Well, Bob, there is certainly a resemblence, I agree, between yours and CJ's limericks. I guess it's a matter of taste then. Shu assures me that, in fact, CJ's "talking" limerick is really a limerick. I suppose it meets all the criteria, as does yours. I have written some, myself, that I just love...but others don't appreciate them at all! My "amoeba" one is a favorite of mine, and yet it rhymes "him t' live" "dim t' live," and "primitive"...which just dusts some workshoppers' doilies!

Here's one I submitted in August to the OEDILF. Unsurprisingly, it hasn't been approved.

There once was a man named Clem
Who had a great deal of phlegm.
Ahem, ahem,
Ahem, ahem,
Ahem, ahem, ahem.

Arnie, would you take to a little workshopping? I assume you Brits pronounce it a-HEM, as we do, correct? How about this then?

here once was a man named Clem
Who had a great deal of phlegm.
Ahem and ahem,
Ahem and ahem,
Ahem and ahem and ahem.

I don't know. I was just trying to work with the meter some way. "Aheming" would work too.

Phlegmatically, young Mr. Clegm
Coughed up an abundance of phlegm.
When asked, "Is it hot?"
He replied, "No, it's snot.
Ahem and ahem and ahegm."

Jerry, that is great! Wonderful!

Jerry, I love it! You need to post a few more on OEDILF!

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Shu assures me that, in fact, CJ's "talking" limerick is really a limerick.

Excuse me hon, but if you're going to quote me, quote me in full. I said it was a limerick, but [how to put this with a semblance of politeness?] that it was a limerick in the same sense that a jalopy is a car.

[Warning...Kalleh is about to brag about herself!]

Imagine my surprise when I logged into OEDILF and found the BoingBoing site (apparently a popular blog for geeky people) had highlighted one limerick from OEDILF...mine!

Just call me Queen of the Limercists!

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
[Warning...Kalleh is about to brag about herself!]

Imagine my surprise when I logged into OEDILF and found the BoingBoing site (apparently a popular blog for geeky people) had highlighted one limerick from OEDILF...mine!

Just call me Queen of the Limercists!

(Makes obeisance) Of course, your Esteemed and Gracious Majesty !

It's an excellent limerick and I've posted a link to it on my other Forums too .

Thanks, Di!

Reviving a limerick thread...

It has happened again. On another forum I have received an e-mail about a post I wrote. The complaint? "This wasn't your most shining moment." Hmmm...I wonder if I ever really have a "shining moment" in my posts, but that's another story. The fact is, I probably did go on and on about something. I was having fun...and often my humor is only appreciated by me! However, I wasn't mean, rude, pornographic, etc....just a little boring to the complainant.

At least this complainant respectfully sent this to me privately. On a word forum I used to frequent, I have seen posters just shattered because some of the regulars didn't like their posts. Again...these posts were not unacceptable; they just didn't weren't written by the regulars so they were considered subpar.

So...here is my response to those who don't just ignore posts, but instead get their knickers in a twist, as our British friends say:

If you don't like a post, it's quite simple:
Just go to the next...though some wimp'll
Complain with disdain
About all his pain.
That baby should go pop his pimple!

Thank goodness our wordcrafters are above this!

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Here is an approved limerick on OEDILF:

Aeolistic's when somebody's talking
And talking and talking and talking
And talking and talking
And talking and talking
And talking and talking and talking!

Obviously that site considers it a limerick. Even though it meets the meter requirements, and I suppose the rhyming ones, it doesn't have any cleverness to it. I suppose, though, that some people may consider all the "talkings" clever or meeting that humorous rule. I don't. However, it was easy to write, I will give you that!

Forgive me for coming to this so late. I just read this for the first time this morning and felt I should answer.

There is an old story that I'd like to think is true (though you never know with great little stories like these) about a maintenance person who was brought in to fix a problem that had completely shut down a factory. It turned out that this person had only to flip one single switch and the factory was on line again. When the factory owner received a bill for $3,000 from the maintenance person, he was somewhat outraged and complained bitterly that the flipping of one switch shouldn't cost $3,000. In response, the maintenance person submitted the following itemized bill:

Flipping the switch - 20 cents
Knowing which switch to flip - $2,999.80

I believe a similar situation exists with my "talking" limerick, Bob's on "again," and Arnie's on "ahem." Once the idea is hatched, yes, the rest of the process is rather easy but this doesn't mean that the limericks themselves were easy to write. The hardest part of any creative effort, whether it's a limerick or an oil painting, is the inspiration behind it. All three of these limericks are what I would call "gimmick" pieces. Thinking of the gimmick and then making it work can often take more time, energy, and grey matter than a simple straightforward "There once was a lady from Kent" piece.

