This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
can say the classical use is peripheral, after all some people may be only interested in the classical context. I now think that the best way might be to have two separate articles, one called 'Iambic pentameter' and the other called 'Iambic pentameter (classical prosody)' and to have mutual links at the top of each article ... that way the classicists can have whatever they need in their own article, and the English (and other modern European languages) verse article can jut make a brief historical mention in the body of the article. Stumps 04:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you people not have children, as they naturally speak in rhymne? 'Mary had a little lamb', is a classic example of iambic pentameter, not some play, written by Will the Quill. As a child, we abused it, endlessly.
Mary had a little lamb, She also had a bear. Often seen her little lamb, but never seen her bare.
Mary had a little pig, couldn't stop it gruntin'. She took it down the garden path, and kicked it's little (expletive) in!
When I went to school, a long time ago, pent meant 5, has it changed, since then? Woolywords ( talk) 18:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Isn't there a way to get proper scansion marks to indicate stress in crazy males? Otherwise we'll never have good examples for prosody and versification. -- Dmerrill
Maybe something of this sort:
v - v - v - v - v - Was this the face that launch'd a thousand ships
That's quite close to the "normal" way of marking it. It also leaves places for all sorts of dashes. -- Uriyan
I get it know,but still confused what iambic pentameter mean give me more specific example--unknown
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
To | swell | the | gourd, | and | plump | the | ha- | zel | shells |
x | / | x | / | x | / |
An | eas | ier | sort | of | code |
.
I just converted the Donne example to the table style. In doing so, I realized the key problem with the table notation we have here is that feet don't line up. I might prefer using monospaced fonts a la the following:
| / x | x / | x / | x / | x / | | Batter | my heart | three per- | soned God | for you | | x / | x / | / / | x / | x / | | as yet | but knock|breath shine| and seek | to mend| | x / | x / | x / | x / | x x / | | That I | may rise | and stand | o'erthrow |me and bend| | x / | x / | / / | x / | x / | |Your force| to break | blow burn | and make | me new |
That allows editing to happen more easily and allow us to line up feet in a row -- in the above, for example, it's easier to see the rhythmic parallel between lines 2 and 4 than it is in the version currently in the article. Tom
Wow! A great job. I've made a few adjustments to the 'tabulation' of the Donne example in the article ... it now looks like this:
/
|
x
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
|||||
Bat- | ter | | | my | heart | | | three- | per- | | | soned | God, | | | for | you | | |
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
/
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
| |||||
as | yet | | | but | knock, | | | breathe, | shine | | | and | seek | | | to | mend. | | |
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
/
|
/
|
x
|
x
|
/
|
||||||
That | I | | | may | rise | | | and | stand | | | o'er | throw | | | me | and | bend | | |
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
/
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
|||||
Your | force | | | to | break, | | | blow, | burn | | | and | make | | | me | new. | | |
The changes being simply:
At this stage I haven't attempted to put the feet in columns ... getting things to line up vertically, as this is - I think - not the usual approach in texts on the subject. It gets tricky when poets start adding extra syllables or dropping them out. Also, of course, in the one column you could have a syllable that is spelled short and in another row one splled long ... in this example there is an 'I' and a 'force' in the second column ... and this can make the alignment look a bit strange. Here is one attempt at trying to get it into columns. I think I prefer the above version where each line has its own length.
/
|
x
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
||||||
Bat- | ter | | | my | heart | | | three- | per- | | | soned | God, | | | for | you | | | |
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
/
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
| ||||||
as | yet | | | but | knock, | | | breathe, | shine | | | and | seek | | | to | mend. | | | |
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
/
|
/
|
x x
|
/
|
||||||
That | I | | | may | rise | | | and | stand | | | o'er | throw | | | me and | bend | | | |
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
/
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
||||||
Your | force | | | to | break, | | | blow, | burn | | | and | make | | | me | new. | | |
all for now ... Stumps 21:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
"Many feel the success of iambic pentameters is related to its sounding like a human heartbeat at rest."
I have a question: How on earth do you tell if single syllable words "I, He, She, Cat, Be...." Are stressed/Unstressed? The only thing I know for fact is stressed is "A"; and writing multiple syllable lines is driving me nuts!
It would seem to me that the stress on single syllable words depends on the other words they are used in conjunction with, but I'm just a science teacher! Also, the success of iambic pentameter is paralleled in the success of musical rhythms like the shuffle. Clearly this is a pleasing rhythm for humans since it shows up so often. As to why we like it so much, who knows? (it could be our heartbeats!) The ultimate aspect of any spoken form is how easily it flows from the mouth and I would agree that IP does feel quite natural.
- DUM-da da-DUM da-DUM da-DUM da-DUM
- (STRONG weak / weak STRONG / weak STRONG / weak STRONG / weak STRONG)
- Shall I com - PARE thee TO a SUM mer's DAY
Which is an alternate reading of the first line. Whereas, the iambic pentameter of the third line is more stict:
- (weak STRONG / weak STRONG / weak STRONG / weak STRONG / weak STRONG)
- Rough winds do shake the darl -ing buds of May
I removed the above from the article for the following reasons.
I see that a while back the article used the phrase 'iambic inversion' and this was changed to 'trochaic inversion'. I think both terms are potentially confusing. If we are talking about iambic pentameter, then I think it is perfectly clear what the simple term inversion refers to. It is also simpler to say 'the inversion of the second foot is relatively rare' rather than 'the trochaic inversion of the second foot ...'. I recommend changing the text of the article to simply talk of 'inversions' (we can of course leave the useful references to trochees). Any passionate objections to this? — Stumps 10:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
is dum the proper term? it gets the point across but it just seems as if there should be some indication of the notation, as dum sounds kinda dumb. User:Kaldosh 05:56, 1 May 2006
I'd say the example from Hamlet given in the article has doubtful scansion. It's a fine example of a weak ending, but I think many actors would be just as likely to retain the stress on "is" and not on "that" in "that is the question".
Also, the deleted note about the human heartbeat is perhaps not the most sensical when looking at the text from a literary point of view, but many acting and voice instructors use this analogy (Kristin Linklater, to name one). It has relevance in the theatrical side of iambic pentameter; perhaps just having it as a stand-alone statement doesn't fit so well.
I think in general there should be more attention given to the interpretation of iambic pentameter in dramatic text, because the stress is often not just a matter of where we would naturally put the stress when speaking (and that's in our present-day voices), but can take into account the content of the rest of the speech. I'm not suggesting that actors get to mix and match however they like, but most of Shakespeare's speeches contain syllables that demand an artistic choice one way or another, and the choice affects character.
I have — at least for now, pending clarification here — removed the following sentence from the lead section. "In the ancient poetry, however, no "iambic pentameter" exists; also, if it had existed, a verse would consist of ten (not five) iambic feet, just like the iambic trimeter consists of six ones." Can someone (a) explain this, and (b) provide a source. Stumps 04:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's use some sample audio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.62.216 ( talk) 23:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The explanation of Iambic pentameter in Iambic pentameter is too well done to simply be deleted in the name of proper article formatting. Since it's obvious it's going to continue to be deleted and restored as an introduction and will get no rest there, I've restored it instead as an example where I hope it will prove less contentious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwern ( talk • contribs) 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
While it is very funny to have the introduction in iambic pentameter - probably doesn't belong in a encylopedia.... 167.247.219.10 ( talk) 10:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Clever as it may be, the explanation of Iambic pentameter in Iambic pentameter is not, strictly speaking, IN iambic pentameter. The syllables in the first line (iambic pentameter) do not naturally fall into the unstressed, stressed pattern of iambic pentameter. It reads as "i-AM-bic pen-TA-me-ter", which is clearly not constructed of iambs. Due to the neighboring unstressed syllables in "pentameter", one really cannot mention it in a work in iambic pentameter. I would request that this poor example be taken down and replaced with a poem that better demonstrates iambic pentameter at work, with the syllables NATURALLY falling into iambic pentameter. 69.140.175.26 ( talk) 17:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I am confused. It would appear that the general consensus is to remove the example, yet there it is still on the page. 18.239.1.80 ( talk) 20:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The article says that iambic pentameter is a Greek thing that we apply to English by analogy with the classics, but then goes on to give only English examples. Greek and Latin examples are sorely lacking. — Chameleon 12:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be metre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glandrid ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
No comments? Glandrid ( talk) 18:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Both words 'meter' and 'metre' exist and are used in several different contexts, of which poetic footing is one. I understand that different English-speaking countries sometimes use different spellings in some contexts, but that there is general agreement that 'meter' is acceptable (preferable, even?) for the poetic context. Is that correct? Feline Hymnic ( talk) 20:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Two questions. The criticism section says critics deny something about iambic pentameter and Shakespeare, but it's not clear what. Exactly what did the critics say?
Second question: how did the choice of iambic pentameter for serious poetry in English get started? I've heard that it was imported from Italian poetry where an 11-syllable line was standard (the weak llth syllable was turned into an optional "feminine" ending in English). Can some expert confirm or deny this? CharlesTheBold ( talk) 06:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there a general article about substitution etc.? This article (specifically about iambic pentameter) has a lengthy section "Rhythmic variation". And there is a Trochaic substitution article. But shouldn't there be an article about substitution in general, of which our "Rhythmic variation" might provide the initial sketch? Feline Hymnic ( talk) 11:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
This example is a bit too ambiguous, much like "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day" that was previously removed: it can be interpreted many ways, including in standard iambic pentameter. Ansh666 ( talk) 05:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Since the Halle and Keyser "stress maximum" theory has been thoroughly refuted, shouldn't there be less on it? — JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The article on Larkin's "Aubade" is clearly only one person's opinion. For another opinion, The Harper Anthology of Poetry contains ten or so poems in iambic pentameter after 1950 (coincidentally, A. N. Wilson's year of birth) and before 1980, including Larkin's "Lines on a Young Lady's Photograph Album", but not this one.
