deepundergroundpoetry.com
MAN AND WAR
MAN AND WAR
What are you, war, but a raw sore
that itches those who can't escape.
They're driven like the sheep to die.
unable their complaints to bleat.
Man is created not to die
while he is in the state of sin.
He tries to kill a man unknown.
Does not that lead him to his hell?
And why all that? It's just to please
big bellied kings and their high rank
commanders who are senseless men
hidden quite safely shouting, "Fire".
The kings and their men will get old
and die as heroes nonpareil.
The soldiers die young and they're thrown
in holes of unknown soldiers' graves.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
What are you, war, but a raw sore
that itches those who can't escape.
They're driven like the sheep to die.
unable their complaints to bleat.
Man is created not to die
while he is in the state of sin.
He tries to kill a man unknown.
Does not that lead him to his hell?
And why all that? It's just to please
big bellied kings and their high rank
commanders who are senseless men
hidden quite safely shouting, "Fire".
The kings and their men will get old
and die as heroes nonpareil.
The soldiers die young and they're thrown
in holes of unknown soldiers' graves.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
Published 10th Aug 2022
| Edited 11th Aug 2022
All writing remains the property of the author. Don't use it for any purpose without their permission.
likes 0
reading list entries 0
comments 17
reads 108
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
This is poorly written from the get-go
"What are you war but a raw sore"
This needs the commas of address before and after "War" to be grammatically correct And war is far more than a sore of any kind. Moreover, sores do not cause itching. Their scabs do.
"that itches those who can't escape."
For this to be a complete thought you need to be specific about what it is that those who are "itched" by way can't escape from, e.g., "from you". I remind you that, as Auden noted, "poetry needs to be at least as well written as prose".
"They're driven like the sheep to die".
Not all who suffer the ravages, let alone the "itchings", of war are driven anywhere.
"unable their complaints to bleat."
Leaving aside the question of whether your inversion here is good English, the proper English expression is "driven like sheep". Your use of "the" makes the noun deictic and raises the question "which sheep?". And being driven like sheep has not ever made it impossible for anyone who is so driven to express his/her reaction to it vocally.
"What are you war but a raw sore"
This needs the commas of address before and after "War" to be grammatically correct And war is far more than a sore of any kind. Moreover, sores do not cause itching. Their scabs do.
"that itches those who can't escape."
For this to be a complete thought you need to be specific about what it is that those who are "itched" by way can't escape from, e.g., "from you". I remind you that, as Auden noted, "poetry needs to be at least as well written as prose".
"They're driven like the sheep to die".
Not all who suffer the ravages, let alone the "itchings", of war are driven anywhere.
"unable their complaints to bleat."
Leaving aside the question of whether your inversion here is good English, the proper English expression is "driven like sheep". Your use of "the" makes the noun deictic and raises the question "which sheep?". And being driven like sheep has not ever made it impossible for anyone who is so driven to express his/her reaction to it vocally.
11th Aug 2022 4:20pm
"It's just to please
big bellied kings and their high rank
commanders who are senseless men
hidden quite safely shouting, "Fire".
Tell that to the Ukrainian men who are fighting for their country's freedom.
Once again, you don't know what you are talking about
And the expression is "high ranking" commanders. So once again you have written poorly.
big bellied kings and their high rank
commanders who are senseless men
hidden quite safely shouting, "Fire".
Tell that to the Ukrainian men who are fighting for their country's freedom.
Once again, you don't know what you are talking about
And the expression is "high ranking" commanders. So once again you have written poorly.
11th Aug 2022 5:09pm
Why not,"High rank commanders," because Baldwin says so? Can't we say"High class people"?
What we can (questionably) say and what is the proper expression in English about the status of commanders who hold a high rank are two different things. And it's not because I say so that it is "high ranking "
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/high-ranking
In any case, why should anyone take your word that it's "high' rank", especially since everyone knows that you are not a native English speaker and therefore that you are not as familiar with English idiom and proper phrasing as you want people to believe you are.
And if you want to use the word "rank", proper English would demand that it be in the expression "their commanders of high rank".
Why does one not say "high classing" people?
But thank you for pretending that I did not make the other remarks I made about your piece.
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/high-ranking
In any case, why should anyone take your word that it's "high' rank", especially since everyone knows that you are not a native English speaker and therefore that you are not as familiar with English idiom and proper phrasing as you want people to believe you are.
