A thoroughly illuminating piece. On your early point about using words exactly as their meaning denotes, I also believe that part of the historical reverence for poets has something to do with a general perception of them as masters of the word; that they are such lexical masters who have it within their power to add new words to the vocabulary of a language. And how does the poet do this? For instance, a poet can use a common word in a new way--that is, endowing a word whose meaning is already known with new meaning. And part of the impetus for rethinking the function of a word, I am sure, is 'feeling'. A different meaning for a word might come from one of the curious epiphanies that happens during the writing process and the poet, with conscious effort, finds a way to use it as such (of course this is not for a reckless amateur to do.) And having originated a new meaning for that word, the meaning may pass on into mainstream usage. There are any number of poets whose poetry have added words to the English language. Shakespeare is the preeminent example.
Thank you, brother. It has been on my mind to respond to what you say about writers investing a word with new meaning and about them adding new words to the language.
In the second case, I am not sure writers originate words. What happens is that there are words that must have been floating around for a while in common speech which the writers claim for the page. Through their work, the word becomes mainstream. Think of the word “shepeteri”: it is a very common word among people on the street but it is not a word anyone uses in writing. If I use that word and another writer uses it, it passes into the language after a while. It’s the way that language evolves. Because language has to have currency among people, a writer would find it hard trying to make a word of his own (though I am sure it may have happened once before, but even in the cases I can think up, the words are derived from already existing words or brought in from another language).
In the first case, a poet wants to use a word such that it thrums with a new kind of sense. However, that new sense is only sensed; it floats above the original meaning(s) of the word. There was a time when words could be used in different ways: this was a time before the dictionary became a thing. So you have a poet like Gerard Manley Hopkins, who used words in very strange ways at times. That era, unfortunately, has passed. Language has become more standardized than it was at the time of Shakespeare or Milton. We have had print for maybe six hundred years. The liberality a Shakespeare could take with spellings and punctuations and the way he could use a word (though, again, those he wrote to perfectly understood him because the words he used had a currency in society, their strange senses was palpable in town), that age is gone. We can only work with what we have.
The good news is that if one knows the history of language well enough, meaning if one knows the literature of the language in and out, one can always reclaim the lost senses of words. That can be done. But it requires work.
I have written another essay here. Thank you for always reading!
Thanks for the informative article. You really capped it up with a wonderful example that demonstrates your whole point faithfully. More grace to you!
A thoroughly illuminating piece. On your early point about using words exactly as their meaning denotes, I also believe that part of the historical reverence for poets has something to do with a general perception of them as masters of the word; that they are such lexical masters who have it within their power to add new words to the vocabulary of a language. And how does the poet do this? For instance, a poet can use a common word in a new way--that is, endowing a word whose meaning is already known with new meaning. And part of the impetus for rethinking the function of a word, I am sure, is 'feeling'. A different meaning for a word might come from one of the curious epiphanies that happens during the writing process and the poet, with conscious effort, finds a way to use it as such (of course this is not for a reckless amateur to do.) And having originated a new meaning for that word, the meaning may pass on into mainstream usage. There are any number of poets whose poetry have added words to the English language. Shakespeare is the preeminent example.
Thank you, brother. It has been on my mind to respond to what you say about writers investing a word with new meaning and about them adding new words to the language.
In the second case, I am not sure writers originate words. What happens is that there are words that must have been floating around for a while in common speech which the writers claim for the page. Through their work, the word becomes mainstream. Think of the word “shepeteri”: it is a very common word among people on the street but it is not a word anyone uses in writing. If I use that word and another writer uses it, it passes into the language after a while. It’s the way that language evolves. Because language has to have currency among people, a writer would find it hard trying to make a word of his own (though I am sure it may have happened once before, but even in the cases I can think up, the words are derived from already existing words or brought in from another language).
In the first case, a poet wants to use a word such that it thrums with a new kind of sense. However, that new sense is only sensed; it floats above the original meaning(s) of the word. There was a time when words could be used in different ways: this was a time before the dictionary became a thing. So you have a poet like Gerard Manley Hopkins, who used words in very strange ways at times. That era, unfortunately, has passed. Language has become more standardized than it was at the time of Shakespeare or Milton. We have had print for maybe six hundred years. The liberality a Shakespeare could take with spellings and punctuations and the way he could use a word (though, again, those he wrote to perfectly understood him because the words he used had a currency in society, their strange senses was palpable in town), that age is gone. We can only work with what we have.
The good news is that if one knows the history of language well enough, meaning if one knows the literature of the language in and out, one can always reclaim the lost senses of words. That can be done. But it requires work.
I have written another essay here. Thank you for always reading!