If we want to have some kind of coverage of the history of iambic pentameter after Shakespeare, we need to see what poems have been reprinted the most and whether there's any kind of consensus among critics. A process such as that might or might not include "Aubade" among the notable poems in iambic pentameter along with works by poets of greater reputation than Larkin—Dryden, Pope, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Byron, Shelley, Keats, Browning, Yeats, Eliot, Frost, etc. (By the way, I feel sure that the most notable poem in iambic pentameter from Wilson's lifetime is " Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night", though it doesn't happen to be to Wilson's taste as much as "Aubade" is.) But at this point, I see no reason to single this poem out in the history of iambic pentameter. I haven't removed it again yet, but I will if no one else does and no one provides a good reason to leave it. — JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Here's the text on "Aubade" that I just removed, in case we find additional sources justifying putting it back in.
— JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I undid an edit by an anonymous user a few months ago, who changed the meter marking on the John Donne poem without explanation. I found this in the history because after his changes, the meter markings didn't agree with the explanation or the rest of the article. But if someone who knows something about poetry could check that my recent edit was correct I would really appreciate that. -- Creidieki 12:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The anonymous user would be me, Peter Groves -- I'm one of the theorists mentioned under "Systems of Scansion". A stress-maximum on "pers-" only exists under the original (1966), not the revised (1971) theory; moreover there is no SM on "heart" in either theory because it is next to a major syntactic break (there would be a comm after it in Modern English). 59.101.184.233 ( talk) 09:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I am removing the entire section on the Halle-Keyser theory to the talk page for now because 1) it is a confusing digression from the topic of "rhythmic variation" to which it is not in fact germane; 2) H-K possibly should not occur at all in the article, but if so, 3) its treatment should be substantially reduced and placed in a section on "alternate theories". For those who want slightly deeper arguments, I offer this more protracted complaint:
Below is the removed text. Phil wink ( talk) 01:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Linguists Morris Halle and Samuel Jay Keyser developed a set of rules (English Stress: Its Forms, Its Growth, and Its Role in Verse, Harper and Row, 1971) which correspond with those variations which are permissible in English iambic pentameter. Essentially, the Halle-Keyser rules state that only "stress maximum" syllables are important in determining the meter. A stress maximum syllable is a stressed syllable surrounded on both sides by weak syllables in the same syntactic phrase and in the same verse line. In order to be a permissible line of iambic pentameter, no stress maxima can fall on a syllable that is designated as a weak syllable in the standard, unvaried iambic pentameter pattern. In the Donne line, the word God is not a maximum. That is because it is followed by a pause. Similarly the words you, mend, and bend are not maxima since they are each at the end of a line (as required for the rhyming of mend/bend and you/new.) Rewriting the Donne quatrain showing the stress maxima (denoted with an "M") results in the following:
/ × × M × M × / × / Batter my heart three-personed God, for you × M × / × / × M × / As yet but knock, breathe, shine and seek to mend. × / × M × / × / ×(×) / That I may rise and stand o'erthrow me and bend × M × / × / × M × / Your force to break, blow, burn and make me new.
The Halle-Keyser system has been criticized because it can identify passages of prose as iambic pentameter. [2] Other scholars have revised Halle-Keyser, and they, along with Halle and Keyser, are known collectively as “generative metrists.”
Later generative metrists pointed out that poets have often treated non-compound words of more than one syllable differently from monosyllables and compounds of monosyllables. Any normally weak syllable may be stressed as a variation if it is a monosyllable, but not if it is part of a polysyllable except at the beginning of a line or a phrase. Thus Shakespeare wrote in The Merchant of Venice, Act I, Scene 2:
× × / / × / × /(×)× / For the four winds blow in from every coast
but wrote no lines of the form of "As gazelles leap a never-resting brook". The stress patterns are the same, and in particular, the normally weak third syllable is stressed in both lines; the difference is that in Shakespeare's line the stressed third syllable is a one-syllable word, "four", whereas in the un-Shakespearean line it is part of a two-syllable word, "gazelles". (The definitions and exceptions are more technical than stated here.) Pope followed such a rule strictly, Shakespeare fairly strictly, Milton much less, and Donne not at all—which may be why Ben Jonson said Donne deserved hanging for "not keeping of accent". [3]
Derek Attridge has pointed out the limits of the generative approach; it has “not brought us any closer to understanding why particular metrical forms are common in English, why certain variations interrupt the metre and others do not, or why metre functions so powerfully as a literary device.” [4] Generative metrists also fail to recognize that a normally weak syllable in a strong position will be pronounced differently, i.e. “promoted” and so no longer "weak."
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I have reverted your cuts. I quite agree there's a debate here, and that H-K is not the last word by any means. So I would respectfully suggest that you describe the debate in the article itself, and add the materials that you put in this talk page as reasons for deleting. This is a live debate, and the article can and should reflect it, not censor it because some of its editors disagree with one position within that debate. The reference to H-K is highly valuable for people looking for that sort of thing; so are your references in the talk page. You should promote them to the article. Add, don't delete interesting material. Nightspore ( talk) 02:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, we have a shiny new Generative metrics article, which is now in a pretty good state. My next step here will be to delete (again) the current text on the H-K theory in this article, but I'm not going to do that until I work up a broader and more concise treatment of alternate IP theories which can replace it.
