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.Edit: after relistening, there is a short pause after the stressed "e", but it's not long enough to make a "tt" nor the pause is initiated after the vowel as one would expect with the sudden interrupton of onset of the stop, THEN a pause, then the release. So, I didn't do "tt" phonetically/orally (it wasn't articulated, nor I see a reason mentally why I would have done it consciously or not), but there is a small pause which you "unequestionably" interpret that way. If anything, I would say it's questionable... but whatever, I don't want to fight over this word, since I had some other problems with it of my own I mentioned somewhere above...
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.But again, I thank you for trying to catch even these small details, just as I always do, I appreciate it, even if we part in the conclusion!
Haha, well, we are on the same page here then; I could very well have written what you just wrote!Well, in fact, if I read it the way I think is most ideal (and if I remember correctly, it's also what Wilfried Stroh proposes), I would read the whole thing as a prose with all those elisions that need to be done in poetry (whether they were appliclable outside or poetry or not).... that is maybe without the caesuras too. My current reading is some kind of compromise between not inducing artificial phonetic markers but both trying to perserve what I think was clearly thought as a phonetical marker by the Romans: the caesura (I can't see how it could be interpreted differently) although this clashes with what i just said before. I'm a little bit torn on caesuras.
Absolutely, let's save that for another time!I know we have some basic disagreements about the way poetry should be read which lead to maybe 80% (or more?) points in your criticism (that is: open vs. long syllables phonetically).!