1) THE VALUE OF ACTUAL CONTEXT IN DETERMINATION OF MEANING
Clear claimed : Colwell's rule is contextual. Only the original writers context actually makes the word “God” definite or indefinite in this sentence.
LegionOnomaMoi responded : “Were this true, it wouldn't be a rule.”
Legion, your reponse makes no sense. “Definiteness” and “indefiniteness” are always determined by actual context.
For example : If I say to my wife, “Lets go buy A car!” To someone else hearing this single statement, no “definite” or “specific” car is implied.
However, if my wife and I had discussed buying a specific car for weeks and had already decided upon buying this very specific car but were merely waiting for payday this changes the context (and meaning) of the statement.
Given this context, If I then come into the house, holding up my paycheck and say to my wife, “Lets go buy a car!”, then the implication IS a definite and specific car.
The specificity and meaning relies on the context. Colwell, as a linguist, was not oblivious to the value of context.
The same can be said for the biblical text. If the writer of John 1:1 actually MEANT the Logos was “a God”, then the original meaning of the writer WAS “a God”. If John actually MEANT that the Logos was “the” God, then the original meaning of the writer WAS “the” God. Johns own intent form the original context (and thus the true meaning of the text). Colwell’s rule does not affect nor change the original context intended by the writer of John 1:1.
2) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT LINGUISTS DID NOT UNDERSTAND "DEFINITENESS" VERSUS "INDEFINITENESS"
LegionOnomaMoi said : “Those who studied languages were not in a place to be able to even understand notions like definiteness at that time”.
This is another silly statement.
In 1933 when Colwell described his pattern, even non-linguists understood the difference between “A house” (i.e. an indefinite and non-specific dwelling) and “THAT house” (i.e. a definite and specific dwelling).
3 REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE LINGUIST COLWELL DID NOT NOTICE LIMITATIONS TO THE PATTERN HE SAW
Clear said : In this case Colwell’s rule can just as likely be used to SUPPORT the case that John meant “a God” rather than “the God” and this was the reason he wrote the sentence as it stands (i.e. without the article.
LegionOnomaMoi said : “Odd that Colwell failed to notice this.”
This is another strange and silly Statement.
Colwell DID know this point since he himself described the relative occurrence of BOTH arthrous and anarthous nouns. If you read Colwell’s description, you will see this.
LegionOnomaMoi : There is no need to argue against the obvious point that the original intent of the original writer of John determine the original meaning of his writings.
I am not trying to argue what the doctrine IS in this case, merely that the original writer determines his intended meaning. Colwell's rule cannot create, nor determine that original context and the original meaning in this case.
In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is Good LegionOnomaMoi
Clear
δρεισιω
Clear claimed : Colwell's rule is contextual. Only the original writers context actually makes the word “God” definite or indefinite in this sentence.
LegionOnomaMoi responded : “Were this true, it wouldn't be a rule.”
Legion, your reponse makes no sense. “Definiteness” and “indefiniteness” are always determined by actual context.
For example : If I say to my wife, “Lets go buy A car!” To someone else hearing this single statement, no “definite” or “specific” car is implied.
However, if my wife and I had discussed buying a specific car for weeks and had already decided upon buying this very specific car but were merely waiting for payday this changes the context (and meaning) of the statement.
Given this context, If I then come into the house, holding up my paycheck and say to my wife, “Lets go buy a car!”, then the implication IS a definite and specific car.
The specificity and meaning relies on the context. Colwell, as a linguist, was not oblivious to the value of context.
The same can be said for the biblical text. If the writer of John 1:1 actually MEANT the Logos was “a God”, then the original meaning of the writer WAS “a God”. If John actually MEANT that the Logos was “the” God, then the original meaning of the writer WAS “the” God. Johns own intent form the original context (and thus the true meaning of the text). Colwell’s rule does not affect nor change the original context intended by the writer of John 1:1.
2) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT LINGUISTS DID NOT UNDERSTAND "DEFINITENESS" VERSUS "INDEFINITENESS"
LegionOnomaMoi said : “Those who studied languages were not in a place to be able to even understand notions like definiteness at that time”.
This is another silly statement.
In 1933 when Colwell described his pattern, even non-linguists understood the difference between “A house” (i.e. an indefinite and non-specific dwelling) and “THAT house” (i.e. a definite and specific dwelling).
3 REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE LINGUIST COLWELL DID NOT NOTICE LIMITATIONS TO THE PATTERN HE SAW
Clear said : In this case Colwell’s rule can just as likely be used to SUPPORT the case that John meant “a God” rather than “the God” and this was the reason he wrote the sentence as it stands (i.e. without the article.
LegionOnomaMoi said : “Odd that Colwell failed to notice this.”
This is another strange and silly Statement.
Colwell DID know this point since he himself described the relative occurrence of BOTH arthrous and anarthous nouns. If you read Colwell’s description, you will see this.
LegionOnomaMoi : There is no need to argue against the obvious point that the original intent of the original writer of John determine the original meaning of his writings.
I am not trying to argue what the doctrine IS in this case, merely that the original writer determines his intended meaning. Colwell's rule cannot create, nor determine that original context and the original meaning in this case.
In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is Good LegionOnomaMoi
Clear
δρεισιω
Last edited: