Forget it ever happened?? Are you kidding? I'm sure people's experiences vary, but I broke my collarbone when I was seven, and it was one of the most awful experiences of my life. It was incredibly painful and traumatic for me. It did heal quickly and well, but the break itself was horrible.

I think the teacher book is very helpful. There are 71 sections to the book, and we find one section generally a good amount for a session. One section (so far) needed to be split over several sessions, but mostly they're fairly short. If you did it every day, probably a semester. If you do it 2-3 times a week, probably a year.

Have you reassured him that you will continue to read to him after he learns to read? Some kids are afraid they'll lose the wonderful fun of being read to and are reluctant to read on their own for that reason.

Turns out it's a hoax. :( http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/flying-bird-man-video-jarno-smeets-confirmed-as-one-big-hoax/

I'm pretty sure "defiant" comes from auto-correct. People misspell "definite" as "definate" and the algorithm somehow ends up with "defiant" as the closest match. It happens so often, I'm surprised nobody has reprogrammed the auto-correct algorithm for that word.

Sorry. That horse left the barn years ago.

Perhaps an off-campus program at meteorology school? :lol: I just called my ds in the next room to ask if he knew whether "a lot" is one word or two, and he answered, "Two words, of course, unless you're trying to allot something. Then it's one." I guess he passes. Whew!

Yup. Ours is by the Automatic Pencil Sharpener Company of Chicago and looks roughly like this -- I love it to pieces. :001_wub: I'm so glad dh's grandfather was a "saver".

Thanks!

Is there a table of contents or scope and sequence posted anywhere? I've looked at the sample that's available on the Peace Hill Press website, but I'd appreciate a little more of a big picture for this program.

Grow wings. I don't think cheap flights exist anymore, at least for the places I need to go.

Interesting! I've become convinced of the usefulness of grammar for writing this year while working with my son. When I can use terms like "dependent clause" or "participle phrase" it becomes so much easier to show him what he's doing in his writing and thus how to correct or improve it.

I didn't realize that's what the OP was wanting to know. Well, in any particular sentence a verb is of only one kind -- intransitive complete, transitive active, transitive passive, or linking. It's a way to speak about the structure of the sentence. Just as you might want to identify a sentence as simple, compound, or complex, you may want to be able to classify what type of verb is being used. Some people aren't interested in that sort of analysis, of course. But if you are, then identifying the type of verb doesn't seem much different to me from other types of classifications made. Is this an adjective or an adverb? Is this a predicate nominative or predicate adjective? Sometimes one's knowledge of these classifications can aid in correctly writing mistakes. Sometimes it doesn't. Overall, I find knowledge of grammatical structures helpful. I can't always point to the usefulness of a specific element, though.

Of course. That is what I said. :confused: Certainly not. In the second sentence, "sang" takes a direct object, namely "song". If you look up the verb "sing" in the dictionary, you will find that it has both v.i. and v.t. definitions, i.e. intransitive and transitive.

What do you mean by "ahead of time"? Telling them before they come is certainly not necessary in my mind. But I do expect hosts to identify the food they're serving at some point. You would say, "Would you like some venison stew?" or similar.

Removing prepositional phrases often helps one see the grammatical structure of a sentence. But no, there is no other way to distinguish Transitive from Intransitive Complete verbs. One has a direct object; the other does not. (By the way, either type can have helping verbs.) Also, the same verb can be either transitive or intransitive. For example, consider the verb "to sing" in the following sentences. The girl sang. (intransitive) The girl sang a song. (transitive) The direct object is the only difference.

What is TCW? We started WWS Level 1 in September, but with a slow start and some supplemental work it became obvious we weren't going to finish this year. I'm going to try to get through Week 22 (just before the Literary Analysis starts). My plan had been to pick up with Week 23 in the fall and finish off Level 1 before Christmas (possibly saving the research paper for January -- I expect it will take my ds 3-4 weeks rather than 2). Then I thought we could get started with Level 2 in January. I also want to wait for the printed books for Level 2. It ended up more expensive to get it all printed and bound compared to the final cost of the printed book. This sure shoots my plan, though. May I ask where this date is announced?

I don't post very much here, nor do I consider myself much of an writing authority. But I'll give it a shot. First off, I love the sound of your daughter's voice. Her personality really shines through. She sounds very articulate and witty, and I bet she has a great sense of humor. I did not see the original version of the essay to which you refer. Perhaps you could post a link. Because I haven't read that, I don't know what aspects she was working on improving. There are two big things that jumped out at me when I read her essay. First, the paragraphs seem to be a jumble of different arguments. Consider this paragraph, for example: I love that she started out addressing an argument against her thesis. That's a fantastic rhetorical technique. She can shoot it down and then move on to the points in her favor. I would like to see a clear argument here that refutes the claim that sarcasm is cruel. An example or two would be great. She concedes later in her conclusion that sarcasm *can* be used irresponsibly. This paragraph is the place to develop that angle. Then I see two other arguments mixed into this paragraph. I have bolded them. She claims that "sarcasm is essential" and that it is a "benchmark of intelligence". Wow! I would love to see these ideas broken off and developed into main points. Why is sarcasm essential? What is an example in which sarcasm can be used as a benchmark of intelligence? She may not want to develop those points, if she feels they are not essential arguments for her thesis. But they should not be included in this paragraph, because they do not contribute to the argument against the claim that sarcasm is always cruel. Okay, so that's the first thing -- separate the arguments. I wonder if she made an outline of her essay. I think that might help her clearly distinguish the different ideas and decide which ones to develop fully and which potentially to drop. Something like this -- I. Introduction II. Refute the claim that Sarcasm is Cruel ____A. Yes, it can be cruel when used irresponsibly (example) ____B. No, it is not always irresponsible ____C. How to tell the difference III. Sarcasm is Essential in Communication . . . Or something like that. Of course it doesn't have to be a formal outline. The second thing I noticed is that she has a LOT of ideas to support her thesis. Sarcasm is essential, sarcasm is part of my personality, sarcasm is popular, sarcasm is a skill. But I see very few examples. It's not enough, in my opinion, to simply state these arguments. She needs to develop them and convince the reader. Show us what sarcasm contributes to communication. In this paragraph she came close -- In this paragraph I would say she is arguing that sarcasm is effective and in fact more effective than communication without sarcarm. (By the way, it would help to see that idea stated outright.) That's probably her strongest argument, and I'm glad to see that she developed it to the fullest degree. She also made a great choice in putting it at the end. Close strong! But I would like to see the argument developed even more fully! Show us a specific example of a joke that doesn't work without the sarcasm. Or a lecturer who used sarcasm to capture her interest. She is writing in first person, so she can draw examples from her own experience. The other arguments similarly need infusions of examples or explanations, instead of being baldly stated. That may mean eliminating some of the arguments, but her overall essay would be strong. I hope that helps a bit. Are you familiar with the book The Lively Art of Writing? It's a fine tutorial in writing essays. The first several chapters, in particular, are incredibly helpful in how to develop a thesis statement and how to organize one's arguments. My guess is that it's appropriate for roughly 9th grade.

Great post! Welcome to the forum, bolt. I hope you post more.

Okay, then you've seen that for level one, the literary analysis introduces the student to the idea of asking and answering the following questions about a story: Who is this book about? (central character) What do the central characters want? What keeps them/him/her from getting it? How do they/him/her get what they want? Do they have an enemy or enemies? Is there a villain? What does the villain want? I'm not sure what else it is you're looking for.

Have you seen the scope and sequence that has been previously posted? It shows what aspects are planned in each level for all of the different types of writing. Section IV covers literary analysis. The scope and sequence was posted here.

Do you have any wooden cutting boards or serving trays? That's what I would use.

Our R&S books got here yesterday. I spent a couple hours reading the teacher manual last night. I'm excited! I think I've made the right choice for what my ds needs. This is such a solid program. I can't wait to get started. I had been planning on finishing out the last bit of Easy Grammar he's been doing, but I almost might ditch it and just get started on the R&S. I feel sure they're going to cover whatever is in those last few pages of EG.

My dh adds his suggestions: Among Schoolchildren, House, or Soul of a New Machine by Tracy Kidder Home or City Life by Witold Rybczynski Cuckoo's Egg by Clifford Stoll (about computer security, hacking, and ethics; reads like a spy thriller) Ever Since Darwin by Stephen Jay Gould Liar's Poker by Michael Lewis Your Money or Your Life by Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin

Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder (nominally a novel, but constitutes an introduction to the history of philosophy) Flatland by Edwin Abbot. Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter. (for the mathematically inclined) A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper by John Allen Paulos. A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. Chaos by James Gleick.