i think...
Rilke said something like
[ The best way to understand a poem
is to translate it.]

________________________________

(was Berger talking about Translating Poetry???)

John Berger wrote:

“Every poem that works as a poem is an
original. And [original] has two meanings; it means a return
to the origin, the first which engendered everything that
followed, and it means that which has never occurred
before.
In poetry, and in poetry alone, the two senses are
muted in such a way that they are no longer contradictory.”’

---------- he must mean that the difference is muted (???)

(or that the 2 senses are mated ?)

henh...@gmail.com <henhanna@gmail.com> wrote:
> i think...
> Rilke said something like
> [ The best way to understand a poem
> is to translate it.]
>
> ________________________________
>
> (was Berger talking about Translating Poetry???)
>
> John Berger wrote:
>
> “Every poem that works as a poem is an
> original. And [original] has two meanings; it means a return
> to the origin, the first which engendered everything that
> followed, and it means that which has never occurred
> before.
> In poetry, and in poetry alone, the two senses are
> muted in such a way that they are no longer contradictory.”’
>
>
> ---------- he must mean that the difference is muted (???)
>
> (or that the 2 senses are mated ?)
>
>

It sounds like ecstatic hyperbole to me; or gobbledegook.

Ed

--
Ed

On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 2:09:29 PM UTC-7, Ed Cryer wrote:
> henh...@gmail.com <henh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > i think...
> > Rilke said something like
> > [ The best way to understand a poem
> > is to translate it.]
> >
> > ________________________________
> >

(was Berger talking about Translating Poetry???) ---------> No.

> >
> > John Berger wrote:
> >
> > “Every poem that works as a poem is an
> > original. And [original] has two meanings; it means a return
> > to the origin, the first which engendered everything that
> > followed, and it means that which has never occurred
> > before.
> > In poetry, and in poetry alone, the two senses are
> > muted in such a way that they are no longer contradictory.”’
> >
> >
> > ---------- he must mean that the difference is muted (???) (or that the 2 senses are mated ?)

typo... (not my fault) correctly: "united"

> >
> >
> It sounds like ecstatic hyperbole to me; or gobbledegook.
>
> Ed

[ecstatic] is a compliment in ...
Updike : "Nabokov writes prose the only way it should be written: ecstatically."

>>> Though Nabokov was a guest lecturer at Harvard while Updike was there, Updike never went to see him speak. He noted that he had no idea there was such a master on campus. He later caught one of Nabokov's readings at Cambridge. But Updike's wife took Nabokov's lectures at Cornell, and Updike says that "she was really [Nabokov's] student, not me.." It was not until Updike read Lolita that he came to appreciate Nabokov as an author: "I'd never seen writing quite like this before, writing so precise and witty, and so full of little surprises."

The quality that Updike admired most in Nabokov's writing was the joy and happiness it contained. In 1964, Updike noted that "Nabokov writes prose the only way it should be written: ecstatically." He observed that although Nabokov's works contain plenty of death, they also present death as a transition to immortality. Here, then, we see Nabokov as lepidopterist, pinning down the butterfly for permanent preservation.

