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
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>