Announcements

I have a seminar on W and Th this week, so tomorrow I don’t have office hours, but I can see you on Friday or Monday. We have voted not to have class on Thursday, so that there is time to work on the Dickinson project and the final exam creative works. We are training in class today for the final exam and Dickinson project (see Becker, p. 336)

Right now, class members are writing a kinanthi, based on Becker, p. 338, to practice for the final exam creative works. Although we use often use poems in class as practice examples, because they are short and holistic, the word “poetry” is a metonymy for all forms of literature for our class purposes.

So far we have examined Shakespeare plays (Lear), Emerson essays (Nature, The Poet), Dickinson poems (various), and Scripture texts (Revelation), as well as Becker’s shadow plays & proverbs, and Watkins’ formulas & figures.

Today we are moving into prose fiction, beginning with the short stories of Isaac B. Singer. The blog post homework for next time is to choose your favorite novel, and analyze it, or a section of it, with principles that you are learning about this semester. Finish reading the Watkins and Becker readings and read ahead for next Tuesday according to the syllabus. See you next Tuesday at 1:00 when we will have class again.

Music and Language, Becker notes, CLH

Becker, Alton L. Beyond Translation. In the Javanese shadow plays, based on old Sanscrit texts in the Indo-European culture, place and geography trump time and chronology. Coincidence is a desirable mandatory feature of the performance.

“simultaneous cycles regularly coincide, sometimes all at once, sometimes in partial coincidences” (333).

“ a few deep metaphors bind various things together, make them resonate and mutually reinforce each other, and make the world seem orderly, reasonable, and harmonious” (334-335).

“two major ways of translating poetry from a distant language: looking up words in dictionaries, and asking people for whom the poetry is transparent to explain it” (335).

The Wisdom of Words--by Laura

"The Wisdom of Words" is largely about religion, and how various authors treated it.

One of my favorite chapters in this book was (surprise) the chapter on Emerson entitled "The Example of Emerson: From Theology to Literature"

The chapter begins by talking about how the transcendentalists were different from the Trinitarians and the Unitarians. The transcendentalists proclaimed that "verbal communication among men was based on more than an arbitrary imposition of meaning upon sound by man himself." It seems that the transcendentalists believed that communication was from God. There was a debate between these groups (Trinitarians, Unitarians, and transcendentalists) about natural language and spiritual language.

Ralph Waldo Emerson comes into this article as "the figure in whom we can best see this merger of concern between scriptural language and the language provided by nature." Emerson became interested in language as a form of vatic (of or pertaining to a prophet) inspiration, not as a way to defend. Emerson became interested in language in its primitive, natural state. In other words, he became interested in the language of nature. And to him, the language of nature was also the language of heaven.

The author also discusses the attempts to discuss the background of Emerson's interest in language, which apparently has not been easy. It is believed that Emerson studied Swedenborgian correspondence, studied Coleridge, and had an interest in Neoplatonic theory.

Emerson said that men "ought to be cautious in taking even the best ascertained opinions and practice of the primitive church for their own." And interestingly, Emerson also believed that in matters of doctrine, we should "form a judgment more in accordance with the spirit of Christianity than was the practice of the early ages." It seems that Emerson did believe in listening closely to the Spirit!

So this only makes me more interested in Emerson. I always appreciated Emerson as a good writer, but I never started reading any of his essays until I was in this class. And now I think I'm becoming an Emerson fanatic.

James Murray, the editor of the OED

The book I chose to read from (only now I need to read all of it!) is Caught in the Web of Words: James Murray and the Oxford English Dictionary. This is an account written by his granddaughter about his life and work. James, himself, did not think much of biography and wrote that "It is one of the hateful characteristics of a degenerate age, that the idle world will not let the worker alone, accept his offering of work & appraise it for itself, but must insist upon turning him inside out, and knowing all about him and really troubling itself a great deal more about his little peculiarities & personal pursuits, than his abiding work." James was born in 1837 in the area that marks the border between Scotland and England--an area that is claimed by both countries and "whose inhabitants were neither English nor Scotch but simply Borderers." This is where James' interest in language unknowing began--he was criticized in school for not forming his grammar and speech correctly. Later, after years of self-study, James realizes that his grammar was not incorrect--it was simply how the people spoke in his little town.

James studied many subjects and had many interests, but he came to study languages and their history. He "discovered" Anglo-Saxon--he found an old text in a bookshop. The excitement about this is that realized that the Border dialect of his childhood speech wasn't something local--it actually belonged to the Anlgo-Saxon root. He traced the Highland speech to Gaelic origins and in the Strathclyde area he found words similar to Welsh, but the Border and east owed their speech to Anlian invaders, with some Norse elements. He paid more and more attention to the words he heard. In Hawick, the processes an tools used in preparing flax were mostly pure Anglo-Saxon with a few borrowings from Dutch. In Orkney many more words of Norse origin were used. He went on to observe many more things about the language about him.

He was learning much, but he was still on his own. He met Melville Bell (Alexander Graham's father), at a lecture, who was one of the first men in Scotland to make a scientific study of phonetics and was the inventor of Visible Speech (an alphabet of symbols with the same purposes of the IPA). This was exactly was James was looking for because it made phonetics an exact science which could be used in the comparative study of languages.

He was eventually accepted into the scientific societies which accepted and encouraged his work. He became well-known for his work with language and its applications to other studies, and he was asked to be the editor for a definitive work on the English language--The New English Dictionary--known to us today as the Oxford English Dictionary. This is of course an important and amazing work. It was a work of devotion for James and he spent many years trying to complete it. He exasperated the publishers and everyone else with his meticulous and time-consuming work, but in the end it is a definitive work. He found many incorrect definitions as he worked through the dictionary, and he would follow every word to its original source, saying that that was the only way to assure the correctness. He died before the work was completed, but he received honors and recognition for his contributions in his lifetime. Though he was not able to complete the OED, he left instructions and outlines for the completion of the work.

And I thought I loved dictionaries! --Love and kisses. There was an explosion of "Mashmallow Maties" throughout my house yesterday, and a dirty diaper in a sack by the front door, but I'll crunch through the spilled cereal, hurry past the malodious offender, step over the Barbies, and see you all in class. --Evelyn

Amanda's Notes: Historical Linguistics and Philology

The book that I chose to read was Historical Linguistics and Philology, edited by Jacek Fisiak. The book is basically a group of essays discussing linguistics and philology and the application of each using various languages. The following are a few notes that I took while reading this book:

1. The article "The missing line: the role of the lexicon," written by Jean Aitchison, gives another definition of philology: "science (esp. historical and comparative) of language(s); study of literature; love of learning and literature" (p 11). I especially liked the inclusion of the word learning, because not only does reading slowly help us appreciate the words of the literature, but it also helps us learn. We read slowly and study literature because we want to learn, we want to get the most knowledge and wisdom out of the literature that we can.
   
