I am trying to analyse this poem and there is only one thing I am having problems with. Is it trochee or iambic? http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/916.html
However I try to stress syllables myself I always end up finding 7 instead of 6. Could you also give me an example of the the rhythm ?
da
DUM
da
DUM
da
DUM
da
Top answer
It's definitely iambic, but very flawed. The pattern is two 3-foot lines and one 6-foot line. I've marked the ones which conform to true iambic.
— Avangi
It's definitely iambic, but very flawed.
The pattern is two 3-foot lines and one 6-foot line.
I've marked the ones which conform to true iambic.
In most of the bad ones, he has used two "quick" syllables in place of the one strong syllable.
" The first two STRONG syllables have been replaced by two quick syllables, eg.
Free · every Monday
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
It's definitely iambic, but very flawed. The pattern is two 3-foot lines and one 6-foot line. I've marked the ones which conform to true iambic.
In most of the bad ones, he has used two "quick" syllables in place of the one strong syllable. For example, "to ravish the sensuous mind." The first two STRONG syllables have been replaced by two quick syllables, eg. "ravish." the last one
Thank you for your help! Are these end-rhymes masculine? And what does "reverse accent mean"? Can you identify some of the variations to be changed into a trochee (the rhythm just being inverted) That is what I meant with da-DUM, each foot starting with an unstressed syllable then moving on to a stressed syllable (which is iambic) Thanks again
The words "over" and "jewel" each represent a foot in trochee. We're talking about the same thing (inverted, reversed, weak-strong, strong-weak). Even Shakespeare sometimes compromises.
I think there were only a couple of cases in this poem where a line would have been perfect iambic were it not for one word of trochee. This guy obviously doesn't take it very seriously. More than hal