Print

Print


I am aware I am taking it a little too far, but let me
express myself for whatever it is worth.

Every fixed form of expression cannot sustain itself
all the time.  That is the reason we always find a
breaking away from the norm into newer forms.  Masters
as Eliot have always sought to redefine expression
within the limits of organized idiom (relate this to
fixed spelling).  Their variety is also the result of
a conscious struggle against an imposing medium.  That
by itself is an indicator of the limitations we would
do well to be aware of.  




--- Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Since the same spelling can elicit totally different
> sounds ("I say ba nŠ na and you say ba naa na") or
> cough and tough, and different spellings can elicit
> the same sound (thyme and time), what straight
> jacket is that?   It has apparently never
> constrained GWB, who still cannot pronounce
> "nuclear."  And have you ever heard Downeast Maine
> speech?  It's not spelled differently, but it is the
> most distinctive dialect I know of in America except
> Gullah.
> 
> If homogenized spelling has put sound in a straight
> jacket, why are any of us reading Eliot?  He doesn't
> exist in that scenario.  If he is in a strait
> jacket, why do actors create so many and such varied
> and powerful sounds out of his words in standard
> spelling--just as they do with Shakespeare?  You
> give no explanation, reason or example, but your
> claim doesn't work anyway.  No one who tries acting
> imagines that sound has been lost in
> letters-in-consistent-order.  They shout vowels and
> find the places of resonance in the face and play
> with ways to say words--in whispers or singing or a
> letter at a time.  This is just not true.  And
> anyone playing a part in Shakespeare must make a
> choice about how to say it.  Any production places
> limits and also opens possibility.  It still cannot
> be just anything or no one will understand it.
> 
> What is at stake in language play in English is not
> spelling, and something like L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry,
> when it breaks up even words into morphemes, is
> still playing off the expectation of a standard
> spelling.  You can add new words and words will
> change, but you cannot just dis-assemble what is
> there.  What poetry uses is the incredible
> flexibility of vocabulary and sound relations as
> well as the given sounds of English.
> 
> If you are going to make these incredibly absolutist
> pronouncements, it would be a good thing to give
> some reason or evidence.
> Nancy
> 
> >>> [log in to unmask] 04/04/06 12:07 AM >>>
> Transpose your question to Elizabethan times (where
> I live) and
> think of the effect of all the different spelling
> possibilities that hap-
> pened then (how many ways did Shakespare spell his
> name).
> I suspect it used to be sound that drove spelling,
> not spelling, sound.
> Today homogenised spelling has put sound in a
> straight jacket.
> 
> P.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Vishvesh Obla" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 5:40 AM
> Subject: Re: 'Tyger' and 'Vrka' (Was: 'Mind forged
> menacles' and spelling )
> 
> 
> > A question worth pondering would be to ask if
> Blake
> > had used such different spellings in other places.
> > Just as the word 'Vrka' has sense associations
> related
> > to its sound, Blake might have thought the word
> > 'Tyger' brought in similar sound associations the
> > standard 'Tiger' wasn't adequate for.
> >
> > I had difficulty in switching over my accent to
> > standard American for a long time after I moved to
> the
> > US.  I still feel affected when I have to use
> words as
> > can't, aunt. (i can't see them as a different
> > dialect). For, I am used to their original sounds
> (I
> > mean, the way the British say them), and
> particularly
> > when I read *English* poetry I find myself a
> little
> > uncomfortable when I read it aloud with the
> American
> > accent.
> >
> >
> > --- Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > As in tire and tyre?
> > > P.
> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > From: "Vishvesh Obla" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 6:02 AM
> > > Subject: Re: 'Tyger' and 'Vrka' (Was: 'Mind
> forged
> > > menacles' and spelling )
> > >
> > >
> > > > Peter,
> > > >
> > > > I would say Tiger and Tyger sounded
> differently at
> > > > least for Blake.
> > > >
> > > > --- Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So where does fixed spelling come into it,
> as
> > > > > opposed to fixed sound?
> > > > >
> > > > > P.
> > > > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > > > From: "Vishvesh Obla"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 6:30 AM
> > > > > Subject: 'Tyger' and 'Vrka' (Was: 'Mind
> forged
> > > > > menacles' and spelling )
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is more: (it could be very interesting
> to
> > > > > associate Blake's 'Tyger' with the sanskrit
> > > 'Vrka')
> > > > >
> > > > > 'For the reason why sound came to express
> fixed
> > > > > ideas,
> > > > > lies not in any natural and inherent
> equivalence
> > > > > between the sound and its intellectual
> sense,
> > > for
> > > > > there is none, -intellectually any sound
> might
> > > > > express
> > > > > any sense, if men were agreed on a
> conventional
> > > > > equivalence between them; it started from an
> > > > > indefinable quality or property in the sound
> to
> > > > > raise
> > > > > certain vibrations in the life-soul of the
> > > > > human-creature, in his sensational, his
> > > emotional,
> > > > > his
> > > > > crude mental being. An example may indicate
> more
> > > > > clearly what I mean. The word wolf, the
> origin
> > > of
> > > > > which is no longer present to our minds,
> denotes
> > > to
> > > > > our intelligence a certain living object and
> > > that is
> > > > > all, the rest we have to do for ourselves:
> the
> > > > > Sanskrit word vrka, "tearer", came in the
> end to
> > > do
> > > > > the same thing, but originally it expressed
> the
> > > > > sensational relation between the wolf and
> man
> > > which
> > > > > most affected the man's life, and it did so
> by a
> > > > > certain quality in the sound which readily
> > > > > associated
> > > > > it with the sensation of tearing. This must
> > > > > havegiven
> > > > > early language a powerful life, a concrete
> > > vigour,
> > > > > in
> > > > > have given one direction a natural poetic
> force
> > > > > which
> > > > > it has lost, however greatly it has gained
> in
> > > > > precision, clarity, utility.'
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
(http://www.searchforlight.org/Arushi/FuturePoetryCh2/Future%20PoetryCh2.htm
> > > > > )
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> __________________________________________________
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com