 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006some of you shall smoke for it in Rome
In Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, ACT IV. SCENE II ( http://xahlee.org/p/titus/act4s2.html ) there's this passage: AARON. My mistress is my mistress: this my self, The vigour and the picture of my youth. This before all the world do I prefer; This maugre all the world will I keep safe, Or some of you shall smoke for it in Rome. What does the “smoke for it” mean? Xah xah@xahlee.org ∑ http://xahlee.org/ >In Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, ACT IV. SCENE II >( http://xahlee.org/p/titus/act4s2.html ) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >What does the smoke for it mean? It means you will be handed a nice cigar. Enjoy!  SignatureDr Zen King of the wild pixels. http://gollyg.blogspot.com >>In Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, ACT IV. SCENE II >>( http://xahlee.org/p/titus/act4s2.html ) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >It means you will be handed a nice cigar. Enjoy! An Essex girl taking part in a survey was asked if she smoked after sex. "Dunno," she said. "I've never looked." > In Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, ACT IV. SCENE II > ( http://xahlee.org/p/titus/act4s2.html ) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What does the “smoke for it†mean? Did you miss the line before, in which Demetrius asks "Will thou betray thy noble mistress thus?" Think: "where there's smoke, there's fire." >> In Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, ACT IV. SCENE II >> ( http://xahlee.org/p/titus/act4s2.html ) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Think: "where there's smoke, there's fire." ReSIsT teh f.cking URgE SignatureDr Zen King of the wild pixels. http://gollyg.blogspot.com <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote> > In Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, ACT IV. SCENE II > ( http://xahlee.org/p/titus/act4s2.html ) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What does the "smoke for it" mean? This refers back to what the sons of Titus had done to Tamora's son Alarbus. Here is what Lucius said at the time (1.1.142-7): See, lord and father, how we have performed Our Roman rites. Alarbus' limbs are lopped And entrails feed the sacrificing fire, Whose smoke like incense doth perfume the sky. Aaron is saying that if Demetrius or Chiron harm the baby son that he is holding in his arms, he will make them suffer a similar fate to their brother. Peter F. peter.f@rey.prestel.co.uk http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm > In Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, ACT IV. SCENE II > ( http://xahlee.org/p/titus/act4s2.html ) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What does the “smoke for it” mean? If you go to see the Pope (as for an Indulgence, above), you hafta smoke a few Montecristos to prove you have enough money to burn to be worth his "attention." The more you smoke, the quicker you get to see him, a measure called "The Count of Montecristos." (Brits, being TrVe Protestants, get a Punch in the kisser.) Signature-------(m+ ~/:o)_| Thistles have been the favorite food of songbirds for eons. http://scrawlmark.org Peter Farey has the right of it. The poet used the term "smoke" to invoke more than simply saying "burn." Alice Dark http://www.nodeadtrees.com/ > Peter Farey has the right of it. The poet used the term "smoke" to > invoke more than simply saying "burn." > > Alice Dark > http://www.nodeadtrees.com/ Is that your picture, Alice? Pretty cool website from what I saw. Signature------------------------------------------- AJ - http://ClitIn.Com e In. (800 folders. -- kiddie-filtered -- FREE, Usenet Porn.) Now, now, AJ. No flirting with the *bad* lady. I'm a friend and one of the moderators for No Dead Trees. The site is owned by another who has been on the Net for years: He ~claims~ to have been working the Net since the early BITnet days. Thanks for the compliment. We do what we can with the Tree. Alice Dark > > Peter Farey has the right of it. The poet used the term "smoke" to > > invoke more than simply saying "burn." [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > (800 folders. -- kiddie-filtered -- FREE, > Usenet Porn.) > Now, now, AJ. No flirting with the *bad* lady. Here and I thought all bad ladys loved flirting. I still assume it, and you're just flirting. :) > I'm a friend and one of the moderators for No Dead Trees. The site is > owned by another who has been on the Net for years: He ~claims~ to have > been working the Net since the early BITnet days. When only the moon rages And the lovers lie abed With all their griefs in their arms I labour by singing light Not for ambition or bread Or the strut and trade of charms On the ivory stages But for the common wages Of their most BITnet heart. -DT+ > Thanks for the compliment. We do what we can with the Tree. There never was such wonder as a tree though it be dead, the spirits harbor. Knotted in its sand, the root of fragrance waits for lover's pleas and the ensuing. > Alice Dark > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> (800 folders. -- kiddie-filtered -- FREE, >> Usenet Porn.) > In Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, ACT IV. SCENE II > ( http://xahlee.org/p/titus/act4s2.html ) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What does the "smoke for it" mean? Xah, you need to use Shakespeare editions with notes. Even the experts do. I like the Arden Shakespeare, but there are more modern editions, and plenty to choose from: try the local lending library. Don't get a single-volume edition, but one which presents each play separately. SignatureMike. > > In Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, ACT IV. SCENE II > > ( http://xahlee.org/p/titus/act4s2.html ) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > a single-volume edition, but one which presents each > play separately. In fact I found neither the Arden edition (ed. Jonathan Bate) or the Norton single-volume edition at all helpful in this particular case. The Norton just glossed the word "smoke" as "suffer" and Bate had "suffer (originally from burning at the stake"). In my view both of them are wrong on this occasion, since neither of them explains (as my suggestion does) why it will be "in Rome". I would be quite interested to know what other editors have said on the subject, in fact. Does anyone mention the connection with Alarbus's death, or am I alone in having noticed it? I wrote: > > This refers back to what the sons of Titus had done > > to Tamora's son Alarbus. Here is what Lucius said at [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > his baby son that he is holding in his arms, he will > > make them suffer a similar fate to their brother. Peter F. peter.f@rey.prestel.co.uk http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm >>> In Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, ACT IV. SCENE II >>> ( http://xahlee.org/p/titus/act4s2.html ) [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >>> his baby son that he is holding in his arms, he will >>> make them suffer a similar fate to their brother. Interesting to see other cites in OED for the phrase: 1598 B. Jonson Ev. Man in Hum. iii. iv, A fasting-day no sooner comes, but+poore cobs they smoke for it, they are made martyrs o' the gridiron, they melt in passion. a1548 Hall Chron., Hen. VIII, 64b, For feare to bee called heretike, and then they would make hym smoke or beare a faggot. 1595 in Cath. Rec. Soc. Publ. V. 352 The farewell was he would make hym smoake for yt before he departed the towne. OED has, as one definition of 'smoke', "to smart, to suffer" and notes that it was originally used in that way as an allusion to actual burning. Jonson's 'gridiron' makes it plain he is alluding to execution of martyrs, as is Hall. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford Peter F., You are not alone in having noticed "the connection with Alarbus death." Do you also hear an echo of steaming blood from the limb-lopping, as in Macbeth's blade that "smoked with bloody execution."? Regards, Ted R. > > > In Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, ACT IV. SCENE II > > > ( http://xahlee.org/p/titus/act4s2.html ) [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > peter.f@rey.prestel.co.uk > http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm > Peter F., > You are not alone in having noticed "the connection with Alarbus [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Regards, > Ted R. More likely the simple observation that warm blood steams if the air's cold enough (cf. the reference to same in an episode of M*A*S*H, Fr. Mulcahey remarks the "steam rising from the open wounds" and the surgeons "warm their hands in them"). >>>>In Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, ACT IV. SCENE II >>>>( http://xahlee.org/p/titus/act4s2.html ) [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >>peter.f@rey.prestel.co.uk >>http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm Signature-------(m+ ~/:o)_| Thistles have been the favorite food of songbirds for eons. http://scrawlmark.org > > Peter F., > > You are not alone in having noticed "the connection with Alarbus [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > More likely the simple observation that warm blood steams if the > air's cold enough [...] > >>In fact I found neither the Arden edition (ed. > >>Jonathan Bate) or the Norton single-volume edition [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >>the connection with Alarbus's death, or am I alone in > >>having noticed it? [...] > >>>>Aaron is saying that if Demetrius or Chiron harms > >>>>his baby son that he is holding in his arms, he will > >>>>make them suffer a similar fate to their brother. (I've tried to abbreviate, though not repair, the confusion of top- and bottom-posting, though without much enthusiasm. Like my AUE confrères, I find postings in conventional chronological order present less of an IQ test.) If the audience hears ambiguity and echoes, then they're present. But I don't think we can claim on that "rule" alone that Aaron is making a specific threat to burn D and Ch: if he'd intended that, I don't imagine the author would have hesitated to make this character say so. SignatureMike. >>>Peter F., >>>You are not alone in having noticed "the connection with Alarbus [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > specific threat to burn D and Ch: if he'd intended that, I don't > imagine the author would have hesitated to make this character say so. The phrase without other reference to the brothers smacks merely of burning on the cross (BC) or at the stake (AD), something likely associated with Rome as a final authority anywhere in the Empire. Signature-------(m+ ~/:o)_| Thistles have been the favorite food of songbirds for eons. http://scrawlmark.org > > > > Peter Farey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Aaron is saying that if Demetrius or Chiron harms > > > > > his baby son that he is holding in his arms, he > > > > > will make them suffer a similar fate to their > > > > > brother. [...] > > > > In fact I found neither the Arden edition (ed. > > > > Jonathan Bate) or the Norton single-volume edition [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > > the connection with Alarbus's death, or am I alone in > > > > having noticed it? [...] > > > Peter F., > > > You are not alone in having noticed "the connection with > > > Alarbus death." Thank you, 'Ted' - although I was mainly interested in which editors, if any, had mentioned it. > > > Do you also hear an echo of steaming blood from the > > > limb-lopping, as in Macbeth's blade that "smoked with > > > bloody execution."? Possibly, but I would personally doubt that this was some- thing that Shakespeare himself had in mind. > > More likely the simple observation that warm blood steams > > if the air's cold enough This is certainly what is meant in the Macbeth quote. As it also is in JC: "Now, whilst your purpled hands do reek and smoke, Fulfil your pleasure." and in Lear: "What means this bloody knife?" "'Tis hot, it smokes." but it seems fairly clear to me that Aaron is using the word as meaning to produce (as the OED puts it) "The visible volatile product given off by burning or smouldering substances", not steam. [...] > If the audience hears ambiguity and echoes, then they're > present. But I don't think we can claim on that "rule" > alone that Aaron is making a specific threat to burn D > and Ch: if he'd intended that, I don't imagine the author > would have hesitated to make this character say so. It isn't claimed on the basis of any "rule", but upon what the audience has seen already. For those of you who are not very familiar with the play: In the first scene, Titus has just returned to *Rome* after his victory over the Goths, and has as prisoners their queen Tamora, her sons (Alarbus, Demetrius and Chiron) and her servant and lover, the Moor Aaron. Titus has lost many sons during the wars, and his eldest surviving son, Lucius, demands the death of one of the prisoners as a sacrifice: "Give us the proudest prisoner of the Goths, That we may hew his limbs and on a pile *Ad manes fratrum* [to our brothers' shades] sacrifice his flesh" Titus agrees: "I give him you, the noblest that survives, The eldest son of this distressed queen." Before exiting with Alarbus, Lucius says: "Away with him, and make a fire straight, And with our swords upon a pile of wood Let's hew his limbs till they be clean consumed." When he returns he says, as I quoted before: "See, lord and father, how we have performed Our Roman rites. Alarbus' limbs are lopped And entrails feed the sacrificing fire, Whose smoke like incense doth perfume the sky. Remaineth naught but to inter our brethren And with loud 'larums welcome them to Rome." Note that Aaron, Demetrius and Chiron were all there to witness this, so when Aaron later says to the other two that if anyone harms *his* son, he will make them "smoke for it in Rome", there really is little else that he can have in mind. He will sacrifice them in the same way. Peter F. peter.f@rey.prestel.co.uk http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm [...] > > If the audience hears ambiguity and echoes, then they're > > present. But I don't think we can claim on that "rule" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It isn't claimed on the basis of any "rule", but upon what > the audience has seen already. [...] > Note that Aaron, Demetrius and Chiron were all > there to witness this [the dismemberment and burning of Alarbus] the , so when Aaron later says to the > other two that if anyone harms *his* son, he will > make them "smoke for it in Rome", there really is > little else that he can have in mind. He will sacrifice > them in the same way. Well, I think we must agree to differ. I like the ambiguity, and that we're having this discussion is sufficient proof that it is ambiguous. I'm not convinced that the man who was a few seconds earlier ready to "plough bowels up" with "this sword" would so quickly