My Time is Your Time
We’ve probably all heard the saying above. For our purposes, please say it out loud.
What ideas did you stress? Probably “my” and “your,” right?
by Candice M. Coleman, Ph.D.
We’ve probably all heard the saying above. For our purposes, please say it out loud.
What ideas did you stress? Probably “my” and “your,” right?
My time is your time.
Why didn’t you stress the word “time”? It looks like a new idea the first time you see it and we learned in a “Pardon My Asking … What’s New?” that in conversation we generally stress new ideas. But, it just doesn’t “feel” right, does it?
Here’s something else to say out loud.
2/9
You probably said “two-ninths,” didn’t you? Now, read this equation,
2/9+3/9=5/9
The chances are very good you read,
two-ninths + three-ninths = five-ninths
“Ninths” is the literal – mathematical – common denominator of the equation, and when we speak, we tend to subdue it each time it occurs, and to stress the numerators. The same is true with words and phrases.
Here’s another well-known phrase.
No news is good news.
Just as in the previous example, it sounds more natural to stress “no” and “good” and subdue “news” both times, doesn’t it?
Here’s why. In our examples, the ideas of “time,” “ninths” and “news” are old in the thought of the speaker or writer from the outset. The contrasts are about that old idea. We use this conversational pattern frequently without even thinking about it.
In Giving the Sense: How to Read Aloud With Meaning Lamar calls it Common Denominator (CD) and it consists of at least four parts: two ideas in common (“time,” “ninths,” “news”) and two ideas in contrast or distinct from one another (“my”/”your,” “two”/”three”/”five,” and “no”/”good”). We subdue what’s common and stress the contrasts/distinctions.
Let’s apply this to a passage from the Bible. In Matthew 26:52, we read:
… all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword:
Is the second “the sword” a new or an old idea? Obviously, it’s old, because it is the second “the sword.”
However, just because we have an idea stated more than once, doesn’t necessarily mean we have a CD construction. There must also be a contrast/distinction. What is “take” distinct from? Could it be “perish”? If so, because in conversation we stress contrasts/distinctions, wouldn’t we stress “take” and “perish” and subdue the two “the swords”? Don’t the “the swords” become the CD statements like “ninths.” Also, aren’t “take” and “perish” the contrasts like the “two,” ”three” and “five”?
… all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword:
What do we do with Isaiah 52:3? I’ve often heard it read,
Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.
Does this reading bring out the intended meaning? Let’s look at it as a potential CD construction. Could “nought” and “without money” be similar ideas? (Remember, we’re dealing with “ideas” not “words”.) If so, what would be the contrast? Isn’t the meaning clearer if you stress “sold” and “redeemed”? To paraphrase,
You’ve sold yourselves for nothing and you’ll be redeemed for nothing.
So, we DO have four parts, so it is a Common Denominator construction. In this case the CD statements are synonyms.
If you’re marking the books you read from, you’ll want to underline the contrast (as I’ve done here) and put a light pencil “squiggle” or strikeout through the common elements; that way your eye sees what you want your voice to do.
Here’s another verse that uses synonyms as the CD statement (Acts 23:11 Be).
Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem,
so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
Could “thou bear witness” be similar to “thou hast testified”? Remember, for it to be a CD construction we must have a contrast or distinction. Do you see one? Aren’t there two geographical places??
Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem,
so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
When used appropriately, Common Denominator is so unobtrusive and conversational that your listeners will accept it naturally. It can also cast new light on an old passage. It’s that new light which brings inspiration and healing.
For more information:
407-720-8661
The Importance of Finding What’s Missing
In a previous article, “My Time is Your Time,” we talked about the Analytical Reading pattern called Common Denominator.
by Candice M. Coleman, Ph.D.
In a previous article, “My Time is Your Time,” we talked about the Analytical Reading pattern called Common Denominator.
As you remember, a Common Denominator construction (CD) has at least four parts – two ideas in common and a pair of contrasts or distinctions. Two prime examples of this are found in Isaiah 55:8 my:
My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
You’ll notice when you read this verse out loud, it would sound forced and unnatural to read it any way other than to subdue what’s in common (”thoughts” and “ways”) and stress the contrasts (“my/your” and your/my”).
My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
Some of you may be thinking that the contrasts are the same words in the second clause. Yes, they are, but don’t they have a new relationship to one another? Aren’t their positions reversed? Lamar discusses this in Giving the Sense: How to Read Aloud With Meaning (p. 133). It’s like saying, “I helped him, and he helped me.”
Sometimes, one part of the CD construction, one statement of the common denominator, might be missing completely, although still implied. We call this a Three-quarter Common Denominator (3/4 CD) construction. For example, II Cor. 5:7 states:
(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
Do you see the contrast? Of course, you do! It’s obvious. But, this is a bit more than a simple contrast. In the last phrase isn’t an idea implied although not directly stated? What is it that we don’t do “by sight”? We don’t “walk,” do we?
