>> BG & >CW
>> >
>> > I break poetry into content and form, with poetic devices in the
>> > content
>> > class and things like the acrostic form in the form class. [BG]
>> >
>> >
>> > I'd differ with you on that. Saying the _same thing_ in _another way_,
> one
>> > typical way of establishing that distinction, seems to me a material
>> > alteration of content; as when I tweak the Spicer lines above. So
>> > whilst
> I
>> > can see how you might want to establish two sets of primitives if you
>> > start
>> > with content v form I can't see what, in practice, would be a
>> > principled
>> > or
>> > a logical way of doing so.(CW)
>>
>> I'll have to think about this. Yes, sometimes a change in form will
>> cause
> a
>> change in content, or vice versa. Doesn't that only mean that form and
>> content can have effects on one another? I don't see that it matters.
> [BG]
>
> The problem I have with Bob's lines above are with the words "sometimes"
> and
> "can", and the final six-word sentence.(RH)
I go on in my post to drop "sometimes" and "can." And my six-word sentence
is short for "I don't see that it matters--so far as taxonomy is concerned."
> For me, form and content are *inextricably* related, *always* -- it's
> impossible to change one without, on whatever level from the trivial to
> the
> radical, changing the other. This applies not simply to individual texts
> such as the tweaking of the Spicer example but also -- and where I really
> disagree with Bob -- on the larger level too.
>
> It struck me that a test-case might be the sonnet, and here I hit a
> problem.
> The logic of my position would have to be that the introduction of the
> English Sonnet -- abab cdcd efef gg -- alongside the earlier abbaabba cde
> cde -- *enforced* a change in content. But I'm much more inclined to say
> it
> *enabled* a different content.
>
> Um ... It's easy to make a case for "enabled", but is that sufficient for
> my position? Whatever, I do think it matters, profoundly, whether (like
> me)
> you see the two as inextricably linked or Bob, who often argues for a
> complete disjuction in terms of his taxonomy between the two. The two
> views
> have different consequences in how we understand both individual texts and
> t
> he development of poetry over time.(RH)
I'm arguing, or go on to argue, or try to argue, that ALTHOUGH form and
content are inextricably interrelated, they are STILL two entirely separate
things. Like meaning and sound. "Crap" has a meaning and a sound. You
can't have one without the other, but they're still two different things. A
closer analogy would be that "crap" has a spelling and a sound, etc.
> Whoever's right or wrong, it does at least matter.(RH)
>
>> When
>> you change the lineation of the Spicer passage, you change both its form
> and
>> content. It probably isn't possible, now that I think on it, to change
> one
>> without changing the other. Specifically, a single change in a text of a
>> poem will have to change some part of what might be called its text-map.
>> Which would not be a primitive, but would combine various maps that are
>> primitives, such as various repeneme maps, like a rhyme scheme, metrical
>> scheme or simple syllable-per-line map.(BG)
>
> Well, that I'd entirely agree with, Bob, but I don't quite see how it sits
> comfortably with many of your earlier statements, as I've understood them.
>
> Robin
Well, if I hadn't been warned not to, I'd tell you off, Robin.
Bob
. . there are so many issues. Saussure for
> one.)(RH)
Suassure I've read about, then dismissed so thoroughly I can't remember what
he was talking about. Sorry.
> You say: <"crap" has a spelling and a sound>. Not to be picky (well,
> yes)
> but the orthographic item "crap" DOESN'T have a sound. It's a way of
> representing a sound, which could be represented in more than several
> other
> ways, even idiographically via a pile of bullshit.
> It's not that I don't think there's a productive disagreement here, just
> that I'm not up to pursuing it at the moment.(RH)
I would argue that the thing "crap" is four letters on a page that represent
a particular sound. Doesn't matter if it could be spelled "krap," too, with
the same result. That it can be spelled with a "k" spoils my analogy a bit,
though. But I'm just saying that the fact that some X must interact always
with some Y doesn't mean we can clearly distinguish the two taxonomically.
I'd have to say that "crap" on the page is a spelling, a connoter, a
sound-indicater and a denoter. You can't change one without changing at
least one of the others, but the four things "crap" is (among other things)
remain disparate.
> [SNIP]
>
>> Well, if I hadn't been warned not to, I'd tell you off, Robin.(BG)
>
> Feel free, Bob -- I can take it. If you're worried about the consequences
> of badmouthing me on the list, you could always excoriate me on your blog.
> (RH, with a grin)
Can't do that, Robin--Marcus and I have a signed contract.
--Bob
>> Suassure I've read about, then dismissed so thoroughly I can't remember
> what
>> he was talking about. Sorry.(BG)
>
> K. Let's leave that for later. (I'm a Saussurean Fundamentalist, and
> read
> the Course in General Linguistics the same way that a Bible Belt Christian
> reads the Old Testament.)(RH)
For all I know, I read him and AGREED with him so totally, I fogot all about
him.
>> I would argue ...(BG)
>
> OK, let's unpick what you say.(RH)
>> I would argue that the thing "crap" is four letters on a page(BG)
> I'd agree the four letters, but what I'm seeing is on a computer screen,
> not
> a page (implicitly, of paper).
>
> That's not just picky -- you could have moved to a (taxonomic) level of
> abstraction where the enscribing of "crap" written on a page, presented on
> a
> computer screen or carved in granite are functionally (?) identical (and
> contrast to the aural manifestation of {crap)). But saying "on a page"
> both
> misrepresents what I see and selects a particular instance from a series.
> And you the taxonomist! (RH, with a grin)
I think it IS hyper-picky. One can always "unpick" a text the way you do
here. So: letters on a ground which can be paper, etc. And, sure, the
medium can be expressive, too.
> OK, how about, "One aspect of {crap} is the visual manifestation of the
> letters."(RH)
That's good.
>> that represent a particular sound.(BG)
> No they don't, not a "particular" sound, if you mean by that one specific
> sound. I bet I pronounce the "a" vowel differently from you, and as a
> Scot, I'd roll the "r".(RH)
Hyper-nit-pickery, I feel. One particular sound for the text-maker, one
particular sound for the . . . ensumer. . . . Or
one particular set of sounds, who cares?
> Again, that might sound simply picky, but what you said there either
> misrepresents reality or begs more than several questions.
>
> Also "letters represent sounds" seems to me, per se, a little over-simple,
> even leaving aside our particular pronunciations.(RH)
>> Doesn't matter if it could be spelled "krap," too, with
>> the same result.(BG)
>
> Hm ... Extend that and spell it "Krapp" -- the same sound (you and I may
> sound it differently but we'd both sound crap/krapp the same way). Same
> result? No way.(RH)
>
>> That it can be spelled with a "k" spoils my analogy a bit,(BG)
>
> It's simple homophone territory. (Among other things.) Unfortunately,
> the
> very concept of a homophone complicates the visual/aural distinction
> you're
> (are you?) trying to sustain.(RH)
Why? "Sea" and "see" have the same sound but look different. They share
one aspect, they fail to share a second.
>> But I'm just saying that the fact that some X must interact always with
>> some Y doesn't mean we CAN'T clearly distinguish the two taxonomically.(BG)
>
> K, I'll give you that, Bob, in the sense that a cat has (usually) four
> legs and a tail, and we can tell them apart.(RH)
More a cat has a color and a shape. A cat with no color would have no
shape. That's not quite what I mean, either, actually. I'm talking about
attributes that are inseparable but distinguishable, anyway.
> What I'm more concerned with is the way that a -- how to put it? -- 'bare
> taxonomy' abolishes significant difference. And failing to take account of
> certain significant differences (stone, monitor, paper) -- the sweet
> particularity of things -- undermines the validity of the taxonomy.(RH)
I simply don't see it. The significant "ignored" differences can be the
basis of another taxonomy or another layer of a toing taxonomy. Should we
drop "alliteration" as a class of poetic device because it ignores the
significant difference between the bad/bug alliteration and the crazy/cat
alliteration?
> It turns, I think, on the level of abstraction that's chosen -- too
> specific, and you're describing rather than deploying a taxonomy, too
> general, and the taxonomy is flawed, platitudinous, misguided and
> misguiding.(RH)
Sure. So you start as general as possible, and work your way down.
>> I'd have to say that "crap" on the page is a spelling, a connoter, a
>> sound-indicater and a denoter.(BG)
>
> Ugh ...(RH, not grinning)
>
> {crap}, whether as visual or an auditory signifier, both connotes and
> denotes. And I'm not simply playing around -- on one level, the written
> and
> the spoken versions of {crap} are parallel, so to separate them out on the
> same level as denotation and connotation is wrong. Equally, denotation
> and
> connotation are aspects of {crap} the sign. Or do I mean signifier?(RH)
I don't see where this "on the same level" comes in. If we catalogue
objects of a certain size or larger in the solar system into stars, planets,
satellites, asteroids and comets, are we saying they are all equally
important?
> Anyway, it's the WORD, whether spoken or written, which denotes and
> connotes.(RH)
Yes, but the word is also its letters (and, maybe, punctuation marks). And
the word does all the other things I mention, like represent a sound.
> So to lump "spelling, a connoter, a sound-indicater and a denoter" together
> as if they all existed on the same level seems to me ... simply wrong.(RH)
>
>> You can't change one without changing at least one of the others,(BG)
>
> Yes(RH)
>
>> but the four things "crap" is (among other things) remain disparate.(BG)
>
> No.(RH)
>
> The Cheshire Kat
Then, why did you use two different verbs in the final clause of the
following sentence, "Anyway, it's the WORD, whether spoken or written, which
denotes and connotes?"
Later. Although all this looks to be sizing up as A Majorissimus
Dissertation (which I plan to take all the credit for), I gotta get to a
column a deadline is hurrying into view for.
--Bob
|
