Poetry Forum

Full Version: Till, We Meet Again
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
some say, til. others ‘til. and still others, till. but, you know, it’s all subjective, un it? language is an organic beast, always changing and evolving, never stopped, always moving on. no one really pays attention to the rules, anyway. we’re all talking gibberish, aren’t we? what was that? i don’t know, you figure it out? glomphy glomphy homfie hoo. 
but, still, till is definitely correct, though, isn’t it. i mean, it just is. in fact, you can throw all the other words out, all of them, from every language ever spoken on planet earth; just throw them all away and replace them with... well, whatever you like, really—old car tires and bottle tops, for all i care—and yet, till will remain the only true objectively correct word in the history of language. actually, its correctness as a word goes beyond language. it’s an a priori truth. it’s a universal truth. it’s a platonic form of whatever the fuck it is. god never said “let there be light” he said “let there be Till!” and he saw that it was not only good, but that it was perfectly correct.
the only, ONLY, reason anyone uses ‘til (or til) after being shown their error, is because of their sheer indignation at being corrected—often people who are invested in language, personally... though rarely professionally. 
i have yet to hear a single valid reason for not using the entirely self-contained word till in favour of the completely pointless abbreviation of the word until. they range from etymological arguments from first causes to the absurd “i just like the sound of ‘til more than till. it’s snappier”.
and to all those arguments i say, suck it up, you’re wrong, you’re wrong, you know you’re wrong, now let’s all move on with our lives.
You're such a city boy.  Till  is what you do to soil. Your demand that it be used as a preposition is harrowing.
[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHlo_N34vuo [/video]
I think the only word that actually is what it is and not just a symbol of what it represents is 'word' ?
(10-29-2017, 06:31 AM)CRNDLSM Wrote: [ -> ]I think the only word that actually is what it is and not just a symbol of what it represents is 'word' ?

that’s funny. but no. 
however, if you haven’t already, i would suggest reading Wittgenstein. and a deleuzian close reading can bend him over and bugger him with sartre’s “sketch for a theory of the emotions” and arrive at the simple salient fact that far from words being symbolic representations of reality, they are a kind of inverted kantian transcendental concept which systematically invents reality. we do not shriek because we are afraid, but rather are afraid because we shriek.
It sounds like every action is an impulse response to external stimulation, and all thoughts leading to said event are merely expressions of collective learned responses having no effect on the reality of the event, and all thoughts and expressions after the event are merely cataloguing New learned responses. Everyone in the world yawns, but how do you yawn in French?