Humanities desk
< September 15	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 16

Textual lacunae and a Gnostic text

The well-known Trimorphic Protennoia has a lacuna near the end, a condition that's well attested in lots of sources. But how can we know that it's a lacuna and not merely a scribal error such as haplography or a big (intentional) whitespace in the text? In particular, how do we know that the lacuna is five lines long, as is stated by lots of sources? Unlike poetry, this source doesn't appear to have had standard lines; I expect that saying that it's missing five requires more effort than saying that a nine-line sonnet is missing five lines. https://books.google.com/books?id=GSciDAAAQBAJ discusses a lacuna in the text, but apparently it's a different spot where the text isn't lost: a piece of parchment adhered to the cover of a codex, so a piece of the manuscript is detached, but it was found attached to the cover and its proper place was identified. This doesn't appear to have had any such discovery. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this text specifically and our article is totally unhelpful, using the text itself as the only source and being vague about where the lacuna is and why it exists and who has said what about it. There could be a hole in the material where the text used to be, or someone could have erased that text later. It could simply be illegible now. But it would be unlikely for a text this ancient to have intentional whitespace. Writing material was expensive and writers used all the available space (no paragraphs, punctuation, or even spaces between words). As for how editors know how many lines are missing, sometimes it is easy to tell from the script itself. Looking at the transcriptions in the book you linked to, the script is some kind of Greek uncial, so that usually means that the number of lines per page and the length of each line (in terms of number of letters) is pretty regular. If there's a hole, it should be possible to tell how many letters are missing (at least) and maybe even exactly what word should be there. So I'm not sure how anyone knows five lines are missing, but there is probably a logical reason, if that is an accurate statement in our article. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hand signal?

What is the significance, at 12:42, in this video, of a hand held up, as it is. The only thing I notice is that two fingers are separated from two fingers. But that, to me, means nothing. What is going on? I looked at List of gestures but I don't see anything obvious. Bus stop (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's showing her that he has no wedding ring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. I considered that. It seemed weak symbolism, especially given her response. She says "I'm sorry", as if he just presented her with a fact that is tragic. Bus stop (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it fits in perfectly with the context of that scene. He is holding up his hand (fingers) to say "Look. See. I don't have a wedding ring on." (as was indicated by an editor above). But, he also says, "Yeah, I know what you mean. I just went through the same thing as you did. My partner/wife just left me, too." (or words and sentiments to that effect). So, she says "I'm sorry", because he did present her with a (somewhat) "tragic" fact. The (implied) divorce / break-up was tragic to him. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC) 22:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't say "I just went through the same thing as you did. My partner/wife just left me, too." Maybe you are saying that the acting is so good that he says that nonverbally. Bus stop (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. He says some of it verbally and some of it non-verbally. As my post above stated: he "said" the comment with words and sentiments to that effect. So, yes. Partially, it was verbal. Partially, it was non-verbal. In any event, that is my interpretation of the scene. And, I am quite sure, that was the director's interpretation of that scene. And, in fact, how the director wanted that scene to be interpreted (by the audience). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't verbally say it, but that's how I read it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear enough as a 'me too'. There's no real change of expression rather than any grimace or downturn of the mouth, that indicates to me he accepts the situation but is a bit depressed about it. Dmcq (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He says "I know what you mean." She says "You do?" Then he holds up his hand. Then she says "I'm sorry". Then he replies "Me too." You can't say that But, he also says, "Yeah, I know what you mean. I just went through the same thing as you did. My partner/wife just left me, too." (or words and sentiments to that effect). You've got to stick to the script. Bus stop (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bus stop: Of course, he said "Yeah, I know what you mean. I just went through the same thing as you did. My partner/wife just left me, too.". He said some of that verbally and he said some of that non-verbally. In any event, he "said" it. Or, rather, he communicated that to the other character. Your contention is that human communications are limited to the four corners of the script and the actual words verbally spoken. That is a very basic, rudimentary, and simplistic -- and, rather naive -- understanding of how human beings communicate. A lot more is being communicated, above and beyond the verbal words spoken. This is not a very controversial topic and it is not even a bone of contention. So, I am not sure why you are disagreeing or "picking a fight" over this non-issue. There may be some subtleties or nuances to interpreting this scene in question (or any scene). But, I am quite sure that 99.99% of the audience would interpret this scene as I did above. The alternative interpretation is yours of bewilderment: namely, "Huh? What's going on? This makes no sense! Why did she say that she was sorry? Why did he hold up his fingers like that? Why does she seem like she has been presented with a tragic fact?". I think my interpretation fits better and makes more sense. As opposed to your interpretation, by which we would all be left befuddled, bewildered, and confused. (How does that help to advance the plot of the story?) If you truly believe that human communications (interactions) are totally constrained and bound by the actual words that are verbally spoken (i.e., "the script"), then you certainly do not understand how humans communicate. Nor do you understand how films are made. So, again, I am not sure why you are making an "issue" of this non-issue. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also body language (I think that oculesics is excellently expressed by the actors, both unknown to me). Clearly, much / all of this is cryptic / unintelligible to observers diagnosed with Asperger´s Syndrome and related neurodevelopmental disorders in the spectrum. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no (implied) divorce / break-up. There is no body language or hand gesture or facial expression in that particular scene conveying a "divorce". You are expanding upon that with which you have been presented. "Divorce" is a word representing a concept. If a word is not uttered you are not at liberty to insist to others that it exists unless there can be specified some nonverbal means of conveying that concept. "Divorce" in fact implies a previous state of "marriage". Is "marriage" also implied? It is not I who is not accepting that the absence of a wedding ring signifies that a person isn't married. I said in response to that suggestion "I guess so. I considered that." And I am not unaware that every person responding so far agrees that the upheld hand signifies in the context of the film that the man is not married. You are even entitled to the widest type of interpretation including your understanding that the upheld hand plus nonspecific nonverbal aspects of his behavior communicates that My partner/wife just left me, too. But I don't have to agree that such specificity is warranted. In my opinion nonverbal communication is not always accomplished by nonspecific body language, facial expression, etc. Bus stop (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bus stop: Wow. Some people -- not necessarily you -- must have a pretty difficult time watching TV and films. Well, not "watching" them per se. But understanding and comprehending them. And, perhaps, these "some people" have great difficulty in communicating with people in everyday life, also? If every little thing needs to be spelled out for them, that is. There absolutely is an "implied break up or divorce". That girl in the film was complaining (grieving) that she "lost" her relationship with her girlfriend (or, maybe, wife). The guy says: "Yeah, me, too. Look, I am not wearing a wedding ring." You ask 1 million people what that scene represents ... and 999,999 will agree with what I posted (interpreted) above. So, if you want to be that one exception, so be it. I have no idea why you are making an issue of this non-issue. Quite frankly, if it were me, I myself would be embarrassed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bus stop: And, just for shits and giggles, please enlighten us with your interpretation of that scene? I would love to hear it. So far, what I got from your interpretation is: "Huh? What's going on? This makes no sense! Why did she say that she was sorry? Why did he hold up his fingers like that? Why does she seem like she has been presented with a tragic fact?". But, I could be mistaken. So, please give us your interpretation. Which -- presumably -- you think makes more sense than my interpretation. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get carried away. I haven't watched this film, but of the ones I have watched I doubt that any scene is clear to 99.9999% of viewers. Actually my impression is that the literary geeks would be disappointed if they could not extract multiple potential interpretations from a good scene, at least in print or theater. Wnt (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wnt: Let's not split hairs with the 99.99% figure. It means "the vast majority". And I am quite sure that you knew that. So, putting that aside, what is your interpretation of that scene? Please offer it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro—what makes you think that there is an interpretation of the scene? Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. A film is not supposed to communicate something to us. A film is not supposed to get a message across to us. And those purposes -- which the film does not even have -- do not require understanding, comprehension, and interpretation. Not sure what I was thinking. I must be crazy. Wow. Just wow. Gotta love our American educational system. Wow. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hardly a product of the American educational system. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which misses the point. You claim that "a film scene does not require interpretation". Yet, ironically, you came here to this board asking for exactly that. Your question was: "How is this film scene to be interpreted"? LOL. Unreal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro—you say "Your question was: 'How is this film scene to be interpreted'"? If you are going to put quotation marks around words you are implying it is an actual quote. But I did not explicitly ask "How is this film scene to be interpreted?" You are playing fast and loose with that which is explicitly said and what you may feel is a justifiable paraphrasing of what has been said. This not only applies to what I have said but to what the characters have said in the film. We have discussed in this thread the distinction between the verbal and the nonverbal. But you are blurring the distinction between the verbal and the nonverbal when you place your understanding of the nonverbal component of the film within quotation marks. Bus stop (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro will be unable to reply for several months. General Ization ^Talk 19:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would be nowhere like like, possibly something like 95% but I would certainly not venture past that. Bus stop is right in that in everyday life holding up a hand like that in that situation may sometimes mean something else, but that was a film using actors who are trained to show things like that in a fairly conventional way so the audience understands and empathizes with the character. The idea that a person viewing it must not then follow those conventions in their interpretation is ludicrous. Dmcq (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmcq: As I stated above to another editor. Let's not split hairs with the 95% versus 99% figure. That's a silly argument. I meant "the vast majority". And I am quite sure that you knew that. So, putting that aside, what is your interpretation of that scene? Please offer it. Of course, the hand signal "could" mean anything. Maybe that guy was in some secret fraternity in high school and that was a