4 ms·

I think that was just sloppy reporting, not King's quote.

chimeracoder 10y ago
It looks like sloppy editing. The following have four slightly different meanings: > interested in noncanonical Gnostic texts > interested in noncanonical, Gnostic texts > interested in noncanonical or Gnostic texts > interested in noncanonical, or Gnostic, texts
- drewbug 10y ago
  What's the difference between the first two?
  - chimeracoder 10y ago
    It's pretty pedantic, and this is not true in all dialects and forms of English[0] - as evidenced by the fact that you have at least three other comments replying with different, conflicting answers to this question! In any case, the comma basically indicates that the two words serve the 'same function', and that either one could be removed (along with the comma) while leaving the parsed structure of the sentence intact. That doesn't exactly mean that the meaning would be intact (you're removing a word, after all), but the way that you'd parse the rest of the sentence must remain identical. At a practical level, this means that 'noncanonical Gnostic texts' translates to 'Gnostic texts which are also noncanonical'. 'noncanonical, Gnostic texts' means more or less the same thing, but also implies that there is a connection between the fact that they are noncanonical and the fact that they are Gnostic. This may be because the two are outright synonyms, or simply because they are often connected. For example: > heavy, red rocks > heavy red rocks It'd be weird to say 'heavy, red rocks', unless in context you had some reason to connect those two (such as those being identical sets, if all red rocks are heavy)[1]. Instead, you'd say that the red rocks are heavy - in other words, "the (heavy (red rocks))". Also, note what I did with the opening paragraph of this response. 'different, conflicting answers' (because the answers are different, and they are conflicting, and the way I am using the word 'different' is connected to the fact that they are (partly) 'conflicting')[2]. [0] ie, this is strictly limited to the stylistic rules of journals of record, such as the New York Times, and not necessarily applicable to the way those same writers/editors would write an email. Curiously, I believe this is true both in American English and in formal British English. [1] 'The machine picks up all the heavy, red rocks and leaves behind the light, blue rocks' vs. 'The machine picks up all the heavy red rocks and leaves behind all the light red rocks and the blue rocks (whether they are heavy or light)'. [2] Though the response which directly contradicted mine has since been deleted, but, uh, ignore that fact.
  - ashark 10y ago
    The first strongly implies that there are canonical Gnostic texts and that the interest is in only the non-canonical variety. The second indicates texts that are both non-canonical and Gnostic. Doesn't rule out all misinterpretations but at least doesn't imply them. Probably the best version of this that can be accomplished with small changes. Third states that the interest is in texts that are either non-canonical or gnostic without a requirement that they be both of those things (a little similar to the first but without drawing as much attention to the implication of canonical gnostic texts) The fourth defines Gnostic texts as synonymous with non-canonical texts.
  - mhurron 10y ago
    > interested in noncanonical Gnostic texts > interested in noncanonical, Gnostic texts Look at the comma as generating a list. So the second would be interested in noncanonical AND Gnostic Texts where as the first is just noncanoncial Gnostic Texts, or simply Gnostic Texts as all of them are noncanonical to any other sect.

It looks like sloppy editing. The following have four slightly different meanings: > interested in noncanonical Gnostic texts > interested in noncanonical, Gnostic texts > interested in noncanonical or Gnostic texts > interested in noncanonical, or Gnostic, texts

drewbug 10y ago
What's the difference between the first two?
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  It's pretty pedantic, and this is not true in all dialects and forms of English[0] - as evidenced by the fact that you have at least three other comments replying with different, conflicting answers to this question! In any case, the comma basically indicates that the two words serve the 'same function', and that either one could be removed (along with the comma) while leaving the parsed structure of the sentence intact. That doesn't exactly mean that the meaning would be intact (you're removing a word, after all), but the way that you'd parse the rest of the sentence must remain identical. At a practical level, this means that 'noncanonical Gnostic texts' translates to 'Gnostic texts which are also noncanonical'. 'noncanonical, Gnostic texts' means more or less the same thing, but also implies that there is a connection between the fact that they are noncanonical and the fact that they are Gnostic. This may be because the two are outright synonyms, or simply because they are often connected. For example: > heavy, red rocks > heavy red rocks It'd be weird to say 'heavy, red rocks', unless in context you had some reason to connect those two (such as those being identical sets, if all red rocks are heavy)[1]. Instead, you'd say that the red rocks are heavy - in other words, "the (heavy (red rocks))". Also, note what I did with the opening paragraph of this response. 'different, conflicting answers' (because the answers are different, and they are conflicting, and the way I am using the word 'different' is connected to the fact that they are (partly) 'conflicting')[2]. [0] ie, this is strictly limited to the stylistic rules of journals of record, such as the New York Times, and not necessarily applicable to the way those same writers/editors would write an email. Curiously, I believe this is true both in American English and in formal British English. [1] 'The machine picks up all the heavy, red rocks and leaves behind the light, blue rocks' vs. 'The machine picks up all the heavy red rocks and leaves behind all the light red rocks and the blue rocks (whether they are heavy or light)'. [2] Though the response which directly contradicted mine has since been deleted, but, uh, ignore that fact.
- ashark 10y ago
  The first strongly implies that there are canonical Gnostic texts and that the interest is in only the non-canonical variety. The second indicates texts that are both non-canonical and Gnostic. Doesn't rule out all misinterpretations but at least doesn't imply them. Probably the best version of this that can be accomplished with small changes. Third states that the interest is in texts that are either non-canonical or gnostic without a requirement that they be both of those things (a little similar to the first but without drawing as much attention to the implication of canonical gnostic texts) The fourth defines Gnostic texts as synonymous with non-canonical texts.
- mhurron 10y ago
  > interested in noncanonical Gnostic texts > interested in noncanonical, Gnostic texts Look at the comma as generating a list. So the second would be interested in noncanonical AND Gnostic Texts where as the first is just noncanoncial Gnostic Texts, or simply Gnostic Texts as all of them are noncanonical to any other sect.