2. Another essay that I read talked about the formulas of letter writing, which reminded me a lot of Watkins. The author, Frances Austin, pointed out various uses of the old formulas of letter writing while analyzing letters between two friends. As I thought of Watkins and his Indo-European formulas that we still find in our literature today, I wondered how many other formulas that we use that we may not even realize. One humorous "formula" that I thought of (dealing with the formulas of letter writing) was the "art" of writing Dear John letters. Many of the letters follow the same basic formula. I know that there are many more examples, but this is one that came to mind first.
   
3. The article "Linguistic searchlights and philological buckets: a case study of their interdependence," written by Hans-Jurgen Diller, gives a description of a philologist that I rather liked. He said that the philologist "sails those seas which he knows from experience to be promising and, what is more, he charts them" (p 144). I liked this imagery.

Assignment for Tuesday, July 28th

1. Read and take notes from one of the books on reserve, under our course name ELANG 535 at the HBLL. Read at least one hour, no more than two hours, and then post your notes in the blog. This does not include the 3 E-reserve articles that we have already read and discussed.
2. Finish reading Becker, pp. 333-364.
3. Picture yourself as Emerson's New England poet and as Watkins' Indo-European bard. Write for two hours on your final exam project, expressing "your conversation with nature" and praising the great works of a Hero or of the Shepherd-King.
5. Start reading pp. 471-515 in Watkins.
6. Keep working on Dickinson lexis project.

Happy Pioneer Day!

Best regards, Sister Hallen

Amanda's Poet vs. Bard

Emerson Poet vs. Watkins Bard

Similarities:

1. "The vocabulary of an omniscient man would embrace words and images excluded from polite conversation" (Emerson, 229); Watkins' "language of the gods"
   
• Emerson, like Watkins, believes that poets should embrace a higher language, or the language of gods, the tongue of angels. We learned that the language of the gods was the language that was without compliment, or in Emerson's words, "polite conversation." Both Watkins and Emerson talk about poets that use plain language rather than the more polite tongue. Both the bard and the poet use the language of the gods to glorify the gods and the things that the gods had created.
2. Both the poet and the bard use words that become immortal. Emerson says that "Every verse or sentence possessing this virtue [truth] will take care of its own immortality" (237). Every verse that contains truth, that is written by the poet, becomes immortal. Watkins is always discussing the reason for the bards to write about their patrons -- the bard's words will make the patron immortal, able to live on after he has died.
   

Differences:

1. "The poet is the person . . . who sees and handles that which others dream of" (Emerson, 224); "The function of the Indo-European poet was to be the custodian and the transmitter of this tradition" (Watkins, 68).
• Watkins' bard is one who helps people remember what has already happened -- the traditions of his country, or the actions of his patron. The bard's main job in the Indo-European culture is to help people remember. He puts events and people in words to enable them to last forever, helping the people remember their traditions and glorifying their patrons. Watkins also says that the bard is "the preserver and professional of the spoken word." He preserves that which has already been said or done. Emerson's poet, on the other hand, writes of the things that people only dream of; he "stands among partial men for the complete man." He does not write of events; rather, he writes of ideas and thoughts or dreams.
2. "He [the poet] is isolated among his contemporaries" (Emerson, 223); "The poet did not function in that society in isolation; he had a patron" (Watkins, 70).
• Emerson's poet is one who functions in isolation. The poet, according to Emerson, must write about the things of nature and lives in isolation, away from his other contemporaries. The bard, on the other hand, has a patron who pays him in a gifting circle. The bard will glorify the patron, and in return, the patron pays the bard. Without the patron, the bard would not be able to write. In class, we also talked about the bard's place in society -- the fact that he went to war with the warriors and wrote to inspire the soldiers. This does not place the bard in isolation, but puts him right in the middle of the Indo-European society.
  
3. "The poet does not wait for the hero or the sage, but, as they act and think primarily, so he writes primarily what will and must be spoken" (Emerson, 224); Watkins' discussion of the hero in the IE formula
• Emerson says that the poet does not wait for a hero to write, but writes what must be spoken. He doesn't wait for a hero to come along and create a story; rather, he creates a story on his own. The bard depends on the hero in his use of the IE formula, where the hero plays such an important role (whether he is the slayer or the one slain). One of the bard's purposes is to glorify the hero; therefore, he cannot simply write about the things that will be spoken, but he also writes about the things that happen.
4. "The poet resigns himself to his mood, and that thought which agitated him is expressed, but . . . in a manner totally new" (Emerson, 232); Watkins' discussions of the poetic formula and the expression of something old in a new way
• In this one, Emerson and Watkins have both similarities and differences. The differences is that the poet thinks of a mood to express, and then expresses that mood in a totally new way. According to Emerson, "the poet has a new thought" (225). It seems that Emerson's poet has a way of coming up with things that have never before been expressed or described. The poet is the namer, he names things. He also does not use forms, but expresses things to represent nature. This is different than Watkins because the bard takes things that have already been said and expresses them in a new way. He uses the poetic formulas, the themes, and the illusions to create his story, but he says it in a slightly different way. The similarity is that they both express truth in the things that they say; they both base their "new" ideas in truth. Like we said in class yesterday, truth is the center of the poem.
  

Emerson's Poet

The poet as a ruler

"The poet is the sayer, the namer, and represents beauty. He is a sovereign and stands in the center" (224)

"Therefore, the poet is not any permissive potentate, but is emperor in his own right." (224)

The poet as a prophet

"The signs and credentials of the poet are that he announces that which no man foretold." (225)

"He is a beholder of ideas and an utterer of the necessary and causal." (225)

The poet as a doctor

"He is the true and only doctor." (225) What does Emerson mean by "doctor"?

The Poet as a Namer

"the poet is a Namer or Languagemaker, naming things sometimes after their appearance, sometimes after their essence, and giving to everyone its own name and not another's, thereby rejoicing in the intellect, which delights in detachment or boundary." (231)

"So when the soul of a poet has come to ripeness of thought, she detaches and sends away from its poems or songs." (232)

"The poet also resigns himself to his mood and that thought which agitated him is expressed, but alter diem in a manner totally new." (232)

"The poet knows that he speaks adequately then only when he speaks somewhat wildly, or 'with the flower of of the mind'; not with the intellect used as an organ, but with the intellect raised from all service and suffered to take its direction from its celestial life..." (233)

"For poetry is not 'Devil's wine," but God's wine." (234)

"The imagination intoxicates the poet." (235)

"The poets are thus liberating gods." (236)

Emerson describes the bard as being inspired by things of this world and enjoy wine and what we might consider drugs.

IE bard v. Emerson's poet

Emerson’s Prophet:
“The poet is the person . . . who sees and handles that which others dream of” (Emerson 224).
“The sign and credentials of the poet are that he announces that which no man foretold” (Emerson 225).
“The poet does not wait for the hero or the sage, but, as they act and think primarily, so he writes primarily what will and must be spoken” (Emerson 224).
“For poetry was all written before time was” (Emerson ?).
While Watkins focuses on how the bard praises what has happened, Emerson suggests that the poet writes of things that men dream about, things that no man has predicted, things that undoubtedly will happen. Emerson’s depiction of a poet has more mysticism to him/her than Watkins’ bard.

Higher Intelligence:
Emerson 230: “The world being thus put under the mind for verb and noun, the poet is he who can articulate it.” “All men are intelligent of the symbols though which it is named; yet they cannot originally use them.” “The poet, by an ulterior intellectual perception, gives them a power which makes their old use forgotten.”
“It is he who is by definition competent in all areas where the word is, or is considered operative. This must be understood as a very concrete, practical notion.” (Watkins 69).
The poet and bard need training with words, though Watkins approaches the subject with a little more tact than Emerson does. I am not sure that I like how Emerson says the poet has ulterior intellectual perception.

Song of Praise:
“Our poets are men of talents who sing” (Emerson 225).
Both Watkins and Emerson talked about how the poet and card sings. Guess I can’t be a poet or bard, because honestly, I cannot sing!



A Level of Poetry in Everyone:
“Every man is so far a poet as to be susceptible of these enchantments of nature” (Emerson 228). It takes a level of poetry to praise the IE hero, but it also takes a level of poetry to enjoy and appreciate the praise and to recognize the thing to praise out in the real world.

Language of the Gods:
On page 229, Emerson attempts to talk about the “language of the Gods”.
“The people fancy they hate poetry, and they are all poets and mystics!” I liked this quote. Everyone has the potential to create something in the language of the Gods (Watkins) or the “superior use of things” (Emerson p. 229). They just need the training with the words in order to write as such.
Just as Becker talked about simplicity Emerson said on page 229, “We can come to use them [the significance of the few symbols we use] yet with a terrible simplicity. It does not need that a poem should be long.” We talked on Tuesday about Emerson’s attendance to one sentence. He says “every word was once a poem.” This makes me think of Australia’s aboriginal peoples. They had a song for every word of nature. One word was made into a poem.

Quotes to Discuss:
“Since every thing in nature answers to a moral power, if any phenomenon remains brute and dark it is because the corresponding faculty in the observer is not yet active.” 228 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“He is isolated among his contemporaries by truth and by his art.” 223 Knower, Doer, Sayer. “The poet is the sayer, the names, and represents beauty.” 224

“The man is only half himself, the other half is his expression.” 223

Assignment for Th, July 23

1. Read the essay entitled "The Poet" by Emerson (ed. Whicher), via the electronic reserve of the HBLL website, under our course name ELANG 535.
2. Finish reading pp. 441-468 in Watkins.
3. Review the roles of the IE poet in all past chapters of Watkins (pp.1-468).
4. Write a meaty blog post, comparing and contrasting Emerson's New England poet with Watkins' Indo-European bard. Point out similarities and differences. Give page numbers.
5. Start reading Becker, pp. 333-364.
6. Keep working on Dickinson lexis project and final creative project.

Best regards, Sister Hallen

Laura's posting

(1) I love the beginning of Emerson's "Nature" section in his essay, especially the third paragraph, after talking about staring at the stars:

"When we speak of nature in this manner, we have a distinct but most poetical sense in the mind."

He describes the stars as evoking a certain reverence, "because though always present, they are inaccessible."

He is literally speaking of nature in a religious sense, which makes sense because it was Heavenly Father who created this world for us to live in, to enjoy, and to be grateful for. Emerson goes on to say that very few people do not "see" nature. What does this mean? He means that most people only have a superficial appreciation for nature, and take it for granted. It seems that he believes that those who are not truly grateful for the things of nature are not grateful to their Creator for giving us this beautiful world.

(2) So, how are language and nature connected? Emerson goes into more detail in his section on language:

i. Words are signs of natural facts

ii. Particular natural facts are symbols of spiritual facts

iii. Nature is the symbol of the spirit

The second and third ones truly speak to me. I am currently reading The Pearl of Great Price as part of my temple preparation, and these remind me of the verse that says that everything was created spiritually before it was created physically. To me, that is one of the ultimate signs that we do indeed have a Heavenly Father who loves us because he knew all of us, and all of His natural creation, before it was on the earth!

The first one indicates that we can only talk of nature using language. And talking of nature can lead to supernatural facts, as the second and third points indicate. The word "spirit" can mean "wind or transgression" and other definitions.

(3) We combine language and nature in literature. We can use literature as a medium to convey the the spirituality and beauty of nature. It is almost like the counsel we have received today to use technology to further the missionary effort of the Church.

Language, Literature, Nature

"A subtle chain of countless rings The next unto the farthest brings; The eye reads omens where it goes, And speaks all languages the rose; And, striving to be man, the worm Mounts through all the spires of form."

As Emerson equates "nature" to the mind, then we have a formula that looks something like this, by substituting the word "mind" for the word "nature": language is to the mind as the mind is to thought. I think Emerson is telling us that language builds into the mind the thoughts that the mind can then express in language. Perhaps this is further borne out by the line "A subtle chain of countless rings The next unto the farthest brings," where Emerson tells how each word builds upon the next until the entire thought is revealed and expressed. The eye, or the processing by the mind, interprets the ring of words (the language), into the complete thought that is what separates man, who speaks many different languages (each beautiful) from the worm. The worm is a living creature, yet without the mind to interpret and understand and give meaning, beauty, and discipline, there is no "language." --Evie

Emerson

1. “Nature is but an image or imitation of wisdom, the last thing of the soul; nature being a thing which doth only do, but not know.” Plotinus

When I read this quote at the beginning of Emerson’s article, I feel in love with it. The last part “only do, but no know” reminded me of the natural man which seems to act off emotion rather than logic and reason. Logic and reason requires knowing, whereas emotion requires doing (especially when you view emotions in the context of choices).

So nature is doing while language and literature is knowing. The Lord requires us to act but put off the natural man and act in knowing—God’s commandments (logic and reason).

2. “A man’s power to connect his thought with its proper symbol and so to utter it, depends on the simplicity of his character, that is, upon his love of truth and his desire to communicate it without loss. The corruption of man is followed by the corruption of language” (p. 33).

I think of the apostasy. God’s presence, even his Word through the voice of prophets, was taken from the earth. There was much corruption during this time. It did not happen right away, but after years without the language of the Gods men did indeed fall to corruption.

I also think of our discussion two weeks ago about our favorite points in the Becker article. On page 216 I shared, “Let us eliminate the English words in the first translation that are there only because of the demands of English and have no counterpart in the Burmese.” Truth is simple and simple to communicate. There are no flush phrases in truth, no filler words—only what is necessary.

The ability it takes to create literature in the language of Gods is the simplicity of our character. How much love and desire do we have to communicate? Love and desire are simple.

3. Emerson was discussing obvious analogies in nature. He said, “The river, as it flows, resembles the air that flows over it; the air resembles the light which traverses it with more subtile currents; the light resembles the heat which rides with it through Space. Each creature is only a modification of the other” (p.39).

This reminded me of Becker’s philological relations, one in particular: the intertexual/crosstexual relation where the old text invents the new text and the new text resurrects the old text. Emerson called this imitation/analogy a radical law.

Language and literature are consistently repeating over and over from different authors and speakers. I think this happens because truth is eternal—it does not change, it does not end. So, the language and literature ideas that convey truth do not end either, that is why they continue to repeat throughout history.

Amanda's Emerson on Language

Here are some of my thoughts on Emerson's "Language" and the relationship between language, literature, and nature.

1. First, I want to bring up the metaphor the both Emerson and Becker repeat throughout their essays: "Parts of speech are metaphors because the whole of nature is a metaphor of the human mind." I'm not going to pretend to understand what this means, because I've been thinking about it, and I can't quite grasp the understanding of it. However, I do think that Becker gives some good insights on p. 323-325. Perhaps we can discuss this during class, especially when Gregory Bateson rephrases the metaphor: "contextual shaping is only another term for grammar" (p. 325). I have some other thoughts that relate to this metaphor, but I still don't think that I fully understand the metaphor.
   
2. Emerson says, "Nature is the vehicle of thought" (p. 31). He also says, "Every appearance in nature corresponds to some state of the mind, and that state of the mind can only be described by presenting that natural appearance as its picture" (p. 32). When he says this, it seems that the human mind is a metaphor for nature (which is why I'm a little confused). However, I do like the fact that he points out that we use many things in nature to express our states of mind (an angry man as a lion, a lamb represents innocence, etc). This is a small part of the relationship between language and nature.
   
3. Emerson talks about throwing a stone in a stream and watching the ripples that wave out from the rock. His discussion reminded me of the class discussions that we have had about ripples that are similar to this -- the ripples of knowledge that we gain by studying literature and coming to different understandings as well as the circumference of truth that poets like to use, where the truth is in the center and the words revolve around the truth. The words that we use represent nature and the literature that the words make create an experience that is similar to an experience that we may have in nature. This is how I see part of the relationship between language, literature, and nature.
   
4. Emerson's discussion on p. 32-33 about the habits of plants and animals reminded me of some of our scriptures. Emerson says, "the habit of a plant, the organs, or work, or noise of an insect, applied to the illustration of a fact in intellectual philosophy, or in any way associated to human nature, affects us in the most lively and agreeable manner" (p. 32-33). His discussion reminded me a little of Alma 32, where Alma compares the word to a seed. The habits of a seed, the act of a seed taking root in the soil and growing into something good, is compared to the nature of humans -- if we let something take seed in our heart, it will take root and grow into something good. In the case of the word that Alma is talking about, if we take the word of God and let it take root in our hearts, it will grow into a testimony. I think that we can also apply this analogy to any good word -- the words of the poets, the words of the scriptures, the words of good literature -- if we let it take root in our hearts, if we read it slowly and understand it, understanding can grow and turn into something good, something sweet.
5. I like Emerson's discussion of the relation between pure language, or poetry, and language that has been corrupt by corrupt men. He says, "As we go back in history, language becomes more picturesque . . . when it is all poetry; or all spiritual facts are represented by natural symbols" (p. 33). When language is in its purest form, or the language of the angels. In a way, when we create poetry, we are in a sense using symbols to represent nature -- whether we represent the nature in the natural world around us or whether we represent the nature that is the metaphor of the human mind. Becker says, "is there not artistic and philosophical creation at the level of sentences, a play of figures and lexical classes" (p. 326). There is something akin to the creation of nature when we create our own poetry and use the language of the angels to represent the human mind. In a later paragraph, Emerson says, "The corruption of man is followed by the corruption of language" (p. 33). I think that Emerson may be trying to tell us that the closer we are to nature, the more we can communicate about man's character without loss. This, to me, is another piece of the relationship between language and literature.
   

Homework Blog for July 21

1. Finish reading Becker, pp. 297-330.
2. Read Emerson's "Language" online or under the first Whicher tab at HBLL's electronic course reserve for ELANG 535, instructor Hallen.
3. Write a meaty blog post, answering this question: What is the relationship between language and literature and nature?
4. Work on at least two words from your Dickinson poem, using the EDL lexicon, the Webster 1844 dictionary, the OED, and Watkins' IE roots appendix/dictionary.
5. Read ahead in Watkins pp. 441-468.

Oh, the particularities of Texas . . .

1. What is a linguistics of particularity? It starts with the difference between synchronicity and diachroncity, where synchronicity deals with what is the same in language and diachronicity seeks to find what is different (the history). A ligusitics of particularity, and interpretive liguistics, has yet to appear according to Becker, 73. Interpretive linguistics helps us to understand much more than language--it helps us understand the world around us and the people who live in it, which is much more useful than understanding language. The particularity comes from text-in-context. Becker advocates going backwards in translation, retracing the glossing and the labeling and looking for what has been added and taken out--the exurberances and the deficiencies (213). He also advocates an emic understanding of the texts, which means looking at the text from the point of view of an insider, as advocated by Pike (213). At the level of the particular we have an interplay of systems (229), including "a system of systems, multiply constrained by the demands of structure, of genre (prior texts), of interpersonal relations, and of a construed natural world. This interplay of systems is quite particular and cannot be seen or described apart from particular contexts. The interaction of these constraints happens only at the level of the particular." Then what I find expecially telling, he finishes by saying, "Only particular uttereances have speakers, hearers, times, places, worlds--the irreducible conditions of their existence. Particularity, finally, is the source of a philologist's rigor" (229).

2. Modern philology looks at more than just the linguistics. It looks at the contextual relations and becomes a linguistics of particularities. "By contextual relations I mean the relations of any given text (oral or written, larger or smaller) to the intentionality of the people who shape and receive it, to the prior texts it evokes in their memories, to the natural world outside of language that it constitutes and presupposes, to the larger text it may be a part of, to the medium that forms it, and even to the kind of silence that frames it. All of these together shape the particularity of any bit of language one may study (Becker 213). This amazes and excites me about the study of language--that it includes the understanding of the people who developed and spoke it and what they intended by it. To me this includes what little children say, the language that each generation of teenagers speak, what we "speak" in our Church, the language developed within families, etc. It opens a wonderful door to PEOPLE, the Lord's children.

3. A bit of overlap here, but by having a way to understand what is "meant" by literature--what the contexts are teaching us--we also can understand the people who gave it and received it. I think I've learned that literature becomes more than a text, it becomes a heart and a mind.

From Evie in Texas. Thanks everyone for your help. The baptism and family gathering was important. I held this granddaughter when she was a week old and saw the generations in her-- my mother, my grandmother. I believe they knew her and accompanied her in her journey here. As she was baptized, that image returned to my mind, and realizing that she had now made convenants that would help her to return, I was also aware that there was rejoicing on both sides of the veil. Sorry I could not be with you all today--I was unable to change my flight to return earlier--some Skywest/Delta thing. Bye for now--Evie

Amanda's Linguistics of Particularity

Here are my answers to the questions. Sorry that I don't have a lot of page references; I don't have my book with me and I reached my viewing limits on Google Books.

1. On p. 86, Becker talks about where he first heard the term "linguistics of particularity," from Kenneth Pike. Pike's view of the linguistics of particularity is "that one's understanding of another language, or another person, is a movement from an etic perspective . . . to an emic understanding, a more fully contextual understanding." I had to look up the terms etic and emic to understand this statement. Etic is a description from an observer, and emic is a description that comes from within the culture. In other words, the linguistics of particularity is a study of language where a person tries to understand the details of the language, not just the grammar or the vocab, but the silences, the deficiencies, the culture, and the meaning behind what is being said. This kind of attention to detail, to become a part of the culture of the language, helps linguistics understand and describe the language from an insider's point of view rather than an outsider's. The language of particularity takes into account all of the context as well as the individual meaning of the word or phrase. Becker gives good examples for this with his 4 relations and his discussion of the reasons for including silences as a textual relation. Becker does a great job of illustrating his desire to give a emic description of the language rather than a etic throughout the book - he learns more about the language as he studies their culture (example: the man who told Becker that Becker was ruining the language).
   
2. In class, we defined philology as "the love of language and literature; a rhetorically-based linguistics that is context-based; and the art of reading slowly." Reading texts slowly, to me, does not just mean reading slowly, thinking of the meaning of words, and then moving on. To me, reading slowly has everything to do with the linguistics of particularity. When we read slowly, we take time to find out the context of the words. We take time to see how the text relates to other experiences in our lives or other texts we have read. We take the time to find out about the underlying structures because we love language and want to find out more about it. As we read slowly, we gain more understanding and knowledge about language and about different texts, which gives us more love for language and literature. Knowing what the word means out of context does give it some extra meaning, but knowing what the word means within the context opens up a whole new world of understanding. I like Becker's two examples of the man who corrected his phonetic writing because he said that Becker was hurting the language and Becker's metaphor that he uses of the stage.
3. This new philology helps us to better understand works of literature because, like we said in class, the literature is the interrelation, or the experience, of the text, the reader, and the author. Knowing about the context of a piece of literature helps us understand the silences or deficiencies - bring a whole new meaning or understanding to the text. For example, Dr. Hallen is constantly telling of the background of Emily Dickenson's life, and every time she does that, I get another level of understanding about the poem. As we compare Emily's poems to the bible, there is also another level of meaning. As we talk in class about our own personal understandings, that brings yet another level of meaning. All these levels add to our interpretation and help us to better understand the works of literature. Each of these three things build context and help us hear the silences and fill in the deficiencies - or at least make us want to look more into them - and help us to better understand.
   

Particularity by Laura

(a) I believe that what Becker means by "language of particularity" is the uniqueness of language. Language is very unique in how it can change so quickly and how one word can mean a lot of things. But the interesting thing is (pae 73) is that "A truly interpretive linguistics, a linguistics of particularity, has yet to appear." Everyone has a different definition of "language of particularity."

(b) If we do not have an interest in how different language can be, then philology is not for us. On page 72, Becker talks about Kenneth L. Pike. Pike's "motivation towards of a linguistics of particularity" was his "conviction that one's understanding of another language, or another person, is a movement from etic perspective--an outsider's perspective--to an emic understanding, a more fully contextual understanding."

(c) "Language of philology" can help us understand and appreciate literature more because we learn how to understand others when we learn to love words. Like what Pike said (quoted above), we learn to understand another person when we understand another language.

language of particularity

1. I looked in the Index under "particularity" to see other contexts where he used the word to try to understand his meaning behind the term.

a. The first usage (found on page 14) was very insightful: "Two things became clear to me about epistemes: they are fully realized only in their particularity . . ." This specific usage reminded me about a definition of philology we discussed I think last week: reading slowly to take in every word (in Becker's words: in every word's particularity). The language of particularity might be taking each word as it is, individually. Linguistics of particularity is the devices, the methods, to do so.
b. On page 86 Becker continues discussing particularity. “All discourse—unlike the study of syntax—is of necessity the study of particularity.” “The actual a priori of any language event—the real deep structure—is an accumulation of remembered prior texts just like the one studied here: particular prior texts, acquired from particular sources. From the perspective of particularity, generality is a kind of epiphenomenon produced by reshaping of a particular prior text to a new context. And our real language competence is access, via memory, to this accumulation of prior text.”
To be honest, I have sat thinking about this for some time now and I cannot quite figure out what he is saying. Yeah, I just thought some more and I have a few thoughts, but they don’t make sense, so I would love to discuss this quote in class.

c. Here, on page 229, Becker states the importance of particularity. We would be wise in truly understanding the language/language of particularity because “particularity, finally, is the source of a philologist’s rigor.” The context of this usage is Becker discussing classifiers. He says the interactions of these constraints (classifiers) only happen at “the level of the particular.” To understand classifiers and gain the knowledge over language that classifiers allow, we MUST be looking at the particularity of language. Our linguistics must be at the level of the particular.

2. Modern or new philology has branched off from linguistics and studies more than just the syntax etc. To love words we must understand each word in its particularity, or individualism, and how it relates to other words in their own particularity. I think “old” philology focused on studying language in a more general, all-encompassing, sense. This new/modern philology based on particularity goes deeper to a new level, revealing a more specific—intimate if you will—awareness of what the author of the text is trying to communicate with language.

3. A philology based on a linguistics of particularity has helped me to see the deeper meanings behind Emily Dickinson poems. I feel I have been raised up in a philological environment, but it was a more linguist-type. With this class, I’m looking deeper, on a more particular level, and seeing meanings, understanding intentions, asking questions I have never thought of before.

Assignment Reminder for July Th 16th

Dear Quartet:

Here is the assignment for class today, July 16th, Thursday.

1. Review all of the Becker chapters that we have read so far, pp. 1-294 to answer the following questions in a blog post:

• What does Becker mean by a "linguistics of particularity" (or a "language of particularity") on p. 277?
• How does a linguistics of particularity provide a basis for a "modern philology" (or "new philology") on p. 277?
• How does a new philology based on a linguistics of particularity help us to better understand works of literature?

Please support your answers with quotations from the text with page numbers.

2. Finish reading Watkins, pp. 297-438 and be prepared to discuss chapters in class.

3. Start reading Becker, pp. 297-330. Our reading assignments will be getting shorter now.

4. Keep working on your Dickinson poem words for the term project.

5. Keep working on your creative text for the final exam.

Hello from Texas

"The stars are bright, the mosquitos bite (clap, clap, clap, clap) Deep in the extremely hot heart of Texas . . ." Hello to everyone from Wylie, TX (near Dallas).

