Talk:Sumer is icumen in

Composer

I couldn't understand why the article stated "Canon by Unknown; speculated to be W. de Wycombe" when many sources state that the speculated composer was John of Fornsete, indeed he was already mentioned by one of the sources cited at the bottom. So I have added the latter into the article and cited a source - In this case the Oxford Companion to Music, though there are others. The entry states, "The composition (sometimes called The Reading Rota)...is usually attributed to John of Fornsete, monk of Reading Abbey, where he was Keeper of the Cartulary (or records); the grounds for this attribution are the fact that it has been written into the book of records, and in what is evidently his handwriting." Bkesselman (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Sumer

Sumer does mean spring in this Middle English. I don't want to see that mistake again. Make a note of it because it will be on your next test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.121.43 (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you should be quite so categorical, since some scholars disagree with you. Whilst "Sumer" in ME doesn't mean "Summer" in modern English, neither does it mean "Spring" in modern English - the word extended over a longer period of time than its modern equivalent [1]. It could also mean, less definitively, "warm weather". So how about approaching this issue from the music? It's well known that the cuckoo at the beginning of its arrival in the British Isles sings the interval of a minor third; as the season progresses this interval gets progressively larger (via a major third to a perfect fourth or even a perfect fifth [2]). The musical interval f-d-f, which starts the round and recurs frequently, is a minor third. Hence we can reasonably conclude that the bird has only just arrived - it must therefore be April at the earliest, though most likely early May (and according to the nursery rhyme[3], the bird doesn't change its tune until June). Is this summer in the modern sense? Probably not; even gardeners consider summer doesn't start until 1 June (rather than on the solstice three weeks later), although May can often be really quite warm. Is this conclusive either way? Again, probably not, but I still don't think you should be so definite about it. (interestingly Delius's Cuckoo also sings a minor third – but it is after all the first cuckoo of spring). I've therefore inserted the possibility of "Sumer" meaning (early) summer or warm weather in the article. You'll probably revert, but at least I'll have tried.195.217.52.130 22:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see any reason to translate svmer as anything other than summer. According to the OED, summer "in popular use compris[es] in the northern hemisphere the period from mid-May to mid-August", and it gives no indication that the word has changed in meaning since the middle ages. And wasn't Beltane on May 1 originally the first day of summer? It seems just unbearably pedantic to translate svmer as spring, rather than to translate it as summer but leave a note explaining that at the time summer was considered to start at the beginning of May. —Angr 19:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Sumer" does mean both spring and summer. See entries under A.1.a. in the Oxford English Dictionary, especially this line from C. Brown's English Lyrics 13th Cent. (1932) 108: "Somer is comen & winter gon." 2601:189:8480:7CC0:B5A4:2724:C601:858 (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

More Middle English pedantry

Also isn't "icumen" past tense, so that the first line should read 'Spring has come in' not spring is coming in.

It sure is. klaus

Modern English Translation

I'm about to edit this and wanted to explain my rationale. My aim is to be as absolutely faithful to the text as possible while illuminating the meaning for a modern reader.

I prefer "Summer has come in" (see above) to the limp "Summer has arrived". Arriver is a French verb so it shouldn't be replacing the good Anglo-Saxon cum/come.

I have returned seed and meadow to the singular which is accurate and more in tune with the animals being in the singular.

Translating "wde" as forest when wood is available seems extremely perverse.

I am aware that billy-goat is a more usual term than buck-goat, however buck-goat is also perfectly correct and captures the essence of bucca far better.

Rendering "sterteth" as stirs seems more natural than "jumps" but I know "uerteth" as the simple turns is going to cause controversy. I simply see no evidence that "uerteth" means farts when it could so easily simply be from vertere to turn. See my further comments in the FART? section below. I like Silverstein's suggestion of cavorts but as the word is disputed I've gone for the most unadorned word. There's a lot of scholarly debate about the reading of "uerteth" so I hope people wont just change it back without at least attempting to do some work on the subject.

