Does rhyme indicate pronunciation change?
Robert Stonehouse
>This AM as I was walking to work the sonnet which begins "Let me not to
>the marriage of true minds..." went running through my head, and when I
>reached the end a linguistic question raised itself. The final couplet
>rhymes "prov'd" with "lov'd". Now when I was a schoolboy we were taught
>that in the last couple of centuries in English poetry things rhyme if
>they are spelled similarly, and never mind about the pronunciation.
>However, I'm skeptical about this always having been the case in the
>history of English. I'm dimly aware that people infer things about
>Homeric Greek and Classical (Ciceronian) Latin pronunciation based on
>poetry which exists (of course!) only in written form. Is it possible
>to infer from this sonnet of Shakespeare that "prov'd" and "lov'd" were
>indeed pronounced with the same vowel sound in Elizabethan English. If
>not, why not? If so, how would you defend _that_ position?
It seems to be the general view that 'love' was in fact pronounced
'loove'. If you hear any records of Elizabethan songs in the
original pronunciation, that is how they do it: for example from
'Thule, the period of cosmography' the line:
'Whose hert with ferr dooth freeze, with loove dooth fry'
(whose heart with fear doth freeze, with love doth fry).
This must be based on evidence like the rhyme you quote. When there
seems to be a bad rhyme in Shakespeare, it's usually worth
considering whether the pronunciation has changed.
I have a conundrum in Pope. We know he pronounced 'tea' as 'tay':
hence (Rape of the Lock 3.7, on Hampton Court Palace)
'Here thou, great ANNA! whom three realms obey,
Dost sometimes counsel take - and sometimes Tea.'
But then how do we distinguish (Epistle to Miss Blount on her
leaving the town after the coronation)
'She went from Op'ra, park, assembly, play,
To morning-walks, and pray'rs three hours a day;
To part her time 'twixt reading and Bohea
To muse, and spill her solitary Tea,'
What is the difference in rhyme between 'play' and 'tea'? (Bohea was
a kind of tea.)
ew...@bcs.org.uk
pricer...@my-deja.com
the marriage of true minds..." went running through my head, and when I
reached the end a linguistic question raised itself. The final couplet
rhymes "prov'd" with "lov'd". Now when I was a schoolboy we were taught
that in the last couple of centuries in English poetry things rhyme if
they are spelled similarly, and never mind about the pronunciation.
However, I'm skeptical about this always having been the case in the
history of English. I'm dimly aware that people infer things about
Homeric Greek and Classical (Ciceronian) Latin pronunciation based on
poetry which exists (of course!) only in written form. Is it possible
to infer from this sonnet of Shakespeare that "prov'd" and "lov'd" were
indeed pronounced with the same vowel sound in Elizabethan English. If
not, why not? If so, how would you defend _that_ position?
George, emulating Chaucer's clerk of Oxenford
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Greg Reynolds
pricer...@my-deja.com wrote:
Looking forward to the answer(s), but here's my guess. Its best to
pronounce the words correctly and ignore the rhyme. In As You Like It the
other night (1936) the poems in the forest by Orlando frequently rhyme
'Rosalind,' and then of course, Touchstone mocks the poems with his own
versions. Well, to mispronounce Rosalind to rhyme with kind/mind etc., is
distracting and foolish. What's more important? --the word or the rhyme? I
like it best to ignore that the words' rhyme, and give them their real
sound. Your example of prove/love is an excellent study. Both "pruv" and
"loove" would get me crazy, and I'd think the speaker did not respect the
words.
Another pet peeve is when people say IMplode to differentiate from exPLODE.
Its as if they are unfamiliar with the word (and there's another example I
can't think of right now). I think it was sports like football that brought
in the pronunciation "DEfense" but think how stupid it would sound to say
"the Department of DEfense" or the DEfense Department." To mispronounce a
word for the sake of anything (even presumed clarity) is wrong for me.
Hope someone provides the definitive answer.
Greg Reynolds
Nigel Davies
> In article <8pnsr8$dt7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ndavie...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > There is also the principle of the eye-rhyme to bear in mind. A poem
> > has an ear-rhyme when the words rhyme in sound; it has an eye-rhyme
> > when the words rhyme in spelling but not necessarily sound.
>
> But that's just my point: has this "principle of eye-rhyme" always been
> around since Beowulf and The Battle of Maldon, or was it an innovation
> at some point in the history of the English language, and if so, when?
> Before or after Shakespeare's time?
>
> After all, if you go far enough back (to the Homeric bards and beyond),
> "eye-rhyme" was simply impossible, because writing hadn't been invented
> (and for some time after the invention of writing literacy was not
> widespread... nor the habit of silent reading. One of the things about
> Ambrose of Milan, St. Augustine's teacher, that impressed people was his
> habit of reading NOT out loud).
I can't vouch for when the technique was first introduced but some uses appear
to be blatantly dependent on
sight rather than sound, e.g. "daughter" and "laughter".
______________________________________________________________________
Nigel....@BTInternet.com
Ian Stapleton
used rhyme. The standard poetic devices were alliteration, and simile. This
would Include Beowulf. It's certainly true of the Mystery plays 'Tak tent
tis truth I tell to thee'.
Ian
Nigel Davies <Nigel....@BTInternet.com> wrote in message
news:39BFC768...@BTInternet.com...
pricer...@my-deja.com
"Ian Stapleton" <swor...@freenetname.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't have the source with me, but I think Old English poetry hardly
ever
> used rhyme. The standard poetic devices were alliteration, and simile.
This
> would Include Beowulf. It's certainly true of the Mystery plays 'Tak
tent
> tis truth I tell to thee'.
But Chaucer certainly did... and some of the poets represented in
Britten's Ceremony of Carols, as I recall, although I can't dredge up a
really good example from memory. That's Middle English, not Old
English, of course.
George
pricer...@my-deja.com
ew...@bcs.org.uk (Robert Stonehouse) wrote:
> But then how do we distinguish (Epistle to Miss Blount on her
> leaving the town after the coronation)
> 'She went from Op'ra, park, assembly, play,
> To morning-walks, and pray'rs three hours a day;
> To part her time 'twixt reading and Bohea
> To muse, and spill her solitary Tea,'
> What is the difference in rhyme between 'play' and 'tea'? (Bohea was
> a kind of tea.)
What comes into my head is reading Pope in Strine... where there _would_
be a pronounced difference, I think! ;-) This puts me in mind of a
lecture I heard John Wells give at Simon Frasier University in Vancouver
in 1984, whose thesis as I recall was that London speech is unusually
influential on English pronunciation worldwide. Australian shows some
clear debt to Cockney.
Where did Pope grow up? I don't recall.
George "Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring" Partlow, in rainy
Southeast Alaska
pricer...@my-deja.com
London from his birth until he was twelve in 1700 when his family
moved. So I wonder how _he_ pronounced things in everyday speech. Has
Sir Michael Caine ever done a recitation of Pope?
George
Robert Stonehouse
>According to <http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/apope.htm>, Pope lived in
>London from his birth until he was twelve in 1700 when his family
>moved. So I wonder how _he_ pronounced things in everyday speech. Has
>Sir Michael Caine ever done a recitation of Pope?
Yes, his father was a London tailor. But The Rape of The Lock is a
court poem - I would suppose we have to think of court pronunciation
for all his works, and Cockney is the last thing that would go down
well there.
If I have it right, you suggest 'play' would be pronounced more like
'eye', while 'tea' would be pronounced 'tay'? It sounds plausible.
Then we can get round it, when reading the poems, by using both
modern pronunciations in the Epistle, while keeping 'tay' for The
Rape where it can't be done without..
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Robert Stonehouse
>I don't have the source with me, but I think Old English poetry hardly ever
>used rhyme. The standard poetic devices were alliteration, and simile. This
>would Include Beowulf. It's certainly true of the Mystery plays 'Tak tent
>tis truth I tell to thee'.
Right about Beowulf, but the Mystery Plays (Middle English) used
both. Herod's messenger, opening the Wakefield Magnus Herodes:
'Moste myghty Mahowne meng you with myrth!
Both of burgh and of towne, by fellys and by fyrth,
Both kyng with crowne and barons of brith,
That radly wyll rowne, many great grith
Shall behapp.
Take tenderly intent
Whar sondys ar sent,
Els harmes shall ye hent,
And lothes you to lap.'
>Nigel Davies <Nigel....@BTInternet.com> wrote in message
>news:39BFC768...@BTInternet.com...
>> pricer...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> > In article <8pnsr8$dt7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> > ndavie...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >
>> > > There is also the principle of the eye-rhyme to bear in mind. A poem
>> > > has an ear-rhyme when the words rhyme in sound; it has an eye-rhyme
>> > > when the words rhyme in spelling but not necessarily sound.
>> >
>> > But that's just my point: has this "principle of eye-rhyme" always been
>> > around since Beowulf and The Battle of Maldon, or was it an innovation
>> > at some point in the history of the English language, and if so, when?
>> > Before or after Shakespeare's time?
>> >
>> > After all, if you go far enough back (to the Homeric bards and beyond),
>> > "eye-rhyme" was simply impossible, because writing hadn't been invented
>> > (and for some time after the invention of writing literacy was not
>> > widespread... nor the habit of silent reading. One of the things about
>> > Ambrose of Milan, St. Augustine's teacher, that impressed people was his
>> > habit of reading NOT out loud).
>>
>> I can't vouch for when the technique was first introduced but some uses
>appear
>> to be blatantly dependent on
>> sight rather than sound, e.g. "daughter" and "laughter".
But 'dafter' is a known pronunciation. Onions' etymological
dictionary says it is early modern English and dialect.
Does this principle of eye-rhyme really exist? Or did it exist
before poets, reading their predecessors without knowing the old
pronunciation, thought they were entitled to do it? That would
hardly be before the age of Chatterton.
And if it does exist, should it? Is it anything but an excuse for
bad rhyming? Any poem, surely, ought to be capable of being read
aloud. George Herbert's Altar, or Wings, may be laid out on the page
for the eye, so creating an effect that cannot be conveyed when
reading the poem aloud. But that does not actually obstruct reading
aloud as 'eye-rhymes' do.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Ian Stapleton
<pricer...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8pmial$uj3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
This is tangential to your specific example, but it is often worth
remembering that the accent has a big effect on the sound of a rhyme. I
have heard (though I have no evidence) that Renaissance English was not
dissimilar to the modern Barnsley(UK) accent. Try and get a native Barnsley
speaker to read some text to you and it sounds very different to the RP of
the BBC versions. In Barnsley the Thee and Thou are still used quite
unselfconsciously, as is the glottal stop which is often represented by an
apostrophe.
This doesn't help in your example, I've tried it. Is it possible that the
Sonnets were written to be read, rather than performed. That would make the
symmetry more sensible, with the 'd spelling being a printing convention to
preserve those valuable letter 'e's.
Ian
--
'A Bed thrust out, Enter Lady the old Lord, Some other lady and Aliens.' -
The Two Merry Milkmaids - 1620
Visit my website -http://www.lordflame.co.uk
ndavie...@my-deja.com
There is also the principle of the eye-rhyme to bear in mind. A poem
has an ear-rhyme when the words rhyme in sound; it has an eye-rhyme
when the words rhyme in spelling but not necessarily sound.
pricer...@my-deja.com
> There is also the principle of the eye-rhyme to bear in mind. A poem
> has an ear-rhyme when the words rhyme in sound; it has an eye-rhyme
> when the words rhyme in spelling but not necessarily sound.
But that's just my point: has this "principle of eye-rhyme" always been
around since Beowulf and The Battle of Maldon, or was it an innovation
at some point in the history of the English language, and if so, when?
Before or after Shakespeare's time?
After all, if you go far enough back (to the Homeric bards and beyond),
"eye-rhyme" was simply impossible, because writing hadn't been invented
(and for some time after the invention of writing literacy was not
widespread... nor the habit of silent reading. One of the things about
Ambrose of Milan, St. Augustine's teacher, that impressed people was his
habit of reading NOT out loud).
George
faber...@my-deja.com
at the end of the words. Reading aloud using the correct
pronounciation works just fine. If the d's were not there however, and
you just had prove and love, you would have a different situation (and
since that is an entirely hypothetical situation... the d's are
there... I'm not going to worry about that.)
In the case of the "As You Like It" rhymes, the forced, mangled
pronounciation is a must. It emphasises, as Touchstone clearly
intends, that Orlando is no poet. And further, it should get
Touchstone a laugh. And it is a comedy!
Tim
In article <8pndlu$hma$1...@gxsn.com>,
Greg Reynolds
faber...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Prov'd and lov'd are close enough because of the double consanant sound
> at the end of the words. Reading aloud using the correct
> pronounciation works just fine. If the d's were not there however, and
> you just had prove and love, you would have a different situation (and
> since that is an entirely hypothetical situation... the d's are
> there... I'm not going to worry about that.)
Escape artist!
> In the case of the "As You Like It" rhymes, the forced, mangled
> pronounciation is a must. It emphasises, as Touchstone clearly
> intends, that Orlando is no poet.
NO poet?
Thanks, Tim, but let's see for ourselves..
簚€�€喊`昂€�父,鴢喊`昂€鴢喊`昂€�父,鴢喊`昂
...squiggly effect into flashback...
€€喊`昂€€喊`昂€�父鴢喊`昂€�� ...squiggle the Arden Forest...
€喊`昂€鴢喊`昂€�父...喊
CORIN
Here comes young Master Ganymede, my new mistress's brother.
Enter ROSALIND, with a paper, reading
ROSALIND
From the east to western Ind,
No jewel is like Rosalind.
Her worth, being mounted on the wind,
Through all the world bears Rosalind.
All the pictures fairest lined
Are but black to Rosalind.
Let no fair be kept in mind
But the fair of Rosalind.
TOUCHSTONE
I'll rhyme you so eight years together, dinners and
suppers and sleeping-hours excepted: it is the
right butter-women's rank to market.
ROSALIND
Out, fool!
TOUCHSTONE
For a taste:
If a hart do lack a hind,
Let him seek out Rosalind.
If the cat will after kind,
So be sure will Rosalind.
Winter garments must be lined,
So must slender Rosalind.
They that reap must sheaf and bind;
Then to cart with Rosalind.
Sweetest nut hath sourest rind,
Such a nut is Rosalind.
He that sweetest rose will find
Must find love's prick and Rosalind.
This is the very false gallop of verses: why do you
infect yourself with them?
ROSALIND
Peace, you dull fool! I found them on a tree.
<>
Enter CELIA, with a writing
ROSALIND
Peace! Here comes my sister, reading: stand aside.
CELIA
[Reads]
Why should this a desert be?
For it is unpeopled? No:
Tongues I'll hang on every tree,
That shall civil sayings show:
Some, how brief the life of man
Runs his erring pilgrimage,
That the stretching of a span
Buckles in his sum of age;
Some, of violated vows
'Twixt the souls of friend and friend:
But upon the fairest boughs,
Or at every sentence end,
Will I Rosalinda write,
Teaching all that read to know
The quintessence of every sprite
Heaven would in little show.
Therefore Heaven Nature charged
That one body should be fill'd
With all graces wide-enlarged:
Nature presently distill'd
Helen's cheek, but not her heart,
Cleopatra's majesty,
Atalanta's better part,
Sad Lucretia's modesty.
