At 07:43 PM 4/6/2003 -0400, Jacek the Jaundiced wrote:
>Unbelievable rubbish. What rubbish.
Looks perfectly sensible to me, Jacek. Rather than uttering
near-expletives, what is your complaint about this? The reasoning, I mean.
And only the reasoning. Ditto to Steve and Rick. Do we assume that TSE made
a mistake? Inquiring minds want to know...
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 7:15 PM
>Subject: Re: Grammar (you and I)
> > All this can be read as a way of making sense, except I am sorry but it is
> > not a matter of making sense or of opinion. The "you and I" can,
> > theoretically, be an appositive for "us" (as you read it) OR it can be an
> > appositive for the implied "we" speaker OR it can be a direct address.
> > Only in the way you read it is there a grammatical mistake, and there is
> > no reason to assume a grammatical mistake. So it is not really a matter
> > of interpretation but a matter of grammar unless you want to assume Eliot
> > got it wrong, and why should he?
> > I now think I need to go back to texts for the descriptions of these
> > sentence patterns.
> > Nancy
> > Date sent: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 15:42:54 -0400
> > Send reply to: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum."
><[log in to unmask]>
> > From: "Rickard A. Parker" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: Grammar (you and I)
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > [log in to unmask] wrote:
> > >
> > > The "you and I" identifies who the "us" is, doesn't it?
> > I agree. In "Let us go then, you and I" the "you and I" seems to me
> > to be a tacked-on phrase to identify "us"; equivalent to "Pharoah, let
> > them go, Moses and his people."
> > What would make the usage a bit strange is that "you" can be singular or
> > plural and so "you and I" isn't needed. If there are only two people
> > there then "us" has to mean both of them and if there are more than two
> > then "you" doesn't really identify any singular person or persons in the
> > group (in a written context; verbally there could be a clue.)
> > This may be why the "you" is so often read as being the reader, and is an
> > invitation the reader into the poem. Since the phrase may not have much
> > meaning in a dramatic context (as if seen on a stage) then it may lead the
> > reader to think that he is being addressed (singular you) out of a larger
> > group (multiple readers, plural you).
> > Regards,
> > Rick Parker