Talk:Nonsense verse

Sense or nonsense?

Why does it describe "The elephant is a bonnie bird. It flits from bough to bough. It makes its nest in a rhubarb tree And whistles like a cow" as nonsense? It is easy to understand and picture every single word and what they all mean together. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:08, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Types of nonsense

There is more than one type of nonsense verse. The "Algy" poem is not a piece of nonsense because it describes a situation which could happen in the real world (although it almost certainly won't). The "elephant" poem is nonsense because it describes something which can't happen in the real world (although, each of the concepts may be relatively easy to visualise in our imaginations). The "one fine day" poem is nonsense because its conflicting concepts can't be consistently visualised. The "elephant" poem also juxtaposes incompatible concepts in much the same way as the "one fine day" poem juxtaposes opposite concepts. Think about "Elephant/flit" (size), "rhubarb/tree" (non-weight bearing herb/sturdy woody plant), "whistles/cow" (don't go together).

There are other types of nonsense too. A poem like "Jabberwocky" is nonsense because it contains words which, again, cannot be easily visualised because they have no meaning unless meanings are invented for them. No doubt there are poems which are nonsensical for other reasons.

For instance Christopher Isherwood's excellent

The common cormorant (or shag)

Lays eggs inside a paper bag.

You follow the idea, no doubt?

It is to keep the lightning out.

But what these unobservant birds

Have never noticed, is that herds

Of wandering bears may come with buns

And steal the bags to hold the crumbs.

Completely understandable and yet utter nonsense.

-- Derek Ross 15:21, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tradition & translations

Nonsense verse ... has a long tradition, particularly in English

It would be interesting to get some comparisons, perhaps even examples, from other languages. For example the Jabberwocky page has translations (if they can strictly be called that) into French and German - but those of course were inspired by Carroll's original. Securiger 14:50, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Translation

1) Why Noseybum rather than Noseyben ? This is because "Naso" is cognate with "Nosey" and "bēm" is cognate with "beam" (or its more common derivative, "bum". "Ben" doesn't have the same relationship to "bēm".

2) Why "upon" and "strideth" ? These bring the English metre closer to the German metre.

3) Why the change in line 3 ? This is to maintain the rhyme with line 1.

4) Why introduce "first" into line 8 ? Trying to get closer to the German meaning without losing the English rhyme.

5) "Along" works well the first time that it's used but it's very awkward the second time. That's why I used "Enter" (which has the advantage of sounding and scanning like "einher") and changed the sentence structure slightly in the older version. Can this be improved further ?

Derek Ross | Talk 06:39, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Ad 2), 3), 4): Excellent work!

Ad 1): Any German speaker instantly recognises that 'Naso' derives from 'Nase', but there is no such association with 'bēm'. The latter only serves to rhyme with 'Brehm' and 'seitdem'. If we could translate these rhymes, I would find it acceptable to choose any syllable that makes it work, as was done in the original. If it can't be done, Noseybum is of course very good.

Ad 5): "Einher" can either be applied to several entities that move in unity, or to a single entity: 'Einherschreiten' means exatly the same as simply 'schreiten', here the 'einher' is a kind of poetic tuft. Thus I find 'along' is a good translation, because it serves the same dual purpose: One thing can go along with another, but can also go along on its own. In the last line, a less awkward word could be found, but I think maintaining consistency with the second line, just like in the original, is better.

nex 16:31, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Okay. That makes sense. Thanks. So 'bēm' isn't important meaningwise. And I can now see why you didn't like "enter" in the "einher" lines. Maintaining consistency with the first line is extremely important-- no question about that -- and now that you've clarified "einher"'s meaning to me, I hope to be able to think of something which satisfies both the meaning and the grammar in the two places. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:38, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Although Brockhaus also publishes/(-ed?) a dictionary, looking at the sequence, I'm almost certain the one mentioned here is their encyclopedia. The English equivalent would be the Encyclopedia Britanica rather than the OED.76.97.245.5 (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Both are possibilities. The question then becomes When "Brockhaus" is mentioned to a German, does the dictionary or the encyclopedia come to mind first? Whichever it is should determine the English translation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotations

I am tempted to add a Ringelnatz quotation, but I am not sure whether that violates copyright:

In Hamburg lebten zwei Ameisen,
Die wollten nach Australien reisen. 
Bei Altona auf der Chaussee
Da taten ihnen die Beine weh,
Und da verzichteten sie weise
Dann auf den letzten Teil der Reise.

