Would this rhyme in Shakespeare's time?
Michel Couzijn
... Where the bee sucks. there suck I:
... In a cowslip's bell I lie;
... There I couch when owls do cry.
... On the bat's back I do fly
... After summer merrily.
... Merrily, merrily shall I live now
... Under the blossom that hangs on the bough.
..................................... (from: The Tempest)
My question is: what kind of rhyme is 'merrily' in 'After summer
merrily'?
In Dutch, I would call it 'oogrijm' (eye rhyme): to the eye, the
written words seem to rhyme; yet when pronounced, the rhyme disappears.
Just like in:
... The wind
... Is unkind
... And the dough
... Pretty rough
Or is it that 'merrily' was pronounced differently in Shakespeare's
time from how it is pronounced today?
We're looking forward to sing this text set to music by Frank Martin,
and I'd really like to know what to do with this unusual 'rhyme'.
Thanks for any answers.
Michel Couzijn
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Mouse
> A rather famous verse:
>
> ... Where the bee sucks. there suck I:
> ... In a cowslip's bell I lie;
> ... There I couch when owls do cry.
> ... On the bat's back I do fly
> ... After summer merrily.
>
> ... Merrily, merrily shall I live now
> ... Under the blossom that hangs on the bough.
> ..................................... (from: The Tempest)
>
> My question is: what kind of rhyme is 'merrily' in 'After summer
> merrily'?
> In Dutch, I would call it 'oogrijm' (eye rhyme): to the eye, the
> written words seem to rhyme; yet when pronounced, the rhyme disappears.
> Just like in:
>
> ... The wind
> ... Is unkind
> ... And the dough
> ... Pretty rough
>
> Or is it that 'merrily' was pronounced differently in Shakespeare's
> time from how it is pronounced today?
I think it was likely pronounced merilee, as it is pronounced today. It
doesn't rhyme with the other end words of the song, but it DOES rhyme
with the line that precedes the song and the line that follows it,
binding all together:
Prospero: Thou shalt ere long be FREE.
[ARIEL sings and helps to attire him]
Where the bee sucks. there suck I:
In a cowslip's bell I lie;
There I couch when owls do cry.
On the bat's back I do fly
After summer MERRILY.
Merrily, merrily shall I live now
Under the blossom that hangs on the bough.
PROSPERO: Why, that's my dainty Ariel! I shall miss THEE:
It does seem like an extra line put there deliberately. The other lines
are all in pairs. In addition, in I Henry V it half rhymes with
"speedily":
Come, let us take a muster speedily:
Doomsday is near; die all, die merrily.
Can't be sure though.
L.
Paul Crowley
news:1151952771.7...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> ... Where the bee sucks. there suck I:
> ... In a cowslip's bell I lie;
> ... There I couch when owls do cry.
> ... On the bat's back I do fly
> ... After summer merrily.
>
> ... Merrily, merrily shall I live now
> ... Under the blossom that hangs on the bough.
> ..................................... (from: The Tempest)
>
> My question is: what kind of rhyme is 'merrily' in 'After summer
> merrily'?
Words ending in "-ly" are very common.
My impression is that their pronunciation
in Early Modern English was highly variable
(i.e. little real standardisation seems to have
been achieved) allowing poets to use them
more-or-less as they wished. They would
have varied to some extent across regions,
dialects, classes and groups -- but how
much we don't know.
> In Dutch, I would call it 'oogrijm' (eye rhyme): to the eye, the
> written words seem to rhyme; yet when pronounced, the rhyme disappears.
Personally, I don't believe in 'eye-rhymes'.
I suspect they're a Victorian invention to
explain texts they did not understand.
This is a list of 'rhyming words' extracted
from Spenser and from some of Shakespeare
rhyming (a) with 'me'; and (b) with 'eye'.
Note how many occur in both groups.
Æacidee, affectedly, agree, antiquitie, antiquity(sh), artillerie, astronomy, audaciously,
auncestrie, batteree, be(fq), be(sh), bee(fq), bee(sh), bitterlie, brauerie, Britainee, Canacee,
canapee, captiuitee, charitee, chastetee, chastitee, chastitie, cheualree, cheualrie,
Chrysogonee, ciuilitee, ciuilitie, companee, companie, constancy, courtesie, crueltee, custodie,
decree(fq), decree(sh), deformitee, degree, deitee, destinee, dignitee, dignitie, disagree,
discovery, diuerslie, diuinitie, enemy(sh), enimee, enmitee, enmity(sh), eternitie, Euphrosyne,
Eurynome, faerie, fayeree, fee(fq), fee(sh), feminitee, flatteree, flee, foresee, formalitee,
forsee, frailtee, free(fq), free(sh), gealousie, glee, grauitie, gree, harmonee, harmonie,
he(fq), he(sh), hee, hospitality, humilitee, husbandry, idolatree, idolatry, ieopardee,
ieoperdie, imageree, impiety, industree, industrie, infamy(sh), infancie, infirmitee,
infirmity(sh), iniquitie, iniquity, iollitee, iollitie, knauerie, knee, lea, legacy, libertee,
livery, loialtie, luxuree, maiestee, me(fq), me(sh), mee, melancholie, melancholy(sh), memoree,
memorie, merilie, miseree, modestee, modestie, modesty(sh), monarchy, mortality(sh), mortallie,
mutabilitie, natiuitee, nativity, necessitee, necessity, nicetie, nicitee, nobilitie,
obscuritee, obscurity(sh), opportunitie, opportunity(sh), ouersee, outwardly(sh), perdee,
periurie, perplexitie, plea, posterity(sh), priuitee, priuitie, qualitee, quality(sh),
quantitie, relie, remedee, royaltee, sea(sh), secrecy, see(fq), see(sh), Semelee, shalbee,
she(fq), she(sh), shee, sorceree, sovereignty, spiceree, subtlety, thee(fq), thee(sh),
thoroughly, three(fq), three(sh), tragedie, tranquilitee, tree(fq), tree(sh), uncertainly,
usury, vanitie, victoree, villenie, vncertaintee, vptye, vsuree, wee, ye, yee
abie, aby, abye, accompany, actiuity, aduersity, advisedly, affy, agonie, agony, agreeably,
alchemy, allye, amitie, amplify, angrily, antiquity(fq), applie, apply, Araby, Arimathy,
armorie, armory, artillery, audacity, auncestry, aunciently, awry, bastardy, battery(fq),
battery(sh), beautifie, beautify(fq), beautify(sh), Belamy, bitterly, blasphemously,
boystrously, brauery, Britanie, Britany, busily, buy, by(fq), by(sh), Cæcily, calamity, canopy,
captiuitie, carefully, careleslie, castory, certainely, chastity(fq), chastity(sh), chastitye,
chearefully, cheualry, cheualrye, chiualrie, chivalry, Christianitie, ciuility, clemencie,
commodity, company(fq), company(sh), continually, contrary, courteously, courtesly, courtesy,
craftily, crie, crueltie, cruelty, cry(fq), cry(sh), crye, cunningly, curtesie, curtesy,
Cymodoce, daintily, deformitie, deformity, defy(fq), defy(sh), defye, deitie, denie, deny(fq),
deny(sh), denye, descrie, descry, despightfully, desteny, destinie, destiny(fq), destiny(sh),
dexterity, die(fq), die(sh), dignity(fq), dignity(sh), discourtesie, disdainefully,
disdainfully, dishonesty, disloyally, disloyaltie, disloyalty, disorderly, dispiteously,
diuersitie, diuersly, dreadfullie, dreadfully, drie, dry(fq), dry(sh), drye, dy, dye(fq),
dye(sh), earnestlie, earnestly, easily, eie, enemie, enemy(fq), enimie, enimy, enmitie,
enmity(fq), enmitye, enuie, enuy, enuye, equality, equallie, equally, equitie, equity, espie,
espy(fq), espy(sh), espye, eternally, eternity, Euangely, excessiuely, extasie, extremitie,
extremity(fq), extremity(sh), eye(fq), eye(sh), faculty, faery, family, fantasie, fantasy(fq),
fantazy, fealtie, fealty, fearefully, felicitie, felicity, felony, fidelitie, flattery(fq),
flattery(sh), flie, fly(fq), fly(sh), flye, forciblie, forcibly, forgerie, forgery, formerlie,
formerly, fortify, fry, furiously, gealosie, gealosy, gealosye, gelosy, genealogie, gentility,
Germany, glorifie, glorify, gluttonie, gluttony, gravity, greedily, grieuously, hability,
happily, hardily, harmony, hastilie, hastily, hazardrie, hazardry, heauily, hereby, hideouslie,
hie(fq), hie(sh), high(fq), high(sh), history(fq), history(sh), honesty, horriblie, horribly,
humilitie, humility, hungrily, hy, hye, I(fq), I(sh), idely, ieopardie, ieopardy, imagery,
immodestly, impetuously, impietie, implie, imply, importunely, incertainty, incessantly,
inconstancie, indifferently, indignity, industry, infamie, infamy(fq), infancy, infirmitie,
infirmity(fq), inhumanitie, iniurie, iniury, injury, inwardly, iolity, iollity, ioyfully,
Italy(fq), Italy(sh), iuory, iustifie, iustify, jealousy, jollity, knauery, lechery, leisurely,