"Ne swik þu nauer nu" has proved a little troublesome. The construction ne <verb> nauer simply means never and is reminiscent of ne jamais in French. So literally we have "Never stop you now". By flipping the negative round "Don't you ever stop now" includes both "you" and "now". TheMathemagician 23:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether a "bucke" is a he-goat or a male deer is important to the "verteth" discussion. Goats fart, but don't "vert" (I'll explain); deer fart, too, but also "vert"

What I mean by "vert" is "go to the greenwood". The authority for it to mean "fart" is very weak -- if that's what it means this is the first usage. Moreover, Chaucer uses "fart" (in the Miller's Tale), not "vert" or anything similar. On the other hand, the use of "vert" to mean "greenwood" is also not found so early, and making "vert" into a verb is rare in any case.

Nonetheless, "go to the greenwood" is the only interpretation that fits the song, which is about the land returning to life after winter. Stags can fart all year long, and the image of a full-horned stag standing on some hillock and farting is something a countryman would associate with autumn or maybe winter. But stags, like all deer, go to the greenwood in the Spring, to nibble on the tiny new leaves of the young trees and bushes. As anyone with a garden in deer country knows.

I think the "fart" idea must have come from some Englishman of our time who saw "sterteth" and immediately pronounced it "starteth" just as he would pronounce "clerk" as "clark". Then to preserve the rhyme, "verteth" becomes "farteth". But from what I know, written Middle English reflects the actual pronunciation of the time, so "sterteth" would be "stairteth" and "verteth" "vairteth". As it turned out, "sterteth" ended up "starts" in Modern English, with the same meaning, to move violently or to leap up. "Verteth" didn't survive as a common word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.140.235 (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

We learned this song in Middle English in the 1980s and my music teacher then claimed that "verteth" referred to the growth of (green?) velvet on the antlers of male deer in the spring. --adonovan

I have always thought it translates best as "Summer is a-coming in". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.207 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It would be properly translated as “summer is come in”, “icumen” being the past participle. “Come” is the modern form, having lost its prefix and suffix (the latter can still be seen in some verbs like holpen or eaten, and the former in some uses of “a-” and in the German/Dutch ge-).Steepleman (t) 15:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

FART?

Sometime ago i had seen "ferth" rendered as "farts", but i consulted a number of authoritative translations such as this and corrected the error, only to see the fart thing reappear again. Although this is a riddle it is an ecclesiastical song and it is highly improbable that it could be rendered as such. On Old-English dictionaries ferth = forth. Please reference every change you make, this is a very important text. If you join the discussion, please remember to sign your posts. Thanks. --Wikipedius 19:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it is not an "ecclesiastical" song—the English lyrics are secular/profane, while the Latin lyrics are sacred text. Second, you're imposing modern prejudices in calling it "improbable". Finally, the very first link in the References section gives the "fart" translation, along with an analysis of why: postulated meanings involving jumping or bounding require an etymology from French, which though not impossible is a bit of a stretch and out of character with the rest of the song. (Note also that the phonological evolution of the two verbs on that line preserves the rhyme: sterteth/verteth -> starts/farts.) "Ferth" may mean "forth", but that's not what's written; what is in the MS is written "uerteth", equivalently "verteth", which even after allowing for variable spelling is a voiced consonant and an extra syllable away from "ferth". I'm changing it back, though I'll leave a little note about the objection. /blahedo (t) 23:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point indeed, i took note of it on the italian version. You seem to favor with many scholars the popular meaning of Sumer, but i wonder why a scholarly interpretation should be less favored. It is unusual for a written text of this time not to have undergone manipulations, as is the case of many other texts. As you know this happened time and time again when a monk or clerk penned down a popular rhyme or aria (the word is appropriate here:-). For example many doubt whether the Veronese Riddle, one of the earliest documents containing Italian text (9th c. A.D.) may have been corrupted by the Latin of the monk. The same objection has been raised with many more old poems once considered true originals by Romantic criticism. But then the echo-effect of Bulluc sterteþ, bucke uerteþ might not imply that the rhyme might not be semantic as well? --Wikipedius 10:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The semantic argument is a tempting one, but looking through the lyrics I'm not seeing a single other word of Latin/Norman etymology; they're all good old Anglo-Saxon roots. And arguing that a Latin-literate monk might substitute a different word then suggests the further question of: what would he have been replacing, and why? An argument along the lines of "farting offended his sensibilities" doesn't work, since the point of this line of argument is that the word doesn't mean "fart"; and if "verteth" were a literate replacement for some other word meaning "jump" or the like, the monk would have been aware at least of a double entendre, since the word "fart" has been traced to Indo-European roots and thus would have existed in a form more or less like "verteth" at that time, as I understand it. /blahedo (t) 08:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps i've lost you on the etymology. The learned version is explained in the links. In my library i have found uerteth < Lat. uertit, "leap/move in rounds" (Castiglioni-Mariotti's Latin Dictionary is one of the most authoritative works). It's the animal jumping from rock to rock in large bounds. The words sound much the same, although i don't take homonimy as conclusive proof. On the other hand if the "fart" meaning was implied would have made the song funnier, wouldn't it without any need to edit it before some bishop heard it. Yes, you have a point, the humor element might be right in the double entendre. So, the fart would go in the footnote. I have two manuals of Anglosaxon literature here (Wrenn's and Oxford's), but ain't found nothing yet, but i keep reading. I suspect there may be more at my faculty's library like a monography maybe. Unfortunately what we have on the web is too little. In the meantime, we might also explain our present findings in that footnote. --Wikipedius 00:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. I don't have time to play with this right now (why am I even reading this at 1 in the morning? sigh), but I'm not going to push the point further. /blahedo (t) 06:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The OED cites the disputed line as a usage example in the entry for "fart (v)". That's good enough for me. Skyraider 18:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well the OED is wrong. Do we have to repeat the errors of others or can we improve upon their efforts? First of all there is no example of 'verteth' meaning farteth. One has to retrospectively invent an intermediate form 'feortan' - to fart - in order to justify the reading. Whenever an interpretation has no supporting evidence and needs a theory to be invented to make it fit the alarm bells should be ringing. Since the stem 'vert' unquestionably means to turn or twist it seems reasonable to view 'verteth' as implying some sort of movement. Furthermore the structure of the poem itself suggests a very analogous meaning to the preceding phrase 'Bulluc sterteth'. The earlier couplet: 'Ewe bleats after lamb / Cow lows after calf' implies that 'Bulluc sterteth' and 'Bucke uerteth' are going to have equally similar meanings.

From "English Lyrics Before 1500" by Theodore Silverstein: "The one crux in the text is the meaning of 'uerteth' [] which all current editors gloss as 'breaks wind'. [] But this is a first occurrence in English with that supposed meaning, allegedly from an old English verb 'feortan'.[] It is tempting, however, in the absence of contrary evidence, to ask whether this is not an early example of 'vert' , meaning 'to paw up', or 'to twist' or 'turn', from Latin vertere." TheMathemagician 13:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me of my school visit to Germany when we adolescents laughed at the "Exit" signs on the Autobahn saying "Ausfahrt". This incident suggests 'something coming out of the buck' is a modern english distortion whereas 'the buck coming out of something' is closer to Proto-Germanic roots Kildwyke (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me the lyricist was attaching appropriate actions to each animal. Look at each one and consider the appropriateness of the action. Bullocks are calm and passive, stags are alert and active, a natural contrast. I would therefore expect "turn" (either looking about or darting about) as a more appropriate action for the stag (buck, whatever).

The OED supports this by listing the verb "vert" as an English verb in its own right coming from the Latin vertere, to turn or overturn, and gives as its intransitive meanings

2. To turn in a particular direction; to turn or twist out of the normal position.

3. To change direction; to dart about.

It gives various examples of "vert" used as a verb, for example "He flew about in the very skies, verting like any blithe creature of the season."

Rendering "verteth" as "farteth" instead of "turneth" is laughably implausible under the circumstances. He flew about the skies farting? In juxtaposition with the bull's action it's incongruous, and out of character for the rest of the song as well.

As for the OED, why it would think "vert" meant "fart" instead of the more plausible "turn" in the context of the Cuckoo Song may be just one of those things we'll never get to the bottom of (no pun intended). Could it be the OED's idea of an Easter egg?

Whether the buck is turning, darting about, or pawing the ground is a good question, though if one had to choose, "turneth" reads better than "paweth."

blahedo's strenuously repeated argument above that nothing besides "fart" fits as closely is simply false. I therefore side with Wikipedius and TheMathemagician on this question. Bill Newsome's unsourced claim "a gesture of virility indicating the stag's potential for creating new life, echoing the rebirth of Nature from the barren period of winter" reads like gratuitous OR that he dreamed up on his own; as such it has no place in this article.