And if you want to use the word "rank", proper English would demand that it be in the expression "their commanders of high rank".
Why does one not say "high classing" people?
But thank you for pretending that I did not make the other remarks I made about your piece.
11th Aug 2022 7:33pm
And why should anyone accept your claim as true? Do you have evidence that anyone besides yourself has used "their high rank commanders" when they were referring to high-ranking commanders?
And may I suggest that you type "high rank commanders" into Google and see what results come up?
And may I suggest that you type "high rank commanders" into Google and see what results come up?
11th Aug 2022 8:51pm
11th Aug 2022 9:38pm
But they don't accept "high rank commanders" as good English What evidence do you have that it is? Cue the running away from this question.
11th Aug 2022 10:35pm
Write, HIGH RANK COMMANDERS, they accept it and give you its meaning. Then they write several examples about HIGH RANK.
Here are the results of searching Google for "high rank commanders"
https://tinyurl.com/2p8wedmb
Nothing there says that the phrase "high-rank commanders" is good English, let alone can be used instead of "high ranking commanders" when one is speaking of a king's commanders of high rank. What's attested to here is that there are and have been military men of high rank and what the ranks in the military are.
But thanks for putting the burden of proof on me for proving that "high rank commanders" is good English when it was your responsibility to do so.
https://tinyurl.com/2p8wedmb
Nothing there says that the phrase "high-rank commanders" is good English, let alone can be used instead of "high ranking commanders" when one is speaking of a king's commanders of high rank. What's attested to here is that there are and have been military men of high rank and what the ranks in the military are.
But thanks for putting the burden of proof on me for proving that "high rank commanders" is good English when it was your responsibility to do so.
11th Aug 2022 11:33pm
It seems to me you have no idea about grammar rules. Even GOOGLE, you did not see what they say, but only you insist on what you say whether it is wrong or right. Think whatever you want. You are free.
Can l ask you what nationality you are?
Can l ask you what nationality you are?
Please post what they say that supports your contention that "high rank commanders "is good English, especially within the context in which you use the phrase.
And yes, as you show, you are **able** to ask what my nationality is. But did you mean "May I ask what nationality you are?"?
And yes, as you show, you are **able** to ask what my nationality is. But did you mean "May I ask what nationality you are?"?
12th Aug 2022 1:54am
"It seems to me you have no idea about grammar rules. Even GOOGLE, you did not see what they say,"
Given this, I hardly think I'm the one who doesn't know how to write properly in English. Proper English would have been "Even after using Google, you did not see what it had to say".
Given this, I hardly think I'm the one who doesn't know how to write properly in English. Proper English would have been "Even after using Google, you did not see what it had to say".
12th Aug 2022 10:17am
You want to correct my question about your nationality. Is it possible you don't know the reported speech or perhaps you know it as the indirect speech. I am very surprised that only YOU address me with such accusations for oversights, which even you have a lot in your writings.
"You want to correct my question about your nationality. Is it possible you don't know the reported speech or perhaps you know it as the indirect speech? I am very surprised that only YOU address me with such accusations for oversights, which even you have a lot in your writings.
There is quite a difference between "can I" -- which asks about your ability to do something -- and "may I" -- which asks for permission to do something.
As to your deixis-filled response ("the" reported speech , "the" indirect speech)
-- which is another avoidance of giving me what I asked you for (i.e., evidence that what's found when one searches Google for "high rank commanders" supports your claim that that expression is good English when used in the context in which you used it) --
it is also poorly written and wholly off point. To exhibit proper English, as well as to be comprehensible, it should have been written:
"You want to correct my question about your nationality. Is it possible you don't know the difference between reported speech and indirect speech? I am very surprised that only YOU address me with such accusations for oversights, which even you have a lot of in your writings."
In any case, how does the issue of what differentiates reported speech and indirect speech have to do with what "can" and "may" signify, let alone whether I am wrong to point out how poorly you write, especially since you have claimed that it is impossible for you to do so?
Moreover, just because I am the only one to point out that your posts, including your prose ones, contain glaring linguistic infelicities does not mean that they are not there. Nor does the undemonstrated "fact" that one can find such things in my posts mitigate the fact that you do not write well -- as you have testified is the case when you edit your pieces, as you have done on numerous occasions, to correct the linguistic, compositional, and grammatical mistakes that I have pointed out you made in your things you've posted.
