Young Writers Society

I have been having a flaming debate with myself over the first stanza of Robert Frost's famous poem. This poem has been driving me crazy for the past 24 hours, so please put me out of my misery by giving your opinion! Here it is:

The Road Not Taken

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim
Because it was grassy and wanted wear,
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I marked the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Right, now let's get to grips with that first stanza. Frost says that there is a fork in the road and that he is sorry he cannot take both roads and he is sorry that he is only one traveler and not two. But here is the catch... Is this actually a grammar mistake?

When he uses the verb "be" he is connecting the second part of the sentence to the negative in the previous line by concord, so he is saying that he is sorry that he could not travel both, and he is sorry that he cannot be one traveler, like this:
And sorry I could not travel both and (could not) be one traveler
which is obviously not what he means.

The correct grammar would be:
And sorry I could not travel both and was one traveler
which disconnects the second part of the sentence from the negation in the first part through correct concord with the "I".

Am I just dreaming this up here? My theory is that "was" would have a very disturbing, harsh sound in this poem, so Frost purposefully made this grammar mistake to avoid it.

What do you think? Is this a grammar error? Why?

I don't think so. I think the phrase could also be written as "sorry I could not be one traveler and travel both". This means that he can't go both ways WHILE being one person. He'd have to be two people in order to take both roads.

Thus your first interpretation would be correct. I don't see how was makes sense grammatically. But that's just my opinion.

The way I read it is that there is an unspoken

And sorry I could not travel both
And (still) be one traveler, long I stood

?

I dislike Robert Frost anyway -.- whatever he meant. This is an interesting topic, though... if only he could tell us himself

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Okay, so we all know how confusing poetry is, and this one little confusion nonetheless, but for me, there isn't a mistake. See, words before meant different things now. When I read that part of the piece, I felt that be is a shortening only of 'being' in old times. With being in there, the phrase would act like a modifier for the next phrase.

Another theory is that it's a compound sentence

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both This can be a sentence on its own, right?
And 'and' here is like the subordinating, right? And the following lines could be another clause be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth

Well, after much consideration, we all can conclude that poems are full of conventions, poets change words, poets bend grammar. And let's not deny they're beautiful to read and speak, right? So maybe we should leave the very strange subject alone and then have some warm coffee!

Well interpreted AlfredSymon! I really didn't even think of that possibility! *feels stupid*