A rose is a rose is a rose.
这是一个很有名的quatation, 有人见过么？怎么正确的理解？ 意象派的名句，当然，我这么一说，肯定又狭隘了。但确实就是，这么写，就有一种，“玫瑰遍地，满目生香”的感觉。语言就是这么形象生动、楚楚动人。吴二 发表于 2018-4-29 16:59
意象派的名句，当然，我这么一说，肯定又狭隘了。但确实就是，这么写，就有一种，“玫瑰遍地，满目生香”的 ...
这句话好像就是要表达：玫瑰就是玫瑰。的意思啊 吕下阿蒙 发表于 2018-4-29 17:06
这句话好像就是要表达：玫瑰就是玫瑰。的意思啊
没错，这句话的意义，就这么简单。
不过，就像她自己说的，几百年来，头一回，把玫瑰写成了红色。文字，从表达意义，变成了描绘意象。这就是Stein为什么这么写的用意所在。
吴二 发表于 2018-4-29 17:31
没错，这句话的意义，就这么简单。
不过，就像她自己说的，几百年来，头一回，把玫瑰写成了红色。文字， ...
什么叫“意象派”啊 吕下阿蒙 发表于 2018-4-29 17:38
什么叫“意象派”啊
Imagism，其实英文还更直观。就是要让文字变成形象，变化出活生生的image出来。算是视觉化，乃至今天读图主义的先驱吧（开个玩笑）。
这句子，就是为了描摹玫瑰那种花团锦簇，一朵一朵一朵的样子。
吴二 发表于 2018-4-29 16:59
意象派的名句，当然，我这么一说，肯定又狭隘了。但确实就是，这么写，就有一种，“玫瑰遍地，满目生香”的 ...
看网友的见解长姿势啦，有趣！ 问下楼主如何才能看到你发布的所有帖子，直接进入你空间是看不到的哦！ 让我想到了brave new world revisited里的句子，找出来抄给你啊。
Science may be defined as the reduction of multiplicity to unity. It seeks to explain the endlessly diverse phenomena of nature by ignoring the uniqueness of particular event, concentrating on what they have common and finally abstracting some kind of "law" in terms of which they make sense amd cam be effectively dealt with.... With Gertrude Stain they were conviced that an apple is an apple is an apple,whereas the moon is the moon is the moon.
就我个人理解，第一个apple是各种人们看到的apple（实物）第二个是一种具有抽象意义的apple,在人脑子里生成的概念，第三个apple就是人们把它叫做apple.中国人就该叫苹果啦。
楼主的rose能否也这样理解呢？当然，你那个截图，作者自己说了，rose有更身深层的意思，比如代表浪漫。
纯个人理解啊。 = A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. 本帖最后由 吕下阿蒙 于 2018-5-3 16:50 编辑
ucccafe 发表于 2018-5-2 22:34
= A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
What's in a name?
三个都是一脉相承的用法。
最早可以追溯到莎士比亚。
如果有人说你起的什么名字不好听。你可以用此表达反驳：What's in a name? 本帖最后由 吕下阿蒙 于 2018-5-3 17:04 编辑
sabrina2111 发表于 2018-5-1 11:14
让我想到了brave new world revisited里的句子，找出来抄给你啊。
Science may be defined as the reductio ...
你这一段话打出来就有好多错误,导致我第一遍根本没看懂。做事情可否认真一些。
Science may be defined as the reduction of multiplicity to unity. It seeks to explain the endlessly diverse phenomena of nature by ignoring the uniqueness of particular events, concentrating on what they have in common and finally abstracting some kind of "law," in terms of which they make sense and can be effectively dealt with. For examples, apples fall from the tree and the moon moves across the sky. People had been observing these facts from time immemorial. With Gertrude Stein they were convinced that an apple is an apple is an apple, whereas the moon is the moon is the moon. It remained for Isaac Newton to perceive what these very dissimilar phenomena had in common, and to formulate a theory of gravitation in terms of which certain aspects of the behavior of apples, of the heavenly bodies and indeed of everything else in the physical universe could be explained and dealt with in terms of a single system of ideas. In the same spirit the artist takes the innumerable diversities and uniquenesses of the outer world and his own imagination and gives them meaning within an orderly system of plastic, literary or musical patterns. The wish to impose order upon confusion, to bring harmony out of dissonance and unity out of multiplicity is a kind of intellectual instinct, a primary and fundamental urge of the mind. Within the realms of science, art and philosophy the workings of what I may call this "Will to Order" are mainly beneficent. True, the Will to Order has produced many premature syntheses based upon insufficient evidence, many absurd systems of metaphysics and theology, much pedantic mistaking of notions for realities, of symbols and abstractions for the data of immediate experience. But these errors, however regrettable, do not do much harm, at any rate directly -- though it sometimes happens that a bad philosophical system may do harm indirectly, by being used as a justification for senseless and inhuman actions. It is in the social sphere, in the realm of politics and economics, that the Will to Order becomes really dangerous.
吕下阿蒙 发表于 2018-5-3 16:55
你这一段话打出来就有好多错误,导致我第一遍根本没看懂。做事情可否认真一些。
Science may be defined...
恩，我又看了一下，3处错误。看着书纯盲打啊，不是复制黏贴的，还请见谅啊。
我很好奇楼主那么认真的人为什么积分会变成负数？？？纯好奇啊！ 本帖最后由 afreeelf 于 2018-5-3 20:20 编辑
sabrina2111 发表于 2018-5-3 19:11
恩，我又看了一下，3处错误。看着书纯盲打啊，不是复制黏贴的，还请见谅啊。
我很好奇楼主那么认真的人为 ...
他有好几个帖子标题太简略，像是“你看得懂吗”，然后被o大发现了，然后就。。。
但我就看到他有4、5个那种贴，其余怎么扣的分不知道 afreeelf 发表于 2018-5-3 20:17
他有好几个帖子标题太简略，像是“你看得懂吗”，然后被o大发现了，然后就。。。
但我就看到他有4、5个那 ...
标题也有讲究啊？那该怎么写啊？规则在哪儿啊？难怪上次管理员让我改标题。 从逻辑上说，“statement is a statement is a statement is a statement ......” 更合适
页:
[1]