3rd Grade Grammar Help

[patrick.s...@gmail.com]

Mark the adjective for each question:

5) The children will hang their coats in this locker.

a)their
b)this

Only correct answer: B

How do I explain to my 3rd grader that when we say "9 coats", "these coats", and "red coats" we are using adjectives to describe the coats but when we say "their coats" we are clearly not.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

No "clearly" about it. I think you are trying to impose 18th and 19th
century notions of what grammar is on your child.


--
athel

[patrick.s...@gmail.com]

Maybe I wasn't clear in the fact that this is a structured classroom assignment brought home to me where my daughter asked me to explain why her answer of "their" was marked as incorrect. I am seeking assistance on how to do that.

[Don Phillipson]

<patrick.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0a85b2b0-a7ad-4184...@googlegroups.com...

PSF's problem is whether assistance is better sought from educational
authority or linguistic scholarship.

This dubious example however exemplifies "Hard cases make bad law."
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Jerry Friedman]

I would guess that the teacher's grammar says "their" is a pronoun and
not an adjective.

I'd also say you have to explain to your third grader (maybe not for the
first time) that he or she has to follow the rules as the teacher gives
them, for now, even if they don't make sense.

Is your kid ready for the idea that there are different ways to analyze
grammar, and the experts disagree on everything from basic approach to
terminology?

--
Jerry Friedman

[Traddict]

<patrick.s...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion : c9cdaec5-7953-4437...@googlegroups.com...

Both a) and b) are correct. The difference is "this" is a demonstrative
adjective, and "their" is a possessive adjective. ("Theirs" however would be
a possessive pronoun.)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2015-01-16 18:17:17 +0000, Jerry Friedman said:

> On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 9:33:02 AM UTC-7, patrick.s...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Mark the adjective for each question:
>>
>> 5) The children will hang their coats in this locker.
>>
>> a)their
>> b)this
>>
>> Only correct answer: B
>>
>> How do I explain to my 3rd grader that when we say "9 coats", "these
>> coats", and "red coats" we are using adjectives to describe the coats
>> but when we say "their coats" we are clearly not.
>
> I would guess that the teacher's grammar says "their" is a pronoun and
> not an adjective.
>
> I'd also say you have to explain to your third grader (maybe not for the
> first time) that he or she has to follow the rules as the teacher gives
> them, for now, even if they don't make sense.

Yes. That's the only viable solution. Later on the third-grader will
learn that not everything taught in school makes sense.

>
> Is your kid ready for the idea that there are different ways to analyze
> grammar, and the experts disagree on everything from basic approach to
> terminology?


--

athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

In recent linguistics (i.e., for about the past 80 years or so), both
"their" and "this" would be labeled "Determiner." I think what the
teacher (or the book) has in mind is that "their" is a "possessive pronoun"
because it has "they" inside it. But the actual possessive pronoun is
"theirs," as in "she has her book and they have theirs."

[Robert Bannister]

How can "this coats" possibly be correct?

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[Traddict]

"Robert Bannister" <rob...@clubtelco.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe
de discussion : chtrfl...@mid.individual.net...

You're right, it's not. I was focused on the adjective/pronoun issue and
failed to see the obvious.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Hunh? It's not "this coats," it's "this locker."

[Traddict]

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> a écrit dans le message de groupe
de discussion : fb6b5804-690d-4f11...@googlegroups.com...

It sure is. I should have reread the sentence, but I trusted the comment as
I know I can be very absent-minded.

[pensive hamster]

On Friday, 16 January 2015 18:17:19 UTC, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 9:33:02 AM UTC-7, patrick.s...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Mark the adjective for each question:
> >
> > 5) The children will hang their coats in this locker.
> >
> > a)their
> > b)this
> >
> > Only correct answer: B
> >
> > How do I explain to my 3rd grader that when we say "9 coats", "these coats", and "red coats" we are using adjectives to describe the coats but when we say "their coats" we are clearly not.
>
> I would guess that the teacher's grammar says "their" is a pronoun and
> not an adjective.
>
> I'd also say you have to explain to your third grader (maybe not for the
> first time) that he or she has to follow the rules as the teacher gives
> them, for now, even if they don't make sense.

Why do schools foster the idea that you must follow the rules, even
if they don't make sense? That seems inimical to basic principles
such as education, knowledge, and understanding.

My school (many years ago) was like that. They used to say that
they were teaching us to think for ourselves. Actually, they were
attempting the opposite, trying to get us to accept their received
wisdom, and not think for ourselves, because thinking for ourselves
might result in us sometimes questioning what the teacher said.

> Is your kid ready for the idea that there are different ways to analyze
> grammar, and the experts disagree on everything from basic approach to
> terminology?

Are the teachers ready for that idea? That seems the more important
question.

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 10:00:33 AM UTC-8, pensive hamster wrote:
> On Friday, 16 January 2015 18:17:19 UTC, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> Why do schools foster the idea that you must follow the rules, even
> if they don't make sense? That seems inimical to basic principles
> such as education, knowledge, and understanding.

Because everyone likes Easy Answers, and younger children can get confused
by too many special cases, so they need easy rules to follow.
Stick-and-ball handwriting exists for similar reasons.

>
> My school (many years ago) was like that. They used to say that
> they were teaching us to think for ourselves. Actually, they were
> attempting the opposite, trying to get us to accept their received
> wisdom, and not think for ourselves, because thinking for ourselves
> might result in us sometimes questioning what the teacher said.

It should, I'm thinking at the moment, be an iterative process.

Grade 1: Introduce rule X as "You always put Y after Z"/
Grade 2: "Remember Rule X? It's actually rule X1: Put Y after Z unless
the W is furry."
Grade 5: "Okay, Rule X1 works most of the time, but now I'm going to show
you what to do when V is Velour."

usw.

>
> > Is your kid ready for the idea that there are different ways to analyze
> > grammar, and the experts disagree on everything from basic approach to
> > terminology?

Maybe.

> Are the teachers ready for that idea? That seems the more important
> question.

I consider both questions equally important. The later the grade [1], the more
both answers should be "Yes".

[1] Obvious to some that that is AmE for "for the older child, attending school
at a more advanced grade (or form) level"

/dps

[Jerry Friedman]

On 1/17/15 11:00 AM, pensive hamster wrote:
> On Friday, 16 January 2015 18:17:19 UTC, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 9:33:02 AM UTC-7, patrick.s...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Mark the adjective for each question:
>>>
>>> 5) The children will hang their coats in this locker.
>>>
>>> a)their
>>> b)this
>>>
>>> Only correct answer: B
>>>
>>> How do I explain to my 3rd grader that when we say "9 coats", "these coats", and "red coats" we are using adjectives to describe the coats but when we say "their coats" we are clearly not.
>>
>> I would guess that the teacher's grammar says "their" is a pronoun and
>> not an adjective.
>>
>> I'd also say you have to explain to your third grader (maybe not for the
>> first time) that he or she has to follow the rules as the teacher gives
>> them, for now, even if they don't make sense.

> Why do schools foster the idea that you must follow the rules, even
> if they don't make sense? That seems inimical to basic principles
> such as education, knowledge, and understanding.

Because a lot of rules are good to follow even if they don't make sense
to young children, and because, as Snidely said, you have to start
simple, and because there are times in life when you have to follow
rules that don't make sense.

I'm in favor of teaching 1+1=2 first and the Peano Postulates later,
probably never for some people. Before anyone figures out a good way to
teach grammar, though, there may have to be more of a consensus on grammar.

> My school (many years ago) was like that. They used to say that
> they were teaching us to think for ourselves. Actually, they were
> attempting the opposite, trying to get us to accept their received
> wisdom, and not think for ourselves, because thinking for ourselves
> might result in us sometimes questioning what the teacher said.

I hope that led you to question the claim that thinking for yourself was
desirable.

>> Is your kid ready for the idea that there are different ways to analyze
>> grammar, and the experts disagree on everything from basic approach to
>> terminology?
>
> Are the teachers ready for that idea? That seems the more important
> question.

I agree what Mr. Whiplash said. Also, maybe part of the question of
whether the kid is ready is whether the kid can doubt the content of the
lessons without saying anything tactless.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Ian Noble]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 09:12:08 -0800 (PST), patrick.s...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Maybe I wasn't clear in the fact that this is a structured classroom assignment brought home to me where my daughter asked me to explain why her answer of "their" was marked as incorrect. I am seeking assistance on how to do that.

Sadly, the only good, simple answer is along the lines of, "Because
that's the answer they want - it's simplistic, but 'their' (and 'his',
her' and so on) is always considered to be a possessive pronoun."

If your daughter is bright enough, I suggest you congratulate her on
understanding that it's not actually as simple as that.

Cheers - Ian
(BrE: Yorks., Hants.)

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[Robert Bannister]

I forgot the actual question amongst all the nonsense about "their" not
being an adjective.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <c394030e-47a4-4563...@googlegroups.com>,

snide...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 10:00:33 AM UTC-8, pensive hamster wrote:
> > On Friday, 16 January 2015 18:17:19 UTC, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
> > Why do schools foster the idea that you must follow the rules, even
> > if they don't make sense? That seems inimical to basic principles
> > such as education, knowledge, and understanding.
>
> Because everyone likes Easy Answers, and younger children can get confused
> by too many special cases, so they need easy rules to follow.
> Stick-and-ball handwriting exists for similar reasons.
>
> >
> > My school (many years ago) was like that. They used to say that
> > they were teaching us to think for ourselves. Actually, they were
> > attempting the opposite, trying to get us to accept their received
> > wisdom, and not think for ourselves, because thinking for ourselves
> > might result in us sometimes questioning what the teacher said.
>
> It should, I'm thinking at the moment, be an iterative process.
>
> Grade 1: Introduce rule X as "You always put Y after Z"/
> Grade 2: "Remember Rule X? It's actually rule X1: Put Y after Z unless
> the W is furry."
> Grade 5: "Okay, Rule X1 works most of the time, but now I'm going to show
> you what to do when V is Velour."

Except for the grades this was the course of my physics and chemistry
education: we need to add /this/ to what we last taught you, right up to
quantum, where my brane exploded, and I now wander the world adrift.

--
charles

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

snide...@gmail.com skrev:

>> Why do schools foster the idea that you must follow the rules,
>> even if they don't make sense? That seems inimical to basic
>> principles such as education, knowledge, and understanding.

> Because everyone likes Easy Answers,

That is not my experience, neither as a parent nor as a teacher.

> and younger children can get confused by too many special
> cases, so they need easy rules to follow.

It is true that you cannot present young children with all
possible scenarios when they need an explanation. But
automatically falling back on easy answers is not the solution.
Give them enough of a proper explantion to satisfy their
curiosity. Make it as complex as their mind can cope with (if the
matter is complex).

> Stick-and-ball handwriting exists for similar reasons.

What is that?

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Dr Nick]

I still remember the shock of the first biology lesson where they
introduced (in one shot) all the structure /inside/ cells. What had
previously been a simple little blob became a complex assembly of
endoplasmic reticulum and golgi apparatus and ribosomes and mitochondria
and ...

Of course I ended up working on the bits that make up the bits that make
up one of those.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

snide...@gmail.com skrev:

> It should, I'm thinking at the moment, be an iterative process.

Not one that I follow.

> Grade 1: Introduce rule X as "You always put Y after Z"/

Now we have a problem, because we will have to later unlearn this
rule which doesn't work. *At least* start with:

The proper rules are a bit complex, so we'll study
them at a later time. For now we'll settle with this:

You often put Y after Z

>> Are the teachers ready for that idea? That seems the more important
>> question.

> I consider both questions equally important. The later the
> grade [1], the more both answers should be "Yes".

The answer independent of grade ought to be yes, but that is not
always the case.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Enter the Feynman lectures. He makes a point of pointing out that
everything he states about physics is as accurate as possible.
Which, of course, is /very/ accurate for all things electromagnetical.

> I still remember the shock of the first biology lesson where they
> introduced (in one shot) all the structure /inside/ cells. What had
> previously been a simple little blob became a complex assembly of
> endoplasmic reticulum and golgi apparatus and ribosomes and mitochondria
> and ...
>
> Of course I ended up working on the bits that make up the bits that make
> up one of those.

Care to expand on which bits of which bits of which one?

/Anders, Denmark. Incurably curious about all sciences.

[Cheryl]

I still remember my indignation when I was taught that the structure of
the atom, which I thought I completely understood, wasn't quite as I had
previously been taught. I wasn't much mollified when a teacher said that
actually, no one knew what the structure of an atom was, although there
were a number of more or less accurate descriptions which were suitable
for different purposes. All that effort in learning about some
inadequate model wasted!

Alas for the days when I thought it WAS possible to completely
understand things!

--
Cheryl

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2015-01-18 10:30:21 +0000, Anders D. Nygaard said:

> On 18-01-2015 10:19, Dr Nick wrote:
>> Charles Bishop <ctbi...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>

>>> [ … ]

>> I still remember the shock of the first biology lesson where they
>> introduced (in one shot) all the structure /inside/ cells. What had
>> previously been a simple little blob became a complex assembly of
>> endoplasmic reticulum and golgi apparatus and ribosomes and mitochondria
>> and ...
>>
>> Of course I ended up working on the bits that make up the bits that make
>> up one of those.
>
> Care to expand on which bits of which bits of which one?

I was wondering that, too.

--
athel

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

I think Nick is a geneticist. The bits of bits might therefore be the
strings of bits of DNA.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Dr Nick]

The proteins that, with the appropriate RNAs, make up the subunits that
make up the ribosomes.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <873878h...@temporary-address.org.uk>,

There is enough to do in one cell to keep legions busy for millennia. It
still amazes me and I remember when I discovered, or was told, that
cells were three-dimensional, not the flat blobs they appeared to be in
illustrations or on a microscope slide. It was wonderful.

I envy you your working with the blobs and bits, though I enjoyed my
non-bio work too, simple though it was.

--
charles

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Lewis skrev:

> That is not what School is about, it is about creating mindless
> automatons who will happily work in a factory (or cubicle) doing the
> same repetitive task every day until they die. Critical thinking skills
> are to be suppressed at every opportunity.

What factory? Mindless jobs are done abroad.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[pensive hamster]

On Saturday, 17 January 2015 20:56:24 UTC, snide...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 at 10:00:33 AM UTC-8, pensive hamster wrote:
> > On Friday, 16 January 2015 18:17:19 UTC, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
> > Why do schools foster the idea that you must follow the rules, even
> > if they don't make sense? That seems inimical to basic principles
> > such as education, knowledge, and understanding.
>
> Because everyone likes Easy Answers,

Maybe, but I doubt everyone likes Easy Answers that Turn Out
to be Wrong, or Only Sometimes Right.

> and younger children can get confused
> by too many special cases,

What confused me as a child, was seeing some teachers make
up rules for us, that they didn't follow themselves.

> so they need easy rules to follow.

Maybe some people need easy rules to follow, but I wonder if
such people might be a bit autistic or something. Perhaps such
people are drawn to teach in schools which favour regimentation,
easy rules, and predictable order. N Korea might suit them.

Life is often complex, and it seems sensible to foster, or at least
to avoid discouraging, an awareness that full knowledge and
understanding of all the relevant factors in any given situation,
is rarely attainable. Easy rules discourage such awareness.

I suspect that the easy rules are primarily for the benefit of
the teachers, rather than the children.

> Stick-and-ball handwriting exists for similar reasons.

I can't recall ever being taught stick-and-ball handwriting, but it
would seem a reasonably good approach for some letters. Not
so good for letters like s or w.

> >
> > My school (many years ago) was like that. They used to say that
> > they were teaching us to think for ourselves. Actually, they were
> > attempting the opposite, trying to get us to accept their received
> > wisdom, and not think for ourselves, because thinking for ourselves
> > might result in us sometimes questioning what the teacher said.
>
> It should, I'm thinking at the moment, be an iterative process.
>
> Grade 1: Introduce rule X as "You always put Y after Z"/
> Grade 2: "Remember Rule X? It's actually rule X1: Put Y after Z unless
> the W is furry."
> Grade 5: "Okay, Rule X1 works most of the time, but now I'm going to show
> you what to do when V is Velour."
>
> usw.

