Lee, I hope I did not disrupt things here...thank you for beginning another thread.
Lotus Padma, please don't worry, you asked an excellent question and raised an important issue, and I'm glad you did, and please don't hesitate to do so again!
My difficulty here is that, much as I like Rana's book, I find it a bit vague on this issue.
Other authors have noted that besides Subject-Modifier, there are other ways to combine, such as sequential (this happens, then this happens, then this happens, etc.).
On page 264 of the book, Rana says: "A tip on Combining: while it isn't a hard and fast rule, start by looking at the first card as the subject o[f] the matter and the card following it as a description modifying that subject. In other words, try treating the first card as a noun and the second card as the adjective." She then goes on to describe a different kind of combining that will happen with more practice, where the two cards are seen as "whole" combinations. She also says, "practice and experience are key factors, as cards sometimes combine in the oddest ways."
Above that paragraph, she describes how one pair (A + B) may not have a similar meaning to the flipped pair (B + A). As an example she gives Sun and Coffin.
Sun + Coffin = "success ending, a downturn of luck"
Coffin + Sun = "success after an ending, a resurrection"
Now, the first example (Sun + Coffin) clearly follows the Subject+Modifier paradigm. If Sun is "success" and Coffin is "end," then clearly Sun+Coffin is "ending success" or "success ending."
But for Coffin+Sun, it seems to me a Subject+Modifier kind of combination would result in "a successful ending." But Rana gives "success after ending," which to me is clearly a sequential interpretation (Coffin happens, then Sun happens).
I think what may be happening is that, as Teheuti suggests with the Mountain, there are certain cards (i.e. Coffin and Mountain) which tend to bring everything to a full stop. So cards to the left of that card are brought to a standstill or ending; cards to the right represent a new beginning. But this isn't made clear in the book (or at least not that I can find right now -- if anyone knows of another spot in the book that addresses this, please let us know!), and it's hard to know how to put together these different considerations and know what to do with them in any one situation.
Looking at the Coffin chapter in the book seems to bear this out: for Coffin + Clover she gives "a recovery, another chance" (sequential) rather than "a lucky ending" (Subject+Modifier).
For these reasons, I'm reluctant to establish a strict Subject+Modifier rule for our Study Group. A, I'm not getting from the book that it's that strict of a rule; B, I don't want to be in the position of judging whether every member's post meets these criteria.
Teheuti said:
But in this version isn't News the subject/noun with Mountain and Rider modifying it? Therefore we'd have Adjective—Noun—Verb: delayed(adj) news(subject) arrives(verb).
Mary, I know you have a post after this, but I did want to make a specific point here -- it seems to me that the whole grammar analogy is imperfect, because while it's true that "delayed (Mountain) news (Letter) arrives (Rider)" would be adjective-subject-verb, it's also possible to say "news-related delay (Mountain-Letter) arrives (Rider)," which would bring us back to subject-adjective-verb while retaining the same meaning. It's things like this that make me question the whole Subject+Modifier concept.
The key to all this is the context. When asking a question and a card turns up that is clearly indicative of the subject of the question, then that trumps all other subject-modifier concerns.
This seems supremely sensible to me and a good concept to use going forward -- try to stick to Subject+Modifier as a general guideline, but pay attention to the context and to obvious subject cards.
From my perspective as moderator and study group leader, I don't want members to feel overwhelmed or as if every interpretation they make is going to be picked apart. At least now and for the foreseeable future, I'd really prefer that we stick to encouraging participants to put together meanings for card combinations from Rana's lists keywords and phrases, thus giving all of us a chance to get accustomed to those meanings in action without having to sit down and memorize them.
Once we're perhaps halfway through the cards, we can revisit the issue of rules/guidelines for combining, and I think at that point we'll be more comfortable with the meanings side of the equation and will be better equipped to start wrestling with guidelines for combining. For now I'd be happy just to have everyone have fun getting their feet wet.
