Of course not! Still, if a sentence is a grammatical term defined exclusively by other grammatical terms, I don't see how you can avoid circularity in your rigorous explanations of linguistic practice. The approach seems to preclude the possibility of giving a clear, consistent account of the point of creating sentences in the first place, just like the approach of an imaginary auto mechanic who defines the function of every part of a car's engine in exclusively in terms of its other parts. On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Johanna Rubba wrote: > Thanks, David. But I hope you don't lump me in with those people who > don't believe in teaching about what sentences are for .... !!! > > Johanna > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Johanna Rubba Assistant Professor, Linguistics > English Department, California Polytechnic State University > One Grand Avenue • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 > Tel. (805)-756-2184 • Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone. 756-259 > • E-mail: [log in to unmask] • Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > ** > "Understanding is a lot like sex; it's got a practical purpose, > but that's not why people do it normally" - Frank Oppenheimer > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >