Linking means to adjoin,add,couple,fit together...so how is it not an "adverb"?

How about slippery past - or vitreous gone by?

Saying that it's open to interpretation is saying the obvious, whether you explain or not. To simply say you're not going to explain is to send me away wondering, unless you think it's so obvious I should know your meaning. Seems to me it needs a lot of help in grammar and clarity.

Going back to my original comment, I could argue that it was only that – a quickly phrased feedback to BigD on how the poem struck me. When you mentioned the “excellence” of my distinction, facetiously no doubt, I looked again and realized I really had said two things in reaction to the poem, not just one, and quipped, “I'm glad you see the distinction.” Notice the two statements I made: “Maybe a more descriptive title might have eased my misunderstanding,” and “Maybe a more descriptive title might have eased my failure to know what you mean.” Admittedly, the word “Maybe” is not needed, so let’s just look at: “A more descriptive title might have eased my misunderstanding,” and “A more descriptive title might have eased my failure to know what you mean.” When I said, “my misunderstanding” I was saying that I had an understanding, but it was wrong. But how could I have known it was wrong? Because I judged my original understanding of the poem to be wrong. I know that because I remember, but you could have known it too, just from the way I phrased it, and maybe you did. When I added, “my failure to know what you mean,” it was a hands-thrown-in-the-air giving up on any more attempts to understand the poem. One reaction came before the other, neither very oafish in retrospect, and linked by the word “or.” So my comment, revised, is: “A more descriptive title might have eased my misunderstanding, then my failure to know what you mean.” Of course, I could dress it up with adjectives and allusions to the poet’s parentage.

I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree. The argument boils down to the question of whether or not these two sentences are equivalent: A. "It is possible that X is possible." B. "X is possible." Clearly B implies A - if B is true, then A must also be true. I also think A implies B, but you don't. My reasoning is that when you say something is possible, all you're saying is that you don't KNOW that it is false. If you say "It's possible that X is possible" then clearly you don't know that X is false, so you must think X is possible. I have been thinking about this problem for some time, and that is the only sensible interpretation I can come up with. The terrible thing is that underneath all this fiddle-faddle is the royally obvious fact that all Dovina was trying to say was "A more descriptive title might have eased my misunderstanding." Perhaps if she had had the common decency to say that in the first place, we all could have avoided a lot of silly bother. Nevertheless, I would be interested to see what people think about this problem, viz. the equivalence of A and B.

1. Case A involves an incorrect understanding, and case B involves no understanding at all. It may be true that an incorrect understanding is as worthless as no understanding at all, but the distinction still stands. 2. I agree that Dovina manifests an undesirable degree of oafishness in her attempt to exhibit simultaneously two mutually exclusive alternatives .

Yes, yes, yes I considered that distinction shortly after posting the comment. In case A it is also the case that you don't know what that person means. So "misunderstanding someone" implies "not knowing what someone means". The converse is not necessarily true, because in case B you haven't understood anything at all, let alone misunderstood anything. But Dovina says a better title would ease her "misunderstanding or failure to know what you mean". Think carefully about that. Dovina thinks it possible that she has misunderstood the poeme. It would be oafish for her to think that unless she had assigned some meaning to the words. This rules out the case in which Dovina had merely "failed to know what the poeme means without misunderstanding it".

There is also a distinction between "A more descriptive title might have X" and "Maybe a more descriptive title might have X". A. I say: "You might like it". I am saying that there is a possibility of you liking it. B. I say: "Maybe you might like it". I am saying that there may or may not be a possibility of you liking it.

But there is a distinction between "misunderstanding someone" and "failing to know what someone means". A. You say: "Ooonscallashihough". You use the word to mean "dung". I think you use the word to mean antelope. I have misunderstood you. B. You say: "Ooonscallashihough". You use the word to mean "dung". I have never heard the word before and cannot even begin to guess what it means. I fail to know what you mean. Now do you see the difference? You are an exceptionally foolish young man.

That was the point.

Was isn't an adverb. It's a linking verb. Your examples are not grammatically similar to "delicate was".

Do not be so pathetic. It is clear what is wrong with this poem. It is long and incredibly dull due to a number of abstractions and forced almost soundless rhymes. I would be willing to bet the 'intelligent' advice from elsewhere went a little bit like this: 'oh, blue magpie, you are so talented, I love everything about this apart from the imprecision of word choice, the triteness of trying to define life in a few lines (which oh my god appear to rhyme), and its dull rambling.

Hi Wilco, Thanks for the welcome. Its been a while since I have visited here, or anywhere. I have rewritten the above a good deal since posting it, although the more intelligent feedback came from elsewhere.

No. Not in evaluating a comment which we all know the menaning of, and which, like most comments, yours of course excepted, are rattled off without the precision of polished writing. Dear God, have I made myself clear?