This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
I have a lot of trouble hearing (scanning) lines for meter and usually require some assitance, either from a teacher or an annotation. Much of it seems backwards--the cart going before the horse, so to speak--as though the stresses are only put on a syllable because the stress is supposed to go there, rather than because the syllable demands a stress. I do understand that in the example given that the emphasis should go on 'That' rather than 'is' in order to emphasis the idea of the line, but reversing the rhythm doesn't sound wrenched or unnatural, it just sounds like the intention of the line is changed. THAT is the question gives emphasis to the demonstrative and thus draws attention back to the first half of the line. If the stess is on IS, (That IS the question) then the emphasis is shifted to the asking of the question, such as when someone would say "That IS a problem" in order to emphasize and validate the problem, versus "THAT is a problem" which would be said in order to distinguish the antecendent of "that" as the primary or only problem out of a group of possible candidates. If the emphasis is placed on IS rather than THAT, the line is pure iambic. I would really like to know what element of either word implies a natural or by position stress. Similarly, I don't understand why the next line, according to the article, is supposed to be read as trochaic followed by iambic rather than as two dactyls. If there is a clear explanation, I would really appreciate reading it and since I'm probably not the only person who has trouble with these distinctions, it should be added to the article.
You're absolutely right; the line could be read as that IS the question, but if read aloud in conjunction with the next line, I think you'll find it sounds pretty silly. Ultimately, however, regardless of what people might tell you, marking the lines according to metrical feet and stress is often very subjective. In this case, an actor may choose to emphasize IS rather than THAT, and that is a legitimate personal choice. Emphasizing THAT makes for a more natural sentence, at least in my opinion.
To answer your second question, again, metrical divisions are debatable. However, since the majority of the play is written in iambic pentameter, the verse is usually analyzed based upon that premise. Trochees, like iambs, are binary feet, and therefore do not change the number of feet per line. If analyzed according dactyllic meter, you face some more difficult choices. For instance, the first two feet would be dactyls, but where do you go from there? Is the next foot an iamb, or an amphibrach? Based upon that, is the last foot an iamb with an additional beat, or an amphibrach, or does the final beat stand alone? Whatever you do, you end up with either four feet per line, at least two of them ternary and one binary, or five feet with two ternary, two binary, and one lonesome unstressed syllable at the end. If you analyze it assuming iambs, you get five feet: trochee, iamb, pyrrhic, iamb, and the last foot is one of two things, an amphibrach, or an iamb with a feminine ending, which is essentially the difference between a pot and a kettle. While it may not seem like it because of my horrible explanation, it looks much cleaner on paper. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.6.75.51 (talk) 14:49, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
