Mistaken or acceptable?

Forums: Grammar, Esl, English
Email this Topic • Print this Page

You know there are Four Gospels in the Holy Bible: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I told a Chinese the other day that Mark's Gospel could just be called as "Mark's" for convenience, and so were Matthew's, Luke's and John's, because in my memory, the Four Gospels are remembered as Matthew's Gospel, Mark's Gospel, Luke's Gospel and John's Gospel, not just Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

I wonder whether I've told the Chinese the right thing.
Your opinion will be appreciated.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 2 • Views: 611 • Replies: 19

No top replies

View best answer, chosen by oristarA

@oristarA,

Quote:

Mistaken or acceptable?

Mistaken, because Mark and the others might very well have had many other possessions
in addition thereto, and that use of words lacks specificity; e.g., Mark's gold, Mark's horse,
Mark's son, Mark's opinion, Mark's vote, etc.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Mistaken or acceptable?
Mistaken, because Mark and the others might very well have had many other possessions
in addition thereto, and that use of words lacks specificity; e.g., Mark's gold, Mark's horse,
Mark's son, Mark's opinion, Mark's vote, etc.

David

But in the context of Bible?

Do I have to tell the Chinese to say Mark's Gospel?

If not in this context, can you understand what "Mark" mean?
If in the context Bible, Matthew can be understood as Matthew's Gospel, why Matthew's can't? Since either Mark or Matthew can just the name of their person.

2 Replies

@oristarA,

YES. If sufficient context has already been established,
then that 's OK. Native users of English even just say
the name of the author by itself, e.g., Mark, or Shakespeare
or Hemingway, or Faulkner, etc.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Thank you Dave.

0 Replies

@oristarA,

Ori, I've always heard the gospels referred to as, the gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They transcribed the gospels, they didn't write them.

0 Replies

@oristarA,

It's a while since I thought of language like this, but I think we would say St Mark, and not just Mark, when referring to The Gospel According to St Mark.

For example, St Mark Chapter 10, Verse 5

sounds more respectful somehow.

2 Replies

@oristarA,

Quote:

Your opinion [will] would be appreciated.

In this situation, using 'will', while certainly not incorrect [see the problem with describing structure choice as "correct"] sounds a bit presumptuous, Ori.

Even for those cultures which put a premium on being forthright, this sounds too presupposing.

2 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Your opinion [will] would be appreciated.

JTT wrote:

In this situation, using 'will', while certainly not incorrect [see the problem with describing structure choice as "correct"] sounds a bit presumptuous, Ori.

Even for those cultures which put a premium on being forthright, this sounds too presupposing.

That is nonsense. Use of "will" is perfectly OK.
Oristar KNOWS for a fact, whether incoming opinions will be appreciated or not,
because Oristar herself will be the person DOING the appreciating.
On the other hand, J: use of "would" (as u put it) is speculative, conditional and stupid.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

That is nonsense. Use of "will" is perfectly OK.

What part of "In this situation, using 'will', while certainly not incorrect" don't you understand, Dave.

Quote:

Oristar KNOWS for a fact, whether incoming opinions will be appreciated or not.

Whether Ori knows something to be a fact isn't [necessarily] the test. Grammatically, 'will' is perfectly correct, just as,

Your opinion can be appreciated.

or

Your opinion could be appreciated.

are, grammatically, perfectly okay. Pragmatically, for this particular situation, I feel that it is not the best choice.

1 Reply

@JTT,

DAVID wrote:

That is nonsense. Use of "will" is perfectly OK.

JTT wrote:

What part of "In this situation, using 'will',
while certainly not incorrect" don't you understand, Dave.

THAT is not the source of your error.
U seek to employ misdirection and deflection
from your errors instead of confronting them and admitting them.

DAVID wrote:

Oristar KNOWS for a fact, whether incoming opinions will be appreciated or not.

JTT wrote:

Whether Ori knows something to be a fact isn't [necessarily] the test.

It is INDEED the test of whether such speculative or conditional language
shud be foisted upon her, as u endeavor to do.
Because she KNOWS, she need not speculate
nor guess, as u 'd have her do.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

It is INDEED the test of whether such speculative or conditional language
shud be foisted upon her, as u endeavor to do.
Because she KNOWS, she need not speculate
nor guess, as u 'd have her do.

Don't you think it's at all important, Dave, that you should understand, even a tiny little bit, the differences between epistemic and deontic uses of modal verbs before you offer advice on language issues?

0 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

It's a while since I thought of language like this, but I think we would say St Mark, and not just Mark, when referring to The Gospel According to St Mark.

For example, St Mark Chapter 10, Verse 5

sounds more respectful somehow.

What a graceful expression.
Thanks.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Your opinion [will] would be appreciated.

In this situation, using 'will', while certainly not incorrect [see the problem with describing structure choice as "correct"] sounds a bit presumptuous, Ori.

Even for those cultures which put a premium on being forthright, this sounds too presupposing.

Such nuance is among what I have been looking for.

Thanks a lot, JTT.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Your opinion [will] would be appreciated.
JTT wrote:
In this situation, using 'will', while certainly not incorrect [see the problem with describing structure choice as "correct"] sounds a bit presumptuous, Ori.

Even for those cultures which put a premium on being forthright, this sounds too presupposing.
That is nonsense. Use of "will" is perfectly OK.
Oristar KNOWS for a fact, whether incoming opinions will be appreciated or not,
because Oristar herself will be the person DOING the appreciating.
On the other hand, J: use of "would" (as u put it) is speculative, conditional and stupid.

David

I think you've activated your brilliant trial skill as a lawyer here, Dave. Very Happy

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

U seek to employ misdirection and deflection
from your errors instead of confronting them and admitting them.

That's really rich coming from you, Dave. Do you figure you could top this one for hypocrisy?

Is the pope Catholic? Do elk **** in the woods? Do clouds form overhead?

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

It's a while since I thought of language like this, but I think we would say St Mark, and not just Mark, when referring to The Gospel According to St Mark.

For example, St Mark Chapter 10, Verse 5

sounds more respectful somehow.

I have known priests (and my RE teachers at school) say e.g. "Mark seven twenty-four" and write "Mark 7:24" for St Mark's Gospel, chapter 7, verse 24. In fact, referring back to the original question, that seems to me to be the normally accepted way of referring to the Gospels. Not Mark's.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Do clouds form overhead?

Last week I was in an easyJet Airbus A320 watching them form below me.

2 Replies

@contrex,

That certainly can happen, C.

0 Replies

@contrex,

contrex wrote:

JTT wrote:
Do clouds form overhead?

Last week I was in an easyJet Airbus A320 watching them form below me.

0 Replies

Mistaken or acceptable?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know