#21 Metrical encoding in verse

closed
nobody
5
2006-02-07
2004-08-31
Hilde Bře
No

- <lg>

At Henrik Ibsen's Writings we perform detailed metrical
encoding in all verse texts. Regarding the many verse
dramas, one of the main goals is to mark up the main
verse structures clearly, i.e. the starting and ending
points of the different meters occuring in the text. As
<lg> is defined in the TEI DTD it seems to be related to
poems only, not to verse dramas. The element may
contain verse lines, headings, closers and so on, but not
dramatic elements like speeches and stages. To avoid
heavily fragmenting and linking or milestones, we have
decided to modify our dtd to allow <sp>, <stage> and
<div> inside <lg>. This makes <lg> more parallel to the
<div> element, and we use the <lg> element to mark up
verse structures and the <div> element to mark up the
drama structures (acts and scenes). We would suggest
a similar change to the TEI DTD.

- additional attributes for metrical analysis

The attributes for metrical analysis in TEI P4 are the
met, real and rhyme attributes. These are intended for
metrical structure, deviation from the metrical structure
and rhyme scheme respectively. An attribute for
deviation from the rhyme scheme is not included in the
TEI DTD. We have therefore split the real attribute in
several categories: realMet (for deviation from metrical
structure) and realRhyme (for deviation from rhyme
scheme). In addition we have attributes for notation of
anacrusis and deviations attached to these, respectively
the an and the realAn attribute. These attributes may
have the values "single", "double" and "no". We would
suggest these attributes to be included in TEI P5.

Please contact Stine Brenna Taugbřl
(s.b.taugbol@ibsen.uio.no) at Henrik Ibsen's Writings, if
you have any questions or remarks.

Discussion

  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2004-09-01

    • labels: --> TEI: New or Changed Element
     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2004-09-01

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1021146

    I think the proposal to turn <lg> into a special kind of <div> is
    inappropriate. If you want a special kind of <div>, use <div
    type="verseGroup"> or something. Repurposing <lg>, which is
    defined as a chunk level element, in this way is tag abuse.

    The proposals for extending the metrical analysis attributes
    are interesting. Would you be able to provide some more
    detail about those, perhaps in the form of a worked example?

     
  • Logged In: NO

    1. <lg> vs. <div>
    To use <div> instead of <lg> to mark up verse line groups will
    also require dtd modification, since verse line groups may
    occur inside a speech, and <div> is not allowed inside <sp>.
    Verse line group could be marked up sometimes in <lg> and
    sometimes in <div>, depending on what textual level the
    verse line group is situated in, but it is more practical (for
    searching, controlling, updating, visualization etc.) to have all
    the verse line groups encoded the same way.

    2. Additional attributes
    Here are some examples with additional metrical attributes
    from Ibsen's verse drama Catilina (1850). The meter is the
    blank verse with regular scansions v-v-v-v-v- or v-v-v-v-v-v
    (v is unstressed syllable, - is stressed). Here is a deviating
    verse line, with no anacrusis and an extra unstressed syllable:

    <l realAn="no" realMet="bi+ -v-v-vv-v-v" rhyme="X">Nei - jeg
    siger Eder, I fatte ikke,</l>

    One of the songs in the play, a dactylic drinking song, have
    the rhyme scheme "A A X x B B X x". Here is a strophe with
    deviating rhyme scheme:

    <lg type="strophe" realRhyme="X X X x A A X x">
    <l rhyme="X">Dog, fremfor Alle</l>
    <l rhyme="X">blinkende perler</l>
    <l rhyme="X">klare Falerner,</l>
    <l rhyme="x">herlige Drik!</l>
    <l rhyme="A">Du os opliver</l>
    <l rhyme="A">Lystighed giver,</l>
    <l rhyme="X">Munterhed spreder</l>
    <l rhyme="x">Du i vor Sjl!</l></lg>

    Stine Brenna Taugbl
    s.b.taugbol@ibsen.uio.no

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2004-09-02

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1021146

    Thank you for the examples of metrical analysis. A proposal
    for adding these extra attributes for metrical analysis seems
    fair enough to me, though it is rather specialized.

    But I am afraid I am still not convinced that there is need for
    the changes you propose making to <lg>. You say you want
    to allow <div>, <sp> and <stage> within <lg>. Taking these
    in reverse order:
    * <stage> is already permitted, both within and between <l>s
    (and if it is not, then it should be!)
    * If you allow <sp> within <lg>, you will allow a nonensical
    structure like the following
    <lg>
    <sp>
    <p>....</p>
    </sp>
    </lg>

    What this tells us is that whatever the thing is you want to
    include within a <lg> it's not a <sp> as currently defined,
    since that can contain either prose or verse, and your thing
    obviously can only contain verse.

    * Why do you want <div> within <lg> ? What's wrong with a
    nested <lg> ?

    Is the motivation for this change the familiar cross-hierarchy
    problem (speech structure doesn't respect the verse
    structure boundaries, and vice versa)? There are a number of
    ways proposed already for dealing with that, of varying
    satisfactoriness. But I don't think this is one of them.

     
  • Logged In: NO

    1. <stage>
    It seems to me that <stage> is permitted in <l>, but not in
    <lg>
    2. <sp>
    You are right that by allowing <sp> within <lg> we also allow
    <p>, and this is not an optimal solutions. But I'm not sure
    there is an otimal solution to this problem. In our encoding
    praxis we end <lg> elements before <p> elements, but this is
    not reflected in the dtd.
    3. <div>
    We want to allow <div> inside <lg> because whole scenes,
    acts or dramas may be written in the same meter. This is
    connected to our choice of distinguishing between drama and
    verse structure in respectively <div> and <lg> elements. It is
    also connected to the problem of crossing structures. We
    have discussed several alternatives: fragmenting, milestones
    and dtd-modifications. Fragmenting of <lg> elements will in
    some cases imply a huge number of <lg> parts (for verse
    dramas written in one meter throughout the play, every single
    speech would contain a part of the one verse line group).
    Milestones is neither a good solution, because it complicates
    controlling, visualization, and so on. Therefore we found that
    the best solution would be to modify our dtd as described. I
    have written about this decision in LLC vol. 19. no 1 April
    2004, but I believe I have mentioned most of the arguments
    here.

    Stine Brenna Taugbl
    s.b.taugbol@ibsen.uio.no

     
  • Syd Bauman
    Syd Bauman
    2004-09-02

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=686243

    P4 vanilla does not permit <stage> as a child of <lg> (which
    it obviously should -- I pointed this out on TEI-L in April
    2001). It does allow <stage> as a child of <l>, which I
    think it probably should, but is not nearly so obvious.

    As for <speaker> as a child of <lg>, the argument is a bit
    more tenuous, but still holds water. If one thinks of
    <speaker> as either a special case of <stage> or a special
    case of <label>, rather than as "first child of <sp>", it
    does make sense. The WWP permitted this (<speaker> as child
    of <lg>) in mid-1999.

    As for <div> as a child of <lg>, I don't think this makes a
    lot of sense. I've read the arguments here, and find (what I
    understand of them) unconvincing. Just because two sets of
    metrical lines are in the same meter does not mean they need
    to be (or even should be) in the same <lg> element. The
    <div> element exists for dividing a text into logical units,
    like acts and scenes. <lg> exists for holding a set of
    metrical lines in a convenient way, not for wrapping a set
    of divisions which happen to include metrical lines, I don't
    think.
    I don't think this particular suggestion was part of the set
    of suggestions the Henrik Ibsen's group posted (to TEI-L) in
    December 2001, so if there are further arguments there I
    have not reread them.

     
  • Logged In: NO

    We need <lg> elements around the <l> elements because we
    then have two levels to place the metrical analysis at. At <lg>
    level we place the main formula, and at <l> level we place the
    more specialized analysis, and deviations from the main
    formula. It is practical to have as few <lg> elements as
    possible, around the different meters in the text. Since "meter
    divisions" may occur at any level of the play (it may cover the
    whole play, or just a part of a speech), we need a flexible
    element to place the main formula in.

    Stine Brenna Taugbl
    s.b.taugbol@ibsen.uio.no

     
  • Syd Bauman
    Syd Bauman
    2004-09-08

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=686243

    P4 vanilla does not permit <stage> as a child of <lg> (which
    it obviously should -- I pointed this out on TEI-L in April
    2001). It does allow <stage> as a child of <l>, which I
    think it probably should, but is not nearly so obvious.

    As for <speaker> as a child of <lg>, the argument is a bit
    more tenuous, but still holds water. If one thinks of
    <speaker> as either a special case of <stage> or a special
    case of <label>, rather than as "first child of <sp>", it
    does make sense. The WWP permitted this (<speaker> as child
    of <lg>) in mid-1999.

    As for <div> as a child of <lg>, I don't think this makes a
    lot of sense. I've read the arguments here, and find (what I
    understand of them) unconvincing. Just because two sets of
    metrical lines are in the same meter does not mean they need
    to be (or even should be) in the same <lg> element. The
    <div> element exists for dividing a text into logical units,
    like acts and scenes. <lg> exists for holding a set of
    metrical lines in a convenient way, not for wrapping a set
    of divisions which happen to include metrical lines, I don't
    think.
    I don't think this particular suggestion was part of the set
    of suggestions the Henrik Ibsen's group posted (to TEI-L) in
    December 2001, so if there are further arguments there I
    have not reread them.

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2006-02-07

    • status: open --> closed