|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
One of the punctuation rules my kids have to master this year is how to punctuate introductory prepositional phrases. Because so many of the kids come to me not knowing a preposition from a hole in the ground, I use a variety of strategies to help them recognize the beast.
Many teachers use the device of the airplane and the clouds:
The plane flew _______________________ the clouds.
And many prepositions comfortably fill in that blank:
The plane flew around the clouds.
....beneath the clouds.
...over the clouds.
And so on.
But nothing's perfect in English.
I'm thinking about giving my kids a group of prepositions, such as the one I show below, to try in the airplane model with the purpose of identifying the black sheep prepositions, so to speak.
For instance, out of the following set of prepositions, which would you argue do not fit the model in a way that makes a sensible English sentence?
aboard, about, above, according to, across, across from, after, against, along, alongside, alongside of, along with, amid, among, apart from, around, aside from, at, away from, back of, because of, before, behind, below, beneath, beside, besides, between, beyond, but, by, by means of, concerning, considering, despite.
Thanks for taking a quick look. (You might ask yourself, "Does this sentence make sense out of context?")
I see several that work lamely at best, and, in an essay, would cause a lot of confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Concerning? Never! The rest are fine.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
The rest aren't fine:
The plane flew but the clouds.
The plane flew besides the clouds.
The plane flew considering the clouds.
...and there might be another in addition to the one you identified above that I repeat below, Milo, but I haven't carefully analyzed the list yet:
The plane flew concerning the clouds.
Edit: "According to the road map, our route was wrong-minded." Now, given the use of "according to" in that sentence, could we make a leap and say the sentence, "The plane flew according to the clouds." I don't think so. It seems lame to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
The plane flew; (ah) but the clouds. The plane flew besides the clouds. (colloquialism) (amazing) The plane flew - considering the clouds. But don't cha know, concerning joins the plane and the clouds but indicates no relationship. Wordwind, have you become prim and proper? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
my kids have to master how to punctuate introductory prepositional phrasesInstead of teaching your kids how to punctuate "introductory prepositional phrases", just tell them to punctuate "introductory phrases". Problem solved. You don't have to be a mechanic to drive a vehicle. Learn to drive first, then get your hands greasy under the hood if it suits you. It doesn't suit everyone. Just the suits at the Board of Education.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
You don't have to be a mechanic to drive a vehicle.With all due respect, Wordwind, it seems to me that there should be a class called "Common Sense Writing" which students have to take before they are introduced to the "rules" of punctuation and a whole lot of other "rules". "Common Sense Writing" would teach students that the purpose of "rules" is not to frustrate and confuse them (as most students naturally assume), but to make it easier for the reader to understand what they are writing. The first thing a teacher of "Common Sense Writing" would do is put an unpunctuated sentence or sentences on the blackboard which would benefit from the addition of punctuation. Then that teacher would allow the students to discover for themselves, by speaking the sentence aloud, how that sentence becomes clearer and more understandable and more emphatic by inserting 'breaks', or 'pauses' or 'little breaths' in the sentence -- which eggheads call "punctuation". Once the students get into the rhythm of it, tell them that there isn't anything else to master. All this "introductory prepositional phrase" hogwash is just the mechanical stuff under the hood of the car. Who needs it if you just want to learn how to become a good driver? Then students should be told that mechanics don't necessarily make better drivers than people who don't know a carburetor from a tailpipe. In fact, there is a danger that a mechanic will pay too much attention to what is going on under the hood and not enough attention to what is going on in the road ahead. Contrary to the impression which the "rulebooks" give, the rules serve good writing, not the other way around. Good writing is clear, understandable writing - in other words, "Common Sense Writing".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
I wanted to say that Common Sense Writing is a Paine, but I decided to desist. Yeah, right.
All seriousness aside, Plutarch, I like your approach immensely. Have you ever thought of teaching?
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
All seriousness aside, Plutarch, I like your approach immenselyNow, there is an evasive encomium if every I saw one, TEd Rem. But I'll bite anyway. Since what I am advocating is "common sense", I can't take uncommon credit for advocating it, and it might be awkward for you to belittle me for exercising it. I happen to think that the education system has long since forgotten, if it ever knew, what the object is of grammar and english literature studies. Rhythm is the key to the power and the beauty of our language. But who teaches rhythm in conjunction with grammar and english literature at any level in our public school system? Kids get rhythm. Sometimes they get it better than their english teachers. Perhaps most times. If english teachers treated an unpunctuated sentence like a line of music, it wouldn't be long before the students were teaching the lesson. They'd be rockin' around the classroom clock. I Googled "educator Paine" and came up with Thomas Paine who "wrote the pamphlet Common Sense in 1776". Good one, TEd Rem. I haven't thought of becoming a teacher, TEd Rem, but if I wrote a book on Grammar, I would call it "Rockin' Around the Classroom Clock". Or, simply, Grammar Rocks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
re: Rhythm is the key to the power and the beauty of our language. But who teaches rhythm in conjunction with grammar and english literature at any level in our public school system?
yes, i am old, and its less true today, but i learned (and had a poetry text book!) from 2nd grade onward.
i was required to learn recertation (there is a word that never really made it into my writen vocabulary--by the time i should have learned it, the idea was passe!) pieces.. every one in school did..
we had to memorize a poem, and stand up in front of the class and recite it. any poem.
one of the few childhood books in my house was Robert Lewis Stevenson's 'A Childrens Garden of Verses' i learned (and can still recite) "I have a little shadow"
by the time my kids were in school, there were no poetry books, and almost no poetry. So i bought these books for my kids. several of them survived my moving 3 times! (i still have them!)
My kids didn't have to memorize Edward Lears "the owl and the the pussy cat" or "the gingham dog and the calico cat" or any of the other poems, but they did grow up hearing them. and christina rossetti's poems, and other favorites from my childhood.
Parents have a responsiblity, too. Dr suess is and remains beloved because of this use of rhythm and rhymes.
i think the popularity of rap is because there was a void in rhythmic speach.. rap helps fill it. (goodness knows, now days to experess and interest in poetry is to be called a total nerd.. (see nerd thread in AWAD in Schools for what that means)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
This reminds me of that movie with Jon Voigt (a much younger Jon Voigt), based on the book "The Water Is Wide"...darn it, what was the movie title?? The one where he went to teach on that island off South Carolina and found the kids ignorant of virtually everything--and one of the ways he got them to learn was by using rhythm--he'd chant a line, then have the kids repeat it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
I'd say that rote memorization and rhythm are not enough. The problem I've run across again and again teaching both children and adults is concrete versus abstract thinking. This problem is exacerbated by current pedagogical practices: the teaching of pragamtic skills rather than rhetorical and grammatrical ones. (People don't take a class in Web standards and history, but they do take classes in FrontPage 2002 or Photoshop 7.) It's not enough to make kids memorize poetry. You have to make them study it, analyze it, write it, and enjoy it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
I'd say that rote memorization and rhythm are not enough.How true, jheem, but, in my opinion, "analyzing" great literature is something one does, or should do, after, not before, experiencing it. Analysis is an impediment to visceral enjoyment as much with literature as with music or with the visual arts, at least on first exposure. That is the fatal flaw in how literature is "taught" to students, I suspect; that and the fact that many english teachers are mindless of the 'music' in great literature. In my school days, Shakespeare was taught by a humorless, 'army barracks' spinster who dissected it line by line, robbing it of all its poetry. In retrospect, I have often wondered if she even knew that Shakespeare was, above all else, a poet -- "the immortal bard". She required everyone to memorize lengthy passages from Macbeth and some complete sonnets for periodic written tests, but she never explained that there was any reason to do this except for the pure torture of it. She compounded the torture by awarding marks for absolutely precise punctuation, for instance, you lost a mark for using a semi-colon instead of a colon, a colon instead of a hyphen, and so on. It was really memory work for the sake of memory work, not memory work as a portal to the genius of the playwright and the transcendent power and beauty of the english language, transcendent power and beauty which reaches its zenith in the sometimes delicate, sometimes jubilant, sometimes volcanic brushstrokes of "the immortal bard". I can remember one student, overall the best in the class [we called him "The Machine"], who was totally perplexed by this passage in Macbeth spoken by Macbeth as he contemplates the murder of Duncan: "Whilst I threat, he lives. Words to the heat of deeds too cold breath gives". I told "The Machine" not to analyze it, but to step back from it, to let it flow over him; in short, to feel it. He honestly didn't understand it was poetry. Then he got it. And he loved it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154 |
I lucked out with an English teacher, Mrs. Sam, who not only taught us to take a poem apart to see how it worked, but would then put it back together to show us why we bothered.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
aboard, about, above, according to, across, across from, after, against, along, alongside, alongside of, along with, amid, among, apart from, around, aside from, at, away from, back of, because of, before, behind, below, beneath, beside, besides, between, beyond, but, by, by means of, concerning, considering, despite.
There's a couple in there that aren't prepositions, specifically, but, concerning, and considering.
There are two schools of thought on punctuation, which we can call grammatical and rhetorical. The rhetorical uses commas to indicate pauses in speech and the grammatical uses them to say things about the relationship of words to each other in a sentence. A classic example of the difference might be seen in the phrase my wife Mary and I. The rhetorical punctuator would leave that phrase unsullied by any commas, but the grammatical punctuator would sneer at the suggestion that the speaker had another wife lurking in the wings somewhere, preferring to punctuate it my wife, Mary, and I.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 96
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 96 |
Ours was like a poem:
in, over, under, on, across, against, around,
beneath, beside, between, below,
above, for, by, beyond,
down, up, before, within,
from, to, after, near,
during, toward, among
There was a particular 'meter' to it, which made it stick in my head these many years.
We also had one for the forms of the verb 'to be'. Later.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
the 'grammar's song i remember, (to the tune of Yankee doodle went to town) is for copulative verb--
Be, seen, become, appear,
Look, taste, grow, sound, remain, smell
Copulative verbs take nomnative,
Predicate noun or adjective! (case is implied)
it helped get me through the NY State English regents!
garrison keeler used to have 'the Department of folk songs] as a segment on his show, and it featured many ditties like the one above that helped thousand of school kids learn some of the finer points of grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
There are two schools of thought on punctuationIt seems to me that one school would be enough, Faldage.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
In reply to:
There's a couple in there that aren't prepositions, specifically, but, concerning, and considering.
Faldage, your information is incomplete. True, the words but, concerning, considering do function in some sentences differently from prepositions. In numerous grammar books and dictionaries, however, but, concerning, and considering are shown as prepositions in function. It completely depends upon how the words are used in specific sentences. Check MW and you'll see.
I understand where you're coming from in that 'consider' is a verb and 'considering' is the present participle form. However, for whatever reasons of time and agreement that cause these changes in how words are categorized, the function of 'considering' in a preposition-like role in a sentence has occurred often enough that it can be parsed as a preposition. The same goes for 'concerning.' I can't say I'm happy with verbs morphing into prepositions, but apparently this categorization is not very recent. In my MW (Riverside, 1987), both participles have been so categorized. Function is all here.
'But' is easier to explain. It simply means the same as the preposition 'except' as in the sentence "Everyone but Charlie passed the test." I think the case of participles morphing into prepositions is a very interesting one. Apparently, from what I've read in my grandfather's 19th century Webster's, even 'but' itself (the preposition) was at one time a participle from some Saxon word. I would copy out the entire word history of the preposition 'but,' but it's simply too long. What is interesting is in the 19th century, before 'but' was categorized as a preposition--and I'm not speaking of the conjunction 'but' in any way--'but' was categorized as a participle! That's somehow delightful. I don't know when Webster's stopped categorizing what is now our preposition 'but' as a participle and began to name it, instead, as a preposition.
The abbreviated list of prepositions I copied out in the thread starter, by the way, comes from one of the grammar books that is used in Chesterfield County.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
The abbreviated list of prepositions I copied out in the thread starter, by the way, comes from one of the grammar books that is used in Chesterfield County.I am truly awed by your erudition, Wordwind, but if I was a student in Chesterfield County I'd be quaking in my boots at the prospect of writing proper english. If Shakespeare had been exposed to the Chesterfield County catechism, or most any modern grammar school catechism, I daresay english literature would have been the poorer for it. No doubt his genius would have taken flight, but it would have taken flight on clipped wings. My guess is that he was certain enough of his powers that the damage would have been minimal. Modern day grammar school lessons are less of a shackle for the gifted than for ordinary students, I suspect. How many students who might have discovered enjoyment in writing have become casualties of this catechism, I wonder? It is said that no-one writes anymore, at least with any respect for the english language. I am sure there are many reasons for this. Could this be one of them? Kids today are too smart to waste their time learning something which is not only painful but pointless. Proficiency in the catechism qualifies a person to teach it and that's about it. No-one would deny that a soupcon of it is useful, even necessary, but in large polysyllabic doses, it is almost certainly grammarcidal to elementary and high school kids. I mean no disrespect to you personally, Wordwind. My comments are directed at the educational system which promulgates stuff like "introductory prepositional phrases" for children under the age of consent.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
re My comments are directed at the educational system which promulgates stuff like "introductory prepositional phrases" for children under the age of consent.This could be the basis for a class action lawsuit. For once, no pun is intended. [Hence, no smiley is appended. ]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
Dear Plutarch,
For the first time in SAT history, students will have a written essay as part of their SAT scores beginning in 2005. Students will have twenty-five minutes to respond to an essay topic, organize their thoughts, write the essay and proofread it. For anyone who has been working with high school writers with less than average verbal skills, this is truly a difficult task, especially since the task will have bearing upon college admissions. However, the essay on the SAT test will now be in place and I like to think that whatever I am doing well in the classroom might help my students become better thinkers, writers, and even higher scorers on this new test. The scope of the writing opportunities my students get to try is wide and varied. Some topics work better than others; free writings are always best--those writings in which students do not have to worry at all about usage and mechanics; essays are hardest, but are very rewarding for me to evaluate by spring because most students have learned to organize their thoughts so that another human being can follow the line of thinking. I happen to love writing, and I do hope I convey in spades my enthusiam for the written word, and most especially the written words of my students.
