------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:39:42 -0400
From:    Scott <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Sentences are modern inventions.  NOT; was ATEG Digest - 24 Jun
2008 to 25 Jun 2008 (#2008-144)

Having read facsimiles and a few original medieval documents, I am well
aware that they did not have our modern sentence structure nor did they
necessarily start with a capital and end with a period.  The primary
point is that they did have complete thoughts and wrote them.  That we
may choose to punctuate them by joining two independent clauses with a 
colon or semicolon in lieu of having two short sentences is irrelevant 
to the concept that medieval writers did not, as a general rule, write 
in sentences.

I must be missing some critical point.  All I read are allegations.
Unless someone gets on line and starts citing a number of medieval 
MSS that do not have complete sentences) preferably MSS in Latin, 
German, or Romance languages (Koine is too argumentative), I tend to
consider such allegations specious.

Scott
I'm from MS not MO, but show me anyway.

***********************************************************

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

I would consider all three incorrect.

1. A subordinate clause following an independent clause is not set off
by a comma unless the comma is needed to avoid ambiguity or other confusion.
2. The first clause is an incomplete thought that requires further
explication.  The second clause is a sentence fragment.
3. The first clause is an incomplete thought that requires further
explication.  The second clause is a sentence fragment.  Subordinating
conjunctions do not begin a sentence: they begin a subordinate clause.

Even with my far stricter rules, the facsimiles and originals that I have
read have what I consider sentences; i.e., express complete thoughts.

My descriptive definition of a sentence is a group of words that express
a complete thought.  

I will readily confess that, when a friend wished to study English grammar
on his own and asked for three reference grammars, I recommended Jespersen,
Curme, and Pence & Emery.  I ran into him at a conference later; he had
gotten his doctorate in English grammar but averred that he still preferred
my three references and kept them on his desk in his office.

No, I do not think that correct English stopped with the Victorians;
however, I do think that the teaching of English grammar went to "hell in
a handbasket" in the '60s when "Do your own thing" went from fringe social
comment to educational policy.  Far too many English teachers majored in 
literature and are prepared to teach that and nothing else.  I have been
away from public secondary schools for a quarter century, but during that
25 years I was reading applications for federal employment.  In general,
the applicants not only could not write using correct grammar and usage,
they could not follow explicit written directions.  Almost all of the
applications that I reviewed were from college graduates.  In one five-
year period I reviewed over 500 applications from one top Southern CA
university and not a single one both followed directions and remained
free from egregious errors.  One does not expect complete sentences in
an application; one does expect correct usage and subject-verb agreement. 
Oh, well, what can you expect from applicants who complete 300 semester
hours of psychology in only three years; I took psychology courses for
40 years and did not accumulate nearly so many.

I am still waiting for someone to furnish references in medieval Romance
or Germanic languages.  I am aware that Medieval and Early Modern German
embeds what we would consider independent clauses into sentences.
"I can do all things through him, he makes me strong" vs.
"I can do all things through him who strengthens me" 


Scott
------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:10:14 -0400
From:    "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Sentences are modern inventions.  NOT; was ATEG Digest - 24 Jun
2008 to 25 Jun 2008 (#2008-144)

Scott:

We're not questioning that Medieval writers had thoughts as complete as
ours (or at least, I know I'm not questioning that, and I doubt anyone
else would). It's just that the relation between "complete thought" and
"sentence" isn't as straightforward as it's sometimes presented. Compare
the following:

	1. Most of us wanted pizza, although Bjarki wanted surstromming.
	2. Most of us wanted pizza. *Although Bjarki wanted
surstromming.
	3. Most of us wanted pizza. However, Bjarki wanted surstromming.

I'd have enormous trouble trying to support the claim that "although"
gives you one complete thought in #1, but "however" leads to two
complete thoughts in #3, and that anyone who wrote #2 (both parts, not
just the second) was having incomplete thoughts. That *issue* would not,
I think, have come up in the medieval period -- you wrote it, and it
made sense, so it was complete.=20

Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University

***********************************************************

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/