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.
> >