Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2002 :: April ::
Re: Love and Grammar
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0989  Tuesday, 9 April 2002

[1]     From:   Mari Bonomi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 8 Apr 2002 12:43:49 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0973 Re: Grammar

[2]     From:   Jan Pick <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 8 Apr 2002 19:24:06 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0973 Re: Grammar

[3]     From:   Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 8 Apr 2002 12:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0973 Re: Why I Love Shakespeare

[4]     From:   Clifford Stetner <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 8 Apr 2002 17:14:31 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0973 Re: Grammar


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mari Bonomi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 8 Apr 2002 12:43:49 -0400
Subject: 13.0973 Re: Grammar
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0973 Re: Grammar

William Sutton asks, Why do you love Shakespeare?

In simplest terms I love Shakespeare because he makes me think more and
more deeply than perhaps any other author, while at the same time moving
me emotionally in many directions, sometimes simultaneously.  I love
Shakespeare because although I often argue about the "meaning" of some
passage or play, the proper word is "meanings"-- multivalent and
multilayered meanings.

Mari Bonomi

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jan Pick <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 8 Apr 2002 19:24:06 +0100
Subject: 13.0973 Re: Grammar
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0973 Re: Grammar

Why do I love Shakespeare?  Words - I love words, the ways that they are
used, put together, played with, imaginatively and creatively, and
Shakespeare was supremely good at it!  I love his humanity - a villain
is fleshed out and given real feelings and possibilities - his
psychology, his complexity .... I could go on and on - but to conclude,
I love his sense of drama - theatricality.  All in all, he works for me
on so many levels that definition is difficult.  As a corollary to this,
I do not think all the plays are great!  I do not subscribe to the
school of, 'that is no good therefore Shakespeare could not have written
it.  Everyone starts somewhere and learns their trade and the occasional
blooper makes him a real person rather than 'just a genius sprung fully
fledged from the womb'.

Jan

PS: I saw Branagh's RIII on Saturday - I thought it a good one, though
not the most interesting or best that I've seen and slightly critically
overrated in my 'umble opinion.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 8 Apr 2002 12:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 13.0973 Re: Why I Love Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0973 Re: Why I Love Shakespeare

William Sutton writes, "The question I would like to hear some responses
from is why do you love Shakespeare?  Obviously love includes hate and
in fact the whole paradigm of verbs whether emotional or rational. I'm
positing this same question to people who have no reason on God's earth
to want to waste their time with Shakespeare. I hope that Hardy deems
this long message worth posting."

The answer is simple, the same reason I love Emily Dickinson, the
role/roll  of the language on the lips.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Clifford Stetner <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 8 Apr 2002 17:14:31 -0400
Subject: 13.0973 Re: Grammar
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0973 Re: Grammar

"How ironic. It would seem then that "homonym" itself is a homonym and a
prime example of the Hawkeseherian rule that words don't have meanings.
The problem with the designation "same name" is the other side of the
observation that "check" and "check" are not the "same word." More than
"word," "name" carries the connotation of parole. The denotations of
"there" and "their" might be considered to have the same name if we
reject Derrida's inversion of the Saussurian primacy of speech over
writing. Is a name a phoneme or a grapheme (asks Juliet from her
balcony). Even the etymology of my "quotation" marks connotes something
spoken rather than written.

What are we to do with pre-modern English where the same "word" is
spelled variously? We probably wouldn't call variant spellings different
"words," but we might say they are different "names" for the same "word"
despite often being pronounced the same (heteronymous but homophonic and
monosemous?) or we might say they are the same name merely spelled
differently (like certain playwrights: was Shakespeare heteronymical
:)?).  The further we advance from the invention of the dictionary (and
pace Lacan and Derrida), the more "name" is equated with a particular
spelling, so that our use (if not the meaning) of "name" and "homonym"
increasingly encompasses both pronunciation and spelling. But the
problems that emerge from lack of consensus among authorities, with
entire websites devoted to debating "correct" definitions, exposes the
Saussurian signifier/ signified contingency.
.
Despite the lack of consensus, I would prefer hetero/homo phonic as
referring only to pronunciation and implying homo and heterography
respectively, hetero/homo graphic only to spelling and implying mono and
polysemy respectively, hetero/homo nymic to both and implying mono and
polysemy respectively, and poly/mono semous only to usage and implying
any of the homos or heteros above respectively, but what good are
personal definitions? It hurts my brain trying to figure out if I've
exhausted all the possibilities and removed all the ambiguities, but my
pain is eased by the amusing image of trying to teach this system in
freshman Comp.

Homonymically and monosemously yours,
Clifford

> This definition would seem to contract almost all grammar texts and
> handbooks. For example, Little, Brown defines homonyms as ""words
> pronounced the same though they have different spellings and meanings.""
> Webster's (the American Dictionary of English) agrees with the grammar
> books. Who is right -- the most respected English dictionary on earth OR
> the oldest American dictionary, hundreds of grammar texts, and thousands
> of linguists?

> Paul E. Doniger

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
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.
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.