 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / British English / February 2004Diphthongs, syllables, and metrical beats
To my consternation, my comprehension of the concepts listed in the subject line has been questioned, and I consequently crave corroboration from the cognoscenti. Please consider the following content and confirm or confute my convictions. Thanks. ;-) I'm sure we all intuitively know what a syllable is, but the precise definition of the word has become important to my understanding of poetic metre. For instance, does a diphthong split a vowel sound into two syllables or not, and is that necessarily two metrical beats? The definitions I found are: syllable: a unit of spoken language consisting of a single uninterrupted sound formed by a vowel, diphthong, or syllabic consonant alone, or by any of these sounds preceded, followed, or surrounded by one or more consonants. diphthong: a complex speech sound or glide that begins with one vowel and smoothly changes to another vowel within the same syllable. Both of those definitions seem to me to be saying that a diphthong does *not* split a syllable in the middle of the vowel sound. However, when I show people the list of words below they claim that most of them have two syllables! Now obviously, most laymen have not taken the trouble to look up the precise definition of syllable and diphthong so I am perhaps expecting too much of them to get it right. Another point is that, within metrical poetry, many of these words would more naturally fit across two beats than one, so perhaps people are confusing syllables with beats. In the list below I have indicated whether I think each word contains a diphthong, how many syllables it is, and how many beats I think more naturally fit for the purposes of poetic metre. Bear in mind, though, that the number of beats is a very subjective thing dependent upon which metre is being used (iambic, anapaestic, etc), where in the metrical pattern the word falls, the degree of emphasis desired, and even the regional accent of the speaker. Therefore different situations would require a different allocation of beats. If anyone can help me with the two that I was not sure about, or can correct any of the others, then please do. Word Diph? Sylls Beats ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ bias y 1 2 boas y 1 2 coed no? 2? 2 coin y 1 1 cues y 1 1 dial y 1 1 dias y 1 2 diet y 1 2 dual y 1 1 feud y 1 1 fuel y 1 1 hues y 1 1 kiev y 1 2 leon y 1 2 leos y 1 2 lion y 1 1 moet y 1 2 neon y 1 2 noel no? 2? 2 (as in Christmas) noel y 1 1 (as in Edmonds) poem y 1 1 poet y 1 2 quad y 1 1 quid y 1 1 quip y 1 1 quit y 1 1 quiz y 1 1 riot y 1 2 ruin y 1 2 suez y 1 2 vial y 1 1 zion y 1 2 By now you might be wondering what triggered me to look into this in such depth. Well, in uk.rec.humour, someone posted the following haiku: To Write a poem (4 syllables) Of Seventeen syllables (7 syllables) is very diffi... (5 syllables) (4+7+5 = 16) So I pointed out that the joke didn't work if it was actually possible to complete the poem in seventeen syllables. Knowing that the haiku form expects 5, 7, and 5 syllables in that order, I could see that the first line was a syllable short, and from that I realised that "poem" was the point of contention. Now, the way I pronounce "poem" is more naturally a single beat but, even assuming the author wanted to stretch it to two beats, it is still a single syllable. Anyway, several people disagreed with me, as you can see: http://groups.google.com/groups?th=a64a610835129fe2 Would the good people of this group mind giving me some validation to ameliorate that rejection? Thanks.  SignatureJames Taylor, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK. PGP key: 3FBE1BF9 To protect against spam, the address in the "From:" header is not valid. In any case, you should reply to the group so that everyone can benefit. If you must send me a private email, use james at oakseed demon co uk. > I'm sure we all intuitively know what a syllable is, but the > precise definition of the word has become important to my [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > words would more naturally fit across two beats than one, > so perhaps people are confusing syllables with beats. In your list, I personally would say that most of them don't contain diphthongs, but two separate vowel sounds. That's most obvious in what you write as "coed", which I'd write "co-ed" (unless there's a quite separate word that I don't know). The only words in your list where I'd agree that there is a diphthong are "coin" and probably "feud", and I class both of those as monosyllables. "Cues" I'd interpret as a single vowel-sound which happens to be written as two letters - it rhymes with "booze". I find it hard to make up my mind about "hues", because the written form and the spoken form have so little in common. I think that in speech it probably does contain a diphthong, but it's not the u-e dipthong suggested by the written form, but more of a y-u diphthong. (My wife has just usefully pointed out "You can hear that when people drop their aitches - they say 'yooze' not 'ooze'".) I'd not class any of the "qu-" words a diphthongs, since I'd interpret the "u" is each not as a vowel but as a modified to the consonant "q". The two examples of "noel" are interesting. In its Christmas meaning, one alternative (now archaic) spelling was "nowell" which clearly suggests to me that it has two separate syllables. Its use as a forename is presumably derived from the Christmas meaning but has a different stress-pattern. An interesting observation here is that the late Sir Noel Coward in his later years insisted that his first name be spelled with a diaeroesis (sp?) - two little dots - over the "e" to make it clear that he thought of it as two separate syllables. -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Old teachers never die, they simply lose their class. > "Cues" I'd interpret as a single vowel-sound which happens to be > written as two letters - it rhymes with "booze". Depends where you hail from. The pronunciation guides of dictionaries notwithstanding, booze rimes with lose for me but cues rimes with mews, as does clues, as does its original spelling: clews. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/ada/08-0.htm Large, firm thighs, without too much fat on them... | syllable: a unit of spoken language consisting of a single | uninterrupted sound formed by a vowel, diphthong, | or syllabic consonant alone, or by any of these | sounds preceded, followed, or surrounded by one or | more consonants. The syllable in the English, American, Strine, Indian is a completely movable feast because of the differences in pronunciation of these diverse languages. Metrical beats are even more movable as can be heard in a majority of poems/songs where the poet/songwriter adds or subtracts beats to suit the artistic interpretation of the work. Hyphenation is a form of syllablisation, for a detailed treatment of the problem see "Hyphenation by Ronald C McIntosh on our web site below. SignatureDave Fawthrop <hyphen hyphenologist co uk> <http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk> > The syllable in the English, American, Strine, Indian is a completely > movable feast because of the differences in pronunciation of these diverse > languages. For example, I pronounce the word "mayor" as a monosyllable, homophonous with "mare". But I find other English people pronounce it as two syllables - "may-or". I think my pronunciation is the more usual one, but I checked in my dictioanry and it told me the latter was the correct one. Matthew Huntbach | | > The syllable in the English, American, Strine, Indian is a completely [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | but I checked in my dictioanry and it told me the latter was the correct | one. Lexicographers, who write *English* dictionaries only describe the language as they find it. Thus no dictionary is *correct*, it is only what the lexicographer/editor found the language to be at the time they wrote the dictionary. If you compare dictionaries you will find as many opinions as dictionaries. French and German on the other hand dictionaries describe the *official* language. SignatureDave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Sick and tired of Junk Snail Mail? Register your family surname and address with www.mpsonline.org.uk > | For example, I pronounce the word "mayor" as a monosyllable, homophonous > | with "mare". But I find other English people pronounce it as two > | syllables - "may-or". I think my pronunciation is the more usual one, > | but I checked in my dictioanry and it told me the latter was the correct > | one. > Lexicographers, who write *English* dictionaries only describe the language > as they find it. Thus no dictionary is *correct*, it is only what the > lexicographer/editor found the language to be at the time they wrote the > dictionary. If you compare dictionaries you will find as many opinions > as dictionaries. Yes, I'm aware of this issue. But even people whose language is not written have a concept of statements in the language being "correct" or "incorrect". If they didn't, it would not be possible to write grammars for these languages. *Anyone* bringing up a child to speak any language "corrects" that child's speech, even if that language is spoken only by a few people living in mud huts miles from anywhere. Clearly language changes, so that what one generation regarded as "incorrect" another regards as standard. No doubt in the past there were speakers of Old English desperately trying, but failing, to get their children to use the correct case endings for nouns, until what was once "correct" became at first a quaint affectation and then unknown, while what was incorrect and would get the speaker thought sloppy became the standard. Matthew Huntbach | Yes, I'm aware of this issue. But even people whose language is not written | have a concept of statements in the language being "correct" or [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | quaint affectation and then unknown, while what was incorrect and would get | the speaker thought sloppy became the standard. In English tradition the *only* criteria for ?correct? English is the ability to pass information to another ?English? speaker. This leads to anomalies with the various versions. I personally have great difficulty understanding the speech of Political Leaders from both sides of the Northern Irish divide. I also have to think twice when a Scot uses "outwith". Strine is yet another problem. In the days before email, I used to take phone calls in English from all over the world. These sounded like complete gobbledegook until I worked out the accent. Dave F > In English tradition the *only* criteria for ?correct? English is the > ability to pass information to another ?English? speaker. I think you mean criterion. SignatureJohn Briggs > > In English tradition the *only* criteria for ?correct? English is > > the ability to pass information to another ?English? speaker. > I think you mean criterion. Yes, but that's Greek; and anyway, if you were to judge Dave *only* on the criterion he proposed, you'd have to allow it. :-) On a related note, I once had a prolonged argument on the Zetnet local newsgroups with a retired barrister who was convinced of the singular "phenomena". To his credit, he did present evidence in the form of several quotes from ancient illiterates rich enough to have their witterings retained for posteriority. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/aureole/20-pyro.htm Prometheus stood with his fronds of gut... >>> In English tradition the *only* criteria for ?correct? English is >>> the ability to pass information to another ?English? speaker. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > several quotes from ancient illiterates rich enough to have their > witterings retained for posteriority. I see. Or I think I do - is that last word a joke? SignatureJohn Briggs > >>> In English tradition the *only* criteria for ?correct? English is > >>> the ability to pass information to another ?English? speaker. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > form of several quotes from ancient illiterates rich enough to have > > their witterings retained for posteriority. > I see. Or I think I do - is that last word a joke? No: Posteriority is what comes after you; "judge" was the joke. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/colour/4r-0.htm As Tuesday's Sword of Iron Mars the Redden Earth, Twin Sacraments - of Fire and Blood - dishonour Birth. >>> On a related note, I once had a prolonged argument on the Zetnet >>> local newsgroups with a retired barrister who was convinced of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No: Posteriority is what comes after you. No, it is the state or quality of coming after. SignatureJohn Briggs > >>> On a related note, I once had a prolonged argument on the Zetnet > >>> local newsgroups with a retired barrister who was convinced of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > No: Posteriority is what comes after you. > No, it is the state or quality of coming after. And a fine quality in a man, to be sure. But, nudgewinkery and hilarity aside, on any prioritised list of citations intended to demonstrate the historically accepted tensing of phenomena, those presented by my learned friend would certainly have been near the bottom. Probably never even reached the benchmark. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/aureole/50-0.htm 2 lb of spuds, 1 lb of mince, some cotton buds, a colour rinse >>>>> On a related note, I once had a prolonged argument on the Zetnet >>>>> local newsgroups with a retired barrister who was convinced of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > phenomena, those presented by my learned friend would certainly have > been near the bottom. Probably never even reached the benchmark. But you still haven't convinced me that you understand 'posterity'. SignatureJohn Briggs > >>>>> On a related note, I once had a prolonged argument on the > >>>>> Zetnet local newsgroups with a retired barrister who was [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > have been near the bottom. Probably never even reached the > > benchmark. > But you still haven't convinced me that you understand 'posterity'. Well then, you, your hairs and excessors, will have to remain unconvinced. Humour is very much like beauty, if you see what I mean. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/photo/0y12-0.htm A Climb at Brimham Rocks This climb is booby-trapped >>>>>>> On a related note, I once had a prolonged argument on the >>>>>>> Zetnet local newsgroups with a retired barrister who was [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Humour is very much like beauty, if you see what I mean. I see. So when you say "No", you mean "Yes"? SignatureJohn Briggs >>>>>>>> On a related note, I once had a prolonged argument on the >>>>>>>> Zetnet local newsgroups with a retired barrister who was [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >I see. So when you say "No", you mean "Yes"? I imagine you are free to assume whatever you want about "yes" and "no", but as you appear to have exhibited a terminal lack of subtlety and irony I don't think you would get the point anyway ;-) > >>>>> In article > >>>>> <7%3%b.2001$1h7.13455@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>, John [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > > > Humour is very much like beauty, if you see what I mean. > I see. So when you say "No", you mean "Yes"? No. If you really do need the joke explaining then you might have to miss out on the laugh. It is commonly stated that a joke is never funny once it has been explained. That might not be so. On the other cheek, some folk never do see the joke whether it be explained or not. The last word, in itself, wasn't the joke, just the butt end of it. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/joachim/09-0.htm The vet wiped the anal thermometer across the brown sleeve of his old tweed jacket... >To my consternation, my comprehension of the concepts listed in >the subject line has been questioned, and I consequently crave [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >split a vowel sound into two syllables or not, and is that >necessarily two metrical beats? <SNIPPETY SNIP> All very erudite, but gaining your poetic licence gives you permission to be as creative, or destructive, as you like with syllables, vowels and diphthongs, let alone consonants and phonemes generally. SignatureDave OSOS#24 dswindell.gerbil@tcp.co.uk Remove my gerbil for email replies Yamaha XJ900S & Wessex sidecar, the sexy one Yamaha XJ900F & Watsonian Monaco, the comfortable one http://dswindell.members.beeb.net |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.