This brings to mind an old favorite, author unknown, that I have used as an example of an easy-to-memorize piece for people who insist they cannot memorize poetry:

There once was a lady from Spain
Who did it again and again,
And again and again
And again and again
And again and again and again!

I would submit that there is considerable cleverness here and in the three previous pieces mentioned but, then again, this is just another case of personal preferences differing from person to person.

quote:

Well, Bob, there is certainly a resemblence, I agree, between yours and CJ's limericks. I guess it's a matter of taste then.

And for completeness in that discussion, CJ, that is precisely how I replied to Bob when he said that he liked those sorts of limericks. It is a case of personal preferences.

I can ascribe to your creativity philosophy (related to your story)...to a point. Once you've seen a limerick like the "again and again"...one, then it isn't all that creative for future writers, is it? I suppose you have to think of "talking" as the word, but the idea has already been used, hasn't it? I don't know...just wondering. Yet, I suppose an idea or creativity can't always be unique. After all, even the great impressionist painters took ideas from each other.

Okay...in thinking about it...I will give you this one then.

In the CJ/Arnie/Bob/unknown author style:

My cat is annoying right now!
She's saying "meow" and "meow"
And "meow" and "meow"
And "meow" and "moew"
And "meow" and "meow" and "meow!"

That is quite typical of my cat, BTW!

Miss Mimi on OEDILF has moved from NY to Chicago. I wrote this limerick for her, bemoaning the fact that "Chicago" is hard to rhyme. However, Shu helped me with some rhymes, so I will share my "Chicago" limericks with you:

#1 Miss Mimi is now in Chicago:
We're so easy I let my sweet dog go
Down to Lake Michigan
So I can fish agin.
Let's meet...though I do let my jaw go!

#2 It's not home to our Dr. Zhivago
(Though maybe a crone or virago ).
It's called Second City,
Though that's quite a pity
Cuz it's second to none: My Chicago!

There are some other "Chicago" limericks on OEDILF in this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris J. Strolin:

Aeolistic's when somebody's talking
And talking and talking and talking
And talking and talking
And talking and talking
And talking and talking and talking!

There once was a lady from Spain
Who did it again and again,
And again and again
And again and again
And again and again and again!

I would submit that there is considerable cleverness here.

But contrast the thought of being with someone who is doing it repeatedly, with the thought of someone talking repeatedly. I find the former much more interesting, and the latter tedious. Don't you? The one holds my interest; the other doesn't.

quote:

Originally posted by wordnerd:But contrast the thought of being with someone who is doing it repeatedly, with the thought of someone talking repeatedly. I find the former much more interesting, and the latter tedious. Don't you? The one holds my interest; the other doesn't.

I would completely agree with you if these were movies. As limericks, I'd say they're fairly close.

And regarding originality, can any writing be considered completely original? To accomplish this, one would have to invent a new language with which to express his or her thoughts. (I freely confess that the preceding was not an original thought of my own but it did take some thought on my part to apply it here.)

There are always different variations of similar themes and varying points of view of objects and ideas we're all familiar with. This is why when someone begins a joke with "Two guys walk into a bar..." you don't interrupt and say, "Oh, I've heard this one."

While I said further up that "I will give you this one" (re: originality of "talking and talking" etc.), even though you'd heard a very similar one before you wrote it, I can't agree with this last comment of yours. My gosh...nothing's completely original...unless a new language is invented? You seem to be just arguing to argue with that comment. Of course there are original writings, and in fact on your own site you've discussed this a lot. Limericks that have taken wording straight from another's poem or limerick just don't cut it. OEDILF has an originality rule. Otherwise, I'd take a lot of good old Ogden Nash's wonderful rhymes and ideas, make them into limericks, and submit them to your site.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

I sort of agree with CJ that nothing is completely original. Everything we have ever read sticks somewhere in our minds and whether we like it or not we unconsciously draw on the vast catalog of material.

It's wrong if we do it intentionally without acknowledging our sources but it's excusable if we do it unintentionally or as a deliberate homage. (See my one legged Tarzan limerick - the challenge there was to rewrite a classic sketch as a limerick.)

