I have a dd who had been diagnosed with PITANDS several years ago by a pediatric neurologist in New Jersey who specializes in PANDAS/PITANDS; his name is Dr. Trifiletti. We were living in Wilmore, KY, at the time. We chose Dr. Trifiletti because he was willing to treat her without actually stepping foot into his clinic. After a phone interview, he decided to immediately prescribe her an antibiotic and to order a series of blood tests (Strep had already been ruled out, so he was looking for another bacterial infection associated with sudden onset of OCD.) I still have a copy of the blood tests he ordered, but unfortunately I cannot read it. Dr. T. ultimately discovered she was infected with mycoplasma; her bout was asymptomatic. The antibiotic Dr. T. prescribed--clarithromycin--elicited immediate changes in my dd's behavior. Within a matter of a week or less, she went from showing severe/profound OCD to none. But when we took her off the antibiotic (after 3 months or so), she very quickly went back to showing OCD (plus frequent urination and emotional lability). Dr. T. had said mycoplasma was very difficult to kill, so it took approx. 6 months before the antibiotic had done its job of killing off the bacteria. Once the mycoplasma was gone, my dd was OCD-free without the antibiotic. She was back to her old self; it was as if nothing had ever happened. Before we went to Dr. T., we had attempted to rule out a medical cause via the local doctor route. Her pediatrician she saw regularly refused to see her--said we needed to see a child psychologist or psychiatrist instead. You can imagine how I felt about that. Well, anyhow, I managed to find a pediatrician who was willing to at least admit her to the hospital to run a gamut of tests, including a head CT and a psychological assessment. Unfortunately, her medical team knew very little about PITANDS, let alone how to diagnose and treat it. They couldn't find anything wrong. The psychology team (there were at least two psychologists who interviewed/tested her) agreed she didn't show classic onset of OCD. The head of the psychology depart. (one of the professionals who had interviewed my dd) did not believe she had PITANDS either because she did not show signs of Tourette's Syndrome. (Despite the medical articles I had shown her, she did not believe that OCD was associated with PITANDS simply because she had never seen it in patients with PANDAS she had observed during her training...Sigh.) But I refused to give up. So, through the help of a friend, I was able to find Dr. T. I do want to note a few more things. My dd had always been healthy. We were not frequent visitors to the pediatrician's office. Dr. T. said my dd had a very strong immune system, which he found encouraging, meaning that she may not need to stay on an antibiotic indefinitely due to PITANDS. And she didn't--only long enough to kill off the mycoplasma. But after about 5 years (at age 11), our dd did start to show signs of classic onset OCD. She is only mildly affected, however, and can function without treatment, but we treat her anyway, with Inositol. (Why not?) I hope this helps :-). Whatever you do, don't give up until you have a diagnosis! And I'd rule out PITANDS in your case, given your description of his behaviors. Good luck!

Thank you, Critterfixer. I will definitely check it out!

Thank you, Steven, for sharing. I have also observed that many grammar programs--even those designed for older kids-- ask students to analyze sentences that are very simplistic and not typical of real-life writing. That is the main reason why I wanted to educate myself--so that my daughter and I could be free to analyze sentences in quality literature (with the ultimate purpose of imitating such sentence structures in our own writing). Lately, I have been asking my daughter to fully analyze sentences from "Sentence Composing..." from Killgallon because those sentences, like the one I began this thread with, come from classic literature. The challenge, of course, is that there is no answer key. So, when I learn of someone else who is homeschooling and knows more about grammar than me, I immediately become interested in how that someone came upon that knowledge. It makes sense that by studying other languages, you have acquired additional grammar knowledge. It also seems apparent that you've learned a lot via KISS Grammar. In addition to studying Latin, we may choose to use KISS Grammar next year. :)

Well, I just looked and saw a very nice explanation of infinitives from KISS grammar. Wow. I can't believe that online grammar curriculum is free. I'm going to have to explore KISS grammar further. Maybe this curriculum would work well for my rising 6th grader (and for me!)?

