An Analytical Quest
I am learning how to diagram sentences by using a number of youtube tutorials. My purpose is to lean English grammar. From what I have been learning, English grammar can seem very foreign to me, although I am English.
I am not able to find a single youtube tutorial that answers all of the questions and they all tend to specialize in particular concepts of grammar.
My goal is to be able to analyze any English sentence so that I can understand what I read and what I write and then the structure of my speech.
Presently, I am learning the components of a sentence and how they fit together. I will add that that is not a case of simple math. It sometimes seems like a case of complex logic mixed with a litany of intuition (whatever that might be).
Below is a sentence I found on the 'Time Magazine' website. (it might even be two sentences)
I am making no claims about the diagram except that the diagram is incorrect -- the diagram is wrong.
To state that it is wrong is a generalization (although a very accurate generalization) that means it has a number of errors.
How it is correct is that it represents my thinking about the sentence and therefore offers an open window to how I am structuring the sentence deeper in my mind based on what I think I understand (...)
I ask this question to those who might see clearly "Where is my understanding going wrong and in what areas do I need to get more information and dwell upon?"
I look forward with excited anticipation to any revealing comments.
Re: An Analytical Quest
This is pretty good. You seem to understand syntax a la Reed Kellogg very well.
Originally Posted by orbiter
The best that I can offer you is my own series of videos on Youtube. The Channel is Frank Antonson. The videos start with a number like 47.1.
I teach through morphology fairly completely, and then move on to syntax.
At present I can offer you no better.
Re: An Analytical Quest
Thanks for the direction Frank.
I was not sure about the appositive attached to "something", because it joins two sentences. I think it is correct because the second sentence explains the first, which is what an appositive does.
I have made a few modifications to the diagram:
1. "it" is not an adverb, so it can't modify "caused". I have seen pronouns situated above the verb, as in the fashion below with the word 'that'.
2. The subordinating conjunction "as" typed in red, in the diagram below, does suggest a clause. The type of clause is a 'time' modifier and therefore an adverb clause. My reasoning is that 'as' could be replaced with the word 'when' or 'at the same time as'. An adverb clause cannot modify the noun "spacecraft" or the preposition "to", but it can modify the adverbial "shake".
Re: An Analytical Quest
You're good. It is so much fun to see somebody diagramming for the sheer challenge and joy of it.
I can read your diagram fine as it is now diagrammed, but I have some further suggestions. First. Did you consider that "plunging" could be an objective complement? I'm not too sure about that. Also, both it and "to their deaths" COULD be considered as adverbial and modifying "could have sent". But your solution seems acceptable to me. The three names I consider an appositive to "astronauts" and the whole package should be in parentheses.
"To shake.." IS, I believe an objective complement as in "The sun caused the tomatoes to ripen."
You have diagrammed "it" as what Reed-Kellogg calls a "funtion word". Rather I think it is the second component of the correlative adverb "so...it", or more easily identifyable as "so...(strong)...that". Corelative adverbs are diagrammed differently. qv.
"One" as an appositive is not an isolated word and the parentheses should not close immediately. You MIGHT want to think of the words "which was" as ellyptical. Then you would be dealing with an adjective clause modifying "one".
Finally "up and down" requires no bended line. It is not a phrase but rather two compounded modifiers.
I am not sure how much of this will help you. But. once again, it is fun.
You might want to look back on this forum to "Diagramming Shakespeare" or "Shakespaere Diagrammed". I made about 30, I think, diagrams just to show how much fun R-K can be. That was before R-K was better accepted on the forum. R-K was like the new kid on the block. I EVEN think that you might be able to find a diagram that I did with a man who spoke Persian. We diagrammed the same sentence in two languages and put them side by side. Persian, must be diagrammed from right to left. It looked pretty cool. Maybe I'll look for it myself. But that was about three years ago.
By vgv8 in forum Ask a Teacher
Last Post: 28-Dec-2010, 09:44
By enydia in forum Ask a Teacher
Last Post: 26-Jun-2010, 06:19
By wuwei in forum Ask a Teacher
Last Post: 14-Aug-2009, 14:57
By Question & Answer in forum Ask a Teacher
Last Post: 03-Mar-2008, 20:15
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO