Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Cleo_Serapis Aug 9 03, 17:24

What is Prose anyway?

PROSE can be defined as: The ordinary way we speak and write in sentences and paragraphs. (Examples: newspapers, magazines, letters, novels, short stories, speeches, conversations, everything except POETRY.)

Prose is the unrhymed, nonmetrical, everyday language we speak and write at any or all levels. We usually mean written language when we use the word prose, however, and we contrast prose with poetry or verse. Sometimes (but rarely) we contrast it with fiction, as well.

Inadvertent rhyme in prose, as in "Please clean the screen", can often mar a passage’s effectiveness, just as deliberate use of it is a favorite attention-getting device in advertising.
Like excessive alliteration, deliberate rhyme in prose, especially rime riche (pronounced REEM REESH), which uses two or more words pronounced and sometimes spelled alike but with different meanings (as in He’s a fishy sort, with no more soul than a sole), is of dubious merit except for jocular use.

Good prose usually avoids repetitive regular metrical patterns, just as it avoids or minimizes inadvertent rhyme, but that doesn’t mean it lacks rhythm. Avoid insistently obvious patterns, particularly overlong stretches of text, because rocking-horse regularity can be either soporific or inadvertently funny. Seek instead the variety and effectiveness of a rhythm that reinforces meaning, provides variety, and is easy and pleasant to read, silently or aloud. Parallelism, as in I came, I saw, I conquered, judicious placement of adverbs, as in Attempt the work willingly, accept its discomforts patiently, and respond to the result cheerfully, variety in lengths and kinds of sentences, as in We planned the attack with care, we committed our resources with restraint, and we controlled our zeal with patience; nonetheless, we failed, and juxtapositions of grammatical and rhetorical stress, as in with liberty and justice for all, are all examples of ways you can vary and control the rhythm of your prose.

Source: http://www.bartleby.com

Posted by: Don Aug 17 03, 19:24

An interesting tack to view of what prose consists. If we were not exposed to much poetry the question of prose definition does not occur. Public education in the United States today does an excellent avoidance of poetry; therefore, most of us by way of essays and standard English writing and literature classes only know prose.

How is poetry different from prose is usually the difficult question. I have several answers, but each one has failed in their time.  It is much like asking how does a rose smell?

The aroma of a rose is subjective and depends more upon the experience than any language could hope to convey.

A poem must have rhyme.  Not if it is blank verse.  Okay, then a poem must have meter.  Not if is free verse.  Then a poem must have rhythm.  Not if it is syllabic verse.

Actually there are many features that one may read in poetic verse such as comparison, metaphor and assonance.  But sooner or later the reader is going to encounter a passage of prose and a passage of poetry that defy into which category it belongs.  

A rose can eventually loses its appealing aroma.
Do not look too closely as the pedals shall be plucked to produce a flightless bird.

May your bouquets never fade.

Don

Posted by: Martinus Julius Caesura Sep 1 03, 03:38

Posted by: Don Sep 1 03, 08:50

Posted by: Martinus Julius Caesura Sep 1 03, 14:57

The word “meter” derives from the Greek term metron, which means “measure,” and metrical systems are distinguished by what is being “measured” (i.e., counted) in each line. There are four major kinds of “meter” in English poetry:

(1) Stress-Syllabic meter (also called Syllable-Stress meter, or Accentual-Syllabic meter) is defined in terms of both the number and the arrangement of accented (stressed) and unaccented (unstressed) syllables (measured by “accentual feet”) in a line.

(2) Stress-meter (also called Strong-Stress meter, Accentual-Stress meter, or Alliterative-Stress meter) is defined in terms of only the number of stressed syllables in a line.

(3) Syllabic meter  is defined in terms of only the number of syllables per line, without regard to stresses.

(4) Quantitative meter is defined in terms of durational rather than accentual feet—i.e., each foot consists of “long” and “short,” rather than “stressed” and “unstressed,” syllables.

Most of the metered English poems written today are in stress-syllabic meter (#1, above).

My point was that the definition of cinquain clearly places it under the heading of syllabic verse (#3, above), whose only “measure” is the number of syllables per line. While it’s true that cinquains may incorporate accentual-syllabic (i.e., “stress-syllabic”) meter, that is not a requirement.

I think that the inclusion of accentual-syllabic meter in any piece of English poetry certainly enhances the poem’s rhythm. However, syllabic meter, by itself, does have its own rhythm (though building a discernible rhythm in English strictly based upon syllable count seems to me to be about as easy as seeing your own shadow while blindfolded and locked in a dark closet on a moonless night! ).

-Martin

Posted by: Don Sep 1 03, 15:11

Greetings again Martinus Julius Caesura

Apparently I do not know my basic definitions of form poems such as cinquain syllable type.

Your definition of darkness matches that of Woody Allen's as black as a black cat on a coal pile on a moonless night.  Not put into quotations for lack of remembering the exact sentence.

The conclusion is that so called syllabic verse is not new, nor "so called" because it has been around.

Thanks for the enlightenment.

Don

Posted by: Calloused Aug 31 05, 21:02

i believe that you are overlooking some of the most fantastic prosaic writers of all time, most specifically, Joyce.  Joyce used heavy alliteration and rhyming in a way that strengthened his writing incredibly.  Then again, as professors will constantly tell aspiring writers, Joyce was a special case.

Posted by: Perrorist Sep 1 05, 02:37

Prose is what you choose not to call poetry.

Posted by: Jox Sep 1 05, 02:58

Hi Perry...

I'm almost with you there but I think we should exclude baked beans and Hindenburg airships at least. Oh yes and those little creatures which live with the Soup Dragon.

J.

Posted by: Perrorist Sep 2 05, 16:07

Prose is what you choose not to call poetry or baked beans or Hindenburg airships or those little creatures which live with the Soup Dragon.

Posted by: Cleo_Serapis Sep 2 05, 18:10

I'll second that Perry!  :gandalfg:

Posted by: Jox Sep 2 05, 18:22

Hi Perry,

Behind my comment was a slightly more serious point.

With respect, I disagree with your definition of poetry.

Why not say prose is what we choose not to call poetry?

Neither definition actually says anything does it?

Now, my definition of poetry is no more helpful - poetry is what the writer says it is. However, if something that I don't think is remotely poetic is posted as poetry I then ask the writer, "I accept this is poetry, as you say it is - but why do you say it's poetry?"

In a way, of course, it doesn't matter at all. But humans like classifications and sometimes it can be inconvenient if people ignore them. Also, if people post things I don't think are poetry I want to know what I'm not understanding; what new opportunities there are. etc.

One objection I took to your definition was that it suggests poetry must be in a written language. Must it? Cannot many things be (if not poetry per se) at least poetic?

If poetry is what prose isn‘t and vikky-verky then we still have no division betwixt the two. We might as well scrap the words “poetry“ and “prose“ and just use “writing“ - which might be a very good idea.

I don‘t think anything has absolutes (poetry is...) but I can‘t accept defining one in terms of the absence of t‘other - and vikky-verky again - sheds any light at all.

Thanks for the discussion.... very interesting.

J.

Posted by: Perrorist Sep 2 05, 19:42

James, I think I was agreeing with you when you say that poetry is poetry if you choose to call it that. In other words, prose is what you don't choose to call poetry. This assumes of course that writing is either poetry or prose.

Personally, I have problems with what sometimes purports to be poetry, because to my simple mind it looks like prose chopped up into fragments. So perhaps the question should change from 'what is prose?' to 'what is poetry?'. Unfortunately, I don't know how to answer that question, although I suspect it might have something to do with cadence and concentrated imagery.

Posted by: Jox Sep 2 05, 19:54

Hi Perry,

Thanks for your reply.

Sorry, seems I misunderstood you, apologies.

I'm in agreement - I don't know what poetry is, either.

