From: Trevor Peterson (06PETERSON@cua.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 26 2001 - 12:38:17 EDT
>===== Original Message From Randy Leedy <Rleedy@bju.edu> =====
>Clay (and apparently others) suggest that because we cannot offer a
>rigorous definition of a sentence, we ought to abandon the term and,
>presumably, the basic concept which the term carries in most people's
>minds. Without having given much thought to the matter, I would assume
>that an attempted definition would at least roughly resemble the idea
>that it is a unit of thought consisting minimally of a subject (topic
>placed under discussion) and a predicate (assertion or question about
>the subject) and maximally of all coordinate and subordinate clauses
>that cohere into a single unit of thought.
But doesn't this definition end up being somewhat circular? What is a "unit
of thought" in your definition but a sentence? Why couldn't we call a
paragraph the same thing? (As a matter of fact, in many cases a sentence does
constitute a paragraph.) Why not a clause? Also, wouldn't we have to say
that this is a definition that applies to written, formal sentences vs. spoken
or colloquial (another dubious distinction)? In regular speech, or even in
this e-mail, there are numerous contextually implied constituents that would
have to be made explicit to fit the definition. This seems to form another
circle, since actual sentences must be modified to fit the definition.
Indeed, if it were not for the punctuation mark that we call a "period," I
doubt that we could even conceive of a sentence as such. I realize that you
recognize "defects" in your definition, but I think there are more tangible
problems than what you specifically mentioned.
[snipped]
>The fact that we cannot construct a
>simple filter that mechanically separates into neat grammatical units
>any particular discourse we may pass through it points only to the
>limitations of science (namely, in this case, grammar) to account for
>what can in general terms easily enough be understood and appreciated
>as art. The fault perhaps lies in the scientist's misguided attempt to
>quantify and classify the properties of art when he should rather
>simply recognize the limits of his methods.
But aren't we talking about a scientific term? What do we need with the term
or concept of sentence, except when it comes to discussing grammar? I suppose
it can be a handy way to refer to points on a page (second paragraph, third
sentence), but surely we can find alternative means to do that. I have no
problem with your example of art or even with the notion that language has
artistic components to it. But even two semesters of Renaissance lit. were
enough for me to see that English writers, who have punctuation that allows
them to identify a sentence, when engaged in language as art, tip their hat to
the sentence only as it suits them.
>
[snipped]
>To return now to my starting point, that
>assumption, in the mind of a hubrist (if I may formulate a word that I
>have never heard before) can easily lead to the conclusion that
>something he cannot define does not exist.
What about a more practical a-sentence-ism that says, perhaps sentences do
exist, but they're inconsequential to my life? ;-) Seriously, I don't know
that anyone here is bent on demolishing the existence of sentences as such--if
they exist, fine; but until we can come up with a use for them, let's not
complicate matters by trying to explain them.
Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics
---
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