henh...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 2:09:29 PM UTC-7, Ed Cryer wrote:
>> henh...@gmail.com <henh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> i think...
>>> Rilke said something like
>>> [ The best way to understand a poem
>>> is to translate it.]
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>
> (was Berger talking about Translating Poetry???) ---------> No.
>
>>>
>>> John Berger wrote:
>>>
>>> “Every poem that works as a poem is an
>>> original. And [original] has two meanings; it means a return
>>> to the origin, the first which engendered everything that
>>> followed, and it means that which has never occurred
>>> before.
>>> In poetry, and in poetry alone, the two senses are
>>> muted in such a way that they are no longer contradictory.”’
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- he must mean that the difference is muted (???) (or that the 2 senses are mated ?)
>
> typo... (not my fault) correctly: "united"
>
>>>
>>>
>> It sounds like ecstatic hyperbole to me; or gobbledegook.
>>
>> Ed
>
>
> [ecstatic] is a compliment in ...
> Updike : "Nabokov writes prose the only way it should be written: ecstatically."
>
>
> >>> Though Nabokov was a guest lecturer at Harvard while Updike was there, Updike never went to see him speak. He noted that he had no idea there was such a master on campus. He later caught one of Nabokov's readings at Cambridge. But Updike's wife took Nabokov's lectures at Cornell, and Updike says that "she was really [Nabokov's] student, not me." It was not until Updike read Lolita that he came to appreciate Nabokov as an author: "I'd never seen writing quite like this before, writing so precise and witty, and so full of little surprises."
>
> The quality that Updike admired most in Nabokov's writing was the joy and happiness it contained. In 1964, Updike noted that "Nabokov writes prose the only way it should be written: ecstatically." He observed that although Nabokov's works contain plenty of death, they also present death as a transition to immortality. Here, then, we see Nabokov as lepidopterist, pinning down the butterfly for permanent preservation.
There's a warmth and humanity in Nabokov's novels that's hard to follow.
Like Jesus never condemning, always sympathising.
Compare him with someone like Kafka; who seems to write like an alien
who's just stepped out of a spaceship and documents an alien culture.
Ed

Ed Cryer wrote:
> henh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 2:09:29 PM UTC-7, Ed Cryer wrote:
>>> henh...@gmail.com <henh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> i think...
>>>> Rilke said something like
>>>> [ The best way to understand a poem
>>>> is to translate it.]
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>
>>   (was Berger talking about Translating Poetry???)  --------->   No.
>>
>>>>
>>>> John Berger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> “Every poem that works as a poem is an
>>>> original. And [original] has two meanings; it means a return
>>>> to the origin, the first which engendered everything that
>>>> followed, and it means that which has never occurred
>>>> before.
>>>> In poetry, and in poetry alone, the two senses are
>>>> muted in such a way that they are no longer contradictory.”’
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- he must mean that the difference is muted (???)    (or
>>>> that the 2 senses are mated ?)
>>
>> typo... (not my fault)        correctly:  "united"
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It sounds like ecstatic hyperbole to me; or gobbledegook.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>
>>
>> [ecstatic]   is   a compliment in ...
>>                      Updike :  "Nabokov writes prose the only way it
>> should be written: ecstatically."
>>
>>
>>                          >>>   Though Nabokov was a guest lecturer at
>> Harvard while Updike was there, Updike never went to see him speak. He
>> noted that he had no idea there was such a master on campus. He later
>> caught one of Nabokov's readings at Cambridge. But Updike's wife took
>> Nabokov's lectures at Cornell, and Updike says that "she was really
>> [Nabokov's] student, not me." It was not until Updike read Lolita that
>> he came to appreciate Nabokov as an author:       "I'd never seen
>> writing quite like this before, writing so precise and witty, and so
>> full of little surprises."
>>
>>                        The quality that Updike admired most in
>> Nabokov's writing was the joy and happiness it contained. In 1964,
>> Updike noted that "Nabokov writes prose the only way it should be
>> written: ecstatically." He observed that although Nabokov's works
>> contain plenty of death, they also present death as a transition to
>> immortality. Here, then, we see Nabokov as lepidopterist, pinning down
>> the butterfly for permanent preservation.
>
> There's a warmth and humanity in Nabokov's novels that's hard to follow.
> Like Jesus never condemning, always sympathising.
> Compare him with someone like Kafka; who seems to write like an alien
> who's just stepped out of a spaceship and documents an alien culture.
>
> Ed
>
It seems we've moved into the high territory of metaphor.
I recall that Aristotle said a lot about this in Poetics, and
Aristophanes ridiculed Euripides for things like "the foot of time" in
The Frogs.
And then the Romans took it up, and there's a lot in Cicero's De Oratore
and Quintilian's books.
It's an everyday property of common language. I find there are so many
that I use them without registering "metaphor" because they are the
spoken norm.
Poetry hasn't proprietary claim to these.
Flying metahors from the Aeneid;
....... volat ille per aëra magnum
Remigio alarum (Mercury)
(He flies through the mighty air with the oarage of his wings)
temptamusque viam et velorum pandimus alas. (Sailors)
(We try a passage and spread the wings of our sails)
Ed

