medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
once upon a time, on a planet far, far away, i wrote:
>> "actually, there are few members of this list who are more inclined to seek
out --and see-- 'symbolism' in all sorts of medieval art."
From: Marjorie Greene <[log in to unmask]>
> It's the sentence, not the individual words, that is meaningless.
a matter of opinion, not established Fact.
> "More" is usually connected to a "than." Where is it?
butbut, we are in the Presence of a splendid example of "ellipsis", my dear
lady, viz., "the omission of one or more words **that are obviously
understood** but that must be supplied to make a construction grammatically
complete" [e.m.].
you have my permission to amend my remarks with the addition of the obvious
"than I" immediately after "more inclined", if you really feel it necessary.
>How do you know there are few
just a wild guess.
a close reading of the sentence (as well as the individual words) makes it
clear that "few" here is relative, not absolute.
>- or did you mean "a few," which paradoxically tends to mean "many" - members
who seek out symbolism in medieval art?
no.
though that may well be the case.
i'll stand by the statement, as written, warts and all.
seeking "symbolism" is far from a universal attribute, even among
middlevilists, even amongst the small subset of those creatures who happen to
belong to this list.
>Is this a fault?
aux contraire, ma frere, as the context of my remarks make clear, since i
endevor to place myself first amongst that Happy Number.
however, it ("symbolism" seeking) is a very, very tricky matter, easily
misused (if not abused), particularly subject to sloppy, methodlogically
unsound thinking, as everyone here who has read any of the plethora of of
books about the "Mysteries" of various things middlevil knows full well.
i suspect that most all of us has a more or less well developed "nose" for
suchlike matters.
>Why is "symbolism" in quotation marks?
the offending remark was made in the context of a rather bald statement by one
of our collegues to the effect that "In Syriac iconography, the triple arch
symbolizes the Synoptic Gospels".
i was curious as to :
1) what "symbolizes" might mean in that sentence ;
and
b) what the source --or even any evidentiary foundation-- for such an
assertion might possibly be.
as it happens, i still am.
>Do you mean the symbolism is not there?
not necessarily, only that the assertion in which the word was originally used
isn't very clear as to in what sense it might have been meant.
>Words, comprehensible in themselves and individually, may be strung together
in an incomprehensible whole.
goodness, as someone who is bombarded on a near-daily basis by
incomprehensible SoundBites from George II, my own Beloved Leader, i entirely
agree.
"In Syriac iconography, the triple arch symbolizes the Synoptic Gospels" being
yet another case in point.
>Now, which of these words do you not understand?
mmmm.... "symbolizes" ?
c
> -- Christopher Crockett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Marjorie Greene <[log in to unmask]>
>
>> "actually, there are few members of this list who are more inclined to seek
out --and see-- "symbolism" in all sorts of medieval art."
>
>> Could someone parse this sentence for me and tell me what it means?
Thanks.
>
> which one of those words don't you understand, MG ?
>
>c
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|