Difference between revisions of "User:Eritain/Mad notions/Annotated concordance"
(draft proposal) |
m (learned a little something about the link pattern for subpages, there) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
I did some checking, and it seems deliberate: "boast" and "strength" and "wisdom" only co-occur here, though there are interesting secondary comparisons where only two of the three are found (Helaman 4:13, Mosiah 2:16-17, 2 Nephi 20:13, for example). But what exactly Mormon intends us to draw from the comparison, I cannot say. | I did some checking, and it seems deliberate: "boast" and "strength" and "wisdom" only co-occur here, though there are interesting secondary comparisons where only two of the three are found (Helaman 4:13, Mosiah 2:16-17, 2 Nephi 20:13, for example). But what exactly Mormon intends us to draw from the comparison, I cannot say. | ||
| − | This is the sort of thing one not only thinks about, but discusses with other students of the scriptures. But it's hard to see just where it should go on Feast Upon the Word. It doesn't pertain so much to any one of these passages as it does to the comparison. I suggest perhaps these situations call for an "Annotated Concordance" section, where a page called [[ | + | This is the sort of thing one not only thinks about, but discusses with other students of the scriptures. But it's hard to see just where it should go on Feast Upon the Word. It doesn't pertain so much to any one of these passages as it does to the comparison. I suggest perhaps these situations call for an "Annotated Concordance" section, where a page called [[/Boast, Strength, Wisdom]] could discuss it (linking both to the scriptures in question and to concordance pages for the secondary comparisons). |
Of course, this does not solve the problem of comparing portions of scripture that are linked by subject matter or narrative parallels without explicit quotation/allusion/etc. But it's a start. | Of course, this does not solve the problem of comparing portions of scripture that are linked by subject matter or narrative parallels without explicit quotation/allusion/etc. But it's a start. | ||
Addendum: An interesting computational project would be to identify sets of words that co-occur more often than chance would dictate. This would be good grist for ongoing discussions in the annotated concordance section. | Addendum: An interesting computational project would be to identify sets of words that co-occur more often than chance would dictate. This would be good grist for ongoing discussions in the annotated concordance section. | ||
Latest revision as of 00:03, 11 August 2010
I was recently struck, while reading Alma 26:11, by a rhetorical connection: Ammon says he will not boast in his own strength or wisdom, very much recalling the phrasing used by Alma to caution Shiblon and reprove Corianton (Alma 38:11 and Alma 39:2 respectively). It's moot how they came to share the wording, but it's worth asking why Mormon preserves the parallel (cf Heather Hardy on BoM poetics, Grant Hardy in "Understanding" on parallel structures). That is, is there some particular lesson to be drawn by comparing these three characters?
I did some checking, and it seems deliberate: "boast" and "strength" and "wisdom" only co-occur here, though there are interesting secondary comparisons where only two of the three are found (Helaman 4:13, Mosiah 2:16-17, 2 Nephi 20:13, for example). But what exactly Mormon intends us to draw from the comparison, I cannot say.
This is the sort of thing one not only thinks about, but discusses with other students of the scriptures. But it's hard to see just where it should go on Feast Upon the Word. It doesn't pertain so much to any one of these passages as it does to the comparison. I suggest perhaps these situations call for an "Annotated Concordance" section, where a page called /Boast, Strength, Wisdom could discuss it (linking both to the scriptures in question and to concordance pages for the secondary comparisons).
Of course, this does not solve the problem of comparing portions of scripture that are linked by subject matter or narrative parallels without explicit quotation/allusion/etc. But it's a start.
Addendum: An interesting computational project would be to identify sets of words that co-occur more often than chance would dictate. This would be good grist for ongoing discussions in the annotated concordance section.