Your response was interesting to what I initiated as a simple inquiry into one of literally thousands of questions a teacher could pose about writing. Your response was not particularly original. The reason I say not particularly original is because what you wrote has been observed by countless teachers I have personally known and also in thousands upon thousands of articles about writing, poetry, rhythm, the oral tradition in the classroom, and so on. However, you moved from my questioning of a very insignificant model for testing prepositions to expression of your own philosophy about common sense applied in the teaching of writing. Terrific. I agree with you. I also use the practices you described in my own classroom, and I use other practices you didn't mention.
After reading your initial response, I thought, "Plutarch certainly jumps to many conclusions." After reading your response from this morning, I thought, "Plutarch jumps to many more." It is surprising to me to see just how many conclusions you've reached about my own teaching by my simply asking about the preposition model that I found lacking--and certainly wouldn't use as a standard with my own students--and my having mentioned that we do teach students how to punctuate prepositional phrases that begin sentences. You also commented on the list of prepositions that I had simply copied out of the grammar book. I cannot imagine a grammar book lying around that didn't include a list of prepositions, a list of subordinating conjunctions, a list of personal pronouns, and so on. I think lists of examples, whether open or closed sets, are commonly used in all grammar texts. You commented on teaching punctuation of prepositional phrases. For better or worse (and I believe for better), we do work with punctuation as a means the writer has of letting the reader know how his message should sound. Punctuation is to the writer as rests are to the composer, plain and simple, most likely too simple, but perhaps you understand the analogy. I teach ninth grade, and still the tenth grade teachers comment that some students do not use punctuation well for even simple concepts such as items in a series. But writing is a process; it evolves; students improve; teachers improve. I listen carefully to what the teachers around here say, I try their methods, and I view their complaints to my own students so my own will know that some writing traits, such as a poor mastery of punctuation, can give a reader the wrong impression of their own merit. So, I hope you see that you and I do agree, but I will use a phrase that you apparently bristle at (introductory prepositional phrases) simply because that phrase helps some of my students, the more left-brained in the crew. You have to realize that people learn best in different ways. What works for you, Plutarch, could be a method that is anathema to another student. The challenge of a determined teacher is to incorporate many different ways and approaches into the classroom so that the final outcome is a group of students who will write well, write with emotional honesty, and write with confidence. You may have been my Plutarch over there in the desk by the door who detested learning parts of speech, but you may have been the one who, when reading aloud, capitivated the entire class. However, in the other corner is Jordan who, though a horrible oral reader, needs to know the naming of parts, needs to know down to the last detail why this word is called an adjective here but a verb over there. And I do have a Jordan and he must understand word functions, punctuation rules precisely and with some comfort level reached about the--ah, me--exceptions. And you two are just two types among so many who dwell inside the English classroom.
There is a great deal I could write about the virtues of teaching parts of speech, and there is a great deal more I could write about the multitude of ways in which parts of speech are taught. But I won't. I'll just say that, yes, I do teach parts of speech, I love teaching the parts of speech, I bring a lot of imagination to the teaching of parts of speech, and I even quote passages from A Word a Day in these lessons from time to time. It is a very good idea to teach parts of speech, but understanding a dictionary and the scope of the entries does require that one basically understands what a part of speech is. Faldage called me on calling concerning, considering and but prepositions, when he believed they were not; I referred him to MW where those three words are clearly identified as prepositions in certain functions. If Faldage had called me on something in which I had been in error, I would have written here that he was correct. I certainly have done so in the past when in error. But the point I make here is that teachers at the very least should make sure their students understand how words function in the glory of sentences we offer to them so that, at the very least, their students can use their dictionaries with understanding. And that is at the very least, Plutarch.
Let me address writing:
It has been my experience that students learn to look forward to writing when the fear of being marked down for errors is removed and, more importantly, that they know their thoughts will be responded to by a careful and caring teacher. My own students write to me at the beginning of each class, and they tell me what's on their minds: problems, celebrations, observations, narrations--any topic they choose. And I take these usually two-page invitations into their lives and respond honestly to the places that are strongest in terms of expressive strengths. I don't offer advice, and I don't try to overrule their own emotions with my own experience. Instead, if a student writes about an event and recalls an impressive list of details, I will comment on that strength; if a student shows insight into a situation, I comment on that; if a student asks interesting questions of himself, I comment on that. In other words, I am a deeply listening ear--and I care, so I take care to respond. If you've ever wanted someone to listen to you and notice you--really notice you--then I'm your man when it comes to reading your free writings.
Essays are altogether different for the English teacher and student. Essays are the place where rigorous proofreading must occur, not only for usage and mechanics errors, but also for content, organization, and written expression. Yes, the student is still expressing his opinion, but the rigor of essay writing challenges the student to make reasonable arguments and to organize those arguments so that most readers will understand his points. I try to build up my students' confidence through their free writings, and then help them understand how to improve their editing and organizing in the writing of the formal essays. I see the free writings as a safety valve for the rigors required in essay writing. And I see the study of grammar as a tool that helps the student editor.
You name it; we try to do it in English 9: spell, conjugate, parse, speak, read, rap, write, edit, sing, chant, create, negate, hypothesize, order, dream, celebrate.
And we fail at times. And I admit failure at times, such as in the preposition model I offered to the A Word A Day bulletin board readers as an example of a teaching model that struck me as being flawed. But, Plutarch, I will continue to examine any model anyone mentions that resonates with productive possibility if it leads my students toward learning to thrive in writing about their lives, whether formally or informally.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
wonderfully expressed, Ww.
I have one rather unrelated question: do you give lessons in remedial paragraph structure? (just wondering.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
what a great essay, WW!
there are some here who have seen my formal writing (it takes me hours!) and some here who have heard me speak casually, and in my 'professional voice' --my formal speaking, like my formal writing, is very different.
its much easier for me to slip into formal speaking.. but spelling and grammar are subjects i still stuggle with on a daily basis, in both formal and casual writing.
what i did learn, i learned best from teachers who double scored--1 grade for ideas, organization and presentation, a second grade for spelling, punctuation and grammer--i often scored A+ over F!(as i still often do here!) but, because they recognized my thoughts, i made much more of an effort to work on the details that mattered to them- (spelling punctuation and grammar!) and was able at the end of 2 terms to consistantly get A over C or A over B.
i love spell check (in general, Ænegma is not the most helpful spell checkers!) and i find, that the constant, non critical corrections offered by MSWord help alot! (that is intentional i like alot so much better than a lot!)
there are now new words in my written vocabulary. works, that i avoided for years, that i have now learned to spell!(i now can make decisions! i used to exersize an option (or opt, or opted) i used to choose (or made a choice) but i couldn't spell decide or decision for years, so i never used the word!
