deepundergroundpoetry.com
THE COY LITTLE GIRL
THE COY LITTLE GIRL
Come to me my little beauty;
coyness has increased my passion
for the gifts that God would endow
to those who are puerile hearted.
It is found in little children
and those who are saintly chosen
who are pleased with all their actions
as their land is turned to heaven.
Little child, you bring back to me
early time that was so precious
when ambition was for chocolate
and the tender kiss of mother.
This is how the Lord creates us,
pure and white so full of calmness.
Why do we neglect what's peaceful
and resort to what can burn us?
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
________________________________
Come to me my little beauty;
coyness has increased my passion
for the gifts that God would endow
to those who are puerile hearted.
It is found in little children
and those who are saintly chosen
who are pleased with all their actions
as their land is turned to heaven.
Little child, you bring back to me
early time that was so precious
when ambition was for chocolate
and the tender kiss of mother.
This is how the Lord creates us,
pure and white so full of calmness.
Why do we neglect what's peaceful
and resort to what can burn us?
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
________________________________
Published 9th Sep 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 10
reads 146
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
Two notes on your first stanza
"endow to" is a solecism.
"puerile" means "silly, stupid" (https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/puerile) "silly or childish especially in a way that shows a lack of seriousness or good judgment" (https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/puerile; "Immature, especially in being silly or trivial; childish."
So to say, as you do, that someone is" puerile hearted," is to say that they are silly and immature in character. and in action
Further, what is your evidence that God endows enviable gifts on these folks?
And your claim at the end of this piece that when children are born, they are " full of calmness" raises the question of what experience of newborn children you've ever had. They are hardly calm.
On top of this, the expectation created by your submission's title that you are going to write about a particular "coy little girl" goes unfulfilled. In fact, your text is a mixture of diverse subjects Including something "the Lord" supposedly does and a pondering of why humans make stupid choices.
Yes, you say something about the effect this "coy little girl" has on you, but it is by no means clear how someone who is "coy"
(i.e., someone who has or adopts "a shy or sweetly innocent way of behaving that is often intended to be attractive or to get attention" (see Longman https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/coy) or who makes a pretense of shyness or modesty that is intended to be alluring:" or who is "shy or pretending to be shy and innocent, especially about love or sex, sometimes in order to make people more interested in you
(https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/coy)
brings back to you an
"early time"
in your life
"that was so precious
when ambition was for chocolate
and the tender kiss of mother."
And coyness is designed to instill and increase a passion for sex not the passion for (or a desire to receive) the (unspecified) gifts that according to you God endows the "puerile hearted" with, let alone nostalgia for a simpler time.
So I highly doubt that "coyness" ("the quality of feigning shyness or modesty in an attempt to seem alluring" [https://tinyurl.com/37wsyz8j), let alone "puerile heartedness", is to be found, as your use of the singular "it" makes you claim, "in little children" and in those who.".. are pleased with all their actions as their land is turned to heaven.".
"endow to" is a solecism.
"puerile" means "silly, stupid" (https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/puerile) "silly or childish especially in a way that shows a lack of seriousness or good judgment" (https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/puerile; "Immature, especially in being silly or trivial; childish."
So to say, as you do, that someone is" puerile hearted," is to say that they are silly and immature in character. and in action
Further, what is your evidence that God endows enviable gifts on these folks?
And your claim at the end of this piece that when children are born, they are " full of calmness" raises the question of what experience of newborn children you've ever had. They are hardly calm.
On top of this, the expectation created by your submission's title that you are going to write about a particular "coy little girl" goes unfulfilled. In fact, your text is a mixture of diverse subjects Including something "the Lord" supposedly does and a pondering of why humans make stupid choices.
Yes, you say something about the effect this "coy little girl" has on you, but it is by no means clear how someone who is "coy"
(i.e., someone who has or adopts "a shy or sweetly innocent way of behaving that is often intended to be attractive or to get attention" (see Longman https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/coy) or who makes a pretense of shyness or modesty that is intended to be alluring:" or who is "shy or pretending to be shy and innocent, especially about love or sex, sometimes in order to make people more interested in you
(https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/coy)
brings back to you an
"early time"
in your life
"that was so precious
when ambition was for chocolate
and the tender kiss of mother."
And coyness is designed to instill and increase a passion for sex not the passion for (or a desire to receive) the (unspecified) gifts that according to you God endows the "puerile hearted" with, let alone nostalgia for a simpler time.
So I highly doubt that "coyness" ("the quality of feigning shyness or modesty in an attempt to seem alluring" [https://tinyurl.com/37wsyz8j), let alone "puerile heartedness", is to be found, as your use of the singular "it" makes you claim, "in little children" and in those who.".. are pleased with all their actions as their land is turned to heaven.".
I'm curious to know what it is that's to be found in "little children" and in "those who are saintly chosen" (whatever that is). Is it "coyness" or "puerile heartedness"? The antecedent of "it" in the first line of your second stanza is unclear.
Very dear Baldwin,
Thank you very much for your great interest. I can see that only you and l are interested in each other. Thank God. It's better to have one than none.
1- Yes, it is coyness.
2- " Those who are saintlily chosen," means those who have the grace of God. This grace makes them have inner happiness, which makes them feel heaven from their lives on earth and become saints. Thank you for asking.
Thank you very much for your great interest. I can see that only you and l are interested in each other. Thank God. It's better to have one than none.
1- Yes, it is coyness.
2- " Those who are saintlily chosen," means those who have the grace of God. This grace makes them have inner happiness, which makes them feel heaven from their lives on earth and become saints. Thank you for asking.
"1- Yes, it is coyness."
So you are saying that what is to be found in those who are "saintly chosen" is the quality of feigning shyness or modesty in an attempt to seem alluring. or the pretense of being shy and innocent, especially about love or sex, and sometimes in order to make people more interested in them, given what "coyness" means.
"2- " Those who are saintly chosen," means those who have the grace of God. This grace makes them have inner happiness, which makes them feel heaven from their lives on earth and become saints. Thank you for asking."
"Saintly" is an adjective, not an adverb, meaning "completely good and honest, with no faults (https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/saintly). So even if the phrase "saintly chosen" is not, as it is, solecistic, it would be a description of the manner in which one is chosen (as is to say that one is roughly, abruptly, or haphazardly chosen) not one that scribes what one is chosen for ("i.e. to be or to become a saint".)
You would have conveyed what you now say you were intent, but failed, to say clearly, in Stanza 2 if you had written
It [i.e., coyness] is found in little children
and in those who have become God's saints
because He showered them with grace
By the way, not all whom God has graced find their actions are self-pleasing or possess lands let alone see their lands changed to a heavenly state.
So you are saying that what is to be found in those who are "saintly chosen" is the quality of feigning shyness or modesty in an attempt to seem alluring. or the pretense of being shy and innocent, especially about love or sex, and sometimes in order to make people more interested in them, given what "coyness" means.
"2- " Those who are saintly chosen," means those who have the grace of God. This grace makes them have inner happiness, which makes them feel heaven from their lives on earth and become saints. Thank you for asking."
"Saintly" is an adjective, not an adverb, meaning "completely good and honest, with no faults (https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/saintly). So even if the phrase "saintly chosen" is not, as it is, solecistic, it would be a description of the manner in which one is chosen (as is to say that one is roughly, abruptly, or haphazardly chosen) not one that scribes what one is chosen for ("i.e. to be or to become a saint".)
You would have conveyed what you now say you were intent, but failed, to say clearly, in Stanza 2 if you had written
It [i.e., coyness] is found in little children
and in those who have become God's saints
because He showered them with grace
By the way, not all whom God has graced find their actions are self-pleasing or possess lands let alone see their lands changed to a heavenly state.
Baldwin, be more careful. You wrote, ... not all whom God has grace find... .lt should be, ..... not all whom God has given grace find...
I should have written "graced" not "grace". But it's you who should be careful. Your version of my line is metrically unsound.
But leave it to you to focus on a minor gaffe in what I wrote and not respond to my demonstration of how what you wrote shows that you have fundamentally misunderstood what "coyness" "and "puerile" and how the adjective "saintly" is to be used, and as a result have made claims that are utter nonsense.
But leave it to you to focus on a minor gaffe in what I wrote and not respond to my demonstration of how what you wrote shows that you have fundamentally misunderstood what "coyness" "and "puerile" and how the adjective "saintly" is to be used, and as a result have made claims that are utter nonsense.
23rd Sep 2023 8:59am
Dear Baldwin,
I am not looking at it metrically, but meaningfully, Baldwin. Anyhow this is the first time you admit a mistake. Good beginning.
I am not looking at it metrically, but meaningfully, Baldwin. Anyhow this is the first time you admit a mistake. Good beginning.
"Dear Baldwin,
I am not looking at it metrically, but meaningfully,[?**]"
But haven't you proclaimed that one of the essential elements of good poetry is the use of a flowing and metrically sound rhythm? So even if you are looking at what you wrote from the point of how much more meaningful it is versus what I wrote, aren't you being a hypocrite?
"Anyhow this is the first time you admit [sic have admitted making] a mistake."
Even if that were true (it isn't), this is the umpteenth time that you have refused to admit when it's been demonstrated how poorly you write, how you have misused and misunderstood the meaning of words (as with "meaningfully" above) and posted false claims and lined your verses with solecisms and grammar gaffes, misused punctuation and awkward inversions that you have done so.
In any case, my admitting that I made a mistake is hardly a counter to, let alone a refutation of, the fact that your piece above is riddled with them.
P.S.
Given that "meaningfully" means "in a serious and important way", to say that you are looking at something "meaningfully" means that you are looking at something "in a way that is intended to communicate or express something to somebody, without any words being spoken" (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/meaningfully)
So once again you have used a word incorrectly and ended up not saying what you thought you were saying and demonstrating that your knowledge of English is nowhere near as great as you have often claimed it is..
I am not looking at it metrically, but meaningfully,[?**]"
But haven't you proclaimed that one of the essential elements of good poetry is the use of a flowing and metrically sound rhythm? So even if you are looking at what you wrote from the point of how much more meaningful it is versus what I wrote, aren't you being a hypocrite?
