But in Cains case it was an actual mark so all that met him knew him - it might even be thought of as G-D's autographic mark
On 6/27/09 10:24 AM, "William Conger" <[email protected]> wrote: The literal mark is one thing and its function as a metaphor is another. The expression, "the mark of Cain", is a metaphorical use of the noun, nmark, to convey an as-if effect and not a literal one. wc --- On Sat, 6/27/09, Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: marks > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "armando baeza" <[email protected]> > Date: Saturday, June 27, 2009, 12:19 AM > Then there is the mark of Cain > > On 6/26/09 5:31 PM, "armando baeza" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > It's uniqueness is also a mark.!!!!My friend is a Mark! > (mando is a mark) > > On Jun 26, 2009, at 2:24 PM, armando baeza wrote: > > > In clay sculpture a mark often times are finger > prints. > > So what is really the problem here?How about > signature? > > mando > > > > On Jun 26, 2009, at 1:30 PM, [email protected] > wrote: > > > >> Michael writes the material between the brackets: > >> > >> [On Jun 26, 2009, at 1:38 PM, [email protected] > wrote: > >> > >>> Miller's definition was this: > >>> > >>> "A mark is whatever is done to a surface in a > single uninteruppted > >> touch." Miller's definition implies marks being > limited to human > >> action > >> alone. > >> > >> Where? I'm afraid I don't see it.] > >> > >> I bracket it, because my small worry is that > succinct but sloppy > >> lingo by > >> me may have led Michael to think he's responding > to me when he > >> says, "But > >> your assertion above is one of them inference > things, not an > >> implication. > >> *You* > >> interpreted "single uninterrupted touch" to convey > exclusively human > >> touching, not bird-poo. . ." > >> > >> What cheers...@aol>COM actually wrote was: > >> > >> [But earlier William conveyed that Miller's > definition was this: > >> > >> "A mark is whatever is done to a surface in a > single uninteruppted > >> touchb&. > >> Miller's definition > >> implies marks being limited to human action > >> alone."] > >> > >> In fact, however, I largely agree with William's > "interpretation" > >> of what > >> Chris had in mind. William might have been clearer > if he'd said, > >> "Miller's > >> definition suggests. . ." > >> > >> In any case, I presume Chris Miller lives on, > though he may be > >> taking a > >> long weekend. When he gets back perhaps he'll > answer our feather- > >> weight > >> question: Did you, Chris, have in mind solely > human doings when > >> you wrote, "A > >> mark > >> is whatever is done to a surface in a single > uninteruppted touch"? > >> > >> Michael goes on to say: > >> > >> "As for my reply to Kate, I was addressing only > the nature of > >> human-made > >> marks. What I said did not preclude non-human-made > marks. . . > >> > >> I'd say you did a bad job of conveying that. You > wrote: > >> > >> [A mark is a distinctive visual artifact. > >> > >> Style - from stylus, a writing instrument, a thing > that makes a mark. > >> Mark - a touching of a surface, a line made as an > indication or > >> record of > >> something > >> > >> The marks left on the surface--of a painting or of > a sculpture, > >> even-- > >> embody and preserve the action of the maker's > hand, that is, his > >> *sytle*. No > >> two > >> people make identical marks, or make marks with > identical physical > >> characteristics. Forgeries or handwriting or.. . . > ] > >> > >> I hope you can see why these remarks about "the > maker's hand" are > >> likely to > >> send readers away with the idea that the notion of > 'marks' you had > >> in mind > >> was restricted to human product. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ************** > >> Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes > for the > >> grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006) > > > > > -- --
