Newbie needs help

[Raymott]

I would like to do whatever it takes to copy the original as closely as possible, even if I have to change what "it" is.

Oh, then it doesn't matter. Keep the ambiguity; don't use 'not'.
But now you're saying that you don't want to talk about improvised music. Why not talk about the Trinity, ie. keep the original.
I guess don't understand the point of the whole exercise.

 

[pharmer]

I'm so sorry about the confusion...I would P.M. you, but I don't have enough posts to do so.

Maybe we should talk about the original first. Once that is clear, maybe I will have a better chance at communicating and coming up with a good "copy" using a different topic.

So, what is the original "A" trying to communicate in those two sentences?

- "It" (the Trinity) is not a Biblical doctrine?
- "It" is a Biblical doctrine?
- "It" both is and isn't a Biblical doctrine?

Thanks.

 

[Raymott]

I'm so sorry about the confusion...I would P.M. you, but I don't have enough posts to do so.
No, continue posting here, now that you've started.

Maybe we should talk about the original first. Once that is clear, maybe I will have a better chance at communicating and coming up with a good "copy" using a different topic.
Good idea. You are the only one who knows what you're doing; so you are the one who knows what can be left out and what can't.

So, what is the original "A" trying to communicate in those two sentences?

- "It" (the Trinity) is not a Biblical doctrine?
- "It" is a Biblical doctrine?
- "It" both is and isn't a Biblical doctrine?

Thanks.

The first: "It" (the Trinity) is not a Biblical doctrine ... in the sense that it doesn't occur in the Bible.
In other senses, it might be a Biblical doctrine, depending on which Church Council is sitting. That means the third is also right, and is the intended meaning given the further context (the second half of the sentence.)
The second is not right.

From my reading, the Trinity is not a Biblical doctrine, but I'm not a theologian and, if I were, I'd be forced to disagree with myself.

 

[pharmer]

The first: "It" (the Trinity) is not a Biblical doctrine ... in the sense that it doesn't occur in the Bible.

Can you really conclude that the author ("A") is saying it is not a Biblical doctrine, when you look at the rest of the sentence after the comma and the next sentence that follows?

If the author is saying that:
- "It" isn't...

and that:
- "It" is and isn't...

but not that:
- "It" is...

...then someone could use that author as support for the argument that "it" isn't Biblical, but nobody could use that author as support to say "it" is Biblical? It seems to me that author "A" is not arguing both sides of the coin, but that he is starting out the sentence in a way that no one can conclude that "it" is or isn't unless they read the rest of the sentence and the sentence that follows.

Any thoughts on my points?

 

[Raymott]

Can you really conclude that the author ("A") is saying it is not a Biblical doctrine, when you look at the rest of the sentence after the comma and the next sentence that follows?
No, he's saying #3 of your options.
You'll note I amended my post while you were replying.

Quite simply, the sentence means that the Trinity does not occur in the Bible, but that it can be seen to be Biblical if you want it to.
To your question of whether one has to read the whole sentence to get a meaning, I would say, 'Yes, in most cases.'

 

[pharmer]

Could the author be saying that "Trinity" can't be found in the Bible, but the substance that defines the Trinity can and is found in the Bible, and therefore is a Biblical doctrine?

Is it even possible to come to a conclusion on what the author is saying without reading the rest of that sentence and the following one helps clear it up?

 

[Raymott]

Could the author be saying that "Trinity" can't be found in the Bible, but the substance that defines the Trinity can and is found in the Bible, and therefore is a Biblical doctrine?
Yes, s/he could be.

Is it even possible to come to a conclusion on what the author is saying without reading the rest of that sentence and the following one helps clear it up?
It's possible to come to a conclusion, but the conclusion might not be right unless you read the whole sentence, and often beyond - to the while text. Sentences usually don't come without a context.
In fact, whole texts don't come without contexts.
This discussion has a context, and you have the advantage of knowing what it is. So my answers are provisional.

R.

 

[pharmer]

What if you knew I was a musician and I said:

“Though a snare drum is not a musical instrument in the sense that it plays a melody, it can be used to play the very fundamental element that defines music, which is rhythm.”

Have I just said a snare drum both is and isn’t a musical instrument? (No additional context)

 

[Raymott]

What if you knew I was a musician and I said:

“Though a snare drum is not a musical instrument in the sense that it plays a melody, it can be used to play the very fundamental element that defines music, which is rhythm.”

Have I just said a snare drum both is and isn’t a musical instrument? (No additional context)

You have said that, in some senses, it is, and in others it's not.
So, it depends. Given the context that you are a musician, I'd assume you were saying it is. Without further context, I'd put my money on your meaning that it is a musical instrument.

 

[pharmer]

You have said that, in some senses, it is, and in others it's not.
So, it depends. Given the context that you are a musician, I'd assume you were saying it is.

Is there not an overall meaning that puts the author of this sentence (me) on one side of the fence, based on the construction of the sentence and placement of words for emphasis (regardless of the knowledge that I'm a musician)?

 

[Raymott]

Is there not an overall meaning that puts the author of this sentence (me) on one side of the fence, based on the construction of the sentence and placement of words for emphasis (regardless of the knowledge that I'm a musician)?

There's nothing definite.
You could argue that in a sentence of the structure: "Although A is not B in the sense of C, nevertheless A can been seen to be B in the D sense" that the person is going on to argue for the second half of the sentence - that A is B because of D, and hence A is B.
But until they actually say that, you're still dealing with probabilities.

 

[pharmer]

Can you determine what the author's main point is? Isn't there one main point based on the structure of the sentence having a main clause and a subordinate clause?

 

[pharmer]

Quite simply, the sentence means that the Trinity does not occur in the Bible, but that it can be seen to be Biblical if you want it to.

Not to get side tracked, but the sentence actually says the formulation does not occur in the Bible (not the Trinity), but that the substance does occur in the Bible.

 

[Raymott]

Can you determine what the author's main point is?
More or less.
Isn't there one main point based on the structure of the sentence having a main clause and a subordinate clause?
It depends.

Can we cut to the chase? Is this going to end up as a discussion about the meaning of meaning?
What is your main point?

 

[pharmer]

Can we cut to the chase? Is this going to end up as a discussion about the meaning of meaning?
What is your main point?

Wow. Every one of my questions has been legitimate and each one has their point.

 

[pharmer]

“Though a snare drum is not a musical instrument in the sense that it plays a melody, it can be used to play the very fundamental element that defines music, which is rhythm.”

You said the sentence above had a main point "more or less". Can you tell me, based on the construcion of the language, what that main point is?

 

[Raymott]

Wow. Every one of my questions has been legitimate and each one has their point.

That's true. And my questions: Where is this going? or Where has it come from? are also legitimate, but you are choosing not the answer them.
Nevertheless, I'll overlook that.

 

[Raymott]

You said the sentence above had a main point "more or less". Can you tell me, based on the construcion of the language, what that main point is?

No, I can only make a guess. And I don't necessarily agree that there has to be an identifiable 'main point'.
If I had to guess, I'd say that the author means: "The snare drum is a musical instrument."
But that is not the meaning of the sentence.

 

[pharmer]

That's true. And my questions: Where is this going? or Where has it come from? are also legitimate, but you are choosing not the answer them.
Nevertheless, I'll overlook that.

I did answer. I told you that each question had their main point. If you can't see where it has come from, or what the point of each question is, I am happy to try and clarify (which I have done on more than one ocassion).

I see you have responded now.

 

[pharmer]

No, I can only make a guess. And I don't necessarily agree that there has to be an identifiable 'main point'.
If I had to guess, I'd say that the author means: "The snare drum is a musical instrument."
But that is not the meaning of the sentence.

So can a person use that sentence as legitimate support for either view and still keep the integrity of the sentence the way the author intended?