I am not sure where to begin. I have 2 sentences with which I would like assistance on analysis. Unfortunately, they are from a religious publication and therefore have religious content and therefore might not be allowed to be posted (?). I am not interested in discussing the subject matter in the sentences, so I have prepared a "non-religious" version which parallels the original. However, unless I have someone verify my version is identical in grammatical structure to the original, it will be of little benefit to discuss my version. Any help with where I should begin will be greatly appreciated. Thankyou for your time.
There's no problem with this- feel free to post them as the questions are about the language not the subject matter.
Thanks to all. I will begin by posting the original, followed by my "copy" of the original. I would like to tweak my copy to be an exact representation of the original, but using a different subject.
Original: (in speaking of the Trinity)
Though it is not a Biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible, it can be seen to underlie the revelation of God, implicit in the Old Testament and explicit in the New Testament. By this we mean that though we cannot speak confidently of the revelation of the Trinity in the Old Testament, yet once the substance of the doctrine has been revealed in the New Testament, we can read back many implications of it in the Old Testament.
Copy: (in speaking of the improvisation solo)
Though it is not a piece of music in the sense that the exact notes are printed in the score, it can be heard to bring out the theme, implicit in the first half of the piece and explicit in the last half. By this we mean that though we cannot hear the theme boldly revealed in the solo at the beginning, once the substance of the solo has been revealed in the latter half, we can hear many implications of it in the first half.
There it is. Can we get my copy to be an exact replication grammatically/structurally?
Last edited by pharmer; 11-Mar-2010 at 18:28.
The rest of the paragraph looks fine to me.
You're absolutely right, I didn't catch that. There should be a "not" inserted. I edited my previous post now. How's that?
The weather is nice today!
If nobody sees any reason that my copy isn't exactly like the original (in format/structure/grammatical content), I should be able to confidently move on.
Can I trouble any of you to compare, in the same manner, 2 more sentences that are related? An original, and my copy. Once I am confident these final 2 are identical, I will have specific questions on analysis(dependent and independent clauses, etc.).
Speaking of the Trinity, this publication admits: 的t is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible." Because the Trinity is "not a biblical doctrine," Trinitarians have been desperately looking for Bible texts容ven twisting them葉o find support for their teaching.
Speaking of the improvisation solo, this maestro admits: "It is not a piece of music in the sense that the exact notes are not printed in the score." Because the solo is "not a piece of music," musicians have been desperately looking in the score for melodic phrases容ven changing them葉o find support for their performance.
Thanks once again, to all!