Not a man a woman?

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
JackBuckeye
captain of 10
Posts: 13

Not a man a woman?

Post by JackBuckeye »

Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.

Why doesn't this say a man and a woman?

Seems very precise and deliberate.

Is this leaving room for the return of polygamy?

User avatar
Mindfields
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1869
Location: Utah

Re: Not a man a woman?

Post by Mindfields »

No

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Not a man a woman?

Post by inho »

I'm not native English speaker, so correct me if I am wrong. The way it is, is grammatically correct. The Proclamation is not talking about marriage between one man and one woman, but about marriage between man and woman in general. Right?

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10354
Contact:

Re: Not a man a woman?

Post by marc »

JackBuckeye wrote: February 10th, 2018, 5:31 am Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.

Why doesn't this say a man and a woman?

Seems very precise and deliberate.

Is this leaving room for the return of polygamy?
Now ask yourself the same question with a small difference and see if your question still makes sense:
Marriage between man and man is essential to His eternal plan.

Why doesn't this say a man and a man?

Seems very precise and deliberate.

Is this leaving room for the return of polygamy?
or alternatively:
Marriage between woman and woman is essential to His eternal plan.

Why doesn't this say a woman and a woman?

Seems very precise and deliberate.

Is this leaving room for the return of polygamy?
More precise to your point would be something like:
Marriage between man and women is essential to His eternal plan.
Now this would seem more precise and deliberate, at least in my mind.

User avatar
Lyster
captain of 100
Posts: 157
Contact:

Re: Not a man a woman?

Post by Lyster »

Marc makes very good points. If the issue is what the grammar allows, then full-on group polyamory would be left open. "Man and woman doesn't say how many of each" kind of thing.

It's a stretch.

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9831

Re: Not a man a woman?

Post by JohnnyL »

The church tried to pass a constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to only one man and one woman.

It failed. Maybe because of Satan? maybe because of the Lord?

Michelle
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: Not a man a woman?

Post by Michelle »

I just read The Family A Proclamation to the World on my mantle.

First paragraph "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. . ."


Paragraphs 4 (procreation) and 7 (marriage) use the phrase "man and woman" but since they are both expounding on the first paragraph where the distinction was already made to be "a man and a woman" I don't think there is any hidden meaning.

User avatar
Lyster
captain of 100
Posts: 157
Contact:

Re: Not a man a woman?

Post by Lyster »

Michelle wrote: February 10th, 2018, 11:02 pm I just read The Family A Proclamation to the World on my mantle.

First paragraph "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. . ."


Paragraphs 4 (procreation) and 7 (marriage) use the phrase "man and woman" but since they are both expounding on the first paragraph where the distinction was already made to be "a man and a woman" I don't think there is any hidden meaning.
Confirmed. Just read it.

JackBuckeye
captain of 10
Posts: 13

Re: Not a man a woman?

Post by JackBuckeye »

Who writes or talks like this? It's certainly not a grammar pattern that would be used in formal, informal or colloquial writing or speech by a vast majority of English speakers. This pattern might be used by a speaker whose native language is not English. It's certainly not a pattern that you would expect in an otherwise eloquent and precisely worded document.

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: Not a man a woman?

Post by eddie »

marc wrote: February 10th, 2018, 8:15 am
JackBuckeye wrote: February 10th, 2018, 5:31 am Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.

Why doesn't this say a man and a woman?

Seems very precise and deliberate.

Is this leaving room for the return of polygamy?
Now ask yourself the same question with a small difference and see if your question still makes sense:
Marriage between man and man is essential to His eternal plan.

Why doesn't this say a man and a man?

Seems very precise and deliberate.

Is this leaving room for the return of polygamy?
or alternatively:
Marriage between woman and woman is essential to His eternal plan.

Why doesn't this say a woman and a woman?

Seems very precise and deliberate.

Is this leaving room for the return of polygamy?
More precise to your point would be something like:
Marriage between man and women is essential to His eternal plan.
Now this would seem more precise and deliberate, at least in my mind.
Very good Marc!

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: Not a man a woman?

Post by eddie »

Lyster wrote: February 10th, 2018, 9:05 am Marc makes very good points. If the issue is what the grammar allows, then full-on group polyamory would be left open. "Man and woman doesn't say how many of each" kind of thing.

It's a stretch.
HA! :D

Post Reply