In the mean time, JerryFriedman, there is a contradiction in the "gazelles" statement: first it claims that Shakespeare wrote no lines in that form, then that Shakespeare followed this prohibition "fairly strictly", which implies that he must indeed have written some line in that form. I'd be much obliged if you could sort that out. As for the future of the "gazelles" text, my own feelings are: 1) Updates should be made in the Generative metrics version, since it has been reformatted (I think advantageously). 2) Although there's nothing wrong with stating it twice, I think the better home is here in IP, so that after the contradiction is resolved and the IP H-K text replaced, then the "gazelles" text should be moved back here from GM and slightly re-worded in its new context. Phil wink ( talk) 20:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
In the article, it's marked like this:
Now is the winter of our discontent
but to put accent on 'of' like that is counter-intuitive in the extreme.
More natural, to my ear at least is two dactyls and a choriamb (/ x x / x x / x x /), which isn't pentamic. 143.92.1.33 ( talk) 08:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted 3 changes to the metrical examples (and description of them) made by Rushead: total changes. These seem to my ear to misrepresent the rhythm in the lines; are there any sources for this variant analysis? Yngvadottir ( talk) 18:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
× / × / × / / × × / (×) To be or not to be? That is the question. OR × / × / × / × / × / (×) To be or not to be? That is the question.
× / × / × / × / × / As yet but knock, breathe, shine and seek to mend. OR × / × / / / × / × / As yet but knock, breathe, shine and seek to mend.
A while back, someone put a "clarify" into the lede, asking which poetry/drama tradition we're talking about. This has now been removed, but it's a fair question in an encyclopaedia of global scope. I've inserted "English" for now, because when I looked for sources on which other modern languages use iambic pentameter, I bogged down in sources about the metre's importance in English. Can anyone supply the broader context? Yngvadottir ( talk) 18:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I was about to revert this recent edit because it's incorrect, until I realized it's also correct in its own way. So I'm soliciting discussion on the best way to clarify this situation:
(Disclaimer: theory and definitions in English meter are pretty chaotic, so these are necessarily my opinions, but I think they're sound, and I'm happy to expand, if anyone cares. Also, I'm not a big fan of the concept of feet, but I'll use the term here to match the verbiage in question.)
I think my explanation in the article (to which the recent edit refers): "The last line is in fact an alexandrine — an iambic hexameter, which occurs occasionally in some iambic pentameter texts as a variant line" is reasonably clear -- if so, then probably reverting the recent edit is best, as I don't think we want to confuse the issue right at the top. However, maybe the article needs more clarity. If so, please discuss. Phil wink ( talk) 17:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I'm the IP user suggesting a citation is needed for the meter being "common" to English, as I'm writing a paper where it's relevant and am seeking sources. While it's not the least technical I found this source which might be useful. The basic idea is that English sentence structure lends it self to pentameter and English words are generally trochaic, but phrases tend towards iambic. Maybe helpful? 150.243.207.215 ( talk) 02:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
STOP COMPARING ENGLISH TO GREEK METRICS AND PROSODY. ENGLISH USES A SIMPLE LINE WITH LAST ACCENT ON THE TENTH SYLLABLE. THATS IT. EVERYTHING ELSE IS CRAP. STOP THIS BUFFOONERY. THEY USED CONSTANT ACCENT BECAUSE IT SOUNDED PRETTY NOT BECAUSE THEYRE ACTUALLY USING IAMBS.
Why don't you just teach that Nouns enunciation stress is on the first syllable for semantic meaning and verbs stress is on the last syllables for semantic understanding.
Nouns: Trochee and Dactyls etc. and Verbs : Iambs and Anapest etc. Depending on number of syllables. Make a separate list for each type> Primary Stress, a list for all, according to the number of syllables. Another list of Verbs, with secondary stress, according to number of syllables.
The prosody, pitch register is enunciated that way for semantic meaning and in classic historical languages that is why the use of diacritic marks to indicate each type of syntax was used.
As far as tempo/pulse for each bar or measure of music that is time signature, and the stress and unstressed macrons/diacritic marks are for the beats/notes for each syllable in the word/phrase in the verse of poetry equating to the phrase in the measures of music as it is performed or recited.
Why don't school teachers teach it that way?
Teachers seem to be teaching as if the whole piece is in iamb, and in fact they never were, the diacritics/stress was only the music, and the beats/notes for prosody pitch register are reflected in the syllables, articulation of nouns primary stress and verbs secondary stress for semantic meaning and understanding, how each word is enunciated within the bar or measure. The bars/measures and time signature designates the rhythm and tempo and pace of the music or pulse. The stress indicates the prosody or how to pronounce the pitch register.
It would save you time, and avoid 1/2 hour, if you sum up quickly, divide primary stress(long stress) for nouns in one category, and another list of the verbs (secondary stress) as the lists you have are not divided for semantic understanding.
Sum it up quick, the whole feet or bar or measures are NOT all in iambic, ONLY the VERBS in the phrase in the verse, line are secondary stress! Teachers have been acting like the whole verse/line is in just one type, and that is leading to misapplying it, they are properly used for prosody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.152.178 ( talk) 14:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
can say the classical use is peripheral, after all some people may be only interested in the classical context. I now think that the best way might be to have two separate articles, one called 'Iambic pentameter' and the other called 'Iambic pentameter (classical prosody)' and to have mutual links at the top of each article ... that way the classicists can have whatever they need in their own article, and the English (and other modern European languages) verse article can jut make a brief historical mention in the body of the article. Stumps 04:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you people not have children, as they naturally speak in rhymne? 'Mary had a little lamb', is a classic example of iambic pentameter, not some play, written by Will the Quill. As a child, we abused it, endlessly.
Mary had a little lamb, She also had a bear. Often seen her little lamb, but never seen her bare.
Mary had a little pig, couldn't stop it gruntin'. She took it down the garden path, and kicked it's little (expletive) in!
When I went to school, a long time ago, pent meant 5, has it changed, since then? Woolywords ( talk) 18:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Isn't there a way to get proper scansion marks to indicate stress in crazy males? Otherwise we'll never have good examples for prosody and versification. -- Dmerrill
Maybe something of this sort:
v - v - v - v - v - Was this the face that launch'd a thousand ships
That's quite close to the "normal" way of marking it. It also leaves places for all sorts of dashes. -- Uriyan
I get it know,but still confused what iambic pentameter mean give me more specific example--unknown
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
To | swell | the | gourd, | and | plump | the | ha- | zel | shells |
x | / | x | / | x | / |
An | eas | ier | sort | of | code |
.
I just converted the Donne example to the table style. In doing so, I realized the key problem with the table notation we have here is that feet don't line up. I might prefer using monospaced fonts a la the following:
| / x | x / | x / | x / | x / | | Batter | my heart | three per- | soned God | for you | | x / | x / | / / | x / | x / | | as yet | but knock|breath shine| and seek | to mend| | x / | x / | x / | x / | x x / | | That I | may rise | and stand | o'erthrow |me and bend| | x / | x / | / / | x / | x / | |Your force| to break | blow burn | and make | me new |
That allows editing to happen more easily and allow us to line up feet in a row -- in the above, for example, it's easier to see the rhythmic parallel between lines 2 and 4 than it is in the version currently in the article. Tom
Wow! A great job. I've made a few adjustments to the 'tabulation' of the Donne example in the article ... it now looks like this:
/
|
x
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
|||||
Bat- | ter | | | my | heart | | | three- | per- | | | soned | God, | | | for | you | | |
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
/
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
| |||||
as | yet | | | but | knock, | | | breathe, | shine | | | and | seek | | | to | mend. | | |
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
/
|
/
|
x
|
x
|
/
|
||||||
That | I | | | may | rise | | | and | stand | | | o'er | throw | | | me | and | bend | | |
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
/
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
|||||
Your | force | | | to | break, | | | blow, | burn | | | and | make | | | me | new. | | |
The changes being simply:
At this stage I haven't attempted to put the feet in columns ... getting things to line up vertically, as this is - I think - not the usual approach in texts on the subject. It gets tricky when poets start adding extra syllables or dropping them out. Also, of course, in the one column you could have a syllable that is spelled short and in another row one splled long ... in this example there is an 'I' and a 'force' in the second column ... and this can make the alignment look a bit strange. Here is one attempt at trying to get it into columns. I think I prefer the above version where each line has its own length.
/
|
x
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
||||||
Bat- | ter | | | my | heart | | | three- | per- | | | soned | God, | | | for | you | | | |
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
/
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
| ||||||
as | yet | | | but | knock, | | | breathe, | shine | | | and | seek | | | to | mend. | | | |
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
/
|
/
|
x x
|
/
|
||||||
That | I | | | may | rise | | | and | stand | | | o'er | throw | | | me and | bend | | | |
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
/
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
x
|
/
|
||||||
Your | force | | | to | break, | | | blow, | burn | | | and | make | | | me | new. | | |
all for now ... Stumps 21:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
"Many feel the success of iambic pentameters is related to its sounding like a human heartbeat at rest."
I have a question: How on earth do you tell if single syllable words "I, He, She, Cat, Be...." Are stressed/Unstressed? The only thing I know for fact is stressed is "A"; and writing multiple syllable lines is driving me nuts!
It would seem to me that the stress on single syllable words depends on the other words they are used in conjunction with, but I'm just a science teacher! Also, the success of iambic pentameter is paralleled in the success of musical rhythms like the shuffle. Clearly this is a pleasing rhythm for humans since it shows up so often. As to why we like it so much, who knows? (it could be our heartbeats!) The ultimate aspect of any spoken form is how easily it flows from the mouth and I would agree that IP does feel quite natural.
- DUM-da da-DUM da-DUM da-DUM da-DUM
- (STRONG weak / weak STRONG / weak STRONG / weak STRONG / weak STRONG)
- Shall I com - PARE thee TO a SUM mer's DAY
Which is an alternate reading of the first line. Whereas, the iambic pentameter of the third line is more stict:
- (weak STRONG / weak STRONG / weak STRONG / weak STRONG / weak STRONG)
- Rough winds do shake the darl -ing buds of May
I removed the above from the article for the following reasons.
I see that a while back the article used the phrase 'iambic inversion' and this was changed to 'trochaic inversion'. I think both terms are potentially confusing. If we are talking about iambic pentameter, then I think it is perfectly clear what the simple term inversion refers to. It is also simpler to say 'the inversion of the second foot is relatively rare' rather than 'the trochaic inversion of the second foot ...'. I recommend changing the text of the article to simply talk of 'inversions' (we can of course leave the useful references to trochees). Any passionate objections to this? — Stumps 10:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
is dum the proper term? it gets the point across but it just seems as if there should be some indication of the notation, as dum sounds kinda dumb. User:Kaldosh 05:56, 1 May 2006
I'd say the example from Hamlet given in the article has doubtful scansion. It's a fine example of a weak ending, but I think many actors would be just as likely to retain the stress on "is" and not on "that" in "that is the question".
Also, the deleted note about the human heartbeat is perhaps not the most sensical when looking at the text from a literary point of view, but many acting and voice instructors use this analogy (Kristin Linklater, to name one). It has relevance in the theatrical side of iambic pentameter; perhaps just having it as a stand-alone statement doesn't fit so well.
I think in general there should be more attention given to the interpretation of iambic pentameter in dramatic text, because the stress is often not just a matter of where we would naturally put the stress when speaking (and that's in our present-day voices), but can take into account the content of the rest of the speech. I'm not suggesting that actors get to mix and match however they like, but most of Shakespeare's speeches contain syllables that demand an artistic choice one way or another, and the choice affects character.
I have — at least for now, pending clarification here — removed the following sentence from the lead section. "In the ancient poetry, however, no "iambic pentameter" exists; also, if it had existed, a verse would consist of ten (not five) iambic feet, just like the iambic trimeter consists of six ones." Can someone (a) explain this, and (b) provide a source. Stumps 04:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's use some sample audio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.62.216 ( talk) 23:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The explanation of Iambic pentameter in Iambic pentameter is too well done to simply be deleted in the name of proper article formatting. Since it's obvious it's going to continue to be deleted and restored as an introduction and will get no rest there, I've restored it instead as an example where I hope it will prove less contentious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwern ( talk • contribs) 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
While it is very funny to have the introduction in iambic pentameter - probably doesn't belong in a encylopedia.... 167.247.219.10 ( talk) 10:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Clever as it may be, the explanation of Iambic pentameter in Iambic pentameter is not, strictly speaking, IN iambic pentameter. The syllables in the first line (iambic pentameter) do not naturally fall into the unstressed, stressed pattern of iambic pentameter. It reads as "i-AM-bic pen-TA-me-ter", which is clearly not constructed of iambs. Due to the neighboring unstressed syllables in "pentameter", one really cannot mention it in a work in iambic pentameter. I would request that this poor example be taken down and replaced with a poem that better demonstrates iambic pentameter at work, with the syllables NATURALLY falling into iambic pentameter. 69.140.175.26 ( talk) 17:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I am confused. It would appear that the general consensus is to remove the example, yet there it is still on the page. 18.239.1.80 ( talk) 20:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The article says that iambic pentameter is a Greek thing that we apply to English by analogy with the classics, but then goes on to give only English examples. Greek and Latin examples are sorely lacking. — Chameleon 12:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be metre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glandrid ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
No comments? Glandrid ( talk) 18:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Both words 'meter' and 'metre' exist and are used in several different contexts, of which poetic footing is one. I understand that different English-speaking countries sometimes use different spellings in some contexts, but that there is general agreement that 'meter' is acceptable (preferable, even?) for the poetic context. Is that correct? Feline Hymnic ( talk) 20:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Two questions. The criticism section says critics deny something about iambic pentameter and Shakespeare, but it's not clear what. Exactly what did the critics say?
Second question: how did the choice of iambic pentameter for serious poetry in English get started? I've heard that it was imported from Italian poetry where an 11-syllable line was standard (the weak llth syllable was turned into an optional "feminine" ending in English). Can some expert confirm or deny this? CharlesTheBold ( talk) 06:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there a general article about substitution etc.? This article (specifically about iambic pentameter) has a lengthy section "Rhythmic variation". And there is a Trochaic substitution article. But shouldn't there be an article about substitution in general, of which our "Rhythmic variation" might provide the initial sketch? Feline Hymnic ( talk) 11:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
This example is a bit too ambiguous, much like "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day" that was previously removed: it can be interpreted many ways, including in standard iambic pentameter. Ansh666 ( talk) 05:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Since the Halle and Keyser "stress maximum" theory has been thoroughly refuted, shouldn't there be less on it? — JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The article on Larkin's "Aubade" is clearly only one person's opinion. For another opinion, The Harper Anthology of Poetry contains ten or so poems in iambic pentameter after 1950 (coincidentally, A. N. Wilson's year of birth) and before 1980, including Larkin's "Lines on a Young Lady's Photograph Album", but not this one.
If we want to have some kind of coverage of the history of iambic pentameter after Shakespeare, we need to see what poems have been reprinted the most and whether there's any kind of consensus among critics. A process such as that might or might not include "Aubade" among the notable poems in iambic pentameter along with works by poets of greater reputation than Larkin—Dryden, Pope, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Byron, Shelley, Keats, Browning, Yeats, Eliot, Frost, etc. (By the way, I feel sure that the most notable poem in iambic pentameter from Wilson's lifetime is " Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night", though it doesn't happen to be to Wilson's taste as much as "Aubade" is.) But at this point, I see no reason to single this poem out in the history of iambic pentameter. I haven't removed it again yet, but I will if no one else does and no one provides a good reason to leave it. — JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Here's the text on "Aubade" that I just removed, in case we find additional sources justifying putting it back in.
— JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I undid an edit by an anonymous user a few months ago, who changed the meter marking on the John Donne poem without explanation. I found this in the history because after his changes, the meter markings didn't agree with the explanation or the rest of the article. But if someone who knows something about poetry could check that my recent edit was correct I would really appreciate that. -- Creidieki 12:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The anonymous user would be me, Peter Groves -- I'm one of the theorists mentioned under "Systems of Scansion". A stress-maximum on "pers-" only exists under the original (1966), not the revised (1971) theory; moreover there is no SM on "heart" in either theory because it is next to a major syntactic break (there would be a comm after it in Modern English). 59.101.184.233 ( talk) 09:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I am removing the entire section on the Halle-Keyser theory to the talk page for now because 1) it is a confusing digression from the topic of "rhythmic variation" to which it is not in fact germane; 2) H-K possibly should not occur at all in the article, but if so, 3) its treatment should be substantially reduced and placed in a section on "alternate theories". For those who want slightly deeper arguments, I offer this more protracted complaint:
Below is the removed text. Phil wink ( talk) 01:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Linguists Morris Halle and Samuel Jay Keyser developed a set of rules (English Stress: Its Forms, Its Growth, and Its Role in Verse, Harper and Row, 1971) which correspond with those variations which are permissible in English iambic pentameter. Essentially, the Halle-Keyser rules state that only "stress maximum" syllables are important in determining the meter. A stress maximum syllable is a stressed syllable surrounded on both sides by weak syllables in the same syntactic phrase and in the same verse line. In order to be a permissible line of iambic pentameter, no stress maxima can fall on a syllable that is designated as a weak syllable in the standard, unvaried iambic pentameter pattern. In the Donne line, the word God is not a maximum. That is because it is followed by a pause. Similarly the words you, mend, and bend are not maxima since they are each at the end of a line (as required for the rhyming of mend/bend and you/new.) Rewriting the Donne quatrain showing the stress maxima (denoted with an "M") results in the following:
/ × × M × M × / × / Batter my heart three-personed God, for you × M × / × / × M × / As yet but knock, breathe, shine and seek to mend. × / × M × / × / ×(×) / That I may rise and stand o'erthrow me and bend × M × / × / × M × / Your force to break, blow, burn and make me new.
The Halle-Keyser system has been criticized because it can identify passages of prose as iambic pentameter. [2] Other scholars have revised Halle-Keyser, and they, along with Halle and Keyser, are known collectively as “generative metrists.”
Later generative metrists pointed out that poets have often treated non-compound words of more than one syllable differently from monosyllables and compounds of monosyllables. Any normally weak syllable may be stressed as a variation if it is a monosyllable, but not if it is part of a polysyllable except at the beginning of a line or a phrase. Thus Shakespeare wrote in The Merchant of Venice, Act I, Scene 2:
× × / / × / × /(×)× / For the four winds blow in from every coast
but wrote no lines of the form of "As gazelles leap a never-resting brook". The stress patterns are the same, and in particular, the normally weak third syllable is stressed in both lines; the difference is that in Shakespeare's line the stressed third syllable is a one-syllable word, "four", whereas in the un-Shakespearean line it is part of a two-syllable word, "gazelles". (The definitions and exceptions are more technical than stated here.) Pope followed such a rule strictly, Shakespeare fairly strictly, Milton much less, and Donne not at all—which may be why Ben Jonson said Donne deserved hanging for "not keeping of accent". [3]
Derek Attridge has pointed out the limits of the generative approach; it has “not brought us any closer to understanding why particular metrical forms are common in English, why certain variations interrupt the metre and others do not, or why metre functions so powerfully as a literary device.” [4] Generative metrists also fail to recognize that a normally weak syllable in a strong position will be pronounced differently, i.e. “promoted” and so no longer "weak."
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I have reverted your cuts. I quite agree there's a debate here, and that H-K is not the last word by any means. So I would respectfully suggest that you describe the debate in the article itself, and add the materials that you put in this talk page as reasons for deleting. This is a live debate, and the article can and should reflect it, not censor it because some of its editors disagree with one position within that debate. The reference to H-K is highly valuable for people looking for that sort of thing; so are your references in the talk page. You should promote them to the article. Add, don't delete interesting material. Nightspore ( talk) 02:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, we have a shiny new Generative metrics article, which is now in a pretty good state. My next step here will be to delete (again) the current text on the H-K theory in this article, but I'm not going to do that until I work up a broader and more concise treatment of alternate IP theories which can replace it.
