Talk:Iambic pentameter

message: can say the classical use is peripheral, after all some people may be only interested in the classical context.  I now think that the best way might be to have two separate articles, one called 'Iambic pentameter' and the other called 'Iambic pentameter (classical prosody)' and to have mutual links at the top of each article ... that way the classicists can have whatever they need in their own article, and the English (and other modern European languages) verse article can jut make a brief historical mention in the body of the article. Stumps 04:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a possibility. Does the metre exist only in Latin or is it in Greek as well? The reason I ask is that the title classical prosody might be a bit confusing, in the sense that 'classical' is often used to refer to Shakespeare and his contemporaries. It's not a 'correct' use, I know. But I was thinking along the lines of an Iambic pentameter (English) and Iambic pentameter (Latin) as an alternative possibility. That might also forestall criticism of a non-global perspective in the article. DionysosProteus 11:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stumps, yes, you've picked out a concern I had while re-writing the intro, that a foot isn't always a pair of syllables; I used it because in the case of iambic pentameter (this rhytm), it is. But it's good not to mislead by giving the impression that a pair is the general form of a foot. I used trapeze because it was on a web site of people's favourite words; surprising how few of those were iambic--most favourites appeared to be trochaic. A couple more examples of iambic two-syllable english words might not go amiss. If you think of any juicy ones, please add them. DionysosProteus 15:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, total rewrite! I must say that this definitely brings it down to my level. Renduy 05:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I am confused by your rant.  Penta does indeed mean "five."  Where are you seeing some failure to count to five here?  What does this have to do with rhyming?  How are the strongly trochaic tetrameter lines of "Mary had a little lamb" relevant here? Nightspore (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Classical usage?

message: is dum the proper term? it gets the point across but it just seems as if there should be some indication of the notation, as dum sounds kinda dumb. User:Kaldosh 05:56, 1 May 2006 
: the da DUM da DUM stuff has been in the article for a long time ... it may have first got there because we hadn't settled on a good way to mark scansion ... anyhow, as you say, it gets the point across, and I think this is important ... judging from some of the intermittent vadalism the page seems to be visited by school-kids fairly often so it is probably important to have some fairly clear and straightforward explanation at the outset, and move gently into more technical territory.  Having said that, I do think that the page could do with some tidying up, and we could possibly do without the big block of da DUM da DUMs explaining the rhythms of the lines from Donne's sonnet.  I just haven't got around to reworking that bit yet.  — Stumps 10:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dum da dum da dum 

message: I'd say the example from Hamlet given in the article has doubtful scansion. It's a fine example of a weak ending, but I think many actors would be just as likely to retain the stress on "is" and not on "that" in "that is the question".
Also, the deleted note about the human heartbeat is perhaps not the most sensical when looking at the text from a literary point of view, but many acting and voice instructors use this analogy (Kristin Linklater, to name one). It has relevance in the theatrical side of iambic pentameter; perhaps just having it as a stand-alone statement doesn't fit so well.
I think in general there should be more attention given to the interpretation of iambic pentameter in dramatic text, because the stress is often not just a matter of where we would naturally put the stress when speaking (and that's in our present-day voices), but can take into account the content of the rest of the speech. I'm not suggesting that actors get to mix and match however they like, but most of Shakespeare's speeches contain syllables that demand an artistic choice one way or another, and the choice affects character.
: I find myself agreeing with some of the points you're making (anonymously) here, though I do have to point out, only slightly facetiously, that any actor that scans the line "that IS the QUESTion" deserves a swift and merciless slap on the basis that a) it's a dull, plodding reading and b) it completely misses the sense of the passage (he hasn't been debating with himself or us whether it is this question or maybe one of the other questions he's been thinking about, but, rather, he hits on this particular question at the opening of the speech, in the present moment, as it were). The heartbeat analogy is relevant, I think, albeit one of those Romanticized actor truisms with which the profession is plagued. Provided a citation is 'owned' in the text of the article, I think it's appropriate; but only with a citation from a well-known voice coach (that is, someone who fulfills criteria in professional theatre terms analogous to a reputable scholar; I'll look through Ciceley Berry and Patsy Rodenberg's books when I get a chance to see if there's something along those lines in there somewhere). The last point you make is, for me, the most significant. The article as it stands appears to lack any practical engagement with the speaking of verse; while Shakespeare and co. are far from being the only ones to use the metre, I would imagine that most of the users on an english wikipedia are coming for them. Even the opening definition that restricts it to 'poetry' is factually incorrect, not withstanding the misleading glosses about other media in that article (poetry doesn't mean verse in Aristotle, for instance; the historical shifts in meaning are more complex that the article implies). I would suggest that we look at specific areas and particular examples that may be used to explore these aspects. I'll start to have a tinker in the next week or so. DionysosProteus 03:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  THAT is the QUEStion? 

message: I have — at least for now, pending clarification here — removed the following sentence from the lead section. "In the ancient poetry, however, no "iambic pentameter" exists; also, if it had existed, a verse would consist of ten (not five) iambic feet, just like the iambic trimeter consists of six ones." Can someone (a) explain this, and (b) provide a source. Stumps 04:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ten feet in a pentameter??? 

message: Let's use some sample audio.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.62.216 (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea 

message: The explanation of Iambic pentameter in Iambic pentameter is too well done to simply be deleted in the name of proper article formatting.  Since it's obvious it's going to continue to be deleted and restored as an introduction and will get no rest there, I've restored it instead as an example where I hope it will prove less contentious.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwern (talk • contribs) 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the creative merit or otherwise of the passage in question, it strikes me as a piece of original work that comes under the policy relating to original research.  I don't think this sort of thing belongs in wikipedia. Stumps (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. The presentation helps example the subject, and does not in any way detract from it. --Muna (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely there a thousands of better possible examples that could be included? Stumps (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: BTW, the line "The two expressions meaning just the same" is incorrect.  Do we need a poet to edit this part of the encyclopedia? Stumps (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've removed it as per this consensus. Stumps (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restore the brilliant introduction from 178760928 as an example. 

message: The article says that iambic pentameter is a Greek thing that we apply to English by analogy with the classics, but then goes on to give only English examples.  Greek and Latin examples are sorely lacking. — Chameleon 12:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On a similar note, the article could profit from a sound bite of how these are actually read. Do you have to talk like Shatner when reading these?98.223.111.14 (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ...is there any chance of getting Shatner to do the recordings for the article? 143.92.1.33 (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of classical examples 

message: Shouldn't it be metre?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glandrid (talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  meter? 

message: Two questions.  The criticism section says critics deny something about iambic pentameter and Shakespeare, but it's not clear what.  Exactly what did the critics say?
Second question: how did the choice of iambic pentameter for serious poetry in English get started?  I've heard that it was imported from Italian poetry where an 11-syllable line was standard (the weak llth syllable was turned into an optional "feminine" ending in English).  Can some expert confirm or deny this?
CharlesTheBold (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  history 

message: Is there a general article about substitution etc.? This article (specifically about iambic pentameter) has a lengthy section "Rhythmic variation". And there is a Trochaic substitution article. But shouldn't there be an article about substitution in general, of which our "Rhythmic variation" might provide the initial sketch? Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just started "substitution (poetry)". Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  substitution 

message: This example is a bit too ambiguous, much like "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day" that was previously removed: it can be interpreted many ways, including in standard iambic pentameter. Ansh666 (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard III 

message: Since the Halle and Keyser "stress maximum" theory has been thoroughly refuted, shouldn't there be less on it? —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 04:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less Halle and Keyser 

message: Here's the text on "Aubade" that I just removed, in case we find additional sources justifying putting it back in.
:One of the most notable modern poems to be written in iambic pentameter is Philip Larkin's bleak 'Aubade'.
—JerryFriedman  (Talk) 01:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm happy with that.  I've enjoyed the civilised discussion very much, and it more than makes up for the loss of my edit. Deadlyvices (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text on "Aubade" 

message: I undid an edit by an anonymous user a few months ago, who changed the meter marking on the John Donne poem without explanation.  I found this in the history because after his changes, the meter markings didn't agree with the explanation or the rest of the article.  But if someone who knows something about poetry could check that my recent edit was correct I would really appreciate that.  -- Creidieki 12:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reverted version is correct.  I guess you dolphins just understand poetry even when it's not haiku. —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 14:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donne sonnet meter (please check) 

message: OK, we have a shiny new Generative metrics article, which is now in a pretty good state. My next step here will be to delete (again) the current text on the H-K theory in this article, but I'm not going to do that until I work up a broader and more concise treatment of alternate IP theories which can replace it.
In the mean time, JerryFriedman, there is a contradiction in the "gazelles" statement: first it claims that Shakespeare wrote no lines in that form, then that Shakespeare followed this prohibition "fairly strictly", which implies that he must indeed have written some line in that form. I'd be much obliged if you could sort that out. As for the future of the "gazelles" text, my own feelings are: 1) Updates should be made in the Generative metrics version, since it has been reformatted (I think advantageously). 2) Although there's nothing wrong with stating it twice, I think the better home is here in IP, so that after the contradiction is resolved and the IP H-K text replaced, then the "gazelles" text should be moved back here from GM and slightly re-worded in its new context. Phil wink (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Come to think of it, isn't the "gazelles" structure precisely that which Groves finds in Shakespeare his criticism of Generative metrics#Kiparsky? Maybe that's why Kiparsky failed to allow for it? He just hadn't happened to find any of these lines in Shakespeare? It's probably still an interesting and valid point for Pope, but I'm questioning the validity of the statement with respect to Shakespeare. Phil wink (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new plan 

message: In the article, it's marked like this:
Now is the winter of our discontent
but to put accent on 'of' like that is counter-intuitive in the extreme.
More natural, to my ear at least is two dactyls and a choriamb (/ x x / x x / x x /), which isn't pentamic. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now is the winter of our discontent 

message: A while back, someone put a "clarify" into the lede, asking which poetry/drama tradition we're talking about. This has now been removed, but it's a fair question in an encyclopaedia of global scope. I've inserted "English" for now, because when I looked for sources on which other modern languages use iambic pentameter, I bogged down in sources about the metre's importance in English. Can anyone supply the broader context? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a couple quick notes: IP has been used in German at least since the 17th century, and a significant force at least since Goethe -- so certainly that can be added. IP is significant in Russian also, although there it is secondary to iambic tetrameter. IP occurs in Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish verse. Although most or all of the Romance languages have somewhat similar analogues, I don't believe that there is a significant place in any of them for a verseform close enough to count here (e.g. the French décasyllabe and Itallian endecasillabo are not IP). Phil wink (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which tradition(s)? 

message: I was about to revert this recent edit because it's incorrect, until I realized it's also correct in its own way. So I'm soliciting discussion on the best way to clarify this situation:
(Disclaimer: theory and definitions in English meter are pretty chaotic, so these are necessarily my opinions, but I think they're sound, and I'm happy to expand, if anyone cares. Also, I'm not a big fan of the concept of feet, but I'll use the term here to match the verbiage in question.)
# A line of iambic pentameter always has exactly 5 feet. If it has more or fewer, it is a line of something else.
# However, a passage of iambic pentameter may include lines of (say) iambic hexameter as variants. Normally the pentameters will supply the vast majority of lines, and we wouldn't pedantically say it's a passage of "mixed iambic pentameters and hexameters"; we'd say it's pentameter -- but we're characterizing the passage, not the line. The variant line is still hexameter, not a long pentameter.
:*(A similar situation would be a poem of Dryden's, which we'd say is "in heroic couplets" even if we see that there are some triplets thrown in for variety. We would not explain these as a special form of couplet with 3 rhymes... they're just triplets within a couplet context.)
I think my explanation in the article (to which the recent edit refers): "The last line is in fact an alexandrine — an iambic hexameter, which occurs occasionally in some iambic pentameter texts as a variant line" is reasonably clear -- if so, then probably reverting the recent edit is best, as I don't think we want to confuse the issue right at the top. However, maybe the article needs more clarity. If so, please discuss. Phil wink (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit reverted. Phil wink (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hexameter isn't pentameter 

message: Hey, I'm the IP user suggesting a citation is needed for the meter being "common" to English, as I'm writing a paper where it's relevant and am seeking sources. While it's not the least technical I found this source which might be useful. The basic idea is that English sentence structure lends it self to pentameter and English words are generally trochaic, but phrases tend towards iambic. Maybe helpful? 150.243.207.215 (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would expect Gilbert Youmans (linked above) to know what he's talking about. Timothy Steele (All the fun's... 1999) has a nice little précis in his notes, pp 282-83, but more from the point of view of practicing poets and critics who ... we'll just say they're not linguists. Phil wink (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing how common the meter is in English 

message: Why don't you just teach that Nouns enunciation stress is on the first syllable for semantic meaning and verbs stress is on the last syllables for semantic understanding.
Nouns: Trochee   and Dactyls etc. and Verbs : Iambs and Anapest etc.  Depending on number of syllables.
Make a separate list for each type> Primary Stress, a list for all, according to the number of syllables.
Another list of Verbs, with secondary stress, according to number of syllables.
The prosody, pitch register is enunciated that way for semantic meaning and in classic historical languages that is why the use of diacritic marks to indicate each type of syntax was used. 
As far as tempo/pulse for each bar or measure of music that is time signature, and the stress and unstressed macrons/diacritic marks are for the beats/notes for each syllable in the word/phrase in the verse of poetry equating to the phrase in the measures of music as it is performed or recited.
Why don't school teachers teach it that way?
Teachers seem to be teaching as if the whole piece is in iamb, and in fact they never were, the diacritics/stress was only the music, and the beats/notes for prosody pitch register are reflected in the syllables, articulation of nouns primary stress and verbs secondary stress for semantic meaning and understanding, how each word is enunciated within the bar or measure. The bars/measures and time signature designates the rhythm and tempo and pace of the music or pulse. The stress indicates the prosody or how to pronounce the pitch register. 
It would save you time, and avoid 1/2 hour, if you sum up quickly, divide primary stress(long stress) for nouns in one category, and another list of the verbs (secondary stress) as the lists you have are not divided for semantic understanding.
Sum it up quick, the whole feet or bar or measures are NOT all in iambic, ONLY the VERBS in the phrase in the verse, line are secondary stress!
Teachers have been acting like the whole verse/line is in just one type, and that is leading to misapplying it, they are properly used for prosody.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.152.178 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section