Talk:Rhyme

message: needs some attention. The way of defining the terms as well as the style of the language and the factual accuracy should be checked on some points. Therfore I put it in the category Cleanup. Summer Song 13:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The clean-up categories are for articles which need many things to become even good articles (i.e., copyediting, wikification, removal of POV statements and the like. This article, as far as I can tell, does not need that kind of attention. However, it is still good to note any inaccuracies and problems on an article's talk page, like you did. However, can you be more specific about what points you want checked? Thanks. Graham/pianoman87 talk 13:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really true that rhymes were totally unknown for the ancient romans? I doubt so. I wish everyone would do some more research on this. I am also concerned about the article's beginning and the way the text is organized. Summer Song 17:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As the Wikipedia article on Homeoteleuton makes clear, the Romans did use this form of rhyme in their poetry.  However rhyme was not used as a structural feature, with rhyming words at the end of every line, until after the classical period.  So the current article's claim that rhyme was never used is not quite right. I will try to fix the discussion in this article.--Jenright (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Information about rhymes in poetry from all over the world could be very interesting stuff. I wish everyone did some research and made some participation in extending these sections. Summer Song 16:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think that this article 

message: Hello, someone wrote "you suck" twice in the article.  I don't really know how to edit wikipedia, but I think I got rid of it.  I'm not sure if I did it properly, so if anyone sees it, then please edit it out.
-Best Regards,
R. P.
:Thanks bro.Cameron Nedland 11:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "You suck" 

message: The definition of perfect rhyme was quite incorrect. Among other sources, the american heritage dictionary gives the definition as it now stands:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/83/P0188300.html
The definition of "tail rhyme" is incorrect, I think.  However, this is not my subject and I'm not changing it. There is probably a rhyme expert lurking here who will immediately change it back -- an experience I had with an article about a painting.  "tail rhyme, also called tailed rhyme, a verse form in which rhymed lines such as couplets or triplets are followed by a tail—a line of different (usually shorter) length that does not rhyme with the couplet or triplet. In a tail-rhyme stanza (also called a tail-rhymed stanza), the tails rhyme with each other." -- http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/580716/tail-rhyme   (This article really needs some work.) Wastrel Way (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perfect Rhyme 

message: What was the source for the definitions used in this article?  There seem to be many sometimes conflicting definitions for the various types of rhyme, and this seems to cause some confusion across different wikipedia articles.  For instance the article on Half rhyme currently begins: "Half rhyme, sometimes known as slant, sprung or near rhyme" which seems confused to me.  I have documented one published scheme: Peter Dale's classification of rhymes and Lewis Turco's classification of rhymes.  I will endeavour to find other definitions and document them similarly.  Then maybe we can get all the terminology straight. — Stumps 00:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for definition of types of rhyme? 

message: I think the following interview has a pretty astounding point to make that should be in the rhyme article, which is that rhyme was almost absent from Europe before contact with the Arabs, whose poetry did feature rhyme. The link is http://www.afropop.org/multi/interview/ID/57/Al-Andalus-Dwight+Reynolds (the relevant section is around 3/5ths of the way down, maybe search "rhyme" to save time). Does someone perhaps want to incorporate it? I'll get round to it myself eventually if not. Maronz 04:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of rhyme? 

message: I  made a revert to remove a remark about "orange" from the "etymology" section. Unfortunately in the field where you type in a description of your edit a description of a previous edit was automatically inserted just as I pressed "Save" -- my edit has, in fact, nothing to do with percussion.--Gheuf 14:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: I think this article might benefit from a little discussion of the function of rhyme rather than just definitions. It seems to me that rhyme has mnemonic value, aesthetic value, and in the case of poetry, it serves to emphasize specific words and to draw connections between words with unrelated meaning. I'm sure that the quote by Milton (though nice) isn't really the last word on what rhyme is about, and in fact it seems rather opaque. Is he calling rhyme "the invention of a barbarous age?" I think maybe a quote in support of rhyme would be better. maxsch 20:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Rhyme? 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: In rhotic accents, this is certainly true, but in non-rhotic accents, there are plenty: Bob Marley had no problem singing "Iron Lion Zion", and these are perfect rhymes in Received Pronunciation (if not Jamaican English). So I think either "iron" has to go, or it has to be qualified, otherwise the assertion is POV. — Paul G (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Iron" commonly regarded as having no rhymes is POV 

message: Under Perfect Rhymes, the article states: "syllabic: a rhyme in which the last syllable of each word sounds the same but does not necessarily contain vowels. (cleaver, silver, or pitter, patter)"
Confusing. The syllables cited contain vowels and offhand I can't think of syllables that don't contain vowels. If there are some, please list them as examples.
Thanks.
Markofzero (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify "syllables without vowels, please 

message: The article says, "A rhyme is not classified as a rhyme if one of the words being rhymed is the entirety of the other word (for example, Ball and all)."
I've never seen this.  Is there a source?
Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest
...
When in immortal lines to time thou growest. —Shakespeare
Drink to me only with thine eyes
...
The thirst that from the soul doth rise —Jonson
Till the living daylight fail;
Then to the spicy nut-brown ale —Milton
And strictly meditate the thankless muse?
Were it not better done, as others use —Milton
Let us roll all our strength and all
Our sweetness up into one ball; —Marvell
The trumpet's loud clangor
Excites us to arms,
With shrill notes of anger,
And mortal alarms.  —Dryden
'Tis not a lip or eye we beauty call,
But the joint force and full result of all. —Pope
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice. —Frost
Etc., etc., etc. —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 18:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ball" and "all" 

message: From the Mirror Rhymes section:
For example: "Jacob"/"Jacob", though having the same stressed vowel sound, do not contain a different preceding consonant, and so would be considered an identity.
Jacob and Jacob are the same word, so obviously they're an identity! Unless I'm missing something extremely subtle.
This whole section on Mirror Rhymes doesn't make much sense to me. Where does the mirroring come in?
--88.108.196.55 (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the confusing text as part of a wide-ranging edit. Man vyi (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacob / Jacob ??? 

message: Why is the section on Arabic deleted? I don't know anything about the topic, but I reverted the deletion because there was no explanation given. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but some explanation seems to be necessary. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't noticed this before, but the section on Chinese was also deleted. Why?  TomS TDotO (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic