From: Mike Sangrey (msangrey@BlueFeltHat.org)
Date: Wed Jul 25 2001 - 16:16:46 EDT
c stirling bartholomew <cc.constantine@worldnet.att.net> said:
> I truly appreciated the effort Michael Palmer put into this. However,
> he convinced me more than anything that we should dump the term
> sentence and just talk about clauses. A clause has a fairly stable
> definition if you define it recursively. The sentence is not really so
> easy to define.
OK. So we allow for clauses within clauses. A complex...ummmm...
"sentence" then can be thought of as a single clause with two clauses
embedded within it. Conceptually, I can handle that. However, are
you then saying that the entire letter to the Ephesians is a single
clause with clauses within clauses within...?
I would think the model would need to introduce some sense of
disjunction between clauses, not?
Or are you saying a discourse is a stream of clauses connected--
in a semantic sense--more or less strongly, depending on various
factors?
Or are you saying something else?
--
Mike Sangrey
msangrey@BlueFeltHat.org
Landisburg, Pa.
"The first one last wins."
"A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth."
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:02 EDT