Talk:Latin prosody

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

-  u  u|-   u  u|-||  -| -   -|  - u  u |- ^ 
Arma virumque canō, Trōiae quī prīmus ab ōrīs,
- u u|-   -|-   u u|- || -|- u  u| - ^
Ītaliam, fātō profugus, Lāvīniaque vēnit
 - u u|  -       -|     - ||-| -   -| - u  u |-  ^
lītora, mult(um)_ill(e)_et terrīs iactātus et altō
 -  u u|-    -| -  u u|- ||-|- u  u |- ^
vī superum saevae memorem Iūnōnis ob īram;

-  u  u| -   u  u|- ||  -| -   - |  - u  u |- ^ 
Arma vi-rumque ca-nō, Trō-iae quī prīmus ab ōrīs,
- u u|-    -|-   u u |-  || -|- u   u | - ^
Ītali-am, fā-tō profu-gus, Lā-vīniaque vēnit
 - u u | -       - |     - ||- | -   -| - u  u |-  ^
lītora, mult(um)_il-l(e) et ter-rīs iactātus et altō
 -  u u| -    -| -  u  u|- || -|- u   u |- ^
vī supe-rum sae-vae memo-rem Iū-nōnis ob īram;

-  u  u| -   u  u|- ||  -| -   - |  - u  u |- ^
Arma vi-rumque ca-nō, Trō-iae quī prīmus ab ōrīs,
- u u|-    -|-   u u |-  || -|- u   u | - ^
Ītali-am, fā-tō profu-gus, Lā-vīniaque vēnit
 - u u | -       - |     - ||- | -   -| - u  u |-  ^
lītora, mult(um)_il-l(e) et ter-rīs iactātus et altō
 -  u u| -    -| -  u  u|- || -|- u   u |- ^
vī supe-rum sae-vae memo-rem Iū-nōnis ob īram;

 -  u  u| -   u  u|- ||  -| -   - |  - u  u |- - 
 Arma vi-rumque ca-nō, Trō-iae quī prīmus ab ōrīs
 - u u|-   -|-  || u u | -   -|- u   u | - u
 Ītali-am fā-tō   profu-gus Lā-vīniaque vēnit
  - u u | -       - |     - || - | -   - | - u  u |-  -
 lītora, mult(um) il-l(e) et  ter-rīs iac-tātus et altō
  -  u u| - ||  - | -   u  u| -   -|- u   u |- u
 vī supe-rum,  sae-vae memo-rem Iū-nōnis ob īram;

I'll continue with my current edit. My expectation is that other articles will spring up sometime to cover specific cases, such as the prosody of comic drama, which I won't develop here. This article is an overview of Latin prosody in the late republic/early empire period and there isn't room enough for everything. It's coarse-grained. Other articles can take a fine-grained look at all the ifs and buts and different theories about specific systems. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion! I have now filled the gap with a page on the Metres of Roman comedy. Kanjuzi (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is not best practice to describe syllables as long by nature or long by position. It should be vowels that are so described. A vowel short by nature becomes long by position if it precedes an x or z, or, with exceptions, a combination of consonants. The examples given of dux and dant may be a bit unfortunate, since the u in dux is short by nature, as appears in its declined forms like ducis, and dant is a form of the only a-stem Latin verb where the a is short, as in damus, datus, etc. These are in fact examples of length by position. Rus and vas would be better examples of length by nature. People may wish to contest these remarks, but if there is no disagreement perhaps the article should be altered.  Seadowns (talk) 09:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)yyllable's[reply]

