|
Post by Tina on Mar 20, 2003 16:04:01 GMT -5
Dear Esteemed Authors of Classical Writing, I'm having a difficult time reconciling the grammatical sophistication in the models we are using for Classical Writing: Aesop with our practical analysis and abilities. So, for example, here is a sample model: "A lion and a bear seized a kid at the same moment and fought fiercely for its possession. When they had fearfully lacerated each other and were faint from the long combat, they lay down exhausted with fatigue. A fox, who had gone round them at a distance several times, saw them both stretched on the ground with the kid lying untouched in the middle. He ran in between them and, seizing the kid, scampered off as fast as he could. The lion and the bear saw him but not being able to get up, said, "Woe be to us, that we should have fought and belabored ourselves only to serve the turn of the fox!" It sometimes happens that one man has all the toil and another all the profit." How would you advise working on a grammatical analysis of this piece with a fourth grader? Certainly we can go through and pick out the parts of speech that we know. What I'm particularly concerned with, though, is diagramming it. We are currently finishing up Rod and Staff English 4 and have diagrammed all the "basic" parts of speech except prepositions, but even so, these are some mighty complex structures to diagram here that don't lend themselves to where we're at. You have complex sentences with adverbial clauses, a relative pronoun used in an unrestrictive clause, a verbal modifying a subject, an "as . . . as" that itself modifies an adverb and more that I haven't even figured out yet. So, would you pare this paragraph down to just its skeleton sentences to diagram, would you model diagramming it in its entirety and just let the parts that haven't been formally covered fly over a student's head, or is there a happy middle ground that I haven't figured out yet? I much prefer these "more complex" models and find that my student is able to imitate them well, but it isn't because we've been successful in our approach to their analysis. I realize that I'm trying to use Aesop in a way beyond what you intended. But I'm assuming that you'll run into some of this in future further publications as well, and I'm hoping that you've already found some solutions. Yours truly, Tina
|
|
|
Post by Tracy Gustilo on Mar 20, 2003 17:30:06 GMT -5
Hi Tina,
Thanks for your very pointed question and illustration of exactly what the problem is. YES, diagramming "real sentences" is a tremendous challenge, isn't it? You are correct that the types of grammatical analysis you are trying to do right now go beyond the scope of CW-Aesop, but you are also correct that this is something we will need to start doing very soon, that is, beginning with the very next book in the CW series, Homer.
To answer your questions about options here, basically, yes, yes, and yes.
The first option is for mom to take sentences from the model and simplify them first. Then the student can diagram (and parse) the simplified version. Simplification can be done by crossing out extra complexities (phrases and clauses) and then rewriting a simplified "skeleton" version for the student to work with. OR, it can be done by "making up" brand new sentences that capture the essence of what the original says, but in your own words. (Using our "own words" all too often results in grammatically quite simplistic sentences, because we today just don't tend to think with much complexity or art. :-( ) So for example:
Orig. - A lion and a bear seized a kid at the same moment and fought fiercely for its possession.
Simplified 1 - A lion (and a bear) seized a kid (at the same moment) (and fought fiercely) (for its possession).
Rewrite, depending on what you know or don't know (compound subjects, compound verbs, prepositional phrases):
A lion seized a kid. A lion and a bear seized a kid. A lion and a bear seized a kid and fought fiercely. A lion and a bear seized a kid at the same moment. (Take your pick.)
Simplified 2 - Two ferocious animals seized a baby goat. They fought over it. (Make your retelling fit within the limits of your grammar knowledge.)
The second option is for mom to go ahead and diagram the whole thing, with the kids hanging on, or dropping off, whenever they can't understand any more. This is the option I tend to use because I'm usually teaching several children all at once. We start by finding main subjects and verbs, then do objects and complements, then go after modifiers, whether single words or phrases. Then we follow the same process all over again for dependent clauses. The younger kids drop out (or their eyes glaze over ;-)) when they can't understand any more. Interestingly enough, though, my youngest children (down to my seven-year-old) tend to get really excited about the trickier stuff, and they are surprisingly good at it! Usually they can't pick out and name difficult constructions from an original sentence all by themselves, but if I mark off the parts and ask leading questions, they can usually identify what's going on. Then, after we mark it all up in the sentence together (I use a special marking process for this), they can often diagram it more or less by themselves (not always terribly neatly ;-) ).
