Scott --
One of, if not the, main point I've been trying to make is that our
modern notions of "sentence" have become bound into our ideas of
punctuation, and that our ideas of what then constitutes a "complete
thought" change to conform to the units punctuation creates. The core of
the punctuation system is "organic," in the sense that it reflects real
boundaries, real intonation patterns, etc., but there's plenty of stuff
around the margins that is a bit arbitrary -- like the "although" vs.
"however" issue. Grammatically, "although" and "however" behave
differently, but that difference does not automatically entail that
"however" renders a single clause a complete thought, while "although"
renders it incomplete.
Or to put it another way -- if you *speak* those lines, they sound
complete. It's not until you write them down and add punctuation that
people start saying that an although-clause is a fragment but a
however-linked clause isn't. In speech, it's a fragment if the hearer
doesn't have enough context to interpret what you said, or if what
you've said leads the hearer to expect more -- and just try starting a
conversation with a line like, "However, I don't really agree" and see
how complete your audience thinks it is.
In the modern context, "complete thought" refers to something that a
style guide would say is not a fragment, but there can be differences
between that and what listeners think is complete or not in speech.
That's the main reason why the "complete thought" definition doesn't
help writers who are having trouble with fragments. It's as if we've
said, "Don't write sentences that are octagonal, because that produces
shards," and when the student says "How do I know if it's octagonal or
not?" we reply, "It's octagonal if it produces a shard" (or substitute
in any other words you like -- wine-tasting vocabulary would work well).
A side note about commas and subordinate clauses: I *think* most modern
editors would view a comma before a subordinate clause that follows a
main clause to be an example of the "optional comma" category (I'm sure
list members will correct me if I'm wrong). After the 18th- and
19th-century commafest, there was a movement to declare all commas
forbidden unless they were mandatory -- no choices! I think the pendulum
has swung a bit more to the middle. The comma is still mandatory after
an initial subordinate clause (in formal writing), but it's not
forbidden before a post-main subordinate clause.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 11:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ATEG Digest - 25 Jun 2008 to 26 Jun 2008 (#2008-145)
------------------------------
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/
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/
|
