Theoretically longest sentence

[nslay]

Sentences must be finite in length. You can only cram so many verbs, adjectives, nouns, adverbs, etc... into a sentence until you violate some grammar rules. So how would one go about computing the theoretically longest sentence possible? Let's suppose two measures of length: the string length and the word count.

To make it easier, let's first suppose the sentence doesn't necessarily need to make sense.

I don't think a mathematical description of comprehension exists yet. I don't think we could solve this over the set of sentences that make sense.

EDIT: Ok, so a trivial solution is to suppose a sentence that lists nouns indefinitely. Let's find a non-trivial solution.

[MyndFyre]

I disagree; I think you may violate style rules, which generally impose a practical limit on length due to understandability of a sentence, but I believe that following strictly grammar rules, you'll be OK.  Consider the wonderful uses of the semicolon, the em dash, an appositive with commas -- all of these structures enable you to essentially join multiple sentences that are related into a single sentence.

[nslay]

I disagree; I think you may violate style rules, which generally impose a practical limit on length due to understandability of a sentence, but I believe that following strictly grammar rules, you'll be OK.  Consider the wonderful uses of the semicolon, the em dash, an appositive with commas -- all of these structures enable you to essentially join multiple sentences that are related into a single sentence.

That's true. But that seems so trivial. We would need to define exactly what trivial means for this problem to be interesting.
Apparently, there are one-sentence books with tens to hundreds of thousands of words in a single sentence.

[rabbit]

The Blah Story has an approximately 470 thousand word long sentence, which occupies over 700 pages of printed text.  But I think Myndy is correct -- with all of the conjunctive rules present in English, it is theoretically possible to construct a single, coherent sentence of infinite length.

[CrAz3D]

Doesnt the grammatical concept/prohibition against run-on sentences also prohibit an infinite sentence? 

[rabbit]

No.  Run-on sentences are those where two distinct sentences are not joined properly.

[Joe]

Illegal: Sometimes I think Craz3d doesn't know English he can't work as a lawyer if he doesn't know English he must know English.

Legal: Sometimes I think Craz3d doesn't know English, but he can't work as a lawyer if he doesn't know English, so he must know English.

[CrAz3D]

No.  Run-on sentences are those where two distinct sentences are not joined properly.

So combining as many independent clauses as possible can still be legit? Fuck English.

[Joe]

Sometimes I think Craz3d doesn't know English, but he can't work as a lawyer if he doesn't know English, so he must know English, although I wonder because he asks some random questions about combining of independent clauses, which you can combine in English, and this makes him rather upset.

I'm not sure if that's legit or not.

[CrAz3D]

Beats me.  No one has ever given me rules and explained them and why and shit and fuck and ... who cares.

I dont really care all that much about grammar.  If your writing is simple and to the point, then we probably won't have any fucking problems...stupid English rules.

[Ender]

Why can't you have an infinite sentence?

"Turn left, then right, then left, then right, then left, then right..."

The above is an infinite sentence. It would make sense in an infinite maze.

[CrAz3D]

..........ah!

[Ender]

Beats me.  No one has ever given me rules and explained them and why and shit and fuck and ... who cares.

I dont really care all that much about grammar.  If your writing is simple and to the point, then we probably won't have any fucking problems...stupid English rules.

When you're learning a new language, you expect that language to have a consistent grammar :-) Else it becomes very hard to learn a language... hence the importance of grammar.

[nslay]

Why can't you have an infinite sentence?

"Turn left, then right, then left, then right, then left, then right..."

The above is an infinite sentence. It would make sense in an infinite maze.

When I wrote this question, I was thinking of non-trivial sentences. Unfortunately, I can't really define what non-trivial means ... there is a book that is entirely one sentence with 400,000 words. I was certain that grammar prohibited infinite ramblings since it provides the framework with which to convey thoughts. Most people have structured thought, not endless ramblings.

I mean, an infinite sentence to me is like a persistent thought on one subject. I mean, imagine thinking about a dog ... at every minute, of every hour, of every day, of the year ... for the rest of your life, you think about that very dog uninterrupted. That's an infinite sentence and that's not really practical except by way of subtle technicalities that permit it to exist in books that are a single sentence composed of 400,000 words.

[Joe]

When I wrote this question, I was thinking of non-trivial sentences, but unfortunately, I can't really define what non-trivial means, and although there is a book that is entirely one sentence with 400,000 words, I was certain that grammar prohibited infinite ramblings since it provides the framework with which to convey thoughts, since most people have structured thought, not endless ramblings.

I mean, an infinite sentence to me is like a persistent thought on one subject, like imagine thinking about a dog at every minute, of every hour, of every day, of every year, for the rest of your life, you think about that very dog uninterrupted in an infinite sentence, and that's not really practical except by way of subtle technicalities that permit it to exist in books that are a single sentence composed of 400,000 words.

FTFY.