From: Randy Leedy (Rleedy@bju.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 26 2001 - 15:24:25 EDT
My response would be that you can't find anything more objective to go
on, can you? At least not without incurring significant damage to your
set of analytical tools.
I see that you're saying this subjectivity complicates grammatical
analysis. Perhaps we're talking past one another because I'm thinking
of a different level of analysis than you are. If you're just looking
for a way to let thought connections bridge across sentence breaks,
then I think perhaps I'm with you. My whole point is that I would not
want to define "sentence" so rigidly that my definition prevents my
making grammatical connections across a sentence break (sorry I don't
have any examples to hand).
My concern is to preserve the concept of a thought unit of sentence
size as a helpful device for analysis on both micro- and macro-
scales. If I can't define it in such a way as to make it possible to
identify every specimen with perfect precision and objectivity, I'm
not much disturbed. I can stay flexible, without tossing out the whole
concept.
As to distinguishing between sentences and paragraphs, I don't know
whether you'd call it tangible, but the distinction I have in mind is
that the sentence provides what I might call a "mid-sized" unit that
manifests a certain unity. A reader sensitive to the writer's thought
progression can tell that the writer has reached the end of what he
started and is not going on to something focused differently. It's
certainly subjective, but when a significant majority of reasonably
knowledgeable people see the same thing, what they're seeing is
probably real. Distinguishing the difference between the sentence and
the paragraph then requires the reader to have a rather thorough sense
of the writer's progression of thought, on a scale that includes an
awareness of how a sequence of sentences coheres into a unity that
constitutes a paragraph. When you're reading with an awareness of
those larger units of thought, then each new sentence can with some
reliability be evaluated in terms of whether it coheres enough with
the preceding sentences to be considered part of the same paragarph or
whether it shifts focus enough to warrant being considered the
beginning of a new paragraph. Of course, sometimes one must read
another sentence or two before making that decision with any
confidence.
It would be interesting to take a piece of very clearly written
modern prose (expository writing would probably work best), format it
without sentence or paragraph breaks, and get a group of reasonably
skilled readers to introduce what they consider to be appropriate
breaks. To the extent that their breaks correspond to those of the
original author, it would seem to me we could maintain the validity of
sentence and paragraphs as real units of thought and expression.
By the way, the portion of Scripture where I have the most trouble
identifying the sentence breaks is Hebrews. Especially in that book
I'm sympathetic with the difficulties that prompt a person to want to
dispense with the concept of a sentence, but I'm not yet convinced
otherwise than that the sentence is a baby that we ought to preserve,
whatever we may make of the sometimes murky bathwater. Not a perfect
analogy (since baby and bathwater are distinct and easily separable),
but perhaps adequate to express my concern.
I hope my comments are staying relevant. Writing without thinking
carefully, kind of feeling your way along in uncharted territory, is a
dangerous thing to do. Maybe it's time for me to "Get lost!"
Blessings! (Acts 3:26)
Randy Leedy
Bob Jones University
Greenville, SC
RLeedy@bju.edu
>>> Trevor Peterson <06PETERSON@cua.edu> 07/26/01 02:37PM >>>
>===== Original Message From Randy Leedy <Rleedy@bju.edu> =====
>Trevor, thanks for the reply.
>
>Yes, there's a circularity here. If I may try to defend myself a
>further step, I'd say that the rough difference between a sentence
and
>a paragraph is that a sentence is a unified collection of clauses
>where a paragraph is a unified collection of sentences. The
grammarian
>is called upon to exercise a subjective judgment of what constitutes
a
>unit of a particular "size." He asks, "Where does this 'unit' round
>itself off to a satisfying degree of completeness and then proceed
to
>the next?"
But I think the contention has been that this subjectivity needlessly
complicates grammatical analysis. With regard to paragraphs, I've
seen it
myself in exegetical class exercises where we'd try to identify the
"paragraph" (pericope, teaching portion, etc.). If it's true that a
discourse
can be outlined to some advantage, we had no choice but to run up
against the
question of which outline level constitutes a paragraph. In the same
way, it
seems that what might be defined as a small paragraph could equally
be defined
as a long sentence. Indeed, these are issues on which English
versions such
as the KJV and the NIV show clear difference. But my point is
this--if
sentences are connected logically, and clauses within sentences are
connected
logically using similar or identical means of connection, how can the
distinction amount to anything tangible?
>I think that the sentence is a helpful unit in that it
>supplies a usefully sized chunk larger than the phrase or clause
and
>smaller than the paragraph or discourse. It's not clear to me that
>your logic would allow for the isolation of units of any size
larger
>than the word and shorter than the discourse.
I don't quite see how you get that. My main point is that we could
probably
get along quite well if we went straight from the clause level past
the
sentence to whatever came next. At least clauses can be defined
syntactically.
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