Defining "rhyme"
Guy Barry
that two words rhyme if their final stressed vowel and all subsequent
phonemes are identical. For example, I believe that the English words
"crew" /kru:/ and "view" /vju:/ are rhymes, since they both have the same
stressed vowel /u:/ and there are no subsequent phonemes.
However I have recently been in a discussion with someone who maintains that
/u:/ and /ju:/ are different vowel sounds and so are near-rhymes rather than
perfect rhymes. I suppose that /ju:/ could be analysed as a rising
diphthong, but the stress is stil on the /u:/ , so I don't see how the
presence of the /j/ affects the rhyme. Is there a definitive answer?
--
Guy Barry
Joachim Pense
> Is there a generally accepted definition of "rhyme"? I've always considered
> that two words rhyme if their final stressed vowel and all subsequent
> phonemes are identical.
For a "good" rhyme, I would also expect that the sounds immediately
before the last stressed vowel are different.
For example, I believe that the English words
> "crew" /kru:/ and "view" /vju:/ are rhymes, since they both have the same
> stressed vowel /u:/ and there are no subsequent phonemes.
>
> However I have recently been in a discussion with someone who maintains that
> /u:/ and /ju:/ are different vowel sounds and so are near-rhymes rather than
> perfect rhymes. I suppose that /ju:/ could be analysed as a rising
> diphthong, but the stress is stil on the /u:/ , so I don't see how the
> presence of the /j/ affects the rhyme. Is there a definitive answer?
I would even say that two /ju:/ are'nt a good rhyme, because the sound
before the /u:/ is not different. So "view" and "you" are not good
rhymes to my ear, but "blue" and "few" are. Disclaimer: My English is
far from native-speaker-level.
(BTW, you say "phonemes" above. That brings me to the unrelated
question: Is it even possible that the rhyming end parts of the words
are equal on a phonemic level, but differ on the phonetic level?)
Harlan Messinger
> Am 07.03.2011 09:40, schrieb Guy Barry:
>> Is there a generally accepted definition of "rhyme"? I've always
>> considered
>> that two words rhyme if their final stressed vowel and all subsequent
>> phonemes are identical.
>
> For a "good" rhyme, I would also expect that the sounds immediately
> before the last stressed vowel are different.
I disagree. I would say "true" and "crew" rhyme.
Hans Aberg
>>> Is there a generally accepted definition of "rhyme"? I've always
>>> considered
>>> that two words rhyme if their final stressed vowel and all subsequent
>>> phonemes are identical.
>>
>> For a "good" rhyme, I would also expect that the sounds immediately
>> before the last stressed vowel are different.
>
> I disagree. I would say "true" and "crew" rhyme.
This is true, according to a rhyming dictionary crew.
Hans
Adam Funk
I think there are degrees of rhyming. I'd say "true" and "crew"
rhyme, but "crew" and "screw" rhyme more closely, and "greenery" and
"scenery" rhyme even more.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> Am 07.03.2011 09:40, schrieb Guy Barry:
>
> > Is there a generally accepted definition of "rhyme"? I've always considered
> > that two words rhyme if their final stressed vowel and all subsequent
> > phonemes are identical.
>
> For a "good" rhyme, I would also expect that the sounds immediately
> before the last stressed vowel are different.
>
> For example, I believe that the English words
>
> > "crew" /kru:/ and "view" /vju:/ are rhymes, since they both have the same
> > stressed vowel /u:/ and there are no subsequent phonemes.
>
> > However I have recently been in a discussion with someone who maintains that
> > /u:/ and /ju:/ are different vowel sounds and so are near-rhymes rather than
> > perfect rhymes. I suppose that /ju:/ could be analysed as a rising
> > diphthong, but the stress is stil on the /u:/ , so I don't see how the
> > presence of the /j/ affects the rhyme. Is there a definitive answer?
>
> I would even say that two /ju:/ are'nt a good rhyme, because the sound
> before the /u:/ is not different. So "view" and "you" are not good
> rhymes to my ear, but "blue" and "few" are. Disclaimer: My English is
> far from native-speaker-level.
To me (native speaker) it's the total combination of consonants that
should be different.
So "view" and "you", or "allow" and "plow" are fine.
But "attain" and "detain" would be a second-rate rhyme.
>
> (BTW, you say "phonemes" above. That brings me to the unrelated
> question: Is it even possible that the rhyming end parts of the words
> are equal on a phonemic level, but differ on the phonetic level?)
This could happen if the vowel had phonetically different allophones
conditioned by the _preceding_ consonant. I can't think of a good
example, but it would be an interesting test of the psychological-
reality-of-phonemes.
Ross Clark
Hans Aberg
>>> Is there a generally accepted definition of "rhyme"? I've always considered
>>> that two words rhyme if their final stressed vowel and all subsequent
>>> phonemes are identical.
>>
>> For a "good" rhyme, I would also expect that the sounds immediately
>> before the last stressed vowel are different.
>>
>> For example, I believe that the English words
>>
>>> "crew" /kru:/ and "view" /vju:/ are rhymes, since they both have the same
>>> stressed vowel /u:/ and there are no subsequent phonemes.
>>
>>> However I have recently been in a discussion with someone who maintains that
>>> /u:/ and /ju:/ are different vowel sounds and so are near-rhymes rather than
>>> perfect rhymes. I suppose that /ju:/ could be analysed as a rising
>>> diphthong, but the stress is stil on the /u:/ , so I don't see how the
>>> presence of the /j/ affects the rhyme. Is there a definitive answer?
>>
>> I would even say that two /ju:/ are'nt a good rhyme, because the sound
>> before the /u:/ is not different. So "view" and "you" are not good
>> rhymes to my ear, but "blue" and "few" are. Disclaimer: My English is
>> far from native-speaker-level.
>
> To me (native speaker) it's the total combination of consonants that
> should be different.
> So "view" and "you", or "allow" and "plow" are fine.
> But "attain" and "detain" would be a second-rate rhyme.
This would be a perfect (full, exact, true) rhyme (MW rhyme proper). One
can go the other direction and view any similarity a form of rhyming.
Hans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_rhyme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhyme
benl...@ihug.co.nz
I guess there are two different things here.
If we use "same sequence of phonemes from stressed vowel to end of
word", we have something related to the use of the word by some
phonologists. In this sense it is either/or. Words rhyme or they
don't. Nothing that comes before the stressed vowel is relevant. A
word rhymes with itself, and all the above pairs are rhymes. I don't
know whether this definition would have any use for a concept of
"imperfect" or not-quite rhyme, e.g. "bed" and "bet", or "bed" and
"bid"?
What I was applying was a criterion of artfulness in producing rhymed
verse (or song lyrics). I don't think I was taught this, but I don't
think my intuitions are completely idiosyncratic. For me a good rhyme
has to satisfy not only the above criterion but _also_ have a
different consonantism preceding the rhyming vowel. So rhyming with
the same word is a failure.A homophone (tail and tale) or an identical
final syllable (attain/retain) is second-rate.
I've never worked this out in detail, and haven't got time to do so
now, but it occurs to me that "pain" is not much good of a rhyme with
"campaign" or "champagne", even though they have an extra consonant
there -- because the /m/ is part of the preceding syllable. So maybe
the rule is that rhyming syllables should not be identical. (I didn't
bother to follow your link, so forgive me if this is all spelled out
in Wikipedia.)
Ross Clark
Peter T. Daniels
>
> I guess there are two different things here.
>
> If we use "same sequence of phonemes from stressed vowel to end of
> word", we have something related to the use of the word by some
> phonologists. In this sense it is either/or. Words rhyme or they
> don't. Nothing that comes before the stressed vowel is relevant. A
> word rhymes with itself, and all the above pairs are rhymes. I don't
> know whether this definition would have any use for a concept of
> "imperfect" or not-quite rhyme, e.g. "bed" and "bet", or "bed" and
> "bid"?
>
> What I was applying was a criterion of artfulness in producing rhymed
> verse (or song lyrics). I don't think I was taught this, but I don't
> think my intuitions are completely idiosyncratic. For me a good rhyme
> has to satisfy not only the above criterion but _also_ have a
> different consonantism preceding the rhyming vowel. So rhyming with
> the same word is a failure.A homophone (tail and tale) or an identical
> final syllable (attain/retain) is second-rate.
