(From Hagiga 10): Talmud would ever play on such natural syntactic ambiguities, for I haven't seen the slimmest evidence to this effect. ;)) Can you state what would could possibly count as such evidence? (slimmest, subjectively convincing etc.; given that by definitions these language constructions are supposed to be ambiguous)
Then Scripture may employ a text which straightforwardly means A and also may mean X but in such a way that X is likely to be rejected by the less knowledgeable reader. Yes.
a text which straightforwardly means A and also may mean X but in such a way that X is likely to be rejected by the less knowledgeable reader. Yes, that's how you get ambiguity in a seemingly plain text. Then: how using your conventions, can you possibly express X alone?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-01-28 12:18 am (UTC);)) Can you state what would could possibly count as such evidence? (slimmest, subjectively convincing etc.; given that by definitions these language constructions are supposed to be ambiguous)
Then Scripture may employ a text which straightforwardly means A and also may mean X but in such a way that X is likely to be rejected by the less knowledgeable reader.
Yes.
a text which straightforwardly means A and also may mean X but in such a way that X is likely to be rejected by the less knowledgeable reader.
Yes, that's how you get ambiguity in a seemingly plain text. Then: how using your conventions, can you possibly express X alone?