Now take my "again" limerick. It's possible that I'd seen the "did it again and again" limerick in the past though I certainly don't specifically recall it and my limerick is identicle for three and a half lines.
I think the fact that I am using it to define again by way of exagerated example makes it sufficiently different anyway.

Tere may possibly be such a thing as completely original writing (though I have my doubts) but I'm sure there's no such thing as an original joke only new variations on old themes.

I just went to a site about Ogden Nash's poems and limericks and was planning to post some, with the comment that now you and CJ can RFA these for me. Interestingly, this message appeared under the "bankers" poem:

"Unfortunately this poem has been removed from our archives at the insistence of the copyright holder."

I suppose you 2 can have your opinions, but it's obvious the courts don't agree with you!

I freely admit that this is a subject I am struggling with on the OEDILF site. Where does an homage end and plagiarism begin? I can't pretend to know what's going on in the minds of our writers but sometimes I'm forced to make my best guess and act on that. (Along similar lines, Kalleh, a couple of posts back you guessed that I was arguing for the sake of arguing and acted on that by expressing that opinion. You were totally incorrect in your assumption -- I don't waste my time or that of my friends and fellow linguaphiles with needless arguing -- but you were totally correct in acting upon it. We all do this daily.)

One current struggle has to do with two different limericks by two different writers who write about Dixon Lanier Merritt's famous "A wonderful bird is the pelican" limerick. Written in 1910, copyright issues are no longer a problem but maintaining The OEDILF's standards of originality, as you point out Kalleh, very much do. Both pieces are well written, IMO, but both writers wanted to include Merritt's limerick in an Author's Note. We compromised with a ref to the work without quoting it in toto.

Should any copyright holder contact us with a request similar to that received by the website Kalleh mentions, we would certainly comply in the same way. I believe, though, that we're taking sufficient precautions so that this is not likely to occur.

As you know, I have been with OEDILF since it started, and I have always felt that OEDILF was very respectful of copyright and others' works. When there is a question, all sides are always presented, and the discussion has been rich and informative. At no time have I, either in this post or elsewhere, questioned OEDILF's dedication to originality and to protecting copyright. Heck, they even added that "quote me" phrase right next to all limericks so that anybody copying them is always reminded to give credit.

What I was responding to is the comment that nothing is completely original; that is, you'd have to "invent a new language" to be completely original. If that means that everyone uses the same words and letters daily so nothing is completely original, which is what I thought you and Bob meant, then it is a meaningless statement, isn't it? If you hold that stance, nothing would ever be original, we'd have no copyrights, OEDILF wouldn't have to worry about using others' limericks, but others also wouldn't have to worry about posting anyone's OEDILF limericks. You might as well get rid of the copyright statement, delete the "quote me" and forget any discussions about it on the forum. Do you see what I mean? The argument on being completely original isn't really relevant. The discussion about what to cite and what can be taken freely...now that's a good discussion.

I think it is interesting that more Wordcrafters haven't taken part in this discussion. I'd love to hear other opinions. It may be because the title of the thread is "limericks" so people think we are all just posting limericks? Otherwise, I don't know. This seems like a great discussion for a language board.

CJ, considering your "Pelican" point, I'd agree that any limerick that rhymes 'pelican' with 'belly can' and/or 'hell he can' is just too much copying.

And yet, what if the original were less familiar? For example, here's one I wrote for the style invitational but never submitted:

If you wish to inherit a penny, son,
You must read all of Alfred Lord Tennyson.
Perform this behest
And you'll have my bequest
With my blessing -- that is, with my benison.

You like? But I'd freely admit that my rhyme was inspired by Guy Wetmore Carryl's, below. Is that improper? Would it be more improper if Carryl were more familiar? I just don't know.

He taught him some Raleigh,
And some of Macaulay,
. . . . .Till all of "Horatius" he knew,
And the drastic, sarcastic,
Fantastic, scholastic
. . . . .Philippics of "Junius," too.
He made him learn lots
Of the poems of Watts,
. . . . .And frequently said he ignored,
On principle, any son's
Title to benisons
Till he'd learned Tennyson's
. . . . ."Maud."

Side thought ("but I digress...") -

That's a very W S Gilbert-ian verse. Carryl's dates are 1873-1904 (he was young when he died, wasn't he?) so Gilbert came first - is Carryl's style derivative or was most humorous poetry of the era similar?