(For we walk by faith, [we do] not [walk] by sight:)
This is an simple example of a 3/4 CD construction. We have the contrast (“faith” and “sight”) and we have a common element “we walk” (stated and implied). To read this conversationally, you’d stress the contrasts and subdue “we walk” just as we do with a full CD construction.
Another example which you probably would read as a 3/4 CD construction is Psalms 100:3 it:
it is he that hath made us and not we ourselves;
What are the contrasting ideas? “He” and “we ourselves,” right? (Conversationally, most of the emphasis will fall on “ourselves” rather than “we.”) What’s the CD statement? Could it be “that hath made us”? If so, where is it implied in the verse? How about this?
it is he that hath made us and not we ourselves [that hath made us];
Is this becoming clearer?
Here’s a more complicated example. Remember, a Common Denominator construction (full or 3/4) has at least four parts stated or implied. Sometimes there are more.
For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; (II Cor. 4:17)
To begin our analysis, let’s find the contrasts. There are 3 pairs. Let’s start with the one that’s often easiest for most people to see. “Moment” is in contrast with ________? (A “moment” refers to a brief period of time.) Do we have another idea that refers to time? How about “eternal” (seeming to last forever)? Thus, our first contrast is between “moment” and “eternal.” (You might want to underline them now to help keep you on track.)
Next, let’s look at “affliction” (something that causes suffering). What might be its contrast? What is defined as “something that brings acclaim or honor”? Could it be “glory”? Therefore, we’d also underline both of those contrasting ideas to remember to stress them.
Finally, wouldn’t “light” (having little weight) be in contrast with a heavier or “exceeding” weight? Isn’t that another pair of contrasts? You might underline those as well.
So, we have 3 pairs of contrasts, but here’s the “kicker.” To be a CD construction, there must also be a common element – a CD Statement. In this case, it’s only stated once, but has been implied earlier in the verse. What is it? (Da, da, da, da – theme from Jeopardy.) What about “weight of.”
For our light [weight of] affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
I have to admit, I struggled with the meaning of this verse when I first read it aloud in a church service. In one of our coaching sessions, Nedra Lamar taught it to me in a way similar to what we just did. Suddenly, it became absolutely clear.
Isn’t that what we want when we read any sacred text aloud – to gain a greater understanding ourselves and then be able to share it with our listeners? It’s a blessing for all.
If you want to read more about Common Denominator and its various forms, go to Giving the Sense: How to Read Aloud With Meaning, (pp. 51, 139-160). Or call one of our Authorized Affiliates. We’re always glad to help.
For more information:
Pardon My Asking … What’s New?
The biblical account of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (Daniel 3:1-30) is a well-loved story many of us first heard years ago in Sunday School and numerous times since.
by Candice M. Coleman, Ph.D.
The biblical account of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (Daniel 3:1-30) is a well-loved story many of us first heard years ago in Sunday School and numerous times since. When we read it out loud in church, it’s possible to find some freshness in it by using the logical principles and conversational patterns of Analytical Reading.
Quick Tip. Since the KJV doesn’t include quotation marks, you might want to pencil them in. It will make it easier to determine who is speaking and when.
Let’s start with Dan. 3: 5,6.
That at what time ye hear the sound of … all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up: And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.
After reading the command in the first verse to “fall down and worship the golden image,” isn’t the idea of falling down and worshipping old in the second one? In conversation, we generally stress new ideas and subdue old ones. (See, Giving the Sense: How to Read Aloud With Meaning, (pp. 15-25). So, if “falleth down and worshippeth” is old, we need to see if we can find something else that’s newer and stress that.
What about “not”? Generally, we don’t stress negatives because they’re naturally emphatic. However, if they’re in direct contrast with a previous idea, we might do so anyway. So, could “not” not only be a new idea, but a contrast with “fall down and worship” in the first verse? If so, you’d want to stress “not” and subdue what is old.
That at what time ye hear the sound of … all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up: And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.
Now, let’s go down to verses 24 and 25.
… “Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?… He answered and said, “Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire …”
Thinking again of contrasts, do you see that there might be two possible pairs of contrasts between the two verses? The first is the most obvious. What is “three” in contrast with? Right, “four”! Now, what could “bound” be in contrast with? Right again, “loose”! So, you would stress all 4 ideas.
… “Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?” … He answered and said, “Lo, I see four men loose, … “
But there’s one other possible new idea to stress here. The three “bound” men were “loosed” in that furnace, but what are they doing? Certainly not just sitting there waiting to be consumed! They were walking!
… “Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?” … He answered and said, “Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, …”
Let’s look at one last verse in this story – vs. 27. Because Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were faithful to God, they were safe.
… the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.
