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


I think there is a distinction to be made between the orthographics and the
sounds they represent. Somehow "Shakespeherian" has a certain rudimentary, primitive heft to it.

P.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Diana Manister 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 7:38 AM
  Subject: Re: Rewrite The Waste Land






    Nancy, what of Weialala leia Wallala leialala, Weialala leia Wallala leialala, la la? Isn't this as close as a writer can get to representing feelings or sensations without words? Obviously a writer is not a musician. 

    My point is that Eliot makes language itself one of its subjects, and foregrounds not only the intracies of convoluted syntax but simple, rudimentary sounds, i.e. those a baby or someone just beginning to speak would make, as well as nature's speech if you will, sounds uttered by water or birds, perhaps placing higher human speech in the continuum of nature. I wonder if he is more suspicious of human speech, seeings its meanings as more "shifty" than natural sounds, or What the Thunder Said. Diana 


    Dear Diana,

    I am not denying there are sounds that express feeling or sensation.
    But there are two distinctions here:  the sound and the letters on the
    page are not the same thing, so I am not talking about "rudimentary
    expressions" but about the representations of them.

    Second, none of the words you quoted from Eliot fit into the category of
    "mmmmmm" or "ow."  As I said before, they are all words or
    representations of animal sounds, not representations of the human
    expressions you note below.  So my main point has been that I do not see
    what you describe as in TWL at all--with the possible exception of DA as
    I noted.

    I also do not see where you get terms like "rudimentary" and
    "priimitive."

    Rick's point is apt:  these are print representations because poetry
    itself is symbolic; it's always in words or in characters.  But the
    difference I was trying to make was evident in the L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poem
    I sent:  that could be said to attempt to represent just sounds.
    Nancy


    Nancy if you prefer to call rudimentary expressions symbols fine. But
    Ow! seems to me to be both sign and signified: it doesn't represent an
    experience of pain, it is pain voicing itself. A phoneme that expresses
    some sensation, say mmmmm for pleasure, is also a morpheme. But I don't
    care what you call these primitive sounds. If you think the sound of
    laughter is a word when a writer tries to capture it with the alphabet,
    I won't disagree. As Rick noted, however, Eliot had only print to work
    with and may have simply created the sounds he inserted in TWL as an
    ambient soundtrack under the monologues if he were a movie director.
    Diana



    >>> Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> 07/23/07 10:44 AM >>>




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Need a brain boost? Recharge with a stimulating game. Play now!  


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.14/912 - Release Date: 7/22/2007 7:02 PM