Labor Day Weekend

I spend my 3 day weekend watching:

1. An affair to remember
2. The way we were
3. The purple rose of cairo
4. Dirty dancing
5. All about steve
6. Overboard
7. Runaway Bride
8. The OSU game
9. The first season of Weeds.
10. Nim's Island
11. Hook

I think thats all...

Do YOU know what Creeping looks like?

At work the other day I made a Creeper Mask. The dude I drew doesnt look like any of my creepers, but he definitely looks like A creeper. He's got a comb-over that just doesnt quite make it, sunglasses with lightning bolts in the middle of them, and a stache that would make Cowger proud. I'm thinking about taking the mask to CIRCAW. They could pass it around while they give the "if a man like this lingers eeerily behind you" speech. Or they could do a skit. I vote skit.

Mulroy. Chapter 2. Yay.

What do you make of Mulroy's claim that "Questioning the value of basic grammar is like asking whether farmers should know the names of their crops and animals."

Mulroy is trying to point out that a person must have knowledge of basic grammar in order to communicate clearly and effectively. Not only that, but if a farmer doesn't know the names of his crops and animals, how will other farmers or consumers take him seriously? In the same manner, how will colleages be able to take a person seriously if that person doesn't know basic grammar? This is similiar to the business article we read in class. I think it was by Beason.

I Think Some Crackhead Got Holt of da Wrong Stuff!

David Mulroy's "The Myth of the Bad Old Days" focuses on traditional vs. modern approaches to grammar instruction. It begins with commentary on ATEGs (Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar) opinion that the traditional ways of teaching grammar are irreversibly flawed. Mulroy also comments on ATEGs belief that the discovery of more modern ways to teach grammar are imperative. He then goes on to defend the traditonal means of grammar instruction. He points out two authors whos texts "embody traditonal school grammar" (88). After this fascinating information, Mulroy claims that Reed and Kellogg (the 2 authors who absolutely embrace old school grammar) are surprisingly similiar in their teaching methods to modern grammar instructors. After this, he goes into great detail about diagramming. This detail also includes illustrations.

I have to admit I was somewhat excited and surprised when Mulroy first started talking about tree diagramming. Why? It was awesome to read about something different for once. This excitement was short-lived however when I kept reading and found out there was only a small section dedicated to tree diagramming. I thought it interesting he actually presented a view different than that of his own. He also provided a LOT (or what seemed like a lot to me) of illustrations on how to properly draw Reed-Kellogg diagrams. Since we have already covered many ways to diagram sentences I found this section to be repetitive. Which could or could not be a good thing.

Aaaand Peace, Yo.

SWE....

Why yes I do think Standard Written English should be taught. I believe we need it to communicate clearly and effectively. I think I said this when I commented on Rachel's blog, but I, for one, do not wish to spend my uber precious time seeking clarification from people. I usually have questions about what they write anyways, like when I further inquire about a topic. So, I don't want to spend (waste) more time trying to understand what they mean.

As far as how it should be taught, I dont have any revolutionary ideas. It is probably more productive for people to learn SWE through composition. This way they learn through practice and have a more hands on experience. It seems it would be more difficult to learn through worksheets and then try to apply it to writing. However, people learn in different ways, so I suppose it wouldn't hurt to use both methods.

That is all. For now.

Mulroy. Again.

Mulroy (not surprisingly) stands up for prescriptivists. He explains that good grammar is necessary to reserve and spread the standard language of a country. America never really bought into establishing linguistic academies for the use of creating a standard language. With Webster publishing the first dictionary in 1806, grammar rules (basically standard English) became embedded into the English language. Mulroy claims that critisizing presciptivism so harshly has become "fashionable." He thinks this act, used most commonly by modern linguists, has hindered the teaching of proper grammar. He then goes on to explain why people should respect and learn standard English, saying that using standard English has slowed the rate of change in the English language.

Riveting.

pinker

Pinker gave many examples of why prescriptivists are "Kibbitzers" and "nudniks." My only problem with some of these examples is that I seemed to get lost. Or bored. I think I read one paragraph 3 times before I actually comprehended it. And even now, sitting here at the computer, it is difficult to force myself to comment on "Grammar Puss." Don't get me wrong, I like the article. I agree with Pinker's points (those of which I thoroughly followed). One of my favorite lines is when he states that "most of the prescriptive rules of the lanuage mavens make no sense on any level." I guess I just wished Pinker could have made these claims using a little less ink. Most of the time greater detail results in greater understanding. However, I'm not sure I understand it any better.

This post may not make any sense. I'm tired. And words are forming in my brain at an unusually slow rate. eh.