Fronted adverbials

[HVS]

Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical terms
(one of which is "fronted adverbial").

From a Guardian article:

(quote)

"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected children to be
able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4, when they are eight or
nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses” should be known and labelled
correctly from the age of seven, “determiners” from age eight, and “modal
verbs” and “relative clauses” from age nine."

(/quote)

I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons would
be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I suspect the
curriculum is making some sort of link between "correctly naming
grammatical elements" and "using the language competently".

I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think being able
to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved either my reading
comprehension or my writing skills, any more than knowing the names of
bones and muscles would have made me better at running.

http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n
which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sats-
grammar-test-primary

[Whiskers]

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical
terms (one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected children
to be able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4, when they
are eight or nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses” should be
known and labelled correctly from the age of seven,
“determiners” from age eight, and “modal verbs” and
“relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons
would be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I
suspect the curriculum is making some sort of link between "correctly
naming grammatical elements" and "using the language competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think being
able to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved either my
reading comprehension or my writing skills, any more than knowing the
names of bones and muscles would have made me better at running.
http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sats-
grammar-test-primary

I can remember learning about verbs and nouns and adjectives in the
1950s. I was always a bit woolly over adverbs (why have different names
for a thing depending on what it's doing?). I get the impression that
the 'naming of parts' has changed since then, although the parts
themselves haven't - they just don't fit the new names any better than
they did the old ones. What I really came away with from my early
'grammar' lessons, is that almost everything is an exception.

I learnt to read at home while getting over some childhood illness or
other at age six, not at school. My first reading material was the King
James Bible, rapidly augmented by the Daily Telegraph and the Observer.
I could run rings around the English teacher when I got back to school.
It took another couple of years for 'them' to realise I couldn't see the
blackboard from where I sat (or indeed from any seat in the room) so
even in those halcyon days I suppose the teachers were thinking more
about tests and forms than about actual children.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Whiskers

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical
terms (one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected children
to be able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4, when they
are eight or nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses” should be
known and labelled correctly from the age of seven,
“determiners” from age eight, and “modal verbs” and
“relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons
would be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I
suspect the curriculum is making some sort of link between "correctly
naming grammatical elements" and "using the language competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think being
able to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved either my
reading comprehension or my writing skills, any more than knowing the
names of bones and muscles would have made me better at running.
http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sats-
grammar-test-primary

I can remember learning about verbs and nouns and adjectives in the
1950s. I was always a bit woolly over adverbs (why have different names
for a thing depending on what it's doing?).

Because traditional "adverb" is not a natural class. A better label would have
been "miscellaneous," and when objective studies of English grammar were carried
out in the 1930s, and the Latin straitjacked was discarded, about half a dozen different
"parts of speech" were identified in the "adverb" grab bag.

You were clearly a very perceptive lad.

Post by Whiskers
I get the impression that
the 'naming of parts' has changed since then, although the parts
themselves haven't - they just don't fit the new names any better than
they did the old ones.

Of course they do. The "new names" were devised to fit the categories, rather
than the other way round.

Post by Whiskers
What I really came away with from my early
'grammar' lessons, is that almost everything is an exception.
I learnt to read at home while getting over some childhood illness or
other at age six, not at school. My first reading material was the King
James Bible, rapidly augmented by the Daily Telegraph and the Observer.
I could run rings around the English teacher when I got back to school.
It took another couple of years for 'them' to realise I couldn't see the
blackboard from where I sat (or indeed from any seat in the room) so
even in those halcyon days I suppose the teachers were thinking more
about tests and forms than about actual children.

[LFS]

Post by Whiskers

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical
terms (one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected children
to be able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4, when they
are eight or nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses” should be
known and labelled correctly from the age of seven,
“determiners” from age eight, and “modal verbs” and
“relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons
would be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I
suspect the curriculum is making some sort of link between "correctly
naming grammatical elements" and "using the language competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think being
able to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved either my
reading comprehension or my writing skills, any more than knowing the
names of bones and muscles would have made me better at running.
http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sats-
grammar-test-primary

I can remember learning about verbs and nouns and adjectives in the
1950s. I was always a bit woolly over adverbs (why have different names
for a thing depending on what it's doing?). I get the impression that
the 'naming of parts' has changed since then, although the parts
themselves haven't - they just don't fit the new names any better than
they did the old ones. What I really came away with from my early
'grammar' lessons, is that almost everything is an exception.
I learnt to read at home while getting over some childhood illness or
other at age six, not at school. My first reading material was the King
James Bible, rapidly augmented by the Daily Telegraph and the Observer.
I could run rings around the English teacher when I got back to school.
It took another couple of years for 'them' to realise I couldn't see the
blackboard from where I sat (or indeed from any seat in the room) so
even in those halcyon days I suppose the teachers were thinking more
about tests and forms than about actual children.

I learned to read at age three by some form of magical osmosis that my
parents never worked out. Our daughter did the same. (I think it has to
do with innate nosiness and wanting to know what secrets other people
are finding in the patterns on a page.) But if we were taught English
grammar at school it passed me by completely - I was probably reading a
book under the desk in those lessons. I remember only one mention of
grammar in an English lesson when I was about fourteen: our charismatic
teacher talked briefly about gerunds (I didn't understand any of it) and
then went on to read us Dylan Thomas which was much more interesting.

I think I learned the difference between a noun and an adjective when I
started Latin at eleven. I've learned a lot about the names of parts of
speech etc from puzzling over aue posts over the years. But I have
always managed to write quite competently without any of the technical
knowledge which now seems to be expected of young children these days.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by LFS

Post by Whiskers

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical
terms (one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected children
to be able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4, when they
are eight or nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses” should be
known and labelled correctly from the age of seven,
“determiners” from age eight, and “modal verbs” and
“relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons
would be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I
suspect the curriculum is making some sort of link between "correctly
naming grammatical elements" and "using the language competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think being
able to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved either my
reading comprehension or my writing skills, any more than knowing the
names of bones and muscles would have made me better at running.
http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sats-
grammar-test-primary

I can remember learning about verbs and nouns and adjectives in the
1950s. I was always a bit woolly over adverbs (why have different names
for a thing depending on what it's doing?). I get the impression that
the 'naming of parts' has changed since then, although the parts
themselves haven't - they just don't fit the new names any better than
they did the old ones. What I really came away with from my early
'grammar' lessons, is that almost everything is an exception.
I learnt to read at home while getting over some childhood illness or
other at age six, not at school. My first reading material was the King
James Bible, rapidly augmented by the Daily Telegraph and the Observer.
I could run rings around the English teacher when I got back to school.
It took another couple of years for 'them' to realise I couldn't see the
blackboard from where I sat (or indeed from any seat in the room) so
even in those halcyon days I suppose the teachers were thinking more
about tests and forms than about actual children.

I learned to read at age three by some form of magical osmosis that my
parents never worked out. Our daughter did the same. (I think it has to
do with innate nosiness and wanting to know what secrets other people
are finding in the patterns on a page.) But if we were taught English
grammar at school it passed me by completely - I was probably reading a
book under the desk in those lessons. I remember only one mention of
grammar in an English lesson when I was about fourteen: our charismatic
teacher talked briefly about gerunds (I didn't understand any of it) and
then went on to read us Dylan Thomas which was much more interesting.
I think I learned the difference between a noun and an adjective when I
started Latin at eleven. I've learned a lot about the names of parts of
speech etc from puzzling over aue posts over the years. But I have
always managed to write quite competently without any of the technical
knowledge which now seems to be expected of young children these days.

And now I've looked up what "fronted adverbial" is supposed to mean, I
wonder why it was thought necessary to find a special name for it.
Changing word order to change emphasis is common to many languages.

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Robert Bannister
And now I've looked up what "fronted adverbial" is supposed to mean, I
wonder why it was thought necessary to find a special name for it.
Changing word order to change emphasis is common to many languages.

If something is so common to many languages,
this makes it even more important to have a name for it!

(In English, one reason to have a name for it would be to be
able to refer to it in rules about comma usage.)

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Stefan Ram

Post by Robert Bannister
And now I've looked up what "fronted adverbial" is supposed to mean, I
wonder why it was thought necessary to find a special name for it.
Changing word order to change emphasis is common to many languages.

If something is so common to many languages,
this makes it even more important to have a name for it!
(In English, one reason to have a name for it would be to be
able to refer to it in rules about comma usage.)

There are no rules about comma usage in English, although there are a
number of sometimes conflicting style guides.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Robert Bannister
And now I've looked up what "fronted adverbial" is supposed to mean,
I wonder why it was thought necessary to find a special name for it.

Note that the article describes the adverbial expression as having
been "moved" to the front of the sentence. It sounds as if somone
thinks there is something unnatural about that. Hence -- ObParanoia
-- the next thing they're going to do is announce that it's been
banned. Compare "split infinitive" (another term that refers to
putting an adverb in its normal position) and "jaywalking" (otherwise
called crossing the street).

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Robert Bannister
And now I've looked up what "fronted adverbial" is supposed to mean,
I wonder why it was thought necessary to find a special name for it.

Note that the article describes the adverbial expression as having
been "moved" to the front of the sentence. It sounds as if somone
thinks there is something unnatural about that. Hence -- ObParanoia
-- the next thing they're going to do is announce that it's been
banned. Compare "split infinitive" (another term that refers to
putting an adverb in its normal position)

What annoys me about "split infinitive" is the use of that phrase to
describe a "splitting" of something that is not infinitive.

Post by Mark Brader
and "jaywalking" (otherwise
called crossing the street).

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Robert Bannister
And now I've looked up what "fronted adverbial" is supposed to mean,
I wonder why it was thought necessary to find a special name for it.

Note that the article describes the adverbial expression as having
been "moved" to the front of the sentence.

Which I'd describe as being moved back. It seems to be one of those
perception-of-time things--I'm moving through the sentence, and those
linguists see the sentence coming toward them.

Post by Mark Brader
It sounds as if somone
thinks there is something unnatural about that. Hence -- ObParanoia
-- the next thing they're going to do is announce that it's been
banned. Compare "split infinitive" (another term that refers to
putting an adverb in its normal position)

If the normal position of an adverb that modifies a verb is next to what
it modifies, then there is something unnatural about having it at the
beginning of a sentence.

Post by Mark Brader
and "jaywalking" (otherwise
called crossing the street).

Jaywalking is crossing the street illegally, just as running a red light
is driving illegally and battery is moving your hands illegally.

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Robert Bannister
And now I've looked up what "fronted adverbial" is supposed to mean,
I wonder why it was thought necessary to find a special name for it.

Note that the article describes the adverbial expression as having
been "moved" to the front of the sentence.

Which I'd describe as being moved back. It seems to be one of those
perception-of-time things--I'm moving through the sentence, and those
linguists see the sentence coming toward them.

Post by Mark Brader
It sounds as if somone
thinks there is something unnatural about that. Hence -- ObParanoia
-- the next thing they're going to do is announce that it's been
banned. Compare "split infinitive" (another term that refers to
putting an adverb in its normal position)

If the normal position of an adverb that modifies a verb is next to what
it modifies, then there is something unnatural about having it at the
beginning of a sentence.

That's what prompted me to ask whether a fronted adverbial is not just a sentence adverb, as by being placed at the beginning of a sentence, the adverb(ial) modifies all the verbs in the sentence, and not just the one it's contiguous to.

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Mark Brader
and "jaywalking" (otherwise
called crossing the street).

Jaywalking is crossing the street illegally, just as running a red light
is driving illegally and battery is moving your hands illegally.
--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Robert Bannister
And now I've looked up what "fronted adverbial" is supposed to mean,
I wonder why it was thought necessary to find a special name for it.

Note that the article describes the adverbial expression as having
been "moved" to the front of the sentence.

Which I'd describe as being moved back. It seems to be one of those
perception-of-time things--I'm moving through the sentence, and those
linguists see the sentence coming toward them.

What's even worse is the Chomskyans who insist that fronting a constituent is
"leftward movement." You'd think they would have abandoned such locutions when
they finally got around to applying their theories to Hebrew (eventually they
even discovered Arabic).

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Mark Brader
It sounds as if somone
thinks there is something unnatural about that. Hence -- ObParanoia
-- the next thing they're going to do is announce that it's been
banned. Compare "split infinitive" (another term that refers to
putting an adverb in its normal position)

If the normal position of an adverb that modifies a verb is next to what
it modifies, then there is something unnatural about having it at the
beginning of a sentence.

All the examples that were given -- quoted from the discussion? -- did indeed seem unnatural.

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Mark Brader
and "jaywalking" (otherwise
called crossing the street).

Jaywalking is crossing the street illegally, just as running a red light
is driving illegally and battery is moving your hands illegally.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Mark Brader
Note that the article describes the adverbial expression as having
been "moved" to the front of the sentence.

Which I'd describe as being moved back. It seems to be one of those
perception-of-time things--I'm moving through the sentence, and those
linguists see the sentence coming toward them.

It's sort of like the issue of which motion is scrolling "up" when
viewing a document online.

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Mark Brader
It sounds as if somone
thinks there is something unnatural about that. Hence -- ObParanoia
-- the next thing they're going to do is announce that it's been
banned. Compare "split infinitive" (another term that refers to
putting an adverb in its normal position)

If the normal position of an adverb that modifies a verb is next to what
it modifies, then there is something unnatural about having it at the
beginning of a sentence.

Adverbs have several normal positions.

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Mark Brader
and "jaywalking" (otherwise called crossing the street).

Jaywalking is crossing the street illegally...

There, see? They invented the word and now you have the concept that
there could be such a thing as "crossing the street illegally".

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Robert Bannister
And now I've looked up what "fronted adverbial" is supposed to mean,
I wonder why it was thought necessary to find a special name for it.

Note that the article describes the adverbial expression as having
been "moved" to the front of the sentence. It sounds as if somone
thinks there is something unnatural about that.

Apparently some theoreticians thought that there was something
unnatural about questions like

"What do you like eating?"

because the "what" had been "moved" from its "natural" position:

"You like eating what?"

Maybe they still do, but I always found it absurd.

If your blood pressure can stand it, read the Wikipedia article on
"Trace (linguistics)".

Post by Mark Brader
Hence -- ObParanoia
-- the next thing they're going to do is announce that it's been
banned. Compare "split infinitive" (another term that refers to
putting an adverb in its normal position) and "jaywalking" (otherwise
called crossing the street).

[Ross]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Robert Bannister
And now I've looked up what "fronted adverbial" is supposed to mean,
I wonder why it was thought necessary to find a special name for it.

Note that the article describes the adverbial expression as having
been "moved" to the front of the sentence. It sounds as if somone
thinks there is something unnatural about that.

Apparently some theoreticians thought that there was something
unnatural about questions like
"What do you like eating?"
"You like eating what?"
Maybe they still do, but I always found it absurd.

It certainly is, the way you tell it. But in fact they did not
think there was anything unnatural about the first question.
They observed, though, that "what" in this question is, in some
real sense, the object of "eat", and that objects in English normally
follow the verb. In fact, as your second question shows, the "what"
can actually occur in this position, though only for emphasis.
Certain things can be neatly accounted for by assuming that such words
start out in this position and are (usually) moved to the beginning
of the sentence -- for example, where to use "whom" and where not.
If the movement idea is repugnant to you, there are other ways of
dealing with the same facts.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
If your blood pressure can stand it, read the Wikipedia article on
"Trace (linguistics)".

Why should anyone get so agitated about a theory? Even if it's wrong?

[Adam Funk]

Post by Ross

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
If your blood pressure can stand it, read the Wikipedia article on
"Trace (linguistics)".

Why should anyone get so agitated about a theory? Even if it's wrong?

Are you new here?!?

:-P

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Ross

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
If your blood pressure can stand it, read the Wikipedia article on
"Trace (linguistics)".

Why should anyone get so agitated about a theory? Even if it's wrong?

Are you new here?!?

Wrong theories ya us.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Robert Bannister
And now I've looked up what "fronted adverbial" is supposed to mean,
I wonder why it was thought necessary to find a special name for it.

Note that the article describes the adverbial expression as having
been "moved" to the front of the sentence. It sounds as if somone
thinks there is something unnatural about that.

Apparently some theoreticians thought that there was something
unnatural about questions like
"What do you like eating?"

No; because the expression is "What do you like to eat?"

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
"You like eating what?"
Maybe they still do, but I always found it absurd.

I have to wonder why you think the introduction of transformations suggests
that the kernel sentence is "unnatural."

[the Omrud]

Post by LFS
I learned to read at age three by some form of magical osmosis that my
parents never worked out. Our daughter did the same. (I think it has to
do with innate nosiness and wanting to know what secrets other people
are finding in the patterns on a page.) But if we were taught English
grammar at school it passed me by completely - I was probably reading a
book under the desk in those lessons. I remember only one mention of
grammar in an English lesson when I was about fourteen: our charismatic
teacher talked briefly about gerunds (I didn't understand any of it) and
then went on to read us Dylan Thomas which was much more interesting.
I think I learned the difference between a noun and an adjective when I
started Latin at eleven. I've learned a lot about the names of parts of
speech etc from puzzling over aue posts over the years. But I have
always managed to write quite competently without any of the technical
knowledge which now seems to be expected of young children these days.

We did the Nuffield Latin course, which required little or no grammar
knowledge (the course taught us to read and understand Latin, but not to
construct sentences in it, since one meets so few Ancient Romans these
days). It was only when I started Russian at age 13 that I discovered
declensions (I already spoke good French but that's not much more
complicated than English). Russian has six declined forms of each noun,
which shook me for a while.

[LFS]

Post by the Omrud

Post by LFS
I learned to read at age three by some form of magical osmosis that my
parents never worked out. Our daughter did the same. (I think it has to
do with innate nosiness and wanting to know what secrets other people
are finding in the patterns on a page.) But if we were taught English
grammar at school it passed me by completely - I was probably reading a
book under the desk in those lessons. I remember only one mention of
grammar in an English lesson when I was about fourteen: our charismatic
teacher talked briefly about gerunds (I didn't understand any of it) and
then went on to read us Dylan Thomas which was much more interesting.
I think I learned the difference between a noun and an adjective when I
started Latin at eleven. I've learned a lot about the names of parts of
speech etc from puzzling over aue posts over the years. But I have
always managed to write quite competently without any of the technical
knowledge which now seems to be expected of young children these days.

We did the Nuffield Latin course, which required little or no grammar
knowledge (the course taught us to read and understand Latin, but not to
construct sentences in it, since one meets so few Ancient Romans these
days).

We did proper Latin, ridiculous conversations, translating both ways,
Caesar's Gallic Wars and some Virgil which was less boring. Both our
children also did Latin but a very watered down version.

It was only when I started Russian at age 13 that I discovered

Post by the Omrud
declensions (I already spoke good French but that's not much more
complicated than English). Russian has six declined forms of each noun,
which shook me for a while.

I loved learning Russian, it made more sense to me than any other
language. I passed O level but have forgotten most of it. One of my
retirement projects is to get back up to speed so that I can read Tolstoy.

[the Omrud]

Post by LFS

Post by the Omrud
We did the Nuffield Latin course, which required little or no grammar
knowledge (the course taught us to read and understand Latin, but not to
construct sentences in it, since one meets so few Ancient Romans these
days).

We did proper Latin, ridiculous conversations, translating both ways,
Caesar's Gallic Wars and some Virgil which was less boring. Both our
children also did Latin but a very watered down version.

Post by the Omrud
It was only when I started Russian at age 13 that I discovered
declensions (I already spoke good French but that's not much more
complicated than English). Russian has six declined forms of each noun,
which shook me for a while.

I loved learning Russian, it made more sense to me than any other
language. I passed O level but have forgotten most of it. One of my
retirement projects is to get back up to speed so that I can read Tolstoy.

Eeek, that's a lot of speed to get back up to. I remember a little of
my O-level Russian and was able to impose it on the citizens of St
Petersburg last spring.

[John Varela]

Post by LFS

Post by the Omrud

Post by LFS
I learned to read at age three by some form of magical osmosis that my
parents never worked out. Our daughter did the same. (I think it has to
do with innate nosiness and wanting to know what secrets other people
are finding in the patterns on a page.) But if we were taught English
grammar at school it passed me by completely - I was probably reading a
book under the desk in those lessons. I remember only one mention of
grammar in an English lesson when I was about fourteen: our charismatic
teacher talked briefly about gerunds (I didn't understand any of it) and
then went on to read us Dylan Thomas which was much more interesting.
I think I learned the difference between a noun and an adjective when I
started Latin at eleven. I've learned a lot about the names of parts of
speech etc from puzzling over aue posts over the years. But I have
always managed to write quite competently without any of the technical
knowledge which now seems to be expected of young children these days.

We did the Nuffield Latin course, which required little or no grammar
knowledge (the course taught us to read and understand Latin, but not to
construct sentences in it, since one meets so few Ancient Romans these
days).

We did proper Latin, ridiculous conversations, translating both ways,
Caesar's Gallic Wars and some Virgil which was less boring. Both our
children also did Latin but a very watered down version.
It was only when I started Russian at age 13 that I discovered

Post by the Omrud
declensions (I already spoke good French but that's not much more
complicated than English). Russian has six declined forms of each noun,
which shook me for a while.

I loved learning Russian, it made more sense to me than any other
language. I passed O level but have forgotten most of it. One of my
retirement projects is to get back up to speed so that I can read Tolstoy.

We had grammar in the upper elementary or jr. high grades. I didn't
really understand it until I started learning Spanish in 9th grade
in high school, when there were quite a few Aha! moments.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by the Omrud
We did the Nuffield Latin course, which required little or no grammar
knowledge (the course taught us to read and understand Latin, but not to
construct sentences in it, since one meets so few Ancient Romans these
days). It was only when I started Russian at age 13 that I discovered
declensions (I already spoke good French but that's not much more
complicated than English). Russian has six declined forms of each noun,
which shook me for a while.

I have a little book -- reprinted within my lifetime -- called "Unseen Translation"
into Latin. Apparently at the turn of the last century schoolboys had to compose in
Latin and Greek.

[the Omrud]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by the Omrud
We did the Nuffield Latin course, which required little or no grammar
knowledge (the course taught us to read and understand Latin, but not to
construct sentences in it, since one meets so few Ancient Romans these
days). It was only when I started Russian at age 13 that I discovered
declensions (I already spoke good French but that's not much more
complicated than English). Russian has six declined forms of each noun,
which shook me for a while.

I have a little book -- reprinted within my lifetime -- called "Unseen Translation"
into Latin. Apparently at the turn of the last century schoolboys had to compose in
Latin and Greek.

Well beyond that on this side. Possibly into the 1970s.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by the Omrud

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by the Omrud
We did the Nuffield Latin course, which required little or no grammar
knowledge (the course taught us to read and understand Latin, but not to
construct sentences in it, since one meets so few Ancient Romans these
days). It was only when I started Russian at age 13 that I discovered
declensions (I already spoke good French but that's not much more
complicated than English). Russian has six declined forms of each noun,
which shook me for a while.

I have a little book -- reprinted within my lifetime -- called "Unseen Translation"
into Latin. Apparently at the turn of the last century schoolboys had to compose in
Latin and Greek.

Well beyond that on this side. Possibly into the 1970s.

Even Greek?

[the Omrud]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by the Omrud

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by the Omrud
We did the Nuffield Latin course, which required little or no grammar
knowledge (the course taught us to read and understand Latin, but not to
construct sentences in it, since one meets so few Ancient Romans these
days). It was only when I started Russian at age 13 that I discovered
declensions (I already spoke good French but that's not much more
complicated than English). Russian has six declined forms of each noun,
which shook me for a while.

I have a little book -- reprinted within my lifetime -- called "Unseen Translation"
into Latin. Apparently at the turn of the last century schoolboys had to compose in
Latin and Greek.

Well beyond that on this side. Possibly into the 1970s.

Even Greek?

Greek was offered at my school (we could choose one of Russian, Greek or
German in what is now called Year 9). I strongly suspect that those who
took Greek (Ancient, of course), numbering 10 out of a year group of
150, were indeed required to compose into Greek, just as we were into
Russian. I am still in contact with one of the 10 - I'll ask him if I
remember next time we are communicating.

[LFS]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by the Omrud
We did the Nuffield Latin course, which required little or no grammar
knowledge (the course taught us to read and understand Latin, but not to
construct sentences in it, since one meets so few Ancient Romans these
days). It was only when I started Russian at age 13 that I discovered
declensions (I already spoke good French but that's not much more
complicated than English). Russian has six declined forms of each noun,
which shook me for a while.

I have a little book -- reprinted within my lifetime -- called "Unseen Translation"
into Latin. Apparently at the turn of the last century schoolboys had to compose in
Latin and Greek.

I can't see the connection between those two sentences. Unseen
translation can be in either direction and is not related to composition.

[b***@aol.com]

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by the Omrud
We did the Nuffield Latin course, which required little or no grammar
knowledge (the course taught us to read and understand Latin, but not to
construct sentences in it, since one meets so few Ancient Romans these
days). It was only when I started Russian at age 13 that I discovered
declensions (I already spoke good French but that's not much more
complicated than English). Russian has six declined forms of each noun,
which shook me for a while.

I have a little book -- reprinted within my lifetime -- called "Unseen Translation"
into Latin. Apparently at the turn of the last century schoolboys had to compose in
Latin and Greek.

I can't see the connection between those two sentences. Unseen
translation can be in either direction and is not related to composition.

A composition is supposed to be written "from scratch", so that
English-speaking students will have to do a Latin translation
of a text they've never *seen* before. This will therefore
be a mental, "on-the-spot" translation of what they would normally
express in English, as opposed to a "by-the-book" translation.

Post by LFS
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by the Omrud
We did the Nuffield Latin course, which required little or no grammar
knowledge (the course taught us to read and understand Latin, but not to
construct sentences in it, since one meets so few Ancient Romans these
days). It was only when I started Russian at age 13 that I discovered
declensions (I already spoke good French but that's not much more
complicated than English). Russian has six declined forms of each noun,
which shook me for a while.

I have a little book -- reprinted within my lifetime -- called "Unseen Translation"
into Latin. Apparently at the turn of the last century schoolboys had
to compose in Latin and Greek.

In verse yet.

Post by LFS
I can't see the connection between those two sentences. Unseen
translation can be in either direction and is not related to composition.

The phrase was previously unseen by me. This page suggests that it
means translation of a passage the translator (a student) hasn't seen
before, and gives some advice for students doing unseen translations
from Latin. "First thing: don't panic!"

https://www.mytutor.co.uk/answers/506/A-Level/Latin/How+do+I+face+an+unseen+translation+without+a+dictionary%253F

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by the Omrud
We did the Nuffield Latin course, which required little or no grammar
knowledge (the course taught us to read and understand Latin, but not to
construct sentences in it, since one meets so few Ancient Romans these
days). It was only when I started Russian at age 13 that I discovered
declensions (I already spoke good French but that's not much more
complicated than English). Russian has six declined forms of each noun,
which shook me for a while.

I have a little book -- reprinted within my lifetime -- called "Unseen Translation"
into Latin. Apparently at the turn of the last century schoolboys had to compose in
Latin and Greek.

I can't see the connection between those two sentences. Unseen
translation can be in either direction and is not related to composition.

That's not, however, how it's used in this little book. "Unseen" means 'not provided in advance'.

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I have a little book -- reprinted within my lifetime -- called

"Unseen Translation"

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels
into Latin. Apparently at the turn of the last century schoolboys

had to compose in

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Latin and Greek.

I can't see the connection between those two sentences. Unseen
translation can be in either direction and is not related to composition.

That's not, however, how it's used in this little book. "Unseen" means
'not provided in advance'.

Yes, but it doesn't mean "composition". Unseen translation is
translation of a piece that you haven't seen before. Composition
is making up a piece, not translating an existing one.

-- Richard

[LFS]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by the Omrud
We did the Nuffield Latin course, which required little or no grammar
knowledge (the course taught us to read and understand Latin, but not to
construct sentences in it, since one meets so few Ancient Romans these
days). It was only when I started Russian at age 13 that I discovered
declensions (I already spoke good French but that's not much more
complicated than English). Russian has six declined forms of each noun,
which shook me for a while.

I have a little book -- reprinted within my lifetime -- called "Unseen Translation"
into Latin. Apparently at the turn of the last century schoolboys had to compose in
Latin and Greek.

I can't see the connection between those two sentences. Unseen
translation can be in either direction and is not related to composition.

That's not, however, how it's used in this little book. "Unseen" means 'not provided in advance'.

Yes, I know that. Unseen translation can be from English into Latin or
vice versa. We were simply provided with a passage in either language
and left to translate it, sometimes as homework or in class against the
clock in preparation for exams.

No composition is involved (unless you have a different definition of
composition) so I still don't understand how your two sentences connect.

[the Omrud]

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I have a little book -- reprinted within my lifetime -- called
"Unseen Translation" into Latin. Apparently at the turn of the last century schoolboys
had to compose in Latin and Greek.

I can't see the connection between those two sentences. Unseen
translation can be in either direction and is not related to
composition.

That's not, however, how it's used in this little book. "Unseen" means
'not provided in advance'.

Yes, I know that. Unseen translation can be from English into Latin or
vice versa. We were simply provided with a passage in either language
and left to translate it, sometimes as homework or in class against the
clock in preparation for exams.
No composition is involved (unless you have a different definition of
composition) so I still don't understand how your two sentences connect.

I read "schoolboys had to compose in Latin and Greek" to include
translation from English. For some reason, I didn't directly associate
"compose" with "composition".

[Robert Bannister]

Post by the Omrud

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I have a little book -- reprinted within my lifetime -- called
"Unseen Translation" into Latin. Apparently at the turn of the last
century schoolboys
had to compose in Latin and Greek.

I can't see the connection between those two sentences. Unseen
translation can be in either direction and is not related to composition.

That's not, however, how it's used in this little book. "Unseen" means
'not provided in advance'.

Yes, I know that. Unseen translation can be from English into Latin or
vice versa. We were simply provided with a passage in either language
and left to translate it, sometimes as homework or in class against the
clock in preparation for exams.
No composition is involved (unless you have a different definition of
composition) so I still don't understand how your two sentences connect.

I read "schoolboys had to compose in Latin and Greek" to include
translation from English.

I can't parse the above. Does it mean they had to make up sentences in
Latin or Greek with an accompanying English translation to show what
they thought they had written?
For some reason, I didn't directly associate

Post by the Omrud
"compose" with "composition".

[the Omrud]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by the Omrud

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I have a little book -- reprinted within my lifetime -- called
"Unseen Translation" into Latin. Apparently at the turn of the
last century schoolboys
had to compose in Latin and Greek.

I can't see the connection between those two sentences. Unseen
translation can be in either direction and is not related to composition.

That's not, however, how it's used in this little book. "Unseen" means
'not provided in advance'.

Yes, I know that. Unseen translation can be from English into Latin or
vice versa. We were simply provided with a passage in either language
and left to translate it, sometimes as homework or in class against the
clock in preparation for exams.
No composition is involved (unless you have a different definition of
composition) so I still don't understand how your two sentences connect.

I read "schoolboys had to compose in Latin and Greek" to include
translation from English.

I can't parse the above. Does it mean they had to make up sentences in
Latin or Greek with an accompanying English translation to show what
they thought they had written?

No - the English is supplied. The Latin words are "made up", but not
the meaning. They had to compose the Latin as a translation of the
English. It seems that the use of "compose" caused some to think of
Composition, which means (in BrE education-speak) creating both the text
and the meaning.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by the Omrud

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by the Omrud

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I have a little book -- reprinted within my lifetime -- called
"Unseen Translation" into Latin. Apparently at the turn of the
last century schoolboys
had to compose in Latin and Greek.

I can't see the connection between those two sentences. Unseen
translation can be in either direction and is not related to composition.

That's not, however, how it's used in this little book. "Unseen" means
'not provided in advance'.

Yes, I know that. Unseen translation can be from English into Latin or
vice versa. We were simply provided with a passage in either language
and left to translate it, sometimes as homework or in class against the
clock in preparation for exams.
No composition is involved (unless you have a different definition of
composition) so I still don't understand how your two sentences connect.

I read "schoolboys had to compose in Latin and Greek" to include
translation from English.

I can't parse the above. Does it mean they had to make up sentences in
Latin or Greek with an accompanying English translation to show what
they thought they had written?

No - the English is supplied. The Latin words are "made up", but not
the meaning. They had to compose the Latin as a translation of the
English. It seems that the use of "compose" caused some to think of
Composition, which means (in BrE education-speak) creating both the text
and the meaning.

I find that use of "compose" strange to say the least, and in fact the
way "include translation" is used there seems to imply that they
schoolboys were to provide the translation themselves.

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by the Omrud

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by the Omrud

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I have a little book -- reprinted within my lifetime -- called
"Unseen Translation" into Latin. Apparently at the turn of the
last century schoolboys
had to compose in Latin and Greek.

I can't see the connection between those two sentences. Unseen
translation can be in either direction and is not related to composition.

That's not, however, how it's used in this little book. "Unseen" means
'not provided in advance'.

Yes, I know that. Unseen translation can be from English into Latin or
vice versa. We were simply provided with a passage in either language
and left to translate it, sometimes as homework or in class against the
clock in preparation for exams.
No composition is involved (unless you have a different definition of
composition) so I still don't understand how your two sentences connect.

I read "schoolboys had to compose in Latin and Greek" to include
translation from English.

I can't parse the above. Does it mean they had to make up sentences in
Latin or Greek with an accompanying English translation to show what
they thought they had written?

No - the English is supplied. The Latin words are "made up", but
not the meaning. They had to compose the Latin as a translation of
the English. It seems that the use of "compose" caused some to think
of Composition, which means (in BrE education-speak) creating both
the text and the meaning.

I find that use of "compose" strange to say the least, and in fact the
way "include translation" is used there seems to imply that they
schoolboys were to provide the translation themselves.

What it boils down to is that "compose" gives more freedom than
"translate". A free English text would be given, and some Latin with a
corresponding meaning would be required in response.

It particularly applied to composing Latin verse, which should involve
selecting vocabulary to convey the English meaning in Latin with an
acceptable metre. Sometimes a particular Latin word might be helpfully
put in brackets in the English text, to suggest a line of translation
that would work more readily than the alternatives.

No doubt Greek was handled similarly, but my Greek never reached
composition standard.

[LFS]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by the Omrud

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by the Omrud

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I have a little book -- reprinted within my lifetime -- called
"Unseen Translation" into Latin. Apparently at the turn of the
last century schoolboys
had to compose in Latin and Greek.

I can't see the connection between those two sentences. Unseen
translation can be in either direction and is not related to composition.

That's not, however, how it's used in this little book. "Unseen" means
'not provided in advance'.

Yes, I know that. Unseen translation can be from English into Latin or
vice versa. We were simply provided with a passage in either language
and left to translate it, sometimes as homework or in class against the
clock in preparation for exams.
No composition is involved (unless you have a different definition of
composition) so I still don't understand how your two sentences connect.

I read "schoolboys had to compose in Latin and Greek" to include
translation from English.

I can't parse the above. Does it mean they had to make up sentences in
Latin or Greek with an accompanying English translation to show what
they thought they had written?

No - the English is supplied. The Latin words are "made up", but
not the meaning. They had to compose the Latin as a translation of
the English. It seems that the use of "compose" caused some to
think of Composition, which means (in BrE education-speak) creating
both the text and the meaning.

I find that use of "compose" strange to say the least, and in fact the
way "include translation" is used there seems to imply that they
schoolboys were to provide the translation themselves.

What it boils down to is that "compose" gives more freedom than
"translate". A free English text would be given, and some Latin with a
corresponding meaning would be required in response.
It particularly applied to composing Latin verse, which should involve
selecting vocabulary to convey the English meaning in Latin with an
acceptable metre. Sometimes a particular Latin word might be helpfully
put in brackets in the English text, to suggest a line of translation
that would work more readily than the alternatives.
No doubt Greek was handled similarly, but my Greek never reached
composition standard.

Ah, my O Level Latin only required direct translation.

[b***@aol.com]

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by LFS

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by the Omrud
We did the Nuffield Latin course, which required little or no grammar
knowledge (the course taught us to read and understand Latin, but not to
construct sentences in it, since one meets so few Ancient Romans these
days). It was only when I started Russian at age 13 that I discovered
declensions (I already spoke good French but that's not much more
complicated than English). Russian has six declined forms of each noun,
which shook me for a while.

I have a little book -- reprinted within my lifetime -- called "Unseen Translation"
into Latin. Apparently at the turn of the last century schoolboys had to compose in
Latin and Greek.

I can't see the connection between those two sentences. Unseen
translation can be in either direction and is not related to composition.

That's not, however, how it's used in this little book. "Unseen" means 'not provided in advance'.

Yes, I know that. Unseen translation can be from English into Latin or
vice versa. We were simply provided with a passage in either language
and left to translate it, sometimes as homework or in class against the
clock in preparation for exams.
No composition is involved (unless you have a different definition of
composition) so I still don't understand how your two sentences connect.

The connection could be that, obviously, the young students aren't fluent
in Latin or ancient Greek and don't think in those languages, so that, as I
suggested earlier, they'll have to do a "mental" translation from English
to write their composition in ancient Greek or Latin.

Post by LFS
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)

[Robert Bannister]

Post by the Omrud

Post by LFS
I learned to read at age three by some form of magical osmosis that my
parents never worked out. Our daughter did the same. (I think it has to
do with innate nosiness and wanting to know what secrets other people
are finding in the patterns on a page.) But if we were taught English
grammar at school it passed me by completely - I was probably reading a
book under the desk in those lessons. I remember only one mention of
grammar in an English lesson when I was about fourteen: our charismatic
teacher talked briefly about gerunds (I didn't understand any of it) and
then went on to read us Dylan Thomas which was much more interesting.
I think I learned the difference between a noun and an adjective when I
started Latin at eleven. I've learned a lot about the names of parts of
speech etc from puzzling over aue posts over the years. But I have
always managed to write quite competently without any of the technical
knowledge which now seems to be expected of young children these days.

We did the Nuffield Latin course, which required little or no grammar
knowledge (the course taught us to read and understand Latin, but not to
construct sentences in it, since one meets so few Ancient Romans these
days). It was only when I started Russian at age 13 that I discovered
declensions (I already spoke good French but that's not much more
complicated than English). Russian has six declined forms of each noun,
which shook me for a while.

As with Latin, you find the odd noun that has seven, just to make it
more interesting, and also as in Latin, the adjectives decline in a
different way from the nouns so that it isn't too easy.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical terms
(one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected children to be
able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4, when they are eight or
nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses” should be known and labelled
correctly from the age of seven, “determiners” from age eight, and “modal
verbs” and “relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)

I've heard about subordinate clauses, but we usually call them Santa's
elves.

And Mary Christmas is a relative clause by marriage.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical terms
(one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected children to be
able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4, when they are eight or
nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses” should be known and labelled
correctly from the age of seven, “determiners” from age eight, and “modal
verbs” and “relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons would
be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I suspect the
curriculum is making some sort of link between "correctly naming
grammatical elements" and "using the language competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think being able
to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved either my reading
comprehension or my writing skills, any more than knowing the names of
bones and muscles would have made me better at running.

It enables the children to understand that there is no reason to condemn one of the
fronted adverbials ("hopefully") and none of the others.

Why prescriptivists object to children learning rudiments of descriptive linguistics
is obvious.

Though it's strange to find this aversion in England, which was quite happy to impose
i.t.a. on its youth some 50 years ago, which was based on an extreme misinterpretation
of early psychological studies of reading.

[Whiskers]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical
terms (one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected children to
be able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4, when they are
eight or nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses” should be known and
labelled correctly from the age of seven, “determiners” from age
eight, and “modal verbs” and “relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons
would be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I
suspect the curriculum is making some sort of link between "correctly
naming grammatical elements" and "using the language competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think being
able to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved either my
reading comprehension or my writing skills, any more than knowing the
names of bones and muscles would have made me better at running.

It enables the children to understand that there is no reason to
condemn one of the fronted adverbials ("hopefully") and none of the
others.
Why prescriptivists object to children learning rudiments of
descriptive linguistics is obvious.
Though it's strange to find this aversion in England, which was quite
happy to impose i.t.a. on its youth some 50 years ago, which was based
on an extreme misinterpretation of early psychological studies of
reading.

Many strange things were done in the '60s. So they tell me.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Whiskers
Many strange things were done in the '60s. So they tell me.

But you can't remember them? ;-)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Whiskers
Many strange things were done in the '60s. So they tell me.

But you can't remember them? ;-)

If you can remember the '60s, you weren't there.

[charles]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Whiskers
Many strange things were done in the '60s. So they tell me.

But you can't remember them? ;-)

If you can remember the '60s, you weren't there.

I was definitely there, but "there" was somewhere else

[bill van]

Post by charles

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Whiskers
Many strange things were done in the '60s. So they tell me.

But you can't remember them? ;-)

If you can remember the '60s, you weren't there.

I was definitely there, but "there" was somewhere else

You were simultaneously there and somewhere else? I remember that
feeling.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by charles

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Whiskers
Many strange things were done in the '60s. So they tell me.

But you can't remember them? ;-)

If you can remember the '60s, you weren't there.

I was definitely there, but "there" was somewhere else

Probably where it was at.

[the Omrud]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Whiskers
Many strange things were done in the '60s. So they tell me.

But you can't remember them? ;-)

If you can remember the '60s, you weren't there.

I was there, but I was busy riding my bicycle.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Whiskers
Many strange things were done in the '60s. So they tell me.

But you can't remember them? ;-)

If you remember them, you can't have been there.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical terms
(one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected children to be
able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4, when they are eight or
nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses” should be known and labelled
correctly from the age of seven, “determiners” from age eight, and “modal
verbs” and “relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons would
be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I suspect the
curriculum is making some sort of link between "correctly naming
grammatical elements" and "using the language competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think being able
to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved either my reading
comprehension or my writing skills, any more than knowing the names of
bones and muscles would have made me better at running.

It enables the children to understand that there is no reason to condemn one of the
fronted adverbials ("hopefully") and none of the others.

Well, partly. There is one argument against sentential "hopefully"
that distinguishes it correctly from the other fronted adverbials:
"fortunately", "unfortunately", &c., all mean "it is fortunate (&c.)
that...", whereas "hopefully" doesn't tie in the same way with
"hopeful". (For the record, I don't agree with this argument, but at
least it's internally consistent.)

[Ross]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical terms
(one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected children to be
able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4, when they are eight or
nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses” should be known and labelled
correctly from the age of seven, “determiners” from age eight, and “modal
verbs” and “relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons would
be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I suspect the
curriculum is making some sort of link between "correctly naming
grammatical elements" and "using the language competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think being able
to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved either my reading
comprehension or my writing skills, any more than knowing the names of
bones and muscles would have made me better at running.

It enables the children to understand that there is no reason to condemn one of the
fronted adverbials ("hopefully") and none of the others.

Well, partly. There is one argument against sentential "hopefully"
"fortunately", "unfortunately", &c., all mean "it is fortunate (&c.)
that...", whereas "hopefully" doesn't tie in the same way with
"hopeful". (For the record, I don't agree with this argument, but at
least it's internally consistent.)

But it hinges on forgetting the third type, where the adverb
modifies not the main sentence verb, nor the sentence as a whole,
but the implicit speech-act verb "I say". The well-established
example of this is "frankly". No one who accepts "frankly" can
logically object to "hopefully".

[Adam Funk]

Post by Ross

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It enables the children to understand that there is no reason to condemn one of the
fronted adverbials ("hopefully") and none of the others.

Well, partly. There is one argument against sentential "hopefully"
"fortunately", "unfortunately", &c., all mean "it is fortunate (&c.)
that...", whereas "hopefully" doesn't tie in the same way with
"hopeful". (For the record, I don't agree with this argument, but at
least it's internally consistent.)

But it hinges on forgetting the third type, where the adverb
modifies not the main sentence verb, nor the sentence as a whole,
but the implicit speech-act verb "I say". The well-established
example of this is "frankly". No one who accepts "frankly" can
logically object to "hopefully".

