At 12:45 PM 07/18/2001 -0400, Rickard Parker wrote:
>Is this what you think I'm saying?
> If the line is a pun then it is not an allusion.
>Because logically I can't see how you could get that.
Whoops. Logically was how I thought I was getting it.
> I can see how
>you could picture me saying that Eliot would not pun on a serious
>allusion but that is not quite right either because I left things out.
OK. Your statement seemed to imply an "if...then" affair. Still looks
that way, but if that was not your intent, no problem.
>What I didn't write last time I'll put down now. I was talking about
>this one particular line,
I was noting what seemed to be a principle, which you are saying now was
>clearly an allusion and clearly filled with
>a serious thought in the poem's context.
>Perhaps we should distinquish between puns and word play. Since
>dictionary definitions differ a bit on this I suggest that to
>distinquish between them punning is word play that is humorous or
>ludicrous. I give as an example of word play that **isn't** punning
>Eliot's line "By the waters of Leman I sat down and wept ..."
Hmmm. Punning is ludicrous to the makers of dictionaries, perhaps, as
those agents whose definitions "drive words out of their senses." Which is
where they would like them. That is, punning is "ludicrous" to the neatened
and ordered world of the eye, but not to the all-at-once multidimensional
world of the ear. Cf Eliot on the auditory imagination. "Word play" works
for me, too, but a dictionary may be the worst place possible to get a fix