>
> I've never worked this out in detail, and haven't got time to do so
> now, but it occurs to me that "pain" is not much good of a rhyme with
> "campaign" or "champagne", even though they have an extra consonant
> there -- because the /m/ is part of the preceding syllable. So maybe
> the rule is that rhyming syllables should not be identical. (I didn't
> bother to follow your link, so forgive me if this is all spelled out
> in Wikipedia.)
We'll have Leontyne Price to sing a
Medley from _Meistersinger_
(Sondheim)
Florida and Cal-
Ifornia get together
In a festival
Of oranges and weather
(Gershwin)
[Or: divide it
Florida and Californ-
Ia get together
In a festival of oran-
Ges and weather]
I'll take Manhattan,
The Bronx and Staten
Island, too
[in another stanza]
And what street
Compares with Mott Street
In July
(Hammerstein, I think)
Hans Aberg
>>>>> Is there a generally accepted definition of "rhyme"? I've always considered
>>>>> that two words rhyme if their final stressed vowel and all subsequent
>>>>> phonemes are identical.
>>
>>>> For a "good" rhyme, I would also expect that the sounds immediately
>>>> before the last stressed vowel are different.
>>
>>>> For example, I believe that the English words
>>
>>>>> "crew" /kru:/ and "view" /vju:/ are rhymes, since they both have the same
>>>>> stressed vowel /u:/ and there are no subsequent phonemes.
>>
>>>>> However I have recently been in a discussion with someone who maintains that
>>>>> /u:/ and /ju:/ are different vowel sounds and so are near-rhymes rather than
>>>>> perfect rhymes. I suppose that /ju:/ could be analysed as a rising
>>>>> diphthong, but the stress is stil on the /u:/ , so I don't see how the
>>>>> presence of the /j/ affects the rhyme. Is there a definitive answer?
>>
>>>> I would even say that two /ju:/ are'nt a good rhyme, because the sound
>>>> before the /u:/ is not different. So "view" and "you" are not good
>>>> rhymes to my ear, but "blue" and "few" are. Disclaimer: My English is
>>>> far from native-speaker-level.
>>
>>> To me (native speaker) it's the total combination of consonants that
>>> should be different.
>>> So "view" and "you", or "allow" and "plow" are fine.
>>> But "attain" and "detain" would be a second-rate rhyme.
>>
>> This would be a perfect (full, exact, true) rhyme (MW rhyme proper). One
>> can go the other direction and view any similarity a form of rhyming.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_rhyme
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhyme
>
> I guess there are two different things here.
>
> If we use "same sequence of phonemes from stressed vowel to end of
> word", we have something related to the use of the word by some
> phonologists. In this sense it is either/or. Words rhyme or they
> don't. Nothing that comes before the stressed vowel is relevant. A
> word rhymes with itself, and all the above pairs are rhymes.
Yes, that is a definition...
> I don't
> know whether this definition would have any use for a concept of
> "imperfect" or not-quite rhyme, e.g. "bed" and "bet", or "bed" and
> "bid"?
(That the WP calls "oblique rhyme".)
> What I was applying was a criterion of artfulness in producing rhymed
> verse (or song lyrics). I don't think I was taught this, but I don't
> think my intuitions are completely idiosyncratic. For me a good rhyme
> has to satisfy not only the above criterion but _also_ have a
> different consonantism preceding the rhyming vowel. So rhyming with
> the same word is a failure.A homophone (tail and tale) or an identical
> final syllable (attain/retain) is second-rate.
...but as you say, it isn't artsy.
> I've never worked this out in detail, and haven't got time to do so
> now, but it occurs to me that "pain" is not much good of a rhyme with
> "campaign" or "champagne", even though they have an extra consonant
> there -- because the /m/ is part of the preceding syllable. So maybe
> the rule is that rhyming syllables should not be identical. (I didn't
> bother to follow your link, so forgive me if this is all spelled out
> in Wikipedia.)
It also applies to meaning. In Swedish, there is a concept of "nödrim",
a rhyme made out of necessity (nöd = necessity, rim = rhyme), often with
a comical effect. This page gives one example in English:
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nödrim
Adam Funk
> It also applies to meaning. In Swedish, there is a concept of "nödrim",
> a rhyme made out of necessity (nöd = necessity, rim = rhyme), often with
> a comical effect. This page gives one example in English:
> http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nödrim
Tom Lehrer did things like that, as in "Poisoning Pigeons in the Park":
When they see us coming, the birdies all try an' hide,
But they still go for peanuts when coated with cyanide
...
We'll murder them all amid laughter and merriment
Except for the few we take home to experiment
My pulse will be quickenin'
With each drop of strych(ə)nine
--
Some say the world will end in fire; some say in segfaults.
[XKCD 312]
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> Compares with Mott Street
> In July
> (Hammerstein, I think)
All of those are fine (and clever), except that I would have a
different vowel in "what" and "Mott".
I don't think any of them violate the criteria I was attempting to
formulate.
Is there a point I'm missing?
John Atkinson
In that first WP article, they say:
'[In a perfect rhyme t]he articulation that precedes the vowel sound
must differ. The letter h is not considered to be a distinct
articulation for this purpose. So "hear" and "ear" are improper rhymes,
as are "leave" and "believe"'
It's not clear whether when they say "the articulation that precedes the
vowel sound" this is restricted to the same syllable. However the
example of "leave" and "believe" as improper suggests that it is. If
so, "attain" and "detain" _aren't_ perfect, as Ross says.
Certainly my native-speaker intuition agrees with Ross's. Rhyming
"attain" and "detain" just doesn't sound right to me.
John.
James Dolan
peter t. daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
|I'll take Manhattan,
|The Bronx and Staten
|Island, too
|
|[in another stanza]
|
|And what street
|Compares with Mott Street
|In July
|(Hammerstein, I think)
this one was rodgers and hart, not rodgers and hammerstein. they're
generally pretty easy to tell apart even without hearing the words;
rodgers had pretty different styles working with the two different
lyricists.
--
Guy Barry
<benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:82a34388-c491-4722...@i35g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 7, 9:59 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> > I would even say that two /ju:/ are'nt a good rhyme, because the sound
> > before the /u:/ is not different. So "view" and "you" are not good
> > rhymes to my ear, but "blue" and "few" are. Disclaimer: My English is
> > far from native-speaker-level.
> To me (native speaker) it's the total combination of consonants that
> should be different.
> So "view" and "you", or "allow" and "plow" are fine.
> But "attain" and "detain" would be a second-rate rhyme.
I would agree with this definition.
> > (BTW, you say "phonemes" above. That brings me to the unrelated
> > question: Is it even possible that the rhyming end parts of the words
> > are equal on a phonemic level, but differ on the phonetic level?)
> This could happen if the vowel had phonetically different allophones
> conditioned by the _preceding_ consonant. I can't think of a good
> example, but it would be an interesting test of the psychological-
> reality-of-phonemes.
That's an interesting point, and I'm wondering whether those who have
difficulty accepting a rhyme between "crew" and "view" are actually using
different allophones of /u:/ - perhaps the presence of the preceding /j/
causes them to articulate the vowel further forward, so that in "view" it's
more akin to a [y:] sound than a [u:]. I've no evidence for this but it
would be interesting to test.
--
Guy Barry
António Marques
> That's an interesting point, and I'm wondering whether those who have
> difficulty accepting a rhyme between "crew" and "view" are actually using
> different allophones of /u:/ - perhaps the presence of the preceding /j/
> causes them to articulate the vowel further forward, so that in "view" it's
> more akin to a [y:] sound than a [u:]. I've no evidence for this but it
> would be interesting to test.
I think first people notice two verses rhyme and only afterwards do they
come up with technical interpretations of it. When you hear the second
verse, you'll find it echoes the first one, and it pretty much pointless to
argue that it isn't a true rhyme because yadayadayda.
Just *what* is a rhyme is language-dependent. In portuguese, 'popular poets'
are fond of rhyming -er/-Er and -eu/-Eu words, because in writing the
openness of the <e> is not distinguished, but the fact is that the're so
different that -er/-ir and -Er/-ar (ditto for the ones ending in -u) are
better pairs, rhyme-wise.
Peter T. Daniels
> in article <4ee8dd21-5c93-4255-bb98-b1ab9ee2d...@s18g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> peter t. daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> |I'll take Manhattan,
> |The Bronx and Staten
> |Island, too
> |
> |[in another stanza]
> |
> |And what street
> |Compares with Mott Street
> |In July
> |(Hammerstein, I think)
>
> this one was rodgers and hart, not rodgers and hammerstein. they're
> generally pretty easy to tell apart even without hearing the words;
> rodgers had pretty different styles working with the two different
> lyricists.
The music is not in question here.
And there's a famous newsreel of the two of them on a Staten Island
ferry doing or discussing the song -- and I don't remember one of them
being a misshapen dwarf (Larry Hart).
Peter T. Daniels
> Guy Barry wrote (08-03-2011 11:08):
>
> > That's an interesting point, and I'm wondering whether those who have
> > difficulty accepting a rhyme between "crew" and "view" are actually using
> > different allophones of /u:/ - perhaps the presence of the preceding /j/
> > causes them to articulate the vowel further forward, so that in "view" it's
> > more akin to a [y:] sound than a [u:]. I've no evidence for this but it
> > would be interesting to test.
>
> I think first people notice two verses rhyme and only afterwards do they
> come up with technical interpretations of it. When you hear the second
> verse, you'll find it echoes the first one, and it pretty much pointless to
> argue that it isn't a true rhyme because yadayadayda.
In more successful light verse, the seemingly hard-to-rhyme word comes
first, and you're delighted by what the author comes up with -- like
Ogden Nash's "... pelican, whose beak can hold more than his belly
can"; Nash usually uses couplets. But then there's Garrison Keillor's
ad from the "Ketchup Advisory Board" almost every week, in which the
pattern involves a couple of rhyming words and the joke is in the
rather improbable rhyming food on which the ketchup is poured.
> Just *what* is a rhyme is language-dependent. In portuguese, 'popular poets'
> are fond of rhyming -er/-Er and -eu/-Eu words, because in writing the
> openness of the <e> is not distinguished, but the fact is that the're so
> different that -er/-ir and -Er/-ar (ditto for the ones ending in -u) are
> better pairs, rhyme-wise.
That's called "eye rhyme" when done in English.
Hans Aberg
>> It also applies to meaning. In Swedish, there is a concept of "nödrim",
>> a rhyme made out of necessity (nöd = necessity, rim = rhyme), often with
>> a comical effect. This page gives one example in English:
>> http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nödrim
>
>
> Tom Lehrer did things like that, as in "Poisoning Pigeons in the Park":
As for alliterations, there is the Swedish folk rhyme, or what you would
want to call it,
Bagare Bengtsson bortom bergen bakar bara brända bullar
roughly
Baker Bengtsson beyond buttes bakes but burned buns
Hans Aberg
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_rhyme
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhyme
>>
> In that first WP article, they say:
>
> '[In a perfect rhyme t]he articulation that precedes the vowel sound
> must differ. The letter h is not considered to be a distinct
> articulation for this purpose. So "hear" and "ear" are improper rhymes,
> as are "leave" and "believe"'
>
> It's not clear whether when they say "the articulation that precedes the
> vowel sound" this is restricted to the same syllable. However the
> example of "leave" and "believe" as improper suggests that it is. If so,
> "attain" and "detain" _aren't_ perfect, as Ross says.
MW says that what it calls "rhyme proper" the sounds preceding the last
stressed vowel must differ, adding "as in English verse".
> Certainly my native-speaker intuition agrees with Ross's. Rhyming
> "attain" and "detain" just doesn't sound right to me.
So your intuition is about English verse, which is more restrictive, it
seems.
My intuition from Swedish ("rimma") agrees with the WP and MW, that is,
in a more general sense, also alliterations may be considered a form of
rhyming.
Peter T. Daniels
> Florida and Cal-
> Ifornia get together
> In a festival
> Of oranges and weather
> (Gershwin)
>
> [Or: divide it
>
> Florida and Californ-
> Ia get together
> In a festival of oran-
> Ges and weather]
Which I think is Ira Gershwin's attempt to show that there _is_ a
rhyme for "orange."
> I'll take Manhattan,
> The Bronx and Staten
> Island, too
Compare
I like the isle of Manhattan.
Smoke on your pipe and put that in!