Dyslexia, combined with caring but overwhelmed teachers --i attend a small parachial school during the baby boom--some of my elementary classes were packed with 75 students! way too many students for any one teacher to effective teach. the average class size was 65 students (starting in 4th grade)
Still, enough of the basic rules of grammar seeped into my brain. Songs/rhythms and rhymes worked well for me, and so did clear explainations of the rules and exceptions.
i follow many of thread here about grammar, and the discussion between the prescriptives vs. the descriptives closly (but i rarely partcipate) i am still learning grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
and I do hope I convey in spades my enthusiasm for the written word, and most especially the written words of my studentsYou certainly do, Wordwind. Your students are obviously very lucky to have you. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to straighten me out. I am heartened to hear that what little I had to say which passes as valid criticism has been said many times before by many others more qualified than myself to say it, and more likely to do something constructive about it. Thanks again. P.S. I won't apologize for my presumptuous criticisms only because my presumption has resulted in such a marvellous insight into what good teachers can and are doing in the classroom, and this passage, in particular, convinces me that you are amongst the very best of them. You name it; we try to do it in English 9: spell, conjugate, parse, speak, read, rap, write, edit, sing, chant, create, negate, hypothesize, order, dream, celebrate.WOW! Can't say I ever had a teacher who was as passionately committed, creative and capable* as you are. You are a credit to your profession, Wordwind. And a credit to AWADtalk ... says Plutarch slinking away abashed. [Not that I am inviting anyone else to abash me. ] * In addition, you are a very cool cucumber -- which also comes in handy in the classroom, I'll bet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,692
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,692 |
That was a joy to read WW. Thank you for sharing your passion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
In addition, you are a very cool cucumber"Can't you just picture the British soldiers in 1845 Afghanistan taking time out for tea at three o'clock while being attacked by hordes of unpleasant fellows with long swords and rifles? Talk about cool, 'Pass the scones please, old chap?'" http://www.gourmetretailer.com/gourmetretailer/magazine/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2036816You would be as formidable a figure in the courtroom as you are in the classroom, Wordwind.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Still, enough of the basic rules of grammar seeped into my brain. Songs/rhythms and rhymes worked well for me, and so did clear explainations of the rules and exceptions.
i follow many of thread here about grammar, and the discussion between the prescriptives vs. the descriptives closly (but i rarely partcipate) i am still learning grammar.Reading your story makes me wonder if there is some value to all this discussion about grammar after all. I never got a single thing out of a grammar lesson [as far as I know*] but maybe this stuff does "seep" into you, as you say, Of Troy. Now that I think of it, I think I acquired all the grammar I have accumulated to this very day before I entered Grade 1 ... listening to my parents talk and having them correct my own talk. But I never heard anything about prepositions, or nouns, or pronouns, or verbs or adjectives and adverbs, and certainly none of that more exotic stuff, from either of my parents, so I do wonder why teachers need to use these words to teach grammar. Of course, some of these words [noun, verb, adjective, adverb, in particular] are a useful addition to anyone's vocabulary, but why are these words used so preemptively to teach grammar? I still don't get it. Don't kids learn by imitating the language of others, and being shown how to say it right when they say it wrong, rather than by learning rules? It seems to me, as an outsider, that these "rules" simply get in the way of learning.I accept that many children don't hear the best grammar at home, but doesn't that mean that these children should hear more proper english at school and less talk about "the rules"? * Actually, I do remember one thing I learned for the first time in a classroom. Never dangle a participle. And I must have learned that lesson pretty well, because I never do. Also, I know what a "participle" is**. It's not a very useful word, but I remember it anyway, without any particular resentment. Aside: Perhaps I should feel resentful because I hear that the "dangling participle rule" has been relaxed or withdrawn completely. Perhaps it has, perhaps not, but either way, it doesn't matter. I'll be a "prescriptivist" on this one, not as a matter of principle but instead as a matter of habit. *** Actually, I didn't know what a "dangling participle" was until I read the page linked below a minute ago. I thought a "dangling participle" was leaving a word like "of" at the end of a sentence. [Eg. "the disease he died of."] Seems I had it wrong. In any case, it seems to be less of a sin to "dangle a participle" today than it was in my schooldays, as this extract from "Dangling a Participle" suggests: "The agreement among speakers of English that the subject of a participle (which is the same as saying `what it modifies') should come close behind it makes perfect sense in keeping our statements free of ambiguities like (1) to (3). But here as everywhere else, being rigid and across-the-board about it gets us into the realm of pedantry. Look at these:
Speaking of John, he could work with us too.
Considering all the facts, this should be easy to resolve.
Knowing that, those plans had better be abandoned."http://home.bluemarble.net/~langmin/miniatures/dangling.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
re Don't kids learn by imitating the language of others, and being shown how to say it right when they say it wrong, rather than by learning rules?
I realize now that I have avoided dangling participles throughout my life, but it's not because I understood the rule against "dangling participles". Obviously, I didn't because I just learned the rule a few minutes ago. [In fact, I just learned what a "participle" is a few minutes ago ... and even now I'm not sure I know what it is.]
I have avoided dangling participles all my life because it just didn't sound right to dangle them.
Isn't this proof that people learn from listening to proper english being spoken, or by reading it, not from rules?
From my own experience, I am convinced this is true. Why wouldn't it be true for all children?
Maybe we could make more headway in grammar school without all the intimidating names for parts of speech and the like and all the intimidating, not to mention confusing, rules?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
in any field, language, knitting, or auto mechanics, there are special terms, and 'languge' to explain the workings.
I know the 4 bacis parts of a cycle (in a gas combustion engine) Intake, compression, exploition, exhaust--(are these the correct term? maybe--or maybe just close enough.)
but if my career was based on improving engine performence, i would need to know these terms, and others, and understand them. i would use the specialize language of engineers. this language would actually help me convey ideas that others could understand.
Maybe we could make more headway in grammar school without all the intimidating names for parts of speech and the like and all the intimidating, not to mention confusing, rules?
Yes, most of use learn to speak reasonably good english by doing nothing more than listening to others speak.
but there are irregular verbs to be learned, and general rules..(word order rules) spelling rules, and so on. and not every child is blessed and born into a household with adult that speak proper english. and the children that grows up hearing errors, and having its basic errors uncorrected are at a disadvantage.
have you spend time around a 3 or 4 year old? they will tell you 'she goed'. they know the verb go. and they have figured out the rule adding ED to a verb makes it the past tense. But they don't yet know the rules for irregular verbs. so 'they goed' is their 'natural english'
i was so startled when as a teen, i was asked to 'congigate' the verb to be. i really had to think about it. i always used the verb correctly, but i hadn't realized (duh!) that
i am
you/ are
he/she/it is
we are
they are
i have been
you have been
i was, she was, he was
we are being
they were
etc..
were all the ROOT same verb. i never put it together.
learning these rules and details helps us(well me!) understand our language better.
it might be the dyslexics of the world need the rules more than others. certainly i spell better when words follow the rules (i before e, except after c..or when sounded as A as in neighboor and weight.) but i it took me years to remember how to spell friend- (no c, no A sound in the middle.. was it friend or freind? ) eventually i learned to remember not to fry the end of my friends but to always fri ends.
i have a 1000 or so of those silly nmemotics in my head. so i can mostly spell the 4000 or so commonest words i use.
perhaps, because language (written language)made sense to you right off the bat, you underappreciate the structure.
maybe understanding structure isn't important to you (or comes naturally to you!) and your experience, while it might be widely shared, is not the only way people experience language.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Thanks for taking the time to explain and to share your insights, Of Troy. Your Dyslexia may make you a diamond in the rough at times, but you are a diamond all the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
What a wonderful excursion into the experiential devotion of a teacher who every student would be blessed to have at their side. From hereon in, your reputation for talent and dedication precedes you, Wordwind! My niece is an elementary ed major at the University of Maryland...I'll make sure she sees this, if you don't mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
True, the words but, concerning, considering do function in some sentences differently from prepositions.
I don't have a lot of time* and won't till probably Thursday, but I'll just say that, maybe you can shoehorn those words into the preposition cubbyhole but it's not something I'd do to poor, impressionable, young schoolkids.
*I haven't even had a chance to get caught up on this thread, so I apologize to any chopped liver I've left scattered about.
Addendum: I am reminded that a quick scan has indicated that there are a whole lot of posts in this thread that I won't have to read, so my catching up may not take so long.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
I apologize to any chopped liver I've left scattered aboutI'm the only "chopped liver" I know of on this thread, Faldage.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
WW: applause, applause! Thank you for taking the time to share with us. Your students are indeed lucky to have you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
But is a whole nother issue, but I've had a chance to dig into the question of words such as concerning that were nicely established as participles until some well meaning but misguided prescriptivists decided to try to give them extreme makeovers. A glance at the AHD usage note on the word participle might be useful at this time. The note is at http://www.bartleby.com/61/74/P0087400.html, but I'll just quote this brief portion of it: A number of expressions originally derived from participles have become prepositions, and these may be used to introduce phrases that are not associated with the immediately adjacent noun phrase. Such expressions include concerning, considering, failing, granting, judging by, and speaking of. Thus one may write without fear of criticism Speaking of politics, the elections have been postponed or Considering the hour, it is surprising that he arrived at all. I have often said that it is easy to be a prescriptivist; just memorize a few rules and weep and wail and gnash teeth when presented with usages that don't follow them. Here we have a brave attempt by prescriptivists to actually describe the language, but their attempts fall short. They should leave the describing to the descriptivists. Realizing that the problem of the so-called dangling participles isn't going away they have picked a few instances of usage that may have become particularly well established and tried to cram them into some semblance of existing rules. The root of their problem is in such sentences as Turning the corner, the view was quite different. The prescriptivists call Turning the corner a dangling participle because the sentence has no noun or pronoun for the participle to modify. This is no different in grammar from the examples cited above with Speaking of politics and Considering the hour. Recasting the participles as prepositions is not the answer. The answer is recognizing the grammatical category known in other languages, notably Japanese, as the topic of the sentence. The topic may be identical to the subject but need not be. In the case of sentences with so-called dangling participles they are not identical. Regarding but, I'll withdraw my objections. A little research has shown that but has been both a conjunction and a prepostion since OE.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 95
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 95 |
In reply to:
i hadn't realized (duh!) that
i am
you/ are
he/she/it is
we are
they are
i have been
you have been
i was, she was, he was
we are being
they were
etc..
were all the ROOT same verb. i never put it together.
It's also interesting that the verb "to be" is irregular in nearly every language, primarily because it's so common in speech. It's a pain learning sum, es, est, sumus, estis, sunt, or eimi, ei, esti, esmen, este, and eisi - and it just recently struck me how equally annoying it must be for people learning English.
"It is a sobering thought that when Mozart was my age, he had been dead for two years." -Tom Lehrer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 96
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 96 |
Here's my learning 'poem' for the forms of 'to be'...said with a certain rhythm:
'am are is was were
be been have has had
can could do did may
shall should will would might'
'Nother of those old memorization things from the early 50s, and still stuck in my oft forgetful head.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Just for S&Gs, let's assume, for sake of argument, that we have somehow magically converted these participles to prepositions. Let's take the sentence Considering the hour, it is surprising that he arrived at all.
Why is it bad to treat Considering the hour as a participial phrase? The standard answer is that it is a dangling participle, i.e., it is not modifying anything in the sentence. What do we gain by thinking of considering as a preposition? Not much; prepositional phrases need something to modify, too. We don't say things like: Into the house, I saw a cat. All we've done is change a dangling participle into a dangling preposition.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Why is it bad to treat "Considering the hour" as a participial phrase?All things considered, I'm on your side on this one, Faldage. But, seriously, how does it advance the argument by even mentioning parts of speech [if that's what they are] such as "prepositions" or "participles"? Those terms may have some meaning for the initiated, but the initiated are already initiated. We need to get to the uninitiated -- the one's who are being left behind. Surely, every educator can agree about that. Let's approach this from a different angle -- the angle of "Common Sense Writing". Let's ask students without any comprehension of terms like "prepositions" or "participles", and certainly no affection for them, to judge particular examples by their sound. I would call this part of the lesson "sound judgment". Let's use your own examples, Faldage. 1. "Considering the hour, [we should wrap this up]", and 2. "Into the house, I saw a cat" My guess is that most kids in Grade 6 [or above] would tell you Example #1 sounds OK, and Example #2 doesn't make any sense -- even if they can't tell the difference between a dangling participle and a dangling fishing pole. Any kid who says OK to Example #1 and "Huh?" to Example #2, would get a pass in "Sound Judgment", and that's that. Any kid who thinks Example #2 makes sense, certainly needs help, but teaching them the meaning of "prepositions" and "participles" is like putting a kid who failed Grade 6 into Grade 10 to straighten them out. Anyone who has a taste for this type of esoterica, should write learned essays about it to the profession. But are children under the age of consent fitting subjects for this sort of thing?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
hell, plutarch, why teach the bulk of the kids to read to begin with? why not just plop them down in front of 'educational' tv and let them learn to be good consumers. (ie, buy what ever is being advertized) we can have tv shows instructing them how to look at pictures and work the cash registers at mcdonalds (which don't have dollar values, but picture icons so illiterate idiots can learn to work the cash register.)
i have made the point that knitting (Of all things!) helped me understand binary math and other numbering series, as well as giving me a huge insight into boolian logic.
lots of people scoff at knitting, (a nice hobby for old ladies, usless, but harmless--but then again, knitting needles were banned from airflights right after 9/11 so some thought knitting needles could be used as lethal weapons!) but knitting aside from teaching fine motor skills (good for learning to write) also teached a new way of thinking--ways of thinking i continue to use.
human beings always have insights and understanding based on their current knowledge.