Wikipedia is so widely copied verbatim these days as to have made "fart" the official rendering by now, rightly or wrongly. Leaving it that way makes the world a tiny bit more of an interesting place than changing it to "turn" at this late stage. (But the gesture-of-virility thing is absurd beyond reason.) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that it could mean fart, but as a reference to the noises that some male deer make. They sound like really long, loud, wet farts. DrHydeous (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Kildwyke's observation that the modern German noun 'Fahrt' (meaning, basically, 'journey') is a common component in many words related to movement. It would make conceptual sense if 'Bulluc sterteth' / 'Bucke verteth' meant 'Bull moves suddenly' / 'Buck journeys', keeping the word's literal meaning rooted in Germanic while retaining both the depiction of movement and the potential to carry a double-entendre. I admit, though, that this is pure speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Key of Now (talk • contribs) 02:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

We can hardly have a discuission on this given that the article appears to have been bowdlerised? The 'latter more vulger gloss' appears to have been edited out. I suspect the 'bucke', whetever his species, is getting his end away. Stub Mandrel (talk) 11:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that rut, without the introductory fricative which may be intrusive in the specific dialect, would fit best of all. - A Zummerzet Lad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.80.56 (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Corrections

You're right, if a swallow does not make a summer, a cuckoo does not make spring. I made the corrections and checked the migratory pattern of the bird, and it's May-June. I have bookmarked this article and i will watch it closely. --Wikipedius 21:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

But in the song they do not say that the cuckoo makes spring. They want it to sing. 82.29.201.140 (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

"Wde", spelling

An image of the original manuscript is available under the first reference link. Look at it; the word for "forest" is definitely written "wde". I don't doubt other ME sources might write the word "wude" or the like—spelling was hardly regular at this point—but in this document, it's "wde". I'm changing it back. /blahedo (t) 23:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It’s pronounced as worde 82.29.201.140 (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

punctuation

The original has no punctuation other than line breaks. Here is a more plain transcription:

Svmer is icumen in
Lhude sing cuccu
Groweþ sed and bloweþ med and springþ þe wde nu
Sing cuccu
Awe bleteþ after lomb
lhouþ after calue cu
Bulluc sterteþ
bucke uerteþ murie sing cuccu
Cuccu cuccu Wel singes þu cuccu ne swik þu nauer nu

         Sing cuccu nu
         Sing cuccu
Pes
         Sing cuccu
         Sing cuccu nu

69.87.193.214 13:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The b with the line at the bottom is pronounced as f. 82.29.201.140 (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

audio of words needed

There seem to be a number of online audio files of the music. But we also need audio files of the spoken words. Sung with musical accompaniment, and separately. As round and plain. In modern English, and in original pronounciation, as close as we can reconstruct it. A recording of an authentic Oxford Don? 69.87.193.214 13:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I concur, just having what appears to be a MIDI recording does not do this song or the article justice. The lyrics are Old English and they were meant to be heard. Also, if we could get a decent recording, it could be nominated as a Featured sound. Zidel333 08:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

MIDI linking isn't working

The media display template which is currently being used tries to display the MIDI files as images(?!), and if you right click on an ostensible midi file link, what you save to disk is HTML, not midi... AnonMoos (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Other parodies

I'm fairly sure Walt Kelly did a version of this in Pogo at some point; I'll see if I can find it. --Jim Henry (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A-comin'

As a linguist and teacher of English, it makes more sense to me to render the modern version as "Summer is a-comin' in," an archaic form still used in dialects of the American South (and, I believe, in parts of Great Britain as well). Not only does this give the song verisimilitude, it fits the meter better. I would use the present continuous forms of the verbs (e.g., "The wood is springing anew") to give the song a sense of immediacy ("All this is happening right now, so let us rejoice!") along with contracted forms ("The ewe's a-bleatin' after the lamb"), again to provide verisimilitude. 188.123.241.111 (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite: "icumen" is most definitely a past participle (cf. German gekommen).137.205.222.209 (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be a mistranslation. Middle English "is icumen" means "has come" in Modern English, not "is a-comin'." Mr.Slade (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it’s actually summer is coming here 82.29.201.140 (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Double negative

