“Fine” as a complete sentence

Surely not. Doesn't a sentence require a subject and a verb? I have read in several places that the shortest sentence in the English language is "It is"

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment

Surely not. Doesn't a sentence require a subject and a verb?

Then how do you explain your "Surely not." above?

3 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment

I have been told the shortest English sentence is actually "Go!" (It is an imperative, and the subject "you" is implied.)

"I am" is shorter than "It is."

I am fine with "Fine."

What about "No"?

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment

No, 'fine' is not a sentence. A sentence needs a subject and predicate. People do not always speak in complete sentences (by definition), but often in single words or phrases, like 'no', 'surely not', 'in the house'... there are endless examples.

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment

"A sentence needs a subject and predicate."

Not so.

You have decided to fall back on that old crutch: the because-I-say-so-school of grammar.

That approach is fine at the very basic level of language training but it's not much use as language proficiency improves. As that happens, it starts to becomes quite apparent that one-word sentences can and do exist.

There.

* Ha ha!

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment

Oops! Looks like I had more than a couple of typos up there. Mea culpa! It's Monday morning.

Let me try again.

---

"A sentence needs a subject and predicate."

Not so.

You have decided to fall back on that old crutch: the because-I-say-so school of grammar.

That approach is fine at the very basic level of language training but it's not much use as language proficiency improves. As that happens, it starts to become quite apparent that one-word sentences can and do exist.

There.

---

Done.

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment

Professor Ballantyne, clearly, my post needs elaboration. My definition of a sentence is not 'because I say so'. Most dictionaries give the same definition. If you disagree with their definitions, then take it up with them.
Oxford Dictionary defines a sentence as 'a set of words that is complete in itself, TYPICALLY containing a SUBJECT AND PREDICATE, conveying a statement, question, exclamation, or command, and consisting of a main clause and sometimes one or more subordinate clauses.'
Webster Dictionary's definition is 'A combination of words which is complete as expressing a thought, and in writing is marked at the close by a period, or full point.'
Therefore, by both definitions, 'fine' and 'sure' are not sentences. Neither are 'not so', 'there', and 'done'. These words do not mean anything if written or uttered by themselves since they do not express a complete thought. However, put them into a proper context, and the thought is complete. They are then sentences. The subject and predicate are inferred or understood (and therefore not necessary).
Example: 'fine' by itself is not a sentence, but an adjective. Put it a context: 'How are you feeling today?' 'Fine' is accepted as a sentence since it means 'I am fine' ('I am' is understood)
Example: 'not so' by itself is not a sentence. Put it in a context: 'A sentence has a subject and a predicate.' 'Not so.' means 'It is not so', so it is acceptable as a sentence. ('it is' is understood)
So your assertion that 'One-word sentences can and do exist.' has to be qualified by saying it depends on the context in which they are used.

2 votes Vote!  •  URL to this comment

And furthermore.... to answer your question above re: 'surely not', Professor... the subject and predicate are inferred and understood: ('Fine' is) surely not (a sentence).
Try saying 'surely not' to someone out of context and see what reaction you'll get. It lacks meaning without a subject and predicate. Hence, it is not a sentence.

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment

Fine. I believe this could be a sentence because "fine" can be a verb, as in to levy a penalty of money. It would be a sentence if it were used as a command.

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment

Professor Ballantyne is strangely silent. Please enlighten us as to WHY you think 'fine', 'sure', and 'surely not' ARE sentences. Perhaps you come from the same 'because I say so' school of grammar you accuse me of coming from? Or is it that other school of 'I see it so it must be true'. LOL.
Have you not progressed beyond the basic level of language use of single words and phrases? :)

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment

dougincanada:

Ah, I see that you're falling back on an ad hominem argument; a sign of desperation? Anyway, I rather suspect that my level of language is at the very least quite the equal of yours.

Dictionaries can do no more than offer informed opinions on grammar. Again, I consider my opinions on how grammar functions at least as valid as theirs.

Your context argument is a nonsense. A single-word sentence like "Shit!" can require little context to be understood wholly in itself. But one of your "proper" sentences like "It is not so." has little or no useful meaning without further context.

The dictionary definition of a sentence is useful for someone at the ab initio stage of language instruction. Beyond that, any writer with a modicum of flair and talent will ignore it whenever it conflicts with their writing style.

Language is too expressive to be contained by petty and contrived regulations.

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment

Well, Professor, you still fail to enlighten me as to WHY 'fine', 'sure', 'done', and 'there' are complete sentences then, if you discard the context explanation (you make no mention of the inferred/understood explanation). And back it up with some sources, would you? You merely deride my explanation without offering your own. I didn't claim to have a higher level of language than you, though like you, I did take Latin 101.
'Shit' is not a sentence, but merely an interjection, much like 'ouch' or 'wow'.
'Language is too expressive to be contained by petty and contrived regulations.'
But they are necessary. Language anarchist, are you? You're probably one of those who not only approve of, but say 'If you need help, just call my wife and I.'

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment

OK, JJMB, you don't like the definition of a sentence in structural grammar. The dictionary meaning is too simplistic for you. Tell me then how Chomsky would explain 'fine', 'sure', and 'shit' in TG terms. What are their deep structure? Show me their tree diagrams.
Or are Chomsky's rules too 'petty and contrived' too?

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment

While it's possible "Fine." may not technically be a complete sentence, it is nevertheless true that it can be "considered" as a complete sentence -- an elliptical sentence. Q.E.D.

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment

Yes, (that is) exactly (right).
The omitted words can be inferred, as I explained to JJMB. Perhaps he has not reached that higher level of thinking yet? lol.

1 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment

I thought a sentence would be al least something you could agree with or not.
Sure, It is, Surely not...
This does not tell me anything at all out of context...

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment

Ah yes, dear old Noam Chomsky.

"There are three things in life you must never run after: a bus, a woman and a theory of transformational grammar. There will be another one along in a moment."

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment

"This does not tell me anything at all out of context..."

And just what does the following sentence tell you out of context?

"There will be another one along in a moment."

Another what?

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment

JJMB, your responses are laughable. Again, you have failed to give YOUR reasons why 'fine' and 'sure' are sentences, besides the fact that you say so. You have merely put down my and other posters' responses or asked more questions. You have waved off dictionary meanings and definitions from structural grammar. Lastly, you have dissed 'the father of modern linguistics'. By the way, did it take you so long to figure out who Chomsky was? I guess we will have to wait till YOUR book comes out to find out YOUR theories on grammar.
I will not reply to another post from you until you have something thoughtful or credible to offer to the original question.

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment

I do encounter one word sentences in my reading (often in modern novels) from time to time. Usually they are mid-paragraph, but sometimes they are in dialogue. I was always taught that a sentence must make complete sense, but I now think that's incorrect. Rather, it's a sufficient condition that what appears has a capital letter, is followed by a full stop and it's meaning/intention can be understood, within it's context.

0 vote Vote!  •  URL to this comment