"Anyhow this is the first time you admit [sic have admitted making] a mistake."
Even if that were true (it isn't), this is the umpteenth time that you have refused to admit when it's been demonstrated how poorly you write, how you have misused and misunderstood the meaning of words (as with "meaningfully" above) and posted false claims and lined your verses with solecisms and grammar gaffes, misused punctuation and awkward inversions that you have done so.
In any case, my admitting that I made a mistake is hardly a counter to, let alone a refutation of, the fact that your piece above is riddled with them.
P.S.
Given that "meaningfully" means "in a serious and important way", to say that you are looking at something "meaningfully" means that you are looking at something "in a way that is intended to communicate or express something to somebody, without any words being spoken" (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/meaningfully)
So once again you have used a word incorrectly and ended up not saying what you thought you were saying and demonstrating that your knowledge of English is nowhere near as great as you have often claimed it is..
Dear Baldwin,
1-This is the first time you admit a mistake. I use admit [ simple present] as a fact. Actually, it is a fact.
2-Meaningfully: can have several meanings. Why don't you use the meaning of meaningful, to say having meaning.
1-This is the first time you admit a mistake. I use admit [ simple present] as a fact. Actually, it is a fact.
2-Meaningfully: can have several meanings. Why don't you use the meaning of meaningful, to say having meaning.
"Dear Baldwin,
1-This is the first time you admit a mistake. I use admit [ simple present] as a fact."
For your claim to be grammatically correct, not to mention intelligible, you needed to have written: "This is the first time you admit making a mistake". Otherwise, all you are saying is that I have admitted that there's a mistake somewhere in a thought or statement or action, but not necessarily made by me.
"Actually, it is a fact"
No, it's not since as the record shows, I have admitted on more than one occasion that I have made linguistic, grammatical, orthographic, metrical,l and conceptual mistakes in what I have posted to DUP not to mention that I have openly noted that you or others were correct to ask me to correct what you and others have claimed to be such mistakes when what you or others claimed were my mistakes were demonstrated (not just asserted without supporting evidence) by you and others to actually be linguistic, grammatical, and orthographic mistakes.
"Why don't you use the meaning of meaningful, to say having meaning." [SIC]"
Leaving aside the fact that once again you've mispunctuated a line that is a question with a full stop instead of what it calls for -- i.e. a question mark and shown once again that you oon't know how to correctly punctuate what you write
[cue the behind the scene's correction of this mistake]
the reason I don't use the meaning of "meaningful" in evaluating whether your statement that you are "not looking at it metrically, but meaningfully" is because the issue is not what "meaningful" means, let alone whether saying "I am not looking at it metrically, but meaningful" is -- absent such words as "I am looking at it as to whether the way I think your line should have been written is more to the point and has a better meaning than what you wrote "-- intelligible.
It's what is being asserted when you say "I am not looking at it metrically, but meaningfully" given the meaning of the adverb "meaningfully" -- which, BTW, does not have many meanings and certainly does not have the meaning or the grammatical function that the adjective "meaningful" does.
And, leaving aside the fact that you have once again prescinded from responding articulately, as I asked you to do, to what I said about the particular linguistic and conceptual faults that I demonstrated your piece above to be filled with, why on earth would I be jealous of you or the way you write?
1-This is the first time you admit a mistake. I use admit [ simple present] as a fact."
For your claim to be grammatically correct, not to mention intelligible, you needed to have written: "This is the first time you admit making a mistake". Otherwise, all you are saying is that I have admitted that there's a mistake somewhere in a thought or statement or action, but not necessarily made by me.
"Actually, it is a fact"
No, it's not since as the record shows, I have admitted on more than one occasion that I have made linguistic, grammatical, orthographic, metrical,l and conceptual mistakes in what I have posted to DUP not to mention that I have openly noted that you or others were correct to ask me to correct what you and others have claimed to be such mistakes when what you or others claimed were my mistakes were demonstrated (not just asserted without supporting evidence) by you and others to actually be linguistic, grammatical, and orthographic mistakes.
"Why don't you use the meaning of meaningful, to say having meaning." [SIC]"
Leaving aside the fact that once again you've mispunctuated a line that is a question with a full stop instead of what it calls for -- i.e. a question mark and shown once again that you oon't know how to correctly punctuate what you write
[cue the behind the scene's correction of this mistake]
the reason I don't use the meaning of "meaningful" in evaluating whether your statement that you are "not looking at it metrically, but meaningfully" is because the issue is not what "meaningful" means, let alone whether saying "I am not looking at it metrically, but meaningful" is -- absent such words as "I am looking at it as to whether the way I think your line should have been written is more to the point and has a better meaning than what you wrote "-- intelligible.
It's what is being asserted when you say "I am not looking at it metrically, but meaningfully" given the meaning of the adverb "meaningfully" -- which, BTW, does not have many meanings and certainly does not have the meaning or the grammatical function that the adjective "meaningful" does.
And, leaving aside the fact that you have once again prescinded from responding articulately, as I asked you to do, to what I said about the particular linguistic and conceptual faults that I demonstrated your piece above to be filled with, why on earth would I be jealous of you or the way you write?
