Gretchen the nag...*g*

I pray to God that I'm not speaking when I should be silent, but to answer
your question on a very basic level from the perspective of a "perpetual
student" of grammar, I wish I had been taught basic sentence diagramming.  I
may be wrong, but everything I seem to be learning can be traced back to my
lack of knowledge of sentence diagramming.  My early education was
constructed without that very important foundation; hence, my "house" tends
to crumble on a regular basis.   I am now 45, and people tend to look at me
funny when I ask such basic questions, so I usually just don't ask and
trudge along using the "hit and miss" system...until I found this wonderful
ATEG forum.

If you think of it in relation to the medical field, would you really want a
doctor working on you who had no basic knowledge of human anatomy?  Because
doctors spend so much time learning the basic human structure, they can more
accurately discern what is at the base of any given symptom...they know when
something "isn't as it should be."  The layman also knows when something
isn't as it should be, but they lack the necessary knowledge/skill to
accurately diagnose; hence, they seek out the person who has that
knowledge/skill.

It is my opinion that sentence diagramming is to grammar what the skeleton
and muscles are to the body.  In my line of work (medical transcription),
job security depends very much on my ability to explain the why of
it...that's what will set me apart from the average transcriptionist.  A
colleague  of mine once said, "Anyone can transcribe, but what gives us job
security is our ability to make the doctors 'sound' as intelligent on paper
as they are in real life."

Some people can read music while some play by ear.  I tend to "type by ear."
I know what sounds right, but I can't always explain why.  Example:  Two
seemingly favorite words dictated by doctors are affect and effect.  Unless
they are specifically talking about someone's countenance, these words are
pronounced exactly the same.  Because I was taught things like, "If you can
answer the question 'affect what?,' then the correct spelling is affect."
This thinking is a mistake just waiting to happen, even though it works
"most" of the time.

Hope this helps.

~Ruth


----- Original Message -----
From: Gretchen Lee <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: Classifying


> In a message dated 6/26/2000 11:40:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> << I imagine there is a continuum rather than discrete categories. Once
>  again, I think pointing out the distinction is useful, because people
>  HAVE been talking past each other.
>   >>
>
> Johanna,
>
> I think this is a good way to characterize the approaches.  I like the
> continuum image, rather than the Great Schism!  Personally, I came looking
> for some advice on how to rebuild my approach to grammar in the classroom.
I
> can see how that would tend to make me a minimalist, but I'm wondering if
> it's an either/or sort of question.
>
> If you don't have the time or resources to devote large hunks of time in
the
> classroom to grammar, are you forced into a minimalist stance?  In other
> words, can my kids come to an understanding of say, the comma splice (to
pick
> one we keep citing) without having to learn two or three different
grammars?
> I did (as one of my colleagues keeps repeating), but I was an adult before
I
> returned to writing.  I was one of those who thought writing was about
> subj/verb agreement rather than communicating ideas.
>
> I'm hoping there is a middle ground.  I'm still groping my way towards the
> advice that Jeff gave me and Connie indicated she also follows  - "The 22
> Must Haves of Grammar" or whatever you choose to call them.
>
> In my "youth" this was easy.  Start with identifying complete
> sentences/fragments (a darned sophisticated notion, btw for youngsters!),
> draw a line between the complete subject and the complete predicate,
> underline the simple subject once and the simple predicate twice, draw
arrows
> from the adjectives to the nouns they modify, etc.  I spent years
approaching
> grammar like this.  We diagrammed and made living sentences for hours.
> Didn't work for most of my kids.  I saw little or no transference to their
> writing.
>
> So I plead again.  When you advise me to design series of lessons, what
> progression would you advise me to use?  I would love to individualize a
> program for each student, but I don't want to leave huge holes.  What are
the
> "Must Covers" for middle school students?  Any ideas?
>
> Maybe even more importantly, what shouldn't I be covering?  Ed mentioned
that
> perhaps I shouldn't even mark comma errors with regard to clauses so as
not
> to discourage the experimenting with clauses that should be going on.  Any
> other things I shouldn't be doing?
>
> I know what doesn't work; I'm still trying to figure out what I should be
> doing instead.  Ed's program is laid out, but seems to require years of
> spiraling.  Ed, what would you do if you had one year?
>
> Connie, what grammar resources do you send your students out into the
> sometimes cold, cruel world of public school teaching with?  What do you
> advise them to do if they walk into a department with a bookroom full of
> Wariner's?
>
> Harry, what did the sixth grade teachers in your school do for grammar
> instruction so that you could use the wonderful techniques you developed
in
> _Image Grammar_?  What foundation did they come to you with?
>
> Any other books you know of/have written that I should read/review?
>
> Thanks again (and I'm hoping you don't collectively wish I'd stayed in Big
> Sur!),
> --Gretchen the Nag
> [log in to unmask]
>