Re: [GTh] Parallels (yet once again)
- To: GThomasIn Response To: Rick HubbardOn: ParallelsFrom: BruceI think the Funk categories noted by Rick are capable of simpler statement, but simple or diffuse, I doubt they are helpful. The names "secondary" and "tertiary" seem to imply some sort of hierarchy in terms of origin, but all they mean is more or less exact. I don't need to have grades of exactness coded into the word for "parallel," if I want to, I can simply say "verbally precise parallel" or "situationally comparable parallel" or whatever. Multiplying terms floods the dictionary, even as it gets us further from the facts being described. Both surely undesirable.To me, a parallel is simply something in another text that is comparable enough to be worth considering, whether the likeness is sharp or fuzzy, and whatever the directionality might later prove to be. I can make those determinations on my own, thank you very much, along with any conclusions as to which, if either, is based on the other, without having my elbow joggled by a lot of empty and predetermined terminology.The legacy of Formgeschichte seems to me to be almost nil, if not in some cases actually negative, and this Funk distinction, I am sorry to say, strikes me as more of the same.BruceE Bruce Brooks
Warring States ProjectUniversity of Massachusetts at AmherstMay I add my vote to the previous comment about blue on white? Blue is what you print something in when you don't want a copier to pick up that printing. The eye of the reader, if my own is any sample, seems to be a lot like the lamp on the copier.