libertie, liberty(fq), liberty(sh), lie(fq), lie(sh), loialty, lothsomely, louingly, lustily,
luxury(fq), luxury(sh), ly, lye, magnanimity, magnify, maiestie, maiesty, maiestye, maisterie,
maistery, majesty, maladie, malady, mallady, masonry, melancholy(fq), melody(fq), melody(sh),
memory(fq), memory(sh), Mercury, merrily, mightily, miserie, misery(fq), misery(sh),
modesty(fq), mollifie, mollify, mollifye, mortalitie, mortality(fq), mortally, mortify, moyity,
multiply, mutiny, mutually, necessitie, nie, nigh(fq), nigh(sh), nobility, noursery, ny, nye,
obloquy, obscurity(fq), obsequy, openly, opportunity(fq), orderly, Orkeny, outcry, outrageously,
outwardly(fq), pacifie, pacify, patiently, peaceablie, peaceably, perdie, perdy, periury,
perpetually, perplexity, philosophie, philosophy, piety, pleasantly, plie, ply, pollicie,
pollicy, polygony, posteritie, posterity(fq), poverty, presently, presumpteouslie, principality,
priuily, priuity, progenie, progeny, propertie, prophecie, prophesy, prosperitie, prosperity,
pry, purify, puritie, qualify, qualitie, quality(fq), quickly, quietly, readily(fq),
readily(sh), reædifye, regalitie, remedie, remedy(fq), remedy(sh), remedye, reply, reprochfully,
Rhy, robbery, royaltye, rusticity, safetie, safety, sanctuary, satietie, satisfie, satisfy(fq),
satisfy(sh), satisfye, saucily, scarcity, scornefully, secretly, securitie, security, seminarie,
shamefully, skie, sky(fq), sky(sh), skye, slie, sly, slye, society, sodainely, solemnity,
solemnly, sorcery, soueraintie, souerainty, souerayntie, spicery, spie, spy(fq), spy(sh),
spycery, spye, steadfastly, stedfastly, stie, sturdily, sty, stye, submissiuely, subtilly,
suddainly, suddenly, suddenlye, superfluity, supplie, supply, surquedrie, surquedry, sympathy,
Tartary, tenderly, terribly, terrifie, terrify, thereby(fq), thereby(sh), thigh, th'importunity,
threasury, thy, tie, tragedy, tranquillity, treacherie, treacherously, treachery, trechery,
trie, trustily, try, trye, tye, tyrannie, tyranny(fq), tyranny(sh), unlikely, vanity, varietie,
variety(fq), venery, veritie, vermily, victorie, victory(fq), victory(sh), victorye, villanie,
villany, villeny, visnomie, vndoubtedly, vnheedily, vnty, vntye, vnwillingly, vnworthily, vsury,
wantonly, warily, weetingly, whereby, why(fq), why(sh), wickedly, will, i, willinglie, wittily,
woefully, wofully, worthily, wrathfully, wrothfully, yuory
Paul Crowley
news:zSgqg.11048$j7.3...@news.indigo.ie...
>> ... Where the bee sucks. there suck I:
>> ... In a cowslip's bell I lie;
>> ... There I couch when owls do cry.
>> ... On the bat's back I do fly
>> ... After summer merrily.
>>
>> ... Merrily, merrily shall I live now
>> ... Under the blossom that hangs on the bough.
>> ..................................... (from: The Tempest)
>>
>> My question is: what kind of rhyme is 'merrily' in 'After summer
>> merrily'?
On reconsideraton of my 'rhyming list'
it seems very likely that 'merrily' should
be pronounced 'merri - lye' to rhyme with
'cry', 'fly' or 'eye.
Many more words then were in the 'eye'
category. It seems that there has been a
migration over the centuries from the 'eye'
group to the 'me', 'see', 'flee' group.
cou...@ilo.uva.nl
> I think it was likely pronounced merilee, as it is pronounced today. It
> doesn't rhyme with the other end words of the song, but it DOES rhyme
> with the line that precedes the song and the line that follows it,
> binding all together
Thanks for pointing me at the co-text, Mouse. Although your argument
presents a *possibility*, I believe it is not very likely:
- Ariel's song is a separate part of the play's text; both in
presentation and (probably) in execution (dramatic change), and in the
rest of The Tempest, there are usually no rhymes between the play's
text and Arel's (and others') songs;
- the rest of the play's text is mainly in blank (Shakespearean) verse,
so there is no need to 'bind it all together' by rhyme.
Yet while you have me look at the co-text, I find two other
counter-arguments:
1. In Stephano's song (Act 2, Scene 2), we find:
... The master, the swabber, the boatswain, and I,
... The gunner and his mate
... Lov'd Mall, Meg, and Marian, and Margery,
... But non of us car'd for Kate;
... For she had a tongue with a tang,
... Would cry to a sailor, Go hang;
... She lov'd not the savour of tar, nor of pitch,
... Yet a tailor might scratch her where-e'er she did itch;
... Then to sea, boys, and let her go hang.