Mine contains no sensible R&M nor cadance - I never see these things - not in poetry nor music. (People tell me music has a rhythm but unless we're talking Status Quo, I don't get one). So I've given up on that. Pity but I haven't yet seen a poem (save two) which have rhythm and people tell me many I've seen have. It's a bit like colour blindness - it may be there - but where?

J.

Posted by: Perrorist Sep 12 05, 03:08

I came across this quote just now, James, and I thought you might appreciate it:

"A dog, I have always said, is prose; a cat is a poem."  - Jean Burden

Posted by: Cleo_Serapis Sep 12 05, 05:35

Posted by: JLY Sep 12 05, 06:02

What is Prose? depends on your perspective.

If you are a guy and you have a story to tell; when you are sharing this message with your guy friends it is prose.......

When you are alone with your special lady and your are telling the same story, the manner in which you tell it becomes poetic cause it has the nice sing song ring that ladies love.

JLY

Posted by: Toumai Sep 12 05, 14:27

John,
You smoooth operator, you! (Are you giving away trade secrets?  ??? )

I think prose can be very rhythmically poetic ... many authors use rhythm - Jeanette Winterson, for example,  talks a great deal about rhythm when she discusses her novels. I am trying to listen to the rhythm as I write my own stories.

Fran

Posted by: Jox Sep 12 05, 16:41

Hi Perry,

No wonder I don't understand rhythm if cats are involved! Or to put it another way... "Understand rhythm - me, how?"

Cheers, J.

Posted by: Ephiny Sep 12 05, 16:56

Hello everyone!

What an interesting discussion and question!!  

For me personally, I always think of the difference between poetry and prose as..well..kind of like sharpening a pencil!!  For me, poetry is prose pared right down to the very substance of the piece (which is strange for me to say since I really need to learn how to edit properly!)  But I think sometimes, as someone made the point above with reference to Joyce, a piece of prose, can sound or feel like poetry to the reader and similarly, a poem can seem more like prose.  Sometimes I've written what I thought was a poem and realised afterwards that it works much better as a piece of prose.  But what that difference really is..it's so hard to define completely.  Does anyone else find that sometimes specific lines of a poem just stick in your head in certain times or situations?!

I remember the first poem I ever wrote..I was ten years old and it was after the very worst time of my life.  The poem itself was nothing special, not least because I thought that a poem HAD to rhyme, no matter what you needed to do to the lines or words to make it!  It was very simple but yet I still know it by heart today and when I think of it, the words still surprise me, not because they are anyway impressive but simply because what I thought/felt at the time surprises me.  Maybe what I'm trying to say about poetry is something like..a poem sort of sums up something in your mind, maybe there is more room for images to enter or for the imagination to take hold..for so many different and unique reasons.

And yet..prose can do the same thing, I think... so after waffling on and on, I haven't really made any clear point!!

PS John, I like your style!!

Posted by: Toumai Sep 13 05, 01:54

John - I was right! You ARE a smoooth operator, lol  

Hi everyone,

I have seen poetry and prose defined in various different ways and none of them seems to be 100% exclusive. Do you  think that niggles us because humans have this basic need to shove things into categories and define them? I have read some 'prose poetry' (NOT on MM, lol)  that was more turgid than the most boring appliance manual and I have read stories with prose that shines and lifts one into another universe. I think Lucie is at the heart of the matter: poetry is very concentrated; an essence of the subejct; and the words are memorable (it is so wonderful that you remember your first poem, Lucy! ). In prose we may gain the same, but are unlikely to remember an entire passage word for word.

Fran

Posted by: Perrorist Sep 13 05, 02:15

Posted by: Jox Sep 13 05, 02:50

OK, my bottom line is too big.

Right, I'll start again...

OK, my bottom line is that something is what a writer says it is, providing they are educated and serious. That is, so long as they are aware of different types of writing and seriously believe theirs is either Po or Pr then fair enough - does it matter much?

From the POV of running a crit board, a competition or publishing, pigeon holes are useful / essential, so the managers have to be able to pigeon-hole according to their criteria. But we shouldn't accept that as gospel - it is just their take, even if the majority of writers agree.

As Fran mentions that prose may have rhythm (I won't ask!) that line is out of the proverbial window.

My own take is that all writing is prose, unless it is distilled to its essential components. That is easily confused with minimalism poetry but I don't mean such. A poem may have many words in which should be axed to make it minimalist but which still earn their keep by having an important effect on the whole.

Prose can afford to explore more avenues and travel parallel lanes; it can even drive down both sides of a dual carriageway in opposite directions. It can take the ferry; only to return back by plane without the goods. Prose can cycle up mountains and down dales; it can enter a few races (to lift up thine eyes and seek His face). Prose can do a few twirls of roundabouts - major and mini; it can lead us down dark cul-de-sacs - and, yes, up the garden path. It can jive, pogo, jitterbug on the central reservation - leading us a merry dance.

Poetry has no time for any of that. Poetry has one theme and quickly cuts - or cuts to the quick. It is precise and each metaphor must serve the overall aim precisely. Poetry is life distilled; it is an exhilarating helicopter-ride over all the clogged road system.

OK, I'll be on my bottom line in Pseud's Corner if anyone wants me. C'mon, someone must? No? oh ok...

J.

Posted by: Cleo_Serapis Sep 13 05, 05:31

I find this tile very interesting!    

It seems that there is no singular definition to differentiate the two except to say what others have mentioned:

"Poetry is very concentrated; an essence of the subject..."

Often times, in poetry, conjunctions are replaced (or eliminated) with action verbs etc... and really are meant to be 'snippets' of thought.

Poems are fragments of stories IMHO.

Generally, there also might be a specific meter associated to make it 'sing along' which is why we remember poetry more easily. I think of the The Grinch for example by Dr. Suess and The Raven by EAP Poe.

Prose can most certainly use elements of poetry - poetic devices such as alliteration and assonance, coupled with meter and rhythm as well.

JRR Tolkien was effective with these devices in his writings, most notably The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings He even used poetry within the pages of prose.  

I guess it boils down to what Jox states - It is what the writer says it is. However, it may also be what the reader interprets it to be.  

~Cleo  :p

Posted by: Nina Sep 13 05, 06:26

That is, so long as they are aware of different types of writing and seriously believe theirs is either Po or Pr then fair enough - does it matter much?

It doesn't matter much.  It is only giving the piece a label.

However as we have a deep rooted desire to label everything that they can be neatly pigeonholed/categorised we need to have a definition.  That definition should be flexible rather than a clear delineation and I rather like James' definition on what is poetry.

Poetry has one theme and quickly cuts - or cuts to the quick. It is precise and each metaphor must serve the overall aim precisely. Poetry is life distilled;

For me, beauty of poetry is that it gets straight to the point using the quickest shortest route possible.  It isn't necessarily just part of a story, it can still be a complete, just without the extra words that prose uses to enhance and elaborate on the message.

Personally when prose is chopped up to look like poetry it interrupts the flow and makes it more difficult to read.  

Lori says - It is what the writer says it is. However, it may also be what the reader interprets it to be.

Indeed which is why as writers we need to be clear ourselves as to whether we are writing prose or poetry so when the reader asks "Is this prose or poetry" we can give a reasoned reply.

Nina

Posted by: Calloused Sep 14 05, 19:18

i mean, are you kidding me?
poetry can be far more drawn out than prose.

there are some true ignorances being brought into this argument and topic.

the most accurate definition i can offer is that poetry is that which is not formatted according to the rules of prose.

no other definition, no attempt at restriction can possibly carry the whole truth.

Posted by: Cleo_Serapis Sep 15 05, 05:34

Posted by: JLY Sep 15 05, 06:15

"A prose writer gets tired of writing prose, and wants to be a poet. So he begins every line with a capital letter, and keeps on writing prose."

Samuel McChord Crothers

Posted by: Toumai Sep 15 05, 06:31

 Thanks for that, John

Poetry by Dictionary.com:

1) The art or work of a poet.

2) a) Poems regarded as forming a division of literature.
   b) The poetic works of a given author, group, nation, or kind.

3) A piece of literature written in meter; verse.

4) Prose that resembles a poem in some respect, as in form or sound.

5) The essence or characteristic quality of a poem.

6) A quality that suggests poetry, as in grace, beauty, or harmony: the poetry of the dancer's movements

and prose, as given by the same source:

1) Ordinary speech or writing, without metrical structure.

2) Commonplace expression or quality.

3) Roman Catholic Church. A hymn of irregular meter sung before the Gospel.

Anyone else feel that these definitions are somewhat circular?

Fran

PS Calloused, philosophically, would you agree that both truths and ignorances are subjective relational belief patterns? Perhaps slightly emotive language.

Posted by: JLY Sep 15 05, 06:53

Fran,
You gave us much to ponder about the differences between prose and poetry.

I think to write good prose or poetry takes a certain skill / talent level; however I am inclined to think that to write great poetry, it takes a unique ability to express one's thoughts in a compact format.

To be able to express a complete thought in a succinct manner is not an easy task.....I know, I have been trying to do that for quite some time and my poems tend to be more like ballads.  I find myself caught in a crevice between two mountains: Prose on my left....Poetry on my right.  I prefer to reach the summit of Mt. Poetry, but I keep sliding downward into the crevice.

JLY

Posted by: Nina Sep 15 05, 07:00

Hi Fran

philosophically, would you agree that both truths and ignorances are subjective relational belief patterns?

I totally agree.  Another person's perception of truth may not be mine.  In the same way my perception of another person's ignorance is a  judgemental assumption based simply on my own subjective belief of what is the truth.

Nina

Posted by: Jox Sep 15 05, 07:20

Hi all,

Fran, yes the definitions are circular. I once heard a philosopher defgine a dog as a creature which was "full of dogginess."

That is the problem when we try to define anything - only the LCD ever really works. What are trousers? Well standard trousers are easy enough, then we can include jeans. But where is the cut off point (sic)? When do trousers become shorts or culottes or dungarees or whatever. Never easy. Throw writers into the pot and thw whole thing becaomes very hard indeed.

Calloused... "the most accurate definition i can offer is that poetry is that which is not formatted according to the rules of prose."

I agree with Lori - what is prose, then? That becaomes circular, too. For example, Fran's reply (from the dictionary) includes:

"1) Ordinary speech or writing, without metrical structure."

Well, I don't know of any writer who would accept that. If we wrote ordinary speech, we'd have so many "ums" and "errs" and "y'knows" that the piece would be unreadable. Prose writers try to produce prose which may be accepted as everyday speech sometimes - but certainly isn't.

Calloused: "i mean, are you kidding me? poetry can be far more drawn out than prose."

emm... Sorry, I can't see any meaning there. How can we compare? I could argue that "The Waste Land" is shorter than "War and Peace" or that "Macavity" is not as long as "Sense and Sensibility." etc. But, in any case, it is not absolute length but the use of the words which counts. For me, prose is not as distilled as is poetry. But I accept that's my feeling so I don't recommend it as a definition. To me, "drawn-out" implies needlessly so - which, for me, would be bad writing of any sort. But, by its nature, prose can (as I was explaining) investigate all over the place and it is able to zoom hither and elsewhere. Poetry is far harder to accept when it does that. The only really successful example I can think of is Shakespeare. But he's a tad special. Even TS Eliot confuddles most non-specialists.

Calloused... "no other definition, no attempt at restriction can possibly carry the whole truth"

You mention ignorance. But ignorance is a friend of definitions. The more ignorant one is, the easier to define something. That is because, as with the trousers example, the more one knows, the harder something is to precisely define. If I only know of standard trousers, their definition is really easy.

Also, I agree with Fran - ignorance is subjective. For example, I don't know a single academic fact which I accept as fact. If that means I'm ignorant then I heartily recommend ignorance as a better path to enlightment than than of the certainty in truths. But it is probably an age thing - when I was young I knew far more than I do now. Almost everything I knew lies on shifting sands which I didn't notice until I tried to jump on an island, only to find it had moved.

John you make a good point I'd forgotten - ballads. Very wordy but poetry. (By the way (as I was always told), don't beat yourself up - many others are willing to do that. Seriously, you under-value your own poetry).

Lori, Nina... Of course I agree with both of you about readers' interpretations - I've been yattering about it long enough. Good point.

Posted by: Perrorist Sep 15 05, 14:57

I think the man on the Clapham omnibus would recognise prose when he saw it and much poetry, especially if it had a distinct meter and/or rhythm. These are clearly distinguishable. Somewhere in the middle is blank verse and the more experimental stuff that looks like advertising copy in an expensive, glossy magazine. The man on the bus would scratch his noggin and be unsure whether he was perusing prose or poetry.

This suggests to me that conventional prose and poetry are definable but the point at which the two touch or overlap confounds the demarcation.

I suppose similar problems arise in art and music.

Posted by: Jox Sep 15 05, 15:30

Hi all,

Perry:

"This suggests to me that conventional prose and poetry are definable but the point at which the two touch or overlap confounds the demarcation.

I suppose similar problems arise in art and music."

And trousers!

Posted by: Cleo_Serapis Sep 15 05, 16:20

and romantics ?

Posted by: Nina Sep 15 05, 16:25

Lori - and romantics

I wouldn't know!  

I'll stick to the trousers analogy

Nina

Posted by: Toumai Sep 16 05, 01:08

Nina, that's a thoroughly modern attitude: 'Pants to romance!'
Fran

Posted by: Perrorist Sep 16 05, 01:19

Posted by: Cleo_Serapis Sep 16 05, 05:13

Ohhhh - pick ME!  :lion:

Pants = heavy breathing

thus

romance leads to heavy breathing

OR

heavy breathing leads to romance ?
 :oops:  :upside:  :jester:

Posted by: Perrorist Sep 16 05, 05:17

I think 'pants' is British slang for something derogatory or unworthy. I had to ask this question before but I can't quite remember the answer.

Posted by: Cleo_Serapis Sep 16 05, 05:35

Ahhh - dunno Perry.

Perhaps one of the members will let us in on it?

I must admit - I've been learning many new words for my vocab since starting up MM!
TTFN

Posted by: Nina Sep 16 05, 06:15

Hi Lori, Perry

Pants means - rubbish, nonsense

Nina

Posted by: JLY Sep 16 05, 06:16

Thoughts by other notables:

A poem begins in delight and ends in wisdom.
Robert Frost
US poet (1874 - 1963)

Say all you have to say in the fewest possible words, or your reader will be sure to skip them; and in the plainest possible words or he will certainly misunderstand them.
   
John Ruskin

Posted by: Nina Sep 16 05, 06:23

Say all you have to say in the fewest possible words, or your reader will be sure to skip them; and in the plainest possible words or he will certainly misunderstand them.
 
John Ruskin

I totally agree with John Ruskin, wise words.

Nina

Posted by: Jox Sep 16 05, 09:56

Hi all,

Yes Ruskin had a point.

Whilst an undergraduate (no, not an undergarment!) I had lunch most days in Ruskin Building - plain and simple student fayre. Quite pants really.

This "pants" slang is, I think, quite modern - 1980s maybe?

I agree Lori - I've had my vocabulary considerably enlarged since joining MM (and it was so painless!) I didn't know, for example, that "pants" in the US can mean "trousers" - here it always means underwear below trousers. Though curiously, we sometimes call that underwear "underpants" - I wonder if that meant pants which are under (trousers) or garments under pants. It maybe that we also called trousers "pants" once. I don't know.

