Talk:Iamb (poetry)

Examples?

Iambic Trimeter is not 3 consecutive iamb, but rather 3 iambic metra, each of which is 2 iambs, for a total of 6 iambs in each line.

No. That is certainly incorrect as far as Accentual-syllabic verse in English is concerned. It seems there may be a significant distinction between classical metres and English terminology here. Do you have a reference for your assertion? — Stumps 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is an iamb the same thing as a trochee? If it is, should someone make that connection on both pages? --Uggh1134 20:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't; a trochee (a metrical foot of stressed-unstressed) is the opposite of an iamb (a metrical foot of unstressed-stressed). Thefamouseccles 01:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is iambic meter?

The first foot of the line given from Shakespeare is a trochee. Nobody naturally emphasizes "I" in that sentence in such a manner as to make the foot an iamb.

Depends on the context. He could be asking, "Should I do it as opposed to anybody else doing it?" in which case it would be accented. Tsunomaru 17:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The third foot is definitely pyrrhic, though. 163.1.121.50 19:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, that would be a condition of stressing the "I," but I think the poem is not arguing who's going to do the job but rather whether the comparision is apt. The first foot most normally, I agree, is a simple trochaic substitution for the first foot. Very common substitution, especially as English typically stresses the first syllable of words. There's no way it turns the entire line into trochees, so I disagree with the parenthetical comments in the artcle at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.206.6 (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the parenthetical comments belong, either, I think they will only confuse people. I think it would be better to have an additional section explaining that great writers often vary the meter somewhat--feminine endings, trochaic first feet, and so on--and that it's perfectly acceptable. IME, a lot of students are too hung up on ti-TUM-ti-TUM-ti-TUM-ti-TUM-ti-TUM; they think Shakespeare is "wrong" when a line appears to contain twelve syllables, they don't understand about elision or the reverse (where you're making a word longer than it would be in ordinary speech) and if you ask them to write blank verse you'll get lines of ten one-syllable words apiece. In the examples section, it's probably best to stick with lines that are best-of-breed contenders. No one ought to be confused by "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!" The Gilly (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this discussion (from six years ago!) related to the parenthetical text questioning the first line of Sonnet 18's status as iambic pentameter? If so, how has it stood for that length of time?! True or not, it's the very soul of original research. I think The Gilly had the right idea: if no-one can find a source, let's just pull the example entirely. Heck, even if someone can find a source, let's pull the example; this article is about iambs, not about things that turn out to not be iambs. -- Perey (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very little actual information

Speaking as someone who wanted to know what iambic meter is, I have to say this article supplies very little actual information that is accessible to someone who doesn't already have an understanding of poetry. It would be far more useful if there was less poet talk and more layman style explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.209.73 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 23 February 2009

Agreed. I'm going to link the 'Pentameter' section to the article on iambic pentameter since that's much beefier. Also, no examples for hexameter/alexandrine?? The Gilly (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed reorganization following German Wikipedia model

When I get around to it I intend to reorganize this material following the model of German Wikipedia model. See my notice at WikiProject Poetry, and further discussion on my talk page, and of course I'd welcome any input/objections. Wareh (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Iamb (poetry)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iamb (foot) → Iamb (poetry) – The poetry concept is not the first thing that comes to a reader's mind when they see "foot", so this is not the clearest possible disambiguator here. The disambiguation page lists a few things in poetry that "iamb" can refer to, although this is the only article with the exact title. If someone feels that this needs to be disambiguated further, Iamb (poetic foot) could be another alternative. Jafeluv (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The present title is not very helpful unless you already know the subject well enough not to need the article. The proposed title is actually findable by a reader who doesn't know the topic, and that is more important than any miniscule semantic objections one could make to the general term "poetry". 168.12.253.66 (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The proposed disambiguator is more helpful because it doesn't require the reader to already be familiar with the concept of a poetic foot. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom, significant improvement. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Red Slash 01:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for reasons already articulated by nom and Egsan Bacon above. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 03:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pentameter

The example for the alternative analysis of the Shakespeare line regarding iambic pentameter is from Kiparsky, from a paper either in the 70s or 90s. I'll look it up when I get the chance. The alternative analysis is however not a trochee, but a dactyl. Bot-386 (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]