Change rule X for Grade 1 to "You usually put Y after Z, except
for some special cases which we'll tell you about later"

Otherwise you are teaching that "always" doesn't mean "always".
Which is possibly a valuable lesson in some ways, but should
probably be taught openly rather than surreptitiously.

> > > Is your kid ready for the idea that there are different ways to analyze
> > > grammar, and the experts disagree on everything from basic approach to
> > > terminology?
>
> Maybe.
>
> > Are the teachers ready for that idea? That seems the more important
> > question.
>
> I consider both questions equally important. The later the grade [1], the more
> both answers should be "Yes".
>
> [1] Obvious to some that that is AmE for "for the older child, attending school
> at a more advanced grade (or form) level"

OK, both questions are equally important. But adults sometimes
underestimate children, and insisting on simple rules and easy
answers seems rather like insisting they should only crawl, when
they are keen to start walking.

The idea that "even the experts sometimes disagree on this point"
probably isn't beyond the comprehension of school-age children.

[R H Draney]

Charles Bishop <ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:ctbishop-B46C65...@news.individual.net:

> It still amazes me and I remember when I discovered, or was told, that
> cells were three-dimensional, not the flat blobs they appeared to be
> in illustrations or on a microscope slide. It was wonderful.

"Wonderful" is not quite the way I'd describe the similar realization
involving organic molecules, that methane was tetrahedral instead of
lozenge-shaped and there was therefore no distinction between "adjacent"
and "opposing" pairs of hydrogen atoms (and therefore only one
dichloromethane and not a pair of isomers)....r

[pensive hamster]

On Saturday, 17 January 2015 21:59:09 UTC, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On 1/17/15 11:00 AM, pensive hamster wrote:

> > My school (many years ago) was like that. They used to say that
> > they were teaching us to think for ourselves. Actually, they were
> > attempting the opposite, trying to get us to accept their received
> > wisdom, and not think for ourselves, because thinking for ourselves
> > might result in us sometimes questioning what the teacher said.
>
> I hope that led you to question the claim that thinking for yourself was
> desirable.

Not really, because that would have led to a self-contradictory
position. Questioning the claim that thinking for yourself was
desirable, would require thinking for oneself, which was of
questionable desirability ...

So instead I questioned the sincerity of their claim. And wondering
if they even realised the contradictions they were creating.

[Robert Bannister]

On 19/01/2015 3:09 am, pensive hamster wrote:

> Maybe some people need easy rules to follow, but I wonder if
> such people might be a bit autistic or something. Perhaps such
> people are drawn to teach in schools which favour regimentation,
> easy rules, and predictable order. N Korea might suit them.

Other way round to my mind: it would be autistic to expect any rule to
work all the time. The fact that a few do is mind boggling.

>
> Life is often complex, and it seems sensible to foster, or at least
> to avoid discouraging, an awareness that full knowledge and
> understanding of all the relevant factors in any given situation,
> is rarely attainable. Easy rules discourage such awareness.

I disagree, or at least so long as it is pointed out that "this is a
working rule. To cover the situation fully involves a lot of rules and
exceptions, so we'll make do with this for now and add bits as we go".

>
> I suspect that the easy rules are primarily for the benefit of
> the teachers, rather than the children.

Have you never taught children? Even some adults need a gentle beginning.

[Robert Bannister]

On 19/01/2015 4:38 am, Lewis wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Bertel Lund Hansen <gade...@lundhansen.dk> was all, like:

> When our system of education was established there were many factories.
>
>
So clearly our system worked. Now many "western" countries have
virtually no manufacturing industry left.

[Peter Moylan]

You can't let the unemployed think for themselves. That's how
revolutions start.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
JE SUIS CHARLIE

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Thanks. Nice to know where to direct my questions ;-)>

/Anders, Denmark.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <XnsA4268674FCBCCd...@74.209.136.94>,

No wonder at all that there was movement and turning around bonds, no
sigh as you discovered the ramifications of tetrahedrality?

charles, yes but was it mee thane or meh thane?

--
harles

[James Hogg]

Whiles I stood rapt in the wonder of it came missives from the king, who
all-hailed me Thane of Cawdor.

--
James

[Traddict]

"Peter Moylan" <pe...@pmoylan.org> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion : m9ipsq$pp$2...@dont-email.me...

At least not the industrial revolution...

[abc]

On 2015-01-16 18:12, patrick.s...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maybe I wasn't clear in the fact that this is a structured classroom assignment brought home to me where my daughter asked me to explain why her answer of "their" was marked as incorrect. I am seeking assistance on how to do that.
>

The only explanation to give is that they are teaching her a load of
rubbish. None of the words given are adjectives.
(the "red" you mentioned yourself is the only one)


abc

[Mark Brader]

The year-old thread can be found at:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?_escaped_fragment_=topic/alt.usage.english/-vbSO8cicEk#!topic/alt.usage.english/-vbSO8cicEk
--
Mark Brader | "The only thing required for the triumph of darkness
Toronto | is for good men not to call Hydro."
m...@vex.net | --Michael Wares

[Traddict]

"abc" <a...@def.gh> a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :
n8fq9g$vu4$1...@news.albasani.net...

> On 2015-01-16 18:12, patrick.s...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maybe I wasn't clear in the fact that this is a structured classroom
>> assignment brought home to me where my daughter asked me to explain why
>> her answer of "their" was marked as incorrect. I am seeking assistance
>> on how to do that.
>>
>
> The only explanation to give is that they are teaching her a load of
> rubbish. None of the words given are adjectives.

Nonsense, they ALL are adjectives - numeral, demonstrative, descriptive and
possessive, respectively.

[David Kleinecke]

Since the original has gotten lost here it is again

<quote>
1/16/15
Mark the adjective for each question:
5) The children will hang their coats in this locker.
a)their
b)this
Only correct answer: B
How do I explain to my 3rd grader that when we say "9 coats", "these coats", and "red coats" we are using adjectives to describe the coats but when we say "their coats" we are clearly not.
</quote>

It seems to me we are getting confused about determiners. We have noun
phrases
the children
their coats
this locker
9 coats
these coats
red coats
If I set off the determiners
the children
their coats
this locker
9 coats
these coats
red coats
So there weren't any adjectives in the original sentence and only
one in the commentary.

This analysis is what I believe to be normal syntactic usage. I wonder
at your daughter's education.

[Traddict]

"David Kleinecke" <dklei...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe
de discussion : 06889daa-790e-4d78...@googlegroups.com...

the: determiner (definite article)

> their coats

their: possessive adjective

> this locker

this: demonstrative adjective

> 9 coats

9: numeral adjective

> these coats

these: demonstrative adjective

> red coats

red: descriptive adjective

> If I set off the determiners

Calling "their", "this", "9" and "this" determiners is a different approach,
but is not incompatible with the fact that they are all adjectives in the
broad sense of the term: "adjective" is derived from Latin "ad" + "jacere",
which simply means "which lies near" (the noun, in that case). If they
weren't, they'd have to be "pronouns" by the same terminology, which is
absurd.

> the children
> their coats
> this locker
> 9 coats
> these coats
> red coats
> So there weren't any adjectives in the original sentence and only
> one in the commentary.
>
> This analysis is what I believe to be normal syntactic usage. I wonder
> at your daughter's education.

?? Not my daughter's, you got it wrong.

[Rich Ulrich]

Not long ago, we talked about the written tests that some
states give before allowing you to take the driving test.
The ones that test your knowledge of their manual.

I conclude that this test of grammar is exactly like that.
You are supposed to demonstrate that you remember their
manual, and absorb a lesson in patience with arbitrariness.


I do rather like the one-upsmanship of pointing out the Latin
root of "adjective"-- to show that "next to" is what is rational.

>
>This analysis is what I believe to be normal syntactic usage. I wonder
>at your daughter's education.

--
Rich Ulrich

[David Kleinecke]

I wonder where you learned your grammar.

Chomskian and non-Chomskian linsguists alike call these things
determiners. The Chomskians are so into determiners they changed
what the rest of call noun phrases into determiner phrases.

The etymology of "adjective" is, of course, irrelevant.

> > the children
> > their coats
> > this locker
> > 9 coats
> > these coats
> > red coats
> > So there weren't any adjectives in the original sentence and only
> > one in the commentary.
> >
> > This analysis is what I believe to be normal syntactic usage. I wonder
> > at your daughter's education.
>



> ?? Not my daughter's, you got it wrong.

Sorry -son.

[Traddict]

"David Kleinecke" <dklei...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe

de discussion : 48843d5b-9c67-4471...@googlegroups.com...

Maybe so, but the issue discussed was whether the use of "adjective" was
'rubbish', not whether other terms can be used instead of it.

Anyway, are you claiming that the different types of adjectives I mentioned
just don't exist? Here's an example of what dictionaries say:

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demonstrative)

'Examples of demonstrative
In the phrase "this is my hat," the word "this" is a demonstrative pronoun.
In the phrase "give me that book," the word "that" is a demonstrative
adjective.'

>
> The etymology of "adjective" is, of course, irrelevant.

On the contrary, the etymology is of the essence, in that it shows how
adjectives differ from pronouns: adjectives "lie near" nouns and pronouns
(where "pro" means "for") replace nouns.

>
>
>
>
>
>> > the children
>> > their coats
>> > this locker
>> > 9 coats
>> > these coats
>> > red coats
>> > So there weren't any adjectives in the original sentence and only
>> > one in the commentary.
>> >
>> > This analysis is what I believe to be normal syntactic usage. I wonder
>> > at your daughter's education.
>>
>
>
>
>> ?? Not my daughter's, you got it wrong.
>
> Sorry -son.

Not _my_ son either.

>

[Harrison Hill]

On Friday, 16 January 2015 16:33:02 UTC, patrick.s...@gmail.com wrote:
> Mark the adjective for each question:
>
> 5) The children will hang their coats in this locker.
>
> a)their
> b)this
>
> Only correct answer: B
>
> How do I explain to my 3rd grader that when we say "9 coats", "these coats", and "red coats" we are using adjectives to describe the coats but when we say "their coats" we are clearly not.

"Red" is an adjective - none of the others are. Explain to your
daughter (as Don said earlier) that producing what your teacher
thinks is correct is more important than being correct.

My son would:
1) Note down casual personal talk about holidays etc - then feed
it back to the teacher as something they'd identify as "interesting".
2) Note how they presented text. If it came in boxes, he'd return
it the same boxes; so that they'd find it appealing.

That works in your job life; it works particularly well in your
love life; and is a great lesson to learn at whichever age :)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Traddict thinks the subject is the adjective of the verb.

[Jerry Friedman]

I learned mine in elementary school. Later I learned some other
things about grammar.

> Chomskian and non-Chomskian linsguists alike call these things
> determiners. The Chomskians are so into determiners they changed
> what the rest of call noun phrases into determiner phrases.

I suspect that Chomskian and non-Chomskian linguistics has had very
little influence on K-12 grammar teaching in the U.S.

I was taught that what I now might call determiners were a subclass
of adjectives. This idea is particularly convenient in French,
Traddict's native language if I'm not mistaken, where "adjective" thus
comprises all the words that agree in number and gender with nouns.

> The etymology of "adjective" is, of course, irrelevant.
>
>
> > > the children
> > > their coats
> > > this locker
> > > 9 coats
> > > these coats
> > > red coats
> > > So there weren't any adjectives in the original sentence and only
> > > one in the commentary.
> > >
> > > This analysis is what I believe to be normal syntactic usage. I wonder
> > > at your daughter's education.

I don't think it's what's normal in schools, and Patrick's daughter's
education doesn't surprise me at all.

--
Jerry Friedman

[David Kleinecke]

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Jan-30 08:33, Traddict wrote:
>
> "David Kleinecke" <dklei...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
> groupe de discussion :

> 48843d5b-9c67-4471...@googlegroups.com...

>> The etymology of "adjective" is, of course, irrelevant.
>
> On the contrary, the etymology is of the essence, in that it shows how
> adjectives differ from pronouns: adjectives "lie near" nouns and
> pronouns (where "pro" means "for") replace nouns.

Example sentence: "The ball, which was lying in the gutter, was red."

By your reasoning, "red" is not an adjective in that sentence.

[Traddict]

"Peter Moylan" <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> a écrit dans le message de groupe
de discussion : n8h59c$r24$2...@dont-email.me...

> On 2016-Jan-30 08:33, Traddict wrote:
>>
>> "David Kleinecke" <dklei...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
>> groupe de discussion :
>> 48843d5b-9c67-4471...@googlegroups.com...
>
>>> The etymology of "adjective" is, of course, irrelevant.
>>
>> On the contrary, the etymology is of the essence, in that it shows how
>> adjectives differ from pronouns: adjectives "lie near" nouns and
>> pronouns (where "pro" means "for") replace nouns.
>
> Example sentence: "The ball, which was lying in the gutter, was red."
>
> By your reasoning, "red" is not an adjective in that sentence.

It is, in that it doesn't replace a noun. Whether it's in an attributive or
predicative position is of no relevance.

[Traddict]

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> a écrit dans le message de groupe
de discussion : 258ffa38-74a5-4e06...@googlegroups.com...

No, it's _adjacent_ to it -- note the same root of "jacere".

[Peter Moylan]

And therefore the "lie near" etymology is also of no relevance.

[CDB]

On 29/01/2016 1:52 PM, David Kleinecke wrote:
> Traddict wrote:

>> "abc" <a...@def.gh> a écrit:

>>> patrick.s...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>> Maybe I wasn't clear in the fact that this is a structured
>>>> classroom assignment brought home to me where my daughter asked
>>>> me to explain why her answer of "their" was marked as
>>>> incorrect. I am seeking assistance on how to do that.

>>> The only explanation to give is that they are teaching her a load
>>> of rubbish. None of the words given are adjectives.

>> Nonsense, they ALL are adjectives - numeral, demonstrative,
>> descriptive and possessive, respectively.

> Since the original has gotten lost here it is again

> <quote> 1/16/15 Mark the adjective for each question: 5) The children
> will hang their coats in this locker. a)their b)this Only correct
> answer: B How do I explain to my 3rd grader that when we say "9
> coats", "these coats", and "red coats" we are using adjectives to
> describe the coats but when we say "their coats" we are clearly not.
> </quote>

> It seems to me we are getting confused about determiners. We have
> noun phrases the children their coats this locker 9 coats these
> coats red coats If I set off the determiners the children their
> coats this locker 9 coats these coats red coats So there
> weren't any adjectives in the original sentence and only one in the
> commentary.

> This analysis is what I believe to be normal syntactic usage. I
> wonder at your daughter's education.

The daughter's teacher may be working from a very latinate model of the
language; if that is so, "their" is different from your other
"determiners", which I would call "adjectives", because it is considered
an inflected ("possessive" or "genitive") form of the pronoun.

[David Kleinecke]

Continuing that line of thought what about possessives in general (all
of which are determiners to linguist)? For example'
We saw the king of England's crown.

[Traddict]

"Peter Moylan" <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> a écrit dans le message de groupe

de discussion : n8i4hn$1jd$2...@dont-email.me...

This apparent paradox only goes to show that the notion of attributive
adjectives is likely to have predated that of predicative adjectives, i.e.
that, by default, "adjectives" were thought of as attributive.

[Robert Bannister]

I can see how "their" could possibly be thought of as a genitive of
"they", but then it would be hard to explain "my" or "her" or "our"
using the same argument.

--
Robert B.

[David Kleinecke]

To heck with the argument. "My", "her" and "our" are genitives that
correspond to nominative "I", "she" and "we" and objective "me","her"
and "us". There are also "they/them their", "you/you/your",
"he/him/his" and "who/whom/whose". These are called "pronouns"
according to the idea that they substitute for nouns but it has been
suggested that are really determiners (for which there is nothing
overt determined).

