Metre. Different strokes for different folks., Important new posts by K and Jax: 'Quantity' and Stress Profil Options

[Guest_Kathy_*]

There are, of course, many different kinds of metre besides metric. But even metric poses problems for some, and I found this post by Jax, (in the body of his thread, 'Echos of a Fugue') especially interesting. I hope it might serve to clarify some of the concerns as to where stress falls and what takes dominence, stress-wise, over what.
Click on the box marked u/u/u/u/

http://instructional1.calstatela.edu/tsteele/

OTHER METRES.

GENERAL CLASSIFICATION

http://www.anglistik.uni-freiburg.de/intra...yProsodic01.htm

ACCENTUAL

http://www.danagioia.net/essays/eaccentual.htm

QUANTITIVE METRE

http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-486139/quantitative-verse


SPRUNG RHYTHM

A poetic rhythm characterized by feet varying from one to four syllables which are equal in time length but different in the number of syllables. It has only one stress per foot, falling on the first syllable, or on the only syllable if there is but one, which produces the frequent juxtaposition of single accented syllables.
Sidelight: As the name suggests, sprung rhythm springs loose from the regularly alternating accents associated with metrical verse.
Sidelight: Sprung rhythm is associated in modern poetry chiefly with the work of Gerard Manley Hopkins, as in his poem, "The Windhover." According to Robert Bridges, in his notes to the 1918 edition of Hopkins' Poems, sprung rhythm is the natural rhythm of English speech and written prose; it appeared in English verse up to the Elizabethan era as well as having been used in Greek and Latin verse.

http://www.fact-index.com/s/sp/sprung_rhythm.html

Another example of Sprung Rhythm:

http://poetry.poetryx.com/poems/916/

Maybe this might help:

http://academic.reed.edu/english/intra/5.html

.

[Guest_Cathy_*]

Thanks for posting this thread and those links Kathy! I've visited the first one by T. Steele and although I haven't gotten all the way through I've gotten far enough to think I'm doing okay where iambic meter is concerned. He was explaining about the number system (1-4) and I think it works with this line from my poem. I was concerned about the 'sidestep' because both syllables have a strong stress, but I think with the 'ing' ending it gives 'step' a bit more stress than 'side'. Whacha think?

sidestep/ping drums/and wik/iup
3......4 /.... 1......4 /... 1......4/.. 1..3

Breaking it up the way he did and giving it a number it comes out alright. The second in each set is still the stronger stress.

I'm looking forward to checking out the other articles as well.

Cathy

[Guest_Kathy_*]

I'm impressed by the way you give things a try. Way to GO, girl! Gimme five!

You are right about 'sidestep'. Both syllables are of equal or near equal strength, but the rest of the line is quite clearly iambic, so you are OK. Variations such as this one are permissable, and since lines' beginnings get hackneed in iambs, we are quite pleased to see something unusual. Though I must admit that personally, I avoid it.

The 1-4 analysis makes it quite clear, doesn't it? That's why I thought it might help. The system is mentioned in one of the other links too, but it isn't as well put. Well, it wasn't for me, anyway.

[Guest_Cathy_*]

Hi Kathy,

I may never learn to swim but at least I get my feet wet! LOL

[Guest_Kathy_*]

Hi Kathy,

I may never learn to swim but at least I get my feet wet! LOL

And you do it with style. But hey girl, you're swimming along there just fine. Bring your togs next time. Hahahahaha

[Guest_Don_*]

Hi Kathy,

Thanks for posting this subject in Karnak. I personnally think that anything posted here is like sending it into a congressional study committee to assure that the subject will never again see the light of day.

I am currently slugging through Timothy Steele's book all the fun's in how you say a thing. I doubt my sensitivity will ever master the number system. My current conundrum is promotion and demotion of stress for iambic intents. I must study his examples to verify in my own mind that it is acceptable to butcher a multisyllable word contrasted to a whole word. The primary question is can only whole words be promoted/demoted or does this also apply to syllables within a word?
If one can arbitrarily promote dictionary SIDEstep to be SIDESTEP, or dictionary MIL i tar y to be mutated into MI li TAR y then the question is how many syllables in series can be joined for demotion/promotion?

A related question is what justifies changing the number of syllables along with altering published primary ictuses? Example: dictionary dis COV er ing becomes dis COV ring or dis COVE ring.

An issue is how does one step outside of iambic. If any line/word can be demoted/promoted into iambic, how does one clearly write (or read) anything else?

Please discount interrnational differences and regional like in the U.S.A. Cajoun vs New England vs Hoosier vs Texan, etc. Hopefully we can remain with quality college level English related to accepted lexicographic and lingustic aspects.

