MCT users, check in -

[kokotg]

Well, yes, in the sense that both camps in the germ theory debate seem to have their supporters. But that doesn't make it a question of personal preference.

 

I don't think it's quite the same thing. If we want to decide who's right about germ theory, we can conduct experiments which can then be reproduced by other scientists. If we want to figure out who's right about whether articles are adjectives...well, the only thing we can do it see what linguists are saying about it and whether there's a clear consensus. The link you posted says itself that the OED says that articles are adjectives. I don't think we can really call the editors of the OED the linguistic equivalent of flat earthers. I think it's certainly interesting to point out to students that grammar is a living thing that is always evolving and about which reasonable people can disagree, but I don't think it's fair to be annoyed with MCT for defining articles the same way the OED does.

 

We obviously can't tell which part of speech it is from just looking at the word. We tell, as natural speakers of English, from how it's placed in the sentence. We can extrapolate from this (and other examples) that two words are the same part of speech if they can be used interchangeably in a sentence.

 

 

I still don't think this follows. There's an accepted order of adjectives in English. We say "little old man" and not "old little man" but that doesn't mean they aren't both adjectives. Of course, I guess we could say "old little man" and not be incorrect, exactly. This link: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/adjectives.htm talks about order of adjective and lists examples like eagle in "eagle chick" as qualifiers, "final limiter, often regarded as part of the noun (e.g., rocking chair, hunting cabin, passenger car, book cover)." Note "often" i.e. there's not a consensus.

 

I don't think MCT is "dumbing down" grammar to make it accessible to younger children. I think he just disagrees with you.

Edited October 12, 2010 by kokotg

[Violet Crown]

I don't think it's quite the same thing. If we want to decide who's right about germ theory, we can conduct experiments which can then be reproduced by other scientists. If we want to figure out who's right about whether articles are adjectives...well, the only thing we can do it see what linguists are saying about it and whether there's a clear consensus.

But that's not really true. We're not comparing two different ideas about grammar that people have made up out of their own heads; as the blog post from Language Log that I linked to points out, we're comparing a constructed theory of grammar (the "traditional" model) to what linguists have discovered through empirical examination of the language.

 

"Flat earthers" is a great analogy. We can look to authority of the past (as, for example, the OED, venerable and useful as it is) to tell us; or we can get out our instruments, form theories, and test them on the actual earth. Which is what linguists do, with actual languages.

 

 

I think it's certainly interesting to point out to students that grammar is a living thing that is always evolving and about which reasonable people can disagree, but I don't think it's fair to be annoyed with MCT for defining articles the same way the OED does.

I'm not; I'm annoyed with MCT for defining articles in a way that is false (or at least for not acknowledging up front that they're simplifying things for the time being). Look, my seven-year-old, for pity's sake, saw that there was something odd about calling "eagle" in "eagle chick" an adjective. She didn't react that way because she tried it out as a predicate adjective and it didn't work, or because I prompted her; she felt it seemed wrong because she is a native speaker of English, and correctly sensed that "eagle" wasn't the same kind of thing as "fluffy" in front of a noun.

 

 

 

I still don't think this follows. There's an accepted order of adjectives in English. We say "little old man" and not "old little man" but that doesn't mean they aren't both adjectives. Of course, I guess we could say "old little man" and not be incorrect, exactly.

Right; as a native speaker of English (I presume), you sense that "old, little man" is grammatically correct. What makes "little old man" seem more of a natural order is that that phrase is extremely common in English, and we recognize it as a somewhat cliche'd unit, along with similar phrases such as "little old woman" and "little old me."

 

Try this out:

 

(a) I found the four old, little pieces of string in the drawer.

(b) I found the four little, old pieces of string in the drawer.

 

I would guess that most native English speakers would not find the second sentence to be much more natural (if at all) than the first, because "little old pieces of string" isn't a standard phrase in English. It has nothing to do with "proper" adjective order.

 

But now try this out:

 

© I found four old, the, little pieces of string in the drawer.

 

However much you might prefer sentence (b) to sentence (a) as a more "natural" way to place the adjectives, I don't think you'd find (a) to be ungrammatical; and I don't think you'd find © to be grammatical. Because "little" and "old" are adjectives, and "the" isn't.

 

 

This link: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/adjectives.htm talks about order of adjective and lists examples like eagle in "eagle chick" as qualifiers, "final limiter, often regarded as part of the noun (e.g., rocking chair, hunting cabin, passenger car, book cover)." Note "often" i.e. there's not a consensus.

But there is a consensus among linguists.

 

I don't think MCT is "dumbing down" grammar to make it accessible to younger children. I think he just disagrees with you.

I didn't say MCT was "dumbing down" grammar. I would have forgiven that more readily, as I said above. I think it's simply wrong. "Disagrees with me" is fine; adherents of the Four Humours school of medicine disagree with me, too.

 

Addendum: Much as I thrive on heated grammatical debate, I don't want to cause personal offense. I avoid discussions on vaccinations because I won't agree that there are just different schools of thought and everyone is right in his own way, and people take that personally. Similarly, please, really let me know if I'm being offensive here for saying that one version of grammar is wrong and another is right, and I will bow out. I love this forum and don't want to hurt feelings unnecessarily. Even determiners aren't worth it. :D

Edited October 12, 2010 by Sharon in Austin

[Matryoshka]

We're using Island Level and I'm starting to find the grammar frustrating. Dd learned last year from Artes Latinae that parts of speech in English are identifiable by what "slot" in a sentence they go in, and that if they're not interchangeable (can't go into the same "slot"), then they're not the same part of speech.