Ed Cryer wrote:
> Ed Cryer wrote:
>> henh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 2:09:29 PM UTC-7, Ed Cryer wrote:
>>>> henh...@gmail.com <henh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> i think...
>>>>> Rilke said something like
>>>>> [ The best way to understand a poem
>>>>> is to translate it.]
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>
>>>
>>>   (was Berger talking about Translating Poetry???)  --------->   No.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> John Berger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> “Every poem that works as a poem is an
>>>>> original. And [original] has two meanings; it means a return
>>>>> to the origin, the first which engendered everything that
>>>>> followed, and it means that which has never occurred
>>>>> before.
>>>>> In poetry, and in poetry alone, the two senses are
>>>>> muted in such a way that they are no longer contradictory.”’
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- he must mean that the difference is muted (???)    (or
>>>>> that the 2 senses are mated ?)
>>>
>>> typo... (not my fault)        correctly:  "united"
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It sounds like ecstatic hyperbole to me; or gobbledegook.
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>
>>>
>>> [ecstatic]   is   a compliment in ...
>>>                      Updike :  "Nabokov writes prose the only way it
>>> should be written: ecstatically."
>>>
>>>
>>>                          >>>   Though Nabokov was a guest lecturer at
>>> Harvard while Updike was there, Updike never went to see him speak.
>>> He noted that he had no idea there was such a master on campus. He
>>> later caught one of Nabokov's readings at Cambridge. But Updike's
>>> wife took Nabokov's lectures at Cornell, and Updike says that "she
>>> was really [Nabokov's] student, not me." It was not until Updike read
>>> Lolita that he came to appreciate Nabokov as an author:       "I'd
>>> never seen writing quite like this before, writing so precise and
>>> witty, and so full of little surprises."
>>>
>>>                        The quality that Updike admired most in
>>> Nabokov's writing was the joy and happiness it contained. In 1964,
>>> Updike noted that "Nabokov writes prose the only way it should be
>>> written: ecstatically." He observed that although Nabokov's works
>>> contain plenty of death, they also present death as a transition to
>>> immortality. Here, then, we see Nabokov as lepidopterist, pinning
>>> down the butterfly for permanent preservation.
>>
>> There's a warmth and humanity in Nabokov's novels that's hard to
>> follow. Like Jesus never condemning, always sympathising.
>> Compare him with someone like Kafka; who seems to write like an alien
>> who's just stepped out of a spaceship and documents an alien culture.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
> It seems we've moved into the high territory of metaphor.
> I recall that Aristotle said a lot about this in Poetics, and
> Aristophanes ridiculed Euripides for things like "the foot of time" in
> The Frogs.
> And then the Romans took it up, and there's a lot in Cicero's De Oratore
> and Quintilian's books.
>
> It's an everyday property of common language. I find there are so many
> that I use them without registering "metaphor" because they are the
> spoken norm.
> Poetry hasn't proprietary claim to these.
>
> Flying metahors from the Aeneid;
>
> ....... volat ille per aëra magnum
> Remigio alarum (Mercury)
> (He flies through the mighty air with the oarage of his wings)
> temptamusque viam et velorum pandimus alas. (Sailors)
> (We try a passage and spread the wings of our sails)
>
> Ed
>
Aristotle wrote;
μεταφορὰ δέ ἐστιν ὀνόματος ἀλλοτρίου ἐπιφορὰ ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους ἐπὶ εἶδος
ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ εἴδους ἐπὶ τὸ γένος ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ εἴδους ἐπὶ εἶδος ἢ κατὰ τὸ
ἀνάλογον. (Aristotle Poetics)
(A metaphor is the application of a word that belongs to another thing:
either from genus to species, species to genus, species to species, or
by analogy.)
Cicero coined "translatio" for μεταφορὰ
Ergo haec translationes quasi mutuationes sunt, cum quod non habeas
aliunde sumas, illae paulo audaciores, quae non inopiam indicant, sed
orationi splendoris aliquid arcessunt
(These metaphors are like borrowings, when you get something you don't
have from elsewhere, being a little more bold such as not to indicate
lack, but they bring some splendour to a speech)
(Cicero De Oratore)
Ed

Ed Cryer wrote:
> Ed Cryer wrote:
>> Ed Cryer wrote:
>>> henh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 2:09:29 PM UTC-7, Ed Cryer wrote:
>>>>> henh...@gmail.com <henh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> i think...
>>>>>> Rilke said something like
>>>>>> [ The best way to understand a poem
>>>>>> is to translate it.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   (was Berger talking about Translating Poetry???)  --------->   No.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Berger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “Every poem that works as a poem is an
>>>>>> original. And [original] has two meanings; it means a return
>>>>>> to the origin, the first which engendered everything that
>>>>>> followed, and it means that which has never occurred
>>>>>> before.
>>>>>> In poetry, and in poetry alone, the two senses are
>>>>>> muted in such a way that they are no longer contradictory.”’
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------- he must mean that the difference is muted (???)    (or
>>>>>> that the 2 senses are mated ?)
>>>>
>>>> typo... (not my fault)        correctly:  "united"
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like ecstatic hyperbole to me; or gobbledegook.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [ecstatic]   is   a compliment in ...
>>>>                      Updike :  "Nabokov writes prose the only way it
>>>> should be written: ecstatically."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                          >>>   Though Nabokov was a guest lecturer
>>>> at Harvard while Updike was there, Updike never went to see him
>>>> speak. He noted that he had no idea there was such a master on
>>>> campus. He later caught one of Nabokov's readings at Cambridge. But
>>>> Updike's wife took Nabokov's lectures at Cornell, and Updike says
>>>> that "she was really [Nabokov's] student, not me." It was not until
>>>> Updike read Lolita that he came to appreciate Nabokov as an
>>>> author:       "I'd never seen writing quite like this before,
>>>> writing so precise and witty, and so full of little surprises."
>>>>
>>>>                        The quality that Updike admired most in
>>>> Nabokov's writing was the joy and happiness it contained. In 1964,
>>>> Updike noted that "Nabokov writes prose the only way it should be
>>>> written: ecstatically." He observed that although Nabokov's works
>>>> contain plenty of death, they also present death as a transition to
>>>> immortality. Here, then, we see Nabokov as lepidopterist, pinning
>>>> down the butterfly for permanent preservation.
>>>
>>> There's a warmth and humanity in Nabokov's novels that's hard to
>>> follow. Like Jesus never condemning, always sympathising.
>>> Compare him with someone like Kafka; who seems to write like an alien
>>> who's just stepped out of a spaceship and documents an alien culture.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>
>> It seems we've moved into the high territory of metaphor.
>> I recall that Aristotle said a lot about this in Poetics, and
>> Aristophanes ridiculed Euripides for things like "the foot of time" in
>> The Frogs.
>> And then the Romans took it up, and there's a lot in Cicero's De
>> Oratore and Quintilian's books.
>>
>> It's an everyday property of common language. I find there are so many
>> that I use them without registering "metaphor" because they are the
>> spoken norm.
>> Poetry hasn't proprietary claim to these.
>>
>> Flying metahors from the Aeneid;
>>
>> ....... volat ille per aëra magnum
>> Remigio alarum (Mercury)
>> (He flies through the mighty air with the oarage of his wings)
>> temptamusque viam et velorum pandimus alas. (Sailors)
>> (We try a passage and spread the wings of our sails)
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
> Aristotle wrote;
>
> μεταφορὰ δέ ἐστιν ὀνόματος ἀλλοτρίου ἐπιφορὰ ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους ἐπὶ εἶδος
> ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ εἴδους ἐπὶ τὸ γένος ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ εἴδους ἐπὶ εἶδος ἢ κατὰ τὸ
> ἀνάλογον. (Aristotle Poetics)
> (A metaphor is the application of a word that belongs to another thing:
> either from genus to species, species to genus, species to species, or
> by analogy.)
>
> Cicero coined "translatio" for μεταφορὰ
>
> Ergo haec translationes quasi mutuationes sunt, cum quod non habeas
> aliunde sumas, illae paulo audaciores, quae non inopiam indicant, sed
> orationi splendoris aliquid arcessunt
> (These metaphors are like borrowings, when you get something you don't
> have from elsewhere, being a little more bold such as not to indicate
> lack, but they bring some splendour to a speech)
> (Cicero De Oratore)
>
> Ed
>
A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or
action to which it is not literally applicable. Recorded from the late
15th century, the word comes via French and Latin from Greek metaphora,
from metapherein ‘to transfer’.
(OED)
I have issues with that "not literally applicable". Maybe these would be
removed and resolved if I knew what "literally applicable" meant.
Ed