In the mean time, JerryFriedman, there is a contradiction in the "gazelles" statement: first it claims that Shakespeare wrote no lines in that form, then that Shakespeare followed this prohibition "fairly strictly", which implies that he must indeed have written some line in that form. I'd be much obliged if you could sort that out. As for the future of the "gazelles" text, my own feelings are: 1) Updates should be made in the Generative metrics version, since it has been reformatted (I think advantageously). 2) Although there's nothing wrong with stating it twice, I think the better home is here in IP, so that after the contradiction is resolved and the IP H-K text replaced, then the "gazelles" text should be moved back here from GM and slightly re-worded in its new context. Phil wink ( talk) 20:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
In the article, it's marked like this:
Now is the winter of our discontent
but to put accent on 'of' like that is counter-intuitive in the extreme.
More natural, to my ear at least is two dactyls and a choriamb (/ x x / x x / x x /), which isn't pentamic. 143.92.1.33 ( talk) 08:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted 3 changes to the metrical examples (and description of them) made by Rushead: total changes. These seem to my ear to misrepresent the rhythm in the lines; are there any sources for this variant analysis? Yngvadottir ( talk) 18:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
× / × / × / / × × / (×) To be or not to be? That is the question. OR × / × / × / × / × / (×) To be or not to be? That is the question.
× / × / × / × / × / As yet but knock, breathe, shine and seek to mend. OR × / × / / / × / × / As yet but knock, breathe, shine and seek to mend.
A while back, someone put a "clarify" into the lede, asking which poetry/drama tradition we're talking about. This has now been removed, but it's a fair question in an encyclopaedia of global scope. I've inserted "English" for now, because when I looked for sources on which other modern languages use iambic pentameter, I bogged down in sources about the metre's importance in English. Can anyone supply the broader context? Yngvadottir ( talk) 18:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I was about to revert this recent edit because it's incorrect, until I realized it's also correct in its own way. So I'm soliciting discussion on the best way to clarify this situation:
(Disclaimer: theory and definitions in English meter are pretty chaotic, so these are necessarily my opinions, but I think they're sound, and I'm happy to expand, if anyone cares. Also, I'm not a big fan of the concept of feet, but I'll use the term here to match the verbiage in question.)
I think my explanation in the article (to which the recent edit refers): "The last line is in fact an alexandrine — an iambic hexameter, which occurs occasionally in some iambic pentameter texts as a variant line" is reasonably clear -- if so, then probably reverting the recent edit is best, as I don't think we want to confuse the issue right at the top. However, maybe the article needs more clarity. If so, please discuss. Phil wink ( talk) 17:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I'm the IP user suggesting a citation is needed for the meter being "common" to English, as I'm writing a paper where it's relevant and am seeking sources. While it's not the least technical I found this source which might be useful. The basic idea is that English sentence structure lends it self to pentameter and English words are generally trochaic, but phrases tend towards iambic. Maybe helpful? 150.243.207.215 ( talk) 02:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
STOP COMPARING ENGLISH TO GREEK METRICS AND PROSODY. ENGLISH USES A SIMPLE LINE WITH LAST ACCENT ON THE TENTH SYLLABLE. THATS IT. EVERYTHING ELSE IS CRAP. STOP THIS BUFFOONERY. THEY USED CONSTANT ACCENT BECAUSE IT SOUNDED PRETTY NOT BECAUSE THEYRE ACTUALLY USING IAMBS.
Why don't you just teach that Nouns enunciation stress is on the first syllable for semantic meaning and verbs stress is on the last syllables for semantic understanding.
Nouns: Trochee and Dactyls etc. and Verbs : Iambs and Anapest etc. Depending on number of syllables. Make a separate list for each type> Primary Stress, a list for all, according to the number of syllables. Another list of Verbs, with secondary stress, according to number of syllables.
The prosody, pitch register is enunciated that way for semantic meaning and in classic historical languages that is why the use of diacritic marks to indicate each type of syntax was used.
As far as tempo/pulse for each bar or measure of music that is time signature, and the stress and unstressed macrons/diacritic marks are for the beats/notes for each syllable in the word/phrase in the verse of poetry equating to the phrase in the measures of music as it is performed or recited.
Why don't school teachers teach it that way?
Teachers seem to be teaching as if the whole piece is in iamb, and in fact they never were, the diacritics/stress was only the music, and the beats/notes for prosody pitch register are reflected in the syllables, articulation of nouns primary stress and verbs secondary stress for semantic meaning and understanding, how each word is enunciated within the bar or measure. The bars/measures and time signature designates the rhythm and tempo and pace of the music or pulse. The stress indicates the prosody or how to pronounce the pitch register.
It would save you time, and avoid 1/2 hour, if you sum up quickly, divide primary stress(long stress) for nouns in one category, and another list of the verbs (secondary stress) as the lists you have are not divided for semantic understanding.
Sum it up quick, the whole feet or bar or measures are NOT all in iambic, ONLY the VERBS in the phrase in the verse, line are secondary stress! Teachers have been acting like the whole verse/line is in just one type, and that is leading to misapplying it, they are properly used for prosody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.152.178 ( talk) 14:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)