 

 

Here's the thing. Latin grammar isn't English grammar. Different languages have different rules. English grammar is actually blindingly simplistic compared to most other languages. I understand all kinds of complexities and nuances of grammar that are never addressed in English, because it isn't necessary. English has "object" pronouns. Direct or indirect -they're the same. Hence the supposed rule that you can't have an indirect object without a direct object. If I applied the rules from Spanish or German to English, that would not hold true at all - but since in English you can't tell the difference, the "powers that be" have decided to label them that way. There are all kinds of subtleties that escape us in English. Genitive and Vocative from Latin? Don't have 'em. Subjunctive mood? Nope. There's also a big controversy over "split infinitives". Some Latinophiles decided way back that since you can't split an infinitive in Latin (since it's only one word), you shouldn't be able to in English, even though there's really no reason not to - most grammarians have now come over to this point of view, although they may caution against doing it in a formal paper. Ditto the mantra against ending the sentence with a preposition. Not to mention that it's impossible to do that anyway, because by definition a preposition has an object. If you end a sentence with something that looks like a preposition, it's really an adverb - often an adverb that's actually part of a verb, like "to look at" or "to get up"- another construct not used in Latin langauges.

 

I think you can learn a ton about grammar by learning a second or third language. Much of it can be applied back to your native tongue - but you can't apply the rules from one langauge to another carte blanche. At some point someone decided in English there are eight parts of speech and everything has to squash itself into one of those definitions (If I'd set it up, I might've done it differently :tongue_smilie:). Articles (and numbers like two) modify nouns, therefore they're lumped into adjectives. There are other weird things like possessive nouns being modifiers and gerunds (verbal nouns) being modified by adverbs (an adverb modifying a noun??). Things aren't always black and white. Grammar can be messy - it's helpful to remember that grammar wasn't invented by anyone and then applied, it is descriptive of how people speak, which isn't always neat and tidy, and can be radically different from langauge to language (Chinese doesn't even have verb tenses! Russian doesn't have articles at all!). That's why grammar rules change over time, and why English no longer has noun endings and multiple cases and all other sorts of things that it once had in abundance.

 

I wouldn't bash poor MCT for following what's standard for English. Sure, there are grammarians that split hairs about this kind of thing (I might even be one of them - which means in many ways I agree with you over the standard model), but they are mostly academics. If your child is asked what part of speech "the" is on the SAT, it's going to be an adjective.

 

I've also pointed out for my kids where there are IOs without DOs - but told them if they mark them that way on a test somewhere, it'll be marked wrong, even if they're right.

[Matryoshka]

But now try this out:

 

© I found four old, the, little pieces of string in the drawer.

 

However much you might prefer sentence (b) to sentence (a) as a more "natural" way to place the adjectives, I don't think you'd find (a) to be ungrammatical; and I don't think you'd find © to be grammatical. Because "little" and "old" are adjectives, and "the" isn't.

 

 

 

Yeah, but no one is claiming that all adjectives are created equal. Even the most die-hard "articles are adjectives" crowd considers them a subset of all adjectives, a type of adjective. Just like subject pronouns, object pronouns, and possessive pronouns are all "Pronouns". You can't use them intechangeably in a sentence, yet we still agree they're all pronouns.

 

(This is reminding me of the domain vs. kingdom discussion over in a biology thread...)

[Violet Crown]

Here's the thing. Latin grammar isn't English grammar. Different languages have different rules.

 

But I never said anything like what you're suggesting I said. I said that the better explanation of grammar came from the Artes Latinae program. It wasn't as part of an explanation of Latin grammar; in fact, it was from a lengthy section in the introduction in which the author contrasts English and Latin grammar.

 

Most of your post, while full of things that I agree with, seems to be coming from an idea that I am under the impression that Latin and English grammar are the same. Quite the contrary; I believe that most of the false ideas in traditional grammar come from the belief that English grammar must be "mapped onto" Latin grammar.

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't bash poor MCT for following what's standard for English. Sure, there are grammarians that split hairs about this kind of thing (I might even be one of them - which means in many ways I agree with you over the standard model), but they are mostly academics. If your child is asked what part of speech "the" is on the SAT, it's going to be an adjective.

 

I'm not bashing MCT. If you look at my first post in this thread, I was pointing out the one thing about it that annoyed me. I like the rest of it very much; dd likes even the grammar book.

 

"Standard" isn't the same as "right." And once more, I will add that I readily forgive little lies at the beginnings of a course of study. Electrons can be little particles whizzing around the nucleus for a while, if it's corrected eventually. But I would be hesitant to recommend a science text whose author really thought that was the whole story on electrons.

 

Which leads me to ask, of anybody who has used MCT at more advanced levels: Do articles and nouns modifying nouns remain as "adjectives" throughout? Or is this corrected down the road?

 

(I would be quite startled, btw, if the SAT were to require children to identify "the" as an adjective or be marked as wrong. They do have real linguists look at these tests.)

[Violet Crown]

Yeah, but no one is claiming that all adjectives are created equal. Even the most die-hard "articles are adjectives" crowd considers them a subset of all adjectives, a type of adjective. Just like subject pronouns, object pronouns, and possessive pronouns are all "Pronouns". You can't use them intechangeably in a sentence, yet we still agree they're all pronouns.

 

(This is reminding me of the domain vs. kingdom discussion over in a biology thread...)

 

You're right, I've been a bit simplistic in my examples; of course grammar is messier than that. But my criticism of MCT is in quite the other direction. MCT is, in fact, claiming that all adjectives are created equal, and that so are all articles, noun modifiers, etc.

[8filltheheart]

Here's one way to look at it. Take "eagle" in my example above (taken from Grammar Island). Now "eagle" in English can obviously be more than one part of speech: The eagle catches the fish. Will Tiger eagle, or go over par? The eagle chick is fuzzy.

 

We obviously can't tell which part of speech it is from just looking at the word. We tell, as natural speakers of English, from how it's placed in the sentence. We can extrapolate from this (and other examples) that two words are the same part of speech if they can be used interchangeably in a sentence.

 

When a word is an adjective, it sits in front of the noun it modifies, and behind any determiners, and in any relation to other adjectives. But "eagle" in "an eagle chick" doesn't do this last thing: You can say "the six fuzzy, happy chicks" but you can't say "the six eagle, fuzzy chicks."

 

An adjective also can follow the noun as a predicate adjective. But "eagle" in "the eagle chick" can't do this either: you can't say "the chick is eagle" just the same way you can't say "the cat is house" (and therefore you can recognize that "house" in "house cat" isn't an adjective).

 

I wouldn't mind so much if GI said something like "We can start by saying there are only eight kinds of word, though later we'll learn there are more." Or if the determiners, noun modifiers, and the like were simply left unlabeled, the way prepositions are early on. It would be extra-great if there were some sort of nod to how linguists have long understood language to work. Artes Latinae, as I mentioned in my earlier post, does in fact explain in a way suitable for small children how parts of speech work in English. And I'm glad we used that before we used GI.

 

 

I am very much a stickler when it comes to grammar and am not a fan of MCT grammar, but I do not have a problem with calling "noun modifiers" adjectives b/c the definition of an adjective is a part of speech that modifies a noun. Proper nouns modifying nouns are still functioning as adjectives. The essence of how the word is functioning is the same. In the examples you give, all of the nouns are qualifying the noun (what type of chicks, eagle chicks; what type of cat, house cat, etc)

 

Whether or not you want to name them a different name does not really change the function of what the word is doing in the sentence.......modifying the noun.

 

I have developed a problem (didn't have one originally :tongue_smilie:) with stating that intransitive verbs have direct objects when they don't. English does note the difference between intransitive and transitive verbs. Only transitive verbs actually transmit the action from one noun to another. The teaching that there is no IO w/o a DO is false based on the definition of intransitive verbs.

This is completely wrong and obviously I need to stop participating in anything that involves my thinking too deeply. Ignore me completely. When I finally emerge from sleep deprivation, maybe I will actually know what I am thinking!!

 

Anyway......all of that really doesn't matter to anyone who doesn't really love grammar.

 

Ignore me and move on! :tongue_smilie:

 

I just don't like MCT's grammar. My dd thinks it is dumbed down and feels insulted by it. :tongue_smilie: (granted she is way beyond the level I purchased.) Either way, I don't care for the way he approaches grammar.

Edited October 13, 2010 by 8FillTheHeart

[La Condessa]

I'm finding your debate about the classification of articles fascinating. As a public school student, the only english language grammar instruction I learned was the definitions of noun, verb, and adjective in second grade. I never even knew that traditionally taught grammar defined articles as adjectives--the first teacher I ever had that mentioned the subject was my syntax professor when I was studying linguistics in college. (He agreed with you, by the way, that articles are a type of determiner.)

 

There has been a relatively recent shift in scholarly interest in grammar from proscriptive to descriptive grammar; meaning that linguists are now chiefly interested in studying how language is actually constructed and used by the minds of native speakers, as opposed to being interested in telling people how language ought to be used. This means that there is a lot of disagreement between how grammar texts (which are generally written by people trained in proscriptive grammar) say that language should work and how we have learned that it really does. Your discussion over articles is a great example of this.

 

Sorry if I've gotten too preachy. I'm really just a linguistics nerd, and I guess if you were standing in front of me, I probably would have been able to see your eyes glazing over by now and known when to stop.

 

we're comparing a constructed theory of grammar (the "traditional" model) to what linguists have discovered through empirical examination of the language.

 

Thank you. Many people do not realize that linguistics is actually a science.

[kokotg]

I'm not especially easily offended :)

 

But I do think we might have to agree to disagree. I'm not seeing how there's a "consensus" when we can each post links from respectable sources saying exactly the opposite thing. I found half a dozen links in a couple of minutes classifying examples such as eagle in eagle chick as adjectives. So I guess I'm not sure how we're defining "consensus." The OED isn't an ancient relic; it's updated all the time. I actually have no dog in the adjective vs. determiner fight, but when MCT can cite a source like [the current edition of] the OED to back him up, I would have a difficult time telling a child that he's wrong, rather than "I disagree with this." However, I'll also fully admit that I have no training whatsoever in formal linguistics; I come at language from a background in literary analysis, where people regularly declare other people in their field to be full of it, but where it's generally understood that there's a fair amount of posturing going on there and nothing in the way of empirical evidence ;)

[radiobrain]

You guys crack me up. ;)

 

This is a really good topic for the MCTLA Yahoo group. I am sure he would chime in immediately.

Edited October 12, 2010 by radiobrain

[8filltheheart]

 

Which leads me to ask, of anybody who has used MCT at more advanced levels: Do articles and nouns modifying nouns remain as "adjectives" throughout? Or is this corrected down the road?

 

(I would be quite startled, btw, if the SAT were to require children to identify "the" as an adjective or be marked as wrong. They do have real linguists look at these tests.)

 

 

I have taught a lot of grammar (not MCT's beyond Voyage) and have never seen articles not taught as an adj. And......I think you would be surprised, but, yes, the SAT would expect "article" and "adj" to be used. Not that they actually address anything so inconsequential anyway.

[Matryoshka]

But I never said anything like what you're suggesting I said. I said that the better explanation of grammar came from the Artes Latinae program. It wasn't as part of an explanation of Latin grammar; in fact, it was from a lengthy section in the introduction in which the author contrasts English and Latin grammar.

 

Most of your post, while full of things that I agree with, seems to be coming from an idea that I am under the impression that Latin and English grammar are the same. Quite the contrary; I believe that most of the false ideas in traditional grammar come from the belief that English grammar must be "mapped onto" Latin grammar.

 

I hadn't read your second post yet when I wrote that (and I may not have read the first one either...). With those clarifications, I think we might be in almost complete agreement. :tongue_smilie:

 

"Standard" isn't the same as "right."

 

I agree again.

 

Which leads me to ask, of anybody who has used MCT at more advanced levels: Do articles and nouns modifying nouns remain as "adjectives" throughout? Or is this corrected down the road?

