Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Fwd: frog plunk (2)

Expand Messages
  • Joshua Gage
    ... For what it s worth, there is another interpretation of this haiku. Some translators argue that the a-ha or whatever of this haiku is that the frog isn t
    Message 1 of 5 , May 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      > No, Isa san, the logic is different.
      >
      > the frog hops in and then there is a sound because he jumped.
      >
      > furu ike ya kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto
      > http://haikutopics.blogspot.com/2006/06/sound-of-water.html
      >
      > GABI

      For what it's worth, there is another interpretation of this haiku.
      Some translators argue that the "a-ha" or whatever of this haiku is
      that the frog isn't CAUSING the sound, but ENTERING the sound. The
      lines literally mean that the frog is entering the SOUND OF WATER and
      not causing a splash, but simply joining in what was already there.

      At the ancient pond
      a frog plunges into
      the sound of water
      (Hamill)
    • Isa Kocher
      Message 2 of 5 , May 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        <:-)

        On 5/1/07, Joshua Gage <pottygok@...> wrote:
        >
        > > No, Isa san, the logic is different.
        > >
        > > the frog hops in and then there is a sound because he jumped.
        > >
        > > furu ike ya kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto
        > > http://haikutopics.blogspot.com/2006/06/sound-of-water.html
        > >
        > > GABI
        >
        > For what it's worth, there is another interpretation of this haiku.
        >














        judging from what has been written in various places by experts far more
        knowledgeable than I am, it is both, ambiguity is a fundamental design
        feature of language as language, which is why we can male poetry and how we
        can make poetry

        if you read the first paragraph of the first chapter of the Gospel of John
        in GREEK, you can see language which is so dense that a hundred thousand
        Finnegans Wakes could not match it.

        which is why I really think that saying jump to a wet sound does capture at
        least some of the intended ambiguity. It doesn't say the frog didn't cause
        thew sound but says the frogs jumping was accompanied by the sound which
        would be inter-dependant co-arising which is what the poem is about because
        it is a Buddhist not an Aquinas poem

        I have read I don't know how many mutually exclusive interpretation of the
        logic of the last line and they are all correct

        the translations I have read all are correct and all boring.

        Whenever you have to make an intellectual leap there is no ah ha moment it
        becomes a crossword puzzle

        poetry is never clever. clever is a poetic tool, not an aim or a goal.

        Basho was not being clever, no matter how clever he was

        "candy's dandy. liquor's quicker" is clever as a cover not as as a raison
        d'etre, a pose, not a proposition. the cleverness camouflages the cut, until
        the bleeding starts. It's funny precisely because it is not funny at all.

        Basho is "light" because what he has to say is too heavy to bear.




        --
        "We do not inherit the Earth from our parents. We borrow it from our
        children." Native American Proverb. "the only morality is doing what you
        have to do." Jean Anouih
        __________________________________________________________
        | Fight Spam! Join EuroCAUCE: http://www.euro.cauce.org/ |
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • lbolenyc
        ... This is an interesting point. Dhugal Lindsay has addressed this interpretation in a posting he made to the old Shiki List: furuike-ya kawazu tobikomu
        Message 3 of 5 , May 3, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In translatinghaiku@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua Gage" <pottygok@...>
          >wrote:
          >
          > > No, Isa san, the logic is different.
          > >
          > > the frog hops in and then there is a sound because he jumped.
          > >
          > > furu ike ya kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto
          > > http://haikutopics.blogspot.com/2006/06/sound-of-water.html
          > >
          > > GABI
          >
          > For what it's worth, there is another interpretation of this haiku.
          > Some translators argue that the "a-ha" or whatever of this haiku is
          > that the frog isn't CAUSING the sound, but ENTERING the sound. The
          > lines literally mean that the frog is entering the SOUND OF WATER
          >and
          > not causing a splash, but simply joining in what was already there.
          >
          > At the ancient pond
          > a frog plunges into
          > the sound of water
          > (Hamill)


          This is an interesting point. Dhugal Lindsay has addressed this
          interpretation in a posting he made to the old Shiki List:

          furuike-ya kawazu tobikomu mizu-no oto

          The ancient pond...
          a frog jumps in
          the sound of water

          _Basho


          The -mu in tobikomu actually acts as a period in archaic Japanese not
          to signify a modifier as it does in modern Japanese. So in modern
          Japanese the kawazu tobikomu mizu-no oto would read as "a frog jumps
          in(to) the sound of water" whereas in archaic Japanese it reads as "a
          frog jumps in. the sound of water". Another possibility is "the
          ancient pond.... a frog, jumps in the sound of water". Of the above
          Basho can almost certainly have been thought to have made the haiku
          as in the middle example. The "jumping in sound" concept was probably
          first thought of by a person (whether Japanese or Western) who didn't
          understand archaic Japanese to the point that they should have to be
          translating.

          Regards,

          Dhugal

          http://haiku.cc.ehime-u.ac.jp/shiki.archive/9507/0341.html

          --Larry
        • lbolenyc
          ... Isa, ... Not every interpretation of a poem is necessarily correct. And if more than one interpretation is possible, it is often the case that among
          Message 4 of 5 , May 3, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In translatinghaiku@yahoogroups.com, "Isa Kocher"
            <786isa@...> .wrote:
            >
            > <:-)
            >
            > On 5/1/07, Joshua Gage <pottygok@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > > No, Isa san, the logic is different.
            > > >
            > > > the frog hops in and then there is a sound because he jumped.
            > > >
            > > > furu ike ya kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto
            > > > http://haikutopics.blogspot.com/2006/06/sound-of-water.html
            > > >
            > > > GABI
            > >
            > > For what it's worth, there is another interpretation of this
            >haiku.


            Isa,

            > I have read I don't know how many mutually exclusive interpretation
            >of the
            > logic of the last line and they are all correct

            Not every interpretation of a poem is necessarily correct. And if
            more than one interpretation is possible, it is often the case that
            among competing interpretations some are more plausible, ie. better,
            than others.

            > the translations I have read all are correct and all boring.

            In what way do you find the translations boring? It would be helpful
            to those of us trying to understand your arguments if you elaborated
            on your assertions rather than presenting them as self-evident.

            > Whenever you have to make an intellectual leap there is no ah ha
            >moment it
            > becomes a crossword puzzle

            I disagree with this. An "intellectual leap" IS an "ah ha moment." I
            give as an example of this Archimedes' shout of "eureka!" (whether
            the story of Archimedes shouting "eureka!" is true or not)

            > Basho is "light" because what he has to say is too heavy to bear.

            By "light," are you referring to Basho's concept of "karumi?" I don't
            think it helps your arguments when you romanticize Basho ("what he
            has to say is too heavy to bear"--puhleez!).

            Larry
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.