[Traddict]

"David Kleinecke" <dklei...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe
de discussion : 6bd0e4d1-3088-402c...@googlegroups.com...

"your" and "their" don't substitute for nouns, they just precede them.
However, "yours" and "theirs" do and are pronouns.

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Jan-31 16:57, Traddict wrote:
> "David Kleinecke" <dklei...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
> groupe de discussion :
> 6bd0e4d1-3088-402c...@googlegroups.com...

>> To heck with the argument. "My", "her" and "our" are genitives that
>> correspond to nominative "I", "she" and "we" and objective "me","her"
>> and "us". There are also "they/them their", "you/you/your",
>> "he/him/his" and "who/whom/whose". These are called "pronouns"
>> according to the idea that they substitute for nouns
>
> "your" and "their" don't substitute for nouns, they just precede them.
> However, "yours" and "theirs" do and are pronouns.

"Your" and "their" substitute for nouns in the possessive (or genitive)
case. Do we now need to argue whether genitive nouns are really nouns?

[Traddict]

"Peter Moylan" <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> a écrit dans le message de groupe
de discussion : n8k8fq$d7g$1...@dont-email.me...

?? Are you saying that "yours" and "theirs" are the genitives of "your" and
"their"?

[Peter Moylan]

Not at all. I am saying that "your" and "their" are the genitives of
"you" and "they".

"Your dog" is another way of saying "Traddict's dog".

[CDB]

On 30/01/2016 11:48 AM, David Kleinecke wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> David Kleinecke wrote:

[thistlebottom country -- be vewy, vewy quiet]

>>> <quote>

>>> Mark the adjective for each question:


>>> 5) The children will hang their coats in this locker.

a)their b)this

>>> Only correct answer: B How do I explain to my 3rd grader that
>>> when we say "9 coats", "these coats", and "red coats" we are
>>> using adjectives to describe the coats but when we say "their
>>> coats" we are clearly not.

>>> </quote>

>>> It seems to me we are getting confused about determiners. We have
>>> noun phrases the children their coats this locker 9 coats these
>>> coats red coats If I set off the determiners the children their
>>> coats this locker 9 coats these coats red coats So
>>> there weren't any adjectives in the original sentence and only
>>> one in the commentary.

>>> This analysis is what I believe to be normal syntactic usage. I
>>> wonder at your daughter's education.

>> The daughter's teacher may be working from a very latinate model
>> of the language; if that is so, "their" is different from your
>> other "determiners", which I would call "adjectives", because it
>> is considered an inflected ("possessive" or "genitive") form of
>> the pronoun.

> Continuing that line of thought what about possessives in general
> (all of which are determiners to linguist)? For example' We saw the
> king of England's crown.

Under that model, neither "their [coats]" nor "the King's [crown]" would
be an adjective (I won't tread on the prepositional phrase).

[David Kleinecke]

Precisely they are determiners. This point of view does not dispense
with adjectives completely but it does not insist that every word be
assigned to one of a small number of parts of speech.

Determiners can get quite complex. In "Tagmeme Sequences in the English
Noun Phrase" Peter Fries postulates three successive levels of
determiner. For example:
almost all of john's own sixty-three [red trucks]

[Traddict]

"Peter Moylan" <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> a écrit dans le message de groupe

de discussion : n8ki5t$5r8$2...@dont-email.me...

The problem is that with that approach, "your" and "yours" can't be
differenciated and are both referred to as pronouns.

[David Kleinecke]

If you work with adjectives then "mine", "ours", "yours", "hers" and
"theirs" are adjectives. They typically occur after a copula - "This
is mine" etc. "His" and "its" are also used this way.

The usage in "A little thing but mine own" is obsolete.

[Traddict]

"David Kleinecke" <dklei...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe

de discussion : 44fc2601-fdbc-4b94...@googlegroups.com...

No, they are still pronouns, as they substitue for nouns: "This is mine" =
"This is my + <noun>".

[David Kleinecke]

I can't argue with you because we have different underlying concepts
of syntax. To me it seems you are stuck in a time trap around 1925
like the guy who kept quoting Curme.

That is, you are mixing up semantic considerations with syntactic ones.

[Robert Bannister]

Strange. I/my, she/her/, we/our look like totally different words to me
rather than inflected case forms. In addition, while "mine, yours,
theirs, etc." are pronouns, I cannot for the life of me see that "my,
your, their, etc." can be fitted into the same category.
--
Robert B.

[Robert Bannister]

I'm afraid that makes no sense to me. "Your", "their", etc. are
possessive adjectives (a class of determiner) not pronouns and they do
not substitute for nouns at all.


--
Robert B.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <56ae836d$0$4569$426a...@news.free.fr>,

Traddict <Tradd...@hotmail.fr> wrote:

>> If you work with adjectives then "mine", "ours", "yours", "hers" and
>> "theirs" are adjectives. They typically occur after a copula - "This
>> is mine" etc. "His" and "its" are also used this way.

>No, they are still pronouns, as they substitue for nouns: "This is mine" =
>"This is my + <noun>".

Possessive nouns work like adjectives, and so do possessive pronouns.
Attempting to partition words into mutually exclusive categories is
futile.

-- Richard

[Richard Tobin]

In article <dh7k3g...@mid.individual.net>,

Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:

>I'm afraid that makes no sense to me. "Your", "their", etc. are
>possessive adjectives (a class of determiner) not pronouns and they do
>not substitute for nouns at all.

Do you consider "John's" a noun? Does "his" substitute for it?

