This is a fake article that I wrote a few years ago about the Seattle Mariners. I wrote it as a prank. It was a prank that I was pulling on my mom, who is really gullible. The story behind it is that she can't stand the former Seattle Mariners player Norm Charlton. I wrote this during the 2008 season, when the Mariners were really sucking. I I wrote the article saying that THEIR FORMER MANAGER, JOHN MCLAREN (appositive), had quit and that NORM CHARLTON, THE BULLPEN COACH AT THE TIME (appositive), had been promoted to the new managerial position. She was not happy when I showed her the story, and she though it was real, SEEING AS I HAD ACTUALLY MADE IT LOOK LIKE A REAL ARTICLE (participle phrase). So, I have revised some sentences in it to make it fit this blog. Just remember that nothing in the following article is actually true. :)
5/10/2008
SEATTLE--Mariners Manager John McLaren made a move much like former skipper Mike Hargrove on Saturday, ANNOUNCING THAT HE IS STEPPING DOWN AS THE MARINERS MANAGER AFTER LESS THAN A SEASON (participle phrase), effective immediately.
"I've just decided that I can't do this anymore," McLaren said at a Saturday morning press conference, hours after the Mariners lost to the Chicago White Sox 4-2. "I'm not getting what I want out of these guys anymore, and I know they aren't doing the best they can for me."
The Mariners have won only one game since May began, and lost fifteen games in April while only winning twelve, and the frustration just kept building for McLaren.
"I'm out there trying to tell them what to do and something just isn't clicking," he said. "I don't know what it is or what can be done to mediate it, but I think the team would be better served without me."
McLaren also said that if the team was giving him 100 percent, then things would be "a lot different."
"It's obvious they aren't trying out there. If they were trying, we would be winning ball games."
Asked if he was going to miss the Mariners organization, McLaren said that he would follow he Mariners, and he would be rooting for them , but he just can't manage them anymore.
"I'm just not getting out of this what I wanted or expect to get out of this. However, I do wish the best for the players and the coaches and the whole organization. I hold nothing against the ball club, but things would just be better off with me out of the picture."
The club and the players, SHOOKEN AND SHOCKED (adjectives out-of-order), said that they didn't see anything like this coming.
"No one could have predicted this," ADRIAN BELTRE, THE MARINERS THIRD BASEMEN (appositive) said. "This sucks. I liked McLaren a lot, and it's not going to be the same without him here. I know that I gave it my all for the team and for him everyday, so I just don't know who or what he's talking about when he says the team isn't giving him 100 percent anymore."
Center fielder Ichiro Suzuki agreed.
"I'm giving my all. I think most of us are giving our all," he said through an interpreter. "I just don't understand where he is coming from. This was totally unexpected, just as it was with Hargrove last season."
When Hargrove stepped down in the middle of the season last season, that is what brought McLaren to the managerial position in the first place.
In a move to appoint a new manager as fast as possible, GENERAL MANAGER BILL BAVASI (appositive) announced that Norm Charlton--THE CURRENT BULLPEN COACH (appositive)--would take over the managerial role for the remainder of the season. Pitching coach Mel Stottlemeyer will work as the bullpen coach, as well as he pitching coach until a bullpen replacement can be found, ACCORDING TO BAVASI (participle phrase).
"Norm's a great guy and did great things when he played in Seattle," Bavasi said. "I think he will be great as the Mariners manager, and it is just unfortunate that we are in this position again this season with the manager. That being said, Norm is the ideal guy to appoint in this situation. I wouldn't have it any other way, other than not being in this situation at all."
Charlton said that he didn't expect any of this to happen and, at the moment, doesn't have a plan for managing the team.
"I am hoping that we can get back on track, and start winning some ball games. I hope that the team will accept me, GRACIOUSLY (adjectives out-of-order), as their new manager and will work really hard to prove to John and the rest of baseball that they can contend and that they can win ball games," he said. "I am just going to take this one day at a time, though, and see what comes out of it."
