inversions in poetry

[abu nuwas]

It rather seems as though there is a hazy consensus that inversion is always bad, wrong, and with no place in poetry. Except maybe sometimes, if it can be justified, and comes with a certificate from the Muses' Guild.

The discussion precisely mirrors those about rhyme: expression is forced, because of the need to find a rhyme. What justification can rhyme have? How, in exact terms, does it improve understanding or meaning? We do not speak that way; it is ridiculous to hope someone will read rhymed poetry without finding it awkward; they will be forever conscious of it, and looking for it. Away with rhyme. While we are at it, is not metre a bit soppy? How does that help with meaning and understanding. Give me just one single example of how metre improved meaning over the last 2000 years. Just one.

And for God's sake, make no effort to write in a poetic way. Just because it poetry, does not give you free rein to depart from the rules of sound, solid, prose. Even that is often too loose: I recommend reading Capablanca v Alekhine in the famous 1927 tournament. There you will find sensible, plain language. That is the way to go: chess notation.

Some of the simpler souls may be wondering just where inversion begins and ends. When withdrawing the poetic licence, it seems only fair to state, in good plain terms, just what is involved. No-one wants to be sneered at, and, it now seems, if they post here, knowing the views of the Pigists, they will either not post, or post so as to demonstrate that they have learnt. How about this little snippet from John Hegley's 'Glad to wear Glasses' book?:

'you're even thicker than your glasses
less of that Rowena I commanded
don't you ever talk about my glasses like that again
ALRIGHT I said
but she'd already gone
I never saw her go though


(I never had my glasses on)'

Do 'I commanded' and 'I said' count? or somewhere he has 'said Rowena? Legal or no?

How about 'In No Strange Land'?

http://www.poemhunter.com/best-poems/fra...ange-land/

I mean, we must forgive him his silly 'thou's -- but that first verse? Why not just 'We view thee (o) world invisible? WTF is gained by reversing it? Anyone know? It is bang out of order, of course --isn't it?

Bed calls. Happy days and nights all. Even Mr Erthona-Hyde

rather than go off on crazy tangents about all the other poetic devices (actual poetic devices) that have nothing to do with inversion, why not just say what you think works so well about inversion that modern writers should start adding it to all of their poems.

Perhaps inversion would be more palatable to the plain-language club, were it called by its other name: anastrophe. There! Feeling better? Anastrophe -- rolls around the tongue doesn't it? And -Greek terminology always has that extra appeal.

Of course, there may be some churlish souls who, having invested so much in preaching against inversion, they will never come round. They like real poetic devices, like anaphora. Or do they? If anastrophe is no good, perhaps that is old hat too? Old-fashioned, not of the moment, uncool. Perhaps it may have been useful for Churchill and fighting on the beaches, and fighting on hill-sides and all -but in our brave new world? I shall send off for a correspondence course:' Poetic Devices in 10 Easy Lessons!' They'll tell me what good and what currently unfashionable.

Now, Milo, I am wandering again. You asked a simple, plain man's question.

''What works so well that modern writers should use inversion/anastrophe.'' I paraphrase.

Ask yourself the purpose of any other poetic device, so-called. Tricks or knacks perhaps as god terms. Rhyme, say. Why, it can add to the sound of the poem, pure and simple. More, it can enable the writer, by using the rhyme, to point the reader in an unexpected place, and give emphasis to a particular locution, or word. In that way, the poet wins against the belaboured plain-speaker: he can by emphasising words through rhyme, open new avenues of thought in the reader. The corollary, of course, is that he can get the reader to gloss over some words which may be necessary because language demands them, but whose meaning is not much wanted at the fore.

That is what anastrophe does, that is why modern writers should seek to acquire the skill to use it. Metre is improved by it;it is all good.

Now it's your turn to say what is, or is not, anastrophe, as there is a deal of confusion. Or play through Capablanca's losing game.

---

I would love to see a single example to back up this claim. i could provide 100 that show the opposite on this forum alone but if you could just provide a single example of inversion used effectively in the last 100 years i would love to read it.

Well, before I refer you to the stanzas from my poem Youth again, I think we need to establish whether it is an inversion to put an adjective after a noun. It's correct to put adverbs after verbs, but I think (though I may be wrong) that it is generally considered incorrect to put an adjective after a noun.

