Kasper wrote:After looking around on Will's website for a while I saw this haiku page.
h)/lqe de\ u(/dwr
h( gh~ katapo/tnizei
kai\ me\n a)/nhcei
Kasper wrote:Thanks Will! This is a bloody difficult puzzle!!
h)=lqe me\n ku=ma
- u u - -
kau)t) a)n a)nh)/cei
- u u - -
can i get away with kai auth elided as it is (or as I think it is)?
the reason I would still have liked to use udwr is that, despite obvious appearance, this is not inspired by the tsunami, but by the recent weather in Melbourne - most rain in a day on record, we are relatively flooded.
Since me\n is a closed syllable here, it scans long.
The crasis I believe is fine, but not the loss of eta that way. In epic, elegy and very rarely choral verse a final long vowel or diphthong may be scanned short if it is followed immediately by another vowel. But you can't elide it away.
Kasper wrote:well, then if I change me\n to de\, and take out the a)n in the last line, that should do it:
h)=lqe de\ ku=ma
th\n gh\n katalamba/nwn
(I'll just pretend it's tsunami related and start a new one - don't worry, I won't keep on bothering you with this!)
annis wrote: That does it, indeed (now, is that an H)= indeed, or a MH/N indeed, or a GE indeed or an A)/RA indeed...)
Kasper wrote:again I must request an explanation... I'm unaware of the potential classifications of 'indeed'.
chad wrote:i'm just not sure if you can use me/n and de/ like this, Will will be able to let you know... if i reword it to show how i read it:
h)~ros i)o/ntos (gen absolute), dei~ nu~n a)lwme/nas ne/ous me/nein.
you wanted to contrast the idea of straying/wandering girls in a)lwme/nas with standing firm in me/nein, is that right? i've only seen me/n and de/ used to contrast clauses, not particular words in 1 clause... maybe change me/n to pri\n as adverb, and change de\ to ge.
Kasper wrote:Thanks Chad! I'm very much a beginner at this and any help is much appreciated. About 'ge', I'm really unsure how to use this word, or its meaning... I used men and de to get the contrast of wandering to standing, would prin and ge give me this?
annis wrote:I share Chad's concern about men..de.. in a single clause like that. You could use [face=spionic]pri/n[/face] in its original guise, an adverb "before, formerly", but you could also use [face=spionic]pote/[/face] (enclitic), which will elide and not mess up the meter.
[face=spionic]ge/[/face] is a selecting particle, and has the sense of "at least." I think it would work here pretty well.
It's hard in such tight spaces to produce Greekish Greek.
Soon you'll be producing runs of Aeolic lines.
Users browsing this forum: C. S. Bartholomew, Yahoo [Bot] and 29 guests