Thanks, that's the one I couldn't remember.

[b***@aol.com]

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical terms
(one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected children to be
able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4, when they are eight or
nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses” should be known and labelled
correctly from the age of seven, “determiners” from age eight, and “modal
verbs” and “relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons would
be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I suspect the
curriculum is making some sort of link between "correctly naming
grammatical elements" and "using the language competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think being able
to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved either my reading
comprehension or my writing skills, any more than knowing the names of
bones and muscles would have made me better at running.

I was never taught about fronted adverbials when learning English. Are
they any different from sentence adverbs?

Post by HVS
http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n
which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sats-
grammar-test-primary
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed

[HVS]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical terms
(one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England's national curriculum has expected children to
be able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4, when they are
eight or nine. Meanwhile, "subordinate clauses" should be known and
labelled correctly from the age of seven, "determiners" from age eight,
and "modal verbs" and "relative clauses" from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons
would be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I
suspect the curriculum is making some sort of link between "correctly
naming grammatical elements" and "using the language competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think being
able to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved either my
reading comprehension or my writing skills, any more than knowing the
names of bones and muscles would have made me better at running.

I was never taught about fronted adverbials when learning English. Are
they any different from sentence adverbs?

I've no idea - which I guess makes me an incompetent user of English. (I've
been found out, at last....)

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by HVS
http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sat
s-grammar-test-primary

--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical terms
(one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected children to be
able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4, when they are eight or
nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses” should be known and labelled
correctly from the age of seven, “determiners” from age eight, and “modal
verbs” and “relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons would
be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I suspect the
curriculum is making some sort of link between "correctly naming
grammatical elements" and "using the language competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think being able
to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved either my reading
comprehension or my writing skills, any more than knowing the names of
bones and muscles would have made me better at running.

I was never taught about fronted adverbials when learning English. Are
they any different from sentence adverbs?

...

As far as I know, "fronted adverbial" just refers to the position.
Not all fronted adverbials are sentence adverbs. In "Without
hesitation, she said 'Of course.'" the adverbial phrase modifies
"replied."

And not all sentence adverbs are fronted, as in "He found,
unfortunately, that it was impossible."

I'd say.

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical terms
(one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected children to be
able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4, when they are eight or
nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses” should be known and labelled
correctly from the age of seven, “determiners” from age eight, and “modal
verbs” and “relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons would
be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I suspect the
curriculum is making some sort of link between "correctly naming
grammatical elements" and "using the language competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think being able
to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved either my reading
comprehension or my writing skills, any more than knowing the names of
bones and muscles would have made me better at running.

I was never taught about fronted adverbials when learning English. Are
they any different from sentence adverbs?

...
As far as I know, "fronted adverbial" just refers to the position.
Not all fronted adverbials are sentence adverbs. In "Without
hesitation, she said 'Of course.'" the adverbial phrase modifies
"replied."
And not all sentence adverbs are fronted, as in "He found,
unfortunately, that it was impossible."

I see, thanks.

Post by Jerry Friedman
I'd say.
--
Jerry Friedman

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical terms
(one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected children to be
able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4, when they are eight or
nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses” should be known and labelled
correctly from the age of seven, “determiners” from age eight, and “modal
verbs” and “relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons would
be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I suspect the
curriculum is making some sort of link between "correctly naming
grammatical elements" and "using the language competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think being able
to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved either my reading
comprehension or my writing skills, any more than knowing the names of
bones and muscles would have made me better at running.

I was never taught about fronted adverbials when learning English. Are
they any different from sentence adverbs?

...
As far as I know, "fronted adverbial" just refers to the position.
Not all fronted adverbials are sentence adverbs. In "Without
hesitation, she said 'Of course.'" the adverbial phrase modifiesLoading Image...
"replied."
And not all sentence adverbs are fronted, as in "He found,
unfortunately, that it was impossible."
I'd say.

https://www.theschoolrun.com/what-are-fronted-adverbials

These examples are not much like what we normally mean by 'sentence
adverbs':
*Before the sun came up*, he ate his breakfast.
*All night long*, she danced.
*As fast as he could*, the rabbit hopped.
*By the train station*, we met.

I had to type them out because on the page they are a graphic, but in
typing, I realised how artificial these examples are.

[RH Draney]

Post by Robert Bannister
These examples are not much like what we normally mean by 'sentence
*Before the sun came up*, he ate his breakfast.
*All night long*, she danced.
*As fast as he could*, the rabbit hopped.
*By the train station*, we met.
I had to type them out because on the page they are a graphic, but in
typing, I realised how artificial these examples are.

Hopefully, you can find a better one....r

[John Varela]

Post by b***@aol.com
I was never taught about fronted adverbials when learning English. Are
they any different from sentence adverbs?

I don't know that I'd ever heard the term before this thread, but
it's pretty simple: Did you run quickly or quickly run?

--
John Varela

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical terms
(one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected children to be
able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4, when they are eight or
nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses” should be known and labelled
correctly from the age of seven, “determiners” from age eight, and “modal
verbs” and “relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons would
be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I suspect the
curriculum is making some sort of link between "correctly naming
grammatical elements" and "using the language competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think being able
to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved either my reading
comprehension or my writing skills, any more than knowing the names of
bones and muscles would have made me better at running.
http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n
which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sats-
grammar-test-primary

One of the things children need to outgrow in writing is series of short
sentences that begin with the subject. They can add variety by fronting
some adverbials.

[HVS]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical
terms (one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected children to
be able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4, when they are
eight or nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses” should be known and
labelled correctly from the age of seven, “determiners” from age eight,
and “modal verbs” and “relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons
would be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I
suspect the curriculum is making some sort of link between "correctly
naming grammatical elements" and "using the language competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think being
able to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved either my
reading comprehension or my writing skills, any more than knowing the
names of bones and muscles would have made me better at running.
http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n
which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sat
s- grammar-test-primary

One of the things children need to outgrow in writing is series of short
sentences that begin with the subject. They can add variety by fronting
some adverbials.

A good point. But I'm not sure (genuinely not sure) that knowing the name
of something for the purposes of passing a test contributes much to using
it in the wild. I would have thought that the latter relies more on
exposure to better/more varied writing than to exercises in taxonomy.

Until reading the newspaper article I wouldn't have been able to identify
a "fronted adverbial" by name if my life depended on it -- even though
I've used the structure for as long as I can remember.

[Whiskers]

Post by HVS

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical
terms (one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected
children to be able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4,
when they are eight or nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses”
should be known and labelled correctly from the age of seven,
“determiners” from age eight, and “modal verbs” and
“relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons
would be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I
suspect the curriculum is making some sort of link between
"correctly naming grammatical elements" and "using the language
competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think
being able to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved
either my reading comprehension or my writing skills, any more than
knowing the names of bones and muscles would have made me better at
running.
http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sat
s- grammar-test-primary

One of the things children need to outgrow in writing is series of
short sentences that begin with the subject. They can add variety by
fronting some adverbials.

A good point. But I'm not sure (genuinely not sure) that knowing the
name of something for the purposes of passing a test contributes much
to using it in the wild. I would have thought that the latter relies
more on exposure to better/more varied writing than to exercises in
taxonomy.
Until reading the newspaper article I wouldn't have been able to
identify a "fronted adverbial" by name if my life depended on it --
even though I've used the structure for as long as I can remember.

Very nearly all speakers and writers of very nearly all languages are
and always have been perfectly fluent without giving a moment's thought
to grammar, even if they have encountered the concept.

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Whiskers

Post by HVS

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical
terms (one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected
children to be able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4,
when they are eight or nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses”
should be known and labelled correctly from the age of seven,
“determiners” from age eight, and “modal verbs” and
“relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons
would be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I
suspect the curriculum is making some sort of link between
"correctly naming grammatical elements" and "using the language
competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think
being able to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved
either my reading comprehension or my writing skills, any more than
knowing the names of bones and muscles would have made me better at
running.
http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sat
s- grammar-test-primary

One of the things children need to outgrow in writing is series of
short sentences that begin with the subject. They can add variety by
fronting some adverbials.

A good point. But I'm not sure (genuinely not sure) that knowing the
name of something for the purposes of passing a test contributes much
to using it in the wild. I would have thought that the latter relies
more on exposure to better/more varied writing than to exercises in
taxonomy.
Until reading the newspaper article I wouldn't have been able to
identify a "fronted adverbial" by name if my life depended on it --
even though I've used the structure for as long as I can remember.

Very nearly all speakers and writers of very nearly all languages are
and always have been perfectly fluent without giving a moment's thought
to grammar, even if they have encountered the concept.

French may be an exception: for instance, the agreement of past participles
really requires one to refer to (sometimes abstruse) grammar rules, as their
endings are mute with some verbs, so that one can't learn just by ear how to
use the correct participle forms in writing.

Post by Whiskers
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Robert Bannister]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Whiskers

Post by HVS

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical
terms (one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected
children to be able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4,
when they are eight or nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses”
should be known and labelled correctly from the age of seven,
“determiners” from age eight, and “modal verbs” and
“relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons
would be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I
suspect the curriculum is making some sort of link between
"correctly naming grammatical elements" and "using the language
competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think
being able to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved
either my reading comprehension or my writing skills, any more than
knowing the names of bones and muscles would have made me better at
running.
http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sat
s- grammar-test-primary

One of the things children need to outgrow in writing is series of
short sentences that begin with the subject. They can add variety by
fronting some adverbials.

A good point. But I'm not sure (genuinely not sure) that knowing the
name of something for the purposes of passing a test contributes much
to using it in the wild. I would have thought that the latter relies
more on exposure to better/more varied writing than to exercises in
taxonomy.
Until reading the newspaper article I wouldn't have been able to
identify a "fronted adverbial" by name if my life depended on it --
even though I've used the structure for as long as I can remember.

Very nearly all speakers and writers of very nearly all languages are
and always have been perfectly fluent without giving a moment's thought
to grammar, even if they have encountered the concept.

French may be an exception: for instance, the agreement of past participles
really requires one to refer to (sometimes abstruse) grammar rules, as their
endings are mute with some verbs, so that one can't learn just by ear how to
use the correct participle forms in writing.

I have come across a large number of native French speakers who, in
writing, get this wrong most of the time, but who, in speech and with
those past participles where you can hear the -e* get it correct every time.

* The ones that end in consonants eg je l'ai mis, on l'a ouverte

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Whiskers

Post by HVS

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical
terms (one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected
children to be able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4,
when they are eight or nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses”
should be known and labelled correctly from the age of seven,
“determiners” from age eight, and “modal verbs” and
“relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons
would be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I
suspect the curriculum is making some sort of link between
"correctly naming grammatical elements" and "using the language
competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think
being able to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved
either my reading comprehension or my writing skills, any more than
knowing the names of bones and muscles would have made me better at
running.
http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sat
s- grammar-test-primary

One of the things children need to outgrow in writing is series of
short sentences that begin with the subject. They can add variety by
fronting some adverbials.

A good point. But I'm not sure (genuinely not sure) that knowing the
name of something for the purposes of passing a test contributes much
to using it in the wild. I would have thought that the latter relies
more on exposure to better/more varied writing than to exercises in
taxonomy.
Until reading the newspaper article I wouldn't have been able to
identify a "fronted adverbial" by name if my life depended on it --
even though I've used the structure for as long as I can remember.

Very nearly all speakers and writers of very nearly all languages are
and always have been perfectly fluent without giving a moment's thought
to grammar, even if they have encountered the concept.

French may be an exception: for instance, the agreement of past participles
really requires one to refer to (sometimes abstruse) grammar rules, as their
endings are mute with some verbs, so that one can't learn just by ear how to
use the correct participle forms in writing.

I have come across a large number of native French speakers who, in
writing, get this wrong most of the time, but who, in speech and with
those past participles where you can hear the -e* get it correct every time.
* The ones that end in consonants eg je l'ai mis, on l'a ouverte

I was thinking of more "abstruse" rules, as are at work in e.g. "Elle s'est
laissée glisser dans l'eau" vs "Elle s'est laissé porter par les vagues", where
hardly one French-speaker in 10,000 could explain why "laissé" has and doesn't
have an e, respectively.

Post by Robert Bannister
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Whiskers

Post by HVS

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical
terms (one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected
children to be able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4,
when they are eight or nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses”
should be known and labelled correctly from the age of seven,
“determiners” from age eight, and “modal verbs” and
“relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons
would be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I
suspect the curriculum is making some sort of link between
"correctly naming grammatical elements" and "using the language
competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think
being able to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved
either my reading comprehension or my writing skills, any more than
knowing the names of bones and muscles would have made me better at
running.
http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sat
s- grammar-test-primary

One of the things children need to outgrow in writing is series of
short sentences that begin with the subject. They can add variety by
fronting some adverbials.

A good point. But I'm not sure (genuinely not sure) that knowing the
name of something for the purposes of passing a test contributes much
to using it in the wild. I would have thought that the latter relies
more on exposure to better/more varied writing than to exercises in
taxonomy.
Until reading the newspaper article I wouldn't have been able to
identify a "fronted adverbial" by name if my life depended on it --
even though I've used the structure for as long as I can remember.

Very nearly all speakers and writers of very nearly all languages are
and always have been perfectly fluent without giving a moment's thought
to grammar, even if they have encountered the concept.

French may be an exception: for instance, the agreement of past participles
really requires one to refer to (sometimes abstruse) grammar rules, as their
endings are mute with some verbs, so that one can't learn just by ear how to
use the correct participle forms in writing.

I have come across a large number of native French speakers who, in
writing, get this wrong most of the time, but who, in speech and with
those past participles where you can hear the -e* get it correct every time.
* The ones that end in consonants eg je l'ai mis, on l'a ouverte

I was thinking of more "abstruse" rules, as are at work in e.g. "Elle s'est
laissée glisser dans l'eau" vs "Elle s'est laissé porter par les vagues", where
hardly one French-speaker in 10,000 could explain why "laissé" has and doesn't
have an e, respectively.

Oh my goodness. All those years of French and I never heard of "Elle
s'est laissé porter par les vagues" with no "e" on "laissé".

[Robert Bannister]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Whiskers

Post by HVS

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical
terms (one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected
children to be able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4,
when they are eight or nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses”
should be known and labelled correctly from the age of seven,
“determiners” from age eight, and “modal verbs” and
“relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons
would be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I
suspect the curriculum is making some sort of link between
"correctly naming grammatical elements" and "using the language
competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think
being able to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved
either my reading comprehension or my writing skills, any more than
knowing the names of bones and muscles would have made me better at
running.
http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sat
s- grammar-test-primary

One of the things children need to outgrow in writing is series of
short sentences that begin with the subject. They can add variety by
fronting some adverbials.

A good point. But I'm not sure (genuinely not sure) that knowing the
name of something for the purposes of passing a test contributes much
to using it in the wild. I would have thought that the latter relies
more on exposure to better/more varied writing than to exercises in
taxonomy.
Until reading the newspaper article I wouldn't have been able to
identify a "fronted adverbial" by name if my life depended on it --
even though I've used the structure for as long as I can remember.

Very nearly all speakers and writers of very nearly all languages are
and always have been perfectly fluent without giving a moment's thought
to grammar, even if they have encountered the concept.

French may be an exception: for instance, the agreement of past participles
really requires one to refer to (sometimes abstruse) grammar rules, as their
endings are mute with some verbs, so that one can't learn just by ear how to
use the correct participle forms in writing.

I have come across a large number of native French speakers who, in
writing, get this wrong most of the time, but who, in speech and with
those past participles where you can hear the -e* get it correct every time.
* The ones that end in consonants eg je l'ai mis, on l'a ouverte

I was thinking of more "abstruse" rules, as are at work in e.g. "Elle s'est
laissée glisser dans l'eau" vs "Elle s'est laissé porter par les vagues", where
hardly one French-speaker in 10,000 could explain why "laissé" has and doesn't
have an e, respectively.

Right. Sometimes you wonder whether the Académie just made a few rules
up to catch the unsuspecting.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by b***@aol.com
I was thinking of more "abstruse" rules, as are at work in e.g. "Elle s'est
laissée glisser dans l'eau" vs "Elle s'est laissé porter par les vagues", where
hardly one French-speaker in 10,000 could explain why "laissé" has and doesn't
have an e, respectively.

Right. Sometimes you wonder whether the Académie just made a few rules
up to catch the unsuspecting.

I imagine the Académie feels required to 'publish', from time to time,
as a means of self preservation.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by b***@aol.com
I was thinking of more "abstruse" rules, as are at work in e.g. "Elle s'est
laissée glisser dans l'eau" vs "Elle s'est laissé porter par les vagues", where
hardly one French-speaker in 10,000 could explain why "laissé" has and doesn't
have an e, respectively.

Count me among the 9999 who don't understand that rule.

I suggest, though, that this is purely a rule of written French. For
most speakers, "French" means the spoken language, where you can't even
hear that "e".

[Peter Moylan]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Whiskers
Very nearly all speakers and writers of very nearly all languages are
and always have been perfectly fluent without giving a moment's thought
to grammar, even if they have encountered the concept.

French may be an exception: for instance, the agreement of past participles
really requires one to refer to (sometimes abstruse) grammar rules, as their
endings are mute with some verbs, so that one can't learn just by ear how to
use the correct participle forms in writing.

But that's normal. People learn their own spoken language by immersion,
but learning to write well requires a teacher.

[Cheryl]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Whiskers
Very nearly all speakers and writers of very nearly all languages are
and always have been perfectly fluent without giving a moment's thought
to grammar, even if they have encountered the concept.

French may be an exception: for instance, the agreement of past participles
really requires one to refer to (sometimes abstruse) grammar rules, as their
endings are mute with some verbs, so that one can't learn just by ear how to
use the correct participle forms in writing.

But that's normal. People learn their own spoken language by immersion,
but learning to write well requires a teacher.

And reading. Lots and lots of reading. I think it's very difficult to
learn to write really well if you don't read a lot, although it's
probably possible to learn to write basic stuff correctly and clearly.

I had never heard of a fronted adverbial before this thread, and I have
noted a lot of grammatical terminology over the years that I don't
understand. However, I'm glad I learned a bit of grammar in school -
mostly in about grades 6-8, I suppose, which was just before educational
fashion changed, and decreed that children didn't need to learn any
formal grammar. I found even the terminology I was taught was useful in
figuring out how French worked (insofar as I ever succeeded with that),
and gave me a tool that one of my later classmates, who went through the
school system just after the change, didn't have.

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Whiskers
Very nearly all speakers and writers of very nearly all languages are
and always have been perfectly fluent without giving a moment's thought
to grammar, even if they have encountered the concept.

French may be an exception: for instance, the agreement of past participles
really requires one to refer to (sometimes abstruse) grammar rules, as their
endings are mute with some verbs, so that one can't learn just by ear how to
use the correct participle forms in writing.

But that's normal. People learn their own spoken language by immersion,
but learning to write well requires a teacher.

Indeed, but that does require "a moment's thought to grammar".

Post by Peter Moylan
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Robert Bannister]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Whiskers
Very nearly all speakers and writers of very nearly all languages are
and always have been perfectly fluent without giving a moment's thought
to grammar, even if they have encountered the concept.

French may be an exception: for instance, the agreement of past participles
really requires one to refer to (sometimes abstruse) grammar rules, as their
endings are mute with some verbs, so that one can't learn just by ear how to
use the correct participle forms in writing.

But that's normal. People learn their own spoken language by immersion,
but learning to write well requires a teacher.

Indeed, but that does require "a moment's thought to grammar".

I think for most people it's more a case of what sounds right, and
unfortunately, for many people a number of errors do sound right.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Whiskers

Post by HVS

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical
terms (one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected
children to be able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4,
when they are eight or nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses”
should be known and labelled correctly from the age of seven,
“determiners” from age eight, and “modal verbs” and
“relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons
would be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I
suspect the curriculum is making some sort of link between
"correctly naming grammatical elements" and "using the language
competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think
being able to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved
either my reading comprehension or my writing skills, any more than
knowing the names of bones and muscles would have made me better at
running.
http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sat
s- grammar-test-primary

One of the things children need to outgrow in writing is series of
short sentences that begin with the subject. They can add variety by
fronting some adverbials.

A good point. But I'm not sure (genuinely not sure) that knowing the
name of something for the purposes of passing a test contributes much
to using it in the wild. I would have thought that the latter relies
more on exposure to better/more varied writing than to exercises in
taxonomy.
Until reading the newspaper article

Well done.

Post by Whiskers

Post by HVS
I wouldn't have been able to
identify a "fronted adverbial" by name if my life depended on it --
even though I've used the structure for as long as I can remember.

Very nearly all speakers and writers of very nearly all languages are
and always have been perfectly fluent without giving a moment's thought
to grammar, even if they have encountered the concept.

But by no means all speakers of English can write with good style,
even if they've been forced in school to read good writers. I think that
for some people, giving explicit advice on style may work better than
just exposure to good writing.

[Whiskers]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Whiskers

Post by HVS

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical
terms (one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected
children to be able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4,
when they are eight or nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses”
should be known and labelled correctly from the age of seven,
“determiners” from age eight, and “modal verbs” and
“relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons
would be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I
suspect the curriculum is making some sort of link between
"correctly naming grammatical elements" and "using the language
competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think
being able to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved
either my reading comprehension or my writing skills, any more than
knowing the names of bones and muscles would have made me better at
running.
http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sat
s- grammar-test-primary

One of the things children need to outgrow in writing is series of
short sentences that begin with the subject. They can add variety by
fronting some adverbials.

A good point. But I'm not sure (genuinely not sure) that knowing the
name of something for the purposes of passing a test contributes much
to using it in the wild. I would have thought that the latter relies
more on exposure to better/more varied writing than to exercises in
taxonomy.
Until reading the newspaper article

Well done.

Post by Whiskers

Post by HVS
I wouldn't have been able to
identify a "fronted adverbial" by name if my life depended on it --
even though I've used the structure for as long as I can remember.