(PS - Ccme to think of it - "Brush Up Your Shakespeare," from Cole Porter's Kiss Me Kate, is also stylistically similar. Whatever that implies.)

Good point, Hab. You are right about the similarity.

Hic, I think I may be overly-sensitive about plagiarism and taking from other's writing. Perhaps it is from my academic background. However, in your limerick I wouldn't think twice; it wouldn't be original, and I'd not publish it were I an editor.

I agree with Kalleh that some pairs of rhyming words are so original and so easily identified with certain authors that any duplication by anyone else is, in fact, plagiarism. Take the following examples:

There the guy who's got religion'll
Tell you if your sin's original.

A little talcum
Is always walcum.

Now, if I were to write something with either a "religion'll/original" or "talcum/walcum" rhyme, I would expect nothing less than the entire roof coming down on my head in the form of angry workshopping to the effect that I was the lowest form of literary thief. Moreover, every syllable of it would be deserved. Those rhymes are Tom Lehrer's and Ogdon Nash's and will remain so until the end of time. Right?

Ummm... Maybe. But maybe not. Hic brings up a good point. Our words can be like our bodies. They have a span of life and then are returned to the ground to replenish the earth from which they came. How old does a rhyme (or any aspect of writing, for that matter) have to be before it may be reused with impunity? Or is there a measurable amount of time we may apply?

Another factor to consider is this: Just how original does a rhyme have to be in order to be considered the "property" of the author as the "talcum/walcum" rhyme is with Nash? I would think that anyone trying to come up with a rhyme for "benison" might easily happen upon "Tennyson". This would obviously be a case of coincidence and not plagiarism but, then again, this would not make you immune from the appearance of being a plagiarist. And if an honest person looks like a thief, he or she can be just as screwed or more so than had they actually been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

The only solution is to try to do one's best to avoid even the appearance of "heavy borrowing". Case in point, I recently wrote a piece that rhymed "Utah" with "motorscootah" but I haven't posted it because of this nagging doubt that this rhyme is completely my own. I had thought it was one of R.E.'s and PMed him to ask but he says it rings no bells with him. (Anyone else?) I'll probably post the limerick eventually with a note requesting anyone seeing this rhyme elsewhere to notify me at which point I'll pull the limerick.

And so, all in all, it's a massive grey area. I would say that unless a writer acknowledges the source (as was the case with the "pelican" homage), that he or she risks being branded a literary thief and as more and more people read what this author has written, higher and higher will go the chances that he or she will be exposed.

quote:

Now, if I were to write something with either a "religion'll/original" or "talcum/walcum" rhyme

And here is another problem...what if someone clever came up with those rhymes on his/her own? You'd hardly think it fair to say that Nash and Lehrer have already used those words so you can't. Yet, how does one know that you're telling the truth? I remember, early on, Chris Doyle criticized my rhyming of "fungus" with "among us" because it is a "hackneyed rhyme" he said. I thought it was original! I think the rhyme finally was accepted by OEDILFers, but should it have been? Maybe not, even though it was original to me.

This is not an easy subject!

Reviving a thread
Awww, how could I not post this limerick I wrote during a lecture where the speaker was talking about the IOM report, To Err is Human:

It's said that it's human to err;
Errors happen to him and to her.
And err is a sample,
Linguistic example:
We rhyme it with bear, and not burr.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

where the speaker was talking about the IOM report

I didn't realise that the Isle of Man had produced such a report...

'Tis the Institute of Medicine. Sorry. I suspect you knew, though.

My absence seems not to've been noted,
Since none of my words have been quoted.
I slipped on the ice,
First once, and then twice.
Dear Husband has been quite devoted.

quote:

'Tis the Institute of Medicine. Sorry. I suspect you knew, though.

Actually, my second choice was the Institute of Marketing - but that's now received the Royal Charter, so it's officially the Chartered Institute of Marketing - CIM.

As I once said, there are just too many TLAs used these days.

OH dear, Jo - sorry to hear of your mishap. Glad you're back and that Hubby has been helpful.

Oh, Jo, we always miss you when you're not here. So sorry!

Well, here's the first batch of English limericks, starting with my very first, indited at age 13:

I once had a doggy named Phideaux
Who fell in a batch of mom’s pideaux;
He couldn’t get free,
Mom didn’t see he --
And now my poor doggy is frideaux!