Although seeking the more rigorous view, I grant that less rigorous (loose) promotion/demotion will exist as camp followers.

Indeed it is all in how the thing it said.

Don

[Guest_Don_*]

Hi Kathy,

Another question regarding scansion.

When a multisyllable word is internally promoted/demoted, does the pattern remain constant for every instance within same poem? If location alters cadence, does pronounced stress(es) alter accordingly?

My assumption that altering is akin to accepting different dictionary breakdowns to suit within same poem.

I am beginning to see why many think that dictionaries should be ignored.

Surely you fathom why I did not start this educational thread.

:) Don

[Guest_Cathy_*]

How can you write a TRULY iambic poem when everyone pronounces things so differently? Take 'fire' for example. Some pronounce it with one syllable and others with two. People aren't going to pull out a dictionary when reading a poem to see if they've got it right or not. They will just read it. What sounds iambic to one may not to another so are we floundering like fish out of water?

Cathy

[Guest_Don_*]

How can you write a TRULY iambic poem when everyone pronounces things so differently? Take 'fire' for example. Some pronounce it with one syllable and others with two. People aren't going to pull out a dictionary when reading a poem to see if they've got it right or not. They will just read it. What sounds iambic to one may not to another so are we floundering like fish out of water?

Cathy

Though it certainly has appearances, I am not trying to be ultra difficult. Living languages shall change and the more wide spread increases differences.
I can claim T. Steele as 'the' ulitmate authority, and you can just as correctly claim another. Yes, some words such as 'poetry' alter per context, but do all? Your example of 'fire' in two syllables is incorrect in my interpretation because it offends my chosen standard.

Obviously (hopefully to most), pronunciation is very arbitary. The environment dictates acceptable. How rigorous must my mathematics be. Well, how versed are those surrounding me. I use published references to assure a standard of correctness because I respect English more than to scramble its eggs and flop it on a plate--especially poetry.

There are many types of poetic feet besides iambic. Should I envoke iambic by saying it is a sonnet and not neccessarily iambic with silence? I refer to a reference whenever I can't recall my standard. If I forget if 'fire' is single or multiple syllable, I refresh by looking it up. All standards are not equal, nor agree. I have a set of references employed as a standard foundation, and do refer to them often. People whom object to using dictionaries and similar seem lazy to me. Why are they dabbling in poetry of all word arts? Does global warming exist or not. Pick your side and defend. Whom seriously listens to one changing side often?

Your floundering fish is appropos. Swim in the pool with predominant population of fish with which you desire to flounder.

MM supports my hobby of poetry because far better than novice work is available. Sometimes we enter the more challenging levels such as poetic feet. I respect each person's serious standard if and when they demonstrate consistancy. I may disagree or agree with, say, Mary's analysis, but it remains valid.

One final shot is that to depend heavily on promotion/demotion of words internally appears less rigorous than to minimize need for linguistic promotion/demotion. I donno for certain yet. The clouds aren't gonna become clearer looking at all sides...up and down. One of these days I'm gonna eat crow and clouds will taste like fluffy candy.

:) Don

[Guest_Kathy_*]

Ah, good to hear from you two. You've already got discussion going, I see.

Language is flexible. Sometimes words are pronounced with two syllables, sometimes one. 'Fire' is one of these. I wrote about this somewhere here. Maybe I can find it and save space.

Don, it's clear that your local accent must not give emphasis to endings of multisyllabic words. Mine does, and so do most. Perhaps that's why some people seem unable to 'get' this kind of metre. Thank goodness there are other kinds, just as valid, that they can use.

I've heard that there are dictionaries that show stresses. It looks like yours also has none for longer word endings.

Multisyllabic words consistently have the same stresses, and there are rules for stress changes when their shorter form is used. We do this automatically. eg: confidentiality. Confidential. Confidence. Confide. Con.

Stress changes do also occur relative to preceeding words. But not for individual strings of syllables, as in association, anticipation, antidisestablishmentarianism etc.

The last link I gave you addresses these points, I think. If not, I will find one that does.

The stresses are relative to each other: some are stronger but not as strong as others...that's where the 4 point system comes into its own.

We also shorten some words, like prob'ly. I do this in everyday speech. But I don't always say it that way. You probably don't either. Where it's obvious that that's what the poet intends, it is polite and sensible to make the adjustment. The same goes for rhymes, mate. ie 'bass' and 'ass' don't rhyme in my part of the world. Well, 'ass' means donkey. But I critted a poem yesterday where 'ass' meant buttocks. We say that 'arse.' We write it that way too. But I knew what the writer intended and responded to that.

Also, vowel length can affect the way a stress is heard. Maybe you don't pronounce the I sound in 'confidentiality.' I do. It becomes an 'e' sound at the end, and takes more time to say the 'I'.
This is the basis of quantitive metre. (Slow vowels are also a useful device to use if you want to slow down a poem, but that's another story.)

The salient point is that your ear should hear the stresses, naturally. It might take a little time, but it should be obvious after a while.

Hang on, I'll post this and come back.

[Guest_Kathy_*]

Here, does this help?

Rhythm Rule

The Rhythm Rule specifies that the stress on a word will be retracted (i.e., moved forward) in order to avoid consecutively stressed syllables. For instance, words like "thirteen" or "Tennessee" will have their strongest stress moved from their last to their first syllables when they are joined to subsequent words beginning with a stressed syllable, e.g., Tennessee walking horse. This rule reflects the tendency in English towards alternating stressed and unstressed syllables. For more, see Kiparsky, "The Rhythmic Structure of English Verse" 218 ff.

You'll find it in the lowest link above:

http://academic.reed.edu/english/intra/2.html

following the 'common metre' link there-in.

.

[Guest_Kathy_*]

Hopefully, I've answered some of your questions, Don.

You wrote:
My current conundrum is promotion and demotion of stress for iambic intents. I must study his (Timothy Steele's) examples to verify in my own mind that it is acceptable to butcher a multisyllable word contrasted to a whole word. The primary question is can only whole words be promoted/demoted or does this also apply to syllables within a word?

It's not about butchering, Don. It is just naturally there.
Syllables aren't arbitrary promoted/demoted either; they happen that way. One can impose inflection on them sometimes though, as we do in everyday speech to add emphasis.

eg One greyhaired old man jumped puddles:

ONE greyhaired old man jumped puddles?
One GREYHAIRED old man jumped puddles.
One GREY haired old man jumped puddles.
One grey HAIRED old man jumped puddles.
One greyhaired OLD man jumped puddles.
One greyhaired old MAN jumped puddles.

and so on. You know the kind of thing I mean.

If one can arbitrarily promote dictionary SIDEstep to be SIDESTEP, or dictionary MIL i tar y to be mutated into MI li TAR y then the question is how many syllables in series can be joined for demotion/promotion?

'Side' and 'step' are stressed at about the same strength. So what's the problem really? Take your pick as to what you want to do with them.

Your dictionary is sus. I suppose it's giving guides to pronounciation, not specific intricacies of metric emphasis. How many syllables in succession can be joined for demotion/promotion? Again, it's not open. It happens naturally. English is designed that way. Off-hand, I can't think of a multisyllabled word that doesn't naturally fall into iambs. There probably are some though. But you should hear it yourself.

A related question is what justifies changing the number of syllables along with altering published primary ictuses? Example: dictionary dis COV er ing becomes dis COV ring or dis COVE ring.

Manners, mostly. Also an appreciation of rhythm. It's called contraction, or elision.

An issue is how does one step outside of iambic. If any line/word can be demoted/promoted into iambic, how does one clearly write (or read) anything else?

Any one line can NOT be demoted/promoted into iambic. That's the whole point. Take this one, for instance:
Let's impose iambs. Does it sound right? No.

Any ONE line CAN not BE deMOTed/PROmotED inTO iAMbic. THAT'S the WHOLE point. TAKE this ONE, for INstance.

The same thing goes for other measures in Metric. For instance:

This is a galloping measure, a hop and a step and a gallop:

Imposing iambic:

this IS a GALLopING meaSURE, a HOP and A step AND a GALLop

Ain't right. We don't say it that way.

But read it normally and it goes into anapests:

THIS is a GALLop ing MEASure,a HOP and a STEP and a GALL op

The feet are cataleptic or 'headless,' (missing a syllable or two at the front) and acataleptic (missing a syllable or two at the end,) but the metre is obviously anapestic.

Although seeking the more rigorous view, I grant that less rigorous (loose) promotion/demotion will exist as camp followers.

Nope. It's pretty universal. Some teeny differences come up from time to time, but with a bit of common sense and mutual respect, it isn't a problem.

Indeed it is all in how the thing it said.

It is.

.

[Guest_Kathy_*]

I can't find the discussion in a thread here about relative stress. Can anyone help me?

It was in reply to a query by Don.

** Addit. HERE IT IS:

http://forums.mosaicmusings.net/index.php?...10067&st=20

[Guest_Don_*]

Hi Kathy,

Thank you for responding in detail to my expressed concerns. Of course, I remain in the jungle as to what is obvious to you being arbitrary to me.

I became more dependent upon dictionary years ago upon finding that personal visual analysis failed. PET IN OON IA and DE POT are a couple of examples.

What do you mean that my dictionary is 'sus'? What's 'sus'?

Despite a dictionary being proscriptive, are you saying that multisyllable pronunciation published is modified by context in a sentence? I can grasp possibility that an isolated word, in say, a dictionary is not expected to fit all possible applications regarding pronunciation in a larger context. Again, the question is in regard to internal word modification rather than whole word. I can readily see when a connector or preposition is stressed and when not. This gives hope that I am not totally meter blind.

There is no doubt that rhythm takes presidence over scansion.

Pardon my dictionary crutch, but at present, it is the most solid limb from which to swing until another is within reach.

Don

[Guest_Kathy_*]

Hi Don, hopefully, there's enough here to help you over this hump. Don't give up. It will all become clear.

Sus = supect/suspicious. Probably an Austrailianism.

I was suggesting that your dictionary isn't intended to give exact metric values:

I suppose it's giving guides to pronunciation, not specific intricacies of metric emphasis

You certainly not metre-blind. Your poem about the pixies shows that.

[Guest_Don_*]

Hi Kathy,

Okay, my dictionaries only give guides to pronunciation, not specific intricacies of metric emphasis.

Please recommend some that do handle nuances of poetic metrics.

Thank you for your encouraging words. I am not likely to give up. The spy glass points to treasure island, and the excess canvas aloft may be spring our main mast. The winds from down under are a-blowin free.

Your encouragement is continuing to answer my many questions. You probably did not come to be a teacher, but I've not found anyone before you willing to delve into nuances of cadence as deeply.

Sincere thanks todate

Don

[Guest_Kathy_*]

It is my pleasure, Don. I came here to contribute, as all poets do. Sharing what we know is part of that, and learning, which I hope I will do until the day I die.

Sorry, but I don't know of any dictionaries that do that. I reckon you should trust yourself, go with The Force.

Sail on adventurer,
sail bravely as you've done right from the start,
sail on!
But trust the Wise man deep within your heart;
he's Don.

[laryalee]

Kathy, what a great thread, and such wonderful
advice! I'm glad to see you diving into metric again...
even though I know you have a wonderful knack with
haiku as well! (I've found that trying to write both
mixes up my brain, lol!)

I remember thinking, back in my metric days, that it
was almost like music...I used to play the piano "by ear",
and couldn't understand why everyone didn't do this...
perhaps it's just a bent of nature, lol!
(Do you suppose there's a metric gene?)


Lary

[Guest_Kathy_*]

Thank you Lary, I'm glad you think so. It's good to have people come here, and to be able to help them. There's such great information available on the web now, and this will stay for easy access. My hope is that it will enable others to grow as poets.

I know what you mean about haiku mixing up the brain. It does change the way a person thinks, doesn't it? I know it has changed me in other ways as well, and that it will never leave me. But oddly, even though my brain is starting to think in iambs again, a few haiku popped into it this morning. I'll post them with you later. Maybe I can have both, after all. Like playing two instruments, or speaking two languages.

Yes, I wonder if there is a metric gene, or a poetry gene, come to that.

[Guest_Kathy_*]

Replying To Merlin's post re varying metre to imitate the sea, I was reminded of another important aspect of the metrical structure of poetry. It's called 'Quantity' and it's about the length of sound. Quantitive metre is based on this, but it's a useful thing to use when you want to speed or slow the flow of your poems.

See how skilfully it is used here to show the rush of the brook. Other poetic devices are used too, to imitate the movement and sounds of the water.

'The Brook' by Alfred LordTennyson.

http://www.wussu.com/poems/alttb.htm

The stops produce a lively movement, and when the poet wants to show that the stream is no longer impetuous, and that it pauses on its way, he introduces sounds that can be prolonged. From The Study of Poetry. BLACKWOOD and OSBORN.

Here's some more examples of slow vowels:

'La Belle Dame Sans Merci' by Keates.

http://www.bartleby.com/126/55.html

Heavily stressed syllables in the fourth line of each stanza makes the short line balance the longer lines which preceed it, and gives an impressive ending. The Study of Poetry.

and

'Break' by Tennyson

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Poetry/TennysonBreak.htm

So what are 'slow vowels'? Here's what The Study of Poetry says:

......... 'When a poet wishes to give a slow, laboured movement to a line, he uses slow vowels, or vowels followed by two or more consonants. Short vowels, on the other hand, produce a quick movement in the verse. In the couplet --

When Ajax strives some rock's vast weight to throw,
The line too labours, and the words move slow.

The long syllables, together with the large amount of speech stresses, give a sense of effort; the slow march of the line of six feet is represented by the same means in --

A needless Alexandrine ends the song,
that like a wounded snake, winds its long length along.'


I found this information immensely helpful. I hope you do too.

K