The nineteenth-century triadic language formula misdescribes how poets actually wrote
Evidence
On none of the cases where Diwana himself notes the languages in which individual poets wrote does this fixed tripartite division have any bearing; linguistic fluidities have been historically of a very different kind. It is in negotiating those fluidities, so naturally embedded in the versions of the poems we now have, so bewildering for the untrained modern reader, that the initial linguistic aspect of comparative work begins. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 494
Categorization
- QUESTION: What would a method of reading that ‘negotiates’ these fluidities actually look like concretely — how does one reconstruct a polyglot poetic economy from monolingually-edited texts?
- XREF: connects to: Systematized poetry misses the contrast between actual languages — Édouard Glissant, Poetics of Relation, 458
Related
- Systematized poetry misses the contrast between actual languages (similarity 0.84)