Kudos to Raymott for his perseverance in working with pharmer's questions!![]()
I agree with your summary of what we discussed, and your interpretation.
Good luck with writing a comparable paragraph if you still think it's a worthy goal. Possibly you could post it when you think you have achieved a perfectly comparable sentence!
Original author "A"
Though it 1. (the Trinity) is not a 2. Biblical doctrine in the sense that any 3. formulation of it can be found in the 4. Bible, it can be seen to underlie the 5. revelation of God, implicit in the 6. Old Testament and explicit in the 7.New Testament.
Copy of author “A”:
Though it 1.(percussion solo) is not 2. music in the sense that any 3. melodic line can be found in the 4. solo, it can be heard to bring out the 5. essence of music with its rhythmic line, implicit in the 6. first half of the piece and explicit in the 7. last half.
It’s only a valid comparison if the relation between the parts of the original:
1. Trinity – 2. Biblical doctrine – 3. formulation - 4. Bible – 5. revelation of God – 6 OT – 7. New Testament
is the same as the relation between the parts of the ‘copy’:
1. Percussion solo – 2. music – 3. melodic line – 4. percussion solo - 5. essence of music 6. beginning of piece – 7. end of piece.
It’s quite easy to see that this isn’t the case. One example:
1. Trinity – 4. Bible
1. percussion solo 4. percussion solo
Part of the original argument is whether 1. is in 4.
In your 'copy', there is an identity relation between 1. and 4.
Part of the original argument is whether 1. is in 4.
In your 'copy', there is an identity relation between 1. and 4.
It’s only a valid comparison if the relation between the parts of the original:
1. Trinity – 2. Biblical doctrine – 3. formulation - 4. Bible – 5. revelation of God – 6 OT – 7. New Testament
There’s an equivocation on 4. ‘music’. You want it to mean music as such, and also this particular piece of music which is a percussion piece.
Sorry for the confusion. My latest example was not meant to be merged with the previous examples. It was meant to stand alone. What I mean is, #4 ‘music’ can simply be thought of as ‘that which the composer wrote’. #1 is now ‘percussion’ or ‘percussion section’ (rhythm section), not percussion piece. So, just as anything found in the Bible is “of the Bible” or ‘Biblical’, anything found in the music is “of the music” or ‘musical’. In this case, the composer included percussion in the piece s/he composed, and even if the percussion section consisted of pots and pans being hit with sticks, they are a part of this music and must be considered ‘musical’. So the author (me) is not being equivocal, but instead just states how the percussion (even if the composer wrote for pots and pans in the parts) is musical even though the composer didn’t write a melodic line for the percussion, in the same way the original author’s point was that the doctrine was Biblical, even if the author(s) of the Bible didn’t write the formula in a single statement.
The 4. ‘Bible’ must be the ultimate determiner of what is 2. ‘Biblical doctrine’.
However, 4. ‘this piece of music’ cannot be the ultimate determiner of what is 2. ‘musical’.
The #4 ‘Bible’ is the determiner of what is ‘Biblical’. Are you sure that #4 ‘Music’ cannot be the determiner of what is ‘musical’? I would think even dynamic markings, tempo markings, and even articulations which the composer indicated in the music, can be considered as being “of the music” and therefore, musical.
I don’t think you’ll ever write a strictly parallel analogy, because the concepts involved in the original are different and possibly unique.
I'm asking about your motive. That's been my question all along when I've been asking you about the point of this. I find it much easier to engage with a topic if I can see some point to it and, for me, that's lacking here.I want to come up with an example of the original, using a different, non-religious topic, which communicates in the same manner as the original. Does that answer your question, or are you asking to find out my motives for having such a goal?
I'm asking about your motive. That's been my question all along when I've been asking you about the point of this. I find it much easier to engage with a topic if I can see some point to it and, for me, that's lacking here.
That's fine. Perhaps it's time for someone else to give an opinion anyway. I've come to the conclusion that finding an exact analogy is improbable because of the unique nature of relations between the concepts Bible, Biblical, Trinity and God.If you feel you cannot engage in what seems to be the conclusion, I will understand. I am sure you did your best to help, and I appreciate you taking the time you did.
If you have a question about the English language and would like to ask one of our many English teachers and language experts, please click the button below to let us know: