able-bodied seaman

"Able-bodied seaman"'s a phrase
From Britain's great seafaring days.
A chap who can reef sails
In the teeth of force nine gales
Deserves all that's meant by that praise.

abracadabra

Abracadabra's a word
Whose point is to sound--well, absurd.
Its roots may be Gnostic
Or even acrostic
For casting a spell it's preferred.

abutment

An abutment's the part of a wall
Which won't let the other part fall.
When the wall's got an arch
The abutment's the starch
That keeps it a wall, not a sprawl.

Even though there are two other definitions, since I spent the time composing it, I might as well submit it:

Aardvark

An African animal, is the aardvark.
"It's a quite strange beast" you'll remark.
Its name means "earth pig".
And it likes to dig
and eat termites and ants in the dark.

My God, what a fertile and talented crowd! Consider how dreary this whole project would be if only the first adjective applied!

Rather than commenting on each and every piece (Really, all of them are winners!) which is becoming a bit time consuming, allow me to just hit some highlights:

evinrude - I especially liked the last line of "abutment," all of "abound," and your "ablution" has got to be one of the best in the whole damn book so far! Keep 'em comin'!

T.A. - Under the heading of "Great Minds Think Alike," may I direct your attention to my May 17th piece, same subject.

D.L. - On your "absolution" piece, "sorry/worry"??? (Brrrrr!) I'd prefer "You arrive in a surrey, the priest says 'Don't worry.'" It's a contrived rhyme, yes, but it's a rhyme. This is what is known as a "sight rhyme," something I put into the same category as Brussel sprouts and Michael Jackson's facial surgeries - I acknowledge their existence but try not to spend great quantities of time in their immediate presence. If, on the other hand, you are an advocate of such abominations, this is of course your right.

(And here's an odd sidenote: I just Dictionary.com'ed "Brussel sprouts" to make sure it was "Brussel" and not "Brussle" and they say that, in fact, it's "Brussels sprouts"! Outrageous! I refuse to spell it that way. All those S's and you end up sounding like an overly sibilant snake.)

Sigg - No sweat on your "aardvark" piece. The more, the merrier!

abrim

In bars kept deliberately dim
You might find your glass not abrim.
The barman takes pleasure
In giving short measure
Since the money he steals goes to him.

Quote "...in fact, it's "Brussels sprouts"! ..."

I have always assumed that they came originally from Brussels and that's why they are so named. And, no problem, "brussel sprouts" and brussels sprouts" sound so nearly the same as not to matter.

For ability, see here.

Welcome, Sigg! We are so happy to see so many new people! Please see the Community note about our chat tomorrow.

Should you gloat that your garden's abloom
With bouquets boasting perfect perfume,
I shall snarl that its smell
Is the handiwork of hell
And a hay fever sufferer's doom.

When naming the aberdevine,
"Siskin" is what naturalists assign.
For them also "a finch"
Would suffice in a pinch
But I think "a bird"'d be fine.

I was feeling left out, so:

aardvark

It's not a tall tree with a hard bark.
It's not a slick riverboat card shark.
A burrowing mammal,
Not a hog nor a camel,
It's that beast which is known as the "aardvark."

(Maybe we could have a rule that every OEDILF Contributing Editor has to do an "aardvark" piece. We'd soon have enough for a separate book of aardvark limericks and, then again, we all know how much Kalleh appreciates repetition!)

Now comes the curmudgeon Aardvark
To test his skill as a bard, Mark
He's really a joker
At games like strip poker
And always performs in the card park

CJ's gonna jump on abstemious and tedious, I can just hear him now "but it doesn't rhyme"...

Don't say I didn't warn you.

OK, that's five aardvarks and counting. Can't wait to hear what Kalleh has to say.

And nice one, jo. Multiple words within one limerick, as long as their all from the same word group (in this case aa- to ab- words) are always acceptable even though they do tend to make administrative bookkeeping difficult for Kalleh and me. For what it's worth, the record so far is nine words within a single limerick.

