> R.A.Brown wrote:
>> I fail to see how this match between quantitative and accentual 
>> rhythms can possibly be said to be "all wrong for that melody."
> In fact, it's _quite right for the melody_. It's surely true that no 
> Latin speaker ever stressed illud, negat, potest etc. on the last 
> syllable. 

The clear evidence of the Romance languages is that the various forms of 
_ille_ were often stressed on the second syllable in Vulgar Latin. 
Indeed it seems that whether this demonstrative adjective/pronoun was 
stressed on the first or second syllable depended upon context & use. It 
is not improbable that _ille_ similarly had variable stress in Classical 

> But hey it's poetry/music, where all rules may be bent--almost 
> required when fitting a foreign lang. to another lang's patterns.  

Yes, indeed - as we see when fitting the metrical patterns of ancient 
Greek to Classical Latin    ;)

There is, in fact, considerable debate about how Classical Latin verse 
should be stressed.

> And 
> in any case, it's hardly echt Lateinisch....  I imagine there are great 
> and well-known poems/songs in English with stress on "a, the"  or other 
> normally unstressed syllables etc.  

Indeed, there are. But as I have argued, the _quantitative_ pattern of 
the Latin does, in fact, neatly fit the accentual pattern of the 
English. So, ipso_facto, it is - as you wrote above - "_quite right for 
the melody_"

>> I just do not understand the point you are making - nor do I see any 
>> point in continuing this sub-thread in the Latin help thread.
> It _is_ becoming a rather enlarged mole-hill.............:-)))))

Yep - but I thought the observation about _ille_, _illud_ etc. might be 
informative for any Romconlangers who were not aware of it. On that cue, 
let's get back to Conlanging.

[log in to unmask]
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.