It's ok
L
On 18 February 2015 at 18:24, 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
>
|