hand signal that they used. Maybe that guy belongs to some weird group that searches for aliens and that is a hand signal to say "hello" to aliens. Of course, the hand signal "could" mean anything. But, I am quite sure the director intended the scene to play in a way that most normal sensible intelligent viewers would understand and interpret. (Which is the interpretation that I offered.) Why on God's earth would a director or writer or actor employ some bizarre hand signal that no one in the world would ever recognize? Like, for example, the two weird examples I just mentioned. Why would they put that in a film? How would that advance the plot at all? How would that be in any way effective if no one understands what they are communicating to us? Again, clearly, the hand signal "could" mean anything. But, with 99% probability (or whatever high number, if you want to split hairs), it means exactly what I interpreted it to mean. Saying that the hand signals "could mean anything", is saying nothing at all. Please answer the questions I posed here. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro—you are asking others and you are asking me what interpretations we have of that scene. But why must there be an interpretation of that scene? You as an individual are free to lavish any meaning you choose on that scene. But nobody is required to lavish any meaning on it. Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are correct. When watching a scene, we should not understand or comprehend or interpret it. Geez, what was I thinking? I must be nuts. Wow. Just wow. Our American education system is working absolute wonders! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't need people pinging me if they can't read the discussion or read what I said. And as a person well versed in statistics I do get a little annoyed with 99.99999 etc % with the percentage of mental illness or stupidity or just plain face blindness or lack of empathy prevalent in the general population. Dmcq (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A side issue is cultural differences in wedding ring use. For example [1] says that men wearing wedding rings in Britain was uncommon, and describes various people (like Donald Trump) who don't use them often. I have the subjective impression that the custom is declining but I don't know if that's true. Wnt (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion a distinction should be made between gratuitous elaboration and that which is actually contained within the film. The film tells us that the man does not have a wedding ring on his finger. The film does not tell us that "[m]y partner/wife just left me, too". Many would consider that a valid interpretation but that is not actually contained within the film. I am making a distinction between that which is strictly contained within the film and that which merely constitutes an elaboration provided gratuitously by a viewer. I too am a viewer and I need not accept another viewer's interpretation. Bus stop (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bus stop: So, once again, indeed what is your interpretation of that scene? I would love to hear it. So far, what I got from your interpretation is: "Huh? What's going on? This makes no sense! Why did she say that she was sorry? Why did he hold up his fingers like that? Why does she seem like she has been presented with a tragic fact?". But, I could be mistaken. So, please give us your interpretation. Which -- presumably -- you think makes more sense than my interpretation. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bus stop: And, actually, you just contradicted yourself. The scene does not tell us -- as you claim -- "that the man does not have a wedding ring on his finger". The film does not tell us that at all. The film just shows a man holding up his hand and fingers. So, the film does not tell us that he is missing a wedding ring. Maybe his finger is itchy and he wants the girl to know that his finger is itchy. Maybe he just cut his finger and he wants the girl to see the cut. There are a million interpretations. Mostly, silly and ludicrous. But, you contradict yourself. The film does not say "that the man does not have a wedding ring on his finger". That is an interpretation of that scene. And you said that we must stick 100% without deviation from what the film literally "tells" us. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro—for the purposes of this discussion I have no interpretation of that scene. Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Then why, pray tell, did you come here to this message board, asking for the interpretation of other editors? When you claim that "golly, gee, a film scene does not even require any interpretation whatsoever"? Wow. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because interpretation can be more obvious and less obvious. That is the distinction I am making—between the higher degree of interpretation and the lower degree of interpretation. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then ... to quote you: What makes you think that there is an interpretation of the scene? What makes you think that there is any interpretation of the scene? What makes you think that there is a "higher degree" of interpretation of the scene? What makes you think that there is a "lower degree" of interpretation of the scene? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This started as one discussion but it has evolved into another. Yes, I initially questioned the significance of the upraised hand. You and others have told me that what you see in the upraised hand is the conspicuous absence of a wedding ring. I have to accept that because it answers my question. Everyone sees it as a hand that lacks a wedding ring. But the discussion evolved when you presented in quote marks words that are not found in the film. I corrected you on that, and we were off to the races. Now we are distinguishing between the proximal interpretation and the distal interpretation. Bus stop (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which in no way answered my question. But, I am done with this, um, "conversation". I was told by some other editor (User:Floquenbeam) that I am now banned from this page. LOL. And, after 100 messages and 100 requests, you still have not offered your interpretation of the scene. You keep skirting that question. Or, re-framing the issue at hand (for example, claiming, ironically, that there need not necessarily be any interpretation of that scene. This, after you specifically asking for interpretation of that scene.). LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]