[lit-ideas] Re: Grice's Colourless Green Ideas Sleep Furiously

  • From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 21:08:39 +0200

Not all poetry is about metaphor. Renaissance poets were very fond of
metaphors, e.g. "My love is a red red rose" etc. There are also metonymies,
hyperboles, symbols and the like. There IS also such a thing as a
straightforward expression in poetry, but it is kind of difficult to wield
with good aesthetic effect. :)

Cheers,

O.K.


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for
DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> My last post today!
>
> Furiously sleep ideas green colourless.
>
> In "Syntactic Structures" Chomsky thought he was being witty (and he was)
> and coined a sentence:
>
> Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.
>
> He compared it to:
>
> Furiously sleep ideas green colourless.
>
> which Reeve has yet to include in a quatrain.
>
> In a message dated  4/29/2014 12:55:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes:
> am  sorry that I am not impressed. To point out that a poet is being
> ambiguous is  kind like pointing out that a driver is using a wheel to
> steer the
> car in the  direction he wants it to go.
>
> Well, I guess it all started when McEvoy thinks we were (meaning I was)
> being stipulative, or that philosophers tend to be stipulative when it
> comes
> to  sense/nonsense.
>
> My views on literature, etc., relate to my views on aesthetics. I see
> literature as a branch of art!
>
> I would have nothing against the perhaps (or I'm sure) Griceian view that
> both METAPHOR and, why not, AMBIGUITY, play a crucial role in all forms of
> literature.
>
> Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.
>
> was meant by Chomksy as ungrammatical. One may wonder if an utterer can
> mean this or that by it (as we do) and conclude that yes, he or she can.
>
> McEvoy seems to be emphasising the 'sense' of the 'expression' itself,
> which is referred to as a 'piece of nonsense' (or 'nonsense of sorts', I
> forget
>  the exact wording -- I actually think he grants Reeve conveys to the thing
> some  'sense of sorts' -- or 'sort of sense').
>
> Now, if we have "U" to represent utterer, and 'x' to represent the
> expression, we can then grant that x need not be meaningful for U to mean
> something by x. It is a different, and more interesting, to my mind,
> point, to  go
> on with Grice and try to REDUCE the meaning of an expression (the
> occasional
> meaning or the 'timeless' meaning) to the utterer's meaning.
>
> All this, Grice says, Witters ignored. But then, as a Wittgenstein
> commentator once remarked, "Ignorance is bliss" (*)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Speranza
>
> *
> To each his sufferings: all are men,
> Condemned alike to groan;
> The  tender for another's pain,
> The unfeeling for his own.
> Yet ah! why should  they know their fate?
> Since sorrow never comes too late,
> And happiness too  swiftly flies.
> Thought would destroy their paradise.
> No more; where  ignorance is bliss,
> 'Tis folly to be wise.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>

Other related posts: