{This message was originally submitted by Bill McCleary [log in to unmask] to the ATEG list } This is to carry on the discussion of whether it's necessary to use terminology that makes distinctions between nouns and things that may take the function of nouns, etc. Of course, Bernhard's reply to me turns out to be things I already know, such as that horse remains like a noun even when used as a modifier in "horse barn." I thought maybe I was missing something, but I guess not. But then he goes on to say that making such distinctions makes grammar easier to teach. I'd like to hear more about that. The typical secondary textbook lumps all kinds of modifiers into the category of adjective--all kinds of determiners, attributive nouns, and what one may call "true adjectives." One issue--subject to much debate on this list--is whether there is any point to teaching any grammar at all at the secondary level or below. Many people, apparently, believe that there is not. The other issue is whether there is a "best" way of teaching grammar at each age level. Assming that students can learn grammar, do they learn it more easily if the grammar is "scientific" than if it is typical schoolbook grammar? I'd like to know if there is any evidence one way or the other on this question. Bill McCleary William J. McCleary Editor: Composition Chronicle Associate Prof. of English Viceroy Publications Coordinator of Secondary English 3247 Bronson Hill Road SUNY at Cortland Livonia, NY 14487 607-753-2076 716-346-6859 [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]