a couplet: a pair of successive lines of verse, rhyming and of the same length, typically with the same meter
Morrisey:
A poor woman, strangled in her very own bed as she read
But that's okay, 'cause she was old
And she would have died anyway
So three lines, not equal length, with differing meters, with a more complex internal rhyming structure.
yep, not a couplet. you could have simply said "verse", but you're pretentious yet ironically hilariously poor at grammar
Here's an example of actual rhyming couplets:
there once was a man called prufock
who most agreed was a bit of a cock,
instead of making others laugh,
he would post from the telegraph,
in lexicology and grammar
he had a supercilious manner
though always managed to be wrong
yet arguments he would prolong,
bitter tory with unmerited conceit,
you can always do a thread delete
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sat 9 Jan 2021, 21:57,
Reply)
I have to admit, these threads are most entertaining.
(
Extinct Jesus Dossier "...I think it counteracts Hitler's magic...", Sat 9 Jan 2021, 22:40,
Reply)
they generally start out that way for me, but the longer they go the more it feels like I'm ridiculing the special needs kid
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sun 10 Jan 2021, 13:56,
Reply)
I really do pity you.
Here are the very first and second sentences from the Wikipedia article on couplets: "A couplet is a pair of successive lines of metre in poetry. A couplet usually consists of two successive lines that rhyme and have the same metre."
You should pay particular attention to the adverb that is the third word of the second sentence there. Clue: it's 'usually'.
Failing that, read the seventh and eighth sentence of the article here: "While couplets traditionally rhyme, not all do. Poems may use white space to mark out couplets if they do not rhyme."
You quote three lines, and argue there isn't a couplet, because you've quoted three lines. The second and third lines of the three lines you quoted, that contain the cause, and the the hypothetical effect, make the couplet.
This just like your Independent SAGE and SAGE are one and the same thing lie the other day. You really don't what you're talking about.
I'm looking forward to your next riposte defending your fallacies, what could go wrong arguing about poetry with someone who calls himself Prufrock?
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Sat 9 Jan 2021, 22:43,
Reply)
But I'm not a pretentious twat and hence
did you know my username is a literary reference?
serving to remind you plebeian devils,
that I got a B+ for my lit O-levels,
(if only the Lidl check-out chick, knew of my mastery of the poetic,
forsooth, she would not scorn me, for knocking over beans on aisle three!)
that my example in no way fits the definition,
will not limit my solecistic disquisition,
why, in wikipedia "usual" is perceptible,
and this of course means all else is acceptable,
and just to complete my bankrupt argument,
I'll claim I was quoting a contextless fragment,
not matched in length or meter but who cares,
at least now it looks like i'm using pairs,
of this prufock's ballad I'm sadly the bearer,
and his tragic incapacity to admit when in error,
what sociopathy drives this tesco-value Rimbaud?
why it's his fragile pathetic and talentless ego
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sun 10 Jan 2021, 4:13,
Reply)
Your feeble doggerel is only slightly less tedious than your intellectual fallacies.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Sun 10 Jan 2021, 11:21,
Reply)
so even my fallacies are intellectual? what a lovely complement
hang on, was that a couplet? with your second line just being blank space (cue eerie music). if Morrisey's three line verses of unmatching meter or length are now couplets according to ee dummings (aka prufock), then even this reply is probably a couplet too. everything's a couplet according to where's waldo emerson. It's your doubling down on the stupid that's most funny
and not that I want to overburden that odd little mind of yours, but clauses with the modal "would have" already have a widely held descriptor for those that actually know and teach grammar. it's called "the conditional tense", and in this case it forms a conditional clause. Morrisey is not hypothesising an effect as you clumsily put it, he's describing a conditional: because old ∴ die soon. I say these things as you seem to lack many of the basic building blocks of grammar, and perhaps you want to work on those before you start tripping over poetical lexicology
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sun 10 Jan 2021, 13:52,
Reply)
You're both just as clever as each other.
(
brb welcome to my reed organ repair blog, Sun 10 Jan 2021, 14:33,
Reply)
I'd like to dislike you, brb, but everything about you is so beige it's hard to muster any feelings
it's not that you're stupid, nor that you say stupid things, at least, not with anywhere near the regularity of prufock, though when you do its often some odd aspergers-like missing of what's obvious to others. it's mostly moderate, reasonable, inessential and uninsightful, like a trainspotter cornering you at some party to explain rail gauges. you can obviously articulate a cogent argument, but it's far more fun to spar with prufocks seething jealousy and hatred
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sun 10 Jan 2021, 15:08,
Reply)