Here we find another occasion in which a word ('Margery') that today
would rhyme with 'see', apparently rhymed with 'eye' in Shakespeare's
time.
2. In another one of Ariels songs (Act 2, Scene 1), we find:
... While you here do snoring lie,
... Open-eye'd Conspiracy
... His time doth take.
... If of life you keep a care,
... Shake off slumber and beware:
... Awake! Awake!
Again it is apparent that a word ('Conspiracy') would rhyme with 'eye'
rather than with 'see' in Shakespeare's time.
In both of these instances, there is no rhyme with the immediate
co-text (the lines preceding or following the songs), making your
argument less likely.
And of course, we must not forget the argument of the consistent
*monorhyme* that precedes 'merrily' in the song under discussion.
... (...) suck I
... (...) I lie
... (...) do cry
... (...) do fly
... (...) merrily
... (...) live now
... (...) the bough.
The song is more consistent if it has five monorhymes and one other
rhyme pair, than if it would have and 'extra' line not in line with the
rest.
So I think I will stick with my 'merri-lie' interpretation for a while.
Until proven wrong, of course. Thanks for helping me sharpening my
'rhyme knives' though!
cou...@ilo.uva.nl
> My impression is that their pronunciation in Early Modern English was highly variable
> (i.e. little real standardisation seems to have been achieved) allowing poets to use them
> more-or-less as they wished. They would have varied to some extent across regions,
> dialects, classes and groups -- but how much we don't know.
Thanks for your reply, Paul. Good to know that the pronunciation of
'merrily' as 'merri-lie' (rhyming with 'eye') is at least not excluded
beforehand.
> Personally, I don't believe in 'eye-rhymes'. I suspect they're a Victorian invention to
> explain texts they did not understand.
Wikipedia presents 'eye-rhyme' as "Many older English poems,
particularly those written in Middle English or written in The
Renaissance, contain rhymes that were originally true or full rhymes,
but as read by modern readers they are now eye rhymes because of shifts
in pronunciation. An example is prove and love. Other eye-rhymes are
sew : blew, brow : crow, said : laid, read : dead, their : weir, dough
: rough, rouge : gouge, fiend : friend, hubris : debris, derange :
orange, and rugged : drugged."
In this opinion, eye-rhymes have started out as 'rhymes we did not
understand' due to vowel shifts. That is quite likely, as it is likely
that for this sake, eye-rhyme has become a prosodic device of its own
(meaning that new eye-rhymes have developed that were *never* the
result of vowel shifts, such as wanton - Danton and I stand - island).
The fact that many of the words you present from Spenser occur in both
groups, aids to the likeliness of 'merrily' also having been pronounced
in various ways. Thanks for this information!
cou...@ilo.uva.nl
> The fact that many of the words you present from Spenser occur in both
> groups, aids to the likeliness of 'merrily' also having been pronounced
> in various ways.
By the way, I find it not unlikely that it was acceptable in
Shakespearean times to 'mould' the pronunciation according to the
co-text. If many (regional) variations of pronunciation were present
and accepted, the reader (of performer) would have a free choice of
options. Thus in one play, we might find 'merrily' rhyming with 'after
thee' and with 'then I lie'.
cou...@ilo.uva.nl
> On reconsideraton of my 'rhyming list' it seems very likely that 'merrily' should
> be pronounced 'merri - lye' to rhyme with 'cry', 'fly' or 'eye. Many more words then were
> in the 'eye' category. It seems that there has been a migration over the centuries from
> the 'eye' group to the 'me', 'see', 'flee' group.
Could you provide us with an example of a 'pronunciation variation'
that still exists to this day? Which words in modern English are
pronounced in various ways, and is it accepted to use them in each of
the varying ways in standard public discourse?
Michel Couzijn
Paul Crowley
news:1151996180.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
This is not my area, and while there may be people
who could list a few dozen such words, I am not
one of them. Maybe someone who teaches English
as a foreign language would know, or maybe you'd
find such a list in a book for teachers or students
of the subject.
Obviously, pronunciation varies by region (and
class, generation, etc.) -- 'merri-lye' could well fit
into (say) broad Somerset. Likewise Americans
have many different pronunciations (with further
regional accents within the US as well), but my
impression is that 'correct' English now has little
variation. The only one that comes to mind is
'hubris' which is also pronounced 'hybris'.
Paul.
Mark Cipra
David Crystal, "Pronouncing Shakespeare", page 54, on using rhyme to
determine Original Pronunciation (OP): "This kind of reasoning is routine
in investigating OP. It is what leads us to conclude that the sound of
'eyes' is heard at the end of 'beauties', that 'feast' sounded like 'best',
and that 'one' sounded like 'alone'. Fortunately I did not have to do the
basic work myself. That is the splendid achievement of Kokeritz, Dobson and
other historians of the language, over the years."
