Red wolves! 
I learned something interesting when following that link.
That is so very the. Will try that out at the next convenient occasion.
Or, maybe… should i tell the story of the red wolves instead…? 
That brings back memories of the discussion about the meaning of “=” that i once had the pleasure of taking part in (it happened in math class at university). 
(But i sure hope they don’t call me in for jury duty… 
)
[quote=“IYouThem”] Um …, I am not just starting out on this stuff. I am, perhaps, starting out on changing how I understand (prior to teaching) this stuff. For a related example, I found that teaching “a” and “the” as Indefinite and Definite Articles had questionable value to ESL students. Teaching “a” and “the” as adjectives is far more productive. As an authority, I read what one province in Canada had chosen about this.
Grammar still remains an area that can change, in both understanding and usage, as all living languages can and do. One reason I said that in b), swimming may be an Object is from the following (by Umberto Eco in his book, “Kant and the Platypus”, p. 24):
[…] if being is the horizon of departure, saying that something “is” adds nothing to what was already self-evident by the very fact of naming that something as the object of our discourse. Being underpins all discourses […]"
The jury is still out on the meaning, function and definition of “be” in the English language. Eco continues on for many pages trying to grasp the meaning of “be” and provides much stimulation, but nothing is conclusive. An excellent approach, in my opinion (although I have a tough time understanding a lot of what he is saying!).
Yes, “be” + swimming is a verb phrase, but to summarily dismiss the concept that “swimming” could be an Object is to imply that the function of the verb “be” is understood and complete. As far as I know, there is not complete definition of the word “be”, thus there cannot be any conclusive claims made about any words that follow it.[/quote]
Just some questions.
Who is an authority, and on what?
What does it mean to say that “being is the horizon of departure?”
When you want to indicate that you are engaged in an ongoing activity, such as bouncing a ball, do you not say that you are bouncing a ball?
Do you think that students struggling to learn a language benefit from esoteric mumbo jumbo regarding the structure of the language?
This bit was interesting though…
“saying that something “is” adds nothing to what was already self-evident by the very fact of naming that something as the object of our discourse. Being underpins all discourses […]”
Simplified down an bit you could use that when teaching Chinese to English speakers, “and” when teaching English to Chinese speakers. Thanks for that.
[quote=“IYouThem”]Grammar still remains an area that can change, in both understanding and usage, as all living languages can and do. One reason I said that in b), swimming may be an Object is from the following (by Umberto Eco in his book, “Kant and the Platypus”, p. 24):
[…] if being is the horizon of departure, saying that something “is” adds nothing to what was already self-evident by the very fact of naming that something as the object of our discourse. Being underpins all discourses […][/quote]
I’ve only read The Name of the Rose, which is fiction. I liked it very much. I’ve never read any his nonfiction, but I know he’s a semiotician, and an extremely bright man. He’s more than OK in my book.
I remember wondering, in junior high school (1965-1968), why the predicate nominative (as my teachers called it–now it’s usually called the subject(ive) complement), couldn’t simply be the direct object of the “be” verb. But I knew that if I put that on a test, I’d lose points. (In retrospect, maybe I should have gone ahead and labeled it that way, since I made horrible grades anyway.)
I also thought that introductory participial phrases, which are generally said to modify the subject, could have an adverbial quality; to me, they often seemed to be mostly modifying the verb. I lost points on a test for that belief, so I decided to get with the program (well, sort of). But my heart said the kid equivalent of “E pur si muove.”
The object of a verb is the thing or person that recieves the action of the verb. It is what the subject performs the action upon, or what it DOES something to.
George killed the cat so now the cat is dead.
Did George kill the cat? Yes, he DID. DID he kill the dog? No, he DIDN’T. DID he kill the cat or the dog? He killed the cat. What DID he kill? The cat.
The cat recieved the action of killing so it is the grammatical object of the sentence.
Oxford: Gram. an object is a noun or it’s equivalent governed by an active transitive verb or by a preposition.
BEING isn’t DOING is one of the basic assumptions of our language (somewhat flawed though some might be) and that’s why no form of “DO” is used to form, questions, negatives or short answers, in any tense, when the main verb is BE. There is practically nothing more fundamental than that in English grammar.