 

I do have the first level of Magic Lens; I'll look. But MCT has spoken about this on his yahoo list. He quite adamantly says that they're adjectives, but I don't think he thinks of all adjectives as equal - I never got that impression. Does he say that explicitly somewhere? It's been a while since I looked at the Grammar books. I tend to teach "above" the curriculum, and I enjoy disagreeing with the author sometimes (and I do). But maybe I'm just perverse.

 

(I would be quite startled, btw, if the SAT were to require children to identify "the" as an adjective or be marked as wrong. They do have real linguists look at these tests.)

 

I dunno. I keep hearing how kids get almost no grammar in school nowadays and can barely tell a verb from a noun. In fact, I think that's one of the reasons the MCT grammar seems out of step with the writing for most homeschoolers - we teach grammar, and this program was made for schools where it's been ignored, so even the gifted kids need it simpler. :confused: Anyhow, I'd just be surprised if the SAT had added a ninth part of speech, but I'm happy to be proved wrong. (I was thinking on something like the SAT, it would be multiple choice, and determiner wouldn't be on the list...)

[La Condessa]

I do not have a problem with calling "noun modifiers" adjectives b/c the definition of an adjective is a part of speech that modifies a noun. Proper nouns modifying nouns are still functioning as adjectives.

 

Sorry to disagree, but any word that modifies a noun is not an adjective, simply because adjectives modify nouns. Adjectives are one type of a larger class of words called modifiers which can be applied to nouns, but that does not mean that all modifiers that can be applied to nouns are adjectives. (If all squares are rectangles, are all rectangles squares?)

 

More on topic, I have a question for those of you that have a problem with the grammatical inaccuracies you have been mentioning in MCT. How difficult do you think it would be to use MCT grammar while correcting these types of things as you go along? Are they just occasional mistakes that would be fairly easy to address, or are they constant? I've been so excited by all I've read about this program, but now I'm not so sure . . .

[kokotg]

Well, I hope everyone's happy; thanks to this thread I'm neglecting my children in favor of reading some guy's blog, entirely dedicated to exposing Noam Chomsky as a hack and a fraud :D

[Violet Crown]

I am very much a stickler when it comes to grammar and am not a fan of MCT grammar.

 

I would love to hear more from you about that. Is it because it's too, as you mention below, "dumbed down"? Or are there other things that bother you? What grammar curriculum do you prefer?

 

ut I do not have a problem with calling "noun modifiers" adjectives b/c the definition of an adjective is a part of speech that modifies a noun.

 

Sure; we can just define "adjective" to fit the use that traditional grammar gives it: It's a part of speech that modifies the noun.

 

But when linguists use grammatical terms, they don't do it so as to be able to diagram sentences. They want to be able to use those terms in framing rules for grammar.

 

So I would submit that the interesting question is, is that definition of "adjective" useful for constructing grammatical rules?

 

Here's one grammatical rule we can construct with that definition. "An adjective goes in front of a noun." Now the traditional definition of "adjective," which you give, works quite well with that rule.

 

But that's not a very helpful grammatical rule, since we've constructed the definition of "adjective" in the first place by calling anything in front of the noun that modifies that noun an adjective. Can we frame any rules that take us beyond the definition?

 

Here are some suggestions for more grammatical rules for adjectives: "Two adjectives can be put in front of a noun." "An adjective can follow a noun that it modifies when it's linked to it by a form of 'to be.'" "You can put an intensifier, such as 'very,' in front of an adjective." Please feel free to suggest others.

 

These are all good grammatical rules for adjectives--but not for the traditional definition.

 

Of course, we can start saying "some adjectives are exceptions to this rule." That's the method used for dealing with eccentricities in planetary motion, until the heliocentric theory simplified it. Linguistics is, as mentioned above, a science; and scientists generally prefer rules that don't come loaded with exceptions.

[Susan in KY]

Which level and components are you using? Just finishing Grammar and Practice Island this week, starting GrammarTown tomorrow and plan to use the full package.

How's it going?

I really like it! It's so simple and the dc are really catching onto 4-level analysis. I have had NO complaints about doing a sentence from the practice book every day.

 

Are you supplementing, with what?

I am using Emma Serl's Intermediate Language Lessons as well, but do not intend to use them simultaneously now that we are starting the full Town level. I only did that as long as we were only doing Practice Island. We'll finish the last year of ILL next summer.

 

Is this your first experience with MCT?

Yes.

 

If I hadn't seen MCT at the Cinci convention, I probably wouldn't have purchased anything from him. I am glad I did, though. A side benefit is that it has REALLY helped our study of Portuguese. The dc had no prior formal grammar, so we started it at just the right time (last spring, and did a sentence a day to finish the 100 practice sentences just now) and it's made introducing a foreign language much easier.

[Capt_Uhura]

 

Well, Grammar Island first told her that "a" and "the" are adjectives. But she had already learned from her Latin that they aren't, because they don't go into the adjective slot ("the big cat," but not "the a cat"). Then they called them "articles," which she liked better, but then they're still labeled as "adjectives." Then a sentence had "two" as an adjective, which is not an adjective either ("the fat black cats" but not "the fat two cats"). Dd was rightly suspicious of "eagle" as an adjective in "The eagle chick was fuzzy." Which again, since you can say "the chick was fuzzy" but not "the chick was eagle," is obviously not an adjective but a noun modifier.

 

 

"Two" is not an adjective? If that is not an adjective, what are this, that, these and those? I thought those were adjectives?

 

As in, "Look at these black cats." Not a great sentence, granted but you can't say "Look at black these cats." But these, at least in Warriner's, is listed as an adjective.

 

In Warriner's English Composition and Grammar which SWB recommends it says "An adjective is a word used to modify a noun or a pronoun. To modify means "to limit" or "To make the meaning of a word more definite." Adjectives may modify nouns or pronouns in any of one of three different ways:

1. By telling that kind: green apples, small car, capable student

2. By pointing out which one: this woman, that play

3. By telling how many: some birds, two squirrels.

 

Nouns used as Adjectives

Nouns are sometimes used as adjectives. Sofa cushion hotel lobby bread pudding

WHen you are identifying parts of speech and you encounter a noun used as an adjective, label it as an adjective.

 

I'm not clear on when a noun used as an adjective crosses the line and becomes a compound noun.

 

 

Has this (adjectives) changed in current grammar circles? I think for my elementary aged kids, simplest is best. They can argue the beauty and intricacies of grammar in high school.

[8filltheheart]

I would love to hear more from you about that. Is it because it's too, as you mention below, "dumbed down"? Or are there other things that bother you? What grammar curriculum do you prefer?

 

 

 

Sure; we can just define "adjective" to fit the use that traditional grammar gives it: It's a part of speech that modifies the noun.

 

But when linguists use grammatical terms, they don't do it so as to be able to diagram sentences. They want to be able to use those terms in framing rules for grammar.

 

So I would submit that the interesting question is, is that definition of "adjective" useful for constructing grammatical rules?

 

Here's one grammatical rule we can construct with that definition. "An adjective goes in front of a noun." Now the traditional definition of "adjective," which you give, works quite well with that rule.

 

But that's not a very helpful grammatical rule, since we've constructed the definition of "adjective" in the first place by calling anything in front of the noun that modifies that noun an adjective. Can we frame any rules that take us beyond the definition?

 

Here are some suggestions for more grammatical rules for adjectives: "Two adjectives can be put in front of a noun." "An adjective can follow a noun that it modifies when it's linked to it by a form of 'to be.'" "You can put an intensifier, such as 'very,' in front of an adjective." Please feel free to suggest others.

 

These are all good grammatical rules for adjectives--but not for the traditional definition.

 

Of course, we can start saying "some adjectives are exceptions to this rule." That's the method used for dealing with eccentricities in planetary motion, until the heliocentric theory simplified it. Linguistics is, as mentioned above, a science; and scientists generally prefer rules that don't come loaded with exceptions.

 

I don’t look at grammar at all the way that is described above. :confused: Maybe we study grammar from a different perspective. I don’t focus on rules like that, so perhaps I don’t have authentic passion for grammar. ;)

 

Our (as in my family) purpose in studying grammmar is to understand how the words we have chosen function in relation to each other and to sentence constrstrucion. So, we examine how the words interact. I guess that is why I don’t have a problem with defining an adj as the part of speech that modifies a noun. So whether it is before the noun, an adj phrase, an adj complement......they recognize the function as modifying/limiting/qualifying a noun.

 

As far as why I don't like his grammar book, I wrote this in another post:

 

I also find it bizarre that the book has several pages dedicated to extremely simple concepts like conjunctions, adjs, advs, and even a couple of pages just for articles while all the phrases are lumped together on just four pages. While someone that is solid in teaching grammar might be able to easily utilize such brevity for teaching gerunds, participles, etc, I would suspect that those moms that are learning grammar along with their children would find the last couple of sections lacking in equipping them for teaching

Edited October 13, 2010 by 8FillTheHeart

[Capt_Uhura]

 

I have developed a problem (didn't have one originally :tongue_smilie:) with stating that intransitive verbs have direct objects when they don't. English does note the difference between intransitive and transitive verbs. Only transitive verbs actually transmit the action from one noun to another. The teaching that there is no IO w/o a DO is false based on the definition of intransitive verbs.

 

 

8FillstheHeart - can you elaborate further on this? Where is it stated that intransitive verbs have direct objects? Can someone give an example of a sentence with an IO but no DO? I thought intransitive verbs do not pass on the action but transitive verbs do and that transitive verbs may also have an IO.

 

Capt_Uhura

[Matryoshka]

Now.....that said, it is precisely why the transitive/intransitive issue does bother me b/c intransitive verbs do not have direct objects.

 

That would bug the snot out of me, but MCT doesn't say anywhere that intransitive verbs can have direct objects. MCT has talked about this on the Yahoo group, and has explicitly pointed out that they don't... :confused:

[Matryoshka]

? Can someone give an example of a sentence with an IO but no DO?

 

If there's only an IO, the DO is implied. We just had a long discussion about this in another thread. Intransitive verbs can't have objects of any kind.

 

Examples:

 

I paid him. (I paid something to him).

He told me. (He told something to me).

 

Translating this into a language that differentiates direct and indirect objects clarifies the matter. In Spanish, it's:

 

I paid him: Le pagué. If it was written Lo pagué, it would mean "I paid it"

 

Extending the example in English: I paid him a dollar. No one would argue that a dollar is the DO and him is the IO. The relationship does not change if we don't specify how much was paid to the subject, but according to the "rule", our IO has suddenly become a DO. When we use a command in English, the subject is "implied You". There can be an implied DO, but apparently the grammar books think we can't manage subtlety.

 

Since in English you can't tell the difference between a direct or indirect object pronoun, they've just decided to call whatever object appears first a direct object. Sloppy.

[Capt_Uhura]

"I paid him" I would assume "him" is the IO and the DO is implied.

 

"Did you give him the money?"

"Yes, I paid him" ie "I paid him the money."

 

So grammar books would say that him is a DO? Does MCT do this?

[Capt_Uhura]

That would bug the snot out of me, but MCT doesn't say anywhere that intransitive verbs can have direct objects. MCT has talked about this on the Yahoo group, and has explicitly pointed out that they don't... :confused:

 

Ok, I"m confused. I must have missed this on the yahoo group. I thought the definition of intransitive verb is that it does not pass the action to a direct object. Therefore, intransitive verbs do not have DOs.

[Matryoshka]

"I paid him" I would assume "him" is the IO and the DO is implied.

 

"Did you give him the money?"

"Yes, I paid him" ie "I paid him the money."

 

So grammar books would say that him is a DO? Does MCT do this?

 

Yep. Just found a sentence in Practice Town where this came up last week. Of course, it could be an error in the answer key, but I haven't ever seen an exception to the "rule" listed anywhere (MCT or any other source). It's just "Can't have an IO without a DO". It would be easy enough to list the very few verbs that can sometimes have this construction.