It is apparently the orthodox scholarly position, then, that the rhymes were
not "near" but exact.
Crystal does like to say things like "We're 80%" confident this is true",
but the uncertainty for him (and Kokeritz, etc.), is more a question of:
1) did "merrily" rhyme with the modern "eye"; or
2) did "lie" rhyme with the modern "see"; or
3) did both rhyme with an unknown third sound?
In the particular case of of the "eye" sound, he takes #1 as a given, since
most of the "-ly" rhyme-partners are pronounced like "eye" in modern
English - as in your example. But in cases like "feast/best" and
"one/alone" he sometimes made an essentially arbitrary choice, while never
doubting that they rhymed exactly. (He was preparing for an original
pronunciation production at the Globe in London.)
I also wouldn't discount the suggestion that Paul Crowley makes elsewhere in
this thread, that pronunciation might well have some variability. Crystal
mentions, for example, a "pronounce it as it's spelled" movement in
upper-class education at the time. Nor would I discount the possibility
that the "orthodox scholarly position" on exact rhyme is simply wrong.
Crystal is also the co-author of "Shakespeare's Words". His primary
references are to to Helga Kokeritz, "Shakespeare's Pronunciation"; E.J.
Dobson, "English Pronunciation 1500-1700"; and Charles Barber, "Early Modern
English".
--
Mark Cipra
"Pile it high, sell it cheap" - Sir Jack Cohen (grocery store
pioneer/magnate)
Play Indiana Jones! Hide the "ark" in my address to reply by email.
Mouse
Of course we cannot know this, although "love" for example, routinely
rhymed with "move" and "prove." But are we sure "move" and "prove"
sounded as they do today?
>
> Crystal does like to say things like "We're 80%" confident this is true",
> but the uncertainty for him (and Kokeritz, etc.), is more a question of:
> 1) did "merrily" rhyme with the modern "eye"; or
> 2) did "lie" rhyme with the modern "see"; or
> 3) did both rhyme with an unknown third sound?
>
> In the particular case of of the "eye" sound, he takes #1 as a given, since
> most of the "-ly" rhyme-partners are pronounced like "eye" in modern
> English - as in your example. But in cases like "feast/best" and
> "one/alone" he sometimes made an essentially arbitrary choice, while never
> doubting that they rhymed exactly. (He was preparing for an original
> pronunciation production at the Globe in London.)
>
> I also wouldn't discount the suggestion that Paul Crowley makes elsewhere in
> this thread, that pronunciation might well have some variability.
Paul almost certainly has to be right on this, first because of
regional differences, and second because the language was so much more
fluid at the time.
Interesting conversation.
Mouse
Alan Jones
It may be relevant that the name of the Sussex village of Ardingly is
locally pronounced "-lie".
I wonder whether the "-ie" sound was then perceived as the diphthong it
actually is (a-ee), so that the "ee" of the diphthong in "lie" could be
heard as rhyming with the "-ly" of "merrily". This seems unlikely, but . . .
Alan Jones
Robert Stonehouse
There are some very common mispronunciations, of course.
Yesterday on the BBC I heard 'POMmy GRAnite', which is so
common it is almost standard, instead of 'pome-GRA-nat' as
required in Romeo and Juliet, 3.5.4.
But sea aongs have always played with the pronunciation of
words, for example:
'Marr-eye-ED to a mer-may-ID at the bottom of the deep blue
sea.'
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted
Mark Cipra
Just to clarify, that's Crystal's third point, below - that the "uh" of love
and the "oo' of move may both have taken separate paths from a third sound,
perhaps like the sound we hear in the modern Scottish pronunciation of
"love". No way to tell for sure, but the scholars seem to agree they all
did rhyme, which was the original question.
>>
>> Crystal does like to say things like "We're 80%" confident this is
>> true", but the uncertainty for him (and Kokeritz, etc.), is more a
>> question of: 1) did "merrily" rhyme with the modern "eye"; or
>> 2) did "lie" rhyme with the modern "see"; or
>> 3) did both rhyme with an unknown third sound?
>>
[snip]
>>
>> I also wouldn't discount the suggestion that Paul Crowley makes
>> elsewhere in this thread, that pronunciation might well have some
>> variability.
>
> Paul almost certainly has to be right on this, first because of
Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.
> regional differences, and second because the language was so much more
> fluid at the time.
>
> Interesting conversation.
> Mouse
[snip the rest]
Tom Reedy
You say potato, I say potahto
You say tomato, I say tomahto
TR
>
> Michel Couzijn
>
KCL
>
> Or is it that 'merrily' was pronounced differently in Shakespeare's
> time from how it is pronounced today?
Yes, see below.
>
> We're looking forward to sing this text set to music by Frank Martin,
> and I'd really like to know what to do with this unusual 'rhyme'.
Hello Michel,
To add to the information already posted, J.C. Wells in "Accents of
English" (Vol.I) writes:
"The set happY...include [s] words with orthographic -y, -ie, -i (the
latter being loanwords from other languages)...and also words with
orthographic -ee, -ey, ea. This latter group used once to have the
FACE vowel (KCL note: now a diphthong of some kind for most speakers,
it was originally a pure vowel), although they now have the ordinary
happY vowel; compounds of 'day,' such as 'holiday,' 'yesterday,'
'Sunday,' 'Monday,' still fluctuate, as spelling pronunciation contends
with the normal development.
Until the seventeenth century there existed the possibility, often
exploited in verse, for happY [-y, -ie, -i] to have the vowel of PRICE
(at that time a diphthong of the type [əi]). Prior to the Great Vowel
Shift, this involved merely an alternation between short and long
/i:/."
Wells cites Dobson, ("English Pronunciation 1500-1700," Vol. II,
Phonology, p. 924-5) who writes that the shift from the short 'ee'
sound to the longer one ("lengthening due to reimposition of secondary
stress") began "sporadically from as early as the beginning of the
sixteenth century, and it may well have occurred in the late fifteenth
century; the rhymes of poets support, and are supported by, the
orthoepists' evidence."
As Wells indicates above, the PRICE diphthong that would have sounded
contemporaneously approximately like 'uh-ee' was a possible variant in
verse. Dobson writes that "in syllables immediately following the
stress [əi] is shown by Hart (in the suffix –ly in 'boldly,'
'namely,' 'wholly,' and six others), Bullokar (in 'bodies' once,
'happy' once, and in others according to Hauck), Robinson (in 'yearly'
and 'lady' once each)," going on to cite even further evidence that
supports the prevalence of this variant for the –y spelling in such
positions.
But we need to realize that we are not talking about the difference
between the modern Standard vowel sound in LEE and the modern open
diphthong sound in EYE. The diphthong that was then alternating in the
–y syllables was (as transcribed by these early orthoepists) a lot
closer to the way some English speakers (think Broad Australian,
Cockney or American Southern) still pronounce the vowel sound in LEE.
So, as you asked how to sing these 'y's:
On the bat's back I do fly
... After summer merrily.
I would suggest that you do them both subtly Cockney (uh-ee). Bet you
it'll sound great.
Cheers,
KCL
cou...@ilo.uva.nl
extensive and insightful replies. Apparently I have posted my question
in the right newsgroup!
I think I have made up my mind and choose to pronounce 'merrily' as
fully rhyming with 'I do fly' - that means, deviating from the
pronunciation of modern English.
This has various poetic advantages: more consistency in this Ariel's
song by means of monorhyme; a thus more constrasting, climactic effect
of the last two lines; and - not mentioned up till now - the occurrence
of an 'inner rhyme' in the line:
... merrily shall I live now (merri-LIE shal-LIE live now)
The only remaining problem is the choice of diphtong (either 'ah-ee' or
'eh-ee', the latter being suggested by KCL). Vocal performers will have
a preference for 'ah-ee' or even 'aa-ee', since an open and wide mouth
is the key to creating a clear and sustained singing voice. I guess the
choir will have to experiment with that. Maybe 'ah-ee' will turn out to
be the best compromise.
Again, thanks for your help in sorting this out, and greetings from (a
bit too hot) Amsterdam,
Michel Couzijn
cou...@ilo.uva.nl
Choir's performance of Frank Martin's setting of Shakespeare's text of
Ariel's song - you still with me? - I kindly refer you to the following
mp3:
http://members.chello.nl/mjcouzij/Martin5.mp3
This is last week's concert performance, in which we still have used
the modern pronunciation. Listeners will have to imagine how a
diphtongized 'merrily' would have sounded.
Cheers,
Michel
Mark Cipra
The setting and the performance are quite beautiful.
Alan Jones
> Thank you, Mouse, Paul, Robert, Tom, Mark, Alan and KCL, for your
> extensive and insightful replies. Apparently I have posted my question
> in the right newsgroup!
>
> I think I have made up my mind and choose to pronounce 'merrily' as
> fully rhyming with 'I do fly' - that means, deviating from the
> pronunciation of modern English.
>
> This has various poetic advantages: more consistency in this Ariel's
> song by means of monorhyme; a thus more constrasting, climactic effect
> of the last two lines; and - not mentioned up till now - the
> occurrence of an 'inner rhyme' in the line:
>
> ... merrily shall I live now (merri-LIE shal-LIE live now)
A neat point, but the modern -style "-ly" chimes with the li- of "live". So
Michel Couzijn
>A neat point, but the modern -style "-ly" chimes with the li- of "live". So
Thank God! I have a counter-argument. The syllable 'live' happens to be
the least accented of all syllables in this sentence. At least, in
Frank Martin's setting, that is. You can hear it for yourself:
http://members.chello.nl/mjcouzij/Martin5.mp3
In sum, the accents in this setting are placed like this:
... MER-ri-LIE shal-LIE live NOW.
So I'd prefer to have merri-LIE chime with shal-LIE than with the
unaccented 'live'. Hope this convinces you (but I'm not sure ;-)
Michel
Michel Couzijn
> The setting and the performance are quite beautiful.
Of course I was merely fishing for a compliment... ;-)
But thanks, Mark. We're glad to have a beast and tyrant of a conductor,
Boudewijn Jansen, who moulds and shapes this choir any way he sees fit.
But we're loving it! If you want to listen to more of our choral
output, I refer you to www.vukk.nl (see 'Het koor' sub 'In klank')
(meaning 'The choir' and 'Sounding as...').
Michel Couzijn
Alan Jones
I'm not sure, either. But the -ly of "merrily" is no more stressed than
"live" in the original poem, and of course "live" is a significant verb
where -ly is a relatively insignificant suffix. The stresses in a musical
setting very often differ from what one might expect in speech; so I don't
think that's evidence for the vowel sound, especially when the setting is by
a non-native speaker of English.
Thanks for the recording - a beautiful and evocative piece, and a very fine
choir: I'm a choirmaster myself, and greatly admire your choir's tone and -
especially - intonation.
Alan Jones
Michel Couzijn
> The stresses in a musical setting very often differ from what one might expect
> in speech; so I don't think that's evidence for the vowel sound, especially when
> the setting is by a non-native speaker of English.
O.k. point taken.
So, at the end of the line there's no definitive conclusion. Maybe we
can do justice to the varied pronunciaton of 'merrily' by performing
Martin's piece with 'merri-LEE' on weekends and with 'merri-LIE' on
weekdays ;-))
>Thanks for the recording - a beautiful and evocative piece, and a very fine
>choir: I'm a choirmaster myself, and greatly admire your choir's tone and -
>especially - intonation.
Thanks for the compliment, Alan! I can recommend the full suite of
Ariel songs by Martin - as a matter of fact, I can recommend more of
Martin's vocal music. His 'Mass for double choir' is an extremely
beautiful piece. For some reason it has become rather popular on the
Dutch concert podia (I heard it first in 1986, I remember).
We're only an amateur student choir, crowded by 32 law, medicine,
language, business and theology (ex-)students - who all happen to love
singing, and who do our utter best to please the 'beastly tyrant' that
is our conductor. He's also the repetitor of the Dutch Opera in
Amsterdam, and highly experienced in working with professionals.
'Intonation' and 'expression' are two of the whips he bullies us with
every week. So that's how ;-)
Regards,
Michel Couzijn
Robert Stonehouse
<mcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
Suggestion: Forget about the rhyme and just sing it!
cou...@ilo.uva.nl
> Suggestion: Forget about the rhyme and just sing it!
Nah. One of the greater pleasures of making (classical) music is that
you can nag to your heart's content over every note and every syllable.
If the aim to present the music *in the best possible way* is
abandoned, making music loses much of its charm. The charm is in the
quest. I'm glad that the contributors in this group wanted to
participate in this quest for a while ('music for a while').
Michel Couzijn
KCL
Yes, thanks, Michel, you raised a very interesting point
about contemporaneous Shakespearean pronunciation.
I always meant to respond to your followup to my
earlierpost, to say that your choice of 'ah-ee' seemed
best for singing. The 'uh-ee' I suggested (as indicated
by Dobson as a bonafide variant, see my post above)
would only differ in resonance, that is, it would be
more mid-mouth/tongue, than a forward, more
Italian 'a' with 'ee.' Still a neutral (unshaped vowel)
start to the diphthong, though.
I have dialect-consulted on many productions that
required characters to speak with a latter-day form
of this 'uh-ee' in words in lexical sets FLEECE and
happY, but in musicals one must often modify it a
bit as it is easily swallowed, thus unclear.
Perfectly fine for English music hall style, or
anything modelled on it, as other features keep
the sound forward.
All best,
KCL
Chess One
Before that we know naught, except from poets and their rhymes and metres.
Serious people who study such things deny their was any standard English at
all - so even when something is found to accord with our idea of
pronunciation - it is a /literary/ one, not necessarily carried in any place
other than bookshire.
Phil Innes
"Alan Jones" <a...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:raQqg.45521$7Z6....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
KCL
> The first dictionary of English dialectical matter was published in 1650.
> Before that we know naught, except from poets and their rhymes and metres.
> Serious people who study such things deny their was any standard English at
> all - so even when something is found to accord with our idea of
> pronunciation - it is a /literary/ one, not necessarily carried in any place
> other than bookshire.
