No, I think you misunderstood me, quite possibly because I was unclear. I was saying that I thought that when "e.e. cummings" was the beginning of a sentence, then the first 'e' should not be capitalised. See my next sentence for an example. e.e. cummings was a poet. Not: "E.e. cummings was a poet" or "E.E. cummings was a poet" or "E.E. Cummings was a poet" etc. I was not trying to suggest that said poet began all of his sentences with lower-cased letters, and I believe that the matter has been sufficiently run through in later posts by others.
Chess and Spelling
Sort:
So you're saying e.e. cummings always capitalized all of his sentences then?
bigpoison wrote:
There is an intrinsic value in beauty that serves no practical purpose.
There is also an intrinsic value in beauty which serves no practical purpose.
Jun 17, 2009
0
#45
richie_and_oprah wrote:
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
richie_and_oprah wrote:
Garymossu wrote:
Dr., I am sure i could say the same to you about some things i am familiar with, which you are not.
I doubt very many of those things exist.
Doubtful
Wanna bet in this?
I did not say zero. I said NOT MANY. The phrase "doubt very many of those things exist" does not mean nothing exists. It means not too many of those things exists.
Also, I did not claim that this assertion is applicable to others. For instance, I did not make it a claim about you, despite your efforts to obviosuly do so.
Feel free to post something and see what I am ignorant to.
In todays digital age a person that cannot at least FAKE familiarity with what gender a famous person is crosses the line to become a serious tell of their intellectual philosophies. Not skills. Just philosphy.
This hinges on the definition of many. How many is many? Furthermore, it says nothing of philosophy whether a person knows a specific empirical piece of knowledge, let alone one so trivial as the gender of a supposedly famous person (this ignorance is nevertheless surprising for someone discussing the person in question in any manner which is supposing knowledge of the person in question). To suggest so itself suggests your own lack of understanding of philosophy.
Aha! Got me. Good work TheGrobe.
Jun 17, 2009
0
#47
TheGrobe wrote:
So you're saying e.e. cummings always capitalized all of his sentences then?
I haven't read enough e.e. cummings to know that. Indeed I wasn't suggesting anything about how he wrote; my suggestion was about how he wanted/how it is proper to refer to him at the beginning of a sentence, regardless of who is writing the sentence.
richie_and_oprah wrote:
Any culturally literate person over the age of 13 living in a predominantly English speaking Western Hemisphere country should absolutely be familiar with e.e. cummings.
And Ogden Nash.
The more one tries to hide their ignorance, the more it shows. No one should be ashamed of their ignorances. They should simply enjoy people pointing out their blind spots and sending them in the right direction to get the info to fill in the empty spaces of our knowledge.
I do.
evolve
Do you think I am trying to hide my ignorance?
I didn't think Cummings was worth my time. Not all famous writers are. So I felt you were making assumptions either about me or literature which were unfair.
Surely the only way to determine whether an artist is worth your time is to experience some of their work, no?
Jun 17, 2009
0
#51
TheGrobe wrote:
bigpoison wrote:
There is an intrinsic value in beauty that serves no practical purpose.
There is also an intrinsic value in beauty which serves no practical purpose.
Interesting... these are both ambiguous in exactly the same way.
Well, I read the first to require each instance of beauty to lack practical purpose before it can definitively be said to have value.
The second implies that it is the value itself that serves no practical purpose.
Jun 17, 2009
0
#53
1a. There is [an intrinsic value in beauty] that serves no practical purpose.
1b. There is an intrinsic value in [beauty that serves no practical purpose].
2a. There is also [an intrinsic value in beauty] which serves no practical purpose.
2b. There is also an intrinsic value in [beauty which serves no practical purpose].
All of these interpretations work for me. To paraphrase:
"There is an intrinsic value in beauty, and this value serves no practical purpose." = 1a and 2a.
"Beauty serving no practical purpose, this kind of beauty has an intrinsic value." = 1b and 2b.
onosson wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
bigpoison wrote:
There is an intrinsic value in beauty that serves no practical purpose.
There is also an intrinsic value in beauty which serves no practical purpose.
Interesting... these are both ambiguous in exactly the same way.
Let's clear up the confusion, shall we: The intrinsic value of beauty often serves no practical purpose. Or better yet, I like orchids on accounta they're purty.
The game of Chess is capitalized when one wants to pay respects. Example: "The game of Chess has a long history"
the game of chess is not capitalized when it is not the main focus. Example: "My cousin Joey is a chess player". It is also not capitalized when you are talking about playing a game of chess. Example: "I am playing a game of chess. Do you mind?"
BUT HEY! Who cares!? You can make up your own rules. Maybe spell it in all caps!
CHESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've never read any Cummings >.>
Kupov wrote:
I've never read any Cummings >.>
But you surely know who he is and that he is a he not a she. If you didn't you would be perceived as culturally illiterate by those posting in this forum. You see.
I am not offended by Richie's remarks. I know i may appear that way to some here. Again, I have much knowledge in certain areas, which don't pertain to English/American culture - to which I am sure Richie and others here don't have. I care not at this point to divulge that information at this time however.
onosson wrote:
1a. There is [an intrinsic value in beauty] that serves no practical purpose.
1b. There is an intrinsic value in [beauty that serves no practical purpose].
2a. There is also [an intrinsic value in beauty] which serves no practical purpose.
2b. There is also an intrinsic value in [beauty which serves no practical purpose].
All of these interpretations work for me. To paraphrase:
"There is an intrinsic value in beauty, and this value serves no practical purpose." = 1a and 2a.
"Beauty serving no practical purpose, this kind of beauty has an intrinsic value." = 1b and 2b.
Yes -- I see, although more accurately:
"There are intrinsic values in beauty, and one of these values serves no practical purpose." = 1a
"The instrinsic value in beauty serves no practical purpose" = 2a
"Some beauty serves no practical purpose -- this type of beauty has an intrinsic value" = 1b
I'm not sure 2b is a valid interpretation.
Garymossu wrote:
Kupov wrote:
I've never read any Cummings >.>
But you surely know who he is and that he is a he not a she. If you didn't you would be perceived as culturally illiterate by those posting in this forum. You see.
I am not offended by Richie's remarks. I know i may appear that way to some here. Again, I have much knowledge in certain areas, which don't pertain to English/American culture - to which I am sure Richie and others here don't have. I care not at this point to divulge that information at this time however.
There's nothing wrong with not having read e.e. cummings. There is something wrong with dismissing it outright as a waste of your time without having read it.
I, personally, highly recommend it.
Ozzie seems to be under the misguided impression that Gary is incapable of defending himself.
Interesting - well ok I'm sure he'll come along if he wants to. My bad.