The grammar we teach should be clear, consistent, and readily applicable IMHO. If it isn’t we are just screwing people up and there isn’t any excuse to do that because the traditional understandings and descriptions are plenty clear enough. I doubt that there has been any fundamental change to the basic structure of English in what, centuries probably? And it definitely doesn’t help English students generally when teachers can’t agree on the basic terminology, even between themselves. We are still discussing here the best ways to “teach,” no?
Is Umberto Eco an ESL teacher? God, I hope not.
[quote=“bob”]The object of a verb is the thing or person that recieves the action of the verb. It is what the subject performs the action upon, or what it DOES something to.
Oxford: Gram. an object is a noun or it’s equivalent governed by an active transitive verb or by a preposition.[/quote]
Well, bob, if they ever invent a time machine, you can go back to 1967 or 1968 and set me straight.
bob, I didn’t teach grammar when I was in the eighth and ninth grade.
So we’re not allowed to have an open discussion of these things. Got it.
I’ve read Umberto Eco, and I’ve read you, and I think Umberto Eco would make at least five of you on the best day you ever lived.
You took that personally?
Anyway, discuss anything you want, but if the discussion is actually about “teaching” grammar I’ll definitely advocate keeping it simple and clear because otherwise it is worse than useless for the vast majority of students.
lmao - no wonder kids are scared to speak English here. They’re completely confused by the grammar that the teacher’s themselves can’t agree on. I try to stick to basic grammar especially for the first 2-3 years that they are learning English.
But most crucially – “Grammar and the necessity thereof”, or “Grammar and the necessity therefor”? Or perhaps “Grammar and the need for same?”
At least in my dialect, it is not grammatical to say “the necessity of grammar” unless it is referring to “the necessities of Gramma” which would be daily use articles for the mother of one’s parent.
Are we sure that “grammar” is the best term? I’m not entirely happy with it. Perhaps “syntax” would be better for some of the posts and “semantics” for others. Until we’ve all agreed on a more accurate term for the stuff what we are discussing then we can’t really agree on stuff that’s discussed.
It seems pretty common to me:
Here are some examples:
Ah, now we’re getting well into Umberto Eco territory.
Or Bill Clinton under oath.
Many people here seem to have an altruistic attitude toward teaching English. That is, many here seem to want what’s best for everyone. And as luck would have it, each person’s idea of what’s best for everyone just happens to coincide with that person’s preferences and prejudices.
I’d rather deal with honest selfishness than with that kind of altruism.
I don’t ordinarily teach grammar here. I’m occasionally “consulted” about various individual “issues” (such as whether barleycorn is a countable or an uncountable noun). I’m more or less a fifth wheel at my school. I don’t think that my situation is uncommon in that regard. I don’t think most foreign teachers have much influence on how things are done here. And as to the notion that we are the cause of their English woes: I can only laugh.
Yuli: Great comment! That is almost precisely what was motivating me to post some of the comments I have made. Those discussions were about asking questions, framing an idea, etc. Nobody was suggesting there was a definitive answer.
I really miss those discussions …
A1) An authority is someone I willingly respect and learn from. They have been there before me. Others however, may be forced to show respect and their invocation of (and attitude towards) authority may be different than mine.
A2) Well … I am going to say it means something a bit different to everyone, but nobody can state it with any ease or simplicity. For me, it means there is a continuum of existence - before I was born, during my life, and although I will be dead eventually, existence will continue without me. Clumsy, eh? I think physicists (and Star Trek) talk about “event horizons” - when previously there was nothing happening, then something happens. Etc. But … what does “happen” mean? “Happen” is just as difficult to describe as “being” and the best answer I have seen is some mathematics I sorta thought I understood, but cannot really fathom. That’s fine, cause there’s more thought needed!
A3) Yes.
A4) No, most students (unless they are advanced or interested) do not benefit. However, I think I will continue to benefit from trying to understand the esoteric, if it is communicated in a genuine fashion. I am not bothered by my inability to understand the complexity of it. If I somehow improve in any area of my comprehension of the structure of my own language, then, I think my students will benefit - but in ways that may not be obvious or even seemingly related.
(To continue, and hopefully return this thread to the original post’s sentiment …)
Here is an easier example:
1) I am bored.
2) I am boring.
3) I am boring you.
