quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
The noun form was the first. It was Old English for a meeting or assembly.

Exactly right Arnie, as I hinted fairly explicitly in my feeble limerick:

The meaning of moot is unsure
Debatable, meeting —obscure,
In law it’s uncertain,
Not veiled by a curtain
In truth it is really a bore.

Sorry for bludgeoning you with its repetition

I am frustrated by a discussion on OEDILF talking about significant censorship for limericks. While I have commented over there, I don't want to cause too much trouble, so I will post my limerick on the subject here.

Should limericks be censored at all?
Can't we choose what we'll read...and then call
The rest in poor taste?
It seems such a waste;
The disdain for our words does appall!

There, I feel better already.

I long since abandoned the chore
Of writing a limerick d'jour.
With each petty query
It got much less cheery.
I'd rather just write for l'amore.

Nice limerick, Jo!

I have now found out, though I haven't gotten validation on this from CJ yet, that the reason for the censorships (which they call "curtaining") is that the site is to be made appropriate for ages 5 and up! Limericks for 5-year-olds? What are they thinking? They will have to relook at all the limericks then, and they will surely have to consider adult subjects (there are limericks on rape, abortion, the Holocaust, etc.), as well as inappropriate words. I predict about 3/4 will have to be curtained, if they want to "clean the place up" for 5-year-olds.

What I don't understand is why they can't see that these are limericks. Parents and teachers don't encourage 5-year-olds to read limericks, do they?

My frustration continues...

There once was a kid from the coast
Who read all the lim'ricks we post:
Of tits and good asses
And sex with fine lasses.
And now his poor brain is like toast!

Thanks for allowing me to vent, people.

Me thinks that some folks lost their way
When a list that's adult then can say
That a five year old child
Is their target; That's wild.
I think that I'm glad I don't play.

As usual your Kalleh was wrong,
As CJ has posted...quite strong:
"This site's for no pup!
I'm clearing this up!"
Thank goodness...cuz kids don't belong!

The OEDILFer who posted that the site was to be open to elementary school kids was just wrong about that, CJ has said. That's a relief!

Still, their curtain remains.

I don't understand why the curtain bothers you so much. I've been critical of it because I don't think its very effective but its innocuous enough. All its doing is saying "if you read any of these particular limericks don't blame us if you are offended. As I understand it, its more to avoid potential legal problems when some over-sensitive parent comes along and says "this site has the word 'shit' on it, Close it down!"

My main disagreement with the curtain is that some people over there want automatic hiding away of certain words and I think everything needs to be looked at case by case.

The first Limerick I ever heard was ....

"There was an old man from Boston
Who bought him a little Austin.
There was room for his ass
And a gallon of gas
But his balls hung out and he lost 'em."

I was seven years old.

This was followed quickly by the Nantucket series.

I don't think my psyche was injured or scarred by my participation in the "underground" language of boys my age.

Did you, too, hear some Limericks at an early age?

Years later I learned that one essential characteristc of a proper Limerick is that it's bawdy.

What is the nature of the dreaded damage that might be done to young people when they do as the rest of the world does and use modern technlogy (the Internet) for communicating with their peers? Or when they peek in and see what the adults are doing with the language ??

What is the nature of the dreaded damage that might be done to young people when they do as the rest of the world does and use modern technlogy (the Internet) for communicating with their peers? Or when they peek in and see what the adults are doing with the language ??

Very little to nil I should think. Movies, radio, TV, and comic books have just been replaced with a new bogeyman. Technology simply allows the same old fears to take new form.

quote:

I don't understand why the curtain bothers you so much.

Censor is defined as "an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds." With the curtain the officials review the limericks to see if parts of it are objectionable and should be kept behind a curtain.

That's why, Bob.

There have been requests for censorship of the word "Hell" on that site, if you can believe it!

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

quote:

Originally posted by jerry thomas:
one essential characteristc of a proper Limerick is that it's bawdy.

Well, not quite, but close. Here are two perspectives on that. (Each is found on the net in a variety of versions; I'm not sorting out which is the accurate original.)

The limerick packs laughs anatomical
Into space that is quite economical.
But the good ones I've seen
So seldom are clean -
And the clean ones so seldom are comical.
- Vyvyan Holland?

There are three kinds of limericks:

• those suitable for recount in the presence of ladies;
  
• those utterable in the absence of ladies but the presence of clergy; and
  
• LIMERICKS.
  - Don Marquis

quote:

for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.

This is the point; the OEDILF is not suppressing parts; it is providing a "curtain" (or maybe "top shelf" might be a better analogy) where certain items can be kept where they can only be read by the deliberate choice of the reader .

Had they been censored then they could only be read by those deliberately chosen by the censor .

(or maybe "top shelf" might be a better analogy)

I only know of top-shelf as an adjective meaning "of the best quality", as in top-shelf margarita. Is this use, meaning "something inaccessible to children", common in the UK?

Zmj,

Yes, newsagents will keep the rather more risqué material on the top shelves, above the eyeline of kids.

quote:

top-shelf as an adjective meaning "of the best quality"

I'd only known of top-drawer, and had never heard of top-shelf. But to my surprise the latter, unfamiliar to me, is a lot more common, as measured by ghits.

Although neither is peculiarly Brit-speak or US speak, as best I can tell the preference for top-shelf over top-drawer is a bit greater in the UK and Canada than in the US.

Edit: I have only counted hits. That is, for example, I haven't checked to exclude hits that refer to top shelf literally ("it was on the top shelf of the rack") rather than as a metaphor for "high quality".

quote:

I haven't checked to exclude hits that refer to top shelf literally ("it was on the top shelf of the rack") rather than as a metaphor for "high quality".

Or, presumably, as a metaphor for "porn". Since it might be being used in two senses in the UK, that might account for the higher number of ghits.

quote:

This is the point; the OEDILF is not suppressing parts; it is providing a "curtain" (or maybe "top shelf" might be a better analogy) where certain items can be kept where they can only be read by the deliberate choice of the reader .

I've thought about this a lot since I first posted about the curtain being censorship, and I have picked more than a few brains on this. I have decided that, for me (and we all are different), the curtain is a form of censorship. Just designating a word or content as "bad" is what does it for me, regardless of the choice aspect. Because kids have parents and teachers who guide them, I am not including them in this discussion. I do, however, think that adults can decide to, or not to, read a particular limerick. If they (curses!) happen upon a "shit" word before they quit reading it, so be it.

I realize that not all people both here or on OEDILF agree with me. However, this isn't one of those factual questions. There is room for different opinions on this.

So here's a query or two for you. (Prefaced by a statement...) We used to be so limerick crazy here on this site. Has it all gone over to Chris' site now? If you wrote a limerick, would you post it here or there? (Would you post it anywhere? sorry... My son's in Seussical...) Can you post them on both sites at once?

Our Trossl has a son that is Suessical.
And some of our children are musical;
There are those who like the sports.
It takes all different sorts,
To keep all us parents confusical.

jo...

you are so cool!

Well, TrossL, to answer your question, CJ almost never posts here anymore. He didn't even read his happy birthday limerick that I wrote. The OEDILFers who are still here (Bob, Richard, Wordmatic, and very infrequently, me) almost never post limericks here, except, of course, our Jo and once in awhile Shu or Hic. Very sad, really. We also don't post nearly as many double dactyls, and when we do, I am usually the poster.

Let's change that, Wordcrafters!

BTW, Welcome back! How about a limerick or two from you?

We wish our sweet TrossL would post,
Because her fine verses we toast!
Remember those lims
And dactyly whims?
Start writing Wordcrafters...or roast!

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

Hi TrossL!

To expand a little on Kalleh's post ...

We will welcome any poetry posted here. The OEDILF is only accepting limericks, and only those with subjects beginning with a restricted set of letters. If you feel moved to write something by all means post it here. If it fits in with the OEDILF's constraints and you have no objection to their "workshopping" methods, by all means post it there, either as well as, or instead of, here.

