Talk:Rhyme

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Poetry High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Aesthetics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Aesthetics Folklore Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please check this technicality

or dismiss as triviality.

No word to rhyme with silver?

Slap me. Why not quicksilver?

The definition I'm testing.

Explanation, requesting.

Should it maybe be stated

that a word, conjugated

with a new prefix

conflicts,

and isn't a rhyme?   --Ds13 20:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There was this guy (whose name I forget) who wrote a song about nothing rhyming with orange. Door hinge, four inch, those are the only two that I remember. Matt 05:08, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I find it more enj-
-oyable to eat the orange.
--Aponar Kestrel (talk) (no, I didn't write it)

I found this site after a quick google search, though some of the entries were questionable, the winning ones seemed valid. Maybe the "nothing rhymes with..." section should be scrutinized. Matt 05:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Try looking them all up in the online rhyming dictionary linked from the article! Bmills 11:08, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The dictionary has no rhymes. Curse those rhyming lexicographers! May their porringers never porringe! --Townmouse 22:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I heard from somewhere that nothing rhymes with month either. --Username314

---

"Then I got up and ran to the janitor's storage booth.
Kicked the door hinge loose and ripped out the four inch screws.
Grabbed some sharp objects, brooms, and foreign tools.
"This is for every time you took my orange juice, …"

(from Brain Damage by Eminem)
Paul Tracy

On a pedantic, technicality note... Do the definitions of feminine and masculine rhymes need to be updated to not allow prefixes as a "solution" to rhyming otherwise difficult words? Otherwise, quicksilver, among others, would be considered a feminine rhyme for silver. --Ds13 00:42, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

I can find a definition but no pronunciation for knosp. It does mean the same as knop though, so perhaps it's pronounced that way also. --Ds13 00:42, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

I've removed the entire sentence. It doesn't belong here until it can be substantiated. Specifically, I'd be interested in seeing scientific studies of rhymes in the English language. If someone really wants it to stay, make it say something like "It's commonly asserted that certain words in the English language have no rhymes. Some examples are . . ." Then we could add something about rebuttals to words like purple and orange. —Simetrical (talk) 06:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tom Lehrer wrote: "Eating an orange/While making love/Makes for bizarre enj-/Oyment thereof." Of course, this only works if you, like Tom Lehrer, are from the Northeast and pronounce "orange" with the vowel of "bizarre" and not of "more". The lines quoted by Aponar Kestrel seem to be a response to this original quatrain. The lines by Eminem (with the possible exception of "door hinge") assonate with "orange" but do not rhyme with it.-jpb

I edited the paragraph

Note: the spelling "rhyme" is due to confusion with the word "rhythm". Although "rhyme" is the more common, "rime" is actually more correct.

so that it no longer recommends one or the other spelling. While many of the entries for rime and rhyme at dictionary.com accept both spellings, and some even say that the former is becoming common again, there's no evidence that it is common yet, and I don't think we should prescribe a spelling

1. that is still likely to be marked wrong by English teachers
2. that has other meanings over one that doesn't
3. at all, when there are acceptable variations.

However, comments on this are of course welcome. —Triskaideka 15:45, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Spot on, I couldn't agree more. Filiocht 15:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Brian Garner, A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, considers rhyme to be "standard". The American Heritage Dictionary considers rime to be a "variant". —A. Isaac, 17 Feb 2006.

Can anyone cite a source for the information, recently added to the article, that "rhyme" refers to sound whereas "rime" refers to spelling? I am having difficulty verifying this fact. Moreover, in my search, I'm finding several sources that reaffirm the notion that the words are synonymous, and, confusingly, also some sources that give yet another definition of "rime" as the final part of a syllable, including the vowel and any trailing consonants.

I think we will need to rewrite the "Rime vs Rhyme" section based on whatever information can be turned up about this. At present, it begins by saying that the words are the same, then proceeds to say that they are different. —Triskaideka 15:29, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As someone who takes a professional interest in these maters, I have to say that this difference is news to me. rime is a variant spelling of rhyme with no distinction as to meaning. The article should be re-written to take out this confusion. Filiocht 16:58, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section. After removing the part about the difference in meaning, I was left with "Rime is the original spelling of the word. The spelling rhyme, which arose due to confusion with the word rhythm, is more commonly used today." The part about the etymology of rhyme was baseless, as far as my OED is concerned. Once we remove that, we're basically left with the statement that rime came first but rhyme is more common today, which is basically one sentence worth of content. So, I added the sentence to the beginning. —Simetrical (talk) 21:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks. —Triskaideka 16:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rime and rhyme are distinguished in linguistics. Here is an excerpt of Dylanwhs's message on my talk page:

In [1] p.946 "Chinese characters that share the same phonetic components can be homophones... rhyming syllables (e.g. [dzung]3 and [dung]6", and in the following paragraph, "In the cantonese syllable [dip]9, [d] is the onset, [ip]] is the rime and 9 indicates that the syllable is the ninth tone". The rhyming you'll notice refers to syllables of the same 'rime', where rime follows the 'onset'. In Thomas Chan's thesis on Cantonese [2] in section 2.4.1 "the -om [-Om] and -op [-Op] rimes" though it does not deal with rhyming of syllables.

I do concede though that in some English language sources such as Norman 'Chinese' (1988), he uses rhyme and rhyming throughout, but the rime/rhyme distinction may be a trend in Chinese linguistics. Yu NaeWing's "New Edition of Guangyun (Song Edition)" has a section in English describing the terminology, and he uses "rime" specifically to refer to the rhymming part of a syllable. The distinction was pointed out to me by a Chinese dialectologist, Dr. Lau Chunfat, who is currently serving a deputy professorship in Xiamen University when I met him in HK a few years ago, and to which I have since adhered to in all my writings on the subject here and elsewhere. The sources I cite are hopefully enough to strengthen the pro-distinction.

I also have found sites that distinguish them, such as Rimes and Rhymes. It's better to use rhyme only for rhyming, and use rime for syllable rimes. - TAKASUGI Shinji 10:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) (I have copied my talk page to this page below. TAKASUGI Shinji 15:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC))

I distinguish between rime and rhyme. Rime is a linguistic construct. Rhyme is something in poetry/language arts.

Rime is a constituent in syllable structure. It can be formalized visually in a tree structure. A linguistic rime has nothing to do with words that sound "alike". It is simply a part of a linguistic structure. So, the two words sick [sɪk] and sixths [sɪksθs] both have rimes but they do not "rhyme" (well, at least it is not a very good rhyme). It is useful to use a different spelling for the two different meanings. The spelling rime is very often interchanged with rhyme in phonological works, but rime is very commonly encountered (I dont know which is more common—we would need to count them in published linguistics works).

I had never seen the word rime before I began studying phonology (that is, I had never seen this spelling used to refer to poetic rhyme). But, I am not an English literature person, either. Perhaps they will have a different experience with this spelling used in poetry literature.

Peace. - Ish ishwar 15:29, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

I think I was told once that the spelling rime had been started by Morris Halle, the famous phonologist. But I havent actually read this, so this is just a people to people thing. - Ish ishwar 16:59, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

The following is a copy of my talk page. Unrelated messages have been removed. - TAKASUGI Shinji 15:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Hi Shinji, I found your webpages for learning Japanese a while ago, and recognised your name immediately. With regards to rime and and rhyme, the former is a specialised term used in Chinese linguistics to specifically refer to the rimes in Chinese philology. Please revert back to the original "rime", because all the linked articles have been written using this term, in its correct meaning. The commonly used rhyme ought to refer to poetical rhyming, thus keeping the two concepts separate, in line with modern practice with the literature on Chinese linguistics. Dylanwhs 09:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought rime and rhyme are just spelling preferences. I have corrected the articles. TAKASUGI Shinji 04:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this was the result of an earlier discussion, in which the consensus seemed to be that normally they are indeed just spelling preferences. Maybe Dylan just meant that the term "syllable rime", specifically, is usually spelled with "i"? In this case, it would be better to add a remark in parentheses like '(in linguistics, the spelling "syllable rime" is preferred)'.
Sebastian 01:56, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

