If you read my later post, you know I am not denying that the poems have
tone and pitch in performance. That, however, was not the issue in those
But the "nor" is not the difference between preceding a verb and preceding
an adverbial phrase because the adverbial phrase simply modifies the
Nor knee deep in the salt marsh, heaving a cutlass,
bitten by flies, fought.
The modifying clause does not change the parallel of "fought" and "fought."
Current American punctuation convention would call for a comma before
"knee deep" because the entire phrase is nonrestrictive, but it does not
change the grammar if you omit it.
Date sent: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 13:42:39 +0200
Send reply to: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From: INGELBIEN RAPHAEL <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Grammar (you and I)
To: [log in to unmask]
From: Nancy Gish
> the list is in fact about studying writing.
> I won't get into whether this is an oral medium, but if it is, it's a
> pathetic one since it is atonal, lacks body language, and has no pitch.
Geoffrey Hill has written about Eliot's poetry in terms of tone (which he
sees as dominating the Quartets) and pitch (which he discerns in
'Prufrock'). The contrast is between two different ways of addressing an
implied reader ('you and I', again); it definitely presupposes that the
poetry is somehow 'heard'.
From Carrol Cox
> P.S. In one of his books Donald Davie objects to the "bad grammar" of
> the second "nor" in
> I was neither at the hot gates
> Nor fought in the warm rain
> Nor knee deep in the salt marsh....
Is Davie saying that two 'nors' are ungrammatical, or does he find it
strange that the first 'nor' introduces a verb while second 'nor' is only
followed by an adverbial clause?
[log in to unmask]