As to my nationality, I am not Syrian.
There is quite a difference between "can I" -- which asks about your ability to do something -- and "may I" -- which asks for permission to do something.
As to your deixis-filled response ("the" reported speech , "the" indirect speech)
-- which is another avoidance of giving me what I asked you for (i.e., evidence that what's found when one searches Google for "high rank commanders" supports your claim that that expression is good English when used in the context in which you used it) --
it is also poorly written and wholly off point. To exhibit proper English, as well as to be comprehensible, it should have been written:
"You want to correct my question about your nationality. Is it possible you don't know the difference between reported speech and indirect speech? I am very surprised that only YOU address me with such accusations for oversights, which even you have a lot of in your writings."
In any case, how does the issue of what differentiates reported speech and indirect speech have to do with what "can" and "may" signify, let alone whether I am wrong to point out how poorly you write, especially since you have claimed that it is impossible for you to do so?
Moreover, just because I am the only one to point out that your posts, including your prose ones, contain glaring linguistic infelicities does not mean that they are not there. Nor does the undemonstrated "fact" that one can find such things in my posts mitigate the fact that you do not write well -- as you have testified is the case when you edit your pieces, as you have done on numerous occasions, to correct the linguistic, compositional, and grammatical mistakes that I have pointed out you made in your things you've posted.
As to my nationality, I am not Syrian.
12th Aug 2022 4:05pm
BaldwIN, did l write," Is it possible you don't know the difference between the reported speech and the indirect speech,"?
No. Nor did I say you did. But you have engaged in deixis once again. So even your question is poorly written.
And since you are not reporting what someone said, the issue of whether your question about whether you are able to ask me something is direct or indirect speech, even when you set it out deictically, is totally irrelevant to the issue of how you should have written said "MAY I ask you ..." if you were seeking my permission to do something.
In any case, let's get back to discussing whether the other remarks I made about how poorly written your imageless and question-begging, mis-titled complaint about what war is are on target.
To remind you of what these remarks are (remarks you avoided addressing most likely because you are unable to show how and why they are wrong) ), here they are again.
This is poorly written from the get-go
"What are you war but a raw sore"
This needs the commas of address before and after "War" to be grammatically correct And war is far more than a sore of any kind. Moreover, sores do not cause itching. Their scabs do.
"that itches those who can't escape."
For this to be a complete thought you need to be specific about what it is that those who are "itched" by way can't escape from, e.g., "from you". I remind you that, as Auden noted, "poetry needs to be at least as well written as prose".
"They're driven like the sheep to die".
Not all who suffer the ravages, let alone the "itchings", of war are driven anywhere.
"unable their complaints to bleat."
Leaving aside the question of whether your inversion here is good English, the proper English expression is "driven like sheep". Your use of "the" makes the noun deictic and raises the question "which sheep?". And being driven like sheep has not ever made it impossible for anyone who is so driven to express his/her reaction to it vocally.
And since you are not reporting what someone said, the issue of whether your question about whether you are able to ask me something is direct or indirect speech, even when you set it out deictically, is totally irrelevant to the issue of how you should have written said "MAY I ask you ..." if you were seeking my permission to do something.
In any case, let's get back to discussing whether the other remarks I made about how poorly written your imageless and question-begging, mis-titled complaint about what war is are on target.
To remind you of what these remarks are (remarks you avoided addressing most likely because you are unable to show how and why they are wrong) ), here they are again.
This is poorly written from the get-go
"What are you war but a raw sore"
This needs the commas of address before and after "War" to be grammatically correct And war is far more than a sore of any kind. Moreover, sores do not cause itching. Their scabs do.
"that itches those who can't escape."
For this to be a complete thought you need to be specific about what it is that those who are "itched" by way can't escape from, e.g., "from you". I remind you that, as Auden noted, "poetry needs to be at least as well written as prose".
"They're driven like the sheep to die".
Not all who suffer the ravages, let alone the "itchings", of war are driven anywhere.
"unable their complaints to bleat."
Leaving aside the question of whether your inversion here is good English, the proper English expression is "driven like sheep". Your use of "the" makes the noun deictic and raises the question "which sheep?". And being driven like sheep has not ever made it impossible for anyone who is so driven to express his/her reaction to it vocally.
