Page 7 of 8 First ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Last
Results 61 to 70 of 78
  1. Amigos4's Avatar
    VIP Member
    Academic
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Oct 2007
    • Posts: 87,925
    #61

    Re: Newbie needs help

    Kudos to Raymott for his perseverance in working with pharmer's questions!


    • Join Date: Mar 2010
    • Posts: 45
    #62

    Re: Newbie needs help

    Quote Originally Posted by amigos4 View Post
    Kudos to Raymott for his perseverance in working with pharmer's questions!
    Hear, hear!


    • Join Date: Mar 2010
    • Posts: 45
    #63

    Re: Newbie needs help

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymott View Post
    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!
    Okay. I think this version of my copy is much better than the "improvisation solo" version. Certainly to me, it seems less ambiguous and seems to communicate in the same manner as the original. What do you think?


    Original author "A"

    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 of author “A”:

    Though it (percussion solo) is not music in the sense that any melodic line can be found in the solo, it can be heard to bring out the essence of music with its rhythmic line, implicit in the first half of the piece and explicit in the last half. By this we mean that though we cannot speak confidently of the revelation of the rhythmic line at the beginning, once the substance of the rhythm has been revealed in the latter half, we can hear many implications of it in the first half.

    Thanks for your time, once again.

  2. Raymott's Avatar
    VIP Member
    Academic
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 25,544
    #64

    Re: Newbie needs help

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmer View Post
    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.


    • Join Date: Mar 2010
    • Posts: 45
    #65

    Re: Newbie needs help

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymott View Post
    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.
    Good point. I think I see what I must do to make this better.
    Last edited by pharmer; 19-Mar-2010 at 19:03.


    • Join Date: Mar 2010
    • Posts: 45
    #66

    Re: Newbie needs help

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymott View Post
    Part of the original argument is whether 1. is in 4.
    In your 'copy', there is an identity relation between 1. and 4.
    I like the way you've numbered the different parts. Maybe that will help me keep things straight.

    Using your numbering system, the original author is saying:

    #1 is not definded as #2 via #3, because #1's #3 is not found in #4. However, #1 underlies #5 throughout #4. (And in the next sentence the author restates #1's connection to #4 to make his/her point more clear.)


    So I think it is not whether 1. is in 4., but rather that #1 is connected to #4 via the "substance" route, but not the #3 route. That author is saying that this "teaching" is connected to this "thing" via the substance, but not via the formulation.

    With that in mind, I must connect my subject to its thing via the substance, but not the formulation. The solo must be connected to "music" via substance - ie. essence of music (which is rhythm), but it is not connected via the formulation - ie. melodic line.

    I have now made some changes including #2 to "musical" and #4 to "music"

    #1-percussion solo (or percussion 'section' might be better)
    #2-musical
    #3-melodic line
    #4-music
    #5-essence of the music
    #6-beginning of piece
    #7-end of piece


    Copy of author “A”:
    Though it (percussion section) is not musical in the sense that any melodic line can be found in the music, it can be heard to bring out the essence of the music with its rhythmic line, implicit in the first half of the piece and explicit in the last half. By this we mean that though we cannot speak confidently of the revelation of the rhythmic line at the beginning, once the substance of the rhythm has been revealed in the latter half, we can hear many implications of it in the first half.

    (Changes have been made since this post...see next post)
    Last edited by pharmer; 20-Mar-2010 at 18:26.


    • Join Date: Mar 2010
    • Posts: 45
    #67

    Re: Newbie needs help

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymott View Post
    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
    I think I've made some much needed improvements.

    I changed "percussion solo" to "percussion".

    #1-percussion
    #2-musical
    #3-melodic line
    #4-music
    #5-revealing the musical theme
    #6-first half of piece
    #7-last half of piece

    So it reads like this:

    Copy of author “A”:
    Though it (percussion) is not musical in the sense that any melodic line can be found in the music, it can be heard to be the foundation for revealing the musical theme, implicit in the first half of the piece and explicit in the last half. By this we mean that though we cannot speak confidently of the revelation of the percussion at the beginning, once the substance of the percussion has been revealed in the latter half, we can hear many implications of it in the first half.
    Much improved(?)

  3. Raymott's Avatar
    VIP Member
    Academic
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 25,544
    #68

    Re: Newbie needs help

    I'll think about it.


    • Join Date: Mar 2010
    • Posts: 45
    #69

    Re: Newbie needs help

    Thank you. I do appreciate it.

  4. Raymott's Avatar
    VIP Member
    Academic
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 25,544
    #70

    Re: Newbie needs help

    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.

    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’.

    I don’t think you’ll ever write a strictly parallel analogy, because the concepts involved in the original are different and possibly unique.

Page 7 of 8 First ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Last

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •