Textkit Logo

your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Here's where you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get translation help and more!

Moderator: thesaurus

your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby 1%homeless » Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:10 pm

My teacher says you pronounce the initial "i" as a short "i" vowel and not the "y" semi-vowel sound. Do you concur? They are very similar sounds, but I assume you need to pause a bit between between those two i's if you pronounce the "i" as a short i vowel to avoid a diphthong sound (or in the case of iit, to make vowel distinction), which I think feels unnatural... Any thoughts on this?
User avatar
1%homeless
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:21 am
Location: East Hollywood

Postby Michaelyus » Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:58 pm

You are right in saying the first i is shortened (the second is stressed more) and that there is a gap (a glottal stop) between the two is.
phpbb
Michaelyus
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 8:47 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby 1%homeless » Wed Jun 16, 2004 11:59 pm

...that there is a gap (a glottal stop)


Yeah, I was thinking if I should use a glottal stop like my teacher does, but I never encountered glottal stops when I read about Latin pronunciation, so I tried to avoid it. Actually, I would prefer to use glottal stops...
User avatar
1%homeless
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:21 am
Location: East Hollywood

Postby Mark » Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:07 pm

Yes, I pronounce it as ee-ee, ee-it, ee-ayrunt.
Although if you say those words quickly, it eventually can sound like the y semi-vowel.
Mark
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: New York, U.S.

Re: your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby spqr » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:58 am

Why wouldn't consonantal y pronunciation be used in these examples?
spqr
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:13 pm

Re: your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby adrianus » Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:00 pm

spqr wrote:Why wouldn't consonantal y pronunciation be used in these examples?

Because i in the examples is a vowel marking a unique syllable. Consonantal y has a IPA j sound (as y in yacht).
Quod syllabam unicam denotat omnis i littera verborum istorum.
ii, iit = 2 syllables // duas syllabas habent
ierunt = 3 syllables // tres syllabas.

Ego equidem sic sono: i per IPA i sonitum sono, et iit (i-it) IPA i sonitum bis sono, non anglicè per i-It.
I try to give all the i's the same IPA i sound and just change the length, not the sound, for a long i vowel.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby SgtMurphy » Tue Nov 12, 2013 1:02 pm

The way I generally pronounce i:
'i' sound when an i follows, e.g. -ii, -iit
'y' sound when anything else follows, e.g. -ierunt, iuxi, iam
That's just what I generally do, but even then, an 'i' followed by an 'i' does feel a little awkward to say.
SgtMurphy
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:44 am

Re: your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby Lord_WayneY » Wed Nov 13, 2013 6:04 am

But I learned from Wheelock's Latin, it is said when i is at the beginning of a word and followed by a vowel it is pronounced as y. And the Learn to Read Latin also indicated this:
i is consonantal at the beginning of a word when followed by a vowel and in the middle of a word when it falls between vowels(biiugis, pronounced "bi-yugis"). i may also be consonantal in the middle of a compound.
Civis Sinensis.
I am here not only to learn Latin, but also English.
Lord_WayneY
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:20 am

Re: your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby adrianus » Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:40 pm

Non autem hîc. Vocalis non consonans est littera i incipiens per "iit" quod vocabulum duas syllabas habet.
But not here. The first i is a vowel not a consonant in "iit" [="ivit"] which has 2 syllables.

Virgil, Aeneid I.376, wrote:"Troiae nomen iit, diversa per aequora vectos"

I guess it's true that if "iit" were "jit" (with a consonantal i) it would still scan, so the line from Virgil proves nothing.
Verum est, fateor: si consonans sit i incipiens per "iit", manetur scansio huius versûs.

Itidem cum hoc versu:
Same with this line:

Virgil, Aeneid II.174, wrote:sudor iit, terque ipsa solo (mirabile dictu)

Post scriptum
Nunc dubito // I'm starting to doubt myself.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby adrianus » Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:17 pm

Vestigia quae mea verba sustineant non invenio. Forsit erro. Me excusas, centesimatectocarentum! Gratus mihi est haec quaestio quae defectum in scientiâ meâ illuminet.
Forgive, 1%homeless. I can't find evidence to support what I say. I'm glad the topic came up to highlight what I was assuming to be the case.

Post Scriptum

Finally, here is what I was looking for, which I take to mean the syllables are preserved:
En demùm quod quaesivi quod mihi significat syllabas durare:

Gildersleeve (http://archive.org/stream/gildersleeveslat00gilduoft/gildersleeveslat00gilduoft_djvu.txt) wrote:"2. In the first and third persons Sing, and in the first person PL of the Perfect, syncope occurs regularly only in Perfects in ivi, and no contraction ensues."
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby mwh » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:09 pm

Just to back up adrianus -- and 1%homeless's teacher!
In ii, iit, ierunt etc. (i.e. perfect forms of eo) the first i has to be vocalic. This might best be approached morphologically: Start with ivi, the "regular" perfect, drop the v (Gildersleeve's "syncope"), and you get ii. The only complication is that the first i in ivi is long, but becomes short with the loss of the v (a regular phonological phenomenon). Maybe the elementary grammar books don't make this clear.

So ii is two vowels, a short i and a long i.

However (to add a twist), it's conceivable that in pronunciation a yod glide (the intervocalic y sound) was inserted between them, to mitigate or obviate the hiatus. So either i-i (short-long, with hiatus), or i-y-i (again short-long, with glide to make pronunciation easier) would be acceptable pronunciations. I'm not sure there's justification for this, though.

iuxi and iam have consonantal i, but (-)ierunt does not.

ee- is wrong: the i must be kept short, as in English "it".
mwh
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby adrianus » Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:18 am

But where's the classical evidence, mvh? That's what's annoying me: locating what's surely there.
Sed ubi sunt vestigia classica, mvh? Inopia vexat at certìm exstant vestigia, nonné.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby mwh » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:11 am

Non omnino intelligo quid vel quid plus petas, adriane. nonne vestigia ubique inveniuntur? tu ipse locos e Vergilio sumptos adduxisti. visne scire utrum vox "iit" e duabus syllabis effecta sit an ex una sola ita ut prima lettera vim non vocalem sed consonantem (ut ita dicam) habeat? hoc certe nullo modo fieri potest, siquidem vox "iit" ab "ivit" ductast. et unde orta esset vis consonantis? vestigium verbi ipsius, hoc est illud "i-", necessest maneat! itaque res haud in dubio habendast.

Si mihi licet et tibi placet: nonne pro "certim" vis "certe"? et "nonne" non est vox quae locum ad finem habeat; melius deleas.
mwh
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby Qimmik » Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:57 pm

"vestigium verbi ipsius, hoc est illud "i-", necessest maneat!"

That's the clincher. If you reduce i- to a consonant or semi-vowel, you lose the verb stem.
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby adrianus » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:31 pm

It is theoretically possible to demonstrate that "iit" has two syllables not one, but I can't find the evidence I'm looking for in poetry.
Id demonstrari theoreticè potest, scilicet "iit" vocabulum duas syllabas habere, at versus aptus me fugit.

Certim is fine; Certè is fine. "Nonné" has an acute accent because it's a terminating clause.
Et certim et certè dicuntur. Acutum accentum habet "nonné", quod adverbium et clausula est quae sententiam terminat.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby Qimmik » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:52 pm

Examples from hexameters will always be ambiguous. Look at the end of an elegiac pentameter or in lyric or iambic poetry.
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby mwh » Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:27 pm

Why do you want illustration from poetry, when consonantal i is linguistically out of the question? -- and would be ruinous to Vergil's verses

I will comment no further on your latin, if that is sort of response I get to what I took to be a sincere plea for correction.
mwh
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby adrianus » Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:29 am

Qimmik wrote:Examples from hexameters will always be ambiguous.

