[solstice suite] we enter dark #1
Wagner Mitchell Family
we enter dark
to find the part
of Her that hides
Acknowledge Her anger
with the child who won't be told
with the self who tries to tell
with the world that tells you how
to think, what to think and when
to think it
Give voice to fears
of intent
of imperfection
of death
Kali, mother of all that is,
that was, that will be
demands Her recognition.
Enter Her cremation ground
burn through dark
into approaching light
Enable rebirth
- Bernadette L. Wagner
12Dec00
rev13Dec00
rev17Dec00
rev20Dec00
--------------------------------------------
Visit the Wagner Mitchell Family on the WWW
http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/mitchb
--------------------------------------------
Jim Standish
> we enter dark
Ah good, a Kali poem.
>
> to find the part
> of Her that hides
Ah, good again. The poor Flame Warrior Grammarian in me has to suppress
himself till he's about to burst and then he most often erupts with some
considerable obnoxiosity. But here's a chance for him to vent in a nice
positive way. I hope everyone notices the correct use of "Her" here;
most would probably write "of She that hides", though how anyone can
write "of She" without thinking "gosh that sounds funny" is beyond me.
Thanks, B. But tell me, why "She that" rather than "She who"? Too many
H sounds in a row?
--
Best, Jim
Wagner Mitchell Family
Thanks, Jim, but I'm confused. Is Her acceptable grammar or not?
As for "who" well, "who" wouldn't go with part "to find the part /
...who hides" just doesn't wash with me.
B-)
Sherrie Lee
Wagner Mitchell Family <wagm...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Jim Standish wrote:
> >
> > Wagner Mitchell Family <wagm...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > we enter dark
> >
> > Ah good, a Kali poem.
> >
> > >
> > > to find the part
> > > of Her that hides
> >
> > Ah, good again. The poor Flame Warrior Grammarian in me has to
suppress
> > himself till he's about to burst and then he most often erupts with
some
> > considerable obnoxiosity. But here's a chance for him to vent in a
nice
> > positive way. I hope everyone notices the correct use of "Her" here;
> > most would probably write "of She that hides", though how anyone can
> > write "of She" without thinking "gosh that sounds funny" is beyond
me.
> >
> > Thanks, B. But tell me, why "She that" rather than "She who"? Too
many
> > H sounds in a row?
>
> Thanks, Jim, but I'm confused. Is Her acceptable grammar or not?
>
> As for "who" well, "who" wouldn't go with part "to find the part /
> ...who hides" just doesn't wash with me.
I learned this one as late as my mid-twenties when I was but a mere
southern high school educated food slinger for programming engineers
who sneered at my gum smacking him and I went to the store ways (just
kidding on the sneered part - had to go with the flow). Her is
acceptable grammar because you used /of/. Think prepositions go /with/
her and him and she and he go without like, "She and he go without sex
for weeks at a time at times." But of course, it would be easier to
say, "They go without sex ..."
As far as who and that. You used that correctly. I tend to exercise
license, however, and when I'm not lazy I'll use parentheses to
indicate awareness of incorrect grammar. There's a method to my mad-ly
ways.
Sherrie (the other day my engineer friend thought my rough dissertation
that'll wind up taking me 10 years to write! *sounded* like a
dissertation ... got to clear it up even though he understood it. He
might even agree with it! yay! ... oh, what the hell, more self-
pats. my grade 16-7 friend says that I am () that close to "getting
it". he's my inspiration for the paper! whooooppppeee!
Sherrie (again. dancing like a poodle -- arff)
> B-)
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Visit the Wagner Mitchell Family on the WWW
>
> http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/mitchb
> --------------------------------------------
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Wagner Mitchell Family
Thanks for the education, Sherrie. Love the poodle-dance, too! Luck on
the paper...
Peter J Ross
"Wagner Mitchell Family" <wagm...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3A4113C7...@sk.sympatico.ca...
>
>
> we enter dark
>
> to find the part
> of Her that hides
>
> Acknowledge Her anger
> with the child who won't be told
> with the self who tries to tell
> with the world that tells you how
> to think, what to think and when
> to think it
>
> Give voice to fears
> of intent
> of imperfection
> of death
>
> Kali, mother of all that is,
> that was, that will be
> demands Her recognition.
>
> Enter Her cremation ground
> burn through dark
> into approaching light
>
> Enable rebirth
>
> - Bernadette L. Wagner
I like this.
There are too many would-be "Grammarians" in this thread. None of them has
noticed that you need a comma after "will be".
PJR (the real thing) :-)
--
"The world is round, so round that the schools of optimism and pessimism
have been arguing from the beginning whether it is the right way up."
G K Chesterton
Wagner Mitchell Family
Nuh-uh. Line break does what the comma would do. Push those rules,
man!
> PJR (the real thing) :-)
>
Just like Coca-Cola?
B-)
Jim Standish
> Thanks, Jim, but I'm confused. Is Her acceptable grammar or not?
Yes! That's what I'm saying! Not only is "Her" acceptable; in this
sentence "She" would _not_ be acceptable. Yet I imagine many if not
most, being too eager to avoid being sneered at, would've written "She".
That's why I'm so pleased with you.
As for "who"/"that", personally I'd prefer "who", but it's your poem and
either one is correct.
Jim Standish
> Nuh-uh. Line break does what the comma would do. Push those rules,
> man!
Well, if that's so, why the comma ending the line above?
Jim Standish
> There are too many would-be "Grammarians" in this thread. None of them has
> noticed that you need a comma after "will be".
Well, yes, I would put a comma there, but I imagine someone could defend
not doing so.