Then, under Asimovean influence, I went off on a science-limerick binge:

A Biology major at Rice
Induced point mutations in mice.
They had no hair at all,
And caught cold every fall —
But at least they weren’t bothered by lice.

Drosophila Melanogasters
Have chromosomes full of disasters,
The cruel creations
Of irradiations
By would-be Biology masters.

The previous had only 2 words in the first line, so I wondered if I could "Name That Tune" in just ONE note, as it were:

Deoxyribonucleic
Acid is no piece of cake
To pronounce at a glance --
But give it a chance:
It programs the protein you make.

A microbe with very long cilia
To a ‘groper’ said, “Cut that out, willya?
Is sex what you're wishin’?
We use binary fission –
Your actions could hardly be sillier.”

Then, when I started programming for fun and profit, I penned (well, input) these:

A Language like BASIC is no ball,
With all of its variables global;
And the subroutines lack
Any argument stack --
But at least it is better than COBOL!

Some computer nerd knowledge helps here, I admit. The next one, if read aloud as a BASIC programmer would, and substituting the proper calculated value of A(I) when I equals 2, will have the rhyme and meter scheme of a proper limerick:

FOR I = 1 TO 11:
A(I) = 8 * I + 7:
IF I = 2
PRINT A(I);"skidoo!"
ELSE GOTO 1107

One of my favorites, since recursion involves self-reference, and so the limerick is an instance of its subject matter:

Recursion is bunches of fun
(Though not always easily done
(And there's always the threat
Of an endless repeat
But (please to return to line one.).).).

Sorry about the sight rhyme in lines 3&4, but if Asimov can get away with it ...

OK, there's more, if youse guys can stand it.

David

Recursion:

A limerick writer one day,
Who found he had nothing to say,
Nonetheless made a poem
That filled many a tome,
By writing his lim'rick this way:

quote:

A limerick writer one day,
Who found he had nothing to say,
Nonetheless made a poem
That filled many a tome,
By writing his lim'rick this way:

quote:

A limerick writer one day,
Who found he had nothing to say,
Nonetheless made a poem
That filled many a tome,
By writing his lim'rick this way:

[continue ad lib]

Nice limericks, Froesch. How in the world did you even know about limericks at 13? I sure didn't?

Interesting...we have 2 limerick threads going now.

quote:

How in the world did you even know about limericks at 13? I sure didn't?

I'll bet you knew Hickory dickory dok...

Well, as we said to you about this on OEDILF, it is a nursery rhyme. I don't think it ever was intended to be a limerick. It doesn't fit the template.

quote:

It doesn't fit the template.

It surely does. That it's a nursery rhyme doesn't mean it can't be in limerick form. It's as good a limerick as many of Edward Lear's - many of which also used self-rhymes and repeated lines.

Its first line, by the way, matches exactly the stress pattern of your favourite "Nymphomaniacal Jill

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard English,

Quote: "It surely does [fit the limerick template]." Does it? The 2nd, 3rd and 4th lines seem to be iambic: unstressed and stressed alternating, rather than having two unstressed lying between the stressed syllables in a line.

It is not a perfect limerick - but then mnay limericks aren't perfect either. But I suggest it's closer to being a limerick than it is to any other verse form.

And a human being is closer to a chimp than any other lifeform. It doesn't mean we all live in trees and eat bananas.

An AABBA rhyme scheme alone does not a limerick make.

Only in the loosest possible definition of "limerick" could Hickory Dickory Dock be considered to fit.

Put it this way, Richard, would it be accepted on OEDILF? We know that it wouldn't!

I still maintain that it is closer to being a limerick than is any other nursery rhyme. And so far as the chimp analogy is concerned, although we don't live in trees, we do eat bananas and we are primates.

It wouldn't be accepted by OEDILF but thenm neither would most of Lear's work and everyone accepts those as limericks without any demur.

quote:

I still maintain that it is closer to being a limerick than is any other nursery rhyme.

That may be correct; can't say that I am familiar with every other nursery rhyme. That's a different from saying it is a limerick. It just isn't.

You'll find a list of most of them here. http://www.zelo.com/family/nursery/index.asp

And I still say it is a limerick. If it's not, then what is it?

1) Does every verse have to have a form name?
2) If so, does it prove anything that I don't know that name?

As the workshoppers noted when you asked the same question on OEDILF, it's a nursery rhyme.