Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Since the Eastern Jin, parallel prose was used even for minor reports and notices; in the Tang, it became the antithetical form.

I'm confused about what this sentence is saying. Is it saying that in the Tang, parallel prose was not used?

share|improve this question
    
Apparently belongs in the writersSE site. –  Kris Jan 31 '12 at 5:21

2 Answers 2

Without more context it would seem so, antithetical could have the meaning of incompatible here: parallel prose became the form that was the most opposed to the style used for the most common pieces of writing, instead it was used in rare cases for very particular literary exercises.

share|improve this answer

It is a version of antithesis*. In this context, it means that this form was only used for effect.

  • Hegels Thesis and Antithesis for scientific progress. I will expand if anyone wants me to.

[edit] - expanding more I response to comment. Note that my understanding of Hegel is also not briliant.

In the context, the Thesis is the normal or main use of parallel prose. So, for the Eastern Jin, it is used in a range of writings, pretty much everywhere. The Antithesis of this is the opposing, meaning that for the Tang, it served as an obtuse or obscure usage, not the normal. Therefore, its use would have been for effect - to make something stand out from the norm.

Hegels use of this is to identify that over time, the Thesis and Antithesis tended to combine, counteract, merge to produce a Synthesis. The precise explanation of this i hte context would require a lot more of the writing.

share|improve this answer
    
I'm not sure I understand, could you elaborate? Hegel's concept of antithesis seems not only for effect but an operative concept, for example 'slaves' as antithesis of 'masters'. Disclaimer: my knowledge of Hegel is very limited. –  Vladtn Feb 1 '12 at 11:18
    
It seems unlikely that a style of writing under the Tang dynasty refers to a 19th century German (but, of course, without context we can't be sure). –  TimLymington Feb 1 '12 at 13:09
    
+1 Thanks, although I'm not sure why the reference to Hegel is needed, as the words have a common English meaning. I agree you have a point when you state it would make something stand out of the norm. –  Vladtn Feb 2 '12 at 16:39
    
Because Hegel introduced the concept. That is why I originally just put it as a reference. It is often useful to understand the earlier meaning. –  Schroedingers Cat Feb 2 '12 at 16:59

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.