Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Thank you for the reply. I can only imagine that the application of "Light Modernization" to this masterpiece would not only change the pronunciation of the words, it would add the implied missing words thereby disrupting the meter and rhyme and thus subsequently ruin the sonnet. I understand the point of making things readable but when you start changing the spelling, you actually ruin the art form. Sonnet > Light Modernized Poem

Let me not to the marriage of true minds

Admit impediments. Love is not love

Which alters when it alteration finds,

Or bends with the remover to remove.

O no, it is an ever-fixed mark

That looks on tempests and is never shaken;

It is the star to every wand'ring barque,

Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.

Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks

Within his bending sickle's compass come;

Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,

But bears it out even to the edge of doom.

If this be error and upon me proved,

I never writ, nor no man ever loved.



Ironically, you've posted the lightly modernized version of 116. :) In the 1609 printing it looks like:

  O no, it is an euer fixed marke
  That lookes on tempeſts and is neuer ſhaken;
  It is the ſtar to euery wandring barke
  Whoſe worths vnknowne, although his higth be taken...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnet_116


Touche! :D The point still stands. If "mostly-automated one-to-one spelling and hyphenation updates" changes 'wand'ring' to 'wandering', 'worth's' to 'worth is' or 'Love's' to 'Love is', you break the sonnet.


I think this is a good time to maybe do some research into whether your complaints are valid or not before making them... You clearly aren't seeing that the point, in fact, does not stand...


OK, now I'm intrigued. How does changing the spelling of key words not break iambic pentameter?


Iambic pentameter depends on pronunciation, not spelling, and the changes/reforms/standartization generally affects the spelling only. If you take an archaic representation of some sounds and replace it with the modern representation of those sounds, the verse isn't changed.

In that example, "vnknowne" is pronounced the same as "unknown", despite having an extra "vowel" in the typography.


Spelling (and related things) in poetry (especially contractions) often signals intended pronunciation variations from the standard pronunciation of a word.

A mechanical modernization and standardization would seem to run a significant risk of damaging some of these, though proper manual final review would hopefully catch and revert the problematic cases.


Pronunciation is based on the spelling.

How many syllables are in the word 'wandring'? How many are in the word 'wandering'?

Sadly, the modernization breaks the meter and it's no longer a sonnet. I have a sneaky suspicion The Bard was deliberate in his choice of spelling...


Better yet, take the advice given and download the free epub and pick a random page and decide for yourself whether iambic pentameter is kept!


Our changes do not :)


Does it change those? That would go well beyond the stated intent, because those are perfectly valid constructions in modern English.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: