Robert, your explanations just prove my point that the reader's interpretation can't be controlled when the line is in any way vague. Your explanations don't change the way that I read the lines, so for you to say that I'm wrong is just silly. People wouldn't debate these issues if there weren't legitimate reason for disagreement. Scansion isn't a monolithic theory in which there are clear rights and wrongs.
When I read this line:
For hours the convoys had rolled by (for HOURS / the CON / voys had / rolled BY)
I put no emphasis on "had", and that's that. I certainly don't read it the way Carol does, with all those stressed syllables.
I submit that there is no such thing as an "inverted iamb". There are iambs and there are trochees, and there are trochees that substitute for iambs, and vice versa, and that's it. If you say it like this -- x X -- it's an iamb; if you say it like this -- X x -- it's a trochee. If a syllable gets promoted by the meter, why confuse things with a special term? Besides, there will always be people who don't make the promotion, and that's their prerogative.
Carol, your explanations strike me as so much hand magic. I can tell when I'm stressing or not stressing a syllable, and to pretend that I'm stressing it in some subtle way, when I'm not, makes no sense to me. People seem determined to confuse matters much more than they need to be.
[This message has been edited by Caleb Murdock (edited September 19, 2001).]
|