I do the same thing from time to time, myself. Thanks for the change!
-patty
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 11:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Past Perfect: Structure and Function -- was RE: NOT In support of a (minimally) moderated listserv
Patty,
Good suggestion. I tried that last night, but I fear most of us just hit the reply button without looking at the subject line.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Patricia Lafayllve
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 11:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: NOT In support of a (minimally) moderated listserv
This is a fascinating conversation. I have a request, though - could someone change the subject line to reflect the topic? It still says "NOT in support of a ... listserv" and I keep missing comments, because I skim past that subject line.
Thanks!
-patty
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 11:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: NOT In support of a (minimally) moderated listserv
It's not unusual across languages for a verb meaning "finish" to take on an aspectual function and even grammaticalize as an aspectual. In Yoruba, something like this is happening. In a serial verb construction like
O ti she tan (spelling modified for ASCII and tone marks omitted) He/she perfect do/work finish "He/she has finished."
"ti" is strictly aspectual and marks perfect. "she" is a verb meaning "do/work." "tan" is a verb meaning "finish." In English, "finish" is semantically and aspectual verb but hasn't grammaticalized as such, like begin, start, stop, cease, continue, keep, etc. Aspect as a category has grammaticalized to some verbs in English, like Have and be, and not with others, like those in the previous sentence.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 9:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: NOT In support of a (minimally) moderated listserv
TJ,
I was thinking about "When I finished [reading]the book, I returned it to the library." I think perfect aspect gives a sense of completion and verbs like "finished" or "completed" work in the same territory.
But I agree: "had finished" would make it more explicit.
Craig>
Craig,
> Your first and third points are fine. I disagree about "finished"
> because by itself it does not separate the two events in time.
>
> tj
>
>
>
> On Tuesday 01/04/2011 at 7:02 pm, Craig Hancock wrote:
>> TJ,
>> In "After he had finished the book, he returned it" there are
>> three ways in which time reference is being established. One is
>> "after" as subordinating conjunction. Another is "finished," which
>> construes the reading as over. The third is the past perfect. As
>> alternative, consider "When he had read the book, he returned it,"
>> where all the weight of time relation falls on the past perfect.
>> "When he read the book, he returned it" would sound as though both
>> were happening at the same time. It's not unusual, of course, to have
>> redundancy within the grammar.
>> Here's another example, this time in consecutive sentences.
>> "When my wife came home, she was in for a great surprise. I had
>> cleaned the house." The past tense alternative, "I cleaned the
>> house," would imply that it happened after her return rather than
>> before.
>>
>> Craig
>> >
>>
>> A fairly direct definition might include what follows:
>>>
>>>
>>> A succinct explanation of the past perfect tense may be found in
>>> George Curme’s A Grammar of the English Language. Curme
>>> defines the past perfect tense: This form represents a past action
>>> or state as completed at or before a certain past time. His example
>>> is “After he had finished the book, he returned it.†Two
>>> actions whose sequence is made explicit by the two tense forms.
>>>
>>>
>>> The past tense regularly is found to function with an adverb of time
>>> instead of a second verb in the the past tense: The bell had rung
>>> before midnight last night.
>>>
>>>
>>> The past perfect tense is often found in the progressive form: The
>>> bell had been ringing for a long time by midnight.
>>>
>>>
>>> The past perfect tense may be found in both the active and passive
>>> voices: The bell had been rung before midnight. The sexton had
>>> rung the bell before midnight.
>>>
>>>
>>> These last two possibilities may be found together: The bell had
>>> been being rung when he got there.
>>>
>>>
>>> As with the present perfect and the future perfect tenses, the past
>>> perfect is a device for distinguishing between two points in time.
>>> The present perfect denotes an event occurring in the recent past:
>>> He has graduated by now. The future perfect deals with an action
>>> expected to occur prior to a later action or time in the future: He
>>> will have graduated by 2012.
>>>
>>>
>>> tj
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 01/04/2011 at 1:07 pm, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Herb,
>>>> Great plan. There would, I think, be two parts to
>>>> it--what do we agree to assign the term "past perfect" to (as a
>>>> form) and how does that form function in discourse. I think it
>>>> would also help to look at the past perfect at work in a text that
>>>> most people admire. Maybe I'll take on that part of it.
>>>>
>>>> Craig>
>>>>
>>>> Craig,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a good suggestion, that we have a substantive, productive
>>>>> discussion of the past perfect. Brad wants a definition that will
>>>>> work for a fifth grader, and we've pretty much agreed that a
>>>>> simpler treatment works at that level but that such a treatment
>>>>> doesn't work as a description of a grammatical phenomenon. The
>>>>> quest for a definition is itself part of the problem since what
>>>>> grammarians do is describe phenomena. Definitions, to the extent
>>>>> that they are possible and useful, have to change over time, and
>>>>> language change is never smooth, allowing a neat change to a
>>>>> definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll work on a description of the past perfect, considering its
>>>>> history and the fact that it's a composite form combining tense
>>>>> and aspect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Herb
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 11:58 AM
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Re: NOT In support of a (minimally) moderated listserv
>>>>>
>>>>> Geoff,
>>>>> The problem, as I see it, is that we have NOT
>>>>> had a productive discussion of the past perfect. To do so would
>>>>> require taking Brad out of the equation. He brings up the
>>>>> question, then denounces any position he doesn't agree with.
>>>>> People get angry and it goes downhill from there. Brad seems
>>>>> intent on denying center stage to any position other than his own.
>>>>> I'm not sure I would call what he adds "spice."
>>>>> Last time I
>>>>> was at 4
>>>>> C's, two people told me they quit the list, citing Brad. We are
>>>>> losing people, and unfortunatly, people who are themselves
>>>>> teachers, not just gadflys.
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's more than a little irony in this discussion about the
>>>>>> need for list moderation, presumably due to our past perfect
>>>>>> friend (PPF - that's to be dinstinguished from a BFF). The irony,
>>>>>> quite simply, is that said friend generates more discussions
>>>>>> about topics both important and quaint than just about anybody
>>>>>> else, so if we kissed PPF goodbye, the number of postings would
>>>>>> drop dramatically. If you don't like the past perfect
>>>>>> discussions, don't participate - and if you want to talk about
>>>>>> something else, then serve up something that the group will find
>>>>>> more interesting than the past perfect! Besides, our PPF adds a
>>>>>> certain amount of shall we say spice to the conversation - after
>>>>>> all, he got this topic going!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Geoff Layton
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 21:58:39 -0500
>>>>>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: In support of a (minimally) moderated listserv
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Linguist List works as a moderated list only because it is
>>>>>> funded by grants and by contributions from its user community so
>>>>>> that it is able to hire and train graduate students to do
>>>>>> monitoring and various other support tasks. I remember when it
>>>>>> was not moderated, and it was prone to the sorts of problems
>>>>>> we're talking about now. While LinguistList is an invaluable
>>>>>> source of information for the profession, I do miss the free
>>>>>> exchange of ideas, in spite of the occasional bad manners.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can always delete or block postings from particular
>>>>>> participants if we wish, but, much as I dislike the occasional
>>>>>> tone discussions have taken here I would regret to see the list
>>>>>> moderated, even minimally.
>>>>>> It is unfortunate that some choose not to participate because of
>>>>>> that occasional unpleasantness, but writing teachers, language
>>>>>> arts teachers, linguists, grammarians, editors, etc. are all
>>>>>> prone to the same fits of temper and bad manners as the rest of
>>>>>> the population.
>>>>>> Blocking the extremes unfortunately also blocks the occasional
>>>>>> very interesting thought. A civil society deserves that
>>>>>> adjective only because it tolerates the odd incivility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Herb
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul E. Doniger
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 5:39 PM
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: In support of a (minimally) moderated listserv
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would second Dick's suggestion; however, the problem, I think,
>>>>>> would be to find someone to do the moderating. As I understand
>>>>>> it, this can be a time consuming task on some lists (perhaps not
>>>>>> quite so bad on ATEG), and I suspect there isn't enough money to
>>>>>> hire a moderator.