In 'Not stop thou never now.' This lyric really doesn't make sense. Perhaps 'Do not stop now' or 'Don't ever stop now' (which doesn't make much sense either, with both an infinite and a finite condition). It might not follow the original exactly, but it's meant to be a translation into modern English; who would ever say 'Not stop thou never now'? --Kielbasa1 (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - this edit was made today, along with "Loweth after calf cow" and other archaic grammar. This doesn't seem helpful as an example of "Modern English", so I'll revert it. (Although we should probably go with an authoritative modern translation from a source, rather than something written by consensus, particularly for "has come in" versus "is a-coming in".) --McGeddon (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Even today Double negatives are the standard form in some British vernacular dialects; the multiple negatives are used to intensify each other. Academics often mock such users as lower-class or uneducated although Chaucer made extensive use of multiple negatives. Do translaters of Chaucer change what he wrote? Kildwyke (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because that's literary modern English. 217.20.20.85 (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes you're right, I translated it some years ago it as "Don't you ever stop now" which was as close as I could get in modern English. Here "now" is more a warning tagged onto the end of the instruction rather than meaning right now in time. Subsequent clowns have worsened it in various ways - currently with the unnatural "Don't ever you stop now". I wish they'd find some other articles to bastardise but what can you do? TheMathemagician (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

All we really need to do here is find and agree on a good, sourced modern translation - this will stop it from drifting back and forth according to the whims of passing editors. (If anyone has a real problem with the translation we choose, and can provide a "better" source, we can discuss that when it happens.) --McGeddon (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Is says do not stop but never now so he is saying it twice! 82.29.201.140 (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

This is 13th-century English (middle English)! We may have our doubts about it, but we should not try to correct it. There is no 13th-century recording, only a manuscript giving the text in writing. We should transcribe it as best as we can, and nothing else (whatever we may think of it).

Also, the addition as point 2.2 should not be in the article itself, only in this talk page; I leave its author make the change. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Music

I recall from my undergraduate music studies (long, long ago, so I couldn't hope to find notes or citation) that a close examination of the manuscript showed that it had originally been written in duple meter and then scraped over and rendered in triple meter. Our University Early Music Ensemble performed it this way, which actually made a good case for the change. Can someone supply a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdjordan (talk • contribs) 19:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional citations

Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Compromised site as a cited source?

I tried to click on source 4 (which is located on http://www.soton.ac.uk - I'm not giving the full URL), and my browser warned me that I was attempting to visit a malware-infested site. What should we do? Against the current (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The page http://www.soton.ac.uk/~wpwt/harl978/sumernn.htm is part of Southampton University, and is unlikely to be compromised. I clicked on the link just now and the page does not seem to be infected and my anti-virus software did not complain. BabelStone (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

We should "avoid" linking to sites containing malware (it's #3 of WP:ELNO). It's entirely plausible that a university site could be compromised, but it seems fine to me, I can't see anything dubious in the page's HTML, and a Google diagnostic is clear ("this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days"). --McGeddon (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Length?

By what authority is the piece only 1'40" long? The last line alludes to the musical possibility of an infinite canon, and it seems believable that it was a favorite for drunken singathons. 166.137.244.63 (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I never noticed that before, thanks for calling attention to it. Another poke in the eye for misinfoboxes, I reckon.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Wel þu singes cuccu or Wel singes þu cuccu?

Sounds like the former listening to the song to me. I'm no English scholar to know whether it's interchangeable or meaningless. Cake (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Listening to the song"?? There are hundreds, perhaps even thousands of performances, with all sorts of variations, alterations, mistakes, etc. What about looking at the score? It is, after all, the authority.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Perhaps I should ask another question. In the version by the Hilliard Ensemble, they seem to say "Wel þu singes cuccu." Can this be chalked up to error, or is such variation in the language allowed? Cake (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question. Either seems possible, and I do not know which "version by the Hilliard Ensemble" you may be referring to, in order to verify the reading of the words.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is one example. It seems the easiest version to find. Cake (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it must be ripped off of a CD recording. Still, I have no idea why they might change the order of the subject and verb. I am not well-versed in Middle English. Perhaps you should ask this question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Phonetic

Before reading the translation, I thought this is a old English song and reads phonetically. simple but seems possible more probable. Summer is a comin in, loud does sing cuckoo grow up seeds and brew up meed and spring be away by now? (guessing now) a ewe will tup after lamb (something about cow and calf then the bull tups the buck tups and merry sings cuckoo..... something about merry sings the cuckoo but does you.