Leibniz 17:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

"SOMFORBE" MEANS "LANDED"!

--Homfrog^{Tell me a story!} 01:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, after further inspection, Let me translatre this

The Mungle pilgriffs far awoy Religeorge too thee worled.

The Pilgrims from Mungle which is far away share their religion with the world.

Sam fells on the waysock-side

Sam, possibly one of the Mungle Pilgrims, falls off his socks. (?)

And somforbe on a gurled, With all her faulty bagnose!

He lands on a girl who has a rather large defective schnozz.

SIMPLE AS THAT! --Homfrog^{Tell me a story!} 01:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

one fine day...

Who wrote "one fine day..."? Ed 04:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Jumblies

The line quoted as being from "The Dong with a Luminous Nose" by Edward Lear originates from the poem "The Jumblies", also by Lear. I will change that. Lear's poem "The Dong with the Luminous Nose" does not have a returning chorus. It however quotes the chorus from "The Jumblies" in two places, since the Dong falls in love with one of the Jumblies. I think it makes more sense to give the title of the poem in which the Jumblies are originally mentioned. Both poems are from "The book of Nonsense", first published in 1871. 71.221.249.31 20:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Literary nonsense

This page really should be incorporated into the 'Literary nonsense' page. Nonsense verse is just a subset of literary nonsense---as nonsense need not be written in verse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.50.117 (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you also think that the 'Literary nonsense' page should be incorporated into the 'Literature' page? After all literary nonsense is just a subset of literature---as literature need not be nonsensical! -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The 'Literary nonsense' article was created four years after this one and seemingly in ignorance of it. That article should contain an overview of the literary nonsense topic, summaries of the different forms of nonsense and links to articles on specific forms such as verse, riddles, novels, etc. Using that model, it would make sense to merge the information that it contains specifically on verse into this article, leaving only a summary of the verse aspects of nonsense and a link in the other. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In the field of literature, we generally don't break genres up as to whether they are written in poetry or prose. For instance, if we are talking about the genre of "horror", there wouldn't be a section on prose horror and verse horror, unless there were a good reason to do so. Any even if there were such a division, the separate pages would only note the distinctions, and the general principles would be left for the main "horror" page. If the only thing that separates them is whether they are written in prose or poetry, then the difference lies there and not within the genre. Thus, the pages on poetry and prose cover the differences. With nonsense literature, the verse form is just one method of expressing the general principles of nonsense. To put it another way, if we follow your logic, should we also have separate pages for: nonsense travel writing, nonsense cookery, nonsense botany, nonsense alphabets, nonsense science writing, (and many more)? Literary nonsense appears in these and other forms... I'd say it's much easier and more helpful to have the general principles in one place (literary nonsense) and to note that it can be written in many other forms. If there are indeed striking differences in these separate incarnations, then they may indeed warrant separate pages, but only to note such distinctions. I suppose I'm agreeing with you to some extent--that's it's possible to have a separate page, but it seems that "nonsense verse" is trying to define a genre (which is what the literary nonsense page does) rather than to distinguish the verse kind of nonsense from the other kinds. Pnotla (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Pnotla

second funny but not nonsense poem

I removed this poem from the section of funny but not nonsense:

I see said the blind man to the deaf man.

I see where the lame man walks.

Because it is nonsense in a similar sense to the later poem:

I see' said the blind man

to his deaf wife

over a disconnected telephone

in 1866. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Damnwagoncrew (talk • contribs) 05:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Urge to remove demagoguery word

Please remove the word reference on "dumb" from this verse. I am Deaf author but no way I am dumb! Also I am married to deaf wife and fathered to Hearing son. Better yet, please replace it with better verse. User:Dmaestoso DRC 17:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

would this be another kind of nonsense poem?

Poems with an emphasis on sound, but very little in terms of syntax. I am thinking specifically of "Ursonate" (Sonata in primitive sounds) by Kurt Schwitters, but I expect there are more that I am simply unfamiliar with.

SSatva (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, nonsense verse appears to have a meaning which upon closer examination vanishes or turns out to be based on flawed or paradoxical reasoning. Ursonate doesn't really have a meaning which can be misconstrued in that way. As the title would suggest, it's more like a piece of music than a piece of nonsense in my opinion. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Could we add this poem to the page?

http://www.smylesandfish.com/lounge/the-canon.php?strunklemiss=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amichai22 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I rewrote the lead section according to its definition from the Dictionary. The original description though Well-written differed from the text book definition and contained some POV errors, I also re-arranged the article with sub-sections and cited 2 sources for the definition. I think the article could use some further refining and more references.--Theo10011 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is helpful... but I'm afraid that this article, overall, is written with little knowledge of the critical tradition or the many definitions from the sources mentioned in the Literary Nonsense entry. I don't really know how to solve this, but I'd refer people to the Literary Nonsense page for more authoritative information. Pnotla (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Pnotla

It's far older than Lear or Carroll

Nonsense verse in English dates back to at least the 17th century. I'm by no means a scholar of the subject but I happen to have a book on my shelf "The Origins of English Nonsense" by Noel Malcolm - ISBN 9780006388449. It's a serious work tracing the earliest roots of nonsense verse in English. Roger (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

We already mention some of the older antecedents in the article but if you own such a book, you are better placed than most of us to add something useful on early examples of nonsense verse, so please feel free to do so. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issue?

It seems a large part of this article is more or less identical to http://languageisavirus.com/poetry-guide/nonsense_verse.html, but I'm not certain whom is copying from whom. Some lines are changed in this article, while others (i.e. "Still other nonsense verse uses muddled or ambiguous grammar as well as invented words, as in John Lennon's 'The Faulty Bagnose'") are completely identical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.222.95.70 (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a statement on that page attributing it to Wikipedia, so they copied from us: "This guide is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia." Good to see it properly attributed for a change. Roger (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that I originally created this article in September 2002 and that I am one of the main authors. And I wrote it for Wikipedia, not for languageisavirus.com or anyone else. In future if you are uncertain about the provenance of a Wikipedia article, please refer to the page history link. This will show when a WP article was created and how it has changed over time. With this source of evidence it is generally quite easy to discover whether a Wikipedia article (or part thereof) is the original version, or a copyright violation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles

Can some Beatle's songs be thought of as in the tradition of nonsense verse/rhyme

I am the Walrus. Lucy in the Sky... Benefit of Mr. Kite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phlarkin (talk • contribs) 16:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional citations

Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably the many verses without sources would be the place to start. I guess it also refers to the uncited assertions, like "x is most important".--SabreBD (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of this article is uncited. Please see the substantially identical discussion at Talk:Apples_and_Bananas#Additional_citations. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

We should mark those specific verse and statements with {{citation needed}} tags. Hyacinth (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about this article. Hyacinth (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

So am I, but you have asked virtually identical questions on numerous articles. Adding {{citation needed}} to each uncited item in an article like this would look pretty horrible as the overwhelming majority of the article is unsourced. Consider, for instance:

"Other nonsense verse makes use of nonsense words—words without a clear meaning or any meaning at all. Lewis Carroll and Edward Lear both made good use of this type of nonsense in some of their verse. These poems are well formed in terms of grammar and syntax, and each nonsense word is of a clear part of speech. The first verse of Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky illustrates this nonsense technique, despite Humpty Dumpty's later explanation of some of the unclear words within it:" - SummerPhD (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Original research "should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given." Hyacinth (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This article does not have that template. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Remember that this is a very old article. The article creation process has changed considerably since it was first written. So fix it by all means, change the wording, add citations, re-organise the structure, whatever is necessary, but remember that the article is an example of Original Writing, not Original Research, and was written when Wikipedia consisted of Common Knowledge rather than Cited Knowledge. Hence the lack of citations. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Two Dead Boys

I flagged Two Dead Boys as a quotation without a source. In my own quick check, I found a discussion which attributes this to an ancient folk tradition. Even so, here on Wikipedia, it's best not to let this pass without comment. — MaxEnt 05:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The only concrete reference that I've ever found is in the 1950's book "The Lore and Language of Schoolchildren". Unfortunately, I no longer have access to a copy, but if somebody does they could get a page number for the quote. 2600:6C52:6C7F:F995:9892:6AB6:16FB:57F2 (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)