Let me just chime in here to say that actually I agree with Mr. Mezey--all monosyllabic words, including articles, are common--that even articles can become stressed by position, as his and other examples show--but position is principally a feature of strict accentual/syllabic verse. (Position meaning a stressed syllable is followed by unstressed and vice versa; i.e., the higher "rule" in accentual/syllabica that you don't have three unaccented syllable in a row).
My article rule holds true only in a looser context (song-like meters, as the Shakespeare line I quote), which is what I was trying to discuss. Sorry if that was not clear.
I also absolutely agree that small prepositions QUITE OFTEN get the stress, as in Mezey's examples. Yet I have come across the idea frequently in prosodic explanations, even in respected textbooks (which I shall not name here), that "to" "of" "in" etc., are little words that are usually unstressed. Not so at all. Prepositions are very important little words.
As for Greek terminology--some of it works OK--iambs for ta DUM, trochees for DUM ta, etc. But it becomes confusing if folks buy into the whole thing--starting with spondees, pyrrhics, etc. Basically, my problem is with feet, a concept I don't find terribly useful as a practioner of English verse, however convenient they are for discussion, as here.
Actually, in regard to Tony's comments--I think there is an element--a hint--in these extra light syllables of a sort of quantitative meter working within the accentual. The short light syllables would not disrupt the rhythm of the poem if we were, say, swimming or walking or jumping rope to it--they are a function of time.
|