3000 years ago, the egyptians thought the heart a useless organ...even as they 'understood' the lungs (the lungs were 'bellows' that flamed the 'fire' of human life. bellows they knew and understood.
understand of the function of the heart came with the industrial revolution.. as engineers understood pumps, they came to also understanding the pumping action of the heart--
the action of the heart didn't change.. but understanding the action arrived when there was external analogy that could be understood.
what is a measure of practical knowledge? You understand grammar, and you have mastered english and consider understanding part of speech and rules of grammer to be useless.
many disagree. maybe only 1 in 1000 kids truly benefits from the knowledge. SO WHAT? What is the goal? Are we interested in education or in giving children job training?
if the goal (of schools) is to give job training--sure we can dump grammer, 99% of the kids don't need it to be clerks in mcdonalds or wal-marts. but if our goal is education (even if 50% of the kids resist it, and end up in jobs like mcdonald or wal mart where they don't need it) then part of being educated is to understand the language we speak.
a few days ago, you were humbled and agreeing with Word wind, but now you are back to your original position.
for homework to night, reread the essay!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
a few days ago, you were humbled and agreeing with Word wind, but now you are back to your original position.I am still humbled by what Wordwind wrote. Wordwind explained that "introductory prepositional phrases" are only a wee part of what she teaches in her classroom and, as I understood her, she has her own personal reservations about "introductory prepositional phrases" altho she sees value in teaching "parts of speech" as a part of her entire approach. Wordwind deploys an entire arsenal of learning techniques in her Grade 9 classroom, of which "parts of speech" are only a part, presumably a small part, and she tailors her techniques to the individual needs and aptitudes and interests of each student. This is what explains the "WOW" in my response to Wordwind, Of Troy -- that and her obvious, passionate commitment to teaching. I continue to be open to the idea that using words like "prepositions" and "participles" and rules like "introductory prepositional phrases" might have some educational value in a Grade 6 classroom, or a Grade 9 classroom, but that proposition, which sounds highly suspect to me, would have to be explained. [And the patina of tradition, by itself, is not a satisfactory explanation, at least for me. ] Nothing I have written on this subject would support your interpretation of my approach to the teaching of proper english, Of Troy. I just think we should remove unnecessary obstacles to the process. If kids can learn how to read and write proper english without choking on words like "prepositions" [and presumably memorized lists of examples of "prepositions"] and intimidating rules with endlessly confusing exceptions, why would we put these impediments in their way? We are all agreed on the result we are trying to achieve. We want to teach as many kids as possible how to read and write proper english as soon as possible. All I am advocating is the use of common sense, Of Troy. Let's get down to the business of teaching kids how to 'drive' properly, and leave all the 'mechanical' stuff, what I call esoterica, to educators arguing the finer points of grammar between and amongst themselves. If a kid understands why Faldage's Example #2 makes no sense, why should he or she have to know that it makes no sense because it's an example of a "dangling participle"? Why should he or she care? Why should we try to stuff this kind of esoterica down their throats, Of Troy? That's what I don't get. If a kid can pop a wheelie in the schoolyard, is he going to do it any better because his science teacher tries to explain the physics involved? I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
If a kid can pop a wheelie in the schoolyard, is he going to do it any better because his science teacher tries to
explain the physics involved?
perhaps; as Wordwind patiently explained:
However, in the other corner is
Jordan who, though a horrible oral reader, needs to know the naming of parts, needs to know down to
the last detail why this word is called an adjective here but a verb over there. And I do have a Jordan
and he must understand word functions, punctuation rules precisely and with some comfort level
reached about the--ah, me--exceptions. And you two are just two types among so many who dwell
inside the English classroom.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
And I do have a Jordan and he must understand word functions, punctuation rules preciselyWell, I am in no position to second-guess Wordwind's judgment on that, tsuwm, but it strikes me as counter-intuitive, that's all. Birds have to be pushed out of the nest to discover that they can fly. Most toddlers can swim before they discover a fear of water. I just think, intuitively [I can't prove it], that we build up this great fear of reading and writing proper english in those who haven't been introduced to it at home, and they think they have to learn all this stuff in order to master the subject. In short, they think they have to "study" it, when all they have to do is hear it, read it, and imitate it. Personally, I think students who can't pass "Sound Judgment" should be placed in "english immersion" classes, just as parents put their children of tender years into "french immersion" classes. In "english immersion", all these students would hear and read all day is proper english with caring and patient and consistent correction of their own spoken and written english without formalistic fanfare. In "english immersion", overarching vocabulary and concepts and rules would be avoided as much as possible.** In such a setting, I believe Jordan would discover he can 'fly'. But, as far as I know, no public school provides such a setting, therefore, who is to know? Not Wordwind, I suspect, without actually trying "english immersion". And, certainly, not me. ** I don't want to be extreme about this. I see no harm in a child learning what a "noun", and a "verb" is, even an "adjective". I'm not sure they need to know what an "adverb" is because even to this day I'm not sure what an "adverb" is myself, and I've never suffered for it ... at least, until now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
re: In short, they think they have to "study" it, when all they have to do is hear it, read it, and imitate it.
Oh, if only that was true!
we've had discussion about pidgeons and creoles-languages that spring up when populations that are mutually incomprehensible are forced together.. first there is a pidgeon.. a mish mash of word from each language, with a few key words of each language being understood .
then as the there are children, the children 'create' a new language, using vocabular of both languages, and a basic simple grammar.
there are almost no irregular verbs, (even the verb to be is pretty regular) and the 'rules' are almost unversaly the same from one creole to another.. double a word makes it 'intensive' --there is hot and hot hot is very hot, there is bad, and bad bad is very bad.
so yeah, 'kids' (human children, that is) do have a built in bias to certain rules of grammar.
but, unfortunately, as languages become established, the rules tend to change.
English is a classic creole with germanic influences from the norse men, and frenchifed words brought over with William the 1st, and it has old words, like cob as in cobweb, from ancient parts of the language.
words have changed meaning, accents have shifted, vowel sounds have 'shifted'
english is no longer a simple creole that children can instintively 'grasp'.
fine maybe you did, and maybe even most people do.. but a hell of a lot of people don't. they need to be taught grammar.
a second problem with the idea that kids only have to hear it to get it, is, alot of what they hear, (on TV, from their peers, from their family, in all sorts of places) is not good (correct) grammar.
this board is filled with threads about poorly written/edited/articulated sentences that abound in advertizing, TV shows,and even reasonably 'literate' publications.
How are kids suppose to get what is right, what is wrong unless they are taught?
now, anyone who knows me, knows i tend to fall into the prescriptive school-- words mean what a percentage (a large percentage) of people think they mean. but we have to have some groundword of commonly 'accepted' meanings (even if the meanings change in my lifetime!) and commomly accepted rules for past tense, and how we use words.
as for english immersion.. well, my czech had a problem with the verb to go.
she always used 'we did go' for the past tense. i knew we went was correct, but she agrued, did go was in the dictionary so it had to be right.
it took me a few minutes.. and i realize did go was acceptable in the emphatic case ('did you go to school today? i got a report you played hooky.. Yes, we did go. who ever told you different was telling a lie!
there is a difference between we went, and we did go.
we went to the store today. You did not!Yes, we did go.. it was crouded, but fun--is anothe example of the emphatic use of the verb 'go'.
i know it, and i know why.
i am not sure any immersion in english (are we all already immersed in english?) is going to work unless you lock up the kids and their families, and control everything they listen to.. (and please don't let them listen to the shrub!) its not possible!
and besides, not every one learns best by hearing --some learn things best by reading, and some learn best by kinetic immersion (i'm one of those people who liked sentence diagrams.. i like boxing in the noun and verb, and that subordinate clauses that hung below (were a subordinate clause clearly belongs!)
simple audio immersion isn't going to work for everyone.
it might work for many, maybe even most, but doesn't every kid deserve an education, that meets their needs? and since many of us are mixed learners, doesn't it make sence to subject everyone to a mix?
