While looking into pangrams, e.g., The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog, Cwm fjord bank glyphs vext quiz, I discovered pangrammic autograms, e.g., Only the fool would take trouble to verify that his sentence was composed of ten a's, three b's, four c's, four d's, forty-six e's, sixteen f's, four g's, thirteen h's, fifteen i's, two k's, nine l's, four m's, twenty-five n's, twenty-four o's, five p's, sixteen r's, forty-one s's, thirty-seven t's, ten u's, eight v's, eight w's, four x's, eleven y's, twenty-seven commas, twenty-three apostrophes, seven hyphens and, last but not least, a single !, (link). And here are some pangrammic lipograms:

Bold Nassan quits his caravan,
A hazy mountain grot to scan;
Climbs jaggy rocks to find his way,
Doth tax his sight, but far doth stray.

Not work of man, nor sport of child
Finds Nassan on this mazy wild;
Lax grow his joints, limbs toil in vain—
Poor wight! why didst thou quit that plain?

Vainly for succour Nassan calls;
Know, Zillah, that thy Nassan falls;
But prowling wolf and fox may joy
To quarry on thy Arab boy.

Finally, Robinson Crusoe in words of one syllable by Mary Godolphin, pseudonym of Lucy Aikin, (link).

I've heard of pangrams, but not autograms or lipograms. If a lipogram is when the text excludes a particular letter(s), how do you know what letter it will exclude? Or are you supposed to figure it out? Can the other letters be included more than once?

Is the lipo in lipogram related to that lipo related to fat?

quote:

Finally, Robinson Crusoe in words of one syllable by Mary Godolphin, pseudonym of Lucy Aikin, (link).

Why?

how do you know what letter it will exclude?

One of those most famous lipogrammatic texts was a rewrite of Homer's Odyssey (by Tryphiodorus, now lost). As each chapter in the Greek original is numbered by a single letter in the Greek alphabet, that was the letter excluded. Another famous lipogrammic text was one excluding e. It was in English, written in the '30s, and I cannot remember the author's name.

Why?

Probably the same impetus that drives some to rewrite dictionaries in limerick form. Why not?

All of these kinds of writing come under the general heading of constrained writing. Pick a constraint and write. There is a famous European (mainly French) literary organization called Oulipo (workshop of potential literature) that has some famous authors as members: e.g., Italo Calvino, Raymond Queneau, Harry Mathews, Georges Perec (link).

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

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
Another famous lipogrammic text was one excluding e. It was in English, written in the '30s, and I cannot remember the author's name.

Gadsby: Champion of Youth by Vin Wright. The wikipedia article has no "e" either.

quote:

Is the lipo in lipogram related to that lipo related to fat?

I don't think so, though I don't know Greek. lipogram is from the Greek lipagrammatos, "missing letter". Lipo- is from the Greek Lipos, "fat, grease".

The lipo in lipogrammatos is from leipō "to leave, be wanting".

Is the lipo in lipogram related to that lipo related to fat?

No, lipogram is from the Greek verb λειπω (leipō) 'to leave (behind); lack' (related to English relinquish via French from Latin), not Greek λιπος (lipos) 'lard, tallow'.

quote:

Probably the same impetus that drives some to rewrite dictionaries in limerick form. Why not?

I do not consider that "Why not" is a valid answer to the question "Why".

"Why?" requires reasons; "Why not" requires negatives - a very different need.

"I'm going to shoot you!"
"Why?"
"Because I hate you, your religion and what you stand for."

An understandable if maybe unreasonable reason.


"Why not?"
"Because I don't want you."

A self-centered and less understandable reason.

I do not consider that "Why not" is a valid answer to the question "Why".

That's nice [sic].

I see you ignored my first, more serious, answer. As is your wont.

From the Author's Preface of The Pilgrim's Progress In Words of One Syllable:

quote:

In offering to the public another volume on my plan of reducing popular tales into words of One Syllable exclusively, I wish it to be clearly understood that it is intended for Adult Beginners, no less than for Children. There is a large class of persons who do not begin to acquire the art of reading till somewhat late in life, and it is for such that I think a book of this Character is peculiarly applicable.

It may be objected that my system involves the use of words which, though short, are difficult to understand and might be made more intelligible in polysyllabic language. But I have endeavored as far as possible to avoid hard and technical expressions, and I cannot but think that the mere fact of the brevity of the words must be a great attraction to beginners of all ages. By this method the labor of dividing and accentuating words is avoided: a difficulty which pupils who have only attained to the knowledge of monosyllables cannot conquer by independent effort.