Six words from Isaiah 58:8: "Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the LORD shall be thy rereward." I looked up light, morning, health, before, Lord, and rereward (rearguard).

• light: (IE root = leuk-, light, brightness)
• morning: (IE root = mer-, to flicker)
• health: (IE root = kailo-, whole, uninjured, of good omen)
• before: (IE root = per, forward or through--base of prepositions and preverbs)
• LORD: (IE root = wer-, to perceive, watch out for)
• rereward: (IE root = re-, backward)

Reading the scripture with these roots in mind would give an idea something like: Thy brightness shall not flicker and you shall remain whole. "Thy righteousness shall go forward and He who watches over you shall be behind you." (By the way, this scripture is about promised blessings for keeping the Sabbath day holy.)

The Greek derivations from the IE roots provide even more interesting insights:

• light: clean, white
• morning: immortal, divine
• before: beyond
• LORD: guard; to see

This might give the idea somewhat along the lines of: "You shall be clean and white because you shall be immortal. Your righteousness shall go beyond, and He who sees you shall guard."

A proverb:

gheu-u-s gno-u-o-s aik-u-o wel-u-pela

The God + noun + nominative singular, know + noun + possessive adj. + nominative singular, master of + noun + possessive adj. , wealth + noun + complete

The God knowledgable one is master of wealth complete.

"To know God is above all riches."

Amanda's IE Words from Isaiah 58

Isaiah 58: I still haven’t quite figured it all out, but here is what I have so far.

1. Ordinance: *ōrd-. To arrange, arrangement. From Latin ōrdō, order (originally a row of threads in a loom); ORDAIN, ORDER, ORDINAL, ORDINANCE, ORDINARY, ORDINATE, ORDO.
1. I like the imagery of the rows of threads in a loom. When we make ordinances, we are arranged in such a way that Christ can weave us together—strong and bound for eternity.
2. Fast: *past-. Solid, firm. From OE fæstan, to abstain from food; from Germanic *fastēn, to hold fast, observe abstinence.
1. I like the part that says “to hold fast.” Fasting is not merely abstaining from food (as the scripture is trying to say), but it is also a time for us to hold fast to something—to think about it, to better it, ponder it. Especially in the context of the verse, we need to hold onto our fast and not share it with the world.
3. Light: *leuk-. Light, brightness. (p. 49)
1. Some of the derivatives from this root surprised me—LUCIFER being one of them. I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised, because Lucifer was had light at one point, but it seemed a little ironic to me, because now he has lost the light. On a brighter note, I liked the suffixed form *louk-eyo, which is from the Greek leukos meaning clear, white. If we have the light of Christ, we can become white and clear (as in our sins are cleared away).
4. Yoke: *yeug-. To join. From OE geoc, yoke; from Germanic *yukam; suffixed form yeug-mn, from Greek zeugma, a bond; suffixed o-grade form *youg-o-, from Sanskrit yogah, union. (p. 103)
1. I like the “bond” and “union” ideas of this word. I think it makes the word stronger to think of a bond or a union rather than simply joining two things together—it makes the word seem more permanent and stronger.
5. Restore: *sta-. to stand; with derivatives meaning “place or thing that is standing.” An extended root *stāu-, meaning “stout-standing, strong.” From Latin restaurāre, to restore, rebuild (re-, anew, again; see re-)
1. I liked the idea of “stout-standing, strong” with this word. Not only are the paths going to be rebuilt, but they will be standing strong.
2. I actually had a question about this one. When it refers to re-, which entry is it referring to? There is one that says [re- and one that says re-. Would the reference include the bracket?

Laura's posting

My proverb:

Dra-kwen

Run holy

Dra-kleu

Run clean

Dra-gʷʰH₂í

Run bright

Dra-déyw-o-

Run to god

I looked at Isaiah 41 for my passage:

Seek: seh₂g- interestingly, this root also translates to “beseech” which we know to mean as “to ask”, not necessary as “ too look for” (seen in v. 12). Perhaps in this context it means that we must “ask” for them. Or “beseech” has taken on a new meaning over time.

Strength: bel-

“Bel” is “beautiful” in French. Did this evolve from “strength” to “beautiful” over time? Or was “strength” once considered beautiful?

Hand: ǵʰés-ro-

One of the words for this is also “tsar”, which was once the royalty for Russia. Does “hand” signify some sort of leadership. (v. 10)

With: kom

Take: *gʰabʰ-

The others I am trying to figure out.

Amanda's IE Poem

Ghel-2 Wer-4
Gold to watch out for
Gold Watcher (Watcher of the Gold)

Oi-no derkos okwm slēb-
One to see to see to sleep
A dragon’s sleeping eye

Yu- Ne beuthé-
You not “to swell”
You never poke

Yu- welsi
You to wish, will
You will

Reiəsi
To flow, run
Run

Bheldsi bhregsi
To knock, strike to break
Bolt, break

Spersi sperghsi (s)pensi
To strew to hasten, spring to spin
Sprawl, spring, spin

Yu- derkm bhausi
You to see to strike
You beat the dragon

Yu- bhersi Ayer-
you to cook, bake day, morning, before
Or you will fry

Bhad- lesi
good to let go
Better to let

Derkes slēbent
To see to sleep
Dragons sleep

IE root poem

eg welmi, linces apo bhers ghreibenti
I walk, lines of fortune clinging

me bhrater, eg spenmi
my brother, I ponder

kos bherom, skerom eueom
his fortune, circle voids

skerom me, me sweghs
circle me, my sorrow

eg ghreibmi
I cling

bhrater ne sagt me
brother not forsake me

eg ne sagm bhrater
I not forsake brother

Scripture IE Roots

I looked at 1 Nephi 8. Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life

1. (1 Nephi 8:10) TREE: deru-
- "to be firm, solid, steadfast; hence specialized senses 'wood', 'tree', and derivatives referring to objects made of wood.
a. TREE, from Old English treow, from Germanic trewan.
b. TRUE (firm), from Old English treowo.

I liked the descriptions of "firm, solid, steadfast" because it reminds me that the means by which we can receive God's love is steadfast and is always available.

2. (1 Nephi 8:10) FRUIT: bhrug-
- "agriculture produce; also to enjoy"
a. Brook, to enjoy, use
b. Frugal, fruit
c. Fruit, to enjoy, grain, produce, enjoyment, produce, results.

It was interesting how much this IE root used the word "enjoy." I had never thought to enjoy the love of God (which is what Nephi tells us that the fruit represents). How do I do so? So I went ahead and looked up the IE root of enjoy in order to adequately understand the history of the root.
enjoy: gau-
- to rejoice; also to have religious fear or awe

When I partake of the love of God I feel awe and i also feel religious fear (or respect) at God' omnipotence, his mercy and kindness.

