I do wonder how pm can look at himself in the mirror. A very strange & repellant personality. I stopped reading him some time ago except for occasional peeks, but in all his posts I've ever read only one or two contained an actual argument; the rest were utterly pointless asides. What makes such a person tick? And why isn't it embarrassing to send so many posts all without content! Carrol > -----Original Message----- > From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > Nancy Gish > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 12:39 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: OT (sort of) Philology. Sort of. > > A problem in your claim: it is inaccurate. I don't have a problem except with > inaccurate and/or misleading pronouncements. And it simply goes back to the > term "phenomenal" (because of Latin and several modern languages), which it > was not. Clearly very good and used in his poetry (though you have not said how) > but hardly phenomenal. > > His poetry, regardless of the language, is brilliant in my view--since I would hardly > spend much of my life on it otherwise, but there are others equally or more so--to > use his criteria, Dante and Shakespeare. I would add Yeats and MacDiarmid and > Moore in his time and earlier Dickinson. > N > > >>> P 11/14/12 1:29 AM >>> > Your problem, not mine. > P. > > Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > It was not my claim or my issue: it was yours. I only pointed out that what you > said was unfounded. That does not include any requirement that I discuss it. So if > you have something to say that is founded on specific material, by all means do > so. I'm speaking about it because this is a discussion list, and others read it, and > your point was simply not valid. I do not have an interest in offering an alternative > just because I note a problem > N > > > >>> P 11/13/12 10:01 PM >>> > More stating of the obvious without furthering the discussion. If you accept that > Eliot was multilingual and that it had its own unique effect on his work, why not > suggest some of the ways that happened rather than trying to take my words into > directions to which they were obviously not intended. Or do you have nothing to > say about how how his unique blend of languages (others may have had exactly > the same languages, but the blends of each of them would be quite different) > affected his work. If so, why are you continuing to kibbitz? > P. > > Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > Well, "peculiarly his own" is by definition comparative. It cannot, linguistically, > have meaning separate from others. > > So if you want to say something about Eliot's linguistic background--in itself--or > use that has some explanatory or illuminatory value, by all means, do so. And of > course that has to mean what is individual and/or "phenomenal" as opposed to > simply multi-lingual. > Cheers, > Nancy > > > > > >>> P 11/13/12 7:53 PM >>> > I didn't say anything about any other writers Nancy. Why bring them in when it is > so obvious that many writers were/are/will be polyglots. > > It would be nice if we could focus on what Eliot's linguistic background did for his > poetry besides the very obvious use of words and lines from other languages. It > would be a way of actually being on topic! > P. > > Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Well, read Hope Mirlees's poem, Paris--written before TWL and both French and > English. Or Read MacDiarmid's A Drunk Man Looks at the Thistle; he also used > many languages. Eliot's own way of using many languages may be his own, but > using them is not. > Cheers, > Nancy > > > >>> P 11/13/12 4:40 PM >>> > My point was that he was able to bring this enviable skill to bear on his poetry. It > added a depth and richness that were peculiarly his own. > P. > > Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Unless you have never known many people who have great facility with language, > and many do, I do not understand this. There is no marvel at all--he knew Latin > and several modern languages: I don't but many do. > Nancy > > > >>> Chokh Raj 11/13/12 10:40 AM >>> > > That facility and through that facility getting at the essence of things. > Thus, for instance, not merely learning Sanskrit but through it > getting at the heart of ancient Indian wisdom. > The marvel ceases not. > > CR > > ________________________________ > > From: Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>; > To: <[log in to unmask]>; > Subject: OT (sort of) Philology. Sort of. > Sent: Mon, Nov 12, 2012 8:35:53 AM > > > Mark Twain once said, "My philological studies have satisfied me that a gifted > person ought to learn English (barring spelling and pronouncing) in thirty hours, > French in thirty days, and German in thirty years." > > Eliot seems to have learned them all, all at once, not to mention Latin and > Sanskrit. > > I don't recall our having discussed Eliot's facility with language, which it seems to > me to have been quite phenomenal and one of the things that makes his work so > incredibly attractive. I know it is gauche on this list to say nice things about Eliot, > but there it is. I've done it and I'm very glad. >