have resorted to relative understatement: nobody could call Aaron a man of few words, or this play a subtle one. SignatureMike. > [...] > > > If the audience hears ambiguity and echoes, then they're [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "this sword" would so quickly have resorted to relative > understatement: Relative understatement? What do you think that palaver about how Mutius's corpse should be dealt with was all about? It was of *huge* significance to them that the body should be given an honourable burial alongside its ancestors, and any- thing other than this was the ultimate insult. For a Goth to be sacrificed on a Roman pyre presumably even more so. What is immensely important in deciding what those words mean is the phrase "in Rome". Sure, Aaron threatens to "plough bowels up", and promises that: "He dies upon my scimitar's sharp point That touches this my first-born son and heir" but what, then, DOES he mean when he says that they will "smoke for it in Rome" if not what I said? He is going to slaughter them here, and then make them "suffer" in Rome? Hardly. > nobody could call Aaron a man of few words, > or this play a subtle one. Peter F. peter.f@rey.prestel.co.uk http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm > > [...] > > > > If the audience hears ambiguity and echoes, then they're [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > nobody could call Aaron a man of few words, > > or this play a subtle one. Well, I must emend my earlier remark. Instead of "we must agree to differ", I find that we must merely differ. I'm happy to perceive ambiguity here: you prefer to find a more specific meaning. SignatureMike. > Note that Aaron, Demetrius and Chiron were all > there to witness this, so when Aaron later says to the > other two that if anyone harms *his* son, he will > make them "smoke for it in Rome", there really is > little else that he can have in mind. He will sacrifice > them in the same way. A succinct exposition of the precursors, given which it can have no other reference. Alone, it still speaks, as "smoke" is rather obviously a metaphor for "burn" in the milieu. Tnx; I've not read /Titus/, and the heard opera doesn't invite good memory of the libretto. Signature-------(m+ ~/:o)_| Thistles have been the favorite food of songbirds for eons. http://scrawlmark.org > Xah, you need to use Shakespeare editions with notes. Even the experts > do. I like the Arden Shakespeare, but there are more modern editions, > and plenty to choose from: try the local lending library. Don't get a > single-volume edition, but one which presents each play separately. Good advice. I think now i've read almost the entire play on my own, with the help of the fantastic movie by Julie Taymor, i should get a professionally annotated version to see what i'm missing, since there are quite a lot phrases and references i still don't have any clues... Xah xah@xahlee.org ∑ http://xahlee.org/ xahlee@gmail.com wrote: > > In Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, ACT IV. SCENE II > > ( http://xahlee.org/p/titus/act4s2.html ) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > What does the "smoke for it" mean? >From Shakespeares's Titus, Act 4 scene 4 (http://xahlee.org/p/titus/act4s4.html) we have: TAMORA. My gracious lord, my lovely Saturnine, Lord of my life, commander of my thoughts, Calm thee, and bear the faults of Titus' age, Th' effects of sorrow for his valiant sons Whose loss hath pierc'd him deep and scarr'd his heart; And rather comfort his distressed plight Than prosecute the meanest or the best For these contempts. [Aside] Why, thus it shall become High-witted Tamora to gloze with all. But, Titus, I have touch'd thee to the quick, Thy life-blood on't; if Aaron now be wise, Then is all safe, the anchor in the port. I don't get the last two lines's reference to Aaron and “anchor in the port”. Is that a idiom? and, what's “Thy life-blood on't”? I suppose that “on't” is “on it”? I suppose gloze, here means “To use flattery or cajolery”? Also, isn't clear about the last clause in “Than prosecute the meanest or the best”. Why “the best”? (apparantly, i haven't gotton a annotated version of this play yet) Thanks. Xah xah@xahlee.org ∑ http://xahlee.org/ A particular interesting passage: But, however, I shall so far do justice to this part of the Academy, as to acknowledge that all of them were not so visionary. There was a most ingenious doctor, who seemed to be perfectly versed in the whole nature and system of government. This illustrious person had very usefully employed his studies, in finding out effectual remedies for all diseases and corruptions to which the several kinds of public administration are subject, by the vices or infirmities of those who govern, as well as by the licentiousness of those who are to obey. For instance: whereas all writers and reasoners have agreed, that there is a strict universal resemblance between the natural and the political body; can there be any thing more evident, than that the health of both must be preserved, and the diseases cured, by the same prescriptions? It is allowed, that senates and great councils are often troubled with redundant, ebullient, and other peccant humours; with many diseases of the head, and more of the heart; with strong convulsions, with grievous contractions of the nerves and sinews in both hands, but especially the right; with spleen, flatus, vertigos, and deliriums; with scrofulous tumours, full of fetid purulent matter; with sour frothy ructations: with canine appetites, and crudeness of digestion, besides many others, needless to mention. This doctor therefore proposed, “that upon the meeting of the senate, certain physicians should attend it the three first days of their sitting, and at the close of each day’s debate feel the pulses of every senator; after which, having maturely considered and consulted upon the nature of the several maladies, and the methods of cure, they should on the fourth day return to the senate house, attended by their apothecaries stored with proper medicines; and before the members sat, administer to each of them lenitives, aperitives, abstersives, corrosives, restringents, palliatives, laxatives, cephalalgics, icterics, apophlegmatics, acoustics, as their several cases required; and, according as these medicines should operate, repeat, alter, or omit them, at the next meeting.” The source of the above i'll not disclose at the moment. It's more interesting that way. Xah xah@xahlee.org ∑ http://xahlee.org/ > A particular interesting passage: [snip] > The source of the above i'll not disclose at the moment. It's more > interesting that way. Believe it or not, O illiterate one, many, perhaps most of those reading alt.usage.English, misc.writing, and rec.arts.poems are familiar with Jonathan Swift and his _Gulliver's Travels_. The only interesting thing about your not providing the source is that you find it "interesting" to insult us. >> A particular interesting passage: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > about your not providing the source is that you find it "interesting" to > insult us. You think insult was intended? I didn't take it that way. Hey, I guessed right! If you're correct, that is. Why do you think he is illiterate, by the way? SignatureStephen Lennox Head, Australia > Hey, I guessed right! If you're correct, that is. Part III, Ch. 6 > Why do you think he is illiterate, by the way? OK, semi-literate. He continually post crappy pop lyrics and labels them as the greatest poetry every written; he posts his "translations" of Chinese poetry that turn out to be crappy translations as well as bad poetry; he repeatedly asks questions about English literature that any 12- or 13-year-old school child could answer. The list could easily be continued. His efforts to "educate" those who know far more than he does are hardly welcome. >> Hey, I guessed right! If you're correct, that is. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >continued. His efforts to "educate" those who know far more than he >does are hardly welcome. Credit where it's due, though -- at least this time the 4,739-line text he posted was out of copyright. -- THE "If you or I use a word inappropriately, that's an error. If a newspaper uses a word inappropriately, that's a citation source for the dictionaries." -- Peter Moylan > Believe it or not, O illiterate one, many, perhaps most of those reading > alt.usage.English, misc.writing, and rec.arts.poems are familiar with > Jonathan Swift and his _Gulliver's Travels_. The only interesting thing > about your not providing the source is that you find it "interesting" to > insult us. O, Dear Sweet Martin, I beg your pardon! when you spit on an inkblot, it spits back. —Xah Lee, 2003-09 ------------------------------ Cockiness Xah Lee, 20040801 dear cocks, it is often the case, that i do contemplate, the degree of cockiness, that i should exhibit myself. if showing-off too much, i then beget revulsion. if i show not enough, then i'm not man enough. therefore i trounce, when being pressed, on the delicate balance, that i might have trashed. now you understand, 'tis not my loftiness, but my frailties, that you should endorse. on the other hand, with regards to the universe, my name is Xah Lee, and i'm still matchless. Xah xah@xahlee.org ∑ http://xahlee.org/ > on the other hand, > with regards to the universe, > my name is Xah Lee, > and i'm still matchless. > > Xah No wonder you're in the dark. Signature-------(m+ ~/:o)_| I do not "negotiate" for half my baby back, Solomon. http://scrawlmark.org > A particular interesting passage: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > xah@xahlee.org > ∑ http://xahlee.org/ My guess would be Dean Jonathan Swift. SignatureStephen Lennox Head, Australia >> A particular interesting passage: >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >My guess would be Dean Jonathan Swift. Not John "Swifty" Dean? -- THE "If you or I use a word inappropriately, that's an error. If a newspaper uses a word inappropriately, that's a citation source for the dictionaries." -- Peter Moylan >>> A particular interesting passage: >>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Not John "Swifty" Dean? Not to be confused with John "Quicky" Dean SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > > A particular interesting passage: > > > > But, however, I shall so far do justice to this part of the Academy, as > > to acknowledge that all of them were not so visionary. There was a most > > ingenious doctor, who seemed to be perfectly versed in the whole nature > > and system of government. [ ... ] > > The source of the above i'll not disclose at the moment. It's more > > interesting that way. > My guess would be Dean Jonathan Swift. I also thought it was Swift, and I decided to see how long it would take to confirm that. With the aid of Google, I had it pinned down to "Voyage to Laputa" in less time than it's taking me to write this. I'm with Bruder Martin. SignatureBob Lieblich Closet Brobdingnagian > A particular interesting passage: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > xah@xahlee.org > ∑ http://xahlee.org/ Swift (not the "Liliput") or Hobbes. (I should /know/ which, but there you are then.) Signature-------(m+ ~/:o)_| I do not "negotiate" for half my baby back, Solomon. http://scrawlmark.org >>From Shakespeares's Titus, > Act 4 scene 4 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I don't get the last two lines's reference to Aaron > and “anchor in the port”. Is that a idiom? A metaphor. The sentence is compound, the verb, "is," not repeated in the second clause, "[the] anchor [is] in the port," i.e., the metaphoric ship has arrived safely with "all" aboard. > and, what's “Thy life-blood on't”? I'm out of context, here, not knowing /how/ Tamora has touched Titus to the quick. The oath is /ordinarily/ "/my/ life-blood on it," i.e., you can kill me if I'm wrong. The shift insists that Titus' life rides on her truth (whatever it is that's referred to). > I suppose that “on't” is “on it”? Yes. It reduces two syllables to one, to keep the metrics of blank verse. > I suppose gloze, here means “To use flattery or cajolery”? Your lookup is as good as mine. > Also, isn't clear about the last clause in > “Than prosecute the meanest or the best”. > Why “the best”? Because "meanest" means "lowest," and "highest" has two syllables where the metric allows only one. > (apparantly, i haven't gotton a annotated version of this play yet) No huhu, you seem to be getting better at it. But, "apparently"? Don't you /know/ whether you've gotten an annotated version or not? Hm? > Thanks. > > Xah > xah@xahlee.org > ∑ http://xahlee.org/ Guluck. ("Good luck.") Signature-------(m+ ~/:o)_| I do not "negotiate" for half my baby back, Solomon. http://scrawlmark.org Hi Dennis, Thanks for the elucidation. Xah xah@xahlee.org ∑ http://xahlee.org/ > >>From Shakespeares's Titus, > > Act 4 scene 4 [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > Don't you /know/ whether you've gotten an annotated version or not? > Hm? I thought that Shakespeare's plays follow certain metric... that each line must have certain syllables etc. but in Titus Andronicus, for example, quite a few places have rather botche lines. For examples: TITUS. Tell me, can you deliver an oration to the Emperor with a grace? TITUS. Then here is a supplication for you. And when you come to him, at the first approach you must kneel; then kiss his foot; then deliver up your pigeons; and then look for your reward. I'll be at hand, sir; see you do it bravely. are there like, exceptions? I thought my digital copy has the lines formatted wrong. But, I mean, some lines are as short as “Ay, sir.”, and some lines are such a length that doesn't matter how one cuts it it can't fit to the scheme. What's up? Xah xah@xahlee.org ∑ http://xahlee.org/ > I thought that Shakespeare's plays follow certain metric... that each > line must have certain syllables etc. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > xah@xahlee.org > ∑ http://xahlee.org/ Shakespeare's characters often speak in blank verse, but not all of them, and not all the time. SignatureStephen Lennox Head, Australia > I thought that Shakespeare's plays follow certain metric... that each > line must have certain syllables etc. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > What's up? Several possibilities. Parts of Shakespeare's plays are in prose. The contemporary scriveners and printers, who between then provided our only sources, may have botched lines. There are incontrovertible examples, as the first line of Sonnet 146 <http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/shakesonnets/section11.rhtml>. /Titus Andronicus/ is one of Shakespeare's earliest plays, and often called his worst. He may have botched it himself. You can even imagine reasons--the manager might have demanded a revision at the last minute, for instance. Short lines from different characters may combine to make an iambic pentameter. I can more or less make the passage from /Titus/ come out in blank verse: Titus: Sirrah, come hither: make no more ado, But give your pigeons to the emperor: By me thou shalt have justice at his hands. Hold, hold; meanwhile here's money for thy charges. Give me (a) pen and ink. Sirrah, can you With [a] grace deliver a supplication? Clown: Ay, sir. Titus: Then here[']s a supplication for you. And when you come to him, at the first approach You must kneel, then kiss his foot, then deliver up Your pigeons, and then look for your reward. I'll be at hand, sir; see you do it bravely. I added the (a) and took out the [a] (one can imagine it being moved accidentally from one line to the one before) and changed "here is" to "here's". There are a few extra syllables, and I had to pronounce "supplication" two different ways (as five syllables in the first speech, which I believe is an authentic pronunciation in Shakespeare). Of course, once you start emending, you don't know when to stop, which is why most editors (since Pope) don't do this unless they have to. My version is less likely to be what Shakespeare wrote than the one in your edition, but it's quite possible that your edition isn't quite what Shakespeare wrote either. SignatureJerry Friedman > > I thought that Shakespeare's plays follow certain metric... that each > > line must have certain syllables etc. > > > > but in Titus Andronicus, for example, quite a few places have rather > > botche lines. For examples: ... > > are there like, exceptions? I thought my digital copy has the lines > > formatted wrong. ... That could happen. I just noticed "my digital copy", and I wanted to repeat something that I and others have said to you before. Get an edition with good notes. I've read and reread an Arden edition of /The Tempest/, and the editor devotes lots of space to different critics' ideas about possible botchery on Shakespeare's part or others'. Many of these critics have deeply studied all of Shakespeare's writings, other writings of the time, theater and publishing practices of the time, etc. They still can't agree, but they shed a lot more light on these questions than you can get just looking at a digital edition that (I imagine) doesn't have notes. Not to mention more light than I can provide. There's no reason to reinvent the shed. > I can more or less make the passage from /Titus/ come out in blank > verse: [snip something I might not have done if I'd seen what newsgroups this was going to] SignatureJerry Friedman > > I thought that Shakespeare's plays follow certain metric... that each > > line must have certain syllables etc. [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > your edition, but it's quite possible that your edition isn't quite > what Shakespeare wrote either. The compositors certainly did botch Shakespeare's lines, as Charlton Hinman showed, to fit the copy to the available space, turning verse to prose (to condense it), prose to (free) verse (to stretch it), and so on. In this particular instance, however, they didn't do too badly; F1 reads: 1969: Tit. Sirrah come hither, make no more adoe, 1970: But giue your Pigeons to the Emperour, 1971: By me thou shalt haue Iustice at his hands. 1972: Hold, hold, meane while her's money for thy charges. 1973: Giue me pen and inke. 1974: Sirrah, can you with a Grace deliuer a Supplication? 1975: Clowne. I sir 1976: Titus. Then here is a Supplication for you, and when 1977: you come to him, at the first approach you must kneele, 1978: then kisse his foote, then deliuer vp your Pigeons, and 1979: then looke for your reward. Ile be at hand sir, see you do 1980: it brauely. Verse up to TLN 1972, as you have it, and I strongly suspect you're right about the next two lines, too (Arden2 lineates as F1): Give me pen and ink. Sirrah, can you With grace deliv'r a supplicati-on? No need to add a syllable to the first line; it's a perfectly good headless line, often associated with imperatives (e.g. 2057 Arme my Lords, Rome neuer had more cause.) You *could* be right about the speech that follows, but it's very rough verse, and as an editor I'd probably leave it as prose. Peter G. > > > I thought that Shakespeare's plays follow certain metric... that each > > > line must have certain syllables etc. [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > > Peter G. Fa.... Titus Andronicus is genius. It's all about effen "gag". Shepherd's pie laced with royal F*ck! Impotence. Tamora, tied, bound, pleading. Lavinia, loses every word, every paragraph, to the handless, tongueless ether, gone, not saved, START OVER!! There is no copy/paste. Communicate. Translate. From a fricken book! I'm so mad, I can't even say anything intelligent! "If you think revenge is sweet, taste this!" > Fa.... > > Titus Andronicus is genius. Christopher Walken or Jack Palance could do it. > It's all about effen "gag". beautiful bottle though > Shepherd's pie laced with royal F*ck! genocidal rascists > Impotence. Twenty two sons, though, and one daughter > Tamora, tied, bound, pleading. your son will come out, Tamora > Lavinia, loses every word, every paragraph, > to the handless, tongueless ether, gone, > not saved, START OVER!! There is no copy/paste. And with your blood and it I'll make a PASTE, -TA V, ii > Communicate. Translate. From a fricken book! 'tis Ovid's Metamorphoses; -TA IV, i > I'm so mad, I can't even say anything intelligent! And in that paste let their vile heads be baked -TA V, ii > "If you think revenge is sweet, taste this!" Shall we bite our tongues, and in dumb shows Pass the remainder of our hateful days? -TA III, i >>Fa.... >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Twenty two sons, though, and one daughter Two-and-twenty blackbeards, cut into a paste? Hmmm... >>Tamora, tied, bound, pleading. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Pass the remainder of our hateful days? > -TA III, i Then let us sit upon our tails and tell Sad epics of the recipes of kings! Signature-------(m+ ~/:o)_| I do not "negotiate" for half my baby back, Solomon. http://scrawlmark.org > > Fa.... > > > > Titus Andronicus is genius. > > Christopher Walken or Jack Palance could do it. Oh, come on! Did you see Christopher Walken with Grace Slick and James Bond? ...and where did I see Jack Palance? He might have been a look-a-like, but the guy played a weird old man who liked to deflower virgins and make them slaves to his and his monk-like followers isolated in a bizarre castle atop a hill in the French countryside. But the one I saw was the cliche of Anthony Hopkins playing a character who thought it good manners to serve fresh, young meat to his dinner guests. > > It's all about effen "gag". > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Twenty two sons, though, and one daughter *smile* > > Tamora, tied, bound, pleading. > > your son will come out, Tamora *smile* > > Lavinia, loses every word, every paragraph, > > to the handless, tongueless ether, gone, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Pass the remainder of our hateful days? > -TA III, i Genius! > > > Fa.... > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Oh, come on! Did you see Christopher Walken > with Grace Slick and James Bond? Grace Slick?? And it took me only this long because Google groups kept saying, "Ooops". Jones. > ...and where did I see Jack Palance? > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Genius! >>>>I thought that Shakespeare's plays follow certain metric... that each >>>>line must have certain syllables etc. [quoted text clipped - 126 lines] > > "If you think revenge is sweet, taste this!" Heh. "Throw the shrimp on the barbie!" Cf. the socalled "curse of Atreus," that dogged Agamemmnon into bbqing his daughter and getting killed in the back for listening to too many priests and not enough shamans. Signature-------(m+ ~/:o)_| I do not "negotiate" for half my baby back, Solomon. http://scrawlmark.org ... > > I can more or less make the passage from /Titus/ come out in blank > > verse: [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > line, often associated with imperatives (e.g. 2057 Arme my Lords, Rome neuer > had more cause.) Thanks, I didn't know that. > You *could* be right about the speech that follows, but it's very rough > verse, and as an editor I'd probably leave it as prose. That's good; all I was trying for was "could be right". SignatureJerry Friedman >>I thought that Shakespeare's plays follow certain metric... that each >>line must have certain syllables etc. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Parts of Shakespeare's plays are in prose. Sic. > The contemporary scriveners and printers, who between then provided our > only sources, may have botched lines. There are incontrovertible > examples, as the first line of Sonnet 146 > <http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/shakesonnets/section11.rhtml>. Sic. > /Titus Andronicus/ is one of Shakespeare's earliest plays, and often > called his worst. He may have botched it himself. You can even [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Your pigeons, and then look for your reward. > I'll be at hand, sir; see you do it bravely. ~Sic. And it'll never be more than "~" from /anybody/; good reconstruction. > I added the (a) and took out the [a] (one can imagine it being moved > accidentally from one line to the one before) and changed "here is" to > "here's". There are a few extra syllables, and I had to pronounce > "supplication" two different ways (as five syllables in the first > speech, which I believe is an authentic pronunciation in Shakespeare). Except (/my/ main "~"): The clown's "ay, sir," fills the missing front foot of Titus' line; the last foot has a feminine caudus appended: "...SUP pli CA tion FOR you." My typed accents are binary and overdone, and yes, Shakespeare sounds like sh.t recited that way, and, yes, I've heard it so done professionally, ew. Eh? "For" is the dominant word in the sense, rather than "you"; the accent fits. > Of course, once you start emending, you don't know when to stop, which > is why most editors (since Pope) don't do this unless they have to. My > version is less likely to be what Shakespeare wrote than the one in > your edition, but it's quite possible that your edition isn't quite > what Shakespeare wrote either. The First Folio was, what, 17 years after his death? 14? Put together from found frags and actors' rescribblings? Perhaps, God help us, from their memories? Blessings on what we have and why we have it. Signature-------(m+ ~/:o)_| I do not "negotiate" for half my baby back, Solomon. http://scrawlmark.org ... > > I can more or less make the passage from /Titus/ come out in blank > > verse: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > ~Sic. > And it'll never be more than "~" from /anybody/; good reconstruction. Thanks! > > I added the (a) and took out the [a] (one can imagine it being moved > > accidentally from one line to the one before) and changed "here is" to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > line; the last foot has a feminine caudus appended: "...SUP pli CA > tion FOR you." That's exactly what I had in mind. > My typed accents are binary and overdone, and yes, > Shakespeare sounds like sh.t recited that way, and, yes, I've heard > it so done professionally, ew. > Eh? "For" is the dominant word in the sense, rather than "you"; > the accent fits. Sic, as you might say. > > Of course, once you start emending, you don't know when to stop, which > > is why most editors (since Pope) don't do this unless they have to. My [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Perhaps, God help us, from their memories? > Blessings on what we have and why we have it. And again. SignatureJerry Friedman [...] > The contemporary scriveners and printers, who between then provided our > only sources, may have botched lines. There are incontrovertible > examples, as the first line of Sonnet 146 > <http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/shakesonnets/section11.rhtml>. [...] I hesitated for a while before posting, because I have an interpretation of 146 that I don't find anywhere in Google, admittedly after looking only for a short time, and one that I'm probably not going to be willing to work very hard to defend. It seems impossible I can be the only one this has occurred to, though. I think this sonnet, far from being the only one of the _Sonnets_ with a religious theme, is an extended double-entendre. You could dismiss the first line's resemblance to "pursehole, the centre of my sinful arse", if so much of the rest of the poem did not continue in the same ambiguous vein: "pine within", "large cost ... short ...lease", "spend", "thy charge", "thy body's end", "thy servant's loss", "and let that pine to aggravate thy store", "feed on Death". I don't suggest, of course, that the conventional interpretation is invalid, only that this second one was deliberate. I think it's quite possible that the sonnet, not subject to the same kinds of errors made likely by the transcription of spoken lines on a play, may have been botched to conceal the scandalous hidden meaning. For the second line: "Pressed by these rebel powers that thee array"? "Paled"? "Strip(p)ed"? (It seems likely enough that the word, whatever it is, would play against one or more of the several meanings of"array") "Stabbed" like Caesar? Who knows? Say no more. [...] I also considered stripping the other groups arrayed here, but decided the idea was relevant to them too. I have finally completed my annotation of Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus. At http://xahlee.org/p/titus/titus.html basically, interested words, phrases, are highlighted, along with links to wikipedia articles. Few places are inserted screenshots from the 1999 film adaptation by Julie Taymor. I'll probably go thru a second phase of annotation, to clean up or clarify, in the coming months. Xah xah@xahlee.org ∑ http://xahlee.org/ >I have finally completed my annotation of Shakespeare's Titus >Andronicus. At [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > xah@xahlee.org >? http://xahlee.org/ Because you are cross-posting to 4 newsgroups, it looks like you just want publicity. bookburn >> I have finally completed my annotation of Shakespeare's Titus >> Andronicus. At [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Because you are cross-posting to 4 newsgroups, it looks like you just > want publicity. bookburn Xah is a well-known crossposter in other areas, especially computer programming. In my estimation, he sincerely believes that the world is in need of the insights he has gained after two or three weeks of studying whatever subject his magpie fancy has most recently lit upon. SignatureJohn W. Kennedy "The blind rulers of Logres Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue." -- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude" I have just completed annotating the unbowdlerized version of Sir Richard Burton's «Alaeddin; Or, The Wonderful Lamp» from his (The Supplemental Nights to the Thousand Nights and a Night (six volumes, 1886-1888)) The text is available at: http://xahlee.org/p/arabian_nights/aladdin/aladdin.html In the coming days, i'll refine the annotation. Comments and suggestions welcome. (may post some juicy passage or quotes in the coming days) Xah xah@xahlee.org ∑ http://xahlee.org/ i am a radical muslim please read my blog. ttp://www.xanga.com/hfghj23458654fgha > I have just completed annotating the unbowdlerized > version of Sir Richard Burton's «Alaeddin; Or, The > Wonderful Lamp» <...