3. (1 Nephi 8:10) happy: kob-
- to suit, fit, succeed
a. From Old Norse happ. Chance, good luck.

I did not quite like thinking about this root in reference to the way "happy" was used in this verb. The IE root kob makes the happiness fleeting, by chance, not permanent. But the more I thought about happy v. joy I realized that happiness does fade, it is not eternal. Whereas joy CAN be eternal and consistent. Happiness comes and goes in our life, and when it does falter we should partake again of the love of God. We should be reaching for the fruit of the tree of life every day, never being comfortable in an apathetic state. We NEED his love every day. We NEED that boost of peace and kob-.

4. (1 Nephi 8:11) sweet: swad-
- Sweet, pleasant
a. swad-e = to advise, urge: wreg

I liked the IE root here of wreg (to urge) but once I looked it up most of the definitions had negative meanings (push, shove, drive, track down). Any thoughts?

5. (1 Nephi 8:12) desire: sweid-
- To shine.

I loved the imagery! When we have the love of God, we have the light of Christ and we shine and want our loved ones to shine as well. When you see people and they have persevered and have partaken of the love of God, they have a light in their eyes.

Assignment 4 Reminder: IE Roots

Part one: Choose a short literary text or passage of scripture. Look up the Indo-European roots of at least 5 words in the text/passage, and discuss insights that you gain from the "family history" of the words.

Part two: Write a proverb or a short poem in Proto-Indo-European, using Indo-European roots, language features, and cultural formulas. Give an inter-linear gloss of the elements of your text, as in the Becker book, and then give a paraphrased translation into English.

You can find the American Heritage Dictionary online at bartleby.com, or you can use it at the reference section of the BYU library.

Part three: Finish reading Becker 261-294. Start reading Watkins 297-438.

Have fun!

Evelyn's four things

1. I absolutely loved "Everything we say has a past, and its meaning depends on that past. Equally, everything we say has a future into which we push it." p. 185 This very statement has changed my outlook on my writings (more than my speaking).

2. It was fascinating to think about reshaping the context of something so simple as "Have a nice day." p. 189 It is a simple beginning to more complex reshapings, and a good exercise to learn with.

3. I had not thought about proberbs being slower changing than other texts, although I have always thought of them as being older writings, or speaking the past--maybe I thought they just didn't change. pp. 190-91

4. I have noticed that some sayings are changed to be current with the times--saying the same thing in new ways. But it is fascinating to learn about how this is accomplished with the different strategies. I have taken these for granted even when I've been aware of them, but now I am more aware of how/why the reshaping came about. pp. 192-208

My four things

(1) I like the quote on 185 about there being three kinds of mistakes:

"There are three kinds of mistakes: those resulting from lack of memory, from lack of planning ahead, or from misguided beliefs." --Burmese Proverb

I like it because it is very true, with regards to studies and such. And the translation was done so well. Very good parallel structure ;)

(2) Page 187: "The sentence--simple or complex--is, in any language, the minimal unit in which all these actions are happening, in which the drama is fully staged." I like this because it gives more significance to the mere sentence. If plays didn't have sentences, where would the drama be? Also, communication is very important.

(3) On page 188, where it talks about the pleasures of text. I also like how it says that this is so important, amateurs can experience it. Basically the author seems to be saying that words are important to everyone.

(4) Page 203: "Speaking a language requires skill in those background rhythms, which are not the same in all languages." I have been learning French for several years, and I can tell you it has a different rhythm than English does. I think anyone who has ever tried to learn a language can identify with this.

Amanda's Becker pages 185-258

Four of the things that I liked from this reading:

• on p. 187, Becker says, "Words and phrases are staged only as sentences." I like the idea of sentences being a stage for phrases and words to come together to tell a story.
  
• on p. 216, Becker says, "There are many un-Engilsh phenomena here that are lost if we move too quickly to an English understanding." This was a good reminder to me that there are many things in English that cannot be expressed in other languages, and vise-versa. This goes back to what he said in the previous page, that "there are two extremes . . . totally familiar language and totally unfamiliar." It is important to get as familiar as possible with the original language to avoidmisrepresentation of meaning. If we just assume that we know what a text is trying to say, then important meanings can be lost.
• I liked the quotes from Hla Pe on p. 219 -- it shows the way that poets used the language to fit the imagery, and then it shows how the poet's language was studied andincorporated into the language.
• on p. 228, Becker said that ti has a "structural prominence in the poem as a whole. It occurs as the final word in every 'stanza' -- every main rhetorical figure, thus marking the rhythm of the poem." The function of ti reminded me of the Indo-European ring structure, where they marked the beginning and the end of a structure with similar words.
  
• I know this is the fifth one, but I just wanted to share one more. On p. 228, Becker also says that "One of the uses of grammatical analysis is to help us cross theterra incognita between English and Burmese, moving further from English, closer to Burmese." I liked this because it illustrates the difficulty of capturing theexuberances and deficiencies in one text and then representing the text in an entirely different language. It also highlights the importance of knowing as much as you can about a language -- the connotations, the expressions, the categories -- to lose the least amount of meaning as possible in a translation.

Amanda's Poem

Here is my sonnet. It's not very traditional, but it was inspired by the 4th of July weekend.

Freedom

“Give me liberty or give me death”

Rang out the rebel exclamation

Lives, Fortunes, Honor—the pledged breath

A sacrifice for the new nation

The blinding lights amputated the fog

Defeat made freedom seem far removed

The cry has been stifled since the prologue

Common sense discovered—doubts still unproved

Without success they find rest in death

Determined hearts and minds renew the cry

Injured, the dragon sighed one final breath

The flames renewed in the blink of an eye

Arose from the ashes a new nation

A reason now for our celebration

I decided that maybe I should include the short story version of "Bathroom Bear," in case anyone is interested, and on the chance it might make more sense out of the poem. --Evelyn

Bathroom Bear

(A Grim Tale of the Darker Side of Yellowstone Outhouses)


By Evelyn Stanley


I took a break from my duties as head coffee maker for the historic Old Faithful Inn in Yellowstone National Park. Now there’s a bit of irony—a Mormon kid making the best coffee in the Park. This twist of fate wasn’t lost on my boss. Every tourist that would send his “compliments to the chef” about the extraordinary brew would be treated to a face-to-face meeting with the reluctant teenager from Utah. Don, the head chef, would gleefully drag me out of the kitchen, while explaining to the surprised tourists that “ he doesn’t drink any—but he sure can make it!”
It was the summer of 1965, and I had just graduated from high school. I had come to Yellowstone to work in the great outdoors before heading to college in the fall. At least I was able to spend my breaks from my kitchen duties outside.
It was on my days-off that I became intimately acquainted with my summer love: I had fallen hard for Yellowstone. I was intoxicated with her beauty, and I spent every moment that I could with her. No longer the nerdy city kid, I spent hours fishing the Lower Firehole River. I had transformed into a true savage, as the Park employees were called. I spent that summer living in my cut-offs, my cowboy hat with the rattlesnake hat band and red ant fishing flies stuck in the brim, mosquito repellent, my blue Keds sneakers which also doubled as my river waders, and my Wright and McGill custom fly rod which I purchased with my first paycheck.
To reach my favorite fishing spot along the Lower Firehole meant I had to go behind the little general store and through Campers Cabins Campground and past the bears. There were about seven of them in a variety of bear colors—one cinnamon, two pure black ones, a couple of brownish ones, etc. They would sit quietly among the trees during the heat of the day. At night they would come down into the campground to raid the garbage cans, apparently a popular and necessary bear activity. I walked past the bears so often on my way to the river that I felt like I knew them all personally. They looked like big raccoons sitting there scratching themselves and sniffing the air. I liked to wave and say, “Hi, guys,” as I walked past. Once, I even thought one waved back, but he was probably just scratching his butt with one paw and the back of his ear with the other one. I considered them my friends, and they were during daylight hours. After dark I was just another garbage can .
I knew better than to cut through the campground after dark, but I was late returning to my dorm one night. I had lost track of time visiting with some friends who were camped on the far side of the campground. We were frying trout and telling stories around the campfire after a fine day of fishing. I realized the late hour, announced my good-byes, and prepared to start off into the night. My friends, concerned for my safety, encouraged me to stay the night with them. My work shift in the Old Faithful Inn kitchen began at 4:00 a.m., and Don, the head chef, frightened me almost as much as the bears did. He had an explosive temper which included throwing around kitchen supplies (read: knives) and bad words, and I didn’t want to be the one to ignite his temper this time. I didn’t dare be late for work, so I told my friends “thanks” and “I’ll be careful”, and I disappeared into the night.
I made my way through the campground all the while keeping an eye out for furry shadows. The campground had a few single bulb street lamps, and I moved stealthily from one dim circle of light to the next until I came to the lighted restroom. I sidled up to the restroom wall and breathed a sigh of relief. I could see the Inn off in the distance. I was going to make it back without incident. Thank goodness—no bears were out tonight. I walked around the restroom, peeking around the end of the building to make sure the coast was clear. I was just about half way across this side of the building, when my hair stood on end. There was a bear just around the corner where I hadn’t been able to see him. He swung his head towards me, sniffed, and grunted a warning in my direction. I froze in my tracks. The bear didn’t get up, but I didn’t dare go any closer. I looked up and noticed that thankfully I was on the men’s side of the bathroom (like it mattered) and dove in for safety.
The good news was that it wasn’t a grizzly bear. Had it been a grizzly, I’d have been dead. The bad news was that it was still a bear and now I was trapped in the bathroom. I was in shock and more than a little panicked. My mind raced. I looked frantically for furniture to block the doorway, but all I could find was flimsy flip top garbage cans and things bolted to the walls. My next idea was to get into one of the stalls, climb on the toilet and hide. That would have really fooled the bear as he looked under the stalls for shoes! Next idea: wedge the door shut. I experimented with my foot, my behind, both extended arms; and even in my impaired mental state I realized that wouldn’t even slow the bear down as he flattened me between the door and the opposing wall.
I could hear the bear outside sniffing, grunting, breathing, and scratching. And I could smell him—you know you can smell bears. It’s then I remembered that I smelled like fish—a bear’s favorite food. I said a silent prayer that this bear was a “tourist” bear, the kind that go through campgrounds looking for marshmallows. I perched on the pooper with the stall door open so I could keep an eye out for bear claws coming around the old, wooden, spring-hinged door—so far my only defense—and tried to remember all those ranger lectures about dealing with bears. The first thing they taught us to do was to climb a tree. This was not a viable option—unless—maybe I could climb up into the rafters of the bathroom. I climbed onto a urinal to see if I could somehow reach the rafters and wedge myself into safety. I realized that I couldn’t climb high enough, and all I did was succeed in getting my blue Keds wet. The last thing the rangers told us to do in case of a bear attack was to play dead. Roll up in a ball, protect your neck with your hands, and pull your knees up to protect your guts. I looked at my watch and wondered if this would work against an angry boss.
After exhausting every point of strategy at my disposal, I realized that my best idea was to try and escape. I decided to take a peek out the door. This took some doing. What if the bear was right outside the door standing his full seven feet tall waiting to knock the door down and pounce on me? I finally did a one-eyeball peek, and I didn’t see anything. Nothing jumped up in front of me. I eased the door open enough to get both eyes and my nose out. I still didn’t see anything or hear anything except for an occasional cough coming from a tent in the campground, or was that actually the faint scream of a tourist being dragged out of it’s tent by a bear?
I finally worked up the nerve to put one shaky foot out the door, then one knee while wildly whipping my head from side to side trying to watch both ends of the building. I eased one whole side out—my left side--just in case I got chewed I’d still be able to feed myself and hop. I prepared to make a break for it, you know live or die, put it all on the line, get those blue Keds smokin’. I poised for flight, one foot in the air, about to lose my balance waiting for the opportune moment, when that bear leaned his head around the corner and snorted to let me know that he wasn’t ready to let me escape yet.
His grunt sent me spinning into the air, cartoon-like, limbs flailing wildly. I scrambled to get back through the door, forgetting to open it first. I got back up, remembered to open the door this time, and dashed inside. I heaved my chest against the urinal and gave myself a primitive form of CPR. I realized the bear had been in the same place the entire time. He didn’t even have to do anything to keep me trapped. I didn’t know whether to be upset or impressed. What I did know was that I had to be to work soon to fire up the giant dishwasher and then the giant coffee maker.
I waited as long as I dared, but time was running out. I would have to attempt an escape again. I repeated the routine: right eye and nose, left eye and nose, left toes, left fingers to ease the door open a bit further, rest of the left side of my body in case I get chewed, left butt cheek, ease right side of upper body, turn numb right foot perpendicular so it can be dragged through the door opening. I was now outside the bathroom. I finally decided to take a step, one baby step. Heightened senses. The early morning air was cold and thick, not even a breeze to rustle the pine trees. I took two more steps—not towards the end of the building, but straight out. I was almost out of the circle of light from the bathroom. I could just see around the corners of the building now and there was no sign of bears. I headed past the bathroom, into the trees, checking every few seconds for the bear. It was obvious that my captor had moved on. For a few more feet I did 360’s, trying to see all directions in the dark and staying away from any fuzzy shadowy lumps.
I could see my breath in the frosty morning air. I reached the point where I decided I no longer needed to look back. I was finally out of the trees, so I could just run at top speed. I headed straight for work; I didn’t even go to my room. I just made it; Don was looking at his watch. I fired up the giant dishwasher and then the giant coffee maker and waited for compliments.


.