[tei-council] Guidelines Ch. 6

[Lou Burnard]

Well, to defend this apparent oddity,  in this particular case, the 
ottavarima, as practiced by Byron at least, it *does* make sense to talk 
of the sestet and the couplet,  and the rhyming structure is  completely 
regular within that structure. So I can see why the author of this piece 
might propose using these as values for @rhyme, to avoid the tedium of 
saying "ABABAB" for the former and "CC" for the latter (vel sim). And a 
"couplet" is always a pair of lines which rhyme, not just a pair of lines.

However, I have no problem with Becky's revision, which leaves this 
whole question (rightly) under specified.


On 07/01/13 16:47, Martin Holmes wrote:
> I think I'm with you on this. Rhyme schemes are variable in sestets
> (according to Wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sestet>), so it
> makes no sense to characterize a rhyme scheme using "sestet".
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> On 13-01-07 06:15 AM, Rebecca Welzenbach wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've been reading Chapter 6, which overall seems to be in really good
>> shape--extremely thorough examples and very clearly written. One bit
>> that gives me pause is below.
>>
>> In 6.1 there is an example:
>>
>> <lg type="stanza">
>>    <lg type="sestet">
>>     <l>In the first year of Freedom's second dawn</l>
>>     <l>Died George the Third; although no tyrant, one</l>
>>     <l>Who shielded tyrants, till each sense withdrawn</l>
>>     <l>Left him nor mental nor external sun:</l>
>>     <l>A better farmer ne'er brushed dew from lawn,</l>
>>     <l>A worse king never left a realm undone!</l>
>>    </lg>
>>    <lg type="couplet">
>>     <l>He died — but left his subjects still behind,</l>
>>     <l>One half as mad — and t'other no less blind.</l>
>>    </lg>
>> </lg>
>>
>> Followed by some commentary:
>> "Note the use of the type attribute to name the type of unit encoded
>> by the lg element; this attribute is common to all members of the
>> att.divLikeclass (see section 4.1.1 Un-numbered Divisions). ‘Sestet’
>> and ‘couplet’ might conceivably also be used as the values of the
>> rhyme attribute in an analysis of rhyme scheme, for which see below,
>> section 6.3 Rhyme and Metrical Analysis. The type attribute is
>> intended solely for conventional names of different classes of text
>> block; the met attribute is intended for systematic metrical
>> analysis."
>>
>> I'm not convinced that 'sestet' and 'couplet' are on their own viable
>> values for @rhyme. These terms simply define how many lines are in a
>> group. While there are conventions/implications about what this means
>> for rhyme in certain kinds of poetry, they do not explicitly document
>> a rhyme scheme, which is the purpose of @rhyme. If others agree, I
>> propose the following revision:
>>
>> "Note the use of the type attribute to name the type of unit encoded
>> by the lg element; this attribute is common to all members of the
>> att.divLikeclass (see section 4.1.1 Un-numbered Divisions). When used
>> on <lg>, the type attribute is intended solely for conventional names
>> of different classes of text block. For systematic analysis of
>> metrical and rhyme schemes, use the met and rhyme attributes, for
>> which see below, section 6.3 Rhyme and Metrical Analysis."
>>
>> Or maybe I'm wrong: would 'sestet' and 'couplet' become meaningful
>> values for @rhyme if (and perhaps only if) a specific rhyme scheme
>> corresponding to each were defined in <metDecl>? In this case, my
>> proposed revision to the text is still correct, but the original could
>> stay as it is.
>>
>> Becky
>>
>