I don't see how that can be right. Surely the vowel remained the same length and didn't change, but the combination of vowel + consonant in a word like mit-tit made a long syllable. The vowel remained short; the syllable was long. Kanjuzi (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you say something is long by position, you mean by its position, the position of the thing you are talking about. So if you hypothesize that a syllable's quantity is determined by position, you mean by its, the syllable's, position. Under that hypothesis the same position will give the same quantity. Now consider the second syllables of mittit and mittunt: the position of each is the same, at the end of the word, so under the hypothesis the quantities should be the same, but in fact they are different, one is short and the other is long. Therefore the hypothesis is wrong. What makes the second syllable of mittunt long is the position of the vowel, before two consonants, not of the syllable. Seadowns (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the quantity of the second syllable of both mittit and mittunt is long when the words are said in isolation or at the end of a line, but that the quantity of the the second syllable of mittit becomes short when a word starting with vowel follows, e.g. India mittit ebur, in which case we syllabify like this: In-di-a-mit-ti-te-bur. In the same way the t of patrem can either belong to the first syllable (pat-rem) or to the second (pa-trem): natum ante ora pa-tris, pat-rem qui obtruncat ad aras. Kanjuzi (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think like this at all, and I know for a certainty that neither Watt nor Nisbet did either, or any of the less well-known but learned and brilliant scholars who taught me. Where, when and why your way of putting it started I don't know, perhaps you will say. (Also, whether you do it in Greek too.) However, it only means that I need another example for my argument, one where the last syllable is short even by your rule, such as mitte. The last syllable has the same position as that of mittunt, but a different quantity, so it cannot be syllable position that determines quantity. Seadowns (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to you, in the word mittit, the first syllable (mit) is long and the second syllable (tit) is short? That doesn't seem quite logical. Obviously they are both closed syllables and take the same length of time to say, so would seem to be of equal length (unless a word like ebur follows, in which case the final t is taken with it). Concerning words like mitte, I won't argue with you. Personally, though, I prefer to follow those scholars who say that at the end of a line every syllable counts as long, including -te. This is the reason why a word like mittite cannot end a hexameter. If it did, it would have to be scanned as a cretic (– u –) and not a dactyl, which wouldn't fit the metre. However, you might be right that in the past, scholars analysed things differently. Kanjuzi (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two consonants take longer than one, don't they? I note from the wiki article on Sanskrit prosody that there also a syllable is short if it contains a short vowel and is followed by only one consonant before the next vowel, very much what Chuck Oughton says. Your method involves notionally shifting a consonant to the next word, which I find hard to swallow. There are places where it means shifting it across a break in sense and a pause, and in principle, it could mean shifting it from one speaker to another, in a passage of oratio recta, which would be odd. But then, it is only notional. The only practical difference is if you wish actually to pronounce short open vowels at the end of a line as long, to make a spondee, whereas I am quite happy to allow the last foot to be a trochee and pronounce the words naturally. I think that the sixth foot is dissyllabic to provide some relief and variation from a possible endless torrent of dactyls. And what about Greek, as I previously asked? Is Homer's swift flow to be weighted down by lengthening short vowels at the end of lines? Seadowns (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that when you say mittit dona, it is syllabified mit-tit-do-na, but when you say mittite dona it is syllabified mit-ti-te-do-na, and similarly when you say mittit ebur it is syllabified mit-ti-te-bur. So the t is sometimes taken with the previous syllable and sometimes with the following one. As for the final short -a or short -e, I wasn't suggesting that they are pronounced long, but merely that the pause which follows them makes the syllable count as long, i.e. the syllable is long, not the vowel. Kanjuzi (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2018 @(UTC)

I don't think there is a way of enforcing one approach against the other, but I do think the old way is simpler and more natural to speech, and easier for learners. Seadowns (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are right. Kanjuzi (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would now add that if the final syllable of a line is to be regarded as long, even when is consists of a short vowel, there would be no need for the prohibition against ending a pentameter with a short vowel, which occurs very seldom indeed in Ovid. Whereas ending in a short closed syllable is perfectly permissible. Seadowns (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true. It seems that Ovid and other poets differentiated between short vowel, short vowel + consonant, and longer endings such as -unt. Kanjuzi (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

::::::Yes, at the end of a pentameter, at least. I am not quite so sure about other poets than Ovid, but the fact that Ovid avoided a short vowel ending is enough to show that the final syllable was not long merely by being final. If it had been, there would have been no reason for Ovid's practice. Seadowns (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to simplify and clarify this section, but I am still not fully happy with it. I don't know the full rules about posives and liquids, and it would be nice if someone could help. Seadowns (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally find this section to be rather long and confusing, and wonder what somebody coming to the subject for the first time would be able to get from it. All it really wants to say is that in Latin verse the word stress or accent, and the ictus of the metre, sometimes coincide and sometimes do not. This sets up an interplay which poets could exploit, as in the first line of the Aeneid, where the relative pronoun qui has been placed second in its clause to avoid a coincidence of ictus and accent in the fourth foot. There is no need to mention what happens in English or Greek, or the speculations of scholars about how the Romans spoke verse. If the section were cut down like this it would be clearer and easier, but still get the full message of two rhythms across. Seadowns (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I have now polished this section without change of substance, and hope people will like the results. If not, they can revert it. Parts of it still seem to me to be unnecessary. I have not made the obvious point that the way in which verse was read would have varied considerably. Seadowns (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is a bugger. A 1st Archilochian, according to my source David Mankin Horace: Odes is dact. hex followed by dact tetra catalectic. But other sources such as here say the second line is a hemiepes. The online googlebook I pasted above says dact. hex + dact. tetra. cat. is an 'Alcmanian Strophe' but it is a lot like a 1st Archilochian.

I'll stick with Mankin, but I'll also cite the google book's opinion that it is in fact an Alcmanian Strophe. Unless someone knows better. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article Alcmanian verse agrees with the Google Book. But Mankin is a top scholar, publishing with Cambridge U.P., and I assume there must be different conventions involved. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know. Maybe a note is needed on the varying uses of the classification. Allen and Greenough (626.7.9-10) agrees with that old Google Book, but maybe that's how the meters were classed in the 19th c. and the grammar's metrical appendix wasn't updated in this regard. Perhaps the

talk — 17:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll go with the oldies but note Mankin's use, and include sections for both forms. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

another issue

According to Green's chart, if I read it right, Catullus sometimes used a spondee in the 4th foot of a choliamb. I haven't found it yet and I think it might be a misprint. I'll remove it from the article chart unless someone else can find a spondee there. His choliambs are poems 8, 22, 31, 37, 39, 44, 59, 60 Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen a long there either (but it's early and I'm pretty lame right now myself) and have always read that the 9th position had to be short. (In Latin, that is. The

talk — 13:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Two important and frequently found metres not treated here are hendecasyllabics, the metre of Catullus's first poem, and the Asclepiad family, one member of which is the metre of Horace's first ode.Seadowns (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a section on hendecasyllabics, though as yet it lacks any citations. Anyone is welcome to suggest improvements or make corrections. Kanjuzi (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With Catullus, the line may start with a trochee or an iamb, as in I 2 or I 4. Martial is stricter in starting always (I think) with two long syllables. Also, we were taught to make a break after the fifth or sixth syllable, though this is not universal, witness Martial's "res non parta labore, sed relicta". I don't know how frequent this pattern is. Then again, the final syllable may be short, as in the line of Martial quoted, at least if you believe, like me, that "brevis in longo" is just a bit of rubbish. Basically, this is an easy metre, unlike the Asclepiads. Seadowns (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken advantage of the offer to make a few changes. Also have altered the translation very slightly to be more faithful to Catullus's effect. Seadowns (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to need a bit of work: Latin verse actually isn't divided into "feet," any more than Greek is. We can do better than simply re-hashing the mistakes of long-ago scholars! The whole "meters" section needs to be re-worked. I will try to get to this in the near future, though my major work is over in Latin VP. A. Mahoney (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

::Roll on time-travel, so you can go back and tell Ovid how wrong he was! Try to get him at Tomi, he'd really love a visit.Seadowns (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, live and learn, I say! I am wondering a tad how far the process of modernising should go, considering that most of us here (I think) are working within older structures. Should we have separate 'old' and 'modern' articles, or provide for both views within one article, or go down the path of modernity without inhibitions, like infants that have escaped parental supervision, toddling down the main road stark naked? I'm happy to let you make that choice and I'll take this as a learning opportunity. Meanwhile, I'll hold off further changes till I see which way you are going. Thanks for getting involved. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been much going on here lately so I'll just state my own thinking about the article and where it should go.

First, I think it needs to be inclusive, with old and new approaches.

Second, so far the article deals only with dactylic and iambic rhythms, and its focus is on feet (up to 4 beats only), with metra emerging almost incidentally. There is also a focus on syllabification as part of the scanning process.

Third, I think the next section should be on Aeolian rhythms, with new feet introduced of 5 to 6 beats, such as the choriamb, with an emphasis on metra such as pherecratic and glyconic as building blocks, and with less syllabification (just as well, as it's very tedious, with trial and error needed to jiggle everything into the right place). Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather bold to call the concept of feet a "mistake" of earlier scholars, when it was explicitly used by Ovid himself! "Musa per undenas emodulanda pedes" Amores 1.1.30. It can't be a mistake to follow the master.Seadowns (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now here's an interesting comment, by R.D.Dawe ed. Sophocles: Oedipus Rex, Cambridge U.P. 1982, page 90: Sophocles does not differ from the other poets in allowing short syllables to stand at the end of a line where a long is required by the meter, a practice normally justified by the evidently too facile explanation that the voice pauses there. A little before that, he says: Sophocles evidently felt that there was no significant break at line end: he uses the definite article at the end of a line with its noun at the beginning of the next - Antigone 409, Electra 879, Philoctetes 263, Oedipus at Col. 351... In other words, for Dawe there is no real distinction between brevis in longo and anceps. I imagine the same holds true in Latin verse for some scholars. I'm not going to remove the brevis in longo stuff from the article as it does have an intellectual neatness to it, which I like, but poetry isn't always neat and maybe some kind of reservation can be added later. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, there is an appendix on meters where Dawe uses brevis in longo. I don't know how he reconciles that with the statements I quoted. According to my Greek Grammar (1879): The last syllable of every verse is common and it may be made long or short to suit the metre, without regard to its usual quantity. It is called 'syllaba anceps'. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the brevis in longo article still lacks citations, which makes its use in this article a bit problematic. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This concept seems utterly pointless to me. How can you tell whether it is true or false? It should go! Signed in absence of tilde Seadowns  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadowns (talk • contribs) 13:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] 

To me it seems incorrect to say that -ram, -nit, -bus etc. are brevis in longo. These syllables are naturally long, ending as they do in vowel + consonant. They become short if followed by a word starting with a vowel, in which case the consonant breaks off and becomes part of the following syllable; but in pause they are long, just as they are when followed by a word starting with a consonant. Kanjuzi (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I cannot accept the preceding comment. Such syllables are long if they contain a long vowel, otherwise they are short, but will be counted as long if followed by a consonant in the same line. Seadowns, 02:28, 21 July 2017 01:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Seadowns (talk)

That is an interesting idea, that "is" or "ad" or "in" (followed by a pause) is a short syllable, despite containing two segments (a vowel and a consonant). If the ending "-is" is naturally short, how does it become long in a phrase like "Caesaris castra"? On the face of it, it would seem natural to consider such endings as being long whether followed by a pause or by a consonant. If the other view is taken, which appears to go against common sense, it needs to be supported by a reference to published academic metrical or phonetic studies I think. Kanjuzi (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the authority or reason for thinking that a vowel followed by a single consonant makes a syllable long, though pronounced extremely briefly and lightly? Why "common sense"? I've never heard of a final consonant "breaking off" to a following word before: does it mean that when Propertius wrote "Caesaris enses" he expected "Caesari senses"?! The final syllable of Caesaris in Caesaris castra is scanned long because followed by another consonant, making two. This is basically the same reason as why, for example, grex is a long syllable, although the vowel is short by nature, as is seen in the oblique cases, where only one consonant follows. Also, how do you define "pause"? This matter is handled quite well in another net article on Latin prosody by Chuck Oughton. Seadowns (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In prosodic studies of languages that use quantitative metrics, such as Persian, Arabic, Sanskrit, Latin, and Greek, it is normal to classify syllables as follows (writing V for vowel and VV for long vowel): short: (C)V; long: (C)VV or (C)VC; overlong: (C)VVC, (C)VCC, (C)VVCC etc. (Take this one, for example, by Bruce Hayes]. Therefore both (C)VV and (C)VC are long syllables, and both veni and venit scan as a spondee. This seems to be common sense. (Chuck Oughton is not a specialist in metrics, by the way; his PhD was on Livy; so I don't see why his views have to be taken into account.) Kanjuzi (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who devised this schema, and when? Applied to Latin or Greek it makes a smooth place very rough, where metre demands that VC syllables that are long under the schema must be scanned as short. This is apparently to be achieved by transferring the closing consonant of the syllable to the opening of the next syllable, even when the next syllable is in the following word. This latter case alone occurs myriads upon myriads of times, in the first word of the Iliad, for example, and the first lines of both the Odyssey and the Aeneid. Often enough the transfer has to be across a heavy stop or other break, as in "'Quo ruis?' exclamat", which I found by opening a book at random. Then sometimes the consonant to be transferred is not even the final letter of the word, as in the line of Virgil that begins "perge modo, et.." All this rather than stick to regarding such syllables as short, which is the only approach I have ever known. It may be common sense, but it is certainly not the sensus communis. Also, what is the point of lumping in Latin and Greek, which do not have overlong syllables, with languages that do?