I must add that I have absolutely no skills as a poet. I submitted five (very substandard) limericks to the OEDILF when it first started and have never attempted to post anything here. I very much enjoy, though, seeing the work of the more talented Wordcrafters.

Here is my contribution based on the Sudoku craze...

A frustrated woman from Madrid
Had a husband who sudoku'd in bed
She applied to her parts
A tattooist's arts
Now she's happy when he fills in her grid!

...and this one might require a bit of a visual aid

A winsome young waif from St. Charles
Loved a bod that was built to lift barbells
David's form: it was mythic
Though he was a bit lithic
Still she couldn't help playing with his marbles

Very nice limericks, combining, as they do, some new words and concepts with some very old (and lascivious) thoughts.

As that well-known author, Albert (or was it Anthony) Non wrote:

The limerick packs jokes anatomical
Into space that is quite economical.
But the good ones I've seen
So seldom are clean -
And the clean ones so seldom are comical.

It is not common practice on this board to workshop limericks (unlike the OEDILF) but if you would like feedback I'd be happy to give it.

LOL

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Richard English:
But the good ones I've seen
So seldom are clean -
And the clean ones so seldom are comical.
QUOTE]

LOL...Isn't that the truth!

On OEDILF I am finding myself so frustrated. One WE will tell you to delete something for the sake of meter. Say a VERB for example. And then in another WS a WE is telling you they can't RFA something without a verb.

It's why a lot of people won't post there. If I say something you disagree with just tell me. I don't do much WSing anyway but I hope the bit I've done on your limericks has been helpful.

Oh my gosh No... You and Richard have been the best! You say things that are do-able and helpful and then you RFA! God bless you! My beef is with those who tell you to do things, and you do, and they still don't RFA. It is frustrating because these people, whoever they are, have this power over you and your piece. I hate being under someone like that.

Maybe it's because I don't know who these folks are... I mean, I sort of cyber-know you and Richard and respect you both immensely. So anything you say, I do 'cause I know it comes from knowledge and good humor.

quote:

I submitted five (very substandard) limericks to the OEDILF

Arnie, as an RFAer of your limericks, I'd disagree. Your limericks were nicely done. You are too modest.

Myth, nice limericks. Let's keep 'em coming!

We Wordcrafters welcome our myth;
A newbie to post lim'ricks with!
However, I wonder...
(To ask do I Blunder?)
Your name does befuddle...forthwith!

2 "withs," I know. The OEDILFers will be after me!

Write it with or without the two withs?
That's the question. So let's dispell myths.
A word mentioned twice
In a limerick is nice
And sounds oh so swell with a fifth.

I suppose I should answer you in limerick-al
"Myth Jellies", an alias logogriphical
The letters're the same
As in my real name
But this buffers me from the inimical

Now for something a little more fun...

Those eponyms doth heart'ly perplex ya
Cause sleep loss and perhaps even bruxia
Now would the color or plant
Be less or more in demand
If fuchsia was repronounced Fuchs-ia?

If you really think any of these hold promise, then critical feedback would be fine.

quote:

It is frustrating because these people, whoever they are, have this power over you and your piece. I hate being under someone like that.

It is true that some of the WEs do seem to be obstructive, but there are plenty who are helpful. Remember, it is axiomatic in the OEDILF project that authors have the last word, not WEs; if you don't like a suggestion you have the right to ignore or reject it. Of course, WEs have the right to withold their RFA as well - but there are plenty more WEs around. I believe it would be quite in order to PM a WE and ask for his or her attention should you feel that your efforts are not getting fair treatment from those who have workshopped your work.

Remember, there is no allocation system to put WEs in touch with authors and/or works (although this subject has been raised) and so it's very much luck of the draw as to who looks at your work. In some cases limericks can lie in limbo for months or years although, to be fair, CJ has tried hard to ensure that overlooked authors and/or limericks are given attention.

The words masticate and masturbate
xxXxxXxxX
Or depreciate and deprecate
xxXxxXxxX
Though sim'lar in sound,
With their letters turned round,
It's catchfools that you must contemplate.

