I think the response perfectly captures the tacit reason that some people like these diagrams: they function both as an elitist, gatekeeping mechanism (grammar is really hard: see how smart I am) and an aesthetic object, rather than a definitive statement of analysis. The fact that they are mistaken is really not the point of the exercise.


There are also errors in the diagrams in Kitty Burns Florey’s book
On May 14, 2014, at 9:12 AM, Beth Young <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> A few months ago, Michael Kischner shared a link to a poster of famous novel first lines presented as Reed-Kellogg diagrams, and Bruce Despain commented that almost all of them contained errors. Well, that same company has released a new poster of famous movie lines (http://popchartlab.com/products/a-diagrammatical-dissertation-on-notable-lines-of-cinematic-action), and again, there were problems in the diagrams. 
> 
> I thought, "What a missed opportunity" and wrote to them about it. They wrote back, saying that they are fixing the one example I told them about, but not because it was wrong, but because they just like the looks better (see below). 
> 
> Really, Reed-Kellogg diagrams aren't the be-all / end-all of grammar instruction, but I was sad to get a reply that is so far from anything I recognize as making sense.  
> 
> ----
> I wrote:
> 
> As someone who teaches grammar, I was very interested in your diagram posters--until I looked more closely at them. Some of the diagrams are correct, but some are incorrect.
> 
> One example: "I eat Green Berets for breakfast, and right now, I'm very hungry." The prepositional phrase "for breakfast" explains WHY I eat Green Berets, it does not explain WHAT KIND OF Green Berets, so it is adverbial, and it should be attached to the verb, not the noun. 
> 
> I'm not sure whether someone is deciding that the diagrams look better aesthetically that way, or whether a computer program is auto-diagramming for you, or what, but I thought I'd mention it. Your poster of novel first line diagrams was discussed on a listserv for grammar teachers, and I suspect I'm not the only person who decided not to buy it because too many diagrams were wrong.
> 
> The "Yippee-Ki-Yay" diagram is pretty darned hilarious, though. :)
> 
> Anyway, I am sorry to be sending a critical comment to you out of the blue like this, but I thought maybe you would rather know . . . my apologies if this was the wrong thing to do.
> 
> They responded:
> 
> Thanks so much for writing!
> 
> You are right in your parsing of the sentence at the raw level. However, Reed Kellogg diagrams don't always adhere to the strictures of prepositional modification..
> 
> In this case, the diagram (according to RK) can actually have that "for" in either position, as it refers to either WHEN (technically speaking) you eat Green Berets (during the breakfast hour), or, and this is where things get weird, you can link it in the position of an adjective modifier (as we did here, even though it is adverbial in truth) to show when it is you're verbing the direct object. (I eat X for breakfast. What do you eat for breakfast? Green Berets!)
> 
> It's funny you mention design, though, as we think it actually LOOKS better the way you suggest it. So we're going to move it in any case :).
> 
> Hope that sheds some light on things.
> ------------------
> 
> Alas, it does not. :(
> 
> ----
> Beth Young
> U of Central Florida
> 
> 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/