Ken Armstrong wrote:
> By this I don't mean your example is wrong; it does
> clarify the two notions: other meanings and contexts. But ultimately they
> must be seen as they work together ... Not very well put, but maybe the
> sense of it isn't lost.
> Or say that the dictionary meanings of Leman (archaic and Lake) are
> incomplete (don't reach their signification in the poem) without the
> Biblical allusion.
It appears we are in agreement here except for some minor things not worth
I was thinking of going on with my post to discuss how the Leman use could
be layered on top of the allusion but I decided that was beyond my ability.
I may have picked a good line to use as an example because it used both
methods but that may not have been the best thing to do because it did add
Jennifer Formichelli wrote:
> Steve, I think there is a difference between calling up another
> (usually secondary to the primary sense in context) meaning of a
> word, and calling into play other's words and contexts.
Jennifer, did the examples I showed actually go to the point you brought up?
I had a bit of difficulty with your thoughts and that was how I interpreted
them. Did I come close to what you meant?