The use of inversion in poetry has been a locus of dispute in the last
century. Some of the early 'mdoernist' manifestos attacked its use in
19th-c poetry. Then when reviewers criticized Binyon's translation of
Dante for its inversions, Pound defended Binyon, snarling against
turning principles into rules (or something like that). Binyon, of
course, was forced to twist his syntax by his decision to keep Dante's
rhyme scheme. But Nancy is right of course that inversion is by no means
archaic. It even is apt to appear occasionally in collouial
conversation. And in jokes: "This is the sort of arrant nonsense up with
which I will not put."

Carrol


> Nancy Gish wrote:
> 
> What do you mean by "Elizabethan"?  Inversion is not common but is
> also not at all excluded in modern English.  It simply creates great
> emphasis because modern English is so reliant on word order.  But
> poets invert all the time for emphasis, as do other writers.  It was
> more common perhaps before grammar got codified, but it is not
> archaic.
> 
> "Into the valley of death rode the six hundred."
> Nancy
> 
> >>> Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> 03/11/10 7:46 AM >>>
> On the other hand, why Eliot used the Elizabethan
> acccusative first in the phrase, is an interesting question.
> It certainly puts a lot of emphasis on the object.
> 
> P.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carrol Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 7:57 AM
> Subject: Re: 'Gerontion' -- Grammatical Accuracy
> 
> > 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.