I take this opportunity of acknowledging the great favor with which my previous books of the same character have been received, and I am glad to hear that they have been found useful as Prizes in Schools.

I have thought it necessary to retain all the names of Persons and Places in their original form, but this is the only exception to my general rule. (link)

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

I will answer the question about OEDILF a little later - although I confess I didn't think it was a serious one. But I will also comment that the explanation in that author's preface seem to me to be a load of cobblers.

a load of cobblers

O tempora o mores! You are entitled to your opinion, wrong though it may be. Mary Godolphin, pesudonym of Lucy Aikin [1781-1864], was a British 19th century author (link).

quote:

O tempora o mores! You are entitled to your opinion, wrong though it may be. Mary Godolphin, pesudonym of Lucy Aikin [1781-1864], was a British 19th century author (link).

I never tried to suggest that she didn't exist; I said that her preface was a load of cobblers. There are many celebrities who make statements that are such - today more than at most other times. It seems to me that all you need to do nowadays is to become famous for being famous and your every word is treated as important and, more worryingly, as accurate.

Now, why did a number of erudite people decide it was a good idea to try to put together a dictionary in limerick form? I can only speak for myself and I a quite sure that those others who have taken to project to their hearts can make their own points. These are my reasons for my involvement:

1. The limerick is an oft-denigrated verse form and this project is an opportunity to show what can be done within its strictures

2. Many people believe that the limerick can only be used for humorous rhymes of little value; this project shows more of its range.

3. Dictionaries are not generally light reading; the OEDILF is entertaining and easy to read as well as being informative.

4. Many of those who would be reluctant to buy a normal dictionary might buy an OEDILF and this will thus help to increase literacy.

5. The project allows authors to hone their writing and linguistic talents.

Others may well have different seasons; these are mine.

I was not asking you a question, but answering yours. Oh, forget it!

Richard, I have, sitting on my hard drive ,half a dozen chapters of an aborted writing project telling the story of Alice in Wonderland* backwards. Taking the events in reverse order (after all it's a non linear dream so the order doesn't matter) and seeing if the story still works. (If anyone cares enough I can post them.)

Why?

To see if I could and to see if it would work. Just as you don't think "why not" is a valid answer to "why", I think there are a great many circumstances where "why" isn't even a valid question.

*correction:Through The Looking Glass, I'd forgotten that I'd intended that to be an additional joke.

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

Oh yes, if anyone knows where I can get a sensibly priced copy of "Alice In Wonderland in words of one syllable" (for it definitely exists) can you let me know please, because I do see a point.

quote:

I was not asking you a question, but answering yours. Oh, forget it!

Apologies. I misread your post.

I understand what you say about constrained writing - but it still seems rather pointless to me unless it adds something the the sum of human happiness or knowledge.

I could no doubt transcribe the whole works of Shakespeare onto black paper using black ink - but it would seem totally pointless.

quote:

pointless to me unless it adds something the the sum of human happiness

It adds to the writer's feeling of accomplishment and, presumably, his happiness.

And AiWiWoOS would certainly add to my happiness. In fact I'd quite like to look at some of the other books mentioned above and so as my happiness is raised then the world's happiness is also minisculely raised.

Here, have a happy face

Sometimes we can understand at a glance what our fellow WordCrafters write here. Sometimes we have to consult a dictionary or other source. Sometimes an explanation pops up when we click on a link.

Take, for example "a load of cobblers."

I was wondering what a busful of shoe repairmen had to do with this.

See here for definitions of "cobblers" http://www.oedilf.com/db/Lim.php?Word=cobblers

Lipograms by A. Ross Eckler (Can we say that they were written "with no H A S T E?)
No H:
Mary owned a little lamb
Its fleece was pale as snow
And every place its mistress went
It certainly would go.
It followed Mary to class one day
It broke a rigid law
It made some students giggle aloud
A lamb in class all saw
No A:
Polly owned one little sheep
Its fleece shone white like snow
Every region where Polly went
The sheep did surely go
He followed her to school one time
Which broke the rigid rule
The children frolicked in their room
To see the sheep in school
No S:
Mary had a little lamb
With fleece a pale white hue
And everywhere that Mary went
The lamb kept her in view
To academe he went with her
Illegal and quite rare
It made the children laugh and play
To view a lamb in there
No T:
Mary had a pygmy lamb
His fleece was pale as snow
And every place where Mary walked
Her lamb did also go
He came inside her classroom once
Which broke a rigid rule
How children all did laugh and play
On seeing a lamb in school
No E:
Mary had a tiny lamb
Its wool was pallid as snow
And any spot that Mary did walk
This lamb would always go
This lamb did follow Mary to school
Although against a law
How girls and boys did laugh and play
That lamb in class all saw
Only 13 different letters:
Maria had a little sheep,
As pale as rime its hair,
And all the places Maria came
The sheep did tail her there;
In Maria’s class it came at last,
A sheep can’t enter there;
It made the children clap their hands
A sheep in class, that’s rare.