On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 11:01:30 AM UTC-7, Ed Cryer wrote:
> Ed Cryer wrote:
> > Ed Cryer wrote:
> >> henh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 2:09:29 PM UTC-7, Ed Cryer wrote:
> >>>> henh...@gmail.com <henh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> i think...
> >>>>> Rilke said something like
> >>>>> [ The best way to understand a poem
> >>>>> is to translate it.]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> (was Berger talking about Translating Poetry???) ---------> No.
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> John Berger wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> “Every poem that works as a poem is an
> >>>>> original. And [original] has two meanings; it means a return
> >>>>> to the origin, the first which engendered everything that
> >>>>> followed, and it means that which has never occurred
> >>>>> before.
> >>>>> In poetry, and in poetry alone, the two senses are
> >>>>> muted in such a way that they are no longer contradictory.”’
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---------- he must mean that the difference is muted (???) (or
> >>>>> that the 2 senses are mated ?)
> >>>
> >>> typo... (not my fault) correctly: "united"
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> It sounds like ecstatic hyperbole to me; or gobbledegook.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ed
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [ecstatic] is a compliment in ...
> >>> Updike : "Nabokov writes prose the only way it
> >>> should be written: ecstatically."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >>> Though Nabokov was a guest lecturer at
> >>> Harvard while Updike was there, Updike never went to see him speak.
> >>> He noted that he had no idea there was such a master on campus. He
> >>> later caught one of Nabokov's readings at Cambridge. But Updike's
> >>> wife took Nabokov's lectures at Cornell, and Updike says that "she
> >>> was really [Nabokov's] student, not me." It was not until Updike read
> >>> Lolita that he came to appreciate Nabokov as an author: "I'd
> >>> never seen writing quite like this before, writing so precise and
> >>> witty, and so full of little surprises."
> >>>
> >>> The quality that Updike admired most in
> >>> Nabokov's writing was the joy and happiness it contained. In 1964,
> >>> Updike noted that "Nabokov writes prose the only way it should be
> >>> written: ecstatically." He observed that although Nabokov's works
> >>> contain plenty of death, they also present death as a transition to
> >>> immortality. Here, then, we see Nabokov as lepidopterist, pinning
> >>> down the butterfly for permanent preservation.
> >>
> >> There's a warmth and humanity in Nabokov's novels that's hard to
> >> follow. Like Jesus never condemning, always sympathising.
> >> Compare him with someone like Kafka; who seems to write like an alien
> >> who's just stepped out of a spaceship and documents an alien culture.
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >
> > It seems we've moved into the high territory of metaphor.
> > I recall that Aristotle said a lot about this in Poetics, and
> > Aristophanes ridiculed Euripides for things like "the foot of time" in
> > The Frogs.
> > And then the Romans took it up, and there's a lot in Cicero's De Oratore
> > and Quintilian's books.
> >
> > It's an everyday property of common language. I find there are so many
> > that I use them without registering "metaphor" because they are the
> > spoken norm.
> > Poetry hasn't proprietary claim to these.
> >
> > Flying metahors from the Aeneid;
> >
> > ....... volat ille per aëra magnum
> > Remigio alarum (Mercury)
> > (He flies through the mighty air with the oarage of his wings)
> > temptamusque viam et velorum pandimus alas. (Sailors)
> > (We try a passage and spread the wings of our sails)
> >
> > Ed
> >
> Aristotle wrote;
>
> μεταφορὰ δέ ἐστιν ὀνόματος ἀλλοτρίου ἐπιφορὰ ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους ἐπὶ εἶδος
> ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ εἴδους ἐπὶ τὸ γένος ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ εἴδους ἐπὶ εἶδος ἢ κατὰ τὸ
> ἀνάλογον. (Aristotle Poetics)
> (A metaphor is the application of a word that belongs to another thing:
> either from genus to species, species to genus, species to species, or
> by analogy.)
>
> Cicero coined "translatio" for μεταφορὰ
>
> Ergo haec translationes quasi mutuationes sunt, cum quod non habeas
> aliunde sumas, illae paulo audaciores, quae non inopiam indicant, sed
> orationi splendoris aliquid arcessunt
> (These metaphors are like borrowings, when you get something you don't
> have from elsewhere, being a little more bold such as not to indicate
> lack, but they bring some splendour to a speech)
> (Cicero De Oratore)
>
> Ed

