These words bear examination .sx It seems to have been the case that in the parent dialect , CF , these words formed part of a lexically-marked stratum of loans from Classical Latin .sx Yet in medieval Latin , " all unstressed vowels had become lax " ( Halle and Keyser ) .sx Consequently , in the parent dialect , these words are arguably stressed not according to the native French paradigm ( which would have tended to make all such words oxytone ) , but according to Latinate principles :sx the final syllable is skipped ; then the penultimate syllable is analysed , and if it is light , that too is skipped , and stress is assigned to the antepenult .sx This principle CF seems to gift to English .sx Notice , however , that in two of the examples above ( Tydeus and Zepherus ) , antepenultimate stress can also be accounted for by the generalising of the OE Word Rule , which will assign strongest stress to the initial syllables ( where antepenultimate = initial) .sx In other words , we are now dealing with two stress principles , but with one result :sx in many cases , the survival of native English principles of stress ( specifically , the Word Rule ) yields identical outputs to stress-patterning based on a new principle .sx This is by no means an unusual situation in language .sx Giegerich ( 1985 :sx 23 ) , for example , notes that the same thing happens in German :sx " a Latinate stress rule has entered into the borrowing Germanic language .sx ... One of the reasons for the survival of this Latinate stress rule , and indeed for its productivity , may be its compatibility with native German vocabulary .sx Note that the [Latinate :sx McC] rule copes with native and nonnative vocabulary alike and no such distinction has to be maintained in the phonology of English " .sx In terms , then , of the English of the 14th century and beyond , what we are looking at is a very familiar pattern :sx the central stress-assignment rule is in certain words skipping up to two light syllables before assigning stress .sx Halle and Keyser , for example , write of this that " The nonnative vocabulary of Chaucer consisted of two types of words , namely , learned words largely of Latin origin and everyday words borrowed from Old French or Anglo-Norman .sx These two classes had different stress patterns .sx The words of Latin origin were stressed on the antepenultimate vowel if the penultimate syllable ended with a weak cluster [= was a light syllable ; McC] ; otherwise , they were stressed on the penultimate vowel " ( ) .sx Thus what we are dealing with in many of the loans from Central French are words derived directly from Latin where , as we have already seen , final syllables may be analysed as extrametrical .sx It is from this point on , I think , that we can trace the history of Noun Extrametricality in English .sx Once this happens , something very interesting and , as far as I know , unique in English phonology happens .sx We have a subsequent period in English where metrical overlap and ambiguity occurs .sx Arguably , this period is at its height in the 16th century , the period when it seems that Latin-based rules begin to be fully operative in English - and of course , the period when the quantitative metrical experiments take place .sx But let me return to the concept of metrical overlap .sx The point is made by Dobson .sx Speaking specifically about late ME and early ModE .sx , he notes " the coexistence in English of two modes of stressing " ( 1957 , Vol. ) .sx These modes were the earlier French ( A-N ) mode , the mode of right-strength and end-stress , and the mode which almost wholly replaced it , the generalising of the native Word Rule allied with the new Latinate principles , which tended to shift the primary stress to the initial syllable .sx Once this happens , we have , as I have noted , a large group of words which had secondary stress at their right edges .sx But what happened to these secondary - stressed syllables ?sx The answer is that in both disyllables and trisyllables , they tend to be reduced :sx thus , in disyllables , against empire , and increase ( where secondary stress is kept ) , we have e.g. captain and pleasure , where secondary stress is lost .sx As Dobson notes , in Romance disyllables , " especially if they were or became 'popular' , shift of stress often led to the second syllable becoming totally unstressed " ( 1957 , Vol. ) .sx This also occurs in trisyllables , albeit less frequently ( see e.g. Dobson 1957 , Vol. ) .sx One bench mark is Levins' Manipulus vocabulorum , printed in 1570 , which suggestively marked the following ( primary ) stressings :sx mem o rial , or i ginal , geom e trical , as well as penultimate stress on ori e ntal , sacram e ntal , accid e ntal and final stress on e.g. deb a te , div i ne etc. The pattern is familiar :sx although there is a little way to go yet , it is essentially that of today ( see further Halle and Keyser ) .sx Given Dobson's dating , and the present reconstruction , it would seem that secondary stresses at the right edges of words are in many cases being reduced at exactly the same time as Latinate stress patterning , and with it , the possibility of final syllables being extra - metrical , is entering the language .sx In short , we have a unique position in which Latin stress rules are , at a certain stage in linguistic history , compatible with native vocabulary and stress-principles ( see again the quote from Giegerich 1985 :sx 23 , above p. 18) .sx Whether on lexical monosyllables , disyllables , or trisyllables , the old rules , and the new , could produce similar , and in many cases identical outputs .sx By c. 1570 it is possible to see the new lineaments of English stress patterning .sx In ( 12 ) below I give a graphic outline summary of the chief developments in English stress patterning from c. 1100 to c. 1600 .sx figure&caption .sx 3 .sx But what of the poets themselves ?sx If my reconstruction and dating are correct , surely our poets should have detected the similarities between their English , and the theories of Latin prosody they had available to them in the mid- to late 16th century ?sx Although the evidence is again difficult to reconstruct , this seems to be what happens .sx A link can be made ( and for testament to the possibility of linking poetic form to ( phonological ) characteristics of the language , see Allen ) .sx But to understand the link between the Latinate stress phonology entering the language and the favoured Latin verse forms of the later 16th century , I must first , having reconstructed the phonological background , reconstruct the metrical background .sx While most discussion on the metrical background has focused on syllabic quantity ( see below ) , stress itself is not wholly irrelevant to the quantitative enterprise .sx This is so for two reasons :sx first , syllabic quantity in Latin is directly relevant to the placement of stress , and so there is a prima facie case that stress and quantity may be linked in the verse line .sx ( However that relationship may be exploited by poets , it is still a relationship .sx ) Second , and consequently , one way of reading and/or performing the verse line ( specifically , the hexameter ) seems to have been accentual , i.e. whatever the underlying patterns of quantity determining the abstract structure of the line , one possible exponent of that pattern is an accentual reading , one based on word stress .sx As Allen puts it ( 1973 :sx 339 ) , " it has to be remembered that in ordinary Latin speech .sx .. quantity was closely linked with accent ; and it is possible that the untaught speaker would have been aware of quantitative differences only in so far as they were connected with the placement of accent " .sx But again , matters are complicated by the fact that in the first part of the hexameter , accent , and ictus ( = unit of the abstract quantitative pattern ) did not necessarily coincide , and only , in fact , coincided regularly in the last two feet of the line .sx Nevertheless , the link between stress and quantity is important :sx for counterpoint to exist at all in the first part of the line does not mean that stress ( or accent ) is irrelevant , only that the link is differently exploited .sx Allen ( 1973 :sx 345ff. ) argues convincingly that " in antiquity the scanning pronunciation [i .sx e. the ictic reading of a line :sx McC] was the less normal way of reading [than an accentual one :sx McC] " and suggests that such a " two-fold tradition - pedagogical scanning and accentual reading " persists " from the Latin grammarians to the present day " ( ) .sx Attridge ( 1974 :sx 35 ) corroborates this :sx " It seems certain .sx .. that the accepted practice in England ( and elsewhere ) was to read Latin verse with normal word-accents " .sx Yet the tradition of 'scanning' was not dead in England :sx " We may conclude that the best-educated men in England at the end of the sixteenth century would have held that the correct way of reading Latin verse was with prose stresses , but that even they would be accustomed to using the stressed-ictus method for learning by heart or for scanning " ( Attridge 1974 :sx 40 ; see also Pulgram ) .sx The upshot of this discussion is , then , that stress was relevant to the quantitative enterprise in England , even if in unexpected ways .sx The tradition of accentual reading , moreover , helps to explain the demise of the movement ( see section 4 below) .sx It remains , however , for us to look in more detail at theories of syllabic quantity .sx The 16th century had inherited a theory of Latin prosody ( Attridge 1974 :sx 9 ) where syllables could be long 'by nature' :sx these were typically lexical monosyllables ( nox , 'night' , frons , 'foliage' ) , or syllables containing long vowels or diphthongs ( e.g. the first syllable of via , 'way') .sx Syllables could also be long 'by position' ( see below) .sx In both cases , syllabic length ( or heaviness ) may imply stress .sx The position rule , for example , the more difficult of the two rules , implied that a ( non-final ) syllable was stressed if it was heavy ( e.g. first syllables of cul .sx pa , 'blame' , fal .sx sus , 'false') .sx It also claimed a syllable was long ( but not necessarily implying stress ) if it was followed , in the same or different words , by two consonants ( Attridge 1974 :sx 9 , based on Raven 1965 :sx 23-25 ) ; so the first syllable of et d unch na is 'long' by this principle .sx There were also a group of syllables falling within the purview of the position rule which could be scanned as either short or long ( light or heavy ) ; these were syllables followed by plosive + /l , r/ .sx Thus the first syllable of atrox , 'fierce' , could be scanned as light ( a.trox - a later age would call this initial-maximal syllabification ) , or heavy ( at .sx rox ) - see again Attridge ( ) .sx These points are detailed under ( 13) .sx ( 13 ) Latin theories of syllable-structure and versification :sx a. Syllables long by nature :sx ( i ) lexical monosyllables ( e.g. nox , frons etc. ; see also the discussion of XVC# syllables below ) ; ( ii ) syllables containing long vowels or diphthongs ( e.g. via) .sx b. Syllables long by position :sx ( i ) first syllables of e.g. cul .sx pa , fal .sx sus ; ( ii ) first syllable of e.g. et d unch na , where is classed as 'long by position' since it precedes two consonants .sx c. Syllables classifiable as long or short :sx at .sx rox or a.trox , pat .sx rius or pa .sx trius etc. Let me try to reinterpret this in terms of non-linear theory .sx What had developed in the history of English was a new kind of trading relationship between syllabic heaviness and stress .sx Of course , it is arguable that syllabic heaviness has always traded with stress in English - it certainly does in OE , where the rightward migration of the OE Stress Rule is quantity-sensitive at the left edges of domains :sx consider here the contrast between t i mbr o-grave de ( 'he built' , with secondary stress , since the first syllable is heavy ) and b i fode ( 'it trembled' , with no secondary stress since the first syllable is light ; McCully and Hogg 1990) .sx Recall now what the new , Latin-based English Stress Rule ( ESR ) does :sx it assigns foot-headedness - stress - at the right edges of words ( not the left edges , as in OE ) on the basis of syllable weight .sx This relationship is easily observed in English monosyllables , which are all syllabically heavy and all " inherently stressed " ( Hogg and McCully ) .sx In disyllables , too , heavy initial syllables ( as well as light ones , a fact which puzzled some 16th-century theorists ) are primary-stressed .sx When our 16th-century poets studied Latin prosody , they found a similar relationship :sx heavy syllables are equated with 'length' , and length implies ( or increases the expectation of ) stress .sx And although the 16th century was to misinterpret part of this implication ( by taking it to mean not that syllables were 'long by position' but that their vowels ' lengthened by position' ) , what is crucial here is the idea of syllable structure .sx