(Sondheim)
Some say that Bernstein touched up Sondheim's lyrics, but in view of
the lyrics of Mass (by Bernstein himself), less than 15 years later,
that seems unlikely. When Mass was produced in 1970 it was not a
critical success, and many pointed to the fact that the only really
fine verses were "a gift of" Paul Simon:
Half of the people are drowned,
And the other half are swimming in the wrong direction.
Half of the people are stoned,
And the other half are waiting for the next election.
(Note drowned ~ stoned)
How many people these days get the point of the West Side Story line?
Who says "put that in your pipe and smoke it" any more?
Peter T. Daniels
Alliteration is still an important part of English poetry (though not
nearly so much so as in Beowulf's day) but doesn't count as "rhyme."
There's also assonance, where the same vowel recurs.
Artur Jachacy
Sounds like the Polish <miły>/<były> [mʲiwɨ]/[bɨwɨ] kind of rhymes.
A.
Hans Aberg
Not in English verse, since it apparently requires perfect rhyme. But as
for the word, not only does the WP link above indicate it, but MW also
includes it, adding a few more, including beginning and internal rhyme.
António Marques
And I've introduced an inaccuracy: -ew/-Ew are distinguished in writing, as
-eu/-éu. Doesn't stop the eyerhymers, though.
António Marques
> How many people these days get the point of the West Side Story line?
> Who says "put that in your pipe and smoke it" any more?
_Enrola e fuma_ 'Roll [it] and smoke [it]' is used in portuguese - but since
nobody rolls cigarrettes anymore, 'enrolar' is almost exclusively used for
_erva_ 'grass' ('weed'), so it's ruder than the american version (everybody
used to smoke tobacco, but not other things).
Peter T. Daniels
German thinks it's just fine to rhyme [y] and [i].
John Atkinson
> On Mar 8, 7:21 am, António Marques wrote:
>> Guy Barry wrote (08-03-2011 11:08):
>>
>>> That's an interesting point, and I'm wondering whether those who have
>>> difficulty accepting a rhyme between "crew" and "view" are actually using
>>> different allophones of /u:/ - perhaps the presence of the preceding /j/
>>> causes them to articulate the vowel further forward, so that in "view" it's
>>> more akin to a [y:] sound than a [u:]. I've no evidence for this but it
>>> would be interesting to test.
>>
>> I think first people notice two verses rhyme and only afterwards do they
>> come up with technical interpretations of it. When you hear the second
>> verse, you'll find it echoes the first one, and it pretty much pointless to
>> argue that it isn't a true rhyme because yadayadayda.
>
> In more successful light verse, the seemingly hard-to-rhyme word comes
> first, and you're delighted by what the author comes up with -- like
> Ogden Nash's "... pelican, whose beak can hold more than his belly
> can"; Nash usually uses couplets.
I think you've attributed that incorrectly. My feeling is that it was
around well before ON got hold of it (if he ever did). I heard it in my
youth, in the limerick
A wonderful bird is the pelican.
His beak will hold more than his belican.
He can take in his beak
Food enough for a week
But I'm damned if I see how the helican.
This is usually attributed to Dixon Lanier Merritt, who published it in
1910. WP says:
"The limerick, inspired by a post card sent to him [DLM] by a female
reader of his newspaper column who was visiting Florida beaches. It is
often misattributed to Ogden Nash [...]. It is quoted in a number of
scholarly works on ornithology, including "Manual of Ornithology: Avian
Structure and Function," by Noble S. Proctor and Patrick J. Lynch, and
several others."
Nash was only 7 years old at the time.
John.
Peter T. Daniels
He certainly was precocious!
Oliver Cromm
Many Germans don't have that distinction in their native dialects. But I
guess it's mostly accepted (as "unreiner Reim").
--
Bill Gates working as a waiter:
- Waiter, there's a fly in my soup
- Try again, maybe it won't be there this time
Franz Gnaedinger
> Is there a generally accepted definition of "rhyme"? I've always considered
> that two words rhyme if their final stressed vowel and all subsequent
> "crew" /kru:/ and "view" /vju:/ are rhymes, since they both have the same
> stressed vowel /u:/ and there are no subsequent phonemes.
>
> However I have recently been in a discussion with someone who maintains that
> /u:/ and /ju:/ are different vowel sounds and so are near-rhymes rather than
> perfect rhymes. I suppose that /ju:/ could be analysed as a rising
> diphthong, but the stress is stil on the /u:/ , so I don't see how the
> presence of the /j/ affects the rhyme. Is there a definitive answer?
The meaning of a word is defined by the use of the word,
and rhyme is defined by the rhymes used by true poets.
Have a look at the "skippin' reels of rhyme" by Bob Dylan
(equally free rhymes are also found in Edward de Vere
alias William Shakespeare, have a look at his sonnets):
"Mr. Tambourine Man"
Hey ! Mr Tambourine Man, play a song for me
I'm not sleepy and there is no place I'm going to
Hey ! Mr Tambourine Man, play a song for me
In the jingle jangle morning I'll come followin' you.
Though I know that evenin's empire has returned into sand
Vanished from my hand
Left me blindly here to stand but still not sleeping
My weariness amazes me, I'm branded on my feet
I have no one to meet
And the ancient empty street's too dead for dreaming.
Hey ! Mr Tambourine Man, play a song for me
I'm not sleepy and there is no place I'm going to
Hey ! Mr Tambourine Man, play a song for me
In the jingle jangle morning I'll come followin' you.
Take me on a trip upon your magic swirlin' ship
My senses have been stripped, my hands can't feel to grip
My toes too numb to step, wait only for my boot heels
To be wanderin'
I'm ready to go anywhere, I'm ready for to fade
Into my own parade, cast your dancing spell my way
I promise to go under it.
Hey ! Mr Tambourine Man, play a song for me
I'm not sleepy and there is no place I'm going to
Hey ! Mr Tambourine Man, play a song for me
In the jingle jangle morning I'll come followin' you.
Though you might hear laughin', spinnin' swingin' madly across the sun
It's not aimed at anyone, it's just escapin' on the run
And but for the sky there are no fences facin'
And if you hear vague traces of skippin' reels of rhyme
To your tambourine in time, it's just a ragged clown behind
I wouldn't pay it any mind, it's just a shadow you're
Seein' that he's chasing.
Hey ! Mr Tambourine Man, play a song for me
I'm not sleepy and there is no place I'm going to
Hey ! Mr Tambourine Man, play a song for me
In the jingle jangle morning I'll come followin' you.
Then take me disappearin' through the smoke rings of my mind
Down the foggy ruins of time, far past the frozen leaves
The haunted, frightened trees, out to the windy beach
Far from the twisted reach of crazy sorrow
Yes, to dance beneath the diamond sky with one hand waving free
Silhouetted by the sea, circled by the circus sands
With all memory and fate driven deep beneath the waves
Let me forget about today until tomorrow.
Hey ! Mr Tambourine Man, play a song for me
I'm not sleepy and there is no place I'm going to
Hey ! Mr Tambourine Man, play a song for me
In the jingle jangle morning I'll come followin' you.
Franz Gnaedinger
> The meaning of a word is defined by the use of the word,
> and rhyme is defined by the rhymes used by true poets.
> Have a look at the "skippin' reels of rhyme" by Bob Dylan
> (equally free rhymes are also found in Edward de Vere
> alias William Shakespeare, have a look at his sonnets):
There are not only the rhymes among words,
there is also the 'rhyme' between the words
and the situation they describe, here a dance
to a drumbeat, on the Witmark demo a marching
rhythm pounded on a piano. The first rhymes
and steps are carefully placed
going to / following you
sand / hand / stand
sleeping // feet / meet // dreaming
Then the lyrics gather speed
trip / magic swhirlin' ship / stripped / step / grip
wandering // fade / parade // under it
and bring abandon with the "skippin' reels of rhyme"
laughin', spinnin' swingin' sun anyone escapin' run
fences facin' vague traces / skippin' reels of rhyme
To your tambourine in time,
it's just a ragged clown behind
I wouldn't pay it any mind,
it's just a shadow you're
Seein' that he's chasing.
