Re: TRANS: a haiku: retort

On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Patrick Dunn wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, dirk elzinga wrote:
>
> > > In Japanese, haiku are not constructed according to syllable
> > > count at all, but according to mora count. So everyone who's
> > > arguing about how many syllables are in a haiku, you're all
> > > wrong. :-)
> > >
> > > Dirk
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > isn't it a good thing, then, that i didn't mention Japanese at all? i only
> > > Speak of English here (and perhaps others, i know nothing of
> > > Spanich/French/German/Lithuanian/Evenki etc, haiku
> >
> > A "good thing"? A bit disingenuous perhaps, but not a "good
> > thing" IMO. Haiku is a *Japanese* verse form, no matter who else
> > indulges in it now. Ignoring that fact tells only part of the
> > story.
>
> The sonnet is an Italian form, but Shakespeare modified it for English --
> do you object to Shakespearian sonnets, too?
Not at all! However, proclaiming the English conventions as
authoritative while ignoring the Italian origins of the sonnet
doesn't seem right. This was my point with haiku; whatever the
English conventions are now, its origin as a Japanese verse form
should also be recognized.

On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, B Elliott Walker wrote:
>
> well....... >shrug<. since i'v never seen a japanese haiku, and probably
> never will, that doesn't really mean much to me. so be it, then
I did append a smiley to my initial posting on the matter; I'm
sorry that it was taken more seriously than I intended it to be.

Dirk

--
Dirk Elzinga
dirk.elzinga@m.cc.utah.edu