Jeff:

It may have been totally inadvertent, but you shed light on my "ly"
question.  As a transcriptionist, I am constantly restructuring badly formed
sentences.  It never dawned on me to simply restructure that type of
sentence ("Actually I have never been to Spain").  I suppose, depending on
the intended meaning, it would be better to say, "I have actually never been
to Spain," or "I have never actually been to Spain."  My first reaction
after reading your posting was, "Duh, Ruth!"

Thank you for your insight.  I suppose I typically try so hard to get all
the "Ps and Qs" in the right places; hence, I occasionally forget to take a
step back for a broader view.  "Tunnel vision" can be a dangerous thing.

~Ruth


----- Original Message -----
From: JEFF GLAUNER <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: Grammar Book + Patterns


> That's right, Bob.  Sentence patterns without an understanding of the
types
> of verbs in the sentences are not of much value.  That's why a full
> discussion of sentence patterns always includes the verb.  Because this is
> so important, I devote significant time to examination of the verb in
> English.  Except for the ESL student, however, the verb is not terribly
> complex.  We have to differentiate among intransitive, transitive, and
> linking.  We also, have to know how to deal with number.  Tense is far
> simpler than the traditionalist would have us believe.  The basic formula
> [Tense (+ Modal) (+ HAVE + EN) (+BE + ING) + Main Verb] permits us to see
> tense the way it actually happens as a grammatical function.  Beyond that,
> it moves off into semantics.
>
> The real value of sentence patterns is to make it possible for us to
examine
> the sentence in terms of its constituent structures starting with subject
> and predicate in an unelaborated clause.  The sentence pattern allows us
to
> look at the constituents holistically (subject + predicate = clause) or to
> analyze the constituent [Noun Phrase = (Determiner) (+Premodifier) + Noun
> Head (+ Postmodifier)].   Instead of prescribing what is right and wrong
in
> grammar, the sentence pattern teaches the student to describe what
actually
> happens in grammar.  An added benefit is that this method allows us to do
> the describing with fewer terms than traditional grammar requires.
>
> Don't get me wrong.  As grammar teachers, we are still prescriptivists.
We
> are supposed to be the experts in standard written and spoken English.  To
> the extent that students' native dialects differ from standard English and
> to the extent that students have misunderstood the rules for edited
standard
> English, we have the responsibility to prescribe.   Students must learn
> standard English as a complement to their own dialects.  We can teach them
> to put the comma after "-ly" words at the beginnings of sentences because
> these are normally adverbs that have floated out of their normal sentence
> order positions and need to be marked as such (e.g., "Modifiers are
usually
> near the words they modify."  Vs  "Usually, modifiers are near the words
> they modify.")
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Yates" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Grammar Book + Patterns
>
>
> > I have never understood the attraction of describing possible English
> > sentence patterns.  Those patterns suggest that one can simply
> > substitute words into those relevant slots to get a sentence.
> >
> > Yet, those slots crucially depend on the verb.  Isn't it more useful to
> > talk about types of verbs based on their complements?
> >
> > Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University
>