Thus Rosalind of many parts
By heavenly synod was devised,
Of many faces, eyes and hearts,
To have the touches dearest prized.
Heaven would that she these gifts should have,
And I to live and die her slave.
+ + +
> And further, it should get
> Touchstone a laugh. And it is a comedy!
>
> Tim
Epilogue:
1. Orlando is a good poet who gets better!
2. Touchstone is showing how 'foolish' it is to mispronounce.
Greg Reynolds
Libyad817
Great discussion. But let's say I was a Marlovian actor in 1590, what might my
accent have been? Standard British as we think of today?
Dafyd
Nigel Davies
> "Ian Stapleton" <swor...@freenetname.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I don't have the source with me, but I think Old English poetry hardly ever
> >used rhyme. The standard poetic devices were alliteration, and simile. This
> >would Include Beowulf. It's certainly true of the Mystery plays 'Tak tent
> >tis truth I tell to thee'.
> Right about Beowulf, but the Mystery Plays (Middle English) used
> both. Herod's messenger, opening the Wakefield Magnus Herodes:
>
> 'Moste myghty Mahowne meng you with myrth!
> Both of burgh and of towne, by fellys and by fyrth,
> Both kyng with crowne and barons of brith,
> That radly wyll rowne, many great grith
> Shall behapp.
> Take tenderly intent
> Whar sondys ar sent,
> Els harmes shall ye hent,
> And lothes you to lap.'
>
> >Nigel Davies <Nigel....@BTInternet.com> wrote in message
> >news:39BFC768...@BTInternet.com...
> >> pricer...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >appear
> >> to be blatantly dependent on
> >> sight rather than sound, e.g. "daughter" and "laughter".
>
> But 'dafter' is a known pronunciation. Onions' etymological
> dictionary says it is early modern English and dialect.
Really? I wasn't aware of that.
> Does this principle of eye-rhyme really exist? Or did it exist
> before poets, reading their predecessors without knowing the old
> pronunciation, thought they were entitled to do it? That would
> hardly be before the age of Chatterton.
The term is well documented in Encyclopedia Britannica, all my dictionaries,
etc. Wilfred Owen is identified as a systematic user of the technique, e.g.
eye-rhyming "grand" with "grind". Emily Dickinson goes to the one-letter
eye-rhyme limit with "away" and "fly".
In some respects I think it adds value: it can break the dum-de-dum
predictability that can put a poem on the verge of becoming a nursery rhyme. I
also think it a perfectly logical development for these master wordsmiths. If
you ear-rhyme "men" with "again", why not eye-rhyme "love" with "prove" to
provide an inexact rhyme but one that is in acceptable proximity?
> And if it does exist, should it? Is it anything but an excuse for
> bad rhyming? Any poem, surely, ought to be capable of being read
> aloud.
Is this not an old oral tradition though? Reading verse aloud, e.g. via bards
and minstrels, has progressively diminished. Poetry has become more of a text to
be read more than necessarily read aloud and provided the opportunity to
increase in the incidence of eye-rhymes. After all, there are so many types of
rhymes.
> George Herbert's Altar, or Wings, may be laid out on the page
> for the eye, so creating an effect that cannot be conveyed when
> reading the poem aloud. But that does not actually obstruct reading
> aloud as 'eye-rhymes' do.
______________________________________________________________________
Nigel....@BTInternet.com
JHB
Robert Stonehouse <ew...@bcs.org.uk> wrote in message
news:39bdc3a7...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
> pricer...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >This AM as I was walking to work the sonnet which begins "Let me not to
> >the marriage of true minds..." went running through my head, and when I
> >reached the end a linguistic question raised itself. The final couplet
> >rhymes "prov'd" with "lov'd". Now when I was a schoolboy we were taught
> >that in the last couple of centuries in English poetry things rhyme if
> >they are spelled similarly, and never mind about the pronunciation.
> >However, I'm skeptical about this always having been the case in the
> >history of English. I'm dimly aware that people infer things about
> >Homeric Greek and Classical (Ciceronian) Latin pronunciation based on
> >poetry which exists (of course!) only in written form. Is it possible
> >to infer from this sonnet of Shakespeare that "prov'd" and "lov'd" were
> >indeed pronounced with the same vowel sound in Elizabethan English. If
> >not, why not? If so, how would you defend _that_ position?
>
> 'loove'. If you hear any records of Elizabethan songs in the
> original pronunciation, that is how they do it: for example from
> 'Thule, the period of cosmography' the line:
> 'Whose hert with ferr dooth freeze, with loove dooth fry'
> (whose heart with fear doth freeze, with love doth fry).
>
> This must be based on evidence like the rhyme you quote. When there
> seems to be a bad rhyme in Shakespeare, it's usually worth
> considering whether the pronunciation has changed.
>
> I have a conundrum in Pope. We know he pronounced 'tea' as 'tay':
> hence (Rape of the Lock 3.7, on Hampton Court Palace)
> 'Here thou, great ANNA! whom three realms obey,
> Dost sometimes counsel take - and sometimes Tea.'
>
> leaving the town after the coronation)
> 'She went from Op'ra, park, assembly, play,
> To morning-walks, and pray'rs three hours a day;
> To part her time 'twixt reading and Bohea
> To muse, and spill her solitary Tea,'
> What is the difference in rhyme between 'play' and 'tea'? (Bohea was
> a kind of tea.)
Ive got to this thread rather late, but Ive been away [Yes! I have been
working! Yay!] .. apologies for continuing the off-Shakespeare topic ...
In my solo show of the Rape of the Lock I have been very exercised as to how
to pronounce the archaisms which abound in it.
The 'obey/tea' has been a terrific problem ... I find few audiences
understand if I say 'tay' so the joke is lost, and if I say 'tee' the rhyme
doesn't work, so again the joke is lost ... I have elected to compromise and
make a kind of compound vowel 'whom three realms obey-ee/... and sometimes
tay-ee' ... an imperfect solution, but it gets a laugh (I hope not for the
wrong reasons!). If I was playing it Scots or Irish there would be no
problem ...
When I was investigating the background for this show I found many pre-world
war II commentators remarked that Pope's attitude to rhyme was 'cavalier',
but when I checked his rhymes against my researches into 17th/18th century
pronunciation I found the rhymes were ALL exact (off the top of my head I
cant think of any that are mis-aligned) ... however, apart from the
'obey/tea' difficulty already mentioned I have elected to use only the
slightest sprinkling of archaic pronunciation because modern audiences find
it too difficult.
I have occasionally (when requested) given demonstrations of passages of The
Rape in as near an authentic pronunciation as I can muster, but it would be
a sterile undertaking to present the whole thing as a show to a modern
audience composed of non-academics. Purists of course object that I am not
giving TAY its full value, but I have to find some sort of vocal consistency
in the context of performing as Martin Scriblerus, and frankly I want the
MAJORITY of the audience to understand it, and get the JOKES.
I think the incidence of 'eye-rhymes' in our literary heritage is much less
than academics would have us believe, whenever I come across them I check
them against what I have learned about archaic pronunciation, and usually
find the spoken rhyme is exact.
With regard to 'play/day' my researches indicate that Pope would have
probably have pronounced it as an obvious diphthong resembling the French
word for garlic 'ail'. At that time English speech was marked by a
tremendous muscularity, both labial and lingual (even greater in
Shakespeare's day, and greater still in Chaucer's). The trend in English
pronunciation seems to be a progression towards muscular laziness, for good
or ill.
Another conundrum: -- When asked should 'wind' should be pronounced 'winned'
or 'wined' Dr Johnson replied: "I cannot find it in my mind to call it wind"
... which did he mean?
JHB [more info @ http://www.geocities.com/scriblerus_uk/index.html ]
faber...@my-deja.com
pointed out-- he is a fool. Therefore, he should use the forced rhyme!
Tim
In article <39C08504...@megsinet.net>,
Greg Reynolds <eve...@megsinet.net> wrote:
>
>
> faber...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Prov'd and lov'd are close enough because of the double consanant
sound
> > at the end of the words. Reading aloud using the correct
> > pronounciation works just fine. If the d's were not there however,
and
> > you just had prove and love, you would have a different situation
(and
> > since that is an entirely hypothetical situation... the d's are
> > there... I'm not going to worry about that.)
>
> Escape artist!
>
> > In the case of the "As You Like It" rhymes, the forced, mangled
> > pronounciation is a must. It emphasises, as Touchstone clearly
> > intends, that Orlando is no poet.
>
> > And further, it should get
> > Touchstone a laugh. And it is a comedy!
> >
> > Tim
>
> Epilogue:
> 1. Orlando is a good poet who gets better!
> 2. Touchstone is showing how 'foolish' it is to mispronounce.
>
> Greg Reynolds
>
>
faber...@my-deja.com
> > NO poet?
> > Thanks, Tim, but let's see for ourselves..
> >
> > 簚€�> > €喊`昂€�父,鴢喊`昂€鴢喊`昂€�父,鴢喊`昂
> > ...squiggly effect into flashback...
> > €€喊`昂€€喊`昂€�父鴢喊`昂€��> > ...squiggle the Arden Forest...
> > €喊`昂€鴢喊`昂€�父...喊
> >
> > CORIN
> > Here comes young Master Ganymede, my new mistress's
> brother.
> >
> > Enter ROSALIND, with a paper, reading
> >
> > ROSALIND
> > From the east to western Ind,
> > No jewel is like Rosalind.
> > Her worth, being mounted on the wind,
> > Through all the world bears Rosalind.
> > All the pictures fairest lined
> > Are but black to Rosalind.
> > Let no fair be kept in mind
> > But the fair of Rosalind.
> >
Not a very imaginative rhyming scheme.
> > TOUCHSTONE
> > I'll rhyme you so eight years together, dinners and
> > suppers and sleeping-hours excepted: it is the
> > right butter-women's rank to market.
> >
> > ROSALIND
> > Out, fool!
> >
> > TOUCHSTONE
> > For a taste:
> > If a hart do lack a hind,
> > Let him seek out Rosalind.
> > If the cat will after kind,
> > So be sure will Rosalind.
> > Winter garments must be lined,
> > So must slender Rosalind.
> > They that reap must sheaf and bind;
> > Then to cart with Rosalind.
> > Sweetest nut hath sourest rind,
> > Such a nut is Rosalind.
> > He that sweetest rose will find
> > Must find love's prick and Rosalind.
> >
Still pretty lacklustre.
This is the very false gallop of verses: why do you
> > infect yourself with them?
He seems pretty unimpressed to me.
Okay, this is a LITTLE bit better. But ABABCDCD is not much better
than AAAAAA
> > + + +
> >
> > > And further, it should get
> > > Touchstone a laugh. And it is a comedy!
> > >
> > > Tim
> >
> > Epilogue:
> > 1. Orlando is a good poet who gets better!
Of course he gets better. From the bottom (oops, wrong show) you can
only go up.
pricer...@my-deja.com
"JHB" <jaybe...@devon30.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> At that time English speech was marked by a
> tremendous muscularity, both labial and lingual (even greater in
> Shakespeare's day, and greater still in Chaucer's). The trend in
English
> pronunciation seems to be a progression towards muscular laziness,
for good
> or ill.
Despite your disclaimer, this is certainly on-topic WRT my original
question. I'm new here; what's your background, other than the stage?
Can you go into a little more detail as to what sort of research into
older speech you've done? Sources? (WWW would be nice, but not
necessary: I have access to the University of Alaska library, among
other things).
>
> Another conundrum: -- When asked should 'wind' should be pronounced
'winned'
> or 'wined' Dr Johnson replied: "I cannot find it in my mind to call it
wind"
> ... which did he mean?
Specific citation? (I suppose I ought to be grateful for an excuse to
re-read all of Boswell's _Life_, but I don't really have the time just
now! ;-) )
George, at that time "When yellow leaves, or none, or few do hang Upon
the bough which shakes against the cold..."
pricer...@my-deja.com
Libyad817
>let's say I was a Marlovian actor in 1590, what
>might my
>> accent have been? Standard British as we think of today?
>
>Not if you were playing Owen Glendower... ;-)
Anwyl,
If it's derived from the Pedeir Keinc y Mabonogi, like King Llyr?
Dafyd
Suzanne
>Great discussion. But let's say I was a Marlovian actor in 1590, what might my
>accent have been? Standard British as we think of today?
>
>Dafyd
One of the Playing Shakespeare episodes (originally BBC, but now on
videotape), probably the first one, Speaking Verse, talks about this.
Scholars argue, but supposedly the best guesses are that it's not much
like contemporary British English. "More dipthongs and richer vowels"
is, I believe, the way they put it. John Barton gives us a bit of
Henry V in his best approximation of an Elizabethan accent. It's
worth a listen, both for that and other stuff; my favorite part was
David Suchet reading "When my love swears that she is made of truth/I
do believe her though I know she lies..."
Another thing they said, which I've also heard any number of other
places, is that Americans are probably closer in sound to the
Elizabethans than contemporary English are.
Suzanne
_____________________________________________________________
Eavesdropping, list-making, misanthropic, paranoid insomniacs
do things right if they're let alone, but the strain of
pretending to like people will destroy them every time.
(Florence King)
Libyad817
>Another thing they said, which I've also heard any number of other
>places, is that Americans are probably closer in sound to the
>Elizabethans than contemporary English are.
Great point Suzanne, thanks. But would that mean a New England accent with soft
Rs, or harder midwestern Rs? what does that mean, there are so many American
accents?
Should Othello have a Moorish accent? Did the Marlovian actors of the time try
to do Moorish accents at the time, Tamburlaine with Persian, Petruchio and
Kate, etc? The Athenians of MND, the Trojans of Dido [Libyan, for that
matter?]?
>>Great discussion. But let's say I was a Marlovian actor in 1590, what might
>my
>>accent have been? Standard British as we think of today?
>>
>>Dafyd
>One of the Playing Shakespeare episodes (originally BBC, but now on
>videotape), probably the first one, Speaking Verse, talks about this.
<snip>
Suzanne
>>(Suzanne) wrote,
>
>>Another thing they said, which I've also heard any number of other
>>places, is that Americans are probably closer in sound to the
>>Elizabethans than contemporary English are.
>
>Great point Suzanne, thanks. But would that mean a New England accent with soft
>Rs, or harder midwestern Rs? what does that mean, there are so many American
>accents?
I am well aware there are many American accents. Which of those
accents Elizabethans are supposed to have sounded like, I don't know;
decades ago, there was an urban legend of sorts about pockets of
Appalachians who spoke pure Elizabethan English, but I'm sure that
notion has been discredited--if anyone ever took it seriously to start
with. I suggest asking your question on alt.usage.english; it's been
years since I've looked in there, but if memory serves, there were
some pretty knowledgeable people on that newsgroup.
>Should Othello have a Moorish accent? Did the Marlovian actors of the time try
>to do Moorish accents at the time, Tamburlaine with Persian, Petruchio and
>Kate, etc? The Athenians of MND, the Trojans of Dido [Libyan, for that
>matter?]?
