deepundergroundpoetry.com
THE LOVE THAT BUILDS A HOME
THE LOVE THAT BUILDS A HOME
I think that God wants all mankind
to do exactly as Christ said,
"Those whom God joined none can divide
as both become not two but one."
They see their children represent
what their dad or mum really has
either in their forms or their traits,
which makes them get more strongly tied.
They both consider their dear mates
their treasure that can move their souls
and want to give their hearts and minds
to see the other satisfied.
Where else can people tune their hearts
to produce one most charming beat
to sing a song which cares for what
the other needs and not themselves?
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
I think that God wants all mankind
to do exactly as Christ said,
"Those whom God joined none can divide
as both become not two but one."
They see their children represent
what their dad or mum really has
either in their forms or their traits,
which makes them get more strongly tied.
They both consider their dear mates
their treasure that can move their souls
and want to give their hearts and minds
to see the other satisfied.
Where else can people tune their hearts
to produce one most charming beat
to sing a song which cares for what
the other needs and not themselves?
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
Published 15th Mar 2023
| Edited 16th Mar 2023
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 23
reads 204
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
"I think that God wants all mankind
to do exactly as Christ said,
"Those whom God joined none can divide
as both become not two but one."".
What Jesus says in Matt. 19:6 is ὅὥστε οὐκέτι εἰσὶν δύο ἀλλὰ σὰρξ μία. οὖν ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν, ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω.
"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, **let** no one separate.”
The presupposition here is that people CAN and DO sunder what God has "joined together". What Jesus says in this verse is that they should not do so. χωριζέτω is the present imperative active 3rd person singular form of χωρίζω.
You misquote, misunderstand, and misrepresent what Jesus is saying in Matt. 19:6 when you present his words as you do, i.e., as a declaration that it is impossible for anyone to come between a union between a man and a woman that God has created (which BTW is a [questionable] statement of fact, not a command).
Moreover, Matt. 19:6 has nothing to do with what a marriage is for, what a couple sees their children as representing, or what type of love builds a home. ..
And incidentally, songs do not care for anything.
to do exactly as Christ said,
"Those whom God joined none can divide
as both become not two but one."".
What Jesus says in Matt. 19:6 is ὅὥστε οὐκέτι εἰσὶν δύο ἀλλὰ σὰρξ μία. οὖν ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν, ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω.
"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, **let** no one separate.”
The presupposition here is that people CAN and DO sunder what God has "joined together". What Jesus says in this verse is that they should not do so. χωριζέτω is the present imperative active 3rd person singular form of χωρίζω.
You misquote, misunderstand, and misrepresent what Jesus is saying in Matt. 19:6 when you present his words as you do, i.e., as a declaration that it is impossible for anyone to come between a union between a man and a woman that God has created (which BTW is a [questionable] statement of fact, not a command).
Moreover, Matt. 19:6 has nothing to do with what a marriage is for, what a couple sees their children as representing, or what type of love builds a home. ..
And incidentally, songs do not care for anything.
"Where else can people tune their hearts
to produce one most charming rhythm
to sing a song which [SIC] cares for what
the other needs and not themselves."
In all sorts of places.
And you might wish to note that "to produce one most charming rhythm: is medically unsound.
to (TO) proDUCE ONE MOST CHARMing RHYthm (9 syllables).
to produce one most charming rhythm
to sing a song which [SIC] cares for what
the other needs and not themselves."
In all sorts of places.
And you might wish to note that "to produce one most charming rhythm: is medically unsound.
to (TO) proDUCE ONE MOST CHARMing RHYthm (9 syllables).
16th Mar 2023 3:01pm
Dear Baldwin,
"to sing a song which cares for what"
You are mistaken, Baldwin. There is nothing wrong with it.
"to sing a song which cares for what"
You are mistaken, Baldwin. There is nothing wrong with it.
It should be "to sing a song THAT cares ..." In any case, songs are not conscious entities. They do not have feelings or the ability to feel or care for anything. It is wrong of you to say they can or do.
But leave it to you to focus on a minor point in my remarks to you instead of dealing with the more important ones I made about your submission.
But leave it to you to focus on a minor point in my remarks to you instead of dealing with the more important ones I made about your submission.
16th Mar 2023 3:02pm
Dear Baldwin,
"to sing a song which cares for what"
You are mistaken, Baldwin. There is nothing wrong with it.
"to sing a song which cares for what"
You are mistaken, Baldwin. There is nothing wrong with it.
1- "to sing a song [which cares for what], [which cares for what] is A DEFINING RELATIVE CLAUSE, so you can use WHICH OR THAT.. You always make the same mistake and surprise me at your insistence.
2- But people are a conscious entity, and they sing the song. Moreover, SONG is personified, Baldwin. Is personification a mistake in poetry.
3- please don't write pages. I have no time to waste.
2- But people are a conscious entity, and they sing the song. Moreover, SONG is personified, Baldwin. Is personification a mistake in poetry.
3- please don't write pages. I have no time to waste.
"1- "to sing a song [which cares for what], [which cares for what] is A DEFINING RELATIVE CLAUSE, so you can use WHICH OR THAT.. "
The question is whether it is used as a restrictive or a non-restrictive clause.
"You always make the same mistake and surprise me at your insistence."
I make no mistake.
"2- But people are conscious entity,"
Did you mean to write "people are conscious entities"?
"and they sing the song."
So it's people who are the ones who do the caring you mention. Not the song that does the singing or the caring..
"Moreover, SONG is personified,
Personified as what?
"Is personification a mistake in poetry. [sic ?]"
No. it's not. But it has to make sense when it is used. Is incorrect punctuation a mistake when something is a question?
And once again, thanks for only concentration on a minor point I pointed to in my remarks about your submission.
Did you misquote what Jesus says in Matt. 19:6 or not and did you or did you not present it as a statement about what men are incapable of doing rather than an injunction to avoid doing something that Jesus knew they often do?
And don't give me that "I have no time" excuse to avoid answering my questions. You obviously have the time waste in writing question-begging didactic screeds that show how unfamiliar you are with scripture and what can be legitimately derived from what it says..
The question is whether it is used as a restrictive or a non-restrictive clause.
"You always make the same mistake and surprise me at your insistence."
I make no mistake.
"2- But people are conscious entity,"
Did you mean to write "people are conscious entities"?
"and they sing the song."
So it's people who are the ones who do the caring you mention. Not the song that does the singing or the caring..
"Moreover, SONG is personified,
Personified as what?
"Is personification a mistake in poetry. [sic ?]"
No. it's not. But it has to make sense when it is used. Is incorrect punctuation a mistake when something is a question?
And once again, thanks for only concentration on a minor point I pointed to in my remarks about your submission.
Did you misquote what Jesus says in Matt. 19:6 or not and did you or did you not present it as a statement about what men are incapable of doing rather than an injunction to avoid doing something that Jesus knew they often do?
And don't give me that "I have no time" excuse to avoid answering my questions. You obviously have the time waste in writing question-begging didactic screeds that show how unfamiliar you are with scripture and what can be legitimately derived from what it says..
16th Mar 2023 4:46pm
1-Yes, you make a mistake. In the defining relative clause you can use , WHICH or THAT. BTW Which can be used with the DEFINING,and the NON-DEFINING.
2- entity: [c,u], Both meanings can be used with people.
3-The people who made the song and the personified song do the caring. Both of them do the caring.
4- It's making an excellent sense.
2- entity: [c,u], Both meanings can be used with people.
3-The people who made the song and the personified song do the caring. Both of them do the caring.
4- It's making an excellent sense.
"WHICH or THAT. BTW Which can be used with the [sic a] DEFINING, [sic no comma needed] and the [sic a] NON-DEFINING. [clause]"
The issue is whether the clause in question is restrictive or nonrestrictive. In any case, which sense did you intend it to have?
"2- entity: [c,u], Both meanings can be used with people."
That's not the issue. It's one of noun-verb agreement.
The issue is whether the clause in question is restrictive or nonrestrictive. In any case, which sense did you intend it to have?
"2- entity: [c,u], Both meanings can be used with people."
That's not the issue. It's one of noun-verb agreement.
16th Mar 2023 4:59pm
16th Mar 2023 5:29pm
I'm waiting for you to answer the ones I asked you. to answer before you asked me yours.
16th Mar 2023 5:21pm
1- Where are you with the DEFINING AND NON-DEFINING RELATIVE CLAUSE, Baldwin?
16th Mar 2023 5:36pm
What do you mean "Where am I" with :"the [which?] defining and non-defining relative clause'?. Am I supposed to be in a particular location?
Where are you with the question of whether
"Those whom God joined none can divide
as both become not two but one."
is a command, let alone an accurate quotation of Matt. 19:6 ?
Where are you with the question of whether
"Those whom God joined none can divide
as both become not two but one."
is a command, let alone an accurate quotation of Matt. 19:6 ?
Which vs. that: What’s the difference in usage?
To understand when to use that or which, it’s important to understand clauses. A defining clause (also called an essential clause or a restrictive clause) gives information essential to the meaning of the sentence. That is used in defining clauses. Here’s an example:
My bike that has a broken seat is in the garage.
In this sentence, you understand that the speaker has at least one other bike. Specifically, the bike he’s talking about is distinguished from his other bikes by its broken seat. If you removed the clause “that has a broken seat,” you would lose the implication that he owns more than one bicycle, and even if you somehow knew about the other bikes, you wouldn’t know which one was in the garage.
Which introduces non-defining clauses. Unlike defining clauses, non-defining clauses (also called nonessential or nonrestrictive clauses) don’t limit the meaning of the sentence. You might lose interesting details if you remove them, but the meaning of the sentence wouldn’t change. Sometimes, these phrases are set off by commas.
My bike, which has a broken seat, is in the garage.
Here, the broken seat is simply a description of the bike in the garage. There’s no implication that the speaker owns more than one bike. Do you see the difference? Perhaps a little mnemonic device will help you to remember how to choose between that or which.
How to remember the difference between that and which
Because non-defining clauses add removable information, it’s easy to remember to use which if you think of a plastic sandwich bag. They are disposable, and so are clauses with which.
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/which-vs-that/
Can you cite an authoritative English Grammar -- such as _The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar - The New Authoritative Guide_ by Sylvia Chalker and Edmund Weiner or _A Comprehensive Grammar of The English Language_ by Randolph Quirk or _The Chicago Manual of Style_ or The Elements of Style_ by Strunk and While t0r Fowler's Modern English Usage_ or _ The Cambridge Guide to English Usage- or _A Dictionary of American-English Usage Based on Fowler's Modern English Usage_ or _Usage and Abusage_ by Eric Partridge -- that says that "which" can be, let alone ought to be, and is normally used with both types of clauses and that does not also remark that if one wants to write or speak precisely, one should not do so?
Cue the crickets and/ or the ad hominems and red herrings.
To understand when to use that or which, it’s important to understand clauses. A defining clause (also called an essential clause or a restrictive clause) gives information essential to the meaning of the sentence. That is used in defining clauses. Here’s an example:
My bike that has a broken seat is in the garage.
In this sentence, you understand that the speaker has at least one other bike. Specifically, the bike he’s talking about is distinguished from his other bikes by its broken seat. If you removed the clause “that has a broken seat,” you would lose the implication that he owns more than one bicycle, and even if you somehow knew about the other bikes, you wouldn’t know which one was in the garage.
Which introduces non-defining clauses. Unlike defining clauses, non-defining clauses (also called nonessential or nonrestrictive clauses) don’t limit the meaning of the sentence. You might lose interesting details if you remove them, but the meaning of the sentence wouldn’t change. Sometimes, these phrases are set off by commas.
My bike, which has a broken seat, is in the garage.
Here, the broken seat is simply a description of the bike in the garage. There’s no implication that the speaker owns more than one bike. Do you see the difference? Perhaps a little mnemonic device will help you to remember how to choose between that or which.
How to remember the difference between that and which
Because non-defining clauses add removable information, it’s easy to remember to use which if you think of a plastic sandwich bag. They are disposable, and so are clauses with which.
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/which-vs-that/
Can you cite an authoritative English Grammar -- such as _The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar - The New Authoritative Guide_ by Sylvia Chalker and Edmund Weiner or _A Comprehensive Grammar of The English Language_ by Randolph Quirk or _The Chicago Manual of Style_ or The Elements of Style_ by Strunk and While t0r Fowler's Modern English Usage_ or _ The Cambridge Guide to English Usage- or _A Dictionary of American-English Usage Based on Fowler's Modern English Usage_ or _Usage and Abusage_ by Eric Partridge -- that says that "which" can be, let alone ought to be, and is normally used with both types of clauses and that does not also remark that if one wants to write or speak precisely, one should not do so?
Cue the crickets and/ or the ad hominems and red herrings.
16th Mar 2023 7:28pm
"Which or.that" are used with the defining relative clause. "That" is not used with the non-defining, only "which" is used with the non-defining.
"to sing a song which cares for what
the other needs and not themselves."
Here a song is not defined, so the relative clause is DEFINING, so we can use WHICH or THAT.
"to sing a song which cares for what
the other needs and not themselves."
Here a song is not defined, so the relative clause is DEFINING, so we can use WHICH or THAT.
Isn't this song a particular type of song that does a particular thing that other songs do not do? Would the sentence make sense if the which clause were removed from it or is it essential to the sentence if the sentence is to make sense?
And are you or are you not going to provide me with a quote from a recognized authoritative English Grammar --
such as _The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar - The New Authoritative Guide_ by Sylvia Chalker and Edmund Weiner or _A Comprehensive Grammar of The English Language_ by Randolph Quirk or _The Chicago Manual of Style_ or The Elements of Style_ by Strunk and While t0r Fowler's Modern English Usage_ or _ The Cambridge Guide to English Usage- or _A Dictionary of American-English Usage Based on Fowler's Modern English Usage_ or _Usage and Abusage_ by Eric Partridge -
that says that "which" can be, let alone ought to be, and is normally used with both types of clauses and that does not also remark, as all of the above do -- that if one wants to write precisely, one should not do so?
And are you or are you not going to provide me with a quote from a recognized authoritative English Grammar --
such as _The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar - The New Authoritative Guide_ by Sylvia Chalker and Edmund Weiner or _A Comprehensive Grammar of The English Language_ by Randolph Quirk or _The Chicago Manual of Style_ or The Elements of Style_ by Strunk and While t0r Fowler's Modern English Usage_ or _ The Cambridge Guide to English Usage- or _A Dictionary of American-English Usage Based on Fowler's Modern English Usage_ or _Usage and Abusage_ by Eric Partridge -
that says that "which" can be, let alone ought to be, and is normally used with both types of clauses and that does not also remark, as all of the above do -- that if one wants to write precisely, one should not do so?
16th Mar 2023 8:50pm
I give you the simplest rules, but you don't want to understand. You are free. Ask anyone you like about it. There are a lot of great poets in this group who know English grammar very well. You can place any of them as a judge between us, and they tell you that what l told you is the grammar rule.
Thank you for avoiding answering my question as to whether you know of and can cite an authoritative English Grammar
-- such as _The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar - The New Authoritative Guide_ by Sylvia Chalker and Edmund Weiner or _A Comprehensive Grammar of The English Language_ by Randolph Quirk or _The Chicago Manual of Style_ or The Elements of Style_ by Strunk and While t0r Fowler's Modern English Usage_ or _ The Cambridge Guide to English Usage- or _A Dictionary of American-English Usage Based on Fowler's Modern English Usage_ or _Usage and Abusage_ by Eric Partridge --
that says that "which" can be, let alone ought to be, and is normally used with both types of clauses and that does not also remark that if one wants to write or speak precisely, one should not do so.
