Featured Post

part of the preface

When students only have read a few poems, in exclusively academic contexts, they often approach poetry with what the li...

Saturday, January 31, 2015

Lorca III

Lorca III will be the third part of my Lorca trilogy. You heard it here first.

The first thing I know about it is that it will deal with both poetry and theater. It will differ from the other two in that it will actually be about Lorca, and won't be confined to poetry.

So... a book by Mayhew, about Lorca, his actual works, not just poetry but also theater. Sounds promising. To me at least.

The first idea I have is that it should have a chapter about the "persons of the verb." Just what kind of poetic speakers and interlocutors Lorca has. This is a way of teasing out the relation between lyric and dramatic poetry.

This is the first chapter. I wrote 833 words of notes for this, this morning.

Lógicamente, it would have to have a chapter or two on some dramatic works, and on some performances of dramatic works.

I'd like to bring in Mr. Samuel Beckett at some point.

This is very inchoate thinking. This usage note from my built-in dictionary on my computer might be useful:
Because inchoate means 'just begun and so not fully formed or developed,' a sense of 'disorder' may be implied. But to extend the usage of inchoate to mean 'chaotic, confused, incoherent' (: he speaks in an inchoate manner) is incorrect, although not uncommon. Perhaps even more common are incorrect pronunciations of inchoate, such as |inˈ ch ōt|, which assumes two syllables (rather than three) and a ch sound like that of chair or chosen (rather than a k sound like that of charisma or chorus).







5 comments:

Andrew Shields said...

"incorrect, although not uncommon": show that to Pullum and he'll tear it to bits. (That is, something that is "not uncommon" is a fact of the language, not something "incorrect".)

Jonathan said...

I don't think Pullum would object here. His target is usually mindless peevery, not usage notes of this type. It would depend how common the usage is, right? A "mistake" has to be common enough to merit a note of this type in the first place, but not so common as to be simply an accepted fact of usage. Pullum would decide the case on its own merits, I think.

Anyway, my point was not that something can be chaotic because it's in its early stages, not yet formed, without the stigma of chaos.

Andrew Shields said...

Well, whatever Pullum would say, here's what the MWDEU says: "... the extended use is natural and probably inevitable. ... American dictionaries and at least one British one have already acknowledged this spread of meaning."

Your computer's dictionary is a peever. :-)

Andrew Shields said...

Just came across this:

"He [Baraka] also revealed literary and philosophical substance in it that gave form to my inchoate experience."

I think that's probably the "incorrect, although not uncommon" usage of "inchoate", but it might also be the "correct" usage.

http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/amiri-barakas-life-changing-jazz-writing

Jonathan said...

I think that is the 'correct' usage. It gave form to my experience that was inchoate, in the initial stages of its formation.