Now let us sport us while we may, / And now, like amorous birds of prey, ... Let us roll all our strength and all / Our sweetness up into one ball, And tear our pleasures with rough strife / Through the iron gates of life: Thus, though we cannot make our sun / Stand still, yet we will make him run.
... Beware! Beware! / His flashing eyes, his floating hair! Weave a circle round him thrice, / And close your eyes with holy dread, For he on honey-dew hath fed, / And drunk the milk of Paradise."
Fill up the glasses and drink once again / To peace on this earth and good will among men.
Let the toast pass, / Drink to the lass, / I'll warrant she'll prove an excuse for the glass. self-YART
Shake your bootie! shake~shake~shake(_|_)~(_\_)~(_/_)~(_|_)shake~shake~shake~(_\_)~(_/_)~(_|_)~(_\_)shake your bootie,~(_\_)~(_/_)~(_|_)~(_\_)shake your bootie, YEAH!
I am going to do something out of the ordinary: quote an entire, lengthy post. It is also an out-of-the-ordinary act that it is my own. And I chose this one, not because of any belief that it's so great, but simply because I remembered writing it, and for this reason knew it should be fairly easy for me to find! It speaks to the point I am trying to make: that I thought we had, by and large, come to an agreement not to be nitpicky about things that are just oversights, and I sincerely hope we can go back to that. Here we go, and thank you for your indulgence.
You-all know what? All of this underscores, heavily, the obvious fact that people are all different. I personally feel that I can't stand arguments--but on the other hand, I can't stand it when people say things that are not correct. SO--if my husband says, for example, that something happened at 3:00 and I say no, 4:00, HIS view of that is that I am arguing with him. So in that sense, we argue about what an argument is! Each person has different "sore spots" and tolerance levels. Some people do not mind being corrected in a very forceful manner; others read more into the slightest hint than was intended. I must reluctantly ackowledge also that sometimes people deliberately try to cause hurt. This is where each individual's ability must stand on its own, and be able to decide: not to respond, to respond in kind, or to respond at a higher level of civility. Sometimes the recipient can be harmed when none was intended. This also presents a choice: whether to let their hurt be known, and in what manner. AND--whether the hurt was intentional or not, if the person causing it knows of the harm, one would hope a non-hurtful explanation and apology would be forthcoming. Sometimes a simple, "Oh, no, that wasn't what I meant at all" can work wonders. There are also times when I have said, "If this upsets you, I'm sorry, but the fact remains that...". I guess my primary concern about arguments arises when there are harsh feelings caused unnecessarily. If there is a possibility of resolution, or near-resolution, I say that it is worth working through hurt feelings in most cases. But arguing on and on about something that is not going to be resolved, ever (ex.--if someone tried to argue that I should get interested in politics!), is to me not only a thorough waste of time and energy that could be better spent elsewhere, but actually detrimental, and should cease as soon as possible. That said, I will add that I agree strongly with Jo, in that it is extremely difficult to interpret a speaker's intentions from printed words alone. The :-) faces can help, but there just aren't the cues we get from seeing/hearing the other. I hope we can all allow for the possibility that we may not be getting the writer's true meaning. I would ask that everyone just do their best at not being antagonistic, and take into consideration the importance/relevance(y?) of each situation. I myself happen to be a good speller, and always notice if something is mis-spelled. But here, I see no point in commenting on this as long as I understand the meaning--I make the decision each time that considering the other's feelings has a higher priority than my discontent. If I see a mis-spelling on a store sign, I tell them. Different setting, different relevance, different response. Peace, y'all! (She said in Atlantan.)
I'm inclined to think that the "Gather ye" construction is probably from OE or ME, akin to the imperative that has survived into modern-day German (Gehen Sie! = Go [you]!). The imperative pronoun has since disappeared from modern English, but it is understood.
As for "ye" meaning "the," sure, that's how the article was spelled when the old thorn (my Mac doesn't seem to want reproduce a thorn ) began to wither away. But I don't think it applies in this poem.
