Shows how well out of the loop I was here. I thought it was the second 'it's' under discussion! The earlier 'its' does jar when I (eventually!) find it. L, do you mean it to apply to the garden, rather than the people who you don't mind using 'their' for in line 2?
Bill
> On 19 Feb 2015, at 5:24 am, Patrick McManus <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I in the depths of Raynes Park wondered about 'its'
> Well over and out and await brickbat from himself :-)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Poetryetc: poetry and poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Douglas Barbour
> Sent: 18 February 2015 17:50
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Gardening
>
> A fascinating exchange, as I too wondered from Canada) about that 'its'..
>
> but since, well, okay.
>
> I liked it, short & to the point, although also wondered, a bit, about
> 'giving' rather than, say, 'making' or some such verb..Although
> reconsidering, maybe it is the best word there.
>
> Doug
> On Feb 18, 2015, at 10:17 AM, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> aha!
>> well in my speech community it is acceptable to use the word of a human.
>> Very common oncebut much less so now I'll grant you.
>> apart from being an option it's rather useful when one does not know
>> the gender of a person
>>
>> L
>>
>>
>>> On 18 February 2015 at 17:09, Max Richards <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> my problem merely?
>>>
>>> its: relating to or belonging to a certain thing, animal, etc. : made
>>> or done by a certain thing, animal, etc.
>>>
>>> [merriam webster online]
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>>> On Feb 18, 2015, at 8:25, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But that suggests they're of a mind and it is unlikely that they are
>>>>
>>>> I can't see the problem with "its"
>>>>
>>>> L
>>>>
>>>>> On 18 February 2015 at 16:07, Max Richards <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> mmm...
>>>>> or
>>>>> 'both taking our'?
>>>>>
>>>>> M
>>>>> On Feb 18, 2015, at 7:45, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder why. Seems to me to be the right word there; preferable
>>>>>> to
>>>>> their;
>>>>>> and there's an irregular repetition of the short i which I find
>>> pleasing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> L
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 18 February 2015 at 15:31, Max Richards <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh yes, but I'd reconsider the word 'its'/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [definition of reciprocity:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you attend my funeral -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll attend yours.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Max
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 18, 2015, at 3:19, Lawrence Upton
>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let us, together, do gardening,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> each giving their contribution
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> with no stint; each taking its own
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> idea of pleasure without pause.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's cooperation, I want,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> with mutuality desired.
>
> Douglas Barbour
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Recent publications: (With Sheila E Murphy) Continuations & Continuation 2
> (UofAPress).
> Recording Dates (Rubicon Press).
>
> that we are only
> as we find out we are
>
> Charles Olson
>
|