Welcome aboard! We look forward to reading your future contributions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BobHale:
CJ's gonna jump on abstemious and tedious...

---

Maybe it's Kalleh's good influence but I'd like to think that I don't "jump on" people, particularly new people, even when it comes to situations where I strongly feel I'm in the right.

Exceptions, of course, are you and R.E., my two British cyber-friends whom I will slap at will whenever the spirit moves me but that, of course, is another matter entirely.

Ref "abstemious" and "tedious," yes, well... This is all covered in my first June 26th post in the "words beginning with ac-" thread.

jo, don't let B.H. scare you off. When he was a child he was read to at great length from the works of Lewis "Two R's, Two L's" Carroll and so today cannot be completely blamed for his occasionally erratic behavior.

I found abditory was reluctant to fit into an anapestic rhythm, so I've distorted it to ab-di-TO-ry.

Mary penned her most personal prayer;
An outrageously flagrant affair.
She stashed the brash story
In her abditory,
Then promptly forgot it was there.

Abraxas

Santana's old album "Abraxas"
With magical notes attacks us.
The sounds weave a spell,
A charm to compel.
It's mystical music in praxis.

jo - Long E, fine. Ious, fine. But the differing consonants make this a close rhyme and not a perfect one. Especially considering my recent "sensation/frustration/erection" gaffe (Not even close!) I hesitate to delve too deeply into this subject right now. If you search on "sight rhymes" on this site you'll be directed to a lengthy and passionate debate on the subject.

q - Good one on "Abraxis" but aren't you missing a syllable in the second line? A two-syllable word in place of "notes" would make the meter work better. Also (and I'm not positive about this) are you using "praxis" correctly here? I realize that there aren't that many rhymes out there for "Abraxis" but I'm not sure this one works.

One more:


aardvark (Yes, again!)

The frontiersman loved women quite freely.
Even school marms would offer a freebie:
"Is that, Davy Crocket,
"An aardvark in your pocket,
"Are are you just happy to see me?"

(groan)

(On the plus side, we can now be fairly certain of being the proud possessors of the largest collection of aardvark limericks in the world. That's gotta count for something, right?)

This strikes me as odd. Your "tedious/abstemious" rhyme is a close rhyme (and not a perfect one) because the "e" and the "ious" of both words match up but the "d" of "tedious" does not do likewise with the "m" of "abstemious," hence its status as a "near rhyme" or "close rhyme" or whatever term you'd prefer. Rhymezone.com lists no perfect rhymes for either word though I'm not sure none exist.

What strikes me odd about your objection is that I am using the same "near rhyme" pattern with "freely/freebie/see me" as you did. The vowel sounds match but the consonants don't. I definitely prefer perfect rhymes to anything less but in this case necessity forced my hand. The last line "or are you just happy to see me" couldn't be altered and there are no perfect rhymes for "see me."

Do I think this piece is one of my best? Definitely not. If you can come up with better rhymes for "see me," I'll gladly share writing credit. Bottom line - We'll aim for perfection but will, when need be, settle for slightly less.

And one last note: When the OEDILF website is set up, I want to have a system where newer better limericks will push out earlier poorer ones. In this way, friendly competition and constructive criticism among all of us will make for a better product overall.

When longing for treats hot and steamy,
The frontiersman's thoughts could turn seamy.
"Is that, Davy Crocket,
An aardvark in your pocket,
Or are you just happy to see me?"

Exact rhymes, but seamy - see me is an identical rhyme, so the limerick is still flawed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Virge:
Exact rhymes, but _seamy_ - _see me_ is an identical rhyme, so the limerick is still flawed.

---

A huge improvement. Is it considered an identical rhyme (if that's the term for it) if it sounds identical but is spelled differently? I don't know.

Plus "seamy" is pronounced "seem-ee" while "see me" is, of course, "see me." Isn't that difference enough?

Congratulations, you now have another 1/2 poem credited to your total.

The lowly secretary here (ME!) is getting confused with all of these re-writes. I am just collecting all words and dates, and CJ can go from there. As I have suggested previously, though, it would be HUGELY helpful if you would just bold the final word you want counted. (Sorry for the duplicate request on that, but it would be sooo helpful!)

Now, just how many "aardvarks" do we need?! Oy vey!

"q - Good one on "Abraxas" but aren't you missing a syllable in the second line? A two-syllable word in place of "notes" would make the meter work better. Also (and I'm not positive about this) are you using "praxis" correctly here? I realize that there aren't that many rhymes out there for "Abraxis" but I'm not sure this one works."

How about "With magical notes hurled attacks us"? (I read Dr. Birch and still have trouble with meter.)

Before I make a change, here's the definition:

Main Entry: prax·is
Pronunciation: 'prak-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural prax·es /-"sEz/
Etymology: Medieval Latin, from Greek, doing, action, from prassein to do, practice -- more at PRACTICAL
: ACTION, PRACTICE: as a : exercise or practice of an art, science, or skill b : customary practice or conduct

Doesn't that seem to fit?

Entitling the word defined

I show my words as an emboldened title, like the above. How's that for a system?

Incidentally, I reckon not to use more than one defined word in a Limerick, and more than the OED would define more than one word in a definition. If the definition could be of more than one word then, just like a dictionary, I would use that definition against each of the words it defines.

But that's maybe just my tidy mind!

It might have been prognosticated
Sabbatarian laws in this state'd
Be things of the past
They would never last;
In short, they would be abrogated.

Another on the Sabbath theme. I think I'll stick with "into" (see Adventist).

When two Roman lawyers of repute
Found themselves in a heated dispute
Over which was their case,
They conceded with grace:
"We're both ablative absolute."

Can anyone whose last Latin class wasn't twenty years ago confirm that these attorneys are, in fact (or would be, in Latin) in the ablative absolute case?

The dictionary says an ablaut
Is a vowel sound that changes throughout
The example that's given
Is "drive, drove, and driven":
Passed down from Old English, no doubt.

abash

I'll abash you! I'll scald you with shame!
For your stain on the family name!
What you did in Nantucket
With your ---- and -- Oh, chuck it!
We're pariahs, and you are to blame!

Hello, all!

Chagrined would be Smokey the Bear
If with matches he did not take care
Mindfulness pays
Lest the woods flash ablaze
So campfire-builders, beware!

A few notes...

Virge, your slightly strained pronunciation of "abditory" is the kind of thing that limerick writers and readers have come to accept as, well, as acceptable. It does detract, however, from the piece as a whole. The best limericks avoid it.

q, I don't know what to say about "Abraxis." The second line would work, meter-wise, as "With magical music attacks us" but this makes for a repetition of the word "music" later. And "praxis," while correct (I think) is still an obscure term and even if it's used correctly here (I'm not positive) as such it takes away from the piece as a whole. I wouldn't deny it entry into the OEDILF but I wouldn't consider it your best, either. It certainly presents a challenge. Fine on "into" over "unto," though. I've posted the question in the "Questions and Answers About Words" forum to see what the rest of the crew thinks.

Kalleh, yes, it is getting a bit confusing. Rather than getting grouchy though, wouldn't it be better to take an "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" attitude and come up with an "aardvark" piece of your own? You can do it!

Regarding the structure of the OEDILF and, in particular, limericks illustrating more than one word, I agree with you, R.E., that it might have been best to have specifically said in the beginning that a "One word, one limerick" policy would be in effect. Maybe. As it stands now, I'd rather not try to rewrite history. (God knows it's hard enough rewriting the OED.) When the website comes up and someone searches for an individual word, if that word is contained within a limerick which covers another word as well, no problem. And if through this doubling up the word is not well defined, other limericks illustrating that word only will also come up to clarify things. It's all going to run smoothly, we'll all be rich and famous, and Britney Spears will insist on having sex with me.

