As you rightly write in the end of your post, we have a disagreement when it comes to how to read poetry: I believe that the rhythm of the verse meter should be a bit more clearly and consistently done than it would be in prose. But by using the word unquestionably here, I wanted to point out that "perpetuum" in this case has a real issue, which I didn't expect to be controversial to you. I am genuinely flabbergasted that you don't acknowledge this long "t". So it is really interesting to discuss and analyse this, to see why we perceive this so differently. I suspect that, maybe, our different native languages make us pay attention to different things, and have different thresholds for what is perceived as phonemic syllable length in different contexts. Swedish does not have the same free length distribution as does Czech, but it has long and short syllables: specifically, a stressed syllable is always long, either by nature or by position (to use the same terminology as in Latin). So, a common error for some foreigners from languages without long/short distinction in vowels and consonants, is that they don't manage to lengthen stressed syllables enough, and native speakers are sensitive to this. However, if I listen to you saying the faux-Swedish word "perpettuum" here (notice the deliberate double t), I do not hear a too short stressed syllable (as would be the case in the proper Roman pronunciation of "perpetuum"); if anything, I hear the length as a bit overdone! I struggle a bit to understand your description of your analysis of the phonetic situation; perhaps you could rewrite it to make it clearer? Are you making a distinction between two different types of pauses? Acoustically, there is just one continuous pause discernible, which of course is perceived as the hold of the stop. In this case, I measure the hold+release to be 270 ms, which should be compared to the length of "cc" in "accipe" in the line before, which is 280 ms long. Edit: All right, considering what you said about not cluttering this thread, we can discuss this more in a separate thread, in case you still disagree. You are welcome, but this is not a small detail. It is one of the three main errors in your reading (the other two being "interea" and "manantia"); most of the other things that I commented on are contestable, but I am confident to say that this is not. Please listen to yourself again with a disinterested mindset. Then we can discuss "alloquerer" and "quandoquidem" later. Haha, well, we are on the same page here then; I could very well have written what you just wrote! Absolutely, let's save that for another time!