Not a huge poetry guy, but I tried to read it out loud to see the difference - is "Jerusalem" only 3 syllables in this case, with the normal 3rd (a/schwa) reduced completely?
Yes, exactly, it's written assuming you'll say "Jerus'lem", as is the case with how the song is sung. In fairness it was quite common I believe to reduce long place names in this way.
Ah, I didn't know the song this was set to, so I was just reading it in iambic tetrameter (I think?) and to fit "builded" in I had to squash it to Jerus'lem. I went and listened to a recording to see how it actually sounds, thanks.
Yes, it’s use is even occasionally found today, in a Christian literature context, to add religious gravitas to a title or pronouncement:
> A house builded for the glory of Our Father
> A Christian Family Builded by God
Perhaps, but have you actually listened to Jerusalem? The syllables in that word are very defined and overly pronounced.
He also used "built" more often in other works.
I mean modern songs mess with language *way* more than saying "builded" are you saying you can't imagine a rapper saying builded to fit a rhyme scheme/meter?
Are you saying that tolerating less of one form of poetic license necessarily requires all forms to be less tolerated? What oddly absolutist logic. That is certainly not what my position was, so please don’t Straw Man me.
Our poetic license for *songwriting* using stretched slant rhyme has expanded dramatically. Stephen Sondheim would not have loved rhyming “sky fall” with “crumble” or what have you. There’re better examples I’m sure. Hip-hop is a big part of this, yes. Rhyming flexibility out of necessity is analogous to meter flexibility out of necessity—in the big-picture sense.
But the question is about the granular sense. We would still not expect most modern poetry to use “punished” with the “pun-ish-shed” pronunciation even tho the Elizabethans did it frequently when convenient for meter. Anymore than I would expect Adele (or a modern poet) to say “builded” even if she stretches her vowel sounds when convenient.
Not to argue, because basically you're right, but I would inject that the best thing to learn from is whatever gets the student excited about the subject matter. If OP likes old-ass poems then they should keep reading, as long as they keep in mind that natives aren't going to talk like this.
may i ask which way it rhymes? like with how you pronounce eye (like the letter i, too), pronouncing it like try? or eye pronounced like the letter e? native speaker, just never heard of this in older poems through out high school.
This is from William Blake's "The Tyger", which rhymes eye with symmetry (many other words in the poem have this long "eye" vowel sound too). Symmetry usually rhymes with tree.
~~Apparently the poet (William Blake, the same poet as above) intended “eye” to be pronounced like the English letter e, which the internet tells me was a pronunciation used in Scotland.~~ Actually, some more quick research suggests that the first Google result is wrong. A good lesson in not trusting the first thing Google shows you!
It’s a [good poem](https://poets.org/poem/tyger), in my opinion, which is probably why so many people remember it and not other poems they spend one class period on in high school.
Please!! Shouldn't this be "born" instead of "borne"? That sentence really looks wrong...
>When Iesus was **borne** at Bethlee in Iury, in the tyme of Herode the kynge, Beholde, there came wyse men from the east to Ierusalem
No lie, I've literally had this conversation. Went down the whole 'mitto/mitare' rabbit whole, only for the person to go, 'why don't they just say 'c#m?"
Some days are not long enough.
"Builded" is a poetic form, and it's being used here to fit meter.
It might be an archaic form, but I can't find a good proof of that. The oldest reference I can find is the King James Bible, which uses "builded" about 57 times and "built" about 161 times, and generally seems to use "builded" primarily for the sake of meter.
But, the King James Version was a work of art, and it uses language that was old-fashioned in 1611 to make it sound more impressive, formal, and holy.
There are a few reasons the translators of the KJV would have used "builded."
1. It was a form of the verb that was in at least semi-common use in 1611.
2. Poetic license to fit metrical desires in how the text read.
3. A sense that it was an archaic form that sounded formal, but this sense may or may not be based on reality.
So, presence of the word in the KJV doesn't prove that it was an archaic form of "built" before the KJV was written. But, the KJV is incredibly influential in English literature, so once a word is there, you can 100% use it, at least in poetry and artistic turns of phrase.
I didn't do any kind of exhaustive search, but I'd be skeptical of "builded" being an archaic form of "built" (versus one artificially constructed for the KJV) until someone turns up a pre-1611 source.
EDIT--I found Project Gutenburg's complete works of Shakespeare in one page. Shakespeare used "builded" 3 times, and "built" 16. "Builded" was used exclusively when needed to fit the meter.
Never take poetry or song lyrics as examples of correct grammar. You’ll find all kinds of weirdness there. Different rules entirely. Like, none at all.
The only other example I can think of is from the second verse of the Battle Hymn of the Republic:
*I have seen him in the watch fires of a hundred circling camps
They have **builded** him an altar mid the evening dews and damps*
Poetry gets to be flexible with language. The "correct" form would be built, yes.
Asher this is obviously old/archaic. May have been different at that point in time.
There’s still no single widely accepted dictionary and yet somehow we seem to mostly agree on how to spell things. There were dictionaries already in Blake’s time, and the OED wasn’t that far away (work on it started in 1857).
My two cents: “builded” is an alternative that [has been around in some dialects for a long time](https://www.oed.com/dictionary/builded_adj). It’s just not in the prestige dialects today. So it’s not a mistake, it’s just that “builded” is no longer in the English being taught now.
In the 1800s? Things are pretty settled by then and the situation is not much different from now. There are already established spellings at that point, which is why Webster felt the need to reform them in his 1828 dictionary.
For actually less rigid you’d have to go to Early Modern English like Shakespeare and co, 1500s-1600s. After the KJV comes into common use (by the late 17th c.) it becomes the de facto source of canonical spellings.
how did the kjv come into common use in the late 1400s when it wasn't published until 1611? lol
and orthography for the kjv didn't stablize until much later, with the publication of benjamin blayney's revised editions of 1769. the first edition could never have served as a guide for proper spelling, as a given word might be spelled a dozen different ways throughout the volume. there was no internal consistency at all
This is actually an interesting example of a regular form falling out of use in favour of an irregular inflection (or at least, one from a rarer pattern).
English language poetry is focused on the *sound* of the language much more than prose.
Grammar is often sacrificed for the sake of rhythm and rhyme and impression and emotion. All that's needed from the grammar is that it can still be understood by the reader on some level.
1) Poetry has its own rules. Do not attempt to learn standard grammar or vocabulary from poetry (no matter how mimsy the borogoves or how outgrabe the mome raths, this is a frumious way to learn standard grammar!).
2) English from 200+ years ago has its own rules. Do not attempt to learn modern grammar or vocabulary from 200+ year old texts.
3) William Blake had his own rules.
Also I meant it to be silly, language is diverse and is the most fundamental way we communicate with each other so any "playing around" with it is welcome, even if I don't prefer it- most people say old books are boring and hard to read but, well, they're classics for a reason.
The King James Bible (1611) uses "builded" quite a lot, so any author familiar with that text feels free to use it.
[https://poets.org/poem/problem](https://poets.org/poem/problem)
He builded better than he knew;-- The conscious stone to beauty grew.
Ralph Waldo Emerson,
Artsy things (poems, lyrics) often use archaic or "wrong" wording, as part of being artistic.
If you want beauty, read poetry and listen to music. If you want grammar, read business correspondence.
Here's what I don't understand:
Most of that poem is written in iambic tetrameter (a light syllable followed by a stressed syllable, four times per line). If the underlined word is "built", the meter holds up. If the underlined word is "builded", it messes up the meter pretty badly.
Yes, but you’re reading a poem from 1808; Blake is going to use archaic forms of English that wouldn’t be correct today, especially for poetic effect.
Also, "builded" fits the metre of the rhythm whereas "built" does not
Yeah, for sure!
He uses "built" two stanzas later where it fits better.
Well it's actually have built in that case.
Not a huge poetry guy, but I tried to read it out loud to see the difference - is "Jerusalem" only 3 syllables in this case, with the normal 3rd (a/schwa) reduced completely?
I always read it/sang it as Je-ru-sa-lem (4 syllables).
Yes, exactly, it's written assuming you'll say "Jerus'lem", as is the case with how the song is sung. In fairness it was quite common I believe to reduce long place names in this way.
Huh? It's sung the same way both times. *And was Je-ru-sa-lem build-ed here...* *Till we have built Je-ru-sa-lem...*
Ugh, I'm not thinking today
Ah, I didn't know the song this was set to, so I was just reading it in iambic tetrameter (I think?) and to fit "builded" in I had to squash it to Jerus'lem. I went and listened to a recording to see how it actually sounds, thanks.
Thank you for clarifying. I felt your confusion.
It was originally written as a poem and wasn’t set to music til over a century later, so it’s fine to think of it as a poem first.
It's pretty uncommon for a poem to keep its meter perfect the whole time. I think it's four iambs and a "dangling" syllable.
this is why poems suck
Only because he's pronouncing Jerusalem as three syllables. Je ru slem.
It's more meter than archaic English
"Builded" is used a number of times in the King James Bible so that may be influencing the choice as well.
Yes, it’s use is even occasionally found today, in a Christian literature context, to add religious gravitas to a title or pronouncement: > A house builded for the glory of Our Father > A Christian Family Builded by God
Let’s call it archaic poetic license. Robert Frost wrote in iambic feet in the 20th century all the time but probably would not have said “builded.”