Very nearly all speakers and writers of very nearly all languages are
and always have been perfectly fluent without giving a moment's thought
to grammar, even if they have encountered the concept.

But by no means all speakers of English can write with good style,
even if they've been forced in school to read good writers. I think that
for some people, giving explicit advice on style may work better than
just exposure to good writing.

Style is just another set of rules that are even vaguer than those
categorised as grammar.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Whiskers

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Whiskers

Post by HVS

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical
terms (one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected
children to be able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4,
when they are eight or nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses”
should be known and labelled correctly from the age of seven,
“determiners” from age eight, and “modal verbs” and
“relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons
would be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I
suspect the curriculum is making some sort of link between
"correctly naming grammatical elements" and "using the language
competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think
being able to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved
either my reading comprehension or my writing skills, any more than
knowing the names of bones and muscles would have made me better at
running.
http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sat
s- grammar-test-primary

One of the things children need to outgrow in writing is series of
short sentences that begin with the subject. They can add variety by
fronting some adverbials.

A good point. But I'm not sure (genuinely not sure) that knowing the
name of something for the purposes of passing a test contributes much
to using it in the wild. I would have thought that the latter relies
more on exposure to better/more varied writing than to exercises in
taxonomy.
Until reading the newspaper article

Well done.

Post by Whiskers

Post by HVS
I wouldn't have been able to
identify a "fronted adverbial" by name if my life depended on it --
even though I've used the structure for as long as I can remember.

Very nearly all speakers and writers of very nearly all languages are
and always have been perfectly fluent without giving a moment's thought
to grammar, even if they have encountered the concept.

But by no means all speakers of English can write with good style,
even if they've been forced in school to read good writers. I think that
for some people, giving explicit advice on style may work better than
just exposure to good writing.

Style is just another set of rules that are even vaguer than those
categorised as grammar.

I'd say the important things to teach, if possible, are to think about
style and to be aware of the possibilities. The latter is where
technical terms come in.

Some people pick up that sort of thing from reading the way nearly all
speakers pick up fluent speech, but I think some people benefit from
explicit teaching. I'm pretty sure I did.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Wed, 10 May 2017 21:54:37 -0600, Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Whiskers

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Whiskers
Very nearly all speakers and writers of very nearly all languages are
and always have been perfectly fluent without giving a moment's thought
to grammar, even if they have encountered the concept.

But by no means all speakers of English can write with good style,
even if they've been forced in school to read good writers. I think that
for some people, giving explicit advice on style may work better than
just exposure to good writing.

Style is just another set of rules that are even vaguer than those
categorised as grammar.

I'd say the important things to teach, if possible, are to think about
style and to be aware of the possibilities. The latter is where
technical terms come in.
Some people pick up that sort of thing from reading the way nearly all
speakers pick up fluent speech, but I think some people benefit from
explicit teaching. I'm pretty sure I did.

I still am benefitting, from aue.

The examples of good writing - I've seen before. What helps
me is the examples of the bad writing turned into good writing:
Both a) recognizing the bad, and b) the sort of changes that work.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by HVS

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical
terms (one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected children to
be able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4, when they are
eight or nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses” should be known and
labelled correctly from the age of seven, “determiners” from age eight,
and “modal verbs” and “relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons
would be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I
suspect the curriculum is making some sort of link between "correctly
naming grammatical elements" and "using the language competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think being
able to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved either my
reading comprehension or my writing skills, any more than knowing the
names of bones and muscles would have made me better at running.
http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n
which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sat
s- grammar-test-primary

One of the things children need to outgrow in writing is series of short
sentences that begin with the subject. They can add variety by fronting
some adverbials.

A good point. But I'm not sure (genuinely not sure) that knowing the name
of something for the purposes of passing a test contributes much to using
it in the wild. I would have thought that the latter relies more on
exposure to better/more varied writing than to exercises in taxonomy.
Until reading the newspaper article I wouldn't have been able to identify
a "fronted adverbial" by name if my life depended on it -- even though
I've used the structure for as long as I can remember.

Precisely.

[Whiskers]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by HVS
Children in England are apparently expected to know 40 grammatical
terms (one of which is "fronted adverbial").
(quote)
"...since 2014 England’s national curriculum has expected children to
be able to understand [fronted adverbial] from year 4, when they are
eight or nine. Meanwhile, “subordinate clauses” should be known and
labelled correctly from the age of seven, “determiners” from age
eight, and “modal verbs” and “relative clauses” from age nine."
(/quote)
I would have expected the primary aim of early-years English lessons
would be to teach children comprehension and writing skills, and I
suspect the curriculum is making some sort of link between "correctly
naming grammatical elements" and "using the language competently".
I always enjoyed knowing the names of things, but I don't think being
able to identify a "fronted adverbial" would have improved either my
reading comprehension or my writing skills, any more than knowing the
names of bones and muscles would have made me better at running.
http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sats-
grammar-test-primary

One of the things children need to outgrow in writing is series of
short sentences that begin with the subject. They can add variety by
fronting some adverbials.

See the capitalist running dog. Run, dog, run!

[occam]

Post by HVS
http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n
which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sats-
grammar-test-primary

Hmm. Spelling, punctuation and grammar ('Spag') tests. Spag tests when I
was young was the ability to wind the spaghetti around a fork and get it
to your mouth without splashing the sauce on your shirt - a test I have
been known to fail even now.

[Whiskers]

Post by occam

Post by HVS
http://tinyurl.com/mb8f79n which points to
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sats-
grammar-test-primary

Hmm. Spelling, punctuation and grammar ('Spag') tests. Spag tests when
I was young was the ability to wind the spaghetti around a fork and
get it to your mouth without splashing the sauce on your shirt - a
test I have been known to fail even now.

I've found he best solution to that problem is to wear shirts that match
the sauce.

[RH Draney]

Post by Whiskers

Post by occam
Hmm. Spelling, punctuation and grammar ('Spag') tests. Spag tests when
I was young was the ability to wind the spaghetti around a fork and
get it to your mouth without splashing the sauce on your shirt - a
test I have been known to fail even now.

I've found he best solution to that problem is to wear shirts that match
the sauce.

I've found that the only solution that *really* works is to eat
shirtless....r

[Whiskers]

Post by RH Draney

Post by Whiskers

Post by occam
Hmm. Spelling, punctuation and grammar ('Spag') tests. Spag tests when
I was young was the ability to wind the spaghetti around a fork and
get it to your mouth without splashing the sauce on your shirt - a
test I have been known to fail even now.

I've found he best solution to that problem is to wear shirts that match
the sauce.

I've found that the only solution that *really* works is to eat
shirtless....r

But some establishments object to that.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Whiskers

Post by RH Draney

Post by Whiskers

Post by occam
Hmm. Spelling, punctuation and grammar ('Spag') tests. Spag tests when
I was young was the ability to wind the spaghetti around a fork and
get it to your mouth without splashing the sauce on your shirt - a
test I have been known to fail even now.

I've found he best solution to that problem is to wear shirts that match
the sauce.

I've found that the only solution that *really* works is to eat
shirtless....r

But some establishments object to that.

Isn't that only if you're also shoeless?

[Whiskers]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Whiskers

Post by RH Draney

Post by Whiskers

Post by occam
Hmm. Spelling, punctuation and grammar ('Spag') tests. Spag tests when
I was young was the ability to wind the spaghetti around a fork and
get it to your mouth without splashing the sauce on your shirt - a
test I have been known to fail even now.

I've found he best solution to that problem is to wear shirts that match
the sauce.

I've found that the only solution that *really* works is to eat
shirtless....r

But some establishments object to that.

Isn't that only if you're also shoeless?

I think expectations of footwear are more flexible than of chest
coverings.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Whiskers

Post by RH Draney

Post by Whiskers

Post by occam
Hmm. Spelling, punctuation and grammar ('Spag') tests. Spag tests when
I was young was the ability to wind the spaghetti around a fork and
get it to your mouth without splashing the sauce on your shirt - a
test I have been known to fail even now.

I've found he best solution to that problem is to wear shirts that match
the sauce.

I've found that the only solution that *really* works is to eat
shirtless....r

But some establishments object to that.

Isn't that only if you're also shoeless?

I think expectations of footwear are more flexible than of chest
coverings.

Our signs -- throughout the country, it seems -- read "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service."

Ambiguous, no?

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 11 May 2017 14:40:38 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Whiskers

Post by RH Draney

Post by Whiskers

Post by occam
Hmm. Spelling, punctuation and grammar ('Spag') tests. Spag tests when
I was young was the ability to wind the spaghetti around a fork and
get it to your mouth without splashing the sauce on your shirt - a
test I have been known to fail even now.

I've found he best solution to that problem is to wear shirts that match
the sauce.

I've found that the only solution that *really* works is to eat
shirtless....r

But some establishments object to that.

Isn't that only if you're also shoeless?

I think expectations of footwear are more flexible than of chest
coverings.

Our signs -- throughout the country, it seems -- read "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service."
Ambiguous, no?

Down here in Florida, flip-flops or thongs or whatever they're called
are acceptable but they certainly are not shoes. As long as the feet
have something covering the soles, service is extended.

On the NJ shore, a wife-beater is probably acceptable even though it
is not a shirt.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 11 May 2017 18:22:03 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 May 2017 14:40:38 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Whiskers

Post by RH Draney

Post by Whiskers

Post by occam
Hmm. Spelling, punctuation and grammar ('Spag') tests. Spag tests when
I was young was the ability to wind the spaghetti around a fork and
get it to your mouth without splashing the sauce on your shirt - a
test I have been known to fail even now.

I've found he best solution to that problem is to wear shirts that match
the sauce.

I've found that the only solution that *really* works is to eat
shirtless....r

But some establishments object to that.

Isn't that only if you're also shoeless?

I think expectations of footwear are more flexible than of chest
coverings.

Our signs -- throughout the country, it seems -- read "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service."
Ambiguous, no?

Down here in Florida, flip-flops or thongs or whatever they're called
are acceptable but they certainly are not shoes. As long as the feet
have something covering the soles, service is extended.
On the NJ shore, a wife-beater is probably acceptable even though it
is not a shirt.

I assume that someone wearing only shoes and a shirt will not be served.

[Whiskers]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Thu, 11 May 2017 18:22:03 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 May 2017 14:40:38 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Whiskers

On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 8:20:13 AM UTC-4, Whiskers

Post by Whiskers

Post by RH Draney

Post by Whiskers

Post by occam
Hmm. Spelling, punctuation and grammar ('Spag') tests. Spag
tests when I was young was the ability to wind the spaghetti
around a fork and get it to your mouth without splashing the
sauce on your shirt - a test I have been known to fail even
now.

I've found he best solution to that problem is to wear shirts
that match the sauce.

I've found that the only solution that *really* works is to
eat shirtless....r

But some establishments object to that.

Isn't that only if you're also shoeless?

I think expectations of footwear are more flexible than of chest
coverings.

Our signs -- throughout the country, it seems -- read "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service."
Ambiguous, no?

Sounds like something a sea-side place might think up.

I've seem 'no work clothes' over here, but somehow my work clothes
(comprising a cheap lounge suit, shirt, tie, and good shoes) apparently
didn't count as 'work clothes' for dining purposes.