 

Ah, it's sentence 94, and it starts "As you told us..." Us is listed as a DO. The implied DO, the thing actually told to us, is the main clause of the sentence: "the architecture was austere and classical." In both other languages I speak, that would definitely be an indirect object pronoun.

 

I'd love to hear if someone has a grammar curriculum below the college level that mentions this...? I was just figuring MCT was going along with "the standard grammar line" - which as the PP said, is not always right from a more detailed linguistic perspective.

[Matryoshka]

Ok, I"m confused. I must have missed this on the yahoo group. I thought the definition of intransitive verb is that it does not pass the action to a direct object. Therefore, intransitive verbs do not have DOs.

 

Now I'm confused.. isn't that what I just said? :tongue_smilie: Intransitive verbs cannot have objects of any kind - DOs or IOs.

[8filltheheart]

That would bug the snot out of me, but MCT doesn't say anywhere that intransitive verbs can have direct objects. MCT has talked about this on the Yahoo group, and has explicitly pointed out that they don't... :confused:

 

ETA: you are correct..... I am talking about IOs and DOs. Intransitive verbs can't have objects. :tongue_smilie:

 

But, he does teach the following:

 

"If there is a direct object, and only then,

there might also be an indirect object

between the verb and the direct object.

But if there is no direct object,

there is no indirect object."

(pg 79 Grammar Voyage)

 

Back when this entire issue came up a few yrs ago, several people who had taken graduate level grammar classes did say that the above is incorrect and that yes, IOs do exist w/o DOs.

 

However, it is sort of like the adj debate going on right now. With the exception of Classical Writing, I have never seen it taught at an elementary grade level. Now that I understand what was being taught, it makes sense. However, I had never seen it before and haven't since. Thing is.....no grammar book is teaching it differently. The same is definitely true in regards to articles, nouns as modifiers......they are adjs. So apparently, no one creating English grammar books really cares! :tongue_smilie: So, we can discuss it at length, but in the end what is in the grammar books is DO, adjs, etc and we are left with our musings. ;)

Edited October 13, 2010 by 8FillTheHeart

[Matryoshka]

So, we can discuss it at length, but in the end what is in the grammar books is DO, adjs, etc and we are left with our musings. ;)

 

That was kind of what I was trying to get at. While I agree what is being taught (at least as far as those details are concerned) may be "wrong" or "controversial" from a graduate-degree in linguistics perspective, I've never seen it taught in any other way in an elementary or secondary level grammar text, so I have a hard time being upset with MCT for that. ;)

 

I have even less of a problem with the articles as adjectives thing. Why can't articles be a specific type of adjective with different rules as to sentence placement etc., just like different kinds of pronouns have different rules as to where and how to use them in sentences? One could break determiners off as an equal, 9th part of speech, or say that as words that modify nouns, they are a subset of a larger group called adjectives. Is the problem that the rest of the adjectives don't have a specific name? They're adjective adjectives? :tongue_smilie: I can see both sides, but it's not a hill I need to die on...

 

BTW, I'm loving all the musing we get to do here! The thing I love the most about MCT is, whether you agree with every detail of how it's presented or not, it really gets you thinking and talking about grammar! :D

[Embassy]

Which level and components are you using?

 

How's it going?

 

Are you supplementing, with what?

 

Is this your first experience with MCT?

 

Just starting Island Level. I've only done one day so far and my ds has enjoyed it. I'm not supplementing with anything, but we are doing the recommended literature to go along with it.

[8filltheheart]

8FillstheHeart - can you elaborate further on this? Where is it stated that intransitive verbs have direct objects? Can someone give an example of a sentence with an IO but no DO? I thought intransitive verbs do not pass on the action but transitive verbs do and that transitive verbs may also have an IO.

 

Capt_Uhura

 

Nope, I can't give you an example of the intransive verb taking an object b/c I posted completely incorrect information. :tongue_smilie: Intransitive verbs don't take objects as matroyshka already pointed out. (matroyshka, thank you for posting the correct information. I don't want to create even more confusion!)

 

However, the IO/DO issue.....that is an area that does bug me. I am convinced that real grammarians (or whoever decide what grammar standards are in textbooks) think that we are too dumb to do more than ask "who or what after the verb". I don't understand why. But......I would estimate maybe 3-4 people in the English speaking world even cares. :lol:

[Matryoshka]

But......I would estimate maybe 3-4 people in the English speaking world even cares. :lol:

 

And here are 2 of us, hashing it out on this board instead of going to bed... :lol:

 

Love this board! :D

[8filltheheart]

And here are 2 of us, hashing it out on this board instead of going to bed... :lol:

 

Love this board! :D

 

:lol: And note all of the grammatical errors in my post!! :D

 

Yep.....I need to go to bed. Baby is finally asleep in my arms, so I don't have any excuse to stay up longer!!

[Capt_Uhura]

I just gave my DS10 "I paid him." He at first said that him was a DO. I said how do you pay someone. He said, "Well you pay them money so OOOHH him is the IO but the "Money" is just not stated."

 

I will definitely ask MCT this question unless it's been discussed at the Yahoo group before.

 

INterestingly, I couldn't find anything about this in WArriner's.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Capt_Uhura

[Capt_Uhura]

Nope, I can't give you an example of the intransive verb taking an object b/c I posted completely incorrect information. :tongue_smilie: Intransitive verbs don't take objects as matroyshka already pointed out. (matroyshka, thank you for posting the correct information. I don't want to create even more confusion!)

 

 

 

Whew! I thought I was going insane! I kept rereading your statement and just couldn't figure it out. :lol:

[Capt_Uhura]

 

BTW, I'm loving all the musing we get to do here! The thing I love the most about MCT is, whether you agree with every detail of how it's presented or not, it really gets you thinking and talking about grammar! :D

 

SO TRUE!!!!!!!

[Kuovonne]

I haven't ever seen an exception to the "rule" listed anywhere (MCT or any other source). It's just "Can't have an IO without a DO". It would be easy enough to list the very few verbs that can sometimes have this construction.

