[Carl Copeland]

Originally Posted by A. Baez

What do you mean, begin with natural iambs? In the first foot? That would mess up the anapestic meter, so that can’t be what you mean.

But it is. Most of “The Night before Christmas” is headless anapestic. I think you’re on to something in identifying the first foot of each line as a tricky spot. It’s a lot easier to start lines with natural iambs than natural anapests, and it seems to stabilize the meter by getting the crucial first stress clear. This poem, though, wanted to keep its head on.

While we’re into C. C. Moore, note this verse:

But a miniature sleigh and eight tiny rein-deer

The natural reading is a wildly irregular anapest–anapest (with synizesis)–iamb–trochee–trochee. Couldn’t possibly be sung to a regular beat, yet the music smooths it out quite nicely. Some will say the clash between natural and metrical readings is what makes this line so delightful, but I don’t hear much of a clash (ok, a wee bit with the re-stressed “reindeer”).

Originally Posted by A. Baez

It appears that you’re adamant about not varying the anapestic meter; otherwise I’d reiterate the suggestion

LCD screens and fairy lights blink

As far as I can figure, you and others are reading “LCD screens” as a double spondee, but we chanters (I can’t be the only one) have to really slow down and concentrate to do that; otherwise we get trimeter.

[Matt Q]

Hi Carl,

A belated Happy Christmas to you! I also enjoyed this and the way it played with my expectations. Leading me one way and turning the other.

Like others, S3L1 gave me trouble. I first heard the first syllable of "LCD" as having the primary stress -- and thought the line had an extra foot.

L| cd SCREENS | and FAIR| y LIGHTS MER | i ly BLINK

Whereas, I think you want:

lcD | SCREENS and FAIR| y LIGHTS MER | i ly BLINK

though maybe it's closer to

LcD | SCREENS and FAIR| y LIGHTS MER | i ly BLINK ?

In which case, I notice that the line only has one anapaest, which makes it hard to claim the line as anapaestic and likely harder to hear what you intend.

If "LCD" were followed by an anapaest rather than an amphimacer, I'd hear the stress where you want it. I also think the fact there's there's not much difference in absolute stress between in "L" and the "D" is contributing to the issue (if you have time to kill, youglish is one way to kill it). I'd say the word is probably closer to amphimacer than an anapaest.

So them's my speculations informed by my no doubt dubious ear and by repeating "LCD" to myself too many times. But whatever the cause, I do think it's harder to hear what you want here than in any of the other lines.

A small point: "In the window of one" struck me as something that could be tightened/condensed. Wouldn't "in a window" (or "in one window") cover what you want to say and leave you a couple of syllables for extra detail/colour?

best,

Matt

[Carl Copeland]

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too, Matt, and thanks for weighing into the Great LCD Controversy!

For any who read verse as I tend to do, the problem shouldn’t even come up. By L5, I’m already strapped in my anapestmobile and ride it smoothly over anything odd-looking (like that bumpy line from C. C. Moore). But most of you, with good reason, are natural readers, so let’s deal with that.

Originally Posted by Matt Q

… maybe it's closer to

LcD | SCREENS and FAIR| y LIGHTS MER | i ly BLINK

In which case, I notice that the line only has one anapaest, which makes it hard to claim the line as anapaestic and likely harder to hear what you intend.

Leaving “LCD” aside for a moment, let's look at “screens,” which I’ve noticed everyone wants to stress, and I simply don’t find that natural. “LCD screens” and “fairy lights” are compound nouns, which are naturally stressed on the first word, like “swimming pool” and “parking lot.” If you told me you were an MI6 A-gent (which you shouldn’t do), I’d think you were stressing that you were an agent and not a translator or secretary.

Originally Posted by Matt Q

I also think the fact there's not much difference in absolute stress between in "L" and the "D" is contributing to the issue … I'd say the word is probably closer to amphimacer than an anapaest.

The rule I’ve seen is that acronyms (short ones, anyway) are normally stressed on the last element, but there is a lot of spoken variety in the examples on that site. I still hear a dominant stress on “D,” but as long as you de-stress “screens”—IMO both naturally and metrically required—I don’t think it screws things up too much if you want to read “LCD” as an amphimacer.