>
> Phil Innes
Naught? O surely not. I think we also know
something from the orthoepists that accords
with what we learn from the poets, about that
time of competing standards. There is the
work of Palsgrave (1530), Salesbury (1547),
Cheke (1550), Smith (1568), Hart (1569),
Bullokar (1580), Gill (1621) Butler (1633),
and others.
But it's true that few of us understand the
principles that guided their thinking, fewer
still that can read their phonetics. An
orthoepist, per OED:
One versed in orthoepy; one who treats of
the pronunciation of words. Used esp. of
those 16th- and 17th-century writers
whose aim was to describe a 'correct'
pronunciation of English, to reform the
spelling system to make it reflect such
a pronunciation more accurately, etc.
Now there was a losing battle. Here we
are, centuries later, more unphonetic
than ever. We have a standard all right:
inconsistency.
So perhaps what you say is, alas, quite
true for most of that "we." :)
KCL
Robert Stonehouse
I suppose it depends on what setting you use. The best known
is Thomas Arne, isn't it? With that one, there is really no
temptation to try to make 'merrily' rhyme with 'there suck
I'. It goes too fast for such considerations. The last
syllable has to be short or it will sound clumping.
Chess One
"KCL" <dial...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152327835.5...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Chess One wrote:
>> The first dictionary of English dialectical matter was published in 1650.
>> Before that we know naught, except from poets and their rhymes and
>> metres.
>> Serious people who study such things deny their was any standard English
>> at
>> all - so even when something is found to accord with our idea of
>> pronunciation - it is a /literary/ one, not necessarily carried in any
>> place
>> other than bookshire.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
>
> Naught? O surely not. I think we also know
> something from the orthoepists that accords
> with what we learn from the poets, about that
> time of competing standards. There is the
> work of Palsgrave (1530), Salesbury (1547),
> Cheke (1550), Smith (1568), Hart (1569),
> Bullokar (1580), Gill (1621) Butler (1633),
> and others.
You might have mentioned Tusser who wrote more of ordinary Elizabethan
language and ordinary, rather than literary ecclesiastical or legal things,
and that only of Sussex and Suffolk. But the language of ordinary people is
not much recorded - certainly not in any comprehensive way that successfully
records dialect.
> But it's true that few of us understand the
> principles that guided their thinking, fewer
> still that can read their phonetics. An
> orthoepist, per OED:
>
> One versed in orthoepy; one who treats of
> the pronunciation of words. Used esp. of
> those 16th- and 17th-century writers
> whose aim was to describe a 'correct'
> pronunciation of English, to reform the
> spelling system to make it reflect such
> a pronunciation more accurately, etc.
Yes. There never was much any standard English save for court matters, and
law, and certain business transactions. Popular reading before the C15th
highly favoured French Romances, and these were of course read in
translation to an accorded clerical standard, but hardly dialectical, nor
dealing with ordinary life. Besides which, ordinary folks couldn't read!
> Now there was a losing battle. Here we
> are, centuries later, more unphonetic
> than ever. We have a standard all right:
> inconsistency.
>
> So perhaps what you say is, alas, quite
> true for most of that "we." :)
It was only a decade ago that someone discovered Chaucer /is/ in meter if
you pronounce certain letters French [e] usually é, but even then, this is
no record of dialect. That we have been mispronouncing non-dialectical
English for 600 years, which means too, that words rhymed with other words
with the suffix é are also wrong.
Why there //should// be any such thing as a standard English is unclear,
since there are few matters outside 2,000 words of unstood common speech
that are necessary for commerce or law for most people, indeed my estimate
is that adults use 1,000 to 1,500 words of elective speech; so why should
there be a mono-crop of uniform expression beyond those?
Older writers famously do not record much any dialect - and to consider the
case of the earlier language in comparison to Dickens, and some 4,000,000
words of his output, this is about the same total words that we have
received from Anglo Saxon; of those a spare 70 documents have any
dialectical speech in them at all, with perhaps 1,000 words total.
Yet even in the middle-middle ages country people had difficulty
understanding each other beyond the market-town radius of about 15 miles.
Phil Innes
cou...@ilo.uva.nl
> I suppose it depends on what setting you use. The best known
> is Thomas Arne, isn't it?
No it isn't. There is no 'best known setting'. As there is no 'best
known painting' of Christ's crucifixion.
> With that one, there is really no
> temptation to try to make 'merrily' rhyme with 'there suck
> I'. It goes too fast for such considerations. The last
> syllable has to be short or it will sound clumping.
If I will ever sing Arne's setting, I will take your advice at heart.
Right now I'm more interested in Martin's setting - so that's how I
interpret, weigh, and value the advice given in this group.
Thanks, and best known regards,
Michel