 |
 |
Hi I am having trouble which I cannot fix where I am. It makes typing tedious. So forgive if I am brief! I must often resort to a software kb. It was Galton and Simpsons. Yes it's used in an accusing challenging way. I wanted that here. Yet with only the one syllable it is soon passed, which may soften it a little. The word is used by Ron in Harry Potter & the order of the phoenix btw. On 27/08/2015, Bill Wootton <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I see what you mean, L. I would say that 'git' is a word I know but rarely > hear and even more rarely, if ever, use. It sounds very Steptoe to me, > Galton and Simpson wasn't it? It does have a 'force' as you say, implying > incompetence born of ignorance but tends to be used in an accusing - and > often challenging - sort of way, if ever addressed directly to anyone. Often > I suppose it is an epithet of putdownery applied but not directed. There's > no way back form being labelled a git. Gittery is I suppose more associated > with beer - and cider - and less with wine, although in Australia in the 70s > and 80s, wine was much cheaper by the 5 litre cardboard cask and may well > have encouraged gitsome behaviour. > > Hoo roo, > Bill > >> On 27 Aug 2015, at 8:55 pm, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> Thanks for the comments, Bill >> >> The asterisked words were underlined in my text, as a prompt to the >> notional performer. I should have taken that off before it crossed >> character sets. >> >> I wonder if the word git has different force in our separate linguistic >> cultures. It's difficult to know because they are otherwise so close. >> It's >> certainly not polite; but it's a bit lower class too. >> >> I was rereading sections of Peter Barry's Poetry Wars from Salt where he >> quotes some of the disdain of some for poets .people generally who were >> now >> turning up to gigs smelling of and carrying beer. Peter quietly wonders >> it >> might have been different had they (we) been carrying wine. >> >> Git is impolite in that sense too. >> >> It's an acquired word for me. In my teens. My expletives before, now to a >> considerable extent suppressed for their sexism, were more expletive. >> Generally it's a word I know and hear rather than use much. >> >> It seemed right here. Other words suggested themselves, but were too >> aggressive (and sexist). I wanted the anger and contempt but without >> other >> distraction. It's possible that I failed in the last criterion. >> >> And maybe that affects the reception of the rest. I'll keep looking at >> that >> >> I'm going to drop the clay pigeons and stick with the dog. The metaphors >> mix badly. >> >> Thanks again >> >> >> L >> >> >> >> >>> On 26 August 2015 at 23:19, Bill Wootton <[log in to unmask]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I like the first part, L and the idea of the metaphor of strum-out yo-yo >>> but 'git' a bit lost in the unfurling rant. Like particularly the lines >>> 'as >>> if a trap had been banged wide/open unexpectedly beneath' which nails a >>> yo-yo's action and asks a reader to reconsider it. >>> >>> Are they meant to be inverted commas surrounding 'him' in line 2 and >>> 'that' in line 7? They come up as asterisks in my post anyway. >>> >>> B >>> >>>>> On 26 Aug 2015, at 11:14 pm, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I saw a man hold a made thing >>>> >>>> twined in tough cord which held *him* straight >>>> >>>> as a prisoner might show itself >>>> >>>> in restraint. He threw the odd device >>>> >>>> downwards into the air. It rolled >>>> >>>> out its tether backwards dropping >>>> >>>> till *that* jerked hard at its ending, >>>> >>>> the escapade suddenly dead, >>>> >>>> as if a trap had been banged wide >>>> >>>> open unexpectedly beneath >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> yet the round body pulled itself up >>>> >>>> upwards into a salvation >>>> >>>> from whence it took the drop again >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> like clay birds all day flying up >>>> >>>> identical factory products >>>> >>>> without their own conscious power >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> or a dog fetching a ball more times >>>> >>>> than it can count, self-persuaded >>>> >>>> that it's autonomous and free. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> “This,” said the man, with nonchalance, >>>> >>>> “reminds me of my staff at work. >>>> >>>> They do not realise control >>>> >>>> is beyond their hands. All they want >>>> >>>> is the string and how it works right here >>>> >>>> with them dependent on its knots >>>> >>>> which they cannot retie. Weak minds, >>>> >>>> each self-aware, they believe; so proud; >>>> >>>> but hindered by what's possible, >>>> >>>> planning regime variations >>>> >>>> while they are first governed, and then >>>> >>>> let loose, completely, on a leash. >>>> >>>> What they eat, what they drink, we sell >>>> >>>> with ease; what they decide, I have >>>> >>>> suggested to them many ways, >>>> >>>> as I too am chained entangled >>>> >>>> stapled by hard steel to constructs >>>> >>>> I have been offered and agreed >>>> >>>> to love, to keep the money thick >>>> >>>> in my wallet, big coins weighing >>>> >>>> towards the buried iron core >>>> >>>> of limited understanding... >>>> >>>> What do I know of final things? >>>> >>>> I'm sure I am retained. Thus I >>>> >>>> am not enslaved. I do enslave.” >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thus, you, unfriend, who always said >>>> >>>> the best thing to each one of us >>>> >>>> to keep us obedient, are now >>>> >>>> neither a yoyo nor player; >>>> >>>> a fake; a manipulator >>>> >>>> who reworks incoherent rage, >>>> >>>> which might, just, make sense; but doesn't. >>>> >>>> There is no part original >>>> >>>> in what you have written or said. >>>> >>>> There is scant substance to your speech >>>> >>>> with much meaningful malign intent... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You fooled me, yes; and many more, >>>> >>>> till I grew weary of your moods... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Some may come yet and hear utterance >>>> >>>> that builds up some implications >>>> >>>> according to what you purport... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You are a disappointing git! >>>> >>>> All your words mean rather little; >>>> >>>> and, what you say, you've said before >>>> >>>> twenty years ago; further still. >>>> >>>> Many were impressed by your talk, >>>> >>>> but I think them to be trite fools >>>> >>>> for all they speak in a register >>>> >>>> reserved for smug theologians; >>>> >>>> building their own theory coffins >>>> >>>> while, as with all systemic faith, >>>> >>>> they malign bodies politic. >> >