In the stanzas I quoted above, I wrote "Of youth's trail vanishing". The person who critiqued it suggested that I make that "Of youth's vanishing trail". But again, perhaps that isn't the best example. I'm tempted to post a poem I recently finished in which I invert a verb and subject, a poem which contains those lines above that Billy called "gibberish". (They aren't gibberish when you read the whole poem.) Of course, you may not want to have to read a poem of mine in order to get my point, and you might disagree anyway. I'll look for such an instance in a famous poem and post it here.

It all comes down to personal preference. Your preference doesn't prove your point, and my preference doesn't prove my point.

==========

What the hell. I went ahead and posted my poem My Heat in the Mild Critique section. There is a subject/verb inversion in the third stanza.

stop it with your poetry, this is a discussion not a showcase. and i'm allowed to think those lines are gibberish, as you put them up they stood, i'm not physic. use someone elses poetry. have a look through the site and post a few inverted lines. better yet post so inverted lines from a well known poet.

i'm sorry sorry sorry but i just see most of the argument for inversion as out and out bullshit. i see people calling it a poetic device, i see people saying think "if the consensus of people say inversion is wrong ...sis it really wrong" well yes that what everyone except those who use it agree on. they agree that it's shite poetry. and in all honest i'd never use one my my poems to prove a point about poetry apart from showing it as an example of shite poetry. you put a piece of poetry of yours up calab and your putting it up for discussion. it would not bode too well. i've read a few of yours and i can't say i'd use them as examples of good poetry [you brought it up, i'm just replying to you]

if you invert the odds are your poetry will not be of a good quality. inversion is not a poetic device it is an aberration for which poets who use it should be flayed. you will not brain wash me abu

I shall brainwash you, Billy. It stands like this with you: inversion is bad > mysteriously, poems with inversion in them are bad. It is very judgmental. You should judge --but should you not try to make a poem the best that that can be --not the plain, prose-like thing you might prefer?

PS I know no ad hominem and all, but who is this prick?

[Erthona]

He's on your side abu. I thought anastrophe was a rhetorical device, not a poetic one.

Shouldn't that be "this prick who is"?

[ellajam]

---

I wrote my last post 35 minutes ago and I haven't been banned yet. I INSIST ON BEING BANNED -- WHAT'S TAKING YOU SO LONG? AND THIS TIME I WANT TO BE BANNED FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE!

---

I want to fit in here, so I'm learning the goose step.

I never understand why someone provokes or requests a ban. If I don't like a site I don't go there, it's not like they've moved next door.

OT, if it's pointed out that I've inverted often or on a pivotal line I try to make changes. If I've inverted for a rhyme I love I'll leave it and hope that for most readers it will slide, a chosen trade off; but I don't always realize they're there so I appreciate a heads up. Same with meter, sometimes what I hear isn't what others (the rest of the world ) hear, that's what I'm doing on a workshop site.

[ChristopherSea]

Banning is for those who insist on breaking rules or are malicious to others, as well as for those who are trolling for trouble. Disagreement, debate or alternate viewpoints should be encouraged and not punished.

[milo]

Perhaps inversion would be more palatable to the plain-language club, were it called by its other name: anastrophe. There! Feeling better? Anastrophe -- rolls around the tongue doesn't it? And -Greek terminology always has that extra appeal.

Of course, there may be some churlish souls who, having invested so much in preaching against inversion, they will never come round. They like real poetic devices, like anaphora. Or do they? If anastrophe is no good, perhaps that is old hat too? Old-fashioned, not of the moment, uncool. Perhaps it may have been useful for Churchill and fighting on the beaches, and fighting on hill-sides and all -but in our brave new world? I shall send off for a correspondence course:' Poetic Devices in 10 Easy Lessons!' They'll tell me what good and what currently unfashionable.

none of this explains why you are such a fan of inversion, what you think it adds to poetry or why poets should consider adding it to their next poem. It is actually a pointless and churlish non-sequiter

Now, Milo, I am wandering again. You asked a simple, plain man's question.

''What works so well that modern writers should use inversion/anastrophe.'' I paraphrase.

Ask yourself the purpose of any other poetic device, so-called. Tricks or knacks perhaps as god terms. Rhyme, say. Why, it can add to the sound of the poem, pure and simple. More, it can enable the writer, by using the rhyme, to point the reader in an unexpected place, and give emphasis to a particular locution, or word. In that way, the poet wins against the belaboured plain-speaker: he can by emphasising words through rhyme, open new avenues of thought in the reader. The corollary, of course, is that he can get the reader to gloss over some words which may be necessary because language demands them, but whose meaning is not much wanted at the fore.

That is what anastrophe does, that is why modern writers should seek to acquire the skill to use it. Metre is improved by it;it is all good.

rhyme is a poetic tool that is different from inversion (as is meter) if you would like to discuss the effects and usage of rhyme I am more than happy to start another thread.

Metre is not improved by inversion, some poets invert when they cannot effectively write in meter without doing so but good meter can be written quite easily without ever inverting.

---

stop it with your poetry, this is a discussion not a showcase. and i'm allowed to think those lines are gibberish, as you put them up they stood, i'm not physic. use someone elses poetry. have a look through the site and post a few inverted lines. better yet post so inverted lines from a well known poet.

i'm sorry sorry sorry but i just see most of the argument for inversion as out and out bullshit. i see people calling it a poetic device, i see people saying think "if the consensus of people say inversion is wrong ...sis it really wrong" well yes that what everyone except those who use it agree on. they agree that it's shite poetry. and in all honest i'd never use one my my poems to prove a point about poetry apart from showing it as an example of shite poetry. you put a piece of poetry of yours up calab and your putting it up for discussion. it would not bode too well. i've read a few of yours and i can't say i'd use them as examples of good poetry [you brought it up, i'm just replying to you]

if you invert the odds are your poetry will not be of a good quality. inversion is not a poetic device it is an aberration for which poets who use it should be flayed. you will not brain wash me abu

So Billy, tell me, are you really in charge of this place? This is your forum? Is that really possible?

Half the time your rants make you sound like you're drunk.

I use examples from my own poetry because I'm familiar with my poetry. I spent time struggling with whether I should leave that inversion in my poem, so I was ready to give it as an example. And by the way, "My Heat" is a good poem -- I'm sorry you can't recognize that.

Also, a poetry forum like this IS a showcase for people's poems. I mean, a forum like this is where people come to show other people what they are working on.

The moderators on this forum are chronically hostile and patronizing. I'm getting really tired of it. You pretty much have to be a masochist to participate here.

---

I wrote my last post 35 minutes ago and I haven't been banned yet. I INSIST ON BEING BANNED -- WHAT'S TAKING YOU SO LONG? AND THIS TIME I WANT TO BE BANNED FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE!

this is unacceptable behaviour in the discussion forums. If you insist on petulantly stamping your feet take it to the pig's arse.

/mod

[abu nuwas]

He's on your side abu. I thought anastrophe was a rhetorical device, not a poetic one.

Shouldn't that be "this prick who is"?

Dale, old fruit, no-one is on my side, ever. I am unique, others may limp in base imitation after me, but cannot be on my side. I may not be on the same side to-morrow.

You have, or your hateful doppelganger has, caused me a good deal of difficulty. Not to do with this rather open-and-shut case, but because of a remark or two you made earlier, regarding English poets trying to impress after the Conquest, to appear like their French counterparts.

This has involved me first in turning over little bits of French poetry in my head, without much luck, then a Spanish poem or two, of the Renaissance, then early French verse, in the form of Marie de France, who is thought to have been in England, then Caedmon, in Anglo-Saxon, then Mediaeval Latin poetry.

I find that the Romance languages have no strong tradition of anastrophe, although it does depend very much on how one defines it. In many cases it would be absurd. Lope de Vega has a line in 'Fuenteovejuna' like this

'Sacad esa blanca espada que habéis de hacer, peleando, tan roja como la cruz' which is, word for word:

'Take this white sword which you have to make (by) killing, as red as the Cross' You could change it round to go ' This white sword take it, and then alter the rest.

One can find a possible thread in the later Latin which is far removed from the elegance and style and grammatical convention of Cicero and Catullus, as can be imagined, in works such as the 'Planctus' for the late Charlemagne. This is said to be accented, (and as I read it, I kept getting the 'Ode to Joy' running through my head). Obviously, Latin retained its ability to stick the verb at the end, and to some people, it must have seemed v natural --Germans! Yes, surely you have it the wrong way about. Modern German has verbs at the end of a clause, willy-nilly, and so did Anglo-Saxon (see very first lines of 'Beowulf') The Anglo--Norman poets of the day may well have got extra bags of sweeties for producing this sort of thing, but it is wrong to think of the Normans as French; they weren't. In fact, in those early days, even the French weren't v French. Their Frankish origins took a long time to fade, and the language is still full of Germanic words. But Marie de France perhaps gives an idea of the times herself: her 'Lais' were quickly put into Icelandic. So you see, whichever way you look at it, you are wrong.

But, I hear Erthona expostulating, what has this to do with now? Well, not much, perhaps -- and perhaps everything. How so, say you.

Our language was not created yesterday. It is full of references and expressions which come from our ancestors, from Shakespeare and his chums, from the KJV, nursery-rhymes, from proverbs and other sayings, all without reading a line. It is there in oral speech. Uneducated folk for whom English is a first language do not find inversion to be some kind of snobbish trick foisted upon them, they find it somehow appealing, soothing, and -however dire you may think their efforts -- when there is some tragedy, and the unlettered decide to write this is what they do, and what they expect. There is, it seems, a deeper tradition which is not easily stifled by the curious interests of English Professors and literati. Milo is right to ponder the why of it all. Yes, it is taste, in the way I like, but cannot justify, a decent bit of cheese-cake. Nothing to do with nutrition or survival -I just like it. But why write it, thinks Milo, good fellow that he is, like one of those Japanese soldiers sticking to his post to the last. I ran across this:

''In the end, Houston points to "the effort to make language more memorable by deviation from spoken habits."3 This is the essence of poetry: a heightening of language (even colloquial) above that of prose, a heightening that produces an idealized, imaginative conception of the subject.'' You will all agree, I know, that this applies as much to rhyme, and other dodges, as it does to anastrophe.

Now, if you, or Milo or Leanne or Chris or Ella (girl comes last) care to tell me to STFU, I shall. It comes naturally. Billy even. Can you tell Milo? I'm a bit frightened of him; he's even worse than Leanne. I didn't like to tell him that the expression is 'non sequitur'. So... I've left a few things to find...

[Leanne]

Ed, you haven't been paying attention to anything I've said. I NEVER flat out state that any technique, device, syntactical anomaly or utter weirdness is ALWAYS wrong. There are no absolutes. My contention is simply that inversion is often a trick used by amateur poets who think that it's necessary to alter word order to shoehorn a line into the correct meter and rhyme, or to make it sound "more like Shakespeare". You will find -- very occasionally -- inversions in my own lines for the precise reason that you state: to promote a word for the sake of meaning. However, I will also strongly second Milo's statement that good meter can always be written without any recourse to yodafication. Contrary to some opinions, writing in perfect meter is not the sign of an amateur poet but an indication of a poet's natural tendency to write in perfect meter, nothing more. Whether that meter also equals perfect scansion is always going to be debatable, because scansion experts never agree on anything and will argue over shades of grey until their teeth fall out. This keeps scansion experts happy, and also keeps poets happy, as it means that those who are excessively anal about scansion aren't writing poetry to make our eyes bleed.

Knowing about feet isn't the same thing as using them. Those with the most facility will know all the rules well enough to break them without it seeming unnatural.

[shemthepenman]

Ed, you haven't been paying attention to anything I've said. I NEVER flat out state that any technique, device, syntactical anomaly or utter weirdness is ALWAYS wrong. There are no absolutes. My contention is simply that inversion is often a trick used by amateur poets who think that it's necessary to alter word order to shoehorn a line into the correct meter and rhyme, or to make it sound "more like Shakespeare". You will find -- very occasionally -- inversions in my own lines for the precise reason that you state: to promote a word for the sake of meaning. However, I will also strongly second Milo's statement that good meter can always be written without any recourse to yodafication. Contrary to some opinions, writing in perfect meter is not the sign of an amateur poet but an indication of a poet's natural tendency to write in perfect meter, nothing more. Whether that meter also equals perfect scansion is always going to be debatable, because scansion experts never agree on anything and will argue over shades of grey until their teeth fall out. This keeps scansion experts happy, and also keeps poets happy, as it means that those who are excessively anal about scansion aren't writing poetry to make our eyes bleed.

Knowing about feet isn't the same thing as using them. Those with the most facility will know all the rules well enough to break them without it seeming unnatural.

precisely.

[abu nuwas]

I have, I have! And you are consistent in this with your views generally. When I draw the comparison with other devices, it is merely that I think that what goes for this goes also for rhyme, or anything, and your criticisms along with it. I find it bad that people have come to train their ear to look for it, and be offended, which I think is what Billy was saying. That seems like learning that haute cuisine is good, and fish and chips is bad -something is lost.

Much evidently hangs on the reader's hinterland. If brought up with much sing-song, or ballads or Romantic or Victorian verse --actually much later - it will not grate to hear these inversions. Other people, who have a different back-ground, will detest; I don't think that trying to please everyone would be much good, but perhaps I shall have a go at pleasing someone -me, for example.

[Leanne]

Pleasing yourself will make you go blind, you know.

Inversions, like any other deviations from the status quo, don't bother me per se, but inversion for no discernible purpose other than to twist things about and sound all superpoetically fantabulous is as irritating as finding a bandaid in your fish and chips.

[abu nuwas]

I shall eat carrots while 'writing'. You do produce some revolting images -I suppose you are preparing to travel to places no-one visits for knife-and-fork reasons. Where ordering tea produces just that -cup of black tea, no saucer.

I admire people who make poems sound nice. To do that, they must tinker a little with their initial thoughts, to make it happen --inversion or no.


'A Mind's Journey to Diss



Dear Mary,
Yes, it will be bliss
To go with you by train to Diss,
Your walking shoes upon your feet;
We'll meet, my sweet, at Liverpool Street.
That levellers we may be reckoned
Perhaps we'd better travel second;
Or, lest reporters on us burst,
Perhaps we'd better travel first'

Betjeman

[Erthona]

Sorry Ed, but you are incorrect. Grammarians had for the longest time been trying to shoehorn English into Latin grammar because they thought English was a Romance language. Of course now we know differently, that English is a Germanic language. This was due in large part to the fact that 60% of English words were derivative of the Old French, which wasn't much more than a dialect of Latin at the time of the Norman invasion in 1066.

"The Norman conquest of England in the 11th century gave rise to heavy borrowings from Norman French, and vocabulary and spelling conventions began to give the appearance of a close relationship with those of Latin-derived Romance languages (though English is not a Romance language itself)."

Baugh, Albert C. and Cable, Thomas (1978). "Latin Influences on Old English". An excerpt from Foreign Influences on Old English. Retrieved 5 September 2010.

There is a nice little article here English Language Wiki

That is a lot easier to read than me having to pull out my text from two semesters of "The History of the English Language", in which I was forced to learn Old English enough to recite and interpret "Beowulf" and enough Middle English to do the same with Chaucer's the "Canterbury Tales".

"I find that the Romance languages have no strong tradition of anastrophe"

Well of course not, why should they. I never said that the Latin speaking poets reversed syntax in their language, I said that the influence of the courts which spoke Old French influenced English poets to use anastrophe to imitate the court language. This continued for many years as not only was the court French, but also the Church.

Here is the facts of the case. Inversion was practiced in English poetry, we only have to look as far as Shakespeare to prove that. The question then is why? As you have said, such inversion was not practiced in the romance languages, why would it be practiced in English, a Germanic language? The answer is quite simple, it is the same reason English is rife with Old French derived words, and why the German word for the same thing is considered vulgar. This is all due to the influence of the Norman conquest, as well as other Latin influences such as the Church which continued up until the time of Shakespeare. In fact it was not until the Protestant Reformation, that England broke away from the heavy influence of the Latin, or about 500 years. The more absurd stance would be to say that these things had no influence on the English language, and that poetry shows no sign of such impact.

I was in a bit of a hurry writing this, but I have to go pick up my children from school. However, I think you get the gist of what I am saying, so please keep your logical rebuttal to that.