Originally Posted by Matt Q

A small point: "In the window of one" struck me as something that could be tightened/condensed. Wouldn't "in a window" (or "in one window") cover what you want to say and leave you a couple of syllables for extra detail/colour?

You’re right, but I don’t want to overstuff the line either, and I think I like all the “w” sounds, but it’s something to consider.

Thanks, Matt! Your thoughts are always appreciated.

[Matt Q]

Hi Carl,

FWIW I agree that, in isolation, the word LCD is usually pronounced with the primary stress on the last syllable with a secondary stress on the first syllable.

Also, I'm not saying your scansion is wrong. I can now hear the line as you've said you want it. I just couldn't until you explained how you want it stressed. My comments were aimed at explaining why it wasn't being heard the way you wanted it to be.

I do think it's hard to argue that "screen" is actually an unstressed syllable, like e.g. "a" or "the", even if the stress is reduced somewhat by virtue of being part of a compound noun. (And who told you about the MI6 thing? That's supposed to be a secret).

Maybe part of the issue is that readers come to the line with the expectation of hearing an anapaestic rhythm at the beginning of the line, and "DUM da da DUM" is a more recognisable anapaestic start than "da da DUM DUM" even if it's not how they're read it if it were prose?

Anyway, the line has caused some people problems, myself included. Maybe I'm wrong on the why of that. If you want a line that doesn't risk people hearing the metre as off, you could look for an edit. But, if you're happy with it and don't mind that it doesn't work for others, all well and good.

-Matt

[Carl Copeland]

Originally Posted by Matt Q

I do think it's hard to argue that "screen" is actually an unstressed syllable, like e.g. "a" or "the", even if the stress is reduced somewhat by virtue of being part of a compound noun.

I don’t hear much stress on the “lot” in “parking lot,” but it may get more than an article or preposition. What’s important is that it’s relatively unstressed and that relatively stressing it would shift the meaning: it’d become the answer to “A parking what?”

Originally Posted by Matt Q

Anyway, the line has caused some people problems, myself included. Maybe I'm wrong on the why of that. If you want a line that doesn't risk people hearing the metre as off, you could look for an edit. But, if you're happy with it and don't mind that it doesn't work for others, all well and good.

No, I don’t want a line that works only for me, and I’m apparently the only one in this long thread who thinks it should. That’s a problem I can’t ignore. I have looked for an edit and will continue to do so. Just haven’t found anything I like yet.

Thanks again, Matt. Stimulating as always.

[Alexandra Baez]

But it is. Most of “The Night before Christmas” is headless anapestic.

Okay, I’d draw a distinction between headless anapestic and natural iambic, which of course is one strictly of context, not content.

But a miniature sleigh and eight tiny rein-deer

The natural reading is a wildly irregular anapest–anapest (with synizesis)–iamb–trochee–trochee. Couldn’t possibly be sung to a regular beat, yet the music smooths it out quite nicely. Some will say the clash between natural and metrical readings is what makes this line so delightful, but I don’t hear much of a clash (ok, a wee bit with the re-stressed “reindeer”).

Mmm, would you also consider anapest-anapest-bacchius-amphibrach as an acceptable reading of this line? That was my instinctive scan, and it would seem to be a less irregular interpretation. Still, I’d be one of those who’d “say the clash between natural and metrical readings is what makes this line so delightful.” That you see less of a clash is just more evidence, of course, of your chantlike reading style.

As far as I can figure, you and others are reading “LCD screens” as a double spondee

Again, just barely:

[From an earlier comment of mine] [“Screens” is] actually a virtually nonexistent stress for me—I think I’m really just instinctively promoting it because of the surrounding meter.

[but we chanters (I can’t be the only one) have to really slow down and concentrate to do that; otherwise we get trimeter.

Ah, I see how you’re reading this now and can understand your aversion to the line, based on that.

[Matt Q]

Originally Posted by Carl Copeland

I don’t hear much stress on the “lot” in “parking lot,” but it may get more than an article or preposition. What’s important is that it’s relatively unstressed and that relatively stressing it would shift the meaning: it’d become the answer to “A parking what?”

Is that's what's important though? Isn't it more important how stressed a syllable is relative to others in the foot?

In an iambic line, I would say "a parking" lot scans as two iambs ("a PARK|ing LOT"). Wouldn't you? And we don't need to artificially add stress to "lot" for that to be the case. "LOT" may not carry as much stress as "PARK" but it carries more than "ing", which is the syllable we need to compare it to.

That's how it works in my head, anyway. But maybe we just mean different things when we say that a syllable is stressed. Or maybe I've missed your point completely ...

-Matt

[Carl Copeland]

Originally Posted by A. Baez

I’d draw a distinction between headless anapestic and natural iambic, which of course is one strictly of context, not content.

I suppose the distinction would be a sensed lack at the start of each such line, but I don’t get that from “The Night before Christmas.” I don’t even notice the shift from headed to headless and back again unless I look for it. So for me, in this case at least, it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Originally Posted by A. Baez

Mmm, would you also consider anapest-anapest-bacchius-amphibrach as an acceptable reading of this line? That was my instinctive scan, and it would seem to be a less irregular interpretation.

Sure, why not, but with several caveats: 1) I don’t see that as any less irregular; 2) I prefer to treat “tiny” and “reindeer” as the natural trochees they are, though one Spherean thought I was out of my mind to suggest that the stressing of individual words could play a part in identifying the meter; 3) there’s a school of prosody that says English meter can be adequately described in terms of iamb, trochee, anapest, dactyl and double iamb, with no need for amphimacers, antibacchuses, tertius paeons and the like. I reserve judgment on the latter, by the way.

Originally Posted by A. Baez

[From an earlier comment of mine] [“Screens” is] actually a virtually nonexistent stress for me—I think I’m really just instinctively promoting it because of the surrounding meter.

I’d argue that the surrounding anapestic meter, established in the preceding four lines, tells you to de-stress “screens,” which you say you naturally want to do anyway. If you do, you’ll get an anapestic second foot, and then, as I told Matt, you can have an amphibrachic “LCD” if you like. I don’t think it spoils things too much.

Anyway, I don’t mean to be defensive—I’ll fix this line if I can think of something—but meanwhile, I’m enjoying being puzzled by all the controversy.

[Carl Copeland]

Originally Posted by Matt Q

Is that's what's important though? Isn't it more important how stressed a syllable is relative to others in the foot?

In a metrical reading, yes, given that we agree on how to divide the feet, but we were reading naturally.

Originally Posted by Matt Q

In an iambic line, I would say "a parking" lot scans as two iambs ("a PARK|ing LOT"). Wouldn't you?

I would, but I thought natural readers were supposed to read “a PARK|ing lot,” as in normal speech, and then, if they’re critically minded, admire the counterpoint between that and the underlying meter. Of course, I realize it’s not a case of natural vs. metrical readers. We all do some of each, and I’m just closer to one end of the spectrum than the rest of you.

Originally Posted by Matt Q

And we don't need to artificially add stress to "lot" for that to be the case. "LOT" may not carry as much stress as "PARK" but it carries more than "ing", which is the syllable we need to compare it to.

“Lot” may indeed carry more stress than “ing,” but if that were the only relevant comparison, there’d be no difference between “ENG|lish teach|er” and “ENG|lish TEACH|er.” However, my sort of metrical reading (often derided as singsongy) can obscure that difference.

To repeat myself, I keep thinking that my “ideal” metrical and natural readers should both de-stress “screens.” Why no one is doing so is still a puzzle to me. (To be fair, Alexandra says she doesn't want to stress it, but feels compelled by the meter, which is no less mysterious to me.)

[Matt Q]

Originally Posted by Carl Copeland

In a metrical reading, yes, given that we agree on how to divide the feet, but we were reading naturally.
[...]
I would, but I thought natural readers were supposed to read “a PARK|ing lot,” as in normal speech, and then, if they’re critically minded, admire the counterpoint between that and the underlying meter.