> Cicero coined "translatio" for μεταφορὰ ----------that's new to me!!!

> >> There's a warmth and humanity in Nabokov's novels that's hard to follow. Like Jesus ........

i'd never really thought of it (that way), but taht must be true about Nabokov.

in the Pale Fire poem, there seems to be a huge amount of compassion for the girl who died.

Ed Cryer wrote:
> Ed Cryer wrote:
>> Ed Cryer wrote:
>>> Ed Cryer wrote:
>>>> henh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 2:09:29 PM UTC-7, Ed Cryer wrote:
>>>>>> henh...@gmail.com <henh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> i think...
>>>>>>> Rilke said something like
>>>>>>> [ The best way to understand a poem
>>>>>>> is to translate it.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   (was Berger talking about Translating Poetry???)  --------->   No.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Berger wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “Every poem that works as a poem is an
>>>>>>> original. And [original] has two meanings; it means a return
>>>>>>> to the origin, the first which engendered everything that
>>>>>>> followed, and it means that which has never occurred
>>>>>>> before.
>>>>>>> In poetry, and in poetry alone, the two senses are
>>>>>>> muted in such a way that they are no longer contradictory.”’
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------- he must mean that the difference is muted (???)    (or
>>>>>>> that the 2 senses are mated ?)
>>>>>
>>>>> typo... (not my fault)        correctly:  "united"
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It sounds like ecstatic hyperbole to me; or gobbledegook.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [ecstatic]   is   a compliment in ...
>>>>>                      Updike :  "Nabokov writes prose the only way
>>>>> it should be written: ecstatically."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                          >>>   Though Nabokov was a guest lecturer
>>>>> at Harvard while Updike was there, Updike never went to see him
>>>>> speak. He noted that he had no idea there was such a master on
>>>>> campus. He later caught one of Nabokov's readings at Cambridge. But
>>>>> Updike's wife took Nabokov's lectures at Cornell, and Updike says
>>>>> that "she was really [Nabokov's] student, not me." It was not until
>>>>> Updike read Lolita that he came to appreciate Nabokov as an
>>>>> author:       "I'd never seen writing quite like this before,
>>>>> writing so precise and witty, and so full of little surprises."
>>>>>
>>>>>                        The quality that Updike admired most in
>>>>> Nabokov's writing was the joy and happiness it contained. In 1964,
>>>>> Updike noted that "Nabokov writes prose the only way it should be
>>>>> written: ecstatically." He observed that although Nabokov's works
>>>>> contain plenty of death, they also present death as a transition to
>>>>> immortality. Here, then, we see Nabokov as lepidopterist, pinning
>>>>> down the butterfly for permanent preservation.
>>>>
>>>> There's a warmth and humanity in Nabokov's novels that's hard to
>>>> follow. Like Jesus never condemning, always sympathising.
>>>> Compare him with someone like Kafka; who seems to write like an
>>>> alien who's just stepped out of a spaceship and documents an alien
>>>> culture.
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>
>>> It seems we've moved into the high territory of metaphor.
>>> I recall that Aristotle said a lot about this in Poetics, and
>>> Aristophanes ridiculed Euripides for things like "the foot of time"
>>> in The Frogs.
>>> And then the Romans took it up, and there's a lot in Cicero's De
>>> Oratore and Quintilian's books.
>>>
>>> It's an everyday property of common language. I find there are so
>>> many that I use them without registering "metaphor" because they are
>>> the spoken norm.
>>> Poetry hasn't proprietary claim to these.
>>>
>>> Flying metahors from the Aeneid;
>>>
>>> ....... volat ille per aëra magnum
>>> Remigio alarum (Mercury)
>>> (He flies through the mighty air with the oarage of his wings)
>>> temptamusque viam et velorum pandimus alas. (Sailors)
>>> (We try a passage and spread the wings of our sails)
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>
>> Aristotle wrote;
>>
>> μεταφορὰ δέ ἐστιν ὀνόματος ἀλλοτρίου ἐπιφορὰ ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους ἐπὶ
>> εἶδος ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ εἴδους ἐπὶ τὸ γένος ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ εἴδους ἐπὶ εἶδος ἢ κατὰ
>> τὸ ἀνάλογον. (Aristotle Poetics)
>> (A metaphor is the application of a word that belongs to another
>> thing: either from genus to species, species to genus, species to
>> species, or by analogy.)
>>
>> Cicero coined "translatio" for μεταφορὰ
>>
>> Ergo haec translationes quasi mutuationes sunt, cum quod non habeas
>> aliunde sumas, illae paulo audaciores, quae non inopiam indicant, sed
>> orationi splendoris aliquid arcessunt
>> (These metaphors are like borrowings, when you get something you don't
>> have from elsewhere, being a little more bold such as not to indicate
>> lack, but they bring some splendour to a speech)
>> (Cicero De Oratore)
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
> A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or
> action to which it is not literally applicable. Recorded from the late
> 15th century, the word comes via French and Latin from Greek metaphora,
> from metapherein ‘to transfer’.
> (OED)
>
> I have issues with that "not literally applicable". Maybe these would be
> removed and resolved if I knew what "literally applicable" meant.
>
> Ed
>
>
This is a much better definition of "metaphor".
A metaphor is a figure of speech that, for rhetorical effect, directly
refers to one thing by mentioning another.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor)
Ed

On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:34:20 AM UTC-7, Ed Cryer wrote:
> Ed Cryer wrote:
> > Ed Cryer wrote:
> >> Ed Cryer wrote:
> >>> Ed Cryer wrote:
> >>>> henh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 2:09:29 PM UTC-7, Ed Cryer wrote:
> >>>>>> henh...@gmail.com <henh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> i think...
> >>>>>>> Rilke said something like
> >>>>>>> [ The best way to understand a poem
> >>>>>>> is to translate it.]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (was Berger talking about Translating Poetry???) ---------> No..
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> John Berger wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> “Every poem that works as a poem is an
> >>>>>>> original. And [original] has two meanings; it means a return
> >>>>>>> to the origin, the first which engendered everything that
> >>>>>>> followed, and it means that which has never occurred
> >>>>>>> before.
> >>>>>>> In poetry, and in poetry alone, the two senses are
> >>>>>>> muted in such a way that they are no longer contradictory.”’
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ---------- he must mean that the difference is muted (???) (or
> >>>>>>> that the 2 senses are mated ?)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> typo... (not my fault) correctly: "united"
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> It sounds like ecstatic hyperbole to me; or gobbledegook.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ed
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [ecstatic] is a compliment in ...
> >>>>> Updike : "Nabokov writes prose the only way
> >>>>> it should be written: ecstatically."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>> Though Nabokov was a guest lecturer
> >>>>> at Harvard while Updike was there, Updike never went to see him
> >>>>> speak. He noted that he had no idea there was such a master on
> >>>>> campus. He later caught one of Nabokov's readings at Cambridge. But
> >>>>> Updike's wife took Nabokov's lectures at Cornell, and Updike says
> >>>>> that "she was really [Nabokov's] student, not me." It was not until
> >>>>> Updike read Lolita that he came to appreciate Nabokov as an
> >>>>> author: "I'd never seen writing quite like this before,
> >>>>> writing so precise and witty, and so full of little surprises."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The quality that Updike admired most in
> >>>>> Nabokov's writing was the joy and happiness it contained. In 1964,
> >>>>> Updike noted that "Nabokov writes prose the only way it should be
> >>>>> written: ecstatically." He observed that although Nabokov's works
> >>>>> contain plenty of death, they also present death as a transition to
> >>>>> immortality. Here, then, we see Nabokov as lepidopterist, pinning
> >>>>> down the butterfly for permanent preservation.
> >>>>
> >>>> There's a warmth and humanity in Nabokov's novels that's hard to
> >>>> follow. Like Jesus never condemning, always sympathising.
> >>>> Compare him with someone like Kafka; who seems to write like an
> >>>> alien who's just stepped out of a spaceship and documents an alien
> >>>> culture.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ed
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> It seems we've moved into the high territory of metaphor.
> >>> I recall that Aristotle said a lot about this in Poetics, and
> >>> Aristophanes ridiculed Euripides for things like "the foot of time"
> >>> in The Frogs.
> >>> And then the Romans took it up, and there's a lot in Cicero's De
> >>> Oratore and Quintilian's books.
> >>>
> >>> It's an everyday property of common language. I find there are so
> >>> many that I use them without registering "metaphor" because they are
> >>> the spoken norm.
> >>> Poetry hasn't proprietary claim to these.
> >>>
> >>> Flying metahors from the Aeneid;
> >>>
> >>> ....... volat ille per aëra magnum
> >>> Remigio alarum (Mercury)
> >>> (He flies through the mighty air with the oarage of his wings)
> >>> temptamusque viam et velorum pandimus alas. (Sailors)
> >>> (We try a passage and spread the wings of our sails)
> >>>
> >>> Ed
> >>>
> >>
> >> Aristotle wrote;
> >>
> >> μεταφορὰ δέ ἐστιν ὀνόματος ἀλλοτρίου ἐπιφορὰ ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους ἐπὶ
> >> εἶδος ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ εἴδους ἐπὶ τὸ γένος ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ εἴδους ἐπὶ εἶδος ἢ κατὰ
> >> τὸ ἀνάλογον. (Aristotle Poetics)
> >> (A metaphor is the application of a word that belongs to another
> >> thing: either from genus to species, species to genus, species to
> >> species, or by analogy.)
> >>
> >> Cicero coined "translatio" for μεταφορὰ
> >>
> >> Ergo haec translationes quasi mutuationes sunt, cum quod non habeas
> >> aliunde sumas, illae paulo audaciores, quae non inopiam indicant, sed
> >> orationi splendoris aliquid arcessunt
> >> (These metaphors are like borrowings, when you get something you don't
> >> have from elsewhere, being a little more bold such as not to indicate
> >> lack, but they bring some splendour to a speech)
> >> (Cicero De Oratore)
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >
> > A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or
> > action to which it is not literally applicable. Recorded from the late
> > 15th century, the word comes via French and Latin from Greek metaphora,
> > from metapherein ‘to transfer’.
> > (OED)
> >
> > I have issues with that "not literally applicable". Maybe these would be
> > removed and resolved if I knew what "literally applicable" meant.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> >
> This is a much better definition of "metaphor".
>
> A metaphor is a figure of speech that, for rhetorical effect, directly
> refers to one thing by mentioning another.
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor)
>
> Ed

The famous linguist Jakobson has pointed out that the basic difference between metaphor and metonymy is that metaphor is based on similarity while metonymy is on contiguity.

For example, the sentence 'he is a tiger in class' is a metaphor. Here the word tiger is used in substitution for displaying an attribute of character of the person. The sentence 'the tiger called his students to the meeting room' is a metonymy. ------------ No, that's wrong!!!!

Common examples of metonymy include in language include: Referring to the President of the United States or their administration as “the White House” or “the Oval Office” Referring to the American technology industry as “Silicon Valley” Referring to the American advertising industry as “Madison Avenue”

( so i guess.... referring to PRC as "Beijing" is not metonymy )