Thank you,

For Erthona, by dale the good

[Caleb Murdock]

It looks like Frost's poem "Mowing" is saving my arse once more. The final line in the poem has an inversion in it:

My long scythe whispered and left the hay to make.

The inversion is not an inversion of subject/verb, but is an inversion of verb (an infinitive) and object, and is clearly contrary to normal syntax. Without the inversion, it would read:

My long scythe whispered and left to make the hay.

Milo, are you going to tell me that this inversion is not poetic? That it doesn't add an interesting dimension to the poem?

[milo]

It looks like Frost's poem "Mowing" is saving my arse once more. The final line in the poem has an inversion in it:

My long scythe whispered and left the hay to make.

The inversion is not an inversion of subject/verb, but is an inversion of verb (an infinitive) and object, and is clearly contrary to normal syntax. Without the inversion, it would read:

My long scythe whispered and left to make the hay.

Milo, are you going to tell me that this inversion is not poetic? That it doesn't add an interesting dimension to the poem?

I am probably going to question your ability to read at this point.

Robert and I had our differences - he called me a hack, I called him a hack, whatever. Still, we both knew that scythes don't make hay.

You, on the other hand, don't seem to realize that scythes don't make hay so you miss the excellent wordplay of my old friend Robert, which is unfortunate.

The scythe left the hay to /create/.

I hope you get the joke at least, btw. Robert and I, when we were in the biz, used to say "make hay when the sun shines"

[Caleb Murdock]

I am probably going to question your ability to read at this point.

Robert and I had our differences - he called me a hack, I called him a hack, whatever. Still, we both knew that scythes don't make hay.

You, on the other hand, don't seem to realize that scythes don't make hay so you miss the excellent wordplay of my old friend Robert, which is unfortunate.

The scythe left the hay to /create/.

I hope you get the joke at least, btw. Robert and I, when we were in the biz, used to say "make hay when the sun shines"

I beg your pardon? To take a line from Billy, it's all gibberish to me.

[billy]

in a word no
in a few words i'm more or less ruled by the consensus of the mods and the members. and yes, i'm often drunk but lets not discuss me

So Billy, tell me, are you really in charge of this place? This is your forum? Is that really possible?

Half the time your rants make you sound like you're drunk.

---

i think i can be quoted as saying i look for it (and if note the) [if] it's bad i say so. i look for it because all to often it's a signe of not so cleaver or good poetry. that said, i'm not the authority on anything, but i don't have to be, i just need a pov

fish and chips are bad. your analogy is as sloppy as most inversions.
bad fish and chips are bad :J:

you use words like offend, if i said it offends me i do openly apologise. in general i see inversion as bad or sloppy poetry. often poets who write like this improve and when they do i get a kick out of the forum. i have stated previously that my favourite poets are newb poets...they really do improve more than the caleb's of the world. well the one's who want to improve via a workshop do

I have, I have! And you are consistent in this with your views generally. When I draw the comparison with other devices, it is merely that I think that what goes for this goes also for rhyme, or anything, and your criticisms along with it. I find it bad that people have come to train their ear to look for it, and be offended, which I think is what Billy was saying. That seems like learning that haute cuisine is good, and fish and chips is bad -something is lost.

Much evidently hangs on the reader's hinterland. If brought up with much sing-song, or ballads or Romantic or Victorian verse --actually much later - it will not grate to hear these inversions. Other people, who have a different back-ground, will detest; I don't think that trying to please everyone would be much good, but perhaps I shall have a go at pleasing someone -me, for example.

---

It looks like Frost's poem "Mowing" is saving my arse once more. The final line in the poem has an inversion in it:

My long scythe whispered and left the hay to make.

The inversion is not an inversion of subject/verb, but is an inversion of verb (an infinitive) and object, and is clearly contrary to normal syntax. Without the inversion, it would read:

My long scythe whispered and left to make the hay.

isn't frost saying,

i won't cut your balls off, i'll let you fuck?

or

i won't cut my own balls off, drop your draws?

the whole poem is full of sexual connotation
why would a gay guy want his arse saved?
anyway, back to frost.

i think you read the whole poem wrong. you read it as though he was actually cutting the hay down. the sonics of the poem are extremely clever
and have a back and forth quality....a bit like fucking

i think you were fucked up by a frost poem old chap.

that said i'm probably talking gibberish

[abu nuwas]

Billy, old bean, I love haute cuisine, and fish and chips, and every type of cooking in between. I object to baristas who think that I ought not to have milk, let alone sugar, because of all the trouble they have gone to, but otherwise - I'm a grub man. God forbid that I ever learn not to enjoy this or that.

As to this inversion thing, you must ask yourself this:

1 Does it grate when you read Romantic poets using this? Can't you stand Keats and co?

2 If you find it acceptable in old poets, then do you need to know the author, or date, to allow you to judge whether it jars or not?

3 If you need info about the author, then do you accept that you no longer just look at the text and get from it what you will?

Turn back, Billy, turn back! This edgy stuff will take you to places undreamt of -- like our poor A-level students who are to study texting, and the lyrics of one Dizzee Rascal! You see? Leave the well-trod straight and narrow, and you are in a wilderness.

[abu nuwas]

Sorry Ed, but you are incorrect. Grammarians had for the longest time been trying to shoehorn English into Latin grammar because they thought English was a Romance language. Of course now we know differently, that English is a Germanic language. This was due in large part to the fact that 60% of English words were derivative of the Old French, which wasn't much more than a dialect of Latin at the time of the Norman invasion in 1066.

"The Norman conquest of England in the 11th century gave rise to heavy borrowings from Norman French, and vocabulary and spelling conventions began to give the appearance of a close relationship with those of Latin-derived Romance languages (though English is not a Romance language itself)."

Baugh, Albert C. and Cable, Thomas (1978). "Latin Influences on Old English". An excerpt from Foreign Influences on Old English. Retrieved 5 September 2010.

There is a nice little article here English Language Wiki

That is a lot easier to read than me having to pull out my text from two semesters of "The History of the English Language", in which I was forced to learn Old English enough to recite and interpret "Beowulf" and enough Middle English to do the same with Chaucer's the "Canterbury Tales".

"I find that the Romance languages have no strong tradition of anastrophe"

Well of course not, why should they. I never said that the Latin speaking poets reversed syntax in their language, I said that the influence of the courts which spoke Old French influenced English poets to use anastrophe to imitate the court language. This continued for many years as not only was the court French, but also the Church.

Here is the facts of the case. Inversion was practiced in English poetry, we only have to look as far as Shakespeare to prove that. The question then is why? As you have said, such inversion was not practiced in the romance languages, why would it be practiced in English, a Germanic language? The answer is quite simple, it is the same reason English is rife with Old French derived words, and why the German word for the same thing is considered vulgar. This is all due to the influence of the Norman conquest, as well as other Latin influences such as the Church which continued up until the time of Shakespeare. In fact it was not until the Protestant Reformation, that England broke away from the heavy influence of the Latin, or about 500 years. The more absurd stance would be to say that these things had no influence on the English language, and that poetry shows no sign of such impact.

I was in a bit of a hurry writing this, but I have to go pick up my children from school. However, I think you get the gist of what I am saying, so please keep your logical rebuttal to that.

Thank you,

For Erthona, by dale the good

Jekyll, my dear old thing, this is really not to be borne a moment longer -although, as Dickens remarked, it is often found that things which cannot be tolerated for one further moment, are often seen to be still in place, three hundred years later. Charles and I had our disagreements, but over that, we were at one. Nevertheless:

1. Of course English and German have common roots. I did not suggest otherwise.
2 I endeavoured to demonstrate that Anglo-Saxon, like German, had verbs at the end of clauses -- the hated anastrophe, but there because that is how those languages worked.
3 Not relevant, but worth noting that Anglo-Saxon itself, as written by the monks, often acquired Latin features, and a glance at a vocabulary will show many words imported from Latin.
4 The Normans were not French, and neither, to a large extent, were the French, at the time of the Conquest. The Teutonic Franks were still recent, and the Gallicisation had a way to proceed. Anglo-Norman did become more properly French as the years passed.
5 Once you accept that the main verb came at the end, in Anglo-Saxon, it matters little what happened with Anglo-Norman. You may however be interested to know that the surviving languages of Northern France and Belgium are heavily laced with Germanic words and speech-patterns. For example, having been brainwashed by my teachers to know that in French one used 'to be' instead of 'to have' with verbs of motion (J'suis allé, Je suis venue, monté, descendu etc), I recall being linguistically shocked when I had a little flat in Boulogne, to hear folk say 'J'ai allé and such, using 'have' after all. The accent in those parts can become v guttural. I take them for a blend of Saxons, Friesians, Franks and Vikings.

I think we may possibly agree, in which case, I apologise for my lack of lucidity and comprehension. I am interested in the idea that a notion of a poetic language' used to create a suspension of belief in the mundane words used, or perhaps to appeal to a kind of ancient language-memory, should endure, not necessarily among writers, but among 'ordinary people', as seems to be the case.

I also wonder whether this inversion really was the language of Coleridge's contemporaries. Certainly it pops up, as it still does (viz 'said he' 'said Rowena') But wasn't he pushing 'the envelope' ?

The sun rose up upon the left
Out of the sea came he!
And he shone bright and on the right
Went down into the sea.

Who would want to deprive him of the opportunities for end-rhymes and internal rhymes which this allows? Or any later Coleridge?

Now do me a favour, and kick that Erthona's fat arse for me!

I fear I have learnt, but I doubt anyone else has. So thanks for being forbearing.

[Brownlie]

This seems like a simple concept that they would teach in a creative writing class. The danger seems to be whether one is trying to sound "poetical" or whether one is creating a line that seems like a forced rhyme.

[billy]

i know by answering you i'm pouring oil on the fire, i also realise you probably know a lot more than i, but i'll answer anyway because i damn well like you sir.

Billy, old bean, I love haute cuisine, and fish and chips, and every type of cooking in between. I object to baristas who think that I ought not to have milk, let alone sugar, because of all the trouble they have gone to, but otherwise - I'm a grub man. God forbid that I ever learn not to enjoy this or that.

As to this inversion thing, you must ask yourself this:

1 Does it grate when you read Romantic poets using this? Can't you stand Keats and co?

not in the slightest, i enjoy most of of the poetry from said period and the poets who write period pieces.

2 If you find it acceptable in old poets, then do you need to know the author, or date, to allow you to judge whether it jars or not?

not in the slightest, i read the poem as a period piece, it's a bit like seeing someone at a rave in 15th century costume, i think "what a silly bastard" were it however being worn to a fancy dress, leanardo convention or a black adder admiration party i'd say "you really look the part"

3 If you need info about the author, then do you accept that you no longer just look at the text and get from it what you will?

this question makes it seem you already answered the previous question for me by proxy doesn't it. how cruel ... i don't need info about an author unless i'm interested in their poetry, if i don't like a poem, i don't check out the author

Turn back, Billy, turn back! This edgy stuff will take you to places undreamt of -- like our poor A-level students who are to study texting, and the lyrics of one Dizzee Rascal! You see? Leave the well-trod straight and narrow, and you are in a wilderness.

at this point i'll quote one of calebs friends;

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair, ...

i do hate texting but it does in it's absurdity (my POV) seem to be becoming a part of the language, as such i'm sure i could'nt dismiss it out of hand should i see it in a poem. i really do try not to dismiss anything in a poem out of hand but openly admit to being fairly uneducated and often uncrafted where poetry is concerned. i have often been usurped by better critics after i have left a comment and realised they were correct and i was not.
i have never proclaimed myself as a great critic or poet and always try to be humble about both, but and this is a big but, i will voice my opinion (as my opinion) i do not like inversion, i used to but not any more. there will be exceptions when i think inversions work but these i'm sure will be rare. in general we are a site of poets who have yet to learn almost any aspect of their craft, this includes me. i'm at the stage where i know a little but not enough. i'm capable of realising this fact, some cannot. some have to be right at the expense of poetry. that's their choice, i will however always do my best to be honest and sincere in my opinion. this is a lot different than defending the indefensible. i respect your claim of liking inversion, not sure i believe you but i do respect it, but have to differ for the reasons i gave.

i really believe that poetry is a craft. we learn the craft, we add to the craft, it is ever evolving and one day inversion may be admired (not by me) by more than a few. i dare say in ten years time all poetry will be textspeak. but the point is this, we need to learn where the breaks are before we start driving a sports car