> You mean the version with Burton's own bowdlerizing. You can read about the real, unbowdlerized version here: http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A3%D9%84%D9%81_%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%84%D8%A9_%D9%88% D9%84%D9%8A%D9%84%D8%A9 >> I have just completed annotating the unbowdlerized >> version of Sir Richard Burton's «Alaeddin; Or, The [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A3%D9%84%D9%81_%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%84%D8%A9_%D9%88% D9%84%D9%8A%D9%84%D8%A9 What does it say about it? When I looked into it a few years ago, I discovered http://www.crock11.freeserve.co.uk/arabian.htm which claimed that Antoine Galland's 1704 translation of the _Thousand Nights and a Night_ into French was actually the earliest appearance anywhere of Aladdin and Ali Baba (and the first time Sinbad was added to that particular work), with the conjecture that subsequent Arabic versions may be translations of stories originally written by Galland. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If to "man" a phone implies handing 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |it over to a person of the male Palo Alto, CA 94304 |gender, then to "monitor" it |suggests handing it over to a kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |lizard. (650)857-7572 | Rohan Oberoi http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> I have just completed annotating the unbowdlerized > >> version of Sir Richard Burton's «Alaeddin; Or, The [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > to that particular work), with the conjecture that subsequent Arabic > versions may be translations of stories originally written by Galland. I understand Sinbad was originally an independent story, but formed part of the 1001 Night collection after Galland (from Enc. of Islam II) >> What does it say about it? When I looked into it a few years ago, >> I discovered [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > part of the 1001 Night collection after Galland (from Enc. of Islam > II) According to the page I came across (which doesn't seem to have the text anymore, so I'll quote my prior article): He also seems to have added the stories of 'Sindbad the Sailor' (originally an independent Persian cycle created during the Abassid period) to the Nights, although it cannot be ascertained for certain that he was the first to include the Sindbad cycle. In this famous set of stories, Sindbad takes a river boat from Baghdad down the Tigris to Al Basrah, which then served as Baghdad's port on the Persian Gulf. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Giving money and power to government 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |is like giving whiskey and car keys Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to teenage boys. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> What does it say about it? When I looked into it a few years ago, > >> I discovered [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Baghdad down the Tigris to Al Basrah, which then served as > Baghdad's port on the Persian Gulf. this would be consistent with EI2. note that there was never a fixed corpus of 1001 tales, as there was always a tradition of addding on to the corpus. > >> What does it say about it? When I looked into it a few years ago, > >> I discovered [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Baghdad down the Tigris to Al Basrah, which then served as > Baghdad's port on the Persian Gulf. an independent arabic work probably based on persian prototypes. > >> I have just completed annotating the unbowdlerized > >> version of Sir Richard Burton's «Alaeddin; Or, The [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > to that particular work), with the conjecture that subsequent Arabic > versions may be translations of stories originally written by Galland. Enc. of Islam II does not claim that Aladdin & Ali Baba were originally french! >> which claimed that Antoine Galland's 1704 translation of the >> _Thousand Nights and a Night_ into French was actually the earliest [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Enc. of Islam II does not claim that Aladdin & Ali Baba were > originally french! Does it claim that they existed in Arabic versions before Galland's translation? The cited claim was Galland also includes the stories of 'Aladdin', 'Prince Ahmed and his Two Sisters', 'Ali Baba' and 'The Ebony Horse', none of which have been found in any surviving Arabic manuscript predating Galland, leaving open the possibility that subsequent Arabic versions may actually be re-translations from Galland's French original. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Just sit right back 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | and you'll hear a tale, Palo Alto, CA 94304 | a tale of the Stanford red |That started when a little boy kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | named Leland did drop dead (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> which claimed that Antoine Galland's 1704 translation of the > >> _Thousand Nights and a Night_ into French was actually the earliest [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > versions may actually be re-translations from Galland's French > original. the suggestion is not made. it merely says that arabic manuscripts of them "have since been found". just created a word frequency list of Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus. For your perusal pleasure, Here: http://xahlee.org/p/titus/word_frequency.html Xah xah@xahlee.org ∑ http://xahlee.org/ Did you calculate per 1,000, or by acts? TR just created a word frequency list of Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus. For your perusal pleasure, Here: http://xahlee.org/p/titus/word_frequency.html Xah xah@xahlee.org ? http://xahlee.org/ > Did you calculate per 1,000, or by acts? the whole play. Xah xah@xahlee.org ∑ http://xahlee.org/ > "Xah Lee" <xah@xahlee.org> wrote in message > just created a word frequency list of Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus. > http://xahlee.org/p/titus/word_frequency.html Tom Reedy wrote: > Did you calculate per 1,000, or by acts? the whole play. I know you did the whole play. I was asking if you also broke it down by acts, or if you calculated the incidence of a word per thousand words. Unless you did that, I don't see the use of your list. TR Xah xah@xahlee.org ? http://xahlee.org/ > "Xah Lee" <xah@xahlee.org> wrote in message > just created a word frequency list of Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus. > http://xahlee.org/p/titus/word_frequency.html DEMETRIUS. Chiron, thy years wants wit, thy wits wants edge And manners, to intrude where I am grac'd, And may, for aught thou knowest, affected be. shouldn't it be “thy years _want_ wit...”? and, “for aught thou _know_, ...”? Thanks. >From Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus «http://xahlee.org/p/titus/act2.html» Xah xah@xahlee.org ∑ http://xahlee.org/ In our last episode, <1162087592.010912.203930@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and talented Xah Lee broadcast on misc.writing: > DEMETRIUS. Chiron, thy years wants wit, thy wits wants edge > And manners, to intrude where I am grac'd, > And may, for aught thou knowest, affected be. > shouldn't it be ?thy years _want_ wit...?? "Want" here means lack, need, not the more recent sense "desire." Or in other words "you lack the wisdom that would be expected in someone as old as you are." > and, ?for aught thou _know_, ...?? Aught = anything, all, everything. for all you know The whole: You are not so smart as you are old, you(r wits) are dull and crude, to say what I may, and (your wits), for all you know, are affected. SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner> Books give not wisdom where none was before. But where some is, there reading makes it more. --John Harington just to be clear. The question is with respect to conventional grammar. i.e. i was wondering, why is Shakespeare using the 3rd person form of verbs, or, is that proper. Xah > DEMETRIUS. Chiron, thy years wants wit, thy wits wants edge > And manners, to intrude where I am grac'd, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > xah@xahlee.org > ∑ http://xahlee.org/ > > DEMETRIUS. Chiron, thy years wants wit, thy wits wants edge > > And manners, to intrude where I am grac'd, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > grammar. i.e. i was wondering, why is Shakespeare using the 3rd > person form of verbs, or, is that proper. In "thy years wants wit" he is using the 3rd person *singular* form for a *plural* subject. Whilst we would regard it as wrong these days, it is something that was done occasionally in those days, including by Shakespeare. For example, in 1 Henry IV, Silence sings For women are shrews, both short and tall, 'Tis merry in hall when beards wags all, And welcome merry shrovetide. "For aught thou knowest" is correct, however, being the 2nd person singular, and "for aught thou know" would be wrong. Peter F. peter.f@rey.prestel.co.uk http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm Hi Peter, « it is something that was done occasionally in those days.. » Thanks for the answer. Is there any rule or pattern on when this can be or is done? Or, perhaps at the time the grammar on this is not really set? What other literatures, uses «3rd person *singular* form for a *plural* subject.»? Xah xah@xahlee.org ∑ http://xahlee.org/ ----------- Xah Lee wrote: « DEMETRIUS. Chiron, thy years wants wit, thy wits wants edge And manners, to intrude where I am grac'd, And may, for aught thou knowest, affected be. shouldn't it be "thy years _want_ wit..."? and, "for aught thou _know_, ..."? » «In "thy years wants wit" he is using the 3rd person *singular* form for a *plural* subject. Whilst we would regard it as wrong these days, it is something that was done occasionally in those days, including by Shakespeare. For example, in 1 Henry IV, Silence sings For women are shrews, both short and tall, 'Tis merry in hall when beards wags all, And welcome merry shrovetide. » > > In "thy years wants wit" he is using the 3rd person *singular* > > form for a *plural* subject. Whilst we would regard it as wrong [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > can be or is done? Or, perhaps at the time the grammar on this is > not really set? I am answering from the humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare group, and telling you what happened at the time Shakespeare was writing. When I say "occasionally", I am talking about something that did not happen very often, particularly in Shakespeare's writings. As it happens, I have (for a reason quite unconnected with your query) had reason to take a sample to assess just how often this sort of usage does occur in Shakespeare. Having counted 100 cases of the word "which" followed by a singular verb 5 or 6 letters long - e.g. This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which *serves* it in the office of a wall, I found only two cases where the noun (which is usually singular, as the word "sea" is, above) seemed to be plural: So are those crisped, snaky, golden locks Which makes such wanton gambols with the wind and Each substance of a grief hath twenty shadows Which shows like grief itself but is not so. And in each case it is, I think, possible to explain why this deviation from the norm might have happened. > What other literatures, uses «3rd person *singular* form for a > *plural* subject.»? I've no idea. That's something for someone from one of the other newsgroups you cross-posted to (which, incidentally, is something that I really wish you wouldn't keep on doing!). Peter F. peter.f@rey.prestel.co.uk http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm > DEMETRIUS. Chiron, thy years wants wit, thy wits wants edge > And manners, to intrude where I am grac'd, > And may, for aught thou knowest, affected be. > > shouldn't it be "thy years _want_ wit..."? > and, "for aught thou _know_, ..."? If you look around the various versions on-line you'll see considerable variation in this line. It's as common to find "years wants wit, thy wit wants edge" as the version you quote. eg the Quarto edition in the British Library: http://prodigi.bl.uk/treasures/shakespeare/record.asp?LHPage=18&LHCopy=86&RHPage =19&RHCopy=86&disp=s#DispTop http://tinyurl.com/y28wnu Rhymezone shows "years want wit, thy wit wants edge" as does the U of Adelaide text: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/s/shakespeare/william/titus/act2.html Add to that the complication that "years" had been used for some time as an equivalent to "age" and your problem either multiplies or becomes a non-problem: " 1598 R. Bernard tr. Terence, Hecyra v. i, I am of that yeares now that it were no reason to remit mine offence. c1610 Women Saints (1886) 39 When she was of yeares fitt for marriage. 16+ Middleton, etc. Old Law ii. ii, Ere they be thought at years to welcome misery! " SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > > DEMETRIUS. Chiron, thy years wants wit, thy wits wants edge > > And manners, to intrude where I am grac'd, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > --------------------------------------------------------- >From Wiktionary . This category lists English pluralia tantum, i.e. English substantives that only have a plural form. Note that these words have to be added meaning by meaning by using {{plurale tantum}} since most pluralia tantum coincide with the plural of a singular substantive (e.g. the word glasses is a plurale tantum when denoting spectacles, and coincides with the plural of glass). ............................. a acoustics alms alternate angles assizes b bagpipes ballocks bananas Foster bellows binoculars bits and bobs blues bollocks brain brass knuckles c Cubs Corn Flakes calipers chops clothes custom cybernetics d Daisy Dukes dandelion greens dungarees dynamics e earmuffs earphones egesta esposas f facies flews flip-flops g Goths glasses goings-on goods g cont. greens groceries growing pains h handcuffs headphones headquarters human rights j Jesus jammies jaws jeans k knickerbockers knickers l long johns longjohns m manacles manners means measles mores multimedia mumps n needlenose pliers numbles nunchucks o odds and ends overalls p pajamas pantaloons panties pants particulars pfeffernusse pinking shears pliers points politics pork scratchings pyjamas r Reg Grundys rabbit ears riff-raff rims rompers rubbers s scissors seven league boots shackle shackles shades shants shingles shorts smithereens specs spectacles spirits spoils sprinkles strides sunglasses sunnies suspenders systematics t teachings thanks threads tights tongs trews trousers tweezers u underpants undies w waders wits works --------------------- Art Neuendorffer |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.