I can recommend the same recommendation that was given me -- don't worry too much about the scholarly side, just feel it like you would any other poem. — Moliere
In particular, it'd be interesting to simply answer the question "what constitutes a phrase?" when we take a string -- is it possible to devise a relationship between a string and how many phrases are in a string? — Moliere
What is a 'logic of phrases'?Would it be possible to develop a logic of phrases? — Moliere
Mostly still just looking at that "what's left, if we are able to conceptually "take away" truth-conditions?" question. — Moliere
Sentences are valuable primarily because they are meaningful. Typically, we have little use for random strings of symbols. Such strings, no matter how complex or interesting, are regarded as at most curiosities, unless they are thought to be meaningful. To be meaningful is to have a meaning. But what is this thing, this meaning? What is the meaning of a sentence?
How can we answer this question? The first step is to notice that "meaning", as it is used in the question, suggests that we are looking for some type of thing. But where and how do we look for this thing? You can't touch it or see it, so empirical methods would appear to be useless. You might say: "Yes, I can't see it, but I know when it is there and I know when it isn't, even if this knowledge isn't observational." This response yields a hint: perhaps if we approached meaning from the perspective of our knowledge, we might be able to get a foothold. In particular, if we found something that (a) if we know it, we know a meaning, and (b) if we know a meaning, we know it, then we might discover a way of analyzing meaning. We will begin (and end) our search for this thing by examining truth conditions.
II. Truth Conditions
The truth condition of a sentence is the condition of the world under which it is true. This condition must be such that if it obtains, the sentence is true, and if it doesn't obtain, the sentence is false.
Now, whether a sentence is true or false in a given circumstance will depend on its parts. For instance, the sentence, "Snow is white," depends for its truth on snow and the property of being white. For it to be true, these things must be related in the right way; if they are not, then the sentence is false. Thus, the truth condition of a given sentence S will consist in a relation between the things in the world that correspond to the parts of S. This is often expressed in the following way:
"Snow is white" is true if and only if (or just in case) snow is white.
This seems like a platitude, but it really isn't. The first part of the sentence, "Snow is white", is a name, in this case, the name of a sentence. Thus, the sentence could be rewritten:
S is true if and only if snow is white.
This looks much less trivial. The part of the sentence on the right of the "if and only if" specifies the condition of the world that must obtain for the sentence named by the quote to be true. — Philosophy 202 - Meaning and Truth Conditions
Let's consider, for example, this excerpt from a poem by Grenfell:
Those ancient Jew boys went like stinks,
They knew not reck nor fear,
Old Noah knocked the first two jinks,
And Nimrod got the spear.
And ever since those times of yore
True men do ride the fighting boar.
The last line here contains two verbs—do and ride—and I know that do here is used to make the phrase emphatic.
What I'm curious about is the underlying logic of such emphatic constructions. As a non-native speaker, I find it difficult to see how it makes any sense to use a transitive verb, do, right before another verb, ride. How can a verb be an object? Or should I see ride here as a noun rather than a verb?
My question: What exactly is the logic of using do to make phrases emphatic? — The Grammatical Logic of Emphatic Phrases
One thing that should be obvious from my approach is that I don't think there'd be a general answer for all languages, given that poetic meaning -- as I've been rendering it thus far at least -- includes phonic structure. — Moliere
So the question would be about, first, what is a reasonable delimitation on generality such that it's still interesting, and not just a set of rules for interpreting a sonnet? — Moliere
That's what form does for us, in a way -- it tells us exactly how many phrases a poem will have, and some of its internal structure. In a way poetic form is a logic for answering the question "What constitutes a phrase?" -- and the modern poets basically assert that such formalities are not necessary to convey meaning (thus making it much harder to answer the original question, but taking us back to the original impetus -- the feeling of poetry) — Moliere
What kind of a phrase?
https://natureofwriting.com/courses/sentence-structure/lessons/phrases/topic/phrases/ — Amity
What kind of a string? Examples?
What is left where... in a poem? What is a 'truth-condition'? Why would a poem need one? — Amity
I struggle to understand what is at issue. Even after I read the following: — Amity
Another kind of logic question, grammatical: — Amity
Nothing is obvious to me, perhaps I missed it. If you could explain again, I'd be grateful. — Amity
What do you mean by 'reasonable delimitation on generality'? — Amity
What are the 'rules for interpreting a sonnet'?
What is the importance of this question, in any case, when it comes to understanding meaning?
Wouldn't looking at the content be just as helpful? — Amity
Again, do you have a source for your claim about 'modern poets' - who are they and where do they assert that 'formalities are not necessary to convey meaning? — Amity
A poem might initially be 'felt' by a simple read; not fully engaging the mental faculties.
However, to reach any obscure or symbolic meaning requires us to go beyond.
To read again. With care. To connect with our own 'truths'. — Amity
Hopefully any of those, and more, given that poems tend to invent their own phrase kinds. — Moliere
is it possible to devise a relationship between a string and how many phrases are in a string — Moliere
What kind of a string? Examples?
