 |
 |
yup, Rob we have been there before, on Another List, my suggestion for ultimate metric dementia was 'phyrric monometer'. But I loves a nice ionic, yummy. Almost as sexy as a choriamb (pronounced (almost) Cor! - I amb) Tell Kent I know all about voices, the many of them, and the suprises of their finding. Also how the New World Order is killing them, mine are almost all hiding and cowering, or sulking, it's as a bas a situation as with the elves. Soon I will have almost no-one to talk to at hypothetical bus-stops. (there are a few far-flung survivors, peskies f'r'instance 'they' don't know about them, nor things looming in the Scotch mist) Best Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Hamilton" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 7:38 PM Subject: Re: rebel yell > From: "Michael Snider" > > > According to Robert Wallace, it's pyrrhics that don't exist, so consider > > what you'd win by using your amphibrachs too soon. > > Neither pyrrhic nor spondee exist in English verse, if you accept the > metrical-stress-is-contrastive-rather-than-absolute, a la Wimsatt. > > Mallof, in _A Manual of English Meters_, reduces it all to > iambic/trochaic/anapaestic/dactyllic, which I'd go with. The kinds of > metrical pattern that +can+ be produced in a qualitative-based metric don't > always map on to a quantitative one. > > (And with the usual [bugger factor] proviso for the lesser ionic ascending > foot -- X X / /) > > But haven't we been here before? Or was that another List? > > Should these posts start to carry a health warning? -- "Avoid, if > discussions of scansion want to make you puke." (My own position, up until > my mid-thirties, so I can sympathise. Honest.) > > Robin > > (Carefully refraining from introducing, useful term though it is, "ictus", > into the discussion) >