Staceyshoe Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 We're about to make the switch to MCT, but I would like to continue with traditional diagramming. What do you suggest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dana Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Rex Barks It gives the info on how to diagram and you can then diagram the practice sentences from MCT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TKDmom Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Rex Barks It gives the info on how to diagram and you can then diagram the practice sentences from MCT. :iagree: That's exactly what I did. I love the tone in Rex Barks. She manages to insert a dry, witty humor into it. Maybe it's just me--I can't figure out how a diagramming book could be amusing--but I always chuckle as I'm reading through it. My (then) 9yo dd used to pick it up and read it. I think it was designed for high school, but it's very readable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Has anyone used "Drawing Sentences" by Eugene Moutoux? I know he did the diagramming for book "Sister Bernadette's Barking Dog." The information on his website is interesting: http://www.german-latin-english.com/diagrams.htm As far as "Rex Barks" goes, is there obvious (or non-obvious) Objectivist content in the book? I get concerned when I see books published by Paper Tiger Press (the approved publishing house of the Ayn Rand Institute) and that the forward is written by a leading Objectivist, Lisa Van Damme. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dana Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Has anyone used "Drawing Sentences" by Eugene Moutoux? I know he did the diagramming for book "Sister Bernadette's Barking Dog." The information on his website is interesting: http://www.german-latin-english.com/diagrams.htm As far as "Rex Barks" goes, is there obvious (or non-obvious) Objectivist content in the book? I get concerned when I see books published by Paper Tiger Press (the approved publishing house of the Ayn Rand Institute) and that the forward is written by a leading Objectivist, Lisa Van Damme. Bill I haven't noticed anything Randian. It seems like a straightforward diagramming book. Sister bernadette's bark king dog is neat, but Rex Barks shows how to diagram much more explicitly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TKDmom Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 As far as "Rex Barks" goes, is there obvious (or non-obvious) Objectivist content in the book? I get concerned when I see books published by Paper Tiger Press (the approved publishing house of the Ayn Rand Institute) and that the forward is written by a leading Objectivist, Lisa Van Damme. I haven't noticed any, but I tend to be somewhat oblivious to bias in books. (The Fountainhead and Evil History Books both make me cringe, but things in the middle of that continuum are harder for me to see). The text itself sticks to grammar. The example sentences seem to be pretty innocuous. Sometimes they are famous quotes or sayings. I'll pick out a few at random for you: The dog that followed me was wagging its tail. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Rex smelled the stranger. The truth is that I am penniless. Whither thou goest, I will go. Before Bill arrived, we hid behind a sofa. Some people do not have the sense to come in out of the rain. Hope that helps some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beth in SW WA Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I use GWG w/ MCT. I want daily/weekly diagramming w/ MCT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) I haven't noticed anything Randian. It seems like a straightforward diagramming book.Sister bernadette's bark king dog is neat, but Rex Barks shows how to diagram much more explicitly. I enjoyed reading Sister Bernadette's, but agree it was more of a fun tribute to diagramming rather than a "how to." I was also somewhat disappointed to discover the author had farmed out the diagrams in the book, rather than them being her work. That's when I looked up Eugene Moutoux who actually did the diagramming for the book. He has his own website (linked in previous post) and this is his book: http://www.butlerbooks.com/drsegutodi.html I just don't know anyone who has used it. Thank you for the information on Rex Barks. Bill Edited November 3, 2011 by Spy Car Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I haven't noticed any, but I tend to be somewhat oblivious to bias in books. (The Fountainhead and Evil History Books both make me cringe, but things in the middle of that continuum are harder for me to see). I think I've become somewhat paranoid about the intrusion of "worldview" materials in seemingly innocuous subjects over the years. I started out being very naive about these things but have been burned too many times to not be suspicious that authors of homeschool materials might have an agenda beyond the straight-forward subject at hand. I hope you know what I mean. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TKDmom Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I think I've become somewhat paranoid about the intrusion of "worldview" materials in seemingly innocuous subjects over the years. I started out being very naive about these things but have been burned too many times to not be suspicious that authors of homeschool materials might have an agenda beyond the straight-forward subject at hand. I hope you know what I mean. Bill Yes, I understand what you are talking about. If it's any help, the author is a public school teacher who wrote this book to teach diagramming to her own students. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Yes, I understand what you are talking about. If it's any help, the author is a public school teacher who wrote this book to teach diagramming to her own students. Actually, the author runs a private Montessori school in southern CA. http://www.vandammeacademy.com/faculty.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplain Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Actually, the author runs a private Montessori school in southern CA. http://www.vandammeacademy.com/faculty.htm No, VanDamme is not the author. She wrote the introduction. Phyllis Davenport is the author. She was a public school teacher, and is now retired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Actually, the author runs a private Montessori school in southern CA. http://www.vandammeacademy.com/faculty.htm Lisa VanDamme is not the author of Rex Barks, she wrote the foreword. Her school is not a Montessori school, it is an Objectivist school. She is a follower of Ayn Rand. Hence my concerns. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TKDmom Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) ETA: I see everyone else answered the comment on Lisa VanDamme before me. So to get back to the original question.... Here's another diagramming resource that I've had recommended to me. Diagramming Sentences by Mark Twain Media. It's more of a workbook, where Rex Barks is non-consumable. Edited November 3, 2011 by bonniebeth4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplain Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Her school is not a Montessori school, it is an Objectivist school. Well, to be fair, her website says it is a Montessori school. Not having first-hand experience with the school, it might be difficult to argue about whether or not the Montessori label is accurate. ;) However, taking into account the founder's published writings, I'll split the difference and guess that it is a blend of Montessori methods with Objectivist philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Ooooops. Sorry. I thought she was the author. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Well, to be fair, her website says it is a Montessori school. Not having first-hand experience with the school, it might be difficult to argue about whether or not the Montessori label is accurate. ;) However, taking into account the founder's published writings, I'll split the difference and guess that it is a blend of Montessori methods with Objectivist philosophy. Unfortunately Objectivists are not always upfront about their affiliations. It is part of the cultic aspects of Ayn Randianism. Lisa VanDamme's alligence to Rand and Objectivist principles is easy enough to establish with a Google search. It reaffirms my suspicions about "hidden agendas" when people, like VanDamme, try to hide the truth about their ideological ties. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) She isn't hiding her affiliation at all. She contributes articles to The Objective Standard site. I know what you mean though. I am having loads of trouble seeking out secular materials. edit: This is it (Capitalism Magazine). http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/author/author414 Edited November 3, 2011 by Roadrunner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 She isn't hiding her affiliation at all. She contributes articles to The Objective Standard site. I know what you mean though. I am having loads of trouble seeking out secular materials. It is very (very) easy to find her Objectivist affiliations with a little "detective work," but if one looks at her school's website under "Philosophy" one will find no mention of Objectivism or Ayn Rand. And this is what I mean about hiding agendas, when she clearly has one. The school is run on Objectivist principles but there is no mention of this in the schools philosophical statement. I find this duplicitous. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowperch Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I wrote off Ayn Rand in college, and have not thought about her since. I am really curious about how this philosophy affects grammar. I don't get it, but I am curious. I own Rex Barks, but we haven't needed it yet. Fill me in, please. I could use a mini intellectual road trip today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I wrote off Ayn Rand in college, and have not thought about her since. I am really curious about how this philosophy affects grammar. I don't get it, but I am curious. I own Rex Barks, but we haven't needed it yet. Fill me in, please. I could use a mini intellectual road trip today Perfect. Since you have the book and need a "mini intellectual road trip" maybe you can read it and fill us in :D Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowperch Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 You're on. I'll report back later. The problem is that my only thought about AR harkens back to college in 1989, and it this useless and obvious tidbit: annoyingly contrarian college girls and their smelly beaus like her. So let's see..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beth in SW WA Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 It is part of the cultic aspects of Ayn Randianism. Bill Big Ayn Rand fan here. I'm fascinated that a grammar supplement could be considered controversial. Oh, I love this board. :) :bigear::bigear::bigear: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Five More Minutes Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Hmmm ... I just completed Rex Barks as a self-education project, and am struggling to find anything objectionable (or Objectivist) about it. Based on the author's 1999 preface, she wrote the book in '76 to use with her high school English class. At the time of writing the preface, she had noted that her last stack of books had been snatched up by a local network of homeschoolers. (Perhaps that is how / when Lisa VanDamme, who wrote an introduction in 2003, picked up on it?) It's a delightful book, written by someone who seems to relish illuminating the thorny problems of the English language. If there is a hidden agenda, I believe it is obscured to the point of invisibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.