Spin like Rybka

[Guest]

Friday's spin

I spun for an illustrated poem just the once and found this gem a sparkling bridge of sighs by jthserra

 

[Guest]

Re: Spin for today.

Panic Agian Panic by neonurotic. He captures the suffocating feeling of a panic attack perfectly here.

Ugh... I remember writing that one after a paricularly baddd panic attack during sleep—those are the worse. Wake up with your heart pounding in your chest. Not all dreams are REMmm.

Thanks for the spin Tess.


- neo


edited because I can

 

[RhymeFairy]

Oh what a chuckle I got outta this. I got it on the 3rd spin.



thank you for your submission
by SeattleRain

Lovin this thread. ~!!

I have went back an had a lil fun
reading these entries. Thank you ...

 

[Rybka]

JCSTREET - kak Dela ? I miss you

pronounce "roobka"

she was in Rostov-on-Don when I was hanging out in moskva and murmansk in the late 80s (murmansk was originally populated by the murmans - before it was taken over by ballistic missile boomers.

tremendous coincidence since I had just posted to this thread for the first time and thought rybka was someone from the long distant past

hmmm

hi rybka--kak dela

I have learned to accept "Reeb-ka" as an acceptable pronunciation, but I do miss Rostov Na Danu. Russians are great people, and very creative. - Has anyone here ever commented on how much easier it is to write (creatively/novely) in English than in almost (?) any other language?

 

[Tzara]

Has anyone here ever commented on how much easier it is to write (creatively/novely) in English than in almost (?) any other language?

That's a very interesting statement, Rybka. I'm not sure I agree with it (in fact, I'm pretty sure I disagree with it), but it's very thought provoking.

It isn't clear whether you mean that it is easier in the sense of "doesn't require as much training or skill to write creatively" or whether you mean English facilitates the ability to say something different or a common thing in an interesting and novel way (i.e., a variation on the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis on linguistic determinism). My guess from your context is you mean the latter.

If it's true--and again I'm not convinced of that--why would it be true? Because there is no equivalent of the Académie française or the Íslensk málstöð that regulate the "official" language (and, which, presumably dampens the natural evolution of the language)? Or, because of the corollary to that--that English grabs new words willy nilly from all world languages, thus enriching its store of words? Flexible word order? Convoluted syntax?

I can see where it would be more difficult to be creative in a language like Esperanto where there are limited nuances to the language--limited human conversational use on which to layer meanings. But I would think all natural languages would have plentiful nuance and ambiguity "built in" to make them wholly suitable for creative work. Perhaps the form of that work might be different (alphabetic languages can do different things from pictographic languages and vice versa), but that doesn't mean it is simpler to be creative in English.

I'm curious now. Why do you think that?

 

[Rybka]

That's a very interesting statement, Rybka. I'm not sure I agree with it (in fact, I'm pretty sure I disagree with it), but it's very thought provoking.

It isn't clear whether you mean that it is easier in the sense of "doesn't require as much training or skill to write creatively" or whether you mean English facilitates the ability to say something different or a common thing in an interesting and novel way (i.e., a variation on the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis on linguistic determinism). My guess from your context is you mean the latter.

If it's true--and again I'm not convinced of that--why would it be true? Because there is no equivalent of the Académie française or the Íslensk málstöð that regulate the "official" language (and, which, presumably dampens the natural evolution of the language)? Or, because of the corollary to that--that English grabs new words willy nilly from all world languages, thus enriching its store of words? Flexible word order? Convoluted syntax?
I can see where it would be more difficult to be creative in a language like Esperanto where there are limited nuances to the language--limited human conversational use on which to layer meanings. But I would think all natural languages would have plentiful nuance and ambiguity "built in" to make them wholly suitable for creative work. Perhaps the form of that work might be different (alphabetic languages can do different things from pictographic languages and vice versa), but that doesn't mean it is simpler to be creative in English.

I'm curious now. Why do you think that?

It has to do with the enrichment/flexibility potential of a language. For instance, try and describe/tell how to build an atomic bomb in an African tribal language. Concepts are limited by language. - Always have been, always will be. You can make old words convey new meanings to a limit, but there Is always a limit!

 

[Tzara]

It has to do with the enrichment/flexibility potential of a language. For instance, try and describe/tell how to build an atomic bomb in an African tribal language. Concepts are limited by language. - Always have been, always will be. You can make old words convey new meanings to a limit, but there Is always a limit!

OK, like I thought, I think: Whorf-Sapir hypothesis/liguistic determinism.

I was in love with that idea at one point when I was younger, but I thought it had been pretty much been clobbered and left for dead by linguistics research. Certainly Steven Pinker and the biopsyscholinguistics crowd seem to think that it is a load of crap.

(I would have thought as well that Wittgenstein's later philosophy would have argued against a linguistic determinist position. But as you particularly know, I am hopelessly ignorant of what Dr. W. was thinking about in his later years.)

Your example--African tribal languages and atomic bombs--is interesting, because it kind of reflects ('cept the wrong way 'round) Whorf's famous example in support of the theory: that the Hopi language makes expression of some of the concepts of 20th century physics simpler and more natural.

And thank you, ah, yoo dear, sweet one! I'm now off reading about Peter Gordon, George Lakoff, and other such stuff I do not really understand but love readin' about anyway.

Language. It's a beautiful thing. Amorphous, ambiguous, difficult to control. But lovely. Yes, lovely.

Give yur dog an extra biscuit, doctor. Merci.

I still, of course, disagree with you. But there is research to be done before I respond, should I respond.

Thanks for making me think. It is the best gift.

Well...

Almost the best, anyway!

 

[annaswirls]

can I eat a poem?

depends on the doctors orders

 

[Tzara]

depends on the doctors orders

Hey!

Nibbling on the sig line is, I think, always suspect.
Besides, it tickles.

So it's not my fault if I...

Oops!



Hey hey hey! Umm, sorry about that. It's, um, natural.

Go reed sum poems.

(not like to change the subject....)