Seadowns (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC) PS I had never heard of Chuck Oughton before, but his study of Livy has not disabled him from setting out facts briefly and clearly. Seadowns (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Later --he is inadequate on caesuras, though.Seadowns (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another difficulty about the multilingual schema arises if we consider the prosody of the a line like Virgil's beginning Actiaque Iliacis. The schema forces us to deem the final short syllable of Actia to be lengthened by the addition of the enclitic

-que,, and then shortened again by the -que "breaking off" to the next syllable. Is this really profitable?! However, perhaps this discussion does not really belong here, since it does not affect the article. I do, however, agree that the brevis in longo concept is not needed, apparently being an entity that has been created beyond necessity. Seadowns (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this template tag still relevant? The grammar and spelling look fine to me. Pbericcc (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a good idea to use the same symbol (||) to represent both diaeresis (a compulsory break between feet) and caesura (an optional break in the middle of a foot). It is confusing for the reader; does it represent the end of a foot or not? Since the caesura is not an essential part of the metre, unlike the diaeresis, I think it would be better not to write it at all, or else use a different symbol for it such as￤Kanjuzi (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted these sentences: "There is usually a break between words after the fifth or sixth syllable. In the second half of the verse the stress of the words will thus usually, or always, coincide with the long syllables." The first claim is so weak as to be meaningless (it would be difficult to write a hendecasyllable without such a break). The second is not true, since the break, if it is there, doesn't make the stress coincide with ictus in the second half: witness verses 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 of Catullus 2. Kanjuzi (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy for the second statement to go. It was not mine, and I did not like it, but left it in. The first statement is different. I gave an example of a line from Martial with no break after the fifth or sixth syllable, res non parta labore sed relicta, but this is rare, I think, and was discouraged. As a pupil I had to reject ideas which failed to provide such a break (eg, off the top of my head, magister/longos difficilesque dat labores). Apart from getting the scansion right, this was the main constraint. So, with respect, I think the statement would be useful. Seadowns (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, possibly, but it should have a reference from Raven or a similar authority I think. Kanjuzi (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just skimmed through Martial I, and found rather more exceptions than I expected. But it's fair to say that 7th and 8th syllable breaks are infrequent, so I think "usually" is not wrong. Some of the exceptions are caused by words that won't otherwise fit, such as "epigrammaton". They can't be called licentious, though. Seadowns (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it has so many exceptions, I can't see any point in it. In any case, what do you mean by a "break"? In a line like "at pater Aeneas, audito nomine Turni", there is a clear break in sense at the caesura as well as between words. You could pause there if you wished. But in "vivamus mea Lesbia atque amemus", what sort of "break" is it between "mea" and "Lesbia"? You couldn't possibly pause at that point. So really, to say there is a "break" there is meaningless. Kanjuzi (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By "break" I mean the end of a word, nothing more. I have now looked through Martial II and all Catullus's hendecas, and still find that the lines without a 5th or 6th syllable break are comparatively few, especially when there are no words which make one impossible, as in Catullus's "adeste, hendecasyllabi, quot estis." This is where the metre gets its dainty, tripping character, noted by Tennyson. However, if you prefer it to remain among the many important facts about Latin metres that readers will not learn from this article, I don't really mind. Seadowns (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that for a less obvious statement such as this, a reference to an authority is necessary. It doesn't seem to be a particularly important fact if it's true. It seems to me to be a somewhat vacuous statement, since just about any line, including a hexameter, usually has a break either after the 5th or the 6th syllable. It's difficult to write one that doesn't. Kanjuzi (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It says: "A dactylic hexameter consists of a hemiepes, a biceps, a second hemiepes, and a final long element, so DuuD—." This way of analysing a hexameter seems dubious and unconventional. Is there a citation? Kanjuzi (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is unenlightening and should go. Seadowns (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Am I alone in finding the double scansion in this article, in which long and short marks are written not only for the syllables, but also for the individual vowels, both ugly and distracting? No standard work does this. Moreover, it isn't clear if the vowels of words such as "iam" were long or short. Kanjuzi (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The marks over the vowels should go. Seadowns (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]