Talk:Quatorzain

This article is, of course, totally whacked. 16:30, 6 November 2005 User:151.203.14.73

Rewrite
Well I pretty much agree with the rather direct comment above. I have now rewritten the article, using the Oxford Dictionary as the starting point. The previous version of the article took the view that the Shakespearian sonnet is not a true sonnet, and that this form should be called the 'quatorzain'. The article itself stated that 16th century poets themselves called quatorzains sonnets and sonnets quatorzains. As presumably pretty much anyone writing a 14-line poem before the 19th century was probably trying to write a sonnet, it is hardly surprising that the word was not well defined. The Oxford supports the idea that it is now used for 14-line poems that are not true sonnets, but the previous version of the article's proposition that Shakespeare's sonnets are not true sonnets, is &mdash; to say the least &mdash; questionable and unusual, or as User:151.203.14.73 put it ... "totally whacked". &mdash; Stumps 09:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

lol--I've deleted the editorial comment because I believe it was intended to address the earlier version of this article and not the current one. MaggieTMaggieT 19:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Is this – // – the correct pronunciation for the term, and is it worth adding to the article? I know I'm supposed to be bold, but I'd rather check when it comes to the IPA! Daniel 14:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Oxford has it as // ... but I'm not sure if they use IPA? I've never heard anyone say it, so I don't know where the stress goes, but the Oxford's version surprises me. Stumps 17:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I based the IPA pronunciation on my understanding of the French (quatorze). Daniel 19:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, what you have is what I would have guessed, but as we should not do original research here, we have to use citable sources where possible. Do you have access to any other dictionary which might confirm or deny the Oxford version? Stumps 03:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point, I forgot about that. I think the Oxford version would be appropriate here. Daniel 21:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)