You should read what you write before you send it. You really mangled
your third sentence. Did you mean, "A German who needs a word that
doesn't already exist for something will make a compound of two German
words' ?
Dirk Johnson wrote:
> In a sense, English, more than any other language of which I'm aware, is
> one giant pot of macaronics. Aside from grammar, this is the most
> defining characteristic of English. A German who needs a word for that
> doesn't already exist for something will make a compound of two German
> words. An American will say, "Automobile", or just adopt a word that
> another language already uses for the object.
>
> English is multilingual.
>
> Both Pound and Joyce revealed this flexibility and adaptability in their
> writings. Pounds incorporation of the words of another language
> directly (e.g. tin andra, tin eroa, tina theon etc.
>
> or
>
> " Ou Tis,
> I am noman, my name is noman " but Wanjina
> is, shall we say, Ouan Jin or the man with an
> education)
>
> is more directly related to the perceived or imagined object (Fujiyama
> at Gardone), and takes the languages directly to the resemblances of
> apparently dissimilar things, using the linguistic interplay of the
> natural object as the symbol.
>
> Joyce, esp. in Finnegan, takes it to an extreme of polymorphism (I don't
> here use the word "extreme" pejoratively). Each word is a multifaceted
> building block, and the relationships among the words is continually
> shifting -- one is even tempted to create permutation charts of each
> line for explication, but is defeated in the enterprise by the
> difficulty of determining what even constitutes a line as well as by the
> ever expanding possible permutations.
>
> In Pound, the multilingual is a reflection of the "one trunk" perceived
> in the "objective" world. In Joyce, it's the continuously shifting
> interior of the "subjective" world.
>
> It's not just a fetish, and neither is just strutting his stuff.
>
> Antony Adolf wrote:
>
>> Dear Mr. Korg and Mr. Nikiforov,
>>
>> Rather than speculate who had better access to or beter knowledge of
>> one specific language, duly noting both that Latin played a major
>> role in the works of both Joyce and Pound, I was wondering if you had
>> any thoughts on how their respective use of macaronics are
>> different/similar, and to what end either writer uses
>> multilingualism, if any.
>>
>> Was it just a 'fetish'? Were they just 'strutting their stuff'? Or,
>> as I'd like to think, did they have something more 'serious', more
>> 'profound' to say about the weaving of languages, and if so, what?
>>
>> tony.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>>
>>
>>> Date: Wed Jan 29 21:22:35 PST 2003
>>> From: Jacob Korg <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: Re: Politics & Macaronics
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>> dear Nikolay:
>>> Please note that I did not say he had NO knowledge of Latin,
>>> but that he did not have POUND'S "acess" to Latin.
>>> I have no doubt that he knew some Latin, but I'm sure Pound had a
>>> superior knowledge of it, as suggested by Canto I, his Propertius,
>>> translations, allusions to Catullus, etc.
>>> I expressed myself carefullly, and hope to be read that way.
>>> Jacob Korgn
>>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Nikolay Nikiforov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> JK> -- and he did not have Pound's access to Greek, Latin, or, of
>>>> course,
>>>> JK> Chinese.
>>>> ???
>>>> No access to Latin? Was he not Catholic?
>>>> Oh my terrible ignorance. Please tell us the truth: that Joyce was a
>>>> methodist Yankee, who wrote cowboy pulp fiction.
>>>> Literary studies are definitely _interesting_
>>>>
>>>> Nikolay
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Dirk Johnson
> 676 Geary #407
> San Francisco, CA 94102
>
> [log in to unmask]
> Home: 415-771-7734
> Office Direct: 510-208-8200
> Office Fax: 510-208-8282
>
--
Dirk Johnson
676 Geary #407
San Francisco, CA 94102
[log in to unmask]
Home: 415-771-7734
Office Direct: 510-208-8200
Office Fax: 510-208-8282
|