Well, for now, I just mean a set of characters with some kind of single-dimensional direction that has a place where it begins and a place where it ends -- speaking more formally, basically. When I'm speaking as abstractly at the level of "strings" I'm kind of coming at the question "from the other side" of feeling -- attempting to put down abstract theories that provide clarity. — Moliere
[...] But one of the things I'm trying to do is focus on the bits of language that truth-conditional semantics doesn't. So poetry, and its evaluation, as SrapTasmaner pointed out earlier, is a concrete topic under which we might come up with distinctions to figure out what this "left over" is -- if we think there's more to meaning that the truth of statements at least. — Moliere
This thread might provide a better opportunity for discussing the subjective and objective [...]
The interpretation of a work of art is a good test case in part because, as I think Dawnstorm suggested, there's stuff in there the artist didn't put in deliberately. But it is, objectively, there. Some stuff you find only if you bring it with you, so subjective.
There's also the peculiarity that what's not there, might not be there on purpose, which happens with expression not intended as art too, but plays out differently with art. There are various ways this is done for various purposes with various effects. Always cases. Since it's not there, but the place for it is, this is particularly interesting spot for addressing the objectivity and subjectivity of interpretation. — Srap Tasmaner
I think that the approach which prefers to talk about meaning in terms of a Language "L", such that we're speaking about language in the abstract rather than a particular natural language (like German or English or..), would say that the actual sound of a given unit of meaning is not important. But the phonic structure of a poem is part and parcell to poetry, even when it's not one of the forms. — Moliere
What are the 'rules for interpreting a sonnet'?
Iambic pentameter, 3 stanzas. Rhymes as follows: ABAB, CDCD, EE — Moliere
(also itself not necessary for providing an actual interpretation of a poem, which I've agreed is more about feeling and sharing and connecting than this attempt at making something formal) — Moliere
Poets frequently complain about the impossibility of translating poetry. And one of the main complaints in translating poetry is exactly the phonic structure of the poem, and the relations that invokes within the spoken language. — Moliere
[my bolds][...] One of the features that makes poetry even more special is to be found on a “deeper” level. The thing about poetry is that it manages to explore the author’s feelings and express them in such an overpowering way, that it does so with a twist.
The trademark of poetry, in fact, is that it resonates with the reader’s feelings too. And even if unable to fully appreciate the intricate meanings and messages hidden in a certain use of words, readers’ emotions are triggered by a simple word or rhyme, or even by the associations made by their own imagination. — Creative Translation
Do you see why, then, poetry serves as a good contrast case for truth-conditions to explore the nature of meaning? — Moliere
Iambic pentameter, 3 stanzas. Rhymes as follows: ABAB, CDCD, EE — Moliere
So again, a clear-cut example of what your first sentence means would be helpful.
Clarity is necessary for understanding. How will unclear abstract theories provide this? — Amity
So yes, of course, there is always a combination of subjectivity and objectivity in any text; poem or art.
The 'subjective' is not 'left over'. — Amity
I appreciate all the time and energy spent in responding to my queries. — Amity
What are the 'rules for interpreting a sonnet'?
Iambic pentameter, 3 stanzas. Rhymes as follows: ABAB, CDCD, EE — Moliere
Shakespearean sonnets are broken into 4 sections, called quatrains.
They maintain a strict rhyme scheme:
ABAB // CDCD // EFEF // GG
The sonnet must have 14 lines.
Each line has 10 syllables.
Each line usually rhymes using the following syllable pattern:
soft-LOUD-soft-LOUD-soft-LOUD-soft-LOUD-soft-LOUD
Sonnets often describe a problem and solution, or question and answer.
The transition from problem to solution (or question to answer) is called the volta (turn). — Sonnet Rules and Rhyme Scheme
Trying to make it obvious here how the structure of a poem shapes its meaning. — Srap Tasmaner
I hate sonnets. To me, all sonnets day the same thing. — WCW
I appreciate everything you've contributed, and definitely do not want to lose that feeling of poetry, or the interpretation of poetry, in the wacky thoughts. — Moliere
I have eaten
the plums
that were in
the icebox
and which
you were probably
saving
for breakfast
Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so cold
Love him. — Moliere
I went to look at his page on Poetry Foundation and didn't like any of the poems they had on offer as much as This is Just To Say:
I have eaten
the plums
that were in
the icebox
and which
you were probably
saving
for breakfast
Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so cold — Moliere
Is that still a poem? If not, what made Williams' version one? The pauses at the end of each line? The way it flowed differently? The way it looks? What about the stanzas? Were the breaks between them just for visual purposes. — T Clark
I like it too, and I it made me ask myself something. If I wrote "I have eaten the plums that were in the icebox and which you were probably saving for breakfast. Forgive me. They were delicious, so sweet and so cold."
Is that still a poem? If not, what made Williams' version one? The pauses at the end of each line? The way it flowed differently? The way it looks? What about the stanzas? Were the breaks between them just for visual purposes. — T Clark
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.