[Milton-L] Let me not

[richard strier]

The question, as I see it, is not whether meter has a relation to meaning but how 
this relation is to be understood.

I believe that Mr. Gillum already asked what this "nominalism" consists of, and 
why the position that meter should be performed should be called that.  Please 
do clarify.

---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:19:59 -0400
>From: James Rovira <jamesrovira at gmail.com>  
>Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Let me not  
>To: John Milton Discussion List <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>
>   I think that any consideration of meter apart from
>   possible ramifications upon meaning is a defective
>   one.  However, the relationship between metrical
>   beat and conceptual stress is not the only way that
>   meter and meaning interact.  An interogative is
>   necessarily pronounced differently than a
>   declarative or an exclamatory, the presence of
>   expletives can affect metrical stress, etc.  I am
>   not saying that meter impacts meaning in all
>   sentences, of course, or even in most.  But, it
>   does and can.  But, again, perhaps I am too much of
>   a nominalist and think that meter should be
>   reflected in how we pronounce lines. 
>    
>   Jim
>    
>
>       Again, I think Gillum is right.  # 1 is
>       certainly the version that makes most
>       metrical sense.
>
>       I'm not sure that I understand what meter
>       producing "a patently wrong-headed
>       or spurious meaning" means.  Meter, as I
>       understand it, should NOT be
>       determined by meaning.
>________________
>_______________________________________________
>Milton-L mailing list
>Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
>Manage your list membership and access list archives at 
http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
>
>Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/