Just a guess from a simple unstudied person :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catif120 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Not bad for a phonetic rendering. Perhaps you should now try "Un petit d'un petit / S'étonne aux Halles. / Un petit d'un petit / Ah! degrés te fallent. / Indolent qui ne sort cesse, / Indolent qui ne se mène, / Qu'importe un petit, / Tout gai de Reguennes."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Tempo of the midi tune

The tune is in a tempo so slow as to make the tune unrecognizable for modern listeners. If there is some period stuff going on, I would suggest making also a modern, faster version available. 2804:214:82A7:1A7E:1:2:110:F560 (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Article name

Why does the article name for this song spell its incipit in title case? Shouldn't the article be named Sumer is icumen in? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Good question. The title case article to which you refer says that the usage is "defined by rules that are not universally standardised" and depends on house style. But the house style of WP is itself far from standardised. I browsed through articles the name of which is the title of a medieval treatise. First, all those that I found are in italics. Several are in title case (with the main words capitalized): Liber de Causis, De Mensurabili Musica, Summa Theologica, Liber de Coquina, etc. But others have only the initial capital: Musica enchiriadis or Ars cantus mensurabilis.

Two questions: (1) should we vote on this? (2) How does one rename an article?

At any rate, I personally would vote for italics, with only the initial letter capitalized: Sumer is icumen in. I wondered about the word Svmer, which originally had the "u" in the form of a "v"; but this probably would cause difficulties for people trying to find the article. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You're confusing the rules for major works, which use title case and italics, with those for minor works (e.g. short poems, songs), which don't use italics. Further, songs which don't have a title but are known by their incipits, use sentence case (and no italics, even if in a foreign language). I agree that "Svmer" will be confusing and all sources seem to use "Sumer". The way to get this article moved is to form a consensus here and then lodge a request at WP:RM. Jerome Kohl: what's your opinion? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

How does one differentiate a major work from a minor one? Do you have examples of article names for minor works? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

A comprehensive treatment is presented at MOS:TITLE, a more specific one at WP:NCMUSIC. I believe they both support "Sumer is icumen in". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the article title should be "Sumer is icumen in" because it is an incipit. I think this is uncontroversial, but I cannot make the move directly because Sumer is icumen in already exists as a redirect, so I have made a request for an admin to make the move. BabelStone (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

In response to Michael Bednarek's request, I agree that this should be treated as a text-incipit song title. Even though we are dealing here with a monument of great historical importance, that does not change the fact that it is a comparatively short vocal composition identified by the opening words of its text. I therefore also agree with BabelStone that this is uncontroversial.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it was named that because it must’ve been may and it was becoming summer. 82.29.201.140 (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Awful "modern notation"

The modern notation image has many noteheads that are a little too low so that the indicated notes are unclear (especially the e's, which look suspiciously like d's). I think this should be repaired. --User:Haraldmmueller 06:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

True. Can you provide a better transcription? Another interesting version at Commons:Category:Sumer Is Icumen In is File:Sumer is icumen.svg. Would that be an improvement? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

There are also several transcriptions (in PDF) in the document refered to at the end of the list of external links: Analysis of the music, in French — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is my quick first attempt; should I try to refine it? (I didn't even check for errors, I confess ...). The Commons file is great, except for the red markers, which make only sense with the corresponding explanation - which could of course be added. Re the Analysis PDF, question is copyright, isn't it? --User:Haraldmmueller 13:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The first thing I noticed at the French score is that the first two notes (F F) don't seem to be right (F E). There's also a version at de:Datei:Sommerkanon mod Notation.png which I assume can be copied to Commons. Harald's version also seems fine. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Here are links to two versions of mine, if any of them is useful:

Modern transcription of "Sumer is icumen in"

Modern transcription of "Sumer is icumen in" with repeat marks

--User:Haraldmmueller 15:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek, this is explained in the text just after the example: "The transcription above is conform to that of Davison & Apel; one might argue that the first two notes of the original are F–E, rather than F–F, but that fundamentally changes nothing." This makes me think that I have Davison & Apel's Historical Anthology of Music (in PDF) but, after checking, their example would not be usable, the graphic quality is not sufficient – also, it probably is not free to use.

@User:Haraldmmueller, your transcription gives the first measure of Pes I and the second of Pes II as F–G–F–GBC, while it should end GAC.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@User:Hucbald.SaintAmand, thank you!! - I uploaded and linked to a new version. Hopefully this is correct now; so that somebody might use it if it so pleases. --User:Haraldmmueller 19:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@User:Haraldmmueller, there seems to remain a problem in the first half of measure 6 of your transcription, where you write A–CG–BA, while it should be C–AG–BA (that is, inverting A–C in C–A and G–B in B–G). I didn't see it before, sorry. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@User:Hucbald.SaintAmand, thanks again. How many errors can one introduce in just 5 lines? Next attempts for both files uploaded ... --User:Haraldmmueller 20:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@User:Haraldmmueller, this seems perfect now. One question, though: you add a mention above the first measure of Pes II, "not 1st time". This seems to be perfectly right in respect to how we think today the piece must be sung, but the manuscript says nothing of the kind. The question, then, is whether your transcription is a strict one of the manuscript (I think it should) or suggests instructions on how to sing it. Anyway, with all this your transcription will become a model! — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

So which one is going to be used in the article? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@User:Hucbald.SaintAmand - I removed the mark, so that it is now nearer to the original. I would actually suggest to use the one with the repeat marks, just because it is more explicit which might help some readers. Other than that, I have no preference. --User:Haraldmmueller 06:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I have now replaced the "awful" score with mine (the one with repeat marks). If you have any suggestions for (further) improvements, let me know what could or should be done. --User:Haraldmmueller 21:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Modernised spelling

There's been some controversy over the translation used. Would it be beneficial perhaps to provide an “updated spelling” version, along with the “modern translation”? That is to say, something like this.

Middle English

Sumer is icumen in
Lhude sing cuccu
Groweþ sed
and bloweþ med
and springþ þe wde nu
Sing cuccu

Awe bleteþ after lomb
lhouþ after calue cu
Bulluc sterteþ
bucke uerteþ
murie sing cuccu

Cuccu cuccu
Wel singes þu cuccu
ne swik þu nauer nu

Sing cuccu nu sing cuccu.
Sing cuccu sing cuccu nu

Modernised Spelling

Summer is ycomen in,
Loudly sing, cuckoo!
Groweth seed,
And bloweth mead,
And springeth the wood now,
Sing, cuckoo!

Ewe bleateth after lamb,
Loweth after calf cow,
Bullock starteth,
Buck farteth (or “verteth”)
Merrily sing, cuckoo!

Cuckoo, cuckoo,
Well singest thou, cuckoo,
Ne swike thou never now.

Sing, cuckoo, now; sing, cuckoo;
Sing, cuckoo; sing, cuckoo, now!

Modern English

Summer has arrived,
Loudly sing, cuckoo!
The seed is growing
And the meadow is blooming,
And the wood is coming into leaf now,
Sing, cuckoo!

The ewe is bleating after her lamb,
The cow is lowing after her calf;
The bullock is prancing,
The billy-goat farting, (or “The stag cavorting”)
Sing merrily, cuckoo!

Cuckoo, cuckoo,
You sing well, cuckoo,
Never stop now.

Sing, cuckoo, now; sing, cuckoo;
Sing, cuckoo; sing, cuckoo, now!

The modernised spellings can be cited from the OED if needed, though most seem to be common sense. Steepleman (t) 06:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC) I have to say Dr. Miller's translation seems to rather unnecessarily change the plains words and tone of the original text, and in fact, may alter some of the meaning in context. E.g. “forest” would refer to hunting forests, not mere woods. If “hart” is the meaning of buck, then that might be reasonable, but that is speculation. The translation of the simple present by the continuous present is also somewhat odd, when “The seed grows” poses little problems. I suspect the meter may have been the (subconscious?) motivation in introducing the longer “The seed is growing”. However, unless we could all agree to find a different source for the translation, I suppose it must do. Steepleman (t) 06:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)