Print

Print


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.
>