Help please with iamb foot

[mike thomas]

Hello forum.

I hope someone might assist me in this puzzling thing:

If a name such as 'Shylock' is used in a poem, is it one iamb or one foot?

If not, then what would be an example of one word being one foot?

Hope this make sense

regards to everyone and thanks

[Clay MacDonnell]

An Iamb consists of two syllables. So Shy-lock is one Iamb. The Merchant of Venice is written (mostly) in Iambic pentameter (pentameter means meter - or line, if you like - of five) So each line consists of five Iambs, which is ten syllables.

Feet are the syllables themselves, but refer to the consecutive unstressed and stressed syllables that are coupled together to make an Iamb.

For instance:

shy-LOCK (say it out loud, you'll notice that you put emphasis on the LOCK)

shy is one foot, and lock is another. And you must mark which syllable is unstressed, and which one is stressed. However, to make it easier, Iambic pentameter always follows 'unstressed, stressed, unstressed, stressed'. You'll notice it creates a rhythm of sorts, and that you can sing it to a tune quite well.

[mike thomas]

Thanks for the speedy and useful reply Clay. I was rather confused but now Im happy that Shy-locke has two feet!

(But noy of Clay)

Thanks again kind person

regards

An Iamb consists of two syllables. So Shy-lock is one Iamb. The Merchant of Venice is written (mostly) in Iambic pentameter (pentameter means meter - or line, if you like - of five) So each line consists of five Iambs, which is ten syllables.

Feet are the syllables themselves, but refer to the consecutive unstressed and stressed syllables that are coupled together to make an Iamb.

For instance:

shy-LOCK (say it out loud, you'll notice that you put emphasis on the LOCK)

shy is one foot, and lock is another. And you must mark which syllable is unstressed, and which one is stressed. However, to make it easier, Iambic pentameter always follows 'unstressed, stressed, unstressed, stressed'. You'll notice it creates a rhythm of sorts, and that you can sing it to a tune quite well.

[OrphanPip]

Clay has made a small error, the iamb itself is a foot. In general, a foot in English poetry is a group of 2 or 3 syllables organized by the position of the stressed syllable(s) in the foot. For the Iamb it is two syllables organized as unstressed-stressed.

So, shy-LOCK forms one iambic foot. Rather than being two feet which form an iamb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_(prosody)

The different kinds of feet are listed in the wiki.

[mike thomas]

Thank you for that extra help there O P.

I am better in my understanding on my feet now.

regards

Clay has made a small error, the iamb itself is a foot. In general, a foot in English poetry is a group of 2 or 3 syllables organized by the position of the stressed syllable(s) in the foot. For the Iamb it is two syllables organized as unstressed-stressed.

So, shy-LOCK forms one iambic foot. Rather than being two feet which form an iamb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_(prosody)

The different kinds of feet are listed in the wiki.

[Patito de Hule]

Metrical Feet by Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Trochee trips from long to short (Trochee _ -)
From long to long in solemn sort
Slow spondee stalks strong foot yet ill able (Spondee _ _)
Ever to catch up with dactyl trisyllable (Dactyl _ - - )
Iambics march from short to long (Iamb - _ )
With a leap and a bound swift anapests throng (Anapest - - _ )

[mike thomas]

Hi kind folks out there.
Thanks for the help with my query re feet and iambs etc.

Can someone please help pick the errors out of this, my conclusion:

Shake-speares in the sonnets is an hyphenated word.
The sonnets were written in a particular poetic (or perhaps musical ?) measure.
The measure is called iambic metre.
The Sonnets were composed as five iambs per line.
An iamb consists of two syllables. (where's the unstressed syllabl in Shake-speares?)
The word Shake-speares is an iamb.
An iamb is also called a foot.
Therefore Shake-speares has one foot.

And I stand by everything I said

Thanks for any help in advance kind folks.

[Charles Darnay]

Shake-speares in the sonnets is an hyphenated word.

This doesn't make sense.

The sonnets were written in a particular poetic (or perhaps musical ?) measure.
The measure is called iambic metre.
The Sonnets were composed as five iambs per line.
An iamb consists of two syllables. (where's the unstressed syllabl in Shake-speares?)

This is all right

The word Shake-speares is an iamb.

Nope. Trochaic.

An iamb is also called a foot.
Therefore Shake-speares has one foot.

Let me give you another:

Cats have whiskers
Shakespeare had whiskers
Shakespeare was a cat.

[mike thomas]

thanks for the swift reply Charles. It is appreciated.

Still tripping over my feet:

Shake-speares in the sonnets is an hyphenated word:

Perhaps I should make myself clearer: I thought Shake-speares (which is how the name is put in the Sonnets) is an hyphenated word. Where am I in error?

I must be pronouncing Shake-speares with the wrong stresses. Shall-I com-pare it-to a-Sum mers-day? I bow to your knowledge re Trochaic vs Iambic

In poetic terms, is Shake-speares one foot or not?

What I am trying to determine is whether the first three rows of text in the Sonnets title was written in some kind of poetic metre:

Shake-speares Sonnets never before imprinted.

I make it five feet plus 'ed' at the end if the last word is pronounced 'im-print-ed'.

If it were written this way: Shake-speares Sonnets never printed before.

Then it makes five feet (I think). But whether its iambic or not beats me.

Thanks very much.

[Charles Darnay]

What I am trying to determine is whether the first three rows of text in the Sonnets title was written in some kind of poetic metre:

This is a key detail I missed before.

Alright, now the challenge takes on an interesting form.

First - it might be good to paste here the exact title you are working on, since every version of the sonnets has a slightly different title.

As for the hyphenation and then the pronunciation of Shakespeare's name (which would indicate whether it is iambic or trochaic) - this is a tricky issue due to the many inconsistencies at the time.

Hyphenations of names was most often a decision the printer made, not for any metrical reason, but to make the word easier to read. If you look at facsimiles of 16th-17th century texts, the letters are placed very tightly together, so the more division you have in the word, the easier to read. Furthermore, considering it is the title, it could have been an issue of spacing that would have allowed half the word to appear on one line and the other half to appear on another. Whatever the reason, hyphenating authors' names in Elizabethan print was a common practice (whether the author was writing in verse or prose) so I see no reason why this contributes to any metre in line.

Pronunciation: the truth is that we have no idea how Shakespeare pronounced his name, or even spelled it. Today, the "shake" is more emphasized than the "speare" and I believe that, based on the evidence we do have from 16th-17th pronunciation, this would have been the case then. The long "ea" sound that makes up the way we pronounce "speare" (or steal, or veal, or conceal) was not used in the 16th-17th century. The end of his name would have been pronounced (most likely) like the English word "pear" (or tear, or bear). Given this, then naturally it is the first syllable and not the second that is emphasized - making his name a trochee.

Furthermore, his name was often spelled Shakespere" which shortens the second syllable even more.

[mike thomas]

Thanks Charles.

I attatch the text which I am trying to convert into iambic feet. The last word has two letters more than required, so just drop the end 'ed'.

Three rows as one line:

SHAKE-SPEARES SONNETS Never before Imprint (ed)


I assumed that SPEARES being the longer of the two syllables made the pair iambic, what do you think?

Taking the end 'ed' out of the picture, I had an iambic pentameter, just like the enclclosed sonnets.

(by the way: it all started out simply as an exercise to aid understanding)

regards