Posted by Rational [trw] on November 01, 1999 at 06:42:37 {2gTL9dbN6kYgCUWv3.1cm0FN8UzOHE}:
In Reply to: ***Discussion summaries posted by AF on October 31, 1999 at 22:57:19:
AF,
I believe the ambiguity you point out is actually the result of the word "until", which--like "now"--can have more than one sense. In this instance it appears that "until" was used to negate the referent "later on." Consider the sentence "I'll love you until the stars no longer shine" (where "until" and "no longer" form a double negative, effectively canceling each other and yielding, "I'll love you [while] the stars ... shine"). In similar fashion I think the writer used "until" as a third negative affecting a third referent:
negative 1: a serious mistake
referent 1: to reason
negative 2: the parable could not
referent 2: apply
negative 3: until
referent 3: later on
A simple double negative (excluding "until" as a negative) would give the sense you indicate: 'It would be a serious mistake to reason that the parable could not apply later on.'
Recognizing "until" as a third negative, however, does give the sense the writer evidently intended, albeit so ambiguously that no JW reader would bother trying to analyze it, but would simply, as you say, comprehend the idiom and extrapolate his intent.
This does not affect your argument in any way, but I thought pointing it out might prevent any irrelevant sidetrips by Friend, and allow him to concentrate on your argument.
Rational