language educators agree with Chomsky about the relation of language to meaning. This, in turn, assumes that most English language educators know what Chomsky's theories actually are. Most of the time, discussions of Chomsky in education don't support the validity of that assumption. I'm saying this as someone who strongly disagrees with most of Chomsky's linguistic theories. I'd love to pile on with the Chomsky-dissing, but only about things that really are his fault (like his conflation of modeling with explanation). Bill Spruiell On Sep 24, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Eduard Hanganu wrote: John, If you are not speaking and writing a "prescriptive" English, then we are not communicating because I don't know what your words mean and I don't know what grammar rules you use to organize them. Your words may mean something else based on your personal definitions in your own idiolect. You need to define for me the sense or dictionary meaning in your own dictionary. What do you mean by "estimate"? How about "percentage"? How about "linguists," etc. You also need to give me a detailed account of the rules you used to organize your words in phrases, sentences, and discourse. You need to teach me the sociolingustic conventions that define your language communication. You need to teach me YOUR LANGUAGE. Most if not all speakers of the English language speak a language "prescribed" to them when they became socialized in English. When you were an innocent victim of your parents, they forced on you the English lexicon and the grammar they used. You had no choice. You could not use your own word definitions, or organize language in your own way. You were forced to acquire/learn their own definitions and their own language organization, which actually was not their own but was forced on them by their parents - the society in which they lived. There is a mythical, false, and anecdotal distinction between "prescriptive" and "descriptive" that is circulated as a doctrine in language circles based on the profound lack of understanding that the very people who use the distinction speak and write in an English that has been prescribed to them by the society in which they live. The few examples of "prescriptive" English that are so often mentioned and circulated as proof that "we linguists don't prescribe but describe English" are false examples of "description." Those who use them have forgotten that they are using a language prescribed to them, and that what they are describing now is actually a prescripted language. They are thinking and working in an illogical, irational, vicious circle. As for your thought that "what you learned about linguistics and language arts education conflicts with about 75% of what I say," well, too bad. I don't know who were your instructors, and what books you read during your education, but most English language educators still live by the myths prescribed to them by their educators. Myths they have never questions. Such as that the myth promoted for decades by the great Chomsky that language does not necessarily have meaning, and that we can separate language from meaning without a sweat. The great Einstein taught that no object in the univers can exceed the light speed. Now researchers find out that this is not true. Apparently, some particles - neutrinos - travel at a speed that exceed the light speed, and all Einstein's relativitity theory appears to need a reevaluation. So it is in language education. We have been fed some myths, and some of us don't want to think, but want to live by those myths in spite of all evidence that points to the contrary. Eduard ________________________________ From: "John Dews-Alexander" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 3:42:48 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard, If you had to estimate a percentage of linguists worldwide who share the views you describe in your recent emails, what would that percentage be? I am not attempting to be coy at all. I am seriously interested. I ask because everything I've ever learned about linguistics and language arts education conflicts with about 75% of what you say. I'm not faulting or attacking your point of view. Have I just read the wrong books and had the wrong professors? Or would you consider your views "non-mainstream"? Who are the linguists I should read to get more information on the type of linguistics you describe? John On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Craig, I am a LINGUIST, not a GRAMMARIAN. I am not a grammar school teacher or a high school teacher. In my undergraduate and graduate studies I have studied phonetics and phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics, etc. From my perspective, the concept of "grammar" as discussed on this forum seems to be limited, narrow, and incomplete, and the distinction between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" in language is nonsensical. Someone said, "We describe in order to prescribe." Most examples of "prescriptive" English are so pathetic that they make me weep, and those who insist on the distinction don't seem to understand the ultimate purpose of language - communication. The whole purpose of English language education is to "prescribe" how people should speak and write in order to produce a consesus language. The alternative would be for each one of us or for groups of people of various sizes in this country to coin words that have a meaning only for individuals or for grouns, and to build an unlimited number of individual or group grammars. If we followed this course of action we would soon loose the ability to communicate between individuals and groups. We would witness a modern Tower of Babel. Why is the American education paying every year English language teachers and other educators? In order to "prescribe" behavior in language, arts, and science. This is called "socialization," and without socialization creatures born to humans are will not become human. Instead of speaking about "grammar" I would rather speak about language structure and its communicative, rhetorical purpose. If we cannot communicate in language, the production of sounds, words, and strings of words is irational and useless. It is necessary for humans, in order to communicate through language, to "prescribe" what words and strings of words mean so that they could all use those words and word strings to mean the same thing. We don't live in Alice's wonderland, and we are rabbbits, ascribing personal and arbitrary meanings to words if we want to communicate because if we did so we would loose very rapidly the ability to communicate with each other and one another. Language use has a DIRECT and SPECIFIC purpose: TO COMMUNICATE. If we forget its purpose, then we are lost. Eduard ________________________________ From: "Craig G Hancock" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:18:12 AM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Eduard, These leaves me with some questions. 1) Are you ONLY interested in what makes something Standard, or does your interest in grammar go beyond that? In other words, once something is determined as Standard English, are there other things we can observe about its grammar that are useful and beneficial? Is our only concern making sure language conforms to norms or should we also think about ways in which grammar contributes to rhetorical effect or to meaning? 2) Are you at all troubled by the fact that many of the rules of prescriptive grammar seem rather arbitrary? One example might be the "due to" versus "because of" distinction in a recent post that many of us felt was on shaky ground. How do we determine whether something is standard or not? 3) Does that mean that literary texts that use dialect in one way or another should be expunged from the canon? I'm thinking of books like "Huckleberry Finn" or "The color Purple", much of the poetry of Robert Burns and Langston Hughes, the plays of August Wilson (so many of our plays, for that matter), and so on? How do we deal with the fact that a great deal of highly valued literature is built on creative use of the vernacular? The final question, I guess, might be how we stimulate widespread acquisition of the standard. Is disparaging dialect a necessary step in that direction? I don't think many of would disagree that knowing Standard English is a central goal. How do we accommodate other goals as well, including encouraging fluency? Craig From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eduard Hanganu Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:52 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" Well, Maybe the difference in perspective between the two of us is that you consider different "grammars" that govern different "varieties" of the English language, while I recognize only ONE GRAMMAR, the Standard English Grammar. Of course we all speak our own idiolects, and use various registers depending on the linguistic context, but if those idiolects and registers do not follow the rules of the Standard English Grammar I cannot call those "varieties" or "registers" good English, but to the degree to which they differ from the Standard English I call them "illiterate English." Anecdotally, someone mentioned to me that "Ebonics" as a "language variety" does not differ much from the broken English that some poor, illiterate people speak in the Appalachians. What is the common denominator between these two "varieties" of the English language? Illiteracy. Eduard ________________________________ From: "Dick Veit" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 5:18:07 PM Subject: Re: The "Anti-Grammar Forum" The assumption in several posts that there can only be one variety of English for every occasion flabbergasts me. Aren't we all masters of many registers? In an earlier post I wrote that one language phrase "bugs the hell out of me." I deemed that informal expression to be appropriate in this forum, just as I would consider it inappropriate in many others. I know the difference. You do too. Your language in writing journal papers is identifiably different from your language in an email to colleagues and different from your speech in conversing with friends while watching a football game or in talking on the phone with your insurance agent. You have no trouble making the adjustments. That is what being a sophisticated user of language is all about. I taught writing for forty years, and my goal was always for students to master the principles of formal written English. There are accepted conventions that educated people need to learn. Another goal was for them to understand different registers and to know which is appropriate to use in different situations. And yes, students can master that too. When someone in this forum observes that an informal expression is grammatical in a certain register or dialect, they are simply describing what they observe and not making a moral judgment. Such an observatrion doesn't mean that (1) they do not believe in teaching formal written English, (2) they favor teaching students to write Ebonics, or (3) the world is coming to an end. Dick To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:03:47 -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: John Chorazy <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Sentence construction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary cf307cfd5e29aa9e04addda8e8 --20cf307cfd5e29aa9e04addda8e8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Good afternoon... I'd be grateful for your collective input on a student sentence: "Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face." A little context - Tim finds at a yard sale a box containing several items of interest, including a series of children's books he recalls reading (those books). I'm concerned about "and" trying to connect two dissimilar thoughts into a compound sentence, but I also see a mixed voice here. Tim does the action in the first clause and then the pocket watch "was at the bottom..." in the second clause (passive?). I've seen this construction more than a few times and want to address it effectively. Thank you... -- John Chorazy English III Honors and Academic Pequannock Township High School 973.616.6000 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --20cf307cfd5e29aa9e04addda8e8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Good afternoon...� I'd be grateful for your collective input on a student sentence:

�

"Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face."

�

A little context - Tim finds at a yard sale a�box containing several items of interest, including a series of children's books he recalls reading (those books).

�

I'm concerned about "and" trying to connect two dissimilar thoughts into a compound sentence, but I also see a mixed voice here. Tim does the action in the first clause and then the pocket watch "was at the bottom..." in the second clause (passive?). I've seen this construction more than a few times and want to address it effectively.

�

Thank you...

�

�

--

John Chorazy

English III Honors and Academic

Pequannock Township High School

973.616.6000

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --20cf307cfd5e29aa9e04addda8e8-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:49:26 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentence construction In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016e6d9990c72937d04adde4bd4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 You can make a couple of suggestions to the student for revision. The "growing up" doesn't work with "remembered." He remembered them not *while *he was growing up but *from when* he was growing up. It probably needs recasting as something like "Tim remembered those books from his childhood." Or "Those books brought back childhood memories." You are right that "and also" doesn't capture the relationship between the two clauses. If the watch was also something he remembered, he could make both the books and the watch objects: "Tim remembered those books from his childhood and also a pocket watch at the bottom of the box complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face." That's still a little clunky. It might be best to divide it into two sentences: "Tim remembered those books from his childhood. He also found a pocket watch at the bottom of the box complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face." Dick On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:03 PM, John Chorazy <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Good afternoon... I'd be grateful for your collective input on a student > sentence: > > "Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box > was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to > show its face." > > A little context - Tim finds at a yard sale a box containing several items > of interest, including a series of children's books he recalls reading > (those books). > > I'm concerned about "and" trying to connect two dissimilar thoughts into a > compound sentence, but I also see a mixed voice here. Tim does the action in > the first clause and then the pocket watch "was at the bottom..." in the > second clause (passive?). I've seen this construction more than a few times > and want to address it effectively. > > Thank you... > > > > -- > John Chorazy > English III Honors and Academic > Pequannock Township High School > 973.616.6000 > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6d9990c72937d04adde4bd4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You can make a couple of suggestions to the student for revision.

The "growing up" doesn't work with "remembered." He remembered them not while he was growing up but from when he was growing up. It probably needs recasting as something like "Tim remembered those books from his childhood." Or "Those books brought back childhood memories."

You are right that "and also" doesn't capture the relationship between the two clauses. If the watch was also something he remembered, he could make both the books and the watch objects: "Tim remembered those books from his childhood and also a pocket watch at the bottom of the box complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face." That's still a little clunky.� It might be best to divide it into two sentences: "Tim remembered those books from his childhood. He also found a pocket watch at the bottom of the box complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face."

Dick

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:03 PM, John Chorazy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Good afternoon...� I'd be grateful for your collective input on a student sentence:

�

"Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face."

�

A little context - Tim finds at a yard sale a�box containing several items of interest, including a series of children's books he recalls reading (those books).

�

I'm concerned about "and" trying to connect two dissimilar thoughts into a compound sentence, but I also see a mixed voice here. Tim does the action in the first clause and then the pocket watch "was at the bottom..." in the second clause (passive?). I've seen this construction more than a few times and want to address it effectively.

�

Thank you...

�

�

--

John Chorazy

English III Honors and Academic

Pequannock Township High School

973.616.6000
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6d9990c72937d04adde4bd4-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:41:55 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Don Stewart <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentence construction In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --001485f78bf688339a04addf094e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I agree with Dick's first suggestion, the addition of "from his childhood," especially if Tim is an adult. If he is under 21, something like "from when he was a kid" would be better. As for the rest of it, I think all you need to do is add a comma before the "and." It is not a passive sentence, but simply a delayed subject after the "was," which is in turn preceded by the adverbial prepositional phrase combo "at the bottom of the box." The worst thing to do would be to turn it back into two sentences, which would result in the good old "choppy" anathema. Frankly, with these touch-ups, I think it's a fine sentence, with intrigue, pace, anticipation, detail, and style. Don Stewart www.writeforcollege.com www.writing123.com On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > You can make a couple of suggestions to the student for revision. > > The "growing up" doesn't work with "remembered." He remembered them not *while > *he was growing up but *from when* he was growing up. It probably needs > recasting as something like "Tim remembered those books from his childhood." > Or "Those books brought back childhood memories." > > You are right that "and also" doesn't capture the relationship between the > two clauses. If the watch was also something he remembered, he could make > both the books and the watch objects: "Tim remembered those books from his > childhood and also a pocket watch at the bottom of the box complete with > chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face." That's still a > little clunky. It might be best to divide it into two sentences: "Tim > remembered those books from his childhood. He also found a pocket watch at > the bottom of the box complete with chain and front panel that flipped open > to show its face." > > Dick > > > > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:03 PM, John Chorazy <[log in to unmask] > > wrote: > >> Good afternoon... I'd be grateful for your collective input on a student >> sentence: >> >> "Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box >> was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to >> show its face." >> >> A little context - Tim finds at a yard sale a box containing several items >> of interest, including a series of children's books he recalls reading >> (those books). >> >> I'm concerned about "and" trying to connect two dissimilar thoughts into a >> compound sentence, but I also see a mixed voice here. Tim does the action in >> the first clause and then the pocket watch "was at the bottom..." in the >> second clause (passive?). I've seen this construction more than a few times >> and want to address it effectively. >> >> Thank you... >> >> >> >> -- >> John Chorazy >> English III Honors and Academic >> Pequannock Township High School >> 973.616.6000 >> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --001485f78bf688339a04addf094e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree with Dick's first suggestion, the addition of "from his childhood," especially if Tim is an adult. If he is under 21, something like "from when he was a kid" would be better.

As for the rest of it, I think all you need to do is add a comma before the "and." It is not a passive sentence, but simply a delayed subject after the "was," which is in turn preceded by the adverbial prepositional phrase combo "at the bottom of the box."
The worst thing to do would be to turn it back into two sentences, which would result in the good old "choppy" anathema.

Frankly, with these touch-ups, I think it's a fine sentence, with intrigue, pace, anticipation, detail, and style.

Don Stewart
www.writeforcollege.com
www.writing123.com

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
You can make a couple of suggestions to the student for revision.

The "growing up" doesn't work with "remembered." He remembered them not while he was growing up but from when he was growing up. It probably needs recasting as something like "Tim remembered those books from his childhood." Or "Those books brought back childhood memories."

You are right that "and also" doesn't capture the relationship between the two clauses. If the watch was also something he remembered, he could make both the books and the watch objects: "Tim remembered those books from his childhood and also a pocket watch at the bottom of the box complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face." That's still a little clunky.� It might be best to divide it into two sentences: "Tim remembered those books from his childhood. He also found a pocket watch at the bottom of the box complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face."

Dick

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:03 PM, John Chorazy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Good afternoon...� I'd be grateful for your collective input on a student sentence:

�

"Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face."

�

A little context - Tim finds at a yard sale a�box containing several items of interest, including a series of children's books he recalls reading (those books).

�

I'm concerned about "and" trying to connect two dissimilar thoughts into a compound sentence, but I also see a mixed voice here. Tim does the action in the first clause and then the pocket watch "was at the bottom..." in the second clause (passive?). I've seen this construction more than a few times and want to address it effectively.

�

Thank you...

�

�

--

John Chorazy

English III Honors and Academic

Pequannock Township High School

973.616.6000
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --001485f78bf688339a04addf094e-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:44:10 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Grammar question--verb or past participle MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-852950040-1560110606-1317077050=:45771" ---852950040-1560110606-1317077050=:45771 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dear List, How would you explain the verbs of the following sentences? Two are progressive, but the other two have the form of a passive but not the function of a passive. Nobody focused them or seated them. Should the past participles be described as the main verb or as a participle acting as an adjective? If they are main verbs, how should I explain this construction to children who know about passives? They are focused on success. They are focusing on success. They are seated with their friends. They are sitting with their friends. Thanks, Scott Woods To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ---852950040-1560110606-1317077050=:45771 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Dear List,

How would you explain the verbs of the following sentences? Two are progressive, but the other two have the form of a passive but not the function of a passive. Nobody focused them or seated them. Should the past participles be described as the main verb or as a participle acting as an adjective? If they are main verbs, how should I explain this construction to children who know about passives?

They are focused on success.
They are focusing on success.
They are seated with their friends.
They are sitting with their friends.

Thanks,

Scott Woods
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ---852950040-1560110606-1317077050=:45771-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 02:38:52 +0000 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Grammar question--verb or past participle In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 The 'focused' example can be analyzed as having a participial adjective with an accompanying PP (it would be a complement to the participle in some approaches). You can use 'very' quite easily to modify 'focused' there. I want to treat 'seated' the same way, but the there's less evidence. You can't use 'very', but then, 'seated' wouldn't make a gradable adjective anyway. Does "They were drowsy, and seated with their friends" work? Bill Spruiell On Sep 26, 2011, at 6:44 PM, "Scott Woods" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Dear List, How would you explain the verbs of the following sentences? Two are progressive, but the other two have the form of a passive but not the function of a passive. Nobody focused them or seated them. Should the past participles be described as the main verb or as a participle acting as an adjective? If they are main verbs, how should I explain this construction to children who know about passives? They are focused on success. They are focusing on success. They are seated with their friends. They are sitting with their friends. Thanks, Scott Woods To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:45:01 +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: Sentence construction In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_1317120301125020" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --_----------=_1317120301125020 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:45:01 -0400 X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface Original sentence "Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face." Possible edit / explanation: "Tim remembered those books from growing up, and also {remembered} [DEL: a :DEL] the pocket watch, at the bottom of the box, [DEL: was :DEL] complete with chain and front panel that {could be} flipped open to show its face." As reported, this was very difficult to understand. Minor edits: * Dick's addition of the preposition; * the prepsotional phrase moved to follow the noun it modifies, * the unnecessary auxiliary verb eliminated. I think this type of editing should be easy for any student who had been trained to identify finite verbs and their subjects, to see {elision}, and to explain prepositional phrases and participles as modifiers. Ed Vavra's KISS approach is more than enough for this and can easily be taught to sixth graders. On Monday, September 26, 2011 5:41 PM, "Don Stewart" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I agree with Dick's first suggestion, the addition of "from his childhood," especially if Tim is an adult. If he is under 21, something like "from when he was a kid" would be better. As for the rest of it, I think all you need to do is add a comma before the "and." It is not a passive sentence, but simply a delayed subject after the "was," which is in turn preceded by the adverbial prepositional phrase combo "at the bottom of the box." The worst thing to do would be to turn it back into two sentences, which would result in the good old "choppy" anathema. Frankly, with these touch-ups, I think it's a fine sentence, with intrigue, pace, anticipation, detail, and style. Don Stewart [1]www.writeforcollege.com [2]www.writing123.com On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Dick Veit <[3][log in to unmask]> wrote: You can make a couple of suggestions to the student for revision. The "growing up" doesn't work with "remembered." He remembered them not while he was growing up but from when he was growing up. It probably needs recasting as something like "Tim remembered those books from his childhood." Or "Those books brought back childhood memories." You are right that "and also" doesn't capture the relationship between the two clauses. If the watch was also something he remembered, he could make both the books and the watch objects: "Tim remembered those books from his childhood and also a pocket watch at the bottom of the box complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face." That's still a little clunky. It might be best to divide it into two sentences: "Tim remembered those books from his childhood. He also found a pocket watch at the bottom of the box complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face." Dick On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:03 PM, John Chorazy <[4][log in to unmask]> wrote: Good afternoon... I'd be grateful for your collective input on a student sentence: "Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face." A little context - Tim finds at a yard sale a box containing several items of interest, including a series of children's books he recalls reading (those books). I'm concerned about "and" trying to connect two dissimilar thoughts into a compound sentence, but I also see a mixed voice here. Tim does the action in the first clause and then the pocket watch "was at the bottom..." in the second clause (passive?). I've seen this construction more than a few times and want to address it effectively. Thank you... -- John Chorazy English III Honors and Academic Pequannock Township High School [5]973.616.6000 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: [6]http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at [7]http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ References 1. http://www.writeforcollege.com/ 2. http://www.writing123.com/ 3. mailto:[log in to unmask] 4. mailto:[log in to unmask] 5. tel:973.616.6000 6. http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html 7. 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/ --_----------=_1317120301125020 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:45:01 -0400 X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface

Original sentence

"Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face."

Possible edit / explanation:

"Tim remembered those books from growing up, and also {remembered} a the pocket watch, at the bottom of the box, ~~was~~ complete with chain and front panel that {could be} flipped open to show its face."

As reported, this was very difficult to understand.

Minor edits:

Dick's addition of the preposition;

the prepsotional phrase moved to follow the noun it modifies,

the unnecessary auxiliary verb eliminated.

I think this type of editing should be easy for any student who had been trained to identify finite verbs and their subjects, to see {elision}, and to explain prepositional phrases and participles as modifiers.

Ed Vavra's KISS approach is more than enough for this and can easily be taught to sixth graders.

On Monday, September 26, 2011 5:41 PM, "Don Stewart" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I agree with Dick's first suggestion, the addition of "from his childhood," especially if Tim is an adult. If he is under 21, something like "from when he was a kid" would be better.

As for the rest of it, I think all you need to do is add a comma before the "and." It is not a passive sentence, but simply a delayed subject after the "was," which is in turn preceded by the adverbial prepositional phrase combo "at the bottom of the box."
The worst thing to do would be to turn it back into two sentences, which would result in the good old "choppy" anathema.

Frankly, with these touch-ups, I think it's a fine sentence, with intrigue, pace, anticipation, detail, and style.

Don Stewart
www.writeforcollege.com
www.writing123.com

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

You can make a couple of suggestions to the student for revision.

The "growing up" doesn't work with "remembered." He remembered them not while he was growing up but from when he was growing up. It probably needs recasting as something like "Tim remembered those books from his childhood." Or "Those books brought back childhood memories."

You are right that "and also" doesn't capture the relationship between the two clauses. If the watch was also something he remembered, he could make both the books and the watch objects: "Tim remembered those books from his childhood and also a pocket watch at the bottom of the box complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face." That's still a little clunky. It might be best to divide it into two sentences: "Tim remembered those books from his childhood. He also found a pocket watch at the bottom of the box complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face."

Dick

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:03 PM, John Chorazy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Good afternoon... I'd be grateful for your collective input on a student sentence:

"Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face."

A little context - Tim finds at a yard sale a box containing several items of interest, including a series of children's books he recalls reading (those books).

I'm concerned about "and" trying to connect two dissimilar thoughts into a compound sentence, but I also see a mixed voice here. Tim does the action in the first clause and then the pocket watch "was at the bottom..." in the second clause (passive?). I've seen this construction more than a few times and want to address it effectively.

Thank you...

--

John Chorazy

English III Honors and Academic

Pequannock Township High School

973.616.6000

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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/ --_----------=_1317120301125020-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:48:25 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Don Stewart <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentence construction In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016e6dd96f0f4687904adec8946 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My sense of the original version is that he remembered the books, but he had never seen the watch before. According to John's explanation of context, this was a yard sale. The pocket watch was a new discovery, and that's why it deserves such full description. Also, "was" is not an auxiliary verb, nor is it a linking verb. It is the main verb, with its adverbial placed in the opening position�Martha Kolln's sentence pattern 1, as shown here: http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/caneng/sentence.htm Cheers. Don Stewart www.writeforcollege.com www.writing123.com On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:45 AM, M C JMy ohnstone <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Original sentence > > *"Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box > was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to > show its face."* > > Possible edit / explanation: > > "Tim remembered those books from growing up, and also {remembered} a the > pocket watch, at the bottom of the box, was complete with chain and front > panel that {could be} flipped open to show its face." > > As reported, this was very difficult to understand. > > Minor edits: > > - Dick's addition of the preposition; > - the prepsotional phrase moved to follow the noun it modifies, > - the unnecessary auxiliary verb eliminated. > > I think this type of editing should be easy for any student who had been > trained to identify finite verbs and their subjects, to see {elision}, and > to explain prepositional phrases and participles as modifiers. > > Ed Vavra's KISS approach is more than enough for this and can easily be > taught to sixth graders. > > > On Monday, September 26, 2011 5:41 PM, "Don Stewart" < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > I agree with Dick's first suggestion, the addition of "from his childhood," > especially if Tim is an adult. If he is under 21, something like "from when > he was a kid" would be better. > > As for the rest of it, I think all you need to do is add a comma before the > "and." It is not a passive sentence, but simply a delayed subject after the > "was," which is in turn preceded by the adverbial prepositional phrase combo > "at the bottom of the box." > The worst thing to do would be to turn it back into two sentences, which > would result in the good old "choppy" anathema. > > Frankly, with these touch-ups, I think it's a fine sentence, with intrigue, > pace, anticipation, detail, and style. > > Don Stewart > www.writeforcollege.com > www.writing123.com > > > > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > You can make a couple of suggestions to the student for revision. > > The "growing up" doesn't work with "remembered." He remembered them not while > he was growing up but from when he was growing up. It probably needs > recasting as something like "Tim remembered those books from his childhood." > Or "Those books brought back childhood memories." > > You are right that "and also" doesn't capture the relationship between the > two clauses. If the watch was also something he remembered, he could make > both the books and the watch objects: "Tim remembered those books from his > childhood and also a pocket watch at the bottom of the box complete with > chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face." That's still a > little clunky. It might be best to divide it into two sentences: "Tim > remembered those books from his childhood. He also found a pocket watch at > the bottom of the box complete with chain and front panel that flipped open > to show its face." > > Dick > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:03 PM, John Chorazy < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Good afternoon... I'd be grateful for your collective input on a student > sentence: > > "Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box > was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to > show its face." > > A little context - Tim finds at a yard sale a box containing several items > of interest, including a series of children's books he recalls reading > (those books). > > I'm concerned about "and" trying to connect two dissimilar thoughts into a > compound sentence, but I also see a mixed voice here. Tim does the action in > the first clause and then the pocket watch "was at the bottom..." in the > second clause (passive?). I've seen this construction more than a few times > and want to address it effectively. > > Thank you... > > > > -- > John Chorazy > English III Honors and Academic > Pequannock Township High School > 973.616.6000 > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > 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/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6dd96f0f4687904adec8946 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My sense of the original version is that he remembered the books, but he had never seen the watch before. According to John's explanation of context, this was a yard sale. The pocket watch was a new discovery, and that's why it deserves such full description.

Also, "was" is not an auxiliary verb, nor is it a linking verb. It is the main verb, with its adverbial placed in the opening position�Martha Kolln's sentence pattern 1, as shown here:

http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/caneng/sentence.htm

Cheers.

Don Stewart
www.writeforcollege.com
www.writing123.com

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:45 AM, M C JMy ohnstone <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Original sentence

�

"Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face."

�

Possible edit / explanation:

�

"Tim remembered those books from growing up, and also {remembered} a the pocket watch, at the bottom of the box, ~~was~~ complete with chain and front panel that {could be} flipped open to show its face."

�

As reported, this was very difficult to understand.

�

Minor edits:

Dick's addition of the preposition;

the prepsotional phrase moved to follow the noun it modifies,

the unnecessary auxiliary verb eliminated.

I think this type of editing should be easy for any student who had been trained to identify finite verbs and their subjects, to see {elision}, and to explain prepositional phrases and participles as modifiers.

�

Ed Vavra's KISS approach is more than enough for this and can easily be taught to sixth graders.

�

�

On Monday, September 26, 2011 5:41 PM, "Don Stewart" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I agree with Dick's first suggestion, the addition of "from his childhood," especially if Tim is an adult. If he is under 21, something like "from when he was a kid" would be better.

As for the rest of it, I think all you need to do is add a comma before the "and." It is not a passive sentence, but simply a delayed subject after the "was," which is in turn preceded by the adverbial prepositional phrase combo "at the bottom of the box."
The worst thing to do would be to turn it back into two sentences, which would result in the good old "choppy" anathema.

Frankly, with these touch-ups, I think it's a fine sentence, with intrigue, pace, anticipation, detail, and style.

Don Stewart
www.writeforcollege.com
www.writing123.com
�

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

You can make a couple of suggestions to the student for revision.

The "growing up" doesn't work with "remembered." He remembered them not while he was growing up but from when he was growing up. It probably needs recasting as something like "Tim remembered those books from his childhood." Or "Those books brought back childhood memories."

You are right that "and also" doesn't capture the relationship between the two clauses. If the watch was also something he remembered, he could make both the books and the watch objects: "Tim remembered those books from his childhood and also a pocket watch at the bottom of the box complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face." That's still a little clunky.� It might be best to divide it into two sentences: "Tim remembered those books from his childhood. He also found a pocket watch at the bottom of the box complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face."

Dick

�

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:03 PM, John Chorazy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Good afternoon...� I'd be grateful for your collective input on a student sentence:

�

"Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face."

�

A little context - Tim finds at a yard sale a�box containing several items of interest, including a series of children's books he recalls reading (those books).

�

I'm concerned about "and" trying to connect two dissimilar thoughts into a compound sentence, but I also see a mixed voice here. Tim does the action in the first clause and then the pocket watch "was at the bottom..." in the second clause (passive?). I've seen this construction more than a few times and want to address it effectively.

�

Thank you...

�

�

--

John Chorazy

English III Honors and Academic

Pequannock Township High School

973.616.6000

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6dd96f0f4687904adec8946-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:35:44 +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: Sentence construction In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_131713414443411" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --_----------=_131713414443411 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:35:44 -0400 X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface Yes, I see Don. Your solution, a comma before "and," is best. That seems to be all it needs. Thanks On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 9:48 AM, "Don Stewart" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: My sense of the original version is that he remembered the books, but he had never seen the watch before. According to John's explanation of context, this was a yard sale. The pocket watch was a new discovery, and that's why it deserves such full description. Also, "was" is not an auxiliary verb, nor is it a linking verb. It is the main verb, with its adverbial placed in the opening position—Martha Kolln's sentence pattern 1, as shown here: [1]http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/caneng/sentence.htm Cheers. Don Stewart [2]www.writeforcollege.com [3]www.writing123.com On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:45 AM, M C JMy ohnstone <[4][log in to unmask]> wrote: Original sentence "Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face." Possible edit / explanation: "Tim remembered those books from growing up, and also {remembered} [DEL: a :DEL] the pocket watch, at the bottom of the box, [DEL: was :DEL] complete with chain and front panel that {could be} flipped open to show its face." As reported, this was very difficult to understand. Minor edits: * Dick's addition of the preposition; * the prepsotional phrase moved to follow the noun it modifies, * the unnecessary auxiliary verb eliminated. I think this type of editing should be easy for any student who had been trained to identify finite verbs and their subjects, to see {elision}, and to explain prepositional phrases and participles as modifiers. Ed Vavra's KISS approach is more than enough for this and can easily be taught to sixth graders. On Monday, September 26, 2011 5:41 PM, "Don Stewart" <[5][log in to unmask]> wrote: I agree with Dick's first suggestion, the addition of "from his childhood," especially if Tim is an adult. If he is under 21, something like "from when he was a kid" would be better. As for the rest of it, I think all you need to do is add a comma before the "and." It is not a passive sentence, but simply a delayed subject after the "was," which is in turn preceded by the adverbial prepositional phrase combo "at the bottom of the box." The worst thing to do would be to turn it back into two sentences, which would result in the good old "choppy" anathema. Frankly, with these touch-ups, I think it's a fine sentence, with intrigue, pace, anticipation, detail, and style. Don Stewart [6]www.writeforcollege.com [7]www.writing123.com On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Dick Veit <[8][log in to unmask]> wrote: You can make a couple of suggestions to the student for revision. The "growing up" doesn't work with "remembered." He remembered them not while he was growing up but from when he was growing up. It probably needs recasting as something like "Tim remembered those books from his childhood." Or "Those books brought back childhood memories." You are right that "and also" doesn't capture the relationship between the two clauses. If the watch was also something he remembered, he could make both the books and the watch objects: "Tim remembered those books from his childhood and also a pocket watch at the bottom of the box complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face." That's still a little clunky. It might be best to divide it into two sentences: "Tim remembered those books from his childhood. He also found a pocket watch at the bottom of the box complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face." Dick On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:03 PM, John Chorazy <[9][log in to unmask]> wrote: Good afternoon... I'd be grateful for your collective input on a student sentence: "Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face." A little context - Tim finds at a yard sale a box containing several items of interest, including a series of children's books he recalls reading (those books). I'm concerned about "and" trying to connect two dissimilar thoughts into a compound sentence, but I also see a mixed voice here. Tim does the action in the first clause and then the pocket watch "was at the bottom..." in the second clause (passive?). I've seen this construction more than a few times and want to address it effectively. Thank you... -- John Chorazy English III Honors and Academic Pequannock Township High School [10]973.616.6000 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: [11]http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at [12]http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: [13]http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at [14]http://ateg.org/ -- [15][log in to unmask] To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: [16]http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at [17]http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ References 1. http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/caneng/sentence.htm 2. http://www.writeforcollege.com/ 3. http://www.writing123.com/ 4. mailto:[log in to unmask] 5. mailto:[log in to unmask] 6. http://www.writeforcollege.com/ 7. http://www.writing123.com/ 8. mailto:[log in to unmask] 9. mailto:[log in to unmask] 10. tel:973.616.6000 11. http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html 12. http://ateg.org/ 13. http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html 14. http://ateg.org/ 15. mailto:[log in to unmask] 16. http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html 17. 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/ --_----------=_131713414443411 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:35:44 -0400 X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
Yes, I see Don.

Your solution, a comma before "and," is best. That seems to be all it needs.

Thanks

On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 9:48 AM, "Don Stewart" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

My sense of the original version is that he remembered the books, but he had never seen the watch before. According to John's explanation of context, this was a yard sale. The pocket watch was a new discovery, and that's why it deserves such full description.

Also, "was" is not an auxiliary verb, nor is it a linking verb. It is the main verb, with its adverbial placed in the opening position—Martha Kolln's sentence pattern 1, as shown here:

http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/caneng/sentence.htm

Cheers.

Don Stewart
www.writeforcollege.com
www.writing123.com

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:45 AM, M C JMy ohnstone <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Original sentence

"Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face."

Possible edit / explanation:

"Tim remembered those books from growing up, and also {remembered} a the pocket watch, at the bottom of the box, ~~was~~ complete with chain and front panel that {could be} flipped open to show its face."

As reported, this was very difficult to understand.

Minor edits:

Dick's addition of the preposition;

the prepsotional phrase moved to follow the noun it modifies,

the unnecessary auxiliary verb eliminated.

I think this type of editing should be easy for any student who had been trained to identify finite verbs and their subjects, to see {elision}, and to explain prepositional phrases and participles as modifiers.

Ed Vavra's KISS approach is more than enough for this and can easily be taught to sixth graders.

On Monday, September 26, 2011 5:41 PM, "Don Stewart" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I agree with Dick's first suggestion, the addition of "from his childhood," especially if Tim is an adult. If he is under 21, something like "from when he was a kid" would be better.

As for the rest of it, I think all you need to do is add a comma before the "and." It is not a passive sentence, but simply a delayed subject after the "was," which is in turn preceded by the adverbial prepositional phrase combo "at the bottom of the box."
The worst thing to do would be to turn it back into two sentences, which would result in the good old "choppy" anathema.

Frankly, with these touch-ups, I think it's a fine sentence, with intrigue, pace, anticipation, detail, and style.

Don Stewart
www.writeforcollege.com
www.writing123.com

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

You can make a couple of suggestions to the student for revision.

The "growing up" doesn't work with "remembered." He remembered them not while he was growing up but from when he was growing up. It probably needs recasting as something like "Tim remembered those books from his childhood." Or "Those books brought back childhood memories."

You are right that "and also" doesn't capture the relationship between the two clauses. If the watch was also something he remembered, he could make both the books and the watch objects: "Tim remembered those books from his childhood and also a pocket watch at the bottom of the box complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face." That's still a little clunky. It might be best to divide it into two sentences: "Tim remembered those books from his childhood. He also found a pocket watch at the bottom of the box complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face."

Dick

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:03 PM, John Chorazy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Good afternoon... I'd be grateful for your collective input on a student sentence:

"Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face."

A little context - Tim finds at a yard sale a box containing several items of interest, including a series of children's books he recalls reading (those books).

I'm concerned about "and" trying to connect two dissimilar thoughts into a compound sentence, but I also see a mixed voice here. Tim does the action in the first clause and then the pocket watch "was at the bottom..." in the second clause (passive?). I've seen this construction more than a few times and want to address it effectively.

Thank you...

--

John Chorazy

English III Honors and Academic

Pequannock Township High School

973.616.6000

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface 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/ --_----------=_131713414443411-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:25:39 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentence construction In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220F09EBE6UAEXCH07univa_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220F09EBE6UAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SG93IGFib3V0IOKAnEluIHRoZSBib3ggd2VyZSBib29rcyBoZSByZW1lbWJlcmVkIGZyb20gZ3Jv d2luZyB1cCBhbmQsIGF0IHRoZSBib3R0b20sIGEgd2F0Y2ggd2l0aCBjaGFpbiBhbmQgZnJvbnQg cGFuZWwgdGhhdCBmbGlwcGVkIG9wZW4gdG8gc2hvdyBpdHMgZmFjZS7igJ0NCiAgICDigJxJbiB0 aGUgYm944oCdIGNhbiBiZSB0aGVtYXRpYyBvcGVuaW5nIGZvciBib3RoIHBhcnRzIG9mIHRoZSBz ZW50ZW5jZS4NCiAgIFRoZXJlIGFyZSBsb3RzIG9mIHBvc3NpYmlsaXRpZXMsIHRob3VnaCBzb21l IHdpbGwgYmUgbW9yZSBjb25ncnVlbnQgd2l0aCBjb250ZXh0IGFuZCBpbnRlbnRpb24uDQogICDi gJxJbiB0aGUgYm94LCBiZWxvdyB0aGUgYm9va3MgaGUgcmVtZW1iZXJlZCBmcm9tIGdyb3dpbmcg dXAsIHdhcyBhIHdhdGNo4oCm4oCdIEluIHRoaXMgdmVyc2lvbiwgdGhlIGJvb2tzIGFyZSBhbiB1 bmltcG9ydGFudCBpbXBlZGltZW50IHRvIHRoZSByZWFsIHByaXplLg0KDQpDcmFpZw0KDQpGcm9t OiBBc3NlbWJseSBmb3IgdGhlIFRlYWNoaW5nIG9mIEVuZ2xpc2ggR3JhbW1hciBbbWFpbHRvOkFU RUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVV0gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIE0gQyBKb2huc3RvbmUNClNlbnQ6 IFR1ZXNkYXksIFNlcHRlbWJlciAyNywgMjAxMSAxMDozNiBBTQ0KVG86IEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYu TVVPSElPLkVEVQ0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFNlbnRlbmNlIGNvbnN0cnVjdGlvbg0KDQpZZXMsIEkg c2VlIERvbi4NCg0KWW91ciBzb2x1dGlvbiwgYSBjb21tYSBiZWZvcmUgImFuZCwiIGlzIGJlc3Qu IFRoYXQgc2VlbXMgdG8gYmUgYWxsIGl0IG5lZWRzLg0KDQpUaGFua3MNCg0KT24gVHVlc2RheSwg U2VwdGVtYmVyIDI3LCAyMDExIDk6NDggQU0sICJEb24gU3Rld2FydCIgPGRvbnN0ZXdhcnRzQEdN QUlMLkNPTTxtYWlsdG86ZG9uc3Rld2FydHNAR01BSUwuQ09NPj4gd3JvdGU6DQpNeSBzZW5zZSBv ZiB0aGUgb3JpZ2luYWwgdmVyc2lvbiBpcyB0aGF0IGhlIHJlbWVtYmVyZWQgdGhlIGJvb2tzLCBi dXQgaGUgaGFkIG5ldmVyIHNlZW4gdGhlIHdhdGNoIGJlZm9yZS4gQWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIEpvaG4n cyBleHBsYW5hdGlvbiBvZiBjb250ZXh0LCB0aGlzIHdhcyBhIHlhcmQgc2FsZS4gVGhlIHBvY2tl dCB3YXRjaCB3YXMgYSBuZXcgZGlzY292ZXJ5LCBhbmQgdGhhdCdzIHdoeSBpdCBkZXNlcnZlcyBz dWNoIGZ1bGwgZGVzY3JpcHRpb24uDQoNCkFsc28sICJ3YXMiIGlzIG5vdCBhbiBhdXhpbGlhcnkg dmVyYiwgbm9yIGlzIGl0IGEgbGlua2luZyB2ZXJiLiBJdCBpcyB0aGUgbWFpbiB2ZXJiLCB3aXRo IGl0cyBhZHZlcmJpYWwgcGxhY2VkIGluIHRoZSBvcGVuaW5nIHBvc2l0aW9u4oCUTWFydGhhIEtv bGxuJ3Mgc2VudGVuY2UgcGF0dGVybiAxLCBhcyBzaG93biBoZXJlOg0KDQpodHRwOi8vd3d3LnVu Y3AuZWR1L2hvbWUvY2FuYWRhL3dvcmsvY2FuZW5nL3NlbnRlbmNlLmh0bQ0KDQpDaGVlcnMuDQoN Cg0KRG9uIFN0ZXdhcnQNCnd3dy53cml0ZWZvcmNvbGxlZ2UuY29tPGh0dHA6Ly93d3cud3JpdGVm b3Jjb2xsZWdlLmNvbT4NCnd3dy53cml0aW5nMTIzLmNvbTxodHRwOi8vd3d3LndyaXRpbmcxMjMu Y29tPg0KDQoNCg0KT24gVHVlLCBTZXAgMjcsIDIwMTEgYXQgNjo0NSBBTSwgTSBDIEpNeSBvaG5z dG9uZSA8bWNqc2FAMTIzbWFpbC5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOm1janNhQDEyM21haWwub3JnPj4gd3JvdGU6 DQpPcmlnaW5hbCBzZW50ZW5jZQ0KDQoiVGltIHJlbWVtYmVyZWQgdGhvc2UgYm9va3MgZ3Jvd2lu ZyB1cCBhbmQgYWxzbyBhdCB0aGUgYm90dG9tIG9mIHRoZSBib3ggd2FzIGEgcG9ja2V0IHdhdGNo IGNvbXBsZXRlIHdpdGggY2hhaW4gYW5kIGZyb250IHBhbmVsIHRoYXQgZmxpcHBlZCBvcGVuIHRv IHNob3cgaXRzIGZhY2UuIg0KDQpQb3NzaWJsZSBlZGl0IC8gZXhwbGFuYXRpb246DQoNCiJUaW0g cmVtZW1iZXJlZCB0aG9zZSBib29rcyBmcm9tIGdyb3dpbmcgdXAsIGFuZCBhbHNvIHtyZW1lbWJl cmVkfSBhIHRoZSBwb2NrZXQgd2F0Y2gsIGF0IHRoZSBib3R0b20gb2YgdGhlIGJveCwgd2FzIGNv bXBsZXRlIHdpdGggY2hhaW4gYW5kIGZyb250IHBhbmVsIHRoYXQge2NvdWxkIGJlfSBmbGlwcGVk IG9wZW4gdG8gc2hvdyBpdHMgZmFjZS4iDQoNCkFzIHJlcG9ydGVkLCB0aGlzIHdhcyB2ZXJ5IGRp ZmZpY3VsdCB0byB1bmRlcnN0YW5kLg0KDQpNaW5vciBlZGl0czoNCg0KICogICBEaWNrJ3MgYWRk aXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIHByZXBvc2l0aW9uOw0KICogICB0aGUgcHJlcHNvdGlvbmFsIHBocmFzZSBt b3ZlZCB0byBmb2xsb3cgdGhlIG5vdW4gaXQgbW9kaWZpZXMsDQogKiAgIHRoZSB1bm5lY2Vzc2Fy eSBhdXhpbGlhcnkgdmVyYiBlbGltaW5hdGVkLg0KSSB0aGluayB0aGlzIHR5cGUgb2YgZWRpdGlu ZyBzaG91bGQgYmUgZWFzeSBmb3IgYW55IHN0dWRlbnQgd2hvIGhhZCBiZWVuIHRyYWluZWQgdG8g aWRlbnRpZnkgZmluaXRlIHZlcmJzIGFuZCB0aGVpciBzdWJqZWN0cywgdG8gc2VlIHtlbGlzaW9u fSwgYW5kIHRvIGV4cGxhaW4gcHJlcG9zaXRpb25hbCBwaHJhc2VzIGFuZCBwYXJ0aWNpcGxlcyBh cyBtb2RpZmllcnMuDQoNCkVkIFZhdnJhJ3MgS0lTUyBhcHByb2FjaCBpcyBtb3JlIHRoYW4gZW5v dWdoIGZvciB0aGlzIGFuZCBjYW4gZWFzaWx5IGJlIHRhdWdodCB0byBzaXh0aCBncmFkZXJzLg0K DQoNCg0KT24gTW9uZGF5LCBTZXB0ZW1iZXIgMjYsIDIwMTEgNTo0MSBQTSwgIkRvbiBTdGV3YXJ0 IiA8ZG9uc3Rld2FydHNAR01BSUwuQ09NPG1haWx0bzpkb25zdGV3YXJ0c0BHTUFJTC5DT00+PiB3 cm90ZToNCkkgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCBEaWNrJ3MgZmlyc3Qgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbiwgdGhlIGFkZGl0aW9u IG9mICJmcm9tIGhpcyBjaGlsZGhvb2QsIiBlc3BlY2lhbGx5IGlmIFRpbSBpcyBhbiBhZHVsdC4g SWYgaGUgaXMgdW5kZXIgMjEsIHNvbWV0aGluZyBsaWtlICJmcm9tIHdoZW4gaGUgd2FzIGEga2lk IiB3b3VsZCBiZSBiZXR0ZXIuDQoNCkFzIGZvciB0aGUgcmVzdCBvZiBpdCwgSSB0aGluayBhbGwg eW91IG5lZWQgdG8gZG8gaXMgYWRkIGEgY29tbWEgYmVmb3JlIHRoZSAiYW5kLiIgSXQgaXMgbm90 IGEgcGFzc2l2ZSBzZW50ZW5jZSwgYnV0IHNpbXBseSBhIGRlbGF5ZWQgc3ViamVjdCBhZnRlciB0 aGUgIndhcywiIHdoaWNoIGlzIGluIHR1cm4gcHJlY2VkZWQgYnkgdGhlIGFkdmVyYmlhbCBwcmVw b3NpdGlvbmFsIHBocmFzZSBjb21ibyAiYXQgdGhlIGJvdHRvbSBvZiB0aGUgYm94LiINClRoZSB3 b3JzdCB0aGluZyB0byBkbyB3b3VsZCBiZSB0byB0dXJuIGl0IGJhY2sgaW50byB0d28gc2VudGVu Y2VzLCB3aGljaCB3b3VsZCByZXN1bHQgaW4gdGhlIGdvb2Qgb2xkICJjaG9wcHkiIGFuYXRoZW1h Lg0KDQpGcmFua2x5LCB3aXRoIHRoZXNlIHRvdWNoLXVwcywgSSB0aGluayBpdCdzIGEgZmluZSBz ZW50ZW5jZSwgd2l0aCBpbnRyaWd1ZSwgcGFjZSwgYW50aWNpcGF0aW9uLCBkZXRhaWwsIGFuZCBz dHlsZS4NCg0KRG9uIFN0ZXdhcnQNCnd3dy53cml0ZWZvcmNvbGxlZ2UuY29tPGh0dHA6Ly93d3cu d3JpdGVmb3Jjb2xsZWdlLmNvbT4NCnd3dy53cml0aW5nMTIzLmNvbTxodHRwOi8vd3d3LndyaXRp bmcxMjMuY29tPg0KDQoNCg0KT24gTW9uLCBTZXAgMjYsIDIwMTEgYXQgNDo0OSBQTSwgRGljayBW ZWl0IDxkaWNrdmVpdEBnbWFpbC5jb208bWFpbHRvOmRpY2t2ZWl0QGdtYWlsLmNvbT4+IHdyb3Rl Og0KWW91IGNhbiBtYWtlIGEgY291cGxlIG9mIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb25zIHRvIHRoZSBzdHVkZW50IGZv ciByZXZpc2lvbi4NCg0KVGhlICJncm93aW5nIHVwIiBkb2Vzbid0IHdvcmsgd2l0aCAicmVtZW1i ZXJlZC4iIEhlIHJlbWVtYmVyZWQgdGhlbSBub3Qgd2hpbGUgaGUgd2FzIGdyb3dpbmcgdXAgYnV0 IGZyb20gd2hlbiBoZSB3YXMgZ3Jvd2luZyB1cC4gSXQgcHJvYmFibHkgbmVlZHMgcmVjYXN0aW5n IGFzIHNvbWV0aGluZyBsaWtlICJUaW0gcmVtZW1iZXJlZCB0aG9zZSBib29rcyBmcm9tIGhpcyBj aGlsZGhvb2QuIiBPciAiVGhvc2UgYm9va3MgYnJvdWdodCBiYWNrIGNoaWxkaG9vZCBtZW1vcmll cy4iDQoNCllvdSBhcmUgcmlnaHQgdGhhdCAiYW5kIGFsc28iIGRvZXNuJ3QgY2FwdHVyZSB0aGUg cmVsYXRpb25zaGlwIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlIHR3byBjbGF1c2VzLiBJZiB0aGUgd2F0Y2ggd2FzIGFs c28gc29tZXRoaW5nIGhlIHJlbWVtYmVyZWQsIGhlIGNvdWxkIG1ha2UgYm90aCB0aGUgYm9va3Mg YW5kIHRoZSB3YXRjaCBvYmplY3RzOiAiVGltIHJlbWVtYmVyZWQgdGhvc2UgYm9va3MgZnJvbSBo aXMgY2hpbGRob29kIGFuZCBhbHNvIGEgcG9ja2V0IHdhdGNoIGF0IHRoZSBib3R0b20gb2YgdGhl IGJveCBjb21wbGV0ZSB3aXRoIGNoYWluIGFuZCBmcm9udCBwYW5lbCB0aGF0IGZsaXBwZWQgb3Bl biB0byBzaG93IGl0cyBmYWNlLiIgVGhhdCdzIHN0aWxsIGEgbGl0dGxlIGNsdW5reS4gIEl0IG1p Z2h0IGJlIGJlc3QgdG8gZGl2aWRlIGl0IGludG8gdHdvIHNlbnRlbmNlczogIlRpbSByZW1lbWJl cmVkIHRob3NlIGJvb2tzIGZyb20gaGlzIGNoaWxkaG9vZC4gSGUgYWxzbyBmb3VuZCBhIHBvY2tl dCB3YXRjaCBhdCB0aGUgYm90dG9tIG9mIHRoZSBib3ggY29tcGxldGUgd2l0aCBjaGFpbiBhbmQg ZnJvbnQgcGFuZWwgdGhhdCBmbGlwcGVkIG9wZW4gdG8gc2hvdyBpdHMgZmFjZS4iDQoNCkRpY2sN Cg0KDQoNCg0KT24gTW9uLCBTZXAgMjYsIDIwMTEgYXQgNDowMyBQTSwgSm9obiBDaG9yYXp5IDxq b2huLmNob3JhenlAcGVxdWFubm9jay5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOmpvaG4uY2hvcmF6eUBwZXF1YW5ub2Nr Lm9yZz4+IHdyb3RlOg0KR29vZCBhZnRlcm5vb24uLi4gIEknZCBiZSBncmF0ZWZ1bCBmb3IgeW91 ciBjb2xsZWN0aXZlIGlucHV0IG9uIGEgc3R1ZGVudCBzZW50ZW5jZToNCg0KIlRpbSByZW1lbWJl cmVkIHRob3NlIGJvb2tzIGdyb3dpbmcgdXAgYW5kIGFsc28gYXQgdGhlIGJvdHRvbSBvZiB0aGUg Ym94IHdhcyBhIHBvY2tldCB3YXRjaCBjb21wbGV0ZSB3aXRoIGNoYWluIGFuZCBmcm9udCBwYW5l bCB0aGF0IGZsaXBwZWQgb3BlbiB0byBzaG93IGl0cyBmYWNlLiINCg0KQSBsaXR0bGUgY29udGV4 dCAtIFRpbSBmaW5kcyBhdCBhIHlhcmQgc2FsZSBhIGJveCBjb250YWluaW5nIHNldmVyYWwgaXRl bXMgb2YgaW50ZXJlc3QsIGluY2x1ZGluZyBhIHNlcmllcyBvZiBjaGlsZHJlbidzIGJvb2tzIGhl IHJlY2FsbHMgcmVhZGluZyAodGhvc2UgYm9va3MpLg0KDQpJJ20gY29uY2VybmVkIGFib3V0ICJh bmQiIHRyeWluZyB0byBjb25uZWN0IHR3byBkaXNzaW1pbGFyIHRob3VnaHRzIGludG8gYSBjb21w b3VuZCBzZW50ZW5jZSwgYnV0IEkgYWxzbyBzZWUgYSBtaXhlZCB2b2ljZSBoZXJlLiBUaW0gZG9l cyB0aGUgYWN0aW9uIGluIHRoZSBmaXJzdCBjbGF1c2UgYW5kIHRoZW4gdGhlIHBvY2tldCB3YXRj aCAid2FzIGF0IHRoZSBib3R0b20uLi4iIGluIHRoZSBzZWNvbmQgY2xhdXNlIChwYXNzaXZlPyku IEkndmUgc2VlbiB0aGlzIGNvbnN0cnVjdGlvbiBtb3JlIHRoYW4gYSBmZXcgdGltZXMgYW5kIHdh bnQgdG8gYWRkcmVzcyBpdCBlZmZlY3RpdmVseS4NCg0KVGhhbmsgeW91Li4uDQoNCg0KDQotLQ0K Sm9obiBDaG9yYXp5DQpFbmdsaXNoIElJSSBIb25vcnMgYW5kIEFjYWRlbWljDQpQZXF1YW5ub2Nr IFRvd25zaGlwIEhpZ2ggU2Nob29sDQo5NzMuNjE2LjYwMDA8dGVsOjk3My42MTYuNjAwMD4NClRv IGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3Qn cyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9h dGVnLmh0bWwgYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCINCg0KVmlzaXQgQVRF RydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8NCg0KVG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlz IExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6 IGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbCBhbmQgc2VsZWN0 ICJKb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0Ig0KDQpWaXNpdCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0 cDovL2F0ZWcub3JnLw0KDQotLQ0KbWNqc2FAMTIzbWFpbC5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOm1janNhQDEyM21h aWwub3JnPg0KDQpUbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZp c2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZSBhdDogaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5l ZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sIGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3Qi DQoNClZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvDQoNClRvIGpvaW4g b3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIg aW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0 bWwgYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCINCg0KVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdl YiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8NCg0KLS0NCm1janNhQDEyM21haWwub3JnPG1haWx0 bzptY2pzYUAxMjNtYWlsLm9yZz4NClRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0 LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNl cnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwgYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvciBsZWF2 ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCINCg0KVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8N Cg= --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220F09EBE6UAEXCH07univa_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+PGhlYWQ+PG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUgY29udGVu dD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij48bWV0YSBuYW1lPUdlbmVyYXRvciBjb250ZW50 PSJNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCAxNCAoZmlsdGVyZWQgbWVkaXVtKSI+PHN0eWxlPjwhLS0NCi8qIEZv bnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6V2luZ2RpbmdzOw0K CXBhbm9zZS0xOjUgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDA7fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWls eTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6NSAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNl DQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OkNhbGlicmk7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxNSA1IDIgMiAyIDQgMyAyIDQ7 fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseTpUYWhvbWE7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxMSA2IDQg MyA1IDQgNCAyIDQ7fQ0KLyogU3R5bGUgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCnAuTXNvTm9ybWFsLCBsaS5N c29Ob3JtYWwsIGRpdi5Nc29Ob3JtYWwNCgl7bWFyZ2luOjBpbjsNCgltYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOi4w MDAxcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFu Iiwic2VyaWYiO30NCmE6bGluaywgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmsNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9y aXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOmJsdWU7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQphOnZp c2l0ZWQsIHNwYW4uTXNvSHlwZXJsaW5rRm9sbG93ZWQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5 Ow0KCWNvbG9yOnB1cnBsZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCnANCgl7bXNv LXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCW1zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1y aWdodDowaW47DQoJbXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG87DQoJbWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6MGlu Ow0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiIsInNl cmlmIjt9DQpzcGFuLkVtYWlsU3R5bGUxOA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpwZXJzb25hbC1yZXBs eTsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KCWNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0Q7 fQ0KLk1zb0NocERlZmF1bHQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6ZXhwb3J0LW9ubHk7DQoJZm9udC1z aXplOjEwLjBwdDt9DQpAcGFnZSBXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7c2l6ZTo4LjVpbiAxMS4waW47DQoJ bWFyZ2luOjEuMGluIDEuMGluIDEuMGluIDEuMGluO30NCmRpdi5Xb3JkU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7cGFn ZTpXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjE7fQ0KLyogTGlzdCBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KQGxpc3QgbDANCgl7bXNv LWxpc3QtaWQ6MjE5MTc2NTQwOw0KCW1zby1saXN0LXRlbXBsYXRlLWlkczotMTk2OTk1MTAzODt9 DQpAbGlzdCBsMDpsZXZlbDENCgl7bXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1mb3JtYXQ6YnVsbGV0Ow0KCW1z by1sZXZlbC10ZXh0Ou+CtzsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGFiLXN0b3A6LjVpbjsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwt bnVtYmVyLXBvc2l0aW9uOmxlZnQ7DQoJdGV4dC1pbmRlbnQ6LS4yNWluOw0KCW1zby1hbnNpLWZv bnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6U3ltYm9sO30NCkBsaXN0IGwwOmxldmVsMg0K CXttc28tbGV2ZWwtbnVtYmVyLWZvcm1hdDpidWxsZXQ7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRleHQ6bzsNCglt c28tbGV2ZWwtdGFiLXN0b3A6MS4waW47DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLW51bWJlci1wb3NpdGlvbjpsZWZ0 Ow0KCXRleHQtaW5kZW50Oi0uMjVpbjsNCgltc28tYW5zaS1mb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0Ow0KCWZv bnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDb3VyaWVyIE5ldyI7DQoJbXNvLWJpZGktZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRpbWVzIE5l dyBSb21hbiI7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDA6bGV2ZWwzDQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1 bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOjEuNWluOw0K CW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJ bXNvLWFuc2ktZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxp c3QgbDA6bGV2ZWw0DQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2 ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOjIuMGluOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1i ZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJbXNvLWFuc2ktZm9udC1z aXplOjEwLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDA6bGV2ZWw1DQoJ e21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJ bXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOjIuNWluOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVm dDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJbXNvLWFuc2ktZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDsNCglm b250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDA6bGV2ZWw2DQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1i ZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1z dG9wOjMuMGluOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVu dDotLjI1aW47DQoJbXNvLWFuc2ktZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5n ZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDA6bGV2ZWw3DQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxl dDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOjMuNWluOw0KCW1z by1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJbXNv LWFuc2ktZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxpc3Qg bDA6bGV2ZWw4DQoJe21zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwt dGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNvLWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOjQuMGluOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXIt cG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsNCgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJbXNvLWFuc2ktZm9udC1zaXpl OjEwLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0KQGxpc3QgbDA6bGV2ZWw5DQoJe21z by1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItZm9ybWF0OmJ1bGxldDsNCgltc28tbGV2ZWwtdGV4dDrvgqc7DQoJbXNv LWxldmVsLXRhYi1zdG9wOjQuNWluOw0KCW1zby1sZXZlbC1udW1iZXItcG9zaXRpb246bGVmdDsN Cgl0ZXh0LWluZGVudDotLjI1aW47DQoJbXNvLWFuc2ktZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDsNCglmb250 LWZhbWlseTpXaW5nZGluZ3M7fQ0Kb2wNCgl7bWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTowaW47fQ0KdWwNCgl7bWFy Z2luLWJvdHRvbTowaW47fQ0KLS0+PC9zdHlsZT48IS0tW2lmIGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4NCjxv OnNoYXBlZGVmYXVsdHMgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIHNwaWRtYXg9IjEwMjYiIC8+DQo8L3htbD48IVtl bmRpZl0tLT48IS0tW2lmIGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4NCjxvOnNoYXBlbGF5b3V0IHY6ZXh0PSJl ZGl0Ij4NCjxvOmlkbWFwIHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0IiBkYXRhPSIxIiAvPg0KPC9vOnNoYXBlbGF5b3V0 PjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPjwvaGVhZD48Ym9keSBsYW5nPUVOLVVTIGxpbms9Ymx1ZSB2bGlu az1wdXJwbGU+PGRpdiBjbGFzcz1Xb3JkU2VjdGlvbjE+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFu IHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJp ZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+SG93IGFib3V0IOKAnEluIHRoZSBib3ggd2VyZSBib29rcyBoZSBy ZW1lbWJlcmVkIGZyb20gZ3Jvd2luZyB1cCBhbmQsIGF0IHRoZSBib3R0b20sIGEgd2F0Y2ggd2l0 aCBjaGFpbiBhbmQgZnJvbnQgcGFuZWwgdGhhdCBmbGlwcGVkIG9wZW4gdG8gc2hvdyBpdHMgZmFj ZS7igJ08bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxl PSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29s b3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+wqDCoMKgIOKAnEluIHRoZSBib3jigJ0gY2FuIGJlIHRoZW1hdGljIG9wZW5p bmcgZm9yIGJvdGggcGFydHMgb2YgdGhlIHNlbnRlbmNlLiA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+ PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+wqDCoMKgVGhlcmUgYXJl IGxvdHMgb2YgcG9zc2liaWxpdGllcywgdGhvdWdoIHNvbWUgd2lsbCBiZSBtb3JlIGNvbmdydWVu dCB3aXRoIGNvbnRleHQgYW5kIGludGVudGlvbi48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PHAgY2xh c3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJD YWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+wqDCoCDigJxJbiB0aGUgYm94LCBi ZWxvdyB0aGUgYm9va3MgaGUgcmVtZW1iZXJlZCBmcm9tIGdyb3dpbmcgdXAsIHdhcyBhIHdhdGNo 4oCm4oCdIEluIHRoaXMgdmVyc2lvbiwgdGhlIGJvb2tzIGFyZSBhbiB1bmltcG9ydGFudCBpbXBl ZGltZW50IHRvIHRoZSByZWFsIHByaXplLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1N c29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGli cmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48 L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+Q3JhaWc8bzpwPjwv bzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6 MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+ PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxkaXY+PGRpdiBzdHlsZT0nYm9yZGVyOm5vbmU7 Ym9yZGVyLXRvcDpzb2xpZCAjQjVDNERGIDEuMHB0O3BhZGRpbmc6My4wcHQgMGluIDBpbiAwaW4n PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48Yj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250 LWZhbWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPkZyb206PC9zcGFuPjwvYj48c3BhbiBzdHls ZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPiBB c3NlbWJseSBmb3IgdGhlIFRlYWNoaW5nIG9mIEVuZ2xpc2ggR3JhbW1hciBbbWFpbHRvOkFURUdA TElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVV0gPGI+T24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIDwvYj5NIEMgSm9obnN0b25lPGJy PjxiPlNlbnQ6PC9iPiBUdWVzZGF5LCBTZXB0ZW1iZXIgMjcsIDIwMTEgMTA6MzYgQU08YnI+PGI+ VG86PC9iPiBBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFU8YnI+PGI+U3ViamVjdDo8L2I+IFJlOiBT ZW50ZW5jZSBjb25zdHJ1Y3Rpb248bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+PHAg Y2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxkaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1N c29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFs Iiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPlllcywgSSBzZWUgRG9uLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rp dj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEzLjVwdDtm b250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+ PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6 MTMuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz5Zb3VyIHNvbHV0aW9uLCBh IGNvbW1hIGJlZm9yZSAmcXVvdDthbmQsJnF1b3Q7IGlzIGJlc3QuIFRoYXQgc2VlbXMgdG8gYmUg YWxsIGl0IG5lZWRzLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1z b05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEzLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwi LCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAg Y2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTMuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz5UaGFua3M8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+ PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9u dC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwv cD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxkaXYgaWQ9bWU4OTcyND48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3Bh biBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEzLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlm Iic+T24gVHVlc2RheSwgU2VwdGVtYmVyIDI3LCAyMDExIDk6NDggQU0sICZxdW90O0RvbiBTdGV3 YXJ0JnF1b3Q7ICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86ZG9uc3Rld2FydHNAR01BSUwuQ09NIj5kb25z dGV3YXJ0c0BHTUFJTC5DT008L2E+Jmd0OyB3cm90ZTo8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9k aXY+PGJsb2NrcXVvdGUgc3R5bGU9J2JvcmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRlci1sZWZ0OnNvbGlkICMxNDRG QUUgMS41cHQ7cGFkZGluZzowaW4gMGluIDBpbiAxMi4wcHQ7bWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6MGluO21hcmdp bi1yaWdodDowaW4nPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEz LjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+TXkgc2Vuc2Ugb2YgdGhlIG9y aWdpbmFsIHZlcnNpb24gaXMgdGhhdCBoZSByZW1lbWJlcmVkIHRoZSBib29rcywgYnV0IGhlIGhh ZCBuZXZlciBzZWVuIHRoZSB3YXRjaCBiZWZvcmUuIEFjY29yZGluZyB0byBKb2huJ3MgZXhwbGFu YXRpb24gb2YgY29udGV4dCwgdGhpcyB3YXMgYSB5YXJkIHNhbGUuIFRoZSBwb2NrZXQgd2F0Y2gg d2FzIGEgbmV3IGRpc2NvdmVyeSwgYW5kIHRoYXQncyB3aHkgaXQgZGVzZXJ2ZXMgc3VjaCBmdWxs IGRlc2NyaXB0aW9uLjxicj48YnI+QWxzbywgJnF1b3Q7d2FzJnF1b3Q7IGlzIG5vdCBhbiBhdXhp bGlhcnkgdmVyYiwgbm9yIGlzIGl0IGEgbGlua2luZyB2ZXJiLiBJdCBpcyB0aGUgbWFpbiB2ZXJi LCB3aXRoIGl0cyBhZHZlcmJpYWwgcGxhY2VkIGluIHRoZSBvcGVuaW5nIHBvc2l0aW9u4oCUTWFy dGhhIEtvbGxuJ3Mgc2VudGVuY2UgcGF0dGVybiAxLCBhcyBzaG93biBoZXJlOjxicj48YnI+PGEg aHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy51bmNwLmVkdS9ob21lL2NhbmFkYS93b3JrL2NhbmVuZy9zZW50ZW5j ZS5odG0iPmh0dHA6Ly93d3cudW5jcC5lZHUvaG9tZS9jYW5hZGEvd29yay9jYW5lbmcvc2VudGVu Y2UuaHRtPC9hPjxicj48YnI+Q2hlZXJzLjxicj48YnI+PGJyIGNsZWFyPWFsbD5Eb24gU3Rld2Fy dDxicj48YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LndyaXRlZm9yY29sbGVnZS5jb20iIHRhcmdldD0iX2Js YW5rIj53d3cud3JpdGVmb3Jjb2xsZWdlLmNvbTwvYT48YnI+PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53 cml0aW5nMTIzLmNvbSIgdGFyZ2V0PSJfYmxhbmsiPnd3dy53cml0aW5nMTIzLmNvbTwvYT4gPG86 cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdm b250LXNpemU6MTMuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz4mbmJzcDs8 bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtYXJn aW4tYm90dG9tOjEzLjVwdCc+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1p bHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPjxicj48YnI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxk aXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTMuNXB0O2ZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz5PbiBUdWUsIFNlcCAyNywgMjAxMSBhdCA2OjQ1 IEFNLCBNIEMgSk15IG9obnN0b25lICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86bWNqc2FAMTIzbWFpbC5v cmciPm1janNhQDEyM21haWwub3JnPC9hPiZndDsgd3JvdGU6PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9w PjxkaXY+PGRpdj48ZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250 LXNpemU6MTMuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz5PcmlnaW5hbCBz ZW50ZW5jZTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNv Tm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTMuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIs InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBj bGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PGk+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1p bHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPiZxdW90O1RpbSByZW1lbWJlcmVkIHRob3NlIGJvb2tz IGdyb3dpbmcgdXAgYW5kIGFsc28gYXQgdGhlIGJvdHRvbSBvZiB0aGUgYm94IHdhcyBhIHBvY2tl dCB3YXRjaCBjb21wbGV0ZSB3aXRoIGNoYWluIGFuZCBmcm9udCBwYW5lbCB0aGF0IGZsaXBwZWQg b3BlbiB0byBzaG93IGl0cyBmYWNlLiZxdW90Ozwvc3Bhbj48L2k+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQt c2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+ PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9u dC1zaXplOjEzLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+Jm5ic3A7PG86 cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxz cGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTMuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2Vy aWYiJz5Qb3NzaWJsZSBlZGl0IC8gZXhwbGFuYXRpb246PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwv ZGl2PjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6 MTMuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpw Pjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2Zv bnQtc2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPiZxdW90O1Rp bSByZW1lbWJlcmVkIHRob3NlIGJvb2tzIDxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdiYWNrZ3JvdW5kOnllbGxvdyc+ ZnJvbSA8L3NwYW4+Z3Jvd2luZyB1cCwgYW5kIGFsc28ge3JlbWVtYmVyZWR9IDxzPmE8L3M+IHRo ZSBwb2NrZXQgd2F0Y2gsIGF0IHRoZSBib3R0b20gb2YgdGhlIGJveCwgPHM+d2FzIDwvcz5jb21w bGV0ZSB3aXRoIGNoYWluIGFuZCBmcm9udCBwYW5lbCB0aGF0IHtjb3VsZCBiZX0gZmxpcHBlZCBv cGVuIHRvIHNob3cgaXRzIGZhY2UuJnF1b3Q7PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2Pjxk aXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTMuNXB0O2ZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+ PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMy41 cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPkFzIHJlcG9ydGVkLCB0aGlzIHdh cyB2ZXJ5IGRpZmZpY3VsdCB0byB1bmRlcnN0YW5kLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rp dj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEzLjVwdDtm b250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+ PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6 MTMuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz5NaW5vciBlZGl0czo8bzpw PjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PHVsIHR5cGU9ZGlzYz48bGkgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFs IHN0eWxlPSdtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0 bzttc28tbGlzdDpsMCBsZXZlbDEgbGZvMSc+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7 Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPkRpY2sncyBhZGRpdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUg cHJlcG9zaXRpb247PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9saT48bGkgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0 eWxlPSdtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0bztt c28tbGlzdDpsMCBsZXZlbDEgbGZvMSc+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9u dC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPnRoZSBwcmVwc290aW9uYWwgcGhyYXNlIG1v dmVkIHRvIGZvbGxvdyB0aGUgbm91biBpdCBtb2RpZmllcyw8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L2xp PjxsaSBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1t YXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1saXN0OmwwIGxldmVsMSBsZm8xJz48c3BhbiBzdHls ZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEzLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+dGhl IHVubmVjZXNzYXJ5IGF1eGlsaWFyeSB2ZXJiIGVsaW1pbmF0ZWQuPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+ PC9saT48L3VsPjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6 MTMuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz5JIHRoaW5rIHRoaXMgdHlw ZSBvZiBlZGl0aW5nIHNob3VsZCBiZSBlYXN5IGZvciBhbnkgc3R1ZGVudCB3aG8gaGFkIGJlZW4g dHJhaW5lZCB0byBpZGVudGlmeSBmaW5pdGUgdmVyYnMgYW5kIHRoZWlyIHN1YmplY3RzLCB0byBz ZWUge2VsaXNpb259LCBhbmQgdG8gZXhwbGFpbiBwcmVwb3NpdGlvbmFsIHBocmFzZXMgYW5kIHBh cnRpY2lwbGVzIGFzIG1vZGlmaWVycy48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48 cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1p bHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rp dj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEzLjVwdDtm b250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+RWQgVmF2cmEncyBLSVNTIGFwcHJvYWNo IGlzIG1vcmUgdGhhbiBlbm91Z2ggZm9yIHRoaXMgYW5kIGNhbiBlYXNpbHkgYmUgdGF1Z2h0IHRv IHNpeHRoIGdyYWRlcnMuPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PGRpdj48cCBj bGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48 ZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTMuNXB0 O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bh bj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6 ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxkaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNw YW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJp ZiInPk9uIE1vbmRheSwgU2VwdGVtYmVyIDI2LCAyMDExIDU6NDEgUE0sICZxdW90O0RvbiBTdGV3 YXJ0JnF1b3Q7ICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86ZG9uc3Rld2FydHNAR01BSUwuQ09NIiB0YXJn ZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+ZG9uc3Rld2FydHNAR01BSUwuQ09NPC9hPiZndDsgd3JvdGU6PG86cD48L286 cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxibG9ja3F1b3RlIHN0eWxlPSdib3JkZXI6bm9uZSAjNTQwMDAw IDEuMHB0O2JvcmRlci1sZWZ0OnNvbGlkICM1NDAwMDAgMS41cHQ7cGFkZGluZzowaW4gMGluIDBp biAxMi4wcHQ7bWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6MGluO21hcmdpbi1yaWdodDowaW4nPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05v cm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEzLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJz YW5zLXNlcmlmIic+SSBhZ3JlZSB3aXRoIERpY2sncyBmaXJzdCBzdWdnZXN0aW9uLCB0aGUgYWRk aXRpb24gb2YgJnF1b3Q7ZnJvbSBoaXMgY2hpbGRob29kLCZxdW90OyBlc3BlY2lhbGx5IGlmIFRp bSBpcyBhbiBhZHVsdC4gSWYgaGUgaXMgdW5kZXIgMjEsIHNvbWV0aGluZyBsaWtlICZxdW90O2Zy b20gd2hlbiBoZSB3YXMgYSBraWQmcXVvdDsgd291bGQgYmUgYmV0dGVyLjxicj48YnI+QXMgZm9y IHRoZSByZXN0IG9mIGl0LCBJIHRoaW5rIGFsbCB5b3UgbmVlZCB0byBkbyBpcyBhZGQgYSBjb21t YSBiZWZvcmUgdGhlICZxdW90O2FuZC4mcXVvdDsgSXQgaXMgbm90IGEgcGFzc2l2ZSBzZW50ZW5j ZSwgYnV0IHNpbXBseSBhIGRlbGF5ZWQgc3ViamVjdCBhZnRlciB0aGUgJnF1b3Q7d2FzLCZxdW90 OyB3aGljaCBpcyBpbiB0dXJuIHByZWNlZGVkIGJ5IHRoZSBhZHZlcmJpYWwgcHJlcG9zaXRpb25h bCBwaHJhc2UgY29tYm8gJnF1b3Q7YXQgdGhlIGJvdHRvbSBvZiB0aGUgYm94LiZxdW90Ozxicj5U aGUgd29yc3QgdGhpbmcgdG8gZG8gd291bGQgYmUgdG8gdHVybiBpdCBiYWNrIGludG8gdHdvIHNl bnRlbmNlcywgd2hpY2ggd291bGQgcmVzdWx0IGluIHRoZSBnb29kIG9sZCAmcXVvdDtjaG9wcHkm cXVvdDsgYW5hdGhlbWEuPGJyPjxicj5GcmFua2x5LCB3aXRoIHRoZXNlIHRvdWNoLXVwcywgSSB0 aGluayBpdCdzIGEgZmluZSBzZW50ZW5jZSwgd2l0aCBpbnRyaWd1ZSwgcGFjZSwgYW50aWNpcGF0 aW9uLCBkZXRhaWwsIGFuZCBzdHlsZS48YnI+PGJyIGNsZWFyPWFsbD5Eb24gU3Rld2FydDxicj48 YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LndyaXRlZm9yY29sbGVnZS5jb20iIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj53 d3cud3JpdGVmb3Jjb2xsZWdlLmNvbTwvYT48YnI+PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53cml0aW5n MTIzLmNvbSIgdGFyZ2V0PSJfYmxhbmsiPnd3dy53cml0aW5nMTIzLmNvbTwvYT4gPG86cD48L286 cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNp emU6MTMuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwv bzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtYXJnaW4tYm90 dG9tOjEzLjVwdCc+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFy aWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPjxicj48YnI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxkaXY+PHAg Y2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTMuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz5PbiBNb24sIFNlcCAyNiwgMjAxMSBhdCA0OjQ5IFBNLCBE aWNrIFZlaXQgJmx0OzxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpkaWNrdmVpdEBnbWFpbC5jb20iIHRhcmdldD0i X2JsYW5rIj5kaWNrdmVpdEBnbWFpbC5jb208L2E+Jmd0OyB3cm90ZTo8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bh bj48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTMuNXB0O2Zv bnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz5Zb3UgY2FuIG1ha2UgYSBjb3VwbGUgb2Yg c3VnZ2VzdGlvbnMgdG8gdGhlIHN0dWRlbnQgZm9yIHJldmlzaW9uLjxicj48YnI+VGhlICZxdW90 O2dyb3dpbmcgdXAmcXVvdDsgZG9lc24ndCB3b3JrIHdpdGggJnF1b3Q7cmVtZW1iZXJlZC4mcXVv dDsgSGUgcmVtZW1iZXJlZCB0aGVtIG5vdCA8aT53aGlsZSA8L2k+aGUgd2FzIGdyb3dpbmcgdXAg YnV0IDxpPmZyb20gd2hlbjwvaT4gaGUgd2FzIGdyb3dpbmcgdXAuIEl0IHByb2JhYmx5IG5lZWRz IHJlY2FzdGluZyBhcyBzb21ldGhpbmcgbGlrZSAmcXVvdDtUaW0gcmVtZW1iZXJlZCB0aG9zZSBi b29rcyBmcm9tIGhpcyBjaGlsZGhvb2QuJnF1b3Q7IE9yICZxdW90O1Rob3NlIGJvb2tzIGJyb3Vn aHQgYmFjayBjaGlsZGhvb2QgbWVtb3JpZXMuJnF1b3Q7PGJyPjxicj5Zb3UgYXJlIHJpZ2h0IHRo YXQgJnF1b3Q7YW5kIGFsc28mcXVvdDsgZG9lc24ndCBjYXB0dXJlIHRoZSByZWxhdGlvbnNoaXAg YmV0d2VlbiB0aGUgdHdvIGNsYXVzZXMuIElmIHRoZSB3YXRjaCB3YXMgYWxzbyBzb21ldGhpbmcg aGUgcmVtZW1iZXJlZCwgaGUgY291bGQgbWFrZSBib3RoIHRoZSBib29rcyBhbmQgdGhlIHdhdGNo IG9iamVjdHM6ICZxdW90O1RpbSByZW1lbWJlcmVkIHRob3NlIGJvb2tzIGZyb20gaGlzIGNoaWxk aG9vZCBhbmQgYWxzbyBhIHBvY2tldCB3YXRjaCBhdCB0aGUgYm90dG9tIG9mIHRoZSBib3ggY29t cGxldGUgd2l0aCBjaGFpbiBhbmQgZnJvbnQgcGFuZWwgdGhhdCBmbGlwcGVkIG9wZW4gdG8gc2hv dyBpdHMgZmFjZS4mcXVvdDsgVGhhdCdzIHN0aWxsIGEgbGl0dGxlIGNsdW5reS4mbmJzcDsgSXQg bWlnaHQgYmUgYmVzdCB0byBkaXZpZGUgaXQgaW50byB0d28gc2VudGVuY2VzOiAmcXVvdDtUaW0g cmVtZW1iZXJlZCB0aG9zZSBib29rcyBmcm9tIGhpcyBjaGlsZGhvb2QuIEhlIGFsc28gZm91bmQg YSBwb2NrZXQgd2F0Y2ggYXQgdGhlIGJvdHRvbSBvZiB0aGUgYm94IGNvbXBsZXRlIHdpdGggY2hh aW4gYW5kIGZyb250IHBhbmVsIHRoYXQgZmxpcHBlZCBvcGVuIHRvIHNob3cgaXRzIGZhY2UuJnF1 b3Q7PGJyPjxicj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nY29sb3I6Izg4ODg4OCc+RGljazwvc3Bhbj4gPG86cD48 L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxkaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9 J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPiZuYnNw OzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHls ZT0nbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbToxMy41cHQnPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTMuNXB0O2Zv bnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz48YnI+PGJyPjxicj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwv c3Bhbj48L3A+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZTox My41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPk9uIE1vbiwgU2VwIDI2LCAy MDExIGF0IDQ6MDMgUE0sIEpvaG4gQ2hvcmF6eSAmbHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOmpvaG4uY2hv cmF6eUBwZXF1YW5ub2NrLm9yZyIgdGFyZ2V0PSJfYmxhbmsiPmpvaG4uY2hvcmF6eUBwZXF1YW5u b2NrLm9yZzwvYT4mZ3Q7IHdyb3RlOjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNz PU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEzLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJp YWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+R29vZCBhZnRlcm5vb24uLi4mbmJzcDsgSSdkIGJlIGdyYXRlZnVs IGZvciB5b3VyIGNvbGxlY3RpdmUgaW5wdXQgb24gYSBzdHVkZW50IHNlbnRlbmNlOjxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0n Zm9udC1zaXplOjEzLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+Jm5ic3A7 PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFu IHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTMuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYi Jz4mcXVvdDtUaW0gcmVtZW1iZXJlZCB0aG9zZSBib29rcyBncm93aW5nIHVwIGFuZCBhbHNvIGF0 IHRoZSBib3R0b20gb2YgdGhlIGJveCB3YXMgYSBwb2NrZXQgd2F0Y2ggY29tcGxldGUgd2l0aCBj aGFpbiBhbmQgZnJvbnQgcGFuZWwgdGhhdCBmbGlwcGVkIG9wZW4gdG8gc2hvdyBpdHMgZmFjZS4m cXVvdDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+ PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1z ZXJpZiInPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1z b05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEzLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwi LCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+QSBsaXR0bGUgY29udGV4dCAtIFRpbSBmaW5kcyBhdCBhIHlhcmQgc2Fs ZSBhJm5ic3A7Ym94IGNvbnRhaW5pbmcgc2V2ZXJhbCBpdGVtcyBvZiBpbnRlcmVzdCwgaW5jbHVk aW5nIGEgc2VyaWVzIG9mIGNoaWxkcmVuJ3MgYm9va3MgaGUgcmVjYWxscyByZWFkaW5nICh0aG9z ZSBib29rcykuPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9y bWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTMuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNh bnMtc2VyaWYiJz4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFz cz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFy aWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPkknbSBjb25jZXJuZWQgYWJvdXQgJnF1b3Q7YW5kJnF1b3Q7IHRy eWluZyB0byBjb25uZWN0IHR3byBkaXNzaW1pbGFyIHRob3VnaHRzIGludG8gYSBjb21wb3VuZCBz ZW50ZW5jZSwgYnV0IEkgYWxzbyBzZWUgYSBtaXhlZCB2b2ljZSBoZXJlLiBUaW0gZG9lcyB0aGUg YWN0aW9uIGluIHRoZSBmaXJzdCBjbGF1c2UgYW5kIHRoZW4gdGhlIHBvY2tldCB3YXRjaCAmcXVv dDt3YXMgYXQgdGhlIGJvdHRvbS4uLiZxdW90OyBpbiB0aGUgc2Vjb25kIGNsYXVzZSAocGFzc2l2 ZT8pLiBJJ3ZlIHNlZW4gdGhpcyBjb25zdHJ1Y3Rpb24gbW9yZSB0aGFuIGEgZmV3IHRpbWVzIGFu ZCB3YW50IHRvIGFkZHJlc3MgaXQgZWZmZWN0aXZlbHkuPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwv ZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTMuNXB0 O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bh bj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6 ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPlRoYW5rIHlvdS4uLjxv OnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBz dHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEzLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+ Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFs PjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTMuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMt c2VyaWYiJz4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1N c29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFs Iiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPjxicj4tLTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48ZGl2Pjxw IGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEzLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWls eToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+Sm9obiBDaG9yYXp5PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9w PjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTMu NXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz5FbmdsaXNoIElJSSBIb25vcnMg YW5kIEFjYWRlbWljPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNv Tm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTMuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIs InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz5QZXF1YW5ub2NrIFRvd25zaGlwIEhpZ2ggU2Nob29sPG86cD48L286cD48 L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250 LXNpemU6MTMuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz48YSBocmVmPSJ0 ZWw6OTczLjYxNi42MDAwIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+OTczLjYxNi42MDAwPC9hPjxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48L2Rpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9 J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPlRvIGpv aW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3 ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiA8YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNo aXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwiIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5odHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVk dS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWw8L2E+IGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgJnF1b3Q7Sm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0 aGUgbGlzdCZxdW90OyA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PHA+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQt c2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPlZpc2l0IEFURUcn cyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCA8YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvIiB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+ aHR0cDovL2F0ZWcub3JnLzwvYT48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+PC9k aXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTMuNXB0O2ZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz48YnI+VG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJ U1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6IDxh IGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbCIgdGFy Z2V0PSJfYmxhbmsiPmh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRt bDwvYT4gYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAmcXVvdDtKb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0JnF1b3Q7IDxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEzLjVwdDtmb250LWZh bWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+VmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IDxhIGhy ZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8iIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5odHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvPC9h PjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Jsb2NrcXVvdGU+PC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48cCBj bGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48 L2Rpdj48L2Rpdj48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9u dC1zaXplOjEzLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjojODg4 ODg4Jz4tLTwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEzLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToi QXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PHAg Y2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTMuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiM4ODg4ODgnPjxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzptY2pz YUAxMjNtYWlsLm9yZyIgdGFyZ2V0PSJfYmxhbmsiPm1janNhQDEyM21haWwub3JnPC9hPjwvc3Bh bj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEzLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5z LXNlcmlmIic+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+PGRpdj48cCBj bGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48 ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEzLjVwdDtmb250 LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+VG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RT RVJWIGxpc3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6IDxhIGhy ZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbCIgdGFyZ2V0 PSJfYmxhbmsiPmh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbDwv YT4gYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAmcXVvdDtKb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0JnF1b3Q7IDxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEzLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWls eToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+VmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IDxhIGhyZWY9 Imh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8iIHRhcmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj5odHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvPC9hPjxv OnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rpdj48L2Rpdj48L2Rpdj48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+ PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1z ZXJpZiInPjxicj5UbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZp c2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZSBhdDogPGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2 Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sIj5odHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVk dS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWw8L2E+IGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgJnF1b3Q7Sm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0 aGUgbGlzdCZxdW90OyA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PHA+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQt c2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPlZpc2l0IEFURUcn cyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCA8YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvIj5odHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcv PC9hPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Jsb2NrcXVvdGU+PC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48 cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMy41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1p bHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48L2Rp dj48L2Rpdj48ZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPi0tPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+ PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5z LXNlcmlmIic+PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOm1janNhQDEyM21haWwub3JnIj5tY2pzYUAxMjNtYWls Lm9yZzwvYT48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPlRv IGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3Qn cyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiA8YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9h cmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwiPmh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0 ZWcuaHRtbDwvYT4gYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAmcXVvdDtKb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0JnF1b3Q7 IDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxwPlZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCA8YSBocmVmPSJodHRw Oi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvIj5odHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvPC9hPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPjwvZGl2Pjwv Ym9keT48L2h0bWw+ --_000_F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220F09EBE6UAEXCH07univa_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:27:02 -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: John Chorazy <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentence construction In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary�aec517ac6a8ef3bd04adf142d1 --bcaec517ac6a8ef3bd04adf142d1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The problem with the model sentence, for me, rests in the word "also" � it is not an effective transition to an independent clause that has little to no connection to the previous information, even in the fuller context of any previous sentences. I think my ears and eyes prepare for a compound predicate when I fall upon also - Tim remembered and also (did another verb) ... but then the focus and voice shift because of the syntactical difference in structure. While that might not always be a bad thing in capable hands, here it is not successful and I don't see the sentence as either fixable with a comma or filled with intrigue and style. Remembering a book or books from childhood is packed with meaning that gets too quickly washed when stuck with the disconnected idea that follows. And wouldn't the phrase as written also suggest that something else too was at the bottom of the box, like those books? Thanks for the comments. On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > How about �In the box were books he remembered from growing up and, at > the bottom, a watch with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its > face.�**** > > �In the box� can be thematic opening for both parts of the sentence. * > *** > > There are lots of possibilities, though some will be more congruent with > context and intention.**** > > �In the box, below the books he remembered from growing up, was a > watch�� In this version, the books are an unimportant impediment to the real > prize.**** > > ** ** > > Craig > > **** > > ** Original sentence**** > > **** > > *"Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box > was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to > show its face."***** > > **** > > > > > Frankly, with these touch-ups, I think it's a fine sentence, with > intrigue, pace, anticipation, detail, and style. > > Don Stewart > www.writeforcollege.com > www.writing123.com **** > > **** > > > > **** > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote:**** > > You can make a couple of suggestions to the student for revision. > > The "growing up" doesn't work with "remembered." He remembered them not *while > *he was growing up but *from when* he was growing up. It probably needs > recasting as something like "Tim remembered those books from his childhood." > Or "Those books brought back childhood memories." > > You are right that "and also" doesn't capture the relationship between the > two clauses. If the watch was also something he remembered, he could make > both the books and the watch objects: "Tim remembered those books from his > childhood and also a pocket watch at the bottom of the box complete with > chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face." That's still a > little clunky. It might be best to divide it into two sentences: "Tim > remembered those books from his childhood. He also found a pocket watch at > the bottom of the box complete with chain and front panel that flipped open > to show its face." > > Dick **** > > **** > > > > > **** > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:03 PM, John Chorazy <[log in to unmask]> > wrote:**** > > Good afternoon... I'd be grateful for your collective input on a student > sentence:**** > > **** > > "Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box > was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to > show its face."**** > > **** > > A little context - Tim finds at a yard sale a box containing several items > of interest, including a series of children's books he recalls reading > (those books).**** > > **** > > I'm concerned about "and" trying to connect two dissimilar thoughts into a > compound sentence, but I also see a mixed voice here. Tim does the action in > the first clause and then the pocket watch "was at the bottom..." in the > second clause (passive?). I've seen this construction more than a few times > and want to address it effectively.**** > > **** > > Thank you...**** > > **** > > **** > > > --**** > > John Chorazy**** > > English III Honors and Academic**** > > Pequannock Township High School**** > > 973.616.6000**** > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" **** > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/**** > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > 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/**** > > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > 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/**** > -- John Chorazy English III Honors and Academic Pequannock Township High School 973.616.6000 To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --bcaec517ac6a8ef3bd04adf142d1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The problem with the model sentence, for me,�rests in the word�"also" � it is not an effective transition to an independent clause that has little to�no connection to the previous information, even in the fuller context of any previous sentences. I think my ears and eyes�prepare for a compound predicate when I fall upon also - Tim remembered and also (did another verb)�... but then the�focus and voice shift�because of the syntactical difference in structure. While that might not always be a bad thing in capable hands, here it is not successful and I don't see the sentence as either fixable with a comma or filled with intrigue and style. Remembering a book or books from childhood is packed with�meaning that gets too quickly washed when stuck with�the disconnected idea that follows. And wouldn't the phrase as written also suggest that something else too was at the bottom of the box, like those books?

�

Thanks for the comments.

�

�

�

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

How about �In the box were books he remembered from growing up and, at the bottom, a watch with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face.�

�� In the box� can be thematic opening for both parts of the sentence.

��There are lots of possibilities, though some will be more congruent with context and intention.

�� In the box, below the books he remembered from growing up, was a watch�� In this version, the books are an unimportant impediment to the real prize.

�

Craig

�

�Original sentence

�

"Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face."

�

�

�

�

Frankly, with these touch-ups, I think it's a fine sentence, with intrigue, pace, anticipation, detail, and style.

Don Stewart
www.writeforcollege.com
www.writing123.com

�

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

You can make a couple of suggestions to the student for revision.

The "growing up" doesn't work with "remembered." He remembered them not while he was growing up but from when he was growing up. It probably needs recasting as something like "Tim remembered those books from his childhood." Or "Those books brought back childhood memories."

You are right that "and also" doesn't capture the relationship between the two clauses. If the watch was also something he remembered, he could make both the books and the watch objects: "Tim remembered those books from his childhood and also a pocket watch at the bottom of the box complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face." That's still a little clunky.� It might be best to divide it into two sentences: "Tim remembered those books from his childhood. He also found a pocket watch at the bottom of the box complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face."

Dick

�

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:03 PM, John Chorazy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Good afternoon...� I'd be grateful for your collective input on a student sentence:

�

"Tim remembered those books growing up and also at the bottom of the box was a pocket watch complete with chain and front panel that flipped open to show its face."

�

A little context - Tim finds at a yard sale a�box containing several items of interest, including a series of children's books he recalls reading (those books).

�

I'm concerned about "and" trying to connect two dissimilar thoughts into a compound sentence, but I also see a mixed voice here. Tim does the action in the first clause and then the pocket watch "was at the bottom..." in the second clause (passive?). I've seen this construction more than a few times and want to address it effectively.

�

Thank you...

�

�

--

John Chorazy

English III Honors and Academic

Pequannock Township High School

973.616.6000

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

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

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

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

--

John Chorazy

English III Honors and Academic

Pequannock Township High School

973.616.6000

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --bcaec517ac6a8ef3bd04adf142d1-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:08:40 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Word usage problem? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="563393889-1027299409-1317305320=:76247" --563393889-1027299409-1317305320=:76247 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear List Members: � This morning in class, the students and I came across a sentence in their grammar handbook that apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we could not identify: � The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior. � The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" should be replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and an isthmus. Or does it have two sides? � Best- � Carol To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --563393889-1027299409-1317305320=:76247 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear List Members:

This morning in class, the students and I came across a sentence in their grammar handbook that apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we could not identify:

The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior.

The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" should be replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and an isthmus. Or does it have two sides?

Best-

Carol
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --563393889-1027299409-1317305320=:76247-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:31:04 +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: Word usage problem? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Carol, The author may be objecting to "surrounded," based on a hyper-literal reading ("if it's not encircled, it's not surrounded"). I've seen some similar examples, although usually in older books (for example, an author objecting to "audience" for a group of people watching a visual performance). Bill Spruiell On Sep 29, 2011, at 10:08 AM, "Carol Morrison" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Dear List Members: This morning in class, the students and I came across a sentence in their grammar handbook that apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we could not identify: The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior. The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" should be replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and an isthmus. Or does it have two sides? Best- Carol To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:32:47 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1460388173-1440420448-1317306767=:23697" --1460388173-1440420448-1317306767=:23697 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The only explanation we could *come* up with...(sorry!) --- On Thu, 9/29/11, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Word usage problem? To: [log in to unmask] Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 10:08 AM Dear List Members: � This morning in class, the students and I came across a sentence in their grammar handbook that apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we could not identify: � The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior. � The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" should be replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and an isthmus. Or does it have two sides? � Best- � CarolTo join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --1460388173-1440420448-1317306767=:23697 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The only explanation we could *come* up with...(sorry!)

--- On Thu, 9/29/11, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Word usage problem?
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 10:08 AM

Dear List Members:

This morning in class, the students and I came across a sentence in their grammar handbook that apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we could not identify:

The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior.

The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" should be replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and an isthmus. Or does it have two sides?

Best-

Carol
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --1460388173-1440420448-1317306767=:23697-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:50:36 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 It's also possible that "Peninsula" connotes "surrounded on three sides," so this would be mildly redundant. "The Keeneshaw Peninsula juts into Lake Superior" or "is bounded by Lake superior." Something like that would be cleaner. It seems to me more and more that handbooks are in the business of discovering error in the same way that drug companies are in the business of discovering new diseases. At a certain point, it becomes self serving (to the companies) and dangerous to the public, complete with serious side effects. The best way to avoid error is to shut up or die. We should declare a moratorium on error and invent something comparable to holistic medicine. Holistic grammar? It might get attention. Craig ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:32 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Word usage problem? The only explanation we could *come* up with...(sorry!) --- On Thu, 9/29/11, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Word usage problem? To: [log in to unmask] Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 10:08 AM Dear List Members: This morning in class, the students and I came across a sentence in their grammar handbook that apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we could not identify: The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior. The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" should be replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and an isthmus. Or does it have two sides? Best- Carol To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:03:23 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary cf3042719c2220b304ae15d1b1 --20cf3042719c2220b304ae15d1b1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Perhaps the author objects to the passive voice (although I'm not sure what the justification would be if the sentence is in isolation)? By the way, a Google search of the sentence shows several sites, including the Keeneshaw Chamber of Commerce, using that wording. The natives don't seem to object! John On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > It's also possible that "Peninsula" connotes "surrounded on three > sides," so this would be mildly redundant. "The Keeneshaw Peninsula juts > into Lake Superior" or "is bounded by Lake superior." Something like that > would be cleaner. > It seems to me more and more that handbooks are in the business of > discovering error in the same way that drug companies are in the business of > discovering new diseases. At a certain point, it becomes self serving (to > the companies) and dangerous to the public, complete with serious side > effects. > The best way to avoid error is to shut up or die. > We should declare a moratorium on error and invent something comparable > to holistic medicine. > Holistic grammar? It might get attention. > Craig > > ________________________________________ > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [ > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison [ > [log in to unmask]] > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:32 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Word usage problem? > > The only explanation we could *come* up with...(sorry!) > > --- On Thu, 9/29/11, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Word usage problem? > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 10:08 AM > > Dear List Members: > > This morning in class, the students and I came across a sentence in their > grammar handbook that apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we > could not identify: > > The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior. > > The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" should be > replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and an > isthmus. Or does it have two sides? > > Best- > > Carol > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > -- -- John To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --20cf3042719c2220b304ae15d1b1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Perhaps the author objects to the passive voice (although I'm not sure what the justification would be if the sentence is in isolation)? By the way, a Google search of the sentence shows several sites, including the Keeneshaw Chamber of Commerce, using that wording. The natives don't seem to object!

John

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
� � It's also possible that "Peninsula" connotes "surrounded on three sides," so this would be mildly redundant. "The Keeneshaw Peninsula juts into Lake Superior" or "is bounded by Lake superior." Something like that would be cleaner.
� �It seems to me more and more that handbooks are in the business of discovering error in the same way that drug companies are in the business of discovering new diseases. At a certain point, it becomes self serving (to the companies) and dangerous to the public, complete with serious side effects.
� The best way to avoid error is to shut up or die.
� We should declare a moratorium on error and invent something comparable to holistic medicine.
� Holistic grammar? It might get attention.
Craig

________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [ Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:12:08 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="2055901420-1677192483-1317309128=:74821" --2055901420-1677192483-1317309128=:74821 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig: � �If this�were a post on Facebook, I'd hit�"like," especially the part about drug companies "discovering new diseases." I did tell the students that I would present the question to the members of ATEG, so that maybe they could come up with answer or consensus. The students�were very impressed that a panel of experts would be presented with the usage problem, as the answer was not in the back of their books. They were also surprised that I did not have the answer.�(Only�"lettered" answers are�provided and this was a "numbered" question).�As we all know, there is only ever one correct answer when it comes to grammar. (kidding, of course)�Thank you for your response and thanks to Bill for his response also! Best- Carol --- On Thu, 9/29/11, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? To: [log in to unmask] Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 10:50 AM � ��It's also possible that "Peninsula" connotes "surrounded on three sides," so this would be mildly redundant. "The Keeneshaw Peninsula juts into Lake Superior" or "is bounded by Lake superior." Something like that would be cleaner. � � It seems to me more and more that handbooks are in the business of discovering error in the same way that drug companies are in the business of discovering new diseases. At a certain point, it becomes self serving (to the companies) and dangerous to the public, complete with serious side effects. ��The best way to avoid error is to shut up or die. ��We should declare a moratorium on error and invent something comparable to holistic medicine. ��Holistic grammar? It might get attention. Craig � � ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:32 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Word usage problem? The only explanation we could *come* up with...(sorry!) --- On Thu, 9/29/11, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Word usage problem? To: [log in to unmask] Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 10:08 AM Dear List Members: This morning in class, the students and I came across a sentence in their grammar handbook that apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we could not identify: The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior. The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" should be replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and an isthmus. Or does it have two sides? Best- Carol To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: � ��http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --2055901420-1677192483-1317309128=:74821 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Craig:

If this were a post on Facebook, I'd hit "like," especially the part about drug companies "discovering new diseases." I did tell the students that I would present the question to the members of ATEG, so that maybe they could come up with answer or consensus. The students were very impressed that a panel of experts would be presented with the usage problem, as the answer was not in the back of their books. They were also surprised that I did not have the answer. (Only "lettered" answers are provided and this was a "numbered" question). As we all know, there is only ever one correct answer when it comes to grammar. (kidding, of course) Thank you for your response and thanks to Bill for his response also!

Best-

Carol

--- On Thu, 9/29/11, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Word usage problem?
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 10:50 AM

   It's also possible that "Peninsula" connotes "surrounded on three sides," so this would be mildly redundant. "The Keeneshaw Peninsula juts into Lake Superior" or "is bounded by Lake superior." Something like that would be cleaner.
It seems to me more and more that handbooks are in the business of discovering error in the same way that drug companies are in the business of discovering new diseases. At a certain point, it becomes self serving (to the companies) and dangerous to the public, complete with serious side effects.
   The best way to avoid error is to shut up or die.
   We should declare a moratorium on error and invent something comparable to holistic medicine.
   Holistic grammar? It might get attention.
Craig

________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison [[log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Word usage problem?

The only explanation we could *come* up with...(sorry!)

--- On Thu, 9/29/11, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Word usage problem?
To: [log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 10:08 AM

Dear List Members:

This morning in class, the students and I came across a sentence in their grammar handbook that apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we could not identify:

The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior.

The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" should be replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and an isthmus. Or does it have two sides?

Best-

Carol

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

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

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

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

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --2055901420-1677192483-1317309128=:74821-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:15:26 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-204894949-1671283779-1317309326=:43041" ---204894949-1671283779-1317309326=:43041 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for checking, John. Oh, and the textbook also spells "Keeneshaw" incorrectly according to the way you and Craig have spelled it. --- On Thu, 9/29/11, John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? To: [log in to unmask] Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 11:03 AM Perhaps the author objects to the passive voice (although I'm not sure what the justification would be if the sentence is in isolation)? By the way, a Google search of the sentence shows several sites, including the Keeneshaw Chamber of Commerce, using that wording. The natives don't seem to object! John On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> wrote: � � It's also possible that "Peninsula" connotes "surrounded on three sides," so this would be mildly redundant. "The Keeneshaw Peninsula juts into Lake Superior" or "is bounded by Lake superior." Something like that would be cleaner. � �It seems to me more and more that handbooks are in the business of discovering error in the same way that drug companies are in the business of discovering new diseases. At a certain point, it becomes self serving (to the companies) and dangerous to the public, complete with serious side effects. � The best way to avoid error is to shut up or die. � We should declare a moratorium on error and invent something comparable to holistic medicine. � Holistic grammar? It might get attention. Craig ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [ Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ---204894949-1671283779-1317309326=:43041 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for checking, John. Oh, and the textbook also spells "Keeneshaw" incorrectly according to the way you and Craig have spelled it.

--- On Thu, 9/29/11, John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Word usage problem?
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 11:03 AM

Perhaps the author objects to the passive voice (although I'm not sure what the justification would be if the sentence is in isolation)? By the way, a Google search of the sentence shows several sites, including the Keeneshaw Chamber of Commerce, using that wording. The natives don't seem to object!

John

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

It's also possible that "Peninsula" connotes "surrounded on three sides," so this would be mildly redundant. "The Keeneshaw Peninsula juts into Lake Superior" or "is bounded by Lake superior." Something like that would be cleaner.
It seems to me more and more that handbooks are in the business of discovering error in the same way that drug companies are in the business of discovering new diseases. At a certain point, it becomes self serving (to the companies) and dangerous to the public, complete with serious side effects.
The best way to avoid error is to shut up or die.
We should declare a moratorium on error and invent something comparable to holistic medicine.
Holistic grammar? It might get attention.
Craig

________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [ Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ---204894949-1671283779-1317309326=:43041-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:22:50 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary�e6ba6e8cdcb1991e04ae16161d --90e6ba6e8cdcb1991e04ae16161d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Actually, I have no idea why I spelled it that way. I must have glanced up at Craig's post when spelling it. Keweenaw peninsula is indeed the one the text is referencing as reflected on the Keweenaw Chamber of Commerce website. Sorry for the confusion. I do know of a Keenesaw, Georgia coincidentally. John On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Thanks for checking, John. Oh, and the textbook also spells "Keeneshaw" > incorrectly according to the way you and Craig have spelled it. > > --- On *Thu, 9/29/11, John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>*wrote: > > > From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Word usage problem? > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 11:03 AM > > Perhaps the author objects to the passive voice (although I'm not sure what > the justification would be if the sentence is in isolation)? By the way, a > Google search of the sentence shows several sites, including the Keeneshaw > Chamber of Commerce, using that wording. The natives don't seem to object! > > John > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask][log in to unmask]> > > wrote: > > It's also possible that "Peninsula" connotes "surrounded on three > sides," so this would be mildly redundant. "The Keeneshaw Peninsula juts > into Lake Superior" or "is bounded by Lake superior." Something like that > would be cleaner. > It seems to me more and more that handbooks are in the business of > discovering error in the same way that drug companies are in the business of > discovering new diseases. At a certain point, it becomes self serving (to > the companies) and dangerous to the public, complete with serious side > effects. > The best way to avoid error is to shut up or die. > We should declare a moratorium on error and invent something comparable > to holistic medicine. > Holistic grammar? It might get attention. > Craig > > ________________________________________ > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [ Visit ATEG's web site > at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > -- -- John To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --90e6ba6e8cdcb1991e04ae16161d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Actually, I have no idea why I spelled it that way. I must have glanced up at Craig's post when spelling it. Keweenaw peninsula is indeed the one the text is referencing as reflected on the Keweenaw Chamber of Commerce website. Sorry for the confusion. I do know of a Keenesaw, Georgia coincidentally.

John

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Thanks for checking, John. Oh, and the textbook also spells "Keeneshaw" incorrectly according to the way you and Craig have spelled it.

--- On Thu, 9/29/11, John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Word usage problem?
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 11:03 AM

Perhaps the author objects to the passive voice (although I'm not sure what the justification would be if the sentence is in isolation)? By the way, a Google search of the sentence shows several sites, including the Keeneshaw Chamber of Commerce, using that wording. The natives don't seem to object!

John

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

� � It's also possible that "Peninsula" connotes "surrounded on three sides," so this would be mildly redundant. "The Keeneshaw Peninsula juts into Lake Superior" or "is bounded by Lake superior." Something like that would be cleaner.
� �It seems to me more and more that handbooks are in the business of discovering error in the same way that drug companies are in the business of discovering new diseases. At a certain point, it becomes self serving (to the companies) and dangerous to the public, complete with serious side effects.
� The best way to avoid error is to shut up or die.
� We should declare a moratorium on error and invent something comparable to holistic medicine.
� Holistic grammar? It might get attention.
Craig

________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [ Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

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

--
--
John

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --90e6ba6e8cdcb1991e04ae16161d-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:33:33 -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: "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 I seem to remain living proof that error is an inevitable aspect of life. I must have thought of Keeneshaw Georgia and unwittingly led John down the primrose path. It seems to me that most real life language choices all reside in the realm of "correctness," but construe what is under focus in different ways. I can imagine a context in which the more redundant form would be preferable; trying to reinforce the definition of "peninsula" for a school aged audience, for example. The author might conclude that "surrounded on three sides" would be a helpful reminder. In a "holistic grammar," we would be sensitive to context. All sentences would be thought of as part of a whole, even if they were only one sentence wholes. Craig ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:22 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Word usage problem? Actually, I have no idea why I spelled it that way. I must have glanced up at Craig's post when spelling it. Keweenaw peninsula is indeed the one the text is referencing as reflected on the Keweenaw Chamber of Commerce website. Sorry for the confusion. I do know of a Keenesaw, Georgia coincidentally. John On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Thanks for checking, John. Oh, and the textbook also spells "Keeneshaw" incorrectly according to the way you and Craig have spelled it. --- On Thu, 9/29/11, John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? To: [log in to unmask] Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 11:03 AM Perhaps the author objects to the passive voice (although I'm not sure what the justification would be if the sentence is in isolation)? By the way, a Google search of the sentence shows several sites, including the Keeneshaw Chamber of Commerce, using that wording. The natives don't seem to object! John On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask][log in to unmask]>> wrote: It's also possible that "Peninsula" connotes "surrounded on three sides," so this would be mildly redundant. "The Keeneshaw Peninsula juts into Lake Superior" or "is bounded by Lake superior." Something like that would be cleaner. It seems to me more and more that handbooks are in the business of discovering error in the same way that drug companies are in the business of discovering new diseases. At a certain point, it becomes self serving (to the companies) and dangerous to the public, complete with serious side effects. The best way to avoid error is to shut up or die. We should declare a moratorium on error and invent something comparable to holistic medicine. Holistic grammar? It might get attention. Craig ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [ Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ -- -- John To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:36:06 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: the Oxford comma MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016e6d647bc2116fc04ae18c85e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 You might enjoy this cartoonabout the "Oxford comma," the controversial comma that precedes the conjunction in a series of three or more items: "eat, drink, and be merry" (as opposed to "eat, drink and be merry"). It is also called the "Harvard comma" and the "serial comma." The cartoon could provoke discussion in a college writing class--perhaps a bit racy for high school. Similar is the famously ambiguous (and probably apocryphal) book dedication: "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God." Dick To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6d647bc2116fc04ae18c85e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You might enjoy this cartoon about the "Oxford comma," the controversial comma that precedes the conjunction in a series of three or more items: "eat, drink, and be merry" (as opposed to "eat, drink and be merry"). It is also called the "Harvard comma" and the "serial comma." The cartoon could provoke discussion in a college writing class--perhaps a bit racy for high school.

Similar is the famously ambiguous (and probably apocryphal) book dedication: "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God."

Dick
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6d647bc2116fc04ae18c85e-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:23:52 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "R. Michael Medley (ck)" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Notice, however, that we can't say that Florida (also a peninsula) is surrounded on three sides by ONE body of water! We might say 1. "Florida is a peninsula bounded by the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico." 2. "Florida is bounded on three sides by the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico." 3. PROBABLY NOT: "Florida is a peninsula bounded on three sides by the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico." One wonders if students would be tempted to write number 3 as a way of "displaying" their knowledge of geographical terms. In fact, in earth science or social studies, they may have learned the definition of peninsula as "a body of land bounded by water on three sides." As others have pointed out, the issue in the original sentence may be one of redundancy, not an unforgivable sort of redundancy. If I wanted students to reduce wordiness or display economy of language, this is not the sort of problem I would first turn my attention to. The example, however, does pose a critical thinking exercise that raises some awareness of economy: why use 4 words when 1 will do? 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/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:41:20 +0000 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Myers, Marshall" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: the Oxford comma In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E6446B90F8DEEC4FB965A2BCC9E704CC18A1573Cfsmail3facultys_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_E6446B90F8DEEC4FB965A2BCC9E704CC18A1573Cfsmail3facultys_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dick, I thought the omission of the comma in a series like these was a journalistic invention, a way to eliminate what could be an unnecessary comma. So the Oxford comma predates the journalistic practice? Marshall From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 2:36 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: the Oxford comma You might enjoy this cartoon about the "Oxford comma," the controversial comma that precedes the conjunction in a series of three or more items: "eat, drink, and be merry" (as opposed to "eat, drink and be merry"). It is also called the "Harvard comma" and the "serial comma." The cartoon could provoke discussion in a college writing class--perhaps a bit racy for high school. Similar is the famously ambiguous (and probably apocryphal) book dedication: "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God." Dick To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_E6446B90F8DEEC4FB965A2BCC9E704CC18A1573Cfsmail3facultys_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dick,

I thought the omission of the comma in a series like these was a journalistic invention, a way to eliminate what could be an unnecessary comma.

So the Oxford comma predates the journalistic practice?

Marshall

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 2:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: the Oxford comma

You might enjoy this cartoon about the "Oxford comma," the controversial comma that precedes the conjunction in a series of three or more items: "eat, drink, and be merry" (as opposed to "eat, drink and be merry"). It is also called the "Harvard comma" and the "serial comma." The cartoon could provoke discussion in a college writing class--perhaps a bit racy for high school.

Similar is the famously ambiguous (and probably apocryphal) book dedication: "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God."

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --_000_E6446B90F8DEEC4FB965A2BCC9E704CC18A1573Cfsmail3facultys_-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:14:37 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: the Oxford comma In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016e64713e461bb1004ae2a1574 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Marshall, I am a fan of the serial comma. One of my books is *Writing, Reading, and Research* (with the comma). It is more common in the US than the UK, although the *AP Style Book* advises against it. Wikipedia offers a very nice explanation of the controversy, including pros and cons. Dick On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Myers, Marshall <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Dick,**** > > ** ** > > I thought the omission of the comma in a series like these was a > journalistic invention, a way to eliminate what could be an unnecessary > comma.**** > > ** ** > > So the Oxford comma predates the journalistic practice?**** > > ** ** > > Marshall**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Dick Veit > *Sent:* Thursday, September 29, 2011 2:36 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* the Oxford comma**** > > ** ** > > You might enjoy this cartoonabout the "Oxford comma," the controversial comma that precedes the > conjunction in a series of three or more items: "eat, drink, and be merry" > (as opposed to "eat, drink and be merry"). It is also called the "Harvard > comma" and the "serial comma." The cartoon could provoke discussion in a > college writing class--perhaps a bit racy for high school. > > Similar is the famously ambiguous (and probably apocryphal) book > dedication: "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God." > > Dick > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e64713e461bb1004ae2a1574 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Marshall,

I am a fan of the serial comma. One of my books is Writing, Reading, and Research (with the comma). It is more common in the US than the UK, although the AP Style Book advises against it. Wikipedia offers a very nice explanation of the controversy, including pros and cons.

Dick

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Myers, Marshall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dick,

�

I thought the omission of the comma in a series like these was a journalistic invention, a way to eliminate what could be an unnecessary comma.

�

So the Oxford comma predates the journalistic practice?

�

Marshall

�

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 2:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: the Oxford comma

�

You might enjoy this cartoon about the "Oxford comma," the controversial comma that precedes the conjunction in a series of three or more items: "eat, drink, and be merry" (as opposed to "eat, drink and be merry"). It is also called the "Harvard comma" and the "serial comma." The cartoon could provoke discussion in a college writing class--perhaps a bit racy for high school.

Similar is the famously ambiguous (and probably apocryphal) book dedication: "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God."

Dick
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e64713e461bb1004ae2a1574-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:30:53 -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: Word usage problem? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1953920733-148532822-1317396653=:44655" --1953920733-148532822-1317396653=:44655 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It�seems logical that "surrounded on three sides" is redundant because a peninsula only has three sides. I'm going to go with the following�revision: � � The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded by Lake Superior. � Thanks again for the advice. � Carol --- On Fri, 9/30/11, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? To: [log in to unmask] Date: Friday, September 30, 2011, 8:23 AM Notice, however, that we can't say that Florida (also a peninsula) is surrounded on three sides by ONE body of water!� We might say 1. "Florida is a peninsula bounded by the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico." 2. "Florida is bounded on three sides by the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico." 3. PROBABLY NOT: "Florida is a peninsula bounded on three sides by the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico." One wonders if students would be tempted to write number 3 as a way of "displaying" their knowledge of geographical terms.� In fact, in earth science or social studies, they may have learned the definition of peninsula as "a body of land bounded by water on three sides." As others have pointed out, the issue in the original sentence may be one of redundancy, not an unforgivable sort of redundancy.� If I wanted students to reduce wordiness or display economy of language, this is not the sort of problem I would first turn my attention to.� The example, however, does pose a critical thinking exercise that raises some awareness of economy: why use 4 words when 1 will do? 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/ --1953920733-148532822-1317396653=:44655 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It seems logical that "surrounded on three sides" is redundant because a peninsula only has three sides. I'm going to go with the following revision:

The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded by Lake Superior.

Thanks again for the advice.

Carol

--- On Fri, 9/30/11, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Word usage problem?
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Friday, September 30, 2011, 8:23 AM

Notice, however, that we can't say that Florida (also a peninsula) is
surrounded on three sides by ONE body of water! We might say

1. "Florida is a peninsula bounded by the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of
Mexico."

2. "Florida is bounded on three sides by the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of
Mexico."

3. PROBABLY NOT: "Florida is a peninsula bounded on three sides by the
Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico."

One wonders if students would be tempted to write number 3 as a way of
"displaying" their knowledge of geographical terms. In fact, in earth
science or social studies, they may have learned the definition of
peninsula as "a body of land bounded by water on three sides."

As others have pointed out, the issue in the original sentence may be one
of redundancy, not an unforgivable sort of redundancy. If I wanted
students to reduce wordiness or display economy of language, this is not
the sort of problem I would first turn my attention to. The example,
however, does pose a critical thinking exercise that raises some awareness
of economy: why use 4 words when 1 will do?

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/ --1953920733-148532822-1317396653=:44655-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:47:28 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary cf301d3caca12b0e04ae2a8c73 --20cf301d3caca12b0e04ae2a8c73 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Carol, because this thread was on my mind this morning, I used a similar revised form of this sentence when I needed a passive sentence to illustrate topic/comment structure. Even without context, we can infer that the peninsula is the topic of conversation, and the fact that it is surrounded by Lake Superior is a comment/new information. The active form ("Lake Superior surrounds the Keweenaw Peninsula.") casts Lake Superior as the topic. My student looked at me strangely. I asked, "Am I making any sense at all?" My student responded, "Oh yeah, I get what you're saying. But where in the world did you come up with that sentence?" Ha! I suppose it's not the average "The cat was chased by the dog" (wow, I just nominalized a whole sentence!). John On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > It seems logical that "surrounded on three sides" is redundant because a > peninsula only has three sides. I'm going to go with the following revision: > > > The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded by Lake Superior. > > Thanks again for the advice. > > Carol > > > --- On *Fri, 9/30/11, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]>* wrote: > > > From: R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Word usage problem? > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Friday, September 30, 2011, 8:23 AM > > Notice, however, that we can't say that Florida (also a peninsula) is > surrounded on three sides by ONE body of water! We might say > > 1. "Florida is a peninsula bounded by the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of > Mexico." > > 2. "Florida is bounded on three sides by the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of > Mexico." > > 3. PROBABLY NOT: "Florida is a peninsula bounded on three sides by the > Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico." > > One wonders if students would be tempted to write number 3 as a way of > "displaying" their knowledge of geographical terms. In fact, in earth > science or social studies, they may have learned the definition of > peninsula as "a body of land bounded by water on three sides." > > As others have pointed out, the issue in the original sentence may be one > of redundancy, not an unforgivable sort of redundancy. If I wanted > students to reduce wordiness or display economy of language, this is not > the sort of problem I would first turn my attention to. The example, > however, does pose a critical thinking exercise that raises some awareness > of economy: why use 4 words when 1 will do? > > > 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/ > -- -- 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/ --20cf301d3caca12b0e04ae2a8c73 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Carol, because this thread was on my mind this morning, I used a similar revised form of this sentence when I needed a passive sentence to illustrate topic/comment structure. Even without context, we can infer that the peninsula is the topic of conversation, and the fact that it is surrounded by Lake Superior is a comment/new information. The active form ("Lake Superior surrounds the Keweenaw Peninsula.") casts Lake Superior as the topic.

My student looked at me strangely. I asked, "Am I making any sense at all?" My student responded, "Oh yeah, I get what you're saying. But where in the world did you come up with that sentence?" Ha! I suppose it's not the average "The cat was chased by the dog" (wow, I just nominalized a whole sentence!).

John

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

It�seems logical that "surrounded on three sides" is redundant because a peninsula only has three sides. I'm going to go with the following�revision:

�

�

The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded by Lake Superior.

�

Thanks again for the advice.

�

Carol

--- On Fri, 9/30/11, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Word usage problem?
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Friday, September 30, 2011, 8:23 AM

Notice, however, that we can't say that Florida (also a peninsula) is
surrounded on three sides by ONE body of water!� We might say

1. "Florida is a peninsula bounded by the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of
Mexico."

2. "Florida is bounded on three sides by the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of
Mexico."

3. PROBABLY NOT: "Florida is a peninsula bounded on three sides by the
Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico."

One wonders if students would be tempted to write number 3 as a way of
"displaying" their knowledge of geographical terms.� In fact, in earth
science or social studies, they may have learned the definition of
peninsula as "a body of land bounded by water on three sides."

As others have pointed out, the issue in the original sentence may be one
of redundancy, not an unforgivable sort of redundancy.� If I wanted
students to reduce wordiness or display economy of language, this is not
the sort of problem I would first turn my attention to.� The example,
however, does pose a critical thinking exercise that raises some awareness
of economy: why use 4 words when 1 will do?

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/

--
--
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/ --20cf301d3caca12b0e04ae2a8c73-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:41:06 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="652422723-371971303-1317400866=:73672" --652422723-371971303-1317400866=:73672 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks, John. Now I've learned what "nominalizing a sentence" means with your example! --- On Fri, 9/30/11, John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? To: [log in to unmask] Date: Friday, September 30, 2011, 11:47 AM Carol, because this thread was on my mind this morning, I used a similar revised form of this sentence when I needed a passive sentence to illustrate topic/comment structure. Even without context, we can infer that the peninsula is the topic of conversation, and the fact that it is surrounded by Lake Superior is a comment/new information. The active form ("Lake Superior surrounds the Keweenaw Peninsula.") casts Lake Superior as the topic. My student looked at me strangely. I asked, "Am I making any sense at all?" My student responded, "Oh yeah, I get what you're saying. But where in the world did you come up with that sentence?" Ha! I suppose it's not the average "The cat was chased by the dog" (wow, I just nominalized a whole sentence!). John On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote: It�seems logical that "surrounded on three sides" is redundant because a peninsula only has three sides. I'm going to go with the following�revision: � � The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded by Lake Superior. � Thanks again for the advice. � Carol --- On Fri, 9/30/11, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? To: [log in to unmask] Date: Friday, September 30, 2011, 8:23 AM Notice, however, that we can't say that Florida (also a peninsula) is surrounded on three sides by ONE body of water!� We might say 1. "Florida is a peninsula bounded by the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico." 2. "Florida is bounded on three sides by the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico." 3. PROBABLY NOT: "Florida is a peninsula bounded on three sides by the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico." One wonders if students would be tempted to write number 3 as a way of "displaying" their knowledge of geographical terms.� In fact, in earth science or social studies, they may have learned the definition of peninsula as "a body of land bounded by water on three sides." As others have pointed out, the issue in the original sentence may be one of redundancy, not an unforgivable sort of redundancy.� If I wanted students to reduce wordiness or display economy of language, this is not the sort of problem I would first turn my attention to.� The example, however, does pose a critical thinking exercise that raises some awareness of economy: why use 4 words when 1 will do? 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/ -- -- 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/ --652422723-371971303-1317400866=:73672 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks, John. Now I've learned what "nominalizing a sentence" means with your example!

--- On Fri, 9/30/11, John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Word usage problem?
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Friday, September 30, 2011, 11:47 AM

Carol, because this thread was on my mind this morning, I used a similar revised form of this sentence when I needed a passive sentence to illustrate topic/comment structure. Even without context, we can infer that the peninsula is the topic of conversation, and the fact that it is surrounded by Lake Superior is a comment/new information. The active form ("Lake Superior surrounds the Keweenaw Peninsula.") casts Lake Superior as the topic.

My student looked at me strangely. I asked, "Am I making any sense at all?" My student responded, "Oh yeah, I get what you're saying. But where in the world did you come up with that sentence?" Ha! I suppose it's not the average "The cat was chased by the dog" (wow, I just nominalized a whole sentence!).

John

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

It seems logical that "surrounded on three sides" is redundant because a peninsula only has three sides. I'm going to go with the following revision:

The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded by Lake Superior.

Thanks again for the advice.

Carol

--- On Fri, 9/30/11, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Word usage problem?
To: [log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Date: Friday, September 30, 2011, 8:23 AM

Notice, however, that we can't say that Florida (also a peninsula) is
surrounded on three sides by ONE body of water! We might say

1. "Florida is a peninsula bounded by the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of
Mexico."

2. "Florida is bounded on three sides by the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of
Mexico."

3. PROBABLY NOT: "Florida is a peninsula bounded on three sides by the
Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico."

One wonders if students would be tempted to write number 3 as a way of
"displaying" their knowledge of geographical terms. In fact, in earth
science or social studies, they may have learned the definition of
peninsula as "a body of land bounded by water on three sides."

As others have pointed out, the issue in the original sentence may be one
of redundancy, not an unforgivable sort of redundancy. If I wanted
students to reduce wordiness or display economy of language, this is not
the sort of problem I would first turn my attention to. The example,
however, does pose a critical thinking exercise that raises some awareness
of economy: why use 4 words when 1 will do?

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/

--
--
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/ --652422723-371971303-1317400866=:73672-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:25:38 -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: "Peter H. Fries" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary�aec5216311f2582804ae2be919 --bcaec5216311f2582804ae2be919 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 This wording makes me think it is an island (like Isle Royale). Peter On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > It seems logical that "surrounded on three sides" is redundant because a > peninsula only has three sides. I'm going to go with the following revision: > > > The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded by Lake Superior. > > Thanks again for the advice. > > Carol > > > --- On *Fri, 9/30/11, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]>* wrote: > > > From: R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Word usage problem? > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Friday, September 30, 2011, 8:23 AM > > Notice, however, that we can't say that Florida (also a peninsula) is > surrounded on three sides by ONE body of water! We might say > > 1. "Florida is a peninsula bounded by the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of > Mexico." > > 2. "Florida is bounded on three sides by the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of > Mexico." > > 3. PROBABLY NOT: "Florida is a peninsula bounded on three sides by the > Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico." > > One wonders if students would be tempted to write number 3 as a way of > "displaying" their knowledge of geographical terms. In fact, in earth > science or social studies, they may have learned the definition of > peninsula as "a body of land bounded by water on three sides." > > As others have pointed out, the issue in the original sentence may be one > of redundancy, not an unforgivable sort of redundancy. If I wanted > students to reduce wordiness or display economy of language, this is not > the sort of problem I would first turn my attention to. The example, > however, does pose a critical thinking exercise that raises some awareness > of economy: why use 4 words when 1 will do? > > > 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/ > -- Peter H. Fries Box 310 Mount Pleasant MI 48804 Phone: 989-644-3384 Cell: 989-400-3764 Email: [log in to unmask] Web page: > [among 'emeritus faculty'] To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --bcaec5216311f2582804ae2be919 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This wording makes me think it is an island (like Isle Royale).
Peter

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

It�seems logical that "surrounded on three sides" is redundant because a peninsula only has three sides. I'm going to go with the following�revision:

�

�

The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded by Lake Superior.

�

Thanks again for the advice.

�

Carol

--- On Fri, 9/30/11, R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: R. Michael Medley (ck) <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Word usage problem?
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Friday, September 30, 2011, 8:23 AM

Notice, however, that we can't say that Florida (also a peninsula) is
surrounded on three sides by ONE body of water!� We might say

1. "Florida is a peninsula bounded by the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of
Mexico."

2. "Florida is bounded on three sides by the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of
Mexico."

3. PROBABLY NOT: "Florida is a peninsula bounded on three sides by the
Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico."

One wonders if students would be tempted to write number 3 as a way of
"displaying" their knowledge of geographical terms.� In fact, in earth
science or social studies, they may have learned the definition of
peninsula as "a body of land bounded by water on three sides."

As others have pointed out, the issue in the original sentence may be one
of redundancy, not an unforgivable sort of redundancy.� If I wanted
students to reduce wordiness or display economy of language, this is not
the sort of problem I would first turn my attention to.� The example,
however, does pose a critical thinking exercise that raises some awareness
of economy: why use 4 words when 1 will do?

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/

--
Peter H. Fries

Box 310
Mount Pleasant MI 48804

Phone:� 989-644-3384
Cell:� � � 989-400-3764

Email:� [log in to unmask]
� � � � � �
Web page:� <http://cmich.edu/chsbs/x23516.xml>� [among 'emeritus faculty']
� � � � ��

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --bcaec5216311f2582804ae2be919-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:57:58 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott Catledge <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: ATEG Digest - 27 Sep 2011 to 29 Sep 2011 (#2011-186) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Florida has a peninsula but no isthmus: we think of East Coast, West Coast, and Caribbean(?) when describing peninsula Florida. We never normally say 'peninsula'; it is assumed unless you state "Panhandle." Scott -------------------------------------------------- From: "ATEG automatic digest system" <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 12:00 AM To: <[log in to unmask]> Subject: ATEG Digest - 27 Sep 2011 to 29 Sep 2011 (#2011-186) > There are 10 messages totalling 1053 lines in this issue. > > Topics of the day: > > 1. Word usage problem? (9) > 2. the Oxford comma > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:08:40 -0700 > From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Word usage problem? > > --563393889-1027299409-1317305320=:76247 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Dear List Members: > � > This morning in class, the students and I came across a sentence in their > g> rammar handbook that apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we > co> uld not identify: > � > The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior. > � > The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" should be > > replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and an > i> sthmus. Or does it have two sides? > � > Best- > � > Carol > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > --563393889-1027299409-1317305320=:76247 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > >
valign="> top" style="font: inherit;">
Dear List Members:
>

>
This morning in > cla> ss, the students and I came across a sentence in their grammar handbook > tha> t apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we could not > identify: DIV> >

>
The Keweenaw > Pen> insula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior.
>

>
The only explanation we > > could some up with is that "three sides" should be replaced with "all > sides> " because a peninsula only has three sides and an isthmus. Or does it have > > two sides?
>

>
Best-
>

>
Carol
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" >
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > --563393889-1027299409-1317305320=:76247-- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:31:04 +0000 > From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Word usage problem? > > Carol, > > The author may be objecting to "surrounded," based on a hyper-literal > read> ing ("if it's not encircled, it's not surrounded"). I've seen some similar > > examples, although usually in older books (for example, an author > objecting> to "audience" for a group of people watching a visual performance). > > Bill Spruiell > > On Sep 29, 2011, at 10:08 AM, "Carol Morrison" > <[log in to unmask] to:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Dear List Members: > > This morning in class, the students and I came across a sentence in their > g> rammar handbook that apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we > co> uld not identify: > > The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior. > > The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" should be > > replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and an > i> sthmus. Or does it have two sides? > > Best- > > Carol > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave> the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:32:47 -0700 > From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Word usage problem? > > --1460388173-1440420448-1317306767=:23697 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > The only explanation we could *come* up with...(sorry!) > > --- On Thu, 9/29/11, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Word usage problem? > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 10:08 AM > > > > > > > > Dear List Members: > � > This morning in class, the students and I came across a sentence in their > g> rammar handbook that apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we > co> uld not identify: > � > The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior. > � > The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" should be > > replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and an > i> sthmus. Or does it have two sides? > � > Best- > � > CarolTo join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > inter> face at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > > leave the list" > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > --1460388173-1440420448-1317306767=:23697 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > >
valign="> top" style="font: inherit;">The only explanation we could *come* up > with.> ..(sorry!)

--- On Thu, 9/29/11, Carol Morrison > <carollynne4> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>

From: Carol Morrison > <[log in to unmask]&g> t;
Subject: Word usage problem?
To: > [log in to unmask]
Date:> Thursday, September 29, 2011, 10:08 AM

>
> > > >
>
Dear List Members:
>

>
This morning in > cla> ss, the students and I came across a sentence in their grammar handbook > tha> t apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we could not > identify: DIV> >

>
The Keweenaw > Pen> insula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior.
>

>
The only explanation we > > could some up with is that "three sides" should be replaced with "all > sides> " because a peninsula only has three sides and an isthmus. Or does it have > > two sides?
>

>
Best-
>

>
Carol
To > joi> n or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: > ht> tp://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the > l> ist" >
Visit ATEG's web site at > http://ateg.org/
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" >
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > --1460388173-1440420448-1317306767=:23697-- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:50:36 -0400 > From: "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Word usage problem? > > It's also possible that "Peninsula" connotes "surrounded on three > side> s," so this would be mildly redundant. "The Keeneshaw Peninsula juts into > L> ake Superior" or "is bounded by Lake superior." Something like that would > b> e cleaner. > It seems to me more and more that handbooks are in the business of > disc> overing error in the same way that drug companies are in the business of > di> scovering new diseases. At a certain point, it becomes self serving (to > the> companies) and dangerous to the public, complete with serious side > effects> . > The best way to avoid error is to shut up or die. > We should declare a moratorium on error and invent something comparable > > to holistic medicine. > Holistic grammar? It might get attention. > Craig > > ________________________________________ > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [[log in to unmask]> U] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:32 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Word usage problem? > > The only explanation we could *come* up with...(sorry!) > > --- On Thu, 9/29/11, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Word usage problem? > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 10:08 AM > > Dear List Members: > > This morning in class, the students and I came across a sentence in their > g> rammar handbook that apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we > co> uld not identify: > > The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior. > > The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" should be > > replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and an > i> sthmus. Or does it have two sides? > > Best- > > Carol > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave> the list" > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave> the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:03:23 -0500 > From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Word usage problem? > > --20cf3042719c2220b304ae15d1b1 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Perhaps the author objects to the passive voice (although I'm not sure > what > the justification would be if the sentence is in isolation)? By the way, a > Google search of the sentence shows several sites, including the Keeneshaw > Chamber of Commerce, using that wording. The natives don't seem to object! > > John > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Hancock, Craig G > <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> It's also possible that "Peninsula" connotes "surrounded on three >> sides," so this would be mildly redundant. "The Keeneshaw Peninsula juts >> into Lake Superior" or "is bounded by Lake superior." Something like that >> would be cleaner. >> It seems to me more and more that handbooks are in the business of >> discovering error in the same way that drug companies are in the business >> of >> discovering new diseases. At a certain point, it becomes self serving (to >> the companies) and dangerous to the public, complete with serious side >> effects. >> The best way to avoid error is to shut up or die. >> We should declare a moratorium on error and invent something comparable >> to holistic medicine. >> Holistic grammar? It might get attention. >> Craig >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [ >> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison [ >> [log in to unmask]] >> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:32 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? >> >> The only explanation we could *come* up with...(sorry!) >> >> --- On Thu, 9/29/11, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> >> Subject: Word usage problem? >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 10:08 AM >> >> Dear List Members: >> >> This morning in class, the students and I came across a sentence in their >> grammar handbook that apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we >> could not identify: >> >> The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior. >> >> The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" should >> be >> replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and an >> isthmus. Or does it have two sides? >> >> Best- >> >> Carol >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or >> leave the list" >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or >> leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > > > -- > -- > John > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > --20cf3042719c2220b304ae15d1b1 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Perhaps the author objects to the passive voice (although I'm not sure > > what the justification would be if the sentence is in isolation)? By the > wa> y, a Google search of the sentence shows several sites, including the > Keene> shaw Chamber of Commerce, using that wording. The natives don't seem > to> object!
> >
John

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:50 > AM,> Hancock, Craig G < href="mailto:[log in to unmask]> du">[log in to unmask]> wrote:
class="gmail> _quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc > solid;padding-left:> 1ex;"> > > � � It's also possible that "Peninsula" connotes > "s> urrounded on three sides," so this would be mildly redundant. > "Th> e Keeneshaw Peninsula juts into Lake Superior" or "is bounded by > > Lake superior." Something like that would be cleaner.
> > > � �It seems to me more and more that handbooks are in the business of > > discovering error in the same way that drug companies are in the business > o> f discovering new diseases. At a certain point, it becomes self serving > (to> the companies) and dangerous to the public, complete with serious side > eff> ects.
> > > � The best way to avoid error is to shut up or die.
> � We should declare a moratorium on error and invent something > comparabl> e to holistic medicine.
> � Holistic grammar? It might get attention.
> Craig
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [ href="mailto:ATEG@> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" >
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:12:08 -0700 >From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Word usage problem? > > --2055901420-1677192483-1317309128=:74821 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Craig: > � > �If this�were a post on Facebook, I'd hit�"like," especially the > part> about drug companies "discovering new diseases." I did tell the students > t> hat I would present the question to the members of ATEG, so that maybe > they> could come up with answer or consensus. The students�were very > impressed> that a panel of experts would be presented with the usage problem, as the > > answer was not in the back of their books. They were also surprised that I > > did not have the answer.�(Only�"lettered" answers are�provided and > th> is was a "numbered" question).�As we all know, there is only ever one > cor> rect answer when it comes to grammar. (kidding, of course)�Thank you for > > your response and thanks to Bill for his response also! > Best- > Carol > > --- On Thu, 9/29/11, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > From: Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Word usage problem? > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 10:50 AM > > > � ��It's also possible that "Peninsula" connotes "surrounded on > th> ree sides," so this would be mildly redundant. "The Keeneshaw Peninsula > jut> s into Lake Superior" or "is bounded by Lake superior." Something like > that> would be cleaner. > � � It seems to me more and more that handbooks are in the business of > > discovering error in the same way that drug companies are in the business > o> f discovering new diseases. At a certain point, it becomes self serving > (to> the companies) and dangerous to the public, complete with serious side > eff> ects. > ��The best way to avoid error is to shut up or die. > ��We should declare a moratorium on error and invent something > compa> rable to holistic medicine. > ��Holistic grammar? It might get attention. > Craig > � � > ________________________________________ > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [[log in to unmask]> U] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:32 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Word usage problem? > > The only explanation we could *come* up with...(sorry!) > > --- On Thu, 9/29/11, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Word usage problem? > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 10:08 AM > > Dear List Members: > > This morning in class, the students and I came across a sentence in their > g> rammar handbook that apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we > co> uld not identify: > > The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior. > > The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" should be > > replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and an > i> sthmus. Or does it have two sides? > > Best- > > Carol > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave> the list" > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave> the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > > at: > � ��http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > --2055901420-1677192483-1317309128=:74821 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > >
valign="> top" style="font: inherit;">
Craig:
>

>
If this were a post on Facebook, I'd hit "like," > espec> ially the part about drug companies "discovering new diseases." I did tell > > the students that I would present the question to the members of ATEG, so > t> hat maybe they could come up with answer or consensus. The > students we> re very impressed that a panel of experts would be presented with the > usage> problem, as the answer was not in the back of their books. They were also > > surprised that I did not have the answer. (Only "lettered" > answer> s are provided and this was a "numbered" question). As we all > kno> w, there is only ever one correct answer when it comes to > grammar.> (kidding, of course) Thank you for your response and thanks to Bill > f> or his response also!
>
Best-
>
Carol

--- On Thu, 9/29/11, Hancock, Craig G > <chancock@> ALBANY.EDU> wrote:
>

From: Hancock, Craig G > <[log in to unmask]>> ;
Subject: Re: Word usage problem?
To: > [log in to unmask]
Da> te: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 10:50 AM

>
   It's also possible that > "Pe> ninsula" connotes "surrounded on three sides," so this would be mildly > redu> ndant. "The Keeneshaw Peninsula juts into Lake Superior" or "is bounded by > > Lake superior." Something like that would be cleaner.
It > s> eems to me more and more that handbooks are in the business of discovering > > error in the same way that drug companies are in the business of > discoverin> g new diseases. At a certain point, it becomes self serving (to the > compani> es) and dangerous to the public, complete with serious side > effects.
&nb> sp;  The best way to avoid error is to shut up or > die.
&> nbsp; We should declare a moratorium on error and invent something > com> parable to holistic medicine.
   Holistic grammar? It > mi> ght get attention.
Craig
>
__________________________> ______________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [ href="http:[log in to unmask]> MUOHIO.EDU" > ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> O.EDU] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison [ href="http://us.mc1121.mail.ya> [log in to unmask]" > ymailto="mailto:carollynn> [log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, September > 29,> 2011 10:32 AM
To: href="http://us.mc1121.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose> [log in to unmask]" > ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">>[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Word usage >>problem?

Th> e only explanation we could *come* up with...(sorry!)

--- On Thu, > 9/> 29/11, Carol Morrison < href="http://us.mc1121.mail.yahoo.com/mc/com> [log in to unmask]" > ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">>[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Carol Morrison <>h> ref="http:[log in to unmask]> OM" > ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> R>Subject: Word usage problem?
To: href="http://us.mc1121.mail.yaho> [log in to unmask]" > ymailto="mailto:ATEG@LIST> SERV.MUOHIO.EDU">[log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, September > > 29, 2011, 10:08 AM

Dear List Members:

This morning in class, > > the students and I came across a sentence in their grammar handbook that > ap> parently contains a misusage of some sort that we could not > identify:
R>The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake > Superior.
>
The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" > should> be replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and > > an isthmus. Or does it have two sides?

Best-

Carol

To > > join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at:> target=_blank>http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and > sele> ct "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at href="http://a> teg.org/" target=_blank>http://ateg.org/

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

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit > th> e list's web interface at:
    href="http://li> stserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html" > target=_blank>http://listserv.muohi> o.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the > list"

> Visit ATEG's web site at target=_blank>http:> //ateg.org/
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" >
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > --2055901420-1677192483-1317309128=:74821-- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:15:26 -0700 > From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Word usage problem? > > ---204894949-1671283779-1317309326=:43041 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Thanks for checking, John. Oh, and the textbook also spells "Keeneshaw" > inc> orrectly according to the way you and Craig have spelled it. > > --- On Thu, 9/29/11, John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Word usage problem? > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 11:03 AM > > > Perhaps the author objects to the passive voice (although I'm not sure > what> the justification would be if the sentence is in isolation)? By the way, > a> Google search of the sentence shows several sites, including the > Keeneshaw> Chamber of Commerce, using that wording. The natives don't seem to object! > > John > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> > wro> te: > > � � It's also possible that "Peninsula" connotes "surrounded on three > s> ides," so this would be mildly redundant. "The Keeneshaw Peninsula juts > int> o Lake Superior" or "is bounded by Lake superior." Something like that > woul> d be cleaner. > � �It seems to me more and more that handbooks are in the business of > d> iscovering error in the same way that drug companies are in the business > of> discovering new diseases. At a certain point, it becomes self serving (to > > the companies) and dangerous to the public, complete with serious side > effe> cts. > � The best way to avoid error is to shut up or die. > � We should declare a moratorium on error and invent something > comparable> to holistic medicine. > � Holistic grammar? It might get attention. > Craig > > ________________________________________ > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [ Visit ATEG's web site > > at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > ---204894949-1671283779-1317309326=:43041 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > >
valign="> top" style="font: inherit;">Thanks for checking, John. Oh, and the > textbo> ok also spells "Keeneshaw" incorrectly according to the way you and Craig > h> ave spelled it.

--- On Thu, 9/29/11, John Dews-Alexander > <j> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>

From: John Dews-Alexander > <jed.alexander@GMAIL> .COM>
Subject: Re: Word usage problem?
To: > [log in to unmask]> U
Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 11:03 AM

>
Perhaps the author objects to the passive voice > (al> though I'm not sure what the justification would be if the sentence is in > i> solation)? By the way, a Google search of the sentence shows several > sites,> including the Keeneshaw Chamber of Commerce, using that wording. The > nativ> es don't seem to object!

John

>
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:50 AM, > Hanc> ock, Craig G < href="http://us.mc1121.mail.yahoo.com> [log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank > ymailt> o="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> > wrote:<> BR> >
It's > al> so possible that "Peninsula" connotes "surrounded on three sides," so this > > would be mildly redundant. "The Keeneshaw Peninsula juts into Lake > Superior> " or "is bounded by Lake superior." Something like that would be > cleaner. R> It seems to me more and more that handbooks are in the > busin> ess of discovering error in the same way that drug companies are in the > bus> iness of discovering new diseases. At a certain point, it becomes self > serv> ing (to the companies) and dangerous to the public, complete with serious > s> ide effects.
The best way to avoid error is to shut up or > die.
> We should declare a moratorium on error and invent something >>compar> able to holistic medicine.
Holistic grammar? It might get > attenti> on.
Craig

________________________________________
From: > Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [ href="http://us.mc1121.> mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ATEG@To join or leave this LISTSERV list, > pl> ease visit the list's web interface at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/arch> ives/ateg.htmland select" rel=nofollow target=_blank > ymailto="mailto:> ATEG@To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > inter> face at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html &#> 10;and select "> Visit ATEG's web site at > http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" >
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > ---204894949-1671283779-1317309326=:43041-- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:22:50 -0500 > From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Word usage problem? > > --90e6ba6e8cdcb1991e04ae16161d > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Actually, I have no idea why I spelled it that way. I must have glanced up > at Craig's post when spelling it. Keweenaw peninsula is indeed the one the > text is referencing as reflected on the Keweenaw Chamber of Commerce > website. Sorry for the confusion. I do know of a Keenesaw, Georgia > coincidentally. > > John > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Carol Morrison > <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> Thanks for checking, John. Oh, and the textbook also spells "Keeneshaw" >> incorrectly according to the way you and Craig have spelled it. >> >> --- On *Thu, 9/29/11, John Dews-Alexander >> <[log in to unmask]>*wrote: >> >> >> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> >> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 11:03 AM >> >> Perhaps the author objects to the passive voice (although I'm not sure >> what >> the justification would be if the sentence is in isolation)? By the way, >> a >> Google search of the sentence shows several sites, including the >> Keeneshaw >> Chamber of Commerce, using that wording. The natives don't seem to >> object! >> >> John >> >> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Hancock, Craig G >> <[log in to unmask][log in to unmask]> >> > wrote: >> >> It's also possible that "Peninsula" connotes "surrounded on three >> sides," so this would be mildly redundant. "The Keeneshaw Peninsula juts >> into Lake Superior" or "is bounded by Lake superior." Something like that >> would be cleaner. >> It seems to me more and more that handbooks are in the business of >> discovering error in the same way that drug companies are in the business >> of >> discovering new diseases. At a certain point, it becomes self serving (to >> the companies) and dangerous to the public, complete with serious side >> effects. >> The best way to avoid error is to shut up or die. >> We should declare a moratorium on error and invent something comparable >> to holistic medicine. >> Holistic grammar? It might get attention. >> Craig >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [ Visit ATEG's web >> site >> at >> http://ateg.org/ >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface >> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or >> leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> > > > > -- > -- > John > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > --90e6ba6e8cdcb1991e04ae16161d > Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Actually, I have no idea why I spelled it that way. I must have glanced up > > at Craig's post when spelling it. Keweenaw peninsula is indeed the one > > the text is referencing as reflected on the Keweenaw Chamber of Commerce > we> bsite. Sorry for the confusion. I do know of a Keenesaw, Georgia > coincident> ally.
> >
John

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:15 > AM> , Carol Morrison < href="mailto:carollynne41@yahoo> .com">[log in to unmask]> wrote:
class="> gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc > solid;padding-> left:1ex;"> > >
styl> e="font:inherit" valign="top">Thanks for checking, John. Oh, and the > te> xtbook also spells "Keeneshaw" incorrectly according to the way > y> ou and Craig have spelled it.
> >
--- On Thu, 9/29/11, John Dews-Alexander < href="mailto:je> [log in to unmask]" > target="_blank">[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>

From: John Dews-Alexander < href="mailto:jed.al> [log in to unmask]" > target="_blank">[log in to unmask]>
Sub> ject: Re: Word usage problem?
> > To: target="_blank">ATEG@LIST> SERV.MUOHIO.EDU
Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 11:03 > AM

>
Perhaps the author objects to the passive voice (although I'm not > > sure what the justification would be if the sentence is in isolation)? By > t> he way, a Google search of the sentence shows several sites, including the > > Keeneshaw Chamber of Commerce, using that wording. The natives don't > se> em to object!
> >
John

>
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Hancock, Craig G dir="ltr">&l> t; href="http://us.mc1121.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=chancock@alban> y.edu" rel="nofollow" > target="_blank">[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> > >
� � It's also possible that "Peninsula" > c> onnotes "surrounded on three sides," so this would be mildly > redu> ndant. "The Keeneshaw Peninsula juts into Lake Superior" or > "> ;is bounded by Lake superior." Something like that would be > cleaner. r> > > � �It seems to me more and more that handbooks are in the business of > d> iscovering error in the same way that drug companies are in the business > of> discovering new diseases. At a certain point, it becomes self serving (to > > the companies) and dangerous to the public, complete with serious side > effe> cts.
> > � The best way to avoid error is to shut up or die.
� We should > decl> are a moratorium on error and invent something comparable to holistic > medic> ine.
� Holistic grammar? It might get > attention.
Craig

_____> ___________________________________
> > From: > Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [ href="http://us.mc1121.> mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ATEG@To%20join%20or%20leave%20this%20LISTSER> V%20list%2C%20please%20visit%20the%20list%27s%20web%20interface%20at:%20%20> %20%20%20http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.htmland%20select" > rel="> nofollow" target="_blank"> Visit ATEG's web site at > http://ateg.org/<> /a>
> >
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interf> ace at: > target="_b> lank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" >
> Visit ATEG's web site at target="_blank">>http://ateg.org/

-- >> r>--
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/ > > --90e6ba6e8cdcb1991e04ae16161d-- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:33:33 -0400 > From: "Hancock, Craig G" <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Word usage problem? > > I seem to remain living proof that error is an inevitable aspect of > lif> e. I must have thought of Keeneshaw Georgia and unwittingly led John down > t> he primrose path. > It seems to me that most real life language choices all reside in the > r> ealm of "correctness," but construe what is under focus in different ways. > > I can imagine a context in which the more redundant form would be > preferabl> e; trying to reinforce the definition of "peninsula" for a school aged > audi> ence, for example. The author might conclude that "surrounded on three > side> s" would be a helpful reminder. In a "holistic grammar," we would be > sensit> ive to context. All sentences would be thought of as part of a whole, even > > if they were only one sentence wholes. > > Craig > > ________________________________________ > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [[log in to unmask]> U] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:22 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Word usage problem? > > Actually, I have no idea why I spelled it that way. I must have glanced up > > at Craig's post when spelling it. Keweenaw peninsula is indeed the one the > > text is referencing as reflected on the Keweenaw Chamber of Commerce > websit> e. Sorry for the confusion. I do know of a Keenesaw, Georgia > coincidentally> . > > John > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Carol Morrison > <[log in to unmask] ilto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > Thanks for checking, John. Oh, and the textbook also spells "Keeneshaw" > inc> orrectly according to the way you and Craig have spelled it. > > --- On Thu, 9/29/11, John Dews-Alexander > <[log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > From: John Dews-Alexander > <[log in to unmask] IL.COM>> > Subject: Re: Word usage problem? > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 11:03 AM > > Perhaps the author objects to the passive voice (although I'm not sure > what> the justification would be if the sentence is in isolation)? By the way, > a> Google search of the sentence shows several sites, including the > Keeneshaw> Chamber of Commerce, using that wording. The natives don't seem to object! > > John > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Hancock, Craig G > <[log in to unmask] :[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > It's also possible that "Peninsula" connotes "surrounded on three > sides> ," so this would be mildly redundant. "The Keeneshaw Peninsula juts into > La> ke Superior" or "is bounded by Lake superior." Something like that would > be> cleaner. > It seems to me more and more that handbooks are in the business of > disco> vering error in the same way that drug companies are in the business of > dis> covering new diseases. At a certain point, it becomes self serving (to the > > companies) and dangerous to the public, complete with serious side > effects. > The best way to avoid error is to shut up or die. > We should declare a moratorium on error and invent something comparable > t> o holistic medicine. > Holistic grammar? It might get attention. > Craig > > ________________________________________ > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [ Visit ATEG's web site > > at > http://ateg.org/ %20join%20or%20leave%20this%20LISTSERV%20list%2C%20please%20visit%20the%20l> ist%27s%20web%20interface%20at:%20%20%20%20%20http://listserv.muohio.edu/ar> chives/ateg.htmland%20select> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave> the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > > > -- > -- > John > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave> the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:36:06 -0400 > From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: the Oxford comma > > --0016e6d647bc2116fc04ae18c85e > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > You might enjoy this > cartoonabout > the "Oxford comma," the controversial comma that precedes the > conjunction in a series of three or more items: "eat, drink, and be merry" > (as opposed to "eat, drink and be merry"). It is also called the "Harvard > comma" and the "serial comma." The cartoon could provoke discussion in a > college writing class--perhaps a bit racy for high school. > > Similar is the famously ambiguous (and probably apocryphal) book > dedication: > "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God." > > Dick > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > --0016e6d647bc2116fc04ae18c85e > Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > You > migh> t enjoy this cartoon about the "Oxford comma," the > controvers> ial comma that precedes the conjunction in a series of three or more > items:> "eat, drink, and be merry" (as opposed to "eat, drink and > b> e merry"). It is also called the "Harvard comma" and the > &qu> ot;serial comma." The cartoon could provoke discussion in a college > wr> iting class--perhaps a bit racy for high school.
>
Similar is the famously ambiguous (and probably apocryphal) book > dedica> tion: "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God."

Dick
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html > and select "Join or leave the list" >
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > --0016e6d647bc2116fc04ae18c85e-- > > ------------------------------ > > End of ATEG Digest - 27 Sep 2011 to 29 Sep 2011 (#2011-186) > *********************************************************** > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 16:58:48 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016367f9df84e6c3e04ae2ee495 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 This raises many questions: How many sides can something be surrounded by? Can we say, "Panama is surrounded by oceans on two sides"? Can we say, "L.A. is surrounded by the Pacific on one side"? Do we assume things have four sides? If so, why? If a peninsula is bordered by water on three of four sides, is it surrounded at all? Here's a somewhat related question: If a squirrel is clinging to the side of a large oak tree, and if you walk all the way around the tree trying to see the squirrel, who keeps moving to stay on the opposite side of the tree from you, then you have walked around the tree, but have you walked around the squirrel? Dick On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Dear List Members: > > This morning in class, the students and I came across a sentence in their > grammar handbook that apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we > could not identify: > > The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior. > > The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" should be > replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and an > isthmus. Or does it have two sides? > > Best- > > Carol > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016367f9df84e6c3e04ae2ee495 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This raises many questions:

How many sides can something be surrounded by?
Can we say, "Panama is surrounded by oceans on two sides"?
Can we say, "L.A. is surrounded by the Pacific on one side"?
Do we assume things have four sides? If so, why?
If a peninsula is bordered by water on three of four sides, is it surrounded at all?

Here's a somewhat related question: If a squirrel is clinging to the side of a large oak tree, and if you walk all the way around the tree trying to see the squirrel, who keeps moving to stay on the opposite side of the tree from you, then you have walked around the tree, but have you walked around the squirrel?

Dick

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear List Members:

�

This morning in class, the students and I came across a sentence in their grammar handbook that apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we could not identify:

�

The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior.

�

The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" should be replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and an isthmus. Or does it have two sides?

�

Best-

�

Carol
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016367f9df84e6c3e04ae2ee495-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:52:42 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-204894949-1375991542-1317419562=:56685" ---204894949-1375991542-1317419562=:56685 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable According to Answers.com or Wiki answers: � "A piece of land that is surrounded by water on only three sides and connected to a main land mass on one side is called a peninsula. Florida would be a good example." � And from www.enchantedlearning.com: � "A peninsula is a body of land that is surrounded by water on three sides." � From dictionary.com: � Peninsula-an area of land almost completely surrounded by water except for an isthmus connecting it with the mainland. � Dick, you raise some very interesting questions. I do think that I can picture a peninsula more accurately by describing it as "surrounded on three sides" by water, otherwise, "surrounded by" does seem to imply that water would completely encircle the land mass making it an island.� � Since the "problem" sentence occurred in the textbook under word "usage" problems, I would concur that the word being misused is surrounded, which is what I think I remember Bill saying. � Carol --- On Fri, 9/30/11, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? To: [log in to unmask] Date: Friday, September 30, 2011, 4:58 PM This raises many questions: How many sides can something be surrounded by? Can we say, "Panama is surrounded by oceans on two sides"? Can we say, "L.A. is surrounded by the Pacific on one side"? Do we assume things have four sides? If so, why? If a peninsula is bordered by water on three of four sides, is it surrounded at all? Here's a somewhat related question: If a squirrel is clinging to the side of a large oak tree, and if you walk all the way around the tree trying to see the squirrel, who keeps moving to stay on the opposite side of the tree from you, then you have walked around the tree, but have you walked around the squirrel? Dick On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Dear List Members: � This morning in class, the students and I came across a sentence in their grammar handbook that apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we could not identify: � The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior. � The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" should be replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and an isthmus. Or does it have two sides? � Best- � Carol To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ---204894949-1375991542-1317419562=:56685 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
According to Answers.com or Wiki answers:

"A piece of land that is surrounded by water on only three sides and connected to a main land mass on one side is called a peninsula. Florida would be a good example."

And from www.enchantedlearning.com:

"A peninsula is a body of land that is surrounded by water on three sides."

From dictionary.com:

Peninsula-an area of land almost completely surrounded by water except for an isthmus connecting it with the mainland.

Dick, you raise some very interesting questions. I do think that I can picture a peninsula more accurately by describing it as "surrounded on three sides" by water, otherwise, "surrounded by" does seem to imply that water would completely encircle the land mass making it an island.

Since the "problem" sentence occurred in the textbook under word "usage" problems, I would concur that the word being misused is surrounded, which is what I think I remember Bill saying.

Carol

--- On Fri, 9/30/11, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Word usage problem?
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Friday, September 30, 2011, 4:58 PM

This raises many questions:

How many sides can something be surrounded by?
Can we say, "Panama is surrounded by oceans on two sides"?
Can we say, "L.A. is surrounded by the Pacific on one side"?
Do we assume things have four sides? If so, why?
If a peninsula is bordered by water on three of four sides, is it surrounded at all?

Here's a somewhat related question: If a squirrel is clinging to the side of a large oak tree, and if you walk all the way around the tree trying to see the squirrel, who keeps moving to stay on the opposite side of the tree from you, then you have walked around the tree, but have you walked around the squirrel?

Dick

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear List Members:

This morning in class, the students and I came across a sentence in their grammar handbook that apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we could not identify:

The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior.

The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" should be replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and an isthmus. Or does it have two sides?

Best-

Carol
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ---204894949-1375991542-1317419562=:56685-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:31:36 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016e6d970fa2fd72304ae3030ee Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Questions come to mind about different definitions of "surround." By one definition (used in the first two sources you quote), a peninsula can be "surrounded by water on three sides." In your third source, a peninsula is " *almost *completely surrounded" by water. The Free Dictionary gives these definitions: sur�round (s-round) *tr.v.* *sur�round�ed*, *sur�round�ing*, *sur�rounds* *1. * To extend on all sides of simultaneously; encircle. *2. * To enclose or confine on all sides so as to bar escape or outside communication. This raises the question: can a peninsula be said to be "surrounded" by water since it is isn't enclosed on every side? I've had great class discussions on semantic questions like this one. Dick On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > According to Answers.com or Wiki answers: > > "A piece of land that is surrounded by water on only three sides and > connected to a main land mass on one side is called a peninsula. Florida > would be a good example." > > And from www.enchantedlearning.com: > > "A peninsula is a body of land that is surrounded by water on three sides." > > From dictionary.com: > > Peninsula-an area of land almost completely surrounded by water except for > an isthmus connecting it with the mainland. > > Dick, you raise some very interesting questions. I do think that I can > picture a peninsula more accurately by describing it as "surrounded on three > sides" by water, otherwise, "surrounded by" does seem to imply that water > would completely encircle the land mass making it an island. > > Since the "problem" sentence occurred in the textbook under word "usage" > problems, I would concur that the word being misused is *surrounded*, > which is what I think I remember Bill saying. > > Carol > > > > --- On *Fri, 9/30/11, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>* wrote: > > > From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> > > Subject: Re: Word usage problem? > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Friday, September 30, 2011, 4:58 PM > > This raises many questions: > > How many sides can something be surrounded by? > Can we say, "Panama is surrounded by oceans on two sides"? > Can we say, "L.A. is surrounded by the Pacific on one side"? > Do we assume things have four sides? If so, why? > If a peninsula is bordered by water on three of four sides, is it > surrounded at all? > > Here's a somewhat related question: If a squirrel is clinging to the side > of a large oak tree, and if you walk all the way around the tree trying to > see the squirrel, who keeps moving to stay on the opposite side of the tree > from you, then you have walked around the tree, but have you walked around > the squirrel? > > Dick > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask][log in to unmask]> > > wrote: > > Dear List Members: > > This morning in class, the students and I came across a sentence in their > grammar handbook that apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we > could not identify: > > The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior. > > The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" should be > replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and an > isthmus. Or does it have two sides? > > Best- > > Carol > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or > leave the list" > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6d970fa2fd72304ae3030ee Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Questions come to mind about different definitions of "surround."� By one definition (used in the first two sources you quote), a peninsula can be "surrounded by water on three sides." In your third source, a peninsula is "almost completely surrounded" by water. The Free Dictionary gives these definitions:

sur�round �(s-round)
tr.v. sur�round�ed, sur�round�ing, sur�rounds
1. To extend on all sides of simultaneously; encircle.
2. To enclose or confine on all sides so as to bar escape or outside communication.

This raises the question: can a peninsula be said to be "surrounded" by water since it is isn't enclosed on every side? I've had great class discussions on semantic questions like this one.

Dick

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

According to Answers.com or Wiki answers:

�

"A piece of land that is surrounded by water on only three sides and connected to a main land mass on one side is called a peninsula. Florida would be a good example."

�

And from www.enchantedlearning.com:

�

"A peninsula is a body of land that is surrounded by water on three sides."

�

From dictionary.com:

�

Peninsula-an area of land almost completely surrounded by water except for an isthmus connecting it with the mainland.

�

Dick, you raise some very interesting questions. I do think that I can picture a peninsula more accurately by describing it as "surrounded on three sides" by water, otherwise, "surrounded by" does seem to imply that water would completely encircle the land mass making it an island.�

�

Since the "problem" sentence occurred in the textbook under word "usage" problems, I would concur that the word being misused is surrounded, which is what I think I remember Bill saying.

�

Carol

--- On Fri, 9/30/11, Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Re: Word usage problem?
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Friday, September 30, 2011, 4:58 PM

This raises many questions:

How many sides can something be surrounded by?
Can we say, "Panama is surrounded by oceans on two sides"?
Can we say, "L.A. is surrounded by the Pacific on one side"?
Do we assume things have four sides? If so, why?
If a peninsula is bordered by water on three of four sides, is it surrounded at all?

Here's a somewhat related question: If a squirrel is clinging to the side of a large oak tree, and if you walk all the way around the tree trying to see the squirrel, who keeps moving to stay on the opposite side of the tree from you, then you have walked around the tree, but have you walked around the squirrel?

Dick

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear List Members:

�

This morning in class, the students and I came across a sentence in their grammar handbook that apparently contains a misusage of some sort that we could not identify:

�

The Keweenaw Peninsula is surrounded on three sides by Lake Superior.

�

The only explanation we could some up with is that "three sides" should be replaced with "all sides" because a peninsula only has three sides and an isthmus. Or does it have two sides?

�

Best-

�

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

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6d970fa2fd72304ae3030ee-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:58:57 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Don Stewart <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Word usage problem? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016e6d7eb467bd4b904ae3241ca Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dick, At least you've got that squirrel surrounded. Don Stewart www.writeforcollege.com www.writing123.com To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6d7eb467bd4b904ae3241ca Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dick,

At least you've got that squirrel surrounded.

Don Stewart
www.writeforcollege.com
www.writing123.com

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --0016e6d7eb467bd4b904ae3241ca--

humid (ˈhjuːmɪd)

— *adj*
	moist; damp: a humid day

[C16: from Latin ūmidus, from ūmēre to be wet; seehumectant, humour ] Would this be the connection? If the comedian were bad, would the person be all wet? I know that my sense of humor is rather dry, though.