Michael,
     Thanks for your response, but perhaps I did not make myself clear. I certainly do not believe that all grammarians should agree, that they should all use the same terminology, or that they should all have the same philosophical basis for their theories of grammar. But there is a fundamental difference between linguistic and pedagogical grammars. What the public wants, and their desires are clearly reflected in some comments by some members of this list, is a clear, consistent descriptive grammar than can be used to discuss English sentence structure. That discussion should include correctness, but also style and logic. The consistency here is important. As in my example of "clause," communication fails when different teachers, and different textbooks, use the same words to refer to different things. In other words, the numerous grammatical perspectives of the linguistic grammars simply cause confusion in the K-12 classroom. As a result, most of the teachers hate to teach grammar * they themselves find it confusing.

Martha,
    Thanks for suggesting that I have solved the problem by using the term "gerundive." (Herb and Johanna don't seem to get the point.) Although you say that I have solved it for myself, I'm not so sure of that. The KISS list has over a hundred subscribers, and I regularly get notes from people who are not on the list but who apparently love the approach. They find the site itself confusing * it has so much on it that it is difficult to navigate. But they love the approach, finding it comprehensible, usable, and useful. More and more people are asking for a book or books that use the approach. It is possible that, in the absence of any competition, KISS grammar may become an international standard for teaching, simply by default.

Ed

>>> [log in to unmask] 01/29/05 2:13 PM >>>
Ed Vavra wrote:
"When fundamental definitions such as this [what a clause is] change from
teacher to teacher, grade level to grade level, the public is right in
simply sending grammar and its teachers to Hades."

It is not my intention to further open up and irritate "old wounds" among
fellow ATEGers, but I think that Ed raises an important issue that I would
like to hear others comment on.  How important is agreement on terminology
and definitions among English grammarians?  Right away I think of major
disagreements among scholars in other disciplines--especially in the
"soft" sciences and humanities--and that doesn't seem to discredit them or
impede them in carrying out their teaching mission.

As a teacher of teachers, I think I see it as my mission to equip my
students NOT with a fixed, unchanging, and unquestionable set of
categories and terminology, but with a mind that is inclined to examine in
detail more carefully the vast resources that our language provides us.
How this mission works itself out on the K-12 level, I confess, I have not
thought about carefully enough.

And so I keep tuned into the marvelous conversations on this list serve,
hoping to receive some help.  Thanks, everyone, for your sometimes
passionate, always stimulating contributions!

R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Eastern Mennonite University, Harrisonburg, VA 22802
[log in to unmask]  (540) 432-4051

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/