So, who is for deciding what pants are and which great poems are pants and who, wearing pants looks like poetry in motion? Then again, "motions" and "pants" are not a happy juxtaposition.

OK I waffle. Back to fixing this computer. I need to install a word processor next so I can spell-check my postings again.

J.

Posted by: JLY Sep 16 05, 10:26

James,
T think we all might be a bit confused by the derivations / meanings of words that seem natural to us, and perplexing to others.
Perhaps we should start another thread wherein we compare the slang / vernacular that is indigenous to the different areas of the world currently populated by MM members.
JLY

Posted by: Nina Sep 16 05, 14:04

Perhaps we should start another thread wherein we compare the slang / vernacular that is indigenous to the different areas of the world currently populated by MM members.

Interesting suggestion John.  Mind you the vernacular varies greatly from one region of the UK to another and from one generation to another.  Mike (Billydo) often talks a completely different language to me as do my children and their friends.

As for Fran's comment "Pants to romantics", I'd use a completely different word instead of pants which I probably shouldn't mention in this thread.

Nina

Posted by: JLY Sep 16 05, 14:25

Nina,
It's the same here in the US. My 20 year old son speaks a different language than I do and I sometimes seem bewildered cause I sometimes don't know what he is talking about.

Here:  Pants = Trousers
        Underpants = undergarments

Posted by: Toumai Sep 16 05, 14:30

What a good quote from Ruskin. Orwell was another person keen on precise, intelligible prose. One of his essays is called "Politics and the English Language" but is more about how language is abused to suit political objectives than politics themselves. (His interest in political language misuse was also shown in "1984" with Newspeak).

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

Posted by: Jox Sep 16 05, 14:53

Hi John,

Watcha mate! (Hello, how are you?)

Excellent idea, save for the massive complexity of it. I have previously pointed to a British Dictionary of Slang. Is there an American one too? Australian etc etc? If so may we have the link, please?

http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/

Posted by: JLY Sep 16 05, 15:11

James,
Try this...it is far from a complete collection, but it will give you a snapshot of some commonly used slang words in the US.

http://www.manythings.org/slang/

JLY

Posted by: Jox Sep 16 05, 15:16

Ta John.

Going to take a butcher's...

J.

Posted by: Nina Sep 16 05, 15:36

thanks for the link John.

I'll mosey on over there in a jiffy.

Nina

Posted by: Perrorist Sep 16 05, 15:47

Here's a couple of Aussie slang dictionaries:

http://www.aussieslang.com/

http://www.koalanet.com.au/australian-slang.html

Posted by: Jox Sep 16 05, 16:03

Ta Perry,

I don't see much ponting in slang myself but I'll warne ya I'll be taking a langer look soon.

(Ashes special reply).

J.

Posted by: Rosemerta May 25 06, 11:31

I just stumbled onto this tile and couldn't pass it by. I wasn't here when it was started and hate to open an old can of worms but it brought back a discussion of long ago that I had with others on art.

It began when an argument broke out over a piece of art that some liked and some hated. This went on into bashing the masters of modern art and whether that should ever have been considered real art. I have seen some work that an artist slapped together in 10 minutes and they made a fortune on it and another where an artist had his painting down to photographic detail and no one even noticed it. I had decided for a time that what the public considered art was what a clever artist with the gift of selling could convince them was art, whether they really liked it or not. Later I decided that art is anything that moves the artist when he is creating it and anyone else when they view it. We would have lost some great art had everyone stuck to the 'rules'.

Such has become my similar view in writing. If you gain something in writing it and another can relate in reading it then it is a written art form. Some may try to place a fine line between poetry and prose which I consider black and white. Others may see the broader sense of gray. How one sees a piece in the end boils down to personal choice. Some of it can be refined and/or categorized to be more appealing to the masses but in the end it is the sharing of ones self that is presented and we should simply be greatful for that.

**steps down from her soapbox**