My Desriptionary (Thematic Dictionary) has the word "catchfools" defined in the "Words about Words" section. It defines it as: words that are sometimes confused with one another because of their similarity in sound or spelling and gives the above two word pair examples. It can also be called a "dangerous pair."

I wanted to submit this to OEDILF but find that this word is listed no where else. Not in any dictionary anywhere. Has anyone else ever come across the word (or phrase if you use a space) catchfools?

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

Never come across it and can't find any internet refs to it.

Don't sweat it though. You'd never have got line one or two through on metre anyway. They both have only two stressed syllables and neither is anapestic.

Incest is nicest when the spelling is rearranged.

Bob, you really give me a chuckle. Having workshopped a lot of your limericks, I am surprised to see you focus so much on others' meter.

I see, TrossL, that you now have 4 RFAs on your abracadabra limerick. Nice work! My frustration on that site occurred in that workshop. I think some people must just post comments and don't read what others have said at all. That would make sense when you say that you've received advice that is different. In that workshop, I answered your question about why "although" works, and then right after me someone says, "TrossL, let me answer your question." One would think he would have at least acknowledged my presence! I don't always think fellow workshoppers give each other enough respect, and I surely felt it in that workshop.

Sorry to those here who don't post on OEDILF!

Back to lims:

No buffering's needed for posters;
On Wordcraft...we've really no roasters.
We're friendly and fun;
Love to joke and to pun.
Though some of us tend to be boasters!

I definitely think your limericks have promise, myth, though I hate to start the criticizing them because that can bring out bad feelings. They are fun!

In general terms, the stresses should be:

xxXxxXxxX
xxXxxX
xxXxxX
xxXxxXxxX

There is some slack for the unstressed syllables at the beginning of lines (0-2) and at the end of lines (0-2). However, you'd strive to have 2 unstressed syllables between the last stress of one line and the next stress of the other. For example, you'd hate to have 2 unstressed syllables after line 1 and then another 2 unstressed syllables before line 2. That would be 4 unstressed syllables in a row and seldom works well. However, I have seen that work. I would never have an extra unstressed syllable (or skip one) in the middle of lines, but I have seen that done as well. To me it doesn't work, but to others it does.

Now I am more free with rhymes. Lines 1,2 and 5 should rhyme, along with 3 & 4, as you probably know. However, I love fun rhymes and will accept much more than others, if the rhymes are fun. For example, I still love one of my early OEDILF limericks that doesn't have a "perfect" rhyme in lines 1, 2, and 5:

The amoeba is terribly primitive;
It doesn't take plenty for him t' live.
Not a worry or care,
No shampooing his hair,
Yet his life must be really quite dim t' live.

Others, though, wouldn't agree that line 1 is a good enough rhyme for lines 2 & 5.

I looked all over for the word "catchfools," and it isn't in any dictionary, including the OED, that I have. There are a few references to the word in Google, but they all seem to be names of people. Strange. I think that concept should have a word. Does anyone know of another word for that?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrossL:
It can also be called a "dangerous pair."
QUOTE]

I went ahead and submitted it over there anyway. Maybe that'll stir things up a bit.

quote:

I went ahead and submitted it over there anyway. Maybe that'll stir things up a bit.

I'll take a look although, as Bob says, L1/2 aren'r anapestic. Take a look at what Philology Pete has to say on the topic.

But the main problem is that the only word in the present range that your limerick defines, apparently can't be found in any other dictionary. I suspect you'll get a great deal of flack over that.

What's up with this anapestic dealie? I must admit I had to look it up and find that it is 2 unstressed syllables followed by 1 stressed syllable. It this the law? Since when? There was a young lady of Kent... The 3rd syllable is A and it's not stressed, is it? And that's a traditional start for a limerick... Help me out here, people...

OK Quick guide, since you ask.

anapest = three syllables with the last one stressed

iamb = two syllables with the second one stressed

(There are others but that will do for limericks)

a limerick can be

anapest anapest anapest
anapest anapest anapest
anapest anapest
anapest anapest
anapest anapest anapest

that is

xxXxxXxxX
xxXxxXxxX
xxXxxX
xxXxxX
xxXxxXxxX

But the lines can also start with an iamb giving

xXxxXxxX

or even sometimes with a stressed syllable

XxxXxxX

Additionally you can tag an unstressed onto the end.