In the last phrase, is the idea of “fire” new or old? Is “has passed on them” new or old? What’s left that’s new?
… the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.
Not only weren’t their hair and clothes burned, they also didn’t even ______ like fire!
Reading sacred texts aloud is a joy and a privilege. But just like most of us don’t play a musical instrument or participate in a sport without training and practice, the same is true for reading. It isn’t hard to make your text sound conversational, meaningful and inspirational, but it does take some analysis and practice. Our Authorized Affiliates are here to help.
For more information:
407-720-8661
Sleeping Quarters or Sleeping Quarters?
If I were to say to you “She’s an Italian professor,” with no stress on any particular word, would you know what I mean?
by Candice M. Coleman, Ph.D.
If I were to say to you “She’s an Italian professor,” with no stress on any particular word, would you know what I mean? Is she a professor of Italian (instead of French, for instance) or, a professor (instead of some other occupation) who happens to be Italian? Actually, it could be either, if I haven’t given you any vocal clues.
To give our listeners the needed clues when we read aloud, we have to look at the meaning and the implied contrasts to determine which is the most logical word to emphasize in a particular context.
Lamar discusses this concept which she calls “The Relative Emphasis of Nouns and Adjectives,” in the textbook of Analytical Reading, Giving the Sense: How to Read Aloud With Meaning (p. 40). She states,
… whenever you stress one and subdue the other, you are generally implying a contrast or comparison with the stressed idea. You need to ask yourself whether that contrast or comparison is logical.
For a Bible example, let’s look at Ephesians 2:6,
… and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.
In the adjective/noun combination “heavenly places” you want to determine if you should stress “heavenly” or “places” to make the meaning clear. Let’s ask some questions to find the implied contrasts.
If you stress places and subdue heavenly, don’t you imply a possible contrast with heavenly people and heavenly something else?
If you stress heavenly and subdue places, aren’t you implying that we should sit together not in earthly places, but in heavenly ones?
Which reading is more logical and meaningful? In this case, you would probably decide to stress “heavenly,” the adjective.
… and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.
But sometimes stressing the noun might be more appropriate. Look at John 10:28,
… they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
At the end of the verse is the adjective/noun combination “my hand.” Asking our questions again, look for the implied contrast.
Is my hand an implied contrast with your hand or Sarah’s hand?
Or, is the writer stating simply that “no one is going to take them out of my grasp”? If you agree that’s the meaning, wouldn’t you want to stress hand?
… they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
This reading isn’t just meaningful, but also conversational. For a further discussion, see Giving the Sense, (p.40).
Let’s take another example. Have you noticed how frequently we find Bible verses and phrases that contain the word “thing” with a preceding adjective – “good thing,” “all things,” “creeping thing”? There are over 500 of them! Because “thing” is a word that generally has little meaning of its own, in conversation we usually stress the adjective (good, all, creeping).
Read these phrases out loud and emphasize “thing.” You’ll hear how awkward it sounds.
Something, everything, nothing, creeping thing.
(Unless you’re talking about the old Sci-Fi movie, The Thing, it not only sounds awkward it doesn’t even make much sense.)
The exception is when “thing” indicates an object, “I like having my things around me,” or is in contrast (stated or implied) with a “thought” or “idea.” “It’s not a thing, but an idea.”
Sometimes, choosing to emphasize either the noun or adjective still doesn’t make the meaning as clear as it could be. In this kind of situation, there is an option of stressing both words fairly equally.
In Ps. 51:10, aren’t both “clean” and “heart” new ideas?
Create in me a clean heart, O God; …
If you read, “Create in me a clean heart,” aren’t you’re implying a contrast with some other kind of heart? If you read, “Create in me a clean heart,” do you mean to imply a contrast with a clean stomach or clean lungs? Of course not! In this case, try stressing “clean” and “heart” fairly evenly with a fraction more stress on “heart.”
Create in me a clean heart, O God; …
Here’s another implied contrast in Matt. 26:40.
… could ye not watch with me one hour?
Isn’t Jesus saying to Peter, “I didn’t ask you to stay awake and pray for two days! Couldn’t you do it for even one hour?”
Be alert! Sometimes an entire noun/adjective combination is an old idea, so you would subdue both words. For example, if you’ve just finished reading Acts 10:38 about how Jesus:
went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil;
and then read Acts 10:39,
And we are witnesses of all things which he did …
Can you see that “doing good,” and “healing” are some of those the “all things” which he did in verse 39? Then, “all things” is an old idea. What might be the new idea in this case – “witnesses”?
And we are witnesses of all things which he did …
So, which is it, sleeping quarters or sleeping quarters? For me, determining the logical emphasis of nouns and adjectives is really fun and fairly easy to work out … when I ask myself the proper questions.
Oh, yes, my friend is an Italian professor; she teaches Italian.
For more information: