adverb - help with sentence diagramming?

Hi,

I just started learning diagramming a few days ago. I have the following sentence:

1. Suddenly, the least courageous member yelled shockingly loudly.

Question: under the verb section, does it matter which order "shockingly" and "loudly" goes?

Correct diagram attached.

I just translated this sentence diagram:

"I pledge to the flag of the United States of American allegiance" is that right?

Diagram attached.

The correct sentence translation: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America" but I don't in real life because I'm not american.

HeartShape said:

Question: under the verb section, does it matter which order "shockingly" and "loudly" goes?

Click to expand...

Shockingly modifies loudly, so the order is significant to me.

HeartShape said:

The correct sentence translation: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America" but I don't in real life because I'm not American.

Click to expand...

Remember to capitalise nationalities.

HeartShape said:

I just started learning diagramming a few days ago.

Click to expand...

NOT A TEACHER

Hello, HeartShape:

I, too, am a big fan of the Reed-Kellogg diagramming system

When you get time, I suggest that you check out a website called German - Latin - English.

It explains the basics of Reed-Kellogg and gives hundreds of example sentences.


Best wishes

HeartShape said:

Hi,

I just started learning diagramming a few days ago. I have the following sentence:

1. Suddenly, the least courageous member yelled shockingly loudly.

Question: under the verb section, does it matter which order "shockingly" and "loudly" goes?

Correct diagram attached.

Click to expand...

Why are you using the Reed-Kellogg system?

It has been universally rejected by grammarians as illogical, confusing, and unable to cope with complex clause structures.

I strongly advise you to stick with the 'standard' system of tree-diagramming.

PaulMatthews said:

Why are you using the Reed-Kellogg system?

It has been universally rejected by grammarians as illogical, confusing, and unable to cope with complex clause structures.

I strongly advise you to stick with the 'standard' system of tree-diagramming.

Click to expand...

Oh my god, this is fantastic how can you not like it?

When I was learning grammar at one point (some time back), I always wondered if there was some kind of diagram that existed to help show the relationship between words. And then, a week ago when I accidentally stumbled across this sentence diagram tutorial, showing the relationship between AND, OR, BUT, BOTH, I was amazed. This is what I wanted to see, or wish I could have learnt at the time. The way it is structured is actually quite visual to anything I have been exposed to.

I think the argument against it is poor. I mean, people are saying it requires additional skill set to draw the diagrams on top of learning another difficult skill set - grammar. I think its poor mentality to think that way. The diagrams are quite easy to understand, enough, to visually see the connection between words.

It does look confusing at first and maybe intimidating but once you go through a few tutorials you begin to see its value.

Currently I'm learning this so cannot comment further.

The sentence tree diagram looks interesting, but it doesn’t show the visual relationship between words. I think what I’m looking for is something to show a clear relationship between words.

Not sure about the complex clause structure. I think for me, the purpose of sentence diagramming is to help understand the basic idea of putting simple sentence together so you can advance to the next level.

HeartShape said:

Oh my god, this is fantastic how can you not like it?

Click to expand...

I don't like it for the same reason that virtually everyone else doesn't - it's an inferior and defective system.

When I was learning grammar at one point (some time back), I always wondered if there was some kind of diagram that existed to help show the relationship between words. And then, a week ago when I accidentally stumbled across this sentence diagram tutorial, showing the relationship between AND, OR, BUT, BOTH, I was amazed. This is what I wanted to see, or wish I could have learnt at the time. The way it is structured is actually quite visual to anything I have been exposed to.

I think the argument against it is poor. I mean, people are saying it requires additional skill set to draw the diagrams on top of learning another difficult skill set - grammar. I think its poor mentality to think that way. The diagrams are quite easy to understand, enough, to visually see the connection between words.

It does look confusing at first and maybe intimidating but once you go through a few tutorials you begin to see its value. Currently I'm learning this so cannot comment further.

Click to expand...

PM: The argument against is not poor, but solid and sound. To the best of my knowledge, the RK system is not used in learning establishments. That should tell you something, i.e. that it is not an intuitive diagramming system.

One of its major weaknesses is that it fails to show the constituent structure of sentences, a vital requirement for grasping the syntax of sentences.

Another is that it does not show both category and functions of the various constituents. Again, this is necessary if one is to fully grasp the syntactic properties of the various constituents.

The sentence tree diagram looks interesting, but it doesnÂ’t show the visual relationship between words. I think what IÂ’m looking for is something to show a clear relationship between words.

Click to expand...

PM: That's untrue, of course it does. It shows very clearly the relationship between words, phrases and clauses. That's why we all use it.

Not sure about the complex clause structure. I think for me, the purpose of sentence diagramming is to help understand the basic idea of putting simple sentence together so you can advance to the next level.

Click to expand...

PM: What's the point in learning a system for the basic stuff, and then having to learn another at a later stage for the trickier stuff. That makes no sense. The basic tree diagramming system is suitable for all levels, both beginners like yourself, and more advanced students - that's why it is widely used in mainstream teaching.

HeartShape said:

I just translated this sentence diagram:

"I pledge to the flag of the United States of American allegiance" is that right?

Diagram attached.

Click to expand...

I am late to the party here. A moment ago, just for kicks, I tried doing a Reed-Kellogg diagram of the U.S.'s Pledge of Allegiance. When, afterwards, I looked online for other attempts, I came upon this thread—and nothing else, amazingly.

HeartShape's "translation" of the partial diagram that he or she found for the Pledge does not take into account that word order is frequently not captured in the Reed-Kellogg diagramming system. For instance, the relative clause "for which it stands" appears, diagrammatically, in the sequence "it stands for which."

Also, in my opinion, HeartShape's diagram incorrectly represents "to the flag . . ." as an adverbial modifier, branching off of the verb "pledge." I believe that the (compound) prepositional phrase modifies the noun "allegiance," the direct object of the verb "pledge."

I may respond to PaulMatthews's criticism of the Reed-Kellogg system at a later date. As one who is well schooled in tree-diagramming and transformational-generative grammar, X-Bar syntax, etc., I can honestly say that I think the Reed-Kellogg system is worthwhile for some purposes, and even use it in ESL teaching.

If PaulMatthews would care to indulge us with a tree diagram of the entire Pledge of Allegiance, it would be interesting to compare the two diagrams. I would make a tree diagram of it myself, but I'm not sure how to tree the nonrestrictive appositive noun phrase ("one nation, under God," etc.).

Have syntacticians even come to an agreement about how nonrestrictive appositive noun phrases should be treed? If not, we could wait for decades for a consensus to be reached, at which time we could proceed to use trees for them in teaching. Or we could use the RK system, which has been handling such phrases for 150 years.

The Pledge reads as follows; my Reed-Kellogg diagram for it appears beneath. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.