Comments? NicholasW, tsuwm, anyone who has a better handle on this?
not sure if you're being facetious or not, tsuwm, but this makes sense.... "gather you" appears to be an anastrophic imperative, similar to a french construction like gather-you. i don't believe the intended meaning of the line was to tell us to hoard or gather the rosebuds that already belong to us, as would be the translation of "gather your rosebuds", but rather a suggestion that we go out and gather these metaphorical rosebuds from outside sources. hrm, i'm having trouble expressing my thoughts here, but it makes perfect sense to me
but anyhow... are you saying, tsuwm, that if "gather-you rosebuds while you may" is indeed correct, then the insertion of the apostrophes is* incorrect? sounds right to me.
*: [cross-threading] note in this case we use *is* rather than are, because the adjectival phrase "is incorrect" modifies "insertion", not apostrophe.[/cross-threading]
Here's the poem, courtesy of the Poetry Archives. And all the other book anthologies I have offer the same print. I have always seen "Gather ye rose-buds while ye may," but notice that Herrick uses both forms, ye and you, in the final stanza.
TO THE VIRGINS, TO MAKE MUCH OF TIME
by Robert Herrick (1591-1674)
Gather ye rose-buds while ye may: Old Time is still a-flying; And this same flower that smiles to-day, To-morrow will be dying.
The glorious lamp of heaven, the Sun, The higher he's a-getting, The sooner will his race be run, And nearer he's to setting.
That age is best, which is the first, When youth and blood are warmer; But being spent, the worse, and worst Times, still succeed the former.
--Then be not coy, but use your time, And while ye may, go marry; For having lost but once your prime, You may for ever tarry.
AN EPITAPH UPON A VIRGIN
Here a solemn fast we keep, While all beauty lies asleep; Hush'd be all things, no noise here But the toning of a tear; Or a sigh of such as bring Cowslips for her covering.
THE MOST AUDACIOUS EXULTATION IN THE IMPERATIVE EVER SPOKEN BY MORTAL MAN.
Zarathustra had meditated in the cave for forty day and forty nights with only his eagle, his serpent, and his rod for company. He grew weary of his new found wisdom. He needed outstretched hands to receive it. So on the fortieth day the walked to the entrance of the cave and spoke to the early morning Sun. He said... AWAKE! THOU GREAT STAR. WHAT WOULD THY GLORY BE IF THOU HAD NOT THOSE UPON WHOM THOU SHINIETH!
God rest ye merry gentlemen, / Let nothing you dismay. Suggesting that ye = you. Would be most odd if ye = the.
I'll go along with the pause between merry and gentlemen. Nah. Put the pause before merry, not after. Thus, merry gentlemen is an appostive phrase for and following ye/you.
http://ww.highlandpublishing.com/Highland_Records_%C4/Albums%20%C4/Highland_Records_204.html: Apparently the words were written first, their earliest appearance in the Roxburghe Collection III, about 1770. The original melody can be found in Christmas Carols Ancient and Modern, by William Sandys (London, 1833). The melody that we know, along with the current words, appear in Facetiae and Miscellanies, by William Hone, published in London in 1827. As James Fuld points out, the title can be interpreted to mean "God keep you, merry gentlemen" or "God keep you merry, gentlemen."
"gather you" appears to be an anastrophic imperative, similar to a french construction like gather-you. i don't believe the intended meaning of the line was to tell us to hoard or gather the rosebuds that already belong to us, as would be the translation of "gather your rosebuds", but rather a suggestion that we go out and gather these metaphorical rosebuds from outside sources. hrm, i'm having trouble expressing my thoughts here, but it makes perfect sense to me
and to me, cara. But I also think it’s even more elaborate than you allow, tsuwm. Herrick was using a deliberate pun in his use of ‘may’: both the transitive verb of permissive ‘may’, and the intransitive verb of ‘to may’, which meant gathering flowers and woodland garlands for the may ceremonies (which I think was, er, rooted in early pagan celebration of the conquest of winter – the English tradition includes the May Queen, the Maypole, and the Mayfair which gave its name to a region of London). There was probably also a mildly scabrous allusion to 'gathering the buds' of ‘may’ which was also a synonym for maid or the virgin of the addressees of its anastrophic form…. back to fertility rites!
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.
):
) began to wither away. But I don't think it applies in this poem.