-- Richard

[Robert Bannister]

"Mine own" is a red herring because "my/mine, thy/thine" used to work
like "a/an" in former times, but not for a long time now. In a common
construction like "Mine is bigger than yours" they are very clearly
pronouns. It is "my, thy, your" that work more like adjectives, although
I would call them determiners.

--
Robert B.

[David Kleinecke]

"My" et al are determiners in every version of determiner I have seen
but many people don't work with determiners.

The idea that pronouns are determiners (without nouns - easy to do in
a theory that uses DP instead of NP) makes things a bit more parallel.
But, believe it not, these are still controversial matters.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 6:32:04 PM UTC-5, Robert Bannister wrote:

> Strange. I/my, she/her/, we/our look like totally different words to me
> rather than inflected case forms. In addition, while "mine, yours,
> theirs, etc." are pronouns, I cannot for the life of me see that "my,
> your, their, etc." can be fitted into the same category.

It's called "suppletion" -- like go/went, be/is/are/am, good/better. Whatever
their history, they are now forms of just one word.

[Traddict]

"David Kleinecke" <dklei...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe

de discussion : 2cbe103e-cf6b-4b00...@googlegroups.com...

No, I'm not. Even on syntactic grounds, "your" and "yours" are not even
remotely similar: you can have for instance a basic subject-verb pattern
with "yours", but not with "your" alone..

[Traddict]

"Richard Tobin" <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> a écrit dans le message de groupe
de discussion : n8m622$1ep1$1...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk...

> In article <56ae836d$0$4569$426a...@news.free.fr>,
> Traddict <Tradd...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
>
>>> If you work with adjectives then "mine", "ours", "yours", "hers" and
>>> "theirs" are adjectives. They typically occur after a copula - "This
>>> is mine" etc. "His" and "its" are also used this way.
>
>>No, they are still pronouns, as they substitue for nouns: "This is mine" =
>>"This is my + <noun>".
>
> Possessive nouns work like adjectives

...and like pronouns. For instance, in "He doesn't know Peter's age but he
knows Jane's", "Peter's" works like an adjective (a determiner) and "Jane's"
like a pronoun.

, and so do possessive pronouns.

No, unlike possessive adjectives, possessive pronouns can't be determiners.

> Attempting to partition words into mutually exclusive categories is
> futile.

Not so futile, apparently. Besides, the categories here are "possessive
adjectives/pronouns" and "determiners". I never denied that possessive
adjectives were determiners, but I do make a distinction between adjectives
and pronouns.

>
> -- Richard

[David Kleinecke]

A usual nominal possessive can play both ways
John's socks are white.
John's are white
But "pronouns" don't
Your socks are white.
Yours are white.

So the question hinges in the status of possessive's used as nominals.
That is, what is the status of John's in
John's are white. ?

IMO the correct description of this usage of John's is that it is a
determiner - here without a nominal - exactly as in
John's socks are white.

With that is mind I would say that possessive "your" is
morphologically changed if there is no nominal into "yours".

All the so-called pronouns have this trait - trivially in the case of
"he" and "it".

"Pronoun" is, in my view, not a part of speech. Rather it is a handy
name for a small set of very eccentric nouns.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 5:32:04 PM UTC-7, David Kleinecke wrote:
> On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 3:53:13 PM UTC-8, Robert Bannister wrote:

...

> > "Mine own" is a red herring because "my/mine, thy/thine" used to work
> > like "a/an" in former times, but not for a long time now. In a common
> > construction like "Mine is bigger than yours" they are very clearly
> > pronouns. It is "my, thy, your" that work more like adjectives, although
> > I would call them determiners.
>
> "My" et al are determiners in every version of determiner I have seen
> but many people don't work with determiners.
>
> The idea that pronouns are determiners (without nouns - easy to do in
> a theory that uses DP instead of NP) makes things a bit more parallel.

Nathan Sanders once presented that idea in a.u.e.

> But, believe it not, these are still controversial matters.

That's a good reason not to say that a certain word is a certain part
of speech as if that were a law of nature.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Robert Bannister]

Yes, OK, but I still think they act more like adjectives than pronouns.
I call them determiners anyway, because in my line (foreign language
teaching) is was a lot more useful. I have used a number of school text
books that classified numbers as adverbs, so I don't take much notice of
older methods of classification.

--
Robert B.

[Traddict]

"David Kleinecke" <dklei...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe

de discussion : 339ccb1d-5741-4443...@googlegroups.com...

That's where the shoe pinches John's socks, because a determiner without a
noun (phrase) just doesn't make sense. Your description is totally arbitrary
and runs counter the very definition of the word "determiner".

>
> With that is mind I would say that possessive "your" is
> morphologically changed if there is no nominal into "yours".

The reasoning is based on a wrong premise.

[Traddict]

"Traddict" <Tradd...@hotmail.fr> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion : 56affbaf$0$9225$426a...@news.free.fr...

...counter to...

[David Kleinecke]

You may not like but the idea has been around for fifty years or so.
I think Paul Postal was the first to publish it.

And I don't think "determiner" has any a priori meaning to conform to.

[Traddict]

"David Kleinecke" <dklei...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe

de discussion : 8401d7da-1bd0-4f67...@googlegroups.com...

Not an "a priori" meaning, just a meaning, which can't be twisted ad hoc to
suit one's point. Of all the possible definitions of the word I've seen, one
common trait was that a determiner _always_ occurs with a noun or noun
phrase.