[b-greek] Re: Greek Sentence Structure

From: Randy Leedy (Rleedy@bju.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 26 2001 - 11:24:23 EDT


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.

The defects of such a definition are immediately apparent. For
example, should "Jack Spratt could eat no fat; his wife could eat no
lean" be viewed as one sentence or two? There are clearly two separate
subjects and predicates, but the two do cohere conceptually into a
unity. Obviously, there is no objective way to answer such a question
beyond the level of the writer's intent as signalled by the
punctuation marks, which, of course, were not used in ancient
writing.

So why not throw out the whole idea of "sentence" as a valid term? If
we can't define it, then it must not exist. I assume this is the logic
behind Clay's (and others') suggestion.

I'm going to venture into territory in which I'll admit I'm not
qualified to speak, and so I'll express myself tentatively and see
what reaction I provoke. Isn't it equally possible that the invalidity
lies in the insistence that something undefinable doesn't exist? Take
art, for example. Who can define the properties of a certain set of
lines, shapes, colors, textures, etc. that qualifies one piece of
treated canvas as art, and the absence of which disqualifies another?
Will we then say that because our best attempts at defining art fall
short of objective infallibility art does not exist? Or that we should
banish the concept from out thinking? I suppose there are some who do
just that, but I doubt that such a view is SINCERELY held by people of
intelligence and sensitivity. What they express as a matter of what
they wish they believed will be entirely different from what they will
express as a matter of the selections they make for their home decor.
Thus the lack of sincerity.

My tentative suggestion is that there IS such a thing as a sentence,
generally speaking, and that most sentences can be identified easily
enough, if not so easily defined. 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.

My lack of qualification to speak on this issue partly relates to the
fact that I have not by any means mastered any particular linguistic
system. I have an interest in the field, but I have yet to sense real
value in the details of any of the systems that I have tried to
acquaint myself with. I recognize that the problem may lie with my
lack of capacity to understand rather than with the field of
Linguistics, but the chaotic state of the whole field suggests to me
that what we're seeing is simply a mess resulting from a misguided
attempt to operate on an entity (interpersonal communication) using a
tool (scientific method) that is at best only partly suited to that
entity's nature.

I recognize that traditional grammar (of the sort that would maintain
the sentence as a valid concept) is a science as well, but I think
that perhaps grammar more easily than linguistics can be practiced
without hubris. As a grammarian, I am quite content sometimes to
conclude, "That matter lies beyond the scope of grammar to explain,"
often feeling it appropriate to add, "But the meaning is nevertheless
clear, given the context." Perhaps Linguistics COULD respect similar
limits, but the reality appears to me that Linguistics might be
characterized with some accuracy as "grammar gone too far." My
impression is that Linguists seem to fancy that there ought to be a
scientific explanation for every aspect of language or of a particular
piece of communication. 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.

Of course, I do not mean to say that I think of Clay or anyone else
in particular as an overt "hubrist" (will someone please tell me if
there is another word for what I want that word to say.) But I think
all who are honest with themselves agree in recognizing at least the
tendency toward that vice in us all.

Time's up. I need to finish off a summer session by lunchtime
tomorrow so I may leave for a week of vacation. If my usual pattern
holds, there won't be many responses to this post, but I'll follow the
thread as I'm able. I'd appreciate a CC on any replies, since I get
B-Greek only in the Digest version.

Blessings! (Acts 3:26)

Randy Leedy
Bob Jones University
Greenville, SC
RLeedy@bju.edu

---
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