deepundergroundpoetry.com
BUT DON'T WORRY.
BUT DON'T WORRY.
Little flower in the garden,
you have charmed me with your splendour.
Sweet's the smell which is around you,
given by your splendid odour.
Getting near you makes me wonder
why is life so harsh on livers.
Now, your youth is proud and haughty.
Have you thought about the coming?
Happy flower, do not ponder
on what goes on in my silence
as you cannot change your future
which is imposed on all creatures.
You are happy with the present.
Enjoy it and do not worry.
That, Who gives you all these wonders,
surely tucks away what's better.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
Little flower in the garden,
you have charmed me with your splendour.
Sweet's the smell which is around you,
given by your splendid odour.
Getting near you makes me wonder
why is life so harsh on livers.
Now, your youth is proud and haughty.
Have you thought about the coming?
Happy flower, do not ponder
on what goes on in my silence
as you cannot change your future
which is imposed on all creatures.
You are happy with the present.
Enjoy it and do not worry.
That, Who gives you all these wonders,
surely tucks away what's better.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
Published 2nd Dec 2021
All writing remains the property of the author. Don't use it for any purpose without their permission.
likes 2
reading list entries 2
comments 9
reads 324
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
2nd Dec 2021 10:50pm
Beautiful work Joseph.
loved reading it over and over. made me stop, each line.
loved reading it over and over. made me stop, each line.
3rd Dec 2021 8:10am
Thank you very much, CF, for your great kindness. Your appreciation and comment are and will always remain a great encouragement to me which l will never forget.
"why is life so harsh on livers."
Because life brings cirrhosis.
If you meant to say "why is life so hard on living things", you didn't. You spoke of the internal organ that is essential for digesting food and ridding the body of toxic substances.
"Have you thought about the coming?"
And in this line, you engage again in one of your continuing writing faults, i.e. deixis. Your question is unintelligible because you don't say what "coming" is "the" coming.
Happy flower, do not ponder
on what goes on in my silence
Why would a flower be interested in pondering on anything about you, even assuming that it could think about things, let alone your "silence" (about what?) which, given that you are speaking to the flower, doesn't exist?
"as you cannot change your future
which is imposed on all creatures."
So the flower's future is imposed on all creatures? That's what your syntax makes you say!
"Enjoy it [now] and do not worry.
Wouldn't ""Enjoy it now and do not worry" be better rhythmically?
"That, Who gives you all these wonders,
surely tucks away what's better."
Shouldn't the word that follows "That" be "which"?
And are you saying that the flower you are speaking to is destined to have an afterlife?
In any case, how and why is the subject of this submission "deep and meaningful"?
I look forward to seeing how you will respond to these remarks and especially to how you will denigrate their necessity, cogency, and validity and/or "deal" with them by replying with ad hominems and red herrings.
Because life brings cirrhosis.
If you meant to say "why is life so hard on living things", you didn't. You spoke of the internal organ that is essential for digesting food and ridding the body of toxic substances.
"Have you thought about the coming?"
And in this line, you engage again in one of your continuing writing faults, i.e. deixis. Your question is unintelligible because you don't say what "coming" is "the" coming.
Happy flower, do not ponder
on what goes on in my silence
Why would a flower be interested in pondering on anything about you, even assuming that it could think about things, let alone your "silence" (about what?) which, given that you are speaking to the flower, doesn't exist?
"as you cannot change your future
which is imposed on all creatures."
So the flower's future is imposed on all creatures? That's what your syntax makes you say!
"Enjoy it [now] and do not worry.
Wouldn't ""Enjoy it now and do not worry" be better rhythmically?
"That, Who gives you all these wonders,
surely tucks away what's better."
Shouldn't the word that follows "That" be "which"?
And are you saying that the flower you are speaking to is destined to have an afterlife?
In any case, how and why is the subject of this submission "deep and meaningful"?
I look forward to seeing how you will respond to these remarks and especially to how you will denigrate their necessity, cogency, and validity and/or "deal" with them by replying with ad hominems and red herrings.
3rd Dec 2021 4:10pm
1- A liver: has two meanings, the organ you talked about and a living person. You can choose the one you like. You know this saying, "Is life worth living? That depends on the liver."
2- The coming is very clear to you and to the readers. It means old age and death.
3- The whole poem is a sort of sympathy from my side to the flower which represents any creature which is affected by time.
4- Yes, the future of the flower is [time and death] . This future is imposed on all creatures.
5- No, THAT as a DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN can be used for people or thing. Here it is God.
6- Here l am speaking with a flower, but l mean all the creatures, among them PEOPLE.
7- Finally, thank you very much for your great interest, Baldwin.
2- The coming is very clear to you and to the readers. It means old age and death.
3- The whole poem is a sort of sympathy from my side to the flower which represents any creature which is affected by time.
4- Yes, the future of the flower is [time and death] . This future is imposed on all creatures.
5- No, THAT as a DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN can be used for people or thing. Here it is God.
6- Here l am speaking with a flower, but l mean all the creatures, among them PEOPLE.
7- Finally, thank you very much for your great interest, Baldwin.
"A liver: has two meanings, the organ you talked about and a living person. You can choose the one you like.'
Please site a dictionary that attests to "liver" having the meaning of "a living person". I note that Longman, your go-to dictionary, does not. Nor does any other dictionary, including those from Oxford and Cambridge.
"You know this saying, "Is life worth living? That depends on the liver.""
Yes, I know it. And the word "liver" within it means the organ, not someone who is living life. It's a pun.
https://www.english-grammar-today.com/pun.html
:“Is life worth living? That depends on the liver.” -BJ Palmer.
Your liver is an amazing organ, that is vital to you staying healthy. The job of the liver serves many functions in your body."
http://www.abundanthealthchiro.com/is-life-worth-living-that-depends-on-the-liver/
"3- The whole poem is a sort of sympathy from my side to the flower which represents any creature which { Grammarly says "that"] is affected by time."
I don't know what "a sort" of sympathy is. Did you mean "expression of my sympathy"? But more importantly, it is nowhere made clear that the flower you directly address as nothing other than a flower represents anything but itself.
4- Yes, the future of the flower is [time and death] .
If what's imposed on the flower is "time", then it will live far longer than it ordinarily would. Perhaps you meant "times ravages". But if you did, you didn't say it.
"5- No, THAT as a DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN can be used for people or thing [SIC things]. Here it is God."
And once again you have misread what I wrote to you. I did NOT speak of "that". I spoke of the word that came AFTER "that", i.e., "who". And it is by no means clear that the referent of your demonstrative pronoun is God. After all, there's no Biblical attestation that God engages in "tucking away" anything, let alone "what's better". If you know of a place in the Bible that describes God engaging in "tucking things away" and uses "tuck(s) away" to do so, please show it to me.
I note too that you did not speak to my question regarding why a flower would be interested in pondering on anything about you, even assuming that it had the capacity that flowers do not have, i.e., to think about things, let alone your "silence" (about what?) which, given that you are speaking to the flower, doesn't exist.
Please site a dictionary that attests to "liver" having the meaning of "a living person". I note that Longman, your go-to dictionary, does not. Nor does any other dictionary, including those from Oxford and Cambridge.
"You know this saying, "Is life worth living? That depends on the liver.""
Yes, I know it. And the word "liver" within it means the organ, not someone who is living life. It's a pun.
https://www.english-grammar-today.com/pun.html
:“Is life worth living? That depends on the liver.” -BJ Palmer.
Your liver is an amazing organ, that is vital to you staying healthy. The job of the liver serves many functions in your body."
http://www.abundanthealthchiro.com/is-life-worth-living-that-depends-on-the-liver/
"3- The whole poem is a sort of sympathy from my side to the flower which represents any creature which { Grammarly says "that"] is affected by time."
I don't know what "a sort" of sympathy is. Did you mean "expression of my sympathy"? But more importantly, it is nowhere made clear that the flower you directly address as nothing other than a flower represents anything but itself.
4- Yes, the future of the flower is [time and death] .
If what's imposed on the flower is "time", then it will live far longer than it ordinarily would. Perhaps you meant "times ravages". But if you did, you didn't say it.
"5- No, THAT as a DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN can be used for people or thing [SIC things]. Here it is God."
And once again you have misread what I wrote to you. I did NOT speak of "that". I spoke of the word that came AFTER "that", i.e., "who". And it is by no means clear that the referent of your demonstrative pronoun is God. After all, there's no Biblical attestation that God engages in "tucking away" anything, let alone "what's better". If you know of a place in the Bible that describes God engaging in "tucking things away" and uses "tuck(s) away" to do so, please show it to me.
I note too that you did not speak to my question regarding why a flower would be interested in pondering on anything about you, even assuming that it had the capacity that flowers do not have, i.e., to think about things, let alone your "silence" (about what?) which, given that you are speaking to the flower, doesn't exist.
3rd Dec 2021 8:33pm
1-According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 2 liver 1; one that lives ESP. in a specified way [ a fast liver] 2: resident. When it says esp., it means we can use it as ONE THAT LIVES.