The rule, basiclly is that the 1st, 2nd and 5th lines should each contain three STRESSED syllables while Lines 3 and 4 should contain two and they should be separated by two unstressed between each pair of stressed. At the start and end of the line you can be a bit more fluid. There is a tutorial on it all in te FAQ section of the OEDILF.

The words masticate and masturbate
xxXxxXxxX
Or depreciate and deprecate
xxXxxXxxX

totally anapestic

Hmm, I thought I had answered the anapestic question above. I find workshoppers stange sometimes.

TrossL, in your suggested limerick, here is how the stresses work:

There WAS a young LAdy of KENT...see that's anapestic. Now there would be some on OEDILF who wouldn't like stressing "was," but it's perfectly acceptable. The other way traditional limercks start (and it's probably better), of course, is:

There ONCE was a LAdy of KENT

In your example, how about:

The words MASticate, MASturbate...AND
DePREciate, DEprecate STAND
As sim'lar in sound,
With their LETters turned ROUND:
They're CATCHfools, and NOT what you'd PLANNED.

I like it! As far as not being in any dictionary, it's in yours, right, TrossL? Having just one dictionary, even if it's wrong, citing it is enough, I've found. Someone has "abaculo" defined on OEDILF, and it only appears in one edition of the International Webster's, and was taken out of the next edition. Yet, they have used that wrong definition from the Webster's Dictionary, even though the error has been pointed out. That limerick is approved. Therefore, I will surely support your "catchfools." I will be happy to workshop it.

quote:

Someone has "abaculo" defined on OEDILF, and it only appears in one edition of the International Webster's, and was taken out of the next edition.

It was I - and I am sure I said, forget it. If it's been approved I must have OKd it wihtout realising.

But you know, poking about as I was, I came across CJ's own limerick defining ASAFP which I am sure is in NO dictionary. I had never even heard of this before I read his limerick.

quote:

It was I - and I am sure I said, forget it. If it's been approved I must have OKd it wihtout realising.

Nope, Richard. It is not yours. I think you must have deleted yours from the system. Someone took the idea from you.

TrossL, your only problem will be the stresses. They seem to accept anything, and as long as that's the case for everyone, I don't mind. I will look at yours and post my suggestion.

Is it there? I couldn't find it. I was excited about workshopping it!

Since I don't get on with OEDLIF, will this do?

John Silver, the story relates,
Loved dancing on sharp roller skates.
He fell on his cutlass
which rendered him nutless
and ruined his chances on dates.

That is wonderful! I am glad you are with us and not them!

I joined the OEDILF site a few weeks ago and some trolling through the hundreds of limericks there led me to Kalleh’s and then on to Wordcraft.

I realise my experience is brief but after reading this thread, I felt like sharing that I’ve been impressed by the response I’ve had from the editors on OEDILF. It’s a huge site - I’ve been posting one or two limericks a day and from their numbering system I see that a hundred or more others are doing the same. When I think of the sheer volume of work entailed, I’m actually astonished at how quickly I get responses.

I also have to say that I’ve been impressed by the advice I’ve been given. Sometimes it can be contradictory but that doesn’t bother me, in fact I quite like it that the editors differ on what they like and what they view as important. My feeling is that if a limerick stalled because it couldn’t garner enough general approval then I’d be happy to archive it away - my friends can get it on next year’s Christmas card! If it’s good enough and generally acceptable then it’ll probably get through. For the rest it’s all learning to me and after all they are only limericks. (Hope that’s not treasonable!)

Last thing to add is that the piece of advice I keep getting on OEDILF is to stick with what I like and what I’m proud of. That means heaps to me as a beginner.

This looks like a cool site too.

PS: Chris didn’t pay me to write this!



I’m new here, I’m feeling my way,
I’m not sure how much I should say.
The ‘other’ site’s cool
I’ve found as a rule--
Though that’s not the scene that you portray.