Ed, I have to agree with you. It seems that this group has lost its focus and is drifting back to the NCTE perspective on grammar. There is an amazing confusion concerning the metalanguage of grammar, or what you call a " specific set of defined terms." Grammar perspectives are all mixed-up into a hodge-podge of traditional, structural, generative, cognitive and anti-grammatical dogmas. A forum participant even wrote in a post that he did not know what grammar was. What is worse, I believe, is that there is no discussion openness in the forum. People sent messages to me stating that they were afraid to post on the forum because they were afraid of the violent reaction they would get from a few individuals who believe that they have a monopoly on the exchange of ideas. Quite often discussions drift into linguistic diatribes which I don't believe benefit in any way those who struggle to put together a coherent approach to teaching grammar in public school. I wonder sometimes what are the "experts" in Linguistics doing on this forum which is dedicated to the "good old grammar." If they want to engage in deep linguistic discussions, why don't they post on the Linguist List, or some other specilized linguistic forums? I am a member of the Linguist List, and I go there for linguistics. On the other hand, I come here for practical suggestions teachers and instructors need when they teach English Composition. I recognize that some messages I posted on the forum have not been very friendly, but the vicious reaction to them and the fact that from that moment I became a persona non grata is evidence to me that the forum has lost its fundamental scientific characteristic - the free circulation of ideas, and open participation and coooperation among its members. If 20 years of existence and activity of this forum has had so little effect on the grammar education of teachers and instructors, what is that we should expect from the future when there appears to be less and less consensus about the major objectives and approaches to the goal of changes the current anti-grammarian perspective in the NCTE and in the American education in general? Eduard On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Edward Vavra wrote... > I basically lost interest in this group (even though I'm primarily the one who started it), at the first Seattle conference * when there was the first serious discussion of scope and sequence. At that conference I suggested that ATEG establish three, perhaps four distinct groups, each of which could develop a named scope and sequence, based on a specific set of defined terms. It does not make any sense to have one group that considers infinitives to be clauses and another that considers them to be phrases, both working within the same scope and sequence, and both claiming that they are teaching "grammar." Most members of this list realize that there are fundamental differences among traditional, structural, transformational, etc. grammars. Put them all in one "grammar" pot and the public has an indigestible mess--the current state of affairs. > Let me note here that I would have been (and to a certain extent still am) open to changes in KISS terminology, but none of the members of ATEG has shown any specific interest in working with me. Indeed, I started the newsletter and the first conferences with the idea of getting suggestions and improvements for KISS. > As long as this group refuses to make such distinctions, it will fail. In effect, it is speaking and writing nonsense (as I understand Hobbes to call it), since different members use the same terms to refer to different constructions, and different terms to refer to the same constructions. Clear definitions are first principles of philosophy and of the natural sciences. It amazes me that this group cannot understand that. >Ed 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/