Okay, thank you. The particulars of bare infinitives are relatively new to me. The only exposure I've had to them come from MCT's Magic Lens I, and that isn't much. This conversation is helpful. I'm curious. Where are you all learning this stuff? A curriculum? Independent study? Foreign language studies? I did buy Analytical Grammar to educate myself so that I could be more independent in teaching grammar to my kids, but I don't recall bare infinitives being addressed to any great depth. If your English grammar curriculum (e.g., KISS grammar?) addresses verbs of perception with noun/pronoun + bare infinitives, then I want to know!

It is my understanding that infinitive phrases technically begin with the infinitive. However, when infinitives act as direct objects, there should be an actor preceding the infinitive--an agent doing the action (infinitive). So, if the door was really shutting itself, then the door would be the actor and integral to the infinitive phrase...even though the word door is not technically a part of the infinitive phrase itself. Am I making any sense?

How can a door shut itself if the wind or some other agent isn't acting upon the door?

Whew! I think I get it now! Steven, I think the disconnect we have is what the word shut means in the Boysie sentence. I was perceiving shut to mean an action--the door shutting itself--when in actually shut is referring to a sound--the door produced a shut sound. Soooo, the door WOULD be an actor in this case. The door is producing the sound of shutting. That is what was heard, the shut of the door. So, yes, and yes!! Shut is an infinitive acting as a direct object. Yay!!! Thank you so much for helping me figure this out!!!

Thanks again, Steven, for your efforts to make this clear to me. I appreciate it, really. If I am understanding this correctly, we are somewhat on the same page in thought. It seems to me you think the actor in the Boysie sentence is the door itself (or the wind), correct? (I apologize if I am slow to understand you!) If that is what you are saying, then yes! I can see without further thought that shut is a direct object. BUT...if the door/wind is NOT doing the shutting itself, then the verb would be transitive, meaning some person must have shut the door. If that is the case, then I don't think we know who the person is because he/she isn't stated. Therefore--if shut was indeed transitive in this case--then shut would be acting as an adjective. Unless, again, I am missing something! If you don't believe the door is doing the acting, please varify. I will again re-think this. (I really want to understand!) Thank you!

Steven, thank you for your explanation. Very helpful! I think I understand what you are saying about how some infinitive phrases seem to start with a noun--that is, an actor. I believe your explanation is very similar to what I had read on Purdue Owl's website on infinitives. In your example sentences above, I can understand how the infinitives are acting as direct objects. There is an actor for each infinitive. In the sentence, "I saw the boy run away," the boy--the actor for the infinitive-- is doing the running. But in the Boysie sentence, there does not appear to be an actor. Correct? If so, then from my point of view, the infinitive is acting as an adjective and not a direct object.

My guess is that Boysie did the hearing and someone else did the shutting. I found the sentence in Killgallon's Sentence Composing for Elementary School. Killgallon took the sentence from the book The Summer of the Swans, and even though I own the book, I haven't yet read it to either of my kids. So I have nooo clue even where to begin looking for it to glean more contextual cues. Too bad Killgallon did not state the page in which the sentence was taken! Oh well. I have enjoyed this discussion. It helps me to be a better teacher for my kids. :)

If I read Purdue Owl's website correctly, shut would have to have an actor. Unless the door is doing the acting itself, that is, shut itself, I am struggling to see how shut could be acting as a direct object.

Oops, I meant transitive. Lucy the Valiant, do you know of a grammar site/resource that supports the idea that shut is a direct object? I would find that very helpful.

Clear Creek, can you tell us what online diagrammar you used? I would love to know!!!

I found a website that stated there are special verbs that elicit bare infinitives versus regular infinitives--feel, hear, help, let, make, see, watch. This would explain the bare infinitive in the sentence. I tried to find examples of sentences with a similar sentence structure on grammar sites that discuss infinitives. What I found had indicated indirectly that shut is acting as an adjective (versus a direct object.) Here is a sentence I found on a grammar site that stated the infinitive to write is an adjective: "I have a paper to write before class." Notice how there is a noun that immediately proceeds the infinitive, just like in the sentence above ("...door shut...") I'm wondering--but I could be wrong--if infinitives act as direct objects only when it follows a transitive verb, such as in this sentence: "She tried to read a good book." That is just a thought. I don't have anythng concrete to back it up.