Posted by Bob on October 10, 2004

In Reply to: TF posted by WC on October 10, 2004

: : : : : : Hello dear friends:

: : : : : : my context:
: : : : : : "I integrate nonlinear messages from images, knowings, and interpretations of energy to help my patients - a potent alchemy that strengthens my practice of medicine.

: : : : Hello Smokey
: : : : albeit your failing to understand the meaning you gave me an excellent answer. by the way I misled you concerning the energy: it's supposed to be energy fields, and then it's obvious that it belongs only to the interpretations.

: : : : You never sleep?

: : : : Thanks so much
: : : : : : my question: does whe integrate images from all this things: images, knowing and interpretations, or does she integrate messages fromimages with knowings and interpretations. Do I have to apply the preposition from to all three factors or only to messages?

: : : : : : Thank you for your help!

: : : : : I see what you're asking. The straightforward or most linear way of reading this is to treat images, knowings and interpretations as parallel members of a series that includes all three, with the preposition "from" applying to each. A careless writer might indeed wish to say in this fashion that "messages from images" was parallel with "knowings" and "interpretations," but he would certainly be questioned by his editor, or ought to be. If we are going to seek other interpretations of the syntax we could even regard "non-linear messages from images" as one element of the series parallel with "knowings" and "interpretations." Since the meaning of the sentence is hardly obvious in any respect, one might ask if the phrase "of energy" applies only to the last member of the series, or to each of them. If I had to choose, I would go with the least non-linear interpretation of the syntax, that is, your first alternative, in which images, knowings and interpretations are the co-equal elements of the series. For the same reason, I would assume that "of energy" applied only to "interpretations," but with no great confidence, since I haven't a clue as to what the good doctor actually does or what the sentence really means. SS

: : : Miri, take heart. As Smokey has also opined, that sentence you quoted has almost no identifiable meaning - even to native English speakers. In my view, this is primarily due to the original author's lax style in both grammar and choice of vocabulary. Colour me cynical here, but the passage strikes me as the usual grandiose-sounding but inevitably nebulous assertions of some "new age" quack who has to dress his/her claims up in hermetic and mystical verbal clothing to distract attention away from there being precisely zero discernable and provable substance therein - what the heck is "a knowing"? And as for the usage of "a potent alchemy", oh please.

: : : A grumpy TF with no apology to tree-huggers - you're welcome to keep your brandished crystals. your lightly braised tofu, your Kirlian photography and your chakras... just don't rub my nose in it all if you want to be taken seriously.

: : You are totally right (I just hope that the writer does not visit phrasefinder). the style is very careless, as you have noticed from this short passage.
: : As to the content, her book became a bestseller and can we argue with that?

: : What is a TF by the way?

: TF = The Fallen
: WC = Word Camel

If you look at any bestseller list, in the US anyway, the mindless fluff floats to the top with some regularity. Readers in Europe and Japan tend to read more serious books. The US appetite for newage (rhymes with sewage) is further evidence of the failure of the educational system to engender critical thinking. All that being said, however, I object to identifying these superstitious morons with the term tree-hugger. It's entirely possible to be environmentally conscious based on scientifically valid concerns. As to crystal gazers, astrologers, spiritualists and other such pre-scientific primitives, they can wallow in their "knowings."