 

Could you please share that list of verbs?

[8filltheheart]

I would love to hear more from you about that. Is it because it's too, as you mention below, "dumbed down"? Or are there other things that bother you? What grammar curriculum do you prefer?

.

 

FWIW, I don't think his grammar is dumbed-down. That is my dd's opinion b/c of the way it is presented.

 

I posted in one of my other replies what I think the weakneses are (too much time spent teaching simple concepts and less on the more complicated ones) and I do not like the 4 step analysis.

 

This sentence is an example of why I prefer diagramming over his approach:

 

Please read three book written by American authors during a this year.

 

Diagramming that sentence helps focus attention on how prep phrases work as modifiers. I know that others believe that the 4 step analysis is the equivalent. It is just my personal preference that diagramming visually reinforces relationships. (like how in the above example the only interpretation is that the novels would have to have been written during the yr and not read during the year.)

[swimmermom3]

Thank you all so much.:tongue_smilie: You inspired me to make the hare-brained move of calling my old high school and asking them if there was any chance they could tell me the name of the grammar books we used for AP English back in the dark ages. They think they can actually locate one for me. Well, thank goodness. Now I can sleep well again at night, having my grammar all sorted out. Now, if I could just fix all the punctuation bad habits...

[Matryoshka]

Could you please share that list of verbs?

 

I can't, because I've never seen one anywhere, as none of the English grammar books I've ever seen address this. To come up with the ones I did, I thought of which verbs in Spanish tend to go with "le". The only ones I could think of off hand were pay and tell... I'm sure there are a few more, but I'm thinking it can't be that many. The point is that they do exist!

 

I thought 8FillstheHeart said she'd seen a list of those somewhere on the other thread where we were discussing this, but I may be imagining that...

[brewerfamilyhomeschool]

I am new here mind if I ask what mct is

[Capt_Uhura]

ETA: you are correct..... I am talking about IOs and DOs. Intransitive verbs can't have objects. :tongue_smilie:

 

But, he does teach the following:

 

"If there is a direct object, and only then,

there might also be an indirect object

between the verb and the direct object.

But if there is no direct object,

there is no indirect object."

(pg 79 Grammar Voyage)

 

Back when this entire issue came up a few yrs ago, several people who had taken graduate level grammar classes did say that the above is incorrect and that yes, IOs do exist w/o DOs.

 

;)

 

I'm still thinking about the intransitive verbs can not have a DO or IO. If I'm understanding things correctly, some of you feel this is not true. As in the case "I paid him." I don't think that sentence violates the rule. Isn't the subject just understood? After all, you can't pay someone. You do not do anything to that person. The understood money is what is being paid.

[Mandy in TN]

Which level and components are you using?

Island Level- all components, but haven't started vocab book yet

 

How's it going?

Great

 

Are you supplementing, with what?

memory work culled from MCT, SL LA2 adv

 

Is this your first experience with MCT?

yes

[Matryoshka]

I'm still thinking about the intransitive verbs can not have a DO or IO. If I'm understanding things correctly, some of you feel this is not true. As in the case "I paid him." I don't think that sentence violates the rule. Isn't the subject just understood? After all, you can't pay someone. You do not do anything to that person. The understood money is what is being paid.

 

You're conflating two things. "To pay" is a transitive verb. It can and does have both DOs and IOs. It's just that it can have an IO without a DO, which MCT and most other grammar texts say can never happen.

 

Intransitive verbs cannot have ojbects of any kind.

 

And the example you quote is exactly what we're getting at. The rule quoted says there has to be a DO in the sentence first, and an IO will only be found inbetween the DO and IO, which is to say that there can't be an implied DO. It's saying that if a sentence has only one object written in it, it has to be called a DO. :glare: No mention of the possiblity of an implied DO.

[cheryl h]

We just started using MCT this fall with dd12, with the Voyage level. Our main LA program is R&S, so we are using MCT as a dual/supplement. My main reasons for using MCT was the 4 level analysis. Dd12 does well in grammar, but diagramming is very difficult for her, she can never remember what exactly she's supposed to diagram. I was hoping that the 4 level analysis would help her straighten it out in her head, and I think that it is helping. I also chose MCT for the poetry, and foremost for the writing. At the beginning of the year I let her read as far as she wanted in each book except the practice book, just to get her excited, and that also worked. Now we are on week 5 of a lesson plan that I borrowed from the MCT yahoo site, and it's going well. Now, I may get tomatos thrown at me, but she does MCT, mostly independantly right now. I tell her how far to read for the week, what she will be expected to know by Friday and any assignments I give her for that lesson, then we have a meeting on Friday to discuss the weeks assignment and make sure there is retention. So far it is working fine, though I do anticipate having to have more involvement in the future. The things I don't like about MCT are that you can't just look up a concept like you can in other programs as easily, but my biggest problem is with the lack of guidance to the teacher via lesson plans, but I have managed to muddle through that part of it my 'borrowing' lesson plans from the MCT yahoo site. All in all, I like MCT. I am still up in the air as to whether or not I would use it below the Voyage level because of the teacher involvement, I can't imagine having the time to sit and do this with all 4 dc, which would be 3 levels.

[Capt_Uhura]

You're conflating two things. "To pay" is a transitive verb. It can and does have both DOs and IOs. It's just that it can have an IO without a DO, which MCT and most other grammar texts say can never happen.

 

:lol: I mis-typed. Well actually, I left out an entire sentence! :lol: What I meant by some of you think this is not true.....I didn't define what "this" was! I meant you feel that it isn't true that a TRANSITIVE verb can not have an IO w/out a DO. My confusion is that I'm just fine w/ understood DOs but from what you're saying, the grammar community is not. :001_huh:

[8filltheheart]

I can't, because I've never seen one anywhere, as none of the English grammar books I've ever seen address this. To come up with the ones I did, I thought of which verbs in Spanish tend to go with "le". The only ones I could think of off hand were pay and tell... I'm sure there are a few more, but I'm thinking it can't be that many. The point is that they do exist!

