Colorado LegiSource

An informational and educational resource for the Colorado General Assembly by the Office of Legislative Legal Services.

Month: March 2024

  • There Are Only 10 Ways to Write a Sentence

    by Frank Stoner

    Despite the fact that there are only 10 ways to write a sentence, there remain infinitely many possible sentence constructions. English, like German, Mandarin, and Russian, is what linguists call an SVO language. That is to say, English writers will typically first tell you the [S]ubject, then the [V]erb, and then the [O]bject.

    For example:

                                            She          loves          him.

                                            Subject    Verb          Object   

    In what linguists call SOV languages, like Japanese or Latin, a writer will first tell you the [S]ubject, then the [O]bject, and then, finally, the [V]erb. An equivalent Latin sentence rendered in English would look like this:

                                            She          him          loves.

                                            Subject    Object     Verb

    Almost 90% of the world’s 6,000 or so languages use one of these two sentence structures.

    This very basic architecture seems to suggest that each language has only one sentence structure and that all natural languages (that is to say, natural human languages; not codes or computer languages) only ever include subjects, verbs, and objects, just in different orders. So, you might be wondering, Why does the title say there are 10 ways to write a sentence?

    Although it is true that English only uses the SVO sentence structure, there are 10 sentence patterns that employ the structure in different ways—mainly dealing with the “V” and “O” parts: the verbs and the objects.1 Among those different ways are four categories of things a sentence can do. These categories are organized below according to the traditional Reed-Kellogg model, which—in theory—places the sentence patterns in ascending of order of verb complexity.2

    Category A. A sentence can tell us what something is.

    This category, often called the “be patterns,” always includes some form of the verb “to be” (am, are, is, was, were, etc.) as its “predicating” or main verb. This category of sentence patterns is perhaps the most frequently used set in legal writing because its patterns always tell us something about the constitution of the subject. There are three patterns:

              (I). The chambers are upstairs. (upstairs gives us information of time or place about the subject).

              (II). The members are diligent. (diligent describes the subject).

              (III). Senator Smith is my representative. (my representative renames or defines the subject).

    Category B. A sentence can tell us what something is like.

    This category, often called the “linking verb patterns,” tells us something about the subject with any verb except a “be-verb.” There are two patterns:

              (IV). The members seem busy. (seem busy tells us information about the members without defining them).

              (V). The members remained citizens. (remained “links” the object citizens to the subject members without defining them with a “be-verb”).

    Category C. A sentence can tell us what something does.

    This category consists of only one pattern—an intransitive sentence. An intransitive sentence is, essentially, just the SV part of the larger SVO structure—in other words, no object follows the verb.

              (VI). The General Assembly adjourned. (nothing follows the verb adjourned).

    Category D. A sentence can tell us what something does to something else.

    This category consists of the four transitive patterns, and is perhaps the second-most commonly used structure in legal writing—though it is perhaps the most common structure in everyday speech.

              (VII). The legislature passed the bill. (the bill here is what linguists call a direct object, since it is the “thing” acted upon by the subject).

              (VIII). The editor gave the clerk the amendment. (the clerk here is what linguists call an indirect object since it is involved indirectly with the main object being acted upon: the amendment).

              (IX). The members consider the chairperson intelligent. (intelligent describes the indirect object chairperson without renaming or defining it).

              (X). The members elected Senator Smith chairperson. (chairperson renames or defines the indirect object Senator Smith).

    You may have a suspicion that these 10 patterns don’t cover quite everything that English speakers can write. What about adverbs, you might ask? First of all, words or phrases that “fancy up” a sentence are not considered vital to a sentence’s structure because the SVO structure can function without such niceties. Adverbs, for instance, can be moved anywhere within a sentence and therefore do not constitute any additional patterns:

              Quickly, they ran up to the chamber.

              They ran quickly up to the chamber.

              They ran up to the chamber quickly.

    Prepositional phrases like up to the chamber and other kinds of phrases that serve to “fancy up” a sentence are also not considered essential to a sentence’s function. While those kinds of phrases may carry essential meaning, they do not perform an essential function of an SVO sentence. For that reason, they do not constitute any patterns additional to the 10 listed above in Roman numerals.

    The final, and perhaps most important thing that allows English speakers to do so much with just 10 basic sentence patterns is what linguists call “recursion.” Using a process called nominalization (you can think of this as meaning “nounify”), speakers can take any of the 10 patterns and embed them in any place a noun (that is, a subject, object, indirect object, or direct object) normally belongs. Consider the following:

              Witches          are          scary.

              Subject          Verb        Object

              (Pattern II sentence)

              ________________________

              Dorothy          thinks       witches are scary.

              Subject           Verb                  Object

              (Pattern II sentence embedded in a pattern VII sentence)

    Here, the full sentence “Witches are scary” can be nominalized into a single object and embedded as a chunk within another complete sentence: “Dorothy thinks witches are scary.” This remarkable feature of both the human mind and language allows any of the 10 sentence patterns to be combined, reshaped, planted, or otherwise embedded within any other sentence. Given the 170,000 or so words English has within its lexicon, 10 patterns—and the ability to use them recursively—really are enough to say infinitely many things.

    1. These are the 10 sentence patterns according to the Reed-Kellogg model, discussed in Martha Kolln’s and Robert Funk’s “Understanding English Grammar” (Longman, 2012).

    2. The Reed Kellogg model, a 19th century creation, has largely fallen out of favor with  contemporary linguists, but the model is still taught by English instructors who believe pictorial sentence diagrams are valuable to help students visualize sentence structure.

  • Citizen Initiative Process Allows Coloradans to Go Nuclear, or Not

    by Jessica Chapman

    The 700,000 or so Coloradans who went to the polls on November 5, 1974, voted “yes” to all 10 constitutional ballot measures before them. Citizens voted soundly in favor of reinstating the death penalty (which the U.S. Supreme Court had outlawed two years earlier) in certain cases. They voted by an even greater margin to prohibit busing students to schools that were farther away from the closest schools. “School bussing,” as it was known at the time, was a policy designed to desegregate schools when the school’s neighborhoods were still de facto segregated. (Notwithstanding the vote, Denver continued school busing pursuant to a 1973 lawsuit.)

    By a thinner yet still decisive margin, Coloradans also voted in favor of an initiative brought by environmental groups to prohibit nuclear detonations in the state unless approved by a vote of the people.

    The ballot language voters considered read:

    “An act to amend the Constitution of the State of Colorado to establish procedural steps to be complied with prior to the detonation of nuclear explosives devices, requiring prior approval of the detonation by the voters through the enactment of an initiated or referred measure.”

    The measure passed, with 58 percent (399,818) voting “yes” and 42 percent (291,284) voting “no,” and resulted in the addition of Article XXVI to the state constitution.

    What led to this point? How, exactly, did the question of whether or not to permit nuclear testing end up reaching Colorado voters?

    The 1970s marked a time in the state and nation as a whole when Americans were paying more attention to environmental issues. At the federal level, under the administration of President Richard Nixon, the decade ushered in the Environmental Protection Agency, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Legacy of Parks program, among others. The first Earth Day was celebrated April 22, 1970.

    In Colorado, nuclear energy had become an environmental issue to rally around for a couple reasons. A fire at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons production facility, eight miles south of Boulder, in 1969 led to a multi-year clean-up and concerns about soil, air, and water contamination.

    Meanwhile, the federal Project Plowshare program, which was launched in the 1950s to pursue “peacetime” uses for nuclear energy, had located two sites on Colorado’s Western Slope to test the capability of nuclear weapons to extract natural gas from underground rock. The first, called Project Rulison, involved the detonation of a nuclear device in Garfield County in 1969. The other, called Project Rio Blanco, involved three devices and took place in May 1973, less than a year and a half prior to the November 1974 vote.

    Neither Project Rulison nor Project Rio Blanco produced suitable natural gas, and in fact, radiation was detected in the air after the Project Rulison detonation. Such unintended consequences alongside mounting public health concerns about nuclear power built momentum around the issue. (Project Plowshare terminated in 1977.)

    Site of underground nuclear testing in Rulison, Colo. in 1969. Denver Public Library Special Collections

    Given these elements, the passage of a nuclear ban like Measure 10 seems perhaps unsurprising.

    Dr. Derek Everett, a professor of history at Colorado State University explains that, “[T]he nuclear explosion ban in the state constitution emerged at a time when many Coloradans were thinking twice about the environmental impact of development after World War II. Pushback against Rocky Flats, the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, the 1976 Winter Olympics, and other controversies reflected an increasing environmental awareness alongside the nuke ban in 1974.”

    Then, as now, citizen groups, or “proponents,” have the option of pursuing placement of issues before voters via the citizen initiative process.

    Measure 10, before it became enshrined as Article XXVI of the state constitution, was guided to passage by activists, chief among them a student group called People for Rational Energy Sources. The group gathered enough signatures—50,000+ in this case—to place the ballot language cited above in front of voters on that day in 1974, while also working to promote public awareness of and support for the issue through writing letters, organizing events and otherwise direct attention to the issue.

    The citizen initiative is an interesting feature of our state’s constitution—shared by just 25 states other than Colorado—permitting citizens (any citizen) to propose new state laws or constitutional amendments. The mechanics of the process are somewhat complex.

    In a 2018 LegiSource article, Office of Legislative Legal Services Director Ed DeCecco provides a useful two-part overview of the initiative process. He explains how proponents of a measure must proceed through a number of steps, including “review and comment,” setting the ballot title, gathering signatures, verification of signatures, and setting language for the Blue Book – all before any issue may be placed on the ballot. The process involves the Legislative Council and the Secretary of State’s office as well as this office. In the decades since Measure 10’s passage, while the General Assembly has introduced bills addressing the feasibility of nuclear energy, the issue has remained more or less untouched and Amendment XXVI has remained intact since its enactment. In fact, despite the widespread use of nuclear power in certain parts of the world, including the United States, Colorado has only ever had one nuclear facility, the Ft. St. Vrain Nuclear Power Plant, which operated from 1979 to 1989.

    The General Assembly has made efforts to modify aspects of the citizen initiative process over the years. The language in Article V, Section 1, however, stands: “… the people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject the same at the polls independent of the general assembly and also reserve power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act or item, section, or part of any act of the general assembly.” And the people of the state continue to be asked to approve or deny initiatives, but the people still haven’t gone nuclear.