Very well done, Shu.

This is not an anomaly -- just my version of the same verse ..

Mary had a little lamb,
A little beef, a little Spam.
Dessert was apricot soufflé
The serving style? Voilà ! Buffet !!

And here's mine:

To her school went Mare’s little lamb
It be near her wherever Mare am
The kids in her class
Almost laughed off their ass
And the teacher just told it to scram.

Edited to mention that no "Q", "X", or "Z"s were used in the production of this work. Neither were any farm animals harmed or otherwise mistreated.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Proofreader>,

Lipograms by A. Ross Eckler

Great find, shu. Do you know if it was junior or senior who inked the lipograms? They were both statisticians in real life, which might explain why they were interested in constrained writing.

[Addendum: Never mind. It's probably the son, who used to edit a journal called Word Ways: The Journal of Recreational Linguistics.]

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

Wow, this thread has progressed wonderfully since I last read it, and I've learned a lot. I suppose I've learned more about what I don't know than what I do know, but that's par for the course.

quote:

Why?

To see if I could and to see if it would work. Just as you don't think "why not" is a valid answer to "why", I think there are a great many circumstances where "why" isn't even a valid question.

Good point, Bob. We are all inspired by different things, whether it be poetry, literature, good beer, or whatever. One doesn't always understand what inspires another, but we should respect it.

quote:

Now, why did a number of erudite people decide it was a good idea to try to put together a dictionary in limerick form?

While I don't want to change the direction of this thread into a debate on the virtues, or non-virtues, of the OEDILF, I do want to respond to this remark. While I respect your opinion Richard, I find that statement pushing the envelope...a lot. The project is great fun and sometimes even a bit intellectual; however, I'd never call it, or the people who developed it, "erudite."* Perhaps our definitions of "erudite" are at odds. [By the way, I just found out that "erudite" and "rude" are related in etymology. I suppose I should have figured that out.]

* I realize that some of us on Wordcraft were part of the crew that developed OEDILF. I don't mean to insult all the developers. I just mean that I don't think the development of, or the concept of, or the work of OEDILF is "erudite." Many associated with the project may very well be "erudite" on their own.

Perhaps it is not so easy for anyone to recognize all of their own "loads of cobblers".

Here's one that's popular among cobbler connoisseurs.

I believe the word "erudite" means "having or showing profound knowledge" - and I believe that many of those who work on the OEDILF could be described as such - as could many who post here.

I didn't mean to imply that all those involved were erudite - simply that many of them are.

quote:

Perhaps it is not so easy for anyone to recognize all of their own "loads of cobblers".

I would imagine that this would be the usual state of affairs. If people were readily able to recognise that what they are saying or doing is a load of cobblers, they'd not say or do it. That so many do so would appear to demonstrate their ignorance.

quote:

I believe the word "erudite" means "having or showing profound knowledge" - and I believe that many of those who work on the OEDILF could be described as such - as could many who post here.

I didn't mean to imply that all those involved were erudite - simply that many of them are.

Ah, but here was the statement I was responding to:

quote:

Now, why did a number of erudite people decide it was a good idea to try to put together a dictionary in limerick form?

You see, that's a different question. That's only talking about those who decided it was a good idea to put together a dictionary in limerick form. That statement has nothing to do with the members who weren't here on Wordcraft in the first place when the idea was developed. To me, that statement implies that since the people who developed the idea are "erudite," the idea for the OEDILF project also is. I don't think it is. As I said, it's fun, maybe even a bit whimsical, but I personally don't find it an erudite idea. We all know it wasn't an original idea because way before the OEDILF was started a group from AWAD was working on a limerictionary.

I do hope you saw my asterisk, Richard, because I do think that many of the original people who started the OEDILF, as well as many Wordcrafters and many OEDILFers, are erudite. I just don't think the idea of the project is.

Perhaps we should take this to a private discussion because I think we already bore many non-OEDILFers when we discuss that project here.

quote:

To me, that statement implies that since the people who developed the idea are "erudite," the idea for the OEDILF project also is. I don't think it is

I didn't mean to imply that the project was erudite, only the people. You seemed to agree with this in your posting. The project is, as you suggest, primarily a a bit of fun; had I believed it was a highly erudite project then I'd have put the adjective "erudite" where it qualified the project, not where it qualified the people.