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Revision
For my revision, I revised a history paper that I wrote and the professor specifically pointed out where I used passive voice and shouldn't have. I think I might have some AAWWUUBIS clauses in there, but I'm not sure. :)
For many years before the first national parks were created, the idea of establishing national parks had been played around with and debated about. The idea began to become a reality in the mid-1800s. Something that was a setback for national parks was the fact that Indians lived on the lands that were being looked at to create the parks. Americans in the eastern United States and Indians had many differing viewpoints on what the lands should be used for. Americans wanted national parks and Indians called the lands their home. According to Spence, Americans even had viewpoints that weren’t similar amongst each other. Some people, such as George Catlin, wanted to preserve the wilderness, but his vision “included the presence of Indians” (Spence 10). Still others, according the Spence, saw that preserving the wilderness went “hand in hand with native dispossession” (3).
Several years before the first national parks were created, many Americans had tossed around and debated the idea of actually creating national parks and preserving wilderness. In the mid-1800s the idea began to become a reality. A setback for the national parks proved to be the Indians who resided on the lands. The lands that were being looked at to create parks happened to be the same lands that many North American Indian tribes called home. Controversy was created with Americans in the eastern United States and Indians having differing viewpoints on how the lands should be used. Many Americans wanted national parks, but that would mean the Indians would have to relocate. According to Spence, differing viewpoints were even found amongst the Americans advocating for national parks and the preservation of wilderness. Some people, such as George Catlin, wanted to preserve the wilderness, but his vision “included the presence of Indians” (Spence 10). Still others, according to Spence, saw that preserving the wilderness went “hand in hand with native dispossession” (3).
For many years before the first national parks were created, the idea of establishing national parks had been played around with and debated about. The idea began to become a reality in the mid-1800s. Something that was a setback for national parks was the fact that Indians lived on the lands that were being looked at to create the parks. Americans in the eastern United States and Indians had many differing viewpoints on what the lands should be used for. Americans wanted national parks and Indians called the lands their home. According to Spence, Americans even had viewpoints that weren’t similar amongst each other. Some people, such as George Catlin, wanted to preserve the wilderness, but his vision “included the presence of Indians” (Spence 10). Still others, according the Spence, saw that preserving the wilderness went “hand in hand with native dispossession” (3).
Several years before the first national parks were created, many Americans had tossed around and debated the idea of actually creating national parks and preserving wilderness. In the mid-1800s the idea began to become a reality. A setback for the national parks proved to be the Indians who resided on the lands. The lands that were being looked at to create parks happened to be the same lands that many North American Indian tribes called home. Controversy was created with Americans in the eastern United States and Indians having differing viewpoints on how the lands should be used. Many Americans wanted national parks, but that would mean the Indians would have to relocate. According to Spence, differing viewpoints were even found amongst the Americans advocating for national parks and the preservation of wilderness. Some people, such as George Catlin, wanted to preserve the wilderness, but his vision “included the presence of Indians” (Spence 10). Still others, according to Spence, saw that preserving the wilderness went “hand in hand with native dispossession” (3).
Sunday, February 28, 2010
AAAWWUBBIS
I never learned about AAAWWUBBIS while I was in school, which is too bad. I really wish I had, because now I’m having trouble understanding them in this class. I think I have the basics down, but I am having trouble identifying AAAWWUBBIS clauses when I’m reading something. With this blog, I am honestly just writing it and hoping that there is an AAAWWUBBIS clause or two in here, so that I can try to find it. Before this week I had never even heard of AAAWWUBBIS. Before just a couple weeks ago, I had never even heard of FANBOYS. After learning a bit about FANBOYS and AAAWWUBIS, I’m wondering what my teachers actually taught me while I was in school. Although I don’t have a full understanding of AAAWWUBIS and FANBOYS yet, I can’t wait to learn more about them so that one day I can teach them to my classes.
Question: I’m still having trouble with subordinating clauses. Would someone be able to explain them to me a little bit? Did I do the AAAWWUBBIS clauses right?
Question: I’m still having trouble with subordinating clauses. Would someone be able to explain them to me a little bit? Did I do the AAAWWUBBIS clauses right?
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Patience is the Key
I feel as if I got a very important lesson in teaching this last week. That lesson is called patience. I’ve always kind of considered myself to be a generally patient person, but I still feel like I got a good lesson in patience this week with the Dora reading.
If I look back at my teachers that I had all throughout elementary school, middle school, high school, and even college, I can only think of one or two that possessed the kind of patience that the teacher in the Dora reading possessed. I also think that it takes a special teacher to possess that kind of patience. More teachers should definitely try to utilize their patience more often too.
What I’m really saying here is that through the teacher in the Dora reading I feel like I learned a little something about patience. I learned that your students are not going to master something in five minutes, or one day, or within a couple days. You may want your students to understand something and master it immediately, but the simple fact is that they won’t. Learning takes time. I feel that I’ve always known that learning takes time, but what I learned this week is that teaching takes time too. You can’t just teach something and then move on from it, expecting that your students mastered it right away. You have to teach it over time and help them to learn it over time.
Learning takes patience, but so does teaching. I guess I only saw that one way before the Dora reading, but now I see it both ways.
Question:
So my question this week is a little different. This question was posed to me just a couple days ago, and I didn’t have an answer for it. I said I would get back to him with the answer. So maybe someone in this class can give me the insight.
We were talking about drinking and driving and this is what he asked me:
What is the difference between someone saying ‘drunk driving is bad’ and someone saying ‘drunken driving is bad?’ Basically, he wants to know the difference between drunk and drunken.
Maybe I’m reading too much into his question by thinking that there even might be an answer to that question. I don’t know if there even is a difference between saying drunk driving or drunken driving. Is there?
If I look back at my teachers that I had all throughout elementary school, middle school, high school, and even college, I can only think of one or two that possessed the kind of patience that the teacher in the Dora reading possessed. I also think that it takes a special teacher to possess that kind of patience. More teachers should definitely try to utilize their patience more often too.
What I’m really saying here is that through the teacher in the Dora reading I feel like I learned a little something about patience. I learned that your students are not going to master something in five minutes, or one day, or within a couple days. You may want your students to understand something and master it immediately, but the simple fact is that they won’t. Learning takes time. I feel that I’ve always known that learning takes time, but what I learned this week is that teaching takes time too. You can’t just teach something and then move on from it, expecting that your students mastered it right away. You have to teach it over time and help them to learn it over time.
Learning takes patience, but so does teaching. I guess I only saw that one way before the Dora reading, but now I see it both ways.
Question:
So my question this week is a little different. This question was posed to me just a couple days ago, and I didn’t have an answer for it. I said I would get back to him with the answer. So maybe someone in this class can give me the insight.
We were talking about drinking and driving and this is what he asked me:
What is the difference between someone saying ‘drunk driving is bad’ and someone saying ‘drunken driving is bad?’ Basically, he wants to know the difference between drunk and drunken.
Maybe I’m reading too much into his question by thinking that there even might be an answer to that question. I don’t know if there even is a difference between saying drunk driving or drunken driving. Is there?
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Another Week of Learning
This week was filled with learning experiences for me. First, I am learning that I did not learn this stuff in middle school or high school, and that’s why, as a college student, I am having a tough time grasping some of it. I did not think that this class would be this difficult! I really hope that when I am a teacher I get these concepts across to my students, so that they don’t sit there down the road and say “well, my teacher screwed me over.” That’s definitely what I’m beginning to think, although I did have some great teachers.
One thing I have learned this week is prepositional phrases. I had heard of prepositional phrases before, however if you had asked me to explain what a prepositional phrase was or to identify one I would not have been able to do it. But, in the five or ten minute period that Barbara explained them to us, I was suddenly able to identify them all over the place and even understood what they were. Also, before Barbara’s lesson I wouldn’t have even been able to tell you what a preposition was, although I had definitely heard the term before. Anyways, to prove that I did actually learn what a preposition and prepositional phrases are, a preposition is a connecting word and a prepositional phrase is the preposition plus the words that follow. Here’s an example: Sally sold seashells by the shore. By is the preposition and by the shore is the prepositional phrase. I can now look at a sentence and actually identify the preposition and prepositional phrase just by looking.
Something that is really nice about everything that we are learning is now I can make connections with things. For example, as I said before I knew such a thing as a preposition and a prepositional phrase existed, but I couldn’t explain what it was. Now, I am actually getting these definitions and explanations and I am able to apply what I am learning to my writing and even to what I am reading. Although, it is kind of annoying to attempt to read a book and an article while constantly being distracted thinking “that’s a prepositional phrase!” or “that’s a transitive verb!” or “that’s an adverb!”
It is ironic because we have been using these in our everyday language and writing without even realizing it and knowing what these things are called. I feel as if I knew all of this stuff before, but I just could not make a connection with what anything actually was. It is nice to learn these terms and actually have a meaning to apply to them. Part of me feels stupid because I feel as if we should have learned all this stuff in middle school and high school and I shouldn’t be so excited that I now can identify a preposition, but at the same time I also feel like my teachers from middle school and high school failed me by not going deeper than to tell us the comma goes here and the apostrophe goes there.
