Talk:Four modes: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:"Morphemic" might be too much for a general audience, as in the LYN teachings, so we could use 'literal' and then gloss it in the commentary, perhaps by adding a note. --[[User:Adam|adam]] 07:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC) | :"Morphemic" might be too much for a general audience, as in the LYN teachings, so we could use 'literal' and then gloss it in the commentary, perhaps by adding a note. --[[User:Adam|adam]] 07:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
::Thurman translates it as "linguistic meaning", which might be a good compromise --[[User:Adam|adam]] 08:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC) | ::Thurman translates it as "linguistic meaning", which might be a good compromise --[[User:Adam|adam]] 08:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
:Can't use 'litteral' because it is already one of the six modes (and quite accurately in this case). So it is confusing. 'Linguistic meaning' works I feel. --Gyurmé 18:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:17, 17 July 2011
Morphemic
I thought the first one should be called the "morphemic meaning", but I am worried people may not relate to it. We could also call it the syntactic meaning. Jokyab's explanation in translation: "The morphemic meaning is the painstaking explanation given by means of the declensions, particles and so on, just of the meaning of each morpheme and is stated in terms of the authoritative scriptures on grammar. The morphemic meaning is also known as the word-for-word meaning." (Tib. p.88 l.4-) What do you think? --Gyurmé 12:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Morphemic" might be too much for a general audience, as in the LYN teachings, so we could use 'literal' and then gloss it in the commentary, perhaps by adding a note. --adam 07:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thurman translates it as "linguistic meaning", which might be a good compromise --adam 08:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Can't use 'litteral' because it is already one of the six modes (and quite accurately in this case). So it is confusing. 'Linguistic meaning' works I feel. --Gyurmé 18:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)