The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0410 Tuesday, 12 February 2002
Date: Monday, 11 Feb 2002 19:47:22 -0500
Subject: 13.0398 Re: Sonnet 116
Comment: Re: SHK 13.0398 Re: Sonnet 116
> There is no way that 'no man' could be an object in this sentence; it's
> the subject of the second main clause: " ..., nor no man ever loved." In
> fact, there is NO object in this clause, 'loved' being used as an
> intransitive verb, here. As I asked earlier: Where is the ambiguity if
> not in the use of 'writ' (abbreviation of 'written') as a past tense
> verb rather than its normal use as a past participle?
> Paul E. Doniger
The verb could be transitive with the subject I. For that matter "ever"
could be read as either at one time or forever.
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.