If "iit" were followed by a long syllable in a word whose first letter were a vowel, would that not suggest hiatus between two short vowels in separate syllables in "iit", Qimmik?
Nonnè hiatus inter vocales breves in "iit" indicetur, Qimmik, cum longa sit prima syllaba vocabuli sequentis in quo prima littera vocalis?

mvh wrote:I will comment no further on your latin, if that is sort of response I get to what I took to be a sincere plea for correction.
Benè moratus sis, mvh. // Behave, mvh.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby Qimmik » Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:28 pm

'If "iit" were followed by a long syllable in a word whose first letter were a vowel, would that not suggest hiatus between two short vowels in separate syllables in "iit", Qimmik?

I guess that's right.
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby adrianus » Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:57 pm

Id vestigi est quod quaero at non invenio.
That's the sort of evidence I mean but can't seem to find.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby Craig_Thomas » Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:17 am

Would these, with 'exiit', satisfy? 'iit', it turns out, is quite a rare form!

Verg., Georgics 2.81:
exiit ad caelum ramis felicibus arbos,

Verg., Aeneid 2.497
exiit oppositasque euicit gurgite moles,

Someone might argue that 'i' could still be a consonant in 'jit', but made a vowel in the compound to avoid the difficult to pronounce 'exjit'. But then this does not typically happen with other compounds, such as 'adjuvo'; and why would it not be 'ejit', like 'ejectus', 'ejaculor', 'ejuro'?
Craig_Thomas
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:42 am

Re: your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby adrianus » Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:12 pm

Craig_Thomas wrote:Someone might argue that 'i' could still be a consonant in 'jit', but made a vowel in the compound to avoid the difficult to pronounce 'exjit'.

Great, Craig_Thomas! "Exiit" has to be three syllables (long + short + short) and not two ("exjit" = long + short, which is not allowed) because the "t" goes with the following vowel. That's direct evidence for a hiatus between the short vocalic "i"s.
Macte, Craig_Thomas! Tres syllabas habet "exiit" verbum quod breves sunt vocales et "t" littera terminans ad vocalem sequentem adjungitur. Vestigium est ut sit hiatus inter i litteras breves per "iit".
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby SgtMurphy » Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:49 am

Craig_Thomas' evidence is convincing enough. I still believe that, in some cases, pronunciation doesn't have to be strict; I would use both 'ex-jit' and 'exi-it' when speaking, just as long as the pronunciation doesn't stray so far from the spelling as to possibly be confused for another word, such as 'exit'. I mean, even English has the different pronunciations of the word tomato. Either way you say it, a competent speaker will probably understand you.
SgtMurphy
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:44 am

Re: your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby adrianus » Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:40 am

When you're speaking quickly, the difference between pronouncing "exiit" (three syllables) and "exjit" (two syllables) is negligible (it doesn't matter, as you say), but when you're speaking slowly and carefully (in teaching or learning or emphasizing), the difference is significant.

Si festinatò recitas, ut dicis, non refert discrimen inter duarum vel trium syllabarum sonos; aliter autem si lentè attentéque sonas, docendi discendive vel emphasos causâ.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: your pronunciation of ii, iit, ierunt, etc.

Postby Seraphinus » Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:03 pm

Craig_Thomas wrote:Would these, with 'exiit', satisfy? 'iit', it turns out, is quite a rare form!
J. N. Adams in Social Variation and the Latin Language (2013) notes that, in contrast with Plautus' Latin, where eō/is/it/eunt/ii/iit abound, the short conjugations of eō are pretty much limited to poetry already in the 1st c. BC...
ēlūcet mâiōrem habēre vim ad discenda ista līberam cūriōsitātem quam meticulōsam necessitātem
It is clear that a free curiosity has a greater force in order to learn these things [languages] than a necessity based on fear. (St. Augustine, Cōnfessiōnēs I.14)
User avatar
Seraphinus
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:06 am
Location: British Columbia / Colombie Britannique


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], hlawson38 and 34 guests