Third, for a half-way option. You might call it "black-boxing". The idea is to diagram what you know and leave the rest. If you can determine that what you are leaving undiagrammed is a subject, verb, object, complement, or modifier of some sort (it is generally the last), then you can usually at least attach your leftovers into the core diagram in some way, i.e. as belonging on a horizontal line on the subject side, the predicate side, or as an object; or, as belonging to a slanted line falling beneath, as either an adjectival modifier (modifies a noun) or an adverbial modifier (modifies the verb). Simply box up the stuff you can't figure out -- maybe using a thick black marker :-) -- draw a line from the box to wherever you think it belongs in the core diagram and be done. (If you like, file away your black boxes to look up or research later, or to return to another time.)
It is not always necessary to diagram every sentence down to the last word. Some sentences are so tricky that there is no one absolutely correct way to diagram them! Sometimes, even the experts disagree. Diagramming real sentences (as opposed to canned textbook examples) is an ART, not a science. Most of the time, it is the struggling with it, the puzzling over it, trying out different options, and going through the thinking process that counts. That's how we really learn.
A last thought. The majority of these options require mom to know her own grammar pretty darn well. It is fine to learn along with your children, but if you can, try to study ahead as much as possible. Join a group of other teaching moms whom you can consult on grammar questions. Practice, practice, practice. Once you get the hang of the basics, you will find grammar and diagramming to be really FUN! Yes, I know, most of you out there listening in won't believe me on that one for a second! LOL
Hope that helps at least a little bit. I will keep thinking about your question, and if I come up with any other half-way options, I'll let you know -- and build them in to our next book! :-)
Tracy who has already lined up her 14yo daughter to help create a g'zillion diagram graphics for an upcoming "Guide to Diagramming Real Sentences"
|
|
|
Post by Tracy Gustilo on Mar 20, 2003 22:57:41 GMT -5
One other thought comes to mind on this topic of learning how to do grammatical analysis on real sentences, and that is that most grammar programs do not emphasize the right things. That is, they emphasize all this training in what I call "parts of speech" grammar vs. "syntax". They also emphasize the rules and regulations and what not to do over the possibilities of language.
Parts of speech grammar goes through all the gory details about each of the eight parts of speech, in terms of their definitions, examples, lists of words, classifications, usage, properties, declension, and conjugation, cautions, etc. Now, don't get me wrong. All this is important stuff and will be immensely useful for 1) learning Latin or Greek (or any foreign language), 2) parsing (which ought to go along with diagramming as a necessary tool of grammatical analysis), and 3) solving more advanced problems in grammatical analysis and diagramming. It is stuff that must be learned. However, for beginning students to begin to get a handle on the nitty-gritty of how real sentences are put together -- how to "see" them grammatically, just as we learn how to "see" words phonetically in order to pronounce them and spell them -- we need syntax. We need something of a shift in emphasis in how we teach grammar.
Syntax has to do with the larger scale structure of sentences and how words work together to create meaning. It has less to do with what we can do with individual words taken on their own, more or less out of context. In fact, it is really the syntax that gives the most meaning to the parts of speech grammar, rather than the other way around.
So what is syntax? Well the first thing is that it deals with things like cases for nouns. The "case" of a noun, which is not really very noticeable in English because our language is not inflected (but is absolutely central in inflected languages like Latin), is determined by how the noun is used in the sentence, what role it plays. If the noun is the subject of the sentence, for example, it is in nominative case. If it is an object, it is in "objective" case (actually, accusative or dative), and so on. The "rules" of syntax specify things like which case to use when. But now, notice, what underlies all these rules is how that word IS being used in the sentence *in relation to other words*. That's the key. Meaning is generated in language only when words are put together, and what a knowledge of syntax gives you is a knowledge of how to do that -- i.e., how TO put words together, and how TO create meaning! What is most important is not the constraints that are imposed by the grammatical structure, but the *possibilities* that are opened up by it! Knowledge of grammatical structure ought to be seen as an enabler far more than it is a restraint. It is the *possibilities* of language, of the terrain that can be covered using words and the various "constructions" that can be built up from them as building blocks, that excite me. This is the first thing that syntax is good for -- laying out the raw possibilities of language.
On another level, syntax has to do with how sentences are built up not only of words serving in various capacities, but of phrases, clauses, and various other kinds of "elements", the intermediate-scale building blocks. Take, for example, complete subjects and predicates, modifiers of various sorts, compounding, and verbals. This is the stuff that gets half a week in the grammar textbooks at the end of the school year, but is the absolutely essential ingredient to understanding how real sentences work. It is also the key to reading complex writing -- like the Great Books -- and to learning how to write well. So often we hear today that grammar does not help people to write any better. Well, that's because the grammar that's being taught is neither emphasizing the right things nor going far enough into the positive side, the possibilities, of syntax and how great sentences are actually constructed -- what their basic elements are. Think about how the science of chemistry managed before the discovery of the Periodic Table. If all we ever "use" grammar for is to correct our plurals or our punctuation or our subject-verb agreement or our run-on sentences, we have barely scratched the surface. All we will have used it for is the negative side, the constraining side. Today we emphasize parts of speech grammar and grammar's preaching of correctness. We have totally lost the true art -- grammar's enabling power to give us the tools we need to speak our minds forcefully and elegantly. Grammatical syntax gives us a Table of Elements, yet all we can do today, apparently, is wonder why we can't make gold out of lead by hammering on it. We have failed to take advantage of an understanding that would offer us true freedom of speech.
If only we can truly master grammar, as all those who had a classical education before us did, we will learn to read (analyze) and write better than we could ever possibly have imagined. We will also learn how to think better. We will learn to manage our very thoughts, their organization and associations, their order and priority. We will learn to evaluate their logic and their persuasiveness for a given rhetorical purpose. Vistas are opened up to us if we can only grasp the lay of the land of language via a thorough study of the art of grammar.
Learning grammar at this level -- a level at which I daresay NONE of us had in school, even if we did do some fair bit of it -- does take serious effort, but it is effort that more than pays off as one advances into the other arts and sciences of a classical education.
In short, what I guess I'm saying is that how we think about the art of grammar itself makes a huge difference as to how grammatical analysis works (or not) on real sentences.
Again, I hope that helps somewhat and doesn't confuse!
Tracy
|
|
|
Post by Tammy on Mar 21, 2003 7:50:30 GMT -5
What grammar program are you using, Tracy? Or what grammar program do you recommend?
I took a look at Harvey's the lower level....and it didn't seem to have enough practice problems!
But I am beginning to think you are not using a grammar program and pulling all this stuff out of your well informed head, LOL!
I do not seem to have much stored on the subject in my head....so I will need a lot of hand holding...even though grammar was my favorite subject in school....I kind of looked at it as a challenge to diagram and figure out how all the words were used!
So what would you recommend?
I have Shurley English....but it is so 'aritficial'...and doesn't really get into the 'complicated' sentences!