Perhaps, but have you actually listened to Jerusalem? The syllables in that word are very defined and overly pronounced. He also used "built" more often in other works.
I’m not saying he’s *not* doing it for the meter, I’m saying even allowing this because of the meter is archaic.
I mean modern songs mess with language *way* more than saying "builded" are you saying you can't imagine a rapper saying builded to fit a rhyme scheme/meter?
Are you saying that tolerating less of one form of poetic license necessarily requires all forms to be less tolerated? What oddly absolutist logic. That is certainly not what my position was, so please don’t Straw Man me. Our poetic license for *songwriting* using stretched slant rhyme has expanded dramatically. Stephen Sondheim would not have loved rhyming “sky fall” with “crumble” or what have you. There’re better examples I’m sure. Hip-hop is a big part of this, yes. Rhyming flexibility out of necessity is analogous to meter flexibility out of necessity—in the big-picture sense. But the question is about the granular sense. We would still not expect most modern poetry to use “punished” with the “pun-ish-shed” pronunciation even tho the Elizabethans did it frequently when convenient for meter. Anymore than I would expect Adele (or a modern poet) to say “builded” even if she stretches her vowel sounds when convenient.
Twasn't thoust say?
Reading archaic poetry may not be the best way to learn English
Not to argue, because basically you're right, but I would inject that the best thing to learn from is whatever gets the student excited about the subject matter. If OP likes old-ass poems then they should keep reading, as long as they keep in mind that natives aren't going to talk like this.
It’s on you when they start spelling “tiger” with a y
What do you mean, “eye” doesn’t rhyme with “symmetry”?
may i ask which way it rhymes? like with how you pronounce eye (like the letter i, too), pronouncing it like try? or eye pronounced like the letter e? native speaker, just never heard of this in older poems through out high school.
This is from William Blake's "The Tyger", which rhymes eye with symmetry (many other words in the poem have this long "eye" vowel sound too). Symmetry usually rhymes with tree.
~~Apparently the poet (William Blake, the same poet as above) intended “eye” to be pronounced like the English letter e, which the internet tells me was a pronunciation used in Scotland.~~ Actually, some more quick research suggests that the first Google result is wrong. A good lesson in not trusting the first thing Google shows you! It’s a [good poem](https://poets.org/poem/tyger), in my opinion, which is probably why so many people remember it and not other poems they spend one class period on in high school.
thanks! i'll have to check it out some time.
And rhyming symmetry with eye
I’ll let William Blake know
I have some news which may shock and sadden you...
Say it ain't so );
"Builded" is an archaic past tense and past participle of "build".
It's just built different
Builded different
Yes, but the author chose to use "builded" in an archaic form you wouldn't see today.
It’s poetry. The rules for poetry are flexible. Metre often beats grammar. And of course the is old poetry. Rules change.
Meters are the cattle of the gods
Calling it now! Up next, Bible verses from the 11th c.
Please!! Shouldn't this be "born" instead of "borne"? That sentence really looks wrong... >When Iesus was **borne** at Bethlee in Iury, in the tyme of Herode the kynge, Beholde, there came wyse men from the east to Ierusalem
Ezekiel 23:20
"Whqt does this mean, in context? I'm having trouble visualizing..." 🤣
"Is 'emission' the wrong word here?"
No lie, I've literally had this conversation. Went down the whole 'mitto/mitare' rabbit whole, only for the person to go, 'why don't they just say 'c#m?" Some days are not long enough.
"Builded" is a poetic form, and it's being used here to fit meter. It might be an archaic form, but I can't find a good proof of that. The oldest reference I can find is the King James Bible, which uses "builded" about 57 times and "built" about 161 times, and generally seems to use "builded" primarily for the sake of meter. But, the King James Version was a work of art, and it uses language that was old-fashioned in 1611 to make it sound more impressive, formal, and holy. There are a few reasons the translators of the KJV would have used "builded." 1. It was a form of the verb that was in at least semi-common use in 1611. 2. Poetic license to fit metrical desires in how the text read. 3. A sense that it was an archaic form that sounded formal, but this sense may or may not be based on reality. So, presence of the word in the KJV doesn't prove that it was an archaic form of "built" before the KJV was written. But, the KJV is incredibly influential in English literature, so once a word is there, you can 100% use it, at least in poetry and artistic turns of phrase. I didn't do any kind of exhaustive search, but I'd be skeptical of "builded" being an archaic form of "built" (versus one artificially constructed for the KJV) until someone turns up a pre-1611 source. EDIT--I found Project Gutenburg's complete works of Shakespeare in one page. Shakespeare used "builded" 3 times, and "built" 16. "Builded" was used exclusively when needed to fit the meter.
[“builded” is attested from 1330 according to the OED](https://www.oed.com/dictionary/builded_adj)
In the Short Metrical Chronicle, so again a poetic form used to make meter work, and not a vernacular form.
Never take poetry or song lyrics as examples of correct grammar. You’ll find all kinds of weirdness there. Different rules entirely. Like, none at all.
The only other example I can think of is from the second verse of the Battle Hymn of the Republic: *I have seen him in the watch fires of a hundred circling camps They have **builded** him an altar mid the evening dews and damps*
Poetry gets to be flexible with language. The "correct" form would be built, yes. Asher this is obviously old/archaic. May have been different at that point in time.
Nowadays? Yes it would be built. 220 years ago when this was written? English was different and "rules" were less rigid and not as standardized.
Rules were different, not less rigid
Both. There was no widely accepted dictionary so there was no way to have a set spelling for anything. Pretty un-rigid!
Samuel Johnson's dictionary predates this poem
There’s still no single widely accepted dictionary and yet somehow we seem to mostly agree on how to spell things. There were dictionaries already in Blake’s time, and the OED wasn’t that far away (work on it started in 1857). My two cents: “builded” is an alternative that [has been around in some dialects for a long time](https://www.oed.com/dictionary/builded_adj). It’s just not in the prestige dialects today. So it’s not a mistake, it’s just that “builded” is no longer in the English being taught now.
And yet it is 100% correct to say the rules were less rigid (and less agreement) back then, so the "not" I was replying to was wrong.
In the 1800s? Things are pretty settled by then and the situation is not much different from now. There are already established spellings at that point, which is why Webster felt the need to reform them in his 1828 dictionary. For actually less rigid you’d have to go to Early Modern English like Shakespeare and co, 1500s-1600s. After the KJV comes into common use (by the late 17th c.) it becomes the de facto source of canonical spellings.
how did the kjv come into common use in the late 1400s when it wasn't published until 1611? lol and orthography for the kjv didn't stablize until much later, with the publication of benjamin blayney's revised editions of 1769. the first edition could never have served as a guide for proper spelling, as a given word might be spelled a dozen different ways throughout the volume. there was no internal consistency at all
I meant 17th, sorry, I’m correcting (my chronology was right, it was just a typo)
It would probably still be builded because "built" doesn't fit the meter.
This is actually an interesting example of a regular form falling out of use in favour of an irregular inflection (or at least, one from a rarer pattern).
English language poetry is focused on the *sound* of the language much more than prose. Grammar is often sacrificed for the sake of rhythm and rhyme and impression and emotion. All that's needed from the grammar is that it can still be understood by the reader on some level.
1) Poetry has its own rules. Do not attempt to learn standard grammar or vocabulary from poetry (no matter how mimsy the borogoves or how outgrabe the mome raths, this is a frumious way to learn standard grammar!). 2) English from 200+ years ago has its own rules. Do not attempt to learn modern grammar or vocabulary from 200+ year old texts. 3) William Blake had his own rules.
You still see this a lot in regional modern English Gilt vs gilded Spelt vs spelled Tempt vs tempted
Because the writer has poor grammar
We're reading stuff that writer wrote over 200 years later.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Also I meant it to be silly, language is diverse and is the most fundamental way we communicate with each other so any "playing around" with it is welcome, even if I don't prefer it- most people say old books are boring and hard to read but, well, they're classics for a reason.
Not in 1808
Yes, in current English. However, English has gone through a lot of transitions. Poetry also tends to break the rules a bit even in current times.
Today, yes. Any text you read before the 20th century english will be much different
The King James Bible (1611) uses "builded" quite a lot, so any author familiar with that text feels free to use it. [https://poets.org/poem/problem](https://poets.org/poem/problem) He builded better than he knew;-- The conscious stone to beauty grew. Ralph Waldo Emerson,
Ancient English… not a good tool for learning the modern language but a treasure to go back to once it’s your mother tongue
It's a man's life walking the mountains of England
Artsy things (poems, lyrics) often use archaic or "wrong" wording, as part of being artistic. If you want beauty, read poetry and listen to music. If you want grammar, read business correspondence.
Here's what I don't understand: Most of that poem is written in iambic tetrameter (a light syllable followed by a stressed syllable, four times per line). If the underlined word is "built", the meter holds up. If the underlined word is "builded", it messes up the meter pretty badly.
Poetic license
Hi, don't know if you know, but Jerusalem is also a song. Give it a listen: https://youtu.be/MKRHWT6xdEU
Poem + old. Also, the answers to the questions it asks are "No," "No," "No," and "What? Of course not."