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Tony Cooper
Down here in Florida, flip-flops or thongs or whatever they're called
are acceptable but they certainly are not shoes. As long as the feet
have something covering the soles, service is extended.
On the NJ shore, a wife-beater is probably acceptable even though it
is not a shirt.

I assume that someone wearing only shoes and a shirt will not be served.

I have heard of a posh place refusing entry to a woman wearing trousers.
So she took them off, and got in.

It seems very strange to object to bare feet, particularly if the person
is otherwise well dressed and clean.

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Whiskers

Post by RH Draney

Post by Whiskers

Post by occam
Hmm. Spelling, punctuation and grammar ('Spag') tests. Spag
tests when I was young was the ability to wind the spaghetti
around a fork and get it to your mouth without splashing the
sauce on your shirt - a test I have been known to fail even
now.

I've found he best solution to that problem is to wear shirts
that match the sauce.

I've found that the only solution that *really* works is to
eat shirtless....r

But some establishments object to that.

Isn't that only if you're also shoeless?

I think expectations of footwear are more flexible than of chest
coverings.

Our signs -- throughout the country, it seems -- read "No Shoes, No
Shirt, No Service."
Ambiguous, no?

Sounds like something a sea-side place might think up.

Commonly seen in informal places, including many by the sea-side.
Not so much in franchise locations,
but independent burger grills with inside seating.
It's treated as a health department ruling,
but I'm not sure the "no shirt" part is official HD.

Post by Whiskers
I've seem 'no work clothes' over here, but somehow my work clothes
(comprising a cheap lounge suit, shirt, tie, and good shoes) apparently
didn't count as 'work clothes' for dining purposes.

dungarees, coveralls, jumpsuits, jeans, Levis(tm),
denim shirts, flannel shirts, non-military uniform shirts.

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Tony Cooper
Down here in Florida, flip-flops or thongs or whatever they're called
are acceptable but they certainly are not shoes. As long as the feet
have something covering the soles, service is extended.
On the NJ shore, a wife-beater is probably acceptable even though it
is not a shirt.

I assume that someone wearing only shoes and a shirt will not be served.

I have heard of a posh place refusing entry to a woman wearing trousers.
So she took them off, and got in.

Well, she was wearing a suit, and the jacket met miniskirt specs,
and was close enough to neatly tailored. There were some pictures available
when she demonstrated the transformation for the press.

Post by Whiskers
It seems very strange to object to bare feet, particularly if the person
is otherwise well dressed and clean.

Wait until the glass is dropped on the floor, or a steak knife.
(Sandals, flip-flops, and their kin don't protect against
the landing of the latter, but still ....)

/dps

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 12 May 2017 17:42:03 +0100, Whiskers

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Thu, 11 May 2017 18:22:03 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 May 2017 14:40:38 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Whiskers

On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 8:20:13 AM UTC-4, Whiskers

Post by Whiskers

Post by RH Draney

Post by Whiskers

Post by occam
Hmm. Spelling, punctuation and grammar ('Spag') tests. Spag
tests when I was young was the ability to wind the spaghetti
around a fork and get it to your mouth without splashing the
sauce on your shirt - a test I have been known to fail even
now.

I've found he best solution to that problem is to wear shirts
that match the sauce.

I've found that the only solution that *really* works is to
eat shirtless....r

But some establishments object to that.

Isn't that only if you're also shoeless?

I think expectations of footwear are more flexible than of chest
coverings.

Our signs -- throughout the country, it seems -- read "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service."
Ambiguous, no?

Sounds like something a sea-side place might think up.

It's a very common sign seen on the door of establishments on the
Florida coasts. They would be an establishment near the beach, but
doesn't want to admit people in beachwear. A restaurant, for example,
that feels that shirtless men bring down the tone.

Post by Whiskers
It seems very strange to object to bare feet, particularly if the person
is otherwise well dressed and clean.

The problem a store or restaurant is trying to avoid is an injury to
the person's bare feet from stepping on something. Blood on the floor
or a lawsuit could result. The blood aspect was a major consideration
when AIDs was first in the news.

I don't see how someone could enter a store or restaurant barefooted
and have clean feet. The feet would get dirty just getting to the
door.

[Richard Yates]

On Fri, 12 May 2017 15:31:51 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 12 May 2017 17:42:03 +0100, Whiskers

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Thu, 11 May 2017 18:22:03 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 May 2017 14:40:38 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Whiskers

On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 8:20:13 AM UTC-4, Whiskers

Post by Whiskers

Post by RH Draney

Post by Whiskers

Post by occam
Hmm. Spelling, punctuation and grammar ('Spag') tests. Spag
tests when I was young was the ability to wind the spaghetti
around a fork and get it to your mouth without splashing the
sauce on your shirt - a test I have been known to fail even
now.

I've found he best solution to that problem is to wear shirts
that match the sauce.

I've found that the only solution that *really* works is to
eat shirtless....r

But some establishments object to that.

Isn't that only if you're also shoeless?

I think expectations of footwear are more flexible than of chest
coverings.

Our signs -- throughout the country, it seems -- read "No Shoes, No
Shirt, No Service."
Ambiguous, no?

Sounds like something a sea-side place might think up.

It's a very common sign seen on the door of establishments on the
Florida coasts. They would be an establishment near the beach, but
doesn't want to admit people in beachwear. A restaurant, for example,
that feels that shirtless men bring down the tone.

Post by Whiskers
It seems very strange to object to bare feet, particularly if the person
is otherwise well dressed and clean.

The problem a store or restaurant is trying to avoid is an injury to
the person's bare feet from stepping on something. Blood on the floor
or a lawsuit could result. The blood aspect was a major consideration
when AIDs was first in the news.

Exactly.

Post by Tony Cooper
I don't see how someone could enter a store or restaurant barefooted
and have clean feet. The feet would get dirty just getting to the
door.

They would be no dirtier than shoes.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 12 May 2017 13:13:55 -0700, Richard Yates

Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 12 May 2017 15:31:51 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 12 May 2017 17:42:03 +0100, Whiskers

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Thu, 11 May 2017 18:22:03 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 May 2017 14:40:38 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Whiskers

Post by RH Draney

Post by Whiskers

Post by occam
Hmm. Spelling, punctuation and grammar ('Spag') tests. Spag
tests when I was young was the ability to wind the spaghetti
around a fork and get it to your mouth without splashing the
sauce on your shirt - a test I have been known to fail even
now.

I've found he best solution to that problem is to wear shirts
that match the sauce.

I've found that the only solution that *really* works is to
eat shirtless....r

But some establishments object to that.

Isn't that only if you're also shoeless?

I think expectations of footwear are more flexible than of chest
coverings.

Our signs -- throughout the country, it seems -- read "No Shoes, No
Shirt, No Service."
Ambiguous, no?

Sounds like something a sea-side place might think up.

It's a very common sign seen on the door of establishments on the
Florida coasts. They would be an establishment near the beach, but
doesn't want to admit people in beachwear. A restaurant, for example,
that feels that shirtless men bring down the tone.

Post by Whiskers
It seems very strange to object to bare feet, particularly if the person
is otherwise well dressed and clean.

The problem a store or restaurant is trying to avoid is an injury to
the person's bare feet from stepping on something. Blood on the floor
or a lawsuit could result. The blood aspect was a major consideration
when AIDs was first in the news.

Exactly.

Post by Tony Cooper
I don't see how someone could enter a store or restaurant barefooted
and have clean feet. The feet would get dirty just getting to the
door.

They would be no dirtier than shoes.

Oh, agreed, but that was responding to the line about the person being
clean. They would be, overall, but not the feet.

[Whiskers]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 12 May 2017 13:13:55 -0700, Richard Yates

Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 12 May 2017 15:31:51 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 12 May 2017 17:42:03 +0100, Whiskers

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Thu, 11 May 2017 18:22:03 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 May 2017 14:40:38 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Whiskers

Post by RH Draney

Post by Whiskers

Post by occam
Hmm. Spelling, punctuation and grammar ('Spag') tests. Spag
tests when I was young was the ability to wind the spaghetti
around a fork and get it to your mouth without splashing the
sauce on your shirt - a test I have been known to fail even
now.

I've found he best solution to that problem is to wear shirts
that match the sauce.

I've found that the only solution that *really* works is to
eat shirtless....r

But some establishments object to that.

Isn't that only if you're also shoeless?

I think expectations of footwear are more flexible than of chest
coverings.

Our signs -- throughout the country, it seems -- read "No Shoes, No
Shirt, No Service."
Ambiguous, no?

Sounds like something a sea-side place might think up.

It's a very common sign seen on the door of establishments on the
Florida coasts. They would be an establishment near the beach, but
doesn't want to admit people in beachwear. A restaurant, for example,
that feels that shirtless men bring down the tone.

Post by Whiskers
It seems very strange to object to bare feet, particularly if the person
is otherwise well dressed and clean.

The problem a store or restaurant is trying to avoid is an injury to
the person's bare feet from stepping on something. Blood on the floor
or a lawsuit could result. The blood aspect was a major consideration
when AIDs was first in the news.

Exactly.

Post by Tony Cooper
I don't see how someone could enter a store or restaurant barefooted
and have clean feet. The feet would get dirty just getting to the
door.

They would be no dirtier than shoes.

Oh, agreed, but that was responding to the line about the person being
clean. They would be, overall, but not the feet.

There are parts of the world where it is at least 'good manners' to
remove shoes on entering premises.

[RH Draney]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Our signs -- throughout the country, it seems -- read "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service."
Ambiguous, no?

Only if one attempts to interpret them in analogy to "no phone, no
lights, no motorcars" or "no phone, no pool, no pets"....r

[Tony Cooper]

Post by RH Draney

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Our signs -- throughout the country, it seems -- read "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service."
Ambiguous, no?

Only if one attempts to interpret them in analogy to "no phone, no
lights, no motorcars" or "no phone, no pool, no pets"....r

The latter is the Miller's tale.

[LFS]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by RH Draney

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Our signs -- throughout the country, it seems -- read "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service."
Ambiguous, no?

Only if one attempts to interpret them in analogy to "no phone, no
lights, no motorcars" or "no phone, no pool, no pets"....r

The latter is the Miller's tale.

Nice.

[occam]

Post by Whiskers

Post by RH Draney

Post by Whiskers

Post by occam
Hmm. Spelling, punctuation and grammar ('Spag') tests. Spag tests when
I was young was the ability to wind the spaghetti around a fork and
get it to your mouth without splashing the sauce on your shirt - a
test I have been known to fail even now.

I've found he best solution to that problem is to wear shirts that match
the sauce.

I've found that the only solution that *really* works is to eat
shirtless....r

But some establishments object to that.

Spaghetti at Hooters. Mmm...

[Peter Moylan]

Post by RH Draney

Post by Whiskers

Post by occam
Hmm. Spelling, punctuation and grammar ('Spag') tests. Spag tests when
I was young was the ability to wind the spaghetti around a fork and
get it to your mouth without splashing the sauce on your shirt - a
test I have been known to fail even now.

I've found he best solution to that problem is to wear shirts that match
the sauce.

I've found that the only solution that *really* works is to eat
shirtless....r

Only if you have skin that matches the spaghetti sauce.

I used some mushrooms in my recipe this evening. That helps to match
darker skin.