[b-greek] Re: Greek Sentence Structure

From: Randy Leedy (Rleedy@bju.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 26 2001 - 13:15:23 EDT


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?" 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.

As to whether we're talking about a scientific term, that may be just
the rub. Can we speak of a "quasi-scientific term?" I think of
"sentence" as a term that stands for a definite classification, so in
a sense it is scientific. But we again get into the question of just
how scientifically it is possible to analyze communication, and so I
back off from insisting that it is strictly scientific and therefore
must be precisely defined in order to be useful within my "science."

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

>>> Trevor Peterson <06PETERSON@cua.edu> 07/26/01 12:38PM >>>
>===== 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