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.