diagramming sentences, and Latin, and it's boring
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/24/02 9:21:39 PM, abtleo@... writes:
<< what is/was the point of diagramming sentences beyond the obvious grade for
the assignment/know it for the test thing? Has *anybody* EVER used this? >>
I have, but then I never learned to diagram the REALLY crazed 35 word 19th
century sentences. I know people used to.
The modern-day solution seems to be to have grammatical experts (editors) or
to just make shorter, simpler sentences.
In a context in which long, complicated sentences are preferred, sometimes
it's possible to lose sight of what the subject was, and what tense and voice
it's all in, and a diagram is a way to splay it all out and find missing or
mis-matched parts. It's "showing all your work," grammatically.
I think a large part of why it has fallen by the wayside is that it's only
useful to a very small percentage of people. But in the interest of
discipline and conformity, the English school system was teaching Latin and
English. With diagramming, they could show them in parallel. It created a
kind of common denominator, or common base-system to analyze English grammar
in the same way they were Latin.
Latin is what's known as a dead language. It's fixed as it is, because it's
not spoken by any native speakers. It's good to know for
historical/linguistic purposes (for people so inclined) and for those who
want to translate or read medieval legal texts, or pre-medieval historians,
or for those who need to work at the Vatican. It was required of medical
students and pharmacists into the second part of the 20th century, mostly out
of tradition, and so that they could more readily understand the names of
medicines and body parts and procedures (although LOTS of those are in Greek
and not Latin, which points to the history of medical research and scientific
inquiry. The reason given, though, which seems to me to be the least of the
purposes was because prescriptions were written in Latin. It was partly the
medieval trades guild tradition, to keep their stuff arcane and to require
lots of hoop-jumping to get in. It also enabled doctors to share their
research in Latin, but I think it's been a long time since researchers wrote
up their findings in Latin to share.
There's a snob-appeal, a class-protection, in England (and somewhat in the
U.S.) about "having Latin." Except for its uses in understanding
similarities in some European languages, though, it's a bit like the stars on
the first star-bellied sneetches, only it takes a lot of work and nobody is
born with it. No native-speaker advantage for anybody.
Dissecting English was traditionally required, because they were doing the
whole "nominative case" kind of lingo for so long (trying to make English fit
Latin's grammatical rules, and having specialized grammatical terms to baffle
the uninitiated--not the original purpose, but the ultimate result.
If we totally reject the lingo and the analysis, then only a specialized few
will be able to polish language to a long-term, respectable, publishable
level. But it's probably always been that way anyway, school just pretended
it was something everyone NEEDED to know.
English, being a living language, changes and grows, and so attempts to
fossilize an early 19th century form failed. It's called "prescriptive
grammar," trying to solidify English and make it "sit; stay." The business
of charting the language as it exists and as it changes and describing what
native speakers DO say and write is "descriptive grammar."
People with no special interest in the intricacies of language don't need to
diagram sentences any more than I need to dissect a horse and learn where all
the nerves and muscles are. That's for veterinarians who plan to need to
know how to put a horse back together someday.
Sandra
<< what is/was the point of diagramming sentences beyond the obvious grade for
the assignment/know it for the test thing? Has *anybody* EVER used this? >>
I have, but then I never learned to diagram the REALLY crazed 35 word 19th
century sentences. I know people used to.
The modern-day solution seems to be to have grammatical experts (editors) or
to just make shorter, simpler sentences.
In a context in which long, complicated sentences are preferred, sometimes
it's possible to lose sight of what the subject was, and what tense and voice
it's all in, and a diagram is a way to splay it all out and find missing or
mis-matched parts. It's "showing all your work," grammatically.
I think a large part of why it has fallen by the wayside is that it's only
useful to a very small percentage of people. But in the interest of
discipline and conformity, the English school system was teaching Latin and
English. With diagramming, they could show them in parallel. It created a
kind of common denominator, or common base-system to analyze English grammar
in the same way they were Latin.