NY State is famous for its Regent's exams.. for senior english, an essay, was worth a good 40% of your grade. some of the test was multiple choice too, with and it covered grammer, editing spelling, parts of speach (and i lucked out, 2 question were about copulative verbs!) there were also questions on required reading--
i can listen to spanish nowdays, and understand about 50%--but i don't know any of the rules of spanish grammar. i don't know spanish, and miss sublties. i sure would hate to go through life only knowing 50 or 60% of english.
repeatedly, your case seems to be, "this works for me" --as if you and your experience were the sum total of human experience. You are not all of humanity. what works for you, works for you. but please don't decree that i have to be a round peg too, just because you fit in a round hole.
doing so, makes me what to suggest a round hole you can go fit yourself into!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Bravo, Of Troy. You are certainly a worthy exponent of the other side of this argument. And, for that, you are to be commended, not least, by me. "english is no longer a simple creole that children can instintively 'grasp'
fine maybe you did, and maybe even most people do.. but a hell of a lot of people don't. they need to be taught grammar"Disagree, Of Troy. What they absolutely do NOT need is to be "taught grammar". What they need is to be exposed to the speaking and reading of proper english, fortified by consistent correction, so they can be hard-wired into proper english. And, dear Of Troy, how can it be an argument for exposing all pupils to the pointless torture of all of this esoterica when, by your own admission, only a minority would benefit from it? I am not trying to win debating points here, Of Troy. But what sense does it make to design any general program, any general program at all, around the most uncommon, common denominator [even if that minimalist standard actually had some conspicuous record of success ... a record painfully and conspicuously absent here]. What sense does that make, Of Troy? And, who is the "minority" we are patronizing, Of Troy? That "minority" is generally kids who were not privileged to experience proper english at home. So, let's stop and think about this, Of Troy. If kids who are privileged to experience proper english at home, before they enter school, have no need to learn "parts of speech" and complicated rules of grammar to become proficient in the 'sound' and structure and 'grammar' of proper english, why do you think we ought to impose another, far more onerous model on children who do not have the advantage of that privilege? Why, Of Troy?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Time out.
Plutarch is right, Wordwind is right, and, of course, of troy is right. The points made by the three of you demonstrate that you all have a heart-felt concern for the future of our kind as well as a carefully crafted view of the way we, as human animals, learn. Boldly, you three, all of cultured voice, walk grandly onto the Grand Awad International Stage and into the high drama of the second act without first knowing the score or the libretto, and yet, you three begin to sing.
Here is the libretto...
The Story of the Two Dogs
Once two fine cubs were born in a wolf litter. The Alpha male of the pack (whose name only coincidently was Pavlov)
was overcome with joy but troubled. The eyesight of the dominant bitch of the pack, whom he loved dearly, was failing and soon she would become blind. Without her, Pavlov knew, the pack would be lost, because in packs of wolves it is the Alpha Female (only the Alpha Male is allowed to call her a bitch) who holds the pack together and in Pavlov's pack the other females were simply whining curs with high skills in eating and grooming.
Ah Ha! Pavlov epiphanized, I will groom one of the fine new pups to be her seeing eye dog. I will teach him to protect and fetch. He will be her eyes for the common good.
And so it was.
Three winters passed. The pack was still together. One dog, who was no longer young, lay beside the Alpha Female who was blind. He no longer needed a nip on the nose or a bit of regurgitated food to fetch for her and to protect her from harm. This was his life. He did this automatically and without thought.
As he lay there he listened to the distant howl of the other as he railed against the brightness of the moon.
The End.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
He no longer needed a nip on the nose or a bit of regurgitated food to fetch for her and to protect her from harm.I may have to gurgitate on that for a while, themilum ... after I howl at the moon.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
As he lay there he listened to the distant howl of the other as he railed against the brightness of the moonMakes you wonder why a wolf howls at the moon, themilum. We assume it is just a quirk of its wolfish nature. Perhaps we are being unfair. We humans "howl", but usually we know the reason. We humans howl, sometimes in fright
Sometimes we howl in sheer delight
But oft we wonder as we sit
around a campfire brightly lit
Why does a wolf howl through the night
at the moon, with all its might
Perhaps, to say, "Turn off the light!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Nice poem, Plutarch, but when in doubt invest in reality not humor. How about... We humans howl, sometimes in fright
Sometimes we howl in sheer delight
But oft we wonder as we sit
around a campfire brightly lit
Why does a wolf howl at the light
of the moon with all its might
Perhaps, to say, "Turn off the night!" ____________________________ __________________________
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
I would be an eccentric poet indeed if I thought anyone could improve on my own poetry, themilum. Besides which, "reality" is too omnipresent to be the stuff of poetry, at least the stuff of the kind of stuff which appeals to me. Poetry should take us away, if only for a moment, or give us a glimpse of some other "reality", wouldn't you say? In any case, I thank you for telling us the tale of the blind wolf and her two pups. It got me to thinking about the poetry in your own tale.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
No offence, Plutarch , but it is not quite clear to me whether or not you understood the moral of the parable of the two wolf cubs. So please forgive me if I over explain... My point is that young humans today are pulled in two different directions in life - "one" by the spirit embodied in their biological directives, and "two" by the social conditionings of their culture that are necesary to fulfill a percieved requirement of that particular culture's collective needs. Get it? One event is socially induced and the other is a natural biological realization of individual satifaction. Today, individual satifaction, although the prime instrument of collective advancement, sucks hind tit. {Pardon me, individuals and robots, for using the term "sucks hind tit" ; personally I don't.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
it is not quite clear to me whether or not you understood the moral of the parable of the two wolf cubsI did get it, themilum. I just didn't know how to make a good poem out of it. "Individual satisfaction" has never really been "individual", themilum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439 |
Doesn't anyone have fun in English class anymore?
I still recall an example Sister used :
"Lying in the gutter I found my purse."
I'm way over my head in this discussion but perhaps some things I have read here will seep in. One reason I am here is to keep this old brain box functioning!
Mercy! Glad I didn't have to take a Regent's exam, of troy, to get my job in newspapering - don't know if I could have passed it!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
"Lying in the gutter I found my purse."
This is a classic example of how easy it is to snicker at a usage. English school boys snicker at mention of the Merkin Concert Hall in New York City. Snickering does not constitute valid grammatical criticism.
Note: This does not mean that the quoted usage is not objectionable on a stylistic basis.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Snickering does not constitute valid grammatical criticism.A snicker is the most articulate, learned, spontaneous and succint of all grammatical criticisms, Faldage. If that makes it 'invalid', it is because it trivializes any other meaning of "valid". If you stub your toe walking barefoot thru a room in the middle of the night, the pain you feel will be real enuf, even if you can't make a "valid" medical diagnosis of the damage at that very moment.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
And then the Plutarch stood up and said... "A snicker is the most articulate, learned, spontaneous and succint of all grammatical criticisms..."
______________________ "snicker" ________
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
______________________ "snicker" ________ and Res ipsa loquiturBetween you, I think you have made my case, themilum. I don't mind being the object of a "snicker", if it advances my argument. Analysis can coax humor out of wit, but wit which draws a snicker without coaxing is generally the more admired.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
At one time, years ago, when I worked for the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, we hosted a running event for police, judges, prosecutors, court clerks and public defenders. The entry fee got each runner a luncheon at the finish line and a tee-shirt with the name of the event printed on it: RACE IPSA LOQUITUR.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
The entry fee got each runner ... and a tee-shirt with the name of the event printed on it: RACE IPSA LOQUITUR
Next time you run this Race, you should line up Reese's Chocolate as a sponsor, Father Steeve.
Then you could call the Race:
REESE'S RACE IPSA LOQUITUR
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
I believe that, in the Reese's Res Ipsa Loquitur, only certain monkeys are allowed to compete.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
You're thinking of REESE'S GREASE MONKEY RACE IPSA LOQUITUR, Father Steve. You've got your sprockets mixed up with your dockets.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154 |
I was one of those kids with excellent "sound judgement". I read well ahead of my grade level so I had an good grasp of functional grammer. That is I could recognise and use complex sentance structure. (I enjoyed breaking the "rules" by knowing the exceptions eg you can start a sentance with because.)
Unfortunately I went through school at a time when teaching traditional grammer such as knowing the names and definitions uses of past imperfect and gerund and participles was not done and, to read my written work, was not needed. I would have disliked learning that way so I thought it was great. Until I tried to explain to a Japanese friend when to use "ran" vs "had run" vs "had been running." I knew when to use them but didn't realize they were different tenses rather than common vs uncommon uses.
Learning a second language could have been much easier for me as well. When the teacher spoke about using a certain phrase only in the past perfect or in a subjunctive clause I didn't know what she meant.
Like many things in school the child may not value the information right away but that does not mean there is no value.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
that does not mean there is no value
Interesting angle, Zed. Never thought of that.
Like you, I got very little grammar in "grammar school". All those parts of speech and tenses you mention are greek to me.
I did learn "Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative, Vocative, Ablative" in Grade 9 Latin because we had to memorize these terms, but I never had the foggiest about how to use them.
"Latin Authors" and "Latin Grammar" were one subject in my day. If you memorized the correct english translation of all the latin text, you could get 100% on the "Latin Authors" part of the exam, which accounted for 60% of your total mark. If you stuck in the root words in the "Latin Grammar" part of the exam, without attempting to decline them, you could pick up at least another 10%. So it was possible to get 70% on the exam without knowing the first thing about Latin Grammar.
Of course, this knowledge of latin roots has come in handy in ways I never anticipated when we studied Latin as part of the required curriculum in Grade 9. So I appreciate what you're saying about collateral benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Pardon Mister Plutarch, I trust that as a youth you didn't buy into those social myths of the day that claimed that we sloven sapient beings didn't occupy but 30% of the brain's potential space with our paltry accumulations from the World's store of endless information. Clutter! That will be our demise; fruitless exposure to all things in hope of "collateral benefits". Purge your thoughts of schools and rules and getting chicks and instead focus upon and question fundamental precepts that enslave you to the master that lives inside you who is animal. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and lo, the bird of time is on the wing. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
fruitless exposure to all things in hope of "collateral benefits"
I couldn't agree with you more, themilum. It makes more sense to focus on "core benefits" than "collateral benefits".
There is nothing wrong with "collateral benefits", of course, unless there are no "core" benefits for them to be collateral to, or to which they are collateral.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
re unless there are no "core" benefits for them to be collateral to, or to which they are collateral
I can't help wondering if it's OK to dangle a preposition inside a sentence as long as you don't dangle it at the end of a sentence, as in the sentence above.
Whatever the correct grammatical construction, it sounds more natural to my untutored ear to say:
"There is nothing wrong with "collateral benefits", of course, unless there are no "core" benefits for them to be collateral to."
than to say:
"There is nothing wrong with "collateral benefits", of course, unless there are no "core" benefits to which they are collateral."
The latter may be formally correct within the rules of traditional grammar but it sounds rather stilted and somewhat officious or affected to me.
I confess I am not a student of the matter, but it seems to me contemporary practice in all areas of communication [except, perhaps, academia] has long since moved away from such starchy formalism.
It must be doubly vexing to be a student in a traditional grammar class nowadays. Even those students who learn "sound judgment" from literate parents at home will not learn from that powerfully influential source the more archaic formulations promulgated within the classroom.
To return to our "core benefits/collateral benefits" discussion, themilum, it occurs to me that we are in danger of putting the horse of habit ahead of the cart of clarity in english classes nowadays.
This is not an expert opinion, of course. It is just my untutored opinion, honestly felt and sincerely, albeit somewhat incautiously expressed, at least in this company.
My purpose is not to inflame the sensibilities of those who have a different, and, perhaps, more august opinion. It is simply to exercise my right to express my own opinion, respectfully.
My opinion may be right or wrong, themilum, but it would be wrong to deny me my right, wouldn't you say?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
My opinion may be right or wrong, themilum, but it would be wrong to deny me my right, wouldn't you say? Well yes, Plutarch, but not necessarily. At times a "right" can be a wrong that should not be allowed to be said - FIRE! But I agree with what you have said, and so...what do you want me to do...censor myself? Never! That is the job of tyrants and Moderators of Internet Forum Boards.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
that should be the job of ... Moderators of Internet Forum Boards
Ah, yes, themilum.
But Moderators, of all people, should be moderate in all things. And I, for one, have no complaint about the Moderators of this Board -- of which there are none in evidence, not now, not as long as I can remember.
The best Moderators are self-Moderators, wouldn't you say, theMilum?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
The best Moderators are self-Moderators, wouldn't you say, theMilum?Say, Plutarch, would you please stop saying.... " wouldn't you say, theMilum?". Some people here already think that I am your sock-puppet, and by extension, that would make you mine. (Kinda like we are married...but more so.) But hell yes, Plutarch, the best Moderators are self-Moderators, but the best of beers is long-neck Bud.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
but the best of beers is long-neck Bud
You can't be my sock puppet, themilum. You don't even share my taste in beer.
Nevertheless, I will hoist a Bud to your sentiments.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Of course I can be your sock-puppet,
"long neck Bud" is a characterization of a "red neck"
It was an attempt to mislead.
But listen, you pretentious Dummy, I am not your sock puppet, you are mine.
And to prove so I will put the word
"maw maw whoopensnaw" in your mouth and make you
mouthe it in you next post. Watch...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
listen, you pretentious Dummy, I am not your sock puppet, you are mineI think you've put yourself between a rock and a hard place, themilum. If I'm your "dummy", then you're pretentious.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
You win, Plutarch. Ladies and Gentlemen my sock puppet has more ego than I have wit, and sadly, I have no more tits for his tats. Good-bye. I will now move to a thread that I know something about - the peloton formation in Bicycle racing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
listen, you pretentious Dummy, I am not your sock puppetIn sock puppet circles, this is known as biting the hand that feeds you with all your best lines, themilum.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,317
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
706
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