>>>>>> Any
>>>>>> suggestions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Sent: Mon, January 3, 2011 4:23:38 PM
>>>>>> Subject: In support of a (minimally) moderated listserv
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This listserv is currently unmoderated and entirely unrestricted
>>>>>> in content, allowing anyone to post anything whatever and relying
>>>>>> solely on occasional appeals to participants' better natures to
>>>>>> preserve civility.
>>>>>> At the same time many have lamented that the listserv has lost
>>>>>> membership because of the online behavior of one or two persons.
>>>>>> Some
>>>>>> repeatedly try to persuade those individuals to act better, even
>>>>>> in the face of abundant evidence that all previous such efforts
>>>>>> have had exactly the opposite effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I favor a lightly moderated listserv, with a published set of
>>>>>> minimally restrictive standards and intervention by a moderator
>>>>>> only in the rarest, most egregious, and most persistent
>>>>>> violations of those standards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The argument for non-moderation is that academic discourse should
>>>>>> be an open marketplace, with all ideas free to compete without
>>>>>> restriction imposed on the basis of orthodoxy or popularity. I
>>>>>> agree completely. No one should ever be excluded from this
>>>>>> listserv because their ideas are unorthodox or unpopular or
>>>>>> considered discredited.
>>>>>> We
>>>>>> can all cite ideas once considered crackpot that are today's
>>>>>> paradigms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Openness is but one of two essential factors in a functioning
>>>>>> marketplace of ideas. The other is dialogue. Ideas must be
>>>>>> exchanged and debated.
>>>>>> People who propose ideas must be willing to defend them and to
>>>>>> respond to reasonable objections to their arguments. People must
>>>>>> also feel free to engage in debate with others without fear that
>>>>>> by so doing they will be subject to personal attacks or
>>>>>> harassment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some proponents of an unmoderated list might argue that any
>>>>>> restrictions, no matter how reasonable or minimal, would create
>>>>>> the slippery slope to totalitarianism, and that we have no choice
>>>>>> but to suffer bad behavior even if it means members flee the list
>>>>>> in droves.
>>>>>> I would argue that reasonable people can draw a reasonable line,
>>>>>> and that standards would in fact preserve rather than stifle
>>>>>> discussion and dialogue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Standards, as I said, should be minimal. You may propose or
>>>>>> discuss any ideas within the broad framework of teaching grammar
>>>>>> and (even
>>>>>> broader) language in general. You may disagree with, challenge,
>>>>>> or even express antipathy or respond sarcastically toward the
>>>>>> ideas of others, but you may not attack other members personally,
>>>>>> or ridicule, intimidate, or harass them (on or off list). You
>>>>>> must be willing to engage in debate and to respond to reasonable
>>>>>> challenges to the ideas you express. You may not shout the same
>>>>>> assertions over and over without ever explaining or defending
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The moderator's job would be to do very little. In the face of
>>>>>> egregious violations of these standards, the moderator should
>>>>>> privately remind the offender of the standards. If the first
>>>>>> admonition goes unheeded, the moderator should issue a second
>>>>>> reminder with a warning. If that too fails, the moderator may
>>>>>> remove the offender from the listserv. How do we safeguard
>>>>>> against abuse by the moderator? We must assume that a reasonable
>>>>>> person can apply reasonable standards. We can direct that the
>>>>>> moderator notify the list of any removal (quoting the prior
>>>>>> warnings issued) and hold off if there is considerable
>>>>>> opposition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I have learned anything from this listserv over the years it
>>>>>> is that some people make a sport of disrupting listservs. No
>>>>>> social pressure will ever moderate their behavior--in fact,
>>>>>> provoking such a reaction is exactly what they most enjoy. Only
>>>>>> the threat of removal will have an effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And now anyone is free to oppose (or second) my proposal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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/
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
