Alas poor Carrol.
P.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Diana Manister" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: 'Gerontion' -- Grammatical Accuracy
> There is nothing idiotic about differentiating between an action
> started and completed in the present, and one that is an ongoing or
> continual condition. The same sentence, say "Carrol scolds Diana" can
> mean both "Carrol is scolding Diana right now" AND "Carrol is always
> scolding Diana."
>
> I don't read "Us he devours" as "He devours me right now." That does
> not fit the context.
>
> Diana
>
> Sent from my iPod
>
> On Mar 10, 2010, at 10:57 AM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Apparently Diana is s till having considerable difficulty in
> > distinguishng factual from interpretive questions. That "devours" is
> > simple present is a factual question; it merely asserts that "eats"
> > and
> > "is eating' are not identical. One word is not identical with two
> > words. The phrse does raise interpretive puzzles, puzzles which Diane
> > seems to want to transform into the nonsense of arguing about tense.
> > "Devours" does, to some extent, FEEL LIKE an ongoing action. But that
> > feeling cannot be explained by idiotic arguments that the present
> > tense
> > is not the present tense.
> >
> > Carrol
> >
> > Jerome Walsh wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry, Diana. That's what "parse" and "tense" meant when I went to
> >> school. Maybe those terms have changed since.
> >>
> >> Jerry
> >>
> >> ---
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> From: Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]>
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Sent: Wed, March 10, 2010 9:04:11 AM
> >> Subject: Re: 'Gerontion' -- Grammatical Accuracy
> >>
> >> Dear Jerome,
> >>
> >> This is middle-school sentence diagramming, not a complete
> >> consideration of all the syntactical nuances the statement implies.
> >>
> >> I would like you to explain why you think "devours" is in the simple
> >> present tense. You are saying that the tiger is devouring the
> >> narrator
> >> in the poem, and the action is completed in the present. That's
> >> ridiculous.
> >>
> >> The tiger "always" devours us, if and when he (or she!) is
> >> encountered. That's not simple present tense.
> >>
> >> Diana
> >>
> >> ---
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:51:25 -0800
> >> From: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: 'Gerontion' -- Grammatical Accuracy
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>
> >> Diana,
> >>
> >> "Us" is the objective case of the first person plural personal
> >> pronoun. It is used as the direct object of the sentence here.
> >> "He" is the nominative case of the third person singular personal
> >> pronoun. It is used as the subject of the verb.
> >> "Devours" is the third person singular (simple, ordinary) present
> >> (not
> >> "progressive present") tense of the verb "to devour."
> >>
> >> Jerry Walsh
> >>
> >> (My knowledge of the complexities of [English] grammar, however, is
> >> limited; so I would gladly defer to those who can unravel these
> >> complexities more accurately than I.)
> >>
> >> ---
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> From: Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]>
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Sent: Wed, March 10, 2010 8:21:26 AM
> >> Subject: Re: 'Gerontion' -- Grammatical Accuracy
> >>
> >> Dear Terry,
> >>
> >> You are noticeably silent in response to my request that you provide
> >> the "accuracy in grammatical identifications" that I obviously could
> >> not achieve.
> >>
> >> Please parse "Us he devours" with all the grammatical accuracy you
> >> can
> >> muster. I look forward to reading it.
> >>
> >> Diana
> >>
> >> ---
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 19:46:57 -0500
> >> From: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: 'Gerontion' -- the dramatic arc
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>
> >> Diana,
> >>
> >> You seem to be under the impression that poetic ambiguity,
> >> multiplicity of meaning, and interpretive range provide rationales
> >> for
> >> a critic to make errors in grammatical identifications. 'T'isn't so.
> >> Whether or not sentences such as "Us he devours" and "Don't touch me"
> >> imply ongoing action (an interpretive matter), it is inaccurate to
> >> say
> >> that they're in the progressive present tense (a factual matter).
> >> Whether or not a poem such as "Gerontion" implies movement, the noun
> >> "Gerontion" is not a verb or verbal phrase. Claims to the contrary
> >> are
> >> not interpretations; they're just errors. Critics who feel "free to
> >> select the tense of your choice" are writing their own text, not
> >> interpreting the one the poet wrote.
> >>
> >> You also seem to assume that a call for accuracy in grammatical
> >> identifications is ipso facto a rejection of poetic ambiguity,
> >> multiplicity of meaning, and interpretive range, that the expectation
> >> of critical accuracy necessarily entails an insensitivity to the
> >> richness and suggestiveness of a poem. This assumption is so
> >> ridiculous I'm not going to comment on it.
> >>
> >> Terry
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Terry,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Don't credit me with interpreting Jesus's statement to Mary
> >> as an ongoing action that continues beyond the present
> >> moment; biblical scholars have developed arguments on both
> >> sides of that debate. Try googling Noli me tangere for
> >> details.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If you like things to be unambiguous, you ought to steer
> >> clear of poetry. I've said that "Us he devours" seems like
> >> an ongoing action of the tiger, rather than a devouring that
> >> completes itself in the poem as a conversion experience. But
> >> even as the progressive present, a conditional quality might
> >> be implied, as in "If the tiger arrives us he devours" or
> >> "When the tiger arrives us he devours." Poetry is enriched
> >> by ambiguity; if we could point to one meaning Gerontion
> >> would not fascinate us as it does. You of course are free to
> >> select the tense of your choice for "Us he devours" and
> >> settle on one interpretation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> As for the discussion on the poem's title, I believe it
> >> could signify both the name of the narrator and the state or
> >> condition of old age. I must have posted something that
> >> suggested I believed the title signified an action, which is
> >> why Nancy tried to disabuse me of that notion. We got it
> >> cleared up. I was arguing that ageing was not a static
> >> condition, and that the narrator reacts to time passing him
> >> by, since someone said the poem was static. The poem, not
> >> the title, implies movement.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Do try to pay attention so you don't need replays of
> >> discussions to clear up your misconceptions.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Diana
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> appeals to tense don't always settle disputes about meaning
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Diana,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Now that Jerry has twice corrected your claims about Greek
> >> tenses, you say that appeals to tense don't always settle
> >> disputes, but you are the one who has been making such
> >> appeals - and erroneous ones at that. You say "Us he
> >> devours" is the progressive present tense, which it's not.
> >> The progressive present in English requires an "ing" verb.
> >> (Jerry gave "I am touching" as an example, but you
> >> apparently paid no attention to that part of his post.) "Us
> >> he devours" is no more the progressive present than are the
> >> negative commands "don't touch me" or "don't hold me" or
> >> "don't cling to me." If you want to interpret those as
> >> continuing actions, that's fine, but please stop using
> >> labels you don't understand. (You did this before in your
> >> syntactical misreading of the poem's title, about which
> >> Nancy's efforts to correct your error seem to have made no
> >> impression.) I'll file your current "appeals to tense don't
> >> always settle disputes about meaning" with your previous
> >> "this tense can radically change meaning" (Sun, March 7,
> >> 2010).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Terry
> >>
> >> ---
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
> >
|