T.A., your "ablative/absolute" piece, to me, started out fine but had a disappointing ending. Not having a background in Latin (unlike many Wordcrafter regulars) I didn't catch the punchline (my failing, yes, I admit) but the meter is clunky as well. To compare your "ablative/absolute" limerick with another of yours I critiqued elsewhere, this one was like watching a gymnast perform a respectable routine on the balance beam and then dismount into a big cooler of Gatorade. But "ablaut"? Great! Loved it. If ever you need an example of great meter to work with, this is it.

evinrude, good one with "abash." Having only heard that word used in the format "I was abashed," I didn't know that it could be used in the way you did here but I looked it up and you're certainly correct. The OEDILF is already a teaching tool.

rbarenblat, the topic of Smokey the Bear as been covered elsewhere (His actual name is "Smokey Bear" without the "the") but the mistaken name does lend itself so much better to the limerick form.


Thanks to all for your excellent work!

I feared that my willpower had fled.
I went to the doctor; he said:
"If you're feeling foully, a
Case of aboulia
Is what has gone wrong with your head."

Nemo so loved to explore,
He went 300 fathoms or more.
He promised that "This'll
Be truly abyssal";
But finding him was quite a chore.

(You can take this as a film review).

Also sprach CJSarathustra: "q, I don't know what to say about 'Abraxis.' The second line would work, meter-wise, as 'with magical music attacks us' but this makes for a repetition of the word 'music' later. And 'praxis,' while correct (I think) is still an obscure term and even if it's used correctly here (I'm not positive) as such it takes away from the piece as a whole. I wouldn't deny it entry into the OEDILF but I wouldn't consider it your best, either. It certainly presents a challenge."

Can we agree to spell it "Abraxas"?

Anyway, I try again. If this doesn't work, maybe leave it with "praxis":

Santana's old album "Abraxas"
With mystical music attacks us.
The notes weave a spell,
A charm to compel,
On magical vinyls and waxes.

My concern is that the final "s" of "waxes" is not an exact rhyme, being usually given more of a "z" sound.

Wotcher think?

OK, first off, "Also sprach CJSarathustra"??!! Jeeze, that's great! I'm flattered! I'm impressed! I'm suck-upable!! With your kind permission, that title may find its way onto a feedback forum of some sort.

Secondly, yes, it's definitely "Abraxas." My error, earlier.

Thirdly, God how I love this workshopping! This is fun. Your "Abraxas" piece is improving with every step but the process itself is interesting. If we were to have a section somewhere which showed how a limerick can evolve, I might consider:

Santana's old album "_Abraxas_"
With mystical music attacks us.
The notes weave a spell,
A charm to compel,
(My God, but this last line sure wracks us!)

which, naturally, is no good as a finished effort.

Your new lines 3 & 4 are good but for a last line, how about

And turns the whole world on its axis.

Granted, it gives the album a bit more credit than it deserves but maybe you could do more with the "axis" angle?

Gettin' there...

Hmm, lacks "magic."

How about?:

With magic like Hendrix's "Axis."

(It's actually "Axis Bold as Love," but those in the know will know, and those not won't know the difference.)

Or:

Spins magically on its axis.

(I guess the hole at the center of an LP or CD is the axis.)

Hauts artistes assert that abstractions
Elicit emotive reactions.
Yet art-jocks will join dots
And, as with Rorschach blots,
Imagine erotic attractions.

If you feel the French is a little obscure then "Vain artists" could be substituted for "Hauts artistes", but it misses an opportunity for adding to the excessive alliteration. Rhythmically, "artists" (a trochee) is better than "artistes" (a spondee or even an iamb en Franglais) because it places the emphasis firmly on the first syllable.

Here's another one on abstraction to cover some of the non-artistic meanings of the word.

In philosopher's parlance, abstraction
Extracts the idea from the action.
With eggheads I've seen
It can also mean
A mental state marked by inaction.

Some notes...

q. - HOME!! "With magic like Hendrix's Axis works like a charm. I'm from that era and am reluctant to admit I wouldn't have picked out the shortened version of the Hendrix title but, as you say, this lack of knowledge doesn't hurt the limerick in the least. I just hope you're pleased enough with the final version and see it as having been worth all the work you put into it. Well done!

Virge - I like both "abstraction" pieces but, even though I sense you prefer the first version on the first piece, I do think that "Vain artists" works much better than "Hauts artistes" despite the slight loss of alliteration. Beginning the piece with a French phrase will cause many readers to stumble right at the beginning. "Am I pronouncing this correctly? Is that two syllables or three? Do I have the stress right? Does this guy think he's smarter than me? What a prick!" You can see how you might lose your audience. Compare this with q's Hendrix line. If the reader doesn't completely get the reference? No harm, no foul, and no lost audience.

Lines 1, 2 & 5 have fine meter but 3 & 4 trip over each other a bit. On first reading, I took line 3 as "yet ART-jocks will JOIN dots" which prompted me to "and, AS with rorSCHACH blots" which I'm not sure is what you intended. Maybe the stress is on "with" somehow. It isn't clear. By dropping the "will" in line 3, the reader is pretty much guided into "yet ART-jocks join DOTS, and, as WITH rorschach BLOTS" which may or may not be an improvement. Your call.

The second "abstraction" piece, however, I'd say is a first class gem and, as is, about 98% complete. The 4th line comes out "it CAN also MEAN," which is not entirely natural. This is easily solved by making it "it ALso can MEAN." Great meter, you define the word nicely, and you make a clear and valid point with a snappy punchline at the end.

We'll take both but somewhere down the road, if and when we get two more "abstraction" pieces and decide that three will be our limit, it's your second piece which will be the guaranteed keeper.

Chris, your initial reading of the rhythm was as I intended. The 3rd and 4th lines are cumbersome, so I'd better fix them; a limerick that daunts the reader on first attempt may not be given a second chance.

Here are 3 variants that I consider to be improvements:

Vain artists assert that abstractions
Elicit emotive reactions.
But a flesh-focused jock
(As with blots by Rorschach)
Will imagine erotic attractions.

(Rorschach is pronounced "raw-shock".)

The artist asserts that abstractions
Elicit emotive reactions.
Yet we view his collection
With Rorschach projection,
Imputing erotic attractions.

Vain artists assert that abstractions
Elicit emotive reactions.
Yet the man on the street,
Viewing art as concrete,
Will see randomness, noise and distractions.

Which do you prefer? Any fine tuning suggestions?

My first draft of the second "abstraction" limerick had "it ALso can MEAN" (as in your suggestion). I changed it to "it CAN also MEAN," because every time I read it aloud the words came out in that order. I'm happy to change it back.

In philosopher's parlance, abstraction
Extracts the idea from the action.
With eggheads I've seen
It also can mean
A mental state marked by inaction.

Hmmm... Another example of some interesting workshopping.

On your first "abstraction" piece, I think version #3 is the clear winner. Both #1 & #2, while clear improvements over the previous draft, deal with people seeing eroticism where it doesn't necessarily exist. This occurs, of course, but the situation outlined in #3 with "...the man on the street viewing art as concrete" (great wording!) is far more common. In this way, I would think this version would reach more people (either these people themselves or others who recognize this trait in friends of family members) and, by extension, please more as well. All in all it's an interesting way in which to make what I consider a very valid point.

Your efforts bring up a situation which needs to be addressed: How many limericks have you written here? If and when you get paid for your fine work, how to I count these? I think you would agree that to be counted as a separate piece, a limerick needs to be substantially different from some other piece, either your own or someone else's. In this case, I strongly recommend you go with #3 and just consider #1 & #2 as steps you took on the way to a very sharp piece.

And the second one, finishing with "a mental state marked by inaction," also makes for an acute observation in a piece with great meter. Keep 'em comin'!

quote:

---

I strongly recommend you go with #3 and just consider #1 & #2 as steps you took on the way to a very sharp piece.

---

Indeed, that's the way I view them. They are three variants on one limerick and only the strongest variant should be allowed to survive.