In any case it's interesting to see that you've only asserted the truth of the "rules" you gave me, but not backed them up with any citations from authoritative English Grammar books that show they are valid whereas I have cited sources that give good evidence that your understanding of when the use of "which" to begin a relative clause is grammatically appropriate, not to mention that you have mischaracterized what the clause in question is, and shows that the case for my claims is solid -- evidence you have yet to show is off the mark.
-- such as _The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar - The New Authoritative Guide_ by Sylvia Chalker and Edmund Weiner or _A Comprehensive Grammar of The English Language_ by Randolph Quirk or _The Chicago Manual of Style_ or The Elements of Style_ by Strunk and While t0r Fowler's Modern English Usage_ or _ The Cambridge Guide to English Usage- or _A Dictionary of American-English Usage Based on Fowler's Modern English Usage_ or _Usage and Abusage_ by Eric Partridge --
that says that "which" can be, let alone ought to be, and is normally used with both types of clauses and that does not also remark that if one wants to write or speak precisely, one should not do so.
In any case it's interesting to see that you've only asserted the truth of the "rules" you gave me, but not backed them up with any citations from authoritative English Grammar books that show they are valid whereas I have cited sources that give good evidence that your understanding of when the use of "which" to begin a relative clause is grammatically appropriate, not to mention that you have mischaracterized what the clause in question is, and shows that the case for my claims is solid -- evidence you have yet to show is off the mark.
"There are a lot of great poets in this group who know English grammar very well."
So you say. But I have yet to see all but the smallest few who do so. To whom are you referring? Surely you must know who they are to be able to make your claim without prevaricating... (Cue the crickets).
"You can place any of them as a judge between us, and they SIC [will] tell you that what l told you is the grammar rule"
I can't do so if I don't know who they are.
But I am open to see anyone do what you are sure they would do if I (or you) "placed" them as a judge of the truth of your claims. But the condition for my acceptance of the support you are certain they would give you is that they must back up the claim that what you told me is correct with evidence from standard English Grammar books that the clause in question is not a defining one and that your "rule" about when it is grammatically correct, let alone permissible, to use "which" at the beginning of a written relative clause has the approval of authoritative and credentialed/advanced degreed grammarians.
So you say. But I have yet to see all but the smallest few who do so. To whom are you referring? Surely you must know who they are to be able to make your claim without prevaricating... (Cue the crickets).
"You can place any of them as a judge between us, and they SIC [will] tell you that what l told you is the grammar rule"
I can't do so if I don't know who they are.
But I am open to see anyone do what you are sure they would do if I (or you) "placed" them as a judge of the truth of your claims. But the condition for my acceptance of the support you are certain they would give you is that they must back up the claim that what you told me is correct with evidence from standard English Grammar books that the clause in question is not a defining one and that your "rule" about when it is grammatically correct, let alone permissible, to use "which" at the beginning of a written relative clause has the approval of authoritative and credentialed/advanced degreed grammarians.
16th Mar 2023 9:15pm
Ask anyone of the poets in our group to be a judge between us. These are my final words to you.
Why are you reluctant to ask the folks here whom you know to be good poets and well-versed in grammar to be judges?
After all, it's your claim that they'd side with you. So it's your job to get them to do so.
After all, it's your claim that they'd side with you. So it's your job to get them to do so.
Please tell me where in the New Testament -- or in the New Testament Apocrypha -- Jesus is recorded as saying "Those whom God joined none can divide as both become not two but one."
Please also tell me how one does a statement, not to mention a statement about what God has made an impossibility.
Please also tell me how one does a statement, not to mention a statement about what God has made an impossibility.
Here is one last iteration of the question that I asked-- and which you haven't answered -- at the outset of this thread in response to your claim that you :
:
"... think that God wants all mankind
to do exactly as Christ said,
"Those whom God joined none can divide
as both become not two but one."
Leaving aside the fact that Christ Jesus never said any such thing, how can one **do** (perform) a **statement** about what God has made impossible to be done?
:
"... think that God wants all mankind
to do exactly as Christ said,
"Those whom God joined none can divide
as both become not two but one."
Leaving aside the fact that Christ Jesus never said any such thing, how can one **do** (perform) a **statement** about what God has made impossible to be done?
