Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 26 Jul 2006 08:13:18 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Phil:
I agree with the statement you make in your article that there is
great confusion concerning words used to define grammatical terms. I
have recently reviewed 18 (eighteen) grammar books of different sizes
and origins, including Quirk’s “Comprehensive Grammar of the English
Language,“ and each one of the uses a different set of terms to
describe the grammar system of the English language. Standardization
of grammar terminology would eliminate a lot of confusion and would
make different grammar books more accessible to teachers and students.
I do not have any trouble with the term *gerund* probably because I
learned this term when I was in grammar (junior high) school, but I
agree that the term is redundant. As you know, it comes from Latin
(gerundium), and can be easily abandoned as the term *participle* can
be used to describe both the verbal and the nominal functions of the
[-ing] form.
Someone asked a question about *parts of speech,* a term which seems
rather counterintuitive for grammar (as grammar deals mainly with
written language), and I found out that some grammar book authors use
the term *word classes* to describe the same thing. I believe that
WORD CLASSES is much better than PARTS OF SPEECH to describe the
different categories into which we can prototypically categorize the
lexicon of every language.
Eduard
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
|
|