That’s not unreasonable, but I think that in the context of the poem, putting the stress on MAN fits the meter better.
Difficult to support for two reasons: first, it breaks the meter of the poem, and second, it’s not a correct pronounciation of the Greek letter iota, and the name is an English spelling of a Greek transliteration of one of the names of Rameses.
“my NAME is OZ-ee-MAN-jus KING of KINGS” is how Shelley wanted it pronounced, at least in that line, anyway.
Gotcha. I admit I hadn’t thought about it much in the context of the poem, so that makes sense.
Where the hell did that /r/ come from? Say the word ‘red’ and tell me honestly if you think anyone says ‘Australia’ with that sound in the first syllable.
To be fair ,the folks who" warsh their laurndry" do talk about “Arsetralia”
Given that the sonnet is not strictly iambic, I’m not sure this is a given.
OK, fair enough. But that’s heterodox even in America and I find it odd someone would think all Americans talk like that.
That, and I’ve never been clear on how ‘arse’ is meant to be pronounced. I guess this is confirmation it does contain /r/, right?
Nope, no consonantal /r/ there. Not when spoken by an overwhelming majority of British speakers – not from the perpective of an American listener, anyway.
“Arse” is a real word in British English, and is a forerunner of “ass” in American English. Both have the primary meaning of “backside, bum, buttocks”, and loads of secondary invective meanings.
BTW … from the perspective of most British listeners … this American, in fact, say “Arse-tralia” 