Author Topic: Quotes from work (Read 188986 times)

Jonathon · « **Reply #950 on:** June 16, 2011, 03:28:25 PM »

I think the author intended what you got, which is that he didn't belong to any particular church and never acted on his faith. But for some reason I'm having a hard time coming up with a nice, concise substitute.

Porter · « **Reply #951 on:** June 16, 2011, 03:35:10 PM »

Quote

But for some reason I'm having a hard time coming up with a nice, concise substitute.

The trouble is that you want it to be nice, concise, and accurate.

Jonathon · « **Reply #952 on:** June 16, 2011, 03:36:15 PM »

I'm just difficult that way.

Porter · « **Reply #953 on:** June 16, 2011, 03:40:01 PM »

How about:

Quote

For most of my life, I was a nondenominational Christian. I believed in Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father, but I never did anything about it.

Marianne Dashwood · « **Reply #954 on:** June 16, 2011, 03:54:44 PM »

I would just take out the "meaning" and split it into two sentences. Remove the causality. Otherwise, that's rather offensive to nondenominational Christians.

Marianne Dashwood · « **Reply #955 on:** June 16, 2011, 03:55:29 PM »

Or, you know, what Porter just said on the second page I didn't read.

Jonathon · « **Reply #956 on:** June 16, 2011, 03:56:02 PM »

Good suggestion. Or how about just changing it to "nonpracticing"?

BlackBlade · « **Reply #957 on:** June 16, 2011, 04:39:18 PM »

Porter's route seems fine. I like it better than nonpracticing, as nonpracticing implies that Christianity in practice requires church going. That would make Joseph Smith a nonpracticing Christian for a long time.

Porter · « **Reply #958 on:** June 16, 2011, 05:23:28 PM »

I prefer not adding the word "nonpracticing" and any and all implications might come with it, but I disagree with BB as to what those implications are.

Porter · « **Reply #959 on:** June 16, 2011, 05:55:16 PM »

Quote

For most of my life, I was a nondenominational Christian, meaning I believed in Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father, but I never did anything about it.

I'm going to go back and say that my original interpretation of this sentence was correct.

Mary Cate has a Relief Society activity tonight, which means that I need to figure out what I'm doing for dinner.

I'm not defining anything, but I'm describing a ramification of her having the activity tonight.

Or, to use the author's slightly odd construction,

Mary Cate has a Relief Society activity tonight, meaning I need to figure out what I'm doing for dinner.

Jonathon · « **Reply #960 on:** June 17, 2011, 10:27:08 AM »

Hmm. I still disagree. The OED says, "To signify; to convey or carry a meaning, significance, consequence, etc." I think that's a pretty apt definition. Your having to worry about dinner is a consequence of Mary Cate's not being there to make dinner. Not doing anything about his faith is not necessarily a consequence of his being nondenominational. Plenty of people are nondenominational but active churchgoers.

Porter · « **Reply #961 on:** June 17, 2011, 11:00:52 AM »

Me cooking dinner is not necessarily a consequence of Mary Cate being gone. Plenty of people don't cook dinner but have a spouse that is gone for the evening.

Jonathon · « **Reply #962 on:** June 17, 2011, 11:22:47 AM »

But your having to cook dinner is a necessary consequence of your spouse being gone. His being inactive is not a necessary consequence of his being nondenominational.

Marianne Dashwood · « **Reply #963 on:** June 17, 2011, 11:24:50 AM »

I agree with Porter - I think you should just omit the implication of any sort of connection between the two.

Porter · « **Reply #964 on:** June 17, 2011, 11:40:39 AM »

Quote from: Jonathon on June 17, 2011, 11:22:47 AM

But your having to cook dinner is a necessary consequence of your spouse being gone.

No it wasn't. I could have taken the kids out to dinner. We could have gone hungry. I could have convinced my kid to cook something they liked. (This is what actually ended up happening, BTW.)

Quote

His being inactive is not a necessary consequence of his being nondenominational.

It wasn't a necessary consequence, but it was the consequence for him. I don't know why you feel that it has to be a necessary consequence for the word to be used that way.

Jonathon · « **Reply #965 on:** June 17, 2011, 11:43:44 AM »

Quote from: Porter on June 17, 2011, 11:40:39 AM

Quote from: Jonathon on June 17, 2011, 11:22:47 AM
But your having to cook dinner is a necessary consequence of your spouse being gone.
No it wasn't. I could have taken the kids out to dinner. We could have gone hungry. I could have convinced my kid to cook they liked. (This is what actually ended up happening, BTW.)

Let me rephrase: your having to worry about dinner was a consequence.

Quote

Quote
His being inactive is not a necessary consequence of his being nondenominational.
It wasn't a necessary consequence, but it was the consequence for him. I don't know why you feel that it has to be a necessary consequence for the word to be used that way.

I don't think it's even a consequence. He's nondenominational and he doesn't do anything about his faith. I don't think there's any causal relationship at all, so I don't think it's correct to say that one means the other.

Porter · « **Reply #966 on:** June 17, 2011, 11:45:15 AM »

I think that the author would disagree with your claim that there's no causal relationship at all.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #967 on:** June 17, 2011, 01:54:04 PM »

I think the author is a non-observant Christian.

Marianne Dashwood · « **Reply #968 on:** June 17, 2011, 02:50:13 PM »

Quote from: Porter on June 17, 2011, 11:45:15 AM

I think that the author would disagree with your claim that there's no causal relationship at all.

See, I agree with this - I think the author is fully intending a causal relationship. But I think that would be offensive to others who read it.

Jonathon · « **Reply #969 on:** June 17, 2011, 03:00:10 PM »

I think that's the problem to me. The author may perceive some causality or equivalency, but I don't think that makes it true, and I especially don't like the implication that it's true for anyone but himself.

rivka · « **Reply #970 on:** June 17, 2011, 03:06:33 PM »

Are you objecting as an editor or as a reader?

Jonathon · « **Reply #971 on:** June 17, 2011, 04:09:13 PM »

Both?

BlackBlade · « **Reply #972 on:** June 17, 2011, 04:14:05 PM »

Quote from: Jonathon on June 17, 2011, 04:09:13 PM

Both?

You should object as forum administrator too, that way it's a trifecta.

Jonathon · « **Reply #973 on:** June 17, 2011, 04:16:35 PM »

Done!

rivka · « **Reply #974 on:** June 17, 2011, 04:33:02 PM »

Quote from: Jonathon on June 17, 2011, 04:09:13 PM

Both?

Heh. As a reader, I agree with your objection. But were I editing, I think I would not -- the intent he (apparently) wishes to convey is being accurately conveyed. The sentence says what he wants it to.