april is the cruellest month*

* ben demiyorum, T.S. Eliot diyor. ama T.S. Eliot vs. ben yarisinda T.S. galip cikti; nisan zalimdi. havalar tuhafti, insanlar bahar havalari gibi guvenilmez ve eserikliydi, en zeybek havasi oynayani ise, suphesiz ki hormonlardi. gule gule nisan: gecen sene agustos'un arkasindan salladigim eli sana da salliyorum.

cut

esas mevzuya geleyim: "april is the cruellest month" -yukarida beni yendiginden bahsettigim T.S. Eliot the waste land'i boyle aciyor: "april is the cruellest month (...) mixing memory and desire." digerlerinde oldugu gibi, waste land de gondermelerle, name-droppinglerle, alintilarla dolu. gondermeleri dipnotlardan incelemek icin: surasi. bir baska (daha detayli) annotated waste land icin ise bu link.

bu satire gibi degil gibi siirde elimizde neler var?

• sembolizm: var. neler? tarot, grail quest, arthurian legend.
• din ve mitoloji? dolu. kelt mitolojisi, incil, upanishadlar, budizm.
• gondermeler: herhalde en buyuk siklikla dante'ye. ama kimi ararsan var: homeros, virgil, ovid, chaucer, shakespeare, st. augustine, baudelaire, etsetera, etsetera.

 ikinci kaynakta, 55. satir icin yazar su notu dusmus:

On his card in the Tarot pack, the Hanged Man is shown hanging from one foot from a T-shaped cross. He symbolizes the self-sacrifice of the fertility god who is killed in order that his resurrection may bring fertility once again to land and people.

Odin: feyizli bir abiniz.

self-sacrifice of the fertility god, okey. fakat BEYLER ODIN!!! 

hanged man'den bahsedip, kendini dokuz gun boyunca yggdrasil'den asarak, yine kendine kurban eden ve kendi mizragiyla bogrunden delinen (tanidik geldi mi?) Odin Alföðr'u unutursam sag elim kurusun (Thomas Stearns, gonderme sadece senin isin mi? yoo dostum. yoo.) ayrica Huginn ve Muninn'den de cekinmiyor degilim. insanin gozunu oyanlar: 1. besledigin karga 2. kuzgun 3. uc yok.

Huginn ve Muninn yahut thought and memory (bende ikincisi yok.)

artik mayis geldigine gore, bir nisan'la daha birlikte, bu yaziyi da kapatiyorum.

"You gave me hyacinths first a year ago;"

"They called me the hyacinth girl."

--Yet when we came back, late, from the hyacinth garden,

Your arms full, and your hair wet, I could not

Speak, and my eyes failed, I was neither

Living nor dead, and I knew nothing,

Looking into the heart of light, the silence. 

Oed' und leer das Meer.

bu kadar anlamli yazmak zorunda degildin Eliot.

Simon Fieldhouse cizimiyle T.S. Eliot aka ZALIM.

shantih shantih shantih!

 

inappropriate grammar rules

"In today's encore excerpt - certain grammatical "rules" that are widely viewed as correct come from the invalid application of grammatical rules from Classical Latin and Greek to the English language by British authors writing hundreds of years ago. Two such "rules"-which have been beautifully and routinely violated by writers from Shakespeare to Hemingway-are the prohibitions against split infinitives and ending a sentence with a preposition:

"The first prohibition against the split infinitive occurs in an 1834 article by an author identified only as 'P.' After that, increasingly over the course of the nineteenth century, a 'rule' banning split infinitives began ricocheting from grammar book to grammar book, until every self-conscious English-speaker 'knew' that to put a word between 'to' and a verb in its infinitive was barbaric.

"The split-infinitive rule may represent mindless prescriptivism's greatest height. It was foreign. (It was almost certainty based on the inability to split infinitives in Latin and Greek, since they consist of one word only.) It had been routinely violated by the great writers in English; one 1931 study found split infinitives in English literature from every century, beginning with the fourteenth-century epic poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, through wrongdoers such as William Tyndale, Oliver Cromwell, Samuel Pepys, Daniel Defoe, John Donne, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Johnson, Edmund Burke, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, and others.

"Rewording split infinitives can introduce ambiguity: 'He failed entirely to comprehend it' can mean he failed entirely, or he comprehended, but not entirely. Only putting 'entirely' between 'to' and 'comprehend' can convey clearly 'he comprehended most, but not all.' True, sentences can be reworded to work around the problem ('He failed to comprehend everything'), but there is no reason to do so. While many prescriptive rules falsely claim to improve readability and clarity, this one is worse, introducing a problem that wasn't there in the first place. Yet as split infinitives in fact became more common in nineteenth-century writing, condemnations of it grew equally strongly. The idea that 'rules' were more important than history, elegance, or actual practice ... held writers and speakers in terror of making them. ...

"Why is it 'wrong' to end a sentence with a preposition? ... Who, upon seeing a cake in the office break room, says, 'For whom is this cake?' instead of 'Who's the cake for?' Where did this rule come from?

"The answer will surprise even most English teachers: John Dryden, the seventeenth-century poet less well known as an early, influential stickler. In a 1672 essay, he criticized his literary predecessor Ben Jonson for writing 'The bodies that these souls were frightened from.' Why the prepositional bee in Dryden's syntactical bonnet? This pseudo-rule probably springs from the same source many others do: the classical languages. Dryden said he liked to compose in Latin and translate into English, as he valued the precision and clarity he believed Latin required of writers. The preposition-final construction is impossible in Latin. Hence: it is impossible in English. Confused by his logic? Linguists remain so to this day. But once Dryden proclaimed the rule, it made its way into the first generation of English usage books roughly a century later and thence into the minds of two hundred years of English teachers and copy editors.

"The rule has no basis in clarity ('Who's that cake for?' is perfectly clear); history (it was made up from whole cloth); literary tradition (Shakespeare, Jane Austen, Samuel Johnson, Lord Byron, Henry Adams, Lewis Carroll, James Joyce, and dozens of other great writers have violated it); or purity (it isn't native to English but probably stolen from Latin; clause-final prepositions exist in English's cousin languages such as Danish and Icelandic). Many people know that the Dryden rule is nonsense. From the great usage-book writer Henry Fowler in the early twentieth century, usage experts began to caution readers to ignore it. The New York Times flouts it. The 'rule' should be put to death, but it may never be. Even those who know it is ridiculous observe it for fear of annoying others."

Author: Robert Lane Greene  
Title: You Are What You Speak
Publisher: Delacorte Press
Date: Copyright 2011 by Robert Lane Greene
Pages: 33-34, 24-25

source: delanceyplace.com