The above doesn't make a lot of sense to me. As I said above, we may be using the word "stress" differently. You seem to be using in two different ways. "Natural stress" vs "metrical stress" (or "natural reading" vs "metrical reading"). FWIW, I think I'm reading "naturally", but welcome a definition of the two so I can check.

Maybe it's useful to make a distinction between absolute stress and relative stress. With absolute stress, we're just looking at the absolute value of a stress (let's imagine we have a machine that hears and assigns a value). Then a syllable is considered stressed if its absolute stress value exceeds a certain fixed threshold, and is unstressed otherwise. In contrast, with relative stress, we're looking at metre (and language more generally) as a pattern of rising and falling stresses, and it's the difference between a syllable and its neighbours that's relevant.

Let's say the absolute stress value of each syllable is

.1...4...|...1...2
a park | ing lot

I'm giving "lot" a 2 but maybe it's a 3. Using absolute stress, we might consider anything with a value of 1 or 2 as unstressed, and 3 and 4 as stressed. That gives you the same mark-up that you're calling "natural": "a PARK|ing lot". So maybe that's what you mean by natural?

Heard as a pattern of rising and falling stresses, though, we can see that the stress goes up (1 to 4) then down (4 to 1) then up (1 to 2):

..../.....\....../
.1...4...|...1...2
a park | ing lot

and it's this that provides the rhythm much more than than the absolute values. I call these both iambs because in both cases the second syllable has a noticeably stronger stress than the first -- within each foot the stress falls on the second syllable of each. So, marked up this way, we'd get ""a PARK|ing LOT".

And these stress patterns are real: they're not read in. The reader actually hears the rising-falling pattern. It's natural. The reader doesn't have be educated in metre and then "read in" a "metrical" stress, which I think you're suggesting. The reader hears the phrase as naturally rhythmic.

(Which isn't to say that a reader, educated in metre or otherwise, won't be swayed by a rhythm to increase or decrease stresses, but that's another issue).

Notice that we don't have to say "parking lot" any differently to get these two different mark-ups. We've just applied a different method: absolute vs relative stress.

Of course, I realize it’s not a case of natural vs. metrical readers. We all do some of each, and I’m just closer to one end of the spectrum than the rest of you.

Or maybe we're just using different language and that's why there appears to be a division? Quite possibly a lot of the confusion here stems from the fact that metre and scansion is taught differently in different books, and most of us, I'm guessing are self-taught. I wonder how much here is an issue of "metrical" vs "natural" readers. Maybe we mostly all hear the same thing, but we confuse each other by using different conventions for marking up what we hear?

Anyway, I think I tend to write down what I hear "naturally". But what I'm trying to write down is a natural pattern of rising and falling stresses.

I'm still really not sure what your use of "natural" means here in practical terms. What grants something the status of a stress in a "natural" reading? For example, why exactly are you choosing to mark "park" as stressed and not "lot" though both carry more stress than the remaining two syllables? Are you applying a threshold? Or is it that there should only be one syllable that you're going to call stressed, and its the strongest one? You only want to mark the "primary" stresse and not the secondary ones?

“Lot” may indeed carry more stress than “ing,” but if that were the only relevant comparison, there’d be no difference between “ENG|lish teach|er” and “ENG|lish TEACH|er.” However, my sort of metrical reading (often derided as singsongy) can obscure that difference.

See, again, we may be hearing the same thing and writing it down differently. When I read “ENG|lish TEACH|er.” I see that "ENG" and "TEACH" both carry stress -- they create the beat of the the rhythm if you like. I'm quite happy that "ENG" and "TEACH" don't have the same absolute level of stress, this doesn't trouble me at all because that's not what marking them as stressed means to me. But if I apply my own conventions to “ENG|lish teach|er”, I'd say it equates "teach" with "er and "lish", which is an important difference to obscure. I'd say that "teach" is now shown as carrying no stress, as not a "beat", and also that the markup says that "lish teach" isn't an iamb -- all of which I'd disagree with. But again, all of this, likely, could well be down to a difference in our conventions.

-Matt