twelveoone
ground zero
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2004
- Posts
- 5,882
an answer to an email, that i can't return, no address
Sonics may have been a bad choice of words, it's almost the same as saying poetical.
I used it to refer to some one knowing the use of sound, without isolating out the specifics. All of the poetical tools would encompass sonics (even enjambment and ambiguity, the would be effect almost imperceptible), the level goes all the way down to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhonemePhoneme.
The object is to use sound to modify meaning.
one example
turnt burnt
turned burned
turned a burned
turned a burnt < this is the most "correct"
all of these technically mean the same, but the sound shift should create a different overall meaning.
now the insertion of the article "a" would make it sound more musical.
The reason I used the first choice is because it is the most dissonant therefore most suitable for the needs of the poem, and hopefully, also as a voicing cue.
If you look at some of chipbuddy's comments, she seems to be very acute to this effect.
My guess is beginning poets use words that sound pretty "murmur", better ones "the musically of verse" subconsciously, I think some of the best are conscious of it, but unless they admit it, you'll never know.
I don't know anybody that uses dissonance as much as I do. I do suspect greenmountaineer does use it consciously.
How about it GM?
Any body else want fess up to the use sound to modify meaning?
Sonics may have been a bad choice of words, it's almost the same as saying poetical.
I used it to refer to some one knowing the use of sound, without isolating out the specifics. All of the poetical tools would encompass sonics (even enjambment and ambiguity, the would be effect almost imperceptible), the level goes all the way down to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhonemePhoneme.
The object is to use sound to modify meaning.
one example
turnt burnt
turned burned
turned a burned
turned a burnt < this is the most "correct"
all of these technically mean the same, but the sound shift should create a different overall meaning.
now the insertion of the article "a" would make it sound more musical.
The reason I used the first choice is because it is the most dissonant therefore most suitable for the needs of the poem, and hopefully, also as a voicing cue.
If you look at some of chipbuddy's comments, she seems to be very acute to this effect.
My guess is beginning poets use words that sound pretty "murmur", better ones "the musically of verse" subconsciously, I think some of the best are conscious of it, but unless they admit it, you'll never know.
I don't know anybody that uses dissonance as much as I do. I do suspect greenmountaineer does use it consciously.
How about it GM?
Any body else want fess up to the use sound to modify meaning?