Thank you Jeff for your response.
Yes, I've made an error when I wrote the patterns. I hope Michael or Edith
didn't read my message. 1)S-IV,2)S-LV-SC,3)S-TV-DO, 4)S-TV-IO-DO,
5)S-TV-DO-OC. Thank you for your sentences Jeff.
But I didn't see the difference between the sentences that you sent and
sentences that we diagramming in class. Maybe there aren't any other
patterns, just variations of the basic ones. Thank you very much Jeff for
your response.

Respectfully,Aram
North Seattle Community College



-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of JEFF GLAUNER
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 6:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Grammar Book + Patterns


In response to Aram's inquiry, the following:

The list he provided is a start.  There seems to be one error, although it
might just be a semantic problem.  The third pattern should have a DO
instead of an OC following the IO.  Most obviously missing from the usual
list is the SC (subject complement).  Also, I break my SCs and OCs into two
patterns each:  AdjPh and NP.

Delahunty and Garvey add three more patterns.  The first of these is the
"Recipient/Benefactive" which is usually the transformed indirect object
pattern (e.g., John sent a cake to his mother).  The second is the
"Location" pattern which includes an adverbial in the predicate (e.g., He
threw the ball over the fence, or He put the ball down). I have problems
with this one.  It stretches the definition of complement too far into the
definition of modifier. Also, it gets mixed up in the discussion of particle
Vs preposition.  The third is "Passive."  Most grammarians (including me)
consider this a transformation rather than a basic pattern. To consider it a
basic sentence pattern adds unnecessary complication to the generative verb
formula.

I've seen other patterns, but they are usually variations on the above.

Jeff Glauner
Park University