A new path?
Mr Jinx
It's a new path that we trod ... ' from Workingman's Blues.
This line puzzles me because of the tenses employed. The love
described is present tense. And it refers to the loved place as a
'sweet memory' (the place is gone, past tense). The path trodden
(must be Eliot's un-trodden path to the rose garden, surely?) is
described as new (present) but the treading of it is past tense
(trod).
This mixing of tenses has a dislocating effect. One is no longer sure
if the narrator is describing the past or something still available to
him.
Is it possible to have trodden a new path? It may have been new when
it was trodden, I suppose, but can it still be new if the treading
took place in the past? Or was our hero the first to tread it and his
pioneering still stands?
Help !!!!
Mr Jinx
Giuseppe Gazerro
"Mr Jinx" <vernon_...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:fda792f1-b2b8-4651...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
I always frown when I read your posts, as they sound to me more
*speak-to-myself* intermissions than real questions you're interested in
asking us all.
But when they are language-related, I feel my duty giving you my answer.
:)
So, taking into account that I agree with you when you say that Dylan is a
symbolist, so it's ludicrous finding an *exact* meaning to his words (let
alone guessing *what he meant*), in this case the sentence isn't obscure at
all, at least as his use of tenses is concerned.
He's saying the place he LOVES IS a memory and it is a place they HAVE
ALREADY BEEN to, but it IS NOW NEW (because once they did not know it was
(it would be one day) going to be like that (the place he loves best, that
is)
In other words, (as much as I do hate paraphrasing Dylan) it can be
paraphrased (more or less) like this:
*the place where i BELONG is the past; now I KNOW it (I didn't once = it's
new); even though I'VE BEEN there (I trod) so many times*
I think he refers to his songs and his status (do you remember the *I'll
never write another It's alright ma?*), especially considering the line to
follow (the line about wages and foerign competition)
*Oh my God COULD I GET BACK TO THE GOOD OLD DAYS WHERE I WAS and I DIDN'T
KNOW (then) THEY WERE (BUT STILL ARE) THE PLACES I BELONG*
--
beppe
www.giuseppegazerro.com
http://www.youtube.com/GiuseppeGazerro
Mr Jinx
> "Mr Jinx" <vernon__bris...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggionews:fda792f1-b2b8-4651...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
I think what puzzles me most is why not say: 'It WAS a new path that
we trod"? Surely that would have been more straightforward? He, in
fact, says, "it's a new path that we trod" as if the path is still in
existence and still new.
Naturally I am not trying here for some facile interpretation of the
lyrics (I agree that much of Dylan's work is allegory and metaphor and
therefore resists direct literal interpretation). I am just
interested from a linguistic point of view why Dylan (or should we say
Dylan's protagonist - the"working man") is insistent that the path he
trod in the past is still new and present whereas the treading of that
path is an act of history.
Mr Jinx
Giuseppe Gazerro
On Nov 23, 3:32 pm, "Giuseppe Gazerro" <giuseppegaze...@tin.it> wrote:
> "Mr Jinx" <vernon__bris...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel
> messaggionews:fda792f1-b2b8-4651...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
I think what puzzles me most is why not say: 'It WAS a new path that
we trod"? Surely that would have been more straightforward? He, in
fact, says, "it's a new path that we trod" as if the path is still in
existence and still new.
Naturally I am not trying here for some facile interpretation of the
lyrics (I agree that much of Dylan's work is allegory and metaphor and
therefore resists direct literal interpretation). I am just
interested from a linguistic point of view why Dylan (or should we say
Dylan's protagonist - the"working man") is insistent that the path he
trod in the past is still new and present whereas the treading of that
path is an act of history.
Mr Jinx
Just told you:
1. Becuase the path IS NOT new (it's the path he trod, so it's always been
there; in the specific case it's politics and protest; but this is just a
stretch of mine)
2. Because the treading (HIS treading) was in the past, he's not walking
those streets any longer.
(it's alright ma >>>> times they are a-changin >>> *can't write songs like
those any more*)
khematite
> "Mr Jinx" <vernon__bris...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggionews:8eb4a720-eacf-4a7c...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Alternative possibility: tread/trod is evolving linguistically, to
the point where even some educated English speakers aren't quite
certain anymore as to what constitutes the past and present tenses:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000573.html
Trodding, as in Plodding?
In yesterday's New York Times an article on "Now, the search for the
next diva of domesticity" explored the exciting possibilities for
replacements for Martha Stewart, on the assumption that her legal
troubles will cause her to lose her throne. One sentence in the
article began this way: "Others trodding the Stewart path include...."
Trodding? This is an interesting mistake, in part because it obviously
seemed natural enough to slip past the usually stern and vigilant NYT
proofreaders.
The fate of English irregular verbs varies, of course. Lots of them
retain their irregularity -- swear/swore, hide/hid, sleep/slept, go/
went, freeze/froze, and so on. Some have slipped over into regularity;
dream is heading in that direction, with its alternate past tenses
dreamt and dreamed, both of them acceptable in Standard English. Tread
itself falls into this category, according to my Webster's Collegiate
dictionary, which gives a regular past tense form treaded beside the
irregular past tense trod. Occasionally the slippage goes in the
opposite direction: the etymologically expected past tense of wear
would be weared, which existed until Middle English times, but instead
we have Modern Standard English wore -- because of rhyming verbs like
swear/swore, bear/bore, and tear/tore. People make up irregular past
tense forms for fun, like snuck instead of sneaked, and children and
second-language learners often produce irregular past tense forms.
But replacing present-tense tread with trod , as in the NYT article,
is the only example I can think of where a new non-past form has been
based on an irregular past-tense form (though there probably are
others that aren't occurring to me right now). The analogic process
that produced trodding is ordinary enough, and I bet the regular verb
plod played a role: both verbs have to do with walking, and both occur
relatively infrequently, making them likely targets for analogical
remodeling. And they rhyme. At the moment, tread is still the only
Standard English non-past form of this verb; but that could change --
trod might replace it completely in the not too distant future.
Mr Jinx
Thank you for this research, Khematite.
I have lived in England all my life and I have never met a single
person who would used the term 'trod' in the present tense. Dylan's
narrator has many associations which tie him to the past so even if
this racy new usage of the word 'trod' is making into dictionaries now
I doubt whether it would have been appropriate for the person in the
song. Dylan must at least be aware that to use the term 'trod' in
this way will puzzle most people.
I suggested that it was part of a deliberate disorientation he sets
about creating in this song (and on this album). St Herman being set
alongside Alica Keys is a fine example. To my mind the path remains
new and the treading of it is definitely past tense. I find this a
fascinating tension and despite Beppe's attempts to brush it aside or
to limit it to some sort of declaration of latterly enfeebled
songwriting skills I believe there is far more to it than this.
Anyone else got any thoughts?
Mr Jinx
Jumbo
I didn't get what you were on about really, but now Beppe has added
the other pole of the dialectic I think I have some ideas. So *you*
say, the path is mysteriously still new despite the fact they trod it.
Beppe thinks they didn't realise it was new until they'd gained the
perspective of years. (Is that right?)
If we combine these two views we arrive at:
The path is mysteriously new, and, though they knew it was new back
then, in the sense of previously untrodden, they didn't know how
radically new it would turn out to be.
In which case, such radical novelty cannot really be applied to
Dylan's career (except as analogue). Rather, in the context of western
culture, it may relate to Paul's attempts to create Christianity as a
new way of perceiving reality. (I'm parroting that Zizek book I've
just finished, jw.) Christ is both a sweet memory (just a good man
they [the disciples] once k/new), and he has since been turned into a
"new" religion (by Paul, mainly).
Giuseppe Gazerro
.
<I find this a
<fascinating tension and despite Beppe's attempts to brush it aside or
<to limit it to some sort of declaration of latterly enfeebled
<songwriting skills I believe there is far more to it than this.
Vernon, neither an *attempt* nor a *limit(ation)*
Just my opinion, as always.
And, speaking of which:
**************************************************
<I have lived in England all my life and I have never met a single
<person who would USED the term 'trod' in the present tense
***************************************************
That's marvellous.
Call it a perfect example of *contraddiction in terms* or *freudian slip*,
it goes to show how much we can boast off our experience as *fact*
(hope it's not just a typo, it would be cruel)
:)
Mr Jinx
I think this middle path may be the (new) way forward here. Certainly
I do not have the sense that Dylan is confessing about his limited
ability to write songs like It's alright Ma here. That is a young
man's song (full of sound and fury). I think Workingman's Blues #2 is
every bit as eloquent (without the word-torrent).
The notion of the New Path (spiritual path) seems to me far closer to
what Dylan might have on his mind. I can't prove it of course, but
the idea that the path remains new even though it has been trod seems
almost parable like in its poetry.
Mr Jinx
Mr Jinx
> "Mr Jinx" <vernon__bris...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:6448648b-8b1d-4d58-9830-
>
> .
>
> <I find this a
> <fascinating tension and despite Beppe's attempts to brush it aside or
> <to limit it to some sort of declaration of latterly enfeebled
> <songwriting skills I believe there is far more to it than this.
>
> Vernon, neither an *attempt* nor a *limit(ation)*
> Just my opinion, as always.
>
Jumbo has just shown a wider interpretation. I think there may be
more still.
> And, speaking of which:
> **************************************************
> <I have lived in England all my life and I have never met a single
> <person who would USED the term 'trod' in the present tense
> ***************************************************
>
> That's marvellous.
> Call it a perfect example of *contraddiction in terms* or *freudian slip*,
> it goes to show how much we can boast off our experience as *fact*
> (hope it's not just a typo, it would be cruel)
> :)
>
> --
> beppe
>
> www.giuseppegazerro.comhttp://www.youtube.com/GiuseppeGazerro
It was a typo ... a bit like your slip with the word 'contradiction'
and your failure to use a capital letter for 'Freudian'.
Hey, we all make 'em! :-)
Even so if an Englishman is prepared to say he has never in his entire
life with the thousands of people he has spoken to come across the use
of the word 'trod' in the present tense it does at least demonstrate
something. Dylan is using the word oddly. And this in itself is
interesting.
Mr Jinx
Just Walkin'
>
> I didn't get what you were on about really, but now Beppe has added
> the other pole of the dialectic I think I have some ideas. So *you*
> say, the path is mysteriously still new despite the fact they trod it.
> Beppe thinks they didn't realise it was new until they'd gained the
> perspective of years. (Is that right?)
>
> If we combine these two views we arrive at:
>
> The path is mysteriously new, and, though they knew it was new back
> then, in the sense of previously untrodden, they didn't know how
> radically new it would turn out to be.
>
> In which case, such radical novelty cannot really be applied to
> Dylan's career (except as analogue). Rather, in the context of western
> culture, it may relate to Paul's attempts to create Christianity as a
> new way of perceiving reality. (I'm parroting that Zizek book I've
> just finished, jw.) Christ is both a sweet memory (just a good man
> they [the disciples] once k/new), and he has since been turned into a
> "new" religion (by Paul, mainly).
Astute observation.
Perhaps we are talking not about a "new" religion (or "path," if you
will), but returning it to its pre-Romanized, pre-Paulian roots.
That is how what is "old" becomes "new" again; rediscovering the
positive ways in which religion functioned to help people before it
became an instrument of class oppression and social control.
Janice
> I'm curious about the line: 'The place I love best is a sweet memory.
> It's a new path that we trod ... ' from Workingman's Blues.
>
> Is it possible to have trodden a new path? It may have been new when
> it was trodden, I suppose, but can it still be new if the treading
> took place in the past? Or was our hero the first to tread it and his
> pioneering still stands?
They went somewhere together (once upon a time) and it is his favorite
place/time memory now. The place they went was a new concept at that
time... in fact, is still a new concept... but they trod it back
then. They are not there any more, but he does have this sweet
memory.
"Place" does not have to be geographical. They could have traveled
together (trod) -- ie shared -- an intellectual experience, or a new
technology, or a recent discovery. Maybe they were both in a
discussion about the newest string theory or concept of gravity...
Maybe they shared a new type of experimental drug...
The point is the "new path" really is new to the world at this time, a
new paradigm, and perhaps is new in all times because it refers to
intellectual discovery and/or experience that is part of a human
process. If religion is the source, then being "born again" can be
considered a new experience that is always new to whoever experiences
it.
In any case, it's nice to know his feelings for that time and
experience are "sweet," especially in a world where "They say low
wages are a reality / If we want to compete abroad."
Of course, there's always the danger that nothing looks sweet until
it's trod and gone...
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTWmMCliPsU