Where do these "metrical scansions" that you are encoding come from?
If you want to represent the scansion which would conventionally be
associated with this verse form, then you use @[log in to unmask] If you want to
represent how you think this verse was or should be realized, then you
use @[log in to unmask] You seem to be asking for a third kind of metrical scansion,
but I am not clear what that would represent. Presumably the linguistic
norms in terms of long and short syllables, accent etc. translated into
conventional metrical structures such as feet? But then you are
recording prosody (in the linguistic sense), not a metrical system at all.
@met (and @real) are meant for use with metrical systems -- i.e. systems
based on predefined conventions about how such linguistic properties are
applied in verse. Nothing to stop you defining a new such system of
course and using that for your @met of course, that's what metDecl is for.
Edward Vanhoutte wrote:
> Dear all,
> I'm currently encoding a bunch of modern poetry for which I want to
> record the metrical scansion. For more classical forms of poetry I would
> use the @met attribute with the deviations recorded in the @real
> attribute. However, the guidelines define the @met attribute as
> containing 'a user-specified encoding for the conventional metrical
> structure of the element.' (6.4.) My problem is now the word
> 'conventional' in the definition. The modern poetry I'm encoding does
> not use any 'conventional' metrical patterns. If this word would have
> been left out of the definition, I could use the @met attribute to do
> what I want to do. As long as the word is in the definition, I abuse
> this attribute for my own purposes, which I hate to do.
> Can it be that this part of the guidelines is designed and authored only
> with classical and convential poetical patterns in mind?
> If @met can also be used to do what I want to do (and on the level of
> the <l> element), shouldn't the guidelines say so?
> Any suggestions?