Newbie needs help

Status
Not open for further replies.

pharmer

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
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.
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
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.
You can send them to me in a private message if you like. I'll take a look at them.
Or better yet, you could throw caution to the wind and post them here - as long as they aren't too blasphemous, and as long as you only want the grammar checked, it should be ok.
 

Amigos4

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
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.
Hey, Arizona! It's good to see a neighbor! :up:

As long as you don't want to discuss the subject matter feel free to post your sentences here in the forum! :cool:
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
There's no problem with this- feel free to post them as the questions are about the language not the subject matter.
 

pharmer

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
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?

Much appreciated!
 
Last edited:

Amigos4

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
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?

Much appreciated!
pharmer, the meaning of your first sentence is unclear to me. How is it possible for an improvised solo to not be considered 'a piece of music'? It would make more sense to me if the sentence contained the word 'not', as in:"...in the sense that the exact notes are not printed in the score..."

The rest of the paragraph looks fine to me.
 

pharmer

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
You're absolutely right, I didn't catch that. There should be a "not" inserted. I edited my previous post now. How's that?
 

Amigos4

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
You're absolutely right, I didn't catch that. There should be a "not" inserted. I edited my previous post now. How's that?
Now it makes perfect sense to me! Nicely done!

Enjoy today's sunshine, neighbor! Summer is just around the corner! ;-)
 

pharmer

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
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.).

Original:

Speaking of the Trinity, this publication admits: “It 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—even twisting them—to find support for their teaching.

Copy:

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—even changing them—to find support for their performance.

Thanks once again, to all!


 

Amigos4

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
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.).

Original:

Speaking of the Trinity, this publication admits: “It 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—even twisting them—to find support for their teaching.

Copy:

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—even changing them—to find support for their performance.

Thanks once again, to all!


pharmer, I still have the same lack of clarity! Why isn't a solo improvisation considered to be 'a piece of music'? What would you call an improvisation solo? ;-)
 

pharmer

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
How do I best explain? In my first example (my copy), the text is indicating that the improv solo is not a piece of music "in the sense that the exact notes are not printed...", indicating to me that there is more than one sense that defines a piece of music. So if you looked at the sheet music for this particular solo, you would find something other than the notes printed. In the case of an improv solo, you find "chord changes"...essentially information that guides the soloist in the right direction, but does not spell out the exact notes to play. Make sense in that example? In the second example (my copy), there is a leap made that I don't think is correct: "Because the solo is not a piece of music...". You see, I think in the first example the author is not claiming that it isn't a piece of music, but rather that it is a piece of music (but that there is more than one sense that defines it. Does that help clear up the confusion? The "original" examples are from two seperate publications. You can see how one quotes the other. The first one I posted (I'll call that author/publication "A") is the original source with its entire quote/idea clearly spelled out. The second one I posted (I'll call that "B") is the one doing the quoting, although it is doing so in an incomplete way without any indication that part of the quote is missing. It is a controversial topic, so I wanted to come up with a non-controversial topic so as to not get distracted by it. However, it does sound obsurd when I put it in the context of music. But maybe that will help with the analysis of it. I am sure I understand what "A" is trying to communicate, and I'm sure I understand what "B" is trying to communicate, but when you look at how "B" quotes "A", I don't think it is communicating in "B" what it was in "A". I think truth in writing is important, and I would like to be able to understand the mechanism in language that gives it its integrity. I am open to any and all suggestions. I am sure there is a way to explain what's going on grammatically.
 
Last edited:

pharmer

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
I tried to p.m. you a long explanation, but it wouldn't let me send it because I have less than 15 posts. Sorry.
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
pharmer, the meaning of your first sentence is unclear to me. How is it possible for an improvised solo to not be considered 'a piece of music'? It would make more sense to me if the sentence contained the word 'not', as in:"...in the sense that the exact notes are not printed in the score..."

The rest of the paragraph looks fine to me.
I disagree. It makes more sense without 'not' .

A: It's not a piece of music in the real sense.
B: What's the real sense?
A: The real sense of "piece of music" is that the exact notes are printed in the score.

You could use 'not' if it were written:
Though it is not a piece of music, in that the exact notes are not printed in the score, ...


 

pharmer

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Good point Raymott. Your point is consistent with how author "A" wrote theirs. They wrote "...in the sense that any formulation of it can be found...". So to match that, it looks like my copy should be "...in the sense that the exact notes are printed...".

Correct?
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
If they are truly improvising, why would they be looking for notes or phrases in the score- that strikes me as more of a source for a variation than an improvisation.
 

pharmer

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
I think that gets into the subject matter, which is a good point and begs the question. If it is a Biblical doctrine, why are they "...desperately looking for Bible texts..". I think author "A" is not trying to say that musicians are searching for notes, but author "B" is using author "A" to support the claim that musicians are searching for notes. I think "A" communicates that even though the improv solo does not fit the one sense of the definition for "a piece of music", it still is a piece of music because it DOES fit the definition of "a piece of music" in other senses...and then author "A" goes on to describe and define those other senses that satisfy the definition.

Do you think I'm understanding the way the language is intended to commnicate?
 

pharmer

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
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.

I assume now, this is an accurate copy of author "A". (If not, please suggest how to improve).

So what I want to know, is "A" communicating with the language being used that:

-The improv solo IS a piece of music?
-The improv solo IS NOT a piece of music?
-The improv solo IS and IS NOT a piece of music?
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
I assume now, this is an accurate copy of author "A". (If not, please suggest how to improve).

So what I want to know, is "A" communicating with the language being used that:

-The improv solo IS a piece of music?
-The improv solo IS NOT a piece of music?
-The improv solo IS and IS NOT a piece of music?
It's ambiguous with or without 'not'. You have a problem with the referent of 'it'.
You either mean:
An improvised solo is not a piece of music in the sense that, in 'a piece of music', the exact notes are printed in the score ...
or:
An improvised solo is not a piece of music in the sense that, in 'an improvised solo', the exact notes are not printed in the score ...

From there, you can go on to give the senses in which it is a piece of music, or you can continue along with the theme that it is not a piece of music.

I would rephrase it to avoid the ambiguity. But I'm not sure about the rules you've imposed upon yourself for the project.
 

pharmer

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
It's ambiguous with or without 'not'. You have a problem with the referent of 'it'.

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.

Do you think the original author/publication "A" is just as ambiguous?
 

pharmer

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Okay, tell me if this is a better match. "It" is now referring to a percussion solo.

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 a 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.

Copy of author “B”:
Speaking of the percussion solo, this maestro admits: “It is not music in the sense that any melodic line can be found in the solo.” Because the solo is “not music,” percussionists have been desperately looking for definitions—even twisting them—to find support for calling their solo, music.

Am I getting there? :-?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top