| Author |
Message |
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:47 am
Post subject: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John Flynn
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:47 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | You can't prove me wrong because I am right.
As soon as I change the basis where it becomes obvious
that I am right, you quit.
|
I quit when it became obvious that you were clueless about how
natural languages worked and you were stuck in some formal-language-
based fantasy land.
--
johnF
"Man, for example, may feel the need to become familiar with sheep."
-- _The Origins and Nature of Language_, Giorgio Fano (1962) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John O'Flaherty
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:06 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
|
What use is it to ascribe a precise meaning if you don't know if they
were lying or not?
--
john
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:09 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131044801.497499.299430@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Peter Olcott wrote:
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
What use is it to ascribe a precise meaning if you don't know if they
were lying or not?
--
john
That is a whole other issue. It can be determined exactly what was |
being said separately and apart from determining whether or not
what was said corresponds to the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:23 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
|
We have told you what "none" means in Isaiah 45:6. It does NOT mean
"nothing". It does NOT mean "no other thing". It does NOT mean "no
other living thing". It does NOT mean "no other person". It DOES mean
"no other Lord". It will help if you read the context, even if only
that one chapter. The doctrine of the Hebrew Bible is NOT pantheism.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John O'Flaherty
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:27 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | "John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131044801.497499.299430@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
What use is it to ascribe a precise meaning if you don't know if they
were lying or not?
That is a whole other issue. It can be determined exactly what was
being said separately and apart from determining whether or not
what was said corresponds to the truth.
|
It's not a separate issue. Maybe the author(s) were just having you on,
seeing how long they could get you to obsess about a statement void of
any real referent.
--
john |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:35 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3sv6dtFpgfegU1@individual.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
We have told you what "none" means in Isaiah 45:6. It does NOT mean
"nothing". It does NOT mean "no other thing". It does NOT mean "no
other living thing". It does NOT mean "no other person". It DOES mean
"no other Lord". It will help if you read the context, even if only
that one chapter. The doctrine of the Hebrew Bible is NOT pantheism.
--
Mike.
Could you stick to the subject at hand please? |
If I substitute {X = the bullfrog, Y = rusty nail} The literal meaning would
still derive that {Only X exists}. It would not be a true statement, but, the
precise literal meaning of this statement would remain the same. Try to show
otherwise in the specific terms of this specific case.
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside (the bullfrog}. {The bullfrog} is the {rusty nail},
and there is none else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weatherlawyer
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:37 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
John O'Flaherty wrote:
| Quote: |
What use is it to ascribe a precise meaning if you don't know if they were lying or not?
Prophecy? |
An all knowing "Y" would "know" that there would be certain kinds of
people around who might be liable to hold sway just when it could be
very unfortunate for them to do so.
You might try listening with you fat gob shut in such events as the
quote was alluding to.
On the other hand it does add a little flavour to the pot that the
prophet was tested by the self same people at the time the alledged
lying took place.
So don't let me stop you.
********
http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=That+they+may+know+from+the+rising+of+the+sun&btnG=Google+Search
If I remember the story, he spent a deal of his time flashing the
community, so there was already a degree of disapprobation concerning
him. All of which was irrelevant as:
"I will give you the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret
places, that you may know that it is I, Yahweh, who call you by your
name, even the God of Israel."
...... apparently applied to persons as then unknown, who could not be
conjoured to play the part, not being born for several generations
hence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:39 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131046075.374308.141820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Peter Olcott wrote:
"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131044801.497499.299430@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
What use is it to ascribe a precise meaning if you don't know if they
were lying or not?
That is a whole other issue. It can be determined exactly what was
being said separately and apart from determining whether or not
what was said corresponds to the truth.
It's not a separate issue. Maybe the author(s) were just having you on,
seeing how long they could get you to obsess about a statement void of
any real referent.
--
john
There are two separate questions here: |
(1) Exactly what is this statement saying?
(What is the precise semantic meaning that is being specified?)
(2) Does this statement correspond to the truth?
These are not the same single question, they are two separate and distinct questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Phillipson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:45 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message
news:aXsaf.2171$5N1.1906@dukeread08...
| Quote: | That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
|
The trouble with this sermon disguised as a thread
is that the OP starts with a translation of his source
text (not the original words) and feels free to make
substitutions not found in original translations
(here the references to set theory.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:52 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message
news:aXsaf.2171$5N1.1906@dukeread08...
| Quote: | That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
|
What do you think "beside" meant in 17th century English?
Alan Jones |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:03 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3sv6dtFpgfegU1@individual.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
We have told you what "none" means in Isaiah 45:6. It does NOT
mean
"nothing". It does NOT mean "no other thing". It does NOT mean "no
other living thing". It does NOT mean "no other person". It DOES
mean
"no other Lord". It will help if you read the context, even if
only
that one chapter. The doctrine of the Hebrew Bible is NOT
pantheism.
--
Mike.
Could you stick to the subject at hand please?
|
You mean by repeating the same incantation over and over again?
| Quote: | If I substitute {X = the bullfrog, Y = rusty nail} The literal
meaning would
still derive that {Only X exists}. It would not be a true
statement,
but, the
precise literal meaning of this statement would remain the same.
Try
to show
otherwise in the specific terms of this specific case.
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside (the bullfrog}. {The bullfrog} is the
{rusty nail},
and there is none else.
|
Nonsense, I'm afraid. The subject at hand is the meaning of "none".
Your substitution does not affect the meaning of "none" in the piece
of early modern English you quote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:33 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3sv8p3Fq55k8U1@individual.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3sv6dtFpgfegU1@individual.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
Nonsense, I'm afraid. The subject at hand is the meaning of "none".
Your substitution does not affect the meaning of "none" in the piece
of early modern English you quote.
So are you proposing that "none" actually means {some} ? |
I say that the above passage could only possible mean that
{only X exists} and does not at all depend of what noun
phrase is substituted for X. This would universally apply
to each and every possible noun phrase substituted for X.
Can you show that another meaning besides {Only X exists}
is literally specified by different noun phrase substitution for X? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:49 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3sv8p3Fq55k8U1@individual.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3sv6dtFpgfegU1@individual.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
Nonsense, I'm afraid. The subject at hand is the meaning of
"none".
Your substitution does not affect the meaning of "none" in the
piece
of early modern English you quote.
So are you proposing that "none" actually means {some} ?
|
You know perfectly well that I have offered a sensible explanation.
Your X and Y substitution looks very like intellectual dishonesty, as
it seems designed to produce the answer you want.
| Quote: |
I say that the above passage could only possible mean that
{only X exists} and does not at all depend of what noun
phrase is substituted for X. This would universally apply
to each and every possible noun phrase substituted for X.
Can you show that another meaning besides {Only X exists}
is literally specified by different noun phrase substitution for X?
|
There really is no difficulty: you are trying to force a perverse
interpretation on a simple text. Isaiah 45:5 even explains it: "I
[am] the Lord, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside
me:". It goes on, through v6: "I girded thee, though thou hast not
known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the
west, that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the Lord, and [there is]
none else." The chapter continues, with the speaker listing things
that he has made: that is to say, things nobody else has made. It is
about God's sole divinity, not a call to pantheism.
It is essential to contextualise any passage of literature. What you
appear to be doing is taking your own interest in producing a form of
English which needs no context to establish meaning, and projecting
it back onto an author who had no such intention. One can't do that;
and even if one could, the word "none" in an early modern English
sentence of this type cannot have the meaning "nothing". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:21 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3svf0qFqbadcU1@individual.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3sv8p3Fq55k8U1@individual.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3sv6dtFpgfegU1@individual.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
Nonsense, I'm afraid. The subject at hand is the meaning of
"none".
Your substitution does not affect the meaning of "none" in the
piece
of early modern English you quote.
So are you proposing that "none" actually means {some} ?
You know perfectly well that I have offered a sensible explanation.
Your X and Y substitution looks very like intellectual dishonesty, as
it seems designed to produce the answer you want.
If you substitute (X = the bullfrog, Y = the big green one) you get |
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside {the bullfrog}.
{the bullfrog} is the {big green one}, and there is none else.
You still get {Only X exists}. In this case you get {Only {the bullfrog} exists}.
Although it might not be a true statement, this would still be the literal meaning
of the above sentence with the proposed substitutions.
| Quote: |
I say that the above passage could only possible mean that
{only X exists} and does not at all depend of what noun
phrase is substituted for X. This would universally apply
to each and every possible noun phrase substituted for X.
Can you show that another meaning besides {Only X exists}
is literally specified by different noun phrase substitution for X?
There really is no difficulty: you are trying to force a perverse
interpretation on a simple text. Isaiah 45:5 even explains it: "I
|
You changed the subject again. I am talking about deriving the
exact and precise meaning of a sentence, and you are talking
about theology. I came to this group to get an exact and precise
meaning of a sentence, not to talk about theology.
| Quote: | [am] the Lord, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside
me:". It goes on, through v6: "I girded thee, though thou hast not
known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the
west, that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the Lord, and [there is]
none else." The chapter continues, with the speaker listing things
that he has made: that is to say, things nobody else has made. It is
about God's sole divinity, not a call to pantheism.
It is essential to contextualise any passage of literature. What you
appear to be doing is taking your own interest in producing a form of
English which needs no context to establish meaning, and projecting
it back onto an author who had no such intention. One can't do that;
and even if one could, the word "none" in an early modern English
sentence of this type cannot have the meaning "nothing".
If you want to try to refute my reasoning you must stick to the subject |
at hand. Take my substitutions above and try to show how the sentence
means that there is more than one bullfrog. I propose that this can not
possibly be done. You can not possibly show that the sentence allows
for there to be more than one bullfrog, because the exact and precise
meaning of the sentence is that {only the bullfrog exists}.
In order to get the precise literal meaning of any sentence one must explicitly
ignore whether or not it results in a true or false statement. If you don't do
this, then you are getting something other than exactly and precisely what the
sentence is specifying.
We all know that there is more than one bullfrog, and that there are things
that exist besides this one bullfrog, yet what we can not correctly say, is that
the above sentence agrees with this common sense perspective. It says that
{only the bullfrog exists} and can not possibly be taken to exactly and
precisely literally mean anything else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in