Tammy
|
|
|
Post by Tracy Gustilo on Mar 21, 2003 9:27:43 GMT -5
Hi Tammy, Well, if grammar was your favorite subject in school, and you look at diagramming as a challenge to figure out how all those words in the sentence work, then you are well on your way! You have a base to work from and the desire to build on it. Attitude is everything, I'm convinced, when it comes to classical education! How I did it. Let me say first of all that I started in just about exactly the same place as you did -- but maybe with more skepticism. LOL I did a little bit of grammar in school, including some diagramming. But we never got into verbals, relative clauses or adverb clauses, and only did the barest "half-week at the end of the school year" with simple, compound, and complex sentences. The place I first started to self-educate myself -- and I'm not recommending this necessarily -- was a college writing handbook. I can't remember which one at this point, but one of those expensive jobs that every commercial textbook publisher puts out for Freshman Comp 101 classes. I went through the grammar section of it. Of course, it was almost entirely geared towards "what not to do" in terms of how to write sentences. But because it dealt with grammatical problems at a sentence level, it got me thinking that there was more to all this stuff than learning the parts of speech. Next, I happened upon some articles by Robert Einarsson. He has a web site with all kinds of goodies on it: www.classiclanguagearts.net/... and it looks like it's been totally professionalized and updated since I was there last! :-) Wow. Anyway, I started reading some of his stuff, and that's what convinced me that there really was more to all this grammar theory than I had been led to believe. (If you want, I'll try to do some surfing later and recommend specific articles at his site.) Then I started buying curriculums... LOL Yup, been there. I figured I had to learn all this stuff myself. Mostly, though, I bought curriculums for me. (For the last four years at least, this has been my purchasing tactic for my homeschool. I buy curriculum for ME and a home library full of "real books" for the kids -- and me, too, of course. <g>) I figured I wasn't going to be able to teach my kids until I understood it myself, at least one step ahead of them! LOL I don't think Shurley was out, then, or it was simply way too expensive. Besides, it was graded, and that wasn't what I needed for me to learn myself. Pretty soon I landed upon Harvey's. This was IT. I knew right away because it dove right into "the good stuff". It also used great literary sentences for a lot of its models. I began my own course through Harvey's, first Elementary, then Revised. Unfortunately, Harvey's didn't do enough with diagramming, which I knew I needed. I looked to Daly's Whole Book or Complete Book, or whatever it's called. But that, too, for the most part, was too simple for my own use. Rod and Staff English Handbook was an excellent later discovery for diagramming help. There are also a couple good web sites that do sentence diagramming. What really helps is to begin to understand why they diagram as they do. Then one can often begin to "guess" how it "would be done" in this case, based on the principles of the thing. In the end, however, since somewhat different diagramming conventions are used by different authorities, I ended up modifying and adapting them to my own needs. And the reason for that was... ...because I was beginning to work with my kids. We were taking model paragraphs from our daily family reading and working with them to try to determine how they "ticked", how they managed to be such great writing. We looked at individual words, of course, but soon got into the sentence level. And these sentences were hard! They were nothing like what one usually finds in the grammar books. If you want to work with the grammar of real, great sentences, you can't find what you need in the usual textbooks! (Now, hey, what's up with that!?) So, anyway, Harvey's is my recommendation -- for you. Once you have done Harvey's, when you want to go on to the "graduate" level, then I have another book for you. ;-) This is the one I'm working on now, and I have a ways to go with it myself yet -- as I found out just the other day. It is an OOP (out of print) English grammar called _Descriptive English Grammar_ (fondly abbreviated by those who have discovered it as DEG) by Homer House and Susan Harman. This book truly has everything -- but way more than you need, even to handle most real sentences. For me, it acts as my reference when the going gets really tough. :-) Seriously, I have lots of ideas (and partial chapter drafts) for a "Guide to Diagramming Real Sentences". Lene and I have not figured out exactly yet how we are going to "package" the next level of CW. It may be that this Guide will be included or supplemental, or it may be a stand-alone separate deal. I wish I was an even better "expert" in grammar myself before I wrote it, because I sure do struggle enough still with some of these sentences <!>, but I figure one has to try to share what one has learned, what does seem to work well, even if it is imperfect. Dealing with the logistics of creating a book like that (with all the graphics! you can imagine) is a challenge, too. But we'll see what we can do. In short, Tammy, there are a few resources out there, a few places to begin. There are no easy solutions, though. Some possibilities might be coming down the pike here, eventually. I hope some other authors, teachers, and companies will jump on the bandwagon, too. (I think some are, because there sure are lots of grammar products continually coming out -- I can't possibly keep track of or afford <!> all of them to review for you.) In these beginning stages of our recovery of classical education, all we can do is sorta pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and see what we can make of things for ourselves. There are very few folks who have "gone before us" -- well, in this generation at least. LOL My best to you, Tammy. I'm sorry I don't have a ready-to-hand "curriculum" solution for you. I wish I did. All I can advise is to grab the best resources out there, whatever they are, that YOU like and can learn from yourself, and go for it. The key is not to "do" any given book or curriculum; it's to learn the grammatical theory, from whatever source you can best learn it from, and start using the grammar as an art. Probably that wasn't what you wanted to hear... ) Tracy
|
|
|
Post by Tracy Gustilo on Mar 21, 2003 9:56:37 GMT -5
<sigh> Lene is so much better at responding to all you gals' great questions. But she is off for the week. I didn't answer your question, did I? What to do with the kids... Well, let's see, my oldest daughter (14yo) did a variety of curriculums (things I had picked up) and basically learned nothing from them. I just hate that, when you spend months with something, then ask them a question or expect them to use it, and they are clueless! Arrrgh. Anyway, she and my second son (12yo) learned their grammar as "older beginners" (in, let's see, I think it would have been 4th and 6th, or 5th and 7th grade, I can't remember now) using Harvey's Elementary, then shortly thereafter, most of Revised. After I taught myself, I took them through it -- fast. Sort of a crash course. LOL Well, I was excited, and I wanted them to know what I knew! ) (That tends to be my usual teaching modus operandi, to just sorta let my enthusiasm for stuff overflow onto my poor, poor kids.) Anyway, what made it click, for all of us, was all the diagramming and analysis we did of real model sentences. I have to say, many a grammar lesson -- whether new theory, review, or application -- was given by me standing right there at the board as we faced some tough decision *together* about how to diagram something. My younger two (currently 9yo and 7yo) have been taught entirely this way so far, participating in our "class" model sessions, hanging on the coat tails of their older siblings. I have not yet decided on an "outside" theory course for them. Probably I'll take them through Harvey's, though it is time consuming on my part because it has to be actively taught by me. I am looking into Rod and Staff, especially for my 9yo son, who needs lots of reinforcement, but also for my 7yo dd, who actually LIKES textbooks, workbooks, and "assignments" and is the busiest little bee... ;-) But I haven't seen it yet. I am going on what I've heard from people I trust and the fact that I liked their Handbook. I may end up doing "both" -- R & S for day-to-day work and then a "crash course" taught be me through Harvey's once they have some familiarity with basic "parts of speech" stuff. But do please note. This is not a recommendation necessarily for your case or your kids. You have to decide for yourself what's the best way for your kids to learn what they need to know. So, yes, finding a text to teach the basic "theory" to the kids is necessary. You have options for this. What I really want that "theory" for, though, is to use it and apply it. I want it for what it can do for me. I guess I'm a bit mercenary about it. >) HTH, Tracy
|
|
|
Post by Tammy on Mar 21, 2003 12:23:20 GMT -5
So I guess it is Harvey's for instruction and R&S for practicing?
I may look at R&S but I really didn't want the religious stance..and have heard you can't really omit it, LOL!
I do need to get going with grammar though....my daughter is 10 and my upcoming son is 7 (almost 8)...I also have a 6yo!
My 12yo son is pretty good with grammar....but he needs to move on to the more difficult stuff....maybe the next level of Harvey's (is it called the Revised?).
I am even thinking of giving up some science for more emphasis on grammar and writing for!
Thanks for all your help...and I just knew you had all that knowledge stored ...LOL!
Tammy
|
|
|
Post by Colleen on Mar 21, 2003 18:34:38 GMT -5
I don't have much hands-on experience yet, as my oldest son is still this side of 8. I have, however, spent countless hours looking at curriculum and reviews of curriculum, if that counts for anything. Like Tracy, I've decided to use Rod & Staff on a daily basis, adding in a dose of Harvey's now and then to solidify what we've covered. Tammy, the religious content of R&S was a concern for me, too. We're Christian, but for a variety of reasons I shy away from overt religiosity in our curriculum. I reviewed the meaty samples provided by R&S and decided I could stomach the religious overtones, but I definitely wouldn't recommend the program to anyone of a different faith. I don't know your situation, of course, but it'd be worthwhile to order some samples (they really are very, very thorough) in order to gain more exposure before purchasing. Colleen
|
|
|
Post by Martha on Mar 21, 2003 19:02:45 GMT -5
Just thought I'd jump in here, and say that the link to classic language arts will have a page which describes Dr. Einarsson's worktext called "English Grammar Handouts: A Textbook on the Sentence Style of Classic English Writers". If you have questions not covered by the answer key, he will take questions via e-mail. The format is modest, but the price is quite reasonable.
I bought this for self-education, and liked it so much that I later taught a high school co-op class using it. There are sections on phrases, clauses, and their punctuation as well as some excerpts from Hugh Blair's "Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres" which focus on constructing good sentences. I'm also using parts of it with my 13yo. I'd second Tracy's opinion: there are lots of things at his website that are helpful for self-education in grammar.
His article called "The Place of Grammar in the Language Arts Curriculum" would be a good place to start. Also, have a look at his "Flora and Fauna" page. There are some beautiful picures of flowers and birds tied to poetry. That is a work in progress, with new pages going up every week or so. HTH, Martha
|
|
|
Post by Tracy Gustilo on Mar 21, 2003 21:13:53 GMT -5
Just wanted to clarify that I have NOT yet decided on Rod and Staff for my children, and I don't want to start a landslide with that one comment. I have not seen samples yet, nor have I ordered it. It is used by people I trust, and I like the Rod and Staff English Handbook. That's all.
If/when I do get my hands on it, I'll be happy to give my impressions. Far better, however, would be to have a comparison, written by somebody who's actually used it through several years of hands-on teaching, with Harvey's, covering both the scope and depth of material, diagramming, etc. Obviously the teaching approach would be different with R & S, and the pace more gradual. I'd particularly like to know when (at what grade/book level) a student would reach a level of grammatical understanding equivalent to Harvey's Elementary Grammar. That is what counts, that *level of grammatical understanding*. That's what we're after. If that does not happen by grade 5 or 6 at the very latest, it would be too slow a pace IMO. (It might be fine for review or reinforcement.) Perhaps the answer would be to pick up the pace and go faster through R & S and not stick to grade level. I can NOT make any concrete recommendations until I know more. And I would have exactly the same issues and concerns with every other grammar program.
It is worth repeating. The key is to learn the theory and art of grammar yourself, and teach it to your children. You have many options about how to do that. Any number of curriculums or textbooks could do the job equally well, depending on your circumstances. Each will have its own unique advantages and disadvantages, in terms of both material covered and teaching approach. There is no magic bullet. There is no perfect curriculum. None. Period.
And yes, that goes for Classical Writing, too. I, of all people, know its faults.
;-)
Tracy
|
|
|
Post by Tracy Gustilo on Mar 21, 2003 21:29:34 GMT -5
Thanks so much Martha for your endorsement of the Einarsson web site, and of his booklet. I'd love to hear more about your co-op class!
Tracy
|
|
Martha
Junior Member
Posts: 91
|
Post by Martha on Mar 21, 2003 23:32:43 GMT -5
Hi Tracy,
That class was a lot of fun, but not the easiest one I ever taught. In spite of my shortcomings, the students learned a few things, and I learned a lot. I'm rushed this evening, but I'd be glad to tell you more about the class sometime. Also, I hope that it wasn't a breach of good manners to mention his book here; if so, I apologize!
Martha
|
|
|
Post by Lene Mahler Jaqua on Mar 22, 2003 0:04:07 GMT -5
Absolutely not, Martha,
You can bring up ANYTHING related to writing here, certainly also other writing and grammar curricula. Our hope is to have an honest open discussion about what's available for writing and grammar instruction and how best to use it.
Lene
|
|
|
Post by Colleen on Mar 22, 2003 3:32:39 GMT -5
Goodness, I didn't mean to put words in anyone's mouth or contribute to a "landslide"....Sorry for my inaccurate wording regarding Tracy's interest in Rod & Staff.
Colleen
|
|
|
Post by Tracy Gustilo on Mar 22, 2003 9:31:54 GMT -5
No problem at all, Colleen. It's entirely my fault for being so long-winded and vague in what I wrote the first time. I must work harder on clarity and concision - those two very classical qualities in writing! I just didn't want people getting upset and thinking they "had" to use a curriculum that they didn't like (for religious or whatever reasons) because I happened to mention it. I am not trying to be politic when I say that lots of programs could work equally well. I mean that!
Martha, it is absolutely OK to bring up any and all resources here! I can't wait to get some more time to read at the Einarsson web site again. When you have a chance, please do share more about your experience teaching.
Off for the weekend. Have a good one, folks! Tracy
|
|
|
Post by AliciaB on Mar 27, 2003 20:26:24 GMT -5
We have just started using Harvey's Elementary Grammar and Composition. In the section on "Elements of a Sentence" the subject is defined as follows: "The subject of a proposition is that of which something is affirmed." What does this really mean? What is the subjection of a proposition? What does it mean that For the time being I told my daughter that the subject is what the sentence is about. Sorry I am so dense today. Look forward to a reply. Thanks, Alicia
|
|
|
Post by Tracy Gustilo on Mar 27, 2003 21:12:21 GMT -5
Dear Alicia,
What you have told your daughter is fine for the time being. The Harvey's definition is more precise, and it will help with logic later. But it basically says the same thing. If you want to compromise, you could say:
The subject of a sentence (i.e. proposition) is that about which something is said (i.e. affirmed or denied).
The idea here is that there is a subject and something said about the subject. The latter is known as the predicate.
There are several places like this in Harvey's where you may want to make slight adjustments for teaching. However, it is worth paying careful attention to what Harvey's is saying because it will come up later.
Tracy
|
|
|
Post by AliciaB on Mar 27, 2003 23:11:34 GMT -5
Tracy, Thanks so much for your explanation. When you said "the subject of the sentence (i.e. the proposition) is that which something is said (i.e. affirmed or denied) the light bulb clicked on. I never even thought to think of this in terms of logic. It makes sense now.
Thanks, Alicia
|
|
|
Post by Michelle in DE on Apr 7, 2003 16:22:08 GMT -5
I was at a homeschool conference yesterday and found a grammar/writing reference book that will help our family with the A&I section of CW. It is called the Writing Handbook, 2nd ed, published by Loyola Press. This tome is 908 pp including the appendices. The main topics listed in the contents are: Parts of speech; The sentence--use and structure; Syntax; Punctuation; Division of words; Abbreviations; Numbers; Capitals; Spelling; Diagramming; The Sentence--structure and diction; The paragraph; The essay; The research paper; Definition; Argument; Description; Narrative writing; Letters, resumes, and memos; Word processing; Glossary of usage; and Sentence exercises. It was first published in 1953, but since updated and revised in 1996. For $29.95, it's pricey but, worth it IMO considering its completeness and one of my dc will certainly want to take it with to college.
Just thought I'd share.
Michelle
|
|
|
Post by Kelly in GA on Apr 7, 2003 17:39:35 GMT -5
I did want to share that Loyola Press is a Catholic pubisher. I am Catholic so I am sure none of the content would offend me but this post is for others who may not share the Catholic faith. Here is a link with info on the book. Maybe the updated version doesn't have any religious content?? loyolapress.com/store/title.asp?isbn=0829409106Plus, I think Amazon carries it. Blessings, Kelly in GA
|
|