I have checked several linguistic resources such as Rimes and Rhymes and SIL's Glossary of linguistic terms - What is a rime?, and it seems to me many linguists distinguish rime and rhyme. - TAKASUGI Shinji 02:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have looked up the terms in several dictionaries, and I can see no special linguistic definition of "rime". It seems to me that it is purely a spelling variant, despite a minority's attempt to give it a special meaning. I don't think the language will be improved by adopting this. It is not really a separate concept. Of 平, p is the "head", "initial consonant", etc; and íng is the "rhyme", "tail", or whatever. "Rime" is ice. People will just think us poor spellers if we use "rime" for "rhyme". Chamaeleon 11:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe if linguists distinguish them, we should do so too. As far as I have checked on the Net, some linguists clearly distinguish "rime" from "rhyme", while others don't. Moreover, "rime" seems more common for syllable rimes. Try googling "onset and rime" and "onset and rhyme". The former gets 4480 hits and the latter gets 559 hits. - TAKASUGI Shinji 00:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In [3] p.946 "Chinese characters that share the same phonetic components can be homophones... rhyming syllables (e.g. [dzung]3 and [dung]6", and in the following paragraph, "In the cantonese syllable [dip]9, [d] is the onset, [ip]] is the rime and 9 indicates that the syllable is the ninth tone". The rhyming you'll notice refers to syllables of the same 'rime', where rime follows the 'onset'. In Thomas Chan's thesis on Cantonese [4] in section 2.4.1 "the -om [-Om] and -op [-Op] rimes" though it does not deal with rhyming of syllables.

I do concede though that in some English language sources such as Norman 'Chinese' (1988), he uses rhyme and rhyming throughout, but the rime/rhyme distinction may be a trend in Chinese linguistics. Yu NaeWing's "New Edition of Guangyun (Song Edition)" has a section in English describing the terminology, and he uses "rime" specifically to refer to the rhymming part of a syllable. The distinction was pointed out to me by a Chinese dialectologist, Dr. Lau Chunfat, who is currently serving a deputy professorship in Xiamen University when I met him in HK a few years ago, and to which I have since adhered to in all my writings on the subject here and elsewhere. The sources I cite are hopefully enough to strengthen the pro-distinction. (this is copied from my talk page)

The specialised use of rime as opposed to rhyme for the rhyming element of a Chinese syllable is demonstrated in the above links to linguistic papers. An every day dictionary will may not distinguish specialised usage in specific fields. Onset and rime is the current usage in Chinese dialectology. Dylanwhs 09:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some linguists choose to make this rather strange and baseless distinction, and some don't. I think we should probably reflect this reality rather than trying to prescribe "rime" as though it were an accepted standard. Chamaeleon 13:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you hate rime so much. It isn't a baseless distinction at all because they mean related but different things. To rhyme is to have the same rime. In the syllable rime article, you wrote "the rarer form 'rime' is sometimes used", but as far as I have checked, "rime" is more common for syllable rimes. Ish ishwar also wrote that rime is common (please see Talk:Rhyme#Rhyme_vs._rime). We should reflect this reality. ;-) - TAKASUGI Shinji 16:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is baseless because "rime" and "rhyme" are the same word. The former is the spelling we inherited from French, the latter is a spelling we invented to put it in line with the original ρυθμος. They are no more separate words than "organise" and "organize" are. This word, with either spelling, can be used with either meaning (and the two meanings are practically the same). Certain linguists have tried to make a semantic distinction between them, and we should note this, but without arriving at the POV that "rime" is more "correct". Personally, I have only come across "rime" as an archaism, e.g. "nursery rime"; and the rhyming portion of a Chinese syllable is called the "final" in all the books I use.

Note also that although held to be important in Chinese, there is no special "rime" in Chinese. The relevant term is 韵 [韻] yùn, which means "rhythm", "to rhyme" and "final".

See also Talk:Rime dictionary. Chamaeleon 16:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As some linguists have come to make the distinction in their works, and others have not, then it is clear that the distinction that 'rime' refering to a series of phonetic elements in syllables of different onsets, and separating it's use from 'rhyme' in the sense of the rhyming of different syllables of different onset but same rime, is real. Despite other linguists not using it, the fact that it is used should merit the distinction to be reflected here on Wiki. Chameleon wishes that it remains undistinguished until it "worms" its was into mainstream dictionaries. And when it does, you would need the article anyway. One wonders then, how many mainstream dictionaries keep abreast of developments in niche subjects like Chinese dialectology? The is the frog in the well attitude should be discouraged. Dylanwhs 17:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That really doesn't follow logically. It implies that a distinction made between two forms of one word is a priori preferable and requires only minimal support from usage to make it something we should push on Wikipedia. By this logic, if I decide that "organisation" refers to general tidying and ordering and "organization" refers to structured institutions, then I only need to show that some people in a certain field do as I do if I want to make it a standard on Wikipedia.

No, you need to show that there is consensus in usage that makes the distinction. I think you can only show that some linguists do and some don't. Moreover, I'd say that the normal term used in reference to Chinese is not "rhyme"/"rime" but "final". Chamaeleon 18:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(end of copy)

---

Hi.

Here are some more of my thoughts.

There are two concepts which need two different articles:

• poetic rhyme
• syllable rhyme

I think that poetic rhyme is usually spelled as rhyme. So, no problem there (do all agree?).

The other syllable rhyme has two common variant spellings:

1. rime
2. rhyme

The question is which of these is the more basic spelling, right? I am not sure that this should be a big problem. The two spellings of the color grey and gray, I believe, are often a personal preference with some different standardization practices among different English writing communities. I think that the spelling of rime / rhyme is a similar thing. I personally like to write rime in order to obviously differentiate between poetic and syllable rhymes (since there is surface similarity between the two). Perhaps the spelling rime is a useful pedagogical practice.

Some linguists do as I do. Others do not and write rhyme. I personally am not bothered by the rhyme-writers since it is all dealing with the same linguistic concepts. I feel the same with grey vs. gray (I think that I usually write grey but I probably have written gray before too). So, choosing rime over rhyme or rhyme over rime, I suggest, should not be an issue of prolonged contention as there are many other areas in wikipedia that have very real inaccuracies and fraudulent claims.

Re: final vs. rhyme/rime merger

These appear to be similar concepts (although I havent really read that much about this). There may be some differences. One could be that final would usually not imply the theoretical tree structure that is currently often implied in modern phonology (from CV phonology, autosegmental phonology, & metrical phonology). Since I am not knowledgeable of Chinese linguistics practices, I cant really comment on them.

I dont know if a merger is necessary. I am sure that you have much to say about this, though.

Thanks & Peace! - Ish ishwar 17:22, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

My understanding is that finals and rimes are different, and merger is wrong.

Syllable (modern phonology):

1. onset

2. rime

2.1. nucleus

2.2. coda

Syllable (historical Chinese phonology):

1. initial

2. final

2.1. medial

2.2. rime

2.2.1. nucleus

2.2.2. coda

2.3. tone

A final = a medial + a rime. This is because, for example, xiǎo, niǎo, shǎo rhyme. Therefore they have the same rime, but the last one has a different final.

春眠不覺曉
處處聞啼鳥
夜來風雨聲
花落知多少

- TAKASUGI Shinji 13:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, so a distinction can be made in Chinese between final and rime/rhyme. "Rime" is still a bit of a silly spelling though. Chamaeleon 14:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That poem was written in the Tang Dynasty. It may not be a good example to show their rhymes in modern Mandarin. We may need experts in Middle Chinese. -- Felix Wan 08:55, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

The Qieyun dictionary is not merely a dictionary of characters which rhyme. The authors were trying to record the widest variation in the sounds current at the end of the sixth century. One of the authors is known to be from the south, and the other four are from the north, and their dialects are different. There was no homogenous spoken Middle Chinese dialect as some would suppose. Middle Chinese (MC) is in itself, an artificial construct, and does not represent a single language, when you know that there is at least one author of Qieyun who speaks a different dialect.

With respect to MC, it is known that after Qieyun, the next edition of import, Guangyun expands upon the number of rimes, and through the eighteenth cetury Chinese phonologists, it was found from analysing all these sources together with poetery that there had been sound changes, sounds like f developing from p, p' and b initials. These changes were not independent of the 'final' since often the final included the 'medial' and 'rime'. For instance, a syllable *pwiap > *fap > *fat > fa for 'law'. The change is said to have occured in the mid Tang era. As can be expected *fap and *fat are two syllables which are not rhyming, as their rimes -ap and -at are different. Consequently, early Tang and later Tang poetry will show differences in rhyming, due to phonological change over the 250 years since Qieyun. Dylanwhs 17:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Some items lack examples. Like oblique (in my cached copy of one month ago.) --Jidanni 2006-04-15

The rules given in this article for classical French rhymes are both too narrow and too wide. They are too narrow in that they require the words to "sound" the same. In fact, classical poets often rhymed words that, today at least, would not sound like rhymes. For example, Racine rhymes "bâtis" with "fils" in Phèdre. (The historical pronunciation of these words is a separate question.) This rhyme would be incorrectly excluded by the rules as given in this article. The rules given are too wide in that, with respect to final consonants, they require only that the words' "number" match, i.e. that if one word in the rhyming pair ends in "s" (also spelled "x" or "z"), then its partner must also end in "s" (or "x" or "z"). But in reality, this restriction extended to all consonants, not just "s". For example "plat" (which ends with a "t") could rhyme with other words in "t", like "fat" and "rat", but not with words with different endings, like "drap" or "parla", although these rhymes would be incorrectly permitted by the rules as given in this article. This example shows that the requirement was not that words should agree in number, but that they should agree in ending consonants, whatever those consonants might be. (In fact, the rule was even subtler than this, but this is the correct general formulation.)

The comparisons to English are also misleading. In English, the final "e" in words like "there" and "cuisine" is a purely orthographical formality having no phonological correlate (other than letting us know the quality of the preceding vowel). In French verse, by contrast, the mute "e" counts as a distinct vowel forming its own syllable. (The proof of this is that in the interior of a verse "e" counts towards the scansion unless it is elided by a following vowel.) The forms in English analogous to French "feminine" rhymes are not the English words ending in mute "e" like "there", but rather the English "feminine rhymes": ie words with non-final stress, like "after." But these words are explicitly excluded from the class of feminine rhymes in the analogy as it is currently stated.

Both these problems could be fixed by rewriting the article to stress that the rules for classical French rhymes are concerned not with the spelling, but with a special version of French phonology that reflects the way words used to be pronounced in the 17th century, when the rules were formulated. This explains both why final mute "e" is treated as a separate syllable or feminine ending (while in English it is not and could not be) and why final consonants are always respected in rhymes, regardless of whether they are pronounced in contemporary French or not.

The suggestion that eye-rhymes were invented by Baudelaire in the 19th century is another inaccuracy in the article. It is true that Baudelaire used eye rhymes (eg "sens" and "encens" in "Correspondances"). But so did everyone else. For example, the librettists to Carmen rhyme "fils and "promis" (in the scene with Micaela delivers José the letter from his mother). These eye-rhymes have a long history. As I've already mentioned, "fils" rhymes with "bâtis" in Racine; and even though these words probably did sound alike in his day, the tradition of rhyming according to the spelling rather than the sound was carried down into the nineteenth century. Eye-rhymes like these are archaisms, not innovations.

