Posted by AF [AF] on November 01, 1999 at 11:04:33 {2gTL9dbN6kDjRmAxB/kMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: ****Discussion summaries posted by Rational on November 01, 1999 at 06:42:37:
: 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." …
: 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.
I understand what you’re saying. I hate the use of multiple levels of negation, though, because it makes it so hard to follow the reasoning. In this case we would have a triple negative with the third merely implied.
Now let me apply your reasoning and transform the phrases into positive ones:
Referent 1: “a serious mistake to reason” “it is true that”
Referent 2: “the parable could not apply” “the parable applies”
Referent 3: “until later on” “now”
Putting these together we have: “it is true that the parable applies now”.
Thus you’ve proved in yet another way that Friend’s understanding is incorrect.
: 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.
I certainly appreciate your input. He seems to have avoided a sidetrip so far.
AF