0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
8 vues1 page
This document discusses ungrammaticalities or anomalies in texts that require interpretation based on context alone. It provides an example of a stark contradiction between the terms "khalwat-e nāmūs" and "majlis faroz" in one text, which are mutually exclusive concepts. Only one commentator, "Shādāñ" Bilgrāmī, notes the contradiction between seclusion and assembly being mentioned together, but his attempt to resolve the contradiction is deemed philologically incoherent.
This document discusses ungrammaticalities or anomalies in texts that require interpretation based on context alone. It provides an example of a stark contradiction between the terms "khalwat-e nāmūs" and "majlis faroz" in one text, which are mutually exclusive concepts. Only one commentator, "Shādāñ" Bilgrāmī, notes the contradiction between seclusion and assembly being mentioned together, but his attempt to resolve the contradiction is deemed philologically incoherent.
This document discusses ungrammaticalities or anomalies in texts that require interpretation based on context alone. It provides an example of a stark contradiction between the terms "khalwat-e nāmūs" and "majlis faroz" in one text, which are mutually exclusive concepts. Only one commentator, "Shādāñ" Bilgrāmī, notes the contradiction between seclusion and assembly being mentioned together, but his attempt to resolve the contradiction is deemed philologically incoherent.
anomalies-obscure wordings, phrasings that the context alone will not suffice to explain” (Riffaterre 1980, 627). Cf. Todorov (1982,30) on the decision to interpret triggered by “syntagmatic indices based on lack,” the “clearest example” of which is contradiction. The intratextual anomaly here is the stark contradiction between khalwat-e nāmūs and majlis faroz. No commentator problematizes this ungrammaticality, except for “Shādāñ” Bilgrāmī, who notes that “seclusion and assembly are mutually contradictory” (khalwat awr majlis do mutażād chīzeñ haiñ) and ponders why “seclusion’s spoken of as assembly- illumining” (nah m‘alūm khalwat ko majlis faroz kyoñ kahā, Bilgrāmī 1967,180), but his resolution of this contradiction is philologically incoherent.