What was innovative about 19th century rhymes was just the opposite: they ABANDONED eye rhymes in favor of words that rhymed for the EAR even though they broke the classical rules about spelling. For example, Victor Hugo in "La Faucheuse" rhymes "champ" with "fauchant"; Rimbaud sometimes uses rhymes like this, too. These "ear-rhymes" seem to be more characteristic of these two poets than of Baudelaire, who certainly did not invent either them or eye-rhymes.

These are just examples that I happen to remember: I am sure other people can think of more and better ones. -jpb

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)[reply]

It is interesting to think that Arabic poetry had an influence on the development of rhyme in Europe -- but it was not the only influence. As is already noted in the "history" section of this article, Celtic poetry had a rich system or rhyme, which may also have played a part. I would love to see some mention of the Arabic origins of rhyme in this article, but it would have to be something more specific than "rhyme was almost absent from Europe before contact with the Arabs".

Absurd. This is another attempt to make us think that Arabs invented everything. Rhyme is as old as language. Aside from the Celts, as noted above: http://www.prosentient.com.au/balnaves/johnbalnaves/dissch6c.asp (Catullus wrote a poem that rhymed.) Also, in about 10 seconds, checking this, I was able to discover that the original of "The Wasps" by Aristophanes had rhymes (probably for comedic effect.) Sorry about the URL! http://books.google.com/books?id=WHmfT2s4mLgC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Aristophanes+wasps+rhyme&source=bl&ots=Re1e6MnWTd&sig=mczUaaeZwyOoemTUREZBuMHBemA&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Aristophanes%20wasps%20rhyme&f=false ("... I have not maintained the rhyme schemes of the original.") Let us try to keep wikipedia free of propaganda from the madrassas. Wastrel Way (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone did, in fact disturb the "origin of rhyme" section of the article by saying that rhyme was unknown to the poets of classical antiquity, a claim that is as silly as it was unreferenced. I added the information that I noted above, and moved the Koran from "antiquity" to the 7th century (and removed the POV that rhyme is "prominent" in that work). I am not trying to make it sound like the Arabs learned rhyme from Europe. On reading it again, it is fine -- the Koran is not dissed. It is simply that the Koran does not belong with the Chinese of the 10th century BC or Greek and Roman authors (200 BC -- 100 AD). It is a product of the 7th century AD. Wastrel Way (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what is said in this article: Rhyme became a permanent, even obligatory, feature of poetry in Hebrew language around the 4th century CE. It is found in the liturgical poetry (piyyut) written in the Byzantine empire. This was realized by scholars only recently, thanks to the thousands of piyyutim that have been discovered in the Cairo Genizah. It is assumed that the principle of rhyme was transferred from Hebrew liturgical poetry to the poetry of the Syriac church (written in Aramaic), and through this mediation introduced into Latin poetry and then into all other languages of Europe. See B. Hroshovski's article on Hebrew Prosody in the Encyclopedia Judaica.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I am adding "ending" to the following line.

"A rhyme is a repetition of identical or similar sounds in two or more different words and is most often used in poetry and songs" to make it "similar ending sounds". This is to distinguish between rhyme and alliteration. A sequence like cat, hat, sat, fat, sound the same at the end whereas "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers" has a lot of 'p' sounds, but doesn't rhyme. If the same sound is at the end of the word it's a rhyme. At the beginning of the word it's called alliteration.

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)[reply]

== Rhyming == [or the actual Rhyme] ... Even though spelling appears not be wrong as spell check had not had warning; Rhyming has been attracted at www.AncientlyDeLancey.com and www.DavidGeorgeDeLancey.yolasite.com definition at Anciently DeLancey via dictionary source Rhyming |)-Receiving Hymn Yielding Memory Expressed-(| theoryDavid George DeLancey (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Thank you. It is no longer in the article. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have removed the confusing text as part of a wide-ranging edit. Man vyi (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I hadn't noticed this before, but the section on Chinese was also deleted. Why? TomS TDotO (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been heavily mutilated. There used to be a section about the Koran as well (which is written in rhymes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.210.107 (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 October 2024 and 19 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Deiberte (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by NEWritingProf (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]