I know squat about theatrical history; some of the more knowledgeable
people here will have to help you. The Story of English (a companion
book to a PBS television series of the same name) talks about some
differences in the way various Elizabethan Englishmen talked in the
chapter "A Muse of Fire". But for acting conventions of the time, I
don't know.
pricer...@my-deja.com
liby...@aol.com (Libyad817) wrote:
> >From: pricerbumanto
>
> >let's say I was a Marlovian actor in 1590, what
> >might my
> >> accent have been? Standard British as we think of today?
> >
>
> Anwyl,
> If it's derived from the Pedeir Keinc y Mabonogi, like King Llyr?
>
> Dafyd
I can't resist calling attention to
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/wales/newsid_926000/926973.stm>,
which I just stumbled on by chance.
One of my favorite comic turns is the scene in Henry IV Pt 1 where
Glendower says "I can call spirits from the vasty deep...". Probably
unfair S. having fun at G's expense, but enjoyable nonetheless.
George
Nigel Davies
I seem to recall that the book "The Story of English" suggests that the accents
of people living in the Raleigh area of Virginia today still retain the accents
of the first settlers there so best reflect the likely accent of Elizabethan
England.
______________________________________________________________________
Nigel....@BTInternet.com
Al Cunniff
of people in remote areas of the Appalachians whose
English accent is close to what may have been spoken
in Shakespeare's day.
Kinda makes sense, since British folks settled those
areas, and there are sections, in the mountains especially,
that remain relatively remote.
-Al
Peter Zenner
>Should Othello have a Moorish accent? Did the Marlovian actors of the time try
>to do Moorish accents at the time, Tamburlaine with Persian, Petruchio and
>Kate, etc? The Athenians of MND, the Trojans of Dido [Libyan, for that
>matter?]?
I don't know about the rest of them, David, but the man known
as 'Shakespeare' would have had quite a strong Lancashire
accent :-)
Mind you, he only played small parts; he was too busy doing
the menial tasks backstage...
Peter Zenner
+44 (0) 1246 271726
Visit my web site 'Zenigmas' at
http://www.pzenner.freeserve.co.uk
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <39c415e7....@news.netdoor.com>, Suzanne
<finnega...@netdoor.com> wrote:
> On 16 Sep 2000 19:56:31 GMT, liby...@aol.com (Libyad817) wrote:
>
> >>(Suzanne) wrote,
> >
> >>Another thing they said, which I've also heard any number of other
> >>places, is that Americans are probably closer in sound to the
> >>Elizabethans than contemporary English are.
> >Great point Suzanne, thanks. But would that mean a New England accent with
> >soft
> >Rs, or harder midwestern Rs? what does that mean, there are so many American
> >accents?
> I am well aware there are many American accents. Which of those
> accents Elizabethans are supposed to have sounded like, I don't know;
> decades ago, there was an urban legend of sorts about pockets of
> Appalachians who spoke pure Elizabethan English, but I'm sure that
> notion has been discredited--if anyone ever took it seriously to start
> with. I suggest asking your question on alt.usage.english; it's been
> years since I've looked in there, but if memory serves, there were
> some pretty knowledgeable people on that newsgroup.
There is a minuscule kernel of truth to the urban legend. Because
of the isolation of the southern highlands and the linguistic
conservatism that often accompanies small, isolated groups of speakers,
regional speech in parts of the southern Appalachians (e.g., along the
Tennessee-North Carolina border and in southwest Virginia) preserves
some interesting features of Early Modern and even Middle English; for
instance, the aspirated pronunciation "hit" of the pronoun "it" was
regularly heard in the more remote mountain hollows when I was growing
up there. Many of these features, though, are probably attributable
mostly to the fact that the area was heavily settled by immigrants from
Scotland and the north of England; thus southern Appalachian speech
probably preserves more faithfully some dialectal feautures of older
northern speech than it does those of "pure Elizabethan English" --
which was probably not so pure in the first place, as there were almost
surely wide regional and class dialectal variations.
Modern communications technology (satellite dishes, etc.) is
probably homogenizing most of the interesting dialectal anomalies of
the southern Appalachians out of existence, but one used to hear, for
instance, the second-person plural pronoun "you-uns" (this is distinct
from the widepsread southern form "y'all") frequently, as well as rarer
variants such as the improbable possessive form "yourunses." (These
are more recent dialectal features, not survivals of older speech.) I
recall reading an interesting chapter years ago on this curious
regional dialect in _Dialect Clash in America: Issues and Answers_ by
Brandes and Brewer. For an unscholarly but entertaining account, see
also Horace Kephart's _Our Southern Highlanders_.
David Webb
Suzanne
<David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> There is a minuscule kernel of truth to the urban legend. Because
>of the isolation of the southern highlands and the linguistic
>conservatism that often accompanies small, isolated groups of speakers,
>regional speech in parts of the southern Appalachians (e.g., along the
>Tennessee-North Carolina border and in southwest Virginia) preserves
>some interesting features of Early Modern and even Middle English; for
>instance, the aspirated pronunciation "hit" of the pronoun "it" was
>regularly heard in the more remote mountain hollows when I was growing
>up there. Many of these features, though, are probably attributable
>mostly to the fact that the area was heavily settled by immigrants from
>Scotland and the north of England; thus southern Appalachian speech
>probably preserves more faithfully some dialectal feautures of older
>northern speech
This is pretty much what I have gathered.