Latin is what's known as a dead language. It's fixed as it is, because it's
not spoken by any native speakers. It's good to know for
historical/linguistic purposes (for people so inclined) and for those who
want to translate or read medieval legal texts, or pre-medieval historians,
or for those who need to work at the Vatican. It was required of medical
students and pharmacists into the second part of the 20th century, mostly out
of tradition, and so that they could more readily understand the names of
medicines and body parts and procedures (although LOTS of those are in Greek
and not Latin, which points to the history of medical research and scientific
inquiry. The reason given, though, which seems to me to be the least of the
purposes was because prescriptions were written in Latin. It was partly the
medieval trades guild tradition, to keep their stuff arcane and to require
lots of hoop-jumping to get in. It also enabled doctors to share their
research in Latin, but I think it's been a long time since researchers wrote
up their findings in Latin to share.
There's a snob-appeal, a class-protection, in England (and somewhat in the
U.S.) about "having Latin." Except for its uses in understanding
similarities in some European languages, though, it's a bit like the stars on
the first star-bellied sneetches, only it takes a lot of work and nobody is
born with it. No native-speaker advantage for anybody.
Dissecting English was traditionally required, because they were doing the
whole "nominative case" kind of lingo for so long (trying to make English fit
Latin's grammatical rules, and having specialized grammatical terms to baffle
the uninitiated--not the original purpose, but the ultimate result.
If we totally reject the lingo and the analysis, then only a specialized few
will be able to polish language to a long-term, respectable, publishable
level. But it's probably always been that way anyway, school just pretended
it was something everyone NEEDED to know.
English, being a living language, changes and grows, and so attempts to
fossilize an early 19th century form failed. It's called "prescriptive
grammar," trying to solidify English and make it "sit; stay." The business
of charting the language as it exists and as it changes and describing what
native speakers DO say and write is "descriptive grammar."
People with no special interest in the intricacies of language don't need to
diagram sentences any more than I need to dissect a horse and learn where all
the nerves and muscles are. That's for veterinarians who plan to need to
know how to put a horse back together someday.
Sandra
Fetteroll
on 4/25/02 4:54 AM, SandraDodd@... at SandraDodd@... wrote:
Vatican actually added some new words to Latin and published an 18,000 word
dictionary in 1991, Lexicon Recentis Latinitas. (18,000 new words or 18,000
words total?) I'm assuming these words were decided by committee rather than
actual use so new words don't make Latin any less dead.
Here's part of what Uncle John listed. Most of them are phrases cobbled
together from I assume existing Latin words, but there were a couple of what
I assume are new words.
AIDS: syndrome comparati defectus immunitatis
babysitter: infantaria
carburetor: aeris benzinique mixtura (I can't imagine why the Vatican feels
a burning need to discuss carburetors in Latin)
Christmas tree: arbor natalicia
cellulite: cellulitis
discotheque: orbium phonographicorum theca
fax: exemplum simillime espressum
hypnotherapy: hypnotherapia
Joyce
> Latin is what's known as a dead language. It's fixed as it isJust as a little side note, it says in Uncle John's Bathroom Reader that the
Vatican actually added some new words to Latin and published an 18,000 word
dictionary in 1991, Lexicon Recentis Latinitas. (18,000 new words or 18,000
words total?) I'm assuming these words were decided by committee rather than
actual use so new words don't make Latin any less dead.
Here's part of what Uncle John listed. Most of them are phrases cobbled
together from I assume existing Latin words, but there were a couple of what
I assume are new words.
AIDS: syndrome comparati defectus immunitatis
babysitter: infantaria
carburetor: aeris benzinique mixtura (I can't imagine why the Vatican feels
a burning need to discuss carburetors in Latin)
Christmas tree: arbor natalicia
cellulite: cellulitis
discotheque: orbium phonographicorum theca
fax: exemplum simillime espressum
hypnotherapy: hypnotherapia
Joyce