2- Please don't impose your own language on other people.
Is it possible that time and death can have effect only on that flower?
3-"...for people or THING [THINGS]" What a discovery!
4- Sorry, l have understood what you had meant. I have tried to explain to you that THAT is a demonstrative adjective, so it can be followed by WHICH or WHO.
2- Please don't impose your own language on other people.
Is it possible that time and death can have effect only on that flower?
3-"...for people or THING [THINGS]" What a discovery!
4- Sorry, l have understood what you had meant. I have tried to explain to you that THAT is a demonstrative adjective, so it can be followed by WHICH or WHO.
"According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 2 liver 1; one that lives ESP. in a specified way [ a fast liver] 2: resident. When it says esp., it means we can use it as ONE THAT LIVES."
No, it doesn't mean that. It means that there must be some adjective that describes the specified way that a person lives attached to the noun for it to have that meaning. And you have no such thing attached to the noun in your line.
"2- Please don't impose your own language on other people.
Is it possible that time and death can have [sic an/their] effect only on that flower?"
Who said any such thing? What I was noting was that time does not force (something unwelcome or unfamiliar) to be accepted or put in place. Not having personal intentions, let alone desires or feelings, time is something one is born into. It's not as if anyone or anything has a choice about this. And it is not always debilitating. Time can do wonders for things. It's when time is ravaging that it does damage.
"3-"...for people or THING [THINGS]" What a discovery!"
Yes, however minor a one, it still displays the fact that you are not as skilled in grammar as you claim you are and/or that you don't do (and quite frequently at that) what good writers do before they post their writings to an audience -- proofread their text.
"
"4- Sorry, l have [sic had?] understood what you had meant. I have tried to explain to you that THAT is a demonstrative adjective, so it can be followed by WHICH or WHO."
Besides the fact that you previously said that THAT was a demonstrative pronoun. And since as a demonstrative pronoun, it has to have a referent/antecedent that is either a person, thing, or an idea indicated, mentioned, or understood from the context in which it appears for the sentence in which it appears to be intelligible. It is hardly clear that its referent is God.
No, it doesn't mean that. It means that there must be some adjective that describes the specified way that a person lives attached to the noun for it to have that meaning. And you have no such thing attached to the noun in your line.
"2- Please don't impose your own language on other people.
Is it possible that time and death can have [sic an/their] effect only on that flower?"
Who said any such thing? What I was noting was that time does not force (something unwelcome or unfamiliar) to be accepted or put in place. Not having personal intentions, let alone desires or feelings, time is something one is born into. It's not as if anyone or anything has a choice about this. And it is not always debilitating. Time can do wonders for things. It's when time is ravaging that it does damage.
"3-"...for people or THING [THINGS]" What a discovery!"
Yes, however minor a one, it still displays the fact that you are not as skilled in grammar as you claim you are and/or that you don't do (and quite frequently at that) what good writers do before they post their writings to an audience -- proofread their text.
"
"4- Sorry, l have [sic had?] understood what you had meant. I have tried to explain to you that THAT is a demonstrative adjective, so it can be followed by WHICH or WHO."
Besides the fact that you previously said that THAT was a demonstrative pronoun. And since as a demonstrative pronoun, it has to have a referent/antecedent that is either a person, thing, or an idea indicated, mentioned, or understood from the context in which it appears for the sentence in which it appears to be intelligible. It is hardly clear that its referent is God.
"why is life so harsh on livers."
Even granting that the unmarked noun "livers" means "those who are alive", I note that you haven't established or demonstrated that life is (always?) "so harsh" on [to?] them, let alone unpacked, as you should have done" what being "so harsh" as opposed to just being "harsh" is. Nor have you made any effort to answer your own question.
Moreover, how would life be harsh on those who weren't alive?
You really need to stop trying to utter profundities if you are ever going to get around to writing something that is truly moving and that sparks readers into seeing things with their eyes shut.
Even granting that the unmarked noun "livers" means "those who are alive", I note that you haven't established or demonstrated that life is (always?) "so harsh" on [to?] them, let alone unpacked, as you should have done" what being "so harsh" as opposed to just being "harsh" is. Nor have you made any effort to answer your own question.
Moreover, how would life be harsh on those who weren't alive?
You really need to stop trying to utter profundities if you are ever going to get around to writing something that is truly moving and that sparks readers into seeing things with their eyes shut.
5th Dec 2021 7:48pm
Thank you very much, Lozzamus, for liking and choosing my poem for your reading list.
