Talk:Nonsense verse

message: Why does it describe "The elephant is a bonnie bird. 
It flits from bough to bough. 
It makes its nest in a rhubarb tree 
And whistles like a cow" as nonsense?  It is easy to understand and picture every single word and what they all mean together.  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:08, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sense or nonsense?

message: There is more than one type of nonsense verse.  The "Algy" poem is not a piece of nonsense because it describes a situation which could happen in the real world (although it almost certainly won't). The "elephant" poem is nonsense because it describes something which can't happen in the real world (although, each of the concepts may be relatively easy to visualise in our imaginations). The "one fine day" poem is nonsense because its conflicting concepts can't be consistently visualised. The "elephant" poem also juxtaposes incompatible concepts in much the same way as the "one fine day" poem juxtaposes opposite concepts. Think about "Elephant/flit" (size), "rhubarb/tree" (non-weight bearing herb/sturdy woody plant), "whistles/cow" (don't go together). 
There are other types of nonsense too. A poem like "Jabberwocky" is nonsense because it contains words which, again, cannot be easily visualised because they have no meaning unless meanings are invented for them.  No doubt there are poems which are nonsensical for other reasons.
For instance Christopher Isherwood's excellent
:The common cormorant (or shag)
:Lays eggs inside a paper bag.
:You follow the idea, no doubt?
:It is to keep the lightning out.
:But what these unobservant birds
:Have never noticed, is that herds
:Of wandering bears may come with buns
:And steal the bags to hold the crumbs.
Completely understandable and yet utter nonsense. 
-- Derek Ross 15:21, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Types of nonsense

message: :Nonsense verse ... has a long tradition, particularly in English
It would be interesting to get some comparisons, perhaps even examples, from other languages. For example the Jabberwocky page has translations (if they can strictly be called that) into French and German - but those of course were inspired by Carroll's original. Securiger 14:50, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Tradition & translations

message: 1) Why Noseybum rather than Noseyben ?  This is because "Naso" is cognate with "Nosey" and "bēm" is cognate with "beam" (or its more common derivative, "bum". "Ben" doesn't have the same relationship to "bēm". 
2) Why "upon" and "strideth" ?  These bring the English metre closer to the German metre.
3) Why the change in line 3 ?  This is to maintain the rhyme with line 1.
4) Why introduce "first" into line 8 ?  Trying to get closer to the German meaning without losing the English rhyme.
5) "Along" works well the first time that it's used but it's very awkward the second time.  That's why I used "Enter" (which has the advantage of sounding and scanning like "einher") and changed the sentence structure slightly in the older version.  Can this be improved further ?
Derek Ross |  Talk 06:39, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
Ad 2), 3), 4): Excellent work!
Ad 1): Any German speaker instantly recognises that 'Naso' derives from 'Nase', but there is no such association with 'bēm'. The latter only serves to rhyme with 'Brehm' and 'seitdem'. If we could translate these rhymes, I would find it acceptable to choose any syllable that makes it work, as was done in the original. If it can't be done, Noseybum is of course very good.
Ad 5): "Einher" can either be applied to several entities that move in unity, or to a single entity: 'Einherschreiten' means exatly the same as simply 'schreiten', here the 'einher' is a kind of poetic tuft. Thus I find 'along' is a good translation, because it serves the same dual purpose: One thing can go along with another, but can also go along on its own. In the last line, a less awkward word could be found, but I think maintaining consistency with the second line, just like in the original, is better.
nex 16:31, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
Okay. That makes sense. Thanks. So 'bēm' isn't important meaningwise. And I can now see why you didn't like "enter" in the "einher" lines.   Maintaining consistency with the first line is extremely important-- no question about that -- and now that you've clarified "einher"'s meaning to me, I hope to be able to think of something which satisfies both the meaning and the grammar in the two places. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 18:38, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
Although Brockhaus also publishes/(-ed?) a dictionary, looking at the sequence, I'm almost certain the one mentioned here is their encyclopedia. The English equivalent would be the Encyclopedia Britanica rather than the OED.76.97.245.5 (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. Both are possibilities. The question then becomes When "Brockhaus" is mentioned to a German, does the dictionary or the encyclopedia come to mind first? Whichever it is should determine the English translation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation

message: I am tempted to add a Ringelnatz quotation, but I am not sure whether that violates copyright:
 In Hamburg lebten zwei Ameisen,
 Die wollten nach Australien reisen. 
 Bei Altona auf der Chaussee
 Da taten ihnen die Beine weh,
 Und da verzichteten sie weise
 Dann auf den letzten Teil der Reise.
Leibniz 17:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotations

message: --HomfrogTell me a story! 01:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "SOMFORBE" MEANS "LANDED"! 

message: Who wrote "one fine day..."?
Ed 04:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  one fine day... 

message: The line quoted as being from "The Dong with a Luminous Nose" by Edward Lear originates from the poem "The Jumblies", also by Lear. I will change that. Lear's poem "The Dong with the Luminous Nose" does not have a returning chorus. It however quotes the chorus from "The Jumblies" in two places, since the Dong falls in love with one of the Jumblies. I think it makes more sense to give the title of the poem in which the Jumblies are originally mentioned. Both poems are from "The book of Nonsense", first published in 1871. 71.221.249.31 20:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jumblies

message: This page really should be incorporated into the 'Literary nonsense' page.  Nonsense verse is just a subset of literary nonsense---as nonsense need not be written in verse!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.50.117 (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you also think that the 'Literary nonsense' page should be incorporated into the 'Literature' page? After all literary nonsense is just a subset of literature---as literature need not be nonsensical! -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary nonsense 

message: I removed this poem from the section of funny but not nonsense:
:I see said the blind man to the deaf man.
:I see where the lame man walks.
Because it is nonsense in a similar sense to the later poem:
:I see' said the blind man
:to his deaf wife
:over a disconnected telephone
:in 1866. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Damnwagoncrew (talk • contribs) 05:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  second funny but not nonsense poem 

message: Please remove the word reference on "dumb" from this verse. I am Deaf author but no way I am dumb! Also I am married to deaf wife and fathered to Hearing son. Better yet, please replace it with better verse.
User:Dmaestoso DRC 17:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urge to remove demagoguery word 

message: Poems with an emphasis on sound, but very little in terms of syntax.  I am thinking specifically of "Ursonate" (Sonata in primitive sounds) by Kurt Schwitters, but I expect there are more that I am simply unfamiliar with.
SSatva (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking, nonsense verse appears to have a meaning which upon closer examination vanishes or turns out to be based on flawed or paradoxical reasoning. Ursonate doesn't really have a meaning which can be misconstrued in that way. As the title would suggest, it's more like a piece of music than a piece of nonsense in my opinion. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  would this be another kind of nonsense poem? 

message: http://www.smylesandfish.com/lounge/the-canon.php?strunklemiss=1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amichai22 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we add this poem to the page? 

message: I rewrote the lead section according to its definition from the Dictionary. The original description though Well-written differed from the text book definition and contained some POV errors, I also re-arranged the article with sub-sections and cited 2 sources for the definition. I think the article could use some further refining and more references.--Theo10011 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Nonsense verse in English dates back to at least the 17th century. I'm by no means a scholar of the subject but I happen to have a book on my shelf "The Origins of English Nonsense" by Noel Malcolm - . It's a serious work tracing the earliest roots of nonsense verse in English. Roger (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We already mention some of the older antecedents in the article but if you own such a book, you are better placed than most of us to add something useful on early examples of nonsense verse, so please feel free to do so. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's far older than Lear or Carroll 

message: It seems a large part of this article is more or less identical to http://languageisavirus.com/poetry-guide/nonsense_verse.html, but I'm not certain whom is copying from whom.  Some lines are changed in this article, while others (i.e. "Still other nonsense verse uses muddled or ambiguous grammar as well as invented words, as in John Lennon's 'The Faulty Bagnose'") are completely identical.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.222.95.70 (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a statement on that page attributing it to Wikipedia, so they copied from us: "This guide is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia." Good to see it properly attributed for a change. Roger (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I can confirm that I originally created this article in September 2002 and that I am one of the main authors. And I wrote it for Wikipedia, not for languageisavirus.com or anyone else. In future if you are uncertain about the provenance of a Wikipedia article, please refer to the page history link. This will show when a WP article was created and how it has changed over time. With this source of evidence it is generally quite easy to discover whether a Wikipedia article (or part thereof) is the original version, or a copyright violation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright issue?

message: Can some Beatle's songs be thought of as in the tradition of nonsense verse/rhyme
I am the Walrus.  Lucy in the Sky...  Benefit of Mr. Kite.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phlarkin (talk • contribs) 16:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Beatles 

message: I flagged Two Dead Boys as a quotation without a source. In my own quick check, I found a discussion which attributes this to an ancient folk tradition. Even so, here on Wikipedia, it's best not to let this pass without comment. — MaxEnt 05:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Dead Boys