Then take me disappearin'
through the smoke rings of my mind
Down the foggy ruins of time,
far past the frozen leaves
The haunted, frightened trees,
out to the windy beach
Far from the twisted reach
of crazy sorrow
Yes, to dance beneath
the diamond sky
with one hand waving free
Silhouetted by the sea
circled by the circus sands
With all memory and fate
driven deep beneath the waves
Let me forget about today until tomorrow.
You have to 'hear' the song in your mind when
reading the lines. The rhymes are like the beat
of the drum, returning regularly, holding up the
dancer in his moments of abandon. Rhymes
are more than can be defined, you have to
experience them from good poems and songs.
yangg
More Irish please.
A.
Franz Gnaedinger
by Edward the Vere alias William Shakespeare
no English teacher would accept if coming from
a pupil:
1 never die / memory
15 self-same sky / memory
74 dead / remembered
77 memory / eternity
122 lasting memory / even to eternity
125 canopy / eternity
However, the half-rhymes interlock with a semantic
parallel - the person honored and immortalized
by a poem raised to the sky, as it were - and form
a perfect rhyme on a higher level
lasting memory / even to eternity
Another form of rhymes are alliterations, for example
the "sylvestran solitude" in Mark Twain's novel of
a Yankee at King Arthur's Court. Hank Morgan and
Sandy evade the heat of the fields and meadows
in summer by entering a forest and are surrounded
by sylvestran solitude - I just have to read and mouth
the two words and find myself enveloped in the memory
and sensation of a summer forest, the air pleasantly
cool and fresh, the tree trunks dark but the strong light
shining through the tender bright green leaves overhead.
A verse from one of my favorite Bob Dylan songs on the
Witmark demos and anyway, Tomorrow Is A Long Time
There's beauty in the silver-singing river
There's beauty in the sunrise in the sky
But none of these and nothing else matches the beauty
That I remember in my true love's eyes
I can imagine young Robert looking into the moving, sliding,
shining and glittering reflexes playing on the water of a river
and accompanying them on his guitar -- silver-singing river,
what a beautiful formulation!
All that really counts in poetry, and generally in art,
is the human measure, and this can't be defined,
nor transformed into a set of rules.
Franz Gnaedinger
The question about rhymes posed at the begin
of this thread inspired me to look out for a deeper
answer, and I guess I found one in the framework
of my Paleo-linguistic work, the reconstruction
of the language of Lascaux, the Ice Age language
I call Magdalenian. Here a quote of my post from
this morning in my Magdalenian thread (in sci.lang
only):
Early music and early language (3/3)
The elements of music are melodies and rhythms.
In poetry, the rhythm is given by meter and
rhyme, consider the "skipping reels of rhyme"
in the Bob Dylan song Mr. Tambourine Man,
where the rhymes accelerate the lyrics and
at the same time keep the dancer upright
in his abandon. However, the rhythmic aspect
of rhyming can't explain the entire charm and
spell of rhymes, which is made obvious by
alliterations, another form of rhyme that hardly
has a rhythmic function, "sylvestran solitude"
(Mark Twain), "There's beautiy in the silver-
singing river ..." (Bob Dylan) - insert your own
favorite examples. What makes rhymes and
alliterations so appealing? I pondered this
question for quite some time, and think that
I can propose an answer involving what I call
the verbal morphospace (a loan from evolutionary
biology) and the phonetical system in the brain
that keeps words apart and prevents the verbal
morphospace from collapsing. I found this role
and task of the phonetical system via my method
of following sound shifts over long and very long
periods of time, by pronouncing a Magdalenian
word or compound silently, over and over again,
going through all the motions of jaw and lips
and tongue, but without giving voice, not even
whispering - as long as I voice the words they
are being kept in place, but when I pronounce
them silently, they begin to shift and change ...
I developed this method almost to perfection,
allowing me to quickly check the plausibility of
a Magdalenian reconstruction. Moreover, this
method reveals the task and responsibility of
the phonetical system, upholding the verbal
morphospace and preventing it from collapsing.
Now rhymes do what the phonetical system
tries to prevent: rhymes make words collapse
in similar sounds, however, these words are
kept apart by the semantics of a poem or a song
and thus momentarily relieve the phonetical
system from the burden of it's taks, namely
to uphold and maintain and widen the verbal
morphospace, and this momentary relief is
experienced as the charm and spell of rhymes
and alliterations.