I have a question. Since Latin words are based on accent rather than pitch, would not elegiac couplets (or any Greek poetic meter for that matter) be inappropiate for the Latin language?
I would love to write a couplet, but I do believe that Iambic poetry better suits my temperment if you know what I mean. 
~ἑκηβόλος
A pain I know all too well.
latin words in poetry did not take their main influence from accent but from quantity. accordingly the elegiac metre, inherited and refined from the greek precedent, was perhaps the most common metre employed in latin. its early origins are with the neoterics, it reached its technical peak with ovid, and it has continued, relatively unabated, to this day.
the effect of accent was made secondary, though its consideration is still important. for instance, the consideration of ictus resulted in the general stylistic rule that the hexameter should end with a di- or tri-syllable. since the penultimate syllable of the line must needs be long, the accent always coincided with the arsis of the sixth foot. additionally, whether this last word be of two or three syllables, the accent of the preceeding word will necessarily coincide with the arsis of the fifth foot. the hexameter line will therefore end with a pleasing coincidence of arsis and ictus in the last two feet. such coincidences, however, were avoided generally in the second, third and fourth.
as for iambics, they never really took off in latin. the finest example of their employment (in trimeter at any rate) is perhaps catullus IV.
~D
I could find no way around that in the time I had. I think it would have reduced the effect a bit if I took a week to produce a couplet telling you not to rush us. 
finally, the flow of the pent., with such exquisite use of the two hemiepes, is to be envied by all.
Getting the second hemiepes right took the most work, but I’m pleased how the line turned out: the echo of MouSaiS in neMeSiS, the double use of the negative, a verb ending each hemiepes. It’s too bad Calvert Watkins doesn’t visit us.
i surely would, as you no doubt should, be proud.
Thank you for your kind words.
just to start up some friendly olympic rivalry, here’s an elegaic about the Aussie 4 x 100 freestyle relay swim champions:
[size=150]αὖτις )ολυμπιονῖκαι ὁμοῦ στεφανωθήσονται
)αντιπόδων χρυσῷ ἶφι ἀνασσομένων[/size]
once again, the Olympic champions (from the strongly-dominating Antipodes) will be crowned all together with gold.
(nb in …ni=kai, -ai scans short before a following vowel; upsilon in “gold” scans long naturally)
for more information about grammar, syntax and scansion, United States classicists may visit the following site:
http://www.swimming.org.au/gallery/viewimage.cfm?ImageToView=688&MeetID=214
Uh just putting this here for people’s reference, mostly mine. couplet in progress, dave! thanks.
http://suberic.net/~marc/scansion.html
I’m working on a similar reference for Greek, with special attention on places to trip when writing your own. May take a few more days…
EDIT: also, this same person has Do-It-Yourself: How to Write Latin Verse, by H. Schnur, for hexameters. I knew I recognized that URL…
My first attempt at Latin poetry ever:
quid ridetis acres ingratae mihi Musae
me errantem aspecta quomodo labar ego
The first line is addressed to the muses, the second to the reader. This is perhaps the penalty of completing the pentameter before refining the hexameter. Please tell me if I have erred.
Some guidance for the Hellenists: The Greek Elegiac Couplet: A Writer’s Guide. I focus a bit more on some of the considerations particular to Greek.
Chad, that’s great! Next, you’ll need to compose in Dactylo-epitrites, like Pindar used for the victory odes.
If you’ll forgive me for entering workshopping mode briefly, the location of χρυσῷ is a bit of a shock. I’d be inclined to put that in place of αὖτις (correption preserves the meter). The meter of χρυσῷ is fine, of course, with the hiatus across the caesura, but the sense is hard to connect to the verb in the previous line, for me at least.
Of course I should offer a suggestion for the missing uu-, but nothing comes to mind at the moment.
Not quite as easy as all that!
First of all, no caesura in the hexameter. You need this.
EITHER:
Second, I believe in the second foot of your hexameter the second syllable is short by position since it is a short vowel, followed by a consonant which will, unfortunately attach itself to the beginning of the next syllable, because that syllable begins with a vowel.
So…
The syllable around the first “u” of “annus novus” is long here, but short in “annus octavus”.
As for your pentameter (is the translation Watch me erring, just as I slip?)
That seems good to me. You might want to check with WhiteO whether long vowels can elide themselves like that. I’ve read that diphthongs can, so probably your verse is OK.
And the envy burns me up. You seem to have quite a good grasp of elision, which to me is the real bugbear preventing any kind of progress. I suppose that once I’m used to the idea, it will be quite natural. Until then, however…
You see the difficulty is that dactyls are required in many places, and it is quite impossible of course to find short syllables that do not end in vowels. But if vowels are used, then they tend to be elided with vowels or diphthongs beginning the next word. This is especially difficult with the post caesura part of the pentameter, where I have found it difficult to resist the temptation to use “est”, which will naturally elide the vowel of the previous syllable, making it long.
Of course, my grasp of Latin scansion will horrify the more skilled members here, so if I have misled you, I offer you my most heartfelt apologies.
I should add a short note about what caesura actually is.
It’s a gap in the words (the latin word actually means cutting)
So for instance with…
progeniem sed enim Troiano a sanguine duci (third strong)
FOOT ONE: pro ge ni
FOOT TWO: em sed e
FOOT THREE: nim Troi
FOOT FOUR: an(o) a
FOOT FIVE: san gui ne
FOOT SIX: du ci
The caesura is between “nim” and “Troi”
And also, to provide you with an example of Third weak (I believe that was what WO called it)…
id metuens veterisque memor Saturnia belli
FOOT ONE: id me tu
FOOT TWO: ens ve te
FOOT THREE: ris que me
FOOT FOUR: mor Sa
FOOT FIVE: tur ni a
FOOT SIX: bel li
Caesura in three places, between “ens” and “ve”, between “que” and “me”, and finally between “mor” and “Sa”
Dreadful, eh? Imagine Lucretius composing six whole books of verse like that. It fair boggles the mind.
'Till next time then.
EDIT: And thanks to Will for the link.
My scansion is extremely mediocre as well, so I was quite confident there would be mistakes in my first composition.
I intend it to be scanned thus:
quid ri/detis a/cres || ingra/tae mihi / Musae
m[e] erran/t[em] aspec/ta || quomodo / labar e/go
In this case there would be a caesura in the hexameter, but I was going on an assumption that I could choose how to break up acres, similarly to something like pa-tris or pat-ris. Do you suppose this works or am I still in error? Dave pointed out some previous errors, but he has not yet commented on this version.
As for your pentameter (is the translation Watch me erring, just as I slip?)
Yes, that is what I mean, or “Watch me erring, (watch) how I slip” - same difference.
You might want to check with WhiteO whether long vowels can elide themselves like that. I’ve read that diphthongs can, so probably your verse is OK.
I hope so, or perhaps it can be short (though I doubt it).
And the envy burns me up. You seem to have quite a good grasp of elision, which to me is the real bugbear preventing any kind of progress. I suppose that once I’m used to the idea, it will be quite natural. Until then, however…
I spent a good amount of my day reading through the prosody section of A&G yesterday, although most of the time spent went into rearranging and reselecting words. A&G says that lines with lots of elisions are seen as ugly, which may help to emphasize the idea of going astray in my pentameter (though I shouldn’t pretend to know what I am talking about ).
quid ri/detis a/cres || ingra/tae mihi / Musae
OK, you and I are talking at cross purposes here, but I still think that hexameter is a little bit dodgy.
I believe the second syllable of the third foot here is long. While you can certainly join the g to the next syllable to create “in-gra” I still think the “n” will have to stay at the end of the second syllable there.
So either way, your couplet is in trouble…
Look on the bright side, it can’t possibly get as bad as mine.
I’m off to read some Propertius now. The muses are not coming to Romford tonight, if indeed they have ever been here.
EDIT: Yes, you can break up acres as you please. I’ve overlooked that. I was scanning your verse from the back, as is my habit, and assumed you wanted in-gra as two long syllables.
That link Amy provided really is superb.
Interesting to see that the poets avoided certain words. For arbor for instance they used arbusta (which is incidently, the spanish word for bush, and the name of one of George W’s oil companies).
Also the article notes the problems with finding short syllables. Once you include them into verse they tend, immediately, to be elided. I think we’ve all noticed that.
Will wrote:
If you’ll forgive me for entering workshopping mode briefly, the location of xrusw=| is a bit of a shock. I’d be inclined to put that in place of au)=tij (correption preserves the meter). The meter of xrusw=| is fine, of course, with the hiatus across the caesura, but the sense is hard to connect to the verb in the previous line, for me at least.
Thanks for your help Will: Dave mentioned the same thing. I think this might be a better 2nd line:
[size=150]αὖτις )ολυμπιονῖκαι ὁμοῦ στεφανωθήσονται
οἴκαδε δ’ ἴξονται χρυσῷ ἐς )αντιπόδας[/size]
once again, the Olympic champions will be crowned,
and will come home to the Antipodes with gold.
it gets rid of the hiatus at the caesura, and it no longer resurrects digamma at a)nassome/nwn, 2 rules in your (once again excellent) .pdf on writing elegaic couplets, as linked above.
I don’t know how to get rid of the hiatus at the fem caesura in the first line though, without throwing it to the end of the line and re-writing the line: do you think I should do that as well? Thanks, Chad.
I believe this will work:
quid ridetis acres || hostes mihi Musae
me errantem aspecta || quomodo labar ego
Excuse my ignorance.
Is hostis an adjective?
(I know I should really get a better dictionary, but they are pricey.)
I have swapped adjective for appositive noun, “why do you laugh, my bitter enemies, the muses”. I think this is within acceptable limits…
I have pondered. I have browsed parts of the Greek Anthology.
I have consulted the Holy Books, namely M.L. West’s Greek Metre.
Early elegiasts do tolerate hiatus across the caesura. They also seem perfectly happy to resurrect digamma. Due to private reading I’ve been focusing a lot on Imperial poets recently, and I’ve skewed my advice to their much stricter practice. I’ll be updating the Guide soon to make that clear.
I don’t know how to get rid of the hiatus at the fem caesura in the first line though, without throwing it to the end of the line and re-writing the line: do you think I should do that as well?
Whoo, boy. Now we’re playing with deep mojo. I could find no direct comment in His Metrical Holiness’ works about correption at the caesura. I did, however, find this line in Homer after a few minutes:
οὐκ ἔθελον δέξασθαι, ἐπεὶ πολὺ βούλομαι αὐτήν A.112
So it appears Homer at least can do this. In general the Hexameter is afforded more freedoms in stichic verse, and is more regulated in elegiacs. But your hexameter is probably fine.