> than it does those of "pure Elizabethan English" --
>which was probably not so pure in the first place, as there were almost
>surely wide regional and class dialectal variations.
Expecting an entire country to have the same accent ranks right up
there with thinking that anyone who speaks with a particular accent
must be mentally deficient.
> Modern communications technology (satellite dishes, etc.) is
>probably homogenizing most of the interesting dialectal anomalies of
>the southern Appalachians out of existence,
[snip]
It's homogenizing more than dialects. We're losing regional food and
customs as well. Everyone is supposed to sound like, live like, and
look like people in sitcoms. Otherwise we're not *real*. We're
backward hicks.
Stephanie Caruana
All is not lost, apparently. There is, after all, "White Trash Cooking" and
"
Sinkin' Spells, Hot Flashes, Fits and Cravins," both by Ernest Mickler, put
together with some help from the Jargon Society in Highlands, NC. Both
celebrate the sights, sounds, smells and above all tastes, as well as social
habits, of a vast area of the U.S. from North Carolina to Florida, with a
tremendous appeal to "white trash" or "white trash wannabees" everywhere.
Stephanie
"Suzanne" <finnega...@netdoor.com> wrote in message
news:39c509f3....@news.netdoor.com...
Henk Lensen
>
> This AM as I was walking to work the sonnet which begins "Let me not to
> the marriage of true minds..." went running through my head, and when I
> reached the end a linguistic question raised itself. The final couplet
> rhymes "prov'd" with "lov'd". Now when I was a schoolboy we were taught
> that in the last couple of centuries in English poetry things rhyme if
> they are spelled similarly, and never mind about the pronunciation.
> However, I'm skeptical about this always having been the case in the
> history of English. I'm dimly aware that people infer things about
> Homeric Greek and Classical (Ciceronian) Latin pronunciation based on
> poetry which exists (of course!) only in written form. Is it possible
> to infer from this sonnet of Shakespeare that "prov'd" and "lov'd" were
> indeed pronounced with the same vowel sound in Elizabethan English. If
> not, why not? If so, how would you defend _that_ position?
I do not think one could infer this from only one such occurrence.
However, there is corroborating evidence: the 16th century spelling
reformer John Hart in his book An Orthographie (1569) has the forms
"luv" and "pruv" (in both cases with a dot under the u). It is clear
that in his pronunciation the words had the same vowel sound. From his
description of the way "u" is pronounced, it appears that "prove" was
pronounced very much like it is today, so it is the vowel sound of
"love" which has changed in the past centuries.
Henk Lensen
--
Voor - for - pour - für
poëzie - poetry - de la poésie - Lyrik
bezoek - visit - visitez - besuchen Sie
Words, words, words:
http://people.zeelandnet.nl/henklensen
pricer...@my-deja.com
Henk Lensen <henkl...@zeelandnet.nl> wrote:
> I do not think one could infer this from only one such occurrence.
> However, there is corroborating evidence: the 16th century spelling
> reformer John Hart in his book An Orthographie (1569) has the forms
> "luv" and "pruv" (in both cases with a dot under the u). It is clear
> that in his pronunciation the words had the same vowel sound. From his
> description of the way "u" is pronounced, it appears that "prove" was
> pronounced very much like it is today, so it is the vowel sound of
> "love" which has changed in the past centuries.
Dank U zehr! This is exactly the sort of scholarly material I was
hoping for.
pricer...@my-deja.com
"Peter Zenner" <pe...@pzenner.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't know about the rest of them, David, but the man known
> as 'Shakespeare' would have had quite a strong Lancashire
> accent :-)
Lancashire???? Ummmmm.... you mean Stratford hasn't always been in
Warwickshire?
George Partlow (old Warwickshire surname...)
Erik Nielsen
> that the actor known as 'Shakespeare' was from Lancashire.
> His name was William Shakeshaft (old Lancashire surname)
> and he came from Fishwick (old Lancashire place name).
>
> Shakspere was not the actor, as well as not being the author.
Or to sum up, Mr. Partlow: Zenner = looney
--nielsen
Peter Zenner
>Lancashire???? Ummmmm.... you mean Stratford hasn't always been in
>Warwickshire?
No George -- Stratford is in Warwickshire. The point was
that the actor known as 'Shakespeare' was from Lancashire.
His name was William Shakeshaft (old Lancashire surname)
and he came from Fishwick (old Lancashire place name).
Shakspere was not the actor, as well as not being the author.
Peter Zenner
Tom Lay
Erik Nielsen <enie...@bu.edu> wrote:
> > No George -- Stratford is in Warwickshire. The point was
> > that the actor known as 'Shakespeare' was from Lancashire.
> > His name was William Shakeshaft (old Lancashire surname)
> > and he came from Fishwick (old Lancashire place name).
> >
> > Shakspere was not the actor, as well as not being the author.
>
Given the lengths to which Mr. Looney went to prevent others from
stealing his "discoveries", I think he might take exception to having
them conferred upon Mr. Zenner. Ahh, the glorius politics of
Anti-Stratfordian in-fighting.
Tom