Question: I honestly can't think of a question right now, so I'll just go ahead and post an activity. Identify the preposition(s) in the sentences.
The dog walked towards the boy.
She parked her car by the fire hydrant.
Harry buried Dobby by the sea.
The Colts and Saints are playing in the SuperBowl. (GO COLTS!!)
He hid beneath the blankets.
One thing I have learned this week is prepositional phrases. I had heard of prepositional phrases before, however if you had asked me to explain what a prepositional phrase was or to identify one I would not have been able to do it. But, in the five or ten minute period that Barbara explained them to us, I was suddenly able to identify them all over the place and even understood what they were. Also, before Barbara’s lesson I wouldn’t have even been able to tell you what a preposition was, although I had definitely heard the term before. Anyways, to prove that I did actually learn what a preposition and prepositional phrases are, a preposition is a connecting word and a prepositional phrase is the preposition plus the words that follow. Here’s an example: Sally sold seashells by the shore. By is the preposition and by the shore is the prepositional phrase. I can now look at a sentence and actually identify the preposition and prepositional phrase just by looking.
Something that is really nice about everything that we are learning is now I can make connections with things. For example, as I said before I knew such a thing as a preposition and a prepositional phrase existed, but I couldn’t explain what it was. Now, I am actually getting these definitions and explanations and I am able to apply what I am learning to my writing and even to what I am reading. Although, it is kind of annoying to attempt to read a book and an article while constantly being distracted thinking “that’s a prepositional phrase!” or “that’s a transitive verb!” or “that’s an adverb!”
It is ironic because we have been using these in our everyday language and writing without even realizing it and knowing what these things are called. I feel as if I knew all of this stuff before, but I just could not make a connection with what anything actually was. It is nice to learn these terms and actually have a meaning to apply to them. Part of me feels stupid because I feel as if we should have learned all this stuff in middle school and high school and I shouldn’t be so excited that I now can identify a preposition, but at the same time I also feel like my teachers from middle school and high school failed me by not going deeper than to tell us the comma goes here and the apostrophe goes there.
Question: I honestly can't think of a question right now, so I'll just go ahead and post an activity. Identify the preposition(s) in the sentences.
The dog walked towards the boy.
She parked her car by the fire hydrant.
Harry buried Dobby by the sea.
The Colts and Saints are playing in the SuperBowl. (GO COLTS!!)
He hid beneath the blankets.
Friday, January 29, 2010
It's All in the Style
This week I feel like I have learned something very important about grammar. Just a few weeks ago, I thought that there was only one way to do things when it came to grammar and punctuation, and there was no way around that either. My teachers taught me that it is one way and anybody else who tells you otherwise is just wrong. Now, I’m beginning to think that maybe they were a little wrong. Yes, there are rules that must be followed and certain ways to do things, but what I’ve learned in this last week is house style.
When I first heard of house style I was really confused. I did not think that it was possible for different publications to have different publication styles when it came to grammar. After all, there is only one way to do things, I thought. But what I found out is that each publication has sort of adopted their own style and made it their own. They still follow the rules, but they also make their own rules. Their style is unique, just as their publication is unique.
I honestly didnt expect to see a big difference in grammar and punctuation from publication to publication, but I did see a big difference, and I was amazed by it! I guess what this all boils down to is that I have learned that there is more than one way to do something when it comes to grammar and punctuation, and it is okay to break the rules sometimes. I have also learned that it is okay for different publications to have different styles, although I did not think it was okay. I thought it all had to be the same and they all had to follow the same rules, but they really do not.
Question:
I couldn't think of a question for this post, so I decided to put a purposeful error in part of this blog. Find it and identify it in a comment. (Hint: It is towards the end).
When I first heard of house style I was really confused. I did not think that it was possible for different publications to have different publication styles when it came to grammar. After all, there is only one way to do things, I thought. But what I found out is that each publication has sort of adopted their own style and made it their own. They still follow the rules, but they also make their own rules. Their style is unique, just as their publication is unique.
I honestly didnt expect to see a big difference in grammar and punctuation from publication to publication, but I did see a big difference, and I was amazed by it! I guess what this all boils down to is that I have learned that there is more than one way to do something when it comes to grammar and punctuation, and it is okay to break the rules sometimes. I have also learned that it is okay for different publications to have different styles, although I did not think it was okay. I thought it all had to be the same and they all had to follow the same rules, but they really do not.
Question:
I couldn't think of a question for this post, so I decided to put a purposeful error in part of this blog. Find it and identify it in a comment. (Hint: It is towards the end).
Friday, January 22, 2010
The Significance of the Placement
I think the biggest thing I have learned about grammar and punctuation in just the last two weeks is that I don’t very much about them. While I would like to think that I do, I don’t. That is not to say that I don’t know my grammar and punctuation though. I know the fundamentals, but I don’t know what is behind those fundamentals. I know that I could tell you that the apostrophe goes there, or that the comma goes here, but if I am asked to explain why, I can’t. I can look back and say that I know my teachers didn’t teach the stuff that is behind the fundamentals, but rather said the apostrophe goes here and the comma goes there just because they do. I wish my teachers could have taken the time to teach all the stuff behind the fundamentals, because I know I would feel a lot better about my grammar and punctuation right now if they had.
The other day I was really thinking about what I’ve already learned in this course and I thought of the first activities that we did in our course books. What I thought about here is how much of a difference a comma can really make. The placement of a comma is so important for the meaning, and I didn’t realize it before. The example that really stands out to me here is this one:
A woman without her man is nothing.
There were many different ways that this one simple sentence could have been punctuated and each way would have changed the meaning of the sentence. Here are two ways I did it:
A woman: without her, man is nothing.
Obviously, with this way, I was saying that man is nothing without a woman. The meaning was significantly changed the second way I punctuated the sentence:
A woman, without her man, is nothing.
This time, I was saying that a woman is nothing without her man.
The two meanings here are completely different, even though the two sentences have exactly the same meaning. Another example of this is the Dear John letters that we did. I was amazed with how simple punctuation could change the meaning so much from a love letter to a break up letter. When I first looked at the letters, I said there was no way that the love letter could be transformed into a break up letter, but, as we saw, there were multiple ways!
Before entering the course two weeks ago, I really wouldn’t have guessed the significance of proper grammar and punctuation, but I have already discovered that it is crucial and really can change the meaning of what you are trying to say simply by placing a comma here or there.
Question:
For my question, I’m not really sure if anyone would know it, but I forgot to ask it in class the other day. I was wondering how the change from the “old” way to the “new” way for apostrophes came about. From what I understand, it was relatively recent that the change came about, but how was it decided that the change was needed. For an example, how did we go from using Chris’s to Chris’? Right now, both ways are right, but in the near future Chris’ will be the proper way to show a possessive form of an apostrophe. So, how did this change come about?
The other day I was really thinking about what I’ve already learned in this course and I thought of the first activities that we did in our course books. What I thought about here is how much of a difference a comma can really make. The placement of a comma is so important for the meaning, and I didn’t realize it before. The example that really stands out to me here is this one:
A woman without her man is nothing.
There were many different ways that this one simple sentence could have been punctuated and each way would have changed the meaning of the sentence. Here are two ways I did it:
A woman: without her, man is nothing.
Obviously, with this way, I was saying that man is nothing without a woman. The meaning was significantly changed the second way I punctuated the sentence:
A woman, without her man, is nothing.
This time, I was saying that a woman is nothing without her man.
The two meanings here are completely different, even though the two sentences have exactly the same meaning. Another example of this is the Dear John letters that we did. I was amazed with how simple punctuation could change the meaning so much from a love letter to a break up letter. When I first looked at the letters, I said there was no way that the love letter could be transformed into a break up letter, but, as we saw, there were multiple ways!
Before entering the course two weeks ago, I really wouldn’t have guessed the significance of proper grammar and punctuation, but I have already discovered that it is crucial and really can change the meaning of what you are trying to say simply by placing a comma here or there.
Question:
For my question, I’m not really sure if anyone would know it, but I forgot to ask it in class the other day. I was wondering how the change from the “old” way to the “new” way for apostrophes came about. From what I understand, it was relatively recent that the change came about, but how was it decided that the change was needed. For an example, how did we go from using Chris’s to Chris’? Right now, both ways are right, but in the near future Chris’ will be the proper way to show a possessive form of an apostrophe. So, how did this change come about?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)