"listening" with "cogent volubility" ...? come on, give mi a break. :-)

[szaroczek]

According to the "Norton Anthology of Am. Lit." Ralph Waldo Emerson during his stay in Europe "called on well-known writers, meeting Walter Savage Landor in Italy, listening to Coleridge converse with such cogent volubility that he seemed to be reading aloud, and hearing William Wordsworth recite his poetry."

1. In the quotation there are specified three cases of Emersons "literary" activities. In the second one he was "listening" with "cogent volubility" to the Colleridge. I find "listening" a passive state when only your ears, NOT mouth, are "acting"... You can maybe argue or persuade somebody with "cogent volubility" but not "be listening", cant' you...

2. Who in your opinion is the "he" in the cited sentence - Emerson or Coleridge, and who is "reading aloud"?

3. So, all in all, what was going on there in regards with that Coleridge-poet? What precisely were both of them doing there?

Thanks.

P.S.
No helpful context is available - just a statement in itself.

[Barb_D]

According to the "Norton Anthology of Am. Lit." Ralph Waldo Emerson during his stay in Europe "called on well-known writers, meeting Walter Savage Landor in Italy, listening to Coleridge converse with such cogent volubility that he seemed to be reading aloud, and hearing William Wordsworth recite his poetry."

1. In the quotation there are specified three cases of Emersons "literary" activities. In the second one he was "listening" with "cogent volubility" to the Colleridge. I find "listening" a passive state when only your ears, NOT mouth, are "acting"... You can maybe argue or persuade somebody with "cogent volubility" but not "be listening", cant' you... It was the conversing, not the listening, that had "cogent volubility."

2. Who in your opinion is the "he" in the cited sentence - Emerson or Coleridge, and who is "reading aloud"? It was Coleridge. The one whose conversation had such cogent volubility. It was this cogent volubility that made it seem he was reading aloud, instead of speaking spontaneously.

3. So, all in all, what was going on there in regards with that Coleridge-poet? What precisely were both of them doing there?

Thanks.

P.S.
No helpful context is available - just a statement in itself.

Does my explanation above answer #3?

[szaroczek]

So let me make it clear. That word "converse" functions as a VERB there [ken'vers], not as a NOUN ['konvers] ?! And it simply means that "Coleridge was conversing with such cogent volubility..." and not that Emerson was "listening with such cogent volubility to the Coleridge converse"? Man, you are a genius! That explains 1), 2) and 3) questions simultaneously!!! Deep respect, really! Thank you

[Barb_D]

To be honest, I've never heard of "converse" as a noun as it related to "conversation."

We have CONverse, a noun sort of like "the opposite" but conVERSE the verb means to have a conversation.

[szaroczek]

Of course that below comes from English-Polish-English interactive dictionary but just to let you know they are distinguishing those to instances of the word. This is a direct copy from the entry (where of course "v". stands for "verb" and "n" - for "noun"):


converse1
v.
ken've:s form.
1. konwersować (with sb z kimś) (on/about sth o czymś).
2. obcować (zwł. duchowo).
3. arch. utrzymywać stosunki (towarzyskie).
4. arch. współżyć (płciowo).
n.
'ko:nve:s U form.
1. konwersacja.
2. arch. stosunki (towarzyskie).
3. arch. współżycie (płciowe).



And of course meaning is exactly relevant except of grammatical form.

But there is a second meaning as a second entry which covers meaning you suggested:

converse2 'ko:nve:s form.
a.
attr. odwrotny, przeciwny.
n.
1. the ~ of sth odwrotność czegoś.
2. log. sąd odwrócony.