A question for people who speak Spanish, Italian and Portuguese.

>>8811139
We dont have much of a content.

>>8811139
I think it's because it increases the chances for having to stop the verse before a word ending in "os" or "as" becomes inevitable. Even though you don't rhyme, that shit must get old?

I'm not particularly knowledgeable when it comes to prosody, so I have to ask - does the number of syllables even matter when talking about the content? I mean, one verse isn't automatically one sentence, you could split a fairly long and complex sentence across several shorter verses, you'd just have to add rhyming syllables and pauses more often than in a longer verse.

>>8811661
English and French more monosyllabic.
Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, like Latin and Greek, are more polysyllabic.
You can say, on average, the same thing in English and French with fewer syllables (though not necessarily fewer letters). And of course the poet can be cunning with his word choice, but the difference still exists.

>we
>allows little insertion of content.
...grow up?

>>8811738
I know this, but that doesn't answer my question, which should apply to any language. How does a smaller number of syllables allow "little insertion of content"?

>>8811738
He's talking about enjambment, family

>>8811661
>>8811738
>>8811772
>>8811787

do you people know anything about languages formally? I'm not trying to deride you, i'm genuinely wondering.

i think the real answer to >>8811661 's original question of basically "does meter limit the information delivery capability of language" is that different languages encode meaning differently into syllables, depending of course on how the notion of "syllable" is used in whichever language's phonology and morphology (compare english to mandarin, for example).

When >>8811738 talks about "monosyllabic" and "polysyllabic", he's really talking about analytic and synthetic trending languages, respectively. And thus, although it is true that "you can say, on average, the same thing in english and french with fewer syllables" than some other languages, this irrelevant to those languages' delivery of information.

>>8811772

Think on a sonnet, for example: you have only 14 verses.

Now, think on a sonnet by Shakespeare and in one by Dante: both of them used 10 syllable line verses. Even though they are bough great poets it is undeniable that Shakespeare, due to the nature of the English language (less number of syllables), will have much more room for detailing his metaphors, for coloring and specifying his thoughts. The sonnets by Camões, Dante, Lope de Vega all seem to be inferior to the ones of Shakespeare, but that is not only because they are different poets, but because they are working with different languages, and Dante, Camões and Lope have less space to show their technique.

This matters even in the instinct of the poet. I have witnessed that poets who use smaller metrical units tend to have a simpler poetry (simpler in thoughts, simpler in metaphors and similes, simpler in small and colorful details): they are not allowed, from birth (after all, they are born in a given tradition) to spread their wings fully, while a poet who uses iambic pentameter or dactylic hexameter fells, from the start, more air to breath.

>>8811889
>Even though they are bough* great poets

they are both

>>8811139

English speaking poets are very lucky: it is much easier to write in their language.

>>8812056
to be fair, it means it's much easier to write shitty poetry in English