Re: Language Change
|From:||Tom Wier <artabanos@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, January 9, 2000, 5:09|
Dan Sulani wrote:
> On 4 Jan, Patrick Dunn wrote:
> This, paradoxically, can
> >de-emphasize the importance of rhyme
> Interesting. Would it then be accurate to say that
> in a given lang, the features which are important to
> poetry are those which are the hardest to manipulate
> in that lang? (sort of a "creative challenge theory" of poetry?)
I think there's a good deal of truth to that. But I think the poetic
styles most used by a certain culture in a certain time are also
dependent on such things as the medium and technology of the
poetry. Certainly with oral cultures, things like rhyme and meter
are rather important because, well, skillful organization of those
features makes it most striking. But in poetry for primarily
literate cultures, things like visual organization on the page, and
"eye-rhyme" can carry across as much meaning, not to mention
signed poetry for the deaf... in short, there're lots of ways you
can manipulate meaning depending on what you have available.
> That might explain one difficulty of trying to appreciate
> poetry in translation. What's important to the poet's lang,
> and thus to the poet, may not be the same in your lang, and
> thus it doesn't come through to you. Hmmm.
> CCC (Compulsory Conlang Connection :-) )
> In our postings, we tend to focus on what our conlangs _can_ do.
> Would looking at what is difficult for them to do give us
> an insight into writing poetry in them? (Paring rtemmu sentences
> down to haiku level, for example, would certainly prove a challenge!
> Maybe I'll look into it.)
Although, Haiku didn't necessarily have to be sentences... (in fact, most weren't --
there's a subtype called senryuku or some such thing which is where the whole
haiku is a complete sentence, carrying on from one line to the next).
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
AIM: Deuterotom ICQ: 4315704
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."