 

I thought 8FillstheHeart said she'd seen a list of those somewhere on the other thread where we were discussing this, but I may be imagining that...

 

The grammarian that actually taught me that IOs exist w/o DOs (I couldn't wrap my head around it at first) posted a list on the forum. I did a quick search of the board and couldn't find it in the archives. (The conversation took place probably w/in the first couple of weeks to conversion to the new board format in 08)

 

Off the top of my head, some examples I remember her writing:

 

The mother fed the children. (she fed them food)

The horse jumped the fence. (it jumps over the fence)

The bell signaled us. (it signaled a warning)

 

There were more, but I can't remember them all off the top of my head. And as you have witnessed......I am living in brain fog these days. :tongue_smilie: If I remember more, I'll edit and post them.

[TKDmom]

The grammarian that actually taught me that IOs exist w/o DOs (I couldn't wrap my head around it at first) posted a list on the forum. I did a quick search of the board and couldn't find it in the archives. (The conversation took place probably w/in the first couple of weeks to conversion to the new board format in 08)

 

Off the top of my head, some examples I remember her writing:

 

The mother fed the children. (she fed them food)

The horse jumped the fence. (it jumps over the fence)

The bell signaled us. (it signaled a warning)

 

There were more, but I can't remember them all off the top of my head. And as you have witnessed......I am living in brain fog these days. :tongue_smilie: If I remember more, I'll edit and post them.

 

These discussions are why I'm addicted to the forums. :lol: I've been thinking about this all night. I have no idea what transitive and intransitive verbs are. :blush:

[Kuovonne]

I can't, because I've never seen one anywhere, as none of the English grammar books I've ever seen address this.

 

The grammarian that actually taught me that IOs exist w/o DOs (I couldn't wrap my head around it at first) posted a list on the forum. I did a quick search of the board and couldn't find it in the archives.

 

Thanks. I'm trying to get a handle on this concept of an indirect object without a direct object. I'm still not completely convinced. I tend to think of your examples as situations where the verb has multiple meanings, rather than there being an implied direct object. For example, some verbs can be transitive in some sentences, and intransitive in others, yet when used intransitively there is no implied direct object.

 

For example, in my DD's dictionary, there are multiple definitions for the verb "tell." One is "to relate in detail," such as "tell a story." Another definition is "to report to," such as "tell your parent." With this definition, I don't see a missing or implied direct object. What is "reported to" is a person, not the thing said.

 

The definition of "feed" is "to give food to" and also "to give as food." So, with the former definition, I would expect the person who gets to eat is the direct object. In the latter, I would expect the thing eaten as the direct object.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Kuovonne

[1Togo]

Addition to First Post

 

We have finished the Level 2 grammar book and are now working with the grammar in the writing book and the practice book. Even though we have used other grammar programs, dd did not retain most of it. The 4-level analysis is working for her. We started Latin I this year, but learning a language that uses endings to indicate word function is difficult when the student struggles with parts of speech and sentences, so we put the Latin aside to work on grammar skills. I teach punctuation that isn't included in MCT through dd's writing. As mentioned in my first post, we are using WWE to develop narration and dictation skills, and dd is writing history narrations as well. The combination of MCT and SWB's ideas makes this our best year for English.

Edited October 15, 2010 by 1Togo

[8filltheheart]

Thanks. I'm trying to get a handle on this concept of an indirect object without a direct object. I'm still not completely convinced. I tend to think of your examples as situations where the verb has multiple meanings, rather than there being an implied direct object. For example, some verbs can be transitive in some sentences, and intransitive in others, yet when used intransitively there is no implied direct object.

 

For example, in my DD's dictionary, there are multiple definitions for the verb "tell." One is "to relate in detail," such as "tell a story." Another definition is "to report to," such as "tell your parent." With this definition, I don't see a missing or implied direct object. What is "reported to" is a person, not the thing said.

 

The definition of "feed" is "to give food to" and also "to give as food." So, with the former definition, I would expect the person who gets to eat is the direct object. In the latter, I would expect the thing eaten as the direct object.

 

I actually went through the exact same thought processes when she was persuading me to actually listen to what she was saying. I did not accept her instruction easily. :tongue_smilie: I was looking at the fact that many verbs incorporate preps into their definitions and wondering if that altered how the transitive form worked.

 

It boiled down to simply understanding the transmission of the action. Once I "heard" what she was saying, a light bulb went off and I realized that I had been looking at it the wrong way.

 

We have been conditioned to ask "who or what " after the action verb. But that is not what it really means for a verb to be transitive. In order to be directly receiving the action, the action of the verb must be directly transferred to the object.

 

For example,

 

I threw James the ball. (what I actually threw was the ball and James indirectly receives the action)

 

Mom fed the children a hearty soup. (the soup is being fed to the children, so soup is the DO and children the IO)

 

You cannot remove the DO from the first sentence and have the sentence retain the same meaning. I threw James would mean that I literally threw James.

 

However, in the second sentence, Mom fed the children still remains understandable. The action didn't suddenly transfer from the soup to the children. Children are still receiving the feeding of the food indirectly. If not, the sentence would be like the first example and the children would be directly receiving the action. (like Mom fed the snake the mouse)

 

For me, it was finally recognizing that there is a direct transmission of the action onto the DO and not simply asking who or what after the verb that I finally understood what she was saying.

 

FWIW.....This is how she explained it to me. Since I am self-educated in grammar and she was a graduate level grammarian, I do respect her logic over the who/what approach.:tongue_smilie:

Edited October 15, 2010 by 8FillTheHeart

[Joyful]

OK. I'm signing in here.

 

Which level and components are you using?

Island Level

 

How's it going?

We did RS grade 3 last year, so there's been quite a bit of

review. Though DS doesn't rate MCT a 10, he says that he

wished we did this last year instead!

 

Are you supplementing, with what?

Not supplementing

 

Is this your first experience with MCT?

Yes!