Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=10061, phase=CONNECT, target=127.0.0.1:2306). The server is probably not started. LISTSERV 16.0 - TSE Archives

Print

Print


In the message below you say the root is fixed and "allied with a
variable element."  Which???

>>> Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> 07/12/07 5:42 PM >>>
As I said the root can change, as in the word "cleave".
P.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: Word Choice Re: a Jeremiah sighting?


> "Fixed" in this sense is not about roots.  It is about the
relation--or
> nonrelation--of the signifier to the signified.  There isn't any root
> that is "fixed" in that sense.  Is "testimony" "fixed" to the root
> "testes"?  It does affect the historic uses of the word.
> Nancy
>
> >>> Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> 07/11/07 12:09 AM >>>
> There is always the middle way.
> In fact a word cannot be totally unfixed or it would be useless
> nonsense.
> I venture to say that every word that is viable has both a fixed root
> allied with variable element. The flip is also true. The root can
change
> and the variables can become fixed.
>
> To cleave or not to cleave that is the question.
>
> P.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 10:19 AM
> Subject: Re: Word Choice Re: a Jeremiah sighting?
>
>
> > Dear Diana,
> >
> > You're right:  they do--notably the "strict constructionists" on the
> > Supreme Court.  But by the theory you have been discussing, they are
> > beside the point; it is language, not the author alone, that cannot
be
> > fixed.  And as you pointed out, Eliot says that in many ways.  In
that
> > sense, it is not in his gaps that Eliot is a brilliant writer but in
> the
> > effects he does produce by what he writes, however he came to the
> words.
> >  He need not have individually decided on every word at all; whole
> lines
> > and phrases could have come to him without deliberation.  He would
> > choose whether to keep them or not, no doubt, but even he might not
be
> > conscious of every possible nuance or evocation.  In fact, no one
> could,
> > give the nature of language as slipping.
> >
> > One really cannot have it both ways--language as fixed and language
as
> > unfixed.  You've been arguing the former.
> > Cheers,
> > Nancy
> >
> >
> > Nancy, members of this listsrv do not always look kindly on gaps
> between
> > intended and received meaning(s), and anyone who reads the Letters
to
> > the Editor in the Sunday Book Review will come across arguments
about
> > reviewers' word choices. Writers are generally held responsible for
> > every word to which they attach their names, semantic slippage
> > notwithstanding. One aspect of Eliot's genius it seems to me is his
> > sensitivity to hs words' nuances, connotations and history. To the
> > extent that a writer is not, his wordsmith abilities are less than
> > Eliot's. Diana
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> >
> > From:  Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]>
> > Reply-To:  "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
> > To:  [log in to unmask]
> > Subject:  Re: Word Choice Re: a Jeremiah sighting?
> > Date:  Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:02:15 -0400
> > One can distinguish between analyzing what is there--and its
> effect--and
> > assuming that everything was put there intentionally and with a
> > specific, recoverable purpose.  These are distinct acts of reading
and
> > writing.  Given your own point about the gap between signifier and
> > signified, it would not even be possible to simply encode a
particular
> > exact meaning or to recover it:  the language is always "slipping"
to
> > use Eliot's word.
> >
> > So on that assumption, we cannot know what words are random and what
> > words are carefully considered, and even if we could, we still
cannot
> > know exactly what the poet intended.  New Critics made a great fuss
> > against the "intentional fallacy" and assumed we have, in fact, only
> the
> > text to examine, a "verbal icon."  Close reading was a way of
> examining
> > that verbal construct for its form and impact, not for whatever
> > conscious intent the author may of may not have had.
> >
> > If words are random--perhaps simply heard as a rhythm first and used
> (as
> > Eliot claimed) or evoked by illness or "rhythmical grumbling (as
Eliot
> > also claimed), they are still there.  It is reading that must
> encounter
> > and deal with them in any case.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Nancy
> >
> >
> > >>> Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> 07/10/07 1:28 PM >>>
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/894 - Release Date:
> 7/10/2007
> 5:44 PM
> >
> >
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 - Release Date:
7/12/2007
4:08 PM
>