In 1), “bored” is an adjective and an Object. In 2), “boring” is an adjective and an Object. Also, in 1) and 2), “be” is the main and only verb. In 3), “boring” is part of a verb phrase (“be” is the ‘helper’ verb to the verb “boring”) and “you” is the Object.
Sentence 1) is a statement that is really only understood (by me) as being about right now. Uh-oh – it isn’t using the Present Continuous/Progressive! Too many ESL students think sentence 1) is in the Past (because of the suffix “-ed” in “bored”) and too many native English speaking teachers cannot find a way to meaningfully explain this apparent problem and provide a general grammatical understanding of why it is not using the Present Continuous/Progressive.
Sentence 2) is not only about right now, but it is about the Past (and possibly implying the Future). The speaker of the sentence is making an existential comment about himself or herself. Uh-oh – the grammar copies that of the Present Continuous/Progressive – “be” + Verb(-ing) making it look like a verb phrase. However, there is no verb phrase here, and the meaning of 2) is that of the grammar of the Present Simple. I think that understanding “boring” as an Object in 2) goes a long way to improving comprehension.
Sentence 3) hopefully needs no further commentary other than to say that the meaning of 3) is vastly different than that of 2).
In my original post for this thread, I used the following sentence in an example:
b) I am swimming in a sea of confusion.
I also made the comment:
In b), “swimming” is a verb (and/or may be an Object).
The reason I said that “swimming” may be an Object is similar, though not identical, to 2).
Perhaps a rearrangement of b) would help:
In a sea of confusion, I am swimming.
To me, “In a sea of confusion” functions as an adverbial phrase, and “swimming” has a clear (partial) function as an Object.
It just may be ….
What about those of us who are not swimming in a sea of confusion?
Like, “In a sea of confusion, we are not swimming” - let me try and guess: “not” is the object here and “swimming” is something i’ll call - for lack of a term; you may have a better one that fits here - an object-determiner (without which the object would seem kind of colourless and hazy).
But that doesn’t feel quite right (i can only give a vague feeling as a reason here, no logical explanation), so perhaps the object in this case is really “not swimming” - although that leaves me logically perplexed: how can something that doesn’t exist be an object ?
BTW, this brings up another structure that warrants a closer look:
“Three apples, I not ate them.” To what extent is such a “topic - ‘not’ comment” form permissible in English?
And to think there are people who think grammar can’t be enjoyable! 
[quote=“yuli”]What about those of us who are not swimming in a sea of confusion?
Like, “In a sea of confusion, we are not swimming” - let me try and guess: “not” is the object here and “swimming” is something I’ll call - for lack of a term; you may have a better one that fits here - an object-determiner (without which the object would seem kind of colourless and hazy). [/quote]
Wow! I like that! Still, I think that “not” just functions to show the opposite or inverse. I also intend to think more about colourless and hazy Objects!! And also think about whether, or if, “not” is something more.
Double wow! I too have difficulty answering this, and simply cannot at the moment. Still, in English, I think this is what we do say, or at least, I have said sometimes … This is (partially) what I think an idea is. No matter how badly worded or ill-conceived it may be! It exists … because I (or someone else) thought (of) it (as an Object)!
A little theory is a dangerous thing.
First, looking to the left, the right, the front, and the back to make sure the children aren’t listening (wouldn’t want to confuse them), why can’t verbs be classed as modifiers? It seemeth to me that if “I” am merely existing at time t-sub-a, and someone comes along at time t-sub-b and sticks “am swimming” in front of “I,” then “I”'ve just been modified all to hell! “I” didn’t even want to go swimming. “I” must have been thrown into the pool. “Am swimming” should therefore be called a superadjective.
Similarly, “I,” too, am a modifier, because what would “am swimming” be without “I”? “Am swimming” depends on “I” in the same way that so much depends upon a red wheelbarrow, glazed with rainwater, beside the white chickens. We shall therefore call “I” in this case an adverb of identity.
Charlie: At the risk of outing myself, I do think that you have expressed an idea that I was only fuzzily trying to ponder. Have you been there before me, too? Thanks for the leap!
The poetics of your conclusion are not meant for all, but (to quote the Kinks) “You Really Got Me.”
[edit] here’s the Kinks’ link: youtu.be/jTV48ZUrfnI
And speaking of “me”, can you please post your (poetic and otherwise) thoughts on the difference between “I” and “me”?