From: Wayne Leman (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Feb 02 2001 - 16:43:55 EST
> There are occasions, nevertheless, where the context is so constructed as
to allow 2 meanings.
But how do we know whether or not the original author intended 2 meanings.
Usually, when humans communicate, if double meanings are intended, there are
some communicative clues given by the speaker sufficiently strong enough
that he feels his audience will catch them. I am an incurable punster. If
people don't "get" my puns (which, of course, I think are so very funny), I
will scrape my throat or do other things within the speech context to try to
ensure that that get my double meanings.
My question has to do with whether *possible* ambiguity is *intended*
ambiguity and if there is objective evidence that can help us decide. There
should be sufficient contextual clues that strongly tilt us toward
multivalence (Dan Wallace's term) if that was intended, otherwise, the
default for human communication is single meaning intent.
So, what in this passage gives us sufficient evidence to state with the
certainty that Dan does that there is a plenary genitive here?
Bible translation discussion list: firstname.lastname@example.org
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:49 EDT