I can only take comfort in being right about it being a waste of time.


rocktivity

i paid enough attention to pass the test and that was it

Analysis (reading comprehension) and synthesis (sophisticated writing) go hand in hand.

Whether you do it visually or verbally, you have to be able to analyze the structure and logic of sentences to comprehend them and to find any ambiguities and to root those out.

Diagramming sentences is not a waste of time for many people, so your post is a gross over-generalization.

It is the structure and logic of what the words are trying to express that count -- I've always believed that it was better to concentrate on that.


rocktivity

eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation. Sorry, I saw the word "eschew" and that word always triggers this sentence in my mine.

Different people learn in different ways, and if class sizes were smaller there would me more time to assess and teach to the individual student. Those who are quick to say that diagramming sentences is a waste of time need to understand that, while that may be true in their cases,( if they instinctively know how to write a clear sentence and make themselves understood, and don't just have a closed mind), for others, diagramming may clear up their writing problems. True, it's not often taught anymore except in some remedial writing classes. Then again, there are an increasing number of lousy writers.

Have the patterns of lines revealed relationships between the works of one author and another?

Or, can they be used like fingerprints to identify the author of a work?

Can they, like Markov chains, be used to actually generate new writing that sounds eerily like Shakespeare?

Or can these diagrams be used to distinguish well formed sentences from those that are ill-formed, like Noam Chomsky's language classification and formal grammars?

If so, these structures might be useful.

But I haven't seen any research that is based on these structures nor seen any mind blowing insights derived from contemplating these lines.

If there has been such discoveries then I will joyfully proclaim my ignorance and avidly immerse myself in this new found pool of wisdom.

He is usually known for his direct writing and simpler structures.

I am sure that statistical analysis would reveal stylistic groupings that in addition to other factors such as vocabulary would be able to identify famous authors with great accuracy. Similar work has been done with music and programs can pick out the Mozart, say, from a collection of work by a variety of composers.

I see these Reed-Kellogg diagrams as aping real grammar analysis but not actually contributing to the field.

In my case, I was taught some kind of diagramming at one point in learning about English grammar, but I quickly "got it" and now I do the analysis in my head in a kind of verbal thinking that is non-visual, despite the fact that I am in many ways a visual thinker.

They stopped doing that since the 80s haven't they?

but don't remember how to do it.

By the time I got to the US in 91, kids my age from what I have heard never done it. So, I think it was taken out of the curriculum by then.

I'd moved, was establishing friends, was shy, and the 7th grade teacher was rather stern in demeanor, so I didn't understand WHY for MANY years! VERY valuable now, to understand what's happening!

This is wonderful! Thanks for posting.

I loved diagramming when I was in grade school. I don't think it's taught any more. If it isn't, it should be.

In seventh grade, the first year we changed classes, we had two English classes, one was reading and spelling and the other was grammar. I will always remember the list of prepositions and we spent lots of time diagramming sentences. Sometimes I still find myself doing that in my head...

My 4th grade teacher was gung ho on diagramming, and I'm glad she was. I don't remember diagramming in later grades, but by then diagramming was embedded in my brain.

I tried to teach my kids how to diagram, but they all thought it was boring and weren't interested in learning how to do it. As payback, I never miss an opportunity to correct their grammar. (Kidding. I wouldn't want them to hate me. )

But I'm still grateful for it, since it certainly helped me in my writing, find myself pulling sentences apart to this day. Guess it's embedded in my brain, too, LOL. And I don't understand why it's not still taught, especially for kids in the early grades, to give them a solid base, or for those who are struggling with the subject.

that I will, one day, pick out his nursing home

A few years ago I helped a friend with his homework. He'd been sent to the local community college for a remedial English class in order to keep his job. Smart fellow, just really lousy at expressing himself in writing. I asked if he remembered the basics of diagramming, and he looked at me like I'd grown a third eye in the middle of my forehead. He'd never heard of it. We started with the parts of speech, then proceeded to simple three-word sentences. About our third or fourth session the light bulb finally came on; he was amazed and more than a little miffed that it hadn't been taught in his schools.

His work improved so much that his instructor asked how he'd done it. When he said he'd learned how to diagram, the instructor responded with "Nobody does that anymore!"

Anyway...

Thanks a lot - or something.

looking at this and thinking: What the hell is that?

I don't think I've ever seen this before.

grammar. It brings the vague, abstract and often rote memorization of parts of speech (Noun,pronoun, verb,adverb,adjectives, preposition,interjections,conjunctions) into a visual form and the relationship of one to another. Basically, it - IMHO - shows the beauty of the language.

Obviously, you dozed off in Mrs. Brown 8th grade class or became enchanted with Suzy's sudden blossoming , so here's a refresher with a quiz or two at the bottom of the page.

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/definitions.htm

We will NOT be grading on a curve!

and grammar, that explains a lot. Suzy was pretty hot.

When kids read, they learn to write and speak, and they learn to appreciate the beauty of the language. Not by doing some kind of busywork identifying the parts of speech. So the kids can diagram all the different parts of speech. So what? Doesn't mean they can express themselves in the written or spoken word. That is only learned by reading, writing and speaking (or hearing someone else speak).

Most machine "understanding" and natural language translation programs use statistical models. In some sense our brains are using statistical models too.

Computer "languages" can be parsed into very neat diagrams and these diagrams can be a very useful tool for determining how to code a task, or for figuring out where code has gone wrong.

But natural human languages are messy, arbitrary, inconsistent, and packed with word combinations that have meanings and nuances beyond the words themselves.

A sentence diagram is rarely of any use in deciphering what the author truly means to say.

Attempts to create internally consistent human languages have failed. Esperanto, for example, has some gaping potholes in it unlike any natural language. You could break an axle or something on that road. Post-Esperanto constructed languages realized that a more relaxed approach to grammar greatly improved the language's capacity.

But relaxed grammars and rapid assimilation of words and concepts is why modern English is so successful. It's a very promiscuous language and easily adapts to any lover.

humans are messy,arbitrary, and inconsistent. Diagramming has NOTHING to do with meanings and nuances - it has to do with the structure and relationship of one word to another. You diagram to find out EXACTLY what a author truly meant to say.

Agree 100% modern English is successful, but there was a loss as to misplaced adverbs, adjectives, modifiers, etc. that leads to that messy and inconsistency you mentioned.

I once knew a man who had a wooden leg named Smith -

While reading a book, my cat crawled into my lap.

Oozing across the floor, Bobby split the honey.

They bought a cat for his sister that they called Tabby.

Obviously, you dangled some modifiers in your lifetime.

Here's a web-site refresher - very clear and to the point

https://www.utexas.edu/courses/langling/e360k/handouts/diagrams/diagram_basics/basics.html

Nope. Some statistical spark lights off in their head, or their proofreader's head, "Hmmmm.... that doesn't look right."

Constructed ambiguous sentences, of the sort you use as examples, are not really all that ambiguous.

Parsing natural languages for computer use one discovers most of the natural languages are ambiguous, the parser almost has to "know" what the speaker is talking about.

We've not reached "Artificial Intelligence" (or maybe no Artificial Intelligences has introduced themselves to me, as such, explicitly...) but we have reached the point where statistical models of language are fairly effective, as in google translations (some related languages better than others) or IBM's Watson playing Jeopardy.

But the failures of these statistical models are often very spectacular and telling. We still have no clear idea what it means to have a human mind or what "communication" truly is.

I sometimes wonder if astro-turfing artificial intelligences are not already posting on the internet.

That might explain so many of the comments on youtube, yahoo! news, discussionist, and occasionally here on DU.

It must not be difficult to create a perv right wing Fox News "expert" artificial intelligence, a simulation of a loofa sponge Bill O'Reilly with a vibrator up his butt.

The last time I diagrammed a sentence was in 9th grade I believe, Highschool anyway.

It was for Ms. Katherine 'Captain' Kidd. Unfortunately for her she asked us to diagram a sentence that could be understood two different ways when spoken aloud. And, so, I diagrammed it two different ways. I do not remember it. I wish that I did.

I do know that it was the last time she ever asked a class to diagram. I think I broke something in her head. Of course she was also the kind of person that insisted that poems could have only one possible meaning, which is one of the silliest assertions I have encountered.

That starts out with one l-o-o-ong sentence.

I do believe it is a lost art.

His 10th grade writing class did it for fun. He doesn't remember much about the sentance other than the one they picked took up half a page.

Haele

When I was an adolescent I attended a Catholic church whose founding pastor gave long sermons. I kept awake by mentally diagramming his sentences and it was fascinating - the sermons rarely exceeded a dozen sentences or so. Each one tended to be an intricate, sprawling web of subordinate clauses... it was hard to track the full structure in my head, but waiting for the main clause to emerge introduced a new dimension of suspense to the otherwise dull and predictable scolding of us sinners...

Flowing creativity squeezed into structured, logical fish diagrams.

ICK.

Nightmares of Ninth Grade...

... is diagramming helped me in comprehension. I would never have been able to enjoy literature, e.g, Nathaniel Hawthorne's half-page-paragraph run-on sentences.

I still diagram the occasional problematic sentence in my own writing to see how it should be tweaked and it's most useful in bringing out the zeroed terms, as in &quot You) call me Ishmael." But I think they made a mistake with the "Gatsby" opening:

In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice (and) I’ve been turning (it) over in my mind ever since.

I thought this was really a case of a zeroed "that"...

In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice (that) I’ve been turning over in my mind ever since.

So I looked up the text in a couple places. The line actually has a non-zeroed "that"...

In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I’ve been turning over in my mind ever since.

Good eye - very impressive. You get an "A" in American Lit. for that , or at least a wink-wink, nod-nod from Mr. Kotter.

It is interpreted as &quot You) call me Ishmael" which seems to be a straight-forward declarative sentence. I think it should be interpreted as an imperative: &quot Let you) call me Ishmael".

Could be interesting now, since I'm a Sign Language interpreter. ASL 's not linear, though. It's a 3-dimensional visual and conceptual gestalt following grammatical rules of its own.

Curious to see if diagramming an English sentence gives any insight into the interpretation process.

But first, a nap.

my grammar and usage website emailed to tell me that he is a long-haul truck driver who diagrams sentences to pass time at truck stops and when he has to stay overnight somewhere. He told me he was having trouble diagramming the Sixteenth Amendment, so he asked me if I would diagram for him.

I did so and sent him the nicest diagram I could produce. I am a scribbler and not particularly neat when I draw diagrams, but I used a straight-edge and drew this one repeatedly until I made it as pretty as I could, then traced it in black ink on another sheet of plain printer paper.

He wrote back to thank me and tell me that he had framed the diagram and hung it in his office. He also sent a little gift along with the note. His wife's job had something to do with specialty paper manufacturing, so he sent me a fairly large box filled with a variety of lovely specialty papers!

Almost anyone would be charmed by such a gift, I think--but for me, that gift went way beyond merely sweet. I have a weird obsession with different kinds of paper and writing implements. I actually go into office supply stores to "pet" the nice paper, pens, and pencils. When I opened that box of paper, I squealed like a kid on Christmas morning!

When I was a kid, we all learned to diagram sentences--and most of us got a kick out of doing so. I wish they still taught diagramming. Unfortunately, most schools don't now, and the few that do often don't do a particularly good job of it. When it is taught well it is really not that hard--and most people actually find it amusing. I know, because I teach diagramming to a lot of people, and everyone I have taught it to have enjoyed diagramming sentences and have become quite good at it.

I teach college English, but I also often tutor at all levels, from grade school through middle school, high school, and college. All my tutoring students learn to diagram sentences, not because they will ever be called on to do it themselves, but because when I am correcting their grammar and usage, I can use diagrams to show them where and why their sentences break down. Because of their practice in diagramming, though, all of my young tutoring students end up getting high scores on the grammar section of the SAT and ACT tests.

Since parents from certain cultures are more focused than a lot of American parents on making sure their kids do exceptionally well in school (meaning they learn, not just that they make high grades), those parents are willing to pay a decent fee for a good tutor. That is why so many of my tutoring students are Chinese, Korean, and Indian (i.e., from India).* It is always a delightful surprise for these parents when their kids end up scoring as well in English grammar as they do in math, which is usually their strongest subject.

*NOTE: I do tutor American students sometimes, and occasionally one of them will be a good student whose parents are willing to pay a tutor to help the student achieve even more academic success. But most of my American tutoring clients come to me only after having done so poorly in college that they have either flunked out or are on academic probation.

If they have already flunked out, my job is to help them get high enough grades in community college courses to enable them to return to the university; if they are on probation, then my job is to help them pull their GPA up to a level that will get them off probation. It has always bothered me that so many American parents are willing to pay high fees to athletic trainers to help their kids become star athletes in youth leagues or on school teams, but they usually are not willing to pay for a tutor, or if they do have to pay for tutoring, they usually can't wrap their minds around the idea of paying a decent fee for academic tutoring.

about the truck driver. I was envious when I read about the papers! We English types must have genetic code similarities.

What gets me going is just the sight of a pen. I love commercials with writing in them, like the ones on TV where the typing goes across the screen. It's even better if there's a sound effect that goes with the typing, like the clack of keyboard keys or the pounding of typewriter keys.

I also like print ads with handwriting on them. Picture a full-page glossy magazine ad with what looks like a Post-it note and handwriting on it. (And while this is slightly off-topic, did you know that ads with handwriting in them increase readership by 35 per cent?)

The sight of a typewritten page with edits and marks all over it makes me happy. Students (I'm an English teacher, too) are always so concerned about marks on their papers. "Do you want me to type this over?" or "Should I get you a new print-out?" Ink-stained wretch that I am, I always say, sleeves rolled up, "Oh, no! This is just part of being a writer!"

I'm glad you posted links from your web site. One time I wanted to refer to it and spent all kinds of time looking for it. I bookmarked it.



Cher

Perhaps you used the links I posted in another post on another thread some days ago.

BTW, I also love the clackety sound of typewriter keys, and the relative squishiness of a computer keyboard is disappointing to me.

And I too respond to ads with handwriting in them. When I write, I always use a super-sharp pencil on a thick pad of pristine lined paper. I never compose on a computer.

I can't stand using a pencil with an even slightly dull point, but since I press hard, mechanical pencil lead is too flimsy for me. Fortunately, my Korean tutoring students give me Korean pencil sharpeners, which produce the sharpest pencil points I have ever seen!